/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11093776
>being this loyal to a trash brand

Asking again in this thread:

How long until the Earth runs out of mass due to people turning it into rocket fuel and shooting it into space?

>>11093776
>cr-crack
>sip
Yep, that's a rocket.

>>11093803
Never. We're more likely to just move the entire Earth.

What went wrong?

Anyone catch the fourth Exos SARGE sounding rocket launch this morning?

It accidentally a gyro and the payload hit the ground like a sack of potatoes

>>11093816
Nah the payload was attached to the bit that fluttered down

>>11093813
It hit the dome

>>11093811
How do you know that?

>>11093813
Hard to tell, but it looks like a control failure. Maybe a gimbal motor failed?

>>>11093767
Sure. It would also help if they used three boosters instead of two, added another two RS-25 engines on the mildly shortened core stage and didn't light them immediately, instead waiting for booster burnout, but here we are.

What I'd actually like to see would be an SLS from a different timeline that used 6 F-1B engines on a big ass first stage and 2 or 3 RS-25 engines on a big ass second stage. Basically a bigger, more powerful, baseline 2-stage Saturn V rebuild, with a giant fairing mounted on the 2nd stage that could fit giant payloads or smaller payloads plus a big optional hydrolox third stage. Since this is fantasy land anyway may as well ditch the RS-25 for those fancy RS-83 engines meant to combine RS-25 and RS-68 technology into a regeneratively cooled, gas-generator driven hydrolox engine with 3300 kN in vacuum at 446 Isp, which was meant to be cheaper than both of its predecessors and also be man-rated out of the box. Sure you get less efficiency on this imagined big 2nd stage, but you get additional thrust (or better wet-dry mass ratio by going for fewer engines and equal thrust) AND hopefully chop a zero or two off of the engine price tag.

>>11093813
>>11093816
Hivemind.

>>11093818
Oh, I must've misread the nasa release.

>>11093813
see >>11093491

So how much is left of starman's ride after all that radiation blasting it.
The carbon fibre must be completely gone by now right?

>>11093813
The anon that was out there was killed, right?

>>11093822
Sounding rockets are built to skid along the firmament though.

>>11093813
They forgot to unhook the ladder.

>>11093829
>F-1B engines on a big ass first stage

>>11093823
The only alternative reason to launch that much material from Earth is if it's in the process of being turned into a dyson cloud. Seeing as Mercury and Venus both make more sense to do that to, by the time you could convert the Earth as well you would have such a hilarious amount of energy to work with that it depends if you want to keep making the cloud bigger or not.

>>11093848
There are planet sized rocks still hiding on the edge of our solar system probably, so you would not even have to use the inner planets.

>>11093803
Assuming SpaceX hits their aspirational goal of 1 million tons to orbit per year, plus at least two competitors show up who combined get another 1 million tons to orbit per year . . .

2.986 x 10^15 years. That's 2.986 million billion years. For timescale reference, in one one-millionth of that time Earth will already have been rendered uninhabitable to all forms of life by the Sun slowly increasing in brightness as it ages, and in two one-millionths of that time the Sun will already be a white dwarf star and our solar system won't exist anymore, so don't worry about shrinking the Earth via launching rockets.

>>11093839
It's probably immaculate, space degradation is a pure meme perpetuated by jews who don't want the goyim to escape into space

>>11093847
Those are side boosters, they don't count. I'm talking about a nice comfy 12 meter diameter first stage with 6 F-1B engines in a ring, with a shorter but wider hydrolox stage powered with RS-25 engines sitting on top. Also, no orange foam to be found, insulation wastes mass when you don't have anything delicate outside to protect.

>>11093858
The inner planets are a lot more conveniently placed, though. Even with cheap fusion engines it's gonna be a bitch to supply the delta V to bring all that matter into close circular Solar orbits.

>>11093848
>>11093859
I'm talking about the more distant future though, where starship sized vessels are as common as cars are today, and we're building megastructures out in space

I can't imagine that we won't literally use up all of the oxygen on Earth's surface making rocket fuel

>>11093866
>Also, no orange foam to be found, insulation wastes mass when you don't have anything delicate outside to protect.

The SLS core-stage doesn’t actually use traditional insulating foam pieces like the Shuttle, it’s foam is sprayed on as a coating and only applied to certain areas.

>>11093878
At that point we would probably be turning places like ceres, etc... in massive fuel production&depots

>>11093878
Dude, do you have any idea how much oxygen is locked up in the Earth? The Earth is roughly 30% oxygen by mass.

>>11093888
>The SLS core-stage doesn’t actually use traditional insulating foam pieces like the Shuttle, it’s foam is sprayed on as a coating and only applied to certain areas.

The Shuttle's external fuel tank always used spray on foam insulation.

>>11093878
You don't use oxygen to make fuel, making fuel literally liberates oxygen (see sabatier process, CO2 and H2O and energy makes CH4 and O2).

Also, it's not like we're gonna be stuck using chemical rockets forever, I know it's a meme rn but it's literally inevitable that we eventually transition to using higher capacity orbital access systems that don't use propellants. Orbital rings for example let you use electricity alone to climb into space, then accelerate along the ring until you're in orbit.

>>11093888
Shuttles ET foam was sprayed, you're thinking of the thermal tiles on the orbiter. The point anyway is that there's literally no reason to insulate the tanks on SLS, just like there was no reason to insulate the tanks on the Saturn V which also used hydrogen fuel on two stages.

>>11093922
Fine. "Propellant" then you semantics retard.

>>11093927
>no reason to insulate the tanks on the Saturn V which also used hydrogen fuel on two stages.
I thought those tanks were insulated too, just on the inside?

>>11093929
Are you listening? I said we will have ways of reaching orbit without using propellant. In any case, we're going to get to a point where the vast majority of people are living of of Earth eventually, and the Earth is guaranteed to become uninhabitable in the future no matter what, so it wouldn't matter much if we did end up just strip mining the Earth and using its matter for more useful things.

>>11093934
I know that they had to insulate the oxygen from the hydrogen, because the hydrogen was cold enough that it would freeze the oxygen touching the wall, but I don't think they insulated the walls of the tanks.

>>11093953
>are living of of Earth eventually
Off of, and also to expand on that I mean the population living on Earth will probably never be sustained much above 10 billion, but the population in space could easily be sustained up in the hundreds of trillions or even tens of quadrillions, at which point the most likely limit we'd be running up against would be availability of phosphorous in the solar system.

>>11093966
Sol can handle (conservatively) single-digit to tens of trillions if you don't do anything to the planets or moons. That's just the loose material being utilized.

>>11093966
In that kind of situation earth would become a giant resort, with a orbital ring to get people down and up again in a few hours.

>be invitro burger flipper on o'neill cylinder colony in L3
>have some cash saved
>buy one week tour ticket to earth
>end up in a tour full of rock hopping lanket belters.
>have a good laugh while i watch these subhumans having to take a shitload of steroids to even walk on mother earth.
>enjoy the open air while they constantly look down in fear.
>thank god for 1G

>>11093999
Right, that's why I put the population somewhere in the range of ten times higher than that before we would start thinking that disassembling Earth along with the rest of the planets would be a good idea.

at the end of the day all of this is fantasy

>>11094051
Only inasmuch as other prognostication about the future has been.
>for events fifty years out
Broadly correct in terms of expectations about what kinds of technology will become more important, hilariously off in terms of how that happens in detail.
>for events one hundred years out
Still broadly correct for extant cutting-edge tech, but relying too much on current thinking and completely missing the development of some new technologies that completely change how things work.
>for events five hundred years out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXI1eVFN6DE

>>11094092
Well we'll be dead in sixty so anything past a Mars mission is pointless to discuss.

WHERE IS MY ANTHROPOMORPHIC ANIME STARSHIP GRILL

AND NO DONT YOU DARE POST THAT SQUID SLUT ANON

>>11094006

Don't you mean a Bezos cylinder?

