/sci/ - Science & Math

first for Boing! absolutely BTFO

>>11756407
I want Boeing to get their shit together.
Once they do the competition would mean great things for space.

>>11756407

>>11756400
looters stole the rocket too. cant have shit in florida

>>11756420
ftfy

>>11756409
Boeing is a company owned and operated by program managers who are looking forward to going forward to pursue the initiatives which conduct business operations.
SpaceX is a company owned and operated by engineers.
Until this status quo changes, SpaceX will continue its lead and Boing will get more and more behind

>>11756409
No i want as many contacts as possible to be awarded to spacex. Boeing is motivated by money, spacex is motivated by ideology. Once the road to mars is established then i won't care but until then i want NASA to pay for Starship development.

>>11756429
>Boeing is a company owned and operated by program managers who are looking forward to going forward to pursue the initiatives which conduct business operations.
They're gonna have to restructure themselves.
Especially after the fiascos they're currently embroiled in.
>>11756431
Fuck SpaceX.
LockheedMartin > Space X >>>>>>>>> Boeing

>>11756429
SpaceX is owned by a businessman with a fetish for engineers, and operated by some very talented people

>>11756439
>Boeing restructuring
Is meaningless. The rot starts at the top, there's no fix for that.
>Lockheed > SpaceX
Venturestar was never going to work

>>11756439
>LockheedMartin > Space X
is this a fucking joke?

>>11756459
>Venturestar was never going to work
WE DIDN'T EVEN TRY!
IT FUCKING COULD'VE.
>>11756463
No, why would it be?
They do good work!

>>11756450
Even if that were true, that would be a pretty good way to run a company. Still, you can’t deny Elon is the chief engineer and has time and time again demonstrated his involvement in the day to day design of all things SpaceX

>>11756469
>you can't deny that Elon is the chief engineer
that is a title that he has given himself, yeah
it's very much a better way to run a company than either Blue Origin's "I have deep pocketbooks and make no other contributions" or Boeing's methods

>>11756473
More than just a title, there are numerous emails from him showing how hands-on he is with development but I’m not here to ride his dick I just wanted to point out that he is indeed involved with the engineering and to add as a side that frankly technocracy is probably the best way to run human hierarchies period

>>11756465
>WE DIDN'T EVEN TRY!
X-33 was the try, to prove the minimum technology advancements needed to make Venture Star work. X-33 was cancelled because it clearly WASN'T going to accomplish those advancements. VS was dead in the water.

>They do good work!
They DID good work. Who knows what they do now? Aerojet Rocketdyne did good work too, but they're bloated to shit and arthritic now just like Boeing.

>>11756487
>Who knows what they do now?
The F-22 is the the best fighter right now. It's not even close.
The Chinese stole state secrets and still can't make something that can compare.

They still do good work. They just play it safe. They're an incredibly cautious company.

>>11756581
F-22 was conceived in the 1980s.
F-35 was conceived in the 1990s.
Not good examples to be using for Lockheed's current performance.
Really, the government never should've allowed/encouraged the 1990s defence mergers.

>>11756644
Forgot pic.

>>11756644
Development for military projects take decades.
The original RFP may be released twenty years before the first prototype is built.

Lockheed has done good work continuously. They have a good engineering culture.

>Really, the government never should've allowed/encouraged the 1990s defence mergers.
There was no choice. With the Cold War ending the majority of companies would've collapsed and wiped out huge job bases.
Although, as someone who grew up on Long Island - haven't been back in years, I'll always miss Grumman.

>>11756459
I keep seeing people shit on venture star. What was it’s ultimate demise? (From what I can gather, it was one of those things where it only worked on paper and couldn’t actually make it to orbit?)

>>11756667
As long as Lockheed and others keep delivering that's fine, but China is closing the gap quickly.

>>11756679
Maybe it could've really worked.
But it was one of the money sink problems where you fix one engineering problem and you end up with another. It would have cost billions.

>>11756684
>but China is closing the gap quickly.
ahahahahahahaha

>>11756649
Just wait until they all start merging together into one megacorp.

>>11756691
You realize this is a prank made by US citizens, right? It's not even remotely relevant.

>>11756724
...y-yeah, anon. it's joke.
>made by US citizens,
Made by an intern at the NTSB, actually.

>>11756409
Boing! is fucking dead, anon. It's received a fatal dose of radiation and is in the walking ghost phase.

Can you synthesize kerosene using raw materials from, say, rocks? As far as I know, if the atoms are there, you can do it

>>11756830
hydrogen is the hardest to find (it's in water)
carbon is the next hardest

>>11756644
A least Lockheed can make plaines, that’s more then what Boing can do.

The spear of man that pierced the heavens and landed men on the moon. A gleaming tower proclaiming the superiority of freedom. The booster that launched the only missions to make it out of the solar system in human history thus far. If anything is going to be a holy artifact from the industrial age it's the Saturn V.

I guess what I want to ask is this: how can /sci/, /sfg/, and the online space flight community in general be an ally to and improve our spaces for it’s racialized members, especially African-Americans?

>>11756911
I love this big exploding penis

>>11756914
step 1: don't be an asshole
step 2: fuck off
look at this cute astronaut

>>11756911
Based, but the Saturn V never launched anything beyond the Solar system.

>>11756914
No.

>>11756922
I'm really glad American astronauts are all nice people (even if some get a little crazy with age). At least it's a profession kids can still aspire to be.

>>11756696
it would be hell on earth

But image one megacorp responsible for all aviation/space systems in the entire western world.

>>11756951
Centrally planned economy, here we go

>looming threat of authoritarian communists gaining an upper hand in space
>rapid technological developments and advancements in spaceflight
>racial tensions and social unrest at the highest in years

Dear God we really are in the 60s again

How big a mass driver on the surface of Mars would you need to accelerate a 50mt payload to Mars escape velocity? 100km with superconducting magnets? 300km without?

>>11756988
>Dear God we really are in the 60s again
it's crazy how much I feel like I've read about current events in history books

>>11756988
It's a good time to be alive

>>11756914
Don’t do crimes and don’t kill people.

>>11757019
Unless they’re criminals they should die

>>11756988
>China gaining an upper hand in space

Yeah no not really a possibility

>>11756995
>>11756988
does this mean we can go bomb communists again

>>11757030
Maybe. Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela are about due.

Cancel SLS. Build Orion battleships.

>>11757052
Couldn’t you just kill people by doing a flyby>

>>11757053
Land on Beijing.

>>11756914
>African-Americans lacking access to education and economic opportunity means less engineers and scientists, but more welfare cases
>this means that American spaceflight has to make do with less manpower than it otherwise could have while competing for a smaller budget than it might otherwise be able to justify
I'm mad about inequality.

>>11757101
they dont lack access they lack the will to take advantage of that access. Other blacks look down at blacks wanting to get an education and better themselves. They think its being white or some shit. Their issue is that Record companies promote and hedonistic materialistic culture on blacks that encourage short term thinking, debauchery and violence.

>>11757101
It goes away if you ignore it

What are the odds that Chris has sneaked a gun onboard the ISS and ready to take out the ruskies if the president gives the order?

>>11757116
Hull decompression

>>11757119
He won’t miss

>>11757112
>>11756922
They manage if they have sufficient vision.

>>11757116
You wouldn’t need a gun to murder suicide everyone on the ISS.

