/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.10960783]

old thread
>>10951187

[Anonymous No.10960787]

Where do you think you'll get gas for that roadster in space, son?

[Anonymous No.10960790]

First for big G in the house.

[Anonymous No.10960793]

>>10960787
DAMNIT SHELBY YOU OLD LEATHERY BAG OF COINS

[Anonymous No.10960796]

>>10960790
we need to go larger

[Anonymous No.10960797]

First and last time itt.

[Anonymous No.10960798]

let's write a letter to richard shelby, one sentence at a time

Dear Senator Shelby, you have become quite a popular figure in some online discussion fora.

[Anonymous No.10960812]

>>10960798
Please cancel the senate launch sys- I mean the shit launch sys- I mean the slut launch sys- I mean the slow launch sys- I mean the sad launch sys- I mean the subcontractor launch sys- I mean...

[Anonymous No.10960819]

I mean cancel the Space Launch system in favour of orbital propellant depots for Starship.

[Anonymous No.10960821]

>>10960812
Private enterprises have exponentially increased our rate of space usage, and are a valid participant in the new space race.

[Anonymous No.10960828]

>>10960821
In order to ensure the first boots on the moon since Apollo are red blooded American men and not red flagged godless commies, funding for SLS should be diverted to SpaceX's Starship program.

[Anonymous No.10960877]

Hey, here's a fun thought – at the current pace, Mars will almost certainly be colonized before any "one world government" meme happens. Mars is way more likely to negotiate with individual countries rather than with the UN like scifi would tell you. It won't be "Mars and Earth", it'll be "Mars and the US and Russia and Canada and China" and so on. We might even live to see a weird period where Mars is a permanent United Nations Security Council member.

...

In which case, when aliens invade, we'll all be flying the flag of the UNSC...

[Anonymous No.10960883]

>>10960828
In summary, we assembled here believe that it is best to privatize NASA so that they are no longer confined under the yoke of Congress and the grifters there-within.

[Anonymous No.10960889]

>>10960877
ITAR is going to prevent SpaceX from using Mars as a development center unless Mars was either neutral territory (like Antarctica) or American owned.

[Anonymous No.10960890]

>>10960889
What if the reason Elon wants Starship to be able to be built without a real factory infrastructure on site is because he intends to ISRU Starships. Ship up the Raptors and electronics, the hull can be built on Mars.

[Anonymous No.10960901]

Space is going to be the wild west but actually wild. There will absolutely be non-state actors with offensive capabilities that rival any state on Earth. Effective enforcement of national and international law in space will be nearly impossible in the early days of space industrialization, which will itself be further incentive for governmental interest in space capabilities.

[Anonymous No.10960909]

>>10960901
This is the best alternative in the long term as the fact of the matter is that if states and non-state actors are competing then states will naturally be inclined to form a monolithic coalition from which they can fight against corporations and whatever else, thus leveraging state resources into a single entity and driving everything forward.

That is if Elon doesn't bomb us all.

[Anonymous No.10960910]

>>10960901
I'm not even sure it will be non-state. If Russia can gain influence in the Jovian system by recognizing the independence of Ganymede, why wouldn't they? You could see dozens of Soviet style client states and corporate-run space banana republics. Maybe even multiple on the same body, with America recognizing the Sea of Tranquility Base government as the true government of the moon, while China recognizes it's own far-side base as the legitimate Lunar government.

[Anonymous No.10960914]

>>10960901
>this is the future you asked for
except it's exactly what I wanted

[Anonymous No.10960916]

>>10960883
P.S. I'm gay.

[Anonymous No.10960919]

hay guise whats going on in this thread

[Anonymous No.10960923]

>>10960919
that's a volcano escape system, it's for exploring active volcanos, if the volcano starts to explode you can pull the ripcord and ignite the three solid rocket motors around the base (you can see the closest one in the picture)

[Anonymous No.10960926]

>>10960901
If I can get a space startup doing any real business I'm absolutely going to search the moon for uranium deposits with swarms of prospector drones.

If I have a nuclear stockpile big enough to blow up Phobos, anything I do is legal.

[Anonymous No.10960945]

>>10960926
Careful not to get Kim Jong Un'd, being persona non grata on Earth would rather limit you.

[Anonymous No.10960957]

>>10960945
Fuck Earth, who needs to go there anyway? Stupid atmosphere and deep goddamn gravity well eating up my Δv budget. Gonna steal Deimos and turn it into a mobile corporate base.

[Anonymous No.10960967]

>>10960957
It will only be a few dozen years before space cowboy startups are a thing, but it will be two or three centuries before even Mars could exist independently of Earth.

[Anonymous No.10961094]

>>10960901
Which is why the state that is currently the home to the few private companies capable of making serious, militarily useful spacecraft is developing a new military branch before such threats emerge.
>>10960910
This is another reason why the US is moving quickly on the Space Force: to secure the high ground first. Control of the lunar poles and armed installations (even if they're just large satellites) placed at the L-points will allow the US to severely curtail any other country's launch capabilities around Earth, the Moon, and out into the Solar system at large. Being the gatekeeper to the entire solar system means the US can dictate the future of human civilization to a large degree, especially in terms of colony missions and large infrastructure projects (asteroid mining).

[Anonymous No.10961153]

>>10960796
Someone needs to shoop a monster logo on that monster can

[Anonymous No.10961168]

>>10961153
best fire up the gimp anon, memecraft is a holy duty shared by all.
I have already produced OC today, you may view it here >>10959349

[Anonymous No.10961169]

>>10960783
Earth is flat

[Anonymous No.10961197]

>Imagine building this with carbon composite

[Anonymous No.10961205]

>>10961197
That is the launcher or the starship? Why do both look the same?

[Anonymous No.10961221]

>>10961205
They will look pretty much alike

[Anonymous No.10961240]

>>10961205
It‘s just the hull. Wait till they add control surfaces and engines.

[Anonymous No.10961257]

Is Congress up and running again, Americorns?

[Anonymous No.10961280]

>>10961257
Yes, but the Senate funding bill for NASA is still a mystery.

[Anonymous No.10961316]

>>10961197
Are those rings in the background bigger in diameter or is it just perspective?

[Anonymous No.10961323]

>>10960926
Why blow up Phobos when you can use fewer of your nukes to slow it out of orbit, crashing that 10,600,000,000,000,000 kg mass into the planet at 3000 m/s with no survivors?

For that matter why not use 1000 times fewer nukes to throw an asteroid from the belt towards any of the inner planets/moons?

Turns out the great equalizer of the future is not nuclear weapons, it's small nuclear shaped charges for throwing quadrillion ton rocks at speeds ten times faster than a rifle bullet. A gun or a bomb can only get you so far, big daddy asteroid collision is what pulls giant countries and jewish conspiracy societies down to the level of the common (belter scum) man.

[Anonymous No.10961332]

>>10960957
Earth's atmosphere is a bit of a drag when you're launching (HA GOT EM) but it definitely makes up for it on the return leg, gives you something stationary to slam into and scrub relative velocity without turning you into shocked minerals, and actually we've worked it out that a chemical rocket with additional dry mass for aerobraking actually gets BETTER performance to literally any place in the solar system (where both targets have atmospheres) compared to advanced nuclear thermal propulsion, orbit-only designs. That means using the Starship method a la SpaceX effectively gives you the payload capacity to and from Mars of that of a gas-core nuclear lightbulb design that can't aerobrake.
The same is true for Titan way out at Saturn, although in that case we'd definitely need to look at either nuclear thermal propulsion using methane to decrease travel time, or nose-to-nose Starship spin gravity, or both, because a transfer to Saturn from Earth even with a Jupiter assist still takes the better part of a decade. Since in that case we'd be using the NTR system only as a means of accelerating beyond the initial escape burns from either end, the engine can be quite low power, and we only need two (one to actually use, the other for redundancy). That gets around most of the disadvantages of nuclear thermal propulsion, by using a low mass low thrust but decent TWR engine, which outputs less neutron flux during operation and requires less radiator surface area to manage decay heat after every burn. Also using methane gets you >600 Isp, so better than any chemical engine possible, but with about 5x the propellant density of hydrogen, so you save on dry mass (before you even consider the vastly reduced insulation mass required for methane).
Solar electric propulsion a meme by the way, chemical with aerobraking fucks its ass in terms of every real performance metric (Isp is meaningless in that case until it gets >20x higher and you aren't keeping people alive).

[Anonymous No.10961340]

>>10961316
Just perspective, the image is taken from very far away so there's almost no true apparent size difference between the rangs, but your brain can see that the ones in back must be farther away, so without context your brain interprets them as being slightly bigger.
source, i'm an autistic artfag and study perspective constantly

[Anonymous No.10961390]

>>10961332
>wasting heat on radiation
just transfer the heat to water that turns into steam and produces electricity, duh

[Anonymous No.10961392]

>>10961197
the rings of the base must be under enormous pressure

[Anonymous No.10961399]

Some guy is working to make an off-the-shelf plasma thruster. Don't get your hopes up too much though, unless you'ure going to put it in a sub-1U microsat...

https://hackaday.com/2019/09/09/plasma-powered-thrusters-for-your-homebrew-satellite-needs/

[Anonymous No.10961527]

Japan is launching a thing

[Anonymous No.10961550]

>>10960923
Does it have a parachute?

[Anonymous No.10961557]

Threadly reminder that launch tower reusability doesn't make sense to a government-backed rocket company— jobs. Let us say we had ten guaranteed launches per year and we had a tower which we can use ten times—we would build exactly one tower per year. That makes no sense. You can't tell the teams: 'Goodbye, see you next year!'.

[Anonymous No.10961568]

Say, if a spacecraft had 100 mw of power to spare, would an MHD accelerator attached to a chemical rocket engine have a meaningful increase in thrust and/or ISP? Or would it just be dead weight?

