/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11120937
https://spacenews.com/boeing-offers-sls-launched-lunar-lander-to-nasa/

This is really the hill NASA is going to die upon. Next Giant Leap: Grrl Pwr Edition. Have you taken a moment to contemplate it yet?

>>11120976
NASA's human space flight program is rapidly becoming irrelevant, and it's terrifying, and here's why that's a good thing.

>>11120994
>yfw Maezawas lunar orgy party includes a near-landing on the moon, hovering the Starship a meter above the surface before continuing on its journey back home
>yfw SLS still hasn't launched by that point

Starship de geso

>>11120988
This is making me wish I took more material science courses, but thanks!

>any plastic resin will do (doesn't matter if it burns, that's just cooling via ablation)
But I was specifically avoiding ablation (or at least significant amounts of it) unless the ablation isn't that bad?

>>11120976
Who cares if it brings attention to space in general.

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

shuttle launch viewed from commercial flight

>>11120976
for every kilogram lighter the astronauts are, you get one more kilogram of lunar surface samples to earth

women and manlets only

>>11121154
for every kilogram lighter the Artemis astronauts are, MZ will bring another kilo of cocaine on the Starship Gammorah

>>11120976
What's wrong with putting women on the moon?

When access to space gets cheaper, what kind of sports or competitions done in space can you imagine getting popular?

>high DeltaV drag races where the goal is to fly out to the moon and back to LEO as fast as possible

>>11121179
I'm really not sure how that world work

>>11121179
Past a certain speed you come into Earth's atmosphere as a streak of napalm. I don't think anyone can free fall into Earth from 500,000 miles for example AND do an engine burn while falling past the moon and survive, but I may be wrong.

>>11121248
Permanent hub in LEO hosting LEO to moon hub racing pods/ships.

>>11121254
And the deltaV needed to slow down back into an orbit around Earth from that far away would flatten you.

>>11121248
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikQ7XYcQBzg
This but not as stupidly huge. Taking the most direct path to the moon and back using everything short of a torch drive.

>>11121248
Maybe if you dont care about your life you can do a burn through ugh the asteroid belt. So you can see who makes to Ceres alive.

>>11121254
>>11121255
So you're saying that there's a chance?

>>11121174
There aren't any kitchens on the moon.

Can one fall from 100km with pressure vessle and parashutes survive?

>>11121447
Yes; the speed that leads to intense heat upon reentry comes entirely from the velocity required to reach orbit. Just falling 100km would most likely not have much heating, and proper pressure vessel and parachute designs could make this work.

>>11121447
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE

>>11121471
Didn't the soviets try something similar and the cosmonauts died when they hit the ground?

>>11121471
>deorbits before heat shield inflates

>>11121471
That honestly sounds terrifying. Going through that would probably give anyone spacephobia.

>>11121471
DO YOU APES WANNA LIVE FOREVER?

>>11121061
The exposed surfaces are gonna char a bit bit it's only going to penetrate as deep as the vermiculite can transfer heat, and considering it's basically rock foam that's not gonna be far.

If you wanna think about it as a nozzle made of brittle rock foam stabilized with rock fibers and plastic, with an inner layer where the plastic is replaced with carbon-carbon, OR as a slow ablator, that's up to you. Depends on your combustion temperature too, if you're not getting hot enough to vaporize carbon and you don't have exhaust that likes to eat carbon you should be good.

>>11121444
based and trips pilled

>>11121254
Wouldn't it be possible to do atmospheric braking over multiple passes to ventually get to survivable speeds.

>>11121444
I'm sure we could launch a kitchen drone before the women are sent up to make the moon woman habitable

>>11121179
Gayshit like impulse Quidditch and also good shit like dogfight simulation.

>saturn v has a flawless launch record (13 for 13) and an impeccable safety record and the only craft capable of >LEO to date
>it is by any metric imaginable the greatest rocket ever built to the point that it's nearly impossible to improve upon
>instead of honing this design or at least keeping it in storage, NASA plum forgot how to build one and has spent 40+ years trying and failing to reinvent the wheel
reminder that spacefaggots have NO answer to this and WILL sperg hard about it

>>11121179
SLINGSHOTTING BELTALOWDA

>>11121729
but we agree and hate SLS?

>>11121729
>flawless launch record
I mean, it turned out that way, but it's not like they weren't still hastily debugging stuff on-the-fly every other mission.

>>11121746
Yeah, it was basically only luck that kept the Apollo program from seeing any off-Earth fatalities.

>mfw there are people who unironically literally believe that SLS will be anything but a failure

>>11121799
Hi.

Stay mad.

>>11121812
After everything we've seen from Boeing lately, what reason do you have to retain confidence in their ability to execute?

>>11121799
>implying a program getting 2 decades of funding to be spent in dozens of states is a failure
It did exactly want to was ment to do, be wellfare for oldspace.

>>11121799
I just like rockets. I think it will fly for a little bit. I'm still looking forward to starship tho

>>11121179
3d soccer, the goalies are hooked to 4 cords that they can use to maneuver and guard the goal.
3d tennis think pong but the tennis players only get three cords to maneuver. the distance would obviously have to be greater for better reaction time but still.
The skill demand would be insanely high and like most new games there would be winners and losers hyper-analyzing.
And when I say cords I mean you pull on it and it autonomously retracts to manipulate your position in 3d space.

>>11121179
Battle rooms from Ender's Game

>>11121729
The Saturn V was ridiculously expensive. It was basically like launching a battleship into space. It was also somewhat inefficient. It worked well enough for it's time, but we can design far more efficient and paradoxically, simpler rockets today that could do the same thing. The Saturn V had to be over engineered because of the limitations of the time.

>>11121729
>multiple engine failures
>multiple electrical bus failures
>multiple navigation failures
It was luck and Apollo cancellation that stopped the Saturn from killing a crew. It was great for what it was, an extremely rushed project with unlimited budget but it wasn't going to have any lasting impact on space.

Now thanks to reusability we are starting to see launch costs drop and space become economically viable to more industries.

>>11122048
>space become economically viable to more industries.

Which industries? The only significant emerging industry I can see so far are small sats and that has nothing to do with reusability. The miniaturisation of satellites seems to be having a much bigger effect on the space industry than reusability.

>>11122081
Compared to the '60s? Comms is the huge one with research payloads getting so cheap in the last decade universities are now putting up small sats.

>The miniaturisation of satellites seems to be having a much bigger effect on the space industry than reusability
I agree with that, seeing we have had resused rockets flying for 2 years it hasn't had a huge impact yet but I believe it will in the next decade.

>>11122081
>Which industries?
Capitalism. Once we get viable off-world colonies, the opportunities for acquisition of wealth increase exponentially.

>>11122081
Smallsats take advantage of technology which already exists, that is, technology that miniaturizes and enhances the energy efficiency of computer systems so they can be smaller and less electricity hungry. The technology to reuse rockets is comparatively immature, while a ton of paper work has been done there are only a scant few real world successes at the moment and they're still the exception in rocket technology while miniaturized computers are the rule in their field. Also when it comes to hoisting mass it's less difficult up-front to shrink your payload rather than upsize your vehicle but that isn't really a sustainable model if major work is ever going to be done in space. There are some projects which will simply demand a lot of mass. Luckily bigger launchers are more of an economic and industrial challenge rather than a technical one since you can brute force a lot issues by simply making it more bigly, especially since good avionics can make practically anything fly so long as it has control surfaces.

>>11120994
>>11120976
>"The mansplaining, anti-inclusion government agency of the old white man era, known colloquially as 'NASA', is rapidly becoming a pariah among the SJW power elite companies and here is why that is a good thing..."

>>11121023
I think Starship is going to need a pair of robot arms so that it can dab on SLS.

>>11122135
ok boomer

>>11122135
Lol...

>>11122194

>>11121179
There's lots of zero-gee acrobatics stuff that can be done with a sufficiently large enclosed volume. So far the biggest has been Skylab. I think the Bigelow modules that would be currently feasible to launch (if they were ready) are about the same size, but will probably have a floor in the middle.

>>11121816
If you by "execute" mean hurling a few astronauts into the ground at terminal velocity, then about 75% chance

>>11121529
It would, and this is what SpaceX wants to do AFAIK

>>11122251
>What a great performance at the 2032 Olympics at the Shelby Memorial Propellant Depot!

>>11120937
>2020

>Still no Moon colonies
>Still no spaceships
>Still nothing

>>11122275
Patience, young padawan.

>https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/the-white-house-puts-a-price-on-the-sls-rocket-and-its-a-lot/
Official price of SLS per launch is $2b according to White House Budge Management. Last may's "$876 million" was misleading at best.

