/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11433191
>>11433171
>buf still there were two cars passing right by just a minute before the explosion
wrong
those were at the police roadblock way up the road

>>11433538
So does that mean it goes boom when there's no engine thrust applied to counter the internal pressure?

>>11433608
Probably not, but it sounds like the welds for that structure failed during cryo testing and the bottom fell out of the vehicle, leading to the catastrophic failure of the rest of the tankage.

>>11433608
who the fuck knows
looks like they're still finding problems

>>11432096

>>11433610
One could also take it as they accounted for the engine in the structural design but forgot there would be none during testing and it somehow caused it to go over the strength limits. Or they just dinged something below during the move and setup.

it looks like eeergo got demoted from moderator, lol
what a chump

>>11433782
Your the real chump here, obsessively seething about some random guy on an Internet forum, nobody cares.

>>11433782
>things no one in the world but you cares about

>>11433807
based jeffster

Remember to train your core muscles

>>11433538
Don't Shuck the Puck edition.. boy are you a fucking piece of work you motherfucker, i'm gonna enjoy pressing charges on your ass

>>11433826
oh baby

>>11433786
hi eeergo
what'd you do to get shitcanned?

>>11433857
baiting out emotional responses from fanboys and then using his moderator power to take out his emotional response to SpaceX destroying his livelihood on them

We’ve officially hit rock bottom folks: seething about moderators from a different forum...

>>11433975
ex-moderators
Snax was a fuckhead

>>11433807
Man, he really does look jewish when he makes the jew face

>>11433911
based af to be honest
what was his 'livelihood' before SpaceX ate his lunch?

>>11434021
no fucking clue, I think he's still with the Italian space agency but I'm not sure
he makes it a habit to spread FUD

>>11434027
>Italian space agency
They have one of those? lmao

>>11434033
How else do you think pizza is delivered to the ISS?

>>11434033
Yes, who do you think makes up ESA? Italy are a big part of ESA/Arianespace as well, Avio (an Italian company) builds the SRBs used for Vega, Ariane 5 and now Ariane 6.

>>11433538
So how far into the ground did the puck get shucked, do you think?

>>11433782
The guy was spreading quite a bit of unironic fud on the level of itt shitposting ("spacex is running PR campaign with this" - heard that one?) but leveraging his local e-celeb title to make it more impactful so I guess the admins aren't completely retarded. Also appeared after every single setback but was dead silent whenever good things happened.

>>11434199
yes
and then he leveraged his moderator powers to silence dissent when people tried to call him out on it

astra launch thread
>>11434323

It seems during all the simulations, Boeing ran a lot of small simulations and never one large one. This resulted in the different aspects of the Starliner vehicle as a whole not properly simulating together. Which explains the timer being off, causing the theaters to fire early.
An official NASA/Boeing conference should be hosted later this week.

>>11434466
reminds me of the Bradley fighting vehicle and not doing all-up armor tests

>>11434466
>An official NASA/Boeing conference should be hosted later this week.

It is being held on March 6th:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-boeing-to-provide-outcome-of-starliner-orbital-flight-test-reviews

>>11434478
should be entertaining.

>>11434466
This Pentagon Wars shit with Starliner and 737 Max is exactly what happens when you let suits try and design complex machines. Engineers exist for a reason, you put them in the dungeon and give them their two meals of bread and water and then let them do their work. Business majors exist to balance budgets, not avionics software.

>>11434478
in b4 they get to fly that death trap without further testing.

NROL-101 in September will be an interesting mission: ULA are going to fly both their new GEM 63 SRBs and new Vulcan fairing on an Atlas V, as a form of risk reduction for Vulcan.

>>11434495
yes, and when they ask for something you give it to them

>>11434488
There’s definitely going to be a lot of software and integration testing, both by Boeing and NASA. But I’m not sure NASA will think a re-flight worth the time and money, if all the problems can be ironed with increased simulation on the ground.

https://spacenews.com/boeing-implementing-more-rigorous-testing-of-starliner-after-software-problems/

>>11434466
>This resulted in the different aspects of <the vehicle> as a whole not properly simulating together.
this has been an issue with boeing since the beginning

>>11434501
*ironed out

>>11434501
As if anyone should trust a fucking Boeing simulator ever again after 737 Max and the last test run of the Starliner where not just the mission clock issue was a thing, but that whole jettison routine that would have shown up in a routine run through of the main program.
If they get to launch a crewed mission without a full fucking uncrewed demonstration with bells on, money changed hands and heads should be rolling.

>>11434501
>>11434507
i wonder if they'll simulate removing tools and rags from commercial liner fuel tanks.

>>11434466
>>11434487
It seems the comment from Boeing Starliner program manager John Mulholland was that it would be "more logical to break the mission phases into chunks and do a lot of testing in those smaller chunks."
A full scale simulation would take over 25 hours.
Boeing also used an emulator to test software for the Starliner, not a physical module. Boeing has since found out the emulator was flawed, which would have caused a catastrophic failure while attempting to land, if it had not been caught whole still in orbit.

>>11434512
the emulator was worse than flawed, it was legacy hardware

>>11434512
Jesus fucking Christ this really is starting to smell like Bradley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED

>>11434512
>A full scale simulation would take over 25 hours.
and? it's a multi-billion dollar program spanning years.

>>11434512
>Boeing also used an emulator to test software for the Starliner, not a physical module
Why are they even allowed to bid for contracts at this point?

>>11434527
My thought exactly.
I was simply posting facts as they have been stated, from Boeing themselves.
If you are testing life-supporting hardware, 25+ hour simulations shouldn't be an issue.

>>11434512
>the emulator was flawed, which would have caused a catastrophic failure while attempting to land
they had it set to 737 MAX mode

>>11434533
What was that cryptic error message the 737 MAX was showing before it turned into an improvised plow?

>>11434535
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFI-K_VGVms

>>11434535
Never mind, found it.

>IAS DISAGREE

>>11434535
>"ERROR #C16H13ClN2O: diazepam injected altitude"

>>11434527
>>11434531
I mean NASA put the Orion capsule for Artemis 1 in a thermal vacuum chamber for months, testing it at extreme temperatures and subsequently blasting it with EM waves to simulate a trip to the Moon...

>>11434545
That's how the big boys are supposed to do it.
Running a fucking emulator is for amateur hour.

>>11434545
So this kinda puts Boeing complaining about 25 hours of simulation in perspective...

>>11434545
>>11434512

The CHAD Lockheed/NASA vs the VIRGIN Boing

>>11434542
This is when air speed between captain and first officer or I guess in this case the FBW system disagree by 5 knots for 5 seconds. It is consistent with the avionics software of the 737 Max being made more sensitive to pitching up (to prevent engine nacelle scraping) and the pilot simultaneously not being properly retrained. He'd pull up like normal and within five seconds the FBW system will detect that he's outside of the new programmed normal and try to adjust, presumably throwing the IAS warning. I'm just speculating though, I don't fly or spaghetti code planes so that's just a guess.

