/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11134766
what are the odds all 60 sats deploy correctly

>Moon Direct
Why is Boeing so shortsighted. Gateway is the key to the stars and moon alike.

>>11135410
approximately 59/60

found this on imgur

>>11135424
If you are going to build a moon base gateway is important.
If you are researching the physiological effects of interplanetary travel gateway is important.
If you are launching an interplanetary mission gateway is a waste of ∆v and should be avoided.

>>11135838
the current gateway is a worthless embezzlement project
a proper station of actual fucking use would be an order of magnitude larger, and have spin gravity

>>11135859
>having artificial gravity when the Moon is RIGHT THERE
yeah ok

>>11135952
SPIN
TO
WIN

>>11135859
Ideally you'd have both a micro-g station and a nearby variable-g station

>>11135764
Why is the Starliner so ugly?

>>11135976
Starliner itself is aesthetically fine, it just looks weird on a launch vehicle that’s much thinner than it is.

>>11135764
is the Falcon 9 literally "what if the Saturn 1 was good instead of an overpriced joke"

>>11135859
hell no, one of the frozen orbits in LLO, make it a big old prop depot with attached maintenance and living stations

>>11136206
No the Saturn 1 is a completely different design from the F9, the only thing they share in common is both having a large amount of clustered, kerosene gas-generator engines (F9 has 9, S1 had 8).

>>11136220
yes, I meant conceptually
there's no way to transform a Saturn 1[B] into a Falcon 9 without a cleansheet design, I was mostly just talking about how it's got the same or similar payload capacity and they both use a cluster of gas generator kerolox engines to power the first stage

>>11136186
>spend 6 years to get phd
>spend your time pushing some shitliner trashcan

>>11136186
Yeah, but even when mounted on a Vulcan it doesn't really look aesthetic. I know it's Centaur that's too thin, but it means we're stuck with it for the next decade or so.

>>11136228
>I was mostly just talking about how it's got the same or similar payload capacity and they both use a cluster of gas generator kerolox engines to power the first stage

The Saturn 1’s clustered design originates from the how it was a quickly thrown together interim solution to America’s need for a heavy-lift launch vehicle. Instead of building entirely new tooling and tanks, Von Braun clustered a bunch of existing Jupiter and Redstone missile tanks, then he added a cluster of 8 S3-D engines from the Thor missile, upgraded them and renamed them H-1s instead of waiting for a new, more powerful engine design, to create the Saturn 1 first-stage. What performance the S1B loses to the expendable Falcon 9 due to it’s Frankenstein first-stage and 1960s engine technology, it mostly regains through it’s superior hydrogen-fuelled S-IVB upper-stage. If Von Braun took his time building the Saturn 1B it would have looked completely different: with only 4 more powerful E-1 engines and a single wider tank instead of a cluster.

Anyone know if this savage beast is still in the works at all or are reaction engines prioritizing commercialization of their engine first?

>>11136313
After begging the UK for money for a decade BAE brought them and there has been a press release acting like it's new.
I suspect BAE is going to make the mother of all cruise missiles and we won't hear anything until it's declassified 30 year from now.

>>11136259
>Builds the first ever reusable crewed capsule, designed to be reused up to 10 times.

>>11136310
It will look better on Vulcan because Centaur V is wider than Centaur 3, which is currently used by Atlas V. The render you posted doesn’t model this.

>>11136315
Ah that's a shame we're not exactly pulling our weight when it comes to the space sector t.b.h

>>11136342
We build a lot of satellites

>>11136350
I know, we continually have to rely on others for launch capabilities though and therefore forever at the mercy of bureaucracy

>>11136361
What bureaucracy? We launch with everyone: ULA, SpaceX, Arianespace and India etc

Also, we’re building our own spaceport up in the Scottish highlands for SSO launches anyway, Orbex are building a small sat launcher to launch from there.

>>11136372
>Orbex
American here, literally who?

>>11136372
The point I was making was that we don't get to decide priority, even if we do pay they can still say no, delay, change the schedule or stall.

>>11136398
https://orbex.space/, Virgin Orbit have also been awarded money by the UK gov’t to launch payloads from Newquay Airport in Cornwall in the future.

>>11136408
Having independent access to space is important, but the things you’ve listed don’t happen often because the only thing they achieve is a launch provider potentially losing a customer.

>>11136426
>The Virgin Orbit vs the ChadX, New Chad, Chad Launch System

>>11136315
>I suspect BAE is going to make the mother of all cruise missiles and we won't hear anything until it's declassified 30 year from now.

What a waste.

>>11133111

1. The US and even China would accommodate other country's moon efforts, like they do in orbit and elsewhere. Life won't be like a Call of Duty videogame with Space Marines and laser battles like the nationalist militarist crowd here thinks it will be. No one can realistically block access to the moon and there's a whole lot of moon.

2. The moon has little to no value. The case for moon water is spend many billions to save one cent a gallon only on quantities larger than most space programs would use and even that might be a dubious money sink.

3. Even if the moon didn't exist at all China would have unfettered access to the solar system for designs larger than realistically pursued in copying Starship and using cheap Earth propellant. They will copy Starship within 20 years.

>>11136749
>no one can realistacally block access to the moon
Starship's Raptors can probably reliably block access to the moon for a short period immediately after landing

>>11136797
Nah, while it would make many experiments useless at least for awhile few if any landers would give a shit about a bit of dust floating around.

>>11136799
how about orbital gravel
ground truth will either dispel the FUD or confirm everybody's worst fears and lunavator+moon trucking will be a go

>>11136804
Orbital velocity around the moon is low enough that even if it did but rocks in stable orbit (extremely unlikely) we would be able to shield against them.
Given the perfect vacuum engine has an exhaust pressure of 0 I don't think it's going to be a big issue.

>>11136259
I wouldn't mind pushing sexy starliner

Did Lex Luthor get his krypton in orbit

>>11135424
Whatever money that's being spent on Gateway would be better spent on building LEO station infrastructure. A lunar station doesn't make sense until you have permanent habitation on the moon and are self-sufficient in fuel and water.

>>11136982
>Whatever money that's being spent on Gateway would be better spent on building LEO station infrastructure.

That’s commercial space’s job now according to NASA. Then again, NASA are encouraging this commercial LEO development through their commercial ISS module and freeflyer contracts.

>>11136982

Gateway is nothing, a tiny node station already stripped down. The money sink is in SLS Orion operations where Gateway is a contrivance to give them some activity but so are moon missions oriented around SLS and Orion continuance.

>>11137004
I wish for the day when space programs aren't mostly dictated by political winds to come.

>>11137004
>Gateway is nothing, a tiny node station already stripped down.

You say that, but I see companies and countries lining up to contribute to it...

>>11137008
Gateway is bipartisan and therefore not effected by political wind changes, it’s survived both the vastly different Obama and Trump admins and now hardware contracts have been signed it’s even more likely to survive.

>>11137019
True, but wasn't Gateway designed to be like that? I recall something about the Obama administration not wanting anything to do with the moon and that's why the station is put on that NRLH orbit. Also that the modules of the station are meant to be able to serve different missions if needed. That way if the next administration wants to kill the return to the moon then the models can be used for a Martian trip or another LEO station if needed.

>>11137011
Everyone still has the oldspace mentality, spend big for small results. If they are willing to give money to Bigelow and SpaceX instead of companies that have spread production over as many states as possible they could have double the pressurized volume of the ISS put up per launch.

>>11137027
Your correct, but now contracts are being signed for Moon-specific Gateway hardware which would make a Mars pivot very hard.

>>11136310

>>11136315
> brought them
What are you, a chav or something?