>>11094127
You won't get a reply anon, he has already been sent to the 3g warehouse punishment ring for a month as penalty for breaking section 2.6.1(b) of his employment agreement by not correctly naming the invention of God emperor Bezos (pbuh).

>>11094006

>>11094123
>ANIME GRILL
>Falling for the 2D-PD
That is going to be a big yikes from me.

>>11094123
h o t t

>>11094174
c u t e

>>11094174
Silly Anon, it's not about the body, but the mind; 3D women have made themselves horrible, wretched beings.

Starship de geso

>>11093839
The paint has started to fade ever so slightly in some places.

>>11094219
Whatever, nerd. Next you're going to say Santa Claus isn't real and that my parents don't actually love me and they're just saying that.

>>11093803
>>11093859
Earth gets some material from meteors etc right?

>>11094267
Santa isn't real, but your parents probably do genuinely love you.

>>11094276
Yeah, a few tons per year, the amount of stuff we launch into space in the same time frame is much larger though.

>>11094264
Cannot be unseen

Incels will be the preferred candidates for early Mars colonization. No threat of ever impregnating the women there.
Are you going to sign up, /sfg/?

>>11094441
We the space chads declare that those who call others "incels" are the real incels, whether they be cucks for niggers or white knights trying to one up other betas.

>>11093889
>>11093906
>>11093878

if we are building megastructures then likely i think whatever future governments will loosen regulations on the use of fission rockets to make commerce much easier. chemical type rockets that still have to exist for whatver reason will we will probably mine Europa or titan

>>11094441
People want to colonize mars, so impregnation required.

>>11094483
"No."

>>11094487
>dumb meme done by middle schooler on facebook
kek

>>11093966
heres the thing that gravity shit will make it so no humans are able to live on other planetary bodies(unless we use nanobots to modify ourselves)
i could see lots and lots of oneil sized cynlines hold many billions to quadrillions of humans.

but on planetary bodies without augmenting ourselves?....nope...maybe venus with sun shading

>>11094474
>Europa or titan
Why, there are better objects around even in those systems for getting water ice to make propellants.

>>11094514
>that gravity shit will make it so no humans are able to live on other planetary bodies
>Citation needed

>>11094514
No proof, no science, opinion disregarded
We're gonna have to figure out ways of living in Mars and Moon gravity for long periods if we're ever going to get to the point of being able to construct large orbital habitats cheaply anyway.

>>11094535
are you saying there is No proof, no science that low gravity affects the body on long periods of time?

>>11094550
Yes that's exactly what he is saying, show one study on the effects of 0.1-0.9g on the human body.

>>11094496
New to 4channel, tourist? Welcome.

Americans fear this.

>>11094566
Why?

>>11094573
It's a larger rocket than you will ever or have ever had.

>>11094590
Sounds like the chinks downrange should fear it

>>11094566
*malfunctions and crashes into a nearby town*

>>11094602
Chinks live in constant fear, so much so that they have forgotten that man eating escalators are a abnormal thing.
A russian rocket incinerating a chinese commieflat would at most get a slight shrug and a "thats life" from the average chinese depraved of empathy.

>>11094566

China should copy Starship.

>>11093776
so outside of the big spaceflight companies, who are the current smaller ones that arent going to fizzle out any time soon.

So far rocketlab is the only one taking customers and launching payloads, but firefly is looking promising.

>>11094614

And get the Russians on board the project so they can have their own copy. Europe/Japan too.

>>11094614
Once they realize it's actually a good idea they'll start pushing out concepts purporting to do just that. 10 years later they'll have a single engine and brag about the benchmarks while being unable to mass-produce it.

>>11094614
China could do it, but in reality it probably will not happen anytime soon.
we had a nice discussion about this a several threads ago but in short as long as the goverment is involved and chinese manufacturers will cheat on quality for maximum profit it will not happen.

>>11094628
Eventually they'll have to learn that rockets aren't something you can halfass.

It's been so long since the last SpaceX launch bros, when the fuck is the next one.

>>11094636
First manned launch probably not this year.
Starlink next month.
Cargo ISS launch this year.

>>11094636
They got like 8-9 in the next two month.

>>11094556
No, fag, your uncited /pol/ tier infographic was never good, and rightly belongs on goybook instead of our illustrious science and math discussion forum on www.4channel.org, home of today's most innovative internet friends

>>11094566
why are the boosters still attached in orbit

>>11094566
too many engines it'll never work

>>11094551
I like that he went away, nice one bro

>>11094566
lol

>>11094670
Russian vodka magic.

solid rockets are better

the only reason elon let himself be cucked is becuase the government threatens rocket makers if they use solids because they can be made into missiles

>>11094590
l

m

a

o

>>11094793
>solid rockets are better
They are cheaper. They are also impossible to safely escape from.

>>11094823
Higher thrust and higher payload than any of those cuck rockets.

>>11094833
Ching Chong bong dong me eat dog

>>11094849
not an argument

wheres that retard that thinks hes making a rocket engine.
show us your three pipes again.

>>11094852
How about this: China is three years behind schedule on the Long March Five, while every newspace company is ahead of CALT in terms of the fact that all of their engines fucking work.

>>11094829
>They are also impossible to safely escape from

what is launch escape???

fun fact the astronauts survived the initial explosion of challenger and only died on impact!

also crewed missions are a meme

>>11094879
LM5 has already launched stuff into space, unlike all these other meme rockets.
Cope harder.

>>11094833
every source I can find says 140t, which is less than the reusable payload of Starship, much less an expendable Starship, and equal to a Saturn V

>>11094909
It has also blown the fuck up real hard, and the delay combined with the general knowledge that China has had a lot of trouble with advanced metallurgy implies their rocket engines are not up to snuff.

>>11094895
died on impact / died from oxygen depletion. but yes, they died-died on impact.

>>11094590
Even SLS Block 1 is bigger. Doesn't hold a candle to Block 1B or Starship.

Blue balls

Why haven't you joined the INTJ master race yet, /sfg/?

>>11094995
BIG

>>11094996
Because I will forever be a voyeur of the world around me.

>>11094996
Because only some are accursed by the need to ASSUME DIRECT FUCKING CONTROL when shit is mired in nonsense

Listened to a podcast about the Artemis program. There are some REALLY neat concepts for Artemis missions on the surface.
My favorite has got to be the idea of a pair of presurized rovers that act as mobile habs for a team of four astronauts as they go on a roadtrip across the lunar surface for a few weeks.
Imagine watching a livestream of a fucking lunar roadtrip covering a distance that would make pic related look absolutely tiny.

I asked the drawfag thread on /a/ for a Starship Chan, what do you guys think?

Are privately owned non-rocket space vehicles strictly science fiction? Will we always need rockets to leave Earth?

We tried to triangulate the payload section using multiple video angles and I personally went out with them to search for about 5 or 6 hours before sunset hit, no luck finding anything besides some old student rocket / memorial that must've landed out here.

We very well could have missed it, with how dense the brush gets it some areas it could be really close to you and you wouldn't even see it. It's likely 95% underground with just part of the top peaking out.

Pic is the memorial page thing that was taped to the find if a small rocket lower stage we found.

On impact it undergoes something like 3000g's of deceleration but our sd cards with our data could be intact so we are hopeful nonetheless.

>>11095114
Best of luck. Any idea if Jaguar will actually come to fruition?

>>11095114
Why don't you stick some military grade GPS chips on it? They can probably withstand the retard forces when it crashes and multiple chips would give you redundancies. Even if they fail on impact they would be reporting until the last minute regardless right? Which would give you a pretty small search area.

>>11095131
I hope so. Exos is an absolutely wonderful group and were happy they can be our launch provider for this project, they're incredibly accommodating and have always treated us like family and we want them to be successful as much as they want us to be.

