/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11389009
>Starlink-4 delayed to Monday

>Starship means we'll get shit like this again

I can't wait bros.

>>11389009
I want to take a shit on Triton

Hermies

>>11389009
these generals are so childish. we’re never going to space. besides the moon landing, and maybe some more moon landings in the future, that’ll be it. humans will forever be on this rock.

>>11389264
>besides the moon landing
we never went through the van allen belts

>>11389270
yes we did

>>11389264
>Yang Wenli continues to be wrong about everything in the history of forever

>>11389009
How long will it take for Spacex to be bigger than Nasa?

>>11389288
>we
>t. zoomer

>>11389310
He's right in a sense though. The true space exploration and expansion cannot start unless we do something to our bodies that can only handle a very narrow set of conditions specific to our planet and nowhere else in a distance reasonable for manned flight. It would take too much effort and energy to maintain survivable conditions off-Earth otherwise, and any hiccup would be lethal. We will have to stop being humans, or rather redefine what the human is, to leave our planet for good.

>>11389288
>we
No, astronauts did. You're an obese neet.

>>11389315
Maybe in 2030

SN1 looking great. can’t wait to see the new legs and wings

Missing autumn 2019, fellas. Seemed like news every hour in Spetember and the busy livestreams. Genuinely thought we’d see Starship flying by now.

Rocket 1 is about to be stacked in Boca Chica, and they are making the rings for Rocket 2 as well.

>>11389173
so much more room for activities

>>11389450
why does the ball thing go in the front, wont the that be the crew compartment?

By the way, I never heard anything about micrometeorite protection and heat management on starship before. There doesn't seem to be any kind of double-walled design in consideration and it seriously won't be fun to get a tank puncture while crossing the designated shitting orbit on a craft that relies solely on propulsion for landing. Did they ever address these issues?

>>11389485
The header tanks were moved to the nose because of ballast issues. I'm not sure what that means, though. Maybe it's hard to control the direction your rocket is pointing if the nose is much lighter than the tail. It would certainly be an issue while on descent. The belly-flop will have to be a lot like balancing the starship on its side.

Payload has been moved to just behind the header tanks into the mid section of the starship.

>>11389575
ah i see, thanks for the rundown

>>11389519
You're not going to get anything definitive on long-term spaceflight characteristics with the ship this early in development. That said with ~4mm of hardened stainless steel for a shell and half covered in tufroc, they probably aren't going to be looking at specific micrometeoroid protection I would imagine.

>>11389156
I kept telling people it would be Monday but no one listened.

>>11389264
This is space FLIGHT general, not mars/moon COLONY general you mong.

>>11389173
From what mission is that video from?

>>11389774
Skylab, it's basically a modified Saturn V third stage, that's why it's so spacious.

>>11389807
Such a damn shame they failed to push it into a better orbit.

>>11389264
>>11389316
>thinking you're smart
>Posting moeshit
Lmao GTFO and go back to /a/ so the rest of us DBchads can make you AIEEEE
>>11389450
That's pretty awesome.

>>11389288
digits confirm

This will happen in this decade and there is nothing you can do about it...

>>11389903

SpaceX fags are some of the most pathetic copers on the internet

>>11389813
I didn't fail to reach a better orbit. It was reassigned.

>>11389903
>SLS Block 1
>36.7K kg TLI
Wrong. That's not happening till block 1B. For Block 1, that's 26K kg TLI.

Also, SLS is still in development and not ready yet. If we're including development vehicles, Starship/Superheavy + New Glenn needs to be included.

>>11389903
>SLS
>2020-present

so how many months before we have a crewed falcon9 launch?

>>11389813
They originally planned to let Shuttle boost its orbit, then it too longer to make than expected, because design-by-committee. The sun was a little to blame for making Skylab fall sooner, but it was mostly Shuttle's fault.

>>11389575
Any idea if they're still using the chomper design for the payload bay, or will it be similar to the Shuttle?

>>11389945
>(0/0)
>also no Starship

>>11389899
That's true, I don't work for Planetary Protection or the FAA.

>>11390012
if we tack on 50% to Elon's estimate, probably 4 or 5 months. Definitely within this year.

>>11390056
Just like starship amirite

>>11390068
yes, but this one is actually built and tested and just needs "paperwork"

>>11390012
At this point it's up to NASA, they're considering extending the first test mission to full length, meaning more training for the crew.

>>11390012
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
How much time does Boeing need to unfuck their turd?

>>11390072
Reminder that this is only possible because of the one that blew up, it shifted the whole production line down by one capsule. The original DM2 capsule was only rated for 14 days, but now it's using the first mission-rated capsule.

>>11389903
Scout is qt.

>>11389903
>falcon 9
>(80/0)
I thought one of them blew up

>>11390152
Well, TECHNICALLY it wasn't during a launch. They were just going through the launch procedures. While the payload was attached.

>>11390152
- one had an engine failure, primary mission success, but NASA wouldn't let the secondary mission boost with a 5% chance of getting too close to ISS
- one blew up RUD on the pad during a fueling test, doesn't count, haters gonna hate
- one blew up RSD during the abort test, last words were "I don't need no pussy-ass fairing, hold my beer"

>>11390166
There was a falcon that blew up in flight, total failure. But was that the falcon 1, not the falcon 9?

>>11390188
All Falcon 1 blew up except the last one.
Which is not a Falcon 9, and therefore doesn't get counted in the Falcon 9 part of the chart.

>>11390166
Wasn't there one that had a tank burst mid flight?

>>11390166
You're missing CRS-7, which definitely counts

SpaceX can't make a spacecraft as beautiful as this.

