/sci/ - Science & Math

>mod abuse
I saw what you did

What will Mk3 look like?

Skintight suits are for girls. They ride up men's junk too much.

>>11061342
Top side is going to be reflective as fuck.

Ignoring any power requirements are there any experimental or even theoretical plasma engines out there that would work for things like planes? Or are they only ever going to be used in vacuum? I know this is a retarded popsci question

>>11061405
All I've been able to find is this:
"First Breakthrough for Future Air-Breathing Magneto-Plasma Propulsion Systems"
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/825/1/012005/pdf
and I think its bullshit.

>>11061405
I mean, if you ignore power requirements, you can just ionize the air around you and use that as your reaction mass. Throw enough power at it and you'll probably get plasma.
https://youtu.be/gzjMwqKv8Gg

>>11061342
It'll be made from cast iron and a giant slingshot.

>>11061405
Like all nice things we're limited by battery tech on this.

>>11061393
>be me
>hired gun for ULA
>responsible for the AMOS-6 exposition
>get called again to stop the launch of Starship
>itsshowtime.incredibles
>grab my gear (can't forget my finger-less gloves) and slowly sneak up on the launch pad
>takes three days to crawl to a good vantage point
>look at the rocket stack through the scope of my tacticooled anti-materiel rifle
>Starship's dull belly looks so vulnerable in the morning light
>gotta shoot it right after liftoff to make it look like a Raptor explosion as per Shelby's instructions
>the countdown starts
>immediately upon liftoff Starship does a roll
>its WD-40 polished reflective surface blinds me
>the light burns my shooting eye through the scope
>mrw

NASA InSight managed to dig in another 3 centimeters, seems like compression of the soil is helping.

https://twitter.com/DLR_en/status/1183734797165875200

going to the moon should have been cheap and easy by now

why has space travel gone backwards?

>>11061511
About fucking time.

>>11061511
>robotic explorers are perfectly fine!!! you don't need to send humans!!!
>the greatest technology of man kind can't out dig one fucking midget with a spade

>>11061523
unironically richard nixon

>>11061545
>in the end they resort to tamping the ground, but it takes like four months instead of the thirty seconds it would for a human on the ground

>>11061505
based

>>11061548
Did it take that long to actually tap the ground with the robotic arm? I knew that robots were slow but I don't think they're THAT slow.

>>11061572
when did Insight start the mole?

>>11061545
expendable midgets
>no costly return system
>ISRU requirements minimized by using midgets instead of humans
>gives midgets a goal in life
>can use a spade
>unlikely to invade earth
>martian gravity might make them normal sized

>>11061578
kek brutal

>>11061545
Why do you want human explorers? Robotic ones are perfectly capable!
>probes fail to remove lens caps multiple times in a row
They can do just as much as a human.
>takes months to dig a coffee cup sized hole
They're safer too.
>never takes any risks, only does boring stuff
>rover still gets suck in slighly damp dust
Plus they're more sustainable with our current technology.
>perpetuates anemic launchers and zero space infrastructure
You're just romanticizing Apollo.
>faps to decades old probe data because so few probes gets sent there

>>11061109
NASA has 2 different suits for launch/landing and EVA, so what are you on about anyway anon?

What does /sfg/ think of Martian life being potentially infectious or dangerous? I think it's fucking stupid but reddit gets mad when I tell them that.

>>11061679
it's retarded. It's very hard for a terrestrial virus to even be able (as in having the right proteins and enzymes) to interact with humans, let alone a possible martian lifeform which has not shared even the same roots of life. It's very probably not even based on DNA (unless mars life was carried my a chunk of mass expelled of the earth and crashed on mars for some reason).

>>11061655
xEMU is designed to work in both, actually it’s going to be tested first aboard the ISS in 2023.

The virgin stainless steel trash can vs the CHAD composite Dream Chaser

>>11061711
IVA (launch/landing) and EVA suits work towards two completely different solutions, anon
attempting to mix them will result in unfortunate compromises

>>11061722
I love Dream Chaser, but it's an exciting and innovative answer to a question that was passed it's sell-by date forty years ago, anon. Why bother with separate capsule when the age of the reusable upper stage is upon us?

>>11061724
Tell that to NASA then, they seem pretty confident in the system. They have had 40 years to build a new suit, so it’s not like it’s a rush job.

>Why bother with separate capsule when the age of the reusable upper stage is upon us?

Because dragging around massive fuel tanks is incredibly mass inefficient. SNC are aiming for 15+ reuses with DC, so it could give Starship a run for it’s money, especially with it’s vastly more attractive landing regime.

>>11061739
Dream Chaser – ACES is compelling. Reuse the second stage in orbit, reuse the capsule and first stage on Earth.

>>11061765
I don't see how an empty ACES in a ISS delivery orbit is useful, you've still got to refuel it

>>11061753
No one gives a shit about inefficiency when you’re slinging 100t for just a few million. Are tiny schooners more efficient that massive cargo ships? Yeah

>>11061679
>going on reddit
You should stay there

>>11061523
entrenched, politicized public institutions are the most malignant form of cancer

which is what NASA and other space agencies became after Apollo

>>11061822
This, the average tanker or cargo ship is the size of a US aircraft carrier, or substantially larger than the average aircraft carrier, yet products are comparatively cheap worldwide. They're a great example of economies of scale reducing costs, and ideally as soon as possible Elon should find out the maximum possible size for a Metha/LOX burning rocket and make that the next iteration of Starship. Such a large vehicle would end up looking more like an Orion ship, some kind of fat truncated cone or bullet rather than the long tower like rockets that fly now.

>>11061835
cringe

>>11061835
there's literally three space communities worth following and one is on reddit, it's not like there's any reason to use the front page or whatever

sort of like /sci/ is shit but /sfg/ is ok

>>11061850
>three space communities worth following
NSF, uhhhhhhh

>>11061850
>There are three worth following and one is leddit.
Excellent, so I can safely avoid red*it and still follow two worthwhile space communities. I love redundancy in valuable information sources.

>>11061679
Animals have loads of diseases that rarely pass over to humans. In fact, near constant contact between humans and animals are required for a disease to jump between species, and both are from the same planet. A Martian disease, even if the parts its composed of are very similar to that of Earth diseases, would have a very hard time infecting someone.

The only way I can see it "infecting" an Earth lifeform, like a person, is that its so different from Earth diseases that somehow our immune system struggles to identify it and remove it from our bodies, and it just stays around in our bodies taking whatever compatible nutrients it can find. But that's more like a cancer than a typical disease. Then again I'm not a biologist so I could be wrong.

What are you reading /sfg/

Whoah listen to this.

Jupiter helicopter. With an RTG for permanent power. With helium baloons to allow termporal shutdows of the engines. Imagine...

>This STA is necessary to authorize Starship suborbital test vehicle communications for SpaceX Mission 1569 from the Boca Chica launch pad, and the experimental recovery following the suborbital launch. Recovery is limited to 2 functions: (1) prelaunch checkout test of the TC uplink from the ground station at Boca Chica (less than five minutes in duration) and (2) experimental uplink testing from the ground station at Boca Chica during descent. Trajectory data will be provided directly to NTIA, USAF, and NASA. All downrange Earth stations are receive-only. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=95752&RequestTimeout=1000

>>11061879
The Songs of Distant Earth, although college keeps pulling me away from it.

>>11061879
Rocket Engines, by S. L. Bragg, still working through History of Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines by Sutton, The Republic, and Ringworld Throne.

>>11061545
The first death on Mars will be caused by dirt. We don't understand dirt all that well so we can't guarantee that stuff we send to Mars will actually work when it gets there. Hell stuff that moves dirt around on earth doesn't work all that well either. All these troubles we're having right now do not bode well for when we send people to Mars. We might send a drill to Mars only to find out it just doesn't work, meaning our crew can't mine ice to get home, meaning they have to wait for a new one to get shipped.
>>11061572
They don't want to fuck up because their ass is on the line if they do. Also I would like to remind you that Insight was not designed to do this. Previously no robot we've ever sent to another world was able to do what Insight has done so far. You may not realize it, but getting robots to do anything with flexible things is hard. I am quite surprised that they actually uncovered the damn thing! Insight is the first robot we've ever sent that has a robot arm like this and being able to handle unforeseen events like this has already demonstrated its usefulness.

Robots and people are not mutually exclusive. With robots we can try lots of risky things out and build infrastructure before the people get there. Humans still require massive amounts of infrastructure to stay alive, but robots don't. The more crap we have to bring to keep people alive the less supplies we can bring for building permanent infrastructure. We can also send robots to hell holes humans cannot survive in. Europa's a pretty great example of this. Radiation on the surface and in the general vicinity is enough to cause acute radiation poisoning in merely hours. So unless we send a huge hulking tank, we can't send people.