>>11122290
I think I’ll believe OIG’s math over the Trump administration and Eric Berger...It’s like how everybody has a different estimate for how much the Shuttle launches costed, the math is so convoluted that it’s anybody’s guess what the true cost is.

https://spacenews.com/elon-musk-space-pitch-day/

>A single Starship will expend about $900,00 worth of fuel and oxygen for pressurization to send “at least 100 tons, probably 150 tons to orbit,” Musk said. SpaceX’s cost to operate Starship will be around $2 million per flight, which is “much less than even a tiny rocket,” he added.

$2 million for 100 tons to orbit is $20 per kg. More than 100 times cheaper than Falcon rockets.

If used for carrying people, a ticket to space could cost $10,000 dollars.

https://twitter.com/Lori_Garver/status/1191922277622915072

Lori Garver on SLS

>>11122290
>>11122305
What does this mean? Actually building and launching it doesn’t cost $2 Billion. It costs 876 million. Everything including research, development, the pad work, the VAB, the building it was built in cost $2 billion. That’s at 1 launch a year as well, so if you launched two a year the price would go down to $1 billion.

That 1.5 billion in savings isn’t exactly accurate. The work force, the buildings and all that would still be there with or without clipper flying on the SLS.

>>11122324
Research is not included in $2B per launch cost. The cost of $2B is includes work force and building/factory costs.

>>11121896
>And when I say cords I mean you pull on it and it autonomously retracts to manipulate your position in 3d space.
Nah, just plain old bungee cords ought to be fine.

>>11122264
We have the Summer Olympics, and the Winter Olympics, this would just add a new one as the Space Olympics.
>waiting eagerly for the Space Paralympics and the Space Special Olympics

>>11122322
>never mind that it would be too tall to fit in the VAB

>>11122290
How much does it go up when they run out of crate engines?

>>11122331
Also $876 B is only for the physical parts of the rocket, not anything else(labor/buildings/research/etc)

>>11122322
Lol, Blue was a glorified think-tank in 2011, I can’t believe they actually had the gall to bid something for the SLS booster competition. For perspective, an expendable New Shepard didn’t fly until 2013 and it crashed.

>>11122324
>>11122311
>>11122290

Actually the real, full cost of SLS is closer tp $4 billion per launch.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1192099914760835073

>>11122332
>too tall to fit in the VAB

$100 million to fix that.

>>11122335

>>11122334
>New Shepard
They still haven't launched anything with orbital velocity yet.

>>11122337
EXPENDABLE ASSEMBLY BUILDINGS

>>11122339
$4 B I L L I O N
B
I
L
L
I
O
N

>>11122335
The SLS’s cost is basically whatever Berger wants to spin it to be, at this point...

>>11122337
I’m pretty sure completely rebuilding the VAB would cost billions.

>>11122354
>I’m pretty sure completely rebuilding the VAB would cost billions.

VAB is just a big rocket hangar, there is no reason at all why it should cost billions. Also, no need to completely rebuild it, just increase door height, and maybe the roof (debatable).

>>11122354
>white house colludes with trump to create a liberal white nationalist plan to kill SLS

>>11122354
>I’m pretty sure completely rebuilding the VAB would cost billions.
And it would be expendable, too.

>>11122335
That's what I estimated in yesterday's thread. If we include amortization of r/d and launch frequency, it will reach $4+ billion.

However that maybe "unfair". So just labor cost + building maintenance cost + rocket = >$2B.

Whoever denies this basic cost of labor and building maintenance cost are living in delusional magic land where rockets just pop into existence from raw material.

>>11122363
The VAB has been reused for 4 vehicles: Saturn V, Shuttle, OmegA and SLS. It is the opposite of expendable...

>>11122360
The VAB is 53 years old, modifying the VAB would likely be one of those construction jobs which seem simple on the surface, but get very complicated and expensive quickly once work gets underway.

>>11120976
I don't give a rat's ass about the meatbags they're sending. What I do care about is that NASA is working on ISRU a wee bit more seriously, that they're allowed to even consider propellant depots, and that mission meatbag is to a permanently shadowed crater. Permanently shadowed craters probably have ice which we can mine for propellant. If you don't know prop mining helps you beat the rocket equation. But yeah, there's the chance that permanently shadowed craters could look fucking awesome too.

>>11122385
>The VAB has been reused for 4 vehicles: Saturn V, Shuttle, OmegA and SLS. It is the opposite of expendable...
It was a joke, I was referencing their 1bn launch tower that will probably be used only once. The VAB is one of the symbols of the enduring "old space".

>>11122354

This isn't that complicated.

Yearly SLS program cost at 1 per year: 2b
Marginal cost of an additional SLS after that, ie the second of two per year: 900m, so 2b + 900m that year.
Cost per launch of the first ten at 1 per yer for ten years if we included the 20b over ten years program costs during the development period: 4 billion a launch

SLS fanboys: SLS only costs 900m. I will refuse to understand or recognize any other cost figure.

>>11122385
>It is the opposite of expendable...
imagine replying like this to an obvious joke

>>11122405
>What I do care about is that NASA is working on ISRU a wee bit more seriously, that they're allowed to even consider propellant depots
I'm sorry anon, but that threatens jobs in Alabama so ISRU and propellant depots are impossible.

>>11122446
Despite the Shelby memes, NASA is actually testing ISRU technology in Alabama with Blue Origin:

>The largest award went to Blue Origin, which received $10 million to carry out a ground demonstration of technology to liquefy and store hydrogen and oxygen. Such technology, NASA said, could eventually be used on a propellant production plant on the moon, converting water ice found there into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen for use by lunar landers, like Blue Origin’s proposed Blue Moon lander.

>Blue Origin has performed the first hotfire test of the engine it plans to use on its Blue Moon lunar lander.

>Company founder Jeff Bezos tweeted June 19 that the test of the BE-7 engine took place the previous day at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-and-spacex-among-winners-of-nasa-exploration-technology-contracts/

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-performs-first-test-of-be-7-lunar-lander-engine/

What do you think the fallout would be if we found one of these bad boys on the far side of the moon? Along with a dead cosmonaut of course.

>>11122496
Isn’t this the exact plot of the terrible horror movie: ‘Apollo 18’?

>>11122332
>Space special Olympics
SLS has found it's calling

>>11122501
Haven't heard of it. I just looked it up on IMBD and it looks like a late night sci fi special.

>>11122337
Not with asbestos mitigation.

>>11122420
It's more like
>Berger: I will refuse to clearly delineate between fixed costs and marginal costs so my readers will think an additional SLS launch would cost $5 bajillion

>>11122135
Capitalism will be extinct by then due to automation. Employment makes no sense.

>>11122508
The premise is basically that the US military has commandeered the Apollo 18 launch and sends a team of military astronauts on a classified mission to investigate a weird anomaly on the lunar surface. They find out that it’s an abandoned Soviet base on the far side of the Moon, where the inhabitants have all mysteriously disappeared. They find out the culprit behind the disappearances is living, man-eating Moon dust...

Space flight is impossible. A spacecraft can NOT orient itself in space using thrusters. The moment you fired one you would go into an infinite spin and the more thrusters you fire to stop it the more fucked you will become.

Space is, unironically, not memeing: Fake. Space is fake.
>black holes: fake
>dark matter: fake
>big bang: fake
etc

>>11122513
The question is how much a SLS launch costs, not how much an additional launch costs. Ignoring fixed costs is absurd.

Guys SLS is actually 28 billion per launch if you include all the REAL costs

>>11122566
Imagine seething this hard

>>11122566
Actually, my source says SLS costs $7 septillion to launch, if you count the real costs!

Regarding SLS costs, we can compare it with the Shuttle, which we know cost $1.5 billion per launch. However, this is with 133 launches and rather high launch rate compared to SLS, which decreaes costs a lot.

So it makes complete sense that SLS would cost $4 billion per launch or so. Anyone trying to pretend that it is significantly less is cooking the books.

>>11122558
>Space flight is impossible. A spacecraft can NOT orient itself in space using thrusters. The moment you fired one you would go into an infinite spin and the more thrusters you fire to stop it the more fucked you will become.

Citation needed.

>>11122591
New to the discussion, where did the $4B figure come from? I thought the max cost per launch was $2B?

>>11122600
>>11122339

>>11122599
Just ignore him, he's an obvious troll.

>>11122600
You didn’t use the Berger equation anon, lol

>>11122600
$2b is cost to build. $875m is raw material. $4b is amortization of r/d cost + low flight rate.

>>11122600
Add all the development and fixed costs from 2011 to 2040, it will be $$ several tens of billions. Divide by a dozen launches or so, an optimistic estimate in fact. The result is like $3 billion per launch. Berger is correct.

SLS till cheaper than the Shuttle on a cost-per-kg-to-orbit basis, but not by much. It is ridiculously expensive compared to everything else.

>>11122615
>2011 to 2030
fixed

>>11122604
>>11122609
I feel that including the development costs is abit tricky. It requires an assumption based on the number of expected launches and if there's difficulty in figuring that number out then its left open to creative interpretation to either make a launcher look good or bad. I can make the assumption that SLS can launch only once and have the entire development costs stack on one launch to make it the most expensive rocket to launch ever, but that doesn't really accurately represent how expensive the vehicle would be per launch.

