/sci/ - Science & Math

First for the United CHAD Alliance

>>11087922
First for the glory of the ROMBUS.

A few pics from this morning.

>>11087940

>>11087940
>>11087930
blueman

Here at the spaceport

>>11087951
Oh it’s Exosanon again! When are you launching next?

>>11087976
Saturday. I'll try to post cool pictures here and there, but the winds are crazy and freezing right now so it's difficult.

>>11087981
You are truly a steely-eyed missile man! What’s Spaceport America like?

>>11087922
earth is flat

>>11087922
I wonder what temp the leeward side will see, and how it will affect the temper of the 301 stainless.

Apparently the Anon in the last thread was correct, the pimped out hatchback with golden rims is indeed Boeing’s Artemis lander competition entrant!

https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187398403694776320

>>11088020
>literally Apollo with a couple extra engines
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

>>11088070
Hey at least the Ascent vehicle looks cool, like a capsule out of KSP with radial engines attached.

anyone have any insight on which astros are likely to get picked for Artemis 2 and 3? Will it be senior guys? I know that they will probably pick 2 ladies, which is stupid in principle, but there's probably at least 2 who are deserving and capable.

>>11088020
*drum roll*
The new lunar lander contract goes to:
Blue Origin, Lockheed, Northrop
Boeing

Wow, what a surprise, I never saw this coming. It's so amazing they were able to beat all the other competition which would have never gotten the contract anyway.

>>11088121
*The new lunar lander(s) contract goes to

Contracts will be awarded for at least two landers, NASA wants two for redundancy in case of delays. There will be a race for which lander gets picked for Artemis 3 (the first landing) and the loser will have to settle for Artemis 4.

>>11088134
>awarded
they selected the winners before the contest was even thought about

>>11088070
Agreed. Utterly pointless PR stunt unless the specific goal is to start building a lunar base or to establish a site for the aforementioned (and only in the latter case is the human element justified if it is work that absolutely mandates boots on the ground, as opposed to an orbiter/rover). Even then it would make far more sense to drop at least some kind of alternative habitat or supplies in an earlier mission in order to extend the stay/make it safer.

>>11088070
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

>>11088138
Nope, the deadline for entries doesn't even close until November 1st. But I know your a schizo conspiracy theorist who thinks everything NASA does is to enrich Boeing, even though the lander contract is fixed price. Blue are almost guaranteed to get a contract, but that’s just to do with good partnering and Bezos being willing to invest his own money into Blue Moon.

>>11088145
>Even then it would make far more sense to drop at least some kind of alternative habitat or supplies in an earlier mission in order to extend the stay/make it safer.

That’s the plan for Artemis missions from 2028 onwards- Habitats to extend missions.

>>11088146
It's broke.

>>11088134
Hey buddy, I'm the one pretending to be NASA here. The contract's full name was Human Landing System Integrated Lander. No plurality. You just lost your imagery job, nice going.

>>11088149

>>11088157
Schitzo alert!

>>11088149
> The banging together of a prototype in a field by a few grunts for a presentation is equivalent to a multi-billion dollar effort to repeat something that was already repeated to the point of boredom 50 years ago

ok then

>>11088151
>even though the lander contract is fixed price.
Not the person you replied to. You sure about that? Most of NASA Artemis contracts are cost plus contracts, meaning that NASA pays what it costs to build plus a certain percentage more. If it wasn't so urgent, they would prefer just a fixed price, but that doesn't encourage rapid development.
>>11088162
NASA doesn't use plurality in most names, that's not schizo. It's the lunar lander regardless of the amount of them, just like the last ones.
>Schitzo
Were you the faggot who kept throwing that around last thread? You're not clever or funny, it's a weak insult to mask your inability to make a coherent point in defense of your argument.

>>11088163
You referred to moon landings (superior in the beginning even to Apollo 17) at the south pole, paving the way for medium-to-long-term habitaton and exploration as an "utterly pointless PR stunt". This time it's more than just dust and rocks. Apollo didn't really deal with extremes of light and temperature. Or eventually harvesting the moons resources and so on. It's also the most sensible way to prepare for Mars exploration, for a variety of reasons. It costing lots of moneys, and (unfortunately) taking a lot of time to see through doesn't change any of that.

On the other hand we have something which literally couldn't be better described than an "utterly pointless PR stunt". They chose a path that delays the completion of the mk. 1 prototype in order to sell the image to the public that it's already complete. Ironic.

>>11088171
>Even then it would make far more sense to drop at least some kind of alternative habitat or supplies in an earlier mission in order to extend the stay/make it safer.

Nope, the SLS and Orion contracts are the only cost-plus contracts involved in Artemis. Everything else is fixed, NASA gets to decide what’s fixed and what’s not.

>Schitzo proceeds to sperg out because he got called out...

>>11088020
Huh. Is that really their design? I would've assumed an SLS-launched lander would've been MUCH bigger.
Then again, they might be launching it on a Block 1 cargo SLS, not a Block 1B, which would constrain them to fitting within a Delta IV fairing.

>>11088171
You're assuming he's the only one calling you a schizo.
Seriously though, your explanations lean WAY too much into conspiracy theory territory. This is a COTS/CCrew-style procurement, not a traditional one.

>>11088046
needs more jpeg

>>11088190
SLS looks so much better in black and white

>>11088114
I'm not the kind of guy who's super into astros, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd expect to see them choose ones that are already fairly accomplished for the first couple of missions, so I'd only look at people that have already been to the ISS.

>>11088182
>which literally couldn't be better described than an "utterly pointless PR stunt"

Because trying to make people enthusiastic about space is utterly pointless

> You referred to moon landings (superior in the beginning even to Apollo 17) at the south pole, paving the way for medium-to-long-term habitaton and exploration as an "utterly pointless PR stunt". This time it's more than just dust and rocks. Apollo didn't really deal with extremes of light and temperature. Or eventually harvesting the moons resources and so on. It's also the most sensible way to prepare for Mars exploration, for a variety of reasons. It costing lots of moneys, and (unfortunately) taking a lot of time to see through doesn't change any of that.

Because there literally aren't any possible other ways of doing these things better

>>11088184
>he SLS and Orion contracts are the only cost-plus contracts involved in Artemis
Do you have a source? That's still the vast majority of the mission funding being sent into cost plus contracts. Regardless, it being a fixed price doesn't mean there isn't favoritism in the contract selection so your initial point doesn't make any sense.
>Schitzo proceeds to sperg out because he got called out...
You accused someone else of being schizo before me, so I remembered you from last thread when you did the exact same thing to multiple people. Ironically, it's pretty schizophrenic to think that everyone that talks shit about NASA is the same person.
>>11088195
Only one person called me schizo in the thread, so of course I'm assuming that. Now you're likely same fagging. Again I have nothing to do with this argument, I just pointed out you were being misleading in your defense of NASA favoritism.

Stop throwing insults around and being obnoxious, actually defend your point.

>>11088203
>longest Apollo mission was 4 days
>only did that at the very end of the program
>was the only time an actual scientist flew to the Moon
>Apollo only landed on the lunar equator
>the very first Artemis mission will be at least 7 days long
>actual scientists will be flying to the Moon this time
>They'll be landing at the south pole, and later anywhere on the entire globe
yeah, sure. just a PR stunt.

>>11088207
Not a samefag. Sorry.
You're alleging favoritism without any evidence. The bidding hasn't even finished yet.

>>11088203
>possible other ways of doing these things better
Name an alternative to what is being designed right now that could do a better job in 2024. Starship won't be able to by that time. Even if it could, there are several aspects so it that make it inferior to other methods.
>Because trying to make people enthusiastic about space is utterly pointless
Having a completed and actually functional rocket to show off would have been a lot more impactful than an empty can. I would love to know how many weeks or months doing that purely for "spacex day" delayed the mk 1 getting completed.

