/sci/ - Science & Math

Reminder that SLS will reach orbit before Starship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGbhJjXl9Rk
Rocket Lab on in 24 minutes

>SLS delayed
The Still Launchless System continues to live up to its name.

>>12283306
>SN8 Hop expected in next few days
Won't they static fire again first?

Will SN8 land successfully or eat dirt?

https://www.strawpoll.me/21177102

>>12283315
Whoops
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axXm-z2NzW8

What happens to the used femstronaut diapers?

>>12283306
>>12283306
>>12283306
>>12283306

rabbits don't have paw pads

>>12283306
Posting again

Is joining the Space Force a good way to enter the space field? I’m shit at math but am currently doing Pre-Med, which is not an option anymore because now I have a suspension on my permanent file.

I was thinking of enlisting in Space Force after college or joining as an Officer.

>>12283318
By Elon time the static fire and hop will be done in a week
By actual time who knows

>>12283332
Better than nothing.
Who knows, maybe you'll get to die in the first space war

>>12283332
Well I'll say one thing, with a suspension for calling someone a fag on your record, don't join the Navy.

>>12283325
freaky, i tihnk we changed cimtelines again.

>>12283332
Is there even a fast track to get into Space Force? Everything I see about it confirms more of my suspicions that it's just a retirement home where oldspace fogies get a coordianted place to clap each other's asses.

>>12283349
kek

>>12283320
Pancake into a huge explosion. Will be kino.

>>12283332
OR you could explain your mess up, apologize, and apply to DO schools
t. medfag

>>12283356
I think they’re still transitioning a lot of assets from Air Force Space Command to Space Force. Not sure if they’re directly commissioning officers as of yet, or just transferring USAF personnel into the branch from spacecom. I think USSF just swore in their first directly-enlisted troops last week. Not sure how long it’ll take them to start commissioning officers.

>>12283363
Legit though I’ve heard many med schools will just write me off right off the bat without even looking at my stats. And the truth is that I’m not willing to spend two or three years after college volunteering to please a med school to let me in.

How would infantry combat work on, say, the surface of Luna? What kind of gear would you give to USSF Trooper Unit 04 “Shelby’s Six Shooters?”

SLS is REAL

>>12283383
Expect unpressurized rovers with guns. Also expect for a lot of fatalities. A single shot in the hand might be enough to kill a person

>>12283383
Halberds

>>12283383
Armor plated mech space suits for maximum protection and increased mobility in lunar gravity

Short n sweet n RADICAL Crew 1 montage

https://youtu.be/ur190niS7k0

>>12283383
I predict moon tanks will be the main weapon on the moon

>>12283376
Talk to actual people on medical admission committees. Pre-Med advisors are, ironically, the worst people to take advice from. If you haven't been arrested for anything you will be fine.
Also think for yourself and don't let any bitter middle age professors tell you what to do.
Also don't take life-changing advice from 4chan of all fucking places

>>12283312
wow who is she? i could just eat her up

>>12283383
Everybody's zipping around on RCS with propellant stored in the balls. Armament is standard infantry rifles with aftermarket heat pipe & radiator systems.

>>12283332
I would say for you to wait a little, if Biden wins i don't doubt he will put Space Force back under the Air Force

Time to play "Will it Scrub" with Rocket Lab.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axXm-z2NzW8

>>12283415
Everyone send their energy to the based peashooter

>>12283383
Literally no infantry combat at all. If you have satellites in orbit you can just snipe whoever's dumb enough to try being an infantryman.

>>12283415
One last scrub for scrubtober let's fucking stay boys

>>12283383
Spider mecha with grappler, glue gun and melee weapon
You can't fight with fragile suit and any projectile you fire may pierce a pressurized hull and doom everyone.
In orbit it's even worse, one of the reason we may never have conventional warfare in orbit is the Kessler syndrome dooming mankind.

And no, you can't afford to armor your spacecraft against debris moving faster than antitank bullet.

Rocket Lab is LIVE.

>>12283421
Just like aircraft ended the existence of infantry on earth rite?
The worst you would get is an asymmetrical situation where the guys at an orbital disadvantage are driven underground.

anyone taking bets on rocket lab success/failiure?
putting 5 baldcoin on a failiure.

QT alert

Here's a mirror of the JWST. It was finished in 2010. it will be at least 11 years old by the time it's launched into space in 2021, if that date somehow doesn't slip.

>>12283415
Bless this launch.

>>12283427
What’s that from, Anon?

>Space qts

AAAAAaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaAAAAAAAAAAAA IM COOMING

>>12283427
found the geologist

>>12283456
>We've received your job application and resume anon, what's your reason for picking RocketLab as your choice of career?

>>12283447
Can't wait for this thing to fail in orbit, gonna take it in with an SS Trashman edition and cum tribute every one of those mirrors

>>12283461
SEX SEX SEX

>>12283461
I want to send Frodo to space so he may destroy the one ring of power at Mount Olympus.

>>12283437
There's a difference between aircraft and sattelites, and a big difference between earth and the moon.
If you don't have orbital advantage your boots can't get supplied. Literally everybody will be driven underground to begin with because of the radiation. You can always know where boots are because all the places you can be for long are man made bases that you can't build in secret if the other guys have the sky.

>>12283448
google claim
https://www.artstation.com/lobzov

>>12283461
I want ao make a commercially viable Orion-drive powered smallsat launcher.

>>12283442
6 bc on explosion on launchpad.

>Anons shitposting with Starlink Beta in this thread right now

>>12283478
>spacex masterrace
>reddit

Who is Berger's "unbiased industry source"
>unbiased – not a Boing employee
>industry – not NASA (maybe?)
>no association with SpaceX – probably not Elon
It's not Tory Bruno, right?

>>12283482
Big Jim.

>>12283482
me

>>12283427
this picture is batshit insane,i love it

>>12283474
You can argue though that entrenched positions on a celestial body would easily be able to BTFO a ship by nuking it or using even a 20 mm cannon.

>>12283481
Found it in my two year old image folder.
And spacexmasterrace is unbelievably based anyway.

>>12283482
You already know

>three rockets from different hemispheres simultaneously
ROCKETLAB CONFIRMS THE EARTH IS A 4 DIMENSIONAL HYERSPHERE

>>12283492
>reddit
>SpaceX fanboys
>based

Why are they showing a CS tournament?

>>12283482
GUESS WHO

bad feeling about this one lads

>>12283464
>gonna take it in with an SS Trashman edition and cum tribute every one of those mirrors

ITS HAPPENING

GO BASED PEASHOOTER

LIFTOFF!

>>12283493
>>12283504
kek

>>12283493
>bird

>That exhaust expansion

Are we going to get a first stage helicopter catch or did they give up on that?

Staged and fairing separated, looks like a good launch.

>>12283491
fair, no atmo lets you hit shit from absurd distances which goes both ways, plus low escape velocity could probably let you hit shit in orbit with a powerful enough cannon.
But then again you can move a sattelite massive distances within a couple of minutes and with just a little fuel spent, so if you know the boots are shooting at you, you can surely avoid getting hit.
I'd still say inf combat on the moon wouldn't happen outside of some absurd edge cases like a hostage situation.

successful launch!

