/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.10729526]

Father's Day edition

old thread >>10720754

[Anonymous No.10729534]

Hop when?

[Anonymous No.10729540]

>>10729534
20th or so

[Anonymous No.10729552]

Cocoa Starship photo from today

[Anonymous No.10729580]

>>10729534
>>10729540
L2 anon here: Raptor SN-5 will be arriving at BC in the next two days, after performing several 60+ second test fires at McGregor. SpaceX are aiming to do a 20m hop on the 24th, but before this can happen wet dress rehearsals and a static fire will occur.

[Anonymous No.10729581]

>>10729552
Let's hope those fuccbois got the diameters right this time

[Anonymous No.10729619]

>>10729581
Story? I didn't know they had to remake it.

[Anonymous No.10729670]

>>10729552
Texas """orbital hopper""" getting dabbed on

[Anonymous No.10729777]

I hope the gyrojet guy finds the grains he is looking for

[Anonymous No.10729861]

>>10729777
No, sadly. I still can't find any good information on propellants I need. And any propellant information I can find, they just burn too slow or not energetic enough for the purposes of a Gyrojet (although what I'm designing isn't a gyrojet, because it only has one thruster port and thus can't spin itself. My idea was to use good old rifling for it). I tried to find any information on smokeless gunpowder (any type really), but not even RPA has data on it.

On the plus side, I found the most ridiculous name for a rocket propellant. Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane.

[Anonymous No.10729863]

>>10729861
Have you tried using this thing?
http://burnsim.com/
Seems like it might be able to help, and besides whos to say you cant make your own information? be a trailblazer my man

[Anonymous No.10729881]

>>10729861
Wait, are we talking Gyrojet, the firearm? I missed earlier posts...

[Anonymous No.10729883]

who's he next to, /sci/?

[Anonymous No.10729889]

>>10729883
perhaps it isn't as easily memable as I thought

[Anonymous No.10729894]

>>10729881
In the previous thread some guy was trying to make something like that
>>10725665
>>10725681
>>10725869
>>10727168
>>10727316
and then he gave up
>>10729861

[Anonymous No.10729895]

We will never go back to the moon.
The project will go over budget, just like Constellation, just like Venturestar, just like the shuttle.
The next administration will scrap the entire thing, call for "A path to (the opposite target the last president wanted)/Mars!"

China is now launching more rockets per yet then SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.10729902]

>>10729895
>we will never go back to the moon
Mate we are going to mars, the moon will be a cakewalk compared to that

[Anonymous No.10729904]

>>10729863
>Have you tried using this thing?
>http://burnsim.com/
The site looks sketchy, but maybe I'll try it if I get really desperate.

>and besides whos to say you cant make your own information? be a trailblazer my man
True, but look at gif related. And besides, I wanted to save up to make my own bipropellant rocket engine. The gyrojet was just a fun little side thing to design, because I like designing things alot.

>>10729881
>Wait, are we talking Gyrojet, the firearm? I missed earlier posts...
Yes, the mini Bolter. And before you bring it up; yes, I am aware of using a charge to punt the projectile at decent speeds and have the rocket portion be used as a second stage. However, I want to try to solve the gyrojet's problems entirely through rocket power.

[Anonymous No.10729906]

>>10729895
>Bush wanted to go to Mars, Clinton cancelled it
>Bush wanted to go to Moon, Obama cancelled it
>Trump wanted to go to Moon, Trump cancelled it
Really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.10729914]

>>10729526
>Father's Day edition

I Remember when the Apollo 11 landing was happening. We were traveling, almost got home in time to watch the telvised coverage, but were still in the car ion the outskirts of town when it landed.

My father had it on the radio, and I think he felt bad that history was being made and we were stuck in the car. So he started his own running commentary to supplement what we were hearing, making it more relatable to us kids in the car. "They're moving about as fast as a rifle bullet right now," and "Now they are about twice as high above the moon as the height of that phone pole."

We were home in time for the EVA some hours later, and I have vague memories of that (probably supplemented by seeing the video replayed ever since.) But my memories of being in the car, listneing to the landing and listening to Dad helping bring it alive for me are very, very strong.

Thanks, Dad. Happy Father's Day.

[Anonymous No.10729915]

>>10729906
if you dont know what you want the enemy cant predict it !!!

[Anonymous No.10729919]

>>10729904
>And before you bring it up; yes, I am aware


I wasn't going to bring that up. I just love the Gyrojet, for totally dopey sentimental reasons. I had one briefly, before life intruded and acquiring funds became more important than collecting weird shit.

Good luck with your project. God speed, bullet.

[Anonymous No.10729954]

>>10729906
>still shilling this transparently
I thought shareblue died with the election
I hope you're a shill, cause if you aren't, then that's a depressing lack of basic literacy

[Anonymous No.10729971]

>>10729954
Let’s not get into another heated argument over Trump’s poorly worded tweet, which confused most of the general public who don’t know about NASA’s Moon2Mars strategy. All that matters is that nothing in regards to space policy has changed and Artemis/Moon 2024 is still a thing.

[Anonymous No.10729972]

>>10729954
the President has a depressing lack of basic literacy
I don't give a fuck how anyone voted, the man is an idiot.

[Anonymous No.10730007]

>>10729972
>a billionaire is dumb
no

[Anonymous No.10730012]

>>10730007
I voted for trump but come on, the rich in general can be just as stupid as the rest of us.

[Anonymous No.10730041]

>>10730012
no they cannot, for if they were, they would not be rich for very long
previously poor lottery winners do not count as "rich people"
Trump is not stupid, if he was, he would not have made any money at all, let alone several billion, Zuckerberg is not stupid for the same reason, or any other billionaire

[Anonymous No.10730044]

once more this thread has become infected with polshit. Go back to your containment board.

[Anonymous No.10730051]

Let’s return to on topic discussion, ok?

[Anonymous No.10730056]

>>10729919
>I wasn't going to bring that up. I just love the Gyrojet, for totally dopey sentimental reasons. I had one briefly, before life intruded and acquiring funds became more important than collecting weird shit.
Money is the biggest limiter of fun. I guess that's why I'm attracted to designing things more than making them. It costs little to do some math on a spreadsheet.

>Good luck with your project. God speed, bullet.
Thank you! Your support is much appreciated!

I finally have something that seems good. The results seems a little "too good". But I can try to verify them later. Unfortunately the final projectile is over half an inch in diameter so there's no making this without special permits (in the US at least). I could scale it up to fit a 12 gauge assuming the shotgun has rifling good enough to stabilize it. What do you guys think?

[Anonymous No.10730061]

So how about that new mars rover they have planned? I like the fact that designed into it is plans to help find the best way for humans to survive on mars
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasas-mars-2020-will-blaze-a-trail-for-humans/

[Anonymous No.10730065]

>>10730056
Go for it, dont let your dreams be dreams

[Anonymous No.10730106]

>>10730041
The man literally has less money than if he just invested daddy's money.

[Anonymous No.10730132]

>>10729906
trump may have the writing skills of a third grader, but you have the reading comprehension of a preschooler.

[Anonymous No.10730136]

>>10729895
the US was never the ones who were going to do the moon base and mars landing. everyone here unilaterally agrees that china is going to be the leaders in space for at least the next 50 years. a manned mars landing is pretty much guaranteed to be done by china.

[Anonymous No.10730141]

>>10730041
99% of all problems rich people face is self inflicted. being rich does make you less competent if you become complacent.

[Anonymous No.10730142]

>>10730106
>>10730132
Go back to /pol/ if you want to debate the orange man...

[Anonymous No.10730144]

>>10729861
do you know how to make your own propellants? plenty of hobbyists do it. liquid propellant is out, so solid is the obviously the way to go.

[Anonymous No.10730154]

>>10730141
Complacency =! Intelligence
Complacency = Complacency

[Anonymous No.10730155]

>>10730144
>do you know how to make your own propellants?
I know the basics. I've helped make parts of solid propellant but never made it myself.

>liquid propellant is out, so solid is the obviously the way to go.
I don't know man. With 3D printing being a thing liquid propellant engines can be a thing for hobbyists. I'm even designing my own. Sure, they won't be very good but they can work well enough.

[Anonymous No.10730156]

>>10729619
>>10729581
no, it was the Boca Chica where the nose is all fucked up
Cocoa was fine

[Anonymous No.10730181]

>>10729619
>>10729552
Now that's a sexy water tower grain silo

[Anonymous No.10730186]

>>10730136
History will prove you wrong, the united states will dominate space

[Anonymous No.10730200]

>>10730155
>I know the basics. I've helped make parts of solid propellant but never made it myself.
then you should try and talk to some hobbyists and look to getting into it, they can help you out on this!
>With 3D printing being a thing liquid propellant engines can be a thing for hobbyists
thats actually not the reason why i was suggesting liquid fuel. solid rocket fuel would be far better for your purposes of being a bulled because its not as complex to actually fire them and because they dont deteriorate as quickly. these are some relatively important factors when dealing with firearms (you want a bullet that can actually fire, right?).

[Anonymous No.10730201]

>>10730186
they never have, and never will. the masters of space from this point forward will be Europe and china.

[Anonymous No.10730209]

>>10730056
going for the destructive device FFL shit eventually would be a good idea

[Anonymous No.10730212]

>>10730201
>Europe
if they can quit sabotaging themselves they'll have a place
>China
space war now

[Anonymous No.10730214]

>>10730056
>>10730209
making sure you dont get fucked over by the ATF should be a priority if youre serious about this (and if you dont want your dog to get shot)

[Anonymous No.10730216]

>>10730212
>space war now
what? is this what burgers actually believe? china outclasses everyone else in space by miles.

[Anonymous No.10730221]

>>10730200
>then you should try and talk to some hobbyists and look to getting into it, they can help you out on this!
I'm in a rocket design team so I can just ask them for help (if they're okay with the concept). But thank you for the suggestion.

>thats actually not the reason why i was suggesting liquid fuel. solid rocket fuel would be far better for your purposes of being a bulled because its not as complex to actually fire them and because they dont deteriorate as quickly. these are some relatively important factors when dealing with firearms (you want a bullet that can actually fire, right?).
Ah, sorry. I thought you meant no liquid propellant in general. As for stability, ammonium perchlorate + hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene should be good, right?

