/sfg/ Spaceflight General

File: 269 KB, 1920x1387, Keeper-of-the-winds-Copyright-ESA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/sfg/ Spaceflight General Anonymous Mon Sep 23 02:48:40 2019 No.10995832 [Reply] [Original]

ADM-Aeolus - Keeper Of The Winds - edition

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:21:11 2019 No.10995888 >>10995832 20km when

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:24:55 2019 No.10995891 >>10995832 old thread: >>10992807

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 03:35:37 2019 No.10995903 File: 223 KB, 640x1200, 1563643975620.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10995832 Lets make it happen captain

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 04:22:41 2019 No.10995938

>>10995825
>>10995829
Funny you should ask that, a particularly spicy L2 post about Blue Origin dropped last week: they are currently building a large painting facility at their Florida factory (Elon really got it right with the stainless, no need for painting) and apparently it’s sized to fit New Armstrong as well as NG. Now this all sounds great, but the same post also revealed that they haven’t even begun construction of a ‘pathfinder’ prototype stage for New Glenn yet and are still setting up welding machinery. Methinks they should focus on getting stuff flying before thinking about future rockets...

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:43:50 2019 No.10996018 >>10995832 Old thread will still be around for most of this day.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 05:50:23 2019 No.10996027 >>10995903 there is not enough metal in earth crust to do it

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:05:52 2019 No.10996138 >>10996027 Why use just the crust, or just metal on earth?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 08:54:21 2019 No.10996207 File: 16 KB, 700x394, SpaceX-BFR-spaceship-refilling-from-tanker-700x394.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Starship lewds.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:37:32 2019 No.10996268

Starship 18 > ITS 16 > BFR 18 > Starship 19 > BFR 17

>>10995938
They probably see the writing on the wall with Starship, and they'd like to jump on that bandwagon before it's been flying for a few years and the market is being cornered. However, they're still obligated to fly NG and NS.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 09:48:43 2019 No.10996286 >>10996027 prove it. Also I'd be more worried about how a structure like that doesn' fall the fuck down.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:01:07 2019 No.10996317 >>10995903 >Ywn live in a massive hive city growing around a space elevator with massive fortress city at the end Why even live

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:09:34 2019 No.10996338 >>10996286 >fall the fuck down active support

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:35:27 2019 No.10996378 File: 514 KB, 640x626, 1565865884642.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >SLS WILL NEVER FLY >ORION WILL NEVER FLY >THE ARTEMIS PROGRAM IS A SCAM >DEFUND NASA AND BREAKUP ULA

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 10:48:38 2019 No.10996402
File: 72 KB, 300x517, Space_elevator_structural_diagram.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10996338
I doubt even active could hold up such an enormous and lopsided structure. I get why artists have to take liberties though, if it were portrayed realistically you wouldn't see much more or less than a very thin silver/white thread which at the distance of the observer wouldn't be very interesting. By far the largest part of any realistic space elevator will be it's counterweight anchor which pulls the whole thing taut, estimated between 1-5 megatons in weight at a minimum for an Earth elevator, depending on the type of tether material you're using. At least all you'd need is a big stack of moon-concrete or some other easily sourced material, if you really do use moon concrete you'd need a cube of it about about 2080m^3 in volume to anchor an elevator on the heavier side, something that used say Twaron or T1100G Carbon Fiber as opposed to the ideal but unrealized nanotubes or graphene. So what you'd see is a long reflective or white fiber with a huge grey brick at one end and a little clump of stations (little compared to the overall structure) much closer to the brick than to the planet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:04:50 2019 No.10996432 ETA for Starship presentation? No musk time one please.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:34:31 2019 No.10996489 >>10996432 Still holding firm for the 28th

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:38:44 2019 No.10996504

>>10996402
The taper ratio for Twaron and T1100G carbon fiber isn't great. The breaking lengths of those are less than 500 km. Colossal carbon tubes have a reasonable taper ratio. Remember: 30 MegaYuris or bust! (Yuri is a unit of specific strength in newton/(kg/m)) 30 MY is the lower limit for a practical space elevator so you really need more.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:39:57 2019 No.10996507 >>10996432 28th is SpaceX' orbital anniversary, he probably sticks to it this time. In the end it will be one picture of the current (unfinished) state of Mk1 and the rest will be CGI anyway.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:40:34 2019 No.10996508

>>10995938
NA is going to be Nova sized, mark my words. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if NG ends up being barely more than a hopper testbed for NA.

Bezos may be a little cringe with his pacing, but unlike Musk, he also doesn't really need any of this to actually make him money, so he's going to build what he wants, when he wants to build it.

Looking at his interest in the F-1, part of me wonders if he isn't working on a methalox-burning F-1 class engine to power NA. Imagine a cluster of 7-12 of those fuckers powering a big chungus NA 1st stage.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:42:46 2019 No.10996512 >>10996402 Space elevators are retarded, the only way we'll ever get something like that is by building a Battle Angel Alita-style orbital ring, as the materials science required for that is far, far less demanding.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 11:52:46 2019 No.10996532

>>10996512
orbital rings are retarded. They require an insane amount of materials to build and you have to pay the 'keep the structure from falling down' tax for as long as its up. The only reason space elevators have been considered at all recently is that carbon nanotubes could allow us to build space elevators with reasonable amounts of material. Also, the orbital rings we can actually build may not be stable. Also Lofstrom loop is definitely not stable and Lofstrom's response to dealing with this is 'LOL COMPUTERS.'

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:04:06 2019 No.10996553 >>10996508 well, Starship is already Nova sized

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:16:49 2019 No.10996596 >>10996553 Starship is the size of the smaller Nova designs, I'm talking about the bigger, crazier later iterations of Nova that were like Kerolox UR-700s in terms of how many F-1s the 1st stage had.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:21:05 2019 No.10996606 >>10996596 doesn't Starship have nearly the thrust of a Nova-8?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:23:33 2019 No.10996610 this mk1 prototype took less time to build to completion than the hopper no? Assuming it’s fully operational soon after or by the 28th

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:24:49 2019 No.10996611 >>10996610 it will not be fully operational by the 28th it will be cosmetically nearly complete by the 28th, like the Hopper was for that promo shot they did

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:25:55 2019 No.10996615 >>10996611 I don’t know anon; oct is when they plan to do a hop. All of the hardware looks legit

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:26:31 2019 No.10996618 >>10996615 yeah, it's going to be a lot further along than Hopper was

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:30:34 2019 No.10996624

>>10996508
Am I the only one whos excited for NG? Sure its 'just a bigger and better Falcon 9', but the mere fact that another company is seriously pursuing reuse and could potentially be a competitor to SpaceX tells me that the industry is growing significantly.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:30:58 2019 No.10996625

>>10996402
Why bother with the giant useless counter weight when you can extend your tether far beyond GEO until the centripetal force pulling on the far end is enough to counterbalance the Earth's gravity pulling on the near end? That way not only do you 'only' need to build more cable instead of launching a brazillion to concrete block or grabbing an asteroid at great expense, you can also climb the cable all the way to the end once it's built and just by letting go you can get flung onto a higher-than-escape trajectory towards other planets effectively for free.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:32:30 2019 No.10996627 >>10996624 NG may not kill SpaceX, but it may well end up killing the Ariane 6 and Roscosmos, and that's going to be exciting AF to watch. I just can't wait to see what NA actually is.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:36:02 2019 No.10996637

>>10996508
>Imagine a cluster of 7-12 of those fuckers powering a big chungus NA 1st stage.
If BO had the ability to improve the BE-4 until it had the same chamber pressure as Raptor it'd pretty much be F-1 class to begin with. BE-4 has what, like four times the exit area of Raptor? Given an equal chamber pressure that'd put it in the ballpark of 4x as powerful, eg 8000 kN.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:37:12 2019 No.10996639 >>10996532 Orbital rangs basically require high temperature superconductors, and a large mass of them. Otherwise like you said the energy costs are insane.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:37:37 2019 No.10996641 File: 62 KB, 1024x576, starship.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:38:13 2019 No.10996644 >>10996627 I want to see the directors of Arianespace kermit suicide on live tv

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:39:26 2019 No.10996646 >>10996641 very sex, though we currently don't know how the forward flaps are being installed. I hope it's like pic related, and not way up on the nose (didn't really like that to begin with). Whatever works better though, I guess.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:41:04 2019 No.10996652 >>10996627 Wasn't Ariane looking into reuse? Or was that ESA?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:41:14 2019 No.10996654 >>10996639 RANGS

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:42:16 2019 No.10996657

>>10996641
Move the canards up by 10-15 feet and extend those fin fairings over the pressurizing plumbing raceways until they become aerodynamically faired chines like the space shuttle's wing roots and that schematic is spot on.

The legs will be F9 style, and when closed will be covered by some sort of TPS that does double duty to shield them from the heat of the raptors on landing.

I'm going to be fucking erect when this thing flies. It's so brutal looking that it reminds me of something out of nuBSG.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:42:42 2019 No.10996658 >>10996652 ESA was contemplating reuse and doing papers

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:43:07 2019 No.10996661 >>10996641 i can almost see the temperature warning bar appearing above the leg pods

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:43:28 2019 No.10996664 >>10996652 They are, but it's going to be too little too late without a state sponsor to keep the lights on after all the comsat launchers have jumped to New Glenn.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:43:45 2019 No.10996665 >>10996657 it's brutal, it's cunning, it's sleek and shiny and future, it's so beautiful if only it were cunningly brutal

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:45:25 2019 No.10996668

>>10996658
I wonder why other agencies are so cautious towards reuse. Is it because it needs a high flight rate to be viable and there's doubts that such rates can be done? Is it because the Shuttle left a bad taste for reuse? Or is it just because most payloads are so expensive that the cost of an expendable launch vehicle is tiny in comparison?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:45:50 2019 No.10996670 >>10996661 >the entire vehicle is cool as a cucumber >except the nosecone, which is glowing red for no discernible reason, and the landing legs, which have already exploded the kerbal experience

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:46:18 2019 No.10996672 >>10996627 Arianne and Rosco will still exist as long as Europe and Russia have national interests to launch their own sats.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:46:45 2019 No.10996675 >>10996654 BBBBBRINNGGG

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:47:31 2019 No.10996676

>>10996652
One of their ideas I think was fly just the rocket motor back not the whole stage, since the motor is the most valuable part and thus worth saving, whereas sod the rest of the stage, its relatively cheap to replace. Hate to admit it given its ESA we're talking about but it does have a certain amount of logic to it

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:50:18 2019 No.10996681 >>10996676 >it's relatively cheap to replace MACHINING ISOGRID OUT OF A SOLID CHUNK OF ALUMINUM

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:50:42 2019 No.10996682 >>10996676 Isn't that what SMART reuse is? Minus the wings.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:50:54 2019 No.10996684 File: 176 KB, 1954x1354, starshipz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996641

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:52:33 2019 No.10996686 >>10996681 I thought that's just an SLS (pbui) thing?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 12:54:08 2019 No.10996691 >>10996672 Rosco won't go anywhere, but Ariane will get massacred by New Glenn as the ESA is already on life support as it is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:01:26 2019 No.10996704 >>10996686 that sort of thing happens all over the place

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:04:00 2019 No.10996710 >>10996681 Their logic, not mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV29pEvZvZw

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:11:30 2019 No.10996734

I understand the fascination with sci-fi imagery and marketing gimmicks but lets be serious for a moment if we wish to return humans to low earth orbit our only chance is the mighty Space Lunch System.

