/sci/ - Science & Math

How do you reuse the landers that aren't starship?

The blue origin one leaves the landing stage on the surface just like apollo

The dynetics one dumps tanks, does it need the tanks added back to be reused?

If you can only stay on the moon for a few hours and you need to send a new lander part every time this seems really shitty even with gateway

>>11627054
>If you can only stay on the moon for a few hours and you need to send a new lander part every time this seems really shitty even with gateway
Yes. Starship is the only way to a real moon base other than dropping prebuilt habs from orbit.

>>11627054
for BO you need to send a new descent stage. For Dynetics you need to send new tanks plus propellant to refill the depleted middle ones.
>this seems really shitty
yes
>even with gateway
gateway is shitty

>We’re going to try landing Starship on the moon with enough propellant to return to Earth

I know Elon's tweets siderailed the the last thread, but at least this time it's relevant. Does this mean Starship have only enough fuel to land only once and need to refuel at the Fuel Depot Starship for the next mission?

>>11627070
?
It means reduced payload and maybe refueling missions in eccentric orbits

>>11627070
It has enough propellant to return to earth but just to be clear, it doesn't. It will ascend from the moon and dock with orion capsule or the gateway then be ready to land again when astronauts return for the next mission. It can do that multiple times without refueling, but how many I don't think spacex has released a guesstimate. If you didn't want to retire it after the fuel is gone I guess you could send fuel to the moon.

>>11627100
None of which is going to actually happen imo

>>11627109
no one cares

>>11627046
>Dynetics
Who thought it would be a good idea to use a name that sounds like the bible of Scientology?

>>11627134
Sierra Nevada Corporation

>>11627134
At least their lander is subtle

Not going to trust anything made by Leidos if it puts my life on the line. Diversity might be good for some things but it needs to take a back seat when human safety is on the line.

>>11627140
Apparently there were some internal documents leaked for amazon subsidiaries proving they used "diversity" to fight unionization.

>>11627140
Good luck finding an alternative

How would customs law work in space? Would it apply only when the cargo ship is docked to the station, or when the ship enters a sphere around the station/planet/moon/asteroid? What about transshipments passing through for the propellant depots? Would customs law apply to the ship as it's refueling?

>>11627179
I would think only when docked, and not if the ship is making a stop exclusively for propellant.

>>11627100
>. It will ascend from the moon and dock with orion capsule or the gateway then be ready to land again when astronauts return for the next mission.
Oh please. By 2025 Starships will be doing full round trips to the moon without Gateway or Orion.

>>11627179
>How would customs law work in space?
It doesn't. Everything beyond geosynchronous orbit belongs to America.

>>11627257
Star spangled banner beamed 24/7 at all G-class stars within a million light years

>>11627100
>it can do that multiple times without refueling
it can do it ONCE
Starship only has ~6km/s dv and a one way trip up and down takes more than 2 km/s

>>11627100
Speaking of, wouldn't it make more sense to put a permanent refueling station in orbit or would that be less cost effective? Isn't that what the ISS was planned to do?

>>11627265
lmao

>>11627060
What if we just dropped Starship on the surface and used that as the moon base? Pack rocket-seat ascent vehicle in the cargo bay for each crewman plus a spare. The Starship propellant tanks can later get repurposed as hab space.
Boom, giant moon base.

New Glenn can only launch 30-35 Telesat LEO sat (800kg) each launch.

LOL

>>11627352
https://spacenews.com/telesat-preparing-for-mid-2020-constellation-manufacturer-selection/

>>11627158
Amazon had one of their training videos leaked last year, absolutely dystopian.
https://youtu.be/uRpwVwFxyk4?t=970

>>11627283
>nyooooom

>>11627352
it might be volume limited

>NASA bought batch of RS-25 that's been downgraded from reusable engine to single use engine for $146 million each
>SpaceX Raptor Engine produces more thrust than RS-25 and cost less than $1 M.
What did they mean by this?

>>11627435
Jesus I'd absolutely shit my whole entire self if I had to ride the four balls into LLO. I'm sure it can work fine, probably very reliable considering how small a flight computer can be made and how light alloys can be these days, but still.

>>11627473
(((LOX/LH2)))

>>11627473
>(Sec. 304) Requires the Administrator, in developing the Space Launch System and the multi-purpose crew vehicle, to utilize existing contracts, investments, workforce, industrial base, and capabilities from the space shuttle and Orion and Ares 1 projects, including space-suit development activities and shuttle-derived and Ares 1 components that use existing U.S. propulsion systems.
>(Sec. 306) Requires the Administrator to assess the effects of the retirement of the space shuttle, and the transition to the Space Launch System, on the solid and liquid rocket motor industrial bases in the United States.
>Requires the Administrator to: (1) utilize the workforce, assets, and infrastructure of the Space Shuttle program in efforts related to the initiation of the follow-on Space Launch System; and (2) divest unneeded assets and assist displaced workers with retraining and other placement efforts.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/3729

>>11627476
The plans for the original included no flight computer. You'd be flying to lunar orbit manually. Granted, that's for gigantic Apollo-era computer tech. A modern system could be computer controlled with the manual option as backup.

>>11626194
>Human Spaceflight is only about half of NASA's budget, with the specific portion going to SLS even lower.
You say that as if those fraction meant anything without looking at the details.
The SLS is low budget is because no one actually cared if it's feasible, each government just wanted to say "yes we are working on it" but not pay the price that would make it possible (assuming it is worth it). By the time it is complete the mission plan will be considered obsolete and require a rewrite, that or SpaceX will hijack it.

We ended up in this situation where NASA is seen as just a laundering machine to pay lobbyist.

>>11626203
You are missing the point. The important part are the thruster, even the Apollo F1 thruster eventually ended up being key to making the Space shuttle bigger at military request.
Piggybacking on the same frame as the military missiles is further demonstration that the space race was about developing missiles technology first.
The propaganda stunt were here to justify the spending and show to other country that YES the US had the means to put a Nuke-sized payload in orbit and bring that nuke-sized payload back down everywhere they want.

The Apollo program was indeed a last push for an ideological victory that still reverberate today. But it was also made in case there was a military need for large space station. This was of course was before the only relevant enemy crumbled and transistors let us do cheaper satellite.

>>11627510
>The SLS is low budget
Source?
And NASA is currently the best-funded space agency.
.>even the Apollo F1 thruster eventually ended up being key to making the Space shuttle bigger at military request.
Neither the RS-25 nor the SRB is an F-1 derivative.
>Piggybacking on the same frame as the military missiles
At that point, ICBMs were transitioning to being solid fueled, and even when they were liquid fueled none had an engine anywhere near as big or powerful as the F-1.
>space race was about developing missiles technology first.
You have it backwards. The liquid-fueled missiles were developed first, then they were repurposed for the civilian program. Civilian programs consistently trailed ICBM programs in this.
>YES the US had the means to put a Nuke-sized payload in orbit and bring that nuke-sized payload back down everywhere they want.
ICBM trajectories are inherently suborbital, and actual ICBM tests were/are routinely carried out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Missile_Range_Facility
Putting a man in space had nothing to do with ICBM development (warheads don't need life support).
> But it was also made in case there was a military need for large space station
The US Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory
was going to be launched on a Gemini-derivative. The experience with that convinced the USAF that satellites could do all that a manned station could. USAF was uninvolved in Space Station Freedom planning.

is spacex even worth working for? i made a lot of jokes about applying there and then realized i might have a decent shot at getting one or two job there in like 1-2 years if i autism out at my current position and shred my mental health apart

>>11627533
Mentally ill should move to Boeing/ULA/BlueOrigin

>>11627179
>Passengers are limited to two carry-on weapons.
>Don't forget to visit the duty-free shopping area.
>Organic lifeforms must be kept on a leash at all times.
>Flight 377 to Florana has been delayed due to meteor showers.
>Your safety is important to us. Please stay clear of all decorative pools of lava.
>Robot ninjas must present a valid photo I.D. to access the ninja lounge on deck five.
>Loitering in the starport is strictly forbidden. Violators will be disintegrated and fined.
>To best avoid execution, please have your itinerary and three forms of I.D. visible at all times.
>Carry-on weapons that are too bulky to fit in the overhead compartment must be checked as luggage.
>For your safety and the safety of others, please refrain from looking suspicious. Violators will be disintegrated.
>The detention center is now full. Please form a line outside while the current occupants are ejected through the airlock.
>Due to new security provisions, passengers must keep appendages at their sides at all times. Raised appendages will result in immediate disintegration. Any questions?

>>11627558
Sounds like old Megatraveller high tech, low sec worlds.

>>11627533
If you don't like it, a few years there is your ticket to anywhere else. If you do like it, there you go.
I'm not sure if employees have stock options or not but if so, hoo boy. Do it.

>>11627572
i work in software at a faang most people consider spacex a downgrade from my current position but the work i do is so meaningless

>>11627562
>Welcome to the Zeldrin Starport. Due to increased security, thermonuclear warheads and nail clippers are no longer permitted as carry-on baggage.

>>11627573
>I build rockets that go to space, moon, and mars
>downgrade
LMAO

>>11627588
>$250k 40hr weeks vs $80k 60hr weeks
tough call anon

>>11627140
>>11627167
What's wrong with gay pride?

>>11627593
If money is your concern, then go for the money. Its not a tough decision.

>>11627594
What's the point of gay pride?

