/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11099841
Cringe.

>>11099841
Based.

>>11099841
>Another thread about Starship
Cringe.

>>11099977
Seethe more.

>>11099977
If only we had some other new rocket to meme ab out.

Thread off to a great start

>>11099980
I'd rather you just stop reposting shit you got from some boomer Facebook space group and try to be original if you're going to make general threads.
>>11099985
EXOS. One of the staff members is literally /ourguy/ and we've yet to banter about the recent failure.

>>11099993
>EXOS. One of the staff members is literally /ourguy/ and we've yet to banter about the recent failure.
They probably forgot to check their staging.

>>11099993
Got a clip of the failure?

>>11100018
>>11093813

“Mirror, mirror on the wall...who has the largest water tower of them all?”

https://twitter.com/NextHorizons_/status/1188927736980611079

>>11100024
Is this about the watertower=starship meme or are they actually building a watertower?

>>11100031
It’s just a water tower, albeit a really massive one. The equally impressive building being constructed to the left is a hangar/horizontal assembly building.

>>11099841
TARS, set shitposting to 60%

>>11099993
I'm not Op, but being butt-mad about Starship for being the most exciting thing in spaceflight to the general public is just as ridiculous and tiresome for the rest of us as Starship is for you.

Where's superheavy's launchpad?

>>11100102
It doesn’t exist yet..,

>>11100102
Either still in design, or already in work.

Photo is in degraded quality to come under the file size limit.

>>11100121
Isn't it supposed to be launching into orbit next year?

>>11100086
You're a big guy, Coop.

>>11100091
I'm not upset about Starship, or anything for that matter, I'm just getting sick of seeing low effort threads revolving around Starship when there hasn't even been any news related to it recently and it will only spark the same conversations we've had hundreds of times before. There is more to spaceflight than a few prototype rockets, and I say that as a huge fan of Starship.
>Starship for being the most exciting thing in spaceflight to the general public
Yet it still hasn't produced much traffic to /sfg/, beyond shitposting and people calling each other shills, which is what we should try to avoid.

>>11100129
that's for the upper stage

>>11100156
The architecture calls for the upper stage to be fueled through the lower stage. Barring the much heavier loads of the full stack, there shouldn't be any real difference.

>>11100148
Reddit is the place for you

>>11100166
>Barring the much heavier loads of the full stack, there shouldn't be any real difference.
lol

>>11100167
Reddit is full of you Musk cocksuckers.
Why don't you go back there yourself?

>>11100177
Project harder redditor

>>11100167
Reddit loves Starship and debating Elon Musk ad nauseam. Why don't you just stop defending your low effort posts? Even your rebuttal is unoriginal garbage.

>>11099994
Heh.

>>11100177

>>11100237
Listen to his gospel.

>>11100263
Elon haters BTFO

>>11100263
>4.20am

It's the little details that count

>>11100031
with many rockets a water deluge system is used at launch to reduce heat and dampen soundwaves that could damage the launchpad and/or vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reE62UvBd8I

>>11100091
>>11100167

>>11100313
Gentlemen, I give you the great intellectualism of /sci/.

>>11100313
Cringe

The crane previously used to stack the Mark 1 is back and presently in action.

>>11099993
So I'm not an employee of EXOS, if I've given the impression that I am sorry, they're just the launch provider for our payload.

Although we lost our payload, as we couldn't locate the rockets out in the desert after searching for it based on image triangulation for about five or six hours, I honestly can't say anything bad about EXOS. They're the most fun, accommodating, and genuinely kind group of people I've ever had the pleasure of working with.

>>11100766
tell them they need a cute mascot like the Japanese. Also lmao, just slap some reflective material on the rocket so you can find it at night next time

/sfg/, we've been tasked to create our own space program
Our first milestone is getting a man in orbit
the next is landing a man on the moon
After that, landing a man on Mars
Minimun of having a scientific suite on these landings, setting up a small colony on each for the bonus $$$
Each milestone are 10 years apart, how do we do it?

>>11100814
The first step is realizing that the average person here is retarded and we're going to need actual intelligent people to pull this off. I suggest we stalk Reddit for well informed spaceflight posts by people who work in the industry and threaten them into working for us.

>>11100828
>I suggest we stalk Reddit
I also suggest you go do that and never return.

>>11100800
Well so the problem is that when the rocket impacts it undergoes nearly 3000g's of deceleration and it buries itself in the dirt almost. They told us in previous bad launches it was essentially flush with the surface after impact, and they've recovered rockets from 95km's.

Shortly after launch some guys flew up in a plane and circled a few times, before probably getting told by white sands to get the fuck out of the air, and they didn't spot it or see anything out of the norm.

>>11100836
I suggest you get the fuck out of my imaginary space program before you get used as test dummy. You're fired.

>>11100828
Ok bye

>>11100854
>>11100766
Damn that sucks. I'm sorry anon.

>>11100828
Give enough monkeys a typewriter, they'll shit out shakespear
Sure our rockets look like a bunch of Ork mekboyz pounded them out and they work through sheer willpower but that's what happened when Imhotep when he designed the first large dam, it's a learning curve

>>11100860
Well now your imaginary space program is canceled due to imaginary budgetary cuts.

>>11100836
based

>>11100892
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCXTu5jE-Ng

>NASA had long been targeting a 2023 liftoff for Europa Clipper. Congress has told the agency to launch the mission using NASA's powerful Space Launch System (SLS) megarocket, which would allow Clipper to travel directly to Jupiter and get there after just 2.4 years of flight.

>>11100875
It's the nature of the business

>>11100925
Did Europa Clipper get bumped off or something?

>>11100814
Well the first hurdle is just getting people to communicate regularly and decide on a site, leader, game plan, etc. The next hurdle will be essentially insurmountable unless we have an enormous quantity of initial startup capital ala-SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc, because even getting a man to perform a single or a few orbits demands a launch vehicle on the scale of Atlas LV3B, that is we would need a rocket with dimensions of around 3m diameter and 28+m height, producing a sea level thrust of 1800kN+ for 135+ seconds, and sustaining 3-400kN for up to 5 minutes. I'd say use kickstarter sites, Youtube channels, and other social media platforms to source donations in the millions to tens of millions, that can and has been done, however projects like Copenhagen Suborbital aren't trying to send a man into orbit, just into space, this hypothetical project would be much more ambitious as the delta-V required to get a man to orbit is considerably greater than just to get a man to 100km+ altitude. Assuming the necessary people are gathered to form a competent team and the necessary funding is flowing in you need to actually construct your rocket, so you'll need significant CNC and milling machinery to build things like 3m diameter aluminum or steel rings for the rocket's body, structural ribs, panels, the capsule, fins, etc. You'll need to source tanks either rolled purely from metal or possibly special order COPVs if you want to reduce space and try for high engine performance by storing your propellants at very high pressures. You'll need a workshop with the necessary dimensions to at least shield your rocket and machinery and assembly equipment like cranes and gantries from the elements, maybe not a cleanroom but at least four walls and a roof. This could go on for pages but you get the picture.

Sourcing sapphire for imaginary window (copula)

I was looking through some videos of New Glenn and I noticed that the design of the landing legs have changed in the 2019 presentation compared to the 2017 version. I'm kinda perplexed by this change because I'd figured that the landing legs would've been the easiest to figure out early on in the design progress (at least in their general shape). My guess would be that the original legs were inspired by the New Shepard and were only chosen for the render, while the new legs were what would actually be on New Glenn.

What do you guys think?

>>11100994
left: soul
right: soulless
thank you for coming to my youtube lecture at the royal institute

>>11100994
The legs on the left look like pre-engineering placeholders. The ones on the right look like they've finished the engineering and reached a usable design.

>>11100024
It's absolutely insane to watch Blue Origin build their own LC-39-scale pad from scratch. This is some 1960s-tier shit.

>>11100024
>the chad erection

>>11100129
>the virgin stool

>>11100994
Its just an big F9

>>11101157
It was never anything but a big F9.

>>11101189
Not exactly. Based on all the public descriptions so far, New Glenn is very overbuilt compared to current and prior rockets because Blue Origin intends to fly it in all the weather conditions a conventional airliner can. This is a good thing to aim for because that results in fewer delays, and you need that if you're supporting projects in space that are much larger in scale than have been previously attempted.
>a fair point: SpaceX is working with the same sorts of assumptions for Starship. We need rockets that can handle more adverse weather conditions if we're going to use them much more extensively.

