/sfg/ spaceflight general

[Anonymous No.10604438]

rocket kino edition
old >>10594903

[Anonymous No.10604460]

First for hop when

[Anonymous No.10604461]

Is it theoretically possible to find a way into another universe?

I read something about it years ago being possible and it going into the physics and energy requirements of it (which were of course, humongous) and I've never found it again.
It's actually possible to *create* another universe, but entering it (or another one near ours) is an unknown field.

The idea of tearing a hole through reality to get into another universe seems insane. I can't even picture in my mind what such a thing would look like in reality, such a feat is awe inspiring.

[Anonymous No.10604472]

>>10604461
>create a Universe
What a bad idea.
What do you know it's not just gonna occupy the same space we're living in, therefore blowing us out of existence?

[Anonymous No.10604476]

>>10604438
Did Angara ever launched again since 2014?

[Anonymous No.10604479]

>>10604472
I have no fucking clue how any of this shit works, pham. This isn't *the* article I read on it but it's the same vein.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/06/19/build-a-universe-in-the-lab/#.XMhucNhS9aQ

[Anonymous No.10604489]

>>10604476
Wikipedia says no, but there are planned launches this year. But since there are no assigned dates not even a month, its safe to assume that the launches would be delayed till next year.

[Anonymous No.10604569]

>>10604461
/x/ go away

[Anonymous No.10604596]

Self-driving electric rockets when?

[Anonymous No.10604650]

I've always heard that the modern Russian space industry is full of corruption and that's why it's having issues modernizing their rockets.

Is this true? What are some examples of this corruption?

[Anonymous No.10604654]

>>10604650
Oops didn't realize that I have saved the thumbnail by accident. Here's a better picture.

[Anonymous No.10604744]

POWER!

>The Saturn V was the largest rocket ever built by the United States. A true monster of a launch vehicle, it generated over 33 million newtons of thrust at liftoff and carried 2.5 million kilograms of fuel and oxidizer. If the Saturn V exploded, it could do so with the force of a small atomic bomb, the equivalent of half a kiloton, or about 1/26th the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Naturally, this was a significant concern for Apollo program officials.

[Anonymous No.10604758]

>>10604744
Obligatory

[Anonymous No.10604760]

>>10604758
what a machine

[Anonymous No.10604783]

>>10604760
Cost per kilogram of payload to LEO (in 2018 USD)
>Shuttle: $19,823
>Saturn V: $8,286

For the amount of money NASA spent during the Shuttle program's lifespan they could afford SIX Saturn V launches per year during that lifespan. They shouldn't have stopped flying the Saturn.

[Anonymous No.10604789]

>>10604758
Hhhhnnnnggg

[Anonymous No.10604830]

>>10604783

Hopefully SLS cost per kg to LEO would be at least on par with Saturn V. Thats all we can hope for.

[Anonymous No.10604841]

>>10604830
If the $1.5B to $2.5B estimation of the cost per launch of the SLS is correct then it can be expected that its cost per kilogram of payload to LEO would be $15,789 to $26,315. Hopefully those figures drop once NASA pulls its shit together and starts making Boeing take its job seriously again.

[Anonymous No.10604915]

>>10604783
With the infrastructure and people from that era gone, how much would it cost to re-develop Saturn today?

[Anonymous No.10604998]

>>10604654
Everything in Russia is full of corruption, it shouldn't even surprise anyone. Dreadful economic situation and serious quality control issues also not helping them.
Russian space program is pretty much dead, Commercial Crew Program was final nail in the coffin. Soyuz no longer needed and Russian can't anymore charge ridiculous prices for a seat.
The was opportunities, but they refuse to innovate and now paying ultimate price.

[Anonymous No.10605034]

>>10604915
>how much would it cost to re-develop Saturn today?
I can't find exact figures, but most estimates I can find are "more than SLS". Which make sense, while SLS uses 70s technology many of the engineers who are familiar with the technology specific to SLS are still around and available. Meanwhile the expertise around Saturn V are gone now and thus new engineers would need to be trained. Plus the manufacturing of Saturn V is horribly out dated compared to modern processes so Saturn V would have to be redesigned to fit those processes. And with that much effort to "resurrect" Saturn V, it would simply be easier to make a whole new rocket entirely.

However, the F-1s were redesigned to be more modern (the F-1B) so a theoretical new ultra heavy rocket could use them.

[ultimatesciencefaggot !5Vf8hjR2.. No.10605041]

>>10604783
Hey at least we got all of the worthless minutiae out of the shuttle program like crystal growth.

[Anonymous No.10605130]

>>10604744
>>10604758

Just think of all that money wasted that could have gone towards feeding poor people smdh

[Anonymous No.10605163]

>>10605130
This again? Fine....

In 2013 the United States spent over 556 billion dollars on social programs. NASA's annual budget is about $20B. Dumping NASA's budget to "feeding poor people" would only increase the budget for the social programs by just under 3.6%. However, even with hundreds of billions of dollars being spent by the United States just trying to help it's own poor people, there are still homeless and hungry. NASA's budget wouldn't do a thing for that. Meanwhile NASA does help the country by creating technologies spun off their programs and allowing orbital services. Services such as; GPS, weather tracking, crop monitoring, scientific research about Earth and the space around it, satellite television and internet, and much more. All of which are just as helpful as feeding the poor.

If you were talking about dumping the money spent on Apollo into social programs, then you may have had a stronger position. Apollo's total cost was about $112B in 2018 USD. If it were just held on to and dumped into the 2013 social programs budget then 2013 would have 20% higher budget. However, Apollo established the industries that allowed NASA to offer the orbital services and technology stated previously. Without Apollo, we wouldn't have these services and technologies.

On top of all of this, more money doesn't mean more effort. You can look at a myriad of government programs that has enjoyed high budget but were poorly managed. So whatever money related problems the various social programs have, more money would make it worse.

In short, no, that money should not "have gone towards feeding poor people". You have an oversimplified view of the world, dare I say childish.

[Anonymous No.10605230]

>>10605163

[Anonymous No.10605240]

>>10605230
If he's just left alone, then it shows that his shortsighted mindset is acceptable. Challenging it, however, and explaining the faults shows that his mindset isn't a good one, or at the very least not an infallible one.

This isn't some dork preaching about the flat earth theory or shitposting about how Emilia is the best waifu. This is someone with a mindset that does influence how the public sees spaceflight and can negatively affect it for little to no benefit.

[Anonymous No.10605255]

>https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-04-29/former-nasa-acting-administrator-robert-lightfoot-joins-lockheed-martin
This is legal.

[Anonymous No.10605256]

>>10605255
>This is legal.
What exactly are you referring to? Robert Lightfoot joining Lockheed Martin?

[Anonymous No.10605263]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPW7ZqtW5U4

[Anonymous No.10605271]

>>10605240
It's a copypasta bait moron, get off your high horse.

[Anonymous No.10605276]

>>10605163
Your right, throwing money at the poor only creates more poor people anyway.
Feeding the poor in africa for example only created more people who end up suffering in the end.
Its brutal to say this, but if our ancestors decided on not feeding the starving in africa right now there probably would not be any starvation and billions of people would never even have lived to suffer.

This entire situation could also be a factor in "the great filter" theory.
Species who decided on self improvement and never left their planet instead of species who ignored the suffering and went for the stars.

[Anonymous No.10605278]

>>10605130
cheap b8

[Anonymous No.10605284]

>>10605276
This guy gets it. Low-IQ populations are the great filter and eugenics is the only way forward for the species if we actually want to ascend to the stars.

[Anonymous No.10605331]

>>10605284
I think VR is also a strong contender for the great filter, just look at the absolute fucking state of smartphone zombies and multiply that a million times harder when they can fuck off into a virtual world.

[Anonymous No.10605356]

>>10605284

[Anonymous No.10605374]

>>10604915
too much to ever be worth it
Saturn V is shit compared to what is possible today with everything modernized
SLS could have been great like that, but because it's an embezzlement program, they made sure it was as worthless and expensive as possible

[Anonymous No.10605375]

>ywn walk on the moon

music for this feel
https://soundcloud.com/cdmhmusic/apollo-13
https://soundcloud.com/cdmhmusic/the-saturn-v-story

[Anonymous No.10605378]

>>10605130
The money spent on that went to poor people, anon. Who do you think built it? The lowest bidder.

[Anonymous No.10605520]

hey spacex is launching some bullshit again in case anyone cares
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPfHHls50-w

[Anonymous No.10605524]

>>10605520
Arabsat 6A launched on April 11th. This is a fake stream.

[Anonymous No.10605528]

>>10605524
well I feel silly now

[Anonymous No.10605558]

>>10605528
If you don't see a launch thread up then there is no SpaceX launch. They are pretty big affairs here.