>>11061897
Humans are so much more adaptable than a robot can be though. If a drill fails, humans can literally just dig ice with shovels and torches. Humans can squeeze into tunnels, caves, and explore places a robot can't, because humans have the flexibility to do it. Robots can't unless they're incredibly specialized. A robot that can squirm through Martian caves probably can't shovel ice or patch pipes.

>>11061913
This, a robutt is in many ways not as physically robust, dexterous, or or flexible as a yooman bean. Practically no robot except perhaps some of the neat experimental stuff from Boston Dynamics can match the combined physical traits of a human, some are stronger, some are more flexible, some have better fine motor control, none have all of those things combined and slaved to a conscious mind which has direct near-instant control over all of those physical systems.

>>11061679
It could use peroxide as a solvent meaning encounters with it could be explosive. The real issue though is Earth life contaminating Mars life and ruining the science we could do. This is especially worrisome because within the last couple of months we've discovered earth bacteria that can potentially live in Mars surface brines. Astrobiologists have concluded that we really need to send a small rover with a dedicated astrobio payload to some putative surface brines ASAP. It has to be small because big rovers can't be sterilized enough to permit them to get near surface water. In fact Curiousity had to avoid some surface water due to contamination concerns.

[Schmitt - "Through the years I had deployed versions of the ALSEP enough times that the geometry was pretty well fixed in my mind. I could look at an area and, in my imagination, place where everything was going to be and try to pick a compromise site. Nothing was going to be perfect; there were too many variables. But it's one of those things that you can do fairly easily with enough practice that would also be tough to automate. The main problem with the ALSEP was that it took a lot of time to deploy. Much more than it needed to had we designed it to minimize time initially. It got off to a bad start and never fully recovered. Before my time, Walt Cunningham had told the Bendix people 'Give us something to do on the Moon.' And they did. The other extreme was when Bill Anders saw it and said, 'I want a big red button and when I punch it, it gets deployed.' And we ended up in the middle somewhere, still taking an awful lot of time and effort to deploy it. Not the best use of human time on the Moon. Deciding where to deploy is a good use of people; but the actual deployment should have been far more straight-forward than it was."]

>>11061924
>It has to be small because big rovers can't be sterilized enough to permit them to get near surface water. In fact Curiousity had to avoid some surface water due to contamination concerns
bro just dunk it in germ-x a couple of times lol

>>11061927
One way that this would be improved is with expando-habs since they're already made of a pliable material which can be quite compact but expand and change its shape and size. Combine that with air-tight zip airlocks and higher degrees of modularity and you could at least partially ameliorate the problem of deploying significant structures in hostile environments. Any permanent hab on the Moon or Mars will have to be buried to protect them from prolonged radiation exposure and solar flares, but it would save a lot of time and increase living area to do it with expandohabs and a less complicated airlock system.

>just got out of PCR lab demonstrating genetic differences between humans by racial group
>christfag shilling creationism on my campus today
>has a whiteboard set up asking "is evolution a lie?" with true or false tallies
>mark down "false" and start walking away
>christfag gets triggered, demands I explain my reasoning
>yell back "because I'm a scientist"
Post /devilish/ things you've done towards pseudoscience pushers.

>>11061924
>>11061933
Fuck Mars life, in this shithole universe it's yeet or be yoten. Martians are an evolutionary dead-end already, their planet is a UV blasted hypoxic desert with barely any extant water, nearly nonexistent geological activity, and no atmosphere or biosphere to trap and retain energy long enough for it to be put to use in life processes. Humans might be the greatest thing to ever happen to Mars life, because we'd create a much more energy rich environment for it to live in.

Do you even lift bro?

>>11061949
I laughed derisively when somebody mentioned the anathropogenic global warming conjecture, causing them to fall silent in humiliation for being recognized as yet another doomsday cultist.

Society.

DO U EVEN LIFT BRO

>>11061332
Apropos of nothing, but just re-stumbled across pic related when posting on one of the other boards.

Any of you guys have contacts at SpaceX or one of the other launch providers? If so, it would be an Epic Win for /sci/ if one of out number could persuade them to name a satellite or spacecraft "My Sides."

Somebody make this happen.

>>11061342
Pic related.

>>11061438
I don't care who you are, that's funny.

>>11061387
>Space cameltoe when?

>>11061511
When did google's image search get stupid? It used to be pretty useful.

>>11061978
They're probably too busy fucking with search results to manipulate the public's perception of reality to bother providing a good service at this point.

>>11061971
>be space walking with bro
>we both have new skin tight spacesuits
>doing cool space stuff
>notices that he has a bulge
>owo "Huston, what's this?"

>>11061546
Bullshit. Nixon has been out of office since 1974.

And he is not scheduled to become President of Earth until 3000.

>>11061578
The whole problem of mass for expendables would be hugely reduced by recruiting midgets. Less food, less O2, less cabin space even. Everybody should unironically recruit midgets for space flight.

Plus, if you think watching the Apollo guys bounce around on the moon was amusing, wait'll you get a load of these guys...

>That's one really, really small step for man...

>>11061998
Manlets aren't human, it wouldn't count as putting people on the Moon.

>>11061679
>I think it's fucking stupid

I tend to agree. Unless Mars ahs evolved little microorganisms that just rape the shit out of any, let's say, water they can get their little microbial hands on, or something.

The chances of problems seem pretty remote -- but the downside of guessing wrong there and a long-shot paying off could be pretty catastrophic.

Since we want to avoid, for as long as possible, contamination going the other way, it makes sense to be cautious, I suppose. But it is awfully low on my list of things to worry about.

>>11061739
For the sheer aesthetic glory of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

NASA TV live Bridenstine talking about new spacesuits and Artemis in general

>>11061332
Earth is flat

>>11061913
there are things humans are good at and there are things robots are good enough at. Tech slightly more advanced than what the Insight lander has now is probably good enough for deploying things like solar panels on the surface. Meaning we can start building infrastructure on the first unmanned starship missions to Mars. Or perhaps you would like to wait until we send people to start doing anything at all?
>>can't unless they are specialized
anon, Insight wasn't specialized to fix the mole, but that's what it's doing now
>>squeeze
I seriously hope you don't do any squeezing into tight spaces with a spacesuit on. You risk your life, limited medical supplies, limited spacesuits, other consumables, and human time. It's actually better if you die if you have an accident, because you could become a useless drain of resources. If you get say brain damage from oxygen deprivation, the rest of the crew may need to babysit your sorry ass. Robots are getting better and starting to develop motor skills. It's best not to see them as a replacement for humans, but as a way to augment what we can do.
>>11061921
Decent autonomous manipulation gets us pretty far.

>>11061846
FTFY

>>11062056
the red is the waterline, anon
has the Enterprise ever splashed down?

>>11061949
I spend way to much time on /x/ calling bullshit on flerfers, UFOlogists Apollo conspiracy nuts.

I leave the rest of the schizos alone because they can;t help it, and what they believe about demons or something is not really something I feel science addresses.

>>11062064
No, so I had to decide whether to just leave of the red (which offended my sense of aesthetics or just stick it somewhere randomly. I stuck it low on the theory that they have gravity under control, and could float at whatever level suited them. Don;t want to flood the shuttle bay, so I set it lower than that, in case the transporters malfunction (like THAT would ever happen) and we had to use the shuttle crafts.

>>11062027
damn good address for a rat

>>11062040
I think the issue with robutts is probably going to end up being that without a large solar array to recharge at or a compact higher energy nuclear power supply (like a miniaturized kilopower type system using hotter high enrichment fuel) any autonomous robot on Mars is going to be greatly limited by power restrictions. Rovers aren't just sluggish because we can't control them in real time, RTGs just provide instantaneous energy, they're only really useful for long duration very low power demand situations. Autonomous robots used to construct significant structures must not only spend a lot of power running their highly complicated computer systems (probably a few hundred watts, assuming they don't eat up more than the average desktop computer) but they'll also need enough power to keep those systems warm or to cool them in direct sunlight, and to actuate strong manipulators and wheels/treads/tracks/whatever to move themselves around at a good speed.

The only solutions I can think of are that they either charge off of a regularly cleaned large solar farm, having to return every couple hours just to keep from dying, or have them powered by an onboard battery pack charged by a tiny but high temperature nuclear stirling motor and alternator, which will require them to have some significant heat management systems.

>>11062056
add 9m starship / bfr and 18m BCR (big chungas rocket)

https://twitter.com/SpacePadreIsle/status/1184171251528622086

Boca Chica Starship launch pad progress Tuesday Oct 15

>>11061880

>Jupiter surface gravity of 2.5g
Helicopters, especially RTG powered, will be close to impossible to use at Jupiter. Balloon might work depending on how low down you go in the clouds because density will increase.

>>11062163
how does the efficiency of aerofoils change in a primarily hydrogen/helium atmosphere?

>>11062129
((launch pad))

>>11062223
(((rocketry)))

>>11061963
With how many starlink satellites there'll end up being, I'm sure they'll open up naming to the public (everything is vetted of course) or maybe you can pay to name one. /sfg/ should name one.

