/sci/ - Science & Math

First.

kino

Can you recommend something interesting to read?

Can one of you guys tell >>16186031 why he's retarded

>>16186042
No, because he's right, and it makes the people behind these telescopes seethe to be reminded that hyper-optimization of mass and the large number of systems revisions they fundamentally require, especially on a complex integrated system like JWST, is extremely expensive to do, especially when they start contributing to significant program delays as problems are worked through and everything has to be rescheduled and all the contractors still have to be paid before the next phase of the program can begin.

>>16186045
It doesn't help when every single important system that has to play nicely with all the tightly integrated optics and computers, along with the integrated optics and computers, are built by completely different organizations.

what's on the agenda for today?

>>16186016
>snip
now what?
>>16186026
yeah, "Commercial Lunar Propellant Architecture - A Collaborative Study of Lunar Propellant Production"
Too big to post here.

>Virtual Reality Evaluations
wtf

>>16186066
They will test it out in KSP
pretty standard step in rocket approval

>>16186068
there actually is a VR mod for KSP, so you can appreciate the true scale of your creations in the VAB

>satellite companies are going through a bunch of mergers and acquisitions due to starlink
what will happen because of starship?

>>16186071
TOSD

>>16186070
Using said technique I might cause your hell soon

You're looking at days/minutes

>>16186068
>ksp
Got drunk and killed both Jeb and Val on my hardmode save last night

>>16186066
It's not entirely stupid. If you can get hands-on astronaut feedback on the design without needing to build a full-scale mockup, possibly including testing out a number of alternatives, that could shift things left.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/blue-origin-resumes-human-flights-to-suborbital-space-but-it-wasnt-perfect/

>>16186090
>One of the three main parachutes on Blue Origin's crew capsule did not fully inflate before landing.
>The Federal Aviation Administration, the regulatory agency that oversees US commercial space missions, said in a statement it did not consider the parachute issue a mishap. This statement suggests the incident will not trigger a mishap investigation that would require FAA oversight.

>>16186090
i hope im that healthy at 90 wtf

https://spacenews.com/ariane-6-inaugural-launch-planned-for-first-half-of-july/
>The European Space Agency announced May 21 that the joint team working on the Ariane 6, including ESA, prime contractor ArianeGroup, launch services provider Arianespace and the French space agency CNES, expect the Ariane 6 inaugural launch to take place in the first two weeks of July.
>In the latest update, ESA said it completed that qualification review April 29. Workers have also started to stack the rocket itself, attaching its two solid rocket boosters to the core stage. The upper stage and payloads will be installed in June ahead of a fueling test and practice countdown called a wet dress rehearsal scheduled for June 18.

>>16186097
TWO WEEKS!

https://spacenews.com/pentagon-to-forge-deeper-ties-with-space-industry-in-first-of-its-kind-program/
>“Once integrated, you’ll have the option to become a CASR partner, not just in peacetime, but actively contributing to America’s defense,” Kniseley stated.
>Incentives extend beyond financial rewards. Companies would gain access to threat intelligence, a valuable asset in a rapidly evolving space landscape.

>>16186102
5-7 weeks

>>16186097
late October it is

>>16186105
spacex is more powerful than the space force. we havent seen a company being more powerful than the military since the east india company.

>>16186111
SpaceX might own Mars in some sense in the future, at least most of the relevant infrastructure

>>16186105
Cooperating with the U.S government is extremely cringe.

>>16186097
Given the timelines and cost of comparable rockets, realistically how many of these will ever fly?

>>16186123
if SpaceX refused, they would probably be forced to work with the government anyway

>>16186131
10-20? idk lol

>>16186123
It is generally good that the DoD is wisening up to what SpaceX represents. The main issue with starship so far has been regulation, and you know for sure the military will cut right through that

https://x.com/SERobinsonJr/status/1792650895131287882

>>16186145

>>16186060
These "capsule to replace the shuttle" concept are always goofy

faggots

when is SLS and Orion going to get taken behind the shed and shot finally?

>>16186168
after the first couple landings

Barkon loves you - ALL

I'm curious what you guys think
The cost of the ISS would get you around a million tons to orbit with Starship using currently fictional Elon numbers. That's two burj kalifas, and it uses concrete and steel instead of whatever space materials.
What sort of space station could you make with that? Or how many? What would you do if it was up to you?

>>16186186
Fuck "space materials", I'm launching a million tons of steel and concrete into orbit because I can.

>>16186186
Even at fictional starship price points I’m not launching bulk concrete. Replace most of the aluminum with steel, thicken it up a bit, but keep the mass reasonably low.
think more shipbuilding techniques and less dam building techniques.
I’d want a few hundred stations that are 1-15x ISS scale.

next flight will explode on the pad, you just know it...

>>16186216
concerning.
>>16186170
>landings
aint happening

>>16186042
How can starship deliver the James webb when starship can only deliver to LEO and JWST needed to get to L1? Would it be cheaper even if starship would need at least 10-15 refueling just to escape from LEO? even at this point spaceX doesnt seem to be developing any kind of payload diployment except for the starlinks one (This is not a simple change, because in the nose of starship theres a LOX tank that should relocated, and is the same where orion should be connected in artemis III)

And if JWST would have wait for starship itd be on earth until this day

>>16186186
I'd make a cube where each face is a small spin station and the axles of the wheels connect at the center. I'd make each one have a slightly different purpose with one of them being entirely ocean, and somehow relate the enterprise to one of those island countries who are currently concerned about being underwater as a way to bait ESG money and the public imagination. I'd also make a hammer station where the lengthwise walls mimic a row of Brooklyn brownstones or something and the space between them is all gardens. Basically a bunch of stuff to make a normal person think about a future out there. I guess you could use the remaining 50 billion dollars to do >>16186213

>>16186066
Virtual reality is the only way to evaluate Blue Origin's hardware

Exciting to be less that two weeks away from IFT-4.

>>16186222
>Would it be cheaper even if starship would need at least 10-15 refueling just to escape from LEO?
The Ariane 5 is around $185mil and the theoretical Starship would be ~$10mil*16 so it's close. Either way the launch itself is a small enough percentage of the total cost that it isn't even worth thinking about, the big change with Starship would be a lowering of the total development cost because you aren't constrained by weight and size.

>>16186222
low energy shitpost

Glad to see the recent discovery of Dyson spheres has put paid to the wellniggers

>>16186241
Just like Starship

>>16186243
Dyson spheres are also in a well, anon.

>>16186251
stellar wells at least supply you with energy and leaving them isn't very expensive if that becomes necessary

>>16186256
You need to face the facts one day man.