The dying media’s obsession with Twitter to try and compete with social media is pathetic. It’s only good for ‘It can’t be done’ style montages when Musk mounts his Martian throne.

>>11627593
It's about what you want to do. I did Pre-med in college literally was halfway through med school applications when I decided I didn't want to do it.

I had a great shot - 3.7 GPA and hundreds of hours of volunteer and a pretty good MCAT. I'm also half latino.

I could be making $250,000 a year, but instead I decided to not apply. I finished up my courses in Pre-Med and then I just became a Cop instead. Everyone called me crazy or retarded but the truth is that I just didn't want to be a doctor, no matter how much money they made. Best decision I ever made. It's hard, but I love the action in it. Keep in mind I make like $50,000 on a good year. And yet, I still am glad I didn't become a doctor. I ended up meeting a nice girl and settling down and I now have a beautiful family all because of that one decision.

It's all up to you man. Don't let anyone tell you what to do because you're the one in charge of your life.

>>11627598
They need to actively repeat the lie that it's normal or the societal brainwashing wears off and it gets reclassified as a mental illness.

>>11627604
Why have these threads attracted /pol/ fags to /sci/?

>>11627054
Space X design will never work it's so retarded.

How does he expect that thing to hold up to the fierce Lunar winds?

>>11627594
It’s a societal illness that spreads diseases and childlessness.

>>11627608
The only reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM was political pressure, not science. Ask political questions, get political answers.

>>11627603
Cope.

>>11627613
The only reason it was put in was because of antiquated beliefs. There's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality

>>11627588
just saying general mindset about the industry. it might be a huge place in other engineering fields but in tech there's a lot of people above them in terms of "prestige"

>>11627595
i want to believe it's not about the money but it's not small amounts of money i'd be giving up. being a literal rocket scientist sounds fucking great but it's a lot of self doubt and self study that results in a pay cut.

>>11627603
i'm not sure, i just feel meaningless at my current job and i fear that after all is said and done i'm not up to snuff at another job.
being a literal rocket scientist sounds fucking amazing but i'm not sure if i'm cut out for it and the only way to find out is sacrificing a six figure job and throwing myself in there

>>11627611
How does a small portion of the population affect fertility rates?

>>11627616
Hey man I'd suggest to do the SpaceX thing. But only if you're willing to take the cut in pay.

Keep in mind you can be a SpaceX fan and not be a part of it. I drive around El Paso in a squad car all day and I still get up at 3AM to watch a steel tube get cold.

You can make you're six figure pay and still watch and appreciate SpaceX and their work. Plus, start saving and you definitely can get into space easier.

Put away 25K a year and in a decade you can at least be suborbital if that's your thing. My wife and I are planning on selling the house and getting a smaller one once my daughter graduates (In like 14 years haha). We'll make enough money to at least buy a suborbital trip for one another. She doesn't get it though so maybe I'll just fly twice.

>>11627624
not even guaranteed i'd get in
i know what i'd want to work on but there's a lot of extra work that i'd have to put in to get there
i have a decent track record with self study, just not on the scope of an entire year alongside a full time job.

>>11627615
>current year argument
John Oliver please go.

>>11627616
>just saying general mindset about the industry. it might be a huge place in other engineering fields but in tech there's a lot of people above them in terms of "prestige"
It's not "tech" it's specifically software engineering. For some SDE who doesn't care about the end goal of the software they're building, only the challenge of developing the software, SpaceX is in fact a step down.

>>11627627
As I said, only take the SpaceX job if you really want to. Once again, you can be a fan of SpaceX and not work there.

Seriously bro are you really committed to doing the extra stuff? If you weren't gonna work at SpaceX would you still do the extra? Ask yourself that.

>>11627624
>You can make you're six figure pay and still watch and appreciate SpaceX and their work.
Also it's not an either/or thing. All of FAGMAN except Netflix has a major role in the space industry. Amazon has Ground Station and Kuiper, Google has YouTube, Microsoft and Apple provide the systems used to get all the other work done, and so on.

>>11627616
>only way to find out is sacrificing a six figure job and throwing myself in there
SpaceX orientation literally tells you that you have to give all yours to SpaceX (its similar to Tesla). They only want the dedicated few. If you're not up for it mentally, don't waste your time. Enjoy your lax life for a decade or so, maybe by the time you feel like you have enough money in the bank/retirement/etc that you don't need to worry, then you could try something meaningful. But by then, you'll have more obligations than you can handle, so you'll be stuck with those before you can pursue any sort of calling. SpaceX requires a certain calling. If you don't have it, don't force yourself to.

>>11627620
>How does a small portion of the population affect fertility rates?

The lie that people can be happy without having children is pushed using homos. They drag down the fertility rate of the entire population, but belong in mental institutions.

>>11627647
What the fuck are you on? People have less kids because of economics and a higher importance of individuality given by culture not because of gays you brainlet.

>>11627257
Russia owns Venus then

>>11627661
>a higher importance of individuality given by culture not because of gays
Same thing. Without gayshit and feminism, the primary unit of society is the family, not the individual.

>nasa sends the falcon 9 with gigantic nasa logo making it seem like their failure and stupidity has anything to do with spacex incredible superiority

>nasa invests in starship


i love how these worms are slowly getting ready for starship to brutally rape sls in the competition

>>11627674
>trad larping on 4chan

>>11627647
Not him but I'm totally happy without kids, or women. Not gay either. I just like free time and video games. And having enough money to buy cool toys.

>>11627678
If SLS gets delayed again and Starship doesn't, SpaceX will either use another Starship or a Crew Dragon as the transfer vehicle. I think at that point the SLS would get cancelled.

>>11627661
>People have less kids because of economics

Lie. Poorer people have more kids, so the “Muh economics” explanation is wrong.

> and a higher importance of individuality

If a “higher importance of individuality” makes people have less kids, a higher importance of individuality is wrong and unhealthy, but I doubt that’s the explanation. It’s rewarding and empowering to the individual to reproduce. It’s definitely something cultural; something insidious and rotten and vile.

>>11627681
>Not him but I'm totally happy without kids, or women. Not gay either. I just like free time and video games. And having enough money to buy cool toys.

Congrats on being a real-life example of the soiboys people talk about on /pol/. You’re so disgusting that I think you’re joking, and not serious.

>>11627685
Why is it always about conspiracies with you people? In the grand scheme of things yes it is about economics and having a better life. If anything it's because of unhinged materialism.
>>11627687
>can only respond in memes
You should stay in /pol/

>>11627697
>In the grand scheme of things yes it is about economics

Again, that’s not possible, because poor people have higher fertility rates than people who make more money. Your source relies on self-reported data so i wouldn’t trust it.

> and having a better life.

That means being religious and having more kids.

> If anything it's because of unhinged materialism.

Sure, but there’s also a strong undercurrent of an outright hatred of children and a belief that life is intrinsically bad and without value, causing shit like abortion, which I find difficult to attribute to meer “unhinged materialism”.

>>11627731
>That means being religious and having more kids.
How do you get to define what is a good life? People themselves define what they want for their life. Many many people who have what you say and abandon it because it did not make them happy.
>Again, that’s not possible, because poor people have higher fertility rates than people who make more money
Exactly, having more children is not an inherently good thing.

>>11627683
> I think at that point the SLS would get cancelled.
That would require an act of Congress, to undo >>11627490

>>11627731
Obligatory /sfg/ Space Flight General
>Again, that’s not possible, because poor people have higher fertility rates than people who make more money.
So there is an economic relation, then (it holds across countries as well).

>>11627752
>Exactly, having more children is not an inherently good thing.

Yes it is. More people means more pleasure, and maximizing pleasure is good. Even some poor Nigerian guy can go home and cum in his wife

> How do you get to define what is a good life?

More happiness, less suffering. Religious people report both higher happiness, want more children, and have more children, though this is subject, of course, to the dangers of self-reporting.

>>11627762
> So there is an economic relation, then (it holds across countries as well)

Could be the time-expenditure of modern higher education, which occupies the early 20s for many people, which are also the most fertile years of our lives. Cost of said education is also relevant, but countries with free higher education have even lower fertility rates than America, so I dunno.
I can see how the demands of the education system could reduce fertility rates of people in their 20s, who

>>11627629
you're right but saying "tech" is pretty common shorthand for software.

>>11627632
>If you weren't gonna work at SpaceX would you still do the extra? Ask yourself that.
shit was a potential career move i've been thinking about since last summer and casually read up on but never took seriously, but i never had an end goal in mind

>>11627644
i don't know what it is. having these manic delusions of greatness for the sake of greatness.
i know i can't make it at spacex or in a cutthroat research setting, i just feel "wrong" not being there.
i passed up physics for CS, so i made my decision years ago

>>11627476
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_escape_systems
Balls-to-the-wall insanity. I love the LESS. Can you imagine the fucking thrill of getting to orbit on a rocket chair, adjusting inclination manually according to a chart and a launch clock, your only instrumentation being an analog inclinometer?

>>11627766
>Even some poor Nigerian guy can go home and cum in his wife
nigga please, middle class white americans cant even cum inside a whore

>>11627773
Imagine the Apollo command module desperately trying to catch the LESS as it flies around the moon on a shitty erratic course. Did they even have the spare dV for that?

