/sci/ - Science & Math

Space is the realm of robots. Humans are too feeble and can't into adaptation.

>>11209722
Not with that attitude they can't!

>>11209698
is Artmeis, dare i say, on schedule right now

>>11209722
Solution: Make our next generation robots with human level AI.
Pros:
>jooz can't fuck their brains with chemicals unless with direct application to the main SBC brain
>Doesn't need air, specialized food, or water, just needs a power source
>can have powerful machines attached to them
>doesn't need schooling, just download the information via portable drives and done
>consciousness can be preserved on a separate drive so if the SBC brain is broken, the drive can still be used to brink the bot back to life
>only thing that affects them is viruses, which actually need to be downloaded online
Cons:
>a chemical like acetone can fuck them over pretty bad
>can be EMP'd unless their body has lead lining
>won't have an internalized womb for a while
>cannot use Wi-Fi due to the issue of viruses
>jooz could probably do the same tactics

Anyone else play a video game and want to build something you see in it. Just to learn how high it goes up before crashing down.

>>11209698
Applications Of The Torus – Anti Gravity
http://esotericawakening.com/applications-of-the-torus-anti-gravity

>>11209722
humans also cant live in antarctica. they also normally fly and travel with 28000 km/h in space. what makes humans differnt from animals is that we dont adapt our bodies, we adapt our gear and the structures we live in.
what makes you think that we can't adapt our gear, tools and habitats for life in space as well?

>>11209722
kek, brainlet.

What the hell happend to the green fuel (GPIM) that they were testing out. Its suppose to be about %50 better then normal fuel but once it was sent up there I have heard dick about it.

>>11210357
Isn't that the normal mode of spaceflight research though? Ideas and development gets dropped just before or shortly after it's done?

>>11210357
https://www.space.com/green-propellant-satellite-success.html

It’s doing it’s thing...

>>11210399

>>11210231
>what makes you think that we can't adapt our gear, tools and habitats for life in space as well?
Money, time, energy and purpose. One thing is to send a bunch of scientists in a tin can, but good luck building and maintaining a significantly large community (ie tens of thousands of people or more) from scratch in the harshest, unforgiving environment.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRJ0NEXMrfM
Starship parts coming from Florida has arrived @ Boca.

>>11210394
>Green propellant
What a bunch of marketing horseshit
Hydrazine toxicity is completely irrelevant for the environment given the reactivity, not to mention it's in space.

Yes, I drive a CyberTruck how can you tell?

>>11210447
sounds pretty similar to what happend with america in the 16th century doesn't it ? i mean sure colonizing another continent is a differnt thing from living in space but our technology is a million times more advanced than what it was then

>>11210470
>Yes, I drive a CyberTruck how can you tell?

>>11210470

>>11210493
Did musk just do a fucking hit and run?

>>11210460
it matters severely for ground handling procedures, and only basic hydrazine degrades upon exposure to the environment
UDMH sticks around

>>11210458

Well that came out of the blue...

>>11210493
>>11210470
At first I thought this thing looked retarded but it's really growing on me desu.

>>11210562
Note that it says Space not Orbit lel

>>11210357

LOL Apparently it is better but it's carcinogenic, toxic and dangerous for the environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxylammonium_nitrate
Fuck I hate these cunts, just say it's a mission testing better fuel not "green" fuel fucking environment faggots

>>11210539
He knocked over that sign and ran a red light. It's confirmed that he cannot drive well. I'm surprised the media hasn't picked this up.

>>11210562
When do passenger flights start?

>>11210625
That explains why Tesla is so invested in self-driving technology...

>>11210628
Blue have said next year in two or three flights time, New Shepard has seemingly been put on the back burner to focus more resources on New Glenn and Blue Moon.

>>11209698
You forgot this, OP.

Yet another Starship edition

Previous Thread:
>>11201067

>>11210399
It sure doesn‘t take long to build water towers.

>>11210493
Kek did he just btfo that sign? What a chad.

>>11209722
The point is to live out there. Dolls aren't people.

>>11209888
>just make human level AI
First you are a brainlet that doesn't understand AI.
Second robots aren't people.

>>11210678
Yeah, thanks

>>11210909
I know human level AI won't be 100% possible you fucking faggot. I meant human level AI as in being self aware and able to make its own decisions, but as individuals, not some stupid numale "DUUUUH SHKYNETT" bullshit. And yeah, I know it won't exactly be all human, but you should be able to at least talk and make relationships to automatons with said AI.

>>11209888

>robots can or should be "conscious"

Why not toasters? Why not microwave ovens? kek

>>11210562
>star liner and dragon about to supply crews to the ISS
>l-look guys we are doing space too

Is "le german built le soviet space agency" mostly a meme?

>>11211159
I believe so. Mainly because IIRC the Soviets returned the German rocket scientists that they have picked up shortly before the Soviet space agency really kicked off.

On a related note, the "le germans built le american space agency" or the "le germans brought americans to le moon" is also a meme (mostly). The German scientists that the US brought back had a much greater impact early on at the start of the Space Race, but their contributions were almost entirely washed out by native developments by the time of Apollo. An example of this is the hydrogen fuel development, of which the Germans were against despite it's later importance to the Saturn V.

>>11211181
>Mainly because IIRC the Soviets returned the German rocket scientists, that they have picked up, shortly before the Soviet space agency really kicked off.
Added commas to reduce ambiguity.

>>11211181
>Mainly because IIRC the Soviets returned the German rocket scientists that they have picked up shortly before the Soviet space agency really kicked off.
Who did they return them to/what did you mean by this? East Germany? West Germany?

>>11211198
I'm not sure, it's just something that I have heard. I'm not too familiar with how the Soviet space program went unfortunately.

A quick surf through Wikipedia says that the German scientists were returned to East Germany in 1952 (although they were excluded from Soviet rocket/missile development a year earlier), 5 years before Sputnik.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Gr%C3%B6ttrup#Return_to_Germany

>>11210973
But it is going to happen. What do you think your "decisions" are based on? The things you have learned/being taught and stored in your memory. Sounds familiar?
>a hint: compooters

>>11211057
There is no practical use to making simple machines like toasters aware and doing so sounds unethical.

>>11210909
> Second robots aren't people.

Right now.

>>11211279
Well obviously you wouldn't have individual appliances with their own sense of self. You'd have building, neighborhood, or city-scale AI managing millions of networked devices, allocating more or less of its attention to various tasks as needed.

>>11210399
What is this

>>11211321
>your computer judges your taste in porn
how horrible

>>11211371
The environmental management AI would, of course, be for the peasants without a neural lace. The superior classes will operate technology around them as reflexively as breathing.

>>11210562
>space flight general
>space flight
>flight
Space hopping need not apply.

>>11211159
It is not when you consider development of their early boosters and engines that were derived off German work both by the US and Russia.But by mid 60s both superpowers have abandoned most of old German tech with end developments of it being Delta2 and R7 that can trace their lineage to German teams in some form

>>11211371
>AI identifies your porn tastes and then makes porn for you tailored to your desires

>>11211759
I don't think I'm ready to be in that sort of relationship with a bundle of semiconductors

>>11210539
Its begins

>>11210625
Why learn to drive well when eventually the car can just do it for you?

Jokings aside, does the Cyber truck have self driving capabilities as well? Doesn't look like there's spots for the cameras.

>>11211945
>Jokings aside, does the Cyber truck have self driving capabilities as well? Doesn't look like there's spots for the cameras.
Yes. Its likely integrated to appear low-key.

>self driving
Musk drives his usual Model S with latest FSD dev builds. However he may have abandoned it for CyberTruck with dev build FSD.

>space force probably happening on wednesday
>its just af space command reorganized as a separate branch of the military
>will be named space force and not space corps
>funding is still an issue
>space force will be phased in over three years
I guess it's better than nothing?

>>11211961
>not going with "Space Corps"
fuck

>>11211961
I wonder if Cape Canaveral will get folded under the Space Force umbrella along with the NSSL program. I'd think both would fall under their purview.

