/sci/ - Science & Math

Oh fuck it just blew.

>>12784650
nice
soft landing achieved
>but not 100% yet, looks like the landing legs have failed

second landing was even worse
>still nice job tho

>>12784771
>>12784861
They are getting there, one step at a time.

>>12784892
Gradatim ferociter eh? I like the cut of your jib, why dont you come down to Blue Origin studios for an interview?

>>12784650

third time's the charm!

OH NO NO NO NO NO NO
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wait, it exploded AFTER landing?

>>12784892
Oh well, I wanted a nice soft landing
>but actually I also wanted to see some boomboom
I think this went great :D

>>12785053
yes
landed safe, then went up again

>>12785007
Why can't we have nice things?

>>12785053
they blew it up because it was too dangerous for the working crew
could have potentially exploded while they were working on it

>>12785007
It's over Muskbros...

>>12785053
The ULA snipers got it.

>>12784650
Lame

>>12785065
This is so obviously CGI

>>12785066
Dude they literally landed that huge shit. If you can't see how fucking nice that was you may be depressed or something

>>12785007
>the rockets are reusable!

Yeah, in a junkyard!

>>12785110
still love those flames

>>12785135
Recycling is all the rage these days. I can't wait to make a porcelain toilet off the remains

>>12785053
Now please tell me how a rocket that's already landed explodes. I'd love to know.

>>12785161
methane leak

>>12785161
Problem, Musk?

>>12785161
It seemed to be on fire after landing.

>>12785161
fire

>>12784685
Starhopper demanded blood

>>12784650

>"it landed successfully"
>*literally on fucking fire*

>>12785217
>most incredible maneuver with a 50 meter fuckhuge rocket ever completed
>waaaah it's not completely perfect after 3 attempts
faggot

Nice, it exploded minutes after but nice. It's funny how many anons are laughing now, literally the same scenario happened before the first Falcon landing vertically.

>>12785307
It's ok, anon, I'm sure when you land on Mars you'll have at least 60 seconds to jump 20 stories to the ground and run away.

>>12785335
The character in your image will never be who you want her to be.

>>12785065
Why does it look so much like CGI?

>>12784650
>Literally one of the greatest achievement in the human history
>The very next day, people will rather discuss gender identity, politics or some other bullshit.

>>12785370
Because you are mentally ill.... and I mean no insult, schizo anon.

>>12785370
>A grain silo moving super gracefully through the air
Your monkey brain thinks you've been drugged

>>12785370
because shitty troll is shitty, you should feel bad

>>12785361
wake me up when nuclear rockets exist.

>>12785370
The camera is stabilized.

>>12785370
Always has been.

>>12785007
Told you so!

>>12785522
THUNDERSAMA. I KNEEL!!

>>12785333
They will probably go forward with this concept. Landing is possible.

>>12784650
Obsolete technology

SLS won't blow up after landing. Just saying.

>>12785065
it fucking bounces off the pad
jesus

>>12785539
so what's better then fag?

>>12785545
cause it won't get off the ground!

>>12785383
>Literally one of the greatest achievement in the human history
>This is what Musk cultists actually believe

>>12785552
probably the landing leg failure played a role

>>12785565
Musk will be mentioned in the same breath as ceasar in 500 years

>>12785522
>*easily doable thing*
>IMPOSSIBLE
>*easily doable thing done*
>See? I predicted this
I hate this no neck chump so much

>>12785007
Antifa!!!!!

>>12785007
Muskbros... what now...

>>12785370
idk, the first bit does look weird.

>>12785007
nnnnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>12784650
yeah, it is

catastrophic failure at launch, what happened i wonder?

>>12785007
>even a partially filled test article can to explode due to a methane leak
I keep telling you niggers that starship as is an impractical design, and you won't listen.

>>12785161
There's a built in point of failure that undermines much of starship's design. The common bulkhead between the LOX and Methane tanks is rather thin, and so is the 301 series steel that makes up the rest of the hull. If the methane tank has more pressure than the Oxygen tank its going to cause the common bulkhead to buckle, and if it isn't its going to strain the sides of the rocket.