>>16186258
state those faceable facts

It's over.

>>16186259
We've kind of argued about this before, so I'm kind of reluctant to. It might just be better to leave you be.

>>16186097
Thanks for spoonfeeding me news!

The natural follow up to a orbital Europa mission is a lander. The only question is how do we make a radiation-proof lander?

>>16186259
There are none. Don’t let him off scot free press the issue.

>>16186266
Very well, I'm not in the mood to go over old ground either. But you'd admit that detection of a DS (not that the recent papers prove anything) would make your position very difficult to maintain, surely?

>>16186105
There is such a thing as being too close to the DoD. SpaceX won't spring for this; they're already in hot water with the Russians as it is

For people like Firefly or whoever else is lining up for responsive space bucks I guess the money is there, but then you have to contend with American foreign policy getting you into trouble you weren't looking for

>>16186111
How many rods from god does SpaceX have then? how many space lasers?

Now that we all finally realized SpaceX is a scam, what's the next grift we'll obsess over?

>>16186285
>how many space lasers?
starlinks have lasers
how many lasers does the space force have?
0

>>16186287
Human spaceflight more broadly

>>16186287
Gravitics

>>16186287
Artemis and SLS

https://spacenews.com/ariane-6-inaugural-launch-planned-for-first-half-of-july/
EUROBROS, WE'RE SO BACK

>>16186298
Good job Europe. Will Starship fly first or Ariane 6?

>>16186243
Dyson spheres are just the next evolution in wellfaggotry.

>>16186317
If you know a better way to fuse standard hydrogen than stars, I'm all ears

>>16186235
>the theoretical Starship would be ~$10mil

I dont know if youre baiting, but I just tell you elon said that in the best scenario every raptor would cost 1 mill, you are telling me every starship would cost only 10? Dont be retarded lad

>>16186287
Unironically chinese lunar program

>>16186340
How can my drive to work cost $3 when tires cost $150?

>>16186298
Two more weeks

>>16186355
*two more months

I asked the other day what the next celestial event will be after we got a solar eclipse and auroras this year. Someone said a nova...they were right:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/05/if-you-can-see-the-big-dipper-youll-get-to-see-a-star-go-nova-soon/

Nostradamus ass motherfucker

>>16186123
>t. CHYNA NUMBA WAN

>>16186283
>they're already in hot water with the Russians as it is
lol. who the fuck gives a shit what those mongol abominations think. much less burger premium space program no matter how much the founder has some weird dictator simp complex

>>16186364
>t. CHYNA NUMBA WAN
If you think cooperating with the US government is okay then you're not a real American.

>>16186251
>>16186258
>>16186243
I'm not saying stellar engines are easy to make, but if you assume the existence of Dyson spheres it's not much of a stretch.

What's wrong with a gravity well that you can put wherever you want it?

>>16186278
propellant is stored in the Ball

>>16186358
oh this is what happened in that one tng episode where wesley almost blew up the ship again

>>16186377
Now you're thinking like a true Kardashevian

>The Crew Flight Test of Boeing's Starliner spacecraft is no longer targeting Saturday, May 25

>>16186399
makes you wonder if it was going to have to scrub anyway but boing just let the clock run hoping there'd be some issue with the atlas v they could scapegoat and avoid the bad headlines

>>16186406
>hey tory I need a favor, can you tell them your valves don’t work

>>16186250
tsmt

>>16186399
oh nonono

>>16186408
>that's funny. I was going to ask you the same thing

>>16186408
I mean, it's hard to argue against that when boeing pays 50% of your salary.

BOEINGXISTERS WHAT DO WE DO NOW

IF IT'S BOING, I AIN'T GOING

>>16186417
TRUST THE PLAN

somebody dig up the starliner can be delayed up to 10 times webm

>>16186417
two more weeks

>>16186426
Isn't it a gif? Am I tripping?

>boing plane kills 1 during heavy turbulence
and they don't stop coming and they don't stop coming and they don't stop coming
captcha: IHJAM

>>16186426
i cant find mine but here's this

>>16186271
drawing attention to my own post.

>>16186429
>boing plane kills 1 during heavy turbulence
the fact the entire aircraft didn't fall apart tells me Boeing is on the upturn!

>>16186429
heavy turbulence is probably pilot error

>>16186429
they died of Covid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAIF05lABJc

Will Russia beat musk?

>>16186441
russia put f9 up their but, anal with rocket the butt! holy shit
it's gay but its demeaning

>>16186441
gptslop writing is so easy to spot now

>>16186441
I'm not going to tarnish my yt algorithm by playing even 1 s of that

reminder that we can't even build a functioning mars base in arizona. anything more than flags + footprints is doomed.

>>16186447
of course not, mars isn’t in arizona

>>16186444
that's what happens when you train on wordy reddit retards

>>16186447
elaborate hippie art project

How much does a permanent lunar base cost?

>>16186456
Right now? Probably slightly more than the ISS' $3bil/y because getting there is harder and parts will keep breaking from dust. With Starship? Who the hell knows. No one's planning anything with such a big variable up in the air

>>16186452
awesome news that reddit and chatgpt are officially working together now, will make jipiti even more unusable now.

>>16186461
Well if they can fund the ISS they can fund a permanent lunar base which is far more interesting. Although yes I think it would cost more. Do you think they will shield the base from the radiation using rocks?

spaceflight news may 21:
-usui clear has raised kotone's dancing skill from an F-rank to an E-rank in her idolmaster playthrough

>>16186344
I may disagree with/dislike a lot of things about Communist China, but their Space Program is not one of those things.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1792953914570019121

>>16186468
These are the hard hitting facts main stream media doesn’t want you to hear.

https://x.com/vast/status/1792971591686447169
Vast gaining media attention, has Gravitics done that? This would be a good chance to see how well Max is on camera against someone like Elon. Also who the fuck is Morgan Brennan

SpaceX and the US Gov are still continuously disabling the constant stream of black market starlink terminals being imported and used by Russia's military, apparently.

>>16186484
seems like it would be pretty easy to just... not beam down internet to terminals within certain geographic boundaries

>>16186060
this seems like a great idea until you realize that as soon as you decouple them the physics engine is going to realize they're clipped inside of each other and yeet you into the sun

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4796/1
>SpaceX, unsurprisingly, explained how Starship could support a lunar base, starting with three Starship landings: one serving as a hub for power, communications and other services, a second delivering heavy equipment, and a third that services as a crew habitat. Those Starships would remain on the Moon, their propellant tanks repurposed for storing other fluids and gases and other unneeded components, like Raptor engines, “harvested and processed into raw feedstock material,” the company explained on one slide. (Nayak later called that “re-ISRU” or recyclable in situ resource utilization.)

