/sci/ - Science & Math

When will Starship land on mars?

>>16094957

>>16094957
2022, just like elon promised

https://twitter.com/jasonjoyride/status/1772000990495158659

>>16094967
Buy an ad

>>16094967
this guy is based, very underrated blog, especially the sls post
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/02/24/sls-is-cancellation-too-good/

>>16094990
>>16094981

>>16094967
why isn't australia just covering the outback in solar panels and becoming the saudi arabia of methane?

>>16094999
No infrastructure.

>>16094967
He never responded to critics of him pooh poohing SBSP, he's a faggot looking to suck up Cali's green subsidies

Two weeks

>>16095001
this is far and away the least bad thing california subsidizes

>>16095001
solar is kinda a retarded option for New England compared to wind.

It's curious how solarfags often post some fancy statistics and graphs to prove the superiority of solar panels but in reality they're neither cheap, nor reliable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EwrtKNoxmY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EwrtKNoxmY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EwrtKNoxmY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EwrtKNoxmY

>Common Stock Shorter

Artists always get the look of spaceships wrong.

>>16095054
get ready for some seething

>>16095054
>Common Sense Skeptic

>>16095065
if we knew what doves or demon cores or screwdrivers looked like we'd say the same thing

>>16095030
Well you nuclearcels can have fun getting 10 different types of cancer while solar panels continue to get cheaper and more efficient. Theres something called a battery you know that right? Un-fucking-believable.

>>16095075
>Theres something called a battery you know that right?
the only good solar power battery is a can with liquid methane inside

> dilute energy good

Solar Energy is pretty based, cheap, reliable. Nuclear will never be cost effective against it

>>16095094
Solar energy is inconsistent, intermittent, and rarely available when it's needed the most.

>>16095022
New England only has steady wind in a few places and most of them are inhabited by a ton of people, or by whales who suffer from the noise of building and operating offshore wind. Solar as incremental power isn't a bad option since we use way more watts in the summer for AC (everyone burns shit for heat in the winter). We still need nuclear or fossil fuels for baseline.

>>16095100
Not to mention made in China.

>>16095102
Even if it could be proonted at home using sand as feedstock it'd be a retarded use of land.

>>16095100
It's ok, we can store it! I have a solution here https://x.com/TerraformIndies

>>16095104
Yeah, I live in a rainy fucking country and the last thing we need is more shit that can't produce on demand.

>>16095083
cheap energy good

>>16095107
Batteries are and always will be capacity limited, lifetime limited, and expensive to deploy as a source of baseload power at grid-scale.

css claiming that bay depressurization from opening the pez door caused the roll but that makes no sense at all. it would've induced a pitching moment.

>>16095115
We will store it as methane, silly billy :)

>>16095118
hes retarded

>>16095119
Buy an ad or trip up you kangaroo raping retard.

>>16095126
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-energy-reading-list/
Here you can get started reading

>>16095118
>1 atmosphere of pressure making it roll
It's official, we found a cunt who knows even less about rocketry than Thundercunt.

>>16095118
I've noticed you and all replies dont refute what he says, instead you name call and whine and cry

>>16095134
Your refutation is here, cunt >>16095131

>>16095104
There are lots of way more retarded things already happening. Like the millions of acres for biofuel corn.

>>16095137
We're about to throw away good hydroelectric power turning water into hydrogen.
Now that's a waste.

>>16095136
>namecalling and whining
Thanks for making my point for me

>>16095140
Please show calculations for how 1 atmosphere of pressure from a small bay will make a ship with a dry mass of 200 tons spin.
You may suck my fucking dick now.

>>16095139
hydroelectric doesnt scale retard, holy shit you're a dumb fuck

>>16094990
very good post

>>16095144
wow css is a genius

>>16095144
based.

>>16095144
As a space-x stan, this post brings my diaper to full of shit. mommy chNge me!

>>16095144
IFT-3 got further than that. Its not a failure unless it fails at the same stage as the previous furthest attempt

>>16095115
Ambri liquid metal batteries. Very simple principle, no degrading parts, can cycle pretty much indefinitely without degradation, very high capacity, about the same cost as pumped hydro storage.

>>16095157
>about the same cost as pumped hydro storage.
Which is way too expensive.

>>16095144
comon sneed-and-feed skeptic

We had a good thread of solar vs nuclear going but you all ruined it by giving the CSSfag attention.

>>16095144
By ULA's definition of success this launch was perfect

is CSS a solarfag or a nuclearfag?

>>16095164
hes a coalfag and a zionsit

it doesn't even matter what made it roll. there was a different failure which led to the rcs not working otherwise it would have just stopped it.
>>16095144
>the third test flight is only a success had starship progressed far enough to be full reuse capable now
goalposts are moving at an ever accelerating speed as if propelled by a rocket
>>16095157
methane is better. pumped hydro is a meme

>>16095164
Just a fag

>>16095141
>Please show calculations for how 1 atmosphere of pressure from a small bay will make a ship with a dry mass of 200 tons spin.
small? it's an entire cubic kilometer!

>>16095166
He makes zionist sit?

>>16095170
Thanks for the chuckle at least.

>>16095141
Idk maybe it just does. Can you prove it doesnt?

>>16095170
kek

>>16095141
1 atmosphere in such a huge volume is enough energy to spin it for sure.
i would even argue that 1 bar over the area of the door would mean it can't open at all.
the remaining pressure which i guess was significantly lower than 1 bar is one of the best candidates for why the door mechanism broke cause it was too hard to pry open.

>>16095181
so why werethey so incompetent that they didnt think of this? This is the equivalent of apollo astronauts dying on the moon because they forgot about pressure differences and explosively decompress the LEM

>>16095185
if i remember correctly apollo 11 did in fact have to yank on the door to equalize

>>16095193
did the door break and become unusable?

>>16094949
Should be tumbling out of control.

>>16095194
It wasn't made by Boeing.

>>16095194
No but also SpaceX hasn't burnt 3 astronauts alive yet.

>>16095137
Biofuel corn at least is easier to adapt to some other crop or some other use of corn when politics change.

>>16095201
>that comes later

>>16094957
Two weeks

>>16095026
>link-up
Feels out of place or something idk

>>16095094
Both are good.
We desperately need better battery technology. This is a non-negotiable problem with a seemingly stalled-out set of solutions - and it is holding us back big time as a society.

>>16095118
CSS has been proven wrong more times than Elon at this point

>>16094999
Australia has a real estate and extraction based economy and Aussie investors won’t put their money in anything but holes and houses. There simply isn’t the mindset, capital, planning or infrastructure for it, nor would it be very popular.

Australians are some of the most environmentalist people on the planet and almost every home owner uses rooftop solar and the government killed the local solar panel industry for basically no reason. They have less electric car charging stations than Texas. Don’t expect anything from Australia and be pleasantly surprised when they produce the occasional gem

>>16095220
Better batteries, or store as natural gas!

>>16095226
>almost every home owner uses rooftop solar
Yeah well it's not just about environment, we used to get major subsidies, including getting paid for supplying to the grid.
NZ is even more enviro-queers and they have next to no rooftop solar, because they have no subsidies.
It's true though that Australia has no creative drive whatsoever. Making any effort about anything is looked at as tryhard.
>She'll be right

>>16095206
At least post the real crew.

