/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11701350
There's even a 4channel logo at the bottom.

>>11701350
Could residential habitats one day have tons of docking ports, like how domestic ports have a bunch of them for personal boats?

remember kids, no frogposting allowed

>>11701405
froge in spaec

>>11701409
The radiation of outer space mutated the Pepe lineage. They have four arms now

>>11701405

We've come a long way since this

>>11701405
Fuck anime pedophiles

>>11701405
I disagree.

>>11701475
that's different, that frog is in the process of being frozen

>>11701469
We need more space anime desu

>>11701460

Is Jim Our Guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ6wwA9wXog

Now this is thinking big-but the question is, will they be able to fund it?

>>11701516
no

>>11701405
Get here you fucking fairy!

>>11701512
yes

>>11701516
Ok but why? Like what’s the point? It would be better to have all those modules on the Moon or Mars

On an unrelated note what does everyone think of the El Camino? I want to buy one but everyone says I’ll look like white trash.

>>11700991
Bezos has been Seething for years as Spacex gets more in grants than he spends of his own money lol

Imagine if they aimed to build a rocket instead of 10 years suborbital nonsense

>>11701516
Any space station with “escape capsules” is a meme

>>11701546
pretty embarrassing that their dinky suborbital pleasure barge will be beaten to a manned launch by SpaceX's vastly superior rocket.

>>11701552
That's like saying a ship with lifeboats is a meme.

>>11701552
The ISS literally has them

>>11701556
Seriously. New Shepard is cool and all, but what's taking BO so long to put people in it? My only guess is that safety regulations for manned suborbital hoppers are incredibly high thanks to Virgin and that's slowing down BO significantly.

>>11701552
Exactly, we just need MOOSE lockers every hundred meters.

wtf Alex
https://youtu.be/smXA5IUYfuE

>>11701568
It’ll never happen, there are no magic safety regulations for aerospace, you can put people in anything.


>>11701560
Space stations don’t sink

>>11701571
:(

>>11701577
they can suffer impacts or accidents and lose internal pressure,or even,and i know this sounds strange, get attacked if a war in space break out.

>>11701577
>Space stations don’t sink

Meteorite impacts, fires, accidents during docking, collisions, even attack.

>>11701577
>literally anything fails
>slowly die because you don't have any way off
>"hurr at least we're not sinking"

>>11701526
>I want to buy one but everyone says I’ll look like white trash.
Who the fuck cares. It's a nice car and you will enjoy it.

>>11701577
>It’ll never happen
Why?

>>11701560
Lifeboats kill more people than they save

>>11701593
>>11701580
>>11701591

Why do you need to escape or leave...

A ship in the ocean sinks and will drag you to death
A space station just sits there

>>11701601
You'd want to hang out on a damaged, potentially deteriorating and compromised space station?

It is amazing the things people will actually argue about-having a means to quickly leave a space station does not seem terribly controversial to me.

>>11701601
>He doesn't know about the kraken

>>11701606
It’s all compartmentalized
Get out of the failed habitat and you are fine
Structural failure is impossible if designed properly

>>11701601
It's fucking space you retard. Just sitting in it isn't surviving. You rely on the outside for all resources and if for some reason anyone couldn't dock you are absolutely fucked. If your power or radiators fail you're fucked. If you suffer a collision you're fucked. Just get over it, why is this even an argument

>>11701614
>Get out of the failed habitat and you are fine
Yeah, like jumping in a
fucking
escape pod

>>11701620
No it’s visiting and staying with your neighbor

>>11701616
You will have emergency life support for a week, which is ample time for repairs or rescue or to turn on backup systems

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/advancing-torpor-inducing-transfer-habitats-for-human-stasis-to-mars/

Neat. Weird to imagine going to sleep and waking up weeks later.

Better make sure to brush your teeth really really well first.

>>11701676
Imagine the post interplanetary sleep bed-head.

>>11701676
the future is now !

>>11701676
I can already see POL-9000 shutting down the stasis pods of the minorities and jews

>>11701635
A week isn't enough time to plan and launch a rocket with oldspace companies.

>>11701771
Even with Starship operating at full capacity you can't always guarantee that it could be ready and docked under all possible emergency considerations, short of just keeping one docked... at which point you have an escape pod

oh shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZyev1rfds0
https://youtu.be/NlZHITatXYc

not spaceflight related...yet...

>>11701405
Cirno, where are your legs?

>>11701818
here's a link that doesn't look like schizo conspiracy nonsense
https://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/130628

haha

>>11701405
/r/ing happy apu flying through the clouds

>>11701516

>>11701788
Yes you absolutely can guarantee a launch with a weeks notice if not we have no business being in space

>>11702017
Reminder that it took the Shuttle at least 54 days to be refurbished, which increased to at least 88 days after Challenger.

>>11702027
The Shuttle needed to be half rebuilt after every mission from the RS-25s to the heat shield. Starship is a much simpler design assuming the Raptors don't need much maintenance.

>>11702030
It wasn't a strike against Starship. Was reminded by the disaster of the Shuttle program and wanted to share by pain.

>>11702017
Guaranteeing a launch is not the same as guaranteeing a safe docking. Only considering ideal conditions is not the way to provision against emergency situations.

>>11701516
Still skeptical, but at least it's slowly looking more well-considered.

>>11701516
>renaming it away from Von Braun because of some whiny Jews
boooooo

>>11701350

>Mercury-Redstone 1: very humorous uncrewed test where the rocket skips up an inch or two, literally falls back down and sits free-standing, autistically deploying its escape system a moment later
>Apollo 1: retro-active name for disaster killing three
>Skylab 1: space station fucks up and a wing doesn't deploy, other problems
>Soyuz 1: burns dude to a crisp because fuck it we're Soviets just keep throwing crap up there, quantity has a quality all its own

EXTREMELY smart of them not to give the flight an official designation ending with "1".

>>11702070
DM-1 already happened, anon. It was the uncrewed test mission with the high tech plush gravity sensor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Dragon_Demo-1

>>11702070
>Starliner 1: shotty code shits itself and nearly dooms the mission completely

>>11702027
Which killed a crew when they knew there was issues and yet had no way of launching extra supplies to it in orbit
Good shit NASA

>>11702057
Then you build a lock and cut a hole in the hull if existing air locks are wrecked
A future space station is not just another ISS

>>11702086
Yeah you can get to that, I'll stick to spending 5 minutes in a pod and never stepping on such a garbage station

>>11702086
Lol, the fucking gymnastics.

Just keep a soyuz or two docked and all of your problems are solved. Shut up

>>11702106
>Just keep a soyuz or two docked and all of your problems are solved.
The Voyager station plans to do that with Dreamchasers since they can land horizontal.

>>11702081
From what i have read the clock fuckup showed a much bigger fuckup that made it clear it would have burned up in reentry if the clock fuckup never happend.
Starliner is a fucking shitshow and everybody involved should be ashamed.

>>11702027
For comparison, the Falcon 9 record is 62 days.

>>11702070
>>11702076
>>11702081
>DM-1: Flies successfully, but blows itself up in post-flight testing
I'd say the pattern fit

>>11701512
Jim cares more about getting shit done than keeping old-space happy, this will cost hm his job sooner or later.

>>11702140
Elon will hire him if that happens.

>>11702076

That's exactly my point, you may not have taken my meaning. The thing to do in your new program's development is to give the designation "1" to some uncrewed test or other bullshit verification to get it out of the way.

