Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 67 KB, 1200x799, SpaceX-orbital-Starship-prototype.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10964056 No.10964056 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

I'm incredibly excited for future flights of SS/SH, but I'm still incredibly cautious. We've seen five flights of a prototype which, aside from the engine, have almost nothing in common with the final vehicle. The two orbital prototypes aren't much better.

>> No.10964058

>>10964056
absolutely

>> No.10964059

>>10964056
Unless SpaceX goes bankrupt or gets nationalized in the meantime, some version of Starship will make it to Mars. The basic technology, motivation, and funds are already there. Just give them some time, they're figuring stuff out with their designs.

>> No.10964074

>>10964056
If they do 20 km sub orbital this year, then they're almost halfway there. So it would be >50% chance there.

>> No.10964080

Fuck yea.

Wish they'd do a gofundme or something so i could throw money at them.

>> No.10964086

>>10964056
OP Here. I did some math and I found that, even if SpaceX uses expendable launches (No reuse of SS/SH), it would cost something like $5 Billion - Very doable.

$400 million per vehicle.

2 Starships (One for predeployment)
10 Tankers (Five each).

Wow.

>> No.10964338

Lol, once climate change starts kicking in for real you'll be lucky if you can afford to drive a car to work.

>> No.10964463

>>10964056
That's not a starship anon, that's a rocket.

>> No.10964468

>>10964463
It's a starship propelled by a rocket.

>> No.10964717

>>10964056
No. I think it will be renamed again before that happens.

>> No.10964728

>>10964074
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am curious as to how you arrived at that figure. I'm not sure that a suborbital launch = half way there for a flight to Mars. But I'm open to you're being right.

>> No.10964735

>>10964468
If that WERE "Starship," then no, it is not going to go to Mars.

>> No.10964736

>>10964717
I hope you are right. That name is just like nails on a chalkboard, somehow.

>> No.10964782

>>10964728
Its more of a saying than any hard estimate. The main hurdle will be flying up to space and landing back on earth(and possibly refueling tests). Once that's taken care of with their 20km suborbital test, then its only a matter of refinement.

>> No.10964792

Going to Mars is such a fucking stupid waste of money. If they made a launching station at a Lagrange point and built a space elevator they could send a shuttle to Mars every weekend for 5 years for the same price one trip would take now.

>> No.10964806

>>10964792
>space elevator
It's easier to go to Mars using today's technology rather than try to make a space elevator for Earth.

>> No.10964936

>>10964736
I miss the BFR name

>> No.10964942

>>10964936
Did SpaceX drop it? I thought BFR still referred to the SS+SH stack?

>> No.10964948

>>10964792
>space elevator
Not viable for either Earth or Mars and will never be.

>> No.10964969

>>10964942
SS+SH stack is the BFR. People are just confused.

>> No.10965232

>>10964782
So was Alan Shepard's flight in Friendship 7 halfway to a Mars flight?

>> No.10965238

>>10964948
Maybe for Mars, I'd say.

>> No.10965251

>>10964056
>>10964463
>using rockets to get off world like a barbarian

Hail to the Orbital Elevator master race! The future is 20+hour luxurious rides to the heavens baby.

Spaceplane, Orbital Elevator or bust. Never flying a rocket.

>> No.10965352

>>10965251
>Hail to the Orbital Elevator master race*
>* Once we get our Unobtainium(tm) with the ultra extreme properties needed for orbital elevators to even be a possibility rather than laughed off immediately

>> No.10965382

Launch loops are the most likely candidate. Each single advance in rocketry or materials will only make launch loops even better option for large scale launches.

>> No.10965383

>>10964056

What are the chances that everyone travelling to Mars dies off Cancer?

>> No.10965432

>>10965352
>Ignoring the developments of carbon nanotubes and graphene ribbons
You are the reason space development has stalled for so long.

>> No.10965455

>>10965383
100%. There are no mars rocket today. So sending anyone to mars today will kill them.

>> No.10965586

>>10965432

He has a point, though. We will see an intercontinental graphene bridge before the space elevator.