>>11434565
That was the only warning they got before the nose started doing its improvised plow maneuvers.

>>11434574
She can't pull up, she's too dummy thicc.

>>11434576
It's not a matter of pulling up. It's a matter of the plane taking a dive automatically because it was programmed to do so to prevent stalls, even though it was flying normally.

>>11434583
Yeah, just checked and you're right, Jesus what a fuckup.

>>11434565
>auto systems that immediately crash the plane if sensors are bad

Smh

>>11434591
You now understand my reluctance to letting these people send people to space, especially if NASA just handwaves any further physical actual testing.

>>11434602
Oh I never had any doubt about Boing's incompetence, I just didn't quite understand what the problem with the Max was. The MCAS/FBW shouldn't even be able to seize control from the pilot in such a manner, yes, human error is hazardous however a human can perceive things that a computer cannot, at the very least there should be a function allowing the pilots to sever the higher functions of the MCAS to prevent such problems from becoming lethal. It's inane that the plane can crash itself (with no survivors!) and the pilots are nearly helpless to prevent it since dealing with the issue isn't in the manual because I guess a revised manual and some extra trainer hours is worth more than several hundred innocent lives to some fucking suit who couldn't build a birdhouse much less an aircraft.

>>11434512
COULD have caused a catastrophic failure, not would.
Still bad.

>>11434611
>Boing
Take my Kerbal Flag. It looks really good if pose Jeb next to a wrecked lander with it.

>>11434617
I have a large transparent version too if anyone wants.

>>11434616
>COULD have
It *would* have put the fucking cargo container through the fucking capsule.
Now while the capsule would have probably won that fight, it would not have come out of that completely unscathed.

>>11434466
Basically they just did unit tests and called it a day without doing any end2end system tests or too little.

>>11434624
Re-contact was not guaranteed. If it occured, yes, the capsule would've had a very bad day. But there are a lot of factors that could've played into that.

>>11434671
Programmed for same trajectory. No fucking excuses.

>>11433538
I've been out of the loop for a while, what happened now?

>>11434694
SN1 had a bad day, exploded, imploded and exploded some more when pressure testing prior to Raptor stand testing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYeVnGL7fgw&feature=emb_title

>>11434698
>>11434694
Also SN2 test will be begin either this week or next. So they got more fleets rolling out for fast tests.

>>11434694
yet another BLEVE
this one was very exciting

>>11434709
Yeah, but SN2 is relegated to just that puck test though.

>>11434694
juan forgot to turn the gas on on the welding rig.

>>11434716
https://twitter.com/JohnRand0061/status/1233782215651348481

Most likely where it all started. More than just the weld that failed there. I would not be surprised if they don't go back to the drawing board.

>>11434724
I would imagine that it started when the bottom bulkhead sprung a leak, which was the big cloud that formed underneath the tanks
then it popped

>>11434678
Have you ever shot off your SM in the wrong direction in KSP? It's like that.

Sometimes you miss and avoid disaster. Other times it crashes right back into you and kills everyone aboard.

>>11434734
>in KSP

>>11434734
what's the correct direction to launch your SM?

>>11434616
Boeing said it would have caused catastrophic failure, that's from them. Not could, it would have.

>>11434795
Someone didn't watch the telecon (okay, well most people didn't, but still).

This was one of the questions a reporter asked the NASA and Boeing employees and they stated the improper separation posed a RISK of re-contact.

this thread has clearly run its course, please stop criticizing Boeing ($BA)

>>11434795
>Boeing said
Nope. It was NASA panel. Specifically Paul Hill, former NASA flight director.

>>11434819
I don't get the joke...

>>11434828
[quote]I don't get the joke...[/quote]
This

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Boeing - Bringing America BACK to space!

American astronauts, in American rockets from AMERICAN soil! - Mike Pence

>>11434819
>>11434830
The Senate approves of thus interjection.

>>11434740
Any direction other than directly retrograde. Radial In or Out, generally about 10s before entry interface. Normal/Antinormal is also viable. Firing while pointed prograde just before entry is not recommended because lol no heatshield protection, and firing retrograde will have atmospheric drag slam the SM back into you.

>>11434811
>>11434826
You are correct, I misread my source. It was a 'could' have failed

>>11434893
>directly retrograde
Works for me (in ksp). Though maybe it has something to do with it usually being a whole upper stage with heavy engines, but even if I separate it prograde it still overtakes me after a while in the atmosphere

I saw someone (either in a previous /sfg/ thread or on twitter) mention that the spacex process of "build and learn when your prototype gets destroyed" will end up being cheaper in the end. Can someone explain this to me? How would this be cheaper than, say, SLS when it comes to designing a complex rocket like starship

>>11434949
Destroying prototypes is cheaper than paying engineers to over-engineer a rocket just so that it works the first time. God forbid you spend millions on a design that turns out to be flawed when it actually reaches the launchpad.

>>11434949
I don't know exactly how many billions SpaceX used in startup money, but NASA gave them $1.6bn when they were about to pack it in. The result? F9 and countless launches.
How many billions have been thrown at SLS and its predecessors now?
How many launches? None.

>>11434949
To put it simply. Designing a rocket based on studies and small testing (like the SLS) only works if you know where all of the major risks are. The problem is that you can't be 100% confident knowing that you have covered all potential issues. So you would have to complete more studies, but that would never grantee a 100% confidence because you can only study on what you know. This can be worked on by even more studies, but the cost of those studies will add up.

Doing it the "SpaceX" way of "test as you fly" grantees that most of the major issues will be uncovered. If something goes wrong, then the only money you lost is the cost the vehicle that was destroyed. The next iteration can be made with high confidence because it's based on real data.

The "SpaceX" way really only works if the budget is lean though.

>>11434963
I said "to put it simply" and my explanation is the longest.

>>11434963
>The "SpaceX" way really only works if the budget is lean though.
no, it only works if you have a really tight org chart and run the business as cut-throat as possible. Filling seats with people that actually work fast and get results is just as important as the process.

>>11434970
Which comes from SpaceX's desire to keep spending as low as possible while still delivering good products.

>>11434974
that's the desire of every company on Earth, most just aren't very good at it

>>11434954
>>11434961
>>11434963
I have two more questions.
1) Why the FUCK is SLS so god damn expensive. I WANT SLS to succeed. But I dont understand why SLS cant (essentially) be built for free. They already have the engines and technology. Why isn't it as easy as "lets just slap these rockets on the Space Shuttles orange booster and call it a new rocket!" I assume it has something to do with the fact that its being built by contractors who want to shill for money
2) Are any other rocket companies planning on full-reusability?! SLS isn't because it apparently needs to use all of its thrust-to-weight ratio. The only other rocket I can think of is Vulcan. Now that spacex has shown the viability of reusability (especially with Falcon Heavy) why aren't all companies aiming for this

>>11434984
>Why the FUCK is SLS so god damn expensive.
Because it's not a rocket development program. It's a job creation program. Every decision made for the SLS was made to add more jobs in key states.

