/sci/ - Science & Math

Total Lunar Death

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/07/india-takes-a-critical-first-step-toward-a-second-attempt-to-land-on-the-moon/

> India has developed the Chandrayaan-3 mission on a shoestring budget, about $90 million.

> Friday's launch came less than a month after India and NASA moved to develop closer ties in spaceflight, particularly through lunar exploration, with India signing the Artemis Accords. India became the 27th country to sign the accords, a non-binding set of principles among like-minded nations that provides a vision for peaceful and transparent exploration of space.

>>15563867
space is ghey

>>15563872
>90m
>shoestring budget

Seems like a reasonable price for a government project for a toy car and lander. Behead JPL, roundhouse kick a JPL exec into a trash compactor, etc...

>>15563894
u r ghey

Is technically possible to make RP-1 at home from algae or palm oil?

>>15563899
What do you think the average wage in India is?

>>15563930
The people building this shit are on a WAY higher wage than your average street shitter selling 5c naan breads

>>15563927
You know you can just buy RP-1, right?

MSRbros...

>>15563867
Harass the machine elves, brain telescope now.
Is there a QRD on that spaces announcement elon made?

>>15563976
well I made a thread >>15563833
one of the Krassensteins made a summary which seems to be somewhat correct

>>15563980
I hope they recognize that LLMs are a local maximum and have some ideas for how to proceed from there.

>>15563988
I think that is pretty obvious
"easy" way to get something useful though, starting with a ChatGPT/Bard clone or a scaled up version as simply scaling seems to result in more capability

>>15563988
>LLMs are a local maximum
I think they are far from any local maximum. They will just continue getting better unhindered

https://spacenews.com/space-force-to-select-three-providers-of-national-security-launch-services/

> WASHINGTON — The U.S. Space Force on July 13 released a revised draft solicitation for the next round of national security launch contracts, known as National Security Space Launch Phase 3.

>In a major departure from the first draft request for proposals released in February, the Space Force is increasing the number of heavy-lift launch providers it plans to select from two to three.

>NSSL Phase 3 is a multibillion-dollar procurement of launch services projected for 2025 through 2029. United Launch Alliance and SpaceX won NSSL Phase 2 in 2020, and their current contracts will be recompeted.

posted previously, but kind of interesting
I guess BO is strongarming someone to get inlcuded? like with the moon lander
in this case even the contracts that were given out previously will be recompeted
BO is basically fucking ULA

>>15564004
At some point you reach diminishing returns with the use of electricity and so on
even if these are able to scale indefinitely, they are probably a local maximum from a standpoint of reaching AGI, some other more (compute) efficient architecture might be necessary and I think I've heard people from OpenAI say just that
LLMs won't be enough by themselves for AGI

>>15564009
Either someone is strong-arming them in the business world or on Capitol Hill, or there are concerns about maintaining the supplier base within the DoD.

>>15564004
An LLM doesn't know what an apple is, or a horse, or an atom bomb. LLMs are purely statistical processes, they cannot conceptualize. An LLM can't actually problem-solve, it's just hard-baked into the way they work.
Almost every headline-generating AI doodad has been the same way. AlphaGo and its 'descendants' which appear beyond superhuman at playing Go can actually be defeated kind of trivially with unorthodox strategies because the bot literally doesn't know how to play the game at a conceptual level.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/spacex-stock-boeing-raytheon-c222ce1

>>15564028

>>15564009
can you imagine
>ULA garners negative reputation because Vulcan hasn't flown yet and is getting delayed
>90% of the delays hinge on BE-4 being late, underproduced and unreliable
>BO's New Glenn gets chosen as an alternative
>despite needing SEVEN of the same engines that ULA has had trouble procuring two of
>and the company having no history of successful spaceflight
the absolute cosmic irony

>>15564107
would be pretty funny if BO sperging out results in the only actual provider being SpaceX (like with Starliner)
delayed for so long that they never actually launch anything
I do hope New Glenn and the lander works out though, would be cool to see some actual competition for SpaceX

>>15564107
>let's just ignore that a quarter of the engines failed during Starship's test flight

>>15563867

so, i guess Block 2 is not happening anytime soon then?

>>15564165
how many engines is BO building compared to SpaceX?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxSbYk2epmw

>>15564178
Block 2 requires fancy new boosters so no.

Why can't they make LLM invoke other models?
There's your AGI

>>15564188
What's it matter? The engine SpaceX is building have a 25% failure rate

>>15563867

>>15564178
>>15564198
Block 2 is an utter myth, and even Block 1B is probably not happening in time for Artemis 4 by 2027. The current transporter stand / mobile launch platform are only capable of supporting Block 1 - Block 1B and 2 are both too heavy for it. The updated ML-2 that's intended for 1B/2 is currently delayed at least 3 years, too heavy for the crawler with a Block 2 on top, almost a billion dollars over budget, and has not even begun construction.

In fact, Bechtel's extreme failures and cost overruns are what prompted Ballast Bil Nelson to claim that cost-plus contracts were a plague on NASA.

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-012.pdf
^it's even worse now than in this report^

>>15564194
I miss when he used to make KSP videos

>>15563930
Half the budget goes into paying non-productive government employees. Only a quarter or even less of 'em are actually well versed at their jobs.

>>15564212
it matters because if a BO engine blows up, that is 6 months to get a new one or whatever
if a Raptor blows up during testing, thats like a few days or something

I want a straight answer - we're going to see DoD missions swap from vulcunt to F9/H right

>>15564229
That's why SpaceX took over SLC-6 at Vandenberg. It's a quicker way to get vertical integration for the Falcon than building the mobile shed they were talking about for LC-39.

>>15564239
that's because some gov payloads are fragile snowflakes right?

>>15564216
Kind of amazing how even though it's base on Shuttle tech, modifying it is still a nightmare.

>>15564242
Dumb orange tank is entirely different too

>>15564226
yeah but they literally can't get to space with current raptors, doesn't matter how quickly they can replace them

>>15564241
Yeah piece of shit paper telescopes built by NG

why doesnt SpaceX manufacture spy sats for the govt? Surely they could do it cheaper than the big boys just like with rocket production. I guess it would put too much on their plate, and they are assuming all of the mass limited spindly sats are going to be obsolete when starship can lug a 200t burly chunky sat into orbit for cheap

>>15564248
false, current raptors haven't been tried on a launch vehicle
the raptors on OFT-1 were early Raptor 2s, they are building Raptor 3s already
the stack was very obsolete, you could argue its kind of risky to launch it anyway and yes that is correct, but that is how Musk operates
and as can be seen, the damage has already been fixed and a upgrade is almost done plus they probably got a lot of important data (on important data point was that the FTS system needs to be bulkier for instance)

>>15564261
they already are, or atleast a satellite platform

https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-military-starlink

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/05/spacex-unveils-starshield-a-military-variation-of-starlink-satellites.html

https://www.spacex.com/starshield/

ah yes the flight termination system system

>>15564263
the test flight is the last hard data on raptor reliability we have. Perhaps they improved it since but we just don't know. Yes they got some data from the flight but they would've gotten a whole lotta more had the Raptors worked

>>15564280
lol u think they know how to process data???

