/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6550775
this looks like a good place for an aerospace image dump

>>6550851

>>6550856
Russia's next generation launchers to replace their entire 60's era fleet, debut launch this year, beta-tested on the South Korean launchers.

>>6550860
It's about time they moved away from the R-7 family.

>>6550860
Orbital Science's Antares, for ISS resupply and Delta II-class missions.

They suffered a setback yesterday when one of their NK-33 surplus engines exploded during testing.

>>6550865
the big daddy of all launchers, nearly 50 years old.

>>6550863
Proton is the problem child, Soyuz has actually been a great reliable launcher, which is why ESA built a pad for them at Kourou

>>6550874
the world's choice for human exploration, the space capsule.

>>6550879
spaceplanes have had a rather worse fate. Poor Buran.

>>6550885
The next generation of space station might be commercial and inflatable, if Bigelow has his way!

>>6550870
this guy was a smooth ride...

>>6550891
...and the crewed SpaceX Dragon should be just as smooth.

(but without that stage one double peak shown here. That was an artifact of turning off two engines on Falcon 9. Falcon 9 1.1 throttles all the engines down instead.)

>>6550775

>>6550895
Falcon 9 was a dirty beast on the last launch.

>>6550901
The Delta Heavy is the strongest launcher in the world today. It will be used for the Orion test launch at year end.

>>6550909
and now something actually about space exploration. The Delta-V required to go to various destinations in the solar system. This is the basis of all exploration mission planning.

>>6550913
This is one of NASA's manned deep space explorer concepts. Quite the beast, it would need to be assembled piecemeal in orbit.

>>6550918
SpaceX Dragon first stage landing legs, already successfully tested, could potentially cut launch costs in half if we can reuse the first stage and its engines.

>>6550923
the boost back trajectory to return the first stage to the launch area.

>>6550927
Good old Hubble. 'nuff said!

>tfw missing the interstellar war happening on the other side of the galaxy

>>6550929
Japan's IKAROS, the first successful solar sail. Great potential for long-term missions exploring the inner solar system, where light pressure allows you to trade propellant mass for mission mass.

>>6550937
Castle in the Sky

Can we talk about all forms of space propulsion, real and theoretical? What is the future form of space propulsion for long distance travel?

>>6550947
Juno probe to Jupiter, the first to rely on solar power at that distance from the sun. After an Earth flyby in October last year, it will arrive at Jupiter in July 2016.

>>6550947

>>6550891
>smooth
The acceleration increase is smooth but it still had pogo oscillation problems all the way up to the Skylab launch. Their fix after Apollo 6 just reduced it to "likely won't cause mission failure" status.

This was in addition to the roughness of having such a massive rocket under you. A lot of the Apollo astronauts expressed concern that the vibration and G-forces almost didn't let them carry out their duties. More than one commander complained that the abort handle required too little torque to activate, considering they were jostled all around, while pretty much every LMP and CMP worried about not being able to reach switches during the highest G portions of the launch. Except for Al Bean. He was a cool dude.

>>6550865
What always gets me is that Antares is like a 5-stage purely solid engine launching system. It's so weird.

>>6550947
Likely cancelled by 2020 due to combined factors of Russia taking the metaphorical ball and going home, and the fact that the US has wanted out of the program for a decade now in order to free up money to build more military shit.

>>6550956
Ion propulsion is pretty mature, having been used successfully on Hayabusa and the current Dawn mission to the asteroids Vesta and Ceres.

The VASIMR concept sounds wonderful, but it needs a many kilowatt power source, which is problematic. Hopefully, the program will last long enough for testing on the ISS and also aid in rebooting the space station.

>>6550976
One question about ion propulsion, what is their fuel efficiency? How long can they go without the need to refuel?

>>6550973
>Antares is like a 5-stage purely solid engine launching system
You are confusing it with the Minotaur V. All of Orbital's other rockets (Pegasus, Taurus, Minotaur) used solids because the company's business plan was to cheaply use surplus military ICBM stages.

Antares, in contrast, uses a Ukrainian liquid-fuelled first stage (based on Zenit) and two NK-33 Russian moon-rocket engines… a different class of surplus! It does have a solid fueled upper stage, because that's what Orbital is familiar with.

>>6550995
My bad. How are they dealing with the Russian butthurt about engine import/export?

>>6550985
very very efficient, and you can use solar power for the energy. The tradeoff is very very low thrust.

For example, the Dawn mission will last over 7 years, using only 425 kg of xenon propellant, but using the thrusters almost half of this time. The resulting 10km/s delta-v is the most ever achieved by a space probe!

Virgin Galactic is switching to a new fuel for their hybrid motor, to use on their SpaceShipTwo commercial suborbital tourism vehicle. Now it will be polyamide plastic, rather than HTPB rubber. The oxidizer will still be nitrous oxide.

They say it will give them somewhat better performance, but I think an unmentioned factor is the improved appearance. The old rubber rocket looked like a flying tire fire, with very ugly black exhaust. The new plastic rocket gives a very clean-looking exhaust, which should improve the aesthetics of the vehicle in flight considerably. Considering that the flights are entirely for entertainment, this is a non-trivial concern.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/virgin-voyage/space-or-not-space-virgin-galactic-addresses-question-n107836
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uY3isKXgac

>>6551023
well, their engines are surplus 40-year old Soviet ones, already in their hands, so no worry about sanction violation. However, once used up for the ISS resupply contract, they'll have to design a replacement. They are already asking for bids, both American and Russian. One possibility is to use a smaller version of the Atlas V RD-180 engines.

>>6550957
every lunar landing, recently joined by China.

>>6550973
>Likely cancelled by 2020 due to combined factors of Russia taking the metaphorical ball and going home

I'm somewhat interested about this. Will Russia try to build a Russio-Chinese space station? They've been getting close on such matters and since the west ostracized China from Space I can see them showing us the middle finger and going with Russia. There's no way Russia can finish their planned Space Station by 2020, so it'd have to be a collaboration at least.

Similarly, what happens to the ESA/Canada/JAXA modules? Do they just burn or will the three of them try and salvage something? Try working with the U.S. again on a new station?

Or most likely the whole thing is forgotten by 2020 and we keep on trucking as usual.

>the fact that the US has wanted out of the program for a decade now in order to free up money to build more military shit.

I very much doubt U.S. cutting billions off NASA without reinvesting them would go well. Although they might get away with it if it's for social programs or education. The public loves those.

>>6551045
China's space station

>>6550870
cutaway view of the beast

>>6551046
Russia is taking its orbital segment, changing its inclination, and adding more shit to it. It's called the OPSEK project. China's off doing its own thing but expect more collaboration since the US is doing nothing but alienating China in space at the moment for no particular reason other than MUH SPYING.

The US orbital section and all the ESA/Canada/JAXA modules can stay up there if need be, but it's all up to the US. NASA doesn't even publicly plan to support the ISS past 2017. Expect a deorbit by 2020 unless the US decides to save face in response to the West having literally nothing in space compared to Russia and China.

In any case, it's likely the ISS will die a horrible stagnant underfunded death within the next decade unless a new space dick-waving contest starts up. It's a shame.

>>6551069

>>6551069
I consider the Ariane 5 to be the Shuttle stack designed correctly. Hopefully, will launch the James Webb space telescope in a few years. Sad that it was never used for its designed purpose, a European manned space program.

Who's excited to watch the JWST fail to properly deploy and sit around uselessly beyond the reach of a manned repair mission?
Seriously, I'm getting the same vibe from it that I got from Skylab, the Shuttle, and the HST. Underfunded while simultaneously being overfunded, overambitious, with horrible birthing problems.

Seriously, I fully expecting it to fuck up somehow.