What would we call CCAFS then? "Cape Canaveral Space Force Station" doesn't exactly glide off the tongue.

>>11211961
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsPLmb6gAdw

>>11211974
>Space Corpse

no thanks

>>11211992
I hope you're being ironic. that's not how "corps" is pronounced

>>11211961
A literal nothingburger, just like I kept telling all the /ptg/ morons who thought they were getting cap troopers and warhammer 40k battleships.

>>11211979
Probably. Not sure how things will work since alot of the details haven't been announced yet.

>>11212007
The Space Development Agency had some cool plans but they never got fully funded. The plans were still satellites, but cislunar interceptors was kind of scifi.
I agree though that the Space Force will be the same old thing that it has been. That said, space is changing alot on all fronts, so things could be alot different in a few years.

Is it just me or does the latest landing look like it was a close call? It seems to come in at a far higher angle than usually

>>11210493
He can barely drive it yikes

>>11210562
>sub orbital, ferociously!

Artemis day stream seems to have wrapped up:
https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1204038669859995649

>>11212362
>official nasa tweets get few hundred views
>spaceX tweets gets few millions
What did they mean by this?

>>11212389
not flashy enough for normies. UNSC meeting livestreams usually get less than 150 viewers and the livechat function is active

>https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1203783997828059137
>Some seriously huge structures being built at Blue Origin's Cape site.

>Still very secretive with the public and media (bar New Shepard), but a lot of aerospace folk absolutely fawn over them. Mention SpaceX, they say "cool". Mention Blue and they start dancing.

Is this because oldSpace fear SpaceX's success or because Blue will play ball with oldSpace or both?

>>11212389
NASA doesn’t have a cult of personality

>>11212399
Dumb post. NASA astronauts were the original hero worship.

>>11212396
The people who’ve toured Blue’s Florida factory always seem incredibly impressed afterwards. NASA officials who’ve talked to Blue about their future plans also seem impressed, although they aren’t allowed to tell us what these plans are.

>>11212389
Probably that NASA is boring to most spaceflight fans (at least compared to SpaceX). I mean, NASA hasn't really been doing anything exciting nor inspiring since the start of millennial generation (at least before Artemis really started to kick off). Many adults today grew up with NASA canceling the Shuttle and Constellation and then been doing practically nothing for years while claiming to be working on something big, this something being regularly being delayed. Or at least that can be the common perception.

>>11212414
>Probably that NASA is boring to most spaceflight fans (at least compared to SpaceX). I mean, NASA hasn't really been doing anything exciting nor inspiring since the start of millennial generation (at least before Artemis really started to kick off).

That’s only if you consider human spaceflight. SpaceX may have landed rockets, but NASA have landed on Mars multiple times and explored every corner of the solar system with probes. If you don’t think stuff like Curiosity and New Horizons are exciting, your not a spaceflight fan.

>>11212402
this

>>11212389
>>11212414
I’m guessing none of you were present for the Insight landing or the Ultima Thule flyby, they were both the top trending topics on twitter on their respective days and the latter even had Brian May of Queen involved. Normies are gonna be far more excited by any landing, rocket stage or probe than Jim Bridenstine (no matter how great he is) talking to an audience. These kind of events are for dedicated spaceflight fans.

>>11212453
opportuntiy's death was also talked about on a wide scale

>>11212431
robots are cool but human spaceflight is much more exciting than unmanned probes

>>11210493
holy shit that thing is kinda ugly but it's BIG and it blows the Canyonero away in terms of sheer awesomeness

>>11209698

why doesn't 4chan have /space/ board?

:(

>>11212470
I’d say stuff like Curiosity is more exciting than a routine crewed capsule launch to the ISS (which will soon be a thing).

>>11212483
it has been a thing since before the ISS was a thing.

>>11212481
Based on how slow this thread can be sometimes it's probably for the best

>>11212481
Because there’s hardly enough space stuff going on to keep a general thread alive, let alone an entire board.

>>11210584
>>11212355
perhaps Jeff Who is trying to conpmensate for something

>>11212481
Until we have dozens of launches per day, its useless.

>>11212481
>/space/
>not /spes/

>>11212470
Is it a good or bad thing that manned spaceflight is generally seen as more exciting than unmanned spaceflight?

>>11212510
It speaks to the human spirit which shouldn't be discounted. Probes are cheap and safe but if we're ever gonna get those oniel colonies, we need people excited

>>11212510
Why would it ever be bad?
We want to leave, and explore.

>>11212535
>Why would it ever be bad?
I've heard arguments that the preference to manned spaceflight is bad because it indirectly assumes that only the big expensive programs are worthwhile (since people require big expensive machines to stay alive in space). Which then pulls support from unmanned missions which are cheaper and more "sustainable" than manned missions, and that a more "balanced" preference to both would've meant that much more could've been done with unmanned probes than what can be done today.

>>11212530
>Probes are cheap

Curiosity: $2.5 billion
New Horizons: $700 million
Parker Solar Probe: $1.5 billion
Juno: $1.1 billion
InSight: $828.8 million
BepiColombo: $2 billion
Europa Clipper: $4.2 billion (estimated)

>>11212543
Compared to SLS, they're amazingly cheap.

>>11212572
That's somewhat unfair as there are few things in spaceflight that are more expensive than the SLS development.

>>11212543
JWST: $10 billion

>>11212580
And there is no other NASA based human flight program currently so thats the only comparison unfortunately

>>11212632
That’s about the same as Hubble with inflation taken into account, but even with a decade worth of delays JWST doesn’t come close in that department to Hubble, which was first funded in the 70s and eventually launched in 1990. Furthermore, Hubble wasn’t even a unique purpose-built bus unlike JWST.

>>11212402
That was literally 50 years ago, though.

>>11212699
So was 2007, but you still see people be nostalgic about it.

>>11211961
"Space Force" is still the dumbest possible fucking name for that shit.

Should've gone with "Star Force," or some science fictiony-sounding name.

>>11212767
>Should've gone with "Star Force," or some science fictiony-sounding name.

Ironically, I think you just proved that Space Force isn’t actually the “dumbest possible fucking name for that shit”.

>>11212767
>Star Force
>is in space, not in a star

nah m8

>>11212767
I'm still in favor of "Orbital Guard".

>>11212790
Space Defence Force

>>11212776
>Ironically, I think you just proved that Space Force isn’t actually the “dumbest possible fucking name for that shit”.
Sounds cooler than "Space Force," at least.

>>11212790
That sounds pretty badass.

>>11212510
VERY BAD THING
It make impossible to get real work done and build robotic space dock because the politician in charge won't put money on anything but the exiting stuff.
Only reason to send human up there is to study our biology in 0G for eventual species-survival and it can be done in LEO just fine.
But no, you've got retarded "New frontier" shill who want to remove all funding from company who aren't building a spaceship for Mars with no understanding of what "life-support" mean.

If we didn't have "Manned Mars Mission" we would already have a space-station around the moon and mars there while remote-body do the exploration and send back tons of sample aboard smaller rockets so we can study what plant can grow there.

>>11212790
Cringe

>>11212396
Both. They fear Elong bringing cost down. "If you find a way to make our rockets cheaper to build, you are fired for making the company lose money".

>>11210470
How do you load shit into the trunk...

>>11213108
Do you ask the same question when you see a flatbed with a lid or are you just fucking retarded?

>>11210628
Literally nverlol sub orbital tourism is simply not allowed by the government

>>11213114
Does that look like a flat bed wtf are you a retarded?

>>11213108
Lift the lid?

>>11213148
What lid
When you back up into something you hit with the fucking top first
Jfc what a retard design

Misses the whole po8nt of a bumper

>>11213128
Durf a durf a hurr durr

Correction, fold down the ramp.
>>11213164
Beat me by a second. I don't know why he didn't bother looking it up himself.

>>11213164
What a disaster

>>11213175
Okay

>>11213192
Go ahead and buy one of these solid steel ass boxes lol
With explosive batteries

>>11213210
Look if you want to shitpost go badger /o/ about it or something, you'll probably get way more replies than this slow-ass general.