>Are any other rocket companies planning on full-reusability?!
Blue Origin has New Glenn, and I recall some older concepts of it having both stages being reusable. Right now it seems like Blue is more concerned getting the booster stage right before moving on to the upper stage. ESA has some studies of a Falcon 9-like rocket happening (pic related) along with development of a methane fueled engine that's functionally like the Merlin 1D. China has the Long March 8, but it's also just a Falcon 9 cousin.

SpaceX has surprised everyone with reusability, so it makes sense that they're taking a while to catch up.

>>11434984
>Why the FUCK is SLS so god damn expensive
Politics.
>I WANT SLS to succeed
So do we, but again, politics.
>But I dont understand why SLS cant (essentially) be built for free
Once again, politics.
>Why isn't it as easy as "lets just slap these rockets on the Space Shuttles orange booster and call it a new rocket!"
Yup, broken record time, politics.
>I assume it has something to do with the fact that its being built by contractors who want to shill for money
Almost, it has to do with contractors who know that politicians keep their jobs by handing them contracts. And therefore they milk the fuck out of it.

Politics is the bane of space exploration. Look at Artemis, it's fucking Constellation with a new name. Look at SLS, it's almost-but-not-quite Ares V with a new name and some redesigns. They just drag it out and milk it, then shut it down when the other team takes office, then resurrect it for PR then repeat the fucking process. And that's where we've been since the fucking 70s when I was born.

It's been a long fucking life of disappointments.

>>11435004
Sad. We all want to live in a star trek society but it gets bogged down by the politics of the situation. I guess I live in a bubble but I've met people IRL (like my roommate) who are convinced that space travel is a waste of time and that money should be diverted to dumb shit like social programs or free college. So fucking stupid.

>>11434830
American astronauts, in American rockets into AMERICAN soil!

>>11435018
>who are convinced that space travel is a waste of time and that money should be diverted to dumb shit like social programs or free college.

Both of those things improve human wellbeing more than space travel ever has.

>>11435018
>but I've met people IRL (like my roommate) who are convinced that space travel is a waste of time and that money should be diverted to dumb shit like social programs or free college
No, that's not a bubble. That's most people.
"We should take the money we're wasting on space exploration and use it on welfare instead!" or my favorite: "We should spend our energy fixing this planet before we think about other planets!", as if this fucking planet is ever going to get fixed.

I should really print out that pie chart from 2015 that shows federal welfare spending vs NASA budget - ~$1500bn vs $18bn, laminate it into a nice card and keep it in my wallet just to pull out for occasions such as those.

>>11435035
The money spent on space exploration wouldn't even buy you a fucking menthol cigarette.

>>11435018
>>11435035
>>11435038
Reminder that adding NASA's budget to the US social security programs budget would barely increase it by 3%.

>>11435038
>as if this fucking planet is ever going to get fixed
What's wrong with the planet? It's progressing naturally through its lifecycle.

>>11435051
>What's wrong with the planet?

Muh environmentalism

>>11435035
I'm not going to disagree... but a) the US government is pretty shitty at redistributing tax money. Maybe it works well for small countries, but in the US the money just doesn't flow like you want it to. And b) Not only does space travel add to the economy and technology of a country (not to mention the prestige of a country, if you are one of those people) but as it is, NASA barely has a budget. Even with the President's new budget, I'm pretty sure thats LESS THAN A PENNY per united states citizen

>>11435049
Wouldn't put a dent in it.

>>11435051
I'm talking about the planet in the sense of societies that inhabits it as well. The planet will do fine without us, that I have no doubt about.

>>11435060
Fuck Im replying to myself to point out that obviously there aren't 35 billion people in the US. But I remember the "penny program" or whatever that tried to get the NASA budget up by taking just a penny from every taxpayer. Apparently it would increase the NASA budget by a ton

>>11435062
>I'm talking about the planet in the sense of societies that inhabits it as well

HDI is improving almost everywhere. We’re fine, not that watching the news would tell you that.

>>11435054
>>11435062
Nah, I know what you mean. I'm just continuing this train of though as if I was talking to one of those sad fucks.

>>11435038
>We should spend our energy fixing this planet before we think about other planets!
this is the worst one. If you asked someone 500 years ago if modern man has fixed all its problems he would say
>you can travel anywhere on Earth in less than a day
>communicate with anyone on Earth in less than a second
>have mastered travel by land, air and water
>keep food fresh long enough that you can store it for decades
>nobody dies of going out in the rain anymore
>babies don't have a 50% chance of dying in childbirth
>people get to vote on what their country does
yes, we've fixed ALL the problems. If we ever become the kind of civilization that THINKS it has fixed all its problems, we're the kind of narcissists that would destroy alien civilizations and try to take over the galaxy anyway.

>>11434984
Why can't they at least recover the fucking engines?

Anon with the rustic thruster here. Due to concerns about this engine not working, I've been debating on starting over on a new project. Perhaps a cold gas thruster? It'll be made like this engine, but smaller and cleaner from lessons learned from this engine. What do you think /sfg/?

>>11435091
Because it's development started when NASA abandoned the concept of reusability. Working on making some part of SLS recoverable now will just delay it even further.

>>11435075
>we're the kind of narcissists that would destroy alien civilizations and try to take over the galaxy anyway.

Imperium of Man when?

>>11435035
k, let me turn off all satellites and see how long it takes for you to appreciate developments in space technology

>>11435070
Absolutely fucking delusional.

>>11435179
>Conflating satellites with space travel

Love the dishonestly.

>>11435197
>satellites are in space
>they need to travel there
>through space
>space travel

>>11435194
>n-no the UN is wrong!!!111

Doomer cope. Grow the fuck up and get a job.

>>11435200
I’m referring to human space travel, dumbo. Putting people in space has literally never benefited us, at all. Sending robotic probes beyond Earth orbit hasn’t either.

>>11435201
>Muh UN

Lmao

>>11434466
>Boeing ran a lot of small simulations and never one large one
Unit testing

>>11435201
>Communist basement dwelling neet telling others to get a job

>>11435217
Not communist. Don’t live in a basement. Have a job. Try harder.

>>11435202
>I’m referring to human space travel, dumbo.
Nothing about your post or the reply chain specifically refereed to human space flight.

>Sending robotic probes beyond Earth orbit hasn’t [benefited us]
They absolutely have. There are probes out there that track the surface activity of the Sun. One of the they keep watch of are coronal mass ejections which can damage or destroy key infrastructure here on Earth if we're not ready. There are probes out there testing physics in situations we can't replicated here on Earth which gives us a more informed view of how the universe works. There are probes out there looking for life outside of Earth which can answer one of the deepest questions humanity has to offer.

