/sci/ - Science & Math

Cluster's Last Stand deserves more recognition. NASA needed a heavier rocket than what they had, but they only had spare parts from other rockets. In five years they got one put together, and that was the Saturn I. It probabally wasn't the best in it's size, but it never had a significant failure if I recall correctly and it was good enough.

Now. If only NASA of today had that capability to make a new rocket from spare tankage and engines from other rockets. If only they could do this with the speed of Apollo-era NASA, and be able to do this without overspending billions of dollars.

>>10853645
the S-1B ran on kerolox, right?

>>10853646
http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturni.html
Yes.

>>10853646
>>10853650
I should add that the first stage was kerolox, the second stage was hydrolox.

>>10853645
>Now. If only NASA of today had that capability to make a new rocket from spare tankage and engines from other rockets. If only they could do this with the speed of Apollo-era NASA, and be able to do this without overspending billions of dollars.
I'm guessing that one of the defining differences is that Apollo-era NASA didn't contract stuff out to a spiraling fractal of subcontractors, all of which are incentivized to shave a bit off the top and take as long possible.

Also helped that the politicians involved back then were primarily interested in, you know, doing stuff in space instead. The only thing Shelby and co want to do is build more gravy pipelines.

I fucking hate this gravy train bullshit so much, it was like 6 years to put Apollo together from scratch but here we are, 30 years after the preliminary SLS plans were drawn up using existing fucking components and still nothing. If I was in charge there would be firing squads for this shit, Shelby would be the first fucker against the wall.

>>10853748
People probably fanboy SpaceX too much but I really hope they're able to keep up their current pace with Starship development. It's the closest we've got to modern Apollo era speed.

If they can swing it, it's going to put every other rocket company in an extremely awkward position. Hopefully it'll be enough to convince Bezos to drop a metric fuckton of cash on Blue Origin and light a fire under their asses, because if he doesn't "Gradatim Ferociter" is what will be written on the company's gravestone. There's not much room for the semi-reusable New Glenn when the fully reusable SS+SH stack can do all the same things at a lower cost.

>>10853798
my big fear right now is that SpaceX completely dominate and end up so far ahead that nobody even wants to try to compete, because they know that SpaceX has already won

>>10853800
Which is kinda what happened to manned exploration after Apollo. If the race is over, the losers stop running hard. So does the winner.

>>10853800
Yeah I hope the Blue Origin gets real serious real soon and steps up the pace because a world with 2+ competing launch juggernauts is a better one.

That said, I think SpaceX is probably fine so long as Gwynne and Elon are at the helm and the company remains private. If things go south, it'll be after all that changes.

Elon Musk's future

>>10853915
they've got the scaling wrong, Starship is two or three times larger than that

>>10853922
Nope

>>10853946
that seems about the same scale as Shuttle did attached to the ISS, and Starship is twice the size of Shuttle

>>10853915
"So you know that space station you guys spent decades and billions to develop and build in orbit? What if I put another one up there as a single piece in about 10 minutes?"

>>10853798
bossman is cracking the whip to get the first orbital launch this year; he just sent out another company-wide email today

I think that might be optimistic but next year is definitely gonna happen

https://youtu.be/OlAmYJwR3wY
nice
>>10853981
at least Super Heavy is a fairly well understood type of system, and as a first stage you can go a bit beefy on the steel plate and not lose payload weight 1 to 1

>>10854055
is this the best shot we've had of the tank farm?
good shit
the fat tanks at the bottom are liquid water, I believe? would be nice to label these

>>10853981
Does anybody have any fucking idea what it's actually going to look like? I'm gonna die of blueballs before we get to the presentation.

Legit question, of the zillion dem candidates, which are friendly to space? SpaceNews got a blurb from each in 2016 but I don’t recall seeing anything similar now

>>10854055
Holy rolling shutters Batman!

>>10854085
none of them are friendly to guns so I know how I'm voting

>>10854089
yang seems convertible

>>10853981
Permitting process for an orbital launch from Boca Chica must be not trivial, no? At what point does the speed of development outpace bureaucracy

>>10853961
So this newfangled thing can lift 400t into LEO?

>>10854110
I think the current estimates are 150 tons or so

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/nasa-agrees-to-work-with-spacex-on-orbital-refueling-technology/
wow he mad

>>10854057
You can actually see Raptor's damage path as the hopper set back down.

>>10854157
I've seen what a fuel-oxy flame does to concrete before, but never on that scale

>>10854165
It doesn't help that Raptor's exhaust jet is a hypersonic thousand-degree plus jet of gas coming out at a rate measured in tons per second.

>>10854168
it's a fuel-oxy flame
I'm used to burning at near stoichiometric ratios to melt steel but Raptor runs just a little bit fuel rich which isn't too far off

>>10853893
Its good that Gwynne is at the helm and not Elon. I love the crazy ideas but SpaceX at least needs something more stable than Elon running the show like a 5 year old high on sugar.

>>10854089
How many in the US are single-issue voters anyway?

>>10854282
lots

>>10854282
there are three reasons to vote in america
1. guns
2. gibs
3. spite

>>10854110
I think he is talking about pressurized volume off the ISS vs starship.

>>10854294
I think "muh jesus" goes in there as well, depending on the state.
Still, those 3 are def on top

>>10854110
a decked out crew starship has the same internal pressurized volume as the ISS, and is wider than Skylab was

Are there any pics of a full scale starship prototype yet?

>>10854423
check it out: >>10854055

>>10854423
just the tanks and fairing so far
they put the lower bulkhead in and are working on the common (middle) bulkhead and the thrust structure for the lower bulkhead

https://www.pulselive.co.ke/bi/tech/jeff-bezos-just-cashed-in-dollar18-billion-worth-of-amazon-shares-in-what-could-be/kf0mtpv

from plebbit:
>Forbes says he will keep $1.4 billion after tax. He did say in a recent interview that the Blue Origin team have asked for a little over $1billion for this year.

>>10854628
>the Blue Origin team have asked for a little over $1billion for this year
Hopefully that means that they're getting ready for something big. Am excite.

>>10853893
I'd argue that even if SpaceX fails soon and gets broken up, then that's still a net positive for spaceflight as a whole. SpaceX is full of skilled engineers who (if SpaceX ceases to exist) will spread their knowledge and skill to the rest of the industry. Not only that, but they'll also bring the mindset that loves innovation and productivity to the industry as well.

This is why we can't have nice things.

https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/1156602016023498752

>>10854730
George Sowers still getting the rope

>>10854730
Holy shit, if that can be confirmed then it shows just how rotten American spaceflight as gotten. Seriously, refueling in space has always been a good idea, it allows for smaller and cheaper industries on Earth even if LEO refueling is only done. Why is Shelby against propellant depots though?

>>10854735
He’s a professor at my university now. We’ve got a space resources program going

>>10854659
>SpaceX is full of skilled engineers
Not true, it's full of junior enigneers who flock to better salaries at the first opportunity.

>>10854730
Damn I knew things were bad for propellant depots, but not that bad. And this is coming from ULA mind you. FUCK SLS AND FUCK SHELBY!
>>10854739
Because propellant depots compete with SLS. They allow the same missions SLS does to be accomplished with commercial launches. Commercial launches and propellant depots were one of the paths forward laid out by the Augustine report.

>>10854758
>Because propellant depots compete with SLS.
That's a load of shit from Shelby. He's trying to hold back spaceflight for his own profit. But he then tries to dress up his operation as being pro-spaceflight. I think Id rather have an anti-spaceflight politician than Shelby because at least with an anti-space politician they're being honest when they hurt spaceflight. When's Shelby gonna hit his term limit? Can't come soon enough!

