Spaceflight /SG/

[Anonymous No.10529049]

STARHOPPER edition
previous >>10522947

[Anonymous No.10529052]

[Anonymous No.10529062]

>>10529049
Do it again, come on, DO IT.
HOP

[Anonymous No.10529063]

>>10529052
why does she have two sets of ears?

[Anonymous No.10529080]

why's scott manley having surgery?

[Anonymous No.10529081]

>>10529080
struts

[Anonymous No.10529084]

>>10529080
not enough boosters

[Anonymous No.10529089]

How long do cubesats take to deorbit?
They seem like they provide very little to the future other than space debris.

[Anonymous No.10529090]

HOP WHEN

[Anonymous No.10529094]

>>10529089
it depends greatly on many factors, such as their size factor, total mass, the solar cycle, and the height at which they orbit
it could be anywhere from "literally never" for a cubesat in heliocentric orbit to "actual days" for cubesats in very low orbits

[Anonymous No.10529096]

>>10529090
dunno

[Anonymous No.10529101]

>>10529096
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAÀAAÀÀAAAAÀAAA

HOP

ALREADY CUNTT

REEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.10529105]

Falcon Heavy when?

[Anonymous No.10529107]

>>10529105
weather is shiet

[Anonymous No.10529108]

>>10529105
tuesday, probably

[Anonymous No.10529110]

>>10529108
nope, upper level winds are a no

[Anonymous No.10529113]

>>10529063
why do you only have one set?

[Anonymous No.10529122]

Scorpius

[Anonymous No.10529176]

>>10529122
Are those galaxies or stars?

[Anonymous No.10529177]

[Anonymous No.10529186]

>>10529176
They're quantum dark matter stars.

[Anonymous No.10529190]

>>10529176
Stars http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/Scorpius_constellation-LHRVB-50mm.html#Top

[Anonymous No.10529197]

>>10529113
because its unnecessary to have more

[Anonymous No.10529247]

>>10529122
Why do the stars all have 8 beams coming out of them?

[Anonymous No.10529255]

>>10529049
Can i have a quick rundown on this?

Looks like burning man festival

[Anonymous No.10529257]

>>10529247
Because it's cool and 6beams is for jews and 7 is for game of thrones

[Anonymous No.10529324]

>>10529255
If you're new here it's a hover test vehicle for SpaceX's upcoming rocket. It will go up in the air a bit, hover, maybe move side to side, then land.
The photo is just fog and worklights making it look cool.

[Anonymous No.10529337]

>>10526450
>>10526081

[Anonymous No.10529384]

>>10529255
SpaceX built a test vehicle for their proposed Starship/Super Heavy vehicles.
These vehicles, if they worked as proposed, would completely revolutionize space travel. Their idea is to have the largest rocket ever flown and to have it be rapidly reusable in its entirety without any refurbishement.
This already would make it possible to launch huge sattelites constellations with this, but that's not even the start of it.
Since such a vehicle would only really cost fuel to launch, this also opens up a really economical way to do in-orbit refueling using multiple of these vehicles. Meaning you could launch one of these filled to the brim with payload, then fuel it in space and deliver all of that payload directly to Mars or the moon. Costs to put anything in orbit would plummet, costs to put anything on the moon or mars would plummet. You could launch an entire expedition worth of people and equipment with one of these proposed ships. You could also synthesize fuel on Mars since the engines run on Methane which only requires water(hydrogen specifically), CO2 and energy to get made. Meaning you could launch a mission without having to worry about taking fuel for the return trip with you, further simplyfying mission.

Plus this hopper they made to test the engines is an absolute meme machine. Literally built behind a shed in the open by a water tank company.
Also the engine that's on there is a design that's never been done before so there's that as well.

[Anonymous No.10529608]

>>10529081
>>10529084
kek

[Anonymous No.10529681]

>>10529384
>tldr
>absolute meme machine

[Anonymous No.10529758]

>>10529247
Because the camera has 8 aperture blades.

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

[Anonymous No.10529759]

>>10529049
Earth is flat

[Anonymous No.10529769]

>>10529759

[Anonymous No.10529775]

>>10529096
>old space face when a madman literally builds the rockets people were imagining 60 years ago

[Anonymous No.10529784]

>>10529384
have they actually released anything on how they are gonna fit 100 souls in that for the journey to Mars

[Anonymous No.10529787]

>>10529122

[Anonymous No.10529807]

>>10529176
It's our own galaxy, the milky way.

[Anonymous No.10529815]

>>10529784
Can you imagine being 9 months in the water tower.
What the fuck would you do in that time?

[Anonymous No.10529819]

>>10529807
Looks nice desu

[Anonymous No.10529829]

[Anonymous No.10529833]

[Anonymous No.10529847]

>>10529122

[Anonymous No.10529903]

>>10529784
Why would they have to?
2 dozen or so is already more people than we ever had in space at one time.

[Anonymous No.10529960]

>>10529784
>>10529815
Sailing ships used to face similar conditions. (Mayflower: 102 people in a 30 meter ship for two months.) Now, hopefully you'll want to meet a better fate than most of the Mayflower travelers did, but four hundred years of progress ought to contribute something.

[Anonymous No.10530060]

>>10529903
Elon keeps pushing the idea that it'll be a hundred people on board. Personally, I think 40 would be fine, just launch them in fleets.

[Anonymous No.10530088]

>>10530060
According to Wikipedia, starship will have "a pressurized volume of approximately 1,000 m3 (35,000 cu ft), which could be configured for up to 40 cabins, large common areas, central storage, a galley, and a solar storm shelter for Mars missions plus 12 unpressurized aft cargo containers of 88 m3 (3,100 cu ft) total". Now these numbers come from Musk's 2017 speech but I think it would be interesting to figure out just how much space a given number of people need to take up to travel to Mars in relative comfort.

[Anonymous No.10530097]

>>10529247
Camera lens aperture shutter blades create those stars beams, that lens has 8 aperture blades

[Anonymous No.10530101]

>>10530088
adding windows is a mistake

[Anonymous No.10530175]

>>10530101
For a computer maybe, not on a rocket though.

[Anonymous No.10530200]

>>10530088
The thing that puzzles me the most about starship is how the fuck are people supposed to go down to the surface?
Do they just jump?
Do they use a rope?

[Anonymous No.10530222]

>>10530200
Giant inflatable slide

[Anonymous No.10530229]

Mars only side step for less expensive space ship with Li-7 Th HTR or fusion with lead steam from ring accelerator slowed down linear in D2O causing punsh fusion and space ship acceleration without consuming mass and compressor turbine efficiency near 100% without cooling needed after 1 year like 1000cm3 from 0-100km/h near c. Cheap into orbit with space rocket airplane for airports and mars size about thick A320 shell out of TiB2 melting 3230°C 4.52g/cm3 inside isolated and upwards cooled from 700bar CH4/O2 gas expansion, 4 wings front higher outside turnable with about 1MN peak CH4/O2 rocket engines with air cone swifeld in. Turbines, Li-7 HTR or cheap fusion much more worth than this space program on earth and with ring and linear accelerator a space gun. Turbines on earth using CO2 for low heat source like glas green houses in deserts, india... cooled delivering energy not needing water adding condensed out with centrifugal compressor there hot and dense cooled with CO2 for turbines without any wasting condensor but 2. cf compressor for backflow cooling all thermal isolated only electricity no heat out usable also for 700bar CNG out of electrolyse H2+air CO2 exotherm reaction heat reused.

[Anonymous No.10530230]

>>10530200
very large ladder
inflatable slide
elevator

[Anonymous No.10530237]

>>10529758
>>10530097
how come i can see these dfiffraction spikes with my own eyes when staring at street lamps, my eyes dont have shutter blades as far as I know

[Anonymous No.10530253]

>>10530237
The pupil isn't perfectly round so every edge will create a diffraction spike.

[Anonymous No.10530257]

>>10530253
holy shit I actually fucking learned something in spaceflight general

[Anonymous No.10530258]

>>10530237
IIRC it's due to imperfections in your eye. The light refracting around those imperfections causes the spikes.

[Anonymous No.10530336]

>>10530237
I don't know how to tell you this but... you're a synth.

[Anonymous No.10530348]

Hey /sg/, what's a feature of your ideal super heavy rocket?

[Anonymous No.10530358]

>>10530348
SEA DRAGOGN

[Anonymous No.10530372]

>>10530348
doesn't explode

[Anonymous No.10530373]

>>10530348
The aftermath of a successful launch is indistinguishable from nuclear warfare.