[Anonymous No.10961700]

>>10961557
Based Charmeau holding the fort against SpaceX's Tata-quality rockets

[Anonymous No.10961718]

Reddit says Gwynne says the downtick in launches is because SpaceX is now outpacing their customer's ability to build satellites. What an exciting time.

[Anonymous No.10961735]

>from Jeff Foust's twitter

Shotwell: don’t think we’ll get back to 24 GEO sats/year. Not bearish on telecom industry, but instead will see more alternatives too GEO.

SpaceX: expect to launch 7-8 more times this year. This is first year we’re ready before customers; why some launches slipping into 2020. “Hopefully” flying crew this year. #WSBW

Shotwell: anticipate our launch rate to be “much higher” next year than the ~18 estimated for this year.

Clay Mowry, Blue Origin (filling in for Bob Smith): starting to make New Glenn parts at Florida facility, including first fairing by the end of the year. On track to complete New Glenn CDR by end of year.

[Anonymous No.10961741]

Mowry mentions Blue Origin’s deal with Telesat. Shotwell interjects: is that a real deal, signed contract? Mowry: yes it is.

[Anonymous No.10961744]

>>10961741
>>10961735
When will we actually see a New Glenn though?

[Anonymous No.10961756]

>>10961744
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
>Blue Origin aims to launch New Glenn in 2021.[4]

[Anonymous No.10961763]

>>10961756
We're not gonna get to actually see it until it's ready to roll out, are we? Why is Blue so oldspace-y?

[Anonymous No.10961820]

>>10961557

Whats next? Expendable launchpads? Expendable assembly buildings?

[Anonymous No.10961835]

>>10961763
>Why is Blue so oldspace-y?
They're butthurt. They used to be more open, but SpaceX beat them quite handily. Now they have to close off to hide their shame

[Anonymous No.10961853]

>>10961820
Expendable astronauts.

[Anonymous No.10961859]

>>10961853
Expendable Senators.

[Anonymous No.10961879]

>>10961568
It depends on the mass of the whole vehicle
It is easily calculated. If the mass of the MPD+propellant does not add more dV than the same mass of normal propellant then it is not worth it.
I guess the best way to use the extra energy is to use MPDs for course correction and non critical maneuvers.

[Anonymous No.10961880]

>>10961853
NASA already tried that twice during the Shuttle program.

[Anonymous No.10961915]

Earlier in the year I read that Air Force Secretary Wilson had said that the time will come soon when the military has to demonstrate America's offensive space capabilities in order to put China and Russia in check. I didn't think of it much at the time, but then I see this
>Guastella explained that for deterrence to be credible, adversaries “have to know that you have something, and you have to demonstrate a willingness to use it.” He added, “clearly we have to think how we are going to do this. At some point, we have to reveal some things — not everything, but some things.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/09/declassify-space-threats-us-capabilities-for-stronger-deterrence-afcent/
and now I'm wondering if the US has some secret space warfare capabilities that they are hiding. Obviously they have some crazy cyberwarfare tools, but I'm wondering if it's more than that, like some sort of spacecraft that can take down other spacecraft. I say this because later in the article it says he mentions "on orbit" capabilities, meaning space-to-space attacks, and not something like an ASAT launched from the surface.

[Anonymous No.10961921]

>>10961915
We've already hit a sat with another sat, what's next?

[Anonymous No.10961925]

4 hours until launch?

[Anonymous No.10961933]

>>10961915
This little nigger rendezvous with your spy satellite and takes it hostage.
Then you call China for ransom in USD and post pics on the net for shit and giggles...

[Anonymous No.10961936]

>>10961921
capture the enemy sat and return it to the US for study?

[Anonymous No.10962021]

>>10961933
XQF-37B. Slap AMRAAMs on it, call it a day. It's obviously not that simple because you'd need a purely thrust vectoring missile rather than an aerodynamically maneuvering missile, but it's not that much of a stretch.

[Anonymous No.10962030]

NASA spends money to study people in small underwater habitat. When they could have just sent one person to study saturation diving operations.

This is why nasa fails these days.

[Anonymous No.10962032]

>>10962030
NASA spends money to study social isolation. Could have just asked us. Sad!

[Anonymous No.10962036]

>>10961933
Stratolaunch can put that in orbit.

[Anonymous No.10962075]

>you will never be an amateur opal baron risking everything for a stake in the Daedalia Planum rush of 2058

[Anonymous No.10962153]

>>10962075
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z5-P9v3F8w

[Anonymous No.10962155]

>>10962075
Not with that attitude

[Anonymous No.10962197]

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-mk1-flight-debut-paperwork-launch-pad-upgrades/

[Anonymous No.10962212]

Japan launch aborted after things heated up on the launchpad (fire)

[Anonymous No.10962225]

>>10961921
Pulsed lasers on a satellite bus. Disable a target without creating a shrapnel field.

[Anonymous No.10962235]

>>10962212
space is still too hard. we need to make it easier. time for open source rockets?

[Anonymous No.10962301]

https://www.space.com/11109-astronaut-pee-shuttle-waste-water-dump.html

[Anonymous No.10962310]

>>10962212
What was the name of the launch?

[Anonymous No.10962341]

>>10961390
how will you cool off your steam to reuse it in your heat engine, nigga

[Anonymous No.10962345]

>>10962310
JAXA H-2B HTV8
>A Japanese H-2B rocket will launch the eighth H-2 Transfer Vehicle. The HTV serves as an automated cargo vehicle to deliver equipment and supplies to the International Space Station.

[Anonymous No.10962346]

>>10961399
daily reminder that there's nothing special about electric propulsion and that if it truly unlocked anything significant in space flight it would have already done so in the 60's when they had the budget and the drive to actually build the ridiculous power plants required to power those engines for large vehicles.

[Anonymous No.10962401]

>>10962345
>H-2B
I wish there was more information on it's development. It seems like a Delta IV, but slightly smaller. I wonder how it ended up like that.

[Anonymous No.10962402]

>>10962075
>giving up already
You would never achieve anything even if you were in the right time period

[Anonymous No.10962413]

>>10962346
>daily reminder that there's nothing special about electric propulsion and that if it truly unlocked anything significant in space flight it would have already done so in the 60's when they had the budget and the drive to actually build the ridiculous power plants required to power those engines for large vehicles.

You clearly have no idea how the Apollo program was budgeted as a "beat the Russians at all costs" program, with very little money for anything else that didn't stand to one-up the Russkies. Electric propulsion was entirely theoretical at the time, and would not have helped NASA beat the Russians to the moon.

[Anonymous No.10962418]

>>10962413
>Apollo program was budgeted as a "beat the Russians at all costs" program, with very little money for anything else
Canceling the Apollo Applications Program was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.10962424]

>>10962341
With thermoelectric generators, like RTGs do

[Anonymous No.10962439]

>>10961853
F

[Anonymous No.10962449]

smallsat launchers btfo by shotwell

[Anonymous No.10962450]

>>10962439

[Anonymous No.10962451]

>SpaceX plans 24 Starlink launches next year
>4 more Starlink launches this year
Effective Starlink will be up early next year. Thank god I want to get away from comcast. $50/m gigabit please.

[Anonymous No.10962452]

>https://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/faa-no-further-assessment-needed-for-spacex-testing/article_d43377b6-d351-11e9-b6d2-df894a2cb8dc.html
>FAA: no further assessment needed for SpaceX testing
Full Speed ahead

[Anonymous No.10962457]

>>10962451
I can finally try to save my parents from shitty DSL.

[Anonymous No.10962462]

Increasingly think that the future of space vehicles isn't sleek cruisers like most sci fi, but large ore mining and processing barges, along the lines of the Red Dwarf.

Basically a huge barge which latches onto asteroids, with a ramscoop on the front.

[Anonymous No.10962463]

>>10962451
You think you've got it bad. I'm in Canada.

[Anonymous No.10962464]

>>10962452

[Anonymous No.10962467]

>>10962462
Out to Saturn get the ice back to Ceres out to Saturn get the ice back to Ceres out to Saturn

[Anonymous No.10962470]

>>10962467
>>10962462
As with all such things, form follows function

[Anonymous No.10962484]

>>10962470
You say that but that particular scene kinda threw the whole realistic "'combat occurs at hundreds of thousands of kilometers and at mind numbing closing speeds" thing the Expanse had built up out the window in favour of Millenium Falcon shenanigans.

[Anonymous No.10962495]

>>10962470
>new glenn vs big falcon rocket.webm
kek

[Anonymous No.10962501]

>>10962484
That's why these are some of the better renditions of space combat from the series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIFSZfKTUKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiff7hmPOpg
The CQB knife-fights were because of extenuating circumstances or a need to perform boarding actions.

[Anonymous No.10962504]

>>10962463
dude 100 dollars for a 100gb data cap and 20mb/s lmao

[Anonymous No.10962505]

>>10962501
I must ask if you've read all the books before continuing this discussion because there's some kickass combat scenes that haven't been aired yet

[Anonymous No.10962510]

>>10962505
Yeah, the race to Tycho comes to mind from a few books back.

[Anonymous No.10962626]

>>10962452

[Anonymous No.10962628]

>>10962424
Those work by moving heat from warm pucks of plutonium oxide over to cold RADIATOR fins, which are kept cold because they reject heat into space. Try again.

[Anonymous No.10962635]

>>10962467
Ceres has plenty of ice already, why bring more
What Ceres probably lacks is nitrogen, like most objects in space.

[Anonymous No.10962645]

>>10962635
Ceres was stripped of ice for the Martian terraforming project

[Anonymous No.10962658]

>>10962626

[Anonymous No.10962662]

>>10962658
By the end of 2020, a company that has the mission statement "colonize Mars" will have a functioning colony ship.

If someone told you that in 2010, would you believe them?

