/sci/ - Science & Math

First for tiny rocket

>>11685368
Needs a stool.

Third for BOEING BTFO

>>11685338
i am so fucking hyped for this but i just know they're gonna go bankrupt

The future of space travel was the Orion, nuclear propelled rockets, that was cancelled by the us government.
The rest is bullshit.
It's not over, it never even began.

>>11685419
we don't need orion for the moon/mars

>>11685424
if we had Orion, we would already have a colony on mars decades ago
All this space manbaby Spacex/Blue Origin/Nasa is COPE for us being robbed of our future

Here's a list of milestones for the Starship stack (more or less in order).
- Starship hop (with and without Superheavy) and landing
- Land Superheavy (SH)
- Launch to orbit
- Land Starship from orbit
- Reuse Starship/SH (Shuttle reached that point)
- Build Starship/SH relatively cheaply
- Reuse Starship/SH quickly and easily (at this point, if cost is <$15 millions for 150 tonnes to LEO, SpaceX BTFO all other launch providers)
- LEO docking and fuel transfer
- Land Starship on the Moon
- Launch Starship from the Moon and land on Earth
- Land Starship on Mars
- Launch Starship from Mars and land on Earth
- Starship/SH reliable and cheap enough for E2E travel

The first 3 points are relatively sure to happen, and depending on when, will make SLS look ridiculous. After that, there's plenty of unknowns

>>11685419
This. A chemical manned rocket will never make it to Mars

>>11685470
such fucking COPE
we should have been on mars decades ago with nuclear propulsion technology that makes space travel easy.

:3

>>11685473
All past Mars mission studies were done with a NERVA upper stage. They obviously knew that chemical specific impulse was insufficient.

>>11685485
:3

>>11685485
>>11685500

>>11685486
so why are Bezos and Musk hiding this open secret? Why are they not lobbying for something that is technically safe for humans (the radioactive fallout would make cancer rates go up by a tiny percentage, it's unnoticeable).
Why not do it? It's current year, why handicap ourselves?

>>11685486
Getting to Mars using chemical propulsion is feasible, it's just that NTRs makes the trip easier. SpaceX is most likely sticking to chemical to keep the costs down for now since going for nuclear technology as a private company comes with steep fees.

>>11685454
>if we had Orion, we would already have a colony on mars decades ago
No, we'd have a couple orbital battleships that cost $5 billion each to hang over the heads of anyone who may possibly want to start shit.

Orion is a perfect example of a trap for space enthusiasts who can't think a concept through; Okay, you have a vehicle that can launch 20,000 tons of payload into orbit or can take 1000 tons to Mars and back in two months, great right? Think for two seconds though and tell me, what about Orion makes it economical to use as a basis for interplanetary travel? The fact that it comes with a gigantic price tag per unit? The fact that it is propelled by one of the most expensive 'fuels' imaginable? The fact that you can't launch it without angering a shitload of countries AND the majority of your own population, regardless of whether the calculations say fallout would be a big deal or not?

If Orion was actually built, it would have flown to orbit ONE time, maybe performed a mission to Mars orbit just to flew on the Soviet Union, and then would have been parked somewhere in high Earth orbit to act as a figurehead of America's dominance in space, while we would then proceed to do NOTHING to actually colonize ANYTHING in space.

For me, it's Rocket Labs.

>>11685470
>E2E travel
>lol, lets fly ballistic missiles to every major city in the world, what can go wrong.

>>11685486
When starship starts doing 100tons per trip to leo you can bet your ass nasa will get the greenlight to build a ship with a Nerva/ntr engine in orbit.
But the first few missions to mars will probably be done by chem rockets.
I'm also pretty certain that the return to the moon mission will light a fire in the public for more exploration.

>>11685535
this, one of the best things about spacex is that its peaceful

everythings liquid fuel

not suited for right wing low iq hetero war

yes suited for left wing lgbt correct freedom peace

>>11685535
Orion would be much cheaper than chemical rockets nowadays (even reusable ones).
The amount of COPE in your post is staggering.

>>11685377

150m hop when?

>>11685470
> Build Starship/SH relatively cheaply
They're already doing this, anon. You can cross it off your list.

>>11685554
It's onions space conquering for faggots and trannies.
Nuclear propulsion is chad, cheap and efficient. It gets the job done.

Most men in these threads are effimante basedbois that don't care about our civilisational power and space seeding (literally impregnating the universe).

>>11685508
Nuclear is unironically the other N-word.

>>11685575
best solution would be to get to the moon with soiboi chemical rockets and then from the moon do nuclear powered propulsion.
Best of both worlds.
Bet fags itt never thought about that.

>>11685523
>Getting to Mars using chemical propulsion is feasible, it's just that NTRs makes the trip easier.
>>11685486
>They obviously knew that chemical specific impulse was insufficient.

You only need nuclear stages if you're doing everything propulsively and not doing ISRU propellant production.
The delta V to Mars surface with aerobraking is only a few hundred m/ more than the delta V for a Lunar transfer orbit from LEO. It isn't hard to get to Mars, if you don't need to have the delta V budget to slow down on arrival. Once you're on Mars, you can use the atmosphere and water ice available to make your own chemical propellants.
The delta V budget requirement of Starship is actually set by the return flight from Mars, because it needs to be able to do launch from the surface of Mars to Earth intercept in one stage. From there it can use Earth's atmosphere again to slow down to capture. One cannot overstate the usefulness of aerobraking for lessening the difficulty of Mars missions.

Incidentally, aerobraking is why going to the Saturnine system is actually easier than going to the Jovian system, because you can aerobrake to capture using Titan's atmosphere (both Saturn and Jupiter themselves also obviously have atmospheres, but entry velocities would be far too extreme to allow aerobraking to be viable; entry at Jupiter in particular would take place at somewhere around 55,000 m/s).

Dropped in the Hawthorne office to check the hop schedule. Still no confirmation. BocaChicaGal came off some of her cajun shrimp sorbet, though.

>>11685569
>faggots and trannies.
humans and humans

ftfy

and if youo get offended by it youre acking for a cock, its confirmed by all of psychology

>>11685569
>impregnating the universe).
tipical macho right wing person who goes to the gym and own guns and thjinks that sex is about reproduction and not the masterbeauty of the universe and sharing pleasure with as many bodies as much as possible
stop being an ehteropatriarchalist right wing facist sadist republican ally of death

>>11685596
It's banned no matter what.
>>11685597
But nuclear can bring more mass and faster. this means more food and less radiation. ISRU is completely theoretical at this point.

>>11685596
>the moon do nuclear powered propulsion.
is there any uranium in asteroids? that would be ideal, 0% risk of a nuclear incident on earth

>>11685609
not completely, they're just working on the actual rocket first, pointless otherwise

>>11685608
A russian won the space race
A nazi won the moon race
and a south african will win the mars race

americans are only good to die of obesity and be used by foreigns

>>11685604
we need to get these kinds of men out of space travel, these are the type that have halted and slowed down our progress
Imagine talking to a guy in the 50's early 60's who made us go to the moon like this. He would laugh at this faggot talk and would be deathly embarassed we're at a standstill.
Get real men back in the space race. Before China does everything. No fags and trannies in China, and they're getting there slowly but surely.

@11685569
if you can't speak without using memewords, just shut up anon

>>11685552
>lol, lets fly ballistic missiles to every major city in the world, what can go wrong.
Not the biggest showstopper I think, but yeah, it's last in the list for a reason.

>>11685568
Meh, they're building prototypes for the moment. Though it's kinda an optional item if they're able to reuse them easily.

>>11685617
>we need to get these kinds of men out of space travel, these are the type that have halted and slowed down our progress
nopey nope nope

intelligence is a side of compassion

all advancement iss secretly everloving (lgbt in it score) all the good scientist loved life and therefore all sex, it was the stupid macho man who bully people in high school who like to take the credit

but the real person who write poems and arent afraid to rais other people children or admit sex in the ass feels good that actually make the advancement

>>11685557
Explain the economics instead of flinging your own shit, retard.

Can you reuse an Orion? Yes, but only if you send up more nukes, since you can't land Orion back on Earth.
What are you gonna send up more nukes with? Another Orion? No, because you'll then have to spend the money to build another giant Orion vehicle, meaning you aren't gaining anything through reuse, and you'll end up with TWO Orion vehicles in orbit that will both eventually need to be refueled again. The process of maintaining your Orion spacecraft would quickly turn into a retarded exponential explosion of the number of Orions needed to deliver fuel payload to orbit.
The other option of course is to launch nuclear propulsion bombs using conventional chemical rockets, but uh oh! Now you're using a very expensive-per-kilogram launch system to deliver the thousands of tons of nukes a large Orion vehicle requires. Therefore the cost of using your Orion inflates dramatically.

Unless of course you manage to develop a cheap, chemically-propelled launch vehicle that can cheaply place cargo into orbit. In that case, why the fuck are you even using Orion at all? Mars is easily within range of chemical propulsion, which means by using orbital refueling you can send payloads as big as the biggest payload you can launch to LEO to go land on Mars' surface. With ISRU, you can then launch that vehicle back to Earth, giving you two-way transport and greatly increasing the number of people willing to go to set up a colony (since far more people would be willing to go live on Mars for a few years rather than live out the rest of their lives there).

the 27th needs to hurry up, it feels like time is slowing down the closer we get to it

>>11685552
>>lol, lets fly ballistic missiles to every major city in the world, what can go wrong.
a rocket is simpler and more reusable than an airplane

the future of long distance travel will be a combination of rockets and maglev/hyperloops

>>11685617
>a guy in the 50's early 60's
Wasn't J. Edgar Hoover a tranny?

>>11685596
>Bet fags itt never thought about that.
Everyone has already thought about literally every surface-level strategy already, since the 60's.

>>11685637
umm sweaty no

>>11685648
oh my god, did you mispell "sweety" or did you misconciously express what you are , sweaty, ugly pathetic and heteronormatively sexually represed in a freudian way that indicates that you actually desire manffection

>>11685632
Based. Chemical, while not the best overall, is the best we can do right now. Trying to completely change the shape of the industry to suit a propulsion system that has never been tried beyond a conceptual level is stupid.