[Anonymous No.10530387]

>>10530373
based and NPPilled

[Anonymous No.10530397]

>>10530229
Based rambleposter

[Anonymous No.10530456]

>>10530348
Relative simplicity of construction, use of common mass produced construction materials for as much of the rocket as possible. First stage will be MethaLOX, second HydroLOX. The first stage engines will be composed of five units each generating around 70MN of thrust, second stage engine will be a single modified unit optimized for burning HydroLOX with an extendable vacuum optimized nozzle generating 50-60MN of thrust. Each discarded stage will return to the Earth via passive grid fin gliding and parachutes, stages will then deploy a set of inflatable cushions before splashing down in the ocean for recovery and reuse. Ideal maximum payload 500-600 tons to LEO. If I could ignore the reality that nobody wants to detonate multiple nuclear devices for every takeoff though I'd go with >>10530387

[Anonymous No.10530468]

>>10530456
>parachutes
>2 different rocket engines for no reason
>airbags

[Anonymous No.10530475]

>>10530468
The engines bit actually makes some sense. MethaLOX would be used for power, when getting above the atmosphere and at least partially accelerated is more important. Once up, HydroLOX with its much higher efficiency would be used for the acceleration to orbit.

[Anonymous No.10530486]

>>10530456
>>10530373
Which one do you want /sg/? Methalox or Nuclear? I'm personally leaning to nuclear because that seems interesting.

[Anonymous No.10530495]

>>10530468
Ideally as many components of the first stage engine as possible will be reused for the second stage, with additions and alterations made only when necessary. Hopefully the second stage will essentially just be a first stage with minor modifications and a nozzle extender for vacuum operation. And yes, the stages will have to entirely expend their propellant to get the full payload to orbit and I think it would be better to have them splash down in a predetermined location and in such a way that they aren't damaged so they can still be reused. That way you don't have to deal with the payload losses inherent to a self-landing rocket but you can still enjoy most of the launch cost reduction of a reusable rocket (minus the costs of recovering and re-assembling the stages and any minor refurbishment that might need to be performed)

[Anonymous No.10530497]

Never going to work spaceflight is not as easy as some conmen say.

[Anonymous No.10530502]

>>10530348
Cheap.

[Anonymous No.10530504]

>>10530486
Lake water and a nuclear thermal rocket

[Anonymous No.10530505]

>>10530475
Methalox is sub optimal for sea level engines. Just use SRB's like all the experienced folks.

[Anonymous No.10530508]

>>10529177
imagine if the tethers just fucking snapped at 8 seconds

[Anonymous No.10530511]

>>10530495
That didn't work for the shuttle SRBs and it won't work for your meme machine

[Anonymous No.10530517]

>>10530475
HydroLOX is horribly inefficient due to its high volume, and very complicated due to the nature of hydrogen. It makes the rocket much more complex, absolutely not worth it.

[Anonymous No.10530539]

>>10530517
This. Hydrolox is bad for first stages due to poor thrust to area ratio, alright for second stages, and bad for third stages due to boiloff
Hydrogen won't real until you're piloting a NTR beyond the belt

[Anonymous No.10530547]

>>10530497
>seething oldspace

[Anonymous No.10530552]

>>10530486
NPP is the obviously more efficient solution, if we pretend that the political problems behind it could be bypassed then I'd support it wholeheartedly. Unfortunately in reality I doubt even an NTR rocket could get support in the current social and political climate much less an NPPR, so chemical rockets will have to do for now. MethaLOX or LOX/RP1 for a fuel-dense first stage booster.
>>10530511
Why in the world would I ever want NASA to be the ones to build a meme machine for me? Why compare LPREs to SRBs anyways, and why would anyone who wants to improve launch costs ever use SRBs in the first place?

[Anonymous No.10530554]

>>10530497
It really is m8. It's just that it doesn't produce as many jobs as politicians want.

Used to be if you built commercial rockets too efficiently competitors and other governments would do literally anything to shut it down.

Picture very much relevant.

[Anonymous No.10530555]

>>10530200
A crane with a basket, they're already going to have a crane to get cargo from the bay down to the ground anyway.

[Anonymous No.10530558]

>>10530554
>Prior to the cancellation of Black Arrow, NASA had offered to launch British payloads for free; however, this offer was withdrawn following the decision to cancel Black Arrow.
((pure coincidence)). God the bongs could have had such an edge instead of trying to play catchup now...

[Anonymous No.10530562]

>>10530552
>so chemical rockets will have to do for now. MethaLOX or LOX/RP1 for a fuel-dense first stage booster.
Alright. I made the rocket drawings in the last thread and I asked>>10530348 because I wanted to have some fun making /sg/'s "ideal" rocket. Before the debate of methalox and nuclear came up I was going to make a nuclear version of Sea Dragon, but a more practical rocket may be better. Maybe?

[Anonymous No.10530565]

>>10530486
Methalox first stage, nuclear thermal second stage using methane instead of hydrogen (methane offers more thrust per liter and is much denser thus requiring smaller tanks for the same propellant mass, you still get Isp about 150 seconds higher than the best hydrolox engines too).

[Anonymous No.10530571]

>>10530495
The most expensive part of any rocket is the turbine assembly and the turbine assembly of a methalox rocket is completely different from the turbine assembly of a hydrolox rocket because of the massively different densities and boiling points of the two fuels. Therefore if you want part commonality you use methalox on both, and if you want Isp you develop a new engine from scratch for the upper stage.

[Anonymous No.10530573]

>>10530495
>minor refurbishment
>after slamming your delicate rocket stage into the ocean and letting it get slapped around by waves and soaked in salt for several days
yeah okay

[Anonymous No.10530574]

>>10530558
what bout Skylon

[Anonymous No.10530576]

>>10530573
so splash down in a big ass lake instead

[Anonymous No.10530579]

>>10530574
Skylon would already have a prototype if bongs actually maintained their space development.

[Anonymous No.10530584]

>>10530539
Even in that case methane is a better propellant because it still out performs any chemical rocket, but has none of the stability issues of hydrogen and is 6 times as dense, thus offering a much better mass fraction and more delta V. It also gets you more thrust per liter of propellant than hydrogen in an NTR, which directly translates to more thrust and a higher thrust to weight ratio.

Beyond that, if you're actually landing on objects in the outer solar system, then water is the superior propellant to both methane and hydrogen because it's even denser, offers ~380 Isp so not a super-efficient propellant, but you can dig it up and refill your tanks pretty much everywhere basically for free. A hydrogen or methane propelled nuclear thermal rocket vehicle would need to wait months between launches to refill itself via chemical synthesis reactions, whereas a water propelled NTR could launch multiple times in a 12 hour period.

[Anonymous No.10530589]

>>10530517
I think the correct word to use would actually be ineffective, not inefficient, since it does offer the highest Isp of any practical fuel-oxidizer combo. However because of the super low density of liquid hydrogen and the boil off and storage issues you mention, it's really hard to achieve shit you really want from your vehicles like good wet-dry mass fraction, high acceleration, long on-orbit lifetime, and versatility in general.

[Anonymous No.10530603]

>>10530558
we aren't even trying to play catchup

shit island of mongoloids

[Anonymous No.10530607]

>>10530562
I've really enjoyed the hypothetical rocket creating (I contributed the hand drawn reusable lunar landers last thread) and your giant rockets were great. As to which I'd prefer you make either concept is interesting, nuclear propulsion is more efficient but less politically practical while chemical propulsion is less efficient but politically the standard for now, both are equally interesting to me. I say just flip a coin, if heads do a nuclear rocket, if tails a chemical rocket.
>>10530571
Granted, I'm probably being far too overly optimistic about how much engine could actually be reused for multiple stages.
>>10530573
That's why I'd have it use aerodynamic surfaces (fins) to guide it to a predetermined location where tugs will be ready and standing off at a safe distance to immediately jump in and return the stages to land. The rocket won't be anywhere near as delicate or corrosion sensitive as most all modern designs because the majority of it's structure will be stainless steel, and the whole point of using parachutes and crash bags will be to mitigate that impact so no major components are destroyed during the splash down.

[Anonymous No.10530614]

>>10530562
Do nuclear Sea Dragon/Friendship Rocket/whoms't'd've'soever, but do several versions, using hydrogen NTR (1000 Isp), methane NTR (606 Isp and 3.59x higher thrust), and water (380 Isp and 5.36x higher thrust). Also make sure to assume the second stage starts off with a thrust to weight ratio no lower than 0.9, as NTRs have low thrust so if used for actually launching even as a second stage they need to be able to hold themselves up as they slowly accelerate and can't rely as much on the upwards momentum imparted by the first stage.

[Anonymous No.10530619]

>>10530614
don't NTRs have decent thrust? especially when using the denser propellants, like water

[Anonymous No.10530622]

>>10530574
Someone did the numbers somewhere and at the given cost of building a single Skylon aircraft divided by the expected number of flights, even assuming zero operational costs and zero propellant costs etc, Skylon still ends up just about on par in terms of launch economy with Falcon Heavy.