>>11702152
SpaceX is pass through company.
No place for jim.

>>11701405
Thank you, based Cirno. Frogposting needs to die.

>>11702169
Kek.

>>11702140
Old space is losing its grip, it no longer really matters if they're happy. At the point where you have a situation like the HEO Director resign because he tried to keep old space in the game on a contract bid by breaking the rules, I'd say the sea change has fucking happened. Jim is making Trump happy by cutting out the old space bullshit and moving to actually meet schedules, so he's not going anywhere.

>>11701512
Yes.

>>11702179
>At the point where you have a situation like the HEO Director resign because he tried to keep old space in the game on a contract bid by breaking the rules
I thought it was due to him getting the National Team to lower their bid so the HLS program would have enough budget to fit three proposals in total?

>>11702179
Cutting out boeing will have repercussions.
They will lose the war but except a lot of battles won by oldspace in the next decade.

>The Capsule has a name for this mission
Bets on what this Dragon 2 is called?

This could be good.

>>11702207
Tohru

>>11702209
it must be hard having your tongue that far up another man's asshole

>>11702213
Say what you will about him, he has gotten a lot of one-on-one time with Elon just from persistence alone

>>11702207
what's a dragon boomers like doug and bob would know... Smaug? Nidhogg? Jabberwock?

>>11702108
Voyager is a meme, they have a dreamchaser for each hab. Good luck funding that with a "lottery"

>>11701454
>>11701350
>>11701409
>>11701475
I never realized space pepes were a thing. My collection grows

>>11702223
It's only a meme because they sucked off proboscis monkeys and chose to not keep it named after Von Braun.

>>11702218
Puff, the magic dragon. 420, blaze it, faggot.

>>11701507
No fuck you

>>11702229
There were quite a few of them made in 2016.

>>11702233
To bad, it's happening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEOveeZuor0

>>11702218
I think they'll call it Columbiad, as NASA hadn't started naming capsules as of Apollo 8 and it's a fitting pairing for a first stab at an abbreviated "full" mission profile for the vehicle, just like what Apollo 8 did.

>>11702216
That and he is probably the least autistic person to question him in the last 5 years. That and he asks questions that makes Elon geek out. Fucking hate the future podcast he does with the calicucks

>>11701516
This looks too good to be true and it probably is. Imo their biggest problem is justifying all the money they'd require. They could probably do the same work with a bunch of infatable modules and fuel tanks at strategic points. It's all moot without ISRU, really.

>>11702207
Shenron
https://youtu.be/Vf7ITKmvBew?t=5

>>11702239
Naming Apollo Capsules, that is.

>>11701516
>>11701519
>>11702058
You guys do understand that starlink will make more than amazon right? Its going to happen. Also fuck the rename.

>>11702252
I wouldn't be surprised if it happens, I'm just not bullish about their plan yet. This update is a step in the right direction, though if they want to go with their Escape Capsule concept they really should contract out a super stripped-down version of whatever vehicle they want to use to cut costs. They can even go for the winged lifting body style vehicle like Dream Chaser to simplify landings, but reducing their total number, making them much cheaper, and making them much longer-lived in a space environment is what they should do. Escape capsules are SINGLE-USE vehicles in theory.

Why do the ISS’s solar arrays sit at a slant in respect to the sun? Surely they’d produce more energy if they were at 90’ angles

>>11702259
I didn't realize that was a different company. Yeah i don't know shit about that project but a vehicle assembly/ orbital refueling station will be in the near future. Hell nasa is already working towards a lunar gateway.

>>11702275
Their basic ideas are all good, and that they're slowly fleshing them out is also good. I just wouldn't give them a dollar right now because they're too non-specific about too many things, like their magical truss robot and how they'll service/cycle all those escape vehicles.

>>11702285
As a member of the mars one society, i think giving them money is a great idea

>>11702285
As a member of the mars one society, i think giving them money is a great idea

>>11702207
Kardas, of course.

>>11702272
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/23809/how-are-the-orientations-of-the-iss-eight-independent-solar-arrays-optimized

>>11702291
Hilarious that some people expected this to actually be a thing.

Wat bout mars bruh

>>11702234
I had plenty galaxy pepes but never space exporapepes

>>11702431
Well I know r*ddit bought it hook line and sinker

>>11702452
everything happening right now is a direct path to mars bruh

>>11702285
I'm pretty sure the escape vehicles will have to be lifted two or three at a time by Starship to meet any kind of cadence, otherwise you're looking at half a billion dollars a year spent on rocket launches even with Falcon 9s.

>>11702452

>>11702496
kek, we need more planetary reaction pics

>>11702452

the moon is a part of mars. we have to go to the moon

>>11702504
This is true for politics if not celestial mechanics. Putting boots on the moon again will convince a whole lot of people that Mars is possible, especially if refueling Starships in orbit is demonstrated.

>>11701350
I read the text around that green leaf as Drunken Hurley. Congrats to Ireland on the space program.

>>11702508
That and its great free R&D

>>11702504
If Doom has taught me anything, it's that moons associated with Mars are far too hazardous for unarmed crews.

Is this why we're forming the Space Force?

>>11702496
I KILLED FITTY MEN!

>>11702514
we are already too late

>>11702514
Elon Musk is clearly Samuel Hayden

>>11702514
>Is this why we're forming the Space Force?
Much like Apollo it's to get there before the Communists.

>>11701409

>>11702557
Communists have no chance of getting anywhere

>https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/audio/ep145_space_x_demo-2.mp3
bretty good podcast

>>11702593
>Communists have no chance of getting anywhere
correct

>>11702593
Don't tell Congress that, they'll get lazier.

>>11702601
‘Houston, We have a podcast’ has the best name certainly and its cery informative. I listen to it in work and the mic levels are infuriating. Turn the speaker up or one mumbler 4 feet from his mic only to have the next person screaming down the mic. Keep meaning to email them.

>>11702613
Yeah its definitely annoying but they have good stuff

Reminder that a huge majority of martian surface features are totally inexplicable by any traditional erosion or impact effects. Lab experiments have shown that they are clearly results of massive electrical discharges.

Why is the ESA so shitty? they are a conglomeration of countries and they cant even compete with Russia or the US

>>11702750
Europe died by 1945. Rigor mortis is setting in.

>>11702750
Socialism.

>>11702750
Not quite an alliance, not quite a superstate, no real cohesive direction

>>11702441
Finally Starship gets the plasma cannon it deserves.

>>11702750
The only launch site is French Guyana for starters. We can't go full fucking China and drop boosters all over the place.

>>11702750
For the money they receive ESA is doing well.
There is just not the political will to give them more money.

>>11702750
Their entire mission statement is
>have one rocket that can launch satellites if the US shuts Europe out
They‘ve had such a rocket for ages now. So now not much is happening anymore. Nobody has a vision for spaceflight there, let alone the political clout to actually make it happen.

I feel like if Elon is serious with Boca Chica, he will start building permanent buildings to replace the tents. The high bay was a big investment, but it can't hold a super heavy, let alone a starship with nose.

Either that or he scraps it all for Florida when he gets the design he wants.

>>11702869
>>11702875
Put some pressure on your governments, we need more than NASA and Russia.
>>11702880
that sucks

>>11702912
Well, we're getting a smallsat launcher in Andøya, so that's a start. They weren't planning on funding it at all this year either on the state budget, but after lots of complaining, they budged on overtime.
If that goes well, who knows what happens next. Gotta start somewhere.

