Starship / SpaceX / Spaceflight discussion

File: 736 KB, 3000x2000, DywIBeXVYAA1c4d.jpg orig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Starship / SpaceX / Spaceflight discussion Anonymous Fri Feb 8 00:46:24 2019 No.10367922 [Reply] [Original]

previous thread >>10362047

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 00:56:45 2019 No.10367946
File: 1.01 MB, 1280x720, 45809774974_fe8ec4ca5e_o.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1093635891959078912

>How will the booster support its own (and Starship's) weight when it's unfueled?
Welded, internal, longitudinal hat stringers. To the degree it may need hoop stiffness (prob not), combine with slosh baffles.

>Will Superheavy still land on its launch clamps/pads?
Prob wise for version 1 to have legs or we will frag a lot of launch pads

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:04:16 2019 No.10367954
File: 253 KB, 2048x1564, grimes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Nusantara Satu F9 launch (w/ SpaceIL moon lander) is now launching on the 21st. DM-1 is now NET March 2nd. The first six oneweb sats are going up on Soyuz on the 22nd this month too.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:05:47 2019 No.10367958
File: 583 KB, 1229x832, 201907-181416.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Looking through the news and I saw this https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/02/orbex-primes-second-stage-uk-launches/.. I didn't know the UK had a launcher already. I knew they were looking into building a spaceport but this seems quick.
>3D printed small sat launcher
>first launch in 2 years
>it runs on propane
Is this vaporware?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:07:50 2019 No.10367962 File: 447 KB, 2048x1536, Dy0aaQ2X4AUr_c3.jpg orig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10367958 pressure fed second stage

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:08:39 2019 No.10367964

>>10367958
>Be UK
>develop a pretty ballin' launch vehicle and sent some stuff into orbit
>scrap the program
Only country to lose space capability lel

as for that, there's literally over a hundred smallsat LV's in development right now. Until there's actual flight hardware being tested throw it in the pile with the rest.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:10:30 2019 No.10367967 2018 had a successful launch on average every 3.3 days. 2019 is currently sitting at one per 5.4 days. Yet, 50 more launches are planned for this year than last year. Suppose it's just a slow start...

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:12:03 2019 No.10367972 i had a dream that I was in a crowd watching the first mars launch and it did a haywire u-turn and killed us all. pretty metal dream but it woke me up.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:14:18 2019 No.10367979 File: 1.73 MB, 1800x2244, swing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10367972 I dream about space sports sometimes

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:17:41 2019 No.10367987 File: 175 KB, 2048x1152, DPPn3AxWkAEOUpz.jpg orig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10367962 Supposedly this is an engine test from May 2017. They claim their first stage will be re-usable. I guess we'll see.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:23:42 2019 No.10367999
File: 264 KB, 1118x633, BCmap.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Based on all the piping under the berm, the three piers would make sense as the foundation for the launch mount. Elon's comment about not wanting to frag launch pads makes me think there must be a landing zone in the plans, and guess what, the eastern cleared area perfectly fits a standard issue SpaceX landing pad. Then the wide ramp would be for carrying the Hopper back up to the launch mount after each test.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:27:23 2019 No.10368004 >>10367999 water tanks? for deluge? I thought the point was that starship could take off on Mars without anything in the way of launchpad hardware. I guess it would be nice for the neighbors, sound-wise

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:30:32 2019 No.10368006 >>10367958 Hank Hill would be proud.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:33:19 2019 No.10368009 File: 1.64 MB, 1846x1076, spaceil.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] We're Jews out in space We're zooming along protecting the Hebrew race

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:34:22 2019 No.10368010 File: 1.50 MB, 3072x2048, Eliran_Avital_082.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] When goyim attack us We give 'em a smack we'll slap them right back in the face We're Jews out in space We're zooming along protecting the Hebrew race

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 01:36:12 2019 No.10368018 >>10368004 I guess sound destroying the rocket is less of an issue on Mars, since the atmosphere is so thin.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 02:24:44 2019 No.10368099 man is this an exciting period for anybody with an interest in space

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 02:50:29 2019 No.10368164 >>10368099 Not really.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 02:50:59 2019 No.10368166

>>10368099
I remember the late 90s and early 2000s being fairly bleak times on space message boards. The spaceflight industry had a few highlights here and there like the ISS starting construction and the first Chinese manned launch, but overall it was a depressing period. Alot of topics on forums centered on how to lower launch costs and get more people interested in space, but those discussions often ended up leaving people disappointed and frustrated with the industry.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 02:54:19 2019 No.10368175 >>10368099 Wake me up when we do anything even close to as cool as what we did FIFTY years ago.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 02:56:03 2019 No.10368179 >>10368166 >>10368164 >>10368175 ok ;(

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 02:58:31 2019 No.10368186 >>10368175 space force

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 03:17:30 2019 No.10368212 >>10368175 Ass first.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 04:01:02 2019 No.10368263 With DM-1 being NET March can we safely say we're getting hops before it, if it's ready, or will it be delayed to bask in the Dragon 2 PR?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 04:05:00 2019 No.10368275 >>10368099 Unless you were alive for Apollo, yes. Though you might be better off not having seen it knowing what happened after.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 04:06:30 2019 No.10368281

>https://spacenews.com/lawmakers-air-force-launch-procurement-strategy-undermines-spacex/
>WASHINGTON — Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) are calling for an independent review of the Air Force’s space launch procurement strategy. They contend that the Air Force, in an effort to broaden the launch playing field, is putting SpaceX at a competitive disadvantage.
>In a Feb. 4 letter addressed to Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, Feinstein and Calvert — both with strong ties to the space industry — argue that the path the Air Force has chosen to select future launch providers creates an unfair playing field. Although SpaceX is not mentioned in the letter by name, it is clear from the lawmakers’ language that they believe the company is getting a raw deal because, unlike its major competitors, it did not receive Air Force funding to modify its commercial rockets so they meet national security mission requirements.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 05:53:18 2019 No.10368393 >>10368281 Dianne just can't keep her scummy hands off of anything can she.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 06:30:29 2019 No.10368425 >>10368393 She's against anything that's good about America.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 07:16:01 2019 No.10368477 >>10368425 Whats good in wasting money, delaying research and flying inferior vehicles - as SpaceX contenders do?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 07:23:11 2019 No.10368488 >>10368477 Supports the American industry and the American way to space.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 07:29:03 2019 No.10368503 File: 952 KB, 2136x3216, Soyuz_TMA-9_launch[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10368488 >the American way to space

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 07:36:41 2019 No.10368517 >>10368488 >>10368477 Shit. I completely messed up that post. I mean she supports anything bad about America.

>>	BattleshipYamato Fri Feb 8 07:36:45 2019 No.10368518 I wonder, will Virgin do anything interesting this year :)?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 08:31:47 2019 No.10368630 >>10368018 An it’s the second stage possibly throttled down initially

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 10:22:31 2019 No.10368853 >>10367999 the ones labeled water are for cryo liquids

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 10:29:05 2019 No.10368874 >>10368281 SpaceX is already getting lots of launches for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy from the Air Force. SpaceX developing a rocket for Mars and Moon is not the Air Force's problem. Something tells me Elon lobbied them to do that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 10:48:17 2019 No.10368912 >>10368630 Starship won't be launching off of Mars with anything less than 100% throttle, it has to be capable of going from Mars' surface to an Earth-intercept trajectory in a single stage so it can't afford to waste any delta V on gravity losses.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:17:56 2019 No.10368979 >>10368518 no, virgin orbit is stupid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:19:51 2019 No.10368986 What if we aren't able to generate fuel on Mars for a long time. What's the backup plan?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:21:18 2019 No.10368993 >>10368986 figure out how to speed it up we aren't going to mars without it

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:31:58 2019 No.10369021 >>10368986 What could delay or prevent fuel production?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:34:37 2019 No.10369027 >>10369021 Are you serious? You really think there is absoluetely nothing that could happen? If you are serious, here is one incredibely outlandish scenario: The ISRU-machines fail because they break.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:35:43 2019 No.10369030 >>10368993 This is wrong. With the 6-7 launches the BFR needs you could simply assemble an orbit taxi and a much smaller landing and ascent stage would put you on the surface of Mars.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:36:02 2019 No.10369031 >>10368912 Mars has lower gravity and you dont have heavy payload if only the empty ship is returning. Maybe they can afford to waste delta-v.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:36:40 2019 No.10369032 >>10369027 Then send two ISRU machines with extra spare parts instead of one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:37:26 2019 No.10369034 >>10369032 Guess what mate, second one breaks too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:38:15 2019 No.10369035 >>10369034 Send a third one on a later flight.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:38:17 2019 No.10369036 >>10369034 figure out what's breaking them send more lol guess the manned flight is postponed for another few years!

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:39:51 2019 No.10369038 >>10368986 >What's the backup plan? Stay on Mars while being resupplied from Earth and get that ISRU propellant plant working sooner or later. There is no other alternative.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:43:44 2019 No.10369054

>>10369032
>>10369035
>>10369036
In a mars mission you would want to take as little risks as possible. Relying your return on being able to produce hundreds of thousands of tons of propellant on Mars =/= little risks.