Blue Origin:

>Blue Origin’s next New Shepard mission (NS-12) is currently targeting liftoff tomorrow, December 10th at 8:30 am CST / 14:30 UCT. Current weather conditions aren’t as favorable as we’d like, but we’re continuing to keep an eye on the forecast.

>As we move towards verifying New Shepard for human spaceflight we are continuing to mature the safety and reliability of the vehicle.

>It’s the 6th flight for this particular New Shepard vehicle, marking the first time a Blue Origin booster has made this many consecutive flights (the previous booster flew five times consecutively) - all with minimal refurbishment between flights. This particular rocket has been an operational payload vehicle for several flights, meaning there are no more updates to the system.

>This will also be the 9th commercial payload mission for New Shepard, and we are proud to be flying our 100th customer on board.

>Also on the vehicle are thousands of postcards from students around the world for our nonprofit Club for the Future. The Club's mission is to inspire future generations to pursue careers in STEM and help visualize the future of life in space.

>>11209698
unless that rocket is in a constant state of acceleration I don't understand how the artificial gravity works

Since there's no /kspg/ anymore, I'll just drop this question here. Anyone got any good concepts for a low tech recoverable booster/first stage? I have some ideas but I was wondering what others have thought of.

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1204163744814772224

>Success! Engineers at NASA Marshall tested the SLS liquid hydrogen test article tank to failure-the tank withstood more than 260% of expected flight loads before buckling and rupturing!

>>11213364
That's an art students piss poor idea.of what an interior would look like. We have dissected it many times. You either make it like that with floors but a less retarded layout and tether two together by the nose and spin them or you ditch the floors and optimise space for zero g.

>>11213361
>It’s the 6th flight for this particular New Shepard vehicle, marking the first time a Blue Origin booster has made this many consecutive flights (the previous booster flew five times consecutively)
"Keeping Up With the Elons"
Gotta bump that record before SpaceX catches up!
>This will also be the 9th commercial payload mission for New Shepard
So what kind of useful payload can you put on a carnival ride anyhow?
>thousands of postcards from students
Ah, now I see, carnival payloads for a carnival ride!

>>11213402
That was in the previous thread >>11205528

>>11213392
I tried monkeying around with it but couldn't get something with enough fuel leftover to do a boostback and they'd all invariably end up tumbling and breaking. I wish someone would do a Starship underbelly-shaped heat shield mod you could slap onto standard size tanks.

>>11213422
>that pic
That should be called the Pants Browner 9 desu.

>>11213422
Can you take your obnoxious fanboyism elsewhere pls, also this:

>That was in the previous thread

Is incorrect, he just posted a link to JB’s video of the SLS LH2 tank’s test to destruction, which was posted less than 30 minutes ago.

>>11213392
if it's kerbin just do an SSTO and only throw away big modules

>>11213424
If the booster is made wide enough and with the bare minimum delta-v, then it should be possible. I had some success with this in sandbox. It doesn't do any boost backs, but it can probably save some fuel to reduce it's reentry speed. It might not work in harder modes however.

The inflatable heat shield would work perfectly for this, but it's fairly far down the tech tree.

>>11213440
An SSTO can be made at a low tech level?

Hello. I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but whatever.

I remember about 5 years ago I played this game that I really liked, bu I forgot about it and want to download it again.

Hope you can help me find it.
It remember it was about space flight, had little rectangle head characters and a round navigation ball thing.

Thanks in advance, from Uzbekistan.

>>11213460
boostback doesn't work at low tech levels either, I never got anything to work before I had the mainsail
boostback doesn't work because your second stage will back into the atmosphere before your first stage has landed
>>11213471
dear uzbekistan,

>>11213460
>An SSTO can be made at a low tech level?
On kerbin the only thing you need to make an ssto is some engines and loads of fuel tanks stacked above them, you can do it when you unlock the second tech node..

Plane sstos are just a meme if you're actually trying to be efficient, fun to fly though.

>>11213496
plane sstos are more aesthetic and sound better, and are way easier to land

>>11213501
have fun doing 2 hour long reentries

>>11213494
>boostback doesn't work because your second stage will back into the atmosphere before your first stage has landed
I've found that if the first stage has about 2150 m/s of delta-v and burns out with an apoapsis of about 130 km in altitude, then there is plenty of time for the second stage to reach orbit (assuming that it has a starting TWR of more than 0.55) and then you could switch back to the first stage before it reaches the atmosphere.

>>11213504
Oh I will

>>11212402
>NASA astronauts were the original hero worship.

I suspect some kind of bear-
wrestling prehistoric Anatolian strongman was the original hero worship. Akchewerly

>>11213504
it only takes a few minutes to land?
You just frying pan through the upper atmosphere; it's basically the same reentry profile as a capsule, aside from all the extra work of balancing the CoM and center of drag as you splat through the hypersonic region into a realm where whiplash can work. It's the best, the most fun I've had in KSP.
>>11213511
Amen, brother
>>11213506
>entering a parking orbit more than 80km above datum

>>11213519
>entering a parking orbit more than 80km above datum
I'm trying to get that down, but I'm not a great pilot. Plus at first I didn't know how high I needed to have the first stage be so I just yote the thing as far up as I could to be on the safe side.

I just wonder, all these chinese "private" spaceflight companies can't launch payloads with US made components?

>>11213523
you're not really living until you enter an orbit so close to 70km that turning rcs on and turning your station so the panels face the sun can cause you to reenter

>>11213525
IIRC, the US government is worried that US companies would inadvertently give China secrets to ICBM technology through guiding the Chinese on how to tailor the rockets to their payloads. So ITAR forbids US payloads on Chinese rockets.

>>11213530
and rightfully so. Just look at what happened after the whole intelsat 708 debacle, the US based independend review commitee basically troubleshot the issue for the chinks. Active participation would have propelled them forward incredibly hard. Like in all other industries the US spaceindustry would have been more than happy to export every kind of institutional knowledge they have amassed to the chinks for short term shareholder profits

>>11213527
I wonder if you could put enough ion engines on a little station to keep it orbiting at 60km under constant acceleration to counteract drag?
Why you'd want to do this, who can say?

>>11213535
>Just look at what happened after the whole intelsat 708 debacle

>Intelsat 708 was a telecommunications satellite built by the American company Space Systems/Loral for Intelsat. It was destroyed on 15 February 1996 when the Long March 3B rocket failed while being launched from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in China. The rocket veered off course immediately after liftoff and struck a nearby village, killing at least six people.

>The accident investigation identified a failure in the guidance system of the Long March 3B. After the Intelsat 708 accident, the Long March rockets greatly increased in reliability and did not experience another mission failure until 2011. However, the participation of American companies in the Intelsat 708 and Apstar 2 investigations caused great political controversy in the United States. A U.S. government investigation found that the information in the report had been illegally transferred to China. Satellite technology was subsequently reclassified as a munition and placed under ITAR restrictions, blocking its export to China. In 2002, Space Systems/Loral paid $20 million to settle charges of violating export controls.

Everybody remembers the that Proton failure, but relatively few people remember Intelsat 708. Maybe because it’s less comical than the former, as people were killed by the failure.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZTFgZ9zl74

>>11213548
You could use those fancy new airbreathing ion engines that scoop in some gasses for fuel

>>11213566
>The rocket veered off course immediately after liftoff and struck a nearby village
Do they just rapidly build villages under falling rockets or something? It's so common it's like a recurring gag in a sitcom by this point.

>>11213566
>The rocket veered off course immediately after liftoff and struck a nearby village, killing at least six people.

Successfuru raunchu for grorious china

>>11213566
because it happened before the internet was much of a thing and not to a rocket that had a fairly reliable launch history before the accident.

>>11213566
Christ, that must've been terrifying to see in-person.

>>11213392
>Since there's no /kspg/ anymore
It's kinda really both science AND math, so it would be cool if it could go on /sci/ as its own thread, but it's a game, so the mods would probably have a RUD if you tried to create a /kspg/ thread on /sci/. I blame the sewer that is /vg/.