>>10730209
Maybe if I shoot them straight up, then it won't count as a destructive device.

Kidding. But I'll look into the legality of it. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.10730222]

[Anonymous No.10730224]

>>10730214
my favorite part about all this is that if he does it wrong he could end up in federal pound your ass prison for 20 hard years

[Anonymous No.10730231]

>>10730221
>ammonium perchlorate + hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene should be good, right?
im not sure, i havent really looked into it to the extent you have. do you know what the original gyro-jet used?

[Anonymous No.10730232]

>>10730221
dude use hypergolic fuel trust me bro it'll be fine.

[Anonymous No.10730233]

>>10730056
Get a permit my man

[Anonymous No.10730239]

>>10730231
I've looked into it hard, but I have a bad tendency of missing key details sometimes.

>do you know what the original gyro-jet used?
"double-based nitrocellulose", so smokeless gunpowder. However, I can't find any information on it as a rocket propellant.

>>10730232
>Cancer juice

[Anonymous No.10730246]

>>10730239
i see. then if thats what the original used then you might want to try your original suggestions, they seem like they would provide a lot more thrust while also being somewhat stable. although i have no idea about shelf-life. although before any actual physical testing id recommend getting all the proper paperwork and permits in order for the sake of both your project and your dog.

[Anonymous No.10730250]

>>10730239
cancer is the least of your problems if you start inhaling it.

[Anonymous No.10730272]

should the Saturn-1B have remaining in service even with the shuttle?

[Anonymous No.10730279]

>>10730272
it was a piece of shit that needed to be simplified
Saturn-1C would have been a good idea

[Anonymous No.10730280]

>>10730272
Probably not for two reasons. One, it was too expensive for NASA at the time. NASA was getting some severe budget cuts and it was seeking to reduce costs where ever possible. That's why the Shuttle was pushed so hard within NASA despite it's troubles, it was seen as the miracle solution to all of NASA's problems at the time. Plus, it carried roughly the same amount of payload to LEO as the Shuttle, yet the Shuttle was projected to be much cheaper than the Saturn IB, so it makes sense to drop the Saturn for the Shuttle. The other reason (although it's more like speculation), is that the Saturn IB was strongly associated with Apollo, and since the US government (Nixon in particular) wanted to "remove" as much Apollo from NASA as possible to keep their ambitions in check, the Saturn had to go.

[Anonymous No.10730293]

>>10730279
>>10730280
so then would further development and refinement of the Saturn rocket as a whole have fit the needs better?

[Anonymous No.10730295]

>>10730293
yeah
put up another couple skylab modules, bolt them all together, launch some chunky unmanned probes into deep space
so much potential

[Anonymous No.10730302]

>>10730295
i was more envisioning it as an american Soyuz equivalent of a longstanding cheap rocket that can get manned missions in to LEO. all the "heavy" lifting could have been done by the shuttle.

[Anonymous No.10730303]

>>10730293
It is a possibility. The H-1 on the 1B's first stage was later used on the Delta series of rockets and was upgraded down the years. So it's not unlikely to imagine that the same could be done on the 1B. The same for the upper stage using the J-2 engine. That engine was later simplified and improved as the J-2S. The biggest thing that could hold back the 1B's upgrades is the cluster of tanks for the first stage. That isn't a good way of doing tanks, it's better to have one big tank.

The problem however, is that those upgrades took time and money that NASA didn't have at the time. The Shuttle was eating up NASA's development and money budgets, and that was seen as the future. To not go with the Shuttle, but instead go for the Saturn 1B (or Saturn 3) would require hindsight.

[Anonymous No.10730313]

>>10730303
>The problem however, is that those upgrades took time and money that NASA didn't have at the time
would it have been possible to have gotten the airforce to fund the shuttle more then beginning production of the hypothetical saturn after the shuttle design was worked out? there were plenty of people in NASA who realized the shuttle wasnt all it was cracked up to be after development started.

[Anonymous No.10730316]

>>10729914
Based boomer

[Anonymous No.10730317]

>>10730313
>>10730303
i do sometimes wonder what we would have gotten if NASA just told the airforce that the shuttle was their problem now and just handed development over to the USAF.

[Anonymous No.10730326]

>>10730313
>would it have been possible to have gotten the airforce to fund the shuttle more then beginning production
IIRC NASA went to the USAF as a last ditch effort to get funding for the Shuttle so expecting them to find the whole thing may be abit of a stretch (or was that the DOD?).

[Anonymous No.10730338]

>>10729954
>orange man goood

[Anonymous No.10730347]

>>10730326
not the whole thing, but at least a portion. the USAF were the ones who kept making ridiculous demands after all so there was a reasonable argument from both sides that more funding from the USAF would have been good for the program.

[Anonymous No.10730470]

HOP WHEN

[Anonymous No.10730631]

>>10730470
Engine repair first

[Anonymous No.10730672]

>>10730302
Shuttle had a payload capacity equal to or less than Saturn 1B and it cost more, so I don't see why anyone would use shuttle to launch anything if both were options.

[Anonymous No.10730685]

>>10730672
USAF wanted it to capture satellites and do all sorts of shit.

[Anonymous No.10730774]

>>10730685
don't forget the cross wind range thing too. It wanted to do a one orbit mission as well. Get up there, do shit, get back to earth all in one orbit. It was fucking insane.

[Anonymous No.10730952]

apparently the hops are waiting for engine repairs, according to Elon

[Anonymous No.10730976]

>>10729895
>China is now launching more rockets per yet then SpaceX.
Most of them much smaller, at 5 ton to LEO or so

[Anonymous No.10730981]

>>10730976
cope harder ameriburger

[Anonymous No.10730994]

>>10730981
here are some of those rockets

[Anonymous No.10731001]

>>10730280
>Plus, it carried roughly the same amount of payload to LEO as the Shuttle
Not at all, 140 tons vs. 25 tons, also bigger fairing

[Anonymous No.10731004]

>>10731001
>Saturn-1B
sorry, did not notice it was IB, YOU ARE CORRECT

[Anonymous No.10731031]

>>10729526

TA-DAAAAHHH!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O4V7JfeTSU

[Anonymous No.10731103]

>>10730216
In what exact way do the Chinese outclass everyone in space? The Falcon Heavy is a much more capable rocket than anything the Chinese have flying. The furthest probe the PRC has launched is on the far side of the moon; meanwhile even India has put stuff in orbit around Mars. The only thing they have going for them is a bunch of small launches to LEO, but even then with Starlink ramping up I would wager SpaceX will have more satellites than China has ever launched within a year or so; for that matter within two years they will probably have more sats than everyone else put together.

[Anonymous No.10731119]

>>10731103
don't engage with the troll

[Anonymous No.10731151]

>>10731103
>The furthest probe the PRC has launched is on the far side of the moon; meanwhile even India has put stuff in orbit around Mars.
Only an ignorant retard focused on national dick measuring contests would compare distances. Mangalayaan is a very simple orbiter launched mostly for publicity, while CNSA has an entire unmanned program with rovers, landers, autonomous hazard avoidance systems on both landing platforms and the rovers (which even JPL still doesn't have on its probes 7 years later, only Mars 2020 will use the ALHAT descendant, and CNSA's HX-1 will use a much more advanced TRN solution than Mars 2020's), relay systems, deep space networks etc, and most importantly they are consistent and have built the proper institutions similar to JPL's university PI-led pipeline for unmanned probes, or NPOL's Venus pipeline during Vega times.
t. another anon

[Anonymous No.10731155]

What is /sci/'s thoughts on Direct Fusion Drive's?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Fusion_Drive
>inb4 Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.10731160]

>>10731151
thank you for proving my point. china has more advanced spaceflight with a consistent program. china will be the ones to land on mars and will likely get a moon base within the next decade.

[Anonymous No.10731161]

>>10731160
Jesus, I thought the Q U A N T U M posting was just a meme on /k/. This is just fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.10731167]

>>10731161
welcome to my hell
also it's impossible to talk about anything on /k/ anymore, goddamn

[Anonymous No.10731170]

>>10731151
>autonomous hazard avoidance systems
Of course the Chinese need this and not the burgers, have you ever seen a Chinese person drive? When was the last time an American rover crashed?

Also the great thing about the Chinese space program, is that all of it currently relies on the Long March 5: a rocket that loves failing, just like it’s second stage apparently did during a test firing in April due to a major design flaw in the LOX turbopump; due to this all the upcoming interplanetary missions, including the Mars mission have been postponed “indefinitely”.

Maybe, the Chinese should focus on actually reaching orbit instead of probes and rovers, because with 3 launch failures in 2019 so far, their not just the leader in failures but the only country with them. Russia is currently embarrassing China with their in comparison, stellar reliability...

[Anonymous No.10731179]

>>10731167
>>10731161
hypersonic missiles active by 2020

[Anonymous No.10731180]

>>10731179
YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS

[Anonymous No.10731182]

>>10731180
it means a US carrier on the bottom of the ocean.

[Anonymous No.10731212]

>>10731170
>Maybe, the Chinese should focus on actually reaching orbit instead of probes and rovers
Or maybe they should have both simultaneously. I never said they are somehow on par with US and their legacy. Notice how I never even mentioned countries in that post, only the specific organizations, because I'm not into mindless dick measuring, and the experience doesn't magically transfer nation-wise. CNSA is different from CALT, just like JPL or NPOL doesn't launch rockets into space. Although I understand this is all the same for a retard who likes to antropomorphize lawnmowers.

[Anonymous No.10731242]

>>10731182
I'm sorry, WHO HAS MOTHERFUCKING CATOBAR'S ON THEIR CARRIERS?
Fucking ramp cuck

[Anonymous No.10731255]

>>10729534
>>10730470
We need one of these, but with the Starhopper. Anyone here good at drawing?

[Anonymous No.10731258]

>>10731255
god fucking dammit forgot the image

[Anonymous No.10731326]

The DM-1 capsule anomaly has been labelled a “chain-reaction scenario”.

