/sci/ - Science & Math

I'll just repost my question...

Is it possible and practical to make a combustion chamber, throat, and nozzle assembly out of alumina for a small engine if the combustion temperatures were kept below the material's melting point? Is it cost competitive compared to graphite?

>>11115869
Alumina is basically sapphire, we can grow big billets of it fairly easily so it's not impossible to get, but it'd make a pretty shit combustion chamber because it's brittle and basically impossible to machine.
Also your picture doesn't look like alumina, it looks like alumina mixed intimately with aluminum metal, aka it's the skim slag off of a hobbyist's soda can melting autism project

>>11115895
>but it'd make a pretty shit combustion chamber because it's brittle and basically impossible to machine.
I'd figure that there's some issue with some material property. I was looking for a cheaper replacement for graphite as a material that's highly resistant to hot gases (essentially an incredibly slow ablator). I think Armadillo Aerospace used that on their Super Mod rocket.

>Also your picture doesn't look like alumina, it looks like alumina mixed intimately with aluminum metal, aka it's the skim slag off of a hobbyist's soda can melting autism project
That's exactly what it is. It's the first image of alumina on Wikipedia.

Habbening lads

>>11115961
Despite all of it's problems. The launch of this thing is going to be glorious. NASA better be on top of their live-streaming game for this one.

>>11115961
Kek how long has it taken them to do two engines? SpaceX slams in engines fucking overnight.

>>11115968
takes about 6 days per engine

>>11116114
inb4 another safety check needs to be done, leading to 24 days of taking engines off, a three month review process, and the eventual implementation of a new mating procedure that takes 10 days apiece

>>11116137
UHHHHHH FUDPOSTING!!!!111111111111

Daily reminder that the Senate amended the House appropriations bill to include Artemis funding.
We're now waiting to see what happens in committee.

Starship de geso

>>11115965
Imagine if it RUDs 50 feet up.

>>11116225
Based squid poster

So we had an anon get this starship grill from /a/ the other day. Thinking I might take it back there and see if we can get some improvements, I like the basic design but I think we could

>Shorten hair to above shoulders to resemble canards
>Have grid fins hanging off her belt
>Reduce breast and hip size a little
>Have a big SpaceX print down one leg

Any anons have any suggestions to add?

>>11116333
Here is the Falcon 9 grill for reference

https://spacenews.com/spacex-trumpets-progress-on-commercial-crew-parachute-testing/

This SpaceNews article shines a light on why the touted Mk3 parachute tests probably don’t actually count towards Bridenstine’s 10 successful tests requirement.

>A SpaceX spokesperson said Nov. 3 that test in the video took place Oct. 31. It was the first time that the company tested three Mark 3 parachutes simultaneously, with the previous 12 successful tests each involving a single parachute.

I’m assuming Jim wants 10 successful parachute tests using all 4 chutes, to fully simulate the Crew Dragon’s parachute characteristics.

>>11116380
Parachute are fake and gay, they should just be propulsively landing now that they fixed the minor exploding capsule issue.

>>11116333
Why not make her a robogirl like pic related?

>>11116388
Didn't they fix it in a way that makes it unreliable for propulsive landings? Burst discs can only burst once.

>>11116388
But propulsive landing is a NEW THING anon, and Nasa don't like NEW THINGS in manned missions.

>>11116580
They fixed it that way because Nasa canned the idea because MUH, so why bother to have capability for something that will never be used.

>>11116587
>>11116589
NASA never actually canned propulsive landing, they just told SpaceX they had to do a fuck load of testing on their own dime before NASA would be ok with it. SpaceX couldn't be bothered to jump through the extra hoops and decided to switch to parachutes.

>Nasa don't like NEW THINGS in manned missions

Not necessarily true, considering Starliner will be using air bags to land on land. Something which an American spacecraft has never done.

>>11116598
They did it on Mars tho

>>11116598
>SpaceX couldn't be bothered to jump through the extra hoops and decided to switch to parachutes.
...and a whole new spacecraft.
If they were going to have to pay for it, they might as well not do it on the generation of rockets that they had stopped major development of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NLQ4bO-f58
Starliner abort stream live

>>11116333
On the note of canards: Here's a handy guide

>>11116656
darn

>>11116656
wow, chat is even more cancer than usual

2 min to the test

>>11116666
nice digits

>>11116666
nice digits

>orange smoke
Is dat sum NTO leak?

>>11116656
Err, did I literally just click when it landed?

>>11116683
Now that was a good flight, seems like everything went as planned

>>11116690
Only two of the three main parachutes deployed, but the capsule survived. Yay for redundancy!

>>11116690
One chute failed

>>11116685
hyrdazine?

>>11116685
Ah, that was from the service module crashing. All of my NOPE.

>ParanormalDoctor I LOVE THE SMELL OF UDMH IN THE MORNING
kek

>>11116692
>>11116693
Oh wew, didn't notice
But yeah, good that there's redundancy then

>>11116656
so this is the power of modern camera work.

>>11116656
>those nitrogen tetroxide vapors
yikes, bro.

>>11116699
Especially with Dragon's recent parachute overhaul and testing, I wonder if we'll hear any more about that chute.

>>11116694
Hydrazine is colorless. You're looking at nitrogen tetroxide, which is arguably worse, because while it gives you cancer like hydrazine it also burns your flesh. Breathe a little hydrazine and you'll get very sick. Breathe a little nitrogen tetroxide and you're probably gonna drown in your own fluids from internal chemical burns and die.

>>11116708
is it a double standard if Starliner doesn't have to go ahead with more parachute testing after this parachute failure like Dragon 2 has had to?

>>11116708
Sounds like the NASA guy wasn't happy. Wonder how boeing will try to weasel out of that one.

>>11116717
Not really since Starliner's failure didn't result in the loss of the capsule unlike the failed Dragon 2 chute test.

>>11116717
>>11116736
>>11116743
There will likely be aninvestigation into this, but it will be relatively small compared to the Crew Dragon parachute failure investigation. Why?

1.) Because unlike the CD mass simulator, Starliner didn’t go splat which shows redundancy.

2.) The problem here seems to be centred around the separation mechanism and drogue chutes, not the properties of the main chutes (two of them performed admirably) unlike Crew Dragon.

>>11116736
He was a PR guy, so I doubt his tone is really indicative of anything behind the scenes.

/ourguy/

>>11116816
Yikes, cringe.

>>11116819
>yikes
>cringe
oof

>>11116822
>oof

>>11116685
could be dinitrogen tetroxide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinitrogen_tetroxide

>>11116816
yea, no.

>>11116695
Absolutely unacceptable that something so dangerous could be exposed to the astronauts and rescue crew. This is further proof that companies like SpaceX are not ready to take responsibility for sending humans into space. Furthermore I... wait, this wasn't SpaceX? This was old space? Nevermind then.

I'm sure if anyone gets killed from this shit they'll just pause the program for a year and publish an accident report that says: "Space is hard"

>>11116843
You do know that if a pad abort were to actually occur that the SM would just sink into the Atlantic Ocean? Which is why NASA are ok with it.

>>11116846
the fish though...

>>11116846
I did not.

>>11116843
>Space is hard
I know this gets joked about alot on /sfg/ but is that sentiment really that common?

>>11115961
basically the space shuttle engines mounted on a fuel tank
how's this more expensive than any other rocket?

>>11116875
NASA's recent video literally pushes the message "SPACE IS HARD" meme. Its a COPE reaction to the fact that SpaceX is turning the OldSpace upside down so they lobbied the congressmen to make NASA issue the statement. They'll put up barriers for SpaceX's Starship because success of Starship will show the whole world how fucked up the OldSpace has been.

>>11116875
Because space is actually hard. Yes, it’s a common view held by most people in the space industry. Every time something space-related fails (which happens often), somebody will say it as a verbal pat on the back.

Here’s the schizophrenic interpretation:>>11116879

>>11116879
I feel like this meme was running long before SpaceX. Seemed like something they pushed pretty damn hard after both shuttle disasters.

>This happened because SPACE IS HARD guys. Just ignore the massive systemic failings and the engineers that were basically begging us not to kill all those astronauts lelelel.

>>11116889
It was the same reasoning Lockheed Boeing used with their merger of ULA as a non-compete business strategy.

>>11116887
I understand that spaceflight is challenging, but it feels like there a defeatist attitude behind "space is hard". Which I don't like because it kills interest and motivation in spaceflight.

>>11116896
>it feels like there a defeatist attitude behind "space is hard".
You're not alone. I thought the message is awful for that very reason. We're at the cusp of space revolution and NASA is currently pushing this weird "lets not get our hopes up" bullshit.

