/sci/ - Science & Math

Is starship hopping this week?

>anime

First in for space furries

>>11669128
Supply and demand. You, specifically, not liking it is irrelevant to whether everyone else will do it or not.
>>11669336
Ofc the guy posting wheyfus and making excuses to take space roids is a fitzen.

>>11669372
Did somebody say "spaceplanes"?

>>11669259 the op that never links
>>11669372 the op that never looks

>>11669372
Post 1/2:

Musk is controlled opposition.

Elon Musk is much more than just an average politically opinionated tech CEO. He is an intel asset. He is just like Jeff Bezos, Mark ZuckerBerg, Tom Hanks, Jack Dorsey or Bill Gates. They all have specific high-profile public image in their respective fields, however they are also active behind the scenes, all connected through the same entity of common intel agency. Intelligence agencies are especially heavily interested and invested in all tech sectors, especially space and remote-controlled cars, so just like they have journalists as assets that work for big newspapers to publish or spin specific story that CIA wants, they have tech CEOs, developers etc. that do CIA's bidding. When one of them shows a higher potential, then that person gets into smaller, close-circle of powerful people. Elon Musk is one of them. He is glowing brighter than supernova. Just research his involvement with companies and where they get their money from. Government subsidies are not to "help" company grow, but to make them govt's slave. Everything that comes from Musk is guaranteed to have backdoors and other hidden surprises.

Just search for "Tesla subsidies", or "Space X subsidies" and you will see. Musk would be a total nobody if he wasn't compromised, 100% controlled and propped up. Just like all these people I mentioned above. They are all part of something bigger.

Also, check Musk's ties with Michael Griffin, (head of NASA 2005-2009). Griffin was also working for In-Q-Tel, a CIA subdivision.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7361801/Jeffrey-Epstein-claimed-crisis-manager-Elon-Musk.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-moguls-jeffrey-epstein-connected-bill-gates-elon-musk-2019-8#elon-musk-ceo-of-tesla-and-spacex-2
https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/13/epstein-musk-saudi-tesla/
https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epsteins-ex-girlfriend-dated-kimbal-musk-brother-of-tesla-founder-elon-musk-2020-1

More in reply.

Post 2/2:

Also, read about Musk's grandfather: https://www.technocracy.news/shock-elon-musks-grandfather-was-head-of-canadas-technocracy-movement/

Musk is most likely a frontman, a figurehead sponsored by In-Q-Tel, which is a CIA subdivision, which is tasked with funding companies in order to make them part of the government, so they can put their backdoors and other surprises.

Research In-Q-Tel:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cias-venture-capital-firm-like-its-sponsor-operates-in-the-shadows-1472587352
https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-funded-by-cia-2016-9
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2012/07/16/156839153/in-q-tel-the-cias-tax-funded-player-in-silicon-valley
https://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2019/06/05/inqtel-forge-ai-investment.aspx
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200414005415/en/Q-CTRL-Announces-Strategic-Investment-In-Q-Tel-Accelerate-Quantum

You can bet anything Musk touches is one of them.

In-Q-Tel is also behind the mobile game Pokemon, through it they got all these millions of people all around the world intel-gathering for them and giving it all to western intel agencies for free. It was clever. Imagine how much data in pictures, geo-location, Wi-Fi, BlueTooth and others that probably were harvested like call logs, text messages etc. were just like that acquired for free. It was smart move on their part. I admire their ingenuity.

https://www.networkworld.com/article/3099092/the-cia-nsa-and-pokmon-go.html
https://sociable.co/technology/cia-backed-pokemon-go-privacy/

As I stated before:

>>11669416
>Musk would be a total nobody if he wasn't compromised, 100% controlled and propped up. Just like all these people I mentioned above. They are all part of something bigger.

>He is glowing brighter than supernova.

Schizo.
If your claim is not falsiable you are on the wrong board.
Not all the favorable evidence in the universe stand a chance against a counter example.
You are not getting a (You) this time.

>>11669434
based and redpilled

>>11669414
>dolphin polygamy

>>11669420
tldr lol

>>11669377
Hopfully. DM-2 in two weeks.

>>11669460
based gif

>>11669448
would that pic even be possible.

>>11669511
No, br*ts are physically incapable of into space

>>11669377
Stack two of those in dolphin sex position, for actual orbital launch potential

>>11669511
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-5rzzOZW1E

only one way to find out

>>11669511
Possible, sure
Practical, hahahaha, no

>>11669517
luv me space
luv me smallsats, cor black arrow was noice
ate guvment spendin cutbacks
simple as

>>11669520
British aerospace engineering in a nutshell.

>>11669522
I heard Rocket Labs was trying to find a launch site in Scotland to go with NZ and Virginia. Did that ever happen?

>>11669517
F

>>11669523
Yep. See Skylon.

>>11669532
they were considering creating Sutherland Spaceport for polar/vertical smallsats, and turning Newquay airport into 'Spaceport Cornwall' for virgin orbit/galactic horizontals flights. Since then, almost nothing, and after this flu business, probably dead in the water seeing as virgin is slowly going under

>>11669538
pls no bully

>>11669415
There is also the OP that never gets the previous thread right. We just need to have one fucking person that makes the threads and puts effort into them. I actually get annoyed when I see a shitty image in the OP or a stupid edition name.

Hey anons I’m at AIT for the US army as a Aviation Electrician and I’m interested in space and will try to follow any career path, What schooling would you recommend for me to take, I have 6 years active on my contract and might try to start my own business when I get out if not join someone/spaceforce

I want to see the full stack someday.

>>11669448
>>11669519
>>11669522
>Throughout the 1960s, the Mustard project was refined and prepared for programme launch. However, financing for the initiative was not forthcoming from the British government and the concept ultimately languished following the completion of the last major design study in early 1967. According to BAC's successor company BAE Systems, the projected cost of completing Mustard's development had been estimated as being between 20 and 30 times cheaper than the conventional expendable launch system used for the American Apollo program.
LIKE. FUCKING. POETRY.

>>11669566
imagine the crane

>>11669566
I want to see the full stack launching 30x per day, every day for years straight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZbRf-X5XfE

(non)Thunderbirds rocket launches were pure KINO. I remember an episode where an entire rocket construction and launch was automated and a single guy just sat and watched. It also had radio-pirates in space.

>>11669571
Typical of that era. A way to make space flight cheaper and easier is proposed, but gets cancelled or developed improperly because political reasons.

>>11669372
How fucking hard is it to just copy the OP properly??? Fuck you gay OP. Die.

>>11669633
Based.

>>11669629
They didn't want cheap space, they wanted better ICBMs. The Saturn V could deliver a bomb the size of a small mountain to Moscow.

>>11669633
You know what's even gayer? Not looking at the catalog first. >>11669259
(And so is not linking the new thread from the old one, so both OPs are fags.)

>>11669665
Based.

>>11669518
airbreathing methalox stage and a half flyback boosters you say?

We could build a nuclear rocket similar to the indirect aircraft Reactor to power an ssto rocket with a reasonable payload
All we need is fuel and the know how to build an integrated fast reactor

>>11669686
you know what a linked list is?
you want an older thread, fucking iterate through them you mongoloid

>>11669696
Oh shit based.

>>11669571
i don nee to go tew spays lad. i got me 'omestead an me famly. we need 'ealthcare, nod som bloody spays toy. schtewpi ameri'ans.

>>11669701
This isn't about any linked list bullshit, it's about letting the people in the old thread know you've started a new one. Some people just leave the page open in a tab.

If you can cheaply haul over a nuclear reactor of some kind, colonizing Titan seems really interesting.

>thic atmosphere and low gravity mean you can create an aluminum vessel, fill it with air, and fly around-literal airships are possible. can also strap wings to your arms and fucking fly like a bird
>very easy to build SSTO spacecraft,and also easy to use thicc atmosphere to bleed off high speeds when landing on moon
>absolutely filthy with ice, water, ammonia, nitrogen, methane-no doubt some rocky areas have metals and rocks, uranium and thorium ore, you could harvest deuterium to feed fusion reactors

You'd need to spin your main living area to beef up the gravity a bit, but aside from that this place would rule to live on. One downside is it is pretty dark,i think it's .1% of the light we have on earth, but you can actually still see okay at that level thankfully.

Niggaz, I'm sorry, but we will never explore space while still engines based on newton's third law of motion and setting shit on fire and letting out the back. Your best hope is that things like anti-gravity, inertia reduction, and space warping actually turn out to be feasible one day and not pseudo-science. Otherwise we will be stuck on this rock forever. Pray before you sleep that the Alcubierre drive will be invented or that those navy ufo patents are actually real, in the sense that the US government has secret advanced craft they plan to bring out. Also, hope that ayylmaos really did crash and we took their tech. Without these miracles we will never reach the stars. Not a big distance and not on a large scale.

>>11669707
>no doubt some rocky areas have metals and rocks, uranium and thorium ore, you could harvest deuterium to feed fusion reactors
Or just go to other moons for rocks. Saturn has plenty of them.