>>6551070
>OPSEK project

Not to be a downer, but I think OPSEK will not be a reality within the next ten years. Only two of the modules are up there and I doubt Russia would be able to produce and assemble the rest in five and a half years.

>China's off doing its own thing but expect more collaboration

Speaking off, didn't ESA say they wanted to collaborate with them in the future?

>NASA doesn't even publicly plan to support the ISS past 2017.

Doesn't that automatically lead to

>horrible stagnant underfunded death

Considering the U.S. is footing 1/3 of the bill?

>>6551078
here's an interesting view of the Russian proposed Spiral spaceplane. The cockpit was also an emergency escape capsule!

>>6551085
knock on a ton of wood.

It also makes me extremely nervous, considering how much repair went into the Hubble. It has the makings of a very expensive grand tragedy.

O, but the things we will learn if it does work!

>>6551085
>Who's excited to watch the JWST fail to properly deploy and sit around uselessly beyond the reach of a manned repair mission?

Don't even joke about that. It's going to be 11 years late and 8.2 billion over budget (original budget of 500 mil.) If this shit goes kaput well be stuck with Hubble until 2050.

On the side note, JWST is not designed to be serviceable, even if it was in LEO we still wouldn't be able to fix it if something went wrong.

>>6551078

Eh, the Russians are doing it cheaper. Soyuz is really something in that regard.

>>6551090
I'm super excited for what the JWST could bring to the table since I have a love of IR astronomy, but I'm expecting it to fail.

>>6551093
>JWST is not designed to be serviceable, even if it was in LEO we still wouldn't be able to fix it if something went wrong.
Another reason I'm expecting it to fail horribly.

On that note, I am so goddamned buttfurious at NASA pulling from the SOFIA project after they spent 15 years developing it and after it just became fully operational at the start of this year. It's so cheap and economical for what it is, but they still have the fucking gall to pull funding from it so they can hold the scientific community hostage to the JWST.

>>6551093
>It's going to be 11 years late and 8.2 billion over budget (original budget of 500 mil.)

Unless there's another delay.

I'm glad so many international partners have invested, otherwise it'd have probably been cut back in 2011.

>>6551100
Yea this is so true. With science projects there is always the frightening chance the budget gets cut the instant it walls out of favor and then further cuts come when the results don't come in with the original pace predicted because previous budget cuts.
The same thing that happened with fusion research

>>6551040
>once used up for the ISS resupply contract, they'll have to design a replacement.
...or just get out of the rocket business. If SpaceX has the year they're hoping for, there's not going to be much of a market for expendable launchers.

>>6551085
I have some Japanese cartoons too!

>>6551110
>anthro satelites
Only in japan

>>6551110

>>6551112
;_;7

>>6551108
>If SpaceX has the year they're hoping for

They lost the military contract to Boeing, they're not having the year they're hoping for.

>>6551111

>>6551070
I'm not worried about the ISS. It was mostly a way to justify continuing operating the Space Shuttle, so politically-connected people could keep getting their regular dumptrucks of money.

What we'll probably see happen before 2020 is a bigger space station built with inflatable modules boosted up on Falcon Heavy to a more sensible orbit than the ISS is in.

>>6551104

Not to mention that you have shit like Senate pushing for the fucking Europa Clipper mission against NASA's will. That's going to be such a massive financial sink hole, it'd make JWST look tame by comparison.

>>6551125
and the SLS program will keep plodding on, succeeding in its primary mission to send dump trucks of money where no dump truck has gone before!

>>6551117
>They lost the military contract to Boeing
Technically, it's ULA which is a Boeing/LM joint venture.

SpaceX is contesting the block buy, and not only is it likely to be reversed, but people are probably going to prison over it:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/contracting-officers-new-job-raises-questions

It's basically the same deal as the Boeing tanker scandal: Air Force official signs huge sweetheart contract just before retiring, then gets job with beneficiary of contract.

Bad, bad move. SpaceX is way too popular now. When they complain about corruption, people listen.

>>6551141
>Bad, bad move. SpaceX is way too popular now. When they complain about corruption, people listen.

a) Not enough people care for congress to listen.
b) Even if there were congress still wouldn't give a fuck.

I'm expecting SpaceX to get bruised in court, you just don't go after people sponsoring politicians like that.

>>6551141
not to mention that the govt. employee who signed the ULA block buy retired right afterwards, landing a cushy executive job at the primary engine contractor for ULA! Hmmm, nothing fishy there!

>>6551146
This is the defense program with the fourth largest budget, out of all of the huge defense budgets. Think about that.

Each rocket costs at least a hundred of millions of dollars. They rushed through a huge block buy, purchasing years of services in advance, just before a new competitor, who they had already agreed to let enter into competition for these services, and who offers their services at a fraction of the cost of the established monopoly (with potential for offering them at a tiny percentage of the cost within a few years), finished qualifying to compete.

Like I said, it's comparable to the Boeing tanker deal. When they're doing something this blatantly crooked, and it gets dragged into the light, it gets dealt with.

>>6551166

Good luck to them, I'll love to see them achieve success in that, but I won't be holding my breath for it.

>>6550918
It definitely seems like most contemporary designs for interplanetary missions are going for more of the "mobile station" design than a standalone vehicle.

>>6551331
Without magical inventions a "spaceship" would never actually land on anything, when you discard the need for aerodynamics the difference between a space ship and a space station is that one can move.
Most likely first actual interplanetary and up space ships would be assembled in orbit and be modular so they should look pretty much like stations except they most likely would have their mass on 1 axis instead of 3 since that allows better trust application an better profile for safety

>>6551344
There's something to be said for putting everything in a craft capable of landing.

After all, why would you send anything along, but not land it on the planet?

Since the Mars Direct proposal, there has been a lot of talk about sending just a capsule with an Earth-departure stage, to a location where successful supply missions have already arrived.

You tether them, and the depleted stage serves as a counterweight so the whole thing can spin and the capsule has artificial gravity. If the tether breaks, you still get there, you just don't have gravity during the ride.

It has been seriously suggested to simply send a two-man mission in nothing more than a SpaceX Dragon capsule, after a few others have been landed on Mars containing supplies and offering more living space. It wouldn't be the most pleasant 5 months, but I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers, regardless. A married couple might be a good idea.

>>6551407
>>6551344
I kind of left out the key point: aerobraking is really, really, really good.

When you get to Mars (the only realistic target for the first interplanetary manned mission), it makes absolutely no sense to not aerobrake when you get there.

The rocket equation is a bitch. You want as little of your delta-V to come from rockets as possible. So you aerobrake at Mars, then you aerobrake at Earth when you come home. And if at all possible, you fuel your return vehicle on Mars.

>>6551112
>>6551114
10/10 would cry again

>>6550856
Is the height in meters? Because those rockets would be awfully large.

>>6551440
feet

>>6550860
Hundred bucks says their debut launch explodes

>>6551440
feet, but they're still awfully large.

Go walk around town and look for a ~20 story building. Now imagine that building suddenly lifting off the ground and flying up into the sky - that's the space shuttle.

SLS will be nearly 40 stories tall

>>6551440
The heights in feet divided by 3.28

>>6551481
before making that bet, realize that they effectively beta-tested the entire Angara first stage on South Korea's KSLV launches. The first stage worked well in all the launches.

>>6551440
you think that's big? I'm sad no shipbuilder ever attempted the Sea Dragon. 175m from stem to stern, taking 500 tons to orbit.

>>6551594
And the Proton rockets have flown perfectly for decades if you ignore all the times they've fucking exploded.

Never bet on Russian engineering, even if its been beta-tested

>>6551638
N-1: Nevar forget

Here's a question: How do increase funding for space?

>>6551650
Replace every member of Congress with pod people

>NERVA was cancelled
>Project Prometheus cancelled

Fucking hippies ruin everything

>>6551650
Become friends with 60 Senators and 220 Representatives. Then you can blow your way into space.

