/sci/ - Science & Math

Looks like an Ares 5 with a white paint job and Orion tacked on top

Come on /sci/ this should have 300 posts by now

Nice.

But is it as powerful as a Saturn V?

>>3737067

It's probably a Saturn V with Boosters attached

>The SLS rocket's first test flight is targeted for the end of 2017

Great.

It will have no payloads and suck up billions from NASA budget that could have been utilised better. But nobody really expected anything else, and at least it is much more capable than the shuttle.

I have mixed feelings about this.

>>3737079

Sweet.

That's nowhere near as powerful and impressive as the rocket the Australian space agency is developing.

Nice try though.

>>3737094

What?

>>3737083

>no payloads

I assume it'll have the same job as Saturn V: Manned missions and space stations.

>>3737094

Can you seriously explain? I had no idea Australia even had a space agency

How many BA-2100's can it launch at once?

>>3737112

>implying there will be enough money left after multiple commercial launchers and this behemoth is funded

>implying the same job could not have been done cheaper by existing launchers and their heavy derivatives

>implying implications..

>>3737148

What other launch systems will be able to launch things that big by 2017?

>>3737147

Only one, BA-2100 weights 65 tons. But I would love to see it launch BA-8000, just to spit in the face of god if nothing else.

>>3737112
>I assume it'll have the same job as Saturn V
I assume it to be unemployed due to SpaceX taking its job before its first test flight, but FUCK YEAH GUVMINT ROCKETS, lets earmark my home state as the main supplier of crude unrefined rocket fuel oxidizers(aka plain normal air) to a cost of $2000 per liter!

>>3737148

According to the WIkipedia page it will be a lot bigger than the Falcon Heavy

>>3737153

Atlas V phase II or Falcon Heavy. In an already launch-starved market, another launch vehicle is no use. We need more payloads.

>>3737140

Don't take my word for it.

Read more about it on our agencies official website

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=37853534752

Saturn V had payload of 118 metric tons to low earth orbit
This has 70

if that sounds bad, bare in mind shuttle had 25, ariane (which us europoors use) has 20, so 70 to LEO is still pretty good without bankrupting the USA.

source: atomic rocket

>SpaceX anticipates a Falcon Heavy demonstration rocket will arrive at Vandenberg AFB, California, in 2012[5], with a launch planned for 2013.[7] The first launch from the Cape Canaveral launch complex is planned for 2013 or 2014.

53 ton payload, will probably be up and running 5 years before the first testfligh of NASAs first BLOATROCKET.

Also, spacex have plans for Falcon X heavy and Falcon XX(no mention about Falcon XXX but will probably happen with involvement from a third party)
The X model being listed for 120metric fucktons and the XX model for 140t.

Instead of building this flying piece of shit NASA should invest in a orbital automated assembly mount and send their deep-space craft on two, three or more spaceX launches.

But hey this is politicis by the rich and powerful and their friends, so there goes another $40B USD down the drain for a project that is stillborn.

>>3737191

>70

130

>>3737198
From the article.
>The booster will have the capacity to lift 70 metric tons into space and will be the most powerful rocket since the Saturn V carried NASA astronauts to the moon.

maybe you're thinking in kilopounds?

>>3737202

nigga the fucking nasa press release says 130. 70 is an option.

the rocket is modular. it can be 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, or 130 max.

It will have 70 mt initially, evolvable up to 130 mt later.

>>3737210
The only 130 the rocket will achive is the Billions of dollars it will cost before it's scrapped.

Using Shuttle SRB's and Shuttle Main Engines, tell me again why it's still going to take 6 years to build

>>3737216

>hurrr


nice comeback.

>>3737219


BECAUSE IT'S A MACHINE

THAT GOES INTO DEEP SPACE.

GIVE IT A SECOND.

>>3737192

Oh, /sci/

>NASA focuses on LEO work
WAAAAAAAAAAH why aren't they sending shit to the Kuiper belt?
>New Horizons
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH why aren't they using fuckhuge rockets?
>This
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH why aren't they building the USS Enterprise?

>>3737219

OK, how about you turn a Dodge Charger into a double-decker bus in a week.

>>3737238

You could. Given the right amount of Resources

>>3737243

Nigga no you could not.

Told you so. Just recently, even. Cynics gonna cyn, but you said this rocket didn't exist, wouldn't be built and that manned spaceflight was over.

Now you're insisting it won't be used, or will be scrapped, bloated, whatever you can come up with. You're relentlessly negative, like you just won't believe that it's not the end of manned spaceflight. Like someone in an end of the world cult who can't be convinced the world won't end soon.

There are always setbacks. None are permanent. Our future is still in space, just as it always has been.

>>3737229

TO THE MOON

>>3737256
I'm the one calling it bloatware.
And I'm positive to human spaceflight, really.
I'm however not positive to NASA building anything called a huge-conventional-rocket since their abysmal failure with Ares. Especially with spaceX and other launch startups all over the place.