>>15564292
obviously not, that's why falcon 9 never landed successfully. those clowns at spacex have no idea how to analyze telemetry.

>>15564300
xD ur just now figuring this out??? after they failed to save any money on their "reusable" rocket??

>>15563867
Looking forward to this NASA-DARPA collaboration on nuclear propulsion. America's future is in the stars.

>>15564313
sneaky Proton photo there lul

Now that Zhuque-2 has won the 'methalox race,' which rocket does /sfg/ think will be the next to achieve orbit?
https://strawpoll.vote/polls/jvikwxs2/vote?s=0

https://spacenews.com/industry-offers-wish-list-for-commercial-space-legislation/

>>15564334
Another Zhuque-2 since it is a proven platform and China has shown they can construct a new one each week.

>>15564334
Starship

>>15564334
>rank list
why

>>15564338
Where did they prove this? The last I heard was that they were planning for another launch later this year and then four more next year.

>>15564340
finer granularity with fewer respondents, also gets you more information per voter (I'm assuming only a dozen or so anons respond :/ ), and I'd like to think /sfg/ is at least smart enough to understand a ranked choice poll. Should give a better idea for the expected order even though it's probably just SSH>Vulcan>Glenn

>>15564261
Seems like the endgame is SpaceX developing everything space related at this rate.

>>15564334
lol

>>15564392
This was my exact voting order

>>15564402
same

>>15564392
Neutron and new glenn are a toss up, everything else is squarely in its place. M

>>15564392
I put new glenn below neutron. One of those two companies has at least gotten into orbit.

>>15564242
shuttle orbiter makes me coom gallons, shame viable spaceplanes are probably decades off

>>15564417
There’s currently a viable spaceplane in operation.

80s Soviet spaceflight was kino

>>15564434
Imagine US shuttles launching to intercept this fucking thing in LEO while “dogfighting” Burans

>>15564334
Starship is the safe bet; BUT, IFT-2 will almost certainly follow in IFT-1's wake as another sub-orbital test - so Vulcan might actually launch before Starship gets FAA clearance for a full *orbital* test. Supposedly New Glenn is launching next year (if you can believe it); after that, you've Neutron as a literal dark horse, which only has a chance if clown world shenanigans create continuous delays for SX, ULA and BO.

I could see Starship being delayed by staging issues, raptor's unknown reliability, and bureaucracy for a year, and who the fuck knows what's going on with BE-4s and centaur right now. If hobbitlab can keep everything on track for a late 2024 launch and God himself intervenes in favor of the kiwis, Neutron might end up as the first reusable methalox rocket.

>>15564439
Neutron ain’t happening till 2025 mate

>>15564441
Neither is NG.

>>15564446
Yeah. I can’t believe Starship beat Aryan 6, Vulcan’t, Nooglin, and arguably, SLS Block IB

>>15564457
I really wonder if flyback boosters and spaceplanes could’ve been the future.

>>15564441
got a source for that? everything I'm seeing still has late 2024 as their goal
obviously that can and almost certainly WILL slip to 2025, but there's still some infinitesimal chance they keep to schedule.

>its been months since anything interesting happened
suffering

>>15564467
No source, just an inference. We have yet to see a Archimedes engine fire on the stand, or at all, really.

Real chance Firefly Beta and Terran R fly first honestly. At least they have engine testing going on

>>15564024
You're retarded

This is never flying, is it?

>>15564504
An LLM could come up with a better response

>>15564024
alphazero can't be defeated by unorthodox strategies

>>15564496
Archimedes has some testing going on. It's just less public than Aeon R because Relativity has nothing else to show right now. Archimedes is maybe 6-12 months behind Aeon right now.
Miranda may be at the same stage or slightly behind Archimedes right now. Firefly doesn't publicize as much in general though.
However, Rocket Lab is jumping from electric pump kerolox to ORSC methalox, while Firefly and Relativity are sticking to their proven tap-off kerolox and GG methalox, respectively.

>>15564009
The third provider will be Boeing, it just makes too much sense when you consider the fact that congress ultimately is who decides which rockets the USSF uses.

>>15564536
SLS? are you insane

>>15564198
The Block 2 boosters are OmegA solid rocket segments that Northrop has already developed.

Besides the drawing being very much not to scale, this is pretty cool.

>Atmospheric entry to impact in 30 seconds
>23,000 FPS to 800 FPS in 30 seconds
>Average deceleration is 23G
>Peak likely much much higher

>>15564261
What do you think Starshield is?

>>15564536
Boeing still getting contracts after the shitshow starliner is?

>>15564538
Read the USSF press release, the third provider is being written with SLS in mind.

>>15564526
>he doesn't know

>>15564548
prove it faggot

>>15564543
SLS was "flawless" on Artemis I

>>15564526
It has been tho. Same with the modern chess AI

>>15564547
why would they waste so much money?

>>15564552
>>15564550

>>15564553
The same reason NASA is locked into using SLS, congress writes the checks and they want their pork.

>>15564558
They can affect USSF budgetary choices that granulary? I thought only NASA was cucked like that and the military had a bit more autonomy on what to buy

>>15564536
Lol no. The cadence to support SLS in Lane 2 is impossible. I don't remember how many launches were supposed to be allocated to Lane 2, but I have to imagine even third place would be expected to fly at least twice a year. I think Congress wants a production rate around there, but that plus Artemis cannot be done. Two NSSL flights a year plus Kuiper launches for New Glenn is something that Blue Origin can at least pretend is possible.

>>15564554
ask bing gpt

>>15564564
The NDAA. Congress literally passes a law every year telling the military how it can spend the money it is given.

>>15564565
Also BO is clearly pushing for Lane 2, while Boeing hasn't said anything about which lane

>>15564565
It can literally just be one launch. NSSL contracts are planned payloads divvied out not "you get 5 launches".

>>15564571
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/commercial-space/boeing-eyes-commercial-sls-bid-nssl-phase-3

>>15564576
>paywalled
I know they want SLS in NSSL. That doesn't mean they're bidding on Lane 2.

>>15563840
here's your new cyburtwuck bro. how's that muskass taste?

>>15564536
Northrop would be more likely than Boeing. Unlike Boeing they actually have some rockets that are in the size range the Space Force would find useful, and the Utah solid fuel mafia still has a lot of political pull in Washington.

There might still be a chance.

>>15564579
Phase 2 of Lane 3, which they are going for, is the only NSSL contract to bid on.

>>15564580
holy seethe

>>15564583
Northrop is in bed with Firefly this time around. No solids.

>>15564583
Northrop has no rocket capable of fulfilling NSSL missions and makes the solids for SLS.