>>11669701
t. the faggot OP himself who makes threads only to feel special yet doesn't have the basic decency to not fuck them up.

>>11669711
>Implying there aren't endless resources of note within our own solar system compared to our existence on the surface of this one dirtball

>>11669711
Who cares? We can rule our little pocket of the universe until we figure out something better.

>>11669711
but what about ships powered by fucking nukes, which output a shit ton of energy for minimal resources.

11669711
>nooo you can't just go to sleep
>nooo you can't just send a self sustaining colony
>nooo you can't just send the seeds of a civilization
Can, will. No schizotech will ever be found but neither will it be necessary.

>>11669711
lol the solar system is 100% possible to colonize with chemical rockets, though nuke rockets would make it easier.

>>11669723
Unless you have hundreds of thousands of nukes that's not enough delta V for an interstellar mission in less than a lifetime.

>>11669718
Dude, we won't even make it to mars. Maybe we will get a colony on the moon, but that will only be for highly trained astronauts. With conventional travel methods it's just not feasible for anyone except astronauts.

>>11669740
Why do an interstellar mission? The Solar system is massive and has tons of resources to exploit.

>>11669745
>Dude, we won't even make it to mars.
By all means, explain how you derived this conclusion.

11669745
Grotesque.

>>11669740
What are you gonna do nigger, discover FTL tomorrow? Feel free to try you dumb fuck. Some endeavors cannot be done in one lifetime, getting to another star is one of them. Doesn't mean no one will ever try or ever succeed.

>>11669749
We are too slow to even explore the solar system.

>>11669756
Even without FTL I'd rather use fusion torches that use less scarce fuel. A hydrogen fusion ship that can refuel in a star's corona is a much better option for a generation ark.

>>11669707
It seems like preventing the main habitations from getting crushed would be more difficult than dealing with vacuum.

Tensile strength is easier to design for than compressile strength.

>>11669761
Sure, discover it. We don't have any feasible physics for those either.

>>11669758
No. Mars can be reached in reasonable time using mere chemical engines. If people of the 17th century were willing to travel for 6 months to sail from Europe to India, then travelers to Mars can handle the 5 month trip.

>>11669762
Crushed by what exactly? Certainly not lunar-tier gravity, so the 1.45atm pressure? Just because it's more than Earth doesn't make it particularly daunting.

Public Notice of Cameron County Order to Temporarily Close State Highway 4 and Boca Chica Beach
Primary Date May 13, 2020 9:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m. Closure Cancelled
Backup Date May 14, 2020 9:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date May 15, 2020 9:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m. Closure Scheduled
Primary Date May 16, 2020 6:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date May 17, 2020 6:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date May 18, 2020 6:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. Closure Scheduled

Really weird time frames for starship right now. They canceled today to do more work but next window for possible engine and pressure tests should happen tomorrow morning after today was scrubbed.

>>11669768
> We don't have any feasible physics for those either
Stars don't emit hydrogen? Coronal mag scoops and better heat shielding are engineering, not physics. At the scale of an interstellar ark you might as well use a rotating hollow asteroid for your ship, so there's your shielding.

>>11669784
I don't give a shit about your mag scoop meme. All fusion engines that don't operate by literal atomic bomb are not operating according by demonstrated physics. You will not have fusion torch drives in your lifetime.

>>11669791
Betcha 50 bucks you're wrong.

I bet a functional prototype exists within 10 years

>>11669800
Sure, I'd love to be wrong. In the meantime I'm going to focus on things that should work in principle without making assumptions that could easily miss the mark by orders of magnitude.

>>11669791
Sheared flow Z-pinch is making progress, with something actually compact enough to use as a space drive. There's been research at the University of Washington and a commercial spinoff in Seattle. I would bet Q = 10 by 2040.

>>11669808
my nigga, Uri is on to something for sure

>>11669713
Saturn's moons are mostly water ice, in fact Saturn's moons as a whole have the most purely water ice surfaces of any objects in the solar system. You'd be better off just digging under the ice on Titan, going to the bottom of the subsurface global ocean, and digging up rock from the mantle.

>>11669778
Oh.

Wiki was telling the atmosphere was seven times as dense, I was expecting it be a lot worse.

That'd definitely be manageable, although still a bit of a pain.

>>11669711
>wait for breakthroughs that allow literally anything instead of doing what we can with what we've already got
>implying that what we've already got wouldn't be enough to colonize the Moon, Mars, and Asteroids, and from there colonize the entire solar system
bad thinking, anon. thinking like that is what makes you stagnate.

>>11669808
>20 years away

any good games about colonizing mars? need something to kill the time now that classes are done

>>11669745
>>11669753
He presumes Starship will fail.

>>11669824
7 times is mass per area, but you have to account for the much lower gravity

>>11669740
You don't need to do anything in a human lifetime. Once we have entire communities, and entire nation's worth of people and industry living and working in rotating space habitats, you can just send those habitats off to other stars on 1000 year interstellar intercept trajectories using Orion drives and just have everyone live as they already were, except between stars instead of around the Sun. The only difference would be no solar power, and even without fusion available the fuel mass requirements using fission reactors would be totally feasible.

>>11669740
>Unless you have hundreds of thousands of nukes
They would have a million 10 kT yield nuclear charges per orbital habitat, and we'd send a thousand habitats/factory ships at a time, per star.

>>11669838
Doom

>>11669838
There are quite a few games about colonizing mars but I have no idea how many are good, search mars on hullo's channel he's played most of them

>>11669849
kek

>>11669856
is surviving mars worth the 30 bucks?

>>11669846
Link them up, launch a planet's surface area worth of habitats in every flight in explosive nuclear synchronicity. Comfy.

>>11669858
Hullo's played it, I'd look there. All I know is it looks neat.

>>11669862
maybe ill pirate until the steam summer sale

>>11669761
>science fiction
Enjoy never doing anything ever, I guess. I'll be on Mars etc with the rest of the real humans living in the real world, space.

>>11669872
Mars is a necessary first step. I can't see anyone allowing nuclear launches from Earth, but Mars is already lifeless rock.

>>11669874
Nuclear launch is a meme. Can't do it on Earth, no reason to do it on Mars because you can trivially make a chem tug to do any surface to orbit back to surface job, including putting that nuclear vessel into orbit.

>>11669800
>>11669784
Scooping the corona makes no sense, why would you even want to do that. First of all hydrogen is not a useful fusion fuel and won't be for a LONG while after we achieve Q =>100 fusion with D-D fuel, because pure hydrogen fusion is actually a complex multi-step process depending on the decay of He-2 into H-2 in the tiny fraction of a nanosecond that He-2 exists before splitting back into two protons. Second, the corona just isn't that dense, even with a magnetic scoop, and being that close to a star introduces a bunch of thermal headaches you don't want to have to deal with.

What stands for prime fusion fuel sources are the small icy moons of gas giant planets, and Mars-sized planets where deuterium becomes isotopically enriched as light water naturally escapes into space faster than heavy water. These worlds all have low gravity, an obvious requirement, and lots of deuterium fuel. The icy moons have more total, but it's much more concentrated on your dry Mars-analog planets.

>>11669838
Get Ksp and add Umbra Space Industries colonization mod. You can also add Ksp Interstellar if you want, makes for a more fun late game IMO since you don't have to keep making huge chemical rockets to service your little bases on Mun and Duna etc.

>>11669881
>no reason to do it on Mars because you can trivially make a chem tug to do any surface to orbit back to surface job, including putting that nuclear vessel into orbit.
This. Using some rough maths. A Martian SSTO using 37 methalox F-1B engines can carry 6224 metric tons to LMO and then land back on the Martian surface without refueling.

>>11669859
You could link them or you could just have them fly in a loose formation and shuttle between the two in smaller craft, it'd help keep them independent enough that should one have a major issue you could just depopulate it and recycle it for material to rebuild into a new habitat (assuming the problem were that severe) via one of the factory ships. Getting between each ship even if they were all separated by a million kilometers minimum would be very easy, you'd just get lobbed via electromagnetic track in the direction of the destination ship and slow down on approach for docking. Basically zero minimum delta V requirement.

>>11669885
already have ksp
thanks for the info though, but im looking more for a strategy/city builder rather than a rocket builder/simulator

>>11669874
Mars is necessary because it has all the volatiles and 100% vital elements (phosphorouusss) we need to sustain a human colony, plus low gravity making SSTO easy and a thin atmosphere making return from orbit trivial (you hardly even need TPS because the low Mars orbital velocities are so slow).

>>11669888
I did some more involved math a while back because I'm autistic, and simply put SpaceX could use nothing but technology they already have/will have in 6 months and they could build a stainless steel Mars SSTO powered by Raptors that could put 1,300,000 kilograms into orbit per launch and return, easy peasy.