Maybe after a few decades when there are already a proper base up and running local refueling will be an option, but certainly not for the beginning.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:43:47 2019 No.10369055 >>10369027 Send more? Sue whoever is making them faulty? Buy 20 SLS B1's to launch your return fuel? Ask Russia for superior rocket engines than run on vacuum? Plenty of options.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:45:05 2019 No.10369060 >>10369054 that's why you produce that tonnage before you send people over, duh no human risk also redundant propellant production, lots of small units instead of just one fuck-huge one

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 11:47:50 2019 No.10369068 >>10369038 That's immoral illegal and evil only rich bourgeois would thing of something so vile. I'll be one of the first to hit the streets with molotovs if this is allowed to happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 12:06:14 2019 No.10369132 >>10369054 >hundreds of thousands of tons of propellant on Mars only takes around 1000 tons of propellant to refuel the starship

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 12:08:17 2019 No.10369135 File: 73 KB, 717x538, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Musk tweeting again about Starship https://twitter.com/elonmusk/with_replies

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 12:10:29 2019 No.10369141 >>10367922 This video explained Musks project better than 90% of you cucks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AcE7hBhpYU Feel ashamed.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 12:15:44 2019 No.10369157

>>10369031
They won't want to waste delta V, but even if they could, literally what is the advantage of lifting off slowly? They're still going to have a jet of rocket exhaust at least as strong as is required to lift the entire vehicle off of the ground.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 12:24:10 2019 No.10369178

>>10369135
He mentioned booster will look like the Starship more than the F9 S1. Winglets and other things for aero control and belly flop return?
This talk of 1200K on the base though suggests it's going in ass first like the F9 in which case I don't see how it could look much different than the falcon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 12:25:43 2019 No.10369186 >>10369178 no, it'll be a massive shiny falcon 9, complete with grid fins and such

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 12:40:56 2019 No.10369245 >>10369135 >600-1200K after ever flight uncooled This is what reusability looks like.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 12:51:10 2019 No.10369278 >>10369245 that sucker is going to come out of that sort of regime looking funky case hardened

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 12:57:38 2019 No.10369299 >>10369030 get a fucking load of this idiot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 12:59:09 2019 No.10369305 >>10369135 Somebody should tell Elon the main purpose for heat SHIELDS is to SHIELD the rocket from HEAT. What he is saying here is that the interior of the rockets are essentially going to get cooked and hopefully survive it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 13:09:33 2019 No.10369324 File: 142 KB, 750x941, IMG_9927.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10369305 The whole point using the transpiration cooling system is that the Methane vapour provides a protective layer that shields the Starship's hull from heat.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 13:23:19 2019 No.10369348 >>10369324 I'm talking about the tweet where he says Superheavy is getting no shielding at all. Also, if they use cryogenic methane for it they will have major issues with freezing in the tubes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 13:28:52 2019 No.10369362 >>10369324 Does this image mean that every time Starship comes back from re-entry its going to be trailing fire from the burning methane behind it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 13:32:38 2019 No.10369376 >>10369362 There would be a cloud of methane around it but you wouldnt be able to see it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 13:37:31 2019 No.10369386 >>10369362 yes, but it'll blend in with the plasma from reentry it might change the color of the reentry plasma

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 13:38:21 2019 No.10369390 >>10369362 The methane sweat will be blasted right into the plasma from re-entry, which glows much brighter than any fire can. You won't see much.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 13:42:12 2019 No.10369395 >>10369390 do you think it'll change the color of the reentry plasma?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 13:50:59 2019 No.10369416 File: 25 KB, 733x98, Rogozin teases new Russian super-heavy rocket Yenisei - SpaceNews com.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://spacenews.com/rogozin-teases-new-russian-super-heavy-rocket-yenisei/ trampoline man wants more pork

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 13:53:54 2019 No.10369419 >>10369416 He knows dynasty changes are coming until then so might as well play it safe with schedules.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:00:07 2019 No.10369428 >>10369416 poor Roscosmos, maybe the US should invite their engineers to switch sides. There’s going to be a big brain drain out of Russia when they downsize rocket development me thinks

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:03:01 2019 No.10369432 >>10369362 The shuttle also left large trail of smoke so I'm not sure the methane will make much difference.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:03:29 2019 No.10369434 It appears that SpaceX will have at least 21+ launches this year thanks to Starlink. That would be the most launches it's ever had in a year. https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-mystery-falcon-9-missions-record-breaking-launch-target-2019/

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:05:42 2019 No.10369437 >>10369416 That's actually reasonable timeframe. It's clearly aimed at the LOP-G and cooperation with NASA and FH tier LEO performance is enough to let them participate.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:08:09 2019 No.10369442 >>10369432 that was mostly from the ablative tiles methane burns clean

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:08:16 2019 No.10369443
File: 436 KB, 993x656, Screenshot_2019-02-08 Rogozin Promises Vladimir Putin to Double Launches to 45 This Year – Parabolic Arc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10369416
>>10369428
What is this downsizing you are talking about
Glorious space program is still Glorious !!!

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:18:53 2019 No.10369470 >>10369434 They are counting Starship hops as launches ayy lmao

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:24:09 2019 No.10369477 >>10369434 wait, have they launched actual Starlink satellites?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:26:58 2019 No.10369484 >>10369477 >wait, have they launched actual Starlink satellites? Just two prototypes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:27:50 2019 No.10369485 >>10369484 oh, that's cool how many do they need for it to be operational?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:28:12 2019 No.10369486 >>10369477 Only 2 prototype test sats. If they're starting Starlink Construction this year then apparently the test sats have worked well.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:28:22 2019 No.10369487

>>10369477
they’ve launched two test satellites. They’ve been working fine; SpaceX engineers says they were playing CSGO over em. Since then Elon has fired a lot of the Starlink managers for being too slow with getting satellites built. No one knows when the first actual batch will be built

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:29:26 2019 No.10369488 >>10369485 Many thousands. Last I heard the complete constellation needs something on the order of 10-12k satellites.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:29:28 2019 No.10369489 >>10369485 12,000 eventually. Something like 4000 to start it out? The numbers keep shifting.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:29:31 2019 No.10369490 >>10369485 I think the minimum constellation size is something like 500 satellites.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:31:01 2019 No.10369495 >>10369490 you just need to fill one orbit with it to actually do things with it right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:31:31 2019 No.10369497 >>10369495 See: https://youtu.be/QEIUdMiColU

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:35:39 2019 No.10369511 >>10369489 12k seems to be the full constellation. 4k until early 2020's seems to be the requirement for keeping the license.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:37:28 2019 No.10369521 >>10369489 They want the constellation to help bootstrap itself. Revenue generation after the first 800 or 1600 sats, I forget which.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:42:25 2019 No.10369541 >>10369521 How many could they launch per F9/FH? >>10369511 They'll need an early version of Starship to meet those requirements imo

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 14:46:25 2019 No.10369552 >>10369541 >How many could they launch per F9/FH? Something like 20 to 40, not sure.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 15:45:02 2019 No.10369716 >>10369348 Freezing what in the tubes?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 15:46:29 2019 No.10369718 >>10369442 Shuttle didn't have ablative tiles dude, it didn't have ablative anything.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 15:47:50 2019 No.10369720 >>10369541 Not enough to use up the entire mass budget of the rocket, because they're going to be volume limited (can't physically cram that many satellites into one fairing).

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:06:34 2019 No.10369760 >>10369720 I wonder why SpaceX doesnt offer a larger fairing size for oversize payloads that are otherwise under the mass limit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:08:52 2019 No.10369764 >>10369760 A. fairings are expensive B. engineering a bigger fairing is expensive

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:11:52 2019 No.10369770 >>10369760 Falcon 9 is already tall and skinny, adding a much bigger fairing would make flexing problems much worse.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:12:31 2019 No.10369771 File: 74 KB, 1000x667, C495205D-E17E-4ABF-AAE6-DC481BA97C24.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Must be hot in Belgium

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:15:18 2019 No.10369784 >>10369764 >>10369770 Point.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:18:44 2019 No.10369792 >>10369760 >>10369764 >>10369770 SpaceX have basically come out and said they'll only build a bigger fairing for the Falcon if someone e.g. the Airforce pays them to develop it, because of the cost and engineering challenges.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:22:54 2019 No.10369800

>>10369792
They would need a whole new second stage for that. That could be worth it for the Falcon Heavy. Hence why there was the idea of a "mini-Starship" floating around for some time. Air Force was down to pay for that, but Elon wanted Air Force to pay for the BFR development instead. Air Force said we don't need a Mars rocket, also BFR development is too risky, so it is getting no money. Now Elon has activated his lobby power and some politicians are pushing Air Force to pay for BFR.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:28:02 2019 No.10369812 >>10369541 >they'll need starship That's precisely why they're in such hurry with it.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:30:38 2019 No.10369816

>>10369812
No, what they need is generating any cash from an operational network which would have a minimum size of 800 or so. 12000 satellites are 12 billion just in manufacturing costs. Unless they demonstrate Starlink can be profitable, nobody is giving them that money.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:32:54 2019 No.10369819 >>10369816 Fidelity has invested 500mil in starlink already

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:35:12 2019 No.10369822 >>10369716 Whatever liquid they are using. You'd need just a tiny bit of freezing somewhere and the rocket will explode, because it would not be shielded whereever the liquid was blocked off by frost.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:37:13 2019 No.10369824

>>10369819
That's enough to build 500 satellites. Launching those would probably cost somewhere the same amount. So you probably need 2 billion to get an operational network running. That network needs to be profitable, despite there being several big competitors on the market.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:39:18 2019 No.10369829 >>10369822 they will be using liquid methane, it will not freeze as the freezing point is very low, if anything it could boil

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:44:10 2019 No.10369839 >>10369822 >coolant freezes somewhere >temperature of the spot begins to rise >coolant melts and flows again a self-regulating system?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:45:58 2019 No.10369843 >>10369822 Are you pretending to be retarded or are you sincere?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:46:01 2019 No.10369845 >>10369829 They will use sub-cooled methane which is very close to the freezing point.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:51:09 2019 No.10369857

>>10369839
This is not how it works. The liquid will have to flow through something to get to surface and if that is congested the rocket will explode. The cooling system requires a very filigrane, "sensitive" design. Its way more prone to failure than any other. Its not exactly easy to keep a thin, uniformally distributed film of liquid around a rocket that is entering the atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 16:58:28 2019 No.10369870 >>10369857 You seem awfully sure about specifics of a heat shield that was never tried before while we dont even know details. For all we know the rocket will not explode at the drop of a hat and it will be reliable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:04:41 2019 No.10369885 >>10369870 Look up >Fear >Uncertainty >Doubt

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:08:21 2019 No.10369894 >>10369870 >>10369885 >anon makes some technical discussions >haha look at this faggot hes probably just some oldspace dude who is so jelly of master elon

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:12:15 2019 No.10369898

>>10369894
>THE ROCKET PORES ARE GONNA FREEZE AND MAKE IT EXPLODE
>some technical discussions
They've already rejected water for the transpiration cooling because of the risk of pores freezing closed. They've more than likely already run the numbers for methane, else they wouldn't be going with stainless.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:13:37 2019 No.10369902 >>10369898 >they are doing it so they must be right