>>11702913
That's great, keep it going man.

>>11702904
I'm expecting something that looks almost exactly like the big high bay, but even taller and with an integrated bridge crane

>>11702914
I'm not connected to it at all, but I've been doing my share of complaining about it in media as best I can. I was quite pleased when I read that they had actually decided to fund it after all.
It's 100 jobs in a fledgling aerospace industry in a country known for very good rocket engines primarily used for missiles. Now all we need is to start developing liquid fuel engines too.

>>11702760
Just sums up the EU in general

>>11702913
Andøya is also being considered as a launch site for EU student rocket teams who had their original launch campaigns cancelled.

There's a good number of Norwegians there, and it sounds like there is interest for space in the country

>>11702942
Not nearly as much interest as I wish there was. The only tech is leftovers from weapons systems from Nammo and Kongsberg.

>>11702921
That does more than you think.

>>11702929
First of all Esa isn't part of the EU.
And regarding Esa's policy member nations seem to agree on the current situation, there isn't any struggle among members.

>>11702946
Andøya was the smallsat launching site furthest along in development alongside the one in Scotland in all of Europe, so to not fund it was fucking retarded, especially coming out of a pandemic when the government is saying "now we need to rebuild and focus on innovation".

>>11702947
Euro mentality in a nutshell. We're not at war, so everything is absolutely fine. Complete lack of ambition.

i still can't believe we are finally going back to American manned space flight. When Obama defunded NASA, canceled the shuttle program and ended the lunar focus i thought we would never make real progress in my lifetime. We were stuck relying on the russians and even the commercial focus was just a convenient continuation of bush era policy that put money in the right hands. That decade was such a low point for space but now we are back, I don't know if I can contain a feel this big guys.

>>11702958
The shuttle program was a tumor and NASA funding has barely shifted for 50 years.

>>11702959
Wrong on both accounts

>>11702960
Whatever you say, transplant. How about focusing on the real success story in American spaceflight. NASA's greatest contribution to the current era is the crumbs it drops to SpaceX and the rest of the new space industry.

>>11702959
It wasn't quite that bad, I'd say it was only parasite tier, but the same inertia that has kept them from making a new launcher (Senate Launch System) would have kept us using that hunk of junk to this day.
Putting us out of its misery was one of the few things Obama did that I agree with. It was not only a flawed design to begin with, but it was holding back from making something better.

>>11702970
>the crumbs it drops to SpaceX and the rest of the new space industry
And it took Obama to kick Shuttle off of the government teat before that could happen.

>>11702750
a few reasons
when it comes down to it, NASA is almost as bad, and for similar reasons - milking taxpayers, diversity hiring etc. The only advantage NASA has is that it sees some sense in commercial spaceflight and and has a lot of pre-existing infrastructure/shared infrastructure with the US military.
ESA has all the faggotry of the EU without being an EU organisation, too. I was thinking of signing up to do a work placement with them and they had a turbo-AIDS handbook about their principles - enforced 50:50 male:female where possible, a list of 'bad thoughts' (e.g. thinking one nation has a better way of thinking about certain things than others) etc
they deserve every failure they get.

>>11702958
>>11702959
>>11702960
Obama's biggest abuse to NASA was gutting interplanetary mission funding. There are only a handful of missions waiting for launch right now because of that.

>>11702986
yeah, cutting shuttle was a bullet that had to be bitten because it was shit
interplanetary missions are where NASA continues to have considerable prowess

>>11702960
He is correct. NASA budget is roughly constant ever since Apollo ended and NASA funding (and spaceflight in general) is not a partisan issue. Shuttle was the most expensive launch vehicle in history and should have been cancelled long ago. Obama administration also supported commercial cargo and crew (SpaceX). But so did Bush admin and Trump admin to be honest. Again, space is not a partisan issue and you will find plenty of both good and bad on both sides of partisan divide.

>>11702997
And the new tumor is "Space Exploration;" that's the SLS and Orion budget.

>>11703008
This is why I keep saying NASA should have nothing to do with launch infrastructure. Imagine what that budget could do if it was just spread out to smaller industry incentives instead with architecture more like HLS and commercial crew.

>>11702647
>Reminder that a huge majority of martian surface features are totally inexplicable by any traditional erosion or impact effects. Lab experiments have shown that they are clearly results of massive electrical discharges.

>>11703022
He's right about the shape of Mariner Valley looking unusual, but I wouldn't call it electrical.

>>11702958
>shuttle
>real progress
at putting money and jobs in the right hands, maybe.
Obama cancelled Constellation and replaced it with SLS.

>>11702997
It’s really hard to believe at this point that it isn’t bipartisan.

>>11702750
ESA (and also Arianespace) are ultimately supposed to guarantee European access and activity in space. There's no mandate to actually compete with anyone else let alone try to take the lead.

>>11702974
It was Bush who cancelled Shuttle after the Columbia report emerged with the "rusty infrastructure" and "vehicle of the experimental nature used on regular basis" wording. But the ISS still had to be complete and completion happened to be under Obongo

>>11702502

>>11702986
SLS alone is already a frankenstein of a project, do you really think the twice-bigger Ares V would have been better? Constellation was a tar pit worse than Shuttle. Meanwhile, Orion CEV cancellation and the decision not to focus on manned LEO in MPCV led to the creation of Crew Dragon and Starliner, which are following a reasonable timeframe.

>>11703059
They got lucky that lots of jobs are in both red and blue states for aerospace. So there's no clear dragon to slay compared to Oil subsidies which go generally to red states, versus public transit funding which goes to mostly densely populated blue states. When the inital locations for NASA we being billeted out, the OG's knew they had to spread the pork around. Otherwise, our space program would die once most of the ICBM tech was hammered out and we finished up the moon. We are very very fucking lucky they had so much foresight.

More countries need to open up and support their commercial space industries. I read yesterday that India was *thinking* about it. Space companies are generating billions of dollars in revenue and opening up new markets and yet countries are still *thinking* about it. It's like people want to be poor and stuck on this rock forever.

>>11702647
>huge majority
>totally inexplicable
>clearly results of massive electrical discharges
>clearly
Wishful thinking or just deliberate strange bait? Can't tell, oh well.

>>11703105
ESA has the same reasoning but is getting nowhere. Both France and Germany are perfectly capable of running their own space programs for example, but it has to be spread between EU members.

>>11702647
name three

>>11703098
I made no comment on SLS there.

>>11703098
That anon was referring to unmanned projects.

>>11703135
Your focusing on the wrong part of the Euros program. The ESA doesnt matter, its Arianespace that matters, and Ariane gets fuck tons of money from the french, but its expected to have its loyalties to france first then the ESA. The esa just plans out satalites, data collection and processing and astronauts going to the ISS, none of those make enough money for the countires to try and pork spend their way into spinning of a real industry of it as compared to the actual rockets. Now if real diversification of launchers were to occur and multiple euro countries tried to spin up their own rocket companies, we might see more money get dumped into the ESA to create need, but no singular Euro country has the cash to make a domestic rocket company really work, the French only did it because of their pure French Autism that drives them to hate anything not French, which allowed them to not have a Black Arrow situation development. And since it seems like no other Euro country is gonna be able to collect enough vaccines and lead baby forumla to develop the autism needed for a consistent politcal will to spend the ungoldy ammounts of money for a domestic rocket industry out of nationalist pride. So the ESA will always be a minor thing for everyone that isnt the French.

