/SG/ Space Flight General

[Anonymous No.10562453]

It's learning to swim edition. Pls no bully.
New thread fags

Old one
>>10555610

[Anonymous No.10562456]

>>10562453
What is /SG/?

[Anonymous No.10562458]

>>10562453
Waiting for us of a to wake up. No one else is shitposting that hard

[Anonymous No.10562461]

>>10562456
SpaceX general
Soibois only

[Anonymous No.10562464]

RIP core Chan.

[Anonymous No.10562640]

>>10562453
>>10562456
>>10562461
Should really be /sfg/ with /sg/ being its own thing

[Anonymous No.10562781]

>>10562640
/sg/ being what, space general?

[Anonymous No.10562783]

>>10562163
At least it's not a total loss, but the destruction of the core itself is a big hit, since Falcon Heavy cores are custom built for FH and therefore unless they already had one in the pipeline being built they won't have another one ready for about a year.

[Anonymous No.10562786]

>>10562781
Yeah, more just discoveries and astronomy discussion than rockets/satellites.

[Anonymous No.10562794]

>>10562783
luckily they realized they'd need more than one and started a second one right away
I always thought the plan was to take the first one apart anyway, but that plan's kind of ruined by the whole tipping over thing

[Anonymous No.10562796]

>>10562786
It would be dead in 2 days, there are not enough news to cover it.

[Anonymous No.10562837]

>>10562794
Yeah, so the only thing they're really losing here is the data they'd have been able to get by inspecting the used core, a set back for Falcon heavy reuse in the future but not the end of the world.

[Anonymous No.10562848]

>>10562837
Is it intact? If it’s waterlogged they could probably still analyse the structure. Dunno about the engines though.

[Anonymous No.10562873]

Where's the budget Jim? Where's the fucking budget? NASA hasn't released their moon mission budget yet, for a program they've only been working on for a couple of weeks.

[Anonymous No.10562876]

>>10562848
Elon said the engines are probably salvageable.
The core itself probably ruptured when it fell over, so it's pretty much scrap.

[Anonymous No.10562879]

>>10562873
Two shoe strings and a piece of lint

[Anonymous No.10562886]

>>10562873
Billions of dollars.

Unfortunately, 99% of it is going to the jobs program, SLS.

[Anonymous No.10562908]

>>10562453
Fake and gay
here is the real picture

[Anonymous No.10562911]

>>10562453
What are the options for orienting vessels in space? Gas venting and rotary motors?

[Anonymous No.10562922]

>>10562911
Follow up question, how do you get your bearings in space? Sun direction is easy but what about range and ecliptic plane?

[Anonymous No.10562929]

>>10562911
>Gas venting and rotary motors
lol, do you mean propulsion and reaction wheels? Yes, those are the two best options. In descending order of effectiveness you have thrusters, reaction wheels, magneto-tethers, and solar pressure stabilization. Magneto-tethers only work close to Earth or some other strong magnetic field, and even then they really only work for pointing in one direction relative to that magnetic field. Solar pressure stabilization uses reflective surfaces to orient the vehicle, taking advantage of the momentum that light carries. Again, only works for pointing in one direction, in this case towards the Sun.

[Anonymous No.10562931]

>>10562922
Mostly by treating distant stars as fixed points and then using trigonometry from there.

[Anonymous No.10562936]

>>10562453
What happened to Trump's Space Force?

[Anonymous No.10563035]

>>10562908
But where are the four elephants?

[Anonymous No.10563052]

>>10562936
It's grinding it's way through Congress now. I don't think it's completely dead but its got an increasingly uphill battle.

[Anonymous No.10563085]

>>10562911
>Gas venting
Its called rcs, a reaction control system, and it doesn't always have to be just venting high pressure gas, it can be anything that generates thrust. A lot of the time its a small rocket engine, sometimes its something completely different, like passing hydrogen peroxide over a heating element so it decomposes into a much higher volume of gas than the liquid it started as, giving you much better efficiency.

[Anonymous No.10563094]

>>10563085
>like passing hydrogen peroxide over a heating element
its not a heating element, its a metal catalyst like silver that causes an exothermic reaction with the hydrogen peroxide.

[Anonymous No.10563103]

>>10563094
N2O can fulfill the same role, right? Plus it doesn't decompose like hydrogen peroxide.

[Anonymous No.10563129]

>>10563094
yeah, i meant to write that as in "it heats up" but i got a bit of a brain aneurysm and wrote heating element

[Anonymous No.10563154]

>>10562936
>>10563052
Congress desperately doesn't want to give him a win because reee orangemanbad and thus any cool space appropriations other than the SLS are fucked sideways right now.

[Anonymous No.10563270]

>>10563154
>thus any cool space appropriations other than the SLS are fucked sideways right now
>implying that SLS is cool

[Anonymous No.10563281]

>>10563270
The SLS will be cool if it ever works, but I concede the point.

[Anonymous No.10563307]

>>10563281
That's true. It has alot of cool technical stuff, but the politics and management knocks it down in coolness. If SLS flies, then I'll stop giving it shit.

[Anonymous No.10563308]

>>10563281
I'd go further and say it would be cool if it actually hit it's objective, being a frankenstein Saturn V made of shuttle parts that gets a similar job done for reduced cost. As is it could be as much as double the cost of a Saturn V launch (adjusted for inflation obviously).

[Anonymous No.10563360]

>>10561630
>>10562277
>>prank radio calls
>>outright mutiny
>What was it with skylab?
It was clearly /ourstation/. It's still unmatched for a place you could screw around in zero gee. It won't be until Bigelow gets their shit together that we'll have anything comparable.

I wish I could have met the guy. Being in Texas, I've had the chance to hang out with his kid Richard a few times, but Owen seemed to be a real awesome dude.

[Anonymous No.10563378]

>>10563360
>It won't be until Bigelow gets their shit together that we'll have anything comparable.
Whats going on with them? Haven't heard from them in a while.

[Anonymous No.10563381]

>>10562464
It only fell down, not off. It's rekt, but not lost. And they can still tear it apart for performance analysis.

>>10562794
>luckily they realized they'd need more than one and started a second one right away
They would have been stupid to rely on this one coming back when the previous one didn't. Why build one when you can build two for twice the price?

[Anonymous No.10563393]

>>10563378
Nobody to launch their balloons for a few more years so what's the hurry?
They're in Nevada, right? Maybe when they do get something up it really will be blackjack and hookers in space.

[Anonymous No.10563395]

>>10563378
>Whats going on with them? Haven't heard from them in a while.
Their module on the ISS is apparently very popular with the crew and has held up well in testing.

[Anonymous No.10563402]

>>10563393
>Maybe when they do get something up it really will be blackjack and hookers in space.
Then it'll really be /ourstation/. I'd love to visit LEO Vegas.

[Anonymous No.10563485]

>>10563402
Wasn't something like that in Neuromancer? We need glittering rotational-gravity casino habs at Earth-Moon L4/L5.

[Anonymous No.10563505]

>>10563378
their owner went insane and drove off all of his employees

[Anonymous No.10563510]

>>10563485
is L1 in the Van Allen belts?

[Anonymous No.10563813]

https://twitter.com/USNorthernCmd/status/1118207607116902401

ODST soon

[Anonymous No.10563879]

>>10563813
That's a cute model Starship, where can I get one?

[Anonymous No.10563890]

>>10563879
Win a Hugo.

[Anonymous No.10563895]

>>10563879
It's not a stainless steel one though. Did Musk just take an old model with him or are we seeing a redesign once again?

[Anonymous No.10563899]

>>10563813
His suite needs more buttons

[Anonymous No.10563917]

>>10563899
he's competing against generals in buttons

[Anonymous No.10563931]

I always though ODST like drop pods could be feasable on earth. We already did propulsive landings so why not ferry troops in a modified capsule at a high angle attack using a similar system, or land supplies remotely.

I am pretty sure the falcon heavy could theoreticly land troops anywhere in the world reliably with such a system in play

[Anonymous No.10563943]

>>10563931
>I am pretty sure the falcon heavy could theoreticly land troops anywhere in the world reliably with such a system in play
IIRC the Crew Dragon capacity is seven and that can do propulsive landings. The trouble right now is that right now any sub-orbital military launch is assumed to be an ICBM so you might as well launch one anyway.

[Anonymous No.10563953]

>>10563813
That reminds me of an idea I had of making a 3D printable model of Nova Ultima. Unfortunately, my university is eating up my free time like Pac-Man on Power Pellets. Cute model of Starship, though.

[Anonymous No.10563976]

>>10563931
>attempt to orbital drop quickly
>turn troops into chunky salsa
>attempt to drop slowly enough to not JUST everyone
>get blown out of the sky by enemy AA because very fucking bright and in the open sky
Space shit will never be used for combat operations, it's gonna be a logistics and supply thing in firmly controlled areas

[Anonymous No.10564011]

>>10563917
I liked the older officer uniforms, now it looks like they're all wearing PJs; I want my generals to look like characters from Dune

[Anonymous No.10564022]

>>10564011
I think those still exist, but the Pentagon isn't pushing for them to be required in a lot of instances.

[Anonymous No.10564042]

When are we going to get pictures from the fh core carcass?

[Anonymous No.10564057]

>>10563890
Fug, ok gimme five to ten years.

[Anonymous No.10564077]

>>10563917
>Elon selling Starship to US Space Command

[Anonymous No.10564085]

>>10563813
>>10563931
I'm not an engineer so let me know if this is retarded. But I think starship could have great military applications for transporting equipment. SpaceX could develop a pretty simple landing pod that fits inside starship's chomper fairing thing that lands with parachutes and thrusters to deorbit. You could load it up with gasoline, bullets, food, humvees, tanks, whatever the military needs that fits.
You launch a few dozen and they act as a depot in space. Starship lauches it, releases payload in orbit, returns to earth. They can be serviced by starship if that's something that's necessary. Then when shit hits the fan and you need to supplies in a remote location, they deorbit and it lands within 30 minutes. That way you don't have a starship carry everything directly which would look like an ICBM. Also, you don't have to land an advanced rocket in enemy territory with no fuel.
Does this idea work or is it not feasible. IDK much about orbits to know if this could actually get anywhere on earth.

[Anonymous No.10564092]

>>10564042
as soon as it pulls into port

[Anonymous No.10564093]

>>10564077
It certainly appears that way.

