/sci/ - Science & Math

>spacex shills complain all day about the "waste of money" SLS is
>never mention that there will be billions spent on an "RD-180 replacement" that has no rocket to go with it, despite ULA already on the path to phase out the RD-180 on their own
http://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-outlines-first-steps-in-rd-180-replacement-effort/

Fuck all this SLS vs SpaceX shit. Let's talk about actually cool shit.

>>7562947

No one in their right mind would think the Dragon can make the trip to Mars with a person. You'd need a habitat for sure. They'd die to radiation spikes in a Crew Dragon. It's not rated for that long of on orbit time, and that's not just a "software upgrade."

You're just a SpaceX fanboy moron with no proof of any concept that uses crew dragon to take people to Mars.

>>7562953
>They'd die to radiation spikes in a Crew Dragon.
No. Typical radiation dose for the coast to Mars is about equivalent to two years on the ISS. Less if they stack all of their food, water, and sewage between them and the sun when a solar flare happens.

Aside from solar flares, radiation in deep space is only about twice what it is in LEO. The radiation from a solar flare all comes from one direction, and typically delivers 100-200 days radiation. They aren't as deadly as all that. We're still talking about raising cancer risk, nothing like radiation poisoning.

>It's not rated for that long of on orbit time
Yes it is. Designed for up to 2 years in space.

>>7562974
>The radiation from a solar flare all comes from one direction
No it doesn't. I studied solar particle events, they are not tightly beamed as you might thing because of scattering in the interplanetary medium. While more flux is directed along the field line (not towards the Sun) assuming there is zero pitch angle is false.

Solar Energetic Particle events are unpredictable, it's fine claiming "X is typical" but they vary in energy over 7 orders of magnitude. Most of the flares are tiny, doesn't mean big ones don't happen.

>>7562974
If a coronal mass ejection bursts, the crew is dead in a Crew Dragon. You need a habitat with some kind of shelter for dealing with one.

> Less if they stack all of their food, water, and sewage between them and the sun when a solar flare happens.

There's not enough of those materials that could possible fit inside of a crew dragon.

>Yes it is. Designed for up to 2 years in space.

Docked to something else, perhaps.

It still won't be able to hold the supplies for a person for the trip there. That is physically impossible.

SpaceX doesn't make this claim, btw. Their idea of a first mars mission includes crew dragons, a transhab, seperate landers sent ( likely just crew dragons that are left in mars orbit before they leave), and many many supplies.

>>7563021
Also if you have a CME on your hands the interplanetary magnetic field will deflect as the event reaches the spacecraft.

>>7562974
Go back to /r/spacex with this bullshit, I can't think of anywhere else you'd get away with such terribly inaccurate claims.

>>7563045

>>7563049

>>7563021
>I studied solar particle events, they are not tightly beamed
The radiation is still going to be coming mostly from one direction, and stacking your supplies in front of you in that direction is going to shield you from most of it.

> it's fine claiming "X is typical" but they vary in energy over 7 orders of magnitude. Most of the flares are tiny, doesn't mean big ones don't happen.
I'm talking about what's typical, and responding to an idiot who said "They'd die to radiation spikes in a Crew Dragon." as if it were not just possible, or even likely, but certain.

There are rocks out there too. It's typical for space to be empty, but they could get hit by a small meteorite, and there's basically nothing to be done for that.

We're talking about the first human voyage to Mars, here. Total safety is not achievable. The possibility of dying to rare events just has to be accepted.

>>7562943
If we run out of gas here on Earth we can just take it from Titan.

>>7563052
>The possibility of dying to rare events just has to be accepted.

No, it doesn't have to be and SpaceX themselves aren't doing that. They're going to use a habitat, likely in cooperation with Bruce Bigelow Aerospace. You can't put one, or even two people in a small space with not enough supplies and expect them to stay sane. You send something like pic related, at minimum using Falcon Heavy.

>>7563026
dragon doesn't have the dv to reach mars orbit

>>7563078
I think the same, but evidently there's a lot of talk about "Red Dragon" which would be a return sample mission using a modified crew dragon capsule. I don't know exactly what it would involve, but I'm skeptical that it could be done in just one FH launch.

>>7563060
>>7562943
>>7563051
>ywn get a full hd resolution map of these in your lifetime

>>7563082
The idea is to land two dragons, one with the sample collector and the other with an earth return rocket embedded in with the capsule as a makeshift launch pad

Why on earth would someone be mad about the fact that we're going to see 10+ new launch vehicles debut in the next decade?
>falcon heavy
>sls block 1, 1b and 2
>long march 6 and 11 already launched in the past weeks
>vulcan
>blue origin's rocket
>mct booster (possibly)
>all those smallsat launchers
>long march 5 and 7 debut next year
>possible new japan rocket
Honestly, only autists would be mad about this

>>7563107
>possible new japan rocket

Hadn't heard of that one. Nice.

Isn't India working on a new one as well?

Don't forget the Ariane 6 and I think a Vega II of some sort

Russia's new rockets already have been tested, but the Angara V should start making regular flights soon enough

>>7563107
don't forget Ariane 6

>>7563026
>If a coronal mass ejection bursts, the crew is dead in a Crew Dragon.
A really extreme one, maybe. And if an asteroid hits them, they're dead in anything. It's about managing risk, not creating perfect safety.

>It still won't be able to hold the supplies for a person for the trip there. That is physically impossible.
I've already pointed out that nearly 6 tonnes of additional mass can be carried for the trip, aside from what can be landed on the surface.

There's 10 cubic meters of internal volume, plus a trunk with 14 cubic meters. They need some way of removing the additional mass, so it makes sense that they'd have something in the trunk to dock with once they separated from the upper stage, the same way the Apollo capsule turned around and docked with the LM.

Look for instance at the BEAM, which should be taken up to the ISS in a Dragon trunk next year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Module
1360 kg, 16 cubic meter living space. Now, this was made as compact as possible to leave as much trunk volume available as possible, but there's no reason one couldn't be made to be stowed packed with over 4 tonnes of supplies.

>>Yes it is. Designed for up to 2 years in space.
>Docked to something else, perhaps.
DragonLab. Dragon's designed for long, independent stays in space.

I'm not saying this is a good plan (I've already explained a multi-launch plan I consider more reasonable), I'm just pointing out that it's possible.

>>7563109
>>7563112
shit, I forgot that

I hadn't heard about India's plans, but I hear that they might be planning a 1.5 stage to orbit space plane.

Russia should also be retiring soyuz and debuting PPTS soon, which will be sort of in between Dragon/Starliner and Orion in capability. I hear they can put it around the moon if they ever fly Angara VII

>>7563114
>asteroid hits them
A fucking asteroid isn't going to hit them, and micro meteoroids are easy to deal with.

> I'm just pointing out that it's possible.

A single capsule launched on a FH is not possible to get someone to Mars with. I don't see where you before that post said a multi-launch is more feasible.


Again, you're with the loons when you think that you can do that few FH launches to get to Mars. You need a proper habitat, backup capsules, a proper lander system, more supplies than just a few meters, and systems to protect you from radiation. You have several people here telling you are wrong about radiation.

BEAM isn't big enough. You'd want a BA330, which I'm fairly sure a FH could launch? I need to look at the numbers. Two BA330s preferably.

>>7563063
>>The possibility of dying to rare events just has to be accepted.
>No, it doesn't have to be
It does, though. In life in general, but especially in manned space exploration.

>They're going to use a habitat
"A habitat" isn't going to make you invincible against asteroids or extreme solar radiation events. Mostly, it would give you more living space and the ability to accommodate more astronauts in conditions consistent with good morale.

The bigger your living space, the more likely it is to be struck by micrometeors, and the thinner your radiation shielding can be.

I've said before that I think a multi-launch mission assembled at L2 makes the most sense, but one of the reasons to do so is redundancy: the possibility of surviving in a Dragon as a lifeboat. A good mission will have surpluses, margins, and fallbacks.

>>7563140
>It does, though. In life in general, but especially in manned space exploration.

That doesn't mean you should go with some armchair space fanboy's ideas.

>"A habitat"

A habitat would be designed that contains the water in a cylinder so the crew could crawl inside when a CME or other high radiation event is detected or predicted. Water is quite good at shielding from these things.

>>7563107
Not to mention small players like South Korea, Iran, Brazil, and Argentina.

>>7563124
>I don't see where you before that post said a multi-launch is more feasible.
>>7562881
>A more reasonable plan would be a mission (to an established base) assembled at L2 with 4 or 5 FH launches, which would end with 4 astronauts landing on Mars in one Dragon, having a more comfortable habitat and more supplies for the journey. It only takes about 1 km/s to get from L2 to a Mars intercept.


>a proper lander system
Dragon V2 is a proper lander system. It's entirely suitable for landing up to 4 crew on the Mars surface. There's no need to develop another before going to Mars.

It might make sense to do a stripped-down version for landing cargo, but then you'd lose the ability to use the landed Dragon as living space, and you'd lose tests of your crew lander.

$200 million to land a tonne of cargo and a room's worth of living space on Mars, with a test of a manned capsule, is a very good deal.

>systems to protect you from radiation
You don't need "systems", you need material piled around you, and particularly piled between you and the sun. There's no sophisticated approach here. Magnetic shielding is going to be out of our reach for a completely unpredictable amount of time, so we can't plan on it if we ever want to go. The problem here is that shielding takes a lot of mass, and mass is the main thing you can't afford a lot of. So some acceptance of the risk and harm of radiation is necessary.


>You have several people here telling you are wrong about radiation.
I have a couple of random anonymous jackasses on 4chan disagreeing with me, and not producing any relevant numbers or references. If you think that means I'm wrong, all the more reason to disregard your opinion.

