/sci/ - Science & Math

First for BIG G

>Imagine spending half a year stuck in a space ship with dozens of other people floating around shitting in bags and being forced to do specific exercises every day or else your bones will melt. Nothing can ever be properly cleaned because the grime and skin cells are just floating in the air. Drink out of your sippy cup, shit in a bag and thank god you can't smell anything because the inside would be rancid quickly. It's not like they have science shit to put their mind to every day like the ISS astronauts do. There aren't even any windows.

sounds badass

>>11402899
Literally whoms't are you talking about

>>11402929
I think he's talking about Starship, but that thing carries so much mass that toilets can be included. Unlike Orion and SLS, which has such a tight mass budget that NASA debated on deleting the toilets from Orion to save on mass.

>>11402899
You shit into a vacuum cleaner
And there will be space hookers

>>11402899
There are windows

Yet another year of declining spacex launches

How will they do anything when they are only doing 5 launches a year

>>11402948
>5 launches per year
What? SpaceX has much more than 5 missions planned this year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_in_spaceflight

>>11402948
It's Feb and they've had 4 launches, which I'm pretty sure is as much as they've ever had by this point in the year.

>>11402863
So, have Blue Origin said anything about dates for New Glenn besides 2021?

>>11402972
Nope, but my gut says late 2021.

>>11402944
I hope they use linux on Mars.

>>11402986
Neckbeards shan't be allowed on Mars

>>11403040
But I'm a neckbeard.
I can make and operate column stills from scratch though. We have valuable skill sets.

>>11402948
>>11402955
>>11402968
Depends what you define a declining launch rates: SpaceX’s overall launch rate is definitely increasing from last year, buoyed by Starlink. But SpaceX’s launch rate for paying customers is either stagnant or declining.

>>11403063
*as

>>11403063
Starlink isn't a paying customer, but in the long run will make back far more than the single shot of a customer launch. Filling in that launch rate is a nice secondary benefit as well. They're playing it smart not sitting around waiting for customers to file in when the current market is small and saturated.

>>11403045
Starship only has a payload of 220,000lbs so it could only carry one NEET per mission. Sorry lad.

>>11403073
>but in the long run will make back far more than the single shot of a customer launch.

They hope lol

>>11403164
Oh, it's one of you people.

>>11403172
I'm not who you replied to, but is there solid evidence that Starlink will have a strong customer base? Beyond speculation, I mean. Like I keep hearing about how Starlink can be invaluable for high speed stock trading, has SpaceX made any deals with stock traders to grantee customership?

>>11403172
Going into any new industry is full of risks lol
Thinking you can assume that they go into an isp industry and make enough money to finance other stuff is lunacy

>>11403198
the technological ocean between spaceX and their nearest competitor is all the USP they will ever need. There is exactly 1 other company on the planet that has even begun to launch their test constellation. Having a monopoly over the fastest data transfer service in existence that also happens to work literally anywhere on Earth is a recipe to print money and thinking otherwise is just ignorance.

>>11403188
The US military is lining up already. More broadly speaking though, far more people who are fed up with their ISPs are eyeing Starlink than the system will be ready to handle for some time. They face a supply problem not a demand problem and the only answer is launch, launch, launch.

>>11403198
Starlink isn't just going into a new industry, it's defining an entirely new one. Suddenly everyone wants a giant constellation but SpaceX has a crushing head start.

>>11403188
the high frequency trader low latency stuff is super tight-lipped
we know that they plan to do groundbounce (from dedicated terminals) across the Atlantic and across the continental US for it

>>11403188
Every single plane that goes across any body of water will want a Starlink connection, boat too for that matter. Everyone in the US/Canada where service is dogshit (rural areas) will suddenly get an option to either go with Comcast/(shitty ISP monopoly here) and Starlink. I imagine some remote science outposts for example in Antarctica and elsewhere in bumfuck nowhere will also sign the hell up, on government contracts. Remote weather stations and all sorts of that equipment that needs some form of internet connection that is done with satellite for now. The market is basically everyone and everything that doesn't have a gigabit fiber line going to their wall right now or in very near future.
In terms of availability from polar regions, how far up is the signal expected to go? I'm not even in the polar circle and the current starlink launches are too far south for me to really spot.

>>11403237
No one is going to accept the Tesla business model of over promising and under delivering for their isp

>>11403341
Shoot for the stars, but reach the moon. I'll take that over staying on earth.

>>11403341
This is what I mean. One of you people. You just have to be consistently wrong because of some kind of grudge.

>>11403341
>No one is going to accept what 100% of ISPs, if not all corporations ever, do

Hmm.

>>11403390
ISPs will provide 99% uptime and at least half the rated internet velocity.

>>11402936
>you shit into a vacuum cleaner
hell ya im already halfway qualified for flight BAYBEEE

>>11403337
>Antarctica
Starlink doesn't go that far in latitude. It's possible that it just might barely reach the edge of Antarctica where most of the research stations are, but it would still need a ground station backhaul.

>>11403427
Pretty sure one of the orbital shells for the network is specifically intended to handle high-latitude stuff.

>>11403427
We must colonize Antarctica.

>>11403434
sauce plz
Here you can see what the constellation is going to look like: (6:00)
https://youtu.be/m05abdGSOxY&t=360

>>11403457
This guy's really gone for it

>>11403457
Love these you tubers who think they are spacex employees lol

>>11403399
Starlink will also accomplish that
it's just they won't have enough user terminals to sell to everybody so you'll get butthurt

>>11403434
Yes, but I'll believe that they're putting up sats in those alternate inclinations when they start launching to them

>>11403427
>>11403434
According to Wikipedia, the 1275km shell will have an inclination of 81 degrees, that should get pretty close to the poles. Given the height it should probably be visible from the poles.

>>11403341
Clearly you've never dealt with an American ISP before

>Hardest problem by far is building the production system of something this big. 2nd hardest is achieving full & rapid reuse with payload to orbit of ~2%.

What did he mean by "of 2%"?

>>11403591
5000 tons wet launch mass, 100t is payload. 2%. rocket equation, yo

>>11402899
Sounds like a pretty good lan party.

So who are you routing for?

>>11403598
Don't forget the dry mass fraction of the vehicle itself - 5,000 tons of wet mass, 100 tons of payload, and you still have 100 to 150 tons of vehicle to do it.

>>11403608
Both, and all other small rocket startups.

>>11403608
Is Astra going to try to catch their rocket with a helicopter?

>>11403608
Both in principle, but prefer Rocket Lab because they're less pretentious.

>>11403608
Imagine not being able to send a ton of payload to LEO...

>>11403608
>>11403635
Launchpad-cucks need to GTFO

>>11403489
they have absolutely zero plans to launch to any of the alternate inclinations right now, step 1 is getting the basic constellation underway

>>11403608
I made a prediction that nobody new would get to orbit this year, so...

>>11403645
Well as long as Astra, Firefly and Virgin Orbit all fail, you’ll still be in the clear...

>>11403660
Astra was in stealth mode so I might be able to claim that they aren't somebody anybody had heard of, which was the qualifier I used

>>11401620
>>11401755
It's a rolling release, you tweakers.
If Elite Dangerous divulged their current dev plans and progress, you'd call it a scam too. Truth is, game development takes time.
The world would a lot shallower if industry exclusively catered to the impatience of the outspoken consumers and shortsighted publishers.

