/sci/ - Science & Math

what if sn8 pops

>>12194803
I'll fucking pop you one bub

>>12194799
So....how does one go mining lunar water?

Cygnus will be docking with the ISS in a later today. NASA should be live streaming it soon.

>>12194792
I've played enough RP1 to know that 2 km/s short of orbit won't even get you across the Atlantic from KSC. The Shuttle ET could make it around the world but that didn't get jettisoned until after MECO, just short of orbit. There's no way single-stage starship could carry 100 tons anywhere useful.

>>12194805
Send some astronauts with hardsuits and pickaxes.

>>12194811
Again, that 2km/s is just to supplement the 7.5 in the rest of the vehicle.

Alot of vehicles are leaving the pad?

>>12194810
I'm confused at the moment about it, since I can't find a current ISS EVA schedule, yet there's someone EVA right now, and cygnus is nowhere to be seen at the moment

>>12194824
cryo test

>>12194821
7.5 km/s is nowhere near enough for transcontinental flights. That's an IRBM, not an ICBM.

>>12194826
I read that the live stream will start at 3:45am EST, so an hour and 45 mins from now.

AMERICA'S RIDE TO SPACE
THE NATION'S PROVEN HEAVY LIFTER

Oh shit roads closed 2 mins ago in boca

roads closed

>>12194844
You rang?

>>12194821
>>12194831
Also 1200t methalox + 80t dry mass + 100t payload would give it a TWR of .976 so I don't think it'd be going anywhere at all.

>>12194847
Unironically though Falcon Heavy is a proven vehicle.

>>12194851
What was so hard about slapping three cores together? And does it have any current problems? I'm surprised FH isn't launched more often (guess there's not a need for it?)

>>12194851
That was the joke. I was making fun of the Delta IV scrub problems.

>>12194848
A boosterless P2P starship only works with ~9 engines and glides to boost cross-range.

>>12194854
Falcon 9 kept getting up rated for more and more payload so it ate into the market for the Heavy, and now with Starship coming it's sort of a dead end.

>>12194831

>>12194854
It's not that easy in rocketry

>>12194854
It's gonna be a few years but now that it's proven itself you're going to see customers building payloads designed specifically for FH. They weren't gonna start building those until it actually flew first though.

SN8 pressed

LUNAR
LAVA TUBE
CITIES

>>12194854
Falcon heavy cost $90 million to lift what a $50 million Falcon 9 can (to GEO)

>>12194863
If you're conflating a 7.5 km/s velocity (except even that's too low because OMS circularization was ~150 m/s) with having 7.5 km/s of delta v on the pad then you're being pretty silly anon. The shuttle stack had well over 9 km/s on the pad and expended nearly all of that before MECO.

is there something going on tonight
someone spoonfeed me a stream i've been busy failing my hydrology class all evening

>>12194894
SN8 testing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky5l9ZxsG9M

Might get Cygnus docking with the ISS soon too but not sure about that.

the fucks going on with nerdle cam?

https://youtu.be/Ky5l9ZxsG9M

Starlink will be launching in 5 hours

>>12194894
Fuck hydrology so fucking BORING. Are you taking it for geology or engineering or something?

the comfiest I've ever been in this game

>>12194894
>>12194908
Also according to launch schedule website they're gonna try Starlink 12 launch again in 5 hours, though they may not have updated it

>>12194805
Just use a probe with a heat gun and a straw you nob

>>12194888
Only way they ever go for it is if there's water in there.

>>12194922
i'm a forestry major, the subject material is interesting enough but taking it online without any outdoor activites fucking sucks and it's even worse when nothing is organized on canvas at all so it's a pain in the ass to even find out what I'm supposed to be doing each week and only have recorded lectures by someone who talks really slow but pauses a lot so that can't even increase the speed of videos much because then the words are unintelligible when he says something after the pauses fuck

>>12194888
Minecraft cave update looks good

>>12194888
Now pressurize it to 1 atmosphere and see if it can withstand ~101 kN of force per square meter of internal area. Don't forget, rock has shitty tensile strength.

>>12194888
I never knew Philadelphia was only like a mile wide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbsxNwSOzRI
>2020
>still decades away from a proper lunar base

fuck man

>>12194938
Oh fuck yeah that makes sense. Im geology and we had to cancel field camp. Thankfully all my field classes are finished and now its all just planetary and research classes to finish my degree. I knew a forestry major who took mineralogy for fun; she was the only one in our class to get an A

>cars returning to the pad
sigh

starship-themed steel reserve for the ideal tank watching experience when bros?

>>12194950
Yes but think of all the problems we fixed here on earth by the money we saved by cutting nasa's budget

>>12194961
I used to genuinely like this when i was young,but thought natty ice tasted like watery piss.

also i think you're onto somethig anon-a Starship-themed beer cross-promotion might be cool if a non-shit company did it

>>12194945
Wouldn't the pressure of the rock above more than counteract the outward pressure of air?

>>12194989
depends how deep it is
would have to be pretty deep since lunar gravity is so shitty though

>>12194994
And that's why Martian volcanoes are superior for lava tube cities.

>>12194997
Ok but how do we get a martian volcano to the moon then?

>>12195000
SRBs

3 rockets waiting

>>12195000
You don't. You fill the bottom of the lunar lava tubes with balloon pads to make the best astronaut bouncy castle in the solar system.

lunar wingsuits WHEN

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

Geologychads, what wonders lurk in those lunar lava tubes?

>>12195019
spiders
t. apollo 18 watcher

>>12194945
I guess you wouldn't pressurize the cave but rather put pressurized habitats and only use it as massive radiation shielding
at least initially
over the time you can spray sealant and build reinforcements to keep it from caving in I suppose
also, you don't need 1 atm. Something like 0.3 atm is sufficient if you use pure oxygen to keep the partial pressure the same.
>inb4 Apollo 1
Apollo 1 was overpressured with >1 atm of pure oxygen when it caught fire
the idea was it would leak oxygen as it ascends down to the 0.3 atm to keep the pressure differential as minimal as possible
if it was pressurized only with 0.3 atm, it wouldn't have been worse than fire in regular air

>>12195019
Us, eventually. Ad astra.

SPACEX LAUNCH WHEN??????????????

>>12195019
An end portal. God damn imagine spelunking down a lava tube larger than a city. How would you even reach the bottom? Rope? I imagine something the size of starship would allow you to construct an elevator

god I love superdracos bros
burst disks hurt my soul, I want fully automated propulsive landings

>>12195035
I mean all things considered... I would. She can hang out in my rock collection

Cygnus docking at ISS coverage starting now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

>>12195070
ay blyat....

>>12195080
they shoulda upgraded the SPH

wow this is some 80s era shit,i love it

constellations providing continuous HD video of the entire planet that can then be processed and used as realtime scenery for KSP when?

>>12195079
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CTYymbbEL4

>>12195067
>NASA denies Dragon propulsive landing insists on parachutes
>Elon finishes Starship
>"sup"

>>12195017
that is why the Russians started their space program

>the flight director for this mission is a 30 year old qt
When will /sfg/?

>3 hours left in the testing window
>they're still on the cherry picker
Maybe tomorrow...

Elon arrived in Florida just in time for the launch. The launch team is sweating bullets right now.

...it's going to tear on deployment isn't it /sci/?

