/sci/ - Science & Math

on that note

someone needs to do a gold leaf rendering of starship

If each space agency and company were a food truck, then what kind of food would they serve and would you eat there?

>starhopper flew before SLS
>starhopper landed before SLS
>crew dragon will fly before SLS
>starship will return from Mars before SLS goes lunar
>SLS will be cancelled and everybody will be fired

no wonder shills are so angry

Airstreams in space are even better than space winnebagos

>>10858410
Need more Virgin BO Vs Chad SpaceX memes pls.

>>10858428
so the gold leaf would just burn off during reentry, but it would also burn off on ascent
no, the real shit here it titanium nitride coating

>>10858441
>starship will return from Mars before SLS goes lunar
I doubt this since the first launch of SLS is meant to go to the moon, and the SLS will definitely launch before the full BFR stack. Or do you mean "before SLS goes lunar with crew"?

>>10858450
Holy shit! Is that the new Starship prototype!! Fuck it looks awesome.

I thought the methane tanks would be bigger though..

>>10858428
>>10858460
Once asteroid mining gets going, spacecraft alloys might get a little weird.
>Gold and Platinum as cheap as Aluminum
>Enough Iridium to add to whatever the fuck you want, not just engine components

>>10858462
>the SLS will definitely launch before the full BFR stack
Don't be so sure.

"Musk time" is nothing compared to the black hole like time distillation of "SLS time"

>>10858460
Titanium Nitride is not suitable; it oxidizes at 450 degrees Celsius.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040609006004822

>>10858475
so what does the thin oxide layer look like?

>>10858475
TiN is used for guns, and those get hotter than 450C during sustained firing
I haven't heard any reports of TiN burning off of somebody's guns before

>>10858473
Starship/Superheavy are supposed to be doing orbital flights sometime in 2020. Even if that slips to 2021, SLS EM-1 is on the verge of slipping into 2022.

>>10858473
True, but in terms of hardware complete and assembled ready for launch, the SLS is in the lead. Although considering the lackluster management of SLS, that is a tenuous lead.

>>10858487
>SLS EM-1 is on the verge of slipping into 2022
I thought it was only slipping into 2021?

>>10858485
It requires a few minutes of sustained exposure to the high heat environment, more akin to a furnace than anything, before the oxidation kicks in.

>>10858500
that still doesn't answer the question of what a thin layer of TiNO looks like

>>10858501
I'm not having any luck finding pictures of what thermal oxidation of titanium nitride looks like. Electrochemical oxidation looks iridescent, but I don't think the titanium oxides from heat exposure produce the same results.

>>10858497
It keeps creeping back. It's now going to be late 2021, at best.
>https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/nasas-large-sls-rocket-unlikely-to-fly-before-at-least-late-2021/

Boeing's inability to meet the 2020 deadline (which was a must-have requirement put forward by the National Space Council) is probably why we're starting to see pieces like this:
>https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/455882-nasa-gives-spacex-a-challenge-with-the-moon-as-a-prize

>>10858505
the iridescent film look is a result of thin film effects
anyway there's only one way to find out, I hope it doesn't screw up the emissivity/reflectivity curves
golden iridescent stainless steel, hmmmm delicious

>here's your gravel bro

>>10858511
Thanks. I thought that the SLS was for sure going to launch sometime in 2021. The BFR seems like it may have a chance to launch before SLS

>>10858534
no shit, SLS is extremely troubled as a launch vehicle, although it's been very successful as a jobs program

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/08/spacex-retesting-boosters-planning-starship-pad/

>>10858511
>that render
I love how the 2020s rocket is more retrofuturistic than the 1960s rocket

>>10858638
that's because they painted the 1960s rocket

>>10858641
A shiny unpainted Saturn V sounds sexy, it's a shame none were built that way

crane on the left is on the move

>>10858670
they could have gotten a few extra tons that way

Daily reminder that the Mercury Capsule pilots were initialy forced to use rectal thermometers, and the craft was designed by a man named Maxime Faget.

>>10858722

>>10858731
He went by Max Faget heh.

>>10858672
that's a tallboy, when did they assemble it?

Aesthetic af.

>>10858792
have you noticed that they all come out looking like Starship?

>>10858805
Chrome is the way of the future, I guess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZImSTxbglI
so comfy

I was listening to Princess of the Night - Saxon earlier and shower thoughts:
Starship is absolutely going to be princess of the void isn't she, 100 tons of majestic stainless steel aeroshell next to tin cans with exposed bits and gubbins
a voice that tears the ground and shakes the earth
tearing a hole in the sky
thank you for listening to my emotional rambling
>>10858815
>winged flyback horizontal takeoff/landing
it's Starship but with a runway fetish

>>10858942
I think it launches vertically and lands horizontally. It's the sibling to "Starship but with a dolphin fetish".

so I'm fucking calling it:
initial Starship suborbital testing operations will be like this:
1. ye standard suborbital hops to space and back down to verify control stability
2. boostback suborbital hops to increase the speed of reentry without significantly increasing launch overhead
3. near orbital hops out into the middle of the atlantic ocean with droneship landing

>>10858815
Early 70s Shuttle concepts make me rock fucking hard.

>>10859106
it looks like an ugly whale, so fucking bad

>>10859106
And the orbiter cutaway:

>>10859110
>>10859106
They are amazing. Something about winged rockets makes them look so cool.

>>10859108
That's the best fucking part, that it was a hideous hydrolox space whale the size of a fucking C-5 Galaxy.

>>10859108
Is this sexy enough for you? huh?

>>10859117
no. All things resembling a shuttle is incredibly disappointing. I like long slim spaceships like falcon 9

>>10859119
Oh well. I think they're neat.

>>10859113
>They are amazing. Something about winged rockets makes them look so cool.

Is the extra weight the wings add worth it though...

>>10858792
>>10858815
>>10858996
>>10859106
>>10859110
>>10859113

And yeah, all of the early 2-stage Space Shuttle concepts were basically Starship/Super Heavy: The Analog Alpha Build, and they relied on winged horizontal landings because there wasn't the processing power yet to make the tail-sitting landings a possibility.

Also, friendly reminder that the only reasons why NASA walked away from these designs was because the stubby straight wings only worked for straight-in re-entrys and the big hypersonic delta wings and overbuilt thermal protection system needed to meet the USAF's requirement for cross-range reentry capability fucked up the mass fraction enough that it was no longer feasible to built it as a TSTO with 100% flyback ability like Starship/BFR will be.