>>11390255
>>11390261
pardon me while I get some more caffeine

>>11390282
pssst, here, have some nudes.

>>11390313
lewd

>>11389903
>Black Arrow
>As of 2018, the United Kingdom is the only country to have successfully developed and then abandoned a satellite launch capability. All other countries that have developed such a capability have retained it either through their own space programme or, in the case of France, through its involvement in the Ariane programme
J U S T

>>11390282

>>11389485
the ball thing is a tank for propellant for landing. without any payload the center of mass is all off or something, so they need to do that.
There won't be any people riding these rockets for a while yet.

>>11390461
Jesus it's so ugly

>>11389575
play Kerbal Space Program to understand
>>11389941
don't forget the different variants of Vulcan Centaur
>>11390032
We haven't heard anything definitive but both have been options. We might even get both, a shuttle style cargo bay with crew cabin up front (for satellite servicing) and a big cargo-only chomper

>>11390012
April or May

>>11390464
Isn't it just a rough mockup and not at all representative of the final thing?

>>11390484
>I-its just a mockup
Why are you fags like this

>>11390464
yes, that's the second trashcan they built over there, it was ugly as fuck and blew up
the new ones look much better
>>11390484
they were going to try to fly it but it came out looking and performing like garbage (it blew up)
https://youtu.be/3nTSubYzQOM

>>11390535
check out the new, shiny one that they're working on

>>11390558

>>11389903
>Saturn V
>American flag
Uhhhh pretty sure that was developed by Nazi's.

>>11390566
Operation Yoink! Nice Rockets, Wernher gave them citizenship.

>>11390558
Doesn't look any less shit

>>11390615
wrong

>>11390615
It'll look pretty ok with a coat of titanium dioxide white once it's finalized.

>>11390641
nah, titanium nitride yellow

>>11390646
British Racing Green.

>>11390615
Why are you such a faggot?

>>11390729
Why are you pretending to like shitty rockets that are not even going to go past leo? Why not try a real one?

>>11390732
It's not 1969 anymore, son.
Get into orbit on two stages - Saturn did that.
Refuel in orbit, not really problematic.
Moon insertion on a fully tanked Starship? Hell of a lot more burn in that than a S-IVB. You can do a couple of round trips with a full tank.

>>11390136
how do we know this thing isn't a sitting time bomb when docked to the ISS now?

>>11390750
Because the cause of the explosion was found and corrected.

>>11390650
is there a paint that will survive the heat of reentry?

>>11390753
what happened

>>11390766
We found out that NTO and titanium are not best friends.

>>11390766
Long story short, a check valve for NTO had a flaw that allowed it to leak backwards into the helium pressure tank with explosive results. The solution was to change the valve to a different design where that issue is impossible.

>>11390785
>>11390770
So it will be safe now with no possibility of RUD while docked to the ISS like all the other craft?

>>11390791
You mean in that particular way? Yes, as far as I can tell. NASA feels comfortable with it and they've been closely watching Dragon 2's development.

>>11390799
That's good then, it's always a risk when new craft are developed and docked to the ISS for half a year at a time, at this point though I'd be more suspicious of Boeing considering their monumental fuckups with MAX and Starliner troubles

>>11390805
NTO and titanium were thought to be fine for generations. So its a new finding for all vehicles moving forward.

>>11390810
>It is worth noting that the reaction between titanium and NTO at high pressure was not expected. Titanium has been used safely over many decades and on many spacecraft from all around the world.

Just goes to show

>>11390382
Don't

>>11390382

>>11390382

>>11390382

I bet it a was a Labour governemtn that cancelled it.

fuckin commies.

>>11390942
Frederick Corfield was the one who ended the Black Arrow project.

>>11390382
>>11390942
>Prior to the cancellation of Black Arrow, NASA had offered to launch British payloads for free; however, this offer was withdrawn following the decision to cancel Black Arrow.[2]

>>11390382

I bet it a was a Labour government that cancelled it.

fuckin commies.

>>11390948
>>11390953

Cunts

>>11390953
Makes me wonder if the US wanted the British space program gone.

>>11390963
In the '70s? I doubt we really cared.
Britain had an impressive aerospace industry, but their government shit it all away.

>>11389173
Honest question, would something like this solve a lot of the gravity related issues in space? Running on this for a bit would simulate gravity, keep bones strong and allow fluids a chance to go down. Am I missing something?

>>11390997
I don't know if running like that would be intensive enough, but it is possible. But I don't think it would be allowed. IIRC NASA had to get their astronauts to stop doing micro-g aerobatics in Skylab because it was causing the space station to jostle around erratically.

>>11390953
it's almost like the US government during the Cold War were just as bad as the Soviets to foreign powers

>>11390953
>>11390963
Whats the actual story behind it? Some funding issues?

>>11391083
I'm not a brit so I'm no super familiar with how it went down, but it seemed like a combination of limited available funds post-WW2 and a lack of a strong interest in space flight

>>11391083
three failures in a row, money troubles, followed by the USA government promising free launches

>>11391110
Typical Br*ts mooching off Americans for everything

>>11391113
the Americans immediately retracted the offer of free launch after the Brits killed their space program

>>11390963
Of course they did. British engineers have undoubted skills

>>11390770
Very, very, very high pressure NTO.

>>11391149
Typical Americans btfoing smelly Br*ts

>>11389009
>we are living in a time where the boomer nerds who always cried about how "human spaceflight is stupid" will get BTFO as private companies claim space for humanity

truly the best timeline

Thanks /sfg/, you convinced me to apply for some jobs at spaysecks

>>11391344
>apply
Well good luck getting in over the other 10,000 people for your position.
Also good luck not burning out within a year or two.