>>11213691
I'm pretty sure that the mods would delete any /kspg/ thread on /sci/ simply because of the infamous reputation. Even though the new /kspg/ was much more tame, it just died because it was far too slow to stay alive on /vg/. Apparently gachas are to blame?

>>11213702
>Apparently gachas are to blame?
Fucking gachas.
At least they post the art in threads so sane people don't have to play that trash.

>>11213548
you'd have to keep watching it and wouldn't be able to swap away, and would be limited to 4x time warp
kind of pointless imo

>>11213175
Bigger standard bed than most crew cabin pickups

>>11213548
ESA is actually attempting that IRL for low orbit satellites. The main benefit is that you'd have satellites that can stay in orbit until their components fail, rather than when their propellant runs out, and they also almost instantly deorbit. Not really relevant in KSP where orbits are perfectly stable.

>>11211992
corps is pronounced core
just like how lieutenant is left-tenant not loo-tenant

>>11212540
those people are eggheads who don't understand that you need the backing of the unwashed masses to get funding
humans in space gains glory and presige, which is all normies actually care about
they don't give a flying blueberry fuck about your shitty ass sample data or how you took another picture of a tiny grey speck
these may be good for science, but jane and joe average don't care about science and never will

>>11209722
CRISPR will lead to genetic augmentation for astronauts. I wanna be a spartan

>>11213691
kerbal has been a font of heresy for years, though they've been allowed to infect /vg/ once more through /egg/
I have not gone back since that day, so I wonder if they still remain, or have been banished back into their holes

>>11214327
>I have not gone back since that day, so I wonder if they still remain, or have been banished back into their holes
It's gone again AFAIK, couldn't stay active enough to be worth making a thread for. Hopefully KSP2 changes that for the better.

>>11214327
What is it about KSP that attracts such faggotry on /vg/? Plenty of generals have to deal with massive faggotry, but nothing close to that level of cancer.

>>11214404
I wasn't there during the "dark ages" of /kspg/ but from what I could gather, it was mainly due to a lack of new and interesting content at the time (including mods) which facilitated the threads being derailed. Add in some neurotic members who did some VERY questionable stuff, and you have a respire for a dumpster fire of a general.

>>11214327
>Pic

Sounds like a standard 4chan general desu

>>11209722
The better automation gets, the more preposterous manned space flight is, until such a time, if ever, getting payloads the weight of cruise ships into orbit becomes at least plausible.

>>11213175
Pickups are a mistake. So many empty beds on the road, driven by manchildren having strip hayride fantasies, and without the balls to graduate to a big comfy sedan or a van made for real tradies. A similar principle applies to urban dykes and dominatrixes in black SUVs: Crazy bitches, get muscle-cars.

>>11214468
>or a van made for real tradies

Confirmed not a tradie, there are many trades where a van is good and there are many where it is vastly inferior to a ute.

>>11214327
If there isn't enough interest for a general, then start something in /v/ every now and then and hope for the best.

>>11213000
hello chinaman

>>11213566
Deft zoom out at 0:46

>>11214482
>ute
australian detected post discarded

>>11212174
Looking at the deflection on that pump exhaust I'm wondering if there was a decent cross wind.

>>11213000
>If we didn't have "Manned Mars Mission" we would already have a space-station around the moon and mars there while remote-body do the exploration and send back tons of sample aboard smaller rockets so we can study what plant can grow there.

Sounds like a roundabout way of achieving nothing significant. If you want to colonize Mars then colonize Mars.

>>11213402
Good to see NASA releasing the test footage, NASA needs to get back into caring about public engagement by showing us what they are doing.
(I know it's technically ULA but it's a joint program)

Am I wrong for falling for the Phobos First meme?

>>11214888
I think we need a rotating hab in LEO followed by a Lunar base and Lunar ISRU.
Everyone is racing for Mars because it's a big leap but I can see it being another moon landing (a half dozen missions followed by decades of nothing) unless we build our understanding and capability to support interplanetary missions long term.
We don't need to go full O'Neill cylinder but could get something capable of 0 - 0.75g with similar mass to the ISS.

>>11214898
Why do we need permanent orbital stations the size of the ISS, when Elon has at the very least proven that a fully reusable rocket with the internal volume bigger than the ISS is mathematically and economically feasible? Even if Starship never really happens, Starship's basic design is simple and reproducible; and kinda invalidates the ISS. Why build an orbital partial gravity laboratory when you could tether two Starships and spin them up?

>>11212543
They're cheap if they're made by spacex and not incumbent fraud organizations

>>11213566
>6 dead

lol yeah okay sure buddy

>>11214919
The point is to have long term tests on how much gravity it takes for humans to stop falling apart. ISS has proven that 0g doesn't agree with humans long term. It would be nice to know in the moons or even mars's gravity is enough before building bases on either.
Even if it isn't enough there are tricks we can use but it gets way more expensive.

>>11213421
>art student
it literally looks like one of my third grade doodles

>>11213566
>6 die
not true american ries not one lost rocket work as intended.

>>11214919
The tether meme doesn't work for a space station because you can't dock with a rotating object except at the hub.

>>11214964
6 dead, not counting people the Party doesn't care about

>>11214855
Yeah right, because burning money in stunt and throwing sport car at Mars will colonize it faster.

The fastest way to colonize Mars is to build up the infrastructure and study how human can live in space. Not waste money on glorified mission that go a tenth of what robotic mission would achieve and don't allow to study human biology under best condition.

Ignorant peasant wouldn't recognize a significant achievement even if it became part of their everyday life (like vacuum packing), and watching a few expendable human on Mars doing robot jobs is not significant.
Apollo mission were barely worthwhile because we didn't have superior robots back then.

>>11214919
>a fully reusable rocket with the internal volume bigger than the ISS is mathematically and economically feasible?
Because it is not mathematically and economically more interesting than a space station.
I can accept you are too ignorant to know that a rocket can't indefinitely keep its peak performance without costly maintenance.
Hell, even the fuel evaporate out of the tank.
Meaning your spaceship wouldn't spend more than a week in space and require a complete overhaul less it explode during the next launch or landing.
(yes Musk is lying to you when he say a shuttle to Mars and back will be 100% reliable for 4 years with no maintenance)

If you weren't a fanboy with delusion of cheap rocket you'd obviously concede you need long term experiment up there, if only to study human in 0G, because you ain't going to find habitable planet with 1G anytime soon.

We do need Reusable rocket for large cargo. But it will be part of an infrastructure, not a lie sold by a self-glorifying businessman because that's the only part he can do.

>>11215233
>stunts
what stunts?

>>11215015
>It would be nice to know in the moons or even mars's gravity is enough before building bases on either.

Why? It is easier to just build a base there and find out the effects of partial gravity directly. There is no need for a dedicated research station at all. It is a pointless detour.

>space force will have a chief of space operations like the navy has a chief of naval operations
space navy here we come?

OneWeb are doing something very interesting and responsible, by fitting magnetic grappling fixtures (developed by Altius Space Systems) to their satellites. This will allow future de-orbit tugs to grapple on and dispose of potential failed satellites, which are unable to do so themselves.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nTtskTGRr1U

>>11215255
it would be easier and cheaper to just use the atmosphere for that, which means it's more environmentally friendly to do it that way

>>11215242
You've got to read more than one line anon.
PR stunt like throwing car or wasting money in manned exploration of Mars despite it being wasteful and not being an efficient way to work on space colonization.

>>11215250
It's easier to send probes out there and actually easier to study the effect of microgravity in a space station.
Only liar pretend we have magical rocket who can deliver people and food there every year for cheap.

>>11215233
>Meaning your spaceship wouldn't spend more than a week in space and require a complete overhaul less it explode during the next launch or landing.
>(yes Musk is lying to you when he say a shuttle to Mars and back will be 100% reliable for 4 years with no maintenance)

Then we may as well give up as we are never getting off this rock.

Cheap and rapidly reusable spaceships are a basic prerequisite of ANY space colonization.

>>11215261
>PR stunt like throwing car

It was a test of a new rocket. Are you dumb?