[Anonymous No.10962664]

>>10962662
>If someone told you that in 2010, would you believe them?
No. Then again at 2010 spaceflight was pretty much dead to me.

[Anonymous No.10962670]

>>10962662
2010? probably not. 2013? probably. spaceflight has changed so much in this decade.

[Anonymous No.10962672]

>>10961205
Launcher, it's got no taper at all.

[Anonymous No.10962703]

>>10962672
Most sources seem convinced that's still Starship, but that Starship is now a longboi

[Anonymous No.10962726]

>>10961925
>F8
>>10962626
Where u liv me never see dat

[Anonymous No.10962728]

>>10962662
Most people are still jet lagged. Many in the industry are in denial stage. And probably won't even wake up from the stupor even when they land on Mars.

[Anonymous No.10962737]

>>10961392
Just like your mom's anus last night.

[Anonymous No.10962751]

>>10960783
>https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1171441833903214592
>Flaw in a question on the number of small launchers: choices are “at least 2”, “at least 5”, “less than 10”, “more than 10.”
>Shotwell says she picked “less than 10” since it was the only option that included zero. #WSBW

#ShotsFired

[Anonymous No.10962755]

>>10962751
based shotwell thinking outside of the box

[Anonymous No.10962757]

>>10962212
>Japan launch aborted after things heated up on the launchpad (fire)
>MHI --launch off for at least two-three days, then reassess, based on cause of fire. Occurred between solid rocket boosters nos. 3 and 4. If launch is delayed more than a month, HTV cargo will have to be inspected, repacked, says JAXA
https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1171536995765477378

>SRBs
why tho

[Anonymous No.10962758]

>>10962751
Absolutely destroyed.

[Anonymous No.10962765]

>>10962751
Context?

[Anonymous No.10962770]

>>10962765
Shotwell was talking at a panel alongside frens from ULA, BlueOrigin, and China.

[Anonymous No.10962771]

>>10962765
This was at a world satellite business conference where major major players were discussing the state of the satellite(rocket) industry

[Anonymous No.10962778]

>>10962771

[Anonymous No.10962782]

>>10962751
Rocketlab on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.10962785]

>>10962751
How will small """launchers""" ever recover?

[Anonymous No.10962789]

>>10962751
>Space woman laughs at small dick launchers.

[Anonymous No.10962792]

>>10962785
Few if any will survive. The ones that have the best prospects are those that are state backed (aka Chinese rocket companies).

[Anonymous No.10962799]

If SpaceX has 24 Starlink launches planned for next year, does that mean they will be launching at least once every two weeks? How will they even get that much pad time at Cape Canaveral? Can Vandenberg fit in some launches? America may need more spaceports.

[Anonymous No.10962807]

[Anonymous No.10962813]

[Anonymous No.10962814]

>>10962813
D

[Anonymous No.10962815]

>>10962751
What if someone planned to launch exactly 10?

[Anonymous No.10962818]

slowpoke as fuck but I just realized it doesn't fucking matter if SLS launches at this point. $1,000,000,000 per launch is insane. That's probably one launch every two or three years. That's not a serious project at all, that's a jobs program. What's the point of a program like this besides jobs? Why waste billions on something that's essentially a one-off program that is guaranteed to halt after people get bored?

[Anonymous No.10962819]

>>10962815
Small launchers(companies), not cargo/rocket.

[Anonymous No.10962821]

>>10962818
more jobs = more votes = shelby gets to keep his job

[Anonymous No.10962822]

>>10962789
>When she sees your reusable rocket

[Anonymous No.10962831]

>>10962818
Embezzlement and farming votes
Same with everything else with NASA

[Anonymous No.10962833]

Imagine this...we take SLS...and then put a new shuttle on the side, and we'll use the shuttle five times over the course of ten years to build a three man station. It can deploy one astronaut in a legacy refurbished Apollo capsule to do a flyby of the moon all for the low low price of two billion dollars a launch! It's brilliant!

[Anonymous No.10962842]

>>10962833
Glad to see that faux Shelby is catching on. Needs more SLS (god bless it).

[Anonymous No.10962844]

>>10962818
They also do not have the ability to build more than two a year with current facilities, even if they could afford to launch more than two a year. That's a big reason why re-usability is no meme, because factory capacity has costs too.

[Anonymous No.10962853]

>>10962842
needs more Doom Paul effects

[Anonymous No.10962856]

>>10962842
Didn't you know Anon, SLS stands for Shuttle Launch System, just like God and my constituents intended. A rocket made of legacy shuttle parts flying a new shuttle made of legacy shuttle parts, all expendable of course, gotta keep those shuttle engineers employed!

[Anonymous No.10962859]

>>10962778
Link to rewatch?

[Anonymous No.10962863]

>>10962859
Not uploaded yet, we're all waiting. If it ever gets uploaded lmao.

[Anonymous No.10962870]

>reading space news
>shelby is the chairman of the senate appropriations committee
>he has budget control over military space
how do we stop this monster?

[Anonymous No.10962890]

>>10962870
DoD sets requirements for the items they want to procure through bids, then the Executive branch leans on Shelby if he balks.

[Anonymous No.10962892]

>>10962870
have we tried convincing Shelby that Starship creates American jobs, secures American dominance of space, and lights the path towards a great United Planets of America? Think about it: an American flag on every planet in the solar system, nay, the local cluster!

[Anonymous No.10962913]

>>10962892
he's aware
SLS just funnels money into his own personal pocket and guarantees a voter block

[Anonymous No.10962916]

>>10962892
Shelby only cares about America when it America is lining his pocket and voting for him. You could probably count on a single hand the number of politicians who both say they care about America and actually do.

[Anonymous No.10962922]

>>10962892

Would Elon only sell them to America(ns)? Otherwise, w+he's selling space "dominance" to everybody with some cash.

Also, Shelby is not interested in jobs in America. He is interested in jobs in Alabama. I honestly do not know if Elon has been strategic enough to set up part of his organization in Alabama.

[Anonymous No.10962924]

>>10962916
>>10962913
Can we get Shebly's investment advisor to buy him a bunch of SpaceX stock?

[Anonymous No.10962925]

>>10962913
>>10962916
In the long run, Blue Origin putting one of their major facilities in Alabama will probably pay off big time.

[Anonymous No.10962926]

>>10962924
SpaceX ain't public
Musk doesn't want to play those fuck fuck games until there's boots on mars

[Anonymous No.10962927]

>>10962870
Donate to his opponents in 2022 -- both in the general, and in the primary if he has one.

[Anonymous No.10962931]

Combined IQ: 1332

[Anonymous No.10962943]

>>10962856
I'm Anonymous and this is Handshake Dad posting... /sci/ edition

[Anonymous No.10962946]

I dont understand why SLS is shat on so much. I mean the rocket itself, the bureaucracy and political bullshit is a joke, no question. But the core stage basically takes the spacecraft all the way to orbit in one go. You can't really recover materiel from up there with current technology as far as I am aware. So aside from that, if you compare it to other rockets in terms of cost per kg of spacecraft launched, or launch frequency, how does it stack up? Setting aside US government and Boeing bullshit. Pretend Vonbraun and ze germans are still running the show, and it is operational today. Surely it outperforms a Falcon Heavy?

[Anonymous No.10962959]

>>10962870
Don't worry, Alabama is getting browned hard, he is out next round.

[Anonymous No.10962960]

>>10962946
It is a monument to the sad state of modern-day NASA and government bureaucracies in general.

[Anonymous No.10962979]

I'm kind of concerned that they still haven't used the same Falcon more than three times. Refurbishment still too finicky/expensive?

[Anonymous No.10962982]

>>10962979
No reason. F9 production was still relatively high last/this year.

Wait for the 24+ Starlink launches next year for lots of reuse

[Anonymous No.10962990]

>>10962946
>I dont understand why SLS is shat on so much.
Mainly memes, but it's also unpopular here. I'll try to summarize some of the worst parts of it.
>The design is entirely politically motivated
>It has been delayed for an incredibly long time (it has been "ready" for a green run since before the first Falcon Heavy launch)
>The high cost and low launch frequency means that whatever will be done on the SLS will be done very slowly
>The management for the project is poor (NASA has paid contractors reward money that was meant for completing milestones even though the contractors didn't meet said milestones)
And more, but I don't want this post to get too long.

>But the core stage basically takes the spacecraft all the way to orbit in one go. You can't really recover materiel from up there with current technology as far as I am aware.
It's not about recoverability (even though the Shuttle and later Falcon 9 has shown that it is possible in principle), it about the poor management and questionable motivations behind the SLS that gives it ire.

>So aside from that, if you compare it to other rockets in terms of cost per kg of spacecraft launched, or launch frequency, how does it stack up?
The launch costs aren't exactly given, but the goal $500 million per launch estimate given by NASA in 2012 is laughable. At the high cost of alot of the parts on the SLS and it's slow launch rate, it will never be competitive in price compared to commercial. And that's why it doesn't compete, instead the program relies on questionable politics to justify it's existence. Also, 2 launches per year maximum is given, but it will most likely be slower. This is a slow rate.

Oops, too long (1/2)

[Anonymous No.10962991]

In the future, its clear that collisions will become more frequent. Commercialization of orbital debris removal services are necessary.

Respond with:
>Date expected
>Names of companies pursuing it now

[Anonymous No.10963010]

>>10962946
>>10962990
(2/2)

>Pretend Vonbraun and ze germans are still running the show, and it is operational today. Surely it outperforms a Falcon Heavy?
The SLS will out perform the Falcon Heavy in payload mass and size delivered in-general. However, the SLS will launch less frequently than the Falcon Heavy, it will also be more expensive per launch and per kg of payload delivered. The SLS would've done fine had it launched with an unlimited budget, but this hasn't been true of spaceflight since Apollo. Now, spaceflight will have to worry about keeping a budget.