Frankly all this refueling and depot nonsense is getting tiring lets keep things realistic and firmly grounded in reason.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:12:00 2019 No.10996738 File: 1.53 MB, 1920x1080, BigBrainTime.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996710 >"no need for extra rocket fuel" >does a return burn using rocket fuel

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:12:47 2019 No.10996741 >>10996734 >keep things realistic and firmly grounded firmly grounded is a perfect way to describe the sls program

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:17:20 2019 No.10996756 >>10996734 we live in a society where marketing gimmicks are reality, where a car maker can advertise their car by yeeting it around mars move fast or die, old man #pepsiplanet #phobosbroughttoyoubypepsi

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:17:45 2019 No.10996758 >>10996641 Straight out of Kerbal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:21:42 2019 No.10996770 >>10996684 What exactly is that thing's mission profile going to be?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:25:58 2019 No.10996779 >>10996770 Its a test platform to test out avionics and structural integrity. That's its mission profile.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:26:25 2019 No.10996780 >>10996207 ASS2ASS S S 2 A S S

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:27:13 2019 No.10996784 >>10996770 ascent to 20 km, burn to main tank depletion/fuel cutoff cut engines, fall like a skydiver, see if it works landing burn with header tanks

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:32:09 2019 No.10996796 >>10996018 Do you think that's rude? You know what's also rude? Disturbing the recordings of the mighty Keeper Of The Winds Aeolus in an orbit that is European clay.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:44:04 2019 No.10996826

>>10996738
If you think that's bad, they can't even do English properly: https://www.ariane.group/en/photo-video/arianegroup-and-cnes-launch-arianeworks-acceleration-platform/

DEVELOPPED

I worked in Brussels on EU projects for a while and overall there was a strong feeling of cargo-cultism about their approach to facilitating innovation. They couldn't bring themselves to contemplate the idea that the solution might be cultural rather than something else because
> muh thousands of years of European cultural supremacy
and also because they were in reality pathologically opposed to anything that might bring about significant disruption, because that would threaten their comfy gravy train.

Fuck the EU and fuck ESA (apologies for blog post)

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:45:33 2019 No.10996830

>>10996625
I guess that extra cable is probably more expensive than some moon bricc, since establishing bases on the moon is useful for a lot of shit it wouldn't be an enormous extra imposition to add a concrete mixer, a small excavator to scoop up dirt, and strap that shit to a small booster. Another popular iteration is to just build the elevator on the Moon since it only needs to be a fraction as strong to operate there, although that also means you'll want quite a huge moon operation to actually feed the elevator people, ships, and supplies to transport to other parts of the solar system.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:53:51 2019 No.10996842 >>10996826 spaceblogposting is a time honored tradition and the only way information escapes the black hole of the MIC and OldSpace

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:54:31 2019 No.10996844
File: 69 KB, 864x486, starship_md.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I wonder, with all this bare steel is Starship going to get gradually blued by supersonic ascent and reentry heating? Will a Starship that's flown a couple of times have sort of streaks of blued steel at the leading edges? If so, MUH.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:55:37 2019 No.10996848 >>10996844 I thought that the belly of Starship is going to have tiles?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:56:45 2019 No.10996851 >>10996848 yeah

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 13:59:25 2019 No.10996859 File: 121 KB, 2000x1333, 20190318141223-tesla-tiles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10996848 It will, but I mean the rest of the rocket is still going to get blasted with intense heat.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:03:46 2019 No.10996868 File: 2.48 MB, 2319x3828, DSC_2576 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:04:52 2019 No.10996871 File: 295 KB, 1728x1296, 70776823_10216954385825923_2383448631551197184_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:07:47 2019 No.10996877 >>10996844 >>10996859 I want a limited edition carbonitrized black Starship, but I'm pretty sure that would fuck with the back side reentry heating

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:10:52 2019 No.10996890 >>10996877 titanium nitride does anybody know the heat resistance of titanium nitride surface coatings?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:13:08 2019 No.10996894

If you guys are curious as to how the construction is going to fast, it is simple. Incentives. SpaceX/Elon incentivizes speedy but robust construction.

>if you guys can build this within this time frame with minimum failure, i'll give you each bonus $x

Meanwhile the opposite is true for NASA contractors like Boeing where they're incentivized to work slow and with as much error as possible for maximum profit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:15:33 2019 No.10996904 >>10996890 Melting point of 2930C/5310F/3200K, thermal conductivity of 19.2W/Meter-Celsius

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:15:49 2019 No.10996907 >>10996894 But if NASA doesn't go for cost-plus-plus-etc contracts then Boeing could go bankrupt developing a rocket that would've been advanced in the 70s. Think of all of those jobs!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:18:06 2019 No.10996915 >>10996904 better than the stainless, not going to evaporate, and just going to make your starship shiny and gold I guess that would change the reflectivity/emissivity properties across the spectrum

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:19:09 2019 No.10996918 >>10996894 aka MZ'd goals

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:20:09 2019 No.10996923

>>10996907
A long time ago, America gave an aerospace contract to an unready contractor for the purpose of protecting jobs. The contract was delayed, overbudget, and underperforming.

This was the Brewster Buffalo. Hundreds of American pilots died because it was hot trash.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:22:20 2019 No.10996930

>>10996639
Do HTS even have a high enough critical current to support skycranes? There is also still drag on an orbital ring even with superconductors. The ring itself uses non superconducting aluminum and there will also be some dissipation due to elastic deformation of the ring.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:24:42 2019 No.10996935 The future that was stolen.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:28:32 2019 No.10996948

>>10996915
In spite of being very shiny it's refractive index in the visible spectrum is pretty low at least compared to stainless, 1.37 compared to stainless' 2.7 (both measured at 632nm), so while it would be very useful purely to get blasted by heat and not melt, it's not so good for passively reflecting away anything but infrared radiation, it's great at that though, around 800+nm it's refractivity spikes to 3.8+ while it's nearly transparent to UV at a refractivity of only 1.04.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:44:44 2019 No.10997013 Is there any reasonable chance this is all somehow going to work privately funded? I'm sure people in the late 60's were feeling pretty optimistic about the future but you know how that turned out.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:50:31 2019 No.10997035

>>10997013
And in the 70s, they got to the moon from nothing. If nothing else, we'll see another huge leap in space advancement and maybe at the worse see a sigmoid curve in technological development. At best, its an ever increasing technological race where the end is mars colonization and solar system exploration with very large but cheap rockets.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:51:35 2019 No.10997040 >>10996675 RANGZ

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 14:52:00 2019 No.10997043 >>10996948 is most of the heat from the wake in the infrared? does the wake reflect or absorb light? reflecting infrared radiation is bad, because that's where you want to be emitting hmmmm that sucks

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:10:58 2019 No.10997097
File: 155 KB, 1365x1642, 564654566546.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Today, Soyuz MS-15 has been put on the launchpad for launch at September the 25th which is two days from now. MS-15 takes expedition 61/62 to the ISS and is the last launch of the Soyuz-FG variant of Soyuz rockets.

With the last launch of the Soyuz-FG, is also the last of the Soyuz-U legacy (The most launched variant of Soyuz rockets standing at 786 launches) that is going with it. The FG variant will have had 70 launches, including MS-15.

Rollout and installation of MS-15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJp5Jg-Xm-k

From here on out, only Soyuz 2 will launch and will be in service untill at least 2033 with a pair of launches planned in that year, making the R-7 family of rockets 77 years old (Currently, 63).

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:12:34 2019 No.10997100 >>10996668 because jerbs >>10996734 >Space Lunch System Plus it will attract female support, because girls just want to have lunch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:15:25 2019 No.10997106 >>10997097 the R7 family will never die

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:25:28 2019 No.10997143 >>10997106 Which gets retired first, the last R7 derivative or the last B-52?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:26:05 2019 No.10997147 >>10997143 neither, they continue into perpetuity

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:27:35 2019 No.10997154 >>10997147 also M2 browning

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:30:34 2019 No.10997165 does anybody here know how to play pro evolution soccer?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:35:05 2019 No.10997178 >>10997154 MA DEUCE TUNISIA 1942 SICILY 1943 ARDENNES 1944 INCHON 1950 HUE 1968 PANAMA CITY 1989 IRAQ 1990 IRAQ 2003 SEOUL 2028 BEIJING 2030 MARINER VALLEY 2052

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:41:14 2019 No.10997193

Not really spaceflight but I found a good explanation for the Fermi Paradox (no gay filter).
-When complex/intelligent appears it quickly advances to spaxe travel capability.
-It then quickly conquers it's galaxy within 100.000-1.000.000 years. Because this is an astronomically small timeframe, it is unlikely for two cicilization to emerge in the same galaxy, more likely one will conquer the galaxy first and the second one will never exist or be part of a civilization from the beginning
-A cicilization expands to other galaxies their speed of expansion is something like 0.99c. This means that as soon as you would be able to notice their existence, they are already there.
To summarize, the reason we dont see any effects of aliens is that if we could see them, the aliens would already be here/have been here for a long time.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:43:45 2019 No.10997197

>>10996668
They don't have a vision to expand space flight operations. So they think all they need is a medium sized launcher that can launch satellites if America and Russia shut down their launch services or something.
Well that and jobs. Someone give him the quote.
Basically, it's something like: if their engineers build reusable rockets, they'd build one rocket in a month and then be unemployed for the other 11 months of the year.

It's all about vision. Europe has no ambitions to build anything in orbit and especially not in outer space either. So their space agency doesn't have any deadlines or drive to develop anything. And even if they wanted to, funding is pretty moderate anyway as well.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 15:50:41 2019 No.10997212

>>10997193
so you are a supporter of the "we are first" version.
The ancients, the eldar race, etc...
My spin on it is that faster then light is really hard, so hard that most races are locked up in their own solar system and the few other close by.
Many end up killing themselfs, some build their own dysonsphere, upload themselfs in to the system, spending the rest of their immortal life in ignorant bliss in the many virtual worlds they created until their sun goes supernova.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:07:23 2019 No.10997251 >>10996741 Fucking kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:10:20 2019 No.10997258 >>10996734 >if we wish to return humans to low earth orbit our only chance is the mighty Space Lunch System I guess the Astronauts in Starship need to get their lunch somehow. It's mission critical, even.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:18:47 2019 No.10997276 >>10997165 I thought the computer plays and we just need to mod Senator Shelby in?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:21:46 2019 No.10997286 >>10997212 speed of light is not really a limitation when your species lives for a billion years it only seems slow to us because of tiny current human timeframes

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:22:11 2019 No.10997288 >>10997276 well yeah but the /sci/ manager just bailed

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:25:05 2019 No.10997294 >spaceflight general >every post is about spacex starship and washnig elon musks balls

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:25:59 2019 No.10997295 >>10997294 >not sucking elon's dick pfff. And you call yourself a spaceflight fan?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:27:54 2019 No.10997301 >>10997294 I, for one, am /teambezos/

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:29:35 2019 No.10997305 File: 26 KB, 184x356, feeling nervous.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10997178 >SEOUL 2028 >BEIJING 2030 >MARINER VALLEY 2052

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:30:23 2019 No.10997308 >>10997294 there's no pleasing you, is there? Come on, what else comes close in terms of excitement? Everything else is just shit by comparison to the Starship prototypes almost being completed

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:31:03 2019 No.10997310

>>10997294
There are literally no other companies giving us updates. The only thing exciting in spaceflight is SpaceX right now. We've all been wanting BlueOrigin's development to be more public, but they've shut their lips and aren't saying anything but yearly one liners that says "everything is good, we're on schedule." What's there to talk about for this nonsense? Meanwhile everyday, Elon is updating the public about their development/updates/changes to their program.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:32:05 2019 No.10997312 File: 271 KB, 1135x2048, EFLNv9NW4AsaiyX.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] i am more excited for this then the fact that i completed my collage year

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:33:55 2019 No.10997316 >>10997178 Cadia 937 M41

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:34:42 2019 No.10997317 >>10997294 when the SLS has a green run we'll talk about that briefly when literally anything happens with New Glenn at all we'll talk about that SPINLAUNCH P I N

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:36:08 2019 No.10997321
File: 119 KB, 935x1400, 93e241fd841d8e153bddcb1ee564428b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10997294
I'm going to ride Musk's dick, reluctantly, until the chingchongs man up and build a re-useable UR-700 copy that can put 200 tons into LEO, complete with hypergolic flyback boosters the size of Energia cores that turn their landing pads into Mayak-tier hazmat zones with every booster recovery.