>>11215262
>Cheap and rapidly reusable spaceships are a basic prerequisite of ANY space colonization.
Not unless you're looking to milk money from the government.

>>11215261
>throwing car
they were going to throw a bunch of concrete, so it wasn't a waste of money
I DID read more, and I disagreed with it.

>>11215250
Lets say you build a base on the moon and find out humans need 0.5g to avoid issues, now you have a base you can't use long term because it isn't designed to be a rotating cone combining spin gravity with the natural gravity.

It's better long term to know what people need to survive than to throw billions at something that might be near useless.

>>11215260
I don't think you understand, it's so you can grad satellite that out of fuel and way too high in orbit to feel the atmosphere

>>11215268
why were you so irresponsible to put your megaconstellation outside the reach of the tenable atmosphere?
they should be stopped

>>11215261
>It's easier to send probes out there and actually easier to study the effect of microgravity in a space station.

Who cares if it is cheaper to send probes? The goal is colonization. You cannot do that with probes. So probes are irrelevant.

Also, not sure why you are so hung up on microgravity. Sure, maybe it would be somewhat easier to study it's effects in a station in LEO than on Mars. But then you are only learning about microgravity, instead of learning about building a fucking space colony.

Again, if you want to colonize Mars, then go directly there and colonize it. Anything else is a distraction.

>>11215266
>Lets say you build a base on the moon and find out humans need 0.5g to avoid issues, now you have a base you can't use long term because it isn't designed to be a rotating cone combining spin gravity with the natural gravity.

Wrong, you need zero-g parts on a base anyway. You just build your cone next to an already established settlement. It is much more straightforward than your orbital lab.

>>11215233
>Hell, even the fuel evaporate out of the tank.
That's exactly why ISS missions are limited in time, because the return vehicles are rated for a 6-month shelf life due to fuel level and batteries and other consumables. But that doesn't mean they'll turn to dust beyond that, they're only rated for that long. I don't think they could be extended like the Mars rovers, but NASA wouldn't allow it because humans.
Hopefully Starship would have a somewhat longer shelf life, since it takes that long just to get to Mars.

>>11215290
Storing methane is much easier than storing hydrogen. It is only with hydrogen than boil-off is a serious problem.

>>11213402
>headphone warning
>surround sound warning
>PTSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
Fuck!

>>11215266
Genetically engineer humans to live without gravity lol

>>11215262
>Cheap and rapidly reusable spaceships are a basic prerequisite of ANY space colonization.
They are...
...when used for what they do best in conjunction with cheaper Space-to-Space orbital ship or more efficient Mars-cycler.
Saying you can colonize Mars simply by throwing rocket at it is like saying you could colonize America without ever building railways, only with Conestoga wagon.

>>11215272
You need to educate yourself, Geostationary satellite need to be high and it can take 1000y to let atmospheric friction deorbit anything above MEO.

>>11215276
Sending people to die on Mars isn't called "colonizing", we need to know of to use the resources there and build the machine first.
Same reason you (shouldn't) go stark naked in antarctic and decide to build a city of out raw material

>>11215297
While LH2 is the least storable propellant no oxidizer can be stored long term without degradation. Even UDMH and IRFNA degrade over time.

>>11215304
There's a good chance that is impossible. Biology isn't even a real science at this point and has reproducibility issues. Not as bad and psychology reproducibility issues, but enough so to be worrying. As in, people try it and it fucks up bad enough to make the public outcry more than the tech can stand up to and continue on.

>>11215306
>the debris ring in GEO!!
that's whataboutism, anon

>>11215233
>I can accept you are too ignorant to know that a rocket can't indefinitely keep its peak performance without costly maintenance.
>Hell, even the fuel evaporate out of the tank.
>Meaning your spaceship wouldn't spend more than a week in space and require a complete overhaul less it explode during the next launch or landing.
>(yes Musk is lying to you when he say a shuttle to Mars and back will be 100% reliable for 4 years with no maintenance)
Fuel in cars slow evaporate too and they don't explode after months of little to no maintenance. Why can't rockets be made to come close to that at least?

>>11215262
This. Cheap, available, and reusable vehicles are a requirement for the basis of any industry. Spaceflight will always be hampered as long as it relies on expendable rockets.

>>11215304
All it takes is one preacher to stop that in its tracks.

>>11215306
>They are...
>...when used for what they do best in conjunction with cheaper Space-to-Space orbital ship

No need for any space-to-space ships since we are not going from space to space. We are going from Earth to Mars, both with an atmosphere to aerobrake with.

Dedicated space-to-space ships only make sense once we start asteroid hopping. Which is quite far in the future.

>>11215290
>That's exactly why ISS missions are limited in time, because the return vehicles are rated for a 6-month shelf life due to fuel level and batteries and other consumables.

That’s just the hydrogen peroxide used by Soyuz, hypergolics used by Starliner and Dragon will last much longer. ISS missions are actually limited in time because long durations of 0G fuck you up, go read about what happened to the bodies of people who’ve done year-long missions.

>>11215309
>no oxidizer can be stored long term without degradation
Liquid oxygen can.

>>11215315
They have no significance, so no.

>>11215311
Lucky you aren't in charge of space program. Superpower shit their pant at the idea of debris in they more important orbit

>>11215311
Pointing out logical fallacies can only make discussions degrade, when discussing something with turbo normies.

>>11215310
>There's a good chance that is impossible

Show me the studies

> Biology isn't even a real science at this point and has reproducibility issues.

It is a real science, and all fields have reproducibility issues

>>11215322
big GEO birds are single satellites that you need a single mission to dispose of
LEO megaconstellations are hundreds or thousands of satellites that you need many launches to dispose of

>>11215306
>Sending people to die on Mars isn't called "colonizing", we need to know of to use the resources there and build the machine first.
>Same reason you (shouldn't) go stark naked in antarctic and decide to build a city of out raw material

Sending people to Mars is the first step towards colonizing it. You cannot colonize a planet with robots. Also robots suck in general, they are extremely slow and clumsy.

>>11215321
Well, not in China, but in the US they essentially run the voting country for all red states. China will be the ones to do this to its worst and best ends and they will take over space in its entirety. In 100 generations, everyone else will be known as those peoples and cultures that unfortunately were unable to make it off Earth. It is a sad fact.

>>11215319
You think boil-off is an issue for LH2 but not LOX?
While the boil-off rate is slower it still happens and you lose delta-v faster than propellants that are liquid at room tempriture.

>>11215323
why is that guy on the left talking about circles when the discussion is clearly on shapes with sides?

>>11215317
0g is a problem but less than you think

https://spacenews.com/resistive-targeted-exercise-reversed-astronauts-bone-loss-study-finds/

>We’re seeing insignificant changes in bone density. We’re actually seeing an increase in lean body mass and decrease in body fat. Until just recently, I would have given you absolutely opposite information.”

>>11215315
>All it takes is one preacher to stop that in its tracks.
what did he mean by this

>>11215336
Boil-off rate for liquid oxygen is insignificant due to it's large atoms and milder cryogenic temperatures. It is not a major issue.

>>11215335
>but in the US they essentially run the voting country for all red states.

Ehhhh. Christianity has been declining in the US for over twenty years. It has another thirty as a majority, tops. Besides, red states aren’t especially significant economically or scientifically.

>>11215328
Anon, I actually dislike informing you of this, since it seems you do not know it, but biology is having a, "replication crisis," right now. Evidently, too many studies where just pushed through without proper oversight and peer review. Still, the one in psychology is out shining everything in how bad it is.

>>11215339
There are new problems
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/15/health/astronaut-blood-flow-clot-scn-trnd/index.html

>>11215342
For the 3 hour wait on a TLI burn it's not an issue, for months it is. There is a reason no long term mission propulsion has ever used LOX.

>>11215343
I distinctly remember bans being placed and/or restored on such things a few months ago.

