/sfg/ Spaceflight General

File: 400 KB, 1080x1413, NASA's_Orion_Spacecraft_for_Artemis_1,_July_2019.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/sfg/ Spaceflight General Anonymous Sun Jul 21 18:06:37 2019 No.10825842 [Reply] [Original]

Orion in one piece edition

Previous thread: >>10819833

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 18:08:19 2019 No.10825847 >>10825842 looks like they haven't finished attaching all the tiles yet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 18:08:33 2019 No.10825849 File: 387 KB, 780x601, 1550624141123.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10825842 Hopefully it's first mission goes well. Pic semi-related.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 18:15:56 2019 No.10825864 File: 53 KB, 1080x809, 1563742912035.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] HOP

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 18:28:33 2019 No.10825899 >>10825864 We get it, you vape

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 18:30:11 2019 No.10825904 File: 2.94 MB, 1910x1069, 420HOPIT.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10825864 I'll repost this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 18:32:21 2019 No.10825908 File: 49 KB, 634x484, 1502045428773.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10825899 >>10825904 POP

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 19:53:24 2019 No.10826075 >>10825904 420 VENT IT

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 20:04:11 2019 No.10826091 >35 Raptors on SH This thing is going to be an absolute fucking beast, going to be more impressive than Saturn V for sure.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 20:06:38 2019 No.10826097
File: 271 KB, 1280x853, 1280px-KSC_speech_with_Orion_-_Dragon_-_CST-100.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I love this picture showing all the capsules the US is building.
Wish there was a more recent one, showing Dragon V2 and a completed Starliner (not just the pressure vessel of a Starliner and a Dragon V1)

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 20:24:22 2019 No.10826134 File: 4 KB, 149x160, gee billy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10826097 Gee NASA, how come your taxpayers let you make THREE capsules?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 20:37:56 2019 No.10826163 File: 59 KB, 800x450, 1472765536489143844.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10826134 Because NASA are a bunch of fucks who didn't award SNC crewed Dreamchaser contract

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 20:42:13 2019 No.10826169 >>10826163 >inbefore the retard who starts bitching about the abort options.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 20:48:59 2019 No.10826189

>>10826163
good news is that SNC might have found alternate ways to fund a crewed version.
they apparently got the UN to pitch in with it, actually. some sort of "UN-funded spaceflight for the poor countries who can't afford their own space programs" gig

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 20:52:33 2019 No.10826196 File: 1.20 MB, 2048x1270, lyPXuKT.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 20:56:01 2019 No.10826203 >>10826196 Jesus it's so fucking shiny

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 20:59:13 2019 No.10826207 File: 136 KB, 1600x900, Federation space craft.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10826097 The 2020's are going to be crazy with Dragon 2, Starliner, Orion, Federation (Russia) and Gaganyaan (India) capsules operating.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 21:08:50 2019 No.10826226

>>10826207
I hope the Russians can actually get Federation running by then. I'd like another lunar capsule beside Orion, but they have an even worse track record than NASA when it comes to schedule slips.
I make poke fun at them, but I'm legitimately excited that the Indians are starting a manned spaceflight program. Unlike China, there's a good chance they could cooperate with the US.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 21:28:00 2019 No.10826254
File: 176 KB, 1160x725, 343545453345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10826226

>but they have an even worse track record than NASA when it comes to schedule slips.

Yeah its unfortunate but they got good excuses for the delays (sanctions, economic downturn, budget cuts etc.). The first Federation capsules are being built though as of march this year:

https://habr.com/ru/post/451646/

>I make poke fun at them,

Why? They've been doing exceptionaly well when it comes to their space program.

>Unlike China, there's a good chance they could cooperate with the US.

Yeah, they would make a great addition to the ISS coalition and speaking of China, the Shenzhou will also start flying again in the 2020's after a hiatus with the last Chinese manned mission in 2016.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 21:36:06 2019 No.10826267 >>10826254 Looks like a spiffier Soyuz, this is my first look at the craft. What's with the section on the front though, just crew seating? Looks like a tiny ISS module.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 21:43:42 2019 No.10826281 >>10826267 Yeah, that is the Shenzhou and its like the Soyuz but bigger. Aft section is the service module, center section is the crew capsule and front section is the orbital module. Pic related is the Gaganyaan.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 21:45:17 2019 No.10826286
File: 227 KB, 2000x1500, 433425342342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10826267

Yeah, that is the Shenzhou and its like the Soyuz but bigger. Aft section is the service module, center section is the crew capsule and front section is the orbital module.

Pic related is the Gaganyaan.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 21:50:16 2019 No.10826297 >>10826207 What’s Russia’s endgame for this capsule? Is it meant to rreplace Soyuz for LEO operations or is it something morre akin to Orion?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 21:56:54 2019 No.10826309 File: 97 KB, 1280x848, 3324432324.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10826297 Well, its both actualy, both to replace Soyuz and for lunar missions.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 22:13:33 2019 No.10826335

>>10826286
>orbital module.
So that bit is a larger area for the crew to hang out in en-route to the ISS, so they don't have to stay strapped in the whole time, or what? Strange to me that it looks like a little module you'd leave attached when you depart, though I'm sure that's not the design intention.
Other than that, it's just Soyuz XL? I haven't paid much attention to China or India's manned flights, mostly just aware of their lunar rovers, and in India's case, their Currysputnik they sent to Mars some years back.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 22:15:36 2019 No.10826338

>>10826335
IIRC, orbital modules are a good way to increase the livable volume of a spacecraft while not increasing the mass as much as just making a bigger capsule with a bigger heatshield would.
Both the Shenzhou and Soyuz use orbital modules. Don't think anyone else does, though.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 22:21:38 2019 No.10826347

>>10826338
It also makes it so that the capsule will have an easier reentry. Since most of the equipment necessary for space (life support, navigation, and docking systems) can be put in the orbital module, that means that the capsule can be made less dense compared to a capsule with all of the previously mentioned equipment. This reduces the capsule's ballistic coefficient which is more conducive to reentries with less deceleration.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 22:25:35 2019 No.10826354

>>10826338
>orbital modules are a good way to increase the livable volume of a spacecraft while not increasing the mass as much as just making a bigger capsule with a bigger heatshield would.
I've never really looked closely at the Soyuz design, so I've never considered this until now, actually an interesting choice by the ruskies, might have to incorporate that idea in my future KSP designs just because it makes sense.
Because I've not been following China's spaceflight endeavors that closely, I have to ask if they've had any major mishaps or has it been smooth sailing so far? Last thing I heard about them, prior to their last station re-entering, was that they sent a woman to space.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 22:30:25 2019 No.10826365 >>10826354 This link covers some of the development history of Soyuz. http://astronautix.com/s/soyuz.html Just a small warning, the author of the site doesn't like modern NASA and it shows in how he writes some these articles.

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 22:38:38 2019 No.10826383
File: 554 KB, 4920x2430, re-entry vehicles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10826347
>>10826354
To further expand on spacecraft capsule design and re-entry, American practice for the past 30 years has preferred re-entry vehicles that perform non-ballistic re-entries. Part of the reason behind this is to reduce the g-forces astronauts experience on re-entry, with a major consideration being the possibility of transporting an injured astronaut back to Earth.

For capsules, this means designs that have a steeper side-angle, and that are fairly "squat." You can see this in the Apollo CM, Orion, and Starliner.

Dragon bucks this trend, going for a less-steep side angle, which is closer to what everyone else (the Russians, Chinese, and soon-to-be Indians) does. I believe hearing that because of this, astronauts re-entering on Dragon will experience more g-forces in comparison to Starliner due to Dragon's reduced gliding capability.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 22:52:25 2019 No.10826408 >>10826163 While this thing is almost totally pointless I have to say it looks fucking great.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 22:56:07 2019 No.10826412 >>10826196 Is it just me or does the roof they are putting on the big building look too low for the height of either superheavy or starship?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 22:58:14 2019 No.10826418 >>10826412 Its not just you, and it's the same at both facilities. I'm starting to think its a fitting-out structure for the crew/payload section of the ship.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 23:19:31 2019 No.10826457 >>10826412 the top 1/3 (payload bay) of starship is much different than the bottom 2/3 (tanks, engines). The structures can fit the bottom part.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 23:27:19 2019 No.10826471 >>10826383 Needs Gaganyaan.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 23:33:23 2019 No.10826483 >>10826383 Russian capsule is really very aesthetic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 23:36:14 2019 No.10826492 >>10826383 Would any of these not fit in the Shuttle cargo bay? It's fuckhuge compared to the rest.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 23:38:04 2019 No.10826498 >>10826492 Apollo, Starliner, and Dream Chaser probably wouldnt.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 23:40:06 2019 No.10826500 >>10826471 Agreed, but I didn't make the image. >>10826483 Soyuz or Federation? Soyuz has a very retro-futuristic look to it, which I like. >>10826492 Gonna have to concur with >>10826498. Diameter is the limiting factor, not size.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 23:48:29 2019 No.10826512 File: 668 KB, 4920x2430, 1563763118642.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] this should be accurate. counted the pixels