>>6551656
Point me to the pod people and I'll start voting

ugh, while this thread has been going, Japan launched their latest earth observation satellite ALOS aboard their H-IIA launcher.

Also onboard were four cubesats, one of which is testing a solar sail deployment technique.

>>6551746
and in two days a Zenit-SL will launch from the Sea Launch Odyssey ocean platform.

>>6551755
an interesting system, they construct the rocket in their command ship, hoist it to the launch platform…

>>6551757
…then both ships sail to the equator. The Odyssey platform then partially submerges for stability. All personnel evacuate to the command ship (last crew via helicopter). The final erection and countdown are automated and remote controlled from the other ship, standing a mile off for safety.

>>6551085
The program just shifted gears to the I&T phase so we'll see how it goes

Can someone tell me some practical applications of space exploration? Specifically what can be learned from manned missions today?

It isn't entirely clear to me what the benefits of sending humans over rovers to other planets would be. It seems like sending humans would just be a big engineering task. I can understand in the farther future when we want to colonize these planets, but what would benefits be today?
Also there doesn't seem like anything you can get out of space like resources etc. I understand that shouldn't be the sole reason for exploring things, but realistically what are some benefits we will get out of space exploration that we can't already do from the tools we already have?

>>6551921
>It isn't entirely clear to me what the benefits of sending humans over rovers to other planets would be.

For gathering data rovers are optimal.

>It seems like sending humans would just be a big engineering task.

Yes, however if we do not develop the technology it will never get there. This is not civilization where everything is on one straight tree. Someone will have to foot the R&D bill and on this stage of development that someone is supposed to be the government.

>>6551921
>It isn't entirely clear to me what the benefits of sending humans over rovers to other planets would be.
What is the benefit of doing anything in person, rather than through remote-control robots with slow, unreliable data links, terrible lag, and no opportunities for maintenance or repair?

Unmanned probes and rovers only make sense if launch and life support are terribly unaffordable, or if the mission is extremely limited by preference (rather than as required by the limitations of the unmanned system).

One of the most important features of humans is their reliability. Not in the sense of always performing perfectly, but of rarely suffering faults that render them permanently incapable of some important function.

The complaints about the irrationality of spending on manned spaceflight made sense in the space shuttle era. The shuttle was a whole lot of money for very little science. The Apollo program, though it provided a tremendous amount of valuable science for the number of astronaut-hours involved, was also questionable in terms of science for dollars. However, some of the manned missions to Mars proposed for Falcon Heavy would be extremely efficient, and could provide far more useful science than the same amount of cash spent on unmanned launches.

Once you can throw lots of mass cheaply, you have to concern yourself with the cost of that mass. When it comes down to it, humans are pretty cheap. They work with cheap tools and keep cheap things working. Without humans onboard to tinker and perform repairs, things have to be perfect, but with humans, pretty good is good enough.

>>6551921
I think that as the cost of putting things up into space goes down it will eventually be cheaper to send people instead of robots to other planets. A human is is fairly versatile and can do many different tasks with relatively simple tools, whereas robots need specialized equipment to do even basic operations. Get a critical mass of hydroponic support and you could keep a crew supplied in space almost indefinitely.

>>6551657
NERVA was canceled by Nixon, not hippies. Project Prometheus was canceled under the Bush administration. The hippies tried to stop launches with RTG's, but luckily they failed.

>>6552494
what is an rtg?

>>6552494
>NERVA was canceled by Nixon, not hippies. Project Prometheus was canceled under the Bush administration.
Fucking luddite pieces of shit
Bush:
>HURR LETS START TWO MASSIVE WARS IN ONE TERM THAT END UP COSTING US BILLIONS IN DOLLARS, THOUSANDS OF LIVES ON ALL SIDES, AND GOD KNOWS WHAT CRAZY GEOPOLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL RAMIFICATIONS
>DURR SPACE EXPLORATION? FUCK DAT SHIT, WE NEED THE MONEY TO SPEND ON SHOOTING CAMEL HERDERS WITH TOMAHAWKS

fucking idiot politicians

>>6552588
Radioisotopic Thermal Generator. Cover a slug of plutonium with thermocouples and use the heat of radioactive decay to generate electricity. Solid-state, lasts for decades, has kept the Voyagers ticking for all these years, and is driving the current Mars rover. But, you know, "muh plutonium!"

>>6552613
Is it an efficient power plant? It sounds interesting, care to tell me more?

>>6552096
>could provide far more useful science than the same amount of cash spent on unmanned launches.
Massive citation needed.

>>6552618
They produce little power and they are very expensive but they do produce power anywhere.

>>6552644

Which is why I hope we can go somewhere else (Jupiter's moons, Titan or Triton) after curiosity.

>>6552644
Interesting...

>>6552640
Reason it out. Robotic space exploration is very difficult and expensive. A huge effort needs to be made to anticipate all contingencies. It's much more expensive to program something to do something than to do it.

On a robotic rover mission, dozens of people work together all day to figure out whether to wheel it a few feet forward or scoop up a tiny sample.

A manned exploration mission is going to get more done in a week than a rover does in a year.

We simply can not build robots to do everything two guys with a few tons of tools can do in a year. It's far beyond our present technology. We'd need huge advances in robotics.

Sending two guys with a few tons of tools to Mars for a year is something that's only a little beyond our present technology. We're finishing the last pieces of the puzzle. SLS/Orion could do it, at hideous expense, and reusable Falcon Heavy/Dragon could do it without a major NASA budget increase. Either, and probably both, of these options should be ready within a few years.

>>6552692
>Sending two guys with a few tons of tools to Mars for a year is something that's only a little beyond our present technology.

A few tons of tools along with 20 tons of food with another rocket that is supposed to lift the astronauts and all their equipment at 0.3g is not something a rocket can do by any measurable means of the imagination. We need an interplanetary vehicle, which is VERY far from our present technology.

>>6552613
>>6552650
They're super inefficient. If you go from "needs to fit in a lunchpail" to "could move it around with a hand truck", you can have a nuclear reactor that gives you many times the power.

In principle, the reactor could also be much cheaper, since it only needs enriched uranium fuel, which can be prepared without operating a reactor or handling any highly radioactive material.

>>6552702
You don't have to send all of the stuff in one launch. Once you have a good Mars lander design (and the man-rated Dragon is supposed to be capable of landing on Mars -- they're going to unveil it at the end of the month), you can produce many of them.

As long as it's big enough to carry one or two guys, it's enough for a manned mission. If you're throwing them at Mars with an efficiently reusable vehicle (such as the Falcon Heavy, when it's working as intended: with flyback of all three cores, with an expendable upper/Earth departure), then this can be a very cost-effective way of doing it.

We don't need a *big* interplanetary vehicle, just one big enough to carry the largest single payload required by the mission.

We certainly don't need to return all of the stuff from Mars. In fact, due to the way it works with Mars, once we go there, it doesn't make sense to ever pull out entirely. The explorers have to stay for at least a year, and that means long-term living facilities. Having established an outpost, it makes sense to keep resupplying it every two years, and expanding it, rather than to ever abandon it. Eventually, it should grow into a colony.

>>6552712
Which is unfortunate because all the experiments on these reactors were cancelled before coming to any fruition.

>>6552692
>It's much more expensive to program something to do something than to do it.
That's not true. The spacecraft in many situations waits for commands. Manned spacecraft have more systems than unmanned, they require just as complex software.

>On a robotic rover mission, dozens of people work together all day to figure out whether to wheel it a few feet forward or scoop up a tiny sample.
Exaggeration. But look how many people support just 6 people on the ISS. It's hundreds of people in multiple control centrers, permanently. That's with almost 24 hour communication too, a rover makes do with tens of hours per week.