>>11062247
BG-4U

>>11061342
>>11061438
>>11061968

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqIapDKtvzc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFfMruoRMGo

A small documentation of stirling motor design, now that companies like lockmeme have developed COPV type tanks that can withstand cryogenic oxygen cold without losing structural integrity it aught to be possible to build an even more robust stirling cylinder capable of withstanding internal pressures up to 300 Bar, triple what the demonstrated engine operates at, effectively meaning that you could make the engine a third the size for the same power output. Kilopower reactors are a start, but they seem highly inefficiently designed compared to the system demonstrated in these two videos, based on the lack of thermal exchange pipes, fins, etc I'd guess that Kilopower's stirling motors lose good deal of heat rather than retaining it efficiently.

>>11061523
The space shuttle program was a mistake and was allowed to continue being a mistake for 40 years.

When the FUCK is the next falcon launch

and why the FUCK was the last one in july?????

>>11062105

>>11062339
yeah

>>11062339
Second starlink launch was originally scheduled for two days from now, so Idunno maybe tack on a week and call it sometime around the 24th maybe?

>>11062332
That spacesuit is filthy! Let's clean it up!

>>11061523
"People are mistaken when they think that technology just automatically improves. It does not automatically improve. It only improves if a lot of people work very hard to make it better, and actually it will by itself degrade."

>>11062163
Isn't Jupiter 99% storms?
No way balloons would work.

>>11062391
imagine throwing away that much of a rocket

>>11062389
>>11062391
Why is it even plane-shaped if you're just gonna launch it like a capsule anyway?

>>11062395
That rocket looks like Vulcan, which recovers the engines and avionics (i.e. the most expensive parts of a rocket stage) in a separate pod. So the pod can be recovered and a new relatively inexpensive propellant rank can be made for it. Sure, it's not as spectacular as SpaceX's flyback Falcons, but it is a step in the right direction.

>>11062402
S.M.A.R.T. reuse is a concept in a powerpoint right now, anon
the plan is to just throw it all away at first

>>11062397
because angry researchers want their samples to be gently brought back to earth

>>11062397
Many reasons: you get lower G-forces on descent (good for fragile cargo and injured people), it can also carry more cargo than capsules and because it can land at KSC’s Shuttle landing complex, allowing scientists to get their experiments back much quicker.

>>11062362
based thielposter

Robert Zubrin is just another Gary Busey to the Artemis programme

>>11062543
Zubrin is a very smart man with his head so far up his optimized ass

>>11062543
What does that even mean?

>>11062101
humans have to breath, eat, drink, excrete, and also need to be kept warm. The conversion efficiency of sunlight to food ain't gonna be good(<2%) and human muscle at converting chemical energy already in the body(after digestion) is 18-26%. In comparison electric motors can exceed 90% efficiency. Just because you can go from electricity to mechanical work more or less directly already puts robots at a pretty damn big advantage.
>>charge a battery
and what's the problem with that? Li-ion has a 80-90% charge discharge efficiency. You can also use this incredible technology known as a power cord. If you want to do something fancy you could even use power beaming. With lasers the efficiency can get above 25%, which is already as good as chemical energy to mechanical energy in humans.

>>11062551
True, he doesn’t understand politics or compromise, or even infrastructure building. He’s autistically focused on getting to the Moon and Mars as simply and quick as possible, his many multiple launch Falcon Heavy architectures are the best evidence of this.

>>11062568
>multiple launch Falcon Heavy architecture
>YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE STARSHIP TO THE MOON OR MARS YOU NEED TO STAGE OFF OF IT
okay retard

>>11062572
I can see his point in regards to the Moon, but Mars? Starship is specifically designed to land on Mars through aerobraking etc. He just wants SpaceX to travel to Mars and drop off the lander from his architecture.

Why wouldn't you use a turbine for the regenerative cooling / heat engine portion of an ISRU setup? You could have one end of the turbine powered by steam, and the other end used to compress the atmosphere to a usable CO2 concentration.

>>11061753
Anon. The Constellation suit (what you're thinking of) was cancelled ages ago.

>>11062668
I mean they have a new suit they showed off today...

>>11061722
Ah yes, because CHADs are expensive as hell.

>>11062684
Something that can reused 15 times won’t be expensive unless it needs Shuttle-tier refurbishment. Their (SNC) only planning to build two for the near future, because of this.

>>11062700
the launch will still be expensive, because you're throwing away a first stage and a second stage each time, unless you launch on a Falcon 9 (can it launch on F9? it might be too heavy), in which case you throw away a second stage, or if you launch on Starship, you look like an idiot.

>SpaceX applies for 30,000 more satellite licenses
Christ, as someone who works in the satellite industry this blows my fucking mind. They make us look like little faggots with our proposed 14 sat constellations and shit. I'd love to see what their design meetings look like...all of our's are filled with constant whinging about "muh risk".

>>11062745
After a few more launches they'll be flying the largest fleet of any entity- commercial or state. Before the constellation is even done, the majority of satellites in orbit will be Starlink. It's all just absolutely fucking wild.

>>11062745
It’s not going to get approved by the FCC because it will intrude on the orbits/frequencies of other satellite operators, as well as the orbit of the ISS, which means NASA will get involved. Also, those who complain about risk are right to do so because space debris is no joke. It seems like as soon as SpaceX is mentioned, people just start ignoring the reality of space, we’ve already had one near miss with only 60 Starlink satellites...

>>11062745
Judging by what I hear on the interwebz and their really shitty marketing team, I would imagine it's nothing but constant bitching about "demisability" and production engineers bitching about the things that production engineers bitch about until somebody's just like "WELL THEN LET'S LAUNCH SOME AND FIND OUT HUH" and now the public knows about it

>>11062761
Isn't 30,000 like six times the number of currently operational satellites around Earth right now? I thought there were roughly 5000 up now, not counting dead shit and debris on graveyard orbits.

>>11062772
Last I checked it was somewhere in the 4,000-6,000 range, yeah

>>11062761
It's gonna start getting crowded real quick...plus, if any of the paper rockets start launching, that's gonna accelerate things. We have actually been bidding Firefly and Virgin in addition to Rocket Lab.

>>11062767
You're probably right (I hope), but the real kicker is bringing their attitude to rocketry to satellites. We have to deal with risk of unproven systems CONSTANTLY. Spacex doesn't care.

>>11062771
I really do believe the "fuck it let's just launch that shit" part. We and everyone else sit down carefully and plan out all our scenarios and contingencies and requirements, but I bet spacex satellite guys just say "we got a dozen rockets sitting in the shed, let's just go with it"

>>11062767
Also, I forgot to mention ESA, space debris prevention groups and astronomers all jumping into the ring as well.

What will reach orbit first? A texas grain silo or the sls?

>>11062795
Florida grain silo

>>11062767
>One near miss

It is well stablished by now that it wasn't a big deal, mostly just FUD.

>>11062788
Oh fuck ESA, wtf will they do anyway? Probably build a really super expensive and delayed anti debris satellite but get a load of sand in their vaginas after SpaceX launches its big cheap fleet of reusable space cleansers first

>>11062767
>we’ve already had one near miss with only 60 Starlink
Oh fuck right off. The risk of a collision between the two satellites was 1 in 1,000. If you're going to concern troll, at least be accurate.

SpaceX orbital laser debris cleaning.

Vaporize the small stuff and lush the bigger stuff into the atmosphere.

Is it possible for two sub-orbitals satellites to creates orbital debris from a collision? Wouldn't it all burn up eventually?

>>11061989
Huston, we have a problem

>>11062834
No unles the explosion actually put things in orbit. Yes

>>11062795
texas grain silo is going to be in paperwork hell until the end of time, my money is on the Florida grain silo
>>11062834
>is it possible for two sub-orbital satellites to create orbital debris from a collision
you mean this? https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49189.0

>>11062788
Astronomers are fucking retards who would rather have Earth based telescopes than a fucking Lunar polar telescope. A strong space industry is required to move astronomy forward, even if astronomers need dragged kicking and screaming.

>>11061978
When did you get stupid dipshit? You searched the thumbnail not the full image.

>>11062767
Fuck off FUDposter

Would inertial confinement or magnetic confinement be more likely to be used as a fusion drive for an interstellar spacecraft?

>>11062745
"well, we're launching a stack of 60 soon so let's set up five of them with [experimental subsystem A] and five of them with [experimental subsystem B] and see which one is better, for the next batch"

"well, push the software update to these three sats and then if it passes the tests push it to the rest of the fleet"

China will eventually establish their own constellations. Its important that Musk succeeds with Starlink for american interests. It will be allowed.

>>11061962
And it only took them a week

>>11062374
i think they are thinking in terms of some pretty sturdy balloons.

