/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11176779
>NASA Shares Mid-Sized Robotic Lunar Lander Concept with Industry

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2019/nasa-shares-mid-sized-robotic-lunar-lander-concept-with-industry.html

>In one recent study, NASA developed a concept for a mid-sized lander that would deliver a rover to the polar regions of the Moon. This design focuses on demonstrating a highly accurate, large payload lunar landing vehicle. The system-level requirements focus on maximizing the mass delivered to the surface while maintaining landing site accuracy.

>“This lander was designed with simplicity in mind to deliver a 300 kilogram rover to a lunar pole," said Logan Kennedy, the project's lead systems engineer at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. "We used single string systems, minimal mechanisms and existing technology to reduce complexity, though advancements in precision landing were planned to avoid hazards and to benefit rover operations. We keep the rover alive through transit and landing so it can go do its job.”

>Multiple NASA field centers contributed to this complex effort -- the results of which are captured in a technical paper available to the public on the NASA Technical Reports Server. As NASA turns to commercial partners to land scientific instruments -- and eventually humans -- on the Moon’s surface, companies can benefit from work NASA has already done.

>“As robotic lunar landers grow to accommodate larger payloads, simple but high-performing landers with a contiguous payload volume will be needed,” Kennedy said. “This concept was developed by a diverse team of people over many years and meets that need.

>“We hope that other lander designers can benefit from our work,” he added.

So how long before spaceX starts scaling down starship&heavy because they realize they went too big too soon?

>>11176807
>they went too big too soon
The whole reason why they're tacking together steel plates in their backyard is that they haven't even remotely gone big on it yet.
The only thing so far that has cost them money is the raptor engine development.
The fucking water towers cost literally nothing in rocket terms.

>>11176807
I mean Starship and Superheavy are both too tall and skinny now IMO, since they decided to keep the carbon fibre limited 9m diameter and increase it’s height to a level similar to the 12m ITS (likely just to one up the Saturn V). A stouter Starship would be objectively superior, as it would be easier to land due to having a lower center of gravity (more stable), generating more drag (more Delta V shaved off by the belly flop) and a having wider base/leg span (even more stability). Furthermore, it would have less complex and cluttered plumbing due to engines being more spread out. However, it seems like SpaceX have already ordered the machinery and started building the infrastructure so it’s likely the basic dimensions (height/width) are set in stone for the time being.

>>11176782
>>11176779
More on lander design here:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20190033128.pdf
It's a fucking shipping pallet for the moon. It's built simple and cheap. Notice the crushable foam.

>>11176587>>11176575
dem SRBs thic

>>11177019
>It's a fucking shipping pallet for the moon. It's built simple and cheap. Notice the crushable foam.

It’s not really a lander, it’s more of a pure descent element/Lunar Skycrane equivalent for the rover. This was originally designed to be used for NASA’s cancelled Lunar Prospector rover, which was replaced with the entire CLPS program. It’s a really neat design and I hope some company picks it up; the fact that it’s tailor-made to specifically transport a rover to the surface can clearly be seen by the lack of ramps and low elevation of the craft, it’s designed for the easiest/most convenient possible deployment of a rover.

>>11176807
They wanted to pursue full resuability with F9 but it was basically infeasible, you want a fully reusable vehicle to be as big you can possibly make for multiple reasons.

>>11177070
>They wanted to pursue full resuability with F9 but it was basically infeasible

I’m sure they could have built something similar to ESA’s Space Rider, but bigger and with an integrated second-stage. It would have been easier...

>>11177070
>>11177075
The engineering isn't the issue, but rather the cost/payload effectiveness. They went with big/cheap Starship because it makes much more financial sense.

>>11177075
>>11177078
Something similar to NASA/ULA’s big inflatable heat shield (set to be tested in 2022) would be much easier on the R&D budget and payload mass fractions.

Dumping this "SSTO".

>>11177084

>>11177086

>>11177090

>>11177084
>>11177092
Seems like a pretty SMART™ idea to me, but I struggle to see the Merits of a F-1 as a sustainer engine...

>>11177110
>but I struggle to see the Merits of a F-1 as a sustainer engine...
What if it was an F-1B?

>>11177204
when will we get to nep

>>11177222
Haven't been back since Voyager. And, actually, Voyager was the only time we've ever been.
But Trident is in the works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(spacecraft)

Will it work?

>>11177232
I did it in KSP so definitely.

>>11177232
Makes me wonder if it'll be JWST 2, quadcopter boogaloo.

>>11177239
Good to hear!
>>11177248
God help us...
I don't think so, though. NASA does pretty well when it comes to rovers.

>>11177248
if there's any agency that even has a chance of pulling something that complex off, it's nasa

>>11177273
Honestly I didn't think Curiosity's skycrane would work due to the complexity and was happy to be wrong, so now they've got my confidence for something like the quadcopter.

Why does film cooling suck so much?

>>11177232
>>11177248
??? isn't this thing getting placed on the second mars rover though which is launching in like a few years? this pic shows it coming down on it's own

>>11177349
You're thinking of Marscopter (in pic). Dragonfly (in >>11177232 's pic) is a separate mission that's going to Titan.

>>11177358
oh my bad

>>11177075
what a waste, I see 4 disposable stages and disposable fairings being used to launch a redundant cubesat fairing with parachutes that could be replaced with a simple bracket that lets go of the cubesat

>>11177421
Now that I look at it for a minute what's even the point of having the reusable craft there at all if all you want to do is deploy a dinky cubesat? Just launch your payload as-is and don't bother fucking around with EDL and refurbishment.
Why is this even a concept? I'm confused as to the use.

>>11177450
Judging from Ariane's resistance to the concept of reusability, maybe it was a proposal for reusability that would appear that they're taking the concept more seriously but without actually having to put serious work into it?

>>11177459
>we don't want to explore reusability but here's a completely ass-backwards concept to let you know we're considering it
I mean I guess it makes sense, from a certain point of view.

>>11177467
Well I'm drunk right now when I made that post, so it probably makes sense to a drunk point of view. Are the French alcoholics?

>>11177484
Me too, and I assume so since that's about half my ancestry and I refuse to stop drinking nightly.

>>11177495
>>11177484
Pierre! That mère enculée Eloné is undercutting us with his le stupid reusable rockets!

*SIPS WINE*

But no worry ami. I have an idea!

*DOWNS WHOLE GLASS*

What if we make the Ariane 5

*CHUGS BOTTLE*

But make it

*DRINKS A LITERAL BUTTLOAD*

Part deuxeuxeuxeuxeuxeuxeuxeux!

*HONS INTO THE SUNSET*

I don't get it, i literally don't get all the musk hate.
He risked his personal fortune he almost went bankrupt, everyhing hes done so far is a complete revolution of space forever, like even if spacex doesnt do anything new, the falcon expendable by itself is the cheapest rocket ever done, without accounting for resuability of the first stage which is now consistent, and the fairings are getting there too.

that same man is creating a vehicle that if it works even vaguely as intended it will make some sci fi fall short.

and one test has an expected failure in controlled conditions with no injuries not even significant money lost and now people claim like it is a failure when its not even a reason to stop unironically worshipping this genius.

for comparison nasa killed 14 astronauts basically for fun, because everyone knew they were gonna die and their missions werent even needed.
NASA KILLED 3 ASTRONAUTS ON A FUCKING SIMULATOR, THATS LIKE GETTING AIDS FROM MASTURBATING

and they did all of that with great expense with YOUR money, why the fucka re you mad at them for?

>>11177576
Well Musk does have a very "abrasive" personality at times, and it'll seem unbearable if he somehow rubbed you off the wrong way. Also he has a habit of overselling his projects, that along with the fact that some of his investments have failed/are struggling can make it appear that his projects are unreliable. In addition to all of that, SpaceXs goal is to be disruptive in the industry which doesn't make alot of friends.

>>11177576
>"you're a pedophile"
>literal securities fraud
>insufferable fanbase
gee i wonder

>>11177583
I don't care if someone does something bad while doing something cool.