[Anonymous No.10564141]

>>10564085
You'd need them to be in orbits that correspond to where they need to deorbit. Like you can't have them in a polar orbit than land in afganistan. But you could technicly do something like this as impractical as it would be for general use.

Granted I am not sure gas, or other liquids, or supplies might survive in space.

[Anonymous No.10564152]

>>10564085
It's feasible in the literal sense that it can be done, however it may not be economical. There may be a few rare cases where extreme need might require a supply drop to be nearly instantaneous but it would likely not be worth the huge expense of an orbital resupply vehicle, even if the cost is mitigated by launching with a BFRship.

[Anonymous No.10564164]

>>10564085
I doubt that orbital logistics would be a thing in the near future. Simply put, the speed at which stuff can be put into orbit is incredibly slow compared to moving stuff around on Earth.

It's like airdropped logistics during WW2. The ammount that could've been dropped via planes was small compared to what can be moved by ship or train. It was only useful for highly specialized utilities like paratroopers or when there's no other option. I imagine that it's the same case for orbit dropped logistics.

For military purposes, space is valuable because nothing on the Earth's surface can hide from satellites. The near future of space warfare will focus on controlling space for spying or communications.

[Anonymous No.10564174]

>>10564085
yes. https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/08/02/one-possible-job-for-spacexs-bfr-taking-the-air-forces-cargo-in-and-out-of-space/


>Air Force Gen. Carlton Everhart, who heads Air Mobility Command, believes it could happen within the next five to 10 years, he told reporters on August 2.
>SpaceX executives “tell me that they can go around the globe in 30 minutes with a BFR,” Everhart said, referencing the next-generation, reusable rocket under development by the company.
“Think about this. Thirty minutes, 150 metric tons, [and] less than the cost of a C-5,” he continued. In comparison, it would take the service’s cargo aircraft take anywhere from eight to 10 hours to get to the other side of the world.
>“I said, I need to get me some of that. How do I do that?” he said. “So we’re looking at partnering with them. We’re looking at partnering with anyone in industry. […] I want to get to any part of the industry, whether that’s vertical lift, or horizontal to vertical and then back down, so I can get around the globe the quickest [and] to be able to, like you say, affect that adversary.”
>“The concept of how this works? I want industry to do it,” he said. “They will come up with innovative ways and they won’t be encumbered with a long acquisition process. They’ll do it in the speed of war that I need. The question is, how do I incentivize them? I incentivize them by [contracts for] carrying
>“I’m willing to stick anything up there,” he said, although hardware and materiel that could survive in space are the most obvious options.

[Anonymous No.10564256]

>>10564174
>“I’m willing to stick anything up there,” he said

[Anonymous No.10564383]

>>10563395
>apparently very popular with the crew
Why? It’s a glorified space closet. Do they use it as their personal fap station now?

[Anonymous No.10564393]

>>10564383
>YWN have a personal fap station in space

[Anonymous No.10564408]

>>10564383
I'd be pretty enamored with one of the most impact/puncture resistant modules if I had to live in space too.

[Anonymous No.10564440]

>>10564408
Let me guess. Some kind of aramid fibers ?

[Anonymous No.10564446]

>>10564383
>Why? It’s a glorified space closet.
Any amount of extra space matters when you're living in tin cans for months at a time.

[Anonymous No.10564455]

>>10564440
Yep, and their claim for the B330 is that it will be around 1/3rd more heavily shielded from puncture and radiation compared to only being 1/4th heavier than your average aluminum can module, while obviously also having much greater usable pressurized volume while using launch systems of a similar size.

[Anonymous No.10564541]

>>10563510
not even close

[Anonymous No.10564543]

>>10564541
nice

[Anonymous No.10564613]

What do you guys think about gas generator turbines powered by non-main engine(s) propellants? This is what the Soyuz rocket uses.

I'm looking for a way to feed a rocket engine that's one "step" above pressure feeding in terms of complexity.

[Anonymous No.10564615]

>>10564613
I think it's very silly

[Anonymous No.10564633]

>>10564615
How so? Is it because it adds another propellant that's needed to be kept track of?

It does have an advantage of being engine propellant agnostic. If the design of the rocket engine changes to a different propellent, then the turbine wouldn't be affected other than perhaps the ammount of power it needs to supply.

[Anonymous No.10564641]

>>10564613
Wasteful unless for some reason it's an absolute design necessity. Using a gas turbine is using up a few % (usually in the ballpart of 1-2%) of your propellant mass flow, plus the weight of the turbine increases the overall weight and complexity of your engine thus reducing it's TWR, especially because the bigger the rocket the sturdier the turbine has to be to deal with that couple % of mass flow and sturdier turbines have to be heavier generally speaking. That being said other systems have some significant problems, pressure fed rockets always have another non-primary pressurant tank which takes up space and mass.
>>10564633
>Because it adds another propellant that's needed to be kept track of.
Exactly, this would have the downsides of both a gas generator rocket and a pressure fed rocket, you get the extra engine weight of a preburner, gas turbine, and gas turbine powered turbopumps and also reduced propellant capacity and increased weight of carrying a third propellant tank type that isn't directly involved with primary engine firing.

[Anonymous No.10564651]

>>10564641
Thank you. I was considering it because rocket engine development history seems to have went...

Pressure fed > Turbopumps powered by separate propellant > Turbopumps powered by main propellants

Which led me to thinking that separate propellant turbos were somehow simpler than "regular" gas generator turbos.

Would a turbo powered by main propellants be the "next step up" in complexity from pressure feeding?

[Anonymous No.10564661]

>>10564633
>then the turbine wouldn't be affected other than perhaps the ammount of power it needs to supply.
Except gas generators are notoriously hard to throttle, even moreso than main combustion chambers.
I personally think you should just go for a pressure fed design, three tanks to deal with and three valves if you want to stay as simple as possible. One valve opens to allow high pressure nitrogen to flow through a line that splits and feeds into an oxidizer tank and a fuel tank. Once at pressure the propellant valves open and the liquids spray into the combustion chamber. A small solid rocket motor inside the combustion chamber is electronically fired to ignite the propellants (assuming you're not using hypergolics) and the main engine starts up, the chamber pressure increases, and stabilizes at some fraction of the propellant tank pressure. For throttling you choke off the propellant flow using the main valves. It'd be hard to blow up your engine unless it burned through because the maximum pressure of the entire system would be inside the nitrogen tank just before the start up sequence, so unless there was a shitty weld somewhere the tanks should hold.

[Anonymous No.10564662]

>>10564651
Pressure fed is the simplest outside of using solid propellants (undesirable because they're pricey on the front end to manufacture and very inefficient), then you're right, you've got main propellant fed turbopumps, IE your main propellants ignite first in a preburner which then powers up a large turbine that transfers it's energy to the turbopumps which send fuel and propellant to the main engine. A gas generator fed rocket running on a third propellant would add more piping to an already complicated system and another tank to the body of the rocket which would take up it's internal volume. You wouldn't get anything in return because the gas generator cycle can already be done just using your normal propellant.

[Anonymous No.10564682]

>>10564661
>I personally think you should just go for a pressure fed design, three tanks to deal with and three valves if you want to stay as simple as possible.
I'm currently planning around pressure feeding but I'm getting negative payloads unless I use materials for the tanks that I'm not comfortable using. Then again, perhaps I'm making the rocket too big. Thank you for your input.

By the way. You mentioned using nitrogen as the pressurant. Is there an advantage to using nitrogen over helium? I'm using helium because it makes the pressurant tank lightweight.

>>10564662
Thank you. I guess I'll stick to pressure feeding. I wasn't really stoked for turbopumps anyways. I personally know how much of a pain they are.

[Anonymous No.10564709]

>>10564682
because helium costs approximately a bajillion dollars

[Anonymous No.10564718]

>>10564682
Nitrogen is denser, you can fit more of it into smaller tanks, and it's cheaper so it will reduce the per-launch cost of your rocket.

[Anonymous No.10564746]

>>10564682
The helium pressurant on Falcon 9 costs more than the entire rest of the propellant load including the TEA-TEB igniter fluid combined, and Falcon 9 isn't even a pressure fed rocket. Also, not only is it expensive to buy helium, it's also pretty hard to find in any significant amount, whereas nitrogen is absolutely dirt cheap and is also sold all over the place. If you're concerned about over-pressurizing your rocket propellant tanks and blowing them up, just add a set of check valves rated to open at a pressure lower than what you're uncomfortable having them reach.

[Anonymous No.10564777]

>>10564709
>>10564718
>>10564746
Thank you all! I'll work out the recalculations later. Hopefully it should work. You were all very helpful.

[Anonymous No.10564778]

>>10564746
Helium is used as a tank pressurant because Nitrogen can diffuse into the LOX, and with how cold SpaceX keeps their LOX that gaseous nitrogen will condense to liquid nitrogen, and the last thing any of the engines need is a nitrogen bubble getting sucked through.
Helium, for its cost, doesn't have this issue.

[Anonymous No.10564829]

>>10562931
Specifically pulsars since they're bright, relatively stable, and significantly rare.

[Anonymous No.10564835]

>>10564778
What if I use N2O instead of Lox?

[Anonymous No.10564838]

>>10564835
you lose ISP.

[Anonymous No.10564847]

A

CAR

IN

SPACE

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.10564859]

>>10564838
Yes, but N2O is cheaper and easier to store than LOx which is aligned with my goals with this rocket.

[Anonymous No.10564864]

>>10564778
Yes, but again, if you're doing a homemade rocket on a budget within reach of a single person, you aren't using helium.
>>10564835
You have a safer, easier to handle propellant that is less likely to turn things like shop rags and grease stains into high explosives, and which does not come with the headaches associated with trying to handle cryogenic liquid. You lose Isp, but you weren't going to get great Isp anyway by the nature of the vehicle.

[Anonymous No.10564877]

>>10564847
You're right, he should totally have used a statue of Adolf Hitler of similar size and mass.

[Anonymous No.10564882]

>>10564859
I think you're making the correct choice here.
What is your current fuel choice? Gasoline is certainly the most readily available in bulk, is easy to store and handle, and is actually decently efficient as fuels go. It may be difficult to ignite however. Another quite readily available option would be propane, which due to the fact it can be stored as a liquid under pressure at regular temperatures would make it only somewhat more tricky to work with than gasoline. You'd also have the option to do autogenous pressurization in that case, or even to pressurize it using a bottle of high pressure natural gas instead of propane to avoid contaminating the fuel with anything that would retard the reaction. Now that I think about it I don't see why you couldn't pressurize your N2O tank with oxygen either, provided N2O under a pressurized pure oxygen atmosphere doesn't undergo some kind of violently exothermic decomposition or anything.