>>12785370
it is. every time a rocket explodes its actually a cgi rocket, the real rocket has joined space force

> Rockets are expensive
> Correct
> Because of materials and fuels
> Yes
> So I have a solution
> You're going to use a more efficient fuel and less materials?
> We're going to use the same materials and fuels.
> wha-
> and keep a bunch of fuel in the tank as it comes hurling back to earth
> uh-
> and then use that fuel to make the rocket land!
> To save costs on materials?
> Yes
> by using less fuel for take off because you need some of it to land and also get new fuel every time which is 90% of the cost of materials anyway?
> Yep. We're going to Mars on these.

>>12785803
the decline of western manufacturing means it will become more and more difficult to build rockets and so reusable ones make sense. Importing some chemicals from third world slave labor to mix into fuel however is not that diffcult

>>12785823
>decline of western manufacturing
We're literally making computers so small they can't be any smaller or quantum mechanics start being an issue.

>>12785803
301 steel is a bad choice for a rocket, especially a reusable one given how thin it is (and how many small sheets of it have to be welded together to make a rocket this size.) Sure, steel is cheaper than Aluminum, but in order to keep the weight down the hull and all of the tanks are going to be relatively flimsy.

>>12785834
Unrelated but based Pekoraposter

>>12785110
What the fuck, nigger. This shit was seen from miles away

>>12785834
you are not going to build a rocket out of surface mount supercomputers stuck togeather with graphene or what have you
you need great foundries, massive hydraulic presses, gigantic industrial machines to produce things.

The west has moved all of that overseas for profits and as tensions once again rise those capitalist factories will simply be seized by the other nations leaving the US lacking heavy industry capability.

>>12785803
Fuel is the cheapest part.

>>12785580
Your beliefs are so fucking sad, dude. I really feel bad.

>>12785858
If you used a fuel source (that exists) and offers twice the thurst power you'd need a rocket that's half the size.

>>12785896
>tiny rockets

>>12785858
>The west has moved all of that overseas for profits
That's where you're wrong, America didn't move its factories overseas for profit, but rather to conquer and subdue the industrial power of other countries, using "free trade" and "free markets" to leverage its power asymmetry.

>>12785909
but the only power asymmetry they are making is in giving up all manufacturing power and becoming weaker
of course you are probably right, liberals probably do think this makes sense somehow because to them the world stops existing outside of market charts.

>>12785803
Materials and especially fuel are the cheap parts dumb nousagi, labour is the expensive part

>>12785929
For the most part, this has actually succeed in subduing the industrial power of many other countries to America by way of its corporations China being the exception. America pretty much has the economies of a lot of these countries by the balls and rigidly adhering to its IP enforcement. The only reason why this is hard started to go sour now (from our elites perspective) is that china has the ability to undermine this arrangement, in absence of that many countries where our industries have been outsourced would have their economies dominated by America firms perpetually.

>>12785803
lol no fuel and materials are the cheap part, that's the whole point. Steel is cheap as fuck, so is methane and liquid oxygen. They'll be producing their their own with mostly solar power pretty soon . What makes rockets so expensive is manufacturing and labor. Everything has to be machined to insane tolerances and assembled by experts. Idk Where you got this idea from this is extremely common knowledge.

>>12785837
301 makes the most sense. Its extremely cheap and easy to manufacture compared to the alternatives. While aluminum is lighter, to survive the same conditions it would also have to be thicker and ultimately wouldnt save anything in terms of weight. even at 4mm they think it might be thicker than necessary as it's been able to handle the pressure without much difficulty. That's what SN7.2 is for, testing 3mm walls. It's also much stronger at cryogenic temperatures while having a higher melting point than other materials which gives them some flexibility with the heat shielding as it doesn't have to take so much of the burden.

>>12785522
THUNDERCHADS BTFO ELON, ATHEISM WINS AGAIN

>>12784650
well that first iteration right

>>12786081
Thick Aluminum pieces held together by a few welds are simply more structurally sound than sheets of thin steel held together by many welds. This doubly true for the common bulkhead between the methane and the LOX tank, see >>12785732.