>>7563180
>I have a couple of random anonymous jackasses on 4chan disagreeing with me

The pot calling the china black

Go to any respected space forum, they will tell you that you are mistaken about many elements of this "mission"

>>7563180
>and not producing any relevant numbers or references.

You couldn't be more hypocritical

Go suck off Zubrin somewhere else faggot

>>7563180
You play too much KSP

You can't just go to Mars in a couple of capsules roped together

For the idiots saying we absolutely must have a special habitat with radiation shielding for the trip to Mars: where are your objections to single-launch SLS missions beyond LEO like the proposed captured asteroid rendezvous?

That's going out into the same radiation environment for a couple of weeks. The chance of being hit by severe radiation from an extreme CME during the coast to Mars isn't hundreds or thousands of times as likely. More like a dozen or so, and for an infinitely more worthwhile purpose.

So why aren't you freaking out over how ridiculous it is to send Orion out there unprotected?

>>7563245
We're the same people saying that those asteroid missions will probably be canceled.

Also, weeks aren't the same thing as 9+ months. Orion is also more hardy radiation wise than the Dragon - that's why orion is so fucking heavy. It's a better design for cis-lunar space.

>>7563245
You say that as if its up to us - no, we're just repeating what the fucking people in charge have said.

SpaceX isn't claiming Dragon is capable alone of going to Mars.

No Mars architecture suggests going without a habitat of some sort. That's suicide on multiple levels - supplies, radiation, and probably the most important: sanity.

>>7563245
You mean the one where they capture an "asteroid" (actually just a boulder from the surface of an asteroid) then bring it back for Orion to rendezvous with? (2 launches)
Yeah, that rendezvous takes place in orbit of the moon m8

>>7563255
>9+ months
Now here's some bullshit. Make it a little more obvious you haven't done your homework, why don't you?

>Orion is also more hardy radiation wise than the Dragon - that's why orion is so fucking heavy.
The Orion capsule is twice as heavy as the complete Dragon spacecraft (nevermind the complete Orion spacecraft, which is more like four times as heavy) because it's twice as big as Dragon and less mass efficient, not because it's more robust, or loaded with functionally important stuff that's not in Dragon.

The pressure vessel contains twice the volume and is farther from spherical. The heat shield is made of a less advanced material, so it's both heavier and less capable. The overall design is less tightly integrated (out of hope that it could be upgraded faster that way).

>It's a better design for cis-lunar space.
It's really not. It's designed with 90s and earlier technology for Constellation two-launch mission architectures. Orion was supposed to go to LEO on an Ares I (nearly as powerful as a Delta IV heavy itself), and then either visit the ISS or rendezvous with an Earth departure stage and mission package launched by an Ares V (188 tonnes to LEO), for a total system about 3 times as powerful as SLS is turning out to be.

It was supposed to be a rush job to get Americans back to the ISS in their own ship ASAP, and back on the moon before 2020. With the generous capacities of Constellation and tight proposed schedules, design conservatism seemed like a good way to save time and get things done.

Once contracts were signed and managers were assigned, though, it took on a life of its own. People were going to fight for it whether it made sense or not, just like what happened with the shuttle.

On single-launch SLS in the 2020s and beyond, it's just primitive, clunky, and overweight. A complete mismatch. As terrible a failure at enabling beyond-LEO exploration as the shuttle was at reducing launch costs.

>>7563361
There are so many inaccuracies in this post. I wish we had IDs so I could just ignore everything you post.

Seriously, get off of the spacex fanboi websites.

>>7563361
>>7563361
This kid has been spending WAY too much time on /r/spacex and reading zubrin's fantasies

Seriously where do you get this nonsense?

For starters, most Mars missions will take 8-9 months to get there.

Also, the Dragon capsules and Orion share the same heatshield technology.

It is loaded with things that make it more capable for PEOPLE than dragon.

It is designed for cis-lunar space. It's heatshield is beefier than LEO only capsules like soyuz, schenzou, or starliner.

Orion that exists now is not the Orion from the early CEV days. It's been changed so many times thanks to NASA's idiocy.

It sounds like all of your info is coming from wikipedia, and a lot of that info is out of date on Crew Dragon, or were statements made by Elon that are either no longer true or were exaggerated.

>>7563361
>The heat shield is made of a less advanced material
Thats wrong though

Dragon's only 'heat shield' is the ablative sections bolted to the bottom

Orion has to be completely covered in ceramic tiles because it will undergo more than 3x the deceleration that dragon undergoes, and even more than apollo did. These tiles also double as radiation shielding to some extent, and a lot of the extra "weight" in orion is for supplies for the <40 day mission architecture it requires for L2 and back flights.
Compare that to Dragon which is basically an aluminum pressure vessel and an aluminum-lithium outer shell. It's enough for LEO but is paper thin for anything beyond the Earth's magnetic field.

>for a total system about 3 times as powerful as SLS is turning out to be.
They are completely different architectures for completely different missions.
Also the combined 230+ tones to orbit of Ares 1 and Ares V is complete overkill for a lunar mission. A full lunar surface and return mission can be done by SLS block 1b just by using methalox in the lander. And the lander would be reusable too.

>>7563384
>Dragon's only 'heat shield' is the ablative sections bolted to the bottom

Which is why I don't get why people claim this thing can return from BEO orbits. I don't see the proof in this at all unless they add a superior heatshield.

>>7563259
>SpaceX isn't claiming Dragon is capable alone of going to Mars.
They are, though. Elon Musk has come out in support of Red Dragon and stated outright that Falcon Heavy can put a Dragon V2 on the surface of Mars in one launch.

As to whether single-launch crew transport to Mars is possible (never mind advisable -- I've said repeatedly that I think a larger mission makes more sense), I think it clearly is.

>That's suicide on multiple levels - supplies, radiation, and probably the most important: sanity.
I've already explained how supplies can be sufficient: you can take tonnes along with you. Radiation is really not going to be a major problem, as long as you have those tonnes of supplies (and waste) and a way to bury yourself in them during solar proton events. Those are relatively low energy particles, and therefore easy to shield against. The intensity drops off fast with inches of shielding (a factor of 1,000 is fairly easily achieved). The cosmic rays are very hard to shield against (a factor of 10 is very hard to achieve), so with either there's not going to be a lot of difference between the basic radiation protection you can get in a capsule and what you could get in a more elaborate habitat.
https://three.jsc.nasa.gov/articles/Shielding81109.pdf

As for sanity, remember that we're just starting to get good, immersive VR headsets. You can be entirely off in your own little world (and they'll be good for teleoperation, too). I think for the sake of going to Mars, half a year in a capsule could be tolerated. People have willingly gone through worse for less.

>>7563268
>Yeah, that rendezvous takes place in orbit of the moon m8
That's the same radiation environment as the trip to Mars would be.

>>7563457
>They are, though. Elon Musk has come out in support of Red Dragon and stated outright that Falcon Heavy can put a Dragon V2 on the surface of Mars in one launch.

That's different than whoever it was claiming it can carry a person to Mars by itself.

>>7563457
>you can take tonnes along with you.

Just because it can take the weight doesn't mean it has the space, and it most certainly does not have room inside for all of that shit. The ISS is constantly getting resupplies with very few people using things like ENTIRE CAPSULES to deliver new water, food, clothing, hygiene products, replacement filters, etc.

>>7563384
>Orion has to be completely covered in ceramic tiles
>>7563380
>Dragon capsules and Orion share the same heatshield technology.
Orion uses Avcoat, the same ablative material used on the Apollo capsule. It's based on silica fiber.

Dragon V2 uses version 3 of PICA-X, a proprietary SpaceX ablative material which they developed from NASA's PICA (based on carbon fiber). Nobody else has PICA-X. They're not sharing it.

There's a bit about PICA, PICA-X, and Avcoat here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry#PICA

>It sounds like all of your info is coming from wikipedia
It sounds like all of your info is coming out of your ass, and you don't even go as far as wikipedia before shooting your mouth off.

>>7563384
>it will undergo more than 3x the deceleration that dragon undergoes
Dragon is not limited to return from LEO. It has a more capable heat shield than Orion does.

SpaceX does not have a philosophy like the usual contractors of merely building to spec. They're developing systems they hope to sell for as many uses as possible, so they build in as much capability as they can.

>a lot of the extra "weight" in orion is for supplies for the <40 day mission architecture it requires for L2 and back flights
This is utter bullshit. The Orion CAPSULE is considerably heavier than the entire Dragon SPACECRAFT, and the Orion CAPSULE depends on the even heavier service module for things like life support.

Once you have life support systems, supplies for a few weeks instead of a single week don't take a lot of weight.

>the combined 230+ tones to orbit of Ares 1 and Ares V is complete overkill for a lunar mission. A full lunar surface and return mission can be done by SLS block 1b just by using methalox in the lander. And the lander would be reusable too.
Constellation was supposed to be about building a base on the moon, not hoping for some new tech to come along that makes a sad little flag-planting mission possible.

>>7563457
>That's the same radiation environment as the trip to Mars would be.
Wrong.
The moon shields nearly half of CBR, and shields all of solar radiation when on the dark side.

>>7563528
>I'M TYPING IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE I'M ANGRY!!!!

>>7563528
m8 Musk himself has said that even uncrewed Dragon missions would at the very least need upgrades in electronics redundancy and radiation shielding to be able to survive BLEO

You're grasping at straws.

>>7563472
>Just because it can take the weight doesn't mean it has the space, and it most certainly does not have room inside for all of that shit.
Jesus. Read the thread. Don't expect me to repeat myself just because you're stupid and lazy enough to try and jump in the middle of an argument without reading what's been said so far. I have already explained how a 1-launch Falcon Heavy / Dragon V2 mission to Mars can accommodate several tonnes of supplies for the journey.

