/sfg/ - Space Flight General

[Anonymous No.14734546]

Previous: >>14729729

[Anonymous No.14734556]

Booster 7 is alive

[Anonymous No.14734557]

Is For all mankind worth watching? Reading the season 3 episode summaries, it seems a bit sjw-ish. And it didn't feel that exciting, more like something you can keep playing in the background?

[Anonymous No.14734568]

>>14734557
>sjw-ish
Dude..come on.. it's appletv+

[Anonymous No.14734571]

>>14734568
im no american and i don't like american politics, so i had to ask
even imgur and reddit front page is american politics
im sick and tired of it

[Anonymous No.14734573]

>>14734557
In the trailer someone says, 'being first is what its all about'
But not america first.

[Anonymous No.14734574]

>>14734557
>>>/tv/
>>>/n/(because you're the space board schizo trying to derail the thread yet again)

[Anonymous No.14734576]

>>14734557
Nope. Its just SJW trash

[Anonymous No.14734580]

>>14734571
I'm british, you know exactly what 'liberal' shit apple stands for.
I don't care about a diverse cast within reason, but usually that means the writing is sloppy because they hired twitter posters.

[Anonymous No.14734591]

If Starship actually works, the USA will have such an advantage in space technology. One that other countries can't hope to match for decades.
This has both military and commercial benefits that no other country can touch.

JAXA isn’t going to have a reusable rocket until the 2040s. ESA posted a diagram of their future rockets and they won’t have anything that resembles starship until the 2040s (someone post it I don’t have it saved) China won’t have a starship clone until as early as 2035

Imagine what starship will be doing then?

[Anonymous No.14734593]

LASERS... ON FREAKING MARS????
AWESOME SAUCE!!!!! HOW COOL IS THAT EVERYONE

[Anonymous No.14734605]

>>14734591
Falcon Heavy works and is such an advantage, but is not utilized at all.

[Anonymous No.14734608]

>>14734591
Nvm I found it. What a fucking joke

[Anonymous No.14734619]

>>14734576
>Its just SJW trash

I did not truly understand the insanity of the SJW until I watched Sandman and they made Lucien (a White male) into Lucienne (a Black female).
WHY???
It is like they feel a compulsion to put Black people into EVERYTHING.

[Anonymous No.14734622]

>>14734619
The insanity is real. The propaganda is real. Its just nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14734623]

>>14734608
whoops heres a better one

[Anonymous No.14734634]

>>14734620 fucking retardposter bro. feels like he's a recent addition.

[Anonymous No.14734649]

>>14734647
Submarines in shallow water perhaps?

[Anonymous No.14734664]

>>14734605
>and is such an advantage
No it's not. Falcon Heavy is a good rocket and the most powerful one currently operational but it's not 100x cheaper for launch services like Starship is going to be.

[Anonymous No.14734668]

so what's the point of this thread? elon musk is going down soon

[Anonymous No.14734670]

B7 is airborne

[Anonymous No.14734677]

>>14734664
Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket in the world, its the most powerful rocket in the US arsenal for 4+ years and it has barely seen any use.

[Anonymous No.14734685]

According to L2 the tower will be scrapped

[Anonymous No.14734686]

>>14734670
WTF HOW COME THEY CAN LIFT THE THING WITH A CRANE?

I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE WTF.

[Anonymous No.14734687]

easy mnemonic
perigee - pakathula
apogee - anga

[Anonymous No.14734695]

>>14734619
black females are 5% of us population
americans are 5% of world population

yet the black female is everywhere, how?

[Anonymous No.14734696]

delete this thread its redundant

[Anonymous No.14734698]

>>14734685
based. it will fall like musks crumbling facade

[Anonymous No.14734703]

SOLAR MOUNTAIN COMES ON THE PERIHELION
NO REROUTING, ONLY COUNTIN' TILL WE'RE DONE
SHOUTIN' SINS UNTIL WE'RE IN THE SUN

[Anonymous No.14734706]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqbC916bH5M

LIVE

[Anonymous No.14734709]

>>14734695
>yet the black female is everywhere, how?

I can explain it int he Biden administration.
Biden has a long history of sexism and racism, so to blunt any attacks on him about his past he is appointing black woman to high profile positions:
Supreme Court Justice
Representative of the USA to the UN
White House Press Secretary
Vice President

[Anonymous No.14734716]

[Anonymous No.14734720]

>>14734695
because it's equitable

[Anonymous No.14734721]

>>14734716
what are those things that bulge out of the cylinders above the grid fins

[Anonymous No.14734724]

>>14734685
According to L2 they will swing B7 around on the crane like wrecking ball to tear down the entire launch site.

[Anonymous No.14734729]

Lift

[Anonymous No.14734732]

This can't be happening

[Anonymous No.14734735]

>The virgin chop sticks vs the CHAD CRANE

[Anonymous No.14734736]

>>14734729
If spin prime becomes success next week for 20 engines, they'll roll back with 13 more engines, then do another spin prime with other 13, then static fire is possible the week after

[Anonymous No.14734740]

who this adrian guy and why he sound so girl

[Anonymous No.14734753]

>>14734729

[Anonymous No.14734755]

>>14734753

[Anonymous No.14734759]

>>14734753
where is sshot-048.jpg

[Anonymous No.14734762]

hats off to the wondeful folks at nsf

[Anonymous No.14734764]

>>14734755

[Anonymous No.14734765]

everything's looking so huge

[Anonymous No.14734767]

HE TRIPPED
LMAO

[Anonymous No.14734771]

>>14734767
LMAO
IMAGINE WATCHING TANKS ALL

[Anonymous No.14734772]

>>14734759
>>14734729 you blind?

[Anonymous No.14734774]

>>14734764

[Anonymous No.14734777]

>>14734772
no I'm Michael

[Anonymous No.14734780]

>>14734777
NO MICHAEL NO THIS IS SO NOT RIGHT

[Anonymous No.14734785]

>>14734774
Going down into the locking mechanism fast

[Anonymous No.14734786]

>>14734780
Toto its called a motor race, okay? We went car racing

[Anonymous No.14734789]

what are you excited for? yeah oh im excited for another muskian rushed project that fails masterfully due to launch fever and elon's slavedriving. im sure that will work like it always does...oh wait

[Anonymous No.14734793]

>>14734785

[Anonymous No.14734798]

>>14734793
don't you have like anything better to do? How old are you? You could be building an actual rocket instead of watching tanks

[Anonymous No.14734804]

I LOVE Elon Musk!

[Anonymous No.14734808]

>>14734804
i love spaceflight period

[Anonymous No.14734809]

>>14734808
I don't like period

[Anonymous No.14734811]

>>14734808
And GARMARS

[Anonymous No.14734813]

>>14734808
Are there studies on the menstrual cycle in space?

[Anonymous No.14734818]

>>14734813
yes

[Anonymous No.14734819]

>>14734808
Go back

[Anonymous No.14734822]

>>14734808
When she STOPS having her period, is when you ask... is a zero or no gravity environment OK for pregnancy?

[Anonymous No.14734828]

>>14734808
>>14734811
Most don't know

[Anonymous No.14734833]

>>14734808
Elon Musk = spaceflight

[Anonymous No.14734836]

> astronauts can't get erections in space
have they tried sexier crews?

[Anonymous No.14734839]

>>14734836
i've read morning wood is pretty severe in zero g

[Anonymous No.14734841]

>>14733089

[Anonymous No.14734843]

>>14734839
Miyasaki didn't get any morning wood

[Anonymous No.14734852]

>>14734843
>didn't get any morning wood

Well, I guess I will not be living in zero G.

[Anonymous No.14734854]

>>14734841

[Anonymous No.14734857]

>>14734841
More like this

[Anonymous No.14734872]

first for premixed oxygen and methane.

[Anonymous No.14734874]

How can beam propulsion work but you cant carry a giant laser and point it backwards

[Anonymous No.14734877]

>>14734874
Giant laser pointed backwards does produce thrust. It produces half as much thrust as bouncing a powerful laser beam off of a mirror. Since a mirror is much lighter than a superpowerful laser and its energy supply, it makes more sense to carry a mirror and subscribe to a laser.

[Anonymous No.14734881]

>>14734872
Isn't that just a sensitive high explosive

[Anonymous No.14734884]

guess who's about to become the world's leading expert in bill nelson thought. the previous owner didn't even color in most of the pages!

[Anonymous No.14734886]

>>14734877
> your propulsion is a subscription streaming service
this is my issue with them

[Anonymous No.14734888]

>>14734881
yes

[Anonymous No.14734894]

>>14734886
It's an issue, yes. it may also just be something we're stuck with if we want very high speed transportation in space and can't do fusion effectively for whatever reason.

[Anonymous No.14734911]

>>14734894
its acute in interstellar missions where you might travel for decades and expect a braking beam to decelerate you into the target system...and there has been a war/revolution/whatever so it never comes

[Anonymous No.14734918]

>>14734736
so two more weeks

[Anonymous No.14734924]

>>14734918
Eternally 2 weeks away

[Anonymous No.14734926]

[Anonymous No.14734928]

>>14734721
the big things that cross the seam are the latches that hold the two parts of the rocket together, the little thing above the O in falcon is probably a camera

[Anonymous No.14734929]

https://twitter.com/NASAGroundSys/status/1555549554560335872
>Vehicle Assembly Building High Bay 3 Platform E was retracted last night. ½ of the platforms are now retracted. Platform K will be retracted tonight, with B, C, E next week, starting on Tues.
What will happen to this general once SLS flies first while Starship is still eternally two weeks away from launching?

[Anonymous No.14734932]

>>14734929
I don't think starship is flying this year

[Anonymous No.14734933]

>>14734929
I don't know.
https://youtu.be/4ptPdlVAwFg

[Anonymous No.14734936]

It's true that we have been continually promised the static fire is some two weeks away for the last year but I feel like it's finally happening now. This is a big step and it's what will distinguish SS from N1

[Anonymous No.14734948]

[Anonymous No.14734949]

>>14734936
>promised
you don't know what that word means

[Anonymous No.14734954]

>>14734929
There's a good chance of flying in September

[Anonymous No.14734958]

>>14734949
Elon Musk promised me a pony. He's a liar

[Anonymous No.14734966]

[Anonymous No.14734967]

>>14734958
he didn't lie, he changed his mind after he found out what you wanted the pony for you sicko

[Anonymous No.14734971]

>>14734886
Can sirius fuck off.
Also i heard from anton channel there was this star at 0.8ly 70k year ago. https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/blog/1549/a-passing-star-our-suns-near-miss/

[Anonymous No.14734980]

>>14734695
>(((how?)))

[Anonymous No.14734988]

>>14734911
That's why most pioneering interstellar missions will very likely use laser assisted departure propulsion, but rely on their own power systems for deceleration at their targets.