>>12786097
Honestly, the real problem with Thunderf00t (aside from being a Eurocrat) is that his tangential digressions take to long to get to the point, when they're not largely irrelevant to his argument.

>>12785896
>you'd need a rocket that's half the size.
kek you aren't that bright, aren't you?

>>12786124
nvm read it as double the fuel efficiency

>>12785007
>Wait, it exploded AFTER landing?
Wen Pop

>>12785066

Bonus launch. (^_^)

>>12785970
Simp.

>>12785803
> We're going to use the same materials and fuels.
No other rocket is flying using methane.
Everyone is building methane rocket engines, because it's a better fuel.
No other rocket is flying that uses a significant amount of stainless steel.

Literally everything you say is retarded, what the fuck is wrong with you? It just shouldn't be scientifically possible to be this stupid.

>>12786159
>stainless steel

>>12784650
>>12784861
OH N-

>>12785161
I'm guessing that there was a fire under the skirt that weakened the welds.

https://youtu.be/KNLdDvt6wS0
it also didn't help that some of the landing legs didn't deploy right

>>12786206
Yes Stainless Steel. Because it has superior properties at cryogenic temperatures, its actually stronger when its cold. Now be a good girl and sit on poppies lap.

>>12785858
Heavy industry is actually one manufacturing type the US has gone to great lengths to keep domestic. We outsource shit like electronics, clothes, cars, basically consumer products to other countries. The whole point of having a military industrial complex and constantly going to war with random tiny 3rd world countries is to keep our heavy industry and defense contractors in business. The same thing is true of NASA. They are basically a Federal jobs program for defense industry engineers and personnel to keep them doing shit until we actually need them, hence why NASA feels the need to include ICBM derived solid rockets on their domestic rocket designs despite them being massively unsafe and totally unnesscary for manned space flight.

Despite appearances the US is smart enough to invest heavily in heavy industry and defense contractors and not outsourcing those kinds of manufacturing to other countries. Another famous example is the F35. The US literally doesn't even need it but we've wasted about 4 billion on it anyways just to keep aerospace defense on life support.

>>12785803
fuel is dirt cheap retard

>make expensive rocket
>save money on materials by reusing it
>BUT BUT THE FUEL!!!!!

at least try to bait correctly

>>12785545
no, it’ll blow up in flight!

>>12786229
>horribly over design your rocket forcing it to cost millions
>"See, the fuel price is less than it costs to make an overdesigned rocket idiot!!"

>>12786218
>space is cold

>>12786248
most likely, a project that bloated and drug out over as long as it's been disaster is the most likely outcome. calling it now srb o ring failure is going to kill a crew.

>>12786249
>horribly over design your rocket forcing it to cost millions

Anon, I hate to break it to you. But millions for something like this astoundingly is cheap.

>>12786249
starship is currently 2million dollars

fuel for starship and superheavy is said to be 900k

>>12786249
How is the rocket overdesigned? I'm quite curious why you think that

>>12786249
A single engine on SLS costs the same as 3 expendable Falcon 9 flights or 6 non-expendable Falcon 9 flights. There are fourain engines on SLS (plus too massively unsafe and expensive solid boosters). It costs literally more than a billion dollars for 1 (one) SLS launch.

Even if Starship couldn't land it would still be cheaper to launch a completely expendable Starship than a single SLS.

Nigger Starship IS the simply designed, low cost materials option.

>>12786256
it’ll be better if it fails spectacularly, imo. it needs to be an undeniable failure to prove beyond a doubt that we need to move on.

leg joints are shit, upgrade them from the next launch

>>12786115
sure, but likely heavier, and structural integrity really hasn't been an issue so far. The last two explosions where due to engine failures, this one looks like it came down way too hard (you can see it bounce on impact). Frankly im suprised it survived the landing even for the short period that it did. Even with sn9 when it tipped over into the high bay, nobody was really expecting it to survive that. With something like a rocket where every lb counts, a ship that can survive more stress than it was designed to is one that could lose a little weight in in its structure.