>>16186486
Yes. Why aren't they doing this?

>>16186488
Yes we saw this on the LunA-10 panels we dont need a repeat.

>>16186488
>It also identified potential new services needed for this lunar architecture. “Under LunA-10 we’ve come to realize this idea of ‘thermal as a service,’” Nayak said. That is thermal management that rejects excess heat during the lunar day and generates heat at night. He said studies showed 40–50% of the mass of spacecraft being sent to the lunar surface involved their thermal management systems. If that could instead be offered as a service, “then you either have reduced your cost to the Moon by half or you have doubled the capability that you can bring.”

apparently some companies are going to try to do Helium-3 mining

>“We’re focused on increasing the supply of helium-3,” Meyerson, the CEO of Interlune, said in an on-stage interview at the 39th Space Symposium last month. “We have customers lined up and interested.”
> He said Interlune focused on helium-3 because of its high price: $20 million per kilogram. “It is the only resource that is priced high enough to warrant going to the Moon and bringing it back. We needed something like that to anchor the business case.”
>Interlune is planning three missions, starting with one in late 2026 or early 2027 that would do initial prospecting. Two more, in 2028 to 2030, would set up first a pilot plant to harvest helium-3 from lunar regolith and then an operating plant that would return helium-3 for sale to customers.

>>16186488
What about radiation?

>>16186489
it’s not that easy in starlink beam downery

>>16186486
>>16186489
presumably the geographic areas where russians/ukrainians are operating are fluid enough or close enough that this isn't really viable?

>>16186490
almost none of it was really discussed

>>16186491
Helium 3 mining is a meme, though.

>>16186498
As is in situ resource utilization mostly

>>16186491
Weve already btfod helium mining multiple times. Also 'as a service' holy shit I cant stand these fucking companies

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1792981845296160791

>>16186499
How? ISRU is just better.

>>16186501
Why dont you shut up you stupid jew

>>16186504
back to pol retard

>>16186500
>Weve already btfod helium mining multiple times
haven't been here for that. qrd?

>>16186340
>1 million
You mean 250k?

>>16186498
somebody better tell these companies that have been looking into the matter for years before they waste millions of their own money on it

>>16186503
We would have to grow vegetables out of our own fecal matter. Just simpler to import heaps of food from Earth.

>>16186026
big if true

>>16186514
Simpler, but more expensive over the long term. Colonization is flat out non-viable without ISRU.

>>16186516
oops i meant to link this

>>16186501
Neat. Gonna be neat to see this feature rolled out.

>>16186510
The current market already makes more than enough He-3 for all non-fusion purposes (two more decades btw) via a byproduct from tritium. There can also be allot mined on earth near volcanic outflows and in nat gas wells. The only way the current $700m market would at all expand to support massive He-3 LUNAR mining operations with literally astronomical overhead would be if fusion WASNT a meme technology, and even then it would be far cheaper to mine on Earth than to mine on the moon. The notion that ISRU mining of He-3 on the moon for fusion would be at all more efficient than solar panels with how close the terran system is to the sun is also ridiculous, ESPECIALLY with there being no notable atmosphere on the moon.

Are there nutrients/fertilizers in lunar rock?

>>16186524
No.

>>16186523
but this isn't talking about massive mining operations, it's talking about a few kg a year

>>16186529
that's still uncompetitive anon.

>>16186510
He-3 is too dilute in the regolith to compete with manufacturing it on Earth. Fusing it is much harder thanks to it being double the charge of hydrogen isotopes. And neutron activation is nbd anyway

>>16186529
Again, you can produce WAY more on Earth for a fraction of the cost and all the infrastructure built. The overhead is fucking ridiculous on the moon and the stuff has the same rarity in ppm of gold on the moon. Its just not at all practical for ANY current technology that needs it.

>>16186516
Is a reusable rocket you refuel once in orbit a two stage vehicle?

>>16186524
soon

https://theprint.in/india/indias-first-space-station-and-human-mission-to-moon-what-isro-is-planning-after-gaganyaan/1982362/

>>16186532
Thats another point to add on to no infrastructure + no demand + cheaper alternative sources

>>16186501
this stands to make spacex an insane amount of money. much wider application than starlink internet

>>16186488

So it impossible for a starship to go from surface to surface and back again?

>>16186527
it's over then.

>>16186540
False. Starlink cant penetrate through buildings at all. Would only be useful out of country and outdoors.

>>16186536
no they plan on using a separate third-stage launch vehicle for high-energy orbits

>>16186092
>it did not consider the parachute issue a mishap
Lol
>A parachute failing on a manned vessel is no big deal
>But an unmanned starship RUD 50km above the Karman line over the middle of the pacific is a major concern
Kill the FAA, Behead the FAA, Roundhouse kick the FAA into the concrete, Slamdunk the FAA into a trashcan, Crucify the FAA, Defecate into the FAA's food.

>>16186521
this is cool, thanks anon.

>>16186547
yeah missed you posting the actual pdf. I guess they believe a semi-reusable three stage rocket is cheaper than launching two fully reusable two stage rockets and refueling in orbit.

When are we going to get regular commercial missions bringing back tons of moon rocks so that I can display some on my office desk for cheap?

>>16186516
>high-energy orbit
I hate this meme so much

>>16186534
>>16186530
if he's right about it selling for $20m/kg, then none of those arguments matter. i can't really tell if he's wrong or not about it from searching around because i see wildly conflicting info on the price of it.

>>16186562
Never with chemical propulsion.

>>16186550
Starship launch the FAA into the sun

>>16186566
just spinlaunch boulders back at earth, it's easy

>>16186566
Mind-blowingly retarded prediction given current developments

>>16186540

V2(SS) Starlink would be more capable.

>>16186562
>moon rocks for cheap
Not habbening this century anon.

>>16186570
current developments? care to elaborate?

