/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.10629281]

All those abandoned endeavours edition

old thread >>10621039

[Anonymous No.10629289]

Can that little guy get back into orbit from most planets? Or is only for returning people to Earth?

[Anonymous No.10629304]

>>10627933
SLS and JWST are mostly complete. It'd probably be better not to launch SLS because sunk cost fallacy and all that, but I think both of those are flying at least. Maybe it'll take until 2025 for JWST though.

[Anonymous No.10629307]

>>10629289
No. One way ticket.

[Anonymous No.10629315]

Is SpaceX finished now?

[Anonymous No.10629316]

>>10629304
What's your bet on starship? First orbital flight when?

[Anonymous No.10629327]

>>10629304
In 2025 that European 40m telescope goes online and it will be able to do everything JWST can.

[Anonymous No.10629331]

>>10629289
There was a very foggy idea of using it as a silo to launch a sample return mini rocket.

[Anonymous No.10629336]

what's joff bozo gonna announce today?

[Anonymous No.10629387]

Behold the second coming of the space messiah!

[Anonymous No.10629444]

>>10629331
we've yet to every launch a rocket from Martian surface, I wonder what the unique challenges are compared to Earth launches

At least the atmosphere is thinner and the planet smaller

[Anonymous No.10629450]

>>10629327
no, telescopes are limited on Earth by Earth environmental factors, the clearest most unobstructed view for all wavelengths is in space

[Anonymous No.10629475]

>>10629316
SLS late 2022, Starship early 2023. I imagine it'll resemble the Dragon vs. Starliner race as time goes on.

>>10629336
BO will show their bid for NASA's moon by 2024 goal. Probably just a lander that fits into the SLS-Orion-Gateway architecture.

[Anonymous No.10629527]

>>10629387

[Anonymous No.10629531]

>>10629316
Spring 2021 is my bet for a full orbital flight.

[Anonymous No.10629543]

I guarantee you that Bridenstine's new NASA budget ask is going to include a move to bi-annual SLS launches. It just makes too much sense. Not sure Congress will actually DO it (though I would say it's more likely than not), but he'll ask for it. Well, you know, whenever we actually SEE it. Fucking OMB dragging their feet.

Also the tanks for EM-2 are slowly coming together. Heard that they've gone ahead and bought some of the long lead parts for EM-3 too. So those of you that say the SLS will never fly (not those who just say it'll take a while): get BTFO. It's at least flying twice at this point.

[Anonymous No.10629546]

>>10629281
Earth is flat

[Anonymous No.10629548]

>>10629546
u r waifu is flat

[Anonymous No.10629552]

So I've got a tinfoil hat theory I'm interested in sharing about SpaceX's old ITS idea: I think it was part of a failed push to get Gov. funding and displace the SLS as NASA's BLEO launch vehicle.

Now I know, a bit out there. But think about it, it kinda makes sense if you think about it that way. They did that big press conference and unveiling with a rendering of it on Pad 39A, and I swear I remember them hiring a lobbyist guy right before that who made a remark along the lines of "SLS is history."

And then Congress gave absolutely no fucks and NASA gave absolutely no fucks and SpaceX realized their plan was absolutely not gonna work, so they downscaled ITS into something they could actually feasibly demonstrate in hopes of maybe building credibility and trying again further down the line.

Sound plausible to you guys?

[Anonymous No.10629560]

>>10629543
>Heard that they've gone ahead and bought some of the long lead parts for EM-3 too.
A lot of good that did for Apollo. A lot of flight-spec hardware ended up as yard ornaments.

[Anonymous No.10629574]

>>10629552
The problem is that ITS was way too big for anything NASA would need it for. SpaceX would need to convince Congress and NASA not only that ITS was a better alternative to SLS, but also in Musk's entire Mars vision.
That being said, I'm sure SpaceX realized that ITS required NASA funding. Starship is cheap enough that it can get off the drawing board before it requires major funding from NASA etc.

[Anonymous No.10629593]

>>10629281
Pretty sad that Red Dragon isn’t going to be a thing anymore. It would’ve been really interesting to have what is essentially a standardised landing platform to Mars that would get loaded up with loads of whatever science experiments.

[Anonymous No.10629598]

>>10629574
To add to this. Wasn't a 12m diameter rocket too big for SpaceX (or anyone really) to make out if carbon fiber? Sure ITS was before the stainless steel change so that issue is null, but it could've been one of the motivations to change to 9m dameter.

[Anonymous No.10629604]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTo1UDszxg
Exciting potential, no more decade long, super complex, limited size JWST type telescopes, but something more simple, basic yet far bigger than possible on Earth, and far more fragile I imagine too

thoughts?

[Anonymous No.10629605]

Reusable rockets are not cost effective because it's not clear whether they will fly and are not likely to work anyway due to the high cost to make a simple rocket from an existing supply chain in a low cost country. (At least not yet, but it may not be that long.) A low cost rocket could be made from low cost parts that might not be available to buy on the domestic production site due to lack of demand. This would require building from high quality components on a large scale in the form of the largest components.

That raises a question of cost. I believe the cost is reasonable in that it's not very complex or expensive (in my experience) to make them. The rocket could just be fired as long as you get something with good reliability that fits the requirements. As long as it will operate for the full length of the mission it becomes cheap

[Anonymous No.10629613]

>>10629605
>make a simple rocket from an existing supply chain in a low cost country
see, that's where you fucked up
sometimes you need to throw out the old supply chain and streamline your operations a bit
the real secret is that reusable rockets won't be effective at distributing money to you constituents

[Anonymous No.10629614]

>>10629475
>dragon vs starliner race
>comparing sls in any way to starship
More like alternate universe apollo vs sputnik.

[Anonymous No.10629618]

>>10629605
“Not clear whether they will fly”

What?

[Anonymous No.10629622]

>>10629593
I wonder if they reached out to anyone about doing a mission with Red Dragon. Even with SpaceX's "all-in with Starship" approach, I think there'd be room for Red Dragon if there was any demand.

[Anonymous No.10629627]

>>10629614
They're both American super heavy lift launch vehicles meant to come online in the next few years, so the comparison is valid. But you're right, Starship is way more capable and could kill SLS, while the opposite is not true.

[Anonymous No.10629628]

>>10629605
>Reusable rockets are not cost effective because it's not clear whether they will fly and are not likely to work anyway due to the high cost to make a simple rocket from an existing supply chain in a low cost country.
What? Why isn't it clear whether they'll fly? And why would cost make reusable rockets unworkable? Blue Origin can reuse a New Shepard rocket many times as it was clearly shown, so why not something like a Falcon 9 booster? Sure a reusable rocket is more expensive than an expendable one on a per-vehicle basis, but a reusable rocket can be reused many times which makes them more price competitive.

The reason why reusable rockets are difficult to do now is that noone has really tried to do them. Before SpaceX, the closest spaceflight had to a reusable to-orbit vehicle was the Shuttle and that vehicle's design was not only compromised from the start but also wasn't allowed to develop during it's lifetime so it was effectively suck in the buggy prototype stage. This isn't a good demonstration of reusable launch vehicles. Give it time and reusable rockets will prove themselves.

[Anonymous No.10629631]

>>10629614
>apollo vs sputnik
what?

[Anonymous No.10629632]

>>10629598
They built test tanks at 12m diameter so no, that shouldn't have been the reason.

[Anonymous No.10629648]

ATTENTION:::::: THEY'RE STACKING ORBITAL STARSHIP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrOIICpAJZw

[Anonymous No.10629650]

>>10629648
OH SHIIIITTT

[Anonymous No.10629651]

>>10629631
They are pretty much the same anyway.