>>11137033
It shits me no end that the major parties can't agree on a 20 year plan for things like space, military and infrastructure.
I like democracy but the lack of long term planning leads to lots of waste often for no results.

To me it seems that the path for manned exploration is pretty straight forward:
>LEO station to study equipment and human limits
>rotating lunar station to study outside the magnetosphere and at various levels of gravity
>lunar surface base to study construction in hostile enviroments (assuming ~1/5th G is safe long term), rotating funnel base for higher G if required
Everyone on these stations could be returned to earth within 3 days if things go bad, this is the safest option.
>decide on a planet, Mars seems to be the best option by miles
>LMO station, unmanned but human rated with supplies, this is the life raft if the surface base goes bad
>martian surface base

I can't see any better way to go but the LMO station could be ditched if you are willing to accept higher risk.

>>11136426
Is that the infamous vore rocket?

>>11136313
They're still working on the pre-cooler/engine. The spacecraft itself is just paper.

>>11137102
Pre-cooler works (in theory), they have been asking the UK government for money to build and airframe to test with but the UK has no interest in ever being relivant again so refused.
BAE acquired reaction engines a few months ago so I suspect the SABRE is going to end up pushing warheads instead of payloads.

>>11135424
Boeing was for the gateway until they were no longer one of the contractors for it. Boeing's also one of the main contractors for SLS
>>11135838
gateway is not important for any of that. The astronauts will only spend two weeks max at the gateway so you can't do any physiology. For building a moon base you're better off just going directly to the surface.

>>11137011
Yeah, twenty different companies to do the work that two competent ones probably could. Because the point of the project is to farm money for established aerospace entities, not to generate substantial progress in the field of space exploration and exploitation.

>>11137113
>gateway is not important for any of that
My understanding was that gateway was going to be docking and refueling for reusable landers which is why I thought it would be handy for base building, lots of mass is going to need to land.
>The astronauts will only spend two weeks max at the gateway
Ok, now I have no idea what the point of it is (other than funneling money to oldspace).

>>11137129
>>The astronauts will only spend two weeks max at the gateway
>Ok, now I have no idea what the point of it is (other than funneling money to oldspace).
two reasons
1) Orion doesn't have enough delta-V to enter and return from low lunar orbit by itself the way Apollo could
2) NASA has learned that if you have an expensive space station in orbit it will be politically difficult to cancel the program, whereas if you don't it's very easy.

europ Starlink train pass coming up

>>11134766
>thread theme
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6bumUQwQIU
REEEEEEEE

So if blue origin and starship turn out not to be a meme, how likely is it that every country will have it's own space station after a while?

>>11137717
>if two American reusable heavy rockets actually work when will lesser nations get space stations?

dunno, I figure China will have working copies about 15 years behind, Russia will halfassedly attempt something and then fuck it up, the EU will pretend that they totally could if they want to but they're choosing not to build reusable rockets in order to better focus on keeping the Jenga tower from falling over

who am I forgetting here?

>>11137742
Countries on good terms with America buying rides on Starship, like Canada and Britain. Especially since Elon wants E2E launch sites around the world, and an E2E launchpad is indistinguishable from an orbital launchpad. You just burn a little longer.

>>11137717
>every country
Never.

>>11137754
>yeah you can have your own space station, just pay us to build it and pay us to launch it and pay us every time you want to go to it and if you ever do anything we don't like we'll stop letting you go there. but sure you "own" it

Yeah sure, I could see Cuck Island going for this deal, why not?

>>11137742
>>if two American reusable heavy rockets actually work when will lesser nations get space stations?
Just like how the falcon9 is doing work for foreign companies the new glenn and starship will do the same thing.

>dunno, I figure China will have working copies about 15 years behind, Russia will halfassedly attempt something and then fuck it up, the EU will pretend that they totally could if they want to but they're choosing not to build reusable rockets in order to better focus on keeping the Jenga tower from falling over
ESA has released some time ago news that they are making their own version of the falcon 9.
And roscosmos has recently came back on the statement that reusability is a meme.
Sure they are decades behind, but i think that other nations will want to catch up as fast as possible if america gets a even larger edge with starship&new glenn.

>>11137759
would not be impossible to think that major western nations could buy a ride on a starship to put a small station up there in the near future if the cost really is as low as spaceX claims.

>>11137742
India is the only other country i can think of

>>11137776
>would not be impossible to think that major western nations could buy a ride on a starship to put a small station up there in the near future if the cost really is as low as spaceX claims.
Nope. SpaceX may offer their Starship for $30-50M and Europe wouldn't take it because it will kill their government-private venture called Arianespace. They didn't allow SpaceX to bid for Europe's launches last year and many more I think. So I doubt they will change their mind.

>>11137795
Europe might not but Canada in particular has always run a space program based on "what America will launch cheaply for us". Starships will need Canadarms to service James Webb.

>>11137795
Sure for now, politicians&old space of every nation can still do this kind of shit because they still can get away with it.
ESA and Roscosmos most likely have their own version of senator shelby, but these politicians will not have the luxury to keep ignoring cheaper solutions like starship&new glenn when they are up and running.
There will be a "purge" of sorts in the future and many in the space industry will have a hard time if they dont manage to adapt.

>>11137742
Glorious Nippon.

>>11137795
>SpaceX may offer their Starship for $30-50M and Europe wouldn't take it because it will kill their government-private venture called Arianespace.

SpaceX dropping prices to $30-50 million wouldn’t and hasn’t killed Arianespace. The Ariane 6’s market price is $90 million, the same as a reusable Falcon Heavy. Also, remember Arianespace can dual-berth satellites, which cuts the price in half to $45 million if you don’t mind sharing, allowing them to undercut SpaceX’s current prices. Falcon 9 has a price of $50 million reusable and Arianespace is still getting orders.

>>11137850
SpaceX dropping Starship prices that low would though. Sure, Ariane can dual berth for $90M, but Starship can chuck 100t+ for $XXM (between $10 and $50M). Assuming Ariane 6 can do 20t to LEO, and dual berths, Starship can do TEN berths to the same orbit, for less money.

>>11137817
Canada always chooses the relevant option since they will almost always have US's backing in national security/space. So its almost a non-issue for Canada.

>>11137850
Ariane 5/6's price is only obtainable because of heavy government subsidies AND contract guarantees. They're like ULA if SpaceX wasn't allowed to bid.

Oldspace suck ass!

>>11137870
>Ariane 6 can do 20t to LEO, and dual berths, Starship can do TEN berths to the same orbit, for less money.

Arianespace’s primary market is GTO, according to SpaceX: Starship can do 20 tons to GTO without refuelling, this significant drop in capability from it’s LEO performance (150 tons) is due to Starship’s large dry mass and reserving fuel for landing. Furthermore, considering that the Starship prototypes weigh far more than id advertised on Elon’s PowerPoint slides, this GTO estimate is likely optimistic. Ariane 6 can launch 12 tons to GTO due to it’s use of hydrogen and a small, high-energy upper-stage. Therefore, Starship’s capability to GTO likely isn’t much more than Ariane 6’s.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-targets-2021-commercial-starship-launch/

>>11137901
No, that would be SpaceX’s workmanship and quality control evidently, because of those massive dents littering the crumpled trash can...

I can't wait to watch Starship fly but I'm dreading the first launch. The tension will be too much for me I'll be devestated if it RUDs. Even if there are spares waiting in the wings.

>>11137888
>heavy government ownership
Arianespace is partly owned by government

>>11137938
>first prototype is final product
kek

You're choosing the worst aspect of Starship and the best possible aspect from Ariane 6

>>11137968
It’s SpaceX’s statement not mine and I assume SpaceX won’t be launching commercial payloads on prototypes... Also, I think the engineers at Arianespace will be happy to hear you think me just matter of factly describing their vehicle’s performance, is me focusing on Ariane 6’s best aspect.