[Anonymous No.14734989]

>>14734808
GIRUGAMESH!

[Anonymous No.14734991]

>>14734971
Sirius is good because you can do gravitational assists with the white dwarf to boost you to another system

[Anonymous No.14735036]

How do you destroy a constellation with thousands of satellites?

[Anonymous No.14735040]

>>14734545
>>14734536
I imagine hydraulics are attractive because they can strongly hold so much weight, what would be another option, to so strongly and with precise timing securely clasp?

And how often are there such problems with hydrolics? You see videos of factories from the 40s and stuff, or big steel Mills, and there massive machines and hydraulic presses and other things, they look like they just work non stop


>>14734443
Instead of building the first mars base, any way one of the first starships can be built as the first mars base so when it lands there is a process to convert it into a base?

Would there be any way to controllably get it from a vertical to horizontal position once on Mars?
Or that is also too risky without much upside.


Do the computers that control starships bellyflop to vertical landing manuvers going to simulation train on Mars atmosphere levels, and is there other ways?

Like how different will the rates of fall and thruster power and angles be different in mars atmosphere?

Or the thrusters just do whatever they must do so that they recieve readings that the ship is perfectly vertical?

[Anonymous No.14735046]

>>14735036
highly doubt Musk would do it considering he has a factory in China

[Anonymous No.14735051]

What are the probabilities that there could be some amount of gas deposit at some percentages of locations at some depth ranges under the martian surface that if drilled into could exhibit some outward bursting or otherwise dangerous force?

[Anonymous No.14735064]

>>14735036
I really don't get how those American "patriots" can openly support authoritarian shitholes.

[Anonymous No.14735069]

>>14734793
>>14734774
>>14734755
Is that solely the booster?

What are these different space flight ships?

This one has a hugebooster it holds onto into orbit? And uses to get to mars?

Or is that the whole ship there?

[Anonymous No.14735090]

>>14734967
but she was just the right height
no bucket required

[Anonymous No.14735092]

>>14735036
Once in place, the satellites have limited ability to maneuver. You toss up a bunch of debris into the plane you want to go dark. You can't just target one area on Earth, but you can target any plane that covers that area. More satellites would have to be launched to replace those lost and if the plane is littered with debris, you have to wait a couple of years for it to clear.
Early on Musk said SpaceX wouldn't get involved in politics because it would be dangerous to the the survival of the Starlink constellation to do so but he quickly went full retard with Ukraine, angering one of the nations that can very easily destroy Starlink if it wants. Getting Starlink and SpaceX involved with Taiwan and China would be even stupider. Don't be surprised if at some point China has an "oopsie" that knocks out Starlink should SpaceX continue to operate as an arm of the US government.

[Anonymous No.14735098]

>>14735064
Perhaps they differentiate between their nation and the government of their country.

[Anonymous No.14735102]

>>14735098
You sound like you're one of them.

[Anonymous No.14735140]

>>14735098
They should hold their government accountable more often

[Anonymous No.14735169]

>>14735092
>More satellites would have to be launched to replace those lost and if the plane is littered with debris, you have to wait a couple of years for it to clear.

Once Starship is operational, it'll be fairly simple to replace damaged sats & clear debris with other specialised sats, the payload capacity will be totally unprecedented.

>angering one of the nations that can very easily destroy Starlink if it wants.
>Don't be surprised if at some point China has an "oopsie" that knocks out Starlink should SpaceX continue to operate as an arm of the US government.

And the US military can even more easily destroy Beidou and GLONASS - and again, the US will replace lost sats even more easily than Russia or China can (IIRC Russia can't even afford to replace GLONASS sats which decay out of orbit on schedule).

If I were China I wouldn't do shit in space until:
- Starship Clone
- WWIII

whichever comes first

and if I were Russia, I'd just swallow my pride already and buy Chinese

[Anonymous No.14735180]

>>14735051
effectively zero.

[Anonymous No.14735186]

>>14735069
>>14735040
Why are you here if you apparently know nothing about rockets and are retarded?

[Anonymous No.14735189]

lets go anons

[Anonymous No.14735194]

>>14735189
Where?

[Anonymous No.14735199]

>>14735189
ok we are going

[Anonymous No.14735200]

>>14735189
ikeeeeeeee

[Anonymous No.14735220]

>>14735051
near the poles? quite likely as it vents naturally

[Anonymous No.14735224]

>>14735180
>>14735186
>>14735220
Learn to recognize the retard and stop replying.

[Anonymous No.14735235]

[Anonymous No.14735236]

>>14735036
Since we are at the threshold of Kessel syndrome destroying a few should do it

[Anonymous No.14735239]

>>14735194
to other worlds

[Anonymous No.14735242]

>>14735194
you moms house ;)

[Anonymous No.14735262]

Are air breathing rocket engines worth it?

[Anonymous No.14735291]

>>14734857
To be fair, some of these are already researched, while others are so general as to be meaningless. What will be interesting is to see where Blue directs their energy after New Glenn is flying. They’ve already got a lot of commitments.

[Anonymous No.14735293]

>>14735262
They work well just not in space (no air)

[Anonymous No.14735315]

>NASA’s chief astronaut says the entire astronaut corps, and not just an “Artemis Team” subset announced in 2020, will be eligible for Artemis missions. “As long as you are healthy, we’re going to load you on a rocket and shoot you off the planet.”
A reminder to take care of yourself

[Anonymous No.14735335]

>>14734557
you can skip ahead through the gay shit but it gets increasingly prevalent with every season, by now it's sometimes like half the fucking episode

the space stuff is getting more diluted and stupid too

[Anonymous No.14735336]

>>14735262
if you're trying to put something into space there's a very limited window in which it's going to help. you're not going to be going fast enough to take in much oxygen at liftoff and there just isn't a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere above 50 kilometers.

[Anonymous No.14735350]

>>14735315
>the entire astronaut corps, and not just an “Artemis Team” subset announced in 2020, will be eligible for Artemis missions
SOON

[Anonymous No.14735364]

>>14735092
>into the plane you want to go dark
but the vast majority of starlink satellites share the same medium inclination orbit that passes over every spot on the earth's surface. to clear them out from an area you need to clear them all.

[5'10 245lbs mountain of a man No.14735385]

>>14735169
>I'd just swallow my pride already and buy Chinese
Stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.14735398]

>>14735236
>Starlink sats causing Kessler syndrome

[Anonymous No.14735401]

>>14735262
Will they produce a lower cost launch system than a fully reusable conventional rocket? If the answer is no, then no.
They would be interesting to study for Titan surface to orbit launch vehicles though.

[Anonymous No.14735405]

>>14735364
Correct. Niggas forget that the earth rotates and does not drag those orbits around for the ride.

[Anonymous No.14735408]

>>14735236
Kessler syndrome is certified impossible

[Anonymous No.14735414]

>>14735408
It's possible in higher orbits where there is minimal drag to de-orbit small particles but it requires a massive amount of stuff in orbit, vastly more than there is at the moment.

[Anonymous No.14735427]

>>14735405
You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?

[Anonymous No.14735441]

>>14735414
you would need trillions of satellites. oh wait, there's already trillions of rocks out there and nothing bad has happened

[Anonymous No.14735442]

>>14735169
I also stopped reading at the end of the post

[Anonymous No.14735465]

>>14735092
Given the number of satellites spread out across so many orbital planes it's simply not viable to take out Starlink with a shotgun approach. China simply can't lift enough mass to get the job done.

That's not to say that China couldn't do it; they just couldn't do it with shrapnel. A Starfish Prime sized nuclear test at the right altitude would get the job done. If you fill LEO with enough radiation you'd take out everyone's orbital infrastructure, at the cost of making everyone with satellites extremely angry and violating the Outer Space Treaty, which China is a signatory to. If you really want to take out a constellation like Starlink you need something like a high powered laser that could plink each satellite as they come over Chinese territory. The cost of firing a laser would be less than the cost of launching a Starlink satellite even with Starship, so you're winning the classical asat economic contest, and it's precise enough that you won't make an enemy out of every other nation with satellites.

>>14735169
The problem is that the Russians tried buying Chinese back in 2015 and the shit the Chinese were selling turned out to be even worse shit than the Russians were expecting it to be.

[Anonymous No.14735470]

>>14735364
>>14735405
>>14735427
I don't get it

[Anonymous No.14735507]

>>14735465
They don't have to take all of it out, just the planes that intersect with areas they don't want to have service.

[Anonymous No.14735523]

>One year ago today, SpaceX stacked the biggest rocket ever assembled.
im not bitter

[5'10 245lbs mountain of a man No.14735525]

>>14735470
Don't worry. He's mentally unhinged, and extremely low iq.

[Anonymous No.14735527]

>>14735523
me neither. i'm excited and happy for every piece of progress made since.

[Anonymous No.14735528]

>>14735527
it was sarcasm, im bitter angry and distraught

[Anonymous No.14735536]

>>14735525
heh

[Anonymous No.14735538]

>chinese spaceplane disappeared
probably landed...why do they only keep it in space for a day or two?

[Anonymous No.14735541]

>>14735528
You should find more important things to care about.

[Anonymous No.14735544]

>>14735523
it was all for show

[Anonymous No.14735545]

>>14735541
>space colonization is one of the most important things in human civilization right now
>"its not important bro!"

[Anonymous No.14735548]

>>14735545
Do you work at SpaceX?

[Anonymous No.14735552]

>>14735528
well that's on you

[Anonymous No.14735570]

If I'm trying to land on Io, does it sense to enter Jupiter orbit first, or try and direct approach Io? Would it be smarter to enter a high jupiter orbit, or an orbit close to Io's orbit and then enter? Does it make any difference in terms of fuel spent?
Basically I'm asking, what's the most fuel efficient way to enter Io orbit, without use of gravity assist maneuvers? (I'm not opposed to gravity assist just I want to also have the most expedient trip possible)

[Anonymous No.14735577]

Ariane 6

[Anonymous No.14735580]

[Anonymous No.14735581]

>>14735570
never done it before but your oberth gains low over jupiter are gonna be so much stronger that i can't see how a direct io approach would work better

[Anonymous No.14735583]

[Anonymous No.14735585]

[Anonymous No.14735586]

>>14735581
Are you saying to enter an orbit closer to Jupiter than Io? I'll try it

[Anonymous No.14735587]

[Anonymous No.14735588]

[Anonymous No.14735589]

>>14735586
good luck with it. io's probably the hardest body in the game to land on.

[Anonymous No.14735596]

>>14735507
That's all of them, dumbass

[Anonymous No.14735608]

>>14735570
It depends on the thrust to mass ratio of your spacecraft. If you can just capture at Io it's fine, provided you're moving in a favorable direction relative to Io. If you can't physically complete the entire burn at Io you should capture into Jupiter orbit first. Also, using gravity assists from a captured elliptical Jovian orbit is feasible, and could save a lot of delta V in exchange for much more time needed.