HULLO

anyone knowledgeable on the subject have a point by point rebuttal on this?
>>12282921

>>12283474
>If you don't have orbital advantage your boots can't get supplied.
It's a good thing no siege can ever have confounding factors that force an assault, ever.
>Literally everybody will be driven underground to begin with
That's the point. Obviously it's difficult to go underground if there's no underground infrastructure to begin with.
> you can't build in secret if the other guys have the sky
There's physically no way to tell what someone's done with their tunnelers short of going into the tunnels yourself.

>>12283539
No rebuttal needed. Both columns make claims without sources or evidence. EverydayAstronaut actually did a video comparing SLS and Satarship and did a deep dive into the numbers

>>12283539
the dude who made it is a redditor who also claimed Saturn V couldn't be built today because "RP1 is too toxic"

It doesn't really merit a rebuttal but I can if you really care

>>12283499
yes yES YES to all three!

wtf stream ended fast

>>12283547
I really don't care but I would enjoy reading a rebuttal regardless

>>12283551
It was a fast launch

>fucking pilotredsun music

>>12283551
Always ends on kickstage separation.

>>12283539
That chart is speculative and makes points without sources, like the price per launch being 300 million, and implying the launch cadence will be longer than 55 days, which is impossible to gauge until starship is functional beyond a working prototype. there's no point to refute because his points are baseless and incomplete

>>12283547
appreciate it if you would
want to know how he's wrong in addition to and not just that he's wrong

>>12283499
thank you, you have just described SpaceX Flight General. Congratulations

>>12283540
fair enough, I guess you might see some inf combat. Would suck fat rancid ass to be one of those guys, and I still think the real fight would be orbital. The ground guys will make for prettier photos and movies later on so no matter who's right we already know what the general public will care about.

>>12283540
>There's physically no way to tell what someone's done with their tunnelers short of going into the tunnels yourself.
Don't underestimate a vibration sensor.
The moon is dead and empty enough that you might be able to pick up vibration even from above

>>12283447
would make a sick album cover

>>12283539
I'm just going through the points from top to bottom.
>It's unknown how much Starship will cost, but even pessimistic estimates places it competitively to the dominant rocket on the market, the Falcon 9. Meanwhile there is no hope that SLS would cost $750M as the four RS-25s alone cost that much
>Related to the above point
>Being the jack of trades is what SpaceX is aiming for to make Starship successful. The SLS is so specialized that it can't even reach the lunar poles which is where NASA wants to go
>Starship is simpler to both make and refurbish than SLS. Steel can be welded faster than milling an iso-grid out of a chuck of aluminum. The SLS isn't expected to launch more than one every year.
>SLS uses hydrolox as a part of its first stage, it has no right to be claimed as more efficent.
>Starship being a poor Mars lander is pure speculation, and ignores that SpaceX is willing to make any modification necessary to render it useable on Mars. SLS has no part in any Mars plans.
>Once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere. How a probe gets to orbit doesn't really matter in terms of efficiency
>Starship can get the certification if needed, and I don't know of any nuclear certification for SLS
>While the Saturn V is a great rocket, who cares if Starship or SLS is a replacement? All three rockets are wildly different designs

>>12283584
Kawaii

>>12283552
Ok
>no source on estimated costs for Starship
>relies on first point, again unsourced
>non-argument, literally "starship is bad because it's too versatile"
>claims launch cadence issues, again unsourced, conveniently forgets SLS caps out at two flights per year
>3 stages are more efficient for an expendable vehicle, but that's like saying having drop tanks and no landing gear is more efficient for a disposable plane
>claims a rocket literally designed as a Mars lander from the start is a worse Mars lander than an unspecified "heavy disposable lander" launched on SLS that would have to weigh under 30 tons
>claims Starship is "not ideal for launching probes" because sending a whole Starship to Europa is dumb – this is true, but that's why you don't do that, you put your Europa probe in LEO along with 100 tons of Star 48 yeet train kick stages
>just randomly throws out "unlikely to carry nuclear payloads" with no source, again
>makes claims about Block 2 SLS which is LITERALLY a paper rocket

>>12283447
why is it orange?

>>12283584
seemed to kick up a lot of shit on ignition. And it was pretty trippy watching to through so many clouds

>>12283461
I want to RIDE Electron, in a spacesuit with MOOSE

>>12283567
There is a third option: all belligerents have enough of their orbital infrastructure annihilated that they cannot suppress surface actions. I think this situation is actually fairly easy, it's much easier to disrupt satellites from the surface than it is to set them up in the first place.
>>12283570
ehh, moon or not I'm pretty sure given enough depth there's nothing you can do

>>12283604
>all belligerents have enough of their orbital infrastructure annihilated that they cannot suppress surface actions
>Lunatic colonists and garrison fucking starve because the moon is a barren hellscape totally reliant on Earth importa

>>12283581
The damning thing is that even if you threw away Starship every launch but reused Superheavy, you’d get like 150 tons to LEO at a cost similar to Falcon 9.

>>12283604
If you can detect vibration thousand kilometers away on a low gravity moon, you'll never go deep enough to hide

>>12283611
Ok, why have no one quoted "The moon is an harsh mistress" yet?
Penal lunar colony revolt and build mass driver powerful enough to essentially nuke Earth

Not saying it's credible
Even if we had hydroponic and 100% selfsufficient life-support and 3D printer you'd still need to import from Earth.

could this be represented as a bar graph for each outward destination? might be easier to compare trips

>>12283586
>along with 100 tons of Star 48 yeet train kick stages
Or a methalox kickstage with a vacuum raptor and 90 tons of propellant.

>>12283584

>>12283645
No. I insist on chaining 75 Star 48Bs together. Fuck your practical concerns.

>>12283649
I just want it to go faster. The Star-48 train idea would be great for two or three of them, but after that aren't you Ve limited?

Musk will deliver us

>>12283611
Orbital infrastructure != all ability to ever put anything on the ground. I'm talking about your precious killsats and shit that would prevent all symmetrical surface warfare. Don't see what that has to do with being able to launch something from Earth that lands on the Moon.
>>12283634
We're pretty good at detecting vibrations on Earth, yet go down a few dozen feet and none of that shit is going to help.

>>12283649
>thunderf00t's nightmare

>>12283457
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg2NIj6Yn4g

>>12283653
MORE BOOSTAHS.

(Yes, pretty much any 150 ton liquid fueled stage is going to be better than a Star 48 chain monstrosity, especially if you use something good like a single Rapvac on the kick stage).

>>12283661
thunderf00t actually likes musk, he just put on a show because controversy generates ad revenue and virality. /sfg/ trolled yet again. sad

>>12283658
>>12283564
>>12283549
>>12283492
sad display

is it likely our airforce generals want to go into space as well?

I've lost over a thousand dollars this week already. When the fuck is SN8 launching? I need a distraction.

how is Starship going to refuel in space? Isn't it pretty damn hard with the cryogenic fuel?

