/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10874392
>Curved
>Engines

Hey guys.
/s4s/ is talking about space.
I'm not sure how to link to the post so copypasta'd'd it
>It's too big, that's my problem with space. What's the point of it being so big? How the heck are we supposed to deal with that? We can't even get to another planet yet. Imagine the scale of the galaxy compared to just our own little solar system. And then even an entire galaxy is like nothingg comparred to the whole thing. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Also,please post spess grills.

>>10874398
Bent vrooms?
I was born feet first if that matters.

>>10874428
Yeah, space is pretty yuge. However, even our "relatively small" solar system is gigantic so there's plenty to do even if mankind never leaves its home star. Sure, there's large parts of the universe "locked away" from us, but you and I will never see it even if FTL travel is invented. You and I will be long dead before interstellar and intergalactic travel becomes relevant.

Instead we should fret over what's possible within our lifetime (and a generation or two ahead). Such as mankind finally going beyond low Earth orbit in a long time, manned Martian missions, and bases on the moon. Which is all still pretty "large" for us.

>>10874461
>Which is all still pretty "large" for us.
In terms of the scale of the setting of Human History, this century we'll be able to bring it up at least one order of magnitude (large portions of the surfaces of other planets, moons, and asteroids). By the end of the next century, in-space manufacturing technology will probably have the capacity to bring it up by another order of magnitude thanks to the construction of pic related.

>>10874461
>manned Martian missions, and bases on the moon.
Politics aside...I saw Trump asking a few people about how they think the best way to set human feet on Mars.
The scientists/astronauts/smart fellas did not agree on "making a moon base or going for a straight shot to mars".
I think a moon base/relaunch would be cool,maybe not the best plan,but atleast it would provide a "training" ground,both for low gravity warming up,geologists smacking rocks and other things I can't think of.
So...How say you. Straight shot to Mars,or space camp(Antartica syle,I guess) on teh moon then onto Mars?
Either way,I would love to get a good look at uranus.

>>10874485
>How say you. Straight shot to Mars,or space camp(Antartica syle,I guess) on teh moon then onto Mars?
I'm in favor of going to the moon first to work out the kinks of having an extended stay settlement far from Earth. Then again, if getting to Mars as soon as possible is more important, then just going straight to Mars would be better. Maybe have a Martian space station first to serve as a gateway if possible.

In the end, I don't really care about Mars vs Moon as long as there's a focused direction and a solid set of goals either way. Bickering about which mission is best will just incur more delays and less public interest. However, I think that the "we've already went to the moon, we need to set first boots on mars" point that's used in argument against going back to the moon is short sighted at best, and childish at worst. Sure, focusing on getting the "firsts" generates lots of motivation and competition which is useful for gaining momentum into space. But the problem with this mindset is that support will evaporate once all of the easy firsts are gone, and the industry needed to reach those firsts before everyone else isn't necessarily the same kind of industry needed to maintain long term stay in space. The race to the moon is the best example. Support for Apollo tanked once Apollo 11 was over.

>>10874461
Once in-situ resource manufacturing and in-space construction become things I think our Solar system will get a lot smaller. Who knows whats beyond that but never forget that Humans once thought the world was an infinitely vast and unknowable place and now you can be anywhere in the world in under a day.

>>10874476
Best timeline

>>10874485
It's been awhile since we've been beyond LEO so I think it would be better to take baby steps. Construct a Moon base first, then work on getting humans into Mars orbit, then actually try landing on Mars. The reason Apollo was successful and not a massive clusterfuck like most Soviet projects is because NASA took small steps before diving into the deep end.

I'm just some random chucklefuck on the internet though so no one cares what I think.

I am having trouble a 2m crew capsule from the surface of the moon in ksp. Not sure what to try, using the robo clamp. Playing base game, anyone can help.

Also why did the space race end so abruptly at the moon, was it because the soviets fell apart and didn't pursue mars?

>>10874566
What are you having trouble with?
Getting there? The landing?

>>10874566
>I am having trouble a 2m crew capsule from the surface of the moon in ksp
So you have a command pod trapped on the Mun? Assuming that you're playing in sandbox mode, then I recommend using an additional spacecraft with the Advanced Grabbing unit to attach to the pod to either refuel it or carry it into Munnar orbit.

>Also why did the space race end so abruptly at the moon, was it because the soviets fell apart and didn't pursue mars?
I think it was mostly due to the fact that the United States government was only concerned about getting a first that the Soviets couldn't match (landing someone on the moon and returning him safely). Once that was over, the United States government stopped caring about space, because to them their space program's primary goal wasn't spaceflight but rather they saw it as a tool to fulfill any political need. This mindset continues on to today.

It also didn't help that the American public didn't really care about spaceflight either, so they didn't mind that it died out (some even wanted it to be gone). Apollo only had roughly a 50% approval rating at best.

>>10874585
well the Capsule was decoupled, it's a 3 man capsule. And it has no docking ports. I landed a probe and tried to connect it and it didn't connect. So now I am trying to recover the capsule. It took a hard landing, and I am unsure how to recover the full thing. I mean I can get the pilot out but there are two tourists in there as well which complicates it

>>10874566
Is it trapped or are you trying to get into Mun orbit?

If it's trapped, just attach a probe core to a new command pod and fly it to the Mun, this time with enough fuel to get home. If you're trying to ascend use low throttle initially until you gain some altitude than go for the gravity turn.

>>10874586
I think the government saw it as a defense thing more than a political thing. In the governments eyes the primary purpose of the space program is ICBMs and spy satellites. Literally the only reason we had to endure the shuttle program is because of muh spy satellites.

>>10874586
Thanks, FeelsBadMan

>>10874526
>moon first to work out the kinks
That alone seems like a good arguement.
>>10874560
>Construct a Moon base first
Not only would we have a moon base (AWESOME!) but that would force countries to be frens!(for lack of a better term)

>>10874485
Run out to Mars with a bare bones mission just to pop the flag in the ground, then use the moon to develop the infrastructure technology needed for long term habitats

>>10874627
I think both should be run at the same time. Mars to test for long term habitutation set up and radiation shielding. And moon because you can rotate out personell far faster and fuel production isn't as relevant.

Like the challanges are drasticly different between moon and mars habituation both in terms of objectives and challanges. I also think Mars has far more intresting research potential and may create demand from greater moon infastructure

>>10874616
>Moon Base
It also means the US could construct a new WMD system of incredible simplicity yet with horrifying power, the likes of which no country could defend against: large rocks with cold gas thrusters.

>>10874633
Once sufficiently large nuclear reactors are ready for use on the moon, you can deploy equatorial space elevators. Current material science can handle that level of gravitational field without too much trouble.

>>10874602
>I think the government saw it as a defense thing more than a political thing.
Defense sort of falls under political though?

>>10874616
>That alone seems like a good arguement.
I think so too, however, I did hear a good counter argument against going to the moon first. That is the public in general isn't interested in space really, and any space program (both private and government) is going to need public support. To the public, Mars seems more exciting and more romanticized than going to the moon. Sure, that has the risk of public support evaporating once boots hit the red dust, but the initial support can allow spaceflight to "get its foot in the door" for extended stay in space because the industry required just to send people to Mars and back is so great that it can't just be scrapped like Apollo was after it's moon mission was done (at least in theory).

I'm not in support of this idea, because it can still easily fall into the issues Apollo had at its end, but I'd figure that I'd share it to encourage debate.

>>10874657
It’s why I think it’s a good idea to just do the initial Mars mission first, you get all the hype and keep the infrastructure at the end. The only way to top that hype is to jump right into a substantial colony or outpost which is going to have to be on the Moon for cost and safety sake.

