/sci/ - Science & Math

https://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/index.htm

>>11472382
New HULLO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjsFIviqSCQ

>>11472386
>German rocketry website
>OTRAG is at the top of the special articles

Everyone knows spaceplanes are shit for Earth, but will they make sense to use someday on Titan? Hypersonic speeds equal escape velocity on Titan, and with that thicc ass atmosphere you're going to need to take a lot of aerodynamic considerations anyway. Can jet engines that use internal fuel and oxygen supplies still work in an inert atmosphere? I've heard that jets are efficient because they push a lot of air and not because they save having to carry O2, is that right?

Are they gonna scrap it or turn it into hopper v2?

>>11472430
Titan's atmosphere is made out of fuel, you can ingest atmosphere and inject oxygen to sustain combustion
>>11472433
we don't know, during the aborted starlink webcast this morning they said that SN3 was going to be hopper v2 and SN4 was going to do "longer flights" whatever that means

>>11472443
>Titan's atmosphere is made out of fuel
Titan's atmosphere is ~5% methane at maximum, in the troposphere, just before a major rainstorm. Most of the time it's a percent or less methane. The rest is almost all nitrogen.

The point is, even at maximum concentrations you can't use Titan's atmosphere as fuel gas, there's too much inert buffer gas to allow for combustion, no matter how much oxygen you add.

>>11472449
ah hmmmm
yeah using the nitrogen as reaction mass should work

Could we terraform Ganymede? (except for Mars and Venus the only plausible place in the Solar system)
We would of course need orbital mirrors and somehow remove most of the ocean, but does it even have potential for above-sea level landmasses, hasn't the pressure of the ice already flattened everything into a smooth billiard ball?

>>11472477
terraforming in general is a meme. The technology required to terraform a planet would necessarily follow the technology needed to build completely self sufficient space habitats which are better in every way.

Is the Starship buildsite going to close down due to the Chinese WuhanVirus Covid 19?

>>11472477
Wow, there are too many misconceptions here to bother addressing. I'll just say, no, you can't terraform any object with gravity that low, because the average speed of the atmospheric gasses even at room temperature will be close to orbital velocity, and the rate of atmospheric stripping will be ridiculously fast, millions of tons per second.

Just FYI, Ganymede has lower surface gravity than our own Moon. In fact our Moon's gravity is the second highest of any moon in the solar system, after Io. Ganymede is big, but has low density due to being mostly water ice. Same goes for Callisto, Titan, Europa, and Triton.

The fact is that only Mars and Venus are even close to suitable for terraforming, and each has their own major drawback. For Venus the issue is obvious, you need to get rid of 91 atmospheres worth of carbon dioxide somehow. The challenge with Mars is the opposite, you need to add a shitload of nitrogen gas to build up the atmospheric density, and it's going to be stripped away thermally over tens of millions of years unless you deal with that somehow. Terraforming is kinda a waste of effort anyway, it's a lot easier to just live under big tented structures and 'terraform' small sections of land at a time until you either cover the entire planet or shift to building rotating orbital habitats instead.

>>11472530
judging by Musk's attitude towards the virus, probably not

>>11472531
>Wow, there are too many misconceptions here to bother addressing. I'll just say, no, you can't terraform any object with gravity that low, because the average speed of the atmospheric gasses even at room temperature will be close to orbital velocity, and the rate of atmospheric stripping will be ridiculously fast, millions of tons per second.

I am aware, I am not talking about keeping it terraformed for hundreds of millions of years but a few ten-hundred thousand. You know, human timescales. And that's just if we terraformed it and then never again bothered technologically intervening. It's conceivable that we could manufacture some microorganism that generates volatile gases faster than they are lost.

>>11472549
where would the mass come from?

>>11472530
Why? It’s not like any geriatrics are working there

>>11472552
The microorganisms could gradually convert crust material into gases, but don't ask me for the specifics, I studied CS not chemistry.

>>11472549
I think at that point it would be easier to just dig massive caverns into the thick ice layer, kit them out, and make those into cities.

I'm giving up on NASA returning to the Moon in this decade. It's up to China and SpaceX now.

>>11472549
>It's conceivable that we could manufacture some microorganism that generates volatile gases faster than they are lost.
No it isn't, dummy. You're using biotechnology as a magic wand.

>>11472574
>It's up to China and SpaceX now

With what rockets and spacecraft?

>>11472554
Yeah, clearly.

>>11472574
Even if NASA did their plan is so anemic because of reliance on SLS that it will become irrelevant if Starship even gets to operating in expendable mode, let alone rapidly reusable high launch frequency mode.
Chine on the Moon will be a good thing for waking up the western world, one can hope.

>>11472574
The fact that you think China is planning to send humans to the Moon this decade shows how uniformed you are.

>>11472574
NASA is still in the "race". If Trump gets reelected and he really wanted it, then he could feasibly pull some strings to get NASA to pick up the pace. The real issue is, what would NASA do afterwards?

>>11472595
It’s completely irrelevant whether starship happens or not
SLS has way less power than the SAturn V and all the hardware is heavier

>>11472598
tfw spaceflight becomes a "trump thing" and the next democrat to get elected scaled back everything space related just out of spite

>>11472607
If that happens, then NASA should no longer be considered a major player in space flight until the US government get's it's act together regarding space.

>>11472616
Honestly human space flight since Apollo has been more or less a joke, unmanned exploration of the solar system has been cool but spending 40 years trapped in LEO is inexcusable.

>>11472531
>I'll just say, no, you can't terraform any object with gravity that low, because the average speed of the atmospheric gasses even at room temperature will be close to orbital velocity, and the rate of atmospheric stripping will be ridiculously fast, millions of tons per second.

World dome.

>>11472913
literally in that comment >>11472531
>Terraforming is kinda a waste of effort anyway, it's a lot easier to just live under big tented structures and 'terraform' small sections of land at a time until you either cover the entire planet or shift to building rotating orbital habitats instead.

>>11472598
Sustained Lunar presence let alone a Mars Landing as they are currently working towards is enough to keep them busy for decades.

>>11472930
Might be better to just dismantle the entire planet/moon and use it to construct habitats, speaking practically, because planets have a poor mass-to-habitable-surface-area ratio in comparison to rotating habitats, and you could get higher g from the rotating habitats WITHOUT the cost in delta/v from leaving a gravity well.

>>11472945
The problem isn't their plans of sustained lunar presence, it's them getting a chance to implement their plans rather than endlessly working towards them.

>>11472954
Okay, but there's no reason not to live in para-terraformed interior habitats on the surface while you're dismantling said planet. It's not like dismantling a planet happens quickly enough to disrupt those communities. A hundred generations would live and die on Mars before its diameter were shrunk by 1%, and that's if you are generous in your assumption of the rate of mass launch.

Launch aborted due to corona virus

>>11472997
True. Assuming we removed 100 billion tons of material from Mars annually, it would take literal millions of years for an appreciable decrease in the planet’s mass to occur, but I’d like to keep Mars, myself. It’s moons provide sufficient material for truly enormous and/or numerous rotating habitats, and a space elevator could be constructed with modern materials.

>>11473051
Which one are you referring to?