Nanoracks is bringing back the wet workshop concept. You know turning upper stages into space stations. What's important is how they're going to do it. They're going to CUT HOLES in upper stages and WELD things on to them with robots. If you don't realize how awesome that is, consider that everything we've put together in space has been put together like a lego set. This is the beginning of in space construction.

>>11088163
This. MK2 looks much more refined and sleek.
Oh, and less crinkly.

>>11088210
>Not a samefag
You're just repeating his argument, which is questionable.
>You're alleging favoritism without any evidence.
Are you expecting a study into the favoritism of NASA? Nothing I give you would be satisfactory because you don't care about evidence in the first place, you're just blinding defending a company you likely work for or you're just doing it for free, which would be pathetic.
>The bidding hasn't even finished yet.
Why do you keep repeating this? It doesn't matter if it's finished or not, we know exactly who is going to win the contract. They released their plans within days of each other. I even called it last thread when I said Boeing will make a bid.

>>11088211
>Having a completed and actually functional rocket to show off would have been a lot more impactful than an empty can. I would love to know how many weeks or months doing that purely for "spacex day" delayed the mk 1 getting completed.

Good job there's a mk2 then

>>11088208
Convince me by telling me specifically what tasks at this stage simply must be done with humans instead of robots

Stop responding to the paid shill
it's the same fucking guy as it has been for years
No, you aren't going to convince him no matter how hard you try
he will shit out the exact same nonsense, be rebuked in the exact same way, and then shit out the exact same nonsense tomorrow, pretending that them being BTFO never happened

>>11088219
They’ve been talking about it for awhile but nothing has happened to my knowledge. I’m wondering how propellants will effect the choice of upper stage for a wet lab e.g. nobody wants to work in a lab with hydrazine residue.

>>11088219
Cool

>>11088232
Is this a SpaceX shill or a NASA shill? If the former I'm not a shill. I'm a twat, but not a shill.

>mfw only been posting in here since june and already living rent free

>>11088238
BASED frogposter

>>11088232
Who are you referring to?

I think SLS should be canceled because we can just send Orion to the Moon by strapping 1000 3D-printed smallsat launchers together and blasting it off on top of them. They will all be destroyed, but it's OK because they were made by New Space and they are not orange. The cool thing about this plan is that it can be done in seconds at the cost of only a few cents and no engineering work at all. Some heretics have doubted this fact, but the ministry of truth is arresting them as we speak and their opinions are being downvoted to hell which is where they will shortly be going themselves.
The best thing about this idea is that the CEO of the smallsat company is a god. We are starting a change.org petition to have him legally proclaimed a deity. Since the CEO is a god, his wisdom is beyond questioning by us mere mortals. As followers, our wisdom is like his, and is also beyond question. Those who question us deserve to be punished for holding humanity back. This really shows us that NASA's main problem is that their administrator isn't a Meme Lord. If he were, they would be great again. But NASA is mired in the satanic cult of Shelby and this has made their rockets turn orange and bad.
SLS is fake because it is orange. All orange rockets are ultimately fake, even the Delta IV Heavy launched by ULA, a bad company that creates CGI of rocket launches while wasting taxpayer money. I am told by memes that the SLS pathfinder is the only real thing that has been built so far, which proves how fake the whole thing is.
I brought dead horses to beat and axes to grind, so feel free to help me out here. I need to feel victorious on the internet. Also, please remember that many of the people in this thread have been brainwashed by the Alabama Mafia, and they are all very stupid and can't see the light of the Meme Lords.

>>11088242
This, but Orion is also unnecessary because it too is orange and bad. Just look at the flight suits it comes with! They are orange, and therefore bad. I belongs to the satanic cult of Shelby and must be purged in holy methalox flame.

>>11088244
>Just look at the flight suits it comes with! They are orange, and therefore bad

“You talkin’ shit about us Nigga?”

>>11088242

>>11088254
Wow, they really are derived from the SR-71 suits.
Were the SR-71 suits derived from the Mercury suits by any chance? Then the circle would truly be complete.

>>11087930
>United
No
>Launch
No
>Alience
No

>>11088020
I'm still crossing my fingers that's a placeholder.
The ascent stage looks fine (even looks like it has Starliner heritage), but that descent stage is uuugly.

>>11088242
> reeee stop criticising oldspace

>>11088259
>Wow, they really are derived from the SR-71 suits.

Yes, actually: the Orion suit is essentially a modernised ACES suit, which was used for the Shuttle program. The ACES was in turn derived from the pressure suits used by the pilots of X-15s, U-2s and SR-71s. The Mercury project space suit had a completely different ancestry and was basically just an upgraded flight suit that was used by US navy test pilots.

These new+old space projects are getting crazier by the day...

Boeing are partnering with startup Intuitive Machines for their HLS, meaning there’s a good chance of it being Methane-powered. Intuitive are the people who are building a small, methalox-fuelled lander to launch on a Falcon 9 in 2021 as part of NASA’s CLPS program.

https://twitter.com/Int_Machines/status/1187435714054705153

Humans will return to the Moon and reach Mars on Boeing rockets.

>>11088310
I do wonder if its the right decision to partner with old space. They have billions of holdover from skimming NASA/US for decades, and they're trying to partner with new million dollar startups. What's oldspace's aim here?

>>11088325
Acquire experience.

>>11088314
Only if Boeing starts trying to create real programs instead of using Government contracts as nothing more than a way to milk bureaucracy for cash. If they don't, they won't reach Mars at all, and efforts to make sure Boeing gets there first will ensure that no American does.

>>11088310
Yeah, this basically confirms the render in >>11088020 is wrong.
Also, Boeing's lander proposal is a two-stage lander, since Boeing is using the fact they build SLS to propose launching on SLS. It's gonna be quite a lot bigger than the BO-NG-LM design.

>>11088330
Boeing can do anything given enough money. Getting anywhere is simply a matter of government policy. I would like to remind everyone they are well ahead of spacex both in SHLV development and crew capsule development.

>>11088325
>What's oldspace's aim here?

Two reasons, firstly the HLS request basically says NASA will prefer bids with partnerships. This directly connects to the second reason, speed: the reasoning behind why NASA and these companies are promoting partnerships is that it’s basically impossible to make the 2024 deadline if you build everything yourself; but if you delegate a key part of your lander, such as an element or propulsion system to another company, perhaps an agile newspace startup you have much less to do and therefore, a much higher chance of making the deadline.

>>11088341
>and they only needed a 10 year head start!

>>11088343
the BO-NG-LM alliance was definitely motivated by speed, for example. Both BO and LM had their own independent designs prior to this point, but BO leveraged LM's experience building Orion for the ascent module, and LM utilized BO's fairly mature descent stage design. Win-win.

>>11088349
>Lock-BONG
in dank position

>>11088350
>Lock-BONG
Using that from now on.

>>11088070
>this is boring

>>11088346
The opposite is true. Boeing started from scratch with the Starliner, while spacex had dragon-1 giving them clear advantage. Despite that, and having to share the commercial crew program and its money with another company with all that entails to development time, Boeing is looking to fly its crew capsule for a full fledged mission before its competitor.

>>11088362
Crew Dragon development cost a third less than Starliner.

>>11088362
SpaceX got a hardware advantage due to commercial cargo and Boeing got a money advantage, so their both equal in my eyes. It’s gonna be neck and neck...

