/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11773190
First for being able to land anywhere on the lunar surface with the CHAD orbit

>>11773190
About the coursera link, it's free to access with my uni email so try with yours. If there's enough interest we could create a study group.

>>11773195
Gateway orbit is a disgusting, low-ambition orbit. Get back to me when you're navigating to LLO with nothing but a timer and a clinometer.

>>11773190
Would this make a good warship for LEO conflicts? I can imagine adding ablative tiles to the upper side would make it damage resistant to lasers and the like?

W-what if Elon Musk dies before we get to Mars

>>11773219
Thousand year darkness of liberals and SJWs

>>11773219
Elon Musk is only 48 years old and rich enough to afford excellent healthcare.
He'll easily last another 50 years at minimum which is plenty of time.

>>11773274
>gets in a plane crash and dies
heh another win for Boeing

>>11773190
the gateway is such a fucking meme. But you'll come to understand it's an expert 4D chess move on the part of NASA. Every time a new president gets elected the goals of NASA change. They may be going to asteroids, the moon, or mars. The gateway is not the best for any of these, but it's equally bad at all of them. It allows NASA to make steady progress in spite of their goals being changed. It's a horrible political situation, but that's just the way things are. I hate it too, but at least NASA's allowed to even consider propellant depots because of the gateway.

>>11773293
Allowing NASA to be politicized was such a fuck up. If the Pentagon wanted a moon base we would have had one by 1975

>>11773213
No, as I explained, a purpose built warship would shred it to bits.

>>11773293
If you put a nuclear engine capable of six week transfers on one end it becomes a lot better at Mars.

>>11773381
I'd really like to see the numbers for that.

>>11773381
Fuck off VASIMIR nigger, why do we have to btfo you dumb fucks every single time someone comes to post about the latest pop sci video they watched.

>>11773443
He said nuclear engine not VASIMIR

>>11773213
>LEO conflicts
Why?

>>11773443
Please post, now im curious

>>11773443
What about nuclear salt water rockets?

>>11773331
The thing is they tried to search for a reason to put soldiers in space, but couldn't find anything else than "well it's fucking awesome". There are some articles on this on The Space Review.

>>11773443
Fuck VASIMR. I meant a Serpent nuclear-thermal-electric or some other whoopass bimodal NTR (or trimodal via LANTR, like the Triton engine) with supplementary Hall thrusters.

gateway will be worth it.

>>11773476
That shit better be huge. Way bigger than the ISS

>>11773480
The ISS is so cool, though. Can't they just add a rotating torus to ISS?

>>11773486
The ISS always seemed so shitty to me. Imagine a station that big and that expensive and it feels like you are living in a closet. Now skylab, that was a station.

>>11773494
True, i never understood why they didn't add a large module for some space. also a bigger cupola

>>11773494
Both of those problems can be blamed on retiring the Saturn V. We need mega inflatable habs carried by Starships to make the next great station.

>>11773502
They were volume limited by the Shuttle's payload bay.

>>11773480
it's going to be smaller

>>11773503
Yep which is why I think constellation would be better than SLS

>>11773507
Stupid

>>11773520
Both are dead ends at this point. Starship is the new baseline.

>>11773494
>>11773476
>>11773480
Whatever and whenever the next space station will be be, I hope there will be more work put into its interior design. ISS is way to naked and cluttered.

>>11773532
ISS was very clearly designed by engineers. I know nerds with rooms that look like that.

>>11773532
https://youtu.be/2cJtAFr0K7M
For your viewing pleasure. Space Station Freedom original concept. Looks like the fucking Enterprise

>>11773532
I want to have a big ass rotating station without even having modules, but just a single steel hull, that'd be cool to have by 2050.

>>11773538
looks outdated as fuck

>>11773503
I wonder if the superheavy could push something other than a starship up.

>>11773553
Not really. It's basically just a bigger and cooler ISS.

>>11773503
Idk if I trust inflatable habitats but if you can convince me otherwise I’m willing to change my mind. My thought is to install inflatable modules and build rigid shells around them after the fact for meteoroid protection
>>11773553
update the computers and monitors and it would look better than the ISS
>>11773554
It technically could I guess, but the cargo bay is so huge on the cargo variant you can pack anything you want to into it

>>11773564
>Idk if I trust inflatable habitats
The one on the ISS has held up well for years, certainly better than Mir did.

>>11773567
Oh for sure, I’m pretty sure the plan was to test it for a few days and it ended up exceeding expectations. Still though... if the entire ISS were inflatable I would feel kind of weary. I think a good solution would be to install panels around the outside to build an exoskeleton

Where is torus space station??

Microgravity is a dead end in manned spaceflight.

>>11773476
Is there a name for the modules?

>>11772881
We'll make a statue to honor their sacrifice like the russians did for the mouses.

>>11773643

>>11773212
>Propellant is stored in the balls

>>11773643
We will always remember salamadastron

>>11773613
not yet, they won't launch for gateway until a few moon missions are done

How much moonbase equipment could a starship carry to the moon?

How much moonbase equipment could a lunar starship carry to the moon?

>>11773668
I mean for reference, it can fit the entire gateway inside the cargo bay. It can also fit the other two landers in it if it wanted, with room to spare. It’s rated for 150 tons- and although the lunar lander variant will probably carry less than this (pure speculation on my part) it will still be able to carry a shit ton of stuff to the surface.

>>11773668
4 40ft shipping containers worth

>>11773694
that can't be right
i can see 1 fitting, maybe 2, but 4 looks too much

>>11773668
>two sets of solar panels facing in different directions
>underground structure, partially buried structure AND glassdomes
>crane putting the dome into already placed part

Why bother making 3d art like this?

>>11773706
They are trying to paint a pretty picture when the reality is mole tunnel cities, massive expansion very easy compared to other methods.

>>11773706
Because he's an artist and not an architect or an engineer?

>>11773190
L1 is simple but I don't really get the L2 point. It's further out than the moon so anything orbiting earth at that distance should be moving slower than the moon, but with the added gravity of the moon, it functions as a kind of gravity boost or relay, causing the same result as if the earth were much more massive, thus moving the moon-speed orbital distance further out than the moon. That sounds right, do I get a cookie?

>>11773711
>>11773712
I'm an architect. Does that really make that much of a difference? I thought it was just common sense

>>11773706
I mean the Dynetics video had the lander burning the wrong way to get to the Moon. Typically artists just make the concept look pretty and don’t think about the practicality if they don’t get good input.

>>11773212

>>11773503
>. We need mega inflatable habs carried by Starships to make the next great station.

Just carry panels of shiny stainless steel into orbit and weld it in space inflatables are a weird stopgap between true orbital construction and old pressure cans

>>11773554
yeah but whatever you put on top would end up looking like a Starship variant so you might as well just use what they've got

>>11773698
By mass, not volume.

>>11773698
>actually bothered to check against the official cargo payload
Yeah it's 2, almost but not quite 3 I think. Anon should have said 20 footers because of the truncating, you could fit a bunch of those

>>11773722
I hope you never build anything I enter. If you look closely, the dome structure the crane is building is only half there, and looking at the rendered shadows you can tell the part hanging from the crane isn't anywhere it shouldn't be. The solar panels point different directions because the moon actually spins once a month, and the sun actually does move through the sky, but your earthy smoothbrain forgot about that. As far as the different building styles, those are to show the different kind of stuff we could maybe try. What's going to work best? I don't know, let's just try all this cool stuff and we'll find out! It's simple marketing.

A marginal cost of $2 million per launch is hard to believe in. Can you convince me it will be real?

>>11773731
I had this thought last night. You could honestly establish a shipyard in orbit- just bring up stainless steel with dovetail cuts... hit it with a laser to burn of the thin oxidized layer, and just stick the pieces together to vacuum weld them. With enough pre-planning you could build something as large as you like- with whatever shape you want. Vacuum weld it together and pressurize it

>>11773714
yeah
no

>>11773740
no

>>11773750
maybe what was the question etc
Well I think I'm right and I'm getting a cookie. Actually going to mix some chow mein noodles into a spoonful of peanut butter I think. Yeah.

>>11773714
I thought it was more about keeping a stable orbit around the moon that isn't
constantly getting perturbed by the earth

>>11773754
you are absolutely correct but cookies are forbidden

>>11773740
The design goal however is multiple reflights with maintenance intervals every 10 flights or something like that. Over sufficient reflight cycles with a mature vehicle the marginal cost becomes dominated by fuel and maintenance over time, which aren't that high. Don't expect that kind of performance out the gate, obviously

I want to have a big indoor hall on the moon where I can run around and jump as much as I want and obstacle courses designed for moon gravity.