[Anonymous No.10605562]

>>10605528
pajeet bots shit out those videos just because they can

[Anonymous No.10605565]

Starlink launch this month sometime right? Do we know how many sats it is carrying?

[Anonymous No.10605580]

>>10605565
20-40 I think

>>10605558
speaking of which CRS-17 is now happening on the 3rd

[Anonymous No.10605599]

>>10605528
no problem, last week i did the same thing with a ESA launch.
Came on /sci/ to join a launch thread while watching the stream only to discover the mission was alrealdy over a few hours ago.
That LIVE bullshit on youtube really needs to go.

[Anonymous No.10605606]

>>10605520
I tried reporting this "stream" as misleading but YouTube won't let me, sadly. Can someone else try?

[Anonymous No.10605651]

>>10605606
Doesn't matter if it gets pulled. Some poo will just chuck up another one.

[Anonymous No.10605788]

>>10604758
There is a documentary on YouTube (I think its on the NASA channel, too drunk to look it up) that shows a launch in insane slow motion, with commentary. Its wicked awesome.

[Anonymous No.10605796]

>>10605788
Ok maybe not too drunk yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlz5u1OBe_c

[Anonymous No.10605798]

>>10605788
You mean this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKtVpvzUF1Y

[Anonymous No.10605864]

>>10605041
Crystal growth? Can you elaborate on that?

[Anonymous No.10606056]

Holy shit. You know that ULA roadmap we all like to shit on? Well guess what? They actually got in trouble for it. They got in trouble because some of the stuff on there, space tugs and propellant storage, competes with the SLS. They proposed putting up some long term reusable space infrastructure and they got in trouble because it wasn't SLS. Fuck senator Shelby.
>>10604596
since I'm already gonna be called a ULA shill anyway I might as well say it now. 11 refueling launches!

[Anonymous No.10606071]

>>10606056
>They actually got in trouble for it.
Source? I know Shelby is petty but not that much.

[Anonymous No.10606079]

Take a look at this bullshit. These are NASA's plans to return to the moon. Notice anything? That's right, we have not one launch, not two launches, but three commercial launches and an SLS launch. And it gets even crazier. So you see that lunar descent vehicle? That's expendable. NASA's contracting $500 million dollars for each of those things and we're leaving them all on the moon. But wait we have reusable lunar ascent and transfer elements ...which are refueled with expendable propellant tank launches.

[Anonymous No.10606089]

>>10606079
What a fucking abortion.

[Anonymous No.10606090]

>>10606079
>2028
That escalated quickly. We fell behind four years in like three weeks.

[Anonymous No.10606097]

>>10606079
>This disgusting, pants on head retarded architecture
>Pushed back to twenty twenty fucking eight

SpaceX is truly our only hope. Our space capabilities have declined such that five decades after sending people to the moon on one rocket we now need a massive clusterfuck of assorted launches for a gorillion dollars. Jesus wept, we truly are in the decline.

[Anonymous No.10606109]

Quiz (no peeking!):

-This astronaut performed more EVAs than any other astronaut during the Apollo program.
-This Apollo-Soyuz junior Soviet cosmonaut cheated death, being taken off the Soyuz 11 assignment.

[Anonymous No.10606112]

>>10606090
>>10606097
That image predates the 2024 mandate. But I'm really not sure why they aren't going for a single ascent/descent module that's reusable, especially with the gateway meme.

[Anonymous No.10606114]

>>10606112
Ive heard that NASA is using a 3 part lander so that Congress can't just cut funding to the entire lander or crucial parts of it. All Congress could do would be to cut funding to one part only for NASA to continue working on the rest of the lander and revisit the cut part later. It's bullshit but it exists for a reason.

[Anonymous No.10606115]

>>10606071
some dude in the aerospace industry. It's second hand. I think they were referring to ACES. ULA does have a document where they touted propellant depots as an alternative to heavy lift(AKA SLS). SLS has always been blocking propellant depots.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/13/dallas-bienhoff-cislunar-space-development-company-718457

[Anonymous No.10606122]

>>10604841
>Hopefully those figures drop
>NASA
aaahahahaha good one

[Anonymous No.10606127]

>>10606097
No, it's actually a step forward. NASA's actually considering refueling stuff in space. Before that was taboo because refueling stuff in space could compete with SLS.
>>10606097
>>SpaceX
it takes 11 refueling launches to get a starship to the moon. It's all reusable though. I'll even bet they could do this more than once a year...

[Anonymous No.10606130]

>>10606127
Yeah 11 launches to take 100+ fucking tons and back.

[Anonymous No.10606247]

>>10606115
>Stopping possible advancements in spaceflight because it could maybe interfere with your porkbucks
This is why spaceflight has regressed since Apollo. Hopefully recent developments will clean out the excess. Also, its not like the need for an ultra heavy rocket would suddenly disappear with in orbit refueling.

Also SLS is expected to be able to send 26t to the Moon for $1.5B at the cheapest. Meanwhile the Saturn V could send 48.6t for $1.16B (adjusted for 2018 inflation).

[Anonymous No.10606540]

>>10604461
Our science is simply too primitive to know yet.

[Anonymous No.10606572]

>>10605130
>just think of all that money wasted that could have gone towards killing gooks in 'Nam
Landing on the Moon probably lost us the war but hey it was a small price to pay in order to deflate Soviet patriotism and communist support worldwide

[Anonymous No.10606574]

>>10605284
Not eugenics per say, but allowing advanced societies to advance as quickly as they can rather than use advanced societies as a crutch to prop up primitive societies, the latter of which will always inevitably outnumber the former at least until we're capable of colonizing deep space.

[Anonymous No.10606588]

>>10606127
>11 refueling launches
So for less than $200 million you get 100+ tons of payload onto the Moon, plus the Starship itself, which is essentially a giant habitat module you can live out of for months using nothing but consumable life support resources as you construct a permanent surface bubble habitat using your cargo. You are also not limited in terms of flight cadence so you could easily be pulling off a Starship to the Moon flight with 100 tons of cargo every month or even faster, so in a single year you could deliver and set up 1200 tons worth of habitat and cover it in a few tens of thousands of tons of Moon dust and gravel for shielding. Total launch costs somewhere around $2.4 billion, or about 2 SLS flights, but in half the time it'd take to build and launch 2 SLS rockets.

[Anonymous No.10606616]

The first chinese manned moon mission is past 2030.
Thats why nasa probably decided on 2028

[Anonymous No.10607092]

>>10606109
I dunno the 1st but the 2nd is Alexei Leonov, who was also the first astronaut to perform a spacewalk on Voshkod 2.

[Anonymous No.10607225]

>>10606588
>Total launch costs somewhere around $2.4 billion, or about 2 SLS flights, but in half the time it'd take to build and launch 2 SLS rockets.
What value are you using for the cost of an SLS launch? Most sources estimate $1.5B to $2.5B, neither fit into half of $2.4B.

[Anonymous No.10607333]

>>10607225
I want to know where he's getting an whole SLS rocket a year from, it takes at least a decade to launch an SLS, maybe more

[Anonymous No.10607335]

>spacex still won't admit the capsule exploded
at this point does ANYONE have confidence it's not a death trap?

[Anonymous No.10607338]

>>10607335
both SpaceX and NASA admit that something in the capsule exploded but they're being super tight lipped about everything else around the incident, and for good reason (it's because whoever sold them defective chinese parts is going to jail)

[Anonymous No.10607345]

>>10607338
no they didn't, all they've said is "it's an anomaly".

[Anonymous No.10607348]

>>10607338
More like cuz it’s sabotage again

[Anonymous No.10607352]

>>10607348
that's what I said you nigger

[Anonymous No.10607355]

>>10607345
two things:
1. anomoly is the right word for what happened, it was just a fuel or oxidizer leak that rapidly made itself worse, the explosion was just a side-effect of the failure
2. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/space/os-bz-ksc-new-photo-policy-20190430-story.html just an internal memo, but still

[Anonymous No.10607361]

>>10607355
>anomoly is the right word for what happened, it was just a fuel or oxidizer leak that rapidly made itself worse, the explosion was just a side-effect of the failure
oh come the fuck on, media relations isn't an engineering summary. the general public doesn't care about exactly what led to the explosion, just that it happened.

[Anonymous No.10607367]

>>10607333
>it takes at least a decade to launch an SLS, maybe more
Where the hell are you getting that from? I've heard that the SLS can launch every other year. Admittedly that's the theoretical maximum.

Are you thinking that the decade long development time of the SLS is how long it takes to build and launch one? Come on man, the SLS isn't that great but its not "one launch every decade" bad.

[Anonymous No.10607374]

>>10607367
>takes a decade to build and launch just one
>implying the next one is ready to go and not also being built or not even started being built yet

[Anonymous No.10607380]

How long until these clowns fly a person? How do you manage to fall behind your competitor who has already killed four people?

