/sci/ - Science & Math

Reminder:
>"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."

>>10862217
uppermost kek

>>10862217
even odds of being able to replace falcon heavy with starship by 2021

>>10862227
I'd wait until the third successful launch of Starship before I'd change that copy-pasta just to be on the safe side. But holy mackerel, imagine the keks if that happens.

I don't follow IRL space stuff at all really.
Is there a reason that the lunar missions didn't rendezvous both in Earth and lunar orbit, so they didn't have to bring re-entry shit with them to the moon and back? Obviously LOR or EOR is more efficient than a direct route, so why not both? I'm assuming it was just concerns about the ability to successfully rendezvous twice as many times and life support in the event of a failure? It seems to just be better, as well as give you the option to go from the surface to LEO in two separate rockets if you deemed that better.

>>10862201
The problem is that NASA's newer post-apollo tone doesn't resonate or inspire the masses, and that's a big problem that has its existence and pursestrings at least partially controlled by the country's citizens.

Of course if they were popping off major mission after major mission that wouldn't matter, but they haven't been and with all the cancellations and delays that have piled up, the public is losing faith in them.

So really, the only way to re-ignite that public fire is to do as SpaceX has been.

>>10862217
that is funny af

JWST will never fly
SLS will never fly
Orion will never fly

>>10862235
They needed to bring reentry shit to the Moon because the way they got back was aerobraking

>>10862235
Because the CSM is moving fast as fuck when it falls back towards Earth, and aerobraking is a hell of a lot more efficient than using a rocket to slow back down.
Without aerobraking you would basically need to haul a second fully fueled S-IVB all the way to the moon and back.

fuel depots

>>10862498

Space programme CANCELLED

>>10862417
>>10862497
Thanks. Aerobraking makes since and explains it; in my head they were fully in LEO and that wasn't an option, so they'd have to burn again to re-enter. Simply re-entering straight into atmo when coming out of the Lunar well makes sense though.

>>10862417
>>10862497
Thanks. Aerobraking makes sense and explains it; it's easier to just go straight there from the Lunar well rather than burning again to descend from a stable LEO.

fuck SLS

>>10862573
cheers, galaxy brain

>>10862573

>>10862498
what the fuck did you just say?

>>10862498
What the fuck did you just fucking say, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my comittee in the Senate, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on NASA budget, and I have over 300 confirmed launch delays. I am trained in embezzlement and I'm the top senator in the entire US Senate. You are nothing to me but just another propellant depot. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth or low orbit, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, contractor. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of congressmen across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the jobs program, maggot. The jobs program that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your orbital refueling. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can defund you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unmanned combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the NASA Astronaut Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable fuel depot off the face of the planet, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the pork, you goddamn idiot. I will shill fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

>>10862260
The public didn’t even care about Apollo after the first landing. And they only cared about that because it was a nationalist dick waving contest against the USSR.

Even at that JFK tried to have it cancelled a few months before he was shot. Everyone seems to forget that one. Had JFK not been shot Apollo probably would have been canned.

>>10862203
>your daily reminder that we have spent much more real funding on manned spaceflight since Apollo ended than was spent on Apollo itself

>>10862789
Inflation.

>>10862800
>He can't read the fucking graph

What's the point of all this shit if space travel is physically impossible ?
All that money and shit wasted on rockets could go to the poor.
FTL will never happen nerds

>>10862800
inflation adjusted you dumb fuck

>>10862917
no need for FTL to colonize the galaxy, we have plenty of time

2017 BFR is back on the menu

>>10862937
Nah they likely haven’t updated the CGI yet. Dearmoon posted some pics recently and they were the older stainless CGI images

>>10862940
They have newer renderings of that scene

Bros I get depressed knowing that beyond our planet there is so much we don't know. Why can't we just become a multi-planetary species REEEEEEEE

>>10862954
We will, just not in our lifetime

>>10862382
And nothing of value is lost.

JWST probably won't launch before the first orbital Starship flights at this point, and Starship is big enough that they could build a monolithic mirror satellite that would out-perform JWST's folding mirror setup, the only deployable bit of hardware it'd probably still need would be the sunshield.

SLS is obviously replaced by Starship, wholesale.

Orion a shit.

>>10862917
>if space travel is physically impossible
It isn't, dummy. Do you mean interstellar travel? Also not impossible, it just takes a lot longer and requires way better propulsion, also note that scaling your ship up makes certain propulsion tech feasible and then practical, in the same way that a staged combustion bipropellant engine is not practical or feasible to build at the scale of a one newton thruster.

>>10862937
Am I the only one that kinda liked the 2017 BFR design more than the current 3 flap/leg one? It was more hand-wavy with the legs but IMO the lack of those nose flaps make sit look better. 2016 space whale is still the best of course.

>>10862982
>Dude interstellar travel is possible it just takes thousands of years
So impossible? why would you bother

Writefag here. I've got a question about mass drivers that Google and Projectrho can't answer. If the lunar ore is being carried in ferromagnetic pods, why not use another magnetic track to slow the payload down instead of that net thing that Gerard O'Neil came up with?

>>10863097
have you ever shot bullet into the barrel of another gun?

>>10862992
If interplanetary colonization is possible, interstellar colonization will follow eventually pretty much no matter what.

If you can colonize Mars, you can colonize asteroids. All the same life support tech is involved, the only difference being in an asteroid you need to spin up your habitat bottle to make artificial G.

If you are colonizing asteroids, you are building lots and lots of bottle ships/stations in orbit of the Sun, which are mostly independent form one another except for minor shipments of more rare resources until they reach population cap and stop requiring any more shit except energy.

If you are building lots and lots of mostly self contained habitat ships, you can colonize the entire solar system, and your population can continue to grow and grow (even the mass of the asteroid belt alone would be enough to make enough habitats that your population could outnumber Earth's human population by a million to one easily)

At this point you have hundreds of thousands if not millions of space habitats orbiting the Sun full of people who are the descendants of Earth natives but which have lived their entire lives in space. Each habitat is self sufficient for long periods, has a population of thousands or more, and has enough industrial capability to provide products and services to those people it contains. Now, in order to do an interstellar colonization mission, you literally only need a small fraction of your total population to decide to do it, get themselves a handful of habitats plus a stockpile of additional resources, and to sling themselves away form the solar system.

In such a scenario, with a large enough fleet, this civilization could be colonizing other stars using chemical propulsion alone. It's more likely that they'd at minimum be using nuclear fission of some kind, and possibly fusion, but they wouldn't even need it.

The only way interstellar travel doesn't happen is if interplanetary colonization is impossible.

>>10863097
see >>10863101
it requires not just incredibly good aim, but also maneuvering capability on the part of the projectile (because chaotic deviations due to the impossibility of knowing the exact initial conditions), at which point you aren't firing dumb slugs of material but rather outright vehicles, which kinda defeats the purpose of a mass driver which is to get as much material shoved towards something as possible for as cheaply as possible. You'd either be expending those smart-pods or you'd need to get them back somehow, which would either be extremely expensive or severely cut into the actual payload mass percentage of the thing you were shooting out of your mass driver.

>>10863101

I'm kind of a brainlet but I think that's a false equivalency. I don't see why a canister that's launched by magnets can't be slowed down by another magnetic array. Maybe even one that's cone shaped in order to account for it being slightly off-course.

>>10863128
no, it's a perfectly legitimate comparison, and it's stupid
magnetic deceleration is wizard shit and not practical

>>10862382
JWST will be outdated literally a year after it launches. Next gen of telescopes you could put there with Starship will make it look like a toy.

>>10863128
It wouldn't matter if your magnetic catcher had an opening a kilometer wide, you aren't going to reliably hit that thing using a mass driver from hundreds of thousands of kilometers away.

>>10863138
This, this is the worst part

>>10862937
Getting just the smaller stainless Starship would be beyond incredible, but if they've figured out a way to jump straight to something like the original BFR concept… holy fuck

>>10863117
>If interplanetary colonization is possible, interstellar colonization will follow eventually pretty much no matter what.
><snip>
Which is why it's so crucial to push hard and get over that initial hump. Once that's been accomplished, the rest is more or less an inevitability.

Until then, we're playing a dangerous game, because the longer humanity farts around with its spacefaring capabilities, them more likely it becomes that it'll lose them before achieving critical mass.

>>10862992
>long equals impossible
Retard

>>10863124
>>10863146

I see. I was under the impression that mass drivers can be made relatively accurate since the NSS' old mass catcher design had a 100m mouth. I've been using these as references (https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/Chapt5.html)) (https://space.nss.org/colonies-in-space-chapter-6-the-moon-miners/))

>>10863134
How so?

>>10863244
it's a fucking party trick, the level of precision required is unpractical

>>10863117
>If you are building lots and lots of mostly self contained habitat ships, you can colonize the entire solar system
yes, with JELLO BABIES

hopefully this long-ass delay until next hop means more development

what do you guys make of Elon not dropping a Starship update?

>>10863325
It's probably just scheduling conflicts. When he said "a week after first hop" that was probably off-the-cuff, but after actually sitting down and looking at his calendar he realized that time wasn't realistic. Dude's busy.

