/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.10886029]

Solids edition
old >>10879195

[Anonymous No.10886034]

space is gay

[Anonymous No.10886043]

I'm gay for space

[Anonymous No.10886046]

>>10886034
You're gay

[Anonymous No.10886047]

>MUH SOLIDS

[Anonymous No.10886050]

>>10886029
I want to FUCK space's ass

[Anonymous No.10886053]

>>10886047
the CASTOR 1200, is that a Shuttle 4 segment SRB or an SLS 5 segment?

[Anonymous No.10886082]

Abandon thread

[Anonymous No.10886091]

>>10886001
If you're that anon, then what's the update?

[Anonymous No.10886093]

>>10886053
well if the naming scheme is a clue and I can only see two segments in this graphic then I'd assume an SLS booster would count as a CASTOR 1500, and that the heavy version is more like a shuttle 4 segment design

[Anonymous No.10886101]

>>10886093
hmmmm

[Anonymous No.10886125]

>>10886101
says right in the last paragraph "Based on a 4 segment Space Shuttle SRB", yet also says it could replace the current 5 segment booster design on future SLS rockets. Maybe the materials switch among other things brings the specific impulse up or the weight down or something else so it can do the job just as well? Maybe it's the switch from steel to carbon composites alone. Anyway SLS a shit.

[Anonymous No.10886127]

>>10886125
yeah that whole thing was written as an advertisement for sure

[Anonymous No.10886133]

>>10886053
Pretty sure they took the shuttle variant and upgraded it with some composites and another segment. So I think it's been designed separately from the SLS models.

[Anonymous No.10886138]

>>10886091
Sorry anon, not he.

[Anonymous No.10886140]

>>10886133
literally the only thing in common is the external dimensions, they swapped out the case material AND the binder

[Anonymous No.10886252]

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

A neat video I've found about the J-2.

[Anonymous No.10886412]

>>10886029
Why hasn't this company, with all its backing and influence, done anything interesting?

[Anonymous No.10886417]

>>10886412
Because they prefer to do things the "old" way of thorough testing and studies before the first launch, and they're not interested in pleasing the public. Really, Blue Origin is like an anti-SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.10886423]

>>10886412
>Slow and steady wins the race

Except when your main competition is two generations ahead of you.

[Anonymous No.10886424]

>>10886412
Cause Bezos is too rich and they don't really have to bring in revenue. SpaceX on the other hand has a living meme as their founder and needs to quickly generate profit to survive.

[Anonymous No.10886494]

>>10886046
Why should someone be gay?

[Anonymous No.10886510]

>the iss is shit because its in a bad orbit
whats a good orbit for a station to be in?

[Anonymous No.10886512]

>>10886510
It can still do good in LEO, such as being refitted as a propellant depot.

[Anonymous No.10886515]

>>10886510
Not one where you have to cater to Kazakhstan.

[Anonymous No.10886518]

>>10886512
This

[Anonymous No.10886539]

>>10886510
equatorial would be nice
the lowest inclination for your launch site, basically

[Anonymous No.10886559]

>>10886424
How do I also scam Jeffy out of some money then?

[Anonymous No.10886581]

>worked at Vector
>won't ever buy food from that greasy white food truck ever again

Hold me bros

[Anonymous No.10886591]

>>10886512
So the station boosts itself into a higher orbit now and then in order to account for the thin drag it encounters, right? And the station is due to be decommissioned and allowed to deorbit sometime in the not to distant future?
So what would it cost to raise its orbit high enough to be just a sometimes-manned propellant depot?

[Anonymous No.10886600]

>>10886412
Imagine the fable of the tortoise and the hare, but in this version the tortoise is the one slacking off and the hare is starving and on the run from a pack of wolves.

[Anonymous No.10886605]

>>10886581
rip anon
Go apply to EXOS they need peeps for Jaguar

[Anonymous No.10886615]

>>10886600
do the wolves have Richard Shelby's face on them

[Anonymous No.10886634]

>>10886615
I can imagine nothing more horrifying

[Anonymous No.10886661]

>>10886138
Here's the better quality/smoother video of the fairing.

[Anonymous No.10886675]

Starhopper 200meter this coming friday/sat/sun

[Anonymous No.10886721]

>>10886029
Kinda sad the orbital stage is liquid. They could've broken new ground in meme rocket technology.

[Anonymous No.10886727]

>>10886675
H Y P E

Y

P

E

[Anonymous No.10886730]

>>10886133
Good news for employment in the United States. Using one component for several rockets would've been really dangerous for jobs throughout America.

[Anonymous No.10886765]

>>10886417
Did them a lot of good, huh. It's almost like Elon is right.

[Anonymous No.10886793]

Really disappointed Hopper isn’t the full old school rocket shape.

Starship will be worth it tho.

[Anonymous No.10886816]

>>10886793
It was going to be, but Pedro didn't secure it properly and it wasn't worth making another hat.

[Anonymous No.10886852]

>>10886721
>we have constructed a rocket entirely out of solids
>how do you control the final orbital insertion?
>control???

[Anonymous No.10886860]

>>10886852
Look up how LES solids control them. You still can "turn off" a solid booster by opening a chamber to thrust at the opposite direction and cancel out the acceleration.

[Anonymous No.10886863]

>>10886860
and cook the satellite?

[Anonymous No.10886867]

>>10886863
no need to go directly retrograde. Just go few degrees off and a bit harder and boom you cancel the prograde thrust

[Anonymous No.10886872]

>>10886600
...and the tortoise refuses to take a step without thinking about it for five minutes first. Every. Step.

[Anonymous No.10886874]

>>10886816
>Pedro
>hat
Now you've got me imagining hopper with a sombrero on top.

[Anonymous No.10886933]

>>10886417
How is Blue Origin different from old space, at this point?

[Anonymous No.10887046]

>>10886933
They are developing semi reuseable rockets and will go full reuseable eventually. They are working on projects that won't be forever delayed for more gibs.

[Anonymous No.10887053]

>>10886510
low equatorial orbit is the only orbit where you do not need several meters of galactic cosmic ray shielding

[Anonymous No.10887185]

>>10886933
This >>10887046, they are playing new space game while pretending to be old space, and they have a goal, even if it is very very far away, which is O'Neill colonies.
The cynical inside me says they are getting close to old space just to make sure the backstab will kill it

[Anonymous No.10887249]

>>10886412
Honestly. That stupid moon lander Bezos revealed compared to BFR. Laughable man. Ha ha!