>>11122623
>I can make the assumption that SLS can launch only once and have the entire development costs stack on one launch to make it the most expensive rocket to launch ever, but that doesn't really accurately represent how expensive the vehicle would be per launch.

I would argue that if it launches only once, then it will be indeed the most expensive launch vehicle ever by any measure that matters. If a rocket has low launch rate, a rocket is expensive. A measure of cost needs to reflect this.

>>11122623
This is why you assume 10-20 flights. I doubt it would be more. Even 10 flight is liberal assumption and the conservative being 4-6 before shutting down.

>>11122349

>>11122627
>>11122628
I guess you have a point, but probably more explanation into how the number of launches was derived would be needed to avoid looking like it was pulled out of nowhere.

It's probably due to the high cost + high competition from SpaceX + blue origin

Starship is the ultimate vehicle with a launch cost of $0. How can NASA compete lads?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle
>"The rovers were designed with a top speed of about 8 mph (13 km/h), although Eugene Cernan recorded a maximum speed of 11.2 mph (18.0 km/h), giving him the (unofficial) lunar land-speed record."

>>11122349
Fair price for the most powerful rocket ever made and the only one that can take people beyond low earth orbit.

And it could launch before the so called commercial crew program even achieves the trivial goal of sending astronauts to the space station.

>>11122600
It's coming from fanboy anti-NASA hate. The SLS launch cost will be well below billion and the number will drop as the production ramps up.

>>11122720
>equating SLS pork hate with anti-NASA

>>11122713
Racing on the moon. 1/6th the gravity, no atmosphere. Could do some crazy shit with that.

>>11122730
>rally car races on the moon
>car hits a bump, flies for a mile before hitting the ground
>has rcs thrusters that have to be controlled by the co-driver
>lack of an atmosphere can allow for exotic and unaerodynamic looking shapes
>the spectacle of these races can be used to raise funds for deep space exploration
I'm for that!

>>11122716
>>11122720
$4 B I L L I O N
B
I
L
L
I
O
N

Calculating the true cost of SLS is easy. Take the last price estimate you heard and add a billion.

>>11122744
Why does anyone care how expensive it is?

>>11122747
Because it's a massive sink of taxpayer dollars that eats the majority of what little budget NASA actually gets?
>but they'd get even less without SLS!
That's not an argument in favor of SLS, that's an argument in favor of hanging and flaying Shelby

>>11122743
For the record, this is ~$30,000 American dollarydoos per kilogram of payload to low Earth orbit. More than half a century after Apollo. This is where we are at.

>>11122747
>SLS budget
JAMES WEBB TELESCOPE WHERE ARE YOU?

>>11122752
>Because it's a massive sink of taxpayer dollars that eats the majority of what little budget NASA actually gets?

Triple the budget ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>11122720

1 a year: 2 billion a launch
2 a year: 1.45 billion per launch
3 a year: 1.27 billion per launch
4 a year: 1.18 billion per launch
5 a year: 1.12 billion per launch

WHILE YOU FOOLS ARGUE OVER INSIGNIFICANT FISCAL CONCERNS, HE GROWS STRONGER BY THE DAY! THIS ISN'T EVEN HIS FINAL FORM!

>>11122752
>That's not an argument in favor of SLS, that's an argument in favor of hanging and flaying Shelby
That argument does have a point though. NASA doesn't get one lump sum of cash from the government to do as they please. They get money that is specifically marked to each specific project and nothing else. Canceling SLS just means that NASA would no longer get money for SLS. Budget-wise, their other projects will just be as well/poorly funded as before.

Now, one could make the argument that since the US government is clearly comfortable with giving such a large budget for SLS, that they should be comfortable with ending SLS and redistributing the budget to "better" programs. But that ignores the political reality that the SLS gets such a large budget is that it has the among highest poltical merits out of the other programs at NASA. However, that is a definite supporting peice of evidence that prive space agencies should take greater priority over national ones until the national agencies trim down on the political issues.

>>11122776
Such a shame that this beautiful hardware will end up on the bottom of the ocean after one flight.

Government literally prints money.
It doesn't matter how much they spend on something so long as result is delivered in the end.

>>11122730
>>11122741
My buddy and I unironically do this is Kerbal Space Program all the time. We try to build the most outrageous deathtrap rovers, land them on the Mun (or Minmus if you want to ramp off a hill and reach orbit), and have deathrace competitions.

11122789
you have to be over 18 to use this site

>>11122779
The argument has a point insofar as that's how the current system works, but I don't think you'll find many people who know how the system works and aren't in Congress that think it's a good system. NASA *should* get a lump sum, or at least a large discretionary budget. This wouldn't be politically popular, but would vastly improve NASA's return on investment.

Please keep in mind large part of the cost is the crew capability.

You cannot compare cargo rocket to one meant to carry human beings and return them safely.

All alternative options will ultimately prove more expensive and less capable once that requirement is added in.

>>11122789
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

>>11122797
The safest rocket is the one that never flies, just sits at Michoud collecting dust and dollars.

>>11122779
Historically, NASA budget always had around $10 billion per year available for manned spaceflight related activities. Adjusted for inflation, this holds true since the end of Apollo. While most administrations are content in merely ignoring space programs, no administration wants to be known as the one who defunded NASA and ended US space program, it would be bad PR for no reason. So if SLS is cancelled, it is reasonable to expect that a new program will be created with similar funding levels. And if that program is based on cheap reusable launch vehicles, then the end result could be glorious.

>>11122792
With or without RCS?

>>11122792
With KSP2 having proper multiplayer, then you have races where you have to destroy each others cars, or jousting.

>>11122807
Usually without, the horrific crashes and fiery deaths are half the fun. On Minmus RCS is kind of required though, see above.

$4 B I L L I O N
B
I
L
L
I
O
N

>>11122813
Any alternatives? No? Then shut the fuck up and stop trying to stop spaceflight.

>>11122811
I feel horrible if I get Kerbals killed or stuck.
Took me like a month of playing to get the balls to send some to Duna

>>11122822
Try the purple one the landing is much easier.

>>11122826
Good luck getting em back from an Eve landing though.

>>11122822
I have literally never had a Kerbal get stranded. I usually have excess Delta V for emergency maneuvers and such, I plan it out meticulously. I have had some Kerbals die but that is usually because of me being loose and fast with the time warp key rather than due to issues with my spacecraft. I did forget to put parachutes on a capsule once though so that was fun.

>>11122813
$4 Billion SLS + $2B Upper stage + $20(maybe $30 when done?) billion JWST.

K E K

>>11122837
Stranding for me usually involves atmospheric bodies and attempting to land bulbous landers on them.

>>11122840
SLS is around a billion.

>>11122845
And Elon is selling Starship for $1

>>11122826
Yeah you can aerobrake on Eve and use parachutes but it’s both more massive than Kerbin and has a denser atmosphere so there’s no fucking way I’d get them off without watching YouTube tutorials for like two hours.

>>11122847
>tfw never used guides
>tfw hated assburger stages
>tfw default aero and TITANIC stacked stages
>tfw 1fps spaghetti wobbles

I had one victory over that wretched place and it involved a mysteriously randomly functional kraken drive.

>>11122845
>>11122846
$874 million dollars per launch.

Source is OIG and not some random headline chasing journalist with rocket hate boner.

>SLS EM-1 RUD

>>11122858
EM-2 with livecam.

>>11122855
$875M without launch facilities/factory/workers/work.

$875M is magic number.

>>11122789
>It doesn't matter how much they spend on something so long as result is delivered in the end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

>>11122763
>implying they can make more than two a year without building new expendable factories

>>11122837
>I did forget to put parachutes on a capsule once
Im trying to imagine this in the real world and im cracking up

>>11122883
I just don't understand this reusable factory meme.

The amount of money you can save from reusing factories isn’t enough to justify how much harder it makes it to complete the difficult assemblies that usually make money in the manufacturing world. I’m sure one day reusability will be more effective, but the truth is that when you have all the challenges that come with manufacturing science in general, it’s almost always much more effective to throw away the factory after it’s done its job than to figure out how to make recovery part of the mission. I know of no major technology on the near term horizon that would change that.

Even if reusable factories are possible now, but when reliability is THE number one priority (in this case the product takes up 2/3rds of the cost and the actual factory only 1/3rd) it makes absolutely no sense. Like, look at this factory (pic related). This represents some of the most advanced technologies in the manufacturing engineering world. Do you honestly think that such a complicated machine can be made tough and reliable enough to be reusable? I doubt it. Best example in my opinion is condoms, sure you could reuse them but making sure that they do not suffer a drop in reliability will cost a lot of money and time.