>>16095239
Whats the ghost of Kiev doing here? Hes supposed to be out fighting Putler for Zelensky

>>16095239
I'd pay good money to lock Tim, Scott and Thunderfoof in a room together with a camera feed.

>>16095259
Scott Manlet and Thunderthighs would team up to strangle Tim

>>16095239
I look forward to their research on micro gravity's affect on breast milk production and quality.

IFT3 failed. writing on the wall for anyone who needs confirmation will be that IFT4 will attempt all the same things as IFT3 with just some cosmetic extras, since none of the IFT3 milestones were met.

The goalposts shall keep shifting until the sponsors are bankrupt.

>>16094957
I think they go for it in the next launch window. It'll be an unmanned, modified version of whatever HLS is at the time. They're gonna try their damnedest but the public messaging will be that "this is just a test". I think they'll make it to mars atmosphere entry but then have a failure. Whether that is a failed raptor relight due to a failed valve, unexpectedly high boil off,ect, or them kinda scuffing the landing and exploding or toppling over is anyone's guess. This all assumes the intermediate steps of reuse and depot ops goes smoothly enough for them to have a spare starship fully fueled in orbit and ready to go by then

>>16095280
Maybe they'll try to deploy some starlinks into Mars orbit before attempting a landing. It would make life much easier.

>>16095280
speaking of boiloff, its hilarious how they expect to get to mars with cryogen propellants.

>>16095286
I don't think they're really serious about that. Starship will migrate to hypergolics or solids sooner or later.

>>16095286
just stick it in the shade and it will stay cool

>>16095293
I've been saying for years that they should build a thiakol plant on the surface and split the ship into its ring segments to bake fuel into while the astronauts go exploring.

>>16095295
Shouldve said -6 gorillion

>>16095295
A square kilometer wtf

>>16095330
1000 m^2 sure is allot huh

>>16095269
spacex loses billions of dollars every time a starship is destroyed and funds are starting to run dry. that's why elon has to make crazier and crazier promises as time goes on - the moon, mars, interstellar: investors are starting to realize that he's blown all their money with a rocket that doesn't work and he's desperate to distract them.

>watching neuralink video with their first patient
>the patient praises how the employees work 12+ hours every day
imagine if it was this bad in spacex

>>16095342
It's much worse at SpaceX lol
-X

>>16095341
Yeah I can see why you would think six more launches this year is crazy when your standard is based on oldspace.

>Mars Sample Return already lmao$3bil in the hole, no operating portion to be seen
Bros, what would a minimalist architecture look like with Falcon and Falcon heavy? Is it even possible with the available upmass and multiple launches and equipment sections? I wonder what a price estimate would be for SpaceX to develop and orchestrate the sample return.

>t. NASA administrator :^))

>>16095343
which is worse, 12 hours at a desk at neuralink or 12 hours in the field at spacex?

>>16095342
>imagine if it was this bad in spacex
it is lol. spacexers work insane hours thats common knowledge

>9 Falcon 9 launches so far this month
>4 more launches to go
Holy shit

Is a geostationary orbit in LEO possible?

>>16095352
>what would a minimalist architecture look like with Falcon and Falcon heavy?
You could launch two landers inside independent aeroshells along with a return orbiter on a single (probably fully expended) Falcon Heavy. The landers both come down in heavily overlaped ellipses while the orbiter slowly maneuvers into a parking orbit. One lander deploys a Mars Exploration Rover-sized vehicle that collects samples while road tripping to the launch element that came down on the other lander. After that, launch from the surface and return to Earth proceeds as laid out in the existing MSR proposal.

>I wonder what a price estimate would be for SpaceX to develop and orchestrate the sample return.
None, because SpaceX isn't interested in doing it. They were interested in Red Dragon back when they were planning to do some transport to Mars using a dragon-derived vehicle, but they've moved well past that.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nvslive/albums/72177720315625836/
Photo album of H3 being assembled.

>>16095363
for a short time while you burn a fuck ton of fuel, yes

>>16095365

>>16095363
That's what Jeff's suborbital ride is.

>>16095353
18 hours in the field at spacex

>>16095367

>>16095363
Yeah you just need TWR >1 and infinity Isp

>>16095364
it's something that vulcan could handle no problem if MSR wasn't a make-work program for JPL and ESA

>>16095365
>>16095367
>>16095370

>expendable rockets

After Spacex its just not the same any more.

>>16095357
it wasn't even that long ago when 50 launches a year seemed like a dream

>>16095374
Vulcan gets about 8 tons to a Mars transfer orbit vs Falcon Heavy's 17 tons. Going with Vulcan would double if not triple the launch cost for the project.

>>16095380
>Vulcan gets about 8 tons to a Mars transfer orbit vs Falcon Heavy's 17 tons
high energy sisters?
what is this??

>>16095384

Could you imagine

>>16095388
it won't be long before 3 cubic kilometers is considered a laughably small space station

>>16095388

>>16095388
For the non-metric here, how many blue whales is that?

>>16095384
Do you have brain damage, or is typing like you're retarded just a fetish?

To treat you like a serious person: efficiency only tells you how effective you are at using the propellant you've got and Vulcan only has about half the propellant of Falcon Heavy. Worse, only about 10% of Vulcan's propellant is onboard the "high energy" Centaur V. 50% is in the methalox core and the remaining 40% is in the high-thrust low-efficiency GEM-63XL boosters. When you take Vulcan's isp and average it out across its total propellant mass it only has about a 10 sec overall advantage over the Falcon Heavy, and with it's much smaller size that means it can't do nearly as much. It's just a smaller rocket trying to compete with vehicles that are a lot bigger than it.

>>16095026
I'd start smoking again if someone bummed me one of these

>>16095384
Just more of Snake Tory's lies.

>>16095384
*ahem*

>>16094957
never.
Musknigger won't deliver anything.
it's better to keep the dream going perpetually to raise more money.

>>16095386
Seggs with Vulcan chan!

>>16095394
About 1.7 blue whales assuming they're perfect cylinders.

>>16095391

>>16095416
imagine bouncing around this thing in zero g

>>16095239
please sub in Dugan Ashley for Joe Rogan

>>16095409
>C3=55
jesus fucking christ, okay I understand why ULA are all smug about "high energy architecture" or whatever now
jesus
I guess Falcon Heavy expendable can beat the tonnage to that ridiculous C3 but not by much...

>>16095467
Starship refilled in orbit mogs all of these. I think a full refill gets you direct ascent to the moons of Saturn.

If it takes 14 Starship tankers to refill 1 Starship depot which will then fuel 1 Starship ITS, at $10/kg wouldnt that make it $155/kg or so to anything past Terran orbit?

>>16095478
Which is still 10x cheaper than Falcon.

>>16095478
>$10/kg

Come on now

>>16095482
Dang youre right, thats a substantial decrease and thats to basicalky anywhere in the system

>>16095483
IF the reusable mode had 220 tons of capacity then the payload cost would be $10 per kilogram. SpaceX plans to make the Starship 20% longer and improve the engines. The payload capacity could increase to 200-250 tons in reusable mode. An expended Future Starship would have a payload of about 300 tons.
This means it could drop to $7.50/kg so my mistake

>>16095474
>orbital refueling
>direct ascent
oh, anon...