>>12195131
>All that tinfoil
Kek yes

the ISS was way too expensive, but it's still pretty cool. can't wait ot see what comes next.

fuck I need better solar panel tech, these things just to power the capsule are huge
at least I finally have sun tracking panels now

>>12195131
I hope it goes down in flames so the retards who let the project to blow out so badly get removed from the food chain.
Imagine what could have been achieved with all that extra money if they were forced to just ship it.
Fucking typical old space nonsense.
People have a propensity to always create more work for themselves, it's human nature.

>>12195163
What exactly is the story behind JWST, why does it keep slipping

>>12195166
it's very ambitious,but in the worst possible way-it needs to be really cold to work, so it has an enormous, incredibly delicate layered sun shade that has to be folded 14 times to fit in the rocket fairing. it tore when they actually tested deploying it in 2018. If that happens when it's out in space and sunlight falls on the mirrors, they become completely useless. So they're trying to get it to work without tearing.

It's a nightmare. I hope it works but I ave abad feeling about it.

>>12195187
its working beautifully and as designed right now
it was never supposed to be used for science, not at all ever

>A FUCKING ARM

>>12195109
>>the flight director for this mission is a 30 year old qt
So where is she then?

>Houston station cygnus capture is complete go for cygnus post capture re configuration. "in the name of space exploration, uh, some... all have given some but some have given all"
>In the most fucking dead pan unexcited voice heard by mankind

goddamn

Solid-only Moon mission when?

Nuclear solid only Mars mission when?

>soyuz ms-16 undocks from ISS
https://youtu.be/5ej2-76jheo

My dad found out about Pepe the Frog recently but calls him “Peep”

>>12195063
that where our lunar cities are supposed to be right?

>>12195314
when governments stop being bitches

25 minutes to stream

https://youtu.be/W0MGgQZIYNk

>>12195420
weather scrub https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1313077784994930688

>>12195080

>>12194805
How are they going to get something that huge into LEO?

>>12195429

>>12195445

>>12195429
Fuck off, I'm getting so blue balled.

>>12195080
Too fucking soon.

>>12195162
Huge solar panels are cool. Space stations wouldn't have looked nearly as cool if they had dinky little solar panels.

>>12195306
THINK OF ALL THE JOBS!

>>12195429
ScrubX

We got too cocky SpaceX bros! Only Jeff Bezos can save us now!

>>12195260
not my bed :'(

>>12195429
Too many scrubs!!!!
https://youtu.be/IRYGF60sNMc

Current thread anthem due to all scrubs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd9OhYroLN0

>>12195429
fuck it.
again?

Thread theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSAJ0l4OBHM

He knows how to speak my language.

>>12195564
If you're space fan and don't vote Trump, you deserve to be yeeted to Venus.

>>12195564
>>12195594
NASA should convert all rockets to run on clean coal and clorox.

>>12195594
Space colonization is immoral western imperialism

>>12195604
>tfw instead of fixing all the problems here on earth mankind has instead decided to conquer the stars
we ended up in the worst timeline bros

>>12194892
I thought they got the cost of the heavy down to 60$ million?

>>12195604
EARTH FOR THE AFRICANS! VENUS FOR THE ASIANS! MARS FOR EVERYONE!

>>12195610
Hard to fix when you aren't allowed to genocide blacks.

wtf bros!?!? A water tower just hopped over my house

>>12195594
Isn't that the dream? To be yeeted?

>>12195019
Dark, lots and lots of dark

>>12195705
Yeah but there’s cool rocks!

>>12195692
Yeeted to hell is your dream? Wtf

>>12195594
>>12195692
>>12195715
>yeeted
What does this even mean?

>>12195718
in this doggy dog world it's yeet or be yoten

>>12195187
Also it will be at L2, if something goes wrong it's not like Hubble where someone can go up and fix it.
It's over 3x further away than the Moon.

>>12194854
Falcon cores are still built very light, the good old space way, the center core had to be reinforced to prevent damage to it during flight and the configuration of engines had to be changed so they didn't scrape against one-another so the booster cores could be attached as close as they are.
With the Merlin engine constantly being uprated to increasingly superb performances, there's a deficit of payloads that ONLY a Falcon Heavy can loft, so it's been somewhat underutilized. It hasn't launched the dozens of time it takes oldspace and defense contractors to be confident in it, but only they build the kinds of heavy payloads it's designed for.

>>12194847
*explodes*

>>12194888
How do we fill it with air?

If steel is so great at handling temperature extremes then why does jet fuel melt it?

>>12195753
There's different grades of steel.

>>12195719
>yoten
I learned a new word today

>>12195753
It generally doesn't but it can get hot enough to soften mild untreated steels.

>>12195753
The jet fuel has kvetchium in it

>>12194961
*crack*
*siiiiiip*
yep thats a rocket

>>12195798
SpaceX should sell shiny canned energy drinks called Starsip.

>>12195798
Those flaps on the cone are a joke right?

>>12195818
The final ones look pretty much identical to the wings, just smaller.

>>12195022
that was a fun movie

>>12195718
birb se yeet

>>12195067
shame propulsive dragon landing was cancelled
in hindsight it probably would have been better to man rate dragon 1 and fly it with a simple launch abort tower

>>12195848
>manrate d1
This would never happen, d2 shits on d1. They would have redesigned it pretty much from scratch regardless.

>>12195594
SpaceX will continue be successful without Trump and that's all that matters.

>B-but muh Nasa
Irrelevant.

>>12195853
>that would never happen
why not?
upgrading dragon 1 to safely handle people strikes me as a far easier task than completely overhauling the design and adding superdracos as was done with dragon 2.
I just cant help but feel that AMERICAN ASTRONAUTS AMERICAN ROCKET AMERICAN SOIL could have happened several years ago had they gone with manned dragon 1

Where's the /sfg/ reading chart a la the Greeks? Best introductory texts/courses (preferably higher than single-variable calculus since I've already taken that, but for anyone who hasn't that is definitely a good place to start)?

>>12194961
Americans seriously drink that slop?

>>12195871
Nobody I know drinks the regular ones. I have two fruit punch ones a night though. Blackberry ones make you shit green.

>>12195719
>>12195840
Am I out of touch or is this reddit?

>>12195891
A bit of both I reckon

>>12195891
No, it's the children who are wrong.

>>12194564
>Could the real venturestar have had a cockpit and docked at the nose?

Dunno, but the mod author himself says its not meant to be a replica of the X-33 or Venture Star, just inspired by it

I like the idea though

>>12194799
This image looks so futuristic, yet its so far back in the past..

>>12195914

>>12195914

>>12195917
how many of these are still in use?

>>12195914
Wait until there are three Starships on the pad at once.

>>12195914
>there's an alternate timeline where the shuttle worked exactly as nasa sold it and multiple shuttles on the pad are a common sight to keep up with the launch rate

>>12195920
three, one for F9, one for Atlas V, and one for D4H. another one is now the landing zone for falcon.

>>12195031
>if it was pressurized only with 0.3 atm, it wouldn't have been worse than fire in regular air
Not true. Cody'sLab has a video where he accidentally sets fire to a stainless steel wire in a partial-atmosphere of pure oxygen. This wasn't a thin wire either, we're talking 2 or 3 mm of steel.
If you have pure oxygen and no buffer gas, metals burn hot enough to sustain combustion. You need a buffer gas present to absorb thermal energy without contributing to the reaction. This is why on Earth some things with low activation energy burn (carbon-hydrogen compounds mostly) and most things that should be able to react with oxygen don't burn.