>>11669901
>you were born at the right time to see Mars become an American forge world

>>11669399
Genetically engineered spacefurries that are subservient to human BVLLS

>>11669922
What a time to be alive

Iran needs to step up their spaceflight game.

>>11669580
Have they said anything about the logistics of how they plan to do 3x launches per ship per day?

The landing maneuver they showed off last year had the ass end of the Starship kicking out pretty hard and I'd imagine they wouldn't want to try and land it anywhere near the launch complex. Even if they can safely and reliably get Superheavy to land on the launchpad, how are they going to move the upper stage back and get it reattached in any reasonable amount of time? Am I just significantly underestimating the rotational span of a fuckoff massive crane where the Starship could land a (relatively) safe distance away from the booster and still still be within the reach of the crane?

>>11669976
They'll just use magnetic docking clamps. Lower SS to a meter above SH and cut engines. Let Newton and Maxwell do the rest.

>>11669858
>>11669862
Surviving Mars is really cool in concept but it is abysmally boring in practice. Not only is the game itself super slowly paced (which isn't inherently bad for a comfy colonization sim), but the AI for both the robots and the citizens are really terrible at moving around and changing jobs, for example. If you've played Tropico you'll probably recognize the way the jobs are structured and it's just really finicky to try and get people moved around to doing work that you need done.

It otherwise looks nice and has a decent level of accuracy without getting too bogged down in the minutia. Probably worth a pirate or a steep discount, but I didn't have much fun with it.

>>11669641
The Apollo project had nothing to do with ICBM development.
There were never proposals to use the Saturn V for anything other than hauling large payloads into orbit.

Is manual docking really this easy?

>>11670006
It's high stakes. If you mess up you kill yourself and everyone else involved and destroy both docking partners. Imagine the ISS deorbiting with a full crew on board because some shitty pilot crashed into it and wrecked the egress port.

>>11670009
I understand that much, but still seems a lot less complicated then I would of assumed it to be.

>>11670009
>the ISS deorbiting with a full crew on board
Could that much delta-v even be imparted by a failed docking?

>>11670025
The ISS needs periodic reboosts and it can't do that if the fuel truck breaks the delivery port and the tanks run dry.

>>11669976
100 meters would be plenty of distance, Starship/SHB lands almost empty of propellant anyway so any failure would look like a Falcon 9 landing failure, ie a pop and a small fireball but no real damage to anything outside of a 20 meter radius. Only the Super Heavy Booster needs to actually be re-flown rapidly, since Starship takes a day for the orbit to align with the landing pad anyway. SHB could land on a concrete pad a hundred meters from the launch stool, be picked up by a large overhead crane on tracks, and scooted over to the launch pad to be remounted, refilled, and reflown.

>>11670025
No, that anon is speaking out of his rectum.

>>11670057
Crew Dragon wouldn't be doing the boosts, though, the relevant port is on a Russian module. Even should it be damaged, and not repaired or substituted for by the time orbital decay becomes critical, there's an escape Soyuz capsule on board.

>>11670025
I thought maybe he meant the crew would opt for an autosacrifice rather than an undignified slow death from starvation or asphyxia

>>11670057
>>11670076
There are over six docking ports on the ISS, they can reboost with any attached vehicle, and they would still have over a year to fix the problem before deorbiting. Look at how slowly it decays and it used to be kept at a height of 350 km without issue.

https://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx

I'm a certified aircraft dispatcher, are there any positions in Spacex or blue origin that would use my skills?

>>11669705
Previously thread was linked in the op, and the second to last post in that thread was a link to this one, posted immediately after this thread was made.

okay but actually tho
what is the best engine with a twr >5

>>11670145
Spacex janny

>>11670183
F-1

>>11670183
Raptor

>>11670241
Big =/= good, F-1 had shitty Isp and shitty chamber pressure, and it was extremely expensive. Four Raptors have more thrust than an F-1, have less mass, and obviously are more efficient, as well as being way cheaper and also relightable in flight

>>11670268
When Raptors put a Starship on the moon I'll concede that.

>2 weeks
bros...

>>11670281
Can't wait

>>11670183
>>11670241
>>11670268
Not clear in retrospect, but i meant including the more experimental ideas like NERVA and dumbo.
Personally I think pulsed fusion engines like THIO MTF have crazy potential, especially with propellant injection. 5 MW/KG doens't seem impossible with some near future tech, and that's practically a torch drive.

>>11670281
>>11670292
OwO what's this

>>11670281
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J-FOalYVCk

>>11670306
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist3.php#thiomtf
>over 1N/kg at 44,000kg
>77,000s Isp
That's a torchship if it works.

>>11670292

>>11670323
Indeed
I talked to the professor that runs the fusion lab at my college who knows the designer of that personally, and he seemed cautiously optimistic about it.

>>11670350
It seems that the "boom in the middle, flow at the edge" model is common to THIO MTF and the sheared flow Z pinch drive work. Convergent behaviors like that are usually a good sign that the engineering is getting closer.

>>11670006
The sim doesn't take spherical gravity into account. Normally you can't just go straight to the docking port.

>>11669707
I wonder if you could skydive from Titan orbit with a spacesuit and minimal heat shielding

>>11670003

He's probably referring to the fact that the original proposal for a moon mission was just to nuke the lunar north pole with like 100MT

>>11670159
There was already a new /sfg/ thread in the catalog that OP didn't check for, and that other OP didn't announce it in the previous thread, so a lot of people didn't notice it.
Two OPs, two faggots.

>>11670323
Wait, the reactor is a bunch of railguns...

>>11670462
as long as you don't a significant fraction of an orbit to approach, it's fine
an orbit at the ISS is uh... 90 minutes?

Speaking of space planes, China may actually launch one in the next week or two.

>Call for ships AIS trackers' assistance: please help look in the next few days if the Chinese tracking ship Yuan Wang 7 stops off the western African coast near Namibia. This would be huge proof to an elusive Chinese spaceplane mission that might happen within the next 1-2 weeks.
https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1260628974767505408

Pic related. It looks like it's their version of the X-37B.

>>11670837
Ceremony from a couple of weeks ago at the launch site.

>>11670837
Mission patch

How has SpaceX impacted the Russian space program?
And how close are the chinks to stealing everything?

>>11670852
>And how close are the chinks to stealing everything?
Memes only. Every time chinks make something vaguely resembling existing tech everyone starts raving about muh spies but the reality is most of the time it's appearance before performance. When chinks have a full flow staged combustion methalox engine and a Starship competitor with minimal lead time you can assume they stole something worthwhile, until then no.

>How has SpaceX impacted the Russian space program?
Well Proton's dead, but it would've been shit without SpaceX's help. They've caused a shitton of seethe and that may light a fire under some asses.

>>11670827
I agree it wouldn't change the sim too much, but it would change: https://twitter.com/MaxFagin/status/1260316782935584768

>>11670865
Yeah chinks can't make proper jet engines let alone rockets, but i'm still curious about their space program, they say they want to put a man on the moon but none of their rockets looks up to the task.
As for the Proton, what are the Russians going to use to replace it? Or are they going to keep using the fuck ugly Soyuz?

>>11670876
>they say they want to put a man on the moon but none of their rockets looks up to the task.
The Long March 9 should become operational during the 2030s.

>>11670876
Unless something changes real fast, chinks are decades away from putting humans on the moon, assuming they don't just start buying Starship seats at some point. LM9 hasn't even started development and it will look like a bad joke by the time it does.

Russia won't stop using Soyuz until they stop launching anything altogether kek, it's been the one saving grace of their space program since forever. Angara family is supposed to replace proton.

>>11669372
anime lovers and spaceflight.

CRINGE.

>>11670888
I doubt it’s even legal to let Chinese onto it

>>11670876
Soyuz is a good rocket but it’s really outdated. The core stage is unironically the world’s first ICBM from the late 50’s

>>11670920
Even the core stage has had a few upgrades. But why fix what isn't broken? It works like a motherfucker for putting shit into LEO.

>>11670911
As long as there's no tech sharing and no use of govt infrastructure I can't see how there would be a legal barrier, but SpaceX wouldn't do it without govt approval due to their ties to NASA and the military.

That said, getting chinks hooked on American rockets and not developing their own seems like a strategic positive. I'd take that tradeoff for chinks on the moon in the US' position.

>>11670928
China will develop capability regardless. They're not stupid.

>>11670308
New movie from the Akira driector
https://youtu.be/GEOveeZuor0

>>11670942
LM9 will be irrelevant over a decade prior to its first flight. No question in my mind it gets canceled, just a matter of whether it's replaced with something better or nothing at all.

>>11669665
saved

>>11670975
Agreed LM9 is DOA and surely will be replaced. Chinks will not rely to others for any kind of space access, USA last decade is too big of an example.