As a consolation prize, I'd also accept a non-reusable Chink-built UR-700 clone, but only if it dropped its slyscraper-sized spent hypergolic residue-laden boosters on hapless villages below.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:38:28 2019 No.10997325

NASA just announced it's signed a contract for 6-12 more Orion spacecraft, which will last them through 2030.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract/

>>10997294
I feel you, Anon, but it's inevitable.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:39:04 2019 No.10997327
File: 55 KB, 647x248, tableofstats.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Nos Thruster anon here. Got my electric starter kit from Estes. Might do a test later to see how they work outside of a solid motor.

What I really like about using these is that my engine can be fully welded now instead of having parts that must thread together for the silver-based ignition system. Assuming the welds are good, this would make the engine much stronger and therefore safer. The hard part now is to find a friend of a friend who can weld for me.

pic related, expected performance values of the engine

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:39:13 2019 No.10997328 >>10997321 >only if it dropped its slyscraper-sized spent hypergolic residue-laden boosters on hapless villages below. They're going to develop fins for precision impact on the homes of dissidents and people with low social credit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:41:15 2019 No.10997333 >>10997328 I like how you think, anon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:42:06 2019 No.10997336 >>10997294 Yay, Soyuz launch #786. I mean it's still kinda cool, but the novelty wore off about 20 years before I was born.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:44:24 2019 No.10997338 >>10997097 How significantly different is the Soyuz 2 from Soyuz FG? They don't really seem that different.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:47:21 2019 No.10997347 >>10997338 entirely new avionics and that's it

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 16:56:18 2019 No.10997364 >>10997338 >>10997347 Basically, they still use wooden matches to start it, but they no longer have to aim the launchpad along the launch inclination like they used to for the last 50+ years.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:14:15 2019 No.10997386 >>10997212 If one can travel to nearby stars, then why would they not do so again

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:18:47 2019 No.10997392 >>10997386 They decide to spend the money on space welfare for their version of niggers instead, because it gets their politicians more votes from the normies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:19:57 2019 No.10997394 uh oh, SpaceX (investors?) implicated in more fraud. At least according to some court docs. >Solar City was insolvent prior to the 2.6b buyout >SpaceX funding round funds at that same time period was redirected to Solar City

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:21:46 2019 No.10997396 >>10997394 Source?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:23:11 2019 No.10997400 >>10997396 https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/32atfyhh5/court-of-chancery-of-delaware/in-re-tesla-motors-inc-stockholder-litigation/

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:30:41 2019 No.10997412

>>10997400
>>10997396
>https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-09/elon-musk-says-he-was-involved-in-solarcity-discussions-prior-to-tesla-merger
So one city police pension fund shareholder is suing SpaceX for the acquisition of Solar City. Vast majority of the SpaceX shareholders voted (85%) in favor of acquisition after an independent financial advisors weighted 4 other solar companies and found Solar City to be the best choice. Musk had to recuse himself from the voting due to being involved, however still voiced his opinions. So that's probably why they're suing. SpaceX will probably buy out this pension fund's share (however amount) and sell it to another if they haven't already.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:31:43 2019 No.10997416 >>10997412 >SpaceX Tesla* Also not Space related.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:32:43 2019 No.10997419 >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mom1b2VfFrM 5 DAYS

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:35:04 2019 No.10997425 >>10997419 >chat is disabled It's like they don't want another neuralink presentation chat or something

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:35:55 2019 No.10997426 >>10997425 >>10997419 >this stream has ended, thank you for visiting >this stream has been removed by the user

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:36:06 2019 No.10997428 File: 46 KB, 966x332, Screen Shot 2019-09-23 at 3.35.44 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10997419 wew?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:38:07 2019 No.10997436 >>10997428 it was a SpaceX youtube stream page saying "this stream begins in five days"

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:38:08 2019 No.10997435 >>10997428 >>10997426 Guess they removed it as it was posted too early lol.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:40:42 2019 No.10997443
File: 397 KB, 1390x1029, aerospike.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Stupid question: Is it possible to cluster multiple aerospike engines together akin to how the engines on the Falcon 9 are clustered? Or would they interfere with each other too much with their exhaust pressures?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:50:11 2019 No.10997461 >>10997443 nobody knows

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 17:59:45 2019 No.10997478 >>10997443 It would be stupidly heavy

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:15:43 2019 No.10997505 >no fracking instrument payload on the 2020 rover This is why NASA's broke.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:18:42 2019 No.10997510 >>10997505 excuse me

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:23:08 2019 No.10997521 >>10997317 Yeah I'm looking forward to seeing how SpinLaunch are planning on not turning their launch vehicles into plasma on hitting the atmosphere

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:32:04 2019 No.10997537

>>10997505
Rovers are harder to have their parts divided up and made across the country since said parts have to be made by specialists rather than whomever had the employer with deeper pockets for bribing. So their scopes are more limited due to lack of interest by Congress.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:44:15 2019 No.10997563 >>10997478 For you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:46:47 2019 No.10997573 >>10997478 I thought aerospikes had TWR comparable to bell nozzle rockets?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:51:42 2019 No.10997589 >>10997294 Be the change you want to see

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:53:13 2019 No.10997593 >three raptors already installed Fucking hell

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:53:20 2019 No.10997594 File: 181 KB, 1121x718, IMG_20190924_014512.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] So greedy. Who will survive the battle royale of megaconstellations?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:53:29 2019 No.10997595 >>10995832 Earth is flat

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:53:51 2019 No.10997596 >falling for the NASA hoax

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:55:32 2019 No.10997604 >>10997594 whoever launches first wins SpaceX is launching next month

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:55:55 2019 No.10997605 File: 223 KB, 500x472, b87.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >10997596

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:56:07 2019 No.10997606 >>10997594 SpaceX is going to crush the competition hands down.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 18:59:18 2019 No.10997613 >oh look let's go past this impossible to pass radiation belt in aluminum cans >space nerds will believe this

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:01:05 2019 No.10997617 >>10997613 >hey lets go over this radiation belt so we don't have to bring tons of shielding For further reading: http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:01:32 2019 No.10997619 >>10997573 Not him but I think they do have lower TWR I guess we have to wait few days for the aerospike video from Tim the easy on the onions astronaut...

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:03:59 2019 No.10997622 Man never left the atmosphere. God wouldn't allow it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:15:43 2019 No.10997651 >>10997294 rockets is rockets

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:15:46 2019 No.10997652 File: 60 KB, 620x349, wotm8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10997613 >>10997622 >>>/pol >>>/x/ you MUST go back

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:32:49 2019 No.10997685 File: 780 KB, 851x720, 1465877396023.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10997613 >radiation belt >belt The answer is contained in this

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:42:56 2019 No.10997700 >>10997622 do you actually believe this or are you trying to bait a chill thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:43:01 2019 No.10997702 >>10997325 they havent even fucking finished developing orion, what the fuck are they thinking

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:44:05 2019 No.10997706 >>10997325 To launch on what? 6-12 SLS? Good fucking luck

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:44:15 2019 No.10997708 >let's waste billions of dollars for hoax makers

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:45:36 2019 No.10997713 >>10996741 oooh no no no ooh ooh ooh ooooh

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:46:33 2019 No.10997717 earth is flat and space isn't real - religious kooks space is flat and earth isn't real - general relativity and hologram memes

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:46:52 2019 No.10997718 >>10996770 Eventually? Launch, orbit, belly-flop reentry, backflip, propulsive landing, green light to build factory.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 19:57:02 2019 No.10997747

>>10997573
The last time one was made it's TWR was a bit lower, but not sufficiently low to make them unusable in clusters. It should also be noted that they were still using mostly conventional materials and more primitive modeling and manufacturing techniques which resulted in an engine probably substantially overbuilt compared to the ideal. These days you'd build the basics in a powerful 3D modeler, feed in it's fuel types, mass flow rates, etc and run a complex simulation which will tell you all kinds of things like peak stresses, peak temperatures, and any combustion instability. Then you run the thing through an iterative improvement program which slightly tweaks the design towards ideal optimal parameters you set (tell it to minimize heating of surfaces, minimize structural stress, cut wasted mass, etc) and then these days you'd have as many parts as possible additively manufactured, you could make some of the heavier metal parts partially hollow with such a process without compromising their structural durability (infact, hollow honeycombed components aught to be more sturdy) while substantially cutting down on their weight. I can't for the life of me find out what it was made of, but it looks like normal steel which is greatly suboptimal when it comes to temperature control which has always been the issue with aerospikes and why XRS-2200 was so heavy. You could dramatically reduce the thickness of the wedge wall and include cryocooling channels as is done in the RS25 and an increasing number of new rocket engines, or make it out of a much more heat tolerant metal like Hastelloy-X or Inconel, or coat it with a thin layer of some high temperature cermet like halfnium carbide which is meant specifically to cope with prolonged exposure to extremely high temperatures.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:02:42 2019 No.10997766

>>10996930
YBCO apparently has really high specs in every performance aspect, you'd have to make a shitton of it though. There's still some drag and losses due to flexing but not having to power the magnetic field (a superconducting coil can carry a current forever with no losses, generating a magnetic field just like an extremely powerful permanent magnet) is still a huge advantage compared to needing to supply that force via a non superconducting magnet. IIRC the concept of an orbital ring is such that the outer ring doesn't move with respect to the ground (it's tied down with tethers, which are also the elevator cables you use to climb into vacuum), and the inside of the ring isn't solid, it's just a stream of mass affected by a magnetic field. The matter inside the ring/tube needs to go fast enough that the centripetal force as it tries to follow a straight path away from Earth is strong enough to hold up the static parts of the ring trying to fall down. If a ring's mass is mostly this material stream, then the material inside only needs to move a bit faster than normal LEO velocity, if the static ring's mass is much greater than the internal stream mass then the stream needs to move at incredibly high speeds, dozens or even hundreds of times normal LEO velocity. I'd assume that the faster the stream, the more difficult to control, but the heavier the stream the more difficult to build, so it'd be a trade off. Once the ring is set up and tethered down it should be mostly stable, you can also yank on the ground tethers for cancelling out propagating instabilities if necessary, which is much nicer than having to put rocket engines every few hundred meters and supply them with propellant.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:06:02 2019 No.10997774

>>10997043
Reflecting infrared is exactly what you want on the leeward side of a spacecraft. You only need/want high emissivity on the windward side of a spacecraft because most of the incoming heat flux is convective, that is to say the air gets really hot and touches the skin. On the LEEWARD side however, almost 100% of the heat flux is radiative, eg visible and infrared light, coming from the glowing hot plasma behind the spacecraft. On the leeward side of a spacecraft, if your surface is highly reflective to infrared and visible light, it simply doesn't get hot in the first place (or at least for steel, doesn't get hot enough to matter; aluminum is both not reflective enough and not temperature resistant enough for this to work).

