/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12185720
First for OP is a max faget.

>>12185765
OP here, why? Are you the
>page 9
poster? Not sure why you would complain about having a new thread before the old one has been dead for like a week.

>>12185774
Nah just wanted to make that joke.

>>12185781
oh I see, fair enough

>>12185781
Fair enough anon, you're alright.

>>12185781
lmao

Surely there must be a more efficient way of using nuclear reactions than a nuclear pulse drive right? I feel like 90% or more of the energy is literally wasted.

I'm in a zoom meeting with Zurbuchen right now. He just said they secured more funding for planetary defense against asteroids. The budget has been tripled

>>12185800
Good luck absorbing the other 90% without exploding.

>>12185800
From daddy Zubrin himself.

>>12185808
What's his zoom contact data? I have some questions too...

>>12185812
>continuous fissile detonation
Is this even possible? Sounds hard to sustain.

>>12185800
It's much less than 90% because you can shape charges to direct the blast toward the spacecraft. But exactly how efficiently it can be done is classified because we don't want to tell other countries how to build casaba howitzers.

>>12185800
Why's that?

Remember to exercise and get fit, anons.

>>12185828
In principle it seems possible, but I doubt anyone would be brave enough to try it.

>>12185838
Where can I buy tickets to Gainz Station 13?

>>12185808
THEY ARE OPENLY SHITTING ON SLS OH MY GOD HAHAHAH Lori Glaze just, verbatim, called it a "nightmare of a vehicle that has been doing nothing but setting them back". Holy fuck
>>12185818
It's a closed meeting unfortunately, we are talking about updates to the large strategic science division

X37C When?

>>12185875
>Lori Glaze just, verbatim, called it a "nightmare of a vehicle that has been doing nothing but setting them back". Holy fuck
Nice to hear someone say it besides us.

>>12185879
>X-37D
>just Atlantis but with a coat of black spraypaint

>>12185808
Ask him why he dedicated his life to a surrogate activity

Could this be the one that finally gets Boca?

>>12185877
for what purpose?

benus cloud sample return when??

How can we create a colony from a compact package without meme technology?

>>12185899
>D S S S S S S
Even HAARP can't make a hurricane gain energy over land.

>>12185922
Winzip it

>>12185720
Pulsar Navigation needs large antennas and there is too much x-ray noise going on. So sadly, this won't work.
I don't know what the alternative is though, a deep space satellite network will certainly be too expensive to be realized by any of the space agencies.

>>12185883

>>12185922
Slaves that can be dehydrated and rehydrated

>>12185920
>benus
Mission logo found

I can’t believe NASA isn’t supporting Starship more. 100 tons to LEO and fully reusable with the ability to send people to mars? Wtf. Even if it flies in 2040, it’ll be a game changer.

>‘Well, we went on this long sea voyage, and we had everything except vitamin C.’ OK, great. Now you’re going to get scurvy and die—and painfully, by the way. It’s going to suck. You’re going to die slowly and painfully for lack of vitamin C. So we’ve got to make sure we’ve got the vitamin C there on Mars.
Musk knows something we don't

>>12185991
Launch from FL and grab some oranges on the way up.

>>12185986
They can't due to political restrictions by the congress.

>>12185986
can't fully back something that hasn't been proven yet
if starship ends up failing, you'll be among the first people to be yelling about tax payer money getting wasted

>>12185986
Starlink money > > > NASA money
and it avoids looking any appearance of favoritsm. (remember how that NASA guy tried to help Boing win a contract, but they were still too fucked anyhow?)
Just giving them money to develop lunar lander Starship is breddy gud. It's such an absurdly FUCK OLDSPACE design, and it would probably even work.
>>12185999
based and orange pilled
also, holy crap Anita Bryant is still alive

>>12185991
Norway has your back, as always.
Don't forget to bring tran as well. That's the really good shit for those long periods with NO FUCKING SUN.

Why is citrus so fucking hot bros?

>>12186037
Vitamin C not Viamin D you nincompoop

>>12186050
That shit I posted is primarily vitamin c with d added.
It's the stuff we've given to kids since the 50s or something. Tastes great.

>>12186050
Bro just bring some Sunny-D

>>12186037
I don't think lack of sun is going to be a problem in interplanetary space

>>12185920
>>12186050
VITAMIN V

>>12186057
If you're out on Titan or whatever, you might want some cod liver oil.

>>12186056
or (diet) mtn dew

So Elon said Starship update presentation in ~3weeks. We have SN8 with flaps on stand for cryo/pressure/static fire test this weekend.

Its very likely he's waiting for SN8 to do a 15km test then do a presentation. Though it might fail at landing, so we'll see.

>>12186059
NOW GET YOUR ASS TO MARS

>>12186076
or full stack with SH

>>12186076
No. He will test SN8 AT THE PRESENTATION

>>12186096
No, he'll do the presentation in freefall with Camel as backing band.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgxOEPlE8b4

>>12186096
"and now you will witness the lifting power of this fully armed and OPERATIONAL starship stack"

>>12186096
>elon why is it not flopping
>ELON

>>12186076
He said the presentation will have a SS that's the "final" design that will go to orbit. My guess is it will be SN8 with the nosecone.

>>12186213
my guess is it will be a render lol

>>12186213
Will SN8 have the final legs or just a little better ones than SN5&6

>>12186213
It will be a render. All the SNs right now are just fast prototype tests.

>>12186229
I suspect just a little better, but not the final design. The current leg design looks to be focused on "just absorb the impact". They've looked a bit fucked up after each landing- but I think they were designed that way. It is likely one of the big problems they are working on. Tbh I liked the 50's scifi wing/landing leg idea better. And the BFR was the fucking coolest in terms of landing legs

>>12186259
*ITS, not BFR. I think the ITS is the coolest

>>12186266
I like the 2018 Tintin rocket

>>12186259
I assume the problem of the wing-feets was that having the "shoulders" of the wings support the vehicle's full weight might have damaged the actuators there.
They've said the SN8 legs will be significantly longer than the previous ones, but they'll still just be crush-core flip out pegs, they've said they're moving on to a different leg design afterwards and I assume the final variants will look something like the legs of Moonship.