>>11176807
lol never, this is barely a setback

besides our future plans rely on it, version 2 of the starlink sats won't fit on falcon

The ideal spacetruck.

>>11177576
He has a god complex. F9 is impressive and worthwhile but not even close to "a complete revolution of space forever".

No one would be pointing fingers at all if there wasn't a cultish attitude around SpaceX. So when the "20km hop in 2 months" unsurprisingly doesn't eventuate, it isn't surprising either that there is some pushback and schadenfreude. But only because of the often completely delusional ideology that some people have bought into and aggressively "shilled".

>>11177518
Tres amusement

>>11177583
>Securities fraud

Oh no won't somebody think of the
gorrilionaire investors.

>>11177715
There wouldnt be a cultish attitude towards SpaceX is the rest of the industry werent fucking inept in comparison. It is not that SpaceX is without problems, it is that if you are a spaceflight enthusiast, then there is SpaceX and NOTHING else to look forward to. Maybe Blue Origin deserves a mention, too, and that is about it.

>>11177925
>it is that if you are a spaceflight enthusiast, then there is SpaceX and NOTHING else to look forward to.

>cultist outs himself as a cultist

>>11177925
i would argue that SLS is much closer to fly than everything blue origin might do soon. Otherwise SpaceX is still the most promising Company in that regard.
there it is, i pissed everyone off

>>11177925
>It is not that SpaceX is without problems, it is that if you are a spaceflight enthusiast, then there is SpaceX and NOTHING else to look forward to.

This is complete and utter bullshit. For example, out of all the launches scheduled for December, 3 of them stand out as particularly exciting (OFT, CZ-5 Y3 and IFA) and only one of them is a SpaceX launch. If you can’t appreciate anything other than a single company, you have no right to call yourself a spaceflight fan, just call yourself what you are: a cultist.

>>11177576
>for comparison nasa killed 14 astronauts basically for fun, because everyone knew they were gonna die and their missions werent even needed
Don't forget that the second 7 of them, they wouldn't even let a spy sat or something look at it when it was up there, and they didn't even want to say "hey we've got a little problem, can you kinda tilt to the other side during re-entry?"

>>11177583
>insults someone
Who hasn't done that?
>securities fraud
An over enthusiastic tweet, woah, worse than Hitler.
>fan base
Who knew doing something that matters resonate with people?

>>11178133
Funniest time was when a senior engineer begged them not to launch because the shuttle would most likely explode on the launch pad due to cold temperatures. And the launched anyways. Absolute madlads.

>>11178146
I have never "insulted" someone by accusing them of being a pedophile on a public forum.

>An over enthusiastic tweet, woah
Still literally securities fraud.

I'm actually a big fan of Musk. But he makes a lot of big mistakes.

>for comparison nasa killed 14 astronauts basically for fun, because everyone knew they were gonna die and their missions werent even needed.

Are you retarded?

NASA KILLED 3 ASTRONAUTS ON A FUCKING SIMULATOR, THATS LIKE GETTING AIDS FROM MASTURBATING

They weren’t killed by a simulator, they died during a pre-flight test inside the Apollo 1 capsule, which was already mated to a Saturn 1 at the time. If the test had been successful they would have launched to space in that capsule.

Please read more about spaceflight history before making such bold accusations...

How do we get the spacex fanboy cult banned?

Any space discussion is instantly derailed by them and it's getting tiresome.

>>11178165
It’s simple, we..uh..kill the Janitor

>>11178165
>>11178177
It’s obvious the GayseX trannies are in league with the Janny, which is the only possible explanation why they haven’t been banned yet. We’ve got to get rid of the latter to get rid of the former. Two birds with one stone.

>>11178165
>Entire industry is a race to the bottom with SpaceX being the only one maintaining the ambition needed to maintain any level of human optimism
>the answer is to cut out spacex fans, not expect the rest of the industry to shape up
OK boomer

>>11178165
I agree that the cult of personallity around Musk is fucking retarded, that said SpaceX are the only people doing something new in rocketry (re-flying boosters).
It's hard to get excited about ULA getting ready to drop the first engines specifically designed to be re-flown into the ocean or putting a second RL-10 on an upper stage.

That’s a big truck...

>>11178188
What about rocket lab?

>>11178205
What is that?

>>11178216
True, electric turbo pumps are interesting but due to deminishing returns they are far from a game changer.

>>11178217
a big truck

>>11178235

>>11178235
The water tower rises.

>>11178165
Then start posting more about stuff you like. Just sitting there complaining about it is only going to "derail" the thread some more.

>>11178288
I am still convinced N1 was the peak of launchers aesthetics, even though their design choices were mostly because of their inability to manufacture better fuel tanks. We truly can't have nice things in this world

>>11178235
>year is 2026
>sitting in my room watching the SpaceX starship blow up over the gulf of Mexico killing 25 lunar tourists, resulting in the worst spaceflight disaster in history
>starship still assembled in outdoor conditions where welding integrity is constantly questioned
>at least there's cool footage
>meanwhile Blue Origin has been operating New Glenn for four years now at competitive reusability margins
>first few launches of New Armstrong have been happening, driving cost per kg to LEO way down
>BO vehicles built rapidly in industry-standard clean room conditions to ensure quality control
>rigorous safety standard set by Bezos makes spacex look irresponsible
>Bezos dumps billions of dollars into his space empire, driving his competitors out of business

>>11178304
The world was not ready for the N1.

>>11178306
>gorf bogos doing anything but growing his wealth
I honestly hope BO does great things but with the way he has been sucking oldspace cock I suspect he has no interest in reducing profit margins.

>>11178306
Highly doubtful outcome. I'm glad BO is around, but I think they'll spend most of their existence eating the crumbs SpaceX leaves behind.

>>11178315
>I honestly hope BO does great things but with the way he has been sucking oldspace cock I suspect he has no interest in reducing profit margins.

Making money isn’t Blue Origin’s main priority, by appealing to old space he’s actually trying to win influence. His plan is to attack the launch market from two angles, by reducing costs and accumulating industry and political influence.

>>11178324
You say that but...if you consider how many launch contracts New Glenn has won, that’s not gonna be the case.

>>11178335
How many has it won?

>>11178306
The shit you complain about - making things outside in cheap conditions, blowing up test articles - is the exact shit that makes SpaceX faster. Innovation means letting go of old ideas and being willing to "fail". BO can't accept that and instead is content to play second string. I want them to succeed too, and they will to some extent, but they'll always be limited by conservatism.

>>11178314

>>11178340

>>11178343
I'm really wondering is BO will be feasible long term. So far they've build literally nothing of note. They've gotten nothing to orbit. Everything to be excited about is still only on paper.

I can really see New Glenn being utterly and hopelessly cucked by Starship. And things will only get worse after that.

>>11178353
>I can really see New Glenn being utterly and hopelessly cucked by Starship.

Currently, it’s the other way round...

>>11178353

>>11178353
>4
wowee

>>11178359
I can certainly imagine many customers want to see starship proven more before they'll consider buying a launch. But when that happens, they won't have difficulty finding customers. We may even see some of those BO contracts torn up in favour for Starship launch contracts.

>>11178354
If starship can recover and reuse the second stage it will be hard to beat, if it can't they will be pretty evenly matched.
I hope SpaceX can do that but right now it's no more real than New Glenn.

Best case senario is both companies hit all their preformance targets making Starship the way to go for all LEO work while New Glenn would be better for heavy Geo payloads and lunar injection.

>>11178354
BO is building tons of infrastructure to support a sustainable long term rocket business. You can see what their business plan is by looking at how rigorously they've tested NS up to this point. They want to make sure they avoid the kind of spaceflight disaster that will ultimately ruin the credibility of SpaceX (when starship inevitable explodes due to bad welding or environmental degradation and kill people). Not that space exploration can or should be without sacrifice, or that starship is inherently a bad program, but Bezos knows that such a failure won't be tolerated in the spaceflight community. When it really comes down to it, an anti-establishment approach is dangerous and not necessary for pushing the boundaries of spaceflight. SpaceX on the other hand is not building anything that indicates they are willing to move away from their 'rapid' outdoor development scheme. I hope for the best, but it really looks like they won't get anything done without looking at a better approach.