Basically Skylon would have been great if it were built and flown in the 90's but nowadays we've already achieved with partially reusable conventional launch vehicles what it could achieve given an extremely optimistic per-launch cost.

[Anonymous No.10530623]

>>10530562
>nuclear version of Sea Dragon
I like it, what improves?

[Anonymous No.10530632]

>>10530607
>because the majority of it's structure will be stainless steel
Don't forget about electrolytic corrosion, stainless steel itself is pretty salt resistant but if you have ANY other metals in direct contact with it and you introduce salt water the different metals act like the anode and cathode in a battery with the salt water as the electrolyte, and the metal that isn't stainless steel gets absolutely destroyed super quickly. Truckers who buy brand new aluminum flat beds and decide to replace the mild steel nuts and bolts with stainless ones to make them last longer have the entire area surrounding each stainless nut rot to shit in one winter and the entire trailer is sent to scrap.

[Anonymous No.10530655]

>>10530607
>I've really enjoyed the hypothetical rocket creating (I contributed the hand drawn reusable lunar landers last thread)
That was a cute lander.

>your giant rockets were great
Thank you! It was incredibly fun to make them.

>I say just flip a coin, if heads do a nuclear rocket, if tails a chemical rocket.
I'll do that once I'm done with work today.

>>10530614
I can do a quick comparison of nuclear upper stages when I get home today. The only problem I have is that I don't know what dry mass ratio (which is the ratio of dry mass not including the payload over the total mass) to use. A chemical rocket stage has one of 0.07, but I assume a nuclear stage would be higher. Maybe 0.14?

>>10530623
Technically? I dont know, I haven't done the math yet. Sheer "Oh God, Why was this thing thought up?" Factor? It'll be more impressive, silly, and funny.

[Anonymous No.10530657]

>>10530558
Just a coincidence.

[Anonymous No.10530661]

>>10530632
Ouch, I think I have seen a couple of those on the road before, however I think that issue could be alleviated with (relative) ease by insuring that any other metal components in contact with the stainless are themselves also treated to be corrosion resistant, or if such treatment is too difficult to ensure that pre-launch they're thoroughly coated in one of the many common anti-corrosion coatings, there are plenty of ways to treat aluminum to prevent corrosion (I'd assume most of the non-steel metal in contact with the stainless body which will also be exposed to salt water during splashdown, towing, and launching will probably be aluminum). I'd imagine the same kinds of things would have been done with Sea Dragon if it had ever been built.

[Anonymous No.10530670]

I checked the wiki page on that rocket and really I don't see how even small scale proof of concept version of this can be build without massive government project and maybe a decade work.

Do americans really... trust that guy?

I know you guys elected trump and all but come on everything has its limits.

[Anonymous No.10530671]

>>10530619
They have pretty abysmal TWR compared to chemical rockets, at least the ones that were actually built did, and the later designs for much lighter ones used shit like reinforced carbon-carbon turbopumps, which to me seems extremely difficult to do in real life rather than engineering fantasy land.
Even if we use only the real life NTR thrust to weight figure of about 5 using hydrogen, that would get you a TWR of ~18 using methane and ~28 using water, not not exactly abysmal any more, but for comparison a low-end TWR for a chemical engine is around 30, and the RL-10B-2 gets a TWR of 37.27, the lowest of the different RL-10 versions.
IIRC the fantasy land ultra light weight NTR designs from project TIMBERWIND would have achieved something like 20 TWR using hydrogen, which would mean they'd get ~72 and ~107 TWR using methane and water respectively. That's actually pretty decent, the RS-25 engine gets only 53.79 TWR, and while the RS-25 has a vacuum Isp of 452, the methane propelled version of the TIMBERWIND engine would get over 600 Isp in vacuum, and probably approaching 400 at sea level. With that powerful and efficient an engine you could actually consider a decent SSTO design, although of course if you instead put it on top of a chemical booster stage you'd simultaneously massively increase the payload mass, ease the mass fraction requirements allowing for tougher construction, and circumvent the problems of running an open cycle high power nuclear engine in the lower atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.10530675]

Blue origin delays guaranteed.

[Anonymous No.10530678]

>>10530623
ISP and payload mass to fuel mass ratios, you may note that all of the Orion concept ships have much more of their total volume dedicated to crew and cargo than hypergolic bipropellant rockets or even NTRs.

[Anonymous No.10530682]

>>10530670
>I checked the wiki page on that rocket
What rocket? Sea Dragon?

[Anonymous No.10530686]

>>10530675
FUCK

[Anonymous No.10530688]

>>10530670
>trust that guy
yes they are that naive and have a tech-god complex (see Jobs)

[Anonymous No.10530692]

>>10530358
why

[Anonymous No.10530702]

>>10530670
>european socialist baby can't imagine something getting done without their government mommy being involved

[Anonymous No.10530703]

>>10530671
yeah but that's TWR for just the engine, when you should be comparing against the total weight of the engine and oxidizer lol

[Anonymous No.10530712]

>>10530229
Whats with the buzzword-salad?

[Anonymous No.10530718]

>>10530655
>The only problem I have is that I don't know what dry mass ratio
Well, I'd say pick the stage thrust you want, then use the thrust to weight ratio of the engine to determine the engine's mass, then pick the stage thrust to weight ratio you want, then subtract the engine's mass from that to get your tank wet mass, then use the density of your propellants (in this case just a single propellant, but for a chemical engine you'd average the density of your oxygen and fuel across whatever volume they occupy together) to ballpark figure the wet dry mass ratio of the tanks, then add the mass of the engine back in to get the wet dry mass ratio of the entire stage. The only hand-wavy bit is the part where you choose a mass ratio based on the propellant density, but it's pretty easy to know when a number doesn't 'feel' right. For example you're not going to fit 100 tons of hydrogen into a tank weighing 5 tons, but you could probably fit than much methane into a tank of that mass, and you could certainly fit that much water or oxygen into a tank of that mass.
A less hand-wavy method would be to choose a mass-per-square-meter of tank wall on average, then calculate the mass of a tank that would hold a blob of propellant of a known volume. 10 kg of wall per square meter would give a 1000 ton water tank a dry mass of 5655 kg, a wet-dry mass ratio of 0.99. For reference the Shuttle external tank, which carried hydrogen and thus would have a much lower wet dry mass ratio than a tank holding the same mass of water, had a mass ratio of 0.96.
Actually, flipping this around from here and staying with a 1 million liter tank weighing 5.655 tons, if we filled it with hydrogen we'd get a mass fraction of 0.92, and if we filled it with methane we'd get a mass fraction of 0.986. These numbers seem really good but remember they're for the tanks only, and the dry mass figure does not include the mass of the NTR hanging off the ass end.

[Anonymous No.10530725]

>>10530703
Obviously engine TWR has a direct impact on stage TWR and how much mass of propellant can be lifted.

[Anonymous No.10530737]

>>10530670
>Everything needs a massive government project and a decade just to have a single bellow-scale test.
This is why your flag isn't on any other celestial body, you need to expand your thinking beyond the baby-like mentality of needing a supreme authority figure to do everything important.

[Anonymous No.10530776]

Which will it be?
https://www.strawpoll.me/17762837

[Anonymous No.10530779]

Does any one of you autists know what are those bumps on the outside of the merlin bells are ?

[Anonymous No.10530781]

>>10530779
forgot pic, of course.

[Anonymous No.10530789]

>>10530781
I wonder what it smells like. Makes me think of oil, plastic sheeting, and sea salt.

[Anonymous No.10530794]

>>10530718
cont.

So lets bring it all together. We want a wet stage TWR of around 0.9, since this is an upper stage that won't have to fight gravity so much as accelerate sideways to orbital speed. We have a propellant tank with a mass of about 10 kilograms per square meter. We have a nuclear thermal engine that weighs one ton, with a thrust to weight ratio of 5. That gives it a thrust output of 5 tons, or more accurately 49 kN. to achieve a wet TWR of 0.9 for the entire stage then the stage must therefore weigh ~5555kg. One ton of that is engine, so the wet propellant tank must therefore weigh 4555 kg. Now we can start plugging in the wet-dry mass ratios for different propellants we already figured out earlier. If the tank is full of water it has a ratio of 0.99 and thus weighs 46 kilograms, and contains 4509 kg of water. For reference this is a tank of water 1.7m wide and 2m tall. Just itty bitty but it makes the numbers easy so fuck you. Anyway if the NTR instead uses methane the tank carries 4464 kg of propellant and weighs 91.1 kg, almost twice as much. If the NTR uses hydrogen it only carries 4190.6 kg of propellant but weighs 364.4 kg. The effect here is that by using a less dense propellant the maximum stage mass remains the same but the tank gets much bigger, which means it weighs more, and it cuts into the maximum propellant mass as a result.
Lastly, with these numbers in hand we can figure out the total stage wet dry mass ratio and therefore start figuring out delta V numbers. The water NTR is 1046 kg dry and carries 4509 kg of propellant, mass ratio of ~0.812, the methane NTR has a ratio of ~0.80, and the hydrogen NTR has a mass ratio of ~0.754.
Again these are all based on a rough estimate for 10 kg of mass per square meter of tank wall area, on a tank that has 1000 cubic meters of volume. In general smaller tanks tend to have worse mass fractions than bigger tanks, assuming an equal propellant density across the board.