>>1564579
Lane 2 of Phase 3, which they are going for, is the only NSSL contract to bid on.

>>15564594
It's the same rhetoric Rocket Lab and Relativity are using.
Also, consider the following:
https://sam.gov/opp/bc16bbbd24074a7b9d715b341a0aa567/view
Show me one time that Boeing has specified Lane 2, let alone received government support for a Lane 2 bid like this.

>>15564589
The Castor-1200s that were going to be used as the core stage on the OmegA XL are still technically under development since they're 95% the same as the BOLE boosters for SLS block 2. NG is very interested in liquid fuels but that doesn't mean they're abandoning solids. A mostly solid system could be an easier development than trying the scale up Firefly's MLV to meet the space force's higher end requirements.

>>15564600
Lane 2 is the only NSSL contract they can bid on.

>>15564601
This competition isn't set up for NG to build a bespoke NSSL launcher. MLV would already be better than OmegA for half of NSSL missions and basically anything commercial. OmegA lost last time, so I don't see why they would win now when there are more options that are further along, have commercial support, or have better lobbying.

>>15564540
>Apogee range isn't half the total range
??

>>15564611
Are you saying that SLS wouldn't be competitive in Lane 1? Because there's nothing stopping them from bidding on Lane 1 launches, it's just that they would be outbid unless the Space Force had SLS in mind for a particular payload. And as unlikely as that is, I still find that more likely than the Space Force shelling out obscene amounts of money for an SLS block buy under Lane 2.
Blue Origin has lobbying comparable with Boeing and a rocket that will be vastly cheaper than SLS.

>>15564621
It's a depressed trajectory using thrusters.

>>15564580
tastes like 20x returns

>>15564414
>Neutron and new glenn are a toss up

Is there information about BO behind the scenes that I don't know about? It seems like BO's NG is starting to be taken a little more seriously since BO got a couple BE-4's shipped to ULA.
I remember the 'pathfinder' stuff they were working on, but last I saw they scrapped a ton of stuff and started welding steel like SpaceX, but that wasn't too long ago.

BO does tend to keep things more quiet, but I've yet to see any advancement from them in a while (outside of the two BE-4's)

>>15564639
New Glenn is still progressing at a glacial pace. BO activity at the Cape (beyond constructing buildings) has been slowly ramping up over the past year or so, but not enough to show that they're anywhere close to having a rocket.

>>15564645
Also Vulcan has priority on BE-4s, and the recent BE-4 explosion will be a setback to ramping production

Epsilon SRB explosion aftermath

>>15564539
OmegA?
More like OmegumiN! -> >>15564612

>>15564565
>national security in space
>New Glenn
so secure you won't even see it launch

Today i will remind them.

>>15564651
not that bad

>>15564668
>not that bad
the entire test cell and surrounding building is scrap

how many be4's does ULA want per year?

Lane 2 3rd place is apparently just 7 launches, mostly GPS. It's in the realm of possibility (or at least close enough for Congress to push through) for SLS with a ramp-up, but I still think it fits New Glenn better.

>>15564670
could have been worse

>>15564690
How could they rationalize it if it costs 10x the competition?

>>15564670
Their pipes and tanks survived and all the sensors are consumables anyway
Bit of an accelerated maintenance schedule but stacked cinderblocks and sheet steel roofing are not expensive

>>15564651

So many missions for rockets that don't exist.

>>15564651
owari da...

>>15564687
ideally they want 40

>>15564638
holy delusional

>>15564028
>pioneered reusable rockets
Yeah I don't think so

>>15564757
I mean I already got that, not necessarily its going to 20x again (not impossible though depending on how the AI thing works out)

>>15564764
the AI thing is just gonna be chatgpt trained on trump tweets so failure is inevitable

>>15564706
SLS exists in the real world
NASA and Boeing have put things into orbit before
nugglin is essentially still in the design phase, and 'Below Orbit' isn't a very good mockronym to have for a space launch company

>>15564766
that is an entirely different company (xAI)
I'm talking about FSD and Optimus

>>15564622
Lane 1 is not getting a third provider, Lane 2 is the only NSSL contract that Boeing can bid SLS for.

>>15564706
>How could they rationalize it if it costs 10x the competition?

They don't have to if it is something congress forces on them.

>>15564773
you're talking about vaporware, and so am i

>>15564580
>if you only knew
Why is she so mad bros?

>>15564780
she has haters and she DGAF

>>15564687
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1679525355353260033?s=20
>Bruno: ULA has about 6 to 7 Vulcan rockets "in flow right now in the factory," and the company is in the process of increasing its production rate to 25 per year by mid-2025.

That is 50 BE-4 engines a year, which is why ULA is moving forward on SMART reuse.

>>15564784
>reuse begins
What's the next step of reuse to ULA?

>>15564784
I still can't believe the unimaginable stupidity that took place when he decided to terminate their proven rockets in favor of using a paper engine from a non-aerospace billionaire's suborbital rocket hobby shop

Imagine how fucked they'll be if BE-4 turns out to be unreliable on reuse, they'll be capped at less flights per year than Ariane 6 even if jeff starts making engines at the volumes they actually promised to deliver. Blue is totally screwed too if that's the case, but ULA will be flayed alive and completely disemboweled if they can't even get enough Vulcans to satisfy NSSL contracts

>>15563867
Name this matter-antimatter destruction rocket.

>>15564775
There are already several interested entities in Lane 1. Rocket Lab, Relativity, and Firefly/Northrop are all overt in their interest in Lane 1, and USSF mentioned ABL too. The plan isn't to have a fixed number of contractors for Lane 1, rather each of these companies would have a shot to bid on individual missions. The last proposal also allowed Lane 2 contractors to bid on Lane 1 launches, though at least one of the small launchers didn't like that idea so maybe they're adjusting that. In any case, theoretically there could be many contractors for Lane 1. Now of course, SLS competing against these rockets is absurd, but SLS winning one launch from Lane 1 is more likely than it winning a block buy of 7 via Lane 2.

I thought the idea was Lane 1 was for new/struggling companies to try and get more competition out there, and Lane 2 was for dependable established providers.

>>15564817
>he decided to terminate their proven rockets
They needed a new engine regardless due to sanctions blocking RD-180 import. Their choices were BE-4, AR-1, or developing something else.

>>15564817
Delta IV is not competitive and Atlas V uses Russian engines, ULA needed a new rocket.

>>15564822
Lane 1 is for small and low value payloads, not big high value sats or GEO.

>>15564784
I’m feeling confident BE-4 will have reusability issues. The ORSC cycle will bite everyone in the ass

>>15564817
Keep in mind the fact that the only other option, the AR1, was going to cost way, way more. And it would probably be even more delayed than BE-4 is right now

>>15564825
>>15564834
Yet Lane 2 will now need to take on one rocket (two if you count Vulcan) that isn't well-established, so I don't think the characterization of each lane is set in stone. The only way I see SLS getting a contract is if one or two big payloads are made just for SLS. It would be easier to allocate that through Lane 1, regardless of original intent. To be fair though, SpaceX's Phase 3 bid will likely include Starship, which could lift anything SLS can.

