/sfg/ Space Flight General

[Anonymous No.10699524]

When Moon walking goes horribly wrong edition
>>10688497

[Anonymous No.10699559]

First for Zyzz

[Anonymous No.10699602]

SN5 better be here soon

[Anonymous No.10699606]

Now that Stratolaunch is pepsi, would it make sense for Musky to buy the plane as a transporter?
Falcon 9s can be moved horizontally, maybe with some bracing...

[Anonymous No.10699620]

HOP WHEN

[Anonymous No.10699653]

>>10699606
No
No
Falcons are road transportable

[Anonymous No.10699720]

>>10699620
Two weeks.

[Anonymous No.10699799]

>>10699606
I'm actually really sad at the possibilities that crazy piece of engineering will only fly once and never fulfill it's intended purpose.
I mean, goddamn look at it. It's like two planes duct-taped together. That's fucking cool as shit.

[Anonymous No.10699804]

>>10699799
It's the Spruce Goose of our era

[Anonymous No.10699862]

>>10699799
>It's like two planes duct-taped together.

[Anonymous No.10699897]

>>10699862
Wow, how did they not get sued by Paul Allen for patent infringement

[Anonymous No.10699984]

>>10699897
Well, it helps that it first flew eight years before Paul Allen was born.

[Anonymous No.10700254]

>>10699799
Virgin Orbit has the right idea: use an existing plane and focus on the actual rocket.

[Anonymous No.10700333]

>>10700254
Branson should just buy them out. Now they have a better plane and still only have to focus on a rocket.

[Anonymous No.10700563]

What do you guys think about wetworkshops for both space stations and planetary bases?

I feel like they can be useful or at the very least cost effective. The upper stage can be recycled thus saving an additional launch to send up more materials. The big issue is finding a way to repurpose spent fuel tanks without it getting expensive, time, or labor intensive.

[Anonymous No.10700603]

Meanwhile, China just launched an orbital rocket (CZ-11) from a barge in the middle of the South China Sea.

[Anonymous No.10700648]

>>10700603
Amazing! Kinda wished it was more publicized. Sea launches off a barge does seem to be a good cure to China's terrible dropstagesonpeople-tidus. Has it been done before?

[Anonymous No.10700815]

>>10700254
Nah, the REALLY right idea is to focus on the rocket entirely and ditch the retarded idea of air launch entirely.

[Anonymous No.10700832]

>>10700563
>The upper stage can be recycled thus saving an additional launch to send up more materials.
>The big issue is finding a way to repurpose spent fuel tanks without it getting expensive, time, or labor intensive.
If you pack the upper stage with the stuff it'd need to actually be habitable, including insulation, life support, power, micrometeorite shielding, etc. it'd be dumb heavy and you wouldn't get a good payload fraction, and the fraction you did get would drop off super fast as you looked at faster and faster departure burns. If you launch it afterwards well now you're back to 2 launches again, so why not just launch a completed habitat module to begin with?

The fact is wet workshops don't actually work irl. It's just too much cheaper and more optimized to make a module purpose built as a habitat on the ground, where you have a huge amount of industrial capability and numbers of workers, and then launch it in one piece. The best thing to reuse stages as are just stages, because reusable rocket. If you can easily reuse your whole rocket you can afford to mass produce habitats on Earth and launch them over and over

[Anonymous No.10700952]

>>10700648
Yes

[Anonymous No.10700978]

Why?

[Anonymous No.10701065]

>>10700648
What happened with Sea Launch btw?
It suddenly just disappeared. Do they went out of business or what?

[Anonymous No.10701087]

>>10701065
Sea Launch use special modification of ukranian Zenit rocket. And Zenit use russian-build upper stage, without it it pretty much useless.
Ukraine and Russia right now kinda have troubles with each other.
So Sea Launch is dead in the water.
It sad, because Zenit is a great rocket.

[Anonymous No.10701117]

>>10700978
Yeah that's a real big brain strat right there
Not sure I understand it

[Anonymous No.10701144]

>>10701087
Hopefully we'll see more Zenits once Russia finally invades Ukraine and takes back its rightful clay. Ditto for Antonov.

[Anonymous No.10701256]

>>10699559
maybe Zyzz's spirit can lift us into space

[Anonymous No.10701332]

>>10701256
No, but maybe his spirit can keep us healthy once we get there

[Anonymous No.10701354]

>>10701332
Will the Mars colony include a sauna module?

[Anonymous No.10701365]

>>10701087
Can't Russia just, you know, produce their own version of Zenit?
Most vital parts of rocket, avionics and engines, produced in Russia.

[Anonymous No.10701435]

>>10701365
They kinda do with the Angara rocket, but Roscosmos is too underfunded to invest in a new rocket over the proven and reliable Soyuz.

[Anonymous No.10701709]

>>10700978
That trajectory only looks like that from Jupiter's frame of reference, from the sun's frame of reference Lucy will go into an elliptical orbit with ~0.5x the period length of Jupiter's orbit so that it can visit both Trojan asteroid regions. I really hate non-solar-oriented interplanetary trajectories because they don't tell you what's really going on intuitively.

[Anonymous No.10701713]

>>10701117
see >>10701709

>>10701144
Russia should be dissolved imo

[Anonymous No.10701786]

>a series of design hitches and test accidents may end up pushing back this year’s maiden launch to 2020
>the anomaly that happened to us in the past, that’s the best kind because we’ll figure that one out
So its being implied that Crew Dragon survived and can be repaired within a year according to comments made by the astronauts due to fly on it according to a reuters article.

[Anonymous No.10701794]

>>10701786
>So its being implied that Crew Dragon survived
Unless it flew off in the leaked video that showed the explosion (or it's fake) I doubt that. The capsule was gone after the explosion.

[Anonymous No.10701797]

>>10701786
>repaired
Nope
>>10701794
>The capsule was gone after the explosion.
Right. They're just using the next one in production, which would have been ready for DM2 in July.
They may have to make some modifications to ones being built, I've read that they're not going to bolt the top down until near the end so they can still make fixes for whatever caused it.

[Anonymous No.10701889]

>>10701786
>crew dragon survived
It's broken but they have a bunch in the pipeline
>>10701794
It got knocked off the test stand, it wasn't destroyed
Heavily damaged and irreperable but not destroyed

[Anonymous No.10701892]

>>10701889
>irreparable
so destroyed then

[Anonymous No.10702248]

HOP WHEN?

[Anonymous No.10702629]

>>10699524
>Space Flight

the word is Spaceflight, great work OP, now nobody searching the catalog can find the thread, and with 37 posts we are moving at a glacial pace..

[Anonymous No.10702630]

>>10702629
>Not looking up the thread by searching for /sfg/

[Anonymous No.10702634]

>>10701354
Absolutely if even one Finn will move to Mars!

[Anonymous No.10703064]

>>10702634
>Suomi mainittu, torilla tavataan!
Seriously though, it would be a good way for the skin to recover from super-abrasive Martian fines

[Anonymous No.10703100]

>>10701892
Destroyed implies shredded into many parts, most likely killing hypotherical inhabitants. This did not happen. K?