>>11627775
Not everyone is as pathetic as that. I know a white muscled guy in his early 20’s and he has two kids. Nice beard, too. Good Christian boy

>>11627783
>I know a white muscled guy in his early 20’s and he has two kids. Nice beard, too. Good Christian boy
What does this have to do with anything?
Interesting description of his muscles and nice beard.
You also sound like an actual boomer with your nonsensical ramblings about being Christian.

And another thread bites the dust because /pol/ can‘t shut up about trans and gays. And /sfg/ can‘t stop replying.

>>11627787
>What does this have to do with anything?

Some middle class white Americans aren’t nihilistic NEET virgins who live in basements, but I do admit there’s a lot of lost young people like that.

> You also sound like an actual boomer with your nonsensical ramblings about being Christian.

I’m atheist

>>11627530
>And NASA is currently the best-funded space agency.
First, I was answering about SLS being lower budget than what would be required for its main reason of existence.
Second, when you compare with the rest of the world it's not a surprise, only reason China isn't above is because they have more important priority.

On the topic of missiles. I insist you are the one taking it the wrong way.
They needed the thruster and control system anyway, manned flight was thus a very popular way to justify the budget. Not that many people would have argued against if nuclear war somehow stayed the only topic and if the Vietnam war wasn't also as important.

>ICBM trajectories are inherently suborbital,
ICBM flight plan must by function NOT be the cheapest trajectory. Even at the time they wanted faster.
Also why are you leaving aside that if you can put something in orbit, you can carry bigger nuke on a suborbital strike. Size does matter.

>Putting a man in space had nothing to do with ICBM development (warheads don't need life support).
Thruster and controls system are the same as we keep repeating. Again, the space race WAS about the weapons and military use first, getting a man in space was the ideological cherry on top. The Saturn family was the one not built for military purpose.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Orbiting_Laboratory
"MOL competed with the Vietnam War for funds, and was beset by budget cuts that caused the date of the first operational flight to be repeatedly postponed. A single uncrewed test flight was launched on 3 November 1966. The program was canceled in June 1969"
I'm not saying the race was long or that they needed a demonstrator, unlike Flag-planting president they came to a conclusion very fast that showy manned program wasn't efficient.
The point is that potential need like this dictated early R&D, like how the 'Space shuttle' was made larger for the Air Force, ended up using the F1.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4407/vol4/cover.pdf

>>11627609
Just park it behind a hill lol

How do you fly this trash can with a single off-center raptor? RCS on full blast the entire flight?

>>11627794
A fleet of nukes chilling in orbit sounds like a terrible idea

>>11627798
It’s barely off center and can lift it at standard thrust-to-weight assuming it’s only partially fueled

>>11627731
can you fuck off back to /pol/
No one cares about your retarded theories. Why does /sfg/ always get derailed like this

>>11627798
>atlas_411.jpg

>>11627609
How many iterations do you think that will go through between now and 2024 with the Totally-Not-Agile development style SpaceX is using?

>>11627179
In the space future everything will belong to the God-Shareholder, neuronal chip will make it impossible to disobey or even think about causing trouble. Thus no custom or laws will be required.

>>11627803
>Why does /sfg/ always get derailed like this
Damn near every bad thing that happened to American spaceflight since 1972 has a political cause. Asking questions about that causes derail patterns like this thread. The other common derail pattern comes from asshurt chinks denying the US's superiority in spaceflight while crying into their bat soup. Also we're in a relative launch drought by reusable rocket era standards so there's not much to watch except steaming tin cans in Texas.

>>11627800
Would you prefer tungsten rod?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

>>11627826
Maybe. That wouldn’t spread radiation if it deorbited, and probably hit nothing.

>>11627825
It’s inevitable that the topic causes political sub-topics to pop up because of how untwined spaceflight as a field is with it

JOHN
O
H
N

>tfw there will be gas stations larger than the ISS in orbit soon
inb4 "astronomers" complain again

>>11627977
yes we need to get back to comfy topics like docking for refueling

>>11627999
ass to ass

Couldn’t you just make a sort of piston that shoves fuel from one tank into another by reducing the volume of the giving tank?

>>11627179
she cute

>>11627681
>Not him but I'm totally happy without kids, or women. Not gay either. I just like free time and video games. And having enough money to buy cool toys.

>half the thread is people arguing about gays
Fuck off /pol/.

>>11627900
cannot render unstuck the Spruck

>>11627977
I was just thinking, you know how lots of highway truck stops often have hotels, restaurants, and other businesses nearby? Maybe these fuel depots can end up the same way. Attach some space stations to it and suddenly you have a permanent onsite crew who can perform maintenance on the fuel depots. You can also replace some of the functions of the soon to be abandoned ISS, like microgravity research modules. You can also put in tourist modules for hotels and visitors.

NASA is going to pay for the fuel depot to be put up, might as well as add some value to it.

>>11628061
Lunar Starship can't land on Earth bit as Elon said, it should be able to return to Earth orbit and refill Fuel Depot Starship. While refuel can be automated, maintenance will still need astronauts and I doubt NASA wants their own to do it for SpaceX. So if Lunar traffic is high enough, it may just be easier to have a couple of dudes stationed at the Fuel Depot Starship.

>>11628118
Why the fuck would they return it to earth orbit when they can just yeet a dragon xl or two with fuel towards the moon instead?

>>11628122
Dragon XL is too small to carry that much fuel? It's supposed to be maximizing it's volume to carry cargo to and from the Gateway.

>>11628128
I imagine it uses far more fuel doing trips back and forth between the moon and earth than it would just being a glorified moon elevator.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the final version of it ends up being half the height of that render though.

>>11628138
Well, Elon said it would be flying between LEO and the Moon's surface.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1256354387720417280

>>11627794
>manned flight was thus a very popular way to justify the budget
Defence is its own justification; just compare defence budgets to space budgets.
> if you can put something in orbit, you can carry bigger nuke on a suborbital strike. Size does matter.
Except MRVs, MIRVs and MARVs are better than a single larger warhead. And again, the civie rockets were derivatives of ICBMs on both sides of the iron curtain. Getting into and around orbit is not related to coming down accurately on a designated target. CEP of manned reentry is atrocious compared to what ICBMs need.
>The Saturn family was the one not built for military purpose.
Gemini (ICBM derived) had no purpose other than to lead to Apollo.
Militaries of course had tremendous interest in space, and cooperated heavily with civilian programmes, but civilian programmes were not just a high-publicity covert military R&D tool.
Literally from that book
>While still evaluating two-stage Shuttle designs, NASA engineers had found that the
existing F-1 and J-2 engines, both of which were by then out of production, were inadequate to meet the safety and weight requirements of the Shuttle without significant redesign. NASA favored an engine having higher specific impulse than either of these, which would require the use of only three, rather than four, engines in the orbiter. The agency decided to build a completely new engine; in July 1971, it awarded the development contract to Rocketdyne for its staged combustion design, which became known as the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME).2
There were shuttle proposals that would use the F-1, but not the final version.
>>11627800
Have fun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

>>11628149
Seems incredibly wasteful but that's just me. Then again I'd also saw that fucker in half for moon missions if only for landing stability.

>>11627800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System
Have fun.

>>11628154
>Seems incredibly wasteful but that's just me

You still have oldspace mindset. SpaceX is planning to pump out Starships at a rate of at least one per month. They're not going to have enough customers with payloads to fill all of those up for years. They can probably afford to build up a fuel depot in LEO, which is something humanity will need sooner or later anyways.

Best thing is, once the US military has access to LEO infrastructure and space supremacy, China, Russia, the EU and rising powers will start copying SpaceX designs and start Spacerace II. SpaceX has proven that you can have serious advances in space tech for comparably miniscule amounts of money.

>>11627794
>manned flight was thus a very popular way to justify the budget.
Defence has never needed justification in terms of civilian space programs. In the case of guidance, even the SM-65 Atlas (entered service in 1959) had a CEP in the <10 km range. (Especially the US) manned space program didn't hit a meaningful tempo until years after the inertial guidance dev work was done.
>if you can put something in orbit, you can carry bigger nuke on a suborbital strike. Size does matter.
MRV/MIRV/MARV are better than a single larger yield device. The CEP of crewed vehicles is atrocious by ICBM standards.
>Again, the space race WAS about the weapons and military use first
The space race started from repurposed ICBMs, then diverged as the requirements for keeping humans alive and sending payloads to arbitrary orbits differ from those for being able to send a package to a specific location on the ground at a moment's notice (See ICBMs being mainly solid fueled vs. the liquid fueling of orbital rockets). Gemini used repurposed Titan IIs, but existed solely as a stepping stone to Apollo.
>how the 'Space shuttle' was made larger for the Air Force, ended up using the F1
But it didn't.
From that very book,
>While still evaluating two-stage Shuttle designs, NASA engineers had found that the existing F-1 and J-2 engines, both of which were by then out of production, were inadequate to meet the safety and weight requirements of the Shuttle without significant redesign.
>NASA favored an engine having higher specific impulse than either of these, which would require the use of only three, rather than four, engines in the orbiter.
>The agency decided to build a completely new engine; in July 1971, it awarded the development contract to Rocketdyne for its staged combustion design, which became known as the Space Shuttle Main Engine.

>>11628061
It would be the proper way to do it if you are building a long term infrastructure. But the way our civilization work right now we would only do it if there's a reliable market for tourism and regular flight.
With the way Covid19 fucked up air company right now I don't see anyone planning more than occasional launch.