>>10854280
The magic is in their combo. SpaceX being run exclusively by Gwynne, while immensely profitable, would eventually become as boring and stodgy as ULA. As you've noted, Elon running the show alone would be a train wreck. Gwynne takes Elon's vision and turns it into something pragmatic and executable.

It's actually not unlike the dynamic between Steve Jobs and Tim Cook with Jobs as the idea guy and Cook as operations. They were dynamite together, but Cook alone… eh.

>>10854730
So how much of the Senate Launch System is really just the Shelby Launch System? Are there any other politicians so adamant about SLS being the only path forward?

>>10854740
Wow can't wait to see what toy car you guys launch

>>10854776
>Term limit

Lmao, welcome to democracy.

>>10854812
we have a hyperloob team but they’re shit

>>10854818
Oh right, I forgot that Senators don't have term limits. Fuck. BFR and New Glenn aren't getting here fast enough.

>>10854828
Don't worry, Alabama is being browned hard and your next democrat senator is going to nix any space related programs in favour of gibs.

>>10854828
All political positions should have term limits IMO, with limits getting tighter as relative level of power increases.

Probably age limits too. So tired of crusty old fuckers who have been out of touch for over half their lives being in control.

>>10854832
at least the gibs for the brown people don't fuck over space shit, unlike gibs for Huntsville

>>10854833
Yeah we'll just get senators to vote in limits in their terms lmao.

>>10854818
>USA
>democracy

What do politicians even... do? Why do we need them in 2019?

>>10854776
>senator
>term limit
That's a good one, Nigel.
We weren't even supposed to have senators elected by popular vote.

>mfw spacex sets up a depot

>>10854895
If its not like pic related, then I'll be disappointed.

>>10854895
haha

>>10854628
>in-dollar18-billion
>keep $1.4 billion after tax
here i was wondering how the fuck he got taxed 16.6 billion, then i saw that it was 1,8 billion..

>>10854895
It really does demonstrate why commercial involvement in space is important. Billionaires can just say "fuck you" and do it anyway, dragging the politicians along kicking and screaming.

>>10854758
>Augustine report.
Wasnt that the report that killed Ares and gave us SLS?

>>10854776
>When's Shelby gonna hit his term limit? Can't come soon enough!
Time to drain that swamp

>>10854953
Not exactly. The Augustine report killed the Ares, but pro-ares (later as pro-sls) politicans brought Ares back partially as the SLS and then written it into law that the SLS project must continue. Therefore it's illegal to cancel the project without rewritting the law first.

>"Let's be very honest again," Bolden said in a 2014 interview. "We don't have a commercially available heavy lift vehicle. Falcon 9 Heavy may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. SLS is real. You've seen it down at Michoud. We're building the core stage. We have all the engines done, ready to be put on the test stand at Stennis... I don't see any hardware for a Falcon 9 Heavy, except that he's going to take three Falcon 9s and put them together and that becomes the Heavy. It's not that easy in rocketry."
>2014

>>10854972
>Not exactly. The Augustine report killed the Ares, but pro-ares (later as pro-sls) politicans brought Ares back partially as the SLS and then written it into law that the SLS project must continue. Therefore it's illegal to cancel the project without rewritting the law first.
>Therefore it's illegal to cancel the project without rewritting the law first.
ffs, this is why we cant have nice things

>>10854978
>It's not that easy in rocketry."
Well, thats ironic

>>10854978
>Falcon 9 Heavy
At least get the name right, holy shit

>>10854978
>We don't have a commercially available heavy lift vehicle. Falcon 9 Heavy may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. SLS is real.
Funny since that's what some are saying about BFR right now. History has an odd tendency to repeat itself.

>>10854978
God I hate boomers

>>10854957
Reminds me of a story about a factory in the Soviet Union during World War 2. I don't know if it's true though.

>Operation Barbosa in full swing
>SU is in full panic mode and is paying its factories anything to get war goods made to stop the Nazis
>One such factory has a manager whos taking advantage of the SU's desperation
>Making subpar materials slowly while pocketing the rest of the cash
>The communist party sends out a couple of officers to investigate why the factory isn't performing as well as expected
>As soon as they find out about the corruption they drag the manager behind the factory and shoot him for treason
>They hire the next highest ranking factory worker as the new manager
>The factory soon became one of the most productive during the war

>>10854992
Bolden be like:
>"We don't have a commercially available heavy lift vehicle. Starship may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. SLS is real. You've seen it down at Michoud. We're building the core stage. We have all the engines done, ready to be put on the test stand at Stennis... I don't see any hardware for a Starship Super Heavy, except that he's going to take a bunch of steel plates and put them together and that becomes the Super Heavy. It's not that easy in rocketry."
meanwhile, Starship:

>>10854981
Yeah. And it's even shown off as a good thing at some parts of NASA. Of the dozens of other NASA projects that were cancelled the SLS was the one written into law? Why not Saturn or the X-33? The one project that has been a hindrance to NASA got the special treatment while the actually useful projects get thrown out.

And shit like this is why I felt like I was gonna die of old age before anything significant happens in spaceflight.

>>10854999
They grew up in a time when there wasn't much happening in spaceflight and assume that it should be the norm. They're also probably the kind of people who respond to any new concept with "well if thats such a great idea, then why hasn't it been done already?"

>>10855034
>They're also probably the kind of people who respond to any new concept with "well if thats such a great idea, then why hasn't it been done already?"
On top of this lot of them see newness/change as a threat because it either disrupts their comfort or makes them look stupid for having given up. For as much as they make a fuss about younger generations being validation seekers, they sure do cling to validation.

>>10855034
They lived through Apollo though didn't they? The construction of the apace stations too. They've seen the greatest we be accomplished but don't even seem to care

>>10854978
FH wasn't easy, it was a lot of fucking work!

but, uh, it works now, so what's Boeing's excuse

>>10855062
I think most were too young to remember Apollo in detail.

>>10855082
>but, uh, it works now, so what's Boeing's excuse
My favorite excuse (Although not by Boeing) was that the new tanks for the SLS core stage is incredibly hard to design especially with the new friction stir welding.

Ignoring that making sturdy large pressure vessels is easy compared to designing the rest of the rocket. Ignoring that stir welding has been in use for a long time, even in rocketry. But yeah somehow that totally justifies being years and billions of dollars overdue.

>>10855001
I like this story, good moral at the end too.

200M HOP WHEN?

>>10855091
When every little nut and bolt is handled by a different subcontractor in a different state and has to undergo 15 inspections, even the simplest, most mundane things become an ordeal.

>>10853645
Literal IRL Kerbal Space Program.

It would be like NASA killing the SLS in favor of a Saturn/Nova class booster consisting of a sustainer stage built from a pair of RS-68s mounted onto the bottom of a Shuttle External Tank, launched on top of a booster built out of 7 truncated Atlas V first stages siamesed together in a hexagonal close pack configuration to get 6,000,000lbs of takeoff thrust.

>>10855107
>It would be like NASA killing the SLS in favor of a Saturn/Nova class booster consisting of a sustainer stage built from a pair of RS-68s mounted onto the bottom of a Shuttle External Tank, launched on top of a booster built out of 7 truncated Atlas V first stages siamesed together in a hexagonal close pack configuration to get 6,000,000lbs of takeoff thrust.
S-so tempting to try to draw that...