>>11702213
He is the only "press" that you can tell Musk enjoys talking too, not because of the ass kissing but because he asks technical questions and Musk is a technical guy.

>>11702958
>When Obama defunded NASA, canceled the shuttle program
Obama didn't cancel the Shuttle. Bush did, in 2004, after Columbia. In fact, Americans had 7 years to make a replacement spacecraft, and it was known well in advance that the last Shuttle flight is scheduled for 2010s. Orion CEV, a part of the Constellation program, was intended to replace Shuttle for LEO, on top of the Ares I. Obama cancelled the Constellation, for a good reason (I'm willing to bet the CEV wouldn't have been completed even today if it were allowed to continue).

>>11702869
>The only launch site is French Guyana for starters.
And that's an excellent place, literally nothing wrong with it.

What could've been...

>>11703239
It's a bit small to serve the needs of an entire continent. Seeing as you didn't get the hint, we don't really have much eastern seaboard property to launch from so we can conveniently drop shit in the drink.

>>11703240
Done right a SRB first stage has the potential to be cheap but you just know they would insist on reusing them which has proven much more expensive than expending them.

>>11703240
>>11703245
Yes, we could have pissed away between $24 and $32 billion dollars to build what SpaceX created for $6 billion while supplying a dozen cargo launches. Truly a lost opportunity, there.

>>11703114
The only reason privatizing launch providers in the US has lead to such huge saving is because the existing providers have been getting away with price gauging thanks to corruption.
Look at Japan for a great example of how cheap goverment run launches can be if you don't let the suppliers buy your government officials.

>>11702207
Jebediah

>>11703249
Like I said "done right" it could be cheap, I'm not saying oldspace in capable of doing it right.

>>11703245
the main problem with AresV/SLS is that SRB's are needed only because they keep insisting on meme hydrolox core first stages, having to drag along huge tanks instead of just sticking to based RP-1 like any non-shit lower engine (excluding Raptors)

>>11703255
Certainly not. Ares I-X cost $400 million dollars and was nothing more than a pretend rocket shape stuck on top of a four segment SRB straight out of the Shuttle program's inventory. For the same amount of money, SpaceX developed and flew the first Falcon 9 to orbit with a boilerplate Dragon cargo spacecraft.

>>11703250
>Look at Japan for a great example of how cheap goverment run launches can be if you don't let the suppliers buy your government officials.

H-IIB cost per launch: US$112.5 million, still double that of Falcon 9

>>11703261
Considering how high cost Japan is, that's not too shabby.

>>11703251
I wouldn't rule that out, he loves the memes.

>>11703256
Realy depends on your flight profile needs, hydrolox are great but produce way less thrust at sea level and need boosters to see the ISP gains later in the burn.
For GEO / TLI mission a 5 minute hydrolox core makes sense, for LEO it doesn't.

>>11703261
True but compare that to a Delta and it's pretty fucking cheap.

Looks like the 27th is a no go

>>11703281
She is rated for 39 to 23 mph winds depending on direction, unless they have derated it for crew.

>>11703293
Of course they have tighter limits for crew.

>>11703261
Because it's hydrolox and expendable. Either way, H3 with improved LE-9s is coming soon.

>>11703296
Reading up on the LE series the other day I was honestly really impressed, I would argue the LE-5 might even be better than the RL-10 despite the RL-10 have decades more development time.

>>11702207
Ancalagon or any Tolkien dragon

>>11701475
this brings me back holy shit

>>11703256
They were also insisting on SRBs so much because muh ICBM engineers. For some reason they couldn't keep SRB engineers employed just for keeping ICBMs working (probably as a loophole around some treaty limits), so they just made SRBs a requirement.
SRBs and manned spaceflight... two great things that do NOT go together.

Any idea why they are cutting up the nosecones? I assume they are the first ones built and are inferior to the most recently made ones.

>>11703355
I think they relocated the feed tanks from the nose to the inter-tank bulkhead so all the cones with tanks are pointless for testing the current design.

>>11703361
ah i see thanks.

>>11702359
based

>>11702291
I honestly have higher hopes for the space faring Nation of Asguardia and consider them a massive joke at this point.
Become a citizen and chuckle
https://asgardia.space/en/

>>11702605
Eh they could do it with some impetus. We'll see how Tianwen goes in the next Mars launch window

>>11703281
Nearly 50/50, not bad.

>>11703390
mfw the asgardians use the money they made to buy a starship and claim an asteroid

>>11703281
They will scrub 20 times until conditions are unbelievably favourable. It would be an extreme national embarrassment if the crew dies , particularly in the midst of a national emergency.

>>11702972
>Senate Launch System

Palpatine rocket

>>11703476

>>11703476
>>11703483
Here's your SLS, bro.

>>11702750
Lack of talent, infrastructure, investment, vision, spirit, leadership, etc.

I’ve got a few questions, mainly about why everything is taking so long

1) Holy shit Dragon 2 is gonna fly people before New Shepard. But how? New Shepard flew before Dragon 2 even went into production. It’s a simpler ship, too. But why tf is Dragon 2 flying crew. Keep in mind New Shepard has flown like 10 times at this point too and already has validated its abort motor at all altitudes. What’s taking Blue so long? It’s literally a tin can all it has to do it take people up and down for fifteen minutes it’s not like it needs solar panels or advanced hypergolic engines or a docking port. I mean Jesus Blue blew a huge lead. They could’ve been the first to return Americans at least “to space”, but they decided “Nah we still haven’t flown New Shepard enough yet” even five years after it started flying and after many many flights and reuses. What the hell! Bloody Christ mate!

2) What’s taking Orion so long? I remember back in the 2000s they said it would fly in 2013, then 2015, then 2016, then suddenly it jumped to 2021, then kinda got stuck at 2022. How did this happen? Did the designers see that SLS was getting delayed so often they decided “ah yeah we can take our time wouldn’t want to be ahead of schedule haha”?

Also one last thing: Even though the Constellation program was probably a bad idea, yku have to admit that the Ares Rockets were pure kino. I watched the Ares I-X launch when I was younger LIVE and it was amazing.

Would we still be in this spot today if DIRECT Jupiter was chosen? Even with delays, I could see us still flying Orion regularly. Plus the Jupiter rocket was also designed for NRO payloads, so I could see some $$$$$ and lobbying in its favor.

>>11703495
How do I get on this list? Do I just start filing precision washers in my shed then go to the same fund raiser as some ULA guys and tell them I'll move my shed to any state I need too?

>>11703503
>Americans at least “to space”
VG already did it (suborbital)

>>11703503
>1) Holy shit Dragon 2 is gonna fly people before New Shepard. But how?
My guess is a combination of having to deal with extra safety concerns due to Virgin screwing up and lack of interest due to New Glenn coming up.

>2) What’s taking Orion so long?
Two words: Pork Barrel

>Would we still be in this spot today if DIRECT Jupiter was chosen?
Yes, because the current flagship projects of NASA were chosen almost entirely based on political factors over having a functional program. If DIRECT Jupiter was chosen then it would be restructured to be more like the SLS. NASA doesn't have any technical issues, they have a leadership and management issue.