[Anonymous No.10564897]

>>10564847
Ok, now this is epic

[Anonymous No.10564909]

>>10564882
>What is your current fuel choice?
Propane because it seemed to be the easiest to get.

However, what's making be second guess the fuel and oxidizer is that due to the low chamber pressure of the engine (necessitated by the pressure feeding) that both will most likely change phases from liquid to gas as they pass through the injector.

In theory, this would make the mixing better, but it's much harder to model and everyone I have asked about this pretty much just told me "Very complicated things happen, it's best to avoid it"

>[Gasoline] It may be difficult to ignite however
How so?

>You'd also have the option to do autogenous pressurization
Will that work with a pressure feeding rocket? I thought that the pressures you get from autogenous pressurization wouldn't be enough?

As for using other gasses for pressurization, I think I'll just keep things simple as use one gas for both.

Thank you though. I rarely get to talk to people about this.

[Anonymous No.10564933]

>>10564835
N2O is much easier to get down to liquid temperatures but you'll lose ISP compared to pure LOX, it is cheaper though and I've seen it favored by "amateur" rocketeers.

[Anonymous No.10564946]

>>”amateur" rocketeers

[Anonymous No.10564948]

>>10564909
Gasoline is actually relatively non-volatile while still a liquid and demands 495f temperatures to ignite.

[Anonymous No.10564964]

>>10564948
>Gasoline is actually relatively non-volatile while still a liquid and demands 495f temperatures to ignite.

According to Ignition!, it also has comparable performance to methane.

[Anonymous No.10564984]

>>10564948
Unfortunately I can't get data on the exhaust properties of Gasoline+N2O at varying chamber pressures. I can get it for Octane+N2O, but not Gasoline.

[Anonymous No.10564989]

>>10564984
Isn't gasoline just octane plus impurities?

[Anonymous No.10564999]

>>10564984
Also somewhat heading to the fringes of "off topic" for /sg/, but what's a good material for the propellant tanks of a pressure fed rocket?

I was modeling for some type of Al-7075, but then I remembered that it's a poor metal to weld. So I changed to Al-6061, and my payload amount is back in the negatives, sadly.

[Anonymous No.10565009]

>>10564989
Yes, but I get my combustion data from a free version of Rocket Propulsion Analysis and it doesn't do impurities, just pure Octane (or rather pure whatever it has in it's database, it can't do mixtures until I purchase the full version).

[Anonymous No.10565033]

>>10564999
That's nowhere near off topic my dude, your project is great for this thread and I think I can speak for all other involved anons when I say it's great to discuss your project.
Here's a paper from northrop discussing what I'm fairly certain is a pressurant tank design, now they use titanium-aluminum-vanadium alloy but you may be able to learn something else useful from it, I'll look for other stuff.
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/PropellantTanks/Documents/technicalPapers/AIAA2007-5559.pdf

[Anonymous No.10565035]

>>10565033
>chrome extension
NIGGER

[Anonymous No.10565038]

>>10565033
Thank you! It's fun to discuss this too! Also thank you for the paper.

>oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm
Gesundheit

[Anonymous No.10565053]

>>10565035
Sorry buddy, I don't use Chrome so I don't know why it does that but if I link any other stuff I'll make sure to snip that part off.

[Anonymous No.10565055]

>>10565053
>I don't use Chrome
Yeah you do. You might think you don't, but you do. Your browser is pretty clearly just a Chromium reskin.

[Anonymous No.10565067]

>>10564174
>I'm willing to stick anything up there
Elon:

[Anonymous No.10565072]

>>10565067
Da?

[Anonymous No.10565089]

>>10565038
Here's one from NASA, discussing Aluminum-Lithium 2195, I doubt it would be easy to procure any of it both other conventional aluminum alloys might be another avenue to think about.
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/382034main_018%20-%2020090706.05.Analysis_of_Propellant_Tank_Masses.pdf
>>10565055
I use Brave, no idea if it's a chrome reskin or not, but it blocks adds and dramatically speeds up my searching compared to chrome, don't worry though I'll be sure to strip the chrome extensions off of any other links I post, fuck those faggots.

[Anonymous No.10565091]

>>10565089
>I use Brave, no idea if it's a chrome reskin or not,
It is.

[Anonymous No.10565103]

>>10565089
>>10565091
Right now, if you aren't using Firefox or Safari (lol), you're pretty much guaranteed to be using a chromium derivative.

[Anonymous No.10565113]

>>10562453
Recovering conspiracy theorist here, now trying to actually firsthand understand the domains I previously looked to conspiracy outlets to explain the nature of to me. Can you guys please tell me how I can become familiar with the way science is conducted in the world? Something like outer space, for example, which I as a civilian am incapable of viewing. I no longer want to live believing in such narratives as I have, but I simultaneously feel distrust for our ruling authorities and am not sure to what I can believe of what they tell us. This applies to politics, science, and anything else, really. Nothing personal against science. Something like the Tesla spacewalk, pictured in OP. I mean, it looked like absolute baloney. A total joke. Something that would be used by a deceptive group who laughs at how gullible the masses subjected under them are. Similarly so when I watch NASA footage of being inside the ISS, and the whole thing seeming like a giant prank on the audience watching, which all the actors there can hardly contain their laughter for. Yet I don't want to be a Flat Earther anymore, I want to know as much as I can know from my own mind. When I see images of planets, for example, and observe them to seem highly-CGI'd, what do I do? Do I simply trust that they needed to be touched up on computers, and their raw data simply not enough to make a great image?

Please don't be rude to me. Help me become like you. I want to believe in outer space, planets, galaxies, black holes and so forth. But my silly brain is drawn to conspiracies in other sectors, and it unfortunately affects me in my scientific understandings too.

[Anonymous No.10565124]

>>10565038
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/854131.pdf
In this one they're using maraging steel and 1100-0 aluminum, steel shell around an aluminum tank.

[Anonymous No.10565132]

>>10565124
>>10565089
Thank you. I definately have more than enough reading material for tonight. Hahaha!

[Anonymous No.10565143]

>>10565113
Good on you for actively seeking out information anon, I'd say as good a start as any would simply be to read and understand the basics of the scientific method, upon which all good hard science is based. Knowing it and what it means alone will allow you to sift good information from either very new or untrustworthy information by analysis of how it was gathered. I'd imagine ISS crew are happy and energetic not because they're in on some big joke but because they're some of the luckiest fucks who ever drew breath, not only were they lucky enough to be born in countries with good space programs but they also were bright enough and dedicated enough to be some of the few hundreds of humans to ever be shot into space, a distinction very few other people can claim right now. As to images of planets, many of them are composited (pieced together from a very large number of smaller high definition images) or do have to compensate for things like starlight and sunlight which are much more intense in space than here on Earf, for example one of the reasons you often can't see the stars in space images of Earth is because if you exposed the camera for long enough that the faint starlight becomes visible than the image of Earth would become highly overexposed (bright, indistinct, and washed out) because Earth's light at that distance is much greater than that of the stars.

As I said though, before you ask too many specific questions I'd suggest starting with the scientific method, who created it, what it's used for in real life, how to identify correct vs incorrect uses of scientific methodology. Once you understand what science actually IS, then you can start examining individual pieces of it to better understand each of them.

[Anonymous No.10565144]

>>10565113
OPs pic wasnt a spacewalk, it was just a dummy in a suit.
Normally for a first launch they would just use a big block of concrete to simulate the weight of a payload, but a dummy in a convertible is way better for marketing. Especially when you also own the car company, two for one.

[Anonymous No.10565159]

>>10565144
it also demonstrated a S2 refire after an 8hr coast, which fulfilled an airforce requirement for something or another

[Anonymous No.10565173]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nEhPuG172Q

[Anonymous No.10565192]

>>10564909
>I thought that the pressures you get from autogenous pressurization wouldn't be enough?
Depends on how much of your propellant you're willing to recycle back into pressurant gasses, and how large of a heat exchanger you're willing to use. However, in your case it may be better to wrap a smaller tank of liquid propellant aroudn the combustion chamber/nozzle and have that liquid be boiled by the reaction within and vented into the main propellant tanks, rather than have a more complicated propellant loop in which 90% of the propellants go into the combustion chamber and the remaining 10% are shunted over to the heat exchanger where they are boiled and vented back up into the main tanks (important to note that the entire system would be at pretty much constant pressure here except for the combustion chamber which would be slightly lower, and the pressurant gasses are only being produces at a rate that replaces the lost volume of liquid propellants, because any faster and the liquid would be pushed back away from the heat exchanger and thus would stop being boiled).
Autogenous pressurization was just an interesting tidbit to point out but would probably represent too much of a complication for your purposes and realistically doesn't offer much in the way of performance improvement.

[Anonymous No.10565194]

[Anonymous No.10565196]

>>10564984
That's because gasoline is a rather poorly defined mixture of hydrocarbons of an average length. Using octane as your baseline is a good idea, because whatever range of hydrocarbon your gasoline is made from they'll most likely average out pretty close to hose numbers.

[Anonymous No.10565202]

>>10564999
Why not do the numbers for regular old mild steel? Pick a thickness and a tank size and rejigger the numbers until it works.

[Anonymous No.10565219]

>>10565113
Honselty I suggest you buy a decent pair of binoculars or, better yet, a ~$500 telescope if you can afford one, and get an app for your phone that tells you where planets are in the sky, then go looking for them on clear nights. If you live in the city, plan a trip somewhere far from the city on a weekend sometime and bring your binoculars/telescope. You will be able to easily see Jupiter's moons at the very least, Saturn's rings and biggest moon Titan, details on the Moon's surface impossible to see with the naked eye that make it apparent it's just a rocky sphere in space, and so on. You may even be able to make out the color bands in Jupiter's atmosphere, or the crescent of Venus. You can also just lay on your back (I recommend a lawn chair) and watch the sky for satellites passing overhead; there are more of them than you may think, and they clearly move WAY too fast to be aircraft. I think if you just go out there and observe by yourself on your own time with a few simple tools you'll be amazed at what you find.

[Anonymous No.10565220]

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

[Anonymous No.10565225]

>>10565192
Thank you for the information. I may look into this later. But for now I'm sticking to nitrogen pressurants.

>>10565196
Really? If that's the case, then I can easily get the combustion data for that.

