/sci/ - Science & Math

Please include this in the OP

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

Hop when? Never.

>>11838604
Just post the link if you want people to see it, we don't need a bloated OP.

>>11838609
Are we paying by the byte now?

>SLS is still a delayed shitshow
>F9 upper stage kind of sucks
So, why not strap a hydrolox upper stage from let's say a Delta IV to a Falcon Heavy?

>>11838609
>bloated OP
It's a single link that saves a bunch of people from asking the same questions in every thread.

Starlink launch today.

>>11838602
this is why we need nuclear propulsion. SUPPORT NUCLEAR PROPULSION TODAY!

>>11838612
>>11838617
You start with honest intention, but it's just the first step on the road to your general being a cesspit full of tripfags

>>11838625
Direct nuclear propulsion is only good for doing stuff far away from earth to begin with.
So indirect nuclear propulsion may make more sense...

>>11838625

Swarms of probes and radioisotope powered landers to every outer planet and moon. Robotic Jovian observatories when?

How “alive” are space probes? They seem to be able to make a lot of decisions on their own.

The final description of Cassini’s plunge into Saturn piqued my interest.

>”Cassini hits the atmosphere”
>”As the atmosphere grows thicker, she fights to keep her antenna pointed at the Earth”
>Eventually her thrusters fail, and she meets her ultimate fate: becoming one with Saturn

I always imagined Cassinis final plunge looking like something out of Terminator, with her taking in data and getting a bunch of “WARNING WARNING” signals until finally the heat grew too strong and she shut down.

>>11838627
>it's just the first step on the road to your general being a cesspit full of tripfags
Source:
Dude, trust me

https://pastebin.com/1yqZ5THg This must be done

>>11838631
this thread is direct saturn edition, which is far away from earth.
>>11838637
>>radioisotope
Nah, what you really want are nuclear reactors. Uranium is MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper than radioisotopes. Plutonium production is still very limited right now. Although radioisotopes don't need to be kept on a long stick like reactors do. Neutron's fuck electronics up.
>>11838647
not very. A simple control loop can keep the antenna pointed at a source. Woop de fucking do. As far as I can tell, space probes can't even navigate on their own, they are basically remote controlled from earth. I consider them to be less alive than self driving cars.

>>Robotic Jovian observatories when
now stalker, ever heard of Juno

>>11838648
I've watched more generals turn to shit than I can count. I remember when /ksg/ was in the double digits.

>>11838654
At the risk of sounding like a retard, Juno is a waste of money.

We could’ve put some bio signature-finding instruments on her and sent her to Europa.

>>11838652
dude, you stink of overly ambitious undergrad. I'm not calling you a schitzo, but what you want to do is way, way, way beyond what we can currently do with genetic engineering. Go study biology or something seriously. You might find out this is impossible, but it's still possible to achieve great things. And don't discount basic research either. A lot of important advancements in biology like CRISPR-CAS9 and Taq polymerase came out of basic research. Taq came about from researching the ecology of pond scum thermal vents! Ecology dammit!
>>strontium 90
wew lad! You gonna die if you do that. I only skimmed what you wrote, but geobacter nanowires probably won't work for that. So for things like betavoltaics, and yes, what you have here is basically a betavoltaic, you need to match the bandgap of the radiation as close as possible. So you really want an isotope that spits electrons with lower energy, cause there ain't nuthin' with a bandgap of 0.5 MeV.

>>11838672
i didn't write this, a nice australian lad did

>>11838654
>this thread is direct saturn edition, which is far away from earth.
Saturn may be far from earth, but the insertion burn would probably needed to be done somewhere near earth.
Unless you want to get fucked by the Oberth-effect AND send that thing beyond earth orbit before even using the reactor.
In that case however you could just save that R+D money for developing a direct nuclear propulsion system as well as the not exactly small costs for actualy building it and use chemical rockets like a bunch of RL-10, based hydrolox kickstages assembled in LEO by Starships.
Or go with solar electric and use the oversized solar panels required for the insertion burn to power the spacecraft at saturn.

>>11838663
Europa missions are challenging. Europa's in a bad part of the solar system. It's bathed in deathly radiation so it's hard to make stuff that can survive long there. Europa Clipper gets around this by dipping into the belt and flying by Europa. Juno is not a waste of funding because it helps us understand Jupiter's radiation belts of death better.

>>11838616
real life isnt ksp

>>11838647
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1rSnFOLhME

>>11838692
I know, but what would stop them from doing that?
It's basicly just another payload for Falcon heavy and Orion/ICPS has its own navigation systems.
They would only need a mechanical adapter between both.

>>11838692
It is actually

>>11838712
>shuttle with upper stage in payload bay
That's probably the most expensive and dangerous way to launch a satellite.

>>11838718
If the Shuttle had been truly reusable it would've been cheap and easy.

>>11838616
Unironically this is probably the best way to do the human portion of the artemis missions. And it won't happen because of politics.
>>11838712
never flew, so real life isn't KSP still applies.

>>11838721
Yea, but that never realy happened...

>>11838730
The X-15 was pretty kerbal DESU

Where do we think space colonization should rank in priority? Above climate change? Below social justice? For me it should be the number one priority. We need to get the fuck off this planet asap before something goes wrong and we lose our only shot.

>>11838721
Another option would be to tell the Boca Chica welding crew to cobble together a Falcon Heavy upper stage for Methalox and power it with a vacuum Raptor.
However THAT would be actualy Kerbal...

>>11838751
>Above climate change?
Of course, the earlier we get the hell our of here, the less we need to harm the ecosystem.
>Below social justice
No, social justice goes somewhere below building mobile suits for entertainment.

>>11838751
Absolute undisputed top priority. The planet will be fine for habitation for a while yet even if we do nothing, and sociopolitical nonsense can't be "fixed," because humans can't create long-term stable social structures.

>>11838761
> humans can't create long-term stable social structures
what is that based on? the past 50 years exclusively?

>>11838761
One major issue we have at the moment is 3rd world overpopulation.
Technicly a problem that could solve itself due to insufficient agriculture there, but we're making it worse by sending food there and importing some of their excess population.
In doing so we're importing unqualified people with incompatible cultures to the western cultures.

We need to leave before our politicians turn the western world into something closer to the 3rd world.
If we don't, we probably won't be able to leave anytime soon.

However we should help these countries by providing care packages in exchange for sterilizing them to controll the size of the population there.
Maybe help them build up a functional goverment under guidence of western nations.

What is the minimum viable human population? I’ve read anywhere from 500 to 10,000 individuals. I assumed it was 1,000, but can it be less. A lot less? Maybe even 100?

I’m that retard who did all the math about Starship in the other thread btw.

UK government are planning a bid for 20% of OneWeb. Details are a little vague but it looks like the idea might be to adapt the constellation to do some kind of GPS style capability, which the UK want after being kicked out of Galileo.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/06/government-to-splash-500m-on-oneweb-broadband-satellites.html

>>11838777
It's hard to put an exact number to that as there isn't realy a hard limit but a soft one.
The issue with small populations is inbreeding, wich results in birth defects.
On the smaller end of it the population may survive, but end up with quite some birth defects before growinh to a sufficient size and selecting out defects.
On the larger end you have something like Iceland where the population is pretty small yet large enough to avoid inbreeding.

These days however you can kind of cheat your way around population minimums by having sperm and eggs frozen from a larger population as a basis for sufficient genetic diversity to prevent inbreeding.
That can kickstart a new population, but not maintain it at a small size for long periods of time.

>>11838751
As a geologist, climate change is really important... but liberals have completely politicized it and made it gay. We need to remember that Earth is a planet too. The fact that we are in the midst of an ongoing mass extinction is kind of worrisome, and IMHO people like queen autism cunt (aka greta thunburg) are just using it for political gain when in actuality they don’t know the science.
I think an increase in climate science would be a net gain, but fuck liberals bc they would try to take all the credit. Anyways... planetary colonization is MOST important. And not because of the cringey “muh asteroid impact” argument. I don’t give a fuck about that. We should colonize because we CAN. We have the technology and the resources... why not try to expand the capabilities of our species.