Just because some company made reusing factories popular, then that doesn't mean that we will have the sci-fi future of millions of products per year. We'll be lucky to see more than a couple dozen per year. Dial down your expectations, don't buy into the 'reusability for factories' meme.

>>11122763
>>11122883
You need to hire more people, either expand facility for more core or build new buildings, have new launch facilities for second/third.

1 a year = $2B per launch
2 a year = $2B per launch
3 a year = $2B per launch

Assuming SLS launches only once it will be an expendable rocket using expendable launch mount and ultimately an expendable factory. Holy shit.

>>11122779

SLS has and had a fan movement that generated copious made up arguments to rationalize a program they were obsessive belligerent fans over and just simply wanted rather than anything else which was alien and not the shuttle program like Apollo like program they wanted to exist. Their arguments try and tried to paper over or negate any flaws or issues of it to grow a supporter movement who bought into that rhetoric and thought like they do and would persist in the very same activities. You are one and the same as these individuals, regurgitating their lines of rhetoric, someone who fell in with a bad crowd and was roped into this behavior that is pretty similar to how shuttle fans rationalized the shuttle when it existed and where the lineage sources itself.

The shuttle was ending, there was a crossroads on what the space program should do next, that crossroads was hijacked by the crowd behind SLS and it being instigated and it inherited the preexisting budget footprint. The SLS program is redirecting the inherent space program spending to their preferred outcomes of a SLS based program, rather than creating it out of thin air and being responsible for it, as they would have you believe as a line of rhetoric.

SLS is occupying what the human spaceflight program does. The human spaceflight program would exist regardless and be programmed with activities to undertake by the policy apparatus that generates and pushes for activities within the framework of the conditions of the day. I mean, obviously, The President gets a portfolio of activities to preside over and recommendations from the bureaucratic policy apparatus involved around the agency for what do with that slice of the portfolio within a more or less preexisting budge scope that has been established over time in the fabric of what the government does.

1/x

>falling for the NASA scam

>>11122905

Johnson used the existence of NASA to get work directed to his purely dollars in focused end, but that doesn't mean that NASA purely and solely existed because of that, rather than Johnson working to get benefits from institutional work that would exist for a broad variety of reasons.

The Shuttle SLS fan movement then twists that to attack criticism of their pet program the can't stand criticism of. ''Oh, SLS is expensive? Don't you know cost doesn't matter at all and you should not care about that negative aspect of our thing, like we don't?''

2/x

>>11122861
The real number is about $2 billion.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/the-white-house-puts-a-price-on-the-sls-rocket-and-its-a-lot

lel

>>11122496
>>11122501
That's the same plot as Ascent by Jed Mercurio. pretty good read.

>>11122908

''NASA only gets money because of SLS'' is a dancing is causing rain to fall line of rhetoric by the SLS fan movement to try and negate the discussion of what NASA should be pursuing with the resources of a major national human spaceflight program in the minds of the people who come to this topic. It is non falsifiable rhetoric. It can't be disproven unless SLS actually ends anymore than saying ''the sun rises because of SLS. If SLS dies the sun wouldn't rise tomorrow.'' We can say NASA does more things than SLS that exist and persist. SLS fan movement principals try to promote a completely cynical position on why government exists to simply dollars to districts by politicians who create things for that purpose alone. Its more complicated than that and even SLS includes a motivated policy spectre among the principals who genuinely hold the programmed deranged convictions they do about it. NASA is an institution that is broadly accepted and would continue with a measure of institutional purpose toward realizing aims within the scope of that.

Or: no, that may not be the case at all and just some imagined rhetoric by the SLS people.

>>11122915
Yep, and that doesn't include r/d cost either. The total with the r/d costs $4B per launch.

>>11122922
*laughs in chinese*

>>11122924
Because the US is supporting its industry?

>>11122930
Exactly. This is the US supporting industry and the Chinese are just jealous.

Support laughably unproductive companies by taxing actually productive companies more. Top class economic theory right there. South Korea would be proud.

>>11122924
>actually thinking it's SLS the rest of the world rocket industry needs to compete with and not SpaceX/Blue Origin
This is why chinks never win

>>11122941
Boeing has long history of space achievements.

Meanwhile nuspace star spacex is yet to launch humans to space and consistently experiences troubles and delays in the commercial crew program.

>>11122966
>b-but my LAURELS
t. man, resting

>spacex
>starship
>elon
>mars

>>11122980
Ok Boomer xD

>>11122958
>actually thinking it's SLS the rest of the world rocket industry needs to compete with and not SpaceX/Blue Origin

SpaceX launches this year: 10
Blue Origin launches this year: 2 (suborbital)

Chinese launches this year: 21 (19 successful, including a Moon landing)

They seem to be doing pretty well against the competition then...

>>11122966
>Back in my day Boeing used to be the beez nees!
>Buying a phone son? You can’t beat a Nokia!
>I can’t wait to retire on the dividends from all that pan-am stock I invested in.

>>11122992
Also have manned flight and their own space station. US is asleep at the wheel, still pissing away money on SLS garbage. They won’t realise the Chinese truly have space superiority until it is truly too late to catch up.

>>11121123
my peepee is rock solid

>>11122992
China isn't included in the rest of the world because its an exclusive club dominated by their government.

>>11122992
If the discussion is about current year and not future trends why was SLS even invoked? Let's see what happens to SpaceX launch rate when Starlink kicks into gear over the next couple of years.

>>11123008
>US is asleep at the wheel, still pissing away money on SLS garbage. They won’t realise the Chinese truly have space superiority until it is truly too late to catch up.
Won't be able to catch up because the Chinese economy will be twice as large as the US in the next decade alone.

Its not just their space industry, economics, but also their military. Plenty of people in the west like to downplay China's spending. US estimates China spends ~$200B a yesterday on their military. That's nominal money only. If you convert that to PPP, its close to a scary $400B. They're rapidly upgrading their military and increasing their budget every year as their economy grows.

>>11123020
>US estimates China spends ~$200B a yesterday on their military
DoD estimates China spends >$200B(nominal) a last year on their military.

God damn lost my train of thought for sec.

>>11122901
>1 a year = $2B per launch
>2 a year = $2B per launch
>3 a year = $2B per launch

Lockheed: Why hello, we need to build more of them per year, that's obviously more effot, so we need more $$$.
>1 a year = $2B per launch
>2 a year = $3B per launch
>3 a year = $9001B per launch

>>11123020
China's economic growth is grinding to a halt, I bet you aren't even getting 50 cents to post this

>>11123044
Exactly. I can understand wanting to feel superior, but to undermine a grave threat that's lurking and growing is just too foolish. You can hate an enemy without making yourself look like an idiot.

>>11122902
It will be an expendable rocket *program*.
Want to launch another? Just start SLS II to launch the second rocket ten years later!

>>11123008
>>11123020
Impressive.

With this most recent achievement, fate has in a single stroke, marked the decline of the west and spelled a new era of wondrous prosperity and peaceful global dominance for the Chinese dragon, which promises to firmly stand in sharp contrast to the historically bloody ascent of western powers and the cruel subjugation it brought to the humbler nations of the world. With the blessings of Chinese quantum direct-current electricity, quantum aircraft carriers and quantum enhanced railguns will be the instruments with which China affirms its noble stewardship of 21st century world politics and offers the non-western world a different option; an humanist alternative to the depredations of Western leadership and the opportunity for a more equitable and dignified multilateralism.

>>11123058
Responding like an NPC is just retarded.

>>11122558
ok retard

>>11123020
>China's economy
>Growing
It's been slowing down dramatically for the last 5 years and the current trade war has also hurt them pretty bad. China is beginning to suffer the same fate of all rapidly industrializing Asian countries; their middle class is growing and demanding better wages and better conditions which will eventually drive businesses elsewhere. China's economy is, has been, and always will be, dependent on selling shit to other countries.

>>11123044
Did you vote for Brexit?

Chinas growth is higher than most countries. It doesn’t matter if it’s “slowing down”. What matters is the gap between them and the US os rapidly closing.

>>11122580
and that doesn't include the cost of all the jews killed by the german scientists that fathered the american space program

>>11122902
NASA has signed for 10 more SLS cores. It will now cost MORE MONEY to NOT build SLS

>Believing a single number about the specs of Starship that Elon pulls out of his ass
The instant he said 100-150 tons as if engineers would be willing to give him that wide a margin in good conscience you should have stopped believing him. The actual cost per launch for Starship will probably balloon to something approaching SLS and even then, Starship will be one continuous piece above the booster, which makes landing on the moon and taking off again a lot harder. That's just one reason why Starship and the SLS should be considered seperately: Starship is a bus in space and SLS and Orion are intended to be precision instruments.
I want both to succeed, I really do, because both are good ways to do things for different reasons; hell, I want New Glenn to work, and Soyuz-5, and Long March-9, too. More people in space doing things is better, which I think we can all agree on. (Even if this is 4chan and we're all stuck here arguing forever).