Orion is still cool as hell, though.

>>11685638
What? No.

>>11685377

>>11685657
Yes, it's well known.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/fbi-chief-exposed-as-a-secret-transvestite-peter-pringle-reports-from-new-york-on-new-allegations-1471376.html

>>11685609
>But nuclear can bring more mass and faster.
Faster doesn't matter as long as you get there. Besides, Starship is designed to do the transfer to Mars in 4 months anyway
>this means more food and less radiation.
One person only eats about one ton of hydrated food per year. If you sent people to Mars with potatoes and apples and beans and frozen meat to eat, Starship has enough payload capacity to support 60 people. The plan is to send many cargo Starships per manned Starship anyway, meaning the actual machinery doesn't get packed along with the people in the same vehicle. Since Starship is going to be so cheap to build, there's no problem with this plan. Also, the food they're going to send will be dehydrated, and the water they have will be recycled. Since most foods are at least 70% water by weight, you could actually send enough food per Starship to feed 60 people for ~3.6 years, plenty of margin to either add more people or use that capacity for other things or just have a safety net.
Also, the gamma radiation dose from using a nuclear engine is going to dominate over cosmic ray dose and roughly equal the same dose you'd get from just using a slower chemical propulsion system anyway, unless you're using a high mass ratio Orion drive with ~100,000 m/s of delta V that also has the pusher plate on the end of a long truss structure with shadow shields stacked along its length. This basically means you're spending dozens of billions on the vehicle and the vehicle's fuel, since optimistically each nuke would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and you're gonna need thousands of them.
>ISRU is completely theoretical at this point
No, the Sabatier reaction which produces methane and water from hydrogen and CO2 has been used since the 1800's, and hydrolysis dates back even further. It's absolutely 100% proven. The only thing to do is set up a method of extraction that can handle the oh-so-difficult task of extracting 100's of tons of H2O in several years.

>>11685618
In general, functional prototypes built more or less by hand tend to be more expensive than finished products, which have optimized assembly lines to produce them.

>>11685377
>Space Launch System rocket now targeted for a late 2021 launch
oh no no no

>>11685636
That's just because you're paying attention to reality more and more, anon.

>>11685676
You don't even really need the H2O

Some plans involve just bringing hydrogen and then taking CO2 from the atmosphere.

Essentially zero work, and you save like 90% of fuel weight.

>Charmeau said the Ariane rocket does not launch often enough to justify the investment into reusability. (It would need about 30 launches a year to justify these costs, he said). And then Charmeau said something telling about why reusability doesn't make sense to a government-backed rocket company—jobs.
>"Let us say we had ten guaranteed launches per year in Europe and we had a rocket which we can use ten times—we would build exactly one rocket per year," he said. "That makes no sense. I cannot tell my teams: 'Goodbye, see you next year!'"

>>11685676
>4 months of dehydrated potatoes

>>11685692
And of course he doesn't think about reusability lowering prices to encourage more launches. What a joke. No wonder private aerospace is eating their lunch.

>>11685693
Just buy COTS dehydrated rations.

The Mountain House stuff is pretty good as I remember.

>>11685683
Reminder that SLS is real and was ready to be put on the test stand since 2014.

>>11685628
Get this plebbitor out of here.

>>11685699
Will there be cyanide on board?

>>11685683
>SLS is kneeling
I'd love to start going full /a/ DBS thread now, but apparently you all hate that.

>>11685703
ngl this made me hard until the surgery part

>>11685698
If almost all of your launches are government funded, then cheaper launches wouldn't encourage more of them because money is no object to government programs (unless it's more money to give to the special interests).

>>11685657
Chemical is better in pretty much every way compared to any other propulsion system, EXCEPT in terms of Isp. Therefore, if you can perform a mission using chemical propulsion, it makes sense to do it 98% of the time. It's only when chemical propulsion cannot do the mission you want to do, that it makes sense to go for other types of propulsion.

Things you can do from Earth using chemical propulsion;
>colonize the Moon
>colonize Mars
>visit NEOs
>Venus flyby, why not

Obviously once you've colonized the Moon and Mars you can pretty much go anywhere and do anything, because the delta V requirements to launch into orbit around those worlds are far lower than Earth's.

>>11685714
Delta V is not transit time. You need much more Isp for crewed missions to the outer solar system.

>>11685688
>Some plans involve just bringing hydrogen
Here's the problem with that idea, which I've never seen addressed even by Zubrin himself; the volume of liquid hydrogen you need to produce the fuel necessary for a methalox rocket is about the same volume of both the methane and oxygen tanks combined, because hydrogen has meme density. Basically, while it doesn't take much actual mass of hydrogen to refuel your vehicle on Mars, what it DOES require is that you basically double your total tank volume, in order to be able to store the hydrogen you need. You can't just fill the tanks with hydrogen, go to Mars, and then replace the hydrogen with methalox, because you're making methalox as a trickle over time, and you can't exactly mix methane and hydrogen in one tank and hydrogen an oxygen in the other tank and not mess up your ISRU equipment and also detonate your hydrogen oxygen slush mixture.

>>11685693
Nah bro, dehydrate everything. I picked potatoes as an example of a fresh non-dehydrated food that doesn't go bad in four days, same with apples and canned beans and frozen meat.

>>11685706
There will be carbon and nitrogen in various forms, cyanide is just a little bit of high-school chemistry away.

>>11685735
I can just imagine being stuck on board the ship halfway between Earth and Mars wanting to die and you come out with that smug line. Would probably open an airlock and take you with me tbqh

>>11685710
Yeah it's fairly cringe desu

>>11685721
>Delta V is not transit time
I know, I'm not retarded. You don't need more Isp to get to the outer solar system, you need more than the minimum delta V to achieve a transfer to the outer solar system object you're targeting, which IS possible using chemical propulsion (New Horizons was launched directly onto a solar escape trajectory, sure it's small compared to a manned space habitat but when you're launching from Mars or the Moon you can make your vehicles as xbox hueg as you want).
>but without a fast trajectory enabled by whatever high Isp propulsion system it'd take years to get to Saturn
Yeah? And I'm saying you can do that, because you can launch entire spin habitats from Mars/Moon and have people effectively just moving their entire house to the outer solar system.
The only real challenge is to make your spin habitat capable of surviving an aerocapture maneuver at Titan; this is mostly a structural strength issue, because at the scale I'm talking about a complete coating of thermal tiles like Starship's would represent a negligible fraction of the vehicle's mass.

Is SLS the biggest space flop in history? Is NASA finished? This is their third major flop (Shuttle & constellation)

>>11685377

>>11685746
That or nitrogen asphyxia are probably the easiest ways to do it desu.

I remember there was a persistent rumor that NASA gave the Apollo astronauts suicide pills in case they missed the moon and got stuck out in space, and they eventually went on record as saying they would just open the airlock if that happened.

>>11685775
Nitrogen asphyxiation is easily better than being blown into vacuum. You don't even realize you're suffocating, you just lose higher brain function, pass out, and a couple minutes later you're dead.

>>11685775
Brave men.

>>11685783
What actually happens if you open the airlock?

>>11685790
True joy ensues.

>>11685790
Unconscious within thirty seconds.

There've been various accidents at high altitudes involving human beings being exposed to vacuums or near vacuums, it's surprisingly quick and surprisingly subtle.

>>11685768
>Is SLS the biggest space flop in history?
Not unless it RUDs on the pad or in flight.
>Is NASA finished?
As a maker of chemical rockets, probably. As a government agency they've got a leg up on testing things like Hall thrusters and nuclear propulsion.

>>11685790
All the air in your body (lungs, guts) expands and escapes (ie you start burping and farding and shidding), all the water on your skin and your mucus membranes evaporates (your eyes and mouth get very dry), and your skin starts to go red as your blood pressure starts pushing blood into your capillaries, since there's no air pressure acting on your skin to force that blood back into your veins.

This pressure imbalance causes your blood pressure to start to drop as your tissues swell up, and it eventually reaches a point where gasses dissolved into your blood begin to form bubbles in your circulatory system. At this point you're already unconscious from lack of oxygen in the brain, but not dead. The bubbles in your blood act as nucleation sites for water to start to vaporize as well, which begins to make you swell further but also drastically lowers your body temperature.

Your mucus membranes have lost so much water by now that evaporative cooling has frozen that tissue solid. You are dead at this point, probably, and over the next few hours your body continues to allow water to evaporate and cool it down to zero degrees celsius. Since you're probably in sunlight, the heat and light from the Sun keeps your body temperature from staying cold enough to prevent water loss, and it slowly sublimates away over a few weeks, leaving you a super dry mummified husk in space.

>>11685816
>As a government agency they've got a leg up on testing things like Hall thrusters
SpaceX has launched and operated/is operating more than 420 ion thrusters so far, with tens of thousands on the way.

>>11685853
NASA still has an unmatched level of institutional knowledge in spaceflight

>>11685871
Sure, but chances are they won't have that monopoly forever.

When the fuck is the hop.

>>11685896
Every time an anon asks 'hop when' the T-0 countdown is reset.

>>11685913
this must be against the Artemis Accords

>>11685822
So you would swell up Total Recall style? Grim.

>>11685822
I heard on top of this if you were naked in space the side of you facing the sun would be blistered to destruction while the dark side of you was frozen solid.

>>11685790
>>11685822
>>11685946
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11

People have been exposed to vacuum before.

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1262367345185558528

>>11685970
Soyuz 11 was slow depressurisation though

>>11686057
oh wait no it was almost instant, I see

>>11685790
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO8L9tKR4CY

>>11685896
thursday

notam
https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_1869.html

>>11685896
Two minutes, Turkish.

>>11686139
does this mean hop? Or just another static fire (which risks shrapnel form a RUD flying up and hitting aircraft)?

>>11686160
hop

>>11685615
Nah bro the Russians were brave and valliant but they did indeed lose the space race.

Also Elon calls himself American.

And the moon race is the same as the space race. saying that the space race ended with Gagarin’s flight in 1961 is just tankie cope.

>>11685628
Yeah tell that to China lmao. I’m sure they want to explore space for peaceful purposes and coexist with everyone on the world

The engines are on.
Live testing now.