[Anonymous No.10607385]

What if you had to throw out your airplane at the end of a flight

[Anonymous No.10607386]

>>10607380
who has killed four people?

[Anonymous No.10607389]

>>10607380
>four people
who's that
everybody's either way above that or at zero still

[Anonymous No.10607390]

>>10607374
>>takes a decade to build and launch just one
It took a decade to develop one. While yes the development time was much longer than it should be, this doesn't directly relate to how long it actually takes to build and launch one.

>>implying the next one is ready to go and not also being built or not even started being built yet
I haven't heard anything about a second core, but it wouldn't take a decade to build one.

If you're going to rag on the SLS, then at least do it over actual flaws of the rocket and program rather than make up ridiculous things.

[Anonymous No.10607395]

>>10607380
>your competitor who has already killed four people
Which competitor? ULA nor SpaceX has launched crewed rockets. NASA has more than 4 casualties on crewed missions.

[Anonymous No.10607400]

>>10607386
>>10607389
>>10607395
virgin galactic is their suborbital tourism competitor. four people have died in two accidents related to spaceshiptwo.

[Anonymous No.10607413]

>>10607348
>sabotage
Who benefits from sabotaging spaceX?
Boeing is evil and makes planes who autopilot themselfs in to the ground but you would expect that spaceX would be prepared for outsiders.

[Anonymous No.10607416]

>>10607400
Has Virgin Galactic ever done an actual tour flight? Or are they still doing testing like Blue Origin?

[Anonymous No.10607433]

>>10607355
That just shows Elon was right, if they had done a propulsive landing like he wanted, it wouldn't have got sea water on the Chinesium strut, and said strut wouldn't have exploded!

[Anonymous No.10607434]

>>10607400
To be fair, one of those was his own damn fault. At least the other guy survived.

[Anonymous No.10607453]

>>10607433
>test determined to be due to sea water corrosion/erosion/explosion/trojan/tortion/extortion/contortion
>nasa agrees to do propulsive landing
>never have problems again


would be nice

[Anonymous No.10607467]

>>10607453
If NASA still doesn't like pure propulsive landings, then Dragon 2 can use the chutes over land and use the engines for a soft touchdown like how the Soyuz does it.

[Anonymous No.10607470]

>>10607467
I thought that was the idea, pure propulsive without chutes as backup is stupid

[Anonymous No.10607471]

>>10607355
>https://www.orlandosentinel.com/space/os-bz-ksc-new-photo-policy-20190430-story.html
website doesnt work in europe, whats on it, pictures of the burned out dragon?

[Anonymous No.10607481]

>>10607471
Workers under a certain big contract at KSC being reminded that they can't take photographs/video and they can't share theirs or other people's videos, under penalty of being fired. Leaked boom video was not from one of these people, but management is clamping down proactively.
And this is why we can't have nice things.

[Anonymous No.10607805]

>>10606056
>>10606079
All of this is fucking BS and you fucking know it.

[Anonymous No.10607809]

>>10606115
>"my friend's cousin's friend told me how EEEEVIIIL NASA got them in trouble for not doing 1!!1!"
How are you idiots so fucking gullible?

[Anonymous No.10607818]

>>10607390
There's some anon in here spamming made-up shit and rumors to "slam" SLS with. It's far from a perfect rocket, but it's not the fucking space anti-christ.

Anyway SLS Core 2 is already in production. Core 1 is entering final assembly.

[Anonymous No.10607823]

>>10607818
Like what kind of rumors? I mean, I've been slamming the SLS too, but I try to make sure that the things I'm hating on are true. Hopefully I'm not the one you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10607837]

>https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/cost-politics-and-bureaucracy-may-doom-plan-for-2024-moon-landing/
>According to two Washington, DC-based sources, NASA has informed the White House that it will need as much as $8 billion a year
>NASA has informed the White House that it will need as much as $8 billion a year
>as much as $8 billion a year
>$8 billion a year

DOA

[Anonymous No.10607879]

>>10607837
Honestly I think Trump would be eager to do it for the prestige of another moon landing. It's really Congress that's the holdup here.

[Anonymous No.10607886]

>>10607879
I've never understood why Congress is afraid of ambitious manned missions beyond LEO when they spent Apollo levels of money on LEO operations.

[Anonymous No.10607909]

>>10607886
If you get paid for less, why do more?

[Anonymous No.10607919]

>>10607909
But one of the reasons (if I recall correctly) for sticking to LEO manned missions was that it was cheaper than going to the Moon. If Congress is willing to spend lots of money to do less, then why not take that same amount of money and spend it on doing more?

[Anonymous No.10607925]

>>10607837
Berger fucked up. His number's wrong.
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1123658099632607237
>Bridenstine: I read an article this morning that said we need $8 billion more per year to do Moon 2024. That is not accurate. Not close to that amount. But I don't want to throw out a number.

[Anonymous No.10607928]

>>10607823
Dunno if you're that particular Anon, Anon.

[Anonymous No.10607932]

>>10607886
Because excellence in space triggers the low-IQ non-whites in their constituencies.

[Anonymous No.10607945]

>>10607919
Simply put they don't care about that and don't consider it important. The existing system satisfies both the lobbyists and voters.
>"I'm gonna vote for that guy because he's gonna build a moon base!"
Said no one ever.

[Anonymous No.10607961]

>>10607932
Screw them. They're most likely the kind of people who think NASA just sends tax payer money to space never to be recovered again.

>>10607945
>>"I'm gonna vote for that guy because he's gonna build a moon base!"
>Said no one ever.
What about Newt Gingrich?

[Anonymous No.10607980]

>>10607925
They are going to need a lander and other things of minor importance.
If Boeing and LM's performance in the SLS is any indication 8billion/y seems reasonable especially given the timeframe.
1 year to ramp up the funding and plans, then 3 years to finish and fly? That's coming with a pricetag unless magic happens.
>>10607961
He was quite ridiculed for that.

[Anonymous No.10607984]

>>10607961
They mocked him for talking about the moon base, simpletons and peons. At least Trump and Pence aren't mocking and indifferent about American space ambitions, Gingrich is even on the National Space Council now headed by Pence, based.

[Anonymous No.10608023]

>>10607980
My completely non-scientific guess? He's going to ask for ~$4B more per year. $8B's too much. $4B's a lot, but it's at least got a chance.

[Anonymous No.10608053]

>>10607980
>>10607984
Hopefully China or a private company comes along and upstages the spaceflight industry to show people that more could've been done in the last 50 years.

[Anonymous No.10608063]

>>10607980
>>10608023
Oh, also, while we're doing predictions, here's what I think he's also going to propose doing in the budget request:
>Move to bi-annual SLS launches as soon as manufacturing allows (basically, tell Boeing to start working on SLS Cores 3 and 4 NOW)
>Drop all Gateway elements for near-future except hab module and PPE
>Accelerate development of Z2 spacesuit
>Get EUS off the backburner (because any lander split into less than 3 parts is going to be too heavy for any non SLS rocket)
>Direct international partners to start working on lunar equipment with the bribe of letting them come down to the surface with us (wanna be second country on the moon? build us more equipment!)

[Anonymous No.10608075]

>>10608063
As cool as that would be, I'm going to hold my breath until hardware is done and being used. All this "back to the Moon" hype can suddenly die out once the elections are over, just like every other ambitious space program since Apollo.

[Anonymous No.10608081]

>>10608075
*I'm not going to hold my breath
Oops

[Anonymous No.10608107]

>>10608075
Indeed, don't get your hopes up too much yet. It could still all come tumbling down.

But you've gotta admit, the fact that we're even talking about this seriously is incredibly exciting.

Just don't think it's a done-deal. It's certainly not right now. And even if Bridenstine gets Congress on-board, it will still be vulnerable to changes in political winds. But the more flight-ready hardware made, the more resilient the program will become, so let's hope it can get that far before then, at least.

[Anonymous No.10608143]

>>10608107
>But the more flight-ready hardware made, the more resilient the program will become
Fucking this, also the more contracts and partnerships established, with US companies and international space agencies like JAXA, ESA, etc for the Gateway

Also the more progress China makes too, the more locked in we will be, no one wants to set things back when a new space race is on the horizon

[Anonymous No.10608167]

>>10608107
>But you've gotta admit, the fact that we're even talking about this seriously is incredibly exciting.
Agreed. I'm just abit jaded to all of this. Hopefully the return to the moon doesn't get canned because "orange man bad" when the next president comes along (who will probably be a Democrat).

[Anonymous No.10608177]

>>10608075
>All this "back to the Moon" hype can suddenly die out once the elections are over
Yep, if the next president is a Dem then its almost certain his office will come with a new roadmap that completly destroys the current one.