[Anonymous No.10703115]

>>10703100
Have we seen a pic yet from after the """anomaly"""? From what I saw of the slow-mo video it ought to have been shredded. The only reason nobody was killed is that nobody was nearby.

[Anonymous No.10703204]

>>10703115
SpaceX really dodged a bullet. Depending on what the root cause of the anomexplosion was, things could've gone much MUCH worse.
>In an alternate timeline the Dragon exploded while docked to the ISS, depressurizing half the modules and forcing its crew to abandon ship
>Congress gets UBERMAD about the fact a huge part of their $400B investment just went up in smoke and may not be able to be salvaged
>Russia and everyone else on the ISS project get UBERMAD about the fact their smaller (but still significant) investments went up in smoke.
>Report comes out blaming NASA for being overly cushy to SpaceX, and SpaceX not following established Aerospace engineering procedures
>Commercial crew is either cancelled outright (if the ISS is deemed unsalvageable) or limps on in a massively reduced state (if parts of the ISS can be saved), with a huge redesign of Starliner and Dragon to use conventional LES towers
>Delays from investigation and redesign are so bad that Artemis 2 fucking flies crew on the SLS before the redesigned capsules are ready
Depends on the root cause, but whether it was something that could've happened at the ISS while docked or not, let's all be fucking glad it DIDN'T.

[Anonymous No.10703242]

>>10702629
sorry bud. will fix next time. this is my second bake.

[Anonymous No.10703255]

>>10699984
Lets see Paul Allen's plane.

[Anonymous No.10703283]

>>10703204
From the bits and pieces that could be gathered about the incident, this happened directly after a "successful test".
Since Dragon being docked to the ISS would mean the system wouldn't have been activated at all, it's unlikely this could have happened up there.
That being said, it's kind of pointless having a launch escape system that blows up the capsule afterwards.

[Anonymous No.10703305]

>>10703283
They successfully tested the draco on-orbit system, then they went to test the super-draco repurposed landing thrusters escape system but it leaked a little bit during the countdown
Of course, leaking a little bit of hypergolics quickly turns into leaking a lot of hypergolics which quickly turns into an explosion

[Anonymous No.10703318]

[Anonymous No.10703349]

>>10703318
Same

[Anonymous No.10703373]

>>10703305
>>10703204
they should use cold gas near the ISS

[Anonymous No.10703462]

>>10703373
Nope, they use Draco thrusters, which are ye standard hypergol mix
They've been doing this for years

[Anonymous No.10703528]

>>10702634
Not if the Norwegians get to Mjars first.

[Anonymous No.10703578]

[Anonymous No.10703581]

[Anonymous No.10703583]

new concrete pad, new jigs, new paint jobs, new buildings...

[Anonymous No.10703586]

>>10701365
>>10701144
>Can't Russia just, you know, produce their own version of Zenit?
That's literally what they do right now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irtysh_(rocket)

>>10701065
>What happened with Sea Launch btw?
S7 bought Sea Launch, and intends to use it once Irtysh is operational.

>>10700648
>Has it been done before?
Obviously yes, in 50s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_missile
Chinese CZ-11 is a repurposed ICBM with a cold launch (the rocket is propelled into the air then the main engine is started), so their sea launch isn't very different from an SLBM launch. Sea Launch is really different since Zenit is a purely orbital rocket, it's never intended to be used like this, so it's much more complex (although Zenit launch prep procedure is also highly automated, similar to an ICBM, because originally it was the Energia booster stage)

[Anonymous No.10703618]

>>10703578
So when's the other half?

[Anonymous No.10703624]

>>10703618
in the shipping container assembly area I think

[Anonymous No.10703642]

[Anonymous No.10703647]

hm

[Anonymous No.10703690]

>>10703583
>>10703581
Are they putting shit inside the container bucket

[Anonymous No.10703699]

>>10703647
Finally, they‘re building the water tower we heard so much about!

[Anonymous No.10703703]

>>10703690
yes

[Anonymous No.10703711]

[Anonymous No.10703735]

This is all a fucking joke.
Even if SpaceX manages to make BFR,they don't have any payload.
It will land on Mars with a dummy payload until other parties get interested in actually doing shit with it.

[Anonymous No.10703741]

>>10703735
in August 2018 Bechtel Corporation, Caterpillar Inc, Schlumberger, and other companies had a secret meeting with SpaceX to discuss mars developments.

I think you'll be surprised.

[Anonymous No.10703745]

>>10703741
Wow, they're gonna dig holes into Mars.
Can't wait.

[Anonymous No.10703751]

>>10703578
LOOK AT THE TOP OF HIS HEAD

[Anonymous No.10703752]

>>10703735
I mean I'm skeptical of the BFR and excited for SLS, but those are the kinds of opinions that'll get you crucified in 99% of the spaceflight community, so I usually keep it to myself.
Usually.

[Anonymous No.10703753]

>>10703735

Payloads are all the other stuff Starship will be doing.
Mars missions are on the side.
If SpaceX isn't broke they can afford some Mars activity themselves.
Other parties might get on board.

[Anonymous No.10703756]

>>10703741
Sauce?

[Anonymous No.10703758]

>>10703752
It's no secret.
SpaceX is providing the mean of transportation, nothing else.
Actual Mars mission running on their hardware will cost magnitudes more than their technology.

[Anonymous No.10703761]

>>10703756
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2018/08/update-on-that.html


>>10703758
correct

[Anonymous No.10703767]

>>10703761
Oh shit son, some big players getting interested. That's fucking cool.

[Anonymous No.10703768]

>>10703758

They want NASA participation. They want NASA to play a role. That's not up to them. If it doesn't happen they'll be forced to do whatever level of activity they can. They are building a system that will make Mars activity so affordable even they can do some stuff.

[Anonymous No.10703772]

>>10703768
If Nasa ain't gonna work with their hardware, then no-one will.
SpaceX doesn't have the means to make a Mars Colony by themselves.

[Anonymous No.10703774]

>>10703772
They have full funding already for starlink which will absolutely provide enough revenue for whatever the fuck they want to do.

[Anonymous No.10703775]

>>10703772
>>10703768
>>10703758
>>10703753
>>10703752
>>10703745
>>10703741
>>10703735
We're all forgetting something.
Starship doesn't work if in-situ fuel processing doesn't work.
They'll have to prove that first.

[Anonymous No.10703776]

>>10703772

"Some level of Mars activity" does not mean "reaching the end state of a full blown colony in your immediate lifetime."

[Anonymous No.10703777]

>>10703774
>starlink
Yeah, that's a wild bet.

[Anonymous No.10703779]

>>10703777
How?

[Anonymous No.10703781]

>>10703779
You know, Iridium, 20 years ago.

[Anonymous No.10703784]

>>10703781
That's not even remotely comparable

[Anonymous No.10703787]

>>10703784
>provide communication all over the globe
Yeah it's same.