>>11472598
>>11472607

get ready right wing haters, you have the wrong wing, youre not like an eagle that neds both w
ings

right wing= child murder for stupid profit while being dirty pathetic incel coward

left wing= majestous god tier caring fro all mankind forever being the bestest of the besterestest


kennedy left wing got us the moon
bernie left wig will get us the space again

get ready wrongs, you are not

>>11472553
you retarded asshole, youre the reason why most people should be shot in the balls for refusing to do exactl as experts say.

are you a doctor ? are you a specialist with 40 years of study in the best of best houses of study in the world? NOOO¡???

then shut the fucking hell up forever, and i do mean forever about the subject, listen CAREFULLY to whatever PEOPLE WITH 40 YEARS OF EXPEREINCE IN THE BEST HOUSES OF STUDY IN THE WORLD have to say then

DO THAT
THAT THAT THAT THAT, NOTHING MORE NOTHING ELSE, WHITOTUUT HESITATION, WITHOUT QUESTION

SPECIALIST KNOW SMORE THAN YOU
WAY MORE
TRILLIONS OF MAGNITUDE MORE

imagine einstein trying to explain his most advanced theories to an ant?

well thats still an underapreciation of how much you dont understand the things at play

doestn matter how many wikipedias you read or how many tales you read on the cellphone.

YOU DONT KNOPW
THEY DO
YOU SHIT
THEY KING MASTER KNOWER

if they say cut your head with a buzzsaw your next move is to go find one, CAPISCE MY LITTLEFRIEND RETARDO?=

>>11472443
titan is extremely cold and has a way to conduct 100% of its temperature to the totality of any item inserted in it . you would have to carry two nimitz class nuclear reactors AND still burn around a cubic km of atmosphere per hour to mantain temperature barely above freezing in the ship.

>>11473194
> you would have to carry two nimitz class nuclear reactors AND still burn around a cubic km of atmosphere per hour to mantain temperature barely above freezing in the ship.

Yeah you're gonna need to show proof because that's bullshit.

>>11473056
>It’s moons provide sufficient material for truly enormous and/or numerous rotating habitats
You can say that again. I did the math once and found that Phobos alone contains more mass than it'd take to build a collection of rotating habitats with a greater habitable surface area than the entire planet Earth, even including our oceans and tundra and deserts, and that with the addition of an equal mass of deuterium (so the habitat is 50% habitats and 50% deuterium and storage equipment) it'd have a self-sustained life span of over 100 billion years and could afford to boost itself not only onto interstellar trajectories, but intergalactic trajectories too.

Also, we could build about 9 million more of these same habitats out of Ceres, let alone Mars.

>>11473210
>Yeah you're gonna need to show proof because that's bullshit.
epurse coldi

(i repurposed that form dear old friend of mine cold GALILEO GALILEI

galileo knew that the objective truth of the universe was movement of the earth, and right wing idiots told him "NOT MUOVI"

but he said, god is one and hes with me, even tough you say its still it moevs( in latin "Epurse Muove")

so im rechanneling the inner spirit of a similar mastermind than me, when you say its not cold, wahtever you sy, whatever you do im right

epurse coldi

>>11473229
could you affoard 100.000 robo sex slaves for each inhabitant?

>>11472553
There are tons of incredibly knowledgeable 60+ year old people working in industry.

>>11472553
people can get the virus and spread it further around you retarded uneducated redneck.,

>>11472530
Time to build more tents to house employees on-site so they don't interact with the outside world.

A comparison of the major flight events of the Apollo program's missions.

Motivation: The Apollo program's missions followed a rigid schedule and flight profile, which was used repeatedly. At the same time, each mission was unique: major equipment was absent from earlier flights, an emergency was managed successfully on Apollo 13, and other equipment and problems altered the timing of phases on the six "profile" missions which accomplished lunar landings. In short: the timing of the missions' phases were alternately comparable, and unique, so that it is feasible to compare them in a data set.

Methodology and Scope: Rounding to the nearest second, each mission's major mechanical events (stagings, separations, dockings, landing gear extension) are rounded to the nearest second, using AFJ, ALSJ and flight transcripts as sources. The GET timecodes are then converted into second timecodes, or seconds elapsed from range zero. The mechanical events are then used as endpoints for intervals of time during a mission when the launch vehicle, or spacecraft, are in particular configurations. Summing a column's results gives the total seconds from range zero to splashdown-on J-missions, this was about one million seconds. Seconds are chosen because they make it straightforward for a reader to inspect a fairly small table of natural numbers, (as opposed to hour-minute-second timecodes) and quickly pick out extrema.

Results: a numerical table of data show at a glance the commonalities and differences among the missions. The launch phase, in grey, proceeded with very little variation, and therefore extrema are not considered here. Following S-II separation, the missions' commonalities and unique characters become clear, in terms of duration of flight phases. Selected examples include Mike Collins' record re-acquisition of the LM/S-IVB stack on Apollo 11, and the long period of joint CSM/LM flight on Apollo 16 due to an alignment issue.

>>11473182
Calm down lol

>>11473439
>Elon builds a fortified compound at boca chica with billions of dollars of stockpiled material, liquidating all his other assets
>Desperately building and launching starships trying to get enough mass off planet to bootstrap a lunar colony because there won't be enough time to make the mars window
>lunar mole tunnel inhabitants watch as the earth burns as they are comfy and safe

This apocalypse is going to be fucking kino.

>>11472443
>>11472449
I read a paper somewhere (by Zubrin, I believe), about using piston internal combustion engines on Mars, using onboard methalox. The problem was that everything got too hot, because you essentially had tiny rocket engines firing on steel pistons. This could be solved by diluting the mixture with inert CO2 directly from the atmosphere. Perhaps something like this could also be used on Titan, using nitrogen instead.

>>11473548
this is true, it's probably the best place on Earth to be in the event of some kind of apocalypse

>>11473585
>diluting your ICE
no, you do the same thing that rocket engines do
regen cooled combustion chambers
not sure how you cool off the piston tho
maybe you can use the stroke to force cooling through it somehow?

>>11473194
Hey retard, thermal flux from the surface of a submarine into arctic water is several orders of magnitude faster than the thermal flux there'd be from any object into Titan's atmosphere, because gasses are low density, moron.

>>11473274
Probably, it'd be a negligible increase in mass even with a population of hundreds of billions like that habitat complex would be able to support

>>11473638
if you haven't noticed there's a schizoposter, just report him

>>11473641
then im in, when can you have it ready?

>>11473585
>>11473600
Easy, you carry a tank of liquid CO2 for coolant. The CO2 snakes around the engine in tubes to carry away heat through a set of radiator fins, looping around to be pumped through again. Run indefinitely at low power and at high power you get an hour or so before you need to stop and let the coolant system catch up.
Alternatively use open cycle cooling and spray the engine block with a bit of liquid CO2 from a tank.
In both cases the liquid CO2 is compressed and stored at the base using the same equipment meant for ISRU.

>>11473645
Yeah I realized that after scrolling a bit more, whoops

>>11473651
Give me 10,000 years and command of a few million factory habitat modules and you've got it

>>11473652
just use your liquid methane for that, dude
it's going out the engine anyway

Sincr Momentus can get shitty cubesats into deep space are we going to see a huge influx of private companies trying to commercialize deep space?

>>11473680
Rocket Lab can also put shitty cubesats to escape velocity, right?

>>11473548
>3% of people dying would cause an apocalypse lol

Please get a hobby.

>>11473692
Back to rebbit

>>11473691
Yeah

>>11473706
we're in a golden age of being able to yeet stupid shit off of this rock

How companies profit off of sending cubesats to deep space?