>>15564844
"Boeing will bid SLS for Phase 3 Lane 1" is quite the hill to die on, congrats on being a huge retard

wouldn't be surprised it SpaceX winds up buying BE-4s from BO

>>15564847
They will and you are a retard for not expecting it

>>15563945
The point is to achieve lower sulfur content. iirc biokerosene dont have/have lower sulfur content.

>>15564844
>I don't think the characterization of each lane is set in stone

The USSF has been explicit and consistent with what each lane is, lane 2 is the only lane Boeing can and would want to bid SLS for.

>>15564844
I pretty sure that in one of the GAO breakdowns of SLS/Artemis someone from the NRO or Pentagon was quoted explicitly saying that there were no payloads planned for a rocket the size of SLS and that the government had no desire to design any now that it was operational.

>>15564871
so SS will have no payloads?

>>15564880
SS has a big payload but at a small price tag

>>15564871
You are thinking of that Reuter's article and that isn't what the USSF official said.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/boeing-northrop-face-obstacles-commercializing-flagship-us-rocket-2023-06-07/
>"It's a capability right now that we, the DoD, don't need," Colonel Douglas Pentecost, a senior rocket acquisition official with the U.S. military's Space Force, said in an interview. "We have the capability that we need at the affordability price that we have, so we're not that interested in some partnership with NASA on the SLS system."

This was long before the USSF suddenly added a third provider for the Lane 2 contract.

>>15564242
The space shuttle was the worst human rated orbital system ever (objectively the most dangerous) and should have been scraped in 1986.

>>15564909
Agree

>>15564848
meds

>>15564909
It would have been better all round if Crippen and Young had bailed out from STS-1
>After the flight, mission commander John Young was shown those videos. His reaction was severe. 'Had I known the body flap had been deflected so far off position', he told associates, 'I'd have concluded the hydraulic lines had been ruptured and the system was inoperative'. Without a working body flap, a controlled descent and landing would have been extremely difficult if not impossible. The pitch control thrusters might or might not have been enough to provide control. The shuttle might have tumbled out of control and disintegrated at very high speed and altitude ... 'I'd have ridden the vehicle up to a safe altitude', he later stated, 'and while still in the ejection envelope [the range of speed and altitude for safely firing the ejection seats] I'd have pulled the ring'.

>>15564848
The BE-4 generates about the same thrust as the Raptor but is much larger. Adopting the BE-4 would require a drastic redesign of the launch system and all associated systems.

>>15564860
RP-1 standard is already expensive because it's super low sulfur. Astra used RP-X for Rocket 3 because it was cheaper. One of the tradeoffs was higher sulfur content.

>>15564963
Super Heavy simply isn't wide enough to hold enough BE-4 to get off the ground

>>15564909
Challenger was intentionally destroyed in 1986 because the next launch was scheduled to be HST, but NASA didn't have the software ready to operate HST. Instead of admitting that they couldn't put the software together in time, they bought themselves a 4 year delay by detonating Challenger. Once the software was completed, shuttle flight resumed, HST was the first launch after the delay.
The Linda Ham affair was the only legitimate space shuttle failure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDfA6nZ2d0Q

>>15564978
why sulfur bad

>>15564947
>>15564985

>>15564947
cope but you know it's on the table

>>15565010
It's not a hydrogen or a carbon so you wind up with big lumpy SO2 or H2S molecules in the exhaust which lower Isp. For first stages, H2S also makes the exhaust smell like rotten eggs.

>>15565020
can't believe that such a low concentration of sulfur can matter. Also why do they add aluminium to SRBs?

>>15565024
Aluminum burns as Al2O3 so it creates a lot of thrust.

>>15565005
> Work under OLM

>>15565035

>>15565039

braap

>>15565019
how can you be so delusional?
being a baiting faggot is still being a faggot
faggot

>>15565010
Sulfur is to engines as cholesterol is to thin arteries.

>>15563867
Kind of looks like a penis

>>15565074
I don't believe it.
Engines coke. Never seen one build up sulfur.

>>15564847
You're missing my whole point, which is that the three provider change is absolutely made for New Glenn and not SLS, because SLS is simply too uncompetitive and too low-volume to compete for anything but bespoke, made-for-SLS missions. And indeed as pointed out >>15564898, I don't know what the point of a military sat that could only fly on SLS would be other than pork.
At the end of the day, SLS will not be part of NSSL.

So when's the dual drone booster landing falcon heavy launch?

What happens if BO loses Lane-2 as well? Kek

>>15565107
They'll lobby and force congress to give them sole source contracts so others can't compete. That's what they did with HLS program.

https://twitter.com/CosmicalChief/status/1680274821882494977

>>15565122
> its going to take 2 years to cure bro
okay man

>>15565102
>the three provider change is absolutely made for New Glenn
>"Because I said so!"

SLS doesn't have to be competitive if it is forced on the USSF by congress.

>>15565132
Congress is just as incentivized to impose New Glenn as it is SLS because Boeing and BO's lobbying departments are on the same level. Yet New Glenn has a much stronger case for these launches than SLS (cheaper and potential for higher cadence), so it would be easier to impose New Glenn.

>>15563927
sure
you take your oil, deesterify with lye, get rid of glycerol and then decarboxylise the fatty acid
that's the trickiest part to do cheaply, otherwise nobody would gunk up their cars with FAME
hydrogen on Pt catalyst should work for last step

>>15565128
robocop ass shit

>>15565122
You think they can finish the hardware and start testing by July 20th? That's the three mark prediction by Musk.

Made a twitter account to follow rocket girls. They're so cute!

>>15565122
rusty ass shit

>>15564784
how many new F9 rockets did Spacex launched this year, and how many flights?

>>15565209
>pic
What a rough era for space

>>15564651
I hope they set the guy who saved the H-3 booster on this

It's weird that all their engines have instability issues though

>>15565299
>It's weird that all their engines have instability issues though
It's not weird.
Solids, especially big ones are only marginally safer than hybrids.
It's incredibly hard to prove it won't just burn weirdly and consequently blow up compared to a liquid.

>>15565181
>rocket girls
Planetes is better space anime

>>15565136
>Congress is just as incentivized to impose New Glenn as it is SLS because Boeing and BO's lobbying departments are on the same level.

BO is nothing compared to SLS's lobbying power built up over literal decades.

>>15565209
44 Falcon Nine
2 Falcon Heavy

>>15564985
New York Times, April 9, 1990
https://web.archive.org/web/20150525194741/http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/09/us/telescope-is-set-to-peer-at-space-and-time.html?pagewanted=2

>When the project was officially begun in 1977, the goal was to loft the telescope by 1983. Technical problems, particularly with the optical systems and the guidance and pointing mechanisms, set the launching back to 1986. Then came the Challenger shuttle disaster in January 1986, killing seven astronauts, and the Hubble telescope and everything else were grounded indefinitely.