[Anonymous No.10629652]

>>10629648
That's incredibly hard to see, but cool!

[Anonymous No.10629654]

>>10629444
Unless you want to create an entire industry on Mars first, you will have to put a rocket inside a rocket and haul it from Earth first. And the rocket equation is a bitch.

[Anonymous No.10629655]

owo

[Anonymous No.10629656]

What is Pepto Bezmol announcing today?
https://www.space.com/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-announcement-preview-may-2019.html

[Anonymous No.10629658]

>>10629655
uwu

[Anonymous No.10629660]

>>10629658
he... he's tall~!

[Anonymous No.10629661]

>>10629648

[Anonymous No.10629662]

>>10629655
>>10629658

The walls seem noticeably thinner than the watertower r2d2.
They better add some reinforcement before flight.

[Anonymous No.10629664]

>>10629662
they added a bunch of internal stiffeners, it's what they've been doing for the past month

[Anonymous No.10629665]

>>10629660
>>10629658
>>10629655
Is Elon just messing with us about this whole BFR thing, and he's actually building a giant robotic Canadian?

[Anonymous No.10629666]

warning: pinching hazard

>>10629662
hoop strength of steel rings that big and thick is pretty high, I wouldn't worry about it

[Anonymous No.10629667]

>>10629656
New Shepard tourist launch NET next year.

[Anonymous No.10629668]

>>10629527
Soon it will all be over

[Anonymous No.10629669]

>>10629648
WTF is on the audio and why is it so low level, I had to plug in an external speaker so I could crank it up to 11 and it's still barely audible

[Anonymous No.10629670]

>>10629656
probably something about that lame suborbital hopper

[Anonymous No.10629672]

>>10629651
are you high?
sputnik was a 2ft wide ball with a radio transmitter
Apollo was a manned spacecraft

[Anonymous No.10629680]

>>10629672
apollo was a desperate moonshot, Sputnik was the basis for a sustainable low earth orbit program that persists to this day with roughly the same launcher

[Anonymous No.10629682]

>>10629680
so you're saying they're not 'pretty much the same'

[Anonymous No.10629684]

>>10629680
Are you absolutely sure you aren't confusing Sputnik with Soyuz, mate?

[Anonymous No.10629713]

>>10629684
they both use the R7 dude, sputnik became vostok became voshkhod became soyuz

[Anonymous No.10629717]

>>10629713
Yeah
Just like how Explorer became Mercury became Apollo became Orion

[Anonymous No.10629743]

>>10629717
no, Explorer was a Juno rocket, and a similar rocket was used for the Redstone Mercury launches, and you could stretch it to include the Saturn I and Saturn IB rockets
Mercury was on top of an Atlas rocket, which would go on to be used to launch the Atlas-Agena target vehicle for the Gemini tests
USA did a lot of starting over

[Anonymous No.10629744]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-bezos/billionaire-jeff-bezos-to-unveil-plans-for-moon-presence-sources-say-idUSKCN1SF1WI
>Billionaire entrepreneur Jeff Bezos will unveil plans on Thursday for missions to the moon tailored to the U.S. government’s renewed push to establish a lunar outpost in just five years, people familiar with the matter said.

[Anonymous No.10629754]

>>10629648
Can't see shit.
I've combined couple of frames and bumped the contrast.
Still can't see shit

[Anonymous No.10629755]

>>10629744
I really hope that this is a serious push to the moon and that it won't get reset by the time the next president comes.

[Anonymous No.10629759]

https://spacenews.com/crew-dragon-parachutes-failed-in-recent-test/
>Crew Dragon parachutes failed in recent test
>“The test was not satisfactory,” responded Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations and one of the witnesses at the hearing. “We did not get the results we wanted, but we learned some information that’s going to affect, potentially, future parachute designs.”
>In that test, one of the four parachutes was “proactively failed” to demonstrate the “single-out” capability of the overall system. However, he said, “the three remaining chutes did not operate properly.” That caused a test sled to hit the ground faster than expected, damaging it.

[Anonymous No.10629763]

>>10629755
the chinese have said they're going to the moon so hopefully this lights a fire under america's ass

[Anonymous No.10629768]

>>10629763
If the United States beats China in the race back to the moon, then they better stay there an make a serious effort in spaceflight rather than trash everything due to poltical infighting like last time.

[Anonymous No.10629775]

>>10629546
Your dick is flat.

[Anonymous No.10629792]

>>10629754
see >>10629660

>>10629755
If there's a new president in 2021, any reset probably depends on how much progress is made over the next two years or so. SLS and Orion will fly, though it may not necessarily support the new admin's plans. Gateway probably won't happen unless really quick progress is made on a lander. BO may be planning to go to the moon with New Glenn as a fallback, since NASA wouldn't approve of anything other than SLS under this administration (especially since NG is a paper rocket), but it would be their best chance if the current architecture is canned.
If Trump is reelected, then it's business as usual.

[Anonymous No.10629805]

>>10629387
>When you have the baby starship, whisper to it "hi baby starsihp" in a very soft voice.

[Anonymous No.10629810]

>>10629387

[Anonymous No.10629821]

>>10629792
I'm just worried that due to Trump's abrasive attitude, that whomever replaces him would try his best to undo anything Trump started even if they were good ideas on their own merits. Kinda like how Nixon gutted NASA because he saw it as Kennedy's project.

[Anonymous No.10629866]

>>10629768
>China plans to build a scientific research station on the moon in "about 10 years," according to the state news agency Xinhua.
>The China National Space Administration (CSNA) intends to build the research station in the region of the moon's south pole, Zhang Kejian, head of CSNA, said in a public statement, Xinhua reported.
https://www.space.com/china-moon-base-10-years.html

Well the Chinese seem to be going there to stay so hopefully the US will as well.

[Anonymous No.10629898]

>>10629821
Unfortunately I don't think it's a worry so much as a forgone conclusion, shit we've got people literally hoping the country's economy collapses and millions of people suffer abject poverty JUST so that it would make Trump's presidency look like the version of it that exists in their mentally deranged fantasy. Private rocketry is the future because for pure spite the government will gut it's own space program so that the previous administration will look worse.

[Anonymous No.10629925]

>>10629898
>Unfortunately I don't think it's a worry so much as a forgone conclusion
Then the president who does that should be impeached because obviously he's a child and doesn't meet the age requirement of 35.

[Anonymous No.10629946]

>>10629759
They just can‘t catch a break, can they.

[Anonymous No.10629972]

>>10629744
Is there a stream? Only 90 minutes left.

[Anonymous No.10629975]

>>10629972
people on rebbit were saying there's no stream

[Anonymous No.10629976]

>>10629972
Media aren’t allowed to livestream it

[Anonymous No.10629978]

>>10629898
maybe if the next president is a dem they can just change a few things about the moon mission architecture and rebrand it as their own

[Anonymous No.10629987]

>>10629975
>>10629976
Man, this is just no fun at all.
Can we at least get a live ticker?

[Anonymous No.10629989]

>>10629672
Okay this turned out more complicated than it seemed and my original post even invited retards flinging shit.

SLS is not suitable to be compared with Starship since what it offers is considerably LESS, for considerably MORE (money and time). There is no "race" going on between them. Hence the ridiculous analogy where a space race is happening between one side working on apollo and the other on sputnik.
Keep in mind it is a beefed up FH with inferior flight rate compensated for by the overpowering price tag. Starship on the other side promises to be the entire STS system and more.