>>11757119
>Hull decompression
Would take a long time. One atmosphere won't flow out of a bullet hole quickly, and you actually can block most of the outflow with common materials. Worst comes to worst, just close one of the ISS module hatches.

But to get back to reality for a second, if the Cosmonauts were murdered, the Russians would probably have no qualms about firing an anti-satellite missile at the International Space Station in retaliation.

>>11757112
The hedonistic and materialistic culture is shaped by the economic conditions. And, for that matter, so is the disdain for wanting to better yourself.

See, people in exceptionally poor communities rely on others within that community when finances run dry (which is often because poverty is a bitch of a thing). So members of that community are resources to each other, pouring time and effort into other members to try and stay afloat. And then someone leaves, taking what assistance they can provide off the table even as their ability to provide increases dramatically. It's obviously unfair to expect people to stay in a shithole when a better life is within their grasp, but it's also easy to see why they get mad. It's the same reason people in rural communities or dying industrial towns get assmad about the youth leaving for places that actually have jobs: losing those people condemns those towns to a swifter death, but it is also absolutely the right choice for those people to leave.

But none of this is strictly related to spaceflight, so I'll shut up about it now.

>>11756830
I think you'd need methane as an intermediate to synthesize the larger hydrocarbons. That's part of why SpaceX went with methalox for the Raptor.

“There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.”-Ronald Reagan

AYO HOL UP WHITEBOI

>>11756993
Depends mainly on how many G your payload can tolerate

>>11757311
Let's say 4G for human flight.

>>11757328
neat

>>11756830
Complex hydrocarbons like kerosene is too much work to synthesize out of simple shit like carbon dioxide, you need complex hydrocarbons as the source to not make the process wasteful in the extreme.

>>11756833
Hydrogen is "easy". The problem with hydrogen is the sheer amount of energy required to make a meaningful amount of it regardless of the material you use. Ironically, the process that uses the least energy uses petrochemicals as the source of your "clean" hydrogen.

Keep that in mind the next time somebody is trying to sell you on a Toyota Mirai or some other "clean" hydrogen car over an electric.

>>11756914
Stop using common core.

>>11757325
Mars escape velocity from the surface is 5km/s, to reach this speed at 4G, you need 5000(m/s)/40(m/s2) = 125s
During these 125s, you're moving at an average of 2.5km/s, which mean you're traveling 125*2500 = 312.5km
So, if you have a mass driver able to constantly accelerate something to 4G, it needs to be at least 312.5km long. Honestly no idea if it's technically feasible.

>>11756914

My gf is black. It gives me a lot of insight. I also grew up in a 90% black neighborhood as a kid.

Well for starters the bigger problem black people face is ...well ... "Black Culture". Rap is the biggest problem. The music glorifies gang shit, so of course some dumb kid is gonna say "Hey I can make more money robbing fools than going to college haha", and do it. What kid is gonna toil in some "boring" field like engineering and end up working a 9-5 job for the rest of his life when he can instead ride with a gang and make better money AND have more excitement, too.

Many friends I had back in high school did end up entering gangs both during and after high school.

Also a lot of black people have a constant bone to pick with whites. Not all and probably not even a majority, but a lot. That likely doesn't help with the mindset of branching into STEM. A black kid told his entire life that "Whitey is the devil" will never want to work with whites. As such he'll never enter STEM in the first place.

Socioeconomic status is big, but not as much as people think. Poor minorities and whites exist everywhere - it's not just a black problem. Trash exists of every race too. But it is a fact that people in poor areas tend to avoid getting a degree because it is A) Too expensive or B) They want a job right off the bat or C) Never finished high school in the first place.

The Black Community isn't even all that. Most black homicides are black - on - black. Black on black crime is horrible for several black neighborhoods. Black culture glorifies crime and being a gangster while also making fun of black people who decide to "act white" - in other words, who decide to better themselves. It is cannibalizing and it is sad.

I'm sure there's other stuff to talk about but I'm gonna get some sleep.

>>11757356
That's actually just about a perfect length match for building one up the western slope of Olympus Mons.

>>11756649
Teddy roosevelt and eisenhower are rolling in their graves

>>11756914
"Racialized"? The fuck?

All I want is to learn about plasma physics in peace-my race isn't important to my work. The best thing you can all do is confront actual bigotry if you see it, and just treat everyone like individuals.

Are there any dark horses in spaceflight right now?

>>11757379
Relativity are interesting.

>>11757356
>>11757366
Applying that math to a 50t payload to get power requirements is... actually not that bad. It comes out to 625 GJ / 125s or 5GW, assuming perfect transmission of energy and no losses, so even doubling that to 10GW for transmission losses, conversion losses, lack of superconducting magnets, etc. is totally doable with fission reactors.

>>11757342
>The problem with hydrogen is the sheer amount of energy required to make a meaningful amount of it regardless of the material you use.
Also the whole leaks-between-tank-molecules thing.

>>11757394
Yeah I was talking purely from a resource extraction point of view now, but that is also an issue. Huge fucking tanks that have no business being a first stage at sea level that requires solid booster training wheels is another one.

>>11757395
The Martian Yeet Cannon mass driver up Olympus Mons actually solves both problems. You have nukeplants to throw at cracking water and cryo storing the hydrolox, and it gives you orbit without SRBs, so you can build orbit-only hydrolox chemical or H2NT/LANTR ships that have v0 as Mars escape, so you can really haul ass and take advantage of that high Isp.

>>11756993
It would be very inefficient, martian atmosphere is thin but would still make a lot of drag.
Maybe they could use the exceptionally high mount olympus, but I heard it's full of dust above it.

>>11757428
Olympus is actually one of the few places on Mars that sits above the dust storms. It's only dusty relative to orbit.

>>11757389
In the same vein, I was wondering if the moholes from the Mars trilogy were remotely feasible, so I calculated the power requirements just to lift the rocks from a 1x1x10km hole under Martian gravity.
If you're digging it in 40 years, you're extracting 24t of rock per second and you need an average of 400MW just for the potential energy of lifting rocks to the surface. Real energy consumption will be higher than that, maybe 10 times more? Still doable if you dedicate a nuclear plant just for it.
I kinda doubt a straight hole is possible though.

>>11757101
>>11756914
Why should it be an ally and why are you bringing this up? Its a clear cultural issue and I don't believe in putting an unqualified man in important positions just because they have brown skin or like to play tummysticks in their off time.

Big guy LC-36 is watching from the shadows...

>>11757450
What's the point of a mohole if you already need nukeplants to dig it?

Will Falcon Heavy see any use anymore?

>>11757506
Launching my giant penis

>>11757506
It will see some use, afaik there's even a new version with an extended second stage in the works.

>>11757450
Imagine the literal mountains’ worth of ore
My Dwarven heart swells

>>11757505
In the books, they were used for ore mining and to heat the planet, though I don't know if the latter is realistic

>>11757119
>>11757219

>>11757328
kino

>>11757342
>The problem with hydrogen is
The other problem with hydrogen is liquefying it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen#Spin_isomers_of_hydrogen
>It slowly undergoes an exothermic reaction to become the para isomer, with enough energy released as heat to cause some of the liquid to boil.
...and the other other problem is it leaks out of everything.

>>11757648
I fucking hate hydrolox. It should be used exclusively for upper stages and shit built in space when we get to that point.

>>11756993
Escape velocity anywhere near the ground is not going to happen anon.
Only going to work on the moon.