>>11123066
>like other Asian countries
Japan stagnated because they eclipsed US in per capita income and peaked in early 90s. Japan is developed almost completely. China's still got huge divide between coastal areas and inner rural areas. Their development rate is only halfway to Japan's level per capita.

>economy slowing down
Economy slows down enough once a country starts to shift to a mature economy, barring a full EU tariffs on China, the effects of US tariffs are there but nothing enough to change course of time. Their "slow down" of economy means they're not 6.3%(or whatever) growth rate instead of 6.5% or so. If you look at where the real growth in China is, its just domestic middle class people. They've got a huge amount of middle class and those people's spending is driving their economy mainly now. Not a lot of Chinese brand gets outside of China, however in China, its overwhelmingly a domestic industry with few foreign companies taking part as exotic commodities.

>>11123068
>Did you vote for Brexit?
Not sure what you point is but if it's that Brexit will hurt the economy, I'd willingly trade that for not having what's left of UK culture, history and geography destroyed by the 0.5-1m net migrants entering the country every year (official figures are lies)

>>11123068
I don't know what the UK shooting itself in the foot has to do with China's economic downturn. Also, you don't seem to know what a downward trend is. Every year the projection for overtaking the US scales back, let alone doubling which is just 50 cent fantasy at this point.

>>11123085
Absolutely. NASA's OIG agrees with you. Falcon 9 costs $450 Million dollars, not the $50 million they quote. That's FAKE. Using SLS saves NASA $300 million over using SpaceX stuff.

>>11123099
China's economy already overtook few years ago lol.

>>11123104
>Falcon 9 costs $450 Million dollars
That doesn't make any sense considering that SpaceX offers a price of $50M per launch of a Falcon 9.

>>11123099
>UK shooting itself in the foot
It's only globalist bootlickers and NPCs that want to stay in the EU, which incidentally is teetering on the brink
> Yay let's stay tied to this failing organisation that exports millions of unskilled benefits claimants to us, willingly sees millions of lives ruined to prop up Germany's resurgent megalomania, is profoundly undemocratic and unaccountable by design, is economically fucked left right and centre, and has designs on military conquest of Africa on its agenda

>>11123085
We'll find out soon.

>>11123120
Now what's wrong with that last one? Some good ol' colonialism would be nice.

>>11123104
>cargo resupply to ISS == typical launch costs
Schizophrenia. And not at all relevant to the SLS

>>11123126
Because what do you think will happen to Europe once there are a couple of hundred million Africans with freedom of movement? The type of conquest they have in mind will not be pleasant for the average European citizen. This is what I cannot understand about people with families that are pro-migration - all the things they hold dear will be destroyed, everything they want for their children's future, yet they seem to think a globalised mass migration future will be benign. I seriously doubt it.

>>11123104
Falcon 9's been running for a while so I trust the 50 million figure. What I don't trust is him somehow claiming Starship will cost 2 million per launch because "big reusable rockets are cheaper than small expendable ones" or some nonsense. I get he's running a business so he needs to make it sound really good, but that's just such an obvious exaggeration.

>>11123109
>muh PPP
>>11123120
>EU a shit
Agreed, too bad the UK is even worse and is now worse off without the EU despite this. Your government has absolutely no interest in reversing any of the things you hate about the EU, if it did it would have negotiated exceptions while it was still a member like basically every other EU nation does.

I'll shut the fuck up about politics now. Apologies anons.

>>11123146
>"big reusable rockets are cheaper than small expendable ones" or some nonsense.
>throwing away fuel is cheaper than throwing away an entire rocket? nonsense
Do you have a brain disease?

>>11123154
Emphasis on small. There's no way launching Starship will be cheaper than launching Falcon 9 when Space X is already recovering the first stage.

>>11123141
Why do you think the colonies would have the same rights as actual nations?

>>11123164
The second stage is a big chunk of the cost of an F9 launch. Throwing away a small rocket is not at all cheap.

>>11123166
Let's just talk about space stuff. Me going all Enoch Powell/Cecil Rhodes is both boring and off topic

>>11123146
Starship "operating cost" is going to be ~$2m not launch cost. If its anything below $100M for launch cost, it will still be one more "impossible" act Elon has done. Chances are it will be below $50M and maybe down to ~$10M or so.

>>11123166
Poland is basically Africa and it has free movement rights

>>11123008

Supremacy is bullshit, as if 3 or 4 man capsules mean anything important, but SpaceX is an American firm and will have a manned capsule doubling the Chinese effort online in a year, and astoundingly untoppable systems and efforts within a short timeframe.

>>11123168
You're right, it's not cheap, but having to make sure that Starship survives reentry and can be refurbished is a whole different cost taht he needs to account for. That or he scraps the idea and stuff is ferried into orbit to dock with a waiting Starship, something that comes with its own problems and costs.

>>11123209
The refurbishment costs should be at least lower than the Shuttle and can only get better as SpaceX has shown to be capable of iterating on their designs.

>>11122992
>Chinese launches this year: 21 (19 successful, including a Moon landing)

Vast majority of those launches is small rockets with <5 ton to orbit max payload capacity

SpaceX is the leader when it comes to actual tons to orbit.

$4 B I L L I O N
B
I
L
L
I
O
N

>>11123209
Stainless steel construction + tile tech has come a long way. I don't see re-entry propping the costs up that much in the long term.

>>11122992
take the name off nigger

How would you rate the Starship iterations aesthetically?

>>11123223
>SpaceX is the leader when it comes to actual tons to orbit.

>Blocks your path.

>The CZ-5 (Y3) mission will carry the Shijian-20 satellite, becoming the heaviest non-classified Geostationary Satellite ever deployed and debuting a new satellite platform designed for ultra-high-performance communications satellites.

>>11123247
Ok, have it your way...

>>11123253
Idk, how would you?

>>11123262
Minmatar/10

>>11122741
I've been saying that this is the future for years
Lunar Rally Cross (LRX) is going to be fucking nuts
Mars is also a good candidate (although not Venus)
>>11122792
here's a protip: the differential steering wheels are broken, if you push forward and tap left and right like you're trying to slalom then your top speed should be uncapped (or nearly)
you can verify it's working by opening up all the wheels and looking at the bar that tells you if it's applying power

>>11123253
Current iteration should look bretty good in its final form. ITS is obviously on top and the one with the weird exposed hollow winglets was pretty ugly

>>11123273
There needs to be an x-prize to establish a subscale remote controlled (or automated) LRX to test that idea. And have the reward be something meaningful and not some silly small amount like $1M.

>>11123120
Never seen this many lies in one post.

>>11123262
It looks like the orks saw a retrofuturist chrome spaceship.

>>11122837
>I did forget to put parachutes on a capsule once though so that was fun.
>At 07:55 UT, when Vostok 1 was still 7 km (4.3 mi) from the ground, the hatch of the spacecraft was released, and two seconds later Gagarin was ejected
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_1#Reentry_and_landing

>>11122713
>Very Fast Rover Driving at Incredible Hihg Speed

>>11123253
current S/SH is literally "what if shuttle were a TSTO trashcan lmao" shitpost and I love it 20/10
ITS was peak apple space mass market appeal carbon fiber nonsense that was also beautiful in that clean way that apple products are
I hate the Tintin three leg thing but it's basically the same as the current version

Guys, chill. Next year we'll have a new great recession and then we can finally nuke China.

Also, what's your opinion on the Long March 9? Will it ever fly? I've known of this rocket since 2005 i think, and it's still just at the CGI model stage. I think Chinas SpaceX, whatever company that ends up being, is going to pull a Starship on them.

>>11123354
Also, what's your opinion on the Long March 9? Will it ever fly? I've known of this rocket since 2005 i think, and it's still just at the CGI model stage.

Their currently building components of it (http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1143520.shtml)), but their not rushing the development. After all, It’s a niche rocket designed solely for launching heavy payloads (50 tons) to the Moon and maybe Mars. They’ve been developing a completely different family of rockets (not LM) to transport crew to the Moon, which very much exists in the physical form (pic related).

>Chinas SpaceX, whatever company that ends up being, is going to pull a Starship on them.

No, a couple of China’s ‘private’ companies (e.g. LinkSpace) are planning on building small reusable rockets, but nobody’s building large, crumpled steel cans (>>11123262) in fields. Two of China’s state-owned rocket construction bureaus are subsequently working on Falcon-9-style rockets: the Long March 8 and 6A. They’ve recently been testing grid fins on expendable launches.

>>11123376
Greentextfail.jpg

>>11123256
How big a net would be required to catch a booster for reuse? How tall would the towers have to be? Could it be done with cardboard boxes like a stuntman?

>>11123376
>but nobody’s building large, crumpled steel cans

As we've seen from Musk it seems to be pretty "easy" to scale it up once you get your initial landable rocket working reliably.

I'd bet good money on a Chinese Starship flying before the LM 9.