>>11178365
Would new glenn be better than starship for heavy Geo payloads even in expendable mode?

UH OH, LOOKS LIKE LEAKANON IS A GONNA...I NEARLY HAD ELON’S PERSONAL SWAT TEAM AT MY DOOR FOR X-POSTING HIS INFO. I’M ASSUMING HIS LEAKS WERE TRUE THEN, IF SPACEX ARE SO DESPERATE TO FIND THE SOURCE.

>>11178354
I see SpaceX leaving behind the traditional launch business to some extent and BO filling that role. That segment is only so big, and the actual payload makers only want so much business going to each provider even with cost advantages. Eventually BO will probably chase their coattails in leaving behind the traditional segment as well, and so on. Never out of the picture, but always trailing.

>>11178368
So BO is going to win because all the extra time they are spending will avoid a catastrophe that spacex is bound to have some day, but has so far never had? What if that spaceX catastrophe never happens?

I really wouldn't bet on BO's slow and steady ideology paying off against the likes of SpaceX.

>>11178376
If Starships works as planned, then it will be an excellent payload launching rocket. SpaceX would be crazy not to offer to launch commercial payloads as they can do it much cheaper than anyone else. Basically free money and lots of it.

>>11178363
It's 3 more than Starship, whis is particularly embarassing since SpaceX has actually flown hardware to orbit and Blue Origin has not, yet SpaceX only has one customer while Blue Origin already has four.

>>11178381
Starship probably won't win alot of government contracts (at least initially), because of Starship's perceived less-than-ideal reliability and the fact that launch costs (even expensive ones) make up a small fraction of the total costs of the payload.

>>11178371
If starship runs methane / lox on the upper stage as planned and BO gets the B-3U to spec Glenn would still be better thanks to hydrogen / lox having way higher ISP.
That said all government contracts requiring this would probably go to SLS to give it an excuse to exist.

>SpaceX leaving behind the traditional launch business
I don't see that happening as the whole reason they exist is Musk wanting to drive down launch costs. I suspect they will kept trying to make it cheaper and cheaper for the forseeable future, prehaps leading to lunar industrialization in our lifetime.

>>11178382
Starship changes design so often you can't get a payload users manual for it. Once it's complete it'll get more contracts.

>>11178382
I really don't consider it embarrassing considering Starships point in development at the moment. If you want to bet that Starship will have as much trouble getting contracts closer to being ready for launch, you go for it. I wouldn't.

>>11178354
Yet they are getting contracts despite that. What have SpaceX actually done so far? Re-flown some boosters. Nice, but... "literally nothing" else. No astronauts, no crew dragon, no starship, none of that.

You are underesting Bezos a lot and really getting sold by Musk. It is really breathtaking how in some of your minds starship practically exists already. When in reality, the potemkin rocket you saw in october is currently a literal pile of exploded scrapmetal. With more dents than before. I don't mean to rub it in, but seriously, get a grip.

I would enjoy seeing some people who write this stuff negotiate a deal with musk for something he's selling.

>>11178388
Meant to quote >>11178376

>>11178385
Initially I'd agree. But long term, not so much.

>>11178382
It’s more than 4, it’s 7 customers and one’s a NASA launch, whilst two (OneWeb and Telesat) are multi-launch contracts.

>>11178391
BO hasn't done any of those things either.

>You are interesting Bezos a lot and really getting sold by Musk.
I really don't think so. But I'd actually like to be proven wrong. It would be super cool if BO and SpaceX were in a super competitive space war. But really I think SpaceX will smoke them.

>>11178373
retard, I hope Chris bans you

>>11178377
That might be a big part of it. Starship is obviously extremely ambitious. Yes, they've proven themselves with the development of F9 and reusability, which is a huge achievement regardless of your stance on SpaceX as a whole. But... F9 wasn't developed in a field. The test articles and prototypes weren't developed in a field. It was developed, despite what a lot of fanboys think, much along the lines of oldspace traditions. The difference is that SpaceX is a private company with a lot of money and less obligations, allowing them to more rapidly innovate. Honestly I think that Elon has let his success go to his head, and now he thinks that he can 'rapidly innovate' without actually putting in the resources required to make such a project pan out.

The biggest problem for Starship is that there is no abort mode, which is going to pose serious risks long term to their supposed goals of getting NASA to use it for manned missions.

>>11178205
Nice to see that Orion made it to Plum Brook safe and sound. There was some concern flying jit on the Supper Guppy because of its weight. They actually had to fly with the fuel tanks mostly empty to stay under the weight limit.
I'm fairly certain it's the heaviest payload the Super Guppy has flown. Even heavier than the Saturn V upper stages.

>>11177983
>If you can’t appreciate anything other than a single company, you have no right to call yourself a spaceflight fan, just call yourself what you are: a cultist.

You are correct, I don't appreciate tiny sat launches or grossly overpriced tiny capsules. Half a century after Apollo? It is a bunch of stinking bullshit.

SpaceX is the only company actually pushing for something more (and BO, but that is a real wild card still).

>>11178205
>muffled "I'm ready!"

>>11178415
>he biggest problem for Starship is that there is no abort mode
Which isn't really a problem when you consider that there are a 101 other ways to get crew to LEO and you can still just use starship as a cheap cargo truck

>>11178415
>F9 wasn't developed in a field
Sounds very similar to the oldspace crowd saying SpaceX would never get reusable boosters working because it had never worked before. And while it was cool SpaceX could make a normal rocket, they wouldn't be able to do something that hadn't been done before.

Starship most likely won't be built in a field either, but they are building prototypes in a field. There's actually nothing wrong with this. You feel this is wrong because it wasn't done before, but there's no actual reason. Just like there was no reason re-usability wasn't possible besides that it was a hard problem.

Well it looks like leakanon is fucked...Chris B’s intervention is the only reason I’m not currently being hunted down by Tesla assassin androids. It seems like his information was legit, if SpaceX are so desperate to find the source of the leak and neutralise it...

>>11178415
>The biggest problem for Starship is that there is no abort mode
Agreed, after Challenger and Columbia NASA is going to want a full profile abort capability. That said I don't think it would be impossible to incorporate that into the Starship with a F-111 style ejection.

>>11178440
Will this impact the "Dear Moon" flight? Does NASA have any oversight role in that?

>>11178388
>I don't see that happening as the whole reason they exist is Musk wanting to drive down launch costs.
Yeah, but driving down costs in the traditional launch space is not the endgame there IMO. If that were it, F9 would essentially be there already. Any other launch provider would absolutely stop and rest on their laurels with F9/FH. The traditional launch industry can barely keep those vehicles fed, let alone Starship. SpaceX's own projects represent the lion's share of their business moving forward, IMO.

>>11178435
omg we famous now

>>11178435
IT'S FULL ON DAMAGE CONTROL!

>>11178415
I've found the Starship development process extremely concerning as well. Falcon 9 was built like a conventional rocket and tested like a conventional rocket. All the technology needed for it to work was mature and existed, it just needed to be applied in a certain way to make it work. That's not to say it wasn't innovative, because it really belies how difficult a task that was, but it was comparatively organized and low-risk.
In comparison, Starship development has been an unorganized mess, where the design changes every couple of months, prototypes are built out of poorly-welded steel in fields then blow up due to poor QC, and the scope of the project keeps getting redefined to incorporate and remove technologies of very different readiness levels.
How much time was wasted on building Mk1? Even if you believe the decision was made to not fly it prior to the explosion, then why was so much effort put into making it fly-able prior to then? Why are these decisions made seemingly on a whim? Do they have a long-term plan?

>>11178451
>The traditional launch industry can barely keep those vehicles fed
The expectation is cheaper launches will result in more demand for launches. Probably not unlikely.