[Anonymous No.10629994]

>>10629987
nope lol https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/1126554553590005761

[Anonymous No.10629996]

>>10629978
If the Democrats must change NASA's current moon program (idk, maybe their brains explode if they support a Republican program), then hopefully they'll just change the name and small parts of the mission parameters but leaving most of the development and hardware alone. It'll still be political messing that NASA doesn't need, but at least it'll be a step forward compared to just canceling programs when they're 95% done because it was started by the opposing party (which I guess is a crime greater than 9-11 times one hundred in American politics).

[Anonymous No.10629997]

>>10629925
Yeah but that's been the trend in political behavior for at least half a century.
>>10629978
That sounds great in theory but then you'll remember that the President would be a democrat and all promising projects will get canned for arbitrary reasons that could easily be solved without political intervention and the budget will be both slashed in half and redirected to transgender muslim outreach.

[Anonymous No.10629999]

>>10629997
I should make a version of that image but with Saturn V instead of Jupiter.

[Anonymous No.10630030]

>>10629994
Meh. Fuck you Bezos. Who announces a moon mission behind closed doors?

[Anonymous No.10630036]

>>10630030
Bezos, apparently

[Anonymous No.10630072]

Starting soon

[Anonymous No.10630074]

>>10630072
owo what's this

[Anonymous No.10630098]

https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1126527328874573831

looks like he'll be livetweeting it. shame he's an annoying fag

[Anonymous No.10630106]

>>10630098
Dunno how he got in while the usual crop of space bloggers didn't. With all his media access (especially with Rocket Lab), he's gotta have some insider connections.

[Anonymous No.10630111]

>>10630074
*Notices New Glenn* uwaaah >x< Your wacket is sho big Daddy Jeff uwu Do you think it'll fittt? :3c

[Anonymous No.10630113]

>>10630111
nice

[Anonymous No.10630114]

https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/1126564953610170368
spaceflight now has a guy there

[Anonymous No.10630117]

>>10630114
I need to re-do that ranking chart. Maybe this weekend

[Anonymous No.10630122]

>>10630114
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1126567999027273734
Berger's there
Searching "blue origin" on Twitter is showing a lot of the reporters tweeting about it. Mostly mainstream media

[Anonymous No.10630137]

>>10630098
Just canceled when warned "no media"

[Anonymous No.10630143]

>>10630114
why do so many people suck manley's cock?
More then half his stuff is him playing kerbal.

[Anonymous No.10630146]

>>10630143
I like it when he covers spaceflight technology and history. I think most people like him because he's funny and entertaining while not trying to hard to be comedic.

[Anonymous No.10630152]

>>10630143
He cut most of that out now, he used to do full Lets Plays. The Realism Overhaul was neat.

[Anonymous No.10630154]

>>10630036
>We choose to go to the moon, not because it is - hold on a second. Are you filming this? I told you not to film it! Fuck you guys, we‘re staying on earth now.

[Anonymous No.10630164]

>>10630074
Apparently a country who sells writing quills is going to make an announcement soon.

[Anonymous No.10630166]

>>10630137
Now says he CAN tweet just not stream.

disregaurdthatisuckcocks

[Anonymous No.10630167]

>>10630146
Honestly I kinda like both Manley and Dodd. They're both pretty knowledgeable about spaceflight while presenting it in a popsci way. Dodd makes me cringe sometimes though, between the spacesuit thing, his humor, and his pestering of Elon, and he's definitely more popsci than Manley.

[Anonymous No.10630172]

https://twitter.com/CTuckerNews/status/1126571451853758464
Pictures popping up on Twitter

[Anonymous No.10630182]

>>10630172
we already knew they're planning to fly new glenn in 2021

[Anonymous No.10630189]

>>10630166
This is why I specifically asked about life tickers.

[Anonymous No.10630191]

>>10630036
I dislike how private Blue Origin is. It makes it seems like that they're doing nothing.

[Anonymous No.10630192]

>>10630191
they ARE doing nothing tho

[Anonymous No.10630194]

$40 says Elon tweets some trolly distraction during the show

[Anonymous No.10630196]

>>10630172
>2021
That is the biggest pipedream I have heard in my life.

[Anonymous No.10630198]

uhhhhhhh

[Anonymous No.10630201]

>>10629999
the quads demand it

[Anonymous No.10630204]

>>10630194
Untethered hop during the show confirmed!

[Anonymous No.10630205]

>>10630191
They don't care for us small people. We don't have any say in it. The big bucks people will have the front seat. So starts the Era of Divide.

[Anonymous No.10630207]

>>10630198
>be 12
>don't give a shit about space
>your class is invited by the richest man in the world to go to his show
>have to sit through a presentation
>meanwhile thousands of people who actually do care are left in the dark
They're just gonna make a point about children being our future or some inspirational bullshit

[Anonymous No.10630210]

>>10630205
this is a nonsensical image

[Anonymous No.10630213]

>>10630192
They gobble up ex SpaceX employees, thinking they’ll do cool shit for BO. But upon arriving at BO, the new employees realize that there is no Elon to scream at them to get stuff done, and also they realize that their pay isn’t connected to the company successfulness (https://youtu.be/I0qgBuIO6n4)) so they just lounge around and do the bare minimum, happy that they don’t have to work 100 hours a week anymore

[Anonymous No.10630214]

>>10630207
>"I wish I was watching Ninja"

[Anonymous No.10630219]

>>10630214
FUCKING ZOOMERS! THEY DON‘T EVEN WANT TO MOW THE MOON LAWN!

[Anonymous No.10630224]

any minute now

[Anonymous No.10630227]

>>10630210
This is literally how Chinese run Africa will look like in 20 years.

[Anonymous No.10630228]

space?

[Anonymous No.10630232]

>>10630172
BEGINNING IN 2021 NEW GLENN WILL A ROAD TO SPACE ???

>>10630210
Keep telling that to yourself

[Anonymous No.10630235]

Don't tweet this whateveryoudo

[Anonymous No.10630242]

>>10630235
endgame spoiler? if anyone cares

[Anonymous No.10630246]

Alright sounds like they're doing some intro clips with Apollo footage

[Anonymous No.10630252]

Jack Schmitt is in attendance

[Anonymous No.10630254]

Jeff Bezos on stage talking of his love of spehs

[Anonymous No.10630255]

Jeff's on stage

[Anonymous No.10630256]

MY EYES

[Anonymous No.10630261]

>>10630256
HAVE SEEN

[Anonymous No.10630263]

>>10630256
nice heels

[Anonymous No.10630266]

>>10630263
lel, when will the manlets learn

[Anonymous No.10630267]

also, venusshills btfo

[Anonymous No.10630270]

>>10630263
Think those are his dumb boots he brags about

[Anonymous No.10630274]

>muh energy

[Anonymous No.10630275]

what a gay thread

[Anonymous No.10630277]

>>10630256
Report: Jeff Bezos to send men to moon with a solar sail by bouncing photons off his head.

[Anonymous No.10630280]

>>10630227
Enormous megalopolises of millions with flying cars with what looks like 20 folks farming outside?
Take my fucking money dude.

[Anonymous No.10630281]

If this is about getting fusion fuel from the moon I'm gonna shoot myself in the mouth

[Anonymous No.10630286]

Bezos is really gonna begin humanity's exodus through space for resources

[Anonymous No.10630290]

“Bezos: The good news is that if we move out into the solar system, for all practical purposes, we have unlimited resources.”


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.10630292]

>>10630263
Fact:
Manlets are the most powerful race in the world

[Anonymous No.10630293]

>>10630281
Big fusion fan here. Yeah, you‘re right lunar helium is a meme, hope he‘s talking about solar.