>>12786337
to add to this, rockets are as fragile as the engineers can get away with. They don't have to be strong, just "strong enough". just look at the balloon tanks on atlas and centaur rockets

>>12786337
I think they're mostly just concerned with getting the landing right before moving onto lighter and more expensive rocket construction

>>12786374
makes you wonder now that they’ve got the landing to the 98% mark how they’ll change the design for the next iteration

>Starship SN10 landed in one piece!

>>12786137
dios mio

>>12786390
Everyones been saying sn15 will be the one with real landing legs, not the disposable crush core ones they are using now. more thermal tile coverage probably, theyve been increasing it incrementally up to this point and might go all the way. Higher wield quality is expected at some point too. Musk mentioned some aesthetic improvements so maybe a cover for all the exposed wires and pipes on the outside. It's hard to say because they decided to skip sn12-14 but you can expect it to look pretty different

>>12784975
I'm pretty sure this is the largest and heaviest object that has been retropropulsively landed.

looks kinda on a lean
>mfw i thought it falling over

>>12785066
It's called "research and development", anon.

>>12785161
Fire in the engine bay, right under tanks filled with methane and oxygen vapors.

She accelerated hard enough to crush the nose cone.

>>12786443
This country is not in a state for research and development, it's bankrupt.

>>12786468
Well, the r&d put in to the Falcon 9 has resulted in a hundred plus flights so far...

>>12786249
>horribly over design your rocket forcing it to cost millions
despite what KSP may have led you to believe, building rockets is a rather complicated endeavor that costs a lot of money.

>>12786455
>This is supposed to survive 3gs, mach 1 atmospheric stress at Max Q, and re-entry at 15,000 mph

>>12786374
>I think they're mostly just concerned with getting the landing right before moving onto lighter and more expensive rocket construction

I was thinking there must be better grades of steel than 301. But for rapid prototyping there likely isn't anything nearly as cost effective.

>>12786455
Unexpected overpressure test, look it took out most of the other wrinkles.

>>12786455
>She
they

>>12786642
>they
She

>>12785370
Hollywood has conditioned you to think shaky vam is the norm.

>>12785803
Rockets are extremely difficult to assemble. It took 750,000 man hours to get the space shuttle ready for one launch and that was a partially recoverable vehicle.

>>12784771
>the landing legs have failed
the landing legs will be changed soon anyway. they were never meant to be permanant

>>12784861
poor thing it still wanted to fly
it knew it would be probably scrapped so it said fuck you to everybody.

SNX hover in the clouds was beautiful.

So wait I'm confused
I didnt watch it live because lmao eu times and I was sleep but the video on spacex's youtube doesnt have explosion

based Cody seeing SN10 live

>>12785522
Why is his neck so thick?

>>12786688
it happened around t+14m on the everdayastronaut and nasaspaceflight streams, maybe 10 minutes after it landed so long after the spacex stream ended

>>12786697
Oh well. Baby steps. Maybe the next one doesnt explode

>>12786488
To be fair it probably experienced forces upwards of 5 Gs of acceleration when it landed

>>12784650
It'll never work, that much is obvioius.

>>12786218
holy shit they are legit children

>shitty thing blows up again
who could have guessed.
You'd think they'd prioritize on it NOT blowing up.

>>12786692
He's got amazing genetics that he wasted on being a fucking neckbeard. Just imagine what a fucking beast this dude could have become had he exercised like a normal person, let alone done actual strength training.

>>12786488
It's not supposed to survive any of those things. It's an R&D prototype.

>>12786455
I wonder if this weak point will still be there with the new longer nosecone metal parts of new models

>>12786708
>holy shit they are legit children
Now you know why Bill Clinton liked flying on that jet, and spending time on the island so much.

>>12785595
shut up

>>12786439
yeah
we just witnessed history bros

>>12786642
Shops are a she unless you are a degenerate german.