Had the SLS launched on time (or hell shortly after the first Falcon Heavy launch), it wouldn't as much hate as it does now. But now it's been delayed so much that it's usefulness is coming into question. Don't get me wrong, I would've been fine with the SLS if it kept a reasonable schedule. Technically it's a serviceable rocket, a stopgap measure to boost heavy payloads that no other rocket can do. However, the technical aspects of SLS can't be spoken of alone when comparing it to other launchers, the management the politics and the motivations behind the SLS has to be taken into account, and with those things the SLS isn't a very good launcher.

[Anonymous No.10963012]

what’s a cook big space poster or something I can hang in my apartment? Or art of some kind

[Anonymous No.10963015]

>>10962931
they should team up with me for a combined IQ of 1337

[Anonymous No.10963025]

>>10962960
agreed
>>10963010
Also agreed, cost aside, there doesn't seem a huge amount wrong with it on a technical level. Stopgap seems like a good way to put it. Is the political design motivation you are hinting at reuse of olf Shuttle parts, or something else?

The X-33 getting shit canned is one of the worst things to happen, possibly ever. I wonder where we would be if you could just yeet thousands of tonnes of hardware into LEO annually. Things like fast-tracked long-life Uranus and Neptune orbiters and landers would be a walk in the park. Goddamn.

[Anonymous No.10963026]

>>10963015
Someone has to go first I guess

[Anonymous No.10963027]

>>10962991
fuck off and do your own research

[Anonymous No.10963032]

who /ranger/

[Anonymous No.10963043]

>>10963032
Love to have one, but the range on those things was pure handwavium

[Anonymous No.10963047]

>>10963025
>Stopgap seems like a good way to put it.
Yes, but the SLS isn't exactly being treated like a stopgap by NASA and the government. A stopgap SLS would've been done already. The problem is that the motivations behind SLS are not for getting a rocket done.

>Is the political design motivation you are hinting at reuse of olf Shuttle parts, or something else?
Sort of? Kinda? Reusing Shuttle components would seem like the logical decision for a stopgap rocket for the US, but the SLS doesn't really use that many "Shuttle parts". The tanks are new. The SRBs are new. The guidance hardware and software are new. The only true Shuttle parts of the SLS are the SSMEs.

I think it's mostly due to the fact that the Shuttle was a very expensive and man-hour intensive vehicle. Once that was gone, the contractors who got the most profit from the Shuttle lost a huge part of their income and thus through political maneuvering made Ares V (and later the SLS) as a way for them too keep their Shuttle level income. This was sold to the Senators of states where Shuttle components were made (namely Alabama) that the huge amount of labor these contractors hired for the Shuttle can stay in those states and thus boost the state economies.

[Anonymous No.10963048]

>>10963025
X-33 was a joke, SSTO Hydrogen spaceplanes are a fucking meme.

[Anonymous No.10963050]

the next oumuamua may have been discovered

>NEOCP (==near-Earth object confirmation page) object gb00234 still baffles folks. Could it be the second interstellar object and the first interstellar comet? New observations are in, but the orbit solution is still interstellar.
>YE Quanzhi on Twitter: "Some people (myself incl.) try to explain the thing with subpar data (not to blame observers; comets are fuzzy and it's difficult to measure their positions). In past cases, more obs help mitigate the effect of bad data, and "interstellar comets" turn out to be parabolic comets."
>Now we have ~100 obs for this object, and it seems the interstellar orbit just won't go away. Maybe this time it's real, but we will need more data before we can tell.
https://twitter.com/Yeqzids/status/1171491786121891843
https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/scout/#/object/gb00234

[Anonymous No.10963053]

>>10963048
It was, but it created a promising engine design and managed to solve the eternal COPV issue even though it was canned before ever being able to demonstrate that technology. By SSTO standards it was pretty fucking neat, but SSTOs are overall pretty shit. If implemented it would have contributed some extremely valuable stuff to conventional vertical stack rocketry, like lighter tanks and a novel and potentially better engine design. Important to remember that while the Aerowedge did have some issues and wasn't quite as efficient as say the SSME, it was a comparatively very new and unoptimized design. I'd wager it could be done substantially better now.

[Anonymous No.10963058]

>NDAA news: HASC Chairman Adam Smith says the formal start of NDAA conference has been pushed back a week. As a result, we should expect a final bill in mid-October rather than by Oct. 1.
space force pushed back by a week

[Anonymous No.10963059]

>>10963053
>and managed to solve the eternal COPV issue
I thought the X-33 solution was "fuck it use aluminum"

[Anonymous No.10963061]

>>10963053
X-33 + Stratolaunch could have been a very interesting combination.

[Anonymous No.10963062]

>>10963059
They built very good interim aluminum tanks while they were trying to fix the COPV issue, but they did solve it.

[Anonymous No.10963065]

>>10963058
I'll be pissed and confused if the Space Force doesn't buy into Starship
>be islandnigger, AD 0
>tribe decides tribe needs ocean force
>that same year, islandniggers invent ocean going ships
>ocean force does not use ships, continues using expendable canoes

[Anonymous No.10963079]

>>10963065
The Air Force is pretty interested in them for rapid site-to-site cargo transportation. Apparently cost estimates given by SpaceX are close to a C-130, with the same payload, but instead of a twelve-plus hour transit time it's as fast as 45 minutes.

[Anonymous No.10963084]

The current state of NASA is really one of the strongest indictments of inherently short lived and sclerotic "liberal" "democracy". What you need is the iron will and dictatorial Soviet attitude, minus the unfortunate circumstance of being a peasant country just 30 odd years prior to launching men into space. Even Xi does not fully understand this. Types such as Lenin and Alexander are required for righteous and intrepid leadership

[Anonymous No.10963087]

>>10963079
I like that the Air Force is asking for things like point to point cost estimates. Gives me a little faith some people realize what a fucking paradigm shift Starship is.

[Anonymous No.10963091]

>>10963084
>short lived liberal democracy
Eh, we've lasted 174 years longer than the nominally most influential commie shithole, if American republican democracy is short lived than boot-inhaling communism has the national lifespan of a mayfly.

[Anonymous No.10963097]

>>10963091
The longest lived states (although using that term in a pre-modern context is shaky) were probably either the Roman/Byzantine empire or some Chinese dynasty, depending where you put the start and end points. Either way, that would suggest the solution is an unwieldly Imperial Bureaucracy is the way to go. America has already transitioned to this, essentially.

[Anonymous No.10963099]

>>10962990
Id imagine the abysmal ROI of both SLS Block 1 and 2 would only get worse once you have rockets like New Armstrong/New Glen and Starship operational, which are able to do orbits that SLS specialises, but for cheaper. I predict A billion for each launch, maybe even more.

[Anonymous No.10963101]

>>10963091
america was only really "America" from like 1940 until 9/11. That's what I was referring to with that bit. Also, I don't want to derail the thread with this, so let's leave it at that

[Anonymous No.10963108]

>>10963097
Only in the context of pre-industrial societies with enormously slow modes of communication, trade, and warfare, and comparatively tiny populations and overall very low population density.

[Anonymous No.10963122]

>>10963025
>Is the political design motivation you are hinting at reuse of olf Shuttle parts, or something else?
reuse of Shuttle jerbs

[Anonymous No.10963129]

>>10963122
Expendable boosters, for sustainable jobs. Jobs for Americans, building American power in space. This ad has been authorized by the Shelby for President PAC.

[Anonymous No.10963140]

>>10963012
nasa.gov has poster size space tourism .tifs, they're way comfy

[Anonymous No.10963141]

>>10963079
...and a few boom-booms on re-entry.
Unlike commercial airports, USAF can get away with sonic booms.
>>10963099
Then it's a good thing that Block 2 will never happen.

[Anonymous No.10963147]

>>10963079
jeaus fucking christ thats actually insane if it can do the same as a c130 but over 20x faster for the same cost. I had no idea. Its almost like the difference between using a steam boat vs a biplane to cross the ocean.

[Anonymous No.10963149]

>>10963141
tbf Starship is supposed to operate from offshore platforms in the E2E commercial role, based on the official promotional video. Sonic booms would be less of an issue the further you go out. Also nicely creates ITAR compliance. Make the landing barge a US vessel, even with American security if that's insisted on. Keep it outside territorial waters. Hey presto.

[Anonymous No.10963158]

>>10963101

Not him but you've taken an idiotic position here.

[Anonymous No.10963164]

>starship takes 30min to get anywhere on earth
>but then it will take two hours to safe the vehicle, three to move it from the landing pad over to the cargo depot, and another five to unload it

after all, your 4 hour plane ride is really 8hr after you include parking at the airport, security, boarding, pushing back....

[Anonymous No.10963170]

10963164
and why precisely would it magically take that ridiculously long amount of time despite all the needed equipment being right fucking there?

[Anonymous No.10963174]

>>10963164
The entire idea behind Starship from the start has been airline-like maintenance and operational cadence. Do you detank all the propellant from every jet that lands? And why would it take five to unload? You have a gantry and an elevator at the landing site, it's just higher up.

[Anonymous No.10963179]

>>10963174
>giving it a (You)
come on now
how new are you

[Anonymous No.10963193]

>>10963164
Still not bad compared to a C-130. If the military gets a few to retain on standby rather than under direct SpaceX control, that's where you'll see a time advantage.

There's also the concept of packing up supplies for long-term storage in orbit, then de-orbiting these parcels on demand. Think a constellation of air-drop goodies that commanders on the ground can call on and be sure to get in 20 minutes, as if prepped cargo aircraft were constantly flying over the combat zone.

[Anonymous No.10963199]

>>10963193
>starship
>in airspace that may have enemy AA
oh god oh fuck

[Anonymous No.10963205]

>>10963174
You shouldn't give him any (you)s but yes it will absolutely need detanking and safing.