But it will still be funny if BO get there before SLS.

[Anonymous No.10887459]

>>10887053
>>10886510

Correct, equatorial LEO is where it is at, see piccy

[Anonymous No.10887462]

Dumping my space infographics/redpills image collection.

[Anonymous No.10887463]

>>10887462

[Anonymous No.10887464]

>>10887463

[Anonymous No.10887465]

>>10887464

[Anonymous No.10887467]

>>10887465

[Anonymous No.10887468]

>>10887467

[Anonymous No.10887474]

>>10887468

[Anonymous No.10887478]

>>10887474

[Anonymous No.10887480]

>>10887478

[Anonymous No.10887482]

>>10887480

[Anonymous No.10887484]

>>10887482

[Anonymous No.10887487]

>>10887484

[Anonymous No.10887489]

>>10887487

[Anonymous No.10887490]

>>10887489

[Anonymous No.10887493]

>>10887490

[Anonymous No.10887496]

>>10887493

[Anonymous No.10887497]

>>10887496

[Anonymous No.10887499]

>>10887497

[Anonymous No.10887504]

>>10887499

[Anonymous No.10887505]

>>10887504

[Anonymous No.10887599]

cool site

http://developspace.info/index.html

[Anonymous No.10887602]

>>10887468
This needs to be a spinning gif.

[Anonymous No.10887731]

>>10887474
Except the long term effects of reduced gravity have never been tester.
Never.

[Anonymous No.10887738]

>>10887731
I agree, those reactionary jelly-baby fags need to fuck off, they're not even reacting to reality they're immersed in their own pessimistic fantasy

[Anonymous No.10887748]

Boca Chica livestream here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqZDeKHDwb4

[Anonymous No.10887751]

>>10887738
All we know, it's somewhere between being on Earth and being in the ISS.
Where the cursor lies is totally unknown.
I say we send a colony of mice to Mars and see if their legs disappear.

[Anonymous No.10887752]

>>10887748
200m hop today?

[Anonymous No.10887753]

>>10887748
>>10887752

Member when Musk said hop in 2 month?
In january?

[Anonymous No.10887755]

>>10887752
no
hop later

[Anonymous No.10887757]

>>10887755
:(

[Anonymous No.10887760]

>>10886512
>propellant depot

NOOOO

[Anonymous No.10887763]

>>10887757

[Anonymous No.10887765]

>>10886512
Nah, it costs too much to maintain as is.

[Anonymous No.10887768]

>>10887763
>when you drew the short straw and have to guide your drunk friend home

[Anonymous No.10887771]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfM2VLvN9Ow

SNC about to do a livestream announcement concerning Dream Chaser shuttle

[Anonymous No.10887773]

>>10887771
aw sweet, I fucking love Dream Chaser

[Anonymous No.10887772]

>>10887765
NASA put's 3 to 4 billion USD into ISS per year to maintain it apparently. What does that money go into? What's NASA doing with the ISS which requires that much money? Is that money for extra stuff like resupply missions and experiments?

[Anonymous No.10887774]

>>10887771
Oh, I totally forgot they existed.

[Anonymous No.10887781]

>>10887772
That's just NASA.
With other agencies, I believe it's somewhere within 10-15 Billions.
All to learn that zero-G bad.

[Anonymous No.10887782]

>>10887771
First picture i have seen with the support vehicle.
Looks like a cancer growing out of its ass.

[Anonymous No.10887787]

>>10887771
>>10887782

[Anonymous No.10887788]

>>10887771
Hope the landing gear deploys next time.

[Anonymous No.10887789]

>>10887781
>All to learn that zero-G bad.
fucked up thing is the russians and americans already learned this with MIR,spacelab and a shitload of other missions.

[Anonymous No.10887790]

>>10887782
they really need to make it bigger and incorporate the support vehicle into the aeroshell

[Anonymous No.10887792]

>>10887781
>That's just NASA.
Well it shouldn't.

>All to learn that zero-G bad.
It seems more like it was just meant as a token of peace between nations rather than a useful piece of equipment.

[Anonymous No.10887796]

>>10887792
Well I meant that was NASA's part in the budget.

[Anonymous No.10887803]

>>10887796
Oops, that's embarrassing. So long.

[Anonymous No.10887804]

>>10887771

It looks fucking horrible.

[Anonymous No.10887808]

>SLS Never
>Sad_Pepe.jpg

[Anonymous No.10887814]

>>10887808
No, SLS will be a thing eventually. It should've been a thing earlier, but now it's been so delayed that it's usefulness as a thing is being questioned by all except it's most staunch supporters. So now it's kinda limping along as a thing, carried by it's momentum.

[Anonymous No.10887819]

So 3 launches this year for ESA.
How are they not going out of business?

[Anonymous No.10887821]

>>10887804
it would look 100x better if it recovered the supply/support module inside the aeroshell

[Anonymous No.10887833]

>>10887771

[Anonymous No.10887845]

>>10887731
>>10887738
Well we know that life in microgravity (leo) is generally really bad for your health, even if you excersise and try to combat the effects.

Life in low gravity would likely be better than in micro but still shitty. You could probably expect to excersise 2-4 hours a day minimum, and you would have to take calcium, iron, and vitamin D, daily.

That could have severe implications on the development of children. I won't go full jellow babies but it will have SOME effect.

The sad truth is that humans are optimised for a specific gravity and it's difficult if not impossible for us to thrive long term outside of that gravity.

[Anonymous No.10887849]

>>10887845
you don't have ANY data to back that up, so quit trying to pass your speculation off as facts

[Anonymous No.10887854]

>>10887845
No. It's not microgravity.
It's No gravity.
There just is not any data point between 0 and 1G.

[Anonymous No.10887858]

Sierra Nevada webcast is live
https://youtu.be/JfM2VLvN9Ow
who fucking knows which 12:30 they're talking about

[Anonymous No.10887868]

>>10887858
Fucking ULA logo.
3 launches this year so far.
Why should we care?

[Anonymous No.10887872]

>>10887849
Reading comprehension isn't your friend. I never implied anything I posted was fact, merely conjecture based off the limited data available. But please continue to stick your head in the sand and ignore that microgravity and low gravity likely have similar effects on the body. You have no data to back up your claims just as I have none to backup mine.