>>11101394
same reason Stena Freighter is being used. It'll be under powder for a landing, as ships moving forward can be made more stable. So less situations where ship landings are postponed due to ocean weather

>>11101500
>2029
>have a business trip to luna
>company will only pay for a redeye starship landing in a hurricane
wish me luck frens

>>11101506
>make perfect pin-point touchdown over open water
fug

why not just have a massive fuel depot in LEO? Saves you from having to wait for 8 tankers to fly up if you’re slinging 150t to the moon. Or can boil off not be prevented on a massive scale like that

>>11101535
Shelby meme, etc. But yeah, I completely agree, it makes sense for the current architecture.

>>11101535
Eventually different optimally located depots will exist, along with a series of skyhooks to yeet passengers and bulk cargo around all of cislunar space. But like Shackleton, we're working with nothing in place yet. For the really serious voyages, we will build those depots.

>>11101546
because you could just fill up a tanker in LEO for the exact same effect with none of the downsides.

>>11101571
In this case what's the difference between a tanker and a depot? Maneuverability?

>>11100814
I can provide endless amounts of fat gay sex. My anus evolved self-lubrication and one way microscopic flagella that moves the STD collecting mucus outwards

>>11101577
>less boil-off
>doesn't require the use of cargo payload to be set up in the first place
>no problems with being in an inconvenient orbital inclination for the mission profile

Depots only start making sense when you can get propellant to LEO in more efficient ways than bringing it from the surface, or when the space economy is dummy thicc.

>>11100166
Uhh yeah its the same thing to fire 3 raptors than it is to fire 31 at once. Surely nothing can go wrong.

Starship de geso

>>11101617
I did say much heavier loads. The rocket exhaust is a load, too.

>>11100854
You need to fly it with the correct sensor - multispectral or radar or whatever. It'll stick out a mile

>>11100854
The cows are confused haha.

>>11100854
>Well so the problem is that when the rocket impacts it undergoes nearly 3000g's of deceleration and it buries itself in the dirt almost. They told us in previous bad launches it was essentially flush with the surface after impact, and they've recovered rockets from 95km's.
add a chemical that produces smoke when it blows up in the crash, so you can see where it landed

>>11101907
Hydrazine would make a good job.

>>11100925
lol They won't be done arguing what shit to put on it by then.

>>11101535
Shotwell mentioned depots as an option in the future, when Mars colonization flights really take off. Probably not needed for early flights.

>>11100814
Proper Space Program:

Phase 1
1: Cubesat to LEO
2: Cubesats to L3, L4, & L5
3: Cubesat to Cheron
4: Cubesat orbiter-lander combo to the Moon
5: Cubesat orbiter-lander to 1943 Anteros

Phase 2
1: Sample return prospecting robot to 1943 Anteros
2: Sample return prospecting robot to Seleucus
3: Sample return prospecting robot to 1998 KU2
4: Sample return prospecting robot to 1999 KV4
5: Sample return prospecting robot to 1989 UQ

Phase 3
1: Mining return robots to above listed asteroids that seem to be worth mining.
2: LEO space station
3: Moon base (not colony)

Phase 4
1: Space colonies at L3, L4, & L5
2: Sample return prospecting robot fleet to remaining near-Earth asteroids.
3: Mining return robot fleet to best mining candidates

Phase 5
1: Asteroid mining bases on best mining candidates to become space colonies.
2: Asteroid mining colonies installed.

Phase 6+
1: Expansion to moons and asteroids for mining and colonizing.
2: Heliocentric space colonies

>>11101394
So it's basically a 200% scale methalox Falcon 9 that can launch in blizzards and rainstorms like Soyuz can?

My. Fucking. Dick. I'm so excited to see this monster fly in 18 months.

>>11102098
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LSftIaLhQzE

>>11100925
>has told the agency to launch the mission using NASA's powerful Space Launch System (SLS) megarocket
Even if SLS had successfully launched by now, supposedly they basically do not have the manufacturing capacity to make more than two per year without adding another factory. How many SLS are they expecting to use between moon missions and things like this?

>>11102119
That’s the problem, they can’t produce SLS cores quick enough to support Artemis and Europa Clipper. Something has to give. The problem with the Clipper is that it’s designed for a fast direct-transfer to Jupiter, which is a trajectory only SLS can do. The closest alternative is an expendable Falcon Heavy with a solid rocket kick-stage, but that would still add 1-2 years onto the journey. A hypothetical stripped-down, expendable New Glenn with the planned BE-7 third-stage could probably do it, if ready by 2023. But I don’t think NASA would put their most expensive probe on such immature hardware.

>>11101907
>>11101979
NTO has that nice safety orange color. Very visible from a distance, such as down a beach.

Can we have a standard sticky pasta?

I suggest
>Quick write down about what to expect in the next 5 years
>latest news

Let's keep it simple

>>11102140
Well I guess that's the problem with designing a mission to use a paper rocket, huh? Of course a paper rocket is fine when it's NASA's (and Congress') darling.
But when it's a Starship, it gets treated like a joke or science fiction that is somehow interfering with current work even though it's only 5% the size of that budget.

>>11102140
Boeing's lander bid uses SLS. My theory is that they'll pay for some of the costs for upgrading the production line if they're selected. Why? It makes good business sense for them to incentive more use of SLS, and they wouldn't want to risk the competitiveness of their bid by folding the factory upgrade costs into it.

>>11102152
>Well I guess that's the problem with designing a mission to use a paper rocket, huh? Of course a paper rocket is fine when it's NASA's (and Congress') darling.

It’s really hard to call SLS a paper rocket these days, they just don’t come off the production line quick enough...

>>11102175
>they just don’t come off the production line quick enough
So far it's been zero built at a speed of NaN, because it's taking so long to make the first one.

>>11102175
The other thing is that production of future cores should be easier than the first few since they'll have experience under their belt, but that effect's not really going to kick-in in-time to help the first few missions.

>>11102172
I’d be happy if they did increase the rate of production, but I doubt NASA would risk such a proposal because of the 2024 aspirational deadline and because they seem to favour a distributed commercial launch architecture.

>>11102186
That's still not going to help with the fundamental capacity limit of two per year with current facilities.

>>11102186
>The other thing is that production of future cores should be easier than the first few since they'll have experience under their belt

CS-2 is already being built much quicker than CS-1 was, but that’s still not sufficient to support 2 SLS launches per landing.

>>11102152
Let’s be very honest again. We don't have a commercially available super heavy lift vehicle. Starship may someday come about. It’s on the drawing board right now. SLS is real. You’ve seen it down at Michoud. We’re building the core stage. We have all the engines done, ready to be put on the test stand at Stennis... I don’t see any hardware for a Starship, except that they're going to put parts together in a field and that becomes Starship. It’s not that easy in rocketry.

Or something like that.

>>11102199

>>11102206
>botswana

I can't fucking wait for the launches.

>>11102199
>SLS is real. You’ve seen it down at Michoud
All I see is that they're going to put parts together in a hangar and that becomes SLS.

>>11102306
But is Starship blessed by the respected and loved Alabama Senator Richard Shelby? I thought not. Meanwhile the SLS (pbui) is not only blessed by him, but personally designed by him to be the SAFEST and MOST POWERFUL AMERICAN rocket made across AMERICA to send AMERICANS to space. Can that scifi tin can made by a FOREIGNER claim to be safer than the SLS (pbui). I thought not.

Face it, it's not that easy in rocketry. Only a rocket blessed by the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT can send people to the moon and beyond.

>>11102320
Well played, anon.

Just passing through...

>>11102338
Such an odd but interesting rocket. Ukrainian first stage. American solid propellant second stage. I wonder what it's future will be with the recent push for the moon and changing goals of the ISS near-term.

>>11102338
>looking under her skirt
Lewd.

>>11102414
I think they’ll phase it out in the future for a version of OmegA Medium which swaps out the cryogenic upper stage for a smaller solid propellant one.

>>11102107
What I want to know is: what commercial contracts are going to be left for the mid-size expendable systems, and how will they make any money when up against SpaceX/BO with reusability? Surely SpaceX/BO will just hammer expendables' margins and expendables will fall farther and farther behind since their businesses won't be throwing off enough money to invest in R&D?

I'm excluding the smaller systems like RocketLab, who I can see may be able to compete by being more nimble - but surely Northrop Grumman etc. are the exact opposite of that, what with them being bloated megacorps pushing what seems to be an obsolete approach?

Commercial SLS flights.

New patch style Artemis logo. Looks pretty cool desu.

>>11102455
>What I want to know is: what commercial contracts are going to be left for the mid-size expendable systems, and how will they make any money when up against SpaceX/BO with reusability?

Mid-size expendable systems for commercial contracts basically means only Arianespace, who are competitive for a number of reasons: they provide better performance to GTO than SpaceX and because of this can dual-berth big satellites to undercut SpaceX’s prices, they also get a lot of European commercial payloads because of locality and protectionism. Furthermore, Arianespace has a near monopoly on both science payloads from European space agencies and military payloads from European governments.