>>12186259
Yeah, the current legs are just something to make it not fuck up its skirt every time they want to do anything with it.

SpaceX general. Every time

>>12186295
Lol yeah let’s just talk about all the other spaceflight companies building a reusable super heavy lifter that is currently being built in a field in Texas.

>>12186295
this started out as the tin can watching general

spacex is in this generals DNA (dairaibounucleaic acid)

>>12186295
Let's talk about everything getting scrubbed instead, shall we?
Maybe we shall have a 2 minute SLS hate?

https://youtu.be/DdTYMry7fq0?t=74

there's no way they're getting a maneuver this complex and crazy right on their first try

>>12186295
Based

>>12186323
Indeed
https://youtu.be/L90SVqbK5Uc

>>12186318
>SLS
>"let's do the same thing we already did but start from scratch for some reason"
>"Think of all the jobs it'll create"

>>12186295
This is now a Russian rocket engines general.

>>12186323
But what if they do?

>>12186350
Well that would be neat.

>>12186350
would be cool

Which one was the better space transport system?

>>12186349

>>12186358
The shuttle. Buran never got to be a transport. It flew once, uncrewed.

>>12186358
Even the russians weren't crazy enough to use SRB's on a sidestack...

>>12186323
Why don't they just start up the engines at a higher altitude with a lower throttle? It'd give you way more margin than waiting until ~300m to get the rear end down and it wouldn't use up much more fuel.

They could then fly more maneuvers and light them lower and lower each time until they're going full blast.

>>12186358
The Shuttle was used, but at least Buran had the potential option of upgrades. I'd say they're tied.

>>12186358
only one of those built this

>>12186358
Buran's TPS came back so fucked up they gave up after 1 test flight. But Energia >>>>>>>>> SLS.

>>12186377
I was about to compare the development times of Energia and SLS, but both have/had the same duration of development. Energia is still better though.

>>12186358
They should have gotten to play together in LEO.

>>12186280
Ahh yes I like those. It’s a good use of the ITS design but more practical. I really really like the design of blue origin’s landing legs as well

>>12186391
this didnt actually is a shoop isn't it happen?

>>12186398
Looks like a shop, because the Buran looks more "crisp" than the rest of the image.

>>12186377
>>12186377
>Buran's TPS came back so fucked up they gave up after 1 test flight.
? I thought that the tiles the soviets used had A LOT less issues than the shuttle's. Something like only a few shattered tiles compared to shuttle's hundreds. Please enlighten me

>>12186323
That last second maneuver is fucking absurd lol. Godspeed I hope it works the first time and every time after that

>>12185849
Luckily we can just slam a bunch of Atlas Robots on The Moon. Then it becomes a matter of them singing "high ho" and building it from scratch.

>>12186323
What happens if 2 of the engines fail to ignite? Does it only need one to land in a worse-case-scenario? What the fuck happens if all 3 fail to ignite?? switch to vacuum engines and pray for the best?

>>12186406
You know its odd that people dont see how important spacex buying a boston dynamics robot is. Elon is apparently amazed at how fast robotics is coming along.

>>12186391
how much of buran was stolen from shuttle blueprints?

>>12186402
They smartly used a titanium airframe which means you had to worry much less about thermal expansion underneath the tiles, but the tiles themselves did pretty badly. http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-versvol-etatbouclier.php

Has some pictures of damage after the flight. It's a Russian site that tries to play it off but the damage underneath the left wing is really dangerous.

>>12186423
>What the fuck happens if all 3 fail to ignite?

>>12186423
It's called a suicide burn for a reason anon...

>>12186358
Buran could have potentially been better but it never got a chance so we have to go with the shuttle on this one.
Meanwhile Energia beats the living fuck out of everything that existed at the time and had the potential to become even better than that, for instance, if they had gone with the route of boosters that glide back to the run way.
Fuck the buran, it was literally a shuttle knockoff with a couple of extra bells and whistles, the Energia should have continued on as it's own launch platform.

>>12186423
Then they get footage for the blooper reel.

>>12186295
what cool, groundbreaking rocket is being built by ULA, or Boeing, or Roscosmos, or ESA, or Blue Origin, or etc etc etc that can can actively watch?
Other companies are boring and don't do weird shit, plus when they develop normal oldspace shit, they're extremely secretive of it

>>12186350
Oldspace BTFO forever if they do

>>12186435
A shame the ussr chased the shuttle meme
youtube.com/watch?v=b6GG8KHDjZk
This thing rules

>>12186440
ULA is a glorified tank manufacturer, Boeing is much the same but they also build the starliner as a side business. Roscosmos? They don't really build anything, the Russians in general sell Energia engines. Blue Origin? Well, they're kind of sliding into the Russian's slot of selling engines to ULA and maybe sidelining as a lander manufacturer.

So that leaves us with what? Electron? Antares? Fucking Ariadne launches?
No, SpaceX is the only company doing anything remotely exciting.

What happens if an engine with a vacuum nozzle is fired in atmosphere? Atmospheric pressure is pushing into the nozzle, but how bad is that? Just less otimal or a disaster

>>12186452
they just fired an engine with a vac nozzle on the ground for a test and it was perfectly fine

>>12186452
If it's a vacuum raptor intended for extreme reuse, the thrust produced is sub-optimal to say the least, but it wouldn't RUD the nozzle. If it was a vacuum merlin, where everything has been shaved down to the barest minimum thickness possible because all it needs to sustain is maybe 2-3 burns of x minutes total before the engine is thrown away for good, it would probably not end up so well.

>>12186430
>>12186433
>>12186439
I guess at that point it switches from a SpaceX product and becomes a boring company lithoship

>>12186429
I got to poke at a buran tile once, along with the anecdote that they had to go at great lengths to stop people doing that to the actual buran back in its days. It mostly looked and felt like a piece of weird styrofoam and could be easily dented with just a moderate push, but beyond that there was no need for any special care while handling it.