[Anonymous No.10608179]

>>10607400
I only know of one pilot and one worker who messed with chemicals nobody told him not to mess with. What's the other two?

[Anonymous No.10608187]

>>10607886
Because nobody cares anymore about teh evil commies and a missile gap.

[Anonymous No.10608198]

>>10608177
I'll say it again.

Any president who feels that he needs to cancel a program because the other party started it needs to be impeached for failing to meet the age requirement. That attitude is not only childish, but also harmful and wasteful.

[Anonymous No.10608200]

>>10608143
I mean, yeah, a lot of people miss the political calculus behind the gateway. It's part of the "sustainable return to the moon" pitch.

The ISS proved to be a hell of a lot more resilient than Space Station Freedom could ever hope to be. It was practically uncancelable.

NASA realized that if they gave their "future refuelling depot" lunar station ISS-style partnerships, they could avoid the risk of an Apollo repeat, where we cut finding once "mission accomplished" and didn't go back again.

The risk of that approach was that the Gateway could mutate into being an "ISS-around-the-moon" instead of "infrastructure to allow future ISRU hops and permanent human lunar presence." You can kinda see the problem in that image: it was starting to grow a bit too fast and overtake the primary goal: get to the lunar surface.

Thankfully, the 2024 push seems to have rejiggered the schedule to the point where that shouldn't be an issue. We'll build a lunar surface access outpost and lander first, THEN we'll start expanding it with our partners.

It's a win-win for lunar exploration because I guarantee you that even if Congress suddenly decided to cancel further surface missions, one of our partners on the station would be like, "Hey, we're going to borrow that lander if you're not using it, then."

[Anonymous No.10608206]

>>10608200
But NASA is currently having all these companies pitch in full blown gateway design concepts

[Anonymous No.10608211]

>>10608206

[Anonymous No.10608218]

>>10608206
Right, yeah. We're still planning to make a big gateway station like that other Anon's pic. The big important difference is we're doing the lander first instead of second.

[Anonymous No.10608260]

>>10608053
Jeff Who and that Bee Gees guy are doing their part too

[Anonymous No.10608271]

>>10608200
Yes those are all very good points, but next time do it without the reddit spacing.

>>10608206
I wonder how much of a influence a starship cargo version would have on future spacestations.
Will the modules just get bigger or are we going to see some radical new ideas.

[Anonymous No.10608276]

>>10608260
And I wish them both good luck. They really did show me that the space industry isn't inherently stagnant.

[Anonymous No.10608282]

>>10608271
>Yes those are all very good points, but next time do it without the reddit spacing.
Not to start a fight but how is that reddit spacing? He's just formatted it in a way so it's not dense and thus easier to read.

[Anonymous No.10608287]

Lunar Gateway will be outside of Earth's magnetic field and thus subject to galactic cosmic rays and solar flares, contrary to ISS. Does this not bother anyone?

[Anonymous No.10608298]

>>10608287
>Does this not bother anyone?
No because NASA has planned around it. They'll do more frequent crew rotations and Gateway will have a "storm shelter" for really bad solar flairs (if I recall correctly). Plus as time goes on, newer modules can be added which would have better shielding.

[Anonymous No.10608305]

>>10608271
>>10608282
Yeah, I just like double-spacing my paragraphs. Makes it easier to read.

[Anonymous No.10608307]

>>10608287
our magnetic field doesnt do much to protect against cosmic rays anyways. The solar magnetic field is responsible for that. What gets through the solar magnetic field eventually hits our upper atmosphere and shotguns a shitload of subatomic particles all the way down to ground level or even below ground level.

[Anonymous No.10608308]

>>10608298
Bigelow claims that their modules have superior protection.
I wonder if the bigelow module on ISS will prove that or they are just talking big.

[Anonymous No.10608318]

>Go on /pol/
>See Anon freak out over a rock in space
>NASA came on and BTFO him out and told him its nothing, and they gave proof
>His paranoia is too much and called them faggots and plug his ears

I have NASA contacts, and they say it's fine.
Now they say that, but as for right now, nothing is up. But I will say, and it's going to be shitty because our Satellites are in danger because of a possible Kepler Syndrome alert from 1994, but trust NASA when it comes with this shit. Nothing on 4chan is accurate beside certain things.

Now for all of you eggheads think NASA is bullshit, I say head down the KSC and look at the shit they have done and compare that to 4chan.
Shit is getting done, stop bothering us because of your schizophrenia and paranoia, it's gonna spread fake news like right now and cause a mass panic.

[Anonymous No.10608332]

>>10608318
>See Anon freak out over a rock in space
Are you referring to Oumuamua?

[Anonymous No.10608339]

>>10608332
He is freaking out because of Nasa telling what happens during events.
Basically

>Hey look, we are safe, and we know what happens when shit goes down
>Anon thinks its the end of the world
>THE WORLD IS NEIGH!
>AAAAAAAAAAAAA
>When it happens on the date
>Nothing happens
>WTF THEY LIED

[Anonymous No.10608340]

>>10608282
- reddit spacing is a bunch of one-sentence "paragraphs" with a blank line in between. They do that because Rubbit collapses line breaks without blank lines, which is gay.
- start paragraphs with punctuation to indent them if you want to make it readable
>or even greentext them

[Anonymous No.10608350]

>>10608318
>Kepler Syndrome
lolwut

[Anonymous No.10608352]

>>10608350
I meant Kessler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

[Anonymous No.10608354]

>>10608318
>going on /pol/
>expecting thoughtful and rational discussion of any kind

[Anonymous No.10608356]

>>10607092

If it were a quiz show I might just give it to you, since Leonov did get bumped off Soyuz 11 along with his counterpart. But I DID specify "junior", so no, it was someone else (Leonov commanded the Soviet Soyuz element).

[Anonymous No.10608364]

>>10608332
probably 2019 PDC

[Anonymous No.10608366]

>>10608354
This was kinda my last line with them, I trust NASA more than /pol/, and mostly, this was it for me.
Even a NASA lad from California came on and said that nothing isn't really happen, and that Anon was now moving his goalposts.
I think he was doing it for money and stuff, and just for paranoia.

People like that should really take a break, what causes the human mind to go that scary?

[Anonymous No.10608373]

>>10608364
THIS, he is scared about this.
NASA said that THERE IS NO IMPACT, they are doing this since Trump has gave NASA lots of cash to improve their stuff.
I think it's amazing how NASA can learn from this stuff, what sets me off is faggots think its the end of the world, like Planet X

[Anonymous No.10608376]

>>10608308
excited to see a bigelow module on gateway, they probably won't be chosen for the full design >>10608206

i think their strengths lie in proving great expansive modules as extra storage/habitation

[Anonymous No.10608383]

>>10608218
Good thats smart, imagine how much weight we save and everything when we only have to send a lander up once, keep it docked at the Gateway, refurbish/refuel between lunar surface excursions.

Instead of Apollo style, CSM + LEM launch everytime on SLS, thats one thing I really like about the Gateway, keeping a lander docked there

[Anonymous No.10608399]

>>10608364
>>10608373
Sorry, I have a nasty habit of living under a rock. So let me get this straight...

>NASA along with other organizations announce that they're doing a practice run
>This practice run will be about the event of an asteroid (2019 PDC) hitting the Earth
>Said asteroid would be in the "Dino Killer" range
>NASA has emphasized again and again that this is a practice run and the asteroid doesn't exist
>Some nutjobs keep thinking that the asteroid is real

Right?

[Anonymous No.10608402]

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/1/18522828/nasa-near-earth-asteroids-impact-simulation-exercise

A good read, don't show this to /pol/

[Anonymous No.10608406]

>>10608399
Yes, and it will come around in 2027, but won't hit.
I can archive you the thread, but you will be left with a headache

[Anonymous No.10608413]

>>10608406
I'll pass. I have enough headaches with finals coming up.

[Anonymous No.10608417]

>>10608413
Hey I don't doubt you.
But the cool thing is, when it comes to 2027, I hope we can get resources on the rock.

[Anonymous No.10608427]

2019 Planetary Defense Conference

[Anonymous No.10608431]

>ESA has been including the hashtag #fictionalevent on all tweets related to the event, but some Twitter users have been a little spooked. “Wait, is this real? Is this happening??!

[Anonymous No.10608433]

T O M O R R O W

Prepare your Blue anus

[Anonymous No.10608437]

>>10608431
>All those people scared had past lives of Dinosaurs

[Anonymous No.10608451]

>>10608318
>>Go on /pol/
yeah, that was probably your first mistake

[Anonymous No.10608457]

[Anonymous No.10608458]

>>10608431
>“Wait, is this real? Is this happening??!
social media has left me with very little faith in the average persons ability on critical thinking or even going further than a quick glance at the headlines before screaming their heads of.