>>16095386
If only there was a way to add more fuel to an orbiting rocket…

>>16095509
Gooning to the thought of this rn

>>16095514
>tags: nakadashi, inflation, large (orbital) insertion, (Shelby) mindbreak

>>16095487
>then the payload cost would be $10 per kilogram

Based on what? The thing doesn't even fucking work yet, we don't even know the internal cost of a Falcon 9.

>>16095534
Youre not very good at baiting you know? The information is very publicly available on how those calculations were done, not using google means this is obvious bait.

>>16094990
holy moley what a great read
...
cancel sls

>>16095388
I still don't understand WHY only one inflatable is on the ISS
It's not like they only figured out it was a reliable, good idea after bigelow died

>>16095567
bigelow is still alive

>>16095573
I hope you didn't think that was funny

>>16095567
Like many other ISS things, lack of money.

>>16095578
oh did you mean the company?

>>16095534
>we don't even know the internal cost of a Falcon 9.
Approximately $18 million.

>>16095580
More incompetence
Bigelow himself had zero engineering acumen and the management team running bigelow aeorospace was supposedly very incompetent with very high turnover of the staff
Might have been mba types like voeing but its a while since i read that glasshouse review

>>16095591
Proofs?

>>16095620
> In an interview with Aviation Week in May, Musk listed the marginal cost of a Falcon 9 at $15 million in the best case. He also listed the cost of refurbishing a booster at $1 million. This would fit with Musk's most recent claim that the costs of refurbishment make up less than 10 percent of the booster costs.

Quoted from here: https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-elon-musk-falcon-9-economics

Sourced from here if you have Aviation Week: https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/podcast-interview-spacexs-elon-musk

Rounded up for inflation and assumptions that not all cases are that good.

>>16094990
hehehehehehe

*inhales*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

POO ON MOON SERS

>>16095635
Total Indian Death

>>16095628
Refurb only 1/15m? Damn those fuel and operational costs are busted. I'm sure they can shave a milly or two off by not using the petroleum jew fuel but I still doubt starship is going to be less than 20m internal, probably more.

>>16095638
The most expensive parts of the operation are building a new second stage and seaborne recovery operations. As far as the other consumables go, the helium is more expensive than the propellants.

Is Lunar regolith worse than Asbestos?

>>16095054
Can starship be modified to go straight to the moon without refueling? By reducing the payload or stretching the fuel tanks maybe?

>>16095650
>Can starship be modified to go straight to the moon without refueling

No, it's too much of a fat cunt.

>>16095654
If you let tubby have his energy drinks in orbit then he can get there though.

she noticed me bros

>>16095650
Drop the recovery stuff and use an expendable fairing and it can probably shoot a payload in that direction without too much issue.

>>16095659
Based heartschizo

>>16095659
Cringe braindeboonker

>>16095650
easily
just don't expect it to come back again

https://archive.is/THZTc
>Hiring Booms at SpaceX and Blue Origin Making It Hard for NASA to Attract Talent

>>16095409
>Late '22
A rocket that hasn't launched yet has zero cargo capacity to orbit.

>>16095663
clear noticed me once before but this is the first time it happened since she got big

>>16095711
Imagine wanting to work at Blue Origin out of college

>>16095711
>Boeing also pitches young engineers on a more stable work-life balance. Beyond its besieged commercial aircraft division, the company can offer career paths spanning a range of other high-profile programs, from fighter jets to missiles to spacecraft. Recent graduates joining Boeing can work on products currently in use, rather than futuristic ideas locked in long and potentially dead-end development cycles.
lol

>>16095144
If taken out of context, this is actually a decent infographic on IFT-3. I'm certain that IFT-4 or 5 will be complete successes.

>>16095647
Possibly. Didn't people work with asbestos daily for decades and not notice they had a problem until later life? The Apollo astronauts were on the moon for 1-3 days in a protected environment and still got noticable lung and skin irritation from the dust.

https://twitter.com/willdepue/status/1772095098903564573

its a thread

>>16095762
https://www.starlinkmap.org/

>>16095467
FH expendable is likely comparable in cost to the biggest Vulcan, and gets more payload to C3:55.
>but vulcan is smaller & therefore doing it more efficiently
Customers only care about how much it costs to get their payload to whatever orbit, which is why Starship will take most of the market once it's operating.

>>16095769
Customers also care about greenhouse gas emissions which are lower for a smaller rocket.

>>16095773
The greenhouse gas emissions of the propellants are a drop in the bucket to the factory and machining costs and nobody actually gives a fuck except for the young, the naive, and the exploitive opportunists.

>>16095500
come on now, you know what he meant.
Fully loaded Starship in LEO does throw multiple dozens of tons of payload (not counting Starship dry mass) at Saturn. Of course, any trajectory that long means over a decade away from Earth, meaning no reasonable expectation of reuse, meaning they'd only do this with a stripped down version of Starship, meaning increased payload mass fraction compared to the typical Starship performance estimates.
Also, in real life there's not much reason to go direct to anything beyond Jupiter, because you can throw more mass to Jupiter since it's closer, and you can then use a Jupiter gravity assist to take that entire payload mass to whatever outer solar system target you want, and on a faster trajectory too.

I wish that SpaceX would just shut down. Fuck.

>>16095647
Nope, asbestos is a combo of fibrous, continues to fray inside one's lungs, and almost completely insoluble, meaning it cannot be transported out of one's lungs by the usual mechanism of dust removal and it never dissolves away. Inhaling asbestos is worse than inhaling a handful of glass needles.

Moon dust on the other hand is a rough abrasive, sure, but it's made of lumpy glassy or crystalline particles, which the lungs are adapted to remove like any other dust, and since they aren't long needles they don't do nearly as much damage.

Asbestos is to humans what Moon dust is to machinery.

>>16095740
lmao what a spin
"At SpaceX you'll be working on inventing new technologies never used before, scary! Come to boeing instead where you can work to fix the mistakes made by our bogged down bureaucratic engineering practices over the past few decades, no we aren't going to fix the bureaucracy :^)"

>>16095773
Can you point out a single example of a payload provider picking a more expensive launch option because it emits less?

>>16095793
I feel bad for you, you'll never see your wish come true, you must be living in hell every day

* shitty red dwarfs not plotted because they are useless niggers

>>16095766
neat

>>16095808
Kys samenigger

>>16095352
Space shit is expensive but I am impressed how they can request multiple billions for what amounts to rovers with arms and a rocket. A simple hypergolic system should be enough for mars surface to LMO. Maybe I grossly underestimate how expensive it all should be, but there's just no reason you couldn't get this entire mission done (a few lbs of return material) for more than 1.5billion total. The right side of this image could account for the spending of 25%+ of their budget

https://youtu.be/ekEdq6PhC0Q
i love this man

>>16095831
I am absolutely exhausted seeing that shitty mockup constantly for the last 20 years

>How the liberal New York Times promoted 'Nordic supremacy' by Robert Zubrin
wtf is his problem?

>>16095828
Cancel MSR and Europa Clipper (but keep Dragonfly).
Put all that money into Starship.

>>16095828
what posts are supposedly mine? I only made that one clowning on the "I hate spaceX" guy

>>16095828
you don't understand
this isn't about a one-off boots on mars mission
its about building the infrastructure to build a city and self-sustaining civliization on mars
sending 1 million tonnes of useful payload on to the surface of mars

>>16095843
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWJMNYpRikE

>>16095839
Jews gonna Jew

https://archive.is/ywPel
>South Texas cities are rebranding themselves amid unprecedented SpaceX-fueled space tourism
>As with the first two, Starship’s third launch was a boon for businesses across the region — and an apparent turning point in the evolution of SpaceX in South Texas. As launches become more regular and successful, the race among South Texas cities to nab space tourism dollars is ratcheting up.