>>11773761
Vote red and this is likely to happen. I’m scared Artemis/Colonization is going to get bogged down by politics bros

>>11773761
I want to go swimming on the moon

>>11773739
Why not build the solar panels on a swivel? Good points on the structures tho, I concede.

>>11773769
Easy, you haven't unlocked those nodes on the tech tree yet.

>>11773767
I wish the Apollo astronauts filmed themselves pouring water on the moon. It’s like a weird twilight zone between Earth gravity and microgravity. Swimming would be so weird I can’t even begin to imagine the physics of it

>>11773759
More then 10 flights iirc, he plans to launch each starship 3 times per day

>>11773774
I think you'd be able to swim to the bottom of the pool very easily. You'd just stay at the depth you swam to and float very slowly so you'd have to swim all the way back up with barely any help from your buoyancy.
Swimming at the surface might be a bit similar to earth except more of your body would be over the surface from getting pushed up by your swimming.

>>11773774
exactly like earth swimming but when you come out of the water you get flung halfway across the room

When I think about the difficulties of running as fast as possible on the moon, I think that Superman would have similar problems running very fast on Earth because he'd have to wait until he fell to the ground between every step.

Hello, technical drawing anon here, what do you think of this? 6 floors of this is 96 people. Foam sandwich construction is light and adds large strength to starship and very good radiation protection. Pick your cabin btw.

>>11773808
What is the middle? The access shaft? I feel like that could be smaller and the cabins could be a bit larger if you just made the access shaft smaller.

Should I commit suicide

>>11773815
I thought about it but the thing is there is going to be 100 people and there will constantly be people going up and down so they need enough space to go past each other comfortably on two sets of ladders.

>>11773821
No, great things are going to happen in the space industry.
Just wait, it will be beautiful.

>>11773833
Oh and the other thing is that the centre functions as a solar storm shelter so it needs to fit everyone.

>>11773821
Was just thinking this for myself. I’m going to persevere, at least to see where Starship goes. In a few years we’ll see high definition pictures of the surface of Titan, return of Moon landings, Boeing absolutely seething, Europa missions... all around good vibes. I’m under the most stress I’ve ever been in my life and running my car in my garage would be an easy way out, but I’m going to fucking see the return of spaceflight god dammit. So should you. It’ll be good vibes

>>11773808
Don't you think it will be uncomfortable for men above 6ft?
Also 2 per cabin, no privacy :/

>>11773821
What race are you?

>>11773841
Its probably true, however it is needed to be that height to fit 100 people and still have room for amenities, I can't see any other way to make it work, losing even one deck is impossible. This will fit a very large majority of people. They aren't double cabins, that just two pillows so you get your own cabin insulated with foam so should be nice and quiet. I will post my other stuff later this night or tomorrow morning.

>>11773808
I don't think hydroponics would be useful if the goal is to feed people on Starship, not enough room to produce a significant fraction of the food. It may have some psychological advantages

>>11773842
Whitoid from the Emerald Isle

>>11773465
They couldn't figure out that rods from god would be worthwhile? Stick a mass driver on the Moon and you could use that as a weapon if needed, doesn't even violate the outer space treaty

>>11773866
we'll teach those filthy earthnoids to tax us

>>11773860
I realise that, its a psychological thing, guarantee it will have mental benefits to tend for plants as well as fresh leaf and herbs for nutrients and making food tasty. I think it would be wise to allot each person a little section, plant what they want and tend to it.

Doesn't require too much power so I think it's a good idea.

>>11773850
That's comfy then
I want the cabin farthest from the central access door.

>>11773834
I don’t know. I don’t like where the world seems to be going.

>>11773840
How am I supposed to see those things when America is collapsing?

>>11773873
That's just you reading too much news. Focus on your skills, forget the political bs

>>11773808
Is the mattress intended to fold upwards where that fulcrum is for storage purposes? Why not place it directly on the floor and utilize the ceiling area for better accessibility?

>>11773867
This is probably why they decided not too. Any mutiny on the Moon then means they have control over an insanely powerful weapons system that you can't easily strike back at from earth.

>>11773808
Someone pls make a starship map in krunker.io
We could have a sfg server

>>11773875
Russian here, what the fuck is going on? I know some black guy was killed by police, and now there are riots. How serioius is this?

>>11773890
this happens once every couple of years
after a while they'll realize they still need to pay rent and shit

>>11773890
US cities have started the process of removing the police and replacing them with party commissars

>>11773870
Excellent taste fren that was my pick too

>>11773878
Its a bit of a crude representation at the moment. The idea is to have a mount that holds the bed in the middlish of the floor, the bed can then fold up and turn into a crash couch, no possible way to have 100 crash couches and 100 beds coexisting in the same ship.

A quick release mechanism for it so that you could release it off the mount and stack it up against the outer wall would be good I think too, that way you can pack your bed up and have the full use of your room space if you had a guest or something or float around your room sleeping like Buddha or some shit.

>>11773808
Ceiling is too low. Should be at least 2.30m clearance.

>>11773869
I'm planting some chives and basil then, both are pretty good and chives are basically immortal (basil not so much though)

>>11773901
Basil is stupidly hardy
it won't taste good if you don't care for it well, however

>>11773900
Sorry tallfag the specs call for 100 people. I could do this thing, raise the ceilings and would have to delete a whole deck, there is no deck to lose I'm afraid I'm already working with the extended fairing model too.

>>11773901
That's the spirit anon!

>>11773915
Wait no I would have to lose two decks, definitely not happening lmao.

>>11773915
you don't need to stand up straight in microgravity, it'll be fine
Elon is over six foot, so supporting tall people should be mandatory

>>11773920
Just not feasible. Tallfags could pool in for their own ship I guess and their tickets would be around 30% more after deleting cabin floors.

>>11773850
I kinda feel like the 9 meter design will never carry 100 people. That'll probably be the 18 meter design.

>>11773890
Numerous states are considering defunding the police and Minneapolis has decided to completely disband their police department. They want to turn this place into the Thunderdome it’s insane

>>11773774
One of my stupid ideas for exploration of low gravity planets is a flea robot, where solar panels are used to charge a spring or capacitor that can discharge to a flinging lever instantaneously to self-yeet the thing to its next location. How retarded is this?

>>11773890
Its an election year. The Democrats are killing people and buring their cities to make Trump look bad.

Shouldn’t effect Starship.

>>11773948
that's at least an 8, dude
good shit

>>11773945
Surely at some point the adults will have to step in and restore order? Are they just larping with the fun idea of creating Joburg 2.0: US edition?

>>11773945
Wait, really? That doesn't seem neither plausible nor sustainable to me. Who is going to keep crime under control? Also, wouldn't cutting funding to police make the said police upset and more aggressive towards the blacks?

>>11773939
Nah its totally doable dude looking at my design so far. Small rooms, but doable and I don't think it would be so bad personally. I think the catching points are as follows

>food
Regular food going to be a fair weight I would imagine so best to have astronauts intermittent fast for maybe one in three days over the course of the trio. Totally doable if they are a little chub going in. Hate to say this but possibly consider soilent style liquid diets, that would be very mass friendly I imagine.

>water
How much can water be recycled and how much to carry? From what I understand a simple three layer filter will clean out greywater fairly well. Suspect will need 10-20 thousand litres. Composting toilet a must, recycle urine and airlock solids.

>air recycling
How well do current air filters work, how many are needed and how many spares etc..., no idea on this one desu.

>>11773945
no, the real problem is bloated police unions to which the only solution is to dismantle the department and make a new one without a union, but nobody wants to accurately call it "union busting" so the messaging comes across as something actually radical.

>>11773954
>Surely at some point the adults will have to step in and restore order?

The federal government doesn’t have the legal authority to invade states merely because they’re crime-infested apocalyptic wastelands as far as I know

>Are they just larping with the fun idea of creating Joburg 2.0: US edition?

Apparently not.

>>11773954
nope
nope

>>11773955
> Who is going to keep crime under control?

Some incredibly vague “community-based policing” which sounds ineffectual and extremely prone to corruption.

> Also, wouldn't cutting funding to police make the said police upset and more aggressive towards the blacks?

Don’t ask me ask the insane anarchists who want to live in Mogudishu

>it can deliver 4.5 tons of cargo to the lunar surface
I mean that's neat but what's the actual use for a mission profile like that?

>>11773957
Unions are like fat ticks.

