/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 118 KB, 487x694, 1555473352393.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/sfg/ Spaceflight General - Elon von Braun Edition Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:25:57 2019 No.11013122 [Reply] [Original]

Previous thread: >>11009803

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:29:53 2019 No.11013139 >>11013122 >Shelby, I'm going to put this up your ass

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:30:11 2019 No.11013142 Starship presentation thread >>11012929 7PM CDT / 0000 UTC

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:30:47 2019 No.11013145 File: 468 KB, 774x1377, stickanythingupthere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11013122 >>11013139

Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:31:02 2019 No.11013146

>My daughter worked for Elon. I include her background, not for “bragging rights”, as a few of you have suggested (this is anonymous, after all), but to point out that she had a reasonable frame of reference going in. Her credentials are Valedictorian at a 5 star high school of over 3000 students with a 4.6 GPA. Stanford grad with both a BS in biomechanical engineering and a masters in mechanical engineering. Heavily recruited by Tesla, turning them down twice, before finally accepting a position in the Advanced Engineering Design lab.

>My daughter was sitting with other members of the design lab in an all hands presentation, when Elon took the stage. She had never met Elon or heard him speak and was very excited. The longer he spoke, the more uncomfortable she got. She started looking at her workmates and saw they were looking at each other as well. These are smart folks, and the more Elon talked, the more they realized how little substance he actually offered, using obvious logical fallacies, and speaking mostly in persuasive hyperbole. They saw through the buzzwords and hyperbolic rhetoric, and understood that, while his degree may have been in physics, his genius wasn’t (or even engineering for that matter). She was so disappointed, she called me that night to tell me what had happened. She was well treated at Tesla, but left some months later after being offered a position in an exciting startup in S.F.

>In addition, my wife started out as an engineer in aerospace (yes, she is a rocket scientist), and is now a fairly well known executive within the industry. She has interfaced with Elon on occasion, and her takeaway is similar. I used to attribute it, at least partly, to the fact that they were competitors in some aspects, but after our daughters experience, I’m inclined to believe it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:31:39 2019 No.11013147 >>11013122 elon musk is such a meme lol thats so reddit of you to post an image of him >>>/r/eddit

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:32:18 2019 No.11013152 >>11013147 GTFO Jim. You're not welcome here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:33:06 2019 No.11013153 11013147 t NASA administrator

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:37:11 2019 No.11013166 >>11013152 wow you're just salty that i exposed your post you filthy redditor, go back to circlejerking on reddit you superiority complex having cuck who the fuck is jim retard

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:37:26 2019 No.11013169 File: 377 KB, 400x610, pasta-1437420918391.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11013146 Where's the part where he steals a candy bar?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:40:15 2019 No.11013180 >>11013142 >7PM CDT / 0000 UTC Looks like it's going to be delayed an hour or two to rain: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1178058268331012096 You may now carry on with your depotposting

Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:40:17 2019 No.11013181

>>11013146
source? and also we now elon talks out of his ass alot, but the thing is, just like steve jobs he is a entrepreneur, he is not the guy designing the rocket, he is the guy who gets the right people in the same room to make the rocket, and steps in when they get bogged down to make hard decisions.

It's hard to understand this, but gaving a shitload of scientist&engineers&like minded people working together doesnt always deliver the desired result, you need someone to kick them in the ass now and then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:41:19 2019 No.11013185 >>11013180 well, looks like euros are fucked agian.

Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:49:09 2019 No.11013213

>>11013181
https://www.quora.com/Just-how-smart-is-Elon-Musk-If-you-sit-with-him-do-you-sense-a-sharp-intelligence-Does-he-think-ten-times-more-quickly-than-just-about-anyone-else-Is-his-intelligence-awe-inspiring-Is-his-success-mostly-due-to-confidence-and-drive

Problem is that he presents himself as an engineer guy. Constantly makes it sound like he's on the floor with the engineers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:53:40 2019 No.11013232 >>11013146 Literally who fucking cares. "Credentials" and the opinions of so called experts don't mean jack shit. The only thing that matter is results. And we can all plainly see who is delivering...

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:56:15 2019 No.11013242 >>11013146 nice copy pasta my dude

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 17:59:49 2019 No.11013254 >>11013232 Obviously not SpaceX in CC. \s

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:11:23 2019 No.11013297 >>11013180 Not even a presentation is safe from weather scrubs

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:20:38 2019 No.11013320 >>11013297 Elon Musk next week: Announcing WeatherX, a company to control climate in localized regions

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:25:19 2019 No.11013338 >>11013213 But he is an engineer. He started his intern work as a battery engineer. Then moved to rockets and electric cars.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:26:53 2019 No.11013344 >>11013122

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:27:55 2019 No.11013348 File: 98 KB, 1440x810, Elon Musk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:30:15 2019 No.11013354 File: 2.93 MB, 1536x2048, 1569708571749.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] crinkle crinkle dent

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:35:23 2019 No.11013373 File: 58 KB, 968x616, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] it's fucking warped

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:40:20 2019 No.11013385 >>11013373 surely measurements don't have to be exact in space flight right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:40:22 2019 No.11013387 File: 420 KB, 1416x800, 28.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11013373 no, it's just you

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:41:46 2019 No.11013389 File: 76 KB, 1280x720, stupid virgin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11013373 L-LEWD!

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:41:55 2019 No.11013390 >>11013387 It does look wrinkly as hell though, which doesn't inspire confidence. Hopefully it's just the exterior that looks questionable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:42:35 2019 No.11013394 >>11013387 try the other side

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:43:51 2019 No.11013400 >>11013373 OH NONONONO AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:45:12 2019 No.11013404 >>11013387 dude, at least shop the left side away...

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:47:30 2019 No.11013414 File: 431 KB, 1244x1408, 29.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11013390 >>11013394 >>11013404 don't worry. The camera is afar and the atmosphere causes perturbations in the image

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:48:03 2019 No.11013416 >>11013373 Its light reflections curving along the perfectly fine steel. Most people noticed it early on in the development but its just mind tricks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:48:37 2019 No.11013421 >>11013354 I surely hope it doesn't crumple in the middle of the live presentation

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:50:32 2019 No.11013428 File: 23 KB, 480x360, atlas_agena_depressure.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11013421

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:53:02 2019 No.11013439 >>11013414 making the lines thicker ain't helping your point here anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:56:17 2019 No.11013453 File: 589 KB, 1508x1447, 30.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11013439 you're never happy, are you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 18:58:58 2019 No.11013462 File: 889 KB, 1536x2048, hq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11013453 same edit but in high quality photo taken an hour ago. Starship is alright.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 19:00:57 2019 No.11013468 >>11013146 Literally wgaf about this rando big brain. When she's operating the world's heaviest lift rocket her opinion might become relevant, until then whatevs

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 19:34:42 2019 No.11013549 >>11013213 >>11013146 >source: literally yahoo answers yeah ok

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 20:20:45 2019 No.11013710 >>11013373 I really hope this one doesn't fucking tip over

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 21:14:59 2019 No.11014069 the stream is up.

>>	El Arcón Sat Sep 28 21:25:13 2019 No.11014164 >>11013122 Elon Muck is a semen guzzling turd goblin, methinks

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 21:28:24 2019 No.11014204 >>11014164 Whatever you like to put in your fanfic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 21:29:21 2019 No.11014226 >>11014164 holy shit, based.

>>	El Arcón Sat Sep 28 21:30:21 2019 No.11014242 >>11014204 I'd be a fan of someone putting an electrified coat hanger down his piss hole, but I'm not a fan the man himself. I have a lot of negative feelings about him, really.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 21:31:43 2019 No.11014269 >>11014242 >I'd be a fan of someone putting an electrified coat hanger down his piss hole That's one weird fetish. Are you okay?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 21:40:07 2019 No.11014379 >>11014242 based. me too Tooker, the guys a fucking con artist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 21:49:43 2019 No.11014537 >>11013385 Its called robust control.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 21:51:37 2019 No.11014562 Anyone kinda find it funny that they managed to scourged this thing together right when NASA is debating of cutting off their budget.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 22:43:05 2019 No.11015260 File: 680 KB, 1600x900, sol-317-paradise.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Is Surviving Mars /sfg/-approved?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 22:54:06 2019 No.11015399 >>11015260 its acceptable after you add half the workshop in mods >>>/vg/266875152 post your shit there

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 22:57:22 2019 No.11015427 File: 10 KB, 265x190, 9k=.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] so this is how big a room each person is gonna get inside the starship

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 22:59:47 2019 No.11015440 Do people actually believe these timetables? >6 months yeah bullshit

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:00:41 2019 No.11015449 >if its long, its wrong >if its tight, its right S.L.S BTFO

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:01:23 2019 No.11015455 SO WHAT HAVE YOU UNDESIGNED TODAY HMMMM?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:01:54 2019 No.11015463 >>11015440 They went from paper rocket design of completely different material to 150meter flying monster in 4 months. Then in few months, they created Mk1. 6 more months later, orbit.

Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:02:17 2019 No.11015467

>>11015440
No one apart from the incredibly naive really believe the exact time tables proposed by Elon. However, while people expect things to be delayed, SpaceX has established a reputation of actually following through on most of their ambitious projects unlike NASA.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:02:56 2019 No.11015471 >>11015427 That thing cost $800 per month in SanFrancisco rent money.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:03:56 2019 No.11015478 >>11015463 All while spending less than 1/20th of their company resources. And 1/10000 of SLS funding.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:03:58 2019 No.11015480 >>11015471 That seems abit low.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:04:24 2019 No.11015483 File: 2.74 MB, 969x2048, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:04:44 2019 No.11015485

the fact that Elon was making up answers on the spot for the schedule and build program is really encouraging. It means they're still super agile and flexible with the design and architecture. If they had a solid Mk1/2/3/4 checklist with dates it would be worrying

go SpaceX

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:04:45 2019 No.11015486 >>11013373 CURVED! SWORDS!

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:04:58 2019 No.11015490 >>11015480 Sorry missed a 1. $1800 per month for 10 cubic meter mini-apartment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:05:09 2019 No.11015492 File: 95 KB, 968x616, warped.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] hmmm I think it is warped. The red line on the left goes into the rocket, the red line on the right goes away

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:05:51 2019 No.11015496 >>11015480 Not when you realize he was being literal: that pile of cardboard boxes costs $800 per month to rent in San Francisco.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:06:15 2019 No.11015499 >>11015490 No utilities, no pets, no privacy, and if you so much as fart on a wall you lose the deposit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:08:00 2019 No.11015510 >>11015492 theb camera is tilted

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:08:15 2019 No.11015512 >>11015492 camera is tilted

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:08:49 2019 No.11015517 >>11015440 Not only that, expect about 4-5 Starships by the end of next year and Superheavy prototype right after the 4th one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:10:31 2019 No.11015527 they built a starship in 4 or 5 months. meanwhile sls has been in development since 2011

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:10:33 2019 No.11015528 >>11015517 why are you building more of them before testing the first one??

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:12:02 2019 No.11015540 File: 1.29 MB, 969x3840, elong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11015483

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:12:17 2019 No.11015541 >>11015528 the fundamental bulkheads and steel structure won't change. you can always attach different tiles, avionics, and aero surfaces

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:12:22 2019 No.11015543 >>11015528 You think SpaceX should stop doing everything else and focus only on Mk1? Do you work for SLS by any chance?

Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:13:19 2019 No.11015546
File: 97 KB, 373x278, 1564007615973.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11015528
it's almost as if they didn't feel a need to slow down and make absolutely sure something was 200% right before even lifting a finger to begin scheduling meetings to design the next one

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:16:20 2019 No.11015557 >>11015528 Probably good to have more in the pipeline in case Mk 1 RUDs. Then they can go in and fix whatever went wrong with minimal delays.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:17:45 2019 No.11015570 i wanted him to call jim bridenstine a bitch

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:18:30 2019 No.11015576 >my hand is the rocket >hahaha the cows are confused >long is wrong, tight is right anyone got a "my hand is the rocket" gif yet

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:18:37 2019 No.11015578 >>11015570 Didn't he comment on Jim's tweet in the QnadA?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:18:55 2019 No.11015580 >>11015540 Long is wrong!

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:19:35 2019 No.11015586 >>11015578 he did briefly i forgot what he said though

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:19:46 2019 No.11015587 >>11015578 Yes but his response was unsatisfyingly diplomatic

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:20:18 2019 No.11015590 >>11015586 he said SpaceX is only putting about 5% of company resources into BFR right now because rapid prototyping is cheap, mass production is expensive

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:20:24 2019 No.11015591 >>11015587 What did he say? I missed it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:20:27 2019 No.11015592 >>11015578 Yes. He specifically said Starship uses less than 5% of SpaceX resources. Where Jim assumed the opposite.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:22:59 2019 No.11015603 File: 764 KB, 952x534, sfganon.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OK which one of you faggots was this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:23:52 2019 No.11015610 >>11015603 You know the clover is a part of SpaceX iconography, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:27:07 2019 No.11015625 File: 81 KB, 1199x675, EFmQFf8UYAEIY0h.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This image got an update

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:27:42 2019 No.11015626 i wish someone had asked a question about an abort system

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:28:07 2019 No.11015628 File: 89 KB, 1920x1080, p0vrqqe8yfp31.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11015625

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:28:16 2019 No.11015630 >>11015626 I thought someone was about to, but then he started asking about life support systems

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:28:40 2019 No.11015632 >>11015610 shut up reddit

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:30:15 2019 No.11015639 >>11015440 Even Musk said it's an ideal timeline. Like a Falcon 9 launch, trust it'll happen, just may take bit longer than expected.

Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:30:16 2019 No.11015640

>>11013390
if you watched the livestream, you’d know that the body is literally made out of strips of rectangle stainless steel panels, contorted and welded using not the most advanced methods. The 3rd or 4th starship will be using far more advanced stainless steel welding anf manufacturing methods which will minimise the wrinkly appearance until it looks like a smooth singular piece of steel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:30:29 2019 No.11015641 >>11015628 Literally bellyflops as it lands. What a fucking idea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:31:14 2019 No.11015642 >>11015576 don't forget >20 kilometers or 65 feet >lol life support is easy >COLD AND RIPPED DNA

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:33:18 2019 No.11015644 >>11015625 Stublegs confirmed, 'muh suspension travel' btfo

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:35:28 2019 No.11015650 >>11013146 Threadly reminder that posts such as these are the elite desperately trying to undermine Musk to keep humanity trapped on this globohomo clownworld planet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:35:44 2019 No.11015651 >>11015644 the virgin stub vs the chad leg

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:36:24 2019 No.11015653 >>11015628 >>11015625 This aesthetic is growing on me

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:37:29 2019 No.11015654 >>11015642 >carbon fiber cost us $35/ton >oops I meant 35,000

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:38:24 2019 No.11015660 >>11015642 I don't really get the contamination thing. For the rovers looking for life sure, but now we're a little beyond that. You can't plan to colonize mars without also planning to contaminate. They are opposing goals

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:39:12 2019 No.11015662 >>11015660 >something something space should only be for scientists

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:39:12 2019 No.11015663 >>11015660 That was basically Elon's response, "humans are a pretty big contaminant"

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:39:39 2019 No.11015664 >>11015653 The renderings make it look like steel 2017 BFR, which was my least favorite design, but Mk 1 looks really good.

Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:39:46 2019 No.11015665

>>11015528
Basically trial and error. Design on paper, built as quickly and cheaply as possible, then reiterate. Each Starship is unique, bringing it's own improvment on design or manufacturing technique. You'll burn a lot of money for prototypes instead of money on the drawing board. SpaceX doesn't believe in design freeze unless NASA/DOD tells them to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:40:05 2019 No.11015667 >>11015660 The point about material exchange between Mars and Earth was a good one, anyway. Anything that can survive and colonize, other than apes in pressure suits, already has

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:40:30 2019 No.11015669 >>11015653 >The exterior will transition gradually from shiny silver to the deep blued hue of a gunbarrel

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:41:43 2019 No.11015670 >>11015665 Working without design freezes and being successful is actually pretty amazing. It's incredibly hard to work on something when every part is constantly being iterated on at once.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:42:31 2019 No.11015671 >>11015427 That's not too bad for anything suborbital or to the moon, it's more space than all three crew in an Apollo craft would get combined. For a Mars shot though that could get pretty bad over the course of months.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:42:36 2019 No.11015673 >>11015664 im glad they got rid of the tail fin. i never liked that

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:42:58 2019 No.11015675 >>11015664 >Mk 1 looks really good. you are the first and only person I've heard say that instead of calling it jank and asking if it's a joke

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:44:50 2019 No.11015683 >>11015675 he's not alone it's obviously a bit overweight but when you have 150 tons of margin to play with it's not a big deal

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:45:38 2019 No.11015685 >>11015675 jank has its own appeal, MK1 has grown on me won't be sad to see it go for something sleeker though

Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:45:40 2019 No.11015686

>>11015670
They only froze Falcon 9 when NASA demanded them to, and that was Block 5. Look at a progression from Falcon 9 1.0 to Block 5, it's a completely different rocket in a completely different class. F9 1.0 was an expendable only medium lift vehicle. Block 5 is a partially reusable heavy lift vehicle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:45:41 2019 No.11015687 cant wait for scott manley's vid

Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:45:42 2019 No.11015688
File: 132 KB, 1037x1977, ITS-and-Saturn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11015673
I actually liked the tail fin quite a bit, although my favorite design by far is still ITS. If you attached a fusion torch to the end of it you'd basically have something out of The Expanse, it was great. I hope eventually Elon returns to that concept, perhaps in the form of an 18m hull.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:46:38 2019 No.11015690 >>11015654 $135,000/ton is what I heard him say. Compared to $2,500/ton for the new stainless (one thing that usually gets left out is that this is actually a brand-new alloy that somebody just came up with within the last few years).