>But as it turns out, project managers acknowledge, ground controllers would not have been ready in 1986. The computer software for pointing the telescope and other complex operations was found inadequate and had to be completely revised, a task only recently completed.

So HST's launch was conveniently delayed by the Challenger explosion in 1986 and shuttle missions were then delayed until after the HST ground control software could be cobbled together

Based schizo

>>15564263
>current raptors haven't been tried
Fucking kek, Anon. You're not entirely wrong, but this is a pretty copey post. I also think Raptor reliability will improve, but what if next flight fails similarly? Will you just say again, n-no, real Raptor has never been tried, these are just old R2s, R3 will be the good one? And if that were to have issues as well because it's a new revision so of course early ones will be sketchy again while Elon tweets the next chamber pressure record? Real Raptor has never been tried, the stack is obsolete, wait for mature R3/R4?

>>15564985
>>15565338
Well, this is going on the iceberg

>>15565431
How come during the flights of Sn8, Sn9, Sn10, Sn11 and Sn15 not a single engine failed during ascent?
It is honestly hard to make the case for raptors being unreliable.

>>15565446
Only three Raptor 1 engines running at very low throttle which were frequently switched after not igniting in static fires and would've needed to abort a launch when one wouldn't have ignited, one of which didn't even fire for a full booster ignition to MECO cycle
I'm not even arguing that Raptor is unreliable in general but the ones on the OFT certainly were and while none of the ones in your list failed on ascent, several failed on reignition (yes, not all Raptor-related issues) and many failed to ignite in static fires, not exactly what one would call reliable. It really isn't hard to make that case.

>>15565215
yeah, really. Every single thing in that pic is obsolete or not ready yet. Even the old SpaceX Falcon 9 and Dragon have been superseded by newer versions.

One of the last two TROPICS rockets is now a museum piece at Chabot Space & Science Center in Berkeley.

>>15565431
>All Raptors are identical to early production Raptors, if you don't agree you are coping!

>>15564565
Kek you can tell they intentionally cropped it to look like Starship from a distance.

I heard some rumors about B9 getting ready to go to the pad, is it true?

>>15564261
There are a lot of fiddly and expensive technologies that go into spy sats that do not advance SpaceX's core goals of getting humans off planet. Large mirrors, with their coatings and polishing or synthetic apature radar are better left to the niche companies that currently do them, and they can just hitch a ride on SpaceX vehicles.

>watch update video on SS pad construction before bed
>somehow this manifests into a dream about reports of touchdown of a cybertruck on mars and it did donuts around Perseverance
>cuts to cities on fire
>mfw rent free/revealed to me in a dream
What would be the oldspace seethe if the first private industry vehicle on Mars was a slightly modified cybetruck with off the shelf parts and basic sensors. No other purpose, just drive across the surface live streamed until battery death.

>>15565542
It's giving me the same vibe as that LauncherOne model that the British government parades around, but at the same time it's kind of neat. Hope some Astra rockets stick around so their folly is not forgotten.

https://youtu.be/p28VA2pfa2I

Clear live for Starlink Group 5-15 Mission!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R6XB1MlhH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R6XB1MlhH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R6XB1MlhH4

>>15565608
Max qute

Max-Qute!

>>15565610
You will taste the bottom of my boot, roach.

>>15565608
Ha, she forgot to start the stream because she was so into watching the launch

>9th and 10th fairing reuses
goddamn

It never gets old

They're landing a lot further downrange than usual

Kek no starlink for Turks

Touchdown, a little off center

>>15565608
love this girl

>Starlink launch
>8 (eight) posts about it and the thread moves on
>most are actually about a vtuber

>>15565603
with this launch, Falcon 9 surpasses the Tsyklon family with 237 launches. Next target are the older Thor and Atlas familes with 274 launches each.

>>15565590
Kek
Assuming a 200kwh battery, how far could a cyber drive on the surface? Any anons have good napkin math?

>>15565654
everything gets boring after a while, more at 11

>>15565654
Starlink launches are so normalized that people don't even blink at a rocket that has flown 16 times.

>>15565590
Obligatory news articles about "noooo muh preservation of Mars", followed by the Chinks, or Lockheed doing something similar and no one bats an eye.

>>15565590
It's too bad that the astronauts already did a burnout on the moon, but I guess you could get away with saying it's the first burnout on another planet

>>15565665
We don't even need to get to 100 launches this year to beat that

>>15565542
Why would you even want that in a museum?

>>15565680
Unfortunately that wouldn’t work either because the moon is a planet.

>>15565703
The moon is a space station

>>15565542
Reminds me of this

>>15565024
Aluminum is the fuel in an SRB.

>>15565087
Because they burn fuel with all the sulfur removed.

Propellant is stored in the balls.

>>15565488
>It really isn't hard to make that case
It's impossible to make that case.

>>15565654
How many transatlantic flights occurred today anon?

>>15565703
Fuck you retard

>>15565699
Based on what Kemp said when we canceled TROPICS rights, the museum interest was as a monument to finding out just how cheap, shitty, and fast it was possible to build rockets without them failing. Fastest rocket program from zero to orbit ever. Considering Starship OFT-1's failure, the record stands even if OFT-2 reaches orbit.

>>15565338
>But as it turns out, project managers acknowledge, ground controllers would not have been ready in 1986. The computer software for pointing the telescope and other complex operations was found inadequate and had to be completely revised, a task only recently completed.
pure coincidence

>>15565431
It sounds a bit funny true, but its actually true in this case
if the late Raptor 2s (which I think will be used on this flight) are as unreliable too, then its safe to say there is some kind of problem with Raptor 2 reliability or perhaps the integration with Raptor 2 and the rest of the stack and the criticism would be valid
but even in that case, SpaceX moves much, much quicker than BO (BO are free to prove this wrong in the future, but have not at this point)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnC5p-bfciU

>>15565731
Blue Origin feels like stolen valor

>raptor FUD retard faggot is posting again

They had a bunch of them fail because they had concrete chunks the size of your face shotgunned into them you stupid nigger

>>15565927
Not him, but the exhaust plume actually kept the concrete pretty well away from the engines. Whatever made the engines explode was not the concrete.

>>15564819
Polestar

>>15564819
Craft Utilising New Technology
(it's an acronym)

>>15565927
Elon confirmed this is false and his excuse why they failed was that "they were just a hodgepodge of engines" meaning raptor 2 has shit reliability. it's ok bro, raptor 3 will be better, but no point lying to yourself and others

>>15566020
>meaning raptor 2 has shit reliability
Be careful to remember that we're looking at a snapshot in time, not the final state of the vehicle or the engines.