>>10863331
>Road closures in Boca Chica are planned for August 9 and 12-14.

Elon said they want to get the 3 engine version of Starhopper ready for the presentation so the gap between two events probably has to do with that.

>>10862235
Coming back from the mmon, you'd build up a lot of speed. That's falling a LONG way!

So you'd need to slow down.

You can either carry fuel to do that, or a heat shield and slow down by just ramming the atmosphere protected by your heat shield.

The latter turned out to be lighter/easier.
.

>>10862749
>Even at that JFK tried to have it cancelled a few months before he was shot.

Sauce?

Britbong here... the constant cucking of our space programs are the most pathetic and annoying things to read about.
>megaroc could have put a man in space in 1951 and made our space program 10 years more advanced than the US and USSR
>black arrow would have allowed independent rocket launches for the UK and its EU allies but NASA literally conned us into abandoning it then removed the free flights promised for our own space programs
>HOTOL engine built in 1982 was de-funded and classified to protect the SR-71 blackbird
>SABRE now being bought up by US mega corps which will probably remove any and all acknowledgement of our achievements once again..
God fucking damn it..

>>10863373
you did this to yourself, just like we have committed this grave sin of 50 years ourselves

>>10862789
To be fair, that's spending for a decade compared to spending over the next multiple decades.

I'm curious -- in manned (sorry, "piloted") I am guessing "other" means whatever the modern equivalent of the X-15 is (or maybe administration and such?), but what is "Space Exploration?" Is that how they're labeling booster/spacecraft development?

>>10862917

Yes yes we should stop wasting money on things like exploration and science so we can feed more plebs

might as well bulldoze the amazon so we can build basedbean farms and welfare housing

>>10862917
>All that money and shit wasted on rockets could go to the poor.

>Chants "Whitey's on the Moon" in Trollish.

>>10862992
>>Dude interstellar travel is possible it just takes thousands of years

Troll more gently.

>>10862917
>What's the point of all this shit if space travel is physically impossible ?
It's not. Have you missed something called Apollo?

>All that money and shit wasted on rockets could go to the poor.
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.

>FTL will never happen nerds
Even if that's true, then it still doesn't invalidate the previously states points.

>>10863138
>JWST will be outdated literally a year after it launches.

And?

"Outdated" telescopes all over the world are getting a lot of use, all the time.

There's an awful lot of shit up there to peer at.

>>10863317

>>10863317
>Jello Baby meme
Everyone agrees spin gravity stations at 1g are enough to prevent that problem, and you can easily house a trillion people around Sol in such stations. The only question is where the cutoff lies below 1g.

>>10863416
the real question I want to know is how high can you turn it up before it becomes self-defeating and you just hurt yourself

>>10863419
>imagine going to space station /fit/ where it spins so fast that it's 3g on the inside for extra gains

>>10863425
>literally setting up a hypergravity chamber

>>10863419
I'm not sure how to calculate it, but somewhere around where the heart stops being able to effectively circulate blood to the head or out of the legs. You'd start to see weaker people dying in droves of thrombosis-related embolisms.

>>10863373
It is so odd. The country clearly has mad skillz but is utterly cucked by its politicians. They seem to literally hate the UK as if we were irretrievably subverted decades ago. But if they have the place that much why the hell.wouldn't they fuck off somewhere else? I just don't get it.

>>10863428
>be me
>just joined a new space gym
>2g on the living levels
>feel like I'm obese even though I'm super skinny
>walking down to the deeper parts of the station where the gym is wore me out
>continue anyways
>even the small dumbbells feel like they weigh a ton
>keep pushing forward but getting ready to give up
>suddenly see this guy sprinting down the running part of the gym
>he's running against the rotation like a madlad
>looks like it doesn't even phase him
>hfw he runs by me to tell me to keep up the good work
>forced out a couple more reps from myself from the motivation boost
>today was a good day

>>10863442
>he's running WITH the rotation like a madlad
oops, got my understanding of centrifugal forces wrong.

>>10863442

YOU GOTTA SPIN BIG TO GET BIG

LEAVE EARTHLINGS BEHIND COME ON

>>10863449
Unfortunately, living on a high-g station from a young age would disproportionately be likely to reduce your maximum height. They would become Manlet factories, producing colonies filled with a race of manlets.

>>10863449
TWO GEE?!?! TWO FRICKN GEE?!?!?! THOSE ARE BABY GEES!!!

FOUR GEE OR GO HOME!!!! MOAR SPIN!!! MOAR RADII!!!

>>10863454
>super manlets

based

>>10863454
just need an interior ring of 1g for the younglings

>>10863454
They'd be Tolkien-esque dwarves, short and stocky.

>>10863464
It's more likely to be a race of swole Ben Shapiros.
>the horror

>>10863475
Why Ben Shapiros? I don't know enough about him to get the joke.

>>10863454
>Low G for zoomers
>High G for boomers

PEOPLE OF THE EARTH FEDERATION! HOW CAN YOU BE SWOLE WHEN YOUR GAINZ ARE HELD DOWN BY EARTH'S GRAVITY!?

Hard to imagine how marslets can live through their micro g lives without dreading over all of their lost gains.

SPIN TO WIN!

>>10862972
>>10863138
It takes time to build telescopes. JWST has a bunch of custom electronics and even MEMS devices. It takes a while to make them and test them. Really pretty much every telescope is outdated by the time it gets built.
>>monolithic mirror
Multi-part mirrors are the future anon. Once we get robotic assembly working we can make 100 meter aperture scopes and bigger. Even telescopes on the ground are abandoning monolithic mirrors because they don't scale. JWST is actually one of the best things NASA is doing right now.
>>10863097
Read Red Moon. Kim Stanley Robinson's Chinese Moon colony uses one to slow down cans full of people from orbital velocity. Although the cans need to targeted within centimeters it's not to bad if you have the slightest bit of maneuverability.

spess gainz

>>10863499
>Chad asteroid dwellers
>virgin marslets

>mfw the station managers reduce the spin of the Gainzstation-4
>apparently 10 RPM risks compromising the structural integrity of the station

THOSE PUSSIES!!! MOAR SPIN!! MOAR GEES!!!

>>10863464
Does that then make the lanky belters elves?

>tfw the future is LotR in space

>>10863523
hey bruh, we can't support all these 5 g high intensity training pods hanging off otherwise.

>>10863526

Spacers would likely be the only halfway normal faction in the entire system if they went with O'Neill cylinders as habitats.

> Martians and Mooners are lanky and weak
> Earthers are malnourished welfare babies
> Spacers grow up in 1g habitats with clean water, enough food and proper medicine

They'd probably train their military and athletes in 1.2 or 1.3g habs for years on end. With that kind of advantage, they would be nightmares in hand to hand combat.

>>10863557
hand to hand combat is dead and will be even more as time passes

>>10863567

>t. basedboy that got beaten up in middle school and still can't throw a punch

Here we go: we've done 1.5g sustained tests for seven days with no apparent ill effects
>https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-range-of-gravity-that-human-beings-can-tolerate-in-the-long-term/answer/Jared-Olson
2g starts to strain the body within a day. From 3g to 4g, fatigue becomes significantly limiting even when resting. At 4g and up your cardiovascular system starts to shit itself.

>>10863579
so it's between 2g and 4g for workouts and resting at sub 1g

>>10863567

Only if you just assume that any and all enemy assets will be destroyed entirely during any engagement. If you actually intend to capture anything in space, you're probably going to have to do it with dudes beating the shit out of people.

> try to take over a ship with a NSWR drive
> fire one round in the wrong direction
> fuel feed system is holed
> everyone is too busy fighting to plug the leak
> fuel forms a critical mass
> boom

I agree with you in part, though. If your goal is just to eradicate the other guys and rebuild everything, then just spam a Macross Missile Massacre and call it a day. If not, you're going to be fighting a boarding action in a confined space filled with things that react very poorly to kinetic weapons.

>>10863567
This. Although, it's still a good idea to have stronger infantry so they can carry more equipment. If nothing else, then they can carry more armor to protect themselves. However, spacers will not be the only ones who will enjoy this advantage for long as Terra and Mars would institute their own high g training programs to make stronger troops.

This means that the average troop would not only need to carry the extra armor to protect themselves, but also carry the arms necessary to defeat the armor of the enemy. As the power of arms increases, the amount of armor need to be effective would increase. Thus troops would need to carry even more mass on their bodies. Which at the beginning, higher g training would be used to gain more strength.

Eventually though, as the arms race continues, the strength a soldier would need to have to carry the modern arms and armor necessary would increase to the point where relatively cheap high g training would no longer supply. Either armor that can carry it's own weight, or genetic engineering would be required in order for an army to keep the strength of it's forces competitive. As time goes on, BOTH self-carrying armor and genetic engineering would be needed and...

...oh look.

>>10863586
The laziest method would be sleeping at 1.5g, like how athletes sleep in low-pressure tents to simulate altitude training. Add in interval training at 2-3g with rest days at 1-1.5g and you've got something interesting.

>>10863588

>Implying space war won't be 4GW and terrorism

>>10863608

Read Seveneves.