>>12786698
The issue seems to have been the landing legs, some of them didn't work correctly so it hit the ground too hard. But so far the legs have been total placeholders anyway

>>12786439
How much does it weight at landing?

Mi-26 take-off weight of 56t
(Not a shoop)

>>12786745
im really suprised it was just the legs, the ship looked like it came down really hard.

>>12786764
Theres definitely room for improvement in the landing sequence with the engines. It seemed to hover for way too long and actually gaining altitude at points.

>>12786764
>>12786776
Here's a side view, it seems to drift too far so it has to correct itself back onto the target

>>12786785
Listen, I'm not a fighter pilot, but that seems like bit of a close fucking call for that maneuver, especially for the real thing that has people aboard and expensive science equipment.

>>12785202
omae wa mou shindeiru on the right

>>12786804
They might be testing for the worst case scenario

>>12786804
>Listen, I'm not a fighter pilot
obviously
>but that seems like bit of a close fucking call for that maneuver
its purposeful because they need to use as little fuel as possible. Also adding distance will not change the safety

>>12786814
Are you a tourist? It is very similar to the F9 booster landings

>>12786804
500 metres is plenty!

>>12786820
>its purposeful because they need to use as little fuel as possible. Also adding distance will not change the safety
Yeah but... what if it fucks up? Does the crew have to just accept that the rocket is going belly flop on the ground?

>>12786829
Sometimes shit happens. You accept the chance that your airplanes pilot is a retard that lets his son take control and forget to turn autopilot on and you crash.

I still hate that it's called "Starship".

>>12786829
Maybe the computer will have a way to push it back up a little but it shouldn't fail often. This is like an airplane and unfortunately launch abort systems really limit spaceflight

>>12786842
Why? Its short and easy to remember. Its not like the individual ships wont have names anyway

>explodes 8 minutes after landing due to damages sustained on landing
>everyone's parroting this as a successful landing
holy cope
imagine if after 8 minutes of landing on mars or the moon it just exploded

>>12786846
If there's going to be dozens or even hundreds of them, I doubt they'll have names beyond numbers

The landing phase was so nice this time I actually thought it was cgi and somehow I had changed the stream to a video of “how it would land”

>>12786850
The cargo starships probably wont but there is no reason they wouldn't name the crew starships. Think about all the ships that came to the Americas

>>12786849
This is a bare bones airframe with only 3 engines. It sticking the landing was incredibly important, it succumbing to a fire after landing is not important

>>12786853
same

>>12785161
Maybe Elon just likes to end things with a bang

>>12786850
All ocean ships have names. Having hundreds of ships probably warrants them having names more than having a few ships.

What do you guys think they will do with SN11?

>>12786916
fail again

>>12786932
SN10 succeeded you slant eyed insect

>>12786916
Abandon the project and focus on traditional proven technologies aka buying Russian engines and using safe, reliable, and cheap solid rocket boosters to augment stages.

>>12786846

It used to be called the BFR

;_;

>>12786118
Chinks and amertards fear the Strong Euro.

>>12786935
Nice success.
Can't wait until astronauts to have 8 minutes to leave the vehicle and get to a safe distance before it explodes upon landing on Mars.

>>12786948
>Mars
Are you suggesting it exists?

Forgive my interjection but it is trivial to acquire empirical proof Mars is a liquid spot in the sky - use any telescope and observe the flow of water.

Do explain.

>>12784650

The SpaceX narrator said
>"a nice soft landing"

wtf, that shit slammed into the ground visibly hard, no wonder it blew up lmao

>>12786940
BFR was a bad meme

>>12786849
It's just a flying grain silo. Once they make it to land properly, they can move on to next step, and make it to not explode.

>>12786948
>not the hecking prototyperino!! the finished product will surely be the same!!!

>>12786970
>wtf, that shit
that shit was weeks ago. The one that launched today landed
>https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1367250900041953280?s=20

>>12787041
no retard, it was this one, the one that landed. It landed hard. Understand?