>>11116899
>NASA is currently pushing this weird "lets not get our hopes up" bullshit.
TBF to NASA, considering thier usual trend of new ambitious projects after the Shuttle, that mindset is perfectly understandable.

>>11116894
No, the airforce forced Lockheed and Boeing to merge into ULA because they kept using underhanded tactics when competing against each other e.g. corporate sabotage.

>>11116899
>>11116904 is right, NASA knows a lot about failed spaceflight revolutions, let’s not count our revolutionary eggs before they hatch...

>>11116896
My main gripe with the term is its very VERY often used to cover up laziness, corruption and greed. When they say it in relation to the shuttle accidents it boils my blood, because sure space is hard, but both of those accidents were completely preventable, they just needed to actually listen to their own engineers and generally not behave like sociopaths who put no value on human life. There was nothing about those accidents that occured because space is hard, they both happened because of criminal negligence and there are people who should be in jail over it.

>>11116915
Was something like "space is hard" quoted for the Challenger incident? Because I'm pretty sure the common perception of that blames the management at the time.

>>11116911
The stuff after Apollo is failure mainly due to political/business climate. SpaceX wants to be independent and provide their own funding via commercial satellites. If they become so, it will mean a whole new paradigm. Blue Origin may have some other ambition, but I don't see it yet.

>>11116911
>No, the airforce forced Lockheed and Boeing to merge into ULA because they kept using underhanded tactics when competing against each other
Normal country:
>These companies are behaving anti-competitively and illegally. Let's fine them appropriately and prosecute responsible individuals.
USA apparently:
>These companies are behaving anti-competitively and illegally. Let's merge them together into a giant monopoly, so they don't they don't have to complete in the first place. Why no I don't see why people think there was corruption involved in this decision, why do you ask?

>>11116917
Yes, I hear it all the fucking time. Yes management were completely to blame, but I frequently hear it spun as some romantic sacrifice that brave and noble NASA made in their ambitious to further mans reach into space, and not a bunch of corrupt sociopathic managers approving a launch to go ahead even when senior engineers are begging them to delay it because the SRBs were not designed to operate in cold weather and will most likely explode on the launch pad.

>>11116917
Politics is making the two together to confuse the general public.

>>11116917
Your correct and “space is hard” has never been applied to human spaceflight disasters. Because human casualties are inexcusable for most...

>>11116877
Shuttle hardware is the most expensive space hardware ever built, that's why.
When they were building Shuttle they knew it was going to be expensive but they figured "with reusability we can spread the cost out over many launches so it doesn't really matter", but it didn't turn out that way in reality and basically for the trouble of making them reusable and refurbishing them between flight they could have gone with a much lower cost expendable engine and reduced per-launch costs, but I digress.
When they were deciding on a new launch vehicle to get heavy-lift capacity again all the lobbying went towards repackaging Shuttle hardware into an expendable launch vehicle; the first proposals for a launch vehicle that looked suspiciously like the current SLS were actually put forward before the first Shuttle launch even took place, funnily enough. Since then the idea has been kicked around and killed and resurrected multiple times during the entire Shuttle era until finally they decided they were gonna go ahead and do a Shuttle derived launch vehicle called Ares V, which was never actually built but the study work that went into it was directly carried over to the smaller SLS we all know today.
SLS was pitched to be cheap to build and fast to develop because "all the hardware already exists", but unfortunately reality is not Ksp and they had to basically redesign everything from scratch all over again.

>>11116926
Oh, and I should add that they brought in Richard Feynman to investigate the accident and try to figure out the cause. Apparently those who dealt with him tried to give him the impression they didn't already know what went wrong. The only reason the brought him in was to create the illusion that is was come complicated hard to predict issue that only a big brain physicist could figure out. They literally tried to mislead the public and congress about what they knew about the accident.

It somewhat backfired through as they tried to block Feynmans report as he basically called out NASA's culture at the time as being shit and an accident like this was just waiting to happen.

>>11116915
This. You know what else is 'Hard'? Running a nuclear power program with zero contamination events and zero disasters, yet the American Navy's nuclear submarine and nuclear ship program has ever ONCE suffered either of those issues in their entire history, going back decades. The reason why they haven't, despite literally being shot at in some cases, while stable ground-based reactors have suffered melt-downs? The military has better discipline than any civilian nuclear power reactor operators, pretty much. Literally a difference in attitude makes the difference between billion dollar cleanup efforts and never once leaking a single becquerel of radionuclide contamination into the environment.

>>11116950
>meanwhile im the soviet navy

>>11116692
NASA would probably want a reason on why their parachute test failed, update the model to account for this and 10 more parachute deployment back to back to confirm the physics/projection

>>11116936
cont.
So yeah, the core stage of SLS is NOT a Shuttle ET, it's not even similar from a structural point of view, because it carries the RS-25 engines in a group of 4 at the base rather than a group of three on an orbiter bolted up on the side of the tank. The boosters are NOT the same, because adding a 5th segment increases overall internal pressure an thrust enough that the entire thing needs to be redesigned. Obviously there's an upper stage now, which is a modified Delta IV upper stage, and another one in development which can actually deliver a decent payload (the idea was that the core stage and boosters would be ready before they could develop the EUS from scratch, so they planned on using the Delta stage to make up the difference and avoid delays. Instead the core stage and boosters took so long that they could have had the EUS done by now had they focused on it, basically it's turned the idea into a useless waste of time).

The biggest problem with SLS is that it's trying to shoehorn very specialized technology from a shitty and super expensive launch vehicle into a new vehicle in order to save cost, and it's so mismanaged that they're actually inflating costs instead. Also, at the end of the day they're getting a pretty shit launch vehicle out of it anyway, using terribly inefficient boosters in a booster-sustainer design with an under-powered core stage and a feebly upper stage. A better design would have increased the number of boosters to three, the number of core engines to 6, and the feeble upper stage with a larger and more powerful one which would actually be useful for completing the final burn to orbit with heavy payloads. Increasing the core engines from 4 to 6 would make it less under-powered, and adding a third Booster would give it enough thrust to achieve a nice TWR and get out of the atmosphere on solid fuel alone, lighting the core stage engines in-flight before booster burnout.

>>11116969
>lighting the core stage engines in-flight before booster burnout.

You called?

>>11116977
based

>>11116225
Ok, I guess Inko-chan' is the anime version then.
Which is good because we got a bunch of screenshots to use for it.

>>11116887
>>11116846
>>11116765
>Here’s the schizophrenic interpretation
Looks like I found that one Boeing shill who keeps calling everyone schizo. At it again, I see.

Oh noes Boeing parachutes don't work.
And they don't even propulsion landing as a last resort option.
How many D2 capsules need to blow up for Starliner to be ready?

>>11116993
I mean, as Boeing correctly pointed out in their press release none of their parachutes actually failed, one just failed to deploy. The two that deployed worked perfectly and apparently Starliner can land using only a single parachute.

>>11117009
Yeah, imagine the delay if SpaceX pulled that stunt.

>>11117013
I wonder why the tank is brown. Is it due to some kind of paint or insulation?

>>11117009
>none of the parachutes failed, it's just that one of the three didn't work when we expected it to

Did they hire Baghdad Bob as the program PR rep?

>>11117029
the insulating foam starts out whitish brown and turns orange from oxidation between manufacture and launch

>>11117009
That's an interesting way of saying 'Starliner failed their test'. You can't have parachutes failing to deploy, even if they're redundant. The mechanism that caused this to happen must be investigated and further testing is obviously needed.

>>11116969
>in flight ignition of an RS-25
This is one of the technical hurdles that fucked up Constellation. Gotta light them all on the ground

>>11117038
>SpaceX has surrendered to oldspace. They are killing themselves by the hundreds.

>>11117048
They're lucky only one failed. Imagine is two did and that shit smashed into the ground? There'd be some shitshow.

>>11117048
Starliner didn't fail it’s test though, the requirements of the test were: successfully demonstrate the use of the abort engines and recover the capsule safely, which Starliner did. If your counting anomalies like Boeing’s parachute kerfuffle as a prerequisite for mission failure, then SpaceX’s pad abort also failed due to the loss of thrust and early cut off the SuperDracos. Both these abort tests were considered successful, despite having anomalies occur.

>>11116843
>companies like SpaceX are not ready
Yep, SpaceX fails it again! Oh wait, this was Boeing equipment, schitzo.
Is this why we pay them 50% more for Commercial Crew?

>>11116846
Think of all the feesh!

>>11116877
But look at all the FREE engines you're getting!
It's not like SLS will ever use them all up!

>>11117074
>Yep, SpaceX fails it again!
Delete your account.

How do we get rid of Boeing?
They can't even do planes right.

>>11116877
the most expensive rocket engines ever, mounted to a new fuselage designed and built by the 737MAX team, paired with the most expensive SRBs ever

>>11117077
Dude, think of the amount of Boeing planes you’ve flown on in your life and try and say that statement with a straight face.