>>11838795
Based

>>11838795
>The fact that we are in the midst of an ongoing mass extinction is kind of worrisome
The fact that we are vulnerable to mass extinction events or events maneuvering us back into the stone age makes it even worse.
Be it a virus, supervulcano, meteroid, nuclear war, civil war or whatever.
Each could end human civilisation as we know it, this time it was just a virus a little worse than the flue.
If it wasn't we'd be royaly fucked now.

>>11838809
Also I might add the economic perspective of it:
We live on a planet with finite ressources and have an economy based on unlimited growth.
Naturaly you would want to expand beyond these limitations.
In our situation that would mean asteroid mining as well as the required support infrastructure as a starting point and an economy growing from there.
The solar system is full of ressources, energy and space, we only need to make use of these three.

>>11838795
>I think an increase in climate science would be a net gain, but fuck liberals bc they would try to take all the credit. Anyways...
Yes, you're so much smarter. You aren't political at all and you wouldn't succumb to identity politics over evidence based policy.

>liberals have completely politicized it
And on the other side of the argument are people claiming it's Chinese conspiracy.

>>11838816
Also the scarcest resource in the solar system is biospheres. We have one right now. Simple economic specialization would have Earth focus on living things both wild and farmed, with heavy industry moved off world. Bezos is actively championing this with his spinny Gundam hab plans.

>>11838604
>https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
>July 3Electron • “Pics Or It Didn’t Happen”
One Elon Musk is more than enough, thank you.

>>11838823
You completely missed my point you fucking troglodyte. What I was trying to say... is that climate science is important, but by politicizing it and using it as “le epic weapon against conservatives” (like how coronavirus and wearing a mask is being politicized) you disenfranchise the other side and make them push back against you because that’s what inevitably happens.
>you wouldn’t succumb to identity politics over evidence based policy
Nice try bitch, I’m ultraconservative but my whole thesis in grad school was on climate change. It’s an important issue but it’s being torn apart by identity politics. I’m just ranting about it because i’m drunk and I’ve seen what the other side has been doing to it ever since the Al Gore days

>>11838795
People lack perspective. If climate change killed off every complex organism on the surface of the planet in the next hundred years, obviously ridiculous, that would still only hasten things by a few hundred million years. If we don't get off planet and start spreading and adapting life across the system and beyond, we've sacrificed nature to a scope unimaginable by comparison to Earth.

>>11838845
However earth does have an issue with its strong gravity.
Exporting stuff from earth to space will be pretty expensive even with an optimistic starship scenario we're looking at hundreds of dollars per kg of payload.
Meanwhile an agricultural station requires rather little deltaV to transport stuff to workers or could even be implemented into a space colony.
Just like the O'Neill cylinders (Gundam spinny things) you allready mentioned could not only house people, but also feed them, supply oxygen and scrub CO2.
That would seriously simplify things for possible space industries.

>>11838852
Yeah, clearly, it's because of SJW that climate science became politicized...

>>11838871
Would space elevators be within the realm of possibility by the time Earth is exporting goods to colonies on a mass scale?

>>11838889
Space elevators will never be practical on Earth. Off Earth they can serve a supplementary role but their throughput will be absolutely pitiful compared to the sheer amount of mass you can throw from a lower gravity moon/planet in the same given time with traditional rocketry.

>>11838882
FUCK no, nooooo! I’m trying to say that it’s a shame that both sides politicized it. It SHOULD be a bipartisan worry. It’s dumb that conservatives don’t seem to care, but it’s also dumb that leftists virtue signal about caring for the climate because it drives conservatives even further away from the issue

>>11838906
It's all bullshit. NOAA raw data shows no warming trend. The adjustments make the present warmer and the past colder, and there's your trend.

Happening: All-Man Spacewalk

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

co2 is just one aspect of the ongoing destruction of the biosphere. Overpopulation is a massive problem but lefties have made it taboo to talk about forcing people in developing countries to breed less, even though they are the people that will suffer worst. The left wing are legitimately dangerous for the future of life on earth.

>>11838930
Overpopulation is a meme and population control is an even bigger meme. Every single society that has transitioned from developing to developed experienced a contraction in birth rate along the way as popping out massive workforces became no longer necessary to sustain themselves. As long as basic human nature applies, this cycle will continue.

>>11838934
No, it's because of hormonal birth control. Women never stopped having sex, they just stopped getting pregnant from it.

>>11838906
>I’m trying to say that it’s a shame that both sides politicized it
You had a funny way of saying that:
>but liberals have completely politicized it and made it gay.

>It’s dumb that conservatives don’t seem to care
It's not apathy, it is wilful fucking ignorance. They believe you are liar and are just out to make the US uncompetitive. They believe you are part of a conspiracy or that you're just a brainwashed sheep who's watched too much CNN. They don't give a fuck about science if it get's in the way of muh political dogma.

> it’s also dumb that leftists virtue signal about caring for the climate
This is peak identity politics. It's not enough that people agree with you. Ranting against identity politics while leaping in head first is pure doublethink. You didn't have to rant against the libruls, but you felt compelled.

The real threat to the biosphere is that all the changes are happening too fast for many of them to adapt to. Another one in habitat fragmentation caused by (((suburbs))) and current farming, populations of animals can’t move around to find new grounds, they’re stuck in those little areas and the populations sink below a sustainable level and go into localized extinction

>>11838947
You could erase the pill from existence and it would simply be replaced with other contraceptives. Consider, my fair retard, that women don't use birth control when they intend to have children.

>>11838963
Hormonal birth control is uniquely bad because it messes with mate selection preferences, is often taken for the entirety of a woman's peak fertility years, and makes women piss pregnancy hormones into the water supply. Other forms of birth control are less damaging.

>>11838969
That's cool, it has nothing at all to do with my point that overpopulation is a smoothbrain fear and population control is unnecessary due to the mechanics of society.

>>11838889
Probably not as we have yet to discover materials of sufficient tensile strength to make them work on earth.
However they could work on moons or smaller planetoids.

Meanwhile the deltaV requirement to transfer from one station to another when in orbit around the same planet is quite laughable, given that they are at simmilar altitudes and inclinations.
In addition to that you need barely any thrust to maneuver, even a few RCS thrusters would be sufficient.

>>11838948
it is especially sad considering environmental protection was a key conservative thing nearly hundred years ago when people first became really aware of it.
they just left it to the leftists because muh money

Any of you niggers watching the spacewalk?

>>11839059
>opens a bag full of loose components
>camera cuts out
oh nooo

>>11838751
>Below social justice?

Imagine caring about social justice unironically.

>>11838963
Women that don’t intend to have children should be gassed

>>11838602
is this some kind of colossal homo fantasy?

>>11838656
I remember /kspg/ becoming so shit it actually got banned from the shithole that is /vg/

>>11838784
>which the UK want after being kicked out of Galileo.
Honestly, it's not an entirely bad concept. The question is can the handful of satellites already in orbit do it, when it is impossible to physically change the hardware?
- The main thing needed is an atomic clock on board for sufficient precision. Given how useful that is in general, and how much smaller they are these days, it's likely they already have one on board.
- A nav constellation only needs like 30-40 satellites, and a barely started mega-constellation should be plenty if they're distributed well enough. (as opposed to Starlink with a few gaps remaining until another few launches)
- It needs a transmitter which can be set to an appropriate frequency that might not have been intended at launch. Who knows, but it's likely that a modern transmitter can be sufficiently adjusted, especially in a broadband comms satellite.
- It needs to stay up long enough before having to be replaced. Starlink is intentionally low enough to automatically decay in 5 years, OW is higher. By the time they de-orbit, Starship should have slashed the price of getting new ones up, so they just need the capability to build replacements fast enough. There's probably a few already sitting in a warehouse waiting to be launched.
So yeah, that may be one of the few things that the OW stats could be sensibly re-purposed for.

>>11838889
It would be better to manufacture in space or a lower-g world using off-Earth materials whenever possible. There will still be things that need to come from Earth, but certain sorts of mass like steel would be better without having to come up the gravity well.

I have control of the battery

>>11839184
In the long term I can't see Earth being a viable source of any raw material or mid tier idustrial tech.

In high tech I think it'll be more of a mixed bag as physical technologies relevant to space and colonization will migrate, but the frontier of human-focused industry will remain on Earth and so high margin low-throughput items like cutting edge medical tech will be a big export.