>>12195931
Any chance any of those decommissioned ones will come back online in the near future? Or do you think there won't be a need with all these commercial companies making their own spaceports/cosmodromes?

>>12195917
>>12195931
That's not counting 39A/39B which are on the KSC civilian side.

>>12195303
Based, all those NASA motivational poster quotes are cringe as fuck. Stop treating space like some arcane mystical realm. You're just going to orbit.

>>12195951
I get it if you're the first person up there, but not the 500th.

>>12195445
>look to my right
>there's a mountain on the horizon
>walk forward 50 feet and look to my right
>wtf the mountain is still there??
scientists can't explain this

>>12195951
>all those NASA motivational poster quotes are cringe as fuck
Agreed. The most annoying is describing any given mission as "paving the way to a manned mission to Mars"

I love the idea of disposing of nuclear waste on Mars by simply leaving it in a plain

>>12195865
because it was a flying locker which would have needed to be completely redesigned to be manrated anyway, couldn't dock itself and represented a less experience phase of spacex' development.
I hate 'muh legacy component' faggots so much. If you know how to make something better, redesign it.

>>12195940
Blue Origin is gonna bring one back online but the D4H one is gonna be shut down (Vulcan is gonna launch from Atlas's pad) so no net gain in the foreseeable future.

>>12195956
That's just marketing to try and make normies care.

>>12195957
If it works on Earth it works on Mars.

When are we going to paradise bros?

>>12195980
when someone makes a brachistochrone torch drive that can get there in less than six months

>>12195980

>>12195984
Fun fact-some types of high temp superconductors could be used on titan with no additional cooling than simple fan systems.

>>12195962
fair enough then
i still think development of dragon 2 could have been much quicker if they kept the trunk and exterior of dragon 1 and didn't include the superdracos.

https://aerospace.csis.org/data/space-launch-to-low-earth-orbit-how-much-does-it-cost/

Fun historical rocket cost data to play around with. I think some of the data is tabulated wrong because he's using different sources that measure cost differently (e.g. shuttle appears to be total program cost divided by number of launches while saturn v is flyaway unit cost) but nice confirmation of how far ahead of its time Zenit was.

>>12196001
>Titan becomes the computation capital of the solar system
>the performance benefits justify a fleet of courier ships sneakernetting data back and forth in deeply rad shielded containers
>the information piles up so quickly it starts to impact the mass of the planet
>O'Neill cylinders for data and industry are justified as a way to preserve Earth's orbit
Well shit, there's your Macguffinite.

>>12196008
Zenith was Falcon 9 before Falcon 9 intended to launch propulsive landing Zarya capsule.

>>12195891
it is indeed reddit

>>12195840
this was good

>>12196008
annotated

>>12196042
Why haven't small launchers really lowered their costs yet? They're all still pretty much the same as they've always been.

>>12196047
They're still by-and-large built to be expendable, I doubt it matters much how cheap you make the vehicle, if it can only fly once before becoming trash that's going to put a hard upper limit on how much it can reduce payload costs.

>>12196002
the biggest problem with the super dracos came down to NTO essentially being even shittier to work with than was previously thought possible. I'm glad they had the opportunity to learn that lesson and NTO can be relegated to a meme fuel in future designs

>>12196060
Why haven't any small launchers done re-usability yet?

>>12196065
Electron is working on it. Parachute and fish out of the water, then eventually parachute aerial catch with a helicopter.

>>12196047
Square-cube law really starts to bite you in the ass as you get down to Falcon 1 size and less, and there's just not that much money to be made launching smallsats so there's not much incentive to innovate.

>>12196042
the soyuz russians use is the same model of te 60'? are there big differences?

>>12196065
There are some sporadic attempts, but my guess would be that partially they survive launch by launch, with very little to spare for more RnD, and part of it is >>12196069, their industry would be more profitable if they were the only platforms for cheaply launching smallsats, but since much larger reusable medium and heavy lifters are coming over the horizon their niche has been invaded by a more competitive rocket. If it's cheaper to bum a ride next to 20 other smallsats on a Falcon 9 than it would be to buy a whole Electron launch, why fly Electron?

Today in history:
>1905 – The Wright brothers pilot the Wright Flyer III in a new world record flight of 24 miles in 39 minutes.
>1984 – Marc Garneau becomes the first Canadian in space.

>>12196077
Exactly, why do companies decide to go with electron over falcon 9?

>>12196071
Engines have been uprated and the guidance systems have been replaced with modern computers but it's essentially the same rocket, yeah.

>>12196087
If you need a smallsat placed in a specific orbit that F9 never launches into (or sent to Venus) then Electron would be your best option, but that's the only reason I can think of.

>>12196065
while Electron is as >>12196068 points out, reusability is harder the smaller your rocket as it always requires some dry mass sacrifices. at the end of the day a smaller rocket carries inherent sacrifices in launch efficiency that you have to make up with other considerations (ie flexibility)

>>12196094
Having your smallsat be launched alone has some extra benefits such as cheaper insurance and being able to put modules in your satellite that ride-share wouldn't allow for safety reasons.

>>12196117
>spacex won't let me send 200kg of tannerite into orbit
>but RocketLab will

>>12196096
Also by that same token you want to minimize other dry mass losses like tankage... so hydrolox reusable is possibly the dumbest idea NASA ever had.

>>12196130
To be fair though even Elon noted that Hydrolox is actually “easy” on Engines. Kerolox is shit for engines and limits their reuses.

>>12196141
If the SSME were actually reusable without major wrench work that would be a valid point, but it wasn't.

>>12196123
Kiwis are crazy like that.

>>12196146
SSMEs were tough to reuse because they were goddamn complex and had amazing ISP and Thrust.

>>12195818
this is the old Mk1 they were just for testing

>>12196117
Better customizability makes sense. How does insurance work out like that though? I would've figured it would automatically be cheaper for rockets with more successful launches under their belts, but I don't know how it works.

>>12196130
That's why they had to throw away the tankage every time just to get a reusable hydrolox into orbit.

>>12195731
By the time their testing is done, human spaceflight capabilities will have improved to the point where this is no longer true.

>>12196141
Considering that SpaceX achieved reusability with an early engine design and little prior experience while NASA never achieved it with hydrolox, only refurbishability, I suspect there is some nuance lost in the retelling there.

Some madman needs to talk rocketlab into sending him to the iss. Its 100% possible.

>>12196159
>How does insurance work out like that though? I would've figured it would automatically be cheaper for rockets with more successful launches under their belts, but I don't know how it works.
The insurance will most likely decrease with reliable rockets, but for launches with multiple satellites pack together there are concerns that one of those satellites could cause issues for the others. Such as a catastrophic failure damaging other satellites, or outgassing messing with sensitive electronics. I'm not sure how common such issues were, but apparently they're enough to cause concern with the insurance companies.

>>12196168
The Merlin was made like a mass produced product where each part was interchangeable and cheap. The SSME was made like an artisan masterpiece where each part needed hand-fitting to work.

>>12196168
The SSME's reusability issues came down to it being asked to do too much - a ground-lit engine that needed to reach orbit with much higher chamber pressures than had ever been done before, even by the Soviets.

The RL-10 CECE demonstrator could burn for at least 10,000 seconds. I imagine something like an RS-68 would be much more reusable than a Merlin if anyone ever cared to try.