[Anonymous No.10731327]

>>10731326
oh?????

[Anonymous No.10731329]

>>10729580
Based. Need to sub to L2

[Anonymous No.10731352]

>>10729895

Who controls space and starts orbital manufacturing will dominate for decades if not more. Chinks are rushing things trying to do it and even retarded monkey politicians in EU and USA are starting to realize that they need to join the race or in 50 years everybody will be speaking Chinese.

[Anonymous No.10731367]

>>10731352
>orbital manufacturing
ONONONONONONOOHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously tho, I know your referring to orbital shipyards and the like but that stuff is a massive meme and likely centuries away. Also, “orbital manufacturing” is currently happening on the ISS and has been for years in the form of growing crystals that can only be made in space. Never heard about the Chinese doing any on-orbit manufacturing and with their manned space flight cadence, it’s not surprising. But the US has several companies such as Made In Space who are trying to make your meme more of a reality.

[Anonymous No.10731402]

>>10731352
One doesn't "control space", this is meaningless.
Orbital manufacturing is a meme, and companies mentioned by anon above are memes as well. It would have been a separate industry already if it was profitable, but zero g manufacturing is actually a very niche thing with a narrow and fragile market, regardless of the costs. It's only good for pure crystals, and is very much limited by thermodynamics, so it has much less real applications than many were led to believe.

[Anonymous No.10731412]

>>10730280
>>10731001
comparing the payload capability of STS and classic rockets is pointless though

[Anonymous No.10731428]

>>10730774
>>10730685
And if they had that capability in this alternate universe, then just like in real life they probably wouldn't have actually used it anyway.

[Anonymous No.10731433]

>>10731155
Fancy electric propulsion, suffers from the same very low thrust/extremely long burn time issues and large power requirements. That is, unless they find a way to power that thing off of the fusion reactions it produces, meaning you have a self sustaining fusion reactor and that's a bigger deal than some niche propulsion system.

[Anonymous No.10731437]

>>10731182
Lol if China actually attacked anything US they'd have not only America but p much the entire world jamming ordinance up their asses from all directions at once.

[Anonymous No.10731440]

>>10731327
>>10731326
A little thingy broke which sprung a leak which corroded something else which sprung another leak which started a fire which blew a hole in something else which let the smoke out, probably

[Anonymous No.10731450]

>>10731402
The point is that if China somehow becomes the defacto entity that other countries deal with when getting their stuff moved around, by being the ones to get the vehicles and bases/stations set up thus making it by far cheaper to use the available infrastructure that try to develop all their shit on their own, then China effectively controls space.

Think of it like the future where SpaceX gets Starship up and running and takes the majority of the launch market, and continues to hold nearly all growth in the launch market, as they have the cheapest most available highest capacity launch vehicle around. Except instead of Elon, who for the most part is a harmless dude who wants to get his name deeply embedded in history while allowing humanity to push for the stars, we'd have draconian chinese space secret police instead. It'd basically hamstring any country that didn't play nice with China all the time, instantly.

A world where China dominates in space is a world where fucking North Korea could finance a Moon landing as a big fuck you to the western world.

[Anonymous No.10731469]

>>10731412
>comparing the payload capability of STS and classic rockets is pointless though

No it is not, a payload is a payload.

[Anonymous No.10731472]

>>10731450
well china has barely even started working on reusable rocketry, so they aint dominating shit anytime soon, they would be lucky to replicate Falcon 9 over the next decade

[Anonymous No.10731508]

>>10731469
yes it is
it's not just a payload, the vehicle carried astronauts, and could have stayed in orbit for prolonged periods of time
STS wasn't just a launch vehicle, it was everything at once and nothing in particular

[Anonymous No.10731511]

>>10731508
and worse than all of them together

[Anonymous No.10731513]

>>10731511
no argument here, I'm just talking about pointless comparisons

[Anonymous No.10731588]

>>10730280
>no mr president THIS end goes up your butt

[Anonymous No.10731703]

>>10731326
That blasted small thermal exhaust port right below the main port.

[Anonymous No.10731754]

>>10731367
>>10731402
you're the biggest uneducated retard in the thread
congrats

[Anonymous No.10731824]

>>10731180
nobody knows what it means, but its provocative

[Anonymous No.10731832]

>>10731754
what's your point though

>>10731367
>“orbital manufacturing” is currently happening on the ISS and has been for years in the form of growing crystals that can only be made in space
not really, ISS provides very poor quality microgravity environment due to all the vibrations, and due to being inhabited by humans
most crystals and molecular biology need much more stable environment
that's why russians want to make OKA-T2, a co-orbiting unmanned robotic companion module for ISS which would occasionally dock with the station, but fly apart of it otherwise, guaranteeing extremely small perturbations
they're unable to actually accomplish anything though, as always

[Anonymous No.10731863]

>>10731103
Landing a rover on the Moon is much harder than putting stuff in orbit around Mars.

[Anonymous No.10731882]

>>10731832
>anything
>at all
>ever
>taking centuries to do
that's a straight up fucking no
that shit wasn't the case when we had fucking STONE TOOLS
and you think it's going to be the case today?
Surely you're underage, and have absolutely no comprehension of how long a century is

[Anonymous No.10731939]

>>10731433
It does utilize the power of the fusion reaction. To both power the ship, and through modulating the fuel, increase thrust by dumping more H and xe into it. It’s claimed that it will be able to produce 10Mw of power and provide around 250 Newton’s of thrust. Which, for a fusion powered rocket using a propulsion method that is pretty much just an ion drive, 250 n is a pretty big step up from the normal 0.5 of a conventional ion drive.

[Anonymous No.10731944]

just saw the news that nasa is doing a COTS program for the gateway starting this summer. nasa requires that the spacecraft be able to survive in deep space for at least 3 years. is dragon 2 eligible?

https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-seek-proposals-for-gateway-logistics/

[Anonymous No.10731946]

>>10731944
No

[Anonymous No.10731955]

>>10731946
so we're talking about entirely new spacecraft? or are there any existing spacecraft that might be eligible for this?

[Anonymous No.10731959]

>>10731944
>The spacecraft must be able to remain docked to the Gateway for up to three years

[Anonymous No.10731966]

Warning, this post may be super retarded. Would it be possible to create a fusion rocket with an afterburner? Something where the fusion reactor itself, or the exhaust itself, could "heat up" some cold reaction mass, such as liquid Hydrogen or liquid Methane, to give the rocket massive amounts of thrust? Or is that just retarded and I am just retarded as well?

[Anonymous No.10731980]

>>10731966
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#afterburnerfusion

[Anonymous No.10731981]

>>10731966
In chemical rockets, they already run at a fuel to oxidizer ratio that provides the extra mass flow you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.10731984]

>>10731981
But the efficiency is doodoo. Granted, a fusion rocket blasted out hydrogen or methane at like 30kg/s would be sacrificing "a bit" compared to pure fusion rockets, but when compared to chemical. They are still leaps and bounds better.

[Anonymous No.10731989]

>>10731367
>>10731402
>LOL houses made of wood? Are you crazy? Caves have everything we need!

[Anonymous No.10731997]

>>10731984
Fusion rockets aren't a thing yet, and it's not clear how long that will remain the case.

[Anonymous No.10732001]

>>10731989
>being this retarded
Come back when you have an actual business plan, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.10732037]

>>10732001
>pretending to be intellligent
>on /sci/
lmao

[Anonymous No.10732046]

Bigelow is tweeting!

https://twitter.com/BigelowSpace/status/1140644245490954241

[Anonymous No.10732047]

>>10731450
>>10731472
This cope is palpable.

Chinese EM drive technology is already in development, and once it does all other spacecraft will become trivial. China is also working on adapting space station tech to work as a moon base. As per usual it is communism who will be the leaders in space and dominate the stars. Meanwhile as NASA continues to spiral towards bankruptcy it is very likely that the west will have to go through China for launches, as the long March rocket is the only rocket that can get payloads up cheaply and reliably due to it's very impressive design without being subject to the schizophrenic whims of an administration.

[Anonymous No.10732050]

>>10732047
>Chinese EM drive technology is already in development, and once it does all other spacecraft will become trivial.
>EM Drive
Something that is physically impossible, hasn't shown to work, and never will.

[Anonymous No.10732052]

>>10732047
>Chinese EM drive
you do realize that meme drive is blatant pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.10732053]

>>10731989
>bait
OK, I'll explain. Things are hard to cool in space, because you're limited to radiation heat exchange with Earth, Sun and outer space. And growing perfect monocrystals in space (the only production-ready application for orbital manufacturing), requires the source material to be melted in a furnace and kept at a very high temperature for prolonged periods of time (weeks, months etc). Also it's an energy intensive process besides heating, and you can't get a lot of electrical power in space due to the same reason. This process, just like most other things in space, is essentially limited by your capability to cool your spacecraft. You can't have that capability with solid state radiators because they grow in size/mass exponentially (=mechanical problems due to perturbations). Even the hypothetical open-loop droplet radiators russians planned (and subsequently failed to design) for their TEM-1 with orders of magnitude larger surface aren't enough to support a fucking production scale orbital furnace, also such radiator will only work under acceleration even with an electrostatic droplet catcher.

This was a meme in 80's when it was proposed by certain Japanese companies, because the thermodynamics of the production scale process was questionable at best. And it remains a meme today. Cheap access to orbit has little to do with it, things are inherently more complex in space.

[Anonymous No.10732055]

>>10732047
>chinese mEMe drive
please do not stop posting, this is too entertaining

[Anonymous No.10732056]

Hop now planned on June 24-26

https://twitter.com/bluemoondance74/status/1140651986322427904

[Anonymous No.10732064]

https://twitter.com/austinbarnard45/status/1140652506609008641

#SpaceX crews hard at work today, the crews continuing with the shining and polishing of #StarShip. The wind/tourist barrier is rapidly being completed. New designation signs, have been placed around the facilities. While #StarHopper, sits on the pad waiting for the raptor

[Anonymous No.10732091]

>>10732046
>Don't rattle me bones moon base

[Anonymous No.10732107]

>>10732091
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[Anonymous No.10732128]

>>10732046

Great. How good of a protection would those bags provide?