>>10855113
It would be pure oldspace kino

>>10855102
12th

The SLS rocket may have curbed development of on-orbit refueling for a decade

>"Boeing became furious and tried to get me fired."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/rocket-scientist-says-that-boeing-squelched-work-on-propellant-depots/

Why use such a complex solution? Viking landers were of a comparable mass yet they landed in a traditional way, in 70's. I don't see why it can't be scaled up, NASA itself has been proposing the classic scheme for 30t+ Mars landers in 2014. Lavochkin/ESA landing platform also seems to be so much simpler than the skycrane.

>>10855156
Viking landers weren't as complex, and weren't the size of a fucking car. The viking landers were essentially meant to set down, do some science, take some pictures, and spend most of their remaining RTG lifetime getting atmospheric data and maybe dig a bit with the scoop.

The mars rovers have to move around, and have much more sensitive and delicate equipment on board. Dust and rocks kicked up by rocket exhaust runs the risk of damaging the rover during touchdown.

The largest you can do an airbag landing is with the twin rovers, and even then they were pushing the limit. Any other method that protects the rover from damage is either too heavy or too big, or both.

>>10855150
"Depot" haha

>>10855150
Elon tweeting about thie new Berger article on orbital refilling

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1156970909258829824

>>10854730
Well fuck now I'm genuinely mad. I didn't realize oldspace was this bad.

>>10855179
Viking Landers also had shock absorber legs like the LEM did, whereas the curiosity rover has those delicate aluminum wheels with in-hub motors setup that has great suspension articulation but almost non-existent suspension travel because it only goes at like 1/10th of a mile per hour.

>>10855150
>>10854730
>old space holding back propellant depots
Is there more sources on this beyond Sower's tweets? Not suggesting that hes lying or anything, but it would make the case against the old guard in spaceflight better if there were more evidence of this.

>>10855205
Makes perfect sense. Assuming you have Starship+SuperHeavy up and running, it's a lot easier to shoot tankers full of fuel into orbit than it is to build and stock a depot.

>>10855209
It's OK, Musk will launch his own pornographically large fuel depots using Starship while the SLS gets cancelled when the Dems win in 2024 so the money can be used to feed brown people.

>>10855179
>and weren't the size of a fucking car
Well, MSL/2020 are about a ton. Vikings were roughly 2/3 of that. I don't see much difference, I think you should be able to scale it unless it's really subtle. As I said, NASA was proposing an order of magnitude larger manned lander with a possible rover, relatively recently measured in NASA time (5 years ago). They seemed to have no problem with it.

>The mars rovers ... have much more sensitive and delicate equipment on board.
Not really, it's equally sensitive.

>The mars rovers have to move around, and have much more sensitive and delicate equipment on board. Dust and rocks kicked up by rocket exhaust runs the risk of damaging the rover during touchdown.
I don't see how it's possible, especially with a classic landing platform which is located below the rover. The thrusters can be tilted outwards as well, no need for the tethered solution.

>The largest you can do an airbag landing is with the twin rovers, and even then they were pushing the limit. Any other method that protects the rover from damage is either too heavy or too big, or both.
Not really, Russians will be using a classic lander with a ramp for the EU rover, while having a mass more comparable to Curiosity than MER.

I'd love to read something that explains the skycrane in detail.

>>10855220
Doubt it, "muh jerbs" is a pretty powerful political tool.

>>10855205
We need an IRL Minmus that we can cover in ISRU's that top off the orbital fuel platforms by way of massive SSTO transfer vehicles that take advantage of the low gravity and minimal delta-V to achieve orbit by being the size of a Super Heavy 1st stage.

>>10855230
Would it even be practical to capture a comet to use its water ice as part of the propellant production? It would probably have to be covered (like by a tarp) in order to prevent it from melting away in the sunlight.

>>10855205
My sources tell me that Shelby has decapitated his assistant and is currently beating a musk effigy with a stick at this very moment

>>10855219
A depot seems to me like it would make things much easier scheduling wise. You can just fuel it whenever you like and then just fly your mission with one ship when everything is ready.
You don't have to launch that one ship and then wait until a dozen other launches are finished.
But I guess they know what they're talking about so maybe I'm overstating the benefits.

>>10855251
sort of, but you retain the flexibility of utilizing multiple orbits, more efficent in terms of fuel use. And your starship in theory doesn't need to maintain orbit, doesn't need any of that longevty stuff

Will SuperHeavy do hops?

>>10855231
Or tidally lock it to the earth and have the ISRUs be mounted on giant rolling refineries that constantly move to stay on the dark side to avoid the plumes from it off-gassing, like that city in the Star Wars EU.

>believe in conspiracy theory regarding SLS holding back progress in space advancement
>Its actually confirmed to be true
LMAO.

>https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/rocket-scientist-says-that-boeing-squelched-work-on-propellant-depots/

>>10855288
probably, but its tests probably won't need to be as numerous or extensive since a lot is shared between starship and superheavy

Elon has to call his first moonshot "The Shelby Boeing"

>>10855309
NASA's corruption seems to be main external industry influencing key decision and holding American space industry(and by proxy, American geopolitical power). These corrupt few are literally making America weaker.

Is the RS-68, dare I say it, /ourengine/?

I've been away for a couple of days and it seems both Soyuz launches at the end of July have been successfull. That is 6 launches in total of which 5 of them were with various Soyuz variants. There's more good news in form of the Spektr-RG X-ray telescope:

https://tass.com/science/1071204

>Scientists get first image of space object taken by Spektr-RG observatory

There are 4* launches planned for August including the test launch of an unmanned Soyuz capsule (MS-14) on top of Soyuz 2.1a instead of a Soyuz FG. The manned MS-15 is planned to be the last flight of the Soyuz FG which is slated for September.

*Can change considering 2 surprise launches in July.

>>10855337
Supposedly, once full scale production hits for these babies, the cost of developing each engine is reduced to few hundred thousands.

>>10855226
I think it purely because ESA don't have money and time to develop and test such technology.
ExoMars was really struggling after NASA bailed out, so I guess they just desperate to send the mission in 2019.
I personally think that it entrusting mars descent vehicle to Russian was a great mistake, but ESA don't have any experience in Mars landings, while Russian have at least some kind of experience.

goddamnit it Musk

>>10855344
Yeah, but the but the SpaceX engineers didn't roll Hitler digits on the chamber pressure for the lulz.

>>10855382
Yeah certainly, Lavochkin isn't the same as they used to be, but my point was they do this the way they already did, with the lander comparable to Vikings or MSL in mass.

I can't understand what exactly makes MSL and 2020 different from all other proposed and flown missions so they need a more complex landing method. There's nothing that can't be accomplished with the classic layout, as far I can see from my armchair.

>>10855403
Geologist here. I don't know if any dinosaurs became oil. Oil is made of micro organisms primarily algaes and various micro planktons.

Sure, maybe 1 dinosaur out of a trillion died and fell to the bottom of the ocean in an anoxic environment to be converted to oil but it's a stretch. 99% of oil would be from microorganisms simply because they form the basis of the food web.

>>10855429
What about abiotic oil?

>>10855429
I was under the impression that before microorganism evolved to digest the precursors of plants, they didn't really rot away after they died, they just stacked up and then got covered by geological activity, and that the oil today was made up mostly of that initial load of biological material.

>>10855084
If they weren't old enough to remember Apollo 11 as a kid, they're X-ers.

>>10855450
You're probably thinking of prehistoric trees, fungus, and coal, because thats how we got our coal seams.

>>10855479
coal is just dried up oil, change my mind

>>10855476
I guess I got my generations mixed up. Oops.