>>11686163
and the US wouldnt even have bothered having a space program if the soviets werent doing it

The soviets were the last people to dream big and try huge undertakings.

Why aren't you making your own hopper, /sfg/?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPTgvU5PTMA

>>11686141
it was two minutes five minutes ago

Starship has been braping for a long time now.
Did the static engine fire happen already?

>>11686191
why would someone go to the effort to make such a shitty animation
do 3rd world Pajeets think this is real or something?

>>11686190
You have to understand how much of a greater challenge the Moon Landing is compared to all those other things combined.

>>11686218
The guy (Haze Grey Art) just does it for fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOqInOe5g8k

I built this rocket up from nothing. When I started here all there was was field. Other companies said I was daft to build a rocket in a field, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em!
It ruptured, so I built a second one. That was scrapped. I built a third one, it buckled, fell over, then ruptured. But the fourth one stayed up! And that's what you're going to get X Æ A-12, the strongest rocket in these lands!

>>11686225
What's to understand? The USA did the hard thing, the Russians didn't, so the hard thing clearly doesn't count because "fuck America."

>>11685970
They never lived to say whether it was painful or not
>Their blood was also found to contain heavy concentrations of lactic acid, a sign of extreme physiologic stress
points to yes though :/

>>11686190
The US already had a space program, it was just fucking up constantly. Then Sputnik went up.

Also the Russians had their share of issues. How was the N-1? How we’re their Mars probes? How many missions did you guys cover up and call KOSMOS just because you were embarrassed?

Dude please be Russian. If you’re patriotic and Russian that’s fine, I support nationalism. But if you’re any other European or worse - American - please neck yourself.

>>11686242
>b-but I don't want any of that

>>11685377
Lmao how will Boeing ever recover??

>>11686080
holy shit the way he backflipped

>>11686225
Harder how?
The soviets already lead the way to humans existing in space, humans returning from space, things orbiting bodies, and things going to the moon. The US just hyper-specialized on taking those elements and combining them.
Was it hard? What is hard? It was certainly dangerous and there was less room for fuckups. It was also not something the soviets even had a mind to do untill the US arbitrarily set it as a goal, and then the soviets decided they may as well try to.
All the while however the soviets were actually doing useful things. There are no men on the moon today, there are satalites everywhere, there are robots landing on mars, on asteroids, even returning with samples, all things the soviets did.

And so what we take from this is that the soviets were correctly pursuing useful scientific things and the US went all in on something fairly useless, probably calculated because they knew the soviets had no interest in it and so it was the only place they could compete.

>>11686254
The capsule needs a "Coded by Aarav" on it.

>>11686242
>X Æ A-12
I had just forgot about that. Remember when people were joking about how Kanye West named his child North?

>>11686256
If the Soviets were so ahead how come they couldn’t land on the moon (with a man).

Please be Russian. I love Russians. If you’re a tankie Apologist then you’re pathetic.

>>11686245
You say this with out recognizing the big picture that its now 30 years later and all the US has managed to do is find out its space shuttles explode and sent some more probes to mars. better probes yes. But what new has really been done?

>>11685486
>They obviously knew that chemical specific impulse was insufficient.

Chemical specific impulse is sufficient,

>>11686218
Back during the 2015 hoverboard hype I was trying to make one (still am) and my friend told me to just fake it. I was aghast at the suggestion but seems he was right because that's what most of the other hoverboard startups did and laughed to the bank with view money regardless. You see, all that matters is views.

>>11685472
>This. A chemical manned rocket will never make it to Mars

Prove it. Show me your time machine.

>>11686262
They were not trying as hard to do it because they had more important things to do. There was a lot of internal disagreement over whether they should even bother trying to do it at all when the US announced their plans.

This has nothing to do with russia and the US, they are simply proxies. I am exposing how worthless capitalism is at this sort of thing.

>>11686263
The US has landed a rocket booster and reused it. The US has effectively killed Russia’s commercial flight program. They’ve also built three different manned space systems, one of which will fly next week or so.

Russia has been stuck with Soyuz. Also, didn’t on blow up a year ago?

How about the Proton rockets? How are they doing? How’s quality control over there.

Russia’s space industry is dead.

>>11686279
Lol so the Russians quit because it’s too hard. Russia didn’t have the money to succeed in it that’s why.

Also name an example of communism working in a world superpower. It didn’t work in the Soviet Union - that place fell apart! And even tankies day that China is no longer communist either.

>>11686293
>Also, didn’t on blow up a year ago?
No and yes. A Soyuz did suffer a major failure, but it was Soyuz the rocket NOT Soyuz the capsule. The capsule's launch escape system worked well and saved the crew.

I am skeptical of SpaceX and I think Musk is a dickhead but I've just realised that their marketing is genius. They made space popular not just because of their successes but because of their failures. I realised this after seeing everyone cheer every time one of their rockets explode. They're a "private" company so no-one gives a shit if their rocket blows up and it gets them more views on Youtube anyway. Compare this to the Soviets who went to great lengths to hide all their failures and NASA who moves glacially slow because they can't afford to fail in the eyes of the taxpayer. I'm working on an unrelated project right now and the comments don't seem to care whether it succeeds or fails, they just want to see speed/loud bangs/destruction. I think I may take a leaf out of Musk's book and capitalise on this by doing all my testing live even if I know it's probably going to go wrong.

>>11686279
>This has nothing to do with russia and the US
This has everything to do with the USSR and the US. This wasn't about about friendly scientific progress or competition either, it was about preventing the other from creating a platform to rain nukes from the sky.

>>11686279
Capitalism is better at literally everything than communism

>>11686293
>>11686302
A Soyuz blew up? What? I thought they never blew up?

>>11686326
This. See >>11686323 if you think socialism/communism was driving any of this.

>>11686322
I don't remember if this is a copypasta or not

>>11686332
It is now.

>>11686322
>I think Musk is a dickhead
Your bluepill is showing. Consume less.

>>11686332
all you have to do is search it and you'll find that it's not

>>11686327
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1bCikeXFcA
It was MS-10. It happened on the same year as the Soyuz hole incident.

>>11685710
yes, everybody hates it you retarded shitposting spic

>>11686322
You can't replicate something you don't understand. Almost all of those were not failures, they were performing up to the industry standard and pushing beyond it. A rocket exploding is not a failure when the alternative is dumping it in the ocean anyway. Their actual failures were massive setbacks at the time.

>>11686323
>>11686326
>>11686329
You make these assertions but where is the reality? As i said, 30 years of capitalism to reign supreme uncontested has now passed. What has it accomplished in that time compared to the accomplishments of the 60s, 70s, and 80s?

Up to the very end the USSR was planning on doing things like launching arrays of solar collecting satellites to beam energy down to the earth for everyone to use. This is in fact what they built the heavy lift rockets we still use to this day for.

There is nothing but decline. The last major undertaking of capitalism was the canal building and railroad construction era. Large projects were proven to be ultimately unprofitable and this is why we have collapsing infrastructure. We are living off the advances made in the past. Ingenuity remains yes, new, smaller, advances and improvements in efficiency and use of what we have will continue. But big goals? Those are dead.
It takes the long scale thinking of historical materialism to find the justification to do these things.

>>11686293
The Proton will probably not fly anymore due to toxic fuels, which is why they're hoping Angara will finally work now.

>>11686337
Neat. make sure you remember to give all credit to me, anon when reposting it
>>11686338
Naming your kid X Æ A-12, calling anyone you don't like a paedo, setting your stock to $420 for laughs and making jew jokes on Twitter is so redpilled right?

>>11686323
This extends into post-USSR as well, the main reason the ISS exists today is because of the US helping in cash to keep the newly formed Russia's rocket scientists on the payroll, since, having a bunch of broke, high educated, military scientist running around is always a recipe for disaster.

>>11686350
>A rocket exploding is not a failure
SpaceX fanboys everyone

>>11686342
And muskcucks will say launch escape systems are pointless

>>11686302
Yes, Soyuz the capsule just launched with holes in it.

>>11686359
>A rocket exploding is not a failure when the alternative is dumping it in the ocean anyway.
You missed the rest of the quote. The way SpaceX tested and worked towards reusing the Falcon 9 meant that if the booster didn't land then it wasn't a failure because the payload was already on its way to orbit.

>>11686370
That didn't blow up though. It was destroyed intentionally on reentry with no crew in it because Roscosmos didn't feel it was safe enough for crew.

>>11686372
So it was a partial failure.

>>11686354
>calling anyone you don't like a paedo
Some dude (not a rescue diver btw as often reported) picked a shitfight and cried fowl when his level was stooped to. Literal nothingburger
>setting your stock to $420
At least have the decency to learn what that actual offence was lol
>making jew jokes
Did not happen, you long nosed pedo

>>11686358
>Soviet rocket engineers after four nanoseconds of being unemployed

>>11686391
nazi

>>11686354
>and making jew jokes on Twitter
He never did that.

>>11686402
People interpret exactly what they want to read from vague tweets. Just look at the reaction that came from it.

>>11686402
Who does he think controls the media then?

>>11686352
You keep making this about capitalism vs. socialism, which it really isn't. I'll humor you nonetheless.
>What has it accomplished in that time compared to the accomplishments of the 60s, 70s, and 80s?
Economic prosperity. Sure it's not as cool looking as pyramids or canals, but it yields far greater technology.
>Up to the very end the USSR was planning on doing things like launching arrays of solar collecting satellites to beam energy down to the earth for everyone to use.
And scientists on both sides 'planned' colonies on Titan.
>this is why we have collapsing infrastructure
We do? Assuming you're talking about the US, then yeah there's places where there used to be industry on the coasts and mid-west, but that's only been abandoned because people have more opportunity and internally migrated to inner-states, such as Arizona, Texas, and Nevada.
Also,
>We

>>11686416
Judging from the context of the conversation where that line was said, corrupt politicians. Last time I checked, those kinds of people came in all colors.

>>11685698
ESA/Arianespace has one goal and one goal only. Making sure Europe maintains a limited satellite launch capability of its own. They‘ve had that for decades now and thus they just sit on their balls now.