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:17:45 2019 No.10369909 >>10367946 I like that picture. NASA's working on space construction techniques that are going to make the ISS look like a joke >>10369443 >>glorious they had a soyuz launch failure with people on board.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:19:30 2019 No.10369911 >>10367946 That Starship honestly looks disgusting there

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:21:46 2019 No.10369915 lol Elon deleted the Richard Nixon pic he tweeted

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:22:44 2019 No.10369918 >>10369822 >Liquid Methane freezing in 1700k+ tubes >This is possible

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:23:31 2019 No.10369920 >>10369915 For somebody who works 100 hours a week and is the chief engineer of all products he sure spends a lot of time shitposting on twitter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:24:16 2019 No.10369922 >>10369902 >they're doing it and they're actively sending stuff into space They probably know what they're doing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:24:36 2019 No.10369924 >>10369918 Your tubes wouldn't get that hot because the rocket would be gone long before that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:27:59 2019 No.10369931 >>10369924 Ok buddy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:29:19 2019 No.10369933 >>10369931 Just skip the heatshield altogether mate. Just let everything get as hot as it wants, Elon will prevent explosions by tweeting.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:29:51 2019 No.10369936 >>10369933 Ok buddy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:32:55 2019 No.10369943 >>10369936 I honestly dont know if you are a bot or a retard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:37:14 2019 No.10369949 >>10369943 >I'm retarded Meanwhile you need to take high school physics again because you think a room temperature gas can freeze inside thousand degree + tubes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:39:34 2019 No.10369958 >>10369949 >rocket gets 1700 degrees hot >doesnt explode okay buddy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:57:23 2019 No.10370004 >>10369958 Cute

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 17:59:02 2019 No.10370010 >>10369920 You fell for the "Elon does real work at his companies" meme.

Anonymous Fri Feb 8 18:18:51 2019 No.10370060
File: 484 KB, 1195x1728, 1547684486207.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10367922
space will probably be the largest selection event ever
only the smartest, strongest willed and wealthiest will be able to go, ie. no nigger
all of the degenerates will be left behind on earth
this is what they meant by judgement day in the bible, only the noble will be able ascend to the heavens

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 18:20:51 2019 No.10370064 >>10370060 Fuck off, retard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 18:35:21 2019 No.10370094 >>10370060 >heaven is having to drink your own piss while you sit in your tiny habitat hoping your life support doesn't fail.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 18:38:12 2019 No.10370101 >>10370094 well exactly only certain types of people could and would live like this

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 19:14:52 2019 No.10370219 >>10370094 >Live in comfy space habitat with other intelligent hardworking non criminals Vs >Live in South Africa USA edition Tough choice.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 19:36:52 2019 No.10370274 >>10370060 space for the spacenoids sig zeon

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 21:47:12 2019 No.10370611 >>10369800 I wouldn't be surprised if the overall cost is seriously cut due to the shift to metal.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 23:14:35 2019 No.10370771 >>10369845 not for re-entry

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 8 23:32:55 2019 No.10370803 >>10370611 It's a massive cost savings in material and manpower.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 01:52:08 2019 No.10371068 >>10370611 That depennds on how many of them they keep losing to wind during production.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 02:06:51 2019 No.10371091
File: 1.71 MB, 2048x1365, 31038067857_6418b78c16_k.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I was thinking that maybe the ISS could opt for a commercial segment on the station. As in attaching something like one of those big Bigelow inflatable modules and have any tourists hang out there. Since nobody wants to pay to keep the ISS after NASA abandons it, then we could always bud off the commercial segment into it's own standalone station after the ISS retires.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 02:08:06 2019 No.10371094 >>10371091 not worth it. The legacy equipment would only be a hindrance. It’s best to start from scratch, with larger modules and a longer term plan

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 02:35:54 2019 No.10371131 >>10371094 I just hope when it finally comes down, before the last crew leaves they mount cameras in the windows and live broadcast the feed until it breaks up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 03:24:11 2019 No.10371177 >>10369490 how many Starlink satellites can fit on an F9?

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 03:32:10 2019 No.10371191
File: 1.22 MB, 5568x3712, 31813405397_5b47a47960_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10371094
Of course it would be better to start from scratch but putting up a whole station, even a small one, is probably going to be more expensive and difficult than just attaching yourself to the ISS. I can think of alot of pros to doing it this way (ready access to life support, station keeping is provided by NASA, flights are regularly visiting the station, emergency escape vehicles are already there). The only major problem I see is that alot of people don't like the orbit, so a station that buds off from the ISS would be stuck in a similar orbit because changing the orbit is difficult.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 03:35:17 2019 No.10371198 >>10371177 NVM, just googled. Around 40 is the answer. SpaceX needs atleast 100 launches of the F9 to complete its first 4000 satellite constellation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 03:36:12 2019 No.10371199 >>10367922 Earth is flat

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 03:39:54 2019 No.10371206 >>10371198 Could Spacex increase their launch cadence for Starlink to 30 a year?

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 03:44:55 2019 No.10371216

>>10371198
I dont know how big each satellite is but assuming they are 1mx1mx1m they can fit a maximum of ~250 in the fairing. And that is assuming they manage to pack them so densely close to each other that not an inch of free space remains in the fairing.

More realistically speaking I highly doubt they will be able to launch more than 100 at once.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 04:28:45 2019 No.10371253 >>10369920 >making a handful of posts per day on twitter takes a lot of time It takes 5 minutes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 04:29:57 2019 No.10371254 >>10370060 >this is what they meant by judgement day in the bible, only the noble will be able ascend to the heavens damn, you may be onto something here..

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 05:17:50 2019 No.10371312 >>10369920 Twitter is unironically the fastest way to get information out.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 07:46:57 2019 No.10371495

>>10371191
>ready access to life support, station keeping is provided by NASA, flights are regularly visiting the station, emergency escape vehicles are already there
Life support that is meant to supply for a crew of a few astronauts doing science experiments, not a bunch of tourists, station keeping that is configured for the current mass and mass distribution of the ISS (adding a big tourist module would throw things off), flights to the station are already fully booked by astronauts and emergency escape vehicles are just the capsules they came up on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 07:48:10 2019 No.10371496 >>10371206 Probably, but at this point that depends on how many 2nd stages they can manufacture in a year, as well as how many fairings (at least until they can get fairing catches reliable enough that they make a difference, which I personally doubt).

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 07:49:58 2019 No.10371498 >>10371216 You can't just stack satellites onto satellites, they need to be mounted to a single support structure/pylon otherwise the vibrations during launch are going to find harmonic resonances with all those jiggly linkages and break things badly.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 08:12:38 2019 No.10371525 [DELETED]

>>10371498
Yeah I know, that's why I wrote it's probably going to be below 100 per launch. As a comparison, OneWeb is launching 35-40 on the Soyuz. The cargo bay of the Falcon is about twice the size of the Soyuz, so they could launch 70-80 OneWeb satellites. I dont know in how far the Starlink satellites are going to be different in size from the OneWeb ones, so the number might be a bit higher or lower, but probably not by very much.

I also highly doubt they are going to use Falcon Heavys, because the bottleneck is the size of the cargo bay, not the weight.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 08:23:29 2019 No.10371540
File: 1.58 MB, 1920x1080, 0YCrx7a.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10371525
SpaceX is going to have an interesting time figuring out how to maximize the packing density of the things. This is the best public picture there is of the two test satellites.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 08:35:59 2019 No.10371556

>>10370060
I'm black and am an Aerospace engineer. How about you start being realistic and view people based on their individual merits and realize you've been indoctrinated and radicalized by a group of misfits that post racist shit from their basement with no connection to actual reality?

I'm used to this shit since this is 4chan after all. But come on dude "Smartest, strongest willed and wealthiest" Is mostly going to mean Ashkenazi Jews, Asian immigrants, Liberal whites and intellectual blacks.

If anything the space colony population will be /pol/'s worst nightmare.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 08:51:23 2019 No.10371583

>>10371556
>If anything the space colony population will be /pol/'s worst nightmare.

/pol/'s worst nightmare is paucity or dispossession of physical and cultural attributes that contribute to individual virtue and the collective betterment of society.

/pol/'s second-worst nightmare is the lower half of the IQ bell curve. /pol/'s very worst nightmare is being part of that lower half.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 08:57:07 2019 No.10371594 >>10371540 IIRC someone on NSF calculated that they could fit 32 or 36 of them inside.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 09:11:29 2019 No.10371625 [DELETED]

>>10370094
>heaven is having to endure harsh winters where nothing grows, you're cold and wet all the time, and you have to store food you grew during summer and fall just to survive to the next spring. Just stay in Africa bro

That's why some of us aren't niggers anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 10:07:19 2019 No.10371722 Why send humans to space when robots can collect the same data ? When we find a human life support planet then send humans. Space people the new con game in town.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 10:10:48 2019 No.10371733 >>10371556 Stop using earths resources for stupid projects ? Where is the closest planet that humans can live on with out depending on earths resources ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 10:20:42 2019 No.10371748 >>10371625 Africa is the future whether you like it or not /poltard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 10:20:43 2019 No.10371749 >>10371733 Mars, it'll just take some research first and a bunch of industrial equipment

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 10:24:21 2019 No.10371758 >>10371625 lol what a load of horseshit. Humans migrated because they literally followed the food.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 10:26:45 2019 No.10371766 Lets talk about SpaceX rockets instead of respective racial prejudices.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 10:30:29 2019 No.10371773 >>10371556 >Is mostly going to mean Ashkenazi Jews, Asian immigrants, Liberal whites Yes. >and intellectual blacks. No. Very few intellectual blacks statistically exist. There will be some like you, but they will be an exception.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 10:33:05 2019 No.10371782 >>10371722 science is not the only goal of spaceflight, colonization is also a goal, even more important in the long term, and you cannot colonize with robots only by definition

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:01:43 2019 No.10371844 File: 1.59 MB, 5184x3888, index[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] not sure if this image from yesterday was posted so here it is.. what is that red tank?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:06:00 2019 No.10371857 >>10371844 it's a pressure cylinder probably full of compressed air, they need to use portable compressors instead of a big central compressor because big central compressors are super expensive