>>10859128
Potentially.
>Easier reentry
>Greater control during descent
>Able to land at any airport with a long enough runway

>>10859129
>Also, friendly reminder that the only reasons why NASA walked away from these designs was because the stubby straight wings only worked for straight-in re-entrys and the big hypersonic delta wings and overbuilt thermal protection system needed to meet the USAF's requirement for cross-range reentry capability fucked up the mass fraction enough that it was no longer feasible to built it as a TSTO with 100% flyback ability like Starship/BFR will be.
Shame. I think it has potential. Maybe in this new "age" of reusability, someone might look into it again.

>>10859139
The problem is that the SpaceX tail landing model is much less demanding, from an infrastructure point of view, because all you need is concrete pad or a drone ship.

Meanwhile, the runway that any of these concepts would have needed to land on was probably even bigger than the as-built space shuttle's runway requirements were.

>>10859148
I thought the Shuttle needed a very long runway because it had to land at a high speed due to it's poor gliding capability? Which the poor gliding was due to a requirement that the Shuttle never used. If a winged booster was designed to have a much better glide slope, then it might not need a super long runway and could in-theory land on more common long runways.

>>10859154
Still wouldn't be able to use most runways because of rules about supersonics coming into airports.

>>10859154
Yeah, but look at the overall size and wing loading of any of the straight-winged orbital concepts, then look at the re-entry profile here; >>10858792 and Remember that those skinny wings were also every bit as much a product of reentry mechanics as the shuttle's delta wings were, being so skinny to minimize cross-sectional area on reentry as the ship reentered at a high AoA like the Virgin Galactic ships do. Big aircraft with highly loaded wings equal giant fucking takeoff/landing rolls.

>>10859159
This a billion times.
>>10859148
Also this, people talk shit about wings being all that because you can land on like four other runways on Earth if you need to, meanwhile Starship can land on LITERALLY any flat piece of ground on the entire planet in an emergency.

Rocket Lab announcement next week. What'll it be?

>>10859172
>being so skinny to minimize cross-sectional area on reentry as the ship reentered at a high AoA like the Virgin Galactic ships do.
Would increasing the wing planform area allow for smoother reentry?

>>10859242
that's the idea behind Dreamchaser/VentureStar and the other lifting body concepts

screenshot from the environmental impact draft
interesting
can't wait for Elon's presentation to totally upend this

>>10859276
>can't wait for Elon's presentation to totally upend this
No need to wait. I got you covered.

>>10859288

>>10856163
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/nasa-agrees-to-work-with-spacex-on-orbital-refueling-technology/
Ironic.

>>10859237
Nothing exciting because they say they won't build bigger rockets.

anyway the important bit is that Super Heavy is going to have shitty little fins at the bottom for better aerodynamics or maybe landing legs or something or both and at the top will have giant grid fins

>>10859217
>Also this, people talk shit about wings being all that because you can land on like four other runways on Earth if you need to, meanwhile Starship can land on LITERALLY any flat piece of ground on the entire planet in an emergency.

Exactly. Runway takeoff/landing was only necessary in the 70s and 80s when we lacked the computer processing power and FADEC technology to make a rocket reliably land using only engine thrust from a down-throttled booster engine to do so. Once the DC-X proved that a rocket could land using the same engines that it used to take off, all winged designs should have been immediately thrown into the dustbin.

Can we expect any info about surface operations on Mars from Elon's upcoming presentation or is it all about Starship/Superheavy? I'm dying for some info about a potential Mars base.

>>10859334
Would winged rockets still be viable if computing power is somehow unavailable? Like for a sounding rocket where it might be too small to fit a fadec powerful enough to perform a retroburn landing?

>>10859343
I think it's just going to be Starship/Super Heavy, although you never know
Mars just seems too far out, and they want to offload a lot of that to partners, I think

>>10859352
you can fit the computing in the size of a cellphone, anon
we've come a long way

>>10859343
Unlikely, it's probably just starship info. For your Mars fix you are going to have to wait until October I think it is for the Mars Society convention, SpaceX usually sends a rep and it's always packed full of cool info. They are also hosting an international design contest for Mars bases, not just the usual pretty design shit but ones full technical details, shipping plans etc... Zubrin has said the top ten or twenty designs they are presenting are "outstanding" and you know if the man himself says that then it's legit as fuck.

>>10859387
Here's the SpaceX rep from the last one, top tier stuff.

https://youtu.be/C1Cz6vF4ONE

>>10859387
aw shit, Zubrin signed off on it
that's gotta be good

hmmmm
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1157362867089395715

>>10859387
>>10859397
On a similar note, I've seen Zubrin recently saying that Starship should be a LEO space truck rather than a Mars cargo transporter i.e. separate landing systems should be developed. I'd have to find what he say exactly but I think the argument is that launching a shitload of cargo transporters with weekly or so Starship launches in the biannual window would be more efficient. This would preclude the need for refueling starship in LEO. I wonder if this has been considered by spacex.

>>10859423
I doubt that Orion would fly on a FH. The rocket doesn't seem structurally sound with the spacecraft and all of it's parts. I think it would require a specially built FH, SpaceX isn't the kind of company to make a specialty part unless paid to do so, and NASA (the old guard specifically) doesn't seem too interested to pay SpaceX for something that'll be a threat to SLS.

Then again, I have been proven wrong before.

>>10859425
the counterargument that we came up with for that was "develop a new ship on your own dime, nigger"
if you're already launching an aeroshell there's no sense putting a new, different, freshly designed aeroshell without the benefits of mass production that the existing design will already have inside of it
basically, Zubrin doesn't understand what SpaceX are doing

>>10859343
Possibly some previews but nothing major.

>>10859430
Are we talking about the same thing? I'm retarded so I might not be expressing it well. These are the twitter threads I think.

https://twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/1157414342389710848
https://twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/1157417236199432192

>>10859428
The point that's brought up in the twitter thread is NASA's assumptions may have included the old predicted dates when SLS would be ready to fly. Back when they were thinking about flying Orion on Falcon Heavy, SLS looked like it would fly in the latter half of 2020. Now, it's going to be the latter half of 2021 at best.
That changes the calculus around the decision for EM-1.