>>10874663
>you get all the hype and keep the infrastructure at the end.
How can one guarantee that the infrastructure will be kept at the end? Apollo had lots of infrastructure behind it that would've been good enough for a manned Mars mission and it got scrapped.

>>10874641
Mars is sitting on 2 years rotatatory gear launches and logistical mission. Sure you can prep for two years to stack up gear or what have you but if space infastructure grows you are not going to be sitting idle for those 2 years.
And you can send older star ships to mars as a sort of graveyard in cargo configuration. Meaning demand is supplemented for more modern efficient Starships.

>>10874657
>going to the moon first. That is the public in general isn't interested in space
What if a few countries teamed up?
Every American that thinks humans never set foot on the moon is politicly motivated.
Maybe /ourgirl/ Hayabusa and Johnny Impact(american pro wrestler) and Ivan Ruskinov(made up name) tag team a program to the moon.
Unify the championship titles,for lack of a better term.

>>10874634
I love Heinlein.

http://w ww.projectrho.com

>>10874784
tfw having a TANSTAAFL sticker on my laptop doesn't get me a cute gf

>>10874634
HAHAHAHAHAH FUCKING BRAINLET!!!

YOU ARE CONFIRMED FOR KNOW NOTHING OF SCIENCE.

you think launching something from the moon as an attack makes any kind of strategic sense?

even at retardedly high speeds it would take a day for any kind of bomb or projectile to get to the earth from the moon.


compare that to icbms

15 minutes tops to instantly destroy any city anwhere with submarne launched icbms

haha
idtio

>>10874794
How do you know I'm not a woman

Y no spacegun for inert/hardened payloads? Surely it wouldn't be that hard to revisit Gerald Bull's work.

>>10874804
i just do

FAA is slowing down SpaceX. Elon just said they're working approval for the 200m hop; NET one week.
I doubt it's on purpose. FAA just isn't use to processing permits lightning fast

What happened to all of the anons who were making their own rockets?

August and september are sad months for /sfg/, the last of the Delta-IV and Soyuz-FG rockets will launch in both those months. The Delta-IV Heavy will continue to launch for a while, while the Soyuz 2.1a replaces the FG variant for manned missions.

I know that the Proton-M will cease flying in 2021 but what other rockets are slated for retirement in the upcoming months/years?

Pic related, the last of its kind will leave the pad on august the 22nd.

>>10874869
More than we think

>>10874872
Is this a new version of the SpaceX flight suit?

>>10874877
same version. looks nice, don't it

>>10874799
>you think launching something from the moon as an attack makes any kind of strategic sense?
Gravitationally accelerated impactors make great strategic weapons, especially if you can launch them in such a way that it's difficult to track their precise destination. The sky is a very big place to look for something that's even house-sized.
ICBMs can be used in both strategic and tactical contexts, but they also contaminate and irradiate the region they are used on. On top of that, all the major world powers can reliably look for each other's launches and know that a launch has happened and where it is likely to be headed. For a rock that's going to spend days gaining speed, concealing its launch or making it very difficult to spot during critical maneuvering phases (have it perform them in front of the sun relative to the observer you intend to fuck with, or when they're on the wrong part of the day/night cycle) takes that certainty away.

>>10874888
I actually kinda preferred the black visor, but yeah it's pretty slick looking and as long as it holds the atmosphere in it's doing it's job.

>>10874900
It’s not really a pressure suit, just an avoid-Soyuz-1 suit

God I hope Trump wins the next election..

Imagine old space scrambling to meet Pence's 5 year plan under the locked in threat of being replaced by spacex and blue origin.

>>10874828
We don't use enough of what you might launch with a space gun yet for it to be a viable business proposition. It would be a great way to launch bulk materials (polymers, water, integrated circuits and other electronic components), and a few companies have had interesting concepts that use floating platforms with most of the barrel suspended underwater. The reasoning being a floating platform can change the launch inclination of the projectile.

>>10874905
I think Tory Bruno is secretly giggling to himself while looking through old Cislunar 1000 and FUEL DEPOT documents, thinking about which parts to whip out first when Boeing gets put in its place.

>>10874905
Nightmare scenario time
>Trump gets replaced by a Democrat president
>The new administration cancels all of NASAs current plans because ORANGE MAN BAD
>All while ignoring that Trump was continuing stuff that was started by Obama
>SLS gets delayed for another 4 years
>Blue Origin and SpaceX get regulated to hell and back
>"To protect other launch businesses." was cited
>Contractors get a bonus
>ULA continues on, but is forced to scrap SMART reuse because it might compete with the SLS
>China lands men on the moon

>>10874898
>Gravitationally accelerated impactors make great strategic weapons
no they dont. Also "gravitationally accelerated" makes no sense, youre talking about fast objects
>>10874898
>especially if you can launch them in such a way that it's difficult to track their precise destination.
which is impossible
>>10874898
>The sky is a very big place to look for something that's even house-sized.
No its not, an advanced array of radars could scan the entire sky in minutes.

>>10874898
>For a rock that's going to spend days gaining speed,
>>10874898
>On top of that, all the major world powers can reliably look for each other's launches and know that a launch has happened and where it is likely to be headed
what makes you think they wont be able to do that on the moon you retard. There'll be spy satellites on the moon MUCH MUCH before someone biggs some big ass particle accelerator.

>>10874898
>or a rock that's going to spend days gaining speed,
if it changes speed its not a rock, its a rocket that has some sort of thruster, that means it emits heat, which makes it ULTRA detectable. Dont get me wrong, its still very easy to detect even if cold, but if it thrusts then its a piece of cake. And if its a missile that changes speed forget about launching it at ultra high speed or youll slag its control equipment.
>>10874898
>(have it perform them in front of the sun relative to the observer you intend to fuck with, or when they're on the wrong part of the day/night cycle) takes that certainty away.
hurrr durrrrrr, relative to the observer? what a retard, even with todays technology it would be trivial for the us to put A LOT OF spy satellites in different earth and moon orbits made to avoid PRECISELY what youre saying.

seriously hahaa it amazes me that oyu even for a second think you could be right, lock yourself for 10 years reading books and dont open your mouth till then if you dont want to be completely humillated again like this

>>10874915
how is that a nightmare scenario.
>Democrats win (which are also more sensible in regards to human rights, economy and general progress and freedom)
>Retarded trump money waster SLS is scrapped.
>all that money goes to spacex
>they build starship and then ITS in a lapse of 2 years, by the end of the term we have cities on titan


gotta face it kids, it will either be socialist communist left wing progress with happy intellectual people that have good in their hearts

or wasteful evil capitalism destruction and death with greedy idiots that prefer profits to the happines of their relatives

>>10874915
>Blue Origin and SpaceX get regulated to hell and back
>"To protect other launch businesses." was cited

The rest of it I wouldn't care about because NASA and SLS a shit but yeah dumping over SpaceX and BO would be nightmare tier.

>>10874923
Fuck off retard

>>10874923
>Retarded trump money waster SLS is scrapped.
Did you read the thing all the way through? It says that the SLS gets delayed, not scrapped. Which implies that even more money is going to be wasted on it.

>>10874923

Stop being deluded, the current Democrat party is nothing like what you think it is anymore. They are hardcore anti-science and despise EVERYTHING that Trump does and will do anything to destroy any and all achievements he has made.

They will defund the space program so hard that SpaceX and BO wont get any government contracts and will be regulated into oblivion.