>>11628170
It's a ship intended for Mars and returning to Earth. The version they signed up for the Artemis lander is just an afterthought. I doubt they'll make very many of them.

Friendly reminder. LEO is halway to anywhere. https://i.imgur.com/lNYcu1J.png

>>11628210
People will inevitably want to transport from the Moon’s surface and back, and Lunar Starship would be a great way to do so en masse. Semi-trucks or trains compared to, say, a car.

damn the blue origin system is pretty complex :


SLS is used to send crew to high lunar orbit using Orion.
A transfer stage, ascent stage and descent stage are sent to high lunar orbit using 3 commercial rockets or 1 SLS. Then they rendezvous together. Crew moves to this from Orion.

Transfer stage takes ascent and descent to low lunar. Transfer stage goes back to high lunar. Can be reused next time if fuel supplies arrive.

Descent and ascent stage lands on moon. Astronauts do blah blah blah.

Ascent stage takes crew back to high lunar. Ascent stage can be reused for next mission if fuel supplies arrive.

Crew transfers to orion, goes back to blue origin (earth).
For next trip to moon:
Crew goes from earth to high lunar using SLS/Orion.

New descent stage + fuel supplies (for ascent and transfer) sent to high lunar.
Then rinse and repeat as before.

>>11628270
I'm a fan of dynetics myself. For them transfer, descent and ascent stage is the same vehicle.
They also got the highest score in the NASA report.
Name sounds like something out of Scientology though

>>11628263
>inevitably
That's not the mission specs for Artemis though.

>>11628278
Of course, but I think they’d see use beyond it if constructed.

>>11628149
Delta v map says you need 11.34 km/s for LEO -> moon surface -> LEO
Starship delta v is like 9 km/s, right? How will this work?

>>11627773
I imagine in 50 years someone's gonna build a theme park on the Moon, and one of the rides will be riding up into orbit on one of these shitty rocket chairs.

>>11628307
Can't wait for theme park rides on asteroids. Just jump to reach escape velocity!

>>11628179
>Defence has never needed justification in terms of civilian space programs.
Not justification but support, which is why the space race was a providence. Each side improving the technology of early ICBM with human payload.
As said by both of us, only from Apollo did the US built a civilian spaceship solely to plant flag.

>MRV/MIRV/MARV are better than a single larger yield device.
Separate projectiles, same launch vehicle. Bigger payload = more warhead. That doesn't change the point.

>The CEP of crewed vehicles is atrocious by ICBM standards.
Unlike ICBM, crewed vehicle care about bringing the payload alive. That you don't consider this SIGNIFICANT is simply disingenuous.
Again that doesn't change the technology improved because of higher stake.

>ICBMs being mainly solid fueled
...only starting from 1960-65 late into the space race and that was the first generation as both side were experimenting recklessly. Again calling that "mainly" is disingenuous in our context. It's only late in the 80s that solid fuel became very popular, mostly for the US and mainly because of submarine launch.
The Russian Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) you mentioned (then deleted) was based on liquid-fuel ICBM
Apparently Russia do plan a new ICBM liquid-fueled for 2021. Not counting that Project pluto expy.

So because I'm tired of this can we at least agree:
- The space race started with missiles development.
- Civilian rocket development are born out of liquid-fueled ICBM.
- while ICBM shifted mostly to solid-fuel by the peak of the space race.

>Space Shuttle Main Engine.
My bad, I confused which design the RS-25 was based on. The Shuttle was still made bigger as a requirement from the Air Force.

>>11628118
they wont return lunar starship to earth because it can't aerobrake which massively increases delta v cost

>>11628424
Elon said he wants it to be able return to Earth. I thought they'll just leave it in the NRHO, but he knows better.

>>11628449
Note the wording. Starship is not necessarily that particular version of Starship.

>>11628453
The version Musk was clearly talking about was the Lunar optimized Starship that can land on the Moon. What's the confusion here?

>>11628466
he really isn't saying that

>>11628466
He's saying they're going to try and land a starship on the moon with enough fuel to make it back to earth.
Not necessarily the artemis lander version, nor necessarily plan to fly it back either, just land it with enough fuel to make it back. Don't interpret until you've seen the actual mission specs.
The artemis planned version as they presented it, they said they'd use it for multiple trips back and forth between the moon. Do you really think they'd send it back and forth between the moon and earth for each trip to the surface for instance?

>>11628492
Context matters, why else would he say that? Why even attempt to land with enough reserves to get back to Earth if there's not a plan for it in the future

>>11628500
Safety measure?
To prove that the ships can be used to build a moon base all by themselves without the need for the senate launch system?

What I like about this Lunar business is that we actually get a realistic timeline as opposed to usual Elon time.
They have to show some substantial progress in 10 months to get selected, then make a Lunar flight by 2022 etc

>>11628008
That's what they used on the Lance Missile.

>>11628276
the Dynetics proposal is absolutely the best proposal in terms of dedicated lunar lander
a bit on the small side, we don't have the lift capacity to make that sort of vehicle big enough to do real work

>>11628210
If it's an afterthought why not just make five transports and another three or four for a depot, just for funsies? They aren't expensive (comparatively) to make and that relatively cheap investment will allow SpaceX to absolutely dominate the LEO-to-LLO transport chain. Once you've made something this ambitious, the question should no longer be "why?", it should be "why not?"

>>11628276
HULLO said it was secretly just SNC but I don't know how that really works

>>11628671
>They aren't expensive
Who knows. They're not even made. They're just fucking tanks in a field in Texas.
Right now, those tanks are cheap, that's correct.
We have no fucking clue what the end product will end up looking like or costing.

>>11628678
You faggots were spouting that shit back when Starhopper was being constructed to, to the point of refusing to even acknowledge that it was a rocket intended to perform test flights.
What exactly is a rocket anyways? It's a giant propellant tank mated to a propulsion element with some form of guidance system. We know that SpaceX have engines, they've test fired them numerous times and on two occasions now those engines have actually flown very short distances. We know they have propellant tanks, in fact they've built more of them in the past year than their peers have built in the last ten years, some have been tested to failure but the newer ones are increasingly passing their benchmarks. We know they have flight guidance software and can build rockets with control systems to use it, because they've already done so with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy in a way that no other commercial sized rocket company ever has before.

>>11628710
You may want to calm the fuck down. You don't know what the Starship will cost when it's done. You don't know how much it will be able to lift when it's done.
You don't know how many compromises they'll have to do during the design process they're currently in.
And neither do I. Or they for that fucking matter.

Rocket go whoosh. That's all your post boils down to of meaning.

>>11628306
Starship should have around 7 km/s dv I think
>>11628721
but anon
rocket factory go brrrr

>>11628721
>Things aren't 100% certain, therefore no one really knows anything
You're not exactly the master of meaningful dialog yourself, captain obvious. Not even that anon, just sayin'.

>>11628751
If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
And Starship is a long list of if's and "wouldn't it be nice" currently. I would love for it to succeed, but it'll probably look radically different both visually and spec wise once it's finished.

>>11628756
I wasn't exactly going for masterful prose. This isn't /lit/

>>11628756
Pathetic worm.

>>11628758
>I wasn't exactly going for masterful prose.
You completely missed the point. You were calling out that anon for making a post with no 'meaning' but your counterargument is just rocket solipsism.

>>11628721
this
there are not even existing prototypes of elons meme rocket (i am not speaking of test articles).
let's see what it can do once it is finished ok?

>>11628772
I don't know what your problem is but I recommend suicide as the solution.

>>11628721
Let's do a little math then, Starship is supposed to be about 132 tons dry. At that weight the cost of raw stainless steel for it will be around $105,600. Average welder salary in Texas is about 25 bucks an hour, but lets assume they make 30. Since people work on a Starship 24 hours a day in two 12 hour shifts that means each worker consumes 420 bucks a shift, thus work per worker per day costs 840 bucks. Let's further assume it takes 2 months to assemble a Starship, twice Elon's one month goal. Then multiply that by say 100 workers for all the various tasks, that's 5.2 million in labor costs. Further, Raptor engines cost two million a piece, multiply that by the 6 needed for a Starship for another 12 million. I have no clue how expensive the heat tiles are going to be, but let's assume they cost as much as all the steel of the rest of the vehicle and add on another 100k. That's 17.45 million, and let's double it just for the sake of covering all the non-obvious costs like food and lodging for workers, other support staff not directly working on the rocket, machinery and equipment upkeep, etc.
That brings the grand total cost of a Starship to a paltry 34.9 million dollars, or less than it costs to fly a Falcon 9 with the 5.2m fairing one single time.

>>11628778
>test article
That's exactly what a fucking prototype is, lmao. Did you think it was like your animes where the prototype is the special version that goes faster?

>>11628789
Yes, draw up a long list of "if's" when you have no idea if it'll even work or change and no idea what it can do.
You're ignoring the cost of tooling and the cost of a production line by the way. That cost you're putting up? That's what they're paying now, for doing fail fast testing. Not for producing rockets.

They're not the same.

>>11628809
If the total long term costs per unit with tooling are more than the costs to do the same thing in boutique fashion in a field, something went horribly wrong.

>>11628813
Making a custom production line costs money. Big money.

>>11628809
Sure thing buckaroo, you can double the cost two times and it's still short of a single expendable Falcon Heavy launch by 11 million dollars.