HAHAHAHAHA HERE'S YOUR MULTI BILLION DOLLAR ROCKET BRO

SLS WILL NEVER EVER RECOVER
CANCELLED
SHELBY SEEN CRYING INTO HIS SPAGHETTI DINNER

S L S

B T F O
T
F
O

>>11215304
This is probably a brainlet opinion, but I think genetically altering people to survive outside of Earth kinda takes away the coolness if it. I guess it feels like cheating

>>11215352
>>11215343
>>11215335
>By voice vote, the full Appropriations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives today restored language to a 2020 spending bill that bars the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from considering requests to approve any clinical trial “in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification.”

It seems like science just gets stymied everywhere in the US.

>>11215349
>There is a reason no long term mission propulsion has ever used LOX.

The reason is that it is simpler to use non-cryogens. However, you can definitely store both methane and oxygen for months or years, as long as you take precautions such as actively cooling it (takes just a tiny amount of power) and having a well isolated tank (as Starship does have, being essentially a dewar in space).

Boil-off will not stop Mars colonization, period.

>>11215361
I’d much rather adapt to the environment or become some kind of robot than not. The radiation alone would kill us.

>>11215358
>burst at 260% rated load
Are you retarded, assuming no one in /sfg/ knowns what is happening in the industry or both?

>>11215364
ISRU is the way forward for Mars return missions, everyone taking it seriously knowns this.

>>11215358
???
The test was on purpose.

>>11215362
That’s dumb, but the boomers will die off.

>>11215358
>dev cost of $18 billion through 2017
>population of US: 327.2 million
>cost of $55 in taxes per person over 5 years of dev
Man, I would have spent my $55 on something else entirely.

>>11215374
>boomers
Oh man, anon, voting for that stuff is done via online poles now from smartphones. Most of it is swayed by Chinese click farms.

>>11215314
>Fuel in cars slow evaporate too and they don't explode after months of little to no maintenance. Why can't rockets be made to come close to that at least?
Rocket are significantly harder to build than cars and car did explode easily at first.
You won't drive rocket without regular maintenance and backup source of fuel for the same reason everyone don't drive a truck full of spare part and fuel.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/infrastructure.php

>>11215316
Infrastructure with Orbit-to-Orbit spaceship are inevitably going to be more economical for colonization-scale transport than using "Surface-to-Orbit" rocket that require more maintenance and refueling in space anyway.
Most of the nuclear propulsion solution will require it as well, even the Orion-meme is best used in space.

>>11215330
There's a reason more educated people than you think de-orbiting satellite is important, if only economically.
De-orbiting properly a satellite may save millions more on the long run and prevent catastrophe like the Kessler syndrome.

>>11215373
>m-my $31 billion dollar flight article w-was supposed to explode
imagine the level of cope required to think this. incredible

>>11215377
You pay $100s of dollars a year to support Mexican single mothers with 7 kids, SLS is relatively the least of your problems as a taxpayer.

>>11215383
They were discussing the test before it was performed. Are you lying or trolling?

>>11215390
>Mexican single mothers

You don’t know many Mexicans do you?

>>11215397
Are you implying that’s a bad thing?

>>11215382
are you fucking retarded, anon? we're talking specifically about low earth orbit megaconstellations, where passive deorbiting is the solution of choice when compared to active debris retrieval.
Active debris retrieval and disposal is the correct choice for GEO birds that conk out unexpectedly and all those boosters hanging out in elliptical transfer orbits, but it's flat out retarded for Oneweb's megaconstellation. They should be operated at an altitude where they will passively deorbit, because there's too many of them to properly clean up.

>>11215400
Someone has to do the laundry and clean up.

>>11215322
>>11215330
>>11215382
>>11215404
FYI, Starlink will be a LEO mega constellation that relies on passive deorbitting of its satellites. SpaceX intends to constantly launch new satellites to make up for the losses.

>>11215416
I know, that's why I'm shittalking OneWeb, because they'll almost double their launch costs if they go with this active retrieval thing

Mars Colony power systems, from autists at NSF

>>11215419
Your implying that OneWeb are going to be doing the retrieving themselves instead of paying someone who builds deorbit tugs to do it, also the grapple method is only there for failed satellites, nominally the satellites would deorbit using their own thrusters.

>>11215419
I'm a new anon to the convo and didn't go that far back into the quote tree. I should have said, "VLEO" instead of "LEO" since Starlink orbits at 340km will be VLEO (orbits below 450 km).

>OneWeb wants to to active retrieval
Theirs will be 600-1000km orbits. I can see that being a problem since it is crowded there already. It'd be better if they just put enough on them to deorbit themselves if needed. Extra launches just sounds like a retarded idea to me.

>>11215433
>bringing in an outside contractor
another mistake
>>11215429
fake and gay

>>11215438
>600 to 1000 km orbits
OneWeb must be stopped, they'll kessler us all

Science megaconstellations when?

>>11215429
>no biomethane production for biomethane and high nitrogen fertilizer
Wasted potential and it will help with waste treatment.

>>11215443
For what purpose?

>>11215416
>Starlink
>340 km
That's more like it but will still take years and be wasteful.

>>11215419
>OneWeb
>1200 km
It will take decade unless all satellite have working mean to deorbit themselves, engine or eventual magnetic tether if those don't just worsen the situation.
Plus >>11215438

>>11215441
Project like those shouldn't be in the hand of for-profit company. It should be international project with everyone agreeing on taking good care of better built sat.

>>11215445
I think you are severely underestimating how much methane is needed. Any biomethane the colony would produce is just a drop in the bucket and thus not worth it for an initial colony. KISS

>>11215455
no, that's communism, go die

>>11215455
>shouldn't be in the hand of for-profit company. It should be international project

meh, international projects are usually a shitshow, and totaly non-viabe for any commercial product

>>11215455
>It should be international project with everyone agreeing on taking good care of better built sat.
Reminds me of the old spaceflight meme that the only way to achieve anything moving forward will be with large scale international cooperation

>>11215315
>viagra ad #213.webm

>>11215465
such nonsense in hindsight, we were so naive, weren't we

>>11215473
It's an outlook that's justifiable in context I guess. Having the ISS go up fairly rapidly following the years of dicking about on the US space station project must have been exciting

>>11215465
if you want your work to be done by governments, you need a bunch of governments to continually hold each other to it so that they can't drop it as soon as a new administration rolls in
if you want something good, you need it done by commercial movers with minimal government interference

>>11215465
Sometimes I think that the meme was pushed so that other nation's space agencies can be kept in-check.

>>11215463
Bullshit spread by megacorp to make themselves look good and kill regulation.
International project will get their rocket and component from the sames place, but instead of dooming everyone because they were stingy or sold your data to china they put their national interest into it and take care of it.

>>11215465
It's still the only way it will happen. Regardless of all the memes you've heard SpaceX didn't research all the technologies they'd need to go on Mars.
I didn't happen yet because we have to accept that we simply don't have the technology to do anything worthwhile up there. There's no redtape holding back your rocketpunk future.
Several nation would have made new manned spacecraft if there was any point to it.

>>11215457
KISS isn't something you want when redundant systems are concerned. Also, biomethane is ridiculously simple to setup and run. So long as you are shitting and making organic waste you can make lots of methane and high nitrogen fertilizer.

>>11215544
you need a couple dozen tons of methane to get off mars, you're not getting that from fermenting the shit of three people

>>11215500
>we simply don't have the technology to do anything worthwhile up there.
We do. It is Legos tier simple. It is just a funding/profit issue as usual. Of course redtape isn't the problem at all.

>Several nation would have made new manned spacecraft if there was any point to it.
There is a point, but not their point specifically (short term personal greed.)

>>11215548
You don't use it for blasting off. You use it for everything else you'll be doing in a colony that doesn't want to be wasting their resources. Stop taking your throw-away-society into space, anon. Fuck.

>>11215550
>We do. It is Legos tier simple. It is just a funding/profit issue as usual. Of course redtape isn't the problem at all.
Way to underestimate the task. Being able to send human somewhere one way =/= doing anything worthwhile.