>>11117079
It's amazing to see how the space industry has innovated over the decades at getting money efficiently from the government.

>>11117080
That would be two?
Look, last time I heard B737 Max is banned over here.

>>11117080
they've been a shitshow ever since the McD-D reverse merger and this fact is finally becoming obvious to people outside the industry

sadly they're too big to fail; the government will bail them out if their financial outlook gets too spicy

and everyone there knows it

>>11117080
Those were built in the past. Their new planes aren't doing so great if you haven't noticed.

If it's Boeing I'm not going.

>>11117068
The real objective, minus your PR spin is to demonstrate the safety and proper functioning of the Starliner, which they failed to do because one of the fucking parachutes didn't deploy and there's obviously a problem with the deployment mechanism.
>SpaceX’s pad abort also failed due to the loss of thrust and early cut off the SuperDracos
Call it a failure then, but it's a false equivalence. You don't expect Boeing be held to the same standard of SpaceX since you would be in this thread screaming bloody murder if the same thing happened to Dragon.

>>11117080
>Based on my sample of one ...

>>11117086
>Laughs in Chinese

You step on a snail. There's a blinding flash of light. You're sitting in front of Congress. The year is 2010. Constellation has been scrapped and you are asked for a design to replace it. DIRECT is being pushed, but somehow you know that story already. You sketch on a napkin what NASA should work towards to replace Shuttle. What do you sketch?

>>11117089
>You don't expect Boeing be held to the same standard of SpaceX since you would be in this thread screaming bloody murder if the same thing happened to Dragon.

Your making some massive assumptions about me schitzo...

>>11117091
“A Boeing 737 takes off or lands somewhere in the world every 2 seconds.”

>>11117080
Imagine pretending that a company who hired 3rd world Indians to write the software that flies planes are some great champion of safety.

>>11117103
Not the pajeet code version.

>>11117068
>B-b-b-but they weren't testing the parachutes, so it doesn't count! Never mind that one of them failed to open, it still landed! Muh redundancy!

>>11117096
5× F1B core stage, boostback
Sell these boosters to private industry and let them put whatever they want on top, call it the Common Reusable American Commercial Project, Integrated Peer Engineering (CRACPIPE)

>>11117104
>>11117106
Equating every Boeing plane to the 737 MAX is a bold move...

>>11117096

>>11117119
Indeed. The engineers that made those older planes aren't even around anymore!

>>11117111
Keep on seething baby!

>>11117119
I equate all new Boeings to 737 max. Because nu-Boeing is garbage and should be allowed to die.

This is all so dumb.
Dragon 1 was supposed to be the manned capsule.
Yeah some people would have died halfway, but at least US wouldn't be a cuck country to Russia.

>>11117103
>Your making some massive assumptions about me schitzo
>schitzo
No, I know exactly who you're are. You shill for Boeing in nearly every single /sfg/ thread and insist on calling everyone who disagrees with you a schizo. You're going to have to stop using the same insults over and over again if you want to pretend you don't have a vested financial interest in the company as a paid shill. You should stop showing your hand.

>>11117119
The corporate culture that let them design an airliner with a single point of failure with code outsourced to India, and then not inform airlines of pilots of that single point of failure, cannot be relied on to produce safe products. What other single point failures are they hiding?

>>11117096
Commerical Crew at a highly accelerated pace, followed by Commercial Cislunar, followed by Commerical Mars Surface Payload Services

>>11117126
>Schitzo proves he’s a schitzo by posting a schizophrenic reply

Sad!

>>11117131
>What other single point failures are they hiding?

Obviously none of them are on Starliner considering what just happened!

>>11117137
Wasn't part of the reason this shit tool so long because it's meant to be super redundant and safe? In a pretty idealised test environment 1 of the parachutes failed. If 2 of them did the astronauts would all be dead.

Maybe I'm being overly harsh on them. But fuck, it's a horrible program and I hate them so much. Pls let Starship launch humans before this thing does.

>>11117134
>Schitzo proves he’s a schitzo by posting a schizophrenic reply
I just looked it up in the DSM and apparently calling everyone you disagree with schizo in order to defend your shilling doesn't count as a formal diagnosis for schizophrenia. You forgot that you don't get paid to be a doctor, you get paid to literally shill for Boeing.

schizo schizo my schizo cuck cuck schizo cuck lmao epic win

can we stop

>>11117147
>But fuck, it's a horrible program and I hate them so much.

Why? Boeing are building a capsule that can land using airbags and be reused 10 times, that’s very innovative for such a traditional old space company.

>>11117155
>the lack of self awareness

reminder to report him and those that respond to him
only you can purge the redditor menace

>>11117171
>The complete lack of an argument.

Thank you for correcting the Boeing® record but we're no longer in need of your services.

>>11117171
Because it's too expensive too the point of being incredibly wasteful of the limited resources we have as a society to spend on space.

>that’s very innovative for such a traditional old space company
Doesn't that just say it all?

>>11117176
I hear their 4chan shilling division is being outsourced to india.

>>11117096
Given that you have to deal Boeing in anyway for political reasons, I think this plan that they were pitching around then would be more likely to succeed

also a seven-core Delta IV Ultra Heavy would be pretty dope

We're rotting because of boeing.
No one launches to space until they do.
Fucking hell, China's gonna beat us to it.

>>11117175
>le Redditor meme

>>11117176
>everybody who disagrees with me is a shill!

>>11117181
>thinks a reusable capsule is wasteful for some reason

The absolute state of this general...

Shuttle retired in if I'm not wrong.
So it took us most of a decade to provide a lesser service. Well maybe it will be a full decade.
Think about the state of rocket science in 1958, just ten years before Moon landings.
Even privatized shit doesn't get as high momentum.

>>11117187
China have launched two rockets in the last 24 hours, SpaceX haven’t launched anything in 84 days...The US basically relies on SX to pad their launch stats because ULA only launches low-frequency government payloads, this isn’t happening this year.

>>11117080
Eh, feels like boeing would have been out of business a long time ago if it wasnt for the NTSB&the us goverment.
Especialy because of the NTSB, those guys have had to do some really creative things in the past to make sure that boeing's faults where succesfully hidden.
While at the same time trying to crucify airbus, if they held the same standards for boeing as they did for airbus then you would not have situations like the boeing 737 max.

>>11117134
>Sad!
And you are clearly a some form of forum shill nigger based on your response to >>11117126.
A.
Parachute.
Failed.
There is no denying that, and if it's glazed over that fact even with the redundancy, because if another one fails during the critical moment for whatever reason, Boeing will have to deal with dead astronauts, as would SpaceX in a similar situation (hence their 13 test drops before showtime), and dead astronauts is a VERY bad look. If NASA doesn't make them do more parachute tests or at least launch some sort of investigation I would be very surprised.

>>11117190
>everybody who disagrees with me is a shill!
No, just you, seeing as you're completely unreasonable and do this day after day with a zealotry no common Boeing fan would have. It's a fact that Boeing has used paid shills in the past, they got caught red handed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-may-have-used-firm-to-plant-anti-spacex-oped-2018-10

>>11117197
I miss those almost biweekly falcon 9 launches

next launch WHEN???????

>>11117197
China doesn't give a shit if a manned flight explodes. It just never happened.

>>11117203
>hence their 13 test drops before showtime

Those were just single chute tests, to make sure the new Mk3 chutes worked. SpaceX have done a single multi-chute test with the Mk3s which they showed a video of.

> If NASA doesn't make them do more parachute tests or at least launch some sort of investigation I would be very surprised.

Boeing haven’t certified their chutes yet, so they’ll being doing more tests anyway and I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a small investigation.

Starliner had a chute failure in one of it's test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He4SXnum-Dw
Starts at 25.30, touchdown at 26.50

wonder if this will impact the race between starliner and dragon 2.

>>11117208
next launch is 11/11 for Starlink 1.0

>>11117209
China have never had a crewed spaceflight disaster so there’s not much to cover up. Also, China has only launched a dozen crewed missions ever, we’re talking about uncrewed cadence here, not China’s regard for human/astronaut lives.

>>11117238
>never
Well as far as you know.

>falling for the NASA lie

required watching before calling anyone a shill or cuck
https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc

>>11117256
Such a weak premise.
Even the lowest human can see through this.

>>11117230
>wonder if this will impact the race between starliner and dragon 2.

It depends on the cause of failure: the parachute failed to deploy, but it didn’t actually fail (tangled, ripped etc) so that points to a problem with the separation systems/drogues, meaning Boeing likely won’t have to replace their parachutes like SpaceX did. My personal theory is that it’s an abort exclusive issue, with the venting corrosive fuel damaging the lines of the third chute.

