/sci/ - Science & Math

Realistically speaking, what will communication between Earth and Mars be like?
Will Mars have its own separate internet (not in the strictly literal sense)?

Also throwing this in as PREVIOUS because we had two threads up at once, this one hit the image limit though:
>>12185720

Ceres colony when?

>>12191112
Mars would need its own internet network to maintain fast global communications. It would probably be connected to Earth internet through relays for emails and news which can work under delays.

>>12191109
Based OP actually putting effort into the OP.
What do you guys think about my video?
https://youtu.be/1G_iuPsWgL4

Would you guys watch more videos about colonization? I might do one on how mars can help propel colonization of the Asteroid belt and outer solar system.

>>12191109
Umm guys?

Seventh for Nuclear Saturn V

>>12191118
We have to crack FTL communication so that people can shitpost in real time from all corners of the human empire.

>>12191124
10/10

>>12191109
>Vitamin C
Have that shit in your food rations dumbfucks, 19th century sailors figured that out

>>12191112
>Realistically speaking, what will communication between Earth and Mars be like?
Probably Radio for a little bit then maybe a LASCOM constellation when things start growing
>Will Mars have its own separate internet (not in the strictly literal sense)?
Yes, Mars would have seperate computer networks. And likely you'll have seperate networks for public/private use and gov/life support use to prevent catastrophic attacks

>>12191129
Fine-tuned basement universe connected to all planets via wormhole when?

>>12191112
yeah you would want your own local network plus connections to earth, basically what >>12191118 said
ideally you would probably have orbital relays around earth and mars handling the main jump with high bandwidth laser communications and then probably just hook them up into your normal networks through something like starlink
I imagine commonly used stuff like news would probably just be sent continously, and if you need something else you can request it and wait 10-30 minutes for it to get sent back up

>>12191136
Wormhole travel through a constructed universe where we're not breaking the speed of light, but the speed of light there is arbitrarily high compared to ours.

>>12191168
You'd have to have armed space patrols in the pocket universe chasing out gamers, day-traders, and other lag-squatting vermin.

>>12191109
Does /SFG/ want to go to space?

depots haha

>>12191197
Helll yeah

>>12191197
We’re already in space, anon.

Do DMT on Mars and consult the Machine Elves for guidance

Reminder that no matter who wins in November NASA is going to be left unsupported by the senate and white house as they will be setting the stones for the next presidential successor and securing perks and the Democrats will actively dismantle any achievement made over the past 4 years out of political spite whether that be from the house or the oval office and we will have to pray that the private industry can continue unimpeded by using Obama's original private space mandate as a shield.

>>12191248
ok retard

>>12191197
YES, why else would we be here?

>>12191248
Trumps gonna win tho

>>12191197
is that even a question?

>>12191120
I found it kinda boring.
You don't really got the enthusiasm of scott manly or everyday astronaut nor do you have the biting cynicism of angry astronaut.
Get a personality.

>>12191248
All fake lol

>>12191263
He's likely a goner at this point.

>>12191309
nah he's fine

What would be a good fission reactor design for a spacecraft? Would SC CO2 turbines be better than a stirling engine because it can convert more heat to electricity? We need an answer

>>12191309
Unless he becomes Corona-chan's mortal champion

>>12191120
>>12191277
Hullo videos are good. I like that he shows his face and does it in one take. If he fucks up a sentence or something he keeps it in, and it helps that he really knows what he's talking about. Pre-recorded monologue videos really only work well for something like cosmos where you are trying to make a film for the sake of filmmaking. If you want to do a "here's the space news of the week" show you face, get a personality, and try to think what you could bring to the table that people like Hullo or Estrogenastronaut or the million other space youtubers couldn't deliver. Constructive criticism don't take it too seriously

>>12191248

Well after a lot of trying I got a Rvac powered spaceplane off the runway, to space and to 5km/s. Reentry was a disaster because my RCS was all fucky, but I verified my concept of hiding balloon tanks leeward of procedural wings. Logical next step is more RCS, bigger spaceplane and more RVacs.

Or surrendering to the rocket equation and adding some sort of "staging".

>>12191373
>Logical next step is more RCS, bigger spaceplane and more RVacs.
Post pics if you get it to orbit.

>>12191373
>Adding some sort of "staging".
You already know the answer to this Anon.

>>12191386
Literally so sexy, I'm going to try and make this in KSP myself. Which mod lets me land both stages? MechJeb?

>>12191386
>Tfw no femdom Energia core surrounded by her harem of Shots Zenits

Bros...I finally fapped today, and do you know what? I think Jessie is is woke slut dyke narcissist and I am appalled at my previous hornyposts. I apologize brethren, I now maintain clarity

>>12191390
Flight Manager for Reusable Stages if you want to pilot both

>>12191390
There was some mod for reusable vehicles, it would exactly let you land both at once, but it could allow you to recover a booster instantly so long as the booster had the characteristics (delta V mainly) to return it safely to the ground.

>>12191410
Now do the same to the lefty blonde chick.

>>12191419
Pff I hate blondes

>>12191420
Don't reply to me ever again, you gay baby.

Does anyone have a guess about how much New Shepard costs to fly? I’m not talking about the ticket price, I mean the vehicle. Just pure speculation I mean. It seems like $1.5 million in tickets is enough to cover the marginal + maintenance cost of the vehicle.

>>12191405
Is there any hope of reviving energia?

>>12191440
Maybe if the US declared we would only respect space neutrality for countries with reusable launch vehicles after Starship worked.

>>12191443
Why would the US do that when not even they give a shit about reusability?

>>12191448
as an excuse to shoot down China's satellites

>>12191443
Would be based but highly, highly unlikely. ICBM's and such will always be there. I wish there would be a rule against space junk though

>>12191453
But that would give china an excuse to shoot down american satellites.
Seems like a dumb escalation with benefits for no one.

>>12191455
>I wish there would be a rule against space junk though
"China and India are never allowed to launch again" would solve like 90% of the problem.

>>12191459
Isn't india making a reusable rocket already?

>>12191464

Don’t be mean to India guys

Why is spice the key to spaceflight in Dune? Also why are people eating it, like don't eat the fuel man.

>>12191464
No, they're basically making their own X-37b

>>12191476
Dune's backstory is basically that luddites won a war against robots and technological society. They do their computation with the aid of people with more powerful brains called Mentats. Their FTL astrogation requires even more brainpower than a Mentat can handle so there's a dedicated Spacers' Guild full of brainlord mutants floating in spice-doped liquid tanks that steer their ships between the stars.

Is the ISS going to livestream their receiving the Cygnus?

>>12191480
Sounds like it heavily inspired the Navigator Guilds in 40k, which also has a similar backstory war which resulted in AI being illegalized

>>12191487
yeah 40k is a dune fanfic

>>12191488
>1488
Digits confirm.

>>12191488
It’s not an absurd suggestion to create hyperintelligent genetically enhanced people to perform computation otherwise done by machines, but to me it seems even more likely that they’d run off with their own motivations and do their own thing, even subjugate other humans.

>>12191491
You should read Dune.

>>12191436
Well, it's a third the size of Falcon's first stage, assuming it isn't radically more expensive compared to Falcon because it's Blue Origin, we might assume it to be maybe 5-7 million dollars to construct. If it's refurb costs are also similar to Falcon (1/10th of marginal) then it will cost about $500,000-700,000 a flight to refurbish. So yeah, if it makes 1.5 million in tickets it might make $800,000-1,000,000 in profits per flight, meaning it will take half a dozen or so successful flights with no extra refurbishment or major repair for it to pay for itself.
Average Falcon 9 cost per flight is 57 million, minus the 15 million marginal to construct the rocket and the 1.5-ish million to refurbish it means that it will pay for itself and two more whole Falcon 9s with every single flight. Even if SpaceX drop the cost all the way down to the 30 million range, every successful Falcon recovery will generate enough revenue to spawn an entire new Falcon, and every subsequent reuse after that will generate enough revenue to spawn two new Falcons.