[Anonymous No.10732144]

>>10732128
enough to protect against solar radiation or storms, not enough to block cosmic rays, so you better keep your stay below 1 year or so (but you should do this due to low lunar gravity, anyway)

[Anonymous No.10732145]

>>10731955
A modified Cygunus would be a shoe-in. From what I gather, unlike the ISS, NASA doesn't really want downmass. Dragon wouldn't be a good fit - it'd need to either ditch the heatshield (and thus be non-reusable in which case you may as well just do a new design), or SERIOUSLY beef up the service trunk/add a service module, which would massively eat into your payload capacity.

If you want something that can return to Earth from that distance, you're going to be looking at something around the mass of Orion. So it's not worth it.

In comparison, a lunar Cygnus would need some mods to increase its longevity and make it self-sufficient so it doesn't need to leech of the station, but it's otherwise perfectly suited to what NASA's asking for. At the end of its life, you just toss it into either the Moon's surface or a solar disposal orbit.

[Anonymous No.10732154]

>>10731944

>inb4 SpaceX parks Starship there
>everyone moves to the more spacious Starship, leaving Gateway unused
>Oldspace SEETHES

[Anonymous No.10732160]

>>10732154
>implying that Gateway can't just be moved into LLO and act as a refueling depot using lunar ISRU
Gateway has a massively overpowered engine module for a space station, and it's explicitly designed to be able to move between lunar orbits
Gateway was meant to be politically resilient by allowing it to be easily re-purposed for a bunch of different architectures
It's not meant to be an ISS-around-the-moon.

[Anonymous No.10732170]

>muh ISRU
Speaking of which. Has any supposed deposit on either Moon or Mars been actually confirmed as accessible and suitable for actual resource extraction, with some method better than remote sensing?

[Anonymous No.10732173]

To expand on this, here's the Gateway lander evolution as I've heard it.
>Phase 1: Partially reusable landers - ascent/transfer stage stay at station, descent stage shipped as co-manifested SLS payload or commercial launch for each sortie
>Phase 2: Ascent/transfer module stays the same, addition of ISRU-capable descent module. Now the ascent module functions only as an "abort" module, and the ISRU-capable "descent" nominally handles both descent and ascent
This prevents a situation where the ascent stage fails, leaving a bunch of astros stuck on the Moon with no hope of recovery. If that'd happened during Apollo, everybody down there would be screwed. There was no abort scenario, which is something modern NASA wants to avoid.

[Anonymous No.10732175]

>>10732170
We know there's water on the Moon. What we don't know is its purity.
If we can find deposits of mostly pure ice, we're golden. You just need a massive power source for electrolysis.
If it's all cruddy and full of dust, it's a lot harder (but not impossible), as you have to find a way to filter out the lunar dust, and lunar dust fucking sticks to EVERYTHING.

[Anonymous No.10732193]

>>10732170
Yes for Mars, debatable for lunar poles.

[Anonymous No.10732198]

>>10732046
above ground architecture is great, but that doesn't look like it will be THICC enough to protect from radiation...

[Anonymous No.10732210]

>>10732170
>The general lack of correlation of this feature in sunlit M3 data with neutron spectrometer H abundance data suggests that the formation and retention of OH and H2O is an ongoing surficial process. OH/H2O production processes may feed polar cold traps and make the lunar regolith a candidate source of volatiles for human exploration.
It's not even 100% known if there's ice in a usable form on the surface, it's all literally just remote sensing based on one short observation + guesswork based on complicated theoretical models. More missions are needed (robotic or manned) before ISRU possibility even appears on the horizon. Until that, lunar ISRU for refueling is strictly a sci-fi meme.

For Mars it's much more certain but also requires more missions.

[Anonymous No.10732219]

>>10732198
It will be thick enough to protect from solar radiation, solar flares and micrometeoroids. It will not be thick enough to protect from cosmic rays, but you only need that if you want to stay for longer than a year, which is a bad idea on the Moon due to low gravity anyway.

[Anonymous No.10732226]

Protein from bacterial fermentation vats instead of artificial light food growing?

http://www.feedkind.com/

[Anonymous No.10732233]

>>10732210
That's half of the reason why they're not base lining it (the other is cost). They'll need to get some readings at Shackleton or whatever landing site they choose before they can even really tell if its feasible and begin the design process.
I think that's also part of the reason for CLPS. The US hasn't sent probes to the Moon since the Apollo-era. We suddenly realized we need to go check out if there's usable ice or not, and figure out where the good landing sites are, so NASA kinda rejiggered the program to that end.
Shackleton's prime lunar real estate because if there IS ice, it would definitely be in that permanently-shadowed crater, and the abundant sunlight elsewhere makes powering your fuel processing plant a (relative) breeze.

[Anonymous No.10732242]

Has there been any designs of spacecraft that incorporate composite metal foam? I was a fan of the venture stars upgrade to a thermal protection system that was far better than what the shuttle had, and CMF seems like an even better solution for spacecraft structure and TPS.

[Anonymous No.10732266]

>>10732170
No, but we know that there is exposed water ice on the Moon:
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/36/8907
We know its there, but we aren't certain what form it is in. This makes planning a mission to extract it risky. It could be a thin layer of ice or it could be a bunch of spread out ice blocks. We don't understand the environment of permanently shadowed craters. NASA's lunar resource prospector was going to investigate this, but got cancelled. It may have been uncancelled.
>>10732175
Put a container over the ice deposit, add heat or microwaves, collect water with a cold plate, done.
>>10732233
CLPS's purpose is to say hey we're using private space companies for stuff. Part of the reason lunar resource prospector got canceled may have been due to CLPS. Now NASA wants to rely on landers which are built in india:
https://qz.com/1633918/americas-first-private-moon-lander-will-be-engineered-in-india/

[Anonymous No.10732267]

>>10732242
Was that TPS ever tested?

[Anonymous No.10732294]

>>10732242
ISS probably uses metal foams in some of the life support systems, as it makes a great heat exchanger.
>>structures
metal foam is not cheap
>>TPS
it's still pretty conductive despite being foam. 3d woven composites are the next hot thing for TPS
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/first-3d-woven-composite-for-nasa-thermal-protection-systems

[Anonymous No.10732452]

Environmentally friendly monopropellant on deck.

[Anonymous No.10732458]

>>10732452
For a rocket that Elon said he regrets developing, its getting a decent amount of launches.

[Anonymous No.10732462]

Will we ever have an SSTO spaceplane that can make multiple trips into LEO per day? Will that ever be a thing?

[Anonymous No.10732465]

>>10732458
>For a rocket that Elon said he regrets developing
Im sorry what

[Anonymous No.10732471]

>>10732452
why is being green so important to something thats only going to be used in space?

[Anonymous No.10732475]

>>10732471
safer to handle and if it crashes or something goes wrong on the launchpad it doesnt fuck the area

[Anonymous No.10732479]

>>10732462
no
ain't no fuels available that can manage it

[Anonymous No.10732484]

>>10732479
Would we ever be able to throw on a reactor, even a hypothetical fusion reactor without having to worry about it spewing neutron and gamma radiation out the back?

[Anonymous No.10732489]

>>10732465
I recall somewhere that Elon said that he regretted having SpaceX develop Falcon Heavy because it wouldn't get as much launches as he orginally hoped. Then again, I might be misremembering...

[Anonymous No.10732499]

>>10732465
Elon thinks is limited window of use both time and load wise makes it uneconomical

[Anonymous No.10732543]

>>10730201
>they never have, and never will.
From the instigation of Project Mercury, when US manned space capabilities surpassed those of the Soviets, the only other country in space, through the end of Project Apollo, when both countries were focused on reaching the moon first for propaganda purposes, and which only one of the two ever did, the US clearly was the dominant nation in manned spaceflight. Soviet fanbois can argue that the USSR dominated unmanned exploration during that time period, and at least there is an argument to be made there.

Post Apollo, and once the remaining Apollo spacecraft were used for Skylab and the ASTP diplomacy flight, the US manned effort was sunk into the ship-to-nowhere shuttles while the Soviets (and then the post-Soviet Russians) continued to develop their Soyuz craft, and learned huge amounts about prolonged spaceflight with their space station work. We tend to remember Mir as sort of a "hermits in space" joke, but the fact that they could work problems in orbit that increasingly beset the aging station, so far past it's sell-by date, is a testament to their increased skills at space operations. The Shuttle gets a worse rap than it really deserves (yes, it was an expensive way to do anything in space, it was plagued by compromises forced on the design by repeated Proxmiring of the budget, and should never have been allowed to become, and then remain, the US's only launch vehicle) but it DID allow the US to gain experience in on-orbit constrctn & repairs and some long-term flight studies, to keep them in the same game as the Russians, if arguably running hard to stay in second place.

During that same period, the US clearly took the lead in unmanned space exploration.

And, of course, during this period new players got into the space game, none of which have yet matched US or Russian capabilities but several of which are closing the gap, if they can stay the course and don't decide to drop out and spend money elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.10732553]

>>10730293
Probably. But that's with the benefit of hindsight, and knowing what would happen to the shuttle program.

It is worth noting that similar budget compromises could well have been forced on a Saturn refinement project.

[Anonymous No.10732563]

>>10730317
I doubt USAF would have taken it on. They have several times toyed with whether manned space assets would be worth the expenenditure of resources, either for real-world mission reasons or just for USAF PR reasons, and have always backed away. There just is no real mission for a manned orbital capability for the USAF.

But if they HAD decided to go ahead with Spacelab and "Big Gemini," that could have been an interesting timeline.

[Anonymous No.10732582]

>>10732047
Now we wait and see how easily trolled /sci/is....

[Anonymous No.10732591]

>>10732475
And PR. Ideally, in addition to being green, it should also be organic and nonGMO.