On top of that, developing the technology to get those probes out there are spun off into other technologies which more directly benefit humanity. Thermal blankets, smoke detectors, lasik, lightweight alloys, and more technologies owe their existence to space flight.

>Putting people in space has literally never benefited us, at all.
Putting people into space can do everything probes can, but faster and more reliably.

And that's not getting into the more "grandiose" benefits of space flight, such as off-world colonization. Space flight in all it's forms absolutely benefits us.

>>11435227
I should add, there are more benefits of sending probes beyond Earth orbit, but those that were listed are some of the larger and more easily understood ones.

In regards to today’s scrubbed Astra launch:

>Also, DARPA says the cubesat payloads will be removed from the rocket and given back to owners.

>Astra says they will “root-cause” the anomaly and try again likely in a week or two, not in days but also not in months.

What an absolute failure...

>>11435202
>Putting people in space has literally never benefited us, at all.
Literal autist

>>11434711
It's only a BLEVE if the boiling liquid involved is also flammable. Everything so far has been caused only by internal pressure buildup. Just wait until SpaceX has a pressure failure during an all-up methalox loading test!

>>11434724
That looks more like a chunk of something heavy moving fast poked a hole out from the inside of the tank. When tanks explode due to pressure, the biggest hole is always the one that was made by the pressure inside wanting to get out. If Starship had sprung a leak like pic related, it'd immediately tear the steel in a big old blowout.

>>11435299
>That looks more like a chunk of something heavy moving fast poked a hole out from the inside of the tank.

He never misses...

>>11435327
>the rupture propagated from the inside
>as if something that tends to suck did that
Big think.

>>11435068
I think that was Neil D Tyson, something something "for every dollar in taxes collected from the American populace, a third of one cent goes to NASA, and I think we should round that up to 1 cent".

Basically he was proposing that 1% of the federal budget be guaranteed to NASA every year. It's a fine idea, however I imagine that bureaucracy and bloat would expand to consume those additional billions per year far faster than the time it'd take to actually churn out something valuable.

>>11435097
Probably a good idea.
Can I make a suggestion? If you're gonna do cold-gas anyway, why not buy an air compressor and use that are your cold gas tank, use the same quick-connect hookups that are standard, and just play with nozzle shapes until you find something that produces close to theoretical performance? That way you'll get experience doing engine testing, reading thrust levels and so forth, coming up with your own procedure, all while being extremely unlikely to burn or explode yourself.

>>11435266
What anomaly was that? Also, good job Astra for promising the world and then face-planting right out of the gate

>>11435372
>Can I make a suggestion?
I have an air compressor. I was considering using it either own it's own (it has a built-in tank) or re-using my nitrous tank that I have already if I need the capacity.

>>11435396
How many liters is your compressor?

>>11435432
The compressor can store 6 gallons of air (22.7 liters) at about 300 psi (but it's regulator can only let out 150 psi).

>>11435450
I see. That's a decent enough volume.

>>11435097
Did the epoxy not work?

>>11435482
It worked. It's the decomposition of the nitrous that I'm worried won't work. My plan was to use a nichrome heating element to start the decomposition until the chamber temperature and pressure are high enough to start self-sustained decomposition. However, I can't confirm that it'll happen. Pretty much every design of a monoprop thruster I've seen has a catalyst inside as the sole means of decomposition. The problem is that the engine is welded up and can't be easily broken up to include a catalyst.

I think I may have messed up on the design of this thruster.

>>11435493
Speaking of the design, I think your combustion chamber is way too big for the nozzle throat, given your infeed is so narrow.
As for the self sustaining decomposition, the nichrome should stay hot simply due to the energy of the decomposition of the nitrous. At least I'd think so. You could do some experiments without a nozzle (basically top half of a combustion chamber), start the decomposition with a nichrome wire and then turn off the current but keep the gas flowing and see what happens. If the wire keeps glowing red hot, then it should be good to go.

>>11435587
>Speaking of the design, I think your combustion chamber is way too big for the nozzle throat, given your infeed is so narrow.
I've noticed that too. At the time I thought that an area contraction ratio of 9 from the chamber to the throat was absolutely needed for some reason.

>As for the self sustaining decomposition, the nichrome should stay hot simply due to the energy of the decomposition of the nitrous. At least I'd think so. You could do some experiments without a nozzle (basically top half of a combustion chamber), start the decomposition with a nichrome wire and then turn off the current but keep the gas flowing and see what happens. If the wire keeps glowing red hot, then it should be good to go.
Thanks for the suggestion, that could work. Although mounting the wire in a firm way is going to be difficult unless the heat of the engine operating welds the wire to the chamber wall.

>the rocketry I support doesn't fund itself because it's not profitable on the free market
>why yes of course I support holding the taxpayer at gunpoint to fund my rocket program
>Waaahh, why do I have to go through politics to use the government to steal everyone's money? This would be way more efficient if we had more money

you people are cancer

>>11435626
>oi mates we can just dismantle Black Arrow because it's cheaper to not have a space program

>>11435626
>the rocketry I support doesn't fund itself because it's not profitable on the free market
SpaceX is disproving that.

>>11435626
you're right, we should put all our rocket scientists to something that actually does make money: killing people.

>>11435618
When you make chamber mark 2, put a coil of the nichrome wire near the top of the chamber, then keep it up there by welding or otherwise affixing a steel backing mesh. Decomposition of nitrous shouldn't get hot enough to melt the steel or the wire, as long as you can get the reaction going and everything hot it should stay hot.

>>11435632
based and blackpilled

>>11435294
wrong
as long as the liquid is above its boiling point at atmospheric pressure and has enough energy to phase-change itself then it's a BLEVE

>>11435654
Either that or I might use a chemical catalyst. Also been considering doing a peroxide thruster later because from what I've read nitrous is just really hard to keep liquid and thus harder to plumb for. I want to eventually step towards a liquid biprop engine one day.

>>11435670
It didn't phase change though, the explosion was caused by the pressurized gasses already in the tank, and the liquid inside was simply vomited out onto the ground

>>11435670
But it doesn’t have enough energy cuz it’s cryogenic
It’s not the pressure liquefying it

>>11435670
>as long as the liquid is above its boiling point at atmospheric pressure
It isn't, it's at cryogenic temperatures. A BLEVE happens when a liquid is confined at high pressure and allowed to warm up enough that once the pressure drops the entire (or most of) liquid volume flashes to vapor. The pressure inside Starship wasn't even close to the pressure required to keep nitrogen a liquid significantly above its normal boiling point.

Hey bros I was travelling across the nullabor plains today and came across this petrol station that had pic related on their roof, the guy at the counter said it was a legit piece of skylab and it checked and it seems a bunch of pieces came down here in Belladnoia, is it real or was he bullshitting me?