If you *really* want tons of He-3 then you'll just have to mine it from a gas giant
>The extra large engine intake also brings in atmosphere for processing, eliminating the load on the compressor which is the first stage of processing on the aerostat. The gases are liquefied in a compression turbine, then separated from ordinary hydrogen in a fractionating column. On Earth that column would be at least 12 m. high. Jupiter’s gravity may be some help here, but it gives an idea of how big the factory has to be. Further treatment would then be needed to separate the deuterium from the helium and the helium-3 from the ‘normal’ helium-4; but those stages might be done in space
>From the upper atmosphere, to get into close orbit around Jupiter takes 42 kps, and to escape altogether needs 60 kps, but Jupiter’s 12.6 kps equatorial spin provides a quarter of the orbital velocity and a 290 kph airstream in the same direction supplies 0.08 kps; hypersonic factory flight can add up to 3 kps more. A shuttle can reach 10 kps in the atmosphere on scramjet thrust before engaging rockets, but a further 19 to 20 kps is still needed to reach orbit. Ideally the shuttles would be a nuclear-powered version of Alan Bond’s HOTOL or his more recent Skylon design. If each pickup carries 60,000 lbs. of cargo, a typical payload for the Space Shuttle, so 1800 to 2000 flights would accumulate 50,000 tons of propellant
> Because Jupiter’s magnetic field is generated not in the core, but in the liquid hydrogen layer overlying it, the field isn’t concentric with the planet, there’s an ‘eccentric cam effect’ – a radiation-free zone, extending to 7140 km above the clouds on one side of the planet, rotating with the invisible ‘System III’ of Jupiter’s interior. From a habitat in it, a manned, unshielded vehicle can descend into the atmosphere.
https://theorkneynews.scot/2022/12/04/waverider-part-2-flight-in-nonterrestrial-atmospheres/

>>16186123
>Cooperating with the U.S government is extremely cringe.
cool it with the anti-semitism

>>16186562
how much are you willing to offer for 5 grams of lunar rock?

>>16186564
Something worth $20m/kg would be made on Earth right now. This is the problem with every space resource. The cost added by not being on Earth makes literally everything cost prohibitive. Those lines won't intersect for a century or more, even in Elon's wildest dreams

>>16186564
hey retard. heres you current cost per kg. what do you think about that $20m/kg price now huh. fucking moron.

>>16186570
The current development:

>>16186580
two more years

>>16186574
>>16186580
Starship will win

>>16186579
i assumed you might know what you were talking about but since you're just using quora answers that pop up as the first result on google i won't make that mistake again.

>>16186575
>‘System III’ of Jupiter’s interior
interesting

What is the best way to attach 2 or more Staships so that they can be spun to provide .38G to the occupants during the coast to Mars phase of the journey? A simple rigid truss between their noses? Some arrangement of cables/pulleys? A more substantial structure with docking ports arrayed around it? How can a communication dish be continuously pointed at the earth while in this configuration?

Imagine how big they'll get on the moon. 500 meters / 1640 feet

>>16186524
it's just rocks
plenty of minerals but no nitrogen

>>16186593
Youre a stupid dumb idiot

perchlorates are good for you

>>16186588
Hey btw >>16186579 wasnt posted by >>16186534/>>16186523 which is me. You can tell with the capitalization differences.

>>16186606
What about pthalates

START TYPING FUCKHEADS

>>16186607
Personally I type all my posts with different capitalization and grammar so no one can ever tell it's me
>>16186593
>>16186604
An air pressure greenhouse bubble might not be that difficult on Mars, but you'd really need to watch what you plant. A redwood could reach the height of the empire state building, so you're building your greenhouse that high or bringing a big ladder and a chainsaw. On the bright side Mars is fairly dim, so you could probably just plant an array of low light understory plants (which would grow three times taller than they evolved for) and have a reasonably complex forest ecosystem right out of the gate.

>>16186501
More vapourware brought to you by P. T. Muskum

>>16186627

>>16186617
kys, sfg is ded

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-11-472.pdf
these prices and amounts don't look that bad

diskus

>>16186483
key points
>Vast is trying to be the first not for VC money but for NASA money, they are the only company planning to go up before NASA picks a partner to make a space station so as to differentiate themselves.
>Haot talks about a 7 module 105m long and 7m diameter space station that will induce artificial gravity by rotating end over end at 4 rotations per minute which makes 1G at either end and microgravity in the middle for experiments as well as variable points for Mars and Moon gravity as the long term mission in 15-20 years.
>Haot calls Haven-1 their 'minimum viable product' planned for launch at the end of next year, which is strange because they had said August 2025 is their launch date so that may have slipped a few months.
>Vast states they are 'fully funded' by Jed McCaleb and plan to leverage that fact to be able to get ahead of the competition by launching first even with their late entrance to the market. Haot says they must secure key partners first to ensure that the launch date is possible.
>The planned duration of stay on Haven-1 will be about 2 weeks. They will be utilizing Dragon's life support system as much as possible and only adding systems to Haven-1 that are NOT on Dragon. Haven-1 will be using 48 thrusters for attitude control from Impulse Space which is also every single engine from this mission from Tom Mueller.
>They started 2023 with 30 employees and now have 350, they plan to have 650 by the end of the year and the next end of next year to be 800.
>The current construction is on the fabrication of the aluminum shell and they plan to have a FULL primary structure of Haven-1 by July with multiple copies to test and they will be integrating it by the end of next year and testing of the full station will be mid next year before launch.
>Vast didnt apply to the first CLD contract but is still working with NASA which visit them every quarter as they won the CCSC2 contract which also gets them data and supervision.
Part 1/2

>>16186635
obviously fake

How come moon has no nutrients but Earth has?

>>16186592
Cables/pullies
Have the axis of rotation facing earth so the dish always points towards earth

>>16186656
>Have the axis of rotation facing earth so the dish always points towards earth
this is correct
>cables and pulleys
wouldn't a rigid connection be better for stability/safety? Plus it could possibly offer a physical pathway between the ships like a tunnel (even if not enclosed and those transiting did need to be wearing space walk suits)

>>16186651
>They bring in experts from NASA to judge Haven-1 so that they are comfortable with Haven-2 which is meant to be the actual NASA CLD contract are familiar with everything.
>Astronauts are part of the design team on Haven-1 and are available to go up with any customer not comfortable going up alone. They are in communication for contracts with both public and private parties and will announce January 2025 their customer to have enough time to go training. They wont be taking a NASA astronaut as they are not 'certified' for it so it will likely be a foreign space agency as they still want to impress NASA with Haven-1
>Vast doesnt believe in space tourism, as most private individuals are more explorers trying to further space exploration than tourists, i.e. weak willed people are not likely to go up just for a vacation. People that go up MUST do important work for space exploration, but they would prefer foreign space agencies.
>The #1 priority is safety and #2 is communications, so they are trying to make it so that they are connected as if they are at home. This is in reference to the recent partnership with SpaceX to provide internet to Haven-1 via Starlink. They worked for a year to try to be the first customer to connect with Starlink for internet. There are 20 cameras on Haven-1 and they will have a low latency gigabit per second experience that can have all 20 cameras streaming at once which is something that NASA very much wants. This can also be applied to other customers on their own payloads like a F9 customer.
>The business cases right now are government driven/subsidized and they want to make it a commercially profitable industry. They expect their main customer to still be NASA, then international governments, with private individuals being only 30% of revenue. Next decade they hope to make revenue from entirely private individuals as well as in-space manufacturing customers.
>Haot speaks on Starship being a paradigm shift yata-yata-yata.
2/2