>>11839218
I'm only listening but I think doug just gave bob his six-inch

>>11839245
oh, chris* and bob apparently

>>11839226
>In the long term I can't see Earth being a viable source of any raw material or mid tier idustrial tech.

Crack the core.

>>11838616
Too much changes to core stage, it will be different rocket.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/spacex-starlink-threat-democrats-propose-100bn-us-wide-fiber-broadband-project/

Starlink maybe getting killed by politics

>>11839218
>>11839245
>>11839249
Who here /has control/?

>>11839289
They will launch it from Russia or China.
Musk will be head of their space programs.

>>11839289
No way that‘s going to happen.

>>11839299
Its happening. Democrats want to give $100 Billion to ATT/Comcast to compete with SpaceX

>>11839289
>100bn investment into fibre
>politics kills starlink
Making an attempt to fix woeful infrastructure is not killing starlink, what a retarded spin. And anyone expecting it to actually happen or be viable competition if it does has more faith in US bureaucracy than I do. Starlink will do just fine; even if the US had a viable fibre broadband network at prices Starlink can't compete with to every individual within the country, which isn't happening, it would still provide the military and other countries.

>>11839301
>give $100 Billion to ATT/Comcast
>implying that will improve fibre at all
Lmao, I work for a company with AT&T as a customer, it takes them 6 months and 23 comittees to decide anything

>>11839289
seeing as Starlink is going into beta, it's probably not going to be killed by an infrastructure project that will take longer than a decade to complete
besides, cables are already mostly there. Something like 80% of existing fiber cables are dark just because telecom companies have pretended like speeds are advancing much, much slower than they actually are in reality.

>>11838616
This is haram.

>>11839307
>>11839309
>>11839302
The money isn't just to add fiber, its to save those big cable companies when/if starlink becomes big enough to eat up a sizable amount of not just rural but urban as they increase their satellite numbers to 5000+ in 5-10 years.

>>11839295
Every time I look over I think about how much smoother this would go on Mars or even the Moon. Spacesuits suck, but freefall is fucking stupid.

>>11838199
>What was Spaceflight’s tiktaalik moment?

>Hard mode: Don’t mention the V2
Some chinaman in early Middle Ages building first gunpowder rocket.

>>11839328
We should adapt to live in freefall and never touch planets again.

ded

>launch at 4:18
>have to leave for work by 4:45
I think I'm gonna make it, see the launch and not be late.

>>11839443
This is just a generic Starlink launch. Just watch the next one in a week.

spess

>>11839459
They're all generic Starlink launches I still wanna see 'em. This one has those neat imaging sats doing a rideshare, wouldn't mind learning more about them.

>>11838774
As the guy who made that image, I say we stop interfering altogether. I say we only help African countries that are actually somewhat advancing, like Nigeria or Ghana, and that I only mean give them educational literature.

the comments on this fucking stream man

>chat talking about chickens

>>11839289
When? 2050?

Six hours to launch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU6KogxG5BE

I have control

>>11839535
correction, 5 hours to launch, I could swear that five minutes ago it said an hour later

>it's kind of dark out here, Chris

>>11839537
not that anyone cares too much for these Starlink launches now but normal launch thread poster here, I will have the thread up at t-1 hour

Why aren't there any good documentaries on the Gemini program?

>>11839546
I don't care how many times I see it, I still love watching Falcon fly and land. Starlink deployments look cool too but I'll be working by then.

>>11839289
>>Headline about "fiber", not single word about "fiber"
>>"...including $80 billion to deploy high-speed broadband infrastructure nationwide..."

They didn't only build fiber broadband but "high-speed broadband infrastructure", and Starlink could easily consider as "broadband infrastructure", if anything SpaceX could get billions subsidize for Starlink.

>>11839289
The real question would be, "Why would the Democrats be against Starlink?".

>>11839564
>They didn't only build fiber broadband but "high-speed broadband infrastructure", and Starlink could easily consider as "broadband infrastructure", if anything SpaceX could get billions subsidize for Starlink.

A prospect that the lobbyists on capital hill are reportedly pooping their pants over.

>>11839577
Elon Musk was on Trumps team one time for a month or so

#cancelMusk
#cancelSpaceX
#cancelStarlink

>>11839577
>The real question would be, "Why would the Democrats be against Starlink?".
You know how the media companies are vehemently anti-Trump and pro-Democrat, airing constant puff-pieces to try and make the Democratic Party look as good as possible?

The telecommunications companies that own those news networks are going to be competing with SpaceX for those juicy dollarydoos. If the Democrat aligned telecommunications companies lose money, their signal boosters in mass media lose clout and influence. It's in the DNC's political interest to be against Starlink.

>>11839564
Its probably Fiber only.

>>11839577
Elon Musk is subsidy king, he's a fraud, he's Trump supporter, union busting, anti-science covid skeptic, called hero diver pedo, rich billionaire, unhinged, wants to leave earth, cis white male, etc. Elon has plenty of haters from the left and the right, regardless of how right/wrong they are.

Smile Endeavor

Apparently they made SRBs with a diameter of 6.63 meters once

>>11839610

>>11839608
Marxists are always good fun. Shame it’s not legal to shoot them

>>11839608
The funniest thing is that no one who isn't a communist agitator faggot would think any of those things are true, relevant, or bad where applicable.

>if the earth would be round like a ball the ISS would need a steering wheel and rudders to keep keep it driving around the curvature

>>11839617
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmtzFNy1t3U
Yes. It was planned to be used to replace the first stage of the Saturn I, and maybe be used as boosters for the Saturn V.

>>11839639
based aerojet

ahem

Say the line Bob!

>>11839639
I sometimes forget that the Saturn V has smaller siblings that were actually used

>>11838625
This picture is shit and makes me angry all the time.
>The image on the spacecraft has ion engines powered by a nuclear reactor
>For whatever reason journalists put an NTR in the lower left corner

>>11839651
>"Robert you can't just perform rocketry in a field with basic equipment! Where's your clean-barn?!"

> The LC-33 blockhouse had a light on the panel which would light up "TILT" when a countdown was stopped. There was another which lit up "Aw Shit" if the rocket blew up on the pad.[66]

>>11839671
>not using both
bruh

Will Starlink be able to offer internet access for cheeper than Comcast or Verizon?

>>11839670
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0-8Pd7fK9w
The Saturn I is based. It's mere existence upstages SLS.

>We need a rocket larger than we have ever flown, but we don't have big enough tanks nor engines for it!
>"Just take the biggest engines and tanks we have and cluster them together like pencils with rubber-bands."

>The launch tower is too tall for this rocket!
>"Make a large stool for it to sit on."

>The rocket isn't big enough to carry the CSM and the lander to LEO!
>"Then don't fuel the CSM to full. It doesn't need all that fuel for testing."

>>11839535
imagine the smell

>>11839670
We should have kept using them after discontinuing the Saturn 1st stage.

>>11839711
they aren't in competition. different sort of service

>>11839622
Yet. These riots may change that.

holy shit what happened to just pumping out a new launch vehicle every year
what the FUCK is taking SLS so long

>>11839711
>Will Starlink be able to offer internet access for cheeper than Comcast or Verizon?

That's an open question. The Starlink antennas are probably going to be much more expensive than a modem, too.

>>11839653
>despite being 13% of the population...

>>11839723
they offer the same thing, besides price is what normies care about, and you want popular support from normies if you don’t want the gov to ban your service

>>11839734
>"Doug we talked about this before launch, there are cameras on us!"

>>11839729
>what the FUCK is taking SLS so long
NASA stopped being an aerospace agency and started being an aerospace jobs agency.

>>11839741
the thing is you can't compare price when the service isn't offered from both entities.
My parents for instance: they literally have no wired internet. They get internet right now from a local cell tower.
The entire fucking point of starlink is to serve underserved areas.

>>11839734
>Despite being only 0.13% of the population of the United States of America in 1962, the brilliant people who worked on the Apollo program captured the imagination of 50% of the population.