[Anonymous No.10963210]

If the airforce starts purchasing Starships for cargo transport, will we eventually see Starships in airshows?

[Anonymous No.10963217]

>>10963210
No

[Anonymous No.10963219]

>>10963210
unlikely
what would a starship be able to do if it were in an airshow

[Anonymous No.10963222]

>>10963219
Hover ominously

[Anonymous No.10963294]

>>10963199
>this, but with starship

[Anonymous No.10963300]

>>10963219
Land from orbit

[Anonymous No.10963309]

>>10963199
To be fair AA generally isn't designed for dealing with rocket trajectories.

[Anonymous No.10963311]

>>10963294
Fuck it, turn it into the Mother of All MIRVs.

[Anonymous No.10963366]

https://spacenews.com/vector-relinquishes-air-force-launch-contract-mission-re-awarded-to-aevum/

[Anonymous No.10963491]

>>10962991
Just like in my animes!

[Anonymous No.10963528]

>>10962946
You can launch a truly stupid number of Falcon Heavies for the cost of one SLS. Like 5-10 or something.
If you just break up your payload into chunks and assemble in orbit, you‘d get way more for way cheaper. Granted, the payload itself would get more complex, but still.

[Anonymous No.10963539]

>>10963528
>For the cost of one SLS

this is assuming that you could buy a launch even if you want to

[Anonymous No.10963546]

>>10963539
Falcon Heavy is real! You can see it down at...

[Anonymous No.10963589]

>>10963210
I’d like to see public rocket launches become common across the world. Rockets launching just to please a crowd is too wasteful but to part subsidise and raise public morale and interest in Space it would be great.

[Anonymous No.10963657]

>>10962032
underrated post

[Anonymous No.10963662]

>>10963149
Then boat-kun becomes a bigger problem. It's hard to keep boats away from a shore area, got to be harder in international waters.

[Anonymous No.10963686]

Is he the best candidate for /sfg/
pic was taken at space x HQ so I guess he met with the muskrat himself

[Anonymous No.10963712]

>>10962892
It's not about making jobs, it's about keeping Shuttle-era jobs around, because those jobs are the ones that are effectively funneling government spending into his districts.

[Anonymous No.10963714]

>>10962931
is this the power of mild autism?

[Anonymous No.10963732]

>>10962946
Booster-sustainer designs are kinda shit to begin with, a holdover from the old days when lighting engines in mid-air was seen as unreliable and risky. Sure, the core stage ends up almost in orbit, but what that REALLY means is it has a fairly low thrust to weight ratio throughout the entire flight, hurting performance. Sure it uses hydrogen, which is efficient for its mass, but rockets don't get more expensive as they get HEAVIER, they get expensive as they get BIGGER, and since hydrogen has the lowest density of any liquid, that means any rocket using hydrogen with the same mass as a kerosene-fueled rocket will be MUCH bigger and therefore MUCH more expensive, and despite it getting better performance it'll actually cost MORE per kilogram payload.
SLS is kinda shit because Shuttle was REALLY shit because it had to satisfy so many different design goals (ended up satisfying effectively none of them anyway). Shuttle's engines are fine, very expensive and complex though. Shuttle's boosters are fine, not very nice for a manned launch vehicle though. In my opinion the only things that should have been carried over from the Shuttle toolbox were the RS-25 engine powerheads. The entire structural part of the rocket had to be re-engineered from scratch anyway, there was no reason to even look at the Shuttle ET.

[Anonymous No.10963734]

>>10962979
They're still building up a fleet, next year will probably be the first year that we'll see a significant decrease in the amount of Falcon cores rolling off the assembly line, but simultaneously SpaceX expects there to be more launches next year than any other year previous.

[Anonymous No.10963743]

>>10963025
>The X-33 getting shit canned is one of the worst things to happen, possibly ever.
Daily reminder that X-33 was just a prototype and Venture Star was the actual orbit-capable SSTO launch vehicle design, and that it would have required significant improvements in technology after the X-33 before it could be built.
Daily reminder that the DC-X on the other hand WAS completed and flown successfully and even though it was also a smaller prototype of an SSTO design it would have been relatively simple to convert that into a reusable TSTO rocket design that would land vertically after every mission, effectively giving us a fully reusable Falcon 9 class vehicle.
Daily reminder that the only reason the X-33 prototype even existed in its 90% complete state was because the people writing the checks KNEW that DC-X made more sense and could actually work, but didn't want a big shake up in the way we do space, so they funded X-33 in order to kill the competition and then axed the X-33 when it couldn't meet an arbitrary goal (mandated use of composite tanks even though they proved aluminum would be lighter anyway). I mean shit the military wanted to pick up and fund X-33 for their own purposes and they were blocked by the government from doing so.

[Anonymous No.10963749]

>>10963032
>those sharp edges
enjoy your thermal hot spots I guess, cringe
>>10963043
this, they could have got away with it too by just saying all their shit used some kind of nuclear fuel or something. Also why did they need to launch the Ranger on top of a giant chemical rocket to get into Earth orbit when they were able to take a ranger to orbit from the surface of a planet with higher gravity than Earth? Could've fixed that too if the initial rocket launch was simply carrying a big ass fuel tank that definitely wouldn't fit on Ranger.

[Anonymous No.10963785]

>>10963053
There's a difference between a COPV and a composite fuel tank, anon. A COPV (composite-overwrap pressure vessel) is effectively a very thin aluminum balloon buttressed against a strong wall of carbon fiber threads A composite tank on the other hand is first of all way bigger, hold far less pressure, and importantly doesn't have a metal liner.

>Aerowedge
Aerospike, both linear and toroidal engines are still called aerospikes because the gas trapped between the base of the 'plug' and the surrounding exhaust forms a high pressure 'spike' that pushes against the bottom of the plug.

[Anonymous No.10963790]

>>10963061
Not really, X-33 still wouldn't've been able to reach orbit even if Stratolaunch could carry it.

[Anonymous No.10963794]

>>10960783
Does anyone here honestly think we're gonna have a manned moon base before 2050? I'm doubtful.

[Anonymous No.10963795]

>>10963366
>oh look, it's air launch again
when will they learn?

[Anonymous No.10963796]

>>10963749
>Also why did they need to launch the Ranger on top of a giant chemical rocket to get into Earth orbit when they were able to take a ranger to orbit from the surface of a planet with higher gravity than Earth?
IIRC it was for thematic purposes. The launch of a Ranger on a conventional rocket is meant to look familiar and mundane before the crew takes off to unfamiliar territory.

[Anonymous No.10963816]

>>10963796
Yeah but like I said it didn't make sense in universe, and all they'd have to do to fix that would be to put a big ass fuel tank up there with the Ranger. "they needed a big rocket because the fuel tank was too big to launch with Ranger alone, but the tank needed the Ranger to tug it into docking position with the spaceship". So easily and they didn't do it. Lazy.

[Anonymous No.10963859]

>>10963794
Why 2050? What do you think will be possible by that date that wouldn't be possible by 2030, or arguable even 2020.
The falcon 9 and falcon heavy is more than capable of setting up a permanent manned moon base, the issue isn't technology but
the will to use what we already have.

[Anonymous No.10963862]

>>10963816
The in universe reason they said was to save fuel in the rangers themselves because doing two separate launches would be more complicated and would draw unwanted attention

[Anonymous No.10963868]

>>10963859
2020 wouldn’t be feasible due to needing to organize the machines, life support and personnel needed to build one, it would be a huge logistical challenge that would take a year or two to be confident everything thing would work

[Anonymous No.10963912]

>>10963794
We should be permanently on Mars by 2050. Quite comfortably so.

[Anonymous No.10963918]

>>10963366
Who? I've never heard of these guys, and I can barely find information on them.
And why would the Air Force put so much trust in an air launch startup with not only an unproven rocket, but also a high-tech carrier aircraft? Why should I expect to succeed where Vector and others failed?

[Anonymous No.10963931]

>>10963912
Unless...
>SpaceX gets nationalized
>Blue Origin gets stuck only making engines for ULA
>SLS gets canceled and replaced with the ALS (now with more delays)
>Reusability gets trashed again because the flight frequency becomes so low that it doesn't justify doing anything other than expendable
>China gives up on spaceflight because there's no point in trying to one-up America if it's clear that they don't care about space
>ESA stays as ESA
>Roscosmos never cleans up it's corruption
>More and more people unironically believe in the moon landing hoaxes because "if we could do it 50+ years ago, then why can't we do it now?"
>Interest in spaceflight worldwide plummet

[Anonymous No.10963943]

>>10963931
>ALS
Perfect name

[Anonymous No.10963971]

>>10962467
>>10962470
Bloody nice show.

[Anonymous No.10963975]

>>10963749
>>10963796
>>10963816

>The Ranger's main propulsion system are twin linear aerospike hybrid plasma engines - a marriage of two different rocket engine technologies capable of achieving high thrust while greatly reducing fuel consumption. Chemical rocket engine exhaust is ionized into plasma and magnetically accelerated to very high velocities, vastly increasing fuel efficiency. This enables the Ranger to achieve orbit, accelerate to escape velocity, and travel to other planets, requiring little to no rocket staging. If available, local atmospheric oxygen is collected and burned during atmospheric flight, saving its internal oxygen supply for very high altitudes and orbital maneuvering.

It was supposedly powered by miniature fusion. Is that a fantasy? Seems possible, though out of reach.

Having both Rangers launch above the Saturn VI or whatever that rocket was doesn't seem too weird to me. Saving, say, 5% of each fuel capacity for future orbital burns would be worth having them just ride on a rocket and be 100% full for the coming (unknown) mission. In fact doing that seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the number of launches it would have taken NASA to assemble Endurance. It was the last roll of the dice, remember.