[Anonymous No.10630295]

>>10630293
Me too, CFS/SPARC is my bet.

ok now talking about where BILLIONS can live

[Anonymous No.10630297]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1126582773559459841
>Bezos: Getting to Mars "is a very serious logistics problems" and "will be limited" by communications problems.
>"Don't even think about playing Fortnite with someone on Earth."

[Anonymous No.10630298]

>MUH
>ONEIL
>CYLINDERS

[Anonymous No.10630302]

>>10630290
Being a cancer on the universe sounds fun. Let‘s do that! We are agents of entropy! Gib resourses bls.

[Anonymous No.10630304]

m*sk btfo

[Anonymous No.10630305]

GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD

[Anonymous No.10630307]

>>10630297
>>10630214
IFUCKINGCALLEDIT

[Anonymous No.10630308]

>>10630304
do you not think to be beyond the reach of Earth governments would be worth the trip?

[Anonymous No.10630309]

>>10630305
SpaceX: we're building our ship to explore the moon and Mars right now
Blue Origin:

[Anonymous No.10630310]

>>10630201
I didn't even notice that. I hope this image is satisfactory.

[Anonymous No.10630313]

>>10630297
>Don't even think about playing Fortnite with someone on Earth
>haha am i cool yet guise

[Anonymous No.10630316]

Big hmm

[Anonymous No.10630318]

>Legit O'Neill Cylinders

fuck me sideways

[Anonymous No.10630320]

we /simcity/

[Anonymous No.10630332]

>>10630310
DAMN YOU NIXON

[Anonymous No.10630334]

People on New Shep scheduled for this year

[Anonymous No.10630336]

>>10630320
Why put heavy industry away from the resources and in a space where cooling anything is almost impossible? Stop memeing Jeffy, god damn.

[Anonymous No.10630340]

He's getting to New Glenn

[Anonymous No.10630342]

>>10630320
the thing is, Bezos has no power to make that happen, he has no voice in what happens to Earth
he only has a voice in what happens off Earth, in the stuff that he builds himself

[Anonymous No.10630349]

new glenn will be human rated

[Anonymous No.10630350]

45 tons LEO, 13 GEO. Did we have official numbers for NG payload before?

[Anonymous No.10630352]

Moon time

[Anonymous No.10630358]

>>10630304

[Anonymous No.10630359]

blue moon lander

[Anonymous No.10630361]

oh fuck he just pulled the curtain up on a lander

[Anonymous No.10630365]

>>10630361
it's just a mockup

[Anonymous No.10630366]

rover too by the looks of it

[Anonymous No.10630370]

https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon
WEBSITE IS UP

[Anonymous No.10630374]

>>10630365
thank you sherlock for that brilliant deduction

[Anonymous No.10630375]

>>10630359
Neat and straightforward, although frankly the legs look a bit beefy and oversized for the vehicle, it seems like they could cut down. Might just be so it can stand there on the stage in a full G, other than that it seems to be pretty much exactly what you would expect from a lander.

[Anonymous No.10630376]

>No Live stream

Is it 1996?

[Anonymous No.10630378]

>>10630374
no problem

[Anonymous No.10630381]

hmmmmm delicious
https://youtu.be/hmk1oHzvNKA

[Anonymous No.10630384]

>>10630305
>Jeff is literally just copying someone else's homework

[Anonymous No.10630385]

https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon

[Anonymous No.10630389]

>>10630242
>>10630235
wow the bad guy dies?
who would have thought?

[Anonymous No.10630390]

I'm getting second hand embarrassment

[Anonymous No.10630392]

>virgin Mars colonist vs. chad O'Neill cylinder inhabitant

[Anonymous No.10630395]

New engine BE-7. Dunno what happened to 5 or 6.

>>10630370
>>10630385
damn they just took it down

[Anonymous No.10630398]

Lander uses new BE-7 engine. Will hotfire test starting this summer

[Anonymous No.10630400]

>>10630395
they skipped to 7 for luck

[Anonymous No.10630401]

>>10630297
>playing Fortnite
>playing with someone

[Anonymous No.10630405]

>>10629821
>how Nixon gutted NASA because he saw it as Kennedy's project.

That's a bit oversimplified. Nixon was perfectly happy to be standing there in the spotlight as the first Apollo moon missions were a success. I suspect he took some satisfaction in enjoying the limelight that Kennedy lit during a presidential term that Nixon believed was stolen from him. But since the project was always framed as a race with Russia, and since most people with a lick of sense stop running when a race is over, Nixon saw no upside in continuing a project that was not going to bring him very many more kudos, he had no real reason to expend political capital on a project in which the public was losing interest, at a time when the country was hip-deep in plenty of other problems that a President ought to be solving -- or failing that, at least be seen as trying to solve.

There, that's a run on sentence for the ages.

[Anonymous No.10630407]

>>10630302
Yes lets stay here on earth to destroy all the flauna&flora instead of going up in space where we can mine and use endless amount of rocks just floating in space with no life whatsoever on it.

[Anonymous No.10630408]

>>10630228

[Anonymous No.10630409]

>>10630359
>>10630366
>>10630352
https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-moon

[Anonymous No.10630410]

>>10630308
This is definitely a great idea. We also definitely will need miners, for uh, stuff. Definitely not for inhumane testing and petty slavery.

[Anonymous No.10630412]

between new glenn, starship and ula vulcan, 2021 is going to be lit as fuck

[Anonymous No.10630413]

https://www.blueorigin.com/engines/be-7

>>10630409
already been posted a few times

[Anonymous No.10630416]

>>10630412
my money says operational starship in 2021 but it flies in 2020 or earlier

[Anonymous No.10630417]

Real talk, NASA probably won't choose BO for any major contracts because of Trump's feud with Bezos

[Anonymous No.10630418]

>>10630412
hope you don't seriously believe any of those will fly in 2021

[Anonymous No.10630420]

>>10630416

>operational starship in 2021

Too optimistic IMHO.

[Anonymous No.10630421]

has he said anything about refueling and reusing the landers?

[Anonymous No.10630425]

>>10630290
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlhObhp0myc

[Anonymous No.10630429]

>>10630392
>Mars jelly bones virgin VS 1G O'Neill cylinder chad

[Anonymous No.10630430]

new NSF article

>NASA Moving Ahead with Return to the Moon, with or without SLS

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/05/nasa-return-moon-with-without-sls/

[Anonymous No.10630431]

>>10630421
In general, how's it gonna get there? Compatible with NASA's infrastructure plan, using its own infrastructure, or both?

[Anonymous No.10630433]

>>10630421
he did mention refueling from lunar ice

[Anonymous No.10630436]

It's over

[Anonymous No.10630439]

>>10630430
>old space sweating intensifies

[Anonymous No.10630443]

>New Glenn Will Liftoff From LC-36

>New Glenn will liftoff from LC-36 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. This historic site hosted over 140 Atlas II/III rocket launches including the Mariner, Pioneer and Surveyor missions. The rebuilt complex will also be home to New Glenn’s payload integration and first stage refurbishment centers. For launches to high-inclination polar orbits, we are pursuing a West Coast launch complex at Vandenberg Air Force Base.

[Anonymous No.10630445]

>>10630365

[Anonymous No.10630446]

>>10630436
Musk is finished.

[Anonymous No.10630450]

>>10630375
>frankly the legs look a bit beefy and oversized

But there's 1/4 fewer of them.

[Anonymous No.10630454]

>>10630443
Cool. When's it gonna launch?

[Anonymous No.10630458]

Two variants; the bigger of the two is the one that's made for manned missions. So they expect to have two variants of a new lunar lander ready in five years?