>>11391297
That's still going to be an uphill battle. There's a general mindset in space flight that manned space flight is too hard, not worth it, and that computers can do everything perfectly no exceptions. Still looking forward to that getting blown out though.

>>11391344
Good luck! Don't give up.

>>11391011
Just did some research, skylab weighed 170,000 pounds, a fully refueled starship weighs 2.9 million pounds. So vibrations would be much less noticeable. Also some fun facts, starship fully refueled would be about 3x more massive than the ISS and launch a skylab sized payload to mars or the moon. Fuck man, am I actually starting to feel hopeful about manned spaceflight?

>>11391498
>Fuck man, am I actually starting to feel hopeful about manned spaceflight?
Sounds like it, and you should. Don't let pessimists take the sky away from you.

>>11391498
Now that it's largely out of the government's hands, yes. Don't be too hard on Musk for his optimistic deadlines.

>>11389264
>Believe in my prophetic powers plz

Nah

>>11389328
>The true space exploration and expansion cannot start unless we do something to our bodies that can only handle a very narrow set of conditions specific to our planet and nowhere else in a distance reasonable for manned flight.

Wrong. Our bodies are capable of adapting, and muscle wasting in microgravity is proof of this adaptation.

>>11390041
Planetary Protection is a beta cuck idea that will be swept aside very quickly. It’s just a bunch of rocks.

>>11389899
keep dreaming (i'll dream with you)

>>11390282
They can and will. Apollo module is ancient technology.

>>11390313
pic related (1/5)

>>11391559
(2/5)

>>11391563
(3/5)

>>11391567
(4/5)

>>11391569
(5/5)

>>11391551
I imagine that primitiveness is the appeal. It's kind of marvelous what was done with what looks like haphazard garbage. In that regard Starship's brutal simplicity is fairly reminiscent.

>>11391502
Like the mindset anon! cool photo too. Where do you guys see space and spaceflight in 30-50 years? Feels like a real paradigm shift is going on here, Elon and Bezos seem like autists that want to revolutionize space no matter the cost. Which is undoubtedly a good thing.

Starlink-5 (4th operational) launch in a bit. Launch thread will be up an hour or so before launch.
Now if you excuse me I need to go buy some burritos for launch snacks

>>11391601
>Where do you guys see space and spaceflight in 30-50 years.
Well, it really seriously depends on whether or not spaceflight is yet again gimped and drawn back down after another big achievement or whether it finally gathers the necessary momentum to become self-sustaining. Technologically speaking we should have already had multiple large orbitals in LEO with 100+ crews, limited commercial spaceflight to LEO and the Moon, and been at least preparing a fleet of ships to attempt large scale colonization of Mars. We should have already been using NTPR's to send large advanced robot probes to the outer planets and to Venus and Mercury, Magnetoplasma drives should already be commonplace and we should have radically expanded nuclear power research and be well on our way to a functional small scale fusion torch right now.

Many of the processes for advanced fuel cycles, nuclear rocketry and even torch drives was thought up fifty years ago, we have no excuse for technology to have stagnated in so many fields except for a lack of ambition, investment, and a love of the status quo.

>>11391647
>Well, it really seriously depends on whether or not spaceflight is yet again gimped and drawn back down after another big achievement
That was an artifact of getting into a race with a house of cards combined with both participants being hampered by the idiosyncrasies of government management schemes. SpaceX and BO have long term, infrastructure based plans and aren't motivated strictly by 'do the other guy's thing better' so I don't see how that situation re-asserts itself here.

>>11391601
>Where do you guys see space and spaceflight in 30-50 years?
Honestly, I don't know. There's so many unknowns right now that any prediction with some thought put behind it is credible. The only thing I know for certain is that there will be more involvement in regards to enforcing laws in space as it's pretty much law-less right now. What I want right now is for all possibilities to be seriously attempted.

>>11391612
The launch is on monday at 10:05 ET
>>11391647
I tend to agree with >>11391661on this, SpaceX has starlink and won't have to worry about profitability, and BO has Bezos. If they want to do something they can do it regardless of public opinion or profitability.

How would you explain the sound of a rocket to someone who has never heard it? I've thought of "continuous explosion" but that might not get the right point across.

>>11391926

It's like really loud wind blowing against a microphone for me. Just lots of popping.

>>11391926
Tell them to imagine a long and loud 2 minute fart

>>11391926
a roar so loud that the air breaks in protest
it's really a violence that is being committed on the atmosphere

>>11391926
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwn4LVVvAUQ
Continuous explosion/thunder is pretty accurate though, that basso "tearing" sort of noise is the sound of hundreds of back-to-back sonic booms from hundreds of tons of propellant being accelerated to supersonic speeds.

meanwhile in boca chica

>>11391975
Looks like a typical cryptid photo. Send it to /x/, they might find something in it.

>>11390382
>135kg to LEO in 1970
I don't think you Brits lost out on much

>>11391926
"Awesome"

>>11391926
mimic the sounds with my mouth, spitting on whoever I'm describing it to

>>11392033
they were never pushed to greatness because they never had to lift an Am*rican to orbit

Long boi

>>11392382
The old 4 village flattener?

>>11392384
It's a actually a new rocket variant (CZ-7 with added hydrolox 3rd stage for improved GTO performance) and it launches from Hainan Island (over the ocean) so no villages are in the crosshairs.