>>11403672
It's truly incredible what sunk cost can do

>>11403698
>It's truly incredible what sunk cost can do

>>11403700
>>11403698
You rang?

Man ever since the CCP troll farm got cut off earlier these threads have REALLY cleaned up.

>>11403927
the flat earth troll got literally zero replies it was great

>>11404026
They actually ban trolls now.

>>11404051
god bless them every one

>>11403770
This actually has some potential though

>>11404057
I agree, when JWST finally flies and if it works it'll be great

>>11404061
I'm already a 29 year old boomer I wonder how old I'll be when it finally launches

>>11404063
presumably some time this decade, it's basically in final checkouts now
if they delay much longer, the Ariane launch vehicle they want to put it on will go out of production

>>11404063
>>11404067

SN1 is almost stacced. But fitting out the hull might take a long time.

>>11404067
I thought they were wanting to use sls? Why can't they just falcon heavy instead of being retards?

>>11404096
They're using the Ariane V IIRC.

>>11402899
>imagine riding around in a large loud air-polluting cranky inefficient arm-breaking backfiring horseless carriage, no one would ever want that instead of a nice handsome horse like we're used to. Let's just wait for someone to make them electric powered and self driving first

we will improve things iteratively, but the pioneers will have to suffer first

>>11404090
of course
it shouldn't take as long as last time

any other spacecraft engis ITT?

>>11404090
As long as there's meaningful progress, then I'm happy.

>>11404121
Trying to find a job as one. Otherwise I'm just playing with my design spreadsheets while roleplaying as one.

>>11404096
it's pretty nontrivial to design and qualify a new launch adapter especially considering the payload price

>>11404126
you can do it!! I recommend going for smaller companies instead of the big legacy ones, you'll have more impact and cooler coworkers

>>11404127
>price
As if that mattered to the JWST program.

>>11404128
Thank you. I've been keeping my eye open to smaller companies.

>>11404127
>worrying about price of all things
lmao

>>11403672
>Truth is, game development takes time.
How many years overdue is it now? How many promised features short is it?
Never, ever.

>>11404096
They consider Ariane 5 as being “tried and tested”. Reminder that there is a non-zero chance thar it blows up at launch.

>>11403672
It‘s literally a Ponzi scheme. They develop features with the money they raise from promising more features.

>>11403770
>>11404057
>>11404061
>>11404063
>>11404067
>>11404068
>>11404096
>>11404100
>>11404127
>>11404229
JWST is still on track to launch in 2021 according to the GAO. Also, Ariane 5 is being used to launch JWST because it’s part of the same international collaboration scheme as Solar Orbiter (which was an ESA probe that launched on an Atlas V), but also because it’s reliable (has a long, proven track record) and has a big fairing (even if hypothetically chosen, Falcon Heavy wouldn’t be able to launch it with it’s current fairing).

>>11404127
>>11404175
Payload price you illiterates. You don't want to lose your very expensive telescope because your launch vehicle was not up to snuff.

Hop when?
Aaaaaaaaaa

>>11402863
Tell me anons, why is he holding his cards so closed to his chest? Is Blue Origin really that behind Spacex or is Bezos a 5d chess playing genius who will reveal his final trump card to the space community in the right time? When will Blue usurp Spacex as the leader of the New Space economy? He must feel bad that Musk is getting all the glory and fame whilst his company is seen as a bit of an almost pseudo old space company with all the secrecy and devotion to slow progress? Has there been any reports on what Blue is doing with all of Bezos money? Why is Spacex so much more dynamic than Blue despite having less funding and Talent?

>>11404539
Or with the much lower launch costs, you could just build two for twice the price.

>>11404586
Pretty much all of your questions have the same answer: "muh gradatim ferociter". BO isn't pulling the wool over everyone's eyes, they genuinely have an extremely conservative company culture. Getting a bil every year just to exist probably helps maintain that conservatism as well. SpaceX is a crucible, BO is content to be a nice hearth fire.

>>11404586
>Tell me anons, why is he holding his cards so closed to his chest?

Because he can afford to?

>Is Blue Origin really that behind Spacex or is Bezos a 5d chess playing genius who will reveal his final trump card to the space community in the right time?

If you consider a New Glenn booster a “final trump card”, then it’ll be revealed with little warning and to much fanfare.

>When will Blue usurp Spacex as the leader of the New Space economy?

What economy?

>He must feel bad that Musk is getting all the glory and fame whilst his company is seen as a bit of an almost pseudo old space company with all the secrecy and devotion to slow progress?

There’s evidence (anecdotes from employees) to suggest he doesn’t care about PR that much. Also, if he cared about Blue being labelled “old space” he wouldn’t have moved a significant amount of Blue’s operations to Alabama.

>Has there been any reports on what Blue is doing with all of Bezos money?

Developing a massive reusable launch vehicle and a large lunar lander, whilst simultaneously building a new headquarters/R&D facility in Kent, Washington and a engine factory in Huntsville. All whilst significantly expanding their Florida factory and constructing a large launch facility (which contains the world’s tallest water tower) from scratch.

>Why is Spacex so much more dynamic than Blue despite having less funding and Talent?

Their definitely less scrappy, but Blue has an energy of their own, which is shown in the speedy construction of their infrastructure. We don’t get much insight into New Glenn’s development, but from what I’ve heard their firing on all cylinders to get it done. Their approach New Shepard on the other hand, seems to lack energy, highlighting a shift in priorities.

>>11404586
>why is he holding his cards so closed to his chest?
Only he isn't? BO is more transparent than most companies, which is saying a fucking shitload. SpaceX is just going full rockstar mode, that is all.

>>11404586
He doesn't want to be the leader of New Space. He has already positioned himself as the leader of Old Space by selling the BE-4 to ULA and getting LockMart, Northrop Grumman and Draper under his wings.

>>11404623
It would be a stretch to call New Glenn a 'trump card' considering that its development is roughly concordant with that of Starship despite being only partially reusable. There's a reason F9 is slated to be retired by SS.

>>11404633
This. I wouldn't even call Blue Origin as being part of New Space. Fucking Rocket Lab is New Space, Blue is ULA tier.

How do I break into spacecraft design and mission planning?

>>11404680
Kerbal Space

>>11404616
The price saved in a Falcon Heavy launch compared to other contemporary similar-sized launchers is negligible compared to the cost of JWST. You probably couldn't save enough with a decade of launches to buy another JWST, the thing is just inordinately, enormously expensive even considering how tight the tolerances are on it's construction.

>>11404743
imagine working for over a decade on the same single project just for it to get destroyed on launch. I think I would actually kill myself.

>>11404747
>Expendable telescope engineers.

The absolute state of Booing

>>11404757
>American spacecraft
>powered by Russian parts
B O E I N G

More tweets from Musk

>Hardest problem by far is building the production system of something this big. 2nd hardest is achieving full & rapid reuse with payload to orbit of ~2%.

>These problems are fundamentally intertwined. Building many rockets allows for successive approximation. Progress in any given technology is simply # of iterations * progress between iterations.

>F9 iteration slowed down as payloads became too important to risk. Little change is expected going forward with F9/FH or Dragon. Starship production & thus iterative improvement will be much faster than Falcon. Driving hard for fully reusable orbital flight this year!

>>11404764
>Driving hard for fully reusable orbital flight this year!
so... 2022?