>>11473695
>Go to Reddit because you don’t think 3% of people dying is an apocalypse

Cringe.

>>11473659
It won't work. ICEs use a very small flow of fuel and the amount of heat energy transferred to the engine is proportionally much higher than in a rocket engine. The amount of cooling capacity for each stroke's worth of fuel is much smaller than the amount of heat pumped into the engine parts per stroke. Even taking into account the oxygen won't be enough. You need a third fluid to take away heat.

>>11473745
oh okay that's lame
the price of high ISP I guess

>>11472605
>SLS has way less power than the SAturn V
allow me to introduce myself

>>11473753
four RL-10 is less power than the S-IVB
heck, four RL-10 is less power than the S-IV upper stage from the Saturn I
the EUS design is probably better than the S-IVB and the S-IV however

>>11473758
The S-IVB was needed to finish orbital insertion. If the booster wasn't underpowered for the Apollo missions, an RL-10 powered S-IV would have been able to deliver a larger payload to the lunar surface.

>>11473772
yeah, if the S-IC and S-II could throw more to LEO then an RL-10 powered S-IV would totally be better
this would be fucking easy with the F-1B and J-2S upgrades, or if I were to go with a more modern solution, I'd literally just be describing Starship Super Heavy

>>11473758
You don't need high thrust if your final destination isn't LEO. Efficiency takes precedence. Whole reason SLS dropped the J-2X.

>>11473585
I read a paper about using an atmosphere-breathing jet engine for flight on Mars. It used aluminium as fuel and CO2 as oxidizer.

>>11473821
OBERTH
B
E
R
T
H
efficiency is king if you're going to be making burns in deep space
if you're going from gravity well to gravity well, it's just as important as the ability to dump that prop as low in the gravity well as possible

>>11473830
Truly a waste of time. Just carry methane and oxygen and burn them together in a jet engine. Not only would it be way more efficient than an aluminum-CO2 engine, it'd probably weigh much less for the same flight time, not to mention you wouldn't nee dot worry about dealing with aluminum oxide crystals eroding your engine.

>>11473833
The trades just don't cut it. Unless you're using non-chemical propulsion with meme-tier burn times, an extra second or two of Isp will vastly outstrip the efficiency of the Oberth effect.

>>11473922
To clarify, I mean compared to extra thrust.

>>11473887
NUCLEAR
THERMAL
RAMJET

>>11473973
based

>>11473153
>kennedy left wing got us the moon
Through Nixon and only because there was an actual competition with the fucking Soviet Union going on. Now stop being a stupid fucking child and fuck off with your politics.

>>11473991
politics moves the world, if youre over 15 and don't know that , or believe that you "dont have a political ideology because theyre all the same" then your just a puppet, quite likely mine

>>11474010
When it comes to space exploration, it stops it dead in its tracks. Nixon would have killed the Apollo program dead if it weren't for the fact that the Soviets were actually going for the moon.
That's why politics and party politics in particular is a fucking plague on space exploration.

Take your fucking teams and begone.

>>11473887
>way more efficient
It's not at all that clear though. Just being able to ditch the oxidizer is a big deal, on top of that aluminium is dense, easy to store and carry around, packs a lot of energy as a fuel and is supposedly widely available as a mineral on Mars. Though dealing with solid powdered fuel and literal sapphire dust exhaust is undoubtedly a major pain it still might be one of the better alternatives

>>11474147
SOON

>>11474147

>>11473271
why do schizos come here so much?
can't you shit things up with your own kind?
>>11474020
Based and centristpilled
Burgers can't attempt big things anymore because of partisan politics, it ruins everything. Exception is if the Chinks announced a manned Mars mission, both sides would actually get along for long enough to protect fragile burger egos.
Honestly wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese weren't planning it in secret.
Maybe Spacex will get there in 2024.

>>11474192
>coombrain complaining about schizos
You have to go back

I wish these videos were timestamped.

Also, vertical sky-scrapper crane?

>>11474192
>why do schizos come here so much?
Have you ever looked at the catalog page for /sci/? They were here all the time. Whenever /sfg/ is on page 1 that just makes it worse.

The award for the most secretive launch goes to...

>>11474460
are china about to drop some more rockets on some peasants?

>>11474469
The Long March 7A launches from Hainan Island in the South China Sea, so no blasting peasant villages today. Ironically, it runs on kerosene and liquid oxygen, so even if it did fall on peasants, it would be a much safer launch vehicle to drop on them than their hypergolic vehicles.

>>11474511
>Ironically, it runs on kerosene and liquid oxygen

It also has a hydrogen/oxygen third-stage

>>11474460
And there she goes...just as quiet as her arrival

>>11472531
>For Venus the issue is obvious, you need to get rid of 91 atmospheres worth of carbon dioxide somehow. The challenge with Mars is the opposite, you need to add a shitload of nitrogen gas to build up the atmospheric density,
Why not just take the atmosphere from Venus and move it to Mars!?

>>11474539
Okay, it hasn’t actually launched yet...now scheduled 13:15 UTC

>>11474540
>build a huge ass fan on Venus that could accelerate gas to above escape velocity and aim it so it would hit Mars
This could actually work

>>11474544
might as well just push Venus into Mars and make super Earth 2.0: still not habitable

30 MINUTES UNTIL STOCK MARKET CRASH!


https://planetnews.com/live/cnbc.html?mepr-unauth-page=40&redirect_to=%2Famerican%2Fcnbc-america.html

>>11474511
>dying from a blunt trauma
>dying from poisoning or cancer due to hydrazine exposure
what's the difference

>>11474610
The difference between getting beaned with a club and dying to nerve gas.

>>11474544
Still doesn’t prevent the fact that Mars will lose the atmosphere over time.

>>11474630
if you can build a megastructure to blow away Venus's atmosphere, you can build a megastructure to keep the atmosphere on Mars

>>11474634
Or just keep blowing since Venus has enough for a few Mars sized planets anyways

>>11474637
>Venus to Mars cycler to bring enormous cargo tanks full of liquefied atmosphere
we can dream

>>11474183
Ooh, they have tractability on their stampings. Good to implement some process control when you are welding your rocket together in a field.

>>11474634
Already proposed by NASA scientists for mars.
Fairly small magnetic field (1T) needed at L1, solar wind deflection of 0.3 degrees would be enough to protect the planet for human habitation.
Over time the outgassing would build up the atmosphere and increase the temperature which would melt even more solid co2. Not enough to reach earth pressures but closer to not needing so much protective gear.

Guys, why not build a quantum tunnel between mars/venus so Mars can get the atmosphere it needs and venus can get rid of the unwanted atmosphere? Seems like a win/win. Why do we need to "blow it away" for venus or "create new atmosphere" for mars?

>Stock market totally collapsing.
>SpaceX don't give a fuck because it's private company.
hahahahaha

>>11474687
>sticks pencil through folded sheet of paper
genius.

>>11474688
Stock market is not science. Its pure emotion.

Anyone know anything about this company positron dynamics? They were shilling themselves for years and are meant to have put up a test cubesat for their propulsion system but I can't find anything since 2017. The launch was meant to be a year ago or so.
If they can actually get an little improvement on antimatter generation could be viable. Only need a few grams of noble gas to maintain orbit for years.
They should have released results by now, assume it's gone bad.

https://youtu.be/EBjt2CgZACU

>>11474687
>build a quantum tunnel into the Jupiter's atmosphere
>put the exit inside a bell nozzle
>ride the solar system and beyond for free
Where do I get my noble prize

>>11474691
Modern markets are powered by wicca number magic and aborted stem cells

>>11474610
Time and pain.