>>12283688
ASS TO ASS.

>>12283667
>usa spacesuit looks normal
>ussr spacesuit looks like cheap cloth
>vaguely red coloured
why?

>>12283687
time to buy more tesla

>>12283696
Subtly telling the audience who the bad guys are

>asses to asses
>funk to funky
>we know Elon Musk's a junky
>strung out on Ambien's high
>launch costs at an all time low

>>12283691
right, but how is that actually possible? It's not filling a gasoline tank, there are all sorts of issues.

>>12283592
I would actually like to know
please someone tell me

>>12283710
she's pretty <3

>>12283696
The actual planned soviet moon suit did indeed look like that

>>12283648

>>12283660
Not him but it is rather cheap to have killsat or kinetic kill vehicle intercept all shipment before they can hope to land.
Attacking things on the ground from orbit however would be harder.


>We're pretty good at detecting vibrations on Earth, yet go down a few dozen feet and none of that shit is going to help.
Not from what I hear. We were already getting data during Apollo.
With modern data and probe at various point, the only way to prevent detecting the exact layout would be to dig and build a vacuum wall all around.

https://www.space.com/9710-details-moon-core-revealed-30-year-data.html

>>12283710
IIRC it's to reflect more IR and thus more heat.

>>12283706
>hook up the pipes
>tap the RCS a bit
>hope the fluid goes where it's supposed to
It's probably going to take more than one revision to get right.

>>12283706
elon says it's easy, everyone else says its hard. i believe elon

>>12283716
huh.
is the show actually good?

>>12283706
Orbital refueling has been done before, and if there are issues then SpaceX will fix them as they go along.

>>12283592
>>12283710
It's gold or beryllium or something

>>12283728
cheers mate

>>12283734
there are no good space "shows". maybe a good season or two of something here or there

>>12283734
Well in the first episode von braun is kicked out of nasa for being ebil nazi so that should tell you enough.

>>12283736
you posted too late for me to reply!

>>12283744
Ok Zubrin

>Boeing said Wednesday that it will cut 7,000 more jobs as it continues to bleed money during a pandemic that has smothered demand for new airline planes.

>The company said that when retirements and other employee departures are included, its workforce will shrink to about 130,000 by the end of next year, or 30,000 fewer people than it had at the start of 2020. Just three months ago, the company figured 19,000 workers would leave.

>>12283427
bro I can't wait for space warfare, it'll be so cool!
real space warfare:

how ugly is my rocket? 3x Navajo booster, XLR 11 upper, AJ-10-27 kick stage

>>12283751
you sent me my own screenshot

>>12283753
Hopefully boing! fucking dies and we can get an actually good space company out of it's assets

NASA could have just re-filled the Space Shuttle's big orange tank in orbit and redesigned the orbiter to have better crew comforts and we'd pretty much have the Starship.

>>12283614
>even if you threw away Starship every launch but reused Superheavy, you’d get like 150 tons to LEO at a cost similar to Falcon 9
You'd actually get north of 200 tons because any Starship doomed to expendability ain't gonna have any TPS mass or flap mass or header tank mas or leg mass etc etc, and it ain't gonna be reserving any landing propellant either.

>>12283759
>they took my fucking solar panels! can't have anything in space detroit!

>>12283764
don eber bost dis agin

>>12283759
God that show sucked.

>>12283770
what show
please I need to know

>>12283706
What makes you think it being cryogenic fluids makes it harder? Honest question.

>>12283780
Space Force.

>>12283781
I dunno but you can hear the difference between pouring cold water and hot water right

>>12283783
wait, that shit already aired? wtf
I thought it's gonna be in like 2021 or something such

>>12283760
#allrocketsarebeautiful

>>12283586
thanks mate

>>12283783
waaaaat eric berger loved that show!

>>12283760
Based and R7 pilled

>>12283581
much appreciated

>>12283723
>Not him but it is rather cheap to have killsat or kinetic kill vehicle intercept all shipment before they can hope to land.
It's funny cause this is the exact opposite of the thing I was arguing against to begin with. Anyway, you're kind of right but there are ways around this too. If near moon orbit is such a shooting gallery there's no real hope of controlling anything beyond that from the surface and allies can just rain down raw materials. If all you send is an asteroid full of phosphorous and other essential elements it doesn't matter if it gets shot.
>Not from what I hear.
You're not talking about the same thing though. We're talking finding manmade tunnels, not general topology of planetary features. No one's got any kind of cheat tech for the former.

>>12283781
from Robert Zubrin's critique of the BFR back in 2016: "The problem is that in zero gravity two-phase mixtures float around with gas and liquid mixed and scattered among each other, making it difficult to operate pumps, while the ultra-cold nature of cryogenic fluids precludes the use of flexible bladders to effect the fluid transfer."

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/zubrin-improves-spacex-mars-plan-and.html

>>12283648
I'M FUCKING COOOOOMMMIIINNNNGGG

>>12283760
What's its payload to LEO?

>>12283691
>getting an enema from another ass
yeah I think I know why elon's first wife left him
also the beating I guess, but this is worse.

>>12283801
Elon beats women? BASED

>>12283799
I built it to put a 50kg or so satellite (attached to the upper stage, no decoupling or control, spin stabilized) into a sun synchronous orbit for science and contracts. Whole thing is under 60 tons and uses mostly 1954 tech.

>>12283808
Astra BTFO

>>12283753
HAHA YES! HAHA YES YES!

>>12283799
It could probably get more to a polar orbit. Here's the second stage, an XLR-11. This stage is responsible for final adjustments and spin-up before we let the unguided kick stage rip. I failed the eccentricity for a sun synchronous orbit because I'm not good at the "press X at exactly the right time" game.

>>12283759
This is so retarded. why spend a shit ton of fuel to slow all that mass down just to speed up again when they can send out small bugdrones to fuck with the satellite. Also
>chinada arm doesn't snap off under acceleration

>>12283797
Yeah but Elon's plan isn't to use pumps, it's to basically ullage all the fuel from one rocket to the other with RCS burns.

>>12283704
Looks a lot less goofy from a distance

>>12283822
Or even just a flyby with a shotgun loaded with ice.

wasn't there a press conference today about the recent merlin engine problems?

>>12283797
As a longtime Zubrin fanboy, Zubrin is a retard

>>12283764
>NASA could have just re-filled the Space Shuttle's big orange tank in orbit
Not really, since the orange tank never made it to orbit
>but it was 98% of the way to orbital velocity!
Yeah and to get the remaining 2% it would need to carry zero payload in the Shuttle orbiter and use most of the OMS fuel just to circularize at some pathetically low altitude where it would deorbit in 8 months without reboost missions. "Just use the ETs to make space stations" is and always has been a total fantasy shit-tier concept. Literally invented so that normies would have something to point to as a reason to keep spending money on Shuttle; "If we just spend a little bit more to develop Shuttle so that it can drop off its external tanks in a 300x300 km orbit, we would have giant cheap space stations!" No.