>>11703503
1) The passanger market is going to be very small and made up of very rich people to start with. Very rich people tend to have influence and know politicians. If you kill one of these people while you are getting government contracts you might find those contracts end.
It's a huge risk for little reward until you have it cheap enough that less important people can find all the modes of failure.

2) Cost plus contracts, the later you are and the more budget overruns you have the more money you make.

>>11703512
I mean they could have done it before Virgin Galactic too. They still had three years of flying under their belt with NS by the time VG went up into space again.

Also they only hit like 80 km and have just been skimming about there lately. Until they hit 100 km, they ain’t in space bro. Which sucks cause I wanted to save up for a flight but their new ship is too fucking fat go on a diet you piece of shit.

Although the U.S. possibly could have put a satellite into orbit before the Soviet Union had the ABMA been allowed to attempt a satellite launch in August 1956, the Eisenhower administration wanted the first U.S. satellite to be launched by a civilian rocket developed by American engineers instead of a rocket derived from a military missile program and developed by the German engineers of Operation Paperclip. Additionally, the administration saw value in the USSR taking the first move to reach orbit because they would set the precedent that territorial overflight in space was fair game, necessary for the United States' space-based photoreconaissance ambitions in the wake of diplomatic protests against U-2 incursions of Soviet airspace.

>>11703240
I oddly liked the concept between the Ares-I and Ares-V. The idea of using a booster from the stage-and-a-half Ares-V as the first stage of the Ares-I is a clever way to reuse existing components.

>>11703503
Orion is actually ready, it's SLS that everyone's waiting for.

And by ready I don't mean in the meme sense like SLS. I mean it's actually built and waiting to be mated ready for artemis-1.. one of them already flew on EFT-1.

Hence why pic related gets peoples backs up because it makes SLS obsolete.

>>11703240

Falcon Heavy > Ares 1

>>11703544
Pic related is actually a great idea. Just two or three of those could launch a lunar mission. Yet we gotta wait for SLS.

Also has anyone noticed the weird trend of people insisting that USSR won the space race? I don’t get it.

>>11702958

The fundamental problem is that you bought into a misrepresentation of events and when given the opportunity to correct that with the illumination of time you would rather continue to nurse your feelings of fraudulent grievance and petty vindictiveness.

>>11703561
>Also has anyone noticed the weird trend of people insisting that USSR won the space race? I don’t get it.
They're baiting for responses. Leave them be.

>>11703503
>>11703520
>>11703561
This is an especially bizarre way to avatarfag.

>>11703579
Even my coolerfagging was less retarded.

>>11703584
Jealous

>>11703561
The USSR was winning the space race by every possible metric until the goalposts were literally moved.
I'm not saying the US couldn't into space or anything like that but the fact is the USSR was so far ahead the US had to move the goalpost by orders of magnitude and throw a fuckload of cash at it to catch up.

There are also the trolls that know nothing about rocketry and found out last week that the US pays Russia to get to the ISS.

>>11703586
Yes

>>11703588
You have to admit that it’s pretty badass how the two countries were neck and neck for several years despite failures and setbacks.

You also have to admit it’s based and high test as fuck for America to announce a moon landing despite being BTFO several times already by 1961.

Too bad Russo had a shit economy and couldn’t test the N1 before launches so it didn’t explode. Would’ve loved to see it fly right.

Also could Mars Direct have worked out? I know the ERV cabin is too small, but are the numbers solid other than that? I remember Zubrin saying it would at most cost less than $100 Billion over ten years or so

>>11703561
The logic is that while the US landed on the moon, they abandoned the technology that went there, and instead focused on the Space Shuttle program, which was kind of half-complete without NERVA. In contrast, the USSR went for long-term colonization of space with Salyut and Mir. Had the USSR survived for another 10 years, who knows where they could have gone with Energia?

>>11703544
NOOOOOO ITS TOO SMALL!!! DELET THIS!

>>11703603
Meanwhile the FH is larger than any Boeing rocket currently flying.

>>11703503
>What’s taking Orion so long?
Cost
Plus
=
Procrastination and fat government checks.

You guys realize that /sfg/ will be overrun by newfags after the may 27 launch right?
We already had a big flood with the falconheavy&starman&roadster launch but this new wave will be larger by several magnitudes.
Lets hope that most of them find a way to reddit instead of here.

>>11703561
USSR won the initial space race. USA won the moon race.
After that, there wasn't much of a race at all, then the USSR collapsed.

>>11703614
>You guys realize that /sfg/ will be overrun by newfags after the may 27 launch right?
It'll be leagues better than when moon hoaxers flooded the place after the 50th anniversary of Apollo. At the very least the post DM-2 newfags like space flight.

>>11703603
everything will be smol soon

What the backup launch window for DM-2? 60% chance of scrub is gonna be a scrub no matter on the first launch of a new vehicle.

>>11703614
Elitism is dumb, especially over imageboards. Grow up.

>>11703503
New Shepard isn't much bound by deadlines, Dragon is.

>>11703622
What’s the point of these dinky expensive space stations when you could just use an empty Starship?

>>11703614
>this new wave will be larger by several magnitudes
will it? I doubt the average person knows or cares about DM-2. Astronauts have been going up and down from the ISS steadily for years and the "american rocket on american soil" rhetoric doesn't hit home with anyone except people who were already invested.

>>11703629
Okay, enjoy your new flatearth fags, spacehoax fags and HOP WHEN fags.

>>11703639
>Technology not yet proven
>muh contractors

>>11703614
Literally cope, space becoming a mainstream interest is part of the end game, for all of the good and ill that it brings.

>>11703643
Just report and ignore them lol
Doesn’t bother me at all, but then again I’m not pathetic enough to be emotionally invested in a Cambodian oil wrestling forum. That’d be silly.

>>11703597
Yeah, honestly think the best possible timeline would have been the USSR getting the moon first the US targeting Mars, we could have had Orion nuking its way across the solar system 50 years ago.

>>11703603
They weren't wrong, that is why BFR is happening.

>>11703614
The solution is to keep the discussion as technical as possible when that happens, if we are debating ISPs, launch site latitudes and cost plus contracting they will either be interested enough to learn or they will leave.

>>11703640
Right now the US is trying handle Covid as badly as possible, the news will be giving DM-2 huge coverage to fire up the kind of "patriotism" that doesn't involve overthrowing the government.

>>11703643
>new flatearth fags, spacehoax fags
Report and ignore them. Worst case scenario; accuse the mods and jannies as being the flatties and the space hoaxers.

>HOP WHEN fags.
The hop memes were top notch.

>>11703607

>>11703653
>noooooo I want my club to be exclusive no girls in my treehouse

>>11703658
HOP WHEN has become relivant again, history is cyclical.

>>11703617
>After that, there wasn't much of a race at all
Yeah, except for orbital construction and modular stations/robotics. Which US didn't have, so Americans are usually quick to forget that one and dismiss as not being a race.

Following your logic, the moon race wasn't that much of a race, because it was only the US racing against its own goal, and USSR declared it a national program only in 1964, being too busy with mass production of ICBMs before that, and unwilling to fund a Moon mission to a full extent.

>>11703561
>Also has anyone noticed the weird trend of people insisting that USSR won the space race? I don’t get it.
Both US and USSR were pretty similar in capability. Arguing who won what is pretty pointless, you'll get different answers depending what bubble you're in.