>>10565202
Sadly for SAE 304, I still get negative payload. The best I've gotten was using Al-7075, but I don't think tanks are made from that due to being a bad metal to weld.

I'm not well versed in material science, so maybe there are better materials?

[Anonymous No.10565241]

>>10565219
Thanks a lot for your advice. I don't have the money for a telescope but at the very least I'll try to obtain some binoculars, and see the planets with my own eyes. This might sound stupid, but do you know what the deal with other planets are - I mean, why do they exist at all? Sorry if this sounds stupid to ask, but I just don't understand how they came to be there, and how they could be so different from our own Earth? Can you explain what Saturn is for, and whether the hexagon storm at its pole has any significance like the conspiracy community interprets it?

>>10565143
Thanks a lot for you answers. These were very good explanations.

>>10565144
So it wasn't done in outer space?

[Anonymous No.10565271]

>>10565241
>Thanks a lot for your advice. I don't have the money for a telescope but at the very least I'll try to obtain some binoculars, and see the planets with my own eyes. This might sound stupid, but do you know what the deal with other planets are - I mean, why do they exist at all? Sorry if this sounds stupid to ask, but I just don't understand how they came to be there, and how they could be so different from our own Earth? Can you explain what Saturn is for, and whether the hexagon storm at its pole has any significance like the conspiracy community interprets it?

There is no known answer to the question of "why;" most things simply just seem to be here because happenstance favored their creation.

In a less metapysical sense, when the Solar System began to coagulate out of the debris of previous generations of exploded stars and space dust, the system eventually developed into the one we see because of the force of gravity.

Saturn isn't "for" anything; it simply is. It's a large planet, made mostly of hydrogen and helium. The hexagon is a product of the way temperature and density affects flowing gasses. The way these systems change over time is so complex that there is no simple way of evaluating them. Figuring out how to do a better job simulating turbulent dynamics of fluids and gasses is on the cutting edge of simulation research, and no easy answers are forthcoming.

As far as hexagons go, imagine a bunch of circles. If you wanted to squeeze a bunch of circles tightly together but without overlapping them, while also allowing them to get squished and modified by the other surrounding circles equally, you'll end up with hexagons.

The Scientific Method's power is in being able to evaluate and determine how things work, and why they work, in exhausting detail. It does not exist to tell you why things should be a certain way, nor can it do so. It is very tempting to use Divinity to fill in those gaps, but the result of that is a "god of the gaps."

[Anonymous No.10565314]

So for those who care, I've changed my propellant choice from nitrous oxide and propane to nitrous oxide and gasoline (or rather octane). Because it allows the rocket to carry 10% more payload. However, I still have issues with the dry mass of the tanks resulting in my payloads being negative so I had to resort to a "fictional" tank material called COPV. It's supposed to be a thin aluminum tank wrapped in carbon fiber, however since COPVs are complicated things to model for an Excel spreadsheet I just used a very simplified model.

[Anonymous No.10565327]

>>10565314
use labview to control it all for maximum JANK

[Anonymous No.10565330]

>>10565241
Science can tell us a lot about the "how" but the grand "purpose" of things is something the tool is not well suited to. I mean it can tell you the purpose of an organ in the context of a living thing or the purpose of an evolutionary adaptation in the context of a creature's interaction with it's environment, but so far as the scientific method is concerned there is no overarching grand purpose to all of it existing, it was never intended to determine that kind of thing. It would be like trying to fix twenty different construction problems with just a hammer, a hammer is great at banging in or pulling out nails but it's not well suited to other tasks outside of it's scope. Also you can get telescopes sufficient to let you see planets like Jupiter and Saturn for less than $500, you can get ones with sufficient power to see it for half that or in the 300's range, and much cheaper if you just want to start by observing the moon. If you ever do buy a 'scope make sure to leave it out for a while before using it, so it adjusts to the ambient air temperature as this can affect the lenses, and greater magnification is not always better. Saturn may be out of reach unless you're willing to save a lot and learn a lot to operate a bigger and more powerful scope though, due to it being massively further away from Earth compared to Jupiter.

[Anonymous No.10565353]

>>10565314
https://steelheadcomposites.com/services/#design
These guys might be able to do something for you, I found them just doing a quick search for COPV tanks. They say on the site that they can do composite wrapped metal tanks including aluminum, steel, and titaniums as well as composite wrapped plastic which obviously would be useless for LOX but might be usable to store your gasoline and thus reduce the weight further by doing away with some of the weight of your non-cryogenic tank.

[Anonymous No.10565364]

>>10565353
Thank you! I didn't seriously consider COPV's because I thought that they would be too specialized and thus too expensive. I only had it because it was the only non-exotic material that I could think of that would make the tanks strong and light.

[Anonymous No.10565373]

>>10565364
It probably would have been not too long ago, but such an obviously useful application as low weight high strength pressure vessels can make a niche technology mainstream pretty quick. Think of all the different things that need high pressure gas or liquid to get stuff done, and how much money is spent on lugging the pressure vessels around, and how much gas money could be saved just because the things weigh only 20-25% what they used to. Heck even space is becoming at least a little more mainstream with smaller and smaller companies putting things into orbit and the need for stuff exactly like propellant tanks which must be low weight and high strength but also can't be made out of meme alloys due to cost constraints.

[Anonymous No.10565377]

>>10565241
>So it wasn't done in outer space?
It was done in outer space, however the suit did not contain any person inside, instead it was stuffed with a dummy loaded with sensors to monitor the suit's performance. The reason the dummy was launched inside of a car was because, well, Elon wants space travel to be seen as more exciting and fun than it has been so far, and that all kinds of things are possible, not just the things we've already accomplished. The purpose of the launch was to test the launch vehicle itself, the payload didn't matter. The reason they chose a fun and interesting payload was to make the launch more fun and interesting to the general public.

[Anonymous No.10565393]

>>10565373
Thank you again!

A problem with COPV's I'm having now is that I can't find any good average properties. I know that they can be very varied, but for this kind of modeling I just need average (or even pessimistic) properties.

I've been using an ultimate strength of 1000 MPa and a density of 2400 kg/m3, does that seem reasonable?

[Anonymous No.10565396]

>>10565241
>I mean, why do they exist at all?
The other planets in our solar system formed the same way our own did, through matter orbiting the Sun becoming stuck together in larger and larger clumps until their collective gravity collapsed the biggest lumps into planet sized objects, which continued to gather more material and grow larger. Jupiter had by far the lion's share of material around as it formed, which is why it grew to be the biggest planet. The reason all the planets are very different is because they are all different masses, and all have at least slightly different compositions. The gas giant planets formed far enough away from the Sun that there was still a lot of light material like hydrogen and water vapor around that hadn't been pushed away by the solar wind yet, which is why today they're made mostly of those light materials. On the other hand Mercury formed so close to the Sun that only very dense materials were around, like iron oxides, which is why Mercury is heavy for its size and has very little water and other light materials. Venus and Mars started off with very similar materials as Earth, but Venus was too close to the Sun and got too warm for its water to stay liquid, which meant it eventually boiled off and was blown away by solar wind as it reached the upper atmosphere. Mars on the other hand was too small, and slowly lost its entire atmosphere and most of its water over time, and today only has a tiny bit of dry atmosphere leftover.

Pic related shows a handful of disks we've discovered around other stars, which resemble pretty much exactly what we predicted a planet-forming disk should look like. The pictures are taken in infrared light, so you're essentially seeing warm dust around young stars, and every gap in the disk is an area swept clean by a young planet still forming right now. New stars with new solar systems are forming all the time!

[Anonymous No.10565398]

>>10565393
>a density of 2400 kg/m3
Whoa wait, 2.4 tons per square meter? Are you talking about tank wall mass or the amount of force pressing on the walls? If the former, how did you arrive at such a massive number?

[Anonymous No.10565400]

>>10565398
That's about 3.41 pounds per square inch, my dude.

[Anonymous No.10565405]

>>10565398
>Whoa wait, 2.4 tons per square meter?
2.4 tons per cubic meter.

>how did you arrive at such a massive number?
Originally I just took the average between the density of aluminum and the density of carbon fiber, but I wanted to be pessimistic (I really hate it when rocket designers get very optimistic about rocket properties) so I took that averaged result and averaged it with the density of aluminum again.

I know, it's not very exact and scientific, but I wanted to make absolutely sure that my rocket can work in theory.

[Anonymous No.10565409]

>>10565393
Well the standard pressures the steelhead guys quote is up to 700 bar (10k psi, 70MPa), looking at tanks like the shuttle LOX tank indicates that they're operating in the 200-300kPa range, nowhere even remotely near to 1000MPa. Generally a pressure feed tank only has to exceed combustion chamber pressure sufficiently to give you the necessary mass flow rate. A-anon are you building a rocket with a chamber pressure of many hundreds of MPa? Are you about to turn every rocket company on the planet into oldspace?

[Anonymous No.10565416]

>>10565409
>A-anon are you building a rocket with a chamber pressure of many hundreds of MPa?
No, it fluctuates but its between 10 and 30 atmospheres of pressure. I assumed that the propellant tanks need to be at least twice the pressure of the combustion chamber in order to produce a good pressure gradient (and the nitrogen tank is assumed to be needing 8 times the pressure of the propellant tanks, but that's mainly so that as much gas is packed as possible). But I needs the ultimate tensile strength in order to calculate the wall thickness which in turn is used to calculate the mass of the tanks.

>Are you about to turn every rocket company on the planet into oldspace?
I wish.

[Anonymous No.10565419]

>>10565416
>No, it fluctuates but its between 10 and 30 atmospheres of pressure.
I should specify, that the designed chamber pressure fluctuates depending on other design parameters which are constantly changing at this phase. Not that the chamber pressure is designed to actively change.

[Anonymous No.10565427]

>>10565419
Ok, let's assume your chamber pressure is 30 bar then (30 atmospheres), a bar is 1/10 of a MPa, so assuming your pressurant tank must be 8x the pressure of your chamber you're talking 240 bar or 24MPa, and if you want your propellant tanks to be double your chamber pressure then they'll be at 60 bar or 6MPa, far within the tolerances of the steelhead tanks. Their second weakest COPV tank rating can deal with your highest pressure need, and the weakest tank would be way more than enough for your propellant tanks, you'd probably have to specify (assuming you were to just order these tanks to your specs) that the propellant tanks be built to less strenuous pressure needs just to save weight on them. You can greatly reduce the strength requirement for your calculations.