>>11404757
I’m interested in what part this is, it’s not surprising considering Boeing has a Russian division.

>>11404759
Not really a big deal when America’s most trustworthy, reliable and only nuclear-rated rocket, which is used to launch billion dollar space probes also uses Russian engines.

>>11404769
>Not really a big deal
The whole fucking reason for developing an American spacecraft is to not be dependent on the Russian spacecraft. And then they go ahead and make it dependent on the Russians. LMAO

>>11404680
https://www.surrey.ac.uk/postgraduate/space-engineering-msc-2020

>>11404770
>And then they go ahead and make it dependent on the Russians. LMAO

I wouldn’t call buying a component from a small private Russian company being dependent on them, if Russia blocked the sale Boeing would just buy one somewhere else.

>>11404764
>F9 iteration slowed down as payloads became too important to risk. Little change is expected going forward with F9/FH or Dragon. Starship production & thus iterative improvement will be much faster than Falcon. Driving hard for fully reusable orbital flight this year!

Basically, we can afford to blow as many of these up as it takes to make it work and that's what we plan to do. Sounds good.

>>11404781
>I wouldn’t call buying a component from a small private Russian company being dependent on them, if Russia blocked the sale Boeing would just buy one somewhere else
That was the whole purpose of the American spacecraft. It is incomprehensibly stupid of Boeing to go this route.

>>11404770
How many American rockets are using Russian engines again?

>>11404782
Yeah, the recent surge in Tesla is solving a lot of problems now that he can afford to do whatever he wants

>>11404788
>That was the whole purpose of the American spacecraft. It is incomprehensibly stupid of Boeing to go this route.

Why doesn’t NASA and the US government give a fuck then? They obviously vetted the sale. Someone should sift through all the subcontractors for the Falcon 9 + Dragon 2 and find out how truly American they are, I’m pretty sure you’ll find an obscure foreign part or two. It’s just the reality of a globalised economy.

>>11404680
No Man's Sky

>>11404795
>Falcon 9 + Dragon 2
Poor example, SpaceX is all about vertical integration to cut costs. Good examples would be all the American rockets flying with RD rockets.

>>11404805
>SpaceX is all about vertical integration to cut costs

They still have thousands of subcontractors tho, like all aerospace companies, just less than average.

>>11404757
Which is worse, a part made by drunk gopniks or a part made by Boing?
>>11404769
>I’m interested in what part this is
Maybe it's a trampoline, lol.

>>11404807
For poptarts and mops?
They're not buying engines wholesale from NPO Energomash.

>>11404811
We’re not talking about engines here, but small, specialised and obscure components like the ones a Russian company builds for Starliner.

>>11404752
i wish this meme was expendable

>>11404822
>specialised and obscure components
please let me know what "specialised and obscure component" boeing buys from russia, otherwise you are talking out your ass. You have no idea what they buy, or its significance

>>11404586
the man set up a team that bought oldspace, anon

>>11404781
sorry anon, the Russians are the only ones who have ever done land parachute landings, we need their expertise on this issue

>>11404757
>builds spacecraft to get away from Russian launches
>Still cucks to Russia to get to space anyways.

death to old space.

>>11404792
Tesla's rally didn't really make him any money. He doesn't sell his shares, he bought more even. What it does is it freed up his time to spend in Boca Chica since he doesn't have to worry about Tesla going bankrupt.

>>11404757
What parts is Boeing buying from Russia specifically?

>>11404849
>Tesla's rally didn't really make him any money
he doesn't have to immediately liquefy his ownership, it's just a matter of having the fallback if they need it—something he didn't have before. If four or five starships blow up on the platform, investors will start getting worried and he might have to bankroll more iterations himself.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-revives-plans-for-launch-vehicle-construction-in-los-angeles/

>>11403608
Won't unfiltered uv light from outer space destroy the resin in carbon fiber within a few hours?

>>11404861
Why would you want a bunch of C*lifornians building your shit? Why not just build it in Florida?

>>11404861
I've been wondering, why the fuck would you want to start up any business in this shithole right now? Is there something rocket related in LA so important that it can't be done anywhere that's less of a dumpster fire?

>>11404869
Talent pool, I guess. Maybe poaching from JPL or Aerojet, there's a bunch of rocket companies in the area. Easier to get them to move across LA than to move to a different state.

>>11404863
Black objects turn UV into thermal energy without causing hardly any UV damage. White or transparent on the other hand can get serious UV damage pretty quickly. If the resin is dark/black then there shouldn't be a problem for a very long time.

>>11404876
I feel like that isn't so true anymore considering the absolute state of California

>>11404879
California sucks, but it absolutely has the biggest talent pool maybe outside of Mclean VA.

>>11404885
I meant like in regards to moving out of state.

>>11404877
But resin by itself isn't black, it's mixed with pigment. If the few nanometers that aren't pigment take uv, they'll become brittle.

>>11404921
Still not a problem for the most part. There's a shit load of plastic and resins you see in many of the NASA photos of suits, shuttles, and ISS.

>>11404861
>"...and water dependent recovery and transportation operations.”

>>11404866
>not wanting to make green sustainable paper biodegradable PC rockets

>>11404869
Speculation I've seen is that Los Angel facility is for raptor construction, reason being they already have their brains (and production) in nearby Hawthorne.

>>11404759
This is a global economy now.

>>11404809
>or a part made by Boing?
You tell me!

>>11404930
>Still not a problem for the most part
Or... it could be a big problem, just a hidden one

>>11405070
>within a few hours?
No.

>>11405059
Wow, someone accidentally left some tools in a stored plane, how will Boeing ever recover?....

>>11404795
>Why doesn’t NASA and the US government give a fuck then
Because Boeing is propped by the guy who controls the funding for NASA. So they will not make any noise.

>>11405093
>in an airplane's fuel tank

>>11405083
A few hours times several times. You don't want things to be disposable, do you?

>>11405093
>left some tools in a stored plane
Inside a fucking fuel tank.

>>11405093
You count tools out, you count them back in. This is basic maintenance shit. That this is a common problem is appalling.

>>11405093
>left tools in an aircraft's fuel tank
>tools that could mess up the tanks if the plane were flying

>>11405111
I did maintenance on a tanker that hauled heating oil once, tool check going in, tool check before signing off.
And that was a pretty fucking 2-bit operation. You don't leave behind wrenches or electrodes or whatever inside a tank with flammable material that's in motion.

And a fucking medium truck lugging heating oil is hardly pulling the same G's a jumbojet is.

starships vab looks a little... small.

11405093
>people STILL think there aren't paid shills here

>>11405152
If he's a shill, then he's a terrible one.

>>11405152
Why would Boeing, one of the biggest companies in the entire world, hire "paid shills" to post in an obscure general thread on a Tibetan finger painting site? Take your fucking meds retard.

OH NOOOOOOO https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/02/sls-debut-april-2021-ksc-teams-launch-sims/

>>11405166
Your tax dollars at work.

>>11405166
>>11405175
What’s the problem here? SLS has been scheduled for spring 2021 for half a year now, it’s nice to get a firm date. The only reason for this ‘slip’ is that NASA hasn’t had a chief or human spaceflight to give an official date up until now.

How much environmentally friendly is Starlink compared to regular internet since it makes energy it requires with solar panels?

>>11405201
Infinitely since the satellites are placed outside the environment.