>>11137984
And you chose to use heavy weight prototype for starship metric instead of their actual final specs number.

Whats the reasoning for that choice? FAKE ROCKET? PAPER ROCKET?

>>11138009
Elon stated the Mk1 prototype weighs 200 tons dry, Mk2 apparently weighs a little less (but is already so crumpled it looks like a deflating Atlas stage). According to him, SpaceX want to cut Starship’s weight by over a half to 85 tons for the production model, but if you consider the extra weight added by hardware needed for an orbital version e.g. TPS, more batteries, the mechanical systems needed to open and shut the payload bay etc, as well as the generally optimistic nature of Elon’s predictions, the production Starship will likely be quite a bit heavier than first advertised. In turn leading to a higher dry mass and therefore, worse GTO performance than SpaceX’s estimate which I assume was based off the 85 ton figure.

>>11138054
Starship will get scaled down in the future anyway in my opinion.

One of the purposes of Gateway and now Artemis was/is to lock the second tier human spaceflight agencies like Japan, Europe and Canada into the NASA SLS path, and lock their demand away from SpaceX offering them more expansive possibilities with Starship, as they become preoccupied building contributions to the Gateway, etc project for the next decade and a half with their capped productive task capability. In a ways they are willing captive subsidiaries of the NASA human spaceflight program rather than their own course charters, as Starship could allow them to be. After NASA if they are denied much new work for it, then the other agencies are a possible substantive and credible market for SpaceX even if NASA is much bigger, and Starship economics would allow those agencies to attain great results from their budget window that could greatly beat an alternate path not accessing it and NASAs own if they do not access it. Can't have them pulling away and showing what could be done by a national space program with ultra low cost space access that eclipses what NASA is doing.

If that continues, and Starship could change the equation, as a result we may see the even smaller agencies take advantage of the new capability before the others. ie. a UAE astronaut on the moon before an ESA one.

>>11138054
Latest starship goal was 120t afaik, your 85t is an ancient figure based on carbon fiber. And in case it isn't fully clear to you for some reason, the prototype is not fully optimized.

>>11138069
>Latest starship goal was 120t afaik, your 85t is an ancient figure based on carbon fiber.

Oh yes I remember, they put 85 tons on the slide at the last presentation but it was wrong and actually 120 tons.

>prototype is not fully optimized.

True again, but it also lacks a lot of the mass adding features an orbital starship will require.

>>11138062
>UAE astronaut on the moon before an ESA one.
Only if hell freezes over.

And honestly, i think all you guys are too optimistic about starship. Sure it's probably going to work, but it will take a lot more years then even elon time and a lot of blown up rocket pads.

SLS will probably fly in that window, and falcon9 will have a big role in the moon missions.

>>11138088
>falcon9 will have a big role in the moon missions.

You mean Falcon Heavy, to take part in Artemis a LV has to be able to launch a significant payload to the Moon. Furthermore, it also depends on if the companies who win Artemis contracts pick SpaceX to launch their modules. E.g. Maxar picked Blue/New Glenn to launch the PPE, if Boeing or Lockheed win something that module will likely go on Vulcan or God forbid, SLS...if Northrop win something it’ll fly on OmegA, if SpaceX win it’ll fly on FH and later SH etc. The upcoming Gateway logistics contract is particularly interesting because of how much money it brings the winners: $7 billion split between an unknown amount of awardees.

Starlink pass over the US in a few min

>>11138062
we need a name for this guy. conspiracyposter?

he thinks there's a giant fucking conspiracy of people behind every action he doesn't like.

>>11138133
lunar cygnus is a shoe-in since NGIS will have already done most of the work in making the minimal habitation module. wonder who'll be in second place

>>11135838

What a moonbase needs is ultra low cost lunar surface access and moonbase components predicated on that.

A lunar orbit station could well use a similar ultra low cost build and service model and a design predicated on it. Love to see what a Starship built and serviced one would look like.

>>11138208
>lunar cygnus is a shoe-in

>tfw when Northrop gets to build another commercially and militarily uncompetitive rocket, that is somehow still able to be profitable by doing a handful of NASA resupply missions each year, again...

Boeing’s render of their lander bid docked with Gateway also has what I assume is a depiction of their cargo bid.

How would you go about building a spaceworth Normandy SR1 without the handwavium drive core?

>>11138255
>>tfw when Northrop gets to build another commercially and militarily uncompetitive rocket, that is somehow still able to be profitable by doing a handful of NASA resupply missions
That's sort of their thing. They have the uncanny ability to make systems that can be profitable at RIDICULOUSLY low launch cadences. It's part of the reason I disagree with the popular opinion that OmegA's dead if they lose the NSSL.
Lunar Cygnus already gives them one OmegA launch per year. Depending on their partnership with BO, the lander might give them another. That's two already.

>>11138459
>northrop develops their first reusable rocket
>build one
>rated for ten flights
>close down the factory for ten years
>develop the next one
brilliant

>>11138459
>They have the uncanny ability to make systems that can be profitable at RIDICULOUSLY low launch cadences.
Semi-related question, does focusing on be profitable on low launch cadences make it difficult for the launch provider to handle higher launch cadences? Like if for some reason, OmegA needed to be launched for more than a dozen times per year (or whatever it's projected to normally launch per year), then would Northrop be unable to do so simply due to the way the rocket and it's supporting infrastructure was designed?

I kinda just mean that for launch providers in general, not just Northrop though.

>>11138444
fusion torch drive
the ship will be mediocre but functional, but that's due to the design being hot garbage

>>11138444
You can't, ships of it's shape, capabilities, and functions cannot exist without handwavium materials or at the very least super-science which has not even yet been speculated to be possible under the known laws of physics. Space ships cannot meaningfully be stealthy unless they're running completely cold with practically no system functioning, and even then the body heat of it's crew would rapidly build up. Nothing comparable to Element Zero is known to exist, thus making easy gravity manipulation, inertia manipulation, superluminal acceleration, etc impossible so far as can be determined. The Normandy is also poorly shaped for dedicated spaceflight, it's propulsion systems are off-axis from the center of mass, which would require it to constantly fire RCS thrusters just to prevent itself from tumbling end over end.

She is a very attractive fictional ship though, if I denied it I'd be a liar.

>>11138615
Doesn't the outer hull act as a radiator normally?

>>11138636
That would make the entire ship glow like a beacon during normal operation, and even operating under minimal power it can still fly during "stealth" mode, it's drives firstly will emit a very hot plume of exhaust material, and the waste heat from those drives will still heat the entire hull making the ship instantly visible to any other craft with basic functional sensor systems. Even if it could somehow bottle 100% of it's waste heat for any period of time, firstly it's high albedo (IE very white and light reflecting) which makes it relatively easy to detect optically, and it obscures the stars behind it, meaning a very powerful supercomputer and optical telescope set could see it as a moving blotch which aught not be there. It would take considerable computer power to perform a search like that in real time but anybody advanced enough to build fusion powered starships with gravity and inertial manipulation and FTL travel would have computational power to spare for such things.

>>11138636
>Doesn't the outer hull act as a radiator normally?
The effectiveness of a radiator depends on average temperature. If it isn't really stinkin' hot, it's a very crappy radiator for its size. The limiting factor is the ability of your working fluid and pumps to keep up.

Fusion rockets will be a thing within 10 years and it will be glorious. The Helium-3 economy will make the fossil fuel one look like a joke.

>>11137944
>>11137901
>*bend*

Shiny Orion

>>11138748
a mediocre disgrace compared to the True Orion

Seeing a Starlink trail for the first time was pretty neat.