[Anonymous No.10565441]

>>10565427
Thank you. I'll revisit the tank modeling. I'd rather have a way to model it on my spreadsheet so I can do design iterations more quickly.

I'm going to bed. Goodnight, /sg/. And thank you all for your input, it was very helpful.

[Anonymous No.10565447]

>>10565405
>2.4 tons per cubic meter.
That's waaayyy too much. Either you're trying to make a 100 bar pressure fed engine or you're making a math error somewhere. You realize multiple pressure fed engines capable of lifting themselves off the ground and flying for several minutes at a time already exist, right?

Your vehicle should look something like pic related to be reasonable.

[Anonymous No.10565475]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv8pBb_XI7c

[Anonymous No.10565494]

janny why are deleting my post? I'm trying to make a point. that is /sci /related.

[Anonymous No.10565505]

HOP WHEN

[Anonymous No.10565507]

>>10565494
FUCK

JANNIES

[Anonymous No.10565510]

>>10565505
sending a grain storage container to space is embarrassing though.

[Anonymous No.10565513]

>>10565507
agreed. Jannies need to realize where they are.

[Anonymous No.10565541]

>>10565241
Well the big bang theory states that the universe was once in a single point with all the matter and energy in that one massive point. 13.8 billion years ago, the universe then started expanding and everything ever since has been one big physics experiment. The bigger the universe got, the less mass and energy you had, so really fast subatomic particles eventually got cold enough to bind into light atoms. Gravity pulled these atoms together into the first stars. Those fused hydrogen and helium into all the other stuff there is. Eventually those stars exploded and spewed their contents into the universe. A bunch of atoms of all flavors start drifting through space. They mix with the stuff that hadn‘t made it into suns yet and dust from ever more new and exploding suns. Fast forward a couple billion years of gravity and stuff binds together again into new suns and planets. This time some actually consist of rocks and metals. Others remain as gas giants and are still just balls of mostly hydrogen and helium and a bunch of other stuff. Also the sun is still mostly hydrogen and helium. So rocks and metal are rare.
Anyway, rolling the dice with billions of rocky planets, eventually a couple of sixes had to come up. Random events made life emerge from chemical processes and the theory of evolution did the rest. Now we can wonder about how unlikely it is for us to be here and how well suited earth is to our needs, but without considering how it didn‘t work out on billions of other planets turns that on its head. We can only exist on a freak planet that‘s suited to us to an uncanny degree. And the universe rolled often enough that it had to happen somewhere.
Now there are problems. Looking before the big bang is impossible. There‘s no looking before everything was one. So we‘ll never know that. Also why and how the universe expands is just called Dark Energy. Also there‘s more in galaxies than we can see, Dark Matter. But we‘ll figure it out

[Anonymous No.10565545]

>>10565541
As to where big bang theory comes from: We see everything in the universe drifting apart. Reversing that gives you everything in one point.

[Anonymous No.10565560]

>>10565545
You shouldn't pay too much attention to people trying to answer the questions "where did the big bang come from" and "what is the fate of the universe?" There's no actual answer yet because the data about the universe and the theoretical tools to analyze it do not exist yet.

A surprisingly good, high level, super-tl;dr explanation can be found in Bill Wurtz' "the history of the entire world I guess."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs

[Anonymous No.10565574]

If rocket building Anon isn't back by next thread I'll repost this, but if this chart http://www.strout.net/info/science/delta-v/intro.html is correct if he can actually get his chamber pressure up over 30 bar (34+) gaseous oxygen/gasoline seems to be his best bet and will get him in the range of 279s of Isp. Assuming he can pull this off unfortunately (Using approximate wet and dry mass of the Electron rocket which carries a similar payload) it is literally impossible for Anon to reach LEO (minimum necessary 8.6km/s dV), as a GOX/Gas rocket seems to hang in the range of about 6.4km/s. Slashing that weight to 1/4th that of Electron can get it up to 7.4km/s, still not there but quite high.

[Anonymous No.10565593]

>>10565574
This hypothetical rocket, assuming it's one fourth the size of electron should be generating about 1/4th the thrust, or about 40kN, which could be done with 10 engines slightly larger and about .5kN more powerful than the engines shown in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv8pBb_XI7c

[Anonymous No.10565609]

I'm looking for a good online source for astronomy related topics, any good ones?

Is Brilliant.com worth it or do I just stick to wiki?

[Anonymous No.10565631]

>>10565609
Pls gib milkies

[Anonymous No.10565649]

>Got issued a warning for posting fuck jannies

FUCK

U

C

K

JANNIES

A

N

N

I

E

S

[Anonymous No.10565665]

>>10565631
Based spaceflight post

[Anonymous No.10565671]

>>10565649
How does that happen? I've posted fuck jannies and fuck niggers countless times and ive never gotten a warning.

[Anonymous No.10565683]

>>10565665
Can you imagine those tiddies in 0G?

[Anonymous No.10565690]

>>10565671
Because jannies are butthurt fags that no one likes them are are starting to get real upset. I would have screenshot for the lads but I am phonefagging atm.

[Anonymous No.10565705]

>>10565683
Phat 0g tiddies

[Anonymous No.10565723]

>>10564999
>I was modeling for some type of Al-7075, but then I remembered that it's a poor metal to weld.
Kinda famous for it, apparently.
https://hackaday.com/2019/04/15/nanoparticles-make-mega-difference-for-unweldable-aluminum/

[Anonymous No.10565733]

>>10565593
>>10565574
OP is not talking about SSTO here, there's no way anyone with enough brains to actually do any calculations would think a pressure fed N2O-C3H8 rocket could do SSTO. At most we're talking about a suborbital vehicle here.

[Anonymous No.10565755]

Yet again nature shows how reusability is a meme that doesn't work and is also hazardous.

[Anonymous No.10565765]

>>10565755
Everyone knows asteroids are the only way to re enter reliably.

[Anonymous No.10565769]

>>10565271
>he hexagon is a product of the way temperature and density affects flowing gasses.
It's actually a result of the rotation. You can take a 5 gallon bucket with a few inches of liquid, and if you spin it fast enough, you'll get a hexagon in it.

[Anonymous No.10565776]

>>10565769
That sounds like bullshit, pretty sure you will just get half of that few inches centrifuged up the sides. If you have a video I would like to see it though.

[Anonymous No.10565788]

>>10565776
Nah, I saw that a couple of years before Saturn's hexagon became famous. And if you spin faster, it gets more sides.

[Anonymous No.10565790]

>>10565705

[Anonymous No.10565796]

>ANOTHER warning for posting fuck jannies

Kek can't even ban me cucks?

F U C K


J A N N I E S

[Anonymous No.10565801]

>>10565796
what is their problem with these breads anyway? I baked for a bit and didn't get into any trouble...

[Anonymous No.10565805]

>>10565776
Or you could just look on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn's_hexagon#Explanations_for_hexagon_shape
>Similar regular shapes were created in the laboratory when a circular tank of liquid was rotated at different speeds at its centre and periphery. The most common shape was six sided, but shapes with three to eight sides were also produced. The shapes form in an area of turbulent flow between the two different rotating fluid bodies with dissimilar speeds

[Anonymous No.10565809]

>>10565801
Yep jannies love to impose bullshit on anons for calling them out, meanwhile that one fag has been posting garbage shitposts to the tune of hundreds of posts a thread for literally months with 0 penalty whatsoever.

F U C K

J A N N I E S

DO YOUR FUCKING JOB

[Anonymous No.10565818]

>>10565809
Why don't you go shitpost over in that thread then, mmmmkay?

[Anonymous No.10565822]

>>10565818
I'll post wherever the fuck I feel like since faggot jannies are not enforcing their own fucking rules.

[Anonymous No.10565823]

*ahem*

Fuck jannies.

>doing it for free

[Anonymous No.10565826]

>>10565823
>*Ting ting ting*
>Ahem

[Anonymous No.10565849]

The shitposts seem to remain, but was anything of value lost in the rampage?

And what happened with the center core? Read some pilots mentioned its mostly intact and fallen over on the barge.

[Anonymous No.10565899]

>>10565609
Fuck jannies

[Anonymous No.10565981]

Hey sg.
I wanna do rockets. Where go? What do? What know?

[Anonymous No.10566327]

>>10565574
>>10565593
Thank you for the information. However, I'm not making a rocket that could get to orbit (maybe I should've said that earlier). I'd have the idea that I could design a "Karman Line Jumper" which would serve as a base for a first stage design for a rocket that would send something to orbit, but I have since scaled back my ambitions. My deltaV budget is 2420 m/s.

While GOx is a better oxidizer than N2O(L), it has a poor density comparatively. 1.249 g/L for GOx versus 1220 g/L for N2O(L). The higher density of N2O allows for a smaller tank and thus less dry mass.

>>10565733
Its N2O+C8H18 now. Gasoline (C8H18, rather it's iso-octane) is easier to get and store, and it offers better performance than propane.

[Anonymous No.10566352]

https://primeunicornindex.com/unicorn-brief/mars-is-getting-closer-as-spacex-lands-another-500-million/

fuck One Web
fuck Softbank
fuck Russia
and most importantly
fuck oldspace

[Anonymous No.10566395]

>>10565541
>the universe was once in a single point
That's not really it.
It states that the Observable Universe was once very dense.
If the Universe is infinite, then it was still infinite but very dense, back then.
Actual data stops before a singularity, so we can't really tell if that was how it started.

[Anonymous No.10566506]

Daily reminder that escape velocity is a meme. Just build a spaceplane.

[Anonymous No.10566547]

>>10565113
well it wasn't a spacewalk, it was a manequin in a spacesuit sitting in a car in space
the car and the spacesuit were real
the rocket was real

[Anonymous No.10566587]

>>10565314
>>10565364
if your propellants are all near room temperature and you don't give a shit about recovery then COPVs are the way to go, anon
>>10565849
we don't know

[Anonymous No.10566600]

>>10566352
no one wants your clown burgers, go shill somewhere else McDonalds

[Anonymous No.10566603]

>>10566600
I'm not the only one who reports clown images, right?

[Anonymous No.10566613]

>>10566587
>if your propellants are all near room temperature and you don't give a shit about recovery then COPVs are the way to go, anon
I'm going with room temperature propellants for ease of storage and fueling. Is there something about COPVs that makes them hard to reuse? I've considered recovery either by parachute or an inflatable skirt (like Sea Dragon) simply because this rocket will be expensive (especially the engine) and I'd like to save as much of the rocket as possible to avoid having to buy/make new parts.