>>11436006
>is it real or was he bullshitting me?
Yes, no, maybe?
You did get blasted with shrapnel from it, but whether that's actually a legit piece or not, who knows. That "Skylab" logo looks a bit too painted on for my tastes.

>>11436006
>Unable to be re-boosted by the Space Shuttle, which was not ready until the early 1980s, Skylab burned up in the Earth's atmosphere in 1979, over the Indian Ocean.

>>11436012
>Debris showered Western Australia, and recovered pieces indicated that the station had disintegrated lower than expected.

>>11434724
If that was the point of failure the pressure would have expanded it beyond recognition That's just shrapnel damage.

>>11436022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QJ1zyfFKBo

>>11436014
hm alright, some pieces even made it to a museum it seems
but I cannot find a match for this >>11436006 on the Skylab backup photo
the grates are similar to SkylabCSM's ones, but actually different

>>11436036
Yeah, like I said, yes/no/maybe, the logo looks a bit too painted on.

Why the fuck is Musk keep hinting that he supports Bernie when Bernie has consistently voted against space shit

>>11436036
that’s the spare SkyLab. The Australian thing is fake.

>>11434724

Aren't these tanks thinner than a dime ?

>>11436251
No, that’s Centaur

>>11436260
Skinny boi

>>11435868
>>11435949
it's both, it can still be above its boiling point AND cryogenic
>>11436006
it's real
Australia fined the USGov for littering
We never payed it

>>11436240
Because he wants to look cool and at the same time he knows very well Sanders won't be voted.
win-win

reminder that starlink means the end of astronomy

>>11436409
*optical astronomy
which only amateurs do

>>11436409
only if by "astronomy" you mean "earth based optical astronomy"
and only if by "the end of" you mean "a slight inconvenience to"

>>11436409
one thing starlink WILL ruin is retarded long exposure astral photography. Hate that shit.

>>11436425
yeah but that was already ruined by cosmic rays and existing satellites and the ISS and the moon and insects and clouds and the police showing up with extremely bright flashlights to ask you pointless questions for hours
Starlink won't be visible when they're in the Earth's shadow

>>11436409
wtf nationalize now

>>11436409
>the end of astronomy
You're like the captains at the end of the age of sail, complaining about the damn steam engines ruining ships and sailing. Time to pack away the binoculars and move on.

>>11436421
only wide field surveys will be significantly affected, vast majority of optical telescopes will be fine

>>11435626
Taxes are fine but government is inefficient. Should be replaced by a bunch of privateers, SpaceX style.

>>11436397
>We never payed it
A radio station DJ eventually started a collection to pay the fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab#Re-entry and_debris

>>11436409
>>11436425
If they use Vantablack on the Earth-facing side of the satellites then it won't be much of a problem if any.

>>11436479

>>11436412
>>11436421
>>11436425
>>11436430
>>11436443
>>11436445
>>11436479
A remarkable bubble with a correct opinion, I see

>>11436566
People can actually agree on something? That must mean we're in a bubble, right?

The last time I looked up at the night sky with a pair of binoculars, the internet was still called ARPANet. Times change and yes, I am that fucking old.

>>11436412
and only for few minutes just before dawn/sunset

>>11436627
Some of us still have enough neck movement to look up though, Grandpa.

Starlink is good anyway.

>>11436647
Oh I can still look up, but if I want to observe distant objects, there are far better ways of doing so.
We don't use Karl von Drais' bicycle anymore for the very same reason. There are better options, even though it still works.

>>11436421
This. We should've moved on to space-based telescopes a long time ago.

They have their own website now.
https://www.spaceforce.mil/

>>11436742
There's still much work that can be done from the ground, but space based telescopes will take off as soon as a crewed (shuttle style cabin/cargo) Starship ride gets cheap enough to allow it to compete with SOPHIA and such

>>11436824
They’ve had one for a while now...

Went out last night to try and look at the stars after all this starlink noise.
It was a clear night with good weather.
Couldn't see more than 10 stars and the moon.

What have you done?

>>11436968
Maybe drive outside town on a night that's not overcast?

>>11436968
Do you live in a city? Because that's most likely it. Starlink wouldn't do what you have described. They're far too small. The worst they'll do to naked eye observations is add some extra "stars" in the sky that move relative to the actual stars.

>welds still look like shit

>>11436998
no they're fine

>>11436998
MIG welds are not going to look any better than that, ever.
Until they change the process, which they won't unless they go back to the drawing board and completely change everything. Simple as that.

>>11436998
I've seen worse. Much worse.

>>11437035
they're using TIG right now
TIG, with the big fat gas lens and welding shelters on the man-lifts and everything
I hope they're putting shielding gas on the backside of the welds

>>11437058
On that thin material? Not a chance. They're using MIG.
They might use a TIG torch to spot weld things into place, but not for the weld itself. That shit would be warping itself into a wonky Platonic polygon shape from a nightmare dimension from the heat if they were to use TIG on it. Besides, look at the thickness of the welds, you don't get that shit on stainless steel TIG, on Alu with extremely thick filler sticks and high amperage working really fucking fast with AC? Sure, but not on SS.

>>11437078
TIG is better for welding thin bits, anon

>>11437080
I used to weld 316 SS and titanium pipes, TIG, also aluminium, TIG. Did some work on sites using MIG for Alu as well as rudimentary electrode work for installing cable gates and whatnot.
I have the certification, even though they're not valid anymore.

Look at the fucking welds in that picture, they're at least 3-5cm in thickness, to do that on thin plates of steel with a TIG torch, it'll be buckling all over the place and just about ready to drip. It's MIG.

>>11437090
hmmm yeah the puddle is super wide
weird
anyway I've 100% seen them welding with TIG torches in photos and I haven't seen any MIG guns out on the field since the facilities upgrade

>>11437095
>anyway I've 100% seen them welding with TIG torches in photos
Yeah, TIG torches are really fucking great for initial spot welding shit precisely into place, we did that all the time.

>>11437097
anyway all the vertical ring welds and ring-to-ring circumferential welds are automated, Elon tweets suggest some sort of TIG machine
maybe it weaves a super wide pattern or some dumb shit, no wonder they're having issues with puckering
I think the final out-doors assembly stacking and finish is done with TIG and those welds are much narrower

ULA uses resistance welding for Centaur, it’s stainless steel tank walls have a thickness of 0.36 to 0.41 mm.

>>11437115
it's like a spot weld but with rollers, really cool technology

>>11437115
Doesn't SpaceX use the same process, just call it friction welding or whatever?

>>11437109
There will be puckering no matter what because I believe they're being overly optimistic at this stage regarding both material and process.

>>11437119
I don't know if SpaceX uses that specific process, but friction stir welding and resistance welding are different. Friction welding welds two pieces by rubbing them together.

