/sci/ - Science & Math

Reminder that india is a superpower now and they deserve your respect.

No more scatsat&pajeet customer service for boeing starliner jokes!!

>>11277171
Wasn't the original meme "Superpower by 2030"?

>>11277174
>Wasn't the original meme "Superpower by 2030"?

No.

/sfg/ Astrodynamics study group
Let's start this decade by mastering Fundamentals of Astrodynamics by BMW, one chapter every week.
https://discord.gg/WwwFbmH

>>11277174

>>11277171
Hehehe funny you mention boeing, werent pajeets the ones who wrote 737 max software? Its all fun and jokes when you have microsoft support rajesh trying to scam you over the phone, its quite a different story when same street shitter is writing software which is directly responsible for peoples lives.

>>11277217
Okay boeing defense force.
And the "pajeet software crashed the 737 max" meme has been disproven several times now.

>>11277174
>>11277215
That's still ongoing? I thought it was cancelled.

>>11277225
The opposite: it’s been funded and 4 astronauts have been selected for the program, who are going to be shipped off to Russia for training this year. The first uncrewed launch will likely happen in 2021, there will be another and then a crewed flight in 2022.

>>11277254
Neat. Go India!

>>11277269
Buildin rockets in a fucking swamp lmao

>>11277254
does this mean India is going to poo on the moon before US goes back with SLS? What about the chinks, do they have any manned spaceflight plans? I just want someone to do something the US is currently incapable of doing and cause them to kneejerk react by dumping tonnes of money into space again

>>11277311
>does this mean India is going to poo on the moon before US goes back with SLS?
No, Gaganyaan is just a LEO capsule.

>What about the chinks, do they have any manned spaceflight plans?
They have their Soyuz clone, and suposedly they're working on manned lunar missions but no one outside of China knows whats up.

> I just want someone to do something the US is currently incapable of doing and cause them to kneejerk react by dumping tonnes of money into space again
pic related

>>11277311
>does this mean India is going to poo on the moon before US goes back with SLS?

They literally shit on the moon during Apollo and left it laying on the ground in bags

>>11277308
Well, if you need to get out of Shrek's swamp, then might as well do it in style.

The Starlink launch will be the Space Force's first launch.
https://spacenews.com/45th-space-wing-prepares-for-first-launch-under-the-u-s-space-force/

Also some interesting info about the Space Force. I was confused about why the Fourteenth Air Force changed their name to Space Operations Command, but the article cleared it up. The Space Force will have three "commands":
>Space Operations Command (handles stuff like space launches e.g. the upcoming Starlink launch)
>Space Force Materiel Command (handles R&D programs)
>Space Training and Readiness Command

>>11277311
>>11277336
>chink moon plans
The issues with Long March 5's second stage have delayed the program, but it's not certain how much. They still plan for a first launch of their expendable Long March 9 in 2030.

>>11277276
That rocket tower looks downright evil.

>>11277336
>No, Gaganyaan is just a LEO capsule.
Is it really LEO only or could they use some sort of service module to get it to the Moon?

>What about the chinks, do they have any manned spaceflight plans?
>They have their Soyuz clone
They have a Dragon clone in the works too, pic related.

>>11277311
>What about the chinks, do they have any manned spaceflight plans?
With the return of the Long March 5 they will be able to get their space station program back on track. The first module should be going up on the next year or two? Maybe three? They're very close though. As for the Moon...well, they are currently planning on building a robotic outpost there ahead of any manned missions, so who knows when they will send people there. Maybe the 2030s?

>>11277393
what am I seeing here? stolen IP?

>>11277393
>They have a Dragon clone in the works too, pic related.

That “Dragon clone” is the next-generation Chinese crew capsule, designed to replace the current Shenzhou. Calling it a Dragon clone is an insult, considering it’s designed to be lunar-capable. The capsule in your picture will launch this year, on the first flight of the Long-March 5B variant (the LEO version without an upper-stage).

>>11277393
>Is it really LEO only or could they use some sort of service module to get it to the Moon?
I guess it's possible, but I figure that it would just be easier to have a separate vehicle for going to the moon.

>>11277452
>Calling it a Dragon clone is an insult, considering it’s designed to be lunar-capable.
Dragon was designed to be capable of both lunar return and extended periods running on its own life support, as would be needed by a moon mission.

>>11277452
Dragon is also lunar capable, but I think it needs a beefier service module for it

>>11277452
+10 social credit deposited

>>11277481
>>11277501
You guys are referring to what Crew Dragon was envisaged as, not Cargo Dragon which is what he was comparing the Chinese capsule with. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that Elon’s talk about CD being lunar capable ever progressed into reality, considering Grey Dragon was cancelled all the way back in 2016 and a CD vehicle wasn’t completed until 2018.

>>11277452
The chinese can't even man or keep control of their own 70's tech space station.
It's hubris to think they will go to the moon before the west returns.
They should first make sure that they don't blow up a small rural chinese village every time they do a launch.

>>11277544
Also, crewed Falcon Heavy was cancelled...

>>11277174
>>11277177
it was but you vile newfaggots wouldn't remember

>>11277546
>It's hubris to think they will go to the moon before the west returns.

Nobody is claiming this...

> They should first make sure that they don't blow up a small rural chinese village every time they do a launch.

CZ-5 (which will carry this capsule) launches over the ocean from Wenchang.

>>11277544
>>11277547
Cargo Dragon's PICA-X heat shield is lunar-capable because it was cheaper to just build it in as an option from the start rather than worry about developing an updated shield later.
The story is similar with Crew Dragon's life support, which was built to match Soyuz' specs. Soyuz was originally developed as the main crew and reentry vehicle for the Soviet manned lunar program.

Crewed Falcon Heavy was cancelled because it was fairly obvious that it would be a better use of resources to develop Starship than go through all the hoops with NASA again for a vehicle with limited utility after all was said and done with the Falcon 9 upgrades through Block V.

>>11277695
>than go through all the hoops with NASA again

What does NASA have to do with anything? Can’t SpaceX launch people and ignore their regulations?