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:47:42 2019 No.11015692 >>11015660 Did you miss the who tardigrade "scandal" on the Moon?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:48:41 2019 No.11015699 >>11015690 >$2,500/ton Just how cheap is this thing going to be?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:48:46 2019 No.11015700 >>11015688 Yeah ITS is top kino, looks like an Italian supercar in rocket form.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:48:53 2019 No.11015702 >>11015685 I'm really looking forward to seeing the ceramic tiles go up on mk 3 or whenever

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:49:15 2019 No.11015703 >>11015690 Elon said it was off the shelf 301 stainless, I'm pretty sure my sink is made of that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:49:30 2019 No.11015706 >>11015688 ITS design makes everything they've developed for re-entry with SS impossible so I can't see it being revived, it does look sweet tho

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:50:23 2019 No.11015708 >>11015688 there were 2 reasons why i didnt like it. having the landing legs attached to the wings seems like a huge risk. and the tail fins only purpose was a third landing leg so thats a lot of extra weight.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:50:57 2019 No.11015710 >>11015688 She was a sexy design, but I get why they went to steel-we've seen first hand just how much easier it is ot work with-carbon fibre is awesome but finicky as all hell.

Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:52:37 2019 No.11015715

Observations from the launch animation
>The launch pad appears to be at Boca
>The curvy launch tower is back, but besides that there's barely any infrastructure. Guess they haven't gotten that far yet.
>Single engine SH boostback, 3 engine landing
>Tanker ship looks carbon fiber and has landing legs more blended into the side
>It's already got 128k views
All in all, little to read into as everything included is either a placeholder or will change

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:52:46 2019 No.11015716 >>11013354 Why does it have to look like a 4th grade science project? At least have a smooth outer skin!

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:53:08 2019 No.11015718 >>11015710 >>11015706 You know they could redesign ITS in Stainless, right? As long as the peak heating isn't any higher, and it shouldn't be with such a fuckhuge surface area, it can use the same tiles and backing as Starship

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:54:18 2019 No.11015719 >>11015715 Tanker ship isn't carbon, idiot. That's the bottom. They mate flipped. You're seeing heat shield tiles.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:55:06 2019 No.11015722 >>11015690 >>11015654 Yeah, its $135K per ton, not $35K per ton. Extremely expensive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:56:10 2019 No.11015723 >>11015719 Yeah you're right. I see that on the passenger Starship render now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:57:20 2019 No.11015726 >>11015718 It would still need all the flappy shit so would never look as cool as ITS

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:57:26 2019 No.11015727 File: 14 KB, 202x214, stardust.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 28 23:59:51 2019 No.11015734 File: 51 KB, 362x393, e5c375216d3390d64b8f267899531832.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:02:46 2019 No.11015740

>>11015718
Changing to stainless is the easy part, but you still need to compensate for loss of hypersonic lift which the current design relies on to maintain peak heat regime. Plus loss of attitude control and imbalanced drag. Would it be impossible probably not, but it would mean weight tradeoffs

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:04:44 2019 No.11015751 File: 12 KB, 202x214, MOON.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:05:12 2019 No.11015752 File: 16 KB, 320x240, images (10).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >some faggot Reddit mod got into the press conference What the fuck bros, where was the 4chan rep?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:06:52 2019 No.11015754 File: 8 KB, 299x168, smug_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11015752 >thinking any true channer would leave his dad's attic

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:08:17 2019 No.11015759 >>11015740 Wasn't ITR a lifting body design?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:09:10 2019 No.11015762 >>11015752 He was the speaker

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:09:20 2019 No.11015763

So when can we start wildy speculating what the 2020 update will bring?
>yfw when it's the same stuttery 2019 presentation with CG animations and videos everybody already watched just with a couple flight proven Starships and Superheavies as the backdrop.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:09:24 2019 No.11015765

>>11015699
The fixed material costs are mostly in the engines.

Other fixed costs are mostly in support staff. Marginal costs will be (hopefully) mostly just the cost of LOX, especially given the current glut of methane in Texas.

It all depends on how much, if any, money has to go into repairs or refurbishment between flights.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:11:28 2019 No.11015774 >>11015765 >It all depends on how much, if any, money has to go into repairs or refurbishment between flights. That's what really hurt the Shuttle, so if SpaceX can get this down then they'll be well off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:11:35 2019 No.11015775 >>11015759 I don't recall that but it has been a while. The rest could probably be compensated with overpowered RCS if so.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:13:03 2019 No.11015779 >>11015763 It's weird to think that someday there won't be Starship presentations every fall. Hopefully we get more radical design change so a 2020 presentation is necessary, which I'd still count on.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:13:46 2019 No.11015782 >>11015775 You could make something of the absolute girth of an 18m starship a lifting body, surely. It's super chode-y so you've got a lot of surface area, it's not long and slender like Starship. Well chodier than even ITS.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:15:06 2019 No.11015788

>>11015774
It seems like they have a much better chance of pulling it off, Shuttle was literally made of glass fiber quilts and aluminum with tiles so brittle that fixing them in place with anything but glue would have broken them. Starship is made of solid steel with tiles robust enough to be bolted straight to the hull.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:16:44 2019 No.11015793

>>11015779
it's not weird, it's fucking mind bending, that in a few years we won't have starship design conferences, because we will have starship

in fact if Starship blows up (in usage, not literally) the way I think it will, because the earth to earth usage has the potential to shake air travel like the fucking jet engine did, we'll probably still have updates every year because SpaceX would be the most valuable company in the world and could afford the excesses of Apple tier conferences every year.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:18:50 2019 No.11015804

>>11015765
Expecting ease/cost of maintenance of the engines to be a sticking point, for sure. Not enough to be a dealbreaker, but enough to be a main factor in pushing back the deadlines. It's one thing to make a stupidly reliable engine or to approach the physical limits of non-hydrolox chemical engines, but to do both and have it go smoothly is a big ask.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:19:19 2019 No.11015805 >>11015779 >Hopefully we get more radical design change so a 2020 presentation is necessary >"We're going to make the body frame from HK31 instead of 301 stainless steel."

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:19:23 2019 No.11015806 >>11015427 that's downright luxurious compared to a military ship

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:21:18 2019 No.11015811 >>11015806 I've had hotel rooms that big. Plus zero gravity? I'd live in it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:24:11 2019 No.11015820 >>11015779 I hope next year's at the cape tho with LC39 having completed renovations to support Starship.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:24:34 2019 No.11015822

>>11015805
Anon, the 2020 presentation will be the Q&A after the first (or even first manned) orbit. The 2021 presentation will be the Dear Moon launch. The 2022 presentation will be the Mars launch. The 2024 presentation will be the first man on Mars. Fill in the gaps with Earth to Earth and 18m Starship.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:24:50 2019 No.11015824 File: 51 KB, 345x266, Screenshot_20190928-220300_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >MOTHERFUCKING > >TILES

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:25:49 2019 No.11015828 File: 12 KB, 157x237, rdynj2s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Just gonna drop my favorite rocket engine here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:26:47 2019 No.11015829 >>11015824 there was only a very brief period in the history of BFR development where transpiration cooling was planned, tiles were on all carbon fiber starships

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:26:51 2019 No.11015830 >>11015822 >not wanting a Starship made from Mag-Thor

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:26:51 2019 No.11015831 >>11015806 This. Always assumed astronauts would be lucky to have their own bunk for a century yet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:28:39 2019 No.11015836 >>11015824 I'm a little sad that the sweaty starship is conformed to be dead currently, but it was always kind of a wild idea.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:29:55 2019 No.11015840 >>11015822 >presentation in orbit

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:30:20 2019 No.11015843 >>11015715 >>Single engine SH boostback, 3 engine landing No, boostback uses 7 engines and the landing uses 4.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:30:57 2019 No.11015847 >>11015831 Astronauts in ISS sleep in something like a straightjacket from mental prison, completely strapped to the wall of ISS.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:31:32 2019 No.11015850 >>11015840 >presentation on Mars >presentation on the Moon a day before Artemis lands, but completely unannounced before launch

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:31:50 2019 No.11015851 >>11015847 To be fair, that's to stop them from drifting around in their sleep. That's a safety hazard.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:32:30 2019 No.11015853
File: 1.76 MB, 3319x2116, space station.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Where are they going to put all the solar panels?