[Anonymous No.10703788]

>>10703779
The people who don't currently have internet service don't have it because they're poor as fuck and it's not worth it to run wires out to them.
Wired connections are guaranteed to pretty much always be superior in quality to wireless connections.
So the market SpaceX wants to reach with Starlink is like 99% made up of poor people (with a small group of rich ruralites in the mix). Not exactly a huge profit center.

[Anonymous No.10703796]

>>10703787
>Shit house latency, poor bandwidth and expensive as fuck to launch because they don't own a rocket company

Fuck off

>>10703788
>Everyone rural is too poor to afford internet

Yeah no, unless you mean fucking Africa. Stock traders will pay through the nose for the drop in latency and fucking loads of people hate their ISP monopoly and can't wait to tell them to get fucked.

[Anonymous No.10703800]

>>10703796
You might like the project, and it's neat. But nothing sves you that the world is getting wired GB ethernet right nao.

[Anonymous No.10703803]

>>10703800
Lol and who is going to front the hundreds of billions for that retard?

[Anonymous No.10703804]

>>10703803
Dude, don't know what shithole you're living in, but I got GB for years now.
Why would I use satellites at all?

[Anonymous No.10703808]

>>10703804
It's only getting rolled out in dense urban areas and only in a handful of countries.

[Anonymous No.10703811]

>>10703204
Would there be any chance of survival for people on the station if it blew up while docked? This would have been a massive depressurisation not your run-of-the-mill leaky pin hole leak. Evacuation may not be possible because everyone’s been dead already.

[Anonymous No.10703812]

>>10703808
>0
Yeah, right, that's exactly where I live.
Keep telling yourself SpaceX will have any revenue from their shit.

[Anonymous No.10703813]

I mean tbf the ISPs in the US are monopolistic fucks who are doing everything in their power to avoid investing in their networks and are instead trying to cull demand, so Starlink would be more competitive there than other 1st world nations, but the whole crux of the business case is that SpaceX can do it cheap enough that the profits (from a not-too-affluent userbase), to pay for the constellation, which I personally doubt.
And yes there are rich ruralites who would be interested. There's not many of them though. Most people live in urban and suburban areas by definition, and wired connections are more competitive the more population density there is.

[Anonymous No.10703814]

>>10703204
>400B on this fucking tin can

What an unbelievable waste of money, imagine how far along we would be now if that was spent on develop reusable Rocketry.

[Anonymous No.10703827]

>>10703811
Yeah probably. They had closed most of the bulkheads for safety reasons prior to docking. There's a good chance they could ditch to the Soyuz. Most plausible worst case scenario would be that the Soyuz gets damaged and can't be used, but the station's life support gets knocked offline and the astronauts can't stay there, so they pic related.

[Anonymous No.10703831]

>>10703827
>>10703811
Although I guess the actual worst case scenario would be that the thing exploded AFTER docking when all the doors were open. That would probably kill them all.

[Anonymous No.10703843]

>>10703831
Ok, calm down.
As was stated before, this shit only happened because they activated the thing.
If it's not used during assent, then there's no reason for it esploding the space station.

[Anonymous No.10703846]

>>10703843
I know. It's a hypothetical, Anon. It only applies if the failure was actually possible while docked to the station, which we don't know yet.

[Anonymous No.10703853]

>>10703846
Well, I can tell you there are zero scenarios where the super-draco activates while docked to the ISS, at least.

[Anonymous No.10703855]

>>10703853
Not intentionally. But, once again, the Anon I replied to was asking if such a thing happened, whether it would be survivable or not. The answer is: maybe, depends on the situation.

[Anonymous No.10703871]

>>10703855
How do I spell it?
It wouldn't happen because said system wouldn't be 'armed', but in 'safe mode'.
But as a launch escape system, it looks like a death trap.

[Anonymous No.10703987]

>>10703775
No, Starship works fine without in-situ fuel processing
It's just that Mars gets littered with a bunch of Starships that they send fuel over in, the people come home, and the dream is dead

[Anonymous No.10703992]

>>10703804
GB will never happen outside of dense urban areas

[Anonymous No.10704257]

how many tethered hops has the hopper done so far?

[Anonymous No.10704260]

>>10704257
One

[Anonymous No.10704264]

>>10704260
i figured there were more, wtf...

[Anonymous No.10704265]

>>10704264
They've done a few preburner/nonstarts on the hopper and one actual lighting off while attached to the trash can

[Anonymous No.10704274]

>>10704265
Pretty sure they did a few full ignitions of the engine that didn't result in liftoff when it was attached to the hopper.

[Anonymous No.10704288]

It feels weird to say but the next 70 years are going to be really lit.

[Anonymous No.10704327]

>>10704288
I sure do hope so

[Anonymous No.10704339]

What did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.10704394]

>>10704339
How’s he gonna drink that?

[Anonymous No.10704438]

>>10704394
Dont need to you just gotta look cool

[Anonymous No.10704580]

>>10704394
>*tink*
>...
>muffled cursing from inside the helmet

[Anonymous No.10704617]

>>10704394
emergency induction port

[Anonymous No.10704653]

Starship is fucking huge
How does SpaceX intend to sterilize it for Mars landings as so to not introduce Terran microbial life and contaminate the red planet, preventing us ever fully determining whether it had life of its own at some point?

[Anonymous No.10704656]

>>10704653
It doesn't matter. NASA had trillions of dollar and almost half a century to explore that option, they chose to masturbate and have sex instead.

Chad SpaceX will colonize mars and put humans on Mars before NASA sets a human foot back on the Moon.

[Anonymous No.10704664]

>>10704656
Is Elon still planning on a moonshot to test BFS/BFR before heading to Mars?

[Anonymous No.10704668]

>>10704664
if “moonshot” you mean “btfo all of the Artemis landers” then yes

[Anonymous No.10704670]

>>10704664
Yes. Multiple launches before Mars/Moon/Earth Orbit.

[Anonymous No.10704728]

>>10704653
Only soi cunts like you care about that

>Waaaaaah muh microbes

Literally who cares

[Anonymous No.10704761]

>>10703800
Not Germany for one. Half our Telcos would die to Starlink.

[Anonymous No.10704773]

>>10704653
Fuck it. We‘re gonna put macroscopic life on Mars soon enough. Might as well give up on this bullshit.
Plus I really question the whole premise of this idea anyway. Like we couldn‘tfind microbes regardless. Like we couldn‘t differentiate microbes. All this stupid caution does is make some astro biology papers easier to write for the price of billions of dollars. I don‘t even know why they ever started doing this.

[Anonymous No.10704813]

Can a biologist tell me what are the chances life on mars evolved similarly as it did on earth and instead advanced down the mineral swpeinf events towards the cooling core over eons. We find microbes deep in the earth for example. What of something similar on mars?

[Anonymous No.10704942]

>>10703775
why exactly would the sabatier process magically not work when on mars?