>>7563531
>The moon shields nearly half of CBR, and shields all of solar radiation when on the dark side.
Are you kidding with this shit? The captured asteroid rendezvous is not supposed to be in low lunar orbit, and they'd probably never be in the moon's shadow. They might have an interesting view of the moon, but it wouldn't be blocking much of the sky.

>>7563538
>m8 Musk himself has said that even uncrewed Dragon missions would at the very least need upgrades in electronics redundancy and radiation shielding to be able to survive BLEO
I'm sure you have a reliable source on that. I'll just wait for it.

>>7563528
Did you even read what I said, fucking idiot?
Orion needs heat tiles not because it's 'inferior' to dragon heat shield, but because its re-entry qualifications are literally 3 times more intense than a LEO re-entry.

>PicaX
only improves cost
>SpaceX has indicated that each new version of PICA-X primarily improves upon heat shielding capacity rather than the manufacturing cost.[citation needed]
>[citation needed]
Oh look, spaceX tards spouting unsubstantiated claims on wikipedia.

>Dragon is not limited to return from LEO. It has a more capable heat shield than Orion does.
Both wrong. Dragon is not qualified for BLEO reentry. Orion is. Lets see some sources on how much "better" Dragon's heat shield is.
Oh wait, there are none.

>The Orion CAPSULE is considerably heavier than the entire Dragon SPACECRAFT
I'm not disputing this.
Are you literally so retarded that you just ignored the other reasons that I offered up as to why Orion is heavier?
You ignore them because you don't want to admit that Orion has far superior heat shield protection and radiation protection to Dragon.
Orion's mission duration is also far longer than Dragon's, both undocked and docked to a space station/mothership.

>>7563533
"PICA" is an acronym, and "Avcoat" is a name.

"CAPSULE" and "SPACECRAFT" were in caps for emphasis because I can't do italics here.

You're not a very intelligent person, are you?

>>7563555
You're capitalizing shit for emphasis, just like christtards to on facebook.

Despicable.

>>7563528
>Dragon has lower space per person than Gemini
>he thinks people will go to the moon in it

>>7563552
Just stop it
You're going to make the poor kid cry

Why do I love ULA so much? It's pretty simple when I think about it. ULA isn't just the best launch provider in the country; they might just be the greatest launch provider of all time. Just imaging the Altas V riding through the skies of Earth, the wind on its fairing, the mighty RD-180 below it. As she rides through the red sky, NASA swoons at her very scent. They know how she smells; the essence of burning RP-1 smell is sold in Orlando under the name of "Space Orgasm." The very nature of ULA is mystery. Could they be playing a deeper game than even Tory Bruno realizes? The answer is yes, ULA has transcended such boundaries as the physical world, and has free will to do whatever they sees fit. However, ULA is filled with such guile, such arcane craft that they does not even use these powers. Why, you might ask? You will never know, for the mind of the ULA is not one that is easily penetrated. ULA rockets are such a force of nature in this realm that nothing can truly touch them, the only thing keeping them bound to this world at all is their will to exist within the preordained boundaries understood physics. ULA is not only beyond the comprehension of us, it exists within a plane of true focus and beauty. Observe the plume of exhaust gasses from this Delta IV, the gorgeous and rippling flames, the gallant fairing, and most importantly, its engines. Her engines, like cauldrons straight from hell, provide the only glimpse into the true machinations of ULA. Do not stare into them. Many good men have gone mad in the attempt. ULA is not just a launch provider, a formless collection of engineers and rockets; they are themselves the binding that holds the word together. Without ULA, Musk the Menace takes over and the entire space industry as we know it crumbles. The Mississippi would stop flowing without ULA, Kessler syndrome would take over in orbit, and the space station would fall without their fiery gaze. These are just of a few of the reasons why I like ULA so much.

>>7563552
>Orion needs heat tiles
Orion, like Dragon, uses an ablative heat shield, not "heat tiles". You may be thinking of the Space Shuttle, which used silica aerogel tiles.

>Dragon is not qualified for BLEO reentry.
False. Official SpaceX sources have repeatedly stated otherwise.

>unsubstantiated claims
Again, I've heard this from official SpaceX sources repeatedly.

>Orion has far superior heat shield protection and radiation protection to Dragon.
I've explained it has inferior heat shield. It has no significant additional radiation protection.

Significant BEO radiation protection takes a lot of thickness of material. Orion hasn't got that. Astronauts in Orion would be in the same situation as they would be in Dragon: just live with the cosmic ray dose, and try to hide behind the supplies if the sun acts up.

>Lets see some sources on how much "better" Dragon's heat shield is.
>Oh wait, there are none.
http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/05/30/dragon-v2-spacexs-next-generation-manned-spacecraft
"Dragon v2’s robust thermal protection system is capable of lunar missions, in addition to flights to and from Earth orbit."

SpaceX representatives point out that Dragon's heat shield can handle BEO return at every opportunity, to counter the persistent misinformation campaign from LM and certain elements in NASA (*cough*orionteam*cough*) that it is strictly a LEO vehicle.

They also like to point out that if the Dragon is reused, the heat shield should be good for ten or more returns before any refurbishment is necessary. It's a really fucking good heat shield.

>>7563582
I really hope you're b8'ing
Literally the entire surface is covered in them; except the bottom which specifically is ablative heat shielding.

>>7563582
SpaceX sources also said that the falcon heavy would fly in 2013
lmao

Until there are either NASA certified qualification tests done on Dragon, or an actual flight test under suck parameters, this claim is unsubstantiated and factually not provable.

>>7563589
such parameters*

>>7563582
>Orion will use the mass that is already on board to protect its crew by creating a temporary shelter in the aft bay of the spacecraft, which is the inside portion closest to the heat shield. This location minimizes the amount of equipment to move around while maximizing the amount of material that can be placed between the crew and the outside environment. The mass that will be used includes supplies, equipment and launch and re-entry seats, as well as water and food. By using the items already on board, the astronauts benefit from additional shielding without adding to Orion’s mass.
Dragon can't do this due to crew being packed in like sardines :^)

>>7563568
Next year, a Dragon is taking up a BEAM to the ISS in its trunk. That's an inflatable habitat module (there's also a model that can serve as an airlock, so this is a way to add EVA capability as well) which provides 16 cubic meters of habitable space, and weighs under 1.4 tonnes.

If they dock with and inflate a thing like that, they'd have considerably more habitable space than Orion, while still being much lighter.

There's just no way for Orion to win in this comparison. For an extended mission, there are much better ways of getting habitable space than building them into your re-entry module. For launch and atmospheric entry, you don't need more space than a place to sit. If you're going to be hanging around in space for longer, there's time to set up an expansion.

>>7563606
Dragon wins on cost, efficiency to LEO, maybe post-reentry landing, and (unmanned) deployability for robotic planetary exploration missions.

Orion wins on duration, micro meteorite protection, radiation protection, crew space per member, reentry capability, and delta v.

They are two different vehicles for two different missions. Honestly you spacex fags are retarded for thinking dragon and falcon heavy are some sort of magical jack of all trades that can just ignore physics when it suits them.
Hilarious.

Also a reminder that SpaceX literally cannot launch anything into space right now.

asteroid mining when?

>>7563586
Ah, I didn't take your point.

>Dragon's only 'heat shield' is the ablative sections bolted to the bottom
>Orion has to be completely covered in ceramic tiles
>Dragon which is basically an aluminum pressure vessel and an aluminum-lithium outer shell.

Seriously? That's what this was about? You think there's no thermal protection for the Dragon sidewalls? Pretty much just bare Al-Li?

That wouldn't work. You get heating on all sides of a capsule. Fine for high-temperature metals, but too much for unprotected aluminum alloys.

I'm not sure of exactly what they use, but of course they have some form of heat protection on the sidewalls. It's probably similar or identical to the "cork" on the Falcon 9 rocket stages.

Orion might need more thermal protection on its sidewalls, but it wouldn't be because it's built for hotter re-entry or anything like that. With its wider, flatter shape, it's designed to get more lift, so it comes in at more of an angle, so its leading sidewall is exposed to more heat. The accelerations are somewhat lower, and it can get a bit more cross-range distance. It's not really a big advantage and has nothing to do with being designed for BEO rather than LEO. Dragon's rounder shape and more head-on braking style also has advantages, since it can more easily switch between "lifting" down and then up for aerocapture, or precision landing.

>>7563617
>Orion wins on ... crew space per member
What the fuck? You're just going to assert this after I explained in detail why this isn't a "win"? In fact, I've explained why none of these are wins for Orion except micrometeorite protection (which I seriously doubt Orion has any significant advantage in; it's not like it's covered in whipple shields), and delta-v (adding an additional external propulsion module to Dragon would be trivial compared to all the work that's still needed on Orion).

>They are two different vehicles for two different missions.
They are two different vehicles developed at two different competence levels. Dragon's designed to handle all the missions Orion's supposed to be good for, in addition to doing many other things, while being much lighter and cheaper.

>Also a reminder that SpaceX literally cannot launch anything into space right now.
SpaceX and the Constellation/SLS/Orion guys have been at this for about the same length of time. SpaceX has put 18 payloads into orbit, has sent vehicles to the ISS and had humans inside them in space, has sent payloads beyond LEO and one beyond Earth orbit entirely, flew a few months ago, will fly again within the next couple of months, and is going to put a man in space within the next couple of years.