[Anonymous No.10530795]

>>10530702
>socialism egalitarianism social democracy baaad
>corporatism gooooood

[Anonymous No.10530796]

>>10530779
>>10530781
I think those are to prevent bell to bell contact while the engines are gimballing, but not sure.

[Anonymous No.10530798]

>>10530776
It's supposed to be OmegA by the way

[Anonymous No.10530799]

>>10530779
The pipe thing wrapping around it? It's water cooling essentially.

[Anonymous No.10530801]

>>10530796
That's what I thought about.
Then I realized it would be retarded engineering to have them make contact in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10530804]

>>10530781
whoa, the gimbal shrouds on the left core's engines are grey instead of black? what does this mean

[Anonymous No.10530805]

>>10530799
Nah, at the tail end of the bell

[Anonymous No.10530807]

>>10530799
>water
kerosene, not water. Carrying a big water supply to use as engine coolant when you can just use the fuel you're about to burn anyway would be wasteful.

[Anonymous No.10530808]

>>10530795
Well where's your spacex? Where's your google and amazon? How is the European continent even relevant except as consumers for American companies?

[Anonymous No.10530813]

>>10530776
Ariane is close to completion then omega, vulcan, BFR, New Glenn and finally SLS.

[Anonymous No.10530814]

>>10530795
>implying the EU is any of those things
nannystatenannystatenannystatenannystatenannystatenannystatenannystatenannystatenannystatenannystatenannystatenannystate

[Anonymous No.10530816]

>>10530781
With that many engines on it's never going to work see the n1 for reference.

[Anonymous No.10530820]

>>10530816
It already did you brainlet
Would you suggest they replace some of them for SRBs?

[Anonymous No.10530828]

>>10530816
Must be nice, living in a cave.

[Anonymous No.10530833]

>>10530816
anon . . .

[Anonymous No.10530840]

>>10530807
Sometimes people think you are trolling them by saying its fuel. It makes sense in a way heat + fuel + flames...

To save time I just use water cooling analogies sometimes.

[Anonymous No.10530848]

>>10530840
Just call those people retards if they don't believe you at first, works every time

[Anonymous No.10530859]

>>10530779
>>10530781
That's actually a good question, I can't find those parts in a lot of concept and design images or images of the uncompleted bells in the factory. They must be something added on after most of the construction is done.
>>10530795
>Socialism
Unequivocally shit, fundamentally couched in resource theft and abuse of innocent individuals, abrogates human liberty for specious gains which rarely if ever materialize.
>Egalitarianism
Police State/Nanny State serfs should not even mention the word, egalitarianism cannot even have a chance to exist in a government system which does not value human liberty.
>Social Democracy
People vote to carry out state sanctioned theft and non-consentual redistribution which leaves them in a bankrupt failed state where currency inflation leaps beyond ten million percent? No thanks, democratic suicide is not how I'd prefer to organize a society.
>Corporatism
Is another inevitability of socialism, when governments gain the powers to significantly effect the economy and markets of a country it is inevitable that the largest and most influential corporations will want to work closely with the government to secure state sanctioned monopolies and use regulation to suppress rivals or inhibit game changing innovation. This can never not be the case because socialist politicians are still human beings and thus they are corruptible, the longer they engage in closely regulating a market, the more it makes sense to simply buy that person's loyalty, result: Corporate interests lobby socialist politicians to uphold more corporate interest, thus Corporatism.

To keep this even remotely close to on topic, just observe how much more cost efficient even semi-private rocket companies are compared to NASA, they do still get lots of government money in the form of contracts to complete certain goals, but they make much better use of that money, and more work gets done per dollar spent.

[Anonymous No.10530970]

>>10530796
>>10530801
I thought only the center engine gimballed.

[Anonymous No.10530973]

>>10530859
good thing Elon wants mars to be a technocracy

[Anonymous No.10530976]

>>10530970
All of them probably gimbal, but the center due to how critical it is for maneuvering in to land probably has a higher gimbal range.

[Anonymous No.10530987]

>>10528919
>>10528924

[Anonymous No.10530990]

>>10530987
Someone tweet this to Elon, see what he makes of it.

[Anonymous No.10530994]

>>10530725
yeah but it cannot be directly compared to chemical rocket engines

[Anonymous No.10530997]

>>10530200

[Anonymous No.10531002]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlA-uEOUjW8
Just watching one of Northrop's little video for LOPG and I have to ask, what exactly is the point of this intermediate step where people pilot rovers on the moon? Why not skip that stage and move directly to having LOPG send manned landers to the lunar surface? Why expend the resources to build, launch, and remotely operate rovers when a person can move much faster from site to site and a lander can carry a lot more equipment, and larger tools to do bigger jobs? Of course this leads on to the other question which always bugs me about the whole LOPG program in it's entirety, why not just plant that shit directly on the lunar surface? It will be a lot easier to shield yourself from radiation because you can excavate a trench, roll the module into it, and then bury the module which lends it easy shielding, you can work in microgravity instead of zero gravity so any life support, water recycling, etc systems don't have to be as heavily modified to operate correctly, and you can obviously then have direct access to the lunar surface, and propellant needs to leave the lunar surface are tiny due to microgee.

[Anonymous No.10531005]

>>10530200
...is jumping from such heights actually dangerous at 1/6th of a G?

[Anonymous No.10531011]

>>10530970
They all gimbal, however during landings only the center engine moves because it's the only one actually running (the hydraulics to move each engine are powered by each engine individually).

[Anonymous No.10531013]

>>10530781

[Anonymous No.10531014]

>>10530973
I would unironically move there if he does that, fuck this gay earth

[Anonymous No.10531024]

>>10530994
Yeah it can. An engine can only lift X times its own weight, doesn't matter if the engine weighs a kilogram or a ton. The TWR of an engine therefore determines how big of a rocket it can lift, and since the maximum payload mass of a rocket is determined by multiplying the payload mass fraction by the total mass, that means engine TWR has a direct impact in determining maximum payload. The other significant factor is of course Isp, as Isp determines payload mass fraction.

[Anonymous No.10531032]

>>10531005
let's see...
35m drop (total height is 50m with legs extended in that photo)
gm= 1.62 m/s^2

-> 7.85 sec
-->12.717 m/s impact velocity

[Anonymous No.10531034]

>>10531002
Th answer to literally every single one of your questions is 'because doing it step by step, with the smallest steps possible, will result in the most money being funneled into all of the contractors that operate within the districts of the congress members pushing for this approach".

[Anonymous No.10531038]

>>10531013
based and sniffpilled

[Anonymous No.10531039]

>>10531005
It's as dangerous as jumping from 1/6th of the height at 1g. So it would be the equivalent of a ~six meter drop on Earth.

[Anonymous No.10531050]

>>10530990
Pretty sure someone already did. I've seen that in some reply.

[Anonymous No.10531071]

>>10531039
still a pretty nasty oof

[Anonymous No.10531074]

>>10531005
Yeah, it probably won't be fatal unless you damage your suit on impact, but your bones are going to want to have a word with you afterwards.

[Anonymous No.10531083]

[Anonymous No.10531101]

>>10531083
The best of the best of the best.

[Anonymous No.10531142]

>>10530200
It'll take a crane to get them out

[Anonymous No.10531151]

>>10531142
Finally someone else who remembers that

[Anonymous No.10531181]

>>10531101
Imagine the wealth of hilarious tumbles and fuckups once we start getting more people on the moon. I'm waiting for YouTube videos like "Man rolls down into crater for an hour." or "We dared Jim to jump off the top of the habitat, he actually did it ahahahahaha!" etc.

[Anonymous No.10531267]

>>10531181
I'm more interested in the shit we'll be able to do once we build large open spaces inside habitats, when an average person can do a one-arm chin-up with relative ease and with two arms can trow themselves upwards several meters, just imagine the jungle gym possibilities. Also consider the fact that in Lunar gravity and Earth atmosphere a human can strap wings to their arms and legit fly around, granted you need a really big volume to be able to really do much with that but eventually those giant bubble habitats will be real and human powered flying will be an activity that people do for exercise and fun.