>>12186452
>>12186457
>>12186460

Even on the Raptor Vacuum test you can see a little bit of flow separation creeping up the edge of the nozzle

>>12186472
Yes, but is that the full sized bell? Doesn't look like it to me. Might just be the angle.

>>12186447
Hell yeah. And I see no reason why they couldn't have done it. The Buran proved they could land an unmanned glider, and the wing mechanism doesn't seem awfully complicated.

>>12186474
I always forget how big those fucking things are. Starship looks like a toy and my mind keeps tricking me into thinking the engines must be tiny if they're cramming six of them in there.

>>12186477
Staying under control until you can go subsonic would be the biggest issue I think. If you're separating around Mach 6 then you'd have to wait a while until you could swing out straight wings.

>>12186482
And 28 in the booster. Jesus, that thing is going to be ridiculous on liftoff.

>>12186474
You can count six of the seven segments before that big clamp ring, the seventh is obscured by the camera angle in the test shot video.
They're the same bell, they may end up implementing a slight inward turned lip as is done in the RS-25 to prevent any inside-bell separation.

>>12186493
All 28 (or how many) will be sea level versions

Mars is so cute! CUTE!

>>12186508
In the booster, yes. They're not exactly tiny either.

>>12186507
Do you think it has enough thrust to lift that fatass off his chair?

>>12186516
von Braun at the business end of Saturn V.jpg

>>12185886
>replace the OMS and SSMEs with some classified meme drive that allows runway SSTO
>replace the hypergolic RCS with either more meme drives or MET clusters
>use modern ceramic TPS
>"hey guys we fixed the shuttle :DDDD"
The collective space nerd boners would be enough to build a space elevator.

>>12186517
It's a hydromeme engine, so no.

>>12186562
Cheeky Talon :3

>>12186474
The current RVac nozzle is not the final length, they just have to have it that short so it doesn't tear itself apart due to atmospheric pressure differences

>>12186562
I would be more happy to see X-33/Venture Star reborn as an USSF vehicle or something like the Air Force has the X-37B and they won't give that to the Space Force despite their requests so...

>>12186587
>composite multilobe LH2 tanks
Can we not do that this time

>>12186587
Can we just not do any more hydromeme shit?

>>12186610
>>12186598
b-but same-day reflight!

>>12186587
I could see them doing an online TSTO fully reusable space plane thing. Like make the bottom AND top stages have wings but the bottom uses SSMEs and the top used J-2’s. Both stages fly back to the launch site, too.

Or perhaps have a venturestar with little winged boosters. But SSTO is retarded

>>12186627
SSTO isn't fundamentally retarded but it's retarded with current launch demand. If we ever get to the point where we need thousands of launches a year it could be competitive with starship.

In a WW3 scenario one Venturestar could singlehandedly dismantle any enemy nation's LEO infrastructure faster than they could launch replacement satellites.

>>12186587
is there any precedent in the space program of a cancelled project being revived years later?

>>12185879

>methalox linear aerospike powered SSTO
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>12186587
>itty bitty cargo bay
What advantage is conferred by this design over a simple cargo container like Cygnus? Seems like if the idea was reusability then it's kind of redundant with Cargo Dragon.

>>12186617
Starship+SuperHeavy is supposed to be able to do that.

>>12186657
Imagine filling a Starship with orbit-to-orbit hydrolox ASAT missiles and destroying an enemy nation's GEO infrastructure.

>>12186674
That's a scaled-down demo ship, the X-33. The full VentureStar would have capacity on par with the Shuttle since it was designed as a Shuttle replacement. See >>12186657

>>12186674
Technolgoy demonstrator, maybe this time with 3D CAD design and shit they can skip the tech demonstrator and go straight for the final product- Venture Star, the real deal.

>>12186587
we probably could build this thing now-carbon fiber is way more advanced, heat resistant alloys and cooling tech for the aerospike are way more advanced.

>>12186587
If starship wasn't a more practical design, this wouldn't be a bad concept
TSTO's just dominate in payload to orbit though, so expect space force starships, built specifically for them

>>12186401
>>12186398
can confirm its a shoop found the original pic

>>12186664
The chairforce funded part of the development for the upper stage raptor. Maybe they'll some day drop some top secret braaptor design.

>>12186683
>it turns out you can build venture star using nothing but stainless steel and raptor engines
D E L I G H T F U L

>>12186695
delightfully counterintuitive

>>12186692
>shuttle-mounted shuttle
>long-shuttle
>australian shuttle

>>12186690
Venture Star should have been handling everything Shuttle and now Crew Dragon do, decades ago, there shouldn't have been any manned spaceflight gap, no reliance on Russian access to our station

Capsules are inferior and should be for beyond Earth orbit use only, space planes for LEO and station access

>>12186695
>SN10 starts getting less tubular and more triangular
>by SN12 the fins start shifting around to be all on one side
>SN20 is SSTO with 150 ton payload
>SN30 adds landing gear with 140 ton payload
>suborbital airline service starts by 2023
>propellant depots in LEO come online in 2025
>regular service between Earth airports and the lunar surface by 2030

>>12186708
If you can do LEO refueling, spaceplanes should entirely replace capsules except as emergency reentry escape pods.

>>12186708
>tfw we could have had a somewhat shitty payload to LEO spaceplane with a launch cadence of a 1-2 flights per week, a metalic heat-shield, no SRB's, with a launch cost of sub 2k per kg in 2005
It's peak late 90's early 2000's spaceflight kino

>>12186675
Same-day reflight is an aspirational goal for starship but vertical pad stacking on an ocean platform seems like it'd be more expensive than just flipping a venturestar on its ass and refueling it.

How plausible would it be for a country to just try to set off Kessler syndrome in GEO as a "dumb" alternative to targeted satellite interception?

I'm glad the FAA seems snappy with all of SpaceX's testing requests. They easily could be the big bottleneck, but it seems like they're responsive at the same pace SpaceX develops at.