>>11437119
no, friction stir welding is a totally different process, but it's cool stuff

>>11437090
They're using TIP TIG which is basically MIG, but TIG and with a few extra gimmicks. The latest welds still aren't perfect but still a ton better than before.

>>11437119
>>11437123
>>11437124
No, both ULA and SpaceX use friction stir-welding for their aluminium tanks, but stainless steel is too thin so they use different techniques for Centaur and Starship.

>>11436998
Can't see shit at that distance or resolution.

>>11437149
pipe shop =/= ironworkers

>>11437155
Put your assumption foot back in your mouth, kid.

>>11436998
just buy a robot jesus christ it's not like they're complex welds or the robot needs to be a fancy thing on an arm.

>>11437248
those ARE robot welds

>>11437250
maybe it's the picture but they look all over the place.

>>11437269
Thats cause ur dum

>let's shoot rare metals into space because of the space meme

>>11435627
pls no bully

>>11437334
you're a fucking meme

>>11437336
Space flight is a waste of irreplaceable resources

>>11437250
I thought they were mexican welds

>>11437334
Yes.

>>11437348
no, they fired all the mexicans

>>11437334
You mean like the metals used in CPUs? You know that the amount used in space flight is tiny compared to the world market, right? And besides, it's not gone forever. Alot of it is sitting in graveyard orbits. That can be recovered if needed, and there are investigations into making that possible.

>>11437343
No it's not. Spaceflight absolutely brings great benefits to humanity. See >>11435227.

You're being obtuse, stop that.

>>11437343
if we invest resources to unlock the currently locked potential resources of the solar system, the net resource gain from what was actually committed across all attempts at spaceflight is astronomical. That kind of thinking is stupidly short term and will get you stuck in a local minimum of technology and progress.

>>11437334
Expend 100 units of rare metals, as an investment to achieve space mining
Once space mining is unlocked, every 1 unit of rare metals used returns 100,000,000 units of rare metal, plus 100 space infrastructure
Once space infrastructure reaches 1,000,000, no rare metal investment from Earth is required any more, 100,000,000 units of rare metal are still delivered, and space infrastructure expands by N*1.05, where N is the amount of existing space infrastructure.
Eventually space infrastructure eclipses Earth infrastructure. Once Space infrastructure reaches 1,000,000,000, units of 1,000,000 space infrastructure are designated as Interstellar colony infrastructure and accelerated towards other stars.
On arrival, these 1,000,000 Interstellar space infrastructure unit colonies being mining and producing and growing themselves.

>>11437343
Never colonizing space is a waste of infinitely more resources than launching a few exploratory probes that we don't plan on getting back (and if you extend the timeline far enough there's no reason to think we won't be able to recover every scrap of metal ever launched into space).

>>11437149
>>11437168
Not like argon is rare or anything, jesus fuck, turn up the fucking gas flow.

>>11437391
based

>pick up unambiguous SETI signal
>it's schematics to build a super rocket
>spaceflight becomes super easy
this is possible within our lifetime... right?

>>11437413
There you go again, talking like you know anything about what was actually said. That is a true sign of autism. You simply, "Can't see shit at that distance or resolution."

>>11437471
no

>>11437471
increasing the length of our lifetime is really the only plausible method for easy spaceflight "in our lifetime"

>>11437477
>What is oxidation

>>11437483
Something you can't see in that image.

>>11437168
>>11437477
>look at me I can make pretty patterns on plate steel, look at how much welder I am
you don't even know why sheet steel and pipe welding is so difficult

>>11437487
In the two pictures with the oh so discolored welds?
That shit would have been thrown out where I used to work and I would have been reprimanded and fired if it had been a recurring thing.

>>11437499
the multicolored welds isn't an oxidation thing, it's a crystal structure thing
it's caused by the temperature it reaches

>>11437504
>it's a crystal structure thing
That's a new one. No, it's oxidation.

>>11437491
>posting on an image board without an image
Newfaggot.

>>11437499
>two pictures
One picture, >>11436998

>discolored welds
not in that image.

>I used to work
Get your life together.

>>11437504
Temper coloring is directly related to its oxidation.

>>11437519
>Get your life together.
Ever heard of retirement? My life is very much together.

should I set my room up like this to improve my IQ?

>>11437536
Looks like a pricey hotel room.

>>11437537
I like to think Elon stayed at a pricey hotel one night, called his staff and said "put this in my house"

>>11437542
Sounds like him. Surprised that he didn't try to start a hotel company along the way.

>>11437536
Shouldn't Grimes have covered every wall in colorful gay shit by now

NASA will announce the name of the Mars 2020 rover Thursday:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-reveal-name-of-next-mars-rover-hold-media-teleconference

What’s it gonna be folks?

>>11437558
Ladasha

>>11437558
I want Tenacity to win.

>>11437558
"Why The Fuck Aren't We There Yet?"

>>11437568
As much as I want to join in on the bandwagon, I'm happy that NASA is doing another rover. Sure, it's yet another rover after 50 years, but it can still find something useful on Mars. Hopefully NASA will gear it's mission towards evaluating possible future manned mission locations.

>>11437578
it'll just be something cool the human missions can do when they finally get there: retrieve, preserve and return a Mars rover.

>>11437578
Seriously man, another god damn rover? It's just another excuse to sit comfy and do nothing.

>>11437592
I mean Mars 2020 is literally just made out of spare parts left over from Curiosity. Also, NASA has a tradition of sending Mars probes/landers/rovers in twos. The next planned NASA mission to Mars is a sample return mission, which is significantly more ambitious.

>>11437524
>My life is very much together.

>>11437651
Well, as together as someone shitposting on 4chan is, I suppose.
I don't panhandle or live paycheck to paycheck anymore at least.

It seems the launch vehicle with the best name in the business is progressing nicely!

>>11437689
>launch vehicle with the best name in the business
Titan?

>>11437691
Hmm...now you’ve made be hesitant, it’s a toss up between Titan and Vulcan for me, but Vulcan is definitely the coolest named vehicle that’s in production today.

>>11437519
Never implied any oxidation in the pictures from Boca Chica by the way.

>>11437604
>I mean Mars 2020 is literally just made out of spare parts left over from Curiosity
They‘re even used a spare copy of the budget proposal. Now that‘s what I call reusability done right.

>>11437604
Hopefully they swapped out the FUCKING ALUMINUM WHEELS
How the hell did they not realize that aluminum that thin would work harden and crack??

>>11438292
Yeah the absolute fucking state of billion dollar toy cars, can't even choose the right material for the wheels and a first year engineering student would tell you your choice of material is wrong and retarded.

>>11438292
Probably due to how infrequently rovers are sent there. Very little chance to test things in the environment they're going to be used in.

>>11438302
They've switched over to that fancy self-healing titanium alloy now haven't they?