>>11088362
>Boeing is looking to fly its crew capsule for a full fledged mission before its competitor.
I'm looking for a blowjob from Emma Roberts, it isn't going to happen. All Starliner tests are behind Dragon.
>>11088341
>Boeing can do anything given enough money
So could nearly any other company, what's your point? Care to disclose any ties you have to this company?

>>11088380
Actually, SpaceX got 2.6 billion whilst Boeing got 4.2 billion.

Seems like IFA capsule is going to be static fired on November 2, whilst the Starliner abort is happening on November 4.

>>11088391
SpaceX is further behind than they seem. NASA has indicated they do not believe they will be ready until mid-2020 by asking Roscosmos for more Soyuz seats.

>>11088391
>>11088394
SpaceX is further in flight testing, but they’ve got parachute problems to fix and Boeing doesn’t. It’s pretty neck and neck.

>>11088394
NASA is hedging their bets, nothing more. They don't want to be caught with their pants down in case Dragon explodes again. Either way, they're still likely to come out ahead of Starliner.

>>11088394
even if both of them fly to the Station in 2020, crew rotation missions won't be ready to go immediately afterwards, so they need more Soyuz seats.

>>11088401
starliner gets full crew rotation mission though

Intuitive put up a video of them testing Boeing’s lander engine:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=FhGoRwi0cB8

Starship de geso

>>11088020
This will inspire generations of children to look into STEM.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/24/spacex-sets-nov-2-date-for-critical-crew-dragon-engine-test-firing.html

https://twitter.com/Star_Shattered/status/1187185390928781314

>>11088393
>Actually, SpaceX got 2.6 billion whilst Boeing got 4.2 billion.
so less than half?

>>11088431
2.6 x 2 is 5.2, Anon.

>>11088423
Am I the only one who thinks it's a myth that accomplishing things in engineering and technology makes kids inspired to go into those fields? At most it'll make some kids aspire to become moon-men, but the supermajority will drop that shit as they grow up

>>11088433
Personal experiences are only anecdotes, and cannot be generalized to the population as a whole

>>11088433
Yes it’s stupid, but politicians eat that shit up. Which is why Jim always mentions it when talking to Congress critters.

>>11088234
they want to demo using a robotic arm to cut metal in space in Q4 2020:
http://nanoracks.com/in-space-outpost-demonstration/
>>hydrazine
yeah probably wouldn't want that. They'll probably use a centaur, which uses LOX and LH2. Since centaur's expendable they have the opportunity of get them almost for free.
>>labs
you're thinking small anon, space manufacturing is cooler than being able to make some lab. Go back and look up what NASA wanted to do before the limitations of the space shuttle became apparent. They wanted space hangars for building space probes. They wanted to build colonies. They wanted to build giant orbital factories processing so much material so fast they had to be specially laid out so that the material flowing through them wouldn't cause the factory to spin out of control. They wanted to have offworld industry that's cheap enough to make products for Earth. Sure today, they're just tearing up centaur stages, but the future is being able to use offworld resources to make things.

>>11088471
>you're thinking small anon, space manufacturing is cooler than being able to make some lab

I’m just going on what Nanoracks have advertised. Which is a modified Centaur docking with the ISS and being converted into a lab. I assume this will be their bid for the commercial ISS module competition that’s ongoing.

any place where I can watch Bruno's space market speech?

>>11088531
I’ve been looking for it to, but so far no look...apparently ULA have fully automated the construction process of the new Centaur stage (Centaur V) for Vulcan.

>>11088544
space meme is real, but to me it seems apparent that 2024 is basically not good enough. I think everyone knows it's also not good enough. I think the market will push much more heavy weight solutions by 2026. This is just the half assed development we are shown, mostly because everyone is afraid to tank their companies on moon bets. Once some growth and sustainability of the architecture is revealed we'll see actual mass.

The 2026 goal likely fits bezoses new armstrong timeline. 2021 new glenn begins flying. The rest is space used for companies to play catch up and more and more smaller organizations for specialized tasks. The economy grows, we get some small form space tourism and private space stations being funded, all the while we start needing to take care of space junk because of 3 in prototype space mega constellation. Then the russians/chinese realize mega constellation are an incredible military asset the US starts hurling more and more national security hard ware at the wall. And by 2030 we already have a moon base. So what I am saying is the growth is going to be much higher after 2025, then between 2020-2025 with exponentionally more hardware. I think this fits the current trends much better. Whether spacex goes to mars is tangential and irrelevant. That capability is both proven and boring. The escalation of tonnage will raise all tides. Also we'll see energy beamed down as solar panels in space become cheaper and rocket companies partner to make their enterprises carbon neutral. That be my prediction, maybe not beaming energy down. maybe something else.

Alright, it's time to put the Commercial Crew Development program to a vote so we can laugh at the losing party in a few months time. I've made a poll.

The question is:
Which crew crew capsule do you think will be first to complete a manned flight to the ISS?

Please answer honestly here:
https://strawpoll.com/w92yrss8

>>11087991

>>11088149
>the cranes bow down before their king

>>11088566
I fully believe that Starliner will be first, simply because NASA and Boeing are in bed together. On the surface, things seem to be neck and neck, but on the underside, SpaceX is incredibly further along. NASA keeps sitting on paperwork and stalling things to give Boeing a chance to get their shit together.
Remember how Dragon 2 has already gone to and from the ISS on its own? SL hasn't see what the sky looks like yet.
Even without the bad valve and Dragon 2 exploding, NASA was delaying further tests to give it the OK human rating.
Hell, even the first official human missions on the books are in favor of Boeing. SL mission is supposed to be a full-fledged multi-month long stay, while the D2 mission is under a week.

Anyone who thinks that Boeing and SpaceX are on level playing grounds is blind or in denial. Starliner will beat Dragon 2, not because its better, but because that is what NASA wants.

>>11088626
Starliner beating Dragon 2 will probably be due to different strategy. Unmanned Dragon2 tested for ISS and Dragon2 crew will be different. Meanwhile Starliner dummy test and human test will be same. SpaceX wanted iteration changes. Boeing went single design phase. Ofcourse Starliner isn't guaranteed to be a success with ISS unmanned test.

SpaceX has to do more parachute tests and hope the safety margins are met and the simulation matches real tests. They will do one more dummy test in early 2020 and crew by spring 2020, if all goes well.

>>11088626
>SpaceX is incredibly further along. NASA keeps sitting on paperwork and stalling things to give Boeing a chance to get their shit together.

Your forgetting that SpaceX has to do 10 perfect parachute tests with the new Mk3 chutes before NASA let them fly crew.

>Hell, even the first official human missions on the books are in favor of Boeing. SL mission is supposed to be a full-fledged multi-month long stay, while the D2 mission is under a week.

That’s only because the DM-2 spacecraft that is now the IFA capsule wasn’t technically capable of a long stay, the new DM-2 (previously USCV-1) capsule is capable and therefore, NASA are now talking about DM-2 possibly being a long-term mission as well. Starliner never had this problem.

In turn, this is why Starliner could possibly beat Crew Dragon to the station: the Boeing OFT and CFT capsules are nearly identical, whilst SpaceX’s DM-1 and the DM-2 capsules have multiple differences between them. This means the downtime between Boeing flights will be less.

Don’t let your fanboyism cloud your judgement...

>>11088640
This Starlink graphic fails to take into account the other orbital planes, especially the ones that cover the poles.

>>11088200
so did STS

>>11088020
Why is the ascent stage all sleek looking? Did they forget there's no air?

>>11088729
sleek, aerosurface-esque lines can help prevent damage from rocket exhaust

>>11088742
Then why is the descent stage a mylar wrapped hexagonal box?