>>11277718
The biggest buyer would still probably be NASA, so yes you would want them to put their seal of approval on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF8bYkoD1F8

>>11277718
SpaceX has to walk a thin line where they dont give the US gov a reason to do a "seize of operations" for the good of national interests.
Ignoring american FAA would pretty much be a death sentence for example.

>>11277816
>SpaceX has to walk a thin line where they dont give the US gov a reason to do a "seize of operations" for the good of national interests.
As "fun" as it is to entertain the idea. It'll never happen. There would be a public outrage over it as Americans in-general are against the idea of the government seizing companies, and due to SpaceX's popularity.

I'd surprised if anyone in the government even suggests the idea of "nationalizing" SpaceX.

>>11277852
>I'd surprised if anyone in the government even suggests the idea of "nationalizing" SpaceX.

We joke a lot about senator shelby, etc...
But people like him in high places would nationalize spaceX without remorse if they ever get the opportunity.
And lets be clear, company's like spaceX need some kind of government breathing down their necks, otherwise you would get ancap galore.

>>11277865
>And lets be clear, company's like spaceX need some kind of government breathing down their necks

No PragerU told me that gubmint bad

>>11277816
I mean they can't really just go awol and start launching whatever they want, they won't be nationalised, they will just get the fist of the state fucking their ass until they comply.

With reusability becoming more popular in the spaceflight industry, do you think Big Dumb Boosters will ever make a comeback?

>>11278015
We're about to enter the "Big Smart Boosters" era, so I don't think we'll return back unless there's a clear tech loss.

>>11277816
You can ignore NASA regs, but you lose NASA's (significant) money.
You can't really ignore FAA regs, lest you want the US gov. to ground your ass.

>>11278015
engines that big would be all but impossible to build due to combustion instability.

>>11277452
Is it really fair to call it a Dragon clone when the Dragon is the most generic capsule ever built?

>>11277269
I don't see this in the update thread, huh?

>>11278047
The FAA regs are typically really loose tho, you can get all sorts of waivers and experimental licenses to fly and launch humans using questionable vehicles. Which is why Virgin Galactic haven’t been shutdown yet...

last chance to join our astrodynamics study group / class before we start on Monday! 21 anons so far.
https://discord.gg/WwwFbmH

>>11278065
Its from Russian imageboard. Yeah, its more or less the same shit here but with much longer threads and slightly more relevant content.

>>11277269
That's got to be the most exciting place to work at in the world right now in my opinion. I'm a welder and seething because ITAR won't me work there.

>>11278079
>Nevertheless, by taking this course you are implying that you have some sort of disability

Top kek. Joining now

>>11278204
wow gay you actually did it

Fuck starship, build sea dragon.

>>11278275
yes Yes YES

>>11278275
strictly worse than starship

>>11278275
Fuck man, I can't believe this dude ruined this animation by having the verniers cut off like that 2 seconds into flight

>>11278310
How does it feel to have the objectively wrong opinion?

What does Musk's insecurity about his baldness and Bezos' alpha embrace of it tell about their ventures? Is SpaceX a house of cards and BO the true future of space?

>>11278333
Musk will do the unreasonable to achieve what he wants, Bezos will roll over and accept failure

>>11278333
>Is SpaceX a house of cards and BO the true future of space?
Nah, their rivalry will fuel a space race.

>>11278332
Starship is cheaper, has faster response time, launches more often, has a gentler payload environment, has downmass capabilities, has similar upmass capabilities, has more upmass/yr and more upmass/$
also, it's going to wake up idiots all across mexico as it comes in to land at Boca Chica

>>11278275
Not feasible IRL.
>>11278281
>>11278310
>>11278325
That's from Apple TV+'s Space Race alt-history "For All Mankind" season 1 post credit scene taking place in 1983. Overall pretty good for its hopeful message but occasionally there's inaccuracies like that for dramatization purposes.

>>11278345
>elon_pisses_on_mars.png
I don't get these lame fake twitter screenshots. Reddit...

>>11278361
I get bored and make them using inspect element. I think they're funny and sometimes they do fool someone.

>>11278058
This.
>not Apollo clone

>>11278333
Musk's mummy is a model. I think he inherited some of her vanity

>>11278366
But there's a website specifically for making them though, even easier

>>11278275
Can you land on Mars or Moon with this thing?
Who's building it?
Will it be affordable?
Will it be reusable?
Will it be scalable?

>>11278618
>>11278366
>>11278361
I've gone from "haha funny edit" to "surely he wouldn't tweet something like that, right" over the last 5 years. Trump's twitter escapades have forever jaded me

>>11278615
>Musk's mummy is a model
Musk is going to die and the enbalmed carcass is going to become a fashion model which retroactively makes him more vain during his lifetime?

>>11278998
Musk will never truly die, he will forever guide humanity from his golden throne deep beneath SpaceX headquarters even when his corpse is slowly decaying

>>11278957
>will
It has no future kid. This thing didnt go past design phase like 50 years ago.

>>11278357
the word you're looking for is Economical, not feasible
it's possible to make it, it would just be retarded and inefficient to do so

>>11277501
>>11277481
>Dragon is also lunar capable
ok boomer

>Japan's Air Self-Defense Force will be renamed to Aerospace Self-Defense Force
Japan confirmed for space brawl.

https://twitter.com/kyodo_official/status/1213730775431909381

>>11279388
the real question is: why didn't they do it sooner?

>>11279395
No idea, but they've been upping their military space game over the past few years in miniscule ways. Maybe the name change might indicate that something significant is going to happen soon?

>>11279323
Wasn't Sea Dragon """designed""" before all the combustion instability problems with the F1 engines?

>>11279408
yeah

>>11278976
>surely he wouldn't tweet something like that, right

>>11279408
Yes, but I've heard that the design was revisited shortly after the F-1 and it was concluded that a pintle injector should work in stoping the instabilities. Don't trust that though.

>>11278976
>highlight text on page
>right click
>click on "inspect element"
>edit text to your liking
>screenshot results
Twitter fun times.