>>12186736
>How plausible would it be for a country to just try to set off Kessler syndrome in GEO as a "dumb" alternative to targeted satellite interception?
GEO is very, very big. Imagine a 1000km radius circle expanded into a torus twice the diameter of the planet. Given that geosync satellites by their nature do not move relative to the ground it's very easy to keep target lock on them.

>>12186736
the surface area of geostationary orbit is massive compared to LEO, so the area between satellites is massive, plus there's way less satellites in GEO than LEO

>>12186511
aaaaAAAAAA!! VERY CUTE

>>12186736
Condeeps, son. Propellant storage in the shafts. Tolerates massive loads on top.

>>12186766
The hardest thing would actually be payload integration on the platform. I can see the ocean platforms being used mostly for tanker flights or passenger service.

>>12186659
skylon?

>>12186736
>vertical pad stacking on an ocean platform seems like it'd be more expensive than just flipping a venturestar on its ass and refueling it
they will land super heavy back on the launch pad and then they will land starship ontop of it

>>12186771
Pre-packed from clean room in sealed containers, straight to clean room on platform for loading.

>>12186780
>Pre-packed from clean room in sealed containers, straight to clean room on platform for loading.
Standardized, sealed, payload containers, you say?

>>12186587
how long before i can 3d print one of these bad boys in my garage?

>>12186692
is this real?

>>12186791
IIRC RocketLab already proonts the fiber bodies for Electron and most of their Rutherford engine.

>>12186733
>It's peak late 90's early 2000's spaceflight kino

It really is, it feels like a natural evolution from the shuttle.

>>12186766
Propellant is NOT stored in the shaft

>>12186782
How much do space grade stickers cost?

>>12186746
LEO has more satellites than GEO but GEO has more large satellites. Going by the Union of Concerned Scientists satellite database I'm seeing a little over 500 GEO satellites with a launch mass >1 ton vs. 150 for LEO. Starlink makes up nearly half of LEO satellites these days and a lot of the rest is cubesat-tier stuff under 10kg.

>>12186813
Gas as well as oil is very much stored in the shaft of condeep platforms.
Which combined with how much load they can carry compared to dinky metal rigs makes them fucking perfect as launch infrastructure.

>>12186821
About tree fiddy. I think they're just regular stickers since the Cygnus rides in a fairing until it's in vacuum.

>>12186803
>venturestar wet workshop
FELLAS

>>12186825
Old school propellant is stored in the balls. New school propellant in stored in the shaft.

>>12186827
>wet workshopping a reusable SSTO spaceplane
There are bad ideas, there are stupid ideas, and then there's whatever your post is.

>>12186827
>wet workshop
Never going to happen. NASA is scared of doing any meaningful industry in space.

>>12186827
What's the point of a space plane then? Just shoot a big rocket up.

>>12186803
Gotta say I don't like that it doesn't have windows though...

>>12186856
you can't land it if it's just a regular wet workshop, duh

>>12186858
Again, that's an unmanned version. The renders of crew versions always showed windows.

>>12186862
These portholes on the top section?

>>12186866
No, that's another unmanned version.

>>12186866
Found a much nicer pic here

>>12186868
Well I honestly can't find anything but these unamnned windowless versions, are you sure there renders with windows?

>>12186773
Is the skylon actually viable or just a meme?

again no windows

>>12186888

>>12186896
Oh neat, I think that's supposed to be a solar moth rocket it's launching.

>canadian minister bains dodges questions about why starlink isnt getting approved in canada
I expect this to be happening in almost every country that Starlink wants to be an ISP in

>>12186903
What's stopping a Canadian from buying a Starlink antenna in America, and then bringing it back to Canada to use?

>>12186903
A lot of internet providers must be shitting their pants over starlink.

>>12186912
Probably the Canadian version of the FCC.

Did we ever figure out what the fuck was going on with this Lunar lander?

>>12186912
>>12186919
Canadian customs or border control agents wouldn't let them bring the ground station into the country if they knew what it was.

>>12186963
They're filling the pylons with concrete. I don't know how long it will take them to set. Maybe a couple of weeks at most? It's still warm in Boca Chica.

>>12186963

>>12186973
They can bring refrigerators to make it set faster if need be.

>>12186981
You don't really cool concrete to set it faster. It's going to take a long time to cure anyway inside those steel tubes.

>>12186903
gonna minecraft a bitch if the belrogus cartel blocks starlink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWf4iOMSPNc

>>12186963
gonna be one sturdy water tower

Launch windows for tonight:
>Antares Cygnus CRS: 9:16pm Eastern
>Falcon 9 GPSIII: 9:43pm Eastern

Ars Technica has some good GPSIII shots so here they are.

1/7

>>12187019
2/7

>>12187019
both scrubs

>>12187023
3/7

>>12187027
4/7

>>12187029
5/7

>https://www.youtube.com/m-yAcTujeRI
I don't get how they expect us to come up with any solution other than nuclear power for a Lunar colony. Maybe if beamed power becomes a thing, but Lunar orbits are highly unstable.

>>12187019
99% chance of scrub, since that's the current monthly theme of US spaceflight

>>12187032
6/7

>>12187025
>>12187034
Scrubtember is now Scrubtober.

>>12187033
>https://www.youtube.com/m-yAcTujeRI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-yAcTujeRI
fixed

>>12187036
7/7

>>12187033
>>12187041
A nuclear reactor on an orbital rocket makes a lot of people very twitchy. NASA is probably trying to tiptoe around the problem until they get nuclear-thermal and kilopower reactor test equipment up and running.

>>12187033
Beamed power? My gaydar is going off

>>12187033
beamed power from L1 would work but a nuclear reactor would probably be cheaper

>>12187033
>beamed power

>>12187053
How about a microfusion reactor, the miniaturised TOKAMAK? Ofcourse, depends on how stable it is and how it will behave in 0/low gravity.

>>12187067
why not antimatter?

>>12187067
Fusion is obviously the end goal. I think NASA is working on stopgaps so they don't have to deal with the bureaucratic and political headaches of lofting critical masses of U235 into orbit.