>>10855429
Yeah, one of the recent theory's is that earth's oil&gas reserves are actually just waist from the huge as fuck biomass that is wrapped around the entire earths core.
This theory is also kind of supported by the fact that depleted oil reserves are steadily filling up again all over the world, US oil wells that had been depleted a 100 years ago are ready to be tapped again.
This theory also can add up to why the oxygen vs carbon dioxide ratio has been declining on earth over several millions years.
Offcourse this also means that earths climate will keep on changing on earth with CO2 levels rising and we as humans cant do a goddamn thing about it even if we stopped using gas and oil tomorow worldwide.
You will also never read about any of this in the MSM.

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/life-thrives-within-the-earths-crust-64805

>>10855529
What if life began as extremophiles that evolved in the deep crust or upper mantle before bubbling up to the surface through deep sea geothermal vents.

Would a space station near Mars make sense? Maybe as a fuel depot?

>>10855529

Any more links to discussions of this stuff? Very interesting.

>>10855572
There are enough links about the underground biomass and old oil reserves filling up, those are easy to find.
The part about that biomass creating oil and gass as a byproduct i read on some /sci/ thread a while ago.
Its still a theory and probably will not be a popular one because it will overthrow a shitload of "proven" ones that support so many ideologies around the world.
But honestly, i found the "oil is dead dino's and leafs and shit" story to be such fucking bullshit even when i was a kid.

>>10855569
A fuel depo in Mars orbit, maybe. Take advantage of Mars' intersection of reduced gravity, plentiful materials, and an atmosphere to synthesize fuel with and build huge well-shielded ships on Mars -> launch ships -> top tanks off with orbital depot -> continue mission to Jovian moons or beyond.

>>10855569
We're not aloud to say that word anon. But yes it would. If you can make fuel frok mars or it's moons yeah. It might help with getting to the out planets easier too

>>10855587
>But honestly, i found the "oil is dead dino's and leafs and shit" story to be such fucking bullshit even when i was a kid.

The biggest thing that should cue you in to this is the fact that so many of the gas giants in our solar system have loads of methane, meaning that 99.999999% of all hydrocarbons in the solar system are abiotic. If 99.999999% of solar system hydrocarbons are abiotic, then it stands to reason that the vast bulk of hydrocarbons on earth probably are, too.

>>10855627
>>10855597
I was thinking a depot too. Even if its not meant for refueling Starships, maybe it could refuel orbiting satellites or other spacecraft.

https://space-walker.co.jp/

So here's this weird Japanese... thing. Looks like a heavily nerfed suborbital version of Shuttle. Probably DOA considering it will be massively outclassed by Starship etc. by the time it comes out, but looks interesting nonetheless.

>>10855489
like raisins?

>>10854825

>>10855683
>Probably DOA considering it will be massively outclassed by Starship etc.
Doubt it because it seems to be appealing to the suborbital markey, and I don't think SpaceX would "waste" a Starship to do suborbital hops only. That spacecraft will also probably be more appealing to the Japanese government which might not like to use foreign rockets for everything.

The 2024 one looks more like a winged booster though, which shows promise. I hope it goes well.

>>10853800
Not the Chinese. They're very insecure and hate being behind technologically.

>>10855683
>*think its just another spaceplane*
>*expand image*
>wtf.jpg
it looks interesting. not sure if it will work but at least its a different take on rockets and spaceplanes.

Someone on NSF L2 has posted a PDF of SpaceX’s Pad 39A Starship plans. The launch mount is within the 39A area, but not part of the launch pad itself. It’ll likely be very Saturn 1-esque, considering it’s location and construction (pre-fab steel).

>>10855683
Huh. There's minishuttle parts for KSP, i might end up making one of these just for kicks.

>>10855749
I'm not sure if you wouldn't have better luck with full up Mk3

>>10855752
Nah, full-sized shuttles aren't worth it in KSP. Too much of a pain in the balls to control especially after booster separation.
Capsules and SSTO spaceplanes are so much easier to control.

>>10855694
yes I do but I don't see what that has to do with anything

>>10855747
Here’s a screenshot of the new pad...

>>10855769
right now what I want to design is a Mk2 factor spaceplane optimized for vacuum operation, something with more control on EDL than a capsule but I'm having difficulty trying to figure out what the fuck I actually want to do with it, how big it should be, or how I want to get it off of Kerbin

>>10855792
where is this in comparison to the existing LC39A pad

>>10855795
Well, I can't really help you. The only design I had used 4 rapier engines for acceleration and boost into suborbital, with a single nuclear thermal for orbital ops. What oxidizer i have left I used for balancing on EDL.

>>10855801
Here

>>10855801
>>10855818

>>10855806
nah fuck that, rapier is cheating and doesn't provide enough benefits
Dual Whiplash, Dual Aerospike
too bad about orbital velocity on earth being mach 25 instead of mach 7 or whatever it is on Kerbin
>>10855818
So it's just off to the side? Everybody's going on about how luck they are to have access to the NOVA class pad at LC39A but they're not even going to use it?

>>10855832
>So it's just off to the side? Everybody's going on about how luck they are to have access to the NOVA class pad at LC39A but they're not even going to use it?

This is purely for the Starship orbital prototypes, they want a pad away from the main complex in case they RUD, which is likely due to the experimental nature of them. Remember 39A is the only place where SpaceX can launch crew from, it would be catastrophic for them and NASA if it was heavily damaged.

>>10855795
>I'm having difficulty trying to figure out what the fuck I actually want to do with it, how big it should be, or how I want to get it off of Kerbin
Maybe you can try taking a regular disposable rocket you prefer to make in KSP and redesigning one of the stages to be a spaceplane? That's what I'm about to do.

>>10855769
Get on my level, N-words, and no MechJeb cheating, either!

>>10855857
Nice one, my kiggah.

>>10855846
oh, they're building duplicate facilities (with maybe a little bit plus) of the Brownsville pad at LC39A, which is exciting stuff, I guess.
Trying to bully Texas? Keeping the pressure on Texas to support their attempts at forming a spaceflight economy in Brownsville is important, bureaucrats will strangle that shit the first chance they get, just look at what happened in the port of LA
>>10855852
>disposable rockets
the only disposable stages I use are like 2 oscars and a spark for oberth benefits while throwing ion probes out of Kerbin, or super heavy garbage to launch massive nuclear shitheaps with 10km/s dV to roam the system
I've got crew capability in and out of LKO but I want something reusable for the Mun, which I haven't had crew capability at for a while.

>>10855529
>US oil wells that had been depleted a 100 years ago are ready to be tapped again
Going to need a spurce on that, bud.

>>10855866
When you build a shuttle that actually flies, you realize the inherent genius of the design and the way that it basically rides the continually shifting center of gravity all the way from launch to orbit. Rather than the usual gravity turn, it flies a continuous arc all the way to orbit, just like the real thing. It made my 2007 MacBook pro crash due to parts count when I tried to dock it with my ISS (which to be fair had like 700-1000 parts.

Maybe I'll get a new compy and load all my old saved games and .craft files to it.

>>10855875
>inherent genius
it's overcomplicated bullshit

>>10855875
My stock parts Buran flew the same way, too, with the lopsided COG of the orbiter pulling the stack into a gently arcing trajectory from launch to orbit. I had to cheat and angle the engines on the Energia core a bit though to keep it all flying straight from 0-10000m or so.

>>10855883
It was genius for the 1970s, though, a real triumph of analog-era engineering.

>>10855872
>Going to need a spurce on that, bud.
just look it up your self, the discussion of why these old oil wells are filling up again are open to debate.
Fracking, natural resupply, deeper reserves, etc..
Thing is most of the debate is still based on oil coming from decomposed fossil&plants, and you can ignore that.

>>10855883
It can be over complicated and still be a miracle of engineering. The RS-25 that came with the still is still among some of the best performing engines right now. Also, considering that the Shuttle was the first vehicle of it's kind and it's prototype worked well enough to be usable for decades is also amazing.