Reusability so far hasn’t hurt Arianespace’s bottom line much, they’ve currently got a full manifest for 2021-2022. New Glenn might put a bit of a dent in it, because of it’s ability to provide a premium GTO service (dual berthing etc) like Arianespace can currently, but with cost savings from reusability. But Ariane 6 is supposedly cheaper than it’s predecessor and the European governments will subsidise to keep it competitive if necessary.

Northrop isn’t really in the market for commercial payloads, they like ULA go for a primarily government orientated market but have a smaller presence. Which is why OmegA is designed around the NSSF competition. However, despite Antares never winning a commercial payload contract, it’s apparently still profitable. Northrop are like a cockroach- very resourceful and able to somehow survive off little sustenance.

>>11102515
New patches?! Mission accomplished!

stacking soon?

in the unlikely event that Trump loses in 2020, what happens to jim? Will he get the ass too? He's the best thing to happen to nasa in ages.

>>11102499
>and other funny ideas that'll never happen

>>11102564
jim just needs to make Artemis 3 as diverse as possible

>>11102583
>the first living being to step on the moon after Apollo will be a gay trigender otherkin with headmates

>>11102515
Artemis waifus when NASA

>>11102499
If you need more than one SLS it will literally be cheaper to roll your own SHLV. Buy a bunch of engines from Blue and bend metal.

>>11102607
But will it be SAFER and MORE POWERFUL than the SLS (pbui)? I thought not.

>>11102611
Theoretically if it never flies it will always stay the safest rocket.

>>11102414
Well, Cygnus is the little spacecraft that could and will likely become the basis of Lunar gateway and God knows what else going forward.

Antares is also the only rocket I've ever watched in person. It was surprisingly impressive, even from 5 miles away.

>>11102590
Then we leave it there, right?

>>11102590
Will there be self-dilating EVA suits?

>>11102630
>Antares is also the only rocket I've ever watched in person. It was surprisingly impressive, even from 5 miles away.
Orbital CRS-3 was particularly impressive.

>>11102554
STACC
T
A
C
C

Crew Dragon static fire has slipped to the 6th of November, meaning we’ll see Starliner do it’s abort test first.

>>11102641
IRL Kerbal Space Program. It kills me that I didn't see that one in person.

>>11102670
It’s a close second for the most spectacular modern launch failure.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vqW0LEcTAYg

>>11102702
>If you put in the way-up-watchers the wrong way, you are not going to space today.
But it still didn't BTFO a launch pad for almost a year.
And I just realized that today is its 5th anniversary.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/nasa-shares-details-of-lunar-surface-missions-and-theyre-pretty-cool

>>11102783
>Berger

>>11102788
It’s pronounced B*rger

>>11102788

Spaceflight is a niche topic. Critical analysis, which the program well deserves, is hardly forthcoming. Be grateful you get some at all.

The SLS fanboys smear Berger because their collective temperament cannot handle any such genuine position.

>>11102914
That’s nice Eric...

Mk1 on the roll-lift

>>11103017
*Half of Mk1

>>11102702
Bonus points for hypergolic toxicity and my favorite part is when the payload shroud comes off and you see the poor satellite getting shredded into thousands of pieces by the sea-level atmosphere.

I can only hope that Starship or Super-Heavy will give us a similar boom show during some developmental "hiccup".

>>11103028
>I can only hope that Starship or Super-Heavy will give us a similar boom show during some developmental "hiccup".

I’m hoping some of the debris lands in the village, setting fire to it and leading to the estronaut burning to death, live in front of thousands of people...

>>11103030
Kek. Who hurt you anon?

>>11103028
What was that poor satellite anyway?

>>11102702
Amazing camera work.

>>11101535
>why not just have a massive fuel depot in LEO?
Because you can just refill a single tanker in orbit then launch Starship then fill it in one shot
Zero extra development and construction cost, zero fucking around with on-orbit construction/repair.

>>11101535
Tanker is the depot.

>>11103096
What's the difference between a single tanker starship, stripped of heat shield, and a depot? Are two permanently orbiting tankers a depot?

How hard is it to design a pressure fed engine that could throttle down to 1/3rd of max thrust?

>>11103124
Nothing, but the difference between a normal Tanker and a Tanker purpose built to never come back to Earth is that the reusable Tanker can be used to make a lot of money by supporting Starships directly.

Tanker A launches to orbit with a load of propellant. Tanker B follows, hooks up, and fills up Tanker A. Tanker B lands, refuled, and is launched again. Repeat until Tanker A is full, launch Starship, offload Tanker A and bring it down.

Repeat, except this time launch Tanker B first, and refill it using subsequent launches of Tanker A.

>>11100329
What about it?

>>11100814
First we need a name...

DEM Programs

>>11103235
Truly a genius design, they could walk on ocean floor.
The ultimate stealth submarine.

Guys what's this I hear about bone loss in zero G being pretty much solved? I thought people were still turning to jelly after a few weeks in space.

>>11103247
whoever drew that comic must have been truly autistic, because autists do definitely have a look to them and it aint good.

>>11103316

Not when doing heavy excersises and a proper diet.

>>11103071

Three Glonass-M GPS satellites.

>>11103337
RIP x 3

Just got done with a phone screening from Blue Origin. Pretty sure that I messed it up, but wish me luck.

>>11103241
You lack creativity, it should be called...
>General Investigation into Beyond Moon-Earth Demonstrations, Applications, and Technology
>GIBMEDAT

>>11100237

EXCELLENT image!

>>11103337
>Not when doing heavy excersises and a proper diet.
but according to who?

>>11103395
There was a podcast with a ex shuttle astronaut on it a few weeks ago who confirmed it, they sent up a new excercise machine to the ISS that does a few heavy reps rather than the old one which does lots of light reps, now cunts are coming back with zero detectable bone loss, so yeah no more jello babies.

>>11102914
t. Eric Berger

>>11102702
>Smell that? Hydrazine. I love the smell of hydrazine in the morning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5k7-Y4nZlQ

>>11103630
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfleQ2CTeBc

Okay, actually, for a Berger article, that new one is pretty good. Don't like how he makes a big deal about there not currently being a spot for samples tho. Like dude, it's 5 years out. They have plenty of time to find space.

>>11103553
Wow. If that's true, it really ought to help enable longer missions in space.
You're still fucked if you have a kid in outer space though.

>>11103686
>Like dude, it's 5 years out
6

>>11103319
I seen a autism whom had a very fine face, gave her an exquisitely exotic face. Smart and funny gal, was obvious she had the tism.

>>11104009
>I seen a autism whom had a very fine face, gave her an exquisitely exotic face
this is a travesty of english with which up I shall not put

>>11102702
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_aHEit-SqA

>>11104043
Kek

>>11103361
Good luck Anon.
What's your degree?

>>11104059
This is why solid rockets do not work well with parachute-based launch escape systems.

>>11102914
trip on Eric

>>11104213
Thanks. It'll be a Masters in Aerospace Engineering with a propulsion focus by the end of this year if I don't mess up this semester.

>>11104222
I hope to do a masters with focus on CFD.
Do update us with how your interview goes!

>>11104232
>I hope to do a masters with focus on CFD
Try to find a class that actually teaches CFD. My CFD class didn't really teach CFD. Good luck though!

>Do update us with how your interview goes!
Will do. I've been told to expect an update in a week, but apparently Blue's hiring department has been really busy lately so it might be later. Could be a sign that they're planning on expanding soon.

Halfway done with SLS engine installation

>>11104292
in 10 years with a certain budget spacex has gone from 0 to a revolution in spaceflight and about to produce another

in 12 years jeff bezos has gone from 0 to 0 with 100 times the budget musk has.

in 30 years with an infinite budget nasa has managed to destroy 4 attempts at a rocket project

spacex isnt good, its competitors are RETARDEDLY awful.

Imagine this, you open a lemonade stand, its more or less good, not too sweet not too bitter, always cold and fresh youre polite to your customers and the price is fair.

across the street a guy charges 100 dollars for a drink of piss

a block from there a guy charges 500 to describe you a glass full of shit and vomit

theres nothing else to drink in a 3 miles radius, do you think the first one will have a good business?

>>11104360
>in 12 years jeff bezos has gone from 0 to 0 with 100 times the budget musk has
Blue Origin is clearly making some progress. It's just that they're not showing the details like what SpaceX is. Give them time.

>>11104393
>give them time
never even been to orbit baka

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARjmgZWG7Mk
The video Musk doesn't want you too see.

The future is now old man.

>>11104426
>The future is now
Then where is Skylon? I don't see a factory, I don't see an airframe, I don't see completed engines. I see all of those for Starship.

>>11104428
Starship will be obsolete within the next 5-6 years Musk has put all of his money into a dead end design.