Long March 7 failed, hhhahahhahaha

>>11474813
The greatest of all enemies of humanity: the gravity well. Once we liberate ourselves of it, anything is possible.

>>11474813
> Actually believing it when classified sats shrouded in secrecy are declared lost.
I'll wait for the amateur astronomers to confirm sorry.

>>11474813
Pics or gtfo

Ahem. A moment to remind everyone that the SLS the greatest most powerful rocket ever made is mere months away from its first historical flight. Thank you.

>>11474630
Yes in a few billion years.

>>11474889
I was gonna print a little SLS to sit alongside my little Starship, but it's been delayed to 2021 due to budget-overrun relating to a broken computer-fan. Requesting additional funding in excess of $3 to replace the faulty component.

>>11474889
>is mere months away

I mean the Green Run is, but your gonna have to wait about a year for Artemis 1.

Starship stretched; 120m
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1239598329274798085

>>11474915
Escape tower confirmed. Finally some semblance of thinking in that rocket's design. Now if only they add solid rocket boosters for maximum cost efficiency and performance we are almost set.

>>11474889
>the SLS the greatest most powerful rocket ever made*
*it hasn't flown yet and there is another rocket closer to flying that will be bigger

>>11474915
remember when Starship had a reasonable fineness ratio?

>>11474889
>most powerful rocket ever made
No. The Saturn V was much more powerful.

>>11474813
Not surprising. This was the first flight of the 7A configuration, with their high-performance HydroLOX upper stage (which failed). Sucks, because it grounds this new rocket AND their workhorse Long March 3 series.

China just can't catch a break!

>>11474552
go away, we are only concerned with things that go UP in this thread!

>>11474926
wrong, SLS has more liftoff thrust
Super Heavy will have half as much again over that

>>11474924
And it keeps getting heavier...

>>11474933
>wrong, SLS has more liftoff thrust
Not by much. ~16.5% more launch pad thrust. Only to deliver roughly half the payload the Saturn can.

>>11474939
>Only to deliver roughly half the payload the Saturn can.

SLS could get a much better payload to LEO by removing it’s upper-stage, payload TLI is the most important statistic for SLS because that’s what it’s optimised for.

>>11474953
>payload TLI is the most important statistic for SLS because that’s what it’s optimised for.
That's what I was referring to. The Saturn V can loft 48.6t to the moon, the SLS Block 1 can do 26t. Before you mention the upgraded blocks, Block 1B still can't match the Saturn V and all upgrades beyond Block 1 have been put on hold indefinitely.

>>11474977
>put on hold indefinitely
oh no, anon, it's much worse than that
EUS is both on hold indefinitely AND on the critical path, they want to use it to launch two-stage landers

>>11474985
>EUS is both on hold indefinitely AND on the critical path
What? How is that even possible?

>>11474134
>Just being able to ditch the oxidizer is a big deal
Nah, any aluminum rocket is super inefficient because of the molecular weight of the exhaust molecules and the fact that aluminum oxide vapor condenses at over 2000 degrees, meaning it hardly gets to expand and do any work before solidifying into dust and experiencing a huge pressure drop. The fact that you wouldn't need to carry oxidizer is so little benefit that it doesn't make any difference.

Also, aluminum metal doesn't exist on Mars, aluminum oxide does, which means you need to do high-power ISRU extraction to smelt that raw material into aluminum metal, then powderize that metal so it can be used as fuel. If you're going to go to that trouble, fucking skip the aluminum and just do methalox production.

>>11474992
Boeing lobbying
look, m8, Artemis is fucked without Gateway

>>11474889
It would be hilarious is Starship makes it to orbit before SLS flies.

>>11475004
ngl I'm almost 100% convinced this will happen. Even Elon time isn't nearly as bad as government time and all the signs point towards serious setbacks.

>>11475004
I'm calling it now
I'm going to predict that a Starship (right now marked down for SN4) will do a high altitude flight with belly flop before SLS finishes the Green Run

>>11475004
>>11475009
I doubt that Starship will beat SLS into orbit, Starship isn't even done in the basic protoyping stage and SLS is doing one last test before flight. The only way I can imagine Starship winning that "race" is if Trump loses the reelection and the new Democrat administration cans Artemis while putting SLS on hold.

>>11474676
Do you know what 1 tesla is? It's a fucking STRONG magnet, first of all, and secondly it's a unit measure of flux density (1 tesla = 10^8 field lines per square meter). It tells you NOTHING about the actual size of the magnet. A one tesla magnet could be the size of your thumb or a million kilometers across in principal.
Just so you're aware, the magnet that they propose for an artificial magnetosphere for Mars would have a mass of several billion tons. Not exactly a small magnet.

>>11475025
Orbit is part of prototyping phase. They won't be "done" until they get to Mars. Its a learning curve all the way.

>>11475025
well they need to finish the Green Run before the year is out before they can even think about starting up the launch campaign for Artemis 1

>>11472382
Earth is flat

>Arianespace suspends launch facility
>NASA on skeleton crew
>SpaceX launch abort
>China's launch failure
>Global stock market meltdown
Good job Virus.

https://youtu.be/kpQsk9cGpIA

>>11474933
More thrust off the pad and significantly less average stage Isp.

>>11475004
And?
>SLS
>Man-rated rocket for deep space exploration
>Traditional proven design that works
>Flight proven hardware whose kinks have been sorted decades ago
>Functional large human carrying capable capsule - Orion
>Single launch capability exceeds Starship and does not require complicated dangerous orbital refueling technology
versus
>Starship
>Unmanned rocket for cargo
>Experimental never done before design
>Experimental brand new hardware with questionable reliability that will need years of use to prove itself safe for critical missions let alone human ones
>??? capability to carry humans?
>LEO only vehicle without experimental never done before orbital transfer of hundreds of tons of cryogenic liquids

I wouldn't entirely dismiss the idea it might fly first but if it does it will be essentially boilerplate test flight probably without reusable capability. It cannot be seriously considered for any missions until it gets years of use.

>>11475045
If I drop it will they die?

>>11475056
>Traditional proven design that works
NASA doesn't know how to make a rocket anymore. When was the last time NASA designed a rocket that flew man? 60s with Shuttle?

>>11475031
I know. I meant the stage of prototyping where they make a hopper that doesn't pop itself.

>>11475032
Fair point. It seems likely that the green run will happen before the end of the year, but then again that was said for the first launch too.

>>11475045
Nice brushed steel.

>>11475063
Prototype will go slower than you expect in short term, but faster than long term projection. Elon still believes spring time orbit. We have 3 month period now.

>>11474687
We don’t know how to make fucking wormholes that requires third singularity intelligences.

>>11474994
I dug up some papers and the theoretical Isp for Al-CO2 rocket (that carries liquid CO2 with it) should be around 200-230s which isn't great but quite bearable, while the actual problem for the atmospheric engine is ridiculous size of intake thanks to low density atmosphere (hence the liquid CO2 despite lower efficiency).

>high-power ISRU extraction
Fuel is energy storage no matter the type so energy requirements for its production won't be that much different

>methalox
Good luck mining water for that hydrogen while regolith is literally everywhere. And you only need a cooled plate to collect liquid CO2 trickling from it.