>>11117230
Airbags look a bit firm to me

>>11117297
They're probably firm because they have a capsule resting on them.

>>11117169
>>11117256
You're the only person in the thread that has seriously used the word cuck, I don't know what you're on about. I hate to tell you this, because it would break your naive delusions, but 4chan does get real shills and they're a constant problem all over the Internet. It's only going to get worse with gpt2 type AI that will do most of the legwork for them.

>>11117386
I'm using cuck as a comparison for how fucking obnoxiously you two lovebirds are overusing "schizo" and "shill". You spew schizo like /pol/ spews cuck. And it's just as cancerous. Comprende?

>>11117082
spot on

HULLO has a new video on the Starliner test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=033iokEj1gQ

Meanwhile, in Boca Chica, the second canard has been reinstalled on the Mark 1.

>>11117253
nobody here is falling for it

they SAY they've been working on "Moon to Mars" missions for a decade but everyone here is redpilled to the fact that they've actually spent the last ten years standing in a circle jerking off and doing nothing of value

also two separate engineers at Thiokol told them that Challenger would blow up and they said fuck it launch anyway

>>11117422
How does that make any sense? You're telling us not to use a word that only you have used. Originally your problem was with the use of the word schizo, now you're walking it back to include shill as well, after your post didn't get the attention you crave. You don't seem to understand that there are multiple people in this thread and it's not just two people talking about Boeing.
> You spew schizo like /pol/ spews cuck
At no point did I call anyone in this thread a schizo, although I'm going to break that right now, you fucking actual schizo. What /pol/ does is irrelevant.
>And it's just as cancerous
Whatever you think to hide the fact that you're triggered. Do you have anything insightful to add besides posting basic bitch YouTube videos and word policing? How about you stop shitting yourself and actually talk about spaceflight?

>>11117496
are you still going

take your dramafagging buzzword spewing ass back to /pol/ and stop shitting up /sfg/

not complicated

>>11117498
Don't pretend to speak for /sfg/ when you clearly have nothing to add to this thread beyond starting drama and telling people to go back to /pol/, like it means anything or they'll even listen to your insufferable talking points. You're the only person here who is upset at other people arguing about Boeing and seemingly very upset that they used two words you don't like, while creating a strawman around a very personal insult to you that no one mentioned.

The argument already died out before you decided to post Reddit tier videos anyway, how are you going to deny you're not seeking our attention?

>>11117514
>you have nothing to add to this thread but drama, says man who has literally spent the last three hours screeching about shills
still going

slow day, huh?

Hey getting back on topic, why was Antares never used for satellite launches?

>>11117522
>you have nothing to add to this thread but drama, says man who has literally spent the last three hours screeching about shills
Yes, says the man who spent an hour discussing the Starliner test, while also mentioning that Boeing as a team of paid shills and that one person who has spent literally dozens of hours in this thread defending them in indefensible situations may be among them. What have you added to this thread beyond posting a Youtube video that was completely off topic and bringing up cucks out of the blue like an insane person?
>still going
Sure. What are you going to do if I keep posting? More YouTube videos? Tell me to go back to /pol/, which I don't even visit, for the fourth time? Scary.

Holy shit can you faggots just fuck off already

>>11117528
Presumably because it only launches from Wallops and costs $85M, but I don't have any specifics.

Could you use Starship's meme marginal launch costs to make asteroid mining viable? Or does asteroid mining inherently require processing and manufacturing in space, only bringing finished projects down the well?

>>11117589
No one knows how to mine asteroids yet. The theories need to be tested in order to create practice. The first missions will involve surveying and reaching said asteroids, followed by figuring out how to break them apart into useful chunks.

Wait, on Mars, we can do absolute madman shit like using industrial processes that vent CFCs en masse to the atmosphere and not only will nobody care, you can sell it as terraforming. What are the industries that could benefit most from a complete lack of environment regulations?

>>11117551
>i have autism and instead of ignoring people bickering on 4chan like a normal person, it visibly upsets me to the point i cannot post anything else :(

>>11117603
>What are the industries that could benefit most from a complete lack of environment regulations?
On Earth? None probably because even with Starship's meme costs it would still be pretty expensive to ship things to Earth from Mars. Space-borne industries can benefit but they'll only benefit the industries that also have customers in space (preferably within the same sphere of influence, i.e. Martian industries for Martian customers).

>>11117190
Based.
>>11117205
Lmao. You don't think SpaceX does the same thing?

>>11117594
>Surveying

I hope you don't mean sending men or a starship because that's a fucking meme. You need to shit out millions of probes throughout the belt that have the Delta v to hit multiple asteroids each.

>>11117208
The launch drought will hopefully end either this or next month..

>that huge orange cloud

>>11117628
Nah, just use statistics. We're not really prospecting for one magic asteroid made entirely of gold. If we find one, great, but that's not what you expect to find. Surveying extensively the composition of a few thousand asteroids and categorizing them should give us a good picture of profitability. We'll never actually survey every asteroid.

>>11117623
No, there's no evidence of that. SpaceX doesn't really need shills, they have an army of fanboys ready to go that will defend them without any payment. They may have a small PR team for emergency situations, but not nearly the size of Boeing which has to both deal with the disaster that is SLS and their 737 MAX problem. The 737 Max in particular has cost Boeing $9.2 billion, so they're desperate to change the public opinion of their company and shills are dirt cheap.

>>11117639

>>11117628
I don't mean any particular methodology. Starship's use case here is making the cost, and subsequent risk involved in forming resource surveys, acceptably low.

>>11117642
>the virgin hazmat
>the chad big sniff

>>11117603
Oil companies.

>>11117669
>shell's face when there's oil in them dunes

>That fucking huge NTO cloud
>Camera swiftly pans away

Nothing to see here folks, test successful!

>>11117652
>i like how the chemical burns coat my lungs

>>11117042
>>11117029
>>11117013
Funny, if you read the wikipedia page on the Atlas V it mentions that since the tanks are aluminum and therefore more thermally conductive, the Atlas V needs insulation on its oxygen tank.
Meanwhile Falcon 9 uses aluminum tanks and liquid oxygen with no insulation, and SpaceX even sub-cools their lox, so in theory they should stand to benefit from insulation even more than ULA.

>>11117704
My guess is that the Falcon 9's "load and go" procedure means that it can get away with less insulation as the tanks will be drained (either by use in flight or manually on the pad) before the thermal conductivity becomes a problem. Whereas the Atlas V tends to sit on the launch pad fully fulled for a while until it's ready to launch.

>>11117190
Look man, this is a spacex board. We run the show here. If you're not a spacex fan you can just get up and leave.

>>11117115
>5× F1B core stage
>not going for an even 9
it's like you want to fail

>>11117125
Only a single Dragon 1 has ever been involved with a launch failure, and when CRS7 blew up it escaped unharmed (or at least in one piece) but didn't have the software on board to start an emergency landing sequence. I don't think anyone would be dead if we had started putting people on Dragon 1 right back in the beginning.

>>11117704
>>11117711
Falcon refuelling operations start only 35 minutes before launch, prop load for the mighty Atlas happens at -2 hours 15 minutes. I’m sure Centaur also contributes to the need for insulation.

>>11117528
because Earth is not a globe

>>11117589
>does asteroid mining inherently require processing and manufacturing in space
Yes, cheap launch costs alone don't cut it. Also Starship is cheap to LEO but it starts getting more expensive the farther you're going/the more Tanker flights you need. For asteroid mining to be profitable at all you really do need very cheap deep space transport AND on-orbit mining and manufacturing. This is because with cheap LEO launch prices, it no longer becomes viable to sell 'easy' materials like iron or basalt fibers to customers who want to use it in Earth orbit, because it's cheaper to just launch from Earth than it is to go out to the asteroid belt and drag it all the way back here.
>>11117594
This will be involved, but it will probably be first developed aroudn Mars, using Phobos and Deimos as test beds (also because the materials produced there will be directly useful for making big space stations around Mars for Mars people to use. Coincidentally this is why the jello babies meme is a meme, even if reproduction can't happen in 3/8ths G we'll be able to build giant O'Neill cylinders in Mars orbit with 1 G artificial gravity inside for Mars women to get pregnant and eventually give birth inside.)

>>11117603
Beeg
nook-you-lar
ree-act-oars

>>11117755
I mean duh, but dunno what earth's ellipticity has to do with this

>>11117711
>>11117730
But Atlas V and others store their propellants at close to their boiling points anyway, and as they sit there boiling they will remain at the same temperature and simply require some topping-up. In fact this is what pretty much every rocket ever has done, including the older Falcon 9 models that didn't use sub-cooled props yet, they just allow boil-off and continuously top up the tanks until it's time to launch. Is rocket insulation literally just a meme perpetuated by the Shuttle program, which actually needed the foam to prevent ice forming which would fall and shred the belly of the Orbiter otherwise? I think this is the case.