>>16095352
Launch a 15 tonne payload at Mars using Falcon Heavy.
In that payload include a landing/ascent stage and an Earth return stage, plus sample gathering hardware.
Math tells me that using hypergolic engines with an Isp of 290, to get 1 tonne of total burnout stage mass thrown back to Earth you need a total mass sitting on Mars of 13 tonnes, where the upper stage is 75% propellant by mass (4T total) and the first stage is 91% propellant by mass (11T total). For reference a Falcon 9 with all its reuse hardware is still over 96% propellant by mass, and hypergolics are denser, making this easier overall to achieve.
Three burns are needed.
First, a landing burn of 400 m/s post-entry uses up 2 tonnes of propellant in the first stage. The vehicle would probably need to be able to bellyflop like Starship to scrub off enough velocity to achieve this, or it could be a wide squat vehicle, idk.
Second, the first stage re-ignites to launch off of Mars again. This provides 2700 m/s, easily enough to escape Mars' atmosphere entirely and get a good way to orbital velocity.
Third, after separating off the lower stage, the upper stage provides 3900 m/s of Delta V, enough to go from the fast suborbital trajectory to an Earth intercept.
The burnout mass of 1 tonne includes engines and tanks, so if we imagine a 90% mass ratio, the actual useful mass thrown at Earth is about 700 kg. This should be easily enough to not only include the entry capsule containing the samples, but also an entire little spacecraft bus to allow for maneuvering on the way back to Earth, via chemical or electric propulsion.

We could get more ambitious by assuming in situ propellant production, ie a carbon monoxide & oxygen rocket, but that's more complex and needs to be counterbalanced against how much power supply mass is necessary to produce tonnes of propellants in an acceptable time frame. Probably better to put an Earth return vehicle in Mars orbit if needed.

>>16095840
Why cancel Clipper? It's pretty much built and isn't launching on SLS anymore

>>16095843
We're fat with advanced propulsion concepts anon, that's no issue. We need better ppwer supplies in space to make any of these systems useful in the real world.

Cancel NASA, give the money to Israel

>>16095286
why can't they insulate and actively cool?

>>16095873
i dont know, why cant they? they have absolutely no plans to do so and it will drastically increase the dry mass. cosidering they cant open a door in space i dont have hope...

>>16095405
As a Brit I learned the hard way that "bumming a fag" means something entirely different in America. People kept trying to give me cigarettes.

i'm incontinent Dx

>>16095865
Agreed. US wastes so many billions of tax dollars a year sending people to space that could have easily gone to Israel to help defend democracy.
It seems extremely anti-semitic to be withholding money from Israel for no other reason than that they are Jewish. No other nation gets this unfair treatment. Each rocket launched to Mars could have been spent more prudently on hundreds of small missiles and bombs to help Israel defend themselves, and thus the entire world, from terrorists in Gaza. What a joke.

>>16094897
In China there are many that don't. Virtually all the start-ups with solids bought the engines from CASC or CASIC.

To some extent it is also the case with liquids. Space Pioneer bought YF-102 from CASC for TL-2, which has launched to orbit. Space Epoch and Rocket Pi made deals to buy engines from JZYJ, and Nayuta Space made a deal to buy engines from Yutian Tuijin. Space Epoch, Rocket pi and Nayuta are latecomers to the industry and don't seem well funded, which I think explains why they have both the option and the will to buy liquid engines rather than develop an engine in-house from scratch.

>there was a G4 magnetic storm yesterday morning
>only found out today from a random post

>>16095729
>Imagine wanting to at Blue Origin out of college
ftfy

>>16095894
There was some talk on the local news last night that we might be able to see some auras but I think we were too far south for that.

>>16095872
plane designed to melt in hypersonic wind as rapidly as physically possible

>>16095873
Because a sunshade is adequate. When you're flying to Mars you're not exposed to reflected heat from earth like in LEO. The sun is in a fixed location and all you have to do is block it out.

>>16095897
If it goes in belly first and can fold the canards back like starship it might be ok

>>16095880
Lmao nice XD

>>16095902
It looks like it has scramjets, which implies hypersonic flight, which means it's gonna melt lol

>>16095873
It's not that easy in propellant storage

>>16095901
>The sun is in a fixed location and all you have to do is block it out.
So no spin gravity for starship?

>>16095913
Yes, so long as the spin axis points sunward. That calls for a deployable shield though. If you don't spin you might get away just pointing your ass at the sun.

>>16095913
Moron

>>16095384
Brute force rocket. Not a real high energy rocket.

>>16095773
6 GEM-63XLs (1 maxed vulcan launch) is far worse for the environment than 6 entire Falcon Heavy launches

>>16095398
>When you take Vulcan's isp and average it out across its total propellant mass
Doesn't the final propellant isp matter a lot more than the initial propellant isp though?

>>16095916
youre a fucking idiot dide. im surprosed they let you post here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-nolbBZvw4
>Gearing Up for Starship Flight 4 | SpaceX Starbase Update

all the posts below are written by homos

>>16095729
Why not? They are working on a lot of exciting things, including lunar landers, space stations, and arguably the no 2 or no 3 most advanced launch tech in America. Also, they're not at significant risk of folding or getting forever stuck in NSSL Lane 1, like every other launch company apart from SpaceX is.

>>16095940
yum yum yum yum yum yum

alarms at starbase, no overpressure notice. what are they doing, another spin prime?

How the fuck could a sane person look at a Vulcan and a Starship/Superheavy and deduce they are “similar,” or even that Vulcan could “outperform” SS in some areas
Anyone talking about “efficiency of Centaur,” “precision orbits,” or “LEO optimization” is a coping midwit!

>>16095352
I think the problem with MSR isn't so much with the Earth ascent launchers

SpaceX probably isn't interested in allocating resources to developing that kind of payloads for Falcons. They'd probably propose some kind Starship derivative instead, and try to get NASA to help fund their Martian Starship and ISRU ambitions

>>16095950
It all depends on how soon rapid reuse and in-space refueling will become mature

>>16095952
What the fuck does it matter if it’s one year away or five years away?

>>16095953
It matters depending on when you want to launch your payload.

It's not inconceivable that it could be more than 5 years away before Starship becomes mature, in the sense of, not just being able to reuse and to refuel in space, but also having low marginal cost of launch, quick and easy turnaround, high cadence, high reliability, etc.

Of course, if you only want to launch in, say, 2032, or if you are stuck at the absolute back of the Vulcan launch queue, then it doesn't really matter. It's very hard to argue that a Vulcan will have anything to offer over Starship in the long term.

>>16095953
prick.

>>16095952
Actually it depends on when space tug companies are ready and how much they cost per flight. Starship will be able to push over 24 tonnes to GTO, so with a tug that's gonna be at least over a dozen tonnes to GEO for the cost of one Starship launch (maybe $25m to start?) and 1 tug (less than $35m each according to some post that came up on google that I didn't read), something around $60m.
$60m for 12+ tonnes to GEO is far better than any variant of any other rocket.