[Anonymous No.14735610]

>>14735577
long ass combustion chamber on that engine in the background

[Anonymous No.14735614]

>>14735589
>>14735608
interesting. It will be a fun evening indeed, thank you anons.

[Anonymous No.14735615]

>>14734932

Would you like to elaborate further?

[Anonymous No.14735625]

>>14735577
>>14735610
yeah it's cringe

[Anonymous No.14735632]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjoELEjw0Wk
GOOD MORNING SIRS

[Anonymous No.14735634]

>>14735632
designated shitting orbits

[Anonymous No.14735636]

[Anonymous No.14735642]

>>14735350

Can we PLEASE make decent looking space suits!!!

[5'10 245lbs mountain of a man No.14735647]

>we

[Anonymous No.14735676]

What's the schedule for launches, everything go right the last few days?

[Anonymous No.14735686]

https://youtu.be/fEBSx075AKs

[Anonymous No.14735709]

>>14735676
Starship launches in a few weeks, Orion launches in a few weeks. That's all you need to know.

[Anonymous No.14735713]

there's water on mars!

[Anonymous No.14735714]

>>14735709
>Starship launches in a few weeks
I stopped believing that more than a year ago.

[Anonymous No.14735718]

>>14735350
Can you imagine the jockeying going on in NASA

Everybody wants to be the first crew on the Moon

[Anonymous No.14735725]

>>14735570
Direct to Io would be ideal but nobody's packing enough dv for that

I'd be interested to see numbers on the tradeoff between the rad shielding you'd need for gravity assist at jupiter vs the fuel you'd need for a direct approach

[5'10 245lbs mountain of a man No.14735726]

Has there been a proposed design of what the cabin of a crewed starship would possibly look like? If you are not American, please don't respond.

[Anonymous No.14735729]

>>14735726
Kill yourself, you fat faggot

[Anonymous No.14735737]

Other than Juno's Europa flyby on September 29, what can we expect this year from ongoing space missions?

[5'10 245lbs mountain of a man No.14735739]

>>14735729
No, I don't think I will.

[Anonymous No.14735741]

>>14735739
Morbid obesity is in itself a slow suicide, lol

[5'10 245lbs mountain of a man No.14735749]

>>14735741
I'm very muscular. But this you already know. People like me make things happen. Physical prowess is equally important to mental prowess. I have note than you in both, by far.

[Anonymous No.14735752]

(you)

[5'10 245lbs mountain of a man No.14735760]

I win
>again

[Anonymous No.14735769]

>>14735737
Plenty:
2 October - DART impact
13 November - CAPSTONE Lunar orbital insertion
16 December - Danuri Lunar orbital insertion

[Anonymous No.14735806]

for the newfren who doesn't know how to filter and ignore

[Anonymous No.14735813]

>>14735806
thanks

[Anonymous No.14735815]

>>14735813
any time

[Anonymous No.14735837]

[Anonymous No.14735836]

>>14735806
Filtering doesn't actually address the issue because most people won't bother, the thread will still get derailed regardless of if you see it, and once namefagging takes hold it's the death knell of any general. Fucking jannies do your job

[Anonymous No.14735838]

[Anonymous No.14735842]

r8 my stack

[Anonymous No.14735843]

>>14735838
that's the most aesthetic hotstage open decoupler I've ever seen

[Anonymous No.14735846]

>>14735842
what'd you use to make the bay?

[Anonymous No.14735851]

>>14735843
bet it's the most expensive one, too

[Anonymous No.14735860]

>>14735851
Indians love their flashy decorations

[Anonymous No.14735870]

>>14735842
it even has a functioning chomper that doesn't flail around during max-q. gotta add more hinges though because i can only open it in zero-g right now.
>>14735846
procedural fairings

[Anonymous No.14735880]

Okay what the actual fuck
I'm starting to think that Aliens and UFOs may actually be real.
Been seeing loads of shit coming out lately and it's blowing my mind, still confused asf though

Can one of you nerd cunts get me up to date? Ty

[Anonymous No.14735883]

>>14735880
it was just venus

[Anonymous No.14735885]

>>14735880
>loads of shit coming out
But the SSLV hasn't launched yet

[Anonymous No.14735893]

>>14735880
they're not aliens...

[Anonymous No.14735895]

>>14735880

[Anonymous No.14735904]

>>14735870
>procedural fairings
think those are up to surviving reentry? it does look really good though, i'm envious.

[Anonymous No.14735908]

You are fucking retards who worshiped a fucking slice of chorizo. We are not doing space flight anytime soon lol.

[5'10 245lbs mountain of a man No.14735909]

ERROR: No text entered

[Anonymous No.14735914]

why is saxon musk such a cringe retard? who will carry the torch as emperor of mars? god i hope not him

[Anonymous No.14735918]

>

[Anonymous No.14735919]

>>14735914
>who will carry the torch as emperor of mars?
Does Zubrin have any sons?

[Anonymous No.14735930]

>>14735919
he has a daughter but she's ugly :/

[Anonymous No.14735933]

[Anonymous No.14735946]

I'm not ashamed to say I avoid watching SpaceX streams nowadays. Super boring. Maybe I'll watch Starship or SLS

[Anonymous No.14735948]

>>14735933
>the year is 2022
>our best method of fine tuned control of heavy crane lifts is to have a bunch of guys run around and tug on strings
embarrassing!

[Anonymous No.14735952]

>>14735946
Just pull up pictures of slices of chorizo. You science fans are all the same simple minds, it'll entertain you for hours on end.

[Anonymous No.14735956]

>>14735946
I feel the strong urge to straighten her out using my cock

[Anonymous No.14735963]

god damn I love ignoring trolls. Anyway, spaceflight?

[Anonymous No.14735970]

>>14735963
if you want to discuss it nobody's going to stop you

[Anonymous No.14735971]

>>14735956

Go BIG or go home!

[Anonymous No.14735972]

>>14735963
spaceflight, but up close

[Anonymous No.14735976]

>>14735972
Based chinks and their complete lack of ability to gauge proximity danger levels

[Anonymous No.14735984]

>>14735769
Cool, though half of these are lunar.
Curiosity and Perseverance are still going on, but I don't know if they have any specific objectives in the near future.

[Anonymous No.14735988]

>>14735984
This just in from the minds of /sfg/, 2/3 is now one half, more at 11

[Anonymous No.14735989]

>>14735963
?

[Anonymous No.14736004]

sooooooo when will hls option b be chosen (alpaca)??

[Anonymous No.14736005]

>>14735948
Now you're thinking like NASA

Why spend a dollar when you could spend a million

[5'10 245lbs mountain of a man No.14736011]

>be space flight enthusiast
>no friends
>no communication skills
>no manipulation tactics
>no ability to physically detain
>thinks he would be valuable on an actual space flight journey
Friendly reminder that Sir Francis Drake had an upset crew member drawn and quartered on the southern shore of south america on a quick respite to the landmass, than quickly continued the journey without the burden; leaving the bones to serve as a landmark to others he would never think about. The only thing that matters to colony captains is control. I don't condone his actions.

[Anonymous No.14736016]

>>14736004
Once they redesign it to be physically possible

[Anonymous No.14736020]

How profitable do you think mining in space would be in 2030?

[Anonymous No.14736025]

>>14736020
In 2030? If somebody can capture a gold or platinum rich asteroid and bring it to Earth orbit it could be extremely lucrative. It won't happen though, even though crashing the price of gold to near-zero would be based. Tell me you wouldn't want a gold-handled toothbrush or gold-accented wallpaper.

[Anonymous No.14736027]

>>14735904
no i don't think so, still trying to figure it out but the simplest way seems like cheating and editing the parts to have higher max temperatures.
maybe go full autist and give them a nice texture too.
i'm new to RSS and don't really know what profile to fly but i managed to get 92 tons to LEO, leaving enough in the booster for landing and with a full header tank.
the pitch kick works great.

[Anonymous No.14736032]

>>14734546
Are you exited about the future of spaceflight?

[Anonymous No.14736039]

>>14736016
they did that already

[Anonymous No.14736041]

>>14736025
I was mainly thinking atleast in the US on how they would try to tax the shit out of whatever you bring back.

[Anonymous No.14736044]

>>14735988
I was counting Juno's europa flyby too

[Anonymous No.14736058]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0tsABQCW1M
ISRO stream is live

you will enjoy the squealy elevator music

[Anonymous No.14736060]

>>14734591
It's almost weird to think about how space is just going to be a more pure American culture with everything and everyone else only being present as at best little enclaves like Chinatowns in America.

[Anonymous No.14736063]

>Compact Composite Objects (CCOs), nuggets of dense Color-Flavor-Locked Superconducting quark matter created before or during the Quantum ChromoDynamics phase transition in the early universe[1, 2, 3], could provide a natural expla-nation for both dark matter and the observed cosmological baryon asymmetry[4, 5, 6], without requiring modifications to fundamental physics. This hypothesis predicts a relic CCO population in the solar system, captured during its formation, and thus both massive strange matter cores in the centers of the Sun and planets, as well as a present-day population of "strange asteroids," bodies with mm-radii quark matter cores and ordinary matter (rock or ice) mantles. Methods based on neutrino radiography and solid-body mechanics are developed to detect such strange matter cores in solar system bodies. The CCO hypothesis is directly supported by the observed population of small Very Fast Rotating (VFR) asteroids (bodies with rotation periods as short as 25 sec); the VFR data are consistent with the existence of strange asteroids with core masses of order 10 10 -10 11 kg. If the VFR asteroids are indeed strange asteroids their CCO cores could be mined using the techniques being developed for asteroid mining. Through a process analogous to Andreev reflection in superconductors[7], even normal matter CCOs could be used as antimatter factories, potentially potentially producing as much as 10 9 kg of antimatter per CCO. While of course speculative, this energy source, if realized, would be suitable for propelling starships to a substantial fraction of the speed of light, and could be found, extracted and exploited in our solar system with existing and near-term developments in technology.