>>12191480
Lmao ok I know the first half from reading the first book. Frank had a vivid imagination it seems

>>12191499
I read it last year but didn’t make the connection to 40k until just now

what rocket has used the largest number of stages to get to orbit

>>12191532
FIVE. All solid.

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

After failing to go bigger I decided to go smaller, this is a Merlin 1Dv space plane on top of a 3.7m Raptor 3 stage

Haven't flown it yet (or done RCS or polished aero) but the numbers work

>>12191464
You figure India would be leading at Metalox/Solid hybrid rockets.

>>12191545
Look how fast it gets off the pad. Pure kino
https://youtu.be/3RLOB9EwVrc?t=14

>>12191560
based and icbmpilled

>>12191546
Your staging velocity is gonna probably be too high for booster recovery but that's the dilemma you hit when trying to keep spaceplane size under control. Spaceplane reentry in RO is one of the hardest things in the game so good luck with it anon.

>>12191321
>show face
related content is a perfectly good substitute
isaac arthur never shows his face in his videos, yet he's consistently more viewed than most channels
the only exception to the face rule is the livestreams

>>12191612
Isaac Arthur's speech defect and overuse of stock CGI footage are the only knocks against his channel. The content is pretty good.

>>12191616
the early videos definitely had those problems, but now his defect is almost entirely gone as he's gotten a trainer to help get rid of it, and now much of his footage is custom made
the power of having cash to throw at production quality

>>12191016
just make bigger telescopes, dumbass

5 tons payload, 3 raptors, 1 Mvac, 2 crew

its c u t e

This board is trapped in a literal fucking timeloop.

Seriously, you guys will drive me absolutely nuts. Every day the same copypastas, the same bullshit, the same pseudo-scientific manic fucks thinking superficial or even undergrad levels of academic knowledge grants them the right to have an opinion.

The same fucking LOONIES that keep posting the same fucking threads over and over again : schizoanon and his fucking riemann hypothesis vixra paper, the endless stream of 0.999 =/= 1 memes, and let us not, on any circumstances, forget about the closeted, mandingo-obsessed /pol/fags who somehow constantly manage to find a way to segue into BBC and black men in porn, no matter if we're discussing biology, antenna engineering or fucking quantum physics.

And let us not forget the slowpokes that keep posting the same articles, pictures, documentaries and years old unoriginal content, even though we discussed the same retarded subjects for years on now.

Every day that I come in here, I feel like i'm living a retarded, autistic version of Groundhog Day.

So please, PLEASE. Share some OC, once in your fucking time. Please stop acting like fucking NPCs. If we don't find a way out of this soon I'm gonna lose it. Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a Happy Meal, WACKO!

>>12191652
Nigga /SFG/ is like the only good thread on Sci, ever.

>>12191654
Why do you keep posting these images

>>12191655
Wrong picture sorry

>>12191652
/SFG/ is like the only good board on Sci. The rest is just schizo shit and racebait

>>12191650
Shilling this from last thread, clearly against >>12191652 's wishes, but your ksp ship looks like the little guy right here. Also with regards to the "same shit" on the board... yes I don't disagree. The copypastas get old quick. I went back to the archived spacex general when elon first announced starship and the amount of OC was everywhere. Really fun times I almost forgot about it. But ehh I find /sfg/ comfy and everytime I make a thread (such as this one) I try to keep the images as OC. Starship is cool and all but having a blurry labpadre pic as the edition gets old quick. But quit your bitching just post more OC yourself and you are self correction the problem

>>12191665
Hmm same anon here but I think this is probably a shitty example. The editions I usually go with aren't as bad as this one. I made this thread as a sort of jab at the assholes who constantly talk about fusion torches. It's not that it shouldn't be allowed. Its that we always get
FUSION TORCHES WHEN
posts that degrade the content. I think an effort in finding more OC and bringing up talking points is needed. I really, really enjoy the "this day in spaceflight history" anon. It's a simple wikipedia search but it adds a lot of knowledge to the collective, you could say.

>>12191682
I like the shut posts and I think you’re a dork for policing the thread.

Fuck, KCT isn't playing nice with sandbox mode and I can't figure out why. KCT is limiting me to the base 20 tons of a new career launchpad, despite the launchpad being fully upgraded (because sandbox).

please do not reply to stale copypasta guys

>>12191683
I certainly don't try to police lmao. We dont have rules here bud

>>12191112
> realistically speaking
> internet on Mars

pick one

>>12191652
this board is under a perpetual raid by /x/tards redditor transplant /pol/acks, and teenagers with nothing better to do
what precisely did you expect?

>>12191683
You’re the type of nog to keep the shit posts going once they start. You may not be a dork, but you’re still a fag

>>12191701
The most irritating ones are the /X/ fuckers who spam weird shit. Also once in a while we’ll get a random liberal or false flag thing that pisses everyone off. But worst of all are the schizos

>>12191476
Spice grants limited prescience, and Navigators are so stuffed full of it that they can foresee safe paths and not ram into stars or big rocks or whatnot.

>>12191701
>replying to copypastas

Lmao fuck off tourist

dedicated Starlink interplanetary laser telescope nodes in SSO, connecting to stations in ESL4 and ESL5 which connect to identical Starlink sats in martian orbit

>>12191660
>/sfg/ is a board

Does anyone else here believe that Musk will be venerated as a great prophet similar to Buddha, Muhammed, Jesus or Zarathustra after he's gone?

He's giving people hope. He's one of the few members of his class who makes people believe that the future they dreamt of is attainable after all. That many things we've been told are unfeasible suddenly become possible once someone with enough wealth and clout is backing them. That the luddite majority can scream and shout as much as they want but we'll still go to space, that liberal democracy with all its '''''ethics committees'''' and '''''technological assessment boards'''''' cannot prevent the future after all and that we're not doomed to eke out an existence as subsistence farmers after the inevitable ''''''collapse''''' like the ecoreactionary propaganda keeps telling us.

Musk is exposing the rest for what they are, parasites whose ultimate goal is stagnation. At best they're misguided philanthropists like Gates and Soros, at worst they're are actively working on creating dystopia like Thiel or are content with the status quo.

And he's not even a polymath or a prodigy, just someone who read the right books as a kid and got lucky. Imagine just what would be possible if we handed the keys to people smarter than Musk. What a true technocracy could achieve. And this is why people hate and fear Musk, it's not the cars or the silly company names. It's what he represents and whose thoughts he's pulling into the mainstream consciousness. They're scared and they should be, the future is just beginning.

>>12191718
I wouldn’t say so. I think he’d be a super influential man like Caesar or Napoleon or Columbus, but not a diety

>>12191684
Are you sure you don't have an unlimited pad that you just aren't selecting in the KCT menu?

>>12191718
>Imagine just what would be possible if we handed the keys to people smarter than Musk.
Intelligence isn't enough, as loathe as I am to say it. You also need good people.

>>12191718
>Imagine just what would be possible if we handed the keys to people smarter than Musk. What a true technocracy could achieve

Probably an absolute disaster but compared to the hell of global liberal democracies would be a massive step up.

>>12191718
He's already reached the point that there will at least be statues of him on Mars one day.

>>12191739
I got it fixed. I got it to very nearly orbit (6.9km/s). Then I discovered a new problem on the way down.

Is there a KSP but for ocean exploration? I really like Subnautica for the exploration aspect but the survival aspect was lame and I want to design my own vehicles.

>>12191753
Just throw on a few more ablative thrusters and it'll be fine

>>12191757
I lost yaw control and Columbia'd.