You really want to make this argument? Dragon's going to carry crew half a decade before Orion. By the time Orion flies on something other than a test mission, Dragon will most likely have landed on Mars, flown crew on a reused capsule, survived in orbit independently for over a year, and accumulated a heritage of dozens of passengers and vehicle-years in space.

>>7563689
Crew Dragon isn't landing on Mars. It'll be the next version that may. SpaceX has never said they are using the FH to put crew on Mars. They have clearly stated their intention is to use a Raptor powered vehicle to do so.

>>7563689
Crew Dragon only has about .7km/s dv. It can't land on Mars with crew, as it doesn't have the ability to get back to orbit.

Even if you landed a fresh one, it doesn't have the capacity to do this.

It can't land on the moon either, as you need almost 2500 km/s to land on the moon, then another 10 km/s to get off and return to earth.

Crew Dragon isn't as capable as what you believe.

Progress launching on Soyuz in two minutes

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/10/01/progress-61p-coverage/

Lift off!!

>>7564427
I fucking love the way the Russians say "nominal"

Second stage almost done

Progress launch flight profile, second stage sep

Almost to orbital insertion

Vehicle sep, solar panels deployed, antennae extended

I don't get why we're so keen on sending people to mars.

its fucking stupid, humans cannot survive on mars period.

the surface is covered in a fine dust of poison, so unless we can prevent dust from making its way into the habitat we cannot possibly survive on it.

>>7564458
Source?

>>7564524
The martian surface is covered with tetrachlorides which is a blessed curse, lots of fuel, lots of oxygen tetrachloride .

Problem is it's in the martian dust and its toxic to humans in large doses.

So we need to keep all human habitates free from this dust to survive which will be extremely hard as everything will be covered with it.

>>7564458
so it's arsenic everywhere now?
source please

>>7564524
http://m.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals.html

Quick source

>>7564537
>has the same understanding of space exploration as a mentally ill child
>posts a mobile link

What a surprise!

>>50583488
Lel you're mad.

>>7564561
Sorry I'm not on my computer shit posting all day long.

Say what ever shit you want, doesn't change the fact mars is covered in poison which will make any human settlement very difficult

>>7564569
From the article you posted:

>"But now that we know it's there, I am confident we will be able to design around it," he said. "I have a lot of co-workers here at Johnson Space Center who work in the human exploration side of things, and none of them seem to think perchlorate is a showstopper. So sending robotic explorers as precursors to human exploration is shown to be a very useful strategy."

So, a bunch of scientists who get paid to solve these problems don't think that perchlorate is a showstopper, but people should listen to a mentally ill child instead.

Daily reminder that Energia will never, ever realise it's potential

;_;

>>7564610
Duh, Energia is long dead. Russia is going with Angara

>>7564615

>>7564618

>>7564623

>>7564626

>>7564628

>>7562935
A Moon base built entirely by rovers with industrial robot arms teleoperated from Earth is entirely feasible in 2015. In 1980 there was a feasibility study: http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/library/index.htm
Replicating Systems Concepts: Self-Replicating Lunar Factory and Demonstration. Chapter 5 from Advanced Automation for Space Missions, NASA Conference Publication 2255, 1982. 150 pages.

>tfw we could have a real base on the Moon a decade ago, for relatively small money
>tfw haven't done it because of politics: need more primates in spacesuits and a flag

>>7564635
We could have just continued to use the Apollo family and improved on those rockets. The costs were predicted to fall dramatically, and even with the Saturn IB prices were super low.

Just imagine this world:

* Using Saturn IB, then eventually an upgraded version to launch satellites/people into LEO

* Developed a better Skylab in the late 70s after using skylab

* Continuing to use Saturn V and improving on its performance as a heavy lifter

*Developing the Saturn III to launch medium size payloads into orbit

* With cost savings develop a lunar base and maintaining a presence there

Even NASA said during the commission that studied the legacy of the STS program said we should have stuck with Apollo - that we could have done so much more for so far less.

>tfw aspiring synthetic chemist with strong interest in space ever since litt boy

How could I apply the skills of synthetic chemistry to space exploration? Surely there must be some novel compounds that need synthesizing?

>>7564645

Hey all OP from last (first) thread here

First of all thank you to the kind anon who continued the thread, I'll try to be more vigilant about starting new ones because there's some stuff I'd like to add to the OP.

I appreciate coverage of the launch, I definitely want every important launch to be in these threads.

Lastly, I know there's difference of opinions between SLS/Orion and FH/Dragon2, I'd just like to ask for a kinder discussion of them. We're all here because we love space travel and I don't think that supporting different systems should be cause for petty name calling, if possible I'd like for these threads to be an oasis of civility in the hostile desert of /sci/.

Thanks for keeping everything alive, next thread I hope to do a design your own space program kind of thing so I can get people's opinions on what NASA should be like.

BTW what do you guys think of the worm-ball logo? I wish this was the current logo of NASA.

>I'd just like to ask for a kinder discussion of them

It would be nice if people posted sources about extravagant claims. Personally I just like to call bullshit on claims that are unfounded.

I freaking hate SpaceX fanboys that think SpaceX makes magical pods.

>next thread I hope to do a design your own space program kind of thing so I can get people's opinions on what NASA should be like.

Make sure you set requirements, like,:

1. You have to appease the Colorado, Utah, Louisana, Alabama, Florida, and California politicians (NASA centers, ATK, Boeing, Aerojet)

2. You are stuck with a certain budget

Anything else is just fantasy

>>7564661
The point of it is to show people's fantasies

It's fine if you wanna prove fanboys wrong but be civil about it, same goes for them talking to you - it's for the good of the thread

>>7564665
So what restrictions would you put in place?

At what date does this fantasy world start?

I think 1975 ( end of the Apollo Applications program), 1986 ( challenger disaster) and 2004 ( Columbia disaster) would all be good starting points.

2015 I think would be ok too, it would be interesting to see who makes the realistic solutions to fixing the SLS's perceived issues.

>>7564668
Starts 2015, I wanna ask people what goals they would set for the program, how they would divide funding between various elements (planetary science, earth science, manned missions, education outreach, etc etc), whether they'd build their own launch vehicles or go with corporate, etc etc

budget restriction will be 5 cents on the dollar of tax revenue for a superpower country

I'm coming up with a list of things to ask and I'll put it into a template image

>>7564161
>Crew Dragon only has about .7km/s dv. It can't land on Mars with crew, as it doesn't have the ability to get back to orbit.
Landing on Mars and getting off of it are two different problems. If you go all the way back to the start of this discussion, what I originally said is that you could do it all with Dragon V2s on Falcon Heavies as your only space transportation IF you're doing Mars-to-stay.

>It can't land on the moon either
I never said it could. Remember that the Apollo capsule didn't land on the moon surface itself, either.

Incidentally, you don't need to land a lot of mass on Mars to return some astronauts from the surface to low Mars orbit. With conventional hypergols, or other storables like kerosene/h2o2 you only need about 3 times the mass in propellant of what's going to orbit. An 80 kg astronaut in a 20 kg flight suit with a minimal 100-kg-depleted "jet pack" launch vehicle could go to low Mars orbit with only ~600 kg propellant, as long as he'd be doing a fast rendezvous with a longer-term vehicle.

You could land one of these, fueled, in a standard FH-launched Dragon V2 (with mass to spare -- you could actually send a guy down with it).

Just for the sake of silliness, what I consider the absolute minimum Mars-and-back flag planting mission is:
- 2 FH-launched custom propulsive units + 1 FH-launched Dragon V2 for crew return, assembled at L2 (no aerobraking at Mars, propulsive braking to high Mars orbit, then propulsive return to Earth)
- 1 FH-launched custom short transit vehicle (aerobrakes to low Mars orbit, takes crewman to return vehicle in high Mars orbit)
- 3 FH-launched supply/habitat Dragon V2 landers
- 1 FH-launched Dragon V2 lander outbound crew carrier with custom "jet pack" ascent vehicle

8 launches, 1 crewman. Probably doable in the 2018 launch window with over 50% chance of success, for under $5 billion, if we decided on it now.

>>7564646
You can try to devise new thin film solar cells that could be manufactured from asteroid material in space (P-type asteroids have a lot of organic material and water).
There is a lot of chemical research to be done on the problem of in-situ resource utilization in context of space.

>>7564676
If I posted this kind of shit on NSF I'd get banned

>>7564661
>I freaking hate SpaceX fanboys that think SpaceX makes magical pods.
Let me guess: you're the retard who thought I was saying that a standard Dragon V2 could land on the moon, and fly itself back to Earth from the Mars surface?

It's easy to see everyone else as idiots if you don't make any serious attempt at understanding what they're actually saying.

SpaceX doesn't make "magic", they just do competent, cost-effective engineering. The kind of thing that has not happened on NASA's flagship crew vehicles since the 60s.

>>7564680
You kept moving the goal posts dude, and revising what you "meant"

Everyone thinks YOU are the retard here

Stop posting

>>7564680
>>7564683
please you two, please

calm down, be nice, this is /sg/ not /sci/

>>7564683
>You kept moving the goal posts dude, and revising what you "meant"
I didn't. You just can't read.

Here's where it started:
>>7562804
>>>Falcon Heavy will already be capable of launching a capsule to the Mars surface.
>>Yeah and there isn't much you can do with that.
>Except, you know, transport crew, supplies, and equipment to the surface of Mars.
>
>If somebody was going to do Mars-to-stay, they could build it all around this single transportation option.

Nobody said anything about landing Dragon on the moon, or having it take off from Mars. That was your own imagination.