>The first attempted launch in the program took place on January 21, 1959 at Vandenberg AFB's LC-75. As the Agena was being loaded with fuel (the Thor was still empty at this point), someone decided to conduct a test of the launch computer sequencer. The result was that the Agena accidentally received a signal that staging had taken place and to begin booster separation. As everyone in the blockhouse watched in dismay, the ullage rockets on the outside of the Agena began firing and the internal fuel pumps began spinning up for engine start. A quick-thinking member of the blockhouse crew then pressed a button on his control console to send a shutdown signal to the booster. Although potential disaster had been averted, the Agena now had nothing except gravity holding it onto the Thor and the risk of the stage falling to the ground, rupturing, and spilling its corrosive nitric acid/UDMH propellant load existed. In addition, the heat from the ullage rockets could potentially ignite the propellants in the stage. Pad crews had to wait several hours for the batteries in the Agena to run down before they could begin dismantling the launch vehicle. The Thor sustained minor damage and was sent back to Douglas for refurbishment, but the Agena had had nitric acid spilled down its exterior and was deemed unsafe to fly. In any case, it was one of the first Agena stages produced and lacked some technical refinements made to newer models. It ended up being used at Lockheed for training purposes.

>>11839760
internet is internet

>>11839711
If price is the only thing you care about, then you've missed the whole problem.

>>11839774
>in 1962
Meant 1969.

>>11839777
It’s the only thing most people care about

kino

>>11838871
>Exporting stuff from earth to space will be pretty expensive even with an optimistic starship scenario we're looking at hundreds of dollars per kg of payload.
No, if Elon is right about 2million per launch for 150 tons, it is 13$/kg to LEO, not hundreds

>>11839797
>2million per launch for 150 tons
150 tons requires refueling starships

>>11839781
>people don't care if their only available internet is 6 mbits
ok city slicker

>>11839797
Not that anon, but I have my doubts that Starship would meet that $2M goal at least at first. However, it would still be a substantial improvement over all other rockets if it can be cheaper than $400M per launch.

why arent there any square rockets instead of round rockets

>>11839807
Round rockets have less drag than a similarly sized square rocket. Also, round rockets are easier to make unless you're German with customers from Libya.

>>11839807
Square rockets would only work on Flat Earth

>>11839807
We live in an atmosphere.

>ksp isnt real

>>11839800
No it doesn't.
>>11839805
I think the people suggesting it is gonna cost hundreds of millions of dollars per launch are pure doomers. 20million/launch is more realistic, at least for the early years.

>>11839829
The Delta III was such a weird rocket. A series of compromises based on old hardware having to mesh with new hardware.

>>11838602
Needs more struts

>>11839803
people in underserved areas won't bother with internet if its gonna cost them an arm and a leg

>>11839777
price may not be the only thing to care about but it certainly is something to care about
the question is a simple yes/no

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU6KogxG5BE

3 more hours till Starlink launch live feed

>>11838753
Ridem' cowboy

>>11838602
I have a question /sci/

Imagine that elon musk puts ion engines in starship.
Would it be possible to power it by humans pedaling dynamos?

literally transferring human energy into thrust , by generating electricity for that ion engine(so it wouldn't be needed to get a nuclear reactor weigth since humans themselves would create the electricity(and they would need to do exercise anyway)

So it's possible or a retarded idea?

>>11839843
There is only one provider where I live and they suck dick, get internet and a small cable package through them but service drops at night sometimes without warning, or lags so slow it's unusable. They really hate streaming too.
I would welcome competition of any kind by this point, Starlink or otherwise.

>>11839855
sounds like a good idea to me, just ship up lots of energy drinks weith them

>>11839836
>I think the people suggesting it is gonna cost hundreds of millions of dollars per launch are pure doomers. 20million/launch is more realistic, at least for the early years.
The main hang up would be the refurbishment costs which are always tough to estimate. The first couple of launches might break $100M each as SpaceX does detailed refurbishment to make sure that the technology works, but I can see the costs going down easily like with Falcon. The $400M figure is the point where Starship wouldn't be as cost effective per mass of payload compared to the Falcon 9 (assuming a 100t to LEO capability).

>>11839855
It's possible, but ion engines produce very low thrust and are very electricity hungry so such a Starship wouldn't get anywhere fast. The crew would most likely risk dying from starvation before their craft gets to its destination.

>>11839860
Now you are getting it.

>>11839871
>It's possible, but ion engines produce very low thrust and are very electricity hungry so such a Starship wouldn't get anywhere fast. The crew would most likely risk dying from starvation before their craft gets to its destination.

But it would be able to get a hell of a lot more people if it only needed a single chemical engine and small tank for landing nad the rest for people pedalling themselves into mars.

I mean this thing is going to have 100 people , remove the tank and chemical engine needs and you can probably take it to 200.

Imagine 200 retards pedaling themselves to mars
Some of the big ion thrusters seem quite powerful

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

Seems like a crazy idea but in every medium humans used animal or human power to move , minus air because you need to hold your weigth to keep flying.

But in land and water the first ships veihcles were human or animal powered, space seems to be kind of the same.

>>11839859
depends on how much of a competition starlink poses
if the price is 10x above what your current provider is charging, i doubt you'd bite, that's why the question is being asked

>>11839711
what the hell is with all this deflection on a simple question?
the answer is probably not, at least not at first
the more interesting follow up question is how much the difference in cost is and if the cost/value balance is favorable

>>11839836
I unironically expect SS and SH combined to carry a marginal unit production (not launch) cost of under 100m dollars. They would have to go looking for ways to increase costs to get much over that considering its production advantages. If they ever fly it in partially or fully expendable configurations, those should still be the second and third most price efficient vehicles to orbit by a long shot.

Dragon and HTV

What to do while waiting 3 hours for the launch

>>11839933
drink kofe
t. kofe cdrinker

>>11839922
can't wait for the go-pro footage

>>11839933
Lift weights and change your daughter’s diaper

>>11839933
Play KSP or Universe Sandbox.

>kerbalism with RO config
>basic shit like thermometers and barometers can be built into avionics directly instead of needed more parts everywhere
>experiments take time to do and run automatically whenever conditions are filled, so you dont have to click on them every time you go over new biome and now there's actually reason to make satellites that can survive long enough to run experiments instead of dying as soon as you finish clicking everything
holy shit this is so much fucking better than stock

was kapustin yar as much of a shitpost as white sands was

Live spacewalk
>https://youtu.be/KlK_bLnqmas

>>11839933
have sex (with me)

>>11839884
I know this is intentionally retarded but that still makes it retarded. The panel bank to power everything to keep these people alive is orders of magnitude more powerful than the people themselves and its mass:power efficiency is even more disproportionate. So it would be better just to use a larger solar array and much less people, but it would still suck because big tin cans carrying payload and people accelerating with ion thrusters is absolutely stupid.

>>11839962
>>11839970
Camera from the 70s still hasn't been upgraded. LMAO

>>11839941
>I see a no... I'm pushing the button, and I see a 'no SD,' that means, do I need that to record?

ELON YES
JEFF BTFOZOS

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1276568125060689924

>>11839983
So why they can't deploy a rapid roll solar panel that works like a plane banner behind the ship connected by a cable?

>>11839989
cue Bezos calling up his payroll patent trolls in absolute fury

>>11838625
That's one beautiful machine

>>11839986
oh no no no

>>11839871
>assuming a 100t to LEO capability
why does everybody do this, elon has indicated pretty much everytime that he was asked that it will be 150 tons to leo
Also I agree, the first couple launches will be pretty expensive, but I think it is reasonable to say starship will be able to reach 20 million per launch by the tenth or so launch.

>>11838647
You can see on nasa eyes on the solar system software the programming some of the probes had for example new horizons due to it's distance had everything pre programmed which is why they freaked out with computer crashes a few weeks before the flyby.

Here is the new horizons flyby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f19tTPlUoqc

you can basically see the programming this missions had and it's pretty much automatic in the modern probes.

it just occurred to me how cool this is

>>11840029

Watching this launch with my mom

Starlink scrubbed for today, next attempt tomorrow. Reason yet to be known.

>>11840061

>scrubbed
noooooooooooooooo

>>11840029
They just went from outside to inside the ISS and you saw it live in realtime.
Yes anon this is cool.