>>10887854
LEO is microgravity. It's very close to 0g but there is still a tiny amount of gravity experienced in LEO. Truly zero 0 wouldn't be experienced until you left the Solar system, and the closest a human is likely to get would be leaving Earth's SOI

[Anonymous No.10887875]

>>10887872
>LEO is microgravity
You're just retarded, I guess.

[Anonymous No.10887878]

>>10887872
no, that would also be microgravity
gravity is a universal force, anyway the point is that it's effectively zero gravity compared to the tin can you're floating in due to both being in free-fall around the earth

[Anonymous No.10887887]

oh look, it just started.
What a waste of moneys.

[Anonymous No.10887888]

>selecting ULA as the launch provider for Dream Chaser missions to ISS

[Anonymous No.10887889]

>Vulcan
Oh no.

[Anonymous No.10887891]

>>10887889
>2021
>Sierra Nevada Corp is happy to announce we're launching Dream Chaser with Starship

[Anonymous No.10887897]

After watching them for 3 hours this morning, it does not appear that they are going to remove the nosecone but reattaching it to fit correctly.

[Anonymous No.10887898]

>>10887891
>2021
I'm really sorry, anon.
While Musk delays are a thing, you should add a decade to old-space delays.

[Anonymous No.10887899]

>>10887858

WHERE MA BOY SHELBY AT?
FUCK ORBITAL FUEL DEPOTS!!
USA USA!!!

[Anonymous No.10887900]

>>10887897
Why do you still watch that?
It's been boring af for 6 month.
I'm actually starting to wonder what they fucking do all day.

[Anonymous No.10887918]

Sierra Nevada should have just bit the dust when they crashed their shit.
Maybe Dragon-fly would have happened then.

[Anonymous No.10887921]

>>10887752
FridaySatSunday. Texas time.

[Anonymous No.10887922]

>>10887899
ORBITAL PROPELLANT DEPOTS ARE LITERALLY COMMUNISM!!!!

[Anonymous No.10887924]

>Space tourism
As if anyone would pay for this, when they can't fit a human in the vehicle.
How retarded are journos?

[Anonymous No.10887927]

Well that was underwelming.
All we know it's getting delayed because Vulcan.

[Anonymous No.10887932]

>>10887858
Shit mic quality.

[Anonymous No.10887935]

>>10887932
Yup, I turned it off and will just be waiting for the news articles

[Anonymous No.10887936]

Quick recap.
2023 because uses Vulkan.
Elon will be on the way to Mars by then.

[Anonymous No.10887983]

>>10887771
>ULA
why didn'tt they pick spacex?

[Anonymous No.10888014]

>>10887983
A. bribes
B. they're convinced that they can still win the government contracts despite the higher launch price due to the government not being responsible with money
C. ULA mind control rays

[Anonymous No.10888044]

>>10887819
Based SpaceX steamrolling the market.

>How are they not going out of business?
Support from the government(s)

[Anonymous No.10888080]

>>10888044
Don't tell, but ULA is same.

[Anonymous No.10888084]

>>10888044
>>10888080
yeah, but ESA is working with a lot less then NASA so there is that.

[Anonymous No.10888090]

>>10888080
same, huh

[Anonymous No.10888099]

>>10888084
Not really.
And it's shameful.

[Anonymous No.10888236]

>>10887858
>Sierra Nevada
I always forget they exist

[Anonymous No.10888330]

Rate my purchases today

[Anonymous No.10888364]

>>10888330
If you liked Rendezvous with Rama at all, you'll love A More in God's Eye.

[Anonymous No.10888369]

>>10888364
Mote you mean? Already got that. I have a lot of Pournelle

[Anonymous No.10888528]

>>10888330
I just finished listening to the audiobook of Rama Revealed, pretty good find anon, good stuff.
>>10888364
Added to my list.

[Anonymous No.10888554]

tiles

[Anonymous No.10888560]

>>10888554
whoops these are the tiles. that's the thrust structure with plumbing installed

[Anonymous No.10888561]

>>10888554
that's the three engine thrust structure, right?

[Anonymous No.10888566]

>>10888560
why'd they install the tiles on the hopper?

[Anonymous No.10888569]

>>10888560
uWu what's this now?

[Anonymous No.10888575]

>>10888566
SpaceX is showing their allegiance to the Texan Bee Monarchy. Those tiles are it's sigil.

[Anonymous No.10888662]

>>10888566
Training people on proper attachment procedures.

If you have a mockup of the flight article, why not use it for everything?

[Anonymous No.10888667]

>>10888554
worlds largest hubcap

[Anonymous No.10888886]

>>10888566
Prime opportunity to see how it reacts to the stresses of actual flight, like vibration, possible impacts by dust and debris, and the freezing temperature of that tank when it's loaded with propellant.
Also it just looks pretty neat.

[Anonymous No.10888891]

>>10888886
all excellent points

[Anonymous No.10889124]

Which one of you nerds did this on /tv/?

[Anonymous No.10889130]

APOLOGIZE
phys.org/news/2019-08-james-webb-space-telescope-trappist-.html

[Anonymous No.10889142]

>>10889130
I've always wondered how all the conspiracy theorists end up on phys.org

[Anonymous No.10889154]

>>10888560
I wish they didn't put that stupid shiny shit on the hopper.
It looks like shit; it just gets in the way and is pointless...

[Anonymous No.10889162]

>>10889130
Yeah but it's going to blow up on the pad lmao.

[Anonymous No.10889263]

[Anonymous No.10889336]

>>10889263
Wonder what material these panels are?

[Anonymous No.10889465]

I'm sad we'll never see Falcon-Dream Chaser
I'm still hopeful for Starship-Dream Chaser

[Anonymous No.10889468]

>>10889263
What kind of screws do they need to attach them ?
I guess the head of the screw can be made of the same material ?

[Anonymous No.10889486]

>>10889465
>Staship-dream chaser

What's the point, the upper stage is pretty much a spaceplane anyway.

[Anonymous No.10889490]

>>10889468
probably stainless screws/rivets
if screws, I bet they use torx heads

[Anonymous No.10889513]

>>10889490
I guess my question was more like how do you prevent them from melting

[Anonymous No.10889539]

>>10889486
Don‘t call Starship a plane. It doesn‘t generate lift.

[Anonymous No.10889548]

>>10889539
That's why I said pretty much, it's a reusable upper stage that aerobrakes to slow down and can maneuver on re entry, stop splitting hairs.

[Anonymous No.10889570]

>>10889548
You very specifically called it a spaceplane. Stop splitting hairs.