>>15565122
so much for a few weeks to fix it

>>15565910
>but even in that case, SpaceX moves much, much quicker than BO
BE-4 and Raptor have been in development for about the same amount of time and BE-4 is definitely ahead

>>15566120
it's been a few weeks and it's fixed. Your point? L2 confirmed august launch is possible

>>15565927
>They had a bunch of them fail because they had concrete chunks the size of your face shotgunned into them
still believing in this cope

>>15566126
we know this because a flight BE4 just exploded on the test stand

>>15566126
>definitely
lmao

>>15566132
this is why they test, so they don't put fucked up engines on the rocket

>>15566136
Raptor worked flawlessly on OFT. Learn what happens when 50 tons of concrete go right into the engines

>>15566126
Here's a free (you), but I'll expect it back on my next shitty bait post.

>>15566136
Your mistake is in thinking that a failed rocket represents a major setback to this program.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1680370710869360642

> Doesn't seem particularly dangerous or much of a setback, but there's been a massive vent for hours and some workers were overheard near some of the streaming cameras talking about a stuck valve and whether they can go close it manually or not, and that it is LOX. It may have started as planned testing but it's moved past that now.

>Upside, stage zero is getting closer and closer! downside, gonna need some more LOX delivered

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/150uz4h/a_stuck_valve_has_resulted_in_a_large_lox_leak_at/

>>15566136
What rocket? LOL

>>15566141
>50 tons of concrete go right into the engines
goddamn didn't even know this happened. No wonder all those Raptors failed

>>15566149
they were testing the martian launchpad

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/07/moon-to-mars-science-missions/

PANGAEA
> Two ESA astronauts are spending a week exploring a Norwegian fjord as a way to identify rocks and minerals that could be found on the Moon. This is part of a program called PANGAEA, or the Planetary Analogue Geological and Astrobiological Exercise for Astronauts.

SANS-CM
> However, the worry is the long-term side effects as the unusual fluid distribution causes changes in pressure. These can result in neurological effects that can affect an astronaut’s vision.
>This is the basis behind DLR’s Spaceflight-Associated Neuro-Ocular Syndrome Countermeasures (SAMS-CM) bed rest study being conducted on behalf of NASA.

CHAPEA
>A crew of four is currently spending a year on “Mars.” At least, that is the goal of the ongoing simulated mission.

>The inaugural CHAPEA mission, or Crew Health and Performance Exploration Analog, began on June 25th and is now fully underway according to a post from NASA on July 10.

>The volunteers will spend 378 days inside a 3D-printed habitat known as Mars Dune Alpha, located at the Johnson Space Center in Texas. Participants will live and work within the 1,700 square feet (158 square meters) space which includes four private crew quarters, areas for crop growth, exercise equipment, a galley, and two bathrooms.

Can Mercedes compete with lunar cybertruck?

>>15566145
>VALVE STUCK

>>15566156
>NASA diversitynauts get an all expenses paid holiday in Norway
>NASA diversitynauts get paid to sit in bed and watch anime
>NASA diversitynauts get paid to live in an apartment

Yeah it doesn't matter if SpaceX makes space and Mars transit massively affordable, everything about this country is FUCKED.

>>15566149
It happened alright

>>15566166
Uh yeah, why aren't they practicing for the big trip... in the dry valleys of Antarctica? Literally the dryest, coldest place on earth. Suit up!

>>15566019
Is that the new ARSE rocket?

>>15566176
that place looks so peaceful

behold, the best names ULA employees were able to come up!

not a bad name desu, sounds way more unique that "Starship"

>>15566181
Sure, in the sense of an utterly dead world. Good for Mars practice and not much else.

>>15566190
should have been name intercontinental transport system or whatever

>>15566181
>>15566176
new mars guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJRJzTa1atg

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/commercial-aerospace/article/14296310/pulsar-fusion-begins-construction-of-nuclear-fusion-rocket-engine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIp60JwMLhI

they supposedly have a hybrid rocket engine and a Hall effect thruster, and are developing a LOX engine but they don't seem to have much real funding (I guess its private so difficult to say)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=_Ac6oWlvI-w

>>15566194
Alabama River Rocket

>>15566194
They should've named it after a Greek fag, like all the great rockets were

>>15566210
his vids are pretty good

>>15566191
Sounds great, there may be no atmosphere but at least the scenery is good and there are no niggers.

>>15566156
Wtf are those racist NASA shitheads doing comparing my Norwegian fjords to a fucking barren rock, man fuck you NASA, I will have my revenge for this!

>>15566190
Not so nice when you send up hundreds of similar looking mass produced rockets and they all have the name of a god, instead I think something like Baal would fit better

>>15566235
Svenigger after your salmon farms have been working for a while that shit is a wasteland.

>>15566239
We need to start giving normal, American names to rockets, like Constitution, Von Braun, and Warren G. Harding.

>>15566250
Not diverse enough, your contract has been terminated.

>>15566190
would've made a nice theme if they named it after a bird like the falcon-9, some shit like the Albatross-15 or literally anything but fucking "starship"

[eqn] \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(\frac{1}{\pi_{n}}\right)^{n} [/eqn]
[math] \pi_{n} [/math]

[eqn]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(\frac{1}{\pi_{n}}\right)^{n}[/eqn]
[math]\pi_{n}[/math]

>>15566282
>some shit like the Albatross-15 or literally anything but fucking "starship"

Wow you managed to think up a gayer name than starship, that's actually impressive.

>>15565668
?
Someone has to know

>>15566190
That's intentional. They want to make it generic in the normie lexicon. Like how 'Space Shuttle' is synonymous with any spacecraft in general. Bretty genius imo

>>15566294
Fuck off low IQ moron, take some time to figure out the answer to your high school math question

YWNGTM

>>15566282
Fuck birds. Name it after the most impressive species on earth. Homo.

>>15563867
SOUL

>>15566296
I agree but my autism dislikes the fact that it's confined to one star system (for now)

>>15566296
Based idiocracy future. I'm looking forward to watching our increasingly tiny escape window get raped into oblivion by sub 80IQ browns, trannies, jews and the whole pot of crabs. Very cool, thank you God.

Oh well at least the memes were good.

>>15565748
He's right, the moon is a planet.

>>15566309
>IAU

Into the trash it goes. The moon is not a double planet, it orbits a planet orbiting the sun, it is pretty fucking obviously a moon and I will not be reading your paper authored by transsexuals, Marxists and assorted """science""" sois.

>>15566314
>The moon is not a double planet, it orbits a planet orbiting the sun
picrel says otherwise
You are some sort of falseflagging seething brownoid who wants to deny the USA the honor of being the first to land on another planet

>>15566314
no, it orbits a center of mass that is constantly fluctuating. you could say that center is within the earth's sphere, but the sphere isn't so round either. it's all an illusion!

>>15566325
>picrel says otherwise

Yeah if you have the IQ of a chimp and ignore the relative position of the moon and earth.