>>11405204
Base stations won't be running on hopes and dreams though.

>>11405166
Ka-ching! Guess they're gonna another 5 billion dollars now.

>>11405207
It will require similar power to e general cable model. So not that much of a difference.

>>11405214
Or postpone it indefinitely if the democrats take the white house in November, even if that's unlikely.

>>11405185
Just vent frustrations about SLS. Sure, it's probably the most clear date given so far, but it's yet another slip from what was previously promised.

>>11405207
the production, building and maintenance of a global network of wires is orders of magnitude more expensive in terms of emissions and resources than any number of starlink launches and base stations would ever be. Digging and laying a mile worth of infrastructure would probably have a similar footprint as a single rocket launch.

>>11405225
Yeah, but the power required to power receivers of the signal isn't powered by unicorn farts and fairy dust.
So any environmental benefit they may give is wholly dependent on whatever power source you're sitting on. They're also going to use base stations to reflect signals back up for interlink as far as I understand, they require power too.
And people aren't getting rid of their old gear to switch over, so now you have new gear in addition to old.

See where this is going?

>>11405237
What's your point faggot?

>>11405246
That any "environmental benefit" is non-existent. It's a supplemental thing, it was never intended to replace normal internet.

>>11405223
>but it's yet another slip from what was previously promised.

Jim Bridenstine already confirmed SLS would slip to 2021 several times last year, so I’m just happy we’ve gotten a firm date; which SLS could actually meet because now it’s just testing which is delaying the launch.

>>11405253
Fair enough. Hopefully the testing goes well. I want to see this thing fly already.

>>11405237
>base stations require power therefore there is no environmental benefit of removing the global necessity of maintenance of massive, resource-intensive communications networks.
not even close to offsetting the benefits.

>>11405249
Only a frizzy haired sandal enthusiast would give two flying sperms about that

>>11405277
Take that up with >>11405201

Wait a second...

>>11405307
N-no, it can't be...

>>11405249
but it will replace the most wasteful type of normal internet, rural broadband

>>11405313
Copper that was laid sometime shortly after WW2?
Yeah, I was on that some decades ago myself. The house I live in predates WW2, the phone lines that was in the attic were actually isolated with old newspapers.

>>11405318
yeah

>>11405321
Hardly particularly wasteful.

>>11405329
laying new cable to service people who don't have it because the population has grown since 1950 is very wasteful, and Starlink is going to murder that market

>>11405331
No seriously.
It may be slow as fuck by todays standards, but considering how much mileage we've gotten out of that old copper pair, it's the exact opposite of wasteful.

>>11405340
>how much mileage we've gotten out of that old copper pair
From what i understand we still can push a lot out of coper wiring but providers are always one step behind in expanding their networks for the growing demands.

Starlink will run in to this problem to.

>>11404680
bolt cutters

>>11405360
Problem as always is distances. Speeds go down when the distance grows from the customer to the central due to signal degradation. This has been an issue since the first generation of ADSL.
For every new DSL standard, the maximum distance goes down as the speed goes up, so the providers would have to build more centrals closer to the customers. Nobody is willing to do this, in my country, nobody is even willing to maintain the old copper anymore. They just want it gone for good.

>>11404680
Just use escorts who instal spyware on their clients phones while they are in the shower&etc... like the CCP does.
all those western businessmen who felt so good about themself after fucking that chinese hooker who kept yelling "your so big" and afterwards were dumbfounded when all their company secrets were stolen

>>11405375
Yes, and Starlink will eat their lunch out there
no way to dethrone them in the cities and towns but Starlink is global, once the cost/benefit calc for the terrestrial ISPs rise to a certain point in the boonies then it's pure Starlink territory

>>11405390
Yes, it's going to be a great supplement if it gets off the ground nice and proper and actually works as intended and doesn't turn into Iridium 2.0 which is unlikely, but not unthinkable.

Don't call it a comeback
I've been here for years
I'm rocking my peers
Puttin' suckers in fear
Makin' the tears rain down like a monsoon

>vertical integration

What a meme

Bet they use “aerospace aluminium” to build their rockets instead of steel.

>>11402899
uh...you know they filter the fuck out of the air, right?

>>11403770
is it wrong that i would belly laugh like a cunt if this thing exploded on the launchpad? after all the prep and the effort and the delays and the cost overruns,how sublime would it be if it just exploded 50 feet in the air?

>>11405431
Yeah, and it still smells like an old jock strap. But you don't notice it when you're used to it.
Ever read the stories about Mir? The ISS has it's own funk to it too.

>>11405445
you're moving the goalposts-they filter out skin cells and grime-who gives a fuck about a smell? it probably smells way better than a submarine, and it's not like they couldn't add gadgets to spray deodorizers when things get more commercial.

>>11405491
It's gonna be fucking nasty no matter what, but that's pioneer life in a nutshell. Fuck creature comforts if you want to go to Mars.
It's gonna be pretty army barracks cranked to 11 no matter how many fucking air purifiers they stick in there. In space, there's no fucking delivery of new filters.

>>11405499
At least they won’t be hand-smushing poop in plastic bags to get the chemicals to mix right

>>11405403
>Iridium 2.0
>he doesn't know about Iridium NEXT

>>11405422
What's wrong with vertical integration?

>tfw there's a realistic chance Starship will get orbital before SLS

>>11405513
Uses too little tax dollars. Doesn't give senators something to brag to their constituents about come re-election.

>>11405422
>>11405513
>thinking building a rocket upright is 'vertical integration'
I'm gonna spill my fucking spaghetti I s2g

>>11405518
I thought you meant vertical physical integration of a rocket. Oops.

>>11405522
It is though? The rocket is being integrated, it's done while the parts are in the vertical orientation.

>>11405529
It's called building a stack, vertically.

>>11405529
The rocket is being built. In what other context have you ever called construction "integration", it doesn't even make sense. It's purely a result of people accidentally conflating two things for so long they everyone forgot they were doing it on accident.

>>11405514
Elon:
>hey what if fully reusable two stage classic shuttle
Nasa:
>pffff no fuck off nigger nobody has time to wait for that
Elon:
>we fly now

Reminder, your resistance only makes Elon work harder and faster.

>>11405531
STACC

it makes me sad that we will never again see the monstrous three stage to orbit, seven stages there and back again Apollo style architectures

>>11405552

>>11405649
IT GOES UP

Well, this whole “Boeing’s using Russian parts!” debacle was massively blown out of proportion. I wonder if another reason for using a Russian power converter is compatibility with the ISS’ Russian segment? (Zao Orbita are responsible for building the Russian segment’s power system).

>>11405675
I don't know why it's so hard to understand that when the US gave up the shuttle program, they lost expertise in human flight that Russia never did.

>>11405111
I mean the software issues they are having are similarly basic. There seems to be a general disregard for widely accepted best practices at all levels of the company. I don‘t know how they managed to fuck up their company culture like this.
It might take years to fix all of these systemic issues for good. And they‘d first have to start addressing this shit at all. Something I haven‘t heard from them yet.

>>11405387
Are you drunk?

>>11405201
Well for now they only plan to make one bounce to the nearest regular internet, so I doubt it makes much of a difference. I suppose it‘s a bit more energy though since the antenna has to reach the sat. Also the sat got launched by a rocket and if we‘re talking CO2 that probably counts for more than using solar power for one little step on a message‘s way through the internet.