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 23:51:47 2019 No.10826518 >>10826498 Sounds about right, length is fine but yeah as other anon said diameter rules those ones out I'd think.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 23:52:18 2019 No.10826519 >>10826512 desu, I'm surprised it's actually not that bigger than the shuttle

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 23:53:45 2019 No.10826521 >>10826519 same here. I thought it was WAY bigger when it's actually quite similar

Anonymous Sun Jul 21 23:56:26 2019 No.10826528

>>10826518
>>10826500
Orion also might not fit, that capsule is rather fat and the heat-shield protection ring around the ass-end of the capsule adds to the width. Crew-Dragon's service trunk may also have some issues due to the fins, but I'm not sure on that one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 21 23:57:46 2019 No.10826533 File: 234 KB, 646x444, capsule_size_comparison.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10826528 Didn't notice Orion wasn't listed. Yeah, if the Apollo CM won't fit, Orion DEFINITELY won't fit. It's WAY bigger.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 00:01:55 2019 No.10826538 >>10826533 Right, just looked up the cargo-bay dimensions, the apollo CSM would fit, but the RCS thrusters would make it a tight squeeze. Starliner still wouldn't fit because its service trunk is wider still, and the shuttle bay is 4.6 meters wide.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 00:40:03 2019 No.10826618 >>10825864 Wednesday

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 00:45:55 2019 No.10826625 >>10826519 The shuttle was goddamn huge, it just doesn't usually come across that way in pictures/video.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 00:48:28 2019 No.10826634 File: 110 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10826625 Shots like this do a decent job of showing how big it is

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 01:05:57 2019 No.10826675 >>10826634 I was there the other day for the first time in my life, what a beautiful machine and yeah, it's fuckhuge caught me by surprise

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 01:43:48 2019 No.10826746 File: 416 KB, 1280x997, tumblr_inline_pts16ojKFj1tzhl5u_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 02:18:20 2019 No.10826801 >>10826207 Meanwhile EU got fucking nothing... good fucking show. Better rent some more Soyuz...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 02:23:48 2019 No.10826808 >>10826383 Why is it so hard to launch Orion? It‘s not that big compared to other capsules. Is it made of solid lead?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 02:25:18 2019 No.10826809 >>10826808 they built it wrong, as a joke

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 02:26:03 2019 No.10826810 India's Chandrayaan 2 should be launching in little less than 3 hours. Anyone got a link to an official stream yet?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 02:40:42 2019 No.10826825 >>10826808 It's heavy. Not a lot of rockets could launch the Apollo CSM either.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 03:03:39 2019 No.10826861 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1153183373109542913 >starship update after hopper hover

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 04:14:59 2019 No.10826981 Will we see another milk stool for starship? Unless the access arm can slide up and down the launch structure. Otherwise if they just launch starship on suborbital missions it won’t be able to reach it (no SH underneath)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 04:18:17 2019 No.10826986 https://spacenews.com/nasa-outlines-plans-for-lunar-lander-development-through-commercial-partnerships/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 04:23:20 2019 No.10826996 >>10826986 >the "demonstration mission" has astros staying on the surface for SIX-AND-A-HALF DAYS for reference, the longest Apollo mission was a little over three

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 04:26:04 2019 No.10827001 >>10826996 like, damn, they really are not playing around with the specs for this

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 04:29:07 2019 No.10827006
File: 167 KB, 1200x800, Blue_Moon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10826986
>[Bridenstine] added that some unidentified companies had offered to pay 30 percent or more of the total cost of landers because of their interest using those landers for non-NASA customers.
I'm not saying it was Blue Origin.
But it was totally Blue Origin.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 04:34:04 2019 No.10827013 >>10827006 I hate to just assume that SpaceX will be successful, but all of these tiny landers seem like they might be completely irrelevant if starship works out

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 04:39:33 2019 No.10827026 >>10827013 depending on how cheap New Glenn manages to be, the dozen or so Starship launches required might be overkill if you only want a small payload

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 04:39:54 2019 No.10827028 File: 24 KB, 340x270, il_340x270.1080482285_i4j6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The Indians will be launching their moon mission soon. I'll be cheering them on by wearing the headpiece I bought.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 04:39:57 2019 No.10827029 >>10827013 Then again we currently have small boats living in harmony with massive container ships so

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 04:41:14 2019 No.10827032 >>10827029 in addition to this point, Blue Moon is refuelable with ISRU and no foreign carbon

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 04:59:51 2019 No.10827052 Chandrayan 2 launch livestream: https://youtu.be/_QvVCV1Ve5U

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 05:05:06 2019 No.10827060 >>10827052 Is that the official channel? Why does it have that shitty "DD Exclusive" watermark?

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 05:09:05 2019 No.10827063

Crazy how we haven't gone back to the moon after all these years and technological advancements and the only excuse is that they lack funding and have no purpose to go back again. Even though scientists that specialize in exploration(deep sea, archeologist sites, natural phenomena, etc) do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 05:17:37 2019 No.10827072 poo in space

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 05:19:20 2019 No.10827075 Peanut people don't know how to host a livestream this is horrendous

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 05:21:18 2019 No.10827078 >>10827060 Not official I don't think. Just what I found first.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 05:22:31 2019 No.10827081 File: 217 KB, 1080x988, 1563783151201.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 05:47:01 2019 No.10827118 >>10827029 Except small boats are a fraction of the cost of container ships unlike rockets.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 06:33:21 2019 No.10827174 File: 147 KB, 1200x1831, 65q345657g.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How did we go from this top tier kino

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 06:47:04 2019 No.10827188 >>10827174 ahem wrong tab, disregard me

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 08:53:15 2019 No.10827418 >>10826519 Starship is significantly bigger than the external fuel tank Shuttle used, let alone Shuttle itself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 08:54:24 2019 No.10827422 >>10826981 Two arms

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 09:39:11 2019 No.10827503
File: 764 KB, 1920x1280, 1526822790583.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Goys, I didnt follow hopper much anymore for the last few months. Did we get any hops at all yet out of boca chica? I understand theyre building one or two more hoppers now for the bigger tests, but I assume not much from there either?

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 09:42:46 2019 No.10827509

>>10827063
red pill: the only significant technological advancement since then has been in computers and everything else has stagnated

they've distracted you with shiny smartphones and video games and porn

You could show the Merlin 1C rocket engine to the team building the F-1 and nothing about it would be novel

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 09:46:48 2019 No.10827514 >>10827509 Just out of curiosity, why pick the Merlin 1C over Raptor in your example?

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 10:06:38 2019 No.10827536

>>10827514
Because everything about Raptor would be novel to them of course. Hell even a lot of shit going on inside Merlin 1D would be new to them; the equivalent engine at the time was the H-1, which weighed more than twice as much and produced less thrust than the Merlin 1D and at a lower Isp as well. It also cost a shitload more money and time to build, which was part of the reason why Saturn IB was so expensive. Showing Merlin 1D to a 1960's engineer at NASA would be like showing a medieval longsword to a roman soldier who was used to wielding a gladius; he'd recognize that it was a sword, and had all the same parts to it, but also that it was undeniably better in every aspect. Showing a 1960's NASA engineer Raptor would be like showing them a magic trick; I doubt that anyone working on engines then would even believe you that the thing would fire without instantly burning up due to the oxygen rich conditions.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 10:11:36 2019 No.10827544

>>10827536
>Showing a 1960's NASA engineer Raptor would be like showing them a magic trick; I doubt that anyone working on engines then would even believe you that the thing would fire without instantly burning up due to the oxygen rich conditions.
It kinda already happened when the RD-170 (and related engines) were brought into the US.