>>11686416

>>11686435
That Topolsky guy went DELETE FUCKING EVERYTHING in that tweet chain in the aftermath by the way.

>>11686416
Billionaires like Murdoch and Bloomberg.

>>11686399
false flag

>>11686392
Imagine losing your highly paying job and then being kicked out into a broken economy that has no interest in hiring a rocket scientist. Sucks right? Not to worry! Turns out some Korean/Iranian guy wants to hire you and will pay double what you were making before as long as you live in his country for the rest of your life and lose a few moral standings.

>>11686448
I Can't Believe It's Not Operation Paperclip!

>>11686352
>Large projects were proven to be ultimately unprofitable and this is why we have collapsing infrastructure. We are living off the advances made in the past. Ingenuity remains yes, new, smaller, advances and improvements in efficiency and use of what we have will continue. But big goals? Those are dead.
No, that's because a certain tribe of rootless cosmopolitans decided to tank the West and switch allegiances to China. That's why they bought up factories and offshored them, opened the floodgates of high-fertility unskilled immigration while they pushed contraceptives and abortion on the native population, and redirected the bulk of government expenditure to handouts for useless eaters. The answer to the problems you're describing does contain the word socialism but probably not in the way you might want.

>>11686444
(((Berg)))

>>11686243
if Skylab had stayed up, America would have definitively won the space race
but we abandoned it, and it fell on Australia

Anons I've invested in boeing. They can't get any worse right?

>>11686484
>They can't get any worse right?

>>11686484
>I've invested in boeing

>>11686435
you can't say things like this even if it's not what you meant. i mean you make that same tweet right now and see how fast you get sacked/ostracised from everyone. he just has zero awareness.

road's open
no fire

>>11686492
That's not his problem. That's the problem of anyone who jumps to conclusions like suicidal frogs.

>>11686492
>you can't say things like this even if it's not what you meant.
And you reptiles wonder why you are despised.

>>11686493
AAAAAAAAAAA
FUCK YOU ELON, WHERE IS MY HOP
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Looked like a rupture

>>11686544
Maybe don‘t let your rockets get hit by lightning?

>>11686564
I don't see any indications of a rupture and in no way does a giant stainless steel can give a fuck about being struck by lightning

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1262477398915809282?s=21
no hop till tuesday

>>11686484
>They can't get any worse right?
inb4 Starliner RUD's on launchpad

>>11686619
>"This is a glorious time for an American company on American soil using an (mostly) American rocket to carry American astro-"
>KA-BOOM

>>11685535
It’s not like chemical fuel is free, when at a proper scale nuclear pulse units should be cheaper by quantity of energy
Obviously you don’t get there with some tiny 1000 tons to mars ship.

We aren’t talking fusion, nuclear is expensive only because of the regulations designed to prohibit it

>>11685632
My nigga

>>11685698
It’s a government subsidized organization, they don’t have those sorts of thoughts, and there is a long lag time between reduced launch costs and increased number of launches

Look at what Spacex would be doing if they weren’t launching Starlink
It would be another year of declining launch rates

>>11686661
lol

>>11685692
Look, if we built elevators that didn't need human operators, what would I tell my operating staff?
"Goodbye, we don't need you anymore!"?
No, I need to keep my elevator operators employed, which is why I refuse to let my elevators be "autonomously controlled" (lol, as if robots can operate an elevator as good as a human)

Was that Billie Eilish?

>>11685554
So, I, the coolerfaggot, get my shit deleted, but this retard doesn't? Is he a janny in disguise?

>>11686484
>They can't get any worse right?
If you're going for the long term i don't see a problem, but short term is bleak as fuck

>>11686629
>when at a proper scale nuclear pulse units should be cheaper by quantity of energy
Yes, but as is inherent to any high Isp propulsion system, it is incredibly energy WASTEFUL. You pay far fewer dollars per megajoule using nuclear pulse propulsion, but every megajoule of nuclear pulse propulsion energy gives you a comparatively minuscule amount of thrust compared to a chemical propulsion system. This seems very counter-intuitive but it's true. The only high Isp high thrust propulsion systems that aren't energy wasteful are air breathing jet engines, which take advantage of free reaction mass from the environment and therefore have a definite top speed.

>>11686771
what are you yelling about

>>11686771
Shitposts without pictures get overlooked.

>>11686776
NPP is not sufficiently low thrust for it to matter. It can easily go up to significant fractions of a G, far more than you need to avoid cutting significantly into your transit times. These kind of concerns only really apply to electric propulsion.

Where chemical will always shine is the initial launch stage, where these concerns are valid. Beyond that avoiding nuclear propulsion is more a matter of modern sociopolitical inconvenience.

>>11686798
I dunno.

It seems like NPP systems would have to be huge, can't do point to point travel (have to stay in orbit) and use a more expensive fuel than methalox engines.

Might be good for huge bulk cargo ships, or interstellar, but the inability to land directly on planets and the sheer size requirements would make it a huge PITA for any smaller application.

>>11686354
Found the retard.

>>11685632

You mine asteroids for the elements needed. Once above a certain threshold, you'll never need anything else from Earth.

>>11686810
With NPP you're entering the regime where you have decent thrust at high ISP and can do things like burn-n-flip brachistone trajectories, which absolutely cucks the everliving shit out of conventional slowboats with restrictive transfer windows. Having to offload in orbit isn't a huge drawback next to that, especially off-Earth where most viable bodies could support much more capable launchers.

>>11686354
>kid name
None of your or any of the media's business
>calling someone pedophile
So what? I'm calling you a nigger faggot
>420 stock
Who cares other than day traders?
>jew joke
Retard. It was a rhetorical response to someone complaining about "elites want to silence media." The so called "elites" already control the media, why would they silence themselves?

https://spacenews.com/op-ed-toward-a-coherent-artemis-plan/
Zubrin op-ed on lunar Starship.
TLDR he thinks Starship needs too much refueling to be an effective lander, but is good for launching payload and d*pot use (especially for the Dynetics lander). Also he still says it would kick up regolith, though I'm not sure if he's considering the side engines or not.

>>11686843
>Also he still says it would kick up regolith, though I'm not sure if he's considering the side engines or not
He is absolutely raging that they found a simple solution to his one substantive complaint and is unwilling to do anything but die on that hill

>>11686843
I wonder if side thrusters are enough to lift back up from Moon. Or do they need a robot to create a floor after its landed?

>>11686810
>have to stay in orbit
forget orbit, it needs to stay in interplanetary space lol
an Orion or Medusa drive firing anywhere near the Earth's atmosphere or magnetosphere is going to type 3 deep fry the world's power grids

>>11686843
Honestly, SpaceX should just chop it in half for Moon landing operations. Diet Starship. Can use an expendable cheap kick stage for TLI or whatever.
Haters gonna hate.

>muh food weight is too much to get to mars

Just fatten them up and have them fast en route.

>>11686810
This. Orion is the NPP system we were discussing and it only makes sense in extreme cases. One example would be as a main propulsion system for a probe sent to another star, where the delta V requirements for maneuvering around that system are not well known, and high delta V and high thrust are desirable to ensure a valuable data return.

NPP in general of course includes systems that would make sense for interplanetary transport, particularly the pulsed micro-fission and z pinch fusion concepts. Neither of these have any real effect on the cost of space access, since chemical still remains the only propulsion system apart from Orion that can launch from a 1G planet like Earth, and only chemical can do it cheaply.

Unless we discover some kind of fusion mechanism that can allow for a high thrust to weight ratio fusion engine that doesn't produce vicious amounts of neutron radiation or waste heat, thus acting as a direct replacement for chemical propulsion systems, chemical will be here to stay as the high-power launch option of choice forever. Since such a fusion engine is basically a magic Epstein drive, I'm definitely not holding my breath.

>>11686851
By definition engines that can land properly can also take off again

>>11686843
refueling the Dynetics lander with Starship is an extremely big-brain play
At that point rides on the Dynetics become so fucking cheap that there's no reason not to expand the base.
You still need Starship to actually deliver the many tons of hardware, but crew rotations are dirt cheap at that point.

>>11686843
He is kind of right on the refuelling thing, it's fucking retarded using a gigantic ship like that, designed to shoot straight somewhere and straight back and instead burning it up and down a gravity well to a stupid tollbooth station. The whole architecture is dumb as fuck.

>>11686862
No. With landing, they're using all of their 3 engines + side thrusters. They cut off their 3 engines early enough and let the last few meters of hover be controlled by thrusters. The same can't be said of reverse because side thrusters might not enough enough thrust to life the entire vehicle.

>>11686850
Cut him some slack, he just doesn't feel comfortable unless he's got a hill to die on. Side effect of being ignored for thirty years or whatever it is now.

>>11686826
Okay, so just invest $500 billion dollars minimum and you don't need to worry about paying for anything. The point is not that Orion doesn't work.
The point is that Orion doesn't make sense as an option to reduce launch costs. If your argument is that launch costs don't matter for setting up an industry in space if you ignore them until you have an industry in space, then your argument is quite redundant.
Chemical propulsion will allow us to reduce the minimum cost barrier to entry of industry into space to the point that not just individual nations, but individual companies within nations, will be able to afford to pay to expand industry into space and take advantage of space resources, both for use in space and on Earth.

>>11686867
It really isn't. It's the best way to move anything with chemical propellants, essentially just a more efficient version of on-orbit assembly. The fact that it lets SpaceX field a lander that can absolutely mog the shit out of any other candidate by an order of magnitude
or two should speak for itself.

>>11686857
It's funny to think that this is technically doable-several superobese people have gone for months without eating solid food,only taking in essential vitamins,minerals,and water.

>>11686170
I wish I had nabbed the Billie Eilish picture before it got deleted

>>11686851
If they can generate the >1 TWR required to slow down and land, they can generate the >1 TWR required to get high enough up that the Raptors can ignite without blowing dust.

>>11686852
This. You'd probably park those things no closer than Earth-Moon L2.

>>11686873
>They cut off their 3 engines early enough and let the last few meters of hover be controlled by thrusters
The thrust you need to hover is basically the thrust you need to take off. How they bleed off most of their energy before that point isn't really relevant.