>>11438315
finally memory metal actually being used for something cool

>>11438312
You don't need to go to another planet to know that thin aluminium in negative gorillion temperatures on rough surfaces is a shit idea.

>>11438355
This is post-Apollo NASA we're talking about here.

Black science man notwithstanding, this looks like it might be good. Anyone read the book?

https://youtu.be/DiVN-GFYLGo

>>11438355
I'm sure the tires were fine throughout the actual span of the mission which is all they're designed to do.

>>11438374
>dragging hand through fields of wheat

Fucking gay

>>11438388
You're talking about Curiosity's wheels, right?

good looking welds

>>11438417
Nice

>>11438417
Oh fuck oh FUCK I'm gonna COOM.

>>11438417
Me on the left

>>11438417
What's he thinking right now, lads?

>>11438453
Forgot pic

>>11438417
Fuck yeah we space soon bros

>>11438531
I want it so bad

Play New Shepard

>>11438417
We've been through this already
>oooh what nice looking welds
>they actually weld it
>thing's warped and oxidated to all hell
And yes, there's not a single weld on that pic

>>11436824
Anon, why do you think the date on that seal says MMXIX?

>>11438760
Because Americans cannot into Roman numerals?

>>11438839
Spoiler that shit.

>>11438839
Most can't into roman numerals nowadays, not just burgers
They don't bother to educate kids in school anymore

>>11438760
should have waited a bit longer and made it ADMMXX instead

Hey guys, SPARC reactor in space with a magnetic nozzle propelling a vehicle, useful or nah?
link related http://www.psfc.mit.edu/sparc

>>11439401
a fusion engine would be highly useful, but you have to figure out fusion first. Before you get too excited we've been "10 years away" from sustainable fusion for about 60 years now.

>>11436479
They'd still be a problem for radio astronomy. Because the satellites are warmer than 0 K, they emit black body radiation in the form of radio waves and microwaves.

Can anyone tell me what it this mockup on the right?
I find this on Roscosmos website.

That's no main fuel tank. That's a popper.

>>11439546
That, is the Clipper/Kliper. Never materialized.

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

>>11439546
that's Klipper on a Proton or Zenit or something, I'm not familiar with the remains of the Soviet space industry

>>11439553
It's a Zenit I believe, that was the intended launch system for it and one of the reasons it failed to meet specs, they needed to strip 1.5t from the Kliper as well as use the escape systems at the end of a nominal launch to meet delta v requirements for a successful ISS insertion at the stage they got to in planning.

>>11439565
>as well as use the escape systems at the end of a nominal launch to meet delta v requirements
now that's my kind of launch system

>>11439569
>now that's my kind of launch system
The Big Red Button That Says "Everything Including The Kitchen Sink"

>>11439573
you don't need to worry about mashing the spacebar at the wrong time and accidentally triggering your abort system on-orbit, which is nice

>>11439565
This is why you overbuild your rockets.

>>11439552
>>11439553
Interesting. I wonder why ESA decided not to participate. Both Russia and Europe had some experience with space planes and Russia had a lot of proven hardware reused from Soyuz and Buran.
But instead Russia decided to make space capsule from scratch and ESA just give up crewed spaceflight.

>>11439565
Why not just strap moar boosters?

>>11439593
extremely difficult in real life

>>11439581
Well, they overbuilt their CSM instead and the Angara was not exactly reliable at that point.

>>11439586
>I wonder why ESA decided not to participate
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper_history.html
Issues with overengineered CSM, reliable rockets at the time being too weak to support it even when stripped down to what could considered safe, Russians promising they'd continue developing it even if ESA pulled out, then not doing so when they realized it was a pointless money drain at the time.

Sunk cost fallacy is not really a big thing in Europe or Russia.

>>11439593
Because my friend, this is not Kerbal Space Program. Although that solution they did try in desperation was kind of a real life attempt at "just adding moar boosters".

>>11439593
radial decouplers are one of the most expensive item to unlock on the tech tree

>>11439593
The Soviets/Russians never seemed to really like the concept of strapping more boosters.

>>11439602
>Energia

>>11439610
The Energia was designed with those in mind IIRC. I'm talking about adding boosters once the rocket was already designed, like the Delta and Atlas.

>>11439613
USGov are retarded for thinking that moar boosters was a good idea RE:Delta and Titan

>>11439602
>The Soviets/Russians never seemed to really like the concept of strapping more boosters.

Maybe then, not so much now...

Is it known what the actual weight of the battery bank is on the Electron by Rocket Lab in its first stage? The general consensus of the information I have found online is that most electric pumps operate less efficiently due to this added weight. https://www.aacademica.org/hernan.emilio.tacca/9 would seems to provide some information but it is a little over my head and is generally "theoretical" limits of such systems.

TLDR; Is there a published number from RL what there actual performance is for their electric driven pumps?

if you can find specs for the rutherford engine you can probably work a guestimate back from there. it'll be far heavier than the equivalent oxyfuel that would traditionally run the pumps.

>>11439602
Yeah... I wonder why...

>>11439725
But anon... the N1 never used boosters...

>>11439621
Angara was designed as common core modular rocket. It the whole point of it.

>>11439621
Kinda sad how slow Angara is progressing. Roscosmos is kinda sad in general. I wish they'd modernize soon.

>>11439746
They're LEO U-Haul. Why modernize?

>>11439759
To cut down on cost and improve profits?

>>11439759
Because Proton needs to be replaced due to an agreement with Kazakhstan’s government that won’t let them launch hypergolic-fuelled rockets past a certain date.

>>11439772
*from Baikonur

>>11439768
>>11439772
Yeah, but they're getting rid of old stock, they have Angara to fall back on for heavy lifting and that's supposedly sort of reliable now. They have plenty of lighter non-hypergolic stuff too.
Not like they don't have good RP/LOX engines or anything in Russia.

>>11439795
>Angara to fall back on for heavy lifting and that's supposedly sort of reliable now
After 20 years, it better be reliable.

>you will live to see the first humans on mars

>>11439948
>You will live to see them postpone it for 20 more years.
I'm cautiously pessimistic.

>>11439948
I'm more excited about a manned return to the moon. Especially by private companies.

>>11439948
you get to choose one:
>you live to receive the first unambiguous SETI signal, but it's just prime numbers and too far away for active conversation
>you live to witness the first humans setting foot on Mars, but no more than flags and footprints
>you live to witness the first permanent human settlement on the moon
>you live to where tickets to a week long vacation in LEO are under $10,000
>you live to see humans permanently living in space habitats, but not on the surface of planets

>>11439986
>you live to see humans permanently living in space habitats, but not on the surface of planets
how big are these habitats?

>>11439997
gateway foundation type ~1000 person habitat

>>11439986
Habitats, you never specified a size so I'm going to assume thousands of O'neill Cylinders and Bernal Spheres with diameters of many kilometers.