>>16095951
idiot.

does anyone know when WSF-M is launching? as recently as February I was hearing late March. but now it's late March and I don't see anything on spaceflightnow's launch schedule for it.

>>16095966
>for the cost of one Starship launch (maybe $25m to start?) and 1 tug (less than $35m each
When adding that to the cost of operations and reuse of Superheavy, which might be quite significant before all the bugs have been ironed out and high cadence has been achieved, the price advantage need not that great over a Vulcan. It might be cheaper, but not order-of-magnitude cheaper.

By booking with Vulcan you remove a lot of risk, because all the necessary R&D and testing is already complete. So it can still be reasonably argued that Starship and Vulcan are "similar" and "outperforms" SS in some areas (e.g. schedule risk)

>>16094957
Probably as soon as Starship is in a working shape, it would be a pretty big flex. Definitely won't make it down in one piece the first time though. But they'll have a Cybertruck as a payload

>>16095967
Care to elaborate?

Macron has awoken

https://europeanspaceflight.com/france-expected-to-commit-e400m-to-support-four-launch-startups/

>>16096003
400m aint enought to develope one reusable launch vehicle lol.

>>16096003
Need to add two more zeroes, or this isn't going to make much difference. The companies can't fund R&D with margins on commercial orders because they'll be competing with incumbents like SpaceX. The government will have to buy a lot more launches and/or subsidize commercial payloads on the condition that they launch exclusively on these launchers.

>>16095744
Whether or not reusability is ready, they should still be able to launch payloads into space this year.

>>16095872
I had a toy one of those as a kid but thought it was just a melted XB70.

>>16096003
IVPITER

>>16094999
Government hates it’s people. Might as well ask why the UKs economy sucks.

>>16096005
the key word is support. the startups still have to raise most of the money themselves from shareholders, but an injection of cash early on can help them along the way

>>16096014
yeah, 100m is not enough

>>16096026
>injection of cash early on
The up-front money is small. They only get the bulk of the money after a first flight.

>>16095978
Starship is currently flying at a higher cadence than vulcan, and isn't even operational yet.

>>16095226
What's real estate based economy? Also Australia is building perhaps the world's least efficient pumped storage plant. It's called Snowy 2.0

>>16096003
they should be trying to copy Starship, not invent 4 different alternatives to Falcon 1
what the fuck are they doing
this is like investing into more horses after seeing a freight train
I'm so fucking done with this continent

>>16096050
Everyone wants their own Falcon 9. Starship is too far ahead technologically for anyone to attempt to do the same without first making a medium-heavy launch vehicle. in short trying to copy starship without any expertiese in building and landing rockets would be retarded.

>>16096059
>in short trying to copy starship without any expertiese in building and landing rockets would be retarded.
Then why aren't the French doing it?

>>16095839
>'Nordic supremacy'

>>16096065
haven't landed a booster yet?

>>16095839
so zubrin hates whites?

>>16096069
>>16096072
Kek this is your 'based zubrin' btw. Shills btfo

>>16096003
Making fun of france is not only fun, but easy as well!

so the IFT-4 priority list is:
>payload door (highest priority)
>starship orbital adjustment
>superheavy reentry
>starship rentry (lowest priority)

Overpressure notice, static fire imminent.

>>16095711
>Hiring Booms at SpaceX and Blue Origin Making It Hard for NASA to Attract Talent
how? just work a few years at spacex then move to nasa for an easier cushier less stressful job. nasa should have plenty of talent to choose from given the huge churn at spacex.

>>16096097
No retard. Highest priority is obviously reentry on both vehicles. They can test payload door whenever, getting reentry correct is the most important thing now.

>>16096097
It’s reentry they’ve said it themselves

>>16096097
Successful deorbit burn would give them the greenlight to launch usable payloads on Starship, regardless of whether ship or booster can successfully reenter and land yet.

>Boing CEO to step down

>>16096099
Location, maybe? Blorp and Kuiper and Starlink are all hiring in the Seattle area.

>>16096080
never seemed based, just a mars mission advocate but even there he insist on some pet mission constantly

>>16096107
Hopefully the next one kills their entire spaceflight division to focus on their aerospace division because holy shit they are about to have a MUCH more public disaster with Shitliner

>>16096042
I don't think it'll be enough of a difference to contribute to order-of-magnitude cost advantages in the immediate future, especially when you consider that Vulcan has some supply chain commonality with BO's New Glenn and (I think?) NG's other solid business. Especially not to GEO.

The reason I mention cadence is that a higher cadence allows you to spread annual fixed costs on many launches. So high cadence is an important contributing factor to making SS/SH launches cheaper.

In the case of SS/SH, because it is reusable (even if the SS is expended), cadence also matters for cost in the sense that high cadence implies quick turnaround, which implies a quick and easy turnaround process and a high utilization level. This all lowers cost per launch.

Of course, it's possible that SpaceX might decide to mask these higher early-day costs and eat the difference, offering low prices from the start to get customers to ramp up payload production for Starship quickly, with Musk having optimistic expectation that they'll soon get launch costs down to the level that they'll make big profits.

>>16096099
especially as isn't NASA and others on that list big on DEI? so its not like they would hire the whites and asians that go work for spacex anyway

>>16096059
I think the problem with a Starship clone might not be so much that you necessarily need deep experience with booster recovery before attempting to develop a Starship clone, rather it is that a Raptor clone is very expensive and time-consuming to develop. Almost no one can develop a Raptor clone with investor money alone, so you need some kind of intermediate product to sustain you in the meantime.

Even if you could develop a Starship from the get-go, it is still a very enticing proposition to first develop an expendable upper stage and thus have a viable product quickly, long before you get the reusable second stage working (a Starship expended suffers from a huge payload penalty compared to a purely expendable second stage). This is what CASC is doing.

>>16096099
>for an easier cushier less stressful job
Anon if we wanted that we could work in another industry. People dont go into the spaceflight industry for an easy job, its literal rocket science.

>>16095839
Why are they like this bros

>>16096059
I think the problem with a Starship clone might not be so much that you necessarily need deep experience with booster recovery before attempting to develop a Starship clone, rather it is that a Raptor clone is very expensive and time-consuming to develop. Almost no one can develop a Raptor clone with investor money alone, so you need some kind of intermediate product to sustain you in the meantime.

Even if you could develop a Starship from the get-go, it is still a very enticing proposition to first develop an expendable upper stage and thus have a viable product quickly, long before you get the reusable second stage working (a Starship expended suffers from a huge payload penalty compared to a purely expendable second stage), similar to CALT's roadmap for CZ-9.

>>16096050
>copy Starship,
They don't have nearly enough money to do that
They need a minimum viable product ASAP to prove themselves to investors and to start earning revenue

>>16096100
Getting the payload door working is necessary for any future flight is to carry any payload to help pay for itself

>>16096151
Payload door can be tested on ANY future flight. Its also specifically made for Starlinks and thats bot what the important payloads are going to be. OBVIOUSLY landing the fucking spacecraft is more important because then theres no incident report slowing them down AS WELL as being able to study it for what went wrong AAAAND they get closer to full reusability and the REQUIRED Lunar landing goal. YOU are RETARDED for thinking the STARLINK PAYLOAD DOOR is the most important thing on the next flight. If I were this much of a brainlet I would kill myself.