>>11088751
because Boeing don't produce hardware, they just sell powerpoints to congressmen

>>11088755
not an argument

WHEN WILL THEY FUCKING LAUNCH JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE IT'S BEEN A FUCKING GORILLION YEARS I'M MAD

>>11088195

It's a component in a larger picture that effects what is being done.

>>11088837
The launch date has been set as the 30th of March 2021. It’s being do well recently, having been successfully assembled and passed a lot of major tests this year. Barring any problems it should be ready to launch in 2021.

>>11088837

>>11088868
>>11088837
>man wakes up from ten year coma excited to see what JWST has found

>>11088645
>Don’t let your fanboyism cloud your judgement...
Fanboyism implies that I'm all for a specific company, in this case would be SpaceX.
In reality, I hate Boeing. If it was Boeing vs Blue Origin, I'd still be against Boeing, but all for BO, simply because they are the alternative.
I like SpaceX, but not to a fanboy level. High risk can be high reward, but it can also be catastrophic failure. I'll cheer them on, from a distance behind a protective wall.

>>11088341

And terminally behind in lunar and martian surface access timelines and price/performance.

>>11088865
Wait, I thought it was totally done and ready to go? Why the excessive wait to launch?

can somebody make a webm of this please
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1187489139291119616?s=20

>>11088887
How low can those engines throttle?

>>11088888
stupid low, they're underexpanded at sea level at full throttle

>>11088888
CHECKED

>>11088888
bout 5 eights low

>>11088471

That's the NASA that the shuttle killed and the SLS program is helping to keep dead in the age of Starship.

>>11088887
as you please anon

>>11088898
I wonder what the deal is with the puff of oxidizer orange off on the right side at startup

>>11088890
I think Dragon can go either side of 1 TWR and be able to hover, right? Or am I pulling that out of nowhere?

>>11088686
my FUCKING DICK

2021
>Artemis 1
>James Webb deployment
>first Starship orbital flight
gonna be a good year

>>11088310
>>11088406
MORPHEUS GANG RISE UP

(Intuitive Machines are ran by ex-Project Morpheus people, who’ve basically transferred Morpheus’ Methalox engine technology to their new company. Therefore, Boeing’s Artemis proposal is essentially Morpheus XXL...)

>>11088937
You forgot a few...
>First Vulcan flight
>First OmegA flight
>Maybe first New Glenn flight
>A fuck ton of Moon landings by both foreign and American companies

There’s probably more as well...

>>11088937
>>11088949
What I like about these things is that none of them depend on a single group keeping their stuff together. They're all handled by different groups with different goals, abilities, and approach. There shouldn't be anything that could stop all of them baring a world-wise catastrophe or new UN law restricting spaceflight or something like that.

>>11088937
Isn't starship orbital flight in spring/summer 2020?

>>11088955
I believe this is what the overused corporate buzzword: “the democratisation of space”, actually means.

>>11088958
Correct. Mk1 lifts off in about a month and a half. After that, orbital attempt with mk3/4 supposedly
>tight is right

>>11088958
You gotta do the calculations to work out the difference between real time and Elon time.

>>11088942
>Boeing
>Actually being technically innovative
Joking aside, that's actually pretty cool. I didn't realize they meant that the design would be ENTIRELY methalox, RCS and all.

>>11088968
As far as I know his timeline is perfectly fine, if not running faster than real time. The problem isn't the very soonish timeline of the months, but rather the longer time line years off in the future.

>>11088963
Or rather the "diversification of space"

>>11088982
That just sounds like what a women in STEM advocate would say...

>>11088942
Shit like this is what I'd like in a hollow Starship model. The nose just opens up and hucks that shit out.

>>11088937
>>11088949

Dont forget, 2021 will also be the year India launches its first cosmonauts/astronauts into space onboard the Gaganyaan.

>>11088888
nice quints, but check these repeating digits

>>11089006
>1st open turd in space

>>11088898
>>11088902
https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1187519571718094848
even Scott Manley is confused!

>>11088902
Not sure exactly, but its part of the draco thruster system. This was just a stand test, so its not all crammed into a dragon capsule - some of it is off to the side.

>>11089021
huh

A LAS? How passe.

>>11089111
Good to see old archive footage from the Apollo era. We have come a long way...

http://spaceq.ca/heads-of-space-agencies-panel-highlights-benefits-of-international-cooperation-but-political-tensions-persist/

>>11089006
POO
IN
LEO

>>11088937
Soon...

>>11088942

>>11088910
Yes, they've done hover tests before.

>>11089204

Hope the next one looks better put together.

>>11088219
Hope they have a spatter containment system planned.

>>11089217
Musk needs to hire Carmack

>>11088902
what's left of the spaceonauts being vented

>>11089455
oh, good, wouldn't want them to contaminate the ISS

>>11088898
what do you use to make webm ?

what are the odds if trump losses the election artemis gets "rearranged" again and setback another 7 years

>>11089467
ffmpeg -i input_file -an -c:v libvp8 output.webm

>>11089940
Literally looks like something designed with KSP.

>>11089940
>>11089947
Based Boeing

Can't wait.

>>11089973
How would you build domes like that on the moon?
Making cement blocks with moon dust and build them like how you build a iglo?

>>11089940
no sir I don't like it

>>11089015

>Ha ha le poo in le loo-joke

Fuck off.

>>11089182

Hypocrisy at its finest. Seriously, India is set to send people into space, being the 4th country in doing so and all you cunts can do is laugh at that looming achievement. Hypocritical disrespectfull cunts you are.

>>11090094
t. poo in loo

>>11090094
cope, pajeet

>No clover
F

>>11090128
is that the NASA patch and not the spacex patch tho? You’re right; no clover means disaster

>>11090128
Fixed

>>11089988
Sure, or inflate big kevlar bags and cover them with loose dirt
Or weld aluminum paneling together into the shape you want
Or any other method of building a dome you can think of

>>11088937
>>11088949
>>11089006
All the really exciting events in spaceflight are always slated for a couple years away. Close enough to feel tangible, but not too tangible. I'd be surprised to see two of these happen on schedule.

>>11089940
Dios mio its retarded

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1187742052446097414
>Baron: Why hasn't Bezos been doing this? He's spending lots of money.
>Shotwell: They're two years older than us and they've yet to reach orbit. They get $1 billion of "free money" each year but I think engineers work better when they're pushed.
based

>>11090426
>shotwell straight up murders jeff-who and the established launch industry
holy shit lol

>>11090426
Nice dig. Here's some key quotes.

>For what it's worth, Morgan Stanley's assumed $1 million cost per Starlink satellite with a $50 million cost per launch.
>"30,000 broadband satellites could require ~$60b of incremental capital," Morgan Stanley said.

>Shotwel: Morgan Stanley estimated this week how much it would cost to deploy our satellites "and they were wayyyyyyyy off."


>Shotwell: SpaceX's Starlink is way less expensive than OneWeb and "17 times better or cheaper."

>https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1187738662534045697

>Jim Bridenstein: Starship will compete in Artemis plan for the moon. We want commercial partners.

I don't understand Jeff Bezos. He is willing to treat Amazon workers like slaves to the point they were literally considered putting some of them in robotic cages, yet he is not willing to get his engineers to speed things up or risk a few of his rockets blowing up. Why doesn't he just copy what SpaceX is doing?

Russia is moving towards close partnership with China in the space industry so you americans should prepare your anuses no level of pr shit is going to save you when the Russian rocket genius is combined with China's industrial and economic capacity.

>>11090470
>mfw the memes of Starship landing on the Moon and deploying one of the competitor landers onto the surface from its cargo bay are real
it's happening lads

>>11089940
INSPIRING

>>11090470
This is a joke, right? No sane mind would consider the artemis clusterfuck if you have starship, right?
Right???
Right.