>>11095132
Its not my call but from my understanding they do have gps and Imus to help keep track of location, but even with GPS coordinates this area is 90% brush with roads few and far between so it can be difficult to pinpoint.

>>11095141
Stick some napalm in the payload section so you get a nice, easy to spot brushfire where it lands.

Could SpaceX pitch a pair of Falcon 9s as side boosters for SLS block 2?

>>11094487
how do these people know this is what no gravity will do to human bodies. The jello baby thing seems retarded and autistic

>>11095254
reminds me
https://youtu.be/d2200YGSeKM

>>11094895
>launch escape
chunks of burning solid propellant have a 100% chance of burning holes in your parachutes

>>11095254
strap on starships

>>11095254
No.

>>11095090
thic and too old for me

>>11095575
Starship Chan should be thicc though.

https://youtu.be/hBVqz08UDBQ

Okay, living on Mars don't sound so bad anymore.

>>11095621
>Sky image is a composite from Earth telescopes

I'm sure Mars does have a fantastic night sky due to zero light pollution and fuck all atmospheric attenuation but it won't look like that.

Guess who’s back?

>>11095641

>>11094566
>rocket in space
>still has first stage
>still has boosters
>still has fairing

wtf dude

>>11094487
We know zero G is bad we have no fucking idea how 40% gravity works on humans. It's perfectly possible it can be healthy since there is less strain on the body but you still have enough gravity for all important processes to function.

>>11095682
We knows it's bad for your organs, muscles etc.

>>11093776
Am I the only one not happy that it looks more and more like a shuttle? If they make wings a bit larger it's going to look almost the same.

>>11095686
source?

>>11095682
This we absolutely need to thoroughly study for great many years the effects of partial gravity first on animals and only then on humans before we even consider the irresponsible possibly deadly journeys anywhere in space.

>>11095689
if you squint real hard it looks like soyuz too.

>>11095686
Not as bad as you think.

https://spacenews.com/resistive-targeted-exercise-reversed-astronauts-bone-loss-study-finds/

>Typically, astronauts would return to Earth with a total of 4 percent to 5 percent of their body mass gone.
>“Now, it’s a rule to have it more or less unchanged,” Barratt said. “We’re seeing insignificant changes in bone density. We’re actually seeing an increase in lean body mass and decrease in body fat. Until just recently, I would have given you absolutely opposite information.”

>>11094566
>4 boosters
>in a country where 4 means death

>>11095841
It makes a lot of sense if you consider what happens to those boosters after their jettisoned.

>>11095646
will we ever know what the fuck this thing is doing

>>11095078
Whenever I do something like that in KSP it always ends with falling off a crater and several deaths.

>>11095686
No we don't.

>>11093847
SLS could have been so fucking based. What went wrong?

>>11094777
but it's chinese...

>>11096078
Orbital ATK won the SLS booster competition with their 5-segment Shuttle boosters and not Dynetics with their F-1B powered Pyrios boosters.

>>11095950
in a few decades, I guess
the biohazard suits are bit disturbing though they remind me of Andromeda Strain

>>11094995
is there side by side compare of Eagle lander and that thing?

>>11096095
Left over hydrazine fuel.

Obligatory channel of excellence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTDlSORhI-k

It annoy me to death how we conditioned people to think Mars is "the new frontier" with tree and potato just waiting to grow the second we get there, so much that people consider a waste of money anything that isn't a spacehsipp to mars.

>>11096111
ah
makes sense

>>11095950
I wonder whether there might be a manned version that we don't know about. I think any other possibilities are likely pretty easily imagined and already speculated upon on the web somewhere, albeit we don't know the exact details of what fancy multi-spectral scanner is onboard, its focal length etc. But even those are bound by the laws of physics.

>>11096113

Mars would pave the way to that though. If you have a colony that needs a bunch of rockets being launched constantly then you also have the infrastructure that cylinders would need to even get started.

>>11096086
Chinese human sacrifices then.

>>11096113
Mars is the new America. There will be rush of people wanting to live there once transportation becomes cheap enough and once technology is reliable enough. Its the closest "new" land that can allow human habitation and resource extraction with the least amount of effort and can support billions of people on there.

Oneill Cylinders are neat, but its much harder than Mars.

>>11096121
That's the opposite you see. You are just repeating another flavor of those fiction-friendly belief.
You need all the technologies needed for self-sustained space habitat before you can consider doing a more difficult version of that on the surface of Mars.
Mars would also require a constant stream of rocket as it doesn't actually have easily accessible resources or ore, even if you had a crazy good 3D printer.
I sometime get giddy at how much we could do if we made the capture of an asteroid our priority. As a source of resources, the training ground for ISRU, training to redirect asteroid, using its mass to clean orbit of debris, using it as a counter weight for heavier megastructure and factories...

The main reason to got to the moon is because it's essentially one.
Plus the most efficient way to transport lot of people to Mars would be to build a Mars Cyclers anyway, 100% space habitat.

>>11096160
Now you are just baiting.
Mars is a worse place to live than Antarctica, even the moon is actually more interesting for full colonization effort.

Just watch the video linked in my post.

How long will it take for the chinks to copy the starship concept?

>>11096175
>Mars is a worse place to live than Antarctica
Do you believe vacuum space is better than Mars?

>but you can build in space
And you think people won't do the same on Mars?

>b-but
Energy required to extract resource from Mars and make them usable is much much less than energy required to extract resources from Earth/mars/asteroids and then move them space and then make them usable.

Once you're on mars, resource is everywhere. In space, you have to stick to an asteroid and once that asteroid is gone, you have to catch another asteroid, then another, and then another and so on. Asteroids also don't have the resources needed to build a functioning ecosystem so you have to import from Mars/Earth.

The universe is a prison.
>extremely difficult to escape Earth's lower gravity well
>even more extremely difficult to travel between planets
>all the world's gdp combined couldn't build something to send a gram of matter to the nearest star within our lifetimes
>all the nearby starsystems are LITERAL shitholes
What's even the point to all of this?

>>11096177
When the chinks make their mass produced first reusable rocket stage, add 20 years to that.
Chinks are not magic.

>>11095575
yeah, she looks to old

>>11096177
Starship is designed by a eccentric genius. Chinks cant copy it. SLS is designed by congress. Chinks can copy it easily and surpass it.

>>11096175
>the moon
Good luck with that super toxic moon dust.

>>11096175
O'neillfags calling anyones' beliefs science fiction while unironically whining that we are not starting from scratch with gigaton-class orbital stations is a laugh. Without colonies you will never have a single meme cylinder.

Is there any reason we can't just attach rockets to asteroids and push them into earth orbit?

Is there a common language spoken on the ISS? Does everyone have to learn English or Russian?

>>11095090
needs more shiny
also no de-geso fins

>>11096277
Runglish

>looking at trades for mars
>electrician sounds good
>look it up
>low wage 5 year internship required
electrical engineering it is

>>11096192
>Do you believe vacuum space is better than Mars?
Vacuum won't erode your habitat hull, add more thermal regulation constrain, get in the way of solar energy, carry dust everywhere, slow your spaceship.
Mars atmosphere give you none of the advantage of Earth but all the disadvantage

It will be easier to build in space and you'll need to develop for it anyway. Anyone serious would robotize as much as possible, until there's simply no reason to have human living down a gravity well.

>Energy required to extract resource [...]
>Once you're on mars, resource is everywhere
That's the kind of lies movies and lazy novelist use to justify going to any planet, it's like alien want Earth water or the plutonium of Mars.
All the technologies you'd use for ISRU on Mars will be more efficient in space.
A single asteroid of modest size could be exploited or capture then exploited (any order you like) using less effort than getting the very same industry down the gravity well of another planet.