>>11279489
>Dragon dongs are the best!
What about Sea Dragon dongs?

How competitive do you think Starlink will be at first?

>>11279582
extremely

>>11279582
I don't think they'd make Starlink if they didn't think it could compete for a large share of the global internet market. That being said, at least in the US, it wouldn't be good business practice to significantly undercut other ISPs, even if they could.

>>11279489
you absolute savage

>>11277097
>Hexagon Edition

Mandatory

Maria sold their property in Boca Chica. Is that NSF boomer the last one left?

>>11279601
I think a lot of their business plan is to have ISPs as customers to cut costs for backup/overload backbone services, and to cheaply reach ground repeaters for Rural Broadband.

>>11279703
That makes more sense. I thought they were gonna try to be an ISP themselves, but that would require a lot of other stuff that SpaceX doesn't have. Doesn't help with all the people saying "I'm gonna get Starlink as soon as it's running"

>>11279703
>ground repeaters for rural broadband
The problem with rural isn't reaching a common site, it's the last mile. The common sites are already there, they're called cell phone towers. There is already fixed wireless broadband for rural areas where an antenna on a tower aims toward rural locations.
This thing is probably going to use a square patch antenna, my guess is it'll be in the 300-500cm range and need wide angle sky visibility. Rural won't have buildings in the way, nor will it have neighborhood restrictions against visible antennas, as well as being an under-served market that will go nuts for it.

>>11279703
>>11279759
You don't need that many ground stations with laser interlinks and you need surprisingly few without them. It doesn't make any sense that SpaceX wouldn't eventually sell to retail customers. If they didn't, their commercial customers would be making money hand over fist, without investing much in terms of infrastructure, and they would be leaving all of that profit on the table.

How practical are Microwave Electrothermal engines? The fact that they can reach NTR levels of ISP without atomic material nor hydrogen, and they can just do this using water sounds useful. Water as a propellant would make ISRU incredibly easy. It does have abysmal TWR though.

>>11279968
electrothermal requires lots and lots and lots of power

>>11279395
Because people didn't know how to act/react. China/Russia has been militarizing space while other states were trying to live by "non militarization of space." Now with US leadership in asserting control of space domain, Japan has chipped in.

>>11279997
Supposedly they need less electricity than an equivalent sized ion engine.

>>11279601
>That being said, at least in the US, it wouldn't be good business practice to significantly undercut other ISPs, even if they could.

Why? Fuck ‘em, take all their customers, then buy them out.

>>11279703
Maybe, but its likely Starlink will target individual customers as well. Rural satellite market in US is <5M right now with shitty speeds/latency/bandwidth caps. With those out of the way, the rural satellite market can possibly grow to 10x that number easily.

Musk said in an interview a while ago that Starlink can do ~3-4% of global internet. That's ~200 million+ subscribers. If we divide that into countries, Starlink can support ~30-50 million people in US, when their satellites are up.

Will the US build a space force academy with the purpose of traing engineers and scientist to work almost exclusively for the space force?

>>11278275
Audio version for any interested >>>/wsg/3231868

>>11280174
Thanks!

>>11280108
Nobody knows yet, it's all too early to say for sure.

What are some underrated but based twitter accounts? I'm tired of the same old stuff.

>Hertz: As NASA develops infrastructure for Artemis, like the lunar Gateway, we will make it available for astrophysics and other scientific investigations, based on science merit.
That's good, but the Gateway isn't very big, so I wonder how useful it's going to be for science.

>>11280445
>so I wonder how useful it's going to be for science.
There better be an experiment about how roses grown in the space near the moon smell compared to roses grown on Earth.

I really fucking hope SpaceX doesn't go through existing ISPs and have them sell a starlink package. ISPs know you want this and will charge 300-400% of what SpaceX charges them. If you are reading this Elon please serve Internet directly and gas your competition.

>>11280472
I think they will wait until they have laser inter-satellite links before selling directly to residential customers.

I just got a notification for the starlink stream but the stream doesn't seem to exist, it's just a 44 second clip that says its live. Is this launch scheduled today or did they boomertech it up?

>>11280534
Jan. 6/7 Falcon 9 • Starlink 2

Launch time: 0219 GMT on 7th (9:19 p.m. EST on 6th)
Launch site: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is expected to launch the third batch of approximately 60 satellites for SpaceX’s Starlink broadband network, a mission designated Starlink 2. Delayed from Dec. 30 and Jan. 3.

Landing zone restriction map? NSF forum only posted launch.

>>11280565
there is a Florida NOTAM, but I don't see the OCISLY one

>>11280445
In terms of useful science, what difference will the Gateway have compared to the ISS?

>>11280627
Literally nothing, floating lab for gay microg experiments.

>>11280445
>>11280627
Unlike the ISS, Gateway is completely exposed to space, unshielded by the Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes it good for space weather experiments and biology experiments trying to simulate interplanetary transit conditions. There’s also talk of astronauts being able to remote control rovers etc.

>>11280647
Retard

>>11280671
>Send astronauts to gateway to control robots at extortionate expense

Or

>Control robots from air conditioned office in florida

>>11280686
None of NASA’s probes/rovers are controlled from Florida

>>11280709
Exactly, fuck probes anyway. If you're going to send cunts all the way to lunar orbit you might as well get them on the surface drilling core samples and shit.

>>11280713
It’s widely accepted that humans working with robots is the best way to conduct science on the surface. The point of having people control robots from the Gateway is so that you can have 3 astronauts working on the Lunar surface, whilst 1 guy assists them by remotely controlling robots in real-time.

>>11277174

>>11280479
Did you see the youtube video that someone made? Laser links are only a minor effect on latency. In fact, much of the time they would have a negative effect on latency vs ground station hops.
The main thing lasers are necessary for is trans-oceanic connections when there are no islands in between, or feeding in to a hostile country, something they are unlikely to do.