>>11757497
I wish they would shove this into a museum

>>11757644
Literally the only thing my retarded country has ever done that's good for space.
Other than putting up some radio receivers because we are on a side of the world no one else is on.
Keep handing out neetbux to meth addicts instead of exploring the stars. Pathetic.
https://spaceaustralia.com.au/

>>11757691

>>11757657
Hydrolox is only good for upper stages if they need to be expended, because it attacks its own engines with embrittlement. If you need better than methalox you should be using at least NTR.

>>11757691
You guys also helped launch the Black Arrow... until the Brits buggered off.

>>11757733
It's like a god damn fucking dead albatross we insist on lugging around with us. A millstone around our necks.

>>11757052

Unironically this is the best method of interplanetary travel. They should fly from planet to planet ferrying one or more "dinghy" landers docked. To prevent fallout contaminateion of earth or another planet, the actual strarship should be constructed in an orbiting dry dock and never itself land on a planet.

>Earth to Mars in a week instead of a year
>Earth to Saturn in a month instead of five years
>Earth to Pluto in three months
>Earth to Planet Nine (assuming it exists where predicted at 1500 AU) in a year

>>11756914
Immigrants of some groups consistently thrive in their destination countries, whereas other groups consistently fail to thrive over multiple generations. Every country that has experienced immigration would have to be prejudiced in very similar ways (have the same conditions of structural racism or whatever other claptrap is claimed) in order for this phenomenon to not infer something about the innate capabilities of one of these groups versus the other, is the hard truth of it.

>>11757450
>>11757523
In a related note, Mars barely has a molten core, right?

What's stopping people from digging hundreds or thousands of miles down to get at all the good shit?

>>11758116
Cause digging down that deep is pretty hard

>>11758128
>Not using a nuclear powered particle beam drill to get down there
>Not then using the ice cap nukes to restart the core dynamo

>>11758128
Point tunnel boring machine down, let it do its thing.
I wonder how Musk plans on packing up one of those things small enough to fit on a Starship? Some assembly required I suppose, just sending packed parts and a team of builders is probably easier than engineering a complex folding transformer thing.

>>11758116
IIRC there's still issues of pressure as one digs deeper.

>>11758141
It just dawned on me that the whole Boring Company thing was 4D chess

He pretends that he's making TBMs so basedboys don't have to wait in traffic, when they're actually there to tunnel the shit out of Mars

>tfw there will never be a space company with a name as cool as Rocketdyne ever again

>>11758148
Everything he's done is for Mars, everything. Electric cars/Cybertruck? Rovers. TBM? Mars habitats. Starlink? Martian comms network.

>>11758138
...you've still got to provide the same amount of energy to do the work required to lift the mass out.

>>11758153
*blocks your path*

>>11758116
Mars still has a temperature gradient and a mantle. Anything useful for resource extraction would still be in the single digits km. You run into mantle within tens of km anyway, and plastic deformation problems before that.

>>11758160
Shoo, tax dodge.

>>11758160
Fixed that for you.

>>11758177

>>11756407
When will shitliner fly with crew? 2022?

>>11758203
They're gonna have to prove that it works first.

>>11756679
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeNytM7JdYY

>>11758206
Well that's another 5 unmanned test flights to work out the pajeetcode software then

>>11758220
One. They're going to have to do one unmanned full launch to the ISS with return then testing and QC at NASA before they can do the first crewed launch.
So I guess about a year, maybe a year and a half after whenever they manage that first proper demo mission without deorbiting or bugs threatening RUD.

>"Many in our Service feel this pain on a daily basis and we are all hurting as we have experienced the sickening events that have played out in our cities around the country," they wrote in reference to Floyd's May 25 death. " ... Racism is an enemy. It is an enemy of everything we know that is fair, right and just."
>They called on Space Force personnel to "look deeper" and probe blind spots and biases they might not fully be aware of.
>"We have an opportunity to get this right from the beginning and we are committed to doing so," Raymond and Towberman wrote. "We must build diversity and inclusion into our 'cultural DNA' -- make it one of the bedrock strengths of our service. Diversity is a strength, but only if we maximize our perspectives and experiences."
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/06/02/we-are-all-hurting-space-force-leaders-speak-out-death-george-floyd.html

Lmao, Space Force is already cucked.

>>11758239
>"We must build diversity and inclusion into our 'cultural DNA'
Why?

>>11758239
I look forward to the day we encounter real aliens and everyone gains a bit more perspective on the differences between human beings
starting to think Ozymandias was right

>>11758154
Starlink is also a funding mechanism for Mars colonization because rural ISPs are a super shitty market right now.

>>11758239
The military is pro-diversity because they're an arm of the federal government. The only way to uncuck them is to end affirmative action and the rest of the associated tripe. Then they can go back to being more of a meritocracy.

>>11758250
True, my area has exactly one provider and everyone hates them for being shit. Two birds one stone, prove the tech and make a buck while giving us rural retards better 'innernet.

>>11758242
Because space belongs to us, goy!

>>11758242
diverse groups of people are better at solving problems
this is a fact supported by decades of research

>>11758256
If that's what a meritocracy results in, cool.

>>11758239
They kind of have to as Dems are licking their lips for the day they can disband Space Force. Every post about USSF or ULA launches has the same comments.


>>11758244
I was on a coach trip that was abducted by aliens and the Grays were awkwardly racist. They literally wouldn't talk or interact with any of the black people on the bus except one that kept spitting the words 'bad boy' in a really high pitched toddler voice at a black guy like it had never physically uttered a word before. They were otherwise telepathic. God I'm cracking up just thinking about the fucking creep. Funny day frankly.

>>11758256
True, NASA hires teams that all have the same mindset of being social credit points
They need true diversity on their staff

>>11758242
It's the one thing the space racists fear.
>>11758244
I imagine that aliens with the ability to visit our solar system would be more utilitarian than us and instantly recognize the harm in forcing together groups that want to maintain their own separate identity and cultural practices. The actual science is pretty damning to diversity on a societal level, it lowers public trust, increases the crime rate, makes people less likely to volunteer in their community and donate to charities. The fallout over the protests is clear proof of how disruptive it can be.

>>11758278
>They kind of have to as Dems are licking their lips for the day they can disband Space Force. Every post about USSF or ULA launches has the same comments.
Or we could just drop rocks on the Democrats. They're open seditionists at this point and shouldn't be allowed to hold power again.

>>11758289
>"I want to disband a national asset because I don't like the guy who made it!"
I don't understand how people let themselves fall so far down rabbitholes of madness.

>>11758293
To be fair Obamacare shit seems much the same but I'm not American. Looks like Trump will do fine in Nov but I do hope Space Force survives. It'll look really stupid when it gets reinstated anyway in a decade with a different name.

>>11758293
People burned down Constantinople because their chariot team (which also happens to be their political parties) lost and the Emperor had to call another match to stop the 3 day riots
Never underestimate human factionalism even if it goes against their interests

>>11758293
>>11758289
>>11758278
The Space Force was voted by both parties, maybe stop living in your fantasies

Hello, I'm new to space but isn't it kind of scary?

Amateur rocketry is a thing, but can amateur landers be a thing too with lowering prices to get something to space? Or would the technology behind landers be too advanced and expensive for amateurs to work on?

>>11758309
yes
get out while you can and don't look back

>>11758299
That was a whole nest of worms but yeah, I see your point. I also hope Space Force survives, anyone could have done it and it'd still be a good idea.
>>11758306
What a sight that must've been, goddamn.
>>11758309
Yeah but also pretty.