It's basically just going to be social media flamewars and slow starvation in vacuum.

Why would people want to leave earth to colonize mars/moons/asteroids? Assuming we're able to get them to a livable state and prevent Jellobabies, what makes these new habitats desirable? Earth isn't going to get too populated, once global fertility drops below 2 there should be a surplus of space. Life offworld seems difficult, claustrophobic, and unnecessarily dangerous. At first there would definitely be novelty to drive people but once that wears off I feel like no one would want to leave earth, it is the environment we are best adapted to after all. Is there a way around this? Also, how do we get colonists to breed?

>>10863619
>Seveneves
I can't stand to read it a second time because I realized the sheer scope of the plot holes in the book after I finished it the first time.
>Oh noes, all the males died so we have to use our magic gene sequencing machine to have children until a few hundred years pass and someone reverse-engineers a Y-Chromosome
First, you fuckers launched with a digitized archive of tens of thousands of unique human genomes. Second, you've got all kinds of cell samples all over the former-ISS (some from fresh corpses) from which to harvest the DNA samples you need to produce viable males and females beyond your little cabal of survivors. Your magic gene sequencing machine should be able to work with that information JUST FINE.

>>10863640

>global fertility drops below 2

Yeah, for smart people. The future is idiocracy.

>>10863640
Riches, power, and just for the hell of it. Space colonies also have a bonus feature nation states don't: if you don't like your neighbors, you can relocate your territory and entire population *away* from them.

>>10863640

We will eat this planet down to bedrock. Maybe not as quickly as the alarmists are saying, but it will happen. That's what we as a species do. We run around exploiting resources to extinction. While some societies may see a drop in fertility, not all will because that's how evolution works. It favors those who reproduce the most. It's why the rabbit, which is devoid of any real defenses or even survival instinct beyond "fuck/feed/flee" is an uneradicatable invasive species everywhere it has been introduced while whales can be almost totally wiped out by Quakers with pointy sticks.

Humans will outstrip the carrying capacity of Earth. The end. If we don't want our species to end here, we need to leave.

>>10863644

Oh, I agree. That shit was infuriatingly stupid. The entire latter half of the book was. But the first part was pretty decent. Especially the part where social media essentially killed the species by giving every single fractitious opinion an unassailable platform from which to divide us.

>>10863657

The problem is that the societies whose fertility rates are dropping are the only ones intelligent enough to care about the environment and develop space. The K-selects are gonna have a fun time when we're gone.

>>10863669

Kind of proves my point, though.

non-rocket autist here.
Can someone please explain to me why the shuttle is considered a failure?
I've heard explanations ranging from dangerous boosters to the use of the tiles.
It's just slightly confusing hearing people say the shuttles sucked since they essentially built the ISS.

>>10863652

> future /k/ starts a swarm of O'Neill cylinders
> eventually, it gets big enough to maintain itself during a multi-century flight to another star system
> thousands of years later, a swarm of nuclear armed dreadnoughts crewed by fanatics who worship weapons and dragon dildos shows up
> humanity surrenders all authority to a transgender freak in a suit of power armor built to look like an anthropomorphic dog with a two foot bionic cock and a Soviet era bolt action rifle slung over one shoulder

Yeah.... maybe distance between political factions can be a bad thing?

>>10863698
it was expensive and had very little payload
also it was dangerous, it killed 14 people
to make a long story short, you should stick to either crew or cargo, and not try to do both because rockets aren't completely safe

>>10863698

The ISS could have been more easily built by launching components on heavy lift rockets, then sending crews up in capsules. Read the book Riding Rockets by Mike Mullane for a detailed analysis of why the shuttle sucked written by a guy who actually rode the thing.

>>10863707
>>10863708
thank you rocket autists

>>10863698
>Can someone please explain to me why the shuttle is considered a failure?
This video summarizes it pretty well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja4ZlswGvpE

But the main gist of it is that it failed to deliver on it's promise of driving down launch costs. It ended up being so expensive per launch that to some it seemed like NASA could've done more had they just continued flying Saturn Vs. It was so expensive and it's scope was so small that it didn't really do much more than what a traditional cheaper expendable rocket could do. Thus, NASA was hampered by it's launch system for decades.

>I've heard explanations ranging from dangerous boosters to the use of the tiles.
While those are some pretty severe flaws on the Shuttle, what made them damning was that the Shuttle had no launch escape system. So if something went wrong, then the crew is doomed.

>It's just slightly confusing hearing people say the shuttles sucked since they essentially built the ISS.
I've never heard that. But I think they meant that the ISS was pushed for by NASA so that the Shuttle would have a reason to exist (NASA was scared of losing it's manned spaceflight capability). And since the ISS hasn't really done anything that the Mir hasn't already done, then the ISS may seem worthless to some.

>>10863702
Detail

>>10863702
>Thinks the modern tumblr activists are capable of organizing well enough to survive for more than five years in the void
And that doesn't even get into the problem that an invading fleet would have approaching a system that would almost certainly have the ability to send other ships on interstellar voyages at relativistic speeds: giant fucking lasers with incredible accuracy.

>>10863725

Jesus. Look at you. It's like someone tried to create an AI model of autism and it escaped its home servers.

It was a joke. Not entirely, because I do think that letting vast swaths of humanity just fuck off with other like-minded swaths of humanity can lead to some nasty shit no matter how big the universe is. But yeah... a joke.

>>10863416
>>10863317
We still have no idea how scaling gravity affects long term health. We know 0g bad, 1g good, and 1/6th g subjectively reduced the harms of 0g in Apollo astronauts. What does 1/3g for years do to your health? We have no fucking clue. Jello babies might not be an issue at all, provided you're fine with creating an underclass of human ayys who can never return to Earth.

But belters aren't people so it's fine.

>>10863719
thanks
the expenses probably had a lot to do with the dangers as well
cutting corners to save money, etc.

>>10863735
>everyone's having a great time theorycrafting a plausible but comical chan-flavoured future in space
>REEEEE IT WAS JUST A JOKE REEEE WHY MENTION LASERS LASERS BAD YOU MUST HAVE AUTISM REEE
what the fuck man

>>10863747

The post was that letting people drift off from the rest of humanity can lead to some dangerous political movements.

>>10863752
shut up, nerd

Guys,can somebody post the space girl pic.
The one where the girl looks like one of ELons rockets landing?
I'm trying to get somebody on another thread to edit her into a Mass Effect cityscape wallpaper.

Jello babies?

>>10863752
in what way is that unlikely to happen?
the same damn thing happened with the English colonists in the new world.
cutting yourself off from any person or group forms a gap in the discourse. space travel merely allows for that gap to grow in size.

>>10863763
no, raging belter manlets

>>10863763

The thought is that humans who are born and raised in low gravity environments will have incur deleterious physical features that will preclude them from ever living anywhere but low gravity environments.

>>10863742
Yes, but actually learning about gravity that's between Earth and micro is hard. It's much easier to just relearn what was discovered by Mir about micro-g for decades so we can justify our welfa- erm space program.

>>10863640
>Life offworld seems difficult, claustrophobic, and unnecessarily dangerous.
Only in the early stages due to lack of knowhow and infrastructure. With a little bit of time and experience, space colonies can be engineered to be far more safe, convenient, and even spacious than Earth could ever be. O'Niell cylinders don't have hurricanes, earthquakes, heat waves, cold waves, storms, or floods and can expand as needed.

It's a lot like flight, where it started out super dangerous but in a few decades became by far the safest mode of transport.

>>10863780
It's not fucking hard and not even fucking expensive
>take the money spent on one blockbuster film
>build a moonbase
>???
>we now have a partial gravity research station and, if partial gravity ends up being useful, industrial base

>>10863640
You could replace Earth's atmosphere with poison and not significantly change my lifestyle so long as the infrastructure to deal with it existed
>wake up
>eat breakfast
>put on space suit
>get in car / marsbuggy
>go to work
>take off space suit
>do work
>get in space suit
>go home
>watch youtube videos about the developmental history of french predreadnoughts
>eat
>sleep
>repeat
fuck going outside

>>10863798
>get in space suit
>...
>repeat
every time you repeat that cycle you will gain an additional space suit until you are eventually trapped under hundreds of layers of suit

this is why closing tags is important

>>10863783

It's also economy of scale.

Building one plane at a time in a bicycle shop is a pretty shit economic model when it comes to developing flight technologies. Having dozens of factories on any given continent constantly trying to out-innovate everyone else is what makes things like that work.

It's the same with space. Having a few entities working on these problems isn't going to get much done. Especially when those entities have to balance government spending and political interests with development. But if you can find a way to monetize space and then get lots of people interested in making money there, they'll basically bootstrap the whole thing for you.

Once we figure out how to get businesses interested in space colonization, it's game on. Read Pushing Ice for a nice fictional model of that.

>>10863806
Thankfully Elon and SpaceX allow us to short-circuit that a bit, using the eccentric model of "I have stupid amounts of money and want a specific goal achieved". So you can skip the bicycle shop and go straight to building a massive factory that churns out first generation starships. Except now Starship is capitalized.