>>11773955
>>11773890
If you want extensive reading on who these people are and what their ideology is, you can catch up with them here

https://www.mpd150.com/faq/

>>11773957
except the death of a fentanyl addicted burglar isn't a reason to dismantle anything. a non-union police force isn't going to stop these people from murdering each other on a daily basis. if anything we need more aggressive policing and legal protections to get their communities under control

>>11773976
>a non-union police force isn't going to stop these people from murdering each other on a daily basis
it is if you hire twice the number of cops on half the pay

>>11773915
How long are people supposed to ride in that thing?

>>11773979
3-6 months

>>11773978
you need your cops to be familiar and embedded with the locals
more sheriff than pig

>>11773976
>a non-union police force isn't going to stop these people from murdering each other on a daily basis
Its not like the current union force is doing a good job of that

>>11773971
Wouldn't it be more space efficient for that sphere to be a cylinder or a cube instead?

>>11773990
maybe
but it's not weight efficient

>>11773978
lol, how much do you think cops make? you expect the quality of police to improve by forcing them into poverty? how about we cut welfare spending and subsidize struggling cities with national guard troops instead?

>>11773987
hence my last sentence

>>11773969
If they got it right, which they probably won't, that would probably be less prone to corruption. If the ones policing the community are a part of the community, they'll know the people there and care about the well-being of the community.

>>11773987
Just kill all criminals. Problem evaporated.

>>11773987
>>11773985
>>11773978
>>11773976
>>11773957
>>11773995
I am aware of the Camden Solution, which frankly was a very clever shell game and I'm proud it worked (they "abolished" their police department by integrating 18 different municipal police departments, resulting in them INCREASING their number of patrol officers from 175 to 300 almost entirely based on the amount of union bloat cut), but I have seen no evidence the proposed Minneapolis Solution actually resembles the Camden Solution at all.

The Minneapolis fags seem dead set on no cops at all, just unarmed counselors, conflict resolution specialists and community organizers along with a promise that they're absolutely sure that violent crime will cease to exist as soon as there's no police around to instigate it.

>>11773978
>>11773995
the issue with the unions is that police have created for themselves a protected population, resistant to legislation
they get to kill people all the time and get away with it

>>11773975
The funniest outcome - after the inevitable collapse into lawless anarchy - would be eventual reversion to a fascist mini state with a strong moral code and harsh punishments for criminality etc

>>11773984
So I looked at the drawing again and basically every room is just a bed, right? But it's only 1.8m long. Even for manlets that seems short for a bed. But it's around the same in clearance..

Why not make the compartments smaller and stack 2 per floor? Like pic related. You could get at least twice the number of people per floor. You don't need a high ceiling to crawl into a bed and you only need 90cm width in a bed. Should be 2m long tho.
The space you safe by doing this can be used for proper community spaces.

Jesus Christ, what have I( >>11773890) done? I should have kept politics out of this.

>>11773975
The fucking idiots actually expect violent crime to magically stop happening if you waste enough money in social programs.

>>11774002
as long as you make them 190 cm long it's fine
>>11774005
dumbass

>>11773998
not sure if you're being ironic but this is literally what happened during medieval europe and it turns out eugenics works spectacularly well if your goal is to reduce criminality by executing the most violent portion of your population on a generational basis

>/sfg/ shitted by politics AGAIN

FUCK NAZI-COMMIE /POL/ NIGGERS
FUCK JANNIES

WE'RE NOT ON /POL/ TALK SPACE GET THE FUCK OUT WITH YOUR SHIT REEEEEEEEEEE

>>11773931
>remove 1 deck out of 6
>have 16% fewer passengers
>at least 10% less payload
>put a bit of cargo for someone else, maybe some of the luggage for the manlets
I think it would just be a little bit more expensive. This doesn't account for people being more willing to pay for the higher ceilings though

>>11774006
I wonder whether any amount of money would be sufficient? I was working in NL a while back and a colleague was talking about Bulgarian gangs on burglary holidays. I suggested they should just have enormous sheds of free stuff at the border, and let them fill their boots. It would probably be cheaper

>>11774009
Agreed.
The only politics that should enter these threads should be regarding funding of space exploration or lack thereof.

>>11773808
I get very cramped in a 2 meter bed and wouldn't be close to fitting in a 180 cm one.

>>11774014
>I was working in NL a while back and a colleague was talking about Bulgarian gangs on burglary holidays. I suggested they should just have enormous sheds of free stuff at the border, and let them fill their boots. It would probably be cheaper

Why not spend a few dollars on rifle rounds instead?

>>11774018
so I heard you had free rifle rounds?

>>11774018
We're talking about the Dutch here anon

>>11774002
I considered the coffin hotel option but rejected it on a psychological basis. Its a long time to be trapped in a tin can and you want to maximise your private space, people will want other guests in their cabins too. I could probably shave down on the walkway to make the beds 1-200mm longer. Might not be a bad idea.

>>11774007
A 3 month journey is at least 90 days. So 90 sleeps. But since there isn't much to do, people will spend more time in bed. Beds need to be comfortable.

>>11774022
you never need more than an armspan in height and a body in length, I think

>>11774005
Sorry I started it by moping about my fears of the future

>>11774022
>>11774002
We're running into a lot of constraints because it's like Starship is just a smidge too small.

Return to the 12m ITS design when?

>>11774026
Idk man I think people are going to lose it a lot over the claustrophobia thing in space. Vetting can only go so far so best to give people more private space.

>>11774033
if you're claustrophobic, you won't go to space

>>11773494
Imagine, Starship will be 2.4m (almost 8 feet) wider than this.

>>11774022
You'd be better of with a bunch of meeting rooms or social rooms or whatever. Privacy rooms where people can be alone or have a fap. Those spaces you suggested are still absolutely cramped. You'd only invite someone there if you want to fuck, anything else would be awkward as fuck. So you don't really gain anything by making them bigger than a pod because you're not making them big enough to be actual rooms.

If you want actual privacy and comfort, you'd basically have to make proper hotel rooms with showers and a toilet, and enough space to walk upright and walk around a little bit.

>>11774033
Literally just bring iPads and watch movies

>>11773687
The Moonship variant ought to have higher carrying capacity by a significant degree, since it will not be hoisting the extra weight of large fins or a thermal protection system.

>>11774034
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1166856662336102401

>>11774034
12m would actually be perfect, much, much more "floorspace". But desu even one meter would make a huge difference in livability, starship is just a little too small.

>>11774035
I personally am not claustrophobic but it's a very extreme psychological environment and a valid concern.

>>11774015
I guess the attraction is that we get saner political discussion on here than /pol. And it IS relevant if it impacts our chances of getting off this planet. They will no doubt attempt to defund NASA in favour of gibs if they can

>>11774045
if you're feeling claustrophobic, just go stare out the fucking enormous window

>>11774046
Social programs of any kind are a mistake.
Don’t feed the animals.

>>11774033
What about medication?
I had surgery last year and they gave me this pill beforehand that caused me to not give a single fuck. Idk what it was but I wasn't high or drowsy or anything. I just did not give a single fuck about anything. Maybe people could take those pills for breakfast

>>11774050
>stare into the infinite void pressing against your ship inches from your face reminding you that you can never go outside ever again

Yeah I'm sure that'll help lmao.

>>11774055
float around in the fetal position in front of the giant fucking window without touching anything

>>11774054
Yeah I guess you could just drug people through it? Not my first choice though.

>>11774053
I agree. Decades of it has got us nowhere and the modern left has no more inventive solutions than to pour yet more money down the drain/make life awful for everyone so we don't know any better. Anyway I'll shut up now about politics

>>11774055
You can go outside on EVA and when you get to Mars. I’m sure they’ll take some photos from orbit when they get there

>>11774054
Those medications have lots of side effects and there's a huge difference between taking a pill for a one-off surgery and taking it on a daily basis. Some of the passengers are guaranteed to have some severe side-effects plus there's the whole addiction thing too. Would definitely lead to a powder keg type situation

>>11774045
Claustrophobia is a valid concern, however the level of cramping on Starship would be familiar to anybody who's lived aboard a military ship. What you could do is halve the maximum crew capacity and knock out every other bulkhead between those cabins which doubles the living space for each individual crew member, in return if needed you can institute hotbunking to return crew capacity to normal if need be. Again, it's done pretty regularly in ships and submarines and while it isn't the most comfortable thing in the world it's great for making use of limited sleeping space.

>>11774064
Hotbunking was also something I considered, but having your own room, even if its a bit smaller is a big psychological plus.