>>11104445
Why? Skylon has a significantly lower payload, even if it's more efficient per ton (it's probably not) Skylon can never yeet a station or Mars mission. Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful LEO shuttle, but Starship is much more than that.

>>11104445
Yea. Bezos is playing the long game. Pretty funny to see Shotwell publicly seething about it too

>>11104459
>>11104445
Anything designed around a single planet is a dead end in this solar system. Skylon requires an atmosphere => it's old tech.

>>11102147
Can i include some lines about how the jews are both running and ruining my life?

>>11104445
SpaceX went from having a facility at San Pedro with cf tooling to scrapping it all and switching to SS, having a flying prototype, in a year. If something better comes up they’ll pivot.

>>11102147
NO

>>11102515
>female logo
>cis scum

>>11102583
Just rename it The Amistad instead

>>11104360
>in 10 years with a certain budget spacex has gone from 0 to a revolution in spaceflight and about to produce another
[Citation needed]

>>11104516
Shows you just how "serious" they are.

>>11104360
>in 12 years jeff bezos has gone from 0 to 0 with 100 times the budget musk has.
this is a cope

>>11104552
>Falcon 9 dropped medium lift prices by a solid third
>Everyone and their mother who is actually serious is now looking into developing reusability

Maybe not a revolution but pretty serious achievements.

>>11104625
What cope? They still haven't even made orbit yet despite shitloads of funding from both Bezos and the government. Maybe New Glenn is further along than expected but 2021 is still the target which is a fair way away. So far they have been around longer than SpaceX and have managed to send a tin can to the Karmen line and haven't managed to get anyone on it yet.

>>11104629
>Falcon 9 dropped medium lift prices by a solid third
Nothing has changed as a result of this, other than Europeans paying more taxes for less launches from Arianespace. All spacex did is shift some tax burden from Americans to Europeans.
>Everyone and their mother who is actually serious is now looking into developing reusability
There's only two groups seriously looking into it. Rocketlab was insistently not going to touch it until they realized they couldn't produce rockets fast enough. It had nothing to do with spacex. The chinks are just copying it because that what commies do (see the soviets copying the space shuttle, for example.)

>>11104631
>They still haven't even made orbit yet despite
They haven't tried to make orbit
>shitloads of funding from both Bezos and the government.
Source?
They've gotten max $150 million (of which $100 million will be taken away soon) from the feds and maybe $4 billion max from Bezos (over the course of 20 years) Compare that to spacex who's received $5 billion in federal funding, $3 billion in assets "gifted" from governments and $5 billion in private capital since they started, and in less time.
>So far they have been around longer than SpaceX and have managed to send a tin can to the Karmen line and haven't managed to get anyone on it yet.
They didn't do any serious hardware development for the first 10 years.

>>11104638
Cope

>>11104644
seethe

>>11104645
Have sex

>>11104651
dilate

>>11104653
Incel

>>11104644
>>11104645
>>11104651
>>11104653
>>11104657
kys tranny

>>11104660
Cringe

>Why yes; I do spend 80% of my free time obsessing over Elon Musk. How could you tell?

>>11103316
>>11103337
>>11103395
>>11103553
>>11103722

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.”

>>11104644
>>11104645
>>11104651
>>11104653
>>11104657
>>11104660
>>11104661

Is this really the level of discourse we want to cultivate? We take ourselves VERY seriously here.

>>11104675
have sex

>>11104681
no.

>>11104675
Yikes

>>11104445
Lots of the money is in Raptor. How's that going to be obsoleted soon?

>>11099841
I have a deep hatred for poetry, and rhetorical thinkers is general.
Please use dialectics, this is not a board for women and niggers, but for the thinking human men.

>>11104292
I predict that one day in the next decade or two, when we have fully automated factories churning out multiple huge rockets per day, students of rocketry will review this as a case study of how laughably compromised and inefficient NASA had become. DAYS to put the engines on. Wtf!

>>11101632
dear god, what an ugly ass space ship. it literally looks like a squid head.

>>11104043
Up with I shall not put. Churchill, supposedly

There's no point in advancing space travel.
Best case scenario is we're confined to our solar system forever due to the distances being too great, and on top of that we're all stuck in a system-wide surveillance state run by a tyrannical government. Worst case we're all exterminated by our own AI within 100 years.

>>11104758
Best case scenario is remote probes set up lasers at the other end and you travel between stars at whatever fraction of C we can manage without being shredded. 20%c is supposedly doable with ice shielding and that gets you to Alpha Centauri in 20 years, not terrible.

>>11104758
>System wide surveillance state

This would be extremely difficult to enforce as we start to get to the outer planets and especially the oort cloud. The kind of drives that would enable fast travel for enforcement to these locations would be able to go fast enough that interstellar journies of much less than a lifetime are possible.

>>11104795
Remote robot-enforced enforcement.

>>11104242
>Could be a sign that they're planning on expanding soon.

All signs point towards an accelerated development cycle for New Armstrong.

>>11104814
I wouldn’t call it accelerated development, Blue’s current hiring spree is simply just to get New Glenn up and running (they only have 2000 employees currently and had 1000 before the spree, SpaceX has 6000 for comparison). What Blue are actually doing in regards to New Armstrong, is purposefully overbuilding their factory and launch infrastructure to be able to accommodate a bigger LV (NA) in the future e.g. the painting booth at Blue’s Florida factory is built around NA’s dimensions. Their also likely already developing the engines for NA: BE-5 and 6 are mysteriously missing from their engine line up. This makes sense because engines are the long pole of any LV development.

>>11104843
Don't see why they wouldn't just use BE-4 for New Armstrong unless they really gotta get that full flow staged combustion.

>>11099841
>>11094123

>>11104875
I don’t think it’s the cycle Blue cares about, it’s the size. Bezos is a massive Apollo buff- the Moon not Mars has always been Blue’s goal, he’s fished a bunch of F-1s out of the ocean, Blue has taken over the Saturn V first-stage engine test-stand at Marshall etc. For a mega-rocket named after Armstrong, he’s gonna want something F-1 tier. Also, I don’t think Bezos is a massive fan of massive clusters like Musk, NG’s design suggests he prefers smaller clusters with bigger engines. BE-4 could theoretically be uprated, by increasing it’s chamber pressure to produce somewhere near 3500KN of thrust, but that would defeat the entire point of it’s design. So they probably want a new first-stage engine.

>>11104900
Seems kind of retarded to use only a handful of bigger engines, if one fails you are fucked.

>>11104888
Good basic concept, definitely some improvements to be made but I like it so far.

>>11104900
I have to respect a man who's so rich he collects discarded rocket stages.

>>11103319
Can confirm.

>>11104720
Fuck you too.

>>11104909
I think the threat of engine outs is massively over-emphasised by many people. For perspective, the last engine out in living memory was the first launch of the Falcon 9 in 2012, engine outs are significantly rarer than RUDs. Most in-flight engine failures just end up with the entire booster exploding anyway e.g. Orb-3. Personally, I believe keeping the plumbing simple is a better way to ensure the mission is successful than massive clusters for N-1 style “redundancy”; the fact that the most reliable rocket in use today only has one first-stage engine, supports this.

>>11103247
That artstyle looks autistic for sure.

>tfw we won't see New Armstrong for at least a decade with Blue Origins current pace

>>11104980
new armstrong will unironically beat the crew starship to the skies

>>11104993
I know, it will be glorious.

Mk1 is on the move https://youtu.be/2-BYd2b3thg

>>11105030
Well, just under half of it is...

>>11104666
Thanks for the info Satan.
Virgin 1G flab vs CHADstronaut lean gains
>Why yes, I do work out in microgravity, how could you tell?

>>11105091
>not taking the spin pill
Yikes

>>11103364
only if our first satellite is GIBSMESAT

>>11105030
i guess they are gonna test the plumbing and tanks. no static fire

>>11105113
>He doesn't want to be an eight foot longchad with rippling muscles and perfectly formed non-jelly bones.
One singular yiiike

>>11105091
Why not work out in MACROgravity? Everything weighs twice as much, twice the gainz.

>>11104675
Everyone in this reply chain should be permab&.

>>11105091
>>11105187
>not switching gravity during reps

Will we ever see NASA make a strong comeback?

>>11105240
no, the attitude within the government, and how it operates, has shifted too much for anything serious to get done competently anymore

>>11105240
8 ball says Not Likely

>>11104719
SLS was CONGRESSIONALLY mandated for NASA to build. Also notice the Boeing logo.

>>11105268
I wonder where the misconception that NASA gets a larger budget than it actually gets comes from. A common perception that spaceflight is incredibly expensive?