>>10859458
literally all of his arguments stem from him not understanding what SpaceX are doing
needing to design a new, smaller vehicle in order to reduce the scale of what you need on Mars is:
A. expensive
B. counterproductive to SpaceX's stated goals
so basically he doesn't understand what the fuck he's talking about

>>10859460
the issue is that the SLS date slips nearly 1 for 1 so that the prediction for the launch date is always before the Falcon Heavy/ICPS/Orion abomination would be ready
it wouldn't be ready by 2021 but it will probably be ready before SLS flies

>>10859462
>>10859458
I think what Zubrin was going for there is he thinks SpaceX should send a non-reusable lander for all the shit you don't want to fly back again (like fuel plant and permanent hab components).
On the other hand, that would also involve a lot of design work to make sure it would work for Mars EDL, so it only makes sense if you're severely limited by the number of Starships available.

>>10859467
that is, if they start now

>>10859468
he's still trapped in a shuttle mindset, he's only thinking of Starship as "cheaper shuttle" instead of what it really is

>>10859467
It will never happen, but it would be hilarious if NASA contracted a Starship prototype to yeet Orion and the ICPS into LEO. There should be enough room in the payload section.

>>10859472
>he's still trapped in a shuttle mindset
What kind of mindset is that?

>>10859472
Like I said, that thinking works if the number of Starships are limited. He doesn't realize Elon intends to build dozens of them, not just five.

>>10859473
>Starship Centaur w/ Orion
my penis
>>10859475
if it has an aeroshell it's for LEO only

how do I get a space gf? All of the girls with NASA stickers on their laptops at my uni don’t seem to actually know anything.
>has there ever been a confirmed girl in /sfg/? Are YOU a girl?

>>10858410
Earth is flat

>>10859479
>if it has an aeroshell it's for LEO only
Thanks, have a meme. What an odd mindset though.

>>10859483
I'm pretty sure we're all little girls here, anon

>>10859361
Baby falcon when?

>>10859543
That's called an Electron.
Maybe that's what their announcement will be: first stage reuse.

>>10859423
Most of NASAs development teams seem to be covering their bases right now. Pretty disconcerting.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/455882-nasa-gives-spacex-a-challenge-with-the-moon-as-a-prize
>NASA does not think that Starship will ever fly. It is just too incredible a quantum leap in space technology.
>Nevertheless, according to Business Insider, Jeff DeWit, NASA’s chief financial officer, threw down the gauntlet to SpaceX. If SpaceX is able to land a Starship on the lunar surface, the space agency will partner with the company to conduct voyages to the moon on the rocket ship.
When will they learn.

>>10859581
Rope these NASA fuckers.

>>10859555
I get the sense that every day, more of NASA's internal operations are coming to terms with the idea that SLS in fact is not going to do what they need it to or at least nowhere near the timelines they need it to and as such are starting to consider alternatives much more seriously, if with a silent step.

good shit

Why is SLS taking so long anyway?

I've always found it hard to get enthusiastic for SpaceX, but it's pretty interesting seeing them push ahead while SLS keeps being pushed back, especially if you add on all the prior SLS-like project proposals (Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle, Advanced Launch System, and the National Launch System)

>>10859678
the goal of SLS isn't to launch a vehicle, it's to funnel money into Alabama

>>10859129
also because Spiro Agnew cut the development budget in half

>>10859659
Absolute unit

>>10859706
reading further, the dark blue line is "won't notice unless you're looking for it", and the cyan line is "you'll notice it"
the green line is "oh fuck what was that", and still includes most of fucking Central Florida

>>10859708
Kek Florida boomers going to be shitting their pants. Still pretty amazing you can hear it nearly off the coast of fucking Mexico if you are listening.

>>10859678
after the cold war ended, the big defense contractors merged into the five companies you see today and became extremely efficient at turning tax dollars into shareholder dollars without having to actually produce a working product

Boeing literally doesn't know how to actually get shit done anymore. Same goes for LM and NG. Everyone from the days when these companies pushed the state of the art and built remarkable things is retired or dead. It's all F-35s and SLSes from here on out

>>10859719
At this point I'm convinced that public companies all inevitably turn into ineffective, monolithic blobs. It would be better for a company to go down in flames while private and competent than live on as a slave to shareholders.

So what confirmed Starships names do we have (Heart of Gold, any others?) And what SHOULD Starships be named?

There better be a Rocinante

>>10859751
Valentine Michael Smith

I want to know what's at the bottom of that enermous mars trench

>>10859751
There will probably be a lot of Culture ship names used. Cargo ships might be Profit Margin, Not Invented Here, Cargo Cult, or Pressure Drop. Crewed ships might be So Much for Subtlety, Youthful Indiscretion, Congenital Optimist, Wisdom Like Silence, or Zero Gravitas.

If Musk goes for other Scifi-inspired ship names though (all assuming these are their first missions):

First ship to the Jovian system: Discovery
First surface-to-surface intercontinental passenger ship: Heinlein
First ship sent to mine/prospect an asteroid: Red Dwarf
First regular cargo-freighter supporting lunar and mars missions: Bebop

>watermark

>>10858511
>>watermark

>>10859833
>>10859831
I don't get it

Imagine if the SLS green run actually finds something. They‘d have to fix it - and you know it‘d take years - followed by another two years to get another green run set up.

>>10859751
In either NASA or Space Corps service, Enterprise.

>>10859841
Or god forbid something goes spectacularly wrong and the damn thing explodes.

>>10859848
That would be moderately hilarious.

>>10859581
>ever fly
Stupid thing to say.
It‘s just steel tubes with raptors on them. If it doesn‘t shake apart, it flies. The trouble is in all the other details like first and second stage reentry, in orbit fuel transfer, whether the parts actually lend themselves to rapid reusability in reality and how well they can land these on mars and moon and whether the cost savings actually manifest.
All of that stuff is in question and needs to get worked out. But fly it definetly will one way or another.
Really stupid thing to say.

>>10859835
Was supposed to say
>inb4 watermark
But I fucked the post up two too many times, ignore it

>>10859848
This gets me so much about this thing. They‘re spending so many untold billions and testing and testing. And then, even if everything goes as planned, the whole thing just burns up on reentry anyway.
It just seems so fucking wrong and ass backwards now that Block 5s keep coming back.

Imagine if DearMoon launches with all sorts of celebrity artists like Taylor Swift or whatever and then it fucking Challengers on live TV

>>10859874
>mfw musk just wants to get rid of all useless artists and celebs

>>10858410

>>10858487
>>10858534
I think people are too fixated on which rocket launches first. SLS may even launch first. Once. Then it will have a 2 year long gap while Starship racks up launches left and right.

SLS is a dead man walking.

>>10859458
>By using the Starship only as a lifter, you can cut down on having to accelerate and stop 70-80 tons of dry mass that is not payload.