>>11090495
NASA wants multiple partners, so others will have a chance with their own implementation.

>>11090485
Good. Spaceflight needs more players. Best of luck to the Sino-Russian (that's the correct term, right?) joint space program.

>>11090497
>Sino-Russian
The correct term is Big Asian

>>11090483
He's playing the politics game hence why he's in considerably better position as a newspace company than is spacex.
Spacex are the unwelcome outsider and they have only themselves to blame.
You can't just move against national interests and set priorities and strategies by creating your own alternative ones and then expect political support and funding.

>>11090515
They seem to be doing perfectly fine (read, amazingly well) in their position anyway, so which is really the better strategy here?

>>11090519
Thankfully national budget is big enough and both spacex/blue can have their own funding. Starlink's success would mean financial independence from US government. Bezos has billions on his hands.

If spacex starts selling tickets to the moon or even mars before artemis is ready, could that be considered treason?

>>11090485
Can't wait. Russian spaceflight is patrician. N-1 failing was pretty tragic in hindsight.

>>11090512
Big Gay Sean?

>>11090515
How is being the new Boeing or Lockheed advantageous? As space flight shifts towards the private sector, government appeasement matters less and less. The potential profit from, say, the Artemis contracts is nothing compared to the potential profit of a satellite internet constellation.

>>11090534
No. But it might make SpaceX incredibly unpopular to the US government if they started carrying Russian, Chinese, or any other nation that's not at great relations with the US payloads.

>>11090534
Won't happen

>>11090456
FEROCITER GRATODURR

>>11090534
>inb4 UAE missionaries are the first -people-sandniggers on the moon after apollo

>>11090515
>move against national interests
By giving the US cheaper access to space than anyone else in the world? Surely that's a massive strategic advantage.

>>11090094
you have to go back

>>11090426
>implying Elon Musk isn't swimming in easy government dosh

>>11090463
>"17 times better or cheaper."
Is it just me or is this not a semantically complete statement?

>>11090544
As long as B&L keep winning government contracts for sub par job,American tax payer money will roll in someones pocket.
Elon cucks need to to literally fight (potentially) whole countries like China and Russia to keep the company afloat,and trust me the Chinks will spy like nobody's business.

>>11090558
>Surely that's a massive strategic advantage.
Not if the primary goal of the national space agency was to provide jobs in key locations.

>>11090546
Chinks most likely will never even consider it - its a massive prestige hit. Russians are too poor and the ones who aren't can't go out of line. Others.

>>11090558
Its not what you do, its how you do it.

Spacex are on their own and there's no turning back now.

The more they double down on the anti-american company policies the more they'll find themselves in trouble when the money inevitably run out.

>>11090577
>The more they double down on the anti-american company policies
What policies?

>>11090426
She seems really shook about Bezos, it’s gone past the point of little jibes for the sake of friendly competition. Ever since Blue won the big Telesat constellation contract, she’s been freaking out about them. She’s probably ripping her hair out at why the bald man is winning more big launch contracts than SpaceX, despite having never launched to orbit.

>>11090568
A few billion from the American taxpayer is nothing compared to what will be a trillion dollar private industry. SpaceX barely has to "keep the company afloat" once Starlink is up and running, it's like a license to print money, even with just a few percent of people using it globally.
>whole countries like China and Russia to keep the company afloat,and trust me the Chinks will spy like nobody's business.
Elon Musk almost constantly outdoes China, even within China. There's still no Chinese Tesla equivalent despite them knowing everything about their manufacturing process.

>>11090426
Wine mum seething at based jeff

>>11090485
>Russia is moving towards close partnership with China in the space industr
That's really the only thing they can do when NASA doesn't have to fund an entire Soyuz launch with two seats, and reusable launchers price them out of everything else too.

>>11090586
no.

>>11089217
>>11089370
They have chatted before about working together, but Carmack likes his VR work more, and would kind of be a "fifth wheel" as far as rocket-smarts comes.

Musk did reply "anytime you want, come talk".

>>11090495
I do like the idea of Gateway regardless- a permanent station around the Moon is a good idea. With Starship, though, the Gateway can be xboxhueg for way cheaper.

>>11090674
>With Starship, though, the Gateway can be xboxhueg for way cheaper.
Are you insaine?! Do you want to put American lives at stake inside cheaply made, unsafe, and weight inefficient space station modules? The only proper way for America to return to the moon will be in modules carefully crafted by AMERICAN contractors across AMERICA. Each part extensively checked and rechecked to guarantee increases in safety and reliability. No expense is spared because lives are priceless. To round out this safety oriented program, all modules would be launched on the Space Launch System (pbui). This rocket is AMERICAS rocket, and the most powerful and safest rocket ever built. SpaceX has had multiple failures on their Falcon 9 rockets and they're expected to have problems with Starship. Meanwhile SLS (pbui) has NEVER had a failure, an enviable achievement.

Would you support America's return to the moon, or SpaceX? I think you know the answer.

>>11090662
Carmack is a legend to Musk and programmers alike. Musk has repeatedly asked/told him about him being wanted in Elon's companies.

>>11090580
You're replying to a Shelby poster

>>11090662
Carmack would be a good fit for developing telerovers operated from Phobos.

>>11090566
If they charge the same price it is a 17x better bit rate, if the charge the quality they price it 17x cheaper.

>>11090596
> There's still no Chinese Tesla equivalent despite them knowing everything about their manufacturing process.
Interesting.
I wonder if he has some contract with their government.

>>11090742
>Contracts mean anything in China

>>11090753
With the government,yes.

>>11090742
I don't think, not beyond the contracts that allowed the Gigafactory to be built there. It's just way harder to be a make a company like Tesla or SpaceX than people think, even if you copy their business structure. If it was easy, they would have their equivalents in nearly every industry, but that isn't the case. I'm not even sure exactly why this is the case either, it could be their ability to attract talent, their rapid development schedules, love for vertical integration, and so on, but all of those combined don't seem like they would be enough to be this far ahead of the pack.

>>11089940
>>11089973
This is ripe for a boomer/zoomer type meme with the Artemis crew standing outside their lander when Starship descends next to it blasting Space Truckin', kicking up tons of dust and shredding their lander.

>>11088146
>If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Spending billions of dollars to do the same thing twice is broken

>>11090695
Not sure if satire.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ-04R_Zw6M
>NASA: Space is HARD

Do you think that's the wrong backward looking message? IMO, they should have pushed the opposite message. "Space is EASY." "We have the technology" "We need YOU to join our mission." That would have been more positive. Instead the whole NASA message "space is hard, we'll try to do it, don't laugh" is dumb as fuck.

>>11090975
It’s called telling the truth...

>>11090989
My dick is hard

>>11090989
Congress and NASA fumbling for the last 40 years is the truth. We went to the moon and back 50 years ago from scratch. Now to go back to the moon with engines that's already been built, knowledge that we've had for 50 years, multiple multi-billion dollar defense industries, is going to be more expensive(even adjusted for inflation) than what we've done 50 years ago and will take longer than starting from scratch.

The truth of the matter is NASA is a failing organization that stems from failure of American congress and by virtue American people.

>>11091047
Cringe.

spacex? more like gaysex

haha

>>11091095
nice.

youtube.com/watch?v=kqSqmoMaZMQ

wew just found this old gem. Had to share. Feels pretty amazing to watch men work on Starship listening to this.

>>11091095
gottem

>>11088014
Austenitic stainless steel isn't tempered

Only ferritic steels are tempered

>>11091118
cold worked 301 changes phase

>>11089940
The Boeing lander design is growing on me. Maybe it's just the weirdly-proportioned astronauts in the render that were throwing me off.

thanks Nomadd, looks like Boca Chica is an island again

>>11090754
Not even those, the government will break the contract as soon as it's profitable for them.