>>11774054
Anti-anxiety meds would have to be the last resort, if they were used across the whole crew dosages would have to be only a fraction what the normal full dose is, to reduce the chances of addiction or complete loss of effectiveness. Ideally there will be a trainer Starship which just sits on the ground, you load it up with crew and then run through a simulated mission, people who freak out flunk out.

>>11774070
Probably not much more expensive to send them around the moon?

>>11774075
Moon will be much cheaper than Mars, you can pack those dudes airplane style, 800 people to the moon no worries.

>>11774075
The point would be to have them there for months on end. I guess you could sling them around the moon a couple dozen times, the crew would have to be rated to do vacuum work and stuff, but I was just thinking of a training period to break them into the claustrophobic environment they'll have to live in for any Mars or Venus shot.
I'm just thinking about an easy way to minimize the resources expended to easily rate crew. Consider, if a few of the crew start freaking out you're going to have to return to Earth anyways to offload their asses, better to just pause the simulation and let them climb out, better luck next rotation, etc etc.

>>11774079
>800 people
Doesn't it take 3 days to get to te Moon?

>>11774093
So? You sit in the chair for 3 days, it's fucking zero g anyway.

>>11774069
Only if it's a real room tho. I'd rather have a sleeping pod and a proper common deck with lots of recreational activities

>>11774098
You try sitting in a chair for three days

>>11774046
>we get saner political discussion
We don't.

>>11774101
Ok ill explore the pods and bugs option tomorrow, see how many extra decks we can free up.

>>11774104
What part of zero g don't you get

>>11774104
>>11774107
Also the other thing to consider is crash couches, can the occupants simply be strapped coffin style into their pods?

>>11774109
Float around with a bunch of other people
Where am I supposed to put my toddlers

>>11774086
No matter what preliminary assessments you put potential crew through some people will pass only to go on and snap somewhere between here and Mars. Gonna need some sort of contingency for that, maybe a few padded cells and a doctor, plus security. Wonder what that will end up looking like

>>11774112
Wherever you want? It's zero g

>>11774115
>Wonder what that will end up looking like

Probably a lot like an airlock opening.

>>11774098
The longest plane flight takes 18.5 hours. Even if you cut down the Moon flight to 2 days, the ship wound require some more advanced sanitation equipment, like showers and stuff. Also, 800 people would rapidly deplete the air supply, even with recyclers. That's why theaters are so big. You couldn't possibly fit more people than an average plane flight.

>>11774119
>Also, 800 people would rapidly deplete the air supply

Good thing you're sitting on top of the world's largest cryogenic liquid oxygen tank.

>>11774118
I guess that's what waivers are for?

>>11774118
that's bad PR

>>11774112
What are your toddlers doing on a spaceship in a first place?

>>11774126
>situation live on tv
>one crewmate en route has lost it and is going insane
>crew space him
>YouTube comment section
>omg how could they do this - 15 likes
>lol based darwinism - 1361 likes

>>11774119
Apollo crew survived it without shower

>>11774136
>Just make sure every flight of 800 people meets the standards of Apollo astronauts
doubt

>>11774131
Going to live on the moon, of course!
It’s mostly a joke. They’ll be in school by then

>>11774139
Of all the stress factors of cramped spaceflight I think having a fucking shower is pretty low on the list.

>>11774144
I don't care about the argument at hand beyond the fact that appealing to "muh Apollo" makes no sense at all. Apollo astronauts messaged bags of their own shit.

>>11774155
massaged*

>>11774155
Would you not massage a bag of your shit

>>11774159
who hasn't at least once?

>>11774159
I don't have to. It's not the Apollo era anymore. More to the point, you will fly more people to the moon overall by having better standards of care with fewer passengers per flight than REEEing because people won't get on your sardine sweat barge and play with each other's shit all the way to the moon.

>>11774165
look
mate
sardine sweat barge to the moon is like five hundred people in chairs, airliner style

>>11774168
Staying seated for multiple days straight is not healthy for any human body, or mind
>haha i don't care
Unfortunately for you economics does. Torture chambers are not going to be in high demand

>>11773571
The BA-330 has a metallic core section serving as a "spine" of sorts, so you wouldn't really have to worry aboht wobbling. I'd definitely give it a metal skin though.

>>11774184
that's just how economy class be sometimes though

>>11774168
>>11774165
>>11774139
>>11774119
>>11774093
>>11774079
Assuming vastly optimistic, best-case scenarios in all areas, there will be nothing built on the moon large or exciting enough for 500 or 800 people to want to visit at a time until long after spacecraft far larger than Starship exist to carry them there.

>>11774185
Why add excessive weight?

>>11773863
Don't wtf

SN5 rollout tomorrow?

>>11774188
>a time until long after spacecraft far larger than Starship exist
There is no currently reasonable way to estimate that. The only plans that exist are Elon's somewhat off-handed remarks indicating a 18m version. That could be shelved, it could happen much more quickly than we think or it could never happen at all because Starship just turns out to be so much of a workhorse that they don't bother. It's entirely unknowns.

>>11774188
I'd go to a moon hotel just for the gravity experience alone. I'd pay 10k for a week

>>11774136
For a week, starship needs to go on trips for months. Plus considering the sheer volume of people Elon wants to put on Mars he will have to bring women and normies.

>>11774188
In the long-run, there maybe be a vast mining and assembly infrastructure on the Moon. People there couldn't economically go back and forth between Earth and Moon, so they would live there. This would require food and amenities, which is more infrastructure, which is more jobs, and jobs need people. Families would form, children need education, and so on. And don't even get me started on tourism.

>>11774207
>>11774215
I just foresee that in an absolute best case scenario, where we really are in the dawn of a new Space Age and progress continues unabated by tragedy or mismanagement, our newborn decade will end with the incredible, exciting, exponential leap to...

>about 100 people living long-term in LEO in a handful of different orbital stations, plus a very regular rotation of visitors and the like
>about a dozen people living long-term on the moon in South Pole research base style conditions
>the real, concrete final steps being taken to the first human crew to ever walk on the surface of Mars (and possibly camp out there for 3 to 24 months before flying back to Earth)

That's me, seeing everything going absolutely great and the half-century long space doldrum being shattered.

>>11774217
no way dude, the SpaceX Mars plan has zero chill in-between "nobody ever goes to Mars ever" and "it's an independent colony now and is burning our tea"

>>11773948
I mean, as long as you aren't thinking of the "le ai robot construction nanobot" meme, it works. Hell, boston dynamics made a similar jumper.
https://youtu.be/6b4ZZQkcNEo

>>11774217
100 people within the decade is fine. These things don't grow linearly. You'll be amazed how fast it explodes once a bridgehead is established.

>>11774226
That's the thing, I was hesitant to say "It's not going to be a gold rush" because what I'm describing clearly already IS a gold rush, I guess I just don't see the calendar overlap between the yet-unbuilt Starship *still* being the world's workhorse spacecraft and the number of humans living off-planet expanding into the four or five digits.

How fast can Internet connection on the Moon be? 2.5 seconds delay and all.

>>11774231
as fast as you want, ping doesn't affect speeds

>>11774231
fine for browsing
shit for video chat
gaming, hope you like chess

>>11774034
>implying they won't just slightly size up the current starship design

>>11774236
>increase the WIDTH

>>11774233
To be fair, LAN could work fairly well, so I have a feeling sales of Counter Strike: Source would increase tenfold.

>>11774241
play some Garry's Mod
get a planetoid wide game of Jazztronauts going

>>11774242
>LAN moonbase alpha
Possible?

>>11774241
Yeah but you'd only be playing with other assholes on the moon

>>11774231
Lets make a wormhole for FTL communication between earth and the moon

>>11774247
That's kinda the point of LAN, keeps everything local so ping is practically non-existent

>>11774228
>I guess I just don't see the calendar overlap between the yet-unbuilt Starship *still* being the world's workhorse spacecraft and the number of humans living off-planet expanding into the four or five digits.
I want to see larger ships, but it's entirely possible. Starship is going to be the workhorse of space, period. It will be easier economically to make a case for expanding existing Starship infrastructure than launching bigger ships (and all of the entirely new infrastructure to go with it). When there is enough demand for single-piece launches that outstrip Starship's capability, it may make more sense to build and launch that stuff from the Moon or Mars.

awwwwwwwwwwwwwww shit boys
our first view of Starlink user terminals

>>11774273
What am I supposed to be looking at?