Although to be fair to the American rocket engineers, the Russians were pretty amazed by the hydrolox engines developed in the US, IIRC. It was just that American rocketry was alot more public than Russian, so it came more as a shock when good Russian engines became known.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 11:01:44 2019 No.10827627

>>10827544
exactly, now imagine the Russians had actually developed an engine using a full-flow staged combustion cycle that burned a new propellant that nobody else was even using, and that they set every performance record with that engine except for Isp and gross thrust, while also claiming that that engine cost significantly less than a single RL-10.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 11:14:13 2019 No.10827649 File: 323 KB, 1536x2048, ark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] New Ark

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 11:17:58 2019 No.10827660

So looking at the pictures of starhopper and the starship prototypes, it seems a lot less... Sleek than the concept art, with many steel plates being visible instead of a smooth exterior. Is that likely to be the case even when starship is fully ready in you guys' minds? Or will it get sleeker?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 11:21:49 2019 No.10827668 >>10825864 POP

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 11:54:22 2019 No.10827718 >>10827509 They would be impressed with the thrust to weight ratio.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 12:08:15 2019 No.10827740
File: 63 KB, 1412x708, columbus-hermes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10826801
>EU got fucking nothing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_(spacecraft)

If Iron Curtain didn't fall and Soyuz will not become commercially available Hermes would probably made it into space.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 12:10:10 2019 No.10827742 ホップはまだですか?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 12:13:32 2019 No.10827750 >>10827660 Starhopper/prototype are boiler plate for testing specific technology. Its not meant to be pretty.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 12:14:48 2019 No.10827754 File: 43 KB, 512x512, rabbit hole.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10827742 今日も飛ぶことが無い

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 12:33:18 2019 No.10827784 >>10826163 crying shame. At least it is getting a cargo contract and interest from the international community.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 12:37:53 2019 No.10827793 >>10827740 EU Space superiority when? I'll happily pay more euro-tax to to watch other countries shiver at the might of the god-tier european space program.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 12:39:24 2019 No.10827797

>>10826383
the Dragon still does aerodynamic reentry, it even has asymmetric tile and insulation placement for the preferred orientation. The other US capsules are steeper because they are designed for reentry from lunar orbit velocities which requires even more lift and higher attack angle, whereas Dragon is only coming in from LEO velocities.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 12:44:50 2019 No.10827808 >>10827740 it is extra ridiculous because it was the whole reason the Ariane 5 is as big as it is. Then Hermes was cancelled and ESA had to make do with their oversized rocket, turning dual satellite launch workaround into a feature.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 12:47:12 2019 No.10827815 >>10827052 fully successful launch, btw. They even measured 15% overperformance, since they let the upper stage burn to completion to save fuel for TLI and landing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 12:49:30 2019 No.10827820 >>10827793 Maybe work on nailing down how to successfully put anything onto Mars and go from there

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 13:00:08 2019 No.10827847

>>10827797
Dragon is designed to handle interplanetary reentries in excess of a Lunar return, despite the fact that it'll only be used for LEO missions. The only capsules built by America that are actually meant to do missions beyond LEO are Apollo and Orion. Starliner is flatter than Dragon but it has nothing to do with lifting body effects, they just went with the meme. Fun fact, the shape of the original Dragon capsule was determined in a single meeting in just a couple minutes, and was done by making the bottom of the capsule as wide as the Falcon 9 tanks, and making the top as wide as the universal docking adapter, then simply picking a distance between the bottom and top of the capsule that seemed okay.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 13:02:22 2019 No.10827852 >>10827820 details, details

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 13:13:48 2019 No.10827872 >>10827740 Hermes is a failed project, Eu doesn't have anything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 14:56:39 2019 No.10828035 >>10827847 yeah they wanted to do circumlunar flights with Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy but then that plan became obsolete honestly that would have kinda sucked, Dragon 2 is pretty small to hang out in for, what, six days?

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:01:41 2019 No.10828044
File: 183 KB, 2518x1024, airlock.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Daily reminder that if you even considered doing water airlocks on mars you are literally retarded and have an iq lower than what would be advisable for someone who scrubs toilets.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:03:24 2019 No.10828046

>>10826207
All of this is shit if starship gets demonstrated.

I think that if starship flies everyone else in the world will haul ass to get a similar concept going.

Starship it's like having a modern ww2 destroyer when your opponents have XV era carabels.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:06:38 2019 No.10828049 >>10826809 He has just left with the orbits >>10826808 It wont fly if it isnt on a corrupt goverment rocket

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:07:15 2019 No.10828051 >>10827013 Even if Starship turns out to be the nominal best for a lot of missions, other landers and vehicles will be built simply to prevent SpaceX form having a monopoly.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:08:40 2019 No.10828052

>>10828051
but that makes no sense, the logical solution would be to fund other starship like projects, most likely a bigger succesor to starship, something like the ITS.

Because if you can launch on starship it will be super retarded to use other vehicles, starship will offer something like 0.001% the cost

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:15:16 2019 No.10828066

>>10828052
It isn't always about what's sensible, or what's purely the most economically pragmatic thing to do. It's the same reason the US jumped into the space race to begin with, we didn't want our competitor to be able to do something we couldn't. Other countries and companies won't want SpaceX to be the only one capable of reliable interplanetary travel, you're right though about emulation of "starship like projects", if I'm not mistaken Europe has sunk some preliminary funding into a reusable rocket extremely similar to Falcon 9 simply because they don't want an American company to be the only player in reusable rocketry. If Starship starts flying successfully and continues to expand SpaceX's economic and political power then I'm sure several similar projects will be started to compete with it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:17:59 2019 No.10828069 >>10826207 2020 is also when the Chinese want their post Soyuz-tech capsule to start testing.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:19:39 2019 No.10828073

>>10828052
>Because if you can launch on starship it will be super retarded to use other vehicles, starship will offer something like 0.001% the cost
But its not guaranteed that Starship would be that cheap. Even when it starts flying, how cheap it will be will be uncertain for a while. There was another reusable vehicle that made the same promises of cheaper launches, the Shuttle, and look at how badly that thing went.

When Starship starts flying, at best everyone else will be curious about it while continuing to fly their own spacecraft, confident about its price, until Starship proves itself (or not) after a couple of years.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:21:10 2019 No.10828075 >>10828044 This is the first time I've heard of such an idea.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:24:05 2019 No.10828082

>>10828073
To be fair, the shuttle wasn't a fully mature reusable technology, it still uses highly complicated, semi-non reusable engines that need extensive refurbishment after every flight, it's first stage and a half (tank and boosters) can be refurbished if they land intact but they could also just get crushed on impact with the ocean and need to be fully replaced, making their costs in line with expendable rocket systems. Add on the fact that it's a government vehicle and you can basically guarantee that it was never going to be any more economically viable.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:27:41 2019 No.10828087

>>10828082
True. But at the time, such issues weren't fully known about, and American spaceflight dived headfirst into the Shuttle believing it to be a great machine. The Shuttle ended up holding back spaceflight over it's lifespan. It's understandable why some are unsure about SpaceXs similar promises, and aren't jumping into the hype train just yet.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:35:22 2019 No.10828099

>>10828087
True but BFRship can't hold back spaceflight because it's being done on the initiative of a private enterprise, funded in large part by private customers, other high value businesspeople, and the profits SpaceX will be presumably taking in over the next few years from Starlink launches, on top of whatever else they do for other customers. My doubts about it are minimal simply because in spite of being a new rocket it's still standing firmly on well known principles, like NASA's revived NERVA. We knew it worked decades ago but nobody had the balls, cash, or incentive to build it then so instead it's being done now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:45:16 2019 No.10828106 >>10828044 What so you mean by water airlocks? Like a giant P-trap that you walk through in your suit? I've never heard of anyone suggesting such an idea.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:46:54 2019 No.10828110 >>10828106 a couple threads ago some guy insisted it was THE ONLY WAY to build airlocks on mars

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:50:55 2019 No.10828121 >>10828110 Why not just the tried and true method of using a series of big airtight doors?

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:52:01 2019 No.10828124

>>10828121
why not make the airlock operated by a coal engine, why not make a couple of naked retards in space suit push it really hard into place and fill the crevices with cookie dough???

because big metal doors are obsolete inferior technologies.

tensile airlocks are obviously best

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:52:27 2019 No.10828126 >>10828110 How could they even work on Mars? You would need a second normal airlock or they would boil every time you opened the outer hatch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 15:57:27 2019 No.10828134 >>10828124 >doors are obsolete >glorified tarps are superior

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:00:42 2019 No.10828142 >>10828124 >not going with the grimdark option of using doors operated by cyborgs made from convicted criminals

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:07:48 2019 No.10828162 >>10828134 By that definition a """"tarp"""" is an advanced elastomerastic microfiber nano controlled tensile determined surface wiht nanomicromillimeter precision load control. Doors are ancient egypt technology

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:09:37 2019 No.10828169 >>10828142 >not engineering barely-sapient epsilons to open the doors for you

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:11:55 2019 No.10828174 >>10828169 muh aldeously huxley

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:15:15 2019 No.10828183 >>10828099 the best part about Starship is that even if upper stage reusability is a total flop and they need to tear down the heat shield every time, it can operate like a big Falcon 9 with first stage reusability

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:16:43 2019 No.10828186 >>10828126 cover the mars side in oil

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:16:46 2019 No.10828187 >>10828183 it wotn be a flop, sci fi future hewre we come

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:17:46 2019 No.10828190 >>10828187 the second best part is that even if it doesn't work, they'll keep innovating and trying until it does (looking at you, Shuttle)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:19:03 2019 No.10828191 >>10828187 I want a scifi future too, but lets be a little bit cautious about Starship's promises until it proves itself, lest we end up sacrificing 14 astronauts.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:24:06 2019 No.10828203 [DELETED]

>>10828191
its confirmed by physics calculations you fargotfgafaghomosexual

like
picture me this

thought experiment:

i drop a pen
it falls because of gravity...