>>12196176
If you sent a midget with a MOOSE pack and an EVA suit it would totally be doable.

>>12196211
>RS-68
You’d have to replace the ablative nozzle with a regenerative cooling system if you wanted to reuse it. Shouldn’t be too hard, though, considering that was already proposed when NASA realized that RS-68s wouldn’t play well next to the SRBs on the Ares V.

>>12196214
>electron payload to leo: 300 kg
>EMU suit weight: 145 kg
>weight of avg human: 62 kg

that gives you 93 kg to spare and MOOSE surely must weigh less than that.
it can be done

>>12196211
>I imagine something like an RS-68 would be much more reusable than a Merlin if anyone ever cared to try.

It's interesting that ULA has gone with the Vulcan when in all reality it might have made more sense to spend the money instead on a deep-throttleable regeneratively cooled "RS-68 2.0" and go for Falcon 9-style reusability from the Delta IV core instead.

>>12196211
>I imagine something like an RS-68 would be much more reusable than a Merlin if anyone ever cared to try.
A reusable RS-68 is basically an SSME.

>>12196251
lmfao

>>12196235
>MOOSE surely must weigh less than that
just checked, MOOSE would have weighed 91 kg holy fuck thats cutting it close

>>12196214
>>12196235
Steal an electron, launch yourself into orbit, sneak into an ISS airlock and hijack the station. You don't need a MOOSE because it's your soyuz now.

This would be a much more feasible Bond villain plot than launching an entire evil space station into orbit and nobody notices it.

>>12196241
Even if you could land D4 cores (and it'd probably be harder to do than F9 cores), you'd have to reuse them a bunch because the things are so damn expensive.

>>12196251
That's like saying Merlin is just a reusable RD-181.

>>12196235
>>12196254
>2kg to spare
could widen that margin by switching from an EMU to an Orlan

>>12196262
The payload is only 300kg though

>>12196262
>cant open the door because of fucking course they keep it locked
>asphyxiate

>>12196273
see
>>12196235

why are investors dumb dumbs who think virgin galactic is a good investment in space? they can't even get to space, not meaningfully

>>12196262
>You don't need a MOOSE because it's your soyuz now.
Imagine being the first interplanetary fugitive wanted for grand theft spacecraft.

>>12196283
Hey, they have that worthless smallsat launcher that's like a shittier Pegasus, so at least they have that going for them.

>>12196270
No, we need to go lighter
>composite tanked fire extinguisher full of hydrazine with a catalyst bed in the nozzle
>just point and shoot bro

>>12196275
You could knock politely and tell them you're lost and need to use the bathroom.

Then once you have control over the station you reveal your true master plan by announcing that the ISS will only receive Starliner capsules from now on and accept your billion-dollar check from ULA.

>>12196287
lol no, slimy vinyl record jew Branson split Virgin Orbit off from Virgin Galactic to defraud investors

>>12196283
Venture capitalists don't actually understand the products that they are investing on, and people still believe in that space tourism is actually anything other than a novelty.

>>12196290
SOMEONE GIVE THIS MAN A COST PLUS

>>12196303
Not knowing the product you're investing in is fucking stupid and I say this as someone with several thousand dollars of Gamestop stock

>>12196318
i still dont understand the gamestop meme

>>12196322
Physical video game sales have been tanking for years. Between emulation for old games and DRM on new games, the used market is a corpse. The joke is that only a complete retard would buy stock in a company selling new and used physical copies of video games.

>>12196318
>Not knowing the product you're investing in is fucking stupid
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lutHF5HhVA..
Some stuff made to attract venture money are pretty much scams, both to the investors and to the consumer.
>and I say this as someone with several thousand dollars of Gamestop stock
That is more embarrassing than non-ironically enjoying Drizzt novels.

>>12196322
theres two basic lines of thought
>GME actually has a decent amount of cash, they're aggressively cutting costs, they launched a new mobile app, they increased digital sales 800% last quarter, and are on track to post their first profit in a while in 2021 (debt isn't due until 2023) – therefore, the market cap of $600M or so doesn't reflect the total value of their assets and revenues, Ryan Cohen of CHWY and Reggie of Nintendo are deeply involved
>GME is literally the most shorted stock on the NYSE despite the above, to the point that nobody has any idea how it got this high (literally more shares short than exist as of mid September, unfortunately the data is given biweekly

>>12196328
Almost half of preorders appear to be for consoles with disk trays, which is nothing short of mana from heaven for Gamestop. Consider that Gamestop's online revenue alone will be over $1B next year, double their market cap.

>>12196338
>Almost half of preorders appear to be for consoles with disk trays
Isn't that because the digital only consoles got gimped on specs?

>>12196341
AFAIK the only difference is the disk drive, and that the disk drive versions cost more.

>>12196283
There is a market for space tourism, but its waaay smaller than commercial launch. I still wish virgin luck and hope that the launches are affordable someday.

>>12195377
god bless

>>12196363
I just think Virgin's going to be completely cannibalized by Starship and New Shepard. NS is simpler and hasn't killed anyone, Starship is more capable in every way and should be similar cost or cheaper.

>>12195891
children don't use reddit but yeet was a children meme circa 2018

>"The Space Force says it changed the nickname of a GPS navigation satellite launched in June from Columbus to instead honor Matthew Henson, a Black explorer on the first expedition to the North Pole more than a century ago"
the space force is officially POZZED

>>12196379
Gotta say I'm loving the trend of giving supreme honours to black people who happened to be tangentially related to important historic events

>>12196379
There's enough shit named Columbus already but who the fuck was Henson? Just a guy on the ship or someone important?

>>12196379
This is why culture war stuff is important, otherwise you get gay niggers from outer space in the official logbooks.

>>12196363
To be fair, I like being conservative with my plans, and all of my plans for space involve me saving $250K for a Virgin/Blue hop. It’ll take like 20-40 years depending on how college goes.

>>12196159
no, they threw away the tankage because they wanted a huge payload bay AND a manned orbiter AND no staging

>>12196375
In all fairness the spaceplane functioned flawlessly, they had a procedural mishap on feathering. But being sloppy enough to leave a single point of failure on something like that is worrisome.

>>12196382
sojourner was 24 years ago, it's nothing new

>ywn see a spacecraft named columbia again

>>12196403
>>ywn see a spacecraft named columbia again
inb4 Elon names SN19 Columbia and deliberately lets it burn up on reentry

>>12196403
>A sojourner is a person who resides temporarily in a place. Sojourner may also refer to: Sojourner Truth (1797–1883), abolitionist and women's rights activist.
Genuinely thought my whole life that the rover was named for that first reason. Something tells me that the connection to the lady was only made after the name was chosen to drum up publicity

>>12196405
only manned Starships will get names

>>12196389
GNAS is an official sponsor for spaceforce

>>12196403
>ywn see a spacecraft named columbia again
We keep re-using many of the same names over and over anyway, so a change in names would be welcome.

Elon should unilaterally decide cargo and passenger Starships are male and tankers are female.

>>12196446
>tankers are female.
"Mars One, tanker Tubgirl approaching. Prepare for propellant transfer."

>>12196434
CM Columbia sent the first men to the surface of the moon, Shuttle Columbia was born and died for the dream of regular, affordable spaceflight, and Starship Columbia will realize that dream. Accept nothing less.

>>12196446
wrong, tankers are futa
in order to prevent ass to ass from being gay, cargo and passenger Starships need to be female

>>12196446
They're all reversible.