>>11774281
see those disks on poles

>>11774281
Somewhere in that pic are the "pizza box" receivers that will be mailed to Starlink subscribers for cheap rural Internet

>>11774281
2 round disc standing on stick

>>11774286
there are at least four of them

>>11774273
Found another angle from a while ago that shows them better (both the jellyfish and the classic dishes)

>>11774225
No sorry I just meant similar kinetic method of transport as a flea that is an extremely short and large burst of energy to generate movement. My thinking was it might be more efficient than using wheels/motors as you won't have to carry them but I'm not sure if the spring / solar idea is sensible.

>>11774305
>My thinking was it might be more efficient than using wheels/motors
You still need motors you just use them differently. Wheels are inherently more efficient, especially compared to something that wastes more energy going up than in its target direction. Also something that launches itself like that anywhere with significant regolith (so most places worth exploring) will need some way to gain traction and extract itself as it impacts a dustbowl hard going both up and down.

>>11774217
I think you misunderestimate the fear that's going to kick in when Starship drops the cost of space launch through the floor, and the US starts lobbing payloads up for fun (almost already there with Starlink) and threatens an era of utterly unchallengeable US dominance in space (and therefore of Earth) for ever. It's not hard to imagine every other major power going hell for leather for reusability given the prospect of permanent cuckoldry for the rest of time.

>>11774321
So... the second space race?

>>11774325
except everyone else is in a wheelchair :^)

>>11774321
the potential world-changing impact of Elon's tin can is pretty outrageous... I hope he's getting as much backing as he needs.

>>11774318
But it could be a single tiny motor winding up a spring, so fewer moving parts and less weight. Fair point on the regolith, though surely it could be designed with pads of sufficient size to resist any bedding in to the ground? It's not like it's going to encounter wind resistance on many worlds so it can afford to be flat and wide

>>11774321
It's going to be hilarious to watch the rest of the world scramble after sleeping for so long. I can only imagine what an absolute disaster it's going to be for them

>>11774332
You don't want to deal with self-righting or attitude control as it's added complexity, so I'm envisioning something like a hamster wheel or a weeble with a ram inside

>>11774325
>>11774328
>>11774329
It's uncontrolled dominance of the high ground from which to bombard your enemy so guaranteed second strike capability plus the added bonus of as much remote sensed intel as you can process plus the ability to completely remove your opponents orbital reconnaissance and comms. In itself Starship is kind of scary in its implications but I don't know if people have woken up to it.

>>11774321
>>11774333
Who really loses in this scenario aside from China and some shithole rogue nations? The rest of the world gains access to cheap launch capabilities without having to spend anything on R&D themselves. It's not like SpaceX would turn away their business, would they?

>>11774321
The US will be destroyed by Antifa terrorists within ten years

>>11774349
>destroyed
Mildly inconvenienced
>>11774347
Everyone with a vested interest in preserving relevant launch infrastructure for themselves. So mostly China, Russia, and ESA. China suffers the most, but Russia and ESA will be pretty embarrassed by hyper-reliance on US infrastructure

>>11774347
not that simple
the US gov't can act as a gatekeeper using whatever political shenanigans they could pull, they're sure to find something

think of it like nukes
some countries are content being under the US' defense umbrella, others prefer the security blanket of a local supply they have absolute control over

>>11774347
I'm just hoping it rouses China, Russia and ESA (never underestimate the arrogant pride of the French) from their slumber is all.
But I do think you perhaps dismiss the potentially disruptive effects on the balance of power too easily. Analysts are already crapping themselves over a new generation of earth launched hypersonic missiles, never mind rods from God

>>11774349
Not this again

>>11774343
I was thinking of a winding motor attached to a kevlar reinforced rubber band type effort. But fair enough it's probably a retarded idea.

>>11774383
Somewhere like the moon, rubber wants to be glass or liquid, not elastic. You want metal springs or rams

>>11774371
I'm not super up to date with the level of missile defense systems these days but is it incorrect to say that we're not immune to being nuked yet? It's not like the threat of dropping rods on people is anywhere near the imbalance of power that existed in '45. I don't see it being that disruptive until the threat of nuclear retaliation is neutralized.

>>11774420
Just drop metal rods on all their launch sites lmao

>>11774424
Who has all their missile silos in plain sight?

>>11773774
your buoyancy, and where you settled in the water, would be the same as on Earth, as the ratio of the weight of your body versus the weight of the water you displace will be identical to that on Earth by definition. Would be easier to swim up/down underwater though, and you'd be able to make some sick jumps out of the water.

>>11774424
If for example the US starts putting "rods of god" in LEO then the chinese&russians can just as easily create a massive kessler syndrome by doing some strategic nuclear detonations.
Something they can already do today, nukes are still the FUBAR utimate weapon.

>>11774420
If it were true that we could afford to be relaxed there wouldn't be the concern about these new generation hypersonics though, right? Apart from that imagine your opponents' satellites all mysteriously start malfunctioning due to some unknown space phenomenon. Which is actually an X37 type craft cooking them with x rays or something. Even outside of a nuclear scenario it gives the US absolute control over space. Of course that counts for something, else why would these countries bother launching military payloads?

>>11774442
...which Starship could launch payloads to take care of. Honestly the argument it isn't a vast strategic advantage is retarded, never mind the prestige and psychological value of making your enemies look like apes banging rocks together

>>11774434
I mean you got me, I was 100% shitposting
>>11774442
Intentional kessler syndrome is an act of aggression much stronger than a weapon which may or may not be employed. More likely, though, the US will rely on peaceful tech that can be weaponizable. Not sure a starship on standby that can deorbit heavy cargo at will is any less destructive than a rod from god despite not being outwardly warlike

ehh, setting aside the fact that starship isn't a certainty,
whatever shifts the 2nd space race into high gear won't be some new fangled military capability
it will likely be economic, say a concrete plan to building a space industry

>>11774453
I agree, my argument is just that it doesn't functionally change anything in terms of alliances or military aggression. Sure, ESA will be embarrassed but NATO continues to exist so it would be a familiar arrangement for them. Same with JAXA. If the US withdraws support for whatever reason then that would definitely be a cause for concern. Don't see that happening though.

Imagine there's a standoff with both sides aiming a pistol at each other's head. Guy 1 pulls out a second pistol and aims it at guy 2. Guy 2 can still kill guy 1 just as easily even though he only has one gun. That's kind of how I see adding these factors into the nuclear equation. Yeah you can fuck with their satellites or drop rods on them but that doesn't make their nukes go away. In the event of all out war you'll be dominating LEO while your cities are turned into craters. Worth it?

>>11774518
I don't really see a space race coming, because the implication there is that there are serious contenders. Most of the payload mass and almost all of the launches will be contributed internally by the US.
If you consider a space race between SpaceX and BO, that might happen... eventually. I wouldn't bother putting a date on it though.

>>11774321
The best thing about this is that while Starship (if successful) would put the US two generations ahead of over nations, developing it isn't fundamentally prohibitive so eventually others will have their own starships too. It will be a new era.

>>11774549
why discount China? Willingness to have high-profile test failures is indicative of a culture that disregards image problems and engineering cost-bias in favor of rapid development (the same exact SpaceX ethos everyone lauds). If their launch cadence wasn't so frequent I'd be tempted to say it's just inexperience and incompetence, but they clearly always have another prototype ready to move. Soon they'll have something really robust and reliable—it's a mistake to think they'll be bumbling their way through rocket design forever.

>>11774584
You don't need to throw away an entire rocket launch just to understand that your engine metallurgy is kind of shit, anon

>>11774584
What about them? They're decades behind. They aren't expecting to fly a superheavy booster until the 2030s, and they have no ambitions for that to be reusable or have on-orbit refueling capability.

>>11773956
The hydroponics help filter the air too.

>>11774559
That's what I kind of hope. And you might think it will be far harder for followers to fill their 'duplicate Starship' projects with pork and string them out when the simplicity of its engineering is out in the open.

>>11774592
That timeline is going to get accelerated, I guarantee you. Also, up to a certain point the economics of expendable rockets don't really need to make sense. China is perfectly willing to throw rockets away because they don't have to justify the space program to their citizens. They are also immune to the western oldspace problem of contractors drawing out projects for more money and charging out the nose, because the whole endeavor is state-operated. They only have to worry about program directors/bureaucrats siphoning off cash for themselves, and if one of them gets too bold with the embezzlement they're just taken behind the shed and shot.

Also, their launch cadence is climbing rapidly, partly because they don't stop for multiple months in case of a failure. They just keep going- incorporating the results of the failure analysis (if there even are useful results) into future built vehicles and not worrying about fixing the potential fault in existing ones that are next in line to launch.