>>11840029
>>11840037
What's the big red tube for, venting dryer lint into space?

>>11839289
>Democrats getting anything productive and beneficial done

lol no

Fuck you SpaceX. You were supposed to be fast and agile but instead you postpone and scrub every launch a million times. I just don't have any expectations anymore.

>>11839776
*bloops in dial-up*

>>11840061
Source?

>>11839289
>Just print money and make the state pay for it lmao

This is your brain on keynsian economics

>>11840098
We must develop the technology to destroy clouds.

>>11840106
Sensor malfunction

>>11840111
Dare I say, nuke em?

>>11840115
>"Alright stream, there appears to be a pesky cumulonimbus on the way threatening to scrub today's launch, aaaand there goes the SpaceX interceptor crafts to bomb it into submission, launch still on."

>>11840111
>>11840115
>>11840123
Any way we can use lasers to disrupt clouds formations?

>>11838280
How much fluoride is available on teh moon? Aluminum electrolysis uses cryolite, a sodium aluminum fluoride mineral as a flux. Cryolyte is a rare mineral, so it's pretty much all made synthetically now, but it does require a source of fluorine to make.
Aluminum production also requires a modest amount of carbon for the electrodes in the refining cell.
>>11838292
Bauxite is a product of weathered clays, which are themselves a product of weathered feldspar minerals. The moon hasn't experienced weathering so far as I know, so lunar aluminum refining is going to have to develop extra processes to isolate the aluminum oxide directly from the feldspars.

>>11840106
Also confirmed by SpaceX on twitter: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1276575800687382528

I was wrong about attempting tomorrow, my bad.

hydrogen/fluorine rockets WHEN?

>>11840147
When a civilization that's both expansionist and suicidal happens.

>>11840111
It wasn't weather this time.

>>11840155
What was it then, birds? BEES?

>>11840147
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1415/why-are-hydrogen-fluorine-fuels-not-used-for-rockets-more-frequently

TLDR; Too expensive to produce, maintain, work with and the benefits disappear once you have to work around those contraits.

>>11840162
squirrels chewed the wires again

>>11840162
Boeing sniper was spotted by the Boston Dynamics guard dog.

>>11840167
You'd think Zeus would have chased it off.
>>11840174
...unless he was distracted by spotting the sniper. Armed Zeus when?

Martian rover/lander museum on Mars when?

>>11840230
when there are enough people on Mars to justify a museum existing

>>11839289
The military wants Starlink to exist, it's safe

fusion rockets when bros

Gas-core atomic rockets when?

>>11839289
>democrats trying to ruin things so they can steal government money
Wow i am shocked.

>>11840264
God Vox is such blatant shit. I thought they'd gone bankrupt already, or am I thinking of a different digital tabloid rag?

aneutronic fusion when?
muon catalyzed fusion when?

>>11840266
gawker, probably
the one that got sued into oblivion by hulk hogan

>>11840264
>has designed and flown rocket planes competitively
>"no background in science"

antimatter rockets when?
black hole starships when?

>>11840274
You made a mistake assuming Marxism–Leninists ever cared about "facts" or "reality". They don't, they literally have an INGSOC/Oceania tier view of society.

>>11840272
Oh yeah, that's the one. They all bleed together for me.

I think Artemis is sufficiently insulated from the political changeover that's likely going to occur after January. The fact that the Canucks also are pushing for a contract makes it an even more certain prospect that Biden will probably keep pushing Artemis forward. While, its likely that we will lose Brindelstein in the switchover, he's done enough good work that the Dem's can easily find a successor that would fit his MO. Honestly, Biden maybe the best dem presidential candidate for Artemis's completion in that if he only goes for a single term(which there have been some rumblings about), then ending it with Americans on the moon must be a seductive prospect for him. I don't expect it to be cancelled considering its a pretty cheap project in comparison to the rewards it gives.

I'm especially happy we got the contracts out for Gateway completed before the switchover, those should chain us to getting back to the moon.

>>11840264
>no background in science
those rocket's didn't count apparently

>>11840279
they aren't Marxism–Leninists
Marxism–Leninists beat US in everything but moon landing

these are baizuo champagne socialists and/or self-proclaimed Maoists

>>11840302
here's my worst case scenario:
Biden—with a proven apathy for all things space—begins his presidency by rejecting Trumpian stances on China and opening a more diplomatic dialog in which the CCP suggests that they'd be more lenient if American spaceflight was pushed towards """international and scientific efforts""" (ie cancel artemis, hamstring private space). Biden agrees because neither he nor his voters give a shit about manned spaceflight, puts out an executive order barring colonization until a firm international treaty has been established and uses it as leverage for something else.

>>11840334
The ones leading it are.
They are only using the trotskyites and maoists as useful idiots/footsoldiers.

>>11840230
Based /rover/ enthusiast

>>11840302
>>11840339
First woman on the moon would be a huge incentive for him and his supporters I bet.

>>11840371
What would happen if the first person on mars is a white man

>>11840371
the important part and real test of commitment is what comes after that which is sustainable human presence

>>11840365
>Fuck Prop-m
They see walkin
They hatin

>>11840365
:(

>>11840381
Thats what Gateway is for. If we put up a space station around the moon, congress will have to keep funding it or else justify to the taxpayers why they are throwing away a perfectly good space station.

>>11840339
I don't buy this scenario because of how pork-barrelled spending is on space already. I'm sure the at least the Texans, Californians, and Floridians would raise a massive stink in congress if the constant private space money stopped flowing into their states, never mind that all the non-launcher space contractors love the fact that Elon can throw a sat into orbit for dirt cheap and they don't get fucked by Boings autism. I see a status quo being taken by Biden mostly because as it right now everyone that has a voice in congress right now is benefiting from private space besides the orbital depot man.

>>11840396
nobody is going to stop private space from throwing satellites into orbit. It's manned spaceflight specifically with the intent of permanent presence on a celestial body that a lot of people see through the lens of American, nationalist imperialism which is at stake. Without that goal, there's no point.

>>11840408
This is unironically the answer. Just pretend he’s talking about a Mars colony, not just the USSF
https://youtu.be/mJEBgjQIekE

>>11840416
>it will carry American ideals into the boundless expanse of space
this is precisely what they don't want, anon

>>11840408
There's no American nation anymore and unless Israel declares Mars as their rightful clay the imperialists in charge aren't gonna give a shit. It's all Elon at this point

>>11840408
Sure, but honestly the people who call it to be shutdown due to it being "imperialist" or whatever other nonetheless don't matter. They don't have power in any form of the political decision making process that creates space policy. AOC can say memeshit as much as she wants, but she won't actually play a part in the formation of space policy. The actors who do play a role in space policy are all perfectly fine with the current status quo, besides Boeing, but they still stand to make buckets of money off of star liner so they have no incentive to push for a cancellation. I think we all forget that the Dems are still a pretty pro-business party, and that all the gender studies college professor op-ed's wont change the fact that the current situation is profitable for everyone.

>>11839336
Some Indian peasants in a field rediscovering the joys of rocketry
https://youtube.com/watch?v=pQu3pqOtMa8

>>11840426
>but she won't actually play a part in the formation of space policy
you say this now...
either way, the point is more that I think Russia and China are much more invested in beating America to aspiration spaceflight goals than the Biden administration would be invested in actively pushing for them to be achieved. These same aspirational spaceflight goals that are only actively being pursued due to Musk's autism and Trump's nationalist populism—there is no capitalist or humanitarian ideal behind it that makes it attractive to either the democratic voting base or the corporate lobbyists.

>>11840461
Thats why Gateway is so important, and why I'm glad its already been contracted out so we are likely to see it finished. Once we have gateway as a chain around the neck of congress we will keep doing moon things and that will necessitate more infrastructure and thus more funding. The trap is already being laid so we can't bail out of this like we did after Apollo, once it springs we will keep doing human spaceflight despite which political party is in power. And personally, I think Biden would at least get boots back on the moon, He does have some old school passion projects like with highspeed rail, I probably vainly hope that he has some nostalgia for the Apollo days aswell.

>>11840456
Oh shit, I've had this webm for a while but never knew the source.

>>11840486
I love the sound it makes and the low budget ignition system.