>>11392384
space is hard™

>>11392429
Space is easy and an extremely small amount of Human Resources are invested in it.

>>11392403
>launches from Hainan Island
They gonna flatten some Taiwanese villages then?

>>11392431
>Space is easy
SpaceXcucks still can't launch humans to space lmao

>>11392384
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_EnrVf9u8s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbFOS29vAeQ

In a few more months, there won't be a china to OWN a space program.

>>11392575
>China is gonna collapse any day now, j-just you wait

Cringe

launch thread
>>11392679

How's everyone feeling about Virgin Galactic's Space Ship Two? Think it'll be a success?

>>11392852
Isn't it just some LEO glider dipper?
It's a fucking pleasure craft for rich tourists, it's the worst kind of "spaceflight" ever.

>>11392863
no, it's a suborbital thing with pointless aerosurfaces

>>11392887
Either way, it's a pleasure craft for rich tourists. It's not spaceflight. It's pointless.

>>11392089
I don't get it.

>>11392852
>Think it'll be a success?

SpaceShip Two doesn't even have to fly to be a success (it hasn't flown since Feb 2019), it's already made Virgin Galactic a $5 billion company since they went public and were listed on the stock market as $SPCE. On the day VSS unity arrived at Spaceport America in New Mexico, where their commercial flights will take place from, $SPCE was up:

Today: 21.2%
This week: 51.5%
This year: 148%

It's a Tesla-tier hyperbolic meme-stock based on irrational speculation that just keeps going up.

SpaceX lost first stage on landing, f and rip.

I would like to personally congratulate the ULA marine sni- err I mean the amazing ULA aerospace engineers stationed at HUNTSVILLE ALABAMA for keeping AMERICAN space flight AMERICAN. Meanwhile SpaceX, which I should add was started by a FOREIGNER, just had another tragic rocket failure. Fortunately there were no AMERICANS on it, but what there were? SpaceX would've just killed AMERICANS. I cannot and WILL NOT let this stand. I will ensure that AMERICAN space flight is kept AMERICAN and SAFE.

>>11392908
> that just keeps going up.

SPCE isn't getting above 50$, then they'll tank when a real space related company IPOs.

>>11393032
>when a real space related company IPOs
I doubt Blue Origin or SpaceX are going to IPO any time soon... Not much else besides those 3 in private space flight.

>>11393098
Spacex is going to IPO a starlink spinoff, that's where the real money will be. I'm sure BO will do a similar thing when (if) they actually get a working vehicle.

stacc

>>11393105
>I'm sure BO will do a similar thing when (if) they actually get a working vehicle.

There's no need or plan for BO to go public ever when they get most their funding from Bezos selling his Amazon shares anyway. Also, New Shepard is a vehicle, that works?

>>11393124
IT BEGINS

>>11393131
Sorry should have said "orbital" vehicle.

>>11390022
the greatest tragedy is that those responsible for the shuttle were allowed to remain alive

>>11390041
>he thinks they have power
the only people that will complain are onions mongrels that humans already mock

>>11393188
I guarantee you as soon as SpaceX looks close to actually setting up shop on Mars there's going to be an international outcry about the purity of celestial bodies or whatever. No doubt China and Russia will try to get the UN to tie SpaceX up in a never-ending cycle of impossible cleanliness standards to avoid forward contamination. Hopefully US veto will stop it all, but butthurt eurozone cucks and russians and chinese will never stop complaining about it.

>>11391670
its lawless because space doesn't need laws at the moment
the people up there are the best humanity has to offer, not pavement apes

>>11393198
again, creatures that are already mocked for being failure incarnate

>>11393198
I doubt ESA will complain, the only reason they'd complain was if they were left out, which I doubt, since they'd be part of it anyways, splitting bills and supplying people too. Roscosmos? Probably joining in on missions too.
China? They'd undoubtedly complain, nobody would give a fuck though. They've been doing their own thing forever, nobody gives a fuck.

>>11393215
>the only reason they'd complain was if they were left out, which I doubt, since they'd be part of it anyways
I seriously think the closer Musk gets to Mars, the more he'll distance himself from established spaceflight. The only thing he really needs is NASA human rating approval, why would he knowingly inject all kinds of shitty bureaucracy into the process he has spent all his time and energy streamlining? There's enough space-tech startups in the US alone to deal with the private sector for almost everything they need, except maybe some of the more advanced ISRU stuff.

>>11393206
The Starlink-Aeolus potential collision incident kinda showed to some that laws in space are needed. There's also international worries as well. While the Space Treaty said that nations shouldn't claim parts of space as their own, there's no provisions to punish a nation for doing so nor just backing out of the treaty. Access to space is also getting easier which will result in national space assets potentially being threatened, which is one of the reasons why the USSF was made.

I'm not saying that laws in space are needed specifically, but that any nation who wants to enforce their laws in space would have all of the motivation and justification to do so.

>>11393222
Do you think he'll get to launch if he decides to leave the bureaucracy out of it? Guess again. He'll be the owner of the shiniest fleet of parked shit ever if that's the case.

>>11393229
obviously he has to deal with NASA, but why bother involving ESA or Roscosmos unless they have some specific, completely necessary tech he can't get from anyone in the states.

>>11393242
Because shit costs money.

>>11392852
>entirely manually controlled rocket plane for an upper atmosphere joyride
It‘s a terrible meme and I hope it won‘t kill yet more people. I‘d rather jump into starliner for its next flight than into that contraption.