>>11117767
>also because the materials produced there will be directly useful for making big space stations around Mars for Mars people to use
This.
Venus-fags whine about how it has better ""surface"" conditions than Mars, but they forget that around Mars there are a couple handy dandy quadrillion ton rocks with which to make carbon-copy Earth replica environments out of, and you don't even need to dive headfirst into a huge gravity well to do it. If you don't un-ironically agree that Mars and its Moons make THE best interplanetary colonization destination then there's something wrong with your reasoning skills and/or at least one hemicortex.

>>11117719
why don't we just change it to /spxg/ and laugh at the tumbleweed-strewn wasteland that /sfg/ becomes

>>11117589
This is one of a series of 4 actually pretty good recent Bloomberg vids on space stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGosZWBTF7A

One of the concepts for space mining involves encapsulating chunks of asteroid and blasting them with lasers to vaporise, then collecting the offgassing. Very early days. I reckon we're decades away, sadly. I want a roll of gold foil in the kitchen to wrap my food in!

>>11117338
I was expecting them to blow out like a car airbag, giving a lovely soft touchdown. Didn't look like that.

>voyager II, the compliment of America's galactic vanguard, finally cuts through the the solar sheath
>looming cascade of instrument shutdowns foretell a future where Earth's hails go unanswered as the pair slips further into the intra-Oortian quim
>NASA thinktank emitting another round of hawking radiation in the form of a new post-Artemis, pre-Ares interstellar mission
Meanwhile, on Earth, the spaceflight private sector D-side, Blue Origin, continues to reel from the loss of 35 years of funding due to its sole proprietor's affair.

Why is so much time and effort being put into this niche general and topic?

>Space

Ha. My general is certainly not as niche as this, and our paste bin is a lot nicer

>>11118019
What niche topic?

>>11118019
Because space is cool and it's currently the most exciting time for spaceflight since the 60s.

>>11118019
That's my book. strange that you saved that pic I posted.

>>11117185
Isn't all this shit going out with the Vulcan rocket?

>>11118264
All that shit went in the bin years ago.

>>11115965
i hope to good they record it with something insane like 70mm IMAX cameras

>>11118604
The recovered ilm stock that they used for the recent Apollo 11 film/documentary is absolutely gorgeous. I want to hear one of the qt femstronauts exclaim "Mark!" on stage separation with a similar inflection to neil. Kino

For Artemis 2. They better launch these fuckers at sunset.

>>11117965
assuming we would launch something in say 5 years (hopefully at least having SLS as an option) what would we actually want to achieve with probe designed solely for interstellar space?

>>11117594
>We have some definite ideas: for metals, prospect and core sample, then select a spin rate, establish it, and hit the body with focused sunlight.

>>11117603
Mars is mostly uninhabited. It might be more viable to mine asteroids by splattering them into Mars' surface then mine the craters for a while.

>>11118677
>mostly

>>11118641
Get it to 1% of light speed, and use it to at minimum roll along as an interstellar crash test dummy. We want to know the travel environment of interstellar space, even if we're not traversing it in a serious way yet.

>>11118677
>>11118678
Rephrase: will be. The moon would be too but there are concerns even about Starship landings kicking up dust moon-wide for a few hours. An atmospehr

>>11118689
*an atmosphere like the one that exists on Mars will help with these matters.

>>11118689
>Moon wide

Just, no.

>>11116232
fart, half turn, let the smoke out
ergo explode instantly

>>11117589
No, getting things where they are expensive and selling them where they are cheap is not viable. Even memey expensive materials that seem like they might be viable like platinum have pathetically small markets for their use (main reason they are expensive to begin with) so you would just be crashing the price at your own expense.

>>11116707
Why do you think that the Boeing Starliner suit looks so much like a hazmat suit?

>>11118019
The final and only frontier attracts people, news at 11.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-rejects-blue-origins-offer-of-a-cheaper-upper-stage-for-the-sls-rocket/
Blue Origin bid a BE-3U upper stage to replace the SLS EUS and was rejected.

>>11119444
Makes sense. SLS already has the Delta IV upper stage to use, and the EUS is well in the works. Considering how long development time takes in the SLS project, trying to fit a whole new upper stage design from a company who has never worked on the SLS would just delay the whole stack much further.

>>11119444

I’m kinda sad this legitimately good article came from Berger, because he tries to spin it like picking EUS over BE-3U is a bad decision and pork politics. But in reality the factors listed here suggest that, even if Berger’s math is right about EUS being really expensive (it will be expensive, but I believe his math is a credible as Doug Cooke’s) all the modifications and tests required to switch to a much bigger BE-3U upper-stage would lead to it being more expensive and delayed than the EUS which he’s moaning about. It seems like Blue made a really sloppy bid and assumed rockets can be put together like Lego:

>NASA sets out three reasons for not opening the competition to Blue Origin. In the document, signed by various agency officials including the acting director for human spaceflight, Ken Bowersox, NASA says Blue Origin's "alternate" stage cannot fly 10 tons of cargo along with the Orion spacecraft.

>Moreover, NASA says, the total height of the SLS rocket's core stage with Blue Origin's upper stage exceeds the height of the Vertical Assembly Building's door, resulting in "modifications to the VAB building height and substantial cost and schedule delays." Finally, the agency says the BE-3U engine's higher stage thrust would result in an increase to the end-of-life acceleration of the Orion spacecraft and a significant impact to the Orion solar array design.

>NASA would "incur additional costs and schedule risk due to changes in the design and analysis cycles," the document states. "The alternate solution is a heavier stage with a different length and diameter than EUS. New wind tunnel models, load cycles, and integrated dynamics models would need to be produced and verified."

>>11119444
>>11119460
According to the OIG report on Europa Clipper, a single SLS costs about $876M to build. Berger is unironically claiming that the new upper stage would cost more than the ENTIRE rest of the rocket.
No shit his math is off.

>>11119460
There’s also the fact that the BE-3U stage seems to only be able to co-manifest less than 10 tons of payload with Orion, whilst EUS/RL-10 can do more than 10. Is this because the EUS smaller, so less heavy and has better efficiency on the RL-10s than a BE-3U?

>>11119461
>$876M for single SLS cost
lol
>$450M for Falcon Heavy
kek
>SLS saves $300M over Falcon Heavy
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>>11119484
I thought the cost of an expendable Falcon Heavy was $150M?

>>11119523
Exactly. The numbers in the report are at best fluffs and at worse deception. It doesn't include any dev amortization cost of SLS, nor any infrastructure costs, nor any fixed costs nor any availability/readiness/maintenance costs.

>>11119529
>implying including dev amortization cost into SLS unit cost isn't dishonest as well

>>11119540
Why would it be dishonest? Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy includes costs of their development. US government is paying dev cost for SLS, so it needs to be accounted for.

>>11119461
I mean if the cost involves raising the roof on the fucking VAB that makes sense

it's not like you can just weld this shit together outside in a field or something

>>11119543
Because a per flight cost should be the cost of a flight of a rocket, not an arbitrary figure that's almost entirely dependent on what assumption used for total flight numbers.

convince me why mars is "uninhabitable" when dubai exists, dubai is literally just a mars colony with free air, put a dome over dubai and it's indistinguishable from an end-goal mars colony

>>11119547
Because we don't know the total number of flights, amortization of dev cost is required. If it only flies 10 times(optimistic), it will not be "$865M" per flight, it will be ~$30 billion dev cost/10 + fixed costs + readiness costs + infrastructure costs. That would be close to ~$3-$5 B per flight. US government has to pay that total amount. If it flies 5 times, the costs might increase by 50% or so. If it flies 50+ times, then the cost would be close to ~$850M per flight cost.

So I was looking up some TLI payload amounts for comparison and I've found that the Block 1 SLS can do 26t while the Falcon Heavy can do ~23t. Can someone confirm this? Because it doesn't make sense to me considering that the SLS is a larger rocket than the Falcon Heavy.

>>11115961
Those are shuttle engines that have actually flown missons. They belong in a museum not at the bottom of the ocean where they're going. In a way its sort of poetic that they're trashing engines which were meant to be reused.

>>11119570
Except the dev costs are already sunk. Congress has already paid them, and NASA is not a private business and has no obligation to recoup development costs for its nonexistent investors.
At most you can factor in fixed infrastructure costs into the picture. Anything more is dishonest.

>>11119552
Travel time to dubai's much less. No space radiation. Dubai can easily import food and water. Having free air is a pretty fucking big advantage. It makes it much easier to keep slaves and have them do work.