>>11405766
I only read it somewhere and i cant find the source, but claims are that in every economic zone of china pretty much every upper class whore is on the CCP payroll.

but i cant prove it so i'll put my tinfoilhat on.

>Our congressional rocket scientists have not surprisingly designed the most expensive solution with the lowest possible economic return. H.R. 5666 would mandate “a minimum set of human and robotic lunar surface activities that must be completed to enable a human mission to Mars” — a certain path to high cost, low return missions, and the likely collapse of a space program capable of surviving a change in administrations. Worse, the plan mandates that NASA own its landers and rely only on the long-delayed and grossly over-budget Space Launch System for carriage.

https://spacenews.com/op-ed-nasa-need-another-space-assignment/

Is... Is space dead??!

>>11405789
>Is... Is space dead??!

No, Greg Autry is just a massive drama queen, who’s shitting himself over a bill that hasn’t even passed committee yet, let alone the House, Senate and White House.

>>11405776
multiple bounces across the atlantic and from the west coast stock markets to New York for high frequency traders and other extremely low latency markets
it's a good market
>>11405789
no it's old news, it won't get past the Senate

>>11405514
>SLS won‘t be "the most powerful rocket ever flown" when it launches
>because the super heavy prototype will have beat it by a country mile by the end of this year

>>11405801
They may plan to do that later.
But for now it‘s just one bounce to get back onto the regular internet infrastructure.

>>11405808
ground bounce stuff is a short term plan according to Elon

>>11405799
>>11405801

Oh so it's talking about that bill, I got the impression that it was a new one. Thank god.

>>11405803
thinking about Super Heavy makes me all sweaty

>>11405812
The fireball it's going to make in the first launch will make a lot of people sweat too.

>>11405814
it's so BIG
all that thrust, think of the noise

>>11405815
And the smell haha, how would the smell be? Hahaha just asking

>>11405875
reentry shock heating makes me horny

>>11405875
No hydrogen sulfide in the methane they use for starship

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

>The ISS was originally intended to be a laboratory, observatory, and factory while providing transportation, maintenance, and a low Earth orbit staging base for possible future missions to the Moon, Mars, and asteroids. However, not all of the uses envisioned in the initial Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and Roskosmos have come to fruition

So guys...we're going to the Moon and Mars for real this time, right? Right? haha

>>11405999
>The ISS was originally intended to be a laboratory, observatory, and factory while providing transportation, maintenance, and a low Earth orbit staging base for possible future missions to the Moon, Mars, and asteroids.
Christ, that's depressing. What happened?

>So guys...we're going to the Moon and Mars for real this time, right?
If you meant through NASA? Probably not unless they get a massive clean up in their management and political relations. Through other means (SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc.)? There's a good chance as long as nothing disastrous happens to all of them.

>>11406004
>Christ, that's depressing. What happened?
My guess is, politics.

>If you meant through NASA? Probably not unless they get a massive clean up in their management and political relations.
I blame Washington, desu.

>Through other means (SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc.)? There's a good chance as long as nothing disastrous happens to all of them.
That's a good point. That makes me feel a lot better about this. Fuck the public sector. Nothing ever gets done because of the retards in the White House.

>>11406004
>What happened?
What do they even do up there besides run experiment packages cooked up by anyone with a dumb idea?
"What do we do now? I know, let's bake cookies!"
>hey should we get some rats to fuck in 0g and see what happens with the pregnancy?
"Haha, space cookies! I f*cking love science!"

>>11406008
>I blame Washington, desu.
NASA shoulders part of the blame. Their management encourages the agency to do the minimum amount of work to stay relevant.

>>11406015
>Their management encourages the agency to do the minimum amount of work to stay relevant.
Seriously? But that's an oxymoron, they don't do shit and are basically relevant anymore because of it.

>>11406011
>What do they even do up there besides run experiment packages cooked up by anyone with a dumb idea?
As it was explained in a previous thread, they did just solve the issue of bone and muscle wastage in micro-g. The problem though is that the solution is so simple that it should've been figured out years ago.

>>11406021
>basically
*barely

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/21/spacex-raising-250-million-elon-musks-company-valuation-36-billion.html

>>11406196
honestly probably not a great time to invest... lots of potential for huge disaster in the coming months for SpaceX. If they kill those two astronauts would they eve recover?

>>11406201
SpaceX isn't publicly traded so it's a pointless thing to consider. That said, if they were I would take the bet that the dragon capsule test will go well and float the stock even higher every time against that risk.

>Starliner report due next week
Place your bets. How much will NASA let them get away with.

>>11406238
NASA will probably give Boeing the same treatment they gave SpaceX when a Dragon 2 exploded.

>>11406238
>>11406242
>My team!
>NO, MY team!
Why is /sfg/ this way

>>11406238
they're going to get fucking screwed

>>11406246
lol @ calling for civility unless spacex fucks up

>>11406246
I didn't imply team favoritism though?

nasa thinks they can't afford the bad PR from dead astronauts
they also can't afford to not have star"pocket"liner succeed

>>11406246
>Competition is evil. Lets all work together.
Fuck you.

>>11406266
They tweeted the other day that Spacex will be the first to deliver humans from American soil then quickly deleted the tweet as it it somehow upset ((someone)).

Makes me fearful that they haven't really changed since Challenger and their rush to launch and letting corporate suits override scientific decisions mentality.

>>11406275
oh no, they've changed since Challenger
they were trying to accomplish things in Challenger, now they have no pride

>>11406275
>They tweeted the other day that Spacex will be the first to deliver humans from American soil then quickly deleted the tweet as it it somehow upset ((someone)).
Anyone got a screencap of it?

>>11404757
just when you think they can't fuck it up any more

>>11406296
It turned out to be a nothingburger this time. >>11405675

>>11406275
>since Challenger

>>11406287
yes

>>11406331
Care to share it?

>>11406336
I don't have it but I know somebody does
check Scott Manley's twitter

>>11406340

>>11406345

>>11406011
>space cookies
were a 'privately' funded 'experiment' done by the Hilton hotel company. So this was done through Nanoracks a private company that 'owns' some stuff on the ISS and Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), a 'non-profit' organization managing the International Space Station U.S. National Laboratory. It's all sort of sketchy, CASIS may be allowing private companies to use the ISS for this sort of 'research' at the expense of taxpayers. Private companies may be taking advantage of this for publicity and advertising. CASIS even partnered with fucking Marvel to basically promote Guardians of the Galaxy
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2018/01/casis-just-cant.html
For what it does CASIS doesn't even manage the ISS all that well with the guaranteed funding it gets each year. Oh yeah and an exec of CASIS got in trouble for expensing prostitutes.

>>11406376
I swear to god I have never been one for celebrity worship, but if Musk delivers us from this hell I will be a statue of him

>>11406378
*build

>>11406378
>>11406382
Too late, the pact has been sealed. If SpaceX succeeds, then you'll have to take plastic surgeries to make yourself look like Elon so you'll be a living statue of him.

>>11406389
I Have No Mouth And I Musk Scream

>>11406389
A R T

>>11406378
A finger curls on the monkey's paw.

>>11406378
So you support using your tax dollars to subsidize cookie advertisements and capeshit?

>>11406414
That's the exact opposite of what he said. ESL?