JWSS WHEN AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I'M GONNA DIE BEFORE THIS PIECE OF SHIT EVEN LAUNCHES

>>11280937
early 2050, 2075 if it goes overbudget again

>>11280747
I don't understand though without interlink every single sat has to be within range of a base station, and these are very low flying objects which means you need massive amounts of base stations. There was talk about the laser interlink being way more complicated than they thought so they are just having to use option two which is groundstations.

Who else is ready for some motherfucking shear flow stabilized Z Pinch Fusion reactors?

>>11280988
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m05abdGSOxY

>>11280988
They’re only aiming for coverage of North America for now, so this isn’t a problem yet.

>>11280369
do you think if trump losses this year, whoever comes in would immediately back track the program? How long does the space force need to be around to cement itself as a independent branch?

>>11281002
I'm ready for some pulsed field reversed configuration used to annihilate rings of metal into bursts of thrust

>>11281091
Trump's not going to lose

>>11281100
amen to that
4 years ought to cement the space force enough to avoid disbanding it over bs

>>11281100
>Trump's not going to lose

Imagine believing this.

>>11281108
>Imagine believing that an old guy that doesn't know what state he is in, a woman, or a literal socialist could beat Trump in an election

>>11281112
>Imagine believing that an old guy that doesn't know what state he is in, a woman, or a literal socialist could beat Trump in an election

Any of them could. Trump is an orange boomer with dementia.

>>11281120
>>11281107
>>11281100
>tfw you unironically want Yang to win solely because his manifesto mentions nuclear energy in a positive light and he seems positive about space stuff, but everyone assumes it's due to his meme policy of 1000 a month

it hurts

>>11281131
Get ready for the Biden presidency. More boring neoliberalism and dead children in other countries

>>11281131
if i had to pick a democrat it would be yang. In fact most of the people i know as trump supporters, are also fans of yang

>>11281132
Biden is already done. There's a strong expectation that if it comes to it, Bloomberg would take a contested convention and then get shredded alive first by the Progressives because he's a billionaire, and then by Trump because he's a manlet who can't into marketing. Not to mention his hilariously out-of-touch soda and gun bans.

Strap in, we're in for thirty years worth of a populist/isolationist track. Fortunately, that gives us a shitload of money to do things in Space at the same time that no one else can match our lift capacity.

Guys

>>11281147
>Biden is already done.

Nah, he’s gonna win. During his presidency and the next two or three, Texas will turn blue due to demographic shifts and then it’ll be democrat presidents until 2134 when aliens invade through a wormhole and kill us all.

>>11281147
>Strap in, we're in for thirty years worth of a populist/isolationist track.

Sorry, but demographic trends simply make this impossible. Republicans are a dying breed. Good riddance.

GUYS

>>11281154
what faggot?!

>>11281156
Space

>>11281159
no

Flight

General

>>11281091
The Space Force will be fine. It was heavily voted for by both Democrats and Republicans.

We are starting chapter 1 in the /sfg/study group today
https://discord.gg/WwwFbmH

>>11281416
>discord trannies
YIKES

spacex launch thread will be up in a bit.

Writefag here, looking for some input.

I'm working on a setting with O'Neil Cylinders. Would there be any compelling reason to have airlocks other than the main spaceport block? Like a some sort of backdoor/service airlock?

Thanks in advance.

>>11281646
Probably, for maybe support craft which may be needed when the main spaceport is unavailable?

Planetary parole officially denied for JWebb

>>11281646
>dumping trash from the main airlock

>>11281420
What else are they going to use?

>>11281646
Yes on the outer hull and everywhere else too. The airlock opens to a platform, with the hull above and open space below. But there also needs to be some rail/cable system outside for vehicles and workers. Or it depends how advanced your propulsion is, can they have maintenance vehicles match the speed of the outer hull. If so then no rail system but still some airlocks nearly everywhere.

Also probably mostly only cargo, industry and larger passenger craft use the central space port. Smaller passenger craft can very well attach to the outer hull if they can match the speed in your setting. So those facilities obv have plenty of airlocks too.

>>11281684
*acceleration, not speed

>>11281662
Shit, good point. Support craft. Even if they're not used often you still don't want them cluttering up the main port.

>>11281666
>Randomly shitting out chunks of mooncrete and junked spaceships
>Not responsibly disposing of them

>>11281684
Very good point, especially at the tips of the mirrors where the angular velocity is higher. How often do you think that the mirrors would need to be scrubbed and the airlocks lubed? Daily?

Another thing I've thought of in case there are any other writefags. I really can't imagine an airlock that doesn't have some sort of security. Spacing someone would need to be an inside job, which has a lot of dramatic potential.

>>11281664
eksplain

>>11281664
what does this mean

That’s a big tent...

>>11281833

>>11281836
I hate that I understand what this picture of a Corsair means

>>11281856
Pls enlighten us simple peasants o’ knowledgable one...

>>11281872
it's the Corsair F4U
he's baneposting

>>11281886
Ahhh that makes sense

>>11281833

>>11282020
>Sprung structures
IN A FUCKING TENT

SpaceX are expanding
thanks Dave for the image that I'm blatantly stealing

>>11281153
60-70% of whites, 40% of hispanics, and now 30% of the black vote (consistent across three different, respected polling agencies) means they still win anyway. Remember, we're also in the middle of a major political/voting bloc shift.

In 2012 Republicans were still "Rah-Rah free trade, fuck the workers." That stopped being the case in 2016. The same thing is going on with Democrats (most visibly in their Socialist/Corporatist schism) but theirs started later so they're not as far along.

>>11281684
>outer hull
Yeah, about that. Anything doing "maintenance" on the outside of the hull is going to have to be tethered to it. You can't maintain an "orbit" around it because there's no gravity and you would have to be constantly thrusting to maintain the circular flight pattern.
>open airlock on outside of cylinder
>walk outside with no tether
>get launched into space
For the same reason, access airlocks/hatches are going to have to be on the axis ends. You can't orbit an O'Neill cylinder, but you can rotate along the same axis to match up with a hub dock. Beyond that, you could probably set up some parking spaces inside a mini cylinder hub, but you would want to tether a spacecraft before docking it, otherwise it would wreck everything inside. Seriously, rotating frames of reference are a mind fuck.