>>11119587
There's nothing to recoup in paying prices. Recoup is only for companies like SpaceX who recoups their dev cost through flight costs. SLS has been a sunk cost project since the beginning.

>>11119593
>travel time
valid but not a deal breaker, dubai is closer but mars is "exotic", 1/3rd theme parks will be wild
>no space radiation
radiation on the surface of mars under a dome won't be trivial but it's a lot less than in space, you halve it immediately from having a planet under you, then halve again from Mars' thin atmosphere, maybe halved a third time by the dome
>Dubai can easily import food
True
>and water
False, Dubai actually desalinates all it's water. The City of Elon might actually spend less energy per liter melting Martian ice.
>Having free air is a pretty big advantage
True
>it makes it much easier to keep slaves
Mars will attract legions of colonists who want to go to Mars, realize they're in way over their heads, and get stuck as janitors. Mars will attract her own slaves.

>>11119609
1/3rd G theme parks, rather

>>11119580
I don't know where that 23t number is coming from but it's wrong. FH will do about 12mT to TLI in a center core expendable configuration, 15ish fully expendable

>>11119613
This is correct.
23t to TLI is definitely wrong. 15t fully expendable is what you get with a C3 of -1km/s with the NASA payload calculator.

>>11119547
A rocket that flies only a handful of times is a huge economical failure. Of course development and all fixed costs ought to be included to reflect that.

>>11119613
>>11119632
That doesn't make sense. FH specifies 18.5t to Mars and 29 t to GTO. So NASA payload calculator is not updated.

>>11119580
Completely wrong FH can barely put 15 ton sat in geo stationary.

It's mid sized lifter nowhere near the heavy lift capacity of the SLS and that is the sole reason it isn't even considered for missions despite being available.

>>11119641
NASA uses real life numbers not ones from the infinite realm of PR physics...

>>11115869
Unless I'm wrong Jonh Carmack's rocket thing used aluminium combustion chamber and it worked reasonably well.

>>11119644
>NASA uses real life numbers
[x] Doubt

>Boeing says the test is not a failure
>just that the parachute didn't deploy
>which was the test in the first place
Mhm thats a yikes for me

>>11119650
Im sorry but I have to jab at one more thing.
How can a company with decades of experience in aerospace fail at deploying a parachute.
I dont get it.

>>11119651
ESA failed parachutes for their upper stage too if I remember right. So they deferred to NASA for expert advice.

>>11119641
>>11119642
>>11119644
SpaceX says FH can send 21 tons to TLI, NASA says 15 tons. I’m inclined to agree with NASA because aerospace companies’ performance estimates are usually on the optimistic side and PR-heavy e.g. an expendable Falcon Heavy probably can’t lift a 60 ton payload due to structural limits, but it’ll most likely never be asked to do so.

RCS ports

>>11119638
>I can't make actual financial arguments so I'll just artificially inflate the numbers using dishonest accounting to make thing I don't like look worse than it actually is
What's sad is you don't have to cook the books to make SLS look expensive, but you do it anyway.

>>11119651
If 737 MAX is anything to go by, they've just become sloppy and lazy, they'd rather turn out planes who's autopilot has a chance of causing the vehicle to crash, while ignoring the protests of their own engineers, not informing their pilots of the change, not giving them sufficient training, and clean up the mess afterwards than just make a plane that doesn't crash itself in the first place.

>>11119652
That was for the ExoMars rover...

>>11119650
Technically Boeing are right, the parachute never got a chance to fail and it’s 2 compatriots performed admirably. I wouldn’t be so hard on Boeing considering other companies have done the same kind of technicality-based defence this year: e.g. Northrop’s OmegA nozzle crack was just an “observation”, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon explosion was referred to as an “anomaly”.

>>11119660
>SpaceX says FH can send 21 tons to TLI
No, they didn't publish TLI injection numbers. They published GTO/Mars numbers. 20-23t is enthusiasts calculator. NASA's 15t don't make sense given Mars payload is higher. So chances are they're using an old specifications for Falcon Heavy and hasn't been updated.

>>11119664
It is not cooking the books. Low flight rate is arguably the very worst thing about SLS. Delays, high development costs, all that things people complain about could be entirely justified if SLS intended to be a real workhorse rocket, flying often and lifting thousands of tons to orbit. Yet that is not the case. Any economic analysis that does not reflect this low flight rate is utterly dishonest.

>>11119673
>20-23t is enthusiasts calculator.

Source for that number?

>>11119679
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/26155/what-is-falcon-heavys-payload-capacity-to-trans-lunar-injection

Any of you autists wanna decipher this? On the new access port at the top of the Mk 1 fairing.

>>11119632
If you aren't in a hurry you can do a ballistic lunar transfer with a C3 of about 0.6, like GRAIL did. That might buy you a extra ton or so. Of course you'll have upwards of three months time of flight

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1191779229798502400

>Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete—targeting 11/11 for launch of 60 Starlink satellites from Pad 40 in Florida

>The fairing supporting this mission previously flew on Falcon Heavy’s Arabsat-6A mission

Reused fairing, too!

>>11119647
You mean the Super Mod? I thought it used graphite?

>>11119687
What do you mean decipher? Its a part number

>>11119718
About time they launch again. With the length of their launch hiatus, you'd think they had a launch failure.

The test was successful.

Cant wait for the fusion powered upper stage rockets to start flying in 10-15 years. Imagine a one week transut time to mars...

>>11119718
Can't wait to hear the "we're polluting the night sky" complaining again.

>>11119750
>wanting children to grow up never seeing stars in the sky

>>11119765

>>11119765
First, the Starlink sats would at worst just add a bunch of moving dots on the sky during sunset and sunrise, the stars would still be able to be seen. Second, lots of kids in developed areas don't see much of the night sky due to city light pollution.

>>11119746
You probably wouldn't want to fire a torch drive in atmosphere, even though there are hypothetical drives which mitigate the hard neutron radiation emitted. On top of that, while fusion torches, especially water afterburning torches can achieve high TWRs, they're also going to be quite heavy, you need a pretty powerful reactor to generate the necessary power either a fission or fusion system in and of itself, along with an array of cryocooling equipment, radiators, capacitors, and superconducting magnets capable of putting out at least 1 Tesla. Assuming though that you can build a fusion torch with a TWR of between 50-150, there's still an issue of firing it while pointed at Earth, it might not necessarily be a flying WMD like they're often portrayed as in scifi stories because the atmosphere can do a very good job of soaking neutrons such that the hazard area around the fusion flame wouldn't be more than a few hundred meters in open air, NIMBYs would absolutely lose their whole entire shit at such a proposition. You'd get people comparing it to setting off fusion bombs over people's homes, muh children, muh .0001% increase in cancer, muh environment.

I think torch drives will be relegated to vacuum travel, and probably strictly restricted in LEO.

>>11119746
can't wait for fission powered rocket upper stages to start flying by 1980 -- imagine, a reusable transfer stage to the moon

>>11115864
Unless that’s literally a giant flame, fake and gay.

>>11119798
Nothing in the world has done as much harm to spaceflight as fucking anti-nuclear NIMBY boomers. We're at least 50 years behind thanks exclusively to their stupid bullshit.

>>11119809
I thought NTR died due to the lack of a need after Apollo?

>>11116887
Space is easy. You are much more likely to die driving to work than going to orbit and this would hold true through mass production.
Space isn’t “hard,” it is PROHIBITED, there’s a big difference.

The star man space x stream was NOT disabled voluntarily, the feds literally cited an ancient law about its illegal to film the Earth from space and forced that livestream to shut down.

>>11119809

History has amply demonstrated that humans lack the conscientiousness to manage nuclear energy over the long term, with no incidence of major accidents. They are right.

>>11119813
>The star man space x stream was NOT disabled voluntarily, the feds literally cited an ancient law about its illegal to film the Earth from space and forced that livestream to shut down
Source?

>>11119816
No it hasn’t. Might as well ban cars.

>>11119816
I too deny the existence of the United States Navy, which has had a near perfect record of nuclear management for over half a century.

>>11119816
Lol nuclear power is insanely safe, even its worst accident barely killed anyone.

>>11119812
Well it "died" in the sense that it was never flown, but NERVA was a fully mature and functional design, Timberwind was at least partly done, enough to produce a full set of stats, this new BWXT rocket is one of the propositions spurred on by the Trump admin's encouragement to NASA to develop modern nuclear propulsion technology for spaceflight. There's at least one other design with much less available information called a tricarbide-grooved-ring NTR, it uses sprialing fuel elements to greatly enhance it's internal surface area for heat exchange and thus produce TWRs equivalent to chemical rockets through higher mass flow rates. That concept is based on the original American NTR concept called DUMBO, which proposed corrugated fuel plates which were too difficult to manufacture at the time they were proposed.