>>12283645
Also nuclear scramjet bussard

>>12283818
It did make orbit though, unlike Astra.

>>12283822
Because it's a bad fucking show that wasn't even funny.

>>12283829
yep, there's a twitter thread but i forgot to post it

>>12283829
supplier left laquer in a component

LE ROCKETT xD

>>12283830
Why was he so blackpilled about Starship anyways?

>>12283832
Why not just put more OMS fuel in the payload bay?
>wahh hypergolics are scary, wahh challenger, wahh crew safety
All a payload bay full of hypergolics would have done for Challenger is add some pretty orange color to the fireworks.

>>12283823
is there any evidence at all that this is possible?

sounds like his "sweating skin" plan to provide a heatshield... now he's back to Space Shuttle-tier ceramic tiles.

>>12283839
That is NOT what Eric Berger told me

Sup retards. I'm bored and have been brainstorming an idea: what if we made an /sfg/zine sorta like the lainzine (https://lainzine.org/)) by lainchan? Rate and hate also Starship will get to orbit before SLS.

>>12283849
oldspace stockholm syndrome

>>12283851
>is there any evidence this is possible
Possible? Sure, it's simple physics. Has it been demonstrated? Not yet.
>space shuttle tier tiles
No, the tiles are X-37B tier. Very different material, much stronger and reusable for LEO.

>>12283797
Okay, so don't pump in zero G, use ullage like Elon said they will in order to settle the propellants, then use gas pressure differentials to push the propellants across. Doesn't need to be much pressure to work. Also, by slowly rotating around the shared axis of the two vehicles, liquid propellants would collect on the sides of the tanks and form a large single bubble in the middle of the tank. This means the best strategy will probably be to roll both Starships at about 0.5 rpm for an hour after docking to stick all the propellant to the walls, then fire up the ullage to pus the bubble away form the bottom of the Tanker, then open up the valves and let the fluids flow.

>>12283849
>>12283830
explain. I'm not a fanboy, I do think he has some common sense comments on what our space program should be.

>>12283832
so just strap on some extra boosters... the orange tank is in orbit! Magic.

>>12283829
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/nasa-and-spacex-set-new-date-for-crew-launch-explain-merlin-engine-issue/

>Two of the rocket's nine first-stage engines ignited early during the early October launch attempt, and this triggered an automatic abort of the engines. (Had the abort not triggered, it is likely that nothing bad would have occurred

>They found that a relief valve within the gas generator was clogged with a masking lacquer akin to nail polish. They were able to show that removing the lacquer from the vent hole allowed the engines to start up normally.

>This lacquer is applied during an anodizing process to treat aluminum components of the gas generator. It is supposed to be subsequently removed, but in the case of these two engines, a tiny amount of the material had been trapped within a bore hole less than 2mm across.


>>12283845
the rumors were spot-on
>It is also possible that a small process was changed so that all of the lacquer was not removed, as this particular treatment is done by an *outside vendor*.

>>12283860
>also Starship will get to orbit before SLS.
Well that's pretty obvious given that SLS won't fly until 2022 at the earliest.

>>12283851
>sounds like his "sweating skin" plan to provide a heatshield
I think he should use the heat/airflow generated by the fall itself to power a compressor and make the skin sweat liquid air for cooling

>>12283850
Because it'd mean the ET would run out of propellants at a lower and slower velocity. While the delta V of the Shuttle alone would go up, the maximum velocity attainable by the Shuttle-ET stack would go down, because it'd be pushing up to an extra 20 tons in hypergolics. Also, the two AJ-10 engines that made up Shuttle's OMS were hideously underpowered for anything more than your basic small orbital trim maneuvers.

>>12283867
Zubrin will say almost anything to promote is own perspective, and he is married to mars direct (giving the identical speech since the 90s).

No one really knows the true difficulty of in-space cryo refueling, but compared to building an orbital rocket, it's probably easier

>>12283870
>as this particular treatment is done by an *outside vendor*.
I wonder how much making that "mistake" happen cost old space?

>>12283881
>Also, the two AJ-10 engines that made up Shuttle's OMS were hideously underpowered for anything more than your basic small orbital trim maneuvers.
hahaha it's a good thing Orion improves on this by having...one AJ-10 instead

>>12283882
we've gotta figure it out at some point, so might as well do it. Good thing NASA recognizes this and is on-board.

thoughts on the Arianne 6?

>>12283890
Competitive with 2017 Falcon 9 launch costs. Won't fly until Starship is in service. Obsolete on first flight.

>>12283870
>eric borgar
that's /ourguy/

>>12283851
sweating heatshield is still in the works btw

>>12283851
>is there any evidence at all that this is possible?
Yes, it'd be simple. Starship's OMS are going to use compressed gas propellants, not liquids, so there's no need for bladders or ullage to get them to start. The hot gas methalox thrusters in particular will be great for the purpose of providing settling ullage.
As for if ullage works, yes, many rockets in history have used low thrust ullage in order to settle propellants and allow their main engines to fire without ingesting bubbles.
Gas-propellant ullage combined with differential pressure pumping means that propellant transfer from starship to starship should actually be a very simple problem, perhaps the most simple way of transferring propellants that can exist even hypothetically.

>>12283890
Anything with two digit tons to LEO is no longer a heavy lift rocket.

>>12283893
but starship is a meme?

>>12283890
>delayed to 2022

>>12283867
>so just strap on some extra boosters... the orange tank is in orbit! Magic.
Not that simple. The actual way to get the ET into orbit would be to stretch it and send it up with as low mass an orbiter as you can get away with.

>>12283890
Would've been a great rocket in 2018. As it stands now, it seems a little too late and a bit short in terms of capability and price. Hopefully for Ariane, it was just a stopgap proposal while something more serious is being made.

>>12283899
that's cute

>>12283899
when sn8 craters and spacex go bankrupt, le froggies will swooce right in

>>12283878
"How to make sure even more heat is absorbed by your vehicle"

>>12283908
spacex stan, go back to redit, fanboy

>>12283899
Let's be very honest. France doesn't have a commercially competitive heavy lift vehicle. Themis may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. Starship is real. You've seen it down atBoca Chica. We're building the core stage. We have all the engines done, ready to be put on the test stand at McGregor... I don't see any hardware for a European reusable vehicle, except that he's going to take Falcon 9, put it through a photocopier at 80% scale and make it methalox. It's not that easy in rocketry.

>>12283912
Will they swooce in with this?

November will be busy

>>12283888
The fact that Orion's service module doesn't use an electric pump fed hypergolic engine at the very LEAST is criminal. I would prefer to see it using a dual expander cycle methalox engine, but at least actual pumps for hypergolic propellants would give the things a better wet-dry mass ratio and thrust to mass ratio, not to mention better Isp. Then maybe that service module would be useful for actually getting anywhere.

>>12283921
This post is cursed

>>12283924
>450s isp monopropellant
what would that be, exactly?

>>12283921
nice

>>12283918
sneed, johnnythunder
>>12283924
i love this thing. it's the rocket equivalent of a sonic OC

>>12283882
The Russians have used orbiting refueling since the start of the ISS. Seriously.