>>11774651
For that matter, why do Chinese rockets have a high failure rate? It seems like every other launch ends in a fiery (unintended) explosion.

>>11773213
Shuttles were built to be cross-range nuclear bombers.

>>11774644
I have no faith in oldspace. Expecting:
>Well, hold on. Let's build our F9 clones as technology demonstrators before we try landing something that big!
>5 years later: Alright, that's done, we'll spend 2 years building a subscale prototype of a fully reusable vehicle
>3 years later: Yep we did it, now we just need gorillions of dollars and many years so we can autistically tune the first functional example from the ground up instead of rapid prototyping our way there. Wouldn't want anyone laughing at us for building expediently

>>11774658
Do I really need to explain this?

>>11774651
>That timeline is going to get accelerated, I guarantee you.
Guarantee away. That's what big slow moving oldspace institutions are good at, right, moving timelines up?
>China is newspace I swear
Let them demonstrate it then. Dumping spent stages on villages is not fast development, it's just fucking retarded.

>>11774662
Yeah or it’s like

>Time for the first flight of our Falcon 9 clone :)
>Oh no it successfully delivered it’s payload but failed to land ahhhhhhh
>Even though it wasn’t the primary mission we’re gonna have to have a stand own for a year while we investigate what went wrong

>>11774658

>>11773706
Its an artists rendering of the ESA project. The half open dome is being currently covered by 3d printing drones. The biodomes and solar farms are dumb though

>>11774527
How do you think the US would respond if Russia or China revealed a Starship capability tomorrow?

>>11774658
>For that matter, why do Chinese rockets have a high failure rate?
Shitty Chinese manufacturing. It isn't good, but it's also not as bad as you think.
They've lost two of the past 6 launches. One of those two recent failures was a test flight of a new rocket. Before that was a satellite failure after launch in August 2019, and a third stage failure in May 2019.

>>11773190
How am I doing bro’s?

Also does anyone else like reading technical reports or is that just me? I’ve been looking at Mars DRM 5.0 Addendum 2 lately

>>11774700
By writing Elon a blank check?

>>11774705
women hate space shit, sorry bud

>>11774669
They are demonstrating it. You can reeeeee (justifiably) about mistreatment of their citizens all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that their launch cadence is ticking up and that they're iterating quickly. Oldspace moves slowly because of the structure of the space contracting industry and political BS (or, if you're Russia, lack of money and political BS).
China currently has none of those issues, because the government builds the rockets and pays the workers what it feels like, there's plenty of money to throw at hardware, and there's not a lot of political uncertainty in a de-facto totalitarian state.

>>11774055
if this is a concern then a one way trip to mars probably isn't for you.

>>11774701
>Not as bad as you think.
>33% launch failure rate.
Jesus Christ only the SN-prototypes have been blowing up that often, and SpaceX are doing it on purpose.

>>11774798
Chinese are pursuing multiple paths, so failures are likely to stay high until they get a perfect tech tree where they would invest all their monies in. Right now, they're in experimental phase.

>>11774806
>Chinese are pursuing multiple paths
lol, these are commercial launches and the like, not shit they're testing out.

>>11774798
Year to date it's 20%
Since 2015, including partial failures, it's 5%

>>11773747
Where have you been anon? We talk about that constantly

>>11773766
Same, thats what happened in 2008

>>11774321
Pax America will live forever then. No one will shoot down civilian vechials.

>>11773747
I feel like ensuring complete removal of oxides/other contaminants and getting good contact along the whole length of the weld would be more difficult than just welding in space. When you laser off the oxide, how are you going to guarantee that the vapor doesn't deposit on the previously cleaned ares? When you're pressing pieces together, how will you account for microscopic surface inconsistency?
I think you're just infatuated with the cool factor of vacuum welding.

>>11774706
It would be Sputnik 2.0

https://spacenews.com/commercial-crew-success-prompts-congratulations-and-criticism-from-russia/

Russians be salty.
Also their claim that "Crew Dragon isn't proven" is pure disingenuous bullshit.
Considering that the Japanese (who are VERY conservative and cautious when it comes to stuff like this) have agreed to fly their astronaut on the next Dragon you know Russians are just being petty.

>>11773733
>yeah but whatever you put on top would end up looking like a Starship variant so you might as well just use what they've got

There's still some wiggle room there though, maybe they could put a tubular station section with a nosecone on top of Super Heavy, filling the entire thing (including nosecone) with solar panels, instrumentation, etc to be installed externally. Once it's in orbit the nosecone can be popped off to allow attachment to another section or left on to be used as an endcap. It might be possible to make the nose cone halved like a faring to allow popping off just one half so the other half serve as a corner for a right angle (if the station design calls for that for some reason).

>For the Artemis Moon base, NASA will establish a cost per ton delivered and once again let private companies innovate.
what exactly does this mean

>>11774900

>>11774900
Sounds like contracts will payout however much they actually deliver to the base.

>>11773643
statues are colonialist and problematic, and the dna strand represents racism and glorifies the known racist j*mes w*tson
somebody better get soros on the horn and tell him to cough up for black russians matter

>>11774900
Payment depending on how much you can and have actually delivered. None of that cost plus shit.

>>11774894
>Crew Dragon isn't proven
If Soyuz is so wonderful, there will surely be a massive market of those willing to pay to ride it into space.

>>11774659
No they weren't. That was the USSR's attempt to rationalize why the Americans would build such a thing.

>cross-range nuclear bomber
>in the 80s
yuh okay russia

>>11774900
I think it's too early to start talking about a Moon base for NASA. They can make plans but SLS isn't ready yet and there's no Gateway in space either.

I apologize, ironic shitposting is still shitposting
please accept this classic image of two suns made of ice

>>11774900
It means that Bridenstine is sick of the megacontractors just going "eh maybe we'll have it done someday, if you give us bonuses, maybe a couple years late, 2 billion per launch thanks."
By setting a fixed cost/ton ratio he can force competing companies to either innovate or be discarded, removing the normal bias given to the """proven""" launch providers. If there's an objective standard they can't weasel their way into getting chosen based on incorporeal metrics like "trust" or "long time partnership" or by having an aerospace pedigree earned fifty years ago.
I'd do it in three tiers, at third place a contractor must get costs down to 9 million per ton, this is substantially superior to the Space Shuttle but also shouldn't even be difficult in any way to achieve with modern rocketry technology. Second place goes to the contractor that can get costs down to 4.5 million per ton, this is radically superior to the shuttle representing more than 75% cost reduction. First place gets some kind of permanent display award at NASA HQ, international recognition for exemplary innovation in rocketry, and a contract to supply NASA with an "economy launch vehicle" or ELV. First place is won by whichever company develops a rocket that can launch a large payload for less than a million dollars a ton.

>>11774900
SpaceX is set to win again. SpaceX has launched more payloads/tonnage to space this year than every other rocket launch from the world combined. Starship will launch 100+ ton to moonbase and will shit on everyone else.

>>11774963
Imagine if SpaceX launches 10+ moon base cargo in a year all carrying 50+ ton each. That will be game changer.

>>11774900
>Elon: Wow, this is extremely important!!
>Elon: Outcome-based contracting with multiple competitors is vastly better than cost-plus (especially if sole-sourced), as the former rewards results & latter rewards waste. Outcome contracting should be applied broadly within government. The difference in results will be incredible.
As expected. If SpaceX delivers 100 ton to Moon, they should be paid 100 ton worth. If Blue Origin or Boeing or ULA launches 10 ton, they should be paid 10 tons worth. This rewards efficiency, and punishes inefficiencies.

Bridenstine is getting fired as soon as Biden gets elected. Old space will be back in command too.

>>11774966
To better illustrate what that means in practical terms, ten 50-ton cargo missions to the moon could deposit the same amount of equipment as 27 fully fueled Apollo LEMs.

>>11774982
I may actually start a riot of this happens

>>11774978
Can't wait for salt from old space/blue origin.

>>11774899
but you still need to have the Starship section to get it to orbit

>>11774960
what happens if they collide

>>11773863
>>11773873
Who gives a shit where the world is going , focus on where you are going. The future is bright for us brother and Lugh is with us. Make life into something you want, great things are happening and the tide is turning.

>>11774989
There's already salt. Remember the statement Boeing made about how they value quality and safety when the cost per seat of CCrew became public?

>>11773971
To start building a permanent presence and bring equipment? Whats the point of landing tiny piece of shit lander.