>>11178452
>>11178456
Be vigilant and don’t trust anyone, anybody currently posting in this thread could be a SpaceX informant trying to find the leaker...

>>11178445
I believe it would come under the FAA as a commercial passanger craft. We are going to see a lot of lawyers arguing and new laws being written as commercial spaceflight on private rockets becomes a thing.

>>11178451
Recoving the first stage is good, recoving the first stage and fairings is better, recoving the whole vehicle is the goal.

>>11178435
Anyone have a cap of the leak?

>>11178467
In the long run I expect demand will catch up to the massive oversupply, but it'll be a big shakeup and require looking at payloads in a completely different way to do it. I see a long interim period there.

>>11178433
>be a potential customer
>look for launch vehicle for satellite
>ask about launching on Starship
>see giant steel dildo in field
>my engineers cringe at the build quality
>then it explodes
I'm sure this is doing WONDERS for getting the industry to take it seriously.

>>11178469
>Anyone have a cap of the leak?

Some people screncapped them, but you could also just go back a couple of threads, actually there’s probably a link at the beginning of the last one.

>>11178435
Holy crap. All that because you reposted it?

>>11178462
>Starship development has been an unorganized mess, where the design changes every couple of months
I remember hearing SpaceX employees who worked on F9 launches that the most infuriating thing about the F9 was every single rocket was different and had changes made. They never stopped changing it until black 5 and they started focusing on Starship.

Starship feels a lot like any Musk project. Spending as a lot of time on exploratory R&D as possible and not being afraid to make huge late changes if they make sense long term.

>>11178462
>How much time was wasted on building Mk1?
Literally a few months. And even then, calling it a waste is stupid. The only point of these prototypes is the learning process which MK1 contributed to.

BO took a few months between testing their engines at 50, 60, 70% thrust, each time.

>>11178483
Are spacex even selling starship launches yet? I'm not sure why anyone would bear their expectations of starship on MK1. It's like not wanting to use F9 because of the grasshopper failures.

>>11178491
There are better, cheaper faster, and easier ways to test Starship features than building Mk1 if the intention was not to fly it.

>>11178489
Yep, lol

>>11178468
I'm the leaker, and my name's JOHN CENA! SpaceX won't be able to stop my leaks. I'll leak over everything.

>>11178495
such as?

>>11178493
I don't see why they'd reject business. They could always use more development money.

>>11178495
The plan was to fly it and was revised days before it blew up. If that sounds entirely like a waste to you, you don't understand that learning comes from failure.

>>11178495
They fully intended to fly it, no idea why Musk felt the need to lie about that.

>>11178468
Yes, we should all be careful about who we talk to. haha. Is there any more information that leakanon has provided? I believe that I had missed some of it. haha. Perhaps there's a way to contact him? You can trust a fellow fourchanneler like me. haha.

>>11178501
>>11178468

NO, I’M SPARTACUS!

>>11178432
Exactly, even a cargo Starship would be amazing for its fairing size alone. It would be hands down the best vehicle for large payloads.

>>11178433
These two things are of totally different magnitudes. Reusability was developed with all the hardware and infrastructure already in place and with low risk to payload. I think we were all rooting for them because we knew that oldspace had lost their edge as a result of decades of stagnation and bureaucracy. It signaled the start of a new period of innovation in rocketry, which of course has got us all excited.

Unfortunately, a lot of us have let that get to us. Just because Musk succeeded with reusability doesn't mean he can succeed at ever more ambitious projects. The problem with Starship is that they don't seem to have any infrastructure in place to support building real test vehicles that will be able to actually go to space, and that kind of infrastructure takes years to get in place. Yes, building small hopper prototypes outdoors with bad welding is fine, but any orbital vehicle has to be built to a higher standard. Mk1, if the information I saw is true, failed its pressure test at a remarkably low pressure for a supposedly suborbital test vehicle. This signals to me that these techniques probably aren't the best for rapid innovation, as failures like that are going to seriously stifle progress. I think we're having a hard time agreeing on this because we've developed such a hatred for oldspace that we can't bring ourselves to admit that they are right about certain things, even if their own implementations are cumbersome and lack innovation.

>>11178153
I hate musk but saying no one ever insulted someone on public forum is dumb. Every kind of insults are thrown in public space every single day.

>>11178435
The motherfucker who kept posting about the person leaking information and when to tell NSF about it is at fault for this whole situation. He refused to shut up about the whole thing and the validity of it. Anyone one could this was going to happen if leakanon actually worked for SpaceX.

>>11178503
They may find it difficult to sell launches on a rocket who's specifications are still in flux.

>>11178489
Chris B is the admin and owner of the reputable news site "NASA Spaceflight". He has really good relations with the industry, including SpaceX, and some retard calling himself "Heart of Gold" crossposted the litearlly unsubstantiated rumors there without stating that he had absolutely no proof that they were anything more than that. I ratted him out because he's a bitch. Anyway, he should really know better.

>>11178505
It is not a lie, he said they changed their minds on Monday, and it exploded few days later.

>>11178510
>Reusability was developed with all the hardware and infrastructure already in place and with low risk to payload.
delusional

>>11178462
>f9 was built and tested like conventional rocket
Nope. Rapid changes, rapid prototype allowed f9 builds to be updated after each new build.

>>11178511
who said no one ever insulted him?

>>11178512
This is all Heart of Gold's fault, yes

>>11178514
>”Heart of Gold" crossposted the litearlly unsubstantiated rumors there without stating that he had absolutely no proof that they were anything more than that. I ratted him out because he's a bitch. Anyway, he should really know better.

WARNING INFORMANT LOCATED

>>11178520
Woah so you're a saint? Kek

>>11178526
good luck I'm behind seven proxies and also literally in a public library
I'm also armed and dangerous

>>11178527
What?

>>11178510
>The problem with Starship is that they don't seem to have any infrastructure in place to support building real test vehicles that will be able to actually go to space, and that kind of infrastructure takes years to get in place.
The infrastructure is being built parallel to the prototype construction. That's exactly why they do it this way, because there's no point putting their thumbs up their asses while the infrastructure is built up if they can cheaply and quickly build test articles in the meantime.

These are hunks of steel coming in at the single digit millions easily. Even the raptors are remarkably cheap once they get to the flight stage. NOT throwing these things away for learning purposes would be a waste.

>>11178510
Maybe stir welding is the only option but I'm not going to get upset someone tried traditional welding and failed. I would honestly be more upset if they didn't try traditional welding again under more controlled conditions.

>>11178516
Then why leave the engines and fins on it for the pressure test? It doesn't make sense to risk and engine unless you expect to be keeping that engine on there.

>>11178530
Are you the autist responsible for why we no longer have a SpaceX insider feeding us information and his job is now at risk?

>>11178462
I'm glad somebody else is able to see the big picture. Although I will say that the explosion of a prototype doesn't necessarily spell doom for the entire project. It's more the lack of quality control that I think will mean trouble going forward.

>>11178490
>>11178518
Rapid iteration is not the same as what is going on with starship. You are confusing two very different things. Yes, they are employing rapid iteration again with this project, but they also lack the facilities and quality control that F9 had when they did the same thing. These things are on totally different scales of ambition considering the development process being used. Rapid iteration is the biggest strength that SpaceX has, but it doesn't work without quality control and using proper engineering standards that have been used in spaceflight development for decades (yes, even by SpaceX).

>>11177925
>there is SpaceX and NOTHING else to look forward to
I saw that Virgin Galactic announced they will be offering a service to launch cubesats to the moon, Mars, and beyond. Not of interest?

>>11178534
>Then why leave the engines and fins on it for the pressure test?
calculated risk most likely. They obviously were hoping the tank wouldn't explode, and if it did leak, the leak wouldn't be too violent. The likelihood of a violent explosion was probably calculated as not being worth taking the time and expense to remove the engine and putting them back on again later.

>>11178541
Apparently he’s a bit of a size queen...

>>11178542
If it wasn't ever going to fly why would you put the engines back on later? They have the star hopper as a proven engine test bed if that is the goal.