>>12283930
iirc mononitrogen decomposition

>>12283930
C A V E A

>>12283925
SN8 hop NET january screencap this

>>12283930
oxygen snow soaked in liquid hydrogen. Do not sneeze, do not touch, do not shine with laser pointer.

>>12283934
shhhh don't tell Shelby that or he'll piss off Russia by banning them from the ISS

>>12283937
>mononitrogen
More like tetranitrogen (four nitrogens bonded with single bonds into a pyramid). Would probably detonate if you thought about it harshly.

>>12283948
>Would probably detonate if you thought about it harshly.
Like the typical twitter follower?

>>12283930
Fluorine Lithium and Hydrogen mixed into one and sprayed onto a hardened baguette for thrust

>>12283953
kek

Monopropellants are kind of a miracle that they work at all if you think about it. A chemical stable enough to not explode on it's own, but storing enough potential energy to produce meaningful thrust when decomposed in a controlled manner.

>>12283961
It just throws hardened baguettes out the back

What's in the exhaust gas of Shuttle SRBs, anyways? I can't imagine it's pleasant.

>>12283183
Titan has incredibly silly rules due to the atmosphere
Luna is insane due to the complete lack of atmosphere and low gravity and awful terrain and incredibly loose surface. We already saw some of that during Apollo (thanks Gene)
Earth has some of the highest performance due to the oxidizer rich atmosphere, but Titan might give it a run for its money with the fuel-rich atmosphere.
Mars is just the Moon but faster and with better cooling, I think it's honestly the best bet, especially with Musk setting up shop there.
>Venus
no

Post KSPwave
>>12283982
I've heard one of the byproducts of SRBs were HCl.

europan snow train racing when?

>>12283924
>>12283930
>>12283948
So because I'm autistic and procrastinating from starting my science mid term assignment, I did some bullshit guesstimating about this shit.
Assuming that N4 has a similar density to N2, of 808 kg/m^3, the monopropellant N4 would have a bulk density about the same as methalox bipropellant. Again, just assuming the french fry Isp of 450 seconds is the vacuum performance, and something like 370 seconds can be expected for sea level Isp, it would be possible to build an SSTO using this propellant. The bulk density of 808 kg/m^3 means that even with all reusability hardware included, a ~90% wet dry mass ratio is possible. Given that roughly 90% of the time spent burning to orbit happens in close to vacuum conditions, I'll set the stage average efficiency at 442 Isp to avoid doing calculus or whatever. This comes out to a stage delta V budget of 9980 m/s, in something that ISN'T a big fuckoff hydrolox orange-tank-bad.
Obviously SSTO is still shit. Therefore, fuck the SSTO, we're doing TSTO Starship style. I'm not gonna do more math but suffice it to say, a propellant efficient and dense enough to allow for Earth-based SSTO is going to do wonders for increasing Starship-style vehicle payload performance. I would put 300 tons of payload in reusable mode for an N4 propelled vehicle with the same dimensions and thrust as Starship Super Heavy well within the realm of possibility. Of course, N4 propellant doesn't actually exist, so this was a big waste of time.
Also, I'm gonna call N4 'Tetrogen' from now on if it ever comes up again.

>>12283982
Fun and exciting reactions of organic compounds, ammonium, perchlorates, and aluminum powder, so probably nothing you'd want landing near you. I'm amazed the environmentalists let it launch from a wetland.

>>12284000

>>12283566
WITH FLOATING RINGS

>>12283963
The problem with monopropellants is that the better they are in terms of energy density and efficiency as propellants, they worse they are for storability and not-accidentally-detonating.

>>12283982
they use APCP, so it's mostly just water + CO2 + aluminum oxide + some HCl + some products from the binder but i'm not sure which one they use for the shuttle SRBs

>>12283982
The aluminum oxide powder produced when the perchlorates burned the metal fuel was significant enough that it eroded away about an inch of thickness from the hardened steel nozzle throat every time they were fired.

>>12283992
>Titan has incredibly silly rules due to the atmosphere
Titan is the only world in the solar system where actually fast ground vehicle racing could be a thing, because the down force from aerodynamic surfaces would allow wheels to produce significant traction and allow cars to turn quickly without just leaving the ground. In fact it would be comically easy to stick to the track even driving upside down, which means you could take advantage of the low gravity and build giant hotwheels style racetracks.

why not just send an astronaut with a fancy tent to Mars, with all his supplies for 2-4 years, and then we'd have an extreme incentive to go and pick him up and return him to home?

It took an Atlas V to launch the Mars Curiosity rover, surely with a Falcon Heavy we could send "dude with a tent" to Mars.

>>12284039
>not using RCS for downforce
ngmi

>>12284062
Something similar with the Moon was one of the early plans for Apollo right?

>>12284062
That was basically the Red Dragon mission plan but Starship is going to be ready fast enough that it's not needed.

>>12284026
>some products from the binder but i'm not sure which one they use for the shuttle SRBs
I think it's HTPB.

>>12283982
>>12284026
okay I checked and they use PBAN binder plus a little bit of curing agents and stuff like that
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/749144.pdf has some info on the reaction products with PBAN, but in general it doesn't look like anything too bad as long as you aren't directly huffing the plume

>>12283905
>Hopefully for Ariane, it was just a stopgap proposal while something more serious is being made.
It wasn‘t and there isn‘t. Ariane‘s in deep trouble now.

>>12284098
eh bien, merde

>>12284068
https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/forgotten-plans-reach-moon-apollo-180972695/

not sure, but this was an interesting read.

Any chemistry anons out there care to explain how it is solid boosters give you SO much more thrust compared to liquid? They blow liquid boosters out of the water. But what exactly is the science behind it? Why do solid fuels give you so much thrust??

>>12283796
Maybe I misunderstood, but IMHO conventional warfare will be impossible in space. Spaceship are doomed to be one-shot by cheaper projectile or a laser while any infrastructure you would build/capture would never survive a battle either. Plus the problem of Kessler syndrome in orbit.

It does however open interesting possibility with space-police using melee weapon.

>You're not talking about the same thing though. We're talking finding manmade tunnels, not general topology of planetary features. No one's got any kind of cheat tech for the former.
We were actually talking of the same things. With Apollo era we were already capable of general topology? With modern technology on a small, low gravity, dead moon you'd get the exact tunnel.
That of course, is if someone error don't make it even easier. (remember the running apps that allowed to retrace the layout of military base thanks to GPS tracing)

We already have motion sensor allowing to fly a missiles in atmosphere with no GPS input as long as it knew it starting point.

>>12283866
You are dramatically overcomplicating the system. Dock the ships ass to ass, open up the valves on the fuel tank and then have both ships fire thrusters in the direction of the empty ship. Even a tiny impulse would gather all the fuel to the bottom of the tanker and force it to flow into the empty ship. The only complex part is getting a perfect seal on the pipes which really shouldn't be all that hard when we routinely dock airtight vessels on the ISS.