>>11105187
Based and DBZpilled

Puff the Magic Dragon will soon launch

>>11105288
It's an easy red herring for the military industrial complexu-chan
Just need a talking head to tell people it's NASA stopping them paying for their family's cancer treatment

>>11105288
Spend $34 billion on new F35s and nobody notices, spend $1.5 billion on a rover to explore Mars and suddenly everyone's a miser.
Maybe we just need to merge NASA and the military so they'll never have funding issues again. Space Shuttle door gunners when?

>>11105324
>Just need a talking head to tell people it's NASA stopping them paying for their family's cancer treatment
Oh fuck no. We don't need a new wave of anti-spaceflight in America.

Just to keep you in the loop, because I didn't see it while scrolling through this thread:
They've moved the lower section of starship to the launch site. I suppose for tanking test.

>>11105337
You need F-35s to defend your country though. You don't need a martian rover

>>11105357
Off topic, but we definitely don't need trannies in the military either.

>>11105374
Yes, yes, they're rent free, we know

>>11105337
To the average person, it's easier to imagine the benefits of a new jet fighter than a probe on some planet that they've never seen. So it creates this idea that the probe was somehow more "wasteful" than the fighter. Also, there's a general disinterest in spaceflight so it's seen as extraneous.

>>11105357
Compromise: VTOL capability and air-to-air missiles fitted to next Mars rover.

>>11104888
that should be the 18m starship, do this one thick but beliavable

>>11105357
only thing you need to defend your country is a fleet of SSBNs, strike fighters are for power projection

which might be worth the cost or whatever, global hegemony is kind of nice, but you have to argue it honestly

>>11105374
who else are they supposed to fuck out there? women? eeew.

>>11105268
Irrelevant. Total Apollo project cost was ~$25 billion. That includes every rocket research/failures/all the vehicles/administration costs/maintenance/etc. Completed from scratch in 13 years.

SLS itself has already taken that much and they're simply reattaching old already made engines/parts with 0 new research. SLS rockets itself will costs ~$1-$2 per vehicle then another $200-$500M for yearly maintenance/readiness cost and so on.

Pics related. Apollo cost.

>>11105419
>Total Apollo project cost was ~$25 billion.

>Cost: $25.4 billion (1973) $153 billion (2018)

Umm dude, inflation is a thing....

>>11105382
I want to fucking break the spine of whatever mouthbreathing moron made that image.

The lower half of Starship MK1 is being moved to the launch pad https://youtu.be/S73cpO35D-4

>>11105436
Yeah and SLS cost doesn't include any of the engines, lander modules, moon vehicles, 50 years of research, of etc.

If we include SLS's true cost, it would be well over $500 billion dollar. SLS is Apollo + Space Shuttle research/engine + decades of funding.

>>11105446
It's like watching a Falcon9 launch with some NPCs and being asked "what planet are those astronauts gonna go to?"

>>11105113
https://youtu.be/gzynkaHuHwY

>tfw ywn bench press while looking out the ISS cupola towards earth

>>11105449
>SLS is Apollo + Space Shuttle research/engine + decades of funding.
Might as well say Apollo was all the costs of the program itself and 100s of years of all the science and engineering r&d that was ever relevant to technologies used in the program. Might as well throw in the costs of all the public roads and whatnot that were made use off too.

>>11105449
>if we include SLS's true cost,
thats always struck me as a lazy way of thinking
we dont apply that thought process to anything else made, not to cars or airplanes.

its like saying if we include the honda civics true cost, it would well over $500billion in car and engine research and decades of auto mobile subsidies. thats how dumb that line of argumentation sounds to me.

>>11105446
Reported for racism.

>>11105473
morons come in every color and size

truly we are flooded with options, market glut going on here

>>11103235
tfw this exact design has been made and works though they are rather impractical beyond being a diving bell or for lake use

>>11105472
at least honda could get at least one civic on the road for 500 billion

>>11105449
>$500B
Nice made-up numbers ya got there, anon.

>>11105382
>>11105446
I take it they think the $100 billion in cash was launched into space and not just some hunks of near useless metal in the form of rockets and payload. I mean it isn't like that $100 billion isn't going to pay people on the planet where it trickles down to blue collar people near instantly in the form of wages and general economy minutia. Then again poor peoples' mentality usually isn't all that great in the first place.

>>11105483
>moron market
>"Ah yes, I would like a medium-rare antivaxxer and a side of Electric Universe proponent."

Are there still people who unironically defend SLS as anything but a unbelievably inefficient program with regards to time, money and engineering resources?

>>11105449
>SLS is Apollo + Space Shuttle research/engine + decades of funding.
Let's lump in the Interstate system for that matter since all the factories rely on truck deliveries. Oh, and the transcontinental railroad, since I'm sure some of the parts went by train. And the US Military, since there wouldn't be a country to build the SLS without it. And the police force since...

>>11105499
it's extremely efficient at turning tax dollars into Boeing shareholder dollars with the side effect of creating a bunch of lower middle class jobs

so, 100% success at its actual design goal. if it has the side benefit of launching people to space that'll be a nice bonus but don't count on it

>>11105492
>>11105472
>>11105501
No need to be a retard. SLS uses Shuttle Engine, Shuttle Boosters and Shuttle Core. It uses decades of experience NASA got from Apollo rocket engineering. Apollo had to start from scratch as we had nothing like it before. SLS cost doesn't include Artemis stage. It doesn't include a lunar lander stage. SLS cost doesn't include ~30+ flights Apollo did including multiple manned lunar landings.

SLS's true cost will cost more than Apollo, thats a conservative estimate.

>>11105436
That isn't fair either. You should only include the spending up until Apollo 11. We don't know if there's going to be other Artemis missions after this one.

>>11105517
You could probably stack all the money that went in to the SLS and go higher then the SLS has flown so far.

>>11105519
lumping constellation costs into sls is basically fair because they're really the same program, but shuttle goes a bit far, shuttle would have happened anyway, they weren't thinking of sls when they did shuttle

it's like including the cost of CL-400 in with Saturn because that's the program where they learned how to handle liquid hydrogen, it only makes sense if you don't think about it for more than a second

>>11105522
a space elevator made of dollar bills

>>11105499
Memes and shittalking aside, I support the SLS as a backup super heavy lift vehicle if by some freak set of unfortunate events knocks both SpaceX and Blue Origin out. It's guaranteed that the SLS will get a couple of launches if nothing else but to convince the public to vote for Senators who support the project, so might as well try to get some uses out of it. However, whatever happens, its still a shit project.

>>11105449
Based bangladeshi tesla customer

>>11105529
Basically agreed. I just shake my head at some of the wasteful mega space projects. I dream of what other space related things could have been done with all that wasted money. But better to have these projects than nothing I guess.

>If we include SLS's true cost, it would be well over $500 billion dollar. SLS is Apollo + Space Shuttle research/engine + decades of funding.

>MUH EXPENSIVE ROCKET
its not your money retard

>>11105529
If SpaceX and Blue Origin both somehow managed to go under, it would still be more efficient to bail both of them out than fly a single SLS.

>>11105537
Yes, it literally is.

>>11105537
i'm used to a better standard of bait.

>>11105537
I mean it is, but the amount of tax dollars that fund SLS pales in comparison to some of the stupid shit the US government spends money on.

>>11105537
Correct! Its the money of the AMERICAN people to build an AMERICAN rocket to send AMERICANS to the moon. The SLS (pbui) belongs to all AMERICANS due to how it is built all across the country. Know someone who's a professional engineer? Chances are that he or she has worked on SLS (pbui).

Can SpaceX, a CHEAP and FOREIGN company, say the same with its lean and tightly controlled production line? I thought not. That company hoards its achievements away from AMERICANS while the SLS (pbui) blesses everyone with its incredible power.

>>11105545
1. the number of musk cocksuckers kvetching about SLS billions who are actually taxpayers is not that high
2. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the endless trillions spent defending Israel, twisted government programs, etc.
3. reusable rockets are not that much of an extra benefit past low earth orbit. SLS is not for LEO. "Reusability" is also still in its infancy and is a bit of a misnomer. (especially as far as starship is concerned atm) To do its job it can be expendable. Maybe it would be nice to recover the engines and avionics but even then it's no big deal.
4. the issue with SLS is not the cost but the swamp of government and industry that has delayed it and made it less effective than it could be. They could be pumped out half a dozen cores a year for the same cost with no Boeing bullshit and people would still shit on it.
5. Until a crewed starship flies into deep space, refuels, lands on multiple other bodies without exploding SLS will be needed.

>>11105569
Wow, an intelligent post...what a rare sight.

>>11105569
retard

>>11105569
>don't talk about SLS cost. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>11105472
>>11105469
That anon was being a retard, buuuuut...
SLS still represents decades of shit spent specifically on making The Rocket After Shuttle, with not one launch yet to show for it. The public roads and other shit were not made specifically for TRAS.
On top of that is the opportunity costs of not having the rocket ready, such as all the Soyuz seats NASA has paid for since Shuttle ended (also the cost of Roscosmos getting fat and lazy for so long thanks to that free money), all the missions not done, all the things waiting to be launched that Congress has been requiring to fly on SLS, etc.