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:07:58 2019 No.10371862

>>10371540
Apparently the SpaceX fairing can only carry around 10 tons, so if the satellites have similar specs as the OneWeb ones a Soyuz cold carry 35-40 and the Falcon 9 maybe a couple more. However last news I heard was that the SpaceX sats are significantly bigger, so it could be much less.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:17:27 2019 No.10371881 >>10371862 They could bulk buy soyuz in that case and it'll be cheaper.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:19:29 2019 No.10371886

>>10371857
>probably full of compressed air, they need to use portable compressors instead of a big central compressor because big central compressors are super expensive

Its a composite overwrapped pressure vessel. Two of those red ones are used on the second stage of the Falcon 9 for helium storage.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:20:37 2019 No.10371890
File: 86 KB, 640x480, IMG_2867.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10371886
Somehow this didn't attach.>>10371881
>They could bulk buy soyuz in that case and it'll be cheaper.
Falcon 9 is already cheaper than Soyuz with SpaceX's profit margin on top. For internal use, this comment just gets dumber.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:23:27 2019 No.10371896 >>10371782 Nobody cares about colonizing anything only space fans do. Not happening.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:24:28 2019 No.10371899 >>10371886 I thought starship will not use helium since it cannot be replenished on Mars?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:27:06 2019 No.10371907 >>10371896 nobody cares about rocks on pluto you nerd, but those space fans are the reason spaceflight receives lots of taxpayer funding in the first place, disregard them and all you will have is comm and military sats

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:30:05 2019 No.10371912

>>10371899
>I thought starship will not use helium since it cannot be replenished on Mars?

SpaceX is pursuing an accelerated development timeline and is starting with cold-gas thrusters for orbital and landing maneuvers instead of the previously planned methane and oxygen thruster engines they originally specified. A cold gas system will need some kind of reaction gas and some sort of storage system for it.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:49:52 2019 No.10371961

>>10371722
Humans are hundreds if not thousands of times faster at doing things like prospecting and traversing rough terrain compared to unmanned probes. Humans are also vastly more reliable and have no issues with getting stuck in sand traps for example. A human driving or even pulling a simple cart full of science experiments that would otherwise be on a robotic probe could get to, and collect data on, hundreds of sites in a single day and outstrip the capabilities of a rover on a decade-long mission.

There is literally no point to collecting scientific data about the other planets and moons in our solar system if we don't plan on eventually going there to colonize those worlds. If your argument is that doing science on other worlds tells us about Earth, it doesn't. All it shows us is how objects can differ from Earth, if we want to learn more about Earth we can study Earth itself. The only Earth-centric targets for science in space are the Sun and asteroids/comets, because the Sun's activity can directly affect our civilization and small objects can collide with us. Any argument that we should send robotic missions because sending humans doesn't make sense is an argument that humans will never expand beyond Earth and that all planetary science apart form Earth studies are worthless.

While there are almost certainly many planets in the universe that are full of their own life, human life would not survive on most of them, simply because their atmospheres are likely to contain the wrong mixture of gasses and probably toxic gasses that would kill whoever went outside without an SCBA unit. Regardless, there aren't any planets like that in our solar system, and the idea that we can go from only living on Earth to performing interstellar voyages to planets thousands of light years away in a single technological leap is not only stupid, it's self-defeating. If you have access to the required technology to do that you can just colonize the worlds in our own system.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:54:03 2019 No.10371976 >>10371961 For the money spent you can do 100X more science with robots. Sending people and risking their lives is not only wasteful but ethically wrong as well.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:57:01 2019 No.10371982

>>10371976
>For the money spent you can do 100X more science with robots.

You can do a robotic science mission's entire decade-long itinerary with one geologist in a single day. The declaration of waste and immorality has never come from a better ethical standpoint than someone wanting more money spent towards their own direct benefit.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 11:57:36 2019 No.10371983

>>10371733
The Moon is closest, though it's the space colonization equivalent of settling a dry desert. Evidence suggests that there's some limited water and carbon dioxide ice resources at the poles, however most volatile compounds will probably need to be mined from deep crust and upper mantle rocks. The Moon contains every elemental resource that exists on Earth, some of them are just harder to find.

Mars is further but far far more resource abundant, there's essentially unlimited carbon dioxide and nitrogen in the air plus vast amounts of frozen water across most of the surface, and everywhere a few meters underground.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:01:11 2019 No.10371998

>>10371983
>however most volatile compounds will probably need to be mined from deep crust and upper mantle rocks. The Moon contains every elemental resource that exists on Earth, some of them are just harder to find.

Source? As far as I know all volatiles were vaporized during impact that formed the Moon, so it is dry through and through.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:03:20 2019 No.10372004 >>10371912 methane?

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:03:37 2019 No.10372007

>>10371899
Starhopper is not Starship. It's using different construction techniques, different legs, different internal structure, etc. Really the only reason it even resembles Starship is for PR purposes, but that's a valid reason. Starhopper's purpose is only to develop and validate flight control programs and the Raptor engine. Elon already said that by the end of this year they will have built a much more accurate Starship prototype that will have the final size and shape, the actuating flaps on the nose, the flap-legs with extending feet, the transpiration heat shield, and the autogenous pressurization system.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:12:11 2019 No.10372026

>>10371912
'Cold gas' only means that the energy that powers the thruster comes from compression and not from a chemical reaction in the propellant. The pressurization system will have a set of header tanks fed by boiled propellant (one for oxygen and one for methane) which the thrusters and tank re-pressurizers feed off of. The boiled propellant will come from a small amount of liquid methane and oxygen that is sent through a heat exchanger in the engines, after which it will be piped up into the header tanks for storage. The thrusters will only be fed by methane, since it's a lighter gas and will provide better Isp than oxygen gas would. In the future they may decide to develop the gas-gas hot thrusters that they were originally going for, since they offer higher thrust and better control authority, they are skipping them for now simply to accelerate Starship v1.0 development. The gas-gas thrusters would keep the same methane gas manifold but add in a similar oxygen manifold and a spark igniter inside the thruster, and rather than switching on and off rapidly like a cold gas thruster or a hypergolic thruster they would probably just turn them all on and have them sitting at a very low 'idle' throttle setting, then throttle them up and down rapidly to provide the impulse needed. It would work similarly to how the Superdraco engines currently do, but with gaseous methane-oxygen instead of liquid hypergolics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:17:48 2019 No.10372041 >>10371998 water exists in space and it's had billions of years to condense into craters

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:21:11 2019 No.10372051 >>10372026 pressure fed gas-gas thrusters tapping off the autogenous tanks?

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:24:19 2019 No.10372060

>>10371976
For a single manned mission to Mars that cost $100 billion you could probably do 100 $1 billion rovers, but in the year and a half the astronauts spent on the surface they would be doing more science per day than your entire fleet of 100 rovers would be doing annually for their ten year life spans. If you look only at minimum capability manned missions it may be possible to make the argument that machines are better, but if you double the price of the manned mission you can extend its capability from a few days to hundreds of days and render machine science irrelevant. Even the science experiments a manned mission can bring are much more capable; Insight's heat probe will go down a few meters over the course of a few weeks so long as it doesn't hit a rock, whereas a guy with a hand auger could deploy a heat probe to the same depth in one day, and could try again many times if he kept hitting rocks. In fact he could deploy a dozen heat probes across a grid pattern covering a square kilometer if that's what the mission called for.

The Apollo missions, specifically Apollo 17 where they actually sent a geologist, returned so much scientific data that the fact that we've sent multiple rovers and landers and orbiters barely even matters compared to what we learned from a guy with a rock hammer and the skills to identify what he was looking at. By using a shovel to scrape away a few inches of surface dust astronauts made a discovery (iron oxide soil) that would have taken hours for a probe to find even if it had the robotic arms required to perform the task.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:35:47 2019 No.10372074

>>10371998
It is bone dry aside from possible cometary deposits in very few (currently) permanently shadowed regions and even those are not certain as the data from the probe was supposedly misinterpreted and the numbers exaggerated. Some hope for underground deposits available outside of the polar regions but that's even less likely. Volatiles will definitely have to be imported, except maybe oxygen.

Interesting choice between Mars and the Moon for (national) colonization target
>resource abundant but months away and travel limited to every ~2 years
>resource poor and delta v requirements higher, but days away

The distance might not be a benefit as more parties will be able to get there and lay claim to resources and if those are extremely limited things get messy. Not a moonfag so not going to argue for it, and I don't much faith in government led efforts too.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:39:08 2019 No.10372078

>>10371998
Studies involving Lunar volcanic rocks show much higher water content than expected given the 'dry interior' model. Instead the new hypothesis is that when the Moon formed a significant amount of hydrated minerals were trapped in its interior and had a chance to be churned up towards the surface before the interior cooled too much and the mantle became more or less frozen in place.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:42:57 2019 No.10372087 >>10372051 >pressure fed gas-gas thrusters tapping off the autogenous tanks? No. SpaceX is not using combustion engines for their orbital maneuvering thrusters at this juncture.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:43:28 2019 No.10372089

>>10372051
Future versions, yes. The original plan, yes. Currently, no. The first version of the vehicle is set to only have methane-propelled cold gas thrusters, simply because they're going to be much easier to develop and the higher thrust of the gas-gas combustion thrusters won't be necessary to begin with. Going from methane cold-gas to methane-oxygen gas-gas combustion is actually not that hard, as I mentioned. The hardest problem will be to achieve extremely reliable ignition of the thrusters, but if they get around that by doing one ignition and then throttling the thrusters up and down as necessary sorta like a Vernier engine then they won't have to deal with that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:49:07 2019 No.10372103 >>10372087 it's an eventuality, imo the ISP increases are worth it

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:59:07 2019 No.10372123 What about resistojets instead of combustion thrusters?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 12:59:21 2019 No.10372125 >>10372103 Isp but also massively more thrust in total.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:02:10 2019 No.10372132 >>10372125 thrust isn't very important for RCS, I was actually thinking if you were going to go with pressure fed gas-gas thrusters you'd want to make them fucking tiny

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:02:15 2019 No.10372133

>>10372060
>but in the year and a half the astronauts spent on the surface they would be doing more science per day than your entire fleet of 100 rovers would be doing annually for their ten year life spans

With what, their hands? If they want to do science they will need a laboratory. A rover is an automated laboratory with wheels.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:05:14 2019 No.10372138 >>10372123 A. where does the current for that come from B. how mature are they as a technology?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:06:15 2019 No.10372143 >>10372132 thrust may be important if RCS is used for maneuvers in atmosphere

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:08:03 2019 No.10372145 >>10372133 you need a serious lab with a human in it to do lots of science, an unmanned rover is not a very capable laboratory

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:11:03 2019 No.10372151

>>10372138
Onboard power, either solar panels for space or batteries/fuel cells during re-entry.