NASA should build deep-space power/propulsion systems that private enterprises may not find to be cost-competitive to build, instead of trying to compete with a commercial enterprise that have proven to be a billion times more efficient than NASA both in time, money and actual flying rockets outputted.

Human spaceflight will always happen. Huge beurocratic structures sponsored by taxpayer money may not, especially when the agency have been up and running for a while with political tentacles in every orifice turning it half into a kickback or jobs program.

>>3737277
>>3737277


>their abysmal failure with Ares

You mean Boeings?

NASA had nothing to do with that clusterfuck. It was all the GOPs and Boeings fault.

>>3737282

NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO don't point out that sometimes NASA isn't to blame for everything bad in the world and my precious private enterprise can occasionally fuck up NASA IS ALWAYS BAD ALWAYS FOREVER BLOATWARE SHIT DRAGONX.

>>3737302

NASA might be terrible, but they are still the only Agency in the world to send men beyond LEO

Atlas phase II Heavy could put up to 75 tons to orbit. We dont need more, whatever we decide to do. Two things come to mind:

1. its a jobs program
2. there is a small penis in there somewhere being compensated for by big rocket

>>3737309

Yeah, I know that.

THAT IS WHY I MOCKED PEOPLE WHO HATE NASA.

>>3737316

Sure, let's limit ourselves to less than Saturn V could pull off decades ago. That's the pioneer spirit!

>>3737327

Don't worry, the Falcon X and Falcon XX will save us

>>3737327

I am of the opinion that pioneer spirit should be applied primarily to actual missions and payloads. Building oversized and ultimately unneeded rocket while waiting for actual missions for 2025 is not what I would call pioneer spirit. Jobs program.

>>3737348

So in your opinion the Apollo Program was the proper way to do it?

Big rockets encourage throwaway architectures. With smaller rockets, NASA will be forced to utilize reusable elements, propellant depots and more sustainable architectures.

Just make this happen dammit, but with 10 BA-2100

>>3737379
>10 BA-2100's

>>3737379

Must get a shit-ton of delta v from such a tiny amount of propellant.

>>3737398

Just needs a LFTR in one of the BA-2100's and you've got yourself an extremely powerful VASIMR, Imagine a 1 gigawatt VASIMR

>>3737409

There's damn good engineering reasons why we don't have nuclear powered planes.

>>3737158

>Only one, BA-2100 weights 65 tons. But I would love to see it launch BA-8000, just to spit in the face of god if nothing else.
>BA-8000

I came.

>first test flight in 2017.

No thanks

What the hell does NASA expect a human crew to do, that a robot wont be able to do?

>>3737547

umm.. colonizing space with actual sentient life?

>>3737566

Send out astronauts...to make more astronauts.

Is that all they would do? Make more astronauts?

Or did you dodge the question?

>>3737547
Love.

>>3737566
space sex.

>>3737584

This is what sells science fiction.

It doesn't matter what we find out there...so long as we can fuck it.

Is this really the best /sci/ reason you can come up with??

>>3737488
then tell us these good reasons.

>>3737636
anal sex

>>3737636

The ARE no good reasons for NASA to be doing this.

Going further into the empty void is like setting a new land speed record...you'll be bring back a number & if you're lucky the guy who did it.

>>3737651
they dont even need a guy who flies with the rocket.
just launch a small nuclear reactor with a ion-thruster on it. yeah thats it your done, strap this shit to a normal rocket and enjoy.

>>3737030
WHY are they still not using nuclear propulsion?!

>>3737371
This. Why spend billions on a new gigantic rocket that will only ever be utilized to its full potential in a handfull of cases, when you could spend those billions on designing modular systems that fit in current fairings using existing and reliable launch systems?

Why not spend that money, on, say, a construction depot or docking point on the ISS? Make that shit a true space station with useful shit to do.

>>3737757

>Why not spend that money, on, say, a construction depot or docking point on the ISS? Make that shit a true space station with useful shit to do.

It's in the wrong orbit for that. It had to be, to appease the Russians.

I deeply wish that we had spent the time and money that went into constructing the ISS on a large resuable interplanetary craft.

>>3737547
Actually be there? Where is the fun if you don't go in space by yourself?

>>3737867
Go play on a roller-coaster - it's cheaper and safer.

>>3737894
But is it in Space, or on an other planet? I don't think so.

And if Safety was my number one priority, I wouldn't consider space travel in the first place.

This rocket seems like another jobs program to me.

>>3737894

Arent you just implying that space exploration is something we do just for the fun of it? And not for some higher more spiritual/moral purpose?

Besides we already have robots on mars. Robots cant grow or develop. They are completely dependent on what people tell them to do, and even that is limited. If something goes wrong there is little we can do. Think about Apollo 13 where everything went wrong. That in itself was a feat of humanity. If we just sent robots to the moon it would have been like "Ah fuck it, robot broke"

My sister works for a company that supplies some NASA test-launch facility with LOX, some months ago she told me about a delivery for "the biggest rocket ever".