>>12196463
>50 meter tall futanaris doing symmetrical docking in space
First /pol/ made their memes real, now /d/ is.

>>12196379
PATHETIC

FUCKING VIRTUE SIGNAL

lmao

>>12196478
>polling go no go
>power is nominal
>telemetry signal is nominal
>virtue signal is nominal
>the commissar has declared this mission to be socially just and environmentally responsible
>go for ignition

Less than half the cost of an F9. Elon is fucked.

>>12196390
lol by then starship will probably allow orbital tourism for much less then that, potentially even a ticket to mars

>>12196467
>>12196460
based and dickgirl pilled

>>12196491
Good luck to them. A 5 engine Raptor stack is what I came up with in Realism Overhaul too, good to know Russia is at least using the right mods when they plan their space program in KSP

>>12196491
Source on the image? It looks sloppily put together like their Soyuz.

>>12196491
With the reusable 10.5 tons option (which is the only way they'll get 22m launch cost), its around 2666 dollars per kilogram to LEO. With Falcon 9's internal launch cost its around 1866 dollars per kilogram with reused first stages.

>>12196504
Hey, Soyuz is venerable. At this rate it very well might be the first orbital rocket family in service for a century. It's like the B-52 or Tu-95 of space.

>>12196512
Wait, what engine are they using? A new design or something that's been around for a while? It certainly isn't Raptor thrust class if they're only pushing 10t to LEO.

>>12196411
>Genuinely thought my whole life that the rover was named for that first reason
Same

For me it's horizontal SSTO

>>12196504
It's translated from https://www.roscosmos.ru/29357/ but some of it was too hokey to not post (like translating "fairing" as "cowl").

>>12196500
the rocket is copyrighted by TASS, do not steal.

>>12196518
the RD-0169, which has been in development for a methane soyuz replacement for like 15 years at least. They were talking about launching Kliper on it back in the day.

>>12196491
F9's marginal plus first refurb is about 16-17 mil. They charge 50 mil because you want to make at least enough to replace the vehicle if it's destroyed plus profit so they can fund the RnD of Starship+Superheavy.

>>12196491
>everyone copying SpaceX now
Kek, so far that's France China and Russia making their own knockoff F9s? Did I miss any?

>>12196532
>stock solar system and fuels

>>12196536
I think they're all going methane purely because Elon is, which is pretty funny actually. A big part of the methane thesis is ISRU, something a 10 ton LEO stick doesn't care about. Sure, kerosene cokes the turbines, but it's not like that's a problem for jets.

>>12196544
>>I think they're all going methane purely because Elon is, which is pretty funny actually. A big part of the methane thesis is ISRU, something a 10 ton LEO stick doesn't care about. Sure, kerosene cokes the turbines, but it's not like that's a problem for jets.

If you subcool methane, you can reap the benefits of RP-1-esque density and better ISP together, and the theoretical thermodynamic efficiency is effectively attainable in actual practice.

>>12196536
That's the real reason NASA never tried to cost optimize - anything that was only barely in reach for the US government was by definition out of reach for everyone else.

>>12196544
I'd actually expect JAXA to go for reusable methalox since oil scarcity is a major problem for Japan and always will be. They've already got nukeplants and ocean access, so Sabatier is actually their best bet for domestic propellant production.

>>12196536
>2040
>everyone finally gets their own knockoff falcon 9
>meanwhile spacex is using 18 meter starship

>>12196544
yeah, if you're doing engine and design from scratch your best bet is still to do propalox, or stick with kerosene since it's what you know

>>12196534
>RD-0169
pic related, RD-0164 which is connected with RD-0169 development.

>>12196544
Elon didn't come up with methane engines. The Russians tested several back in the 90s and NASA looked at some for Constellation. If you want to credit an /sfg/ meme for popularizing them then credit Zubrin.

>>12196562
What are those spheres up by the top, preburners?

>>12196563
Elon didn't "come up" with methalox but Raptor was the first to enter serial production, no?

>>12196569
The preburner is stored in the balls.

>>12196569
propellant flows through the balls

>>12196563
>The Russians tested several back in the 90s
It goes БPAAAAAAAAП!

>>12195798
>>12195816
I suck at this but here's an idea

>>12196570
BE-4 development started more than a year before Elon finally settled on a methalox Raptor design. I think engines were just going in that direction because the Delta IV finally convinced everyone that hydrolox lower stages were a waste of money so people finally started seriously looking at hydrocarbons again.

>>12196569
No idea. I doubt they're all preburners because some don't seem to directly lead to turbines. Some might be oscillation dampeners.

pic related another related engineski

space for the spacenoids

>>12196577
>spacesip
goddammit

>>12196591
>lox/lng
kek

don't forget your vitamin C

>>12196598
orang

Any predictions on the future of travel between earth and mars?
I expect initial transport to be handled by starship and similar vehicles, to be later replaced with giant spin gravity cycler ships, then expanse tier torchships somewhere later down the line. Anything else?

>>12196598
Sank you Mikan beryy cooru

>>12196621
tape outgassing drives

>>12196627
nigga

>>12196621
photon loop drive sea dragons

>>12196621
Cyclers only make sense if we transport people between Earth and Mars on a mass scale before torchships are developed. I think it's more likely we get torchship-equivalent spacecraft before mass colonization.

>>12196491
>steering wheel

>>12196630
>higher thrust than an ion drive in laboratory conditions

>>12196627
Layered-ablative-duct tape-shielding
Reenter in style with LADS

>>12196621
Couldn't you get artificial gravity from just the acceleration of the ship the whole way to a destination except for the turnaround in the middle?

>>12196491
>Conceptual model
>It's a poorly drawn copy of F9
Well, I'm sure Rogozin will claim Elon stole those totally original plans in the first place or something.

>>12196658
yes, that's a brachistone trajectory, the problem is finding a way to actually have 1g of constant acceleration for weeks to months

>>12196661
I wonder if he still thinks SpaceX is faking their success.

>>12196581
Is this true? That's impressive if so. Also I have a very very important question, all anons get in here. Do you think every country is seriously chasing reusable / methane now? We've now seen concepts from France, Russia, India, China (I think), etc. While they are just concepts, do you think every country will eventually make the switch? Was this kickstarted by spacex alone??

>>12196636
No, the higher thrust than an ion drive was the photon loop at 0.1N/kW. The outgassing tape was like 0.00000001N/kW.

>>12196634
cyclers are merely decades away
torchships are probably centuries away
i think mass colonization will come first, and will drive the development or torchships.

>>12196684
I think every country is at least looking into it, but the based Indians are the only ones that have flown a prototype. Even China is retarded.

Was this started by SpaceX? Sort of. Every country wanted a reusable rocket ... eventually, but it was SpaceX who made them say “oh shit we gotta do this now.” But there have been hundreds of reusable rocket designs that could have worked, but never were funded

>>12196684
SpaceX never started reusable rockets. Pretty much every space agency worth their salt wanted reusable launch systems for a while. It's just that a combination of the Shuttle set a bad standard for reusable launchers, and sudden spaceflight apathy from governments worldwide has stopped the pursuit. SpaceX just broke this barrier and relit interest in the concept.