[Anonymous No.10630460]

>>10629744
Are we finally going to get to see New Armstrong?

[Anonymous No.10630461]

>>10630420
Well I think New Glenn 2021 is too optimistic too.

[Anonymous No.10630467]

>>10630460
The event just ended, no we're not.

[Anonymous No.10630468]

>>10630454
You know their motto.
Gradatim suborbital.

[Anonymous No.10630473]

>>10630305
Jeff Bezos is going to build Elysium.

[Anonymous No.10630474]

>>10630445
>Dark Souls shirt
what a poser

[Anonymous No.10630475]

Meanwhile at SpaceX...

[Anonymous No.10630476]

>>10630458
Nah, one of those has to be ready much earlier. The unmanned mission will have to take place in like 3 years, 4 at an absolute maximum.

[Anonymous No.10630477]

>>10630413
Your mother has been posted a few times

[Anonymous No.10630478]

>>10630467
Damnit.

[Anonymous No.10630481]

>>10630430
Oh fug

[Anonymous No.10630484]

>>10630436
>>10630446
Moon Vs Mars confirmed for WW4

Bezos Vs Musk

INTERGALACTIC WARFARE PLANETARY INTERGALACTIC

[Anonymous No.10630487]

>>10630484
Musk: Why not both?

[Anonymous No.10630489]

>>10630430
The article's mostly about Gateway components, little about SLS

[Anonymous No.10630491]

>>10630484
Two billionaires battle for control of the Solar System

[Anonymous No.10630494]

>>10630261
THE GLORY OF THE TRAMPLING AT THE ZOO

[Anonymous No.10630496]

>>10630484
More like Worlds War 1

[Anonymous No.10630500]

How much money Jeff still left?

[Anonymous No.10630502]

>>10630500
As much as his ex-wife.

[Anonymous No.10630506]

>>10630502
She settled for 1/4th of the Amazon stock owned by Bezos, rather than half.

[Anonymous No.10630512]

https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1126595122592980993

[Anonymous No.10630514]

>>10630475
It seems so quaint.
They‘re talking about a revolution with their space stations and stuff and I‘m sure New Glenn would be a great rocket if it‘s really that reusable.
But seeing this lander just being a slightly bigger iteration on a 50 year old design is just so underwhelming.

[Anonymous No.10630518]

>>10630484
i am completely OK with these two having some kind of personal space race

[Anonymous No.10630520]

>>10630512
It's just hard to get excited about anything BO says because they've done fuckall in almost 20 years.

[Anonymous No.10630521]

>>10630514
Just remember that spaceflight technology for BLEO stuff hasn't gotten a chance to develop since Apollo, so that 50 year gap isn't bad. The fact that it exists is bad.

[Anonymous No.10630535]

>>10630514
did they forget ladders exist?

that looks so retarded

[Anonymous No.10630536]

>>10630302
Pretty much this. Somebody stop this virus while it's still possible to contain.

[Anonymous No.10630537]

What's all this space station stuff?
Is Blue Origin going to make the gateway station?

[Anonymous No.10630538]

>>10630520
I completely agree
>>10630535
lmao dude just jump you're on the moon

[Anonymous No.10630543]

>>10630535
Easier to carry cargo up and down with one of those than using a ladder

[Anonymous No.10630546]

>>10630536
Lefties are the real virus.

[Anonymous No.10630547]

>>10630521
>BLEO stuff hasn't gotten a chance to develop since Apollo

[Anonymous No.10630557]

Blue Origin once again demonstrates total superiority over the empty and frankly comical promises of spacex.
SLS + BO together will lead humanity into space.

[Anonymous No.10630574]

>>10630557
all they've demonstrated is empty promises and a mock-up
meanwhile, SpaceX has a water tower and a grain silo on the coast in Texas, as well as an entire fucking fleet of orbital rockets

[Anonymous No.10630583]

>>10630191
>seems

[Anonymous No.10630585]

>>10630574
This, Bo has powerpoints, spaceX has exploding grainsilos

[Anonymous No.10630592]

Is there a link/stream to the Blue Origin event yet?

[Anonymous No.10630594]

>>10630359
>>10630366
I wasn't expecting Blue Origin to get in on the moon lander competition. Good on 'em.

[Anonymous No.10630595]

>>10630585
at least SpaceX is interesting to watch

[Anonymous No.10630596]

>>10630430
>https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/05/nasa-return-moon-with-without-sls/
what a nothingburger of an article

[Anonymous No.10630602]

>>10630430
>Of the six companies with Gateway concepts in development, five have already completed full-scale prototypes for testing by NASA. One such prototype is Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Large Inflatable Fabric Environment (LIFE) habitat. LIFE will be trucked to NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston and reassembled by Sierra Nevada and NASA personnel over the course of three weeks. NASA astronauts have a key role in studying and testing all of the Gateway prototypes.

busy busy busy

Nice to see things moving along

[Anonymous No.10630607]

>>10630602
woops

also Sierra Nevada is continuing to test their cargo Dreamchaser craft

[Anonymous No.10630610]

>>10630607
and they continue to plan for a crewed version in the future

So much activity going on in the space industry and NASA lately, I love it

[Anonymous No.10630613]

>>10630305
Literally Gundam.

[Anonymous No.10630617]

>>10630613
holy shit, he did just put a fucking SIDE up there on that projector, didn't he?
Will space be for the spacenoids?

[Anonymous No.10630618]

>>10630610
Agreed.

I just wish the OMB would stop fucking dragging their feet on the new budget.

[Anonymous No.10630620]

>>10630618
>OMB
Who?

[Anonymous No.10630623]

>>10630620
Probably "orange man bad."

[Anonymous No.10630626]

>>10630623
>>10630620
office of management bureau

[Anonymous No.10630635]

>>10630617

In all seriousness building cylinder habitats makes more sense then trying to turn a toxic desert into a colony. The moment he have space industry going making those giants won't be a problem.

[Anonymous No.10630642]

>>10630635
at least a toxic desert has mass

[Anonymous No.10630645]

>>10630475
spacex bfr development team consists of one guy with a maya tutorial collection

[Anonymous No.10630648]

>>10630635
both have nigh insurmountable challenges to overcome

I applaud the fact that SpaceX and BO are both working on different long-term goals, having a start in both Mars colonization and artificial space habs is a great thing, the sooner the better

I wonder which will be easier in the end? Fuck this is so exciting

Where is the link to the Blue Origin full stream?

[Anonymous No.10630651]

>>10630648
what stream?

[Anonymous No.10630652]

>>10630651
The Blue Origin conference all this info is coming from, they wouldn't be so stupid as to not upload it somewhere, its not on their youtube

[Anonymous No.10630653]

>>10630652
anon, I...

[Anonymous No.10630657]

>>10630635
You're not building cylinder habitats without large scale mining on the moon or Mars.

[Anonymous No.10630661]

>>10630653
?

[Anonymous No.10630664]

>>10630661
they didn't stream it at all

[Anonymous No.10630667]

>>10630657
3D printing
see >>10629604

[Anonymous No.10630669]

>>10630635
I will take something that doesn't get utterly annihilated by a basketball sized rock passing through at 30 miles per second over any and all pressurized containers floating haplessly in the vacuum.

[Anonymous No.10630675]

>>10630620
>>10630626
OMB stands for Office of Management and Budget

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

They're the ones holding everything up.

[Anonymous No.10630680]

>>10630669
Someone doesn't understand how choked subsonic flow works. You could punch a basketball sized hole in the International Space Station and it would take almost an hour to depressurize.