Is Smarter Every Day, dare I say it, /ourguy/?

>>11282165
no

>>11282171
HULLO
U
L
L
O

Bring out the gimp!...I mean booster!

>>11282191
Is that a part of the new Blue Origin factory?

>>11282198
Yes, it’s the New Glenn first-stage bondage cage

>>11282209
>not wagecage

>>11282020
>>11282025
It’s not just any tent, it’s the “O’Neill Building” and will house 1,500 employees.

>>11281833

UUUU

Launch thread is up
>>11282358

>>11281714
NOOO YOU CAN'T LITTER IN SPACE

NOT LE BASIN' SPACERINO

>>11282408
He does have a point. Simply tossing something out of a space station would be a hazard to the station, because orbital mechanics would just bring the trash back to the station.

>>11282298
>The Grand Azure Yurt of the Bald Khan

>>11282298
where is this?

>>11282298
>put up a tent
>call it a building

>>11282473
Kent, Washington State

>>11282474
It’s a really fancy tent

>>11282549
damn

>>11282157
No idea why you're thinking non of this was understood. What was implied with the cables and rails? Or a platform after the airlocks 'below' the hull? Or more advanced levels of propulsion/RCS if you want to be able to use a maintenance craft for hull access instead of the rail/cables?

>>11282298
>>11282549
Looks comfy

>>11282708
they're really taking this "blue" thing to heart eh

>>11282298
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/blue-origin-takes-one-giant-leap-across-street-new-headquarters-kent/

> Blue Origin’s BE-4 rocket engine has racked up 6,500 seconds’ worth of test firings so far. “The performance of the engine looks good,” Smith said. “We’re trying to make sure that the durability is what it needs to be for a reusable engine.”

>He said engines will be delivered to United Launch Alliance this year for use with ULA’s next-generation Vulcan rocket. The engines are also slated to power New Glenn’s first-stage booster, due for its first launch in 2021.

>The New Glenn orbital-class rocket is taking shape at Blue Origin’s Florida factory, Smith said. “We actually have produced our first set of development hardware as well as our first fairing,” he said.

>Blue Origin’s Cape Canaveral launch complex is also “coming together quite quickly,” he said.

>The New Glenn recovery ship is being outfitted in Pensacola, Fla. “We should have a christening for that relatively soon,” Smith said.

>Last month, Blue Origin’s nonprofit educational effort, known as the Club for the Future, flew 8,000 postcards to space and back on New Shepard, and those postcards are now being sent back to the students who sent them in.

>>11282800
Yes.

>>11277097
Maybe a stupid question but how heavy would a fission reactor used to power an electric propulsion engine actually have to be?

>>11282828
approximately one boat

>>11282800
I'M BLUE BLA BLUE BLEE BLAH BLU BLAI

>>11282840
The Pobedy uses two OK-900 reactors which produce 171 megawatts each, and modern ion engines only use a few kilowatts. Sounds like you could really scale it up.

S-IVB vs. EUS

>>11282800
yes and i love it

>>11282936
so this is what 65 years of progress looks like

>>11282947
More like 20 years given that NASA pretty much stopped developing things after the Shuttle and only really resumed when Constellation started.

>>11282936
The comparison doesn’t really work unless you compare the specific impulse/efficiency of the J-2 and RL-10 C3s, so I’ll post it:

J-2: ISP 421 seconds
RL-10 C3: ISP 460+ seconds

>>11282995
so the EUS is going to be way better once it's in orbit
RIP the S-II and it's amazing ability to yeet a bajillion tons into orbit

The moon has no atmosphere. So how could you fly just above the surface?

Would it essentially be entering an extremely low orbit?

>>11283246
Someone did the Delta V calculations and the EUS does indeed have more than the S-IVB, due to a mix of having better efficiency and zero gravity losses unlike the latter. SLS’ LEO payload capacity is a misleading gauge of it’s capabilities, considering it’s optimised for high-energy trajectories. Actually, considering SLS basically carries it’s second-stage to orbit you could get much better LEO capacity by simply ditching it, like the Long March 5B does. By adding the ICPS’ wet mass (30 tons) to SLS’ payload, you can see that in it’s optimum configuration for LEO (1.5 stages without an upper-stage) SLS can carry around 125 tons to LEO.

>>11283328
-it does have an atmosphere
-but yes
---although it wouldn't be stable

>>11283343
an extra RS-25 or two would go a long way to improving the LEO payload

>>11283362
Switching to RS-68s would be even better, but the ablatively cooled nozzles can't handle the heat loads from the SRBs, which would require the use of liquid boosters. SLS is a bloody mess.

>>11283362
Your not wrong about that...

Tho despite being similar in design, SLS and Ares V are very different in function:

SLS is designed for high-energy trajectories and to launch crew to the Moon, whilst Ares V was solely designed to assemble Mars transit vehicles or large lunar landers in LEO.

>>11283392
>>11283436
the important thing to consider when talking about this sort of thing is burn time
the longer your burn time the more performance you're leaving on the table in gravity losses, unless you're going beyond LEO

>>11283436
>Ares V
>SLS
Is there a difference?

>>11282828

Check Projectrho.com. They have an engine list. Winchell Chung is peak onions but he runs a very informative website.

>>11283444
Ares V theoretically reduced it’s gravity losses to LEO by having a large second-stage powered by a high-thrust engine (the J-2X). The whole reason SLS can carry so much to TLI whilst having a relatively wimpy upper-stage is due it’s core-stage trajectory basically cancelling out gravity losses for the former, efficiency becomes more important than thrust at this point and the RL-10 has that in spades.

>>11282157
Wait, if you leave an airlock at the edge of the centrifuge, won't you have the same angular acceleration?

>>11283474
>10m diameter vs 8.4m diameter
>5 RS-68s vs. 4 RS-25s
>EDS vs. EUS
>5.5 segment SRBs vs. 5 segment SRBs
>not crew-rated versus crew-rated
yes

>>11282708
It's a Marriott Hotel lobby dropped into a circus tent.