Mars don't have the resources needed for an ecosystem either. Any biodome you build there will require MORE effort than building the same near asteroids

>>11096264
O'neill colonies and space factory are actually more feasible to build from scratch than inferior one on Mars.
Our science fiction are more realistic than yours, space cowboy.

>>11095686
Build a centrifuge or something then. Spend 10 minutes a day in it. Voila

>>11096277

They have to learn Russian in order to operate the Soyuz spacecraft. So at the moment, Russian is mandatory.

>>11093803
You know that vast majority of rocket exhaust during launch from Earth falls back to Earth, right?

My dog died today. She was a good dog.

>>11096306
I know you mean well, but you just do not know what you are talking about. There is a reason why SpaceX wants to make a colony on Mars first, and it is not just Elon's autism speaking. They have the best people in the industry.

Orbital colonies are very hard because the nearest suitable asteroids to situate such a colony around, meaning large and with abundant volatiles, are far away. They are with perihelions at or beyond Mars orbit. Near Earth roids are all tiny rocks baked dry by the Sun. Also, asteroids have no atmosphere for aerobraking. So this means significantly more delta-v and flight time than going to Mars, and for what? You still have much less resources than an entire planet's worth on Mars.

Base on the Moon first, colony on Mars second, colonies around Martian moons third as a practice for asteroid colonization, and only THEN colonies around asteroids are plausible. Anything else is like trying to run before learning to walk.

>>11096418
sleep tight p.upper

>>11095575
faggot

>>11094239
deploy the squid grills

>>11096438
I like this ending a lot better then the canon one

>You never know what's going to happen' | Michigan family surprised when satellite crashes onto their property
https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/weird/satellite-lands-in-michigan-yard/69-8ea9d127-83a7-4729-9f20-6b79bbf77a11

>>11096492
seems legit

>>11096492
>satellite with landing legs

>>11096492
It should be illegal and punishable by death to refer to high altitude balloons as "space" anything

>>11096490
It still hurts bro.

oh no no no, not again

https://twitter.com/NASAInSight/status/1188523020718985216

>Mars continues to surprise us. While digging this weekend the mole backed about halfway out of the ground. Preliminary assessment points to unexpected soil properties as the main reason. Team looking at next steps.

>>11096518

>>11096430
>There is a reason why SpaceX wants to make a colony on Mars first
That's because Elon Musk isn't actually a good engineer and is surrounded by "Yes Man!" who have no reason to stop the guy paying to build a reusable rocket that will still be useful even if it never ever reach Mars.
This is sad but people with insane amount of money and irrational belief they are the "next pioneer" don't actually need to tell the truth.
Musk could even be lying on purpose to get funding from pioneer fanboy who will chant that he MUST be right.

>Orbital colonies are very hard
And still required before you EVER set foot on Mars because you need all the technology and training for that.

>meaning large and with abundant volatiles, are far away. They are with perihelions at or beyond Mars orbit.
Still lower cost in deltaV than descending on Mars and if the future of mankind was your goal you should be colonizing Eros instead.
Ironically I do think there's reason to colonize Phobos and Deimos without ever wanting to set foot on Mars (and no it's not because of contamination).
To take your own argument "there's a reason companies are investing heavily in exploitation of asteroids"

>Also, asteroids have no atmosphere for aerobraking.
Because they have a far lower capture and overall cost, no atmosphere to prevent magnetic launch and even tether capture method that are what good engineer look for if fiction didn't brainwash you to only think of the cool looking way.
I'm betting it will be an uphill battle just to remind you HOW OFTEN robot would be doing the actual travel so you can build spaces CIVILIZATION at much better place than Mars.

>You still have much less resources than an entire planet's worth on Mars.
More than enough for all of mankind needs, easier to access than digging and crawling all over Mars, and it's not spread thinly under tons of worthless rocks despite the lower gravity.

Tips: fiction also exaggerate GREATLY the concentration of everything on Mars.

>>11096518
JUST SEND A FRIENDLY MIDGET WITH A SHOVEL YOU FUCKING KEKS

>>11096519
So this is the power of Robotic Space Exploration(tm). A dildo half sticking out of the ground.

Send a fucking crew, please.

What would the designation of X-37B be if it stopped being an X plane and entered serial production?

>>11096532
Troll. Fuck off.

>>11096532
>Still lower cost in deltaV than descending on Mars and if the future of mankind was your goal you should be colonizing Eros instead.

It is not lower at all. Again, Mars is closer in terms of delta-v and time than any suitable asteroids, and that is before you apply aerobraking. After aerobraking, it is significantly closer.

>no atmosphere to prevent magnetic launch and even tether capture

Meme technologies. This is not near-term viable.

>to remind you HOW OFTEN robot would be doing the actual travel

People will be required to set up any colony. Robots suck, and doubly so if they are many lightminutes away.
>>11096518

As for asteroidal resources, what the hell do you think asteroids are made of? They are not some magical stuff, just tiny pieces of primordial matter or broken planets. Finding a specific asteroid which has every chemical element required for a colony in abundance will be quite rare. Not so with Mars, which is almost like Earth in this regard.

The only reason to prefer orbital colonies over Martian ones is if Martian gravity turns out to be a total showstopper for raising children. Otherwise, Mars is the best place by far to begin the colonization of space.

>>11096306
>Mars atmosphere give you none of the advantage of Earth but all the disadvantage
Easily available CO2 gas for methane and plastic synthesis is a big advantage for any nascent colony..

>>11096570
>It is not lower at all. Again, Mars is closer in terms of delta-v and time than any suitable asteroids, and that is before you apply aerobraking. After aerobraking, it is significantly closer.
Said like someone who don't understand how aerobraking severely restrain your design possibilities and just wishfully hope it doesn't matter.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/mining.php#id--Asteroid_Mining--Accessibility
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/images/macguffinite/asteroidValue.jpg

Colonies don't have to be where the resources are mined and robot don't have to be sentient to mine or carry.
If your goal is mankind long term survival there's no reason to create colonies on Mars before you've made the Moon habitat self-sufficient, thereby obtaining the ability to turn space rock into space habitat. After that you'd gear up to colonize the Jovian system inside space-paradise cyclers instead of wasting time with Mars.

Unlike what you see in fiction and pioneer-meme, Mars isn't "on the way" or only as a occasional slingshot not a stop, it can't be terraformed in 100y or even 500y, don't have ocean of water waiting thawing nor fertile soil.

>Meme technologies. This is not near-term viable.
This is so stupid it make me think you are the same idiot who raged a post above. If this isn't viable, then nothing you suggested will be. Aside you should tell that to Musk and his Hyperloop.

>>11096584
>easily
Mars atmosphere is extremely thin and you can make methane from asteroid.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/infrastructure.php#spaceplastic

The difference in mentality is that asteroid mining bring all the resources to you so you can process it in factories put were it suit you best. While martians think they'll find, extract and process those resources anywhere they are on Mars and it will somehow be exactly what they need to grow the base.

>>11096221
Proxima has a super Earth in the habitable zone, colonizing it could be pretty comfy if we stayed on the dark side of that planet and lit everything from space with mirrors, you could even terraform the dark side of a tidally locked planet into having a regular day-night cycle by doing this, too.

>Fuck aerobraking, I like wasting dV
ok
>Fuck having access to resources, I'd rather ship fucktons of mass around the solar system somehow before constructing infrastructure for doing so
ok
>thin atmosphere bad even though that basically only eliminates the negative of an atmosphere as an obstacle while preserving the ability to aerobrake and perform ISRU
ok
>>11096306
>vacuum doesn't add any constraints for thermal regulation even though i'm stuck radiating it away as inefficiently as possible instead of utilizing a planetary-scale heatsink
ok
>it's easier to make mass appear out of nowhere than to utilize existing material
ok

>>11096274
They weigh too much. You still need to obey the rocket equation, and since they have enormous mass that means you need an even more enormous rocket to achieve the delta V necessary to get such an object onto an Earth intercept.