[Anonymous No.14736068]

>>14736058
Thanks anon. This is the maiden launch, so expect fireworks

[Anonymous No.14736069]

>>14736058
Less annoying than Biden's Webb reveal waiting music

[Anonymous No.14736071]

>>14736058
india is back baby

[Anonymous No.14736073]

>>14736058
>elevator music
I'd rather listen to this elevator music instead
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oTH3mq7SsK4
kinda sounds like evangelion too

[Anonymous No.14736074]

>>14736058
india > chyna

[Anonymous No.14736079]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dlV4EWMohc
RocketGyan also has a stream up if anyone is interested in commentary

>>14736074
They've got less budget but they've got more heart

[Anonymous No.14736081]

Translation : after final preparation onboard computer will take over

[Anonymous No.14736087]

>>14736081
Can take 500 kg to 500km orbit.
Costs $4M.
Can be prepared very quickly (launch on demand).
Production will be transferred to nsil (consortium of private companies)

[Anonymous No.14736091]

Electron - 12.5t, 300 kg to LEO
SSLV - 120t, 500 kg to LEO

So this is the power of solids

[Anonymous No.14736092]

It's being launched from sriharikotta but we are building a new spaceport near tuticorin (my home town), where it will launch in the future.

[Anonymous No.14736097]

>>14736091
You missed the most important factor, cost. This only costs $3.8M but electron costs $7.5M.

[Anonymous No.14736100]

Thoughts on spin launch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrc632oilWo

[Anonymous No.14736105]

>>14736100
same as last time: it's bullshit

[Anonymous No.14736109]

>>14736091
It's a lot heavier because solid propulsion is about 75-100s less efficient than the liquid engines Electron uses.

>>14736097
One of the big reasons it's cheap is cost-sharing with the Indian ICBM program. It's easy to get a cheap launcher when the same production lines are rolling out bulk orders of missiles to aim at China.

>>14736105
But it'll be entertaining bullshit, so it's not a complete loss.

[Anonymous No.14736112]

>>14736092
good morning sir

[Anonymous No.14736113]

Does Russia possess the best space technology?

[Anonymous No.14736114]

>>14736091
>SSLV - 120t
Just glanced at the post and for a second thought India built a SHLV that I didn't know about.

[Anonymous No.14736116]

>>14736112
Morning sir, watching from church lol

[Anonymous No.14736118]

>>14736097
They're not directly comparable, SSLV manufacturing cost is 3.8-4.4 million, Electron is PRICED at 7.5 million. Not to mention Electron was designed for a market that at the time had basically no other small launcher competition but now most of its peers are cheaper.

[Anonymous No.14736120]

>>14736113
>still
Now this is multiple layers of cope

[Anonymous No.14736123]

>>14736118
Cope and seeth

[Anonymous No.14736124]

Live
SSLV 1st Flight! EOS-02 Mission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNTLY2QQQHw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNTLY2QQQHw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNTLY2QQQHw

[Anonymous No.14736125]

>>14736113
Putin can snap his fingers and all of musk starlinks will fall from the sky. dont threaten the greatest space power

[Anonymous No.14736126]

>>14736123
You're either trolling or an Indian shill.

[Anonymous No.14736129]

>>14736100
Here, again

[Anonymous No.14736132]

>>14736124
Based

[Anonymous No.14736134]

>>14736100
debunked already
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ziGI0i9VbE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSJ_yy96iE

[Anonymous No.14736138]

>>14734557
*jew-ish

[Anonymous No.14736140]

>>14736124
HOLY FUCKING CUTE WHY HAVENT YOU GUYS EVER POSTED HER BEFORE????

[Anonymous No.14736141]

>>14736109
This is just the side booster of gslv and pslv

[Anonymous No.14736142]

>>14736140
How new are you?

[Anonymous No.14736143]

>>14736142
i have been here much longer than anyone posting here

[Anonymous No.14736147]

1 min 30 sec from launch!

[Anonymous No.14736148]

we are about to redeem the rocket sirs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ9zDWqpf9U

[Anonymous No.14736152]

>>14736140
How new r u?

[Anonymous No.14736159]

>>14736058
shinga binga bangalore tea now sir
tech support-2 activating
bangasat now transmitting 76 gift cards per second

[Anonymous No.14736161]

[Anonymous No.14736162]

>>14736141
The boosters on the GSLV are a LOT chunkier than this. They've got a diameter of about 3.2m, the SSLV is only 2m.

[Anonymous No.14736165]

>>14736140
And from this day forward, anon was never the same.

[Anonymous No.14736166]

REDEEMED

[Anonymous No.14736168]

I wonder how many gift cards that rocket can carry to LEO.

[Anonymous No.14736171]

looking a little wobbly on the flight tracker

[Anonymous No.14736172]

>>14736165
Anon discovers vtubers, develops severe schizophrenic delusions. Many such cases!

[Anonymous No.14736178]

It looks like the third stage underperformed. Partial failure?

[Anonymous No.14736183]

it's ogre

[Anonymous No.14736184]

Success

[Anonymous No.14736187]

Do any of you shits actually watch that vietnamese v-tumor unironically? And if you do, how do you not commit suicide in the process?

[Anonymous No.14736188]

>>14736178
3rd stage seemed fine to me, the 4th stage(velocity trimming module) may have shut down early.

[Anonymous No.14736190]

>>14736168
If the average gift card is 5 grams, then roughly 100,000 cards. Exact performance will vary depending on the orbit the IRS will require you to have them delivered to.

[Anonymous No.14736193]

>>14736188
So it reached orbit but different altitude?

[Anonymous No.14736194]

>>14736193
Made orbit, but not the target orbit, yeah.

[Anonymous No.14736196]

>>14736194
Pretty impressive for first attempt

[Anonymous No.14736198]

Thank you, come again!

[Anonymous No.14736199]

>Starship and Super Heavy still no first attempt yet

[Anonymous No.14736214]

PRUFROCK fits in a starship with room to spare.

>It should fit in Starship which is where I’m guessing you are going. SpaceX site doesn’t list it but based on a couple of visual clues it will fit in a Starship and be roughly 1/3 the total weight. The tunnel dimensions it can dig are ~12 feet in diameter and on SpaceX site it’s shown in a graphic being transported on a flatbed truck so it’s max length is about 50 feet long. That is about 60% of the projected space in Starship cargo bay. On the weight part… A truck and trailer typical max weight is 80k lbs and some states allow a max tonnage with 3 axels on both the trailer and a drop axel on the truck to hit 100k lbs. truck and trailer weight is ~35k lbs so that means PRUFROCK has to be between 45-65k lbs or 22.5-32.3 US tons which is about 30% of the Starship projected tonnage capacity.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/whu4rh/elon_musk_said_the_pace_of_progress_on_mars/ij8n1qw/

[Anonymous No.14736216]

go back

[Anonymous No.14736218]

>>14736027
yeah they really need to have more options for procedural parts with heat shielding. you've got wings and tanks and that's it i think. if you want to make it feel less cheaty you could edit the fairing to weigh more too.
meanwhile my flyback booster experiment has me convinced this was always a horrible idea for gameplay reasons alone. it's going to take like 45 minutes to get back to the cape and i'm too scared to touch timewarp.
on the other hand i'm kinda seeing the logic for real-world. reversing your course in space takes like 4 km/s of delta v and with a true flyback you can kill your velocity in the atmosphere and then the jet engines' ISP is so high that you can almost make it back on propellant residuals alone.

[Anonymous No.14736228]

REDEMPTIONS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES

[Anonymous No.14736231]

>>14736218
Are you using the latest RO versions of everything? There should be some more bits.
https://github.com/KSP-RO

[Anonymous No.14736232]

>>14734755
It's so janky with the exposed piping
I love it

[Anonymous No.14736233]

why cant india into spaceflight?

[Anonymous No.14736239]

What has the USSF been up to lately?

[Anonymous No.14736240]

I miss ITS bros why didn't they stick with this design

[Anonymous No.14736242]

A interesting mars EVA suit design. It uses oxygen for the helmet and compressed martian co2 for the body.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s-c1af7GC0&t=75s

[Anonymous No.14736244]

>>14736240
Too expensive and slow to produce

[Anonymous No.14736245]

>>14736231
i keep the install up to date but i wouldn't put it past me to miss something obvious. do you know what the parts are besides the shielded tank and the b9 spaceplane wings?

[Anonymous No.14736247]

>>14736244
So just like now?

[Anonymous No.14736249]

>>14736239
nothing interesting afaik

[Anonymous No.14736250]

>>14736214
you fucks are so cringe it's unreal

[Anonymous No.14736292]

>SSLV-D1/EOS-02 Mission: Maiden flight of SSLV is completed. All stages performed as expected. Data loss is observed during the terminal stage. It is being analysed. Will be updated soon.
https://nitter.net/isro/status/1556136626278912002

Which doesn't make sense because if they lost telemetry they shouldn't be able to tell if the fourth stage performed nominally and according to the flight events log the liquid engines shut down less than a second in. They could be about 500 m/s dV short of desired orbit.

[Anonymous No.14736294]

>>14736247
much worse

[Anonymous No.14736299]

>>14736292
I read it as
4 th stage performed normally
Attitude control system failed, causing tumbling
telemetry lost

[Anonymous No.14736305]

If the fourth "VTM" stage did not fire, vehicle would complete about half an orbit and fall in the Pacific near the third stage NOTAM zone around 138W 30S after passing over Australia and New Zealand
-Jonathan McDowell

[Anonymous No.14736314]

>>14736305
>Third stage orbit would be around -58 x 351 km x 41.6 deg

[Anonymous No.14736320]

>>14734677
its not cheaper than regular falcon launches, that's why
raw upmass isn't the important factor, cost per kilo is, and falcon heavy's increased ability is entirely offset, if not put into the negatives, by heavy's increased cost
Starship on the other hand will drive costs into the floor to the level that it would be worthwhile to totally overhaul satellite building methods to capitalize on it, though it'll undoubtedly require a lot of boomers retire or die before it can happen

[Anonymous No.14736325]

>>14736320
>Starship on the other hand will drive costs into the floor
At least initially, Starship will be more expensive than Falcon Heavy.
Musk recently said marginal launch cost will be $50M to $100M.

[Anonymous No.14736326]

>>14736314
>>14736305
>would have impacted at 0431 UTC

[Anonymous No.14736328]

>>14735064
they're edgy teenagers that want to be special, so to them, popular thing must always be bad
Ukraine is fashionable, so they masturbate over Russia to be contrarian

[Anonymous No.14736329]

>>14736325
costs per kilo, you illiterate pavement ape
100M at 150 tons is substantially less than Heavy

[Anonymous No.14736344]

>>14736329
Did you read the previous post you pre-cambrian worm? The whole argument is falcon heavy is already cheaper in $/kg but isn't used much.

[Anonymous No.14736349]

>>14736344
*FH cheaper than falcon that is.
>>14736329
Also you are dreaming if you think 150tons.
Its going to be 80-100 tons.

[Anonymous No.14736352]

I think spacex can make halo 3 odst real

[Anonymous No.14736358]

>>14736352
Just need to modify a Crew Dragon to use Super Dracos for landing

[Anonymous No.14736360]

>>14734808
i fuckin dont so there

[Anonymous No.14736365]

>>14736305
Bastard. This was a successful test of agni 6 ICBM. Okay.