>>11703657
>They weren't wrong, that is why BFR is happening.
BFR is an SLS competitor like a diesel cargo freighter is a competitor to the Mayflower. It just doesn't really make sense. They were wrong as FH can and will supply missions that the SLS was supposed to do.

>>11703668
>They were wrong as FH can and will supply missions that the SLS was supposed to do.
>SLS doing resupply missions
How can SLS do resupply missions if it can only launch once a year?

>>11703503
>Dragon 2 is gonna fly people before New Shepard
It doesn't even matter because NS is sub-orbital only. Even if someone flew in it, it's still a fucking amusement park ride. And what's taking Virgin so long to get their own amusement park ride going?
>>11703516
>NASA doesn't have any technical issues, they have a leadership and management issue.
More importantly, they have a Congress issue. And con-gress is the opposite of pro-gress.

>>11703657
>the news will be giving DM-2 huge coverage to fire up the kind of "patriotism" that doesn't involve overthrowing the government.
news flash: popular media doesn't want or benefit from people feeling patriotic. Here are the actually likely headlines for the event
>"Trump spends billions on overdue space program while people are dying from the pandemic"
>"Trump doesn't wear mask to SpaceX launch"
>"Trump shows support for capitalist and human rights abuser Elon Musk"
>"While hundreds of thousands are dying from a pandemic, Trump and Pence watch rocket launch"
etc etc

>>11703676
>what's taking Virgin so long
Risk of RUD plus it being a fucking tax scam like everything else Richard Branson touches.

>>11703673
How can the SLS do literally anything when it will never have a second flight? I don't fucking care.

>>11703678
But....all news sites are capitalist private corporations.

>>11703684
What makes you think that SLS would only get one launch?

>>11703687
Who do you think *owns* the press? Hello.

>>11703689
What makes you think they will ever make another one, let alone have one ready to fly a year after the first. It already """exists""" yet it probably won't fly till 2022. At this point the question is whether Starship will reach orbit before the SLS, and an operational Starship makes the SLS look even more like a joke than it already does.

>>11703697
You think Starship won’t be cancelled? It’s just some junk in a scrapyard

>>11703697
>What makes you think they will ever make another one, let alone have one ready to fly a year after the first. It already """exists""" yet it probably won't fly till 2022.
Because four launches have been planned, and I think at least two cores have been built.

>At this point the question is whether Starship will reach orbit before the SLS, and an operational Starship makes the SLS look even more like a joke than it already does.
That's fair, however the switch from SLS to Starship won't be instant. There would still be extensive doubt about Starship across NASA and Congress, and SLS would still be preferred until Starship can "prove" itself. This happened with FH, which took years after its first launch before NASA started taking it seriously.

>>11703614
Good. /sfg/ has been dead for months.

>>11703697
It seems like you haven't been through a government precurement cycle again, no matter how shit and expensive the result is they will buy and use it because to do anything else is to admit you fucked up.
Sunk cost fallacy doesn't apply when dropping a program gives your politcal enemies ammunition.

>>11703706
They won't cancel it immediately. It'll be on infinite hiatus while they jack off into the tank. It's already a proven strategy. By the time it actually is canceled most people will be surprised it still technically existed.

>>11703702
Starlink.

>>11703715
Nah, it'll be built and demolish NASAs budget as they are forced to fly it a couple of times a year at $2b a launch.
I wouldn't be surprised if it only flys 6-8 times and then New Glenn and Starship will be "proven" while SLS provided "a capability no other lauch vehicle could provide".
If you act like it was a success and you can get the media either on side or distracted that is how the public will see it.

Look at the F-22, drastically overpriced for what it is and produced in far fewer numbers than planned due to that price but it "offers a capibility no other fighter can" and people eat that shit up.

>>11703697
Regardless of Starship, a couple SLS will fly because they already have the parts for it in storage, and it would be a waste of gov money to not use it. Unless of course the SLS blows up on its first flight, then it's fucked.

>>11703729
The F-35 is actually cheaper per unit than the F-22

>>11703744
Exactly, yet most people will say the F-35 was a clusterfuck while the F-22 that didn't need all the VTOL R&D was a success.
It is possibly the best BVR fighter ever made but I don't think it's good enough to justify it's cost especially when you compair it to inflation adjusted fighters of the past that didn't have the luxury of CNC & CAD reducing costs.

>>11703760
You are comparing flyaway cost though, not program costs

>>11703760
Was reading the book Skunk Works earlier today. Ben Rich probably rolling in his grave of what Lockheed has become.

>>11703766
>F22 program: basically didn't even happen
>F35 program: sweeping fleet replacement
If you think those figures are comparable your brain is smoother than a fifth gen stealth jet

>>11702997
>Obama administration also supported commercial cargo and crew (SpaceX).
A bush era policy that had no intention of companies like spacex

>>11703057
>Obama cancelled Constellation and replaced it with SLS.
the sls is a tar pit

Men ontop of SN4. Hopefully prepping to lift it off the stand and put it on it's legs.

>>11702958

-Obama didn't defund NASA. Right wing press turned "Shuttle doesn't exist anymore because the program has ended" into "NASA doesn't exist anymore and guess who is to blame" when NASA was still there, just in a different phase.

>>11703783
It already has its legs no?

>>11703793
Its bolted to a stand so they need to move it off so it can move correctly.

>>11703783
do you think they're considering the static fire a 'success' and getting ready to hop?

>>11703783
Hop when?

>>11703832
Since they have moved the crane into position to move SN4 somewhere they are either going to scrap or prep for launch, notam is extended to next month, fresh CH4 has been delivered and it already has the legs built in so it's a safe bet they they are going to attempt at least 1 hop before retiring it.

>>11703835
There was never gonna be a hop before DM-2. I told you.
Bad press if it goes wrong, it's not just SpaceX's rep on the line here.

>>11703835
Unconfirmed rumor is circling that FAA should authorize a license that allows spacex to begin hops next week and SN4 will hop around the 30th. It's all a big unsubstantiated rumor though.

im surprised no one from space x posts here, and leaks shit to us.

>>11703874
Maybe they do but they are under a strict NDA.

>>11703666
>Both US and USSR were pretty similar in capability
USSR had a more coherent space program, with elements generally leading into and mutually supporting each other while the US manned program consisted of disconnected fits and leaps according to political whims e.g. NASA wanted a space station in the 1960s but US presidents said 'no' until Reagan.

>>11703874
SpaceX employee here, the froyo flavor of the day is graham cracker.

>>11703622
rest of the space station looks like starships dick

>>11703911
Your dick ends in a "T" shape?

>>11703731
>Unless of course the SLS blows up on its first flight
Is there a sports bookie or Predictit type site to bet on this happening?

>>11703588
> the USSR was so far ahead
Was it?
Sputnik 1 was 4 October 1957.
Explorer 1 was 31 January 1958.
Vostok 1 was 12 April 1961.
Freedom 7 was 5 May 1961.
Then the satellites/capsules weren't equal in capability like Freedom 7 being mostly controlled by a pilot who landed with the craft against Vostok 1 being automatically controlled with the pilot ejecting from the capsule in the atmosphere.
USSR certainly achieved more firsts, but that didn't translate into substantially more orbital capability in the 1960s.
Then in the corollary field of ICBMs, the missile gap was entirely made up by the likes of the CIA.

>>11703916
Yes.