Moving asteroids around doesn't work unless you can design and use practical solar sails of gigantic size and wait decades, or you have direct nuclear energy propulsion (ie fusion torch, Orion drive, etc)

>>11094441
seriously why has no-one ever researched autism as a birth control method? It's fantastically effective at preventing sex

>>11096306
>he actually doesn't see the problem with 99.9% of the shit on the SFIA channel
isaac arthur is a hack who doesn't know shit but pretends he has it all figured out because he grew up watching doctor who

>>11096430
based and space expansion pilled
direct-to-cylinder fags make me sick, almost as bad as Titan First fags but not quite as retarded as Venus First fags.

>>11095786
>get everyone on mars to do regular exercise
That sure worked on Earth.

>>11096825
We aren't sending you to Mars, lardo

>>11096519
>>11096518
LOOK AT THIS DUUUDE

>>11094823
the engines look tiny on it, gonna be another N1

>>11094829
>>11094793
what was that german rocket program to make a really cheap solid rocket?

>>11096532
>And still required before you EVER set foot on Mars
The technological capability to support life in a small habitat is about the same difficulty as that for a very large habitat, but the small habitat only needs a tiny module whereas the giant spaceship needs a giant module, which makes it OBJECTIVELY harder you mong.

It's easier to go to live on Mars than to build a billion ton orbital spin habitat BECAUSE the spin habitat is xbox hueg. Even if you decided to do both a Mars colony and an orbital habitat at the same time, the Mars colony is gonna go a lot faster and get a lot more done before the orbital habitat has even had it outer shell's worth of building material launched or assembled.

>>11096532
>no atmosphere to prevent magnetic launch
You can definitely do electromagnetic launch from Mars by the way, at the top of the big shield volcanoes it's effectively in vacuum, the low orbit velocity of Mars is only ~3500 m/s so you'd barely need a heat shield even if you were exiting the tube at Earth atmosphere density, and finally the shield volcanoes are doubly handy as giant ramps to take you from 'sea level' on Mars up to ~4 km/s exiting the launch tube several hundred kilometers of accelerating later, with no active support required.

Fags at NASA complain that Mars is so hard to land on because its atmosphere is too thick to ignore but too thin to rely on completely, in reality Mars' thin atmosphere is one of its greatest features, as a giant indestructible infinitely reusable brake pad for incoming spacecraft to use to achieve free delta V, which doesn't hinder rocket launch back to orbit at all, and barely hinders electromagnetic launch system options, an effect which is further minimized by taking advantage of the topography of Mars.

>>11096828
Except you are, /sci/ has said the express aim of SpaceX is to get ordinary people to colonize mars. You will not get them to stick to any sort of exercise regime.

>>11096861
>literally who on /sci/ said that SpaceX said that...
Why would you even post this lmao
That aside, it was just banter m8. The real answer is no one fucking knows what the long term affect of Martian gravity is, but my guess is 38% Earth gravity is a hell of a lot better for you than freefall.

>>11096532
>More than enough for all of mankind needs, easier to access than digging and crawling all over Mars, and it's not spread thinly under tons of worthless rocks despite the lower gravity.
>Tips: fiction also exaggerate GREATLY the concentration of everything on Mars.
The asteroid belt contains a lot of resources, but AN asteroid tends to be a hard desert for all but a tiny fraction of the required resources to sustain a civilization. An asteroid with a lot of iron will have effectively zero nitrogen, carbon, phosphorous, etc. An asteroid with lots of carbon will have very little to no metal. Most asteroids have effectively zero water content. The list of disadvantages goes on. Building giant orbital habitats only makes sense once you are already doing large scale asteroid mining for OTHER reasons, because then you already have the start of the mining and transportation infrastructure needed to make all the necessary resources available to every habitat.

>>11096860
I for one cannot wait to see the spaceport on Olympus Mons

>>11096560
cancelled

>>11096828
Why do you think they are building heavy lift rockets?
Nobody will be left out in nasa of the current year.

>>11096786
>Mars atmosphere is extremely thin
this is a good thing, it doesn't limit rocket propulsion from using vacuum optimized nozzles at the surface and it doesn't incur significant aerodynamic drag losses on ascent to orbit, but it is still thick enough that you can get as much as ten kilometers per second of free delta V arriving at Mars by slamming into it (if your designs become 'limited' by needing heat shields etc but they get way better performance both ways by letting you use aerobraking at Mars and at Earth, then it's not a limitation worth crying over, it's a feature that lets you out perform the pure-propulsion fags

>>11096836
cancelled lol

>>11096861
Lardos cannot fit into suits and don't look good for the cameras so they get denied flights lmao

>>11096923
being unfit =/= being overweight. we are talking about not bothering to exercise in space here, If you ban fat people you will still have legions of DYELs who will also not comply with exercise regimens

nice legs girl

>>11096931
>I don't care about my health but also I'm going to Mar
>I don't care to take any established precautions but for some reason it's a real problem if I face consequences
Literally biomass, convert them to feedstock. Who cares?

>>11096933
I love that after all of the speculation and design turnover the final leg is just an iron ram.

>>11094487
Every single fact listed there was false, also I think low gravity would probably cause bone elongation but then I really don't know.

>>11096975
People who lived in 1G on earth for most of their live could probably have a extended live in lower gravity.
Less stress on the heart, etc...
In a distant future the moon could become a massive retirement home for the rich.

>>11096933
why have legs that extend? Just stick them on the side so they slide over Super Heavy. Always have them 'extended'.

>>11096518
Insight is a worthless piece of shit. It hasnt produced any new science data that is of any interest.

>>11096518
Not really a problem.
Robotic exploration has the massive advantage that you can always make a better robot in the future.
We've learned a lot from Insight that will keep us busy for years until the next one is sent.

>>11096900
tfw no F-37B space superiority platform

>>11097044
That's because trying to fix the thermal probe has lead to a gigantic amount of wasted seismic data, if fucking Mars wind on your spacecraft makes too much signal noise imagine fucking around with a vibrating dildo

>>11096861
If you're fat and lazy on Earth you'll die early. If you're fat and lazy on Mars you'll die early, and also never be able to return to Earth. Honestly not a big difference. The elephant in the room with space muscle mass loss is that it doesn't matter if you never go back to 1g.

>>11097060
>Robotic exploration has the massive advantage that you can always make a better robot in the future.
Yeah, at this rate we'll make a robot on parity with a human explorer in about three hundred years and you bet those colonists will have egg on their face then!

>>11096812
>can't answer
>resort to troll
If you are too full of yourself to recognize space make thermal regulation easier than a hell varying between −17.2°C and −107°C there's no reason to answer you.

>>11096823
No one said the giant cylinder would come before the infrastructure. Don't confuse me with the martian who believe they'll 3D print their "new world" infrastructure from a few hundred BFR landed on Mars. The main difference is that I don't pretend a thousant people in thin can are colony until we've perfected self-sufficient space-habitat. Point at which scaling up is just a matter of economic efficiency and exploiting asteroids is a requirement

>>11096842
Say the guy who believe he won't need a small nation worth of industries and farm to expand his pod-camp on Mars.
The O'neill cyclinder you seem to imagine is the biggest thing you could make using TODAY materials with 30% margin (it's not even carbon nanotube). It's essentially suspension bridge technology and heavy lifting which we will need anyway.
Since it require self-sufficient colony in SPACE (of any size) before landing on Mars, all you've been saying is that you'll send a bunch of people dependent on space welfare, claiming to be a colony until they are sent an industrialized country in kit, or a magical 3D printer to do so.
I simply don't believe in your gravity hole frontier and build the industry in orbit, exploiting the moon, asteroid and still colonizing space.