[Anonymous No.10889609]

>>10889570
Fuck off autist

[Anonymous No.10889715]

Give it to me straight /sfg/, how likely is affordable space tourism within my lifetime? I want to see the Moon before I die.

[Anonymous No.10889717]

>>10889715
Depends how rich you are. I guess it's affordable for Bezos now, if he could only pull his finger out

[Anonymous No.10889729]

>>10889715
Depends on what you mean by affordable. If you meant $100 tickets, then very unlikely. If we're talking about $100K, then chances are very likely within the next 20 years. If you mean $10K, then probably not.

[Anonymous No.10889760]

>>10889715
Whats with all the black squiggly lines?

[Anonymous No.10889851]

Yuropoor Space Agency thought the future of cheap launches would be mass produced expendable solid rockets. They also hated reusable because it wouldn't employ enough people because fewer rockets to make.

[Anonymous No.10889870]

>>10889851
Source?

[Anonymous No.10889986]

>>10889570
What a loser.

[Anonymous No.10890061]

SpaceX might not be able to hop this weekend. FAA hasn't approved their launches yet. Might be pushed to next week or more.

[Anonymous No.10890100]

>>10889851
Imagine a fully automated factory churning out big, dumb, reliable, expendable solid rockets. Contrast that with Falcon 9, which has a considerable up front cost, and which has to be transported back to the workshop after landing, and then undergo weeks of refurb and testing before it's ready to go again.

Couldn't solid rockets actually in theory be cheaper if done right?

[Anonymous No.10890132]

>>10890100
>weeks of refurb and testing
>weeks
Go home Tory, you're drunk.

[Anonymous No.10890167]

>>10889486
that's the meme

[Anonymous No.10890168]

>>10890100
Transportation and refurbishing can't be THAT expensive.

Even just recovering the fairing (which afaik costs about 5-10 million, according to Musk) would pay for itself.

[Anonymous No.10890169]

>>10889715
go outside then, nigger, it's right fucking there, you can go look at it

[Anonymous No.10890179]

>>10890100
HERE'S WHY SOLIDS SUCK:
>solid rockets have a performance shortfall, so you need to make them bigger
>solid rockets can't be moved while empty, they're always full of fuel which makes them fuckheavy and a pain in the ass to move. You can move and stack a F9 or a starship with a standard-ass mobile crane for F9 and a larger crawler crane for Starship, but the solids weigh too much for that

[Anonymous No.10890183]

>>10890132

https://youtu.be/v4gOLDEBn_k

Skip to 2.06 where it shows the refurb process. Currently takes weeks

[Anonymous No.10890194]

>>10890168
I would have thought with a fully automated production line you could get the cost way down

>>10890179
So build them bigger and next to launch site

I'm just interested in the theoretical lowest cost, you know, for a fully automated factory. You'd think the cost could be brought down to a little more than materials once fully up and running.

[Anonymous No.10890198]

>>10890194
nah, at a certain point the giant steel casings and really huge quantities of solid rocket propellant become too expensive
there's too much high energy chemistry for it to ever be properly automated without literally exploding in there

[Anonymous No.10890201]

>>10889715
Get a telescope or binoculars and look up.

[Anonymous No.10890203]

>>10890168
>Transportation and refurbishing can't be THAT expensive.
Considering that the only other large scale reusable launcher is the Shuttle, then it makes sense that most people believe that refurbishment is expensive.

[Anonymous No.10890224]

>>10890194
>So build them bigger and next to launch site
But all the SRB jerbs are in Alabama. Can't move them anywhere else!

[Anonymous No.10890244]

>>10890224
Kek

Still plenty of mileage left in this

[Anonymous No.10890248]

>>10890244
In theory, this meme could get more mileage if we use a propellant depot.

[Anonymous No.10890251]

>>10890203
It's more that I wonder how low the cost of commodity solid rockets could be

[Anonymous No.10890255]

>>10890198
Makes sense. The SRB build process looks pretty sketchy indeed.

[Anonymous No.10890257]

>>10890100
in order for a rocket to be reliable, whether it's solid or liquid or whatever, it'll need that testing, it'll need precision manufacturing, it'll need fault tolerant electronics and complicated software

cheap solid boosters are a meme from KSP; they aren't cheap in real life. they have other advantages! density, storability, thrust. not cheap though

[Anonymous No.10890259]

>>10890255
SRB build process is so sketchy that I am advocating for fucking cryogenic oxygen which is an impossibly stupid crazy substance that if you spill it on concrete will make it explode like a bomb at the slightest provocation, hours or weeks down the line

[Anonymous No.10890278]

I want to listen into this Elon-FAA phone call in a few hours so badly

[Anonymous No.10890365]

>>10890257
Rats. Space gun it is then.

Anyone heard any news on Slingatron?

[Anonymous No.10890373]

>>10890365
space guns only work on airless bodies or small planets, Earth is both too big and has too much atmosphere to make it work from the surface

[Anonymous No.10890426]

>>10890373
What about project HAARP though

[Anonymous No.10890434]

>>10890426
it's a big flashlight that they use to poke at the sky

[Anonymous No.10890438]

>>10887462
>cis
triggered

[Anonymous No.10890445]

>>10890438
t. transloon

[Anonymous No.10890460]

>>10890434
Shit HARP Gerald Bull supergun jobby

[Anonymous No.10890471]

>>10890248
No. It has to be situational and cumbersome.

[Anonymous No.10890480]

>>10890259
So perhaps some kind of lid is in order

[Anonymous No.10890531]

>Good conversation with head of FAA Space. Need a bit more hazard analysis & should be clear to fly soon.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1162096454367756288

[Anonymous No.10890551]

>>10890531
i am excite

[Anonymous No.10890555]

>>10889715
Build a career that will get you sent to space. Thats what I'm doing.

[Anonymous No.10890588]

>>10890531
>hop delayed
>probably means presentation delayed

[Anonymous No.10890618]

How long after permanent habitats on moon that people start to whine about night sky being ruined?

[Anonymous No.10890622]

>>10890618
couple of months ago after the initial deployment of the Starlink satellites
they were really bright as they sorted themselves out

[Anonymous No.10890662]

>NASA needed a rocket larger than anything else it was flying
>will be used to establish new missions towards putting boots on the moon
>even though NASA could barely get people into LEO
>NASA couldn't afford to make new parts
>spare parts from other rockets are used to make development faster and cheaper
>was nearly cancelled but came back with a vengeance
>developed and flown faster than estimated
>helped NASA send people to the moon
>remembered fondly by spaceflight fans
>feels good to be the Saturn I
>pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.10890668]

>>10890662
kek

[Anonymous No.10890670]

>>10890662
>pic unrelated

Considering that unlike Saturn I the SLS will actually take people to the moon?