>>11757219
I don't think the Russians would necessarily go for the ISS but rather just start dropping nukes onto the US.

>>11758287
>The actual science is pretty damning to diversity on a societal level, it lowers public trust, increases the crime rate, makes people less likely to volunteer in their community and donate to charities.
Only collectivists care about these things. Individualist America requires diversity to produce capital by solving problems better than everyone else (it is no mistake that most prominent inventors are first or second generation immigrants) and stay dominant above homogeneous, collectivist societies. People on this dumb website who are simultaneously in favor of an ethnostate and capitalism are worse than communists.

>>11758311
It should be able to be done due to cheapening electronics and sensors which is the main issue for landers
Ardunio circuits and gyros would be able to control a basic bitch lander if programmed correctly

>>11758309
Yes, but like a stunning hottie with an extensive knife collection and questionable mental stability, the danger is a part of the excitement.

>>11758309
Only if you touch it.

>>11758293
To the Left, politics is Christianity with the serial numbers filed off. They have a priesthood - the media. They have an original sin - "white privilege." They have an apocalypse - "climate change." They have penances they perform - basically their whole policy platform. They fully believe in Whig History and that they are on the correct side of it. They hate the President because they see him as Satan incarnate usurping the seat of their faith. Imagine how Christians would react if the next Pope was a red guy with horns and a spade tail.

By that same token, no large population ever changed religions because of vigorous political debate, so we're probably going to have to kill them.

>>11758319
>oy vey only collectivists care about the fabric of society, we have ROI to worry about!
This is precisely the attitude that produced Hitler.

>>11758322
>>11758311
I think a lot of "amateur landers" are going to basically be MOOSE skydiving competitions at first. Amateur robot landers on other worlds don't make sense until the price of moon or Mars shots gets down to about the current price of LEO.

>>11758319
We're talking specifically about racial diversity, not immigration. The vast majority of hyper-successful immigrants to the US are not racially diverse.

>>11758330
>I think a lot of "amateur landers" are going to basically be MOOSE skydiving competitions at first
That could be a good thing though. Training a whole new generation of engineers who are not only open to the idea of landing rockets, but have some knowledge on the subject. They could diffuse into the various aerospace companies and allow said companies to develop their own landing boosters.

>>11758309
lol

>>11758311
Blue Origin should be working on sub orbital package delivery rockets. Like SAM launchers.

>>11758322
Can't find the archives of Armadillo Aerospace now but it was really interesting to see the actual, day-to-day, development problems they encountered.

>>11758239
They’re future-proofing themselves against defunding attempts by Democrats who may try to tear down something Trump supported as a political stunt.

>>11758153
> Starphallus
> "Fucking space, one rocket at a time"

Starlink launch attempt tonight at 9:25 pm from florida.

>>11758463
Damn, I didn't realize how many they had up there already, feels like yesterday we watched the first one go up. I'll be watching.

>>11757119
Plastic bullets are used aboard aircraft

>>11758474
>Webm of a single image
What did you mean by this?

>>11756480
Define technocracy plz

>>11758476
Remember when people said its impossible to launch that many? I remember when they said its impossible to land rockets back on barge. I'm now reading people saying its impossible to build Starship.

>>11758484
Saves file size compared to single jpg of ~5MB. Here's the slideshow.

>>11757982

This would require amending the non-nuclear proliferation treaty to not include spacecraft propulsion.

But otherwise this is the best way to truly open up the solar system to the public.

>>11757255
Yes. It would not be difficult to manufacture propane either, which gets you all the advantages of kerosene and more. There is never a reason to synthesize beyond propane.

>>11757389
10 GW is totally doable with solar even, but you would only be able to launch during the day.

launch thread will be up in a couple hours. Weather is 60% GO.

>>11758494
you spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round

>>11758517
>This would require amending the non-nuclear proliferation treaty to not include spacecraft propulsion.
Or just saying "we're doing it, deal with it faggots."

>>11758521
Day/night is less of a concern on Mars than the dust storms. Crazy dust storms are probably the time you want the most ability to leave the planet, but also make solar useless.

It sucks that SN4 died but you have to admit that SpaceX is getting closer and closer to a final product.

The only thing to do now is test it using the :

1)150 m Hop
2) 20kM Belly Flop
3) 100 kM Belly Flop

Once those tests are done well likely see similar testing on Superheavy. Or not. Maybe they’d rather get to orbit sooner.

Either way Starship is actually making great R&D gains. We should be optimistic if anything.

Also the last two failures of Starship have been not due to the ship itself, but the ground people/equipment. SN3 got smushed due to a tank filling error, and SN4 had a faulty GSE valve.

So yeah it sucks SN4 blew up but they already have two more almost done. But expect more explosions, because that’s what progress sounds like.

>>11758526

>>11758527
>Crazy dust storms are probably the time you want the most ability to leave the planet
Why
The planet is where all the resources are, the planet is where all the shelter is, why the fuck would you leave
That mentality is exactly like that of old people who freeze to death in their cars during a blizzard because they decided they'd better leave to escape the weather instead of just sitting around a cozy fire at home

>>11758494
>Remember when people said its impossible to launch that many? I remember when they said its impossible to land rockets back on barge. I'm now reading people saying its impossible to build Starship.
Shit's getting interesting finally.

>>11758530
AFAIK, SN4 failed due to quick disconnect failure. So it wasn't a rocket failure but a minor feature failure that led to this catrastrophe. I think they mostly have everything under control now with few unknown unknowns.

>>11758539
I mean I guess that’s good news. Sucks that it exploded but at least it’s not something wrong with the rocket.

>>11758542
They've got like half the SN5 and a chunk of SN6 already welded together. Didn't some ring have SN7 already written on it too?

>>11758330
I'm REALLY looking forwards to MOOSE

>>11758539
>meanwhile a good chunk of /sfg/ was acting like it was an objective fact that the failure originated in the thrust structure due to 144p youtube screenshots
laffin

>>11758549
Chinese Shills and EnoughMuskSpam Lose AGAIN

>>11758256
I'm all for diverse viewpoints and backgrounds to help solve problems, but the competency of the individual should be held as the highest standard. Diversity all too often means filling quotas with under qualified people and then purging the people with the "wrong" viewpoints. Look at google. What have they done in the last several years? I can't think of a single noteworthy accomplishment besides hiring a bunch of pink hairs and dick excisers. They've become bloated like all the other large companies and have stopped innovating and instead just try to maintain until they die or get broken up.

>>11757328
Can we petition to expunge the meatball and restore the worm?

>>11758584
Both have their place.

>>11758299
It was a severely flawed, barely-function knockoff of Romneycare, which just shows how much easier it is to get the average bootlicker to accept a policy if you just slap a Democrat's name on it. Like all socialist healthcare policies it resulted in sharp increase in actual overall cost for most middle and lower class people and a sharp decrease in quality of care as well. Promises that were meant to be part of the policy didn't pan out (you can keep your doctor hurr, you can keep your plan durr).
It's not a partisan thing either, it was a stupid plan when Romney proposed it and Obama didn't make it any better, central planning is just shit when it comes to vital services, no matter who proposes it.

>>11758559
>I can't think of a single noteworthy accomplishment besides hiring a bunch of pink hairs and dick excisers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZNEzzDcllU

>>11758493
rule by autists who just want to make rocket
>>11758527
>make solar useless
no, but it does go from "enough power to drop rocks on Earth" to "enough power to run our life support and play garry's mod"

Would mining the moon for Titanium be worth it?