>>11670921
It is a small and expensive rocket even at russian worker salaries they sell these at a price of a falcon9 while the rocket has 1/3 the capability

>big dumb booster
>pressure-fed, no turbopump needed
>no cryogenics, no LOX, just hydrogen peroxide + kerosene at the environment temperature
>no active nozzle cooling, only ablative cooling
>no gimbaling on first two stages, liquid injection for steering
>970t at liftoff for 17t on LEO
>a literal WAAAGH! rocket
Did Andrew Beal's rockets have real chance to be cheap? How come nobody tried it again?

I think pressure-fed engines could also be pulse modulated and throttled to very low thrust without losing the efficiency, unlike engines with turbopumps. Not sure about an engine of that scale though.

>>11671029
Falcon 1's first stage was pressure-fed and used ablative cooling too. It was gimbaled though.

>>11670942
>They're not stupid.

They’re communists so they are stupid.

>>11671050
*Second stage, not first.

>>11671052
Chinese elites realized back in the 80s that communism is bullshit. Now they are cutthroat capitalists with communist facade.

>>11671057
Yeah whatever bullshit you call authoritarianism is bad

>>11671057
Actually, more like plain old fascists

>>11671057
Don't kid yourself. Communism has always been the party elite plundering the peasants at gunpoint.

>>11671050
>>11671053
It wasn't gimbaled either, the attitude was controlled with cold gas helium thrusters

>>11671060
Fascism might be the better term now. It’s an authoritarian surveillance state with elements of nationalism that tolerates religion while attempting to mold it to be compatible with their own ideals and maintains re-education camps with the intention of purging undesired minorities.
But who cares what the differences are? It’s bad either way

>>11671052
>>11671057
>>11671059
>>11671060
>>11671061
NOT /SFG/ RELATED, DON'T SHIT UP THE THREAD AGAIN

>>11671061
> Communism has always been the party elite plundering the peasants at gunpoint.

The closest a “communist” movement came to subverting this stereotype was the insane omnicidal Khmer Rouge, who hated anyone who wasn’t a poor peasant and tried to force everyone to live like said poor peasants, and far outdid the Nazis in terms of the percentage of the population they killed.

>>11671067
Sorry.
Would Mongolia be a good place to launch rockets from?

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/14/21257849/elon-musk-boring-company-las-vegas-tunnel-finished-digging

>>11670888
>chinks are decades away from putting humans on the moon
The US took less than two decades to go from no rockets to man on the moon, and that was 50 years ago. If China attacked it with the same energy they could do it, but obviously they have no reason to chase that goal with the same space race vigor

>>11671079
Bajkonur equivalent orbital-wise I guess, same latitudes. Major problem would be infrastructure, south is all desert and north is all mountains.

>>11671079
meh, it's relatively far from the equator, and it's landlocked, so you can't throw your rocket stages in the sea like a responsible person.

can I just say, the two coolest sounding space exploration adjacent terms are "Rocketdyne" and "Baikonur Cosmodrome"
Other things are made cool by association with their functions, but those two just sound cool on their own

>>11671080
Betty fast.

>>11670968
wrong

>>11670308
The Wings of Honneamise

>>11671121
lots of the old Space Race era stuff has really cool names
Wernher von Braun, Aerojet, Rocketdyne, Baikonur Cosmodrome, Sergei Korolev

>>11669968
Considering they launched a satellite from a camper trailer i say they are doing just fine.
There are nations richer and more educated that dont even have their own rockers.

>>11671310
I feel bad for Iran. They should be a France-tier global power, but they keep getting cucked by their government (well, by the US and Israel, but...).

>>11670993
Yeah but it's got to be 10x easier to manufacture due to using the pioneering technique of hitting it with the hammer until it resembles the drawing, at least to the drunk supervisor.

>>11671336
>Shithole theocracy is so based guys

>>11671352
If Iran was allowed to export their culture it would be just as dominant as France. Like I said, their government is retarded, but their poets and film makers and artists are some of the best in the world.

11671361
I don't even know what to call this disease.

11671361
Most retarded thing I've read in a while

>>11671310
They launched a 3U cubesat they managed to get from Mexicans somehow. They don't have access to most of the space tech, and can't trade with most of the world, their science and tech is being suppressed by the US. They aren't doing fine, anon.

>>11671310
Iranians might be not rich, but they are well educated. There's a reason US Iranians are concentrated in Tehrangeles.

>>11671336
Yeah, "by their government". Which is a result of the US meddling in their affairs, and being further supported by refusing to trade.

>>11671371
>>11671375
How come there's so many redditors ITT? This thread is constant virtue signaling, you're worse than sjws back in the time

>not supporting my preferred sandnigger subhumans is reddit
No.

>>11671361
>If Iran was allowed to export their culture
There are already a lot of people cutting other guys heads.
I'd say the export has been successful.

>>11671399
you're thinking of Saudi Arabia

>>11671398
Reddit is this perpetural circlejerk about 2D perception of armchair geopolitics I see in this fucking thread every day

>>11671371
>>11671375
>>11671399
Americans are so fucking ignorant of other cultures. There are single Iranian film makers who have released more works of film art alone than the entirety of America's cinematic export has produced for 50 years.
Educate yourselves.

>>11671403
>laughing at you for hyperbolically pumping up some goatfuckers scrawling in the sand as cultural elite is geopolitics
No, you're just retarded. And you're the one who brought that shit up in the first place.

>>11671410
>And you're the one who brought that shit up in the first place.
No I didn't

>spaceflight general
>autists arguing about persian filmmakers
/sci/

>>11671409
If sheer volume is your defence I suggest going to a fanfiction archive and realizing the folly of your methodology

>>11669968

It's not easy when you're not only prohibited from procuring crucial components from foreign contractors, but also subject to constant hacking and electronic warfare

>>11671336

The disparity between the way Iranians and Saudis are treated by the west is disgraceful.

>>11671421
>The disparity between the way Iranians and Saudis are treated by the west is disgraceful.
Correct. Both should be glassed.

>>11671426
Extraordinarily based.

>>11671418
Kiarostami was genius
RIP

What is the most interesting and game changing near term space flight technology /sfg/?

>>11671457
Open cycle droplet radiators
X-ray pulsar navigation
Laser communications
Terrain relative navigation, both for EDL and surface ops

>>11671457
Starlink® by Elon™

>>11671466
Are droplet radiators really practical? Seems like burns, maneuvering, basic station etc would fuck them right up.

>>11671491
station keeping*

>>11671457
Well the switch from superheavy lifters being ultra-expensive once in a lifetime government flex projects to being mundane mass production vehicles will radically change how operations in Space go. Starship and (hopefully) New Armstrong will see to that. I'm also pretty interested in rotating pulse detonation rockets, they promise a much higher theoretical efficiency for relatively acceptable reduction in TWR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws4kbgfpKCw

>>11671491
If you're referring to the coolant loss - they are zero loss due to an electrostatic catcher on the receiving end.

>>11671516
>pulse detonation: piss easy
>rotating detonation: we've got top men working on the problem
Why not just put a regular pulse detonation rocket on a shock like some super-miniaturized orion

>>11671457
Cheap and large lifters causing a shift from the current "meta" of aerospace engineering where it focuses solely on being as light (and expensive) as possible to a more general engineering philosophy. Lots more can be done if parts were allowed to be alittle heavier and capable.

>>11671516
>I'm also pretty interested in rotating pulse detonation rockets, they promise a much higher theoretical efficiency for relatively acceptable reduction in TWR.
I don't buy it. Where does the "much higher" efficiency comes from? The energy of a chemical reaction is fixed and known, you can't jump higher than that. RDEs promise about a 5% higher Isp, which is very nice but not enough to make them a game changing tech. Another one is that they provide the pressure gradient which can be used for pumping the components, and don't need turbopumps to be relatively efficient (but still less efficient than traditional turbopump engines, and still can benefit from a turbopump). RDEs are a meme born by the media and became a fetish for some. They are not a magic technology, really.

>>11671524
Zero losses under ideal conditions though, it's a fine grained process which doesn't seem like it would stand up well to disturbances. I suppose it'll be fine if you have backup heatsinks.

what will space combat look like? will it be more missiles? lasers? unmanned or manned? what kind of ranges, thousands or millions or billions of km? is stealth possible?

>>11671361
The President of Iran has a twitter account.
No one's cutting off their ability to post things online.
There just isn't interest.
https://twitter.com/hassanrouhani
>>11671409
>so fucking ignorant of other cultures
>from the anon claiming theirs is the best

>>11671529
Imagine the BRAP

>>11669556
Don’t denounce the dude who manages to keep it up. At least there’s consistency

>>11671549
Missiles for bulk damage and lasers to "blind" the enemy sensors. Stealth is probably possible, if the enemy doesn't know where to look

>>11671546
>doesn't seem like it would stand up well to disturbances
How so? It all depends on the catcher configuration. Droplets are being charged and collected with a mesh with the opposing charge. It's not very hard. In fact, Russians (who probably came closer than anyone to implement a droplet radiator) demonstrated a zero loss system both in several ISS experiments and in a tech demo on Earth in a vacuum camera, and developed a working but unflown LDR for their NEP tug (which later got cancelled because Roscosmos can't get shit done nowadays). IIRC catching the coolant wasn't the main issue or even a visible one. The main one was getting it reliably emit the droplets of the same target size at the same target rate (somewhat surprising).