>>7564645
Transport to moon is largely solved problem. The issue is: how do we build a large (as self-sufficient as possible, capable of replication) settlement without spending a trillion dollars.
>>7564672
>Starts 2015, I wanna ask people what goals they would set for the program
Teleoperated moon base with robots only. No humans at all - humans are costly, require life support and lots of resources.
Transport the seed equipment to the Moon via SpaceX or or whatever provider is the cheapest at a given time.
The most complex part is the design of robots (reliable, capable of doing all necessary tasks, cheap, preferably repairable in-place) and engineering of industrial processes (fusing regolith, extracting elemental iron, extracting volatiles etc).
The automated moon base should be capable of at least building large shelter for human colonists, and collecting water; at most - extract raw materials from the regolith and use it to replicate the robots and equipment (with chips and electronics supplied as vitamins from the Earth).

>>7564676
There is no way the Dragon V2 could land on Mars, then take back off even if it was empty. You'd need another stage. It couldn't do it even with ISRU.

It doesn't have the fuel.

I don't agree with your minimum at all.

Here's what a Falcon Heavy minimum Mars mission would look like to me:

* Enhanced Crew Dragon with landing service module for a lander that can take the crew back to orbit. 1-2 Falcon Heavy launches

* Habitat built from some Bigelow derived technology, probably built in two launches (one has the propulsion stage)

* 2 FH launches with supplies for the stay on Mars

* 2 F9 launches with supplies for the habitat, probably something like Dragonlabs (remember, you have to come back as well)

* 2 F9 launches with Crew Dragons, one for backup

* 2 FH launches to deliver some kind of base to the surface of Mars so the crew can have a larger area to live in

* 1 FH launch with a manned rover to allow better exploration once on the planet. The're going to be there for months on the surface, might as well enable their ability to do more.

So a total of 9 FH launches, and 4 F9 launches.

I bet that's still so many times less than what SLS will cost, wouldn't you agree?

>>7564692

Why are you even trying to talk about staying on Mars using dragon?

Why would you do such a retarded thing?

By the time there is some kind of base, we're going to have the BFR that could send entire groups of people for far less cost per kg to orbit.

It would be daft, and suicidal to send someone alone in a dragon capsule to Mars.

There just isn't the space for the supplies they'd need. They'd also go insane, even with VR.

>>7564696
>It would be daft, and suicidal to send someone alone in a dragon capsule to Mars.
Why send people to Mars at all...

>>7564699
careful, we're about to go into philosophy if you follow this strand

>>7564701
I mean if we are really going to build a colony and not just the usual "land, stick a flag, fly away" we should do >>7564693
Building a colony with human astronauts' hands is absurd.

>>7564716
ah I see what you mean, I thought you were questioning the validity of space colonization as a whole

I wouldn't go so far as to say absurd, I think that most conjunction class missions give a long enough surface stay to do a lot of base building, though I'm a big proponent of robotic construction myself

>>7564727
If the Mars mission will be financed by the government, then the PR/political motivation prevails and we will probably see a small hab, the flag in red soil, and a couple of expeditions and that's it.

If the mission will be financed by Musk (known for his long-term Mars settlement plans) then he will make the economical decision: build as much as possible with robots, then send humans.

>>7564694
>There is no way the Dragon V2 could land on Mars, then take back off even if it was empty.
I hope you don't mean to imply that the post you're responding to was claiming that it could.

What I said was that you could take a minimal ascent vehicle (to low Mars orbit) in the Dragon V2 (a "jetpack" with 600 kg of propellant).

>Here's what a Falcon Heavy minimum Mars mission would look like to me
Okay, this is not a product of any sort of analysis. You've got F9s launching Dragons. Those would not go beyond LEO.

I based my plan on the well-analysed capability of using a Falcon Heavy to launch a Dragon V2 to the Mars surface with ~1 tonne of payload, and I pointed out that it was minimalistic to the point of being silly. It took 8 Falcon Heavies for one person, with the barest needs to keep him alive and bring him home, if everything reasonably goes well. I rated the chance of success over 50%, but I wouldn't rate it at a lot over 50%.

You've got a plan with only one more Falcon Heavy and some Falcon 9s, and apparently expect to have a base, and a rover, a comfortable transit habitat, multiple crewmen, spare capsules, etc. A real Mars mission probably would have all that, but it's going to take more than a couple extra launches to get it.

Earlier, I described what I think is a more reasonable plan:
>>7562881
>a mission (to an established base) assembled at L2 with 4 or 5 FH launches, which would end with 4 astronauts landing on Mars in one Dragon

That's 4 or 5 FH launches just to transport the crew out. Never mind returning them, or setting up the base they're being transported to.

I think a reasonable there-and-back 4 crew mission would be in the dozens of Falcon Heavy launches.

>>7564735
I wouldn't be so sure about that, apollo is long in the past, everyone at nasa these days is pretty strongly for mars semi-direct as far as I know, in fact I've heard flag footprints repeatedly put down by nasa as useless and something that they don't want to repeat

>>7564744
It is good, but they are still into science, not colonization as far as I know. Maybe I'm wrong?

>>7564743
The Dragons dock at the interplanetery habitat before it goes to Mars.

>well-analysed capability

Lel. You'd be linking to your NSF posts if this was a "well analysed" plan.

>>7564754
Well who knows to be honest, sometimes it seems pretty bleak when they project "a mars landing in the 2060s with strong international help", other times its "mars is our #1 priority, we're getting there ASAP"

idk meng, maybe china and russia trying to lock down cis-lunar space will allow someone to scare congress into giving nasa direct orders on colonization and the money to do it

if it were me (and it's not), nasa would be completely restructured and based in only one location, colonization would be priority one, launch vehicles would be built entirely in house, and their budget would be locked at a permanent 5% of government spending, in fact I'd write that 5% into the fucking constitution if I could

but that's something I'll talk about next thread when I ask everyone about their ideal space program

>>7564757
Before it is possible to make fun of you properly, you need to admit that you actually believe that a fully-fueled Dragon 2, after landing on Mars (and perhaps being refueled again on Mars), can reach orbit again without the addition of another stage.

>>7564458
All our eggs in one basket and all that, dude.
The surface may be powdered in a mild oxidizer but that doesn't mean it's impossible, more measures will have to be put in place for colonies, but it will provide easy O2.

>>7564776
>Enhanced Crew Dragon with landing service module for a lander that can take the crew back to orbit

>>7564761
>idk meng, maybe china and russia trying to lock down cis-lunar space will allow someone to scare congress into giving nasa direct orders on colonization and the money to do it
Maybe china and india could generate sufficient competitive pressure to force NASA into another mode of operation, russia can't - it's in deep recession.
There is a European project about building ISRU shelter http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/Building_a_lunar_base_with_3D_printing , I hope it will be successful.
Anyway, I don't believe in governments for space colonization anymore, even internet billionaires seem to be more persistent with this aspiration (see Musk, Bezos, hell even John Carmac has his own space companies that has flown a rocket into space http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw11NFz14sA ).


>if it were me (and it's not), nasa would be completely restructured and based in only one location, colonization would be priority one
If there were a sufficiently massive and influential space advocacy movement this could come true. Generating content and spreading awareness is something any determined person can do, and if done at a scale it could steer the political agenda.

The beautiful thing about robotic space colonization is that these systems can be prototyped on Earth in full detail (except the gravity of course, it could make a difference for some structural details and chemical reactions) because the compositions of martian and lunar regolith are known and substitutes are available.
Maybe if NASA could be pushed into making some regular competition for DIY rover robots in moon- or mars-like environments (with some complex tasks requiring manipulation of surroundings) it would be a step forward in this general direction.
It would be cool to take part in such competition.

>>7562943
Oh wow, you can see the clouds and the sea and the sun... to know that this is an entirely different world, fucking amazing!

It is known that Moon is covered with oxides (5% FeO) [1] of iron and elemental iron (0.7%) [1]
How would you utilize this resource? If we make a robot that gathers these particles with electromagnet (or even a permanent one), then separates elemental Fe and collects it into a container, we could later us this iron to build simple parts by fusing it with concentrated solar.
How would you go at building such a robot? What are potential issues with separation?
Is there a simple way to convert FeO -> Fe ? How do we fuse particles together, should we use a fresnel lens or a concentrator for this task (or maybe ditch the solar and do it with a laser instead) ?

1. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980LPSC...11.1697M

>>7564922
Yeah it's pretty crazy, although you should know that this is a false color infrared, visible light from orbit looks like this

>>7564956
I image having a harvester rover go over the surface collecting elemental iron is the easiest way. Using an electromagnet, as that is easier to get the particles off of. Then just use an oven to create interlocking plates and weld them together. I don't think using bricks is a good idea, because you might need a lot of them and continuous plates is safer than many small welded bricks.

FYI Orion would need a habitation module for multi-week missions to cis-lunar space without docking to a L2 station:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/dsh-module-concepts-outlined-beo-exploration/

>>7564972
Have you seen the movie Moon that was made in 2009?

>>7564977
Is that a good one? The trailer made it look decent

>>7564980
Sam Rockwell knocks it out of the park. It's one of my favorite space movies of all time.

>>7564757
>The Dragons dock at the interplanetery habitat before it goes to Mars.
In LEO? Because an F9 can't throw them much higher. If you assemble that much mass in LEO, you're going to have a hell of a time pushing it to Mars transfer. That's over 4 km/s, roughly equivalent to launching mass from the Mars surface to orbit.

The point of assembling a mission at L2 is that this way, the launch vehicle can do most of the work of pushing it from LEO to Mars transfer, therefore you only need to add a relatively small amount of propulsion to throw it all to Mars (propellant mass maybe a quarter of the habitat mass, as opposed to three times the habitat mass to depart from LEO). This greatly reduces the development effort and cost, compared to adding space-storable propulsion on the scale of an orbital stage.