>>11105569
>2. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the endless trillions spent defending Israel, twisted government programs, etc.

Wrong comparison. It is a large amount of money compared to spaceflight funding. That is the relevant comparison. SLS is wasting precious funds which could be utilized much more efficiently to actually achieve something.

>3. reusable rockets are not that much of an extra benefit past low earth orbit

They are with refueling.

>5. Until a crewed starship flies into deep space, refuels, lands on multiple other bodies without exploding SLS will be needed.

Utter bullshit. Even if Starship fails, SLS is obsolete. Reusable lower stages are proven right now. Any deep space architecture not using reusable rocket stages and orbital refueling is just a scam on taxpayers.

>>11105569
>reusable rockets are not that much of an extra benefit past low earth orbit
They allow for a reduction in the cost to access space which has direct benefits to spaceflight beyond LEO.

>"Reusability" is also still in its infancy
Yes, but that's not a valid reason to not consider it. Every technology thats used today was in their infancy.

>and is a bit of a misnomer. (especially as far as starship is concerned atm) To do its job it can be expendable
No. Starship (or any upper stage) can be used for more stuff beyond LEO if refueled. This isn't a SpaceX only idea, Blue Origin and ULA are looking into this because the benefits of orbital refueling are great.

>Maybe it would be nice to recover the engines and avionics but even then it's no big deal
Thats one set of engines and avionics that a company doesn't have to spend money on building a new set. That's one set of engines and avionics that can be used quickly for the next flight instead of having to wait for the next set to be built.

Reusable rockets are the way of the future for spaceflight. Expendable rockets have the edge in performance at a given size, but their expense and lower overall flight rate puts a severe capability cap on any spaceflight endeavour greater than sending some probes or a flag to another body.

>>11105569
I like my shelbyposting more blatant than this

>>11105569
>3. reusable rockets are not that much of an extra benefit past low earth orbit.
Confirmed for retard. I guess I don't need to read the rest.

>>11105569
Troll post I hope. I sure hope you guys don't do this for real.

>>11105590
>2
Well, no. It's not like money is being wasted where it could be spent elsewhere. The reason why it's so expensive is because Congress is bought and paid for by industry and other interests. NASA projects will remain expensive until that changes. I'm assuming your suggestion is to defund SLS and fill spaceX's coffers instead? That isn't benefiting spaceflight. Especially if spacex is amazing as people claim, they don't need no congress bucks.

Apparently week long (to start with) stays, 4 EVAs, driving around frozen craters on the south pole of the moon isn't achieving anything. I wonder what counts as an achievement then.

>3
refuelling a vehicle as big as starship is still a powerpoint slide right now. SLS is about to fill a need and until starship or some other vehicle can show how to do it better than it will be needed.

>5
Re-usable Falcon boosters are proven. That's it.

SLS is quite low on the list of taxpayers getting gypped out of their wages as I said. SLS will be obsolete when it's obsolete. Without a green run it would be at the moon in a few months. No other rocket that is close to launch compares in yeetage terms.

Also being ignored that compared to NASA and other groups, spacex has practically zero real experience with crewed spaceflight. For a vehicle as large as starship is proposed to be, the challenges just getting to Orion tier are being vastly underestimated, even by Musk himself apparently. Starship has to be able to outperform sls and orion to render them "obsolete" and that is years away. And before anyone mentions Crew Dragon, that is a LEO taxi and not even lunar capable really, and is in danger of getting BTFO by starliner, which is ironic given its manufacturer.

>>11105569
>1. the number of musk cocksuckers kvetching about SLS billions who are actually taxpayers is not that high
do you know anyone who doesnt eat? fox is heavily and automatically taxed, if you buy any kind of food ever you are a taxpayer, and a heavy one, most of it comes from that

>>11105357
Strictly speaking we could do without them, they're a cool plane and the new technologies developed for them can be useful in other military fields and outside of the military too, but their primary value is returns that will come from foisting them onto our allies as a (relatively) cheap modern replacement for older multirole platforms.

>>11105653
>I'm assuming your suggestion is to defund SLS and fill spaceX's coffers instead? That isn't benefiting spaceflight. Especially if spacex is amazing as people claim, they don't need no congress bucks.

It is benefiting spaceflight very much, contrary to SLS. Also, are you stupid? Do you realize that spaceflight in general is unprofitable except maybe for some subsidized comm sats? SpaceX is no less amazing just because it needs public funding.

>Apparently week long (to start with) stays, 4 EVAs, driving around frozen craters on the south pole of the moon isn't achieving anything. I wonder what counts as an achievement then.

An actual Moon base and a flag on Mars, for example. Even if SLS succeeds, and that is a big if, all we will get is a poor rehash of Apollo. Same funding utilized more efficiently would be capable of so much more.

>refuelling a vehicle as big as starship is still a powerpoint slide right now

You should ask, why isn't NASA developing this capability then? With comparable funding levels as SLS? God knows that ULA was proposing orbital refueling for more than a decade. The answer is political corruption.

Again, even if Starship fails, SLS is already long obsolete. Disregard Starship, and it is still true that any deep space architecture without reusable first stages and orbital refueling is a scam on taxpayers. This is true for years as of now, independent of how Starship ends up.

>>11105592
Yes. Looking into it. I've got no doubt it will be achieved eventually but orbital refuelling is still a concept, while the first SLS has already been basically completed, after being in development since before landing a booster was really on the agenda.

I also agree about reusability. But until reusable (multiple flights a month) super heavy lift rockets are lifting off then SLS will be required. It also doesn't really apply with the SLS either as they are cannibalising Shuttle engines. If people accepted that all of the new developments won't be fully realised until the mid 2020s then there wouldn't be much to argue over here.

Now, I have to go dock and refuel with my target vehicle, so good night, bless the RS-25.

>>11105673
Last post
>poor rehash of Apollo
I don't think you are reading. Artemis 3 blows Apollo 17 out of the water.
>a big if
We've been over this, it's a point of criticism for sls even. There's no new tech in the rocket. It's proven and they're even doing a green run for an unmanned flight before artemis 2. Starship is a way bigger if than SLS.

Moon base is also integrated into later Artemis missions.

The other points, you're just restating what you said before and ignoring my response. Peace out. Big ups Orion.

>>11105678
>bless the RS-25.

OUR ENGINES WHO ART IN MICHOUD, HALLOWED BE THEIR NAME...

>>11105678
>I also agree about reusability. But until reusable (multiple flights a month) super heavy lift rockets are lifting off then SLS will be required.
The criticism of SLS here is that Starship will fly not long after SLS does. Which in a way isn't fair, because SLS has been in development so long they couldn't possibly have anticipated this, but OTOH spending decades developing a project that becomes obsolete soon after completion is worth criticizing.

>>11105687
>2. Starship is a way bigger if than SLS.

Starship second stage reuse maybe, that is the only possible question mark. The rest is just a scale-up of what Falcon 9 is already doing and some orbital reufeling (routinely done on the ISS) on top. There is no technical showstopper AT ALL.

Your response is irrelevant because you have yet to come up with any real reason why SLS is not long obsolete, regardless of whether Starship achieves second stage reuse.

>>11105678
>But until reusable (multiple flights a month) super heavy lift rockets are lifting off then SLS will be required.
Required to do what? They literally don't have the manufacturing capacity to make more than two of them a year.

A good comparison to SLS would be SMS Blücher, the greatest armored cruiser ever built. But unknown to the Germans, the British were building ships that far outclassed it in every way. Being the best armored cruiser in a world of battlecruisers isn't an achievement, it's a statement of weakness.

OH SAY

>>11105569
Senator Shelby, it's an honor you paid us a visit

>>11105839
Mega based.

Imagine if Starship works like it's supposed to, holy shit, there is no industry that isn't effected, and half a dozen that are completely upended

A shot from when the Mark 1's tankage section was in transit by Labpadre

oh shit. it looks like this thing will actually fly by the end of november

>>11105678
True as long as it's still not super embarrassing to think SLS will still launch before for Starship Launch System. How long will that last?

>>11105592
>Thats one set of engines and avionics that a company doesn't have to spend money on building a new set. That's one set of engines and avionics that can be used quickly for the next flight instead of having to wait for the next set to be built.
>Reusable rockets are the way of the future for spaceflight. Expendable rockets have the edge in performance at a given size, but their expense and lower overall flight rate puts a severe capability cap on any spaceflight endeavour greater than sending some probes or a flag to another body.