>>11062830
>1 in 1,000
>Let's add 30,000 more satellites

Is there a mathematician in the house?

>>11062833
Snarks. They have to call them Snarks. First one up has to be named BJ the Snark.

>Illiterates don't know bout muh BJ the Snark.

>>11062858
Well I'll be dipped in shit.

>>11061405
The AJAX concept used MHD converter to siphon off energy from the air at hypersonic speeds and routed it into an MHD thruster at the exhaust both for acceleration and to reduce stress on the engine

http://ayuba.fr/pdf/ajax/blankson2003.pdf

>>11062861
That seems a handy way to dismiss a point without addressing it. May I use it over on /x/? Seems more appropriate there.

>>11063049
all you have to do is track shit lol it isn't hard

>>11062875
Magnetic, because it's far more plausible and if you're accelerating an interstellar generation ship you don't really care about engine mass anymore.

>>11063032
You're obviously being disingenuous. Those are not the assumption the math would be based on. You would at least have to figure out the chances of two satellites both having failures that would make them unable to move out of the way, the amount of satellites that are at the same altitude, and then figure out what the chances that two will meet at the same point in space.

Starlink satellites will be designed so that they automatically deorbit if contact is lost with them for a certain period of time.

>>11063032
>>11063092
There are about 40 trillion possible non-intersecting orbits through LEO for a Starlink sized satellite.

THANK YOU MR YANG

>>11063036
>snarks with frickin lasers strapped on

>>11062875
I mean both can be used but I think magnetic confinement is a more well understood process, thus a drive based on it will require less development-side ass busting.

>>11062357
we're here forever ;_;

Why dont spacesuit manufacturers commercialize their products to reduce cost by mass production? There must be lots of people who wants tp buy a real spacesuit

>>11063317
they cost like 100's of millions each

>>11063317
because it's cheaper just to make replicas. The suits need custom fitting, use fiberglass fabric, have integrated cooling systems, and a bunch of dedicated life support hardware. The market also isn't that big and the people who want that sort of thing will probably pay more for second hand suits. If you aren't making >10000 of something the market ain't that big. There's also liability issues too. All that life support equipment if used incorrectly could end up killing some one.

>>11063261
I thought IC was better understood and developed upon? Most of the fusion drive designs I've seen were IC based.

>>11063413
We're orders of magnitude closer to Q>1 fusion via magnetic confinement than with inertial confinement.

>falling for the NASA lie

>>11062226
(((space)))

When the FUCK is the next SpaceX launch? It's been so long since the last one.

>>11063324
>>11063386
No

>>11063564
4th reuse soon brother

>>11063564
spacexstats.xyz

>>11063529
You're right Anon, everybody knows that SLS doesn't really exist.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1183867329479733249
hmmmmmm

>>11061545
Space is hard space is expensive just shut up and let the experts do their thing.

>>11064133
>Stop innovating, just let us defraud taxpayers for decades with nearly zero progress in the field!
Your power is waning Shelby, the age of NASA is at an end, private space is inevitable.

big think

>>11064133
>don't demand improvements for spaceflight just enjoy small probes that come about every decade or so

>>11064139
No private industry is going to study the sun or send probes to Io, NASA don't build rockets anymore and that is how it should be. They make great probes and know more than anyone about manned flight and should advance this research.

>>11064163
Riding that is going to be pants browning. I wonder how many Gees that flip pulls. That might kill sample return missions like retrieving ISS modules as the flip might damage what's being returned.

Cool nonetheless. Would love to see it do that one day.

>>11064163
Imagine the whiplash.

>NASA don't build rockets anymore
....


...

..

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-commits-to-future-artemis-missions-with-more-sls-rocket-stages

>>11064203
What would be really neat is watching multiple Starships land simultaneously.

How many decades till the next minor SLS iteration NASA? Please, your glow is giving me a sunburn here.

>>11064220
>synchronized backflips
imagine

>>11064224
hey it is played backwards

>>11064224
Contemplate, two Starships, maybe even more.

>>11064228
the cloud gets bigger after it touches down, if it was played backwards the cloud would suck back into the engines

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1184467452975091712

>>11061722
>skiiboot.jpg

>>11064219
I thought SLS was a ULA project?

>>11064232
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>11064232
>2028
>Expedition 3 for Mars is already gearing up
>SLS has yet to launch astronauts

Oldspace BTFO

>>11064232
OH NO NO NO NO

>>11064232
>It's better to not use the rushed 2024 deadline. Let's use the original 2028 plan. The planned deadline of 2032 would allow for a successful program. I honestly can't imagine going any faster than 2040, any sooner and it would be unsafe. No one really needs to be on the moon before 2056 anyways.

>>11064240
>SpaceX wants to send people to the moon/Mars even though they haven't sent anyone to LEO yet
>"SpaceX needs to dial down their expectations! They're going to kill someone. Have they even considered that their spacecrafts need toilets?!"

>NASA wants to send people to the moon/Mars even though they haven't sent anyone to LEO yet
>"That's just a natural development in spaceflight. It's impossible to do better than this."

big dick jim trying not to squash this little weasel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFiGtOjILKQ

>>11064232
"Jose Serrano, chair of the committee that writes NASA's budget, says he's bothered by the President's desire to use Pell Grant funding for accelerating Artemis to 2024. (It seemed fairly obvious from the beginning that that was a good way to kill this among Democrats)."

>>11064257
What a fucking piece of shit, if we fired every pencil necked virtue signaling bureaucrat like him their salaries would probably make a pretty sizable tax cut for that factory worker who's job his democrat party has been working their hardest to put in danger by crippling American industry for the benefit of their Chinese benefactors.

>>11064242
I completely agree. It's way better to prepare reasonably and go to the moon in 2088 instead of rushing it and have a potential failure in 2152, which would probably end up in another delay to 2280.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-commits-to-future-artemis-missions-with-more-sls-rocket-stages
>NASA has provided initial funding and authorization to Boeing to begin work toward the production of the third core stage and to order targeted long-lead materials and cost-efficient bulk purchases to support future builds of core stages. This action allows Boeing to manufacture the third core stage in time for the 2024 mission, Artemis III, while NASA and Boeing work on negotiations to finalize the details of the full contract within the next year. The full contract is expected to support up to 10 core stages and up to eight Exploration Upper Stages (EUS).
>The full contract is expected to support up to 10 core stages and up to eight Exploration Upper Stages (EUS).
>10 core stages and up to eight Exploration Upper Stages (EUS).
>"SLS WiLl onLy Fly oNCe"

>>11063861
I'm sorry that you can't accept reality anon.

>>11064268
And by the time SLS gets this far, Starship will be operational and be an outright superior platform for anything that isn't super-deep-space probes.

>>11064268
>finish first booster
Should we test this?
>if it fails we lose funding
Can we get them to order more before we test any?
>now you are talking

>oh my god WHY WHY WHY 1.6 Billion dorras? WHy administrators?
>Spends 500 billion a year washing Israel's boots

>>11064276
Who are you quoting?

>>11064267
Starcolony is a disaster just waiting to happen, the Martian government hasn't even performed the requisite five hundred safety consideration meetings before even starting development! While Artemis is well on it's way to the planned Lunar landing in 2280 these private space industry cowboys are putting lives in serious danger! Everybody knows that it's literally impossible to build a spacecraft to hold more than ten people, I mean come on it's not even made out of carbon composites that cost a hundred times more than proven structural metals!

>>11064273
I would be surprised if SpaceX don't end up with an LEO tug that can be refueled which would be the ultimate platform for extremely heavy interplanetary missions.

>>11064279
Granger on the hearing committee, quizzing jim about why they need to accelerate the moon landing lol. As if it isn't slow enough already. Imagine if he was allowed to show a pie chart comparing military and nasa appropriations. Or the broken welfare system.

>>11064178
Without drastic improvements in propulsion technology there's no way around some missions taking around a decade just to get there. But hey, maybe we'll see some of the first midget based flybys. Why use a little person? They mass less requiring less resources enabling more propellant to be used. We all know it's better to send people even if the flyby proceeds faster than the blink of an eye. And with the changing landscape of assisted suicide laws we can use the propellant we were using to go home to get there FASTER!

>>11064268
What the fuck is taking so long that they have to start building it half a decade out while SpaceX can shit out a Starship every few months?

>>11064232
I'm not surprised in the slightest. The way artemis is set up right now is a shit show.
>>11064261
Yup, it was DESIGNED to die.

>>11064293
With the way the contract is written Boeing / ULA can just keep saying "this is hard, gib more" and thanks to the sunk cost fallacy NASA will keep signing checks until congress (who all benefit from jobs / votes) say it's time to stop.

>>11064287
>Without drastic improvements in propulsion technology.
This bad boy here can fit so much fucking Isps inside.