>>well-analysed capability
>Lel.
Red Dragon. It's been a thing for years. A basically-unaltered Dragon V2 can land about a tonne of payload on the Mars surface.

>>I based my plan on the well-analysed capability of using a Falcon Heavy to launch a Dragon V2 to the Mars surface with ~1 tonne of payload
>You'd be linking to your NSF posts if this was a "well analysed" plan.
I think it's pretty obvious that I didn't say that it was.

It's a napkin sketch plan, but it's based on well-analysed capabilities. There's nothing in there that requires a major new development effort. Lots of ways for it to go wrong and the astronaut to die, but nothing that would require new inventions, additional billions of dollars, or more than a year or two to prepare.

>>7565114
>There's nothing in there that requires a major new development effort. Lots of ways for it to go wrong and the astronaut to die, but nothing that would require new inventions, additional billions of dollars, or more than a year or two to prepare.


That's a load of bullshit.

Have a read here, most of these schemes here are inline with what I've claimed:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38506.0

>>7565124
>Have a read here, most of these schemes here are inline with what I've claimed:
>http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38506.0
NSF is a good source of detailed insider information. Some low-level industry people hang out there and leak information, and some fanatic fanboys scrape every available source and take pictures with telephoto lenses.

It is NOT a good source of mission planning or analysis of anything. It's full of people with big mouths and small brains.

As for the actual content:
>you may assume a new high energy US
>You may assume propellant depots, SEP/NEP, and ISRU on Mars.
>You may design in-transit habs, surface-habs, human rovers as you wish.

This is a fantasy thread, starting from the "new high energy US" which SpaceX has explicitly stated that they're not going to do. Basically, these sorts of assumptions push any possible Mars mission far enough into the future for Falcon Heavy to be obsolete.

The point of talking about using Falcon Heavy and Dragon V2 for Mars is to go there soon. If your plan involves something that will take longer to develop than MCT (which, let's remember, is already under development), there's no point in involving Falcon Heavy in it. Likewise if you're not being realistic about what Falcon Heavy can do.

>>7565198

The point being that that one guy's minimum plan is far too barebones, and there are actual aerospace engineers that design launch vehicles posting the thread.

>>7565204
>there are actual aerospace engineers that design launch vehicles
Heh. Ones that work? Did HMXHMX show up? Are you impressed with (non-)space helicopters and padbombs?

Anyway, working on a launch vehicle hasn't got much to do with designing spacecraft or planning missions.

Industry people are often the worst space cadets. Consider the state of the industry. Bunch of jokers struggling to repeat things that other people figured out how to do fifty years ago.

SpaceX's return to flight mission will fail within the first 5 minutes of flight

Customers will begin to drop like flies

SpaceX will be bankrupt by the end of 2016

Screenshot this post

>>7565217
What makes you qualified to make any of these assertions? I'd trust people who put their IRL names/have a reputation on an established forum over you, some shit-head anon making shit up any day

>>7565233
>I'd trust people who put their IRL names/have a reputation on an established forum
Then why don't you stay there?

I mean, holy shit, what are you even doing on an anonymous imageboard if your idea of discussion comes down to, "Look at what these people showing their IRL names on an ESTABLISHED forum are saying! No, not any one post in particular that's specifically relevant to something I'm saying. Just read the whole book-length thread over there and then stop talking about it, because you've seen what they've said on a REAL forum." ?

I'm here trying to talk about facts and reasons, like how a Falcon 9 can't launch a Dragon even to anywhere you'd want to assemble a mission for Mars departure, and you're saying, "Well, what I said sounds vaguely like some stuff from another internet conversation from a place I like better than 4chan."

Newbie question here. Would a spotting scope with an 80mm objective work as a starter telescope or should I go out and purchase an intro level refractor telescope?

>>7563051
>>7563049
>>7563045
I love Enceladus!

>>7565284
I'd go larger than that

>>7565251
At least that's not as bad as the faggot claiming a FH could send a single person all the way to mars and they survive the trip

What a retard, I wish that person would get banned

>>7565251
Yeah I forgot for a moment that the assembled craft would need to be done at the L2 point. Change that in my plan, and it is far more consistent with what other people have come up with, even when using more realistic FH numbers to LEO/L2. It really depends on the funds and what the goal would actually be.

Does anyone else get anxiety from existential thoughts based on the fact that we're a tiny ball going through a giant void that comprises everything?

Like I watch scales of celestial objects videos and just sit there mesmerized.

Do you ever get that feel when you have a mini existential crisis and just think of something you will never know? What does death mean on this planet? What's in the great beyond? Will I live long enough to learn the truth?

Fuck man, I've never had anxiety in my life but I'm turning 22 soon and having an existential crisis based on space and shit.

>>7565365
No.

>>7562935
>stupid questions

Thoughts on an Aerospace engineering major?

>>7565370
I guess you don't think much.

>>7565373
Why on earth would you be depressed about the reality of existence?
That's retarded

>>7565365
I do think about it but it doesn't make me worried, more it makes me happy when I can really feel it
>>7565372
I'm taking it, you have to be committed but it's good
any specific questions? what school are you at?

>>7565382
I'm not depressed.
It's just extremely hard to comprehend it.

Like, you die and get cremated and your ashes scattered into the ocean or something. You just turned into nothingness.

Where does our consciousness go? It feels like I have been experiencing reality forever. Does it continue? Where do we go?

>>7565387
What about when you sleep, you arent experiencing reality then. Or when you are completely anesthetized. That's what i imagine after death is like. Sort of like permanent amnesia of everything.

Tbh its stupid to thing about especially if it makes you panic. You're not going to figure anything out by worrying about existential things

>>7565411
But other people have figured it out.

Lao Tzu
Buddha
Gandhi
Galileo
Newton

Of course some people came close to figuring it out but then got lost on the way.

Bobby Fischer for example.

>>7565416
This is getting ridiculous and highly off topic, please take it elsewhere

>>7565411
>>7565416
You are not conscious for 14 billion years before you were born
Do you remember that?
No?
That's what death is like

>>7565420
pls

>>7565421
But it just cannot end like that.
How can consciousness truly disappear?
I really want to believe in reincarnation.

>>7565425
>>>/out/

>>7565420
o i didnt see this was spess thred here is spess post

>>7565428
Thanks

>>7565431
Atlas V launch in 6 hours

>>7565426
i dont think that board is relevant

If only...

>>7563579
Thank you based ULA

>>7565284

If you're completely new to stargazing, you're better off starting with a good pair of binoculars. Much the same power at a lot lower price tag, while being far more portable and useful for other stuff as well.

Only invest in a telescope once you're sure it's the hobby for you and you have the money, time and space to invest in it.

Any one got cool cut away pics?

WHAT IS THIS???

>>7566514
For what purpose?

>Pluto's moon Charon

>>7566604
from leddit

>>7566604
Bottom half kinda looks like our moon.

I like how you can see its not perfect sphere

>>7565386
I'm in 12th grade, wondering what to do with my life. I find this interesting, so might give it a try.

How do you like it?

>>7566650
>news stuff cuck
???

BUMP???

>>7566514
It's something that does not exist

>>7566621
I'm a sophomore in it so the hardest is yet to come

I'll admit its hard but I would be constantly sad to be any major. At my school (UIUC) there's a lot of extracurricular aerospace stuff going on that's pretty easy to get involved in, so for example, I get to lead a research and development group in stage separation for our high power rocketry club. If you're passionate about space I strongly recommend giving it a go. Be prepared to work hard though

About to go see the martian fam


pretty excited

>>7568582
THIS.IS.THE.FUCKING.PIC.THAT.WILL.WIN.THE.INTERNET
AND.ME.WRITING.WITH.CAPS.LOCKED.AND.WITHOUT.SPACE.BAR.WILL.WIN.THE.INTERNET.TOO

What are my odds as a 20-year old of making it to Mars 2030? Going to start studying physics next year and later taking a masters in astronomy and spacephysics

>>7564534
True. As stupid as the Z2 EVA suit looks, the suit port thing is actually a pretty good idea.

>>7568816
Couldn't they have designed it a bit better looking? It just looks so fucking dumb.
>Yeah! We're the first people on Mars and we do science while looking like complete assholes!

>>7568832
I'm hoping that as the technology for the more flexible joints, suit ports, and reinforced exteriors becomes more refined, the suit will get a visual redesign too.

>>7568859
Hopefully, I'm aiming to be a part of that mission and I don't want to walk around representing earth and shit while looking like a dick
If it doesn't look like an awesome suit on earth, it doesn't look like an awesome suit on Mars. NASA, ESA, JAXA etc. Get your shit together.

>>7568870
Same here! 90s babies represent.

>>7562940
Wanna know what a real waste of money looks like? The fucking Exomars mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExoMars

tl;dr ESA is sending a probe to Mars to confirm stuff we've known since before even the Curiosity era, because they've waited for so fucking long before deciding on a launch date.

What's more they're sending it on a Proton, which means the damn thing has a very high chance of not even reaching Mars.

>>7568663
Best way to Mars now is to save up $500,000 USD (in 2030 dollars), for a SpaceX ticket to Mars.

>>7566620
But anon thats phobos

For someone who got out of high school with average grades, doing bad at first and then making up big time evening it out, could I still further my education enough to work for a space company or am I fucked?

Anyone seen The Martian yet?

>>7568882
The science payload on the ExoMars rover is nothing like anything that's been sent before. Just because it's a rover doesn't mean it's the same.

Secondly ExoMars goes beyond the rover to the Trace Gas Orbiter which will what Curiosity has failed to and study the methane.

>>7569834
>which will what Curiosity has failed to and study the methane.