>>16186666
QUADS FOR VAST

>>16186651
PLANNED DURATION OF STAY ABOUT TWO WEEKS

>>16186666
>Vast doesnt believe in space tourism
based quads of truth

>>16186666
so longer term is in-space manufacturing, shorter term is ISS v2 but cheaper
interesting that he doesn't think space tourism will be a thing, but they have probably looked into it then and perhaps there really isn't enough demand for the stuff they will be offering in the near term

>>16186516
fully reusable, cool

>>16186678
This is extremely different from ISS... for fucks sake theyre using the Dragon to house allot of important equipment for the stay. Do you mean the customers or what??

>>16186516
https://www.aerosociety.com/media/23637/efs-day-2-valere-girardin.pdf

>>16186651
>rotating end over end at 4 rotations per minute which makes 1G at either end
why bother with all that structural strain and problems that come with the excessive rotational velocity when the highest gravity any human is ever going to encounter after departing the Earth is Mars' .38g?

>>16186685
yes the customers and the objectives of the space station (research by NASA and other space agencies)
would of course be cheaper and the customers buck would go farther but this is still a pretty limited industry
a bit like building special housing for an antarctic base

>So ULA is investigating using a *giant* airship to transport rockets to Cape Canaveral and/or Vandenberg.
https://x.com/DerekdotSpace/status/1792908214779920576
AIRSHIP CHADS GET HYPED!

>>16186689
for research

>>16186689
because long term human stays are still fucked at 0.38G. It takes astronauts a year to recover from 0G after a short stay, you need 1G or else your fucked long term.

>>16186691

>>16186691
this is stupid. and its ULA oldspace so we all know this will go nowhere.

>>16186654
I ated them all, sorry.

>>16186696
Makes a good argument for an Aldrin cycler. Change the spin gravity over the course of the trip so you get used to it both ways.

>>16186695
yes, 1g does need to be researched in space

>>16186696
no, retard, .38g is plenty o' gravity, it's still going to hurt if you fall out of your bunk and your onions milk is going to stay firmly in its mug I assure you

>>16186705
>Makes a good argument for retards on here being obsessed with 1g and clinging to it like a security blanket
ftfy

>>16186701
We're going to shoot you and throw you out of the gondola

>>16186696
>because long term human stays are still fucked at 0.38g
You know this how?
>It takes astronauts a year to recover from 0G after a short stay, you need 1G or else your fucked long term.
Why? It may take people a long time to adapt to a higher gravity environment after being in a lower gravity environment, but why do people have to go back to a higher gravity environment? Just stay in space, or on Mars, or wherever it is you are.

>>16186717
You wont do shit you crumbling decrepit do nothing old space shill.

>>16186704
but the moon is technically a planet in a binary system not a moon.

>>16186696
equating 0G with any gravity ~10% of Earth's and above is ridiculous and counter productive

>>16186720
>just stay in space bro
>just never visit your family again and shorten your lifespan drastically bro
delusional.

>>16186720
>why do people have to go back to a higher gravity environment? Just stay in space, or on Mars, or wherever it is you are.

>>16186727
Not an argument. Why do people have to go back to a higher gravity environment? Provide a real reason.

>>16186726
>just never visit your family again
They can hang out with you in LEO.
>and shorten your lifespan drastically
No evidence living in a lower gravity environment shortens the human lifespan. We could live longer due to less stress on the cardiovascular system, if anything.

You know who won't have any trouble going to and from Earth as often as they like?

>>16186744
Robots?

>>16186633
it takes about 17 liters to make 1kg of he3 so adjust accordingly but yeah, nowhere close. i'm pretty sure the $20m number is the value of its energy output as a fusion fuel rather than any current industrial uses.

>>16186738
Absolutely fucking delusional holy shit.

>>16186708
>yes, 1g does need to be researched in space
unironically yes, you can rule out low gravity as the reason for some long term health phenomenon for instance if they still happen at 1g

>>16186759
You're just upset that he debunked O'Neillism.

>>16186745
AIs

>>16186759
>You're so delusional and wrong dude that's why I'm not providing any evidence whatsoever to support my position and relying on the argument from incredulity fallacy
Cite a single study that provides evidence that living in, say, Martian gravity would have any negative effect on human health whatsoever.

>>16186773
we do know that living in 0g has some effects on human health (decreased vision, muscle degradation) but yeah, nobody knows about .4g.

How many of the presumed problems with long term 0g are actually caused by the ISS CO2 being 4000ppm?

So when I post the link to a Vast interview nobody replies but the if I spoonfeed you all the important inf othe it gets a 50 reply debate started? You all are lazy anons you know that.

>>16186779
Retarded autocorrect screwed me over.

>>16186774
Muscle degredation is irrelevant as long as you stay in space. The skeletomuscular system simply doesn't need to be as robust in microgravity. I would like to see a far-future lineage of zero-g adapted humans that have long, skinny limbs and genetically engineered prehensile tails.

>>16186779
yeah

>>16186779
I usually ignore links with a picture. It seems lazy on the posters part.

>>16186782
we don't know that because we haven't tested it. It could be that it gets dangerous at some point even if you just stay in space, but nobody wants to test it.

>>16186779
my default assumption is that space startup shill session interviews will have zero new information because i've watched plenty of space startup shill interviews before

>>16186243
>>16186317
>>16186377
>>16186382
Is a Dyson Sphere even actually that efficient? I feel like any civilization that would have the capability of actually constructing a Dyson Sphere could've discovered more portable, cheaper, and efficient sources of power. A Dyson Sphere itself is technically just a very roundabout fusion reactor.

>>16186784
I included comments and questions underneath it to start discussion PLUS it shouldnt be a requirement to get anons INTERESTED IN SPACE to listen to short interviews about space. If it requires that I may as well be spoonfeeding newfags who came from /pol/ that dont care at all.