>>11628815
Yeah, no shit. The reason you pay those costs is because it pays off in the long run with mass unit production. No one would ever invest in tooling if that wasn't the case.

>>11628817
By pulling numbers out of your ass? Reminder that there is no guarantee this rocket will ever fly. It probably will, but there are no fucking guarantees in life.
You don't know what it will cost. You don't know how much it'll lift and neither do I or SpaceX.

>>11628821
what if people only invest in tooling because everybody has always invested heavily in tooling and you'd better use all of your budget or you won't get as much next time

I swear, it's like I'm in a fucking playstation/xbox fanboy thread on /v/ at times here.

>>11628824
You seem to have gotten Starship and SLS confused.

Real ass question.

Starship is supposed to carry about 100 tons of shit.

What the hell are they going to do on the moon with 100 tons of cargo?

I get that some of that will be crew quarters and such, but given that we have such comically OP cargo capacity, what should they bring?

I'm thinking some kind of nuclear powered monster truck to explore the area around the landing site.

Maybe an RCS hovercraft powered by monopropellent, KSP style.

>>11628823
Well, since you seem hell bent on taking the least likely absolute worst case scenario interpretation which has already proven to be wrong multiple times in the past, there's really fucking nothing I can do to salvage your ass. Thank God decisions about investing in new technology aren't left up to retards like you, otherwise humanity probably would have stalled at the wheel and never gotten any further.

>>11628833
probably just a second redundancy for everything

>>11628836
>already proven to be wrong
Really? How many Starships have been launched? How many have been built?

Your fucking post doesn't even make sense. Only thing I'm telling you is to stop fucking jerking off to something where specs aren't even set in stone as if they were. Go be a fucking fanboy on /v/.

>>11628833
an entire solar charging parking garage with a suite of high performance lunar rovers
multiple LESS style lunar abort craft
an electric backhoe
a big tarp that when spread out is visible from earth and looks like a penis
uhhhhhhh

>>11628779
Pathetic porcine filth.

>>11628833
Anime flags.

>>11628855
>>11628779

Guys, what are you betting on happening first, musk ODing or starship launching? My money's on the former for now

>>11628860
Bovine sludge..

>>11628799
wrong
a prototyp should could do at least most of the tasks which are expected from the finished product. i am sorry but not blowing up when beeing fueled is a bit less then what could and should be expected from the first real starship prototype

>>11628863
>>11628779

>>11628867
I win

>>11628869
>>11628779

>>11628833
>plan must by function NOT be the cheapest trajectory. Even at the time they wanted faster.
>Also why are you leaving aside that if you can put something in orbit, you can carry bigger nuke on a suborbital strike. Size does matter.
>>Putting a man in space had nothing to do with ICBM development (warheads don't need life support).
>Thruster and controls system are the same as we keep repeating. Again, the space race WAS about the weapons and military use first, getting a man in space was the ideological cherry on top. The Saturn family was the one not
>>11628842
>probably just a second redundancy for everything
this

they could just bring a literal escape boat, meaning a whole ass emergency craft. or spare parts for 100% of the rocket, maybe including the engine, at least the first missions, why take risks?i would even go against more than 3 people. Would you have been able to send 7 in 4x times the apollo levels of redundancy? send 3 in 8x times as much, then slowly reduce it

>>11628307
>We're whalers on the Moon, we carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales and sing a whaling tune...

>>11628864
Musk moving into the remains of a failed Starship tank and telling everyone to get the fuck out of his Marslight.

>>11628864
both at the same time imo

>>11628870
Look how mad he made you lmao

First test starship prototype to the moon should a complete shipment of emergency supplies and long term consumables sent to the place where the mission will be, that way if it succeds it serves an important purpose but if it doesnt its not crucial

>>11628880
>>>>>he
>>11628779

>>11628875
That sounds good to me as well

>>11628858
fumos

>>11628872
aeiou

>>11628882
Everybody Look

>>11628833
Put the entire Gateway architecture in 1 go.

>>11628881
has the landing spot for the moon landing been decided yet?

>>11628898
>Rocket can't even fly for 5m without exploding
>Moon landing spot
Lmao

>>11628898
Artemis 3 - somewhere in the south polar region as has been the plan forever.

>>11628898
i think they aim at the poles, but if theres one spot in which theres a freaking extra 200 days worth of food and oxygen dont worry, thats the spot theyll choose

>>11628910
I'm talking about Artemis

>>11628914
Did I fucking stutter

isnt elon musk basically planning to humillate them by saying "here look, my "lander" is able to go from the earths surface to the moons surface AND BACK with 4 times as much cargo and for 1000 times less per mission, but sure, lets use my craft as a LANDER


IMO everything should be starship. want a space station? starship in orbit (of whatever body) want a base? land a starship.

>>11628921
You are a sad excuse for a worm.

>>11628914
You got the answer.
Artemis 1. Uncrewed.
Artemis 2. Manned flyby
Artemis 3. Somewhere south polar region. That's probably going to change now that Gateway is getting skipped though, just for practical reasons.

They're not exactly forthcoming with anything since everything is being slid backwards and tossed up in the air.

>>11628910
sls chose a spot and theirs literally didnt fly, with 10 times more development time and 1000 times more money

>>11628930
spacex can't exactly launch emergency supplies to the mission site if it hasn't been decided

>>11628930
>Somewhere south polar region. That's probably going to change now that Gateway is getting skipped though, just for practical reasons.
That's disappointing. Hopefully it doesn't end up only being Apollo: Reboot.

>>11628934
Artemis is a fucking joke right now.

>>11628936
That's exactly what we're getting for Artemis 3 at least. Apollo 11 Electric Boogaloo: Selfie Opportunity.

is there a special reason why they want to go to the moons south pole? i understand that there is water ice there, but shouldn't that be also the case on it's north pole?

>>11628934
they can on their will, and wherever they land BECOM ES the mission site,
i dont think you understand how things are here oldspacefag.

spacex is the daddy
spacex musk is the master allcardshaver

its like this
imagine this
imagine 3 12 yo kids getting in a fight, then suddenly a 28 year old navy seal with combat experience joins in, he beats up everyone with three fingers of one hand, blindfolded eyes, heals them up then heals them up fights again and pretends to take a few hits so hed oesnt hurts their self esteem
those hits
do not mean
the kids even had a chance against hte navy seal

this is the exact same samely samesies, like nigga engage your htinking drive, let me complete the part of rational objective education
you see some times theres just wright and rong and im right now.

so
the navy seal
is elon musk
the kids are every other space company

starship will be star trek tier compared to everything we got.
starship will be a mastergodtier revolution in spaceflight middle class citizine being able to comfortably afforrd moving to mars mmmmmm yess

>>11628960
thres more water, also more nuiclear fuel that will LITERALLY MEAN FREE ENERGY FOR EVEROYNE INSTANTLY YOU NEE DMORE RESASONS FARGOT

>>11628960
I believe it's because they've found signs there already. Why go north on a hunch when there's clear signs south?

>>11628960
>is there a special reason why they want to go to the moons south pole?
I think the south pole has more permanently shaded areas, so there's a higher chance of finding water ice there.

@11628967
yikes

>>11628974
doesnt know how to cute, thinks he has any place to yes no absltos

>>11628974
>>11628976
*quotteeeee*****

honestly they should nuke the moon

>>11628983
Base'd

>>11628983
americans literally tried to, and just for the lulz

>>11628865
don't say "prototype"
say "manufacturing pathfinder"

>>11629016
well fuck them for not doing it then. shit would be so awesome

UPDATE:
Public Notice of Cameron County Order to Temporarily Close State Highway 4 and Boca Chica Beach
Primary Date May 2, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date May 3, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date May 4, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled
Primary Date May 5, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date May 6, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date May 7, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled

Yesterdays test date now pushed to tonight and a new test date set for Tuesday.

>>11629129
looking forwards to watching a big tank get cold and then a flare stack to light off
do they have enough methane and LOx storage to fill the whole starship?

>>11628842
This but also hopefully, bigger lunar installations in the future for Lunar Base Camp.

I'm excited, lads
timelines are ambitious and NASA is committing to making commercial partners compete with each other. I think they're actually going to do it this time.

Congressional Democrats coming out against HLS, saying commercial space needs to get nipped in the bud and SLS needs to get more gibs.

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairwomen-johnson-and-horn-statements-on-artemis-human-lander-systems-contract-awards

>>11629151
anybody who thinks we're going back to the moon is delusional. we've been 5 years away from a moon return for the past 20 years

>>11629151
Plan "B" for Bipartisan

And also Boeing

>>11629151
>"The multi-year delays and difficulties experienced by the companies of NASA’s taxpayer-funded Commercial Crew program—a program with the far less ambitious goal of just getting NASA astronauts back to low Earth orbit—make clear to me that we should not be trying to privatize America’s Moon-Mars program"
>Chairwomen Johnson and Horn say while ignoring the multi-year delays and difficulties experienced by the companies of NASA's taxpayer-funded Space Launch System - a program with the far less ambitious goal of just building a propellant tank

>>11629160
lol we got starships now buddy
ahhahaha you dont reali
ashash ael tle EW ALE DONT(LE STOP, stop , pheww, i have to recomponese myself at the inmense superiority i have over you)

ok
so
few
hard to keep calm wehn im so superior
listen to this
starship
is
the
SUPER MEGA SHIT MASTER FLIER BEATS ALL FOREVER DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ITS LIKE STARSHIP IS AN OLYMPIC ATHLETE IN ITS PRIME AND SLS IS A RETARDED FAT 2 YO

THE COMPETITION IS A FIGHT TO THE DEATH WITH NO WEAPONS WHO YOU THINK IS GONNA WIN RETARDO

>>11629180
>haha starship go boom

So this is how vertical integration looks like?
https://admin.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/spacex_approved_supplier_list_by_supplier_09.23.19.pdf

>>11629191
yeah
vertical integration and judicious selection of suppliers
they sew their own spacesuits, you know

>>11629191
Someone post the SLS+Orion contractors webm.