- Almost all our technologies are built on the assumption of gravity, accessible air, pressure, low radiation or even water to wash it.
- The only reason satellites and probes last long is because they are extremely minimalist, we have no crewed design capable of managing years of reliable service without maintenance, even if we nuked the budget and carried entire spare ships we don't have the training and equipment to replace any part of a spaceship.
- We don't have good enough tools, interface and remote-robot for repairs which are prerequisite, EVA suit are less important than a robot.
- All those talk about ISRU don't tell you how hard it is to design the various machines. We don't have magical molecular 3D printers yet and 100% extractor like in video game.
- We barely know anything about how human react in low-gravity making colonization itself pointless before we know and prepare for eventual genetic engineering
And since we won't be colonizing space anytime soon, robot are more efficient to gather data and leave you with more money to do all the other research and development.

I'm so bored of kiddies who drank the pioneer myth and think everything is just money, logistic and a glorification of the human body. Many even believe farming can be done like "The Martian".
Tips: the author said he literally bullshitted his way. Real farming soil would require proper compost that take month, shitting in your food will just kill it. And other solutions require to have industries worth of equipment across the planet to get you all the components.

To celebrate New Shepard’s return to flight and 6th reuse, I’ve decided to post a history of the vehicle’s development.

>>11215878
First up we have the first development vehicle in Blue's New Shepard program: ‘The Goddard’, which flew for the first time on November 13, 2006. Named after rocketry pioneer Robert Goddard, the vehicle was a subscale demonstrator which flew up to an altitude of 285 ft and then successfully landed during its initial flight. For propulsion, it used 9 peroxide monopropellant-powered BE-1 engines.

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

>>11215892
Next up we have the PM-2, an early prototype version of New Shepard which only flew twice. The first flight was a short hop with successful soft landing on a concrete pad. The second flight however, went out of control at a height of 13.7 km at a speed of Mach 1.2 and the vehicle was destroyed. The main differences between this and NS are the use of an aerodynamic cap instead of a functional capsule and it being powered by 5 BE-2 engines burning kerosene and peroxide, instead of a single BE-3.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wXhZVB6bi34

>>11215922
That brings us up to New Shepard itself, which on 23 November 2015, after reaching 100.5 km (62.4 mi) altitude (outer space), successfully performed a powered vertical soft landing, the first time a suborbital booster rocket had returned from space to make a successful vertical landing. New Shepard uses a single liquid hydrogen and oxygen powered BE-3 engine for it’s propulsion. The BE-3 uses a pump-fed engine design, with a combustion tap-off cycle to take a small amount of combustion gases from the main combustion chamber in order to power the engine turbopumps.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9pillaOxGCo

>>11215938
>7 second hover
Waste of fuel that could be fixed by proper trajectory calculation.

>>11215938
Since then New Shepard has done some cool things, like surviving an inflight abort with it’s booster intact, launching a bunch of commercial + NASA payloads and being reused 5 times (soon to be 6). Hopefully it’ll be launching humans/tourists next year!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ESc_0MgmqOA

>>11215863
It isn't like we need to develop new science. It is merely an engineering problem and one that isn't very hard at all; but does have lots of parts. It just isn't worth doing, for anyone who has a shit ton of money, since they won't see a profit return. Lack of 1st gen profits/appreciable return has always been the #1 killer of all space programs. Literally everything is based around the lowest bidder or least expense. Because of this, every program ends up shooting itself in the foot every time (except for Opportunity and Curiosity by some dumb luck). I think the best we can hope for are the private companies who are gearing up for asteroid mining. Musk's ambitions are great, but there needs to be a profit return or the funding will dry up and leave it all hanging. If launching other company's satellites up compensates for that, great. I don't see that happening.

Also, the author of The Martian is a dumbass and literally knows nothing about farming in the slightest. I happen to know since I've been a subsistence farmer for over a decade now (a step up from IT, PC repair, and robotics jobs.) But, that's a completely different subject: >>>/out/1653451

>>11215548
Isn't the methane a lot lighter to bring a second tank of, and would let you get away with just ISRU oxygen? That would apparently work better for the moon where carbon will be harder to find.

>>11215892
>not starting with DC-X

>>11212007
Space Force won't be a huge thing until such time as new large launchers are operating (Starship, New Armstrong). With the extra lift capacity and range, different kinds of infrastructure projects and missions become available. Most of those will be unmanned, but there are reasons for the Space Force to eventually start doing its own things on the Moon independent of NASA.

>>11215952
Damn, it's been three years since the first abort test?

>>11215990
>United States Space Force Corps of Engineers

>>11211961
Difference between Space Force vs Airforce Space Command is vision. Space Force wants to move to a new domain, space. Airforce wants to use space as a backup tool. Airforce wants to send satellites to space. Space Force wants to get their hands on rockets, build bases on the Moon, build satellites, etc.

>>11214867
Agree, the only Public Engagement so far has been the notices of the budget doubling and doubling.

>>11216029
They have a budget for Depots that Shelby can't touch.

Today, Boeing announced that they’ve completed the Critical Design Review (CDR) for the Exploration Upper-Stage (EUS), which is SLS’ future upgraded second-stage. Meeting this milestone allows Boeing to start construction of the EUS, which they say will be ready by 2024 for the Artemis 3 mission. The EUS has been in production hell recently, with work being halted earlier in the year in favour of building more of the inferior ICPS stages. However, after the recent SLS block buy, development has resumed. Most interestingly, we knew that during this downtime NASA had asked Boeing to upgrade the initial EUS design to send more payload to TLI; the text in this press release suggests that they’ve managed to bump it’s payload to TLI up from 37 to 45 tons. To put that in perspective, the Saturn V could send 48 tons to TLI.

http://www.boeing.com/features/2019/12/farther-faster-12-19.page

http://www.boeing.com/features/2019/12/farther-faster-12-19.page

>thinking space force will do manned space exploration and not just run spysats more efficiently

>>11216119
China's space program is military. Until that changes, odds are extremely high that the Space Force will want to keep ahead of them with non-NASA resources.

>>11216119
That's what it'll most likely be at first, but then there's the issue that space is pretty much lawless where any other country (or malicious organization) can pretty much do whatever they want with their hardware (and other people's hardware) once it's in space. This would require some way to enforce US law in space. The first steps would be cheap remotely controlled spacecraft that can intercept and deorbit non-law abiding spacecraft without making debris, but persistent law-breakers will adapt. This could reach a point where remote control is too slow and/or clumsy to deal with threats, so direct human operation would be preferred.

The fact that space is lawless will be the new hit topic in spaceflight that'll drive up launches.

>>11216096
>OK military industrial complex, we will give you another $30 billion, just PLEASE make this perform a bit closer to what we could make 50 years ago? Would ya think about it? y-you too...

>>11216158
>This would require some way to enforce US law in space

Holy shit fuck off you fat cunts and stop being world police, fucking hate this shit.

>>11216193
Dear world: No.
-sincerely USA

>>11216193
I said US law because that was in the context of the USSF, but it's true for any nation that has space hardware. Sure, the nation can write a law saying that it's illegal for others to mess with their stuff, but if said nation has no way to stop that then that law might as well be an invitation to break it. Therefore, the nation must be able to enforce their law in space in order for said law to be followed.

>>11216205
All your foreign policies are dictated by Jews, you don't decide where your military is deployed.

>>11210737
Fuck, I thought that was the rocket and got all excited.

>>11211214
They picked their brains and hen sidelined them for the most part -- they did not trust Germans to be to integrally involved in the great work. The Germans were segrgated into a unit that produced some work for the program(s) for a time, but it was all one-way, what they discovered or designed was shared witht he Russian engineers, but not the other direction.

Many eventually returned to East Germany.

I think that was in Red Star in Orbit, but I'd have to go re-red it to be sure. Might have been in a WvB biography.

>>11215950
What do toy imagine they would have done with the saved fuel?

>>11216424
>What do toy imagine
"Toy" should be "you." No idea how that happened...

>>11216434
Based autocorrect accurately identifying the rocket.

>>11216424
Gone to orbit. \s

>lawless space
oh fuck pls, if only. a space western era would be amazing.