>>11178539
F9 is a fully flesh out vehicle. Starship is barely in its prototype stage.

>>11178538
no, I'm not Heart of Gold

Guys! I'm an employee at SpaceX, and Elon just demanded a complete redesign for Starship. Here's one of the concept art of it. Don't tell nobody where you saw this.

>>11178435
The guy defended you from some pretty angry lawyers, maybe you shouldn't be posting screenshots of his fucking PMs you idiot.

>>11178539
>but it doesn't work without quality control
I rather disagree. You only really need a lot of quality control when producing the final product. In prototype builds you save time by only really testing the systems you are hoping to test with the prototype. You also have the luxury and being able to test things to failure much more readily and get useful data from that which you could not afford to do with something that took a lot more time and money to build. Even easy to test to failure knowing that 2 newer prototypes are already being built, and the expected usefulness of MK1 was lowered due to design changes, thus testing to failure carries even less risk.

>>11178548
You keep stressing the importance of the engines being installed, but everything I've seen reported suggests that they weren't.

>>11178539
>It's more the lack of quality control that I think will mean trouble going forward.
The lack of quality control may be the same reason why the weld quality was so low to begin with - if you're slapping shit together out in the open with welders standing in a bucket you do that because rigs that allow for proper (and maybe automated) welding are not in place yet. Ultrasonic/Xray inspection required infrastructure just as welding. Chances are they thought that they could get tanks and structure capable of withstanding the very limited pressure needed for low suborbital hops with the setup hopper and Mk1/2 were built with, which isn't all that unreasonable. Had it worked they could've gathered flight experience while the infrastructure for higher quality prototypes was being setup. Turns out that was wrong, but if you have the very limited amount of money needed to put this process in motion available, why not take the risk?

>>11178534
the engines weren't on Mk1 when it popped
the fins are probably undamaged but I think they were basically junk from day 1

>>11178548
I gather it was planned to fly at one point. Maybe the planned on testing the engines to some degree. Maybe they decided there weren't going to use those engines for anything else as the designs has changed for the new ones.

>>11178440
Honestly I think using Starship as a dedicated interplanetary transport would be the best path. The risk involved with repeated launch and reentry is too much especially with the lack of abort mode. If they implement a similar abort to what you suggested it would reduce the size of the habitable past of the spacecraft by a lot.

I feel that Musk is underestimating the challenges of long journeys in deep space. The amount of supplies, the life support systems, the planning required, and the insane level of quality control needed for it to work are beyond what he is talking about currently. Having a dedicated craft that launched once would allow for so much more to be done with it. I really think the idea that sustainable colonization can only be done with 'launch-land-launch' architecture is a pretty narrow view.

SpaceX employee here. I have an update for you.

I literally just spoke to Elon Musk about this incident and he called ”Heart of Gold" a "little faggot snitch" He then told me that "he wishes they get terminal cancer"

>>11178514

FYI he's also an immature space shuttle program obsessed bootlicking fanboy, and that mentality carried over into commentary on the SLS program and the impressionable crowd who read him and absorbed his talking points.

>>11178566
You should know the SpaceX is dead serious working on using Starship as a earth bound mode of transport. Carrying 200 people at a time. If there's a problem, everyone fucking dies.

>>11178553
>inb4 this is the rover design since the cybertruck didn't do so well

>>11178567
tell Elon he's "based" and "redpilled"

>>11178567
I wouldn't be surprised if that was true, ol' Musky had an anime avatar once. He also accidentally called out da joos

>>11178574
...and in doing so they are going to set spaceflight back decades from where it would be if they simply realized that the challenges to making such a system reliable are nearly insurmountable with currently available materials.

>>11178578
Based Elon. What ever happened to that website he was planning to start about reviewing journalists? Seems like everyone forgot about that one.

>>11178566
Once Starship is mature, they can test the everliving fuck out of it until the necessary reliability is achieved and demonstrated. With nothing on the line but fuel, it just makes sense.

>>11178578
Relevant.

>>11178558
>>11178561
Interesting, I read the engines were in place but if they were removed I accept that flight plans were canceled before she popped.

>>11178566
Something he hasn't talked about that I think would be the best use case for Starship is a LEO space tug being refueled by another Starship.
>get martian payload to LEO on Starship or Falcon
>dock with Starship tug
>tug pushes payload to mars intercept
>undocks
>tug retro burns back to LEO ready for refuel and next pusher mission

This is how I can see infurstructure getting to mars before a manned mission and I could even see the manned craft being one of these payloads shoved by the tug.

>>11178574
>SpaceX is dead serious working on using Starship as a earth bound mode of transport
I still refuse to believe this is going to happen, to me it seems like another Hyperloop.

>>11178578
>called out da joos
He was just pointing out the rick own the media, the jews are the ones that assumed he ment jews.

>>11178581
It doesn't seem that hard. Could potentially be more reliable than a airliner given there's simpler parts. Sure an airliner can generally glide to an airstrip if it loses power to all engines, but there's so many other failure modes. Including the co-pilot just forgetting randomly forgetting how to fly 101 and crashing the plane into the ocean while trying to pull out of a stall lel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447).).

>>11178581
"You'd be so far ahead if you realized this is impossible" lmao ok boomer. I bet you said that about reusability too

Even if Starship itself is a failure, SpaceX still has an edge because of the superheavy booster. They could put all kinds of payloads on it, even equipment for oldspace missions and shit.

>>11178588
>I still refuse to believe this is going to happen
you might be right.

In fairness Elon never committed to working on the hyperloop. Even if it is a stupid and shit idea.

>>11178588
That's what I meant by accidentally, they basically outed themselves to him. Besides, da JOOZ are rather rich, so it's not like he was far off.

>>11178520
Moron

>>11178596
They won't make the booster until the upper stage is finalized, you can't be sure a first stage can do the job until you know exactly what the job is.

DO NOT POST THE CURRENT FROYO FLAVOR! They may try to get you by getting you to post the current froyo flavor.

>>11178597
>In fairness Elon never committed to working on the hyperloop.
Yep. I keep seeing it bringing up as if it was some kind of promise, when it was simply proposed as a technical possibility with no intention of actually building it. Even then, the testing they did on that concept is being rolled into the Boring company and I wouldn't be surprised if we see it come back at some point.

>>11178569
>implying Chris Bergin is an SLS fan

>>11178603
>spaceX divides areas via different flavors
>uses flavor to narrow down search
Counter-espionage 101

This basically confirms Starleaker is legit, right? Which means Elon really did throw a tantrum at Boca. lmao

If you're here Elon-san post some dank anine tiddies to Twitter

>>11178566
Probably having a separate interplanetary transport vehicle, and using Starship to send it (or it's parts) into space and refueling it would be better.

>>11178603
Grape.

>>11178602
Yeah, but SpaceX has designed so many boosters, it's basically home territory.
>>11178615
I'd sperg out too if I had to throw all my fucking work away and start from scratch.

>>11178592
I will admit that spaceflight has the reliability advantage of being mostly automated. Its just that the stresses on the materials and degradation of parts is simply going to be too much to achieve the desired reliability within profitable margins. I'm not talking about reusability in general, just the current Starship architecture. It wouldn't matter if 1/100 or even 1/1000 payloads of cargo exploded or burned up on reentry, that's what insurance is for, but this is not going to be acceptable for manned spacecraft.

I also want to clarify that I have always supported reusability. I just have doubts about making a reusable manned craft that launches and lands repeatedly. In my opinion, orbital refueling combined with rendezvous and docking to dedicated spacecraft is the best way forward.

“HeartofGold2030? HeartofGold. Now there's a name I've not heard in a long, long time. A long time.”

“You do know him then?”

“Of course I know him...he's me.”

>>11178625
faggot fun ruining nigger sniffing kikeswaddle

>>11178624
>Its just that the stresses on the materials and degradation of parts is simply going to be too much to achieve the desired reliability within profitable margins
Extremely doubtful of this. Especially with earth bound transport, you don't need to research anything like orbital velocities and can just make any highly stressed materials a bit thicker to make them work for 100-1000 launches before needed replacing.