>>11475034
also India suspended their launch campaigns, so no GSLV launch today

>>11475196
>collect liquid CO2 trickling from it
Actually disregard that, it's obviously bollocks since the triple point of CO2 is around 5 bar. Not sure where did I get that from. You can either freeze atmospheric CO2 to solid or compress it to about 10 bar to get liquid.

interesting

>>11475034
Hasn't anyone made the point yet that in the light of this having a backup civ on another planet is actually looking pretty sensible?

>>11475261
Covid-19 isn't going to collapse civilization, anon

>>11475261
No. Nothing would make that idea look more sensible than sci-fi schlock to most people short of a cataclysmic event that nearly or partly wipes out humanity. And even then, most wouldn't take it 100% seriously. The average person doesn't really care about space flight beyond Star Wars.

>>11475261
no, and it wouldn't go down well. The "plan B" argument for extra-terrestrial settlement always fails as long as it's possible to fix problems on Earth.

>>11475261
Thats conspiracy theorist nonsense anon apocalypse could never happen in modern times we are far too advanced and we have bigger issues to deal with that some adventurer fantasy on mars.

>>11475196
If you are going to be using crazy propulsion with co2 just use nuclear thermal.

>there are people who use computers and linux and still can't get past USE flags and etc-update

>>11475261
Civilization-ending events are so unlikely that they’re not worth considering. We have most of a billion years to colonize the outer solar system because the habitable zone will very, very, very, very, very, very slowly move outwards as the sun goes through it’s life cycle, and on those timescales, colonizing other star systems would be a triviality even at, say, 1% of c-velocity.

>>11475273
>The "plan B" argument for extra-terrestrial settlement

The only “argument” one has to make is “Its cool and expanding is always good”.

>>11475296
you need more than "it's cool" to convince people it's worth it to spend tens of billions of their tax dollars on something

>>11475302
wrong

>>11475302
Who the fuck mentioned tax dollars? The future is private.

>>11475310
in which case no argument needs to be made at all

>>11475269
>>11475271
>>11475273
>>11475276
>>11475293
But I thought that's what Elon said? Or something close to it. And I'm not talking about coronavirus but it's certainly shown how fragile things are.

>>11475293
Do you even realize how fragile civilization, on the level of being capable of spaceflight, actually is?
If you consider civilization as mudhut cannibal tier then yes it's somewhat resilient and a bit more difficult to end.

>>11475293
>taking things for granted
That never ends well.

>>11474926
tragic but true

SLS block 2 would be more powerful but will never happen

>>11475315
>But I thought that's what Elon said? Or something close to it.
That's what lots of experts say, but they're not mentioning that most people don't care. To the average person, all that talk about establishing civilization off-world is just lame science fiction. This is exacerbated by the fact that potentially modern civilization ending events are are incredibly rare and can be safeguarded against much more cheaply and easily by really sturdy bunkers.

Do you understand how long it would take to set up civilization on the moon for example? Not just a dozen or so people in a self sustained can, but a full blown civilization? It would be a multi generation long project that would cost untold amounts of money and resources to protect against a risk that no one has ever seen before. That problem is just outside the scope of what most people are expected to worry about.

The idea does have merit, but you're never going to convince people that it's a good one. When we go to space, it'll be for other, more pragmatic, reasons.

>>11475326
>maintaining civilization in sturdy bunkers
That's the science fiction you are mentioning so much. If anything gets to that point its the end and the entire world must be rebuild from zero.

>>11475317
>Do you even realize how fragile civilization, on the level of being capable of spaceflight, actually is?

It’s not fragile. It’s quite sturdy. Half of humans dying would only reduce the population to 1970’s levels, and nothing could do that short of an impact event, nuclear war, or super volcano. None of which are particularly likely.

>>11475325
you know what would be better?
propalox boosters

>>11475326
Civilization on the moon is easy as it can be bootstrapped by existing civilization.

Very different from cave start or worse.

>>11475326
>Do you understand how long it would take to set up civilization on the moon for example?

A couple years using near-future robotics. By the time there’s “civilization” on another celestial body, it could be nearly entirely automated, like how AIs in RTS games know how to follow a build order, find, and utilize resources.

>>11475336
Half the population dying will most definitely NOT get you 1970's. You're crazy.
Things are far more unstable than you seem to blindly believe. Case in point meme flu economical impact.

>>11475350
>Case in point meme flu economical impact.
you mean the predictable dip in the economy that will fully recover by the end of the year?

>>11475350
>Half the population dying will most definitely NOT get you 1970's.

The world population is 7.8 billion.
In 1974, the world population was 3.9 billion, approximately half of the current population.

> Case in point meme flu economical impact.

Oooooo, production slows down for a while. Big deal.

>>11475354
Good to see your seeming divine knowledge extends into the economy.

>>11475354
My only question is how long to hold my nerve before I buy. I've been about 70% cash the whole time.

>>11475326
>The idea does have merit, but you're never going to convince people that it's a good one.

Expanding to create a “backup” of civilization is a silly idea. One should expand to CONQUER, DOMINATE, and REPLICATE

>>11475357
Wait are you literally saying half the population can die today and everything's going to be fine because the numbers match the 70's?

>>11475354
>Dow Jones tanked for a fucking THIRD of its value
>fed pumped 1.5 trillion dollars which was wiped out in 15 minutes

Haha nothing to see here just a dip bro, just a wee market correction.

>>11475372
yeah man it's time to fucking buy

>>11475370
>and everything's going to be fine

I never said it would be “fine”. That’s a strawman you’ve just invented because you recognize that challenging my actual position is untenable. Human civilization at its current level of technology would not be at an existential threat if half of the population died.

>>11475370
There would be a period of adjustment and then we would start back up where we left off, as with every other natural disaster that has ever happened. The biggest threat to progress is people losing perspective on what is important and getting stuck in a local maximum where their dumb, insignificant social issues take priority over literally everything. Natural disasters like this have a net benefit for humanity.
Civilization is never going to permanently collapse into a mad max style apocalypse, that's dumb.

>>11475372
>The economy depends on people moving money around completely independent of any actual material resource value

Cringe. Trading stocks should be illegal.

>>11475372
Utter retards selling off as if elderly dying affects economy

>>11475381
>The economy depends on people moving money around completely independent of any actual material resource value

It shouldn't, but it does

>Trading stocks should be illegal

Yes

>>11475374
1970's level (of technology, economy, and industry) implies "fine". Reconsider your position, anon.

>>11475423
>1970's level (of technology, economy, and industry) implies "fine".

I said “ Half of humans dying would only reduce the population to 1970’s levels”

I never said anything about technology. I never said anything about industry, and I never said anything about the economy. I said “population”.
You are either very confused or constantly looking for new ways to lie.

>allow international communities to build giant space weapons
>but they must be stationed on the dark side of the moon therefore are incapable of being turned towards Earth
feasible?

>>11475454
Why would we need giant space weapons?

>>11475462
To enforce law across the entire solar system.

>>11475454
it's easier to hit the earth from the far side of the moon than the near side

>>11475485
obviously we ignore kinetic weapons because every spaceship is a kinetic weapon

>>11475028
But we've already got 1 tesla on its way to Mars!