>>12191761
I can't believe you've killed Bill

>>12191755
The real life ocean is fucking scary as hell. I’d love a game that is like a realistic version of subnautica

>>12191753
based and challengerpilled

I really wish procedural fairings could be treated as normal objects for surface attaching things to them, would make life so much easier

>>12191753
In all honesty would methalox sweating even help in a scenario like this

sweating hydrolox through orange foam reentry when?

>>12191225
>Machine elves
HERESY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER! EXCOMMUNICATE TRAITORIS EXTREMIS!

>>12191458
You vastly overestimate china's space capabilities.

WE'RE GOING TO ORBIT THIS TIME BOYS

>>12191560
One way to Moscow

>>12191791
>basically Starship with bigger fins
Very nice.

>>12191706
I dunno why that sounds so fucking dumb

>>12191794
it's more like X-37B with a Merlin

I didn't actually make orbit again, RIP. I had enough dV but botched the ascent profile. At least I get another try at happy fun toasty time.

https://twitter.com/brendan2908/status/1312651088017813504

okay, finished with launch vehicle modifications and have everything packed up and ready to go
time to throw this fucker into production and launch it for real bros

>>12191805
That creeped me out for some reason wtf. I really hope she lives long enough to use those flaps though

>>12191805

How the fuck are you supposed to reenter with a spaceplane in RO? First the thrusters go, which is fine because the plane is actually statically stable at mach bajillion. Then the Merlin and OMS thrusters explode. Then the actual airframe starts cooking off, we lose control and explode.

>>12191807
habe u gonsidered tryine a whet vorkshup?

Y'all remember making it to orbit for the first time? Was it anything noteworthy or just dumb luck gravity turns like I did till you got it right

>>12191810
build a 100m heatshield and put the plane behind and then add a bajillion parachutes to the top

>>12191813
I used to always gravity turn and then leave the rocket like that. For a few days I was confused as to why I was always going on an escape trajectory without orbiting Kerbin, until I saw a video and I learned you’re supposed to go horizontal eventually.

Man I miss the KSP 1.8 demo

>>12191810
At least it's pretty while it's exploding

>>12191810
have you tried:
1. bigger wings
2. higher temperature threshold parts
3. less mass (absolutely zero payload)
>>12191813
experimenting with gravity turns until I figured it out, it wasn't too hard
I don't think I ever fucked it up, but I had more or less dv left over when I was done

>>12191818
1. I haven't tried yet, 2 isn't possible because I'm using the highest temperature spaceplane parts I have, and 3 is a good reminder to jettison the 5 tons of vodka in the payload bay before reentry next time

>>12191813
I took a long time to figure out gravity turns, I was always just going straight up until apoapsis in space and then coasting to apoapsis and burning horizontally and then wondering why the FUCK it took so much more dv to get to orbit than everyone said
to be fair though that's one of the problems with stock KSP being so scaled down, you get used to just burning a short while and then coasting to circularize even for low orbits instead of burning all the way to orbit like you do in real scale and irl

>>12191820
you're already modding, there's no shame in modifying the mk 2 spaceplane parts to have a higher surface temperature threshold
turn on the thermal data stuff in the menu (I forget if it's a cheat or not) and look at if you're reaching skin temperature or core temperature

>>12191826
The thing that got to me was the fact that IRL engines usually have shit throttle capability and can only be started once to four times usually.

>>12191197
In theory yes, but I already puke my guts out on an average rollercoaster. So I don’t think it would be fun for me.

>>12191795
Prescience and its effect on society at a broad scale is a huge part of Dune, to the point that the overarching plot of the core series is the fulfillment of Paul's "Golden Path," which involves scattering humanity far beyond the confines of the existing empire, and also the genetic proliferation of people who are "invisible" to prescience, so that no group of future-seers can exert control over all of humanity.

SUCCESS - 5 TONS OF VODKA IN ORANGE TANK BAD DEPLOYED TO ORBIT

I had to upgrade to a Raptor 5 and ditch reusability, but at least I have a working, reusable (if it can ever reenter intact) spaceplane in RO

>>12191843
alright, anon
let's see how you fare coming back in

>>12191795
Some humans in the far future of Dune just naturally have some amount of prescience, Spice lets anyone have a small degree of it. I think that was one of the reasons why the Fremen are such ungodly terrifying fighters.

>>12191813
I had literally no idea what I was doing and stacked a bunch of boosters on top of each other and acidentally went into orbit around the sun.

surprised nobody has called me out for using meme propellant in my RCS

>>12191866
nobody cares

>>12191872
t. chinese

>>12191866
>meme propellant
by /sfg/ standards it's not meme propellant unless it's metallic hydrogen or shredded $100 bills or something

>>12191124
official spacex anthem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZMlEfdwgKQ

stupid fucking lander has finally launched for real and is now on the way to the moon!
launched at night to make the window for lunar inclination, ascent and stage separation went smoothly without even a single failure this time

Do you have to manage oxygen and cabin temperature in RO?

>>12191899
with kerbalism yeah, don't remember if it includes temperature but pressure/oxygen/co2 levels and different kinds of scrubbers and life support you can use plus radiation and solar flares and shit

>go to save game
>realize somewhere KSP loaded a save created by FMRS during a KRASH simulation where saving is supposed to be disabled
>now saving and loading is disabled on my and have to revert back to an earlier save before it fucked up
NIGGER

Maybe my shitty computer is just vulnerable to it because it’s bad, but does anyone else notice a really nasty memory leak from KSP that makes performance shit itself after about an hour?

>>12191913
yeah I have a memory leak like that going on, I'm pretty sure it's one of the mods in my RO setup but I haven't been able to figure out what so I just restart the game every 45 minutes or so and go take a shit while it loads

>payload is in orbit
>crew is alive
I did it!

>>12191913
Its a feature

100% efficient conversion of thermal energy to electricity when bros?

>>12191926
I've been thinking about this since the last thread. Some anon brought it up and I was following his replies like a hawk. Fascinating really... I don't know anything about electrochemistry of the physics behind power conversion (which sucks because I wish I could make a difference) but I hope we find a way to get direct electric conversion from something like fusion. I don't know how it could be done

Charred bread heatshield tiles when?

>>12191986
The astronauts would snack on it while they were EVAing and endanger the mission.

Who will be the first person murdered in space?

>>12191919
I’m confident it’s part of the base game.

>>12191930
Devices that turn thermal energy into electricity are always pretty efficient because waste energy from energy transitioning between forms is usually in the form of heat anyway
I’m sure everyone has noticed how the charging thingy for their phone gets hot

>USA is dead
>India is dead
>China is almost dead
>Europe is still sleeping

Post 2020 will be a very boring era for Space

>>12192023
Go away Angry Asshole

>>12192025
Yes I'm angry (and sad), our future is fucked-up

>>12191930
To have a 100% Carnot efficiency you need a heatsink with the temperature of exactly absolute zero. The thing is, you will also transfer zero waste heat into it. So maybe the trick is to create some sort of a virtual zero K sink that isn't actually that cold in reality, but acts like it is for the purpose of the thermodynamic process.

we finally made it bros!
lost one wheel during the unpacking, but since it's got 4 wheel steering it can still do the job just a bit less agile
due to some excellent planning we landed right at the beginning of the lunar night and even with these lights I still can't see shit, so further exploration is going to have to wait until the batteries recharge after sunrise

why is driving rovers so comfy bros
especially when you can crank them up to like 8m/s instead of that gay nasa shit

>>12191718
>Does anyone else here believe that Musk will be venerated as a great prophet similar to Buddha, Muhammed, Jesus or Zarathustra after he's gone?


God this has to be the cringiest shit I have ever seen on this general. Is this place /r/SpaceX?

>>12192238
Elon Musk is Go{o}d.

>>12191277
>>12191321
Thank you guys, it's obviously pretty fair criticism.

I'm trying to work in emotion in a way that doesn't sound fake, I feel like it's just practice. I would say I'm pretty good at public speaking, but having genuine emotion talking to a screen by yourself is harder.