>>11091113
Great album

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud6LiVJkwyA

>>11091113
I like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYX6BMoeJcw&list=PLPc7TIdJlJ3SDhmsAJvxe4j-JkKebI-HZ&index=1
samples Firing Room 1 at Kennedy Space Center at about 3min

>>11091214
3:38 to be exact

Incels BTFO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrhL1LMbS_Y&feature=youtu.be&t=4

>>11089940

It's really hilarious how 60's sci-fi was right about future space ships.

I blame Star Wars and Star Trek for completely pointless designs.

>>11091062
He's right and you're a faggot.

>>11090773
Exactly. Same reason China STILL can't build a decent jet engine despite decades of effort, and yet some underfunded blokes in Derby fuelled by tea and biscuits can build some of the finest in the world. There's a critical element that cannot be written down on paper or easily recreated in a new organisation.

>>11091257
>>>11090773 #
Exactly. Same reason China STILL can't build a decent jet engine despite decades of effort, and yet some underfunded blokes in Derby fuelled by tea and biscuits can build some of the finest in the world.

I mean the WS-15 exists, just not in mass production.

>>11091265
Holy shit that green text fail, imma head out and kill myself...

>>11090426
>>11090463
>Shotwell, on SpaceX's competitors and why other companies haven't built and landed orbital rockets: "Boeing and Lockheed like their cushy situation."

>>11091283
>tfw getting too much money to care about reusability

Based Chading and Chadheed

>>11090741
Yeah, but better at what? If you don't qualify something, you can't quantify it.

>>11090695
Shelbyposting keeps me from depression

>>11091320
>I may be retarded, but I can afford to be retarded
>10 years later: b-bailouts please

>>11090463
>“So if you’re thinking about investing in OneWeb, I would recommend strongly against it,” Shotwell said. “They fooled some people” who will be “pretty disappointed in the near term.”

SHOTS FIRED

>>11090470
>Starship lands on moon
>Yeets out Artemis capsule with two guys and 10 plastic bags full of shit onto the surface
>50 rich cunts sit in the starship cocktail bar laughing at the little tin can

>>11091433
That’s pretty funny considering that funds, other providers and even governments have invested billions into OneWeb. This is really pathetic honestly, she’s making these big jabs without any evidence to support them. OneWeb replied in a really professional and dignified way as well, basically saying they’ve got better things to do than shit talk competitors.

>>11091453
With Soyuz/Ariane6 as launch providers, they're going to be very costly compared to SpaceX's own F9/Starship

>>11091448
Nice fantasy. I'm sure you'll be laughing about it when it's 2028 and SpaceX isn't even close to putting people on the Moon.

>>11091555
>my god, it's full of stars

>>11091547
Their launching a much smaller constellation and they got a very cheap deal for monthly Soyuz launches, for their first phase. The second phase seems to be relying on Ariane 62 and New Glenn.

the /sfg/ meetup at IAC was fun uwu! Did lots of docking and orbital insertions. Really surprising that certain republican law makers and representatives from big aerospace companies showed up too.

there's alot of seething personalities in the spaceflight community. for some reason they really really hate spacex.

>>11091616
>Muh technology!
>Muh patents
Yet they can't make their own falcons....

>>11091637
Innovation requires disruption, and disruption is guaranteed to make enemies in established businesses. SpaceX, for what they want to do as a transportation company, have little reason to make friends.

>>11091616
Jon Goff is a really cool guy (he’s ex-Masten, currently Altius), he’s very neutral and has a lot of industry knowledge so I’m obligated to believe him. Parabolic is a well documented Elon hater, but he’s also knowledgeable and other people are backing his statements up. This exchange further validates what I’ve believed for a while, that SpaceX are not a good partner. Them seemingly being unable to put together big partnerships like Blue Origin and others have formed recently, combined with Gwynne Shotwell shit talking other companies so much, further supports this. It seems a lot of the aerospace industry hate SpaceX and it isn’t due to competition or jealousy e.g. Greg Wyler of OneWeb congratulated Bezos when he announced Amazon’s satellite constellation, a direct competitor to his own; but on the other hand, he really hates SpaceX apparently due to past dealings with them.

>>11091637
>>11091643
This isn’t China, the US has literally started a trade war because of stolen technology. We respect IP in the Western world Chinkoids.

>>11091666
If SpaceX has stolen their IP, they're free to sue. This isn't China, the US is literally a country of law and not of men.

>>11091572
Vertical integration > partnered tiers for cost/control/speed/etc.

>>11091548
Do you have literally anything other than "reee space is haaaaarrrd you can't just do spaaaace" to back this up

>>11090975

>>11091666
>We respect IP in the Western world
>Jeff Bezos repeatedly trying to patent things SpaceX is already doing

>>11091721
It was hard 50 years ago, when we had no rocket, no knowledge, and no industry.

>>11091742
Now it's hard because we have cost-plus contracts and pay contractors even when they don't perform.

>>11091766
Being lazy is not hard.

>>11091672

>>11091812
No, but trying to go to space while being lazy is hard.

>>11091817
>we respect IP in the west chinkoids
>Yes, that is correct
>WRONG

>the US is a country of law

>>11091720
The fact that it's been 8 years and SpaceX hasn't launched anyone in Crew Dragon V2 yet?
>inb4 "b-but NASA bureaucracy" excuse

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries mulls upgraded H3 rocket variants for lunar missions
https://spacenews.com/mitsubishi-heavy-industries-mulls-upgraded-h3-rocket-variants-for-lunar-missions/

>>11091884
And can you explain why that excuse isn't appropriate and justifiable?

>>11091890
>can you explain why literally shifting the blame to avoid responsibility isn't appropriate and justifiable?

>>11091857
fell right into his trap

>>11091895
why is shifting the blame from NASA to SpaceX appropriate and justifiable here?

>>11091905
If "newspace" SpaceX is supposed to be much faster, why are they neck and neck with "oldspace" Boeing? How is that NASA's fault?

>>11091905
because he's either a paid shill, or thunderf00t, the latter absolutely despising musk with all his fucking being, and the former being paid to hate him

>>11091884
Unironically NASA bureaucracy.

>>11091895
>multiple accounts of NASA not handling their side of the paperwork fast enough to avoid delays (probably from being so used to missing deadlines for other reasons)
>all spacex's fault tho

Just how much of a deathtrap were the Gemini capsules anyways

>>11091925
eh like a three, if something went wrong on launch or entry you were fucked probably, but that's not anything new

>>11091924
>SpaceX literally blew up a capsule during testing
>"NASA testing is meaningless paperwork"

well, yeah
that's precisely what testing is for

>>11091935
yeah, and then they had to spend five months doing paperwork convincing NASA they fixed the problem instead of just fixing the problem

>>11091939
yeah but now they need to recertify the whole system (because they somehow missed the flaw the first time around), which is causing delays, but is not "meaningless paperwork"

Could the apollo guys see the stars when the vehicle's windows were out of direct sunlight and moon and earthshine? Or was it pitch black all the time?

>>11091944
So I'm supposed to believe SpaceX can't fix the problem AND document how they fixed at the same time?

>>11091935
>NASA spends years doing paperwork
>doesn't actually budget time for any test result beyond "work good first time"

>>11091935
>SpaceXs internal projects much faster than oldspace, comparable projects
>Only slow thing is the vehicle required to pass rigorous NASA testing and requirements

>>11091939
Exactly, so it would b nice to not see spacex fanboys shitting on NASA for that reason, or the deafening silence that will come from them when SLS goes off without a hitch.