>>15566345
Your seething and coping won't make you any whiter, Muhammad

>>15566348
You are engaging in Jewish pilpul, feel free to leave

>>15566142
Kek

>>15566325
>moons path relative to the sun

Uh ok, what about the moons path relative to the planet it is directly beside? By the way the bottom charts are more or less correct when viewed at scale. Note how the top chart chooses to use only one lunar orbit and falsely compares it to the half dozen of the bottom charts. Very cool science bro.

Do you think he's bullshitting? There's no way the novelty hasn't at least somewhat worn off even for the most dimwitted normie.

>>15566325
CNN tier infograph kek where to even start

The Moon being a planet is settled /sfg/ science. Where are these newfags coming from?

>>15566370
it has kind of wore off for me already

>>15566188
It's even worse. The first three were ULA's initial names, and the internet hated those so much that ULA threw in the others last-minute.
https://spacenews.com/ula-opens-public-voting-on-name-of-new-rocket/

>>15566391
That's really washed out.

>>15566145
help me stepbro I am stuck in the lox valve

>>15566393
I was already bored of Starship by SN9.

>>15564864
How is Boeing involved with SLS?

>>15566445
By building the rocket

>>15566445
Bro

> SLS

>>15566282
>Spacex Raptor 33

>>15566457
>Lost on combat operations May 14, 1945 during return from mission to Nagoya. Crash landed when the aircraft lost an engine during the takeoff and was returning to land at North Field, Guam. Eight of the eleven crew killed, three survived. Crew of #42-94013 were:

Airplane Commander 1st Lt Frederick J Bedford (KIA) 05/14/45
Pilot 2nd Lt Gordon W Munger (KIA) 05/14/45
Radar Operator 2nd LT Dale F Spencer - survived (Died 05/17/86 of natural causes)
Bombardier 2nd Lt Clarence H Rhody (KIA) 05/14/45
Navigator Flight Officer John W Benedict (KIA) 05/14/45
Flight Engineer T/Sgt Earl M Monk (KIA) 05/14/45
Radio Operator M/Sgt Paul F Hough (KIA) 05/14/45
Chief Fire Control Sgt Robert P Davis (KIA) 05/14/45
Left Gunner Sgt Max E Morse - survived (Died 09/15/95 of natural causes)
Right Gunner Sgt Orville R Jones (KIA) 05/14/45
Tail Gunner Sgt Don O McCauley - survived

>>15566190
Should have kept BFR

>>15566190
Starship is a shit name for something that's not going further than Mars

why is the mission control audio stream still up for the starlink launch

>>15566491
Would a single orbital refueling be enough to drop it into the sun? We could call it starship if we send one to the sun.

>>15566503
dV to drop something into the sun is.... large

>>15565716
Based

I’m curious if flyback boosters were once truly viable for rocket reuse.
They seem to have dogshit mass fractions though.
Like I’m curious what the modern day would look like if NASA pursued winged stages in the 90s-00s. Would we see copycats of that, instead of VTVL rockets?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw95QVHHcrY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQBr_wouAn8
It's still live lol. The tracker broke a few hours ago but it was running smoothly for several hours after launch.

Business idea: Beam powered recovery

I miss the early starship tests

>>15566663
true :(

what exactly did starhopper prove?

>>15566660
lol

>>15566666
hail satan

>>15566666
>what exactly did starhopper prove?
Still the silliest seethe-revisionist cope

>>15566666
water towers can fly XDDDD

>>15566666
Its over

>>15566666
It unlocked the ability of smug spacex fags to say raptor was technically flight-proven well before any actual orbital attempt

>>15566518
mass fraction is somewhat less important for a first stage
what you really need is high T:W for the whole vehicle and adequate burn time.
ISP also doesn't matter much for a first stage

>>15566693
yup that's seethe alright.

>Mission Control audio is down
well

Neutron is fucked, isn’t it? They’re targeting $50 million per launch by 2025, which is only slightly cheaper than F9 today

>>15566733
of course. And it's not big enough to get a free pass as a 'backup launcher' for the larger gov payloads where they want launch redundancy.

>>15566733
no one pays list price for falcon 9 lol

>>15566737
I think you could if you
-aren't government
-don't require special payload delicate handling
-don't require like special temperature controlled transport or something
-interface directly with their payload bolting point
idk

>>15566739
>Hey SpaceX here’s 67 million dollars
>Go launch one of your rockets.
>Yeah whenever is fine
>No, don’t worry about putting anything on it

>>15566743
it's kinda genius

>>15566735
Also, Firefly’s MLV and Terran R are supposed to eat into its market, while probably being cheaper. It’s fucking over for Neutron.
I predict we’ll see the smallsat-bloodbath but in the mid 2020s, and this time, for medium lift launchers

>>15566733
isn't that 4x as expensive as electron?

>>15566752
Assuming a 7.5 million starting price for Electron, its actually something like 6.6x
the payload is 13 metric tonnes vs 0.3 for electron, so 43x more

3.8 k$/kg vs 25 k$/kg

> The starting price for delivering payloads to orbit is about US$7.5 million per launch, which offers the only dedicated service at this price point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab_Electron

>>15566768
when I look at this, isn't that more expensive than current falcon 9 reusable to orbit?
67 million base price, 17.4 tonnes reusable max payload that has been confirmed
maybe that 50mil and 13 tonnes are something that can be improved and neutron could be competitive with F9

>>15566773
base price cheaper at 50 mil of course, but not from mass to orbit, but that might not matter, even falcon heavy is cheaper from mass to orbit in LEO there aren't payloads that use that capability

>>15566773
>>15566776
The real interesting thing is that RocketLab is looking to only build like 4 Neutrons and just use them forever. Total opposite of SpaceX’s Falcon reuse scheme of building a lot and incrementally fixing them

>>15566793
Not looking good if I'm honest, I thought rocketlab had a good chance to survive
not so sure anymore
but I mean I'm sure they can change their plan if this doesn't work out, they seem competent

Is Sinophobia starting to retard human development at this stage?

>>15566803
No. China is a cancer that must be purged.

>>15564212
>The engine SpaceX is building have a 25% failure rate
damn that's some comcentrated copium
where did you get that figure? pls don't tell me it was from the single orbital test flight. my sides can't handle that

>responds to bait

>>15564313
>duuuuude they're putting dinky little robots on mars!
>what do you mean perseverance's wheels are disintegrating because they're made of tin foil?

>>15564334
kill yourself chink
there was no "methalox race" and a 6 ton to orbit disposable """rocket""" is pathetic when your competitor is aiming for up to 200 fully reusable

In 5 years time there will only be one space station in orbit and it will be a Chinese one.

>>15566733
Nah, there is so much demand for medium-heavy lift

I think Terran R will be maybe the most dangerous to Falcon 9 demand

>>15566815
implying that tin can doesn't get riddled with intercontinental birdshot the second china starts the taiwan offensive.