>>11138851
how spread out was it? Couldn't see it for my pass

>>11138862
I only managed to catch a group of about 15, they were still pretty bunched up.

>>11138719
>virgin pressure reinforced thin wall
>chad crinkle

>>11139290
>The CHAD aluminium-lithium alloy

>>11139316
>The VIRGIN stainless steel

>>11139316
>aluminium
Hey Arianefag.

>>11139366
>Hey Arianefag.

>he posts pic of Falcon 9 boosters

>>11139378
>he's slowly starting to accept partial reusability but full reusability on the horizon terrifies him and he can only cope
Ariane mindset in full force

>>11139393
I have nothing against full-reusability or even stainless steel itself (Atlas wore it well), but everything against the disgusting aesthetics of the crumpled trash can...

>>11139401
>how dare a cheaply produced testbed not meet my aesthetic standards
I almost wish it would stay as ugly as it is now into final production just to witness the mass seethe

>>11139411
>I almost wish it would stay as ugly as it is now into final production just to witness the mass seethe

What a cringy contrarian...

>>11139401
The crumpled trash can is only for the test models. Orbital starships will be smooth af.

Capsules here, capsules there, capsules everywhere!

>>11139474
I hope so, but if Mk2 is indicative of the future, SpaceX plans to reduce Starship’s dry mass for the production model by using progressively thinner steel. As Mk2 (which uses thinner steel) being more crumpled than Mk1 and the depressurised Atlas collapsing shows, the thinner your steel is the easier it crumples. The smaller number and uniform-nature of the welds on the production model will help for sure, but likely won’t fully counteract the distortion of the thin steel.

>>11139501
Yay!

>>11139507
Doubtful crumples steel like that would make a strong case for a highly reusable interplanetary rocket. Perhaps they are try to make the steel as thin as possible for these early tests to see how it responds to stress, so when it needs to be made thicker later they can make it as thin as possible while meeting their reusability goals.

>>11138444
Nuclear propulsion is the only effective way I see it because its high energy density core allows efficient/long use engine. Even then, it may not be enough. We need a real fusion energy drive for permanently thrust/energy while crossing the earth/mars distance instead of cruising using momentum only.

>>11139501
Nice. Hopefully this is a sign of a new era in American spaceflight that's out of the Shuttle's shadow.

>>11139432
In order to be contrarian I would have to be opposing the mainstream viewpoint. Whiners on /sfg/ who don't even know what a prototype is and think aesthetics are the only thing that matter do not represent that.

>>11136316
>designed to be reused up to 10 times
Keep dreaming

>>11139603
What about Starliner's design makes it impossible for it to be reused 10 times?

>>11139647
He's just salty Boeing's capsule is more reusable than Dragon.

>>11139709
I thought both capsules were roughly equally reusable? Unless I'm missing something?

>>11139717
IIRC, the original plan for SpaceX was to reuse spent crew capsules for cargo. Now they've decided to build cargo capsules separately, meaning that once a crew Dragon capsule is used, it won't be used in any other application again.

>>11138444
>How would you go about building a spaceworth Normandy SR1 without the handwavium drive core?

Read this on what an advanced fusion drive could plausibly do.

https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-expanses-epstein-drive.html

>>11139647
>What about Starliner's design makes it impossible for it to be reused 10 times?

Boeing's pitiful launch rate.

>>11139647
Highly unlikely they'll be that many flights before that program is scrapped. There might not even be one.

>>11139762
The original plan was to use propulsive landing to land the capsules on land, and then reuse them for crew. Their plan was to verify the ability to do so with cargo launches coming back from the ISS, so they could test it "for free," but NASA told them to get fucked if they thought it'd be cool to try to do a propulsive landing of their precious ISS cargo in an unverified design. So rather than try to verify the capsule for propulsive landing on their own dome, they switched to using it for cargo missions after a successful crew mission. I hadn't heard they switched plans again, though.

>>11139775
Boeing doesn’t launch Starliner or anything currently, it’s ULA who does the heavy lifting via Atlas 5 (a Lockheed developed rocket). Also, these crew capsules will only fly twice a year to the ISS depending on crew assignments, so there’s no rush.

>>11138062
Smaller players will be legally blocked before they can even think about it.

You don't think random small countries or organizations will be willing to outright go against all the superpower's wishes, pride, and influence, do you?

Do you even understand that people were assassinated by 3 letter agencies for far less damage to national prestige?

>>11139811
>actually implying the US gov would assassinate people for not joining Artemis

Blocks your path

>>11139935
Blocks your path

>>11139958
*Unblocks blocked path and blocks your path*

>>11139935
>steps over you

>>11138062

Similarly NASA's human spaceflight program is in a hurry to lock up the next decade and a half of whatever it does before Starship shows up, just like the principals behind SLS wanted to lock up the next forty years or more of prime launch contracts before SpaceX and their Falcon rocket showed up.

>>11139935
>>11139958
Nice CGI, it would be awful if Starshi-

>>11139958
I can't wait for its first flight so it buries the hopes and dreams of the musk cult once and for all and leads us into new era of American leadership in space in a cost effective sustainable manner!

>>11139985
I’m sorry to break it to you dude, but....

ONONONONONONONONONONO...LOOK AT THIS DUDE...LOOK AT THE SIZE OF HIS DENTS!....

>>11140002
>SLS
>cost effective

>>11140007
...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

>>11140002
YOUR PRETTY BASED MY FRIEND

>>11140007
Americans can't even weld simple stainless steel right top fucking kek

>>11140007
HAHAHA SPACEX WILL FAIL

OH LOLOLOL

ONLY NASA CAN DO IT RIGHT

>>11140020
They should stick to aluminium-lithium alloys aka the thinking man’s rocket material

>>11140027
>not using magthor
Yikes.

>>11140007
>Women trying to judge anything made by man

You'll let every member of the SpaceX engineering team creampie in you once you see it fly.

>>11140021
Yikes

*ominous rumbling intensifies*

>Women can be engineers just as good as men!

Women when they try to contribute to engineering discussions:
>>11140007

>>11140032
>>11140067
Why are you randomly seething at women and defending Mexican welders? Also, you have to be pretty dumb to think anybody here is female...

>>11140067
cringe

>>11140002
>SLS
>Cost effective

How would the normal rockets from surviving mars fare irl, they seem to be based on Falcon so would they be decent designs or would they be missing something crucial to work?

Over $2 billion dollars PER LAUNCH!

>>11134766
How were the Soviets going to avoid fuel sloshing when using throttle control in the planned N1 engines ?

(as gimble control is/became the norm)

>>11140306
Usually you use ullage motors to re-orient your propellant if you want to fire primary drives in space after they've been shut down once already.

>>11140314
>>11140306
If I remember correctly the soviets didn't use ullage motors. Instead they separated the stages only by that gap supported by structures so they could ignite the next stage before detaching the previous one. The gaps allow for the gasses to escape around. It sounds primitive but it actually works fine.

>>11140306
>>11140314
The N-1 was designed to hot-stage (as shown by the gaps between each stage in pic related) like most other Soviet rockets and therefore, had no need for ullage motors to keep the propellant settled during stage separation.

>>11140398
Neat, if it works then it doesn't matter if it's primitive so long as it's functional.

>>11140314
What are the limitations of using such motors if trying maintaining a low range sustained engine throttle. (sorry i know complicated question)

>>11140417
Well obviously they need their own propellant, they can be SRBs or attached to your normal liquid propellant plumbing, or have their own small tanks of fuel and oxidizer, they're always extra mass. If you're sustaining a burn though you don't need them because thrust "gravity" will keep your propellant pulled down to the bottom of the tank where you want it. Ullage motors are usually fired for vehicles who fully shut down their engines and drift before re-igniting the engine again later, since drifting and maneuvering will cause propellant in the tanks to slosh.