>>12284079
https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/0094-5765(92)90124-2
found another paper looking at the shuttle SRBs specifically
there's probably various partial combustion nasty shit in there too in small amounts, but the main products are nothing much to worry about other than a bit of chlorine and HCl

>>12283704
>my mother said, to get Mars dust
>you better not mess with Elon Musk

>>12283759
space warfare will be similar to COADE unironically

>>12284138
solids are fucking dense and throw a lot of heavy shit out the back really fast
liquid fuels are less dense and you can't throw them out the back as fast

>>12284138
Thrust is proportional to how much mass is being thrown and how fast it is being thrown out. SRBs have ridiculous mass flow because propelling gasses are being generated all along the length of the booster rather than a relatively smaller injection plate on a liquid propellant engine. SRBs suffer a penalty by lower exhaust velocities but the mass flow rate outweighs it heavily.

>>12284139
>Maybe I misunderstood, but IMHO conventional warfare will be impossible in space. Spaceship are doomed to be one-shot by cheaper projectile or a laser while any infrastructure you would build/capture would never survive a battle either. Plus the problem of Kessler syndrome in orbit.
play COADE, its not 100% accurate but it'll give you a good idea

>>12283592
because it's supposed to be observing in infrared, so you want a mirror coating that reflects infrared really well
same reason insulation is usually orange too

>>12284148
>solids are fucking dense
similar to many posters in this general

>here's ur reliable upper stage bro

>>12284164
so why not just strap them to everything we need to get to better than orbital velocity?

>here's ur european rocket bro

>>12284148
liquid fuels go out the back faster

What does /sfg/ think of the massive new update that just came out for SimpleRockets 2?

Five new command pods and a new airplane cockpit. Some have their own built-in engines.

>>12284147
For interplanetary warfare, how could an invading force ever enter the sphere of influence of an enemy planet? Their approach would be known about well ahead of time, so the defensive force would be ready to intercept. This would force the invaders to decide between facing their enemy and missing their capture burn, or burn but be more vulnerable. Unless I'm overlooking something about space warship design that would allow for such an invading force to both burn and face their enemy?

pic semi-related

>>12284190
SRBs are great for thrust, but they're lackluster for velocity. Especially in orbit where specific impulse matters the most.

>>12284200
You can always just do your burn somewhere other than right at periapsis, it won't be as efficient but you can still capture from an interplanetary trajectory while avoiding an intercept there

>>12284148
>>12284164
Thanks. Also any recommendations on videos that will explain Isp to me? I don't understand why it's important. In my mind all you need to focus on is thrust/weight. Yet Hullo and KSP and everyone here always talks about wanting "higher Isp over thrust" when in space which really doesn't make sense to me. I feel like as long as you have high thrust you're good. And I don't even know what DeltaV even is either.

>>12284221
>I don't understand deltav
there's your problem
ISP is how fast you're throwing your exhaust products out the back
you can only produce thrust for so much time, and it all works out that this is measured by ISP

>>12284200
>>12284216
Another thing is that you can very cheaply change your inclination or periapsis while approaching the planet, but matching the new inclination will be way way more expensive for anything in orbit so you can fuck around doing different approaches until you get close to the body and commit to one so the defenders will have much less time to set up an intercept

REMINDER FROM THE PREVIOUS THREAD

STARLINK Terms of Service
>9. Governing Law.
>For Services provided to, on, or in orbit around the planet Earth or the Moon, these Terms and any disputes between us arising out of or related to these Terms, including disputes regarding arbitrability (“Disputes”) will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California in the United States. For Services provided on Mars, or in transit to Mars via Starship or other colonization spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities. Accordingly, Disputes will be settled through self-governing principles, established in good faith, at the time of Martian settlement.

>>12284139
> Spaceship are doomed to be one-shot by cheaper projectile or a laser while any infrastructure you would build/capture would never survive a battle either. Plus the problem of Kessler syndrome in orbit.
I'm sure many people thought something similar after seeing artillery shells explode in their lines for the first time. Tactics will adapt, and it's not as impossible to armor in space as you think.
And Kessler? That shit is a joke. Think about the places we'd put colonies or settlements, they're all easy as fuck to land and take off from. So easy that even if you did manage to start 'muh kessler' it would not be very prohibitive to armor up your launch stages.
>tunnel bits
If you can't show someone imaging a tunnel a hundred feet down on Earth, I see no reason to believe anyone's going to do it so easily on the moon either.

>>12284263

>>12283323
Some poor nasa intern gets to take samples from all of them.

>>12284141
That's literally the same thing I said, except you're relying on the low g ullage to flow the propellants across whereas I'm saying that by reducing the internal pressure of the receiving tank compared to the emptying tank, you can 'blow' the propellants across at a much higher mass flow rate with no additional hardware. You literally only need to slowly vent the receiving tanks and flow additional pressurant into the emptying tank, which is what you have to do anyway in order to compensate for the changing liquid volume fraction in each tank.

>>12284198
They reach higher exhaust velocity but at a smaller mass flow rate. Mass flow rate is what determines overall engine thrust.

>>12284274
Geologists can finally get their own society, thank FUCK

>>12284278
lucky*

>>12284199
>What does /sfg/ think of the massive new update that just came out for SimpleRockets 2?
I think it should have replaced the baby system and shitty rocket Isp/mass fractions with more realistic distances, dV requirements and hardware performance.

>SpaceX are fucking Contolists
uhhhhhhhhh holy shit it's happening?

>>12284278
Sample Return Mission to femstronauts diapers when

>>12283938
>here's ur monopropellant bro

forestry jobs on mars when bros?

The air takes away heat as it's expelled. Imagine a venturi nozzle with an expreme pressure differential.

>>12284221
>And I don't even know what DeltaV even is either.
"How much change in velocity this rocket stage can perform before it runs out of propellants".
This is affected by how much of the mass of your vehicle is made of propellants, and by how much impulse (thrust over time) each unit mass of propellant gets you.
Impulse doesn't care about the actual level of thrust you're producing, only the total amount of thrust over time, a rocket producing one kilonewton of thrust for 100 seconds will produce the same impulse as a one hundred kilonewton rocket firing for one second. If both engines produce the same amount of impulse from the same amount of propellant mass, then they both share the same specific impulse, ie efficiency. In order to get a number that can be compared directly across a large variety of different propulsion systems, specific impulse measures the time it would take for a thruster to run out of propellant if supplied with an initial propellant mass equal to its thrust-force output. That is to say, a 980 kN engine would be supplied with 980 kN-weight of propellants (100,000 kg). I'm getting into the weeds a bit here, but let's just say that Isp is a measure of rocket efficiency and tells you how fast you can end up going with a given engine.
Mass ratio is simple enough; if you have a vehicle that is 50% propellant by mass and another that is 80% propellant by mass and they both have the same total mass of 100 tons, the one that's 80% propellant is still going to have 30 tons of propellant when the 50% propellant vehicle runs out of gas, so the 80% propellant vehicle is going to reach a much higher velocity (~2.3 times higher, in fact).