I also find the Manley thing interesting, since he obviously knows what he's talking about, stumbles make it more genuine. While for someone with no social proof, stumbles sound more like uncertainty. Especially when it's a voiceover and your voice is all the viewer has to go on.

I especially need to work on something that makes me unique. Lots of flaws, but honestly, I'm pretty happy with what I've got. I've got a ton of spare time right now and it gives me something to do. Also based coomer, you know who you are.

>>12192004
Jeff Bezos.

neat shot

>>12192261
Unlikely. He has no way of even getting to space.

Did you know that sauerkraut is one of the foods that contains most vitamin C after lemons?

>>12192279
Muh New Armstrong.

>>12192279
top kek

>>12191788
You vastly underestimate them. China had already shown the ability to shoot down satellites years ago.

>>12191481
If you're still around it's from The Terror.

>>12192251
>>12191120

yeah man just keep practicing to get that natural conversational tone into your reading

from what i saw, a common critique from your videos was that you make it obvious that you're reading from a script

content wise, i prefer the format of the earlier vids where you divided it into subtopics but that's just me

>>12192421
Yeah, script reading is an issue. But I'm just not at the confidence level right now to start speaking extemporaneously. Which video did you like? The first one where I used transitions? Thanks for the feedback.

>>12192308

https://youtu.be/GhEJwEwyXt0

>>12191906
There's somewhere you can go in the debug menu or difficulty settings to enable saving when that happens

>>12192205
road trips are always comfy

>>12192205
>not rolling along at 20km and taking sick jumps

>>12192023
>USA leading the charge with private spaceflight
>India working on joining the reusable rockets club
>China will copy Starship someday
>Europe is perfecting their 450s specific impulse monopropellant

Post 2020 will be a very exciting era for Space

>>12191197
Absolutely, but I can't really wrap my head around the science aspect and I've always been sort of sickly so I don't think it's really in the cards for me. Hoping we get low-cost space travel or unskilled work in space soon bros

>>12191788
People definitely do overestimate what China is currently capable of, but anti-satellite weaponry is no such case, shooting down satellites isn't actually all that complicated and is certainly something China has the ability to do right now.
>>12191820
Pretty sure bigger wings are the main thing you need, the ones in >>12191817 don't look anywhere near big enough to give a sufficiently gentle re-entry.
>>12192503
The best China will be able to do is steal Starship. I mean literally just physically steal a Starship from SpaceX somehow.

>>12192503
People love to project onto China their idea of what they themselves would do if they had funds and unlimited manpower. The reality falls nowhere near those fantasies. The chinks are walking back superheavy development faster than they're progressing. Euros peddling magic as a distraction tactic also doesn't say good things, just the opposite. Not that this is really a problem for spaceflight overall, the death of parasites is good for the organism.

>>12192503
>Chinks will copy starship
I don't think the chinks have the metallurgy, or manfucathrong consistency to develop engines for a superheavy lift vehicle that work, let alone one that's reusable

>>12192691
No they don’t, but they might be able to make a TSTO fully reusable vehicle. Who knows. Their Superheavy lifter was supposed to fly “in the 2030s”

soon

Operating 19 years and still kicking.

>>12192725
I will believe it's soon when we see the gridfins.

>>12192744
They probably won’t have gridfins for the first few hops. F9 didnt

>>12192744
are those small enough to transport by road or will they be welded up on site?

>>12192750
they wouldn't be bigger than RVACS, would they?

>>12192747
they don't need gridfins on Super Heavy for the first 150m completely powered hops, but if they want to go above that they'll need gridfins, just like Starship needs a nosecone and flaps

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1312760295228547073
DEJA VU

>>12192755
I think Elon said they’re stainless steel, so I don’t see why they can’t just build them there

Why don't they make a tiny version of the starship and launch it with a Falcon just to test the belly flop maneuver? It can't be more expensive than what they're about tô do

>>12192691
Can’t wait to be that ripped

>>12192771
Small scale doesn't translate to real thing.

>>12192758
I HAVE BEEN IN THIS PLACE BEFORE

>>12192771
did someone say MINI STARSHIP!?

>>12192775
How can someone make such a dumb statement?

>>12192771
Any gains in cost you would make would be more than swamped by the need to change processes and machinery. Also you severely overestimate the cost of the prototypes if you think their cost is at all important next to the cost of development time you would waste going down a meaningless rabbit hole to test something not even transferrable due to scale.

>>12192789
He’s right though. A big starship with 1200 tons of methalox has a lot more stresses than a little one

>>12192798
Shut the fuck up retard

>>12192809
It's okay anon, I'm sure your RC car experience will make you an F1 driver one day

>>12192798
So what you're saying is that a model airplane cannot be used to demonstrate the same control schemes that are used in a real airplane

>>12192809
You're the only here being retarded.

>>12192771
Too much research resource cost. They'll have to cut some of the main Starship resource and add it to Falcon 9 Dev team for integration/test/test.

>>12192750
>welded up on site
Won‘t they be titanium?
Falcon 9 ones are a single piece of titanium casting, which was said to be the main reason why they were able to reuse them like they do with Block 5. Previous versions looked like absolute shit after a single reentry.
I doubt welding them from steel will work nearly as well. But I‘m just a brainlet. Maybe Superheavy gridfins will experience different conditions because of the difference in flight profile, size and weight.
Or maybe SpaceX was previously retarded and titanium casting is way beyond what is needed here. I doubt it, but I don‘t know.

>>12192825
Elon's said they're gonna try steel but I'm skeptical for the same reasons as you. https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-super-heavy-grid-fins-titanium-to-steel/

>>12191771
Yup, though it's not viable for SSTO because, of course, SSTO does not have the mass ratio margin to squeeze in the necessary amount of 'sweat' methane without the dry mass needing to be a negative number.
Sweat cooling is in principal exactly the same as ablative cooling, except the only thing being consumed is a refillable fluid instead of a highly engineered solid. A thermally resistant structure gets extremely hot via electromagnetic radiation from the hot plasma surrounding it, and a material with a low boiling point is vaporized by this heat, therefore cooling the structure as the hot vapors are blown away.
In an ablator the heat resistant structure is basically just carbon, though older TPS ablators used shit like fiberglass or asbestos. The low-boiling point material is usually a plastic or resin which will decompose at high temperatures (decomposition can also absorb thermal energy, alongside the latent heat absorption of a phase change). The issue with ablators is that the vaporization of the plastic takes place only to a depth of about a centimeter into the shield before the outer skin temperature gets high enough to vaporize whatever materials are there, because the plastic in those layers gets used up. That's why ablators erode, the erosion doesn't protect the spacecraft, it's actually the charring of the heat shield that protects the spacecraft. The erosion is simply a consequence of using a solid state actively-cooled heat shield.
For a 'sweat' shield, the cooling fluid is continuously being pumped through the skin and thus the skin never gets hot enough that it erodes. In principal a sweat shield can withstand reentry thermal fluxes just as high as an ablator, the only downsides are complexity and the requirement to not have your coolant pump stall on you.

>>12192029
Use a black hole as a heat sink.

>>12192770
Well disregard all of:
>>12192825
then.
So why didn‘t they do this on F9 then?

So if the SRB's weren't segmented, would Challenger never have happened yet the shuttle would still work and function as normal?

Why the fuck did they have to segment them?

>>12192825
The F9 ones are also the biggest single titanium cast ever, I believe. In any case it certainly doesn't scale up to what they want with SH. There's no real reason why they will perform any worse as the thermal characteristics are better, they'll be heavier but that's not really important when considered in proportion.

>>12192845
Because titanium is lighter and Elon hadn't been steelpilled yet when they were designing the F9 gridfins

>>12191768
I think procedural wings are though

>>12192849
A monolithic SRM would be too heavy to transport by rail. When Nasa did the 260-inch solid tests they had to be brought in by barge and full-scale production would have required a new factory at the KSC.