>>11406246
Because one team fucks everything up constantly and the other team is actually winning and making insane progress

>>11406508
wrong, anime has done more to promote the ideals of von Braun than anything else

If Starship is successful and it drops the price to send stuff to space tremendously, then would there be a revival of the 4chan Space Program?

>>11406419
SpaceX is getting paid some of this subsidization money by providing transportation to the space station....

>>11406597
Being paid for providing a service is not a subsidy

>>11405542

Stop trying to popularize and commonize the usage of the n-word in our space threads to promote an atmosphere of racism.

>>11406814
nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger

>>11406814
lol
instead of picking cotton they'll have a black man picking rocks on the moon

>>11406823
What did anon meant by this? Someone please elaborate.

>>11406246
Boeing just recently tried to kill Artemis. They are not your friends.

>>11406814
>t.nigger

>>11406376
>Oh yeah and an exec of CASIS got in trouble for expensing prostitutes.

Who cares? Fucking prostitutes is good fun

>>11406814
don't be a stupid nigger

As a Boeing guy I can't wait to win the race.

>>11406389
Not him, but I wouldn't mind being a phenotypic clone of Musk. I mean, I'm a big brain sperg like him, so I don't see how it wouldn't work.

>>11407154

Thats the thing, Boeing wont win the race. Their string of fuckups has led them from being the frontrunner and the justification of why their seats on the Starliner are more expensive than the ones on the Dragon 2 to being behind SpaceX. Boeing would be an expensive joke if it werent for the fact that their incompetence and greed will lead to dead astronauts one day.

>>11406639
Yes it is. NATIONALIZE NOW.

>>11406238
No major issues will be found and some careful wording will hint full mission may proceed with only minor delay. While talking about the minor troubles encountered during the unmanned test, some journalist will ask about the exploded spacex capsule.

>https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-plans-for-mars-spaceport-starship-boca-chica-south-texas-2020-2
So we're going imminent domain. Few of the residents don't want to sell to SpaceX for any amount of money.

>>11406246
Because, civilization is still tribal-based and its controllers try to keep this aspect so that they can remain in power. Divide and conquer is less about war than it is population control. You may say, "but what about all the SJW stuff in media?" and you would need to know about false choices. You choice-attention goes to how many ice cream flavor choices you have and what sports team or political party you root for. It trickles down to, "us-vs-them," in every aspect of life, but the most important things are pushed aside in favor of the utmost frivolous. Thus, you end up with fanboys for every single space related thing possible.

>>11406275
>Spacex will be the first to deliver humans from American soil
So, basically, they either accidentally posted something untrue due to poor wording or the zoomer tweeter didn't fact check first and got BTFO or people interpreted it as being "first ever" instead of "first in the current race to space" and went apeshit?

>>11407415
I hate boeing because I've done work with huge government contractors before and they're all massively incompetent. This is how I know for a fact that any conspiracy that relies on the government being full of ultra-competent people to execute some very difficult plan is a lie. These people are all in the private sector and have started their own companies.

>>11407368
Eminent domain will be bad for Elon, optics wise. I wonder how hard have they pursued a waiver option so that FAA won't bug them to have these people so close to a launch site.

>>11407534
it's so shitty how much the success of newspace ultimately relies on good PR and lobbying.

>>11407534
Should just rescind all offers and keep busing them out for every launch according to regulation. See how long that property remains irreplaceable.

>>11407545
Can't because insurance liability cost exceeds $100M for each test with people nearby.

>>11407415
Hey bro I think you dropped this

>>11407368
So why did SpaceX choose Boca Chica specifically? Is it due to it's location? Or was it the least inhabited part of the south Texan coast? Was it cheap?

>>11407612
Ironic how you play right into the dichotomy.

>>11407614
Location. Wide coast area, undeveloped cheap land, close to NASA/Austin. Initially it was meant for Falcon Heavy type launches, but it morphed into Starship.

>>11407624
Hey bro you forgot to take these

>>11406378
For the moment, SpaceX did impressive things, but not yet "we shat on every previous achievements by state actors, in far less time with far less budget"-level. If/when SpaceX lands a Starship on Mars, I wonder how other actors will react. I, for one, will welcome our new Muskian overlords.

Elon saying SH and SS stack and an orbital flight possible by the end of 2020.

>>11407614
Location + lack of permanent habitation. The "village" is a collection of summer homes

>>11407647
I'll believe it when I see it but would be kino

>>11407646
>"we shat on every previous achievements by state actors, in far less time with far less budget"
They did exactly that with reusability.

>>11407647
I have my doubts, but I would like to see them try for it.

>>11407647
You should tack 150% onto the end of each Musk timeline. Expect orbital flight by early 2022 and no earlier. It's still an incredibly impressive timeline, but don't get excited by his sweet little lies.

>>11407647
Aspirational timelines for keeping staff focused. Betting on full reuse 2021 at the earliest, which would still be huge.

>>11407647
If all goes perfect. There's 50/50% chance of that happening. Lets just hope our universe(many world) is the one where the ship goes to orbit.

>>11407647
have they even started on SH?

Are they stacking soon?

>>11407647
yes, that's not a new estimate and nothing's gone wrong to move that date yet

>>11407680
here for my daily dose of /weldwatch/.

>>11407679
no lol. It will be simpler than SS despite being larger though, combined with experience from the current build cycle it should come together faster but not "launch this year" fast

>>11407680
STACC

>>11407691
bulgewatch

mods are asleep
post stacks

>>11407662
Yeah, I think a clearer picture will be available one we see how the 20 and 100km hops go, if they go swimmingly and SS becomes a more "proven" design, SH can be built pretty quickly. SS is the hard part, SH is really big F9.

>>11407709
>SH is really big F9
scaling up from a smaller model has never been trivial—the stresses are so different that you can't just assume all the math you worked out on the first one still applies.

>>11407680
They are working far too slow I'm dying here.

JUST LIFT IN UP INTO THE FUCKING AIR

>>11407709
>SH is really big F9.

>>11407718 is correct.

SH is longer and much wider, built using different materials and techniques, is powered by a different type of engine, has over thrice the number of engines on a single core etc.

>>11407736
tbf most of that is actually in its favor when it comes to simplicity. It's just a bunch of homogenous rolled stainless stacced up, without even the contouring needed for an SS nosecone or wings. Raptor is a more complex engine admittedly but they seem to have had success ramping up production anyway.

>>11407718
>>11407736
Not him but F9 to SH and nearly identical and will see identical flight profiles. It's the easy part where spacex has experience. The upper stages are where the differences come into play. Arguing about how thick, thin, wide, short and so on, is nothing more than focusing on minute details of little importance just to argue for the sake of arguing.

>>11407759
>Arguing about how thick, thin, wide, short and so on, is nothing more than focusing on minute details of little importance
you realize changing the dimensions and materials and number of engines of the rocket changes literally everything about it, right? There are hard limits of tolerance for every single part that need to be tested and understood for the new, stronger forces.

>>11407774
Yes it will change and it won't be a problem because they won't copy paste F9 model and scale it up in blender.
If there are issues to be faced they will be primarily in the far more complex and demanding upper stage that will experience loads and uses spacex simply has little experience with.
Big falcon 9 is good enough analogy. Solved problem. If it turns out the SH's size is the big hurdle of the project that could very well be the best possible outcome.