[Anonymous No.10890694]

>>10890670
True, but the SLS definitely has not been developed and flown faster than estimated. And I doubt that it'll be remembered fondly except by SLS contractors and Shelby.

[Anonymous No.10890704]

>>10890670
Neither SLS Block 1 nor Saturn I are capable of a lunar landing mission (in one shot, both can do it with EOR). You need at least Block 2 for a landing, and Block 2 will probably never fly.

[Anonymous No.10890711]

>>10890704
>Saturn 1 EOR LOR combo to the moon
holy fuck, how many launches?

[Anonymous No.10890720]

>>10890711
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/ch8.htm
According to this, 10 Saturn I's. It could probably be done in fewer using modern technology.

[Anonymous No.10890722]

>>10890711
Are we about to use Saturn IB? With IB, probably three launches. Apollo CSM, lander, kick stage. Without it, we're going for some Lunar Gemini memes and open-cockpit landers.

[Anonymous No.10890735]

>>10890722
>lunar gemini memes and open-cockpit landers
I believe

[Anonymous No.10890738]

>>10890704
A dishonest analogy considering the Saturn I will never conduct a Lunar mission.

[Anonymous No.10890745]

>>10890738
Neither will SLS

[Anonymous No.10890752]

>>10890745
SLS will carry astronauts directly to hell much more efficiently than the Shuttle.

[Anonymous No.10890754]

>>10890662

[Anonymous No.10890758]

>>10890745
You sound like the people who said SpaceX would never land a rocket.

[Anonymous No.10890761]

>>10890754
How so? lol

[Anonymous No.10890783]

>>10890758
During SLS's development, SpaceX has went from the Falcon 1 to Starship test articles. SLS has gone from a collection of shuttle parts, to a collection of shuttle parts and a main tank.

[Anonymous No.10890793]

>>10890783
>Saturn I
>Just strap 9 heavily modified tanks together, bolt a thrust-plate on the bottom, and then mount 8 upgrades of preexisting engines to the bottom. All in a rushed design. Done in less than half a decade.

>SLS
>Mount 4 engines that are already made to a new tank which was based on a preexisting tank, and then bolt upgraded versions of SRBs on the side. This design has been studied for decades. Over a decade later, and some doubt that it'll fly.

[Anonymous No.10890808]

>>10890783
Reduction to absurdity is not a good way to make your case.

[Anonymous No.10890818]

>>10890808
I simply stated the progress both systems have made in the same time frame. If there's any absurdity there, it's in the delays SLS has had.

[Anonymous No.10890823]

>>10890808
everything he said was true

[Anonymous No.10890827]

>>10890818
You could have defended your descriptions of Falcon One/Nine and SLS but instead you chose to change topics to something no one disagrees with you about.

[Anonymous No.10890873]

>>10890827
What are you even on about at this point? Go away schizo.

[Anonymous No.10890885]

Nose cone is off

[Anonymous No.10890888]

>>10890885
wow holy shit

[Anonymous No.10890891]

>>10890622
I'm looking forward to the next two decks of Starlink cards being shuffled. This could be the first time so much salt has been in orbit.
>>10890758
SLS has never reached the moon a lot longer than SpaceX never landed a rocket.
It has also never flown a lot longer than SpaceX never landed a rocket.

[Anonymous No.10890896]

>>10890891
I don't believe anything will ever surpass the salt levels after Sputnik 1 beep beeped overhead

[Anonymous No.10890903]

>>10890896
>Sputnik
>salt
I think it's less salt and more "holy fuck, that could be a nuke coming to delete America! why don't we have our own?"

[Anonymous No.10890920]

>>10890896
Sputnik's beep was more the sound of Korolev trolling both sides into a space race.
Russians don't care about space exploration? Launch a spare missile with a little radio beeper instead of a heavy warhead, get the Americans freaked out into a space race, then the Americans get the Russians to join the space race.

[Anonymous No.10890922]

>>10890873
>say something stupid
>get called on it
>sputter and stumble trying to defend yourself

[Anonymous No.10890929]

>>10890922
>say something correct
>you call it absurd with nothing backing your response
>thinks it's on me to defend my post
Make a substantive countargument if you want a substantive reply.

[Anonymous No.10890930]

>>10890873
Don't reply to him again, he seems to just want to derail and shitpost now.

[Anonymous No.10890931]

>>10890920
you had salt at the very top of the command chains of the most powerful nations on Earth

[Anonymous No.10890953]

>>10890758
SLS is the standard procedure, so standard estimates apply. SpaceX is the disruptor with multiple innovations, thus standard estimates do not apply.

[Anonymous No.10890960]

>>10890953
>SLS
>standard procedure
I hope not! SLS is more slow and steady than Blue Origin.

[Anonymous No.10890964]

>>10890953
>standard procedure
it wasn't always this way, SpaceX is a return to roots

[Anonymous No.10891012]

>>10890964
The roots oft he 70s.

[Anonymous No.10891015]

>>10891012
no, the good old days of the 60s

[Anonymous No.10891035]

>Stacking tanks and fairing soon at cocoa

Oh shit hype, it's gonna be huge nigga

[Anonymous No.10891050]

>>10890793
Why the fuck is the SLS taking so long? How hard can it be to build a literally bigger tank?

[Anonymous No.10891052]

Old space is such a flaming pile of trash.

[Anonymous No.10891081]

>>10891050
The argument boeing uses is "if its not SLS, then we waste all those engineers, so when there comes a time for a need, it wont be readily available"

[Anonymous No.10891085]

>>10891052
How do you know its old space? Looks like regular politics to me.

[Anonymous No.10891090]

>>10891050
If it went fast, then how would contractors keep taxpayer money flowing into their pockets for decades on end?

[Anonymous No.10891100]

>>10891081
I had a buddy who worked at Boeing for a brief stint. He was told at an interview that it was good he got out when he did (after only a year) because most people refuse to hire out of Boeing due to how shit the corporate culture is over there

[Anonymous No.10891110]

>>10891100
Right now the hottest space engineers are the ones from SpaceX. Everyone wants to work at SpaceX, and everyone wants to hire former SpaceX employees. Failure at SpaceX doesn't mean failure in general, but rather they have a higher burnout rate due to higher requirement as SpaceX is very demanding and very ambitious in its goals.