I wonder if she was talking about this.

>>3739375

>She

Well you can't exactly blame her

>>3739387
>blame her
For what?

She's fukken awesome. Now even more so.

YOU GUYS
GUYS,
SERIOUSLY,
ARE
WE
GOING
TO
MARS?

>>3739457
Perhaps if your name starts with an E and ends with lon

>>3739494

Eion?

>>3739622

This is fucking ridiculous. First of all how much do you fags think that thing will cost? Second how long is it going to be in the works before it is cancelled? Third who do you think will be paying for it?

Space x Meanwhile with the Falcon 9H will be build ing moonbases and asteroid prospector experditions to mine them.

>>3739876
Didn't a SpaceX rocket explode recently, or something like that?

>>3739887

No, that was Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos' space company. And it didn't blow up, the motor was remotely cut off and it plunged into the water. Something went wrong with guidance so they aborted rather than risk having it come down on someone's house.

>>3739887
>>3739891

I think there an accident related to Virgin Galactic or one of the other companies that went for the X Prize.

>>3739841

God that smile is beautiful

Stupid question, If Ron Paul gets elected what would he do with NASA?

i thought NASA was dunzo?

>>3739959

The space shuttle is not NASA

>>3739964
>>3739964
oh it isn't??

>>3739953
Try to dismantle it, along with the rest of the government. Of course it's kind of silly question to begin with.

>>3737094

>>3739953

Who needs space when you have JESUS.

>>3739457
No, we're going to Venus. There is nothing on Mars. It's too far away, it has no atmosphere, it has no magnetic field, it is bathed in radiation, and it has insufficient gravity.

Venus is a near perfect copy of Earth with too much atmosphere made up of CO2 with traces of sulfuric acid. Its atmosphere can be mined for water, air, carbon for construction, and potentially rocket fuel. Atmospheric mining and other forms of conversion are necessary for eventual terraforming. Also it's millions of miles closer to Earth and to the sun so power will not be a problem like it is on Mars.

There is no reason not to drop a floating city into the upper atmosphere of Venus and every reason not to build a starved bubble city on the surface of Mars.

We're never going to Mars, unless it's on a Chinese vessel. The era of spaceflight in the West is OVER. IT was only used as an excuse to pump up military exploitation of the domestic economy in the first place.

>>3740504

Chinese Spaceflight? Your forgetting that by 2020 there will be >4 new commercial spaceflight companies in the US alone offering manned spaceflight

>>3740294
how do i mine for air

>>3740837
>implying any private spaceflight company isn't just a scam to collect venture capital

>>3740857

>>3740857

>implying that you are legally allowed to just blow money on whatever you want when running a company

>>3740863

Elon can do whatever the fuck he wants, SpaceX isn't a public company yet

>>3740869

Well, in the case of SpaceX, most of it is just Elon Musk's money. So yeah, he is entitled to do whatever he wants with his money.

But even if its not a publically traded company you can get sued for fraud for lying to or misleading investors.

Count me with the cynics on this one.

Do they actually have some proper plan for it beyond a nebulously defined “we’re totes gonna use it to go to the moon/mars/asteroids”? For how long has NASA been claiming that they’re going to do this stuff? At this point it’s basically akin to a little kid repeatedly claiming that he’s going to run away from home – he might begin to pack his bags, but he’ll probably end up not doing it.

Plus what others have said. The whole ‘shuttle derivative’ politics thing definitely still seems like a jobs program - especially after the cluster fuck that was Constellation. And competition from the private sector makes me a little antsy too. I get that they have to play the political game to a point, but it just doesn’t seem to be a terribly viable way to make engineering decisions about such a complicated proposed mission.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see it succeed. But it’s much too early to assume it will, especially based on previous experience. The situation seems to be NASA saying “we’re going to do something we’ve been trying – and failing – to do for decades, and we’re going to do it using a shuttle derivative rocket program - even after our previous shuttle derivative rocket program failed miserably.” Let’s just say that I won’t be holding my breath.

>>3740921
You're confusing failed miserably with got its funding cut

>>3740927

Which was done, in part, because it was a pretty miserable system.

But my point still stands either way - either Constellation was a dud (which it was) which helped lead to its cancellation, or it's been established the President/Congress are happy to cancel a viable launch system after significant development. Neither fill me with confidence about NASA's ability to build the thing, or the government's ability to support it long term.

Bump

We WILL live to witness man's first step in Mars

Bump

>>3741565

Hell yeah. Fuck the pessimists, I'm gonna see that shit happen.

HOLY SHIT WE're GOING TO MARS

HIGH FIVE!

YES! Hopefully the first man on Mars...IS AMERICAN!