>>10863824

One company isn't enough. Two isn't enough. We need dozens. Dozens of competing companies all exploring different technologies and approaches to making money in space. Don't get me wrong here. We're at the very cusp of that right now with SpaceX and whatever Bezos is trying to convince us he's doing. But we need more of that.

I'll tell you how you'll know we're there. When Musk wants to build a launch center in the USA, our government tries to block him from it to preserve its pet defense contractors and he starts looking to buy land in another country. When that forces the US government to back the fuck down and let him build here rather than lose all those jobs and taxable assets, THEN you'll know we're on the right track.

>>10863824
>I have stupid amounts of money
It's not quite so simple. From what we know, his cash situation is rather bleak and has been so ever since he founded Tesla and SpaceX. All of his wealth is heavily leveraged, so his neck is on the line constantly. Fortunately, he's a huge memelord and actually succeeds at getting things done, so people throw money at his ideas.

>>10863847

Honestly, Musk could drop everything but PayPal and the Falcon rocket and its derivatives and make a shit ton of cash every year for the rest of his life. Both of those are profitable as fuck. Tesla bleeds money because the big automakers hate it and Musk's management style is a little.... yeah...... it's Musk.

Other than that, he's doing well. Starship might still be a boondoggle, but Falcon is the tits.

>>10863854
>PayPal
Bruh

>>10863858

It makes money.

>>10863866
He cashed out of PayPal to start SpaceX and Tesla. He has no more stock in PayPal than I do.

>>10863854
Pretty sure Musk sold all his paypal stock

>>10863866
He sold his shares

>>10863886

Well, split my cock and call me Caitlin. I never knew that.

>>10863425
>populations reproducing in 1/3rd gravity eventually results in tall, spindly ayys that can't live on Earth at all due to their weaker hearts
>populations reproducing in 3g eventually results in shorter, much stockier dwarves with more efficient cardiovascular systems, stronger hearts, and much denser muscles, which when visiting Earth can jump high into the air and go toe to toe in a fight with chimpanzees

>>10863462
wew lad

>>10863505
>Multi-part mirrors are the future anon.
Uh huh, and with Starship we can use multi-part mirrors where every mirror segment is 8 meters across, greatly simplifying the design. We can also launch single-mirror-element telescopes that outperform everything currently in space and slated to be put into space in the near future, and do so quickly, because grinding and polishing a single mirror is much faster and easier than grinding and polishing a dozen smaller mirror segments to the correct curvatures so that they all line up to form a single mirror, AND we don't need to develop the technology to be able to swing these mirror segments into position with nano-scale precision.
>robotic assembly
much further away than people realize, even with an entire fleet of Starships in the near future.

>>10863930
You're thinking small. With Starship, we can find a suitably shaped crater on the far side of the moon, and build an Areciebo tier radio observatory with absolutely no radio pollution. With the lower gravity and larger craters than Earth, you could go pretty much as big as you'd like.

>>10863589
that's retarded

>>10863944
Bold words from someone within bolter range.

>>10863940
China is polluting the far side of the moon lol, they have an EML2 relay

>>10863589
And then you get blasted by a spacedurka with an antique RPG, because armor that even vaguely fits on a human body can never defeat weapons a human can easily carry unaided.

>>10863791
did you miss the last part of his post? Read carefully.

>>10863791
>take the money spent on one blockbuster film
$100 million? For a Moon base? Calm down son, it isn't 2025 yet and you can't just lease a Starship for a year to land it on the Moon and see what happens to your astronaut's bones.

>>10863940
>building a large radiotelescope on a huge, immobile surface yet again
when will you learn that the key to observation is time spent staring, not how wide you open your eye

>>10863972
>moon
>immobile
You aren't pushing hard enough

>>10863965
More like $300M for a modern blockbuster but desu I mixed up budget and box office earnings here, I meant more in the $2-10B range.

>>10863791
It's not a money issue. It was never a money issue. It's a goal issue, and right now the goal of some of the most capable space programs are not into space. Whenever someone from those programs say that space is incredibly hard and thus that's why so little has happened for the past decades, they don't really mean that. What they really mean is that to make space easier would require diverting money from non-space goals and thus unacceptable by the money leaches attached to the program. Space can be made easier, it's just not in the interest by the one's holding the wallets.

Remember, propellant depots.

>>10863982
Dude, you can't swivel the Moon to keep your telescope staring at one spot, Arecibo has the same problem

>>10863989
This, NASA hasn't had a goal beyond developing certain bits of hardware since Apollo ended. During Apollo, the goal was 'get to the Moon', after Apollo it became 'build this new launch vehicle, build this station, build this rocket then cancel it then start again over and over' and so forth.

>>10863997
>Dude, you can't swivel the Moon to keep your telescope staring at one spot

But with one rotation in 28 days instead of one in 24 hours, you can look for longer.

>>10863997
you still aren't pushing hard enough then

POST SPESS GRILS!
My laptop has a dead screen,I need my Hayabusa fix.

>>10863989
Can someone explain this propellant depots meme to me

>>10864006
You still get smearing, honestly if you're gonna go to the effort of landing on the Moon and constructing a gigantic radiotelescope, you may as well say fuck that and build your telescope in space directly; radiotelescopes have the advantage that they don't need to have ultra smooth polished surfaces, so a quick weld and grind would actually be more than smooth enough. A simple telescope could be built on a high orbit in resonance with the Moon (for orbital stability) with a main dish a kilometer across consisting of a parabolic truss structure with aluminum sheet metal welded to the interior, perhaps designed to spin at a low rpm to keep the shape of the dish accurate, which would be able to point and stare at any spot in the sky for multiple weeks uninterrupted, and many parts of the sky for an indefinite period. Don't bother mentioning using the Moon as building material, setting up any kind of industry on the Moon will be more difficult, expensive, and slower than just launching the materials from Earth using Starship.

>>10864027
>Propellant depots allow for larger projects in deep space on smaller rockets and thus cheaper launches
>Propellant depots may threaten SLS pork barrel money
>Propellant depots were suppressed
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/rocket-scientist-says-that-boeing-squelched-work-on-propellant-depots/
I'm not sure if it's 100% confirmed, but it seems true.

>>10864026

>>10864029
EML2 radio telescope? would that still be in the shadow of the moon compared to geostationary sats?

>>10864027
https://twitter.com/george_sowers/status/1156602845006708736?s=20

>>10864038
>>10864049
Ahhh

>>10864042
Dunno, just make your own radio shadow to peek out of

>>10864029
The big advantage of a Moon radiotelescope is avoiding interference from earth in the low frequency range. High frequency like microwaves can be shielded to some degree on earth, the issue is that's practically impossible for low frequency. Radio broadcasts go fucking everywhere on earth, the Moon is big enough to block them. You don't even need a dish at these frequencies, just a radio tower or a big long antenna rolled across the surface.

The crew of a Starship atop a failing Superheavy will escape the Big Fucking Explosion via...
https://www.strawpoll.me/18426107

>>10864094
Everyone is voting for Raptor as the escape engine but how the fuck do you get it up to full thrust fast enough?

Could you run a very high pressure "emergency starter fuel" system where hypergolics are forced through the turbopumps at high pressure to get them spinning and the engine burning? Or would that cause huge catastrophic explosions?

>>10864101
it's stainless steel, starship is not going to get damaged
liquid fuel explosions aren't that vigorous, the raptors are half a futbol field away, and there's no side boosters to cause uncontrollable yaw and cause aerodynamic breakup of Starship, and it's designed to be sideways anyway

>>10864101
>but how the fuck do you get it up to full thrust fast enough???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKyZ_7ZjabU&feature=youtu.be

If Earth to Earth starship only requires slightly less dV than low orbital starship, then once there's actually destinations in orbit, Earth to Earth terminals would become Earth to Wherever terminals. You'd simply board your flight, and disembark on the space station of your choosing. All, according to Daddy Elon and Mommy Gwynne, for the cost of an airline ticket. Earth to Earth starship enables an orbital economy.

Can anyone explain to me what makes Starship so much more reusable than Falcon 9? I keep hearing them say it but no details. So it lands then what? It can be refueled and go again? Nothing needs changed?

>>10864118
That's not fast enough. That entire fireball is startup time before full thrust. That's several seconds worth of being attached to an exploding booster.

>>10864125
yeah, and it was fucking fine
being attached to an exploding booster is literally pussy shit compared to reentry

>>10864124
reusable 2nd stage. Designed from the get-go for fast turnaround.

>>10864094
They die

>>10864106
Mate, there is thousands of fucking tonnes of liquid fuel in the booster, if there is a catastrophic failure the vehicle is going to disappear into shrapnel as the liquid fuel generates an explosion the same size as a briefcase nuke.

>>10864124
Falcon: three parts. Fairings, Upper Stage, Booster. Fairings and Booster are currently reused. Upper Stage dicks off into space, cannot be recovered economically.

Starship: two parts. A big fucking booster, that flies back for reuse; and an actual Starship, that also flies back for reuse. Nothing is expended. Starship is basically a really big manned reusable payload fairing capable of going to Mars or delivering cargo to the Moon. It's less like a capsule and more like what you imagine a "starship" to be, an actual space ship for doing things in space.