>A manned exploration mission is going to get more done in a week than a rover does in a year.
A rover can stay for a decade and costs a fraction as much.

>We simply can not build robots to do everything two guys with a few tons of tools can do in a year.
I disagree. Manned missions are much more expensive, put as much money into an unmanned mission and then we'll talk about capability.

> Falcon Heavy/Dragon could do it without a major NASA budget increase
Without even a strawman mission that claim is empty.

The claim was that you could do more for the same amount of money not that people were more capable. You haven't addressed the key point.

>>6552712
Spaceborne reactors are not cheaper because to take advantage of more power they cannot use thermocouples which makes them complex added in with the other complexities of an actual reactor over just hot isotope. They also need very significant radiators to keep cool.

>>6552735
>reusable vehicle

You wot mate? You want to make a reusable rocket that can carry about 20+ tons excluding fuel?

>The explorers have to stay for at least a year, and that means long-term living facilities.

No, the explorers are going to stay for 2 days and then swing back to earth. No one is ever going to approve the budget needed to establish a mars outpost on today's or even next decade's technology.

Any mars colony will initially be composed of exceptional people. Highly intelligent of course, but also selected for good social skills and mental stability so they can cope with living in such a remote, hostile place.

The problem is, what about their kids? Regression to the mean will make the next generation merely above average, rather than exceptional. How badly does this reduced human capital affect the survival of the colony?

>>6552756
>Any mars colony will initially be composed of exceptional people.

Mars has a gravity of 0.3g, there is absolutely no way the human body will be able to cope with this and even if it does, why would you build a colony? Everything that you need for survival will have to be imported and there are no resources. Even if there were, it's much, much, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY cheaper to use automated vessels to mine asteroids.

Mars Colony isn't happening until terraformation.

>>6552766
And the issue of gravity is fixed.


Speaking of, is artificial gravity in any way theoretically possible?

>>6552753
Your ignorance is showing.

>You wot mate? You want to make a reusable rocket that can carry about 20+ tons excluding fuel?
Where is this "20+ tons" figure coming from? There's no part of the mission that needs to weigh 20+ tons by itself.

People who have looked at this very closely have concluded that the Falcon Heavy/Dragon would be adequate for a manned Mars program:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9-PJCe2oTQEJ:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703730804576317493923993056+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

This three-launch mission is too minimalistic and flag-planty for my tastes, but it's something that could be done. Even without building the reusable Falcon Heavy, this is only about $400 million in launch costs. With the reusable FH, it could be more like $40 million. The cost is going to be pretty much all payload.

>No, the explorers are going to stay for 2 days and then swing back to earth
Can't be done. In the first place, they have to live in space for 5 months just to get there, so it makes no sense to turn around and fly back. Secondly, you need a launch window. Mars and Earth aren't stationary locations. They're orbiting planets. You only get a launch window about once every two years (more precisely, about twenty-six months).

Basically, there's a minimum year-and-a-half stay on Mars for any Mars mission, extendable in twenty-six month intervals. I think that realistically, no one will want to go to Mars and spend less than five years there.

>>6552737
>The claim was that you could do more for the same amount of money not that people were more capable.
"More capable" implies "can do more".

If you think that doesn't address the point, you just don't think.

>>6552774
>Speaking of, is artificial gravity in any way theoretically possible?

Yes, however it's improbable to work on city-scale and we've yet to test outside Earth's gravity (no tests have been conducted in 0g).

>>6552766
Can you just grant the hypothetical for the sake of my question. I rarely see regression to the mean being discussed in discussions of space colonies and I want to know what other people think about it. Substitute a spinning deep-space colony ship with 1g gravity if you want.

>>6552766
>Mars has a gravity of 0.3g, there is absolutely no way the human body will be able to cope with this
It would be possible to survive your entire (normal length) life in 0.3g, however if you do you will not be strong enough to ever live on Earth.
>Everything that you need for survival will have to be imported and there are no resources.
Not true. All the water you need can be harvested from the Martian soil, which in turn could be electrolyzed into hydrogen to burn and oxygen to breath or burn with the hydrogen. Furthermore, carbon dioxide produced by respiration can be used to make a green house in which plants can be grown. The only things that would need to be imported would be shelters, space suits, the initial food, water, and air supply, soil, seeds, green houses, vehicles, computers, medical equipment, chemical reactors, solar panels, and other things that can not be manufactured on Mars. Even if a supply ship were to be fail to reach Mars once the colony is already established, the colonists could survive as they can produce their own consumables and would have redundant vital systems. It is also possible to mine iron oxide and harvest iron and carbon dioxide via a iron oxide / carbon monoxide reaction, which would enable the colonists to work with iron.

>>6552739
A small reactor only has to be about as complex as a car engine, especially when you're not overly worried about the environmental consequences of it blowing up. You can throw as much money as you want at it, as you can for any project, but it can also be very cheap if you want it to be, especially if you produce them in quantity.

RTGs require very expensive special materials. They're favored for reasons of reliability and the lack of a lower size limit, not for cost.

>spaceborn
Well, we're not just talking about missions in space. We're also talking about Mars. Once you have an atmosphere, even a thin one, you can use that to cool your reactor, greatly reducing the size of your radiator.

>>6551921
As apes, we looked to the stars
As primal humans, we longed for the stars
As humans, we worshiped the stars
Now, we are the stars

tldr shut the fuck up we are the universe

>>6552782
If mathematics, science, engineering, medicine, and Martian survival were the only subjects taught in Martian schools the children should be just fine. The less intelligent people could do more physical labor and less mental work, while the more intelligent people could do more mental work and less physical labor. The biggest problem I would see for a Martian colony would be future generations wanting to go to Earth, which they would not be able to do as their physiology would not support life in 1g and the colony would not have the return vehicles.

This is the most beautiful thread in the history of /sci/

>>6552792
Is that fake or just a really cool nebula?

>>6552777
>Where is this "20+ tons" figure coming from? There's no part of the mission that needs to weigh 20+ tons by itself.

Daily dose of food + liquid for a human is 2 kg, if we give it an 8 month journey to and 8 months back that's resources for 16 months or 16x30 = 480 days or roughly 960 kg. of food + liquid per person. Then there is utility, which includes wet towels toothpaste and medicine, along with a lot of yet unknown stuff. So let's give it a rough 1 t. of extra shit per person.

Admittedly the 20t. is somewhat of an exaggeration.

Also, Musk has been trying to sell his SpaceX design as if it's space magic, the wall street journal isn't exactly a creditable source for such matters.

Something can get another thing to Mars =/= can do a manned mission.

>Can't be done.

If we go for interception launch where we try to reach Mars at the perfect moment to swing back it can. We don't do it, because we don't want to send our orbiters back after a short period of time.

Lastly, we don't know what Mars's gravity would do to someone who's been outside of a gravitational field for eight months. For all we know the astronauts may be barely able to crawl.

>>6552787
>The only things that would need to be imported would be shelters

We would probably be able to build shelters with 3D printers beforehand.

>>6552798
>the wall street journal isn't exactly a creditable source
The author is Robert Zubrin. He is credible.

Besides, the way you're thinking about this is all wrong. It's like, "I haven't really looked into this, but I'm right until you prove me wrong." I don't need to provide you a "creditable source" for each specific thing you have an ignorant opinion about, you need to do some of your own fucking homework on this.

>If we go for interception launch where we try to reach Mars at the perfect moment to swing back it can.
This requires far more delta-V and lengthens trip times. You're gaining nothing but making your stay on Mars shorter. We don't do this because it makes zero sense.

>>6551961
>Yes, however if we do not develop the technology it will never get there.

But consider that one might be able to merge the cost of developing interplanetary settlement technology with another widely sought after technological advancement e.g. development of a more robust frame for human culture (be it robotic or otherwise).