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:08:14 2019 No.10997780 >>10997774 if the plasma is radiative in visible, you want to reflect visible and absorb/radiate in infrared

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:17:03 2019 No.10997801

>>10997212
You don't have to go faster than light to colonize an entire galaxy in less than a million years.
Once you first go multiplanetary you start developing better and better propulsion systems and going further and further (because muh travel time muh space rocks), and eventually you go interstellar. Eventually you develop the best practical propulsion system that can exist, at which point you can probably pull off at least 5% light speed interstellar cruise. Once you can do that your expansion front becomes about as fast as the time it takes once of your 5% c ships to cross to the most distant point in your galaxy. The time scale required to go from your first interplanetary probe to the biggest and fastest possible generation ships launching constantly in swarms of several thousand ships each is negligible on the time scale of the universe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:17:22 2019 No.10997802 >>10997700 If you have to ask, you're too much of a newfag to be here

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:20:47 2019 No.10997812 >>10997802 I already know the answer though

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:30:03 2019 No.10997832 >>10997812 Then why the fuck did you respond to it, you fucking imbecile

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:30:57 2019 No.10997838 >>10997832 In the vain hope it might be an actual christfag to play with

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:31:28 2019 No.10997840 >>10997573 who told you that bullshit anon they're also a lot harder to cool effectively and they suffer a significant thrust retardation effect between the trans-sonic region and about mach 4

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:32:43 2019 No.10997845 >>10997594 >spaceok ok

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:32:50 2019 No.10997846 >>10997840 >they suffer a significant thrust retardation effect between the trans-sonic region and about mach 4 really? what's the deal with that?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:33:10 2019 No.10997847 File: 25 KB, 300x250, PHEDfgEbG7-4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Australian Space Agency involved in the Artemis Programme Hope they work all the bugs out

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:33:37 2019 No.10997848 >>10995832 die

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:33:57 2019 No.10997850 >>10997604 SpaceX already launched the first Starlink sats months ago anon

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:35:01 2019 No.10997854 >>10997850 they have like three Starlink launches set up for October

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:37:17 2019 No.10997859 >>10997780 It's radiative in visible AND infrared, anon. if it doesn't physically touch your thing, you want a very reflective thing. If it DOES touch your thing, then you need high emissivity and low conductivity. Hence belly tiles and shiny back.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:39:11 2019 No.10997865 >>10997850 Arguably those were "v0.9" sats meant for testing various stuff, the ones coming up are the first "v1.0" sats that are the real deal.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:39:56 2019 No.10997868

>>10997846
I dunno the specifics but it's one of the major drawbacks of aerospikes. Something about the flow dynamics of the air stream messing with the aerospike effect, resulting in less columnated exhaust and a significantly reduced Isp, and since we're reducing Isp but not changing propellant mass flow the thrust therefore goes down.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:41:01 2019 No.10997871 >>10997854 Yes, I know that >>10997865 Just goes to show how far ahead of everyone else SpaceX really is

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:42:14 2019 No.10997874 >>10997325 >2030 Lmao SpaceX will have ten thousand people on Mars by then.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:54:01 2019 No.10997901 @bocachicagal is a Musk smurf account

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 20:54:49 2019 No.10997902

>>10997874
Lmao no
Its 100 people transfered per rocket every transfer
Transfers are 2 years apart
Musk himself planned for 2024 being the year humans go
The propellant depot will take some time to build and refuel, so any new arrivals will be by fresh rockets, no reuse till the 2027 window on mars' end
That's 100 PASSENGER rockets to reach 10k, in addition to the cargo rockets bringing supplies, food, and probably luggage
There just isn't enough time to ramp up starship production that far
2040 is 10k, but 2050 will be 100k+

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:02:35 2019 No.10997914 >>10997212 We are the first in our galaxy but there might be life in other galaxies. But it spreads so rapidly that you cant see signs of it if it isnt already right there next to you.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:07:08 2019 No.10997926

>>10997902
>There just isn't enough time to ramp up starship production that far
They're already close to finishing up building the first two and they don't even have a factory yet
How long does it take to weld together a 9m wide 55 m long barrel, a week? Less? They want multiple Raptors rolling off the line per day, so all the engines plus the major structural components build and assembled in two weeks is not impossible, then it's a matter of apply thermal tiles, install electric and finer plumbing and life support and all that shit, except for the cargo ones and the tankers.
>Mfw SLS finally launches in November 2021, just after the 100th Starship rolls off the assembly line

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:07:52 2019 No.10997929 >>10997902 Starship will not and should not be the primary form of colonist transport to Mars. It's much easier to get people to the Moon, where we can build stupendously huge ships to make the big trip.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:09:30 2019 No.10997934 >>10997929 >It's much easier to get people to the Moon That's literally wrong though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:15:35 2019 No.10997952 >>10997934 By every metric but delta v. Logistics are just as, if not more important.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:16:50 2019 No.10997954

>>10997902
Did spacex ever reveal what consruction equipment they're gonna bring along or what thefirst settlement's gonna look like.

That said, if they even had 2 passenger and 2 tankers, if could be feasible to launch a couple starships as a fleet. It would be mainly a logistics issue.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:16:53 2019 No.10997955 >>10997902 You are retarded, 100 passenger ships over 5 synods is baby numbers. Once they have the production down they will be bottlenecked only by engine production. SpaceX will be fucking rolling in cash once starlink is operating anyway.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:17:50 2019 No.10997958

>>10997926
How much money is SpaceX set to make off of Starlink? Globally? I can see all planes and ships get outfitted with a Starlink antenna for in-transit internet, plus the billions of people that have pretty shit internet now. If priced right, they could fund multiple Starships/Super Heavies each month with the internet alone.
Then they can also build a proper space station and lease it to anyone interested for either research or even Hollywood. They could even start this with only Starships orbiting in LEO, send you up on a trip to space with 39 other people for a week for the low price of 50000$ (if the launch costs 2 mil), raise it to 100000$ and it becomes pretty profitable.

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:22:18 2019 No.10997971

>>10997954
They have been approached by several heavy industry companies, CAT and Mitsubishi off the top of my head but there are others, to talk about heavy equipment for Mars. I forget the source but it was legit. It's a safe bet that the first crew will live out of the BFR while they set up power, water, Sabatier, etc... But a big drill courtesy of boring company will definitely be one of the first items delivered. Everyone is going to be living in tunnels for the foreseeable future.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:26:49 2019 No.10997982 >>10996684 Those control surfaces are never going to survive lunar reentry.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:26:55 2019 No.10997983 >>10997971 GLORY TO THE MOUNTAIN HOME

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:29:29 2019 No.10997989 >>10997982 And I suppose you are going to show your working now?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:29:50 2019 No.10997990

>>10997766
Nope, in all three of the orbital ring papers the ring's solid and the ring's covered in a sheet of aluminum wire and a superconducting coating was suggested. Here's the thing though, superconductors do not like AC one bit. You get zero loss, but only if that current never stops. So superconductors are shit for things like motors. And we have to apply force to our ring to counteract drag.
>>tethers
a ring with tethers all the way around the earth is stable, but there's no way in hell we can build it any time soon. 'Near term' only an orbital ring with one or two tethers can be built. There are still some issues with stability that need to be worked out for that one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:32:33 2019 No.10997995 >>10997990 But will we hang Typhares and such from the tethers?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:32:49 2019 No.10997996 File: 77 KB, 1954x1354, 1569257454137.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10997989 Sure. [math]\text{Crevices } + \text{Hypersonic Flow } = \text{Complete Destruction of the spacecraft } [/math]

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:42:09 2019 No.10998021 >>10997982 This design is also never going to experience lunar reentry, it's just an iterative testbed vehicle. This is MkI, we'll probably be at MkIV before it makes a single orbit of the earth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:42:49 2019 No.10998022 Guys, I just applied for a job at Boeing. Forgive me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:43:22 2019 No.10998025 >>10998022 where?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:44:24 2019 No.10998027 >>10998021 those flaps are getting replaced for sure, there's aluminum in them, and they're riveted

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:45:32 2019 No.10998029 >>10998025 Seattle

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:45:38 2019 No.10998030

>>10998021
I thought so, but I just don't understand what they want to do here. Reentry is one of the most challenging parts of the mission to overcome, and going with a design like that just seems counterproductive.

I mean, why put tiles on the bottom if you are going to leave your control surfaces completely vulnerable? Obviously the tiles won't be needed then.

>>10998027
Never mind actuated. I don't see a design for actuated control surfaces like that that won't immediately dissolve when returning form the moon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:47:18 2019 No.10998033 >>10998029 my friend worked in Seattle for a while, he hated it so much it nearly killed him what a shitty place to live >>10998030 you baka, that picture was made by a retarded fanboy and does not represent the actual design

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:48:48 2019 No.10998036 File: 558 KB, 800x531, starliner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Official October Starliner launch date still not confirmed What did Boeing mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:49:11 2019 No.10998037 >>10998030 You might be the first person to realize this! You should send spacex an email right away to warn their engineers of this egregious error.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:51:24 2019 No.10998043 >>10998037 >spacex changes design like women changes shoes >points out flaw on unofficial design >"how dare you criticize the beloved company!!!" Go be a fag somewhere else.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:52:44 2019 No.10998050 >>10998037 Quick! Someone contact SpaceX to tell them that reusability won't work because thunderf00t said so!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 21:57:35 2019 No.10998056 >>10998022 We can't punish you anywhere near as much as you're punishing yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:02:44 2019 No.10998064 >>10997996 Air doesn't flow through those crevices during reentry because the vehicle belly flops during reentry. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:06:56 2019 No.10998075 >>10998064 Yes, it would. It's literally facing the wind direction. Any white part facing down would get disintegrated either way. Anyway, it's a fake design, it doesn't matter.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:08:11 2019 No.10998080 >>10998075 agreed, there's no way they're leaving the flaps untiled long-term

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:08:26 2019 No.10998081 >>10998043 >points out most obvious design drawback as if he's discovered an Achilles' heel >gets called a tard >reeeee

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:11:27 2019 No.10998092 File: 91 KB, 535x535, for fucks sake.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] stop responding to it you brain damaged fuck monkeys

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:11:58 2019 No.10998093

>>10998081
Ah, I understand now. This is the thread where the genius from /sci/ congregates and only scientific breakthroughs are allowed to be posted, right? Anything beneath newton is a tard.

Let me recapitulate, then. What was your scientific breakthrough in this thread?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:13:19 2019 No.10998101 >>10998092 This, for fuck's sake.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 23 22:15:07 2019 No.10998107 >>10998092 >>10998101 Responding to what?