>>11475338
>propalox boosters

>>11475326
>that would cost untold amounts of money and resources
Which is why aside from simple exploration, it's going to have to provide something other than "look mom I'm on the moon!" If it can't produce something of value, there's no point in a "colony".
Note that "value" could be as simple as a lower-dV source of materials for space stations. (inb4 3He nutters)
>>11475341
No matter how many times you crank the key, if a car doesn't have gas, it won't start. Likewise you can't have a lunar "civilization" without local resources. We don't even really know what's there yet outside of basalt, iron oxides, and water ice.

>>11475336
>Half of humans dying would only reduce the population to 1970’s levels
It's the growth rate that's the problem. China is starting to top out, and India somewhat too, but Africa is on the rise. The western world and Japan are already below replacement rate outside of """immigrants""".

>>11475548
>It's the growth rate that's the problem

Speak for yourself. I’ve created three monstrosities and I’m not thirty yet.

>>11475548
>Which is why aside from simple exploration, it's going to have to provide something other than "look mom I'm on the moon!" If it can't produce something of value, there's no point in a "colony".
>Note that "value" could be as simple as a lower-dV source of materials for space stations. (inb4 3He nutters)
That's why I think putting more material in space to help enforce space law is going to be a major driver in space flight really soon.

Coming soon?
This Elon-Bigelow joint effort needs to be a reality.

>>11475645
Oh wow that's bad.
Basically brainstorming a Discovery-esque ship that could be used for really long-term spaceflight missions.

>>11474915
>stretched

Starship de geso Edit Request.

>>11475025

They're refining the design in lockstep with refining the production process.

Imagine a sloped line representing SLS' development timeline to completion. Starship's slope isn't the same; it's a steeper one, so it can hit milestones to completion in a near term timeframe even if it is low according to expectations.

The real bugaloo will be the effects of cornavirus which will cause a major economic depression. Lockdowns might shut off work, the market for Starlink can shrink or not be as good. Maybe they'll plumb along, Elon is pretty plucky.

>>11475812
Starship is nowhere near any sort of orbital launch
They are just open air welding scrap steel together and it can’t even hold pressure

>>11475827

They're building a production system to crank them out, each one will get farther along, maybe sooner than you think.

>>11475827

The effort moves up the slope. Where they are isn't where they will be.

>>11475830
They are hand welding it
That’s no production system

>>11475836

Production system evolving: Elon talking before the sn1 exposion about some planar finisher thing they were bring online for later builds, Elon talking about new steel type coming along later in the year. New tents, etc.

>>11475836
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48895.1940
Shits popping off in Boca, what you talking about boi

>>11475836

Musk talking about building production capacity line and not just one, so they can lose a bunch and keep pumping them out.

They built the post explosion test tank in a short timeframe. The next one is coming, obviously, and the next.

>>11475827

They have a factory project in an LA Harbor. They're working out the kinks now and moving it indoors at some point.

>>11475097
based and OApilled

how do the bans on large gatherings work? does it hamper starship production?

>>11472592
>20 years in development
>Tens billion of dollar budget
Unable even land on the fucking Moon

>2 NASA employees test positive
WE ARE GOING

...if we're still breathing

>>11476028
NASA have been absolutely on the ball when it comes to Coronavirus, as soon as the cases were detected (1 at MSFC and 1 at Ames) they locked down the respective centers and forced all non-mission critical employees to work from home. There have been no other cases at NASA since. They even did a special preparedness day a couple weeks back, were everybody worked from home as a stress test for NASA’s telework system.

>>11476059
If I'm on the ISS I ain't touching shit that gets sent up to me

Does the next Expedition have a super extended quarantine without human contact before they go up or will they just not go? Manned spaceflight in a pandemic is going to be interesting. If we were doing real shit like landing on the moon right now it would be something to unite us all.

>>11476073
>Does the next Expedition have a super extended quarantine without human contact before they go up or will they just not go?

Yes, apparently NASA and Roscosmos are heavily limiting contact between the MS-16 crew (scheduled to go up in April) and other people, to the point that many of the Russian traditions usually performed before a Soyuz launch will not occur due to the need for isolation. NASA are also limiting access to the DM-2 crew.

>>11476094
>NASA are also limiting access to the DM-2 crew.

I wonder if DM-2 will be delayed, purely because it’ll be really awkward if America’s return to crewed spaceflight occurs without any crowds being able to turn up.

Talking of NASA and Coronavirus...Brevard County aka the Space Coast just got it’s first confirmed case.

Some Chinese guy on Twitter managed to get hold of some footage of the Long March 7A failure. Seems like the 2nd stage exploded several seconds after igniting.

https://twitter.com/LiuyiYiliu/status/1239712908331769856

>>11476129
>mrw that video
If it's legit and it's the second stage that blew up, then it could be a YF-115 turbopump failing since it uses an oxygen rich staged combustion. The metallurgy of the pumps for engines like that must be amazing to be able to function properly and any deviations will result in the engine eating itself.

>>11476146
>The metallurgy of the pumps for engines like that must be amazing to be able to function properly and any deviations will result in the engine eating itself.

The Chinese staged combustion cycle engines don’t actually run very hot. For example, the YF-115 runs at a chamber pressure of 120 bar. The YF-115 is also a small engine that only produces 150kN of thrust, but it’s grouped into a Soyuz-style quartet on the LM-7 second-stage (pic related).

>>11474511
It failed

https://spacenews.com/launch-of-chinas-new-long-march-7a-ends-in-failure/

>>11475196
>Good luck mining water for that hydrogen while regolith is literally everywhere.
Water bearing permafrost is much more common on Mars than aluminum bearing minerals. There's a lot of water, and it's much easier to extract than aluminum ores.

Also, even though fuel is energy storage, on the whole producing methane from water and Co2 is a more efficient process than mining, refining, smelting, and powdering aluminum metal from aluminum-bearing minerals. Also, methane is a lot easier to design around and work with, and it offer greater specific impulse anyway, so what is the point of considering aluminum fueled rockets?

>>11475280
This. Run a pump, condense CO2 in your propellant tank, use it in your nuclear thermal rocket to hop several thousand km across the surface (or do SSTO), land, run pump again. Repeat until reactor fuel is spent.

Reminder to exercise daily

>>11476432
Unfortunately that will not save you

>>11476454
Cry more skinnyfat subhuman.

>>11476274
>This. Run a pump, condense CO2 in your propellant tank, use it in your nuclear thermal rocket to hop several thousand km across the surface (or do SSTO), land, run pump again. Repeat until reactor fuel is spent.

Fuck yes I want this. Probably will never happen because of the amount of radiation it shits out unfortunately.

>>11476464
NTRs don’t emit significant radiation unless they’re open-cycle

>>11472430
>I've heard that jets are efficient because they push a lot of air and not because they save having to carry O2, is that right?

mass air flow around the primary compression and combustion cycles accounts for a great amount of specific impulse, at certain speeds.

Titan's atmosphere of carbon rich molecules is probably going to bring in all sorts of interesting problems for combustion, especially of the "air breathing" sort of internal combustion engines.

>>11472449
>there's too much inert buffer gas to allow for combustion

and if it's compressed?

>>11472598
>If Trump gets reelected
okeeeeeeeeyy

>>11472572
>I think at that point it would be easier to just dig massive caverns into the thick ice layer, kit them out, and make those into cities.

you'd be dealing with thermally induced structural problems pretty damn quick.

so pack LOTS of insulation into your structural members, especially at the foundation level.

>>11476487
I wonder instead of carrying traditional jet fuel, could you carry something that would react with nitrogen in a turbine engine? It's pretty inert as far as I know but surely there are some fun chemicals out there that make a bang with Nitrogen.