>>10874923
10/10, here's the (you)

>>10874916
>Also "gravitationally accelerated" makes no sense
Sure it does. The rock gets kicked out of lunar orbit to just inside of L1's distance, 326,054km from the center of the earth (about 319,683km above the earth's surface). From there, it falls.
Just to do an imprecise calculation with p=mgh, a ten-ton piece of iron dropped from a standstill at that altitude would reach the surface with 3.136*10^13 joules of kinetic energy, or about 15 kilotons. The projectile itself would be 1.27 cubic meters in size, or if it were a half-meter wide cylinder, it would only be 6.5 meters long.
>>10874916
>incoherent babbling
this man is delusional

>>10874485
do both, apply lessons learned closer to home on Mars

>>10874941
oh haha, you keep replying. this is teh equivalent of you saying an offensive thing to me in a nightclub, i kick your ass and the bouincers take you out while all the girls laugh.

when you wake up bloody in the side of the curve you say "i won because words are more importants than fists"

haha never change you pathetic fucker, the absolute state of betas make us alpha the more insanely valuable, but shees you make it is

>>10874600
I have a contract like that and have decided to ignore it, it's not worth the trouble, but if you have tourists, building a wacky rover thing with THE CLAW on the front and wheels enough to do a sick jump and engage a terrier to LKI wouldn't be too hard
make sure you bring parachutes enough for the whole stack and do some propulsive braking before the shallowest entry you can get away with

>>10874923
Current batch of democrats are bad, especially because they're almost all going with Open Borders policy. That's a nightmare for any nation. A huge strain on nation's welfare. Bernie might be an exception due to him endorsing a closed border approach.

>>10874973
Bernie has a voting record of nuking everything space related. He went on some Reddit AMA where he spooled out some bs about he supports NASA so he can get the Reddit vote but if he gets in NASA is going to get totally gutted.

>>10874980
That wire-haired fuck. Good thing he's gonna get bullied out by DNC again.

>>10874980
>He went on some Reddit AMA where he spooled out some bs about he supports NASA so he can get the Reddit vote
IIRC he got called out on that in the AMA pretty damm quick.

>>10874980
Fucking shit. You can never get a perfect candidate. Where the fuck are my "Closed Border" "Universal Healthcare" "Pro-science" "Pro-tariffs against China" "Pro free trade with our allies" candidates?

>>10874973
>That's a nightmare for any nation. A huge strain on nation's welfar
nah, its expensive to pursue them, it cost literal trilllions in cops and imaginary walls.

the problem is inmigrants are much MUCH more hard working and educated than americans, they do the same jobs for much less money and for longer hours, they dramatically raise the gdp. social wealthfare is only to make up for all the problemas that police persecution creates.

>>10874988
>China tariffs
fuck you, /g/csg/ is awesome and muh cheap Chinese products are important

>>10874997
At the cost of losing technology to China. They now control almost the entire small electronics market. Give it 10 more years and there will be no more American industry.

>>10874993
>they do the same jobs for much less money and for longer hours
Slaves often do.

Anybody have more info on this? What engine were they testing?
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/2-dead-spike-radiation-rocket-explosion-russia-military-11793260

>>10875030
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49275577

>>10875000
theyre not slaves, they are free people, even registered inmigranst work more for less money. they are simply more hardworking. I could argue the only thing keeping america behind is its slow stupid inferior white workforce.

>>10874869
>Delta IV
ugly rocket, will miss the fireball
>Soyuz FG
what even is the difference between FG and 2.1a, I can't tell the difference between any of the R7 variants so that's nothing new

>>10874900
Black Visor isn't needed unless you're EVA, and these are IVA suits
you could maybe do a gemini and harden them against solar heating a bit somehow and give them a long tether and they'd work maybe in a pinch, but it's not necessary for the base model

>>10875030
probably some sort of SLAM prototype, not sure why you would tho

>>10874869

>i cry for soyuz

but why is delta iv being taken out of service?

>>10875069
NRO has a new provider

>>10875069
they're replacing it

>>10874392
>>10874398
> meme engines

>>10875030
>>10875039
>>10875066
They've bragged about it before, it's an attempt at a Project Pluto style nuclear ramjet. Nuclear Thermal engines of all types are seeing a lot more interest these days because our fuel cladding material is finally durable enough to allow us to reach useful operating temperatures. Older tech couldn't deal with the cladding so well, so the engines all spewed fallout in their exhaust.

>>10875085
the first SLAM tests didn't shed exhaust at first, I heard they changed something so then it did
probably going for higher temperatures

>>10875093
Personally, I see Russia's interest in making infinite-range cruise missiles as another sign that their legacy nuclear arsenal is beyond their capacity to maintain (both in terms of staff and in terms of funding). Project Pluto was supposed to be a sort of automated nuclear bomber, where what Russia is developing seems to be much smaller.

>>10875042
IIRC FG was basically a slightly updated version of the Soyuz for ISS flights. Roscosmos/NASA realized the fancy digital (you don't have to aim the launch pad!!) Soyuz 2 would not be ready so they did a few updates for a stop gap vehicle

>>10875102
>>10875042
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/07/soyuz-fg-penultimate-flight-three-iss/

Gaganyaan when?

>>10875140
>that butthurt Indian in the chat before the Rocket Lab stream
WEW

>>10875143

I unironically want Gaganyaan to happen so I have something nice to chat with to my Indian customers at my work. I wish them well.

>>10875140
December 2021, just in time to be pooper scooped by cargo Starship

>>10875143
Superpooper by 2020

>>10874997
The trade dispute with china is a good thing because it should've happened much earlier. But they are focusing on wrong fucking problems when they should force China to honor trademarks and patents and make doing business in China as easy for western companies as it is for chinks to do here.

>>10875196
Tariffs we can enforce, how can we force the chinese goverment to honor trademarks?

>>10874392
Earth is flat

>>10874970
I built a four wheeled rover with a docking port, that was a bitch to get to the moon, took like 8-12 tries and it connected on the size of 3 man pod retarded. Now I have to land on top of a god damn docking port which ironicly is better than the alternative, then run the transfer

>>10874909
Nah, put that shit in a turret, we can finally have battleships again
>but the gun is too long!
That just means the battleship is too small

>>10875286
Get on my level.

>>10874560
>The reason Apollo was successful and not a massive clusterfuck like most Soviet projects is because NASA took small steps before diving into the deep end.
The problem is, we can go to the moon any time we want, but Mars only lines up for missions every two years. And we really need to get an unmanned mission making fuel before we land humans.
We should be sending up an ISRU fuel mission to Mars at the same time we're on the moon learning how to make holes. Also the moon lets you do remote control missions with minimal lag.
>>10874799
>spacing
what did he mean by that

>>10874923
This has to be bait.

>>10874392
Brexit Britain will be powered by SABRE, suck it euros

>>10875421
Not before a paki rapes your daughter.

Whre can I download blueprints for a small but somewhat powerful (maybe reusable) rocket?

>>10875538
t. best korean engineer

>>10875538
>Whre can I download blueprints for a small but somewhat powerful (maybe reusable) rocket?

>>10875538
우리민족끼리

https://twitter.com/AJ_FI/status/1159785469888086016
>Tonight/tomorrow's test will be the 3rd for LinkSpace's RLV-T5. Next follows the larger RLV-T6, then orbital NewLine-1 in 2021.

Anyone have a spaceflight youtuber infographic which marked tim dod a clickbait tier?
I need that

>>10874863
fuck the bureaucrats

>>10875706
I mean, Tim is pretty informative, but he seems to be a little too spastic to me.