[Anonymous No.10732595]

>>10732471
>why is being green so important to something thats only going to be used in space?
1. First and foremost, it's a more effective storable propellant, it's not just "green". It will allow for 1.5 times better Isp compared to MMH, which is a whole fucking lot.
2. Handling the hydrazine on the ground isn't cheap. It requires a special safety equipment, compartmentalization, lots of testing etc. It severely limits many applications, it was one of many reasons why the Shuttle was unable to land in an arbitrary airport.
3. It can contaminate a large area in case of a launch failure.
4. It's dangerous to use hydrazine in manned missions. A leaking pipeline can poison the crew. Russians went to great lengths just to avoid using it as much as possible in their manned flights. The unburned propellant particles or its products can contaminate the outer surface of the spacecraft and come into contact with the crew after an EVA or landing. Unmanned spacecraft are usually programmed not to use station-facing thrusters while docking because of this. The Shuttle had a similar mode when docking to Mir and ISS.

[Anonymous No.10732598]

>>10732553
to be fair, a saturn refinement would never have gotten as fucked over as the shuttle did, by the simple fact that most of the satrun was already worked out.

[Anonymous No.10732600]

>>10732595
That's also the reason Dreamchaser is avoiding it, they want to be able to land on an arbitrary airstrip. (although I'm not aware of its current state)

[Anonymous No.10732605]

>>10732600
wasnt dreamchaser cancelled?

[Anonymous No.10732609]

>>10732605
no, they've just lost the manned contract, at least this time

[Anonymous No.10732610]

>>10732598
You may well be right, but I can just hear Sen. Proxmire awarding a Golden Fleece to NASA for spending any money at all on a rocket where the engineering was already worked out.

[Anonymous No.10732614]

>>10732609
isnt it kind of pointless then?

[Anonymous No.10732615]

>>10732452
ALICE in space when?

[Anonymous No.10732617]

>>10732462
maybe.
>>10732479
hydrogen. The issue with flying multiple times a day is wear. Rocket engines have high temperatures. This tends to cause parts of the engine to evaporate away. So many of the parts need to checked to see if they are still good. Fuel is not the issue.
>>10732484
there are some concept for air breathing fusion space planes. They require fusion that works though
>>10732471
the people handling it don't have to wear chemical suits.

[Anonymous No.10732619]

>>10732610
i suppose that would be preferable to wasting money on a clusterfuck of a system that meets none of its intended capabilities and giving them the worst failure ratio of any crewed vehicle ever.

[Anonymous No.10732634]

>>10732462
Unlikely. SSTO is a mostly pointless idea, especially if it's a reusable spaceplane. There's little sense in dragging all that mass into orbit and dissipating all that spent energy back into atmosphere afterwards. The only benefit is no separation events, but a two-stage system with a separation event is an order of magnitude easier than an SSTO VTHL spaceplane. You want to discard most of the mass early, not drag it into orbit, limiting your payload and/or your delta v and making the reentry harder.

>>10732614
They work on a cargo version, possibly developing it into a manned spacecraft in the future. The idea itself is very solid when it's not overengineered like Shuttle, it has the potential to be safer and cheaper than ballistic capsules. I like winged Kliper layout better though, it had the properties of both.

[Anonymous No.10732644]

>>10732047
kek, your throwing out to much bait.

[Anonymous No.10732648]

>>10732160
This, i would not be surprised to see gateway ending up bigger then ISS by the end of its lifespan.
especially with bigelow modules.

[Anonymous No.10732651]

>>10732634
>possibly developing it into a manned spacecraft in the future
we all know damn well that its never going to get to that phase.

[Anonymous No.10732653]

>>10732617
Anything air breathing needs to be run in the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, which is hard on the craft itself and doesn't have much benefit beside looking cool. Traditional rockets are simply easier since they skip the atmosphere part.

[Anonymous No.10732654]

>>10732651
I'm glad you have a working crystall ball tech, meanwhile they can easily make it it if they can meet the requirements

[Anonymous No.10732656]

>>10732654
you dont need a crystal ball when this has happened god knows how many times before. budgets will get cut and nothing will happen, just like the last thousand space projects.

[Anonymous No.10732665]

>>10732634
The one advantage of a reusable space plane is the potential turn around times between spaceflights along with a significantly less amount of ground systems such as launch sites and recovery/salvage teams than conventional rockets. Star-Raker is probably my favorite conceptual design of a horizontal take-off SSTO. Designed back when the US was thinking about putting massive space based solar power stations in orbit and needed a heavy lift vehicle with quick turn around times to do it. Its design is pretty much a "If my KSP design spaceship was actually real" in that they just strapped a shit ton of rockets in the back and had a wet wing design. But to get back on point, if we could design a space plane that could be used and maintained that easily compared to a conventional rocket, that would undoubtedly safe a shit ton of money on operating costs which in turn would drive down payload prices for LEO. Making space travel that much more accessible.

[Anonymous No.10732668]

>>10732543
except soviets were ahead in orbital stations and many other things before Shuttle, during the Apollo
had they considered continuing their native programs such as MAVR and Spiral instead of parroting the US with moon landings and shuttle, they would have accomplished much more, with the orbital stations serving as the complementary tech

[Anonymous No.10732677]

>>10732668
I mean Shuttle-Mir was basically:
>"Let's support the Russian space industry so they don't collapse and steal all their knowledge about running space stations while we do so."
And ISS was:
>"You've got a space station you can't afford to build? We've got a space station we can't afford to build too!"
>"What if we just mash them together so neither of us has to pay for everything?"
>"...That might actually work."
I mean, seriously, look up the designs of Space Station Freedom and Mir-2. The ISS really is just what each country could actually afford spliced together, not exaggerating.

[Anonymous No.10732678]

>>10732665
>the potential turn around times between spaceflights
with the energies involved the short turnaround doesn't look possible
if it's possible, it's also possible for rockets as well
>along with a significantly less amount of ground systems
shuttle_servicing_concept_vs_reality.jpg
meanwhile, spacex also imagined a similar process for their reusable stages. Until they started to fly some real life hardware and became disillusioned.
the reality is always more complex than ideas
>such as launch sites and recovery/salvage teams than conventional rockets
rockets don't always need launch sites, stages can fly back by themselves and land either vertically or horizontally, and the spaceplane doesn't necessarily need to be SSTO to be able to land at any airport

SSTO doesn't have clear benefits except not having a separation

[Anonymous No.10732679]

>>10732678
There are military benefits to SSTO. A plane that can operate as a spysat and then become a plane again, and can be launched from any sufficiently long runway in the world and not just vulnerable highly-specific launchpads would be EXTREMELY attractive to the USAF.

[Anonymous No.10732682]

>>10732668
>had they considered continuing their native programs
>Soviet Union
>Having money
You're gonna have to construct a fucking antimatter ship with a Delta-V of over 9,000km/s to dispose of all of my wews from this fucking star system my friend.

[Anonymous No.10732685]

>>10732677
id say the shuttle-mir was more of
>we built this useless shuttle that we have nothing to fly too because the USAF made us waste all our money on this so were just going to fly to someone elses station while we figure out what to do with this.

[Anonymous No.10732688]

>>10732668
>except soviets were ahead in orbital stations and many other things before Shuttle, during the Apollo
and they still are to this day, dont listen to that retard.

[Anonymous No.10732696]

>>10732682
As a matter of fact, they developed a more complex Shuttle clone, along with a fairly efficient super heavy launcher, all this while constructing several modular space stations in a row and making a heavy manned half-station-half-spaceship (TKS).
They failed the lunar program not due to the lack of total money, but due to their money being busy in military rocketry applications, specifically closing the reverse rocket gap after the US made hundreds of Titan IIs.

With all their proven capabilities in mind, I can easily imagine them having circumnavigated Mars in late 70s/early 80s, had they continued pursuing this goal without hurry and without wasting huge resources on a shuttle copy and moon landings.

[Anonymous No.10732702]

>>10732696
not him, but the buran was just as shit as the shuttle was. sure it had some improvements, but the major flaws of the shuttle were still there. the only good thing to come out of that program was the lifter it was using, which ended up dying with it.

[Anonymous No.10732705]

>>10732702
>the buran was just as shit as the shuttle was
Yeah I'm not arguing with that, just noticed they've had the resources to run large scale programs like a Venus flyby they've originally intended to do even before Sputnik and Vostok

[Anonymous No.10732711]

>>10732705
the US had the resources as well, many programs for using Apollo hardware for mars missions were coming along, the problem with both is the political and financial will to do so. many people like to pretend the two programs were somehow better than the other when in reality they were pretty much doing the same stuff.

[Anonymous No.10732713]

>>10732702
Care to elaborate? I don't know much about buran. but it had no solids, more autonomous operation, (possibly?) safer/more abort modes. What are the negatives?

[Anonymous No.10732715]

>>10732679
>A plane that can operate as a spysat and then become a plane again
Not sure I see the point, also you don't need to make it single stage for this
>can be launched from any sufficiently long runway in the world
You don't need an SSTO for this

[Anonymous No.10732720]

>>10732144
how are we supposed to study the effect of sub-earth gravity on the human body if you don't want to have people stay?

[Anonymous No.10732726]

>>10732713
well the biggest shared problem was the use of tons of easily breakable ceramic tiles as heat shielding, and the use of a large external booster that could be compromised.
plus, given how it shared the same base design as the shuttle, it had the same turnaround and cost problems the shuttle did, even if that was never the idea behind the buran.

[Anonymous No.10732730]

>>10732713
He's refering to the Shuttle being jack of all trades and master of none, as well as Buran since it was a similar spacecraft. While Shuttle ended up extremely bloated as a result of inflated requirements and bureaucracy, Buran was a intentionally designed poorly performing copy of a poorly performing system. Chertok mentioned in his book that they knew perfectly in advance that Shuttle couldn't operate as it's been claimed, and still developed a copy, for two reasons: 1. they couldn't figure out its "true purpose" and thought is could be a weapon or spacecraft capturing/spying system (which is understandable), and 2. they wanted to replicate the infrastructure/institutions used to develop, build and test the Shuttles, because who knew what US could do next with the capability.

[Anonymous No.10732738]

>>10732685

[Anonymous No.10732740]

>>10732726
>>10732730
That's interesting, thanks for the replies. it's hilarious imagining the soviets making a bootleg version of our retarded space truck, it seems they really thought too highly of us

[Anonymous No.10732744]

>>10732740
im sure that was subject of much laughter from NASA engineers.