>>11671549
>>11671549
>missiles or lasers, manned or unmanned, range of whatever
Kind of impossible to say because of how many factors could be involved. Everything has its place. I tend to think missiles and lasers will both be in an awkward spot when it comes to taking on hard targets as missiles are susceptible to point defence while lasers struggle with armor and distance. Kinetics are bretty good.

>is stealth possible
You'll need at least a cold idle (so no personnel) and no active maneuvering.

>>11671578
>which later got cancelled
It isn't cancelled, the spacecraft developer just lost the contract because of the delay, the nuclear agency is doing fine. The key components (radiator, thrusters, base bus, most of the reactor) are already developed, I doubt they'll just stop midway.

>The main one was getting it reliably emit the droplets of the same target size at the same target rate (somewhat surprising)
That's because they used an unconventional coolant to make it fit the thermal profile and mass limitations. 4MW of thermal output isn't something to fool around with in space.

>>11671524
vapor pressure of the coolant means you have to have some losses, however negligible they are.
And they start becoming non-negligible when you start going really hot

>>11671612
They used an unconventional coolant because of precisely that. I can look for their tech papers and reports, they are all in Russian obviously though.

>>11671538
I agree with this.
The ounce-autism is whats fucking up everything.
The iss is a good example, there's no reason why some glorified soda cans need to cost as much as they do.
Building thicker walls to increase moe and using triple redundant life support means you dont have to spend 6 gorillion dollars validating every nut and bolt going into your machinery.

it's happening

>>11671627
>Building thicker walls to increase moe
thicc station waifus confirmed

>>11671634
Really wish they figured out that retarded camera stabilization effect.

Anyone have a reliable source on how much DeltaV it takes to reach low Martian orbit from the Martian surface? I'm getting values from 3.8 to 5.8 km/s from various sources and I'm not sure which is more correct.

>>11671652
I have notifications turned on for NSF's youtube, and if they're not live then nothing interesting is happening

>>11671662
I never log into my google account unless I'm checking my mail. Fuck that shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9EVeHqizY

>>11670842
>a big F on a red background
wew

>>11671529
They aren't very efficient, and they have even worse thrust to weight ratio. In a pulse detonation engine the detonation occurs some distance form the actual thrust plate of the engine, limiting Isp improvement over a normal deflagration engine. In a rotating detonation engine the detonation wave is pressed right up against the thrust plate, maximizing transfer of force and therefore making the most of the efficiency gains.

If you are using anything other than rotating detonation you'd be better off using conventional rocket engines. Only rotating detonation has the potential to produce significant gains over conventional rockets, using chemical propellants.

>>11671541
>Where does the "much higher" efficiency comes from?
It's fundamentally a different combustion cycle, more area inside the curve. Simply put, more of the chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy than to wasted heat (rotation and vibration of exhaust molecules). This is because instead of taking its sweet time to burn, the reaction happens almost instantly, resulting in extremely high peak pressures.

>>11671541
>RDEs promise about a 5% higher Isp
20%, actually. Methalox gives you ~450 Isp, hydrolox gives you ~550 Isp.

>>11671635
They'll even be prodded by large phallic Starships that put humans in them.

>>11671549
Electromagnetically launched vehicles with chemical propellants for maneuvering and a payload of several kilograms of dense metal pellets, fired ahead of the vehicle in a cloud.

The cloud eats your target's wiffle shielding, and the vehicle itself slams into it at ~2 km/s relative velocity, vaporizing most of it. Armaments won't carry actual explosives unless they're nuclear, chemicals simply don't have enough energy to make a difference at the impact velocities that can be generated.

>>11671658
Pretty sure Earth is only 6km/s.

>>11671616
All liquids have a vapor pressure, even liquid metals. This is why vapor deposition of aluminum onto plastic film works.

>>11671716
7 and change km/s for Earth orbit, it takes ~9 km/s to get there from the ground

>>11671699
I thought Hullo Man said about 35%? Hmm not sure now.

>>11671716
Bruh, Earth low orbit velocity is >7.5 km/s, and it takes 9 km/s of delta V to reach that when launching from the ground.

>>11671738
Bathroom tiles.

Starship SN5

>>11671699
if you subbed in PDE for raptors on starship/superheavy, how much payload could it lift to orbit

>>11671724
The addiotional dV to account for loses, right?

>>11671747
wrong pic dammit, it is SN6

Does anyone here work at SpaceX? Just how shitty is the "extra hours and weekends" part? How many hours a week do you work? (Also what is your job function?)

>>11671750
it wouldn't help Super Heavy, that's just a lifter and thrust area density is king
it might help Starship? not by much

>>11671658
Mars is 38% gravity with much thinner atmosphere. Earth's atmosphere reduces dV budget by ~10%. So with Mars atmosphere being 1/100 of Earth, that's additional -10 requirement dV. This is just a simple/rough estimate. LEO for earth requires 9.4 km/s. x 0.38 = 3.57 - 10% = 3.2 km/s.

>>11671743
If it's actually 35% that would be insane, methalox would produce 513 Isp and hydrolox would produce 621 Isp.

With those numbers Starship would have 13.6 km/s in the tanks without payload, and 8 km/s with 200 tons of payload.
A hydrolox vehicle with a 90% propellant mass ratio would have 14 km/s to work with. It'd have 9.8 km/s with an 80% mass ratio, enough to comfortably do SSTO (of course you'd need to pack all your engines, structure, and reusability hardware, eg heat shield and legs etc, into that to make it work, so still shitty).
On the flip side, a methalox stage with an 85% mass ratio could do SSTO, too. It'd be a lot easier to get 85% ratio using methalox than an 80% ratio using hydrolox, and the TPS would be a lot lighter too.

>>11671675

>>11671768
Plus isn't RDE basically a cylindrical aerospike without the gimbaling problems? I could definitely see a VentureStar type ship going with them.

>>11671750
>if you subbed in PDE for raptors on starship/superheavy, how much payload could it lift to orbit
PDE is not good. You'd need RDE, and high thrust RDE at that. Delta V of both stages would go up a lot, but actual real world performance would probably drop due to the reduced TWR, if the thing could even get off the ground in the first place.

I'm gonna imagine we leave Super Heavy alone, and we sub out the three Raptor Vac on Starship for six RDEs, plus the three normal Raptors in the middle for landings etc. I'm also going to imagine that despite having been scaled up, the RDEs have half the thrust to weight ratio of Raptor Vac, and half the thrust. Basically stage thrust remains the same but engine mass goes up by 50%, basically an increase in stage mass of 3 tons (negligible).

Stage thrust (12,000 kN) does not change, but average stage Isp does. 1/2 the thrust is coming from the RDEs at 456 Isp, 1/2 from the Raptors at 355 Isp, for an average thrust at stage sep of 405.5 Isp. After half of the propellant is burned the Raptors switch off, bringing the stage Isp to 456, and the RDEs finish the burn. Starship, with a 100 ton payload, gets 8730 m/s in this arrangement. Give me a moment and I'll find the payload mass that drops the delta V to 6.5 km/s (assumed minimum to reach orbit after stage sep).

>>11671806
make sure the burn time doesn't dramatically increase, or the new payload figure is imaginary

>>11671817
He halved the RPDE's thrust but doubled the number of them, the trust will be identical to 3 VacRaptors. Assuming of course that RPDEs must by necessity be half as powerful as equivalently sized normal rockets.

>>11671824
if the ISP has increased but the thrust is the same then the burn time has increased
he needs to increase the thrust to the same degree that the ISP has increased

>>11671722
It is negligible for the coolant they use, even at high temperatures. TEM's radiator is being designed for 30 years of continuous operation at 383K, or at least they claim so. I can only find the requirements in Russian in public access, so I don't have a source for the composition of the vacuum grease they use as a coolant.

>>11671699
Alright, 20% is a lot. I supposed that "deflagration" engines are already pretty efficient to start with.

>>11671786
>Plus isn't RDE basically a cylindrical aerospike without the gimbaling problems?
No, not really.

>>11671826
>he needs to increase the thrust to the same degree that the ISP has increased
No, you just need to have the thrust the same. Propellant consumption has gone down in this scenario per unit impulse. For burns that take up the entire delta V budget you're right, but I haven't got to that point yet, because I had to go to the bathroom to blow shit out my asshole.

>>11671768
So my methalox airbreathing ssto might actually be a possibility after all

>>11671848
They are, but the slow burning leads to kinetic motion of the exhaust particles that cannot be easily converted to exhaust velocity (rotation and vibration are useless, only translation can be converted to columnated kinetic motion via a nozzle).