[Anonymous No.10608464]

[Anonymous No.10608467]

>>10608457
>>10608464
Based, these guys are good at scaring millions over a exercise.

[Anonymous No.10608468]

>>10608457
>exercise
>not a real-world event
sounds exactly like something "they" would say to cover it up
*tinfoil crackles*

[Anonymous No.10608476]

>>10608468

[Anonymous No.10608477]

NASA has a tumblr now

they have joined the ranks of poorly compressed, useless, 2-3 second gifs

[Anonymous No.10608480]

>>10608477

[Anonymous No.10608482]

>>10608480

[Anonymous No.10608485]

>>10608477
>>10608480
pretty comfy

[Anonymous No.10608490]

>>10608477
>>10608480
>>10608482
Why is it such a bad quality?

[Anonymous No.10608491]

>>10608406
Link to the thread please?

[Anonymous No.10608494]

>>10608485
You have not even begun to see comfy

[Anonymous No.10608496]

>>10608491
>>>/pol/211723420

[Anonymous No.10608498]

>>10608490
blame Tumblr

[Anonymous No.10608500]

>>10608498
Use Reddit or Twitter

[Anonymous No.10608502]

>>10608494

[Anonymous No.10608508]

>>10608502

[Anonymous No.10608513]

>>10608508

[Anonymous No.10608515]

>>10608490
IIRC Tumblr can't support gifs above a certain size. Said size is pretty small, so gifs on Tumblr either need to be short (< 3 seconds) or incredibly compressed, sometimes both.

[Anonymous No.10608521]

>>10608513

[Anonymous No.10608526]

>>10608521

[Anonymous No.10608530]

>>10608526

[Anonymous No.10608534]

>>10608526
>>10608521
>>10608513
>>10608508
>>10608502
>>10608494
>>10608530
Max comfy

[Anonymous No.10608539]

>>10608530

>>10608534
not yet

[Anonymous No.10608543]

>>10608539

[Anonymous No.10608542]

>>10608502
>>10608494
Just imagine, sitter there in the cupola while Chris Hatfield plays some David Bowie for you, the sun slowly coming into view...

[Anonymous No.10608549]

>>10608491
godspeed, anon

[Anonymous No.10608551]

>>10608543

>>10608542
we can go even comfier

[Anonymous No.10608554]

>>10608551

[Anonymous No.10608556]

>>10608554
God I wish that were me

[Anonymous No.10608559]

>>10608556

[Anonymous No.10608564]

>>10608559

[Anonymous No.10608569]

>>10608564
its comfy inside too

[Anonymous No.10608570]

>>10608542
If you can ignore the smell.

[Anonymous No.10608575]

>>10608569
comfy outside

[Anonymous No.10608578]

>>10608575

[Anonymous No.10608583]

>>10608578

[Anonymous No.10608588]

>>10608570
Why, didn't know there are pajeets in space, no space street for them to poo on.

[Anonymous No.10608598]

>>10608583

[Anonymous No.10608602]

>>10608598

[Anonymous No.10608603]

>>10608602

[Anonymous No.10608607]

>>10608603

[Anonymous No.10608613]

>>10608607

[Anonymous No.10608614]

>>10608467
>"For those listeners who tuned in to Orson Welles's Mercury Theatre on the Air broadcast from 8 to 9 pm Eastern Standard Time tonight and did not realize that the program was merely a modernized adaptation of H. G. Wells' famous novel War of the Worlds, we are repeating the fact which was made clear four times on the program, that, while the names of some American cities were used, as in all novels and dramatizations, the entire story and all of its incidents were fictitious."

[Anonymous No.10608617]

>>10608613
not so comfy

[Anonymous No.10608620]

>>10608494
That looks almost like a DJ controller pad. Just imagine if it was, it would be the ultimate gig.

[Anonymous No.10608624]

>>10608406
No it comes around in 2027 in the scenario, the whole thing is fake, the asteroid too. They time-skip up to 2027

[Anonymous No.10608639]

[Anonymous No.10608645]

we're getting close....

[Anonymous No.10608653]

[Anonymous No.10608663]

>>10608653
What is that?

[Anonymous No.10608671]

>>10608663
orbital Starship Mk 1

[Anonymous No.10608674]

>>10608663
Water tank. Or maybe a grain silo.

[Anonymous No.10608684]

>>10608674
I've seen less shittily-built looking ones on Alibaba

[Anonymous No.10608730]

>>10605284
Based and space pilled af

[Anonymous No.10608841]

>>10608645
Concrete? Any speculation as to what that is?

[Anonymous No.10608874]

>>10608841
new jig. Probably so they can build sections in parallel.

[Anonymous No.10608947]

>>10608318
/pol/ is 90% paid shill threads and has been since 2015.

[Anonymous No.10609026]

>>10607809
Nah NASA isn't evil, it's just a big political shit show. NASA actually did some studies on this too, but kept them 'secret,' because they didn't want to tell congress that the thing congress wants to do is wrong:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/10/update-on-nasas.html
Those people in congress want to keep money going to their districts, but they've also gotten personally attached to that thing. Telling congress they are wrong is a potential risk to your job and maybe even the jobs of the people around you.

[Anonymous No.10609047]

How fucked is OneWeb?

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/04/30/fcc-approves-spacexs-plan-to-operate-starlink-satellites-at-lower-altitude/

[Anonymous No.10609058]

HOP WHEN

[Anonymous No.10609061]

Update on that /pol/ user, he is showing NO signs of stopping, and now is making new shit up.
Has this man officially lost it?

[Anonymous No.10609067]

>>10609061
>and now is making new shit up.
Like what? Do share.

[Anonymous No.10609075]

>>10609067
So he found out of the PDC 2019 shit, and now he is going around digging up old articles saying, "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" basically, clickbaitng.
NASA is even coming out saying after this successful PDC, we can divert anything that comes out way, little or big.
But this Anonymous doesn't take the time to effort to understand that humanity is getting more and more safer.

Go look for yourself, at this point, I give up on /pol/ for anything science and space related shit

[Anonymous No.10609080]

>>10609047
Wonder how many satellites they can cram into a F9 fairing?

[Anonymous No.10609090]

>>10608198
*cough*HAAAAACK*Nixon*clears throat*'scuse me

[Anonymous No.10609094]

>>10609090

[Anonymous No.10609100]

>>10609080
I'd guess somewhere around 50 based on the size of the prototypes they launched a while back.

[Anonymous No.10609101]

wasn't there a space x launch that was supposed to be today?

[Anonymous No.10609102]

>>10609090
Didn't Cheney cancel the X-33 for similar reasons?

[Anonymous No.10609109]

>>10609101
Dragon resupply to the ISS, it got pushed back a couple of days due to electrical faults on the station.

[Anonymous No.10609110]

>NASA can stop mostly anything now
>They are soon planning going to mars
>Technology is advancing faster and faster, ever since the coldwar

Guys, are we entering a age of science fiction?

[Anonymous No.10609119]

>>10609109
besides that I thought today was supposed to be a prototype starlink launch with the reused fairings or am I confusing things

[Anonymous No.10609136]

>>10609110

[Anonymous No.10609173]

>>10604438
1. fission reactor
2. ionic thrusters
have fun larping as captain kirk.

[Anonymous No.10609188]

>>10609173
Anon..

[Anonymous No.10609190]

>>10604596
i love you

[Anonymous No.10609202]

>>10608417
>But the cool thing is, when it comes to 2027, I hope we can get resources on the rock.
The rock isn't real. It is made up. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.10609205]

>>10609188
watt?

[Anonymous No.10609211]

>>10609202
I WANT TO BELIIIVEEEE!!!
>pic related

>>10609205
Do you work for them?

[Anonymous No.10609224]

>>10609211
>Do you work for them?
not anymore.

[Anonymous No.10609228]

>>10609224
Explain

[Anonymous No.10609231]

>>10609228
Explain what?

[Anonymous No.10609235]

>>10609231
Like who did you work for?

[Anonymous No.10609239]

>>10609075
>Go look for yourself, at this point, I give up on /pol/ for anything science and space related shit
That's because /pol/ has become a dumping ground for shit that even /x/ would reject.

[Anonymous No.10609241]

>>10609100
Should be a cool deployment to watch even if it's less than that.

[Anonymous No.10609243]

>>10609239
Jesus fuck

[Anonymous No.10609244]

>>10609235
assholes with nuclear powered flying crafts.

[Anonymous No.10609248]

>>10609244
???
There is gotta be a name

[Anonymous No.10609254]

>>10609248
the department of defence.