[Anonymous No.10566615]

>>10566603
You are the only one, redditor
clowns are not against the rules, no matter how much you want to censor all free thought

[Anonymous No.10566624]

>>10566613
I didn't realize it was suborbital
the reason it's not good for recovery is because it has the Gets Hot! rule so on a 1 it suffers instant death
>>10566615
>>>/rules/global/6

[Anonymous No.10566629]

>>10566613
I didn't realize it was suborbital
the reason it's not good for recovery is because it has the Gets Hot! rule so on a 1 it suffers instant death
>>10566615
>>>/global/rules/6

[Anonymous No.10566636]

>>10566624
>>10566629
>clowns = low quality
I look forward to you lot being banned for misusing the report system

[Anonymous No.10566642]

>>10565981
Go pirate a copy of KSP and watch a tutorial vid on YT.

[Anonymous No.10566644]

>>10566629
>I didn't realize it was suborbital
>the reason it's not good for recovery is because it has the Gets Hot! rule so on a 1 it suffers instant death
True. I've even seen videos of sounding rockets with carbon fiber bodies delaminate on the way up. I think it's due to the heating from moving so fast through the air.

Then again those rockets had solid motors which can have insane thrust-to-weight ratios. A n2o+c8h18 powered rocket will definitely have a lower ratio.

[Anonymous No.10566645]

>>10566629
Is this you?

[Anonymous No.10566662]

>>10566645
no, I lost my copy of BotW
also I don't have a boyfriend or a girlfriend right now

[Anonymous No.10566691]

nice
https://youtu.be/FWymne93DFY

[Anonymous No.10566704]

>>10566645
I hate that the switch has been roped into this meme
botw and smash are good games ok

[Anonymous No.10566874]

so who knows anything about the Soviet Lunar missions?
I heard that the N1 was only going to put a single cosmonaut on the surface. What sort of architecture were they going to use? How much docking?

[Anonymous No.10566902]

>>10566874
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKNRLx9qKiU

[Anonymous No.10566927]

>>10566874
>I heard that the N1 was only going to put a single cosmonaut on the surface.
Imagine the stress of that lone guy. At least with three astronauts they could comfort each other with conversation. Instead, one poor guy will be locked up in a tin can for days.

[Anonymous No.10566931]

>>10566927
apparently he would only have 4 hours on the surface

[Anonymous No.10566951]

>>10566927
Not only that but he doesn't get a set descent and ascent stage, if he uses up too much propellant coming down he's absolutely and fundamentally fucked.

[Anonymous No.10566960]

>>10566931
>>10566951
Why is Soviet engineering so depressing?

[Anonymous No.10566966]

>>10566960
why is the best gun for killing commies the one held by their leaders?

[Anonymous No.10567054]

Antares launch of Cygnus to the ISS in a few hours

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

[Anonymous No.10567071]

>>10567054
Antares is one werid rocket.
>Liquid propelled first stage even though Orbital had no experience with such stages
>Solid motor second stage
>Uses Soviet moon rocket engines
>Tanks made in Ukraine
>American rocket

[Anonymous No.10567104]

>>10567054
Cute cargo trucc rocket, not too bad from a cost standpoint for a last generation design.

[Anonymous No.10567115]

>>10567054
From wikipedia...
"The initial design of the Castor 30XL was conservatively built, and after gaining flight experience it was determined that the structural component of the motor case could be lightened."
It's always nice to see those sorts of things.

[Anonymous No.10567156]

>>10567054
lets just hope it doesn't blow the fuck up again.

[Anonymous No.10567204]

>>10567054

[Anonymous No.10567227]

SpaceX has raised 44m out of a 400m funding round. Is this bad?

[Anonymous No.10567247]

>>10567156
probably not. They are now using downrated versions of the Atlas V engines, rather than 50 year old leftovers from the N-1 Soviet moon rocket.

[Anonymous No.10567255]

>>10567054
ten minutes to go

[Anonymous No.10567263]

>>10567227
Can I help?

Do they do open donations at all? Obviously they only raise like 1m of that but i can imagine alot of people would jump on that.

[Anonymous No.10567266]

Priming the engines boyes.

[Anonymous No.10567272]

It's gonna explode.

[Anonymous No.10567275]

>>10567272
delet this.

[Anonymous No.10567279]

[Anonymous No.10567284]

N O M I N A L
O
M
I
N
A
L

[Anonymous No.10567289]

jesus this antares guy has like two things to report on over and over

[Anonymous No.10567291]

>>10567284
we're achieving levels of nominal I never thought possible!

[Anonymous No.10567293]

funny, the animation doesn't even show stage 1-2 separated!

[Anonymous No.10567300]

100% nominal.

[Anonymous No.10567412]

>>10567054
Fuuck, watching rocketlaunch streams in eurotime sucks.
How big is the change this one will get scrubed?

[Anonymous No.10567419]

>>10567412
>How big is the chance this one will get scrubed?
0% it already launched.

[Anonymous No.10567426]

>>10567419
wel fuck me.

[Anonymous No.10567435]

>>10567426
Sorry, I'm taken.

[Anonymous No.10567707]

Hey /sg/, what spacecraft/rocket do you think had the coolest name?

For a rocket, I'd have to go for Titian.
For a spacecraft, I like Ranger.

[Anonymous No.10567719]

>>10562453
>It's an other USA Flight General

[Anonymous No.10567728]

>>10567719
Then quit complaining and post cool non-American space stuff.

Also, there was an Antares launch. That rocket is more Russian and Ukrainian than American.

[Anonymous No.10567767]

>>10566960
Some guy on here was saying 'us Slavs perceive danger differently' or similar

[Anonymous No.10567847]

>>10567719
You can have a non-US space-flight general when the rest of the world starts having a space program worth talking about.

No, you don't.

[Anonymous No.10567962]

Trump was right about not writing NASA another blank check for another telescope project that may or may not deliver results 30 years down the road using 20 year outdated technology

Elon and Steve Jobs were right about incremental development

[Anonymous No.10568009]

>>10567962
they should focus less on making a new amazing never-before-even-conceptualized telescope and focus on getting a bunch of incrementally improved telescopes up there
you don't even need that many

[Anonymous No.10568095]

>>10567054
watched the launch in person and have a satellite onboard waiting to check in, ama

[Anonymous No.10568181]

>>10568095
how big is the paperwork dick

[Anonymous No.10568255]

Hey guys, rocket maker anon here.

So I've been trying to design my Karman line hopper rocket around using COPVs for the propellant and pressurant tanks. I thought that I was being pessimistic by assuming that the bulk density of aluminum with a carbon fiber over-wrap was pretty high. And you lovely and helpful guys gave me a link to a vendor to makes COPVs. While I haven't asked for a quote from them yet, I have taken the data about their COPVs that they have public and made a curve fit so I can roughly model tanks of different sizes.

Turns out that my "pessimistic tanks" were lighter than what COPVs actually are and my payload is now negative half a ton.

Hopefully my curve fit was just garbage and maybe they'll give me some information on how to model the mass of a COPV based on outer diameter and internal volume.

Pic unrelated.

[Anonymous No.10568260]

>>10568181
huge but that's someone else's job ;)

[Anonymous No.10568273]

>>10568255
Are you legit trying to design a rocket or are you just trying to fling something over the Karman line?

[Anonymous No.10568276]

>>10568273
he's trying to make a paper rocket

[Anonymous No.10568287]

>>10568273
I'm just trying to design something to reach the Karman line.

I used to have a more ambitious goal of designing a Karman line hopper that could fit a second stage which could send something to orbit.

I doubt that I'll be able to manufacture the rocket anytime soon. I don't have the time, money, experience, nor resources to make one. But it has been fun to design it.

[Anonymous No.10568290]

>>10568255
just a heads up, you're getting into a lot here - not that it's impossible - but for example a group at my university of hundreds of engineers has been trying to do this for about 5 years at this point to no success

[Anonymous No.10568296]

>>10568255
have you checked the margins on their tanks?
regulations on commercial pressure vessels in the US mean that they're all like three times stronger than they need to be, especially if you're only going to be using them once

[Anonymous No.10568310]

>>10568290
I know. I'm in a similar team of even less engineers. I wanted to design my own rocket for fun, but instead of just fiddling with abstract mass ratios, I wanted to try to do more in-depth work.

>>10568296
https://steelheadcomposites.com/composite-pressure-vessels/
Their tanks are rated really high. Their largest diameter standard tank (435mm OD) is rated at 350 bar, but bursts at 1034 bar. However, the company only has public data for one storage pressure so I can't figure out how much mass I save if I drop the required maximum pressure.

[Anonymous No.10568316]

>>10568287
I see. Well, I wish you luck.
Did you remember to take into account vehicle surface area for aero losses?

[Anonymous No.10568324]

>>10568310
I don't know what sort of margins people go with for aerospace grade COPVs but I've heard terms like 1.5x thrown around, and your supplier is a little under 3x margins
I don't know how well calling them and asking about numbers as a hobbyist would go because that's some serious engineering

[Anonymous No.10568370]

>>10568316
>I see. Well, I wish you luck.
Thank you, I need it.
>Did you remember to take into account vehicle surface area for aero losses?
No, but I have the deltaV budget to be higher than necessary to make up for that.

>>10568324
I know that COPVs are pretty tough to design, I've worked with them peripherally. Unfortunately none of that experience has told me how model them.

I'll contact them and ask them for some rough models and estimations. Hopefully they'll be forthcoming.

And I haven't even gotten to designing my favorite part of a rocket yet, the engine.

[Anonymous No.10568373]

>>10568370
all my research so far has suggested that COPVs are actually just black magic and should be thrown out if you don't want to spend the rest of your life tearing your hair out as the sanity is sapped from your body by the black orb

[Anonymous No.10568384]

>>10568373
If that's the case, then I'm back at square one with my tanks. Aluminum isn't good enough sadly.

[Anonymous No.10568388]

>>10568384
supposedly they're all right if you can find a high quality source for the blood of virgins
stringent quality control on your dark rituals is imperative, apparently

[Anonymous No.10568392]

>>10568388
I've considered fiberglass since its lightweight and strong, plus my propellants aren't cryogenic. But I haven't looked up how cheap they are.