Nothing about any of this implies it needs to be any more likely to explode than a normal airliner. Airplanes take stresses too, and it's up to the owners to service them after X flights to ensure they are safe. Same with starship.

>>11178630
Hey I just x-posted the information without telling anybody where it came from, people like >>11178530 exposed the leaker as a 4channer...

>>11178632
I don't understand this whole reusable airplane meme.

>>11178632
>reach anything like orbital velocities*

>>11178624
The sad thing is liability waivers aren't worth shit, I would be willing to fly at 1/1000 odds and would be happy a sign a waiver but it wouldn't mean shit in court.
The fact it's no longer possible to take complete responcibility for your own actions is killing everything remotely dangerous in the west.

>>11178624
Full reusability is exactly what makes reliability achievable, in my opinion. No rocket has ever been capable of being tested to the degree that Starship will be. They don't have to put humans on it until it's mature in this respect.

And people will still be lauding the safe conservatism of putting astronauts on the second ever flight of a vehicle while putting down SpaceX for blowing up prototypes kek

The big truck carrying the weird looking payload has arrived at the Thunder-Dome

Do you think that as spaceflight becomes more popular (with Artemis, SpaceX, China, etc.) would there be an appreciable increase in amateur rocketeers?

>>11178641
It's easy to get 100% reliability if you only fly once.

>>11178641
>No rocket has ever been capable of being tested to the degree that Starship will be.

>>11178636
Indeed. There's some people who who never studied physics or engineering who presume if only we could land planes safely we could refly them again and save on the cost of rebuilding a new one from scratch. These are people who never worked in aerospace and don't understand how low the tolerances are on modern airplanes. If you attempted to build a genuinely "reusable" airliner, you'd find the extra weight of making all the components sturdy enough to fly for say 10 flights so, would make the plane too heavy to take off at all. Or if it could take off, it would be with no passengers or cargo on it and therefor useless.

But even if this wasn't a problem the cost of maintaining the airplane would be far higher than building a new one each time. Getting qualified aerospace engineers to work on fixing your place after every flight would be far far more expensive than just flying on a new one each time that was mass produced in a big factory, where you have the benefit of economies of scale.

Of course the average redditor or twitter user wouldn't consider these things. It easier and more fun maybe to believe was a random billionaire aerospace CEO tells them in possible.

>>11178634
You spread rumors that it was valid information, otherwise you wouldn't just be repeating questionable claims on another site. If it was accurate, it was obviously that people would start to question the source on NSF.

>>11178649
>has to be completely torn down and reassembled with every flight
Yeah I'm gonna stand by that statement, dog

>>11178649
>tfw when you’ve been to space 39 times

>>11178641
The difference is that if something goes wrong with Starship, people will die. If something goes wrong on any other launch vehicle, there is a very good chance that they'll make it back safe.

>>11178632
The airplane comparison is only useful to a certain extent. There is a huge difference in the energies involved with air travel and spaceflight. The materials to make spaceflight reliable to that extent don't exist yet or are too expensive to really use. It's far better to have dedicated space ferries. This 'one size fits all' approach just isn't going to cut it with spaceflight.

>>11178643
Who's "Oversized Load"? Is he the guy who owns NASA?

>>11178615
>Elon right the fuck now

>>11178647
Yes but regulation in some countries is a bitch. As an Aussie trying to find out what I'm allowed to make I learnt that any mix of fuel and oxidizer is considered an explosive here technically make matches an explosive.
When asking for more specifics I was told to call rocketry clubs which I did only to be told by them that while nothing they do is legal no laws are enforced so long as you stay out of controlled airspace.

While the US has a lot of issues sometimes I dream of moving there just to get away from cucked laws.

>>11178662
Lol

>>11178653
Inspecting and documenting findings is a part of testing, bud.

>>11178657
>The materials to make spaceflight reliable to that extent don't exist yet or are too expensive to really use.
Elon seemed pretty confident that most f9 components would be good for upto 100 flights.

I feel like people say shit like "the materials are too stressed by space travel for practical re-usability" as complete and pure bullshit. Something they imagine must be true when they watch a spacecraft fly, but doesn't actually have a basis in reality.

>>11178664
>As an Aussie trying to find out what I'm allowed to make I learnt that any mix of fuel and oxidizer is considered an explosive here technically make matches an explosive.
Even nos and rubber?

>>11178670
>Elon seemed pretty confident that most f9 components would be good for upto 100 flights.

Lol

>>11178435
Great. We get honest to god insider information and some cross-posting redditors ruin it for everybody. Fuck that. RIP leak anon.

>>11178664
SpaceX isn't allowed to hire non-americans because their rockets are considered military weapons.

>>11178657
>The difference is that if something goes wrong with Starship, people will die. If something goes wrong on any other launch vehicle, there is a very good chance that they'll make it back safe.
Rather rely on proven reliability through many test/cargo flights than the abort system if it's one or the other (and for the near future, it is). Abort systems can fail or just be insufficient for the task as well.

>The materials to make spaceflight reliable to that extent don't exist yet
Which materials, where on the ship, and why? If the argument is just "raptor can't achieve what they expect out of it", the only answer is to wait and see as raptor matures. If the answer is something about tiles, I would say you should be considering that modern tile I think you'll be surprised. It's not the shuttle era anymore.

>>11178667
Refurbishment is not mere inspection and even F9 matured from the point where they were doing teardowns after every flight.

>>11178677
>I would say that modern tile has come a long way*
something went awry in editing there

>>11178672
Yep, energy density or weight of mixture doesn't matter. Legally an oxy torch, flare or match head is an explosive.
I chose to think "in for a penny, in for a pound" and actually made high explosives along with my rockets and everything was fun and games until my housemate broke up with a phyco chick and she called the cops and said he was a drug dealer.
One raid later and I got 5x manufacturing explosives, 4x possession explosives and a breach of the firearms act. Luckly for me the lead detective was a good guy and told the judge I was just playing and not about to akbar anyone.

>>11178675
Guided rockets are considered military secrets by most nations, not weapons.

>>11178680
Most nations don't consider guided rockets to be weapons?

>>11178681
not America!

>>11178681
Stealth paint isn't a weapon but it is a military secret, rocket technology is covered the same way.

>>11178682
Ironically, does that mean you *don't* have a right to bear them?

>>11178687
no, double negative
America treats all rockets as weapons/military secrets

fuck bezos

>>11178541
>cubesats
meh..

>>11178739
Don’t do diss the space industry’s most innovative and fastest growing sector

>>11178649
Shuttle had no unmanned mode. So it was one of the least testable spacecraft ever.

Practising booster stacking at Kennedy. Slow and steady wins the race, baby

>>11178664
Maybe there should be a license specifically for high powered rocketry to allow for people to make rockets without worrying about ending up on a watchlist?

>>11178596
I mean, since we're all real worried about this one failure where the welds failed, Super Heavy won't work either if they can't figure out how to make pressurized cryogenic tanks reliably out of stainless.
I mean, that's kind of a dumb assumption that they couldn't make something basic like this work. But since we went from "Moon 2022, oldspace BTFO" to "Holy shit, Elon's crazy! Blue Origin, save us!", because of one mexican being shitty at welding, we might as well pretend like making steel tubes is the greatest challenge ever posed to man.

https://youtu.be/LRe3adNAyk8
What do you guys think?

>>11178619
YOU FOO-

>>11178415
>The biggest problem for Starship is that there is no abort mode
Remind me about the abort mode for the 737 MAX?

>>11178596
Why would Starship be a failure? What because one test blew up one rapidly assembled prototype? How many F1's did NASA blow up again before they figured out how to deal with combustion instability?

>>11178435
>a very bad site

>>11178674
>cross-posting redditors
This is why we can't have nice things.

>>11178801
>we might as well pretend like making steel tubes is the greatest challenge ever posed to man.