>>12283878
>>12283915
We explored this with hyperloop, the vehicle will become far too hot to radiate the heat off a compressor. There’s no way to shed heat in a vacuum. I mean maybe if they can open radiators one the backside while they belly flop into the atmosphere.

>>12284216
>>12284245
Thank you. Are there any analyses of space warfare apart from Children of a Dead Earth?

>>12284345
Unironically play KSP. Weaponized spaceships are still spaceships, and it's the fastest way to get an intuitive sense of how they work.

>>12283696
>>12283716
Even the Russian Orlan suits they use on the ISS are beige colored.

>>12283734
Overall I really enjoyed it, and the second season is coming soonish. The first half of season 1 is a little slow, but it picks up in the second half.
The original concept was "Mad Men but 1970s NASA", then they decided that would be too depressing with NASA in decline during those years, so they made it an alternate history where the Soviets got to the moon first and the space race kept accelerating.

>>12284012
Based

>>12284377
There's some stuff some anons might ree over but all in all I liked it too. A few moments made me roll my eyes and I wish there was a bit more focus on the missions themselves rather than the personal drama of the participants, but nothing made me want to turn it off and I definitely want to see what season 2 has in store.

thermal superconductors when bros?

>>12283745
That was the 2nd episode, and they make it clear that the only reason anyone gives a shit about it is because Nixon was cynically using the controversy to get von Braun out of the program. The only person who genuinely hated von Braun for it turned out to be a massive hypocrite when she learned her dad worked on the Manhattan Project. Then, when he reappears later in the series, he proves that the corrupt contract selection process Kennedy used to get political support for the Equal Rights Amendment caused the Saturn V pad disaster. It's still a lefty Hollywood show, but it's way more evenhanded than the trailers make it look.

>>12284391
That would be neat
Imagine how simple radiators would be if we could get a thermal superconductor ribbon to instantly transfer heat into the entire radiator?

>>12284343
>the vehicle will become far too hot to radiate the heat off a compressor
The compressor would be just a turbine, it would derive energy from the ship itself falling

>>12284450
Hey dumbass, compression increases gas temperature.

>>12284391
fuck that, ITER full operation when? I want my fusion reactor now, not forever 15 years in the future

Would it have worked?

>>12284455
ITER a complete shit, ARC is the future of fusion.

>>12284461
Yeah duh, it just makes no sense in today's market

First war on Mars when?

>>12284475
I can see a spaceplane being optimal as the detachable cockpit of an interplanetary vessel, since you can have windows facing forward and a rear docking port.

>>12284650
Probably well after the first war on the moon

>>12284698
The moon is a resource poor cuckshed and will have to play jew games with Mars and Earth for decades to have any real authority

>"80 tons anywhere in less than an hour"

>tiny layer of lacquer halted falcon flights for weeks

SpaceX is finished

>>12284792
I wonder how the prices would compare to a C-17. Will they be competitive?

>>12284798
I thought SpaceX was all about vertical integration. Why leave the production of some of the most complex engine components to some shitty contractor?

>>12284792
Or your next suborbital launch is free

>>12284814
Cause Musk style integration gives you cars that disassemble itself in rainy weather.

>>12284814
Probably because the contractor was seen as the fastest cheapest option, and was good enough. The problems seems to be that the contractor recently changed their manufacturing methods, and weren't aware of the issues that would cause.

>>12284800
24 hours of work vs 1 hour of work

Pretty sure they save money with that alone. In times of need speed > everything.

>>12284792
China&russia translate this as "80 tons of fuck you in your backyard in a hour"
starship will force a lot of hands to invest more in space, at least on the defence part of it.

>>12284818
To be fair, that's 1 out of million. Tesla cars usually don't disassemble itself in rainy weathers.

>>12284800
To be competitive it would have to be doing a similar job. If SS meets the 2m goal it will cost about twice as much as sending a C17 if they're both literally going clear across the world, but take about 50x less time to do it.

>>12284843
Yeah, but the things needed for that C17 to get back is a fraction of what is needed to get starship back.
But i still agree with you.

>>12284792
>"USTRANSCOM’s next steps in assessing a potential space logistics capability commences next year. First, the command plans to continue leveraging collaborations with industry and fellow combatant commands to enable a long-range, point-to-point, proof of concept trial in 2021. Testing will allow USTRANSCOM and the Department of Defense (DOD) to evaluate the capabilities, limitations, and technical/policy gaps, as well as exercise current policies and procedures."
https://www.ustranscom.mil/cmd/panewsreader.cfm?ID=770647DD-F188-0967-1C40E77860E3BBAA

Starship P2P demo for USTRANSCOM next year
Starship P2P demo for USTRANSCOM next year
Starship P2P demo for USTRANSCOM next year
Starship P2P demo for USTRANSCOM next year
Starship P2P demo for USTRANSCOM next year

>>12284854
eh, presumably for this role you land SS on a barge and ship it back like F9. Probably pretty cheap.

>>12284856
well, they need a Starship in Florida, don't they
seems like the easiest way to get one there

>>12284856
I wonder if they'll launch Starship from Boca to Florida as p2p demo. That will be something.

>>12284869
anon, I literally just posted that idea >>12284865

>>12284792
who other than the military needs that capability though? Companies plan years in advance to move fuckhuge heavy machinery around, and anything that heavy that will be payload on a E2E spacecraft is going to need months of design and testing by a specialized team to get it ready for the actual flight, so who really cares how long it takes to arrive? Ever see them loading shit into the antonov? they spend the entire day loading and then another unloading, all on custom built tracks and shit just for that specific cargo, why would it be any different here

>>12284899
>he doesn't want to order pizza directly from italy but lives in america

>>12284800
It will 100% be more expensive than anything a c-17 can do, but time sensitive transportation is invaluable, and situational, so it may be worth the price

>>12284899
Anywhere where supplies are critical. Disaster relief operations are the main needs.

>>12284907
>not wanting to order Chicago deep dish while in Italy to show those Europoors what real pizza is

>>12284912
idk, Sure you want that stuff there quickly, but within the hour? And disaster relief stuff is usually pretty volumous (clothes/coversings, medical supplies, food)as opposed to heavy right, so you won't be getting as much stuff as you could on say a boat and you'd also need a large fleet of starships at the ready to outcompete a big boat making round trips once a week or whatever

>>12284915
based

>>12284915
>Chicago deep dish
>real pizza
it has more in common with some sort of tomato-filling based pie than anything known as pizza, anon
everybody knows the only people who really know how to make a pizza are from Youngstown

>>12284856
the fact that virgin galactic and blue origin arent involved in any p2p demos is telling. imagine when your suborbital space transport means sucks at suborbital space transportation

>>12284922
If someone's dying within an hour, waiting 24 hours for relief isn't going to help. If they get 1 hour Starship shipment that lasts few weeks, then relief ships can take their time.

>>12284915
italians despise deep dish, not a single of my sicilian relatives entertain the thought eating that slop

>>12284933
And what do the relatives who have mastered air breathing and opposable thumbs think?