>>11393124
>by next month we‘ll have one of these glorious meme machines back together and better than ever
Feels good, man.

it's no wonder Blue Origin haven't accomplished anything, check out their office space

>>11393263
Oh god, open office space is sheer torture. Give me the privacy and oppression of the worlds smallest cubicle of that shit instead, at least I'd get some fucking work done.

>>11393263
I hate this shit so much. It's so exhausting being surrounded by people all day.

>>11393272
I'd take the wagie cagie over that any time.

>>11393278
SHE RISES

>>11393278
it's going to look like a can of beans...

>>11393250
From orgs that can barely fund themselves after the chaff takes its cut? Anyway, Starlink is the (future) moneymaker.

>>11393290
>ywn eat the jumbo beans

>>11393291
Remains to be seen. He already owes money to a Canadian pension fund on that shit.

>>11393290
landing cam to be renamed 'roll that beautiful bean footage'

>>11393292
what are the options here? He's promised a steel space ship, but people are going to make fun of it if it's not sleek and retro-futuristic. Can he paint it? I'm sure he's considering what a PR disaster it would be if he unveils it to be a big, ugly tin can, regardless of how well the first flights go.

>>11393308
>Can he paint it?
It's a pretty safe bet it'll be painted the same titanium white as everything else before it launches.
Nobody's gonna be rubbing those fuckers with autosol until they gleam.

>>11393308
titanium nitride coating, and only do the press event after it's been pressurized
they look way better and smoother after they've been pressed

>>11393308
Judging from the mockups I've seen I think it will actually turn out pretty sexy in its final form with TPS installed and all. Biggest mar on its looks right now is warp which has been drastically reduced and there are plans to employ straighteners to reduce it further in the future.

>>11393321
Reminder it's not even going to escape orbit lol

>>11393340
>it's not even going to escape orbit
Yes, it's going to get into orbit, then it's going to get a full refuel and go much further than any 3rd stage of SLS can.
What's the problem with that? We're pretty good at docking things in orbit. We've been doing that for a couple of years now.

>>11393340
Talking about the program as a whole not just the current vehicle. Unless you mean you believe the program will fail in which case I see no fundamental reason for that currently, beyond pessimism.

>>11393356
>pessimism
Realism
Musky can't even properly, err at all launch humans and his first project is a spaceliner lmao

>>11393360
>Musky can't even properly, err at all launch humans
NASA seems to think otherwise.

>>11393347
>Yes, it's going to get into orbit, then it's going to get a full refuel and go much further than any 3rd stage of SLS can.
Not if I have anything to say about it, AND I DO! I'm gonna say the n-word!

>>11393360
SpaceX is literally paperwork away from being the first in America to launch astronauts since the shuttle and you're complaining. Is this what they do instead of checking code at Boeing HQ?

>>11393370
Shut the fuck up, Shelby. There are no depots involved in the process. It's Ass to Ass.

>>11393375
There is nothing you can do to stop me from keeping AMERICA'S space flight AMERICAN. The FOREIGN SpaceX menace that has been wreaking HAVOC on the proud Space Industrial Complex must be stopped!

I'm gonna say it...

NATIONALIZE

>>11393374
Ah yes, all it takes to launch astronauts is just paperwork. Not like they weren't allowed to do it before. LMAO
>Boeing hq
Why do you fags always resort to calling any person slightly sceptical of business god musk a Boeing/big oil/big auto shill

>>11393385
THAT'S COMMUNISM!
SOMEONE RESTRAIN THAT MAN, TAKE HIM BEHIND THE BUILDING AND SHOOT HIM!

>>11393389
You know what's worse than COMMUNISM? SLS (pbui) forgive me for speaking these words... PROPELLANT DEPOTS!

>>11393375
>It's Ass to Ass.

>>11393388
>Ah yes, all it takes to launch astronauts is just paperwork.
No, I'm talking about SpaceX not Boeing, they had to do actual testing first.

>this is supposed to fly
Who do you think your lying to?

>>11393399
>Actual testing
The preemptive cope intensifies

>>11393397

>>11393411
it looks like a rocket to me
this sort of thing was America's first ride to space

>>11393427
>Somehow still looks miles better
Kek

>>11393441
that's because it's being pressurized, like a balloon
wait until SpaceX finish and pressurize their grain silo before talking shit

>>11393444
"Has to be pressurized to maintain structural integrity" you mean. Doubt Starship will look much different when pressurized in comparison because it's self-stable and not a giant metal balloon.

>>11393423
This vile, this disgusting, this COMMUNIST anti-American symbolism seeking to undermine our AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE and free economy shall NOT be tolerated any further. I swear by my God given Administrative Rights I will do EVERYTHING that can be done to nationalize this non-publicly traded privately owned menace!

>>11393451
Oh the dinks will definitely soften up when full. MK1 was notably smoother under pressurization until things happened.

>>11393423
Lewd.

>>11393427
Needs moar Buick fins.

>>11393278
Do they still weld it together by hand from shaky manlifts out in the open?

>>11393471
Why wouldn't they? It's not a finalized design. There's no point in going full retard clean room welding in protective atmosphere at this stage.

>>11393471
Only big segments and they seem to do it with hefty ~10cm overlaps too.

The precision work was done inside to build the segments.

>>11393487

I just hope they don't decide to slap the crumpled widowed hat on in their desire to get it ready soon.

>>11393487
>>11393490
looks better than raptor

>>11393504

>>11393487
>>11393490
>>11393508
Looks more American than the raptor.

>>11393514
m-made in Alabama?
Am i right, senator?

>>11393479
>>11393475
I was under the impression shitty weld is what lead to mk1 RUD and they were going to at least do welding somewhere with no wind. Even if 99 welds are perfect and only 1 is shit the whole structure is still shit.