[Anonymous No.10630681]

>>10630669
laser based close-in defense platform

[Anonymous No.10630686]

>>10630680
why is that? why isn't it instant?

[Anonymous No.10630687]

>>10630667
Yes... And where is all that mass coming from? Not Earth. Not for cylinder habitats. Also, that company's technology is intended for things that aren't really load bearing. It owrks great for something like a telescope, but it's bot going to hold up for something like an Oneill Cylinder, not without a ton of mass. 3D printing doesn't magically produce matter.

[Anonymous No.10630691]

>>10630686
why does it take so long for a balloon to empty itself of air?

[Anonymous No.10630693]

>>10630686
"Inertia is a property of matter."

[Anonymous No.10630696]

Some Pretty big News from Jeff:

- Blue moon uses hydrogen, so they must have solved boil-off issues
- New Glenn will be human-rated instantly
- BE-7 implies they are also already working on Be-5 and 6 for other vehicles

[Anonymous No.10630698]

>both Bigelow AND SNC are working on their own inflatables

Is the future of space stations in inflatables? I think after 20 decades of small tin aluminum cans we should try to see if this might not be a better idea

[Anonymous No.10630700]

>>10630680
someone doesn't understand the energy release involved in half a ton of metal ramming something else at 3 times the earth's orbital velocity
the thing would get nuked

[Anonymous No.10630701]

>>10630698
It's a great idea, but I'm not interested until they actually start using it or start testing it in space.

[Anonymous No.10630704]

>>10630700
anon, do YOU know what happens when things hit other things at such high speeds? they punch clean holes, and turn just a little bit into plasma

[Anonymous No.10630705]

>>10630701
A bigelow Habitat is being used on the ISS since years.

[Anonymous No.10630706]

>>10630698
What about windows?

[Anonymous No.10630707]

>>10630706
no, Gnu/Linux

[Anonymous No.10630709]

>>10630686
>why is that? why isn't it instant?

Because the pressure difference is only one atmosphere at most, and the atmospheric pressure is still balanced throughout the volume of the structure. Opening a hole just lets that gas vent, at ambient to vacuum pressure flow rates, through the opening. Hollywood style explosive decompression does not happen without multiple atmospheres of pressure difference.

>>10630700
So are you actually retarded, or just pretending?

[Anonymous No.10630710]

>>10630701
theres already a small bigelow module on the ISS since 2016, used for storage now

[Anonymous No.10630722]

>>10630669
ISS is fine for a decade.

[Anonymous No.10630729]

>>10630657
Moon and asteroids + 3d printing and drone construction. Building large structures in zero G will be far easier than on Earth.

[Anonymous No.10630734]

>>10630710
>>10630705
I'm aware of that, and I'm happy Bigelow is doing some work. But I'm worried about their setbacks. As for SNCs inflatable habitats, my original point still stands.

[Anonymous No.10630740]

>>10630729
Obviously, but before you build those massive structures, you need significant infrastructure on the moon for resoure extraction and construction.

[Anonymous No.10630750]

>>10630729
Seeing pic related and such on the moon is going to be incredible.

[Anonymous No.10630753]

>>10630704
>>10630709
>120 kilotons of TNT in kinetic energy
>little bit into plasma
>little bit
>>10630722
ISS hasn't been hit by anything bigger than dust
ISS also isn't nowhere near the size of even a tiny O'neill cylinder and the two retards above don't even know that space agencies themselves agree that something the size of a shitty golf ball would shatter the station to pieces.

[Anonymous No.10630755]

>>10630750
Just think of how much my gigantic they'll be able to get when built for lunar gravity...

[Anonymous No.10630759]

>>10630700
On second thought, I'm going to give a more helpful answer.

The vast majority of matter in the solar system all orbits with the same prograde motion as the sun's rotation, due to conservation of momentum from the material that the solar system was formed from. Retrograde objects are exceedingly rare, and mostly come from the Oort Cloud. There simply isn't much material that can actually pose that kind of incidental impact threat to begin with. Even so, given the negative consequences of a collision, some capacity for avoiding impacts will be needed and built into the structure. The odds of striking such a cosmic object are very low to begin with. In the event of a collision taking place, you need to figure out how much energy from the colliding body will actually be transferred to the cylinder to determine how much damage it would actually do. The low mass of the sphere and relatively small size of the thing will mitigate a lot of the damage potential simply by not slowing the thing down enough before it passes through the other side.

[Anonymous No.10630762]

>>10630759
Correction, low mass and density of the cylinder.

[Anonymous No.10630764]

>>10630753
>ISS hasn't been hit by anything bigger than dust

wrong, just look that shit up, many astronauts even report being able to hear impacts against the modules sometimes

[Anonymous No.10630767]

>>10630687
Launched from the moon with mass accelerators. I can only hope the moon becomes an industrial shipyard that can launch finished products to anywhere in the solar system.

[Anonymous No.10630768]

>>10630753
ISS is getting hit constantly and because it's so close to earth it's swimming in our space trash. Yet nothing major happened.

Cylinder stations would be a bit further away and obviously would have early warning radars and automated defenses.

[Anonymous No.10630779]

>>10630768
>Automated defense's
>Blow up inbound solid slug
>Congratulations, you now have buckshot inbound

[Anonymous No.10630784]

>>10630698
>space rattan

[Anonymous No.10630785]

>>10630443
>20XX
>Falcon 9s and New Glenn’s launching out of Vandenberg.

It’s going to be great.

[Anonymous No.10630790]

>>10630750
>>10630755
>there are people who will protest this and any effort to profit from space

[Anonymous No.10630797]

>>10630790
hippies can't do anything

[Anonymous No.10630798]

>>10630790

[Anonymous No.10630799]

>>10630698
Yes, for any station that isn't assembled in orbit due to enormous size. Expandable habs are structurally tougher and more robust while also being easier to repair, and are lighter per m3 of volume they provide, and their launch size is significantly less than their expanded size which means you can fit them into smaller fairings. That's an enormous advantage when it comes to launching.

[Anonymous No.10630800]

>>10630798
Because hippies don't love the Earth as much as they hate humanity.

[Anonymous No.10630822]

>>10630779
There are ways around that already.

[Anonymous No.10630824]

>>10630767
>the moon becomes an industrial shipyard that can launch finished products to anywhere in the solar system.

Stop i can only get so erect

[Anonymous No.10630826]

>>10630764
>wrong, just look that shit up
you first
> many astronauts even report being able to hear impacts against the modules sometimes
that's micrometer range dust you faggot
the huge crack on the cupola that looks like someone shot bulletproof glass with a sniper rifle is from "possibly a paint flake or small metal fragment no bigger than a few thousandths of a millimeter across."
that's how much kick these things carry
>>10630768

>ISS is getting hit constantly
ISS has never been hit by anything over 1mm
>it's swimming in our space trash.
and every time something larger than 5cm (something that can be still be actually tracked by ground control) comes anywhere near it, with not enough time to fire the thrusters, they fuck off to Soyuz and prepare to undock.
ISS shielding is rated up to 1cm, but that's 1cm of our own space trash at orbital velocity, not something tailing a comet or hurling from interstellar space 3-10 times faster

[Anonymous No.10630838]

>>10630779
>blow up

melt, with lasers

[Anonymous No.10630851]

>>10630798
https://www.iflscience.com/space/who-owns-space-us-asteroid-mining-act-dangerous-and-potentially-illegal/
>It goes against a number of treaties and international customary law which already apply to the entire universe.
>The new law is nothing but a classic rendition of the “he who dares wins” philosophy of the Wild West.
>Space exploration is a universal activity and therefore requires international regulation.
>The act represents a full-frontal attack on settled principles of space law which are based on two basic principles: the right of states to scientific exploration of outer space and its celestial bodies and the prevention of unilateral and unbriddled commercial exploitation of outer-space resources.
>Indeed what right has the second highest polluter of the Earth’s environment got to proceed with some of the same corporations in a bid to plunder outer space?
>Companies may also be allowed to extract certain resources, but the very first provision of the Outer Space Treaty (1967), to which the US is a signatory, is that such exploration and use shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries. This therefore prevents the sale of space-based minerals for profit.
>Meanwhile, the Moon Agreement (1979) has in effect forbidden states to conduct commercial mining on planets and asteroids until there is an international regime for such exploitation. While the US has refused to sign up to this, it is binding as customary international law.
Because they are faggots, basically.