[Anonymous No.10891117]

>>10891050
I don't know if there ever be a full study on why SLS is taking a while, but I have found some legitimate reasons why the SLS has been taking longer than expected.

>The core tank is pretty much a new design compared to the Shuttle tank and thus required the factory that made Shuttle tanks to retool (and that ran into problems)
>The thrust structure which mounted the RS-25s kept breaking during testing
>The control computer had to be made new because the old Shuttle computer couldn't handle the new rocket in both software and hardware
>Apparently the software on the control computer was a nightmare to do, because NASA originally wanted to just build on top of old code which turned out to not be feasible

And there's probably some others that I'm missing. While you might think "those seem like legitimate issues, but that can't explain the massive delay", and I believe that you are correct. These did cause delays, but the delays ended up being protracted by the contractors building the SLS because NASA's management was practically encouraging them. Whenever a contractor didn't meet a milestone on time, NASA would just give them the reward money for meeting the milestone with essentially a pinky promise to be on schedule next time. While this along with other practices NASA was doing which encouraged slow development eventually (apparently) stopped after the OIG report on SLS last year, it perfectly explains why the SLS is taking so long. No one is motivated to anything quickly. In fact, there's motivation to take as long as possible to finish the thing.

Whenever if that's due to corruption, incompetence, or both is up to you, but it's shameful in any way.

[Anonymous No.10891153]

How much per kg will it cost to send something to Mars?

[Anonymous No.10891157]

How realistic are FRC, Magneto Inertial Fusion, and Magnetized Target Fusion rockets? Are they the closest thing we have to being able to scoot around the Solar System in a relatively quick way?

[Anonymous No.10891188]

>>10890752
Kek

[Anonymous No.10891200]

>>10891085
They're closely tied together.

[Anonymous No.10891235]

Hop date has been updated. Its now coming monday-wednesday instead of the weekends. Aug 19-21. Possibly due to slight FAA delays.

[Anonymous No.10891259]

>>10891157
Not even close, z pinch with fissile initiators might be possible but at that point you pretty much have project Orion anyway with all the problems that comes with.

[Anonymous No.10891349]

>>10891157
>>10891259
Explain these to a brainlet please

[Anonymous No.10891388]

>>10891052
Based Lion Ted, standing up against the old-space lunar lander.

>The core tank is pretty much a new design
Why did they think the old design was usable?
>The thrust structure kept breaking during testing
Why didn't they know its structural limits, or notice that it needed reinforcement?
>the old Shuttle computer couldn't handle the new rocket
Why did they think it would work in the first place? This isn't Shuttle, even if it used (or was supposed to) the same parts? Isn't it built around the 386 anyhow? Even Linux stopped supporting the 386 a few years ago.
Did they just get a conference of managers together with a Senate committee to design the thing? Was there no oversight on the initial design? How is any of this a "legitimate" reason? An excuse, maybe.

[Anonymous No.10891395]

>>10891388
forgot to quote >>10891117

[Anonymous No.10891397]

>>10891349
Fusion drives using magnets as starters and fusion drives using nukes as starters.

[Anonymous No.10891436]

>>10891388
>Why did they think the old design was usable?
I don't think that the old tank was ever considered other than in the Jupiter proposal. It's just that getting the tooling in the Shuttle tank factory redone was a pain.

>Why didn't they know its structural limits, or notice that it needed reinforcement?
No clue. My guess is that they were practicing the old aerospace philosophy of only adding extra mass where absolutely necessary, so they decided to take the extra time to look into the data to find exactly where they need to reinforce the structure. I had a small tour of the place where NASA was testing the structure and they told me that it takes a month or two to look over the data from each test.

>Why did they think it would work in the first place?
Absolutely no clue. Management misunderstanding computing limitations and expecting the code monkeys to figure it out? I recall a discussion on NASA Watch where a supposed person working on the SLS avionics code (I can't find it now), and they said that management originally just wanted the Shuttle code to be quickly adapted to SLS.

>Did they just get a conference of managers together with a Senate committee to design the thing? Was there no oversight on the initial design?
Hard to say exactly what went on in the initial design of SLS without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but I'd imagine that SLS was politically designed rather than practically designed.

>How is any of this a "legitimate" reason?
Are you referring to the avionics point or all of them. I mean, any of them result in delays which are understandable. Retooling is a pain in the ass. Testing stuff very carefully takes time. And management misunderstanding software limitations and just expect IT to fix everything. But my final point really was that these reasonable delays were overblown by poor management by NASA.

[Anonymous No.10891469]

>why, yes, I do build depots, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.10891478]

>>10891469
holy shit fuck off this is like, the one thread on all of 4chan not absolutely infested by old shit overused memes, unironically kill yourself and become dead, stop being alive, you waste of oxygen, you absolute cretin

[Anonymous No.10891483]

>why yes i do build supply depots, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.10891485]

>>10891478
cope

[Anonymous No.10891491]

>>10891478
While I agree that the propellant depot memes need to be toned down abit, you seem to be overreacting just a tiny tiny bit, Shelby.

[Anonymous No.10891493]

>>10891491
no it was the chad meme that triggered me desu

[Anonymous No.10891498]

>>10891117
Here is another reason,

>SLS will take 250 technicians to keep schedule
>Boeing only hires 100 to save money
>Boeing asks for more money to "fix" the schedule

[Anonymous No.10891502]

>>10891397
They're a bit more than that. They pretty much combine magnetic confinement with inertial confinement into one reactor. The ideal goal is to have a fusion reactor that can easily make a torid plasma that is self sustaining that is then shot down the axis of the reactor into a liner which then go through nuclear fusion to produce energy, and therefore thrust. The way I would do it would be to make the fusion reaction as small as possible but to increase the rate of pulses to hundreds of small fusion reactions per second. Then use the fusion reaction to heat reaction mass like Hydrogen or Methane to get blasted out of an actual nozzle like an afterburner. Therefore you can achieve both high efficiency(compared to chemical rockets) along with high thrust. In the hopes to making a spacecraft that would be capable of doing constant acceleration burns throughout its journey. Making travel times substantially shorter.

[Anonymous No.10891505]

>Hop is cancelled
>Hop is back on
>Hop is cancelled
>Elon calls FAA
>Hop is back on
>mfw

[Anonymous No.10891507]

[Anonymous No.10891521]

>>10891478
U mad bro?