>>10874993
>nah, its expensive to pursue them, it cost literal trilllions in cops and imaginary walls.


it would be trivial assuming you have mandatory biometric ID of every citizen, and declare Mexico a safe third country

most countries in the world do not tolerate illegal immigration to such an extent as the US, and can secure their borders

What's the best degree to pursue if I wanted to work in the Space industry? I'm more interested in study and analysis rather than design, but from my understanding it's much harder to work on the science end of things.

>>10874993
>they dramatically raise the gdp
not gdp per capita, which is what actually matters

>>10875724
Maybe something like parts reliably analysis? The statistics of how parts fail going to be more relevant as reusable rockets become more common.

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

>>10875754
Not even mad

>>10874905
>>10874915
Blue Origin, backed by Bezos' money and slow timeframe is "too big to fail", but Elon is on such shaky ground I could see SX getting killed off if Tesla dies or more launch failures pop up. I don't think they WILL, but its still possible.

>If dems win 2020
-we would have bigger fish to fry then not going to space.

>>10875759
>I could see SX getting killed off if Tesla dies or more launch failures pop up
I can understand the launch failures, especially if its a crewed BFR, but not Tesla. What would Tesla failing do to SpaceX?

>>10875695
Will never understand why they don't launch off their east coast rather than dropping hypergolic bits on Wei Lin in some random village.

nice design for a Mars colony

https://sites.google.com/view/estepona-on-mars/accueil

>>10875768
Chinese East Coast is 99.9% urbanized. IIRC like 90% of China's population lives within 100mi of the coast. They also give 0 shits about individual lives.

Better to drop spent stages on random villagers in bumbfuck nowhere than on Shanghai or Beijing.

>>10875286
>>but the gun is too long!
>That just means the battleship is too small
We should have that attitude towards rockets.

>"But we can't have rockets that fly back! The required equipment and fuel would take away too much payload!"
>Then your rockets are too small

>>10875789
Rocket equation my friend. At a certain point, bigger rockets become useless because of diminishing returns.

Not to mention you can really only manufacture rocket engines to F1 size before they start becoming engineering nightmares.

https://twitter.com/ina111/status/1158873434169888768
An engineer from Interstellar Technologies (Japanese smallsat launch company founded by "Horiemon" - a convicted criminal and lover of traps; picrelated) is absolutely seething after Rocketlab's presentation.
His tweets reminded me of SpaceX critics saying 1st stage reuse was impossible back in the day...

>>10875794
>Rocket equation my friend. At a certain point, bigger rockets become useless because of diminishing returns.

Wrong, bigger rockets are more efficient, not just in absolute terms, but in relative ones as well - higher useful payload fraction.

That said, they may not be the most efficient solution at all when you take into account economic efficiency, which strongly favors distributed lift over large rockets.

>>10875681
>>10875671
>>10875586
Fuck you guys :(

>>10875794
But you won't get much done if you stick to expendable rockets that can barely send 10t to LEO.

>>10875820
Sorry, the joke was too tempting. Anyways, there are tons of kits for solid motor rockets out there, and most have chutes for recovery. If you want a liquid propellant rocket, then you're going to have to design most of it yourself as there's not alot of hobby liquid rockets.

>>10875717
His video is good, title is bad

>>10875810
>>10875823
You can make large reusable rockets. I'm just pointing out that after a certain point the rocket gets so large that you're expending thousands of kg of fuel just supporting the mass of the thing, and the bigger it is the more fuel you need to bring.

The only alternative is to have a dozen different stages, each of which is a potential launch failure. Not to mention if you're going for reusability you have to safely recover each stage.

After Saturn V size, rockets get to big to he worth the trouble. You would be better off just strapping a couple Saturn Vs together if you needed something that heavy in space.

Or just using those billions you're spending on Saturn Vs to build a space elevator.

Pic unrelated

>>10875865
Well, I wasn't exactly advocating for Sea Dragon. I was taking a jab at the kind of people who think that since reusability adds ~10% more dry mass then the ~10% decrease in payload margins would be unacceptable or something like that. All while ignoring that the easiest solution is to just make the rocket ~10% larger when designing it for reuse in mind.* Those kinds of people see rocket design as some kind of min-max game.

*I didn't do the actually do the math, I just gave figures to give an idea of what I mean

>>10875825
Darn, well thanks for the info.

>>10875886
No problem, Tripoli rocketry has some stuff that could help.

>>10875765
Clearly it would prevent the creation of the Tesla-branded time machine that brought Elon Musk here from the future.

>>10875865
Is there no solution to this problem? Would nuclear engines help?

>>10875948
>>10875865

Propellant depots / orbital refueling is the solution. It resets the rocket equation.

>>10875949
But that jeopardizes jobs in Alabama, so its unacceptable.

>>10875949

>Propellant depots / orbital refueling is the solution. It resets the rocket equation.
>Propellant depots / orbital refueling is the solution.
>Propellant depots /
>Propellant depots
>Propellant
>depots
>DEPOTS
>E
>P
>O
>T
>S

>Exploding Shelby.gif

>>10875948
Build things in Space
Build a Space Elevator
Anything over 150tons or so it's more efficient to just build it in Orbit, at least on Earth.

On the Moon and Mars you can build much larger craft because of the lower gravity.

Fuel depots in Space like the other anon said are a possible solution as well, but you still have to get fuel to those depots so that's something to consider.

The real problem is that Space simply isn't profitable at the moment. In order for space to become profitable we would need to invest trillions in building a space elevator, orbital construction platforms, and fueling depots, and no government wants to spend the time/money/effort on such an ambitious project because you would be spending a large chunk of your GDP on something that may not see solid returns for a century or more.

>>10875810
>>10875865
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

>>10875820
most of that stuff is ITAR controlled and you're not allowed to distribute that freely on the internet

>a single shuttle launch cost an average of 450 million
>a Saturn V cost about 180 million
>there were 130 or so shuttle missions
We could have launched 300 or so Saturn Vs for the price of the shuttle program, not even including development costs. We could have gotten humans to Mars in the 80s.

What the actual FUCK was NASA thinking?

>>10876054
Saturn V was like half a bill as well if you amortize everything

>>10876054

>Saturn V cost: $185 million in 1969–1971 dollars ($1.16 billion in 2016 value)

>>10876003
How do you even make space more commercially lucrative? I can imagine Earth-to-Earth transportation having a niche but mining on Moon and asteroids just seems like a commercial dead end with current technology.

>>10876089
Sure, but his shuttle value was also way off.

>>10876054
Did you know that the engineers designing the shuttle opted for higher launch costs because the development costs for that specific concept were cheaper? The vietnam war was eating into the budget, so they opted for a design that had lower dev costs.

>>10876054
>>10876069
>>10876095
Shit I'm retarded

Shuttle program was 196 billion total, a Saturn V cost about 1.6b per launch; which works out to about 122 Saturn V launches for the price of the shuttle program.

So technically the shuttle was cheaper but still, we could have used the Saturn V to build a Mars craft as far back as the 80s probably.

>>10876089
>TFW SLS will cost more than Saturn V

>>10876114
Source?

>>10874941
Why would you use the approximate form for the gravitational potential valid only for small displacements near the surface of a large body?

>>10875100
The recent steps that Russia is taking re:nukes is more related actually to their now more or less permanent conventional inferiority to NATO. Relative to the rest of their forces their nuclear forces are actually quite well equipped and maintained.