>>16095711
Fuck I'd kill to work for any space company, they're always hiring for the field I work in but it's near impossible to migrate from the UK to the US

>>16096151
Starship is way too big to just leave expended in orbit.

>>16096160
cope.

>>16096166
Me to (You) every day on the job.

>>16096050
Suppose a French company started the costly process of developing a Starship, and had it finished in the mid-late 2030s. What immense payload orders could they get, that would justify those development costs?

By that time there will already be at least 2 American and at least 3* Chinese Starlink-style megaconstellations deployed, and probably multiple American and Chinese megaconstellations of other types deployed or well into the process of deployment. It's hard to justify entering such a capital-intensive and scale-benefitting market as player number 6. It's not inconceivable that they could get some large orders, but no investor is going to look at that business case and think it's a smart investment. The French government needs to pay up, and 400 million euros isn't anywhere close to enough.

*I think Huawei is making noises about being interested in participating in a third constellation, although launch capacity is currently a constraint

>>16096003
This rocket is called baguette one and it looks like it has an aerospike!

>>16096182
Why do the french have a humiliation fetish?

>>16096182
you can tell these fuckers arent serios with designs like this. Why develope an aerospike for a first stage?

>>16096187
where else would you stick an aerospike? isn't the whole point that it preforms well at a variety of atmospheric pressures. something upper stages don't deal with nearly as much

>>16096166
Find a nice cowgirl to marry in Texas

>>16096180
europe is building some kind of megaconstellation I think
you could have the european launchers have exclusive access to launch contracts for that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wne1VRhgSoc

static fire attempts

>>16096160
>Payload door can be tested on ANY future flight.
You want payloads to help pay for test launches ASAP

>Its also specifically made for Starlinks and thats bot what the important payloads are going to be
Even if its not the most lucrative payload per kg, Starlink is still a revenue-generating payload, it is a payload that can make good use of SS's unique capabilities, and is available for SS in large quantity in the immediate future

> theres no incident report
Except a payload door malfunction I guess

> they get closer to full reusability
Even the most perfect reusability is useless if you can't deploy a payload

>as being able to study it for what went wrong
This is the only reason I can think of for prioritizing SS recovery over getting the door working. But that's only if they can't for their life figure out what's wrong with the door without personally inspecting it post-flight

>and the REQUIRED Lunar landing goal
HLS and other Artemis components aren't close to ready anytime soon anyway. There's plenty of time to figure out both the payload door and SS recovery

>>16096047
>700m height differential
ok not terrible
>27km tunnel
lol lmao

>>16096197
What constellation is that? What guarantees are there that it would be exclusively launched on European launchers?

>>16096097
Priority 1 Starship attitude control & reentry, soft booster splashdown
Priority 2 Raptor relight during coast phase
Priority 3 all other bits and bobs like payload door

>>16096099
>worker works at spacex
>worker "retires" at blorb
>nobody works for NASA because they don't want to invest in a project that just gets cancelled after 5 to 10 years
Alternatively maybe SpaceX isn't actually burning out that many workers and that has been oldspace cope for the past few years, maybe all along

>>16096097
Gwynne said reentry is now their priority

>>16096170
Why? As long as it remains in one piece, it's not much different than any other piece of trash left in orbit.

>>16096206
https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space-policy/iris2_en

its more of a plan right now, but nothing guarantees it, it would just be a way to try to foster a private european launch economy

>>16096211
>runner up for biggest single object in orbit
>designed to survive reentry in one piece
>WILL deorbit eventually. who knows where

>>16096128
>I don't think it'll be enough of a difference to contribute to order-of-magnitude cost advantages in the immediate future
Okay? If Starship is exactly as expensive as Vulcan per GEO launch it still eats Vulcan's lunch because Starship has room to launch multiple 5 tonne sattelites at a time. There's no need for Starship + tug to cost 1/10th of Vulcan for it to win. Also my estimate is that Starship + tug would cost millions less than Vulcan to GEO, keep in mind.

https://spacenews.com/msr-highlights-challenges-of-nasa-flagship-missions/
>MSR, though, is just the latest in a series of ambitious NASA science missions that have suffered delays and overruns, such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). “NASA struggles to develop complete, credible and transparent estimates” for such missions, said George Scott, the agency’s acting inspector general. That is linked at least in part to a “culture of optimism” that causes it to underestimate the challenges such missions face.

>>16096212
Probably won't be big enough to justify the expense of developing a Starship clone. Could probably be launched well enough on a Falcon 9 clone, or perhaps even on an expendable. Especially since the launch orders would be split up between multiple launch companies.

>>16096209
the goal of work is to collect a good paycheck, not to waste your life working all day, hence why nasa is a good place to work

>>16096225
yeah, but a F9 clone should be developed anyway as a stepping stone before going for a Starship clone

>>16096189
an ssto, or the upper stage on a normal rocket which is intended to land on earth. Aerospikes are kind of trash in all regimes, theyonly make sense when you absolutely need to do a burn at sea level but also spend ages burning in space.

>>16096128
>The reason I mention cadence is that a higher cadence allows you to spread annual fixed costs on many launches.
I estimate Starship will cost around $25m to launch from day 1 of reusability, before "high cadence" is achieved (though calling ~12 launches/year of the largest rocket ever low cadence seems kinda wrong and silly).
The cost of continuing to develop Starship & build more etc doesn't need to be covered by Starship launches, there's literally no incentive for SpaceX to take that strategy. They have enough money to build & fly Starship expendable NOW, and with Starlink imminently becoming a cash cow there's no reason to think SpaceX will be strapped for funding, especially as they phase out the relatively more expensive F9 Starlink launches for Starship Starlink launches.
Generating more early market interest in Starship by making it available for less than a Falcon 9 launch makes perfect sense if they want to guarantee Starship is massively successful, which they obviously do want.

>>16096216
It probably wouldn't survive reentry very well unless it deliberately keeps the heat shield in the right orientation. But okay. So consider reliable engine relight as a priority. Remaining parts of reentry don't need to be prioritized at the same level.

>>16095390
3000 cubic meters is not 3 cubic kilometers, you buffoon

https://payloadspace.com/nasa-and-boeing-are-finally-putting-astronauts-on-starliner/
>The first crewed mission is expected on May 1, after traffic at the ISS delayed it from late April.

>>16096239
idiot.
Kilo means thousand.

>>16096246
Finally, black gay transsexuals in space.

frost on the ship

>>16096217
You still need to develop and test a lot of stuff for that, such as a deployment and stacking mechanism for multiple satellites and the necessary tugs. Hence schedule risk.

Anyway, is SpaceX even interested in allocating development resources and testing effort on such an Ariane 5 style stop-gap solution? Is there any sign that they are trying?

>>16096222
The decadal survey literally begged NASA to cap MSR spending and they still fucked it up

>>16096252
>american education

>>16096254
Nigger in the general

>>16096268
works on my machine

>>16096273
your machine is as stupid as you are

>>16096274
I think you are just confused
check it again

>>16096274
Xir, you should know by now that 1 km^3 is 1000 m^3 just like how 1 km is 1000m and 1 km^2 is 1000 m^2

>>16095962
Better to be a prick telling the truth than a retard drawing up some delusional “team space” fantasy

>>16096275
brainlet

>>16096280
Newfag

>>16096280
you're the one who can't into metric prefixes

>>16096280
sir there is no need to get upset

>>16096282
brainlet

Cubic kilometer might be my favorite joke because it's both funny and an instant litmus test.