[Anonymous No.10891528]

>>10891507
Accurate

[Anonymous No.10891535]

>>10891521
yes that's I asked the offending user to kill himself rather than treat himself well and live a long and productive life

dunno why you needed this clarified

[Anonymous No.10891541]

>>10891535
Lel butthurt

[Anonymous No.10891545]

>>10891535
>yes, I do really hate depots memes, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.10891548]

>>10891535

[Anonymous No.10891578]

>>10891545
see
>>10891493

[Anonymous No.10891586]

>>10891578
Dude, the more you try to recover, the more you dig yourself in a hole. Just accept it.

[Anonymous No.10891589]

>>10891586
see
>>10891478

[Anonymous No.10891591]

>>10891589
seethe

[Anonymous No.10891595]

>>10891589

[Anonymous No.10891596]

>>10891591
see
>>10891478
but unironically

[Anonymous No.10891597]

>>10891596
cope

[Anonymous No.10891602]

>>10891597
>haha people care about /sfg/ not being a /mu/ tier unusable shithole, I'll show them!
why are you even here

[Anonymous No.10891608]

>>10891602
You're the one shitting up this thread though. Calm down.

pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.10891619]

>>10891608
how exactly do you expect a thread to self moderate if calling out shitposts is responded to with a flurry of shitposts
>just ignore lmao
worked great for /k/, /mu/, /g/, and every other board that used to have decent discussion and now literally cannot support any discussion at all

[Anonymous No.10891634]

>>10891619
>how exactly do you expect a thread to self moderate if calling out shitposts is responded to with a flurry of shitposts
Not by shitposting in return like in >>10891478. Just calmly say that the meme is starting to be overused and it should be toned down. And besides, the shitposts on /sfg/ are pretty tame and don't get alot of (You)'s. Again, calm down.

[Anonymous No.10891647]

depots lmao

[Anonymous No.10891651]

>>10891157
>Are they the closest thing we have to being able to scoot around the Solar System in a relatively quick way?
yes, getting fusion to work is really the best chance we have a quickly moving around the solar system. Personally I favor the FRC.

[Anonymous No.10891668]

>>10891647

[Anonymous No.10891684]

Why can't you dumb fucks learn to ignore shitposts and trolls fuck

[Anonymous No.10891714]

Here's a picture of a cool engine. Shame Blue Origin is secretive about this stuff so we can't rocket-gasm over it.

[Anonymous No.10891735]

>>10886933
A clear mandate, strong oversight, lots of venture capital, competent management, and no need to make an immediate profit

[Anonymous No.10891745]

>>10891684
Samefagging? Newfagging? Boredfagging?SHILLFAGGING? We will never know what causes retards to start the shit spiral, but we do know that Mr Bones wild ride never ends.

[Anonymous No.10891829]

>>10891714
It would be much more exciting if it wasn't for Raptor existing. As it stands its just a gimped raptor.

[Anonymous No.10891854]

>>10891829
It's not even remotely similar to Raptor. Different fuels, different cycles, vastly different thrust, and vastly different use case. You must be thinking of BE-4.

[Anonymous No.10891867]

>>10891854
Oh it's the Hydrogen one, my bad. Yeah that has the potential to be cool, will be interesting to see how reusable it is since Hydrogen fuel is probably going to be important on the moon for operations. Starship doesn't need a refuel to come back but there will be a need for small vehicles for luna use only and since they don't need much thrust because of fuck all gravity your fuel goes a long way.

[Anonymous No.10891875]

Anyone here about the University of Washington develop a new kind of Z-Pinch? Apparently it actually works, imagine that.

[Anonymous No.10891877]

>>10891875
If that actually worked the biggest application wouldn't be space travel, it would be putting those "direct energy converter" black boxes on both ends and mass producing fusion reactors.

[Anonymous No.10891886]

>>10886029

>Mercury-Redstone 1: rocket humorously lifts off a few inches, falls back down, free-standing, full of fuel, and inexplicably pops off its escape tower

>Skylab 1: uncrewed launch of station, foils and other gear all fucked up and station almost fails but for recovery by first crew stint

>Apollo 1: die in a fire

>Soyuz 1: die, just die

Branson, Musk, and India must all heed well: do not designate your first, real human-commit mission as "1". And don't try to skirt around it by calling it something else, either: The Columbia disaster was still the 113th shuttle flight. Just name your first mission "1", have it be an uncrewed thing, and then commit. (Branson and crew have already had their knock, but still).

Gaganyaan 1? An uncrewed orbital test flight.

Virgin Galactic's "1"? Something in which the key personnel only (and not customers) are aboard. Branson might nobly tempt fate here by volunteering as passenger for the first real "Virgin Galactic 1" flight (Beth Moses doesn't count).

[Anonymous No.10891892]

>>10891875
>Bro just use a direct energy converter lmao

[Anonymous No.10891894]

>>10891886
>inexplicably
seems like a pretty good time to use an escape tower desu

[Anonymous No.10891896]

>>10891892
a n e u t r o n i c b o r o n - h y d r o g e n f u s i o n

[Anonymous No.10891898]

>>10891896
actually it's proton-boron not hydrogen-boron disregard that I suck atoms

[Anonymous No.10891904]

>>10891896
>>10891898
I think if they had made a positive Q fusion reaction of any kind we would know about it by now.

[Anonymous No.10891916]

>>10891894

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te_3gfOoh8c (final seconds, I actually don't know that this footage depicts MR1 but am currently looking into it, same humorous idea anyway) I welcome any help ITT to identify the various launch fails humorously depicted in the Right Stuff launch fail montage.

[Anonymous No.10891949]

>>10891904
Apparently they detected trace amounts of neutron radiation from some of the tests, indicating that a tiny amount of the fuel being used was successfully fused along with the fact that there seemingly is nothing stopping them from simply upscaling the design into a much larger, much more powerful reactor. This whole idea of shear flow Z-pinch only goes as far back as 2006, and these tests were done in 2019. The plasma's being made are only 100cm long and 1cm in radius, there seems to be nothing stopping them from upping it to tens of meters in length and a meter or two in radius for massive fuck you power.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.05894

[Anonymous No.10891952]

[Anonymous No.10891970]

>>10891949
Just skimmed it

>200,000 Amps for a barely measurable neutron discharge

Literally absolutely worthless.

[Anonymous No.10891980]

New Elon tweet

>Nuke Mars!