The ISS, which has roughly the same pressurized volume as the Starship, and which only holds a crew of about 10, needs all these solar panels.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:32:34 2019 No.11015854 >>11015806 I would be 100% happy to spend 6 months in that en route to Mars. So long as there is a little tv in there and a common area that would be sweet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:33:29 2019 No.11015856 >>11015851 you could fit a bedtrifuge in that space, and because you're lying down corolla forces won't be too egregious

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:33:55 2019 No.11015858 >>11015853 Thin film fold out solar my dude

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:34:11 2019 No.11015860 >>11015853 My guess is that SpaceX will sacrifice abit of the payload volume of Starship to store the solar panels, probably also use abit of the propellant to generate some energy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:34:11 2019 No.11015861 >>11015805 >switching to HK31 is just a means of smuggling thorium to Mars to make unregulated LFTRs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:35:35 2019 No.11015865 >>11015853 Here's your power source >>11015853.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:36:29 2019 No.11015868 File: 166 KB, 1300x866, stainless color.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11015669 that depends on what temp the exterior gets to, but i hope it turns some awesome colors

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:36:37 2019 No.11015870 >>11015865 Oops, meant to refer to >>11015861 for the power source.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:38:22 2019 No.11015877 >>11015690 But isn't steel heavier anyway? So in terms of mass the offset would balance?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:39:28 2019 No.11015881 >>11013122 Earth is flat

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:40:29 2019 No.11015886 >>11015877 something tells me it's not 54x heavier

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:41:40 2019 No.11015890 File: 72 KB, 1280x720, idontgetit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11015886 but steel is heavier than fibers

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:43:08 2019 No.11015893 >>11015890 A steel Starship is not 54× heavier than fiber, but steel is 54× cheaper

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:43:55 2019 No.11015896 >failure in orbital refueling will make 200 tons of space junk

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:45:09 2019 No.11015899 >>11015896 How so?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:46:34 2019 No.11015903 >>11015899 BOOM

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:47:08 2019 No.11015905 >>11015903 Please expand.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:49:36 2019 No.11015911 >>11015905 he thinks they'll somehow forget everything they've been doing for years at the station and just fucking ram them home at a couple hundred m/s which is stupid

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:51:19 2019 No.11015917 File: 93 KB, 1000x563, imagine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11015911 >two Starships ramming each other in an ass to ass collision that's faster than a bullet

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:52:11 2019 No.11015919 >>11015905 Have you ever seen a car explode when it gets shot with a pistol in an action film? Same principle.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:54:04 2019 No.11015927 >>11015919 is this like, a new meta form of shelbyposting

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:54:52 2019 No.11015929 >>11015927 Idk, Shelbyposting is usually more over the top and mentions the SLS (pbui).

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 00:57:07 2019 No.11015940 >>11015752 >What the fuck bros, where was the 4chan rep? Sorry Dude, had to pop out one more to a great Hentai, and missed the event.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:41:43 2019 No.11016077

Was reusable rockets really possible back in the 70s-80s (just in general and not specifically the SpaceX style flyback boosters)? I've heard that one of the reasons why the Shuttle failed to be as cost effective as expected was that the technology behind making a rocket reusable was simply too much of a leap for the capabilities at the time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:45:49 2019 No.11016088 >>11016077 yes

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:46:15 2019 No.11016092

>>11015699
well, do the math
80 tons was their goal, but this one here is 120
this is 2500
some of that weight will be non-steel but for the sake of simplicity lets assume all of it is steel
2500x120 = 300k for just materials
or 200k in mats for the 80t version

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:47:13 2019 No.11016094 uh hmm well ok https://twitter.com/unicoleunicron/status/1178184181655846912/photo/1

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:49:40 2019 No.11016097 >>11016094 Wouldn't the fins hurt?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:49:41 2019 No.11016098 Continuous spiral steel strip welding is how some railroad tanker cars are made.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:50:45 2019 No.11016102
File: 364 KB, 1536x2048, EFmSChZWwAARx2p.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11016098
can't vary the thickness that way. Starship will still use rings, just single-section rings with one weld line. Then you can also install bulkheads and stuff on the ground, and lift them fitted out on the main stack

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:52:15 2019 No.11016106 >>11015870 >>11015865 >>11015853 Only half of those are solar panels. The rest are radiators filed with ammonia.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:52:30 2019 No.11016107 File: 11 KB, 184x261, Frank+what+is+this.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11016094

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:53:26 2019 No.11016110

>>11015427
>>11015806
>>11015854
So at 1000m^3 we have to assume the average bum is going to be getting less than 10 cubic meters. The ship would need room for flight control and navigation, engineering, food prep and storage, general storage, EVA staging and storage, a common area that would probably double as an exercise space, at least four bathrooms for 100 people, probably some sort of small medical bay. Plus all of the negative space needed for plumbing, electrics, airlocks and safety redundancies, water storage and filtration of urine, batteries, servers, communication equipment, anti masturbation crosses. The captain probably gets 10 cubic meters and the rest of you peons are lucky to get two or three, and thats on the assumption that maybe even fifty people are on the first trip, more realistically I'd say eight or nine. There is probably a lot more I'm forgetting, the point is that space goes quickly and humans are squishy and can live in confined spaces and are thus pushed down the order of what needs space.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:54:48 2019 No.11016112 >>11016077 >was it possible to weld strips of steel into rings, then weld the rings into barrels, then weld in some bulkheads, then add some engines and avionics yes

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:56:47 2019 No.11016116 >>11016112 the avionics and engines are the hard part, getting enough performance for enough margins while also making them reusable with fast throttling and consistent startup

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:58:05 2019 No.11016119 File: 628 KB, 2487x1631, capsulehotel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11016110 capsule hotel-sized personal quarters are a little bigger than what's available on the ISS, and are significantly larger than most Navy racks.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:59:33 2019 No.11016123 >>11016119 is that why that jap is partnering with elon?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 01:59:37 2019 No.11016124 >>11016110 Right, but wrong. The Mayflower had approximately 400 m^3 of usable space. For 130 people, along with chickens, dogs, sheep, twelve artillery pieces, and goats. And supplies for all of them. For seven months. Size won't be a problem

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:02:49 2019 No.11016132 >>11016119 Can you go dooky in your capsule? Can other people smell it? I don't see any doors.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:02:51 2019 No.11016135 >>11016112 But having an engine that could be reused without significant refurbishment seemed like a huge problem for the Shuttle as the RS-25s needed to be practically rebuilt after each flight IIRC.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:04:23 2019 No.11016138 >>11016132 >no doors That's because those use a curtain. >plumbing No plumbing in the capsules.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:05:04 2019 No.11016142 >>11016135 raptor will be fine in that regard. I trust the SpaceX propulsion team

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:07:41 2019 No.11016149

>>11016124
Are those who would be going to Mars as tolerant of poor living conditions as a bunch of separatist Puritans? Was the Mayflower built on the intention of leading a journey of discovery beyond liberation from the English? I suppose in both cases what makes the ship go is external to the habitable space, but I'm still going to cling to the belief that Starship might have 400 cubic meters of negative space before you even start adding in people and their supplies.

What do you think an accurate crew number is for the first couple of manned launches? Because I sure as hell think that more than 25 is being generous.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:08:37 2019 No.11016152 File: 273 KB, 478x985, Garver_Lied.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] fuck garver

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:08:46 2019 No.11016153 >>11016138 >public bathrooms on a spaceship >they're probably going to be eating MREs oh god oh fuck

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:10:13 2019 No.11016158 >>11016142 I know and I trust that SpaceX can make BFR work, but I was talking in the context of 1970s to 80s technology for reusable rockets.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:10:35 2019 No.11016159 >>11016135 Then don't use hydrogen and don't try to squeeze the maximum possible performance out of the engine, use methalox gas generator and optimize for low cost, ease of reuse, and high thrust to weight ratio.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:10:46 2019 No.11016160 >>11016110 If I could have my own private three cubic meters on a space trip, I'd be a happy man.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:10:55 2019 No.11016161 >>11016149 the point is that you can squeeze people in to a small space just fine. 400 m^3 for 100 people is spacious easy then, compared to the mayflower. can use all walls since 0g. No goats or chickens. 30 less people.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:11:36 2019 No.11016162 >>11016153 And there is no gravity to assist them

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:11:50 2019 No.11016163 File: 160 KB, 1024x768, c53a413cc77c79ae8dcd040ac180591f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11013122 >when carbon fiber is on cope mode >forever BTFO >Steel shall lead the new space age >tfw

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:12:00 2019 No.11016164 >>11016153 There's literally nothing wrong with MREs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:12:54 2019 No.11016165 >>11016164 except the cheese spread with jalapeños

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:12:54 2019 No.11016166 >>11016149 I dont mind to live in shit conditions as long as i get to explore the frontiers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:15:25 2019 No.11016169 >>11016165 how dare you insult the holy jalapeno cheese you fucking heretic

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:19:18 2019 No.11016171 >>11016149 I don't mind living in cramped quarters so long as I get to leave this garbage clownworld behind.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:21:13 2019 No.11016172 >>11016152 No, Fuck You.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:36:32 2019 No.11016192 martian duststorm heems all of your rockets that only have midge legs

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:37:22 2019 No.11016194 >>11016192 center of mass, dude

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:42:05 2019 No.11016198 >>11016192 >duststorm >5 newtons of force per square meter at maximum wind speeds wow pack it up boys it's over