Russia's actions make perfect sense when you consider them relative to who they consider their true adversaries, America and NATO. America has always had a strong tendency to desire a strategic posture de-emphasizing nukes; this is why we spend such a large amount on our conventional forces. With global strike, we are attempting to achieve deterrence through conventional means. This is terrifying to the Russians - if we figure out how to hold their nuclear systems at risk with conventional arms alone, then they are extremely vulnerable to the American's favorite tactic: arms control treaties. A comprehensive ban would render Russia a non-entity.

>>10875198
punish them with trade policy and hit them where it hurts until they play by the fucking rules

>>10876177
just go for that dam

>here's your new bulk-
>oh
>hmmmmm

>>10876189
wait what

>>10876194
the two boxed in assembly areas needed a forklift I guess. The small gap between the TEU's was too. small

>>10876189

Are there people who actually argue that rockets should be made in cleanrooms, or is that a a meme?

>>10876232
I don't think anyone ever built an orbital booster entirely outdoors before. So it's not so much arguing that it can't be done, just novel and meme wortht

>>10876200
that's a serious forklift, why is it so heavily crabbed
probably because they're operating in metal boxes
>>10876232
you can improve the consistency of your welds by doing that, which lets you get away with smaller safety margins

>>10876189
Is that the spacex lunar rover?

>>10876263
they'll probably buy those from Tesla

>>10876189
https://youtu.be/mK2jFO_DaRQ

>>10875198
Ban the import of Chinese goods that violate US copyright laws, and push for a similar ban in the EU, Canada, and Australia.

>>10876266
>ywn never cruise around the moon or Mars in a Tesla

Fml

>>10876275
>tfw you can't reenact Tokyo Drift on the moon

>>10876322
more like World Rally Championship Group B
I would pay money to watch rallysports on the Moon and Mars

>>10876323
>rally car racing on the moon
>a rally car hits a steep bump while traveling at max speed
>flies for over a mile before hitting the ground again

>>10876328
gotta manage your RCS fuel or you'll end up tumbling out of control

If there is a war on the moon and people are shooting guns at each other will the bullets fly around the world and hit someone in the back of the head if they miss?

>>10876333
what's orbital velocity on the moon at the surface?
a rifle bullet travels around 3291.84 km/h

>>10876338
that's an innapropriate amount of sig figs because I dumped 3000 feet per second into google's unit converter to km/h, let me find a number with an appropriate amount of sig figs

it seems that wikipedia already has me covered, lol

>>10875759
It would never get killed off. Imagine what the IP is worth. Lots of people would kill to get their hands on it. Apart from that it has massive strategic value to the US.

>>10875724
Mechanical engineering, electronic engineering or physics I would guess and then MSc in spacecraft engineering?

https://www.surrey.ac.uk/postgraduate/space-engineering-msc-2019

>>10876359
SpaceX as we know it could be killed off and its name gets assigned to an organization that's just a lame shadow of its former self. Happened to NASA post-Apollo.

>>10874999
But just imagine all the amazing new Javascript frameworks the US will have developed by then!

>>10875778
surprisingly few retarded ideas. However, note the lack of bicycles, in such a relatively small area that is also quite pressed for available space, driving around huge electric cars makes no sense. Instead ditch the interior electric vehicles (except for forklifts and other work equipment) and just set up a bicycle sharing system, which would have the triple benefits of being lighter, being smaller, and being easier to eventually build on Mars using Martial aluminum and steel.

>>10875372
Are these lines caused by our moon being in the way?

>>10876382
I think so

>>10876390
Shit, we should use a fuel depot on the moon and attach a big rocket to the moon. That way whenever it is in our way we can turn on the rocket to move the moon out of the way

>>10876008
Building a bigger rocket lets you take better advantage of certain parts of the rocket equation, specifically the parts to do with wet mass vs dry mass. A bigger rocket is easier to build closer to the bare minimum structural mass required to handle the forces and other requirements involved. It's a simple concept, a propellant tank twice the size doesn't need an insulation layer twice as thick, that part stays the same thickness. Ditto for any wires (longer but proportionally thinner) paint (larger surface area but proportional layer thickness goes down) etc.

Also, the rocket equation only runs away from you if you are trying to get more and more delta V, NOT more payload. A rocket with twice the overall mass of a rocket with equal efficiency will in fact get twice the payload to orbit. Imagine a 100 ton rocket gets 1 ton into orbit, at 7 km/s. Now imagine a 200 ton rocket. The 200 rocket will be able to get 2 tons into orbit, no problem. What the 200 ton rocket CANNOT do, is accelerate a 1 ton payload to 14 km/s. In order to get that 1 ton payload up to 14 km/s, the rocket would need to be far more than twice as big, in fact (using the same 1 to 100 payload ratio) it would need to weigh 10,00 tons! Why the huge jump?

It's because in order to get up to 14 km/s, the rocket is going to have to accelerate to 7 km/s, then accelerate again by another 7 km/s. That seems trivial, but consider what the ramifications are. The 100 ton rocket from the original case could push 1 ton of payload to 7 km/s. If that rocket started off already moving at 7 km/s, then it would reach 14 km/s. However, in order to push that entire 100 ton rocket up to 7 km/s, you're going to need a rocket stage that is bigger by the same factor of size difference between the original rocket and its payload. That means you need a new rocket that weighs 100 times more than the 100 ton rocket, giving it a starting mass of 10,000 tons, in order to get 1 ton of payload up to 14 km/s.

>>10876323
>>10876328
>>10876330
Well I know what my next KSP project is.

>>10876400
Isn't there a cluster of easter eggs on Mun? I'm sure someone can come up with a race map that goes around them. Now all that's needed is a good multiplayer mod.

>>10876338
>>10876339
"a bullet travels at" a speed related to the gun firing it, the cartridge itself, the loading, the powder, how fine or coarse the powder is, what shape the flakes of powder are, and how it feels at the time. The same gun firing the same ammo through a chronograph will be considered fairly consistent if velocity stays within 10fps.

>>10876406
it would take too long, even the fast wheels cap out at around 50 m/s, and very low orbit is around 10 times that and has a period of 40 minutes+
I don't have a craft set up at the minimum orbit height but it's similar, but you're still talking about a ten hour treck
>>10876417

>>10876091
Unironically, government exploration programs of the Moon and Mars to set up permanent bases, which leads to contracts for the development of space-industrial machines that can make simple products from available materials (sheet steel for example). That both drops the cost of manufacturing habitats on the moon and Mars dramatically, allowing smaller entities to offer construction contracts to lunar/martian manufacturers to build them their own facilities with effectively no launch cost involved. Lunar/martian companies also trade with one another (100 tons of steel plate for 50 tons of titanium beams please and thank you), and thus form a small but real economy that exists in space to serve others in space, rather than looping directly back to Earth. Also while this is going on you now have populations in space who are there to make money (most likely hired and paid for by companies on Earth but working as space millwrights and such) and represent a new marketplace. These people won't be ex-military astronauts who trained for a gorillion hours to be able to take care of all their own needs and everyone elses and everyone else's equipment, they're going to be decently smart and rational but a lot of them won't know shit about how a rocket engine works and most won't know shit about orbital mechanics. As sch they will be much more like actual human beings compared to every astronaut in recent history and they will want to have things to enjoy in their down time. The first extremely basic start-up businesses will be things like a guy growing strawberries on racks in his provided personal room while he actually lives at his work station, a guy with decent cooking skills taking re-hydrated MRE's and turning them into edible food products, a smart girl who's living the high life by doing her job and sucking some dicks in her spare time, nearly doubling her already high wage, etc. Even in prison businesses thrive, in space it will be able to grow from there.