>>12196739
>an alternate history where the Shuttle kept flying after 2011 resulting in the Space Shuttle Atlantis suffering a catastrophic cabin RUD

>>12196739
>"H-hey do you guys think we could switch seats on the way ba-"
>"lolno"

>>12196705
Thank you, great answer
>>12196716
Yeah that's a good point. But had spacex gone under after Falcon 1 I don't think we would have the proposals we see today y'know? Shuttle was the closest thing to reusable we had (and that was from arguably the greatest space agency in the world). I'm not trying to shill out capitalism or anything but it really fucking goes to show the wonders of the commercial market. Russia would have never tried it. ESA would have stuck with Ariane until the end of time. China... is china. India would just try to get humans to orbit by any means necessary. Hell, even South Korea has come out and said they don't want to pursue reusable rockets because it costs too much and would destroy too many jobs. And we see where NASA is going. They took shuttle and "made it better" by creating an expendable rocket that can't even find a launch date

>>12196146
>>12196141
>>12196168
Hydrolox isn't that hard on engines, but you're forced to only use hydrogen-embrittlement-proof alloys, and those alloys aren't the strongest or the highest strength to weight ratio.
SSME was hard to reuse because of its combustion cycle, not its fuel. Staged combustion with only one type of preburner (in this case fuel rich) requires you to use complex and very tight labyrinth seals to separate the contents of the preburner form the contents of the pump.
In a FFSC engine you have two preburners and they're both rich in the propellant they're pumping, so having a perfect seal doesn't matter.

>>12196758
Fuck I also forgot to reply to >>12196739
I like jared owen, his videos are short and informative

>>12196716
>WASSERSTOFFSUPEROXYD FÜR TURBINEN-PUMPEN
>water stuff with extra oxygen for turbine pumps
>they mean peroxide
what a silly and delightful language

>>12196739
>the shuttle had literal lower class seats
um based?

>>12196739
>"Hmm that guy below is is sus"

>>12196772
>"Didn't we launch with only 4?"

>>12196251
Dude, the only similarity between RS-25 and RS-68 is the propellant choice. RS-25 uses fuel rich staged combustion, RS-68 uses a gas-generator. Totally different.

>>12196460
Based. Fill me up with your fluids, mommy

a gas generator engine, but with separate oxygen rich and fuel rich turbo pumps so you don't have to bother with seals at all

>>12196563
Who the fuck cares? Elon is the guy who funded and pushed Raptor development. Who cares that he wasn't the first person in history to think "hey, what if I put the simplest hydrocarbon into a rocket"? His company has developed the highest Isp hydrocarbon engine ever, with the highest chamber pressure of any engine ever, AND it's fucking $2 million apiece! What the fuck does Elon need to do for you fags to shut the fuck up and just concede that he probably knows better than you in a field that he has spent 90 hours a week for TWENTY YEARS devoting his autism towards? Jesus Christ. You just neeeeed to stick your finger in that pie, huh? You gotta be the guy that knocks Elon fucking Musk down one microscopic peg, as if that puts the big guy at several giant companies who have revolutionized their respective industries to varying degrees and stands to do even more at an even faster pace in the near future on the same level as you, some fucking schmo who posts on "four-chan".

>>12196828
>Who the fuck cares? Elon is the guy who funded and pushed Raptor development. Who cares that he wasn't the first person in history to think "hey, what if I put the simplest hydrocarbon into a rocket"? His company has developed the highest Isp hydrocarbon engine ever, with the highest chamber pressure of any engine ever, AND it's fucking $2 million apiece! What the fuck does Elon need to do for you fags to shut the fuck up and just concede that he probably knows better than you in a field that he has spent 90 hours a week for TWENTY YEARS devoting his autism towards? Jesus Christ. You just neeeeed to stick your finger in that pie, huh? You gotta be the guy that knocks Elon fucking Musk down one microscopic peg, as if that puts the big guy at several giant companies who have revolutionized their respective industries to varying degrees and stands to do even more at an even faster pace in the near future on the same level as you, some fucking schmo who posts on "four-chan".

>>12196634
Cycler make sense regardless of the power of the rocket. It's about carrying millions of people the most efficiently possible. I'm not re-doing the math here but Cycler win on the long run because it free your torchship for other uses without loosing much in travel time.

The real uncertainty is how many people we will actually need away from LEO and how automated our technology will be.
If we still need ten of millions of humans for a civilization, Cycler win.
If we only need a few thousands, Torchship win.

Terraforming Mars is a stupid meme and if we don't terraform you only need it for resources, since there's more resources more easily accessible everywhere else you'd likely prefer orbital habitat at place where you need decision-maker, with a shift once orbital habitat become enjoyable enough to be their own reason to exist.
Then mankind would likely build and move the habitat themselves with millions of inhabitant to simplify the logistic.

>>12196491
I don't think very highly of potemkin space right now, but if they pursue this with fervor they could at least maintain relevance. It's fucking retarded to still be conjuring up F9 clones though. An SS clone would be clearly superior even if you couldn't achieve or fell well short of most of its design goals.

>>12196684
I think they think they're pursuing it seriously but they also don't believe Starship will be operational before 2030 because they don't autistically follow the streams showcasing extremely rapid development and iteration of Starship happening right now. They're gonna get a rude ass awakening in 2022 when Starship is launching payloads to orbit and they realize "Oh shit, our old ways don't fucking work and cannot compete" and they're either going to restructure or fail to adapt and turn into even crankier old dinosaurs until they cease to exist.

>>12196796
Based retard, all the complexity of a FFSC engine with none of the performance benefits

>>12196841
We don't have torch ships and we never will. I'm with you on the orbital habitats thing eventually becoming the dominant class of human habitation though, simply because people who grow up on orbitals won't have any stigma against living on an orbital and therefore will go on to build more orbitals as their populations increase. While people living on planets are bottlenecked by the size of the planet, people living in orbitals are bottlenecked by the mass of the asteroid belt, and by the time they've used up even 5% of that they'd be able to roflstomp any planetary civilization and take their resources. Dyson swarm orbital habitat cloud around the Sun with a population of hundreds of quadrillions is basically inevitable if you just extend the timeline.

>>12196845
Yeah I feel like the writing on the wall is right there. SpaceX is doing this in the open, with people documenting every process. It’s been a year and they are already about to push it up to 15km... And they have a proven track record with falcon so it’s not like they’re just bluffing. Even in a worst case scenario, Starship will BTFO any other launch provider. My best hope is that it runs Boeing’s space division into the ground (even at the expense of ULA) and i’m hoping it’s rapid reusability is so fast that the DoD would rather launch on a cheap / quick starship than a ULA “tried and true” rocket

>>12195871
they are the ideal balance between getting drunk cheap as fuck and not tasting so awful you want to puke

>We don't have torch ships and we never will

>>12196849
ez reuse and low temperature / low tolerance turbines though, slap a pintle injector in there and pull it on a balloon tank

I was shitting on Starship E2E last night but it looks like it could make space-to-earth beamed power work.

When NASA studied solar satellite microwave transmitters in the 70s they were assuming a panel efficiency of about 15%, but modern panels do much better - ISS panels are over 30%. 5 kg/kW is feasible going by wikipedia.

6 Starship flights (one for payload + 5 tankers, it doesn't need to be full) to put 100t of solar panels generating 20MW in geostationary orbit.

Transmission efficiency doesn't seem to have been given a great deal of thought in their reports but they used a reference efficiency of 88% so let's stick with that. That would give us 17.6 megawatts on Earth for one payload.