>pic related, it's you

>>12785554
Lamda

>>12786755
I should have said "rocket" instead of "object". Of course you know the first propulsively landed crewed rocket vehicle was the Apollo LEM, and we did it six times, 50 years ago, on another "heavenly body". Nice helicopter, tho.

>>12787054
>chink meme
>chink response.
yeah okay bugman

>>12786916
Probably just adjust the landing burn. It will have the same legs, so they'll work or not. But I expect them to want to tweak the final touchdown

So the plan to get this into orbit and leave orbit is to strap another engines under this whole thing right?
Just how fucking long this gonna be

>>12787114
>>12787021
>>12786708
>>12786414
>>12786206
>>12786249
Fuck kike mods.

>>12787219
The longest

>>12784650
it's just as historic as the last one. It'll be historic when launching on super heavy to orbit

>>12784650
>>12784685

>>12785161
Thunderfoot shot it down to make more cringe video

>>12787238
Someone update the image with BO

>>12784650
>good job guys
>BOOM
Is anyone really surprised ? Honest question. It's painfully obvious that this will not go anywhere. We've known for over 70 years that reusable rockets sound like a good idea, but aren't.

>>12787403
Do you perhaps come from a universe where the Falcon9 doesn't exist?

>>12787408
>garbage reliability
>garbage maintenance
>garbage cost-effectiveness
Sure, you can try reusing the boosters a couple of times, but each time you do so, you're gambling with the payload. It's only a matter of time before the entire rockets start exploding shortly after takeoff, Challenger-style.

>12787433
try harder

>>12787446
>mmmm oh yes Mr. Musk fuck me more
Just wait and see. The failure rate is already on the high side even as of now.

This thread is proof that summer on 4channel is eternal.

>>12787433
Even the first launch is a gamble though. No one has a completely reliable rocket.

>>12787476
That much is true, but you can get close enough that it effectively doesn't really matter. Just look at Soyuz or Ariane.

>>12787433

The same could be argued with a Boeing 747

>>12787553
The same could be argued with the fucking human body. At some point, there is nothing that ridiculous comparisons can teach us. Nothing is eternal, so obviously Falcon 9 rockets, and other partially or completely reusable launchers, will explode in the future. The question is, can SpaceX guarantee that the failures will be rare enough that the launcher can remain within acceptable parameters of reliability ? So far, the answer is a very clear "no".

>>12787433
>garbage reliability
>garbage maintenance
>garbage cost-effectiveness
And still undercuts literally every other competitor and made space cheaper and faster by an order of magnitude.

>>12787573
>the answer is a very clear "no".
So you're not from a parallel universe but the future.
Either that or a Boing troll

>>12785370
smooth tracking and depth of field

>>12787578
>cutting corners is obviously a good idea, look how much time and money we're saving !
Yeah, there's no way such a line of reasoning could ever end in complete disaster

>the amount of thunderf00t viewers in ththe thread
>the amount of old space boomers who won't ever understand how an explosion can be a succesful test
You're all going to eat your words when starship touches down on Mars. Keep posting fud at every big milestone while fapping to SLS renders, cause that's all you'll ever get.

>>12787617
Starship will never touch down on Mars. No human being will ever touch down on Mars. I will grant you that the thought that SLS could do so is even more ludicrous, but it doesn't make Starship touching down on Mars any more likely.

>>12785975
Based Scientism follower

>>12786488
Inspite everyone telling you otherwise: This is not the real "Starship". It's a R&D testing vehicle that only resembles the real thing in shape and height.

>>12787638
>in spite of what you might have heard, the Starship prototype is a prototype
Based retard

>>12787642
Can you read?

>>12787642
>A few months ago
>"MARS HERE WE COME! We'll be flying in no time, the writing is on the wall for everyone else!"
>Now
>"It exploded again? W-w-w-well its just a prototype, I don't know why you're implying its close to feature complete instead of a test article."

>>12784650
>SN9's engine just sputters out and it crashes
>what happened ?
>dunno lol
>SN10 just blows up after landing
>what happened ?
>dunno lol
>let's try again soon !
Yeah, this doesn't reek of incompetence at all.