[Anonymous No.10531274]

>>10531181
I just want to see the 15m high jump possible inside a bubble hab.

[Anonymous No.10531278]

>>10531267
Imagine a swimming pool in 1/6g

[Anonymous No.10531309]

>>10531278
you could jump like a dolphin

[Anonymous No.10531324]

>>10531278
How would such big body of water behave in lunar gravity?

[Anonymous No.10531341]

>>10531324
Splashing would be very messy but otherwise it would be the same. You'd be able to dive deeper as the pressure would be lower, but that doesn't really matter in a pool.

[Anonymous No.10531405]

>>10531309
you'd be able to walk on water like jaezus. You know with scuba flippers.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037300

[Anonymous No.10531412]

>>10530987
Kek this fucking website

[Anonymous No.10531417]

>>10530237
As it has been said about the pupil, but also your eyelids act as apertures when you squint.

[Anonymous No.10531448]

2019 - still no chubby starship-chan.
Also BRAAAP

[Anonymous No.10531468]

>Minotaur 1 launch planned for an NROL project at the end of the year
6 years since the US last officially launched a Minotaur, quite fascinating that they are bringing it back now.

[Anonymous No.10531479]

>>10529833
Probably would've looked better if they'd just kept it barebones without any of the sheet metal. Just a tank with legs.

[Anonymous No.10531490]

>>10531479
It looked good when it still had a hat

[Anonymous No.10531494]

>>10531448
Feelsbadman, we need some drawfags on this.

[Anonymous No.10531497]

>Conditions are only 30 percent "go" for the 6:36 p.m. launch from Kennedy Space Center's pad 39A with the Arabsat 6A commercial communications satellite. Teams can, however, try to wait out the weather until the window closes at 8:35 p.m.
>In the event of a delay to Wednesday, the forecast improves to 80 percent "go."
welp.

[Anonymous No.10531510]

>>10530175
no seriously
you could just make it an LCD screen and put cameras on the outside
they'll get to look outside, without actually risking the structural integrity

[Anonymous No.10531519]

>>10531510
The ISS manages to have windows too, there's no structural integrity that's being risked. You could sell a window seat on a voyage to the moon for millions of dollars, while just having a display to stare at won't be as exciting for rich people. There's no reason not to have windows on the passenger rockets.

[Anonymous No.10531528]

>>10531510
I feel like part of what makes spaceflight so alluring is the chance to see the earth from orbit. Sure an LCD screen would work but it just wouldn't be the same. In order for a mars colony to he successful, there needs to be enough people that want to go. It may sound silly but having windows for the 8 month trip would be a significant factor in deciding that.

[Anonymous No.10531531]

>>10531519
ISS doesn't do pressure cycles, which are the silent killer that windows impose. Granted, since Starship is made of steel now we basically don't have to worry about work fatigue as the frames around the windows flex anymore, which is nice. Starship shouldn't have any serious problems with the windows although the really big one up front is going to be a YUGE pain in the ass to bring to life.

[Anonymous No.10531532]

>>10530776
I think Vulcan will beat out everybody. It's the only one that hasn't been hit with a million different delays. Still think BFR/Starship full stack is gonna beat out everything else though (except maybe Ariane)

[Anonymous No.10531534]

>>10531531
heating and cooling from being in the sun and shadow.

[Anonymous No.10531546]

>>10531534
Starship will experience very little skin temperature fluctuations due to its high reflectivity and it will be pointed away from the sun constantly during flights in space because of the solar panel arrangement, so there should be very few thermal cycles per flight except the two that are necessary no matter what, entry heating and ascent heating (rockets can have skin temperatures of several hundred degrees due to shock heating as they launch thought the atmosphere towards space).

[Anonymous No.10531571]

>>10531468
>NROL
what do they DO all day?!

[Anonymous No.10531576]

>>10531571
*NRO

they take photos

[Anonymous No.10531581]

>>10531571
Build and operate agency satellites.

Along with making some spooky patches for their projects.

[Anonymous No.10531584]

>>10529815
>What the fuck would you do in that time?
>the fuck would you do?
>fuck would you?
>fuck
inb4 jelly baby posting, contraceptive implants are very lightweight.
>>10529960
>https://youtu.be/o_eYnX7p7l0?t=91
timestamp: 1:31

[Anonymous No.10531585]

>>10530607
Hey, sorry for taking so long.
I was going for a pure Methalox super heavy rocket, but it kinda morphed into my take on BFR.

I hope you like it.

[Anonymous No.10531591]

>>10529960
>>10531584
btw, this is the largest silhouette of the Mayflower next to the average largest silhouette of a blue whale. If someone wants to, Starship could be compared to the two.

[Anonymous No.10531592]

>>10531005
it's enough of a jump that I would never do by choice

[Anonymous No.10531594]

>>10531546
sorry, was talking about the ISS. ISS can still fatigue.

[Anonymous No.10531595]

>>10531585
Why the low Isp figures? Are you assuming gas generator engines?

[Anonymous No.10531600]

>>10531594
Sure, and given the fact that the ISS goes though those day-night thermal cycles and is made mostly of aluminum which is very prone to work fatigue, stainless steel starship should have no issues for at least the expected lifetime of a single vehicle.

[Anonymous No.10531611]

>>10531585
you just made Starship you big dork
like I understand that it's basically the perfect design for the specifications and any possible improvement is just going to involve increasing diameters so it's pyramid shaped like the N1 or the Saturn V but comeon

[Anonymous No.10531613]

>>10531595
The OM-613's (which are just RS-84's changed to run on Methalox) operates at a lower chamber pressure compared to the Raptor (17.7 MPa vs 30 MPa) and the nozzle for them is optimized for Sea-Level so it's pretty short comparatively speaking.

The aerospike is an estimated low both because aerospikes generally have a lower performance compared to a bell nozzle engine, and I was being conservative.

[Anonymous No.10531614]

>>10530675
>Imagine the alimony

[Anonymous No.10531617]

>>10531611
Sorry. I wanted to be pratical with this one instead of going all out Rule-of-Cool like I did with the Nova Ultima or Friendship.

I can go make Nuclear Sea Dragon instead, if yall are cool with that?

[Anonymous No.10531619]

>>10531611
I wonder how much fuel load they could add to the starship stage in orbit if they made it three stages with a yuge bottom stage and the superheavy as an intermediate stage.

[Anonymous No.10531664]

>>10529063
For double the trouble

[Anonymous No.10531670]

>>10529049
I miss the NASA only days

[Anonymous No.10531673]

@10531670
guaranteed replies

[Anonymous No.10531680]

>>10529049
I miss the Energia only days

[Anonymous No.10531684]

>>10531032
>Anything over 10m/s is like jumping off a freight train, but I can make 12 work.

[Anonymous No.10531689]

>>10531585
Very cool, although if you're using a giant truncated plug nozzle for the second stage I don't see why you wouldn't want to for the first stage as well, especially since you're using so many engines. You could do 9 truncated plug aerospikes each generating 12200kN of thrust and you'd be able to pull a bit more efficiency out of your first stage and save a little bit on dry mass as well. Assuming the 20-30% propellant savings number holds true up to engine powers 6 times greater than the RS-2200, assuming the first stage aerospikes are 20% more efficient you could safely reduce the necessary propellant weight by 1166 tons, or cut some propellant weight and increase the size of your second stage.

[Anonymous No.10531704]

>>10531689
>Assuming the 20-30% propellant savings number holds true up to engine powers 6 times greater than the RS-2200
Source on that? I've never heard of that before, but it seems interesting.

[Anonymous No.10531710]

>>10531032
>>10531684
What if our Lunanauts use pogosticks? So they go boing boing boing all the way to the ground. It'll be extreme!

[Anonymous No.10531713]

>>10531619
Would Nova Ultima work for the first stage?
>SS+SH wet weight 9.7 million pounds(?)
>NU I wet weight 7757 tons (15.52 million pounds)
>NU I thrust 45.66 million pounds
>SNU total weight 25.32 million pounds
>TWR 1.8

>plus dying in a freak crash of two SNUs would be death by SNU-SNU

[Anonymous No.10531730]

>>10531704
It's just what the wiki quotes, although specifically the RS-2200 has a sea level ISP of 339.9s, if we assume that our fictional booster aerospikes can only achieve that ISP that still makes them nearly 11% more efficient than your OM-613's.

[Anonymous No.10531735]

>>10531083
Yeah we all laugh now, but can you imagine being the first astronaut to trip on the Moon? Not knowing if some sharp regolith will fuck your suit up something fierce so it starts leaking while you're too far away to get back into the LM in time.

[Anonymous No.10531745]

>>10531571
Take voyeuristic shots of other countries.