>>11839751
It's not NASA itself though. Congress mandates what's the launch vehicle will be.

>>11840473
I doubt biden can reliably remember his own name
any nostalgia was probably lost in the same place he forgot his pills

name 1 reason the pendulum rocket wouldnt work

>>11840539
Memes don't get to space

>>11840542
ummm???

>>11840548
Meme rockets don't get to space

>>11840497
only slightly lower budget than Soyuz ignition system

>>11840579
Isn't soyuz lit by literal giant matches?

The last soyuz launch will be sad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qziThjrLgVE&feature=emb_title

>>11840610
I thought being that close to a rocket would kill you from the intensity of the sound?

>>11840610
imagine the smell

>>11838648
>Source
brit/pol/

>tfw you realize why the shroud at the top of soyuz first stage is open
okay now THIS is ksp

>>11840583
exactly

>>11840641
Because they light the upper stage before separation?

guys
what if we just use the same rocket until the heat death of the universe?

>>11840678
luckily we'll all be dead before senator shelby controls this timeline.

>The rocket used for launch to the ISS carried advertising; it was emblazoned with the logo of Pizza Hut restaurants,[14][15][16] for which they are reported to have paid more than US$1 million.[17] The money helped support Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center and the Russian advertising agencies that orchestrated the event.[18]
based and pizzapilled

>>11840456
>>11840486
>even has a working parachute recovery
based af

>still dont get to sleep in 0g
FUCK gravity i want to be comfy

>>11840678
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

>>11840722
>>11840678
It’s funny looking at the family tree of rockets. A lot of currently flying tech can trace its lineage back to the 50s and 60s

For example, SpaceX’s Merlin engine uses components from both the massive F-1 engine which powered the Saturn V and the smaller H-1 engine, which powered the Saturn IB, and both of which flew in the 60s and 70s, but we’re first tested in the 50s.

The H-1 Engine was revised into the RS-27, and then the RS-27A, which flew until 2018 as the engine of the Delta II rocket.

Also something that’s cool is that the Merlin 1 was also derived from the RS-88 engine... which would later be switched to a new fuel and used as the Starliner Abort Motor.

So ironically Starliner and Falcon 9 have some commonality.

>

>>11838602
Why is there so much hype for Elon and SpaceX when ULA has been doing the same shit as them for years??

>>11840800
ULA doesn't land boosters and aim for mars you retard

>>11840800
>>11840801
Well ULA has outlined a plan to colonize the Moon and place a thousand or so people there, but seeing as they never do anything unless a government contract is available, I think it’s unlikely.

Still they’re great.

how would cockroaches fare in the iss

>>11838721
>>11838718
there's still time for the Shuttle/Centaur dreams/memes to happen
Starship/Centaur, baby

>>11840812
Cockroaches are probably faring just fine in the ISS right now, unless you mean turks

>In 1998, U.S. astronauts participating in the NASA 6 and NASA 7 visits to Mir collected environmental samples from air and surfaces in Mir's control center, dining area, sleeping quarters, hygiene facilities, exercise equipment, and scientific equipment. Imagine their surprise when they opened a rarely-accessed service panel in Mir's Kvant-2 Module and discovered a large free-floating mass of water. "According to the astronauts' eyewitness reports, the globule was nearly the size of a basketball," Ott said.

>Moreover, the mass of water was only one of several hiding behind different panels. Scientists later concluded that the water had condensed from humidity that accumulated over time as water droplets coalesced in microgravity. The pattern of air currents in Mir carried air moisture preferentially behind the panel, where it could not readily escape or evaporate.

>Nor was the water clean: two samples were brownish and a third was cloudy white. Behind the panels the temperature was toasty warm—82ºF (28ºC)—just right for growing all kinds of microbeasties. Indeed, samples extracted from the globules by syringes and returned to Earth for analysis contained several dozen species of bacteria and fungi, plus some protozoa, dust mites, and possibly spirochetes.

imagine the smell

what if we fix SLS hydrolox first stage by stacking the whole thing on top of starship?

>The initial rendezvous of the Kvant-1 module with Mir on 5 April 1987 was troubled by the failure of the onboard control system. After the failure of the second attempt to dock, the resident cosmonauts, Yuri Romanenko and Aleksandr Laveykin, conducted an EVA to fix the problem. They found a trash bag which had been left in orbit after the departure of one of the previous cargo ships and was now located between the module and the station, which prevented the docking. After removing the bag, docking was completed on 12 April.[51][52]

>>11840881
in english doc

>>11840872
Maybe the starship booster or in the payload bay of a caro starship.
>>11840929
Trasbag was stuck in docking port, Cosmonauts removed it, docking now orks.

>>11840806
ULA has a lunar colonization plan?

why did slavs never take the SRB pill

Apparently there’s a SRB fuel that gets 309 specific impulse

>>11840943
Because they aren't trying to subsidize their production of fuel for the military's missiles with orbital launches.

>>11840947
Lmao speaking of crazy isp, you reminded me about this thing that some anon posted a while ago.
>450 Isp monopropellant
Does this shit come from Willy Wonka’s rocket factory??

>>11840950
Does Russia not have solid fuel ICBMs?

>>11840964
>Does Russia not have solid fuel ICBMs?
They do have solid fuel ICBMs, though they also used liquid fuel ones for a long time because they wanted the extra performance. They don't try to subsidize the operating costs of the fuel plants with space, though.

>>11840961
>They still keep falling for the SSTO meme.

Literally make your vehicle half as tall, and stack one on top of the other. Both stages are reusable and can RTLS, but now you can place 10X the payload into LEO

Could Venture Star be viable if they figured out tanks?

>>11840985
Even if VentureStar happened it would be BTFO’d by even a partially reusable vehicle like Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy let alone Starship.

>>11840961
Reality is that both ESA&NASA and maybe ROSCOSMOS have some of the best rocket engineers out there, and these guys have been cucked for decades now because of politics&etc.....
Now spaceX has made those politcians look stupid and now these engineers can finaly start doing shit they dreamed about when they first got in to the business.

Or in other words, lots of people who were just clocking in for a fat paycheck now have to catch up because the "new kid" is making them look bad.

ESA will probably have a reusable rocket first, mostly french build because the french are top dog in esa.

>>11840994
It was made long before Commercial Crew program, if it was realized there would be no reason for US to finance Dragon, Falcon and Starliner, so no SpaceX.

>>11840994
Venture star would probably have been good for passenger transport, not for cargo.

>>11840964
Topol/Yars and Bulava, and some older experimental weapons.
US hasn't has liquid fuelled ICBM/SLBMs since the old Atlas and Titan designs,.
The Russians primarily still use liquid fuelled missiles, even in submarines. Even their new heavy land based missile is liquid.

>2020
>i am forgotten

>>11840961
>450 Isp monopropellant
I said it before and I'll say it again:
Mixing LOX an LH2 does not make a monopropellant, but a bomb.

>>11841029
It happens.

>>11840985
Chaney and republican elements in the Pentagon wanted it dead because it was setup by political rivals, fuel tanks were just an excuse to kill funding. It would have still never flown under the political climate.

>>11841036
But what about N2O/propane monopropellant?

>>11841029
When you're so shit you need a proton rocket and the escape system to barely reach orbit after being heavily slimmed down, you kind of deserve to be forgotten.

>>11841029

>>11841045
Looks like they have a pigeon problem.

>>11841043
I'm pretty sure that's exploding as well...
ClF3+Hydrazine sounds like an interesting hypergol that is totaly safe to handle.

hydrogen fluoride is the future

>>11841052
An engine doesn't work unless it can contain the reaction without disintegrating. Fluoridation is the only known technique for protecting metals against metal fluorine fires, and its not a coating that is robust against an aggressive combustion environment.

>>11841057
Metallic hydrogen is future.