[Anonymous No.10568396]

>>10568392
DO IT

[Anonymous No.10568422]

>>10568396
I couldn't find anything good. The masses seem and the prices seem good, but the pressures are incredibly low (3 atm). Sure, I can probably still order a custom one, but considering that pretty much every fiberglass pressure vessel is designed for a low pressure tells me that the material may not be good.

[Anonymous No.10568625]

Wait, can a starship get to low Orbit without thé falcon heavy?

[Anonymous No.10568626]

>>10568422
Rocket science isn't easy.
Good luck, anon

[Anonymous No.10568627]

>>10568625
No

[Anonymous No.10568633]

>>10568625
potentially
Elon's said that it could at certain points but with the design in flux you never know
so it'll need to exist first before we'll know

[Anonymous No.10568636]

>>10568633
Maybe without any payload& passengers, but then what's the point.

[Anonymous No.10568640]

>>10568636
I believe that was the quote, yes

[Anonymous No.10568653]

>>10564383
It's possibly a little quieter with the lack of equipment. Not to mention there isn't a clusterfuck of equipment, cabling, and ThinkPads covering the walls. They probably like crawling into it and burying themselves in cargo bags to be alone.

[Anonymous No.10568657]

>>10568653
you can't really "bury" yourself in anything in space, anon
it'll all just float away
if you need to go all fetus and womb up your only options are sleeping bags

[Anonymous No.10568682]

>>10568657
Most of their storage space is contained with bungie nets so the loose bags don't float around the station. If I was up there and needed some alone time I could imagine crawling in and hiding in the group of bags.

[Anonymous No.10569049]

[Anonymous No.10569050]

>>10568625
I think it's supposed to, but just barely, with no cargo. It can't get *usefully* into orbit.

[Anonymous No.10569052]

[Anonymous No.10569056]

[Anonymous No.10569059]

RIP grid fins

[Anonymous No.10569062]

>>10569056
add :orig for higher res on twitter photos you nigger

[Anonymous No.10569063]

>>10569062
That's already the orig version, what kind of retard do you take me for?

[Anonymous No.10569086]

>>10569059
>>10569056
>>10569052
>>10569049
what the fugg

[Anonymous No.10569094]

>>10569056
W-w-where’s the other half?

[Anonymous No.10569113]

>>10569094
snap

[Anonymous No.10569132]

A lick of Paint and it Will be as good as new.

[Anonymous No.10569169]

My uncle would probably paint it and sell it as non collision second hand from a German who only drove on Sundays and cried when selling it

[Anonymous No.10569481]

>>10568095
why are all those ThinSats interconnected with nitinol wire?

[Anonymous No.10569485]

>>10569049
well, at least they saved nine engines. Probably the most expensive part of the first stage.

[Anonymous No.10569493]

>>10569485
They have been in seawater.
big change they will just go in storage as a last resort backup.

[Anonymous No.10569562]

I remember seeing a Russian startup that wanted to use cubesats to make giant orbital billboards. Is that a meme? Because the more I think about the logistics of it, it sounds like a meme
But if it works out then that could be really worrying.

[Anonymous No.10569638]

>>10569562
>Russian startup

[Anonymous No.10569653]

>>10569094
bottom of the ocean

[Anonymous No.10569656]

>>10569493
did they go in seawater? it's possible that the bit that fell off just sank and the bit that stayed on snapped where it did
>>10569562
it is the big meme and we've all agreed that if they do it we're going to kessler us all

[Anonymous No.10569670]

HULLO

[Anonymous No.10569726]

>>10569670
SCÖTT MÆNLËY HËRË

[Anonymous No.10569729]

>>10569094
The front fell off.

[Anonymous No.10569735]

>>10569729
This is a tired, stale, and worn out reference.

[Anonymous No.10569758]

>>10564011
I really hope that the Space Force takes after the new army office uniform rather than AF ABUs, it's not like they are going to be fighting in theater

[Anonymous No.10569765]

>>10569758
Cool uniforms, but green is an Army color. The Space Force uniforms would have to be a different color.

[Anonymous No.10569799]

>>10569765
Naturally, they could even use AF colors, just not the cut or material of the AF dress uniforms, those are abysmally bad

[Anonymous No.10569810]

What's up with the starhopper? Any news?

[Anonymous No.10569815]

>>10569758
It should be obvious what our Space Force formals should look like.

[Anonymous No.10569843]

>>10569815
>fascist autism
La creatura...

[Anonymous No.10569850]

>>10569843
>Starship Troopers.
>Fascist.
Stop being deliberately dumb, and please refine your taste in uniforms.

[Anonymous No.10569858]

>>10569850
Its sad that the F word will inevitably stop Space Force getting its logical and nominal black uniforms.

[Anonymous No.10569873]

>>10569850
It's literally militaristic fascist fantasy written by a white guy during the 50's.

[Anonymous No.10569874]

>>10569873
yeah, it's good shit

[Anonymous No.10569881]

>>10569873
Stop I can't get any wetter than this !

[Anonymous No.10569885]

Random question, what's a good C* efficiency to use for designing an amateur built rocket engine? 70%? 80%? Or...?

[Anonymous No.10569892]

>>10569885
As long as its higher than 50 you're good to go.

[Anonymous No.10569896]

>>10569873
It isn't, but I'm not going to waste any more posts beyond this one debating this with you, you'll have to take your off topic obsession with calling things that aren't fascist fascist to a different thread or a different Anon.

[Anonymous No.10569926]

>>10569815
>>10569850
>>10569896
Didn't read the book, but if we're talking about the movie - it had two layers:
1) Propaganda flick about heroic soldiers for the simple minded folk;
2) Between the lines - a satire on an imperialistic totalitarian state which was humankind. It had a lot of references to Third Reich.

[Anonymous No.10569929]

>>10569892
Thanks, I've been using 75% but then I saw estimations of 90% so I was wondering how pessimistic my estimate was.

[Anonymous No.10569945]

>>10569873
>It's literally militaristic fascist fantasy written by a white guy during the 50's.

You've clearly never read it, don't actually know what fascism is, both of these, and/or you're just shitposting.

[Anonymous No.10569947]

>>10569926
The film's director completely and utterly missed the boat on what fascism is or what Starship Troopers is actually about - he never even read the book, either.

[Anonymous No.10569956]

>>10569947
Please enlighten me then on what fascism is. This conversation might get interesting.

[Anonymous No.10569967]

>>10569956
Fascism is an ideological rejection of liberalism and the focus on the pursuit of the interest of the individual citizen as the fundamental unit of pursuing greatness in society, and instead proposes that the only greatness the citizenry can aspire to is service of The State as the singular entity of a society. Fascism hence dictates that the State serves as the final authority over commercial, social, and private matters to service that prime edifice of society.

This is a grossly unstable and unnatural arrangement for the human condition, and lends itself to focusing on threats, internal and external, to prevent the citizenry from focusing on self-interest and the enormous opportunities afforded for corruption and nepotism by those in power.

[Anonymous No.10570013]

>>10569967
This infodump needs more focus on how the power is distributed (or not) among the population of such state.

[Anonymous No.10570018]

>>10569815
>not the one on the far right in pic related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrFOaGFAR78

[Anonymous No.10570034]

>>10570018
Looks better than a good number of US uniforms but Space Force dress unis really should be black because it matches up aesthetically with the environment they're meant to operate in. Shoulder bars are goofy though, I'd go with the less ostentatious style used on the two leftmost uniforms.

[Anonymous No.10570047]

>>10570034

[Anonymous No.10570052]

>>10569656
>>10569638
Would it happen though?

[Anonymous No.10570054]

>>10570013
If you insist.

The failure of liberalism identified by the fascist ideology is that it does not, and cannot, reign in the greed and self-serving behaviors of the powerful individuals that are holding society back. Fascism reorganizes the state under a strong authority that wields absolute power against those who are wronging society at large, such as bankers and teachers of ideas that the fascist party perceived as being harmful and/or wrong.

Dictatorship is the natural form of government that emerges under fascism, with absolute moral and legal authority over all matters public and private.

[Anonymous No.10570055]

>>10570052
they better not
there'll be some hubbub if they ever schedule a launch

[Anonymous No.10570068]

>>10570054
>get mad at leaders who control you too much
>install a dictator with no checks
lmao.

[Anonymous No.10570073]

>>10570055
I mean, it just doesnt seem feasible.
Surely they'll run into financial or legal problems

[Anonymous No.10570075]

>>10570073
they'll get murdered by the astronomer's mafia

[Anonymous No.10570078]

>>10570073
You forget they live in russia.

[Anonymous No.10570087]

>>10570034
Pish-posh. This is the only acceptable uniform for Space Force.

[Anonymous No.10570138]

>>10570068
With a bit of thought and the benefit of hindsight, its obviously a horrible idea. The problem is that we humans tend to want kings to get us out of whatever problems we make for ourselves, and we want them fixed yesterday. We always have, and probably always will.

[Anonymous No.10570196]

>>10570138
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's entirely true. Humans have different tendencies - even a single human can have an inner fight. Some tend to follow the leader, some want freedom. I think a nation's general tendency evolves with education.
Check the Yellow Vest postulate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_initiative_referendum_(France)
or how Switzerland works:
https://houseofswitzerland.org/swissstories/history/way-modern-direct-democracy-switzerland

[Anonymous No.10570209]

>>10570087
>skants

[Anonymous No.10570216]

>The USA is the only country in the world with a space programme

[Anonymous No.10570219]

>>10570196
You're not wrong, and you raise a fair point. I would argue, however, that the underlying desires of a movement like the Yellow Vest protest is functionally equivalent to growing tired of the old monarch and seeking to replace them with a better one. The more comfortable the people are after giving someone the mandate of steering the ship of their collective destiny, the more responsibility the people will desire to hand off, so long as enough of them don't feel like it costs them something to do so.

[Anonymous No.10570220]

>>10570087
>His strategy
>send wave after wave of his own men at the enemy

[Anonymous No.10570223]

>>10570216
Fact

[Anonymous No.10570226]

>>10570216
You're damn right we are. Tell your nation-state rocket clubs to get on our level.

[Anonymous No.10570227]

>>10570216
Dude, stop. If you're so upset that American spaceflight is getting the spotlight, then post some stuff on your own.

Otherwise you're just trolling.

[Anonymous No.10570230]

>>10570216
Yes, once you've landed a human being on another celestial body America will kindly allow your country to have a space program. Memes aside though please do post cool stuff from other countries, their rockets, their space projects, any and all of it.