OHHH NOOO BUT THATS JUST IN TEHROY, WE MUST COORBORROBORATIONCORROBORATE IN REAL LIFE TO SEE IF MAYBE THE PEN DOESNT GO UPSIDE AND STARTS ACCELERATING UNTIL A HUNDGRED ANGRY PRETEZLÑ CLAIM

AHHA

thats how you sound

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:25:01 2019 No.10828207

>>10828121
Because those are heavier, so if you can get some tough fiber or polymer layer to do the same job then that's preferable because that means launching your doors can cost less and they can be crammed into a smaller space so more room is available for other parts.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:25:23 2019 No.10828209
File: 543 KB, 2222x2196, EAGZqlTWwAE-hOy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Interesting day today.
>lunar lander solicitations
apparently it will stay with S-band communications, which is a little disappointing consider laser comms have been demonstrated.
>renewed interest in NTR
Will it actually happen this time? I believe we need it for Mars.
Also, Elon-spam about starship/super heavy
>35 engines
>5-6 degree gimbal on the center engine(s)
how are they gonna do it? what's the configuration going to look like?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:25:33 2019 No.10828210 >>10828203 What? How does that stream of thought even relate to the topic?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:28:36 2019 No.10828214 >>10828210 Please be patient he has schizophrenia.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:30:24 2019 No.10828216 >>10828209 ASS BLAST USA

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:30:31 2019 No.10828218

>>10828207
>your doors can cost less and they can be crammed into a smaller space so more room is available for other parts.
That's an understatement.

you could literally fill a 5meter wide tensile airlock in a literal suitcase. the whole thing weighs less than 5kg.

One steel airlock would be the size of a medium car and weight around 800-1200 kg

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:32:21 2019 No.10828222 [DELETED]

>>10828210
You say this:

starship in theory: gooooood

in practice: maybe not gooood

imagine this:

we know the laws of physics right?

we know what happens when you drop a pen, it falls right? (if you dfeny this youre a little little little uneducated loser forever so better dont)

so would you expect that dropping a pen will make it go to the earth as the gravity theory predicts or will it accelerate in ar andom direction at the seped of light?!?!?!?!?!?!?

similarly

we know the laws of rockets

we know the laws of steel

we know the law of shapes bieng forced by air outside by speed

do you expect the experiments to corroborate known physics or discover news. YOU NON KNOWERRRRRRR

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:35:38 2019 No.10828227 >>10828222 There's a large gap between theory and engineering. That's where lots of failures occur.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:37:26 2019 No.10828233

>>10828209
>Will NTPRs actually happen this time?
Well, it technically did but never flew in the form of NERVA (pretty anemic compared to some of the less well known NTPRs too, like Timberwind and DUMBO). As to it's necessity, they aren't strictly necessary but they will be highly desirable due to higher ISPs allowing for either shorter travel times for the same propellant mass, or larger payload sizes for the same propellant mass, both of which would be advantageous for a Mars or Venus shot. Nuclear reactors are also desirable in space for power supplies and can be used in a variety of different ways for different things. They can be used for example as power supplies for Magnetoplasma rockets which have much higher ISP than NTPRs, they can be used to generate large quantities of electrical power for long periods of time, useful for deep space missions or Lunar or Martian outposts. And they'll also be necessary for powering MPD drives past Mars as solar powered ships suffer severe efficiency drop-offs (and the consequent mass increases) the further they get from the sun.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:37:53 2019 No.10828234 >>10828222 Sure, lad. What we don't know much about however is how this shit is supposed to come to a pinpoint landing from fucking orbit. And no, Falcon 9 doesn't count as previous experience.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:38:46 2019 No.10828238 >>10828218 Based and tensionpilled, got any good PDFs on them? Airlock design isn't something I've read too much about, my particular field of interest lies mostly in propulsion and powerplants.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:43:10 2019 No.10828251 >>10828222 shuttle in theory: good shuttle in practice: NASA = NEED ANOTHER SEVEN ASTRONAUTS

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:47:56 2019 No.10828263

>>10828234
>What we don't know much about however is how this shit is supposed to come to a pinpoint landing from fucking orbit.
yes we do, its the most widely scrutinized and precisely calculated by the most god tier minds that have put about 50 manhattan project man hours into calculating the results

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:49:09 2019 No.10828264

>>10828251
>shuttle in theory: good
shuttle in theory LITERALLY WANST GOOD

HHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

ENGINERS
AHHAHA
a}hsdaph
aENGIN
ENGIN

engineers
wheeeeeezeee i cant even stop of how much i am superior wining all over yuo

engineers knew the flaws of the shuttle well before it was constructed, they even warned nasa, but as all capitalist americans, they chose to kill people to keep the possibility of profit

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:49:24 2019 No.10828265 OMG YAAAAAAAAAAAAS SPACE!!!! WE GET TO SEE BLURRY THEORETICAL PICTURES OF WHAT THINGS MIGHT ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:50:08 2019 No.10828266 >>10828264 please put on a tripcode so we know when someone intelligent is speaking, I wouldn't want to ever accidently ignore your genius level insights

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:50:56 2019 No.10828269 >>10828265 >theoretical

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:51:10 2019 No.10828270 File: 271 KB, 960x720, indeed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10828264

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:51:23 2019 No.10828271 Remember to select "extremely low quality"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:51:34 2019 No.10828272 >>10828238 It's such an easy engineering gadget that literally theres no need to even think about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tensile_strength FUCKING 3600 MPA TENSILE STRENGTH construction steel has 42 for reference

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:51:41 2019 No.10828273 Stop shitting up the thread with your inane babbling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:55:05 2019 No.10828286 >>10828264 Get this comrade out of here, graphite literally doesn't even exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:55:39 2019 No.10828287 >>10828265 >he doesn't know

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:55:43 2019 No.10828288 [DELETED]

>>10828273
ahhahahaha, you question my masterpoetryexpression mixing, which characterises god tier top 5 colleges. you know.

shitty colleges only make you learn one thing

god tiers, learn all
i know all of all, and that includes master expression advanced that mixes (poe)try and technical data. you COULDNT understand it

but even if you set that aside, i have laid down upon you EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE pieces of information that you couldnt even SUSPECT and you have the face to even attempt to imply that you do not intensely desire to keep learnign from me???? haaha, le no

seriously tough:

-tensile airlocks: god tier

-shuttle:badly designed and perfectly anticipated to fail. Its well documented.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 16:56:56 2019 No.10828294 schizo likes tensile airlocks, tensile airlock guy btfo by association

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:02:53 2019 No.10828310 >>10828271 that's my favorite option on that menu I'm also a fan of "this post is off-topic"

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:06:25 2019 No.10828315

>>10828271
>>10828310
It's very interesting how my posts actually contain a lot of science and engineering data while yours are just whining because youre angry i buttdestroyed you in an argument.

-Tensile airlocks are superior

there, only by saying that my posts are superior, youre not even saying anything related to science

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:06:52 2019 No.10828317 >>10828271 I have a gut feeling that "this post is extremely low quality" is probably the most common report that mods on this board see.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:07:49 2019 No.10828319 >>10828317 I mean, what else do you put down for "schizophrenic manic ramblings with tangential at best connection to reality"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:09:22 2019 No.10828324 File: 3.16 MB, 2953x3884, DSC_4825 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] taller

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:09:58 2019 No.10828329 >>10828319 "trolling outside of /b/"?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:11:04 2019 No.10828330 >>10828329 "This user is underage"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:13:26 2019 No.10828338 >>10828330 "conspiracies outside of /x/" Seriously, we need an option like this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:15:22 2019 No.10828344 >>10828324 So they are making a hopper version of the super heavy too? i thought both shipyards were making a starship hopper first.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:16:00 2019 No.10828346 >>10828317 "Even shitposts are of a higher quality than this schlock"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:18:07 2019 No.10828350 >>10828344 If I'm not mistaken it's two starhoppers, I think the nearly finished one is shorter because of that fall, the new one will be a closer representation of the vehicle's real size.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:18:08 2019 No.10828351 >>10828344 that looks like the tanks for Starship

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:39:19 2019 No.10828400 >>10828338 it would get abused by the lizard people

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:47:16 2019 No.10828418 >>10828317 It would help if some autist didn't start a new thread the moment it hits the bump limit, while the old thread hangs around for hours. Being on page 1 of /sci/ is a great way to attract schizos to a thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:48:24 2019 No.10828424 >>10828272 >construction steel has 42 for reference 42 MPA yea that will be a big NO !

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:48:36 2019 No.10828425

>>10828338
but more conspiracies end up being true than not these days
>the NSA exists
>the NSA is spying on Americans
>the former South Korean president was controlled by a shady cabal of occultist billionaire crypto-feminists
>Facebook running human trials on users without consent

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 17:54:55 2019 No.10828443
File: 133 KB, 456x275, my spirit is broken.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10828425
>the former South Korean president was controlled by a shady cabal of occultist billionaire crypto-feminists
I feel like not enough people know about this, probably because the news just didn't make a big deal out of it. For some reason.