>>11140462
>>11140471
>>11140478
>>11140484
>>11140488

Is that the blue origin site?

>>11140462
>>11140471
>>11140484
>>11140488
What's being built here? I dum

>>11140402
Seems like there would be a high aerodynamic penalty for this..

>>11140544
>>11140545
This is New Glenn’s launch site. The big unfinished metal box is the Horizontal Assembly Building and the water tower is ridiculously tall, you can see just how big it is by looking at the first picture and comparing it to Von Braun’s lighthouse. I can’t actually make out where the pad and bottom of the service structure are because of the construction work.

>>11140589
Are they also going to launch from that site?

>>11140690
Yes, it’s Launch Complex 36 at Cape Canaveral AF base.

>>11140789
What's the 5(?) little red nozzles on the bottom for?

>>11140807
They are secondary thrusters, used nominally for small orbital corrections and also as a backup if the AJ-10 stops working.

Flurries reported in Brownsville, but most of it is rain
>https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1194276333527941120

awwww yeah saw the train

>been two weeks since screening from Blue Origin
>still no call from them if I'm in or not
The wait is killing me.

>>11141120
hang in there anon. it will work out for the best

>tfw all the SSME's are going to be dumped in the ocean

>>11141177
Bezos will fish them out in due time

>>11141177
16 of the newer ones are, there’s older engines that are in museums. Maybe Jeff will go fishing in the Indian Ocean this time?

>>11141184
>fish SSMEs from ocean
>refurbish them
>sell them back to NASA

>>11141193
There's not going to be much left considering the orbital velocity the SLS Block 1 core stages at.

>>11141206
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1fkeTULQAps

>>11141223
They were abit late, but...

What would you like to have played during Starship's Mars launch?
For me, this:https://youtu.be/u0n4eMGXAyk
Anyone who watched lots of space videos will probably remember some CG video of a Soyuz and some other ship combining in orbit and going to the moon with this playing.

>>11141223
It’s gonna be funny when a Democrat next gets elected President, as the current FCC regime loves companies, hates regulations and seems to just approve every proposal without a second glance. A Democratic FCC might be more partial to the little guy...

>>11141242
the planets, mars, of course you twat

>>11141223
Staaaaar-fingerrrrrr....

>>11141243
That will be at least 5 years, if the dems don't all mass suicide next year when Trump wins again.

>>11141243
by that time there will already be thousands of Starlink satellites up there

>>11141139
For him, us, BO or the astronauts?

>>11141223
If not America, someone else (most likely China or Russia) will kill it with their own megaconstellation. It's inevitable.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/507521494

>>11141890
Luckily that will fix itself in a few years as long as no new pollutants may be launched.

I and the rest of the amateur astronomer community have high hopes for the upcoming elections.

Don't let us and the world down, america.

Success for the two back to back Chinese launches scheduled today - that of KZ-1A first at 11:40 Beijing time, followed by the CZ-6 at 14:35. Six satellites were placed in orbit.

>>11142507
I love how they unironically use ICBM trucks.

>>11142507

>>11142508
Even the Long March 6 which isn’t ICBM-derived uses a TEL (rocket truck).

>>11139811
> US hegemony is still a thing in 2019
Err... so then you haven't seen what's happened in Crimea, Syria, Turkey... anon I think plenty of countries are quite happy to tell the US to get fucked these days, not that I think that that's a good thing as I don't, but certainly US seems to be diminishing in influence by lots of easily verifiable measures

>>11142510
>>11142514
>>11142517
https://www.weibo.com/6528178851/Ig3h9w5Oj

A video of the Long March 6 being assembled, transported and launched.

>>11138088
>And honestly, i think all you guys are too optimistic about starship. Sure it's probably going to work, but it will take a lot more years then even elon time and a lot of blown up rocket pads.
If it's taking THAT long I'd expect SpaceX to start operating SH with some alternate and more conventional payload to Starship, as we are told that SH is the easier part of SS/SH due to it being fundamentally similar to Falcon 9, which has already proven reusability etc. SH in itself would still likely BTFO the competition.

>>11142623
China numba 1 niggers

>>11142630
In regards to launch cadence, you are correct...

>>11142609
The only good example here is Turkey. Ukraine and Syria are actually signs of growing influence of the US. Ukraine was in Russian sphere of influence till 2014. Syria was just minding it's own business untill US created ISIS and then "helped" with the fight.
You should be talking about China as it has more relevance in the moon endeavours.

>>11142637
Speaking about Ukraine, is there no hope for them to continue making Zenit rockets?
What happened with Sea Launch?

>>11142637
> Crimea is such a stunning success of US foreign policy that the US responded with sanctions on Russia that are still in place to this day
Really anon? You're honestly of the belief that what happened in Crimea illustrates US *strength* rather than the opposite?
I'd much rather we had a Fukuyama style end of history situation with the US forever unchallenged and resplendent on its throne, but the facts suggest otherwise

>>11142640
Well, calling Zenit "ukrainian rocket" is kinda wrong, because most of it's vital components like main engines, avionics and so on was produced in Russia. Ukraine produced only fuel tanks and most of the structural components.

>>11142194
So much cringe... typical twitch streamer.

>>11142640
Sea Launch was bought by the Russians. No possibility ty continue with Zenit in current political climate. Russians are developing Soyuz-5 to be used on the platform. That's at least 3 more years before it goes operational.

>>11142194
>https://www.twitch.tv/videos/507521494
Whoa.. I kinda wanna see that... The last launch passed over ireland last time soon after launch, but it was too bright to see them.. maybe next time..

>>11142640
>is there no hope for them to continue making Zenit rockets? What happened with Sea Launch?

Sea Launch still currently ‘exists’. It was originally an international partnership between a bunch of different aerospace companies including Boeing (US), Energia (Russia) and Yuzhnoye (Ukraine); with the Zenit rocket being built using both Ukrainian and Russian parts. Obviously, this partnership was scuppered in 2014 by the Russian invasion of Crimea and Sea Launch was forced to shutdown operations and mothball it’s signature fleet. A Russian airline: S7 Airlines, purchased the defunct Sea Launch back in 2016 under the guise of restarting operations, but nothing has come of this so far. Yuzhnoye/Ukraine are currently developing a new rocket the Cyclone 4M, to launch from Nova Scotia in Canada and Russia’s upcoming Soyuz-5 rocket is essentially a nativised Zenit, designed to use only Russian parts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irtysh_(rocket)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone-4M

>>11142651
US would find another way to sanction Russia if it wasn't for that Ukrainian mess. Like for example Salisbury poisoning. Actually these days they seem to be sanctioning everyone. I wonder where will that lead to.
>Really anon? You're honestly of the belief that what happened in Crimea illustrates US *strength* rather than the opposite?
Yes. Just because US didn't take 100% of Ukrainian territory in it's SOI does not mean it is in decline. It was an enormous blow to Russia however.
>> I'd much rather we had a Fukuyama style end of history situation with the US forever unchallenged and resplendent on its throne
As not being a US citizen I would not. As would 90% of world's population.

>China carries out 2 orbital launches inside 3 hours

HAHAHA WHITE PIGUS, THE GLORIOUS PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC IS INDEED NUMBA WAN WHEN IT COMES TO LAUNCH CADENCE. EVEN THO THE LYING WESTERN CONMAN ERON MUSK CONSTANTLY MENTIONS “RAPID REUSABILITY”, HIS PITIFUL TRANNY-INFESTED COMPANY CANNOT CANNOT MATCH THE UNRIVALLED PACE OF THE CHINESE AEROSPACE MACHINE!

https://spacenews.com/china-carries-out-2-orbital-launches-inside-3-hours/

>>11142703
This, but unironically.