The choice is simple, develop a capable vector for memetics more suited to extreme environments once, or have to invest massive amounts of resources and capital to develop life support systems for every planet that you want to colonize.

>>6552790
A car engine is much more complex than an RTG. Complexity alone will drive the cost far beyond an RTG. You have to be very careful it doesn't explode as that will cripple your mission.

>>6552779
Yes but it says nothing about cost. Your claim was that they could do more for the same cost. Totally different claim.

>>6552804
Zubrin is not very credible at all. Yes he has thought about this most of his career but most people think his cost analyses are fantasy.

>>6552809
>A car engine is much more complex than an RTG. Complexity alone will drive the cost far beyond an RTG.
Okay, so you think that car engines cost more than RTGs? I'm not sure you understand how incredibly expensive Pu238 is.

>You have to be very careful it doesn't explode as that will cripple your mission.
There are many things that can cripple your mission. You don't have to be nearly as careful with a space mission nuclear reactor because that's about all it can do. On Earth, a nuclear reactor can kill huge numbers of people, render large areas essentially uninhabitable, or furnish bad people with the means to make nuclear weapons.

>but it says nothing about cost.
When there are things that no robotic mission can do at any cost, it's obvious that at some point the manned mission does more for the same cost.

>>6552799
3D printers on the surface of Mars? It would be much more practical to land inflatable shelters which would be inflated and covered in soil by the astronauts.

>>6552814
>most people think
Not true, and not relevant. There's no fatal flaw in this proposal.

>his cost analyses are fantasy
He looks at the actual costs of doing things, not the truckloads of taxpayer dosh that the usual suspects would embezzle along the way if allowed to.

So now we're back to SpaceX and the block buy scandal. If they win this case, it's a sea change in the way America goes to space. They're demanding open and honest dealing. If they get it, we get to do things for their actual cost, which is rapidly falling as technology advances. If they don't, we continue with space industry as a way to funnel money to politically connected people.

>>6552820

Mars Concrete, cheaper and more durable. Also, I'm not sure inflatable anything will be a good idea due to dust storms.

>>6552839
The layer of soil over the shelters should protect you from dust storms and radiation. While Mars concrete is a good idea in the long run, building shelters and making the Mars concrete would take a while especially since the astronauts will be in space suits. The inflatable shelters would be used for the first few month while more permanent shelters are built.

need more space
please post space in space general

>>6550775
>rockets powered by exotic matter such as antimatter will not be made during your lifetime due to scarcity and expensiveness
>you won't live to see the age of biological immortality, cryogenic preservation/hibernation, and induced stasis
Fuck life

>>6552873
>you were born just in time to be the engineer that will design the rocket to Mars
>you were born just in time to be the engineer that'll build the orbital infrastructure
>you were born just in time to be the engineer that'd build the first Lunar Base
>you were born just in time to be the engineer that'd build the unmanned planetary fleet of scientific vessels
>you were born in an era where there's so much unknown about physics, you can be the scientist to do it all

>actually bitching about it

>>6552938
Too bad I can't be an engineer. I'm not gay enough

if we port human consciousnesses to indestructable androids, space colonization becomes trivial

>>6552873
Induced stasis was done for the first time last February.

yfw Cowboy Bebop predicted it would be done in 2014

>>6552798
>we don't know what Mars's gravity would do to someone who's been outside of a gravitational field for eight months. For all we know the astronauts may barely be able to crawl.
Valeri Polyakov, Sergei Avdeyev, Vladimir Titov, Musa Manarov, Yuri Romanenko, and Sergei Krikalev have all been in space for more than 5 months in one stretch. They were all fine upon returning to Earth

Can't wait to see what kind of results SpaceX can pull. I'm pretty optimistic.

>>6550775
The making of resources from space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjzO9-hF9Oc

>>6553933
reminder that they are unveiling Dragon Mark II on Thursday. This is the upgrade for commercial crew, that will hopefully have propulsive landing. They also announced the test vehicle for this, DragonFly.

>>6553933

At this rate, i'm looking forward to them losing their rights to any launchpad in the united states because they keep acting like little cunts.

Or possibly an injunction against Musk for libel.

Something, anything to knock it into his head that recalcitrance is not a business model.

>>6554482
>libel
It's not libel when it's true.

>i'm looking forward to them losing their rights to any launchpad in the united states
ULA employee? That's just not how it's going to play out.

You're on the losing side of history, trying to insist that throwaway missiles that cost hundreds of millions of dollars are the only way to do something while somebody's demonstrating a reusable version of the same thing that costs less to build.

You can only deny the obvious for so long before everyone realizes you're a crook.

>>6554482
>Something, anything to knock it into his head that recalcitrance is not a business model.
That's a hard sell in the USA.

Just see how the public takes it when you try and whine about a company doing better than the disappointing old bureaucrat/contractor axis, offering the government an order of magnitude better value for taxpayer money, and not meekly accepting when they're told that, no, this industry is all sewn up in layers of anticompetitive deals and arrangements secured with shady kickbacks to key officials.

>>6552792
HUMANITY, FUCK YEAH

>>6554428

I have to admit, I'm more excited about space mining, than any form of colonization or manned flight.

Muskfags are starting to scare me with their cult-like worship of his stuff.

>>6555189
>company builds rockets that go to orbit
>company's rocket still goes to orbit even after an engine explodes in flight, because they allowed for that possibility
>company starts selling orbital launches cheaper than anyone else
>company builds space capsule intended for humans to ride in, sells it to NASA as a cargo vehicle
>company flies space capsule to ISS, then returns it safely to Earth repeatedly -- a human who had ridden on board would have been fine
>company starts testing soft-landing first stage using actual first stage with legs added
>company demonstrates bringing first stage back to Earth's surface for soft touchdown during successful orbital launch
>company announces rocket twice as powerful as the best thing currently on the market
>company announces soon all stages and capsule will be able to land to be reused, revolutionizing space travel and making spaceflight accessible to large numbers of people
Yeah, anyone who thinks that's exciting must be some kind of brainwashed cultist.

It's not like this is the kind of thing that everybody interested in space travel has either been desperately waiting for, or been crushed by giving up on waiting for.

>>6555189

Doesn't hold a candle to the derangement of whatever the fuck you worship dumbass.

>>6555491

>Elon musk knows peak oil is real and is desperately trying to escape before shit hits the fan.

He's a coward and a fool. Modern civilization is doomed.

>>6555189

He tells them exactly what they want to hear, while making a car that requires several dozen gallons of gasoline to make.

He's a fraud and a charlatan and i cannot wait until his launch pad access is revoked. The last thing people need right now is escapism.

>>6555622

>launchpad access is revoke

its called a contract, it's already been signed. this little fantasy of yours is nonsense.

>>6555491

More like

>kid gets money from his dad
>he uses that money to make a company for wire transfers
>he sells it to ebay
>he doesn't want to die as the paypal guy
>he makes a bunch of stupid recalcitrant products
>everyone loves him because they think he's tony stark

It's just idiots going for the easy way out. It's not like Tesla or anything can save humanity from it's own arrogance.

>>6555623

contracts can be revoked. It happens all the time, and if he doesn't keep stirring shit up like the spoiled rich kid he is, then he's going to lose launch access and the FAA will fucking ground his flights.

The best thing he could ever do is make batteries for panasonic.

>>6555625
>recalcitrant products
What do you think that word means?

>>6555625

First off, There is no escape.

Musk is a genuine cornucopian optimist. The reality wall he will hit is that mars colonization is bunk.

The one you will hit is watching him achieve all the near term realistic stuff.

>>6555630

"hmm, this company said i shouldn't do it so that's what i'm going to do!"