>>11758539
So they lost two prototypes over crappy mistakes.

This is not looking good.

>>11758630
>he's a quantum supremacist
fucking piece of shit, classical computers are just as valuable and capable of solving problems as quantum computers

DM-2 booster retracted all legs while only supported by octograbber.

>>11758530
btw, is there any pic of the raptor which was on SN4?

>>11758644

>>11758640
Two prototypes that cost ~1 month each and a few mill each to produce. In aerospace terms they may as well be throwing away coffee machines.

>>11758530
Except that there will be multiple short (150 meterish) hops. That's what Hans said in a recent interview.

>>11758639
Not with modern technology. Not even with future technology like electric Lunar rail-gun launch systems. Titanium just isn't worth that much.
Starship could provide cheap enough launch services to allow for marginally profitable mining of platinum and other expensive metals, and unlike the asteroid mining meme you wouldn't instantly crash the market with no survivors.
Of course the most valuable product on the Moon is actually any industrial material that you can produce in-situ rather than needing to take it from Earth. Producing steel for habitats would be great, because it'd let you sell construction projects to countries that want to into space but can't afford to/don't want to bother to develop their own highly reusable launch vehicles. ESA wants a Moon Village? Sure, sign on the dotted line please, we'll have your 100,000 cubic meter living space habitat built and ready for furnishing in four months, that'll be $250 million.
Just no jews and no chinese bugmen allowed.

>>11758644

Starlink L7 tonight @ 9:25. Thunderstorm might cause it to be delayed, we'll see.

>>11758640
>this is not looking good
You're right, things are pretty bleak. Time to pack it up and hand over all aerospace contracts to ULA

>>11758644
The mass simulator (~25 tons of rolled sheet steel welded together) landed directly on top of it and sheared it right off of the base of the vehicle.

>>11758661
Why did you post a picture of SLS?

>>11758655
This. Each SN prototype so far has likely cost less than a single successful solid motor test performed by whoever builds those.

>>11758668
no, that's a picture of raptor #20 after being crushed by the mass simulator

>>11758666
BASED

>>11758670
https://streamable.com/9bf1fm

How can spaceplanes be made as safe and reliable as the new reusable vertical launch systems that are taking over now?

IMO spaceplanes remain superior to capsules in transporting humans and other G-sensitive cargo to orbit, and are also superior in potential resuability. But the main obstacles are how hard it is to equip them with proper launch abort systems and the development costs being much higher than capsules.

Maybe you could fix small solid motors to use as escape systems that you jettison when you cross the Karman line, and have folding internally stored wings that you extend after re-entry or possibly use for horizontal takeoff then retract as you gain speed.

>>11758692
Starship is a spaceplane
if you don't want to recover the second stage, you can put your spaceplane (capsule) on top of a current generation vertical launch system
also what do you mean "reusable vertical launch systems" (plural), there's only one right now.

>>11758692
Planes need runways. Space planes need space runways... also known as mass drivers. Vertical launch spaceplanes are always going to be Shuttle tier memes.

>>11758641
All Bits Matter

>>11758698
>vertical launch spaceplanes are always going to be shuttle tier memes
what the fuck do you think Starship Super Heavy is?

>>11758692
Space planes have no advantage to orbit. Their advantage is in being able to control their reentry descent velocity.

>>11758705
Why do you keep insisting Starship is a spaceplane? It vertically lands. How many spaceplanes (or any planes) do that as their sole means of landing?

>>11758717
it has wings

>>11758718
Fins. To be wings they need to actually generate a substantial amount of lift.

>>11758723
it has a comparable hypersonic L/D ratio to the shuttle

>>11758718
For skydiving. The way a 737 lands and the way a skydiver in a wingsuit lands are not the same.
Are the "wings" used during landing? No, they are used before landing to increase resistance before Starship flips back on its ass and braps onto the surface.

>>11758724
no it doesn't

>>11758729
yes it does

>>11758718
By that logic the Saturn V is a space plane because it has “wings” at the bottom. Starship is a rocket with aerodynamic fins for attitude control. At no point does it fly horizontally like a plane... it falls out of the sky to bleed energy and lands vertically

oh shit check it out a spaceplane just flew over my house

>>11758736
the S-1 never reentered from orbit, so it's not a spaceplane
Starship most certainly isn't a capsule.

>>11758740
It's a rocket ship. It's not a plane.

>>11758740
Like the fucking name implies, it's a SHIP.

>>11758741
If it's not a spaceplane, but it reenters from orbit, what is it? It's not a capsule, it's not a biconic, it's a spaceplane.
>>11758742
"spaceship" is a generic identifier for everything we've put in space
the Apollo CSM/LEM stack was a spaceship
the Shuttle was a spaceship
geostationary satellites are spaceships
that one japanese asteroid probe that delivered a reentry capsule back to Earth was a spaceship

>>11758740
What’s the distinction in your view then? This so driving me crazy I have to change your mind.

>>11758663
>All part are saved, even the capsule halfs.

>>11758741
>>11758742
No dudes don't you see? It goes into the air and comes back, AND it has broad flat surfaces on it. How can that mean anything other than a shuttle-tier meme spaceplane?

>>11758753
Well, not the second stage and the rack for the satellites. But they can't make miracles out of such a small rocket.

>>11758749
>If it's not a spaceplane, but it reenters from orbit, what is it?
A rocket ship. It launches as a rocket, lands as a rocket, and doesn't have airfoil wings.
>the Apollo CSM/LEM stack was a spaceship
Yes.

>>11758749
Starship is going to be a new technology, something that hasn't existed before. When cars were invented they didn't insist on calling them "metal horses" or whatever the fuck, they created new terms like automobile or car. Starship will be whatever it ends up being, you could launch one into orbit and use it as a space station if you want. Would you still call it a spaceplane then?

>>11758749
>It's not a capsule, it's not a biconic, it's a spaceplane.

It's not an airplane though; it's not really capable of sustained gliding. Hell, I don't think it's capable of generating enough lift to move further sideways than it falls without an atmosphere skipping maneuver, which is something that the Apollo capsules did to reduce reentry heating.

>>11758753
I hope they catch these ones too.

Going back to the original point, yes, mass drivers at spaceports would make spaceplanes viable.

Starlink launch tonight.

I wonder .

Can they use starlink from the ISS?

>>11758750
if it's round or , it's a capsule
if it's not, it's a spaceplane
vertical landing is just a mode, the Harrier and F-35 do vertical landing. There were a few Nazi memeplanes and American post-WW2 research projects that did vertical takeoff and landing exclusively, although I think the american research projects never got off the ground and the nazi memeplanes did a Gagarin for pilot recovery
>>11758754
Spaceplane doesn't automatically mean "meme" (meaning bad idea) there are perfectly valid reasons to use lifting body reentry. Pic related were spaceplane ideas and not stupid memes.
Putting a spaceplane second stage on top of New Glenn would be great.
>>11758763
>Yes
I'm glad somebody gets me.
>>11758766
They absolutely called them self-propelled carriages for a while. Yes, using a spaceplane as a space station is perfectly valid. We did that with Shuttle for a while.
>>11758767
They need a quite large hypersonic L/D ratio (sustained hypersonic gliding) for Mars entry.

>>11758774
>They need a quite large hypersonic L/D ratio (sustained hypersonic gliding) for Mars entry.