[Anonymous No.14736381]

>>14736349
>Its going to be 80-100 tons.
It's going to be 150 tons.

[Anonymous No.14736382]

>>14736381
yeah, just like starship was supposed to launch in 2020, 2021 and 2022

[Anonymous No.14736384]

Go back to twitter.

[Anonymous No.14736387]

>>14736382
Eric Berger, who holds himself highly on being the best predictor in the industry fell for this too.
Its hilarious to watch the cope.

[Anonymous No.14736397]

100 tons to orbit is 100 tons to orbit. Quantity has a quality all on its own.

[5'10 245lbs mountain of a man No.14736399]

I win

[Anonymous No.14736400]

>This post(>14736399) is extremely low quality
>>14736109
The Isp is horrendous even for solids. Vega is only 15t heavier but can do 2t to a 1500 × 200 km orbit.

[Anonymous No.14736410]

>>14736400
>Vega
Costs 10 times more than sslv

[Anonymous No.14736413]

>>14736410
We know, Ramesh. Neither rocket is good or has much of a commercial opportunity.

[Anonymous No.14736415]

>>14736413
It has the same capacity as Electron and is 2x cheaper.
Electron has launched 15 times already.

[Anonymous No.14736426]

SSLV made it to orbit! Unstable yes, but it still made it to orbit.
!!!

[Anonymous No.14736431]

>>14736426
Source?
>>14736415
Electron was a single example out of literally hundreds of small-lift rockets, most of which are still in development or have issues like SSLV and Astra Rocket
>Electron has launched 15 times already.
So what? That isn't a lot of launches for such a small vehicle despite the lack of small-lift competition for most of its history and the immature rideshare opportunities on larger rockets like the Falcon 9

[Anonymous No.14736433]

>>14736431
https://www.isro.gov.in/update/07-aug-2022/sslv-update-all-stages-performed-normal-both-satellites-were-injected-orbit

[Anonymous No.14736439]

>>14736431
sslv is currently the cheapest small sat launcher. Every other small sat launcher is RIP.

[Anonymous No.14736441]

>>14736433
How can something perform normal and still achieve a less than expected orbit

[Anonymous No.14736444]

>>14736441
I'm willing to bet that the trajectory is suborbital and they're lying yet again.
>>14736439
Astra Rocket is 2.5 million and don't you dare kvetch about the smaller payload when you handwaved the fact that Vega has >4x the payload of SSLV.

[Anonymous No.14736445]

>>14736441
3 SRBs norminal
final velocity trimming module failed

[Anonymous No.14736446]

>>14736441
It's designed to underperform.

[Anonymous No.14736450]

spaceplane spotted again

[Anonymous No.14736451]

>>14736444
Anon didn't you hear the news? Astra 3.3 is cancelled.
Also Vega has 4x the payload but 10x the cost.
SSLV has 10x the payload of astra, but just 2x the cost.

[Anonymous No.14736460]

>>14736450
>RCS <1 sq. meter
It's even orbiting shuttle style, normal to the earth

[Anonymous No.14736462]

Dishy now only costs $199 in Italy
SpaceX desperate for more customers?

[Anonymous No.14736466]

>>14736462
SPACEX BUSTED!
How will Elon ever recover?

[Anonymous No.14736470]

>>14736451
Once again cost =/= price. The price of SSLV is unknown.
>SSLV has 10x the payload of astra
No, SSLV can do 300 kg to SSO, Astra Rocket 3 would have been 150 kg. Shilling here won't change shit.

[Anonymous No.14736471]

>>14736466
Better short Tesla, on margin. I am certain this will lead to bankruptcy.

[Anonymous No.14736472]

>>14736462
How much do the dishes cost to make?

[Anonymous No.14736475]

>>14736472
Over $9000

[Anonymous No.14736477]

>>14736470
Astra 3.3 payload capacity is 50 kg.
You are the one who's shilling.
https://spacenews.com/astra-cancels-rocket-3-to-focus-on-larger-vehicle/..

[Anonymous No.14736496]

Why is no new space company making a heavy lift launch vehicle?
Imo its the only market which makes sense (now that sslv has taken away the small sat market).

[Anonymous No.14736497]

>>14736496
The only people who need heavy lift are government agencies and good luck getting them to break existing contracts

[Anonymous No.14736500]

>>14736477
You better go edit Wikipedia then, but you Indian shills are busy elsewhere on the site.

[Anonymous No.14736501]

>>14736426
It crashed in the ocean

[Anonymous No.14736503]

>>14736477
>We are currently offering dedicated launch services of 50kg-150kg payloads (to 500km SSO reference orbit) in 2020 and 2021.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200425105538/https://astra.com/services/

[Anonymous No.14736515]

>The first demonstration flight of SSLV was not alone, on top, the fairing was carrying the aspirations, hopes and hard work of 750 girl students from across India, who had toiled and built AzadiSAT, a nine-kilogram CubeSat that has a mission life of six months.
>The satellite was built under the guidance of Isro by school students from rural regions across the country and was then integrated by the student team of "Space Kidz India". The CubeSat contains 75 payloads and includes not just a UHF-VHF Transponder working in ham radio frequency to enable voice and data transmission for amateur radio operators, but also a selfie camera.
A loss for all of humanity. How could this happen?

[Anonymous No.14736516]

>>14736500
What's your point? That's the mass of the first payload, not it's capability.
>>14736503
150 kg is for a future iteration, 3.3 was not capable of that.

And 3.3 has been cancelled anyway so your whole point is moot.

[Anonymous No.14736520]

>>14736516
Dude why are you shilling for government babus here? At least simp for agnikul or skyroot

[Anonymous No.14736521]

>>14736500
Haha imagine being this insecure. I pity you man, must be sad you realise your worldview sucks.

[5'10 245lbs mountain of a man No.14736526]

Nobody on /sfg/ can tell me about starship cabin design. I wonder why that could be...

[Anonymous No.14736528]

>>14736520
Sslv will be manufactured by private companies though
Not shilling, just pointing out the ridiculous state of small launch even after investing multiple billions

[Anonymous No.14736531]

>>14736516
>What's your point?
That the launch wasn't a success and there are countless Indians like you playing defense to cover for a failed launch.
>your whole point is moot
You're the one trying to confine the discussion just to Astra Rocket 3.3 because you have zero evidence in support of a 4 million dollar price for SSLV, after it was pointed out that the rocket itself is complete and utter trash by any performance metric.

[Anonymous No.14736533]

>>14736109
>One of the big reasons it's cheap is cost-sharing with the Indian ICBM program. It's easy to get a cheap launcher when the same production lines are rolling out bulk orders of missiles to aim at China.
that's nothing new or special
almost all launch vehicles started as ICBMs and launching probes and people on top of it was an afterthought (Atlas, Titan, R-7, Proton)
US and Russia both sell ICBMs with best-before date running out as commercial launch vehicles (Minotaur, Dnepr, Rokot, etc.)

[Anonymous No.14736536]

>>14736531
Who cares about performace metric? Only number which matters is cost.

It's sslv's first launch and it reached orbit. You were the one who brought up astra, about a rocket which doesn't even exist anymore.
Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.14736537]

>>14736536
>reached orbit
haha

[Anonymous No.14736539]

>>14736526
Probably something to do with the fact SpaceX has released literally nothing about the subject except teasers of sleeping berth prototypes.

[Anonymous No.14736540]

>>14736537
Better than failing what, 5 times? I couldn't even keep count anymore.
Now astras next launch will be in 2024.
They burnt $200M in 6 months and only have $200M left in cash. Good luck selling electric propulsion units!

[Anonymous No.14736548]

>>14736536
>Only number which matters is cost.
So how much does it actually cost? In its entirety, not the production cost for a single rocket that doesn't factor in development costs and the hundreds of other expenses to run that part of ISRO.
>You were the one who brought up astra
Yes, as a quick way to show that you're full of shit because Rocket 3 was priced cheaper than SSLV and so will Rocket 4 and dozens of other small-lift rockets from new space companies. This part of the industry doesn't have a future but that's to my point and SSLV will have few customers.

[Anonymous No.14736563]

[Anonymous No.14736578]

>>14736548
>A rocket which doesn't exist anymore and only had a payload of 50kg was priced cheaper
Turns out you are full of shit.
How much ASTR are you bag holding?

[Anonymous No.14736585]

>>14736578
I frequently point out similar issues with Astra and their business model, retard. I was one of the people discussing their cash flow in recent threads and I made the somewhat detailed post about their ion thrusters.

[Anonymous No.14736651]

>>14736242
this doesn't make sense
our skin needs oxygen too

[Anonymous No.14736674]

>>14736651
>Mars
>Makes sense
Getting a little ahead there, aren't we buddy
Future is cis lunar and anyone disagreeing is a lunatic

[Anonymous No.14736709]

bad morning, sirs
>"orbit" has a perigee within the atmosphere and the satellites were quickly destroyed

[Anonymous No.14736715]

>>14736709
Kek its techincally an orbit

[Anonymous No.14736719]

>>14736709
Moral of the story - If you go all solid stages, you best know what the fuck you're doing because there's no brakes on that train.

[Anonymous No.14736720]

>>14736709
>a committee would analyze and recommend
>go for a salvage action
They need someone more fluent in english to type their tweets out

[Anonymous No.14736721]

>>14736709
>356 km x 76 km elliptical "orbit"

[Anonymous No.14736723]

>>14736721
Would be a proper orbit if Earth didn't have an atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.14736725]

>>14736720
Indian English is pretty much its own thing

[Anonymous No.14736726]

>>14736719
The 3 srbs were nominal. Issue was with liquid kick stage.
>>14736709
Not bad for a first attempt! Sounds like an easy fix

[Anonymous No.14736727]

>>14736719
Nah, the 4th stage didnt fire at all.

[Anonymous No.14736729]

>>14736725
It would be pretty neat if it branched off and became its own language, like with dutch and afrikaans

[Anonymous No.14736738]

Kek some bird got fried at ignition https://youtu.be/m0tsABQCW1M?t=2582

[Anonymous No.14736742]

>>14736738
Hello Ohsin didn't know you were on 4,chan

[Anonymous No.14736743]

>>14736727
Technically it fired for 0.1 seconds

[Anonymous No.14736744]

>>14736729
It pretty much has branched off somewhat, even if only as a very distinct dialect? Indians don't even try to learn American/British English and just learn their own variant.

[Anonymous No.14736754]

>>14736744
Depends, if you are a rich kid then you go to posh schools where they teach the American/British variant.

[Anonymous No.14736755]

>>14736742
I'm not him, i did pick it up from his reddit post.

>>14736744
I's can talk fluent american english mufugga watch yo ass before i bust a cap in yo ass punkass whiboi.