[Anonymous No.10609263]

>>10607338
Oh yeah it's chinas fault sure.
The company that always uses cheap parts does less testing and says fuck your experience to le "old space" and constantly lies about everything says it's not their fault?
Has Elon called the Chinese Supplier a pedophile yet?
Anyonr that still trusts SpaceX and Tesla after dozens of broken promises and lies needs to see a doctor.

[Anonymous No.10609265]

>>10609254
Based, what goes on there?

[Anonymous No.10609267]

>>10609265
there own government funded criminal syndicate basically.

[Anonymous No.10609273]

>>10609267
Awnser these questions


Are Aliens there?

Are we already in space?

Got a random fact?

[Anonymous No.10609282]

>>10609273
1. no and it's highly unlikely.
2. yes
3. they are dangerous, selfish, and manipulative.

[Anonymous No.10609294]

>>10609282
Very well

[Anonymous No.10609351]

>>10609273
1 yes but theyre most likely only single celled microorganisms
2 yes we live on earth which happens to be floating in space
3 neuron stars can spin at a rate of up to around 600 full rotations per second !

[Anonymous No.10609393]

>>10609075
>I give up on /pol/ for anything science and space related shit

The amount of flat-Earth, space is fake, ISS is fake, moon landing hoax tards on that board, jesus christ

[Anonymous No.10609410]

>>10608433

[Anonymous No.10609416]

>>10609393
They have moon hoaxers there? How do they answer the problem of "if the moon landings were fake then why didn't the Soviets mention it?"?

[Anonymous No.10609452]

>>10609410

[Anonymous No.10609453]

>>10609119
that's soonish, but not today

[Anonymous No.10609558]

>>10609416
They'll tell you it's some global conspiracy and the Soviets were in on it.

I think at least half of them are just shitposting, but it's hard to tell if they're serious sometimes. There's always one or two posters that come into any space related thread and spam the same easily debunked webms and youtube links/copypasta.
It's a shame the mods don't crack down on it, because the old space elevator threads there were pretty nice.

[Anonymous No.10609658]

>>10609094
1969
>Neil and Buzz, I'm talking to you from the Oval Room at the White House, and this certainly has got to be the most historic telephone call ever made from the White House
also 1969
>NASA: we have a rocket capable of going on to Mars and enough of them to do 10 moon miss-
>Tricky Dick: lolnope

[Anonymous No.10609664]

>>10609658
*slurps coffee*

[Anonymous No.10609698]

>>10609110
Imagine if everyone was psyched about space conquest. We should have been well into colonizing the solar system in the 90s if normies weren't fags

[Anonymous No.10609761]

>>10608494
>>10608502
>>10608508
>>10608513
>>10608539
>>10608551
>>10608554
>>10608556
>>10608559
>>10608564
>>10608569
>>10608575
>>10608578
>>10608583

You, you are like a little baby. Watch this

[Anonymous No.10609763]

>>10604438
Earth is flat

[Anonymous No.10609796]

>>10608458
>>10608458
Got baited into clicking on some obviously fake video once where someone had taken russian dash cam footage and edited in Tesla autopilot noises. Had 2.5 million views, 50:1 like/dislike ratio and the first comment who called it out was on page 3 or 4.
People are goddamned retards. Russia has it way too easy.

[Anonymous No.10609803]

>>10609416
It doesn‘t matter who else they "lied" to or what the purpose was. What matters is that they lied to ME and now I get to feel special for having looked behind the curtain! And don‘t try to bring facts into this or I won‘t feel like the world‘s laziest detective anymore and I‘d be left with being a lazy fuck yelling at computers all day.

[Anonymous No.10609807]

>>10609796
The problem is there are actual AP intervention compilation videos, which muddles the water

[Anonymous No.10609822]

>>10609393
>>10609416
>>10609558
>everyone I don't like is /pol/, and /pol/ does everything that is bad
Fuck off cunt
/pol/ has been getting raided perpetually for years now

[Anonymous No.10609839]

>>10609822
/pol/ is everything bad about 4Chan.

[Anonymous No.10609843]

>>10609839
only to redditors like you

[Anonymous No.10610194]

>>10608841
Foundations for a water tower.

[Anonymous No.10610204]

Why are there so many people against the moon space station that NASA wants to build?

We need something like this if we are going to be sending people in deep space.

I don't get it, is it just generic anti-science thing?

[Anonymous No.10610238]

>>10610204
We don‘t need one of those things for deep space missions and in fact, it‘ll probably just soak up money and effort for almost no tangible benefit just so SLS has something to do.

[Anonymous No.10610243]

Blue Origin to Launch and Land New Shepard Rocket in 2 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-5yGfjHSSY

[Anonymous No.10610259]

>>10610243
Link to the official youtube channel, moron.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T84qFp4_3ns

[Anonymous No.10610266]

>>10610243
These cunts always make me laugh. Landing is cool but it's a glorified sounding rocket. When are they gonna bring out the big boy rockets? Also the announcer lady annoys me.

[Anonymous No.10610268]

>>10610259
It's over already, you glorious mastermind

[Anonymous No.10610270]

>>10610243

[Anonymous No.10610272]

>>10610266
>Also the announcer lady annoys me.
Agree, smug.

[Anonymous No.10610275]

>>10610270
I don't know man, this arrow suggests it actually moved horizontally

[Anonymous No.10610277]

>>10610275
See figure 1. >>10609452

[Anonymous No.10610278]

>>10610243
>SPACE & UNIVERSE (Official)
suck a dick

[Anonymous No.10610279]

>>10610259
>literally looks like a penis
>cannot into hoverslam
>wastes fuel in hover
>nothing more than an overblown amusement park ride

Bezos toddlers BTFO

[Anonymous No.10610285]

>>10610279
Bezos realized that everyday rich people don't want to blow hundreds of thousands to cross the Karman line for one minute, so BO stopped giving a shit.

[Anonymous No.10610294]

“We’re not selling tickets yet. We have not selected a price yet, despite what you might have read,” she said, a reference to a report last summer that claimed the company was planning to charge between $200,000 and $300,000 per seat. “We don’t have a price yet. We haven’t determined when we’re going to sell tickets.”
- Ariane Cornell, head of astronaut strategy and sales at Blue Origin

[Anonymous No.10610308]

>>10610204
Gateway isn't really needed for deep space missions like what >>10610238 said. To add to this without going too much into detail, Gateway is the only manned beyond LEO program NASA can do due to political issues. Any other program would be cancelled as political winds change, Gateway was designed so that it would be politically impossible to cancel. It was designed around SLS, which cannot be cancelled too. It doesn't go directly to the Moon to satisfy people who don't want Apollo 2. It has international partners like ESA, so international agreements would have to be made to cancel. And more that I'm sure I'm forgetting.

Many people who don't like Gateway do so because it's a mission that only exists due to the peculiar and bad politics that surround NASA. It doesn't help with manned missions to the lunar surface. It doesn't really help as a steppingstone to Mars. But it's the only one NASA can do. Any other mission would've been cancelled in 4 to 8 years.

And no, people who dislike Gateway are not anti-science. They dislike it because its not very useful beyond pleasing politics.

[Anonymous No.10610382]

>>10609822
The issue is that, much like /x/, the raid is the only thing left now, there's nothing else.

[Anonymous No.10610484]

>>10605356
this is like 7/10s of a really good story but it's ruined with /pol/ shit

[Anonymous No.10610493]

CRS launch thread will be up in a bit.

[Anonymous No.10610535]

>>10608287
>Lunar Gateway will be outside of Earth's magnetic field
It will see human crew maybe once an year for a few days.

[Anonymous No.10610664]

>>10610308
>It doesn't help with manned missions to the lunar surface.

>keep LEM on gateway docked
>don't have to bring it with you when you launch from Earth everytime
>less fuel used since you just have to dock with gateway not land on Moon too

[Anonymous No.10610669]

>>10610664
Gateway needs to be the size of Mir and have two LEMs permanently based on it.

[Anonymous No.10610689]

>>10610669
Gateway needs to be the size of your mom

[Anonymous No.10610797]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKoGHJppW7c

[Anonymous No.10610804]

Hahahaha, oh fuck. According to international law, we can't nuke an asteroid to deflect it. UN's consensus is yeah, we need to address this because it's gonna be a huge shit show otherwise. They also say we need to have an asteroid probe ready to fucking go if we ever detect a roid headed our way.

[Anonymous No.10610808]

>>10609822
IT is sad. i recall when fash bros can talk about getting into space and how that will bring upon a new era. Then you get glow in the dark basketball americans shouting
>HURRRRRRRR SPACE IS FAKE XD
They then derail the thread with that shit. I hate such tactics

[Anonymous No.10610820]

>>10610804
The easy way out is to outfit South Sudan with a nuclear warhead on a rocket.

[Anonymous No.10610830]

>>10610808
>glow in the dark basketball americans
What?