>>11472865
>but spending 40 years trapped in LEO is inexcusable.

you thinking we should have lunar mining bases by now?

>ywn see it rain on Titan

>>11476504
Yes, a logical development on the Apolllo program if it wasn't fucked 10 ways to Sunday would have seen the development of a BFR type vehicle in the 80s-90s.

>>11476471
They don't emit significant contamination unless they're open cycle, but while they're being fired and also for a few dozen hours after they've been fired there is a very significant amount of radiation shining out of them from the fission reaction and decay of fission products.

If you stood next to a nuclear thermal rocket engine as it fired, the neutron and gamma ray dose you'd receive would kill you. If you stood next to a nuclear thermal rocket engine a few minutes after it had shut down after completing a burn, the gamma rays from the fission product decay would kill you. You'd have to leave that thing alone for a while until enough unstable fission products decayed that you could approach the engine. That's a problem if you'd stuck in a cockpit mounted to the front of a hopping vehicle that uses a nuclear thermal engine, unless that cockpit is big enough for you to camp out in for two or three days.

>>11476490
The proportion of inert buffer gas remains the same and the combustion cannot self-sustain.
Think of the fractional abundance of the reactants in the air as a number of particles in a box. There's a certain likelihood of collision between any two particles. What you need to have happen in a self sustaining combustion reaction is for the hot products of a reaction to collide with more reactants, and then have those two hot reactants collide with one another and combust, before too many side collisions with inert gasses occur and the remaining thermal energy in each reactant is too low to overcome the activation energy of the reaction.
Basically, if there's too much inert gas, the heat of combustion gets diluted too fast and combustion stops. The density of the mixture as a whole doesn't really matter, though at very low density other effects dominate which make combustion even in a pure reactant mixture very difficult if not impossible.
An example of the reverse effect, a fuel-gas mixture with reduced inert gas concentration, would have been Earth's atmosphere back during the carboniferous period. Back then oxygen made up about 35 percent of the atmosphere; normal plant material would have burned ferociously even when green, and small embers landing on wet bark would cause that bark to burst into flame. The reactivity of a gas mixture increases and decreases dramatically depending on how much inert gas component is present.

>>11476502
Even fluorine requires elevated temperatures and an electrical spark to help it react with nitrogen. the triple bond between nitrogen atoms is incredibly stable and strong.
The only reaction I can find that uses nitrogen gas with no additional help once the reaction starts is the one that produces lithium nitride. Apparently if you heat up lithium metal in the presence of nitrogen gas it will react, however I can't find any sources that say how much energy per mole this releases. Lithium nitride is a high melting point solid, which obviously sucks ass as an exhaust product, but it also reacts violently with water to form ammonia and lithium hydroxide, so you could imagine an engine that intakes nitrogen gas, sprays in hot lithium in a 'torch' to produce lithium nitride dust, which is then reacted with a spray of liquid water. However, you could probably also get away in that case by just reacting lithium with water, as that's also an exothermic reaction and would be much more simple.

>>11476502
>could you carry something that would react with nitrogen in a turbine engine?

heat

>>11476509
>Yes, a logical development on the Apolllo program if it wasn't fucked 10 ways to Sunday would have seen the development of a BFR type vehicle in the 80s-90s.

too bad international advanced financial warfare had to take place, huh?

>>11476539
>The proportion of inert buffer gas remains the same and the combustion cannot self-sustain.

gas separator.

fusion thermal powered.

>>11476274
>There's a lot of water, and it's much easier to extract than aluminum ores
That's wrong, you have to dig for quite a bit in most parts of Mars to get to enough water, while aluminosilicates are very literally everywhere (in fact, in most cases when mining water you'd be actually mining both, with water being the way smaller part). There's also 5 times the Earth's concentration of magnesium which is just as good a fuel as aluminium.

>what is the point of considering aluminum fueled rockets?
It's only a complete meme on Earth where water, hydrocarbons, oxygen and cheap energy are easily available. Mars has none of those so depending on the local economy and production it might be feasible. You'll have to set up mineral mining and metal productuon anyways if you're aiming for any kind of sustainability.

>>11476696
Begone old space, no one wants your solid rocket bullshit.

>>11476705
>knows one option that works ok here and now
>refuses to even look at anything else despite completely new and unexplored environment
Who is old space now

>>11476742
t. retard

>>11475812
The idea that Starship development has been fast is an utter meme. Compare where we are now to where we were a year ago.

>>11476014
>capsule
>land on moon

>>11476865
it's fast relative to the development of every other LV ever made in the entire space industry

>>11476865
Just barely over a year ago people were still laughing their asses off retards who called water tower a "rocket".

>>11476869
Wow gaiz look at how fast Ares I was developed!
Sure it's a pile of steel that can't actually do anything useful on top of some actually functional engines, but look! It flew! That's totally on the same level as a fully-functional LV!

>>11476101
>crowds
why would that matter?

>>11476873
If water towers do a better job at spaceflight than metallic one-use matryoshka dolls, guess who'll have the last laugh.

>>11476867
>Not landing the whole entire rocket on the moon.

>>11476917
>making the most epic rooster tail ever

>>11476878
Looks like it'll topple over.

I'm sorry to detract from spaceflight discussion but it's a good time to buy Tesla stock for those who missed out on the first run and it is now down 60% from its all time high.

I know that some of us feel like the public has a warped view of SpaceX and the same thing happens with Tesla. With that comes the opportunity to profit since the market is also misconceiving the value of the company and how it operates.

>>11476865

Fast from this point to completion, in theory.

>recession the likes of we've never seen before
>starlink was the cash cow meant to fund Mars
>with the economy crashing the chances of that happening is approaching zero
>the crisis and its lingering after effects might last for decade or more

Now what?

>>11476865
One year ago everyone thought its a paper rocket. Then a water tower flew.

>>11476496
Reddit

>>11477026
ONONONONONONONONONONO

>>11477098
Nooo no NO NOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH

>>11477098
the shorters can finally cash out and quit trolling Elon then

>>11477098
Hahaha muskrats on suicide watch!

You have no idea how long I've been waiting for this!!

>>11477124
Other car companies are doing far worse.

>>11477098

>>11477124
Why would I be on suicide watch? I bought at $220 per share, sold above $900, and now I'm buying near bottom to do that again, whereas most people who hated Tesla or SpaceX enough to short TSLA have already lost a lot of their money and covered or they received a margin call.

>>11477150
The difference is that Boeing is going to get financial aid from the government and Tesla is not... :)

>>11477124
For what? The entire market looks the same.

>>11477214
tesla was overpriced
also tesla is not spacex (which is private)

>>11477214
Tesla doesn't need aid or a bailout, their cash reserves are still relatively high and they have steady production that will go into filling pre-orders. They have more demand than any other auto manufacturer. In comparison, Boeing has 4x more debt and is bleeding money.

If you think Tesla is going to fail, you're free to bet against it and lose your money over the next few years.

>>11477266
>their cash reserves are still relatively high

They’ve had like...only two profitable quarters before this recession hit

>they have steady production that will go into filling pre-orders

You mean all those pre-orders that will be cancelled as we enter the coming recession because few will have the money to flippantly spend 50-60k on overpriced cars? Their going to have to cut production.

>They have more demand than any other auto manufacturer.

*Did

>>11477230
It's gonna hit musk much harder because everyone dislikes him and nobody's gonna bail him out lmao.