>>12785837
>301 steel is a bad choice for a rocket
Its not *really* bad, but you can do better.
Which is why they are (or already have) switching to a new alloy.
Musk talked about it, I'm not sure the details, but it was a while ago. Makes everything stronger at a minimum, and is easier to work with I believe.

>>12787672
Which series and what's the tradeoff?

>>12787238
What are the pros and cons of having 2 or 4 boosters?

>>12787219
If they can't figure out refueling, it'll be able to fly into orbit, and depending on how much fuel it has left, around the moon and maybe to the L5 point and come back. But without refueling trips to the surface of the moon and back and to mars are off the table.

>>12787653
>multiple actual flight tests in just a couple months
>vehicle doing better than anyone would have expected
>Bb-bbut we aren't on mars yet! Starship BTFO.
You have no idea what you're looking at if you think this program doesn't have amazing progression. When it attains orbit later this year or in the beginning og next year, you will probably complain about it not being refueled on the first orbital test.

>>12787756
>>vehicle doing better than anyone would have expected
You make the mistake that everyone has the same expectations, I actually do think that it will to reach orbit at some point relatively soon, but will likely have deficiencies elsewhere due bad design choices being baked into it.

>>12787782
Like what, the choice of alloy? This seems like the most trivial thing to change midway. Unlike for example changing engine design, going back to a carbon fiber frame seems like it would require minimal redesign and they would still have benefitted from doing 10+ test prototypes with steel.

>>12787782
No, I'm simply discarding the opinions of people who's expectations are completely unrealistic.

>>12787823
>going back to carbon frame
They wouldn't have finished a single prototype by now if it was cf.

>>12787842
Read what I said. If today they decided to return to carbon fiber because they realized steel wouldn't work they would still have benefitted from prototyping in steel then if they started with carbon fiber.

>>12787867
I don't know the premise itself sounds ridiculous - if material is the problem then carbon fiber certainly wouldn't fix it... Haven't followed the conversation though and the fag didn't mention what the "bad design choices" are.

CGI

>>12787890
Your sex life is CGI

>>12787903
No it's hand drawn by underpayed autistic japanese illustrators

>>12787739
>pros
asparagus staging, drop the shit that you don't need anymore
>cons
aerodynamics

>>12787987
>assburger staging
Impractical from engineering point of view.
>aerodynamics
Aero losses are irrelevant and in the range double digit range of m/s.

Too much kerbal, too little reality.

>>12785370
Because you never seen anything like this.

So I was thinking about ships that never land and just park in orbit and refuel. Often the argument against then is that the atmosphere provides free breaking.
So instead of retroburns (or in addition) could they "skim" the atmosphere to break?

>>12786916
i hope they add biger legs

>>12786916
Blow it up.

>>12786455
Lol what a piece of junk

>>12786455
Adjust your contrast, the nose just blends ind with the background since it's frosted over.

>>12786864
>e-exploding after l-landing isn’t important

>>12788096
It is possible to aero-break to get into a lower orbit from a more eccentric one, but it does require some fuel so that part of your new orbit doesn't cross the atmosphere once your done with the maneuver.

>>12788145
Not the tip, the giant ripple in the metal.

>>12788151
Might seem like I'm brushing it off, but they've done plenty of vertical landings with Falcons, so it's something they know they can do. The actual flip maneuver is the new and important thing. The landing legs on these prototypes have been kind of an afterthought, since sticking the landing perfectly hasn't been a huge priority or expected. Now that they've proven the landing method and know that the bellyflop and flip work, they can refine the ship design which includes better legs

>>12786829
drastic measures have to be taken if you want reusability, also a giant tall cylinder isn't inherently stable aerodynamically. It\d be nice if it just came back down straight on, but its a lot harder to keep it stable. The bellyflop is actually safer and smarter since it uses the atmosphere for stability instead of fighting against it

>>12785595
Kek

>>12786846

If it doesn't travel to other stars, then the name doesn't fit.

>>12791143
It travels within the light of a star