>>11142725
I maybe writing in a joking manner, but there’s nuggets of truth in all satire.

How would we build a martian colony base? (or expand it into a city?) Would we have to dig fully underground and live like vault dwellers or would rather thick martian brick/rammed regolith building with some interior sealant do the job for radiation?

>>11142657
I saw them here in the US on the first launch. It's pretty crazy. I hope they aren't that visible when there are 10,000 of them because it would probably get in the way of using my telescope at that point.

>>11142741
Personally I'd prefer something like this. Inside a large crater with artificial atmosphere and pressure. However I'm not certain we have the science necessary to maintain atmosphere like this. I'd imagine we'd need to maintain some sort of a large electrostatic/magnetic force pushing downward to keep the atmosphere from flying off.

Maybe a better idea is a large dome structures connected by underground tunnel transport (hyperloop) service.

>>11142741
Well first you have to get some construction equipment over there, unless you're planning to dig it with shovels. It's not like you can just phone up the local construction equipment rental place and they'll send them in on a trailer, and they also won't be able to come out and fix them if one breaks down.

>>11142745
Damn that show looked good. I feel like the new digital stuff doesn't look as cinematic as the stuff they used to shoot on film upto the late 90's. The digital compositors just aren't as good at it imo.

>>11142741
Dig halfway deep, then cover yourself with what you dug. Seems like the cheapest option.

>>11142745
Sorry, wrong webm

>>11142744
They're only in a train like that right after deployment. The ones in back aren't "stragglers", they start boosting them from the back of the train first.

>would probably get in the way of using my telescope at that point.
They only flash right after sunset / before sunrise. Otherwise they're an infinitesimal black point that is unlikely to do more than block out a single star for a few milliseconds. Have you ever tried to get a picture of the ISS transiting the sun? You need millisecond accuracy to get the shot. And that's over the sun, which has a much bigger angle in the sky.

>>11142745
Like a big ass pyramidal arcology, have the ability to seal off sections, maybe have one for a particular biome as a support structure

>>11142703
I'm confused -- why did it take them two whole launches to send up only six satellites?

>>11142749
Yes, but what you plan to build dictates what equipment you use

>>11142763
You're ignoring my point that no matter what equipment you use, you still have to bring it over there first. Even if it's just shovels.

>>11142760
Not everybody is building massive constellations of space junk and these are just small satellite launchers:

Kuaizhou-1A:

>The Kuaizhou-1A, understood to be derived from missile technology, consists of three solid stages and a liquid propellant upper stage, and is capable of lofting a 200-kilogram payload into a 700-kilometer sun-synchronous orbit (SSO).

>The payload was the Jilin-1 Gaofen-2A optical Earth observation satellite. The 230-kilogram satellite has a full color resolution of better than 0.75m.

Long March 6:

>A three-stage Long March 6 carried five satellites named Ningxia-1, described in Chinese press reports as being mainly for remote sensing, into low Earth orbit.

>The launcher uses kerosene and liquid oxygen propellant for its first two stages and was designed by the Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology. SAST is also developing a Long March 6 variant which will be capable of vertical takeoff and vertical landing.

>A new batch of Long March 6 launches are expected soon, carrying commercial and international payloads. The launcher can deliver up to 1,000 kilograms to a 700-kilometer SSO.

>>11142769
Yes, but first you must determine what you are going to build before you send the equipment over. All buildings are planned out before the construction equipment is sent in. You have to see what will be useful in building youre structure otherwise you may have equipment incapable of building what you want or you may need a machine to build it and not have it
You need to plan out the building before sending in the building equipment

>>11142754
Hey telescopefag, what do you think abut something like that:
https://www.celestron.com/products/travel-scope-80-portable-telescope-with-smartphone-adapter
I'm looking for a scope that can fit a backpak. I have no experience.

>>11142798
>implying I'm a telescopefag just because I posted someone else's awesome picture
Not spaceflight. Start a new thread faggot.

>>11142811
Oh, don't be such a cunt.

>>11140589
that's no water tower, THAT'S NEW ARMSTRONG!

>>11136186
>all hail Dragon

As we can clearly see here, carbon fibre is the material of choice for true Rocket Chads: whilst the virgin Mexican welder slaves away for months outside in sweltering heat and freezing cold, to bang together a crumpled steel trash-can...the smug Rocket Chad employee looks on with a grin, as Rosie rapidly churns out an impeccably smooth, pristine rocket-stage every 12 hours.

https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1194673881715396608

>>11143227
Carbon fiber is fine for small rockets but is much more challenging to do on larger ones. That video looks neat though. Wished that they showed the machine in action more.

>>11143227

>>11143227
Rocket Chads are the same one that said they will never go reusable.
I dont trust them one bit.

we just static fired the dragon 2 and it didn't blow up this time

>>11141120
>tfw leaf so I'll never be allowed to work on rockets
a-at least I have a couple satellite companies. and the c-canada arm company right bros? We're also building a new spaceport maybe...

>>11143563
Cool for you guys, you’ve now got a working abort system instead of a post-partum abortion system!

>>11143563
go treat yourself to some frozen yogurt

>>11143563
How many Dragons are there? That one blew up and I'm assuming this one wasn't built from scratch starting right after that, so there's gotta be multiples.

>>11143610
iirc the batch for NASA is 7? NASA wants a fresh capsule for each manned flight. After that SpaceX can fly cargo with em, or non-nasa people

>>11143617
Neat, not including the one strewn across the desert right, which I'd assume they're replacing for the batch to NASA. I hope the 'spent' capsules wind up performing many flights after NASA is done with them, would be an awful waste to make a reusable craft you only use once.

>>11143637
>expandable spaceshuttles

>>11143617
why is NASA so paranoid?

>>11143674
Probably because the Shuttle gave them a bad aftertaste for reusable crewed vehicles.

>>11143655
>expendable governments
>>11143674
This thing looks like a parasite on a bomb, I love it.

>>11143739
I just don't understand this reusable governments meme.

The amount of money you can save from reusing governments isn’t enough to justify how much harder it makes it to complete the difficult acts that usually make money in the politics 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 poltical science in general, it’s almost always much more effective to throw away the government 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 governments are possible now, but when reliability is THE number one priority (in this case the laws takes up 2/3rds of the cost and the actual government only 1/3rd) it makes absolutely no sense. Like, look at this legislative body (pic related). This represents some of the most advanced technologies in the leadership 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 backwater country made reusing governments popular, then that doesn't mean that we will have the sci-fi future of millions of orders 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 governments' meme.

>>11143759
>it’s almost always much more effective to throw away the government after it’s done its job than to figure out how to make recovery part of the mission.
Unironically true

>>11143759
Based

>>11143674
>why is NASA so paranoid?
It's not really paranoia. They're are a bunch of pussies but they also use safety as a mask for their general incompetence so fewer people question why they barely get anything done. Their workplace culture then extends this over to other areas like the commercial crew program without them realizing that it is no longer serving their goals.

I would trade the lives of 10,000 people just to advance space flight by 50 years. They would be nothing compared to the billions of people who rely on this technology and the importance of spreading out the human race.

>>11143859
>I would trade the lives of 10,000 people just to advance space flight by 50 years.
That's a really bad way to put it. Something better would be like, "I'm willing to let people risk their lives to advance spaceflight." or something like that.

>>11143868
Shit I'd trade 50,000 people for a LEO joyride, most of you aren't worth jack to me and it's not like we're running out.