>>11216385

>>11216589
I mean, space IS lawless effectively. The reason why it hasn't gone full "the man with the bigger iron is law" yet is because the bar to access space isn't low enough yet. It will, though.

>>11216437
that's too mean, that's something that's off limits, could you imagine how youd feel if someone told you that? you should apologize

>>11212776
Kek

>>11213402
That was fun to watch

>>11215974
methane generally has a higher specific impulse than kerosene, that means you can get away with a bit less. You still want to bring as little fuel/oxidizer as possible since every kilo of that could be a kilo of useful payload

>>11216193
If you don't like it, invest more in your own space program.

new propellers for just read the instructions

Forbes latest FUD about Starlink
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/11/elon-musk-spacex-unveil-latest-starlink-plans-creating-an-astronomical-emergency/amp/
>Although the space age may have begun back in the 1950s, there are still only around 2,000 active satellites as of 2019, with most of them small and faint. However, driven by the desire to build global 5G networks in space, multiple potential providers have announced plans to deploy mega-constellations of thousands of large, bright satellites, with SpaceX’s Starlink being the first to begin launching their prototypes.
>These satellites pose significant risks to not only astronomy, but to humanity as well. The 5G radio signals will be strong enough to swamp a natural transition of water molecules that is essential for meteorology, challenging our ability to forecast Earth’s weather patterns from space. Observing programs like Pan-STARRS or LSST that rely on differential astronomy — where changes to brightnesses and positions are essential — will be greatly compromised, impacting our ability to find object that are potentially hazardous to Earth.
>In approximately 2 weeks, another batch of 60 Starlink satellites will be launched, followed by another batch approximately 2-3 weeks later. At this point, the only things that can stop the launches are either a successful legal action or a reaction from the public that’s so negative and so strong that SpaceX and Elon Musk are forced to behave more responsibly. Otherwise, the allure of putting billions of dollars worth of infrastructure in space to support a burgeoning industry that promises to crest 12 figures by 2030 will be the only driving force that matters.

>>11216989
Yeah I have had tonnes of articles shitting up my feed like this, almost every single one ends with some astronomer going "omg we literally won't be able to see the stars anymore astronomy ruined forever guys"

Seems legit and organic.

>>11217008
My worry is their trying to get that public movement shit going. I don't even subscribe to forbes in any form, this popped up in chrome for mobile. Hopefully nothing comes out of this and Starlink launches as usual. That 2 week cadence is something I'm very much looking forward to.

>>11216989
>earthbound astronomy dies
>SpaceX gets forced to launch telescopes with fuckhuge mirrors to compensate
>everybody wins

>>11217026
According to a SpaceX L E A K E R, Elon has been spotted running out around the parameter of large telescope installations around the world, wearing a bedsheet with eye hole sockets cut out. According to the leaker, he's attempting to convince the astronomers who work there that the telescope is haunted, and perhaps they'll abandon it and launch a telescope of similar power into space using starship instead.

I'm not sure if this is true or not, considering how easy it is to pop on these boards and pretend to be a leaker, but I don't think it should be completely discounted either.

>>11217060
quick, someone crosspost this to reddit

>>11216989
What a load of absolute shit. The only one I believe for a moment is the impact on astronomy, and to address that just stick a multi-spectral steerable sensor on each Starlink satellite and stack the output, thereby delivering a space telescope of unprecedented capability, redundancy and bandwidth. You wouldn't need ridiculous optics and sensor technology because you just average those out across the constellation and post-process. Shut up the moaning astronomers (mostly European, I'd guess) up by giving them free tasking time on it.

>>11217060
post froyo
also top bantz

>>11215393
>b-but what if it fails?
>we absolutely cannot afford the bad publicity like *certain someone*
>you know what, lets just blow it up. This way no matter what happens we'd just say it went exactly as planned
>great idea! And we'll have another excuse for more delays and funding

Two orbital launches while you were all sleeping:

Soyuz-2b launching Glonass-M (from a pad last used for a failed Soyuz launch in 2002)

PSLV launching a radar sat.

>>11217171
Holy shit the mental gymnastics here...

>>11217179
Russia is having a good year, no failures and their currently ahead of America in number of launches.

https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1204744865667436544

Rocket Lab’s US launch pad at Wallops is complete and opening for business tomorrow.

>>11217179

>>11217196
Sweet! Quick work. When do they intend to launch from it?

(how many types of rockets have launched to orbit from Wallops?)

>>11217179

>>11217186
>mental gymnastics
A very normal workflow when things get too big and drag for too long and people kinda forget they're there for the result and not for the process

>>11217205
>When do they intend to launch from it?

Watch their livestream tomorrow and you might find out.

>how many types of rockets have launched to orbit from Wallops?

Wallops is usually used to launch suborbital sounding rockets, but Northrop’s Antares rocket regularly launches Cygnus to the ISS from Wallops; as you can see in pic-related, Rocket Lab’s pad actually shares it’s flame-trench with the Antares pad. Northrop’s ICBM-derived Minotaur rocket has also launched to orbit from Wallops, but it only does so very rarely.

>>11217179
>from a pad last used for a failed Soyuz launch in 2002
Is that the one where it failed because they loaded it with maneuvering data from their main pad?
>currently ahead of America in number of launches
Assuming you're counting SpaceX too, what happened with 2019? It looks like SpaceX 2020 launches are shaping up to be back on the curve from previous years because of Starlink, but otherwise at 2018 levels.

>>11217262
meant to quote >>11217186

>>11217263
>Is that the one where it failed because they loaded it with maneuvering data from their main pad?

Nope, this is what happened:

>The launch occurred at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome on 15 October 2002 at 18:20 UTC. The Blok D strap-on produced an abnormal start transient, but for unknown reasons, ground controllers did not send a shutdown command and abort the flight. Eight seconds after liftoff, the Blok D's propulsion system shut down. The booster climbed to an altitude of about 200m before the strap-on broke away from the stack. At this point, the onboard computer sent an automatic shutdown command to the core and remaining strap-ons. The Blok D strap-on fell back onto LC-43 while the rest of the launch vehicle impacted the ground some distance away. A 20-year old army lieutenant was killed and considerable damage resulted to launch facilities.

>Investigation found that the most likely cause of the failure was debris being ingested into the Blok D hydrogen peroxide pump, cutting off the supply of lubricant to the turbopumps. This was the first failure of an R-7 launch vehicle in the first two minutes of launch since 1988. The next time an R-7 vehicle would fail before reaching space would be the 2018 Soyuz MS-10 in-flight abort.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ8KTvZ3LLI&t=0s

test

>>11216989
Starlink is a completely different technology from 5G, these fucking retards

>>11216437
I don't think 7 seconds worth of fuel would have made the difference there.

>>11217496
it matters when you're trying to go orbital

>>11216424
Larger payload

>>11217008
>>11217019
I don't mind some consideration and thought being given to this. I'd just as soon not wind up with orbital billboards and shit.

I'm not worried about the astronomers per se, due to reasons put forward in >>11217026, but I do think some consensus will have to emerge on stuff placed in orbit, unless we want to see LEO wind up like /b/.

>Space mods are gods.

>>11217233
All I know is, we need to start building rockets out of whatever that water tower is made of. Presumably some alloy of adamantium and mithril. Fucker does not give a single shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF_YCj99VXk

Blue Origin launch in 15 minutes, folks.

>>11217613
who wants to go to space ?!?!?

>>11217613
Not really, coming New Shepard always has a bunch of mini-holds.

>>11217640
*because

How does because autocorrect into because?

>>11217613
stream is a huge ad for their service ("SPACE!!!"), not surprisingly.

>>11217651
you mean "SPACEXploration"

>>11217613
no stream? no thread?
lol, it's just another boring amusement park ride!

>>11217655
>no stream?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hENrGNlZR1E

>>11217613
>she, her, she, her, she, her
Yes lady we get it, craft are female, you really don't need to overdo it.

>>11217658
this is the Blue Origin stream at the source
also we need a new thread
https://youtu.be/sUEj4dxPMbI

HOLD HOLD HOLD

I really, really, really, hate this announcer