>>11703931
>Why yes, my dick is a hammerhead shark, how did you know?

>>11703234
The cancelation of the constellation was a travesty and the shuttle should not have been shut down until we had a new independent way of getting to space. Obama basically halted space progress and then only put life back into it when he was on the way out the door

i fucking hate mars' moons they look like retards i hope they die

>>11703901
Nah, there was plenty of infighting in USSR as well, Korolev vs Glushko being a famous example, Makeev getting nothing, resistance to Mishin's poor OKB-1 leadership that basically killed Komarov etc
>e.g. NASA wanted a space station in the 1960s but US presidents said 'no' until Reagan.
Similarly, OKB-1's Korolev wanted a Venus flyby on an orbit-assembled spacecraft, which would have given the more relevant experience than a lunar mission, but Politburo chose the Moon because of JFK's speech, until the late 60s when Chelomei and Feoktistov were given the green light, funding and priority for orbital construction, with DOS-1 flying in 1971

>>11703944
>The cancelation of the constellation was a travesty
The only things soaring on Constellation were costs and delays.
>the shuttle should not have been shut down until we had a new independent way of getting to space.
Would that have been cheaper than using ULA/whoever for cargo launches and roscosmos for crew? Or if it weren't (from the chart >>11702997 it probably wasn't), are the benefits from "independence" worth keeping the STS operational?

>>11703352
>(probably as a loophole around some treaty limits)
Bingo. Nuclear arms reduction was the prevailing meme starting in the 70s, and we haven't done any testing in decades. The Shuttle was two giant ICBMs with a satellite snatching spaceplane in between them, and that's why the Russians wanted to match it.

>>11703639
Politics. Canada, Russia, Japan, and Europe all get me-too components of Gateway and the station itself is used to justify having a multiple TLI capable launch systems to keep it alive. On the other hand, if you just built a rotating torus in lunar orbit with a few Starship launches, then oldspace dies forever unless they can match Starship's capabilities in launches/time and kg/$.

>>11703958
As long as you let politicians run the shitshow on cost plus contracts, it's be overruns and delays until the heat death of the universe. Fixed costs and firm timeframes or we're never getting anywhere.

reminder that a woman committed the first crime in space

>>11703874
One had one SpaceX employee feed us information here and some worthless faggot ruined it by going to tell people on Nasa Space Flight forums about it. SpaceX then went to the site administrator there trying to get the IP of the leaker without realizing that the information came from here, which confirmed the information was legit.

>>11703971
Based and libertarianpilled. Cops can't get you up there.

>>11703959
>then oldspace dies forever unless they can match Starship's capabilities in launches/time and kg/$.
Introducing the new Boeing 1010 as the competitor to Starship! It features comfier seats, a more balanced distribution of production, and an improved MCAS!

>>11703852
>fresh CH4 has been delivered
sounds like a hop to me then, exciting

>>11703953
yeet them into the poles to melt them by ejecting their own mass as rocket propellant from railgun slings

>>11703959
> we haven't done any testing in decades
ICBMs are continuously being tested, not with armed warheads obviously.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/first-2020-minuteman-iii-test-launches-as-new-start-countdown-begins/
Though in the case of the STS SRBs, they were thought to be cheaper to develop and operate than liquid-fueled boosters (NASA's preference at that stage) and gave jobs to Utah workers.
>>11703639
With the ISS, NASA figured out how to have a major, expensive program last decades. They're reusing the trick for Gateway.

>>11703639
Waste of a Starship. Why "expend" one when you can use it to launch over and over again and put many times its own volume in orbit?

>>11703987
that's what Skylab basically was though, and they almost ended up using the drained tanks as living space too. Skylab was cool.

>>11703991
>that's what Skylab basically was though
Saturn V wasn't reusable. Starship is what makes meme programs like Voyager Station possible.

>>11703991
Skylab was based. I don't care how little it actually did compared to the ISS. It puts the ISS to shame in terms of size and potential.

>>11703925
Probably, but they won't put it up until people have an actual date for the SLS

>>11703971
lgbt too lmao
Couldn't make this shit up

>>11704002

>>11703975

>>11704009
will starship be bigger?

>>11703953
Phobos is going to crash into Mars eventually, so you have that anon

>>11704012
Skylab was 6.6m in diameter. Starship is 9m.

>>11703996
Having a massive spacestation with starship sized modules would be pretty fucking kino.
But i'm thinking that with starship and new glenn up an running we will see ESA&NASA&JAXA&ROSCOSMOS each have it's own station in the next decade.
Hell, even some wealthy nations probably would have their own small stations.

>>11704017
oh wow

>>11704012
Yes. Skylab was 6.6 meters in diameter while Starship is going to be 9 meters. However, if Starship carries station modules rather than becoming one, then such modules would probably be around Skylab sized unless they were inflatable.

>>11704017

>>11704023
>not the 110m Gigaship

>>11704007
Nobody tell /pol/

>>11704020
If starship ends up as cheap as advertised, you can just decommission the fuckers and bolt them together into monster stations. Take the raptors back on one.

>>11703953
We can always chisel them into perfect spheres. Or better yet, make Roman sculptures.

>>11704018
>>11704012

Starship wet workshop would deliver around 4000 cubic meters of pressurized volume in one launch. Four times the ISS volume.

>>11704020
I wish Bigelow was competent, they have the tech but unfortunately I doubt they'll ever make a station from their huge Olympus modules

>>11704025
Now now, this is a blue board

>>11704037

>>11704037
>not fapping to space flight nudes
Come and ban me.

>>11704029
Or make a dedicated space station Starship variant. Wet workshop, no sea-level raptors, detachable vacuum raptors that return to Earth on another Starship, no TPS, no wings.
>>11704032

>>11704048

>>11704053

>>11704049
I mean, if you send of 5 Starships to destination X and they're cheap, what's stopping them from bolting together 4 of them into a station and shipping the engines back on the 5th? Panels and all various other shit goes in the payload of all 5.
Hell, leftover fuel from the 4 turned into a station is probably enough to send the last one home. Infrastructure in a box.

>>11704055

Starlink gif of the past week. (from NSF)

- First movement in the V0.9 sat plane since January (when it finished spitting out most of the sats that now sit below it)
- 3 sats deorbiting (perhaps 4, if that's what the V0.9 movement is)
- 11 planes at altitude
- 3 on the rise
- 4 still drifting into place

>>11703941
>>how did you know
I think we all know how

>>11704055
LEWD

>>11703975
>Advertising MCAS
Would your trust them to be that open about a products actual design and risks?

>>11704058
What could we actually get out of space stations at this point?
>Recurring money as fancy hotels
>Ultra-long space endurance tests for a statistically significant number of people
>Experiments on lichen or something?

>>11704068
Step aside, flimsy drawing.

>>11704068
Need more? Are you a leg-man?

>>11704071
Reasons for going back.
The most important thing of all.

>>11704072
She still has the payload on her head! Dumb V 1.1.

>>11704077
Yeah but you could get that by throwing a lot of the same stuff into a moon base. That also seems like it'd be more transferable experience when it comes to Mars.

>>11704032
You could also launch a ~1200-1400 cubic meter pressurized volume if you made a module that conformed to the shape of Starship's payload bay. Then you can land the Starship and do it again a dozen times.

>>11703390
>>11703409
Imagine naming your society on incorrect mythology. Asgard is not part of norse/germanic religion, its literally Christian influence after the fact

>>11704031
Better to carve Doom Guy's visage into the side.