>>10874915
I think you're underestimating how eager Americans are to stop hating each other and get back to hating communists.
>China puts men on the moon
>The Dems are rightly blamed for having canceled literally three different lunar programs at once
>Dems either campaign HARD on a new space race or lose to Republicans doing the same
>American on Mars by 2028

19-21 for 200m hop

>>10876125
More money spent in important districts and less wasted on overly large, capable payloads

>>10876420
I would say go with Kerbal Foundries and their hoverpads as those dont have a top speed limit, just a mass limit. They also require constant and fairly considerable power to feed them, and since they have absolutely zero grip control and propulsion has to be done via thrusters/engines. Ion or that mod that has the ore mass driver engines/thrusters would be suitable, but those use even more power.

>>10876174
>This is terrifying to the Russians
NATO only exists because of those European countries that are terrified (and rightly so) of being swallowed up by Russia. fuck em.

>>10876393
better yet, put it on a highly ecliptic orbit with a much lower periapsis so we can slingshot more easily

>>10876364
NASA was never a private company, it has always been a government organization.

>>10876420
>not using rover autopilot to circumnavigate whole worlds in a roughly straight line
It's neat when you're watching a movie on your second screen and let your rover just keep on truckin in the background. Waypoints and auto-f5 is nice too.

>>10876448
>ecliptic
elliptic

>>10876448
Wouldnt changing the orbit mess up the tides

>>10876438
gimme the hop daddy

>>10876466
lol oh yeah

>>10876466
how gives a fuuuuuuck

>>10876466
feature not bug

>>10874866
they tried to use their rockets

>>10876466
If your not a surfer who cares

16th is also hopping day apparently

>>10876232
Saturn V was made in a cleanroom. This was because fingerprints could react with liquid oxygen and cause an explosion. Debris could also get into a fuel line and jam stuff up. But you see SpaceX rockets have multiple engines and advanced computer control so it's no longer a problem if one of the engines eats a bolt like the N1 did. Three or more engines will have to eat bolts for it to become a problem.

Project West Ford was brilliant and not at all harmful to humanity's future

So what exactly are the implications of the light sail working, how will it affect actual space flight?

>>10876536
No, the real reason is because it's easier and cheaper to rinse the dirt out of the tanks before they use them than it is to make sure that in going from raw material to finished tank they never touch a single fleck of dirt.

>>10876537
It was nice in that it proved that it wouldn't work, before they just blindly greenlit the launch do dispenser full of ten tons of wires and fucked everything forever.

>>10876538
Not relevant for anything manned, too unreliable for current missions that take decades to go from planning to execution, and irrelevant in the future when we have high capacity cheap launch vehicles that let us simply use chemical propulsion or other more advanced and efficient propulsion to get probes where they're going.

>>10876571
Alright so the lightsail is basically useless, why did they bother making it? We already knew Photons contained energy

>>10876558
The LOX tank might have been assembled in a clean room and the rest of the rocket build around it.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1159969069740597248
16th is on for the Hop. Musk spoke with the FAA

Also: pic

>>10876558
Pretty sure they still wash out the LOx tanks even when they build them in a clean room.

>>10876536
I mean, that's what god made acetone for
I don't know specifically what cleaner they use, but I like acetone

>>10876621
Any price is worth it to have a human civilization mars

>>10876621
>US national debt
>22T
>tfw nigger welfare and bullshit wars cost us the stars

>>10876690
>When you realize we could have bases on the Moon, Mars, and Titan, for the money we spent beating up Iraqi's for 10 years

>>10876690
>Cost us stars
Not yet

>>10876748

>>10874398

So I was watching Zubrin talk about his Mars direct plan, it's kind of cool but a little dated with Starship coming soon. What was interesting was how he talked about using a counterweight to spin the module to generate some gravity. I haven't seen this in any plans for Starship which seems a little odd, I mean they have to have mounting points at the nose for stacking so could they not connect a passenger ship up to a cargo ship and rotate them slowly with RCS to generate a little gravity? It wouldn't need to be much, just enough so that liquids settle which would simplify a lot of water based systems like toilets and recycling as well as keeping the crew in much better physical shape. After 6 months in freefall they are going to be fucked for their landing on Mars. I guess you would lose the big blob of engines, tanks and fuel between the crew and the sun but it's my understanding is that the background rays are the real problem and they are big heavy particles that can't really be shielded against anyway.

>>10874869
>what other rockets are slated for retirement in the upcoming months/years?
SLS

>>10875695
interesting, are the two smaller rockets suborbital?

I'm proud of Rocket lab for pursuing re-usability. They could clearly see that the market was going to tighten up. Space is pro-active af.

>>10876189
that's the payload

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IzLU6iWO8

>>10876767
My God, will we ever make an aircraft that beautiful again? The thing is like the essence of a bird of prey, that quality of calm, poised watchfulness and lethality, suffused into every inch of matte titanium and snarling engine.

>>10875865
the only solution to this scenario is to radio NASA and have them nuke the mission.

I've seen The Thing. Fuck that.

>>10875809
Rocket Lab are THE smallsat company-successful consistently and well respected as pragmatists by bigger players. Them choosing to pursue reuse should be lesson to anyone working on rockets-the game has changed, forever.

Adapt or die.

>>10875372
is it harder to return from mars because earth orbit is higher energy?

>>10876827
I wonder when (or if) Rocket Lab demonstrates reusability then would their detractors back-peddle like how SpaceX's detractors did.
>"You can't reuse a rocket."
>Lands a rocket and relaunches it
>"You can't reuse a rocket more than couple of times at best."
>Does that
>"You can't do that more than 10 times."
etc.

>>10876839
The detractors have faded at this point. I do think Musk is a goof and he tends to get timelines really wrong, but his team is fucking amazing.

I think Mars is possible by 2028, but 2024 seems really really early to me. Maybe 2026 if we're lucky.

>>10874526
You can't count on public support when it comes to space. It's nice to have but not a requirement. Apollo 11 had sub 50% support in its day, the only reason it's remembered fondly now because most people now alive were kids when they first learned about Apollo 11, and kids love space unconditionally.

Space will always be driven by a few crazy dogs, not the public at large.

>>10876583
The people making it have been planning to do so for a very long time and are stubborn in the sense that they don't believe cheap heavy lift will ever be a thing. I'm oversimplifying, but in essence their idea is that all this space fantasy stuff is nonsense and they're going to work on their own propulsion system that will let them send probes all around the inner solar system using a much smaller launch vehicle (which is the same thing as saving money in their eyes).

https://twitter.com/BocaChicaGal/status/1159991258162618368
Trashcan venting and flame bright. maybe static fire test?

>>10876589
They literally built the tank in a field dude, autistic anons with cameras have been taking pictures every day since last december. This horrifically long chain of /sfg/ threads was originally started with a thread about a mystery object being built on SpaceX land and eventually turned into Starhopper watch thread and after about 30 of those it morphed into /sfg/ because hopper updates started slowing down (multiple days before a new thing was welded on or craned up). If they shipped an entire LOx tank onto the site and hoisted it inside the rocket, we would have it documented.

>>10876767
very perky and disrespectful

>>10876622
It's easier to wash a little harder than build a tank in a cleanroom setting.

>>10876774
No reason why they can't and in fact I'm pretty sure one of the early Manned Starship missions could be a simple two-Starships to high Earth orbit mission whereing they attach each one nose to nose with a cable and spin each other up to generate several levels of gravity. Honestly it's astonishing how little focus we've had on developing the technologies actually useful for going out into space, because we could have had a module-counterweight design artificial gravity station set up and operational in the 70's, easy.