[Anonymous No.10630859]

Imagine being one of the astronauts that's supposed to fly on this piece of shit within months.

[Anonymous No.10630861]

>>10630838
Now you have the same mass, except as 1000 degree molten slag coming to fuck your day up

[Anonymous No.10630870]

>>10630859
>We fail down here so we won't fail up there.
Good thing that this issue was caught in a test rather than in-flight.

[Anonymous No.10630871]

>>10630851
>Moon Agreement (1979) has in effect forbidden states to conduct commercial mining on planets and asteroids until there is an international regime for such exploitation. While the US has refused to sign up to this, it is binding as customary international law.
No country with any space program to speak of has signed up for that treaty lol

[Anonymous No.10630872]

>>10630851
Yeah I'd like to see them stop US moon mining companies, what are they gonna do, launch a protest to the moon?

hah

[Anonymous No.10630880]

>>10630872
>what are they gonna do
Get Spartacus to shut down launches unless they pay a 60% tax on gross to fund muh programs.

[Anonymous No.10630884]

>>10630872
Probably not, but the government can stop the company at the launch pad. Which is probably why this sort of regulation is being done. If a company can successfully set up shop off-Earth then the government can't really do anything to said company without being off-Earth too. And since even the most space-powerful nation on Earth has only been dicking around in LEO for the past couple of decades and is struggling to go beyond that, regulation on Earth is all they have.

[Anonymous No.10630891]

>>10630851
>Plunder outer space
>Oy Vey won't somebody save the asteroids?

[Anonymous No.10630900]

>mandated to launch on SLS just to give SLS something to do

christ

[Anonymous No.10630906]

>>10630900
What's mandated to launch on SLS? Sorry, I'm abit behind what's going on right now.

[Anonymous No.10630908]

>>10630884
Boy, you got something coming to you

[Anonymous No.10630909]

>>10630859
How fucked are they if they actually kill somebody?

[Anonymous No.10630910]

>>10630799
Hell you can potentially launch 2 modules at once maybe

Imagine launching 2 inflatables nto space, inflating and docking them and having suddenly half the total pressurized volume of the ISS in 2 measly inflatables

[Anonymous No.10630913]

>>10630906
Nothing

Everything.

[Anonymous No.10630915]

>>10630909
Musk has publicly said that he expects to lose at least a couple of employees in this venture

[Anonymous No.10630921]

>>10630900
There's options to launch it on DIV-H or Falcon Heavy w/o kick stages and gravity assist around the inner solar system until a slingshot out to Jupiter is available, or do it on a Falcon Heavy with a Star-48 kick stage and slingshot off Earth to get there.

[Anonymous No.10630928]

>>10630921
overall SLS is the fastest option then, once its actually ready that is..

[Anonymous No.10630932]

>>10630913
Thanks, Saladin.

[Anonymous No.10630933]

>>10630908
>t. Delusional magapede

[Anonymous No.10630934]

>>10630928
But what's actually faster?
>Waiting a month or two to be launched on a trajectory that'll take some years to complete
>Waiting years to be launched on a rocket that has been chronically late to be sent on a trajectory that'll take a year

[Anonymous No.10630935]

>>10630851
fucking stop them, then

[Anonymous No.10630942]

>>10630928
If SLS was ready to fly, yes. But all things considered by the time SLS is ready to launch the Clipper it might simply be better to launch it on a D4H or a FH.

[Anonymous No.10630945]

>>10630910
Yeah, I mean ideally you'd launch a bunch of them along with flexible connectors and some rigid scaffolds and build wagon-wheel formations of them and then start those wheel stations spinning using RCS jets or small magnetoplasma rockets. The hub of the wheel will have essentially no gravity but the struts will allow you to drop vertically from one end to the other while the ring part can have it's living and working spaces built like your pic with low but comfortable spin gravity.

[Anonymous No.10630949]

>>10630851
Like this shit matters, Chinks will do it anyways.

[Anonymous No.10630950]

>>10630945
>low but comfortable spin gravity.

Sounds comfy but if you use RCS how long will that spin last? Like would it have to be constantly spun up or will it keep spinning and generating spin gravity that is greater than anything on the ISS until its countered back?

Hopefully its the latter otherwise a lot of fuel will be needed to keep it spinning

[Anonymous No.10630954]

>>10630915
https://youtube.com/watch?v=roNlgIY9QKw

[Anonymous No.10630955]

>>10630949
I'm honestly kinda glad that China is joining space. They have the industrial capability to potentially match the US in spaceflight, but they also aren't tied to the US in some way that could impede on their progress. Sure, their polices suck, but at least they'll encourage the US to take spaceflight seriously again rather than just hold everyone back.

[Anonymous No.10630959]

>>10630942
>>10630934
Either way shit is going to take time

[Anonymous No.10630963]

>>10630950
Well it's not like your going to be losing spin to air resistance or anything, the station will have to periodically top up it's spin but not by much, in the same way the ISS has to periodically re-accelerate a bit to prevent it's orbit from decaying. It you just kept burning the spin would get faster and faster, you only need to thrust enough to get it rotating about 4 times per minute and that's assuming you want a full G, it's completely possible your crew can be healthy and comfortable with half a G, one of the great uses for rotohab stations will be to determine exactly how light people can be before it starts to negatively impact their health.

[Anonymous No.10630980]

>>10630963
Gonna be cool to see stations that have more G's, all we've known is low g in space

[Anonymous No.10631007]

starlink launches confirmed to have 75 birds onboard https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-STA-20190405-00023/1679286

[Anonymous No.10631008]

>>10630980
>Gonna be cool to see stations that have more G's, all we've known is low g in space
>"But we've ONLY begun to scratch the surface of mirogee environments! Microgee research has taught us so much! Like, it's bad for the human body, crystals grow bigger, it's bad for plants, rats act weird, and it's REALLY bad for the human body! Spinning stations are so Scifi and are too expensive and complicated. We don't need to do this when we have the ISS to do experiments by astronauts that could've been done by a robot. Please give more money!"

[Anonymous No.10631012]

>>10631008
AAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.10631017]

How small can a rotating section be made without getting into the worst of the debilitating effects a small centrifuge has?

[Anonymous No.10631020]

>>10631017
http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/SpinCalc.htm

[Anonymous No.10631040]

>>10631020
In other words, not small. .3g at ~1.95 RPM needs a 70m radius. There goes the idea of a huge inflatable module with a rotating section or two (for counter torque) inside it. Saves the hassle of trying to make a viable rotating pressure seal.

[Anonymous No.10631047]

>>10631040
Yeah building a single enormous module to expand into a mini-Oneil cylinder probably wouldn't be viable without several of the larger and more powerful nuclear rockets which will likely never be allowed to launch from Earth. That's why I was talking about composite stations made up of smaller expanding habs, it's much easier to build a wagon wheel station with an outer ring of habs who's total diameter is 70m or greater than it would be to build one giant module who's final expanded diameter is 70m.