>>11064280
Are you mad?! 500 safety meetings is an absurdly low amount. Do you want our brave Imperial explorers to die on the way to Luna? 10,000 is the absolute minimum. Those Martian madmen haven't even performed the required 100 prerequisite test stand years before slapping whatever new magnetofusion engines they've found onto Imperial vessels. That's a tragedy waiting to happen. The Eseles technology we have is THE most proven and safe space technology, and all produced in the Neo-Alabama region. I'm sorry, but any space program that requires less budget than the sum GDP of an entire sub-sector is a program that will fail!

>>11064293
All SpaceX has proven is that they can shit out an unplumbled, unbolted potemkin rocket once every six months or so. Hold your horses. Nasa is still winning this race.

>>11064309
>lauching a reactor on chemical rockets
Not going to happen, people are so scared of nuclear no politician is going to sign off on this.

>>11064293
It's a block-buy to reduce per-unit costs. Think of it like buying a six-pack versus a single can - the six-pack costs more overall, but each can is cheaper. It's not due to time. Even CS-1, which has encountered delay after delay, won't take more than 4 years.

>>11064314
What race? What are the rules / goals?
As both Musk and NASA have said many times they aren't competing, SapceX and ULA are competing and ULA is fucking miles behind despite a few decades head start.

>>11064273
isn't Starship superior for deep space probes as well?

>>11064283
>Imagine if he was allowed to show a pie chart comparing military and nasa appropriations. Or the broken welfare system.
That would get him thrown out so damn fast he'd might reach escape velocity. Maybe he'll land on the moon if they aim him right.

>>11064317
>Launching a reactor on chemical rockets isn't going to happen.
Anon I hate to break it to you but the BWXT has been commissioned explicitly for the purpose of being I believe a future upper stage option for Artemis/SLS, and I think something like 100 million+ got pumped into NASA by the executive branch exclusively and explicitly to develop modern nuclear thermal propulsion systems for space applications.

Take your blackpill shit to some other thread.

>penny pinching over hundreds of millions to enable lunar travel
>4biyyen a year Mr Netanyahu? But of course!

>>11064332
I not saying it isn't being built, hell they made them in the 50s, I'm saying it'll never fly.

>>11064328
Well with such a large payload, especially in expendable mode the Starship could yeet a huge and heavy probe with robust power and propulsion systems. It could easily handle a probe with say a larger magnetoplasmadynamic rocket engine powered by something like a beefy kilopower atomic stirling motor+alternator system.

All of you should be watching this shitshow. The fucking state of these bureaucrats, I swear to god

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

>>11064317
Shelby did. It gives the SLS something to do. That's why NASA's nuclear rocket engine project is so well funded.

>>11064340
I can't, my blood pressure can't take any more of Washington's bullshittery.

>>11064351
Jim trying his hardest to speak retard to them, it's really a bit funny

>>11064197
>They make great probes

They don't. If NASA had any sense, then our solar system would be dotted by probes long ago. NASA unmanned programs are shit, too. The future is in using Starlink-derived, Starship launched probes, and mass manufacturing thousands of them so we can do a detailed survey of every body larger than few kilometers in a decade.

>inb4 Artemis get's canned to be replaced by whatever new mission the next president wants

>>11064235
ULA did not design it, they are just building it. NASA and politicians controlling it did.

>>11064328
By itself, kinda not. With a fuckhuge kickstage with the probe on top of it inside the cargo bay? sure. Imagine if you will a stupid thicc F9 derived kick stage with a Merlin Vac on it launched in the bay of starship. Merlin Vac's less than stellar ISP is offset by the fact there's so much more fuel to use, and the fact it doesn't need to touch ANY of it until the whole smash is ready for the ejection burn. At which, just huck it out the bay, back SS off to a safe distance, and light it.

>>11064232
Who gives a rat's ass? Most of the funding for artemis is going to orion, SLS, and the deep space gateway. And we all know that SLS has a snowball's chance in hell of flying by 2024.

>>11064359
Well, at least NASA's still got four years and change to get something done.

>>11064367
>actually thinking SLS won't be flying 5 years from now
wew lad

>>11064287
>Without drastic improvements in propulsion technology there's no way around some missions taking around a decade just to get there.

Nope. A Starship derived expendable stage can significantly decrease travel times. 25 tons of payload to Saturn in 24 months.

https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/05/starship-lite-from-rapid-interplanetary.html

>>11064357
Difficulty: the DSN would be in dire need of an upgrade to handle that kind of data traffic. Like, multiple massive spaceborne communication dishes with multi-megawatt solar arrays for each comm-station. Talking to Voyager alone requires an absolutely massive amount of power.

>>11064317
Curiosity is powered by an RTG. Not yet activated reactor is just as unsafe. NASA is working in Kilopower reactors right now. They are going to be launched.

>>11064372
laser-link telescopes with radio for last mile

>>11064371
Orbital refueling is a good trick.

>>11064376
HE HAS SPOKEN THE FORBIDDEN WORDS!

NASA Administrator Selects Douglas Loverro as Next Human Spaceflight Head

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-administrator-selects-douglas-loverro-as-next-human-spaceflight-head

good choice?

>>11064382
>good choice?

>Mr. Loverro is credited with a wide-ranging list of accomplishments in aerospace development including ... and leading the push for greater use of commercial manufacturing and capabilities for future DoD space and launch systems

Seems good.

>>11064340
Senator: What is the contingency plan if no commercial vehicles are ready by 2024?

Bridenstine: uh, well uh. falcon heavy-

Senator: But what if no commercial vehicles are ready by 2024?

Bridenstine: uh

>>11064371
read the article, they've got a bunch of really bad assumptions
the dry mass of the vehicle is going to be north of 120 tons

>>11064389
What? Do they think that FH is still in development or something?

>>11064393
I think they were asking what NASA has planned to get astronauts to the ISS if the CCP isn't ready by 2024, which the answer was "nothing". A retarded question imo

>>11064393
Jump in, it's comedy gold, rewind ~10 minutes to catch Jim being asked what launch systems could get a lander to the moon.

>>11064396
No, the question was what could get a lander to the gateway.

>>11064371
You could go even further using a small closed-cycle CGNTR stage as part of the probe. It's clean, safe, and even if destroyed the small quantity of nuclear fuel is poisoned before it can escape, resulting in practically no hazardous nuclear pollution even if a worst case scenario resulted in the destruction of the engine while in the atmosphere.

>>11064362
Scratch that idea: Just looked up the F9's second stage mass, and dry + fuel mass = maybe 6 tons to LEO margin if launched inside starship.

An idea though would be to launch the derived kicker with attached probe dry (probe would be fueled), then fuel the upper stage in-orbit, and use Starship as a spaceborne launch platform.

>>11064391
>read the article, they've got a bunch of really bad assumptions
>the dry mass of the vehicle is going to be north of 120 tons

The assumption as you call them come straight from Musk tweet. It wont be anywhere close to 120 tons as this is a stripped down version of Starship with reduced engines, no heat shield, no payload bay or header tanks and so on.

>>11064400
It will be ion thrusters on the probes.

>>11064401
A further option would be to take a Raptor Vac, bolt it onto this kick stage instead of Merlin Vac, and use that instead. Common fuels and all, and it even comes with superior ISP.

>>11064340
"How many rockets are currently flying?"
"Uh, the Falcon 9 Heavy is the only one"
Falcon Heavy and SLS make a cute couple, CUTE!

>>11064178
Blame space because its too hard and expensive.

>>11064372
You don't need big dish and power if you've got small ones along the way.

>>11064419
LASERS
A
S
E
R
S

>>11064401
>>11064411
Honestly the best option would be to make a reusable Starship specifically for that kind of work, either buy some RL-10s for the bus or make if the payload owners problem.

>>11064357
>>wait WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU CAN'T FIT MY INSTRUMENT ON YOUR PROBE? You can't even power it at jupiter? IT'LL ONLY LAST ONE TRANSIT THROUGH THE RAD BELTS?
>>what the fuck man, plasma crackling on the solar panels is interfering with our sensitive radar and we have to completely resend a whole new swarm of satellites.
I mean sure, there are some opportunities here, many NASA probes have used the same spacecraft bus design, but you're still going to run into issues with A. the different environments you want to go to and B. the scientific instruments you're sending. Scientific instruments need to be pretty goddamn sensitive and exploit a lot of weird phenomenon, meaning you gotta do a lot of debugging.
>>11064375
the real red pill is using laser space telescopes for all space to space communication. It'll be MUCH FASTER than microwave while using less power.

>>11064415
Space is literally nothing. It is more hospitable for humans and machinery than lets say, underwater environment. "Space is hard" is a meme.

>>11064427
last mile here being anything with a planetary atmosphere to attenuate and disperse your laser

>>11064429
Underwater there are no weight limits, sure there is a lot of pressure but there is no disadvantage to being huge and heavy.
You are comparing "can we make it strong enough" to "can we make it strong and light enough".

>>11064429
Umm yikes, that’s not true at all. Does your blood boil when you step in a swimming pool!