[Anonymous No.10963983]

>>10963032
The lander was even better. The idea of a big, brutish, truck-like SSTO space Huey built solely to sling-load bulk cargo down to the surface from orbit while acting as a giant heat shield in the process was unique and very James Cameronesque.

[Anonymous No.10963985]

A cool clip from First Man I've found. It's the Gemini 8 launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuZFeH0B1rs

Although I have a question about it. At 6:24, flames are shooting out from what appears to be nose of Gemini. Anyone know why this happened? There's mention of fuel cells right after the flames stopped, do they have something to do with that? Or was it a dramatization of something more mundane to make the launch seem more exciting?

[Anonymous No.10964001]

Why do smallsat launchers cost so much? $6 million for Electron? How?

[Anonymous No.10964003]

>>10964001
Larger the rocket capacity, the lower the cost per kg. Also $6M for Electron is probably due to lack of competition.

[Anonymous No.10964006]

>>10964003
So how much do you think it would be if there were competitors? $5m? $4m?

[Anonymous No.10964009]

>>10960877
i yearn for humanity to expand into space not as one but individuals

[Anonymous No.10964013]

>>10964006
We'll see. SpaceX has just gone down for $1M. If electron wants to not bleed, it better offer something better.

[Anonymous No.10964018]

>>10964009
Same. It's alot more interesting that way.

[Anonymous No.10964019]

>>10964018
i want to see a war between space communists and space nazis before i die

[Anonymous No.10964024]

>>10964018
>>10964019
also space ANCAPs

[Anonymous No.10964118]

Imagine if we lived on an earth-like planet that had twice the size and mass of earth. We could probably never even achieve orbit due to the gravity. The population on such a planet would just die sad, knowing they'll never reach the skies.

[Anonymous No.10964121]

>>10964019

[Anonymous No.10964132]

>10964118

You can get the same effect on this planet, just double your weight with Big Macs

[Anonymous No.10964151]

>>10964118
Just fly faster.

[Anonymous No.10964156]

I bet /sfg/ can't go 25 posts without mentioning 'elon' or 'musk.' Also I really, really like the depot meme.
>>10960821
>> exponentially increased our rate of space usage
I would quite like to see some numbers on that
>>10960901
>>There will absolutely be non-state actors with offensive capabilities that rival any state on Earth
don't worry, DARPA's making sure that won't happen. They're playing the long game.

[Anonymous No.10964158]

>>10964118
What's more depressing is that we can actually leave this planet but probably go extinct anyway because of leftist bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10964164]

>>10964118
No, we would just have to use Orion type rockets to get to orbit

[Anonymous No.10964169]

>>10962946
If it had come online by 2010 it would've had a solid 15 year run before being obsoleted by Starship.

[Anonymous No.10964174]

>>10964158
>leftist bullshit
civilisational collapse is not a political problem, it's an economic problem. I'm no leftist but don't shit up the thread

[Anonymous No.10964203]

What happened to the hi res Boca pics? Not many of them in this thread

[Anonymous No.10964233]

>>10964203
Some weird drama at NSF forums caused bocachicagal to stop taking pics i think

[Anonymous No.10964243]

>>10964233
>Some weird drama at NSF forums
Please expand.

[Anonymous No.10964254]

>>10963032
For a movie about Space, the rocketry part was fucking retarded. As always.

[Anonymous No.10964256]

>>10964254
Elaborate

[Anonymous No.10964265]

>>10964256
Let's see:
Ranger needs a Saturn V first stage to get to Earth orbit.
But then it's fine Getting to orbit by itself on the other planets.
And if you look at it, there's just no way its fuel/mass ratio is high enough for that.

[Anonymous No.10964275]

>>10964256
Then, there's the docking scene.
By itself it's fine, but it's what immediately follows that doesn't make fucking sense:
>(funny robot voice)
>Hey cooper, remember when you prevented the station from crashing through the atmosphere?
>Turns out you reached escape velocity somehow, and we're on a colision course somehow

Yeah, the thing just did a 50km/s DeltaV manoever, when it didn't have fuel to get to the third planet?

[Anonymous No.10964277]

>>10964265
>need
They needed absolute maximum resources for the coming mission, why waste precious fuel on an earth launch when you can use resources from home to ferry them up there so it's fully green for the great deep. It also escaped the Miller water planet (1.3g) without much difficulty, so those engines are clearly monsters. Just because this is not explicitly explained doesn't mean there isn't a simple reason for using a Saturn to get the Rangers off Earth.

Also from a filmmaking perspective it's not too hard to see why they would use a vintage rocket to kick things off. Like I said even under the autism microscope there isn't really anything wrong with it. What I want to know is how feasible is it to have miniature fusion reactors that can be hooked up to a mega-efficient propulsion system.

[Anonymous No.10964280]

>>10964277
OK, then, it works on magic rocketry, which solves everything except my second point.

[Anonymous No.10964282]

>>10964275
Interstellar was shit, beginning to end.

[Anonymous No.10964289]

>>10964282
Well, I liked Matt Damon's character. He has a thing for being stuck on other planets.

[Anonymous No.10964297]

>>10964280
>>10964275
i don't really follow here. Are you saying that saving the space station from atmospheric burnout wouldn't also have gotten them out of orbit in the same maneuever, as depicted?

Again, the movie plot dictates that they go from escaping Mann and ice cloud planet by saving Endurance, and next stop in the story is the black hole. But if they could indeed escape the planet's gravity, is a collision course with the black hole really unlikely? Seem's like they would have only needed to be on the daytime side of the planet, which they were.

For reference, Matt Damon ice planet is like 0.8 g or something, definitely weaker than Earth

[Anonymous No.10964312]

>>10964297
>Are you saying that saving the space station from atmospheric burnout wouldn't also have gotten them out of orbit
Let's imagine that's the case.
Planet is orbiting the black hole
You'd have to overdo your manoever by several orders of magnitude to drop the perigee anywhere near the black hole.

[Anonymous No.10964317]

>>10964297
But seriously, play Kerbal Space Program, and your mission today is to drop anything into the Sun. You'll understand then.

[Anonymous No.10964324]

>>10964118
Imagine if Earth had thick cloud cover like Venus or Titan so that we could not see the stars. How long would it take until we'd realize there is space above the clouds?

[Anonymous No.10964328]

>>10964324
At least until high-altitude planes were invented.

[Anonymous No.10964337]

>>10963794
capital problem more then anything. And the US wanting to be good boys and not put nuclear launchers up there, which would basically eliminate any first strike supremacy

capital problem which is why Musk wants to go to mars even though it's 5 times harder

[Anonymous No.10964347]

>>10964297
>Seem's like they would have only needed to be on the daytime side of the planet
Ok, we need to talk
Why aren't you at school today?

[Anonymous No.10964352]

>>10964337
Why does the moon have a capital problem and not Mars?

[Anonymous No.10964363]

>>10964337
You all haven't been following, and I foresee a big problem in Musk's plan.
His company is only providing the means of transportation. Think of them as a cargo company.
It's up to third parties to use Starship to do shit with, and honestly, I don't see it happening.

[Anonymous No.10964368]

>>10964363
>It's up to third parties to use Starship to do shit with, and honestly, I don't see it happening.
Why not? Because nobody has the money to do it? Or because nobody wants to?

[Anonymous No.10964378]

>>10964368
Well, except gobernments, nobody's gonna waste money on this.
And US gobernment is hell bent on ruining the taxpayer with SLS.

[Anonymous No.10964379]

I never watched Interstellar

[Anonymous No.10964381]

>>10964379
Good, dont watch the upcoming space movie with brad pitt too, looks like it will be a shitfest too.

[Anonymous No.10964385]

>>10964381
Hey, at least it's better than Armageddon.
I have only seen it once, but I think Deep Impact was somewhat OK.

[Anonymous No.10964388]

>>10964381
>upcoming space movie with brad pitt
This is the first I'm hearing of this, I don't watch TV and have ublock so I usually miss trailers.

[Anonymous No.10964389]

>>10964347
Forgot to think in 3D for a minute. I'm not a scientist so this is all in my mind's eye
>>10964317
>>10964312
Right. Seems like they would have to be very lucky to get near the edge and not just orbit forever. Would they have had to fire out of orbit and basically head on toward the black hole to get to it and not be orbitally trapped?

Not sure how retarded this diagram this is

[Anonymous No.10964396]

>>10964379
Its a good movie. The science definitely takes a back seat for story and spectacle, but its still an entertaining experience. The ending kinda sucks though.

[Anonymous No.10964401]

>>10964388
ad astra, looks like tommy lee jones is in it too.
But looks like brainles action.

[Anonymous No.10964404]

>>10964389
>Would they have had to fire out of orbit and basically head on toward the black hole to get to it and not be orbitally trapped?
No
And yeah, your diagram is retarded.
And it doesn't make sense they reached escape velocity by moving the station to begin with.

[Anonymous No.10964411]

>>10964401
>"Astronaut Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) travels to the outer edges of the solar system to find his missing father (Tommy Lee Jones) and unravel a mystery that threatens the survival of humans on Earth"
ffs

[Anonymous No.10964424]

>>10964378
>And US gobernment is hell bent on ruining the taxpayer with SLS.
True, but it'll be hard for the US government to argue for the SLS when the BFR can do everything that the SLS can but faster and cheaper. Granted, per launch cost estimates for either aren't available, but judging from the troubled development of the SLS and SpaceXs established history of cost cutting, the BFR seems much more likely to be cheaper than the SLS.

The US government isn't a hivemind, each part of it acts very independently from each other, so the SLS project can't demand that another space project uses their rocket if said project doesn't have the money to launch on SLS.

[Anonymous No.10964431]

>>10964424
Well, here you go, have a ten years delay.
Seriously, though, is it possible for SpaceX to launch a non-US Mars mission?
What if the Chinese sign in?