[Anonymous No.14736758]

basterd bitch spacx hacker, fuck you!

[Anonymous No.14736764]

>>14736758
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/china-vessel-yuan-wang-5-sri-lanka-india-concern-explained-8067508/

[Anonymous No.14736765]

Energia-Buran stamp from Cuba, 1991
Someday I want to find the one and only Soviet Buran stamp ever printed

[Anonymous No.14736769]

>>14736755
Where you from?

[Anonymous No.14736771]

>>14736754
Yeah but their lingua franca that they use all the time is this broken variant of English. ESLs in other areas start leaning into more and more fluent English as they progress.

[Anonymous No.14736785]

>>14736771
Not the rich kids though. I talk to them and it's like taking to an American.

[Anonymous No.14736802]

EU institutions have the best English language culture. Mish-mash of different barely understandable accents.

[Anonymous No.14736808]

uh spacex bros?
should they really be using this booster for a crew mission?

[Anonymous No.14736814]

>>14736808
It may not be your way but its the spacex way.

[Anonymous No.14736816]

>>14736808
imagine the memes if boeing did it

[Anonymous No.14736817]

>>14736808
They have a process for reusing and validating boosters for use. I don't see why you wouldn't trust that.

[Anonymous No.14736820]

>>14736817
starlink? ok
crewed lives at stake? not ok
nasa astronauts are literally 1 in a billion, creme de la creme, best of our generation. We shouldn't lose them.

[Anonymous No.14736821]

>>14736820
>nasa astronauts are literally 1 in a billion
They literally are not.

[Anonymous No.14736823]

What's up with all those concern trolls?

[Anonymous No.14736826]

>>14736821
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny_Kim
These people can't just be replaced. They are the harbingers of our species!

[Anonymous No.14736833]

>>14736821
>As of May 2020, the corps has 48 "active" astronauts consisting of 16 women and 32 men
>~1 in 10 million

The Asian guy >>14736826 is pretty based though. I wouldn't mind him to be the token diverse man on the Moon.

[Anonymous No.14736835]

>>14736833
Dear Anon, 10 people would be 1 in billion.
So 50 people would be 1 in 200 million.

[Anonymous No.14736838]

Musk is no longer spending $44 Billion on Twitter. The World’s population is 8 billion. He can now give each person $5 billion and still have money leftover. I feel like a cheque for $5 billion would be life changing for most people. We’re waiting, Elon.

[Anonymous No.14736843]

>>14736835
I was only counting Americans. Dunno how many cosmonauts there are, and ESA only has 7. So counting everyone its probably like 1 in 100 million.

[Anonymous No.14736847]

>>14736838
retards like you who can't even do basic math don't deserve any handouts

[Anonymous No.14736848]

>>14736843
I don't consider cosmonauts to be real astronauts.

[Anonymous No.14736855]

>>14736847
Newfag. Not even to here, but to the internet.

[Anonymous No.14736859]

>>14736855
Go be a retard somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.14736864]

>>14736859
you are the astra shill aren't you

[Anonymous No.14736877]

>>14736864
I can be whatever you want me to be.

[Anonymous No.14736879]

>>14736723
We've talked about this before, but nobody's actually bothered to get up and do it.

[Anonymous No.14736880]

Artemis III landing will have either a black man and a white woman or the other way around. The two people who remain in the Gateway are irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.14736886]

how to emotionally deal with the fact that demand for SpaceX launches has barely increased in the last few years? All the increase in launches is due to SpaceX launching their own shit at their own cost

[Anonymous No.14736890]

>>14736886
it's literally over

[Anonymous No.14736891]

>>14736880
>Artemis III landing will have either a black man and a white woman or the other way around.
>or the other way around.
Impossible. They'd never do that. Space is already colonialism, can't encourage it further.

[Anonymous No.14736892]

>>14736886
Why are you lying?

[Anonymous No.14736893]

>>14736891
I don't know, there's this geologist black woman they're grooming and they obviously would want a very experienced astronaut landing with her. There's no experienced blacks atm, so it would have to be white. I guess it could be two females.

[Anonymous No.14736894]

>>14736886
Spaceflight will never be commercialised. It will always be spy sats and weather satellites.

[Anonymous No.14736902]

>>14735610
to give the gases more time to mix and burn?

[Anonymous No.14736905]

>>14736894
what are they supposed to manufacture in space anyway?
is there anything that would be worth that cost?

[Anonymous No.14736910]

>>14736905
3d printing of specific things that don't print well in gravity and production of carbon nanotubes.

[Anonymous No.14736912]

>>14736892
Yeah it seems like commercial and government demand for SpaceX has decreased since '18

[Anonymous No.14736913]

>>14736894
>It will always be spy sats and weather satellites.
I unironically think earth observing satellites are based. We need to measure sea levels and stuff

[Anonymous No.14736915]

>>14736912
And it seems like there's a massive increase in 2022.

[Anonymous No.14736918]

>>14736769
North sentinel island

[Anonymous No.14736930]

>>14736915
all slipping. How many FH launches were supposed to happen this year

[Anonymous No.14736942]

>>14736930
>all slipping
wow, you're literally retarded

[Anonymous No.14736954]

>>14736886
Bottle neck is cost of flight. If Starship launches and still no demand increase, then it means airwaves will utilize the excess capacity themselves and make money off of starlink and Mars mission.

Government will become a minority player at some point

[Anonymous No.14736967]

>>14736954
Bottleneck for commercial is ambition and cost.
Bottleneck for gov is politics and ambition.

So I don't expect any real or meaningful change from gov side of things.

[Anonymous No.14736974]

>>14734546
49 New stamps from Cuba, from 1965 to 2005
Cuba seems to have more stamps on obscure satellites and historical events, like the Rocketmail craze of the 30's

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1w9AESodBpRBVfpNGBjnIbyJPzWyH2oNt?usp=sharing

[Anonymous No.14736978]

>>14736974
One of the more obscure Interkosmos sats, one of two DS-U1-G satellites made for studying the effects of solar radiation on the upper atmosphere, launched in 1966-67

[Anonymous No.14736982]

>>14736387
For me, it's him bragging about his old "SLS in 2023" prediction early this year only for the delays to stop coming.

>>14736709
As orbital as the "orbital" Starship test

[Anonymous No.14736983]

>>14736978
And one of the stamps about the rocketmail phenomena of the 30's

[Anonymous No.14736984]

>>14736978
>studying the effects of solar radiation on the upper atmosphere
if only SpaceX looked into those effects... RIP starlinks

[Anonymous No.14736989]

>>14736539
>Gives that attentionwhore retard a (You)
You can fuck off too

>>14736847
Another episode of the taking-everything literally no fun allowed faggot. This general is compromised

[Anonymous No.14736990]

>>14736320
>cost per kilo is
Cost per kilo
AND
raw upmass

Are in favor of Falcon Heavy. You're probably thinking of cost per launch rather than cost per kilo.

[Anonymous No.14736992]

>>14736982
>For me, it's him bragging about his old "SLS in 2023" prediction early this year only for the delays to stop coming.
This wasn't because he was necessarily wrong, it was because NASA choose to ignore many failures during the tests and go with launch at all cost, including failures.

[Anonymous No.14736997]

>>14736709
Sirs, someone didn't do the needful

[Anonymous No.14737000]

>>14736387
I am the best Elon predictor. Remember when I said he was gonna move Tesla HQ to Texas? I said that a few days before him

[Anonymous No.14737016]

>>14736232
That shit is going to be covered with more... covers.

[Anonymous No.14737026]

>>14736990
>cost per launch
I wish Astra wasn't so retarded, because I actually find their thought process interesting. It doesn't matter how bad your cost per kg is as long as you have the smallest cost per launch. And then you can shit out rockets like sausages and drive down cost purely by mass production. Instead of launching like 500 Starlinks on a single Starship for $20 million, you can launch one on an individual rocket directly to its trajectory for only $5000.

[Anonymous No.14737027]

>>14735194

[Anonymous No.14737028]

>>14737026
Astra costs $2.5M

[Anonymous No.14737035]

>>14737028
If SpaceX can mass produce a Raptor for less than a million, Astra can weld together some rings for a couple grand.

[Anonymous No.14737042]

>>14737035
If SpaceX can do it, then SLS should only cost $100M at max. But it cost $4.1 billion per launch. Turns out two organizations are not same.

[Anonymous No.14737049]

>>14737026
At the peak of Astra hype, I liked them merely for trying something other than reusability to get price down, but then it became apparent that the financial case wasn't there and that their QC was shit and the dream came crashing down.
Also, there's no way for an orbital rocket to cost less than a car, let alone an expendable one. The most optimistic Astra estimate had their rockets costing about two orders of magnitude more in the long term.

[Anonymous No.14737051]

>>14737026
>Instead of launching like 500 Starlinks on a single Starship for $20 million, you can launch one on an individual rocket directly to its trajectory for only $5000.
This is the most delusional post I've seen in recent /sfg/ threads and this place has multiple people with outright schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.14737055]

>>14736820
NASA disagrees, lol

[Anonymous No.14737057]

>>14736823
They're just trying to get a rise

[Anonymous No.14737070]

>>14736886
Who cares? SpaceX is still making the most money for their cash burn rate and can afford to build out Starlink without annual government injections of billions of dollars. They're on a trajectory to achieve actual financial self sufficiency, which would be a first for any space company. That is to say, depending on Starlink, SpaceX could soon remain in the black forever even if they never launched a commercial payload again.

[Anonymous No.14737085]

>>14737049
>there's no way for an orbital rocket to cost less than a car
This is completely analogous to people saying Starship will cost a few million per launch

[Anonymous No.14737089]

>>14736808
they take Falcons to McGregor?

[Anonymous No.14737091]

>>14736902
It's an indicator of low combustion chamber pressure I think, I could be wrong. Basically yes though, longer chamber for longer gas residence time to allow increased combustion efficiency. Both RS-25 and Raptor have very short combustion chambers because they have very high pressure chambers with good mixing efficiency and therefore don't need much residence time to achieve high combustion efficiency (by combustion efficiency I'm only referencing getting all of the oxidizer reacted with the fuel, the mixture will still be fuel rich but ensuring there are no O2 molecules exiting the nozzle is important for maximizing efficiency).