[Anonymous No.10610877]

>>10610830
"Glow in the Dark" is a slang term referring to CIA (or similar groups) operatives. Look up Terry Davis, a brilliant but schizo programmer; he coined the term. "Basketball American" is a slang term for African-Americans. Terry Davis was also know for complaining about "CIA Niggers".

Anyways, I also agree that it is extremely annoying that you can't have any serious (well serious for 4chan) discussion on /pol about the political implications of space travel, or the political undergoing about existing space programs (plenty of shenanigans worth talking about with the SLS program byitself) without the moon hoaxers and flat earther's coming in and shitting up the place with their nonsense. There are plenty of space-related topics that wouldn't be a good fit for /sci - for example, say we get a Mar's colony going - what sort of gun control policies should the colony adapt, and how enforceable will they be (given that any early colony will have to have very capable small-scale manufacturing equipment, that most people can access.)

[Anonymous No.10610900]

>>10610877
Thanks for the clarification. I was imagining something like in this picture.

As for discussing politics in space, I think it would be fine to discuss it on /sci/ or even just /sfg/ as long as you carefully word your post so that it doesn't seem like you're trying to start a flame war.

[Anonymous No.10611122]

>>10610900
I fucking that pic LOL

[Anonymous No.10611126]

>>10611122
>I fucking that pic
>"Calm down, its just a picture."

[Anonymous No.10611201]

>>10610285
Meanwhile Musk realized that absolutely filthy rich people want to blow hundreds of millions to fly around the moon for a couple of days, so he really went all-in.

[Anonymous No.10611209]

>>10611122
reported to the authorities thats a child in that picture you sick fuck

[Anonymous No.10611218]

>>10610294
I mean, I realize they don't have to make a profit because they're living on Bezos bucks. But you can't tell me no one has made a basic calculation as to what price would be needed to break even at some point.

[Anonymous No.10611234]

>>10610664
Gee, good thing they have gateway to dock with or otherwise the landing module in lunar orbit would just fall straight back all the way to earth.
Wait...

[Anonymous No.10611300]

Paranoia /pol/ user is moving goalposts again
Avoid his thread on /pol/ if you can

[Anonymous No.10611313]

>>10611300
quit giving us updates you shithead nobody goes to /pol/ anyway
why don't you fuck off back there

[Anonymous No.10611317]

>>10611201
I'm sure he'll find a dozen or two people who are willing to spend less than they were going to spend on their next megayacht to follow in the literal footsteps of the Apollo program.

As a percentage of people with the means to do so, it's probably a fair bit higher than the number of folks willing to blow a couple hundred grand to be Alan Shepherd. You still have all of the risk of going for a ride on a rocket, with none of they payoff of being able to spend a week in space as you see the surface of the moon from 30 miles away and get to watch the earth shrink away to the size of a half dollar, then grow back to its overwhelming scale in LEO.

Sub-orbital "hop" tourism will be a dead-end until they can get the price below $100k per ticket and closer to what it costs for one of those Russian "fly in a jet fighter" experiences or what a round trip Concorde ticket used to cost.

[Anonymous No.10611330]

>>10611313
I wish I can go back.
It's a wasteland

[Anonymous No.10611357]

>>10611330
just shut up about it, it was always a wasteland

[Anonymous No.10611374]

>>10611234
And where would they get the fuel for the next excursion?

[Anonymous No.10611385]

>>10611357
>>10611330
>>10611313
>>10611300
>>10610877
>>10610382
>>10609843
>>10609839
>>10609822
Holy shit shut the fuck up. I come to these threads to get away from the insanity of the modern world, not have it spill over about some random schizo thread on /pol/. Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.10611387]

>>10611374
ACES
refuel it on the surface via Starship delivery
just have a giant tank full of nerve gas onboard the gateway, delivered by Falcon Heavy

[Anonymous No.10611393]

>>10611385
have you ever posted something and realized you're doing the very thing you're complaining about in the post?
it needed to be said either way

[Anonymous No.10611506]

>>10611387
If you're fueling from Earth's surface, it makes more sense to have the station in LEO, and then send the lander to the Moon from LEO.

[Anonymous No.10611508]

>>10611506
yeah but the government isn't about "being sane" or "sensible"

[Anonymous No.10611548]

>>10611508
This.

Come on, the US had a prototype potential replacement for the Shuttle 95% done with millions (or billions I don't recall) invested in it only to cancel it because it didn't use the tank material NASA wanted. There's a reason why the US hasn't been back to the moon in almost 60 years.

[Anonymous No.10611572]

>>10604915
More for the infrastructure, less for the rocket itself. Computer design and newer manufacturing techniques make the process of actually imagining, building, and testing parts easier, the parts themselves can be much simplified, and tolerances of computer designed parts are much cleaner and require much less tweaking. Designing and building a new heavy lifter isn't the hard part at all, the factory processes to machine the parts, the facilities to assemble, stand, fuel, and launch it however will be as expensive as ever.

[Anonymous No.10611583]

>>10610484
Can a story really not be good just because it contains some of the author's own thoughts and opinions?

[Anonymous No.10611590]

>>10611548
Venture Star soaked up 922 million from NASA and another 357 million from Cockheed, so just under 1.3 billion in total. It's notable as well that it was also planned to be a commercial launch vehicle which would be used by Lockheed outside of just NASA missions, had it succeeded Lockheed now might be filling a similar niche to SpaceX as a commercial alternative to government launch programs for small and medium sized payloads.

[Anonymous No.10611593]

>>10611583
not when the author's own thoughts and opinions so extremely clash with my own experiences, no
it just makes me think, "this guy's so full of shit"

[Anonymous No.10611612]

>>10611590
United States decades ago: "Lets interfere with our space agency for extra pork money, because let's be honest, we're never going to leave LEO because of political inference to get more pork money."

United States now: "Woah! What the fuck? China is about to beat us to the moon, and now we're struggling to go beyond LEO?! How could this have happened?"

[Anonymous No.10611625]

>>10611593
Your life must be very unhappy if your enjoyment of things is so deeply impacted by anecdotal data.
>>10611612
Oh well, it was an inevitable wall we were guaranteed to hit when the space race ended with space projects still being almost completely monopolized by the government. Every government program which is predominated by government turns into a pork farm, so even though the canning of Venture Star was like a slap to the balls it was at least a slap to the balls we could all see coming and get nice and clenched up for. Shame we'll probably never see Bigdick Star fly, although with more and more progress being made outside of NASA's direct purview somebody at least might try something similar in the near future, I think there's at least one small rocket company playing around with aero-wedge engines, and while it didn't fly the RS-2200 engine is a sound and mature piece of technology and could probably be revived and greatly improved with modern design techniques. I wish the Chinese best of luck, competition for space from them will directly improve the space programs of the US.

[Anonymous No.10611628]

>>10611625
>anecdotal data
>completely discounts the achievements of the yellow man and the red man

[Anonymous No.10611663]

>>10611625
SSTO spaceplanes are a fucking meme

[Anonymous No.10611675]

>>10611625
When looking back at how Apollo was managed, it did become obvious that the American space agency would end up this way. However, it still doesn't make it any less depressing and frustrating. I grew up seeing videos about all the cool space developments since Apollo, and none of them go anywhere. I got magazines that promised manned Martian missions by 2010, and then it all goes quiet by the time that year rolls by. The Shuttle ending with no replacement. It all convinced me that the space industry was stagnant. That if nothing was going to happen for decades then I shouldn't expect anything to happen while I'm alive except for some missions on the ISS. Fortunately that seems to be changing, and I wish everyone involved in the space industry good luck. Let's actually change something for the better here instead of just drawing some concepts.

[Anonymous No.10611677]

>>10611663
Sure, but I still would have liked to see one fly, even if it's not as economical as a conventional multistage rocket. If it had been NASA's new medium (venturestar) and heavy (SS3) launchers it still would have been more economical from a development standpoint compared to slut launch system.

[Anonymous No.10611683]

>>10611677
Not to sound rude, but pretty much any launch system would be more economical than the SLS. It costs more per launch than the Saturn V while delivering almost half the mass to the Moon.

[Anonymous No.10611715]

>>10611683
Oh absolutely, I've got no illusions about the inefficiencies of SLS and SSTO systems in general. I'd go for a LOX/RP1 aerospike first stage and MethaLOX aerospike second stage and either strap on some very large LPRE boosters or make the whole thing significantly bigger and shoot for a payload at least twice that of Saturn V. That's probably the part that irritates me most about current government space programs, they don't seem interested at all in actually pushing payload capacity forward. People might say "hur dur there's no payloads big enough to warrant more capacity" but half of the reason nobody makes big payloads is because there's no rockets to fly them in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10611736]

>>10611715
>People might say "hur dur there's no payloads big enough to warrant more capacity" but half of the reason nobody makes big payloads is because there's no rockets to fly them in the first place.
I think both are correct. Payloads have to be designed around what rockets can carry them, and if there are no large rockets available then there will be no heavy payloads. However for ultra heavy rockets, since there are no ultra heavy payloads, then a launch company or government agency won't feel justified to have them.