>>11686884
I wasn't complaining about refuelling, that obviously makes sense. What's retarded is not just using starship as intended and using it as a school bus to go up and down to the tollbooth. But whatever at least its funding for starship development.

>>11686873
Wrong. They decelerate from orbit using two Raptors (one Sea level and one Vacuum, for balance). Then the side thrusters ignite several hundred meters above the surface, as the Raptors shut down. The Starship then comes down at a constant velocity, thrusters throttling to keep a local TWR of ~1, until close approach to the surface, when the TWR goes slightly greater than 1, reducing velocity and reaching zero just as altitude also reaches zero.

If the side thrusters cannot lift Starship off of the surface, they cannot slow its rate of descent during landing, nor even prevent the rate of descent from increasing. The side thrusters can absolutely lift Starship off of the surface.

>>11686907
The way I see it this is basically one of any number of perhaps dozens of ways SpaceX will be using Starship to collect pocket money to pay for itself. If nothing goes horribly wrong they're going to be making and launching them in sufficient numbers, sufficiently cheaply that it makes no sense not to put them to every possible use that makes a buck.

>>11686863
It'd be better if Dynetics didn't have those drop tanks. It's not that hard to do single-stage to Lunar surface and back from that weird halo orbit they're using, it just requires a better mass ratio.

>>11686905
>>11686912
They're not hovering, but rather only spending the slightest amount for hoverslam.

Its sorta like jumping around a bit with an umbrella. Your legs do most of the work but an umbrella will do slight lift.

Pics semi-related, obviously its a fucking troll before you comment, but think about how its being done. Its semi-related.

>>11686917
Pretty much. It doesn't even really matter if the gubment moon program even happens, as long as NASA is funding Starship for the time being, it's free money for SpaceX.

>>11686929
>They're not hovering, but rather only spending the slightest amount for hoverslam.
Hey retard, it takes MORE thrust to hoverslam than it does to hover. A hover is just counteracting gravitational acceleration. A hoverslam is counteracting gravitational acceleration AND accelerating on top of that.

Case in point, the Falcon 9 boosters are pulling ~2G during their hoverslam, whereas a rocket hovering in Earth gravity would only be pulling 1G.

>>11686929
>imagine being this retarded

>>11686920
At which point in flight do they drop those tanks?

>>11686945
>>11686952
The big chunk of the thrust is pulled from the raptors not from the side thrusters. That's the point. They're using the raptors to slow down drastically and then let the last few meter come down with the side thrusters very slowly. Its like hitting the big brakes early and slowly and then when you are nearing the stop sign, you expend only a tiny amount of brake because all the force has been reduced early on.

>>11686963
Just stop, dude.

The main engines are more efficient and can decelerate the vehicle at a thrust to weight ratio of something ridiculous like 8. Landing from Lunar orbit requires roughly 2 km/s of delta V, so it's best to use the most efficient propulsion system you have.

The landing thrusters NEED to be able to provide AT LEAST a thrust to weight ratio of ~1.2 in order to land the vehicle. Doesn't matter if the Raptors bring the Starship to a complete stop several dozen meters above the surface, the thrusters on the sides STILL need to be able to lift the vehicle, in order to control its rate of descent.

Your "brakes" aren't brakes, they're engines, and the minimum amount of force they can apply and still slow down the rate of descent is a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1. This means that using those little thrusters, Starship WILL be able to lift off of the Moon's surface again.

>>11686776
The advantage of NPP is that fuel costs stay the same while you scale the vehicle size, depending on what price tag you can get the pulse units down to there will be a break even point where it’s cheaper per ton of payload

Chemical fuels are also very wasteful as you spend almost all your energy accelerating your mass of fuel
Beamed propulsion when?

>>11686963
The best way I can think to put it down to your level is that the road is completely vertical and your brakes by definition do not arrest your motion unless they counteract the entire weight of your vehicle, no matter how much speed you bleed off.

>>11686999
Dumb. The raptors can reduce the landing thrust requirement to negative weight ratio enough for the weak side thrusters to take it off the raptors's hand at the last second (which is a meter or two above surface).

Are you homos optimistic about life in general?

>>11687028
Pessimism is a failure of the weakminded.

>>11687028
No we live in a dystopia

>>11687028
it can go either way at this point, all depends on the next few years in terms of rate of automation, space tech, the USA/china struggle for soft power etc

>>11687034
Doesn’t seem that bad to me.

>>11687028
Don't care lol

>>11687010
Please clarify whether you mean Orion or not. Orion is the only NPP system that can launch from Earth, so I'm going to assume you did.

Orion is like Sea Dragon. It's a gigantic launch vehicle because in order to make any sense economically it needs to launch a huge payload. This is doubly true of Orion, because while Sea Dragon would have cost about half a billion dollars to launch once, and could possibly have been reusable, Orion would have cost billions to launch once, and could never land to launch again. This obviously brings up the issue of trying to come up with a massive enough payload with a small enough volume to both justify an Orion's launch economics AND physically fit on top of the thing.

Starship doesn't have that problem. It gets great launch economics, about an order of magnitude cheaper per kg than Sea Dragon, while also flying with a price tag per launch two orders of magnitude smaller than Sea Dragon and three orders of magnitude smaller than Orion. It also doesn't come with the same political baggage, nor actual fallout (sure, calculations in the 60's said that the fallout from a single Orion launch would cause negligible harm, but what about twelve launches per year in perpetuity?).

Finally, again, Orion is a non-reusable launch system. Even if you can refuel it in space, whether or not you can make the nuclear charges it needs using space based industry, you cannot ever use an Orion rocket for launching from Earth more than once. As soon as it's in space its launch career is over, it is now an interplanetary space tug.

Orion comes with too much baggage and its economics do not beat Starships, nor any other Starship-like chemical launch vehicle.

>>11687023
No, they can't, dumbass. Not without producing a thrust to weight ratio greater than one. If they can't, say they can only produce a TWR of 0.8, then the moment the Raptors shut off the Starship will start accelerating towards the ground and picking up speed.
Did you forget that the Moon has gravity?

>>11687028
Yes. What's the point of wallowing in self-pity and despair if you're just going to be unhappy all the time?

>>11687063
Twr of 1 on the moon for a landing starship is still only like 35 tons of thrust

>>11687023
>The raptors can reduce the landing thrust requirement to negative weight ratio
????? What does a negative weight ratio even mean? Are you saying you think the Raptors will be firing while the thrusters start up? Impossible, because even one Raptor at minimum throttle produces too much thrust, and also because the whole point of these side thrusters is to make it so that Raptor is not fired at the ground while at less than a few hundred meters of altitude.
>enough for the weak side thrusters to take it off the raptors's hand at the last second
If the thrusters fire up and Raptor shuts down, and the thrusters can continue to slow down the Starship, then the thrusters can allow Starship to lift off of the ground without help from Raptors.
>(which is a meter or two above surface).
Wrong, the raptor engine cannot be fired at the ground during landing, it'd dig a crater and fuck up the other engines and the base of Starship because there isn't enough of a gap between Starship and the ground.

>>11686920
>that weird halo orbit they're using

Slightly off topic, but can someone explain what the actual benefit of the orbit is? I've heard it being described as being easier to move things into or out of lunar space, but surely any mass that you'd dock to the gateway would wind up slowing down the station and require station keeping on par with the lander itself just using its own engines, right? Not to mention the asspain that would be trying to dock two objects that were on wildly different orbits (maybe that's easier IRL than in KSP, but it just seems like an extra complication).

I'm sure it's just NASA being NASA, but what's their actual justification?

>>11687074
Okay? Doesn't matter how small of a thrust value it takes, if you can make a TWR of greater than one you can lift off, because by definition your acceleration up due to thrust is greater than the acceleration down due to gravity.

>>11687063
Falcon9 rocket will still fly for few seconds even if all the engines shutdown. Think about it for a second. It will fly less than with all the engines, but it will still continue to fly until the force of gravity + weight of the vehicle is greater than the thrust force created by the engines. If you fire the gun straight up into the air, the bullet will continue to fly up and then at certain time, slow down to halt and then free fall. A gun doesn't need to be fired at every attosecond of distance traveled by the bullet. It only needs to be fired once from the ground.

>>11687081
>Slightly off topic, but can someone explain what the actual benefit of the orbit is?
Obama canned Constellation and wanted nothing to do with the moon nor Mars. That orbit is a sort of a way to allow a station to be near the moon without actually being meaningfully close. The orbit itself is useless for anything else, and anyone who tells you otherwise is deluded.

>>11685338
Why are giant rotating habitats always the main focus when it comes to artificial gravity?
Isn't it way more viable to tie two (or more) habitats together with wires and setting them rotating about a common axis?

Just tether two SpaceX rockets together and we can have free artificial gravity achievable and ready to use before the end of this year.

>>11687085
But then the bullet accelerates back towards the ground at 9.8m/s. How would it help Starship if ~100m off the ground the Raptors slow, stop and then accelerate the ship up before shutting down? Then you'll float upwards for a second before falling straight down in the moon gravity. If the thrusters aren't strong enough to stop that gravitational acceration, you're gonna hit the ground real hard.

These threads have really dipped in quality because of crossboarders

>>11687081
>what the actual benefit of the orbit is?
Slightly reduced station keeping propulsion requirements due to it being more stable. That's it.
>any mass that you'd dock to the gateway would wind up slowing down the station and require station keeping on par with the lander itself just using its own engines, right?
No. Rendezvousing and docking with any object in space by definition means you're already moving at exactly the same speed and in the same direction. The only change would be that when the station does need to adjust its orbit, if it has a lander or other module attached and masses more, it will need to use slightly more propellant to perform the same change in velocity.
>Not to mention the asspain that would be trying to dock two objects that were on wildly different orbits
Not possible. Wildly different orbits means wildly different velocities at intercept. That's not a module coming in to dock, that's a kinetic kill vehicle showing up with a relative velocity of a few km/s.
>I'm sure it's just NASA being NASA, but what's their actual justification?
Slightly less delta V to reach (but you require more delta V to go there from Earth and then go to the Moon's surface than just going straight to the Moon's surface from the Earth, so it's not really an advantage), and like I said it requires fewer corrections than other Lunar orbits (tides and mass irregularities mean most orbits of the Moon decay after only a few weeks).