[Anonymous No.14737094]

>>14737091
I though there could be a opposite effect taking place, higher pressure engine have their gases leave faster which gives them less time to burn

[Anonymous No.14737095]

>>14736912
I'm fairly sure the apparent demand reduction is an artifact of SpaceX accelerating their launch timeline and eating up backlog. They're at a point now where commercial flight schedule movement is completely dominated by payload readiness, not by launch vehicle readiness. For example, the Falcon Heavy launch delays this year are because the payloads it's meant to throw up there aren't ready yet. Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.14737097]

>>14737085
Not that guy, but no it's not and that's also a difference of at least two orders of magnitude. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.14737108]

>>14736930
Payloads weren't/aren't ready. FH is good to go whenever.
>>14736967
More or less agreed, however as cost is reduced the commercial space ambitions should increase (we already see this with commercial Moon and Mars robotic missions), and as the commercial sector starts doing things on par with or even exceeding what government missions are doing, the government ambition should also increase (in such a way that total volume of money being spent doesn't change much but procurement pivots to the more economic options).
There's also a chance that government exploration programs cede ground to commercial activity and push farther out as a result. Maybe with much more commercial activity around the Moon and Mars and Asteroids, the government programs shift focus to things only they can currently do effectively, like high power to mass ratio nuclear energy solutions in space, and ultra deep space missions. I would expect that in a world where Starship is doing Moon and Mars landings and spawning a commercial ecosystem of extraterrestrial surface resource exploration, the government would take advantage of Starship to launch some very large, advanced probe spacecraft to go orbit the gas giants and ice giants and Kuiper belt objects, things on the scale of the Leviathan Venus probe concept and perhaps even bigger depending on where they're going and what they're doing.

[Anonymous No.14737109]

Soviet Proton-3 cosmic ray research satellite as seen from Gemini 11 on 13.9.1966
This was three days before Proton-3 would be destroyed during reentry, and it was seen tumbling by the Gemini crews Charles Conrad and Richard Gordon

[Anonymous No.14737110]

>>14736984
>loss of ~50 satellites
it was a blip honestly

[Anonymous No.14737115]

>>14737035
That's not how work culture works, SpaceX didn't just invent a booth that shits out rocket components at 1/500th typical costs or whatever.

[Anonymous No.14737119]

>>14737094
Nah, that ESA engine is an expander cycle (low pressure), and has a long chamber. Meanwhile Raptor is the highest pressure engine of all time, and has a short stubby chamber.

[Anonymous No.14737136]

>>14737108
>Payloads weren't/aren't ready.
>>14737095
>Many such cases.
SpaceX knows payloads get delayed and take that into account. You can't attribute the low number of launches this year to that

[Anonymous No.14737139]

>>14737119
>that ESA engine is an expander cycle (low pressure), and has a long chamber
Maybe it needs that long combustion so it can extract more heat to boil the gases

[Anonymous No.14737149]

Starship will be A architecture with C process
Falcon 9 is B architecture with A process
NewGlenn will be B architecture with C process
Atlas V is C architecture with B process
Vulcan will be C architecture with B process
Ariane 5 is C architecture with C process

[Anonymous No.14737151]

>>14737136
Yes I can, what the fuck do you want them to do, start cracking whips at their customers?

[Anonymous No.14737160]

>>14737109
Never heard about this. Actually pretty cool. I wonder how much other examples there are of manned spacecraft either intentionally or unintentionally observing other spacecraft

[Anonymous No.14737170]

>>14737149
>Starship will be A architecture with C process
It will take a year to get to a B process and maybe 2-3 years to get to a C process

[Anonymous No.14737173]

>>14737149
>Starship will be A architecture with C process
It will take a year to get to a B process (many fully reusable launches) and maybe 2-3 years to get to an A process (frequent fully reusable launches with full refueling options)

[Anonymous No.14737178]

>>14737160
it probably happened a lot more in the '60s when they wanted to test how reliable naked eye observation could be vs. ground tracking. i know the gemini missions observed a few rocket launches and they were found to be pretty effective at that when they knew where to look in advance.

[Anonymous No.14737181]

>>14737139
Maybe, but then that implies some level of turbopump inefficiency compared to the RL-10, unless this engine produces significantly more thrust.
Jumping off this topic, I really want to see someone try to build a 100 kN staged combustion hydrolox engine. Why do I want this? To put to bed the idea that the expander cycle engine is the most efficient engine cycle. It's not. It's decent, it's about as thermodynamically efficient as a staged combustion engine, except it's got such a low chamber pressure that it misses out on some significant Isp gains. A similar mass, similar thrust staged combustion engine would have a waaay higher chamber pressure and could be as much as 5% more efficient than an equivalent expander cycle.
By the way, the reason the RL-10 has the record for the highest Isp engine to ever fly (465.5 Isp) is because the vacuum optimized version has a really big nozzle ratio (280:1). For reference, the RS-25 had a weird shaped nozzle with a ratio of just 78:1 but produced 452.3 Isp. At a nozzle ratio of 280:1 and a true bell shape suitable for vacuum optimization, the RS-25 would have easily blown past 470 Isp, so imagine what a raptor-architecture-based FFSC hydrolox engine could achieve.

[Anonymous No.14737186]

>>14737149
>Starship will be A architecture with C process
>Falcon 9 is B architecture with A process
Are these process ratings relative to the architecture or what? The Starship team would need to be pants-on-head retards in order to turn around a Starship stack for more time and money than a Falcon 9 booster.

[Anonymous No.14737191]

>>14736905
Sending components as neatly packed pieces to be assembled into a larger, habitable structure would allow for greater projects. If somehow we end up being able to produce metals and pressure vessels from lunar mining it would open up the entire solar system (with a magnetic rail launcher and fuel production, too)

[Anonymous No.14737195]

>>14737186
Process is how well polished the stated architecture is. Architecture is how capable the design is.

Falcon 9 is B architecture because its only partially reusable, but has an A process because its a lean machine now. 5 years ago, it would be a C process when they're learning the curves. 2-3 years ago, it would be a B process when there were still some small hickups.

[Anonymous No.14737201]

>>14737181
the original plan for the ssme back in the dolphin sex days was that the orbiter's engines would have extendable nozzles with 120:1 ratios in flight that got it up to 459s ISP. it's kinda a shame they didn't design it for air-starting from the beginning but maybe that would've just made it prohibitively difficult to design.

[Anonymous No.14737202]

>>14737160
Dunno if this counts, but Pesquet saw the 2nd stage of the Falcon 9 that brought them up.

[Anonymous No.14737203]

>>14736894
>expendable launch vehicles in 30 years
LMAO

[Anonymous No.14737210]

>>14736894
Only way expendable rockets will still be a thing in 30 years is if for some reason some countries are still using expendable rockets being made today, or if specific missions require a reusable rocket be used in expendable mode

[Anonymous No.14737216]

>>14737203

[Anonymous No.14737221]

>>14737195
Okay, so why does Starship get a "will be C" for process? It's a C now, sure, since everything from the vehicle to the GSE is prototypes interfacing with prototypes, but I expect Starship to reach A process status in roughly as many launches as it took Falcon 9, which will occur much faster in real time compared to Falcon 9 due to full reusability eliminating the fabrication time of new stages from the equation.

[Anonymous No.14737225]

>>14737221
C for now and C for a year from now. It will switch to B once they get a decent launch candance, that will take a year+ atleast

[Anonymous No.14737227]

>>14737210
or if SLS is kept flying

[Anonymous No.14737229]

>>14737181
why does the expander cycle have low pressure

[Anonymous No.14737232]

>>14737221
>>14737225
Also process is dependent on architecture. So 20 launches per year Starship isn't same process as 20 launches on falcon 9. The difficulty curve is higher for higher architecture. To get to B process on Starship, it would have to do ~20 flights a year, but that's A level process for F9. A level process for Starship is 40+ launches a year

[Anonymous No.14737238]

>>14737201
There's a big difference between an extendable nozzle curve being used to allow for altitude compensation and an extendable nozzle that only deploys in space and exists purely to improve packing efficiency for the second stage engine (what the RL-10 does these days). The difference in the curve impacts Isp significantly. For example, if that RL-10 with the extendable nozzle fired at sea level with nizzle extension stowed away, it would produce trash Isp, due to having a horrible nozzle shape. Think RS-68 on the test stand with no ablative bit. For a vehicle trying to launch under its own power then extend nozzles later, this Isp hit at sea level is unacceptable, so the nozzle shape needs to be adjusted and tightened up in order to keep the Isp and TWR good enough for launch. However, this means that no matter what the nozzle extension looks like, it will never achieve the Isp of a vacuum optimized curve of the same expansion ratio once in space, because the upper section of the nozzle can't have the "perfect" shape due to that sea level performance requirement. Basically it all comes back to "split optimization between sea level and vacuum Isp sucks mega shit dicks".

[Anonymous No.14737240]

Fully reusable nuclear ICBMs when?

[Anonymous No.14737255]

>>14737181
>that implies some level of turbopump inefficiency compared to the RL-10, unless this engine produces significantly more thrust
from the photos is looks like Vinci (it sure as hell isn't Vulcain)
it supposed to have almost the same ISP as RL-10 (give or take), at the same weigh, but ~50% more thrust and lower cost because it doesn't use the autistically artisinal tubular bell (Aerojet Rocketdyne must be Mike Oldfield fans)
so you get the same performance as 2 RL-10s for the price and mass of 1
>>14737139
that seems like a reasonable assumption to me

[Anonymous No.14737258]

>>14737229
It's because of the way it is. Expander cycle is effectively the fuel rich staged combustion cycle except running with a MUCH colder working fluid (boiled hydrogen versus 90% hydrogen 10% water vapor belching out of a preburner).
The expander cycle engine's relative power output is fundamentally determined by the ratio of heat conducting into the walls of the engine from the hot gas in the main combustion chamber to the propellant mass flow rate. More heat per kg of propellant equals more turbopump power. More turbopump power means higher propellant pressure. The square cube law means that smaller expander cycle engines have higher performance upper limits because there's literally more nozzle wall area per kilogram of propellant flowing through the engine. The main drawback is that the heat powering the engine is conducting through the solid nozzle wall components, which means that you are limited in engine power by your materials, whereas in a staged combustion cycle you are burning propellants to make heat inside your working fluid, so the temperatures you can achieve are much higher. Also, in a staged combustion engine you can have a dense liquid propellant mixture burn to produce a dense hot gas which can immediately expand across a turbine to do work on a pump, whereas in an expander cycle your working fluid must boil at high pressure in the nozzle walls then flow through channels and pipes to reach the turbopump, resulting in a large pressure drop before reaching the area where it can do useful work in the engine.
To summarize, a staged combustion engine cycle allows for much greater power to mass ratio, higher chamber pressures, higher Isp, and generally better performance (it also throttles faster, though not as deeply). The main drawback of staged combustion is the requirement for advanced materials, but now that we have those materials the challenges are mitigated for the most part. Raptor proves they can be cheap, too.

[Anonymous No.14737259]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrc632oilWo

[Anonymous No.14737263]

[Anonymous No.14737262]

>>14737259
Finally, a method of launching smallsats that is less flexible in terms of target orbit than a conventional rocket, and isn't any cheaper.