You don't need any significant aerosurface for hypersonic lift.

>>11758774
>the Harrier and F-35 do vertical landing
They don't do tail sitter suicide plunge landings with their wing surfaces perpendicular to the ground, numbnuts.

>>11758778
And yet they have significant aerosurface

>>11758773
maybe? they're at a higher orbit

>>11758773
Starlink is just internet satellites right?

>>11758780
I don't see how that's relevant, the Harrier and F-35 wings don't perform any function during hover maneuvers

>>11758773
ISS is ~140km below the altitude for Starlink, so I assume that if they had an antenna there would be little issue. Imagine high-speed wi-fi on the Station.

>>11758786
Starlink has significant investment from the Military as well. We believe they want to use them as internet satellites, although they're using terms like "combat theatre connectivity" or something

>>11758781
>And yet they have significant aerosurface

For the production of drag and control authority, not for lift.

>>11758786
They probably could add a transceiver to the ISS once communication between constellation layers is enabled.

>>11758791
They may be too close to get a consistent signal. It really depends on the ability of Starlink to depress the signal.

>>11758796
>drag and control authority
they produce hypersonic lift as well as control authority in all regimes.
Of course, the big tube produces a significant amount of lift as well in hypersonic flight, I've heard the optimum for hypersonics would be a big table

>>11758774
I only said shuttle-tier meme because that was the verbage originally used when claiming that starship is a shuttle-tier meme.

Since you're so insistent I might as well throw in the knockout punch that no one else has mentioned that you 100% cannot argue through.

Starship (or even a craft like starship) will eventually be able to land on celestial bodies that have zero atmosphere whatsoever, meaning it'll completely rely on vertical landing and have no use for its fins. The lunar variant of Starship is an example of this.

If you're really going to argue that "lands solely using thruster propulsion without the use of any aerodynamic forces" fits the bill of being a "plane" then you might as well throw out the classification and just call it a flying machine

>>11758801
Basically everything produces lift simply by being angled upward against an airstream; lift is effectively as inevitable as drag is, and is not the aerodynamic quality that the flight surfaces are optimized to produce.

>>11758802
I've landed spaceplanes on the Mun in KSP
the aerosurfaces (and mk2 spaceplane surfaces lol) were dead weight, but I brought them with me. They helped a lot when I hit that atmosphere doing 3.5 km/s (jeez why is the Kerbol system so small)
The HLS Starship for NASA is not a spaceplane. It has no aerosurfaces and no aerodynamic control authority.
A cargo Starship landing on the moon, offloading cargo, and then flying back to Earth for aerocapture and reentry would still be a spaceplane.
Look man it's got aeroflappy bits, so it's a space plane. It doesn't do horizontal landing, but other planes don't do that either. It produces no lift once it's transsonic, but that's not a big deal either. It's a plane that is optimized for hypersonic flight, and that looks a bit alien, and that's okay.

>>11758814
I think your generalization of spaceplanes as anything that utilizes active control of airflow with aerosurfaces is overly broad, and carries connotations of flight control and design optimization points that do not readily apply to all vehicles that possess the relevant active control surfaces.

So Starship is a spaceplane right?

Also can’t Starship just destroy Blue Origin’s tourist base? I mean a single flight is $2 Million for an up and down hop. Carry a hundred or so people. Bam, it suddenly costs $20,000 per person.

>>11758814
The wings must produce lift at subsonic speeds to be a plane.

>>11758819
wrong

https://twitter.com/US_SpaceCom/status/1268288047755321344

>>11758819
Yes. Yes. What I really want to see is a VTHL vehicle (like the Kliper or Dream Chaser or X-37) that has the 6 km/s of dv it needs to be used as an upper stage. Land the first stage like F9 or Super Heavy and reuse both stages. I think New Glenn would be perfect for this, with its big 1st stage wings.
>>11758823
You're being racist against dedicated hypersonic vehicles, anon.

>>11758826
>dialogue on race
Unless they mean alien races no thanks.

>>11758833
>losing the argument? shout racism to declare victory!

>>11758826
delete this

Just realized that Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket uses significant aerosurfaces for subsonic lift and control authority throughout flight. I am willing to accept that the 1st stage of New Glenn is also a spaceplane.

Someone tell me how the fuck this is, in ANY way, similar to Shuttle. It's not a spaceplane.

>it's a semantics episode
Starship is a sandwich.

We need to get off our asses and figure out a heavy lift vehicle that can at least reach orbit, /sci/ needs this
Any ideas?
>>11758865
>Radical Spacecraft Anarchy

>>11758865
No, it's a hot dog.

>>11758865
I completely agree, if you're willing to accept that stainless steel is bread.

Starship is a dumpling.

>>11758819
>No mention of Star Raker
Fucking plebs.

>>11758865
starship is a layer cake

how far could 4ASS get with a metal 3d printer

>>11758884
Excuse me while I single handedly assemble this 1 GW spaced based solar power station megastructure.

>>11758863
People are so dumb, if we put tiny little aerodynamic fins on the bottom of the DC-X they would suddenly classify it as a spaceplane because
>muh winglets

>>11758141
>I wonder how Musk plans on packing up one of those things small enough to fit on a Starship?

They’d build it on Mars.

>>11758903
does it utilize significant lift

>>11758903
The greatest goal of a spaceplane is to enable easy turn around times for spaceflights due to having infrastructure and mission structure similar to airliners. Launching shit off of a launch pad for said spacecraft to then be recovered and refurbished within months at best is never going to be economical compared to landing it on a runway, giving it a check over, loading it up, and sending it up again from said runway.

>>11758910
For this sake, let's say the fins don't generate lift. Just like Starship.

>>11758309
“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”


― Frank Herbert, Dune

>>11758918
horizontal landing and quick turnaround are orthogonal, anon

>>11758865
>has one continuous outer surface
>overflowing with hot filling
>mostly made by mexicans
so where were you when you realized Starship was a tortilla?

>>11758918
Elon is extremely autistic and wants Starship to be rugged enough to launch, fly in a suborbital flight, and land in other cities. His goal is to have a turnaround rate high enough where that it could compete with airliners. Any "refurbishments" could be done by a vertical infrastructure without a runway. While I doubt this will happen, it's definitely not impossible

>>11758494
It's not impossible to build Starship, but goddamn, don't fall over your fucking feet trying to build it as fast as possible. Last two failures now had nothing to do with the rocket itself.

>>11758926
It's made by space cowboys in Texas. If anything it's Tex-Mex

>>11758894
Depends on how long it takes Relativity Space to call the cops.

>>11758903
>DC-X
That thing was kino.

>>11758944
>liquid hydrogen
>using boomer RL-10 engines

>>11758948
Now imagine it with Methalox and a first stage. Basically what Elon is doing, is it not?

>>11758956
Yes, but how would it descend from orbit? It would be more of a biconic capsule, yes?

>>11758960
Yeah the plan was to use the larger bottom as a heat shield

>>11758937
its just a starship bro. the place is lousy with them. they'll just build more :^)

>>11758937
Mmmm yeah but that's kind of the design philosophy of SpaceX. Because they aren't building it to appease politicians (i.e. SLS) they just build them and push them to their limit. Sort of like how grasshopper was a shitty test vehicle and they came out with reusable Falcon 9's shortly thereafter.
If I remember correctly Elon plans on building something like 19 prototypes before the final design, meaning they have like 14 more to build and explode before we start seeing orbital flights

>>11758665
Neat.
Would be pretty nice if they kept it as a souvenir

>>11758969
I really hope that there's going to be a Starship Development Museum at the future Boca Chica Spaceport.