I do wonder whether the production cost could ever be brought so low that reusability is pointless. Avionics for example seems like a great candidate: think about how the cost of tech just keeps plummeting, Moore's law notwithstanding

>>11106070
>actually thinking Starship will launch in a useful form before SLS
spacex fans are deluded

>>11105704
Yeah, if you think that's gonna be SIMPLE, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>11106118
>I do wonder whether the production cost could ever be brought so low that reusability is pointless.

I would say no. People roll their eyes at this comparison, but I do think musks comparison of how expensive it would be to fly if airliners were expendable after one flight is mostly on point. In coming years reusability will cause 10-100 faster reduction in the cost of spaceflight then any cost savings from being able to make components cheaper. That's my prediction at least.

>>11106118
I think that would only be the case for a rocket that's mostly propelled by solid propellants as motors using those are simple enough to easily mass produce for cost reduction. I doubt that this will be the case for liquid propellant rockets as the machinery required is pretty complex and expensive compared to a solid propellant motor. Stuff like 3D printing or better materials may bring the cost down, but not enough to justify expendables over reusables unless the launch rate is so low that reusable rockets dont get the economic advantage over expendables.

>>11105493
Launching $100bn to the surface of Mars and saying finders keepers for the first manned mission would be a pretty good way to get things started desu

>>11106130
I expect SLS will launch about 2-3 years before starship. But I really wouldn't rule out Starship launching first. I give it maybe 20% odds. I certainly expect SLS is due another 1 or two significant delays at least.

>Shuttle, the first reusable spacecraft is built
>promises to revolutionize spaceflight through ridiculously low launch prices
>proves to be technically impressive but financially impractical

>Falcon 9, the first reusable booster is built
>Returns prove disappointing, nowhere near reaching the 10x reuse with no refurbishment promised
>does not reduce Falcon flight costs
>second stage reusability abandoned

>Starship, a fully reusable spacecraft is proposed
>promises to revolutionize spaceflight through ridiculously low launch prices

Surely it'll work this time.

>>11106143
>but I do think musks comparison of how expensive it would be to fly if airliners were expendable after one flight is mostly on point.
Airliners take nowhere near the amount of abuse and wear a rocket does. Musk's comparison is like saying that it's economical to operate a 737, it must also be economical to operate an SR-71.

>>11106162
Forgot a "since."

>>11106157
>does not reduce Falcon flight costs
source? I would suspect SpaceX are saving a fair chunk of change on Falcon 9 flights, but why would they pass these savings onto customers when they are selling all the flights they can make? Falcon 9 seems to be a pretty big success unless there's some reason I should think otherwise?

>>11106066
He'll probably refine those front fins when the parts get there, because those fins were clearly slapped on in a rush job.

>>11106162
Yes, I wouldn't expect the rockets to refly as easily as a 747 does. But I certainly expect it will be possible to fly 10 times with minimal refurbishment with mature enough engineering and maybe 100 times in their lifetime. I just don't see why it wouldn't be that way.

>>11106181
I imagine that since this ship is planned to be fully reused, they probably will just repair the ships after like 20 uses and keep using them. Stainless steel is quite sturdy, after all.

>>11106143
>>11106145
What about simplifying the rocket and accepting the loss in payload in exchange for a big reduction in cost? Just a big crude liquid fuelled rocket with very cheap/simple engine and a skin of compressed cardboard like a Trabant or something.

>>11106189
>What about simplifying the rocket and accepting the loss in payload in exchange for a big reduction in cost?
I simply expect the cost benefit would never ever be worth the cost of having to rebuild the entire rocket each time. The Falcon 9 is cheaper to make than most expensable rockets after all and still has re-usability. I think adding re-usability to a rocket state will only become cheaper as time goes on. Removing it will not be some huge cash saver.

>>11106187
Honest question here: How many times were the Shuttle SRB casings used? Those were stainless steel as well, and I'm fairly certain they still suffered pretty significant wear each flight, even disregarding the dunk in the ocean they got.

>>11106157
The difference is, Shuttle was the most expensive launch vehicle ever, Falcon is the least expensive per kg to LEO. And first stage reusability is a factor in this.

>>11106170
Even for the relatively modest amounts of money they've poured into reusing the boosters, there's no way they've made it back yet. The financials just don't add up.

>>11106204
Ariane is expendable and has a similar price per-satellite. When you factor in the development costs of reusability, it's hard to see how it's financially worth it.
SpaceX has already sunk the costs of making the Falcon family reusable, so there's no reason to stop, but I guarantee you they haven't made their money back yet.

>>11106205
>The financials just don't add up.
How do you work that out?

What do you expect their return on each launch is?

>>11106205
Most of that cost is just development cost of $1 billion for reuse. Reuse is definitely cheaper in actual operation, tough. Financials do add up for that.

>>11106213
>Ariane is expendable and has a similar price per-satellite.

Only for dual launch to GTO.

>>11106213
>Ariane is expendable and has a similar price per-satellite. When you factor in the development costs of reusability, it's hard to see how it's financially worth it.
This is a rather naive thing to say. If SpaceX were saving a lot of money via reusability, they wouldn't be passing that onto the customer with massive cost savings. They'd be charging the highest amount they could for the highest launch rate they could manage. SpaceX could in principle be making 60% profit on reusable flights and we wouldn't know.

>>11106217
The launch business is high-revenue, low-profit. I'd guess they'd be making about $10M to $20M per launch once all the costs are considered.

>>11106229
How do you know SpaceX is making low profit?

Why would SpaceX lower their prices if they were saving 99% on launch costs with reusability?

>>11106213
F9 cost pennies to develop by rocketry standards and I guarantee that was made back a long time ago. Reuse being too expensive to develop has no basis in reality. Perhaps your typical oldspace company is incapable of pursuing it with a realistic budget, but that is an argument against oldspace, not reuse.

Shotwell says that a F9 launch costs more than 60 starlink sats fyi

So how high is the next mark for MK1?
And are they going to land at the same spot again?

>>11106242
So your argument assumes that literally everyone else in the industry are idiots incapable of doing anything to prop up your "space messiah" narrative. Yeah. Okay.

>>11106250
Imagine being this insecure lmao. Are you european?

>>11106235
Because they'd get a lot more business? Literally capitalism 101.
Besides, I thought the whole appeal of the "reusability is the future" narrative is the idea that you'll be able to book your own launch one day. If your argument was true and all it did was give a single LSP insane profit margins, I fail to see the appeal.

>>11106252
Talk about projection.

>>11106242
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/03/31/spacex-flies-rocket-for-second-time-in-historic-test-of-cost-cutting-technology/

F9 reusability cost at least $1 billion to develop according to Musk. It is tiny for such a potentially groundbreaking tech, but it is also true that they probably haven't yet made it all back. Mostly due to low launch rate in the industry as a whole.

>>11106250
>So your argument assumes that literally everyone else in the industry are idiots incapable of doing anything to prop up your "space messiah" narrative. Yeah. Okay.
I more or less 100% think this is true more or less. Old space companies generally have a lot of extremely talented engineers, but are run by cynical businessmen with deep government connections, which is the only way these companies survive in such a high risk, capital intensive, low return industry. They are not run by people who want to make rockets, they are run by people who want to make money. SpaceX is not great because Elon is some kind of messiah, he's just a guy capable of running a genuinely good engineering company who also happened to have enough money to bootstrap it, and was crazy and stupid enough to actually risk his fortune on it.

Hopefully Blue Origin proves to be just as good.

>>11106243
That would still just be around 30 million dollars, seeing as each Starlink satellite is around 500k.

All the information we have indicates that SpaceX is profitable. They couldn't have gotten this far if they were still bleeding money, there comes a point when even idiots must admit that reusability is inherently cheaper in spaceflight.

>>11106255
>Because they'd get a lot more business?
No they wouldn't because they are already selling all the rockets they can make. If they had an easy may to x10 increase production I would agree with you, but they don't. Any price reduction now would not increase sales and would simply be a direct reduction in profit.

>>11106266
now with the fairing catcher twins, that's another few mil saved as well. I think the two fairing halves cost 6 mil, or 10% of the total cost according to some Elon statement.

>>11106266
>Starlink satellite is around 500k
Source? By my maths that means a 30000 Starlink constellation would cost $15000 million dollars. That's a lot of dollars

>>11106250
>So your argument assumes that literally everyone else in the industry are idiots

well, after half a century of regression and stagnation in spaceflight, one can very well make such argument

spaceflight is a uniquely incompetent industry, probably because of it's origins and strong ties as an unprofitable, governmental activity, where gross incompetence, idiocy and corruption is rampant and runs unchecked

>>11106282
you gotta replace all of em every 5 years too

>>11106250
It's known that "oldspace" development can be pretty inefficient. An example would be NASA's SSTO program (the one that the X-33 came from). The most expensive and ambitious proposal was chosen. Whole new technologies had to be developed. NASA management complained that it was using aluminum tanks insead of composite tanks (what was originally proposed) despite the fact that not only the project had difficulties with the composite tanks (it wasn't going to fly with the composites) AND the aluminum tanks were better in every measureable way. NASA forced the use of composite tanks, the project floundered because the tanks won't work, and NASA canceled the program citing that the project was encountering technical challenges that couldn't be solved. Wasting millions.