The tech is quite mature (its literally a resistive element in the thrust chamber) and has been flying in some form since the mid 1960s.

Arcjet is also a possible option; pure methane for vacuum use, methalox for atmospheric use (the arc can start the combustion process). The problem I see with arcjet thrusters though is that they're much less mature (nothing has flown yet) and measures need to be taken to prevent erosion of the electrodes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:13:09 2019 No.10372155 >>10368018 You need way less power to liftoff from mars

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:15:25 2019 No.10372163 >>10372151 Correction: arcjets have flown but its only on some Lockheed sats, so still immature. Everyone either uses conventional hypergolic thrusters, monoprop thrusters of some kind, or some form of Ion thruster.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:16:44 2019 No.10372165 >>10368986 the plan is to send a ship full of robots, which we will direct from Earth to gather the necessary methane for the human ships so they could leave immediately if there was an emergency. This also means they have an entire backup ship.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:20:52 2019 No.10372173 >>10369511 Thank god theyre low orbit, if they were higher up we get kessler syndromed so bad

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:28:49 2019 No.10372187 >>10372123 Not enough electricity available during launch, reentry and landing. Batteries required to store the energy for the resistojets would be far heavier than the propellants needed for even a cold gas thruster setup.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:29:48 2019 No.10372189 >>10371976 Right now, sure. But that is changing fast. The cost of going to space is falling sharply. In 15 years, the differance between putting up people and robots could be negligible.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:30:49 2019 No.10372193

>>10372132
The thrusters were going to be most important during reentry and landing procedures, in space they can have as little thrust as you want in principal but in atmosphere they need to be able to overcome aerodynamic forces. Elon said that for their gas-gas combustion thrusters they were aiming for ten tons of thrust, but that with the new design using flaps for steering they can get away with a lot less thruster power.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:31:53 2019 No.10372195 >>10372193 quit being stuck in the past, we're talking about the potential for the future

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:37:20 2019 No.10372212

>>10372133
>With what, their hands?
You scoff but the human hand is a far more capable tool than any machine ever built. Most of the engineering effort of building a rover goes into designing the wheels so that they won't get stuck (not a problem for humans) and designing the arm and science experiments so that the arm can reach everything and perform tasks like drilling rocks. A guy with a shovel and a rock hammer can do more science than a rover can hope to do. The fact that the guy with the hammer also has a microscope and a sample analysis lab back at base makes him hundreds of times more capable than any probe has been or could ever be.

Imagine the amount of engineering and design work it would take to build a robotic probe that could dig a two meter deep hole layer by layer and analyze the geology. Now consider that a man with a shovel can dig that same hole in one day, and can go on to dig a new hole every day for the next few months, in locations dozens and hundreds of meters apart.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:40:38 2019 No.10372220

>>10372165
>gather the necessary methane
There is no methane to gather, it needs to be made via sabatier process using co2 and hydrogen, and you get the hydrogen from electrolysing water. Byproduct of methane production is oxygen in a stoichiometric ratio, and since Raptor runs fuel rich that means you're making several dozen tons of excess oxygen which can be used for supplying life support.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:43:41 2019 No.10372231

>>10372195
The future will be gas-gas combustion thrusters, they offer the highest performance with minimal drawbacks. Resistojet and arcjet thrusters both require too much energy, meaning the batteries they'd need to carry would weigh more than the amount of propellant currently required for the cold gas design, and obviously using tiny nuclear thermal rockets powered by methane for maneuvering thrusters isn't going to happen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:45:05 2019 No.10372237 >>10372220 don't forget the extra oxygen from any iron you extract >>10372231 and yet you're still talking about the designs they thought they'd need to use in the past why would you make 10 ton RCS when you can make something much smaller?

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:53:18 2019 No.10372256

>>10372132
It is actually. It allows more control during bad weather landing which is important if it's to fly often and in most weather conditions, and could even offer the side benefit of landing in low g environments without main engines. They are skipping it so they can speed up the starlink deployment.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:56:53 2019 No.10372261

>>10372231
Well, the reason why I suggested arcjet was for the flexibility. In space, while the solar panels are out, power isnt a concern, and large amounts of thrust arent needed, so they can fire purely as a monoprop thruster using methane.

In atmosphere, when more thrust is needed and power is limited, the arc only briefly fires, long enough to ignite the propellant mixture, then turns off, at which point the gas feeding into the thrust chamber feeds the combustion process already started, like a normal rocket.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 13:58:12 2019 No.10372263

>>10372212
Yes, a human with a laboratory equipment equal to what curiosity has could do as much science as curiousity can. But curiosity only needs some automation tools to do it, the human needs a full-life support habitat and a way bigger ship to go there.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 14:16:17 2019 No.10372290

>>10372237
>why would you make 10 ton RCS when you can make something much smaller?
Why change it at all if cold gas works fine? In any case none of the electrically-boosted options can work for when the thrusters are needed most so they're in the trash anyway, which leaves gas-gas combustion only. If they only want 100 kg of thrust force instead of ten tons they can just make the gas-gas thrusters physically much smaller.

If you want to do return-to-launch-clamp landings you need lots of control authority and that means high power gas-gas thruster at the top and base of the Booster. Elon has already said that they're going to put legs on the first version of the Booster because without the strong thrusters they'll probably end up crashing boosters into the launch pad too often.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 14:24:02 2019 No.10372310

>>10372263
>Yes, a human with a laboratory equipment equal to what curiosity has could do as much science as curiousity can.
No, a human with lab equipment is not equal to Curiosity, it exceeds Curiosity by many orders of magnitude. A human with all the same experiments and equipment can go through more samples in a day than curiosity has sitting on Mars for the last ~7 years. Likewise a human can drill more rocks than curiosity has so far in an hour, and walk as far as Curiosity has moved in total in a day or so. That's before you consider that a person can handle terrain that Curiosity has no chance of climbing over, and a human can use much more versatile equipment than Curiosity has. Also, since you're sending enough mass to support several people for over a year anyway, you can justify sending much more scientific experiments and equipment an maximize your return by taking advantage of the human effect multiplier.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 14:56:52 2019 No.10372375

>>10372310
Collecting samples quickly is literally the only advantage a human has, and that is not so important. Yeah a human can go in 2 hours somewhere Curiosity goes in 2 months, but so what? Curiosity costs a few billion, the human there would cost a few dozen billion.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 15:02:58 2019 No.10372383

>>10372375
The human advantage is not just speed, but quick thinking, problem solving, mobility, and self-determination. Fortuitous discoveries happen through the human eye much more than they do through the narrow viewing angles of a camera, especially when that camera is working with irregular uplinks with 11 minute one way delays. Besides, with a useful colonization architecture, the one-time costs actually have a chance to amortize across multiple missions, instead of bespoke, one-time machines that are as expensive as they are because everyone knows they have exactly one chance to get it right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 15:28:45 2019 No.10372462 >>10372383 You seem to think that Mars is like a jungle on earth where you can discover lots of things within a few kilometres radius. Mars is more like the moon, where the whole place is basically the same thing.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 15:29:15 2019 No.10372463

>>10372375
>Curiosity costs a few billion, the human there would cost a few dozen billion.
Curiosity collects data 1/1000th the rate of a human at best, yet will only last a decade or so before its wheels fail and it becomes a stationary platform, at which point it will collect even less data until it finally dies due to lack of power in ~20 years. Meanwhile a person sent to Mars would be there for 18 months, and would be part of a surface crew of at least 4. That's effectively 6 years of scientific data gathering at 1000x the rate of the Curiosity probe, for 'a few dozen' times the cost. Therefore sending humans is hundreds of times cheaper per unit data, as well as thousands of times faster.

The only regime in which probes make more sense than humans is if you're not landing and are only doing science from orbit. Under those circumstances yes, sending people makes no sense. However, the moment you go to the surface the environment becomes so complex that the versatility of humans becomes an irreplaceable asset and the robots lose. Anywhere in the solar system that it is possible to send a manned spacecraft using modern chemical engine technology, it makes more sense to send humans than robots, even if your only goal is to gather scientific data. If your eventual goal is to figure out how to live in space, then that only strengthens your reasoning to send people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 15:31:20 2019 No.10372468 >>10372462 You're projecting your biases. I think nothing of the sort.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 15:34:43 2019 No.10372477

>>10372462
>Mars is more like the moon, where the whole place is basically the same thing.
Not only is this wrong, it's damned wrong. The Moon has a highly varied and complex surface geology, and Mars even more so. The reason for the idea that the Moon is the same everywhere is ironically because almost 100% of our data on the surface comes from the Apollo 17 mission, the only one where a trained geologist put boots on the ground and was able to swing a hammer at some rocks.

A bit of an aside, but the reason the Moon appear grey everywhere is because of aluminum oxide dust scattered everywhere by meteorite impacts, and the reason Mars looks brown everywhere is because of iron oxide dust spread everywhere by wind. In reality both worlds have hundreds of different minerals on their surface that look visually distinct, they're just covered up for the most part. During one of the Apollo missions they discovered that when they dug a small hole with a shovel and discovered orange soil, rather than the grey they were expecting, proving that large areas of the Moon contain iron oxide minerals.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 15:48:05 2019 No.10372500

>>10372463
>>10372468
You dont get my point. Let's say one human mission is equal to 50 rover missions. You can send the rovers to different spots on Mars, so with the 50 rovers you could analyse a siginificant portion of the whole martian surface. With one human mission, you would get a very detailed research one spot of Mars, but that's not so relevant, since Mars is not as diverse as a jungle.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 15:54:27 2019 No.10372515
File: 329 KB, 1280x782, MSL_4sites_globe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10372500
Pic related shows what I mean. With a few rovers we were able to visit several interesting sites. A human mission would not be able to visit all these sites during their time on Mars.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 15:57:33 2019 No.10372526

>>10372515
>Pic related shows what I mean. With a few rovers we were able to visit several interesting sites. A human mission would not be able to visit all these sites during their time on Mars.