>>11671860
yes, propellant consumption has gone down, and you need to keep burntime the same or you're going to have increased gravity losses trying to max out payload to LEO
>>11671863
propalox RDE SSTO but still just do a TSTO, it's better

>>11671418
What else do you expect on an aryan kinomatography forum?

>>11671675
Compressed/spedup cause fucking 10 minute long

>>11671881
Orange Rocket has gotta be the slowest fucking rocket ever if the tower yeet takes that long.

>>11671881

>>11671886
it absolutely is the slowest fucking rocket ever
it desperately needs another two RS-25 on the core stage, but there's not enough room under the VAB for that

>>11671886
aka the most efficient
the slower you burn your fuel with the same thrust, the more efficient you are

>>11671898
It can barely lift jack shit even with extended SRBs. It's such a fucking dead end.

>>11671869
SSTO has the nice property of not needing to leave anything behind in questionably friendly spaceports, or not needing to ship your first stage halfway around the world if you start doing returns to places you didn't lift off from, both of which have military applications for space travel to/from active combat zones. It's not horizontal-liftoff but it's a hell of a lot closer to airplane mode than we get today.

>>11671911
>It can barely lift jack shit even with extended SRBs.
So basically the exact same problem the Shuttle had putting thing higher than LEO.

>>11671916
eventually you're just going to have to trust the spaceport to drop you off at 80 km and 2 km/s with their superheavy booster and then continue on from there
going down to the planet in the first place was probably a mistake

>>11671943
>eventually you're just going to have to trust the spaceport to drop you off at 80 km and 2 km/s with their superheavy booster and then continue on from there
That implies a global or at least national standard for super heavy high diameter booster interface. We're a ways off from that yet.

>>11671761
One SpaceX employee posted here when the first starship blew up and leaked some info. I think that's it.

>>11671806
Cont.

So given that we want 6.5 km/s in the tanks after gravity losses, Starship with this engine arrangement can carry a 225 ton payload into LEO with a total stage delta V at stage separation of 6,944 m/s. The additional burn time required to empty the tanks given the more efficient RDEs means that we need that extra ~400 m/s to allow us to 'loft' the trajectory and burn at a nose-up angle early on, giving us the time necessary to accelerate to orbit. Using RDE technology therefore lets Starship place 2.25 times as much payload into orbit (I've ignored the Booster this whole time because it's so powerful that increasing the maximum mass of Starship from ~1500 tons to ~1625 tons makes no significant difference; the Booster could be stretched a little and the engine packing changed to squeeze just one more engine in and it'd be like no change to Starship's mass had been made at all).

Anyway, the big deal with this change is the delta V of Starship after it's been refueled in LEO. Right off the bat, it only takes 6 flights to refill Starship completely, instead of 9 to 13 (depending on where exactly between 100 and 150 tons payload Starship eventually falls). After being completely refilled, Starship is sitting in LEO with 7197 m/s of delta V despite pushing a 225 ton payload. From that point, it can go all the way to the surface of the Moon, drop off that payload mass, and (given its reduced dry mass) launch all the way back to an Earth intercept, after which it can aerobrake to land. Upon touching down on the Moon's surface, and before it unloads cargo, it still has 1527 m/s in the tanks. This means it has a total mass of 457.28 tons, including payload, dry mass, and propellant. After reducing its dry mass by more than 69%, this delta V jumps up to 3768 m/s, which is enough to comfortably get back to an Earth intercept with ~538 m/s to spare.

>>11671898
In terms of stage delta V, yes. In terms of real world performance, no. In terms of launch vehicle performance, HELL no. For a launch vehicle fighting gravity losses you want to blast through your propellant, and thus accelerate to orbit, as fast as possible. Switching to an option with more Isp but much worse TWR is actually a decrease in performance, hence why SLS gets so much less payload to orbit with its much more efficient engines than Saturn V.

>>11672002
How do launch vehicles control their attitude after they cut engines?

>>11671969
Not at all. Just have SpaceX (or whoever owns the big reusable rocket, but lets face it it's gonna be just SpaceX for a long while) fabricate the launch stools.

>>11671969
>global/national standard for high diameter booster interface.
Im hard

>>11671761
60 hours is standard in industry. If you are passionate about something, and not a lot of responsibilities (kids), SpaceX is right for it.

>>11672002
>For a launch vehicle fighting gravity losses you want to blast through your propellant, and thus accelerate to orbit, as fast as possible
That's what SRBs are for. It doesn't accelerate upwards all the time like on the webm

>>11672022
SRBs are absolutely horrible for this, though. Their thrust profile is a mess, and their unit cost is high.

>>11672018
Kids are great so SpaceX is cringe
Elon Musk has six of them anyway

>>11671990
I should clarify that the dry mass is being reduced from 325 tons to 100 tons with the removal of the 225 ton payload, and that the reason that whole mission profile is a big deal is that current Starship requires highly elliptical orbit refueling to reach the Moon and return, which requires fully fueling a Starship and a Tanker in LEO.
Basically, instead of going from 9-13 to 6 refueling flights for Moon missions, you'd actually be going from 18-26 refueling fights to 6. I should have mentioned that originally but oh well. Basically it's a fundamental increase in capability, assuming of course that RDEs become viable for this role, SpaceX picks up development of a large methalox RDE, and eventually rolls it into Starship, which is honestly doubtful just because of how far the tech needs to go first. Not much changes for Mars actually, since a single full refueling is enough to intercept Mars and land, after which refueling is required for return regardless of if you're using conventional rockets or RDEs. I suppose the propellant manufacturing requirements for return flights would be reduced, and with on-orbit transfer of payload you could push more to Mars in the first place, but it's not as drastic an improvement to transport logistics compared to Moon landings.

>>11671881
Imagine having launch races. It'll be like drag races, but with rockets that can pull 30 gees.

>>11671881
Those Falcon Heavy Booster ran way too low, didn't they.

>>11672006
You mean where they're pointing? Usually reaction control thrusters, basically very small and simple (and low efficiency) rocket engines pointed along three axes in both directions, which allow 3 axis movement control and rotational control in all directions. For smaller spacecraft with very fine-tuned steering requirements (telescopes and space probes and GPS satellites), reaction wheels are also used. These use a spinning mass to allow a motor to store momentum as well as transfer force into the body of the spacecraft as torque. Ever pull the trigger on a strong high-rpm drill and have it kick? That's angular momentum applying a torque to your wrist.

>>11672048
Why? They don't need that much for a re-entry slowdown and a landing burn.

>>11672022
SRB are shit, they're actually fairly expensive (and most of the cost is in fuel fabrication, so you can't even get away with a simple design), and their Isp is shit so they end up cutting out very quickly. The SLS stack has the most thrust of any rocket (except Starship), significantly more than Saturn V, except gets worse payload performance because of how low the thrust to weight ratios are on the core stage after booster sep and on the 2nd stage after stage sep. SLS is a booster-sustainer design, possibly the worst optimized launch vehicle architecture for achieving orbit. SLS would be significantly better off if the core stage were half as long and didn't ignite on the launch pad. You'd also need to swap out the solids for some kerolox boosters which would act like the Saturn V first stage, getting the stack high and fast, and allowing the RS-25 engines to actually take advantage of their efficiency without being hampered by needing to push a massive and significantly drained core stage tank.

>>11672064
Yeah but that wouldn't reuse all the Shuttle parts/contractors and so doesn't meet the real primary objective of the SLS program.

>>11672064
Why are SRBs even a real thing, then? I’ve used them in KSP a lot but even in-game their ISP is in the low 200’s so it seems generally advantageous to simply use a LRB.

>>11672075
No plumbing. Fire and forget.

>OneWeb founder Greg Wyler opens up after the company filed for Chapter 11 in March. "I still think OneWeb had and has tremendous value. But, the large-scale consumer broadband market is dead on arrival for satellite. It is niche at best.”

>>11672002
>>11672064
>hence why SLS gets so much less payload to orbit with its much more efficient engines than Saturn V
No. That's because SLS Block 1 is lighter than SV. (2500t vs ~3000t). Block 2 is supposed to weight and lift the same amount as SV.
>Switching to an option with more Isp but much worse TWR is actually a decrease in performance
SLS has better TWR as well. SV had notably bad TWR of 1.1.

>>11672064
SRBs trade the Isp for the thrust, that's what they are for. (I'm not claiming they are practical or something, just disputing the factual correctness)

>>11672081
>If I can't make money on satellite internet anymore, I'll do my best to make damn sure nobody else can!
Them grapes sure are high up there in LEO, they must be sour as fuck too.

>>11672075
Because solid motors are used in ballistic missiles, you don't want to lose the knowledge/capability to build them.

>>11672096
I’m not 100% sure but I think I heard they’re used in those missiles because they can sit in a silo for decades and still be good.

>>11672081
>I got myself entangled in an intricate web of meaningless and pointless contract bullshit that sunk my company, that must mean that what I was trying to do is impossible
lol, anybody could see his failure coming

>>11672100
That's why hypergolics is still sort of a thing too. Shelf life and stability at room temperature.