[Anonymous No.10732751]

>>10732740
>"This design doesn't make any sense, Comrade. They'll never get the economic benefits they're claiming out of it."
>"Clearly there must be some ulterior motive here, Yuri. They must know something we don't. It could be an orbital weapons platform, or an sat-killer! "
>"...What if they're just being dumb, Comrade, and there actually isn't a point?"
>"No, Yuri. They're not stupid enough to believe these numbers. It's clearly a ruse to hide its true purpose! We need to build one of our own, so we can fight back!"
>"...Understood, Comrade."

[Anonymous No.10732763]

>>10732751
That's literally how they were discussing the original proposal, according to Chertok's Rockets and People.

[Anonymous No.10732895]

was the ISS worth it in hindsight?

[Anonymous No.10732930]

>>10732895
Fuck all.

[Anonymous No.10732945]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3737/1 interesting article about the cost of the apollo program. Would be nice to compare with STS and ISS costs...

[Anonymous No.10732964]

>>10732653
>>skip the atmosphere part
rockets still fly through the atmosphere. Air breathers don't have to carry as much mass. There might be a case for space planes for carrying people. A space plane doesn't have to wait for the launch pad to get in the right position, it can fly a bit before going into orbit. Meaning you can launch faster. This is useful for carrying people and high priority payloads. Minimizing time in orbit could be important for launching regular people instead of astronauts. If you want to launch an old grandma, you really have to minimize the amount of time in microgravity, so phasing orbits are a no-no. I guess you could put a rocket on a huge plane though.
>>hypersonic
if you weren't aware, there is a hypersonic arms race going on. The cold war's hot again. All sorts of crazy shit is being investigated for thermal protection. Like 3d woven ceramic composites and turning the heat into chemical energy in the fuel(endothermic cooling).
>>10732682
comrade, in soviet motherland there is no money.

[Anonymous No.10733000]

Anyone got any updates on the space elevator in Mombasa?

[Anonymous No.10733010]

>>10733000
space elevator won't real on Earth
Lunar L1 elevator is possible
Martian elevator is a long-shot but possible

[Anonymous No.10733044]

>>10731939
If it isn't break-even then it isn't worth talking about. If it IS break-even then it's worth far more as a power plant on Earth than as a thruster in space.

[Anonymous No.10733055]

>>10731984
>a fusion rocket
Doesn't exist. Will never have a thrust to mass ratio better than a nuclear fission powered engine anyway. Nuclear fission powered rockets are limited by how hot the reactor can get before it melts, which is significantly colder than the maximum temperatures attainable by burning chemicals.

[Anonymous No.10733059]

>>10732047
>EM drive
it don't work pappy
>cheaply and reliably
Falcon 9 cheaper and more reliable, cope nigga

[Anonymous No.10733069]

>>10732128
The pressure layers are multiple inches thick and made of rubber and kevlar layers, and the outer insulation/shield blanket is made of multiple layers of kevlar and other materials. It'd probably be harder to piece a Bigelow module than one of the ISS, modules.

[Anonymous No.10733070]

>>10732160
It would best be re-purposed as a lunar impactor to generate seismic waves and let us map the Moon's interior.

[Anonymous No.10733100]

>>10732226
Is this better than breeding bugs to eat, at least as far as weight is concerned?

[Anonymous No.10733105]

>>10732452
RocketLab uses something similar in their 3rd stage. They said it's proprietary but I guess they're not the only ones to have developed it.

[Anonymous No.10733120]

>>10733105
there's a million of those sorts of things, of varying potency and instability

[Anonymous No.10733127]

>>10733100
Bugs are a terrible idea, you can't gut them so you are eating all their shit and internal organs with nasty shit inside them. That protein is an animal feed, not suitable for a large portion of your diet and would be demoralising as fuck to eat flavoured protein day in and day out. You would be much better off with a hydroponic setup that includes a huge fish pool, the worm castings in the hydroponics run off to feed the fish and I personally would have a much larger amount and varied amount of fish fed with algae pellets as well as the castings. Algae is excellent because it can grow in surface tubes/bags since it doesn't give a fuck about varied sunlight and you can use the tubes/bags as a thermal radiator to dump excess heat, the only input is a small amount of energy for pumping water and nutrients. Heck you could even put shrimp in with your algae for dank shrimp. This way you get a naturally recycling system with a varied amount of fresh and wholesome fruit, veg and meat. You could also feed chickens with your algae pellets for white meat and chicken shit is rich in nutrients.

[Anonymous No.10733137]

>>10733055
This is currently our best bet for a Fusion powered rocket. It is based on a field-reversed configuration reactor. Using the plasma itself as reaction mass in the form of an ion drive afterburner that can shift gears from low(250 N of thrust and around 5,000 sec Isp) to high gear(5 N of thrust and around 50,000 sec Isp). Along with running He and Xe in Boron tubes and then running that through a Brayton cycle generator to generate its own energy as well. With the Fusion reactor generating around 10-20 MW of power total. All while being only around 2 meters in Diameter and 10 meters in Length. In my opinion, this design could even be used for much higher thrusts if they added more reaction mass to be heated by the plasma and shot out the magnetic nozzle such as more Hydrogen or Methane to give a metric fuck-ton of thrust at the cost of exhaust velocity for quicker flight times and for even some possible launch vehicle usage....Minus the whole spewing radiation thing.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#toroidalfusion

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

http://www.psatellite.com/tag/dfd/

[Anonymous No.10733156]

What if they had kept the Space Shuttle external tanks in orbit and reused them? Can you guys think of anything interesting they could have done with 135 tanks? They were pretty damn big to, 150ft and 27ft diameter.

[Anonymous No.10733167]

>>10733156
You could refuel a spacecraft and then have it fly literally anywhere you wan't in the Solar system. That's one possibility.

[Anonymous No.10733188]

so china recently confirmed they found no evidence of an american moon landing.

what does this say about the integrity of NASA? how much of american spaceflight was faked? the mercury program? the Gemini program? is NASA as facetious as the american military?

[Anonymous No.10733191]

>>10733188
lol

[Anonymous No.10733194]

>>10733156
There were plans for that. Failed for the same reason all the other "wet labs" have: turns out it's more cost-efficient to build stuff on the ground and launch it than to have the people you're spending millions of dollars to launch do zero-gee carpentry.

[Anonymous No.10733195]

>>10733188
>so china recently confirmed they found no evidence of an american moon landing.
Source please. That's a pretty ridiculous claim considering that the Soviets didn't find anything suggesting that the American moon landings were faked.

[Anonymous No.10733196]

>>10733191
https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/chinese-lunar-rover-finds-no-evidence-of-american-moon-landings/

[Anonymous No.10733197]

>>10733195
don't reply to bait

[Anonymous No.10733198]

>>10733195
a soviet official also said they knew about it since the 1970s. they just didnt say anything because it would cause a scene.

[Anonymous No.10733202]

>>10733196
>worldnewsdailyreport

are you retarded or just from /x/

[Anonymous No.10733209]

>>10733198
>actually implying the Soviets would give a shit about "causing a scene" if they could prove America's greatest achievement of the 20th Century was faked

[Anonymous No.10733210]

>>10733202
there is plenty evidence for NASA fakes. can we please keep this on topic?

[Anonymous No.10733211]

>>10733197
citing a satire site isn't bait, it's just shitposting. There is a difference.

[Anonymous No.10733226]

>>10733196
how the fuck would the chinese rovers find evidence for the moon landings, that's like complaining that there's no evidence for New York while standing in Siberia

[Anonymous No.10733228]

>>10733226
it's a satire site. Like Weekly World News.

[Anonymous No.10733242]

>>10733198
I know you're shitposting furiously, but the commies had a significant interest in starting as much shit as possible everywhere possible so that they could spawn communist uprisings across the globe

The US was their primary enemy in this regard, so humiliating and discrediting the US government would be their primary goal

[Anonymous No.10733261]

>>10733188
I'm calling bullshit on that.

[Anonymous No.10733264]

>>10733261
Upon further consideration, it appears I have been coaxed into a snafu.

[Anonymous No.10733282]

>>10733264
have you considered attempting to be less retarded next time?

[Anonymous No.10733287]

>>10730142

[Anonymous No.10733302]

*Explodes on Launchpad

[Anonymous No.10733311]

>>10733302
>*Fails to deploy

[Anonymous No.10733316]

>>10733302
what do you expect from the country thats 50 trillion in debt.
american space exploration is not relevant.

[Anonymous No.10733325]

>>10733316
>american space exploration is not relevant.

me big thinks

[Anonymous No.10733344]

10733316
I'm sorry, doesn't Taiwan still exist? I mean, I'm just saying, its pretty pathetic for a country to claim superiority when it can't even fight a war against a teeny tiny little city state of a country.

[Anonymous No.10733357]

>>10733344
how's vietnam?

[Anonymous No.10733389]

At what point during Apollo 11 did they extend the landing gear on the LM? I can't find this anywhere.

[Anonymous No.10733453]

>>10733389
>At what point during Apollo 11 did they extend the landing gear on the LM? I can't find this anywhere.

If I recall correctly, LEM extraction from the S-IVB allowed the springs in the Lunar Module's legs to push them out to full deployment.

[Anonymous No.10733471]

>>10733302
>>10733311

[Anonymous No.10733478]

FH coming up. Should be a lot of press surrounding this one, since there is a lot of neat NASA and air force and research payloads etc onboard. Plus, all three landings visible from land.

[Anonymous No.10733529]

>>10733302
>It all returns to nothing
>it all comes
>TUMBLING DOWN
>TUMBLING DOWN
>TUMBLING DOOOWN

[Anonymous No.10733610]

HOP SOON

[Anonymous No.10733635]

>>10733302
Literally doesn't even matter at this point. Those next gen ground telescopes are just as powerful. And Starship will allow making far larger ones.