>>11106282
$15 billion. It's a lot. But not super crazy for a global broadband network.

>>11106266
>All the information we have indicates that SpaceX is profitable. They couldn't have gotten this far if they were still bleeding money

SpaceX were likely profitable last year and the year before, but considering how few commercial launches they’ve done this year I’m pretty sure their launch profits are in the red. Unlike ULA, SpaceX’s contracts don’t pay enough to allow them to do only a handful of launches a year and still turn a profit. That’s why they’ve done several massive capital raises this year, to offset this and allow Starship/link R&D to continue.

>>11106287
>>11106291
Shit that's more than I expected. Time for SpaceX to build their own fab

>>11106297
*currently in the red

>>11106297
details on these massive capital raises?

>>11106282
I thought Shotwell mentioned it recently but I can't find the quote.

"Musk said in May that "the cost of launch per satellite is already more than the cost of the satellite," hinting mass-manufacturing costs are projected be in the realm of hundreds of thousands of dollars per satellite (not $1 million)."
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starlink-internet-satellites-starship-rocket-launch-costs-morgan-stanley-2019-10

>>11106309
500k would be "hundreds of thousands of dollars per satellite"

>>11106309
also https://mobile.twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1187748549313941507

>>11106262
Yeah that's my bad actually, I went off of V1 developmental costs, full reusability was farther down the line after accruing more incremental development. Still ultimately pretty cheap considering full reusability came in at a fourth the developmental cost NASA estimated it would have taken them to produce even V1.

>>11106282
you only need 30,000 satellites when there's a shitload of subscribers, so they'll pay for it, it'll be fine

initial operating capability is like 1,500 satellites

>>11104426
SSTOs are complicated and have shitty payload ratios.
A 2-stage reusable like Starship+SuperHeavy is way better.

>>11104426
>The video Musk doesn't want you too see.
Nonsense. Elon loves memes.

>>11106306
https://spacenews.com/spacex-raises-over-1-billion-through-two-funding-rounds/

>>11106328
Neat

>>11106288
There's a big difference between "a lot of stuff in Aerospace is done inefficiently" and "everyone but my favorite company are mouthbreathing idiots"

>>11106317
OK so that's $750m in satellites. Bit more sensible. Surely they'll manage to squeeze out some efficiencies over time and reduce satellite costs

>>11106337
The latter is just a sarcastic zoomer way of saying the former.

>>11106337
From what I gather, you were the one who stated that all companies that can't competitively produce reusable rockets are made up of mouthbreathing idiots.

>>11106282
"In a perfect scenario, the only material cost of Starlink launches should be the satellites themselves and each expendable Falcon upper stage, which SpaceX has no plans to recover. Speaking prior to Starlink’s 60-satellite “v0.9” launch debut, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk stated that each prototype spacecraft ended up costing more to launch than to build, despite the fact that their first launch flew on a twice-flown Falcon 9 booster.

In fewer words, Musk thus implied that each Starlink satellite likely already costs significantly less than $500,000 even before SpaceX has begun to reap the full benefits of economies of scale. In fact, based on official 2016 figures that estimated the cost of each BFR booster/ship at less than $4M and Musk’s estimate that Starship could cut Starlink launch costs by a factor of 5, the cost of Starlink v0.9 production could have actually been as low as ~$350,000 apiece, with launch costs on the order of ~$20M."

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-president-teases-starship-starlink-capabilities/

Anyone know what the current state of Falcon 9 is now? I gather the long term plan is to replace it with Starship. With that in mind, are they still ramping up Falcon 9 production?

>>11106337
True, but for the longest time NASA was the space agency/organization (at least in the US). Any major development in aerospace had to be lead by them due to no one else really having the ability to do so without significant government support. This means that if NASA had problems then American aerospace has problems, and NASA has loads of problems. SpaceX (along with other newspace companies like Blue Origin and Rocket Labs), while do depend on NASA support in some way, have a level of independence from NASA so they won't get bogged down by those problems. This allows them (and again the other newspace companies too) to persue development of technologies that NASA doesn't want to or can't persue. Reusability falls under this as NASA was locked into using the Shuttle, a terrible vehicle for reuse, and was unable to develop a better replacement until it became politically unpopular to have the Shuttle. The retirement of the Shuttle, and the rise of newspace are relatively recent developments in spaceflight so it's understandable that reuse wasn't developed properly until recently.

>>11106356
nope. In fact some mfg on F9 has been terminated

>>11106157
>Returns prove disappointing, nowhere near reaching the 10x reuse with no refurbishment promised
Are you dense?
Block 5 has only been flying for a year and a half and they're still trying to get a fleet of them established. There just hasn't been enough opportunity to prove the reusability yet. Especially since they still want to make sure that things are still working after each new reflight to make sure that this is all working as they expect.
Apart from that, the claim is even more ridiculous considering there's literally not enough payloads right now to keep up with their supply because of reusability(and let me remind you, they're already dominating the commercial launch market). So now they have so much rockets lying around unused, wasting money, they're switching over to launching their own sats in bulk, which promisses a whole different revolution all in and off itself.
"Returns prove disappointing"... fucking retard.

>>11106367
>mfg
?

>>11106356
Mostly for Starlink missions, which in turn are meant to form the financial backbone for Starship development.

>>11106371
manufacturing

>>11106375
source on terminations?

>>11106379
spacex fired like 8% of their workforce not too long ago; lots were for manufacturing

Estimated Starship cost per launch:
5 million which would be 375 million for 75 launches with 400 satellites onboard.
Starlink cost per satellite:
350k, assuming economies of scale.

Total cost of launching 30,000 satellites:
10.8 billion but most of it wouldn't be needed up front and would be mostly paid for by their initial customers.

>>11106358
>>11106369
Ironically, the Falcon 9 has a longer turnaround time between ‘reuses’ than the Shuttle did. The quickest F9 booster turnaround so far is 2 months and 11 days, whilst the quickest Shuttle turnaround between launches was 54 days.

>>11106392
They'd have no problem whatsoever finding that 10b from investors as soon as seemed reasonably likely the whole system would be profitable.

>>11106397
>whilst the quickest Shuttle turnaround between launches was 54 days.
Which missions was that?

>>11106397
>The quickest F9 booster turnaround so far is 2 months and 11 days
This is not neccessarily a maximum.
>whilst the quickest Shuttle turnaround between launches was 54 days.
Was that pre-challenger?
Either way, less interesting is total time taken and more interesting is manhours invested and money needed for replacement parts.
For all this tells us SpaceX could use one guy with a UV light to check the booster while Nasa might‘ve had dozens of people in its engineering crews rebuilding half the vehicle.

>>11106146
lol Yeah, that is a pretty neat idea, but the same thing is already on many near earth asteroids and you don't see anyone racing to get that:

https://www.asterank.com/3d/

>>11106397
I wonder how much manpower it took to turn around the shuttle in 54 days? I'll bet it wasn't cheap

>>11106416
Yeah, but it was rapid reusability ;)

>>11106432
Was it effective reusability?

>>11106399
I suspect they could probably raise tens of billions tomorrow if they wanted to. Imagine the prestige for rich folks of bring able to brag about owning a chunk of the hottest space launch company in the world, and think about the fact there's so much money swilling around looking for a home that some central banks have negative interest rates to encourage spending.

>>11106435
There's a lot of rich kids around, but not a lot that have literally billions in disposable income.

>>11106414
It's the Keynesian approach to conquering the stars

>>11106438
Arabs, private equity. Sometimes they deliberately invest to make a loss fgs

>>11105091
>>11105113
>>11105187
>>11105209
>zero G for cardio
>3G for gains
1G fags will never compete

>>11105240
Nasa was 11 years old and run by Nazis when it landed man on the moon. It has lost its youth and its Nazis. The closest we have today is Spacex with Von Musk

>>11106468
"run by nazis" is a grossly inaccurate summary of the reality of NASA.

>>11106309
>https://mobile.twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1187747359452729346
>https://mobile.twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1187748482309906432
>Morgan Stanley estimated this week how much it would cost to deploy our satellites "and they were wayyyyyyyy off."
>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.
The assumption Shotwell is going for is it will be much cheaper than 1M per satellite. I suspect, it will be close to $100K-$200K per satellite.