Anonymous Mon Sep 23 23:58:55 2019 No.10998358
File: 37 KB, 924x499, 1494407187648.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

how do you "people" (term employed loosely) cope with the fact that the magical apollo technology with a near-flawless safety record has disappeared for no reason and that you're not even going to see unmanned lunar flybys within your lifetime?
nothing makes me laugh harder than diehard spacecopers

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 00:06:22 2019 No.10998379 File: 391 KB, 1536x2048, mzem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10998358 hm

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 00:08:03 2019 No.10998385 >>10998107 banana theorists working overtime to disprove electricity using neuralink

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:04:14 2019 No.10998555 >>10998358 >near flawless safety record >Killed 3 men and almost killed 3 more

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:05:51 2019 No.10998561 >>10998555 and three more.... and three more... and one more if you count the suit radiator being almost bent too far for 15? when what's his name fell over The success of Apollo is crazy to think about

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:12:55 2019 No.10998581 >>10998561 Apollo 13 was insane American-tier damage control.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:45:06 2019 No.10998650 >>10997325 Better embezzle that money now before it gets shown as embarrassingly obsolete.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:46:19 2019 No.10998656 >>10998581 >it exploded, what do >ride it out around the moon and use all the backups >ALL OF THEM

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:47:24 2019 No.10998659 >>10997717 heh

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:51:00 2019 No.10998670 >>10995938 What is the bald man doing? Does he expect to live forever? At this pace it's going to take him 5 more years just to launch New Glenn.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:56:42 2019 No.10998681 >>10998670 GRAMATIM FEROCIPEROR

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:56:52 2019 No.10998683 >>10998555 hmm i wasn't aware spacecopers liked to talk too much about apollo 1

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 01:58:19 2019 No.10998687 >>10998036 Same doors as the new 777, maybe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 02:02:36 2019 No.10998691 >>10998681 STUMBLE BY FUMBLE, APOLOGETICALLY

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 02:04:42 2019 No.10998693

>>10998358
>near flawless safety record
Except for moon landing almost aborting because of shitty computers, Apollo 11 almost landing in a ditch, rocket getting struck by lightning and almost aborting because of electrical issues, all of Apollo 13, Apollo 1 test grilling astronauts alive...

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 02:08:13 2019 No.10998698 >>10998693 almost exploding is the natural state of a rocket

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 02:08:46 2019 No.10998700 >>10998036 look at this duuude Boing definitely staying quiet and hoping people forget

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 02:09:56 2019 No.10998702 >>10998698 >almost exploding is the natural state of a rocket fuck off popsci

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 02:26:01 2019 No.10998729 >>10998036 >>10997325 knowing that SpaceX has to fight for every penny, reading about news like this just makes me irrationally angry

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 03:09:07 2019 No.10998798 File: 326 KB, 2518x1024, 1525988257335.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10998036 Boeing is in denial that they won't capture the flag.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 03:24:31 2019 No.10998830 [DELETED]

>>10995888
>>10995832
>>10995891
>>10995938
>>10996207
>>10996138
>>10996027
>>10996378
>>10996489
>>10996553
>>10996532
>>10996641
>>10996668
>>10996684
>>10996738
>>10996844
>>10997321
>>10997801
>>10997802
>>10997847
>>10998798
get the fuck in here bros i just invented cryosleep >>10998796

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 03:50:01 2019 No.10998890 >>10997364 >they no longer have to aim the launchpad along the launch inclination like they used to for the last 50+ years. Really? Pre-Soyuz 2 can't do a roll program after launch?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 04:40:18 2019 No.10998969 >>10998890 nope

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 04:48:25 2019 No.10998981

>>10997971
I hope they get BTFO and SpaceX builds its own superior tools. Interesting though - sounds like we could very quickly arrive at an 'oh shit' moment where major incumbents start to realise that if their tech is not in space they're potentially fucked, and then we might see an explosion in investment. Which would be nice.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 04:52:59 2019 No.10998985 >>10998981 I'm not going to say it's impossible but I don't see a good source of money or motive to push for another Musk brand company.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 05:22:27 2019 No.10999003 >>10998969 Well simpler is better I guess. But why they've added the capability on Soyuz 2? They plan to build new launch locations?

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 06:02:08 2019 No.10999039

>>10998985
Guess it will come down to whether he thinks he can build it better himself, and perhaps the chances of that are higher given that their requirements will be highly bespoke. And the profit angle too I guess - imagine the advantage of being able to say 'ours is the only earth moving equipment proven for off earth use'

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 06:25:06 2019 No.10999066 Anyone have an idea for what time on Saturday Musks Demo will be?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 08:50:24 2019 No.10999212 >>10998981 >”SpaceX, For all your spacer needs”

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 09:15:05 2019 No.10999241 >>10996684 I’m guessing that those control services are going to be the area of the starship that’ll still have evaporative cooling. No way those fins will survive reentry

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 09:53:17 2019 No.10999302

>>10998981
Doubt that SpaceX would make tools that are superior to ones made by those other companies (unless Mars specialization turns out to be a bigger issue than previously expected). The heavy industry hasn't had the development restrictions due to government corruption like the aerospace industry has, so their stuff is already pretty good.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 10:12:17 2019 No.10999340 >>10999302 You can send a COTS bulldozer to Mars, but that ain't very mass efficient.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 10:18:51 2019 No.10999352 >>10999302 >bring heavy diggers meant for earth gravity >to a place with a third of that At that point you're better off just sending some shovels.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 10:20:22 2019 No.10999357

>>10998830
Probably not a solution but definitely an interesting pathway to explore. Do that to some lab mice until you can do it without killing them, then take what you learned and do it to some 400 pound pigs, achieve as close to zero fatalities as possible, then finally do some chimpanzee trials or something.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 10:21:50 2019 No.10999364 >>10999241 No evaporative cooling on Starship anymore. At all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 10:21:59 2019 No.10999366 >>10999340 The focus needs to be IRSU to create a cots supply chain, starting with the lowest hanging fruit and expanding from there.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 10:27:28 2019 No.10999380

>>10999340
Who in the FUCK cares about mass efficient? If it weighs less than 100 tons we can send it with Starship. Also, chances are if it ISN'T mass efficient it's probably much more likely to actually stand up to constant use and abuse on the surface of Mars pushing rocks and dirt around. Remember the 'mass efficient' new wheel design on Curiosity, that started getting torn the fuck up just a year or two into the mission?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 10:28:29 2019 No.10999383 >>10999352 Humans with shovels are diggers meant for Earth gravity too, anon In reality we'd sling baskets on the digging vehicles and fill them with rocks for additional ballast mass.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 10:33:57 2019 No.10999391
File: 312 KB, 720x960, 64907002_426891108040539_85190341308710912_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

> Be a highly qualified student in university, done a Phd in geology
> Work ass hard to be an astronaut
> After the training, the goverment make me sign to the confidentiality agreement and the one who not agree on this will not be an astronaut
> whythefucknot
> starship been built, but with no window
> went to mars
> look up in the sky and try to find the earth
> tfw earth is flat

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 10:48:17 2019 No.10999427

>>10999380
But anon! Being super mass efficient is literally the only thing important in the aerospace industry. Intricate machining of isogrids to boost strength-to-weight ratio of disposable tanks. Dropping protective paint for a 1% increase in payload. Making astronauts poop in plastic bags to not have to install a heavy toilet. Its all in the name of making stuff as light as possible, because we're not going to get anything else done anyways.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 10:59:03 2019 No.10999462 File: 47 KB, 800x500, Artemis-Logo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] New senate budget write up includes funding for Moon return https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1176498917934018561

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:08:05 2019 No.10999493 >>10999462 Wouldn't the budget for a return stage redirect funding from SLS (pbui)?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:09:11 2019 No.10999496 >>10999493 no, reducing funding for the SLS is the only thing that can reduce funding for the SLS government money isn't zero-sum in any manner

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:11:04 2019 No.10999504
File: 127 KB, 900x582, 1-6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/09/23/nasa-taps-lockheed-martin-to-build-six-more-orion-crew-capsules/

>NASA taps Lockheed Martin to build six more Orion crew capsules

As the aeronautical engineer said to the inventor of the feces power helicopter-

THIS, SHIT, WILL, NOT, FLY!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:12:07 2019 No.10999506 How will we build roads on mars? When settlements branch out for research and resources, we need to connect them somehow

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:12:40 2019 No.10999507 >>10999506 don't need 'em

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:13:27 2019 No.10999509 >>10999504 >spacexfags are still in denial

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:13:48 2019 No.10999512 >>10999506 I don't think you will strictly need roads >>10999507 there's going to be a lot of boulder-clearing I think

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:15:20 2019 No.10999518 >>10999509 >Orion capsules will be launched in starship's cargo hold oldspace pls

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:15:43 2019 No.10999519 >>10999506 Flat stones tamped into the ground, Roman-style.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:20:05 2019 No.10999533 the answer to every construction question regarding mars is bricks

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:21:17 2019 No.10999537 >>10999506 insitu bricks

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:22:13 2019 No.10999540 Judging from previous years what are our estimates for the time Musks Presentation will be broadcast. Britfag here and I'll be travelling that day. Scared it'll be at 2am over here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:22:42 2019 No.10999541 >>10999533 Bricks/rammed regolith and concrete for holding some of the brick together or elements where bricks won't hold together

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:25:02 2019 No.10999544 File: 95 KB, 1225x688, boring-company-bricks-e1531493918778[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10999533 And now I understand The Boring Company disposing method of resulting materials.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:25:25 2019 No.10999545

>>10999540
You have work on saturday and sunday? Just do something else while the stream minimized to a smaller area.

If you can't pay attention, just make a small ahk script to check if the static stream picture changes and have it make an alert sound.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:25:58 2019 No.10999546 i visit this thread constantly throughout the day to check up on starship ridiculous speed

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:27:02 2019 No.10999548 >>10999545 >You have work on saturday and sunday? that's england in 2019

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:27:14 2019 No.10999549 >>10999546 this thread is better for maximum hot take consumption rather than real info

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:29:12 2019 No.10999556 >>10999549 Truth. >>10999546 Just leave this stream open or something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aDOpyUmfL4

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:33:01 2019 No.10999563 >>10999556 That crane on the cones promising.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:35:06 2019 No.10999567 >>10999549 It was better a few months ago. Went to shit after starhopper.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:35:57 2019 No.10999569

>>10999563
Its been on there for the past several hours. They lowered the nose section onto one of the header tanks earlier. Once its welded into place, they'll probably lift it again to put in the next one. The final nose cone placement is supposed to happen tomorrow.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:54:14 2019 No.10999588 >>10999496 Didn't Shelby reduce funding for the commercial cargo program so more money be given to the SLS?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 11:59:38 2019 No.10999599 >>10999588 SLS is a black hole of funding, budget may be added but nothing can be taken away.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:08:19 2019 No.10999615
File: 91 KB, 985x709, 15-210-sls[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

More news on the budget: https://spacenews.com/senate-bill-offers-22-75-billion-for-nasa-in-2020/

>Senate bill offers $22.75 billion for NASA in 2020

>Exploration programs received a $1.2 billion increase over 2019 in the bill. That total includes $2.586 billion for the Space Launch System, more than $400 million above 2019 levels, and $1.4 billion for Orion, slightly above 2019 levels. The additional SLS funding includes $300 million for work on the Exploration Upper Stage planned for the Block 1B version of the SLS, funding that the administration did not seek in its original funding request.

>The bill did not fully adopt the $1.6 billion budget amendment submitted by the administration in May. While NASA sought $1 billion for human lunar landers, the bill provides $744 million, which could impact the number and size of awards NASA makes in an ongoing competition.