That is stupid. Starship dry mass is required to land on Mars. It is not dead weight at all, but useful weight.

Zubrin is notorious for his extremely low spacecraft mass estimates and hand-waving when it comes to Mars reentry and landing. You cannot send a small tin can to Mars, as we did with the Moon.

>>10859951
>You cannot send a small tin can to Mars, as we did with the Moon.
Of course you can, if you're taking "Mars to stay" very literally indeed.

>BE-4 continues to rack up time on the test stand. Here’s a great shot of our full power engine test today

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1157478525575684097

>>10859964
oh yeah that's a methane flame
look like it's a little more fuel rich than Raptor? much more orange atmospheric combustion than Raptor had in the test videos

>>10859964
>Was only able to use 70% power for two years
>Elon mentions problem on Twitter and what it was, plus how they fixed it
>Magically the BE-4 can now be used at 100% on a stand

Really doth maketh man think

>>10859428
>Expendable side boosters
At that point, just stick it on a normal Delta IV Heavy.

>>10859978
Falcon Heavy gets more mass to orbit than Delta IV Heavy

>>10859978
That would require human-rating the silly bastard, whereas Falcon Heavy is more or less built of already-rated hardware.

>>10859751
The Shelby Boeing

>>10859428
This makes me thing, can Falcon 9 launch Orion crew module with an abort system to LEO?

Then launch the service module and transfer stage on separate launches, dock in LEO, and off you go.

>>10859581
>a quantum leap
So a tiny, tiny leap?

>>10860015
quantum leap implies a jump in technology with no immediately obvious precursor or intermediate steps, where such intermediates would be intensely desirable.
it's basically saying they don't see how they plan to get from point A to point B, technologically

>>10859581
I bet the guys at SpaceX went full on "Challenge Accepted" when they heard of this.
Never mind the fact Raptor has just done its maiden flight and is proven to work.

>>10859751
The Shelby Depot Service

>>10859751
I think only crewed or otherwise noteworthy starships will get names

>>10859784
Anime cat girls and space-herpes

>>10859874
We should be able to fit all the Kardashians on it. Probably some token Flat Earthers and a couple of Fortnite streamers as well

>>10859751
I'd like to see a Long Shot. I think Gigantic Patriarchal Tool is a hair too far though.

>>10859964
>No mention of duration or other key variables

>>10859581
No wonder NASA doesn't believe Starship will fly. They're scared to admit that their corruption and incompetence has stagnated spaceflight for the past 50 years.
Had NASA given a single fuck about anything beyond job creation and sucking senator cock, we could've had a Starship equivalent by the late 80s.

>>10860218
And now they're stuck trying and failing to rebuild a rocket we already had in the late 60s instead of innovating beyond ICBM ripoffs.

>>10860218
every time they've tried to give a shit about that stuff they get slapped down

>>10860218
Stagnation is due to lack of competition. Now they are suddenly going to the Moon because China is chasing them.

>>10859964
>tfw raptor is surprisingly closer to completion than BE-4

FeelsGoodMan

>>10860320
I'd say Raptor is done already. I mean, BE-4's still just a testbed article whereas Raptor has already flown and begun mass production.

>>10859543
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4HfGVRU_xY
soon

>>10859719
>>10859737
Correct. If at any point a company requires public gibs in order to stay afloat or bail itself out, the cancer has spread too far and the company needs to be put down to make room for new players with new strategies and a fresh mindset.

>>10859784
you mean Valles Marineris? Mostly just flat bottom with a bit of chaos terrain here and there, it's not like Earth's tectonic trenches that are multiple kilometers underwater.

>>10859858
>first and second stage reentry
Apparently first stage reentry is going to be piss easy, the fact that they're using steel plus the fact that the Booster will actually stage off at a lower velocity than the current Falcon 9 first stage means that Super Heavy isn't going to need any thermal protection system elements whatsoever to handle reentry, which effectively makes it a bigger, easier Falcon 9 first stage with better thrust to weight ratio characteristics (you can turn more engines off to achieve lower TWR and slower landing burns if you want) and bigger overall dimensions. The upper stage vehicle reentry will be a different story of course but even then since everything is reusable they have the opportunity to work their way up to orbital reentry by going one small step at a time and still make rapid progress. So long as they don't lose control of a Starship during a test and it explodes, they should be able to do mid then high altitude flight tests without the Booster, and with it they can do varying degrees of suborbital tests before finally shooting into orbit and coming back. In fact they can do several orbital flights if they want to in order to really get a handle on any bugs before launching any cargo.

>in orbit fuel transfer
They can work that out while performing paying missions since Starship is going to be so over-sized for most payloads it starts off launching, each one is going to have substantial amounts of propellant leftover so if they let one loiter in orbit until they launch a second one, then have both meet up, they can do their fuel transfer stuff and verify everything works and if it doesn't they can bring them both back, figure out solutions, implement them, and redo the test later after another couple payload missions.

>whether the parts actually lend themselves to rapid reusability
They'll have worked that out by the time Starship is launching payloads, they're going to have done many hops and suborbital tests by then.

NASA needs your help mapping an asteroid

https://bennu.cosmoquest.org/

>>10859942
That's a significant thing. It's not like 'hey we finally have SLS, now we can do shit', it's more like 'nice flight everything works, now we just need to ramp up our production cadence over the next 15 years until we can produce the maximum of one SLS launch per year and we can start looking at setting up a Moon base :)"

>>10859968
Judging by how the color creeps into the flame from the bottom, and gets more intense the further from the nozzle the flame is, I diagnose that color as being indicative of the dust being kicked up off of the ground being mixed into and vaporized by the exhaust (or if not vaporized at least made hot enough to glow orange).

>>10859978
Delta IV Heavy doesn't have the performance necessary to do that, and besides it's about 2.5x as expensive as expendable FH anyway, so what are you even on about?

>>10860365
apparently it's going to stage fast and low, like ridiculously fast and low due to how powerful Starship is
>>10860379
oh hurp derp, ground effects
the plume ingesting dirt and black body, you're right

>>10859995
Orion capsule and launch abort system together weigh 18 tons, so within Falcon 9 expendable performance. You may need to worry about black zones during the ascent that Dragon 2 doesn't have tho, given the higher mass and thus lower TWR throughout the flight.
Also, how are you going to attach the service module to the capsule in orbit? The capsule kinda needs the service module in order to stay alive, you know.