>>11629202
Also the list contains alot of repeats which pads out the list. It also seems like most of the items in the list are smaller components/procedures/inspections such as heat treating or chemical processing. Stuff that SpaceX probably couldn't integrate easily and let a more experienced company handle it.

>>11629205

>>11629215
if you buy a finished product, you have one supplier
if you buy the raw materials, you have a million suppliers

would it be economical for starship to just bring back a ton of moon rocks and sell them at auction/to manufacturers who need to test their equipment against actual moon regolith?
obviously there's a point past which you flood the moon rock market, but I wonder if there's a medium there where it can actually justify a starship trip in itself.

>>11629229
i bet somebody is going to make a fortune selling dumb moon rock jewelry to billionaires

>>11629191
literally yes you retard, did you read half that list, its literally fungible commodities, literally anything on that list can be replaced instantly by other provider once the quality is assured, they are bulk precisely defined raw material that can be exchanged for other at ANY TIME

starship:
-buy bulk shit from providers, which can be replaced instantly by any other provider because its clearly defined what youre buying, its in bulk and its raw materials with no process
-build what you want in one location
-ship that thing for launch

Sls:
buy nut from the only nut aproved with the seal of corporation corruption.
ok

-send that nut to hawai for quality assurance testing consulting and consulting of testing
send that nut to alaska for secondary quality assurance and humans right sensitivity training ,

-send that bolt to washington for technical analysis spec material desirability consulting and consulting of materials and specs

-send that bolt to california for structural integrity analysis and topology integration

-send that bolt to puerto rico where theres a specialized integrated assignment spec technical determination center, the bolt gets assigned a screw that fits according to requirements and then gets shiped to integration center number 3 in west virginia

-after around 20 more trips like this it will finally arrive to boeings definitevly final final integration
center. that bolt will arive as part of the desk that will serve to start planing where to hold the first meeting to discuss what should we have for lunch before the meeting to implement new steps on desk building...

*hey guys maybe we could skip some of these st...

NO, NO WE CANT YOU FUCKING IDIOT DONT YOU REALIZE SPACE IS HARD YOU CANT JUST DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, THIS IS ROCKET SCIENCE, YOU GET IT? IT HAS SCIENCE IN IT, IF WE DEVIATE 1 MICROMILIMETER FROM THE PLAN WE HAVE TO SCRAP EVERYTHING WE DONE SO FAR AND START OVER

>>11629235
you could 100% make a fortune infusing alternative medicine shit with moon dust. Of course that would look really bad if it were ever traced back to SpaceX.

>>11629238
It's easy as fuck. Ok so every two month starship bring back around 2 tons of moon rocks, 25% of that is donated to public museums 25% is sold to private museums , 25% is sold to artists, 25% is sold to anyone willing to buy it. And some of the earnigns (0.000001% lol) go to funding children hospital or whatever shits haha so you cant say im eivl or anything. we have no influence on what private buyers do with the moon rocks sorry, are you saying youre against profit for childrens hospitals? checkmate sjw you lost

>>11629235

>>11628008
Yeah but it's more complex and has more moving parts than are necessary. If you use RCS to settle the tank you can 'blow' fuel from one tank to the other just by pushing more gas into the tank you want to empty.

>>11628306
Lunar Starship won't have TPS or flaps or any of the associated hardware, basically it should be lighter. They could also stretch the propellant tanks internally to give is a much better mass fraction with literally no dry mass increase, they'd probably need to launch it to LEO with only partially filled tanks though.

>>11629150
>and NASA is committing to making commercial partners compete with each other. I think they're actually going to do it this time.
Not to mention it seems like NASA is intentionally making a clusterfuck of contracts and agreements so that Artemis legally has to be carried out

I just hope Congress or something doesn't ruin it.

>>11629412
If Trump doesn't win in November, it'll probably get a stake through the heart just like Constellation did.

>>11629237
And Spacex just buys a used machine to frabricate their own bolts or nuts, and does their own QC

Why is NASA or any government agency forced to out source when it makes no sense? Oh well

>>11629151
>The multi-year delays and difficulties experienced by the companies of NASA’s taxpayer-funded Commercial Crew program
Yeah because you fucks didn't fund the program for first half of the its life.

>>11629432
>If Trump doesn't win in November, it'll probably get a stake through the heart just like Constellation did.
You don't know that. Artemis is in a much better financial position than Constellation was.

>>11629432
I hate that I have to choose between finally moving past this increasingly obnoxious Trump era and human spaceflight exploration

>>11629438
Old Space is Government Jobs Programs.

>>11629453
It will always have Trump's name attached to it and he's an even less popular name to the democrats than Bush was.

>>11629454
Politics is cancer and should never be allowed to impinge on science, but here we are.

Brehs, we're all gonna make it. Soon our souls will no longer be held down by gravity.

>>11629443
And nasa bureaucrats are directly dragging the thing out because Boeing failed to perform despite getting twice as much money as Spacex

>>11629151
A poorly disguised attempt to get the fucking Boeing shitbird because NASA gets to own it and it's cost plus.
I wish I could hate people to death.

>>11628424
>it can't aerobrake
Not being able to perform earth rentry != unable to aerobrake. Even flimsy tinfoil satellites can aerobrake, Chad steel starship can probably aerobrake quite aggressively.

>>11629500
Not aggressively enough, most likely.

>>11629500
seems like starship would be much safer as a LEO to lunar surface ferry. just dock a dragon or two to transfer the astronauts

>>11629237
You almost made a good parody of excessive quality control.
It's a lost cause to unshill (You) but you might take some suggestion:
- don't type like you are having a stroke
- follow a proper structure, bullet point work better when it doesn't spray and everything hit
- you've repeated too many times the same kind of QUALITY control, you need more variety
- putting shit words in what you defend devaluate it, make it look simple yes but not crude
- try to make you point in fewer words

You may think it's not that bad but
NO YOU FUCKING DON4T CRITICIZE GOOD ENGINEERING YOU STUPID HILLBILLY!! UR ALL CAP IS WORSE THAN RED TAPE!!!

Seriously, this is serious business.

>>11629237
except that starship has such poor quality control that they keep exploding on the ground. just wait till they start trying to actually fly them

>>11629586
Don't respond to that thing

what was this?

>>11629732
Autism and upset he’s bleeding money with a closed factory

>>11629737
I mean the tweet that got removed

>>11629732
I believe he used the N word

>>11629732
the power of autism

>>11629732
He went on a preemptive tirade telling people Tesla's stock was overvalued so they wouldn't accuse him of the usual "Evil capitalist just wants to capitalize on people dying to make money!" on wanting the country reopened.
People are armchair psychiatrist'ing everything from DUDE WEED LMAO to bipolar disorder.

>>11629742
Oh I dnno
The one where he says the baby is due on Monday?

>>11629737
If he's upset with losing money, why did he tank his own money with tesla tweet? Checkmate liberals.

>>11628833
>What the hell are they going to do on the moon with 100 tons of cargo?
8m panels (possibly photovoltaic on the outside) for geodesic domes and steel bars, ISRU gear, compressed air, furniture, lab equipment, etc. You only need a relatively thin layer of shielding from the sun so the square-cube law means the optimal moon base will be enormous domes.

>>11629747

so is the national team going to use new glenn?
Or are they going to do this in a shitload of launches?

>>11629900
I would hope so, give the amount of money they were given

>>11629900
If they don't they're going to go multiple orders of magnitude over budget.

>>11629229
Theee are plenty of market cases for moon rocks/dust

>sciencefags
>museums
>private companies for testing regolith on equipment
>jewellers
>bespoke crafts (bechtops, tiles, pavers, etc...)
>sell to chinks and tell them it will make penisu very biggu

Plenty of money to be made for fucking sure.

>>11628833
custom LAN gaming servers, cozy chairs, crates of monster, M&M's, real golf equipment, and custom cybertrucks and ATV's for moon racing

>>11628887
john madden

>>11628833
>materials for elon's new house (made out of stainless steel btw)
>welding robots that were made in mexico
>solar panels
>batteries
>a cybertruck and super charge station
>A boring machine for under-moon tunnels

>>11630030
Uh oh, here comes another Chinese earthquake.

>>11630086
Give him a couple of years and he'll go full Hadden on us. Vanishes, nobody knows where he is, he's actually hiding out on a space station.

>>11629454
>I hate that I have to choose between finally moving past this increasingly obnoxious Trump era and human spaceflight exploration
Same, same

>>11629456
>It will always have Trump's name attached to it and he's an even less popular name to the democrats than Bush was.
I'm hoping everything is legally and financially too far along for Artemis to get cancelled is Trump is gone

>>11630102
>out of my chinese fucking peasant
>china will grow larger!!!