>>11091946
Yeah, they could see them.
One of the recounts of the Apollo 13 mission talked about how the reason they didn't use stellar navigation was because they weren't sure whether they were seeing debris or stars out their windows.

>>11091946
if they were outside of all interfering light, then yes they'd be able to see the stars

>>11091946
Yeah, they could see the stars incredibly well. They were bright and sharp and steady.

11091951
>for no reason
come on shillboy, try harder than that

>>11091946
they could see the stars during the day, but you would need to shade your eyes from the light sources

>>11091949
>SpaceXs internal projects much faster than oldspace, comparable projects
literally no evidence of this.

>>11091957
>not a spacex npc
>"shill"
cry harder fanboy

Will people ever stop replying to him?

>>11091966
>'him'
I happen to know there are at least two of us.

But to get back on-topic
>>11091889
This would actually be the first EOR lunar mission if it materializes.

>>11091976
>EOR
I do so desperately want to see an EOR mission to somewhere at least once. Gemini doesn't count.

SpaceX promised that reusability of F9 would reduce launch prices. Any recent and updated data on kg/dollar data for F9 vs. pre-F9?

>>11092021
You wouldn't be able to draw a direct comparison simply because the extra competition from so many new market entrants has lowered prices as well. However, I think you can safely say that SpaceX has absolutely murdered the Russian launch industry.

>https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-moon-program-international-partnerships.html
apparently more countries than just the ISS partners are interested in joining Artemis. I wonder who?

>>11091935
>he'd rather SpaceX get bogged down for literal years doing a trillion theoretical studies on the hardware rather than build and test it and fix the issues that they find when a few blow up
this is why NASA never built a liquid fly-back booster, it was too hard for them to do math about like egg heads and get a gold star correct answer so they never tried, meanwhile SpaceX was happy to crash them after every successful launch until they started having successful landings, too. Now they're the world leader in reusable rocket technology and basically everyone else has a small dick.

>>11091945
>rectify the whole system
They switched out industry-standard propellant line valves for burst disks, problem literally solved forever. NASA wants them to do a 19 month study on how burst disks are gonna work, though.

>>11091951
SLS is nothing BUT hitch, it costs a Brazilian dorrars and can fly twice per year maximum, shit fucking sucks bruh

>>11092121
So? Starship at this stage is not even in the expendable category and Crew dragon is a one flight vehicle then a cargo mule.

Not sure how any of your rhetoric is relevant to the posts above

Fuck Lori Garver

>>11092208
Fuck NASA

Someone has to convince elon musk to launch a 7 meter optical space telescope to space

>>11092366
somebody needs to build a bunch of 7 meter space telescopes as cheaply as possible and then put them in medium earth orbit
maybe some sort of elliptical orbit would be good?

>>11092208
based and spacepilled

>>11091268
Before you go please donate all ur money to spacex

>>11092220
>>11092415
Lul deleted, is Lori Garver a mod or what? Pretty fucking sure it's spaceflight related, I have your back anon.

Fuck

Lori

Garver

>>11092547
BASED

>>11092676
Have this smug ant frog.

Fuck NASA
Fuck Lori Garver
Fuck SLS

Its SpaceX time

>>11092698
I mean this makes no sense, because Lori Garver is infamous for hating SLS and wanting to spend NASA’s human spaceflight budget on fighting climate change...

>>11092707
>Implying I can't hate them both

Call the Jannie I don't give a fuck

>>11092698
You forgot someone anon

>>11092753
The CHAD Senator
vs
The VIRGIN GayseX fanboi

For all of you "starship for le moon XDDDD" idiots:
>how many starship/tanker launches would it take to send one (1) starship to the moon with 100t and back empty/with people?
>how much time would people spend playing with their dicks in high Earth orbit waiting for refueling tankers and a Earth/Moon transfer window (compared to the traditional approach of traveling directly from LEO to the moon, which starship physically cannot do and hope to return)?
>how much payload is in the most cost-effective starship moon trip? (i.e. highest payload per refueling mission ratio)?
>would it be cheaper to use 70% of starship's payload mass to pack carbon for use in ISRU for return propellant, rather than refueling 15x from the enormous gravity well of Earth?
If you cannot answer these questions, you have no business pretending that starship can compete in the Artemis program. Also, that program will get cancelled as soon as early 2021 when a Democrat takes office.

>>11092807
Why does refueling trigger you so much, are you shelbyposting? The SLS can't compete with anything you've posited, 15x starship launches is peanuts to throwing away the orange meme.

>>11092807
>muh amount of fuel

Not important for a fully and rapidly reusable launch vehicle. Fuel is cheap, adding more launches is cheap.

>>11092807
BASED Shelby
Vs
Seething GayseX fancuck
>>11092829

>>11092829
>Why does refueling trigger you so much
What?

>>11092807
>>would it be cheaper to use 70% of starship's payload mass to pack carbon for use in ISRU for return propellant, rather than refueling 15x from the enormous gravity well of Earth?

Maybe if you already have a well developed ISRU plant on the Moon. Otherwise, no.

>>11092832
>having to wait a full high earth orbit (10+ days) just to refuel before going to the moon
>this is a valid and sustainable architecture

>>11092836
>What?
What?

>>11092833
>GayseX
SpaceCel has a better ring to it, my dude

>>11092844
Why resort to a strawman argument?

>>11092843
>10 days in palatial starship
>any amount of time in a NASA cuckshed

>>11092848
>strawman argument
What?

>>11092855
See me after class, Timmy.

>>11092860
What?

>>11092807
>how many starship/tanker launches would it take to send one (1) starship to the moon with 100t and back empty/with people?

between 6 and 10 depending on boiloff rates, we're still figuring that part out. probably refuel a tanker in orbit and then transfer that fuel to the landing Starship all in one go

to be clear the mission architecture here is that Starship launches unmanned, gets refueled, goes to Gateway, and then astronauts transfer to it for landing. This particular Starship probably won't have aerosurfaces and it'll just be used as a lunar lander

>>11092807
>early 2021 when a Democrat takes office
lolz

>>11092870
*adds to "I told you so" compilation folder*

>>11092872
Cringe.

>>11092867
>between 6 and 10 depending on boiloff rates
Source?
>we're still figuring that part out
Who is "we?"

>>11088942
>me after chipolte

>>11092883
>responding to the schizophrenic

>>11092843
>10 days
>after 50 years
kbro

>>11092886
Now we’ve got two schizophrenics: the conspiracy theorist who believes that all NASA contracts are rigged by a ‘deep state’ within the organisation, who’s only goal is to destroy SpaceX. And now the FUD schizophrenic, who just seems to hate spaceflight in general.

>>11092909
and then we've got retards like yourself

>>11092843
just refuel in transit to the moon dummy

>>11092843
>implying you couldn't refuel the ship first, then send up the crew on another rocket

>>11092923
spacex has already shown that that is not their plan at all, for the moon or mars

>>11092929
Mostly because it's unnecessary. Anyone sperging out about hanging out in LEO for a short stint does not belong on any of those missions

>>11092918
Cringe.

>>11092919
that wouldn't work unless you sent 2 tankers and the crew starship to the moon

>>11092934
>just wait at the airport for 10 days before your flight bro

>>11092939
>if going to the moon/mars isn't just like an international flight, I don't want it! WAHH
Good, you belong on Earth

>>11092937
So what you're saying is it works.

Everyone's payloads are done on time this time lol

>>11092969
Good luck Exosanon!

>>11092969
You better post a vid of this thing launching.