>>10860019
Which is complete ass because there's plenty of precursor tech and intermediate steps that have already been developed/taken by SpaceX. They're literally the world's leading experts in reusable rocket technology by a long shot. They also already have the engine they're going to use, which effectively means they have two problems to solve, structures (easy) and reentry (less easy but they've been recovering their own capsules for years now so they have experience in that field as well).

>>10860108
0.5 seconds at full power is technically racking up burn time you know

FUCK THE STARSHIP!! SLS FOREVER

>>10860327
I agree that Raptor is done, in the sense that in its current form it could be used on launch vehicles right now. However SpaceX isn't just gonna have their propulsion development team sit on their hands with their thumbs up their asses for the next decade until it's time for Starship 2 electric boogaloo. We're probably going to see more minor revisions and upgrades to Raptor before the Booster prototype flies, and definitely before the full stack flies anything to orbit. I wouldn't be surprised if to follow convention they froze the Raptor design used for Starship vehicles, to give regulatory schmucks room to breathe, and switched to introducing Raptor B, C, D etc in block upgrades as better engines are developed on the stand, and of course as the structural engineering of Starship itself is updated.

>>10860401
Fuck everything , N1 was the best launch vehicle ever designed

>>10860365
>"Ah yes, but Starship doesn't generate more jobs than the SLS. Starship is selfishly keeping its production tight and limited so few people can be proud to have made a Starship. Meanwhile SLS shares the privilege of building a rocket that will send Americans to the moon, by law as it is illegal for any other rocket to do so. Imagine having a higher chance to be a part of something greater with SLS than Starship."

>>10860401
>"My fellow constituent, thank you for your honorable service. Soon this little charade done by SpaceX will die and REAL American spaceflight will be done by REAL American companies. SpaceXs progress, while fast, is dangerous and reckless. It could easily result in the loss of human life one day. Meanwhile, the brilliant Americans behind the SLS are painstakingly studying every single possible failure mode and filing the required 107 pages of paperwork for each possible anomaly to make sure that the SLS is the safest rocket flying, justifying the billions spent in developing it."

>>10860420
Safest rocket to never fly

https://spacenews.com/ula-and-its-commercial-competitors-in-pitched-fight-over-launch-regulations/

>But ULA fears the FAA is being too accommodating to commercial companies, said an industry source who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the subject. “The Commercial Spaceflight Federation, along with SpaceX and Blue Origin want the public to believe that we are now at a point with space launch similar to air travel. But we’re not there yet. We are decades away from that.”

when will they learn?

>>10859659
>a Boca Chica landing will boom-boom a lot of Mexico
I'm okay with this.
>>10860342
That was pretty good from such a low drop, and landing on grass. I'll have to watch the rest of it later.

>>10859659

>>10860471
>"The Commercial Spaceflight Federation, along with SpaceX and Blue Origin want the public to believe that we are now at a point with space launch similar to air travel. But we’re not there yet. We are decades away from that.”
Is that ULA's only complaint against opening up space to more commercial launchers? That rockets don't fly as often as planes? Maybe rockets don't fly often is because they're still expensive per unit mass of payload, and that opening up the launch space to more companies will allow for competition to drop the price.

>>10860391
Just launch the Orion+service module on Falcon Heavy.

>>10859237
Probably something disappointing. They said bigger or reusable rockets aren't on the roadmap but I hope they changed their mind. Unlikely though.

>>10860411
N1 is just sad. They could‘ve made it work, damn it.
Granted, their moon mission profile sucked, but still.

>>10860581
Why not launch the entire Orion+LAS+service module+transfer stage using expendable FH? It'd be the cheapest and simplest option, including SLS.

>>10860411
what a unit

fuel depots

>>10860411
Пoчeмy нe бoльшe?

>>10860640
>no, daddy Korolev

>>10860645
>Korolev after heart surgery: I am growing stronger

>>10860630
>"WHO THE FUCK SAID THAT!? IM GONNA TEAR YOUR ASS WORSE UP THAN WHAT I DID TO NASA!!"

>>10860645
>Кopoлeв дa

>>10860630
haha nice

>>10860655
>N-IIGR
Kek.

>>10860665
I'm pretty sure that's not a joke and was a legitimate thing that somebody put on paper and presented to their boss in the Soviet Union

>>10860669
Yep.
http://www.astronautix.com/n/n11gr.html

>>10860669
Ofcourse, just like india's SCATSAT.

>>10860640
hmmm, yes yes I can run with this

>150 engines burning at liftoff
>Propellant cross-feed from two side boosters into the other two side boosters and the center stage
>50 seconds into flight the cross-feeding boosters are empty and stage off
>125 seconds later the other three first stage boosters are empty and stage off, the second stage (originally the N1 1st stage) ignites
>125 seconds later the stage is empty and from there the launch proceeds as normal
someone do the math and figure out how much payload this thing gets into LEO

Can someone post that SpaceX doujin again

>>10859848
>Or god forbid something goes spectacularly wrong and the damn thing explodes.
As much as I wish the best for any kind of space vehicle development, I think this would one the best possible outcomes (as long as nobody gets hurt). Nothing would as quickly and effectively put a fork in oldspace cost-plus programs like an SLS RUD would. It would be beyond disastrous from an optics perspective.

>>10860740
monitoring for this

>>10860743
RUD! ON! THE! PAD!

>>10860395
exactly, it's not "if" but "when"

>>10860717
>227,000 kN at liftoff
yeet

>>10860717
>With a N1-1969 stack on top of an S3 Asparagus using the N1 Block A stage
Payload to LEO: 249.87 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 1.277

>With a N1 Block A Stage on top of an S3 Asparagus using the N1 Block A stage
Payload to LEO: 128.6178 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 1.3411

A tad underwhelming unless I got my math wrong.

>>10860819
>S3 Asparagus
what did he mean by this
just to be clear only two of the boosters are feeding propellant into the other three, and the other three act as a single stage once the two cross-feeding boosters are empty

>>10860819
How about a Saturn V with two S-IC boosters feeding propellant into the core stage

15 F-1 engines at liftoff, boosters burn out at T+ 112 seconds, center core continues burning for 168 seconds after booster sep, the rest of the stages go on as normal

>>10860919
>what did he mean by this
An asparagus rocket with three stages. There's no standard way of naming asparagus stages so I made up one using this image as a guide.

>just to be clear only two of the boosters are feeding propellant into the other three, and the other three act as a single stage once the two cross-feeding boosters are empty
Oops. Sorry for the missunderstanding. I also did in-fact did my math wrong, so here are the (hopefully) correct stats...