[Anonymous No.10964432]

>>10964411
>unravel a mystery that threatens the survival of humans on Earth
If it isn't Dr. Weir with superpowers from hell, then I'm going to be disappointed.

[Anonymous No.10964440]

>>10963686
he is the most based
i hope you amerifags realized that before it's too late

[Anonymous No.10964441]

>>10964324
>>10964328
weather systems may periodically clear the sky enough for stars to be visible.

[Anonymous No.10964446]

>>10964378
Only one part of the government wants to keep feeding Boeing cash for shoddy work. The DoD has long since had their patience with Boeing cut short.
>https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26627917/air-force-kc-461-deliveries-trash-boeing/

[Anonymous No.10964450]

>>10964431
>Seriously, though, is it possible for SpaceX to launch a non-US Mars mission?
>What if the Chinese sign in?
If it's Chinese, then SpaceX would most likely lose nearly all of its US government support including NASA. The US has very much been against China in spaceflight (for a serious reason that goes beyond racism). SpaceX could fly a payload from a private company or investor provided that they're from a country that's friendly to the US.

[Anonymous No.10964451]

>>10964440
(you)

[Anonymous No.10964454]

>>10964440
too late. americans are too soft to seriously think about politics and will just vote for the most comfortable candidate

[Anonymous No.10964456]

>>10964446
Look, this Mars hardware is gonna cost billions by itself, without the rocket.
The thing is NASA is just pretending to go to Mars because they know it.
They'll never get the budget.
Maybe DoD could do it if they feel owning Mars is Defense critical.

[Anonymous No.10964458]

>>10964440
He's awfully naive about the militarization of space.

[Anonymous No.10964460]

>>10964456
Oh, DoD doesn't want Mars (at least not at first). It wants the Moon's ice, and straight lines of sight in Earth Orbit to all the satellites in the sky.

[Anonymous No.10964473]

season 7 of the expanse will probably be shot, at least partially, in space

[Anonymous No.10964475]

>>10964473
Wasn't it cancelled?
Gave up after a few 2nd season episodes.

[Anonymous No.10964477]

>>10964475
It was cancelled, but Jeff Bezos liked the show. When you're the richest man in the world, you can just buy the shows you like and demand they keep being made. Season 4 this December, season 5 is filming. I definitely recommend watching to the end of Season 3 and reading the books. If you stopped early in the 2nd season you're still in the plot and character setup phase and haven't even met the main plot.

[Anonymous No.10964482]

>>10964477
Ok, then, but does it get good again?
Because the beginning of S2 was a real letdown for me.

[Anonymous No.10964483]

>>10964440
ubi doesn't work and destroys economies - worst choice behind bernie's full socialism

[Anonymous No.10964484]

>>10964482
Yes, it gets good again. I don't want to be too specific with spoilers unless you've read the books (you definitely should).

[Anonymous No.10964485]

>>10964477
>Jeff Bezos liked the show
That's understating it a little. Want to know the first book he showed off on one of the early models of the Kindle? Leviathan Wakes.

[Anonymous No.10964489]

>>10964484
There are books?
I thought it was an original show.

[Anonymous No.10964491]

>>10964485
It's understating it a little but my previous post was literally "Jeff Bezos will start filming in orbit by 2023" which might be overstating it a little

>>10964489
The books are better than the show and go out to like, season 11. One of the authors is a protege of George RR Martin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expanse_(novel_series)

[Anonymous No.10964494]

>>10964491
Nice to know.
Not sure it's edited in my country, but I'll give it a try.

[Anonymous No.10964496]

>>10964494
If it's not localized, you should know it's written in fairly readable English. It's not Asimov tier wankery. If you can follow this thread you can follow their writing.

[Anonymous No.10964504]

>>10964496
I'm pretty good with English, so it wouldn't be a problem.
But now that I know that Bezos is involved, I'm never gonna order it on Amazon.

[Anonymous No.10964506]

>>10964504
Just pirate the books then lol

[Anonymous No.10964507]

>>10964506
Yeah, but reading on a monitor is kinda absolute trash.

[Anonymous No.10964509]

>>10964507
You don't have a phone or an ereader? If you like to read I'd definitely pick up something like a Kobe.

[Anonymous No.10964511]

>>10964456
Why does the mars hardware HAAAVE to be the gold plated 50000% upcharge shit
Off the shelf is good enough, one for use, a second for spare, a third of its critical

[Anonymous No.10964513]

>>10964507
What about audiobooks? Are you good at understanding english spoken aloud?

[Anonymous No.10964515]

>>10964509
Nah, I'll get the paper.
I'm too old for this stuff.
>>10964511
Yeah, it's gonna have to be reliable, and that means a lot, and a lot of testing. And then, a lot more testing.
You're not gonna get away with throwing a tuna can at Mars, even though it could do the job.

[Anonymous No.10964517]

>>10964511
Off the shelf is fine but Mars is not Earth. You can't just send a regular excavator, because it's not going to operate in a near vacuum.

[Anonymous No.10964518]

>>10964513
Yeah, that's how I 'read' The Martian. Should be fine.

[Anonymous No.10964565]

>>10964517
An electric excavator will absolutely work in a vacuum. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.10964567]

>>10964515
You can get excavators for a million or less
The changes needed for low gravity vacuum operation do not mandate an increase of 3 orders of magnitude

[Anonymous No.10964575]

What's the easiest way to manufacture a rocket engine with regenerative cooling without having to resort to additive manufacturing?

[Anonymous No.10964580]

>>10964565
Assuming there's no air cooled components

[Anonymous No.10964596]

>>10964580
That's what heatsinks and bigger cooling fans are for. Also, remember that at Martian gravity levels, any earthmoving equipment built to earth specs will be barely breaking a sweat moving feather-light regolith.

[Anonymous No.10964601]

>>10964575
Aquire a direct metal sintering printer and some powdered inconel alloy

[Anonymous No.10964604]

>>10964511
IRRC American spaceflight at its beginnings (shortly after Sputnik) tried to use COTS parts, but they kept running into problems in having to modify said parts. Since the US at the time was desparate to catch up to the Soviets it may have left a bad taste for COTS.

[Anonymous No.10964606]

>>10964596
The Martian dust is sharp and electrostatic. It will buttfuck everything it touches into malfunctioning

[Anonymous No.10964622]

>>10964606
That's moon dust. Mars dust has been worn down through wind and ancient water action. Opportunity and Spirit would not have lasted as long as they did if mars dust was as bad as moon dust, which has experienced almost no weathering.

[Anonymous No.10964632]

>>10960919
MFW I am old enough that I had one of these as a kid

[Anonymous No.10964635]

>>10961168
Epic maymay, 10/10, would contemplate again.

[Anonymous No.10964637]

>>10964575
Copenhagen Suborbitals had a good video on it. It might be taken down if that guy who chopped up the journalist in the submarine was involved.

[Anonymous No.10964638]

>>10961550
Oh wow, that would have been even better.

[Anonymous No.10964649]

>>10961744
I hope they rename it Newt Glenngrich and mostly launch at night. Mostly...

[Anonymous No.10964654]

>>10964580
Hydraulic oil is the coolant. You'll need to run it through a bigger radiator though.

[Anonymous No.10964663]

>>10962032

[Anonymous No.10964667]

>>10964379
Just listen to this once and you haven't missed anything:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3zvVGJrTP8

[Anonymous No.10964670]

>>10962418
>Canceling the Apollo Applications Program was a mistake.

As it turns out, yes.

They were right - reusabillity is preferable. But they were Too Soon. (tm)

And then the Proxmiring started...

[Anonymous No.10964678]

>>10964601
>he asks specifically about not having to resort to additive manufacturing
>you suggest additive manufacturing

[Anonymous No.10964680]

>>10962501
Best version of space combat is in "Protector."

>Battle starts.
>Fire Weapons.
>Wait.
>Wait.
>Wait.
>Build hibernation chamber to stave off boredom during battle.

[Anonymous No.10964684]

>>10964678
Additive manufacturing is the superior method though

[Anonymous No.10964689]

>>10962662

While echoing
>>10962664
>>10962670
I'll also admit I have been burned enough tomes that I'll believe it when I see it. I hope they do it, or even better that as it becomes clear they're aboit to do it severl other actors jump in and do ti, too.

But I'll get excited when they have the actual capabilities, as opposed to when they say they are going to develop them Real Soon Now.

[Anonymous No.10964696]

Anybody else wishing RAH had lived to see these days?

[Anonymous No.10964725]

>>10964689
I mean, they're supposed to be flying in October. That's not several years from now. That's next month.

Fucking Bocachicathot denying us history for forum drama.

[Anonymous No.10964731]

>>10964684
>Additive manufacturing is the superior method though

[Anonymous No.10964755]

>>10964725
The question seemed to me to be about flying to Mars. Are you saying they'll be flying to Mars by October?

[Anonymous No.10964759]

>>10964637
>It might be taken down if that guy who chopped up the journalist in the submarine was involved.
wut

[Anonymous No.10964766]

>>10964696
NB4 Elon gets barred from flying on early flights Donald Dixon, then permanently barred from space by the Space Precautionary act, then dies in a bad landing in extreme old age on a illegal flight, finally on the Mars he devoted his life to.

[Anonymous No.10964774]

>>10964477
So tell, me, bookfag, does the series actually recover from introducing a fucking stargate?

[Anonymous No.10964784]

>>10964601
>>10964684
While additive manufacturing is a great tool for producing complex parts. Its not suited for cheap low-quantity prototyping, which is what I'm looking for. Also, most machine shops don't have an advanced metal 3D printer.

[Anonymous No.10964790]

>>10964759
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/global/2018/jan/07/copenhagen-killing-peter-madsen-kim-wall-murder-submarine

They took down all the videos with this guy.