>>11672100
Yes. Russians also use hypergolics in addition, they are also storable and can be used after decades of being sealed in a maintenance-less transport container, and be on a continuous duty all these years, just like solids.

>>11672107
>hypergolics
storable propellants, anon
the fact that the common storables are hypergolic doesn't mean that all storables are hypergolic
storable hydrocarbons (butane with high test hydrogen peroxide is my favorite) exist as well

>>11672081
Still butthurt about Elon. Never bet against the Musk

>>11672018
What happens if I only work 50?

>>11672136
Don't get in the business of trying to change an industry. Go for something more normal.

>>11672139
Will they actually fire you for only 10 extra hours of overtime instead of 20?

>>11672144
employees have a large marginal cost.

>>11672160
That didn't answer the question.

>>11671675
Kek, that tiny as fuck secondstage falcon9 heavy with the roadster on looks just ridiculous next to the others.

>>11672184
In fairness the Saturn V and the Shuttle were two of the most powerful rockets to ever fly and the SLS is in the same ballpark. It would've been funny to add Starship to the comparison.

>>11672078
Fire and cross fingers, because if there's a problem you are FUCKED

>>11672198
Hybrid is better, if it's scalable up to that size.

>>11672184
FH really is a very alien rocket compared to all of those. It's a different kind of optimization.

>>11672084
>No. That's because SLS Block 1 is lighter than SV. (2500t vs ~3000t)
SLS is more efficient on every stage except the solids. If used in a more effective launch vehicle design of the same mass, it should place at least as much payload into LEO as the Saturn V could, despite being lighter.
>SLS has a better TWR as well
Only while the boosters are running. Besides, the Saturn V may have started off with a low TWR, but that quickly rose during flight.
>SRBs trade the Isp for the thrust
It's a shitty trade, because the SRBs provide a poopy impulse per kilogram and per dollar.

>>11672115
>high test hydrogen peroxide
Kinda storeable, but it decomposes continuously. If you are willing to continuously clean your peroxide and keep it above a minimum concentration it's okay, but for ballistic missiles nothing really beats a solid for fabricate-and-forget factor. Even storeable hypergolics have issues with tank and plumbing corrosion.

>>11672219
>It's a shitty trade, because the SRBs provide a poopy impulse per kilogram and per dollar.
They're optimized for contractor jobs per Newton.

>Iridium
>Orbcomm
>Globalstar
>Teledesic
>Skybridge
>Intelsat
>Speedcast
>OneWeb

you're next, Kuiper

>>11672202
It really isn't better in any way, if you're going to try for a hybrid you may as well go all the way and do bipropellant. Hybrid rocket problems include;
Fuel grain crack propagation
Difficulty of ignition
Very poor mixing of fuel and oxidizer
Uneven burning of fuel grain
Continuous change of fuel grain geometry during burn
Low specific impulse
Low maximum attainable thrust
And more. Seriously, hybrid rockets are objectively the worst rocket engine design. They fill no niche and do nothing as good as anything else, let alone actually do better than anything. If you want cheap, high thrust boosters, follow SpaceX's lead and design a decent kerolox gas-generator that costs less than a million dollars to build. It's clearly possible, Raptor already costs ~$1 million each and it's a FFSC engine that's still in development. If anyone really thinks it'd be impossible to build an ~8000 kN kerolox gas-generator powered engine, building off of the lessons learned from the F-1 engine, for one million dollars apiece or less, they're probably a whiny oldspace fag who doesn't want to work more than 2 hours a week and demands a salary of $250,000/year.

>>11671549
>>11671569
>>11671587
https://childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/

>>11672229
Correct, I'm not disputing that fact, I'm just raging against the machine.

>>11672248
Nammo has a really good hybrid booster, but it's probably never going to be put to use in anything apart from missiles and the odd sounding rocket now that Andøya got passed by on funding once again.
Full stop/reignite capabilities. Only release water vapor.

>>11672248
chose an easier propellant to work with than kerosene and it'd probably be even easier
one of the lighter hydrocarbons would be nice, propane or ethane

>>11672224
>Even storeable hypergolics have issues with tank and plumbing corrosion
Looking at how Russians successfully fired decomissioned ICBMs into space after standing on duty for (sometimes) 25+ years, I'd guess this is solvable. AFAIK their standard warranty for hydrazine/NT missiles is 25 years - fully fueled and ready to launch.

>>11672256
based

>>11672167
Probably not for that specifically, but if your work output can't match someone who works 60/70 hours, you're a dead weight. If you're a super genius and can do 80 hour work in 50 hours, great, but then you'll have change to do more with your genius time. But since you don't want to work more, Elon probably has no use for you.

>>11672270
Propane/NO2 fuel and stainless steel would probably be super cheap since you don't need cryogenics.

>>11672290
propane really, extremely sucks unless you're subcooling it to liquid oxygen temperatures

>>11672290
Ethanol or methanol would be better than propane.

>>11672256
CoaDE is heavily abstracted and sometimes what is there isn't implemented properly. It's alright, but an IRL ship with the time and resources could definitely do better than anything you could make there.

>>11672308
Of course warships designed by IRL engineers would do better

>>11669779
Backup Date May 14, 2020 9:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m. Closure Cancelled

RIP. Maybe tomorrow.

>>11671767
I guess that makes sense, but the formulation that's more common says that Mars' dV budget is 5.4 km/s ignoring atmospheric drag.

7.9 km/s * sqrt(M/R) * (1 + 1/TWR) = dV_orbit

Where M is the mass of a body in Earth masses, R is the radius of a body in Earth radii, and TWR is the thrust to weight ratio of a rocket in terms of amount of gravity a body has. But it feels like the value I'm getting is too high, because I wanted to calculate how much payload Starship can carry to and from the Martian surface as an SSTO, and 5.4 km/s is too high for it to work.

>>11672329
Mars is less than 25% of Earth’s mass. How the fuck does it take like 75% of the delta/v to orbit?

>>11672224
>>11672262
>>11672270
>>11672290
>>11672300
Let's not forget the OG chad of all rocket fuels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant#Lithium_and_fluorine

>>11672270
Probably propane, more efficient than kerosene, more dense than the lighter hydrocarbons, way easier to store even without cryogenic temperatures, self-pressurizing at room temperature, easy to ignite, doesn't produce significant coking, etc etc. If you're a big company with the resources and funding you can sub-cool your propane and oxygen and achieve a bulk density on par with kerosene at higher specific impulse, meaning much higher stage performance in terms of delta V AND thrust to weight ratio.

An 8000 kN sub-cooled propalox gas generator would be kino as fuck. Actually, forget the 8000 kN single engine, and instead mass produce ~2000 kN engines, since they'd probably get better thrust to weight ratio that way and possibly cheaper too. Cluster 4 of them and you have your virtual 8000 kN engine, cluster 7 in a slightly bigger footprint and you're getting 175% the thrust. Since these are optimized for boosters anyway it makes sense to go for the maximum thrust density per square meter of booster base area. Assuming each engine nozzle is 1.5 meters wide and you pack them in with a 25 cm gap between them, a cluster of 7 would have a maximum diameter from nozzle edge to opposite nozzle edge of 5 meters. That's the same as a Delta IV stage.

Building a liquid booster off of the dimensions of the Delta IV first stage, we're working with a cylinder ~40 meters tall and 5 meters wide. Given the bulk density of sub-cooled propalox is 1014 kg/m^3, and assuming a 90% volume usage (some gaseous volume is necessary in both tanks), that's 706,860 liters of propellant, which would have a mass of 716.756 tons, and would exert a weight force of ~7030 kN. This would be combined with the stage dry mass (assuming a ~10% mass fraction) to produce a total booster wet mass of 800 tons and a weight force of 7840 kN. The combined thrust of the seven engine cluster however is 14,000 kN, giving the booster a thrust to weight ratio of almost 1.8, making it VERY workable.

>>11672304
>>11672300
Important to note that this is because unless you're keeping the propane liquid via low temperature, you're keeping it liquid via pressure, which requires a much thicker and stronger tank, which rapes your dry mass and makes your stage delta V dive to the floor. The only exception is for very small rockets that have the benefit of scale making their tanks not need to be very thick at all, but in that case you're starting to deal with all the other factors that make small launch vehicles shitty.

>>11672339
Earth requires ~9500 m/s to orbit, not ~7.2 (as implied by your statement that 5400 m/s is 75% of Earth orbital launch delta V). You may only need to be going ~7.5 km/s to remain in orbit around Earth, but you end up wasting around 2 km/s on ascent just from gravity losses and atmospheric drag/efficiency losses (the former actually being the biggest factor for most launch vehicles).

>>11672096
>>11672075
For the STS, solid rocket boosters had lower development costs than liquid boosters did. There were other considerations, but that dominated.