Neat, glad to see someone is trying to figure that out. I'm worried that it's launching on Proton, though.

>>7569816

Yes. Scientifically laughable.
Just a family friendly drama/thriller.

>>7569842
It was the only way to keep the cost down after the NASA withdrawal-clusterfuck. ExoMars was one of 4 missions NASA agreed to partner with ESA on and later withdrew at the last second. It would fly with Max-C. NASA canceled Max-C because of money and months later revived as the even more expensive 2020 rover.

Proton will probably be fine. It has had quite a few failures but it files much more often than anything other than Soyuz.

>>7569864

Sure thing bud. It's certainly far better than any movie we've had so far. Were there mistakes made in accuracy? For sure, especially that last scene. It's by far the best space movie in terms of scientific accuracy, besides re-creations like Apollo 13.

>>7569868
It'll be fine on Proton as long as Proton has had its annual failure already.

>>7569870
I personally thought that the Europa report was fairly realistic ayylmao aside

Maybe it's just that I had very low expectations for it

>>7570189
That movie was fucking terrible, what are you talking about?

>>7570189
Humans would die fucking fast on Europe - it's well within Jupiter's deadly radiation field.

>>7570195
Idk I just liked it, jeez

Apollo 13 is the best space movie. Based on true story, dontcha know?

Gravity is alright if you mute it and put on some music

>>7570240
There's nothing realistic about gravity, the acting is terrible, the plot is shit. You have terrible taste.

>>7570248
Its pretty though

>>7570240
First of all, 2001 is the best space movie

Space exploration is a meme of science that has close to 0 value for humans.

inb4
>muh mars
>mars
>MAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSS

>>7570507
2001's ending was pure shit and I disagree with your freshman movie critic's class bullshit.

Fuck that shit.

>>7570198
Plenty of Syrians seem to like it fine

>>7570653
Fuck me I lol'd and was embarrassed for my typing prowess

>>7570606

>what is the progression of man

get good

>>7570677
I disagree it will be anything like that shit ending. Get fucked.

>>7562935
Is there a reliable way to guess the age of a galaxy? As in is there anything more reliable than using the redshift of the galaxy or the age of stars in the galaxy?

>>7570606
Why do you think it was shit?

>>7570734

I think it's pretty fucking obvious. It's a dumb ending.

>>7563109
>Angara V should start making regular flights soon enough
Except for the fact that the new Vostochny spaceport is a gigantic clusterfuck of Russian proportions. Besides the fact that it is years overdue and constantly underfunded, they just discovered that their first pad must be rebuilt because it was built to the wrong measurements and won't fit the modern Soyuz variants. So the Soyuz that just arrived will have to sit in its train cars for over a year while Putin makes heads roll and they figure their shit out.

>>7570744
Soon for me in space terms is 5-10 years. I was born in the 80s, seen so many delays that seems somewhat soon

Yeah I read that on NSF as well about the soyuz

Why does soyuz have that exposed frame between stages? Doesnt it create a shit ton of drag?

>>7570738
oh ok

>>7566588
>Hermes
>For what purpose?

to justify the development of the Ariane 5 heavy lifter.

>>7570756
no, it doesn't create that much drag. Almost all the drag of a cylindrical rocket is generated by the nose cone, especially once it goes supersonic.

The open lattice is there for "hot separation". The upper stage's motors fire while the lower stage is still attached. This separation mode has some safety advantages, though your stages and motors have to be designed for it. Many Russian rockets have this, and also a few Chinese ones if I remember right.

>>7570768
Thanks bro, have some SammyC

>>7570773
delish! I look forward in the coming decades to the declassification of reports of the first orbital sex. (You KNOW it has happened already, they just can't talk about it.)

>>7570805
IIRC there was a married couple on the shuttle. They kept their relationship - even the marriage - secret from NASA.

Also, a woman got groped by some dirty Russian on the ISS once.

>>7569816

It was fantastic in my opinion. Naturally, there's a bit of artistic license taken, but I feel like they actually put a decent amount of effort towards making it appear accurate.

>>7570512

Fuck off, humanity is destined to spread among the stars.

>>7570512
Do you think Mars is red because it's embarrassed that humans are eyeing it constantly?

Anyone going to the JPL open house this year?!
If you are, just say you are lol

>>7571343
me.
tfw I'm going alone because friends aren't fascinated with space in general as me.

>>7570698
No, there isn't really any single number you can put on the age of a galaxy. Galaxy evolution is an ongoing process, they form new stars, they merge, they accrete new gas, they are disrupted. At what point to you say it's age zero?

Redshift is perfectly reliable at telling you how distant it is and from there you know what the look-back age of the galaxy is.

>>7566314
>dad calls me enthusiastically that he found and bought something very cool on the internet
>I come over
>it's a secondhand Meade reflecting telescope
>he didn't pay a lot for it, because the tracking motors and handheld computer driving them seemed to be broken
>he's already making plans to fix it and is reading up on the fundamentals of owning and using a reflecting telescope
>but first, he wants to set it up and finetune it to give it a try
>I help him
>finally it's put together and ready for a test
>the sky is clear, perfect weather
>after looking at Mars, my dad realises that using a consumer telescope, even a large one, won't let you see a lot of celestial bodies in detail
>he stores it in the attic, robbed of an illusion
It's still there, he should sell it.

>>7571963
my dad bought me a telescope for my birthday and the exact opposite occurred, we both got really excited about being able to see cloud lines on jupiter, rings of saturn, orion nebula etc. It's really exciting to see any surface detail period, as for mars, you really need to see it at the right season and the poles can be visible

>https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/651429449406222337
IT'S HAPPENING

>>7574155
What sort of region is this happening in? Manned moon mission or contract to launch a satellite?

wat?

>>7574176
It's probably either MCT/BFR reveal or a falcon heavy mission to the outer planets

>>7574182
Really looking forward to the FH.

They better actually be doing something real and not just announcing some pipe dream they have had

>>7574196
To be fair, SpaceX has so far done everything that they announced

>>7574197
Very true, the bad rep sci gives the company is beyond me
>>7574182
I imagine its something of that caliber

>>7574270
/sci/ doesn't hate spacex
/sci/ hates the spacex fan club

>>7574271
No /sci/ hates SpaceX. To see a non academic businessman shaking up the establishment triggers them. I say if he delivers who cares about his credentials?

Anybody have that picture arguing to fund space travel with all the memes?

>>7574282
Are you that anon that got called out earlier in the thread for being a fucking retard?

Anybody here use Space Engine? Amazing stuff. It's like Astronomy porn.

Oh look.
http://www.iflscience.com/space/nasa-solves-mystery-bright-spots-ceres

>>7576052
>iflscience

>>7576058
I was reading up on Ceres and this popped up. I clicked it, read it, and saw no other article about it.

>>7574155
>>7574182
Mostly likely detailing the Mars colonization plans by SpaceX. Musk has been on the record multiple times saying that SpaceX will unveil their plans near the end of 2015. To get Chris to be excited means that they probably showed him some really detailed plans.

>never, ever

>>7576540
fusion pulse rockets soon, friend

>>7576531
Seems like the most likely thing. Just more detail on stuff they've already told us they're doing.

"The most exciting thing ever, guys! Drawings of the things they want to do in ten or twenty years!"

>>7576609
maybe he was shown a full scale mock up of mct?

>>7576613
>full scale
Where would they put it?

Are they opening SpaceX Land? Maybe there's a hotel built into it.

>>7576624
>Come visit SpaceX Land, where the rides are out of this world!

>>7576624
I mean the spacecraft, not the rocket.

It would probably easily fit on one of their hangers.

>>7576609
I wouldn't be shocked if it was a Raptor engine prototype already running on a test stand.

I went ahead and checked out NSF forum to see if anything was posted and saw that Chris made a thread about the tweet, saying:

>I can say to you, with a lot of confidence, everything one hopes SpaceX is, has been promising and may become, is more than you could have hoped for.
>We all know the forward plan, but I think we're all going to be blown away by just how big those plans are

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38593.0

>>7576745
Meanwhile according to the reddit thread, SpaceX's Mars rocket will be upwards of 2.4 times as powerful as the Saturn V.

/r/spacex/comments/3nus3u/gwynne_shotwell_mars_rocket_will_have_three_or/

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

Atlas V with NROL-55 spy satellite planned to launch today at 1249 GMT (8:49 a.m. EDT; 5:49 a.m. PDT... in about an hour after creation of this thread)

Livestream/blog
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/10/07/av058-journal/

T -4 min hold atm

Looks like a faggot

Launch vehicle proceeding with count

2 minutes until countdown resumption

>>7577006

T -3 minutes

T -90sec

Liftoff! Spy sat for NRO, polar orbit

>>7577074
thanks for the pics. Since this was a pre-dawn launch, anyone get a shot of the "jellyfish", the exhaust plume near first stage jettison when it hit sunlight?

Also, check the 4chan front page. Our new overlord and master is also a space enthusiast!

>>7574155
He went on to say "I personally think it's the most exciting info I've ever had the privilege of seeing." in the nasaspaceflight forum. My bets are on MCT

>>7577074
>>7577073
Hey man, I was watching the launch yesterday and was wondering why the flames from the bottom of the shuttle seemed to be 'bending' towards the earth rather than just an even spread in all directions

>>7578178
Here's a poor quality screenshot of what I mean

>>7578178
>shuttle

>>7578186
my bad, rocket

>>7578188
Btw it's because of gravity

>>7578190
but why is it so dramatic? Is it just because the trail is longer than it appears? I thought the gravity would much weaker up that high and therefore less affect

>>7578195
Gravity in low earth orbit is only about 10% less than surface

>>7578203
>>7578190
That's wrong though
The exhaust will follow a parabolic trajectory just like everything else

>>7576745
I am 99% sure at this point that it's going to be stuff they've told us before, still off into the distantish future, but now with nice drawings and a message that amounts to "ya rly".