>>11123311
Oh sorry, I forgot to mention the
> Yay mass fraud that's seen the EU's accounts not signed off for decades, suppression of legitimate dissent to globalist destruction of national culture ie Poland, Slovakia and Hungary, gargantuan brewing Eurozone banking and debt crisis, catastrophic migration policy, widespread breakdown of law and order/civil unrest, economic stagnation, promotion by nepotism leading to leadership by far, far overpromoted incompetent mediocrities like von der leyen, suppression of free speech in terms of outlawing criticism of migration, outlawing of criticism of the EU, and finally the repugnant travesty that is the Common Agricultural Policy, a protectionist tool that destroys the poorest of African farmers' ability to scratch a living, and helps keeps nations in miserable poverty
Wow such a glorious utopia you've got there chief

>>11123391
I think your really underplaying the difficulties of making Starship as advertised a reality. Also, there’s currently no evidence suggesting any Chinese entity is planning to build a Starship-equivalent. Although, one of the major bureaus has talked about having all it’s vehicles be fully reusable by 2035; but I’ve heard more about nuclear-powered space Shuttles from the Chinese, than I have anything about Starship. At the end of the day, the Chinese usually look at what works for other countries and put their own spin on it e.g. LM-5 is similar to the Ariane 5 in design, but uses liquid-fuel boosters which they have more experience with than solids, their next-generation crew capsule is very similar looking to Dragon 1 but is also designed for lunar spaceflight, their new crewed launcher (pic related) uses clustered engines which are becoming popular in the West etc.

So what's your own guess on Starship cost?

1/10 of SLS? $200 Million
1/100 of SLS? $20 Million
1/1000 of SLS? $2 Million

WHY IS SPACEX TRYING TO KILL AMERICA?

>>11123433
>So what's your own guess on Starship cost?
My hope is at most $365M per launch so at worst it'll be as price competitive per mass of payload as Falcon 9, and it makes sense that it would probably cost that much at worst because any more expensive then SpaceX wouldn't persue Starship in favor over developing further on Falcon 9. However, even less per launch would be amazing.

>WHY IS SPACEX TRYING TO KILL AMERICA?
You know that SpaceX is an American company, right?

>>11123433
No way it's 200m, I have my doubts on the 2m figure. 20m sounds like a reasonable figure but I could see it being a fair amount lower than that.

https://spacenews.com/senators-introduce-new-nasa-authorization-bill/

Senators introduce new NASA authorization bill:

>The bill features language formally authorizing an extension of ISS operations through 2030.

>While extending the ISS, the bill also promotes commercialization of low Earth orbit. “The Administrator shall establish a low-Earth orbit commercialization program to encourage the fullest commercial use and development of space by private entities in the United States,” the legislation states, including both stimulating demand for LEO capabilities and commercial facilities on the ISS and independent of it. The bill calls on NASA to “maintain a national microgravity laboratory in space” after the decommissioning of the ISS.

>related provision for the ISS is language extending NASA’s waiver from the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act so that the agency can continue to work with Russia on the ISS, including the potential purchase of additional Soyuz seats. The bill extends that waiver, currently set to expire at the end of 2020, to the end of 2030.

>In exploration, the bill largely follows NASA’s plans for developing a lunar Gateway and returning humans to the moon. However, it directs NASA to develop the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) for the SLS, a configuration known as Block 1B, in time for the third launch of the SLS. NASA, in an announcement last month about a proposed contract with Boeing for long-term production of the SLS, said that the EUS would be used starting with the fourth SLS mission in 2025.

>The bill also directs NASA to pursue a space-based infrared telescope, to be launched by September 2025, to search for near Earth asteroids. NASA announced in September its intent to develop such a spacecraft, based on the previously proposed NEOCam mission.

>The act requires NASA to develop a plan by the end of 2021 on how it will perform a flight demonstration of nuclear thermal propulsion technology by 2024.

>>11123433
>So what's your own guess on Starship cost?

Profit.

They'll price it just below the competition to get the job and make as much money as possible.

>>11123462
>ISS operations to 2030

Lmao it's going to be fucking falling apart by then.

>>11123462
>>The act requires NASA to develop a plan by the end of 2021 on how it will perform a flight demonstration of nuclear thermal propulsion technology by 2024.
This seems significant

>>11123462
>nuclear thermal propulsion technology
GREAT

>>11123462
>Nuclear Thermal Flight Test Plan
aw holy shit that's significant

>>11123476
According to Boeing the US modules (which they built) are certified until 2034

>>11123462
>NTP tech
I guess this confirms that the russian radioactive cloud was them testing nuclear propulsion.

>>11122905
You have a very distinctive writing style. However, I'm not the other guy, so I'll refrain from calling you that particular word. You know the one.

Anyway, it's ironic that you're acting like there's some big fan conspiracy of SLS supporters when we've always been outnumbered by SpaceX peeps since day 1. Like, dude. We're not the fucking Illuminati.

>>11123506
It actually was, just not the type your thinking about. The cloud was caused by the explosion of a failed nuclear cruise-missile test.

>>11123462
>national microgravity laboratory in space
I really hope NASA eventually realizes how important it is to have a partial gravity laboratory. Building a proper spin station should be an Artemis tier priority.

>>11123506
I think they were testing some sort of air breathing nuclear cruise missile, like SLAM but with a turbine maybe

>>11123517
so unscheduled testing of nuclear propulsion

>>11123522
The thing is that you can't have both.
Any artificial gravity breaks microgravity experiments like those conducted on the ISS.
Thankfully, with long lunar surface stays, we should start to see how the human body reacts to long periods at partial g.

>>11123524
COME ON AND SLAM AND WELCOME TO THE pale horse, named Death

>>11123509
you are, in fact, the illuminati
which is why you're completely outnumbered by the retarded SpaceX fanboys
it's too late to stop SLS now but it should have been put out of it's misery two decades ago after the Shuttle-C idea was discarded

>>11123531
You can totally have both, any spin station design that needs to be docked with (which is all of them) requires a central non-spinning "hub". This would be in microgravity. Only the ring is under pseudogravity.

>>11123537
There were a lot of dumb mistakes with the execution of SLS. I maintain things would've been a lot smoother had Constellation not happened and the Shuttle infrastructure could've been directly transitioned into SLS. Instead we had to rebuild new equivalents for a lot of it because most of it had dried up.

>>11123544
Honestly the best case scenario would have been rigging the Shuttle for autonomous flight and landing. Like every other fucking launch vehicle.

>>11123546
You mean like Shuttle-C?

>>11123526
>>11123524 Is correct, that the cruise missile is powered by a form of air breathing nuclear-propulsion like SLAM; which is not comparable to a NTR rocket engine. But it’s also a closed cycle design, not open unlike SLAM, so no radioactive exhaust.

>>11123553
No, just slap autopilot hardware in the existing orbiters.

>>11123554
>NATO designation: Skyfall
What is this 007 bullshit

>>11123567
my nato designation for you is FAGOT

>>11123544
Honestly there are two good futures for NASA starting from around the mid 1970s:
1. abandon super heavy lift/shuttle/re-usability and basically just try to iterate on the Saturn IB with a rocket that wasn't a massive pile of pork and do capsules and small lifting body tests to LEO while expanding Skylab
2. risk cancellation and go hard in the fucking paint with the balls-out fully reusable two-stage to orbit OG dolphin sex shuttles
instead they tried to play the politics game and ended up in the bad future for fifty years
>>11123554
SLAM's radioactive exhaust was the design failing, it wasn't designed to do that
a modern version wouldn't have that issue, and if they matured it more they would have fixed it as well
>>11123554
holy shit that's exactly what I was imagining, thank you, saved
that sort of nuclear turbojet might be useful for missions to explore a few of the Jovian and Saturnian moons but otherwise isn't that great
if you're already coming in from orbit, then a SLAM type nuclear thermal ramjet is superior on Venus (due to the hurricane force winds above the cloud tops) and Mars (due to ramjets working better than turbojets in the thin air and you've got to go balls to the wall to get enough lift in the thin atmosphere anyway)
>>11123567
weapons like SKYFALL and Project Pluto are literally doomsday weapons

>>11123563
>>11123546
That wouldn't fix the most crippling issue with the Shuttle, its too expensive per launch.

>>11123580
So he’s a Mig-15?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagot

>>11123587
>>11123588
it may have been impractical
but it was so goddamn a e s t h e t i c

>>11123598
You only live twice Mr Shelby...

>>11123594
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K111_Fagot
I meant the missile but to my surprise Fagot is actually the Russian designation for it, NATO uses "Spigot".

>>11123588
SLS doesn't fix that either though? It would do most of what SLS does, with partial reusability, and be available ten years before SLS flies. They could even work with SpaceX to replace the tiles with something more durable.