>>11096860
No doubt but if you have that technology there, then you'll have it in space long before.

>>11096892
Which is why the industries want to bring the asteroid/resources to the station instead of the reverse. It's only the Pioneer dude who can't imagine people being anywhere but the surface of Mars.

>large scale asteroid mining for OTHER reasons
Whatever your other reason are, it will be before any mars colony.

>>11096913
It restrict severely the design with somewhat aerodynamic cargo spaceship, even using ballute.

>>11097060
I can't wait until a slightly better Mars probe comes along in a decade. Maybe it could dig a hole that's TWO coffee cups deep.

>>11096836
OTRAG. Turns out the powers that be don't like it when you develope cheap rockets for African warlords though.

>>11097101
>If you are too full of yourself to recognize space make thermal regulation easier than a hell varying between −17.2°C and −107°C there's no reason to answer you.
You are a goddamn retard. You seriously have no idea what the fuck space is. Stop posting.

>>11097108
Humanfags absolutely QUAKING

>>11097108
#spaceishard
#insight2.0
#grants4rants

>>11096814
Why do you think vaccines are mandatory?

Why do people keep replying to him? His typing style is so fucking obvious.

>>11094566
You kidding? We welcome it. It is the only way to get politicians to put space on their platforms.

>>11097133
I just don't understand why people like manned missions.
>makes uninspiring probe that'll be forgotten once the next one is built
Robotic missions are just as capable as one with a human.
>takes years to cover an area the size of Buford, Wyoming
They're more reliable and safe too.
>rover's wheel gets stuck in some slightly damp dust
The industry is perfectly fine with robotic probes only.
>perpetrates anemic launchers and zero space infrastructure
You're just romanticizing Apollo.
>jerks off to Cassini data

>>11096518
>It costs a gorillion dollars for the probe because it needs to work first time
>The rocket needs to cost a gorillion dollars because it cannot fail
>Probe shits out, can't perform the work of a 5 year old with a plastic spade

Sasuga NASA

>>11097108
if musk delivered on even a fraction of all his promises then you could burn a crater on mars when you decent with your starship and you could have at least a depth of FOUR coffee cups.

>>11097200
But anon! That's the way things are! Probes need to be super expensive and reliable because launchers are incredibly expensive. And launchers and need to be very expensive and reliable because probes are super expensive. There's simply no other way to do things. Nope, not at all! Making space exploration cheaper and easier is not the way to go because that would mean that some of our stuff will fail and that would make some of the public maybe not like spaceflight. Which is worse than the general apathy from the public.

Space is hard, anon. You just don't get it.

>>11097101
harvest is bountiful this year

>>11097118
this, space is near absolute zero in the shade and ~100 C in the light, open space absolutely has the worst temperature variation by far

>>11097239
baiting redditors is definitely easy

>>11097239
/sci/ isnt about (you)'s.
Don't get your stink all over the board.

Just found out from the hullo man that the current NASA administrator had an interesting hobby before he was a government bureaucrat...

https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1188587464912302080?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

>>11097278
>>11097263
desu I wasn't even baiting, he's just retarded and sucks space fantasy youtuber cock

>>11097282
>tfw when Jimmy B is an absolute mad lad

>>11097101
You keep repeating that you need space infrastructure to land on Mars, but AFAIK only NASA is proposing that. Most current Mars proposals are direct to Mars style.

>>11097321
SpaceX's architecture certainly doesn't require anything but Mars related hardware.

>>11097282
>Me 163 racing is a thing irl
neat

>>11097418
based

>>11097282
>Fired the same engine 1000 times with zero maintenance, just refuel

Interesting

>>11097465
But it won't work for launch vehicles because Shuttle.

>>11097475
God I fucking hate this smug moron.

>>11097475
>We are now at the Space Shuttle bad era
How long until all Apollos after 11 were bad because we were just going back and doing the same thing.

>>11097475
This guy is a massive low-hanging fruit, there’s far more compelling arguments against reusability that don’t rely on painful comparisons between apples and oranges.

>>11097475
based thunderfoot

>>11095090
If the hair was changed to a bob (basically cut it all at or just a little longer than the front/side bits to more accurately represent the small upper fins), and swap the ruffle and belt for a stylized, oversized bow that fits the silhouette of the lower fins it would be a distinct improvement.

>>11097475
This guy is a massive low-hanging fruit, there’s far more compelling arguments against reusability that don’t rely on painful comparisons between apples and oranges. People shouldn’t waste their time on someone who obviously isn’t knowledgeable about rocketry.

>>11097475
Is it just me or is his tweet a total non-sequitor?

>>11097517
Yes, that's literally every argument he makes, compares two totally different things and goes

>HAHA ELON DUMB I AM SMART SPACEX BTFO

>>11097515
There are no compelling arguments against reusability unless you're approaching the argument from the point of view of "how do I extract the most welfare dollars out of flawed rocketry"

>>11097525
Not him, but there are some "good" arguments against reusability.
>it's much more expensive to develop compared to just upgrading an expendable rocket
>it may require a launch frequency that's higher than the payload market can sustain
>it may not even be worth it in the grand scheme of things
Most of them assumes a static or very slow payload market though.

>>11096296
>>11096277
Anglisky

>>11097418
>xEMU
Suddenly, Australians everywhere feel a sudden chill

>>11097551
>it's much more expensive to develop compared to just upgrading an expendable rocket
Even if we take that as granted, it comes back ten fold in the margins.
>it may require a launch frequency that's higher than the payload market can sustain
This one is just drawing on SpaceX's current issues without really showing any understanding of them. Reusability does not "require" a particular launch cadence, it just makes a faster cadence easier to achieve, driving them up against payload restriction faster. If this were any other oldspace project, they would simply keep prices artificially high in order to maximize margin without rocking the boat.

It also ignores their own solution, which is to launch your own payloads to take advantage of that cadence.
>it may not even be worth it in the grand scheme of things
Meaningless.

>>11097496
they were, it's fucking inexcusable that we didn't have a semipermanent settlement by like, Apollo 14, and the lack of a permanent settlement is why it was able to be killed

>>11097496
They weren't bad, but they were probably underused, I'm certain the Saturn platform could have been significantly enhanced over time and used much more ambitiously.

>>11097581
>Even if we take that as granted, it comes back ten fold in the margins.
Absolutely, but for the longest time (and arguably still so for most) vehicle development was incredibly expensive and disrupting to a company. Taking the time to develop a whole new risky (I'll get to that) vehicle which would require whole new tools to make and new facilities to refurbish is time that the company is spending money on something with no return. This could doom a company that doesn't have a strong source of income (which is why cost-plus contracts with NASA are a thing).

>Reusability does not "require" a particular launch cadence
Reusability doesn't, but economical reusability does. Launching frequently reduces launch costs as it is less time you have to pay launch engineers for waiting around until the next launch (there's probably other stuff with economies of scale). Suddenly being forced to launch less often due to lack of available payloads will drive up the cost per launch which may cause a feed-back loop of even less available payloads because their owners don't want to pay for the higher prices. While this wasn't the only problem with the Shuttle, launch costs of it soared after the Shuttles where grounded due to Challenger which was part of the driving mechanisms in making the Shuttle among the most expensive launch vehicles in history.

I think most of the reasonable arguments against reusability stem from two things. One is that it's a significant challenge to work on due to lack of good information about reusability (at least a couple of years ago). Two is that the economics of reusability are an unknown and potentially dangerous territory. Sure, it's easy to quickly to the math to show that it's viable, but there's tons of minor details which make a case otherwise. This makes reusable rockets risky.

Then again I'm for reuse (just playing Devil's advocate), so I may be biased against this.