>>11440000
you said habitats, plural. many of these with a thousand people would be my pick, as that implies the infrastructure for a lot of the rest would be in place or happening anyway. fuck lmoas, total meme.

>>11440011
>that implies the infrastructure for a lot of the rest would be in place or happening anyway
the implication is that the technology exists, but it hasn't been done for political, social or economic reasons.

>>11440014
yea i choose habs.

>>11439986
if any of those are true then there will also be a Mars colony

>>11440025
the point is you die before it happens, not that it's never going to happen. Realistically we can only feasibly accomplish one of those within the next few decades and it would take all the resources from the others to do it.

>>11440057
I think it's funny that you think that

>>11439986
Permanent settlements on the moon. We'll learn more from that than just floating around in gay ass space habitats.

>>11440062
reminder:
>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.

>>11440100
>government projects

I just found out this thread exists on NSF...reminds me of a certain South Park episode or a University Campus.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=sXQkXXBqj_U

>>11440109
it's brand new and it's just some guy complaining about FUD

Used gantry crane?

>>11440166
probably stolen. space pikeys.

>>11440174
That's not ARCA.

>>11439986
Literally in order from worst to best.

>>11439948
>you won't be one of them

>>11440205
>1969 plan
We've been robbed.

>>11440208
No, not robbed. Our own incompetence and failures.
We did this to ourselves.

>>11440100
Microgravity research and furthering international friendship are far more important that that.

>>11440226
>busywork research and tying down international space programs are far more important that that.
FTFY

The new fairing looks like garbage but still, it's notable improvement so I guess they are learning after all.

>>11433538
>Not so fast Musk rat;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5adkFtfgk

>>11440226
Both of which do not exclude any of the other things going on. It's a simple fact of the matter that the technology being available doesn't imply the will is and futurists and not the kind of people who are capable of bringing something into being.

>>11440234
You can fit a whole Bird One inside that.

>>11440217
unless everyone in this thread is a member of a government space agency, i think that anon didn't mean all of humanity, just this general.

>>11440241
Wait. None of you guys work at NASA?

>>11440243
>ywn work at NASA and spend all day shitposting instead of running simulations

>>11440245
Why run simulations when they were already ran 30 years ago?

>>11440245
>not shitposting while the simulations are running

>>11439415
Oh I'm not counting our chickens yet, but this new YBCO stuff seems to solve the biggest problem, which was magnetic flux density. Higher flux density at higher temperatures means you get more fusion at the same power input level, everything's easier to cool, and you can make the whole thing an order of magnitude smaller.

>>11440245
>running simulations
Is that a code word for playing ksp?

>>11440234
if tincan is never built Jeff is going to mog everyone in the space launch industry.

>>11439613
>like the Delta and Atlas
Those were actually designed (at least their current versions) to have additional boosters that were optional rather than necessary, on purpose. The idea was that you'd 'dial a rocket' and pay for exactly as much performance as necessary. Unfortunately irl cost doesn't scale that way, it would have been much cheaper to design each vehicle for a single configuration and only fly that, less customization equals less cost and faster production. See Falcon 9, Soyuz, Ariane 5 . . .

>>11440285
>Those were actually designed (at least their current versions) to have additional boosters that were optional rather than necessary, on purpose
I was specifically referring to the initial versions. But you do have a point about the pitfalls of dial-a-rocket.

>>11440283
He’s already mogging everybody’s launch infrastructure...

>>11440283
Blue Origin with their 7m fairing are absolutely going to set the size standard
everybody is going to make 7m fairings

>>11440299
>forces you to widen your roads

Nothing personal Cape Canaveral...

https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2020/03/04/changes-coming-ksc-and-cape-canaveral-blue-origin-new-glenn-rocket/4941242002/

>>11434466
Fucking BOEING.

When is this going to be resurrected?

>>11434483
imagine Berger when they get the go-ahead to fly crew

>>11440433
Tune in at 1:30 PM Friday and you’ll get to find out...

>>11440430
never it was a bad idea

>>11440430
Never
But someday, there may be a ~10 MN hydrolox staged combustion cycle rocket engine, for very large SSTO vehicles servicing colonies around the moons of Jupiter.
Some day . . .

Nomadd with the good advice again

>>11440479
Nomadd has far more pressing issues to panic about, like losing his house....

>>11440490
he's leasing it from SpaceX indefinitely for $1
He's got plenty of time to figure it out, he only needs to properly leave once they start doing frequent orbital launches

>>11440479
based

>>11439552
>Such beauty ain't happening.

>>11440430
I would bet that Bezos will build a FFSC hydrolox engine of that size for their next generation vehicle

>>11436421
space telescopes don't solve the problem. Ground telescopes are upgraded and have its sensors changed frequently, something impossible with space telescopes

>>11440608
>Ground telescopes are upgraded and have its sensors changed frequently, something impossible with space telescopes
Only because current launch infrastructure is meek and uninspiring apart from a few providers.

>>11440608
>something impossible with space telescopes
something currently impossible with space telescopes
except for Hubble

>>11440675
Hubble is in low earth orbit. More advanced telescopes are much higher. For example, JWSP will put put in solar orbit, thousands of kilometers away from earth in L2. it's also impossible to build telescopes like the TMT or ELT in space

>>11440679
>it's also impossible to build telescopes like the TMT or ELT in space
For now, sure

>>11440679
See >>11440624. Today's rockets suck in general.

>>11440608
A flight out to Hawaii or the Andes or whatever, is more energy consuming than going to orbit

>>11440729
I wish I could type a louder 'no'

>>11440731
you would be wrong

>>11440731
it would be extremely painful

>>11440736

>>11440770
>>11440765
>>11440762
>>11440758
What's this? Curiosity images?

>>11440785
yeah, megapixel panorama

>>11440785
yes. New panorama, the biggest to date. 1.8 billion pixels
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasas-curiosity-mars-rover-snaps-its-highest-resolution-panorama-yet

>>11440789
>>11440787
>>11440785
oh, whoops
gigapixel panorama

>>11440787
>>11440789
Nice. Thanks for sharing this.

3 mile wide crater (4.8 km)

>>11440758
>>11440762
>>11440765
>>11440770
imagine living in a time when people thought Mars had a civilization on it

wtf JPL why am I downloading this image at 12 KB/s
https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA23623

>>11440820
I wished we had the same thought but with our modern technology.
That would convince us to go for a manned mission to Mars.

>>11440824
>I wished we had the same thought but with our modern technology.
Do you mean that you wish that people today thinks that Mars has a civilization on it? Or that you wish that we had the same sense of wonder and speculation towards our modern technology?

>>11440836
Well I was saying the former, but the latter would be better and more inspiring.

>>11440842
>but the latter would be better and more inspiring.
Agreed. We need more forward thought about our technology.

>>11440857
Media could help us inspire the next generation, but they're too busy making the same superhero movie over and over.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic

New Thread >>11440874