>>11283474
also Ares IV was never an official "thing." It was proposal to salvage the work done on the doomed Ares I and make a Saturn-class vehicle using its upper stage and the Ares V upper stage.
Mike Griffin didn't like that.

>>11283523
it's a college cafeteria

>>11283523
It's alarmingly similar to the Dystopian Nightmare that is the Autodesk Pier Offices in San Fran.

Narrow, no true borders between functions, more showrwoom than functional space.

If you're staffed there and expect to do work, you're fucked.

>>11283525
meant Ares V FIRST stage, not upper.

>>11283529
EXACTLY

But imagine that space divided by paper-thin walls to a machine shop, and a wood shop, and a printing space. Plus a shitty oversized "cooking studio" instead of a functional break room or cafeteria.
And everything else was open cubes.

>>11283525
>doomed
What was wrong with Ares I? All I remember was that the SRB needed more parachutes because it got dented on the way down.

>>11283586
>SRBs vibrated so much that the crew wouldn't have been able to clearly see the control panel
>When self-destructed the SRBs created a debris cloud of burning propellant so large that it would burn the parachute of the capsule after it had escaped the explosion
>The upper stage engine (J-2X) wasn't ready
There's probably some other stuff like high costs for it's capability.

>>11282032
EXPAND

DONG

>>11283586
>>11283597
Yeah I meant "doomed" in the sense that it was going to be cancelled. Ares I wasn't a good design, but the engineering issues weren't insurmountable.

I found some renders of the Phantom Express launch pad at LC-48

>>11284120
another angle:

>>11284120
>>11284121
very nice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FehGJQlOf0
Remind me why you should trust anything NASA builds and operates after the shitfest space shuttle...

>>11284217
Reminder that Boeing not having to redo their orbital test is the same kind of go fever that killed Challenger.

>>11284325
Reminder that this kind of space "fan" is the reason we can't have nice threads.

>>11284359
REMINDER THAT DEPOTS ARE ELEMENTS OF COMMUNIST SUBVERSION

all of the Starlink salt is delicious

OH NO NO NO
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1214490541221711872

>>11284570
>Minor anomaly on CRS-19
Interesting, but probably only inasmuch as it will influence operations around ISS and future stations.

>>11284570
>the virgin Cygnus vs the chad Dragon

>>11284570
Shaken not stirred

>>11284570
The replies to this were so predictable and cringeworthy.

>>11284579
NASA takes plume interaction with the ISS very seriously, it’s one of the reasons why their so cautious with new vehicles.

>>11284570
I wonder what they did differently this time. Has this ever been an issue before with Dragon?

>>11284683
The only issue I’ve seen reported in regards to Dragon’s interaction with the ISS, is the out gassing of Dragon’s paint messing with the station’s instruments.

>>11279968
>>11280027
Large power supply and abysmal TWR. Therefore not a replacement for NTR, which is useful for the fact that it has near chemical rocket levels of TWR with up to a bit more than 2x the best possible chemical engine efficiency.

No type of solar electric propulsion will ever make sense to use on manned missions, the burn times alone are longer than a chemical rocket coast-to-encounter trajectory. NTR works for manned missions because they use the same method of getting to destinations (Hohmann transfer) but greatly increase payload mass fraction due to increased efficiency. They'd also be useful for building rapidly reusable surface-to-orbit-and-back shuttle rocket vehicles around lower gravity worlds like Mars or the Galilean moons; simply fill up with water or liquid CO2 and use that easy propellant to get to space, rather than needing the energy and equipment and TIME to make chemical fuels.

OneWeb is dead right? Is there not going to be any real competitor to Starlink? I like SpaceX but monopolies are dangerous.

>>11284760
Monopolies are dangerous when they cant compete. Forced duopoly is dangerous when they can't compete.

>>11284768
fortunately, Starlink needs to compete with GEO satellite internet, terrestrial fiber internet, terrestrial cable internet and cellular internet, it's not a true monopoly even if nobody else manages to ever fly birds

>>11284745
Then the ISS is too fragile.

>>11284779
Elon will build his own space station with Blackjack and hookers

>>11284786
Yikes, cringe.

>>11284779
Build your own space station then, like all those private companies have said they will..

>>11284818
>Build your own space station then, like all those private companies have said they will..
Bigelow has put up their own modules, Nanoracks is close to putting up their own (pic related). Private stations will come but it's going to be awhile. I hope things pick up pace though.

>>11277311
>moon
>goes back
>>11277359
LMAO
Are the poo bags next to the gravesite where the Sandy Hook kids are buried?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpuKu3F0BvY

>>11284852
>>>/tv/
Go do your shitposting over there fag

http://www.clavius.org/

>>11284863
>waving flag on a supposedly vacuum environment
>imagine thinking this wasn't faked

>muh flag waving
http://www.clavius.org/envflutter.html

>>11284863
>>11284879
shitposters aren't interested in learning, they're interested in being faggots.

>>11284845
>Bigelow has put up their own modules, Nanoracks is close to putting up their own (pic related).

Bigelow’s free-flying modules are just space junk at this point and BEAM is successful because it works well as a storage cupboard for the ISS. Pic-related is Nanoracks’ cubesat dispenser for the ISS, built with Boeing and Thales Alenia. The common factor that links these pieces of commercial infrastructure together, is that their business case is based off an existing government presence.

>>11284863
Reminder that Disney was involved in Moonlanding.

>>11284966
You got a source on that?

>>11284966
Reminder that your mom's a whore.

>>11284966
yes, the moon landing was filmed, but the producers insisted that it would be filmed on the moon

>>11282886
those can be so small because they can only exclusively operate in ice cold arctic water.
The reactor would melt if they try to go from the northpole to the southpole.

>>11284566
Did Elon tour the organ harvesting and reeducation camps as well?

4 more launch of Starlink and we could see a roll out in North America.

>>11285295

>>11281646
You might check out the Nauvoo from The Expanse, it mentions how the plumbing has two modes, one for thrust gravity and another for spin gravity once the ship is at speed. I'd imagine it would be similar to the FLIP ship logistically.