[Anonymous No.10964793]

>>10964774
Yes, Earth creates a specialized task force to handle the stargate and its implications. The command of this stargate initiative and the first team of the task force would become the focus of the series.

[Anonymous No.10964812]

Have you guys heard about Additive Manufacturing?

[Anonymous No.10964820]

>>10964774
Yes, based Duarte did nothing wrong. Don't even @ me.

[Anonymous No.10964830]

>>10964755
They'll be flying the prototype of a Mars colony ship, which is 90% of the hardware development for "having a Mars colony ship". Being ready for first flight next month is a far cry from "developing it soon™"

[Anonymous No.10964829]

>>10964784
>Its not suited for cheap low-quantity prototyping

Nigga that's exactly what it's best at

[Anonymous No.10964833]

>>10964793
Sounds based. Guess I'll watch about 10 seasons of that and maybe another one or two from a spin-off.

[Anonymous No.10964842]

>>10964774
It explores the socioeconomic implications of a Martian government suddenly having to deal with hundreds of potentially habitable planets better than Mars. There's also at least two major factions introduced after the gates open.

[Anonymous No.10964847]

>>10964842
SPOILERS! But also thanks, I guess. Sounds good enough.

[Anonymous No.10964857]

>>10964847
>ask how the series recovers
>gets a vague outline of how the series progresses that doesn't mention any plot points
>WTF SPOILERS
m8

[Anonymous No.10964866]

>>10964829
Most of the stuff I've heard about metal 3D says otherwise.

[Anonymous No.10964957]

>>10964282
t. retard

[Anonymous No.10965013]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stOVFXuyyWQ0

Elon musk's ancap moon looks retarded.

[Anonymous No.10965036]

>>10962931
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R_FnI_PUDU

[Anonymous No.10965053]

>>10964833
>maybe another one or two from a spin-off
God, SG Destiny had so much wasted potential
At least Atlantis had good characters, even if the plot was meh

[Anonymous No.10965082]

>>10964696
every time I watch a Falcon 9 landing

[Anonymous No.10965093]

>>10964328
balloons should get you high enough to see stars, especially with the thicker atmosphere

[Anonymous No.10965101]

>>10964363
>only providing the means of transportation
They've just been too busy making better transportation so that they can start doing Elon missions: for instance, starlink

[Anonymous No.10965102]

>>10964790
He's a real life Bond villain!
>builds personal submarines
>designs personal sea-launched passenger rockets
>brutal murderer

I never heard what his motive was supposed to be besides pure psychopathy.

[Anonymous No.10965106]

>>10964379
I didn't watch Gravity either, apparently it was pretty as fuck, but it threw orbital mechanics out the window, and straight into the sun

[Anonymous No.10965114]

>>10965106
Yeah, it's basically as accurate as Armageddon.

[Anonymous No.10965118]

>>10964389
Your scaling is quite fucked, but if the black hole could pull something out low orbit of a planet orbiting it, tidal forces would have ripped the planet apart to begin with.

[Anonymous No.10965148]

>>10965102
Last I heard the police suspected it was a tour/interview turned rape turned murder.

[Anonymous No.10965150]

>>10965118
Yes I understand that part. There's definitely no way that a stable body let alone a dynamic planet could exist that far inside a black hole's gravitational sphere of influence that it could pull a space station out of orbit and into it. Just doesn't make sense. I am not sure though if it's possible that cooper could have injected the station to a near direct course with the black hole in the process of escaping the ice planet.

(scaling - implied millions of km distance between each body). What I'm trying to understand is if it's possible -or how likely it would be- that in the process of raising the endurance out of atmospheric burnup and the orbit of Mann's planet, that the station would end up on a course that would take it into the black hole's pull and let Cooper do his slingshot manoevre.

[Anonymous No.10965154]

>>10963862
There's no way launching a small space plane twice would draw less attention than a big ass chemical rocket stack

[Anonymous No.10965166]

>>10963975
What I'm saying is that for the script they could have launched the rangers alongside a big fuel tank (enough to refill each ranger ten times for example) all at once on top of that big rocket.

[Anonymous No.10965182]

>>10964156
See the following
>>10963795
>>10963796
>>10963816
>>10963859
>>10963862
>>10963868
>>10963912
>>10963918
>>10963931
>>10963943
>>10963971
>>10963975
>>10963983
>>10963985
>>10964001
>>10964003
>>10964006
>>10964009
>>10964013
>>10964018
>>10964019
>>10964024
>>10964118
>>10964121
>>10964151
which were all posted before you, dummy

[Anonymous No.10965199]

>>10964389
You're forgetting about the hundred kilometers per second that the planet is moving sideways at with respect to the black hole
the planet is in orbit too, you know.

[Anonymous No.10965204]

>>10964483
source for the first part
bernie's idea doesn't work because college doesn't guarantee you get a high paying job, free college to fix the economy is like free food to fix obesity

[Anonymous No.10965216]

>>10965199
Oh yeah, stupid hahah. Trying to visualise this in my pea brain, so does that just make the window for them to get on that collision course narrower? Like playing hookey hanging out the window of a bullet train?

[Anonymous No.10965229]

>>10964580
>>10964596
>>10964654
Guys, for coolant you could use a 'heat battery', aka a large tank of parrafin wax. The wax tank has inside it two sets of pipes, one set carries coolant oil from the machine, the other carries quench water from the base. As it's working the machine dumps heat into the wax tank by circulating its coolant oil into the pipes running though the tank. The temperature of the tank stays close to the melting point of the wax, because the extra heat is driving the change of state from solid to liquid (enthalpy of formation). Once the wax has all been melted (could take more than 12 hours of hard work depending on the size of the heat battery), the machine hooks up to the base and attached a water line to the quench tubes. Cold water is then pumped through the heat battery, rapidly cooling it and solidifying the wax in the tank, removing the stored heat from the machine. That heat is then dispersed using radiators that don't have to be designed to be actively carried around.

[Anonymous No.10965240]

>>10965013
>we have to look """realistic""" so every piece of technology on the moon has to look like it's still Apollo
Yeah. Sure. Every future vehicle on the moon will look like that one contraption from the 60s that they had to squeeze into an apollo lunar lander with 0 mass budget. Apparently military ones at that. Fucking sure. And the space suits!
Better look like what everyone imagines! No fucking way a literal fucking space marine would need anything different than Neil Armstrong!

This looks like such schlock.

[Anonymous No.10965245]

>>10965229
I think that would work. I know that NASA is looking into PCMs anyway. Vtye only problem is that paraffin will be hard to come by on Mars, but then so will hydraulic oil.

[Anonymous No.10965262]

>>10965150
>What I'm trying to understand is if it's possible -or how likely it would be
That's my point, if the gravity was different enough for mere escape velocity from a planet to cause something to fall into what the planet is orbiting, then gravity has to change so much over such a short distance that the near and far sides of the planet would be pulled in opposite directions by tidal force, and the planet would break up.
Orbital speed depends on distance from the central object, and if it changes too much for a single body, you end up with a ring.
Go read Niven's "The Integral Trees".

[Anonymous No.10965265]

>>10965245
Once you've made methane you can build up longer hydrocarbons and eventually more complex stuff like waxes, it just takes energy.

[Anonymous No.10965279]

>>10965093
>16,000 feet
CLIMB A MOUNTAIN, RETARD!

[Anonymous No.10965323]

>>10965150
I think someone already said it once. But let me repeat it: Reaching the sun - or in this case the black hole - is HARD.
When you're on a planet, you are orbiting around the sun at quite a lot of speed.
Basically, to reach the center of the system, you need to counteract the entire velocity that the planet has in relation to the central object.
Otherwise all you're doing is raising, lowering or otherwise altering your orbit AROUND the sun.
Easiest way to get there would be to fly off the planet, accelerate in the opposite direction the planet was heading in (so decelerate in relative to the sun) and then just fall in once you're at 0.
But that is ridiculously outside of what you need to get out of a planet's atmosphere and into an orbit.

But then again, I don't know why you're really arguing about this in a movie that has anti-gravity drives in the end.

[Anonymous No.10965324]

>>10965229
>>10965245
>>10965265
Assuming water isn't too hard to get a lot of, how about evaporative/sublimative cooling?

[Anonymous No.10965355]

>>10965324
I'm the guy who thinks parafin would work but would be hard to get it. Making it and having it for ever would be preferable to wasting water

[Anonymous No.10965378]

>>10965262
>>10965323
I guess why I'm trying to make it work is because I thought the movie was quite realistic, setting aside the black hole, tesseract, and gravity stuff at the end (and the wormhole I guess too). The actual spaceflight in it seemed reasonable and that's why I'm drawn to it.

What you said reminded me of what I thought when I was looking at the trajectories for Venus and Mercury missions in particular. All of them have to do heaps of loopy stuff to get closer and closer, you can't just go straight in.

What you're saying is it's not possible to alter the blackhole orbit trajectory of the station (via orbital escape from planet) so that the perigee is close enough for an effective slingshot? Without there being extra maneuvers after they escape Mann that are not indicated in the movie? Sorry, I feel like im close to "get"ting this

[Anonymous No.10965397]

>>10965378
play
kerbal
space
program

It's by far the best way to really get a feel for orbital mechanics. You will immediately understand why the shit that happens in interstellar makes no goddamn sense. ALL of the space flight in that movie is absolutely dogshit in terms of realism (looks pretty though).

[Anonymous No.10965411]

>>10965397
Ok thanks

[Anonymous No.10965482]

>>10965229
>that heat is then dispersed
you mean recaptured as energy right

[Anonymous No.10965514]

>>10965512
new

[Anonymous No.10965697]

>>10963084
Watch your pronouns.

[Anonymous No.10966097]

>>10964483
>ubi doesn't work and destroys economies

But it does put a social safety net under people so on the whole, its worth exploring the benefits even for as short a time as a presidential term.