>With a N1-1969 stack on top of an S3 Asparagus using the N1 Block A stage
Payload to LEO: 378.8 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 2.03

>With a N1 Block A Stage on top of an S3 Asparagus using the N1 Block A stage
Payload to LEO: 275.9 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 2.2

>>With a N1-1969 stack on top of 3 N1 Block A stages with two N1 Block A boosters cross feeding into the 3 N1 Block A stages
Payload to LEO: 630.02 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 1.25

If the N1's structure could handle having a payload that huge, then it could give the Nova Ultima a run for it's money.

>>10860955
that's some sick shit doc

Is the only difference between the first scenario and the third scenario the asparagus setup?

>>10860955
Oops, turns out that my math was wrong AGAIN! I was using the vacuum performance of the N1 Block A instead of the Sea-Level performance.

>With a N1-1969 stack on top of an S3 Asparagus using the N1 Block A stage
Payload to LEO: 330.3 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 2.04

>With a N1 Block A Stage on top of an S3 Asparagus using the N1 Block A stage
Payload to LEO:193.3 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 1.9

>>With a N1-1969 stack on top of 3 N1 Block A stages with two N1 Block A boosters cross feeding into the 3 N1 Block A stages
Payload to LEO: 420.72 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 1.08(!)

Note that the N1 full stack narrows down significantly the further up the rocket, so it might not be structurally sound to use the full stack. A more practical setup would be the second scenario.

>>10860986
>that's some sick shit doc
Thanks!

>Is the only difference between the first scenario and the third scenario the asparagus setup?
Yes. The second scenario has each of the pairs Block A's act like a normal asparagus stage. The third scenario has the last pair be bolted to the core stage, acting like one big stage.

>>10860936
>Saturn V full stack with S-IC boosters cross feeding into the core S-IC
Payload to LEO: 194.7137 metric tons
Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 1.75

>>10861002
>Yes. The FIRST scenario has each of the pairs Block A's act like a normal asparagus stage. The third scenario has the last pair be bolted to the core stage, acting like one big stage.
Correction, again. It seems like I'm not all together today. I might need more sleep.

Is there a reason why China doesn't have international modules planned for it's space station? I imagine that Russia would make a great partner. The Chinese have money and the Russians have experience. It would also help keep Russia less reliant on finicky American programs.

>>10860681
>>10860665
kek

>>10861002
>Payload to LEO: 194.7137 metric tons
>Thrust-to-weight ratio on the pad: 1.75
Looks like we'd need to stretch that hydrolox second stage in order to get better performance, no?

>>10861042
nobody trusts the chinese enough to work with them.

>>10861042
It's because the Chinese want 100% total control over all of their shit, they may let other countries dock vehicles to their station at some point but the modules are gonna be all Chinese

>>10858410

I like this virgin blue origin vs Chad SpaceX meme

>>10860630
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMRll73oB9M

>>10861086
SLS A SHIT

>>10859964
>BE4 still hasn't lifted anything

>>10861152
Isn't New Glenn and Vulcan slated to launch in 2021? At least that's sooner than SLS.

Will Starship become the Douglas DC-3 of rocketry? They even look alike.

>>10858428

>>10858433
I suppose NASA would be serving leftover emergency rations from 1960s fallout shelters.

>>10858441
>>starhopper flew

That's a very, very loose use of the word "flew."

>>10858638
To be 100% fair, we don't really know what the 2020s rocket will actually look like until it is built. They may change their minds about stuff.

But as it stands, I wish they'd thumb their nose at everything and put a hood ornament near the nose.

>>10859106
The Colliers/Disney renderings of Von Braun's concepts were the best rocket porn, though.

>>10859159
I'm not sure you really want it to be landing at LAX or ORD anyway.

>>10859288
"The Core" when?

>>10859472
>what it really is

A concept that has not been finalized or built yet?

>>10861183
The parallels are there except SpaceX will be the sole operator, so maybe its not the best comparison.

>>10859659
So say I am in he green area -- what do I experience? Just a noise like thunder, or the windows blowing out, or what?

>>10859704
Spiro did not have the authority to do that.

NSF gets too much praise. 80% of the posts are shitty conjecture that offer little substance.

>>10859737
>t this point I'm convinced that public companies all inevitably...

>>10860346
>Correct. If at any point a company requires public gibs...

I think 346 does not know what a public company is.

>>10860320
the "raptor" engine has been in development for 4 years longer

>>10859751
>And what SHOULD Starships be named?

Hot Needle of Inquiry
New Horizons
Millennium Falcon Heavy
Cavorite
Gallileo
Korolev
Tsiolkovsky
Armstrong
Buzz's Mighty Fist
Lindbergh
Von Braun
Molly Brown II
Rigel (Re-Eagle, for first moon landing)
Henry (for The Navigator King of Portugal)
Planet Express Ship
Gagarin
Freedom 7.1
Leonov
Big Gemini (homage to the best spaceship thta didn't get built)
Gotta be an "Enterprise"

Gay Deceiver might be too problematic

>>10859868
>even if everything goes as planned, the whole thing just burns up on reentry anyway.

The knowledge does not burn up.

>>10859988
Can we name one "Proxmire?"

Oldfags will understand.

>>10861303
>Buzz's Mighty Fist
Absolutely based.

>>10860411
Other than the incessant exploding?

>>10861275

You will shit yourself.

I remember being under a bunch of F-111s that were fucking off out in West Texas and they would go supersonic to impress all the summer camp kids watching below. That shit is beyond loud.

Something the size of Starship coming in at orbital speeds, then kicking off a bunch of bigassed rockets? It's going to sound like the end of the world.

>>10861307

Name one after Mondale, too.

>>10860717
>someone do the math and figure out how much payload this thing gets into LEO

The little fragments that the explosion throws that far.

>>10859751
Event Horizon

>>10859751
Untitled Space Craft

>>10859751
>And what SHOULD Starships be named?

We need Warhammer40k names, Elon pls

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Imperial_Navy_Vessels_(List)

>>10861314
If this is so, they have a big problem they better address sooner rather than later. Look at the crap noise abatement requirements put pilots and aircraft through around urban airports. And then the "You are endangering the rare Easily Startled Woodpecker" suits...

>>10861330

The continental US is out for landing this thing. It's just not going to happen. The only exception might be somewhere out in Whogivesafuckville, Nevada. Maybe. But no matter where you go to land this thing, even in a desert, the big aerospace companies will astroturf up some dissent from the environmental groups to sue SpaceX out of using Starship.