>“Within the funding provided, NASA will be able to make significant progress in fulfilling the accelerated goal of returning astronauts, including the first woman, to the moon by 2024,” Moran said.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:09:40 2019 No.10999622 >>10999615 >including the first woman, to the moon by 2024,” Moron said.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:12:52 2019 No.10999630 >>10999622 kek'd and check'd

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:15:04 2019 No.10999633 >the thread about spaceflight is actually salty that NASA's getting more budget for spaceflight just fucking call it /sxg/ already

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:15:43 2019 No.10999637 >>10999633 We are? You sure?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:16:45 2019 No.10999642 File: 133 KB, 500x390, moran.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10999615 >>10999622

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:18:34 2019 No.10999651 >>10999633 pretty hard to celebrate good money being thrown after bad on a poorly managed expendable booster project, I'd be happy to be hyped for New Glenn if Jeff "chrome dome" Bezos let us see it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:21:36 2019 No.10999664 >>10999651 >I'd be happy to be hyped for New Glenn if Jeff "chrome dome" Bezos let us see it. Same, the more the merrier when it comes to spaceflight imho.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:28:26 2019 No.10999688 >>10998029 Yikes

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:31:52 2019 No.10999703

>>10999380
Because it's pointless to waste propellant if you don't have to, even if the cost/kg is substantially improved. You wouldn't need to build a completely new vehicle or anything either, take existing versions and cut out huge chunks of material wherever you can, replace your hydraulics with smaller versions since you'll only need to be putting out 1/3rd the force, strip out the internal combustion engine completely and use a smaller electrical motor instead. As long as it's still structurally sound you can make a lot of cheap and relatively crude modifications to reduce weight without fundamentally building a new piece of equipment or ruining the one you're working with.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:34:41 2019 No.10999709

>>10999380
The more shit you can bring from earth, the faster you can colonize Mars. It means you can bring more excavtors, more milling machines, more replacement parts, more people, more things you won't be able to make on Mars, but absolutely fucking need. Mass efficient need not mean fragile. Reliability and maintainability are pretty big issues too. Unless you have a huge fucking air lock, and fat chance of that happening with an early colony, it's going to be pretty fucking hard to even fix an excavator built for earth on Mars. Just trying to reuse what we already have is often harder than just doing the engineering from scratch. Reusing stuff we already have is the SLS approach.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:35:49 2019 No.10999716

>>10999506
You could just take martian dust, melt down some bulk rubber and make asphalt, dig a shallow trench and just pour it in, or just do it the old way and cook up big paving slabs in an oven. Strictly speaking though you just need to clear off stones that could possibly damage your vehicle's treads/tires, vehicles could navigate based on pre-programmed routes or you could just set up waypoints and roughly follow a path laid out by those.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:39:18 2019 No.10999731 >>10999506 settlement connection will be either point to point starship for long distance or tunnels for short distances

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:45:02 2019 No.10999748 >>10999716 >some bulk rubber From fucking where? Are you gonna plan on sending a fully loaded Starship per 25 meter long section of road surface?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:49:34 2019 No.10999765 >>10999633 All that money should go to JPL to make probes and science missions instead of going to SLS

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 12:58:44 2019 No.10999795

>>10999703
but it's not a one-time thing, if you send over a carbon composite bulldozer and it breaks two years in (because it was operated by eggheads who don't know how to drive) you need to send a new one
if you send over a steel bulldozer and it breaks in two years (because it was operated by bogans who drive wrong on purpose because it's easier) you weld it back up
much more mass efficient to send durable equipment

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:01:40 2019 No.10999805

>>10999748
The same way you get rubber for normal asphalt, ground up little pellets of used tire. Put the rubber into a tough drum, use a hammer or piston or something to pack it in as tight as possible for volume efficiency, vacuum most of the air of the container and load a bunch of them into a cargo starship yeah. What's the issue? Colonies are going to need a lot of other bulk resources too to get started, like premade food before they can get their hydroponic setups fully established, same for water, and presumably for nuclear fuel as well since solar is so shit that far from the sun, you'd need several launches worth of solar panels to provide the same amount of energy as a single stirling motor, alternator, and a few kilograms of some spicy rocks.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:03:24 2019 No.10999808

>>10999805
>you'd need several launches worth of solar panels to provide the same amount of energy as a single stirling motor, alternator, and a few kilograms of some spicy rocks
yeah but the government would shove their hand so far up your ass you'd be speaking in alphabet soup

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:07:31 2019 No.10999823

>>10999795
I'm not the guy advocating for maximum mass cutting, I'm saying take a normal steel bulldozer and just trim as much of the steel as you can without compromising it's structure (in a 1/3rd G environment) and replace the stuff that can't operate in a martian atmosphere. Electric motor, replace liquid lubricant with dry boron lube or something like that, pressurize the cabin or add an oxygen supply for a driver (or replace the cab with an automated system as some farms already do with some of their harvesters and earth movers), but yeah as much as possible I'd say work with existing equipment, modify it as much as you can without compromising it's functions or building new expensive specialist equipment.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:08:50 2019 No.10999826 >>10999823 You're going to want extra mass in low gravity though.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:11:10 2019 No.10999831

>>10999633
Did you miss the GAO and NASA talk where it was discovered that NASA had no motivation to do a manned landing by 2024, that they didn't even have a lander designed, and that the estimated chances of actually putting someone on the moon was less than that of Apollo?

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:11:54 2019 No.10999832

>>10999808
Obviously you'd have to get NASA to sign off on your spicy rocks, or lend you some of theirs, or transport their already approved power generating equipment like kilopower reactors. It would be much harder to do but you could also dig up and refine your own spicy rocks, or you could buy spicy rocks from some other country. Another less efficient option than nuclear would be solar-thermal, better than solar because all you need to do is direct heat using mirrors to move your working fluid (or in the case of a stirling motor to create your temperature gradient). You could also add to that by pumping your habitat's waste heat into that system to succ as many watts out of your operation as possible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:12:05 2019 No.10999833 >>10999716 >>10999805 what kind of asphalt is made with rubber?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:12:57 2019 No.10999835 >>10999826 You can just pile rocks into wire cages welded to the side of the vehicle for spare mass, that way you can get your counterweight from your environment while also having earth movers that don't take up so much payload mass.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:15:23 2019 No.10999840 >>10999748 Not him but hydrothermal liquefaction of the waste biomass of a large colony would produce barrels of biocrude you could use for polymer feedstock. Tar roads on Mars is retarded though

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:17:33 2019 No.10999851

>>10999833
At least so far as I know road surface asphalt uses a high proportion of it, it's a composite of a few different components including the asphalt/bitumen itself, ground rubber, recycled oil, and I think the dry component of concrete. It might in the end be more launch efficient to just send your colony a few furnaces that they can use to cook up paving stones if you wanted smooth roads.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:24:40 2019 No.10999861 >>10999832 waste heat isn't hot enough to do work, that's why it's called waste heat anyway I'm an advocate of digging up your own spicy rocks but that's not a near-term solution

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:27:02 2019 No.10999870 >>10999851 rubber is not a major component of road asphalt, and I would be surprised if there was any in it at all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:29:39 2019 No.10999877 >>10999870 actually I'm wrong, it's about 3-5% of the aggregate according to https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/materials/hmec/pubs/module_f/participant_workbook.pdf

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:30:49 2019 No.10999879 >>10999833 The tasty kind.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:32:10 2019 No.10999882

>>10999861
At least with a stirling motor I think you could still get it running with just ambient heat, especially if the cold side is buried or kept in shade. On Mars the cold end could easily be kept well bellow freezing temperatures in that way. Agreed entirely about spicy rock mining too, it could be done but spicy rock cooking is already one of the most technologically intensive and costly tasks here on Earth in a familiar environment, getting any usable nuclear fuel via ISRU is going to take quite a long time unless we really just start launching enormous quantities of resources into space relatively soon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:41:40 2019 No.10999908 >>10999882 thorium reactors should not require the insane process of isotope enrichment that is enforced on all nuclear efforts due to a combination of NIMBY panic and close ties to the MIC

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:48:55 2019 No.10999927 >>10999908 >nuclear material >expecting people to not freak out over it I'm pretty sure that people would still not like it. Nuclear is the worst n-word in spaceflight to the public.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:50:55 2019 No.10999933

>>10999908
I guess you could do slow breeding to coax a fully thorium fuel element to generate enough U233 to boot itself up, you'd just have to design a very highly neutron reflective fuel flask, even more so than normally required in fission reactors. I'd probably start with a solid block of thorium infused fluoride salt stored in a non-neutron reflective container, once on site you switch the block to the reactor vessel proper and use a weaker power supply to begin heating it till the solid salt melts, in the highly neutron reflecting environment the thorium will eventually reach a point where it's decay produces enough U233 to initiate a self sustaining fission reaction, at which point you now have a functional molten salt reactor and all of it's innate benefits like self-regulation, high working temperature, low working pressure, and relatively low size and mass per kw of energy generated.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 13:58:11 2019 No.10999958 >>10999933 scavenge plutonium from NASA's rovers

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 14:00:13 2019 No.10999967 >>10999544 >>10999716 >>10999748 Join the #BrickRoad Master Race https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGhzzcgfHNc

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 14:08:55 2019 No.10999986 File: 164 KB, 943x976, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 14:11:27 2019 No.10999989 >>10999986 They just can't resist the BBR

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 14:18:16 2019 No.10999998 >>10999506 How do you build cars on Mars? What do you use for power? The energy density of burning stuff ain't great if you include oxygen.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 14:28:12 2019 No.11000018

>>10999998
You can just use solar and batteries. Solar is anemic out at Mars' distance from the sun but the low gravity also means you can build things lighter and consequently with less need for lots of horsepower. You'd probably just give it solar fins like the rovers already have and run it off of an electrical motor supplemented by rechargeable batteries or capacitor banks. Instead of spending extra resources and time to have a closed cabin you'd just add some brackets to strap on spare breathing gas cylinders. Anything bigger or more complex and you'd have to establish a small pressurized assembly line. You could either assemble parts shipped from Earth or use additive manufacture to turn bulk metal powders shipped from Earth into components.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 14:31:48 2019 No.11000025 >>10999998 >>11000018 You could run small vehicles on compressed air https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpxhlX4Ga0 The base will have more than enough compressor capacity, so if you can get storage tanks set up you can do surprisingly well.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 14:38:44 2019 No.11000044 >>10999615 At least EUS is back on the menu. Without that SLS program would be even more of a joke.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 14:48:23 2019 No.11000061 File: 224 KB, 1460x1340, Untitled drawing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Musk Starship tweets today

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 14:49:33 2019 No.11000063 >>11000044 >just a larger tank with 4 RL-10s instead of one Why hasn't this been developed already? Seems really simple to do.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 14:56:25 2019 No.11000084

>>11000025
Huh, that's a pretty good range for an air powered car, you could just use waste CO2 or compressed nitrogen too it you want a bit more range. Add in the fact that such a vehicle would have a much lower effective weight on Mars and the range becomes very impressive, at 1/3rd of it's effective weight it should have a range of around 375 miles, not to mention that those tanks could visibly be enlarged a good bit without taking up any more necessary space beneath the vehicle. Of course if you wanted to be able to have some pressurized environment inside it would need to be heavier in some parts, it would need insulation, some shielding, breathable gas storage and circulating systems, environment control, proper airtight sealed doors, that could easily cut it's range back a good bit. You could also go in the completely opposite direction though and have your colonists just suit up to drive it and have nothing but some spare air for them and strip it down to nothing more than a frame and wheels with the frame being made of something both very light and cheap like Allite magnesium alloy. That could probably push your range up past 400.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 14:57:37 2019 No.11000088 Pournelle was right. Just bring horses. Horses make more horses and run off shit you can grow. Of course those were already terraformed / Earth life friendly planets