I think that’s kinda the point, many people have come to the conclusion that if they can’t even build working stainless steel tanks, how the hell are they going to deliver on all the far more crazy, challenging things they’ve promised to do?...it’s like stumbling at the first hurdle.

>>11178812
Isn't it the same for any other aircraft, "jump out and pray"?

>>11178832
no it's crash and burn

>>11178553
Will they get The Stig to pilot it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM

>>11178603
Candy Cane and Black Cherry

>>11178835
Why not bring a parachute just in case?

>>11178851
Do airliners even have parachutes? When the plane is high, the air pressure is too low to jump out of the plane. And if it's crashing, it's probably traveling too fast at low altitude to be able to jump out.

>>11178812
Planes are different. No human being will ever fly on a rocket without launch escape system. Can you imagine situation where you lack a LAS on the way to Mars? Great way to become top news around the world for weeks.

>>11178662
It's what I get every time there's a launch.

>>11178851
You don't need one airplanes are safe enough.

>>11178664
>I learnt that any mix of fuel and oxidizer is considered an explosive here technically make matches an explosive.
Better hide that carburetor on your old ute m8.

>>11178864
You wouldn't say that if you were a software developer for boeing. lel.

>>11178855
I'd still wanna try, I mean if death is already certain on a crashing plane you're not losing anything by trying to jump out, worst case you just still die and best case maybe you make it.
Reminder that this qt fell from 33,000 ft and lived without even having a chute.

>>11178870
well sure. But people aren't so willing to pay extra for a flight so everyone can have a parachute for the the tiny tiny chance it has of helping them not die in the event of a accident.

THEY CAN’T STOP AND THEY WON’T STOP

>>11178883
God can you imagine the clusterfuck inside an airliner that's pitching down as 200+ people all scramble for parachutes and trample each other climbing for the door?

>>11178902
How awesome would that be? You could have just 20 parachutes and tell the 200 passengers that they have to fight to the death for them. Would make air flight exciting again.

>>11178896
>tfw everything ever done in space for the past 40 years has ben described as "paving the way" to a manned Mars mission
Gettin real sick of hearing that phrase

>>11178896
This is fake. The rover isn't even that big.

>>11178896
will China beat everyone in getting a person to mars?

>>11178926
hell naw man they are just like that one dumbfuck student that copies off the successful dude

>>11178926
>mfw they throw a manned craft at Mars and miss

>>11178930
That's what america was one time. They are learning fast.

>>11178812
Rip out the shitty suicide software. Glide.

>"lel airliners can't abort"
what is 'unpowered landing?'

>>11178814
One was a highly complicated rocket engine designed with 60s tech. It was on the cutting edge of technology.
The other was a literal fuel tank.

>>11178860
The majority of humans to have ever flown on space flew on a vehicle with no LAS.

>>11178944
worked out great

>>11178944
And I'm sure everyone is just itching to repeat that design flaw again.

>>11178943
>The other was a literal fuel tank.

Correction: literal nitrogen tank, it never got to the point where they filled it with fuel and oxidiser.

>>11178944
“Oh say can you see,
By the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed,
At the twilight's last gleaming?”

“Whose broad stripes and bright stars,
Through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched,
Were so gallantly streaming.”

“And the rocket's red glare,
The bombs bursting in air,”

>>11178948
An LAS may or may not have changed Challenger (regardless, SRBs were the failure mode) and would not have changed Columbia. Musk has heavily implied Starship would survive a booster failure in good enough shape to land. If that's true, no LAS is required.

>>11178952
Sidemount precluded LAS and caused Columbia. All the Shuttle's accidents ultimately stemmed from the sidemount configuration.

So who is this Starleaker and what did he leak?

>>11178963
Just some random SpaceX employee from Hawthorne (he mentioned Froyo), he talked about why Starship Mk1 failed and how there was a change in plans just before that occurred and what this new plan entailed e.g. what’s happening to Florida, how is Mk3 different from it’s predecessors. Some people are sceptical, but because of how some of his information has been confirmed by other sources (e.g. info on the Cocoa site being shutdown was posted on L2) and how SpaceX actually tried to get this guy’s IP off Chris B (they thought he was the x-poster) I believe he was a legit leaker. Just scroll back through previous threads to find him, he has a unique style and attracted lots of attention.

>>11178975
The reddit spacing guy?

>>11178975
This guy?

So was Elon okay with Mk. 1 failing or not? What do people mean itt about him throwing a fit?

>>11178983
IDK but he didn’t use capital letters and had a very casual but aggressive tone, he also used “nasty words”. His weird mix of informal writing and weirdly specific details about Starship, makes him more believable IMO. Someone trying to pretend to be a SpaceX employee would try harder to sound more intelligent and credible.

>>11179006
Yes, that’s the guy.

>So was Elon okay with Mk. 1 failing or not? What do people mean itt about him throwing a fit?

Read the rest of his posts, he says that they didn’t expect Starship Mk1 to land in one piece, so several days before the explosion Elon visited Boca and told the workers that there was a charge in plans: Mk1 would only be used for static fires and Mk3 would be the first to fly. The rational behind this decision was that Elon didn’t like the bad PR of Starship exploding (lol), which Mk1 inevitably would if they flew it. He (the leaker) suggested it’s demise was inevitable because of poor welding, which is what he implied Elon had a fit about...

>>11179017
Oh, okay. So at the last minute, Elon decided that Mk. 1 wasn't meant to fly, but it still tested worse than they expected. So it was a PR move that still didn't really work.

ARIANE LIVE LAUNCH FAGGOTS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADOA4yLvxVs

EUROPOORS UNITE

>>11179041
Last time it exploded right?

>>11179041
a PSLV launch is happening a few hours later

>>11179043
yeah, but that was just a Vega

>>11179041
>>11179043
>>11179047
40 years of lazy French frogmen

>le rocket

>>11179041
15 MINUTES

>>11179041
>Dual-berths in your path

Nothing personal, écume américaine

>>11179083
>needs to launch two payloads at once to be price competitive

>>11179061
hold at 7 minutes (high altitude winds). Window is a little over hour today.

>>11179087
>undercuts your prices

>>11179083
>more commsats
Fucking yawn, do some science shit or something

>>11179006
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/11165915/#11170117

>>11179088
...and counting again.

And the clock is rolling!

Moderate hon levels.

sept minutes!

CINQ MINUTES!

French people sound funny when they speak English, but I sort of like it.

>>11179134
English speaking people sound very funny when they speak French and it's horrible

Elevated hon levels.

>>11179139
I believe it, all I know in frogtongue is how to ask if you speak French, then I have no followup if you say "oui"

Hon levels are reaching critical.

TOP

Good job for Ariane, but next time they should invest in a microphone that doesn't get blown out by the launch sounds.

It always freaks me out how the Ariane 5 only does a single, 24 minute burn to get to GTO.

>>11179189
the advantage of launching from the equator: no plane change required. I guess Sea Launch had a similar profile?

MISSION SUCCESS for Arianespace!

But now, a video from HULLO man about the family of launch vehicles which has the most boring naming convention in the industry, but ironically uses one of the most exciting and fun fuel-sources available to mankind!:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kDX5jRo27JY

I really wish we get to the moon before 2024 and there won't be another bull shit post pone. If only Werner Von Braun was alive we would be on Mars already.

>>11179285
Werner Von Braun was alive when his Mars shot was cancelled.

>>11177576

My parents were both teachers and they used to talk about "Smart Kid Syndrome". Id est, you have this really smart person who knows they're smarter than most people they meet but doesn't have the social skills to make their interactions with people pleasant and doesn't have the internal confidence to be comfortable in their own skin. So they come off as both awkward and cuntish at the same time, which absolutely pisses people off. That's Musk in a nutshell. He's an asshole with crushing insecurity but he knows that he's usually right. He just doesn't know how to go about dealing with people.

>>11179246
>but ironically uses one of the most exciting and fun fuel-sources available to mankind!
Exciting cancer juice!