>>11064429
You've clearly never designed any piece of space equipment.

>>11064433
*?

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1184487253076250625

>>11064232
>2028
2038 is more realistic (using modified srb driven starships) but ONLY if the chinks land in the 2030's and theres sufficient public reaction to that.

>>11064441
China will be lucky if their lurching commie regime even exists by 2030.

>>11064442
>upheaval in China, billions dead
looking forward to it

>>11064441
>chinks land in 2030
>SLS is rushed out the door still nowhere near done
>cato's taking interracial transfemale STEAM major with it
>NASA funding is done
>Musk tweets about this from Mars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzyIiAeWEZA
NASA demonstrating the new suits, I don't like all the red and white stripes, it looks silly, however the suit while iterative as opposed to innovative is still a noticeable improvement over the Apollo era unit. It's actually light enough to walk in while under pressure, and has a substantially greater range of movement compared to previous suits.

>>11064438
Has Berger not noticed the SLS contract announcement yet because he's so focused on the committee? If so, his reaction is gonna be FUN.

>>11064451
It's only light enough to walk under Earth g's because they stripped most of the ECLSS out for this demonstration. The flexibility under pressure is incredibly impressive though.
Also don't worry about the color scheme. That's just for show. The real suits won't have that.

>>11064438
I haven't had a chance to see the meeting video nor do I know who Aderholt is. Why does he not like that FH is ready to send a lunar lander? Is he upset that an option to send stuff to the moon as been ready but not used? Or is he upset that SLS has competition?

>>11064438
Lack of rocket has never been the core problem.

>>11064460
He's echoing Doug Cooke's op-ed, which argues that the development costs of a lander that would go up on SLS Block 1B would not only be lower than a three-stage lander that would go up on FH, but that the resulting lander would also be more capable than the first.

>>11064460
>why does he not like FH
Well, it's cheap for one...

>>11064235
no, it's a NASA project, core stage is Boeing, side boosters are NG (formerly ATK, formerly Thiokol, formerly Chuck's). The only part that ULA is doing is the interim upper stage (which is the only part that's on schedule and budget)

>>11064242
Oy vey!

>>11064242
John Titor?

>>11062680
The xEMU suit =/= The Constellation suit

>>11064429
Sea is piss easy its just water bro lol meanwhile in space you've got ASTEROIDS and RADIATION and VACUUM

>>11064451
That's really ugly.

>>11064451
Isn't this the exact suit they showcased in Desert RATS nearly two decades ago?

>>11064479
And insanely high temperature variations because convection isn't a thing in a vacuum.

>>11064488
No, but it's descended from it.

Genuine question, why is there such a big interest to colonize space? Why not colonize the more inhospitable places on earth like deserts, the arctics, or even the seas?

>>11064270
NO

>>11064539
Colonize places on Earth and you are still stuck on Earth. Colonize space and the possibilities are endless.

That said, I think NASA ought to work on colonizing inhospitable places on Earth, too, as it would bee great practice for space colonies.

>>11064539
Space is sexier, but I've said for a long time we should be colonizing the more stable parts of the crust and build downward. We can fit a hell of a lot more people on this planet if we stop thinking of the dry surface as being the only inhabitable part.

>>11064324
>Think of it like buying a six-pack versus a single can
Except that the cans are empty, and there is no way to open them yet. And they also haven't been tested yet to see if they can hold a beverage without exploding.

>https://youtu.be/IFiGtOjILKQ?t=775
Start of Jim statement.

>https://youtu.be/IFiGtOjILKQ?t=1000
Key point on why NASA needs to be faster by Jim.

>>11064580
>And they also haven't been tested yet to see if they can hold a beverage without exploding.

Actually they kinda have...

>>11064433
No, it freezes you idiot.

>>11064598
sorry but it's still summer here in civilized lands

>>11064598
Nope, that’s a common misconception. Blood actually boils in space because the pressure in the vacuum of space is so low that the boiling point of the fluids in your body decreases below the body's normal temperature (37 degrees)

>>11064465
Isn't that a good thing though?

>>11064203
Elon said something about using higher powered acs thrusters to get away from this kind of landing, I doubt anyone would get the chance to ride this.
although that would be a pretty bad ass theme park ride.

Are they literally sowing it back together to prevent it from falling apart?

>>11064608
>SpaceX has hired your grandma for her kitting skills

>>11064605
Maybe crew Starship can launch empty and use Dragon 2 to ferry people to and from it?

>>11064602
the boiling (more like evaporating through the skin, it's not just blood, all your body water) carries heat away from your body until the flesh on the surface freezes

>>11064621
It’s the bubbles in the blood (caused by boiling) that kills you tho

>>11064602
Not only that. Lots of liquids in your body form into gas and you swell up like a baloon while solids in your body freeze from the cold or burn if facing the sun and as a bonus your lungs get ruptured because the air gets sucked out of them violently. Certainly not the best way to go.

>>11064615
I think you'd die from all the oxygen in your blood leaving through your lungs (if you don't try to hold your breath) (don't try to hold your breath, that'll pulp your lungs)
once that hits your brain (ten seconds?) you're going to be out like a light and death will swiftly follow, all the rest of what you're describing is just going to be what happens to your corpse

>>11064615
nah, if dumb shit like that happens it's going to be people getting onto Starship at the Gateway from Orion
>>11064631
I think you'd die from all the oxygen in your blood leaving through your lungs (if you don't try to hold your breath) (don't try to hold your breath, that'll pulp your lungs)
once that hits your brain (ten seconds?) you're going to be out like a light and death will swiftly follow, all the rest of what you're describing is just going to be what happens to your corpse

lol bump

>>11064664
anon, I...

>>11064429
The dunning-kruger is strong on this one

>>11064438
Elon is cumming right now

>>11064604
Not when your trying to launder Clinton money behind it.

I am looking forward to the development of Artemis tomorrow. In the meantime the Space Launch System is years behind schedule. Everyone expects the same level of enthusiasm focused on the investments of the American taxpayer.
It's time to deliver.

>>11064451
>New spacesuit looks like the natural body of the average American
>Decades worth of time, $200 million dollars and it's still only a minor improvement over Apollo suits.
>Constant mentions of women and diversity, not a single wh*te male was allowed to ask questions during the presentation.

I never supported completely defunding NASA until now, but this is the last straw. They're a national embarrassment.

>>11064717
I'm mostly surprised that they didn't just go with something like the AX line of suits by now, it's true their form is the pinnacle of Los Demonios 56 por cientos de los Americas, but like a NEWT suit the bulky oversized joints do provide the same functional purpose, to allow for a full or nearly full range of articulation. I guess the downside of a suit made of rigid plates is that they would have to be tailored to some degree to the shape of the user, but if NASA were serious about having more people in space they'd set up a production line to manufacture bulk orders of suit components to fit a range of sizes which in the end would make individual suits cheap. Another benefit of hard suits is that there's no struggling with a bunch of layers of fabric, it would be a walk-in suit of armor where you'd just pop the PLSS open, slide yourself in, plug your thermal regulating garment into the PLSS system and just slap the PLSS shut like a door. Notably they've decided to go that route already by having a hard curiass for the chest of the suit, but why not just go all the way then and make the whole suit rigid? Work the para-aramid puncture protecting layer into the inside of the shell instead of keeping it outside. That would also make the suits easier to clean since dust will cling less aggressively to a smooth polymer or alloy surface than to fabric.

>>11064717
Don't blame NASA. Blame the Congress.

>>11064717
>>New spacesuit looks like the natural body of the average American

Ironic you should say this considering it’s designed to fit all body sizes.

>>Decades worth of time, $200 million dollars and it's still only a minor improvement over Apollo suits

The suit itself is 2 years old and hasn’t gone past CDR. Also, I’m pretty sure it’s a massive improvement over Apollo considering it actually allows the astronauts to bend over and walk on the Moon instead of awkwardly hopping around.

>>11064743
Here's one version of the AX suit which is EXTRA THIC, nearly identical in appearance to deep diving armor, however there are other models which are as near to form fitting as a hard shelled environment suit can be.

>>11064760
Here's the form-fitting version, this one only has hose ports in the back, but I'm confident that if you just flared the back out a bit to allow for a door-like PLSS pack it could easily function in the role of an excursion suit, add a glare visor to the helmet, some headlamps, and clasps for tools.

>>11064760
Hardsuits are nice. Cause you don't need to prebreathe oxygen.
>>11064767
performance is worse, so it's shit.

>>11064767
Homer Hickham really hates any form of solid material in the torso or abdomen, says it’s terrible for the Moon and wants some thing primarily skintight and fabric. The xEMU seems like a good compromise.

>>11063386

> retard millionaire spawn buys spacesuit
> goes to party
> gets high as fuck
> passes out in suit and asphyxiates in a corner

>>11064799
don't use ECLSS to vape

>>11064772
>Hardsuits are nice. Cause you don't need to prebreathe oxygen.