>>10864130
>Designed from the get-go
You are repeating the company line.

>>10864128
>>10864106
This is such a stupid solution but I can't actually prove you wrong. The only thing I'm concerned about is fast moving fragments of booster damaging Starship. It's rated for fire, but not for flak. Yet.

>>10864124
That picture is retarded. If you are stupid enough to build greenhouses rather than tunnels filled with grow lights then yes you will be building domes as they are vastly easier to keep pressurised so much less and lighter materials can be used than square shapes.

>>10864135
He's right though, and you ignored the part of his post that makes both him and the company line correct. Starship doesn't drop anything. Shuttle dropped tankage, Falcon drops stage 2, Starship drops nothing. Total hardware reuse is the design goal and it looks like they'll achieve it.

>>10864134
>A big fucking booster, that flies back for reuse;
That I get, but it still says nothing about turn-around after it is used.

> and an actual Starship, that also flies back for reuse. Nothing is expended
This I don't get. Ignoring turn-around then what about use case. Sure people and equipment can be unloaded out the side with a crane, but what about standard rocket usage. Won't it still need a fairing if they are launching something into orbit? Or I should say booster + payload with fairing.

>>10864137
>stupid enough to build greenhouses rather than tunnels filled with grow lights
No one is going to waste the sunlight and grow the plants underground with grow lights. Mars sun is 50% of Earth power. That's a lot of free growing power for nothing. Far easier to make a rectangle structure on the surface of Mars vs drilling tunnels or making domes.

>Starship will survive a booster explosion

Are you guys for fucking real? Do you know the size of the explosion the booster will make? It's going to be bigger than a Saturn critical failure which was estimated at 1-2 kilotons or something. If they can build something out of 5mm steel that can survive a small nuclear explosion I think the military is going to be very interested.

>>10864145
>Starship doesn't drop anything.
So it opens the fairing like this concept pic?

>>10864147
>Won't it still need a fairing if they are launching something into orbit?
It has a payload bay like Shuttle.

>>10864133
it takes a long ass time for the fuel to mix, even when you're stirring it with some supersonic wind or deliberately mixing it with an injector plate in a rocket engine
the two worst "catastrophic failures" that can happen to Super Heavy are structural failure (due to fatigue or design defect or overpressure event) and uncontained raptor detonation
structural failure involves the Raptors crushing the pressure vessels like tin cans and spilling LOx and liquid methane all over the upper atmosphere, which will probably ignite in a very large and very slow fireball
Starship will be out ahead of this and getting farther away as all seven or nine or whatever raptors spool up
remember: there's no big fireworks on this rocket or hypergolics that ignite on contact
an engine explosion just means you need to separate yourself slowly from the booster and not get hit by it on your way down to the ocean and burn/dump enough fuel to land
>>10864135
it's a good one, the only part you can doubt is their ability to recover the second stage through reentry economically

>>10864157
>the only part you can doubt is their ability to recover the second stage through reentry economically

I think people are confusing re-usability with turn-around time.

>>10864151
have you ever seen a liquid rocket "explosion"

>>10864147
>Far easier to make a rectangle structure on the surface of Mars vs drilling tunnels or making domes.

Maybe easier than tunnelling but you clearly didn't read my post and you don't understand anything about pressure vessels and why it's easier to build a done than rectangles.

If you want to grow crops on the surface then you either need to heavily genetically engineer them somehow because no earth crop is going to succeed at any decent yield at 50% sunlight, at which point you need to supplement with grow lights anyway. The power issue is totally moot, growing all your food with grow lights isn't going to be more than a few percent of your total energy budget given the ludicrous amount of energy for Sabatier production.

>>10864147
>easier to make a rectangular structure than a dome
Why?

Consider that with an internal pressure of 1atm, it will be fully self supporting. You could build the entire dome out of a couple layers of nylon if you're feeling risky. Throw in some wires to prevent tear propagation and you have a legit Mars dome that fits in a car trunk.

>>10864155
Starship is like shuttle, but put the external tank in the payload bay (which works because lol hydrogen density) and replace the cockpit with a payload bay

>>10864137
>>10864124
>>10864147
>>10864166
It's a scam and reddit meme. Even the redditors called this out as a scam, I'm afraid this brainlet did not.

>>10864165
sabatier is free, it's the electrolysis of the water that gets you

>>10864167
And replace the delicate form fitted foam tiles with polished stainless steel and mass produced ceramic tiles. The fact that Starship is literally just a smooth, symmetrical giant space dildo means a lot less custom tile fitting.

Can you run hydrolox through Raptor? Assume all the control systems are programmed for it, is there a physical reason why you couldn't?

>>10864165
>Maybe easier than tunnelling but you clearly didn't read my post and you don't understand anything about pressure vessels and why it's easier to build a done than rectangles.

I did read it, but tunneling is not an easy thing to do and it doesn't automatically solve the pressure issues. The tunnels would need liners and we are talking a lot of work for something (tunnel boring) that requires a lot of complex machinery on Earth that takes a power plant to bore.

A simple concrete rectangle structure could be 3D printed and all you need to worry about is the glass roof. Very little complex machinery.

>>10864183
A. turbopumps wrong size
B. hydrogen eats metal for breakfast
hydrogen embrittlement is no joke, you need special alloys to cope with it

>>10864166
>Consider that with an internal pressure of 1atm
I should add that some discussion is making the farms less than 1atm. I think it crazy needing a pressure suit to farm, but they are talking about it.

>>10864186
>The tunnels would need liners and we are talking a lot of work for something (tunnel boring) that requires a lot of complex machinery on Earth
It's too bad none of the people who own rocket companies that intend to go to Mars also own boring companies and machinery

>>10864194
You can run 0.2atm with 100% O2 and not need a pressure suit, that's how Apollo did it. But 100% O2 would be worthless for farming.

>>10864174
>it's the electrolysis of the water that gets you
Don't forgot about finding the ice, melting and pumping it before it sublimates, then storing it in insulated tanks.

>>10864186
You are going to be tunneling for habitats anyway unless you want them to die of cancer.

>>10864195
Yeah it is too bad no one has ever set foot on Mars yet alone are thinking about using boring machines made for Earth on Mars. But I know, so easy right, like your witty comment!

>>10864201
there's only one way to find out lol

>>10864197
Why try to frantically process the ice at Mars atmosphere instead of doming the ice mining operation?

>>10864201
>wahhh space is hard wahhh
No shit nigger, do you have something to contribute?

>>10864196
>100% O2 and not need a pressure suit, that's how Apollo did it.
No they didn't!

Three people burned to death because of this.

>>10864206
oh, did they mix a little bit of nitrogen in there? the EVA suits were pure low pressure oxygen, I think

>>10864205
>frantically process the ice at Mars atmosphere instead of doming the ice mining operation?
Sure you can, just easier to pump and store liquid water and they need liquid water regardless. Also sublimation is big issue with the solid ice going directly to gas quickly as soon as you dig it up.

>>10864206
No, three people burned to death because NASA was silly and used a 100% O2, 1atm environment for ground testing. Because the capsule had five times more oxygen in it than it wasas ever designed for, it exploded. All flight missions took place with partial pressure oxygen atmospheres.

>>10864205
Even better, tunnel your habitats into the ice so your tailings are immediately useful.

>>10864210
But that's what I mean by doming the operating. Prevent ice from sublimating by building a dome over the ice excavation. If it does sublimate, it'll just become humidity at 1atm, and we're really good at collecting humidity.

>>10864214
the capsules were only kept at a mixture at takeoff. They were charged over to 100% O2 after liftoff

>>10864221
>accidentally change over to 100% N

>>10864221
The point is mute, now they use 21 percent oxygen and 79 percent nitrogen and I doubt anything would be different on Mars.

>>10864219
>But that's what I mean by doming the operating. Prevent ice from sublimating by building a dome over the ice excavation.

I guess it depends what we are talking about. If we are talking early Mars, then building a dome before they can access water is not going to happen. Later on sure a structure that can deal with issues of mining ice would be a good thing.

>>10864230
if you went with a different nitrox mixture you could maybe prevent the bends in case of depressurization

>>10864230
Lazy dome, just a nylon tent that can be pressurized. Not a big shiny science fiction dome. They could bring something like this with them on the first flight.

>>10864224
>accidentally

>>10864194
Depending on just how low pressure you're talking, pressure suits might not be necessary. NASA's EMU which is used for ISS maintenance operates at less than a third of 1 atm.

With 0.15 atm and a robust breathing apparatus, you'd be fine.

>>10864233
What are the chances of surviving a depressurization to worry about the bends, though? In most cases if you're not suited up and something decompresses unexpectedly, you die.

>>10864241
shove a pillow in the hole and walk out

>>10864242
Martian children will learn the story of the little boy and the dyke, but they'll learn it as a safety lesson. "If you see a hole, shove something in it! Fingers work!"

>>10864237
>just a nylon tent
Go to sleep.

>>10864240
>empire strikes back breathing equipment for the martian ice mines

>>10864244
>If you see a hole, shove something in it! Fingers work!