>>11477295
>because everyone dislikes him
You and your shorter buddies who got burned doesn't account for "everybody".

>>11477295
Trump likes him

>>11477295
>everyone dislikes him
What weird place are you living in? Elon is a popular guy, especially among the younger generations.

>>11477298
>Trump likes him
>especially among the younger generations
>retards like him

>>11477310
yes

>>11477298
>President Donald Trump praised Boeing as “the greatest company in the world” at a news conference Tuesday.

>“We have to absolutely help Boeing,” Trump said, calling it “unthinkable” what happened to the company.

>>11477294
>They’ve had like...only two profitable quarters before this recession hit
Tesla's gross margin is much higher than their competitors. They are using their revenue to fuel their expansion. Boeing isn't growing at all, their gross profit has barely changed in 3 decades.
>You mean all those pre-orders that will be cancelled as we enter the coming recession
They have hundreds of thousands of preorders and car sales don't come to a dead stop in a recession, there is still a fair amount of demand. In 2009, luxury car sales were 10% higher than the previous year.

>>11477385
yeah, reporting a profit means they fucked up and now they need to pay taxes on that money

>>11477298
>>11477295
The near future of Space exploration is SpaceX. America depends on Musk now. He'll get his money.

>>11477537
I don't think he doesn't want the governments money if it comes with strings attached

>>11477546
No company can stand against the will of the government.

>>11476867
Are you aware that was precisely the initial plan for apollo until time constraints enforced the far riskier orbital rendezvous method that was used?

>>11477150
Yikes.

>>11477587
Rendezvous saves delta/v and propellant

>>11476917
Direct ascent is dumb

>>11477662
I did direct ascent as a baby KSP player

>>11477670
Direct ascent is popular in KSP because rendezvous and docking is hard, especially for newer players. Rendezvous is more efficient and allows for specialised vehicles.

>>11477266
As long as telsla production numbers keep climbing their,stock will keep rising

>>11477662
If it’s all one vehicle that has refueled on the lunar surface to some extent then it absolutely makes sense

>>11477748
Rendezvous is a bit more complicated and thus more satisfying and fun to engineer, and the mothership is always a giant ungainly behemoth if you’re going outside of Kerbin’s SOI anyway. Even so, you can get away with using the same lander for all bodies without atmospheres except for Tylo because their delta/v requirements are uniformly mild.

>>11477818
I'd have more fun with landers if docking weren't so damn ass. I guess I should just practice, but I tried fucking 20 times I swear to God to get my single-stage ML/Command Capsule to redock with the propulsion bus that would return it to LKO but it just wouldn't fucking work no matter how gently I tried. Even MechJeb and port alignment mods that had the two vessels perfectly lined up and as still as possible couldn't manage it.

>>11477853
Uh, you're not trying to dock ports of different sizes or anything, are you?

>>11477862
Nah, they're the same conformation.

>>11477653
And?

>>11477653
So does expendability. Old space wins out once again!

>>11477853
Docking seems pretty easy to me
The ports are magnetic and will attract eachother once you get them within a meter or so
Sounds like you might be using mismatched sizes or or there’s something in the way

>>11477853
Are you using the 2.5m ports? Sometimes people get the front and backs of those mixed up, and the back end of the port can't connect to anything.

>>11477853
go slower and let the magnetism do the work for you
also, maybe you put one of them on inside out, that's happened to me before

>>11477670
Direct ascent is piss easy in ksp because all bodies and distances are 10 times smaller than in real life.
yry direct ascent in RO/RP-1 and you'll see why it wasn't done in real life.

>>11474712
They posted on facebook in nov. 2019.

>>11478004
Like>>11477748 said, mass and fuel efficiency is better with a multi-stage specialised landers. Limited payload to TLI means limited fuel, so you want a design that makes the most of that fuel.

>>11478004
> Direct ascent is piss easy in ksp because all bodies and distances are 10 times smaller than in real life.

Yeah Kerbin is a hair’s smaller than Charon

do we have hi-res maps of mars in public domain? to check for caves or lava tubes?

>>11478103
No, a search for lava tubes will need on the ground vehicles with ground penetrating radar.

>>11478103
There’s at least hi-res imagery of caves and lava tubes on Mars.

https://www.space.com/18519-mars-caves-lava-tubes-photos.html

>>11478103
Here’s one for caves:

https://www.usgs.gov/center-news/caves-mars

>>11477748
Not as much hard as just a way bigger waste of time and dV than by all rights it should be since stock ksp has no tools to help launching into correct orbit

big

>>11478866
fuck yeah big boy

>>11478879
>so yeah the first stage is taller than our entire last rocket, fairing included

F9 launch thread (round 2) will be up in a few hours

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
shiny

very shiny

When are we gonna see a full duration Raptor burn?

About 10 hours left for Starlink retry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4sMhHbHYXM

>>11478103
Who are we? Raw HiRISE and MARCI data is freely available from JPL, you can search for any surface features you want.
https://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/ this is for HiRISE
Anaglyphs (stereo pairs) are here https://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/ANAGLYPH/
These are raw swaths, non-rectified, projected, or corrected in any way, you have to do all this yourself according to the model described in the DOCUMENTS folder. I tried to do this some years ago, the public dataset looks to be sufficient to build a proper map. If you need surface evolution data you might also want the CTX (MRO context camera) dataset which is located here https://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/volumes/mro.html

SHARAD radargrams are here
https://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/mro/sharad.htm

You'll also need MRO's SPICE kernels (trajectory data) to know what place each shot maps to.
https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/pds/data/mro-m-spice-6-v1.0/mrosp_1000/

MARSIS dataset is available from the ESA archive, it follows the same structure. I haven't tried to play with either SHARAD or MARSIS though.
ftp://psa.esac.esa.int/pub/mirror/MARS-EXPRESS/MARSIS/
SPICE kernels for Mars Express are here
ftp://spiftp.esac.esa.int/data/SPICE/MARS-EXPRESS/kernels

>>11478133
Before sending a ground vehicle, you have to scan the surface for candidates to know where to send it. There's also SHARAD radar on MRO and MARSIS on Mars Express which are designed for this, although they are obviously not as good as the on-site experiment.

>>11479198

>>11479638
We SN2 soon beratnah

>>11474548
Has any madman ever calculated this? Sounds fun as fuck.

>>11479765
yeaaaaaaaah booooooooooi

>>11479765
SN3
SN2 just went off to the scrap pile or storage after the thrust puck and pressurization testing

>surely the falcon 9 naysayers cant be wrong again
>surely the landing, reusable 1st stage naysayers cant be wrong again
>surely the falcon heavy naysayers cant be wrong again
>surely the starship naysayers cant be wrong again
you are here
>surely the moon return naysayers cant be wrong again
>surely the mars naysayers cant be wrong again

the opinion of people who say shit is impossible is near worthless

>>11479778
LCPS is going to bear fruit
Artemis will not

>>11479774
Sorry senpai this cluster fuck of a naming scheme is impossible to keep track of.

>>11477266
Factory got shut down, my dude.

>>11479781
it's literally one at a time, in order
when something blows up, the next one in line usually keeps the name but gets downgraded to a shitty test article
SN2 was far enough along that they kept the name, unlike when they made the pressure vessel dome test articles
SN1 blew up
SN2 was already halfway built so they slapped it together and tested it
SN3 was already halfway built and now it's almost done

>>11479253
>>11479253
>>11479253