>>11774321
I think for the past two months in a row I have gone to bed browsing /sfg/ at 5am just dreaming of Starship. I have so much faith in it and I pray each night that Elon actually gets it to $2 mil a launch.
And on that mote I hope he has the ability to upcharge as much as he wants. Elon is a good guy who will give small countries cheap prices- but with SLS costing $500 mil - 2 BILLION per launch I hope Boeing comes crawling to him and he charges them a billion dollars for fucking cheating in the Artemis lander program

>>11775084
it can be done by the end of the next presidential term. That's it, that's the only reason.

>>11775093
>SLS costing $500 mil
LOL
Engines(RS25D/E x 4 @ $146M each) alone cost $584 million for first stage alone.

>>11774900
This is potentially the most exciting news I've heard from NASA in a while. I'm waiting for the catch at this point.

Otherwise, with SpaceX' high cadence and low internal launch costs, this could be big money.

>>11775093
Literally zero chance that SLS costs less than $900 million per launch.

>>11773808
id imagine people will sleep in shifts like a sub, so you may not need so many beds.

>right after the announcement of per-ton payouts Musk says the first few Lunar Starships will serve as part of Moonbase Alpha
stonks

>>11775154
That was already talked about for a while. He's just reiterating.

>>11775154
so either Starship will be getting outsized payouts (which they don't need? Starship is supposed to be cheap) or nobody else is ever going to bid anything ever because Elon's got his thumb on that price and it's $1m a ton on the surface

AMF Industries, an SLS contractor, can make one part every fifteen minutes, and began production in November. They have four years to deliver six million parts. Will Artemis fly on time or is the Holocaust a lie?

>>11775159
they only need to deliver a couple thousand and it's a fucking bolt, they can just buy more of them

>Primary Date June 8, 2020 7:30 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. Closure Canceled
>Primary Date June 10, 2020 6:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. Closure Canceled

Rip, something's gone wrong. June 11 seems to be the next potential move time for SN5.

>>11774036
Absolutely amazing

Saw a chain of 20 Starlinks last night, must've just caught the end of the train when I looked up. Spacing looked pretty regular with a couple gaps. Gonna make an effort to spot some tonight, this is the first I've seen of them in the sky after watching the launches and I want to see more.

>>11775165
they didn't get the mover assembled in time

>>11775171
there was a viewing window for the US immediately after launch, which was cool
I think that means it should also have been visible for the rest of the Northern Hemisphere?

>>11775159
If the requirement is they themselves must deliver six million parts and the maximum they can achieve is 1 per 15 minutes, then no they aren't even remotely close to the production they need. One year is 525600 minutes long, four years is 2,102,400 minutes, divided by the 15 minutes needed to make one part, they can manufacture only 140,160 parts, they need to increase production 42 fold.

>>11775185
wrong, they can just postpone the launch and demand more money

>>11775113
>>11775118
The literal cope. Jim has just cracked the fucking whip. It will cost Elon next to nothing to launch 150T to the Moon. Fucking lmao they might have to put a cap on Starship, it’ll be able to land a whole city on the surface

>>11775187
The calculation of course is based on the (verifiably untrue) assumption that long established NASA contractors are actually required to hold to their agreements.

>>11774002
Your drawings are still assuming a requisite 90 degree or 180 degree orientation based on gravity presets that will not exist in situ. Think about stacking the beds lengthwise and everything that can possibly be lengthwise should be. No reason to cut the thing up like a carousel

>>11775178
I saw the latest launch but missed the viewing window, wasn't looking for them last night either just caught it by chance while looking up around a campfire. Looks like there's another pass of Starlink 6 for me tonight a bit after sunset so I'm gonna see if I can catch the beginning of the pass this time.

>>11775093
>Chuck Yeager
didn't know the madman was still alive, he's 97

Am I the only one fed up with these nobody's on twitter giving their """"edgy cool""" take on Musk.

This man is building fucking rockets that will pave the way for the future and they say retarded shit like this.

>>11774952
If it can be weaponized, and the U.S. government built it, you can be god damned certain it was intended to be weaponized. There's probably a few nuke droppers sitting up there right now.

>>11775236
ignore social media in general anon, your life will improve.

>>11775236
Twitter is literally a fucking shithole. The only reason I have it is to keep up with space news. Just don't read any replies below Elon's tweets and you're golden.

>>11775247
You're right, I gotta start huffing glue for my boing interview

>>11775245
It took up to 24 months to manifest a payload on STS, and a standing army of tens of thousands working for months to prep a stack for launch. ICBMs already exist, and fill that role better than any crewed vehicle could.

>>11775257
I just get it secondhand, I have always disliked websites requiring any sort of signup and tend to stay away from them. That's pretty much why I wound up settling here come to think of it.

>>11775236
So stupid. Mars man bad because he supports capitalism, at least I have my blue check mark to verify my relevancy. It’s just one giant echo chamber... I mean have you ever read the replies to Trump? It’s so annoying yet these people consider themselves servants of the people because they reply to Trump immediately and get thousands of likes
Elon is eccentric but he deserves no hate. He’s a hard worker and these twitter losers don’t want to work and want the government to pay for everything, so they see him as evil. These are the same people that want to defund NASA to pay for social programs

>>11775284
he shouldn't have called that diver a pedophile, but that's pretty much it

>>11775296
the $420 funding secured could have more obviously been a joke

>>11774304
so spacex is bringing back tv dishes huh

>>11775296
ironically he was righ, old brits only go to them countries for one reason.

>>11775236
You learn to filter out nobodies and useless twats.

>>11775296
He was a nearby local diver, but not a diver in the cave rescue. The old brit cuck living in remote thailand is likely to be a pedophile than not.

Could Elon cuck China out of their REE stronghold by launching Starship, capturing an asteroid in its cargo hold, and landing it back in the United States? The only thing China has going for it is a huge concentration of rare earth elements and Elon now has theoretical access to any asteroid he can fit in the cargo bay

>>11774222
Fuck earth coffee throw it in the lava tube, martian juice only, NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!

>>11774371
analysts have been worried about muh hypersonic missiles for decades. there's still not been much movement on that front

>>11775370
you can throw a rock in thailand and have as much a change of hitting a ladyboy as hitting a fat old single pedo.

Reminder, next Starlink launch this friday/sat (12/13) and the one after that is on 24th, then GPS launch on 31st(?).

>>11775390
Minor fix, 30th for GPS launch

>>11775384
Hmm i’ve actually never thought of this before. I know the cargo hold is huge but still, I wonder if it would be viable. I mean with two million dollars a launch Elon could theoretically do it; and it would give access to a pristine sample. There is a geology anon from a few threads back who claimed to know a lot about space mining and in situ resourcing, maybe he will have the answer. Starship might fund itself if this could work (assuming Elon doesn’t flood the market lmao). Still fascinating nonetheless

>>11775384
That propbably wouldn't be cost effective enough to supplant Chinese REEs except for strategically important products that use such elements.

>>11775405
maximum landed mass (earth) is ~50 tons
it's constrained by the skydiver bit I think

>>11775407
Yeah that’s what I’m thinking. It would still be awesome for one mission though. AFAIK the cancelled asteroid capture mission was going to put it in lunar orbit so all science would have to be done during an EVA. Starship could bring it back to Earth in pristine condition. It might get oxidized by the atmosphere but with enough planning I bet you could keep a vacuum in the cargo hold and transport it to Houston for study like the lunar samples

>>11775419
>Starship could bring it back to Earth in pristine condition
any asteroid that could fit inside a starship would just be a loose pile of dust and collapse immediately upon acceleration.

>>11774588
btw anon, there are currently billions being poured into quality control initiatives in china, similar to the investment in QC in japan in the 70's and 80's. Anyone who thinks china won't be able to catch up is lying to themselves

dear musky man please give me internet in rural c*lifornia that isnt literal dogshit

>>11775450
Wait till ~sept-oct for beta test. Don't except cheap service right off the bat. Expect some issues initially.

>>11775450
>inb4 Elon denies Starlink service to California as a "fuck you" to the Californian government

>>11775445
paying the guys who are fucking over your QC billions in bribes so they stop doing that is not a sustainable way to run an economy
buying billions in bullets to shoot the guys who are fucking over your QC is also not a sustainable way to run an economy
it's a culture issue, and they will never solve it, but we still need to assume the worst and that it's solvable

>>11775459
SOON

>>11774233
You just play with other moonmen

>>11775445
Do you understand how far behind they actually are?