Really, the biggest issue with the Shuttle was that it wasn't allowed to progress beyond the prototype stage. Sure, the design has plenty of inherit flaws, but most of those flaws could have been dealt with through upgrades and gradual redesigns. Not much of it was improved upon even when it was clear that the Shuttle was too old and too expensive.

>>10855897
>Really, the biggest issue with the Shuttle was that it wasn't allowed to progress beyond the prototype stage. Sure, the design has plenty of inherit flaws, but most of those flaws could have been dealt with through upgrades and gradual redesigns. Not much of it was improved upon even when it was clear that the Shuttle was too old and too expensive.
Which is why it's exciting to see a more "rolling release" approach applied to rockets, as SpaceX is doing and soon likely BO will be too. Their rockets can start out good and then gradually become awesome.

>>10855897
This. The biggest mistake that NASA made was building Endeavor as just another shuttle rather than the first in a new class of "Shuttle 2.0" designs with safety updates and maybe even updated payloads for new missions. In a perfect world, if NASA had the money, they should have returned to flight with Discovery, Columbia, and Atlantis in the late 80s while aiming for a first Shuttle 2.0 flight in 1995 or so with the plan to phase in a NextGen Shuttle and phase out one of the old ones every year until 1999 or so when they were back up to 4 of the new birds.

If that had been the case, we'd probably still have 2nd gen shuttles flying today, if they weren't replaced by 3rd gen ones in the 2010s.

>>10855920
Cont->
The 2.0 update would probably have a launch escape system for the crew, and possibly a means of on-orbit abort in the event of TPS damage as well. Payload weight might take a bit, but maybe they'd go with a shorter but wider payload bay designed around launching space station modules into orbit rather than recovering KH-9s. The launch escape capsule would also likely eat into crew living space, but emphasize the design around short transits to and from space stations, rather than around long+endurance solo flights, with long solo science missions carrying a new larger spacelab 2.0/habitation module in the payload bay. Otherwise, keep the SSMEs and OMS from the old shuttle, and keep the launch configuration, with either revised SRBs or kerolox-based boosters. For true 90s /comfy/, maybe NASA could have bought Energia strap-ons from the Ukraine.

The 3rd gen would then probably be the 2nd gen with updated materials/TPS for a lighter bird, with the possibility for a dramatically increased fuel capacity and on-station endurance to allow it to fly translunar trajectories. The launch stack would be an update of the 2.0 stack, but with liquid fuel flyback boosters utilizing SpaceX technology. In addition, it would fly with two external tanks, a smaller one for ISS missions, and a larger extended one for translunar flights. The main publicity stunt would be a moon return flight in time for the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11, with the Shuttle 3.0 (Challenger II, maybe?) flying a lunar orbit insertion trajectory carrying a re-useable lander the size of an ISS docking node in the payload bay, which it then recovers and returns to earth with.

>>10855917
I really hope Blue Origin opens up about their work. It's hard to get excited about their stuff when they hardly talk about it.

>>10855920
I think the biggest issue with upgrading the Shuttle is that the Shuttle was made to be very economically attractive so that it could gain support in Congress (and thus be less likely to be canceled by the revolving door of administrations). i.e. muh jerbs. But that made upgrading the Shuttle very unattractive, because that could disrupt the load of contractors who were promised jobs by Congress. Or at least that's my theory. A SPACE THEORY.

>>10855897

>>10855747
Is there a start/finish date?

>>10855977
But all of the contractors who helped build it in the first place would surely be involved in building the successor shuttles, no? Well, maybe not Morton Thiokol, but even they would almost certainly be involved in designing the new launch escape system.

>>10855981
>The virgin newspace vs the Chad Rocketdyne

>>10856001
Doesn't matter in the face of muh jerbs. Anything that would change the status quo even a little bit is a threat. Did you even see this? >>10855150

>>10856005
>Imagine a methalox F-1

>>10856006
NASA just needed to send more loli prostitutes to certain senators, that's all.

>>10856011
Don't say stuff like that, it's too painful to think about...

A methalox RD-170 would also be pretty insane, too bad the Russians are so broke.

>>10856017
I wish I was a loli

>>10856030
I completely understand. So sad that alot of the stuff from Apollo got scrapped due to severe budget cuts. Sure, there were programs to recycle that stuff (Such as the Saturn II which was just the two upper stages of the Saturn V with improved J-2S engines and SRBs strapped on( although it did something interesting with the SRBs)), but those were scrapped when the Shuttle came about.

>>10856035
The F-1b was the only thing that redeemed the SLS and of course they killed it. SLS would have been amazing if it launched with the roar of 4 F-1s instead of that SRB faggocity. The F-1B booster part was also god-tier in KSP.

Will ACES ever happen?

>>10856047
Well the F-1B was effectively a brand new engine for NASA, which went against the idea that the SLS would be a quick recycling of preexisting parts. Having to develop a new booster with new unused engines could've slowed down the development.

You can stop laughing now. We all know how badly the idea of the SLS being quick went. The SLS has been delayed for so long, it makes one wonder why didn't NASA add new technologies into the rocket. Obviously the answer was that new stuff would upset the contractors, but still.

>>10856057
They have the engine designed and plan to use it. Once Boeing gets fully BTFO by SLS' cancellation, they'll launch ACES or something like it.

>>10856064
Boeing just needs to be careful not to say the...
>looks left
>looks right
the d-word. Shelby might hear.

Maybe they should break up ULA.

>>10856068
Didn't the merger happen because Lockheed and Boeing weren't making enough money using their launchers on their own?

>>10856071
That's their excuse. They promised lower cost to the US as one of the reasons for the merger. What did we get? Money sink. Price increases. Delays. No competition. Stagnation. And now suppression of technology advancement.

>>10856017
They should send them to space instead.

>>10856071
The merger happened because Boeing was caught stealing information from Lockheed by the Government, which would have legally barred them permanently from participating in Government contracts. They merged the two together to make the espionage legality problem go away.

>>10856078
Hopefully SpX and BO breaks up that stagnation for good.

>>10856086
Source?

>>10856059
Yeah, but the F-1B variant would have actually made SLS competitive with Starship.

>>10854282
I know some old women who hate trumps guts but vote solely to have roe v wade overturned. Abortion is a big no-no for anyone who still believes in God.

>>10856089
F-1B flyback booster when?
>Giant kerolox XS-1
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEZDWoJdC7w

>>10856096
Better yet, an F-1b based S-1C 2.0 that flies back and lands SpaceX style after launching the External Tank+2xRS-68 sustainer stage from >>10855107

>>10856088
http://www.staynehoff.net/boeing-eelv-punished.htm

>Gentlemen our mission was to design and implement a space delivery vehicle that would be a worthy replacement for the space shuttle, we have met that objective and then some the Jupiter will bring cargo and crews to the station and the moon swiftly efficiently and safely it will hold 4 men and features a 90 tonne lift potential which will provide ample delivery and at the same time flexibility for mixed crew and cargo, speedy and solidly engineered it will be arriving at the ISS in the very finest American technology has to offer and at 7 billion and a half per rocket, a real bargain.

>>10856117
>So the original concept was designed to be a big taxi cab delivering people to the ISS and the Moon
>mhmm... but how did it end up being configured for deliveries to the rest of the solar system?

>>10855683
Basically first 2 say "suborbital" and 3rd says "space plane".
No sign of a boost stage so SSTO? I hope they know that the Tsiolkovsky equations can be a real bitch.

>>10855870
>Trying to bully Texas?
I can't see why they wouldn't be planning to launch from both. They have a lot of Starlinks they'll need to throw around.