>>10864244
fingers work, but you'll be feeling it tomorrow
does anybody have pictures of the bruising from that one guy's punctured EVA gauntlet?

>>10864249
is lennyface still an automated ban?

>>10864252
https://youtu.be/APNPFbMvRFk
It's more viable than you'd think

>>10864248
Might want a face shield to prevent eye irritation

>>10862937
The BFR is a fucking joke. It's a pipe dream. Elon Musk is never going to Mars nor is he going to create genetically engineered catgirls to live out your sick fantasy. Please stop with this stupid libertarian pipe dream.

>>10864256
SCBA and one of these

>>10864262

>>10863798
You wouldn't need to wear a space suit if you lived in a domed city or lava tube.

>>10864269
A classic imagine now immortalised for all time.

>>10864261
SCBA and one of these

>>10864273
.The absolute rage from the remaining dregs of oldspace as they see pictures of the first Martian farmers wearing off-the-shelf diving equipment and safety goggles from home depot

>>10864262
The aerospace industry is full of negativity towards moving forward.
>If it were such a great idea then it would've been done before
>It's not that simple
>It costs too much money
>The risks are too great
And that negativity is one of the many reasons why mankind hasn't left LEO for over five decades. Even if BFR doesn't turn out as well as hoped. Even if SpaceX doesn't make it to Mars. The fact that they're pretty much saying "screw it, we're gonna try it anyways!" shows that they have more conviction than NASA who just sort of awkwardly steps around anything difficult because actually trying it would disrupt the status quo too much.

I'd say let Elon Musk push for his catgirls on Mars dream. Better that he tries and fails, than shooting him down early and set a standard that spaceflight should be stagnant.

>>10864262

>>10864284
>Home Depot realizes they could make a profit on Mars and starts selling directly to colonists, eventually setting up a store on Mars
>Suddenly Home Depot needs basic bitch teenage register clerks IN SPACE
This is how you go from space-for-scientists to society-in-space

>>10864293
>This is how you go from space-for-scientists to society-in-space
>inb4 "space should only be for science" crowd

>>10864302
The funny thing is the vast majority of the early people on Mars will be tradesman type. There will be a handful of scientist types yes, but with a half hour or so round trip for information it's not super critical to have those people on site. What you do need however is people who have intimate knowledge of electrical, plumbing, hydroponics, construction etc... The most likely candidates will be people who have a field of experience encompassing many of these.

>>10864040
THANKS FREN!
I was looking for that one where she is a returned rocket...
spess girl standing on a landing pad.
Somebody was gonna put her in a MAss Effect landscape.
Have that pic on my oth pc,but of course the screen doesn't work (stupid kitty jumped on it)

Not /sfg/ but I also got a fren to edit a pic so that Super Dave was waiting at the bar for Garrus to meet Shepard.

>>10864355
But hiring more people than just specialized engineers and scientists would mean that funds would have to be diverted from jobs in Alabama. It's far better to just send a small probe every five or so years to play sandbox in an area smaller than some midwest towns. Even better, don't send the probes! Just spend decades developing them so that more jobs can be created.

>>10864371
FOR YOU

>>10864372

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1158074774297468928

oh no no no no no no no no no
see the replies to this tweet

>>10864399
based black man

>>10863512
gib spess waifu

>>10864124
>rectangles
enjoy your stress concentrations

in reality a Mars base will be mostly invisible except for a large pile of excavated rock on the surface, the base itself being a series of cylindrical tunnels carved into bedrock with a simple airtight liner constructed against the walls, hidden behind layers of insulation and utility pipes and furnishings.

>>10864406
ripped belter space catgirls

>>10864399
>Those replies
>Hurr we spend gorillions on the other stuff and do nothing about gun violence

Is a militarized police state and mass warrantless surveillance not enough for these people?

>>10864408
oh, and the massive quantity of spaceships lying about like beer cans near a frat house, and the miles of solar farm
speaking of solar farm, everybody's preaching solar electric, but isn't solar thermal just as viable at these scales?

>>10864145
>Shuttle dropped tankage
and boosters, and let's not forget about those tiles lol

>>10864399
>black science man talking sense
what timeline is this

>>10864416
Shuttle dropped astronaut bits all over Texas

>>10864424
don't forget the hydrazine

>>10864163
AMOS-6 was fairly energetic, and Starship will have high pressure gas vessels on board (not helium, but there will be methane bottles and oxygen bottles as part of the autogenous pressurization system. They should be lower pressure than the helium bottles on Falcon, but still high enough that if one pops it's gonna rupture the tanks).

>"Of course I've taken the spinpill and work out on a hypergravity space station. How could you tell?"

So when will one of you burgerfags muster up the balls and assassinate Shelby already

>>10864440
space dwarves are still manlets, no matter how built you are you'll never be half the height of a belter

>>10864165
>no earth crop is going to succeed at any decent yield at 50% sunlight
Actually that's not true, every plant on Earth is limited by other factors in terms of how much sunlight it can actually gather and use for energy, and most plants grow well even at 1/10th of direct sunlight. Photosynthesis can only happen so fast, and once the chloroplasts of a plant are saturated the rest of the light is wasted. The only natural places on Earth where chlorophyll saturation is actually the limiting factor are rainforests and tropical river outlets, where there is effectively unlimited nutrients and water. In the vast majority of cases plants simply ignore most of the light hitting them because they don't have enough water supply to run their metabolisms at 100%.

Anyway, while the reduced light levels aren't a problem, the surface conditions certainly are. Simply not having to deal with the risk of having your underground bunker base attached to a thin-skinned greenhouse dome that could be popped by a man with a knife would be worth ignoring sunlight and growing food in underground tunnels. You're going to have energy surplus for providing lighting to plants anyway, since even that is nothing compared to the energy cost of electrolysing literally thousands of tons of water to get that hydrogen for Sabatier production of methane and of course the oxygen to burn it with.

>>10864449
Believe it or not, it's better than even odds his replacement will be worse for space exploration than he is.

>>10864449
I'd like to think I'm on a bunch of lists, but you just got on The List, anon

>>10864449
It won't do anything about the porkbarrel infection at NASA. While Shelby is the face of it, he's not the one orchestrating it. There are other senators in support of SLS, and them and Shelby were lobbied in by SLS contractors. What's needed is to make SLS politically unsupportable. A possibility is to have a rocket roughly in the size range of SLS, but cheaper, faster, and more importantly no development money needed from the government. That way, any politician who supports SLS over the alternative would appear to be much more obviously corrupt (or stupid) to the public and thus loose votes.

>>10864465
If I wasn't already on there, I'm not there now

>>10864466
But after the Sowers stuff it seems like that one domino falling could make a good deal of change. I'm just surprised no one has done it, really

>>10864183
The fuel rich pump wouldn't have enough mass flow to even drive itself, let alone keep up to the output of the oxygen rich pump. You really can't just swap propellants out without modifying your engine, unless the two propellant combinations in mind are extremely similar (you could probably switch methane for ethane or possibly even propane in a Raptor engine without it just instantly exploding or not being able to run at all). Some engines in the past were diversified to use many different propellants but they all had very simple power cycles and even then required materials and pump design changes to work for certain things (like hydrogen).

>>10864399
wtf i love old space now.

>>10864472
>But after the Sowers stuff it seems like that one domino falling could make a good deal of change
Even if what Sowers is saying is true, he's just one guy. If you read some of the replies to his post, they discount him as just a retired old man who wants to be relevant again. And that's what oldspace can do unless more evidence surfaces. There needs to be a stronger case.

>>10864476
especially how Raptor has decoupled the LOx and fuel turbopumps, although you might need to change some plumbing

>>10864481
Is deGrasse with oldspace? I thought he was for spaceflight in general?

>>10864484
I can literally go to his office hours tomorrow and ask for proofs if you all want it.

>>10864487
he's the based black science man, he's on the side of nerd shit and truth

>>10864488
tell him that we said "hi" and tell him that sexy Stalin wants his opinion on solar thermal for Mars

>>10864488
Do it fag

>>10864488
Sure! Be sure to ask for stuff like documents or recordings. Something 'solid' that'll be hard to dismiss offhand.

>>10864487
He hates the idea of privatization being ahead of government sponsored exploration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLKE06rOJs

>>10864500
he'll come around to the corruption of the state soon enough

>>10864488
haha anon yeah tell us the plan

>>10864476
How do the expect to do any ISRU fueling on the Moon then? Bring Your Own Carbon?

>>10864503
bring your own methane, fuel up on LOx
Starship is the wrong vehicle for lunar ISRU and will never serve that niche

>>10864459
The best hope for Shelby or his successor fucking off is a combination of Musk shaming his re-election sponsors and Bezos lobbying him hard at the same time.

>>10864500
>>10864501
Soon, he'll be all aboard the Space equivalent of the East India Company.

>>10864519
I hope Elon comes around to being Lord of Space at some point and really embraces the power he has at his fingertips
space for the spacenoids

>>10864503
Actually not a terrible idea, you can get a shitload of methane out of a 100t block of solid carbon. It would come down to the economics of the reusability of Hydrogen vs bringing carbon. Also if a starship can go fully loaded to the moon and back on a full fuel load from LEO it's almost a moot point.