That's his entire business model for both of his venture capital establishments. Everyone told him that making rockets that land on their own is nothing but a massive reduction on payload for absolutely no return on costs. Everyone told him that a car that runs off fossil fuels and needs 50 gallons of oil PER CAR that he's not going to change anything.

He refuses to listen because he's a dumb kid who is so arrogant he thinks he knows better than everyone, and every stupid kid who agrees with that notion has gone along for the ride.

>>6555620
VSG, please stop coming here.

>>6555637

>conspiracy theory.

Typical. Even he believes in conspiracy theories, what else could stand in the way of his GENIUS?

>>6555637

VSG is the one of the only good things about this place.

>>6555638
You're a pretty distinctive poster. I don't think we have any other schizophrenics with a peak oil obsession.

>>6555641

>this ship is unsinkable!

Typical. Is it so hard to believe that not everyone is in denial?

>>6555640
You suck VSG.

>>6555642
Is it too much to ask that you keep your peak oil shitposting in peak oil threads, instead of just jumping into any thread where anyone's enthusiastic about the future, and flooding with posts about how none of it matters because civilization is about to collapse?

>>6555622
>several dozen gallons of gasoline to make
OH NO
SEVERAL
DOZEN

FUCK ITS THE END OF THE WORLD

>>6555648
I mean it's the same pattern over and over:
>Thing is awesome! We are excited about thing!
>>Thing sucks! Anyone who likes thing is deluded idiot!
>What's wrong with thing?
>>Anyone who would even ask what's wrong with thing is crazy and ignorant! It's so obvious
>No really, what's wrong with thing?
>>Thing can't happen or doesn't matter because civilization is going to collapse because of peak oil! Oil is the only thing that's good! We're running out of it! Nothing can replace because of [off-topic paragraphs]!
>Fuck off, VSG.
>>[ten more five-paragraph posts after everyone else has left the thread]

I'm so fucking tired of it.

>>6555648

Give yourself a moniker, cant tolerate dissenting opinions and gets high off technowizery fantasies guy.

>>6555635

He does get contracts now and then (famously the refueling ISS), so he must be doing something right.

>>6550885
At least the reds abandoned the Moon and spaceplanes early on to focus on LEO; you gotta give them that.

>>6552945
If Sharon Osbourne had wheels, Ozzy would need a license and registration to ride her.

>>6551781

Huh, didn't know it was this far. Hopefully there'd be no further delays.

>>6555657
Experts suggest we may be hitting peak VSG before 2017.

>>6550775

Why is Soyuz so based?

>>6556230
Pedigree back to the rocket that carried Sputnik.

Nearly half a century of experience and refinements.

They've worked out the bugs pretty thoroughly.

>>6556244
Over a hundred manned flights with the Soyuz capsule, about 150 more unmanned flights either testing Soyuz or with the Progress cargo vehicle (Progress is a Soyuz variant), and getting close to 2,000 flights of Soyuz launch vehicles.

It's going to take SpaceX a while to catch up to that.

>>6556262
Especially at its current rate of three flights scrubbed for every one that flies.

>>6556262

>It's going to take SpaceX a while to catch up to that.

Except they don't need to because no one cares.

>>6556267
That's a funny way to describe launches being delayed.

Anyway, this is normal for a new vehicle. Remember Falcon 9 1.1 first flew in September, and they've already had four successful launches. They're on track to fly six or seven in their first year. Falcon 9 1.0 took nearly three years for five launches. They're picking up speed fast.

If they get their reusable stages working, they're going to quickly build up an inventory of proven launch vehicles which they'll just be itching to fly for any reason they can come up with. I expect they'll be using them right away to test reusable upper stages and Dragon capsules.

It wouldn't shock me if they flew 100 flights in 2015 or 2016.

>>6556275
No, it matters. Remember that the space shuttle had about a 2% failure rate, and it was abandoned after two crew losses. We don't like dead astronauts. Manned spaceflight is a symbol of idealism and hope for the future, and having such intrusions of grim reality undermines public enthusiasm and political support.

You don't find out about a 2% failure rate until you've flown 50 times. You haven't proven that you've beaten it until you've flown about 100 times.

Soyuz had some early fatalities, but once they worked out the bugs, it has had a flawless safety record for decades. To lose a crew on Dragon after switching from Soyuz would be national humiliation.

One of the best things about Falcon/Dragon is that their reusable system shows potential for flying many, many tests very quickly and at reasonable cost. They actually could catch up to the Soyuz record this decade, with a minimum of risk to human life.

Which private group should I submit my design to? Extensive and detailed simulations have shown that this thing can land its third stage on Mars then return to Earth without refuelling or further staging (the decoupler between the capsule and the final propelled stage is in case of lander parachute failure and has proven to be a seldom used safety feature).

I sent the design to NASA but they said no.

>>6556312
>To lose a crew on Dragon after switching from Soyuz would be national humiliation.
I think you mean nationwide. SpaceX isn't a government institution.

>>6556402
Commercial Crew Initiative is a NASA program.

The first people to ride on Dragon are likely to be NASA astronauts on their way to the ISS.

If Dragon fails to qualify for any NASA manned launch contracts, that will mostly be SpaceX's humiliation, but if NASA puts astronauts on a Dragon, and they die, that'll be on NASA and will embarass all of America.

>>6556409
I see. That's a fair judgement then.

>>6556409

Why not just steal Soyuz's design?

>>6556409
Dragon will have at least one manned test flight with their own employees first. From experience, there is every reason to expect the Falcon 9 1.1 will reliably get to orbit even if it loses an engine.

>>6556434
China kinda did for their own manned Long March 2F.

The Soyuz pad is also a great design. The rocket hangs suspended by its boosters, the same load paths experienced in flight. The launch "petals" unfurl when enough thrust is developed to lift off. I am actually surprised that no one else copied this successful strategy in the last 50 years.

>>6556434
Copying the design wouldn't give them the same reliability. They'd need the same experienced people working on it, in the same facilities that have had all the bugs worked out.

Besides, Soyuz is expensive as fuck, and would be a lot more expensive paying American salaries.

It wouldn't be any cheaper, faster, easier, or give better results to copy Soyuz than to design new launch vehicles in America, and copying it would just leave you stuck with the same old capabilities.

Soyuz barely has room for 3. Dragon will carry 7.

>>6556460
There is exactly one reason manned Soyuz is expensive: no competition. Since the Shuttle retired, Soyuz prices for non-Russian astronauts have gradually doubled.

>>6551093
they would send out a drone to push it back into a workable orbit, if that happened..

>>6556460

Dragon won't be on a reusable rocket though. The payload limit on a reusable rocket is a worthless 7 tons.

Kids just think spacex is better because they're doing things that everyone in the business knows is stupid.

Are spacex engines even a closed gas system? Are they really using tech more primative than a 40 year old russian design?

>>6556354

Orion is the only viable spacecraft for interplanetary manned missions.

But launching one will raise cancer rates worldwide by less than a percent.

I guess we chose to die.

>>6556509
They should use the nukes in space then and use conventional rockets to leave earth's atmosphere.

>>6556518

It weighs a thousand tons.

That's not going to happen. It has to launch itself. You can't even launch it in parts because it's made of steel and it would compromise the structure.

>>6556504
>Dragon won't be on a reusable rocket though. The payload limit on a reusable rocket is a worthless 7 tons.
No, their advertised payload figures leave margin for reuse. If they intended to continue operating Falcon 9 purely as an expendable vehicle, they'd be advertising flights with a payload up to about 18 tons to LEO.. The reusable rocket's payload is intended to be 13.5 tons.

Where are you getting your information? They have every intention of flying Dragon on the reusable Falcon 9. Anyway, they'd certainly be able to fly a lightly-loaded Dragon at 7 tons, if they really couldn't lift more.