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:48:54 2019 No.11016206 >>11016198 What about when the terraforming kicks in later this decade?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:49:29 2019 No.11016211 How long until mars is threatened by the sun

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:49:47 2019 No.11016212

>>11016149
>Are those who would be going to Mars as tolerant of poor living conditions as a bunch of separatist Puritans?
Uh, yes, and with a zeal most Puritans didn't have. You could find ten thousand people that would cut off their own leg with a rusty butter knife so that they could go to Mars. It's a fucking historic trip to a new planet and the opportunity to carve your name in the history books.
>>11016152
Go away, Jim. Go stir up some more funding for SLS.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:51:06 2019 No.11016215 We’d of course still bring the 12 artillery pieces

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:52:51 2019 No.11016218 >>11016206 How long does it take to dig up enough regolith to make a windbreak/berm?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:53:38 2019 No.11016220 File: 992 KB, 250x250, 1564135033191.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >terraforming >later this decade

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:54:04 2019 No.11016221 >>11016206 wind speeds slow down in proportion to atmosphere thickening, and at a certain level the dust storms stop happening altogether because the poles stay warm enough in winter to prevent the CO2 from freezing out.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:54:35 2019 No.11016222 >>11016218 We just don't know, which is why we need to put the brakes on Musk's reckless timeline and do some serious studies.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:55:51 2019 No.11016224 File: 89 KB, 1142x481, rockets.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ASS TO ASS

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:57:20 2019 No.11016226 >>11016224 X12 to get to mars.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:57:51 2019 No.11016227 File: 166 KB, 1920x1080, spaceballs depot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11016222 We know it's you, Shelby

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 02:59:31 2019 No.11016231 >>11016224 Seems kinda gross desu. I'd rather not go to Mars if this is the cost. What if there are kids on board?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 03:00:15 2019 No.11016233 Wow what a fucking letdown of a presentation

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 03:05:14 2019 No.11016245 >>11016102 Have you seen the presentarion?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 04:00:05 2019 No.11016351 File: 66 KB, 1080x667, 8F8B31BAE26942609466FF0D117C29D2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11014379 >Actively launching payloads at ridiculously low prices >Making the best electric cars in the world right now >"Conartist"

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 04:04:24 2019 No.11016359 >20km hop in ~2 months >orbital in ~6 months >several prototypes built simultaneously at both sites >aiming 1 raptor/day production by Q1 of 2020 >2-3 Starlink launches before end of the year my body is ready how will oldspace ever recover?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 04:16:20 2019 No.11016374 >>11014164 >>11014226 >>11014242 >>11014379 t. Jeff Bezos

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 04:19:56 2019 No.11016378 >>11016135 Merlin is largely a Apollo era tech at the core. It's not Raptor, but it's rapidly reusable.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 04:28:18 2019 No.11016390 >>11016224 anyone got a higher resolution of this?

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 04:38:18 2019 No.11016403
File: 2.66 MB, 1530x1980, a8aaed91d017d2243ab559f539aa4997.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>oldspace announces something cool
>will happen in 30 years if everything goes as planned
>SpaceX announces something cool
>will happen next year

Literally how can they ever compete?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 04:41:12 2019 No.11016409 >>11016403 no bureaucracy just muck boy no public cushy job,either work or gtfo

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 04:44:07 2019 No.11016419 File: 382 KB, 1860x2048, pathetic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 04:44:44 2019 No.11016420 >>11016403 That's why I'm hoping chinks will start copying Starship because they're somewhere between those two and can do shit fast when they really want.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 04:51:36 2019 No.11016430 >>11016119 this amount of personal space is even more livable in 0G where you can get in and out with ease people on ships and submarines have dealt with much worse for extended periods of time

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 04:57:15 2019 No.11016438 File: 56 KB, 602x771, ezgif-3-2d0635ae3c88.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11016420 I sure hope they put a chink on the moon and start aiming for mars. They really can get shit done if they want.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:01:34 2019 No.11016447 >>11015642 >>lol life support is easy oldspace eternally BTFO

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:01:38 2019 No.11016448 File: 1.66 MB, 1280x720, starship 2019.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] how tight are the crew's buttholes going to be when this happens?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:02:26 2019 No.11016450 >just realized musk has sunk +$5000000 so far on the silver dildo

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:03:54 2019 No.11016454 >>11016450 And most of that are the engines at ~$2M a pop.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:04:41 2019 No.11016456 >>11015779 >It's weird to think that someday there won't be Starship presentations every fall That is when Mars colony conferences will begin.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:08:12 2019 No.11016461 >>11016077 There is nothing about Starship that wasnt possible back in the 60s. Maybe increase diameter to 10 meters to compensate and you are good to go. This thing is more than half a century overdue.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:08:31 2019 No.11016462 Why didn't anybody call out NASA on their bullshit when their cost saving measure involved using the most complex, expensive engines ever?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:13:08 2019 No.11016468 >>11016462 Monopoly. Columbia and Challenger.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:48:42 2019 No.11016510 >>11016448 Imagine the smell when 100 people collectively shit and piss themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:51:48 2019 No.11016513 >checking the news >hardly any mention of the starship presentation >check twitter >detractors left and right everyone salty

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:57:09 2019 No.11016522

>Im sorry I am not impressed by a polished granary. I will be impressed if it gets as high as they predict and even more impressed if it lands. I will be very impressed if it explodes after structural failure.
>Elon sounds like a homeless scientist talking to himself on a bench at the bus station. You nod alot and smile uncomfortably.
to think people like this are (were?) highly respected in the space community, now i'd be embarrassed to be in the same room as them

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:57:51 2019 No.11016523 >>11016513 I thought we had a 4chan media team? Where's the updates? I kind of thought the rocket would explode them but I never thought it would come true... I just thought it looked like garbage shaped like a rocket.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 05:59:18 2019 No.11016524 >>11016523 i dont think any of those were going to happen

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:05:21 2019 No.11016527 >>11016513 >>check twitter >>detractors left and right didnt see any?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:06:12 2019 No.11016529 File: 1.35 MB, 3840x2355, EFmQFf1U0AAVyJN[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] a few pics

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:06:56 2019 No.11016531 File: 701 KB, 4096x2305, EFmQFf8UYAEIY0h[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:07:42 2019 No.11016532 File: 334 KB, 3840x2160, EFmQYMKU4AEbAiU[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:08:53 2019 No.11016536 >>11016529 >>11016531 surface bases only inpsire the plebs. to me they look like deathtraps.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:09:02 2019 No.11016538 >>11016529 Oh shit. I didn't realize all those wrinkles were going to even out so well. Also moon launchpad

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:10:49 2019 No.11016540

>>11016461
The engines would have been a big leap back then, though not impossible.

The big thing that separates now and then is the computers.
You can't do a precision landing like F9 without a lot of onboard sensors and processing, which wasn't available back then. The vehicle has a considerable degree of autonomy to do what it does.
Nevermind all the computing that goes into the design and manufacturing proceas.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:14:55 2019 No.11016544 >>11016462 Because monopolist can do whatever the fuck they want.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:30:48 2019 No.11016555 >>11016538 he mentioned something about single seam welding for the future iterations. just roll out from the spool around a mold,cut and weld. i think it will work out

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:36:37 2019 No.11016563 >>11016224 >1000m What's her name?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:38:13 2019 No.11016565 This is happening way too fast its probably a scam.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:39:15 2019 No.11016571 >>11016555 You can already see examples of those in florida.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:40:55 2019 No.11016578 >>11016555 They are already doing single seam with the new segments on the ground at cocoa

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:44:23 2019 No.11016586 >>11016565 Sort of, Starship’s engines and nosecone will likely be removed next week before being reattached when ready. Also, I would ignore all of Elon’s claims regarding schedule and flight rate.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:50:30 2019 No.11016591 We should have a SpaceX presentation bingo >Aeroplane analogy >Awkward Falcon 1 story >Become multi planet species >Rapid reusability is key >Something about waking up being excited for the future Feel free to add to this

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:54:38 2019 No.11016598 >>11016591 >orbiting is moving sideways really fast

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:57:06 2019 No.11016601 >>11016591 >stuttering and stammering

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 06:57:15 2019 No.11016603

>>11016571
>You can already see examples of those in florida.
Not exactly. Someone pitched Spiral Welding to him on Twitter a few months back, and while he rejected it at the time, it seems to have grown on him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4l2IQQhw-U

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 07:02:02 2019 No.11016611

>>11015877
O.K., here's the short version.