>>11179303
You mean this mission? http://www.astronautix.com/v/vonbraunmarpedition-1969.html

>>11179346
The LM-2D/4 is one of the nicest looking rockets IMO

>>11179380
it just a boring tube and soviet style grid interstages look awful

>>11179397
>it just a boring tube
Doesn't that describe the shape of most rockets though?

>>11179397
I always thought that kind of interstage looked cool but seems like it'd increase drag and I don't know why people do it that way instead of just using a smooth fairing.

>>11179405
Could be that it uses hot-staging. An enclosing interstage would just catch all of the exhaust and damage the upper stage engine.

>>11179405
it's so they can hot-stage, by which they mean starting the engine before decoupling the previous stage

>>11179399
some at least have boosters, narrower upper stages, interesting outside components or engine arrangements.

>>11179412
>>11179414
That makes a lot of sense, I never got that before.

>>11179397
The fins, hot-staging interstage, 4-engine core and small fairing really do it for me.

>>11179405
The gaps are there to allow exhaust gases to escape whilst the vehicle hot-stages.

>>11179427
hot-staging and fins are just primitive and what's special about a 4-engine core?

>>11179434
That's the minimum number of engines needed for full gimbal control using only a single axis of rotation for each engine. Technically can be done with three, but the math ends up being abit more complicated and then there's issues with an engine-out scenario.

>>11176807
>2019 and 11/12ths
>I am forgotten

>>11177075
>It would have been easier...
According to fucking who?

>>11179508
Super-Starship would be the replacement for ITS.

>>11177084
>>11177086
>>11177090
>>11177092
>>11177110
>>11177116
>we will NEVER see this concept fly using M-1 hydrolox engines
FUCK

>>11179518
>HYDROLOX BIG BOI
At least there's rumors of Blue Origin planning on making an F-1 sized engine for New Armstrong.

>>11177232
It'd better god damn work

>>11177319
because it mixes

>>11177708
that thing ruined my suspension of disbelief too much. I mean, come up with geometric air-frames if you want, but at least make it somewhat realistic.

>>11179557
Was that supposed to be some sort of joke?

>>11177961
You're correct, in terms of SLS certainly flying before anything orbital from BO, however SLS will fly so infrequently that it will hardly have any impact on launch markets globally. BO at least has a chance of shaking things up a bit with what is effectively a streamlined Falcon Heavy (if it actually works of course).

>>11178153
Honestly who cares about securities fraud? Not being apologetic to Elon, literally who gives a fuck if you influence some people who like to buy and sell imaginary value, fuck em, it's just the way she goes

>>11179573
>hardly have any impact on launch markets globally. BO at least has a chance of shaking things up a bit with what is effectively a streamlined Falcon Heavy

It’s more of a partially reusable Ariane 5 competitor, with it’s hydrolox upper-stage, dual berthing and a similar payload to GTO (14 tons) as the A6.

>>11179586
Too many people doing that is how you get financial crises.

Could it have survived?

>>11178771
With a ~6 year head start using hardware literally decades old, maybe.

>>11178958
Side-mount with all liquid booster would have allowed for launch aborts, it was the fact that they had to ride out the solids no matter what that doomed Shuttle (at least in terms of launch safety, the big ass heatshield hanging in the breeze doomed its reentry reliability). Even if the hypothetical liquid boosters were suddenly breaking up during launch, the engines could be shut off instantly and the Shuttle would simply continue to move away from the vapor cloud from the rupturing tanks until it could safely turn around and glide to landing. Also, if Shuttle were designed with its own internal propellant supply beyond the extremely weak OMS engines, it could have potentially been able to do propulsive abort, which would allow for a much wider window of survivable abort modes given that added maneuverability.

>>11179530
One can hope, I wish for the return of Big Chungus engines.

>>11179572
I mean, the film mixes with the hotter propellant so it kind sucks as a method of keeping the chamber walls cool

>>11179595
So? Anyone who depends on the global economy deserves to lose everything and die in a gutter somewhere.

>>11179597
Nah, it was too funky. Falcon 9 V1 was basically the same rocket but more better in every way and it STILL had large teething problems in terms of attaining reusability to any degree. Kistler's design would have been DOA.

>>11179615
Fair enough, but there's not many options to cool an engine without regenerative cooling nor ablation .

>>11179595
too many people buying and selling imaginary value is how you get financial crises

Does Starship's name trigger anyone else? Not only is it not a real starship, but the name doesn't fit in with SpaceX's existing naming conventions. (Arthurian myths & birds of prey.)

>>11179840
What about Starliner, not only does it not go to the stars (not even Sol), it isn't a "liner", it's just a fucking capsule, and it's not even reusable.
It's like calling a cardboard dinghy "Sealiner".

>>11179840
>Does Starship's name trigger anyone else?
I'm fine with it, but does sound lame and dry after BFR.

>Not only is it not a real starship
I don't think that matters. Policing names based on what they literally mean is lame.

>but the name doesn't fit in with SpaceX's existing naming conventions. (Arthurian myths & birds of prey.)
That's actually a legitimate point. I can get behind something like Eagle or Hawk. But a company doesn't have to stick with their naming convention. While not a company, NASA couldn't really stick with a naming convention during the Apollo era.

>>11179840
That's because it's a corpo copout after Big Fucking Rocket was vetoed as a name.

>>11179840
Names are dumb if you start getting autistic about it.
The Apollo (associated with the Sun) program went to the moon on a Saturn.

poo in leo RIGHT NOW

>>11179980
If it's a launch then post the livestream link.

>>11179840
Should've called it the albatross desu

>>11179991
vulture

meanwhile in soviet russia
>BORIS WE NEED MOON PROGRAM NAME
>AH YES, WE NAME IT LUNA PROGRAM
>BORIS, HELP, WE NOW NEED A NAME FOR THE VENUS PROGRAM
>HMMM... VENERA PROGRAM WOULD WORK
>BORIS-
>YEAH YEAH JUST CALL IT MARS PROGRAM

>>11180010
>Hey Anatoly, what should we call rocket?
>I don't know. What payload is it going to carry?
>Some "Scientific Earth Observation" satellites.
>Trakhni eto! Name rocket after payload.
>Blin! Anatoly, you genius!

>>11179626
how is hot-spot formation real lmao just inject more film further down the nozzle lol

>>11179848
SpaceX is done with the bird era.

>>11179848
>But a company doesn't have to stick with their naming convention
They sure didn't with the various Falcon 9 iterations.

>>11179840
I really wish we'd save names like "Starship" and "Enterprise" for when we have real interstellar ships, at least.

>>11180309
>not calling your first interstellar ship Hammer of Terra
Faggot

>>11180309
This

Can somebody WebM this video?:

https://twitter.com/TJ_Cooney/status/1199689332677922817

>>11180710
Here you go.

>>11180750
Thx anon!

>>11180309
You can reuse names.
Do you know how many HMS Enterprises or HMS Invincibles there are?
A lot.

>>11180760
A fair number of USS Enterprises too, and the Enterprises didn't become notable ships until the Yorktowns came around.

>>11180760
Imagine if we can't reuse names.
>We thus christen this ship the USS XxXSaratoga1843XxX

>>11179006
only 2.1 bar? Shit, plastic soda bottles are pressure rated higher than that

>>11179530
Really? Building more motors when the BE-4 still has yet to actually fly? BO is a joke.

>>11181113
>Really? Building more motors when the BE-4 still has yet to actually fly?

I mean that didn’t stop them developing the BE-3U and BE-7 in the mean time, did it?

>>11181113
>you have to fly every engine you make, it's against the law not to

>>11181129
I mean Blue is going to fly every engine they’ve built so far (eventually):

BE-3 has flown on New Shepard
BE-3U will be used for New Glenn’s second-stage
BE-4 will be used first on Vulcan’s first-stage and then on New Glenn’s.
BE-7 will be used for Blue Moon, Northrop Grumman’s Artemis transfer vehicle and New Glenn’s future third-stage

Not flying engines is stupid, but halting the development of future engines until a launch vehicle carrying your current engines has flown is even stupider...

>>11180814
>I don't get this reusable names meme...