>>11704083
Moon orbit, surface, mars orbit, surface, you name it. I wasn't being specific on purpose.

>>11704053
God this thing is so sexy

>>11704086
Are the moons tidally locked or do they rotate so you could carve him looking normally then raising his eyebrows?

>>11704071
>low G experimental production
>hydrophonics
>Spinning stations, from 0,1G up to 0,9G to do experiments on
>rich people hotels
>orbital shipyard for buildings ships to explore the solar system

>>11704011
Your pic is upside down.

>>11704100
Could only fit a single guy though. Imagine being alone on the moon...

>>11704112
I try not to, every single day.

>>11704112
It'd be pretty fucking scary.
Imagine if there was actually something living on the moon and you're alone with it.

>>11704117
Well at the very least you're guaranteed one hell of a Wikipedia page.

>>11704117
Nobody could stop you from fucking it then.

>>11704112
i'd walk around and shovel a huge dong shape into the dust, visible from earth

>>11704123
or it fucking you

>>11704123
"Florida man.."

>>11704112
Under 4ASS, this can be possible. We will enable NEET migration to the moon.

>>11704128
the plot thickens...

>>11704126
Just write "cocaть этo aмepикaнцы" and come back a hero

>>11704035
I don't get the impression they are incompetent, I get the impression no one has any interest in properly funding inflatable habs right now.
If the ISS test module goes well maybe that will change.

>>11704071
Film set is unironically going to be the big one in the next decade. Wait and see how much the Tom Cruise movie grosses and see how many other producers want in on that action.

PS. if you don't see that movie in a theater you hate motivating space development.

>>11704149
It's been attached to the station since april 16th 2016 so I'd say they're just about ready. They could even launch an inflatable SLSS for like 100 million at most
Their B330 Nautilus is planned to launch this year though

>>11703516
>New Glenn coming up.
Wtf are they even going to do with new Glenn

>>11704164
W I D E bois

>>11704164
leave it to nasa to make a fucking tesla look like a prius

>>11704170
Compete with Falcon 9 and Starship?

>>11704170
Bezos is good at playing the politcal game, I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up getting the vast majority of NRO launches.

>>11703533
paperclip was such a good idea, its sad we lost so many prospects to the Russians

>>11704011
>>11704012
Brilliant.

>>11704177
>>11704185
Spacex has such a leg up especially with price. I know new Glenn is incredible but I'd think they have a better plan for it.

>>11704011
The 737 Max wasn't a mistake, it's just an expendable airliner.

>>11704164
>Those fucking waders
WE'RE WHALERS ON THE MOON!

>>11704194
Glenn should be flying before Starship and can do more payload to both LEO and GEO than Falcon Heavy. Because congress wants 2 launch providers they will make the NRO pay more for Glenn launches while the Falcon and Starship will be commercially viable without handouts.

>>11703916
barbed, probably
>>11704017
>Starship is 9m
also the size of my boner from thinking about it

>>11704196
The max is an incredible aircraft, I'm in the aviation field and every US pilot would tell you that those crashes would never happen in a first world country and boeing refuses to say that because they don't want to lose the third world customers.

>>11704211
>barbed

>>11704201
We carry a harpoon.

>>11704185
I don't see New Glen beating out Vulcan for many DoD launches.

>>11704071
Build space stations around fuel depots? If we want both then why not split the costs by putting them together?

>>11704163
I kind of wish we had more entertainment coming out of the ISS. Astronauts give educational interviews with school kids, so why don't they appear regularly on TV or YouTube? Alot of people know we have a space station but not many people give a shit about what's happening up there, even within the spaceflight community. Maybe if there was more entertainment coming out of the ISS then people would be more interested in it.

>>11704234
>I kind of wish we had more entertainment coming out of the ISS. Astronauts give educational interviews with school kids, so why don't they appear regularly on TV or YouTube?
Because that would interfere with the "experiments" they have onboard. Think of all the science that's lost if our astronauts aren't clipping green beans as much as possible.

>>11704203
That makes sense, i still think they will be shadowed by spacex because the starship development is moving so fast and the f9 is already done and doing missions

>>11703189
>no other Euro country is gonna be able to collect enough vaccines and lead baby forumla to develop the autism needed
Germany.
A franco-german project would actualy have the ability to suceed if we kept the EU outside.
>german+french autism
>the industrial powerhouses of europe
>huge supply of engineers
>two countries in dire need of something to be proud of

>>11704277
what about the small island no one pays any attention to?

>>11704277
The ESA should be broken into 3 sections, France-germany, Italy, and the UK. Fucking hell Europe doesn't even have to maintain a real military budget with the US as an ally, so why the fuck aren't they pushing the envelope on future tech?

>>11704277
Germany is oldspace mentality but as on a collective national level. Good luck with that.

>>11704294
we're doing just fine, apparently

>>11703164
Bullseye craters, scalloped canyon walls, stepped craters, north/south altitude discrepancy, many more. There is no possible explanation for these, among many other but the electric discharge model explains them perfectly.

>>11703127
>>11703022
Some anon linked this schizo video a week or two ago, gave it a watch out of curiosity and it's seriously interesting.

https://youtu.be/tRV1e5_tB6Y

>>11704316
They can be oldspace if they still do something

>>11704213
Nice try boing, enjoy your chapter 11 lmao. No bailout for you this time.

Countries that should be bigger players in space but aren't?

>>11704330
I'm in the airlines not from boeing, i hope they get their ass kicked in the new space race but they won't go bankrupt. They have too many military contracts. There are a lot of issues with them but the max isn't one

>>11704333
south korea is doing well, but needs more exposure

>>11704340
>but the max isn't one

Ok boing

>>11704319

>>11704213
It was partly because they were so obsessed with 737 type certification so that pilots didn't have to get a completely new certification, so they came up with MCAS to try to hide the fundamental flight differences. Then they completely botched MCAS with pajeet fuck-ups.

>>11704319
you should be on par with us in the states. I think your space program is better than the reat of Europe but you are getting outclassed by china, japan and Iran. You need to step it up

>>11704350
yeah but any pilot in the west would fucking know how to turn off the auto trim and any fucking company in the west knows not to buy knock of pitot tubes.

>>11704353
consider it's taken us 50 years to get back to Black Arrow level now with the Skyrora XL, i'd absolutely kill for a Falcon 9 equivalent. Our government are so fucking stupid

>>11704344
It pretty weird because russians literally gifted them the technology.
But after one successful launch they kinda just forget about it.

>>11704112
Sounds comfy.
What I would realy like to do would be wearing a compression-suit and ride a MTB on the moon.

>>11704353
Don't forget India.
India has sent probes to Mars, and plans to send humans to space in the next few years.
>The 2020-21 budgetary estimate for Gaganyaan is 4,257 crore (about $639 million), with this figure representing about a third of ISRO's overall budget.
>While the impact to Gaganyaan is unknown, ISRO has said it will cost about 10,000 crore ($1.5 billion) to launch Gaganyaan before Aug. 15, 2022, which is Independence Day in India.
>ISRO plans to conduct an uncrewed Gaganyaan test mission on its Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle rocket in December 2020 or early 2021, according to an ISRO report, targeting July 2021 for a second test flight. If all goes to plan under the current schedule, humans would fly in December 2021.