>>12192698
China isn't NK, they can just import the knowledge and abilities to set up all the facilities. Ever heard of globalism?
It's harder if SpaceX implements techniques which require very specialized labour or extensive espionage, like the hand welding on the F1 engines back then which made them borderline impossible for out advanced society to replicate without relearning a lot about how they were soldered together.

>>12192850
forged** not cast, but still a huge single piece i think, and pricey

>>12192849
>Why the fuck did they have to segment them?
Because muh reusability. The segments had to be small enough to go back to the factory.

>>12192845
Due to scale and construction the dry mass hit is more significant on F9 than it is for SH

>>12192861
reusing SRB's sounds retarded

>>12192820
As opposed to inexpensively blowing up 4 or 5 full sized prototypes, which can be done at no cost at all

How can you people say something like that? That's literal baby boomer-level stupidity. The size would be close enough that things such as viscosity wouldn't make a big difference, plus they'd know for sure if they can flip a free-falling cylinder and stabilize it. They'd even be able to test if the SS hull would survive reentry.

>>12192839
Ah, it says right there the main reason to use titanium was high-energy trajectories. So that‘s drone ship landings. But Superheavy will exclusively return to launch site. So maybe that‘s why steel could be a solution for super heavy but not for f9.

>>12192863
it was

>>12192314
Thanks dude
I've been here since 2018

>>12192866
>As opposed to inexpensively blowing up 4 or 5 full sized prototypes
Yes.

>>12192852
>>12192860
Ok, that makes sense, thanks.

>>12192825
It can work but it will look like absolute jerry rigged trash just like the fins are looking like right now

>>12192863
I don't think anyone really wanted to reuse the SRBs but NASA wanted to have a reusable liquid booster on the shuttle after Nixon authorized it so Thiokol had to act like the SRBs would be just as reusable if NASA went with them so everyone could save face.

It never actually saved any money over expending them though. Solid rocket fuel makes up most of the cost of an SRB and what's left is just empty steel casings.

>>12192796
>scale down the cylinder in whatever program they're using
>cut the sheets
>weld them
>"no no no, it costs too much!"

>>12192877
The fins look like that because they're wearing a (proportionally) thin skin of unstressed steel. The gridfins don't have any expanses of non-structural material, at worst they will have visible welds.

>>12192883
>>12192771
The inertia would be completely different, there's no point testing something that don't have the same mass or aerodynamic

>>12192881
I wonder what costs more, cleaning the seawater out of a spend SRB or making a new one from scratch?
Not being snarky, I genuinely don't know.

>>12192883
And just design 3 scale engines to go with it!

>>12192866
Dude SpaceX isn’t worried about whether or not the maneuver is possible - because they know it is - but if their vehicle can survive the forces it gets. The only way to do this is with the full scale vehicle

>>12192883
>have established processes and machines to make them more efficient
>switch to a new hand-welded one-off
>it's more expensive
Yes.

>>12192852
Literally this.
Titanium is actually INFERIOR to steel in terms of thermal resistance, but back when they were building long-lived grid fins for Falcon 9 titanium seemed very attractive because it has a higher strength to weight ratio than Al-Li while also being heat resistant enough to work for F9 Booster reentry.
Since then however Elon has realize that faster, cheaper, and a bit heavier is a far better thing to strive for than raw performance, because being faster, cheaper, and still reusable saves money, while all you get from higher performance is negligible payload increase. The "Every Gram at Any Cost" mentality is exactly what has made all the world's space progress so slow since the 60's.

>>12192893
I read that reusing them did save some money. Not much, but like it would’ve costed more to throw them away. Still the only thing reused was the casing and some of the nose parts.

>>12192891
>there's no point testing something

>>12192907
Why would you not test a full scale starship if you already have an excess of prototypes? They have like 2 completed (SN8 and SN9) and two more being built (SN 10 and SN11).

>>12192894
Or, you know, just use the same engine they're using for SN5,6,7,8, however many they're willing to blow up. It just works

>>12192898
You're beung unconceivably asinine right now

>>12192907
the absolute straw of this man

>>12192904
Seems like a lot of work to save a little money, but if it was cost-effective then I suppose. At the very least it gave everyone a job cleaning the things out.

>>12192913
You successfully convinced yourself anon, but apparently you weren't a very good sparring partner.

>>12192901
>The "Every Gram at Any Cost" mentality
What should it be instead?

I personally wish we got Sea Dragon or at least a scaled down version of it that was still more powerful than Saturn V so that launching shit into orbit never becomes a problem of weight/mass fraction etc...

>>12192913
You don't understand what's going on do you? Starship is on a production line right now. They're going to have starships to spare. It would actually be more work at this point to make a smaller one and the savings wouldn't be worth it, assuming there were any savings to be had considering the extra work that would have to go into it.

>>12192856
It's not forged, it's cast. The grid fins on Falcon 9 are made of cast titanium, because it's easier to melt titanium inside an argon atmosphere and pour it into a high quality preheated mould to create the grid fin shape than it is to forge titanium. Once the casting is cooled they do a minimal amount of machining on it in order to remove and smooth burrs and to get the holes for the attachment point bearings into spec. Machining titanium is an even bigger pain in the ass than forging it, because it heats up the tooling like fuck and it really gums up everything (it doesn't like to form nice clean ships like steel).
I mean just look at this shit. Look at how thin the grid element gets at the end of the fin, look how the thickness tapers in two directions, look at how deep the grid is and those scalloped leading edges. This is design would be IMPOSSIBLE to forge. They knew that forging was not going to be ideal for titanium anyway, and once they knew they were going to cast it they went all-in on making an ideally designed part with all the fancy stuff included.

>>12192866
Yes. They can blow up 100 Starship prototype and not have not cost more than 1 single blow up of Falcon 9. If they blow up falcon 9, that's 1 year of shutdown for their main business.

>>12192881
>It never actually saved any money over expending them though.
To be fair. Nasa never particularly tried saving money on the Shuttles now, did they. The SRBs, the TPS, the SMEs. All designed to be refurbishable in the most excruciatingly painstaking and most expensive way possible.

>>12192931
They'll have hundreds of them made before they realize what they want to do does not work at all. It's a very, very, very risk bet.

>>12192926
No, we need a scaled UP Sea Dragon. I want a rocket so large that they have to launch from both sides of the planet simultaneously to avoid knocking earth off it's orbit.

>>12192691
Don't underestimate them. They got rich on cheap shit but can do quality engineering too.

>>12192944
reminds me of space welding

>>12192937
But they did blow up a falcon just to test the crew dragon abort system. I don't see why they can't launch a mini-starship that weights the same as the second stage + payload and perfectly land the first stage.

>>12192941
Then they make changes further down the production line on partiall completed starships every time there's a failure and can rapidly retest without having to build a new vehicle completely from scratch.

>>12192952
Because Falcon 9 costs a lot. Its legacy system. Prototypes are inexpensive shits.

>>12192954
And pray they do not have to change anything else on the already-changed partially complete starships? Yeah. Doesn't work.

>>12192955
It costs a lot and it can land itself. Launch a mini-starship. If they can't land it, they won't be able to land the full-sized one.

>>12192952
The aerodynamic forces are not the same. A starship half the width has only one quarter the cross section on it's circular face and probably something like an eight of the mass.

>>12192907
>Before we build this battleship we need to build a tugboat to verify that boast work
>Yes I know we already have many tugboats but none of those have cannons so they're totally different
Dude Starship's whole deal right now is that they're building low cost, decently-high fidelity prototypes and throwing them into the meat grinder to see what forehead-slapping oopsie mistakes they've overlooked. They are going to get more data faster this way. Also they've literally already got 4 prototypes of full sized Starship at this point, you're about a year late to suggest they build a smaller one.
Do you think that SpaceX just hasn't thought of doing smaller starship? Do you think that they glossed over that strategy? No, they did a high level cost-benefit analysis and decided it's no worth it. Elon had even tweeted like a year ago that they were gonna try a mini-starship style second stage for Falcon 9, then later was like "Yeah nah we looked at the numbers and that idea is cancelled, we're going to be able to do it faster by just immediately going to 9m diameter".