[Anonymous No.10531769]

>>10531710
According to moonmen walking like you're cross-country skiing is super effective, better than hopping anyway. I'd imagine rollerskating indoors down long hallways would be pretty rad too.

[Anonymous No.10531786]

>>10531713
I like how you think, anon. And I really like how your math checks out.

"[They] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should."

[Anonymous No.10531790]

>>10531704
I'm still hunting for a source, there's lots of interesting material but nothing simple that just does straight up comparisons of say the ideal bell nozzle vs the ideal truncated aerospike nozzle that I can find yet, just that the curve of aerospike performance over changing altitude is substantially closer to the ideal (no performance loss) than that of the classic bell nozzle rocket. Unless someone else can find the exact number I wouldn't feel bad about giving a fictional truncated aerospike 1st stage an overall ISP 10% higher than a conventional rocket, or 15-20% if you want to be really optimistic.

[Anonymous No.10531791]

>>10531769
as a way to get to the ground. Boing!

[Anonymous No.10531795]

no new sections

[Anonymous No.10531796]

>>10531786
That's an abomination against God and nature, but I love it.

[Anonymous No.10531797]

>This triggers the SLS fanclub

[Anonymous No.10531802]

>>10531786
How much additional payload could you add to the starship stage with this monstrosity?

[Anonymous No.10531808]

>>10531797
Would be kind of a shame to throw away three falcons to launch Orion, the Euro-peon service module and a propulsion trucc that's going to get spent and dumped as well. Granted though even if you trash all three of the falcon boosters it would only cost a fraction as much as using Slut Launch System.

[Anonymous No.10531819]

>>10531802
According to my (very rough) math, that can carry the entire Starship, fully loaded and fueled, to LEO with a little bit of DeltaV to spare. That means with SNU-SNU, Starship can go directly to Mars without the need for a refueling mission.

[Anonymous No.10531851]

>>10531819
I'm pretty sure something like this is going to be the next step for BFR. I'm sure that the in orbit refuelling will work fine, but having to do a dozen launches for a mission is going to be a pain in the ass and put lots of unnecessary stress on the vehicles.

[Anonymous No.10531858]

>>10531851
not really. You have a bunch of cargo starships, and then a big fleet of tanker starships. Continuously launch tankers, and fuel as necessary in LEO. You'll have a conga line of tankers ready for prop transfer for whatever cargo ships come up.

[Anonymous No.10531867]

>>10531858
My point is that even if a vehicle is fully reusable it is still absolutely going to have a limited lifespan on both the structure and components much like an airplane does. Why reduce the lifespan of your flash rocket by more than 10x when you could develop a fuckhuge additional booster instead?

[Anonymous No.10531873]

>>10531867
bathtub curve my dude. No one knows how long the bathtub will be for starship.

[Anonymous No.10532140]

Elon’s technical presentation should be happening soon

[Anonymous No.10532142]

>>10531808
Not so bad if you use boosters that have already been flown a lot are are ready to be retired.

[Anonymous No.10532144]

>>10532140
Is there some specific event coming up that I'm unaware of?

[Anonymous No.10532149]

>>10532144
the space meme man himself said he'd give a presentation on the new stainless starship design as soon as the prototype hopped

[Anonymous No.10532154]

>>10532149
Ok, before he's done presentations at the IAC which isn't until October, but he could always just make his own little press event.

[Anonymous No.10532155]

>>10531735
Imagine fucking tripping and flying off the surface of the moon. Holy shit that would be terrifying but also topkek

[Anonymous No.10532159]

>>10532155
Lunar gravity isn't low enough for that to happen. You would have to be on a much smaller object.

[Anonymous No.10532161]

>>10532155
the thing is the fall from five feet or so on the moon takes a whole second, basically
you have enough time to panic and recover before you even hit the ground

[Anonymous No.10532172]

>>10532149
H Y P E

Y

P

E

[Anonymous No.10532173]

>>10532149
I wouldn't be surprised if he wait for a successful untethered hop.

[Anonymous No.10532185]

>>10532173
I will never be surprised by anything he does because he's already completely ridiculous
he did
I guess he didn't use the word "hop" to describe what it's doing yet, so he might wait for three engines, yeah

[Anonymous No.10532192]

[Anonymous No.10532200]

>>10532192
what a good birthday present

[Anonymous No.10532211]

>>10532192
boioioing btfo yet again

[Anonymous No.10532220]

>UK's Sabre space plane engine tech in new milestone
>The completed Colorado experiment replicates the thermal conditions corresponding to flight at Mach 3.3, the record-breaking speed at which the American SR-71 Blackbird spy plane used to operate. Importantly, though, the pre-cooler took out all the heat.
>The REL group is confident its "pre-cooler" technology can now go on to show the same performance in conditions that simulate flying above five times the speed of sound, or Mach 5.
Neat.

[Anonymous No.10532253]

>>10532220
It's Hydrogen powered so it's a meme for now. Get a methane version that won't shrek the tanks and components then maybe.

[Anonymous No.10532256]

>>10532253
>b-but my Isp!

[Anonymous No.10532257]

>>10531795
The engines are the bottle neck anyway. Everything else can be done easily.
I guess they could just steal Starhopper‘s engines eventually. But for now Starhopper gives them enough to play with anyways

[Anonymous No.10532258]

>>10532142
Nasa would insist on brand new boosters and you know it.

[Anonymous No.10532263]

>>10532192
Launch abort test when?

[Anonymous No.10532267]

>>10532258
>Virgin unflown booster vs. Chad flight proven booster

I would choose a 2-3 flight booster over a fresh one every fucking time.

[Anonymous No.10532270]

>>10530808
>Well where's your spacex? Where's your google and amazon?
>automobile
BMW, Volkswagen, Lamborgini, Farrari. European cars control 70% of the automobile market by revenue
>Chemical/pharmaceutical
Bayern, Monsanto. EU controls 80% of the chemical and pharmaceutical market by revenyue
>Medical machinery
Phillips and smaller companies. EU controls 70% of the Medical machinery and technology market
>Agriculture
EU controls 60% of the agricultural revenue and 80% of agricultural machinery revenue
>Heavy Industry
EU produces 30% of the industrial products by revenue but produces 80% of industrial machines (Chinese factories and machines are German)
>Raw resources
Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Total are EU oil and gas companies and together control and maintain 60% of the global oil supply.
>Financial services
EU has behemoths such as ING bank which is the largest investment bank in the world Norway has the biggest investment fund in the world worth almost 2 trillion USD and Europe has close to 80% the total global mined gold in its vaults. Europe controls 60% of the global financial services such as banking by revenue and 90% by value.

Shitty startups like Google Amazon and Facebook pale in comparison with the ancient giants of Europe that basically control the world.

[Anonymous No.10532275]

>>10532220
So they made a supersonic air fridge.
I assume there are other hurdles to this design though?

>>10532253
Uff, why the fuck would you use hydrogen in an engine where the entire point is reusability through a space plane design?
Even RP-1 has to make more sense surely.

Either way, it‘s a fun technology and I wanna see where it goes.

[Anonymous No.10532280]

>>10530808
Have you even listened to your baby in chief? America can‘t stop buying European while Europe wants no part of American products outside of computer tech.

[Anonymous No.10532291]

>>10532192
This makes my peepee hard

[Anonymous No.10532301]

>>10532270
B T F O
T
F
O

[Anonymous No.10532470]

>>10532270
at least I won't get jailed for posting memes

[Anonymous No.10532493]

>>10532470
>a-at least memes, r-rite?
Oh I am laffin

[Anonymous No.10532494]

>>10532270
This is absolutely true but EU is a bit behind when it comes to space. Sure, Ariane was the best thing on the market for many years but ESA slept through the last decade.

At least they still make the best telescopes and that new one going online in 2025 will make JWST look like a joke.

[Anonymous No.10532495]

>>10532470
Nobody in EU will either. Learn what directive means. It's not law.

[Anonymous No.10532606]

>>10532495
You are expecting someone on sci/ to read !!! Where do you think we are ?

[Anonymous No.10532639]

>>10532270
>muh shitty subsidized old bloated industry
All those companies couldn't survive without your nanny state propping them up. There's nothing new coming out of your continent, because your government only exists to keep your existing large businesses running and exporting.

Also I would love some sources on your claims, because according to this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_companies_by_revenue
American pharma companies have 384.62 billion in revenue, while the european companies have 135.73 billion in revenue. Also it's Bayer, not Bayern, that's a German state you absolute brainlet.
Sounds like you just pulled numbers out of your ass

[Anonymous No.10532675]

Where is Russia in all this. Why are they not going for the Moon and Mars.