>>11407774
Another 'not the other dude' but the biggest potential hurdle I could see coming from the scale is literally just the thing buckling under its own weight, which sounds hilarious but seems plausible after the welding issues with the SS stack. In terms of actual mission profile though nothing really works against it. For instance entry heating on return which F9 had to work around is basically irrelevant on SH.

Stack now

>>11407880
Oh fuc I'm gonna coom.

>>11407679
it will be 80% the exact same process as building SS

>>11407736
>>11407718
Didn't mean to say this would be a copy paste and scale. But if they can tackle SS then honestly I don't see SH as posing a huge challenge. These are some of the best engineers in the world. They can figure out how to make it work. My point was that the Falcon 9 taught a lot of lessons that will be used on SH. Starship on the other hand is a completely novel design.

>>11407415
Anon all I asked was why we can't be excited for both companies launching capsules finally.

What the absolute fuck are you rambling about?

i'd berry my starship so far inside of your gravity well whoever could pull it out would be called elon

>>11407930
>smoothbrain posting
can't even follow logic
oopise woopise

>NASA when they realize they should've invested in reusable boosters

cccccontact!

>>11407945
This post is extremely low-quality.

Contact!

>>11407966
What is it going to look like when it's finished? It's not going to be all smooth like in the renders right? It's going to have tons of crap stuck on it and weld lines and bents, etc. And burns after it comes back.

>>11407976
it's going to look fucking awesome madmax space shiiite.

>>11407976
The first couple are gonna look more like SN1 than the renders, but I think they might get them smoother with time. Who knows, the bottom will be black though.

Is this a dent or an illusion?

>>11406378
I wonder how much of SpaceX' (and Tesla's) successes can be attributed to Musk.
Of course he don't build the rockets himself, but he chose the people (who chose the people) who build the rockets. On the other hand he sometimes seems to have retarded ideas like the automation fiasco at Tesla.
SpaceX also arrived at a good time: end of the shuttle so NASA needs taxi/cargo flights to the ISS, monopoly of ULA, RD-180 ban. But there was also the 2008 market crash...

>>11407992
Looks like an illusion. Given the light reflection on the vertical section bending the light, the horizontal also seems to be bending the shadows.

>>11407992
Don't think so the bulkheads so far all were a bit wobbly.
Could be exaggerated by the angle, light, and being lifted.

>>11407992
I think the biggest thing making that look wobbly is the bent reflection of the hexagonal ring on the round bulkhead. If your expectation is that the reflection is of something round, then the bulkhead will look dented, but that's not actually what's there.

>>11407646
Some industry insiders are scared shitless right now and hoping for both failure (so they don't get fucked by questions) but at the same time, they're also excited that SpaceX is doing something that has never been done before in history of spaceflight.

>>11408013
>I wonder how much of SpaceX' (and Tesla's) successes can be attributed to Musk.
Aside from engineers/executives like Shotwell? Musk has a huge role in SpaceX. For Tesla, he was the primary funder/funderaiser for early years of Tesla. Before Roadster was released, they also almost died and Elon had to pull everything from his own money/friend's loan. Roadster was never profitable, but rather a proof of concept of EV. Tesla today is almost entirely a product of Elon's push.

>>11407946
There's always time for reusable project involving a winged glider and legacy Shuttle/Ares/SLS components.

>>11407992
The fuel will buff it out.
>>11408056
I agree. The main SLS tank could easily have landing legs and shit welded on for landing.
Then there could be a block 3, which could be a hybrid of Starship and the space shuttle concept.

>>11407919
100% of the process for building Super Heavy will be used in building Starship

>>11408064
>SLS landing legs
Sounds like a good idea in theory but in practice the core stage can't take that kind of load and is not suitable reusability at all. I propose using it as a drop tank and moving the engines to a sidemounted upper stage this way we can retrieve the most valuable and expensive components discarding only the simple "dumb" tank on each flight. Initially we'll use the existing SRB boosters but we could eventually move to liquid fueled ones in the future for slight increase in performance.

>Musk's lesson learned from the Foundation series (Asimov)
>The lessons of history would suggest that civilisations move in cycles
>We're obviously in a very upward cycle right now and hopefully that remains the case. But it may not.
>There could be some series of events that cause that technology level to decline.
>Given that this is the first time in 4.5bn years where it's been possible for humanity to extend life beyond Earth, it seems like we'd be wise to act while the window was open and not count on the fact it will be open a long time

>>11408070
anon that's just the space shuttle

>https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/02/22/spaceflight-industries-to-sell-its-satellite-rides.aspx
Spaceflight Industries sells to Japanese company via 50/50 split. All their future plans are now through Indian/French rockets instead of SpaceX. Presumably because SpaceX was eating its customers by launching directly without the middleman(Space Industries)

>>11407946
>implying that it wouldn't take NASA 50 more years to get reusability down

>>11408013
Elon isn't so much an engineer as he is a business man. He asks questions, spends money and tries to cut costs. I really believe that his close ties to how all the money is spent at his companies has a lot to do with success.
When Tesla was pushing to get the Model 3 out the door and into driveways, Musk caught wind that a lot of contractors at Tesla were simply taking money and hiring shitty sub-contractors so they could pull profit and not do anything. Musk started chopping heads off and cut out a lot of middle men so money wasn't just lining pockets - it was being used properly to get results. Kinda like the Orion module right now - government contractors that roll down to small and smaller companies so a $10,000 contract gets a $1,000 part.
For SpaceX, he would cut costs by not playing with companies that offered """"SPACE GRADE""" products. There was a time where they needed a new air conditioning system for part of a rocket (for the fairing enclosure I believe). A new one, that was specifically "for rockets" was $10's of thousands. Elon was like "wtf, why?" and ended up having an A/C system for a house based on the faring size installed for a fraction of the price. They also bought an old metal tank that was going to get thrown away. Perfectly good materials, and saved more cash by recycling it into what they needed.

Musk is smart, you can't deny that. I doubt hes computing trajectories for Falcon9 rockets and other insane engineering. He oversees everything as a whole and keeps it running lean and efficiently.

>>11408121
we knew this was coming

>>11408158
actually they installed a double or triple redundant A/C system... for a house

>>11408158
My favorite story related to this was about the locker latches for SpaceX's Dragon and how the design that's typical for that application was fairly complicated and expensive. So they designed their own based off of a bathroom stall door. Or at least that's what I've heard, I swear there was an article on this but I can't find it. Like, it's sort of understandable how a payload AC unit ended up being overbuilt and expensive, but a locker latch is just silly.

>>11408158
>Elon isn't so much an engineer as he is a business man
Elon does both given his direct involvement in company's engineering designs for both SpaceX and Tesla. He doesn't just make business decisions based on cost, he also takes into engineering considerations. All the people who's come on camera to talk about how workin with Elon speaks about how he has insane level of knowledge on all sorts of subjects. The recent NASA astronaut's talk on Joe Rogan goes about how Musk would talk with rocket engineers and construction workers back to back with fluency. Dr Robert Zubrin talks about how surprised he was when he met Elon the second time. The first time he met with Elon, he said Elon had almost no knowledge of rockets but in only a few years had attained mastery over it. Its safe to say Musk also has studied deeply into EV/battery tech. Musk was an intern working at a ultracapacitor company in college.

>>11408180
I think the latches used on ULA rockets are taken from the old apollo/gemini design, which wanted weight savings over cost. They won't care about spending $10million on a latch to save 0.5grams, unlike spaceX

>>11408199
>They won't care about spending $10million on a latch to save 0.5grams
And that mentality can't leave soon enough.