>>11123603
>liquid hydrogen boosters
fake and gay, at that point it's not a booster/sustainer it's just an SSTO that falls apart when the burn is almost complete
>vacuum engines for the orbiter
hmmmmmm

>>11123615
saying "let's retire the current orbiters and make shuttle 2" would have been a good idea
IN 1990

>>11123483
>>11123484
>>11123489
>>11123506
>A leaked image of Boeing’s new Exploration Upper Stage design for SLS Block 1B...

What advantage does SLS have over an identical design that replaces the core and SRBs with a F1B stage?
>5 F1B
>ICPS
>Orion

>>11123634
I think that could technically get you to orbit, but no farther. EUS and ICPS would be the third stage of this hypothetical vehicle

>>11123632
There was a concept for a nuclear-powered SLS upper stage, actually.
Look up the Nuclear Cryogenic Propulsion Stage, or NCPS, if you're interested.

>>11123615
SLS has TLI capability, Shuttle doesn't. It can carry much larger payloads than the Shuttle. It can carry crew much more safely too.

>>11123634
With RP-1, you'll need another stage like the Saturn V. SLS can only get away with having one massive in-atmosphere stage instead of two smaller in-atmosphere stages because RS-25s are meme-tier efficient.

>>11123645
I tried to find my Realism Overhaul folder to slam it together in KSP but I think I accidentally deleted it and holy shit the install process for RO is aids

>>11123664
>RO
yeah screw that, I play KSP to indulge in my autism, not to get beat the fuck down by the awfulness of reality

>>11123655
Shuttle-Centaur would have had TLI capability
an autonomous landing Orbiter 2.0 that did shenanigans with launching a Centaur and a capsule or something dumb like that would be funny

>>11123615
Believe it or not, but SLS is actually CHEAPER on a per year basis than the Shuttle program.

>>11123660
>some number of Vacuum Bell RS-25 engines on a shortened core stage on top of a multiple F1-B booster topped with EUS

>>11123634
SLS has the biggest sustainer stage of any rocket, like with it’s predecessor the Shuttle, the RS-25s drop the spacecraft off just shy of orbit. The small and underpowered ICPS only works because of this, all it does is circularise the initial orbit and perform the TLI burn. All the heavy lifting in this 2.5 stage design is done by the SRBs which provide 70% of the stack’s thrust and the RS-25s which burn for eight and a half minutes, nearly all the way to orbit. ICPS is a glorified transfer stage that only works because SLS’ core flings it so far down range. This is far cry from the F-1 powered Saturn 5 first-stage which burned out at only 67km.

>>11123679
> like with it’s predecessor the Shuttle, the RS-25s drop the spacecraft off just shy of orbit.
That's true for Block 1B, but for Block 1 it's actually even crazier.
A Block 1 core stage could go to LEO. It has to intentionally AVOID doing so. You'd bring the whole damn thing up to orbit otherwise.

>>11123699
This is a good visualisation of how that works:

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

>>11122895
underrated

>>11123253
'18 Starship > ITS > '19 Starship > '18 BFR > '17 BFR
All but one of them would be the best-looking rocket ever flown.

>>11123483
>>11123484
>>11123489

NASA as part of its functions needs a large diverse research and development portfolio that nuclear tech can be one aspect of among other things to pursue.

For all its inherent oversold qualities, NTR tech is the SLS of spacetech, in that it is a looming wasteful boondoggle that exists solely due to the jockular preference of it by some people taken in by that promoted viewpoint, without more widespread investigation into its actual drawbacks that remove or lesson its promise.

Solely focusing on it, as some misguided SLS crowd oriented vision of ''that's how you do Mars'', is a mistake. Or at least that's how I see it now.

>>11123990
>says Nuclear Thermal tech is bad
>provides no arguments as to why
yeah okay

>>11122660
>In a desperate and murderous rage, Shelby rushes at Starship...
>"I'll nationalize you, you steel palooka!"

>>11124019
I vaguely remember hearing about a pseudo-conspiracy theory that the US might nationalize SpaceX from here. Is it still a thing?

>>11123509

The internet SLS crowd has its reddits and discords and work to impress their viewpoint and content and manage discussion in their terms to an impressionable new wave and grow, and fight and smear criticism of the program in other communities. All the while not recognizing that they are a movement of extremely corrosive and biased and bad faith participants.

The SLS movement has captured the American space agency, the largest in the world, polluted the course of other national space agencies as a consequence, polluted the internal discourse of the agency and people working there. They have SLS inclined people in policy determination positions and work the politicians to lock in and favour the program. This is an ongoing matter of consequence in the decabillions and a major consequential shift in how the space program is run over decades.

It is one big ass thing.

>>11124019
Turns out Shelby was the real fifth column all along.

>>11124025

No it's dumb. Nationalization is a four letter word in America.

>>11123925
God damn ITS looked so good.

>>11124029
>Nationalization is a four letter word in America
I don't understand this phrase, sorry.

>>11124033
A lot of our swear words are four-lettered, it's an expression that means people here often automatically find nationalization of private property to be a sort of dirty thing. It makes sense because private property is one of the fundamental components of our social order, when government steps in and abolishes that for any reason it pisses every sensible person off.

>>11124026
schizo

>>11124043
Thanks for the explanation.

>>11124025

It is very seldomly done and a particular extremely anti social government action viewpoint has manifested itself there in recent decades.

And the situation wouldn't warrant it anyways.

>>11124000

My viewpoint on it is sourced from some posts by Kirk Sorenson on the selenian boondocks blog. I can't look up the links at the moment.

>>11123020
>he uses PPP in a semi state managed economy

jesus

>>11124081
It's not warranted? ITS NOT WARRANTED?! Are you dull? This situation ABSOLUTELY warrants nationalizing SpaceX, a FOREIGN company who's a MENACE to AMERICAN interests, as soon as possible! With their lean, fast, and cost effective production plants will LITERALLY STEAL jobs from AMERICA. Do you not understand? SpaceX aims to replace the SLS (pbui), the most SAFE RELIABLE and AMERICAN rocket ever to be devised, with it's COMMIESHIP. This would cause MILLIONS, no, BILLIONS of AMERICANS to lose their jobs if SLS (pbui) were to ever be shut down like what SpaceX is planning.

The longer SpaceX is left to RAVAGE the AMERICAN spaceflight industry, the more AMERICA is under threat. Nationalizing that retched company will make every American sleep more peacefully, I'll guarantee that.

>>11124026
Blissfully ignorant.

>>11124029
>>11124043
Unless a company is failing, then it's perfectly ok to be nationalized.

>not a SINGLE mention of ULA in this entire thread
lemme just post the best heavy launcher here real quick

>>11124122
post discord link

>>11124176
https://top.gg/servers/316186751565824001
Here you go

>>11124092
Economy of a country isn't determined by foreign exchange rates lol.

>>11124176
Watching the catching of that engine pod is going to be intense.

>>11124109
>BILLIONS OF AMERICANS
hearty kek

>>11124196
yes it's gonna be COOL

>>11124209
They will be soon.

>>11124217
>SLS based O'Neill Cylinder project, costing the entire US budget for a decade to relocate America to space to escape global warming
>Millions of SLS cores cranked out like the world's most expensive Liberty Ships
>All factories in Alabama
>Starship banned from docking with USS United States
This message brought to you by the Shelby 2020 campaign

>>11124221
It's not a legitimate space project if it doesn't need so much money that it can bankrupt a European nation.

>>11124224
The objective of a space race is to spend as much money as possible. Spend the commies into submission.

>>11124214
it's gonna be SMART

>>11124221
>>11124217
>>11124109
Why is Shelbyposting so based?

https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/05/china-wants-beat-nasa-mars-build-manned-base-look-alien-life-11047220/
SPACE RACE TIME!

>>11124285
I wonder how seriously the US would take this.

>>11123598
literally the most iconic spacecraft of all time
even more than anything from apollo, ISS, spirt and oppurtuinty, voyager, and sputnik

>>11124285
Everyone will beat NASA to Mars. NASA doesn't have mars plan. Only plan is one that's out in 2050s.

>>11123598
;~;

>>11124367
>underestimating the only agency to successfully operate landers and rovers on the mars surface
>underestimating the only agency to put humans onto another celestial body

dont be retarded

>>11124389
Technically the soviets successfully operated a lander on Mars.
It was for like 2 seconds, but it counts.

>>11124425
did they get any scientific data during that time. im pretty sure all they got was a partial image

>>11124389
>humans
50 years ago. And now we can't even put men in LEO.

NASA hasn't advanced, it's regressed.

>>11121179
Something like the VR game Echo Arena i'd imagine

>>11123179
Lol those numbers are complete asspulls. You may as well be claiming that SLS Block 2 will be 100m a launch.

>>11124176
ULA Vulcan + ACES is what would happen if OldSpace had any sense. Sadly that is not the case.

>>11124221
>evacuate America to Orbit, then nuke anyone we don't like.
Unspeakably based, if only we had someone actually pulling this kind of harebrained scheme in congress openly.