[Anonymous No.10704943]

>>10703800
HA HA HA
No
.t absolutely every single fucking rural area on the entirety of the earth

[Anonymous No.10704946]

>>10704761
>one man is going to play executioner for most of the cancerous telcos on the planet
how long till they assassinate his ass?
they're not going to let those shekels vanish that easy

[Anonymous No.10704968]

>>10703772
>SpaceX doesn't have the means to make a Mars Colony by themselves.
They will have the means to land 100+ tons on Mars for a low price, and when they demonstrate such capability, Mars base will be publicly funded from bottomless NASA budget.

[Anonymous No.10704972]

>>10703788
>So the market SpaceX wants to reach with Starlink is like 99% made up of poor people

several billion of poor people still adds up to large revenue

[Anonymous No.10705025]

>>10704339
It couldn't be coffee, because Mars' atmosphere is too thin to support liquid water even at 0 celsius

[Anonymous No.10705027]

>>10704653
They're gonna piss and shit and cum and dump it all over the surrounding area so that any microbes brought on Starship's skin are negligible.

The search for life on Mars will only find results if we do extensive geologic searches for any mineral deposits that only form biologically, look for microfossils directly, or search present-day sub surface water (aquifers, that lake at the south pole, etc) for present day life. Sending robots will never accomplish these studies. You have to send people.

[Anonymous No.10705031]

>>10704664
you mean dear Moon? Yes, it's an ongoing thing, won't be the first launch or even the first manned launch but once they have done a few manned launches and several dozen cargo flights/refueling flights they will have all the experience they need to do a simple free return around the Moon. That then proves Moon is withing Starship's reach, so they can look at doing an actual landing (refuel two Starships to full in LEO, send them off towards the Moon, stop firing the engines once they're both at half propellant load, link them up, transfer propellant into the one that will land on the Moon. From there the empty one just waits 1 orbit to come back to Earth fro free, then lands, while the other one waits one orbit to fire again at periapsis and does a Moon intercept, landing, launch, and return with on-board propellants only).

[Anonymous No.10705034]

>>10704813
No reason that subsurface microbes living inside rock couldn't exist on Mars right now, anon. In fact IMO it's the most likely form of life we'd find. Unfortunately to find it you have to drill down into solid rock far enough to get through the very cold upper crust and into the still warm, pressurized, water-containing rocks of the deeper crust, probably at least a km down. Good luck doing it with robots only lol.

[Anonymous No.10705046]

Anyone here work in or aspire to work in the space industry?

[Anonymous No.10705065]

>>10705027
>They're gonna piss and shit and cum and dump it all over the surrounding area

No way, that is very high in all sorts of valuable stuff to recycle for fertilisers. Shit will quite literally be worth more than its weight in gold on Mars due to the cost to bring Nitrate and other fertilising elements from Earth. Plus they will probably be stacked with loads of gay ass planetary protection laws

>Oh no won't somebody think of the microbes

Etc

[Anonymous No.10705144]

>>10703788
>farmers
>poor
those motherfuckers make bank once they get the ball rolling, they just have shitty infrastructure for everything by their location's nature

[Anonymous No.10705149]

Dramaaaaaa
https://spacenews.com/virgin-orbit-takes-oneweb-to-court-over-canceled-launch-contract/

[Anonymous No.10705151]

>>10704968
>NASA
>bottomless budget
what are you smoking

[Anonymous No.10705155]

>>10705046
it's what I'm doing right now
shit's hard to get into cause space is still yet a meme to most
I'm excited for starship because 100 tons to space for dirt fucking cheap will be the grand snowball point that will make space no longer a meme, at which the jobs will boom like nothing else

[Anonymous No.10705304]

>>10703871
SpaceX has proven the SuperDraco engines before. However, this has been on a controlled pad with a mockup dragon. Not a fully functional dragon on top of a falcon9 in flight.
It was also clean hardware that hadn't gone to space for a few days and then plummeted through the atmosphere only to land in saltwater.

Nasa/SpaceX has already said that the "rapid unscheduled disassembly" happened right before the superdracos actually fired. Given that the specific hardware in question had made its tour through space and water, It is likely that something was damaged. Remember, this is the first time the human rated dragon has actually run through space. Only the cargo dragon has become highly reusable.

Its anybodys guess at this point though, I'm just speculating.

[Anonymous No.10705305]

>>10705155
What do you do and how did you get in? Also are you American? Be as vague as you want.

[Anonymous No.10705356]

>>10704664
Seeing as the crewed #dearMoon flyby will hopefully in 2023, and probably an uncrewed test flight before that, no doubt they will do an unmanned lunar landing shortly before or after that, probably carrying a rover or some other cargo, to test the landing capabilites in lower gravity in practice for a Mars mission.

[Anonymous No.10705364]

>>10704761
here in the UK I would gladly switch to Starlink too, even if it was a little slower, as our regular ISP's are already greedy, content-censoring cunts

[Anonymous No.10705382]

>>10705046
i'd like to, but i'm a total fucking brainlet, so realistically probably never

[Anonymous No.10705555]

>>10705151
NASA budget is enormous compared to the likes of SpaceX or Blue Origin

[Anonymous No.10705559]

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Transportation/ESA_boost_to_new_commercial_space_transportation_services

ESA finally getting serious about commercial space

[Anonymous No.10705560]

>>10705555
Bigger =! bottomless

[Anonymous No.10705564]

https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1137012892191076353

>Bigelow Space Operations has made significant deposits for the ability to fly up to 16 people to the International Space Station on 4 dedicated @SpaceX flights.

[Anonymous No.10705570]

>>10699524
A quick summary of space flight right now.
SpaceX wins.
If you want to throw anything into Earth orbit, that's where you wanna look at.

>But anon, I want to go to the Moon
That's harder.
You may want to look at rockets with lh2 upper stages, aka delta4, Ariane-5.

>But anon, I want a moon colony.
SLS, even though it doesn't technically exists.
Just get the paycheck ready because you're gonna need it. Also, don't be surprised if you get a launch in only 20 years.

>But I want to go to Mars
Wait for 2026. By then it should be apparent if SpaceX is able to do it or not.
And from the look of it, that would be your only option.
Forget SLS ever getting there. It only works with block 2.

Do we agree /sci/?

[Anonymous No.10705571]

>>10704946
He's too important to the military, they'll never let that happen

[Anonymous No.10705572]

Concrete being poured for the new pad at the launch site.

[Anonymous No.10705575]

>>10704972
This, you only need like ten or twenty bucks a month from a billion poor people.

[Anonymous No.10705579]

>>10705572
Last night the Roll-Lift guys showed up with their equipment to raise StarHopper. Here are a few pics from this morning. They had lowered StarHopper, and started to load up their equipment before I left the launch site.

[Anonymous No.10705582]

>>10705564
Finally, Biegelow doing something that isn't retarded

[Anonymous No.10705583]

>>10705555
If Starlink & Starship work out, Space X will have NASA level money to play with. Starlink itself has estimated its revenue potential at the $30 billion a year level. Assuming each satellite cost $1 million (which is probably a high estimate, considering they will be mass producing these), lasts for 5 years, and each Starship can haul up 300 at a time for $20 million (which is higher than what they are shooting for), putting up the 2400 satellites they need each year would cost ~2.5 billion. Even if other costs end up being $10 billion a year, that still leaves $17.5 billion a year in profit, not far from NASA's $21 billion a year budget.