>>10876792
They all are I think, just progressively higher and faster suborbital.

>>10876809
Remove your dick from your pants for a sec

>>10876827
speaking of which, vector aerospace just went oof

>>10876795
i'll be impressed when a bureaucracy space program is able to do a turnaround like that
china doesn't count

>>10876846
Probably doing systems checks? I don't think they have clearance to actually light off Raptor today

>>10876860
>china doesn't count
Why not?

>>10876858
it says orbital for the largest one right there dummy
go get some sleep

>>10876863
advancing space program changes through a bureaucracy under threat of throat slitting is cheating

>>10876858
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/sources-say-the-rocket-company-vector-may-be-in-financial-trouble/

And SpaceX's smallsat ride-share program has claimed its first victim.

>>10876809
It's not as graceful, but the B-2 is a wild looking aircraft. It looks more like a sculpture than an airplane.

Superflare

>>10876911
I assume they're filling it up more for the 200m hop

>>10874392
make sure to look near the moon for jupiter tonight, anons

This kills the NASA cuck

Anybody know some good space and space travel documentaries? Some one recommended to me how the universe works. What's your go to?

>>10876968
A Grand Day Out

>>10876889
That's inevitable. This pressure is GREAT. Prices are going to plummet, hopefully this results in a significant increase in people actually using space launch services. We're close to every decent university regularly launching its own satellites and experiments as part of its aerospace programs-now THAT is a class project.

>>10876974
Hopefully this will mean cheaper launches for small sats. My university had it's satellite program put on hold because the launch we were going to use would've put us into an orbit that the FAA didn't want us to be on. We couldn't find anyone else to carry our sat to a better orbit (who was also within our budget constraints), so work was effectively put on hold (because why develop a satellite that may not launch soon). Very disappointing semester for me.

>>10876956
why not just exit on a polar orbit

>>10876968
There's a BBC one from some years back called Voyage to the Planets that I really liked. It's a "documentary" of a fictional round-trip mission to all the planets using real/near-real tech. The Venus landing/liftoff is probably the most unrealistic bit but it's still pretty entertaining, if not necessarily hard-science.
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg1f_Yk60Mg
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_uZ5u32NQ0

>>10876979
This explains things abit better.

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

>>10876974
>now THAT is a class project.
Just think: in about a decade, universities will be launching lunar and interplanetary missions

>>10876840
Yeah, everything that Elon says i always add 4~5 years to it, i really doubt that Starship will be going to Mars before 2025, i'm betting on 2029

NASA and SpaceX should setup an experimental methane and oxygen plant on the Moon.

>>10876970
>>10876980
Thanks I'll check those out

>>10876970
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb0ooQKbflM
Unironically how I feel the spacex team are building BFR.

>>10876986
That probably wont happen. SpaceX wont do it on their own since their focus is on Mars. And NASA wont do it because that would be making a propellant depot, and in the proud state of Alabama that's worse than allowing Satan to French kiss you.

>>10876970
Wallace and grommit..

>>10876980
where've I seen this venus spacecraft before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONP9jS14toE

>>10876986
Where are they going to find their carbon source, anon
Starship doesn't need to refuel on the Moon's surface anyway, they're going to do high-elliptic-orbit refueling before it gets to the Moon and it'll have all the propellant necessary to put ~100 tons onto the Moon's surface and launch back to Earth.

>>10876995
Is that the same guy who made the Constellation in KSP video? The one where he used a modified winch to climb a mountain with a rover? I remember being impressed as fuck by that mission, especially when the lifter returned to the base to re-dock and grab the rest of the crew.

>>10876999
nah that was katateochi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp6yj2k0Fpc

>>10876923
WOW DID THE HOP REALLY HAPPEN OR IS THAT CGI??!?!?

>huff huff wheeze
>"Despite making up 10% of NASA's budget, SLS can be more cheaply replaced by propelant de-"

GO OUTSIDE YOU NERDS
LOOK AT JUPITER AND SATURN

>>10877018
>only 10%
a man can dream, though.

>>10877024
wow dots in the sky cool

>>10877026
Unironically this, thanks for the reminder anon.

>>10877024
Can't see Saturn, but I see Jupiter there.

>>10877043
Put on some binoculars, you can see the moons

>>10876717
Don't forget 'Nam.

>>10876840
2024 would be tight even for an unmanned ISRU mission

>>10876858
>>10876889
And Vector was one of the bigger prospective smallsat launchers imo. I was pessimistic when this general idea came up before the Rocket Lab announcement, but at this point I think all of the hopeful smallsat launchers will be dead on the water.

>>10876836
mars is a higher energy orbit because if you fell into the sun from mars' altitude you'd be moving faster than falling from earth's altitude; earth is moving faster is probably why the window is narrower

>>10875759
>pink onions face
shit I missed a meme

>>10877120
It’s from the HBO show Chernobyl. Worth a watch

>>10876889
Rekt

>>10876322
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE2ixx7DTaw

>>10877111
India, EU and China will probably each have a smallsat launcher they'll support no matter what for national security reasons but yeah, commercial market will get steamrolled by Rocket Lab even if reuse doesn't work out.

is elon going to reveal a solar and propellant production plan for mars, or rely on industry to solve the problem?

>>10877120

>>10875717
He said the hopper wasn't going to hop when the hatch was already iced over, had his whole stream thinking water tanks were propellant tanks about to explode in the fire. Doesn't seem to even do much research himself aside from copy pasting performance numbers

>>10877290
This is Dodd
>have patreon
>patroners give you money
>in exchange they have access to a discord where they write your scripts and do research for you
>publish video
>advertise patreon account
>continue cycle

I don’t get it, why do people do his job for him

>>10877291
I wish I could get people to make money for me.

>>10877291
That's pretty much YouTube in a nutshell in 2019.

Autistic /ourguy/ Scott Manley is the only space news channel you should be watching anyway. He also low key shits on the estronaut on twitter from time to time which is hilarious.

>>10877265
Pretty much everything he needs for that is available off the shelf except for large Sabatier machines which doesn't seem like it would be something that difficult for SpaceX to make themselves since it's basically just a heated box with a catalyst layer that you pump Hydrogen and CO2 through.

>>10876397
>Also, the rocket equation only runs away from you if you are trying to get more and more delta V, NOT more payload.

Good post. This also illustrates why rocket staging is a dumb concept and should only be done when absolutely needed (such as when going from Earth surface to orbit). Instead, if you want to get more delta-v (such as go to deep space instead of LEO), you should use orbital refueling.

Stage the delta-v, not the rocket.

>>10876717
>When you realize we could have bases on the Moon, Mars, and Titan, for the money we spent beating up Iraqi's for 10 years

Doubly true since Starship is now a fucking stainless steel construct powered by natural gas. Replace Raptor with a somewhat less efficient gas generator engine, and this is 1960s tier technology.

>>10876774
>ould they not connect a passenger ship up to a cargo ship and rotate them slowly with RCS to generate a little gravity?

pic related

>>10877265
>is elon going to reveal a solar and propellant production plan for mars, or rely on industry to solve the problem?
Propellant plant is an integral part of the Starship system, it just does not work as a Mars vehicle without it.

>>10877466
Looks kind of dumb but I can't see why not. If guess like the other poster said it's a trade-off between getting a few more rads, and you are getting a lot regardless, and simplifying the on board systems and keeping the crew in better shape for landing. The crew health on landing is maybe not such an issue a few synods down the line when they have facilities in place but it will be critical for the first few crews. They need to land and get immediately to work and not spend weeks/months recovering from zero g and building muscles back up.