[Anonymous No.10570246]

>>10570216
America has a bunch of launch vehicles that do things
Europe has the Ariane series rockets which launch a few times a year
Russia has the remnants of the Soviet program

[Anonymous No.10570268]

>>10570246
To add to this, China has a considerable space program, but they're so secretive about it that it's hard to discuss about their progress.

[Anonymous No.10570274]

>>10570246
>America has a bunch of launch vehicles that do things

America is only good in marketing and media communication. They know how to sell nothing. In term of pure science, ESA > NASA.

Russia is dead since 1989. And what about China ? India ? Japan ?

[Anonymous No.10570278]

>>10570274
>Japan
small sat launchers, boring
>India
as secretive as China but with more international incidents
>Russia is dead since 1989
no, the Soviets are dead
the Russians are a weekend at Berniesing the corpse

you're forgetting about New Zealand

[Anonymous No.10570283]

>>10570274
>In term of pure science, ESA > NASA.
Not to start a pissing contest, but that's bullshit. NASA (and the American launch industry) has contributed plenty in science. A large amount of probes and other robotic missions have had NASA contributions and have been launched on American rockets.

I'm not saying that ESA or other non-american space agencies have contributed nothing, but saying that NASA has contributed less than ESA is silly.

[Anonymous No.10570290]

>>10570219
I don't see human willingness to give up power being greater than desire to be free. I would look for oher problems:
1) Status quo in most "democratic" countries is usually some sort of hidden oligarchy. This is not something people can change by an online petition, this requires a war.
2) Humans are naive and easily manipulated. That's why education plays the key role.

[Anonymous No.10570291]

>>10570274
>India
Poo in orbit.

[Anonymous No.10570297]

>>10570283
NASA is no more than a carrier. They know how to launch things, they know how to drop and land things, but the science is European (seismology, chemistry).

[Anonymous No.10570306]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=94&v=LINmR4wF6Xg
Here's some info on the upcoming Chinese space station, the previous one was a little 9-ton mini-skylab type single module station with a crew of 3 which de-orbited last year. They're planning to start the launch of new modules for a much larger complex and simultaneously show off the capabilities of their new Long March 5b rocket. In addition it's planned to have the station share it's orbit with a Chinese 2m telescope which will have the capacity to dock with said station should it require maintenance. They're also starting to do what the US did a while back and open up their astronaut program to civilians instead of drawing candidates exclusively from their air force. Tiangong-3 will be much smaller than the ISS but it also looks a lot more focused, I do hope it succeeds because it would be the kind of push the US and other western countries need to re-inject some liveliness into their space programs.

[Anonymous No.10570309]

>>10570297
No. There are plenty of scientific space projects that are mostly NASA. Curiosity, Hubble, Ranger, and Voyager to name a few.

Are you that guy who's complaining about /sg/ being too American focused by any chance?

[Anonymous No.10570322]

>>10570306
Neat! Good luck to them. Hopefully they'll open up more to public attention.

[Anonymous No.10570334]

>>10570290
1. How do you identify and protect yourself from an oligarchy so you don't simply end up weakening the systems that limit their existing power?
2. What gives you confidence that the education system is capable of recognizing or addressing the problems society faces? How do you know it is not, in fact, creating and perpetuating those problems?

[Anonymous No.10570351]

>>10570334
what if we burned it all to the ground?

[Anonymous No.10570377]

>>10570351
>what if we burned it all to the ground?
A few decades of misery, strife, lawlessness, and death before a new order settles in with no assurance that anything will turn out well. You have no means of identifying or preventing the existing circles of power from asserting themselves harder.

[Anonymous No.10570378]

>>10570351
Countries that are actually better after a revolution are the exception, the rule is that you end up significantly worse post-revolution. For all of the downsides of modern society it has been organized, things like water treatment, agriculture, infrastructure, etc are thoroughly established and operate mostly as intended (obviously imperfectly since it's a system involving living beings, but it works pretty well most of the time). When you overturn a society to "start over" usually what happens is you never, ever reach your goal, either because people even more radical than you take the glorious revolution as an opportunity to slaughter all moderates (including you) and establish themselves as dictators ala Stalin, after which they generally end up collapsing their country because they're fucking retards who don't know what they're doing, or you get constant infighting between differing groups of the revolutionaries because each one wants a different delusional Utopia and so you get a failed state in perpetual civil war as different factions jockey to seize control of the tattered remnants of the government apparatus.

Accelerationists really are some of the biggest fucking ultra-brainlets, they think because the US and a precious few other countries won the revolution lottery that you can just roll those dice again and come out with a utopian clean slate that (of course in their tiny minds) is exactly what they specifically want when in reality the much more probable outcome is that they get their stupid asses shot, the government system collapses entirely, and you end up like Libya with open air slave markets and no functional utilities because everyone with the capacity to be in charge is fucking dead.

[Anonymous No.10570382]

>>10570334
1. Society needs a good source of information that is not in the hands of politicians nor a privately owned company. Should be publicly funded but steered only by public voting with pluralism in mind.
2. I actually do not have much confidence in my country's (Poland) educational system. However I'm not talking about existing systems of indoctrination, but about real education.

[Anonymous No.10570392]

>>10570382
The hopeful idealism behind both of those points are largely invalidated by the fact that the body public are complete fucking morons. Not only that, but that stupidity is recognized and will be actively used against you.

[Anonymous No.10570424]

>>10570274
>India ?

[Anonymous No.10570450]

>>10570424
>Sharti
>Shart
This has to be a literal real-life shitpost.

[Anonymous No.10570474]

>>10570392
Nah, that's just your illusory elitism speaking.
>complete fucking morons
Statistical 100 IQ

[Anonymous No.10570488]

>>10570474
Don't get me wrong- I'm the last person who should be making decisions that affect other people's lives, and I lack the wisdom and foresight needed for statecraft. I'm squarely in the category of "complete fucking morons" where it counts in political theory, and it takes exceptionally brilliant people to craft a successful and enduring nation. The most I can do is poke holes in other people's notions.

[Anonymous No.10570500]

>>10569799
>>10570047
Wow, the current Air Force dress uniform looks like it's from WWI.
You could take the current Air Force Service Dress and either invert the colors, or shift it to a color scheme based on black instead of navy.

[Anonymous No.10570555]

>>10570500
Why not purple?

[Anonymous No.10570584]

>>10570474
You just don't understand the enormous scope of Anonymous's intellect, to him a 160IQ chad is the lowest level of brainlet, the 100 average IQ masses appear barely even human to his ever expanding mind.

[Anonymous No.10570663]

>Mice In Space - See How They Behave Over Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geftSDBE1GM

[Anonymous No.10570738]

>>10570278
>the Russians are a weekend at Berniesing the corpse
That doesn't work when the flesh is rotting off

[Anonymous No.10570751]

>>10570290
Not him, but many humans desire what they feel is convenient at the time.

[Anonymous No.10570761]

>>10570351
What if we lived in a society?

[Anonymous No.10570819]

>>10570488
It seems that you think politicians are geniuses.
But it looks like most of the nations somehow survive with brainlets at the steering wheel.
I say: either you be an idiot and take matters in your hands, so that when you fuck up maybe you'll learn something, or you be a bigger idiot and give up the power so that some other idiot will rule you. Because then be sure that he will not pursuit the good of all, but his own good.

[Anonymous No.10570820]

>>10570306
Isn't that pretty much downscaled Mir?
It's core module looks almost exactly like Mir core module of like ISS Zvezda.

[Anonymous No.10570825]

>>10570819
Not at all. Great nations are built by great people. Great nations endure by the efforts of both small and great. Great nations face tribulation because they're lead by the inept.

[Anonymous No.10570835]

>>10570820
It does look very much like Mir module, although it's solar panels look to make up a much smaller % of it's overall size, presumably indicating a more efficient power system and better panels. "Tin can with airlock and 6 way connector hub" seems to work pretty well though so if it ain't broke and all that.

[Anonymous No.10570878]

>>10570825
Usually one can't build a great nation without taking someone else's stuff so by "great nation" you probably mean an empire that eats it's neighbours and a "great leader" would be someone that takes risks and throws his kinsmen to war. Sure, they make the history headlines. USSR would be a great nation by that standard.
I'd rather see a great nation as a peaceful place that is nice to live in.
History of humanity is mostly the history of totalitarian states, but I think there is progress. We don't have examples yet but maybe one day there will be great nations without great leaders.

[Anonymous No.10570957]

>>10570878
I must disagree with the implied and unavoidable assertion that no modern nation state has meaningful differentiating factors in governance, moral systems, or legal systems.

[Anonymous No.10570970]

Why is no one talking about the launch?

[Anonymous No.10570972]

>>10570970
What launch? I just heard of this.
I can't find a stream.

[Anonymous No.10570975]

>>10570972
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPfHHls50-w
Wait what the fuck. Another falcon heavy???

[Anonymous No.10570976]

>>10570972
Falcon Heavy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPfHHls50-w

Just took off

[Anonymous No.10570982]

>>10570976
It's fake. Arbsat 6A was already launched.

[Anonymous No.10570986]

>Of course I still love you

What did she mean by this? Why are women allowed to talk on stream?

[Anonymous No.10570991]

>>10570975
>>10570976
Anon you tripple baka that's a rerun of the Arabsat launch.

[Anonymous No.10571056]

>>10570976
>Falling for the "LIVE!!11!!!1" restream trash
You disappoint me, anon.

[Anonymous No.10571100]

>Update
>June 22 - Falcon Heavy • STP-2
>Launch window: TBD
>Launch site: LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida

[Anonymous No.10571119]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKtVpvzUF1Y

A cool video about the Saturn V launching that I have found. Webm related.

[Anonymous No.10571145]

>>10570957
I have never said so. Countries differ, leaders differ. And the lottery of leaders should be another reason to avoid giving to much power to any.

[Anonymous No.10571174]

>>10570291
topkek

Designated orbit

[Anonymous No.10571237]

[Anonymous No.10571254]

>>10571237
That shamrock wasn't helpful.

[Anonymous No.10571394]

oof

[Anonymous No.10571397]

>>10571394
oooof

[Anonymous No.10571409]

At least most of the engines should be alright, right?

[Anonymous No.10571418]

>>10571409
some of the bells are dented pretty badly but otherwise yeah?

[Anonymous No.10571482]

We need a new thread soon y'all.

[Anonymous No.10571536]

NEW
>>10571535
>>10571535
>>10571535