I'd imagine we probably need launch capable nuclear rocket engines or a mass driver before humanity can seriously pursue space exploration.

>>11285326
nah, we just need to get fully reusable two stage to orbit down first
if we can do that, we've conquered LEO, and that's halfway to anywhere

>>11285329
I mean reusable rockets can surely get us very far, but if you are going to build a colony on Mars or Venus, or start mining in the asteroid belt, you would need to ship equipment of such size, mass and quantity that fuel rockets would simply not be feasible, especially since a nuclear powered or Mass-driver-launched rocket would be much smaller (less dead weight to carry that fuel) as well as requiring less fuel.

>>11285344
meh, minimum viable product is methalox chemical propulsion
advocating for anything more is letting better get in the way of good enough
nuclear is going to be regulated into the ground due to NIMBY politicians and mass drivers are megastructures

>>11285344
If Starship succeeds, then a bigger Starship may be in the process of being built. Nuclear rocket engine efficiency needed for space travel requires military grade nuclear enrichment. That's not something US will do for a while.

>>11285365
molten salt thorium breeder reactor would enable higher temperatures and better heat transfer and deserve to be investigated
I do not believe they produce material suitable for producing The Bomb

>>11285356
I disagree. For long term this is what we should look for.
>nuclear is going to be regulated into the ground due to NIMBY politicians
Politicians and society has to accept nuclear energy in general eventually
>mass drivers are megastructures
Huge but not a Megastructure. At an acceleration of 20g it would have to be 160km, and at 100g it would only have to be 32km.

Why not build a large craft capable or entering the atmosphere for cheaper refitting along with an internal modular layout that can be swapped round for different mission profiles for visiting other planets or deep space tests...

>>11285374
Is there a small modular and powerful thorium reactor right now that can be used as rocket engine? Or is there any plan for something like that in the next 10 years?

>>11285365
Just make a nuclear engine that runs on plutonium!

>>11285380
anything that must be measured in kilometers is a megastructure, anon
humans can't survive 20g anyway
it makes sense on the moon
>>11285381
you're describing Starship
>>11285383
>10 years
a pipe dream, pursue the minimum viable product and worry about your fancy schmancy nukes on Mars where you can hide from the bureaucrats

>>11285381
It's not possible. If you want to go to deep space or other planets, you need a more efficient fuel layout. More fuel, less ship. That is unless we can find more efficient ways of getting spacecraft of the earth, like nuclear propulsion or a mass driver.

>>11285386
>anything that must be measured in kilometers is a megastructure
Perhaps it could be done though as long as most components could be made to withstand 100g. Obviously astronauts and sensitive components would be launched via rocket. I do admit that this is could very well be unfeasable. Maybe a mass driver that only brings craft up to 2000m/s? That would only require a 10km track but still offer a significant boon (with only 20g acceleration).

>>11285381

>>11285404
Ive been looking over Starship designs as its evolved over time and see tons of design improvements over their current Falcon9. I'm not a rocket engineer but damn these guys are doing something right. Traditional aerospace companies only seems to want to keep doing what they've always been doing rather than improving upon it.

>>11285401
>Perhaps it could be done though as long as most components could be made to withstand 100g
How much power would it take to magnetically accelerate any sort of meaningful payload with 100g?
What kind of magnets and power supplies would you need to make on all of the 32 km for that?
And 100g sounds like something that would destroy anything but raw materials.

>>11285412
>Traditional aerospace companies only seems to want to keep doing what they've always been doing rather than improving upon it.
That's where the money is. Why try to change things up to make spaceflight cheaper/better when the government is going to give you millions already (even if you fail development milestones)?

>>11285412
Falcon 9 isn't even the same thing as a Starship.
Wait until they build Superheavy.

>>11285387
>>11285404
Building an arkbird type ship in real life seems somewhat logical to me as a scientific step forward.. a Starship has to return to ground and arkbird stays in high atmosphere/ low orbit so cheaper craft can be sent to refit it. I know its all sci-fi but it still holds enough logic that I am surprised no-one has at least investigated the process properly.

>>11277548
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_2020

>>11285419
>How much power would it take to magnetically accelerate any sort of meaningful payload with 100g?
The amount of energy to magnetically accelerate an object would be similar to that it would take to chemically accelerate. The difference is of course that electrical energy is much cheaper and more efficient.
>What kind of magnets and power supplies would you need to make on all of the 32 km for that?
And 100g sounds like something that would destroy anything but raw materials.
Yeah that's why 20g seems more reasonable. You obviously wont use magnets, you'll use a big electromagnet, like a railgun. I mean it would literally be a railgun.

>>11285428
nope, impossible
there's no stable position between orbit and the ground

>>11285092
Reddit cringe

>>11284970
Google NASA Disney, first result
Retard

>>11285442
>You obviously wont use magnets, you'll use a big electromagnet, like a railgun. I mean it would literally be a railgun.
A railgun is a rail with several electro magnets on it. It's not one big electro magnet.

>The amount of energy to magnetically accelerate an object would be similar to that it would take to chemically accelerate. The difference is of course that electrical energy is much cheaper and more efficient.
I'm asking what kind of power you need to feed into your magnets and what the power supply would have to provide at every point of the track.
Also there's the question if there are even electromagnets strong enough that they can even accelerate anything meaningful. Magnets are pretty limited. Otherwise fusion would've been cracked a while ago.

>>11285467
>Von Braun served as technical advisor on three space-related television films that Disney produced in the 1950s.
Woah.
Learn to actually read sources.

>>11285420
>Why try to change things up to make spaceflight cheaper/better

To make more money, dumbass.

>>11285515
Yeah but that takes effort you know

>11285188
> those can be so small because they can only exclusively operate in ice cold arctic water.

Space is even colder

>>11284966
>Reminder that Disney was involved in Moonlanding.

No they weren’t. You’re actively spreading disinfo.