>>12192959
Single launch of used Falcon 9 costs $20+ million dollars. Thats not including the low flight rate, experimental launch insurance fees, etc

Its not worth it. The whole reason to move away from Falcon 9 is cost.

>>12192960
>The aerodynamic forces are not the same
But close enough. The point isn't if it will stay in one piece, even if it stays in one piece it won't matter if they cannot stabilize it, or if it oscillates.

>>12192959
It's literally easier to land a large vehicle than a small one, especially when talking about second stages. And as people have pointed out to you, doing so tells you nothing useful about the ability of your construction to withstand the stresses on the full scale version.

>>12192926
>What should it be instead?
Cost per KG to Leo is the ultimate metric. Every step along the way just has to play into this.
Look at what Tesla showed recently. Save some money on raw materials, make the tooling more efficient, make the design easier to build, and then finally you can also improve the performance of the design itself. Every step along the way saves 10% points by itself so finally you get 50% cost savings despite still building the same fucking vehicle.
Nasa has been only focussing on the last step of improving the design. They never put much thought into the manufacturing or resources. They just paid what was asked to get the design they thought was most optimized from a pure performance standpoint.

>>12192966
If falling apart is what you're worried about then it makes even more sense to go full size straight away because the structural integrity is going to vary massively in different sized models due to the different masses and forces being exerted. I mean there's a reason why 747s aren't just scaled up cessnas.

>>12192926
>What should it be instead?
"Save every dollar you can, as fast as you can" or something to that effect. Go fast, fail fast, learn fast.

>>12192771
This guy gets it

>>12192963
>Single launch of used Falcon 9 costs $20+ million dollars
That figure includes the second stage which is lost forever. Each raptor engine costs about 2 million. They're willing to risk losing 3 of them in a single go just to test the flop-maneuver, when they could test it with an engine-less dummy.

>>12192942

>>12192975
Structural integrity means jack shit if it's not controllable. Ok, it stayed in place but crashed nose first. Congratulations. Your control scheme does not work and you just lost 3 raptor engines.

>>12192984
>in one piece
Fix'd

>>12192981
This is what 1kt to LEO looks like.

>>12192975
>there's a reason why 747s aren't just scaled up cessnas
Fear of BASED overload?

>>12192883
>retard

>>12192979
Merlin costs ~1M each, and they use 9 of them. + ~1-2 raptor for mini-Starship.
No matter how you slice it, its a much more costly endeavor for Falcon9+miniStarship

>>12192975
>I mean there's a reason why 747s aren't just scaled up cessnas.
Exactly. The lowest risk approach to developing Starship is to just start off building it full-sized, because then they know for sure that none of their optimizations are going to bite them in the ass once they go full-size.
You know what will happen if SN8 tries to do its bellyflop and crashes? SN9 will try again later, with some modifications to hardware and software to solve the glaring issues than made SN8 die. If SN9 crashes, it's batter up for SN10. Etc. It seriously won't take them more than a handful of Starship prototypes to get the backflip landing burn maneuver nailed down. Once they can reliably land it's a green light to doing higher and faster suborbital trajectories to real-world stress test the thermal protection system as they wait for the Booster prototype to be completed and go through its own short series of testing, and then it's time to stack and go for orbit.
As soon as a prototype stack makes orbit, all the space agencies around the world are going to collectively shit themselves HARD, which will be funny. SpaceX will probably have successful recovery of the Starship that goes to orbit for the first time, and they'll learn of a few things they need to change, and then development will continue with many many orbital test flights to prove out everything from solar panel array designs to on-orbit maneuvering to faster reentries to Starship-to-Starship docking and of course propellant transfer. Shit is going to be happening exponentially faster, especially once the dev program gets to the point of just swapping out hardware on already built-and-flown Starships instead of having to build brand new ones almost every time. These are exciting times, anons.

>>12192975
>747s aren't scaled up cessnas
WE WOULD IF WE COULD

>>12193007
Needs a propellor

>>12192984
How do you know that what works on mini-starship will work for big starship?
If they built a mini-Starship to throw onto a test reentry trajectory to verify that the flap-steering works (which it will, it's arguably a lot simpler than aerodynamic wing control surfaces), that would tell them it works for ~3.8 meter vehicles. Then they'd need to do all the calculations and flow dynamic simulations and engineering all over again to build a 9m version, anyway. Therefore, fuck the subscale prototype, trust the flow simulations, and start off with 9m prototypes while accepting that you are probably gonna lose a few because of propellant sloshing or whatever.

>>12193012
Can supersonic flight be achieved with a single prop?

>>12192981
Reminds me of that scrappy green screen movie Skycaptain and the World of Tomorrow.
Villain built an ark rocket to start over on another planet and the second stage would ignite the atmosphere behind it.

>>12193016
>How do you know that what works on mini-starship will work for big starship?
How do they know that the untested big starship works? Oh, by blowing up prototype after prototype?

>>12193021
Hypersonic SSTO prop plane

>>12191277
>>12191321
>>12192421
For me, it's David Butler

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

>>12193027
Yes.

What the hell are they doing to sn7.1 bros?

>>12193021
Prop+jet

>>12193046
https://youtu.be/iSkd1u-_aBo

>>12193040
Bruh this is so chill

>>12193031
Comrade, hwat is beink sound that went like *BRRRRRRRRRRRR* right now.
- Amerikanski launch orbital cessna from Florida.
But comrade, we are beink in siberia.
- Da.

SN8 cryo test tonight

>>12193060
Damn it’s really been almost a year since we saw a starship with fins, huh

>>12193066
A rough mock up yeah

CESSNA SEAPLANE WITH SRB PONTOONS

>>12193045
scrapping it now that it's done its job

A guy said earlier that you could get a faster trajectory that hofman transfer that isnt brachistrochrone.

baring that in mind whats the best time we could get for a manned saturn moon mission?

>>12193021
Sure. If a wing can generate lift at supersonic speeds, then a propeller can generate thrust.

>>12193128
This isn't really correct. Propellers are specifically designed and operated to avoid tip velocities beyond the speed of sound, and supersonic jet engine inlets are shaped very specifically to control shockwave geometry and provide subsonic air to the turbine blades. Supersonic aircraft are also designed such that their wings tuck behind their nose shock because the stresses caused by supersonic air are considerable and generating lift using a conventional airfoil in a supersonic regime is difficult. There is a reason that propeller aircraft were not taken above the sound barrier, and it is not engine power constraints.

SRB POWERED ELEVATORS

>>12193152
Correct take

>>12193153
What about SRB travelators?

>>12193027
Yeah, by blowing up two or three $3 million prototypes over the course of 6 months, maximum

>>12193027
>Oh,
kill yourself right fucking now

>>12193186
Oh, no!

>>12193186

>Complains about misuse of a comma while not using a capital to start his sentence and a period to end it.

What a hypocritical faggot you are. A phone-posting nigger is my best guess.

>>12193142
Use an airscrew instead of a propellor.

SN7.1 got that NOAA treatment

>>12193142
There are propellers explicitly designed to work efficiently at supersonic speeds.

>>12193222
They are all extraordinarily loud motherfuckers, like the Thunderscreech or the Tu-95. The whole reason supersonic aircraft aren't in wider use is the noise problem.

>>12193233
The noise and efficiency problems of supersonic aircraft could have been solved if the tree hugging luddites in the 70s hadn't helped kill every SST program.

>>12193233
>>12193222
Neither the thunderscreech or the TU-95 ever flew at supersonic speeds.