>>12187033
solar thermal steam powered retardinator

>>12187033
Give the astronauts hamster wheels

>>12187053
I don't know how many more years the F9 is gonna fly but it's gonna go down in history as the rocket that saved spaceflight and it looks damn good.

>>12187080
>I don't know how many more years the F9 is gonna fly
Right up until the last government contracts for it run out and switch over to Starship. So probably at least another ten years.

R E S U L T S

>>12187108
OVER

>>12186120
>the booster ignites, vaporizing the crowd in mere seconds. musk stands tall in the exhaust unaffected.
>one man rises from the ashes of the crowd
>it's Jim.

>>12186295
Also Musk

>>12186295
maybe other companies could try being less cringe and more based, like space x

>>12187120
The Father and the Son

That be how it be

What mods do I need for RCS and general spaceplane shenanigans in RO?

>>12187158
Is that another moon?

>>12187158
Wait.......how can

>>12187178
Always has been

>>12187158
Is this real or photoshop? I only ask because I'm not familiar with space history

>>12187067
How close are we really to fusion as a power source?
I saw a video from 2016 about some new project and I didn't even realize it wasn't uploaded this year til I checked the description. It seemed like there was some really promising stuff, and it said there was already a design for a working reactor that could be built in under 4 years. Are we actually just a few years from a power source to replace pretty much all others?

>>12187196
unless one of the meme companies has secret working fusion >30 years < 50 years

If there are photoshop anons, I tried for hours to try to turn zubrin into heath ledger's joker but my failures have been so comical i refuse to post them. i hereby challenge you

>>12187188
Definitely real. You can tell by the shadow on the Moon's moon.

>>12187158
The moon is facing the wrong way, or you're in the southern hemisphere

>>12187188
You should really take a closer look into the Apollo program. You'd be amazed what they were able to pull off on those later missions

>>12187172
Internal RCS to do RCS like pic related, although a bit time consuming since you have to place all the ports manually
B9 Aerospace has some really nice external RCS pods if you want to just slap them on and be done with it plus a bunch of spaceplane parts
OPT and NF Aeronautics have some nice spaceplane parts, but I have no idea if anyone has made RO configs for them yet
recently someone made some nice venturestare parts, but I'm pretty sure they don't have RO configs yet

>>12187214
>recently someone made some nice venturestare parts
oh shit, link me up

>>12187158
wait lol why is the astronaut photoshopped in? was the moon landing fake guys??

>>12187220
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/194713-min-ksp-18-mk-33-x-33-inspired-parts-for-ksp/

>>12187196
MIT's spun-out Commonwealth Fusion "startup". Yeah, we'll see.. like you said that video is almost 5 years old now and they just now stated intention to start building SPARC next spring. I'm skeptical.

>>12187214
Definitely looking for internal RCS if I'm going to be mucking around with spaceplanes. I made a cute Bell X1 but that's as far as I've gotten in RO. Cheers fren.

>>12187226
I'M

GONNA

COOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM

>>12187234

>>12187241
Is that KSP?

it's not real...

it's not real and it hurts

>>12187228
That's a shame.

>>12187266
yeah I'm browsing that thread >>12187226

>>12187226
godamn the whole thread is full of kino

>>12187226
based, first one to make x33 wet workshop wins!

>>12187301
>they took this from us
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>12187301
>panam spaceplane

don't give me these feels desu

>>12187301
>>12187311

>>12187317
>crystal spire orbital towers
>plane looks like a cross between the shuttle and a 747
As unrealistic as this is it sure looks cool.

>>12187317
polish airlines in space when?

>>12187322
It does spark the imagination better than bare trusses and foiled spheres.

>>12187329

>>12187329
Bare trusses have their own appeal as long as the bits attached to them aren't just foil balls and shitty, tiny capsules/habs. I can see an interplanetary freighter being mostly bare trusses as a good way to have lots of mount points for cargo containers.

>>12187333
>retropropulsively landing a gigaton sized nuclear pulse starship
imagine

>>12187335
This is fair. I'm just against the aesthetic because I associate it with small-thinking politically-friendly aerospace concepts.

desu the reality we got ended up being pretty kino too

>>12187350
>small-thinking politically-friendly aerospace concepts
pic related

>>12187234
>>12187241
SSTO PAWG HYDROBRAP SPACEPLANES WHEN

>>12187350
Where's that from? I'm pretty sure I've seen all the official nasa tug/nuclear shuttle art ever made and that is definitely not part of it

>>12187360
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns4.php#nuclearshuttle
https://www.wired.com/2012/09/nuclear-flight-system-definition-studies-1971/

>>12187354
>>12187350
I like the robotic swarm variant of this mission idea for harvesting icy NEAs. Imagine a fleet of these things coasting around gathering ice for hydrolox ISRU and their own propellant.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id--Beamed_Power--Solar_Moth

>>12187365
image for illustration

>>12187364

What's President Pence going to do with NASA once Trump dies of the coof and Pence beats Biden?

>>12187364
OK, this is epic

(although i'm still reeeing a little bit that they can't decide whether two tugs side-by-side are wider than the nuclear shuttle or not

>>12187373
DELETE THIS

>>12187375

>>12187373

>>12187375
Pence is currently in charge of the Space Council so probably keep everything in line with Trump's policies if it comes to that.

>>12187364
>>12187373
Anyone hear that? It sounds like a Senator running, and it's getting closer.

>>12187383

fuck KSP2, RO/RP1 having complete configs for Near Future/KSPIE/Waterfall/all the other cool mods when bros?

>you will never land on the moon in a spacecraft this kino

>>12187393
KSP2 is just gonna be an engine pack with base building and worse mod support, i've already given up hope

>>12187410
you worry too much anon, retain optimism. if it was truly godawful it would have released as early access already

/sfg/ hosted KSP2 nationstates server when?

>>12187410
But why would they do that though?
Especially destroying mod support?
>>12187430
Kraken bombs to wipe out entire planet colonies when?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQW_2qtBDfY
Northrop Grumman launch at 9:16 PM EDT

>>12187410
KSP2 will probably have infinite superior coding though. Imagine, a KSP that doesn't use 32 GB of RAM with mods installed.