It's kinda like how an in-space industry would need propellant depots, but propellant depots need an in-space industry to set up. I hope I'm making sense...

[Anonymous No.10611746]

>>10611736
Absolutely, your thoughts mirror my own, however if there's no superheavy launchers then superheavy payloads are worthless and impossible, however there can be and must be a very heavy launcher first, even without a payload that nearly matches it's maximum lifting weight it's improved $/kg margin can allow it to carry many small or a few medium payloads. Falcon Heavy is that way for medium launches, hell Arabsat 6a weighs only a tenth of what it could deliver to LEO.

[Anonymous No.10611755]

>>10611746
That makes sense to me. Hopefully SLS will at least jump start the "ultra heavy revolution" until New Glenn and BFR can take the torch. The space industry has been messing around in LEO for too long.

[Anonymous No.10611766]

>>10611677
The thing never would have worked, the tank was an unsolvable problem along with the massive weight of the aerospike modified to not melt meaning it couldn't actually reach orbit.

[Anonymous No.10611767]

>>10611755
New Glenn is interesting, it strikes me as more of a "medium heavy" launcher with it's 50 ton payload, compared to the 150 ton LEO capacity of Saturn V or 100 ton capacity of BFRship. I'd consider a superheavy lifter to exceed 200 tons and ultraheavy to be in the 3-400 ton range and beyond.

[Anonymous No.10611785]

>>10611767
Obviously New Glenn is not in the same size range as SLS nor BFR nor Saturn V, but I mentioned it because it would be among the heaviest commercial rockets if it starts flying whenever Blue Origin says it'll fly. This will offer kind of a "halfway point" between the ~10-20t launchers available now and the 100+t launchers that are needed for beyond LEO missions. Thus maybe it'll allow for the space industry to gradually shift to ultra heavy payloads. If anything, a smaller (relatively) reusable rocket will be faster to turn around than a larger one thus New Glenn may fulfill a role of a resupply launcher as a larger launcher may not have fast enough turn around to give a stream of supplies to manned missions. Then again, I'm just speculating.

Also, there needs to be a classification system for launcher sizes based on delivered payload to LEO. I vote in favor of using Fibonacci numbers.

[Anonymous No.10611802]

>>10611785
Agreed about the desirability of a sort of "intermediate" size reusable rocket, always good to have multiple contending designs wherever economy allows, more competition generally means more innovation so I'm all for it. It also would be great to have a formal international launcher size classification, it could give both payload manufacturers and rocket engineers a nice clean goal to shoot for "if I want to build a heavy launcher it's gotta carry this much", whereas now maximum payload weights are all over the place. It could also make computer design of other components easier "I need an engine to get X payload weight to orbit using X weight launcher", knowing exactly what "class" of rocket your shooting for can probably have some minor but desirable impacts on overall RND speed.

[Anonymous No.10611808]

SpaceX launch thread is up
>>10611805

4 bongs to go

[Anonymous No.10611809]

>>10611802
>It also would be great to have a formal international launcher size classification
Maybe that should be the "theme" for the next /sfg/? "If you could make a rocket classification system based on delivered mass to LEO, then what would it be and why?"

[Anonymous No.10611857]

>>10611809
Yeah, the two metrics that immediately come to mind are to either do it by how many MN the first stage put out at takeoff or by raw payload capacity to LEO.

[Anonymous No.10611868]

>>10611715
>People might say "hur dur there's no payloads big enough to warrant more capacity" but half of the reason nobody makes big payloads is because there's no rockets to fly them in the first place.

That's what New Armstrong is for.

[Anonymous No.10611877]

>>10611767
>>10611785
>>10611802

So what do people think New Armstrong is going to be?

[Anonymous No.10611891]

>>10611857
Probably just raw tonnage to LEO for the whole stack. That does mean that one rocket can be in multiple classifications based on the configuration (something like Atlas 401 vs Atlas 552). But I don't think that would be a problem. I think such a classification system would need to have fewer big payload classifications and more smaller ones, because larger distinctions can be made with smaller rockets versions big ones.

I'd figured using Fibonacci numbers may be best (plus it's a neat number sequence), but that might be unintuitive for most people. Maybe doubling? Or maybe draw distinctions based on engineering challenges associated with each size group?

[Anonymous No.10611906]

>>10611877
Well I can't even find an artists impression of it for scale comparison or anything so it's completely speculation but since Bezos says New Glenn will be the smallest orbital rocket he plans to build and that enhanced lunar exploration is the next logical step I would assume it to be shooting for at least 100 tons to LEO if not matching the Saturn V for 150 tons to LEO.

[Anonymous No.10611910]

>>10611906
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for something along the lines of the post-Saturn Nova designs. I'm want to see something that can put 200+ tons into LEO.

[Anonymous No.10611912]

>>10611906
I've heard greater than 150t to LEO. But no one outside of BO really knows.

[Anonymous No.10611937]

>>10611910
>Nova
>Saturn V but thiccer in the hips.
Yes please, somebody call appropriations.

[Anonymous No.10611945]

>>10611937
Step aside, son.

[Anonymous No.10611972]

>>10611945
UHH THICCER

[Anonymous No.10611977]

>>10611972

[Anonymous No.10611996]

>>10611945
>For when you want to fly a direct-ascent mission to pluto

[Anonymous No.10612006]

>>10611977
God DAMN I loved that thread.

[Anonymous No.10612010]

>>10612006
I still have a screencap of the post that started it all...


...and Nuclear Sea Dragon too.

[Anonymous No.10612114]

>>10612010
I wonder if something like nuke-dragon would be doable, or even a NTPR driven Saturn sized rocket. Timberwind 250 only has about 1/6th the sea-level thrust of an F1 but weighs only 100kg less. F1's TWR is 94 while Timberwind 250's is only 30. An F1 style NTPR might weigh up to six times more than it's combustion counterpart for the same level of thrust. Besides you don't need prolonged high efficiency burn times in a sea level booster, relatively small NTPRs with very large nozzle extensions or in some kind of aerospike configuration for higher ISP would make sense as a second stage booster and third stage bus where ISP becomes more desirable than TWR.

[Anonymous No.10612125]

>>10612114
I think a more practical way of doing it would be a conventional first stage with a LANTR upper stage.

(1/2)

[Anonymous No.10612128]

>>10612125
Btw, thanks for letting me know that the Timberwind 250 exists, that's a pretty neat engine.

(2/2)

[Anonymous No.10612178]

>>10612125
Agreed, also I take it back, the 2.8 ton Dumbo B (not including extra shields for plumbing and bell weight) has a TWR of 130 and develops 3,560,000n, that's double, I repeat double the power of an F1, and even if we assume that the shielding that protects plumbing from reactor emissions and the bell add several hundred more kg to the weight, it will still have a TWR in the same ballpark and an F1. Dumbo was shelved for political reasons because at the time it was competing with NERVA and there was no tolerance for a potential nuclear launch, so it's focus on achieving higher mass flow rates and thus higher TWRs was not valuable. The Dumbo H2 that was actually tested had an ISP of 825s.

[Anonymous No.10612223]

>>10612125
Based on the information about the Dumbo rocket I think it's safe to say that using a molten salt reactor which is more optimal for NTPR use (lighter, hotter, less mechanically complex, fewer modes of critical failure) with an LH2 mass flow rate of around 400kg/s you would not only enormously exceed the raw power of an F1 engine, but you should also be able to get TWR's in the 90-100 range and ISPs in the 800-1000 range. I'd personally rather go with a bimodal LOX afterburning methane MSNTPR, trading off the on paper efficiency bonus of LH2 for the practical engineering benefits of LCH4. As I have opined in many other threads, it hurts my soul to think of an NTPR being destroyed by hydrogen embrittlement and discarded. An LCH4 MSNTPR will also have an even more favorable TWR due to using a denser propellant and will be able to save weight on tankage, insulation, long term cryocooling hardware, and turbopump systems, along with being reusable, and while an LH2 rocket will always have a higher ISP, using a fundamentally hotter reactor system like an MSR can at least mitigate that.

[Anonymous No.10612375]

CRS-17 stream is up.

[Anonymous No.10612379]

>>10612375
Aye.

Launch thread here: >>10611805

[Anonymous No.10612383]

>>10612379
Yeah I found the thread as soon as I got the email notification of the stream.

[Anonymous No.10612404]

Annnnnd it's scrubbed

[Anonymous No.10612407]

>>10612379
scrubbed