At current prices 1 starship launch is about $2.2m in fuel so 6 launches give you $13.2 million in fuel for 17.6 mW, or less than $1000/kW.

New nuclear power plants cost more than $5000/kW, so Starship beamed power constellations could potentially be cost-effective for launch prices below $15 million.

To supply the entire electricity consumption of the United States would require over 25000 100t solar arrays so it would mean essentially unlimited business if Elon could get something like this going.

>>12195871
American youth yes. Beer is big here, but not like german beer. Shitty, cheap beer and/or pretentious IPA shit that tastes like ass. I don't know what the big deal is. When I want a drink, personally, I just keep a liquor collection and make a mint julep or vodka on the rocks or something. I need to cut my drinking though lmao I have had too much recently and I'm not proud of it

>>12196885
What the fuck anon lmao. I am in the complete opposite boat. I want E2E to work to the point where I have convinced myself it will work even if proof is provided against it- yet I think beamed power is an absolute meme that will never work and should never, ever, ever be persued

Why haven’t more companies taken the StainlessSteelPill yet? It’s cheap as fuck and even before Starship, it’s proven to work (Atlas until the early 00’s).

Seriously though. Even starship had a build cost of under a million dollars minus the engines (300 tons of steel at $3/kg = $900,000).

>>12196885
>E2E
Has its niche for for time-sensitive missions at a middling cost.
>beamed power
First of all, has nothing to do with E2E, you're just putting something in orbit same as ever. Second, fuck memed power.

>>12196446
No no, tankers are male. They squirm space COOM-LOX into the passenger starships.

>>12196898
Why the fuck do Americans love steel so much?

>>12196861
>We don't have torch ships and we never will.
Literally the only thing standing in the way is bulk 150-250K superconductors.

>>12196898
Just look at the wave of F9 clones (euros, chinks, and now russians looking to make copies). They waited for the program to be not just be successful but outcompete before even putting copies on the drawing board. They just don't have the capacity for forethought. Someone else has to do all the work first.

>>12196898
What are they using instead of steel?

>>12196841
If you have a torchship then the whole point is that you'd burn it the whole way instead of staying rendezvoused with a station for months on end. A torchship that docks with a cycler isn't a torchship.

>>12196925
We make very good steel in very large quantities so we can use it for a bunch of stuff.

>>12196905
Beamed power down to Earth is retarded. Beamed power to other objects in vacuum is supremely redpilled.

>>12196925
Steel kicks ass, commie.

>>12196934
painstakingly artisan hand crafted isogrid aluminium lithium

>>12196925
Aye wassup then

>>12195445
>backgrounds match exactly
except the part where it doesn't. Clearly the one on the right is closer to the mountains. It's hard to judge distance on a small body with no air. Could be 1 or 10 km distance between where the pics were taken, easy to do with the rover.

>>12196956
Oh- h- hey Carnegie. No that wasn’t me shit talking steel online ha ha. No no you don’t have to send the pinkertons after my cost-plus defense company

>>12196894
>>12196905
>>12196936
What's so memey about space-to-earth beamed power? All I know is the rectenna pictures look cool and I just want starship to have something to do...

>>12195594
>believing trump

>>12195829
>showing off the underside of Starship
Its like you want me to fap to her

>>12196905
Imagine particle beam cannon from space.

>>12196964
>What's so memey about space-to-earth beamed power?
Atmospheric transmission losses, particularly on cloudy days, and absolutely skull-fucking everyone's wireless communications within a kilometer or ten of the rectenna, including wifi and GPS.

>>12195921
Starship Heavy?

>>12196965
If Trump is reelected he'll have the opportunity to get a moon landing during his second term. No way he does anything but shovel money at NASA.

>>12196936
Yeah I was taking that as earth-centric given the context, I don't know about beamed power in other locales. I'd like to see a pitch for that though because I don't see how, if operating around an airless world, you see benefits worth the invariably massive efficiency cut given that solar works at optimal levels on the surface (and even obviates the day/night cycle ie in certain lunar locales).

Incidentally, SpaceX's 304L comes from a euro-owned factory in the US. Procuring the steel isn't nearly as much a problem as the doctrinal shift of admitting that making rockets out of condensed autismium is a mistake.

>>12195957
a sign that says "pls no touch" with a skull and crossbones

>>12196980
Absolutely, love him or hate him it's in his best interest to get a landing during his second term, and in America's best interests too. He knows this, whatever else you may think of him.
I'm not sure Biden has any clue what NASA is up to whatsoever, haven't heard him speak on it.

>>12196964
Losses are very high, both in bouncing power from mirror to mirror (or transmitter to receiver) and in penetrating Earth's atmosphere. It becomes more desirable and feasible at very large scales, but we aren't remotely near that level of scale in space yet. Could be worth it for a Moon colony though.

>>12196985
>China announces their proposed landing site for a Martian colony
>The US announces their graveyard site for spent Orion vehicles
>Coincidentally the same area
Oh that suuuuucks

>>12196965
I believe in his ego, he's an ego man, if space gives him an opportunity to be remembered for something, I believe he will be more likely to pursue it.
Large scale commercial space projects like new space stations, a semi-permanent Moon outpost (or at least the infrastructure to lay one down) would both be substantial achievements he could claim credit for.

>>12196996
>Chinese villagers emigrate to Mars colony
>still get rockets dropped on them

>>12196861
I'm the anon you are answering and torchship are inevitable because sometime a niche will ask for them.
Thought I do have a low bar for them. Anything capable of non-continuous yet 1G travel without launch windows will suffice.

>>12196935
All the quality you want for a Torchship are also the one you'd want for a super-tug. If you have Cyclers or simply a space habitat you want to move, you'll need Torchship-level spaceship.

If you have millions of people to carry, it is more efficient to quickly rendez-vous with a Cycler while carrying 1000 passenger on economy seat, than it is to feed 100 of them for a duration barely shorter, refuel, and come back to take more.

However, if the future of mankind are the 1% with their obedient human-level robots slave, then the equation change considerably.

>>12196983
Beamed power in vacuum is useful in two situations. First, beaming power from places of more sunlight to less sunlight. The easy mode is moving power from big solar farms at lagrange points to the lunar surface or LEO. The hardmode version of that is setting up a bunch of super dense solar farms at Mercury's orbit and flinging concentrated fuck-you beams out past Mars to colonies in the asteroid belt or the gas giants' moons.

The second situation beamed power in vacuum is useful for is providing energy to a rocket. You can make an extremely lightweight high-Isp rocket with decent thrust if you don't need to carry a nuclear reactor along and can just use a few mirrors, some propellant, and a nozzle. Even with ion drives, providing beamed power gives you a shitton of TWR improvement over hauling around a reactor - think of a 200MW VASIMR's performance receiving the energy from a laser.

>>12196978
>>12196964
>>12196995
What if we simply redirect pure laser heat toward mirrors?
(and we fix climate warming with space solar shade)

Do you think the weather impact (due to atmosphere) will be manageable?

>>12196979
>it's not that easy in rocketry.png

>>12197013
Its possible to imagine beam power in space acting like "gas stations" of space and charging rockets/satellites/stations/etc. Short burst of concentrated power could potentially eliminate bulky batteries or augment them for fast charge

>>12197010
>If you have Cyclers or simply a space habitat you want to move, you'll need Torchship-level spaceship.
Actually that's not entirely true. A Mars cycler can pick up its extra delta-V kick away from the sun with a plasma magnet sail that weighs under a ton and can be powered with solar panels or beamed power. The 30m sized plasma magnet sail provides ~6kN in the direction of solar wind and the cycler only needs ~1km/s delta-V to reach Mars transfer after it swings out of Earth's magnetosphere.