>>12193200
misuse of a comma? i believe u are the retard ;)

>>12193242
>tree hugging luddites
*Soviet spies

>>12193252
Arguably the same thing

t. Bezmenov

(Unless that was your implication and you weren't talking about moles in the US aero industry)

>>12193258
I was referring to the whole tree hugging luddite movement being whipped up by Soviet spies in the 60s to cripple our nuclear infrastructure, so yes, mostly in line with Bezmenov's point.

Propanelox Texas rockets.

>>12193242
Supersonic planes died because it was and still is to more profitable to use subsonic passengers planes and then sell first class tickets to those that want confort.

>>12192971
Although funny enough sea dragon was the first rocket to be designed explicitly for reducing $/kg. Starship bears some resemblance to it too - they're both two-stage fully-reusable ballistic rockets with steel tankage, fabricated and assembled on the coast and then launched from the ocean.

Despite the memes it may end up looking really prescient in hindsight.

>>12193280
PropaNOS /sfg/ grain silo rocket

Will starship get scrubbed as much as f9 or is f9 just a cocktease?

>>12193300
Except people that will pay for first class travel would also be willing to pay a little bit more to get to their destination three times faster. There is, and always has been, a market for supersonic aircraft that service business class passengers. That's why there are like four different supersonic aircraft projects in development right now, some of which have significant backing from major manufacturers.

>>12192901
>The "Every Gram at Any Cost" mentality
It's frustrating to deal with. Proposing overbuilding something in aerospace gets met with "come on, we're not civil engineers" as if it's a dumb idea despite the most enduring aerospace designs being ones that were overbuilt in the first place.

>>12193303
Literally the only reason it wouldn't have worked was combustion instability in the giant engine. If Starship+SuperHeavy used single enormous nozzles instead of clustered Raptors it'd look a LOT like a Sea Dragon.

>>12193327
F9 is a very skinny rocket and the first stage typically lands on floating barges. Big chunky SuperHeavy doing RTLS every flight is going to have much more tolerance for weather fuckery.

>>12193332
>If Starship+SuperHeavy used single enormous nozzles instead of clustered Raptors it'd look a LOT like a Sea Dragon.
T-Rex engine when?

>>12193243
No, but the propeller spins at supersonic speeds, and is therefore exposed to supersonic airflow.

>>12193329
>Except people that will pay for first class travel would also be willing to pay a little bit more to get to their destination three times faster
You are forgetting costs per passenger to actually get them there ie you git more money from a conventional airliner then from a Concorde, and let's not get into R&D as well as assembly line retooling costs.

Boy do I love spending all of my time troubleshooting mods instead of enjoying them

>>12193280
>propalox
TASTE THE Isp NOT THE HEAT
>>12192942
If you could do that, it would be better to launch it on Venus and get that little fucker spinning properly.
>>12193045
make souvenir paperweights, 304L fuck yeah!
>>12193355
Concorde was losing money until they decided fuck it, let's charge what it costs. And people still paid it.

>>12193363
>Oh no ksp rss ro rp0 fucken whatever doesn't work
You'll learn to accept the realities of the shitty unity engine this game is precariously perched on

>>12193375
I've never seen the game only load half the parts of a mod into the game before despite having all of the parts in the gamedata folder thats a new one

>>12193366
>Concorde was losing money until they decided fuck it, let's charge what it costs. And people still paid it.
And it failed to make as much money as a boeing 747. And no bothered to compete with it as well because of the high R&D costs.

Have they found the new leak on the ISS yet?
Read somewhere that it's in a russian part again?

>>12193363
I had this exact problem, I don't get it. Some Mk33 parts just don't load

>>12193424
Yeah and I tried it on a freshly installed KSP too as a last resort, the only mod loaded was the Mark 33, same fucking problem.

How does that even happen, the part files are all in the gamedata folders, but the parts that actually show up in the VAB are only half of those, I've never encountered this shit before, really frustrating, really wanted to fly that

>>12192942
if you are moving EARTH off its orbit... don't that make it the rocket?

>>12193375
That was a very poetic, carl sagan way of describing the game lmao. Crashes even in vanilla are common

>>12192984
You do realize that aerodynamic simulation exists, right? Starship isn't a complex geometric design, it's a tube with a nosecone and 4 fins, it's very easy to plug it into a simulator and see that the reentry works in theory. The difficult part is determining if the welds are strong enough, if the fin actuators are powerful/fast enough and if the Raptors can restart and throttle properly under those forces. You could maybe test the Raptors on a subscale prototype, but the other two factors are completely incomparable due to the way surface area/volume and weight scale.

I'm assuming you're just shit posting at this point, but you are wildly overestimating how complex and expensive the current prototypes are. They are using off the shelf steel, Tesla batteries and motors and probably a bunch of spare Falcon avionics components. I'd be willing to bet that on SN8 the three Raptors will cost more than the rest of the stack combined.

>>12193433
what if the carbon monoxide molecules are the real rocket and they're just using the falcon 9 as exhaust dude

>>12193329
>>12193366
>Concorde
I can talk with some authority as aeronautic technician telling you the Concorde was not only too costly to operate, it was also not very flexible and the US did all they could to kill it (out of jealousy surely).
It existed for a market that don't exist anymore. Businessman who need to attend affair across the world in a short time.

We have internet now, presence isn't necessary.
If there's a new market, it's the 1% who will want SMALL supersonic jet, and it will only be decided if they make one who can land on small aerodrome instead of being stuck with the big one.

I can also tell that from authority, Falcon manufacturer lost a lot of customer because their (awesome) big jet couldn't do small aerodrome.

>>12193439
>You do realize that aerodynamic simulation exists, right? Starship isn't a complex geometric design, it's a tube with a nosecone and 4 fins
>it's a tube

>>12193441
the way it's phrase, it imply the exhaust is so powerful it push Earth away like a shaped-bomb would push an Orion.

Analogy are hard

>>12193363
>>12193424
>>12193430
Alright I got it working, turns out you absolutely do need ModuleManager https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/50533-18x-110x-module-manager-414-july-7th-2020-locked-inside-edition/ despite the mod author saying you don't, I downloaded that and suddenly everything was there

I can see why a mod as ambitious and complex as this would require it

>tfw you will never take the slide to your spaceplane seat

Just as a hypothetical but would a future space city. Assuming trillion people or so. In those cases doesn't it make the most sense to build a pseudo dyson sphere, and then build an entire civilization on top of it in an enormous circle. What would the down sides be?

>>12192952
Pretty sure NASA paid for that though. Also they HAD to as part of the certification process so.... I mean they very well COULD build a scale model and put it on a falcon 9 but it would cost more than doing a full sized model, and wouldn't get them 100% accurate data. Assuming they did do this mini starship falcon 9 idea, they would still have to model a full sized one eventually

>>12193507
What the fuck anon lmoa. Dyson spheres are popsci bullshit. Freeman Dyson proposed it as a hypothetical and all the fermi paradox fags hijacked the idea. A civilization with even a trillion people could get away with fusion or reactionless drive energy and be fine

>>12193507
What?

How delicate are RCS on reentry really? Should my internal RCS on my spaceplane be continuously exploding on reentry? Since I'm a dumb dumb at modding, I might just lower the deadly reentry multiplier until "LEO rated" parts stop exploding on LEO reentry.

>>12193040
I fell asleep to this.

>>12193485
Thanks man, I was looking at the configs and found DockRotate mod mentioned in reference to the Aft tank. Wonder if other mods are needed

>>12193523
Kek

>>12193507
Did you just had a stroke?

Could Venturestar work using high temp superconductors to mitigate the heating/metallurgy issues with the aerospike?

>>12193532
It put me down for 2 hours. Last thing I remember is 30 Doradis.

>>12193507
Why not just build a teleporter to teleport everyone to far side of the universe. Each person gets a solar system to themselves.