[Anonymous No.10532688]

>>10532675
They can barely go for the ISS with their 30 year old rockets with racing holes in their hulls

[Anonymous No.10532689]

>>10530798
>its LevioSAH

[Anonymous No.10532710]

>>10531468
rocky blanky

[Anonymous No.10532712]

>>10531617
>Nuclear Sea Dragon
Do it!

[Anonymous No.10532719]

>>10531614
thottery is literally risking the future of the human race in countable costs. what a time to be alive

[Anonymous No.10532725]

>>10532719
Mr. Bezos was the unfaithful partner in the relationship.

[Anonymous No.10532778]

>>10532253
It's a pre-cooler you fucking idiot it's powered by nothing because it's not an engine.

[Anonymous No.10532798]

>>10532639
I added up the numbers on that link and unless you think Switzerland and Ireland are not European I cannot see how you've arrived at those numbers.

[Anonymous No.10532807]

>>10529049
Tell me about nonwhite Space Programs. Especially Chinese.

I'd bought the idea that space travel was a white abstraction. A holdover from Imperialism.

[Anonymous No.10532808]

>>10532807
Cringe

[Anonymous No.10532846]

>>10532807
Well, russians still flying to space. For now.

[Anonymous No.10532873]

>>10532807
>I'd bought the idea that space travel was a white abstraction. A holdover from Imperialism.

Never go full retard

[Anonymous No.10532880]

>>10532807
China's rockets are called Long March, so named because, just like the country has only one time zone, its calendar has only one month: a really long March.

[Anonymous No.10532893]

spacewalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

[Anonymous No.10532900]

>>10532893
nice

[Anonymous No.10532906]

>>10532893
I clicked onto nasa tv just out of boredom. It was an incredible feeling to believe for a second that shit like this is the norm one can just watch on a whim now.

It's a bright future.

[Anonymous No.10532922]

[Anonymous No.10532923]

>>10531797
also seems to trigger SpaceX fanboys too. Makes me wonder what an emergency space mission would look like today. Like aliens land on the Moon as part of a space reality show and we need to get people there as fast possible because the sooner we do the more spessbucks we make. Also we have to get them back too to get the spess money back. Or we find a life threatening asteroid, but spess reality TV show is more fun.

[Anonymous No.10532945]

>cables in space

[Anonymous No.10532965]

Always take your trusty sidearm with you on EVA's in case you run into Syndie scum or Changelings and god knows what else.

[Anonymous No.10532971]

>>10532893
Looking at my app, it's funny to realize, there's somebody currently exactly above me right now, wiring cables in space.

[Anonymous No.10532975]

[Anonymous No.10532981]

>>10532965
>god knows what else.

[Anonymous No.10532987]

>>10532981
Suffer not the ayy to live

[Anonymous No.10533057]

>>10532965
fuck space carp

[Anonymous No.10533089]

if a side booster on FH has an issue, I assume the center core will go into expendable mode automatically?

[Anonymous No.10533132]

>>10532778
The precooler uses liquid helium, and if you even did the most basic searching you'd find that what he means is the whole SABRE engine system runs on HydroLOX, LH2/Cryogenic air in atmospheric flight, LH2/LOX in vacuum flight.
>"The 'hot' helium from the air precooler is recycled by cooling it in a heat exchanger with the liquid hydrogen fuel. The loop forms a self-starting Brayton cycle engine, cooling critical parts of the engine and powering turbines. The heat passes from the air into the helium. This heat energy is used to power various parts of the engine and to vaporise hydrogen, which is then burnt in ramjets."

[Anonymous No.10533149]

Scott is out of the hospital. Our boy is okay!

[Anonymous No.10533150]

>>10532807
You're one dumb nigger. Every country with even a remote ambition of becoming relevant is slowly pushing for space exploration. China is the best example but even Iran is doing it.

[Anonymous No.10533174]

>>10533149
What was he in for?

[Anonymous No.10533180]

>>10533174
he hasn't told anybody

[Anonymous No.10533207]

>>10532639
>All those companies couldn't survive without your nanny state propping them up.
Neither could any American company. Literally every single large American company gets billions in subsidies. SpaceX was about to go out of business before NASA threw a billion dollar contract at them for launches well above market rates.

[Anonymous No.10533238]

>>10533207
Wew, I love how these stories mutate whenever Europeans feel threatened.

[Anonymous No.10533251]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2gz2E-Wrws
God I love Bridenstine.
I don't remember a NASA director explaining shit as clearly as this guy.
And he's been there for barely a year.
It's almost as if he knows hes stuff.

[Anonymous No.10533253]

>>10533238
ArianeGroup is ded.
They had a chance but they decided on Ariane 6.
Same shit as Vulcan from ULA, it won't save them.

[Anonymous No.10533314]

>>10533251
>mostly women in the room
Imagine when what he says becomes real.

[Anonymous No.10533358]

>>10533251
I don't think I've ever seen a NASA Director who was actually passionate about his job and wanted to get shit done
That man got mad on camera

[Anonymous No.10533363]

>>10533251
I love his passion, but maybe he's a bit credulous.
Support will faint away.
Delays will happen.
SLS will blow up.

[Anonymous No.10533401]

Be 2024.
NASA baraly on track to putting bbots on the moon.
SpaceX lands its trash on Mars.

[Anonymous No.10533420]

Is anyone here?

[Anonymous No.10533434]

I guess not.

[Anonymous No.10533449]

>>10530987
why am I into this

[Anonymous No.10533462]

>>10533420
shut the fuck up, kid

[Anonymous No.10533463]

>>10529847
Based stargate poster

[Anonymous No.10533470]

>>10531797
I have to admit, that looks really fucking cool. hopefully big daddy Mikey gave enough of a push for his gimp slave Bridenstine to actually go through with this.

[Anonymous No.10533473]

>>10533462
I was wondering, because I've been posting for an hour.
You might want to look a few posts back.

[Anonymous No.10533476]

>>10532192
>July 25th
>not July 20th to celebrate the moon landing

[Anonymous No.10533483]

>>10533476
What is there to celebrate?
50 years of nothing?
If anything, it should be shame day.

[Anonymous No.10533486]

>>10533473
your posts are all extremely low quality, which is why nobody responded to you

[Anonymous No.10533487]

>>10532270
>Shitty startups like Google Amazon and Facebook pale in comparison with the ancient giants of Europe that basically control the world.
>The world is Europe
These three companies control commerce, information, and communication all across the globe. Old Yuro giants controlled what, some land that nobody lived on? Some peasants maybe?

[Anonymous No.10533493]

>>10533483
Bridenstine could use it to get people more excited about the future of space travel, say
>"hey remember when we drove our space truck around for 30 years? well now we realize that was fucking dumb and we're gonna do something that actually matters"
Could raise morale a bit towards space.

[Anonymous No.10533496]

>>10533486
Yeah, please point out the low quality posts and why you thought it was plebeian territory.

[Anonymous No.10533500]

>>10533493
That would require the US government admitting that it mismanaged spaceflight since Apollo.

[Anonymous No.10533507]

>>10533500
Oh right, I always forget NASA is still the government. Guess they could always just flash the few things they did on screen for like 20 minutes each and pretend like we've been doing things for the past 50 years.

[Anonymous No.10533515]

>>10533493
Some smartass will just sue NASA because he worked more than 30 hours a week.
Fucking slavers, I didn't sign for this.

[Anonymous No.10533523]

Scott Manley is ok, just a minor surgery but lots of pain medication

[Anonymous No.10533622]

[Anonymous No.10533639]

>>10532725
yeah but c'mon, a man has needs running an empire like that

[Anonymous No.10533641]

>>10533622
bring me that ass

[Anonymous No.10533643]

>>10533622
cool that that tiny truck can tow the big rocket

[Anonymous No.10533644]

rip SN 2

[Anonymous No.10533645]

>>10533523
you could tell he was still high in that video he put up, he was giggling way more than normal and just having fun
opioids are good fun but I wouldn't recommend them for recreational use, way too easy to get addicted

[Anonymous No.10533650]

>>10533644
oh what did they pull it off?

[Anonymous No.10533652]

>>10533644
Have they posted why they removed the engine?

[Anonymous No.10533655]

>>10533644

[Anonymous No.10533661]

>>10533655
owo

[Anonymous No.10533671]

>>10533655
Wouldn't be surprised if the hopping just rattled something loose in that absolute fucking mess of sensors.

[Anonymous No.10533676]

>>10533671
and a loose sensor on something like a rocket engine doesn't mean "oh no, we're not getting info now" it means "oh no, there's a jet of 900 atmosphere fire coming out of the side of our engine"

[Anonymous No.10533717]

Has Trump been good for NASA. Putting them back on track after AntiSpace Obama or are the new missions solely based on pressure from SpaceX or more pertinently China etc.