>>11143777
>checked
Quality post
>>11143868
Not that dude but I'm not about to discount the potential benefits of a mass sacrifice

>>11143868
>That's a really bad way to put it. Something better would be like, "I'm willing to let people risk their lives to advance spaceflight." or something like that.
No, I wanted my argument to play loose with the value of human life. What we're doing now in spaceflight is like trying to fly the first planes ever built if we were unwilling to risk any lives in the process and each death would set the advancement of flight back by decades. We shouldn't throw life away deliberately but we should accept that space is inherently dangerous and that not only people will die, it's practically a necessity if we're pushing the way that we should.

If current astronauts are unwilling to take such risks, there are millions of people with similar levels of education who will. It would be a glorious way to die.

>>11143903
>I'm not about to discount the potential benefits of a mass sacrifice
If it's good enough to raise the sun, then it's good enough to raise a rocket.

Anon's Space Program:
>All flights have a 90% or greater chance of you returning without injury
>You will get $1,000,000 per flight
>Your family will receive $2,000,000 if you die.

If we managed to fit 600 people on a single Starship and it exploded with the loss of everyone onboard, it would still be fucking cheaper than a single SLS flight.

>>11143978
Christ that puts SLS into perspective.

>>11143978
For clarification, which price of an SLS launch are you using?

>>11143859
I get the safety rationale, what I don't get is why, after spending countless shitloads of money on orion/SLS still insist in making everything slower. I mean, the shuttle was a safety mess and still flew for 30 years

>>11144010
Obviously the questionable one which also counts infrastructure and pay checks as well as the rocket itself ($2 billion), considering if 600 people died and each family got a $2 million the total payout would be $1.2 billion excluding the rocket itself, fuel, infrastructure etc

>>11144019
>I mean, the shuttle was a safety mess and still flew for 30 years
It was the only launcher owned by NASA. The Saturns were scrapped, and the Shuttle was poised to replace all expendable launchers so new ones weren't made until after Challenger. It was also the only manned vehicle in the US. Ending the Shuttle would mean the end of manned spaceflight for America. Also, the Shuttle was a Congress pleaser so it was hard to kill politically until 14 were killed.

>>11144010
Two billion per SLS launch and with Starship at up to 200 million per launch. That gives 1.8 billion for the 600 people who died or three million per person.

>>11144039
But if the decision to retire the shuttles was taken in 2003, why didn't they start developing a new spacecraft then so it would be ready by the time all sts were grounded?

>>11144068
They did do that. It was the Constellation program and it got canned because A) it was behind schedule and over budget and B) Obama didn't like it.

>>11143978
Also, 600 people is 35 more than the total amount of humans that have ever gone to space, according to this Wikipedia article. High risk/high reward spaceflight would be awesome to witness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_name

>>11144075
>be young anon in 08
>super excited about Constellation
>vote Obama because fuck Mccain and Palin
>tfw Constellation axed right away
Anyway that's why I'm a nazi now.

>>11144075
R.I.P the ‘big boom stick’, the ‘shredder of parachutes’, the most metal crewed launch vehicle to ever be conceived...

>>11144099
I guess it can be said that young you did nazi that coming.

>>11144112
You can go to the camps last, Carlos.

>Forcing the American taxpayers to spend billions of dollars just to ensure the safety of these nerds.
Big yikes and cringe.

>>11144134
They're also nicknamed "The Turtles", which should be a reference to how slow this piece of shit organization is.

>>11144134
Pence looks like they all synchronized a fart right before the photo was taken.

>>11144139
Seethe harder...

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-091817a-turtles-astronaut-class-nickname.html

>>11144123
Thanks, but no thanks. I've seen your camps and they're terrible. No one is really focusing on their duties. They need more concentration.

>>11144169
What are you even talking about? I've read that article before. I didn't state that what I said was the reason for their nickname, only that it should be. The name however is still derogatory and the article confirms it. They actually wanted to be called the Werewolfs and the previous group rightfully shut down that.

Go away, NIDF. You don't have to defend every billion dollar waste the administration makes. The public has not only a right but a duty to hold them accountable for their misspending.

>>11144213
*seething further intensifies*

>>11143990
No it doesn't, it values ahuman life at 2 million bux which is stupid

>>11144219
*Argument nonexistent*
Stop shitposting.

>>11144221
It's more than $50,000.
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html

>>11144221
Yeah I suppose, we're worth far less than that.

>>11144221
It forms the groundwork for putting the value of a human life instead of spending billions preventing a handful of deaths and delaying spaceflight by decades.

100 astronauts dying in that situation could be 18 million a piece. We could keep going with fewer astronaut and more money, but the point is that it would be way more efficient if NASA culture allowed more risk while paying off the families of the few astronauts that will die. It won't happen, partly because of public outrage in these situations and politics, but it should have been done this way from the start. Their approach is harmful for advancement.

What happened to hop poster? Will we see him again when Mk1 is done?

BasedX:
Full duration static fire test of Crew Dragon’s launch escape system complete – SpaceX and NASA teams are now reviewing test data and working toward an in-flight demonstration of Crew Dragon’s launch escape capabilities

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1194745251480498177

>>11144227
There's a good quote in that article:
"Take, for example, the $500,000 death benefit the government pays families when a soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan."
Life is cheap universally, even for government employees dying for a national cause.

>>11143978
>>11144227
>Starship passengers have a future earning potential of $2m
No, I think you will find most of the passengers for the first decade make more than that a year.

>>11144444
This test is blessed

>>11143601
the only fucking flavor they had left was green apple sorbet which tastes awful

>>11144536
It's three million if you include the pay before they blow up but do you mean astronauts or tourists? The latter group isn't getting paid at all, plus they would forfeit any right to sue, and NASA astronauts get between $66,0000-$144,566 a year, regardless of the risk they take, which is complete bullshit. Their pay should be a flat salary with the rest based on the danger they were exposed to. I would have no problem with SpaceX or NASA paying tens of millions of dollars to astronauts in dangerous situations, providing we don't have to pay Boeing billions to fuck us for the next decade.

>>11144578
I was talking about tourists, everyone is talking about ticket prices based on a very optimistic launch cost and zero profit margin. I think in reality tickets will be more like $100k.
People young enough to fly yet rich enough to blow $100k on a couple of hours fun will have future earning potential way beyond $2m.
As a 36yo electrician that can by no means blow $100k my future earning potential is ~$120,000 a year x 29 years until retirement = $3,480,000. For most passengers I suspect this number would be closer to $50m.

>>11144103
It kills me that this never went any further. This thing could have been the American Soyuz, brutally simple and relatively cheap/dirty.

>>11143912
Absolutely agree. If I were to let myself get all /pol/ about it, I'd say something like I think that our personal fear of death in the West is disempowering and undignified, and deliberately pushed as part of the general feminisation of society by those that seek to undermine us.

>>11144613
>personal fear of death in the West
You are an idiot, the west produces the vast majority of people who professionally risk their lives.
Race car drives, stunt pilots, drag boat racers (the most dangerous sport in existence) ect.
While there are plenty of normies that act like buying a motorbike is stupid there are also plenty like myself that know the risk yet ride because the risk is part of the fun.

>>11144170
Caaaaaaaarlooooooooos

>>11144444
>mfw KEK blessed CHADX

>>11142745
Holding an atmosphere in a crater is EZ PZ.
>generate a magnetic field with a diameter the size of the crater
>bury the generator
>rim the crater with blowers
>generate laminar flow using planetary atmosphere
>maintain a static pressure higher than wind speeds
>fill the crater with desired atmosphere
Gravity holds the atmosphere down, blowers keep it from blowing away, and the magnetic field keeps the solar wind from ripping it off. This is all achievable with early 20th century tech, and it's all used in dumb industrial shit on earth. UV radiation will still be stupid high due to a lack of miles of atmosphere, so you'll have to protect your skin, but other than that, you can go about the crater naked covered in spf2000.