>>11841052
>ClF3/Hydrazine propellant. Chlorine trifluoride was another of the extremely reactive and toxic oxidizers tested in the United States in the late 1950's. This was the highest performance propellant using ClF3. Methods of storing and using it were developed, and it found application in Rocketdyne engines for missiles and anti-ballistic missile interceptors in the 1990's. Hydrazine (N2H4) produced better specific impulse when used with ClF3 than the UDMH fuel commonly used in other applications.
>Specific impulse: 338 s. Specific impulse sea level: 294 s. Location: 1825.
>Optimum Oxidizer to Fuel Ratio: 2.77. Temperature of Combustion: 3,895 deg K. Ratio of Specific Heats: 1.33. Density: 1.51 g/cc. Characteristic velocity c: 1,825 m/s (5,987 ft/sec). Isp Shifting: 294 sec. Isp Frozen: 281 sec. Mol: 23.00 M (75.00 ft). Oxidizer Density: 1.830 g/cc. Oxidizer Freezing Point: -76 deg C. Oxidizer Boiling Point: 12 deg C. Fuel Density: 1.008 g/cc. Fuel Freezing Point: 2.00 deg C. Fuel Boiling Point: 113 deg C.

Besides burning up every material known to man that isn't fluorinated to its limit and liquid cancer, that's actualy pretty good.

>>11841059
Ok, then use an ablative nozzle and use the ablative material as a fuel as well.

>>11841065
You can do that I suppose, but why would you want a one time use engine at this point?

>>11841067
Just replace the nozzle-liner, not a big deal.
IDK, maybe use some asbestos-phenolic resin composite...

>>11841069
Both of those are rather flammable for fluorine.

Could you mix UDMH and pure liquid Ozone?

>>11841069
Nobody wants to deal with the green cancer flame shite. We got better stuff today.

>>11841072
Indeed, they are part of the fuel.
>>11841077
Why not?
It's the good stuff and you sure won't have issues with ignition or combustion instability.

>>11841079
>you sure won't have issues with ignition or combustion instability.
The Isp isn't even good. Why fucking bother? Nobody but China and India are bothering with hypergolics anymore inside the atmosphere.

Should I buy KSP?

>>11841082
Yeah it’s hella fun... not too much money either

>>11841082
>buy
????

>>11841082
Yes


eSA update next week.

>>11841081
At least you won't need any kind of ignition system.

I can't find a legit date and time for the next starlink launch, can anybody help me out? Seems like it's rescheduled. And what site reliably shows livestream covered launches? I hate it to chew through 20 pages every time bombarding me with cookies who can't write a date and a time in a single sentence.

>>11841101
they will most likely focus on gps-iii, a much more important payload than starlink, and get that out of the way before launching starlink afterwards

>NOAA to purchase weather data from commercial satellites
Where would we be without government backing of so many private space companies?

>>11841101
just check spaceflightnow

I just realized that we live in a timeline where Starship may fly before New Shepard carries people

>>11838774
>3rd world overpopulation
Why are developed-worlders like this?

>consumes 80% of the world's resources
>you know what? all those other people are overpopulating!

>>11841128
Which will fly first?:
• SLS
• Starship demo (orbital or suborbital, but it has to be a complete mockup)
• ANY Blue Origin rocket, but it has to be orbital
• Vulcan

>>11841131
It’s called racism.

>>11841137
sls

>>11840806
okay retard
>>11840936
yes and it involves expendable boosters
>>11841051
it's a new type of heat shield material
>>11841101
the youtube stream which I left open says live in 2 days, June 29 3:35PM CDT (my local time)
>>11841137
not SLS, but probably 2 3 4 1, with a possible swap of 2 3 and 4 1

>>11841137
sls, starship, vulcan, then BO

>>11841147
>space tourism, space manufacturing, asteroid mining
>expendable launch vehicles

>>11841140
SLS FACTS!:
•Originally slated to fly in 2016, got pushed back to 2017, 2018, 2019, then 2021
•Currently most aspects are already fabricated. Orion ready to go. ESA upper stage ready to go. Hydrolox stages mostly ready to go. SRB’s ready to go (I think?)
•Adapters that connect stages are still being fabricated (It’s been 9 years and that shit isn’t ready yet.........)
•Will most likely be slipped to 2022. Jim Bridenstine has already expressed interest in choosing other companies for many of the flights SLS is scheduled for.

STARSHIP FACTS!
•Chaotic time schedule, many unknowns
•Being constructed by an Autistic Billionaire who keeps a tight schedule
•Already received funding by NASA to bring astronauts to the Lunar surface

I would say Starship has a better chance of at least having a test flight before Artemis I. I suspect Artemis I will slip to 2022 and Elon will fly Starship before that- might even land on the Moon. Sorry for the reddit spacing it was the only way to separate out this stuff

redpill me on staged combustion and why russian engines always look like such a clusterfuck

>>11841165
That's not "reddit spacing".

This is "reddit spacing".

The phenomenon allegedly stems from the necessity of pressing the Return key twice to insert a single new line character on that site.

hey guys, anyone know what kind of bird makes this nest?

>>11841183
Russian engines are actually quite fucking beautiful imho.

>>11841183
why does boing use ruski engines from 50 years ago?

>>11841137
Starship

>>11841187
They’re unironically cheap as fuck and are unwilling to make a new US engine

>>11841147
1000 people in space in 30 years? And still relying on fully expendable rockets? That is pathetic.

dreamchaser getting thermal protection system tiles
flight is scheduled for next year

>>11841198
Apparently they don’t plan using “expendable rockets”. That image is edited.

I’d post the original but posting files from my IP is blocked

>>11841203
*drops some foam on ur tiles*

>>11841204
Oh you're the blocked guy. Still, 1000 people in space 30 years from now, is pathetic. We should at least have 100,000 people at the very minimum on Mars by then, ideally 500,000, with another 5000-20000 on the moon.

>>11841137
Starship, Vulcan, SLS, New Glenn
Vulcan will definitely be the first of these to reach orbit.

>>11841203
>has modern tiles elsewhere on the vehicle
>still using shuttle era quartz over foam primarily
Why are they like this

>>11841187
Because they are still the best engine ever created

>>11841209
Oh yeah I mean starship can put that many people up in a month or so. But still, beggars can’t be choosers. I mean it’s good to know that SpaceX isn’t the only one with colony plans.

Also what’s the minimum amount of people needed to restart humanity? I heard it was 50 as a bare minimum with social engineering, and 500 if you want regular male-female couples.

>>11841131
We don't shit in rivers, (((Steinberg.)))

>>11841236
>beggars can't be choosers
True, but as you mentioned we do have SpaceX which has much grander plans then ULA

>ariane still exists
for what purpose?

>>1183857
Hydrogen peroxide is shit for the purpose of doing long turn surface stay missions, though. The whole advantage of using nitrogen tetroxide is the fact that it's storeable basically forever, whereas hydrogen peroxide decomposes over time. Also, hydrogen peroxide is actually a worse performing oxidizer than nitrogen tetroxide, so there's no advantage except in terms of toxicity for the people handling it on the ground.

>>11838609
The OP has looked like that since december 2018, when this was the SpaceX water tower/Hopper watch thread.

> FACT : 100 years from now the POWERFUL and MIGHTY SLS PROGRAM will still exist with the maiden flight scheduled for 2125 (tenative)

>FACT: SLS will have successfully completed TWO tanks by the year 2120 demonstrating the full might of american defense contractor engineering.

>FACT: Disgusting anti-american african company SpaceX will CEASE to exist operating on earth by the year 2120

>>11838652
>an organelle that is powered by beta radiation
>beta radiation can pass through centimetres of flesh before attenuating
This won't real.

>>11841262
>FACT: Disgusting anti-american african company SpaceX will CEASE to exist operating on earth by the year 2120

Based Martian SpaceX

>>11841250
Europe wants their own SLS.

>>11841176
Staged combustion doesn't waste any of the fuel's potential energy for thrust just spinning combustion chambers at the cost of being more complex, which is intrinsically more expensive. Russians never figured out how to build a large combustion chamber that had stable combustion dynamics (this remains a very hard problem to this day), so they just skipped it altogether with clustered chambers running off of the same set of pumps.

>>11838787
>The issue with small populations is inbreeding, wich results in birth defects.
Actually the real issue with small populations is the relative genetic homogeneity that arises that weakens the immune system. If 100 people inbred with each other for many generations and simply let the ones with deformities die, eventually the deleterious mutations that existed in the first 100 people would be removed from the gene pool and the remaining population would be healthy, though they'd all look similar and have VERY similar immune system profiles. All it would really take would be for one of the people to contact a novel virus that was able to defeat their immune system, and everyone could be killed, because everyone would react just as poorly to infection.