[Anonymous No.10733642]

I'm going to get my CPA. Then, I'll operate and own a small accounting firm which I will then aggressively grow. I'll then use the reliable income from that to enter the hospitality business, buying/constructing hotels and resorts and maybe one day casinos. With that money and advances in launch technology and affordability of access to space, I'll create the (hopefully at the time) world's first all-in-one space hotel/resort and kick off the space entertainment industry. It will fill its niche nicely but also it'll be a vehicle for me to advance progress in making this species a spacefaring one, which should be the prime goal I think of any conscientious person. Can't wait to see you guys there

[Anonymous No.10733646]

>>10733302
This seems to be getting alot of replies, is this recent? I havent heard of anything exploding on the launchpad

[Anonymous No.10733649]

>>10733646
that's a picture of the james webb space telescope
it's a meme that it'll blow up due to a launch vehicle failure when they've spent billions on building it

[Anonymous No.10733651]

>>10733649
I see, thanks for explaining the joke to me glad to hear nothing blew up at launch.

[Anonymous No.10733660]

>>10733635
>t. retard

[Anonymous No.10733729]

>>10732895
For the US, yes, the experience was invaluable. Assembling large constructions in space, using robotic manipulators (Dextre was a great idea as it can move across the station), perfecting EVA techniques (that number of spacewalks in a limited amount of time was considered unfeasible before), learning to consistently operate and maintain all this shit for all these years. It was certainly worth it.

[Anonymous No.10733741]

>>10733660
Go look what that new EU telescope going online in 2025 is capable of. JWST was delayed so much we could make far better stuff today.

[Anonymous No.10733771]

>>10732484
Why do people think fusion would be any better than fission when it comes to a propulsion system? Fission reactors can be designed that are extremely power dense, limited in output only by how much propellant can be flowed through the core per second to transfer away the heat. No fusion reactor could ever hope to be as power dense as a fission reactor, and no fusion rocket could ever hope to have a thrust to weight ratio anywhere close to that of a fission rocket.

[Anonymous No.10733775]

>>10732665
>that kino concept art
but did the artist forget the second tail fin, or did he fuck up the perspective? It appears to be mounted way off to the plane's starboard side.

[Anonymous No.10733779]

>>10732702
>buran was just as shit as the shuttle was
Of course, as all spaceplanes are. However, the Soviets at least were smart enough to decouple the Orbiter from the launch vehicle by mounting the main engines onto the equivalent of the external fuel tank rather than onto the spaceplane itself. That meant that they would be stuck launching the Buran spacecraft only if they really needed any of its capabilities (the same very niche and not actually useful ones Shuttle had) and otherwise they'd have the world's most powerful launch vehicle to play with. It's really a sham that Energia didn't have any time to shine.

[Anonymous No.10733780]

>>10732895
For any practical purposes, no.

[Anonymous No.10733801]

>>10733779
>Of course, as all spaceplanes are.
Not really, only the huge over-engineered contraptions are. Small spaceplanes make actual sense for manned missions. They can be made safer and cheaper than capsules because of their colder reentries and not needing the search and recovery. (can land on any airstrip)

[Anonymous No.10733813]

>>10733771

this.

[Anonymous No.10733816]

>>10733801

capsules with propulsive landing can too.

[Anonymous No.10733868]

>>10733816
They are less capable of a diverting maneuver though. Besides, they are generally more energetic, this includes hotter reentries (ablative shielding is required), greater g loads even in the gliding mode, and high powered landing engines with the possibility of anomalising the crew.

[Anonymous No.10733878]

>>10733771
>Why do people think fusion would be any better than fission when it comes to a propulsion system?
Because higher temperatures mean higher specific impulse, and Isp is everything.

[Anonymous No.10733885]

>>10733816
I doubt they can be certified to land at airports.

[Anonymous No.10733896]

>>10733885
Use helicopter pads.

[Anonymous No.10733905]

>>10733651
fuck off reddit

[Anonymous No.10733908]

>>10733878

>Isp is everything

fuck off reddit

[Anonymous No.10733912]

>>10733908
How is that a reddit thing? Isp is a significant part in spacecraft design. And how is being associated with reddit a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.10733922]

>>10733912
>And how is being associated with reddit a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.10733980]

>>10733660
>>10733741
No matter how good the ground telescopes get, they're still not going to be able to see the infrared frequency the WEBB is supposed to image because of the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.10733981]

What

[Anonymous No.10733995]

>>10733922
>jannie scum deleted my post

FUCK REDDIT

[Anonymous No.10734003]

>>10733995
Because your posts are low quality and come across as lame trolling. I reconmend that you take a break from the internet.

[Anonymous No.10734025]

>>10734003
>When shitposting gets deleted over the literal 50c army with 20+ posts

>>10733995
Jannies are going to get the rope so hard.

[Anonymous No.10734028]

>>10734025
Oops those are meant to be the other way around, sorry I'm drunk but jannies are first in line for the gas chambers.

[Anonymous No.10734031]

>>10734028
Wait no they were right in the first place fuck. Remember to gas your local janny.

[Anonymous No.10734036]

>>10734003
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osFawnJ1oBE

>your posts are low quality and come across as lame trolling
>A fucking JANNY
>telling me what's low quality and what's trolling
>A JANNY

And what's worse is is it appears to be A REDDITOR

Ugh! I didn't know Jannies didn't guzzle cum THIS hard.

Jannies are the reason this place is going to shit, deleting BASED threads and posts because THEY delete the posts THEY don't like and then have the gall to stifle discussion because of their WORTHLESS OPINION.

The 'He does it for free meme' exists for this exact reason, dumb cunt jannies who thought THEY CAN FUCKING DECIDE the discourse at hand while doing it FOR FREE

FUCK JANNIES AND FUCK YOU CUNT!


>>10734025
>When shitposting gets deleted over the literal 50c army with 20+ posts
This Isn't anything new, but it just shows how utterly fucking useless and opinionated they are, if there were for example cunny or blacked poster spamming on /tv/ they used to let him post for days at a time before deleting his threads, if some poor dumb fuck janny feels he is insulted it's an instaban 100% of the time, they are utterly worthless pieces of shit.

>>10734031
u aight boy

[Anonymous No.10734037]

oof

[Anonymous No.10734038]

>>10734036
>Ugh! I didn't know Jannies didn't guzzle cum THIS hard.

*know Jannies guzzle cum

Fuck Jannies

[Anonymous No.10734046]

>Janny once again showing us he does it for free


Just fucking die already

[Anonymous No.10734047]

So for SN5 updates in one place.

At least two good short firings.

At least one lengthy firing, but aborted during the test.

Likely another firing to repeat, but suffered a bit of damage. Repaired. That was Elon's reference.

Fired again yesterday, but had another issue.

Goal was to ship to BC this week (may still be on) for a June 24-ish hop. That was before yesterday's test, so probably looking at those dates moving to the right. Word is we're only talking days.

[Anonymous No.10734050]

>>10734047
>June 24-ish
Amazing! Can't wait to see the shiny trashcan fly. Hopefully it goes well.

[Anonymous No.10734051]

https://www.astrobotic.com/2019/6/18/astrobotic-awarded-nasa-study-contract-for-polar-mission-to-the-moon

Astrobotic Awarded NASA Study Contract for Polar Mission to the Moon

[Anonymous No.10734123]

>>10733660
seething old space

[Anonymous No.10734189]

>>10734047
What's with sn4?

[Anonymous No.10734275]

starship livestream for those who dont know about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3CVqbH7aME

[Anonymous No.10734305]

>>10729861
just make sugar rockets lol

[Anonymous No.10734320]

>>10734275
Damn, it's actually not fuzzy or foggy for once.

[Anonymous No.10734379]

>>10732668
Sure, they had a lot of experience in orbital stations... but their focus, like that of the US, was to win the moon race. I am in no way denigrating the achievements of the Soviet/Russian space program.

I was, and am, denigrating the statement that the US never had and never will have the lead in space. They clearly did from Gemini through Apollo, as defined by achieving what they were actually trying to achieve.

A comparison of the flight histories of the Saturn rockets to the N-1 would illustrate that nicely.

After Apollo, it becomes a bit harder to say who "had the lead," as the two programs had divergent goals. But I'd say the Russians were more successful in their manned program, if for no other reasons than the costs of the shuttle, and its safety record. The history of US unmanned exploration post-Apollo seems to me to give them an edge there -- which is not to say that the Russians were failures, not at all.

At the moment we're seeing how well Obama's switch of reponsibillity for spacecraft and booster design out from under NASA is working. Signs look promising to this point, but we'll have to wait and see how it goes. Neither NASA nor private space companies have returned the US to manned flight yet.

[Anonymous No.10734385]

>>10732679
How would that be more attractive to the USAF than just putting up more and cheaper spy satellites and such other assets as they might have that we don't know about? The history of the USAF faffing around with the idea of a manned space presence is an old one, dating back to Gemini times at least. They never follow through on it, because there is no real operational need for it.

[Anonymous No.10734396]

>>10732685
Then you do not seem to have studied up much on the reasons behind the mission.

The US had an interest in keeping the Russian space program gong, and employing Russian rocket designers and technicians, who might otherwise seek employment elsewhere. Most elsewheres with the money were state the US would not have wanted to have big reliable rockets with a lot of payload capacity, reentry technology, etc.

NASA did what they could to resist the program, that was imposed on them from above. Once they agreed to take it on, they gave notoriously little support to the few astronauts willing to take on the mission.

NASA was all gearing up for Freedom/ISS, and saw Shuttle/Mir as a waste of time and resources. They also did not trust the Russians nor the aging Mir systems to keep their astronauts safe (and there were indeed a couple of scary incidents while Americans were aboard Mir.)

Pic related is a good general history of the project. The author over-dramatizes a bit, particularly by telling the story out of order for greater dramatic impact. But you can easily read the three sections in chronological order, and the information in the book is very useful if the subject interests you at all.

Pic related is a

[Anonymous No.10734398]

>>10732696
Well, yes, if we use our imaginations and credit them with things they did not actually ever do, they are clearly #1.

[Anonymous No.10734406]

>>10733156
They didn't reach orbit, did they? So it is not a question of "keeping" them there.

[Anonymous No.10734420]

>>10733188
"Well, Comrade Chang, our lander on the far side of Glorious People's Heroic Moon is complete. Please to turn on the Workers' Heroic Camera, for the greater glory of the Party!"