Honestly, Musk is so committed to this thing that he'll just go somewhere that doesn't care about the issue. Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Eqypt... anywhere with a bunch of open, wasted space.

>>10861347
>Whogivesafuckville, Nevada
How about Whogivesafuckville, Missouri? At least there will be something interesting happening here other than yet another meth lab bust.

>>10861160
New Glenn is 2021, not sure about Vulcan

>>10860026
Right answer here

>>10861351

Texas might go for it. We like creating jobs just to piss off the Lefties.

The only problem is that for Starship to work as intended, it has to land almost directly on the pad from which it launches. Unless it launches seaside, in which case it can maybe land on a fuckhuge drone ship. That would mean we could launch it off the Gulf coast and land it in the Gulf. Still, it's problematic.

>>10860027
Considering they are intended to be reused, they are bound to eventually be used in important missions, not to mention that naming them makes it easier for the public to track which ships were/are being used

>>10859751
If SpaceX says that they'll name the rockets after senators the SLS dies in the next day

>>10861275
2.0 psf is going to wake you up
it's not going to be killing old ladies and setting off car alarms but you're going to notice it

>>10861328
this

>>10861347
>But no matter where you go to land this thing, even in a desert, the big aerospace companies will astroturf up some dissent from the environmental groups

You underestimate the extent to which environmental groups are self-activating. Any community living in a "windows rattle daily" zone is going to chime in as well.

A flight or two in a year might pass muster even so -- regular flights landing anywhere near civilization are out.

Buy stock in barge companies, I would suggest.

>>10861396

>>10859581
If NASA thinks Starship is a quantum leap, would that mean they'll worship Musk if he lands on the moon? What about if he lands BEFORE SLS? free rimjobs?

>>10861351
>t. butthurt Nevadafag

>>10859964
>As always, I would love to know more.
KEK Cheeky as fuck. Knowing that BlueOrigin is tightlipped and will never say anything.

>>10861472
skunk manlet just comes across as cringey here

>>10861396
>>10861303
"Barfin' Jake Garn"

>>10861330
>>10861347
As I pointed out earlier, shift that sonic boom map west to Boca Chica instead of Canaveral, and it's in Mexico. They have bigger problems than the occasional sonic boom. They've got drug cartels cutting off people's fucking heads to worry about.
The few parts of Texas inside that range are low population aside from RGV and the coastal tourism area. RGV will be getting jerbs from those sonic booms, and tourists will be coming to hear them.

>>10861431
It's the sound of FREEDOM. And yee-hah.

>>10861471
I'm from Missouri, doofus. There's like hardly any aerospace stuff going on here.

>>10861483
I've never met anyone from missouri who liked missouri

Why does anyone live there?

>>10861329
Some of those names are pure kino.
I really like "Dominus Astra".

>>10861506
Because I was born here and too poor to move out. The state is alright (the rolling hills and low light pollution is beautiful. Seriously how can people handle flat states?), it's just that nothing happens in the very rural areas and that no big rocketry stuff happens here.

>>10858428
20 hours in photoshop

>>10861303
I wonder if might have nations pay for their payloads on starship as well as the privilege to name them. Russians would pay bank for a Gagarin desu. Along that thought. because I sort of doubt rus can stomach another heavy launch vehicle in the next 50 years

>>10861470
They'll just quietly start buying rides and come up with some contorted logic to justify continued work on SLS.

>>10861519
>Seriously how can people handle flat states?
Having lived with mountains within viewing distance for most of my life I think I would go mad if I lived somewhere flat, unless maybe it's a city with enough tall buildings to keep the horizon covering it up.

Starting to feel like that with having large bodies of water visible, too. Only been near water for the past 5 or 6 years but I think I'd be bummed if I had to live somewhere deep inland without any large lakes.

>>10861527
>Russians would pay bank for a Gagarin
>Not Putin's Pleasure

>>10858428
>>10858410
I win

>>10861482
This guy gets it. Musk is going to fuck Mexico with a Boca Chica-based spaceport for Starship ops, and the Texans will be 1000% OK with it because it will transform the local economy with both industry and tourist jobs like Canaveral did to the Titusville area.

>>10859751
They should name them after the space shuttles to twist the knife in NASAs back by reminding them of how far they've fallen.

Reminder that a solid rocket booster about 6.6 meters in diameter and 30.48 meters long was planned to be used as a first stage of a rocket to send people into space.

http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnint-05a.html

>>10861652
>1.81 MB
Why?
Kill yourself.

August 24th confirmed for Starship update.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1157801794069827584
Either Cocoa or Boca Chica it seems

>>10861816
THATS STILL 20 FUCKING DAYS AWAY

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>10861816
>mid july
>hop next week, presentation week after

>>10861831
It's only a month late, in the aerospace industry that's ahead of schedule.

>>10859659
Yup. I'm calling it. Starship for interearth transport is going to be DOA.

>>10860648
FUCK SLS AND FUCK SHELBY!

>>10861816
Pretty much right on time, given the past BFR updates have been in the fall.
In other news, if you look at the older replies, Elon still can't get over the falcon 1 flight 4 "spacex almost died" thing.

>>10861864
It's crazy how far they have come in just over a decade since Falcon one.

>>10861690
It's already a big tourist area.

>>10861851
>"THATS IT!!! IM CANCELLING SPACEX!!!"

Question, if Shelby really wanted to, then can he even do something like that?

>>10861795
Where is optimizebro when one needs him?

>>10861918
mighty daring for a man within orbital bombardment range

>>10861920
He optimized himself out of our plane of existence. He's gone to us mere mortals.

Mk1 starship will be almost done with 3 raptors for the presentation says musk

>>10861925
it's just going to be Starhopper Mk2 at that point unless it has aerosurfaces, which I doubt

>>10861795
it's ok anon pls don't hurt me

>>10861924
He is probably made of strange matter now

>>10861931
Looks nice.

>>10861931
much better

>>10861938
thnaks I applied a 5% blue effect to the original image to remove the noise

SLS is no more of a launch system and more of a gib jobs pls project
disgusting, only hope on a private sector and other countries like Russia

>>10861948
I doubt that Russia would do much to push spaceflight unless they clean up their corruption (which is apparently worse than what Shelby and crew is doing with NASA). As for non-American spaceflight, China has a really good chance to push it.

>>10861291
Being a public company is different from being granted public funding by a government because you are too big to fail.