Besides, the Falcon Heavy is also intended to be reusable.

>Are spacex engines even a closed gas system? Are they really using tech more primative than a 40 year old russian design?
This is a bit like incredulously asking if American cars are still running on gasoline piston engines, tech more primitive than decades-old jet engines from Nazi Germany.

The choice between open cycle gas generator, and closed cycle staged combustion, is not a simple question of which is "more advanced". There are factors of manufacturing cost, power-to-weight ratio, reliability, reusability, ease of adding features such as deep throttling, responsiveness of throttling, cost in time and money to develop, etc.

The Merlin 1D has the highest thrust-to-weight ratio achieved by any rocket engine, while also being capable of finely controlled throttling and gimbaling sufficient for hovering and landing. It uses simple technology where appropriate, and advanced technology where appropriate, because SpaceX is concerned with practical outcomes. To sneer at it as "primitive" is to display ignorance.

>>6556557

>Where are you getting your information?

People who know what they're talking about.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/nasa-cnes-warn-spacex-challenges-flying-reusable-falcon-9-rocket?sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4

>Besides, the Falcon Heavy is also intended to be reusable.

Oh jeeze. Yeah, it's going to be cost effective to pluck these things out of the ocean on the far side of the world and refurbish them.

>The choice between open cycle gas generator, and closed cycle staged combustion, is not a simple question of which is "more advanced". There are factors of manufacturing cost, power-to-weight ratio, reliability, reusability, ease of adding features such as deep throttling, responsiveness of throttling, cost in time and money to develop, etc.

Does it or does it not offer a 15% greater lifting capacity over open-cycle models?

That's the reason we bought engines from the russians. We still can't copy that technology and god knows it won't be Musk who does.

Musk needs to learn that recalcitrance is not a business model. He will soon lose the right to sell his laughable cars and will soon be banned from all US launch sites for stirring up too much trouble. Shit, i would revoke his licence just for suing the air force like a little cunt.

You want to prove you can be a big man, musk? Use your own pads. But not in america. The FAA needs to come down hard on them for flying bombs around.

The other shoe will drop and this manman's delusion will be added to the list of conspiracy theories spread on the internet.

>>6556572

>the reusable rockets that land on their own are Drones.

Someone needs to get this in the media. He wants to play by the rules and stop the purchase of russian engines? Then play by the fucking rules. No car sales without a dealership, and no flights of Drone IED's.

>>6556577

Oh fuck. Do they have a drone operation licence?

Someone call the press! We can get them grounded immediately!

>>6556509
Orion wasn't even a good option among the various nuclear engine designs. You've got to understand that it was an idea that first came out in 1946, after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but five years before nuclear power was first used to generate electricity.

We didn't know, in detail or with confidence, how to do anything with nuclear technology except make bombs. The idea of a compact controlled reactor was entirely theoretical.

So people tried to make a rocket with bombs. It wasn't a good idea, and probably couldn't have been made to work with any amount of effort. It was a physicist's design, not an engineer's design, so unsurprisingly it was theoretically possible, but highly impractical.

Many much more interesting nuclear rocket concepts have been suggested since then. Some involve no release of radioactive material, and are appropriate for launching from Earth's surface. Others are just simpler, more efficient, and generally better than Orion.

For getting to orbit, there's not a lot of reason to go nuclear, rather than just invest in practical reusable chemical rockets. If you want to use nuclear power for that, it's a lot safer, simpler, and cheaper to build a nuclear power plant and use the energy from it to make hydrogen than to try and build the nuclear reactor into the rocket.

For interplanetary flight, there's a lot to recommend nuclear propulsion, and hopefully research will continue to be done on that. There are many, many interesting ideas for that.

So how the fuck Russians got best rocket engine design, even tho we stole all Nazi scientists after WW2?
are we that dumb as a nation ?

>>6556597

They had to innovate because they couldn't just shit billions of dollars into making terribly large inefficient engines.

Here, educate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZnYr94aa9E

>>6556592

Sorry mate. God didn't make the universe. It's Orion or nothing. Good luck landing on a planet with a pissweak and immensely heavy NTR.

>>6552796
It's a really cool nebula. The face was shopped on

>>6556509
>>6556592

Why even bother with nuclear? We have Ion Engines, those can be powered solely by electricity, and abundant resource in space (solar panels).

>>6556614

ion engines are worthless for anything besides stationkeeping thrusters and incredibly tiny probes.

Orion is the only hope for getting people to other planets. But liberals said no so we all get to die when the oil runs out.

>>6556597

Russia had a Rocket program even before the end of WW2, they didn't really need the Nazi (though they did snatch several scientists as well).

Also, Russia always insisted on cost-effectiveness (as weird as it sounds) and had a consistent rocket program (no Shuttle diversion).

This is also why ESA has such good rockets, they just kept working on them for decades, instead of trying to create a new launch vehicle.

>>6556619
>ion engines are worthless for anything besides stationkeeping thrusters and incredibly tiny probes.

By the time we're ready for an interplanetary ship they'll probably have advanced to a point where they can be used reliably. Not to mention that building the ship itself will force those innovations.

>>6552796
These are the Pillars of Creation in the Eagle nebula (M16) shopped to look like a giant human being. They are pretty damn cool on ''real pictures'' tho.

>>6556626

But they're not real. the colors are all photoshopped in and the actual image is just an effect of looking at that patch of sky for too long.

>>6556625
>By the time we're ready for an interplanetary ship

So a thousand years from now after mankind recovers from the oil apocalypse? Maybe. I doubt it highly though. Space isn't an answer to anything besides fictional settings.

>>6556632
Hence the ''real pictures'' .

>>6556632
>oil apocalypse

>>>/x/

>>6556572
>http://aviationweek.com/blog/nasa-cnes-warn-spacex-challenges-flying-reusable-falcon-9-rocket?sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4
I assume your 7 tons figure comes from this statement: "Falcon Heavy will do satellites up to 7 tonnes with full reusability of all three boost stages"

That's to GTO, not LEO. It has nothing to do with launching the Dragon to LEO.

>Yeah, it's going to be cost effective to pluck these things out of the ocean on the far side of the world and refurbish them.
If you were paying any attention at all, you'd know that the plan is to land them back near the landing pad, and have them ready for immediate reuse.

>Does it or does it not offer a 15% greater lifting capacity over open-cycle models?
It's not that simple, and I've just explained why. Staged combustion gives higher specific impulse, gas generator gives higher thrust-to-weight.

The Falcon Heavy is going to have the highest "lifting capacity" of any rocket on the market by a factor of two (though it will soon be surpassed by the SLS), running on these "primitive" gas generator engines. Launching 53 tons to orbit where Atlas V, running a staged combustion engine AND a hydrogen-fueled upper stage, maxes out around 20 tons, makes it obvious that there's a lot more to this question than "staged combustion = 15% more payload".

They're developing a staged combustion engine (Raptor), for a much larger rocket fueled by methane, taking advantage of the different qualities of methane compared to kerosene. However, they may still use a variant of the Merlin for landing, since it is difficult to make staged combustion as responsive as gas generator designs.

>>6556644

>The titanic cannot sink!

Oh right. There were an infinite amount of forests on the earth so OF COURSE we have an infinite amount of oil.

>>6556654

>That's to GTO, not LEO. It has nothing to do with launching the Dragon to LEO.

My bad.

>If you were paying any attention at all, you'd know that the plan is to land them back near the landing pad, and have them ready for immediate reuse.

How do they get the second stage to land on the pad? Does it have so much extra fuel that it makes orbit and then deorbits to land on the pad? Otherwise it's landing on the far side of the world.

People just see musk as a new prophet. No amount of reason can convince them that he won't be saving the world.