>>11775384
I feel like you could get a much more efficient operation going by setting up a station at Earth-Moon L4/L5 and using it as a staging area to do some very basic refining so that you're landing less waste material. This way, you aren't nearly as restricted by asteroid size, shape, or physical characteristics.
As a bonus, you can use the waste to build up a sort of artificial rubble-pile asteroid around critical parts of your station, for radiation/micrometeoroid protection.

>>11774349
Antifa is under the microscope now. In 10 years they'll be entirely comprised of glowies

>>11775096
No it really isn't and you are fucking retarded to think so. Starship is cheaper and carries more. The only reason those other two companies are even being considered is because they want commercial competition.

https://www.forbes.ru/tehnologii/402477-eto-ih-voyna-ne-nasha-dmitriy-rogozin-otvetil-na-zapusk-crew-dragon-ilona-maska

If you want some outrage fuel, Rogozin wrote an article for Russian Forbes about Crew Dragon. You can paste it into Google Translate to get the general gist.
I didn't read the whole thing but it's pretty bad and will definitely make you lose what little respect you may have for the guy. He's lying and being his slimy self as usual. Not a good look...

>>11775504
Within old space terms, only a few years, a decade at most.
They already have the capacity to independently send rovers to Mars, for example.

>>11775525
Reminds me of a story about some redneck terrorist group that was rounded up by several agencies a decade or two ago, turned out it was a massive honeypot by the FBI and several of the group core "suspects" were undercover agents from different agencies who didnt now about each other.
In the end the most moderate members of the group where really just civilians and all the fucked up shit they were planning were all set up by the undercover agents.
And the entire thing was swept under the rug because it was a massive embarrassment for everybody involved.

>>11775593
Ill believe it when I see it, also we have had that ability for 60 years.

What do you guys think will be in the first starship payloads to mars? 2022 is gonna be a good year.

>>11775610
>Ill believe it when I see it,
Tianwen-1 launches next month.
> we have had that ability for 60 years.
But does that actually convert into a capability gap? What Mars missions can the US right now perform that would be impossible for China, that reflect this 60-year lead?

>>11775610
>we have had that ability for 60 years.
And have been sitting on that ability for 60 years without much advancement.

>>11775386
>”Why yes, I support a free and independent Mars. How could you tell?”

>>11775625
Construction equipment, Ice processors and Moxie units

>>11775630
It will fail to land mark my words. China and Russia have a relationship but neither of them can launch complicated missions before something goes wrong. China did land on the Moon though so they get some credit. When is the last time either of them launched something as complicated as Curiosity? It’s not that I necessarily want them to fail... it’s just that they can’t seem to get it right

>>11775625
Probably just a public payload demonstrator like Starman, but it'll be pretty exciting to see.

>>11775630
>Tianwen-1 launches next month.
Launching doesn't mean shit. I can launch a backyard rocket meant to land on mars, doesn't mean i have the capabilities

>>11775589

This actually doesn't seem too bad, mostly just saber rattling and a desperate defense of the Russian space program. Just about what you would expect of the guy but clearly he holds soviet era distrust of the Americans. Again, nothing to write home about.

>>11775640
absolutely based and redpilled

>>11775652
i doubt it. I think it'll just be cheap supplies that won't be too sorely missed if destroyed. Theres no reason to not try to get as much there as possible

>>11775630
>What Mars missions can the US right now perform that would be impossible for China, that reflect this 60-year lead?
They've already landed rovers and probes in different ways, they are sending another rover this year and have had different probe missions. The difference is that NASA can do it with little risk. China blows up plenty of rockets just getting to orbit.

Where will Starship put us in terms of our relationship to Roscosmos? Will we throw them to the curb? Do we have an obligation to help them or should we give them the boot. I would like to hear opinions from both sides

>>11775643
I was thinking extra life support systems

>>11775625
>What do you guys think will be in the first starship payloads to mars?
American flags.

>>11775589
Deary me. Not far in and already it's reading like an annual tractor production report circa 1963 or something. Reminds me of the classic Ariane whining in that Arse Technica piece. What is it with these butthurt space losers?

>>11775687
I think that NASA and the State Department will continue offering outreach on things like ISS and Gateway despite not having the slightest hint of a use for them anymore on technical levels. This will make the Russians feel like NASA is babying them and get indignant.

>>11775695
God i love America

>>11775589
Yeah there are some bad faith arguments there.
He says Orel cost less than the taxpayer funded SpaceX program but since they want to launch it with a Soyuz variant and not a brand new rocket it's only natural.
He says SpaceX is no more private than Boeing or Lockeed but it's still an outsider government wise and if I'm not wrong SpaceX has an emphasis on vertical integration. Maybe someone can shed some light on this one?
He also says Russia never abandoned the rest of the world with Soyuz during 9 years to put people on the ISS... They just gouged the price, it went up and up and I don't think it was because the rocket cost augmented.
He says the Falcon 9 is heavier than Soyuz and thus cost more (even if it's cheaper?!) and thus is worst while ignoring most of the F9 is refurbished and reused...

After the anti American rant, the two other thirds of the article are self criticism about the Russian space program since 30 years, a recap of their accomplishments and their plan for the future. It's actually nice to read, save for the part where he says Russia is the leader on exploring oxygen-methane fueled to make reusable rockets which aren't even on a drawing board. Rogozin isn't necessarily an asshole, it's Russia and sometimes you have to please the government with propaganda in your piece so you can get the sweet rubbles but it's still a laughable article.

>>11775695
imagine a flag planting on mars. it could actually wave in the martian wind

>>11775719
It's amazing how brittle he sounds. I'm surprised he doesn't take a more insouciant tone. As it is it comes across as the worst kind of hollow boasting

>>11775719
>He says SpaceX is no more private than Boeing or Lockeed
Absolute dogshit. Boeing has been repeatedly bailed out by the feds and came within a cunt hair of being nationalized during the COVID-19 crash. Lockheed sells exclusively to the government after their civilian airliner program folded. SpaceX's largest customer by volume is themselves (Starlink) and some of their biggest launches have been for private customers, like Arabsat 6a on a Falcon Heavy.

>>11775589
I liked "spess Kalashnikov"
>>11775719
>Maybe someone can shed some light on this one?
Just ask him when the US government ordered Starship. Or, pointing out that Starship is entirely a SpaceX initiative well in advance of commercial or other partners, ask when the last time Lockheed or Boeing did anything on their own.
His argument is also stupid because NASA will own and operate Orion (not Lockheed) and Starliner has yet to take humans anywhere. SpaceX has the only crewed launch system fully designed, owned, and operated by a private company which sells seats to recoup the costs (like an airline).
>He says the Falcon 9 is heavier than Soyuz and thus cost more
Which only makes them look worse, that using a vehicle with such a higher payload is still cost-effective against what they charge for Soyuz.
Rogozin's attempts to justify the Soyuz price through the market contradicts any claims he makes about benevolence or altruism.

>>11774966
I wouldn't be surprised if they start off with 100+ year given how many launch windows there are for the moon, and given how cheap starship is (plus it can hopefully launch 3 times per day, even 1 time per day would be insane)

I'll make the next thread

>>11775803
Wait for page 10.

in like, 12 hours, when it's time for a new thread

>>11775625
cement and pavement robot for landing pads

>>11775737
>As it is it comes across as the worst kind of hollow boasting
As expected of Russian aerospace at this point. If you've ever seen vatniks on /k/ angrily defending MiGs, Sukhois, and S-400s getting completely humiliated in the Middle East, this will seem very familiar.

>>11775818
I don't think there will be any robot on the early unmanned cargo missions beyond maybe some throwaway survey drones. They're too unreliable. Better off putting good, useful equipment up and waiting for humans to arrive.

>>11775825
And we are only a year and a half to two years away from that

are there even any concrete plans for building shit on lunar surface going on?

methods being studied for even just making a landing pad?
equipment testing, personnel training and the like?

>>11775840
All the lander designs except Starship are too weak to do any proper construction.

>https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-06-08/spacex-exits-port-of-la-lease-again

Elon cancelled LA Port Starship launch facility, again.

>>11775846
what the fuck Elon

>>11775846
Good. Fuck California.

>>11775846
With Elon prioritizing Starship and asking employees to move to Boca, this is likely the end of SpaceX expansion in California. They'll probably siphon off their team over to Texas and train new team there.

>>11775846
Good California needs to die

>>11775816
good boy.

>>11775866
I have some really good images that I've been holding on to so as to debut them in a new thread

>>11775846
Can he just pull out of California entirely please