>>11119817
Look it up. FCC shut it down and Musk was given a national security letter to not tweet about it. The former part can be confirmed and the latter is obvious via him not tweeting about it despite being a sperg.

>>11119816
You're so full of shit it's coming out of your mouth.

>>11119825
Yikes thats some serious conspiracy theorist work there.

>>11119817
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/5/17197742/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-launch-livestream-noaa-regulation
The star man caught the black suits attention and now ALL launches will be similarly restricted.
Space is not difficult it is prohibited.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-rejects-blue-origins-offer-of-a-cheaper-upper-stage-for-the-sls-rocket/?comments=1

>Blue Origin's upper stage, was deemed too much of a cost investment, despite being cheaper

"OY VEY Don't open the market to private industry, think of the jobs at Boeing!"

>>11119831
>yikes conspiracy theorist.
>FCC and NOAA literally cut off a livestream of the Earth against the streamer’s will.

>>11119825
I vaguely remember that, but what does that have to do with spaceflight being restricted? Tying not to sound condescending, just confused by your logic there.

>>11119836
>proof: my imagination
lol

>>11119837
Spaceflight is literally restricted, as in you can’t do it without permission.

>>11119838
No dude the proof is that NOAA/FCC shut off his livestream citing an old licensing law, and then applied the rule to all of Tesla’s other streams as well.

>>11119841
You can't shit in a hole without permission in America. That's not prohibition, that's bureaucracy.

>>11119834
Save a cent here and you might lose a lot of dollars there.

Boeing is proven and capable company.

Something that can't be said for Blue Origin.

>>11119846
Proofs?

>>11119841
/sci/ version of The Astronaut Farmer when? Surely we can claim to be constructing a water tower to avoid the glower's attention.

>>11119849
>Boeing is a proven and capable company
>Single point of failure covered up with Indian coding causing over 300 deaths and a Congressional investigation

>>11119834
You missed it. While the upper stage is cheaper, the cost required to adapt the SLS to fit the stage and modifying the ground equipment (including having to increase the size of the VAB) wasn't worth it for a stage that wouldn't offer the same performance as the EUS. This time its not oldspace fuckery.

>>11119847
You'll see Bureaucracy once the reality of starship sinks in.

>>11119859
>reeee starship is going to spend years in red tape hell that means space is impossible
That's like arguing you can't run a restaurant in America because you have to pass a billion inspections and have six licenses or whatever. Guess what? Restaurants exist anyways.

>>11119855
>here's the safety packages for the 737
>no thanks too expensive we'll ride 'em without #yolo
How the fuck is Boeing at fault here you dumb nuspace shill?

Seems like the NTSB defence force is in full force today.

>>11119865
Congress has found Boeing covered up the existence of MCAS and kept it out of pilot training to deceive airlines and prevent retraining. This killed over 300 people. These are established facts. Why are you defending a company that brazenly and openly murders civilians for profit?

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1191774894796759040

>SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is the "surprise guest" for #AFSpacePitchDay in San Francisco, speaking at 11:30 a.m. PT (19:30 UTC). More to come!

>>11119863
Actually it's not that easy to open a restaurant around here without generous bribes and it might be impossible if you are in bad terms with some people. Certainly you won't be touching the good spots anyway.

I do hope spaceflight will be less burdened by legalized crime.

>>11119870
Established facts completely blown out of proportion for negative media coverage likely driven by competitors.

>>11119816
shut the fuck up boomer

https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1191794718318817280

>>11119936
>We're not recovering stage 1 on this mission, but the booster has guidance and navigation hardware including S-band telemetry and onboard flight computer systems to gather data to inform future efforts. The stage also has a reaction control system to orient itself during re-entry

>>11119825
Pretty sure that was an earlier launch and not the Starman one. Big blowup about the FCC and I think some other agency bitching about that particular launch not having the required paperwork done for filming the Earth at LEO altitudes.

If it was Starman's launch they would have shut that shit down before it had already accumulated 4 hours of runtime.

>>11119870
>to deceive airlines and prevent retraining
no, their largest 737 customer, Southwest Airlines, demanded that the new plane not require retraining, they were in the loop the whole time

They still half-assed the new control law though; like, how much would another two AoA sensors have cost?

>>11119943
Not him but it was the starman launch. The following f9 launch had no cams because "spacex didn't get a loicense" or some shit.

>>11119852
Google is shit without great effort but it’s real dude:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/939887/SpaceX-shock-reveal-Falcon-9-launch-camera-cut-off-Elon-Musk-NOAA-restriction

>humble water tower salesman, 2038, colorized

>>11119943
It was literally the Tesla car in space, cut off by NOAA /FCC after 9 minutes.
Then they made Tesla shut off all their obscure ones that went under the radar the same day.
I can’t make this shit up and you are glowing bro.
I KNOW Elon would tweet about it so he must have been told not to in a NSL too.

>>11119987
Based

>>11119971
>only companies that can’t go to space can get the license.
Oh the world we live in.

>>11119994
They could go to space they just weren't allowed to cam it. Launches from that point on, the licensed ones, had noticeably worse image quality courtesy of lower res cams.

>>11120033
>They could go to space they just weren't allowed to cam it.
Why though?

>>11119750
Atleast we arent dealing with a bunch of ayylmao natives demanding gibs.

Air Force’s top acquistion officer Dr. Will Rope & Lt. Gen. John Thompson and Musk are having a meeting today in a secure room. interesting

>>11120123
>The Sentinelese have sent a letter to SpaceX demanding compensation for damaging their culture through sky pollution by the Starlink satellites which is supposedly confusing some of their people into believing that new star gods have formed
>The rest of the world is baffled by how the Sentinelese could possibly have sent this letter
I have legitimately seen an argument that Starlink could damage the culture of those people in this way.

>>11120146
some animals use the stars to navigate. wonder if in the future that'll be a problem. Turtles already get fucked due to ground-based light pollution when they hatch

>>11120151
Just install GPS in their head, LMAO

>>11119718
Has this followup tweet video from the fairing been seen before?

>>11120190

>>11120190
>>11120194
Weird, that webm really doesn't want to post

>>11119544

>>11119609
>radiation on the surface of mars under a dome won't be trivial
It will be, because Mars habitats will be underneath a decent few meters of compacted soil. Having the equivalent of 5000 kg of shielding per square meter will cut the radiation down to negligible levels.

>>11119644
>assumes your mass fraction
nothin personnel, kid

>>11119663
It's weird how two years ago we'd call that a shitty hack job even for a mockup model, but now it's just normal and actually cool in a way, since it's such a gigantic middle finger at the products of 50 years of bureaucratic meddling in space technology.

Boeing lander bid has a new press release:
>Boeing Proposes ‘Fewest Steps to the Moon’ for NASA’s Human Lander
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-11-05-Boeing-Proposes-Fewest-Steps-to-the-Moon-for-NASAs-Human-Lander

>>11120220
I remember reading a post about how the majority of radiation on Mars comes in the UV spectrum which is trivial to block with just a film layer over your glass dome. Still, domes don't compare to the economics of running a drill team 24/7 and burrowing out endless out of habitable radiation free space without needing to ISRU glass and metal and all sorts of shit.

>>11120272
Sounds like nuanced faggotry, the kind of shit a PR firm would regurgitate with no real idea of what they are communicating.

>Abort test was a success
>Ignore that chute that failed to deploy pls
>Definitely ignore the huge lethal NTO cloud pls

At least SpaceX sort of admitted it was a failure lul.

>>11120272
https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1191829326276132864

Blue’s dream-team has also submitted their bid, I’m interested in who else will follow them.

>>11119870
The shit pilots killed those people in the end.
Plenty of real pilots in the first world had the same problem, and didn't crash.
In at least one of the crashes, they turned the system off, recovered, and fucking turned it back on and crashed like literal fucking retards.
Not saying Boeing didn't fuck up though.

>>11120292
One capsule survived it’s test in one piece, the other didn’t, in turn proving that one can safely abort and the other can’t. Also, that big cloud of NTO was completely nominal, as it was residue left over in the ejected service module and not the capsule itself; in launch circumstances the cloud wouldn’t exist because the SM would sink into the Atlantic, killing a bunch of fish but not the astronauts.

>>11119765
>not realizing 95% of people already live in that world
light pollution is a crime against humanity, satellites are an inconvenience at worst, if you're a fag with a telescope.

>>11120301
I can understand what you are saying as far as one of the crashes having the pilots turning the system off-recovering-then turning it back on and not being jacked on adrenaline because of that shit- and not the least bit worried to quintuple check existence and ask for an emergency landing.

A nice render of Boeing’s lander submission

>>11120300
The deadline is today, so we should know soon.

>>11120347
Where'd you find that anon?