>>11096113
>About one Earth's worth of materials could produce a billion times the useful surface area of the earth
>Statisticians estimate the Earth's population is going to settle in at about 10 billion barring some major change
That means we can easily house about 1-10 quintillion people (10^18 - 10^19) in Sol alone by taking apart the shit planets and moons
>The Galaxy in Star Wars has a population of 100 quadrillion (10^17)
So it turns out a single star system could easily house a society 10-100x the size of one of the more vast fictional societies ever thought up.

>But what about other Scifi societies anon?
Mass Effect - Citadel Space Only: 17 Trillion Sapients
Star Trek - United Federation of Planets: 985 Billion as of 2370
Asimov's Foundation series - Galactic Empire: 500 Quadrillion (but over single-digit millions of planets)

What are some cryogenic rocket fuels other than hydrogen and methane/LNG?

>>11097669
Fluorine if you're feeling frisky

>>11097669
Liquid propane, but that's only -40ish (in both systems, conveniently). Butane can be stored liquid at room temperature under relatively reasonable pressures so that's out, unless you subcool it.

>>11097669
Those are generally the big three.

>>11097634
The problem with the Shuttle as an example is that it was essentially designed to be as reused as inefficiently as possible, with being slow and expensive both coming out as results. Also, it is not an inherent thing that the cadence must either run at "SpaceX fast" or "Shuttle slow", again since this seems to be revolving around an oldspace mindset they would be unlikely to take either tac over maintaining status quo.

Also, w/rt to paying personnel, wasn't one of Arianespace's big complaints about reusability genuinely that it wouldn't be as good of a jobs program? I remember getting a good laugh out of that.

The riskiness, eh, yeah, I have to take that one given the whole oldspace mindset thing, even if I think it's rather ridiculous.

>>11097670
fluorine is an oxidizer you absolute mong

>>11097718
>The problem with the Shuttle as an example is that it was essentially designed to be as reused as inefficiently as possible, with being slow and expensive both coming out as results.
I know. The Shuttle was a whole mess of bad decisions and unfortunate circumstances, but I used it because the cost of the Shuttle per launch did increase due to both the grounded program from the Challenger incident and the slower launch rate afterwards because NASA still had to pay for the launch equipment and personnel at the same rate as before but at a lower launch rate. If something like that happened to a company it could be much worse due to the feed-back loop I mentioned earlier (and the fact that the company wont be getting a bottomless budget from the government).

>Also, w/rt to paying personnel, wasn't one of Arianespace's big complaints about reusability genuinely that it wouldn't be as good of a jobs program? I remember getting a good laugh out of that.
You mean this? https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/ariane-chief-seems-frustrated-with-spacex-for-driving-down-launch-costs/

>>11097743
fine fine, but you're still going to want the Fluorine:
liquid lithium AND hydrogen.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripropellant_rocket

>>11097418
Hadnt noticed the face. Kek

>>11097418
I have to say, the new suits are a pleasant surprise even though they'll probably get leapfrogged relatively fast by future designs.

>>11097763
How are they are pleasant surprise? They're barely any different from the Z-1 and Z-2, which is near eight years old.

>>11097781
From the event:
>https://youtu.be/4QVeNY4HdNM?t=204
All of the old and even current suits could not move nearly that much under full pressure.

>>11097826
And as they mention, yes the suit is under pressure in the demo.

>>11097781
The fact that NASA has actually built some new space equipment is on it's own a pleasant surprise.

>>11097846
>The fact that NASA has actually built some new space equipment is on it's own a pleasant surprise.

>>11097756
did you notice I shopped the proportions of the suit too

>>11097826
I watched that video before and I still think what NASA has come up with is a mockery for all the money they wasted on it. Having slightly higher flexibility ratings for your new spacesuit doesn't outweigh no longer having custom sizes since most astronauts will be forced to wear suits that are too large for them and heavier because of it. It will reduce flexibility by being overly bulky. That woman can barely manage to stand up in it for more than 15 minutes and her suit is lighter than the real thing. This won't fix the problem of dozens of their astronauts needing shoulder surgery from their spacesuit training.

I'm also going to point out that modern spacesuits are much more expensive than their Apollo counterparts, so doing away with custom suits to save money isn't addressing the problem. NASA gave itself a sickness and is trying to sell us on a cure.
>>11097846
I'm not sure if that is the case, did they say it was built in house? This new suit was internally called the Z-2.5. The Z-1 and Z-2 suits were designed and manufactured by ILC Dover. I figured the same company worked on the new suit.

>>11096418
Sorry to hear that, buddy.

Starlink-chassis based interferometer at a Lagrange point with thousands of dishes, using the laser systems already onboard to judge distance between nodes. Resolution of a gnat's ass on Alpha Cent.

>>11097931
>>11096434
thanks senpaitachi

>>11096418

xEMU is the spacesuit version of the SLS. Prove me wrong.
Hint:
You can't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Xiq3dYJlM
How have I not heard about Armadillo Aerospace sooner? Their Super Mod rocket is the coolest small rocket I've ever seen.

>>11097964
They're out of business, but spawned a successor company Exos Aerospace, however it's only composed of 12 people and so far hasn't achieved suborbital flight with any of their sounding rockets.

https://spacenews.com/foust-forward-curb-your-enthusiasm-star-struck-spacex-fans-are-in-a-league-of-their-own/

Oy vey, stop supporting a company that is actually advancing spaceflight instead of squandering billions in taxpayer money and giving little in return. You don't want to be a zealot and alienate the other companies, do you?

>>11098022
I'm going to give this article a fair shot and read it through but even in the opening picture description Foust calls SpaceX "a startup". It's a ten year old company with multiple succesful commercial rockets, several factories, and is bending metal on a third (or fourth depending how you measure) generation of rocket design. If SpaceX is a startup, where do you draw the line? Is Amazon a startup?

>>11098022
TBF, there should be support and devotion for multiple space companies/agencies not just SpaceX. But that article was just silly. Did the author seriously took the actions of one guy and extrapolated it to all people who really like what SpaceX is doing?

>>11098028
Startups are businesses that are in the process of creating and developing their primary business model into a profitable enterprise. Amazon is not a startup because they have fully developed their business model and achieved profitability.

>>11097964
Here's the Armadillo rocket being worked on, smooth out the lines a bit more and it really would look like something out of a old scifi movie.

>>11098022
spacexcels getting BTFO

>>11098037
Damn. I wish I could make something like that. Anyone got any stats on that thing's engine?

>>11098034
That's fair, though by that metric if SpaceX gets at least 51% of of their business from traditional satellite launches and government contracts and that's enough to at least keep the company afloat, then SpaceX shouldn't be called a startup.

>>11098028
Alright, read it through (it was shorter than I expected).

Everything up to the sentence I'm about to post is just calling fanboy autism out for being fanboy autism, but isn't really relevant to SpaceX itself at all. Might as well criticize Apple for iToddlers.

>Why SpaceX has a devoted following far greater than other entrepreneurial companies, like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic, is difficult to say.
No it isn't. They do everything super fucking publically because Musk is an egotist. That's not an insult or a compliment, to be in Musk's position you need a massive ego, and SpaceX is what a massive digital ego looks like in the modern era. Blue Origin doesn't have a "epic montage of our rockets exploding lmao" video, and isn't building New Glenn in a field.

>>11098033
I think it's like any other industry, the best companies attract the most attention and rightfully so. The issue is that SpaceX doesn't have any good competitors so they get the the lion's share. Regardless, these are private companies, the amount of support they get from the general community is irrelevant to what they do. As much as I would want to root for a company like Rocket Lab, it gets boring fast. If you seen one of their launches, you've seen them all. It will never attract my interest like watching the Starship tests or seeing how fast they produce them.

>>11098060
To be frank, watching the live coverage of other launch providers is a chore compared to watching a SpaceX webcast.

>>11098086
They need to play some music during their launches.

>>11096519
I thought this thing would've worked, but in retrospect it seems pretty obvious it would just sit there thumping on the surface.