>>12187451
More like Northrop SCRUBman, the October curse won't pass them by.

>>12187455
32gb ram + 80gb page file*

>>12187451
GPS3 launch scheduled for 30 minutes later, assuming everything goes off on time*

*LOL

Using Starship to build and fuel a ship optimized to going to mars using high ISP engines makes more sense than refueling the first ship with chemical fuel using tankers IF you're sending humans. If it's cargo then whatever. Really surprised Musk isn't reaching out to advanced propulsion researchers.

>>12187456
>>12187463
I trust Antares more than Delta Poor

>>12187465
NRLOL-44 keeps hot aborting due to issues with the rocket itself. Antares aborted because a woman pressed the wrong button. I think we'll at least see Cygnus deployed tonight.

>>12187464
Because they're all taking an infuriatingly long amount of time to get anywhere. A massive slow-drifting fleet of conventional Starships will reach Mars before any large magnetoplasma drive and it's power supply even get off the ground.

Metallic hydrogen SRB kickstages when?

>>12187375
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJEBgjQIekE

launch thread, up early because I'm a busy man
>>12187466

>>12187476
After the election.

>>12187450
Take-Two wouldn't have bought the rights if they didn't see a moneymaking opportunity. I know the spokesman guy who doesn't know what principia is says there won't be paid mods, but I don't believe him. KSP was just too niche a game for a major studio to pick it up if they didn't have shenanigans planned.

Hope I'm wrong. If I am I'll have mercy on you when I unleash my HULLO-inspired battlefleet secretly built underneath the oceans of Laythe on the /sfg/ KSP2 server.

>>12187381
lol imagine the sound of someone going through those tubes
>fffwoooop! Hey, what's up?

>>12187504
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2z3ZyGlqUkA
this but in space when?

>>12187493
Why are the sample crafts incompatible? the parts seem to load fine but it complains they arent there

>>12187512
Some of the Soviet early Salyut stations had space cannon weaponry

Wait, Antares and Falcon 9 are launching within like half an hour of each other.

>>12187514
Not sure what you're asking about, but when that happens to me that usually means the .craft was built on an install that had mods that you don't have on your version.

>>12187521
you mean scrubbing?

>>12187523
That's what I thought, but the Mk-33 mod says "REQUIRES NO PLUGINS OR MODS". Maybe the SampleCraft provided does require mods. Guess I can just build my own ship but I'm a lazy bastard

>>12187493
>/sfg/ ksp2 servers

imagine the autism

>>12187521
If they both get off the pad it will be a lovely birthday present.

>>12187512
>fish have their own wormholes
when will humans?

>>12187532
>/fit/izen joins the /sfg/ server
>tries to make Gainz Station 13
>somehow crashes the server spinning it up

>>12187464
>less than 0.1N/kW
Dude photon loops lmao.

HIGH POWER MPD THRUSTERS WHEN

Brap thrusters when

>>12187196
There is an ongoing project in France. 4 years or so to build and then we will see.
Plent of research papers on stabilisation and control of plasma.
Just look up TOKAMAK.

>>12187556
*Tape-based propulsion drive

>>12187560
Soon if you eat some beans.

>>12187563
That was the taped copper fart cone, much less efficient.

>>12186474
>Yes, but is that the full sized bell?
Yes, it's the same engine even. You can see the additional bracing bars near the exit of the nozzle in both images.

If Starship works like it's advertised, then would we see a return of wet workshops?

ELON NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1312175510244356096

>>12187593
Elon yes!

>>12187584
Probably not. Why would you waste a starship on a wet workshop when that same starship could bring a hundred modules to orbit?

>>12187593
What kind men they are.

>>12187593
Little bit of humanity is too much to ask for from libs.

>>12186991
Portland cement cures at the same rate whether it's exposed, underground, or even underwater. You're thinking of quicklime cement, which needs to slowly absorb carbon dioxide form the air in order to set. That's the shit that castles used to be built out of, and was one reason why nobody ever thought of just throwing 2000 people at the construction project in order to get it done faster; they could only go as fast as the rate at which the previous layer of masonry could set.

>>12187593
>Kim-Jong Un sends wishes for speedy recovery to Trump
>Journos want him to die
Strange timeline

>>12187619
Maybe the real dictators were the enemies we made along the way.

>>12187593
i'm scared, what if he doesn't bros? does NASA get cancelled? Will they keep Big Jim?

>>12187619
>Journos want him to die
Fellow under-rock-inhabitant here, do they really? Seriously?

>>12187622
Big jim is gone.
Even when trump doesnt die from corona and wins the next election.

>>12187630
Everyone loves Jim, he ain't going anywhere.

>>12187630
>Big jim is gone.
W-why? We like him, Trump likes him, what gives?

>>12187628
Yeah a bunch of judenpresse were gloating on Twitter earlier.

>>12187633
they dont love jim.

>>12187628
It really seems like many of them hope that from wading through the twatter cesspool briefly

>>12187634
Old space wants him gone.

>>12187634
entrenched interests ((oldspace)) and ((blue origin)) absolutely do not like jim

>>12187521
GPS launch from Canaveral
Cygnus launch from Wallops
There was even going to be a Starlink launch in early morning, but they pushed that off a couple days.

Bets on whether they scrub?

Redpill me on lenticular spacecraft /sfg/. Did aerospace engineers circa 1960 think flying saucers were real and they wanted to copy them?

>>12187640
>>12187641
Old Space can die, Big Jim is working and must stay.

>>12187622
President Pence

>>12187634
Boeing/Lockheed don't want him. So he'll be gone. Remember, Jim has the potential to scrap SLS if Starship completes orbital test.

>>12187633
>>12187634
If Trump wins, we get Jeff DeWit. If Biden wins we get Lori Garver (shudder) or some other bimbo

>>12187641
>>12187640
Is this because Jim fired Loverro over the Boeing lander?