>>12197028
>What if we simply redirect pure laser heat toward mirrors?
Higher frequency beams work better at long distances. Infra-red lasers work better than microwaves, but less well than visible light lasers.

>>12197036
That'd work if you had lightweight high density supercapacitor banks for shipboard power.

>>12197028
The most plausible beamed power examples I can think of used phased arrays, but as of right now I definitely would be concerned over the local weather effects of pumping huge amounts of infrared radiation to receivers on Earth. Large amounts of that power would be lost to the atmosphere, you'd be injecting quite a lot of heat directly into the local area.
Honestly I think it would be better to simply move off of petrochemical fuels for grid and vehicle applications and move over to nuclear in the short term and fusion in the mid-long term.
Save beamed power for space colonies on airless or near-airless bodies.

>>12197031
It really isn't though, as much as that's made fun of FH was a much harder problem/longer development than anticipated. With two superheavies trying to shake the center core apart you'd probably end up in a similar situation, also that second stage is a fucking disaster

>>12197042
>Actually that's not entirely true. A Mars cycler can pick up its extra delta-V
I was thinking about setting them into motion in the first place, not simple correction which are likely easy with that level of technology.
Plus anything is possible with big enough sail, or putting laser sail everywhere. I was assuming propellant-based propulsion to be the efficient choice here.

Not forgetting that if your Cyclers is faster than an Hohmann transfer then you'll not be using them for decade on their way back.

>>12197054
>also that second stage is a fucking disaster
It should be a VentureStar based design with vacuum RS-25s instead of memeospikes.

>>12197136
>Plus anything is possible with big enough sail
The plasma magnet sail in particular is physically tiny, but produces drag effects hundreds of kilometers across. That's why it's cool.

>>12197137
honestly it should just be the standard SS but carry more fuel load into orbit, fuck venturestar and FUCK the SSME

>>12197140
I haven't heard a lot about this type of drive but I'll take your """"physically tiny"""" with prudence.
It sound like another meme-drive like the Bussar Ramjet where someone exaggerated a number by an order of magnitude and realistically it take a 100km2 not-so-massless sail to move a garbage can worth of equipment.

>>12197164
Nope, the plasma sail is 100% the real deal. It's as good as magsails get.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vVOtrAnIxM

The 2500kg probe in this video accelerates at 0.5m/s^2 and not 0.5g (~4.5m/s^2) but that's just a speaking error. The math works.

>>12196491
>>12196534
>2026
Lierally pic related.

SpaceX added more dates for testing, everyday this weekday is a testing day (at night)

>>12196452
>Mars One
>not Goatse
>>12196491
>Conceptual model
better hurry up

747 with SSME

manned starship to pluto mission profile

>>12197273
The only way it'd be cooler is if it were a double-tail or v-tail.

>>12197295
me onthe left

>>12197300
no its actually me fuck off faker

>>12197304

>>12197304
>>12197300
it's okay I'll grab both your asses

>>12196925
it can't be melted by jet fuel

>Decide to go to /o/'s EV threads to see if there is anything about tesla, since battery picked my interest
>Non stop rants about how EVs are a scam and how the concept of fuel efficiency is a communist plot
Are these people retard?

>>12197346
there's an autistic TSLAQ jannie who deletes any positive mention of electricity

>>12197346
There's a grain of truth in there. A lot of car regulations ARE done with the explicit intent of removing older gasoline powered cars from the road, which disproportionately impacts the poor, forcing them to stay huddled in cities near public transit. In US politics, anything that forces more urbanization can be reasonably assumed to be a tool of the left. Most EVs have such pitiful range that they keep you confined to a city anyways.

That said, I don't think Tesla is a scam, and Elon certainly isn't a Communist.

>>12197364
all Elon's shit revolves around the mars colony
there ain't no gasoline on mars, but there will be tons of electricity
also: telsas actually have good range, so they're a clear step above your average estrogen wagon

>>12197346
if you think anything other than a nip shitbox produced in the 80s and early 90s is worth discussing /o/ isn't really the place yeah. it is a shame because battery tech is really getting interesting now.

>>12197319
jokes on you anon! i was actually a boy all along!
know what that makes you? GAY
YOUR GAY LMAO

>>12197379
>take twink
>add tits
>???
>ersatz tomboy
I can roll with it

>>12197361
It seemed like legitimately user retardation, not just some butthurt jannie doing it for free.
>>12197364
>Most EVs have such pitiful range that they keep you confined to a city anyways.
Don't the newer teslas have ICE-like range? Anyway everyone admits that EVs with ICE-levels range are for now costly, but EVs are a maturing tech that basically didn't exist as anything other than a novelty 15 years ago.
>>12197378
>battery tech is really getting interesting now.
I hope so. People forget it but the real issue with EVs are batteries, since the only other thing that make an EV an EV is the electrical motor, which is actually both cheaper and easier to produce than an ICE.

>>12197386
>Don't the newer teslas have ICE-like range?
Yes and no. I've driven over a thousand miles in a day before. Teslas don't charge fast enough to do that yet.

>>12197386
when the jannie actively suppresses any intelligent discussion, eventually only the retards remain

>>12197387
Look I understand big American scale distance because I'm a fucking leaf, but why would you ever choose to drive a thousand miles in one day? Even half that starts sucking.

>>12197385
based gamer elon wont let stinky gayboys like u go to mars u know

>>12197395
that's not true Elon's a white supremacist and everyone knows nazis are big gay

>>12197394
I was moving from the midwest to the west coast, and had a deadline to make. I underestimated how much time it would take for the movers to pack up and leave on the first day, so I pushed hard the second day to make up for it.

>>12197387
>Teslas don't charge fast enough to do that yet.
I think a Tesla can charge in about 20 min, which is longer than what it would take to fill your tank but would enable those distances.
>>12197394
Maybe anon is a trucker.

>>12197388
Hopefully that doesn't happen here. Imagine a /sci/ without /sfg/.

>>12197400
>I think a Tesla can charge in about 20 min
At certain supercharger stations, yeah. I don't think those are fully deployed at major stopover points on interstates yet.

>>12197398
>big gay
>big
sorry anon im afraid we cant let you go to mars, every gram counts, after all.

>>12197394
Most I've done is 500 miles in one day and my vision had gone weird by the end

>>12197402
>At certain supercharger stations
Yeah, that would be it. Are those stations all owned by Tesla or can anyone set them up?

>>12197418
>tfw drove over 500 miles for a job interview
>tfw didn't get the position

>>12197399
>>12197387
>I've driven a thousand miles in a day
Why did America fail to develop the high speed train?

>>12197418
Driving for a long time sucks in general. It is soul sucking doing it in a city, but even a highway with low traffic it becomes mind numbing after the first hour.
I guess I know now why taxi drivers are such assholes.

>>12197428
High speed rail wouldn't let me take my car on board so that's sort of irrelevant to a one way move. If I'm just doing a brief visit I fly.

>>12197429
But Hollywood told me long road trip drives through bumfuck Iowa were exciting?

>>12197428
Planes are faster, and used to cost as much.

>>12197428
You don't go a thousand miles by HSR because it's faster to fly.