>>11096519
How big a hole could Insight's arm dig if they just dug for digging's sake?

>>11093813
Looks like it lost a fin moving the CoP just aft of the CoG and inducing roll and yaw but it is possible that in an attempt to reduce drag they just made the fins too small.

>>11095284
>parachutes are the only way of decelerating

>>11098120
Name a launch abort system that doesn't use parachutes. I'll wait.

>>11098130
dragon

:^)

>>11098135
Wrong, they just don't discard the abort rockets.

>>11098135
propulsive landing is cancelled

>>11098137
they were going to a powered landing before they cheaped out and diverted funding to the subject of this thread

that shows it's possible and anyway manned spaceflight is mostly a meme and can be done by specialized launch craft

>>11098141
>they cheaped out
It was more that it would cost too much to get certified by NASA, it would take longer to complete, and they didn't get the funding they were promised. What do you expect? You can't hire someone to build you something, give them half the money you promised and expect to get the same product.

>>11098154
i expect nothing less when government is involved

>>11097749
NASA also had a buttload more ground personnel than they needed except as a jobs program. This is what really made low cadence so expensive.

>>11097964
I only knew about armadillo because john carmack founded it

>>11096518
>launch robot
>robot doesn‘t work
>huge team of scientists troubleshoots the thing for years
>expensive robot hardware useless
>even if they fix it all this effort just to get a few readings from a single rod stuck into the ground a tiny bit
>takes half a decade at least to send another one to measure with a new instrument
>probably fucks it up as well
Robotic spaceflight as it is is such a meme.

>>11098294
>Robotic spaceflight as it is is such a meme
not for asteroid mining which is the only useful type of spaceflight

>>11098324
Cool, when you have a von Neumann machine get back to us.

>>11098359
>von Neumann machine
3d printers

>>11098377
A 3D printer is no more a von Neumann machine than a multi-axis CNC mill.

>>11097282
Fucking shame this failed to catch on.

>>11098377
Lel ok bro

>>11098060
I think Musk also has a more impish, mischievous character than Bezos, the latter being more flat out mean in some aspects

>>11098294
Hope they add a bucket excavator arm into the next robot.

>>11098526
Sorry anon, we have added a multi function drill/impactor/spike/vibrator combo arm instead, don't worry we have tested it ten thousand times in the lab and it only cost the taxpayer five billion dollars! Don't you fucking love science?

>>11098022
This guy just doesn't like/is paid to disparage SpaceX/Musk - I remember his demeanour at the Q&A being weirdly and inappropriately aggressive.

Also, does anyone - even someone that works for NASA, ULA etc - actually read that and think 'wow, such a convincing argument'?

>>11098060
To be fair Blue Origin didn't really achieve anything yet.

>>11098630

>>11098022
Kek comment section ripping chunks out of that cocksucker, surprised he even allowed comments on his article.

>>11098639
>yah bro that guys with a job is going to be so butthurt when he reads my comment!
>we really got him!
>let's get him cancelled next!
>#metoo

>>11098653
>Journalism
>Job

Lmao stupid anime poster.

>>11098653
>>11098658

I mean Jeff Foust is the most highly regarded space journalist out there, he does loads of great work and his articles have even been cited in congressional hearings. He’s far above the likes of cretins, such as Eric B*rger, T*slarati etc

>>11098678
wait until he makes one of his "great works" to post about him then son, this is buzzfeed level

>>11098702
>son
Have you never visited SpaceNews.com boomer? Sandra Erwin, Caleb Henry and Jeff are all top-notch reporters.

>>11098721
the next time they do some top notch reporting I might give a shit. no need to praise them for busywork they do to stay on a payroll. the only reason anyone is even talking about this is that they're all bored waiting for a launch lmao

>>11098041
No stats and I can't find any specifics on it at all, but I think the rocket burned LOX/ethanol and the engine looks like a comparatively simple ablative-cooled system, there's no plumbing for regenerative cooling at all. The previous vehicle just called "Mod" had a combustion chamber made of graphite, not sure if that carried over to Supermod.

A cool video of ULA building Vulcan’s test article:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb8QkORA3HA

>>11098768
>The previous vehicle just called "Mod" had a combustion chamber made of graphite
That must've been expensive. Also IIRC, it's not super friendly for machining either.

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/news/alumni-stories-meet-principal-rocket-landing-engineer-spacex

How to calculate Delta v for multiple stages? Do I just add for individual stages?

>>11099149
Yes. You just add the DeltaV of each stage as if they're an individual spacecraft. Just remember for a given stage (that isn't the final one) to have the total mass of the stages above it for the mass ratio calculations.

>>11097278
Yea. Its about citation

>>11099146
>Wh*te male
>Actually qualified
How disgusting SpaceX put a wh*te man into this role at the expense of inclusivity.

feels like i'll never make it to mars

>>11097038
seems like that would make refueling in orbit harder wouldn't it?

New info. Starship can put 400 Starlink at a time.

>>11096950
>not having the legs be a giant complaint mechanism carefully designed and modeled for a decade and machined out of a super advanced lightweight titanium alloy
Bruh, do you even oldspace?

>>11095962
You use rover autopilot? If you make a good solid rover and use the waypoint marker system you can circumnavigate whole moons on one screen while watching TV on the other, just keep glancing back to make sure the path isn't dangerous and take over now and then if it reaches a steep, dicey area. I'm in the middle of a Tylo tour in my save now, landed between the two big named craters and roved a few hundred KM to Gagarin then backtracked to the lander to attempt another long drive in the other direction.
Also check which parts of your rover apply torque, you can turn it off if it has a tendency to flip your rovers during speedy turns. Keep the center of mass low and test test test.

>>11097038
they need to extend individually in order to remain level on an uneven surface

>>11098377
Faggot they can't even replicate plastic minis correctly yet.

>>11097239
Those are easy to fake with the plugin you use.
And what kind of retard would spend the effort pretending to be several persons and boast about it? It's as if you supported my points so much you decide to associate any contrary opinion to the troll you are.
Good job.

>>11099370
Don't give up anon. We're all going to make it.

>>11099385
link?

NEW THREAD?!

>>11099841

>>11098294
>>To send humans back to the moon would not be advancing. It would be more than 50 years after the first moon landing when we got there, and we'd probably be welcomed by the Chinese. But we should return to the moon without astronauts and build, with robots, an international lunar base, so that we know how to build a base on Mars robotically.
>>--Buzz Aldrin
Robots have their place anon. There is value in using robots to set up some basic infrastructure on Mars before humans get there.
>>expensive robot hardware
is still cheaper than human spaceflight unfortunately.
>>11098359
you don't need Von Neumann machines for mining asteroids. The only thing worth mining from asteroids near term is water. Getting water from asteroids does not require a self replicating machine or even very advanced robots. Doing that requires inflating a big bag around an asteroid, bombarding it with intense sunlight to get the water out, and cooling the water out to get it into tanks. NASA's investigating doing that here:
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2019_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mini_Bee_Prototype/
That being said, MIT has made some progress on self replicating machines:
http://cba.mit.edu/docs/papers/17.04.11.SelfAssemSpacecraft.pdf
We're not quite there yet, but we may be close to robots that can assemble themselves down to transistors.
>>11098526
Nah, what they need is proper drill.
>>11098533
InSight cost less than $1 billion dollars. Also you can blame the Germans for the bad design of the mole.

>>11098678

Anti Berger posts are a meme by butthurt SLS fanboys who can't handle critical scrutiny of their program and try to character assassinate the source. They think all reporting should be technical updates or within carefully cordoned acceptable lanes of thought that steer clear of the real issues.

Foust is good though, give him a pass every now and then.

>>11099731
what's really funny is that I actually don't have any plug ins, and I wasn't pretending to be multiple people I just couldn't fit everything into one post