>>11393514
>>11393508
This particular engine, which is Blue's go to display item for events, is relatively old and outdated.

>>11393520
"Shitty weld", method, material thickness. Pick your poison.
The one that passed with flying colors was done out in the open too.

>>11393451
remember the first one they built? remember how ugly it was?
>>11393520
Yeah, I'm really scratching my head over this one
maybe the big problem was getting the circumference of the rings consistent

>>11393529
I mean look at this piece of shit

>>11393124

>>11393206
reminder that a woman was the first wanted criminal in space

>>11393529
Looks kino to be honest.

>>11393487
>>11393490

>>11393393
Propellant depots take the DeltaV from strong and capable rockets and distribute it among unambitious rockets too lazy to bring their own fuel!

https://youtu.be/QyJS1QcPRYM
Scott is wrong, once again
he doesn't think it's ice

>>11393540
it was a dented, ugly piece of shit
anyway, look what happened when they pressurized it

>>11393644
>>11393540

>>11393646
>>11393644
then suddenly:

>>11393652
What happened here?

>>11393656
it go boom
https://youtu.be/3nTSubYzQOM
the first big ugly trashcan they made wasn't up to snuff, so they've rejiggered all their tooling and it's much more professional now, they're producing very smooth rings visible here: >>11393411

>>11393529
It's a shame that glorious piece of shit never got to leave the ground at all.

>>11393656
The welds were bad. Also there was a thing floating around that they might've put more pressure in than they really needed and intended to.
Regardless, the results weren't good enough and the thing was completely broken afterwards anyway. So they had to start from scratch.

>>11393656
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM

So when can spaceflight be so cheap that poor people can afford it? Or at least middle-class?

>>11393411
>supposed to fly

only up to 20-100km, not in space
next iterations will look better

>>11393684
2-3 years after first starship launch

>>11393656
>build shitty thing that's technically a working space ship
>beat the shit out of it until the flaws in your design are clear
>repeat until your shitty thing is as well-tested and robust as possible
All you have to do is be willing to waste a few prototypes. The timescale spaceX operate on because of this design philosophy is orders of magnitude faster than anyone else in the business.

>>11393688
no but seriously

>>11393687
space is at 80 km
I would believe you if you told me that he intended to put it in orbit at some point

>>11393690
testing is extremely important when you're trying to build a new class of hypersonic vehicles, the body of knowledge to simulate it just isn't there yet

>>11393698
I am being serious
150 tons to orbit per launch = everyone that wants to do space station autism can actually do so without bleeding money out the asshole

>>11393708
Fucking awesome

I really want to go to space, even long-term one day, and actually do work up there on a Lunar colony or Mars or even something else but I'm not sure if I could ever quality to be an astronaut. I do want to go into the USAF to achieve that goal but I don't think I would actually be accepted.

>>11393716
I'd sign up to be a literal sanitation engineer on a garbage scow, Roger Wilco style, if only to get the fuck off this rock.

>>11393716
a city sized moon&mars colony wont be filled with the best of the best the world has to offer who are also trained as a astronaut, they will also need janitoirs&cooks&construction workers&average technicians&miners&guards,etc...
You have that to look forward too.

>>11393608
>that explosion montage
love it

>>11393656
Holy shit. I just realized it's barely been three months since the old prototype blew up.
A lot of stuff going on these past few months for me so I lost track of time. If you would've asked me, I would've thought it had been like half a year ago. But the fact that SpaceX completely overhauled all of their production methods in that time and is already maybe a month or so away from another working prototype is insane.

>>11393722
>>11393725
Eh, if I get paid well for that, I'd honestly be 100% down for that.

>>11391096
They had to launch from Australia. I think that was part of the problem. Will have to find a good book on it and learn it for sure. I'm sure the long and short of it is Britain chose the NHS and social security over literally everything else and had to pack it in before the Labour voters started sabotaging it.

They extended Newquay airport for the Space Shuttle and claim to be planning to build a spaceport for launches there in the next few years.

>>11393742
I have an uncle who did a similar thing, went to be a janitor in a science base in Antarctica. Nobody likes him and he keeps trying to steal money from his family's trust.

>>11393748
Damn, considering I'm probably never going to marry, I might end up being 'that uncle'

>>11393739
My buddy I watch the launches with died of heart attack 2 weeks and 7 hours ago.

It's going to sour everything now but I'll drink to him when we finally land on Mars.

>>11393749
The Antarctica thing would have been cool if he wasn't such an asshole. Just don't be an asshole, anon.

>>11393708
>everyone that wants to do space station
So noone?

>>11393761
>Just don't be an asshole, anon.
Well, that part's easy.

>Musk plans to mass produce starships
>Starship will cost $5 million each once production steady's out
>Estimated that 3000 employees will be hired and build 2 starships a week at Boca with planned production methods
>First 5 starships will not return and will probably be loaded down with solar panels because he doesn't want to use nuclear to make return fuel on mars
Is this is? Has musk finally lost the plot?

>>11393778
>Well, that part's easy.
Not if everyone's an asshole to you first.

>>11393756
I had a friend like that as well. He died just over two years ago and was a huge fan of NASA and spaceflight as a whole.

>>11393784
He is insane and a threat to American national security action must be taken immediately.

>>11393784
Nuclear has a bunch of red tape niggery attached to it at the moment that makes it nigh impossible to send to space
better to just deal with wind and solar starting off
There's uranium on mars, so once mining operations get into full swing, they'll be able to make their own fuel and reactors

>>11393784
What I want to see is the real life factorio setup they need to build when they get there. I have yet to see anything more than a promotional CGI video from any company who says they're working on it. It'll be something else if Musk beats the habitat tech to full production.