>>16094957
They will run out of money before Starship ever reaches the Moon, let alone Mars.

>>16096286
You dont have to pretend like youre smart. You can just be the midwit socially inept retard you are and admit it, and stay quiet while the rest of /sci/ teaches you. Its called lurking, maybe do it newfag.

>>16096290
brainlet

>>16096287
Why the fuck would you tell this retarded newfag that its a joke?? Youre ruining the fun what the fuck is wrong with you

>>16096293
Oh? If you're such an oldfag then please tell me why a cubic kilometer is funny.

>>16096143
A raptor clone isn't required to build a Starship-alike vehicle though. It could be done with gas generator engines. Raptor is only necessary if you want your Starahip clone to also work as a Moon and Mars transport vehicle, if you just want to compete for Earth orbits you don't need that high Isp.

If I were in charge of bringing euro launch out of the stone age, I'd be demanding a high TWR methalox gas generator engine (think methalox Merlin but likely not as good), to be developed alongside an 8 to 10 meter diameter single stick 2 stage rocket, with plenty of hardware burst and crush testing, again basically copying Starbase development methods. I want my engine to achieve 300 Isp at sea level and 320 in space, with a vacuum variant that gets 350 Isp. I want it to produce betwen 1 and 2 MN of thrust.

My rocket's gonna land the booster on legs nearby the launch mount. My rocket is gonna have an upper stage with a Starship-like entry method, but it'll also land on legs nearby the launch mount. Nothing crazy. I don't want to try to beat Starship yet, I want to beat everyone else.

Upper stage total mass of 800 tonnes, burnout mass of 80 tonnes, payload of 55 tonnes. Delta V of 5900 m/s. Future upgrades reduce dry mass & increase payload.
Stack liftoff mass of 3000 tonnes, burnout mass of 900 tonnes, Delta V of 3600 m/s.
These figures were calcuated with reserve propellant masses for landing.

Booster requires 15 engines at 2.5 MN each. Upper stage requires 3 engines, 2 vacuum one sea level, 2.5 MN each. Will require a hoverslam landing but F9 does this routinely, others can do make it work too.

Result is a fully reusable rocket with no coking issues, no requirement for FFSC engines, approximately 60% of the liftoff mass of Starship with ~30% of the payload, absolutely mogs all non Starship launchers and has room to be upgraded over time as well.

>>16096277
Depends on whether it is k(m^3) or (km)^3

>>16096293
it's not a joke. kilo means thousand. even american schoolchildren learn this

>>16096296
Kek

yeah it's a kilo-cubic meter

>>16096151
Starship doesn't need to pay for itself in the short term. SpaceX is willing to invest billions into Starship forever if necessary, and they can afgord to do so. They have a massive incentive to get Starship working and deploying payloads, but not because they want to recoup their investment asap.

>>16096170
Expending Starship does not mean leaving it in orbit. It means using it to torpedo sea life.

>>16096295
something with Raptor like thrust density is necessary if you want a SHLV that is optimized for RTLS

>>16096189
Earth's atmosphere isn't enough of an issue for aerospikes to be worth the mass gain. Stoke has the only vehicle that is using an aerospike for real benefits, and it's not because it's better propulsion. They're using it because it can double as an actively cooled heat shield.

>>16096301
is that why they keep raising funding rounds and musk sets absurd goals? spacex is a money burning party with the only thing propping it up being musks bombastic promises.

>>16096295
>15 engines at 2.5 MN each
this strikes me a pretty big ask

>>16096202
The payload door is not a significant priority because it's not a hard problem to solve.

>>16096233
t. euro

>>16096260
>Hence schedule risk
I'm sorry are you referring to why payload providers aren't going to pick Starship over Vulcan *today*? Or are you trying to talk about operational Starship vs Vulcan in 2 to 3 years from now? I'm talking about the latter case, which may as well be tomorrow as far as ULA is concerned.

the Moon is a comet

>>16096311
I feel sorry for you lol

>>16096305
It's not, you can make your stage wider and shorter to fit more engines.

>>16096328
N1 proved this strategy always fails lol

>>16096330
nope
are you retarded?

>>16096309
Would you be more comfy if I told you that's less than 3x the power output of a Merlin 1D and the engines can be physically much larger because this rocket has a proportionally higher diameter? 2.5 MN is less thrust than an RS-68, using a denser and warmer propellant than hydrolox.

>>16096330
>always
did it though?

>>16096333
Are you retarded???

>>16096330
Starship proves it works fine

I like how the purposefully inflammatory bait posts in this general are almost always completely ignored

>>16096336
N1 wasn't an engine problem, it was a computer problem

>>16096309
If the Delta IV main engine could achieve 3 MN burning hydrogen I don't see why a different gas generator engine getting 2.5 MN burning methane would be so hard.

>>16096328
Do you realise how wide your rocket would be with ~30 BE-4?

>>16096295
>>16096309
>>16096334
>>16096342
The real reason that design is totally unrealistic is because it assumes euros could mass produce a cheap rocket engine lol

>>16096342
Look at how big DIV's tanks are, now scale that to 15 engines.

>>16096341
and those engines had such a great track record with a different computer running the show

NSF is 5k subs away from a million

>>16096355
chickenshit journalists

https://x.com/Int_Machines/status/1771609252894785549
>As previously announced on February 29th, our IM-1 mission ended seven days after landing, as Odysseus’ mission was not intended to survive the harsh temperatures of the lunar night.
>As of March 23rd at 1030 A.M. Central Standard Time, flight controllers decided their projections were correct, and Odie’s power system would not complete another call home. This confirms that Odie has permanently faded after cementing its legacy into history as the first commercial lunar lander to land on the Moon.
Rest in peace, little buddy.

>>16096295
I guess you could build a worse version of Starship that uses simpler gas generator engines. It used to be Relativity's plan with Terran-R. It is similar to CAS Space's plan with Kinetica-3. They say 1.5MN kox engines (GG or ORSC, they don't say), diameter 6.6m, liftoff mass ~1,950t, payload 20t. Although they don't have any hardware for it yet; they just have a rough notional render.

However, with a worse engine, your payload mass will be worse. This is especially painful when so much mass on your upper stage is already dedicated to reusability. So the benefits of full reuse become a lot less. I also think an FFSC engine is very beneficial for long engine life, quick turnaround and minimal refurbishment, because it sidesteps the issue of interpropellant seals starting to leak, and turbopumps can run at lower temperature and pressure.

So such a half-way solution with GG engines might be hard to justify if you have to face direct competition from SpaceX. And that kind of investment into reusability would still be hard to justify unless you have a large amount of guaranteed payloads that are safe from competition from SpaceX, allowing you to have the high cadence that lets you to reap greater benefit from full reusability than the price you pay for it.

>>16096311
You could be right. Fixing the door is a top priority in the same sense that breathing is a top priority. It's not something you mention explicitly, because it's just an implied truth, and it's not something you'd usually worry about being able to do.

>>16096343
It'd only need 16 BE-4s anon, BE-4 is a 2.4 MN engine and that rocket needs ~37.5 MN.
On a 9 meter diameter rocket there's room for a ring of 12 and a center cluster of 4, all BE-4 sized, with no parts sticking out into the air stream.