Give a human a rover and he'll supply you with more more comprehensive surveys of critical information for in-situ planetary industry than 50 disparate surface missions could hope to supply.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 16:03:51 2019 No.10372542 >>10372526 A human can't travel very long distances across Mars that easily. There are no roads and no gas stations around, you know. Plus you aren't going to be able to take that much life support with you. An EVA suit lasts a couple of hours.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 16:09:34 2019 No.10372565 >>10372542 Give him a rover and he can go far. Give that rover extended life support and he can go further. This goes for the Moon as well; if we're going back, don't half-ass it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 16:16:01 2019 No.10372582 >>10372565 So you basically have a mobile laboratory now. Like the rovers are. Just that it would have to drive a dangerous, thousands miles journeys where anything could break to do the same work a few rovers would have done much more reliably.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 16:40:07 2019 No.10372635 >>10372582 Who said anything about multi-thousand mile journeys? I'd rather have a few dozen miles on a small handful of sites than a large number of shallow surveys. Leave the large scale surveys to satellites.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 16:44:52 2019 No.10372655 >>10372635 Curiosity also covered 16km already and by the end of its life it might have covered 60km.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 16:47:10 2019 No.10372663

>>10372582
>So you basically have a mobile laboratory now. Like the rovers are.
Except instead of a top speed of 1 cm/s it would be able to drive 15 km/h, and it wouldn't have to worry about sand traps because it has a crew on board to help it get unstuck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 16:48:12 2019 No.10372665 >>10372515 A single human mission with a mobile habitat rover would have an area the size of Texas available to them to explore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 16:48:55 2019 No.10372666 >>10372655 >Curiosity also covered 16km already and by the end of its life it might have covered 60km. You're making my case for me, here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 16:53:30 2019 No.10372672 >>10372665 >mobile habitat rover Would need constant replenishing of life support and fuel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:03:27 2019 No.10372701 >>10372672 >Fuel Solar panels and electrical drive, yo. Batteries and maybe a small RTG unit to tide the thing over for the night. Life support could easily support 2 men for over a week, no sweat.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:06:34 2019 No.10372713 >>10372701 You are going to need way more energy than that just to keep the pressurized habitat going. RV vans on Mars really aren't a good idea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:06:55 2019 No.10372714 What was Elon's lowest estimate for BFR cost at the Hello Moon presentation? Two billion? I wonder if that was based on the old composite design or the new stainless steel one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:10:23 2019 No.10372722 >>10372713 >You are going to need way more energy than that just to keep the pressurized habitat going. RV vans on Mars really aren't a good idea. Tell that to the Apollo Lunar Module.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:11:25 2019 No.10372727 >>10372722 The Lunar module didn't travel for weeks

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:12:28 2019 No.10372733 >>10372727 >The Lunar module didn't travel for weeks And you don't need to travel for weeks to go 60km in an actively guided, human controlled vehicle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:15:26 2019 No.10372741 >>10372672 >life support water and air recycling powered via electricity, one ton of foodstuff capable of supporting a crew of four for months. >fuel more electricity

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:16:38 2019 No.10372746 >>10372714 That number was to develop, not unit price. Unit price will be around $200-300 million, if you're interested.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:21:37 2019 No.10372767 >>10372746 Yes, that's what i meant. It seems that even $2 billion may be too expensive for SpaceX in its current state.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:23:22 2019 No.10372772

>>10372713
The 2 circular solar arrays on the InSight lander generate something along the lines of 4.4kWh of electricity from ~7.26m^2 of panel area.

A manned exploration rover is likely going to have a shitload more solar panel area than that available to it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:30:35 2019 No.10372795 >>10372746 That's absoluetely unrealistically low. Just the manufacturing cost of the Raptors might cross the billion. >>10372741 >>10372772 You should build your PV-powered cars on earth and become trillionaires.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:37:42 2019 No.10372814 >>10372733 do that in an hour, lol

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:48:00 2019 No.10372841

>>10372795
>That's absoluetely unrealistically low. Just the manufacturing cost of the Raptors might cross the billion.
Gwynne Shotwell (more reliable numbers than Elon every time) said that the 12m ITS would not cost more than $400 million. Starship is 9 meters and uses fewer, smaller engines, so $300 million is a pessimistic estimate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:49:13 2019 No.10372851 >>10372795 Sure, how many people want to buy my 10 km/h solar car that costs $200,000? Also it's not road legal because it doesn't fit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 17:50:12 2019 No.10372856 >>10372841 And that was for a vehicle made out of $150 a kilo carbon fiber.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 18:30:46 2019 No.10373030

>>10372582
we could bring or build electric dirt bikes on mars.
of cours the major thing to bring on mars would be non oxygen breathing aircraft,btw how do we plan to make jet engines work in mars?

regardless we need machines that can make glass and different types of polymers and metal refining.

goals
1. colony stability, food and oxygen
2. water,fuel and electricity production
3. manufacturing, this will be the longest most complex and biggest sunk cost
4. ....
5. building a space elevator possible with existing materials thanks to martian gravity
once you have a martian space elevator you can have a cruiseship worth of humans come to mars as ship will no longer *NEED* to land on mars at that point, just unboard in space and descend down.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 18:39:23 2019 No.10373051 >>10373030 >jet engines work on Mars that's just a rocket

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 18:40:25 2019 No.10373054 >>10373030 it's easier to aerobrake than to burn to dock with a space elevator, because the space elevator is at marstationary orbit

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 18:52:09 2019 No.10373093 File: 180 KB, 1888x530, Screen Shot 2019-02-09 at 4.51.20 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] DON'T POST MY PICS ANYWHERE GOOD GOY

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 19:25:42 2019 No.10373217 >>10373093 >Posts in L2 >/ourguy/ rolls in and copy pastes them Kek.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 19:29:32 2019 No.10373226

>NASA's safety advisory board releases a document about safety concerns
>doesn't mention Boeing anywhere
>Boeing, the same Boeing with the abort failure
>The Boeing that hasn't done an abort test yet but plans on doing one after its DM-1

Absolutely no favoritism here.

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 19:35:46 2019 No.10373243

>>10373051
jetgines arent rockets.

could you have reusable rocket with low enough thrust that can be reused on a martain aerophone without needed serious refurbishment every flight.
a boeing 747 can fly 10 hrs straight...can a rocket do that. can you carry enough fuel to do that if you wanted to get from one part of mars to the next?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 19:41:10 2019 No.10373254 File: 1.84 MB, 4000x3000, IMG_9925.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10373217 You called?

Anonymous Sat Feb 9 19:45:40 2019 No.10373268

>>10372526
The Martian has a lot of issues, both factual and moreso literary, but that it showed moving around Mars for a human is hard is correct.

Further to that, I don't know what kind of person you're imagining but for someone to react to novel variations in the Martian geography and perform some random enlightening experiment, they will often need specialised tools and equipment. That means they need to order that equipment. As a somewhat trite example, the human is roving around amd sees some unusual minerals and novelly thinks 'I could really stick these in an NMR', then goes to the spacex version of amazon and orders a benchtop NMR. 4-8 weeks Elon time later (several Earth decades) it arrives and the colonist's wife's kid gets to do the novel experiment that a robot couldn't have done.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 20:51:41 2019 No.10373459 >nobody is talking about nasa announcing a clps but for manned landers nobody is expecting spacex to be involved though

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 21:11:32 2019 No.10373501 >>10373459 maybe they'll submit BFR

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 21:58:05 2019 No.10373587 >>10373268 I haven't seen or read The Martian, so I'm not sure what you're attempting to insinuate there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 9 23:01:41 2019 No.10373674 >>10372375 Time is money friend Better to pay a bit more and get what we need now than wait a human lifetime to get barely a fraction of it

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 01:34:53 2019 No.10373902

>>10372841
They also said they are going to reuse the falcon 9 100 Times and are going to launch every week. They talk bs.

Just so you know, at a very, very optimistic 10 Million per raptor we are talking 380 Million just for the raptors, without anything done to the rocket yet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 01:36:04 2019 No.10373905 >>10372851 A gigantic amount of people would, but you wouldnt achieve even that. The reason curiosity travels slow is mainly because it needs to wait for long until the Batteries are charged.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 01:51:50 2019 No.10373931

>>10373054
Relying on aerobrakin is fine unless you only want max population of mars to be 1000 but if you want alot more people then you want to limit the failure rate or martian re entry.

How will you get 1million to 100million people to mars just on aerobraking into mars.I cant see that happening without a high death rate on various descent into the martian atmosphere. With a martian elevator, a ship filled with say 1000 people could, decend 100 persons at time down the elevator shaft while the ship waits in orbit.(im assuming there will be two or more elevator boxes going up or down that space elevator)

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 01:56:30 2019 No.10373942 >>10373905 honestly why dont we just put a RTG in that puppy. Id be interesting to see what would happen if spacex or a private companies was contracted to develop a rover.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 02:13:11 2019 No.10373980 >>10367922 last question for the night before someone starts a new bread. could starship land on the moon just for shits and giggles ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 02:56:54 2019 No.10374043 >>10373459 Because Starship doesn't fit with NASA's SLS-based architecture, it's almost guaranteed they won't get anything.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 04:16:16 2019 No.10374116

>>10372542
While rovers being able to cover many different sites is a good point, when you want to really know anything about Mars' past, and especially if you want to find fossils of ancient bacterial life, you will need to dig deep. Rovers can't dig deep, but humans can. So humans could produce samples from deep underneath the surface, and those are really the ones that matter.