>>10856126
>hmmm... well this is all well and good but i'm guessing with this in production their won't be anything left in the budget for our mars and Europa missions?
>Dammit bob, you don't need another rocket for those missions, you've got Delta IV Heavy, Proton-M, Atlas V and whatever new rocket ULA are gonna build
>You always need a backup and what i'm thinking is why don't we make this thing deliver cargo to mars and Europa
>But it's designed to deliver as far as the moon sir
>Sounds like a design flaw to me, we can just strap a few more engines on it and lots more fuel
>But then it will be even bigger..
>Whats the matter smith not elegant enough for you? All I know is we need a backup delivery vehicle, this has blueprints and it can be funded

>>10854085

>>10854089

If it comes down to guns (I was assuming that you were talking pro-military there, but on reflection maybe you meant 2nd Amendment? Anyway, continuing, using "guns" as "military") vs. gibs, space gets screwed whoever wins. But forced to make that choice, there seems a better chance that the gns position would need something in space than the gibs contingent.

(And at least the 2nd Amendment "guns" position is not inimical to space.)

>>10856143
It seems like it's a DARPA XS-1 sort of deal where the spaceplane booster can launch a small orbital stage.

I'd bet the manned shuttle is sub-orbital as well, possibly a New Shepherd competitor.

>>10854110
Can't lift anything yet. Projections are projections.

>>10856149
fuck the military, it's all about my ability to shoot shit on my property without commies getting butthurt

>>10856152
>yet
Hopefully it will. SpaceX has shown that it can develop new rockets reliably.

>>10856149
Anyone who says "we need to fix our problems here before we go to space" needs the rope. This is literally impossible, there will always be poor people and shithole countries no matter what you do. Space travel will also advance sustainable living here on earth with advances in all sorts of technology.

>>10854282
More than you'd think -- but there are a billion different issues that command some small number of voters.

The biggest single issue is still "which jersey you root for." Voting by party does not give either party a majority by itself, but it is still the largest single "issue" that determines how people vote.

>>10856147
Keep going.

>>10856147
>where am I supposed to fit the extra fuel
>i don't know, can you just shift things around? make some room?
>you have a tank that can deliver super-heavy cargo to the moon and now you want it to reach mars...
>the boss wants his mars rocket
>he can't have his mars rocket.. not unless hes going to invest in orbital refueling..

>>10854776
No term limits in the US, other than President.

He is up for re-election in 2023. File that away, his opponent might need a little boost.

>>10856163
>Are you telling me in a vehicle this size you cannot fit enough fuel to reach Mars?
>Not in it's current configuration, no sir.
>So it's the configuration that's wrong. There must be something you can do to add more fuel.
>Add more fuel?
>Maybe you can expand the tanks so it can get to mars..
>Sir... it's supposed to go to the moon.. not mars..
>So? Make it a bit bigger. Whats the difference?

>>10854832
>your next democrat senator is going to nix any space related programs in favour of gibs.

Unlikely -- finding for space projects that goes to the state counts as "gibs." It's all about who can bring home a nice slice of that ol' pork. No politician will last long by shutting of federal dollars that were flowing into their state/district.

>>10854833
Maybe, but we're getting away from /sci/ence now.

>>10854834
Recall the impact f the "Whitey's On The Moon" movement on the Apollo program. There were a number of factors fucking over post-11 Apollo, but that "spend that money on welfare and poverty and shit" pitch was a major one.

>>10854870
As long as more than about 20 of us need to have some common organization, they are unavoidable.

>>10854894
>sup

>>10856089
No it wouldn't have, just being able to launch as much mass doesn't make someone competitive, you need to be similarly priced as well. Being able to launch the same at 20x the price is a shitty way to try to compete.

>>10856174
>So they want a rocket that's supposed to replace the shuttle that can reach mars? and deliver cargo to the rest of the solar system?
>and they want it to last for upto 180 days on a launch platform
>OH GREAT, EXTENDED IDLE TIME. So they can leave the thing sitting on the pad if they don't like the weather...
>You don't have to buy the damn thing jones, just draw it.

>>10856179
>Unlikely -- finding for space projects that goes to the state counts as "gibs." It's all about who can bring home a nice slice of that ol' pork. No politician will last long by shutting of federal dollars that were flowing into their state/district.

Aerospace jobs don't buy votes from the ghettos.

>>10856179
>Recall the impact f the "Whitey's On The Moon" movement on the Apollo program
Remember that NASA's current annual budget is only about 3% comparatively of what the United States gives annually to it's social programs. So next time when someone says that NASA's budget should be redistributed to "feed the poor" ask them if 3% would actually help "the poor" compared to putting thousands of highly skilled people out of work and crippling US space interests. Interests such as science, GPS, communications, weather tracking, maritime trade monitoring, etc. Remind these people that space isn't just some place nerds obsess over, and it is a place where legitimate interests for the country rest in.

>>10856183
>>10856174
>>10856163
>>10856147
>>10856126
what movie was this again?

>>10856188
Fat nigger doesn't look very hungry to me. Looks like she is getting a decent amount of fried chicken from the taxpayer.

>>10856183
>That's one hell of an oversized rocket...
>That's the problem...
>Why?
>You try to build this thing then they are going to divert funds from things like the Commercial Crew Development program and the cargo the thing is supposed to launch in the first place...
>...this was going to be so beautiful...

>>10855290
I'm not sure who I trust with the capability to fling comets more or less at the Earth.

Not thinking about accidental impacts (though maybe I should be) but more with the possile intentional misuse.

You think worrying about nukes was bad, imagine when some number of players. some nations, some not, can throw comets at the world.

>>10855340
Say what you will, those old Russian rockets are aesthetic as fuck.

>>10854978
>"We have a commercially available heavy lift vehicle. SLS may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. Falcon 9 Heavy is real. You've seen it down at Hawthorne. We're building the boosters. We have all the engines done, ready to be put on the launch pad at Kennedy... I don't see any hardware for an SLS, except that they're going to take Shuttle parts and put them together and that becomes the SLS. It's not that easy in rocketry."

>>10855569
>Would a space station near Mars make sense?
Would need some good solar shielding, though, wouldn't it? IIRC Mars is kind of low on magnetic field.

>>10855683
Frankly, I have a hard time believing this is Japanese. Where are the tentacles and pantsu and shit?

>>10856212
Kek

>>10856202
Looks weak as fuck in the face of BFR.

FH's TLI/Moon is already ~20T. BFR will have 100T+(150+ is ideal, 100T minimum). Compared to 26T for Block1 and 45t for Block2 Crew of SLS is just shameful.

>>10856202
>Gentlemen if I can have your attention please... we are pleased to present a scale model of the new Space Launch System capabilities..
>It carries 4 men.. and thanks to the additional $35 billion funding can reach Mars and the outer planets...

>How much was this thing supposed to cost?
>$7 billion

>Development has allowed it to last 180 days at operational capabilities and despite the lack of available cargo can lift 130 tonnes into low earth orbit...

>>10855846
>in case they RUD


Help me out, here, my mind is drawing a blank and my Google Fu is weak.

Wasn't this originally a BRF (Big Red Fireball) or something? It's driving me crazy that I can't remember.

>>10856239
Rapid Unplanned Disassembly

>>10856034
Why, do you hate pizza?

>>10856233
>so in summation gentlemen what you have before you is a overpriced rocket supposed to replace shuttle missions that has no cargo, no customers, still requires multiple upgrades, lasts 180 days on a pad when it will usually launch in less than 10 and a fuel tank that can take you to mars but has a majority of missions that are only going as far as the moon...
>Congratulations Smith, damn fine job... lets build it..
>THIS IS WHAT WE ARE BUILDING?!?
>*America the Beautiful plays in the background*

>>10856082
Remember the "why spend all that perfectly good money in space when we can all use it here on Earth" argument?