>>11687095
I thought it was more stable/required less station-keeping than a traditional near-circular orbit because of the moon's wonky gravity variation. Now, whether that station keeping fuel savings is worth the other issues with the orbit, I have no idea.

>>11687085
>Falcon9 rocket will still fly for few seconds even if all the engines shutdown
No, it will fall, unless it was moving up. However, if it started 10m off the ground, moving up, and you cut the engines, by the time it goes up and falls down to the same height, it'll be moving the same speed it was moving up, except now it will be moving down.
>but it will still continue to fly until the force of gravity + weight of the vehicle is greater than the thrust force created by the engines
This is nonsense. Gravity is gravity, all objects accelerate at the same rate in gravity regardless of mass, it's not gravity plus weight. If you drop a million ton boulder or a feather from one kilometer up on the Moon, they both land at the same time.
>If you fire the gun straight up into the air, the bullet will continue to fly up and then at certain time, slow down to halt and then free fall
No, the bullet is in freefall the moment it leaves the gun barrel. Fire a bullet up on Earth, and it is instantly accelerating down at 9.8m/s^2, and it takes a little while for this 9.8 meters per second per second of velocity change to reduce the bullet's velocity to zero, and then it starts to speed up again until it hits the ground. On Earth the bullet only ends up falling at the speed at which the drag from the air is equal to the pull from gravity, but on the Moon if you shot a bullet straight up, it would go about 6 times higher due to the lower gravity, but when it came back down it would be moving at the same speed it left the gun barrel at.
>A gun doesn't need to be fired at every attosecond of distance traveled by the bullet.
Correct, because a bullet like any massive object has momentum, but what does happen is that every attosecond of time that goes by as soon as the bullet is no longer being pushed down the gun barrel is that the bullet is slowing down from gravity and air resistance.

>>11687110
you aint joking

>>11687102
No, you're always fighting against the gravity. Its just that when your lift is greater than the gravity, you notice it. But even when gravity is greater than lift, there can still be lift, especially if there's a weaker thruster pushing slightly against the gravity but not enough to surpass it completely and this only needs to happen for a second or so, not few seconds.

>>11687101
Dummies think that for some reason two habitats on a cable requires super-strong materials but a giant ring can be made from steel (hint, they both can), and also that two habitats on a string would be very wobbly and unstable (hint, they would be just as stable as a habitat hung from a cable in Earth gravity, if you jumped around you may be able to feel a slight wobble but that's it).

>Just tether two SpaceX rockets together and we can have free artificial gravity achievable and ready to use before the end of this year.
Yep, they even have attachment points that allow them to be hung by the nose, meaning literally all you'd need is a cable arrangement.

>>11687153
Does your mother know you're on that taiwanese etching site again, young man?

>>11687101
Usually inspired by designs like the Stanford Torus. Also a ring uses the entire available rotational "area" (along a ring of constant gravity around the rotation axis) whereas two cans on a string would use a limited area. There's also the issue of transfering material or people from one can to another (unless the other can is unmanned).

>>11687102
You're correct.

>>11687153
You're basically saying that the thrusters would be strong enough that they would reduce the velocity of landing, after the Raptors killed all the velocity and shut down, but they wouldn't be strong enough to let Starship hover, yes? The problem with your idea is, it's stupid. There's no reason to deliberately make the thrusters smaller than is necessary to allow Starship to counteract gravitational acceleration using them. It would be completely trivial to just size them up slightly and allow yourself nice slow totally controlled landings with no last-second fall. Also, it's very clear in the renders that SpaceX has put out that there's no way they'll be able to lift off using the Raptors without damaging the vehicle, because there's like half a meter of clearance between the ground and the Starship's lower skirt. There's also the fact that in the landing burn render, the Raptors are already shut down, yet the vehicle is still high up and also pointed somewhat sideways, meaning it still needs to cancel some horizontal velocity as well as vertical.

>>11687178
>Also a ring uses the entire available rotational "area" (along a ring of constant gravity around the rotation axis) whereas two cans on a string would use a limited area.
Two cans on a string is for getting people to other planets, not for building habitat stations. A torus habitat would be too heavy to be practical.
>There's also the issue of transfering material or people from one can to another (unless the other can is unmanned).
That's no problem at all, just don't rely on transferring people or materials from one side to the other. Functionally there's no difference between having two separate cans attached to dumb counterweights, except it's more mass efficient because you aren't wasting launch mass capacity by sending along dumb counterweights.

>>11687178
Yeah. Basically, cans on a string is an okay hack if you for some reason are desperate for artificial gravity and also didn't actually design around it, which is a weird place to be in.

>>11687179
The whole question is whether the thrusters are small or not. And whether they plan on using raptors if they are after doing a makeshift landing pad on moon.

>>11685338
i have a question. How does Dr. Manhattan survive space? Theoretically, assuming he has particle manipulation powers.

>>11687063
reducing the moon's effective gravity allows you to fall much farther than you would be able to without your shitty thrusters

>>11687189
>Two cans on a string is for getting people to other planets, not for building habitat stations. A torus habitat would be too heavy to be practical.
A fair point. I think some Mars DIRECT concepts use something like this. Although with the spacecraft and a spent stage.

>>11687192
Which is perfectly fine if there's limited space industry such as now.

Also wasn't there a Gemini experiment like two cans on a string?

>>11687197
Maybe you should read the graphic novel or ask /co/?

>>11687194
>>11687197
>>11687201
The downies in sector 4 are drinking the goddamn reactor coolant again.

>>11687153
>and this only needs to happen for a second or so, not few seconds.
Unless the Starship in pic related is falling at ~30 meters per second, the thrusters will be controlling the descent for more than 'a second or so'. Just so everyone knows, 30 m/s is 108 km/h or 67 mph. Not exactly a soft touchdown.

In reality, this Starship would be landing at ~1m/s. If you are right and these thrusters cannot produce a TWR equal to 1, and the Raptors shut down when the Starship was moving at zero velocity, that means that the thrusters would need to be able to pull at MINIMUM a TWR of 0.96, in order to only accelerate by 1 m/s over the course of a 30 meter fall.

>>11686381
It was the orbital module that wasn't used for re-entry, they were going to ditch it anyhow.

>>11687210
That's just a render, only the general idea matters and not the specifics. The specifics hasn't been worked out yet.

>>11687209
stfu nigger, the glowy water is delicious

>>11686481
and it got fined for littering too

>>11687192
>cans on a string is an okay hack if you for some reason are desperate for artificial gravity and also didn't actually design around it
Or if you can't afford to launch the propellant necessary to accelerate a 500,000 ton rotating ring habitat to Mars. That's the bigger issue.

>>11687194
OF COURSE THEY'RE FUCKING SMALL. THE MOON'S GRAVITY IS SMALL.
Your argument has EXPLICITLY been that the thrusters aren't strong enough to lift the Starship off of the Moon's surface and I've shown in several different ways that they HAVE to be.

>>11687197
He survives because he is not alive, not biologically anyway. He exists apart from his own body, for frig's sake.

>>11687201
A TWR of 0.5 lets you fall twice as far from a starting velocity of zero and impact with the same velocity, yes. Unfortunately for your argument, the thrusters on Starship need to work for a long enough fall that they need a TWR of over 0.95 in order to keep the touch-down velocity less than fatal to the vehicle, which is so close to 1 that it guarantees that after the cargo is unloaded the thing would have a TWR >1 anyway, but more importantly there's no way they'd pick such a risky one-chance landing maneuver when they could uprate the output of those thrusters by 10% and have a landing system that can hover and find a perfect spot to set it down instead.

>>11686435
I wonder how much Musk knows?

>>11687233
Third one here. Thanks anon. I received some news recently so I have to study this science fiction to come to understand it.

>>11687204
>Also wasn't there a Gemini experiment like two cans on a string?
Yes, and it was based as fuck, and then a bunch of shit happened and the concept was forgotten or written off by most. A shame, really.

>>11687217
The entire point of the thrusters is to make it so that Raptor can be shut down a fair distance before landing so that the undesirable effects of regolith being blasted up by hyper-velocity engine exhaust into the propulsion compartment of Starship do not occur. The thrusters take over and bring the Starship down from the altitude and velocity where the Raptors are cut to zero velocity and zero altitude. We know this, we were told this. There'd be no point to activating the thrusters one second before landing, two meters up, and then shutting them down. That's retarded.

>>11687235
He knows enough to be devoting himself to constructing a utilitarian technocratic capitalist colony on another planet, anon.

>>11687244
>that the undesirable effects of regolith being blasted up
Whats' the minimum distance required? A meter? 10 meter? 100 meter?

>>11685473
>>11685473
>we should have been on mars decades ago with nuclear propulsion technology that makes space travel easy.

does anyone ever get the feeling something or group of people are conspiring to keep us on earth. was reading about ULA proposed in space fuel depot. Apparently that shit got axed due political reasons.
and from a statistical point of view i dont feel comfortable with the idea we are essentially reason all our hopes and dreams on ELON MUSK. He is so edgy and defiant the gov could just fabricate something against him.

>>11687235
Kys

>>11687233
>Or if you can't afford to launch the propellant necessary to accelerate a 500,000 ton rotating ring habitat to Mars.
You don't need anything that massive.
Assuming you just want Mars-esque gravity, an 18m Starship could probably do it on its own just fine, no strings attached, as it were.

do they have sex on the iss

>>11687254
No

>>11687249
Probably over 50 meters, but for stabilization purposes something like 150 meters minimum would be desirable, as it would make the entire landing maneuver less stressful.

One meter is definitely far, far FAR too low. Raptor's exhaust plume would begin kicking up dist at 25 meters, maximum, and the amount and size of the particles being blasted up would increase exponentially as distance decreased.

>>11687249
>Whats' the minimum distance required? A meter? 10 meter? 100 meter?

Higher than any reasonable designer would allow a 15 story tall rocket to fall without a TWR well in excess of 1. Not to mention that any crew capable vehicle is going to have tons of safety margin and engine out accommodation, plus they would probably want the ability to hover both to fine tune a landing point (don't want to land on any boulders) and to spool up the Raptors in case of a last minute abort.