>>16096355
>antares blowing up was 10 years ago
I feel sick.

>>16096317
Yes
At the start of this comment chain, I wrote that it depended on how fast Starship matures
>>16095952
I also earlier wrote that
>>16095959
I was talking about the next ~5 years, and that it would be very hard to argue that Vulcan has any advantage over Starship in the long term. So that's what the type of discussion I thought I was having.

>>16096349
RS-68 is an example of a gas generator engine that makes around the level of thrust I was talking about. Its tank mass is irrelevant because hydrolox is far less dense than methalox.

>>16096239
newfag

>>16096387
Be more clear next time. Also, I stated that Starship will be capable of GEO launches 2 to 3 years from now at most, referring to the fact that Starship propellant transfer is slated to be a routinely used technology by then.

>>16096397
>is slated to be
Well, that's the problem, isn't it.

You can ask people to place orders without offering a large schedule risk premium discount in 2-3 years when that routine propellant transfer is being routinely demonstrated

>>16096409
>schedule risk premium discount
That became weird. What I meant was a discount that compensates the risk caused by the schedule risk, conceptually similar to a risk premium

>>16096409
prop transfer between Starships will be demo'd before march of next year, and at that point the only barrier to GEO Starship launch will be a big door and asking if providers who bought a GTO Falcon 9 launch would prefer to swap to a Starship GEO launch, possibly at a discount. To be clear, I'm arguing Starship will likely start doing GEO payload launches 2 to 3 years from now, not that people will start buying Starship GEO launches 2-3 years from now that will happen in 4 to 5 years.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1772325907564220581

BRAAAAAAAAAAP

Nominal static fire complete

>>16096412
I don't agree that there will be a risk to launch schedule. Starship will likely have the most indisruptible launch schedule of any rocket in history by then.

lel tiles missing

>>16096367
CZ-9 is a forever 10 years out rocket

>>16096388
>dry mass is irrelevant

Oh no, it's retarded!

>>16096420
I could never watch that stream but appreciate the update, thank you for your service

>>16096431
I know you're being a trolling fag, but I'm going to reiterate anyway that specifi ally the size of the Delta IV's tanks are irrelevant, because a methalox rocket with a 2.5 MN engine would require much smaller tanks, because methalox is denser.

>>16094957
Realistically, Starship to Mars by 2040. Starship got rerouted to be a lunar payload servicer and will waste decades milking NASA contracts there

Contact is a terrible movie lmao

>>16094967
His best stuff is on colonizing Mars. Very insightful analysis of how much stuff you would have to send there to create a self-sufficient supply chain and the extreme labor crunch that such a colony would have.

>>16096474
2040 seems really excessively far out there. I think SpaceX will likely start tossing uncrewed Starships at Mars before 2030.

https://europeanspaceflight.com/france-expected-to-commit-e400m-to-support-four-launch-startups/
>This week, the French government is expected to announce that it will commit to purchasing the first flights aboard the rockets of four of the country’s launch startups.

Would be exciting if these were not all small lift.

>>16096479
Does he factor in much in terms of robotic labor?

>>16096485
From what I recall, there is basically no way to create a self-sufficient colony without massive automation. You don't realize how many specialized processes go into modern supply chains until you start to tally them up. With refueling, a Starship can send about three tractor trailer loads worth of stuff at a time. So figure out how to fit an entire country's supply chain worth of specialized equipment in as few tractor trailers as possible.

>>16096050
Why invent when you can copy a success? Stagnation and complacency is a hell of a drug.

>>16096246
>May 1
It's gonna scrub.

>>16096496
Actually I completely understand precisely how many specialized processes go into modern techmology in total
>t. knower
Anyway cool, just making sure he isn't one of those "technology will remain frozen at its current state throughout this decades long Mars settlement effort" people.

>>16096519
Shut up chud it will fly flawlessly unlike NaziX with Hitlon Musk

>>16096519
Screen grabbed for the spaceX muskrat cope collection

>>16096518
Copying a success is a good way to remain relevant when your current most advanced rocket was designed to compete in a market state that hasn't existed for about a decade and is about to change in a way that makes said rocket even less viable by an even larger degree

>>16096246

Post your reactions when Starliner shits the bed again

>>16096535
How much money is he getting?

>>16096536
>Post your reactions when Starliner shits the bed again
>t.

https://twitter.com/BellikOzan/status/1772332761023660529

>>16096536

>>16096533
>remain relevant
It's really not a good way considering the lead time it takes to actually design, test and build the rocket in question. By the time it's ready for its first test flight, it's obsolete.

>>16096546
I was actually surprised CSS is this clueless

>>16096550
Next you'll be surprised the sun rises in the east.

>>16096550
His argument for the spin was 1 atm of air leftover in the cargo bay.

>>16096546
huh

>>16095816
what is this god forsaken diagram?
>no axis labels
>5 4 3 1 2 0

>>16096554
If there was 1 atm in there, that thing would fuck up a lot worse than the little jiggle we saw on the door.

>Starship, according to this animation, the system is supposed to release starlink satellites through the side of the craft to deploy them into orbit. Of course in order to do that, as seen in the animation, the ship would have to be flying perpendicular to the earth. Otherwise the satellites would either be shot out into space or fired right back down into the planet.

>>16096535
https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1772318941534093360

>>16096548
Option A is to do business as usual and die.
Option B is to copy the thing that's going to eat the market, ie Starship.
Option C is to attempt something even more ambitious than Starship.

Option A is obviously bad and I doubt anyone has the capacity to do option C. I dunno if Option C is even feasible. At least if you pick Option B early enough you have a chance to arrive on the market with a Starship clone before anyone else and absorb the "anyone but SpaceX" interests

>>16096565
I wonder if CSS will lose subscriber over this
More likely his fanbase is just as clueless

>>16096573
>More likely his fanbase is just as clueless
That was always the case. It's the same with Phil's audience.

>>16096573
You serious? LMAO. Grifters like these just gets more followers. There are 8 billion people in this world. 30% of them are below 80IQ. Thats 2 billion people.

>>16096563
> on a space thread
> doesn't know right ascension and declination

>>16096166
>it's near impossible to migrate from the UK to the US
no, it isnt. it is one of the easiest pathways to a visa. especially if you have a high value career

>>16095852
>Over in Brownsville, Malinalli “Mali’’ Montesam, manager of the Brownsville Convention and Visitors Bureau, said the city is creating an Office of Space Commerce that will be part of the bureau. The effort began in October.
>Its goal is “basically bringing in and attracting more tourism related to space tourism,” she said, “and getting organizations that can provide services to the space industry to establish here in the city.”
sounds like they need a science museum/district. putting it downtown near the university would probably be a good spot.

>>16096576
I was taking the piss lol, any chance to clown on CSS & his retarded followers

>>16096014
>The companies can't fund R&D with margins on commercial orders because they'll be competing with incumbents like SpaceX
This is an important part. The environment SpaceX started in no longer exists as there is actual strong competition in the industry from SpaceX so any group that's looking to get in now basically has to leapfrog spaceship to compete in the market. SpaceX has the performance, reliability and the US market selling their product while a newcomer from europe would have none of those.

>>16096565
>fired right back down into the planet
Starship confirmed to be a military 'Rods from God' deployment platform.

>>16096535
It worked last time!