I think it applies to launching lolis better than it does to spending money.

>>10856159
I am certainly very hopeful. But been burned before. My philosophy is:

1: Hatch chickens.
2: Count Chickens.

>>10856117
>>10856126
>>10856147
>>10856163
>>10856174
>>10856183
>>10856202
>>10856233
>>10856250
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6uzVbxoQOM

>>10856160
I absolutely agree with everything after the first sentence.

I'd amend that one to "needs to have shit explained to them in careful, convincing detail.

>>10856216
Mars has two perfectly good asteroids in orbit that you could mount station modules to.

>>10856263
>I'd amend that one to "needs to have shit explained to them in careful, convincing detail.
Like this? >>10856188

>>10856182
>Being able to launch the same at 20x the price is a shitty way to try to compete.

True as far as it goes, but there are other factors as well. I might pay twenty times the price if there was 1/100th the chance of Payload Impacting Ocean.

That's not to assign a safety/reliability factor, even roughly, to either of two systems that are not flying yet -- just pointing out there might be other factors in there.

>>10856187
The ghetto is not the only place votes are to be sought.

>>10856188
Preaching to the choir, son. I'm just saying "Don't overlook the power of the 'Why you no give money to ME????' vote, or those who cynically exploit it."

>>10856212
So do they balance those things with gyros, thrusters, or what?

>>10856273
>I might pay twenty times the price if there was 1/100th the chance of Payload Impacting Ocean.
It's relative. Would you pay 20 times more for a chance of 1/40000 instead of 1/400?

>>10856220

>>10856233
A thought occurs.

Is orange a color that is somehow cursed when it comes to space craft? Orange spaceships seem to just have no end of troubles...

>>10856241
No, I know tat, but there was some acronym from the Mercury days or thereabouts that was something like Big Red Ball or some damn thing.

>>10856283
Maybe. How much does my payload cost me, how fucked am I if I lose one? How many launches am I doing (so how much cumulative risk of a loss?)

But again, I am not able to evaluate the relative safety of two systems, neither of which is built yet.

>>10856281
A combination of nitrogen cold gas thrusters and grid fins keep the boosters stable during their fall, until the engines fire. The engines are gimbaled so that they can direct their thrust for control of the rocket.

>>10856299
Thank you.

I had "gyros" stuck in my head from too many years reading Heinlein juveniles.

insider info about the next ASDS from plebbit.
Is it time to start scouring (actual) shipyards?

>>10856311
>>10856312
I think it's a new bigger droneship built for BFR + Starship

>>10856319
double droneship for two falcon heavy sidestick landings at once

>>10856311
>>10856312
>>10856319
I bet one major change to the overall plans for sea and ground ops is a Super Roomba to manage landed boosters and starships.

>>10856319
It seems implied, yeah. But the size of the thing to deal with a BFR landing is going to be ridiculous. Also I'm skeptical because RTLS was supposed to be a pretty big factor in cost savings.

Is space scary?

>>10856332
Maybe they want to test the first few landings out at sea before moving to doing it on land.

>>10856117
based and pentagonwarspilled

>>10856289
Altas and Delta are orange, it's just NASA orangeships that are cursed.

>>10856353
They need ocean operations figured out if surface-to-surface services are going to be viable. Especially for international flights, they can't allow SpaceX booster technology to enter the territorial waters of certain countries due to ITER restrictions.

>>10856229
Block 2 will never happen

anyone want to see what /sci/ was thinking about SLS back in 2012? Seven years ago.

>>/sci/thread/S4744831

https://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf
Not sure if this has been posted, but there's a big new document on launching Starship from 39A, including launch pad configuration and droneship landing assessment.

>>10856467
>https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/nasa-nears-50-billion-for-deep-space-plans-yet-human-flights-still-distant/
>$30 billion anon gave was an optimistic estimate

>>10856472
I wonder how they are going to transport starship to the pad? It's an absolute fucking monster if you include the booster too. Will they transport it horizontally on some fuckhuge vehicle and then lift it vertical with a crane and supports?

>>10856472
From the pdf. Also added small note about drone ship landing.

>>10856472
Just skimmed it, cool read thanks anon, also that picture showing the overpressure diagram from the sonic boom re entry that nearly makes it to fucking Mexico holy shit.

>>10856484
Yeah I saw those bits about a drone ship landing too, doesn't mean they are necessarily doing it, just covering all their bases, seems likely though.

>>10856484
5 miles off coast for landing Starship. ~25 miles off coast for landing Superheavy. If anomaly comes up, they'll just drop in the ocean for safety. Also future plans for landing on land.

Also F9 launches to increase from ~20/year to ~50/year. BFR launches will be stated to be ~20/year.

Explain how a single senator can have enough power to threaten a national agency or of doing something.

>>10856528

Subcommittees.

The Mars society conference is coming pretty soon right? Can't wait to hear what SpaceX has to say.

>>10855013
We need to ensure a future for white solid rocket boosters and solid rocket booster aaccessories.

>>10856511
>pressure to Mexico
that's a pleb effect. Check this out:

>When the Falcon 9’s second stage rocket burnt through plasma in the ionosphere and created the hole about 13 minutes after launch, it likely caused about a one-meter error in GPS programs

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017SW001738
"Gigantic Circular Shock Acoustic Waves in the Ionosphere Triggered by the Launch of FORMOSAT-5 Satellite"

>>10855184
DELETE THIS!

>>10855312
Didn‘t he already rename Super Heavy to Starship Launch System?

>>10856475
How much of a joke can SLS/Orion yet become? There seem to be no bounds.

>>10856528
A significant portion of the rest of Congress would rather have SLS shut down and the money spent building housing projects in Detroit.

>>10854085
Probably Yang. Though the Dems as a party seem utterly unconcerned with space exploration since it's probably seen as a waste of resources that could be better use towards reparations and giving free health care to illegal immigrants.

>>10856478
It can move by itself

>>10856742
They aren't going to light up 30 something raptors to move a rocket a few kilometres.

>>10856754

>>10856478
according to the document, 180m crane for vertical stacking at the pad

>>10856763
>180m crane

Absolute unit

>>10856311
Sounds kind of like it's an existing ship that they are going to modify

>"Super Heavy booster static fire tests are planned to occur at LC-39A where all 31 engines are fired for 15 seconds"

imagine the sound

>>10856843
>31 engines
isn't it now 35 engines? This document is outdated

>>10856248
what does it have to do with being a loli

>>10856030
Man, just imagine if Russia adopted proper liberal free market capitalism. I could have spent the 90s watching the US and Russia race each other to put the first man in mars.

>>10856484
The flip at 250m is gonna be scary as hell

>>10855569
If Mars colony does not pan out due to low gravity having significant bad effects on human health, then a colony around Phobos is likely the next best thing. Assuming Phobos has frozen volatiles available.

>>10855747
Here is the document itself, 250 pages (Draft Environmental Assessment for the SpaceX Starshipand Super HeavyLaunch Vehicle at Kennedy Space Center)

https://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/20190801_Final_DRAFT_EA_SpaceX_Starship.pdf

>>10857071
"SpaceX plans to increase the Falcon launch frequency to 20 launches per year from LC-39A and up to 50 launches per year from LC-40 by the year 2024."

hm..

>>10857068
Or have a martian orbital colony. Getting from mars to LMO and back is easy peasy.