Although I still refuse to believe you can't find Carbon on the moon given that it's just a chunk of Earth blown out by a big impact.

>>10864511
Could do what I suggested a couple months ago in the threads: When doing lunar flights, pack the unused mass in the ships with carbon sources (graphite, coal, pre-processed oil, etc) and have it set up so each ship sent has a similar flight profile.

Like, "Hey, you're headed to the moon right? Here's your 100kg container of graphite that goes into the marked slot in your cabin."

>>10864210
>as soon as you dig it up
Well it starts to, but it takes an entire Martian day to sublimate away a few grams of ice, if you're digging up multi-ton chunk of the stuff you don't need to panic.

>>10864524
That's a pretty good idea given that most starship passenger flights will be well under the max load.

>>10864500
So his argument seems to boil down to that companies tend to see in short term while governments tend to see in long term, and since pushing the frontier is a long term task, then governments seem to be the better selection over companies. I don't think that counts as him "hating" privatization of space. He has a point, however, spaceflight has been hampered by politics which a company wouldn't be subject to.

Also, I believe that spaceflight as a whole tends to focus too much on the long term plans and ideas rather than the short term "less exciting" steps needed to take things into the long term, so I think that a "new player" that does see in a relatively short term way who is shaking up the spaceflight world is a good thing.

>>10864523
you can get 133 t of methane out of 100t of graphite, anon
hydrogen barely weighs anything, let me do the math
assuming all the hydrogen is hydrogen 1, and all the carbon is carbon 12, you're going from 12 to 16 atomic weight

>>10864399
I enjoy greatly

>>10864529
To expand on that, watching the BFR interior video they are suggesting 40 cabins with a capacity of 1-4 per cabin. It's a short trip to the moon so I'm sure you could stack 4 to a cabin no problem. That's 160 passengers, let's say around an 80kg average on the heavy side that's about 13 tonnes. I don't know what the interior is going to weigh in at buts it definitely going to be made of lightweight plastic and I struggle to imagine it's going to be more than say, 50 tonnes. That leaves a very comfortable 80+ tonnes of Carbon to bring for free essentially on each flight.

>>10864558
You've also got to figure carbon-rich asteroids pummeled the moon too. So it's mostly a matter of prospecting before you find some decent local deposits.

The biggest issue is that we've never really done any deep resource surveying of the moon. We've literally only scratched the surface and looked at it with satellites. What we actually need up there is a full prospecting team with several tons of explosives and the appropriate receiving hardware placed nearby to see what lies underground. If the moon does have any sources of carbon, that's where they'll likely be. How deep is the question.

>>10864563
some of that prospecting can be done from orbit, the moon is relatively unexplored

>>10864563
>Carbon rich asteroids

Yeah that's a good point, there must be plenty of Carbon to be found

>>10864440
>"Anon I don't feel so good..."

>>10864415
The first group of Starships that were sent initially and the ones afterwards that brought the people along to set up propellant production would all have sat for too long and wouldn't be space-fit, however they'd work perfectly fine as a tank farm on Mars to store LOx and liquid methane.

Nearby (within a few dozen meters perhaps) would be the landing pads with or without Starships that will actually be refueled and launched again later.

Between the tank farm/landing pads and the base itself would be a large berm made of excavated rock and sand, to shield the base's more delicate surface level infrastructure and hardware from flying rocks and debris blasted out by Raptors.

The entrance to the base would be at the bottom of a little (50 m wide?) crater, with a road carved into the side for heavy vehicle access. the door would be a few meters across, big enough to drive through, but the airlock chamber would be massive, in order to maximize the amount of material that can be transferred into and out of the base at a time. A smaller maintenance airlock meant for small vehicles and groups of people would also be nearby, for human access to the surface that didn't take hours to cycle.

Inside the base would follow a simple building plan consisting of two basic modes of construction; horizontal tunnels and vertical tunnels. To excavate a bigger space, use the same tunneling machine to put equal-diameter tunnels next to one another, and knock out the wall between. Based on construction depth there would be a limit on the size of tunnels and a minimum distance between each tunnel, to prevent there ever being so much internal pressure from the 1 bar of air inside these tunnels that it overwhelmed the overburden material and effectively blew out the entire base at once, a catastrophic failure that would kill everyone inside.

The solar farm would ideally be hundreds of meters away because of risk of blasted debris fucking the panels.

>>10864579
If there is any on the moon from large impacts, it'll be deeply buried in the big impact basins. Smaller impacts I doubt would have significant amounts of carbon in them as the heat from the impact would have driven the carbon away back into space, leaving behind the heavier stuff like the silicates and the metals.

>>10864591
If you wanted to take a bit of a hit on your tunneling speed, you could drill tunnels with a 1/2 to 1/3 overlap so you wouldn't have to knock out walls manually and tidy it up.

>>10864452
>he doesn't know about bone extensions

>>10864606
Or you find a nice lava tube and just reinforce it from inside. In low-g environments like on the Moon and Mars, stable lava tubes are substantially larger than on Earth.

>>10864495
>>10864496
>>10864498
>>10864502
Okay.

>>10862217
sls fag here but i have to admit to keking heartily.
on a serious note a lot of you underestimate the massive performance differential between FH and SLS for high energy trajectories with relatively light payloads. nobody is throwing up 50 tons to LEO (useless and wouldn't even fit in the fairing) despite spacex fanboys constantly circlejerking leo numbers. SLS may be a boomer design but it is a solid one that will get a good launch cadence going assuming the senate keeps throwing money at it.

>>10864503
Bring your own methane, it's the lower mass component of the propellant mix anyway.

I've done this math before, suffice it to say that by reducing the LOx load such that Starship pretty much runs out of LOx as it touches down on the Moon, you actually more than double the useful payload mass delivered to the Moon. I believe the payload shoots up to 220,000 kg from 100,000 kg using this one simple trick. Once the cargo has been removed you just load up with lunar LOx and launch back to Earth using the methane you brought with you.

Any Lunar settlement doing any kind of ISRU beyond piling up dirt is going to be producing huge amounts of oxygen by product, because fucking everything on the Lunar surface is an oxide. From what we can tell there's very little carbon on the Moon, and really there's not much water either, so the Starship-style of "BYOF, top up on oxygen" refilling at the Moon may in fact be optimal, especially if we're actually colonizing the Moon and substances like water and nitrogen and carbon dioxide are at a HUGE premium due to their necessity in supporting life.

>>10864651
>nobody is throwing up 50 tons to LEO
the NRO is, but I get your point

>>10864523
see>>10864654
Don't bother bringing carbon and trying to ISRU your hydrogen, just bring methane directly and short load on LOx before yo leave, you'll get twice the payload using Starship and onyl need to make LOx on the Moon, which is pretty much entirely made of oxides of different metals.

>>10864524
Don't forget nitrogen, I'd assume that once colonization of different objects really starts to take off we're going to see a lot of imports and exports of valuable things like sulfur, iodine, phosphorous, etc. simply as a means of making use of excess payload capacity.

>>10864660
I don't know how easy it is to extract oxygen from oxide metals on the moon, but that sounds like a cool idea. Plus, oxygen can sort of be used as a monopropellant iirc. Someone should look into that.

>>10864565
Probably deeper than the ejecta layer that covered the huge majority of the surface, since all that ejecta has been superheated and launched high into space, which are perfect conditions to vent away carbon dioxide and even to sublimate off pure carbon if it existed.

>>10864606
Diamond-bit rock cutting chainsaw robot, my dude
Those things would be able to zip through those leftover rock walls a gorillion times faster than a tunneling machine could grind it away.

>>10864664
>>10864670
We're really going to need to do some deep as fuck mining on the moon for resources.

Question is: how deep can we go on it before the internal heat becomes too much of an issue?

either they've stretched starship, or super heavy is being built in Cocoa.

>>10864675
as a diamond-bit rock cutting chainsaw robot I approve of this message

>>10863930
>robotic assembly
Is much closer than people realize. You don't even need fancy manipulation capability to do it. Much of the hardware necessary to do so has already been demonstrated in space.
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/internal_resources/914/
Oceaneering's also got ROVs here on the ground that can be operated to manipulate stuff with 1 second time lags, so event if autonomy fails we should still be able to fix things.

>>10864683
ORANGE TRANSPARENT CHAINSAW

>>10864709
attack of the killer martian chainsaw robots

>>10864651
Elon already talked about a stripped-down expendable version of the upper stage/Starship, only three Raptors (vacuum optimized, no finlegs, no TPS, no thrusters beyond the very minimum in case of having to do multiple burns, simplified electronics (no solar panels) etc, effectively a big set of steel tanks and 1,100,000 kg of methalox propellant being burned at 380 Isp. Even given the higher Isp of the SLS upper stage at 460.1s, the propellant mass pails in comparison at just 129,000 kg (for the Exploration Upper Stage, the ICPS carries only ~27,000 kg of propellant). Unfortunately for SLS, this expendable version of Starship (which would only require a single launch mind you) would shit aaaaall over SLS's C3 capability.
Assuming this stripped down vehicle weighed 50 tons, carried a 100 ton payload, and was fully refueled in LEO, it'd be sitting on top of 7590 m/s of delta V. However, since you assume no heavy payloads will exist, lets drop that down to an exceptionally heavy deep space probe's mass of 10 tons. The expendable Starship now has 11,037 m/s of delta V to work with, which is 2,287 m/s more than you need to escape the solar system with no gravity assists. In fact this vehicle can still hit escape velocity even if it's loaded up with a 65 ton payload.