>>11758996
Musk seems to not be interested in saving anything for museums which is fine—it'd be pretty presumptuous anyway

>>11758996
I also hope Boca Chica spaceport gets a name if they start launching and landing Starships from there. Crockett Astrodome or something?

>>11758999
not exactly true. He was all for the Smithsonian getting an F9 booster but they wanted SpaceX to pay for the transport and installation

>>11759002
Brauntown.

>>11759004
I guess if we want a Starship museum somebody will have to pay for it's creation out of pocket. I can at understand that, SpaceX's specific goal is to push space exploration forward, preservation is valuable however it isn't directly relevant to progress.

>>11759008
10/10

>>11759008
>>11759013
Damn, 8/8 lmao

>>11759004
he ended up giving one to Houston

>>11759004
That was afterwards, though, not during development. To start hoarding away pieces just in the hope that it really is the thing that changes everything would probably inadvertently doom the project just out of cosmic spite.

>>11759002
>we're here at Ol' Musky's Methane Swamp for the inaugural flight of Starship Imagine the Smell

>>11759025
>T minus 5... 4.... 3... 2... 1... BRAAAAAAAAAAP

>>11757982

Yeah but the propulsion system should be refined to the point we're we wouldn't have to build thousands of tiny nukes for propellant.

We should use giant bell nozzle like engines where pulverized nuclear fuel dust is injected and bombarded with microwaves to trigger fission or some shit.

I like your idea of dinghy capsules being the means of being shit up from a planet's surface to the main ship, which then ferrys everything to and from interplanetary destinations. I would legit want to see Musk's opinion about this.

Can you destroy atoms of heavier elements and turn them into multiple atoms of lighter ones?

>>11759043
>I like your idea of dinghy capsules being the means of being shit up from a planet's surface to the main ship, which then ferrys everything to and from interplanetary destinations

That’s just what Apollo did

>>11759044
Yes, it also is a good way to get electricity
We should build one of these transmutation reactors

>>11759044
In theory yes. In reality I doubt that will be possible in the next thousand years.

>>11759048

Yeah but you wouldn't have to ride in the cramped capsule for the whole trip. Just the rendezvous with the mothership.

The ideal nuclear propelled mothership would have a rotating habitat for crew which provides basic anemities and artificial gravity.

>>11759044
that's called fission
it doesn't happen often, and when it does it makes a lot of heat

>>11759068
I’d figure you could break them apart simply by dumping enough energy into them, and overwhelming the binding energy

>>11759072
I think I asked some physicists one time and apparently that's almost enough energy to just summon particles out of nothing

>>11758956
>>11758962
So its like Blue Origin's New Shepherd. Literally DCX's employees went to work on New Shepherd.

>>11759076
You’re probably thinking of color confinement. You can’t isolate quarks because the energy required to break apart the subatomic particles that quarks compose just makes another particle. I was referring to breaking, say, iron into multiple hydrogen atoms.

nice
>SpaceX has been given NASA approval to fly flight-proven Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon vehicles during Commercial Crew flights starting with Post-Certification Mission 2, per a modification to SpaceX's contract with NASA.
https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1268316718750814209

thicc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=___JNGJog0A

>>11759150
NASA's confidence in SpaceX has risen quite a bit thanks to recent launch of human crew.

>>11759150
>"flight proven" instead of "reused"
Note the language shift.

>>11759177
Yep. Languages matter for these meticulous contracts.

launch thread
>>11759183
shouldn't be as... crowded as the Demo-2 one. Regular Starlink launch with ratty-old booster.

>>11759157

>>11759150
Is this more so incase Boing fucks up again and SpaceX needs to pickup the slack? Not to mention the lower costs for more manned missions in the future.

>>11759157
I'd like a LARGE order!

>>11759198
No, its more of NASA giving SpaceX more trust in launching their Falcon9. Its the best vehicle in the US, and the flight proven vehicles can be launched again atleast 2-3 more times without issues. Any issues/ they do encounter will be mostly on their 5th-6th launches which will be done for internal Starlinks and addressed to so more of the flight proven vehicles can go to 10+ launches

>>11759212
I understand the falcon part, but the Crew Dragon was originally contracted for single manned then a cargo re-fit with NASA, by the looks of this alteration NASA is prepared to allow more manned Dragon flights using the same module or am I misreading the situation?

>>11759225
nobody knows

>>11759225
They've relaunched Cargo Dragon 10 times already. If anything, Crew Dragon is a much improved upon than Cargo Dragon, so they would have more confidence. They know SpaceX can already do Cargo capsule reused variants, so if there's nothing amiss in their findings for Crew Dragons, they'll place their trust in flight proven Crew Dragons.

>>11756691
That was Korean airplane

>>11759150
So why is NASA suddenly more accepting with SpaceX. For a long time it seemed that their golden child was Boeing/Lockheed and suddenly they switch out to SpaceX.

It went from
>Boeing gets a contract billions of dollars bigger than SpaceX

To suddenly (in order)

>NASA puts Starship as a possible launcher for LUVOIR
> NASA gives SpaceX the Dragon XL contract
>SpaceX wins the Artemis Contract
>NASA allows Crew dragon to be Reused

>>11759307
Starliner's test flight mess up happened. Earlier, Boeing was seen as the more expensive, but trusted option, but Starliner crashed that notion with no survivors on live TV.

>>11758640
Could be worse. They could have demonstrated extreme incompetence to the point of corruption resulting firstly in the deaths of hundreds of people, and secondly in a humiliating loss of historic proportions in a competition with a vastly smaller and less well resourced competitor. SpaceX really are not the American aerospace company you need to be concerned about.

>>11759307
People were so pissed when Jim was hired but he’s so fucking great for NASA. He’s open to change and is willing to put so much time and effort into the little guys like SpaceX. I couldn’t tell you one thing Charles Bolden has said or done at his time at NASA... Jim on the other hand has been so involved and people don’t dislike him anymore because of his political affiliations

>>11759307
Boeing had its chance for over 10 years and then they decided to blow it by penny pinching.

>>11759333
>People were so pissed when Jim was hired
Source?

If the marginal cost of a reused Falcon 9 booster plus a reused Crew Dragon is 20 million per launch and they fill all seven seats, we could see trips to orbit for as low as 3 million dollars, depending on how big of a markup SpaceX wants.

>>11759345
crew dragon costs a shitton though

>>11759150
NASA must be really happy with SpaceX, i thought they would test the return of Endeavour before going forward with anything else that wasn't in the plans already

>>11759351
the conspiracist in me is thinking that the NASA bois are thinking
>hehehe now we can blame it on the re-used capsule if it blows up and kills the crew
But it's 100% just the engineers looked at the data and everything seems to be fine after a flight-cycle's wear-n'-tear

New Starship stand almost in position, they will need to wire and test but at this rate we might see SN5 positioned by next week.

>>11759343
At least twitter was. I only use twitter to follow space stuff but there’s obviously a high concentration of liberals. Trump appointed Jim (republican/climate change denier) and people were fucking pissed (not to mention he replaced a black guy so it’s not good for optics)
Jim has since come around, changing his view on climate change. As the leader of NASA he convinces trump to put money into earth-observation missions, which republicans typically want defunded, and he serves as a great liaison for working with Trump/the Senate for selling Artemis, commercial crew, etc. and securing its funding

>>11759349
I imagine that Crew Dragon was already paid for by what they charged NASA and the funding they got from the commercial crew program. Maybe NASA could get the first few uses and then the rest they could sell to private customers.