>>15566793
Interesting. I’m sure rocket lab is aware but this will completely preclude expending the booster for extra delta-v.
I guess that works with them selling the rocket as a mega constellation launcher. Don’t need the extra delta-v is you just launch 1 or 2 fewer sats per rocket.

>>15566803
Why not get good and not rely on either? God I hate weak nations

>>15563867
I'll say it. SLS is a beautiful rocket.

>>15566886
It would be better if it was any other color but orange

>>15566815
Russia + “Egypt”, Axiom, Gateway, probably at least 2 additional commercial stations from the United States, Bigelow’s modules

>>15566888
wrong

>>15566848
I know every new launcher company shills megaconstellations for their flights but like seriously, who the fuck else will have a commercial megaconstellation?
Starlink and Kuiper have their launches booked, and will likely fly on SpaceX and Blue vehicles only as time goes on.
China’s megaconstellation is Chinese only.
If ESA gets their shit together, their megaconstellation will be fully Ariane launched.
OneWeb is done iirc
Who the fuck else is even building one?

>>15566896
No one. Beck fell for the meme.

>>15566899
Nah, Beck hopes investors will fall for it though (and they will)

>>15566911
Good point

is Booster 9 is moving to the launch site today? why is it rolling out?

>>15566896
>If ESA gets their shit together,
They won't. They'll continue to bicker about jobs and fall even further behind.

>>15566803
Getting to space is easy, landing something in space is hard as fuck.

>>15566815
>dock Starship to ISS
>get a new space station nearly the same size as the ISS in usable volume
>dock another Starship to ISS
>mogs anything China puts up by a factor of 5
>dock a 3rd Starship to ISS; Russia seething, China has tears in its eyes
>dock a 4th Starship to ISS; China seething, Russia in the closet in a fetal position, the rest of the world in awe

>>15566895
Trips of Truth faggot.

Holy shit bros is it already time???

>>15566938
Can't wait for a month of stacking and destacking

>>15566922
>>15566938
they can't move it too the launch site without testing the deluge system first can they? afaik they've only done the nitrogen purge.

Where are the space yachts?

https://www.rt.com/business/451730-russia-orbit-space-yacht/

>>15566943
Atleast you get to see anything faggot, be happy with what you have.

>>15566948
One is being rolled out to the pad right now... its a prototype but atleast theyre being made.

>>15566947
Just test with booster on top. It really is that easy in spaceflight.

we're only getting space yachts when we get more infrastructure like starship landing sites and massive space stations

>>15566911
>>15566918
>>15566899
>>15566896
The thing is though, that any new megaconstellation would need to have near or equivalent capability to Starlink or find a way to corner a market niche and be able to launch at the same scale and cadence as Falcon 9 to ensure that orbital shells are filled up.

https://spaceexplored.com/2023/07/10/spacex-launches-2023/

They have launched 24 Starlink groups effective July 10. At 53 Satellites per launch, that's 1,272 satellites to orbit. Let's assume for the sake of extreme conservative safety margins that the competing megaconstellation has to achieve 1/4th the cadence and satellite to orbit value. That's 6 launches in 6 months. 1 per month and 53 satellites to orbit per launch; and all of this needs to be done before Starship starts flying routinely and starts putting the 7m long V2 Starlinks. Which is expected to 10x the bandwidth and anywhere from 3-5x the coverage per satellite; ensuring that with the full deployment of the V2 shell, there's an a massive amount of overlap between all the V1/1.5/V2 mini, and V2 satellites.

There certainly is a market for constellations in orbit, but that window is closing the longer other players take to bring their "reusable" Falcon 9 clones to market. I also fully expect SpaceX to make a launch/communication band request to put Starlink V2s via Starship into a stable orbit around 300km above the lunar surface; giving it like a 6 hour orbital period and with 60 V2 launched at say 6 satellites per orbital shell gives you 10 orbital shells across to cover the entire moon just about. 300km above would give any base, vehicle, rover, bot, or drone, ~15-20ms latencies if all communications arrays are built to handle laser based communication exclusively with the overhead constellation. Then every 5-7 years, a Starship PLANETES style collects the old V2s and cycles them out with new V2s. Factor in Cargoships to lunar surface and we'll see a massive boom in country/commercial missions.

>>15566751
I've said it before, but it's interesting to me how Relativity boasts about its tentative launch agreements for Terran R, and yet I haven't heard a single thing about Neutron launch customers. If Rocket Lab had similar agreements, you'd think they'd brag about that too. Plus, Terran is also in that $50-60M range with double the payload.

Can Orion be reused, and are there plans to do so?

Seems like they are making a capsule for each flight, maybe they could strip it down and reuse it for LEO, slap it on a Vulcan or Terran R and yeet it to a commercial space station.

Is that possible? Maybe slap it on a falcon heavy and send it to lunar gateway for a short term lunar orbit expeditions

>>15566986
Rocket Lab said something about this, I remember it from somewhere. Basically contracts that are signed years out for new rockets are done at a discount and Rocket Lab wanted to wait until they are closer to Neutron operability so they could lock in better prices

>>15566989
You are asking NASA for any sort of fiscally sensible approach, its not happening.

>>15566989
I believe reuse starts after artemis 5 or 6, and yeah it’s dumb. Flights are so sparse they should have just made 2 capsules and rotated them. Fucking waste of money—they even penned a contract with LM for MORE capsules one or two years ago. I fucking hate the system so much

>>15566176
Too risky, they're trying to find ways that it can go wrong and they want to be able to save their asses when it does

>>15566188
Should have called it Hera because it's a spiteful bitch that's only relevant because it has lots of old friends in high places

Do we know who’s making the lunar rover for Artemis III? Or is the GM/Lockheed proposal the one

>>15566888
I would be much better if it was a fully reusable rocket.

>>15566888
This

Bring back the Apollo livery

>>15566989
This might be a hot take but if NASA doesn't have a legitimate plan for CHEAP reusability from the beginning then they should not be doing this in the first place. I like space and stuff, but I also like my tax money going to good use. It's literally criminal how inefficient they are being at this point. If they can do it without spending tens of billions of dollars per launch then great, but if they can't then they shouldn't be doing it. And don't try to tell me that "oh each launch will only cost a few billion" because (1) we all know that's a lie, and (2) we know it can be cheaper because SpaceX has spent less than $5B so far on Starship and that's including a ridiculous amount of infrastructure, a ground-up design of a rocket (not SLS where they're reusing a bunch of old tech), and production of dozens of actual test vehicles/hundreds of working engines.

>>15564280
delusional, you can learn way more from failure

>>15567113
jobs program, not a space program. the cost is a feature not a bug.

>this mouth breathing retard thinks SLS (one launch per year, booked for 10 years) is gonna toss some 6 ton sats to geostationary for 2 bil a pop

>>15566948
>more suborbital joyrides

>>15563927
No but you could make eth/lox
https://youtu.be/XnMvZVEGsaI
Let me guess you need more