Doesn't he know this is a meme that will do absolutely fuck all? Much better off spending your efforts to ship a bunch of big fold out Mylar mirrors around Mars. Heat up the atmosphere, melt the caps, etc...

[Anonymous No.10891998]

>>10891980
I'm just laughing at Elon's don't drink alcohol with xanax tweet.

[Anonymous No.10892003]

>>10891886
Apollo 1 was designated as Apollo 1 as a publicity stunt after the fact

[Anonymous No.10892051]

>>10891970
It's a test device that is just measuring the characteristics of the plasma. It's not an actual attempt at a fusion reactor.

[Anonymous No.10892060]

>>10892051
Even if they could improve that efficiency by 1000x it would still be a joke.

[Anonymous No.10892073]

>>10891952
Wadds dat

[Anonymous No.10892089]

>>10892073
New telescopic dildo SpaceX have developed specially for your mother.

[Anonymous No.10892092]

>>10892060
the concept of the flow stabilized pinch makes it a very high beta reactor. It's an incredibly efficient reactor that only needs to be upscaled.

[Anonymous No.10892101]

>>10891478
>this is like, the one thread on all of 4chan not absolutely infested by old shit overused memes
Tell him about the piss tunnel airlocks.

[Anonymous No.10892136]

>>10892092
>200KA
>10^5 neutrons per pulse
>Efficient

[Anonymous No.10892150]

>>10892003

Cool feint but it represented the first real crewed mission of the program and so counted as "1" in the public imagination well before the mishap itself, and well before the bureaucracy retconned it at the widows' request. I invite you to square/cite the widows' request with a "publicity stunt", historically. Please, have a go at framing it in any other terms than an obligatory memorial, forced upon NASA by reality.

No one American benefits from "Apollo 1". It was merely an objective historical fact that they were obliged to acknowledge.

[Anonymous No.10892156]

>>10891949
>indicating that a tiny amount of the fuel being used was successfully fused
Fusing tiny amounts of atoms is easy. You can do that on a lab desk by shooting particles at each other. What you need is an efficient process to produce huge amounts of fusion power.
>just upscale it, bro
We‘ll see how well that goes. Plasma physics is a bitch. And even if they get Q>1 they still need to figure out how to make a useful power plant out of it. I mean they should try if they think this can work. But I won‘t be too excited for now.

[Anonymous No.10892176]

>>10891970
What voltage, though? I can't find mention of actual voltage in the article, only "no voltage spikes" during the period at 200,000 amps.

[Anonymous No.10892179]

>>10892150
But it wasn't a mission. No rockets were being launched. It was a ground exercise.

[Anonymous No.10892182]

>>10892176
It's irrelevant, even if it's only 1v, and I suspect its more than that, then that's still 200kw for a barely measurable source of thrust, meanwhile 200kw can power a full on VASIMIR engine.

[Anonymous No.10892217]

thanks NSF
fuck too big
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=47184.0;attach=1577131;image

[Anonymous No.10892280]

>>10892217
Why are there two LOx feeds per engine?

[Anonymous No.10892312]

>>10892182
Who cares, if they can scale it up to a net power gain? A VASIMIR engine will never power the rest of the craft.

[Anonymous No.10892332]

>>10892312
But a VASIMIR engine can at least provide actual thrust you retard.

[Anonymous No.10892338]

>>10892332
Nobody thinks they're going to put a 30cm concept fusor on a fucking spaceship you retard, the promise is in scale.

[Anonymous No.10892346]

>>10892338
>Scale it up
>Gets exponentially heavier
>Requires massively more power
>Produces a few times barely measurable thrust

Fuck off retard

[Anonymous No.10892468]

>>10892346
>You can't scale it up
Think of this, but many times more powerful

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120002875.pdf

[Anonymous No.10892470]

>>10892468
You are retarded, kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10892472]

>>10892470
Nice one

[Anonymous No.10892475]

Depots? Depots.

[Anonymous No.10892549]

>>10892475
D-don't say the d w-word anon-kun!

[Anonymous No.10892610]

>>10891505
rollercoaster of emotions

[Anonymous No.10892637]

Rocket Lab is preparing to launch their "Look Ma, no hands" mission.

https://www.rocketlabusa.com/missions/next-mission/

[Anonymous No.10892651]

>SLS will never fly
>Orion will never fly
>JWST will never fly
>We will never go back to the moon

Defund NASA.

[Anonymous No.10892686]

>>10892651
NASA doesn't need to be defunded, it needs to be reformed. Budget should be result based, the more NASA achieves, the more budget they get. Remove all the old guard administrators and replace them with more forward thinking innovators. Order NASA to end contract based developments and require government contractors to finish projects on time and within budget or they dont get paid.

Of course, none of this will ever happen because the US is a corrupt beaurucratic shithole but a man can dream.

[Anonymous No.10892689]

>>10891436
How much of the Ares-program lived on in the SLS?

[Anonymous No.10892697]

Any HOP news? Is 200m HOP confirmed for today?

[Anonymous No.10892718]

>>10892697
I DONT KNOW

NO FUCKING UPDATES

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.10892721]

>>10892697
Post more cute buns

[Anonymous No.10892723]

>>10892697
do not post those ugly buns ever again

[Anonymous No.10892725]

>>10892697
They're waiting for FAA approval, which has not been granted yet. Further risk mitigation reviews are needed, presumably because of the 20 meter hop's post-flight brush fire.

[Anonymous No.10892738]

>>10891886
>Gemini 1
>Unmanned
>Flawless program in every way
Well shit.

[Anonymous No.10892742]

>>10892725
>Brush fire

That was literally fuck all, I get worse when my neighbour leaves their BBQ unattended. Live in Australia then tell me about fucking brush fires.

[Anonymous No.10892836]

Based Scott Munnley with info about Saturn I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W51wQeTYex0
You can see him geek out at the end.

[Anonymous No.10892838]

>>10892725
old space can suck ass

[Anonymous No.10892944]

Broke: The SLS will never launch crew to the moon

Woke: The SLS will launch and send crew to the moon, and along the way Starship rendezvous with Orion to offer free toilet services and maybe some snacks

[Anonymous No.10892992]

New thread: >>10892991

>>10892991

>>10892991

>>10892991

[Anonymous No.10893184]

>>10892944
Galactic mind: SpaceX will set up a service depot on the moon and start manufacturing Starships there.

[Anonymous No.10893259]

>>10892725
What in the god damned fuck does the FAA have to do with brush fires?