>>12284932
imagine being a starving nigger hurricane survivor and just when you thought it couldnt get any worse ol musky lands 80 tons of humanitarian aid on your head

>>12284937
Imagine surviving a hurricane, evading the looters and finding 80 tons of humanitarian aid and a dead nigger

>>12284932
it's still going to take more than a day, to acquire, load, find a suitable landing site at disaster area to actually get the shit there, you can't just have medical starships primed on pads 24/7. Also if there is more than a gentle breeze at the launch and landing site your supplies are getting SCRUBBED until the end of the week

>>12284934
building some hab for gateway, i'm told

>>12284934
deep dish is a sin against God

>>12284937
>imagine being a nigger and just when you thought it couldnt get any worse ol musky lands 80 tons of MIRVs on your head

Ravioli Ravioli, land on the moonuoli.

>>12284947
if you were designing a thermal kinetic bombardment weapon, how would you do it?
the old classic "tungsten rods from God" are still the end-all solution for breaking mountains and bunkers and mountain bunkers, but surface targets need something a bit different
I was thinking that you had something that could massively increase its surface area once it has reached the lower atmosphere (by breaking up?) and the thermal shock from this would cause a massive explosion, like that seen over tunguska

>a fucking walnut

>>12284941
If SS had the scrub rate of F9, it would be impossible. However, F9 is a Al-Li twig and they've overly cautious with it anyway. SS is a steel trashcan.

>>12284950
big rock

t. problem solver

>>12284950
>if you were designing a thermal kinetic bombardment weapon, how would you do it?
o'neill cylinders

BLACKED

>>12284950
Self destructing shrapnel-filled starship

>>12284956
i fuckin love this moon, man

>>12284950
>I was thinking that you had something that could massively increase its surface area once it has reached the lower atmosphere (by breaking up?) and the thermal shock from this would cause a massive explosion, like that seen over tunguska
like a big pile of gravel loosely held together with an ablative heatshield?

>imagine the smell

>>12284973
yeah, like that

>photobombs your climate monitoring satellite
>"pssssh nothing personnel, kid"

>heres ur moon bro

>>12284941
If you're going for worse case scenario, then Starship will not materialize at all. Why stop at landing pads or flight rate?

>>12284967
Reminds me of those pictures of slaves' backs with the whip scars. Rly makes you think

>>12284976
imagine quadrathlons on titan, cycling, skiing, human powered flying, and swimming

>>12284950
orbital depot bombardment

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1321676450466951170
DOES ELON BROWSE SFG

>>12285022
BASED , he's resisting the urge to say fuck urf

>>12285022
Trump lurks /pol/ even after taking office, so all things are possible.

>>12285022
yes

>>12283320
splash in the gulf

>>12283320
Shelby's house lithobrake.

>>12283320
if it doesn't splat i'm gonna be disappointed

>>12283320
It'll crash into the village of boca Chica. And then it will be iteratively developed by the military

>>12285022
Holy shit

>>12284199

>loli space program

>>12285022
I am the guy who created the Urf meme, I was enjoyed to see it pick up traction on /sfg/, always gives me a chuckle, but I have not seen this posted absolutely anywhere else at all and it is very specific. So unless he picked it up from one of you schizos tweeting "fuck urf and fuck boing" at him, and I don't think a tweet like that would be anywhere near the top of the chain, this pretty much confirms it.

Hello Elon we love you, if you decide to glass Urf and I haven't made it offworld yet, no hard feelings.

>thinking your favorite celebrity peruses 4chan.

>>12285100
Yes

>>12285093
Fuck off pedophile

>>12285093
correct

>>12285110
Nonce

>>12285094
At this rate Big Jim will put out an RFP for MOOSE packs for the ISS.

>b-but who is developing the technology for Mars it will never happen
>t. Athletesf00t

https://youtu.be/AyjC2Q3FcyM

University team working on prototype sabatier reactor, working on optimising mass flows and catalysts right now and in early construction stages, apparently they will have a scale prototype ready by April 2021

>>12285158
I'm not surprised sabatier reactors are being built and studied in detail, but its a bit worrying sometimes that nobody's making sufficient headway to crack self contained biospheres (usually due to external contamination, but that likewise highlights the dangers and necessities of pest control).

>>12285022
Of course he does, was that ever in question?

>>12285172
The problem with self contained biospheres is funding. Nobody wants to throw away a billion dollars to build a properly sized one - Biosphere 2 collapsed largely because it was too small. Like rockets, the bigger you go, the better your (bio)mass fractions look.

>>12285022
That's a very niche and specific wording.

>>12285174
>Biosphere 2 collapsed largely because it was too small.

No it collapsed because it was a retarded clusterfuck and wasn't even a remotely good attempt at what a pioneering offplanet settlement would look like and how they would recycle various things.

>>12285022
Now I just wait till he posts my ika-cgan starship meme

>>12285223
Or this.

Mars is a meme, take the Venus pill.

>>12285223
which one

>>12285242
fuck venus
take the inceladuspill

>>12285022
>Urf is so smōl
Mars is even smaller. Colonize Sun!

>>12285257
yeah but you can only do that at night, you'd need to leave before dawn

>>12285242
Venus is the biggest meme of all.
What are you going to do there? Find some cloud microbes and continue your slavery to gravity? There's not even a usable surface and we won't be able to make one for centuries at the absolute least.

>>12285273
imagine the casinos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBk6lCikqkQ
>here's ur glideslope bro

>>12283806
No I'm pretty sure his wife beat him.

>>12285022
>it's real

What the fuck, I'm 100% sure that this 4chan shitpost meme hasn't expanded beyond our tiny general yet.

>>12285242
>take the Venus pill.
extremely based

>>12285348
almost surely some spacex employees are around here. meme could have climbed up the ladder

>>12285242
I HEARD THERE'S A HOLY YELLOW SKY
JUST MAKE SURE YOU CLOSE YOUR EYES

>>12285348
list of /sfg/ exclusive memes:
Mikan squirting Mt Dew on things (this is exclusive only in the context of spaceflight)
calling Tim Estronaut because he needs to lay off the beans
fuck urf
actually knowing enough about Mobile Suit Gundam to draw parallels with SpaceX and the ideals of Mr. Deikun
Ika Musume
throwing rocks (ruks, for all you roguelikers)

uhhhh are there any I'm missing? orbital yeet train?

>>12285359
>be Spacex wagie
>never really use your company email since you are lowly wagie
>set your email signature for lulz
>fuck boing and fuck urf
>Have to send email directly to Elon regarding some random autistic shit he wants to personally know about
>click send
>oh fuck
>realise you forgot about you retarded meme signature
>ohfuckfuckfuck I'm getting fired
>Elon replies
>You're promoted

>>12284899
>Ever see them loading shit into the antonov? they spend the entire day loading and then another unloading, all on custom built tracks and shit just for that specific cargo, why would it be any different here
I would imagine they could keep a set of pre-loaded Starship payloads ready to load straight on. I mean how varied are the payloads they might want to launch? It's generally either blow things up or put them back together again