>>12187067
>>12187071
Fusion is actually worse than fission until we have fusion reactors that can achieve really high Q (energy out vs energy input, if Q>1 the plasma is producing more total energy than heat lost over a given unit of time, if Q>5 the plasma doesn't need to be heated externally at all, just hold it at that pressure and the reaction sustains). We would need fusion reactors with at LEAST a Q factor greater than five in order to make fusion power a viable option for deep space, and we'd probably need reactors with Q>10 which also didn't weigh hundreds of tons in order to have a device that could produce thermal energy per unit mass on par with fission reactors.

It's a basic problem of the fact that both options work simply by being a source of heat that drives a heat engine cycle to generate electricity. A fission reactor core the size of a fire hydrant could EASILY produce a megawatt of thermal power for several years continuously before starting to experience actinide poisoning, which translates to ~2 million watt-hours of electricity. To get a similar amount of electricity for fusion is going to require a reactor that weighs dozens of tons at least, though it will only use a few grams of actual fuel. Fusion is simply NOT suited for any kind of low-mass spacecraft. We'd need to be looking at entire O'Neill cylinder scale orbital habitat ships with industrial modules with the capacity to go from rocks to rocket engines by the time the fusion reactor mass would be low enough compared to the total mass that it becomes the most viable option.

>>12187637
If you watch the senate hearing from yesterday, near the end he is praised for being well liked by both parties. They even mention the rocky start he had.

>>12187651
Shelby might actually have a stroke if that happens.

>>12187651
>Boeing/Lockheed don't want him.
Well I don't want them.

>>12187652
That's a good question, but we don't really know

>>12187652
loverro resigned iirc

>>12187659
Doesnt change the fact that he will probably will get promoted away to some other place where he cant help spaceX.

Live view of Antares pad:
https://youtu.be/h_kb-JKLuLA

>>12187653
The problem with fission is all the neutron spam which increases shielding requirements. There are fusion reactions that output almost entirely charged particles.

>>12187670
This one has mission control audio:
https://youtu.be/jNXejSNrb5I

>>12187653
megawatt scale fission reactors in space seem awfully far off,and your size estimation sounds bogus. The kilopower is only 10 kw and it's pretty beefy. non-tokamak fusion systems like SFS z-pinch or magneto-inertial could scale down pretty well for space applications. this is all waaaaaaaay off so whatever.

>>12187651
Big Jim will unite with SpaceX, working with Elon to create BigX, Boing will be destroyed and Lord Jim will personally sentence Shelby to death by incineration with a leftover RS-25 after he tears SLS apart with his bare hands.

>>12187681
This is the most realistic take.

>>12187657
this is true, though some oldspace fuckers are pulling strings in the campaign. Jeff DeWit left Nasa and reportedly didnt agree with Jim's policies. Now DeWit is COO of Trump's campaign, and reportedly favored to take over from Jim.

We don't know if this was worked out as a trade (if trump wins, jeff gets admin position as reward). likely though, oldspace actors and even bezos arent happy that they have to work to get contracts

>>12187196
REBCO superconducting tapes will let us build Q>5 reactors and put fusion-powered electrical generation capacity into the grid, probably before ITER gets tot he point of first fusion plasma experiments. I have no doubt about this. As for the space implications though, fusion as a power source in space falls apart in the face of fission, because both fusion and fission work to generate power simply by acting as a nuclear powered heat source which drives a heat engine which spins an electromagnetic field which pushes electrons through wires. Since the mass of hardware required to get a kilowatt of fission heat is WAY smaller than the mass of hardware required to get a kilowatt of fusion heat, fission is the way to go if you're making electricity, no question. Fusion reactors are simply way to heavy.

Of course, if we can get some other kind of fusion reactor working which can also be easily modified to serve as a means of direct propulsion, then that would be very attractive even if each fusion engine weighed a hundred tons. Some fusion designs which are based on using magnetic 'mirrors' to bounce plasma back and forth along a linear chamber may be suited for this niche; if we ever get one with Q>5 we could design it such that the fore 'mirror' is twice as strong as the 'aft' mirror, and behind the aft mirror there is a magnetic nozzle. To run the engine, we squeeze and heat the plasma to initiate fusion with Q>5, creating a burning plasma, and as this burning plasma exerts pressure on both of the magnetic mirrors some is able to escape by being pushed through the aft mirror and into the magnetic nozzle, which keeps it from touching anything solid as it expands and is hurled away at >500 km/s. Boom, you have a fusion plasma rocket with an Isp of ~51,000. TWR is not great but who cares, muh Isp

>>12187475
>A massive slow-drifting fleet of conventional Starships will reach Mars before any large magnetoplasma drive and it's power supply even get off the ground.
Starships don't drift slow though, they haul ass actually. They aren't brachistochrone fast but if it's within their delta V budget a chemical rocket stage will get you anywhere faster than the best realistic electric propulsion systems ever could. In fact even realistic fusion drives probably won't be as quick as chemical rockets when it comes to shit like going from Earth orbit to the Moon, or between moons of gas giants. High Isp anything really only beats chemical in situations where chemical just can't supply the minimum delta V to get to your destination.
Even if we had ten ton fusion engines we'd probably be best off using chemical propellants to at least boost to an eccentric Solar orbit from LEO to skip most of the "accelerating very slowly to a high top speed" part; just get to departure velocity so that while your weaker but efficient propulsion system is working you're at least making progress instead of spending a month with Earth too big in your window to block out with your thumb.

>>12187593
Trump must win

>>12187709
If he doesn't all is lost.

>>12187693
Direct energy conversion fusion is the real hotness. You generate alpha particles and can convert them into electricity very efficiently using a magnetic field. But you have to move away from D-T fusion to do that, since that is mostly neutrons and they don't care about magnetic fields. D-he3 fusion is harder but much cleaner, and there's some companies making rapid progress on it.

>>12187593
biden also wished trump well

this is a nothingburger that only psychos will care about

>>12187689
I just don't see Trump replacing Jim. There are no reasons to make a change. I highly doubt that slimy fuck will convince Trump to give him the job.