>> No.10965621
File: 5 KB, 250x174, cringe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10965621

>>10965586
>building international bridges

>> No.10965627

>>10965232
Friendship 7 didn't have the dV to get to Mars. Starship with Superheavy does. I disagree with the other anon though, I think the critical "oh shit we can do this now" technology for SpaceX is orbital refueling. If they can demonstrate a Starship refueled in space, that's the moment the paradigm completely shifts. Suddenly you can yeet 100 tons anywhere in the solar system.

>> No.10965629

>>10965586
and why exactly should such a thing be built, you paint huffing retard
be specific

>> No.10965635

>>10965432
Martian colony ships can be built with the technology of the 1970s. Graphene is still in early development. It's promising, sure, but it's not required for space colonization. You can build a space elevator on the Moon with kevlar.

>> No.10965637

>>10965629

Elon Musk's idea. Ask him.

>> No.10965641

>>10965637
>>10965629
To vastly reduce shipping costs and time. The only argument against it is autistic screeching about muh globohomo (and the fact we can't actually build anything longer than a centimeter from nanotubes yet).

>> No.10965667

>>10965637
>>10965641
do you not know how fucking long a intercontinental bridge would take to drive across, and how much of a pain in the ass it would be to maintain
countries can't even fucking manage to maintain the roads in their capital cities, and you expect them to maintain a bridge in the middle of the fucking ocean?

>> No.10965672

>>10965667
>drive
If you spent the absurd amount of money on an Intercontinental bridge, you'd be running bullet trains on it.

>> No.10965686
File: 200 KB, 356x256, 1444840240613.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10965686

>>10965672
>have fuck ass massive bridge
>put bullet train on it
>hurricane slides right down it and give the ole spicy shake and bake

>> No.10965695

>>10964059
this.
can't wait to see this

>> No.10965701

>>10964792
>space elevator
you got to be on drugs

>> No.10965706

>>10965621
based isolationist & wallpilled

>> No.10965797

>>10965686

A graphene bridge is going to be more resiliant than diamond.

>> No.10965811

>>10965238
It can't due mostly to the 2 moons, but material physics are not going to jump by the leaps and bounds needed to allow for a space elevator. Those are simply sci-fi pipe dreams.

>> No.10965814

>>10965797
>graphene
Moron.

>> No.10965816

>>10965797
Graphene is only good for grant farming.

>> No.10966999

>>10964080
I agree with this. I'd actually gladly throw some money at them just to help things along with nothing back, or to have my name included on some physical object to be left on Mars or something.

>> No.10967003

>>10965797
But diamond is the strongest metal.

>> No.10967017
File: 217 KB, 1080x1346, 1565593546727.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10967017

>>10966999
>my name included on some physical object to be left on Mars or something

Why don't you just, uh, go there when the price is under $250K

>> No.10967036

>>10964056
>Do you think Starship will make it to Mars?
There is no known technical showstopper. There is also more than enough funding assuming SpaceX gets some access to bottomless NASA budget while maintaining their efficiency.

It is gonna happen.

>> No.10967344

>>10964056
I think it should, but there's no way anyone serious would put humans in there because lawsuits risks.

>> No.10967380

>>10964086
That lands you a metal cylinder on Mars. Assuming nothing goes wrong. That doesn't get you any equipment, any people, any ISRU, any communication equipment, or get you back again.

>> No.10967413

>>10967380
It lands you 2 Starships and 200-300 tons of cargo on Mars.

>> No.10967546

>>10965455
But not of cancer.

>> No.10967557

>>10965432
There are reasons to assume that sufficiently long carbon tubules cannot be manufactured in bulk at sufficient purity under any circumstances.

IF that turns out to be true, THAT would be the reason, not the people who understand the problem.

>> No.10967562

>>10965641
>and the fact we can't actually build anything longer than a centimeter from nanotubes yet

Or possibly ever.

That would seem sufficient argument against it, without autistic screeching being necessary.

>> No.10967563

>>10967003
So what would happen if a bullet train made of diamond collided with an inter-continental bridge made of diamond?

>> No.10967564

>>10967003
Diamond is among the hardest, if not THE hardest, metal known to man!

>> No.10967587

>>10967564
true but not a metal

>> No.10967607

>>10967546
Not with that attitude

>> No.10967633

>>10967587
hownew.ru

>> No.10967638

>>10964056
No

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action