At room temps, yes, carbon fiber is stronger (or lighter for the same strength). However, a rocket in flight is not at room temperature. At takeoff, it is filled with cryogenic fuels. At re-entry, it absorbs large amounts of heat. In both of those regimes, where the hull is under the most stress, this particular alloy of steel is actually equal to or superior to carbon fiber. Which means Elon doesn't have to pay a mass penalty to use the much cheaper steel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 07:05:25 2019 No.11016617 >>11016603 Either that or I'm confusing myself, and >>11016571 has the right idea. I'm not really sure what was being talked about.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 07:08:39 2019 No.11016619

>>11013122
Overhyped bullshit. Rocket tech hasn't changed much in the past 100 years. Space-X just added some efficiency improvement copied from the Russians. There is actually no point in recovering the rocket because it can be lighter if it doesn't fly back.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 07:10:13 2019 No.11016622 >>11016461 Software. The precision landing stuff they do wouldn't be possible without microchips from at least the '80s.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 07:10:49 2019 No.11016625 >>11016448 Imagine the whiplash.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 07:13:41 2019 No.11016628 >>11016622 Recovering the rocket is a fools errand.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 07:16:14 2019 No.11016629 >>11016619 FUD can't stop the emergence of an operationally superior future, Anon.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 07:19:01 2019 No.11016630

>>11016619
Correct. Despite the heroic efforts of the best AMERICAN minds and hearts, we have still not managed to return to the Moon. This clearly proves that any advancement in rocketry is IMPOSSIBLE. Our only hope is thus to support real, AMERICAN rockets, honed towards the very highest mass efficiency and only the most complex operation processes imaginable, designed to put them tiny tin cans in orbit, one per year, until Sun burns out. All while providing thousands of jobs in all 50 AMERICAN states. Such glorious National Space Program is sure to inspire the next generation towards similar greatness and make our ancestors proud. Who is with me??

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 07:23:23 2019 No.11016635

>>11016628
This guy gets it. When you recover a rocket for reuse, then the end result is that hard-working AMERICAN workers are at risk of losing their jobs building the most advanced Space Launch Vehicle in the world. We can never allow that to happen, can we.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 07:55:22 2019 No.11016667 Musk could use a full flow cycle when speaking in public. Hard to understand anything coming out of that bell.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 07:59:03 2019 No.11016672

>>11016116
>the avionics and engines are the hard part
Small computers weren't quite there yet in the '70s. In the '80s we had 16-bit microprocessors, and 32-bit by 1990, they could do a lot more.
>>11016159
>Then don't use hydrogen
I think we first had to learn a lot of things like that to NOT do. There are a lot of things that could have been made back then, except for the bit about knowing to make them that way, instead of chasing the Isp meme.

>>11016162
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1DYJIIqyQA
He loves to tell this story. And apparently an important point is that it's a thing on ISS to NOT tell the new guy about the finer points.
Remember: your insides loosen up enough that you can go about 5 days before you feel the need to poop, so when you gotta go, you really gotta go. And that's when you realize you don't really know what you're doing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 08:04:43 2019 No.11016679 File: 32 KB, 468x436, lex-1265213844028.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11016152 They still cut it by 30%. And that's a lot. The first five years is when they were trying to get things started; that's a great time to cripple a project.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 08:08:13 2019 No.11016684 File: 69 KB, 496x588, 44.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Bridestine retweeted this

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 08:09:56 2019 No.11016687 >>11016630 >>11016635 God dammit give this man a medal !! The only way to reduce cost is to mass produce your rocket like sausages. You simply cant reuse complex machines !!!

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 08:23:57 2019 No.11016694

>>11016684
He bullied Boeing earlier this year with the alternative launcher study and that made them switch to horizontal integration for assembly, which in turn sped up SLS’s construction to the point that they’ve finished the core stage now. When Jim bullies Boeing everybody jumps for joy, but when he holds SpaceX to the same standard he gets shat on because it’s the space community’s infallible golden calf.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 08:24:40 2019 No.11016695 File: 114 KB, 1200x800, 1551910442466.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11016450 >over $5000000 Five milllllllion? That's pocket change when you've got billions to work with. >>11016448 but tight is right

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 08:29:34 2019 No.11016705 >>11016695 hahaha the cows are confused

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 08:44:45 2019 No.11016736 >>11016684 I don't know what's sadder, Jim's cowardice or the """""journalist"""""" acting as his PR agent

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 08:45:36 2019 No.11016737 File: 1.48 MB, 1858x1034, Screen-Shot-2019-09-28-at-10.04.23-PM[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/09/spacex-musk-update-starship-program/ NSF article

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 08:46:44 2019 No.11016739 >>11016737 >the children dont look like jellobabies Mythbusted

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 08:55:47 2019 No.11016748 >>11016737 i wish someone had asked about their plans for a mars base. i know it's too early to get any solid plans, but they have to have something that they can share besides unrealistic art and muh sabatier reaction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:05:43 2019 No.11016762 >>11013122 I wonder how the oldSpace feels now. Shelby must be having a heart attack. Will they repeat the same mantra they did 10 years ago? "I've SEEN SLS. Starship is a fake. Space is HARD"

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:06:13 2019 No.11016764 >>11016736 Which is a bit odd considering Berger usually makes it his job at ARS Technica to suck off SpaceX.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:07:57 2019 No.11016765 >>11016762 >astroturfing FUD >denial, mockery >lawsuits >heavy regulation that specifically targets spacex >loss of critical government contracts >assassination

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:11:22 2019 No.11016767 >>11016765 I'm legit worried one of these powerful oldspace cunts sets up a sabotage plot. It's starting to get ugly.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:11:43 2019 No.11016770

>>11016748
So far we have a few areas in the arcadia planes (that, lots of water ice) as the likely site and boring as the likely method for habitat construction as well, but yeah, not much. Plans will be as nebulous as the information to plan around and right now the amount of survey data is limited to nerds looking at satellites so I wouldn't expect much

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:12:43 2019 No.11016772 >>11016764 I don't think he's particularly rushing to his defence, more just trying to rationalise in his own mind why an ally would turn so harshly on Musk and in such a petty way.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:12:52 2019 No.11016773 >>11016770 *flat+water ice, not "that"

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:14:33 2019 No.11016776

>>11016770
>limited to nerds looking at satellites
it's all there on the HiRISE site. You can see high resolution imagery there and add comments to interesting locations if you like. You can even request imagery and if there is good reason it will be performed.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:25:18 2019 No.11016786

On one hand, Musk said that any live close to Mars' surface would get shredded by the radiation, and if there's any life, it's deep below the surface. On the other hand, he showed renders of buildings with thin walls and windows on the Mars surface (>>11016737). Is the radiation problem already solved? I thought it required meters of water.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:26:45 2019 No.11016789

>>11016149
If we can't find people with that same spirit of adventure and willingness to sacrifice personal comfort for overwhelmingly large gains and the expansion to new and interesting places then we as a species are already fucked. Our ability to accept risk and move into spaces that weren't ideal for us is what has allowed us to survive as a species and if we've become so domesticated that you can't find 100 people willing to do it then we might as well just off ourselves now and save the Earth the trouble of continuing to support a species which is doomed to a very slow extinction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:27:44 2019 No.11016791 >>11016786 they need nice graphics. You could probably go to the surface at night/twighlight I guess. Otherwise maybe they could make leaded glass.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:29:16 2019 No.11016794

>>11016786
>thin walls/glass
Future improvements to material density/protect design probably. Conventionally speaking, you need about 5meters of martian soil to properly protect yourself from radiation, its not too bad. Maybe there are better materials, who knows.

He has the right idea with the underground tunneling though. Just tunnel in slightly for water as well as transportation(maglev/hyperloop), and build cities around underground stations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:30:24 2019 No.11016798 File: 570 KB, 2048x1365, Photo-Sep-29-1-29-31-AM-1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Berger article is up. Includes some new info https://arstechnica.com/features/2019/09/after-starship-unveiling-mars-seems-a-little-closer/

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:31:57 2019 No.11016800

>>11016536
To be fair to them, you could well-shield a surface base by simply stacking up a meter or more of moon or mars brick blocks around the initial hab and then just paint the outside white to reflect the sun. You're right though in that it is easier in the end to just move your habitat into a stable lava tube or use remote controlled excavators to just dig out your own tunnel system from scratch.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:35:35 2019 No.11016802 File: 383 KB, 2048x2048, scale.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Well. with this presentation, no one can say Elon doesn't have vision. >old space Lets get mars in 20-30 years >SpaceX Lets get to mars next year LMAO

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:36:22 2019 No.11016804 >>11016802 wtf? why does starship looks like it's going to fall apart anytime?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:38:50 2019 No.11016808 >>11016802 I mean Elon is just setting himself up to be clowned on when Starship inevitably doesn’t meet his stupid schedule predictions. There’s setting aggressive deadlines and then there’s Elon’s retardation.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:39:32 2019 No.11016810
File: 540 KB, 1240x653, GCR secondary radiation materials.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11016794
>>11016791
>>11016786

Let me explain. You still need several meters of soil to protect against radiation on Mars (galactic cosmic rays). This ain't changing.

However, you also need to understand the nature of this radiation. It is constant, coming from outside the solar system, not from the Sun, and from every direction in the sky. And the flux no the surface of Mars is around 200 millisieverts per year.