>>10856754
Yes. It would be a hop-fire test

>>10857068
Habitats around Earth would make many times more sense.

>>10857108
You need local resources for a viable colony. The only places with local resources in Mars orbit are Phobos and Deimos.

>>10857117
Earth first (in low equatorial orbit, pic related), Martian moons second, asteroids third.

>>10856289
Anything using SExTOF (Shuttle External Tank Orange Foam) is automatically 80% more expensive even if otherwise successful (see Delta) but there's also a 1/3rd chance that the program is a complete failure and a 1/3rd chance it is cancelled outright in-utero (see Jupiter, Ares 1, Ares 5, SLS).

>>10856484
Was it intentional that they didn't show the flap-legs moving before touch down? Are we fixed-wing now?

>>10856849
who knows what it is anon
they've probably got two or three slightly different designs on a white board that are competing with one another making different performance optimizations and sacrifices
the different numbers we're hearing are from people talking about different design layouts, plus there's also a few upgrade paths that they're looking into as well

>>10857215
Seems more reasonable than actuating those fucking fins.

>>10857117
Habitats around Earth don't have the advantage of having a several quadrillion ton supply of raw material already in orbit with negligible gravity to fight against. Invent a module that can melt and extrude basalt fibers in zero G, a module that can weave those fibers into threads and fabric, and a module that can take those textiles and knit them together on a large scale, and you can start making rotating artificial G habitat rings. Sure you still need to refine at least a little bit of aluminum or steel in order to construct the pressure vessel, but the most massive and difficult part to construct would be taken care of, and you could actually use that spinning

>>10857239
Gravity field is no big deal. We'll have super Starship style re-usable rockets bringing resources up and down from orbit like it's a walk in the park.

Mining and processing raw materials in distant space is going to be hard as shit for a long time.

>>10856475
>lunar flyby in 2021
He got the time for Falcon Heavy wrong, but that mostly got delayed from lack of need. But that was a great prediction of SLS delays. It's still not certain that 2021 flight will have humans in Orion, though.
>>10856512
>F9 launches to increase from ~20/year to ~50/year
Holy shit. But they do have a lot of Starlinks to lift.

>>10857239
Habitats around Earth do have the advantage of being located right next to fucking Earth. As a rule, you should locate your space station in orbit around an asteroid or a small moon. I do think Earth orbit is an exception which proves this rule. Pic unrelated.

>>10857247
>We'll have super Starship style re-usable rockets bringing resources up and down from orbit like it's a walk in the park.
>"Not if I have any say in it! Did you know that Starship is literally unamerican because it doesnt have a part made in each state? Yes, that's true! Riding on Starship would be like riding in a car with Stalin himself, absolutely unamerican. Now the SLS, THATS an American rocket."

>>10857260
Soon Musk won't need any of that filthy public money anyways.

>>10857255
fuck the shuttle.

>>10855777
Now listen here, you...

>>10857215
The papers were written months ago probably.

>>10856212
Is it wrogt that i kinda wanna watch those two boosters smack into the ground one time? Rods from God-tier earth-fuckers

>>10856512
>Also F9 launches to increase from ~20/year to ~50/year. BFR launches will be stated to be ~20/year.
Kennedy confirmed the world's first orbital train station

>>10857475
There will probably be a demand for falcon9 even when starship is finished and flying.
that number wil probably get higher.

>mfw I get to see the new space boom

I'm more optimistic about space travel than I have been my entire life. I truly believe we'll be back to the moon and land on mars within my life time. Hopefully NASA learns a thing or two

>>10857552
>Hopefully NASA learns a thing or two

lmao

>>10857444
They would crumple against the ground like empty soda cans. Kinetic weapons only really work if their mass is concentrated into a very dense form, hence the classic tungsten telephone-pole.

>>10857475
Those F9 launches are probably gonna be for Starlink, although BFR can launch more Starlink sats at a time they can already launch as many as it takes to fill an orbit using F9, so launching more on BFR would probaly be a headache.

>>10857552
I'm not as optimistic as you, but I have gotten more optimistic about spaceflight over the years. Kinda expecting something bad to happen with this new momentum to go beyond LEO, but excited that at least something is happening other than another trip to LEO or sending a tiny spacecraft somewhere else.

>>10857700
The best thing is that government and bureaucracy's power to curb momentum is waning. If it can sustain itself even just a little longer it's going to hit that critical mass where progress becomes an inevitability. It's incredibly exciting.

>>10857603
But still....i get to watch something hurle into the ground at termial velocity

>>10856299
How do they control the gimbal? Radar? Is there an onboard computer?

>>10857603
>>10857894

They would still explode due to the prop left in the tanks. Now, what I want to see? Fucking Starship exploding on the pad. Imagine the size of that mushroom cloud.

>>10857942
I think it’s 20% tnt equivalent per kg of lox and methane

>>10856484
>>10856319
Confirmed?

>>10858003
Its in the study. SpaceX will build it, NASA is going to study the impact of these and see if theres any complications.

>>10857942
Imagine how hard old space would lash out about it.
>"SpaceX want's to put people on that thing? Look at how unsafe it is!!! You know what super heavy launcher is safe and has experienced 0 failures? SLS*"

*The SLS has yet to launch

>>10858022
2022. SLS will launch for sure.

>>10858027
2024? What do you mean you want a launch by 2026, don't you know these things take time? What do you want to launch in 2028 anyways?

>>10858027
I know. I was exaggerating the SLS delays abit for humor.

Hey guys
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/926875?section=georgelandrith&keywords=apollo-moon-mars-nasa&year=2019&month=08&date=01&id=926875&oref=t.co

4pm local time is the target for the 200 meter hop on August 12. All still on track!
Reply

>>10858157
I refuse.

>>10858157
>almost midnight in Europe

Why??

>>10858148

What a load of hyperbole, America is leading in nearly every aspect in space development. For fuck sakes, not a single other country has even landed men on the moon and yet they are talking about landing on Mars(!!!!).

Unless China and/or Russia lands men on the Moon, there is nothing to worry about China. They dont even have a functioning space station as of recently. The lack of manned launched capabilities is going to be squashed with the arrival of half a dozen of various spacecraft with the big three being Starliner, Dragon and Orion.

>>10858148
>newsmax

>>10856786
Are there some old decommissioned aircraft carriers the Navy is trying to get rid of?

>>10857252
>>F9 launches to increase from ~20/year to ~50/year
>Holy shit. But they do have a lot of Starlinks to lift.
Look closer. That's 20 from LC39A in addition to 50 from LC40, for a total of 70.

>>10858231
those are maximums they’re planning around. Not predictions

>>10858212
So they have a full work day in their home country to make sure everything's ready to go.

>>10857700
SpaceX has been cut down to size several times over the past decade, and they're doing just fine. I don't think a loss of crew would be the end of them.

New thread pl0x

not gonna lie, SLS Block II is going to look sick tits with full 8.4m diameter fairings

idk how bad SS/SH will mog it with only 9m diameter and 22 feet taller

>>10858294

Eh, dont underestimate what a crew loss would do to SpaceX. Losing a sat here and there is "fine" but crew is something else alltogether.

>>10858330

Why? The board moves slow enough for this thread to stay up another couple of hours. Page 9/10 is when you can think of starting a new one.

>>10858157
>Reply
i mean i guess
10 day countdown starts now

New Thread>>10858410

>>10858335
>is going to
>oohhh no no no no, uuuh uuh uh uh

Block II is NEVER happening.

>>10858420
Oh shit I forgot

>>10856914
loli haet pizza
loli love burg

>>10857255
exploration in this thing means "SLS" right
and the one we're rooting for is Other?