>>10861925
Surely he is talking about another three engines in starhopper? Those starship prototypes look a long way off. Then again the pace of this whole thing has been pretty ridiculous and they have probably figured out most of the tank plumbing and engine integration lessons from starhopper.

>>10861925
Looks like he confirmed the presentation will be at Boca in the same tweet.

>>10861961
Long way off? They’re done with the segment stacking. The thrust structure is being prepped.

>>10861696
I'd kek aloud

>>10861773
I thought it was going to be attached to the side of a version of Nova

>>10861966
The segment building part of the hopper was much, much shorter than the period up until the test. But like I say they have probably learned a lot about the integration side now so we can expect it to be shorter.

>>10861972
The Nova was proposed to use massive SRBs, but I'm not sure if AJ-260s would be used. All of the Nova's that use a solid propellant first stage prefer to use a bundle of smaller motors rather than one massive motor.

>>10861773
Late 60s-late 80s NASA was lit AF, what the hell went wrong?

>>10861851
Two-birds-one-stone it and fuck Shelby with the SLS since he loves it so much

>>10861986
You can make a saga about the things that lead to it's "downfall" after Apollo, but I think it can be summed up broadly into two points. Hopefully I don't get too much wrong.

>NASA was highly politicized from the very beginning
NASA, in the eyes of the US government, was a political tool to display American superiority to the Soviet Union. Thus NASA was made with alot of direct government control built into it. During Apollo this was an advantage because the government had one major goal for NASA, to go to the moon. And thus any mission that didn't contribute to going to the moon in some way was cut off and it's efforts redirected to Apollo, thus making NASA highly focused. Meanwhile in the Soviet Union, while the Soviet government had much more direct control over it's space program compared to the US, they sort of allowed their space program to do whatever it wanted resulting in poor focus and lots of side (often competing) projects.

Once the drive to the moon was over, the US government didn't really have a need for a strong space program. So NASA was scaled down, and other non-space benefits of NASA (like "muh jerbs") were emphasized. This allowed for corruption to easily settle in. The highly politicized nature of NASA is also what made it very vulnerable to shifting political winds, as each administration wanted to be their own Kennedy, but didn't want to continue the mission (i.e. legacy) of their predecessor.

(1/2)

d e p o t s

>>10862007

>>10862004
(2/2)

>Severe budget cuts leading to desperate measures
NASA was hit hard when it's budget was slashed after Apollo. It had plans for moon bases and beyond, but Congress was imaging the high bill required and didn't want that. So NASA had to be reined in and so it's budget was cut so that it could only focus on LEO operations. I suspect that this also included trashing any working Apollo equipment (such as the capsule and Saturn V) as those could be used for a BEO mission, to Congress NASA had to focus on LEO with a new vehicle specifically for LEO. This new vehicle, however, was given very little budget. Most likely due to Congress not really caring about NASA post-Apollo, but also (probably) to make sure that NASA doesn't make a vehicle that's too capable.

This was a massive shock to NASA, all of a sudden the dreams of a heavily involved future in space were gone. Instead, a new goal, just focusing on not being discontinued. This resulted in the Shuttle which had a long and complicated development that I won't get into. But one thing I want to highlight about the Shuttle was how much NASA was selling the Shuttle around. National payloads? Shuttle. Spy sats? Shuttle. Science? Shuttle. Commercial payloads? Shuttle. Everything in American spaceflight suddenly had to center on the Shuttle, not because it was a do-it-all vehicle, but because it was necessary to keep manned spaceflight capability (and perhaps even relevancy) in the hands of NASA.

This mindset of "doing whatever it took to still be around" most likely persisted for a long time after Apollo and resulted in NASA making decisions that weren't optimal for a space program. But at the time, it felt that it was necessary in order to prevent American spaceflight from reverting to before NASA even began.

The effects of these two points can still be felt today. Hopefully it'll get fixed with the rise of persistent non-American space programs and private companies which are showing the flaws of NASA.

>>10861294
Source?
BO claimed the BE4 was finished a while back, but found out their turbo pump system was under powered and had to redo it.

>>10862007
Has more evidence of SLS holding back propellant depots surfaced? Sure, George Sowers's personal account is telling, but it's just one guy's word which can be dismissed.

>>10861918
>Question, if Shelby really wanted to, then can he even do something like that?
No, he can make their lives a little bit harder but nothing more than that

>>10862004
>>10862016
Were it not for Walt Disney inspiring america to give a shit about space then NASA wouldn't even exist and wouldn't have made so many meme bottlerockets. Superiority over the Soviet Union wasn't even a factor until people started realizing war could also be waged in space.

>>10862026
It's go hard to get people to be interested in space, because it's to detached from most people's lives. And that sucks. Plus there's that whole idea that "nerdy things" aren't important, and space is considered nerdy.

>>10860648

>>10862064
>SLS killing Artemis
What? I thought that Artemis was a part of SLS.

>>10862072
Just like Apollo I am willing to bet the number of flights will be cut back.

https://twitter.com/vincent13031925/status/1157491466001735680

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1157541685980610560

>>10861307
>>10861315
Their names are better saved for mining stations that turn a massive fucking profit.
>Mondale Fuel Station - Commercial Lunar ISRU Plant
>Edward W. Proxmire Memorial Station - Commercial Platinum Group Metals Mine and Refinery (on either the moon or an asteroid)

I don't like how pop-culture-y spaceflight seems to have gotten since SpaceX took off. It's not so much that I really care anymore, over time i've come to appreciate the technical achievements more than getting caught up on branding, but my subjective preference is definitely for the tone NASA used to strike even if it was much more boring for most people. It's hard to pin it down much more than that. Maybe I just hate fun.

>>10862201
you probably just hate fun
it's better to ignore pretty much everything anybody says except for respectable space news people, SpaceX themselves (who tend not to fuck around too much unless Elon is personally memeing), or NASA
Also I guess Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada Corp exist, they have cool shit

new thread
>>10862203

>>10862206
you big dumb

>>10862208

>>10862212
nah m8

>>10862206

>>10862018
>BO claimed the BE4 was finished a while back, but found out their turbo pump system was under powered and had to redo it.
Source?

elon is beeposting again. Someone stop him.

>>10862311
Great photo.
Starhopper is fucking based.
Godspeed SpaceX.

>>10862311
kino

>>10862206
why are you such a fucking nigger, this thread is still up

>>10861251
That's what Boring Co is for.

>>10861217
DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!

>>10862355
wherever he is, he must also shitpost

>>10862355
but why is he bee posting

>>10863976
because he's a shitposter