But, this is /sci/ so let's focus on the space stuff for now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:03:59 2019 No.10828469 https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1153420075938045952 RIP Chris Kraft. Hope he got to see all the 50th anniversary stuff. I actually got to meet him years ago which was cool.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:04:11 2019 No.10828470 >>10828424 ok, more like 420 (blaze it farrgot) but still highly impressive http://descom.jmc.utfsm.cl/proi/materiales/ClasAceros/ACEROS.htm

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:09:17 2019 No.10828477 >>10828418 Sorry Anon :(

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:12:57 2019 No.10828486 File: 23 KB, 900x1200, 1297915871323.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:22:50 2019 No.10828502

>>10828443
Yeah, if it werent for 4chan i would not even now about it, western media completly ignored this.
This went deep and there are even rumors of human sacrifices and shit.
The ferry with all those kids sinking was on a important day for that cult too.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:23:17 2019 No.10828503

>>10828469
addendum from bergerboy https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/christiopher-columbus-kraft-nasas-legendary-flight-director-has-died/

Pretty sad to have passed while NASA has been in such a piss poor state for so long, even though things look to be getting better real soon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:38:49 2019 No.10828527 >>10828263 Simulations didn't prevent FH center core from crashing last time. Starship is a totally different design, with a tatally different 'flight' profile. You can fucking bet things will go wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:39:50 2019 No.10828531 File: 162 KB, 1024x681, 1486839506974.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw you will never hotbox a spaceship with musk and hadfield

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:40:06 2019 No.10828532

>>10827793
you are third world tier riddled with inmigrants. you fight amogns each other, you have less nukes altogether than one american county.

forget it europe. your reign is over, forever, you have no real power anywhere anymore, the united states owns you and when they fall whoever conquers them will own you, thats the sad cold objective truth that you can either accept or fail to see

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:42:12 2019 No.10828538 >>10828527 those going wrongs were expected, and now falcon heavy absoluteley owns the market and has triumphed ten trillion times as expected so will starship, the experts are aware, pay attention

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:43:45 2019 No.10828540 >>10828531 is this picture real did they really smoke a fat blunt on the ISS

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:45:35 2019 No.10828543 >>10828532 >A burger accusing anyone else of being overrun by migrants LOL

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:45:58 2019 No.10828544

>>10828538
I fully expect it to blow up a few dozen times in the next 5-10 years.
Imagine the balls it will take to board this thing.
There's not even any kind of abort plan for it.
Because something works in advanced Kerbal Space Program doesn't make it 100% reliable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:47:32 2019 No.10828548 File: 437 KB, 612x647, ISS_smuggled_eggs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10828540 No.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:48:18 2019 No.10828549

New Elon tweets
>So... I cant wrap my head around how @elonmusk / @SpaceX is planning on fitting 35x O1,3m Raptors in a O9,0m enginebay and still have 5-6° of gimbal on the 5 (?) center engines.. I made a few mockups but still the most gimbal I can get is 1,9° on the #3 before the bells touch.. [picture of >>10828209]
Outer engines stick out slightly from 9m diameter, don’t gimbal & are mechanically joined at nozzle
For 37 engine config, 6 are mounted outboard under landing leg fairings
>how many do gimbal then?
Center 7 engines gimbal to 15 degrees

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:48:25 2019 No.10828550

>>10828544
>Imagine the balls it will take to board this thing.
space shuttle was predicted to fail PRECISELY and it failed WHEN and HOW it was predicted

>>10828543
A single american state could buy, invade, outsmart outgun and even outcompete in the olympics the WHOLE EUROPEAN UNION

ill decide your fate,slave

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:49:24 2019 No.10828551 >>10828544 Nothing is 100% reliable. I wonder how reliable it can realistically get? What would be considered safe enough for passenger travel? 1/10,000 flights ending in loss of life?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:49:33 2019 No.10828553 >>10828549 >engines mounted to your landing legs >just strap em on and weld em in jesus

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:51:28 2019 No.10828556 File: 70 KB, 590x350, eu-702716.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10828550 >and even outcompete in the olympics the WHOLE EUROPEAN UNION Who told you that one? Fox News? Woo.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:56:41 2019 No.10828562 >>10828556 ok you got me. youre better at olympics. we still could kill or buy you literally any time we want.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:57:43 2019 No.10828564 >>10828551 >What would be considered safe enough for passenger travel? 1/10,000 flights ending in loss of life? supposedly airliner statistics. that's like 1 crash in a million flights

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:58:18 2019 No.10828565 If the post is gay, just stay away.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 18:59:03 2019 No.10828568 >>10828564 What did the 757 max have? I mean, airliners are far safer than most forms of transport. I imagine if Starship was just "safe enough" people would fly it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:00:53 2019 No.10828572 File: 72 KB, 1024x768, US_Debt_in_Constant_Dollars_and_as_Percent_of_GDP.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10828562 >buy With your > 100% debt to GDP ratio? Yeah, sure. Try it.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:01:55 2019 No.10828575

>>10828568
It's not a question of whether or not individuals would decide to fly on them, it's a question of whether or not governments would be willing to tolerate a less safe mode of travel than airplanes, and make the investments necessary to marry BFRship landing infrastructure with their existing travel infrastructure.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:03:31 2019 No.10828578 >>10828568 i think that for early stages the safety has to be at least as good as extreme sports. Something like paragliding or bunge jumping, shit like that

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:06:17 2019 No.10828582

>>10828575
>it's a question of whether or not governments would be willing to tolerate a less safe mode of travel than airplanes
Considering all modes of transport are less safe than planes, it would seem obvious that government would support it.

>>10828578
Reasonable take

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:08:32 2019 No.10828589 >>10828582 for a long time space travel will be considered an extreme sport at best, most likely an excentric insanity like it is now for a civilian

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:10:58 2019 No.10828593 File: 209 KB, 298x329, 1558563959259.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10828264 p a j e e t a j e e t

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:12:31 2019 No.10828597

>>10828582

airplane safety:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety

around 2 accident per million flights

Extreme sports:
https://www.tetongravity.com/story/news/your-chances-of-dying-ranked-by-sport-and-activity
hang gliding: around 1 in 560 chances of dying

The space shuttle flew around 833 times, with two catastrophic failures and one extremely close call that you could almost consider it an accident. so tahts 3 in 833 or about 1 in 277 chances of death

its safer to hangglide that to ride the american shuttle. so i guess that would be a good first start

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:14:31 2019 No.10828603

>>10828597
SCRATCH THE FUCK THAT i 833 is the number of people who flew on the shuttle, the number of missions were 135.

that makes the shuttle statistics 1 explosion per 45 flights. oh my fucking god its fucking terrible.

i mean, if you tell people its safer than the shuttle that would maybe calm them but the truth is thats not really great

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:17:16 2019 No.10828606 >>10828603 >>10828597 i guess its safer to juggle knifes while standing on an alligator in a minefield in an active warzone than riding the shuttle

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:26:26 2019 No.10828633 File: 108 KB, 500x538, trash.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10828550 >space shuttle was predicted to fail PRECISELY and it failed WHEN and HOW it was predicted

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:27:28 2019 No.10828634 >>10828597 >>10828603 schizo poster get out

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:27:39 2019 No.10828636

>>10828603
Got to break a few eggs to make an omelette. How many people died in the early days of air travel? Fucking. Shitloads.

This insistence on omg 100% ultra super duper reliable safety while tens of thousands of people die in car crashes is just fucking asinine. Starship will probably blow up or experience terminal failure at least a few times, taking a few dozen-a few hundred cunts with it. Planes kill this amount every fucking year. Hopefully this doesn't end up with government stepping in and clamping down but who knows.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:28:08 2019 No.10828639

>>10828633
Not him, but I do recall that there was an Airforce study of the Shuttle when it first came out and they predicted that the Shuttle would suffer a failure one out of every 25 flights. Challenger was number 26.