Hell, even Falcon 9 launches @ $60 million, with 60 $1 million sats (which they are already able to do) would cost $4.8 billion a year.

[Anonymous No.10705585]

>>10705564
>>10705582
Maybe its the CEO himself, wanting to get a closer look at the aliens.

[Anonymous No.10705586]

>>10705570
Heavy can do moon, but bringing your own hydrolox upper stage and fairing is probably a good idea
Get out the checkbook lol

[Anonymous No.10705589]

>>10705564
Why would they buy ISS flights? I thought they want to build inflatable habitats, not to run their own program

[Anonymous No.10705594]

>>10705589
likely they will attach their module to the ISS

[Anonymous No.10705598]

>>10705594
It saves you a bunch of weight in life support, and has it's own sort of prestige
It's basically the only landmark in space right now

[Anonymous No.10705601]

>>10705564
Am I to assume correctly that this Bigelow announcement is related to NASA's announcement about further commercialization of the ISS?

[Anonymous No.10705606]

>>10705586
>Heavy can do moon
Yeah, no, not crewed at least.
Last time they launched Orion on a Delta-IV and it never got anywhere near the Moon.

[Anonymous No.10705607]

>>10705594
They can always remove their parts from the ISS to make their own station when the time is right.

[Anonymous No.10705614]

>>10705570
Fuck, there's nothing Ariane 6 and Vulcan can do.

[Anonymous No.10705615]

Spaceflight is doing really well these days.

[Anonymous No.10705617]

This image shows a shadowed view of the east side of asteroid Bennu’s largest boulder. It was taken by the PolyCam camera on NASA’s OSIRIS-REx spacecraft on April 11, from a distance of 2.9 miles (4.6 km). The field of view is 217 ft (66.2 m). For scale, the width of the boulder is 157 ft (47.7 m), which is about the width of a football field. The image was obtained during Flyby 6A of the mission’s Detailed Survey: Baseball Diamond phase. When the image was taken, the spacecraft was over the southern hemisphere, pointing PolyCam south and west.

Date Taken: April 11, 2019

[Anonymous No.10705618]

>>10705615
It's because they finally killed shuttle

[Anonymous No.10705621]

>>10705617
NASA’s Juno spacecraft captured this view of an area within a Jovian jet stream showing a vortex that has an intensely dark center. Nearby, other features display bright, high altitude clouds that have puffed up into the sunlight.

The color-enhanced image was taken at 12:55 a.m. PDT (3:55 a.m. EDT) on May 29, 2019, as the spacecraft performed its 20th science flyby of Jupiter. At the time, Juno was about 9,200 miles (14,800 kilometers) from the planet's cloud tops, above approximately 52 degrees north latitude.

[Anonymous No.10705623]

>>10705617
When are they going to discover color photography?

[Anonymous No.10705624]

>>10705615
That's a questionable assumption.
As of today, only Russians can launch people into space.
Nothing we have can throw people even at the moon, if we needed to.
We're fucking nowhere, buddy.

[Anonymous No.10705627]

Posters on NSF believe that the Bigelow and NASA releases mean that Bigelow is probably the winner of the competition to see which company will be allowed to add a commercial module to the station. They can launch up to two missions a year, with up to 4 commercial astronauts per year (30 days per mission).

[Anonymous No.10705631]

>>10705618
What remains now is to kill SLS, replace ISS with a commercial LEO station, and violá - finally NASA budget will be efficiently utilized. We wont even need a raise, we will establish base on the Moon and land on Mars while staying below 20 billion dollars per year.

[Anonymous No.10705633]

>>10705624
China can launch people too.

[Anonymous No.10705635]

>>10705627
Not gonna lie, ISS is cool, but if we're going anywhere else, it needs to die.

[Anonymous No.10705637]

>>10705615
>Spaceflight is doing really well on the ground these days.

[Anonymous No.10705638]

>>10705633
Forgot about them.
For some reason, we won't allow they to ISS too.

[Anonymous No.10705641]

>>10705637
it is the calm before the storm

[Anonymous No.10705642]

>>10705633
But they don't do it too

[Anonymous No.10705645]

>>10705624
SpaceX COULD launch people, but I wouldn't get on that rocket quite yet
Soon
Soon

[Anonymous No.10705646]

>>10705623
>When are they going to discover color photography?

Color photography is gimped black and white photography, made for the convenience of the human eye. All color photography fundamentally involves filters, and if you're filtering for light, there's no reason not to go beyond human vision for better scientific returns - which they do, but rotating in different filters for wavelengths that are more interesting than the visible spectrum.

[Anonymous No.10705659]

>>10705637
We have a huge variety of medium lift rockets and a heavy lift rocket that's bordering on super heavy lift
Do you know how rare heavy/super heavy lift rockets are?

[Anonymous No.10705668]

>>10705645
They could do it with Dragon 1, which was the fucking plan at the start.
The only reason dragon2 exists is that they wanted it to do propulsive landing.
Now it's a fucking hazard, so I think a launch escape tower might not be a bad idea, if they're not gonna get the capsule to land on land.

[Anonymous No.10705670]

>>10705659
Yeah I do actually, they were routine in 70s and a similarly powerful rocket with a glider on top has been launched routinely until the last decade

[Anonymous No.10705676]

>>10705635
The end goal is for commercial/private space to take over LEO. If NASA is freed from LEO then they can use the money for the Moon and Mars. The announcements today are (hopefully) a step in the right direction.

[Anonymous No.10705696]

>>10705606
Heavy can do one-way Moon.
For obvious reasons, this is why it is not a great fit for a manned Lunar architecture.

[Anonymous No.10705702]

>>10705696
Look, they burned the whole upper stage and never went there.
That being said, it gave them good data points about re-entry heat.

[Anonymous No.10705703]

jig action

[Anonymous No.10705708]

>>10705703
The fuck are they building here?

[Anonymous No.10705709]

>>10705631
>Kill ISS
>Kill SLS
You may as well add "Kill manned spaceflight" to that list, Anon, because you'd be killing the whole reason for commercial crew's existence and the only BEO spacecraft in manufacturing in the vague hopes they'll be replaced by commercial ventures.
I mean, fuck, the hell is even a business case for a commercial LEO station? A space hotel? Even the 1% aren't rich enough for that.

[Anonymous No.10705714]

>>10705708
dragon wings? New nose cone taper? bulkhead? no clue

[Anonymous No.10705717]

>>10705709
>I mean, fuck, the hell is even a business case for a commercial LEO station?

business case remains the same: public wants to have astronauts up there

it is just that it will be privately developed, owned and operated

[Anonymous No.10705720]

>>10705709
ok, dont kill SLS just yet, but when either Starship or New Glenn flies? No reason to keep it around after that.

[Anonymous No.10705722]

Cocoa

[Anonymous No.10705723]

>>10705709
>Even the 1% aren't rich enough for that.
This. Space tourism will never take off unless the prices drop to a level that's at affordable to the upper middle class.