[Anonymous No.10533774]

>>10533717
Well he did give them more budget and mandate them to return to the moon and set up a permanent manned outpost, but so far as I've heard he hasn't really been involved at all since then. I wish he would do something to one-up Kennedy though, he should give them a full 2% of the budget for 5 full years with the goal of them having a permanent habitable manned outpost on the moon within that time frame and a low cost, reliable government flown rocket to get there. He could even turn it into a diplomatic thing and mandate that the outpost should have room to expand in such a way that many other countries could have a module dedicated to them and their own hand picked teams of people. Start off with a couple habs for the US team, ones for Russia and China so long as relations show regular improvement, and one for the UK.

[Anonymous No.10533778]

>>10530237
you probably have astigmatism like me

[Anonymous No.10533807]

>>10533643
are you havin a laff mate

[Anonymous No.10533811]

>>10533655
SEXY BOI

[Anonymous No.10533854]

[Anonymous No.10533888]

>>10533655
SpaceX is probably not far off from Tesla in terms of bad financial situation. Growth has completely stalled out and they've clearly undercharged for launches, leading to a shortage of liquidity. Three desperate capital raises last year shows us how bad the situation must be right now.

[Anonymous No.10533890]

>>10533089
The payload would go into expendable mode.

[Anonymous No.10533916]

>>10532494
Firstly Europe is way up there when it comes to satellites. Secondly it's not proven yet that reusability will work as hoped. I say this as a SpaceX fan that thinks Ariane can get stuffed

[Anonymous No.10533928]

>>10532275
It's passed every test thus far, and has supposedly been rigorously verified for viability etc along the way so fingers crossed could be a nice little SSO tech if it comes off

[Anonymous No.10533963]

muh dick

[Anonymous No.10533969]

>>10533928
they've literally only tested the cooler and no work on the engine itself has been done

[Anonymous No.10533970]

>>10533888
Even if that is true they'll have no problem raising more. Imagine the value of the IP in that company, not to mention the strategic value for the US. Yuge

[Anonymous No.10533971]

>>10533963
Lets just hope they stick the core stage landing this time. During the demo flight it was supposed to do a triple engine decel burn for landing, but only the center engine lit and it augered in to the ocean next to the barge at about 200mph(?).

[Anonymous No.10533974]

>>10533971
a good video but not a good result lol

[Anonymous No.10533976]

>>10533969
Cooler is the key innovation

[Anonymous No.10533985]

>>10533976

[Anonymous No.10533997]

>>10533963
I'd love to see a Black edition

[Anonymous No.10533999]

>>10533358
Shelby probably fucking hates him

[Anonymous No.10534021]

>>10533888
Wait, they‘re trying to raise capital just at the start of a huge RnD effort that is meant to revolutionize the entire industry? How dare they!

[Anonymous No.10534072]

>>10534021
Doomsayers and shortsellers gotta spin it somehow.

[Anonymous No.10534077]

>>10534072
Never ending FUD
why spend money on doing things of actual value when you can just hire shills to spread propaganda against your competitors

[Anonymous No.10534096]

>>10533652
they might finally be getting some more refined raptors

[Anonymous No.10534136]

>>10534072
How do you shortsell a private company?
Honestly, I feel like some people are just contrarian to the Musk hype and just try at every turn to pull people‘s legs on this stuff.

[Anonymous No.10534199]

>>10534136
My favorite SpaceX related conspiracy is that they're facing their booster landings to artificially increase their shares and popularity. That they fake the booster landings by playing regular launches in reverse while adding some special effects.

[Anonymous No.10534209]

>>10534199
Then the video of the center-core loss was clearly a sub-launched ballistic missile played in reverse!

[Anonymous No.10534211]

>>10534136
They are shorting TSLA stock, it's just a general effort to throw shade towards anything Musk related.

[Anonymous No.10534213]

>>10534199
W-what in the fuck? Is this actually a real fucking thing?

[Anonymous No.10534250]

>>10533655
That looks more like a sensor package with an engine than an engine with sensors

[Anonymous No.10534311]

[Anonymous No.10534314]

>>10534213
I couldn't find the exact video, but this is close in terms of stupidity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR7VFh-zgWo
I recommend that you invoke Poe's Law here.

[Anonymous No.10534319]

>>10534311
Is Claudia Schiffer going to appear from behind that black cloth or something?

[Anonymous No.10534322]

>>10534314
James Spader went to the ISS?

[Anonymous No.10534331]

>>10534319
I’m waiting for young James T. Kirk to arrive to that space ship construction yard wanting a lift to orbit

[Anonymous No.10534430]

>>10529177
Fuck me that's so cool

[Anonymous No.10534439]

>>10532675
Russia is kill

Hard to build rockets when tycoons steal all the funds I guess

[Anonymous No.10534457]

Does anyone know of any good sources for scaling nuclear thermal rockets? Apart from Atomic Rockets of course.

[Anonymous No.10534461]

>Due to 30% weather conditions the falcon heavy launch is delayed to April 10, 2019 where conditions are upto 80% for launch
aww.

[Anonymous No.10534473]

>>10533888
They've just about got commercial crew ready, so that will secure them a steady income for a long while, especially if they can remain cheaper than ULA/Starliner.

[Anonymous No.10534479]

>>10534461
Better they delay it now than attempt a launch and blue ball everyone with a scrub.

[Anonymous No.10534489]

>>10534461
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.10534519]

Why don't they use nuclear power on spaceships

[Anonymous No.10534521]

>>10534519
where do you put the heat

[Anonymous No.10534527]

>>10534521
Space senpai

[Anonymous No.10534580]

>>10533643
Careful Ol Musky, you don't want the SEC on your ass any more that they already are.

[Anonymous No.10534610]

>>10534519
Its dangerous. A launch explosion would be like a dirty bomb going off. I think only the Soviets ever put them in orbit. Also they have to be boosted into a graveyard orbit when you're done with them as they cant re enter the atmosphere without spreading nuclear material.

[Anonymous No.10534698]

>>10533251
>>10533358
>>10533363

I don't understand when this shift in perception happened, but weren't there a lot of backlash against him when he was nominated due to his views on climate change?

[Anonymous No.10534705]

>>10534698
I didn't pay attention when he was nominated but he's trying to dab on Alabama so he's good in my book

[Anonymous No.10534710]

>>10534610
A reactor might have to be sent up in some kind of specialized capsule with it's own launch abort and parachute systems, to ensure that even if there's some kind of accident the reactor can fly to safety.

[Anonymous No.10534871]

>>10534610
>I think only the Soviets ever put them in orbit.

nope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A

[Anonymous No.10535015]

>>10533671
Possibly mounting gimbal hardware, and other control stuff. those tethered hops may have just been engine tests

[Anonymous No.10535160]

>>10534461
just wait for BFR
it's designed to give negative fucks about weather
no more blue balls

[Anonymous No.10535219]

>>10532675
They want to help with Lop-G. That‘s about it. There are some pipe dreams of super heavy rockets with asparagus staging, but that doesn‘t really seem like it's gonna happen.

[Anonymous No.10535221]

>>10534461
>first ever image of a black hole
>Falcon Heavy launch that will likely be the first to recover all three first stage parts
A glorious day is coming

[Anonymous No.10535231]

>>10534698
You‘re telling me the guy who can effortlessly hold a conversation about the physical requirements of rocket launches and orbital mechanics doesn‘t believe infrared radiation can bounce off of gas atoms?
Big yikes.

[Anonymous No.10535267]

>>10535221
>>first ever image of a black hole

[Anonymous No.10535268]

>>10533643
>tesla pick-up truck tv ads be like

[Anonymous No.10535270]

>>10534331
iconic scene

[Anonymous No.10535272]

>>10531584
people selected for the peak of physical and mental fitness. It'd be like the Olympics village

[Anonymous No.10535280]

>>10535231
Climate change is a fraud designed for wealth redistribution

[Anonymous No.10535285]

>>10535272
>people selected for their physical fitness, ie jocks, and people selected for their mental fitness, the nerds
>living in one place
It's gonna be high school all over again

[Anonymous No.10535310]

>>10535285
Nah, it will be people who are are both intelligent and fit. Jocks who are just fit will have no place.

[Anonymous No.10535316]

Bake the new one you cucks

[Anonymous No.10535322]

>>10535310
>go to Mars
>get bullied by Gigachads who are three stanard deviations above your IQ
Even worse

[Anonymous No.10535326]

>>10535280
Oh no! All the wealth is gonna get distributed from islamic extremist countries to Asia! Nonono! This can't be! Now who's gonna pay for my Mecca super tower?

[Anonymous No.10535422]

>>10535326
a shame space is haram in their eyes
arab bux would probably be very useful in bankrolling space shit

[Anonymous No.10535442]

>>10535441