This is exactly what happened with cheetas. The ancestors of modern cheetas actually evolved in north america, and a population of them moved across the land bridge with asia during the ice age all the way down to Africa, where they remain today. This migration took generations, and along the way the population was reduced and the gene pool shrunk, until only a few dozen animals actually moved into Africa. Don't think of it as a single tribe of cheetas moving to Africa very slowly, just think of the areas of land connecting Africa to Asia being on the fringe of the fringe habitat of a widely dispersed population of cats, which were going extinct locally in areas farther north and east.

>>11841307
Cont.
Anyway, only a few cheeta cats were in Africa when the climate shifted and made it easier for them to survive there, causing their population to grow. These cheetas were probably fairly closely related to begin with, for example two dozen animals that all shared the same great grandparents. Their initial population boom would have stalled a few generations later, as so much inbreeding would have begun to form offspring that were either deformed or completely unviable. A few generations after that, however, the lucky ones that were born healthy, or even with advantageous changes (like the long and lanky body proportions that allow cheetas to sprint so fast), were able to keep the population up enough that after all those bad genes were eliminated the remaining animals could pretty much inbreed freely without the classic symptoms of inbreeding popping up.

This did have a major catch though, which is that modern cheetas are very genetically similar, to the point that a skin graft or organ transplant between literally any two cheetas will be accepted with no issue. If cheetas were people, they'd look like a population of clones, with every member more genetically similar to any other than two normal siblings of the same parents (and only a little bit less related than identical twins).

>>11841307
Reject flesh. Embrace steel and logic.

>>11841307
That’s actually a pretty cool fact about the deformities eventually falling out of even an inbred gene pool. I didn’t know that.

In a truly dire situation, like let’s say NASA is given just five years before the Earth goes kaput, would genetic testing for “diverse genotype” individuals help out? I can see sending a bunch of frozen embryos too.

>>11841310
There’s also an “American cheetah” fossil lineage known as Miracinonyx but it may be unrelated to actual cheetahs

>>11838692
>>11838712
>>11838730
The KSP realism modding community is actually pretty extensive, it just crashes more often.

The KSP physics engine uses real world physics, it's just that the scale of the "solar system" is scaled down to fit in memory better, and the planets are also scaled differently, as are the forces like gravity, and the specific performance and mass of the parts.

however, it holds up pretty well, if you can translate it.

>>11841403
sorry, forgot trip

What’s the general assumed mass ratio of RP-1 fuel tanks?

>>11838647
>>11838654
>>11838647
>>11838654
I worked on controllers that went into space. I didn't write any of the actual opts instructions, but I worked on a team that wrote a lot of the stuff that lived right above the hardware.There wasn't a ton of difference between what I did and the instructions so I know a little about it. The instructions were very low level, low abstraction "programs" that would be better described as routines that could vaguely talk to each other (which is there my team came in) but all decision making was really about how to call home, check power, radio tuning, antenna "steering". They had no intelligence, and a very short decision tree.

>>11841465
Literal boomer

>>11838889
If Starship reaches its optimistic goals for launch economics, it will literally be cheaper to put something into orbit using Starship than it would to use a space elevator. I'm not even memeing.

>>11838930
>>11838934
Biomass burning for energy is unironically the worst thing humans have ever done

>>11839336
Nah, that was spaceflight's Pikaia moment.

>>11839617
The MOTHER
FUCKING
A
J
TWO
SIXTY

Biggest and baddest solid piece of shit to ever BRAAAAAPP

>>11839800
Are you gonna refuel Starship on the way to orbit? lmao

>>11839855
That's a roundabout way of creating a chemically powered thruster, anon.

>>11839918
I doubt elon would ever do expendable starships, considering the turnaround rate will literally be several hours. Even if the turnaround rate ends up being a day or two for each starship with 20 million per launch, that'd still be insanely good.

>>11841147
>it's a new type of heat shield material
They should actually try seagull shit. That shit probably would withstand atmospheric reentry and not come of.
Those fuckers shit a mixture of paint of paint, superglue and unobtainium , I swear.

>>11840098
This anon has never experienced the era that led to the creation of the "FFFFFUUCCKKINGGG LAAAAUUUNCCCHH" smug rocket cat image.
One delay is nothing. Try three scrubs of the same vehicle, one at T-0 seconds.

>>11840130
The Moon has alumina on the surface (aluminum oxide crystals). In fact a double digit percentage of the lunar surface seems to be alumina. You're right about needing carbon and fluorine regardless, and the Moon has little carbon at least, I dunno about fluorine.

>>11841581
Yeah expendable starship seems like such a tempting and appealing idea, but Elon should commit to rejecting it. By bringing back the lifter it will be more cost beneficial in the long run. I’m just worried about the boosters failing to land (or starship for that matter). I mean should we really go in to this expecting both stages of Starship to have a perfect 100% success rate? The booster failing to land would be sad, but an actual starship (especially with crew) failing to land would be so catastrophic

>>11840147
>hydrogen meme fuel
>oxygen's abusive rage-aholic step father, fluorine
>my metallurgy weeps
>my exhaust is made of bone hurting juice
Hydrofluor engines don't exist because jews want our souls pinned to Earth

>>11840276
Simply interpret the singularities that relativity gives you at quantum scales as being real things and every engine becomes a black hole engine.

>>11841588
>I mean should we really go in to this expecting both stages of Starship to have a perfect 100% success rate?
we should suspect a success rate similar to the success rate of commercial airliner flights today, which is elon's goal

>>11841250
>>11841285
they are hastily turning it into stubby Falcon
I don't think Ariane 6 will be a long lived design as it is with SpaceX and BO as a competition as they are 10 years ahead already

>>11840618
You need to be dozens of meters away for that, not hundreds like this guy.

>>11841573

>S-IVB on top
>AJ-260 on bottom

Would it have been safer than the Ares-I?

>>11840610
>twigs in the trees vibrating from the sound
this dude has no inner ear cilia anymore

>>11841599
pic

>>11840773
Saying that Starliner and Falcon 9 have commonality for those reasons is like saying that Raptor has commonality with the AJ-10 because they both use round nozzles.

>>11840975
Based. Fuck SSTO.

>>11841608
>Regular core
>Extended core
>Stubby Core
>Center Stubby Core

Why are they being retarded just choose a preset size of core and make

>Center Core
>Booster/Standalone

Variants like SpaceX. Also cmon guys you built IXV how hard is it to place a heatshield on top of your second stage and a parachute at the bottom and landing legs that fold out over the heat shield.

>>11841012
Why do people believe this fucking meme?
There is no benefit to SSTO for transporting passengers. Zero. None. If anything, all you're doing is risking people's lives by placing them into a vehicle made of super thin carbon ceramic sheets in order to get the >95% propellant mass ratio (with hydrogen fuel no less) that lets it scrape into an Extra Low Low Earth Orbit.

>>11841043
Also a bomb.
The thing about monopropellants is that they either get shitty Isp compared to bipropellants, or they are high explosives. This is because if the monopropellant chemical is not tightly bound, it will be very temperature and shock sensitive and will be triggered to decompose via the energy of other molecules decomposing. However, if a monopropellant chemical is tightly bound, that means it already has strong bonds, and since the energy released in a chemical reaction is basically just the difference in bond strengths in the reactants vs the products, this means that the tightly bound chemical won't release much energy per unit mass compared to a chemical reaction where you can keep the reactants separate until you're ready to mix them.

This dynamic of bond strengths is why we use hydrazine as a monopropellant instead of azidoazide azide. The former is stable until you catalytically decompose it into nitrogen and hydrogen gas, the latter seems to detonate pseudorandomly.

So, besides post-Apollo bodget cuts, what would have stopped a NASA from using a Nova/Saturn C8 with a nuclear 3rd stage for a manned Mars flyby mission?

>>11841038
I was a kid when I watched this thing reenter on tv. Glad to see it went nowhere, like basically everything in spaceflight other than SpaceX stuff.

>>11841059
Fluorinate it and fluorinate it and fluorinate it and fluorinate it and fluorinate it and fluorinate it and . . .