>>11393784
What is your problem fundamentally with this plan? It's not like an enormous or unreasonable amount of steel goes into making a Starship, rockets are large but not so much compared to buildings, ships, or passenger airplanes and much more of their total structure is just big fuckoff pressure vessels. Once the process for manufacture is worked out there's no fundamental reason why you couldn't shit out five or ten vehicles a week, it just depends on how many people you want to hire and factories you can afford to build. Note too that they say Starships, not Raptors, the engines will probably be the most time consuming part of the Starship manufacture pipeline because so many will have to be built, test fired, tweaked, re-tested and then attached.

>>11393798
An interesting prospect I can't wait for the headlines.

>>11393800
Nobody's done it for 60 years and nobody is doing it now so uh the promises are dubious.

>>11393814
>Nevah been done b4
shut the fuck up

>>11393814
at the risk of sounding like an Elon Musk fellatio expert, nobody had broken into the American auto manufacturing industry in 60 years either

>>11393800
Musk tweeted in June that he planned to get Raptor production down to 1 ever 12 hours.

>>11393684

Let's see what a ticket on 18m Starship costs.

>>11393814
Reason by analogy is the hallmark of low iq

>>11393814
Nigger there's a fucking Tesla orbiting Mars I think Elon has earned the benefit of the doubt. Now go lose some weight.

>>11393859
lol

>>11393859
>there's a tesla orbiting Mars
no, Starman is beyond the orbit of Mars right now
he will never actually orbit Mars

>no landing on most recent starlink mission

that's a shame,i wonder what happened.

>>11393877
>he will never actually orbit Mars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWm03wYBTbM&list=PLiN-7mukU_RECGJLFCw_RCaMrINgTbTCu

F

>>11393859
>Put an object weighing like 1.3 tons in solar orbit
LITERALLY NEVER DONE BEFORE

>>11393814
>lets ignore the ugly political mess surrounding space flight after Apollo

OH NO NONONONOONOOONOOOOOO

>>11393926

>>11393877
You know what I meant fag

>>11393933
More fitting product name.

>>11393926
Bob's gonna need a job.

>>11393926
Not again...

>>11393926

>>11393926
>b-b-but muh 4mm thick steel, 2mm on a production version

>>11393814
the future is now old man

>>11393198
>I guarantee you as soon as SpaceX looks close to actually setting up shop on Mars there's going to be an international outcry about the purity of celestial bodies or whatever

Do people actually believe this? Who cares if dead, irradiated rocks flying through the vacuum of space get changed by humans?

>>11393225
>While the Space Treaty said that nations shouldn't claim parts of space as their own

Why shouldn’t they? If you can get boots on the ground there, and there’s no one else there, why not?

>>11394183
>Who cares if dead, irradiated rocks flying through the vacuum of space get changed by humans?
the same people who care if a 300 year old tree gets cut down to build a building. People are obsessed with painting nature as a perfect balance that's destroyed by any and all human intervention.

>>11394188
The treaty was made during the Cold War, it was a token of peace made to avoid a scenario that could escalate the war. Also, it didn't help that at the time, no one could really send people to other bodies enough to make reliable claims on said bodies.

>>11393798
>Nuclear has a bunch of red tape niggery attached to it at the moment that makes it nigh impossible to send to space

Lol no it doesn’t. Russia put like a hundred reactors up there to power satellites.

>>11394214
Russians brush their teeth with polonium [citation needed] but that doesn't mean reactors on launch vehicles wouldn't be immediately a source of unwanted controversy in the west.

>>11394214
And there are also claims that russia has been working on NTR rocket, backed up by the fact that one blew up in a test last summer and killed a bunch of russians.

>>11394214
Governments trust themselves more than they trust private companies (unless the company is bribing officials).

>>11394238
It’s a nuclear ballistic missile very similar to the cancelled American Project Pluto. Uses heat from fission to heat air rather than combustion of a fuel. The concept has been demonstrated but not pursued in the US because we didn’t want to provoke the Soviets to make their own.

>>11391975
Holy shit I had one of those "in-between awake and asleep" dreams about this holy ahit
I was basically lying in a shipyard and found a starship tank laying about in that fog
>>11393926
You'll just have to pinch its nostrils and blow real hard

>>11394192
>the same people who care if a 300 year old tree gets cut down to build a building.

So weird hippies?

> People are obsessed with painting nature as a perfect balance that's destroyed by any and all human intervention.

Nature is just junk that gets in our way. You’d think people wouldn’t care what happens to dead barren rocks in space since they have no pre-existing biospheres.

>>11394278
the idea is "it's been there for a billion years, who are we to disturb it?" The answer of course being "human beings" but they don't like that

Man I can't wait until starship so we can finally have bigger payload capacity and not have to rely on overdesigned, single point of failure origami designs anymore like pic related. Imagine how much money and time they would save without needing to deploy the sun shield in such a complicated manner

>>11394323
>"it's been there for a billion years, who are we to disturb it?"

What significance does it have how long it’s been there?

Zero. It’s rocks. Mindless material things for us to exploit.

>>11394325
creating some massive interlinked array and putting it in some lagrange point would be great.

>>11394325
Is it going to have a space shuttle-esque cargo bay or what?

>>11394325
>Imagine how much money and time they would save without needing to deploy the sun shield in such a complicated manner
But what about the jobs? What about the jobs that would be lost if we went to a more efficient design method? Think of the jobs, Jim!