All the people knowledgable about space suits I’ve talked to on Twitter really hate hardsuits, in regards to the Moon.

>>11064767

Fucking shit the expression on that man's face.

"Margaret? Margaret?!?!?!? Margaret, I need to get out of this goddamned thing right now. Margaret! Where the hell is she? Goddamnit, the metamucil and coffee have given me the poop sweats and I'm about to shit all over the inside of this goddamned suit. MARGARET!!!! GODDAMNIT, MARGARET!!!!!!"

>>11064810
>Knowledgeable.
>Twitter.
What're the objections?

>>11064756
>NASA has designed the only space suit ever with articulating legs.
POWERFUL. No one has ever come up with something like this!

>>11064799
It could be worse. Look up the 1980s EMU fire. Technicians on the ground got burned when a suit caught fire suddenly. One even got first and second degree burns over 30% of their body and they weren't even wearing it. Fire got hot enough to melt the aluminum components. Oxygen makes stuff burn pretty damn well.
>>retard millionaire spawn buys a spacesuit
>>lights a blunt, closes the helmet
>>blunt turns into a fucking blow torch
>>the world's now a better place

>>11064756
>it actually allows the astronauts to bend over and walk on the Moon instead of awkwardly hopping around.
But why would I walk if I could hop so easily?

>>11064824
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVNTNeNMH8Q
So you don't have to eat shit constantly.

>>11064829
but that's funny

>>11064813
>mission control has found the poop suit

>>11064824
Because hopping is fun but also clumsy and tiring as fuck, if you wanna get work done efficiently you have to be able to walk properly.

>>11064820

Most people don't realize that virtually every device used by people to get to and live in space is a total goddamned deathtrap.

Non-species identifying and otherkin, may I introduce the first xerson on the moon. I would like to thank NASA for showing that space belongs to xeople of all shapes and sizes.

>>11064896
Idk what your talking about but xEMU-chan is dummy thicc, I’d be down to fuck. You do know the real reasons for a singe unisex space suit are to simplify production, logistics and lower costs, right?

>>11064916
>You do know the real reasons for a singe unisex space suit are to simplify production, logistics and lower costs, right?
Yet they're still likely going to be more expensive than the older custom fitted spacesuits were, with little to show for it. I don't know why a few people are having trouble owning up to the reality of the situation, this is a regression of the technology. They're larger and bulkier than the near 60 year old Skylab A7L and they look like complete teletubby dog shit.

>>11064938
Did you get dumped by a spacesuit designer or something? Function over fashion is important and most Anons would probably look better in the teletubby suit instead of the more skintight alternatives anyway...

>>11064962
you have to be an absolute twig to make the SpaceX suit look good, I wonder how small the dummy they modeled it on was? Remember those first images?

>>11064962
>Did you get dumped by a spacesuit designer or something?
No, I just refuse to suck the dicks of NASA after they wasted two hundred million dollars on something that may be less practical for working on lunar surfaces than existing 60 year old technology. What are the actual advantages of this design? 'They can walk on da moon'? You can do the same thing in all modern spacesuits.

The SpaceX suit isn't designed for extravehicular activity. If they did make something for that purpose, I would be willing to bet it would be more functional with less needless bulk and cheaper to produce as well. NASA can no longer do anything right. Their idea of improvement is literally putting green strips on their spacesuits to look like Buzz from Toy Story. I'm not kidding, check out the Z-1.

>>11065011
I'm not a fan of NASA's suit design myself, but the advantages of the xEMU are:
>1
It's PLSS is more advanced, oxygen scrubbing is much better which gives the astronaut a greater maximum endurance threshold which will allow them to work for longer than before.
>2
The suit's joints are greatly improved compared to the Apollo EMU, allowing for a greater range of mobility up to and including natural walking, touching one's own helmet and shoulders and raising the hands above the head, a forward ab crunch and independent swiveling of the upper body.
>3
The suit is modular, it is being designed from the ground up to accept future improvements without the necessity for expert maintenance, this will lower both manufacture costs and ease of use because it will no longer rely on the skills of no more than a dozen people to maintain and construct xEMU suits.

You are fundamentally hitting on something true, the xEMU should be radically superior to the Apollo EMU, not just a moderate iteration on that old system, however it is an improvement. Yes, the old EMU allowed astronauts to walk on the moon, the xEMU will allow them to do it more easily, with a better range of movement, less fatigue, and longer safe operational time.

>>11064977
It was designed by the same people who work on Marvel movie costumes, so I assume you have to possess the physique of an A-list actor to look good in it.

>>11065011
>What are the actual advantages of this design? 'They can walk on da moon'? You can do the same thing in all modern spacesuits.

Anon confirmed for having a sub-room temperature IQ and being dumped by a spacesuit designer.

>>11065028
astronauts are all pretty sexy, and they look like somebody dressed up a brick

>>11064717
>only a minor improvement over Apollo suits
it's literally a hybrid hard-suit soft-suit design that allows for unprecedented flexibility while pressurized. Ever see the Apollo videos? Those suits were stiff as fuck. So stiff it was easier to bounce around than walk.
The xEMU in that demonstration was pressurized and it was still INCREDIBLY flexible. It's a HUGE step-up.

>>11064743
They went for the hybrid design because of mass concerns. Soft suits suck for movement but they're light, and hard suits are awesome for movement but they're heavy. That's why the xEMU has a lot of hard parts where flexibility is needed, and soft parts where it's not.

>>11065028
If I had a sub-room temperature IQ, I literally would be unable to respond here to your NASA dick sucking and fallacy arguments. I hope you're getting a cut of the hundred billion they waste every decade and that you're not actually doing this for free. Surely no one here is that pathetic.
>It was designed by the same people who work on Marvel movie costumes, so I assume you have to possess the physique of an A-list actor to look good in it.
Fox and the Grapes master class. Why won't SpaceX/NASA send my obese ass to space? This is discrimination! Astronauts at every size!

>>11064810
Then they have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. The mass sucks, but the flexibility is *really* important for the kinds of missions NASA wants to do.

>>11065030
Bob is a bit on the heavy side, but Doug is pretty skinny. I think your right about it being the suits.

>>11065077
do we have any nudes of Doug and Bob

>>11065065
> a hybrid hard-suit soft-suit design that allows for unprecedented flexibility while pressurized
That already exists, see the Z-2 space suit and it only cost $4.4 million to design and build. This is just a much more expensive version of existing technology, there's no need to shit yourself over it.

>>11065089
Anon. The xEMU is the Z-2.5. They are from the same program. The Z-2 is simply an older variant.

Mars society starts tomorrow bros, get hype for your bois Paul Wooster and Robert Zubrin.

>>11065097
The Z-1 and Z-2 were actually cost effective, it's incomparable to the new suit. Where did the hundred million go when upgrading to the new suit? This isn't even a full version upgrade.

>>11065117
Where are you getting those financials from, Anon? I don't think they're accurate.

>>11065103
Zubrin will just spout his typical spiel and Wooster will do what he always does: re-runs of Elon’s last presentation with outdated graphics. Not exactly something to get hyped about...

>>11065122
Both ILC Dover and David Clark competed for the $4.4 million contract to design, manufacture and test the Z-2 prototype space suit. In April 2013, it was announced that ILC Dover had won; the contract is expected to last for an 18-month period
https://spacenews.com/35077nasa-picks-ilc-dover-to-build-next-gen-spacesuit/
http://www.ilcdover.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.pageDetails&id=20010&typeID=165

I can't find information on the Z-1 program cost, but presumably, it wasn't nearly as much as the 81 million spent since 2011 on this program, the bulk of that must be on xEMU.

>>11064896
>here's your cool spacesuit bro

when

>>11065150
...Pretty sure that $4.4M figure was just the cost of actually fabricating the suit(s). That'd be a fraction of the overall cost, most of which would be in design and development.

On a side note: the xEMU they showed off on the video? That was actually a Z2 suit. The Z2.5 suit has an ellipsoidal helmet, not a circular one, and no lower torso units have been built for the Z-2.5s yet.

>>11065166
Fabricating and testing, I mean. Sorry, I left that out.

>>11065084

>>11065166
The whole Advanced Space Suit Project was only 50 million up until 2017. I guess we don't know how much Z-2.5 costs until another audit, but generally there's so much waste in this damn program for the few advances they have made.

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-17-018.pdf

virgin galactic released their own ugly suit design

>>11065248
It’s not even a space suit, it’s “space wear™” aka a fancy looking, but useless flight suit.

>>11065259
oh, is it not even an IVA suit?

>>11065160
Soon, Elon will establish a true city on Mars and once it become self sufficient he'll secede from Earth. The Cino-Democrat alliance will throw together a joint space fleet of Long March rockets and SLS' to stamp out the only bastion of freedom and capitalism in the solar system, Mars will preemptively fire fleets of nuclear missiles at them while they're in transit for violating the NAP. After the stragglers are cleaned up in the Martian ground war, Elon will drop rocks on Beijing and the new American capitol in California.