>>16186792
You should know by now with how much I post about Vast that they arent the regular space startup scam at this point.

name a more useless space journo than stephen clark

>>16186736
freedom to go where you please and come visit earth again
limiting the pool of people working in space to only those that would be willing to stay in space forever seems very counterproductive

>>16186800
Wrong Clark has brought allot of new information to us including that embarassing Boeing plan for MSR.

>>16186779
yes

>>16186795
i can come up with more portable and efficient sources of power than hydroelectric today. still doesn't mean that using dams for electricity generation is an inherently bad idea, and in this case it's a river that puts out trillions of times more power than human civilization currently produces.

>>16186765
>debunked O'Neillism
Has never been done, can never be done
u mad?

>>16186794
I don't know, I've posted reviews/summaries of articles posted here before, and it's pretty obvious from the (You)s I get that a lot of anons haven't bothered to read the whole thing; they're just getting info about it from my posts. I guess I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

>>16186790
>we don't know that
Yes we do. We know exactly how and why muscles grow and diminish.

>>16186803
Planets are a massive waste of energy; big energy costs to move mass up a gravity well. Better to dismantle them and create zero-g or rotational space habitats from the raw materials.

>>16186795
yeah man the ayys are tapping other universes for energy and dumping waste heat into or so the voices in my head tell me

>>16186806
Then you should have no problem naming a more useless space journo, yet you have not

>>16186818
That's fair.
Still, the cost of constructing the Dyson Sphere might never pay off in a reasonable time, are there any studies that actually go into the economics of a Dyson Sphere in our solar system? Even with asteroid mining and super efficient photovoltaic materials, there's still the cost of moving that much mass around the sun for the Dyson Sphere.

>>16186830
Let's keep the discussion constrained to reasonable logistics and economics and avoid talking about popsci stoner schizo shit like aliens and and alternate universes.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/surviving-reentry-is-the-key-goal-for-spacexs-fourth-starship-test-flight/
>The goal for the experiment was to transfer at least 10 metric tons of propellant from a header tank to the main liquid oxygen tank. "From the data that I have from people, it seems that it was successful," she said.
>"I think SpaceX put a lot in this last test to see where they were," Watson-Morgan said in an interview with Ars. "So, now they know, in general, areas they need to work on, and part of their commercial approach is reuse of hardware. It's not a NASA requirement, (but) it's great that we could potentially see lots and lots of hardware and rapid turnaround rates. They will have to produce more for us if they don't get their reusability right. So it's important to them."

>>16186837
aliens are schizo shit now? but there are aliens on mars

>>16186840
show me the evidence

>>16186837
>aliens don't exist b-because they just don't okay?!

>>16186839
>"For Flight 4, it's mostly going to be a repeat of Flight 3 without the propellant transfer, without the Pez door open, without the other items that SpaceX was working to demonstrate," she said.
>Watson-Morgan said SpaceX is not planning to attempt a Raptor engine restart on the next Starship test flight. Eventually, SpaceX must demonstrate this capability for future Starships to drop out of orbit and return to Earth, or to head to the Moon and take off from the lunar surface.

this time there are going to be no tests in the coast phase, not even engine relight

>>16186843
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/10/2/39

>>16186837
A Dyson sphere is unlikely to be a discrete project that has a definite beginning but the logical outgrowth of an industrialized star system

>>16186846
>Reigniting Raptor engines in space is "important" for future missions, Watson-Morgan said, "but we’ve got to get the other fundamentals right first. If we can't light all 33 engines on the booster, and if we can't light all six engines on the ship, then we're going to have trouble getting to where we need to go," she said. "So it's basically a building-block approach."

>>16186843
The Curiosity rover photographed an alien lifeform on a cliff wall once.

>>16186846
>>16186849
>no engine relight
was CSS right?

>>16186516
Even Russia would be closer than ESA to create this shit lmfao. At least they can make good enough engines.

>>16186855
what did he say specifically?
but this is kind of weird, maybe they think trying to do the relight might not work for multiple attempts and want to concentrate on the tiles first and the engine relight might fuck that if it fails
so basically this means they are not very confident in the engine relights working for multiple iterations at least?

>>16186837
today's photovoltaic cells are typically less than a millimeter thick, so when i try crunching the numbers a 1mm sphere at 1AU comes out to like 1/4 the volume of the Earth. if you're around a red dwarf it's obviously well less than that. it's not a small undertaking but unless you've invented cheap antimatter production i'm not sure what would be a better investment in your home system.

> can't relight engines
> can't keep the tiles on
when does the penny drop muskrats?

>>16186846
>this time there are going to be no tests in the coast phase, not even engine relight
>SpaceX isn't going to repeat the things they already demonstrated

>>16186860
>>16186855
>>16186849
engine relight is a MAJOR challenge. Raptor is so complicated compared to the presure fed hypergolics used in Apollo, and Raptor has to relight perfectly after 6 and a half days with one side of the craft baked in sun and the other side in shadow. It has to be as reliable as Merlin but on the Moon.

>>16186864
antimatter is merely energy storage unless you discover some that's naturally occurring

THERES A FLIGHT TESTING ACTIVITIES CLOSURE ANNOUNCED FOR ALMOST 20 MINUTES NOW AND YOU FUCKERS HAVENT SPOKEN A SINGLE WORD??? WHY DONT YOU FUCKING READ ANYTHING OTHER THAN /SFG/ YOU LAZY RETARDED BASTARDS

>>16186870

>>16186870
says the guy complaining that he has to read something besides /sfg/...

>>16186870
I saw it on my phone and thought that someone would post it.

>>16186872
which one of you is this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CufRvsk5QI

>>16186873
IM the one that POSTED THE NOTES on the things outside of /sfg/ FOR the retarded faggots that DONT read anything BUT /sfg/.
>>16186874
Stop being lazy with your posting. There is a general lack of effort in posting here that is only recent.

>>16186867
they didn't demonstrate engine relight

>>16186875
12 days

>>16186867
It's all over. I see the writing on the wall for the first time.

>>16186868
Just accept raptors and starship are complete frauds

>>16186867
>SpaceX isn't going to repeat the things they already demonstrated

They didnt do the engine relight and the pez door couldnt even open or close properly

>>16186868
There's no such thing as a Raptor engine. Smoke and mirrors

>>16186870
>another destack
kill me now

>>16186060
damn I thought I was a Liberty knower but I’ve never seen this before

>>16186870
That's right, I don't read anything other than /sfg/.
What are you going to do about it?

>>16186884
The real reason for this is that on IFT3 they were optimistic they could demonstrate relight and deploy Starlink on IFT4, so it made sense to test the door, but the flight was such a disaster that they are no longer plan to fasttrack Starlink, so it makes no sense to test the door.