>>11672346
Running math like this, it makes one wonder why anyone ever thought hydrolox was a good idea, let alone the autism if the space shuttle

>>11672419
IIRC most of the braindead parts of the Shuttle were either military requirements or vestiges of the full STS program.

>>11672290
http://pages.total.net/~launch/ss67b3.htm
This guy uses peroxide and gasoline

>>11672419
Because of the payload to higher/escape orbits.

>>11672290
>>11672433
see >>11671029

>>11672445
This, however that only works for third stages (ie ones that are dropped off in orbit, or at least close to orbit), and marginally to 2nd stages (the need for a high enough TWR to achieve orbit before reentering the atmosphere limits the propellant mass you can install in your stage design, lowering the practical delta V upper limit).

Any hydrogen fueled stage that lights on the ground is pure autism. Shuttle was shit, Delta is shit, SLS will be shit. The reason hydrogen fueled boosters exist at all is because somewhere along the line some wires got crossed in the minds of the average engineer that lead them to believe that lighter = cheaper. This is WRONG. In fact, SMALLER = cheaper. When you're working with many different propellant options all with different bulk densities and attainable specific impulse values, mass becomes a very deceptive characteristic.

Taking the Delta IV Heavy as an example, it is both taller AND wider than the Falcon Heavy, yet the Falcon Heavy has a mass almost DOUBLE that of the Delta IV Heavy AND it can launch more that twice as much payload! This is despite the Falcon Heavy also using engines that are less efficient on every stage! This is the power of the hydrogen meme. You end up with bigger, heavier, more expensive tanks and engines, which provide LESS capability than the easier, smaller, cheaper, more powerful options.

>>11672543
And to think the Falcon Heavy is just a stopgap until Starship/SuperHeavy comes online.

BIG CHUNGUS

>>11671029
Who the fuck had left a truck like that?
I wonder what happened to it.

>>11672601
Alright who showed NASA the orbital yeet train?

>>11669629
making a big expensive rocket is not just a bad idea, IT'S THE LAW! NASA has to make SLS because congress mandated them to do so.

>>11672601
Which Europa mission proposal is that?

>>11672606
Anyone got the pics of that?

>>11672601
>no rotational gravity
>going to jupiter
retarded

>>11672601
Have fun dying of old age.

>>11672609
>NASA has to make SLS because congress mandated them to do so.
I've talked to people who frame it as a good thing as the project would be unkillable by the President. Which is a fair point, but it ignores that the rocket was only acceptable until 2018.

>>11672623
I think that's a probe. There's no people on it.

How viable is interplanetary power beaming, from planet to orbital station to orbital station to power? I'm guessing higher frequencies are better for long distance but i'm guessing that it's not as simple as that. Will it allow outer solar system colonization?

>>11672623
its a probe, not manned

>>11672646
>>11672640
nvm then

>>11672641
>How viable is interplanetary power beaming
How viable is WHAT?
Not viable at all.

>>11672616
the robotic lander. You know the one that congress told them to do, because it would only add a small amount of cost to the Europa Clipper. Also some congress critter wants to see stuff on Europa before they die. And it gives SLS something to do. If built, it'd be the most massive robotic lander ever made.
>>11672623
>>11672635
>>they think we're sending people!
retards. The radiation is so intense on Europa's surface that the electronics even when shielded in a 100 kg vault with aluminum walls 8 cm thick only last three weeks. In about a day an unshielded human is going to be a dead man walking. A couple hours in they'll probably start feeling it too.
>>11672641
beam diffraction's a bitch. Laser coupled particle beams might work though

>>11672641
You mean this? http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#beamsail

It's possible, and it's specific impulse is definitely good enough for inner planet colonization. Might be a challenge for the outer planets unless each planet is set up with it's own power station. A major issue with this however is that incredibly powerful lasers are scattered across the system begging for someone to take over one of them and use it to blast some poor souls.

>>11672601
>bio barrier
what is that?

also that lander doesn't look very exciting

>>11672701
It's Europa, ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. This gets around that and prevents contamination of europa. Also, the entire lander thermites itself after the mission is complete to prevent contamination.

>>11672543
>the Falcon Heavy has a mass almost DOUBLE that of the Delta IV Heavy
>(with hydrolox) You end up with bigger, heavier, more expensive tanks and engines

what are you trying to say here?

>>11672641
Atmospheric loss. I think it maybe viable for Mars or Moon, but not Earth. However there's great application for orbital power station to orbital station or to other ships/satellites for recharging essentials.

>>11672606

>>11672741

>>11672680
>Laser coupled particle beams might work though
NASA is funding research on that front, or was in 2019. No idea what happened.

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/PROCSIMA/

>>11672748
got filed into a black project

>>11672748
it's still ongoing. Beam temperature is a limitation though

>>11672745
>burning in 0G
>having engines on each stage
>building in a stack instead of asparagus staging

but why though

>>11672719
Falcon Heavy has more than double the total mass, meaning tanks and propellant.

Delta IV however at the very least has a greater dry mass for its total mass, and probably weighs more dry overall.

I'm saying Delta IV Heavy is a physically bigger, heavier STRUCTURE to build, which makes it more expensive. Propellant mass is so cheap in the face of launch vehicle hardware that it may as well be free, all of the cost comes from fabricating those tanks and engines. Sorry if that didn't come across.

Another way to think about it is dry mass to wet mass ratio. Falcon Heavy has a really good ratio, which directly leads to better stage delta V performance (reducing dry mass has almost as much effect as increasing Isp). Delta on the other hand has a shitty ratio because it has those huge tanks which need to store liquid hydrogen with a density of just 70 kilograms per cubic meter. Lots and lots of tank for not that much propellant mass.

>>11671336
If Israel was wiped, Iran would tone down the Islam and their rockets would fly to the moon, not American embassies.

>>11672792
Because you can launch as many modules as you want, and it's more simple. A universal liquid fueled kick stage that can be chained up. It's only meant for allowing smaller launch vehicles to push super heavy payloads to the Moon. If it were Ksp they'd all have nuclear engines burning at once with propellant from the tank in back feeding every engine and dropping off in sequence, like a linear asparagus setup. I was mostly just having a poke at SLS when I drew that.

>>11672792
anon, aspergerus staging is only easy in KSP

What would happen if /pol/ built an onboard AI for starship?

>>11672867
>minorities detected, disengaging airlocks

>>11672867
It would cut off air supply to everyone who touched their no-no spot in their pod, claiming it to be degenerate.

>>11672808
>Propellant mass is so cheap in the face of launch vehicle hardware that it may as well be free
Except for SRBs!

>>11672873
Kek
Those space wolves from a thread ago would be kill

>>11672867
It would immediately get hacked by the Space Wolves pirate clan.

>>11672867
>be george steinwitz
>be astronaut that lived relatively comfy life
>ISS is going to deorbit
>most important structures have been taken back down and ISS is merely a bunch of trusses and russian pods
>starship comes to pick us up in ISS
>new AI has been added to ship
>it connects to modules
>locks me out
>demand it tell me why I'm locked out
>"It says here that your father had a twitter account that denounced white people. He would impersonate them then later say he was not one of them."
>sit in shock
>mfw i'm burning up in a pod because my dad was a checkmark
>mfw im burning because i'm a jew
>>11672878
Reminds me of when furries were actually somewhat intelligent sperglords and not just faggots with suits

>>11672881
why are so many astronauts jewish?

>>11672890
>mfw they want to start eating ayy lmao foreskins
God no.

>>11672875
Don't you fucking talk about s*lids, we're discussing rockets.

>>11672890
Nepotism, same as any other kind of over representation.

>>11672890
Fun fact: they actually aren't. Both Shuttles with a Jew on them exploded, and Israel's moon lander crashed.

>>11672808
so, more efficient engines but a less efficient vehicle

if only there was a measurement of the combination of the two...

>>11672899
>Don't you fucking talk about s*lids
Moments before this post was made.

new bread
>>11672924
>>11672924
>>11672924

>hydrolox rockets SUCK because the ones built by NASA are EXPENSIVE

I feel like there might be other factors at play here anon...

>>11672867
It would talk about gays, transexuals and black people on every button you pressed. Oh and the buttons wouldn‘t have any other other actual effect. So you‘re stranded because nothing works because the AI is just trying to impress you with all the redpills it drops. Oh and not pressing buttons doesn‘t mean it stops talking either. It‘ll just start talking randomly by itself after a while.

>>11672732
Why not use different frequencies? Lower frequencies should be absorbed less by the atmosphere,while you use higher ones for the long distance transfer across space.

>>11672936
the ones built by Bezos haven't shown much promise either

>>11672601
>15 tons.
OH NO NO NO NO

>>11673517
15.5 metric tons motherfucker.

>>11673114
2.45 GHz is pretty much ideal for beaming down power from space to Earth. The problem is that's what everybody uses for wifi now.
>> higher ones for the long distance transfer across space
unless you have FUCK HUEG APERTURE, then higher ones means X-rays and gamma rays.