>>6556657
>Oh right. There were an infinite amount of forests on the earth so OF COURSE we have an infinite amount of oil.

We have the capacity to switch away from oil, if needs be. It would be more expensive, but we can do it. Furthermore research is devoted alternatives, so we can reliably assume progression in those fields.

>>6556657
>How do they get the second stage to land on the pad? Does it have so much extra fuel that it makes orbit and then deorbits to land on the pad? Otherwise it's landing on the far side of the world.
By "second stage" do you mean the core booster? It fires on liftoff, it's not a "second stage".

In the first place, you have a badly confused idea of how far lower stages go. To get to "the far side of the world" you'd have to go nearly to orbit. The core booster of a Falcon Heavy isn't going to go all that much farther than the booster on a regular Falcon 9 goes.

They've been kind of quiet about what they're doing with the core stage. They might be planning to land it on a recovery ship (the empty stage is only about 30 tons, so the ship wouldn't need to be huge), or they might be planning to use a more vertical launch trajectory before the upper stage separates, and boost it back to a landing pad near the launchpad. Either approach could work. They're probably studying both.

>>6556663

>we have the ability to switch from oil.

List the replacement for ammonia.
List the replacement for paint
List the replacement for tires
List the replacement for plastic.

Go ahead. I'll wait for your perfect solution to stop the titanic from sinking after it's hit the iceberg.

Thinking tech will save us from responsibility is no different from thinking god will save us.

>>6556674

Or they're just bullshitting to get investor money because it's a scam.

Oh, but that cannot possibly be because musk is going to save the world!

>>6556678
Start your own peak oil thread if you want to talk about peak oil.

>>6556683

Fuck you cunt he said it was possible i was just pointing out how it's impossible to replace oil.

>>6556687

No, fuck you violent simian cunt. Stop shitting in every thread.

>>6556682
Yes, that's right. They've developed an orbital launch system that works, a space capsule that has docked with the ISS and brought cargo back to Earth safely, they've demonstrated taking off and landing with their first stage as a reusable vehicle, and they've demonstrated soft-landing their first stage on the ocean (because the FAA requires them to demonstrate landing accuracy before they'll grant permits to aim them back at land).

And they've done it all as an elaborate scam to trick people into thinking that the core booster of Falcon Heavy will be reusable.

That makes total sense, and isn't just your schizophrenia acting up.

>>6556694

>actual contractors still won't bother with them.

Sounds like you've just eaten the hype. How many payloads have they lost? At least 4.

Time will tell if recalcitrance alone will make for a solvent business model.

>>6556687
You started this shit with your "oil apocalypse". Like you always do.

You turn everything into an excuse to rant about peak oil. It's off topic. Make a peak oil thread if you want to talk about peak oil, and I'll explain to you again how hydrocarbons can be synthesized and everything you make with oil can be made without oil.

>>6556700
They've only lost 1 secondary payload, and that was because NASA wouldn't authorize them to perform the necessary burn.

>>6556687
get the fuck out of my internet browser you maggot

>>6556703

Yeah, i believe you. You seem like an honest person.

>>6556700
Everybody's lining up for their launch services, because they've shown good reliability, launch from the USA, and have the lowest prices.

They only lost a few payloads, all in dirt-cheap experimental slots which the customers knew were long shots.

Do actual facts ever matter to you? SpaceX is succeeding.

>>6556721

Then why did they have to sue the air force?

Just to be little cunts?

>>6556740
Suck my dick.

>>6556740
They'll survive even if they lose, just as they've survived after losing their previous challenges.

They sued before to stop ULA from being formed. If SpaceX had succeeded then, there would be no ULA, instead, Lockheed Martin and Boeing would be operating their Atlas V and Delta IV separately, as competitors to each other.

This is something they have to do for their investors (because it's not acceptable for a for-profit company to just ignore the loss of billions of dollars in revenue due to unlawful behavior of government officials), and something they want to do to help accelerate their progress, with more money and more flights, not something they have to do to survive.

>>6550918
>>6551344

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/3d-printing-orbit-could-streamline-space-station-production

From there, it's just a few steps more to orbital shipyards... and then?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/04/23/warp-drive-research-key-to-interstellar-travel/

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warpstat_prt.htm
>>6551031
>suborbital tourism vehicle

Am I the only one who sees the SpaceShipTwo as eventually becoming a sort of modern Concorde?

And as for the issue of gravity re: a manned Mars mission, wouldn't a Von Braun wheel solve that problem? Why do the astronauts even have to stay on the surface? Just give them some sort of reusable shuttle for getting back and forth. I mean hell, mobile space stations have already been mentioned in the thread, it's not exactly, well, rocket science.

>>6555641

Is VSG the antiseabro who said that underwater cities are completely, irrefutably, 100% impossible because his immutable laws of economics said so?

>>6556740
because the 36-core block buy was exquisitely timed to shaft SpaceX in particular. This kind of procurement suit is apparently quite common between the military and their contractors. It's only getting lots of press now because "Holy shit! Elon Musk tweeted about it!" in combination with the timing of the Russian sanctions and counter-reactions, which might just bury the Air Force's current workhorse, the Atlas V.

>>6556941
>Is VSG the antiseabro who said that underwater cities are completely, irrefutably, 100% impossible because his immutable laws of economics said so?
yup, one of them at least that drove him off of 4chan. Presumably, seabro is down in his undersea bunker with his cadre of objectivist hamsters.

>>6556707
well it is a few more if you count the first three Falcon 1 failures.

(And one of those payloads wasn't lost; it fell back through the roof of the integration shack after the explosion! Expendable rockets; reusable payloads…)

>>6556572
>it won't be Musk who does [closed-cycle engines]
Not the Merlin series, but the upcoming Raptor series of methane-LOX engines will be closed-cycle. This is in line with the SpaceX iterative development model. Gain your experience on the easy problems before tackling the hard ones.

>>6557011
>the first three Falcon 1 failures.
Literally no one cares about those.

Soon.

>>6557055
What kind of crazy weapons do you think that thing has?

>>6557055
>kawaii qt p2t spaceplane doing creepy military shit in space
What is it even doing?

>>6557058
We will find out when Russia tries to take over the ISS.

>>6557006

Thought so. I've had dealings with him before, it's fucking infuriating.

>>6557058

Probably lasers, at the very least. Maybe godrods as well.

Here's something I'm personally kind of hyped about:

http://www.space.com/25235-nasa-asteroid-capture-mission-mars.html

>>6556312

No, SpaceX doesn't need to match Soyuz' record, they need to finish development and meet NASA's standards, which do not call for matching Soyuz demonstrated reliability record, and then they get NASA contracts and shove Soyuz out because they are a domestic launch firm and NASA must buy domestic if there is a suitable option.

Soyuz demonstrated reliability is irrelevant trivia, nothing more.

>>6557381

Underwater cities are stupid and economically infeasible.

If you have a problem with someone slapping you out of the delusional techno fantasy religion that keeps you happy then the problem lies with you.

>>6557058

None. It's a pointless make work project that gets away with it because it hides behind a veil of secrecy which removes scrutiny. The secret stuff world has their own joke programs and boondoggles.

>>6557381

Get ready to be disappointed, asteroid capture mission isn't funded and is opposed by a hostile jerk congress.

>>6557519

So, SpaceX won't be selling rockets outside the US?

>>6557541

Aye, though I'm not sure if I'm dissapointed since it may force NASA to do Lunar Base.

>>6557534

Fuck off. I never said they were feasible, or even advisable. What I DID say is that they are physically possible. You can't put economics on the same level as physics. It doesn't work like that.

>>6557541

God dammit. Can't say I'm surprised. I think there is a private company showing interest in doing something along these lines as well, though. I might be mistaken.

>>6557573

Whatever is fine with me, as long as it gets us to expand our cosmological presence.