>>11092999
There’s a livestream

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=78osEuHIFBI

>>11092999
>>11092994

>>11093046
You're the fucker in the hat, aren't you?

>>11093052
retard

>>11093052
I'm not wearing a hat

>>11093052
No, he's the guy in the mask.

>>11093063
What would happen if I pulled it off, would he die?

>>11093009
>1 hour 36 minute to launch
>guys are tighting the screws on the rocket on live
kek

Just a fun fact, they dont use loctite on the sections.

>>11093126
Best job perk ever.

Also, new thread when?

>>11093126
Is that gay?

>no tardigrade payload

>>11093175
Theres stem cells and other stuff from the mayo clinic

Move along peasants, brain bull passing though.

>>11092843
>having to wait a full high earth orbit (10+ days) just to refuel before going to the moon
>this is a valid and sustainable architecture

It is much more valid than expendable rocketry for sure, and not an actual issue. However, if it bothers you, then the solution is to simply refuel a tanker in orbit, then send the manned ship up and fill it in one go from the tanker. And once the flights become routine, there will likely be a propellant depot in LEO, as mentioned by Shotwell.

>>11092867
>between 6 and 10 depending on boiloff rates

Boil-off for methalox is utterly insignificant. It really depends on how many tons of payload you want to land on the Moon.

>>11093239
>It is much more valid than expendable rocketry for sure, and not an actual issue. However, if it bothers you, then the solution is to simply refuel a tanker in orbit, then send the manned ship up and fill it in one go from the tanker. And once the flights become routine, there will likely be a propellant depot in LEO, as mentioned by Shotwell.
No, the solution is a three stage fully reusable vehicle with a hydrolox upper stage, that can go to the moon's surface in one launch and refuel using ISRU.

>>11093248
Also, such a vehicle may have only 1/5 the payload of starship, but it doesn't need 15 fucking launches to get to the moon.

Starship is meant for mars, and sending it to the moon is a square peg in a round hole situation. It's like putting a car on railroad tracks. Completely asinine.

>>11093248
Meh, no need for hydrolox or a third stage. The solution is to refuel oxygen only from lunar ISRU. That alone gives you 90% ISRU benefits, while retaining all the other benefits of a Starship architecture.

>>11093258
>just carry 200t of extra methane as dead weight for your trip, bro

>>11093260
No extra methane. Fully refuel methane in LEO, but partially refuel oxygen, just enough to get to lunar surface, saving hundreds of tons of mass. Refuel rest of the oxygen for return journey from lunar ISRU.

>>11093248
That’s probably what Blue Origin are going to do in the future, their already planning to build a BE-7 powered space tug/3rd stage for New Glenn.

>>11093257
You can't just keep spouting "15 launch bad" without a valid reason behind it. Well, I mean, you can and do, but it's a waste of time. Those tankers will be much cheaper to launch than any of the proposed alternatives.

>>11093297
>Those tankers will be much cheaper to launch than any of the proposed alternatives.
How would it be cheaper than a comparable fully reusable vehicle that does it in one launch?

Tasty morsal,
"Evaluation of adding Starship Cargo flights to the DRMs alongside SLS crew flights to accelerate Moon base and Mars. Meetings in January."

Source: L2

>>11093310
>le secret clubb
either post the info or fuck off, faggot

>>11093306
What proposal accomplishes this? Even your hypothetical vehicle doesn't.

>>11093310
>>11093318
Not him, but...

>>11093341

>>11093341
based
Hope you don't get banned though.

>>11093336
do you really need a 9000 hours in ms paint drawing to explain things for you?

>>11092883
>Source?
around the water cooler
>Who is "we?"
SpaceX

>>11093350
Post you're employee badge, larper.

>>11093355
lol I'm not gonna get fired, believe me or don't IDGAF

new badges are just a gigantic picture of your face, with name and small SpaceX logo at the bottom

>>11093341
>>11093344
I believe this is related to the second phase of Artemis (post-2024), NASA have talked about delivering habitation modules to the lunar surface in order to increase the duration of later Artemis missions from days to weeks.

>>11091655

Someone like Goff has his own personal idiosyncrasies that you have to recognize while still appreciating his content and finding him an affable member of the space community He's an ISRU moon guy salty at SpaceX and hung up on his personal vision of moon development and space access that SpaceX is superseding, while being oblivious to his own subjective disposition and state of saltyness.

Same with parabolic arc. Some personalities certainly shouldn't be lumped in with the blind nutbar hater crowd.

>>11093310
it is happenninngg

>>11092807
>how many starship/tanker launches would it take to send one (1) starship to the moon with 100t and back empty/with people?
The amount required to refill a Starship, times 2.
>how much time would people spend playing with their dicks in high Earth orbit waiting for refueling tankers and a Earth/Moon transfer window?
A few hours, because they will launch two tankers, then refill them, then launch the Moon-landing Starship after, and transfer the entire propellant load over from the already-full Tanker in orbit in one go. The now-full Starship plus the other full tanker boost towards the Moon; when the Starship is half empty they both stop boosting, the Tanker transfers propellant from its own half-full tanks into Starship, refilling Starship and emptying the Tanker. Tanker coasts around its orbit until it comes back to Earth, where it reenters and lands, while Starship continues boosting to the Moon. Finally, Starship does its whole landing thing, then launches back onto an Earth intercept, not having to do any ISRU on the Moon at all. In effect this means that Starship Moon landing cadence is limited only by the launch rate of SSH from Earth, no waiting months to slowly build up ISRU propellant like on Mars (though you can only efficiently move from Mars to Earth or vice versa once every 2 years or so anyway, so it's not a limiter).

>>11091884

SpaceX certainly could have put people into space many years ago if it was their own personal project to make a simple derivative capsule effort according to their own parameters and spent money to do so. Only such a thing would be a waste of money.

Dragon 2 was a total rebuild according to NASA specs and NASA allocated money that paces the development. They are not going to hustle extra when Boeing gets a billion more to arrive later and when doing so would impact their other capital needs.

Well, that didn't go according to plan.

>>11093414
Did they die?

>>11091951

SLS flying wont validate the decision to build it or continue it but that if you spend enough money on something stupid it could still exist at some point after enough time and money. It's the power of money, not NASA or the vehicle.

>>11092937
That is literally the plan.
Except you only need 1 Tanker, not 2.
Both Starship and this additional Tanker get refueled in LEO. If you want you can refill 2 Tankers in LEO, then launch Starship, then immediately refill it using up one Tanker, if you don't want to have people waiting in LEO for as long as it takes to launch ~5 refueling flights.
Anyway, Tanker and Starship burn towards the Moon. They both use up half their propellant load. While burning they stay in close formation, and once the engines shut down they immediately approach one another and dock. Tanker transfers its propellant over, Starship is now full. Starship then continues firing, far from periapsis but that doesn't matter because it has a huge propellant margin now. Tanker just coasts until it comes back to Earth. Starship gets its moon intercept, lands, deploys cargo, does whatever, then launches. It only needs enough delta V to escape the Moon and end up on a trajectory that puts it into the atmosphere at periapsis, then it lets aerobraking do the rest, the final engine burn being the landing.

From the perspective of a person on Starship, they launch, rendezvous, dock, and transfer propellant in LEO for anywhere from a week to 6 hours, depending on whether there's a full Tanker waiting for them. Then they depart for the Moon, and they get there in slightly more than 3 days, doing the second fuel transfer along the way. They land on the Moon, do whatever, Starship leaves and gets back to Earth in 3 days. Depending on what Starship is doing (just dropping off cargo vs acting as a habitat) it could stay less than 12 hours or more than a month. In all a cargo-drop-off mission to the Moon with Starship would take 7 or 8 days total.