>>11630104
If it wasn't for the fact that he's married and has kids I would genuinely expect him to do this. Who knows, maybe when the mars colony is set up and actually expanding he'll divorce again and go for it

>>11630117
Yeah the choices are Trump or a literally senile old man who doesn't even know what he is saying half the time. Two party system fuck yeah.

>>11629597
>poor quality control
I hate to break it to you but the QC on Starship is actually pretty good, the reason they're blowing them up is because it's literally faster for SpaceX to build a new designs and see if it performs as expected than it is to do all the math and simulating necessary to get to the same level of confidence.

>>11629586
it's a schizoposter, just report it

>>11629732
Literally nothing.

you reported this
>>11629237
but not this
>>11628967

ok i understand you're not ready for my harvard tier master poetry language recombination. I try to keep the discussion down to your level.

>>11629732
>>11629879
imagine this, you could do anything, practice any sport, any art, you could fuck hot girls who really are into you, not hookers, girls that really are horny as fuck for you, you could travel anywhere in the world, see any entertainment do literally everything that money can buy, but you choose to act as an autistic schizo poster in public.

He has already admited to being a lunesta junkie, he doesnt even consume good drugs, like, seriously, how stupid can he be?

>>11630463
>implying shitposting isn't a higher, more sublime joy than any drug could ever be

I thought y'all would have learned this lesson after Shkreli

>elon went "fuck you" to everyone
Jesus Christ, it's like a fucking twilight zone episode. The one about the aliens causing minute issues and turning a town into a fucking anarcho-faggot's wet dream.

So is the static fire test today?

>>11630463
Your soul is held down by gravity, but also faggotry.

>>11630593
I sure hope so.

>>11630593
probably not

>>11627609
dumb dumb

The moon is magnetic, they just turn on a solar powered magnet

>>11628500
This isn't contradicting what others are telling you

In the long haul, starship is a planet ship that will land on the moon and come back itself, and wipes its own ass. You have that right

But just because the landing demonstration is attempted with a lot of fuel to test that idea, doesn't mean the the intended lunar lander version will have that much fuel. And if it does it is slated to use that fuel for multiple landings, not return to earth as it obviously cant.

>>11628833
Well you could do two things

Don't use hardly any cargo capacity at all and use it strictly as a lander. It'll be able to perform more landings on the same amount of fuel.

Or just straight up make the lander the moon base. But I'm not sure they could do this even if they were ok for the extra mass for landings because lunar days are so long.

>>11630705
>use that fuel for multiple landings
no, it needs to be refueled each time I think

>>11629151
>“I am troubled that NASA has decided to ignore congressional intent and instead press forward with Human Landing System awards to try to meet an arbitrary 2024 lunar landing deadline,” said Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). “As the Apollo program showed us, getting to the Moon and back safely is hard.

Space needs to be slow to be safe! Next sentence:

>The multi-year delays and difficulties experienced by the companies of NASA’s taxpayer-funded Commercial Crew program—a program with the far less ambitious goal of just getting NASA astronauts back to low Earth orbit—make clear to me that we should not be trying to privatize America’s Moon-Mars program

Private space is too slow!

Jesus christ

NASA shuttle replacements were in conception in the 80s and still aren't here. Meanwhile if your modest star up company got the job in 2011 but took until 2020 because nasa red tape, you're clearly the problem.

>>11630508
I guess the quarantine blues has finally gotten to him.

>>11630717
>>11630715
wouldnt it be extremely inneficient to refuel the starship in lunar orbit?

like, here you have a small colony it will need to take down 3-4 people and a couple tons of cargo, you could achieve it in a small reusable lander that ditches fuel tanks and you could send one small rockets filled with those tanks for each flight.

on the other hand you have starship, a rocket that's 10 times bigger than needed, and each time you want to land it from orbit you have to get 5 rockets to the moon filled with fuel.
but dont forget each of those rockets requires 5 launches themselves to get refueled.

youre talking about 25 fucking launches of the biggest rocket ever made for each time starship has to land, versus 1 launch of a shitty rocket with some small fuel tanks in its cargo bay

>>11629432
A good point I've heard is that because nasa gave 3 contracts that use a shitload of partnerships and subcontractors, special interest is entangled in the project now. It's much harder to delete.

>>11630757
NRHO is really really close to TLI, only 500 m/s or so
I haven't done any math or seen any math but you shouldn't need a FULL refuel each time
I'm looking forwards to seeing that math but I think we need a better drymass estimate for Starship

>>11630717
dude

LOOK at it. It's a giant fuel tank. Starship is designed to direct ascent from the moon, burn to earth, burn to slow down, then burn to land. Going up and down from the moons orbit with low gravity uses hardly anything.

But also elon said so.

>>11629151
What a thinly veiled attempt to steer a project because it didn't turn out exactly how they wanted it. I hope those clowns got laughed at on the Congressional floor for that stunt.

>>11630757
>wouldnt it be extremely inneficient to refuel the starship in lunar orbit?

>you could achieve it in a small reusable lander that ditches fuel tanks and you could send one small rockets filled with those tanks for each flight.

You're asking if refueling is inefficient, but propose sending fuel tanks as an alternative. Either way you're sending fuel tank. But at least with starship you're not dumping hardware every time you're done with it.

>here you have a small colony it will need to take down 3-4 people and a couple tons of cargo

Or you could load starship with dozens of tons of cargo then send it down. And it has somewhere to fit.

>and each time you want to land it from orbit you have to get 5 rockets to the moon filled with fuel.

You misread something somewhere. Starship arrives at the moon with enough fuel to lift off and land multiple times

1 launch, X landings

>>11627804
>multivector drifting intensifies

>>11630790
I'm calling bullshit on multiple landings on the same tank of fuel
I'll believe doing TLI, NRHO insertion, landing and getting back to NRHO on one tank of fuel with minimal drymass and cargo but I will not believe doing NRHO to surface and back again multiple times

>>11629151
Are they the only ones Boing had money left to bribe?

>>11630798
>I'll believe doing TLI, NRHO insertion, landing and getting back to NRHO on one tank of fuel with minimal drymass and cargo

Then you're calling bullshit on the entire starship concept? Because the full starship is supposed to do that except go back to earth at the end

>>11630813
no, the full Starship with aerofeatures needs refueling twice, in LEO and once partway through TLI in order to get down to the surface and back through TEI on the same tank of fuel
you're talking about SIGNIFICANT dry-mass improvements, nearly impossible dry-mass improvements

>>11630831
I hadn't heard of another refueling after leaving earth. Am I conflating a moon fly-by with landing and take off?

>>11630870
yes
the moon is really far away in terms of dv

>>11630874
How do you do a refueling near TLI?

Wouldn't you have to send the fuel halfway to the moon?

>>11630879
like this:
you fuel up two (or more?) starships basically next to each other in LEO
you burn half of their propellant to increase your eccentricity in a way that will eventually send you to the moon, but stop when your tanks are half full or so
transfer all the fuel to the moon Starship during outbound coast on your elliptic parking orbit, and aerobrake the tanker down to the surface however you like
on your next perigee, burn for TLI

>>11630874
This does seem like a really stupid concept then

For starship to work as a planetary transport you have to put gas stations in earth orbit and lunar orbit, which is fine. The problem is when you realize there isn't an analogous fuel truck but heaviness ruins rocket efficiency, instead analogous cars will bring tanks of gasoline to refill the station just to refill another car that's actually going somewhere.

How do you even send fuel to the moon then return home? That's like taking gasoline to a destination so someone can go to the destination and come back. I'm so confused.

>>11630122
Tiger Tank Reporting

>>11630892
>>11630889
Oh wait I think that answers it

>>11627667
*Venera

>>11630767
Uh it’s still like 5 km/s delta v
Still needs refueling each round trip to gateway

we need to get to a point where dV doesn't matter for getting places.
In a 18 mpg truck? you can still make it to the other side of the country in a couple days. 50mph Prius? Same deal.
Our issues with dV is only because there aren't gas stations everywhere in space.

>>11631044
linking up with your gas stations is way more expensive in space than it is on earth
dv won't be irrelevant until we have have magic fusion drives

BONFIRE LIT

>>11628833
150 tons*

>>11631112
Gondor calls for aid!

>>11631112
What is that even for?

>>11630790
>Either way you're sending fuel tank.
but for starship youre sending a shitton of fuel for a gigantic ship, and each truckload of fuel takes another gigantic ship which in itself requires also a shitload of fuel. Its too big for the job

>>11631119
and my axe

>>11631124
they can't vent methane to the atmosphere, so whenever more methane boils off than they can chill (any at all, they probably don't have active cryo management) they need to release it, which necessitates burning it off

>>11630688
Hold on, so if I just make a solar-powered magnet PANEL that's basically indestructible, and make a Dyson sphere out of it to cover the entire moon, can I crush the moon?

>>11631133
>they can't vent methane to the atmosphere

But cows can?????

>>11631148
blame the government
>>11631134
no

>>11631112

>>11631152
this happened repeatedly during Hopper tests

>>11631148

Will SN4 do anything tonight?

>>11631181
no

BRAAAAAAAP

>>11631227
not yet

>>11631227
no mercaptan

>>11631044
No it’s because rockets are orders of magnitude less efficient

Are there any regions of space with pressures comparable to that of measurable atmospheres?