>>11065267
SEIG
ZEON

>>11064453
>the SLS contract announcement
The what?

>>11065267
>i'm going to save earth
>by droping colony's on earth

Based Elon "the red comet" musk.

>>11065318
They ordered 10 cores and 8 EUS.

>>11065336
based

>>11065336
Such wasteful spending and blatant corruption should be considered treason. NASA administrators and old space lobbyists should be hung.

>>11065267
Fuck de Eartha brudda

>>11065374
You voted for it, goy

>>11065267
>Not glassing Tel Aviv

Fortunately Elon knows what's up

>>11065336
b-b-but SLS will only fly once!

>>11065495
I guess we could turn the extra cores into Hyperloop segments.

>>11065495
Actually, sweetie, it will never fly, let alone fly women to the moon.

>>11065531
sure

>>11065537
Nice incomplete rocket. It cannot fly before 2021, and that's NASA timeline, so realistically 2022 or later, which at that point Starship will have already ate its lunch.

A decade and 15 billion dollars later and you get that shit. IMAOing at you and the rest of the old space shills.

>>11065546
There's a 6 month green run once it leaves the factory in December. You only get into 2021 when you add in margin in-case the test goes bad or something happens during transport. Even if that pictured core literally blew up and was destroyed, the second one would be finished and ready to ship before 2022.
But please continue to criticize a program you clearly know nothing about. It's fun to read.

>>11065546
Also, lmao at a manned Starship launch by 2022. It's fucking hilarious you think that's realistic.

>>11065552
it doesn't take six months to fuel and then fire a rocket stage, anon

>>11065570
You don't expend launch towers either, SLS has no concern for your mortal rules

>>11065570
It does to when you take it apart, inspect it, and refurbish it. NASA doesn't take risks when it comes to this sort of thing.

>>11065576
>the expendable launch tower meme
There are four confirmed launches from ML-1. It will be stored and later refurbished fafter ML-2 replaces it for Block 1B flights

>>11065552
The first static firing ground test is to take place by the second quarter of 2020. They're not launching before 2021. Literally no one besides you thinks that's a realistic possibility. It's funny that you ignore the countless delays they already had and pretend another one isn't a possibility.
>But please continue to criticize a program you clearly know nothing about. It's fun to read.
A child could see the problems with SLS just by knowing basic information about it. I hope you're getting paid to defend it, I really do.
>>11065560
>Also, lmao at a manned Starship launch by 2022.
I didn't imply that at all. Starship will get to the point where it's an outright criminal act to keep paying money for SLS when a Starship price is 1/5th of the price or even less.

>>11065585
>They're not launching before 2021. Literally no one besides you thinks that's a realistic possibility.
When did I say I thought they'd launch before 2021?
>I didn't imply that at all. Starship will get to the point where it's an outright criminal act to keep paying money for SLS when a Starship price is 1/5th of the price or even less.
Man, wasn't Red Dragon cool? What about 10x Falcon core reuse?
It's great that we don't have to worry about SpaceX over-promising and under-delivering, unlike filthy oldspace.

>>11065581
>There are four confirmed launches from ML-1
What? Is NASA crazy or something? Have they even considered the kinds of stresses a launch tower experiences? There's no way it can survive long enough to go through 2 launches much less 4. That is, unless the tower gets refurbished afterwards, but if they're going to pay so much to do so, then why not just buy a new tower? Face it, it's not that easy in launch towery.

>>11065593
You joke, but Eric Berger's a hack writer that took an article on NSF with the headline:
>NASA confirms SLS Mobile Launcher is leaning, does not require corrective action
And spun it as:
>NASA spends $1 billion for a launch tower that leans, may only be used once

>>11065591
>When did I say I thought they'd launch before 2021?
>There's a 6 month green run once it leaves the factory in December. You only get into 2021 when you add in margin in-case the test goes bad or something happens during transport. Even if that pictured core literally blew up and was destroyed, the second one would be finished and ready to ship before 2022.
You implied it here seeing as we were specifically talking about the launch date, otherwise that's a poor way to say 'the rocket is ready but it's not actually ready and you're right'.
>It's great that we don't have to worry about SpaceX over-promising and under-delivering, unlike filthy oldspace.
SpaceX doesn't usually doesn't cost the taxpayer money when that happens, unlike old space. They're likely saving us money just by reducing the cost of getting into space.

>>11065609
Okay, to clarify. I was more laying out WHY the date was in 2021. If NASA wanted to throw caution to the wind, they COULD launch in 2020 by just shipping the core straight from Stennis to KSC. They won't, because it's really not a good idea, but they could.
The point is that it's not fabrication of SLSes that's holding things up anymore, it's testing. So it's honestly kind of hard to find things to cause delays of a year or more without getting into RUD territory.
>SpaceX doesn't usually doesn't cost the taxpayer money when that happens, unlike old space.
CCrew,

>>11065630
>So it's honestly kind of hard to find things to cause delays of a year or more

ULA, uh, finds a way

>>11065637
Ironically, the one component ULA's supplying to SLS (ICPS) has been done for years now.

>>11065267
I believed the story until you mentioned SLS actually flying. That breaks my inmersion. It's unrealistic

>>11065630
What specifically is your problem with Dragon? SpaceX will produce Dragon for less cost and sooner than the other competitors. I don't see how the delay itself costs NASA that much money and part of it is their own damn fault for pulling out funding.

>>11065601
I don't think anyone takes the expendable launch tower meme seriously. It's mostly a jab at how backwards SLS seems, and then typical weak arguments against reusable rockets got tacked on the meme.

>>11065694
>I don't think anyone takes the expendable launch tower meme seriously.
You'd... be surprised.

>>11065686
I mean, for a company that's supposed to be soooo much better than oldspace, sure is weird that they're taking just as long as Boeing.

>>11065717
>sure is weird that they're taking just as long as Boeing.
They're not though, that's my point. Boeing has received two billion dollars more, or 1.5 times the amount of funding that SpaceX has, yet they're still first out of the gate. CST-100 hasn't even had a test flight and their first test flight is scheduled just before Crew Dragon Demo-2 to the ISS. Boeing got beat by a company with near zero experience in human spaceflight.

>>11065735
Yes but SpaceX bid lower and said they could do it faster. It's nobody's fault but theirs that they got less money.
And, uh, I wouldn't be so certain that SpaceX will be the first to the ISS at this point. Bridenstine has all-but confirmed a crewed launch this year is not in the cards for anyone.

>>11065752
>Yes but SpaceX bid lower and said they could do it faster. It's nobody's fault but theirs that they got less money.
By all appearances, they're were right. NASA/Congress didn't give either company the requested funding. SpaceX's statement that they could do it cheaper doesn't mean that's how it should have been done. Boeing doesn't automatically deserve more money because they're incompetent, that isn't fair. It's due to their lobbing and, lets face it, outright bribery that they got more money for doing the same thing.

13 minutes until the Rocket Lab launch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI_Ng4SGyUY

>>11065827
30 minutes until weather scrub, you mean

Rocket lab's got a pretty good webcast

i love this

>>11064438
OY VEY! SHUT IT DOWN!

>>11065827
cows are confused lol

>>11065843
APOLOGIZE RIGHT FUCKING NOW

Nice view of the islands

>>11065879
I'm sorry. If you can't rely on bad NZ weather, what can you rely on?!

>>11065849
and how! That final rocket-cam shot of the upper stage from the tumbling 2nd stage was perfect!

https://youtu.be/Z8635Zzfrzk?t=1h22m25s
>Asks questions about commercial launch capability
>Ignores the answers given
Goddamn I wish SLS would crash and burn to watch these kike fuckers get on their knees and beg for a commercial ride...

>>11065873
Kek imagine if they do this

>Yeets out tin can
>There's your lander cunts
>Now we'll unload the real cargo

>>11065940
>Starship "Transfer Vehicle"
>bundled Unit Load Device "Lander"

> be SLS
> RUD in launchpad

>>11065993
>Congress celebrates an excuse to extend SLS program

>>11065585
>I hope you're getting paid to defend it, I really do.
If I was getting paid to post shit on 4chan, I'd be on /pol/

>>11066086
You would be surprised how much you can shift public opinion with just a few million of the billions of dollars Boeing receives, but most SLS supporters don't get paid for it and are just useful idiots. It is a shame that they have managed to find this place.

Page ten, bay-be.
New thread:
>>11066471

>>11066471

>>11066471

>>11066471

>>11066471

>>11065495
Devlopment costs per rocket will drop from 30 billion dollars per rocket to 3 billion dollars per rocket*. Truly a bargain.

*Further development costs of the EUS not included

>>11065415
Don‘t look at me, I voted for Kodos.