Then again, I can't back that up, so take that with a grain of salt so large that it could crush someone.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:28:33 2019 No.10828640 >>10826267 it's basically a bigger soyuz, the main difference is that the orbital module can operate in a independant way, undock and dock again, which can't be done with the soyuz. It's like a mini-space station.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:30:32 2019 No.10828646 >>10828639 1/50 is closer to actual failure rate IMO. still not good, but about the same as soyuz. diff is that when Soyuz fails it has an LES. shuttle did not

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:35:40 2019 No.10828654

>>10828633
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/21/470870426/challenger-engineer-who-warned-of-shuttle-disaster-dies

pheeww brother, your ass must hurt, i just buttdestroyed your tiny little sluthole in one second more than all of the porn actreses in the whole world got fukced in their whole career

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:39:03 2019 No.10828663 >>10827052 It's really a dick shaped spacecraft

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:39:13 2019 No.10828664

>>10828646
were talking about fatal accidents, by that standards newest soyuz without the extreme soviet pressure has a 100% safety record, its literally safer than riding a car or a bike, its safer than eating a taco.

people have died wrongly eating a taco, no one has died in post 90s soyuz

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:43:35 2019 No.10828670

>>10828035
The Dragon 2 has an internal habitable volume 50% greater than that of the Apollo capsule, and 25% less than the combined Apollo+LEM spacecraft. It wouldn't be in the lap of luxury but two guys could definitely do a Lunar free return trajectory in that thing without going insane.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:46:17 2019 No.10828680 >>10828035 Dragon as an interior volume almost twice the volume of Apollo capsule, it's spacious enough.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:46:56 2019 No.10828682 >>10828670 yeah but the Apollo CSM has all sorts of nooks and crannies to hide in, I'd need to make a hell of a pillow fort in Dragon 2 personally

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:47:40 2019 No.10828684

>>10828082
>it's first stage and a half (tank and boosters) can be refurbished if they land intact
The Boosters required extensive refurbishment no matter what, and the external fuel tank burned up on reentry 100% of the time as planned. Fun fact, it's estimated that the external fuel tank on a Shuttle launch alone cost more than an entire launch of Falcon Heavy, yet Falcon Heavy is much more reusable than Shuttle was.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:51:24 2019 No.10828690 >>10828670 50% more space than apollo 8 is quite good

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:52:01 2019 No.10828693

>>10828186
That's not how it works dumbass. If you have a pool of water under a layer of low vapor pressure oil in a pressurized vessel on Mars, and you open the door, sure the oil doesn't boil, but the water underneath that's no longer being forced together by air pressure certainly does. That's why a naked human pushed into space will experience their blood starting to boil even though it's totally contained inside their cardiovascular system.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:53:23 2019 No.10828696 >>10828693 hmmmmmmmmm oil airlock

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:55:30 2019 No.10828700 >>10828218 >One steel airlock would be the size of a medium car and weight around 800-1200 kg It'd help me sleep at night desu

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:55:57 2019 No.10828702 >>10828700 this, I like big steel vault doors

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 19:58:54 2019 No.10828708

>>10828233
I could be wrong but just going by some performance numbers typical of NTR using several different propellants makes it seem like NTR should be sufficient purely on its own as a means of performing manned missions to the Jupiter and Saturnine systems. Methane in particular, which offers >600 Isp at much higher propellant densities and thus better mass fraction than hydrogen, appears to be an extremely attractive propellant for use in NTRs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:01:15 2019 No.10828713 >>10828708 how's ammonia compare? densified propane?

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:02:08 2019 No.10828716

>>10828708
>I could be wrong but just going by some performance numbers typical of NTR using several different propellants makes it seem like NTR should be sufficient purely on its own as a means of performing manned missions to the Jupiter and Saturnine systems. Methane in particular, which offers >600 Isp at much higher propellant densities and thus better mass fraction than hydrogen, appears to be an extremely attractive propellant for use in NTRs.
the problem with jupiter missions is that when you account that your ship needs to have around 50% of its mass be radiation shielding then its prohibitevly expensive

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:03:22 2019 No.10828719 >>10828288 >-tensile airlocks: god tier Tensile airlock vs one muslim guy with ten seconds and a razor, who would win?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:07:09 2019 No.10828733 >>10828538 They have literally never successfully recovered a Falcon Heavy center core

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:08:01 2019 No.10828736 >>10828719 the tensile airlock has the advantage of being literally tens of millions of kilometers away

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:08:23 2019 No.10828737 >>10828549 Underappreciated information

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:08:34 2019 No.10828738 >>10828733 they did land one, but it fell over which is a success for "can they recover cores" and a failure for "did they recover cores"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:13:28 2019 No.10828746 >>10828736 >Implying the first mission isn't going to be loaded with diversity

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:14:23 2019 No.10828749

>>10828636
>Got to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Except in Shuttle's case they never made the omelette, they just kept breaking eggs, because to actually improve the safety of the system would require massive investment in further development that nobody wanted to pay for, as well as a fundamental reshuffling of the way the Shuttle even worked to begin with.
In the early days of air travel there were many different entities working simultaneously to improve the problems and develop better vehicles all the time. For the entire Shuttle era there was only one outright competitor, which was in effect a carbon copy but tweaked to be undeniably superior when it came to performing as a launch vehicle and to safety overall, and it took 30 years before finally Shuttle was cancelled, and even then it took a presidential mandate to stop the Shuttle program continuing until the 2030's as planned.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:15:42 2019 No.10828754 >>10828654 Warning the night before because the vehicle is being operated out of thermal tolerances is not the same as warning the engineers before they've even started bending metal that their design is inherently unsafe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:16:17 2019 No.10828755 >>10828746 if you expect sabotage from one of your own crewmembers then no matter what tec you use you are 100% fucked. Missions can and will fail even if everyone in the station AND in the world is working coordinately to make it happen

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:17:26 2019 No.10828759 >>10828664 Hell they had a launch failure a few months back with people on board and it wasn't even a big deal, LES worked perfectly and the guys stepped out of the capsule later like it wudn't no thang.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:20:01 2019 No.10828769

>>10828682
They have a privacy curtain that you can use if you need to take a fat astronaut shit and don't want your fellow crew mates to watch, not much reason why they wouldn't just lave the curtain up the whole time to break up the space into a couple 'rooms'.

>>10828690
Exactly, so bearing in mind sending 2 regular people instead of 3 highly trained astronauts and there should be plenty of room as not to trigger any psychotic breakdowns.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:20:04 2019 No.10828771

>>10828708
It absolutely can, once you get there and so long as your drive can operate on water you've got enough propellant to go anywhere you want due to water's extreme abundance in both the Saturnian and Jovian systems. The issue with missions there is that ships will need to be much more heavily or perhaps magnetically shielded against intense radiation which is captured in supercharged versions of the Van-Allen belts by both Saturn and Jupiter's enormously powerful friction fueled magnetic fields. If you're going to magnetically shield your ship (basically using large doughnut shaped copper electromagnet to generate a very concentrated magnetic envelope that acts like a planet's magnetic field) then a nuclear reactor becomes essentially necessary, nothing else has the same power to mass ratio that far from the sun and you'll need that magnetic shielding to approach either giant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:24:05 2019 No.10828782 >>10828749 I know that, I was more talking about BFR going forward.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:38:34 2019 No.10828808
File: 121 KB, 600x591, Oil_airlock_retarded_won't_work.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10828696
Now THAT'S a galaxy brain moment

However the oil airlock would need to look like pic related in order to actually work, and god help you if some dumbass opens a pressurized air cylinder too fast and manages to put bubbles into the oil column, because that oil is going to shotgun out onto the surface of Mars and your airlock will then be an open hallway to vacuum.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:40:05 2019 No.10828813 >>10828808 it is 2000% galaxy brain nonsense that would never work but I love it

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:40:08 2019 No.10828814 >>10828702 I think tensile airlocks would work great as part of both emergency airlock systems in permanent structures and as the main airlocks on temporary structures, like pressurized tents erected at work sites far from any main bases.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:41:12 2019 No.10828816 >>10828814 tensile airlocks also open up the potential for emergency shelter tents

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:43:29 2019 No.10828821 >>10828816 Absolutely, you could have something as big as say a backpack which is basically a cylinder filled with ultra compressed air, a co2 scrubber and a 10m3 tent made of ultra strong material.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:44:30 2019 No.10828823 >>10828821 >backpack you're already wearing a life support backpack, you don't have room for that put it in the trunk of your car

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:48:03 2019 No.10828829

>>10828823
your car is probably has a fucking pressurized space already.

Why not have the backpack mounted on a big blimp (lower grav on mars, much easier to do) with propellers a solar panel and an ai that makes it follow you around, and when you have an emergency it drops the tent of you. practical and cute as fuck

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:48:49 2019 No.10828830 >>10828829 dude just build a big train to tow your blimp, fuck walking

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:49:16 2019 No.10828833 spacex rejected me, bros :( no job for me

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:50:13 2019 No.10828839

>>10828713
Ammonia is pretty shit (may as well just use water since it performs very similar but is mega cheap and common in the solar system), densified propane is worse than methane in terms of isp but better in terms of density, however the difference is very slight.

>>10828716
You only need extra radiation shielding at Jupiter if you'e going closer than Callisto, which lies completely outside the radiation belts. If you can get to Callisto you can use it to restock on both propellants and cheap radiation shielding (water) and definitely go as far is an Ganymede, maybe Europa but that's pushing it unless your guys are landing and immediately going underground.