>>11627265
Sun classified as a weird pulsar by confused aliens

>>11631266
only in measurable atmospheres lol

>>11631266
Titan has a surface pressure of around 1.45 atmospheres. High altitudes on Venus can have pressures comparable to that of Earth, as well as that of gas giants.

>>11631281
titan is so cold it would take 8 nuclear reactors like the ones they carry on a nimitz class aircraft carrier to keep a volume of 10 square meters at barely above freezing temperatures

>>11631288
No , it's not that cold. It's around 20 degrees hotter than liquid nitrogen.

>>11631288
>source: my ass

>>11631288
Just insulate

>>11630746
They wanted the Boeing design because that gave NASA ownership of it and it was on cost plus.
And as we all know, cost plus means cost plus the ability to delay it indefinitely for political reasons. And no pricetag is too large for that ability in Washington.

>>11631281
>Titan has a surface pressure of around 1.45 atmospheres

I mean in the interplanetary/interstellar medium, outside of the extent of planetary atmospheres. There’s lots of hydrogen and helium atoms just bumbling around in space everywhere; might they be so dense in some areas that densities are comparable to very thin atmospheres like that of Triton?

>>11631290
yeah , in full 100% molecular contact of the surface.

humanity knows how to deal with two states of cold.

earth cold: what you want to keep warm is in direct contact with molecules taht are cold so 100% of its coldness is transmited via contact, but that cold is not so much so its manageable.

Space is total cold, meaning the amount of coldness is almost 0, but since theres nothing to transmit that coldness you get it but veeeery slowly, you can avoid this by staying in the sun.

in titan you have maximum coldness with a wall of molecules that transmit it directly to you, oh and the atmosphere blocks the sun so have fun with that

>>11631331
It’s bright enough to walk around without a light

would it be possible to have like a bunch of breathable gas floating in space without solid mass, like just a mass of breathable gas, maybe in orbit around a sun and just life living in it but with no solid land

>>11631333
light =!= heat

>>11631337
Yeah say that when you get shot by a laser cannon in 2040

>>11631334
it would end up looking like Jupiter or Neptune

>>11631334
>>11631341

At any useable density, it’d accrete into a gas planet on the scale of thousands of years, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

>>11631331

With extreme colds, you just use more insulation. It's an easier problem to deal with cold versus removing heat.

>>11631346
but in that density would it be possible to float in it without a space suit?

>>11631370
No, because, you know, radiation

>>11631288
It's warmer than liquid nitrogen. The outside fo a dewer flask holding liquid nitrogen is room temp. Therefor if you stuck your fist into an empty dewer flask immersed in a pool of liquid nitrogen, it would feel room temp. Therefore you can use insulation on Titan to stay warm.

Source; Huygens lander had no problem keeping warm enough on battery waste heat to last until the battery ran out of juice to power the antennae.

>>11631370
Depends how dense you are.

Raptor reached 200t thrust, ready to BTFO BE-4

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1256857873897803776

>>11631288
>a volume of 10 square meters
>what is thermal insulatuon
/sci/ at its finest

>>11629238
Portal 2 redpilled people on moon dust. Never gonna sell any now.

>>11631531
Thats real breakthrough. Wiki still says 170t thrust. So I wonder if that's the reason for reducing the n of engines on super heavy.

170*37 = 6290
200*31 = 6200

That would be great thing moving forward for them.

>>11631329
No because to reach such density you need gravity, the gas would expand otherwise.

Behold, how Lunar Starship will probably work

>>11631606
So they need 18 Starship flights/Refuels to make this work? Seems like calculation is WAY off. I wouldn't trust it.

>>11631626
They need to send >500 tons of propellant into Lunar orbit. Starship being refueled twice in Earth orbit can get ~250 tons to the Moon. Refueling a Starship fully takes up to ten flights. They will need a lot of launches to support every Lunar Starship landing.

The best part is that it still won't cost more than 10% of the price of an SLS launch.

>>11631606
I thought a fully fuelled starship could land on the moon and return? I guess the gateway tollbooth doesnt help but this still seems wrong, especially with the stripped down version.

>>11631606
This diagram is a perfect example of how the delta v tollbooth totally fucks an otherwise sensible architecture.

>>11631643
Seems like an unnecessarily complex and costly operation. Its not gonna happen.

>>11631660
Okay, come up with a better way, then.

>>11631660
What will likely happen is the fuel tank will be fuel over time as they put in more/other missions of their own and spread the cost/complexity over longer periods/multiple missions. For the initial mission, they'll do the minimally viable. 1-2 refuel.

>>11631664
Cancel gateway.

>>11631668
With 200t raptor -> 250t raptor upgrade in the works, that will also reduce the tankers needed.

>>11631674
Not really. It burns fuel faster, produces more thrust. It's not a fuel saver.

>>11631681
Yeah but tanker fuel isn't being burned. Just the super heavy fuel, thus you get more fuel in orbit 1 one go.

>>11631692
They haven't even started testing the vac raptor. Fuck knows what that'll look like. Sea level raptor is looking good though.

>>11631670
what's the problem with gateway?

what are the arguments for gateway?

Think about Falcon Heavy-Dragon XL can only send 5 tons payload to Gateway, Starship-Refueling is a lot cheaper for +100 tons and landing on the Moon.

>>11631716
Polar access, making it easier for in-situ extraction etc. You waste a lot of delta v if you want to land at the poles by doing a regular TLI.

>>11631727
you aren't saving any delta v by docking with gateway retard.

>>11631716
I'm also wondering.
The only reason for the gateway is because the base would be on the pole, else it would be on the ecliptic or a Lagrange point.
I can't argue for a polar gateway because I wouldn't chose a base not on the ecliptic for future expansion.

Unless there's that much ice on the pole I don't see the point.

>>11631716
>>11631727
also it enables you to reuse your lander, or at least the ascent stage of it

>>11631681
>It's not a fuel saver.

It is if it reduces weight

>>11631760
Why bother with multi-staged landers on the moon? It’s perfectly viable to build a single-stage lander.

>>11631692
No, Super Heavy will always stage off at the same time during flight, it's just that with greater TWR there are fewer gravity losses.

>>11631760
The basic idea is they want as much reuse as possible and a reason to come back. If Artemis 3 actually manages to make its 2024 schedule, which I very much doubt, it'll have been 52 years of fucking nothing.
If they cancel Gateway altogether, that'll be all you get and we're back in the crab bucket with a vague promise of a manned Mars swing by "soon".

>>11631727
False, first of all Gateway isn't in a polar orbit, second of all literally every inclination orbit around the Moon is the exact same delta V to reach when coming in from Earth, because all you do is adjust your time of departure so that your trajectory will reach the Moon at a different angle.

>>11631765
It won't reduce weight

>>11631777
I'm not a mission designer for NASA, so sue me.

>>11631772
>>11631780
Fewer reduction in gravity loss + more load savings from less engines weight (31 v 37) lead to higher payload to orbit.

>>11631771
you are right, but that just means that you can reuse the whole lander instead of having all this mass to carry back to earth, or ditching it and use a new lander every time

>>11631606
>tanker
>carries only 100t of fuel

kek, muskets BTFO

>>11631112
>>11631152
Looks like a giant doner kebab.

>>11631806
Yeah, just launch one of these into orbit.

>>11631334
this is probably as close as you could get

>>11631781
then stop shitting out your pop sci opinions as fact.

>>11631813
I'm just saying, Starship is too god damn heavy

>>11631819
No, our gravity well is too god damn heavy.

>>11631788
Might as well reuse landers and keep them docked to gateway or some other station or depot. I’d personally design them to have docking ports on both the stern and bow, and mount the thrusters radially, so that they can be docked together end-to-end in a column to minimize their use of available docking ports on a space station.

>>11631806
it indeed shows that starship is not the ideal lunar lander
i assume that in the end they will build a lighter lander only based on starship. thats if spacex is one of the final two proposals, what i doubt based on the given problems

>>11631827
yes it would be dumb to move the lander to any other place then gateway or the surface.

>>11631828
Starship IS the ideal lunar lander for you know, actually getting payload to the moon. What it is not good for is a NASA circlejerk, running 3-4 diversitynauts up and down a gravity well because you need to keep a retarded boondoggle space station going.

>>11631836
very convincing. now make way for superior blue origin moon lander

>>11631868
Enjoy deliving 3 negronauts to the moon while SpaceX sends 100 aryan chads to Mars at a time.

>>11631819
i'm wondering, because the moon starship never has to do earth reentry, why make it out of steel? If nasa is paying, why not make it out of aluminum?
A stirwelded aluminium starship, with a lot more fuel because of the weight drop seems like a reasonable solution to me.

>>11631870
at least the non-spacex proposals don't include the launch of like a dozen giant rockets for only one moon mission

>>11631884
Because then you're wasting time and money developing two different ships.
You can stirweld steel as well and they most likely will for the largest sections once design is finalized and the production line is set up.

>>11631884
Maybe

>>11631897
They already are developing 4 different starships.
>normal passenger starship
>tanker starship
>cargo starship
>moon starship

>>11631897
No reason to stirweld Starship, SpaceX only uses it for Falcon 9 becaue aluminum-lithium alloy is extremely reactive at high temperatures. Also, when friction welding steel, the amount of heat generated is enough to affect the properties of the steel anyway, so there's actually a significant detriment to using stir welding for steel.

>>11631915
Passenger, tanker and cargo are essentially identical except for the fitout of the payload bay.