The most exciting thing we could find on Mars would be proof of extraterrestial ife, and the odds of doing that just with rovers is very small.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 05:30:45 2019 No.10374187
File: 252 KB, 1080x1080, IMG_3396.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10373902
>Just so you know, at a very, very optimistic 10 Million per raptor
How the hell can your optimistic price be that Raptor costs 17 times more than Merlin 1D ???
Source Tom Mueller for Merlin 1D price is about 600K USD

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 05:53:24 2019 No.10374217 >>10373980 Getting to the moon and back is pretty dv intensive, but maybe

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 06:35:14 2019 No.10374266 >>10374187 >Why would a Lamborghini cost more than a Ford Fiesta?? >hurr im a completely retard durr

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 06:54:43 2019 No.10374284 >>10374266 >This is a comparable analogy

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 08:47:26 2019 No.10374524 >>10368275 What happened after?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 09:02:11 2019 No.10374552 >>10374524 Shuttles.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 09:03:32 2019 No.10374555 >>10373980 The plan is in fact to land on the Moon before Mars. It can certainly land there assuming it gets refueled in LEO.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 10:42:21 2019 No.10374693 >>10369909 >they had a soyuz launch failure with people on board. Also a hole drilled into their space craft.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 10:49:26 2019 No.10374704

>>10374555
The plan was always to go to the moon first, you can do 100 trips to the moon in the time it takes to go to mars once
Hell even Venus is closer than mars
Secondly the 2nd stage has the delta v for a round trip to lunar surface, so it all just makes sense

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 10:51:34 2019 No.10374710

Wouldn't an operational Starlink kill all attempts at government internet censorship stemming from anything other than US laws?
Middle east and China aren't gonna like this.
Hell, EU is on track to not like this either with Article 13 getting steam again.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 10:55:52 2019 No.10374718 >>10374710 >Wouldn't an operational Starlink kill all attempts at government internet censorship stemming from anything other than US laws? I sure hope so. Multinational big money authoritarianism needs to be reined in by forces beyond their control.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 11:11:09 2019 No.10374754 >>10374710 except if starlink itself adds censorship.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 11:12:31 2019 No.10374757 >>10374754 What possible leverage could other countries have over them?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 11:16:03 2019 No.10374767 File: 124 KB, 1200x505, Obverse_of_the_series_2009_$100_Federal_Reserve_Note.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10374757

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 11:21:08 2019 No.10374778 >>10374710 National governments will just make it illegal to access the sats unless through local trusted and safe provider.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 11:22:11 2019 No.10374781 >>10374757 >unless you safespeech XYZ we are banning you out of our market

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 11:23:44 2019 No.10374784 >>10374524 Nothing.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 11:35:24 2019 No.10374807

>>10374781
That would be pretty hard to do actually. All you need is an antenna to receive and transmit. Even if the sale of it is illegal I'm sure you'd be able to find plans to make a DIY version from legal parts.

I've seen people make antenna from scrap that could receive images from weather satellites.

But there are other ways to put pressure on someone.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 12:02:19 2019 No.10374854 >>10374807 It’s a Leo internet constellation, not friggin GSO sat broadcasting radio to half the world

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 12:09:17 2019 No.10374879 >>10374854 I know it's not even remotely the same, but it's just a stupid example. You'd probably be able to make a modem from some electronics bought from Amazon, some 3d printed parts and some software package you can download.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 12:12:23 2019 No.10374888 >>10374879 Assuming spacex is willing to flout the country that you live in to broadcast there, and actively provide a connection

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 12:21:45 2019 No.10374920

>>10374888
so blocking satellites based on where they're flying over? That's only work for bigger countries.
I guess you could find out their location with triangulation.

But all of that seems kinda extreme compared to just stopping the sale of the modems.

It's not like Chinese people can't get VPNs right now. It's just that most Chinese don't give a shit. They have their own miniature censored internet. Neets can still play games. Betas can still donate their money to grill streamers. I don't know if it's ignorance or stupidity.

They just need to put in 20% effort to stop 80% of the people.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 12:26:31 2019 No.10374930 >>10374920 >They just need to put in 20% effort to stop 80% of the people. And the remaining 20% can be observed with the national citizen monitoring networks already in place, and can be "disappeared" as desired by the Chinese Communist Party.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 12:32:46 2019 No.10374946

>>10374930
>national citizen monitoring networks already in place
It's china. If that system will ever be working fully in the first place, it will fall apart after a few years.

But yes. If you're getting too loud you might end up on the missing persons list. But otherwise there isn't any real incentive to put in the remaining 80% effort to get the last 20% of the people.

It's why China works, sort of, and North Korea doesn't.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 13:00:02 2019 No.10375021

>>10373902
>They also said they are going to reuse the falcon 9 100 Times
They said block 5 can fly 10 times with inspections and 100 times with refurbishment...
> and are going to launch every week.
They will eventually.
They launched 21 rockets last year including falcon heavy and they'll launch even more this year.
They haven't even had block 5 a year yet you nigger.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 13:01:30 2019 No.10375027 >>10369362 Not to mention it's made of ultra polished stainless steel, so, take that into account+reentry flame+sweat methane being dumped. It will be an absolutely awesome sight

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 13:04:56 2019 No.10375037

>>10371773
>>10371556

I really. REALLY dont get what the deal is here.

Americans are really retarded with racism. half their population tried to burn blacks as far as 1960 (and supposedly theyre an advanced country, lol) and the black guys solution is "GIVE US SHIT FOR FREE"

i have an idea. How about we have 0% discrimination and whoever actually posseses the intelligence gets to work? how, literally how does anyone didnt think of that.
make a test. PAss it? then go? dont pass it? then go

Nasa ends up being literally 100% purely black people? tough luck. NAsa ends up being 100% purely kkk members? tough luck, you guys have to learn the word OBJECTIVITY

smart is smart, if you got it proof it

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 13:12:35 2019 No.10375059
File: 114 KB, 1122x713, IMG_9938.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The stingy bitch got annoyed that people were posting her pics (even though they were crediting her) so she's posted an ugly watermark on them. I wish Nomadd or Austin would post more often...

Looks like their installing COPVs for pressurisation, so I'm guessing the hopper won't have autogenous pressurisation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 13:16:17 2019 No.10375064 File: 3.64 MB, 4992x3511, IMG_3685 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 13:37:15 2019 No.10375133 >>10373942 RTG can power a couple of light-bulbs. Curiosity has to use its RTG to charge batteries that let it actually drive. The only advantage of RTG is that it doesn't matter if it gets dusty or if it's night time.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 13:40:56 2019 No.10375146

>>10373980
Yes, but you need roughly double the refueling flights.

You launch Starship into LEO, then refuel it with ~6 Tankers. Then you leave the last Tanker in orbit and refuel it with another ~6 Tanker flights. Then Starship and this Tanker both boost onto a Lunar intercept trajectory. The Tanker hooks up to Starship and transfers its propellants over. Starship now has enough fuel to deorbit and land on the Moon and then launch back to Earth, meanwhile the Tanker just does a free return from the Moon and aerobrakes into Earth's atmosphere for landing.

That architecture gets >100 tons of payload onto the surface of the Moon by the way.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:03:50 2019 No.10375204 >>10375059 Whore's gonna whore.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:03:54 2019 No.10375207

>>10375146
>enough fuel to deorbit and land on the Moon and then launch back to Earth, meanwhile the Tanker just does a free return from the Moon and aerobrakes into Earth's atmosphere for landing.
How many bfr reuses are they expecting? 12 refills per flight?

So that means that for 1 mission you would need 1 super heavy, 2 bfr tankers and 1 bfr cargo/passenger
the tanker would need to have 12 SUCCESIVE FLIGHTS

and the other two couldnt fail either. What the fuck is this shit? unless they are planning to do a ship that can be literally reused forever, using non crazy expendable ships will obvioulsy always be cheaper

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:05:07 2019 No.10375213 >>10375133 >RTG can power a couple of light-bulbs. Curiosity has to use its RTG to charge batteries that let it actually drive. The only advantage of RTG is that it doesn't matter if it gets dusty or if it's night time. Look up Kilopower.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:07:05 2019 No.10375217

>>10375207
>and the other two couldnt fail either. What the fuck is this shit? unless they are planning to do a ship that can be literally reused forever, using non crazy expendable ships will obvioulsy always be cheaper

At $5 million per flight, the launch costs will be less than one Falcon 9.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:07:09 2019 No.10375219

>>10375207
>>10375146
Also the super heavy, the most powerful and mission critical failure prone of all the launch would have to launch 14 TIMES!!!!!!!!! per flight

So if youre assuming 10 flights, the superheavy would have to launch 140 TIMES!!! WITHOUT SIGNIFICATIVE REFURBISHMENT OR ITS NOT ECONOMICAL NOT EVEN BY A LONGSHOT

seriously, the sls is kinda wasteful but not nearly as much as this. I though elon said he had invented a practical reusable rocket not a hsit that has to launch 2000 times before it can do anyhting useful and if even one of those launches fail all of the people die. How can anyone fall for this meme

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:09:58 2019 No.10375227

>>10375207
At 200 million per flight (good luck getting it that cheap lol) they are looking at good 2-3 billion maybe twice that per single flight to the Moon.

Yes the idea is absolutely retarded and will never work.

This is why Russia is not bothering with that nonsense and is going for Nuclear rocket.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:10:45 2019 No.10375230

>>10375217
>At $5 million per flight,
wow, what a nice figure pulled out of your ass.