>>16186858
lol. Pull your head out of your ass.
>This led to the decision in 1992 to develop a new entirely Russian launch vehicle, named Angara
Angara has been in development for 32 fucking years. In that time Ariane 5 flew it's first mission, then 116 more missions and was retired. And A6 is set to replace it before Angara can even enter routine service.

>>16186839
It's good that they're focusing on reentry only, makes me think it will be a success

>>16186580
kek

US-led UN Security Council blocks Russian proposal to ban weapons in space, just days after Russia faced heavy criticism for rejecting a proposal to ban only nuclear weapons in space
https://apnews.com/article/un-russia-nuclear-weapons-space-9a5665953505f53e44d646488fd80fa1

the hypocrisy is clown world tier

/sfg/ is very active today, what gives?

>>16186654
>no atmosphere
>no water cycle
>no life
Hmmm we will never know, I guess

>>16186878
>>16186884
Funny how we have gone from SpaceX demonstrated nothing to SpaceX only tested relight.

>>16186897
well, what constitutes 'weapons' here?

>>16186901
Starlink

>>16186897
Yeah Russia proposing to ban weapons in space as it launched weapons into space was pretty embarrassing.

>>16186894
You could argue that SLS has been in development for pretty much the same period of time since it started as constellation. And they didn't even have any new parts to make.

>>16186795
Yeah, solar will be a 21st century fad.

>>16186898
two weeks

>>16186900
all of their tests failed. Spacegay5 already confirmed this.

>>16186910
10 days, actually

>>16186909
My heart was pounding during the final countdowns for the first 2 full-stack flights
Tank hopping was kind of similar too

>>16186901
who knows? i try and find the proposal but its 404
https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15700.doc.htm

I'm thinkin bout Starliner :)

>>16186902
unironically this, Russia has no way to deal with American and potential Chinese constellations

>>16186907j
It hasn't thought. Constellation started in 2004. More than a decade later.
And look how much shit SLS gets for taking so long.

>>16186919
Just got this advertisement, not sure why since I don't need to launch anything or have a billion dollars. In any case, is this true?

>>16186921
>>16186919
Did not mean to reply, my apologies:(

Interesting to see if HLS starship will have a dedicated ‘cockpit’ floor / room
or, if it will just have some sort of communal living room / family room with control consoles next to the window or something
I think something like the bridge from trek ENT would work well for HLS

>>16186925
18m Starship

>>16186918
stupid frogposter

>space weather
>space warfare
>space colonization
reminder that we live in a golden age and future generations will be jealous of us

>>16186897
>the hypocrisy is clown world tier
>believing that Russia is honest
>even though Russia has tested weapons in space before or that space weapon scare few months ago

>>16186960
It's more likely that it an effort to level the playing field that doubled as a pr stunt because they expected it to be vetoed. The reason that Russia feels it necessary to presumably put some kind of EMP device in orbit is because it can't deal with starlink/other enemy assets conventionally: they're saying "we won't do it if you de-escalate".
Not saying either side is in the 'right'.

>>16186970
russia was supposedly able to knock out starlink in northern ukraine according the the ukrainians
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/05/17/kharkive-defenses-ukraine-russia-reinvasion/
https://archive.is/AXPbG

>>16186973
It would be really interesting to know how they did this.

>>16186970
>"we won't do it if you de-escalate".
>NOOOOO NERF YOUR UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER SPACE REEEEE
It's not US problem that Russia can't go into space anymore, the Chinese have outpaced Russia in 20 years.

>>16186975
they probably just blasted the relevant frequencies with noise

>>16186975
same. electronic warfare is underrated. i was watching hullo's video about gps jamming the other day and researchers showed that you can take control of civilian drones by faking gps signals. it made me wonder about all the crazy techniques we dont hear about because they're locked away as military secrets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAjWJbZOq6I

>>16186516
>>16186521
The fuck are the Germans smoking
And since when was Canada part of Europe?

>>16186744
why are their no POC in that picture? Very problematic

>>16186997

>>16186537
kek
designated shitting moons

>>16186925
>Interesting to see if HLS starship will have a dedicated ‘cockpit’ floor / room
no need for one, the captain/crew will just control all ship functions including navigation/piloting etc from an app on their iphones

>>16186995
Canada is an ESA associate member state

going through the ITS reveal thread rn
>>8374410

>>16187016
someone predicted point-to-point travel?

>>16187020
found an ancient /sfg/ meme or something

>>16187024
Dream on, mars man.

>>16187024
Dream on, Mars man.

>>16187024
there was a q&a?
and it was really cringy apparently?
I guess that's why they cut it out of the official reupload

>>16187032
you think you remember how bad that Q&A was
its much worse

>>16187032
They did, that session was absolutely amazing. I never knew IAC had so many retards

>>16187034
is there a reupload somewhere?

>>16187032
of course there was a Q&A. It was infamous. Some Jeet unironically asked to become CEO of Tesla, and some random low IQ beaner took his entire question time to brag about going to burning man

>>16187032
VERY cringe

https://twitter.com/tony873004/status/1793049266166116362
>The fireball that was seen over Spain and Portugal on May 18 was likely a fragment from a comet. Here is my best guesstimate of its trajectory before it became part of the Earth.

>>16187032
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAwiyS5aTcU

>>16187037
yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVacRKN1tAo

>>16187042
I love this webm, it's so good.
Checks all the boxes somehow.

>>16187043
>>16187046
wwyd in this situation?

>>16187042
so it was an interstellar ufo which forgot to put its brakes on?

>>16186779
maybe some of us are busy in the middle of a workday

>>16187051
>>16187042
I hope the ayys didnt go out screaming :/

>>16186800
he was pretty bad, but he's gotten better

>>16187050
I would probably blush, mumble something incoherent and then sprint out of the room.

would it be practical to send ships to the cape from orbit instead of using a barge?

>>16187063
extremely

>>16187063
its financially insane to not do it.

>>16187050
i wud kiss her

we should crowdfund and sfg trip on starliner

>>16186546
I'm sure you could use wi fi calling in conjunction with it

>>16186869
You can mine it from the magnetospheres of the giant planets. Enough for fusion catalysis.

>>16187110
is that actually true? I thought all the antimatter in the universe was destroyed at the beginning of the universe

>>16186869
Antimatter has the same energy as regular matter. There may be some tricksy way to switch them around for cheap.

>>16187042
Reminds me of original X-Com

>>16187113

>>16187115
It's generated by cosmic ray collisions and tends to accumulate in magnetospheres. There have been a few papers on harvesting it.