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:07:28 2019 No.11000124
File: 55 KB, 640x480, truck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11000084
I think something like this for basic utility and relatively short-range scouting (tens of miles, no cabin life support but equipped with umbilicals to extend suit oxygen, power, and water supplies) is about the right size for a compressed air vehicle.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:08:06 2019 No.11000126

>>11000063
You can't just build a tank in a field and bolt engines to it. You have to build it in a clean room with certified Aerospace Grade parts, and that's not until you've designed it with Aerospace Grade contractors hiring Aerospace Grade subcontractors hiring Indians.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:12:43 2019 No.11000136

>>11000084
That 375 mile estimate is maybe a bit on the high end, but if you do use allite instead of aluminum you'll cut your frame mass by around 33% while ending up with a more durable frame in the process, assuming the body of the vehicle isn't changed you'd end up with a range of around 270 miles. You could also build an electrical/compressed gas hybrid vehicle with batteries providing power during low-horsepower activity with a small compressed gas motor kicking in for high demand activity.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:13:53 2019 No.11000141

>>11000018
I'm talking about trucking stuff between bases. Say you want demandite from some mine that's far from your original base, how do you get tons of demandite back?
>>less need for lots of horsepower
you want to move as much fucking demandite as possible. You still have rolling resistance and still have to spend energy moving crap uphill(regenerative braking ain't 100% efficient). Rolling resistance will be quite large if you don't have roads. And you also have to expend power to keep meatbags alive in more or less the fucking wilderness.
>>solar
will be difficult because of all the surface area you need. The solution to all these problems is simple, just use trains instead. You can plug trains into the wall and have all the solar panels you need.
>>11000025
I'm talking mars trucking here. Compressed air is an absolutely shitty means of energy storage. Some compressed air cars are basically scams.
>>11000124
>>short range scouting
then the rolling resistance will be high and you ain't getting much range with a fucking air car.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:16:03 2019 No.11000148

>>11000124
Yeah, although with even a single CAT cylinder if the frame is allite, there is no cab (because why have a cab if you're wearing a space suit and not going to pressurize the vehicle?) then I could see something like that having a range more like 50-70 miles. On top of that, I'm not sure about the CAT's engine pressure tolerances but you might be able to make it out of allite as well, further lightening the whole vehicle, especially since you don't have to deal with any substantial heating at all in a compressed gas engine.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:17:53 2019 No.11000151

>>11000141
I mean if that CAT video is true than the CAT car would be a fucking monster truck on Mars, it can pull 70mph for 100 miles in 1g, if you were to develop that much horsepower on Mars you might have to worry about sending your vehicle airborne if you hit a big enough bump.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:23:25 2019 No.11000160

>>11000141
>>11000151
>>11000025
I suggested compressed air mainly because it's a dead-simple way to take advantage of other equipment that will be producing way more consumables than the base/colony will ever need. That's why the efficiency drop is acceptable: the extra CO2 is for all intents and purposes, a sunk cost of existing operations.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:26:20 2019 No.11000168

>>11000160
Personally I agree, plus using compressed air encourages you to design light from the ground up, which offers inherent benefits for space. On top of that the CAT frame we saw in the video is dead simple, which is also a benefit for starting up a space colony because you want your shit to be as easy to assemble and fix as possible.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:42:42 2019 No.11000210 >>11000061 what does he mean by multiple passes? Does Starship skip off the atmosphere and back to orbit?

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:44:12 2019 No.11000217

>>11000168
It also simplifies certain aspects of power demand. You could probably use almost-stock pneumatic tools on Mars if you're set up to use all that excess CO2, which in turn lets you focus all of your electrical power for more important things.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:47:49 2019 No.11000222 >>11000210 correct, other spacecraft in the past have done similar braking maneuvers in atmospheres where it takes multiple passes. Free ∆V

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:49:06 2019 No.11000229 >>11000210 First pass is the aerocapture pass, second pass is the EDL pass.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:53:55 2019 No.11000243 The phrase "permanent moon base by 2028" was thrown around during MoonCon or NASA Fest or whatever it's called.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 15:55:44 2019 No.11000250 >>11000243 Permanent moon bases are not possible with SLS unless you want astronauts on six month tours, because SLS can only fly twice a year at peak production.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:06:44 2019 No.11000277

>>10999908
The issue with thorium MSRs is that half of the reactor would be unobtainium to a fledgling colony. The particular graphite needed for control rods and breeder blanket separation along with the stuff with low neutron cross section. Though supercritical CO2 turbines will be in every major heating/power system due to the density and the heat capacity along with the simplicity of the turbines. You could have a powerplant direct CO2 exiting the turbine to processes needing a lot of heat, then have warm CO2 run under habitat floors for super efficient heating

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:16:22 2019 No.11000297 >>11000250 Don't you see? That's the genius of SLS (pbui)! It launches so infrequently that NASA has to figure out long term visits to the moon right away instead of slowly developing on it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:18:46 2019 No.11000305 >>11000243 SLS will have it's first flight in 2028 at this rate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:19:23 2019 No.11000309 lmao just use a LS with a tank of oxidizer

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:26:32 2019 No.11000325 >>11000061 sounds like understanding of entry considerations has matured a lot

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:38:11 2019 No.11000351 4 more days till Starship+Superheavy/BFR presentation and sometime in next month is 20 km Starship launch. Still cant believe how fast they've progressed from "paper rocket" just few months ago.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:42:01 2019 No.11000358 >>11000351 I really hope the 20km hope doesnt blow up, but has just enough things going wrong like the silo hop to learn from it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:42:02 2019 No.11000359 four hundred fucking kilowatthours

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:47:00 2019 No.11000374 >>11000359 not that much desu. Saturn V on liftoff had ~950kWh

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:47:37 2019 No.11000377 >>11000374 I'm talking about the battery packs on Starship

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:53:21 2019 No.11000387 >>11000358 You have to admit though, it would be a fucking great RUD, the only thing really expensive that would be lost would be the Raptors.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:55:09 2019 No.11000392 >>11000387 and the battery packs and the control surface actuators and the avionics and the actual body of the rocket these things are all expensive, although not when compared to the usual aerospace nonsense

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:55:24 2019 No.11000394 >>11000387 It would also make for good FUD. If it blows up, then expect tons of "SpaceX is a fraud/terrible/over" shitposts here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:57:03 2019 No.11000397 >>11000387 Mk1 is fairly expensive, all the man hour spent to make those is expensive, on top of specialized hardwares for testing. If I had to guess, that thing is probably few millions of dollar.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 16:57:22 2019 No.11000398

>>11000377
>Starship's batteries use almost half of Saturn's entire power supply just to actuate it's cute little wings.
I wonder if hydraulics would be lighter, or if the batteries still win out despite being such low power density. Also I wonder if they could be charged by a few alternators hooked up to some of the Raptors, that way you could probably significantly cut down on the sheer volume of them by having the 'ship actively recharge it's power supply whenever it's under thrust.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:02:55 2019 No.11000412 >>11000377 so am I but for Saturn V

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:06:11 2019 No.11000423 >>11000412 >>11000398 well, that number was super low because they have more battery packs getting mounted so that number is going up

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:06:26 2019 No.11000424
File: 39 KB, 770x433, starshiphopperrocketspacex12012019.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Speaking of wings, is the different shape of this prototype's forward flaps and wings (longer with squared off tips) due to it simply being a rapidly constructed prototype or did they figure they needed a larger lifting surface area than the backsweeping triangular wings would have offered? Any news on whether the next versions will follow it's design plan?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:07:27 2019 No.11000428 >>11000424 28th

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:08:06 2019 No.11000432 File: 941 KB, 627x502, source.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11000428

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:09:25 2019 No.11000438 File: 84 KB, 854x622, 607fd9afab8a7337997b7da9599b7a5c.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11000432

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:45:05 2019 No.11000521

RIP the grumpy boomers in Boca Chica who refused the 3X offer

>"Sec. 507.103. EMINENT DOMAIN. (a) A spaceport development corporation may exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property for a spaceport"
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/LG/htm/LG.507.htm

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:48:40 2019 No.11000528 >>11000521 rest in fucking piss can't that be challenged on Texas State Constitutional grounds?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:49:33 2019 No.11000530 >>11000521 What about those last people living in Boca Chica is holding SpaceX back exactly? Also, even if SpaceX has the legal backing, them exercising eminent domain will probably look bad on them.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:50:05 2019 No.11000534
File: 49 KB, 2556x168, taxes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11000521
hol' up SpaceX doesn't pay state taxes in Texas?

>>11000528
gotta violate a law to challenge it in the first place. So a boomer has to ignore the move-out order, then go to court. Seems like a lot of work for a boomer

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:51:24 2019 No.11000540 >>11000530 keeps them form doing bigger and badder tests. The 150m hopper hop required them to have 100 million in insurance for locals

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:52:09 2019 No.11000541 >>11000061 >it generates lift every single iteration of this thing makes it closer and closer to the space shuttle

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:52:55 2019 No.11000545 >>11000541 except it has an internal fuel tank

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:54:40 2019 No.11000551 File: 3.59 MB, 5455x2368, DSC_2757 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] here's your 1200 ton crane, bro

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:56:35 2019 No.11000556 File: 232 KB, 840x1200, liebherr-ltm-11200-9-1-working-postion-bracht-portrait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11000551 yeah it'll do the job

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:56:56 2019 No.11000558

>>11000541
>new tile design will be glued onto the Starship to hopefully reduce man-hours in maintenance
>due to the sheer size of Superheavy, it's deleted
>Starship will lift itself off the pad using an external tank for propellant and two boosters for extra thrust
>methane has found to offer too low Isp for our purposes, switching to hydrogen
>to make Starship more appealing to the US government for contracts, it's production lines will be dictated by the US senate
>due to limited budget from the higher than expected development and maintenance cost of Starship, we are putting our Martian plans on hold for now
delightfully counter intuitive

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:57:26 2019 No.11000559 >>11000556 Which iteration of Starship is this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:58:17 2019 No.11000562 >>11000551 Berry cool!