>>10828771
See the previous about Jupiter, and note that Saturn doesn't have radiation belts that are nearly as powerful, plus they only extend out as far as Enceladus and all the bigger moons of the Saturnine system are out further than that. Titan specifically with its thick atmosphere would completely shield anyone standing on the ground even if Titan orbited directly inside Jupiter's radiation belts instead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:50:17 2019 No.10828841 >>10828833 it's for the greater good. Imagine /sci/tards running spacex. rockets would blow up in launchpad

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:51:25 2019 No.10828847 >>10828830 could the rails be mounted on a series of rocket planes that steer the tracks to wherever they need to go?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:51:28 2019 No.10828848 >>10828738 I'm agreeing with you, but the point is that despite the engineering knowledge and arguably nothing being engineered incorrectly, they still haven't managed to get a FH center core back to shore.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:51:42 2019 No.10828849 >>10828833 I'm sure the froyo machine and game room would outweight the unpaid after-hours seven days a week.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:55:06 2019 No.10828860 >>10828848 but they will, as planned

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 20:59:24 2019 No.10828874

>>10828849
KEK. I got to tour their hawthrone facility and it was really awesome actually. they have all these clean rooms where the assemble the engines and rockets. they didn't show me a game room but the froyo was real. I also saw their control room (which Elon was occupying to do some sort of tv interview)

the impression I got was everyone working there was 100% invested of the mission™ and a quite a bit indoctrinated into the elon fanboy cult. the recruiter and the team were a little rude and didnt give me an opportunity to ask them the sort of questions I wanted to ask before shuttling me off to the next interview. overall a terrible experience would not recommend applying

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:00:40 2019 No.10828876 >>10828833 neetlyf

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:03:41 2019 No.10828884
File: 9 KB, 320x323, steeVbQDTNm7ikspshc23D-320-80.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10828839
Titan is really fucking neat, considering how much Ethane and Methane is present it might make a useful outpost in the outer planets as a source of petrochemicals and relatively high ISP methane propellant, along with providing strong natural radiation shielding that doesn't require excess mass or technology. It would also be incredibly easy to fly on Titan, 1.45ATM combined with only .138G would be excellent for flying, you could probably operate some kind of peddle helicopter or glider with ease.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:07:36 2019 No.10828902 >>10828884 Titan is fucking cool, sucks it's so fucking far tho. Why couldn't it be around Jupiter.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:08:27 2019 No.10828907 >>10828884 how easy would it be to convert the titan atmosphere into ethanol

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:10:04 2019 No.10828914 >>10828833 same but I got a comfy job at a satellite manufacturer instead

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:10:25 2019 No.10828915 >>10828902 Just wait until oil on Earth starts to run out, then it'll get plenty closer. Because Titan would suddenly be in desperate need of democracy to free it from the totalitarian oil on it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:11:28 2019 No.10828920 >>10828914 how do you like it anon?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:14:39 2019 No.10828934 >>10828915 implying a super futuristic sci fi XXII century civilization wont use fusion or some shit

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:20:43 2019 No.10828953 >>10828934 Petrochemicals will always be relevant even if they're no longer used for power generation, modern society is always hungry for more plastic.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:22:41 2019 No.10828960

>>10828920
I haven't been around for a launch yet but those seem to be hectic. Otherwise it's pretty calm. There is a mix of (really) old stuff I have to decipher and new stuff that we are developing, which is good. It's a small division of a large company so we have resources but everyone fills multiple roles. It's a good time to be in the business, I think.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:24:18 2019 No.10828963 >>10828874 Sadly with people applying to the space industry out of "passion" Big Space can push around anyone they want and they'll just have to accept. I'd rather go NASA than SpaceX though with how things are loooking for the future.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:24:44 2019 No.10828965 >>10828884 On Titan a human can fly using muscle power alone given an artificial wing surface area of about one square meter.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:26:47 2019 No.10828968 >>10828965 pedal powered helicopter pedal powered tilt-rotor

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:28:15 2019 No.10828975

>>10828902
It would have had its atmosphere assblasted by now probably

>>10828953
You can make hydrocarbons from CO2 and water, it's a very simple process, the reason we don't do it is because our cheapest energy comes from burning hydrocarbons to begin with so it's currently more efficient to just use what we've already got, sulfur and nitrogen impurities and all. In the future we'll still have jet fuel and ocean tankers burning oil and thousands of products containing plastics and so forth, but none of those compounds will have come out of the ground, instead they will be made artificially by using CO2 from the air and incredibly cheap power provided by 5th generation nuclear reactors.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:29:21 2019 No.10828977 >>10828968 literally just strap wings onto your arms and flap to fly around

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:30:14 2019 No.10828978
File: 31 KB, 450x361, TitanTransportVehicle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10828968
And you all laughed at da Vinci when he came up with this. Look who's laughing now?

Not da Vinci, he's dead, but the people riding Aerial Screws on Titan are having a fun time.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:34:46 2019 No.10828991

>>10828975
>5th gen nuke reactors

Not going to happen, nuke plant production has been dropped to fuck all and normies are so scared it's just not going to happen. Fusion is the only option for cheap energy, that being said with some of the new designs from MIT and CFS it seems like basic commercial fusion reactors with positive Q are pretty much on the table using existing technology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:37:34 2019 No.10829000 >157:03:55 News report: Nixon predicts visiting other planets within 31 years bastard

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:39:17 2019 No.10829003 >>10828549 I guess this confirms there will be a 41 engine and a 44 engine version of Superheavy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:42:39 2019 No.10829013 File: 57 KB, 550x422, Leonardo-da-Vincis-human-powered-ornithopter-design-After-the-Renaissance-a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10828978 a screw's a horrible way to make a propeller. Da Vinci's ornithopter, now that might work.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:46:29 2019 No.10829025 >>10828991 Good talk on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 21:50:00 2019 No.10829034 >>10828991 >>10829025 https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29074/skunk-works-exotic-fusion-reactor-program-moves-forward-with-larger-more-powerful-design Some interesting related news.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 22:01:17 2019 No.10829061 >>10828991 Q>1 fusion does not equal cheap fusion, you know.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 22:23:50 2019 No.10829127 >>10829025 I posted this on /sci/ a while ago, did you find it from my post?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 22:52:58 2019 No.10829185 >>10829127 Nope. I've had it saved for a few years now. What was your post about?

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 22:55:09 2019 No.10829189

>>10829061
The designs are a lot better than just a bit over 1, the latest iteration of ARC is i'm pretty sure nearly a giggawatt net electricity generation. Besides if you eliminate the Super radioactive waste shit and expensive as fuck and heavily regulated uranium processing and handling it's going to be a lot cheaper by default.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 22:58:58 2019 No.10829199 So are they actually going? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl6jn-DdafM

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 23:04:57 2019 No.10829217 >>10829199 Sure, why not.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 23:17:04 2019 No.10829237

>>10829189
My point is that fusion reactors are going to be very expensive and take a long time to build, even for ARC, assuming it actually works. The goal should not be fusion power, it should be any source of clean power that is cheaper than all current sources of power by a significant amount.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 23:21:54 2019 No.10829243 >>10829217 >>10829199 You guys read The Next 100 Years? The military industrial complex sure has. There will be no civil war in the US, simply for the fact of how much longer they can kick this can down the road. We have LOT more weapons to make.

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 23:26:08 2019 No.10829253

>>10829237
Nuclear is hideously expensive though. If you want clean and cheap and don't want to look at fusion then solar is by far your best price/watt option. Given that there is no consistent required baseload unlike the civilian grid then solar is a good option.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 23:30:09 2019 No.10829260 >>10829253 based retard

Anonymous Mon Jul 22 23:39:15 2019 No.10829279
File: 145 KB, 1314x469, columbia.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10828633
That's not wrong. In both cases the failures were predicted by engineers. Columbia was still mostly engineers' fault because the way they communicated that debris seen during launch could cause catastrophic failure (there had been an earlier incident that was similar but didn't cause failure because the debris was not quite as intense and the damage was done over a portion of the spacecraft that exposed the steel airframe which was able to tolerate reentry) was with a footnote on a PowerPoint slide, but with Challenger the engineers responsible for the SRBs told NASA explicitly that launch temperatures lower than 53 degrees freedom could cause catastrophic failure of the SRBs, but were ignored because of time constraints.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 23:40:55 2019 No.10829281 >>10828682 But we have VR now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 23:43:06 2019 No.10829284 >>10828874 Cults are often very fun to be a part of.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 23:49:00 2019 No.10829294 >>10826097 Dig the sign language interpreter at far left.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 23:52:26 2019 No.10829300 File: 3.65 MB, 4032x3024, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10829279 Tufte has a good section on it in Visual Explanations

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 23:53:28 2019 No.10829302 >>10829199 >We are going to the Moon to stay, by 2024. This is how. >to stay >post-Apollo NASA I know exactly how they're going to accomplish this "mission."

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 22 23:53:40 2019 No.10829304 File: 1.67 MB, 4032x3024, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10829300 All of his books are great

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 00:02:05 2019 No.10829311 >>10829279 IMO, they were failures of management, but said failures were only dangerous because of the Shuttle's inherently flawed design. Schizo-anon wasn't saying anything that intellectual though. He's just an idiot.