>>16186795
How else are you going to get a bajillion tons of hydrogen in one spot

>>16186901
Pointy sticks

>>16187038
Best thing is that Burning Man guy's question was kind of one of the better ones, or at least somewhat on topic (what to do with sewage on Mars)

>>16187131
Eat it obviously

>>16187038
>Some Jeet unironically asked to become CEO of Tesla
that was a different event from 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFMHaRMlUX8

>>16187131
Shit directly into the potato patch

https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1793093556149875083

Its over

>>16187158
KEK I fucking knew that thing was a death trap. Thank god Boeing isnt going because we wouldve lost some good astronauts

>>16187158

>>16187158
No fucking way bruh

>>16187158
lmao I'm guessing it'll just be a couple of weeks but at this point fucking New Glenn and Dreamchaser might launch before Starliner carries astronauts.

>>16187158
Not so fast

>>16187158

>>16187174
SpaceARYAN5 won

>>16187174
the cope has started already

>>16187174
>>16187178
There's a reasonable guess that Starliner's got a limited pad life that starts counting down once it's set up and loaded, possibly due to water vapor exposure and some unavoidable intrusion through atmospheric exposure.

How does port availability look? How long can they delay before another mission takes their port?

>>16187174
>need a few days to discuss... the path forward
in other words, the path forward isn't defined, almost like the delay is indefinite

>>16187185
Wow 2000 IQ you’ve got there mate

We would still be solely reliant on Soyuz to get the space right now

>>16187190
would it be possible to retrofit New Shepard into an orbital capsule or would they need a clean sheet design?

>>16187195
yeah no

>>16187195
as long as it's orbiting kerbin and not earth

So do you run the reactor all the time to power the spacecraft or only to run the engine

>>16187201
if you do run the reactor for power, do you have to waste LH2 in order to keep it cool?

>>16187201
for nerva it was just the engine. restarting the reactor was a huge concern during development but they thought they'd solved it by 1970. the bimodal NTR's a vastly superior concept since it's always running.

>>16187203
I would assume you use radiators to keep it cool. But I don't know if it's a better idea to shut it down and restart it while carrying solar panels for general power or run it constantly and dump the solars.
Doing research for a render I want to make

>>16187213
are restarting reactors still a big deal? I don't know much about that

>>16187216
for>>16187206

>>16187216
there's a lot that can go wrong when you're turning a nuclear reactor on and off, as chernobyl showed. and on a spacecraft your ability to monitor what's happening is somewhat limited.

>>16187226
I'm familiar with the bimodal concept, always running an ion engine to remove the heat from the reactor. Do you think running the reactor to keep powering life support would be a heavy enough load to justify running the reactor, using a sufficient amount of heat?

>>16187235
no clue honestly but i bet the DRM architecture pdf would have the answer. if the NTRs are producing 50kW then that seems like it's probably in the ballpark for what deep space life support would require.

>>16187158
when it was scrubbed from the 6th I asked that the odds were that flight 4 would launch first as a joke, this is crazy

>>16187182
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1793101014981325073
>Starliner has a clear path to the ISS through early July, but after that the schedule of visiting vehicles gets busy. This means that if Boeing has to de-stack Starliner, late August is probably the earliest available launch window.

>>16187235
Running an ion engine doesn't pull heat from a live reactor. Coolant flows through a reactor and spins a turbine which generates power, and that could power an ion engine. Instead of using coolant to spin a turbine NTRs vent it out the back through a nozzle to generate thrust. If you wanted an NTR to generate power while not also producing thrust you'd either need to run it on a very low setting and draw heat off through thermonuclear like it's a big RTG or design a completely separate cooling system, which would probably be an engineering nightmare.

"Bimodal" doesn't actually refer to any of this. It's describing an NTR that has a few different "gears" with their own thrust and efficiency levels. The most common one has a low-thrust high-efficiency mode that just flows liquid hydrogen through the core, as well as higher thrust mode that dumps a bunch of oxygen into the exhaust like an afterburner.

is pressure-fed astronaut right about starship?

how do you deal with long term exposure to microgravity on the Moon/Mars?

>>16187287
No, he's wrong about it in the same way every old spacer is

>>16187291
There is no microgravity if you're actually ON moon/mars. Just low gravity, which is a nothingburger

https://youtu.be/LTF_42w2EGY
Falcon 9 Heavy: An Eager Story

>>16187291
we don't actually know how reduced gravity affects the body. We just know that zero is bad and one is good

>>16187312
I hate this fucker and (You)

>>16187323
>We just know that zero is bad
We don't know that. High CO2 levels such as on in ISS also cause bone deminerlization.

>>16187323
the reality is that if you're going to Mars as one of the initial cadre you better damn well get used to .38g because that's all you're going to get there so whether it halves your life expectancy or doubles it that will all be revealed in the richness of time so until then just deal with it (or stay the fuck on Earth)

Starliner is cursed, I don't think they should fly on it at this point.

>>16187324
:'(

>>16187326
we do know that anon. The extreme muscle atrophy is obvious. Don't be obtuse

>>16187312
I don't watch videos like this. They either fly the rocket or they don't

>>16187274
So if we don't want to do bimodal and we don't want to shut the reactor down how do we power the life support?

>>16187334
>The extreme muscle atrophy is obvious
???
Oh you mean that they need help to climb out of the ship. That recovers in few days, it's not true muscle atrophy. Nothing to do with bones anyway.

>>16187330
I believe I'll live in a high speed train forever going in circles on a banked track.

>>16187350
>Bone atrophies 1.5%/month
>20% of muscle mass is lost in 2 weeks
>Somehow it's "not real"
Why are you just making things up?

>>16187351
you think you're making a joke but that is essentially a concept. W bowl shaped city constantly rotating to augment gravity. How realistic that actually is I'm not sure.

>>16187291
A moon wizard never lacks muscle, nor bone mass, he has exactly as much as he needs

>>16187377
>Bone atrophies 1.5%/month
Caused by massive CO2 buildup on the ISS
>20% of muscle mass is lost in 2 weeks
Simply reaching a new equilibrium, in any case not relevant if there was even the slightest gravity to work against.

>>16187380
>spinqueering in a gravity well
Literally the faggiest of both worlds.

>>16187380
>spinning W bowl shaped cities
get real, anon, as is you're just holding us up from becoming a two planet species with all this wasted breath about ridiculous crap like needing spinning cities, geeez guys like you can wear some ankle and wrist weights if you're that worried about it but everybody else will be fine without your excessive worry and hysteria