[Anonymous No.10631056]

>>10631047
reminder that radius != diameter. The calc used radius, the actual diameter of my proposed 2RPM .3G centrifuge would be 140 feet.

And now that I've put a bit more thought into it, it *might* be possible if the pressure bag was launched first without any hardware other than the core structural and other bare minimum shit installed, inflated in orbit, then have a cargo flight dock with it/the host station and deliver the rigid internal bits for on-orbit assembly inside the bag. Once assembled (and the counter torque system set up), just flip the switch and watch it spin.

[Anonymous No.10631075]

>>10631056
Right, my bad. As to the pressure vessel being launched separately it won't reduce your weight too much since at least all the expando-habs bigger than the BEAM module I've seen have rigid internal structures like the BA2100, assuming your module can expand it's diameter by about a third then your unexpanded core will still be in the ballpark of 96m in diameter. You can definitely make it shorter by having stuff like the powerplant segment, airlock, etc launch separately but it's still going to be an enormously wide payload, more than nine times wider than even the 10m fairings proposed for SLS block 2b. You might have to launch the components to assemble the core and the actual pressure vessel bag separately and assemble them in orbit, and the pressure vessel still can only be compacted so much, assuming you can compact it to 1/10th it's size then it could fit into a 10-ish meter fairing. Scale really does complicate some things, you could never get such a big expander into orbit with one launch due to the absolute size of the lad.

[Anonymous No.10631081]

>>10631075
Yep. At that point one might as well go the whole way and build a fuckhuge spinning station and assemble on orbit.

[Anonymous No.10631087]

>>10631056
2 RPM is still fucking fast for building shit on. You need like something slow like 1 rotation every 10 minutes or else everything in the 'gravity' areas will be effected by rotational velocity.

[Anonymous No.10631088]

>>10631087
People will have to learn to pour their water sideways and stuff like that however if you want meaningful gravity that can have positive health benefits and give people a sense of earthly normality you're going to have to deal with faster rotation.

[Anonymous No.10631094]

>>10631088
Also a rotating space station will allow for research into what's the minimum gravity needed to avoid serious problems with the human body. With this information, spacecraft with spinning sections can be more easily made as they can just operate at this minimum gravity and have less hassle with spinning sections.

[Anonymous No.10631147]

>>10630106
He's got a youtube following, the others not so much.

>>10630117
What will you change?

[Anonymous No.10631290]

starship presentation date is June 20th per Elon

[Anonymous No.10631302]

Can we increase the thrust of nerva with really good heat exchangers? So we get more propellant flow rate?

[Anonymous No.10631311]

>>10631302
the best way to increase the thrust of NERVA is to push something more substantial than hydrogen through it
I recommend methane or water

[Anonymous No.10631312]

>>10631302
NERVA is a very conservative NTPR, neither the hottest or highest mass flow rate of the NTPR designs. Timberwind rockets were much lighter with TWRs good enough to hypothetically let them lift off in 1G, Dumbo was structurally even simpler with a TWR much like that of normal chemical rockets.

[Anonymous No.10631316]

>>10631302
You can increase thrust via an oxygen afterburner after the hydrogen has gone through the core. You pay for it via mass and ISP loss.

[Anonymous No.10631427]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1126686813840535552
Absolutely brutal.

[Anonymous No.10631430]

>>10631427
more importantly, as was previously mentioned, 20 JUNE 2019

[Anonymous No.10631432]

>>10631427

[Anonymous No.10631436]

>Starship update in just over a month

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.10631458]

>>10631427
Elon must be in a kinky mood, he tweeted about the Tesla autopilot porn video as well

[Anonymous No.10631526]

hmmmm
https://youtu.be/GQ98hGUe6FM

[Anonymous No.10631533]

>>10631526
6.5t to the surface compared to 150 on starship (w/ 7 refueling stops)

[Anonymous No.10631564]

I assumed the astornaut was 1.8 meters. Maybe a bit too small, so Starship may be 5% too large or something. Just a rush job.

[Anonymous No.10631600]

>>10631564
I wonder if Starship will have external hardpoints higher up to allow attachment of stabilizing wires when used long term as a moon/mars base.

Depending on what kind of landing pad hardware is in the legs, such hardpoints would help in leveling the thing out because unless the site is pre-prepared ain't no way in hell its going to be perfectly flat.

[Anonymous No.10631614]

But really, why didn't BO livestream their event?

[Anonymous No.10631651]

>>10631614
Maybe Jeff gets stage fright?

[Anonymous No.10631662]

>>10631600
It has to have at least one hardpoint at the top to allow it to be craned on and off the booster, this would probably be totally fine given there is essentially no strong wind on any planet of note except Titan but Saturn seems way outside the ability of BFR. The only realistic way I can see Saturn missions happening is thin film solar+vasimir with an aerobrake on the other end. That's going to be a one way mission though.

[Anonymous No.10631718]

The Blue Moon lander remind me of the original Constellation lander, Altair,

[Anonymous No.10631724]

>>10631662
I dunno, if they can get an O2 source on Titan they can just take and purify methane straight from Titan's atmosphere and lakes. Wouldn't even be that hard to purify the methane either, just gather some raw hydrocarbons, heat them up until the methane vaporizes off, capture it, and dump the rest of the hydrocarbons back out. A LOX source wouldn't be that hard to find though, Titan's crust is mostly water ice. The problem is unbinding the oxygen from the hydrogen, which requires a shitload of energy. Solar would be enormously limited at that range + atmosphereic interference. Hell, it might be more mass/energy efficient to set up a wind turbine to generate power.

Depending on how much energy they can generate, they might be limited to generating just enough LOX to get back into orbit, then using Vasmir to get to the rings for ice there as the solar panels wont be crippled by a thick methane atmosphere.

A round trip mission there and back though would easily take well over a decade.

[Anonymous No.10631765]

>>10631724
The problem is that even if you can get back into orbit from Titan which is probably doable if you bring the chemical engines and tanks, the amount of solar power from your film will be absolutely pathetic out at Saturn. It's a fantastic option out to about as far as Mars but after that it's basically useless except to accelerate from the inner system to get to get somewhere you can leverage aerobraking. The only other option for ion drives is nuclear which is currently an absolute joke given the sheer weight needed for the nuke plant, turbines, steam loops, radiators and shit making it much worse than even chemical options.

[Anonymous No.10631789]

>>10631765
Stirling generators and heat pipes would knock out quite a bit of the weight. Yes, it'd come with the consequent loss in efficiency compared to a standard steam thermal plant, but there's a hell of a lot less moving parts, mass (water aint light and if its being used to cool the core it cant be used for other purposes), and complexity. Adjusting the core geometry so the absolute minimum required needed core coolant flows passively would be doable, further reducing a point of failure.
The crew water tank would be placed in between the core and the crew compartment, providing a decent bit of shielding.

I'm not saying its going to be better mass/energy wise than good solar, but there's options to be looked into to improve the mass/weight of a nuclear power unit, because that far out its going to have inherently better mass/energy than thin film solar anyways because the inverse square law is a merciless bitch. On top of that, a nuclear plant would be able to operate on the surface of Titan without atmospheric interference.

[Anonymous No.10632013]

I'm not so sure about BO's influences anymore...

[Anonymous No.10632204]

>>10632013
Seems familiar...

>inb4 Jeff Bezos is Dr. Evil

[Anonymous No.10632226]

new >>10632225