This means that when you spend few hours every day on the surface, your total dose will remain well under 100 mSv per year, which may be acceptable. So Martian colonists will sleep and spend most of their day underground, but can still venture into surface buildings and outside every day for significant time.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:39:51 2019 No.11016811

>>11016786
I was thinking you might be able to circulate ozone between the walls of the colony or something like that, it does a great job of shielding Earth so if you have a layer of inflatable shields inbetween the inner and outer shell of your colony it might produce some significant shielding effect, especially since we can collect more of it in one place than is naturally available and manufacturing it is very simple.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:45:12 2019 No.11016821

>>11015763
I think it was worth it. The Q&As definitely. For me the takeaways were:
1. the scale of the vision and speed of development. If oldspace have a clue (jury still out on that) they should be crapping themselves even harder
2. Musk in effect laughing at oldspace. His performance was utterly shambolic, the worst I've seen, yet contrast this with SpaceX's unarguable ongoing achievements versus oldspace. Who cares if you're not a polished leader spouting all the correct platitudes, when your approach is demonstrably superior such that your achievements shit all over your competitors? Imagine what the atmosphere in ESA/NASA/contractors/etc. must be like: dusty old bureaucracies, epitomising hierachy and faux-serious pomposity, bloated and lazy, and now with their entire structure and worldview on the brink of complete and total repudiation, humiliation even, all down to an upstart competitor that does everything the wrong way founded by an autistic, uncredentialed, upstart SV tech tycoon. It's tragicomic, almost Shakespearean. Last night's amateurishness just rubs salt in the wound.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:45:15 2019 No.11016822 >>11016811 Ozone is important on Earth because we have a diffuse shield of it high in the atmosphere, its local effects are negligible. UV protection on a hab is technically trivial anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:45:17 2019 No.11016823 File: 45 KB, 700x292, fifth-element-sleep-e1418850563714.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11016119

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:46:00 2019 No.11016826 >>11016821 well said

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:46:17 2019 No.11016827 https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/09/29/elon-musk-starship-interview-orig.cnn/video/playlists/business-elon-musk/ B A S E D BRIDENSTINE ANALLY ANNIHILATED

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:47:47 2019 No.11016834

>>11016798
Interesting quotes from the man himself and Wooster:

>"It depends on whether development remains exponential. If it remains exponential, it could be like two years," Musk said of landing on the Moon. A cargo trip to Mars could happen by 2022, due to the availability of launch windows, he added. "I mean these are just total guesses, as opposed to checking a train schedule."

>"I think we're able to see a path to getting the ship to orbit, and maybe even doing a loop around the Moon," Musk said. "Maybe we need to raise some more money to go to the Moon or landing on Mars. But at least getting the Starship to an operational level in low Earth orbit, or around the Moon, I feel like we're in good shape for that."

>"We definitely have learnt a lot, and we would do it differently," Musk said. "The Dragon life support system is not really all that renewable. It's basically mostly expendable."

>But using Starship to go to Mars would require six months for a journey there, and up to 2.5 years for a roundtrip mission. With as many as 100 people on board the vehicle, that would require a regenerative life support system that will, Musk acknowledged, "take a bit of work."

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:48:47 2019 No.11016836 >>11016827 >DID HE SAY COMMERCIAL CREW OR SLS? MAD LAD

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:49:10 2019 No.11016837 >>11016808 S E E T H E E E T H E

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:51:01 2019 No.11016841 >>11016834 This sure sounds like they’ve got everything well thought out lol >We’re going to send passengers around the Moon in 2023. Oh wait, we don’t have enough money to do that...Please donate to my Patreon! Pls!

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:53:09 2019 No.11016844 >>11016827 >Starship development cost $2-3 billion

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:53:21 2019 No.11016846

>>11016808
> The thing about when you shoot for the moon, even when you miss you land among the stars.
Oldspace has forgotten where it came from much like America has forgotten why it was so great. It wasn't because a bunch of rich dudes horded money and let some "trickle down" to the peasantry. It was because a generation of soldiers asked not what their country could do for them but what they could do for their country. Oldspace doesnt care about the American labor building their machines. They care about keeping the flow of money in to their control as heavy as possible.

Why did we have to wait for a South African immigrant to show us what American grit looks like?

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:56:12 2019 No.11016852

>>11013354
I love how they just keep missing the exact radiuses needed and end up hammering everything into place every time they need to fix two things together. Maybe they need to hire a few new people who know how to fit two things together for something that'll go through actual reentry.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:57:38 2019 No.11016853

>>11016841
>We’re going to send passengers around the Moon in 2023. Oh wait, we don’t have enough money to do that...Please use our gigabit internet.
Fixed. Atleast you're getting something out of value. For many, its not just the gigabit, but a get away from local ISP monopoly.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:58:35 2019 No.11016855

>>11016841
Space-x getting a capital raise is a fairly reliable bet, especially if you want to compare it to NASA's desperately appealing to congress or oldspace desperately appealing to NASA to appeal to congress to get funding.

Timescales slip in space, it happens. 2022 turning to 2024 would still be incredible. NASA makes sets its goals decades out and still misses.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 09:59:50 2019 No.11016856

>>11016846
>Why did we have to wait for a South African immigrant to show us what American grit looks like?

because this is the way things always work. Startup vigour. America was built on immigrant vigour and so much space, so many resources that competition was minimal and allowed those genuinely seeking to self-improve to do so virtually unimpeded. The idea of 'the American people', a set of people who have grit and determination in their DNA, is inherently false.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:00:34 2019 No.11016857 >>11016841 Once Starship achieves orbit and lands succesfully, the funding will flow from NASA, too. And NASA has very deep pockets. I mean, they cannot just ignore such an achievement, can they? Or have we reached such levels of corruption?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:01:05 2019 No.11016860 >>11016852 it'll be a bit easier with the later starships which Elon said would be composed of single-seam weld cylinders

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:01:05 2019 No.11016861

>>11015427
No, that's all the room everyone will ever have for themselves. This is their room + piece of public spaces and commdities like the lounge under the window + the shitter.
You're not going colonizing mars with a hundred people on this ship. Maaaaybe people won't start axe murdering each other getting carted to the moon like that. Might launch even more in an plane-like ride to LEO if we built enough structures there which are worth carting that many people to though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:04:01 2019 No.11016864 >>11016857 >I mean, they cannot just ignore such an achievement, can they? Or have we reached such levels of corruption? Chances are SpaceForce might want to look into something like that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:11:53 2019 No.11016878 >>11016808 There would be delays no matter what the deadline. Would you prefer him to aim for 2020 and have it pushed to 2024, or aim for 2024 and have it pushed to the 2030s?

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:13:39 2019 No.11016883

>>11015440
So we'll have to wait for our fully operational mars colony ships for 2 years instead of 6 months. Big whoop.
Maybe SLS and JWST will begin final preparations for launch around that time.
Best part about this is that they're just mass producing these garbage cans now. Even if one explodes, they'll lose maybe a month or two max. So they can just keep pushing these things to their limits given how they're supposed to be rapidly reusable in every aspect, further accelerating everything. They better get started on their launch tower(reusable) soon.

Blessed stainless steel construction. Blessed redneck water tower welders.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:16:50 2019 No.11016891 >>11015580 >>11015540 >>11015483 Etight Musk.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:17:27 2019 No.11016892 >>11016883 >SLS and JWST will begin final preparations for launch in 2 years I admire your optimism.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:18:06 2019 No.11016893

>>11016878
This is what confuses people about "Elon time". Aspirational guidelines are the point, you want to light a fire under everyones' collective asses to get it done as soon as possible, meeting the deadline is a secondary goal. If you try to be nice and realistic and not push anyone's buttons by saying "hey guys, we might do something cool by 2040 at current pace" ala NASA, the loss of any sense of urgency has a precipitous negative effect on performance.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:18:59 2019 No.11016894 >>11016827 ELON NO

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:22:43 2019 No.11016906 >>11016893 "Elon time" is also a dumb criticism. Anytime he meets deadlines, it's forgotten, anytime he misses, shitters claim "Elon time" line. Selective negative reinforcement should not be rewarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:26:56 2019 No.11016908 >>11016906 People joke that Elon time is Martian time, 1.6 times longer than original deadlines. Then what time is used by the rest of the spaceflight industry? Neptune time?

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:31:16 2019 No.11016920

>>11016906
Elon time exists because he’s literally never hit a deadline:

>Falcon 1- supposed to launch in 2005, doesn’t successfully launch until 2008.

>Falcon 9- supposed to launch in 2007, first launched in 2010.

>Falcon Heavy- supposed to launch in 2014, first launch in 2018.