>>11394352
The cargo variant will

>>11394360
can the cargo version lift 150t too?

>>11394360
So the one that carries crew and the one that carries the payload aren’t the same, or....? Where does the payload go on the version with a capsule on top, or is that the payload?

>>11394383
>is that the payload?
Mostly. They'll likely have a storage room as well, but the people and their life support are the cargo for the most part.

>>11394376
150t was ITS iirc, and for Starship they're still working on reducing vehicle dry mass with successive prototypes so numbers are really a guess but at least ~50t

>>11394442
It's not about the weight capacity its the extra volume capacity so that you don't have to pack probes/telescopes so damn tight and develop and design complex and expensive folding and origami mechanisms for them all of which are extra points of failure on deployment like we have to do now

>>11393521
>EWO
What's this?

>>11394471
kek

>>11393703
Orbit also needs sufficient horizontal velocity, otherwise you just get New Shepard all over again.

>>11394663
Space is at 80 km
they will be hopping suborbital above 80 km, probably with that vehicle if it turns out to be any good

>>11393756
I had a friend who liked old-school sci-fi stuff, he died in Nov 2018, right before all this Starship stuff happened.

>>11393859
Actually it's a solar orbit with the apihelion just beyond mars.

>>11393308
Most all the concepts show the non-tile side being white, like Falcon, Shuttle, Saturn, etc.

>>11394669
Isn't the karman line 100k?

>>11394707
no, it's 80km, you fucking European

>>11394442
>150t was ITS
ITS was 350t

>>11394707
ahem, we use the McDowell line here on /sfg/

>>11394755
Kek that's the USAF designation for astronaut wings right?

>>11394755
Karman himself suggested 82 km, anon

>>11394791
>tfw can't design a rocket to reach a tenth of that

>>11394806
just build a smaller rocket that fits on top of your big rocket and keep stacking them like that

>>11394809
I want to keep it to one stage. Plus I'm keeping the total impulse below 40k N*s so I don't have to worry about the FAA.

>>11394791
>>11394755
>>11394707
>>11394767
interestingly, a bunch of things all happen at once around that altitude
both the turbopause and the mesopause happen around then, as well as Karman's original calcs regarding atmospheric versus orbital flight
>>11394813
I think you may be fighting a losing battle, anon. You're going to lose out to atmospheric drag.

>>11394840
>I think you may be fighting a losing battle, anon. You're going to lose out to atmospheric drag.
At least ~4.5 km is impressive...

>>11393800
Good thing is Starship only need 6 Raptors, not like 37 on Super Heavy.

why don't they create a tapered thickness, 150ft by 28ft sheet and then wrap it into one 9m burrito?

I feel like it was a bad idea to force the rings to conform to each other in segments instead of making them progressively conform to each other individually from the tip down

>>11395066
37 fucking engines
74,000 kN

more than twice as powerful as Saturn V

>>11395177
>90% of Saturn V is wasted
>100% of Starship can be reused
It is an amazing time we live in.

>>11395317
the penalty for that is steep, Starship can only lift slightly more than Saturn V
we live in a beautiful time

>>11395329
18m starship will be the big chungus. Pic related is a 18m tunnel; gives you an idea of the interior space 18m SS will have. It's wider than the running track that Discovery One had in 2001

>>11395372
I don't think we will ever get them due to the damage from lift off.

>>11395397
Then launch from the sea, dummy.

>>11394806
Can‘t or won‘t?

>>11394325
>starship flies routinely
>jwst v2 is designed to be carried on the mighty SLS and it involves even bigger origami because payloads are expensive yo gotta maximize
>cue retirement song 30 years early

>>11395500
He's using his free time to shitpost sad cat memes and greentext pity posts on 4chan/nel. What do you think? lol

>>11395400
>deafen all marine life in the vicinity
Wouldn't it make more sense to use a hole below sea level and fill it with sea water?
Also, how is this supposed to avoid liftoff damage?

>>11393926
beat me to it

>>11395998
>they buff out the dents and weld it back together
>still flies but explodes midair
Sn3 is gonna need some ribbing desu

>>11395998
Roll of duct tape will fix that AND blend in.

>>11396029
*flex tape

>>11393663
>>11393646
>>11393644
>>11393534
>>11393529
So, this is the sound it will make when launching... https://youtu.be/0bQnrPDm78Q?t=21

>>11396030
I'm so confident in the power of Flextape, I cut this Mk1 in half!

>>11396044
Kerbal Glue will fix it.

This is quite crazy and bizarre, Blue Origin is publicly beefing with it’s Bezos-owned sister-company the Washington Post, over the latter’s editorial board claiming that presidential whim is what’s driving the US government’s recent increased focus on space.

>>11396073
>Blur Origin takes an entire page to tell Wapo they're being retards
I enjoy

>>11396073
absolutely based

>>11396073
Extremely, dare I say, even dangerously, based.

>>11396073

can anyone access this space adventures website SpaceX just tweeted about? Looks like their website is down

>>11396179
Nah, they're getting hammered. Their SQL server is shitting itself among other things.

We're gonna need a new thread soon.

>>11395976
>Wouldn't it make more sense to use a hole below sea level and fill it with sea water?
The hole would have to be very wide and deep in order to avoid the rocket's own sound waves from reflecting off the ends of the hole and hitting it.

>Also, how is this supposed to avoid liftoff damage?
The sea is pretty much indestructible.

>>11396187
Here ya go.

New Thread
>>11396224
>>11396224
>>11396224
>>11396224