>>10864722
what's the burnout acceleration?

>>10864668
It's exactly as hard as it is on Earth, electrochemically. The easiest metal oxides to refine are iron and aluminum, though iron is by far the best because you can actually use vacuum refining (use solar heating to dissociate the iron oxide into iron and free oxygen, which occurs just under the melting point of iron, but do it in a vacuum so the oxygen gas can come out of solution and escape. Aluminum oxide requires lower temperatures, but unfortunately also involves chemicals rare on the Moon and, worse, huge amounts of electrical power, since you need to electrolyse the molten cryolite on order to liberate the oxygen from the aluminum. Anything involving large amounts of electricity will be a bottleneck. If you can get away with using pure thermal energy, then you can scale up your process as fast as you can produce more polished metal panels.

>>10864680
Probably deep as fuck, I'd imagine the extreme pressure from surrounding rock causing significant cave-in risk may become an issue before heat. I don't think we've done a lot of study on the Moon's internal heat flow though, so I can't say for sure.

>>10864727
I just want elvperf to have accurate Starship data post-Musk presentation so I can doodle around with scenarios....

>>10864727
I didn't calculate it, but remember there's only three Raptors producing ~2000 kN each, so ~6000 kN thrust which is ~612 metric tons of force acting on as little as 50 metric tons of mass, which would produce a peak of 12g acceleration, though Raptors can throttle down quite a ways so maybe peak thrust with three engines is only 3000 kN which means a max of 6g acceleration, not great not terrible. Of course maybe this version would have a thrust plate that arranged the engines in a line instead of a triangle, so they could shut down two engines and run one at low throttle for a minimum acceleration at burnout of just 2g.

>>10864761
maybe they'd have the 2 degrees of gimbal they'd need to hit CoM with one

find the phrase, /sfg/

>>10864774
I can't find depots

>>10863419
>>10863425
>>10863428
>>10863431
Experiments were done on mice in a centrifuge to simulate 2g. After adjusting for a bit, they ended up just as buff as you'd expect.

please

>>10864765
They'll have lots of gimbal range we're told, however the COM is going to be quite far back with a small payload and low propellant tank level.

>>10864681
I mean the starship by itself is supposed to be rather large, and that doesn't even include the full stack. This whole thing is going to be taller than the saturn 5.

>>10864821
the vacuum raptors won't have much gimbal at all due to being fughueg

>>10864826
They'd most likely have the same gimbal system as the SL Raptors but have limiters in place to stop them hitting the side of the engine bay, perhaps on expendable Starship they adjust the position of the engines and remove these limiters
>"I'm sorry Elon, I'm going to have to go all out, just this once"

>>10864740
So you get a free rocket propellant factory with every forge and refinery you build on the Moon? Space industry might make cheaper steel than Earth.

200 meter hop visualization

>>10864858
what if elon surprises us with a quick refuel and flight back to investigate rapid reuse?

>>10864858
where's the part where it explodes

>>10864866
not possible unless you want to risk a catastrophe. The current beachball feet are single-use.

>>10864431
>AMOS-6 was fairly energetic
Yet the second stage survived the initial explosion, only being destroyed when it hit the ground.

>>10864858
Fuck yeah this is going to be sweet.

>>10863698
The shuttle cost 1B per launch and couldn't leave orbit

>>10864121
False, Starship can't reusable SSTO
maybe the 12m variant could, or maybe it could SSTSO to a rotational tether but that would require ungodly precision

>>10864124
methane burns clean
kerosene doesn't

>>10864869
Just hire snipers.

So what do you think they changed in the recent Starship version?

>>10865344
Fins gone
Retractable legs on Starship and Super Heavy
Smaller/less windows maybe
Higher payload

I think we'll hear timelines more specific than years regarding operational Starships.

>>10865344
Two retractable landing legs on the heat shield side, and one fized landing leg on the front.
Elon jokingly mentioned something about dragon wings awhile back, I'm thinking that that may make an
appearance. Besides all that, It'll probably look the same.

>>10864774

Found it!

>>10865433
[Shelby disliked that.]

reminder

>>10865514
Whips? Whips! Too good for them, I'd say!

i wonder how many SpaceX interns will offer their souls as sacrifice for the inevitable immortality project
not for their immortality, mind you

>>10865561
They're already sacrificing their souls for the BFR 9000. What do you think that green flame from the Raptor is? It's bioforce energy from the souls of the damned.

>>10864256
God I wish that was me.

>>10864378
THATS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR!
Thank you,fren!

>>10864815
Lunar bungee jumping!
>>10864740
There's molten oxide electrolysis, heat regolith till it's molten, stick electrodes in, apply electricity. It's being investigated here on earth to make steel without coal

>>10864900
The second stage was what exploded, the fairing remained stuck in the clamps for a bit but still fell. It was only help up by the strong-back, something SSH won't have, and that still only gave it a couple seconds before it let go due to being bent to shit. The first stage, which contained propellants like the Starship would, was destroyed instantly.

>>10865569
In reality the flame was greenish colored because of copper being burned out of the combustion chamber, more recent firings now that they've nailed down the mixture ratio have no green color.

>>10864858
Is the lateral movement confirmed or is it just goin up and down?

>>10865666
everybody's convinced it's moving laterally and I THINK it might be confirmed

>>10864094
Maybe Starship can have a solid propellant pusher escape system like on the Soyuz. It can be removed once its in space to be used for other things (like a gas generator or reuse the perchlorate as a fertilizer). It can also be stored inside Starship to protect it from the outside (again like Soyuz) so Starship could still reenter with the system still in it.

>>10865670
take your solids and shove em up your ass where they came from

>>10865666
Yeah. They’ve prepped the landing pad

>>10864094
Surely the 3000 raptor engines on the bottom provide sufficient redundancy no?

I mean if there's such a failure that you can't light any raptors you're pretty fucked anyways. I don't believe airliners are designed to be any more failsafe.

>>10865669
>>10865666
I mean if the tiny hop they did last time had lateral movement why wouldn't they do it on the big hop too? Control for lateral motion and go straight up, control for altitude and scoot sideways, then counter lateral motion to stop scooting, and come straight down at a constant velocity until touch down. That gives the most data for how a control system is operating, methinks.

HOP

>>10865688
According to Elon the engines are going to be isolated from each other enough that even in a worst case scenario where one just straight up explodes into shrapnel at maximum chamber pressure it should only minimally affect any adjacent Raptors, perhaps causing a couple to automatically shut down. That coupled with the fact that the Booster has so many engines means it can have a handful shut down unexpectedly and still complete the mission in most cases (especially tanker flights, where the payload is propellant that the Starship can dip into in order to make up the delta V). For Starship itself the only really important engines are the three sea level optimized ones, which they need at least one of to start up successfully. A normal Starship landing would have all three engines ignite and fire at low throttle settings for landing; if one engine didn't ignite or failed after ignition the other two would adjust their gimbal slightly and throttle up to compensate. If two engines failed the final one would adjust gimbal again and throttle up to 100%, saving the landing. The likelihood of a single Raptor failing is very low, the odds of TWO Raptors failing independently during one landing is actually very very small. Small enough that we'll probably never see a double-engine shutdown during a landing. A triple engine failure is extremely unlikely, enough that we can probably count on it never happening.

People argue that in commercial jets even if they lose their engines they still have wings and can glide, whereas if Starship loses its engines it's gonna oof into the ground. On a basic level they're right, however it's not like jet airliners can land anywhere, if they lose their engines while going over a mountain range or are just too far away from any runways or bodies of water they're fucked anyway. Furthermore, it's not like airplanes don't have un-survivable failure modes, like when the wing falls off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIrH01N9AsE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnrVV0w2jrE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITNqPhrCpdM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u0jbShRbCA

>>10865670
No, it would weigh multiple tons and require a huge redesign of the vehicle's thrust support structure and internal layout. Just face it, Starship won't have any abort modes until it's well past the early stages of a launch. SpaceX is min-maxing for performance and reliability exactly like how airliners do so today. Starship and its Booster will both have engine-out capability, just like airliners. If a tank buckles or something explodes and they aren't going high and fast enough to get away and pull off a landing/abort to orbit, everyone dies, just like how if an airliner's wing falls off or the fuel tank catches fire everyone dies.

>>10865727
Yeah basically the idea is to make the SS+SH stack as safe as reasonably possible and just accept that some tiny number of flights will be fucked. In the end it still comes out being far less dangerous than any method of spaceflight thus far.

these shuttle designs... it's just Starship Super Heavy

but with a flyback fetish

>>10865743
>mrw another image to add to my kino shuttle collection

and of course side stacking

New Thread:

>>10865793