>>11120347
ahhh the nice orange shaft of american ingenuity, a fine craft of the luscious american dong praise be upon it.

>>11120354
>Where'd you find that anon?

The press release

>>11120364
Must not render on mobile.

>>11120301
the undocumented control override would pitch the plane down, wait five seconds, and pitch the plane down again, on a loop forever

yes there was an American crew that fought this all the way back to a safe landing, but still, that's some heroics that shouldn't be needed to work around some absolutely braindead software

>>11120347
Another render

>>11120286
UV light makes up the majority of cell-damaging radiation in space by a long shot, at least within the solar system out to roughly Saturn. Most of the radiation dose however comes from cosmic rays, because like you said, UV is so easy to block it's not even worth discussing. Cosmic rays are hard to block, you basically need multiple tons of material between you and space, full stop. Solar charged particles need somewhere between a centimeter and ten centimeters of material (a few grams to a kilogram) to shield against, which is why people talk about the 'solar storm shelter' concept for vehicles, where astronauts would take the little dose leaking through the walls, but huddle into a closet surrounded by food and water and waste to shield from any large bursts of radiation from the Sun. To mitigate cosmic ray dose, go faster and once you get to Mars hunker down into a surface base.

>>11120272
>just use SLS lol
fuck Boeing

>>11120300
I'm really hoping SpaceX bids Starship and includes official graphics of Starship mogging Gateway

>>11120369
It wasn't exactly undocumented after the first crash, they told airlines how to handle problems with it.
>yes there was an American crew that fought this all the way back to a safe landing
No, they turned the MCAS off, declared an emergency, and landed normally at the nearest airport like the other's should have.

>>11119809

NTR is actually meme. Heavy engine = Low thrust to weight + bulky hydrogen fuel negate ISP advantage. Maybe that can change, can't say otherwise, outside my jurisdiction.

Jet engines have great isp, but they have terrible thrust to weight and that's why we don't have jet engine boosters.

Boomers with a jockular superficial pet preference for it oversold NTR.

>>11120354
Has SpaceX officially submitted yet?

>>11120354
Uh guys? That's not the 4x RL-10s the EUS is supposed to have.

What engine *is* that?

>>11120463
Meant to reply to >>11120347

>>11120418
Your acting like NASA actually care about Gateway being mogged, they’ve publicly admitted they don’t (which is why Artemis has no size limit for landers) and have produced their own diagrams of big three-stage landers mogging Gateway. NASA envisages Gateway as a reusable CSM for lunar operations and not an ISS around the Moon, which is why it’s not designed to be very big.

>>11120463
>>11120347
We know that "commercial SLS" is supposed to be a "bring your own engines" thing, because NASA isn't handing out free RS-25s. Could Boeing be using something else, like RS-68? And the single engine EUS could be explained by using a BE-3U...

What absolute meme rocket has Boeing created? What's next, bringing back Pyrios?

>>11119858

Blue would probably say that the SLS doesn't need to be as performant in their model of the lunar and other mission components being launched by New Glenn or similar vehicles and SLS delivering crew.

>>11120469
Wow, I was building this in KSP without even realizing.

>>11120483
Might not be the BE-3U either. I'd be surprised if Blue was willing to help their competition.

>>11120443
NTR is shit for launch vehicles, nobody denies this.
NTR is great for high C3. On orbit you don't give a shit about TWR, so you bloatmaxxx your stage on hydrogen to get that sweet 92% mass fraction at 1000 Isp, and you run your engine for two hours until you run out of propellant and are cruising along at 24,000 m/s.

>>11120483
>>11120525
>>11120463
>>11120468
It's the single RL-10 on the ICPS you fucking clowns
This is an SLS block 1, aka shittaker 95 tons-LEO

>>11120534
>“Using the lift capability of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1B, we have developed a ‘Fewest Steps to the Moon’ approach that minimizes mission complexity, while offering the safest and most direct path to the lunar surface,” said Jim Chilton, senior vice president of Space and Launch for Boeing Defense, Space & Security.
>Using the lift capability of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1B
It's either a modified EUS or a bad render, take your pic.

>>11120534
there's no way in hell you're getting a two stage lander to NRHO on block 1, the math doesn't work.

>>11120528

Also might be expensive for impulse delivered versus competition. Nuke engines/stages probably not cheap.

>>11120547
>>11120541
It's a bad render, then. I expect no less.

>>11120570
This is my guess too

>>11120551
Correct. They make the most sense for one-off high delta V requirement missions, like a fast-transit Uranus orbiter probe.

>>11120397
>The descent stage has a hatch
>The descent stage
>has a hatch

>>11120463

Maybe they dusted off the rl-60.

>>11120574
>>11120570
I don't think you "accidentally" put a wrong engine on another model and have all the effects match

>not liking Bounce
Typical Starlink customer

>>11120588
No dude, they "accidentally" used the entire SLS block 1 model.

>>11120581
Yes, that’s where the astronauts get out, there’s a hatch on the bottom of the ascent stage which the crew crawl threw to reach a pressurised cabin at the centre of the descent-stage where the entry/exit hatch is. Some anon posted diagrams of this awhile ago...

>>11120611
The ICPS isn't orange. Or the right diameter.

>>11120611
The render is definitely a Block 1B, because there’s no taper in pic related which is characteristic of the Block 1A and the second-stage in pic related is also the same width as the first, unlike the ICPS.

What if it's a J-2X?

https://youtu.be/z5k7-Y4nZlQ

Mars direct 2.0 from this year Mars Society. Will Zubrin ever give up on tiny tin cans? Taking bets now.

>>11120614
>the crew crawl threw
>threw
through

>>11120626
The answer is no. At this point I think he's just grasping at straws in order to get his name involved with something, anything to do with an actual space program.

>>11120629
Oops

>>11120625
I don't think even Boeing is crazy enough to resurrect *that*.

>>11120483
>commercial SLS
>and other funny lines

>>11120626
>He wants SpaceX to develop a mini starship to stage off an elliptical orbit starship
>"Even if we take the starship all the way to Mars, we still need NASA to develop a heavy Mars lander"

Has he finally lost it after being cucked for so long?

Sweet home Alabama
Where the skies are so blue
Sweet home Alabama
Lord, I'm coming home to you…

>>11120675
Maybe being forced to redo a manned Mars mission proposal to include the ISS broke him?

>>11120679
Is that the Blue Origin factory?

>>11120685
Yes, Shelby’s engine ranch in Huntsville

>>11120690
Cool. Wish I could work there.

Had my first day at ULA yesterday, /sfg/

>>11120730
did they take you into the shelby shrine? (i kid, i kid)

>>11120730
What’s your job and at which of their facilities do you work?

Why does spacex have 100+ open positions and ULA and NASA have 25 total?

>>11120730
Did you get to see the holy SLS (pbui)?

>>11120748
ULA/NASA have career people who are comfy with slow/steady 9-5 jobs. SpaceX burns out 50 hours+ weekly minimum and some going very high up the numbers. There are high burn out rates in SpaceX as a result.

>>11115903
Bricks lmao

>>11120750
SLS is built at NASA’s Michoud plant and not ULA’s Decatur factory.

>>11120752
ULA also has a decent amount of automation in it’s rocket building process.

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

>>11120753
This but unironically.
For a less brittle option, why not try vermiculite grains mixed with resin and cured directly into the combustion chamber shape? Use a steel jacket for strength, resin holds the vermiculite together, the vermiculite acts as insulation.

>>11120782
How cheap would that be, and how easy would it be to make it? I was looking for a refractory material to line the chamber and throat (and maybe nozzle too) of a small liquid propellant engine as regen cooling isn't going to be possible without a 3D printer, and I want more consistent performance during burning which rules out ablative materials.

>>11120730
what flavor is the frozen yogurt there?

False alarm about the lander engine. Boeing just forgot to stick an "engine firing" effect on the other 3.

>>11120775
>ULA also has a decent amount of automation in it’s rocket building process.
tbf SLS does too. the welding of core stage tanks is entirely automated. they built a giant robot to do it.

>>11120904
pic related. it's the giant blue tower

New thread:
>>11120937

>>11120838
Vermiculite is sold as a potted plant mix material I think, any plastic resin will do (doesn't matter if it burns, that's just cooling via ablation), you're probably looking at a few dollars per kilogram? Also I'd recommend adding some rock wool insulation to the vermiculite and resin mix, because although when it is mixed with resin it won't act as insulation those fibers are gonna help hold the thing together once the heat's on.

>>11120901
I expect nothing less from boing

>>11120741
What is that?

>>11120747
Nice try, FBI

>>11120750
That's NASA you dork!!

>>11120842
Never tried it :^(

>>11121257
>What is that?
Do not propose fuel depots, whatever you do.