What they've already told us:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter
>100 people at a time to Mars
>100 tons of cargo on Mars
>fully reusable
>within 10–20 years
>self-sustaining, at least 1 million people
>10 cargo trips for every human trip
>100,000 trips of a giant spaceship

Chris is such a ridiculous fanboy.
>I think we're all going to be blown away by just how big those plans are
I don't think so, Chris. They've already told us that they plan to build a city on Mars by flying something roughly equivalent to the entire Apollo program a hundred thousand times.

>>7578468
>100 people at a time to Mars
why do I have the feeling this is going to go terribly wrong

>>7578475
Well, I think the plan is to start by sending 10 people at a time, mostly NASA and ESA astronauts and SpaceX personnel, with a lot of backup systems and supplies they can cut down on as their main systems are proven reliable. (like taking tons of lithium peroxide or sodium peroxide as an alternative to a powered system that converts your CO2 and H2O back to oxygen)

Similar to how you can fly an experimental jet with a couple guys with ejector seats, parachutes helmets, personal air supplies, and search-and-rescue on standby, or you can fly a commercial jet with a hundred guys in normal clothes and basically no backup plan because your normal plan just doesn't go wrong any more.

>this will never be real
feels bad man tbh

>>7578282
You just said that me and that other dude were wrong and then agreed with us

>>7578680
Maybe, probably launched from Mars though

The Moon is a terrible place to stay. Mostly because of its 1 month rotation period. This mean you either have to store 15 days of power to last the night or you go full nuclear power. As far as I know, NASA is quite low on plutonium for their RTGs and have just recently have been authorized to manufacture some small amount. It's fine for slow ass rovers, but for a full base, you'd need an actual reactor. Let me tell you outright: we'll never be launching nuclear fuel rods on a rocket. If the launch fails, we all die.

>>7579468

I imagine that any base on the Moon would be situated on its north or south pole. You'll have peaks of eternal light for your power and craters of eternal darkness for keeping out of the worst of the sun.

>>7579468
I believe that we will eventually be launching fuel rods, we'll just need something safe enough that a launch failure won't be a disaster

As for the moon, I don't see it ever becoming a major target for colonization

>>7579549
Unfortunately, the Moon has 1.5° tilt relative to the Sun. So it means several months per year of darkness near the poles.

>>7579468
>Let me tell you outright: we'll never be launching nuclear fuel rods on a rocket. If the launch fails, we all die.
New, never-been-critical nuclear fuel rods are simply not a large-scale radiation hazard, while the commonly-launched RTGs are a *terrible* radiation hazard if containment is breached.

See, fresh nuclear fuel rods are made of uranium enriched in the fissile isotope U235 (for space applications, it's reasonable to assume that they're highly enriched, because this makes much smaller reactors possible). U235 has a half-life of over 700 million years. That means it takes over 700 million years for any sample of the stuff to undergo decay. It's just barely radioactive.

If we dump U235 in the ocean, and it dissolves in the ocean, that doesn't affect the composition of the ocean, which already has uranium dissolved in it, including plenty of U235. In fact, if we had a rocket carrying highly enriched uranium crash, we'd want the uranium to dissolve as soon as possible, to eliminate the possibility that someone would find it and use it for a bomb.

Pu238, used in RTGs, has a half-life of about 87.7 years. That means it's roughly 10 million times more radioactive that U235. Furthermore, since plutonium is basically absent from the natural environment, while trace uranium is ubiquitous, living things (including us) have evolved to promply remove uranium from their bodies, but not plutonium. So Pu238 is actually much more than 10 million times as dangerous as U235. If you get Pu238 into your body, most of it is probably going to stay there until a large fraction of it undergoes energetic alpha decay, shooting little atomic cannonballs through your DNA and other delicate cellular machinery.

Launching nuclear fuel into space: not a problem. Launching RTGs into space: kind of an irresponsible risk.

>>7579641
By the way, it's a little different to launch a complete nuclear reactor into space, because you might get a criticality event on the pad or during launch.

To be really safe when launching nuclear fuel into space, you should launch it packed with neutron-absorbers or in small loads, so accidental criticality is impossible, and assemble the reactor in space.

(of course, operating a nuclear reactor in Earth orbit does pose some risk of dumping the thing, with its waste on Earth at some point, so ideally you'd assemble and activate the thing on the moon, or some other place where accidental return to Earth is seriously implausible)

>>7579641
Granted, but if we're unlucky enough, the fuel rods survives the initial failure and go full China Syndrome on us.

>>7579681
This is practically impossible if they are loaded in a remotely sensible manner.

Well I don't really picture astronauts building a nuclear reactor in space, so in my view it would have to be sent as a whole. Meaning coolant could be lost, and control bars could break/get stuck out.

Another question I have is whether these things can even withstand the kind of G-load and vibrations of a rocket launch.

>>7579699
>I don't really picture astronauts building a nuclear reactor in space
"Assembling" and "building" are pretty different things. The ISS was built on the ground, but assembled in space. The Apollo spacecraft was built on the ground, but assembled in space (for the launch escape system to work, the crew capsule needed to be on top, but for the crew to get in the lander, it needed to be on top).

Inserting fuel rods can be made to be pretty simple, so a small robot arm can do it.

>>7579713
What things? You have to build something pretty delicate for it to be unable to go up in a rocket.

>>7579737
Nuclear fuel rods/reactors. As far as I can tell, the most Gs these things have ever taken are from submarines and carriers.

>>7579753
Nuclear reactors have been sent into space in the past.

The launch forces just aren't a problem. They're something you have to take into account, but not something difficult. Reactors and fuel rods are normally built to be fairly robust against physical damage, to prevent accidents.

>>7579468
Nuclear reactors have been launched to space before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A

>>7579773
Well yeah. I wish they didn't.

>After the 1965 system failure, the reactor was left in a 1,300-kilometre (700 nmi) Earth orbit for an expected duration of 4,000 years.

I won't be around, but wtf?

>>7579773
Also please notice the prevalence of the word 'failure' in all those launches.

I have a stupid question, but I would like to hear what /sci/ has to say. Why is it, that the public receives beautiful high definition pics of Pluto, but gets this shit >>7562943
when it comes to Titan? Here we have a moon with a flourishing atmosphere full of clouds and lakes on the terrain, but can't seem to get a good pic. But Pluto? The lonely rock, fucking beautiful, sharp pictures for the public to gaze at.

If you're taking nuclear reactors, the craters of eternal darkness on the moon are a great place because:
1) consistency (always out of the sun, so you only have to design for the cold and dark, not for cold and dark sometimes and on some sides, and blazing heat and light sometimes and on some sides),
2) protection from solar protons,
3) efficiency of radiation (your radiators will always be facing the cold darkness of space, which is important for heat engines), and
4) water and other volatiles, including nitrogen and carbon compounds (they're dumped on the moon by comet impacts and tend to freeze and stay in the coldest places).

The first thing you'd want to do on the moon is set up a volatiles mining operation, and this is where you'd find the volatiles.

I think a thorium fuel cycle is interesting for the moon because the protactinium intermediate has a half-life long enough (nearly a month) to make useful RTGs, betavoltaics, and optoelectric nuclear batteries for smaller, less shielded, more crew-compatible devices. It also means that after one carefully secured (probably military-run) launch of highly-enriched uranium, you can keep things running indefinitely (and even fuel gradual expansion) with only shipments of thorium, which doesn't have to be secured more than typical space payloads because it's of such low proliferation concern (getting a supply of HEU puts you pretty close to having a bomb, owning a supply of thorium puts you little closer to having a nuke than the average man on the street).

The way I see it is that you'd have a landing site / temporary camp on a peak that stays lit for months at a time, so your conventional solar-powered space systems can work there, then you'd start your reactor in the shadows and trek down to where they're eternal to build your long-term base.

>>7579815
Well I don't think new horizon can beat that resolution.
Also Cassini is pretty old tech. Like 1980s tech.

>>7579839
So why would NASA want high resolution pics first of Pluto and not Titan?

>>7579961
Titan is very interesting but almost impossible to map like Pluto because of it's haze. You can't map in the optical from orbit. You need to go to the near-infrared where the Sun is dimmer and you are far from the Sun. Then add in the fact because Titan has such a dense atmosphere and low gravity that a satellite cannot use a low orbit. You end up with something like JWST just to do what HiRISE does on Mars.

Also we have radar observations of Titan. Science isn't just about nice pictures.

enjoy

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157659383580161

>>7580189
Holy fuck thats beautiful. Dumb question though, are the black crosses where they've joined multiple photos together or something like that?

>>7562943
>>7562974
>>7562953
>>7563026
>>7563043
>>7563052
>>7563063
>>7563124
>>7563140
>>7563180
>>7563245
>>7563259
>>7563361
>>7563380
>>7563384
>>7563390
>>7563457
>>7563472
>>7563463
>>7563528
you utter fags, can you fucking read the first post?

>>7580212
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_plate

Specialized in thermofluids in mechanical engineering, but I want to work on space hardware after my masters (Im in purdues aero astro masters program). People are just expecting me to continue on with my knowledge of thermofluids etc and dont really see my work as "astronaut experience." Have I made a grand mistake? I specialized in fluids because it was my only way into a top program like this, but now im competing with 22 year olds with flight experience whos dads were astronauts

>>7580243
Everything will work out as long as your try your best anon

>>7580362
New thread