"Oh, have very done so, Comrade Yang. Wait! What is this? I see no evidence of running dog capitalist pig moon landings!!! Maybe they never happened!!!!"

"Maybe there is something blocking our Glorious Heroic view, Comrade Chang. Like the entire fucking moon, which is in the way!"

"Pardon me, Comrade Yang, I am Comrade Wu from the Glorious and Heroic Re-education Camp of Ten Thousand Flowers and Butterflies and Maybe Only One Thousand Electrodes for the Shocking of Genitals Until You Understand the Truth, Sub Camp 172. If you will please come with me,we have much to teach you. Please to bring genitals and follow me..."

[Anonymous No.10734422]

>>10733210
This is some next level trolling.

[Anonymous No.10734438]

>>10733389
>>10733453
LM legs were extended after the CSM/LM acheived lunar orbit. Exceptions to this would be Apollo 9, obviously, which flew an LM in Earth orbit and never went out to the moon, and Apollo 13, where the legs had to be deployed to clear the LM descent engine for firing as they rounded the moon.

"After achieving a lunar parking orbit, the commander and LM pilot entered and powered up the LM, replaced the hatches and docking equipment, unfolded and locked its landing legs, and separated from the CSM, flying independently. The commander operated the flight controls and engine throttle, while the lunar module pilot operated other spacecraft systems and kept the commander informed about systems status and navigational information. After the command module pilot visually inspected the landing gear, the LM was withdrawn to a safe distance, then rotated until the descent engine was pointed forward into the direction of travel. A 30-second descent orbit insertion burn was performed to reduce speed and drop the LM's perilune to within about 50,000 feet (15 km) of the surface,[4] about 260 nautical miles (480 km) uprange of the landing site. "

[Anonymous No.10734522]

FCC application reveals Dragon manned flight planned from November to May

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=93024&RequestTimeout=1000

[Anonymous No.10734534]

>>10734398
>>10734379
Determining who was #1 wasn't my point though, too bad you read it that way. I was speculating in hindsight that it was a mistake for them to repurpose an initially solid native program for pointless copying. That was a recurring pattern for CPSU central committee and the soviet military, they've dropped many genuinely good native advancements in favor of having the exact same thing as the US, not just in space.

[Anonymous No.10734565]

assteroid Benu

[Anonymous No.10734597]

>>10732895
we should have just used the leftovers from space station freedom to do a moonbase like HW wanted.

[Anonymous No.10734599]

>>10734396
the shuttle was unironically a huge waste of money though.

[Anonymous No.10734604]

>>10732895
yes, from micro gravity research to building shit in space, to creating, etc...
But now it's time to move on to bigger things and use the money that is going in to the ISS money sink for other stuff.

[Anonymous No.10734781]

>>10734565
Filty Belter scum

[Anonymous No.10734795]

>>10733771
>>10733137
Because afterburner trumps all.

[Anonymous No.10734843]

>>10734565
>A fucking rockpile

[Anonymous No.10734897]

>>10734565
benuis

[Anonymous No.10734937]

>>10734534
The only thing they did right with Buran was to not stop Soyuz like we stopped Saturn.

[Anonymous No.10734948]

>>10734565
benuis

[Anonymous No.10734950]

>>10734937
can you imagine if Saturn was still around? fuck this gay ass timeline.

[Anonymous No.10734980]

>>10733453
>>10734438

Intredasting... maybe I'll take a closer look at CSM/LM operator's manuals to see if I can find corroborating notes on this. Also see the Apollo 9 timeline, only one I see with a timeline note on exactly when landing gear were extended.

45:00 "Landing Gear Deployed", after crew transfer and LM power-up. The suggestion being (on this mission, at least) that there was a manual switch that you'd press exactly once, and then that was it. I would've thought they would've kept that step the same.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_09f_Timeline.htm

I sorta thought they extended them right after docking and extraction, then flew in like that.

[Anonymous No.10734987]

"When the Commander, in the vehicle, operates the landing gear deployment switch the landing gear uplocks are explosively released and springs in the deployment mechanism extend the landing gear. Once extended, each gear assembly is locked in place by two downlock mechanisms."

2-3-2, landing gear.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-43939523-LM10-LM14-Senpai-Manual.pdf

There's a manual switch on the LHS of the control panel somewhere. The question remains. right after TD&E, or in lunar orbit?

[Anonymous No.10734988]

>>10734950
Imagine
>Challenger happens
>Apollo+Saturn 3 gets some extra launches for a while

[Anonymous No.10734991]

>>10734988
>Apollo capsules with MFDs
MUH

[Anonymous No.10735032]

Now that I've actually applied a little effort, I've answered my own question. The legs were extended during LM final checkout in lunar orbit, consistent with what wiki and the other anon had been saying. Interestingly (on 11), they got this done just as they were coming around the hill again, coming back into communication with Houston, during the 99th hour (098).

"098:27:07 Armstrong: Houston, Eagle. Completed gear extension okay. [Long pause.]"

(they'd actually deployed the gear some minutes earlier, but they were out of comms range at the time. Houston didn't even acknowledge the above at first-they inquired about the gear again about 20 minutes later, and Armstrong reiterated that the legs were extended, with a gray confirmation display).

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/16day5-landing-prep.html#0982707

[Anonymous No.10735034]

[Anonymous No.10735064]

>>10735034
Any light that he is blocking iss getting reflected right back at him

[Anonymous No.10735067]

>>10735064
SHINY AND CHROME

[Anonymous No.10735070]

>>10734950
Imagine a saturn, with decades off taking advance of new building techniques, materials, developments.
all adding up over time.
Now think of a ISS with skylab sized modules.

Sad really.

[Anonymous No.10735105]

>>10735064
not really, because the surface is convex

[Anonymous No.10735122]

>>10735034
What an unsubtle visual metaphor.

[Anonymous No.10735145]

>>10735070
>Now think of a ISS with skylab sized modules.
Realistically, the modules would have to be abit smaller than Skylab, because without the Shuttle and it's arm the modules would have to move themselves to the ISS and dock themselves. They'd still be pretty big though. Imagine if Bigelow designed modules that size.

[Anonymous No.10735191]

>>10735034
>gallon can of WD-40
based

[Anonymous No.10735209]

>>10735191
I wonder if elon is going to straight up buy the water tower company building his rockets to keep the workers

[Anonymous No.10735217]

>>10735209
well they did buy the boats for the fleet, sort of. the GO series of ships, their parent company went bankrupt or whatever. And I'm pretty sure they've absorbed the Cocoa steel company

[Anonymous No.10735226]

FH payloads onboard

[Anonymous No.10735252]

>>10735070
What would such an absolute unit of a space station be used for?

[Anonymous No.10735273]

>>10735252
Something other than relearning over and over that microgravity is unhealthy to humans, growing drug crystals, and growing roses to see if they smelt different than roses grown on Earth. You know, actual usefulness.

[Anonymous No.10735300]

>>10735252
giving the poor fucks going up there actual room to live in
they're in chink cage tier living arrangements right now

[Anonymous No.10735307]

>>10735122
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.10735325]

>>10735145
>>10735300
>Custom 9 meter Starship-size inflatable Bigelow modules

[Anonymous No.10735327]

is starship-chan going to brapp green propellant eventually, and why couldn't Elon handle that 12m thicc? How many raptors was it going to be?

was the 12m optimized for Mars payloads and is the 9m a compromise for LEO?

[Anonymous No.10735345]

>>10733010
Space elevator on Ceres however is extremely possible

[Anonymous No.10735351]

>>10732964
Rockets spend the minimum time possible in the atmosphere. Air breathers have to accelerate most of the way to orbital velocity in atmosphere. A rocket on ascent needs a thin layer of paint for thermal protection at most, an air breather on ascent needs extremely high heat resistant materials that can also hold up to bombardment by ionized oxygen radicals among other things.

[Anonymous No.10735372]

>>10734795
>as if a fission rocket can't have exactly the same 'afterburner' as a fusion rocket

[Anonymous No.10735389]

>>10735327
The methane and oxygen they plan on using are already 'green'.

12 m BFR was gonna cost too much. 42 engines on the first stage and 9 on the second (3 sea level optimized six vacuum optimized).

12 m BFR is what they wanted to make assuming no issues with achieving certain performance goals and infinite funding. 9 m BFR is what they can afford to develop on their own and with hardware performance they know they can achieve. 9 m BFR actually comes out as being more economical than the 12 m version was expected to be, by the way. That's for both LEO launch and Mars/Moon missions. That being said I'm sure that once they get 9 m BFR operational and there's actually a market for it, a 12 m BFR design will begin development that will be more economical than 9 m BFR for at least some destinations.

[Anonymous No.10735395]

>>10735372
>fission reactor
>having all that reactor and shielding mass

[Anonymous No.10735401]

Should I share the "new and improved" Gyrojet here? Or is that questionable?

[Anonymous No.10735404]

>>10735395
>fusion reactor
>having proportionally more reactor and shielding mass per megawatt
fusion propulsion is literally ONLY better if you are considering maximum theoretical exhaust velocity and nothing else.

[Anonymous No.10735409]

>>10735401
sure.

[Anonymous No.10735456]

>>10735409
I hope you guys like it.

[Anonymous No.10735460]

>>10735456
Oops. Forgot to put the masses on it, my bad.

[Anonymous No.10735591]

>>10735460
>>10735456
you put a lot of work into this it seems
are you planning any physical tests ?

[Anonymous No.10735609]

>>10735591
Thanks! It was fun to make. And I didn't plan on physical tests because I had some other rocket test plans such as a nitrous oxide thruster. Maybe if I couldn't make that thruster and getting a destructive device licence was easier than I thought.

[Anonymous No.10735628]

5 DAYS UNTIL HOP

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.10735646]

>>10735628
Supposedly

[Anonymous No.10735741]

New bread:

>>10735734
>>10735734
>>10735734

[Anonymous No.10735764]

>>10735609
you shouldn't need the DD license if it's 12.7, right?

[Anonymous No.10735794]

>>10735307
>Hurr, rockets are giant penises