>>11759349
Do we know anything about the internal cost of Crew Dragon? NASA pays a shitton, but all NASA missions are overpriced.

>>11758663
why the fuck is this a webm

>>11759367
>(not to mention he replaced a black guy so it’s not good for optics)
Fuck optics and fuck niggers. After this week they can all burn together.

>>11759383
Why do you hate America?

>>11759367
yeah I remember those really early Jim open forum Q&A's with NASA staff etc. Hiiiiigh tensions.
Also check out Jim's old hobby https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEPr3DRUS7Y

>>11759366
What the fuck it’s almost done. I thought it An Heroed a week ago

>>11759400
That was SN4.

>>11758696
>Starship is a spaceplane
No, at no point does it fly like a plane
It reenters doing a belly flop, and then after slowing to subsonic speeds it does a backflip and lands propulsively like a rocket.

1 more hour till Starlink launch livestream (spacex)

>>11759400
this will be the fifth time they have built it, and they have become exceedingly efficient at it

>>11759388
KSP realism overhaul

new quick-disconnects?

>>11759430
>and as you can see these upgraded shower units have steel doors instead of wood
ELON NOOOOOOO

>>11759400
SN4 did, apparently a quick disconnect test didn't work properly so it spilled a load of methane and igniter fluids so it blew up, they have SN5 pretty much built and ready and SN6 under construction though.

>>11759439
Plus SN7 bits have been spotted. I'd imagine SN8 initial components are laid out in a tent too.
Pic is SN6.

>>11759430
It looks like it.

>>11758819
>So Starship is a spaceplane right?
no

>>11759058
chicago pile

>>11758819
No, vehicles like Buran, the SS and Skylon, Hermes and MAKS are all what I'd classify as "Rocket Planes". They are aircraft which happen to have rocket propulsion systems. Venturestar and Starship as well as the now defunct BFR are more in the realm of what I'd classify as "Finned Rockets", they are primarily rockets which happen to have aerodynamic control surfaces. The ITS concept didn't even have aerodynamic control fins, it's just somewhat aerodynamically shaped.
The distinction is arbitrary and mostly has to do with what the intent for the vehicle really is, whether it's meant to fly like a plane or bodyslam like a capsule or missile.

>still no JWST operational data transfer rates up on the chinese document fences

Starlink T MINUS 15 MIN

>>11759536
thread here if you missed it
>>11759193

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4xBFHjkUvw

LIVE!!!

8 MIN 25 SECS TO LAUNCH

>was ready to go to bed
>clicked on youtube just out of habit
>get to see a launch before bed
neat

OOOAUGH I'M LAUOOOOOOOOOOONCHING

>>11758256
See I read one of those studies, specifically the methodology section
They used a machine learning system to find original word combinations in published papers and found that diversity increases this factor.

However, this was data collection carried out by AI, and the metric used is obviously shit; there was no consideration of the number of citations those papers received.

NICE

successful landing successful mission easy peasy
Nothing's easier than space

>>11758898
>>11758884
Would it have worked?

Also spacex just landed a booster for the 5th time.

>>11759697
Unfortunately due to the ABSOLUTE STATE of academe, most papers will never be cited or rigorously peer reviewed. Good science with sound methodology and accurate results will go unnoticed while schlock gets circulated around like gospel, the review process has been so badly corrupted by agenda that I can't take it seriously anymore.

It's the first F9 to land 5 times

>>11759776
Can't wait for 6th launch/landing

Does anyone have the webm of the falcon9 landing almost sideways on the barge?

>>11759307
>So why is NASA suddenly more accepting with SpaceX.
What has Boeing done recently that isn't a complete embarrassment?

>>11759836
This one?

>>11759860
Yes. Thanks!

>>11759852
Post YFW your largest contracter goes full retard and suddenly the small guy lead by a weeb is paving the way in spaceflight

>>11757697
>the only other Falcon worthy of space

>>11759411
it reenters like the shuttle, it has significant AoA for hypersonic lift during reentry
it doesn't do the skydiver bellyflop shit until it's merely supersonic

>>11759925

>>11759474
yes

>>11759492
all reentries are bodyslams

>>11759925

>>11759925

>>11759150
This happening before the capsule returns genuinely concerns me. I would at least want them to inspect a returned capsule at least once. I know they've worked with cargo, but it's not the same vehicle.

>>11759936
It's interesting, you could actually do an Apollo style moon shot using Crew Dragon and already existing Superdraco thrusters. Without vacuum nozzles they have slightly worse ISP than the CSM, but much higher thrust. Slap some vacuum bells on them, add an SM with spare propellant, power, etc and with a Falcon Heavy and DM2 style launch you could use the existing capsule and rockets to fly to the moon. A lander would have to be designed but it could also use "vacuum" superdracos.

>>11759951
Demo-1 was inspected after return. It's the same as any other Crew dragon
>and then the debris was inspected again :^)

>>11759952
A SpaceX lander would probably be really aesthetic

>>11759008
NAZI SYMPATHIZER
#BURNBRAUNTOWN

>>11759939


fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you

fuck you fuck you fuck
you fuck you fuck you
fuck you fuck
you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck
you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you
fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you
fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck
you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you
fuck
you

fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you

>>11759968
well shit, guess what the clump of 'fuck you's used to spell

>>11759969
is it (you)

>>11759960
100% elon would make a moon lander UFO shaped

>>11759971
try again

>>11759975
anon, we know what his moon lander looks like
it's Starship

>>11759952
>A lander would have to be designed but it could also use "vacuum" superdracos.
You could call the payload Double Dragon.

>>11759980
>lands on drone ship Bimmy&Jimmy

>fairing cam
What a farce

>>11759307
Jim.

Wouldn’t rockets be more powerful if they had vague impulse instead of specific impulse? I did some napkin calculations earlier and I think if you modified the Apollo spacecraft to use vague impulse instead of specific impulse, you could get enough delta/v to reach Neptune

>>11760071
yeah but reality is specific, not vague
your vague impulse rocket is only good on paper

>>11760075
>>11760071

>>11760075
>yeah but reality is specific, not vague

Wattabout the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and shit

>>11760081
quantum effects that aren't relevant on a macro scale

STARLINK
SOON

Rocket launch per countries:

>>11760097
>failures 1
Starliner?

>>11760097
By family:

>>11760100
LauncherOne

>>11760101
oh fuck, Launcher One was an orbital launch attempt
I forgot about that

>first time reusing a booster 5 times
are they going to make it to 10 reuses like Musk originally wanted? Or is this the max?

>>11760101
please break out the different Long March rockets by type
they name all of their rockets Long March, that's like calling the Saturn I, Saturn IB, and Saturn V the same rocket

>>11760106
they're going to try

>>11760107
Saturn I was identical to Saturn V except for the paint

>>11760115
it's like calling the Titan I, II, and III the same rocket
or all the different types of Titan III where more than 50% of the rocket by mass was solid rocket booster

if you want a refresher as to why we need humans on the surface of Mars:
https://www.dlr.de/blogs/en/all-blog-posts/The-InSight-mission-logbook.aspx

>>11759366
Good maybe they can catch up to a hop soon