[Anonymous No.14737264]

>Be India
>Can't into fully liquid rockets despite buying engine technology directly from Ukraine
>Okay we'll do all solids and gain an ICBM platform
>Wait residual thrust will fuck up our orbit, we better add a small liquid stage for small adjustments, ez
>That stage fucks up and leaves them short of the desired orbit, payloads get destroyed
lol

[Anonymous No.14737270]

>>14737263
sending a sex object to be the first woman on mars to own the sjws

[Anonymous No.14737271]

>>14737263
>posting twitter screenshot
>cropping out the name of the person writing the tweet
>the tweet itself isn't even partially relevant to spaceflight
Oh yeah, /sfg/ is back in full swing baybeee

[Anonymous No.14737295]

How many different kinds of electric and magnetic experiments have been done outside the iss in 0 g free 'vacuum' space?

I understand the difficulty and danger and fear of such experiments possibly messing up machines and equipment or suit.

I'm curious as to how 2 or more very strong permenant magnets act on one another at decreasing distance; and if such field qualities in-between them can be detected or measured.

[Anonymous No.14737303]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2bRfHwaeUs

Why are "SLS Stans" so willing to lie to defend the SLS?

[Anonymous No.14737309]

>>14737303
Contrarianism is a hell of a drug.

[Anonymous No.14737312]

>>14737263
We already saw this one, get new material

[Anonymous No.14737332]

>>14736129
20ms is a huge amount of time for a computer

[Anonymous No.14737335]

10 points to whoever can help me identify the absolute mess of a satellite in this stamp, likely a Soviet scientific satellite

[Anonymous No.14737336]

>>14737332
Not so much for physical mechanisms, though.

[Anonymous No.14737337]

>>14737295
>How many different kinds of electric and magnetic experiments have been done outside the iss in 0 g free 'vacuum' space
I'm thinking get like 10ft x 10ft x 10ft or so Plexiglass boxe, with robot extendable arms that reach inside and set up materials for experiment,

[Anonymous No.14737340]

>>14737335
Could it be an artists concept? ie, made up in a similar way that kids 'science' books written by english majors fuck up rocket illustrations

[Anonymous No.14737346]

>>14737340
I doubt that it's made up, as every other stamp from Kampuchea has had real, albeit obscurer satellites on them, like the Proton, Elektron-2, and even a Nadezhna

[Anonymous No.14737360]

>>14737336
The response time of physical mechanisms can be characterized. The only thing that matters is computer timing, and Spinlaunch's window is large enough for even a garbage collected program on a normal OS to handle

[Anonymous No.14737363]

>>14736113

[Anonymous No.14737367]

This guy's making his promotional rounds with space bloggers

[Anonymous No.14737380]

>>14737262
the spinfag schizo already deleted it
it must have been by accident, I'll just repost it for him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrc632oilWo [Embed]

[Anonymous No.14737422]

>>14736651
It will take a very long time for that to be a problem, probably way longer than someone can stay in a suit

[Anonymous No.14737438]

>>14737422
I think the problems will arise from the fact that you're putting radioactive CO2 inside of the suit, which will almost definitely lead to it being absorbed through your pores.
And how will you make sure that CO2 doesn't leak into your helmet?

[Anonymous No.14737446]

>>14737438
>radioactive CO2
No.
>how will you make sure it doesn't leak into helmet?
Higher pressure inside helmet.

[Anonymous No.14737449]

>>14736651
Sealed space spandex with bit of oxygen layer + large amount of CO2 layer to keep the suit itself pressurized.

[Anonymous No.14737452]

>>14737438
>And how will you make sure that CO2 doesn't leak into your helmet?
Maxwell's demon

[Anonymous No.14737453]

>>14736651
Drysuits for scuba diving already exists. Martians would only need to wear that in case of explorations. And they can do that for days at a time in drysuits.

[Anonymous No.14737454]

>>14737438
>radioactive CO2
kill yourself. it's really not

[Anonymous No.14737464]

>>14737446
>>14737454
>the radiation isn't a problem just wear the suit haha :^)
it becomes a problem when you can't get rid of it. Putting it inside the suit is the exact opposite of what you want to do for a crew that lasts more than ~5 years on the surface

[Anonymous No.14737468]

>>14737464
the co2 is not radioactive you fucking imbecile.

[Anonymous No.14737484]

New future engine design what do you think? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvZjhWE-3zM picked it up from scott manely yesterday. That's nuclear fission and the fuel is something called uranium bromide

[Anonymous No.14737490]

>>14737468
It's Martian CO2 it is radioactive.
And if you bother running the whole thing through a rad filter then you've already made the system more trouble than it's worth

[Anonymous No.14737496]

(you)

[Anonymous No.14737509]

>>14735583
Building something like that must be like rocket science

[Anonymous No.14737510]

>>14737380
it took me almost half a minute to stop clicking the wrong []

[Anonymous No.14737515]

Long March 2F

[Anonymous No.14737526]

>>14737240
You joke, but if anti-ship balistic missiles become a new paradigm for naval warfare, then I could see the utility in having a re-usable HGV thrower, a VTVL rocket can theoretically land in a much smaller space than an aircraft.
And reusability could allow for lower costs and deeper magazines.

[Anonymous No.14737531]

>>14737509
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

[Anonymous No.14737536]

>>14737526
Starship will throw 100+ HGV from its payload as the HGV makes it way down to orbit and to their target destination. It can also stay in orbit for years if necessary, with or without humans on board, refueled if necessary, etc

[Anonymous No.14737545]

>>14737490
It's no more radioactive than Earth CO2.

[Anonymous No.14737548]

>>14737484
this zubrin guy who designed it sounds pretty smart. anybody know anything about him?

[Anonymous No.14737549]

>>14737484
You have to go back.

[Anonymous No.14737562]

>>14737545
sending humans to earth is too dangerous

[Anonymous No.14737612]

>>14737422
Humans can't stay in water over 24 hours if i remember right. Our skin starts breaking down
Probably the same amount of time for lacking oxygen too

[Anonymous No.14737615]

>>14737545
>>14737490
given them fact radioactive 14-C is produced from nitrogen and Mars atmosphere has only 3% N2, Martian CO2 should be 25 times LESS radioactive than Earth's CO2

[Anonymous No.14737636]

>>14737612
Nope, even three days is not long enough to kill skin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrvRwNaE7Eo&ab_channel=SkyNews
By the way, the skin is supplied with oxygen by the blood. We aren't frogs. You're thinking of the surface of the eye, which actually does diffuse its oxygen in from the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.14737638]

EARTHER (derogatory)

[Anonymous No.14737642]

>>14737615
Correct. There's still some C-14 but it's smaller than Earth's concentration despite the overall CO2 partial pressure being much higher.

[Anonymous No.14737644]

Russia has developed a technology for creating closed ecosystems for space based on the methane processing cycle:
https://www.energia.ru/ktt/archive/2021/04-2021/04-07.pdf

Russian manned Soyuz spacecraft use orientation engines repeatedly:
https://www.energia.ru/ktt/archive/2021/03-2021/03-04.pdf

The fundamental problem of developing high-temperature converter power systems for promising nuclear tugs (including for the Martian flight complex) has been solved:
https://www.energia.ru/ktt/archive/2021/03-2021/03-05.pdf

Experience and prospects of launches of small spacecraft from the Plesetsk cosmodrome:
https://www.energia.ru/ktt/archive/2021/03-2021/03-06.pdf

Calculation of ballistic flight path options for a manned expedition to Mars (2049-2050):
https://www.energia.ru/ktt/archive/2021/03-2021/03-08.pdf..

[Anonymous No.14737653]

>>14737644
cant open any of the fucking pdfs

[Anonymous No.14737660]

>>14737644
>Calculation of ballistic flight path options for a manned expedition to Mars
Fast transfer is the only option. You wait for the launch window to almost close, then you burn with the hohmann transfer delta V plus 1.5 km/s, then you aerobrake on arrival.
If you cannot aerobrake or you cannot provide the extra 1.5 km/s above Hohmann transfer delta V, your architecture is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.14737685]

>>14737644
>options for a manned expedition to Mars (2049-2050)
At that rate cosmonauts are going to be beaten to Mars by slavic tourists flying as commercial passengers

[Anonymous No.14737695]

I hate the term microgravity. The fuck do you mean when you use it

[Anonymous No.14737699]

>>14737695
it just means zero-g

[Anonymous No.14737706]

>>14737695
it means one one-millionth the force of gravity on earth's surface

[Anonymous No.14737713]

>>14737644
2049-2050 is too late https://futurism.com/elon-musk-is-officially-sending-humans-to-mars-in-2024

[Anonymous No.14737721]

>>14737515
a cute

[Anonymous No.14737737]

>>14737695
that gravity's effects are microscopic (but not 0)

[Anonymous No.14737740]

>>14737713
musk is just known as the mars man meme let me know when he starts landing rockets on mars and that the methane refueling works as intended besides everything being hypothetical.

[Anonymous No.14737741]

Staging:
>>14737738
>>14737738
>>14737738

[Anonymous No.14737743]

>>14737737
>>14737706
so if the astronauts on the ISS float perfectly still they will start accelerating toward the bottom of the ISS (closest part of the ISS to Earth)

[Anonymous No.14737777]

>>14737695
It means you're in freefall but close enough to a source of gravity (ie a planet) that tidal forces are inherent to the environment. Effectively, the gradient in gravitational strength between one side of your experiment and the other is equal to about 1 one millionth of Earth's gravity.
Ultra low tidal force environments, like the Earth-Moon L1 point, can get down to picogravity conditions, and super deep space environments like the scattered disk far from any other objects and hiding behind a sunshield can achieve even lower "gravities".

[Anonymous No.14737779]

>>14737743
Nope, it's referring to tidal strength, which results from gravity being stronger at your feet than at your head. It's a squeeze and stretch, not a "real" acceleration towards anything.

[Anonymous No.14737795]

>>14737777
>>14737779
the (pseudo)forces due to the rotation of the ISS far exceed any tidal forces. I think using the term microgravity for the ISS environment is a misnomer

[Anonymous No.14737971]

>>14734546
Wouldn't 10000G destroy any possible rocket?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrc632oilWo

[Anonymous No.14737978]

kill yourself

[Anonymous No.14738261]

>>14736526
Actually kill yourself. This isn’t your blog, faggot.

[Anonymous No.14738269]

>>14736880
We definitely need blacks on the moon. 150 years after the civil war, the moon will enter the union as a slave state.

[Anonymous No.14738276]

>>14737026
> you can launch one on an individual rocket directly to its trajectory for only $5000.
Please tell me what that $5000 represents and how you’re accounting for infrastructure, maintenance, replacing hardware, labor and fuel.