>>12193512
Nonsense. You don't know anything,

>>12193541
If Starship is a success will there really be a need for a Venturestar like craft?

>>12192942
based

>>12193553
No, but Starship still has a few questions outstanding in regards to full and rapid reusability. How fast can they actually turn around a Superheavy with 30 odd Raptors?

This is a familiar sight...

>20 million for a gender neutral space toilet

How would you cheapen it?

>>12193565
just setting up the new orbital assembly pad bro

>>12193568
A down-rated version of this.

>>12193565
EXPENDABLE LAUNCHPADS

>>12193523
guess you zoomers prefer the flashy and awesome 2 minutes popscience videos

Have you guys joined the paraffin LOX rocket revolution yet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiartiM4lsQ

>>12193558
I imagine that they'll need to build some kind of engine checkout robot. Something that can go to each individual Raptor, autonomously plug in to some diagnostic ports, and perform a visual inspection. Spacex has access to what is likely the world's current best machine learning (and specifically, machine vision) expertise from Tesla, so a team of two or three bots could roll under the booster, assess all the engines, and flag any potential issues to launch-site engineers.
Probably some design optimizations to enable fast engine swap, too.

>>12193568
Mandatory colostomy for astronauts

>>12193576
I liked it, it was just really calm and I was really tired

>>12193577
I might considering how long it takes for HTPB to solidify.

>>12193565
X-33 mod? That's shits kino

>>12193588
Hell yeah, its also legit professional quality done

here the link https://spacedock.info/mod/2537/Mk-33

>>12193592
FULL IVA too, absolute madman

>>12193558
Duh, hopefully it delivers on all fronts. I suspect even if a raptor can only get like 5 flights out of each engine it will still be "cheap" at $2 mil a pop. Other engines are in the range of $200 mil.
>>12193553
No. TSTO is king. Although maybe I'm just a fag but I would love to see aerospikes on an upper stage Starship one day. They wouldn't really be needed on super heavy, but god damn aersopikes are cool as fuck and if you went through the trouble to make a cheap/good one it could replace both raptor and rapvac and you might as well throw them on superheavy to keep it simple and have one engine. TSTO Aeroass ITS is what I want to see in the future

>>12192942
>>12193557
>Send a few to Venus with nuclear powered fuel refiners
>Launch them at odd angle from equator to spin Venus up more
>Take compressed gasses to Mars
>Terraformed 2 birds with 1 stone
Fund it

>>12193565
>>12193588
oh but I meant this

>>12193605
Reminds me of that invader zim episode where they literally fly the planets because the engines are planet sized

>>12193612
also Ringworld's traveling star system

>>12193612
Was it Mars and Mercury? Or Mars and Moon? Invader Zim was based

>>12193519
basically you start out with giant solar arrays. And whatever living quarters you need not far away. Then as you scale it up some distance from the sun. Most of it's surface area would be dominated by some form of housing and giant solar array to power it. Over time like in modern cities you'd end up with a giant hive of civilization anchored around solar arrays feeding off any given sun..

>>12193618
Mars and Mercury. It's very similar to Idiocracy. The janitor as NASA casually mentions that the Martians also turned Mercury into a spaceship lmao.
I think hullo has a video where he talks about the necessary physics for something like this. I think it has to deal with moving the Moon's orbit with SRB's or something

this is sex

>>12193592

>>12193638
this thing is OP as fuck on stock KSP lol

>>12193639
Yeah there's no fucking way it works this well irl

>>12193636
very sex

>>12193626
We could do that in miniature with an O’Neill cylinder where there is a concentrated solar powerplant on the sunward side and a Plama magnet sail arranged at Mars’ L1 to form a magnetosphere generator for the planet
Just have a particle gatherer and plasma thrusters for station keeping
It would be Mars’s Deep Space 9

>>12193650
is it bad my first instinct is to make a manned version in RO

>>12193568
centrifugal artificial gravity but only on the toilet part or the ship

>>12193650
What the fuck is this? This is absolutely based

>>12193652
no

>>12193666
Navajo missile, ramjet intercontinental cruise missile on a single Atlas engine

>>12193666
It's the SM-64 Navaho, Satan.

>>12193650
>that one plan to stick the X-15 on a cluster of Navahos in order to beat the Russians to orbit
The early days of the space race were a wild time

>>12193695
Would the x15 not fucking self immolate from an orbital reentry? Also it is my understanding that is was abysmal at controlling. God damn, both the russians and NASA had so much soul in those early days up until apollo/skylab

>>12193695
how the fuck did russia have a 500 ton launchpad in 1957 this is bullshit we spent all this time trying to get the gay ass baby vanguard working and the fucking Ruskies just cheated on pad size and went big

>>12193703
>X-15 reentering from LEO, colorized
https://youtu.be/cmAlQvDQGoI

>>12193703
>Would the x15 not fucking self immolate from an orbital reentry?
North American has you covered anon

>>12193703
Yeah it was dangerous as fuck. I didn't really like First Man, but that opening scene with the X-15 was cool. The way it glows from heat and fucks up when it bounces off the atmosphere is cool

>>12193710
>thorium TPS tiles

>>12193704
Two main reasons, the Soviets were more interested in spaceflight than the Americans early on and had a head-start, and a reluctance by America to use rockets derived from ballistic missiles (ex: V-2/Redstone and Atlas) early on. Meanwhile the Soviets had no qualms about using something to explore space that was once used to carry city destroying bombs.

>>12193707
VENUSIAN SICKNESS
VENUSIAN BILIOUS

>>12193721
VENUSIAN
SICKNESS DIRE
I WANT TO BE
SET ON FIRE

>>12193710
>you get to go to space, but you'll be sterile
would you?

>>12193710
Literally how did it have the thrust/weight ratio to carry the balls of those test pilots to the fringe of the atmosphere

REMEMBER
WHERE TO ENTER
THE DOOR TO HELL IS AMBER

>>12193704
>>12193717

Another reason is that Korolev tricked the Soviet MoD into building the R-7, an oversized, impractical ICBM but which would be the perfect basis for a space rocket.

>>12193743
Yup I'm thinking he was based

>>12193743
>world cup decal

>tfw arguing about plasma thrusters and space shipping containers with /sfg/ finally gave me the missing piece for a scifi universe

If my shitty idea ever becomes a published novel I'll mention this place in the acknowledgements.

>>12193742
>melts

>>12193704
Because USSR had no place that they could launch a 2000 km range missile at Washington like US could from Europe or Turkey so they had to go all the way to ICBM and R7 was designed without in flight staging because that was not needed even while usefull in LV

>>12193759
put me in the screencap

Attention Fags, ASOG is somewhere on America's coastline, but where? Where is this big boy being built? Supposedly it's right under our noses

>>12192860
>>12192901
this, also Falcon 9 needed to chase that maximum performance just a little bit due to being size limited by road transport
Starship they just made it as big as they needed and then added a meter
>>12192866
correct

>>12193770
This is actually why ULA has their "Rocketship" for transporting their boosters by river - Atlas, Delta, and Vulcan cores are too chubby to transport by road.

>>12192758
As long as shit landing on it doesn't suffer from a shortfall of gravity as well.

>>12193777
Checked, and the rocketship is actually cool as fuck. It has to go all the way down to the panama canal just to get stuff transported across the US. But I guess you don't really have another option hahah

>>12193743
Soyuz is actually so sexy. Russian shit looks so specific, but it's hard to give a qualitative descriptor to

>>12193793
AYO WASSUP THEN

>What up, tank watchers

>>12193791
Imagine that being your job, cruising calm (sub)tropical waters, protected by the US Coast Guard, with a cargo of SPACE ROCKETS. Aside from the ayylmao-anal-probe levels of background check to get hired it'd be comfy as fuck for everyone not on mop-and-paint duty.