Anonymous Tue Jul 23 00:10:30 2019 No.10829327
File: 79 KB, 946x628, boostertest.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10827544
>the Russians were pretty amazed by the hydrolox engines developed in the US
The sad thing is that a big part of the Buran program was developing Russian hydrolox capability. They succeeded at it too, but then the USSR fell. By the time the scraps of the Soviet industry were able to pull themselves back together in the mid-90s, they had completely lost all that knowledge, and they still haven't regained it.
In general, us Yanks are bretty great in all fields of rocketry, but the three fields we absoutely EXCEL at are:
* hydrolox engines
* methalox engines
* fuckhuge SRBs

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 00:17:22 2019 No.10829345 >>10828169 contented sigh

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 00:42:11 2019 No.10829379 >>10828808 Is RP1 non volatile enough?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 00:49:22 2019 No.10829391 >>10828884 Peddle gliders already work on earth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacCready_Gossamer_Albatross

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 00:53:56 2019 No.10829398 >>10829391 someone call Miyazaki

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 01:24:48 2019 No.10829433 >>10828344 You severly underestimate how fuckhuge their plan for Starship itself is. Super Heavy is going to be even more insane. Full Stack will just be ludicrous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 01:25:44 2019 No.10829437 File: 64 KB, 644x908, H-II_series.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why is it so hard to find info on the H-IIB rocket compared to the H-11A?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 01:27:44 2019 No.10829444 >>10829437 Is that quad-SRB's?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 01:43:30 2019 No.10829469 >>10829444 Yup.

Anonymous Tue Jul 23 01:54:44 2019 No.10829494

>>10828633
http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/shuttle/GoodbyeColumbia.html
>During blast-off, unlike those capsules and modules with escape rockets to pull the pilots free in case of trouble, there is no way out of the shuttle. Columbia has ejection seats like a jet fighter, but they're useless during take-off. Punching out at several thousand m.p.h. doesn't work. If the slab of rushing air doesn't kill you, the engine exhaust flames will. Here's the plan. Suppose one of the solid-fueled boosters fails. The plan is, you die.
>Once you get into space, you check to see if any tiles are damaged. If enough are, you have a choice between Plan A and Plan B. Plan A is hope they can get a rescue shuttle up in time. Plan B is burn up coming back.
From 1980.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 02:05:16 2019 No.10829514 >>10829494 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8AisTXgAGA

Anonymous Tue Jul 23 02:21:19 2019 No.10829544

>>10829494
Not entirely true. The ejection seats were rated for 3400MPH and 130,000ft, and an SR-71 pilot survived the plane disintegrating around him at MACH 3.2. There's definitely a pretty good chance you get BTFO by SRB plume, but there was a solid chunk of time during ascent where ejection was possible, if unlikely. Ultimately it was a decision by the astronauts to have the ejection capability disabled rather than abandon crew members to their deaths, since only the commander and pilot had ejection seats.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 05:47:10 2019 No.10829782 >>10829544 The main point of that paragraph is that an SRB failure of any proportion would lead to a loss of crew, which was proven entirely correct by the challenger disaster.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 06:19:34 2019 No.10829826 >>10829544 kek, imagine sitting in the back of a shuttle launch and shtf and you hear the captain "say every man for himself" moments before he and the pilot eject.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 06:32:05 2019 No.10829853 >>10828121 A regular airlock lets dust in.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 06:32:30 2019 No.10829855 >>10829826 hahaha i think the correct term would be "see ya later suckerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 06:49:48 2019 No.10829880 >>10828271 now what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 06:51:59 2019 No.10829886 >>10829880 I've been banned for 4 minutes yesterday. It's done

Anonymous Tue Jul 23 06:58:59 2019 No.10829899

>>10829279
It boils my blood how this shit is reported in the mainstream media.

In both cases the story is told that no one could of predicted the failures, and they needed to bring in a big brain like Feynman to tell NASA that rubber gets stiff when it's cold.

The same for columbia, with the story going that no one could have known that that foam could damage the wings.

It was effectively manslaughter at least on both accounts.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 07:11:37 2019 No.10829923 File: 55 KB, 281x355, 1465613268365.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10829899 >could of

Anonymous Tue Jul 23 07:14:04 2019 No.10829928

>>10829923
Well that's what they say.
>Space is hard guys, when you're pushing the boundaries of technology there's always a risk of something unexpected happening.
Which is fair. But both of the shuttle failures were due to things very well understood by the engineers as being extremely dangerous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 07:20:45 2019 No.10829936 File: 2.88 MB, 4032x3024, 20190625_014122.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How are your cubesats doing this morning, /sfg/?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 07:26:29 2019 No.10829943 guys I'll use a BMW to get to Marz.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 07:27:33 2019 No.10829945 >>10829943 Based, I'll see you there

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 07:50:31 2019 No.10829983 File: 96 KB, 885x1000, e65cd44295293587317562f975985a6e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 08:34:11 2019 No.10830034 File: 191 KB, 1024x996, STM32F103VGT6-1024px-HD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10829936 >ST-Link STM32 fuck yeah

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 09:10:30 2019 No.10830090 >>10829928 it's 'could have', bucko

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 09:48:08 2019 No.10830146 >>10825842 Does this version of Orion still lack toilets or was that a meme?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 09:48:13 2019 No.10830148 >>10829936 I would petition my uni to get one going but the paperwork literally takes like four years alone

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 09:50:50 2019 No.10830152 >>10830148 And it'll take longer before it launches. My uni has a satellite thats been ready to launch for 5 years. There have been students who worked on it and graduated without seeing much progress on it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 10:01:03 2019 No.10830168 >>10830146 What, are you too good to shit in a plastic sandwich bag?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 10:03:58 2019 No.10830173 >>10830168 I'd rather not have to poop in a diaper and have to sit in it for 3 days on the way to the moon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 10:10:24 2019 No.10830184 >>10830173 no, you poop in a baggy look up how Gemini and Apollo handled their waste https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 10:31:15 2019 No.10830219 >>10828833 Just watch it from youtube dumbass. They want engineers not dumb people.

Anonymous Tue Jul 23 11:12:22 2019 No.10830282

>>10829782
>which was proven entirely correct by the challenger disaster
Actually, it was proven dead wrong. Contrary to popular belief, the crew capsule of Challenger survived the explosion; the forces weren't anywhere near what the compartment was designed to tolerate, and the connected, trailing debris stabilized it's descent. The flight crew was also aware of the anomaly before the explosion, and it's very possible the crew didn't die until impact with the ocean. If the ejection seats were available, it's fairly likely the pilot and commander could have survived, and had the crew compartment been fitted with an airframe parachute, and even better had been jettisonable, the entire crew could have potentially survived.

Anonymous Tue Jul 23 11:18:08 2019 No.10830292

>>10830282
>had the crew compartment been fitted with an airframe parachute, and even better had been jettisonable, the entire crew could have potentially survived.
Yeah, but this is the same program that stopped painting their propellant tanks to gain a whooping ~250 kg of payload, so adding a parachute and cockpit jettison system would have been seen as too costly payload mass-wise.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 11:18:10 2019 No.10830293 >>10830282 Yup. Shuttle II was gonna have a whole detachable crew module after what happened with Challenger of course it never got built

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 11:21:00 2019 No.10830300 >>10830034 Atollic is a piece of a shit ide to program in though

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 12:23:23 2019 No.10830438 >>10830034 is that a factorio blueprint?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 12:56:42 2019 No.10830529 >>10830438 close, it's something completely different.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 13:03:52 2019 No.10830548 File: 62 KB, 640x432, NO THE OTHER ONE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10830438

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 13:33:13 2019 No.10830632 Light sail deployment stream soon https://youtu.be/LxcsLSpFV4c

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 13:33:27 2019 No.10830633 >>10830548 >expecting me to know what a "random assortment of letter and numbers" is

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 13:51:01 2019 No.10830679 File: 328 KB, 497x658, 1412715664959.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10830633

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 14:25:41 2019 No.10830746 >>10830632 could someone spoonfeed this to me? whats the relevance? will it be bigger htan the preivous one?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 15:05:05 2019 No.10830852 >>10830632 Deployment complete! (according to telemetry) Sounds like they've broken their curse! They have a shoestring budget, so they have to wait for the next pass to download the more digestible data like onboard camera images.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 15:16:29 2019 No.10830870 wait, super heavy has legs now? And twice the output of the saturn now? what kind of monster are they making and how long before they start scaling it down.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 15:18:14 2019 No.10830875 >>10830870 >how long before they start scaling it down? I give it 6 months to a year.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 15:23:34 2019 No.10830887 >>10830870 >>10830875 https://youtu.be/VtJUHGjVm0E

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 16:06:09 2019 No.10830992 >>10830870 >And twice the output of the saturn now Heh made me check and you are 100% correct. This will be a monster to watch

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 16:08:50 2019 No.10830998 >no step on snek

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 16:10:00 2019 No.10831001 File: 3.37 MB, 4770x3687, DSC_4955 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >no step on snek nice

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 16:13:34 2019 No.10831016 >>10831001 Someone shop Musk's face on that one gasdsden flag edit that says "fuck around and find out", you know the one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 16:38:11 2019 No.10831056 File: 449 KB, 2463x3178, 1555023469296.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] HOP WHEN

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 23 17:02:48 2019 No.10831107 New thread >>10831106

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math