>>10876995

>>10877463
i want spacex to use as much 60s-looking tech/aesthetics as possible in order to beat it into the public's head that neocons and welfare took all this from us.

>>10877024
Can‘t you see those pretty much always?

>>10876008
What a fuckin narcissic retard.

>>10877553
This, every fucking component in starship is using old ass technologies, barring the metallurgy, raptors could have been made in the 60s and that's not exactly unsolvable since Soviets had something comparable shortly after. The only thing would have been computing power but really all that means is you lose a little mass fractions for bigger computers.

https://twitter.com/AJ_FI/status/1160049231866060800

Chinese Linkspace small reusable rocket test

>>10875199
So curved engines won't work?

>>10877466
I recall musk saying you’d be able to jog around the interior of starship like Dave in 2001 in the Odyssey. Maybe that only worked in the old big starship plans.

>>10877818
fuck we are all doomed...

>>10877839
According to Scott Manly its a lot smaller than it looks.

Hopefully this spooks the US in to dropping over a few dump trucks of crash at SpaceX headquarters.

>>10875754
Now you know how the F35 feels.

>>10877834
You would still be able to do that on a 9m diameter starship but that's really not much better than just physically doing a workout on a stationary machine for the same period of time. You really need that constant g force to help settle bodily fluids and keep muscles from being btfo.

>>10877852
Sure. But you just spin the Starship a little on it’s vertical axis a little to get a nice 9.8m/s gravity along the sides.

>>10877854
Enjoy your crew vomiting their guts out since the thing will be spinning like a fucking top for any meaningful force to be applied. You need a much much larger diameter to achieve that without the crew puking out their breakfast

>>10877856
LOL what? Why would they be vomiting? They'd just feel exactly like they do on regular earth gravity. They could be lying back reading a book, playing chess and even building a house of cards if the ship was balanced well enough.

>>10877858
Refer to this plot.

>>10877858
Fuck off retard

>>10877859
I'm too small brain to understand what this is getting at.

>>10877862
Yeah because you are a fucking retard

>>10877858
Your head experiences less force than your legs, fucking with you.

>>10877868
fuck

>>10877862
I probably should've linked to where I got it from.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artificialgrav.php
Scroll down to the section that says "Spin RPM Limit". The red means "very uncomfortable" and green means "comfortable". The Coriolis effect from spinning a spacecraft induces nausea (which I think comes from differences in velocity of the various fluids in your body).

>>10877866
I know :(

>>10877871
> :(
You have to go back.

>>10877870
Well shit.

200m diameter Starship when?

>>10877873
>>10877466

>>10877859
why would you want 1G for a Mars trip, it's only gonna be half that when you get there

>>10877876
You are still going to need minimum of 20-30m diameter for even some paltry 0.1g effect and even then it's going to be really rough on the crew for half a year or more. Why not just tether two starships together for hundreds of metres of diameter you moron?

>>10877876
>>10877879
>>10877873
>>10877870

Docking two Starships like during refueling will give you over 100 meters diameter. Enough for 0.25g at 2 RPM for convenience during flight. The downside is that ceiling is now floor.

>>10877888
>The downside is that ceiling is now floor.
I can imagine SpaceX solving that issue in their typical "brute force" way.

>>10877876
You want 1 G because it keeps your people Earth fit up to the point they step onto the surface of Mars, at which time they will feel significantly lighter and won't get as tired from suddenly needing to wear heavy and cumbersome suits outside while doing work.

>>10877895
just put the tap in a rotating pad lol

>>10877888
nose to nose will be better since the spaceship needs to be lifted onto the booster using a crane attached to the nose anyway

>>10877907
But wouldn't that reduce the rotation radius for the crewed sections?

Thinking about ring stations, but I'm just a compsci and I know nothing about physics. (pls no bully)

See pic related. Assuming a very big ring with spokes connecting it to the core, the main stresses on the material will be:

* Tension on the ring due to centrifugal force (R2) it will stretch outward (away from the core)
* Tension on the ring due to the velocity (R1) but this gets cancelled*
* Tension on the spokes due to centripetal force (S1) it will stretch outward (away from the core)
* Tension on the spokes due to the velocity (S2) but this gets cancelled*
* Shear on the spokes due to torque differences (S3) closer to the core = less torque = the spoke starts to bend

* cancelled = the section under consideration is "moving at the same speed in the same direction", so it won't have any relative motion, so no stress.

Correct?

>>10877913
Not if you use a cable. Too easy, all the hardware will already be there, it would take one spacewalk or remotely piloted robot to set up.

>>10877924
this nigga thinks velocity causes tension, nigga that is centripetal force

>>10876809
The worst bit is that we very likely have, but that they're still deeply classified and collecting dust in some hangar at Groom Lake or Tonopah, that is, if they weren't cut up by a bulldozer and buried or burned in the Groom Lake pits.

But remember that the first A-12/SR-71 replacement probably flew in the 60s and that there have likely been others after that one.

>>10877818
>It would have a lift-off mass of 33 t (32 long tons; 36 short tons) and take-off thrust of 400 kN (90,000 lbf), allowing a payload of 200 kg (440 lb) to be lifted into a Sun synchronous orbit (SSO) of 249–550 km (155–342 mi) high.[10]

>The first stage would have four liquid engines, fueled by kerolox (liquid oxygen and kerosene), each producing 100 kN (22,000 lbf) of thrust.[11] It is projected to have an initial launch cost of $4.5 million, dropping to $2.25 million using a reused first stage.[10]

That's pretty much on par with Rocket Lab.

>ywn ride the launch escape roller coaster

what?

>>10878243
this is the what? image, my bad. that's just another bulkhead

>>10878247
I didn't think they'd ship a bulkhead in tho, that's a new one
it couldn't have come very far, you can't transport 9m wide bulkheads by road

>>10878251
sure you can

>>10878253
no, you really can't, not without closing the road while you do it

oh boy, everybody is going reusable, ESA, the chinese, rocketlab, the russians are probably looking in to it too.
Meanwhile the US keeps throwing money at SLS.
crazy times, new wind in the industry, in 10 years probably boots on mars.

5 dead in Russia due to nuclear rocket explosion
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/10/russian-nuclear-agency-confirms-role-in-rocket-test-explosion

oof

>>10878273
>ESA
Prometheus doesn't count.

>>10878278
That's the most Russian thing I've heard this month.

>>10878278
"liquid fueled rocket engine" means Nuclear thermal, not nuclear ramjet, right? that's not SLAM, that's NERVA

>>10878278
Huh well that explains all that commotion.

>>10878130
It could be a nice thematic rollercoaster

>>1087
>>10877926
Not even, just need a connector and winch on the nose of one starship, have them link then fly away from each other

>>10878257
You can if it's on its side

>>10878278
>briefly drove radiation levels up to 20x normal
20x background radiation is like eating a block of potassium chloride salt, nothing to see here folks.

>>10878278
can't wait to leave this shithole

>>10878247
maybe a fuel line

>>10878247
LOx pipe for Super Heavy Booster? Or just Starship?

>>10877993
SpaceX has SSO rideshare too. 150KG @ $2.25.

>>10878516
That's what I was thinking, too.

>>10878406
No because then it's 9m tall retard so it will be taking out power lines and getting stuck because it can't go under bridges.

>>10876956

Wheres a new thread

>>10878938

Relax, this thread still has 1 to 2 pages left before you can make a new one. This board is slow enough for a new thread to make sense once it hits page 9/10. 8 is a bit too early. Anything from 1-7 should be ban worthy.

>>10878988
new:
>>10879195