Or maybe I'm wrong and they're going to build a bunch of thrusters 1% under the margin necessary to keep the ship from splatting into the ground.

>>11687255
>18m Starship
And do what, spin it? If you do it about the central axis, your radius is 9 meters, your rpm is over 10, and your astronauts are vomiting everywhere constantly. You need a certain minimum radius for any spin gravity setup depending on the gravity you're looking to simulate. A 9 meter radius gets you nothing useful. Tethering two Starships off of their pre-existing crane lift hard points lets you simulate anything up to full Earth gravity with zero nausea inducing effects and no need to reconfigure the internal layout of Starship during different phases of flight. 'Up' is the same direction inside the vehicle on Earth, during transit, and on Mars.

>>11687260
Only the russian men

>>11687244
>Yes
Which mission was it?

>and it was based as fuck, and then a bunch of shit happened and the concept was forgotten or written off by most. A shame, really.
Probably was sidelined for the endless mirco-g experiments to farm grants over.

>>11686882
What about laws in space? Individuals going there would need the capital and maybe compliance with space laws (if any aside from launches). I thank you for explaining why orion would not have worked.

>>11687286
>If you do it about the central axis, your radius is 9 meters, your rpm is over 10
At 1g, yeah. At .3g you're at a point where people will adjust within a couple of days. And the point isn't that you should spin Starships, really, it's that your numbers are retarded.

>>11687294
>Which mission was it?
Gemini XI
>Probably was sidelined for the endless mirco-g experiments to farm grants over.
Yup. Nothing to learn by putting your astronauts up and into their own personal 9.8m/s^2 simulated G environment.

>>11687317
I should also point out that by spinning an 18m Starship around a central axis, only the outermost volume is actually at ~1/3 G, and most of the volume of the vehicle is effectively wasted space. Meanwhile by tethering two Starships off of each other 100% of the internal volume is usable at indistinguishably small differences in perceived G force from nose to basement.

>>11687110
>crossboarders
/sci/ posters alone are bad enough. I only read /sfg/ here and nothing else. Every now and then I look at the catalog and it's full of stupid. I think crossboarders (aside from the faggots that cum to being OP the instant a thread reaches bump limit) are probably better overall than the /sci/ regulars.

>>11687332
Reduced gravity doesn't mean wasted space. But more to the point, no one's doing any of this. It isn't strictly necessary while also being fairly impractical. The only Mars missions with artificial gravity will be built from the ground up for the job.

>>11687362
It could be useful if you're trying to transport animals or other shit that can't handle prolonged zero g.

It isn't all that complicated either, you just need to add attachment points for anchors, and then an RCS burn arrangement similar to the one that the Moon version of the starship uses.

>>11687317
Typically a rotation rate above 3 rpm is when people start to feel it and become heavily uncomfortable. Using 3 rpm, an 18 meter diameter cylinder can only achieve .88 m/s2 of artificial gravity.

>>11687131
The moon still has like two or three latitudes without the mascon jank. The orbit is political, it's also to give SLS a reason to exist.
>>11687158
The only tricky thing about the cable method is if you want to dock with it. You can't match the path of either end without the centripetal force of the cable, so you have to dock at the hub. Which there isn't one. But if this is just being used for the ride to Mars, there won't be anything to dock with it. It's just useless for a space station.
It also makes it hard to EVA in case you need to do outside maintenance, you have to stop the rotation before you can go outside or you'll just be flung out into space if you fall off.

>>11687369
By the time you're transporting animals the infrastructure has probably outgrown gen1 Starships, I think. Anyway, the hardware isn't complicated, but the process is. You need to sync up your transfers, rendezvous in route, then hook them up and spin up. The hook up is the egregious part to me. This isn't a docking operation, there's basically no way to automate it that I can see. Are you going to have astronauts EVA trained for this specific mission on both ships every time you do this

>>11687384
I was thinking you could hook up the cables in LEO and then just have both do the burn to escape LEO while the cables are still slack.

As long as they're burning in the same direction, it should work.

>>11687398
The hookup is still the same - pretty janky EVA process that will need a crack team to pull off. This exchanges one set of precise maneuvers for another - both probably doable, just much more terrifying in this case.

How big is too big for rockets? At what point do you think a size is simply too large to be feasible.

>>11687407
Just tie a second rope so you don't lose the astronaut, and then have the dude go out with the cable and tie like a bowline knot or something on the loop.

It would be a bit troublesome, but so are manned missions to Mars in general.

I don't envision this as something every mission should do, but it would be a fairly simple thing to jury rig if a specific mission required it, especially animal transport.

How else are you going to have cats on Mars.

That reminds me. Thread theme:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97xfV6yXcrk

>>11687422
If you keep materials and construction the same, there must be a point where a vehicle that was stable at radius X shakes itself apart when scaled to radius Y, right? Stopping before you hit that point sounds reasonable.

>>11687437
Strengthen the structure

>>11687457
Maybe a better answer would be when the vibration of your ridicutons of thrust becomes so great that provisioning against it starts to become a significant part of your launch & maintenance budget.

>>11687422

>>11687422
once your smallest tank becomes spherical and to make it any bigger you'd need to flatten it like a big pancake
that's when you've gone too far

>>11687422
Once large scale industrial assembly takes place in orbit, nothing is too big. An O’Neill is technically considered one big spacecraft. Our lifetimes will get to see the rise of true megastructures

>>11687528
I think the question is more pertaining to launch vehicles, hence the sea dragon. Especially since there are meaningful limits on how big a launch vehicle can be and still be practical for its purpose, while basically anything can be a spacecraft. Some fucker is gonna bore a hole in an asteroid and designate the whole thing his station and cause systemwide debates on the definition at some point.

>>11687540
>tfw you have to pay more space taxes for your asteroid base the IAU redefined a space station to include anything it's attached too
Th-thanks Space Obama...

>>11687384
at what point would you ever be transporting animals. I can maybe small pets but likely you'd be transporting embryos

so what exactly is the Taco Dome

>>11686257

>>11687622
Needs Tony Bruno with a cowboy hat.

>>11687347
Ah yes the /pol/ bullshit about muh jews is totally constructive in a discussion about spaceflight and the development of Starship

https://spacenews.com/spacex-rideshare-program-putting-downward-pressure-on-prices/

Falcon 9 already is only $5,000 per kg. How low will it go with starship? Also reminder that the "space truck" space shuttle was a total failure in every way.

>>11687670
For every post about Jews in /sfg/, there's another one complaining about it and crying "go back to /pol/". It would be trivial for you just to ignore it, as people do with flat earthers, but you're a retard and you just can't help yourself so you constantly have to derail the thread with a petty argument.
>>11687110
The problem has never been cross posters, it's those who refuse to ignore space related political opinions they don't agree with and instead of actually debating them, they resort to bullshit personal attacks.

>>11687723
>, it's those who refuse to ignore space related political opinions they don't agree with and instead of actually debating them, they resort to bullshit personal attacks.

No. Nobody has to debate your political opinions on threads that have nothing to do with your political opinions.

If you make another /pol/ shitpost in one of these threads, your mother will die in her sleep tonight.

>>11687734
The actual problem is tools like you crying of the "/POL/" boogeymen. Ignore them, and they stop, for they don't get the (you)s they want.

>>11687734
>Nobody has to debate your political opinions on threads that have nothing to do with your political opinions.
Either debate it or ignore it. The worst option is crying about /pol/ because it's a pure ad hominem and the only reply you're going to get back is another one, which is much more detracting to the thread than the original post.
>If you make another /pol/ shitpost in one of these threads
I deliberately stay clear of politics out of respect for these threads. I don't know what upset you today, there are no other mention of Jews that I can find besides your own post.

>>11687670
And then there's this bullshit >>257974923

>>11687670
And then there's this bullshit >>>/pol/257974923

>>11686253
Why did this guy use the carbon fiber starship model? And why are they not wearing full pressure suits?

>>11686322
I am skeptical of SpaceX and I think Musk is a dickhead but I've just realised that their marketing is genius. They made space popular not just because of their successes but because of their failures. I realised this after seeing everyone cheer every time one of their rockets explode. They're a "private" company so no-one gives a shit if their rocket blows up and it gets them more views on Youtube anyway. Compare this to the Soviets who went to great lengths to hide all their failures and NASA who moves glacially slow because they can't afford to fail in the eyes of the taxpayer. I'm working on an unrelated project right now and the comments don't seem to care whether it succeeds or fails, they just want to see speed/loud bangs/destruction. I think I may take a leaf out of Musk's book and capitalise on this by doing all my testing live even if I know it's probably going to go wrong.

>>11687693
>Only 5000 per kg
Still way too high to really make space colonization a reality.
Elon aims to get starship below $10/kg, but I think realistically the lowest he will get is $30-40/kg

Remember to have kids. It’s rewarding and fun.

>>11687848
it's also super expensive, like 10k+ USD per year

so remember to have kids if and when you're financially secure enough to give the kid a healthy upbringing so they can grow into a responsible adult

>>11687856
Make mo’ money so you can provide. Such is the lot of men.

>>11686256
>Harder how?
Get orders of magnitude more material to lunar orbit and the surface of the Moon than was previously possible, preferably on a single launch.
The Moon landing was scientifically useful; it brought back orders of magnitude more samples than probes could've.
>then the soviets decided they may as well try to.
They continued trying to make the N1 work until 1972.. Hardly some minor side project picked up on a whim.

>>11687824
Cause based terraforming.

>>11686263
Probes to Jupiter (Juno), Saturn (Cassini), Pluto (New Horizons).

>>11687863
absolutely, but establishing a career often takes time and if you have a kid at 19 for instance that's gonna fuck your finances and career path, so it's ultimately wisest to wait until you can provide + have enough resources to continue climbing the ladder of life

>>11687876
That takes ages. Just learn a trade in your early 20’s

>Space Force expected to only allow 300-350 new persons to join per year (officers + enlisted)
Lol what the fuck it's going to be hard as diamonds to get in.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/thompson-space-force-qa-259824

>Japan creates space unit for their air force
>100 people by 2023
I guess it's something...
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/05/18/japan-launches-new-unit-to-boost-defense-in-space/

>>11687723
If you ignore it they start to think it‘s thread culture and double down.