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 17:59:52 2019 No.11000568

>>11000558
SpaceX wouldn't cancel the Mars plans because the Mars plans are why SpaceX exists. People forget that Elon loves the "cause-centric capitalism" model where you make money for the purposes of doing a thing rather than making money to make money.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 18:00:38 2019 No.11000571 >>11000558 Stop anon, Senator Shelby can only get so hard

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 18:01:12 2019 No.11000573 >>11000568 That's why they're putting it on hold indefinitely like what NASA did with it's Mars goals. in this silly scenario

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 18:02:14 2019 No.11000576 >>11000571 He's young enough to still be able to get it up?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 18:02:42 2019 No.11000577 >>11000573 >>11000558 I'm now vaguely curious about the capabilities of a hydrogen Starship using Falcon 9s as strap on boosters

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 18:31:42 2019 No.11000644 The crane is being set up

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 18:39:31 2019 No.11000674

>>11000530
People living near SpaceX facilities are a liability for them. Each time they need to launch/test something, they have to do lots of leg work to make sure people are aware of things, etc. The 150 meter single raptor engine test made a lot of noise and shook the neighborhood. Now imagine what a 3 raptor engine would do or a 41 raptor engine for BFR?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 18:46:06 2019 No.11000699 >>11000559 The one with an integrated ISRU plant.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 18:52:40 2019 No.11000722

>>11000151
by CAT car, I assume you mean that retarded air car. Being a 'monster truck' or going fast are irrelevant here. If you're doing scouting you're driving off road. If you're driving off road you're going to spend more energy overcoming rolling resistance. This comes from things like deforming the ground and running into rocks. Your vehicle spends energy lifting itself over the rock and you don't necessarily get that energy back even if you've got a monster truck. I will admit compressed air has a high power density, but it has a low energy density, roughly that of lead acid batteries.
>>11000160
efficiency ain't the issue here, it's the energy density. For a scouting vehicle you want to carry lots of energy with you because god knows what trouble you're going to get into. It's probably not a good idea to power a scouting vehicle with something as energy dense as lead acid batteries. Air cars have another problem on Mars too getting clogged with frozen gas. On average Mars is cold, like 210 K. Allowing compressed gas to expand results in it getting colder if we don't supply heat in the expansion process. You could get cold enough to freeze out whatever gas you're using.
>>CO2
is the absolute worst thing you could use. CO2's freezing point is higher than Mars' average temperature. Compressing CO2 will almost certainly result in it becoming dry ice when the tank reaches ambient temp.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 18:57:19 2019 No.11000738 >>10999840 >Tar roads on Mars is retarded though Ye Literally just bulldoze a simple dirt road, done.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:03:41 2019 No.11000757 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMXfU8blPMM They should just bring one of these to Mars and be done with it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:06:31 2019 No.11000761 >>11000738 Dirt roads are inadequate for many things, cause issues for wheels, and limit speed because the road isn't properly level and uniform Countries make proper roads for a reason

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:06:51 2019 No.11000763

>>11000141
>The solution to all these problems is simple, just use trains instead.
Absolutely correct for all solid goods, trains are based as fuck. However, trains are at least mid-game options only, you can't send one from Earth so you need a capable industry on Mars first, able to build all the major components of rail transport. The best early game option for trucking long distances is first of all to avoid needing to go long distances in the first place, by landing right next to as many vital resources as possible, and secondly to just use trucks, which are slower and not efficient but can perform the work necessary. Make your truck mostly batteries by mass and make it weigh a shitload, remember no maximum load restrictions on Mars, basically scale it up until its relatively low payload fraction is still big enough to be worth it.

Insulated pipelines for transporting water would be nice, just insulate it from the ground and from the atmosphere and you could get hundreds of kilometers of flow without any reheating stations required to prevent freezing.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:12:29 2019 No.11000781

>>11000210
It's not really a skip, it's more like they don't go deep enough to lose enough speed to drop out of orbit entirely, they stay a bit higher and still lose speed but end up in a much lower and slower orbit. The reasoning there is that they can do as many passes as they want into the atmosphere to slow down without eroding the heat shield at all, however if they tried to do direct descent from capture they'd get such a high peak heat that the heat shield would fail.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:14:33 2019 No.11000790 >>11000359 Actually it's over a megawatthour, they're putting six batteries in

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:14:33 2019 No.11000791 >>11000781 I wonder if in an emergency they can fuck the heat shield over, but land w/o the multiple passes.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:15:17 2019 No.11000796
File: 175 KB, 1200x1195, catwithsunglasses02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

So I just discovered that nos and vodka make a pretty okay propellant combination if you're not too concerned about Isp (~200s with 24 bar chamber pressure at sea-level with a nozzle optimized for that). Both are "friendly" to the human body and can be taken without too many problems. In fact, both are taken for recreation.

Is this the most 'human friendly while still being useful' propellant?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:15:21 2019 No.11000797 >>11000761 Dirt roads are more than adequate for rugged vehicles moving at medium speeds and the main sources of degradation of non-paved roads don't exist on mars.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:15:38 2019 No.11000798 >>11000398 >I wonder if hydraulics would be lighter How are you going to power the hydraulics, anon? Electricity, that's how, just like the hydraulic grid fins on Falcon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:21:13 2019 No.11000816 >>11000541 Every single design of BFR so far has generated lift Even Dragon 2 generates lift. It's not hard to generate lift. However, neither Starship nor Dragon 2 can glide, which separates them from Shuttle.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:24:01 2019 No.11000823 >>11000722 >Compressing CO2 will almost certainly result in it becoming dry ice when the tank reaches ambient temp. This, except it'd be liquid CO2 at those pressures.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:26:21 2019 No.11000830

>>11000761
You're not building the fucking autobahn, retard. You're building a flat path free of boulders in a vaguely straight line that big ass trucks loaded with ores and ice blocks can crawl along at 30 km/h. Also in case you haven't noticed, there are dirt roads all over the fucking world, every country.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:29:08 2019 No.11000837

>>11000791
No, if the heat shields starts to fail the main structure is instantly fucked because steel melts and a temperature about 2000 degrees lower than those ceramic tiles will melt, think of ice being exposed to a 2000 degree blowtorch. If the tiles started to melt, they're already so thin that the metal underneath would start melting almost right away, and soon there'd be effectively plasma cutting torches blasting into the vehicle all over the place until that side of the vehicle failed and the entire thing pancaked, blew up, and was vaporized.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:29:19 2019 No.11000838 >>11000830 >"You're not building the fucking autobahn, retard." Germany has pulled it's support for Mars

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 19:31:02 2019 No.11000844 >>11000796 The friendliest propellant is the one that kills you fastest, anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 20:24:42 2019 No.11001006 >>11000830 >improvement bad >things should never pass the bare minimum

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 20:41:14 2019 No.11001069 >>11001006 >if we can't do the best possible version of the technology the first time then we shouldn't do anything! And then they didn't do anything for 50 years.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 20:42:56 2019 No.11001075 >>11001069 >the Shuttle summed up there

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 20:48:42 2019 No.11001086 >>11001075 I wish If Shittle followed that philosophy in the first place it would have never happened.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 20:58:43 2019 No.11001104 >>11000551 Looks like a mammoth tank from Command and Conquer 3

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 21:05:18 2019 No.11001114
File: 179 KB, 1280x960, 2_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11000722
its warmer than that during the day, but then again I suppose it depends on where you are on the surface and if you are going to be doing the majority of your activity during mars generously similar day cycle.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 21:15:36 2019 No.11001132

>>11001086
Well, it sort of half happened. The Shuttle needed to start working right away because NASA barely had enough money to develop it much less iterate on it. It failed when it started flying, but it also held back NASA for 30 years due to how expensive it was.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 22:15:58 2019 No.11001271 >>11000844 Dimethylmercury and FOOF it is, then.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 22:17:10 2019 No.11001276 File: 754 KB, 582x912, Screen Shot 2019-09-24 at 8.16.52 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] the crane.... AWAITS

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 22:18:34 2019 No.11001282 >>11000798 You can just couple the compressor to the turbine shaft through some gears.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 22:19:12 2019 No.11001286 >>11001271 >Very short exposure could cause death or major residual injury >Readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition at normal temperatures and pressures >Very toxic >Violent oxidizer FOOF? More like OOF.

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 22:25:14 2019 No.11001305

>>11001282
That mans you only get hydraulic power while the engines are running
The engines don't run except for the final 20 to 30 seconds of the entire descent, anon. The rest of the time the spacecraft needs power to move those flaps to stay stable during atmopsheric entry, and may make several passes, each one requiring aerodynamic control input for as much as 15 to 20 minutes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 22:38:49 2019 No.11001349 >>11001271 Chlorine Trifluoride, because if we're going with the most toxic and dangerous fuels possible, having something that can burn your rocket and anything else is a must.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 22:44:05 2019 No.11001368 >>11001271 >>11001349 I'm sad that Rocket Propulsion Analysis doesn't have these as options. It doesn't have FOOF but it does have F2O. It doesn't even have a mercury based compound. It does, however, have chlorine trifluoride.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 22:50:50 2019 No.11001391 >>11000556 This is not the space x rocket, nor is it the same crane.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 22:51:04 2019 No.11001393 >>11001271 >>11001349 I don't see any finely powdered uranium metal in your exhaust, anons.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 22:53:01 2019 No.11001402 >>11001393 The only uranium fuel option RPA has is triuranium octoxide, is that good enough?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 23:26:33 2019 No.11001477 File: 1.21 MB, 480x287, 1496699083090.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11001391 wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 23:27:59 2019 No.11001481 File: 105 KB, 732x598, 09907d3ed4941450e3f3a1f20a6afd7e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11001477

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 23:29:42 2019 No.11001482 File: 126 KB, 330x224, Screen Shot 2019-09-24 at 9.29.27 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] what will it be

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 23:36:03 2019 No.11001501 File: 3.30 MB, 2560x970, Screen Shot 2019-09-24 at 9.35.29 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] one of those round jigs. seems overkill to use a 1200t crane but ok

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 23:36:42 2019 No.11001506 >>11001501 a crane is a crane is a crane

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 23:36:44 2019 No.11001507 >>11001482 That's so grainy it could've come from /x/.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 23:39:25 2019 No.11001512 File: 772 KB, 708x842, Screen Shot 2019-09-24 at 9.39.02 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] THE CLAW

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 23:39:45 2019 No.11001515 >>11001507 Cryptids confirmed on SpaceX night staff.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 24 23:43:56 2019 No.11001528 >>11001515 How else did you think SpaceX got the starhopper done so fast?

Anonymous Tue Sep 24 23:46:52 2019 No.11001538

The NASA Institute for Advanced(crazy) Concepts symposium is going on, videos of the presentations are here:
www.livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2019
The pulsed fusion fission propulsion, which could reasonably get to Mars in a month, talk is interesting. Seems like there's actually money in developing the tech necessary to make it possible as a means to make medical isotopes.

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 00:01:26 2019 No.11001573

>>11001538
Honestly I'm not interested in better propulsion for getting to Mars. Mars is too close, you can do it with chemical rockets, which means a cheaper option is available than any advanced propulsion system.
Now, that changes if you consider the outer planets, where hohmann transfers are not viable for human transport because they take years and even decades. In that case, chemical doesn't cut it anymore, you NEED better propulsion, and in that case pulsed nuclear makes sense (doesn't have to be Orion scale obviously, but pulsed detonations nonetheless, working with very tiny fuel masses per pulse). Being able to get to Uranus in an Earth year or less with humans in a reusable spacecraft powered via pulsed nuclear pellet propulsion would unlock colonization of pretty much the entire solar system including the Kuiper belt.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 00:12:59 2019 No.11001587 File: 1.75 MB, 1060x1330, Screen Shot 2019-09-24 at 10.12.21 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] here we go?

Anonymous Wed Sep 25 00:18:38 2019 No.11001605

>>11001573
All the large asteroid belt objects, moons of Jupiter and Saturn, yeah. If we could get to Uranus in a year things would get crazy. Probably my biggest gripe with Ad Astra- the movie treats a 79-day trip to Neptune as some kind of monumental ordeal when in reality that's hilariously fast and would mean the whole solar system would be crawling with people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 00:25:51 2019 No.11001617 File: 3.02 MB, 2116x1250, Screen Shot 2019-09-24 at 10.25.28 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 00:31:51 2019 No.11001636 nu tread >>11001632 >>11001632

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 00:45:05 2019 No.11001661 Any others here actually work in the industry?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 01:05:46 2019 No.11001714 >>11001617 What dat 4

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 25 01:08:42 2019 No.11001720 >>11001714 lifting the lower section of Starship Mk1

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

/sci/ - Science & Math