>waving flag on a supposedly vacuum environment

There’s an extremely obvious pole visible that the flag hangs from. If there were no extension, it’d hang flat and not look cool.

>>11285540
It's hard to get rid of heat in space because radiation in the only way it has to dissipate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKT5zlnw-MM

what do you guys think about this? seems like the math behind it doesn't really check out, wouldn't it take an infinite amount of time to accelerate to light-speed? sorry for bad english

>>11285540
the sun is very hot and there's nothing to take the heat away except letting it radiate to space

>>11285566
based what da math poster, our guy

>>11285515
>>11285537
That's what they want you to think you fucking sheep

>muh conspiraceh
http://www.clavius.org/occam.html
http://www.clavius.org/scale.html

>>11285712
>CIA shill site
Oh great, what's new

>muh everyone who opposes me is in on the conspiraceh
http://www.clavius.org/scale.html

>literally no other corroborating sources
That's how you know he's a CIA glownig

>Who are the Soviets?

>what is Zionist-Bolshevism

Why reply

>>11284753
That makes sense, but would it still be useful for non-human payloads? Sure, it's low-TWR like other electric engines but doesn't have their incredibly high ISP, but since it uses water ISRU would be incredibly simple. This can allow for starting ISRU systems to be set up remotely while the 'human-centric' systems are still being developed.

>>11285583
Stick some big radiators on the spacecraft to dump the heat I guess

Disney never stopped "aiding" NASA in its missions. Estimation puts 60% of NASA missions being CGI enhanced

Sigh
http://www.clavius.org/scale.html

so, now that the USA is going to pull all money out of space again to fund another war, how long do you figure until Gateway happens? My guess is maybe 50 years

>>11285821
Don’t give the bait posters any attention

>>11285828
I have to at least challenge it or else someone is going to stop by and think that such posts are acceptable. I'll stop doing it when the mods start cleaning that stuff up.

>>11285824
War is a racket to hide fake NASA expenses anyways. See the $21T missing from Pentagon on 9/11

>>11285831
Just report and ignore faggots like him.

>>11285850
Silencing dissent, how typical

test tank ~done

>>11286030
Who spilt their fucking coffee on it

>>11286030
More Disney CGI model ...

>NASA and Boeing will cooperate on an investigation into a timer anomaly that cut short December’s uncrewed test flight of Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner spacecraft as NASA weighs whether to require another such test flight.
>The Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contract that NASA awarded to Boeing did require an uncrewed test flight that included a docking. However, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine suggested at a post-landing briefing Dec. 22 that NASA might not hold Boeing to that requirement.
>“There’s also a difference between what is a NASA requirement and what is a contractual requirement for this particular flight test,” Bridenstine said then. “The NASA requirement might not be the same as the contractual requirement for this particular flight test.”
>“Although docking was planned, it may not have to be accomplished prior to the crew demonstration,”
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO....

>>11286493
>The Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contract that NASA awarded to Boeing did require an uncrewed test flight that included a docking. However, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine suggested at a post-landing briefing Dec. 22 that NASA might not hold Boeing to that requirement

Are these niggers fucking serious?

>>11286493
>>11286501
Muskrats BTFO

>>11286607

What happened to Boings ambitious plan to beat SpaceX to Mars?

>>11284359
See
>>11286493

>>11286493
I wonder if he's giving Boeing the break so when ULA is not chosen, when SpaceX/BlueOrigin is chosen, they wont be able to make complains about lowering the restrictions for Blue.

>>11286657
Nobody’s going to Mars...

>Aight, Imma roll out

>>11286689
>Boeing/NASA isn't going to Mars...

>>11286030
>test tank
i thought they were building 3 or 4 of them together? are they all test tanks?

>>11286696

>>11284899
>The common factor that links these pieces of commercial infrastructure together, is that their business case is based off an existing government presence.
It sucks, but it if that's what it takes to get the industry going, then that's what it takes. NASA has already said that it would be willing to commit resources to a commercial station anyway.

>https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/nasa-may-ask-lunar-lander-aspirants-to-put-more-skin-in-the-game/
>4 artemis lander teams
>nasa wants each of them to contribute more money to the project
that immediately kills the boeing team. spacex might still be in. blue origin is definitely still in. the mystery team? who knows?

i'm thinking that blue origin will be one of the final two contenders for sure. not sure about spacex or the mystery team.

>>11286780
SpaceX will be cargo for sure. Whether or not human will be dependent on how SpaceX progresses. Blue will probably be human because legacy partnership gives it a "higher" confidence from NASA.

lol we didn't even go to the moon and people are hyping for Mars missions

New thread soon?

>>11286813
after reading some comments i think it will probably be blue origin and spacex, unless that mystery team is legit then idk. that said, i dont like blue origin but i think spacex can do well on its own without this contract, and maybe nasa will think so too and give the award to blue origin and the mystery team/boeing.

>>11285531
But you can make more money by extra-pinky-swearing to NASA that you'll meet the milestones, and then don't meet them. NASA will still pay money for tardiness.

>Arianespace plans 22 launches this year
no way that happens, they'll be lucky to get half that number

>China's space station core module is continuing with testing. Next step is test launch of the Long March 5B; no timeframe provided.
i hate how china doesnt provide very much info about their space program

>>11287114
>i hate how china doesnt provide very much info about their space program
They probably do it so they can more easily hide failures. Plus, there's definitely some shady military stuff going on in some of those launches.

>>11287114
>no way that happens, they'll be lucky to get half that number

You’ve got to remember that this number includes all 3 of Arianespace’s LVs: Ariane 5, Vega and Euro-Soyuz.

>>11286969
Soon. Should the next edition be about the first communications satellite or first space telescope?

>>11286780
>spacex might still be in
Isn't their proposal just gonna be a hilariously inefficient misuse of starship?
You think Nasa is gonna pick them?

>>11287196
there are slightly less inefficient uses of Starship that are actually pretty decent overall that are possible
if you do lunar orbit rendezvous it's not bad, even with bringing your heatshield down to the surface and everything

>>11287315
>>11287315
>>11287315
New thread