[Anonymous No.10705725]

>>10705708
>>10705714
I think it's the bottom of the methane tank, which is the nearest to the engines.

[Anonymous No.10705727]

https://www.space.com/nasa-international-space-station-commercial-use.html

>commercial crew missions
Funny way to say tourism. How do the public sector astronauts feel about babysitting the thrillseeking elite? Will the science be hampered? How much more room is up there

[Anonymous No.10705728]

>>10705725
funny then that it's also stainless steel... makes sense I guess

[Anonymous No.10705731]

>>10705727
>Will the science be hampered?
There is hardly any significant science done up there anyway.

Nurturing nascent commercial spaceflight industry is by far the best thing ISS will do.

[Anonymous No.10705733]

>>10705728
They'll presumably have a "dance floor" underneath the methane tank to provide additional heat shielding against engine exhaust re-circulation.

[Anonymous No.10705736]

>>10705708
decorations for the next mad max movie

[Anonymous No.10705737]

>>10705727
>Will the science be hampered?
Oh no! The beans that were growing poorly due to the microgravity will be disturbed! Oh no! The crystals that can grow slightly larger in space will be disturbed too!

We've already learned enough about microgravity using the pathetically tiny labs on the ISS. They either need to move on or upgrade.

[Anonymous No.10705742]

>>10705737
we still dont even know if rodents can reproduce in microgravity, after two decades of microgravity research this is quite pathetic

[Anonymous No.10705757]

>when the blunt hits hard

[Anonymous No.10705764]

>>10705731
This
The astronauts are too busy doing maintenance so the aging rust bucket of a station doesn't kill them to do any science up there

[Anonymous No.10705765]

>>10705736
>launching an xbox hueg rocket to the gas town

[Anonymous No.10705769]

>>10705742
But you're forgetting the most important experiment of microgravity ever! It's discoveries were the greatest in spaceflight since Galileo!

Roses grown in microgravity smell identical to the same type of roses grown on Earth. The implications of this are so massive most people can't comprehend!!!!1

[Anonymous No.10705772]

>>10705757
what about a BFR OTRAG then

[Anonymous No.10705791]

>>10705757
IMO you'd get better results sticking 4 Superheavy Cores around the center core in a + formation while having the center core not run at as high a power level/not at all. Once it gets high and fast enough, pop the 4 side boosters, start/ramp up the core, and continue on.

It would also be neat if a proper upper stage to Superheavy was designed. Essentially take all of the EDL shit off Starship including landing engines, use a recoverable fairing, and launch it like normal. Yes you'd lose the upper stage engines, but that thing would definitely open up some options in the superheavy lift category.

[Anonymous No.10705793]

>>10705618
should have avoided it completely and developed something like Energia II instead

[Anonymous No.10705806]

>>10705618
That thing held spaceflight back so much. Too expensive to do anything beyond LEO most of the time, but canceling it would mean that NASA would lose its manned spaceflight capabilities. They couldn't develop a replacement but Shuttle was so expensive that it would've been impossible to get Congress to give more money to NASA. It also scared others away from reusable spacecraft. The only good thing about the Shuttle was that it looked cool.

[Anonymous No.10705824]

>>10705564
What the fuck am I looking at?

[Anonymous No.10705828]

>>10705824
You don't recognize the International Space Station?

[Anonymous No.10705836]

OMG Trump is tweeting about NASA

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1137051097955102720

For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!

[Anonymous No.10705846]

>>10705836
I really hope he meant that NASA shouldn't be focused on going to the Moon just to reenact Apollo. There's plenty of stuff NASA can do on the moon and plenty of reason to go there.

[Anonymous No.10705849]

>>10705836

[Anonymous No.10705853]

>>10705836
he is right, as Musk said, we ought to have a moonbase by now, as well as Mars mission well underway

[Anonymous No.10705854]

>>10705836
>For all of the money we are spending
B-but it's the Congress who spends the money

[Anonymous No.10705862]

>>10705836

>Mars (of which the Moon is a part)

Astronomers BTFO first by Starlink and now by Trump! Will they EVER recover??

[Anonymous No.10705869]

>>10705564

Hurry up Robert.. I want something like this up there.

[Anonymous No.10705872]

3x the ISS habitable volume.

[Anonymous No.10705875]

>>10705670
>routine in the 70s
Name them, there's nothing near the 40 tons of FH
It's Saturn V at 100+ tons
The only other vehicle near FH is STS, which did 50 tons with Chandra

[Anonymous No.10705877]

>>10705836
>including Mars (of which the Moon is a part)

Trump confirmed for spaceflight galaxybrain

[Anonymous No.10705880]

>>10705875
>which did 50 tons with Chandra
And the orbiter. And 7 astronauts. And their dog.

[Anonymous No.10705883]

>>10705875
>which did 50 tons with Chandra
22 tons, 50k lbs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_X-ray_Observatory

[Anonymous No.10705885]

>>10705836
>>10705853
So he means "for all the money we are spending, it should already be done. We shouldn't just be talking about it". Right? But also, the Moon stuff is on the path to getting to Mars, so we should make that clear when we're talking about going back to the Moon. I mean it makes sense I guess, in a Trump way.

[Anonymous No.10705891]

>>10705828
I thought it had habitats in a cigar shape along the entire length, not just scaffolding for solar panels

[Anonymous No.10705922]

>NASA has absolutely ZERO mars plans
>this 3-year-lifespan disposable moon base golf vacation infrastructure is going to get us to mars :^)
>now give Lockheed and Boeing their $65 billion dollars please

wow I would need 85 IQ to believe that

[Anonymous No.10705943]

>incredibly complicated, super efficient, reuseable hydrolox engines
>on a small disposable rocket

they should honestly go to jail

[Anonymous No.10705946]

>>10705943
the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.10705948]

Moon 2024 has been cancelled:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1137051097955102720

[Anonymous No.10705950]

>>10705946
>the fuck are you talking about?
SLS, probably. They'll be throwing away four, $25 million engines per core stage until they finish developing a cheaper alternative.

[Anonymous No.10705953]

>>10705877

Fixed.

[Anonymous No.10705955]

>>10705943
>incredibly complicated, super efficient, reuseable hydrolox engines
They weren't really reusable. They needed to be heavily refurbished each mission IIRC.

[Anonymous No.10705964]

>>10705955

Still, its an economic idiocy.

[Anonymous No.10705968]

>>10705948
>all those libs in the comments thinking that Trump said Moon is literally part of Mars

zero reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.10705985]

>>10705950
No they won't, that's why they extensively redesigned RS-25 with the single-use scenario in mind, and called it RS-25E. It's significantly cheaper than RS-25

[Anonymous No.10705995]

>>10705985
>It's significantly cheaper than RS-25
well, how much is it

[Anonymous No.10706007]

>>10705985

>RS-25E

Thats still much more expensive than dedicated single-use (expendable) engine developed as such from the start.