>>11408280
Optimizing mass is the most important thing.

The tyranny of the rocket equation is unforgiving, every gram has to be optimized even if it costs millions because a rocket that isn't mass optimized is one that is committing the gravest sin of rocketry - wasting payload.

Punishment for such folly against tradition and all things holy and international is nationalization of all assets belonging to those vile souls responsible for that crime.

>>11408299
>Punishment for such folly against tradition and all things holy and international is nationalization of all assets belonging to those vile souls responsible for that crime.
kek Could use more Shelby though.

Does anyone have that SLS Core on top of Superheavy image?

>>11408319
yeah

>>11408319
I think so

>>11408064
>>11408070
SLS core-stage with landing legs/retro propulsive landing is a terrible idea, first and foremost because unlike the Falcon boosters which MECO at a measly mach 5-6, the SLS core-stage MECOs just short of mach 23 (orbital velocity). Retro propulsive recovery would be impossible from those speeds and gliding recovery would add too much weight (in the form of TPS and control surfaces), significantly hurting performance. No, if your going to attempt to reuse SLS in some manner you go down the same route as ULA: ditch the tank and recover the first-stage engines with a inflatable heat shield.

>>11408390
they're wearing their harnesses and hard hats and eye protection, it all checks out

>>11408375
The current design already has pancaked engine section no way are you adding anything in there.

You'd need a new VAB before you may consider it.

They are going for a swim and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, muskrat.

NASA should have gone with an updated version of NOVA.

>>11408403
>SLS is a dead end based on tech from half a century ago and there’s nothing you can do about it

>>11408403
>They are going for a swim and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, muskrat.

I never implied they wouldn’t, it was just my attempt to rebut the “just stick legs on it!” people and show what kind of reusability could be feasible without drastically altering SLS’ design.

>>11408423
Considering that tech from half a century ago includes the world’s most powerful rocket propulsion system and the world’s most efficient lower and upper-stage chemical rocket engines, that says more about the rocket industry than SLS itself...

>>11408403
>They are going for a swim and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, muskrat.
Are you implying that anyone who advocates reusability is a Musk fanboy?

>>11408443
>germansausagecone.jpg

>>11408390
Why don’t they just use scaffolding baka

https://spacenews.com/china-resumes-space-launch-activity-amid-coronavirus-outbreak/

PRAISE GRORIOUS READER

THE VILLAGE RAZING WILL CONTINUE, NOTHING CAN STOP CHINA'S LONG MARCH TO PROGRESS, PEACE, AND PROSPERITY

>>11408489
That is mobile hydraulic scaffolding.

>>11408505
Those cranes cost tons compared to scaffolding

>>11408500
>be chinese peasant
>last night's batsoup made you have the sniffles
>you think you have that virus that the great leaders are telling you not to worry about.
>while thinking of ways not to end up in the CCP deathcamps a booster crashes in your townsquare and incinerates you&the rest of the village.

Such is life in glorious republic of china.

>>11408514
They are much faster to use though. That's the main point.

>>11408542
What do you need speed for, set up scaffolding and lower the rocket pieces into your circle

>>11408545
...

>>11408531
Village? What village? Our records have no mention of such a homestead in Xichang, we resent these accusations of doing property damage to a mountain resort with our recent glorious space launch, the claim of damage to a farm house in Xichang is in error and likely spread deliberately by American media as we are proud to report the successful launch of Chang Zheng 2D with some minimal launch debris contained to an unpopulated mountainous region of Xichang, Sichuan.

>>11408500
Sending virus to space?

>>11408514
they're also faster and safer

Anyone else excited for BASED Bernie to cancel NASA and slap a 50% corporate tax on monopolies like SpaceX?

>>11408820
>cancel NASA
Impossible considering Shelby and friends.

>50% corporate tax on monopolies like SpaceX
SpaceX doesn't have monopoly, and putting a tax that heavy would piss off the USAF.

>>11408824
>Impossible considering Shelby and friends.
Democrats will sweep the house and senate.
>SpaceX doesn't have monopoly
Name some contracts won by non-SpaceX American spaceflight companies.
>and putting a tax that heavy would piss off the USAF.
Air Force is getting disbanded within 4 years :)

>>11408849
ULA with... everything from NASA
Northrop Grumman with Cignus Antares

>>11408856
>ULA with... everything from NASA
the only thing ULA wins is a guaranteed cut from the DoD
>Northrop Grumman with Cignus Antares
That was like, 12 years ago anon.

>>11408849
>Name some contracts won by non-SpaceX American spaceflight companies.
You're trolling, but I'll humor you.
>Solar Orbiter mission launch went to ULA
>Loads of military communications satellite launches also went to ULA
>Commercial Cargo still has Orbital Sciences (now Northrop Grumman)
>Commercial Crew has both SpaceX and Boeing
>The Human Landing System (a part of Artemis) inlcuded Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Draper Laboratory
There's more, but that should get the gist of it.

>>11408860
yeah but they're still launching them

>>11408849
>Air Force is getting disbanded within 4 years :)
Good, independent air force was a terrible idea.

>>11408880
launch cost is a useless metric because it ignores the cost of the vehicle

why not quote prices instead?

>>11408885
launch cost is the cost of the vehicle

>>11408890
Then the GSLV should be listed lower than Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy.

>>11408885
How the fuck do you figure? Launch cost is all that matters.
>per unit cost would still be #2 on the chart anyway
kek

>>11408900
divided by # of times reused (^:

>>11408906
still waiting on that "100 reuses" for falcon 9, let alone starship :^)

>>11408912
Still waiting for Block 5’s 10 reuses and 24 hour turnaround...

>>11408912
Still waiting on literally anyone else to reach 1

>>11408918
just don't reply
it shits on the floor for attention
so deny it that

>>11408918
I mean the current New Shepard booster has been reused 6 times (inb4 suborbital) and the Space Shuttles were reused over 30 times with heavy refurbishment.

some rocket group is hot firing an engine right now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v1LnBObIhM

>>11408989
Great group, doing great things, but an unfortunate name.

>>11408849
Oh no! Then America would only have the greatest air force in the world. Instead of both of the two greatest air forces.

>>11408820
>bernie
>winning

>>11408983
I reused your mom 100 times before you slithered out of the abortion bucket, does that count?

>>11409046
yep, this one's going in my cringe compilation

Sorry to interrupt your autism but ‘Mad’ Mike Hughes, more commonly known as the flat-earther who built a steam-powered rocket to prove that the Earth has no curve, has probably just died after the parachutes on his contraption failed to deploy after launch, causing his craft to slam into the desert at high speed.

https://twitter.com/justindchapman/status/1231336002175717376

>>11409074
Holy fuck, RIP

>>11409074
rip sweet prince :')

>>11409074
wait, he made the rocket for himself? Why would he not just try to launch a camera into orbit? what a retard

>>11409074
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5xZFHUfYnE

>>11409089
A hypothesis I've heard was that he wasn't a flat Earther, instead he was just a rocket fan who scammed flat Earthers so he can fly in his own rocket.

>>11409074
Based, man sacrificed his own life to BTFO globelets.

>>11409097
goodnight sweet prince

>>11409074
Based Mike btfo round Earth believers

>>11409093
What were his final words?

>>11409097
based if true