>>11687931
in fairness dont they have like 16000 soldiers waiting to be assigned?

>>11687028
>The popular stereotype of the researcher is that of a skeptic and a pessimist. Nothing could be further from the truth! Scientists must be optimists at heart, in order to block out the incessant chorus of those who say "It cannot be done."
>Academician Prokhor Zakharov, University Commencement

Wouldn't it be relatively trivial to do pic related but with modified Starships?

Pull the header tanks further down into the hull and replace the normal nosecone with one that can eject like a payload faring. Inside have the same sort of docking/fuel attachment arrangement that the top of Superheavy has, then start launching a bunch of these modified ships up and dock them all together. Slap a regular crewed Starship on front and then fuel the whole fucker up and you've got an assload of extra delta-v to go to Titan or wherever else you want to visit at a significantly higher speed than you otherwise would. Granted you'd wind up leaving the "booster" Starships as expendable stages but a couple hundred million to shave a few years off the journey doesn't seem like a bad trade.

You could probably even launch the individual boosters to Mars and do the orbital assembly and refueling from a Mars base to cut down the time even further.

>>11688301
might as well find a way to attatch an NTR if you're desperate for delta V, starship has a terrible fuel mass ratio afaik

>>11687931
Better to keep a small pragmatic unit than have a makework employment programme that gives the Demz plenty of material to encourage disbanding USSF.

Steve Carrel will do enough damage in two weeks although i’m hoping thats going to be a bait and switch and end up
ProSpace.

Japanese cargo launch to the ISS has been delayed until tomorrow
https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1262633508633108519

X-37B found already. "It is in a 45 degree inclined, approximately 390 km altitude orbit."
https://twitter.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/1262385920487108608

>>11688238
Afaik this is for new people, those who aren't transferred in automatically.

Looking for E-1 Spaceperson recruit, must haves:
* bachelors degree in STEM
* 3.9+ GPA
* 3 letters of professional recommendation
* 93+ score or higher on the ASVAB
* 4 years of ROTC
* no older than 20 years old

>>11688301
From the thumbnail, I thought this was a twintail girl in frilly dress. What a disappointment

>>11688396
Why not add shitting goldbars too as a requirment while your at it.

>>11688421
On my phone, but looks different on desktop. So cropped the image.

>>11687235
Bezos bought the Washington Post btw.
If you look back on their articles from years ago when SpaceX was first gaining ground, they absolutely smeared them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZFnTBSRKcg
1962 recording, James Webb trying to convince JFK that going to moon is too hard.
JFK resisted. This is why i love politicians.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01668
Life can do just fine in hydrogen atmospheres.

>>It's coming home

https://images.nasa.gov/details-KSC-20200515-MH-GEB01_0001-Demo-2_Crew_Dragon_Transport_to_Pad-3250285

>>11688776
this is honestly the most excited I've been about space in a long time. Everything seems to be looking up and it feels like we're right around the corner.

>>11688785
What's so special about this, the russians do it all the time...

>>11688794
It’s American and private

>>11688794
it just gives me more confidence in Starship

>>11688794
The first time in history a private organization to send humans into orbit, it will be a turning point for spaceflight.

>>11688800
Only the private part should be a thing to be proud about, the american part is just sad, after years of piggyback ridding with the russians.
Should never have gone so bad for so long
hell, it would still be if not for a South african dude with a dream.
American space program, saved by a non american, again....

>>11688819
America wasn't made great by natives smashing rocks together either.

>>11688819
it's going to be sad watching Von Braun get erased from history because of his Nazi associations despite being the instrumental person in getting people to the moon.

>>11688819
>hell, it would still be if not for a South african dude with a dream.
>American space program, saved by a non american, again....
But Elon was already nationalized as a US citizen when he started SpaceX.

>>11688819
Chad America stomps all other countries because of its immigrants.

space council live:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg&feature=emb_title

>>11688833
This.

America is literally just a place for all the smart people to go where the government won't bother them.

>>11688840
Jim needs a microphone

>>11688794
The russians don't have to fight the US Congress and Senate to get shit done.

>>11688875
looks like they're recording both video and audio second hand instead of just broadcasting the stream as they receive it, like the tech illiterate boomers they are

>>11688829
I hope he'll eventually have space stations named after him

>>11688794
soyuz is ancient, this is cheaper with a more modern A E S T H E T I C

>>11688776
I can't wait to hear the Russians REEEing about this one.

>>11688794
what people don't understand is we can do pretty much anything in spaceflight if we put enough money into it. there's very little we could be considered to be not capable of, but resources are always going to be limited. the important developments in spaceflight aren't doing things fist, but doing things cheaper and more efficiently, and the first private company launching their own capsule for half the price of the competition (but lets be realistic, probably at a far lower cost to them) is a hell of a fucking advancement for spaceflight, we've essentially doubled our ability/dollar of shit humans can do in orbit

>>11688840
>Current year plus four
>NASA still can't figure out how to get half decent sound quality.
This is a bruh moment.

>>11688802
It has little to do with starship though.
Anyway the tech used (falcon 9, crew dragon) are well proved now, there is really nothing new aside the political meaning.

>>11688960
>It has little to do with starship though.
it's just proof that SpaceX's fail fast design methodology can reach the highest level of modern space travel. Now we need to see if it can push the envelope.

>>11688829
Erased what, you have seen too much tv.
His "nazi association" was well known from the start, he was the father of V2!
Of course americans will celebrate more american astronauts than a german engineer, but that happened even during apollo times.

>>11688977
less erased and more not appreciated as he should be as the father of American spaceflight.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-make-announcement-about-wfirst-space-telescope-mission
>NASA will host a special edition of NASA Science Live at 11 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, May 20, to share an exciting announcement about the agency’s Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) mission.
>exciting announcement

T-this has to mean good news, r-right?

>>11688990
Yes they'll announce that Boing has been chosen as primary supplier of gateway and the american return to Luna.

>>11688894
I honestly prefer the blue + orange, the spacex suits look like spaceballs props

>>11688994
And that’s a bad thing?

>>11688829
Hopefully the stations are code named as VB-01 or something, we don't need (((them))) erasing all of his history.

>>11688999
Nice digits

>we know that our adversaries have weaponized space in the last few years
do we know in what way? Is this about the chinese anti-satellite missile or something else?

>>11689010
Russia and China have both sent up satellite networks to act as their version of GPS.

That means that we can't disable their PGMs just by cutting off GPS coverage to an area, like we did in 2008 when Russia was invaded Georgia.

>>11688907
>what people don't understand is we can do pretty much anything in spaceflight if we put enough money into it.
By that logic SLS should be doing barrel rolls around mars.

>In 2014, Boeing was very much perceived as the gold-standard—expensive, yes, but also technically masterful. In 2020, the company was still perceived as expensive but not ultimately worthy of consideration.

>>11689032
You got a source on that quote?

>>11686139
Very interesting considering the time of the notam and the highway closure, means they will only have 1 hour to attempt the hop between 5pm and 6pm UTC..

>>11689034
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/a-nasa-analysis-of-boeings-lunar-cargo-delivery-plan-is-very-unflattering/

>>11685377
>We don’t have a commercially available heavy-lift vehicle. The Falcon 9 Heavy may some day come about. It’s on the drawing board right now. SLS is real

HOLY SHIT
>HOLY SHIT
HOLY SHIT
>HOLY SHIT
IT'S REAL

>>11689103
orion going to space in a falcon9 heavy would be the ultimate cucking of boeing.

>>11689137
Nice CGI.

>>11689030
SLS has cost a lot yes, but it's design choices were all dominated by budget considerations - the RS-25s (and by extension the ridiculous hydrogen first stage) and all the other shit that's causing delays were all supposed to be cheaper. The SLS also doesn't rely on any new tech at all, so yeah, the only thing limiting it is budget. (not a pro SLS post, it should be defunded but it's a fact that if it had unlimited funding SLS would be done already, just compare it to apollo)

somebody do the thread thing
>>11689137
fake and gay

>>11688884
I mean this is the organization that broadcasted the most widely viewed event in human history by playing it on a TV, holding a camera on it and then relaying it to the rest of the world and recording it. Then they taped over what they had on the first screen because while rockets may get infinite budget, I guess an extra roll of film was just too hard to come by.

>>11689154
>if it had unlimited funding SLS would be done already
t. cost plus crony
That is not how anything works

>>11688794
60 year old rocket with a lot of recent quality control issues.
Also it‘s literally a sardine can and can only transport 2 people, 3 if you squish them hard enough.
Also NASA only transmits their footage in 480p or something. Now we‘ll get high quality footage all the way, baby.
And we‘ll get to see all the mainstream media hyping this up in a big event only for them to scrap for the day because of winds and the entire nation will be seething. It‘s gonna be great.

>>11689179
an SLS with literally unlimited funding wouldn't need contracts or cost plus, they could throw up a fucking megafactory and poach every useful employee from boeing and every single other space flight company, they could have all of those people working on one design or like 6 in tandem which could be made out of fucking pure titanium or carbon fiber. Of course, this isn't likely to happen, but the point is that the limiting factor in spaceflight is money and has always been

>>11689201
>made out of titanium
enjoy your metal fires and undiagnosable corrosion lol
>carbon fibre
throwing money at carbon fibre doesn't magically make it work, you know

>>11689201
"we'll just make a bigger team with more contractors and solve the problem faster!"
situation: your job of integrating four gajillion disparate parts into some kind of cohesive whole has turned into eight gajillion with a matching increase in your timeframes
money does not make anything faster, good management makes things faster

>>11685338
>/sfg/ Space Flight General
Zero is simply Shorthand for Minus one (0.000...1)
Square Root of Minus one (0.000...1) is itself, ∞

(0.000...1)^1/2 = ∞ so ∞^2 = ∞
(0.000...1)^2 = ∞ so ∞^1/2 = ∞

Minus one Operation

∞ + ∞ = ∞
∞ - ∞ = ∞
∞ x ∞ = ∞
∞ / ∞ = ∞

Doctor VICTOR
Denkenstein