>>11124739
Sorry mate the only people you get to dislike and nuke are whoever Israel tells you to.

>>11124725
Is that VAB like vertical structure?

>>11122713
subtract the last two frames

>>11124446
Technically we can now, but NASA won't let it happen until a bunch more testing and paperwork.

>>11123462
>The act requires NASA to develop a plan by the end of 2021 on how it will perform a flight demonstration of nuclear thermal propulsion technology by 2024.

Awesome, but what about scaling up electric propulsion?

>>11124043
Private property is not a sensible idea.

>>11124918
It’s a hydrostatic test stand for New Glenn, similar in function to the one NASA has a MSFC for SLS (pic related).

>>11124962
I mean Gateway’s PPE involves scaling up electric propulsion to a level never done before, it’s not exactly VASMIR, but it’s bigger and more powerful than anything that’s been done before.

>>11122895
Is this a Shelby post?
THAT'S RIGHT! Reusability is a danger to america, expendable factories are the American way. Expendable launch towers, expendable rockets and even expendable factories are the future! Peace be upon the SLS (god bless it)

>>11124980
Bare with me here a little: expendable space agencies. Launch a single rocket and then you have to disband the whole agency and begin again. Imagine the pork..

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

Is this likely to use the same flight path as the previous Starlink launch?

>>11124595
But anon, ACES is still gonna happen. It just won't be in the initial vehicle just as SMART won't.

>>11124997
Yes, same landing as well.

>>11125002
Nobody knows what’s going on with ACES apart from ULA, I thought I heard it was put on hold. However, a lot of it’s features have been moved forward to Centaur V, which is the second-stage Vulcan will fly with from the get go. SMART is still a ways out, considering the inflatable NASA heat shield it’s derived from, won’t be tested until 2022.

>>11125003
Really? Seems like they would get more initial coverage by putting them in a different inclination and with a planned 5 year life you wouldn't want to waste all their ∆v to change inclination after launch.

I propose expendable congressmen. One term then we dump them in the ocean.

>>11125032
That could function as carbon sequestering in deep sea tenches for now but in the future I would like to see them being used more productively, as fusion fuel.

>>11125015
prediction: SpaceX will be flying payloads to orbit on fully reusable Starships before ULA does this engine pod catch bullshit

>>11124927
Why?

>>11125032
>>11125090
I just don't understand this Congressman meme.

The amount of money you can save from reusing Congressmen isn’t enough to justify how much harder it makes it to complete the difficult filibusters that actually make money in the federal world. I’m sure one day reusability will be more effective, but the truth is that when you have all the challenges that come with political science in general, it’s almost always much more effective to throw away the Congressman after it’s done its job than to figure out how to make recovery part of the mission. I know of no major technology on the near term horizon that would change that.

And even if reusable Congressmen are possible now, when reliability is THE number one priority (in this case bribes takes up 2/3rds of the lawmaking cost and the actual law only 1/3rd) it makes absolutely no sense. Like, look at this man (pic related). This represents some of the most advanced technologies in the political world. Do you honestly think that such a complicated machine can be made tough and reliable enough to be reusable? I doubt it. Best example in my opinion is condoms, sure you could reuse them but making sure that they do not suffer a drop in reliability will cost a lot of money and time.

Just because some company made reusing Congressmen popular, then that doesn't mean that we will have the sci-fi future of millions of laws per year. We'll be lucky to see more than a couple dozen per year. Dial down your expectations, don't buy into the reusability for Congressman meme.

>>11125205
it's funnier without them

>>11124979
>Gateway’s PPE involves scaling up electric propulsion to a level never done before
It definitely doesn't, it's basically just a Loral -- sorry, "Maxar" satellite bus that they already sell for geosynchronous communication satellites

This is a good thing. Jim wants to actually get this moon landing working before Trump's second term ends and NASA's priorities get reshuffled by god only knows who. It doesn't always look like it but this is the lowest risk approach that hits that timeline with the equipment NASA already has

>>11125253
>Jim wants to actually get this moon landing working before Trump's second term ends

Taking a screenshot of this post so I can look at it when he loses 2020 because of how quickly his Alzheimer’s is progressing

>>11125253
>Jim wants to actually get this moon landing working before Trump's second term ends and NASA's priorities get reshuffled by god only knows who
That would be depressing as hell if Artemis gets gutted by the next administration before it could send someone to the moon. I wonder that the replacement mission would be though. A manned Mars mission would be even more challenging. I don't think Obama's asteroid redirect mission was popular. Maybe just a very large probe to somewhere popular that only the SLS can send?

>>11125264
like, I don't know if he's gonna win or not

but if he loses there's a 100% chance this whole thing gets shitcanned, and if he wins that chance is lower, so you gotta go with the path where there's some possibility of success

Bridenstine is the first NASA director who wasn't alive yet for the moon landings and he's pissed about that. He's serious.

>>11125253
>It definitely doesn't, it's basically just a Loral -- sorry, "Maxar" satellite bus that they already sell for geosynchronous communication satellites

Maxar are building the satellite bus, but the electric propulsion used on it will not be your typical commercial ion thrusters. Instead the PPE will use NASA’s AEPS thrusters. These two thrusters will each produce 600mN of thrust, the most powerful electric propulsion currently in use produces 290mN.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Electric_Propulsion_System

>>11125272
>wonder that the replacement mission would be though
it'll be nothing, same as when Obama gutted NASA's manned spaceflight program last time

NASA will be redirected to study climate change only, they'll cut its budget in half to pay for 0.5% of the student loan forgiveness and single payer healthcare plans and if you complain they'll smear you as a racist

>>11124962
>>11125253

This is the SEP development plan of the Obama admin FY2011 program, just one small aspect of it, that the instigation of SLS deliberately sought to displace. This is the type of space program activity that SLS is occluding with its continued existence. The program is diminishing and delaying work like this and seeks to rationalize SLS and give it activity while also purposefully putting forward the impression that it is responsible for the only apparent activity you can see and should be credited for it, when it is exactly the opposite case.


Taken from here:
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458818main_FTD_SolarElectricPropulsionStage.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/new_space_enterprise/home/workshop_home.html

>>11125220
Damn you, I was eating something when I read that and spit it out from laughing. These expendable memes are starting to get out of hand, and I don't think we've even reached peak expendable yet.
This one is so great because it's literally term limits. There are way too many congressmen and senators in DC that are well past their best-by date.

>>11125292
I doubt that this would happen. NASAs flagship missions have always been used as something to rally the people behind and just abandoning that would make the administration look uninspiring in comparison. There would have to be a massive wave of aggressive disliking towards spaceflight (or even just strong indifference) to have NASA be dialed back like that.

>>11125388
Also, if all the contracts are signed and hardware is in production, which will likely be the case for all components of Artemis by 2021; it’s going to be very hard to justify killing the program. Furthermore, Congress is in charge of the purse and if they want a Moon landing, the administration will have to abide by their word. What will get canned is the 2024 deadline...

>>11125400
>What will get canned is the 2024 deadline...
Naturally. People will be tired of the SLS boondoggle by then, and they'll need a new boondoggle to keep pumping tax dollars into oldspace.
Until Elon or Jeff Who can power their way through the oldspace swamp, we'll never leave LEO.

From SLS L2: All four RS-25 engines are installed. Final install completed last night.

>>11125483
Once SLS flies all will be forgiven - see f35.

>>11125530
Once it flies, it will be two long years before it flies again.

>>11125517
Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational core stage!

>>11125292

Obama didn't gut the manned space program.

The shuttle was ending anyways.
Ares 1 and Orion would be the only thing done during his terms and would take till the end of the decade anyways.
He proposed a different manned space program inclusive of commercial crew for ISS and a broad first of three phase program. That first phase would include rocket engine tech development, robotic missions including an isru investigating moon rover and asteroid missions including a likely NEO searching space telescope, and foundational development for in space systems like a future in space transit habitation ship since his admin was interested in advancing and moving up the timeline for a manned mars mission. The future manned asteroid mission he announced was really an early shakedown cruise for a mars vessel. This would hand things off to future admins and subsequent phases of mission system hardware development and exploration missions to have a better picture than Obama when he became admin, and they could include moon goals with a better layout than the exclusively shuttle derived obsession of lunar advocates at the time, which as a consequence pushed and delayed anything else NASA could be doing and even hindered moon access and development they purported to care about.
There is a certain group of complete head cases for whom the shuttle program and shuttle derived programs was the only manned space program path they recognized. By doing something else, while still valid, it fell outside their only frame of reference. They refused to comprehend that a different program could be valid or even any aspect of what it was doing, and smeared it as ''replacing it(expensive slow shuttle derived dev only) with nothing,'' refusing to recognize that the things they supported were worse shit. Their rhetoric polluted the discourse with which you formed your own outlook.

new thread

>>11125542