Currently nowadays, using the most expensive technology, most advanced materials, with around 100 billions of dollars in infrastructure and 100 billions of dollar in wages and 100 billions of dollars in raw materials, with literally the best engineers from all over the world, coordinated by the most technologically advanced country, with full support of the worlds most powerful goverment military and corporations... they could make some rockets that withstand the intense heat pressure vibration movement acceleration and radiation of maybe 3... 4 launches tops. and it drove the cost of using those methods by at least 10.000

but this mediocre guy who isnt even that rich in the first place by american standards, supposedly can do , in a tent, while being almost broke, with a couple of people who are on the verge of strike because of how littlle they are payed, and many many other things against, under those conditions, he can create a material and a rocket that can survive 100.000 reuses and still cost TOTAL 5million per launch? yeah SHURE little boy shurey shure

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:12:05 2019 No.10375237

>>10375219
>>10375227
>>10375230
>How can he launch 10 times?
>This is insane that it needs 100 flights to do anything
>Why would anyone buy into something that can't work without 1000 launches?
>These ships would have to work 10,000 times just to duplicate Apollo
It's like the joke about Jewish parents and shrinking the amount of money each time in reverse.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:12:47 2019 No.10375240

>>10375227
yeah.
People don't realize it but the BFR is basically the N1. And that was being built by the brightest rocket scientist ever to walk the earth...

look how well it worked

what elon wants to do is a mission that depends on 14 N1s launching perfectly in a row...
USED N1s, N1s that even tough have been shown to explode aloen, these ones would be used 100s of times each.

Well shit, this is one weird fantasy tale, because i cannto fathomly believe under any universe that this would be science and not tale

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:13:47 2019 No.10375245 >>10375237 it would need to launch 12 times to beat Apollo by a significant factor

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:14:24 2019 No.10375249 >>10375237 >people point out obvious fallacies in the con scheme >delusional fanboi blames the Jews Yikes this is 4chan alright.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:15:16 2019 No.10375251

>>10375237
Its true tough retard. One mission success would require 10(more than but lets play it your way you elon cuck) to even count. But alas, the bfr would not even break even with 1 , they would need at least 10-100 missions to start making money...
that is to START making money to justify the investment according to even the most conservative of business plan say... 5% profit of total investment they would need probably at least 1000 missions.
in which they couldnt rebuild A SINGLE one of the bfrs or theyll lose money

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:15:26 2019 No.10375252 >>10375237 >meme musk needs 50 rocket launches to do the same thing nasa did with 1 lmao

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:18:31 2019 No.10375267 >>10375252 The Lunar Module and everything in it was 33 tons. Ship, science, fuel, and life support together.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:18:55 2019 No.10375269 >STOP DOING ROCKETS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:20:54 2019 No.10375281

is someone going to make the next bread, i feel its time to start making a space general for /sci/

>>10375146
the question will eventually be who will make and fuel the orbitable gas station. One of the benefit of having a moonbase is for such a reason.
btw for purely earth to luna or leo passenger type spacetravel couldnt we just built and use the single stage X33 design and fill the cargo bay with people. i think x33 carrying a capacity was 10 tons, 10 tons of human-beings is alot plus any baggage they may carry to the "hilton galaxy the orbital hotel"

>>10375207
this is why making fuel in space will become critical, in the beginning of gas vehicles, their were no gas stations. People literally had the gas deliveries to them. Eventually gas stations came about. Gas station will also have to double as breathable oxygen stations as well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:22:11 2019 No.10375287 ahem May I have your attention please, 4chanlers? Yes. Now that you are reading this I'd like to say just one thing. Elon Musk should be in jail. Thank you, thank you, have a pleasant evening and remember to upvote my posts.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:24:51 2019 No.10375297

>>10375267
>Saturn v can put 100 t in LEO orbit
>of that 40 tons is the stage that gets them to the moon. 60 remains
>of that 60 20 is the ship that stays in orbit 40 remains
>of that 40 20 is the complex lander 20 remains
>of that 20 5 is the fuel to get back up and ladder 15 remains
>then you have an additional 5 for the boostback

fucking 10 tons to the surface of the moon. 100.000.000.000.000 dollars (100 billion)

BFR:
100.000.000 100 million for 100 TONS to the surface

bottom line:

Nasa wasteful apollo : 1.000.000.000 $/kg
BFR god tier 1.000 $/kg

of REAL PAYLOAD to LUNAR SURFACE

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:26:22 2019 No.10375300 >>10375213 Kilopower is not an RTG.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:30:00 2019 No.10375314

>>10375297
Are you really delusional enough to think some retarded private company can make a rocket bigger than the N1?

And make it cheaper than the small optimized rockets flying now?

Wow.

Stop eating up PR like a redneck and look at reality for once.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:31:22 2019 No.10375320

>>10375281
>the question will eventually be who will make and fuel the orbitable gas station. One of the benefit of having a moonbase is for such a reason.
Launching fuel from Earth with reusable rockets is cheaper than setting up and operating fuel production on the Moon, by far.

> couldnt we just built and use the single stage X33 design
Why. Two stage to orbit reusable is an order of magnitude more capable and not significantly more expensive, it's also way easier because you don't need magic materials that can withstand reentry and launch yet not add significant mass.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:32:27 2019 No.10375322 >>10375314 They're already doing it.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:34:45 2019 No.10375328

>>10375320
>Launching fuel from Earth with reusable rockets is cheaper than setting up and operating fuel production on the Moon, by far.
I strongly disagree.
How much would a machine that automatically mines water from the asteroid from wehre its avaivable weight? surely less than 100 tons. Then laucnh it in a bfr. HAve it come and go from those asteroids making methane, also fueling itself. BAM instant cheap travel.

Seriously, this will seriousl yhappen sooner or later its too logical not to

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:45:33 2019 No.10375360 >gets dropped as a child >BAM

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:51:20 2019 No.10375373 >>10375328 How much would it weigh? How about how much would it cost. You're handwaving away so many engineering and logistical problems that it's insane.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 14:52:44 2019 No.10375376

>>10375328
>Autonomous asteroid mining

it should happen, will it is another question

we dont have exxon or BPs for space yet willing to spend money going out survey nearby asteroids for their possible resources. At most we have a faint hint of whats on these rocks. Personally the best and easiest candidate for cheap icey rocks are the rings of saturn or trips to one of the icy moons with extremely low gravity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 15:01:04 2019 No.10375404 >>10375314 N1 never made it to stage separation something that FH did on the first try.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 15:06:18 2019 No.10375427 >>10375146 Lunar landing mission requires more fuel due to lack of atmosphere for aerobraking and lack of ISRU propellant production on the surface. Mars will not only need like 7 refueling flights in total.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 15:08:48 2019 No.10375438 >>10375427 Yeah, Mars needs half the refueling flights of a Lunar mission. However, the Lunar mission also doesn't rely at all on ISRU, whereas the Mars mission requires 1100 tons of propellant to be manufactured.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 15:11:50 2019 No.10375445 >>10375438 >the Mars mission requires 1100 tons of propellant to be manufactured. will be less, you dont need a fully refueled BFS for direct return to Earth since it will have little payload

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 15:24:19 2019 No.10375472

If you go expendable the BFR could easily carry two whole Saturn 5 upper stages in its Cargo Bay and due to how big the Cargo Bay is they would even fit. So an expendable BFR could do two Apollo missions in one launch. The BFR will also cost at least twice the Saturn 5 though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 15:39:27 2019 No.10375523 >>10375472 >The BFR will also cost at least twice the Saturn 5 though. Probably not.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 15:48:36 2019 No.10375545

>>10375523
Probably will. Saturn 5 was actually insanely cheap for a rocket of that size (still the cheapest Leo payload $/kg ever, lower than F9 reusable). N1 was twice as expensive and even Energia and Space Shuttle were more expensive to manufacture. BFR has almost 40 super-luxurious engines so it's not even a debate. SpaceX could do a very cheap expendable super heavy launcher using like 50 merlins in the first stage and a couple of raptors in the upper stage.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 15:50:17 2019 No.10375552
File: 22 KB, 980x551, nuke-rocket[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10375227
>This is why Russia is not bothering with that nonsense and is going for Nuclear rocket.
Wait they made new plans for 2040s ??? Damn they know how to plan for the future like in the good old days of the USSR....

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 15:59:24 2019 No.10375580

>>10375545
>Probably will. Saturn 5 was actually insanely cheap for a rocket of that size (still the cheapest Leo payload $/kg ever, lower than F9 reusable). N1 was twice as expensive and even Energia and Space Shuttle were more expensive to manufacture. BFR has almost 40 super-luxurious engines so it's not even a debate. SpaceX could do a very cheap expendable super heavy launcher using like 50 merlins in the first stage and a couple of raptors in the upper stage.

A statement that keeps being repeated by people who know literally nothing about SpaceX's engine manufacturing costs. Very few companies know more about building rocket engines at scale than SpaceX does.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 16:04:21 2019 No.10375593

>>10375580
You are just repeating delusional bullshit. Raptor is an extremely complex engine so it will cost a fuckload. Elon himself tweeted the first few test boosters will not have all raptors installed because they could get destroyed. You think he said that because they are cheap to build?

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 16:27:26 2019 No.10375645

>>10375545
>Probably will. Saturn 5 was actually insanely cheap for a rocket of that size (still the cheapest Leo payload $/kg ever, lower than F9 reusable)
You're using the price of a Saturn V in 1960's dollars, adjusted for inflation a Saturn V launch would be worth over a billion dollars today. Also, cheapest dollars per kilogram belongs to side-booster-reusable Falcon Heavy.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 16:40:52 2019 No.10375679

>>10375645
No im not. Pure manufacturing cost of the Saturn 5 moon rocket was 400 million in todays Dollars. How ever these include the upper stages that were specialized for moon return an very costly. A more standard Saturn 5 would cost 250-300 million to manufacture in 2019 Dollars.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 16:44:19 2019 No.10375689 >>10375679 no.

Anonymous Sun Feb 10 16:59:10 2019 No.10375736

>>10375593
>You are just repeating delusional bullshit. Raptor is an extremely complex engine so it will cost a fuckload. Elon himself tweeted the first few test boosters will not have all raptors installed because they could get destroyed. You think he said that because they are cheap to build?

It's not delusional bullshit to say "If they can build a gas generator engine for $800k, they can probably keep their advanced engines in the single digit millions," instead of this "$25 million or more" shenanigans that keeps getting thrown around.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 17:18:23 2019 No.10375795 >>10375736 Okay man you go enjoy your 35k model 3

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 19:16:59 2019 No.10376088 File: 2.67 MB, 2274x902, Screen Shot 2019-02-10 at 5.15.33 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPWC5A_d2ZM new launchpad video

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 10 21:24:04 2019 No.10376427 new: >>10376425

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math