[Anonymous No.10706015]

>>10705985
>No they won't, that's why they extensively redesigned RS-25 with the single-use scenario in mind, and called it RS-25E. It's significantly cheaper than RS-25

The first SLS flights will be using the RS-25Ds from the shuttle program, and a few new-build ones as well in the interim. RS-25E is still in development.

[Anonymous No.10706047]

>>10703064
Martian soil isn't nearly as abrasive as Moon dust.

[Anonymous No.10706052]

>>10705836
>(of which the Moon is a part)

This is shopped, right? RIGHT?

[Anonymous No.10706058]

>>10706052
It's not, but most English speakers can understand that "of which the moon is a part" is a reference to the scope of a program ambition, rather than a declaration that the Moon is part of Mars.

[Anonymous No.10706061]

>>10706052
see
>>10705968

[Anonymous No.10706063]

>>10705836
>They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part)

Isnt that essentially what Musk is planning with Starship? But suddenly when Orange Man says it, it is a bad thing..

[Anonymous No.10706067]

>>10706052

I want "Mars (of which the Moon is a part)" to become as successful meme as "Allah (peace be upon him)".

[Anonymous No.10706068]

>>10705985
>the Shuttle is significantly cheaper than Saturn V
>SLS is significantly cheaper than the Shuttle
>RS-25E is significantly cheaper than RS-25 (which are "free")

>the next 35 billion dollar project is ALSO going to be significantly cheaper

[Anonymous No.10706073]

They are putting the tethers back on!
.
.
.
.
Road closures have been delayed until June 13th:

https://twitter.com/labpadre/status/1137079366540845056

[Anonymous No.10706075]

>>10704339
In situ sedans

[Anonymous No.10706076]

>>10706068
>the Shuttle is significantly cheaper than Saturn V
No? The Shuttle on average was as expensive per launch as the Saturn V.

[Anonymous No.10706079]

>>10699606
USAF could use it for the X37B.

[Anonymous No.10706102]

>>10706076
why are you on sci if you're so dumb

the whole point of that post is that NASA promises to make things cheaper and they end up being more expensive

[Anonymous No.10706112]

>>10706102
Sorry. Lost track of that little conversation thread. That teaches me not to multitask.

[Anonymous No.10706115]

>>10706102
Shuttle was more expensive due to inflated military requirements though

[Anonymous No.10706119]

>>10706115
And it was *more* more expensive because they never did a thing to lower the operational costs of the shuttle. The engines were never improved for cost, the boosters were never optimized for cost, and the external tank was always made lighter, never cheaper. The only thing that ever did get touched was the replacement of some TPS tiles with TPS blankets, but never the more expensive tiles, and post-flight investigations never got faster or cheaper.

[Anonymous No.10706125]

>>10706119
Probably because the Shuttle became so expensive that NASA couldn't justify asking for more money to improve on it. Plus there was probably fears among NASA management that if they pushed too hard on improving the Shuttle then Congress may get convinced that Shuttle is a waste, cancel the Shuttle, and leave NASA with no manned spacecraft.

[Anonymous No.10706171]

>>10706058
You would think so, but TDS is a hell of a drug.

[Anonymous No.10706184]

>>10706073
when will the delays end?!

[Anonymous No.10706194]

congress was never going to give nasa the money for moon 2024

[Anonymous No.10706201]

my 8 inch dob just arrived in the mail boys. this is my first telescope beyond the $50 one I bought from big5. I'm excited!

[Anonymous No.10706212]

>>10706194
Care to explain why?

[Anonymous No.10706242]

Will there ever be another space probe as based as Cassini?

[Anonymous No.10706246]

>>10706212
congress never gives nasa what it needs

[Anonymous No.10706250]

>>10705948
the 'orbital platform' was fucking pointless anyway, LEO > Lunar/Martian surface is cheaper, easier and more efficient. Then just put a mass driver on the surface for cheap payload return.

[Anonymous No.10706253]

>>10706250
the gateway is still going to be built? moon 2024 was putting peoole on the surface of the moon.

[Anonymous No.10706255]

>>10706242
Bitch, please

[Anonymous No.10706260]

>>10706253
but why, we don't need it

[Anonymous No.10706271]

Lol

[Anonymous No.10706275]

Moon2024 has been uncancelled....

[Anonymous No.10706277]

>>10706260
because job programs

[Anonymous No.10706280]

>>10706275
tfw elongated muskrat puts some Starships there instead and starts mining

[Anonymous No.10706283]

>>10706275
>"fuck nasa, fuck the moon"
>"mr president the chinese are colonizing the moon as we speak"
>"fuck china, moon 51st state, mars 52nd"

[Anonymous No.10706286]

>>10706283
the space equivalent of mineshaft gaps

[Anonymous No.10706304]

Bridenstine tweet

[Anonymous No.10706570]

>>10706242
I just hope they'll resurrect JIMO someday

[Anonymous No.10706861]

>>10705621
Soot from a small comet impacting the atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.10706874]

>>10705623
Vesta is grey, what's the problem

[Anonymous No.10706895]

How many more years will it take until you realise you've been lied to about what's up there?

[Anonymous No.10706916]

>>10706895
What do you believe has been lied about? Who lied? Why did they lie? How did they get away from it?

[Anonymous No.10706975]

>>10705880
Yeah but we're talking about cargo mass, which the Shuttle was fucked on because lel bringing astronauts on your cargo truck

[Anonymous No.10706977]

>>10705875
>The only other vehicle near FH is STS, which did 50 tons with Chandra

>>10706975
>Yeah but we're talking about cargo mass, which the Shuttle was fucked on because lel bringing astronauts on your cargo truck

I though't the Shuttle only had a capacity of 27.5 metric tons to LEO?

[Anonymous No.10706984]

>>10706977
Did it
Maybe I fucked up reading Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.10707048]

>>10706984
>LEO Payload: 24,400 kg (53,700 lb) to a 204 km orbit at 28.50 degrees. Payload: 12,500 kg (27,500 lb) to a 407 km 51.6 deg orbit.

http://www.astronautix.com/s/spaceshuttle.html
From one of my "rocket porn" sites.

[Anonymous No.10707063]

>>10700333
woah

[Anonymous No.10707065]

>>10705559
They're just talking about commercial aka funding more for Arianespace right? AFAIK SpaceX was barred from any sort of competition in Europe because they claimed US does the same.

[Anonymous No.10707186]

So, tell me if you've heard this one before:
Dual cycle air breathing nuclear ramjet/nuclear thermal rocket engine

[Anonymous No.10707194]

>>10707186
Literally would only find use launching from Venus's surface or getting out to and into the atmospheres of the gas giants. No one would allow it to fly in Earth's atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.10707200]

>>10706068
SLS actually is cheaper than Saturn V though. We've been over this before.
Even with the absolute worst most divorced from reality cost metrics you can throw at it, the worst you can do is find ones where they're roughly on-par.