>>12187709
>>12187711
He's not going to win but it doesn't have to be the end of the world. Constellation getting gutted in favor of commercial crew was a blessing in disguise and there's always the chance that the inevitable budget cuts will fall mostly on SLS.

I'm not optimistic myself but they have a lot more options now than they did 10 years ago.

>>12187721
we can only hope

Wow, there is TWO rocket launches today. I can't wait for NEITHER of them to launch because space flight is a fucking meme and shit always gets scrubbed.

>>12187722
Reminder that Obama was very pro-CC and visited Elon and praised SpaceX. Space is still very popularly associated with JFK and is quite glamorous. We may actually see Biden lean into supporting space.

>>12187722
>Budget cut on NASA forcing NASA to rely on SpaceX/Starship to continue Artemis

is that an actual possibility?

or is congress to glued to their jobs program to allow this

>>12187726
SpaceX launched and landed two different types of rockets in the same day

This "Helicon Double Layer Thruster" looks cool.

https://physics.anu.edu.au/cpf/sp3/hdlt/how_does_it_work.php
>Power is required only for the maintenance of plasma and the creation of the magnetic field. In our current bench top prototype, 250W is sufficient to create several milli-Newtons of thrust. In space the solenoids that generate the 250 Gauss of magnetic field this requires we estimate could be cooled to 200K, reducing the resistance in the coils by a factor of 5 and representing a power consumption of a few 10s of Watts. Relative to other existing systems this constitutes quite a power saving and is well with-in the capabilities of solar panels. The 0.5sccm of feed gas represents a mass consumption of 160 mg/hr, so that a typical 5 hour burn would use 0.8g of propellant.
http://www.researchcareer.com.au/archived-news/testing-ground-set-for-plasma-jar-to-the-stars
>“The HDLT is also really cheap. It can use all sorts of propellants and it doesn’t use much of these. We’ve tested ten types of propellants and it’s worked for all of them.
>“The HDLT can also work with carbon dioxide. So with planets like Mars and Venus where you mostly have carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, you could refuel as you go. This is a great advantage because at the moment all missions require that you carry the propellants from Earth.
>“There are also no major issues with parts or erosion. As long as you provide the power and the propellant you can go forever. So with the right development this technology might get us very, very far… and hopefully back again.”

So ~1N/kW (tens of mN from 50W) with 200K solenoids, and ISRU with cheap inert gases. This seems like it'd pair really well with a plasma magnet sail and a 1MWe fission driven Brayton engine.

>>12187535
happy birthday

>>12187729
NASA's GDP multiplier is insane, something like 800%. Increasing their budget would probably lead to a net reduction in deficits.

>>12187729
I have no idea. You can expect to hear a LOT of congressmen claiming that it's impossible to launch Orion on a Falcon Heavy though.

>>12187728
They like the idea of it, just not spending any money on it.

>“Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned,” Obama said at the John F. Kennedy Space Center in Florida. “But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before.”

>>12187726
space flight is a fucking hard

>>12187742
Thanks anon

Official NASA is LIVE

https://youtu.be/tQW_2qtBDfY

>>12187750
>a virtual reality camera that will capture a future spacewalk, and more.

oh shi what

>>12187750
i really really hope we get to see a launch tonight

>>12187750
is this the rocket they named after that girl nasa disintegrated?

>>12187760
Yes

>>12187757
...fuck i might fire up my privacy destroyer aka oculus quest and look at that

>tfw got zucc'd

>>12187761
she looks cute with chubby space cheeks

That bitch kinda look like Michelle Rodriguez from fast and furious

>>12187760
there's a reason they were called Need Another Seven Astronauts

>>12187748
No problem bro. Make a wish.

This flight will NOT scrub. I just got off the phone with the jews in charge, they'll gonna let this one go.

stupid fucking lander progress report: first successful autonomous landing without any intervention has been achieved

Had to deal with an issue where orbits were skipping all over the place with timewarp enabled, finally figured out it's a bug with the KRASH code for starting simulations around other bodies and workaround is to either start simulation from kerbin/earth or just use the alt f12 menu to set your orbit after starting the simulation. Went back to using mechjeb landing guidance instead of TCA, because TCA is being a glitchy fuck and since these engines have gimballing I don't really need it anymore and mechjeb can control it fine.
At this point it should be pretty much functional, it just needs some cleaning up and aesthetic improvements before its done.

>Pressed the wrong button
>Software issue

AI will remember this.

Haha, Falcon and Delta scrubs namedropped on stream

>>12187769
Elon?

Everyone google Homo's Basilisk

>>12187750

>>12187768
I wish Richard Shelby would have a heart attack tonight while taking his evening dump.

>>12187769
Call the HAARP operator directly too, sometimes the jews don't let him know, you know, for a joke.

>>12187735
>call it 0.05N from 0.05kW of power
>0.05N of thrust from 0.000160kg/hr of propellant
>scale up to 1MW
>3.2kg of propellant per hour for 1kN
That's actually insanely fucking good if it scales linearly.

>>12187780
shut up commie

>>12187746
Space is hard but they make rockets flimsy and weak on purpose, so they can maximize payloads. They could make the rockets robust like ICBMs but that would make them expensive.

>>12187771
i didn't even realize there was a fix for KRASH spazzing out when you start in lunar orbit, so many wasted hours

>>12187781
Comedians, those jews

ON TRACK AND ON TIME

normal rocket launches feel wrong now,i keep waiting for them to start talking about the landing burns and then remember that shit is just gone.

SpaceX audio going LIVE
https://youtu.be/-v1-zfYUZrs

You do have a multimonitor setup for all these launches right anon?

>>12185720
GLOBETARDS BTFO'D

>>12187786
yeah ive spent the last 2 days trying to figure it out lmao

>>12187794
jesus christ democracy is a joke

>>12187793
yeah, but not at home right now

so far so good

>Russians get to do a three hour speedrun to the ISS
DRAGON SPEEDRUNS WHEN

why do they keep REMOVING THE TIMER

Am I a bad person for wanting the rocket to blow up

>>12187808
It's just showing how long the camera's been on, isn't it?