>>11143610
The one that blew up was going to be used for the max-Q abort test. The next one to be made was the one for the first manned flight, and that one will now be used for the abort test.
But it's not all bad, because that one didn't have the full life support system or something, and couldn't stay up more than two weeks. The third one will now be used for the first manned flight, and the crew will have the option to stay for a full six-month rotation. (The first Boeing manned Starliner also has this option.)

>>11144630
>Blowers break down or need maintenance
>Lose your atmosphere instantly
brilliant

>>11144617
Bizarre back to front argument. The examples you cite are exceptions to the rule, and as such prove my point. Contrast this with people in less nanny state countries that take risks of similar degree on a daily basis. I live in the UK though, which everyday attains fresh heights of cuckedness never thought possible.

>>11139647

Because it has to be launched first.

>>11144659
> Passive blowers operating on temperature gradient
Eat that

>>11144088
Imagine if there was a list of "List of airplane travelers by name", with only 600 people on it... sixty fucking years after the Wright Brothers.

>>11144481
>keks in tachyons

>>11142752
is oxygen heavier than mars´ current atmosphere ? This domeless approach is a fucking good idea.

>>11145589
Some kind of meteoroid defence system required though presumably.

>>11144688
One look at the glaring disparity in size, expense, and engineering complexity between the Wright Flier and the R-7/Vostok should tell you that this isn't even close to being a fair comparison. It's an understatement to say that space travel is multiple orders of magnitude more complicated than powered flight.

>>11145742
Vostok was 60 years after the Wright Brothers' first flight and during that time we progressed to full fledged jetliners like the Boeing 720 that were orders of magnitude more complex than the Wright Flier. Flight was a tremendously hard engineering problem during its day.

It's been another 60 years since we've been to space, few things have changed and we're struggling to even go back to the moon. Of course you have to cry foul and repeat the "space is hard" mantra in order to defend the near complete lack of progress. Addressing the reality of the situation, both governmental and individual incompetence, along with businesses that exist to leech money from the taxpayer, proves too hard a pill to swallow.

>>11145849
This makes me wonder where spaceflight would be if the Shuttle were even half as cheap as it was expected to be.

>>11141120
I'm in! An interview will be scheduled soon.

>>11145913
Which of their factories are you applying to work at? If it’s the one in Kent, Washington, you’ve got to covertly take some pictures of the secret orbital capsule which is supposedly hidden somewhere there...

>>11145928
Yeah it's at Kent. I've heard that the area is almost as bad as California in terms of living expenses. I'll keep an eye out for any mysterious capsules.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-china-mars/china-completes-lander-test-for-first-mars-mission-in-2020-idUSKBN1XO0IQ

>>11145885
The simultaneous deaths of both Von Braun's nuclear-powered early 1980s Mars landing missions AND the 100% re-useable dolphin sex Shuttle concepts were the two worst things to happen to manned spaceflight.

Imagine an alternate history where the space race never ended and we landed on Mars, or where the goodwill from the Apollo-Soyuz test project led to a USA/USSR handshake between the US and the USSR on the Martian surface in 1988.

Or, conversely, imagine an alternate future where we kept the Saturn V production lines open as limited-use launch vehicles for Skylab-type modules, and by 1981 had a massive station that resembled the ultimate Mir configuration, but built out of 5 Skylab-sized modules instead, with a crew of dozens of scientists, and serviced by dolphin sex Shuttle flights monthly as a sort of orbital version of the Amundsen-Scott Base.

>>11145928
>If it’s the one in Kent, Washington, you’ve got to covertly take some pictures of the secret orbital capsule which is supposedly hidden somewhere there...

Remember that Bezos stated that New Glenn was going to be man-rated from the start. What would be amazing is if for the first test flight, they bait-and-switch us with the giant fairing and fly a test of the orbital capsule instead.

>>11145958
>100% re-useable dolphin sex Shuttle
NNN is going to get challenging for some.

>>11145943
>ORANGE SMOKE BAD

>>11145849
>Of course you have to cry foul and repeat the "space is hard" mantra in order to defend the near complete lack of progress.

Space isn't hard, but it is expensive. The defense industry drove the aims of spaceflight for the past 60 years, and the defense industry didn't need much more than missiles and satellites, so what we got was missiles (expendable boosters) and satellites, either manned or unmanned. And so there we were, throwing away boosters as large and expensive as widebody airliners to place payloads the size of small business jets into orbit. Re-usability wasn't really a priority for the defense industry, and even if it was, up until the 90s it required wings and horizontal landings that ruined the mass fractions of TSTO rocket designs to the point where the engine technology of the day could barely get anything into orbit. And it's only been post-2000 where anyone's been wealthy enough to get into spaceflight on their own dime.

I'd also say if wasn't 60 years of pure stagnation, as there was pretty much uninterrupted progress between 1955 and 1985. The real "dark ages" were ushered in by the fall of the USSR and Challenger, and lasted from 1990 to 2015 or so. Shuttle 2.0 should have flown in 1995 and 3.0 in 2005, but instead, we got Endeavor, the ISS, and dozens of cancelled follow-on programs.

>>11145963
>What would be amazing is if for the first test flight, they bait-and-switch us with the giant fairing and fly a test of the orbital capsule instead.

Blue have also said they are going to fly a commercial customer on New Glenn’s first flight, so I doubt this will be the case. I’m pretty sure their first priorities are proving they can be a reliable launch provider to customers and beginning to eat away at their backlog, so they don’t lose any due to delays. However, they’ve also talked about New Shepard customers getting discounts for orbital tourism flights using New Glenn, so crewed spaceflight is obviously one of their priorities.

>>11145993
>up until the 90s it required wings and horizontal landings

The tech was almost there for vertical landing even in the 60s.

>>11146012
It would have been a bitch to pull off with 60s/70s computers with a level of reliability that would make it economically viable for booster recovery. The only way the LEM made it work was by having the best pilots on the planet fly it by hand in the slow-motion conditions afforded by lunar gravity. Though I'd bet you could pull it off, barely, with 80s flight control hardware/software.

Remember though that the first time anybody demonstrated powered vertical landing with a rocket-powered unmanned vehicle under the fast-accelerating conditions of Earth gravity wasn't until 1995 with the DC-X.

>>11145993
>it is expensive
We can afford it. As spaceflight wasn't yet commercially viable, we trusted the government to at least safeguard its future until it was and significantly bring down the cost, but they failed us. Even if we ignore the gross misspending that is the bulk of the expense, the entire NASA budget is peanuts compared to the whole of federal spending. In 2019, works out to be around 1/30th of the military budget alone, despite being as important to the human race as anything else we do. I understand how we got to this but I still think what they've done is indefensible, even considering their limitations and that of the technology. If it wasn't for private industry, spaceflight would still be getting more expensive each year, which may have formed a trap that would have been nearly impossible to escape from.

Perhaps what they should have done after Apollo was a joint collaboration with the Russians to land men on Mars. The average person needs a reason to support spaceflight that beyond technological advancement and furthering humanity, otherwise they'll lose interest and the government will then tear into the budget in order to use it for something else.
>>11145913
Good luck in your interview.

Today is Apollo 12 50th anniversary, which I find depressing.

>>11146081
>Good luck in your interview.
Thanks!

>>11146148
Maybe they'll have a livestreamed anniversary party from Moonbase 2?

new thread

>>11146344