[Anonymous No.10707201]

>>10707194
It's not if they would let us
It's if they could stop us

[Anonymous No.10707206]

>>10707200
Yet
Get back to me after they've flown it for 10 years

[Anonymous No.10707213]

>>10707206
Anon, 10 years worth of launches would actually IMPROVE those figures. DevCosts/Num. of Launches looks nicer the bigger the number in the bottom is, after all, and you'd have to go to 40+ launches before incremental launch cost becomes a bigger factor in per-launch price than development costs.

[Anonymous No.10707222]

>>10707213
The implication here being that it won't fly even as much as Saturn V did

[Anonymous No.10707243]

>>10707222
Yes. But those "worst-case figures" weren't actually reliant on flying more than the Saturn V.
Apollo-era manufacturing and R&D is just straight-up more expensive no matter how you look at it.

[Anonymous No.10707245]

>>10707243
Just wait until Congress decides to make it "cheaper" by increasing the cost three times over

[Anonymous No.10707256]

>>10706102
that was the airforce who fucked up the shuttle, retard.

[Anonymous No.10707259]

>>10706283
the chinks arent nearly close to doing anything substantial on the moon, but whatever gets NASA off their ass is fine by me.

[Anonymous No.10707361]

>>10706304
>helicopter
Why is no one talking about this?

[Anonymous No.10707420]

>>10707361
Because it's not exciting

[Anonymous No.10707424]

why did the soviets cancel the N-1 rocket program? could they have gotten to the moon first if they stick with it?

[Anonymous No.10707440]

>>10707361
Probably because it's still in it's development phase IIRC. Makes sense considering how many aerospace projects get trashed during that phase.

>>10707424
Many reasons. The N-1 had a major failure every launch, and while the problems were getting worked out the USSR couldn't test the rocket to make sure that it worked without launching the full stack. This meant that it became very expensive to develop. Another reason for it's cancellation was that their moon program got canned because it was clearly beat by Apollo. Since the moon landings had alot of national pride and spectacle behind it, the USSR would've seen no point in continuing their moon mission if it meant that they'll only get second place.

>could they have gotten to the moon first if they stick with it?
No, the Americans had multipble manned landings by the time of the last N-1 launch. Now, the project that would become the N-1 had alot of infighting which delayed things, so if the Russians have settled on a design earlier, then they might have had a chance in my opinion.

This video describes it better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi6fjs_8Yx8

[Anonymous No.10707448]

>>10706975
>Yeah but we're talking about cargo mass
No, "a similarly powerful rocket", aka makes a similar bang. It's pointless to talk about Shuttle cargo capacity alone, because it was everything at once.

[Anonymous No.10707449]

a post on r/spacex says that axiom space is the favored commercial space module for the ISS. is bigelow jumping the gun?

[Anonymous No.10707455]

>>10707361
This thread distastes unmanned probes in general. Not manly enough. They like things that go vrrooom.

[Anonymous No.10707464]

>>10707420
you're retarded, kys

[Anonymous No.10707480]

>>10707440
but the N-1 was made for manned mars and venus fly bys, they still could have continued it with that.

[Anonymous No.10707482]

>>10707440
>Since the moon landings had alot of national pride and spectacle behind it, the USSR would've seen no point in continuing their moon mission if it meant that they'll only get second place.
Which was a huge mistake of their propaganda ministry or unit or whatever they had. Because the US thought the same and nobody would fly a mission of that scale for decades. So mutts could brag about it on anime imageboards till this day.

[Anonymous No.10707484]

why hasnt elon commented on the bigelow missions? he's overdue for spewing some shit on twitter.

[Anonymous No.10707488]

>>10707482
they would still never be able to get to the moon first, and americans would still brag about the first moon landing to this day. it was pointless.

[Anonymous No.10707493]

>>10707488
Nah, they had the capability in general, especially in 80s.

[Anonymous No.10707495]

>>10707493
>in the 80s
the americans had already finished all apollo missions by then. a moon landing is pointless for the soviets purposes if they only get second place.

[Anonymous No.10707496]

>>10707449
No shit Bigelow is retarded but also reddit is retarded so stfu

[Anonymous No.10707498]

>>10707482
When you and your enemy have weapons that can destroy all humanity, international pride competitions was all that was left for you two to "fight" without starting apocalypse. Spaceflight history without the space race would have a more gradual development rather than the sudden advancement and pause of 50 years. It would've been less of a spectacle, but I think that would've been better than what actually happened.

[Anonymous No.10707500]

>>10707498
spaceflight hardly existed before the space race, so trying to talk about what it would be like is next to impossible without large leaps.

[Anonymous No.10707504]

>>10707495
>>10707498
shut the fuck up, mutt. the soviets could have and should have gotten to the moon before you and then you would never be able to go on and fucking on about your shitty moon landing. you were so butthurt that you sabotaged the rocket that was objectively better.

[Anonymous No.10707506]

>just learned about mircorp
why was nasa so hostile to commercialization of space just 20 years ago? we actually had a semblance of a functioning space economy in LEO but nasa pulled out all of the stops to kill it. what a bunch of cunts.

[Anonymous No.10707520]

>>10707506
>why was nasa so hostile to commercialization of space just 20 years ago?
Probably for complicated reasons that would be too long to explain in full here. Such as, fears of ICBM technology falling into the wrong hands if space gets commercialized, Mir delaying the ISS because it was still up, NASA really wanting the the ISS so that it could keep it's budget, Anderson having negative opinions of NASA apparently, etc. I'm glad that NASA has changed it's views on private space though. Spaceflight needed that change.

[Anonymous No.10707589]

>>10705968
ORANGE
MAN
BAD

[Anonymous No.10707594]

>>10707440
>so if the Russians have settled on a design earlier, then they might have had a chance in my opinion
a chance in what? Beating muricans to the Moon, no. The Apollo program was specifically designed for them not being able to compete at the time since soviets were too busy with million other things (like closing the reverse rocket gap) in that particular point of time and didn't recognize the race as a race until it was 4 years into the Apollo program, so they never secured the potential funding. So it wasn't much of a race like it was with the earlier series of firsts. Orbital station "race" was designed the same way, soviets chose the goal which was conveniently out of reach in US at the time.

[Anonymous No.10707644]

>>10707594
The Soviet stations were really cool desu but I'm not sure I understand the purpose

[Anonymous No.10707661]

>>10707644
vanity, mostly.

[Anonymous No.10707705]

>>10707644
Using is as a microgravity lab and a lesson in building things in space, just like every other station.

[Anonymous No.10707829]

>>10707464
>Drone that hovers around and takes photos for a billion dollars
>But omg it's on Mars

[Anonymous No.10707936]

>>10707506
NASA had the worst of oldspace attitudes back in the 90s, those were wasted decades for spaceflight

[Anonymous No.10707977]

new thread

>>10707975

[Anonymous No.10708292]

>>10703255
nice dubs

[Anonymous No.10708341]

>>10707977
>page 8
hownew.ru

[Anonymous No.10708589]

>>10708341
Yeah wow gay

[Anonymous No.10708789]

>>10708341
gotta keep the the thread bumped so that people see it, newfag

[Anonymous No.10708904]

>>10708789
No fuck you