Elon time isn’t a meme.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:31:49 2019 No.11016921 >>11015527 It's even better than that. Starship/Superheavy has an upper stage ready for launch. SLS is still borrowing one from the Delta.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:34:45 2019 No.11016929 File: 50 KB, 800x450, hour[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11016908

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:35:57 2019 No.11016934 When did the idea of ITS start? How does that compare to Apollo if they make it to the moon by 2021?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:36:44 2019 No.11016937 >>11016921 Its unbelievable how slow SLS has been. There's only so much one could blame on regulations and new technologies before it starts to look like they were delaying on purpose.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:37:08 2019 No.11016940 >>11016921 On the other hand, you can say that SLS has a complete first-stage and Starship doesn’t. Your argument is pretty weak sauce...

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:37:43 2019 No.11016943 >>11016940 Wait 6 months :)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:38:23 2019 No.11016945 >>11016943 I’m waiting gleefully for the N1 Mk2

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:41:25 2019 No.11016954 >>11016945 >2many engine, cant fly! How is this meme still alive? Do you black out every time FH flies?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:45:17 2019 No.11016963 If Starship pans out before SLS and NASA doesn't get on board, who would fly on the first mission to the surface of the moon?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:46:33 2019 No.11016967 Themselves. They get the right to rename Mars to Elon planet.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:47:51 2019 No.11016973

>>11016954
Contrary to popular belief, Falcon Heavy isn’t evidence that SpaceX have overcome the N1’s flaws. Falcon Heavy has 27 engines, but their split between 3 cores. FH’s plumbing is no more complicated than an ordinary Falcon 9, whilst the problems with N1 stemmed from the plumbing of having 30 engines in a single core. Thanks to modern day design and machining techniques there’s no reason why SpaceX can’t solve the N1’s problems, but they haven’t yet proven it.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:48:04 2019 No.11016974

>>11016945
Except SpaceX fires every engine multiple times before it goes on the rocket AND it's not run by 1960s Yaroslav's Enjin Kontrol Softrwar (*now doesn't disable all engines for at least 60 seconds guaranteed!!!!)

Come to think of it, they probably do have to beef up their testing facilities significantly.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:48:26 2019 No.11016976 >>11016963 It'll have to be an American or European customer, because I'm pretty sure that SpaceX would get nationalized in a heartbeat if they sent a Russian, Indian, or Chinese customer to the moon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:50:56 2019 No.11016983 >>11016827 THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN also nice to know that Starship is closer to 2-3 billion than 10 billion

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:55:04 2019 No.11016989 >>11016976 I'm thinking SpaceX will open up their own Astronaut Office and get retired NASA astronauts to helm it. Won't suprise me if Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken decided to retire from NASA after DM-2 and join SpaceX full time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:58:08 2019 No.11016996 >>11016973 Fair enough, although I would contend that N1's failures had more to do with premature engines and software anyway.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 10:58:52 2019 No.11016999

>>11016974
The problem is SpaceX aren’t planning to beef up McGregor for testing Super Heavy or even Starship. The Raptors will be tested individually, but not fired together until the vehicle is static fired on the pad. You see where this is going right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:00:49 2019 No.11017003 >>11016996 This:>>11016999 Is what I’m worried about, Super Heavy won’t be tested at a facility before being shipped off to the launch pad, unlike the Saturn 5.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:01:19 2019 No.11017005 >>11016999 They'll cram it in Starhopper to do static fires without risking a Starship?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:02:19 2019 No.11017009 >>11016976 At least one of the Kelly twins has volunteered to helm Maezawa's flight >https://twitter.com/stationcdrkelly/status/1042035279152984064

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:03:04 2019 No.11017010

>>11016245
He said stacked rings for future Starships, but each ring made of a single piece with one vertical weld line.
He didn't mention this part, but I'd imagine they're gonna get a cold roller (he mentioned cold rolling makes 301 stainless even stronger) and roll each strip of steel they pull off the coil in order to thin the metal out more and more as they build higher on the stack.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:03:41 2019 No.11017012 >>11016920 >All the delay added up is still less than sls delay >mfw

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:06:20 2019 No.11017017 >>11016622 Hazily recalled internet comment: DC-X was powered by reworked F-18 avionics, which were developed in the 70s.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:08:07 2019 No.11017019

>>11016565

A lot of times in Starship discussion you will see somebody make a statement like "X is difficult, therefore Starship will take awhile." It's not that X is difficult, it's that that person needs to imagine X is difficult to justify their rejection of Starship based on their obsession with SLS program fandom.

example: life support system development for near term crew flights.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:11:13 2019 No.11017027 >>11016694 NASA should be evaluating more options than just SLS. Even that was a half measure. Behaving properly isn't bullying.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:12:15 2019 No.11017028 >>11016694 We're late in the ballgame in SLS development, we'd be seeing more activity regardless than if it was still 2011-2016.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:13:01 2019 No.11017030 >>11016359 They won't. Old space evolved in a totally different ecosystem from what is about to burst onto the scene.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:13:03 2019 No.11017031

>>11017019
This is just bullshit, nobody is pretending things are difficult as part of some esoteric conspiracy. Many things in space flight are legitimately difficult and underestimating them is a bad idea, as Elon and crew are likely to find out sooner instead of later.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:14:34 2019 No.11017033

>>11017019
>It's not that X is difficult, it's that that person needs to imagine X is difficult to justify their rejection of Starship based on their obsession with SLS program fandom.
More like it's easier to accept that X is difficult, because it's easier to accept that spaceflight is incredibly difficult to justify it being held back for the last 30 years, than to accept that X is actually relatively easy and that spaceflight has fallen into corruption and has been royally screwed over since Apollo.

t. had this mindset

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:15:42 2019 No.11017038 >>11017010 hey, if it works for submarines it'll work for rockets.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:15:52 2019 No.11017039

>>11017031
>Many things in space flight are legitimately difficult and underestimating them is a bad idea
Before SpaceX reusability was a pipedream. That didn't stop it from being bandied about as an aspiration, but it was beyond serious consideration. Listening to oldspace is the last thing anyone should do, they're still going to be testing their F9 competitors when SS has already obsoleted F9 and FH together.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:17:06 2019 No.11017041 >>11016762 They're so deep down the rabbit hole of their own bullshit Starship could be flying people to the moon right now and they'd still be swallowing SLS program koolaid.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:17:41 2019 No.11017044 >>11016808 ...and then there's SLS retardation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:20:39 2019 No.11017049 >>11016920 That was all pre-rhyming based management.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:20:44 2019 No.11017050 >>>/news/460735

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:22:14 2019 No.11017054

>>11016920
>F1
3 year delay. Initial rocket test, as they had no idea what they were doing.
>F9
3 year delay. COTS contract funded. As they had underestimated the critical nasa safety requirements.
>F.Heavy
4 year delay. There's no government funding. So they delayed it not because of engineering difficulties but rather their Falcon 9 was being upgraded rapidly and would have been waste of rocket to build one out of old boosters. Starting with intro of Block 4 on F9 and launch of FH with B4 boosters, that time was done in less than 6 months.

Now lets get to his successes in timeline.
>launches
70+ launches that were mostly done on time.

>Re-usability
They went from concept to prototype in 1 year. From prototype to first landing in 1 year.

>Starship
They went from concept to prototype in 4 months, earlier this year. Did multiple tests in the next 2 months. Now we're here with almost a fully developed Mk1 that will begin 20 km in 1-2 months.

>Reusability
IMPOSSIBLE
>Under $60 million
IMPOSSIBLE
>STARSHIP
IMPOSSIBLE
>PRIVATE SPACE COMPANY
IMPOSSIBLE
>Starlink
IMPOSSIBLE

They already made/making these into reality where 99.99% of people would have said it was impossible.

Yeah, so "Elon time" is bullshit.

>>11017012
Falcon 1, Falcon 9 (all versions), reusability, Dragon, Falcon Heavy COMBINED cost less than a single year's funding for SLS.

Now Starship's entire development budget will be less than a single year's worth of funding. $2-3B.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:23:56 2019 No.11017058 >>11017031 >nobody is pretending things are difficult as part of some esoteric conspiracy Yes they are. Space is hard but many people overestimate how hard it is. Starship would never exist if we listened to those people.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:25:01 2019 No.11017062 >>11016963 First woman on the moon: Gwynne Shotwell

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:25:34 2019 No.11017064 >>11016419 >mom says it's my turn to dominate space launch

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:26:54 2019 No.11017070 >>11016973 >How will SpaceX land a man on the moon if it will crash on impact, hmmmmmmmmmmmm? >Yes its perfectly feasible but it isn't that particular point in time yet.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:27:09 2019 No.11017071

>>11017031
>Many things in space flight are legitimately difficult and underestimating them is a bad idea
And SpaceX is underestimating these challenges how? If anything, SpaceX has shown itself to be a capable company willing to push forward despite the challenges.

Also, focusing on the difficulties is a bad perspective as it kills the drive to solve said difficulties.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:27:10 2019 No.11017072 >>11017054 Elon shouldn’t you be busy working instead of making cope posts on an anime image board if Starship is supposed to be reaching orbit in 6 months time? ;)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:27:47 2019 No.11017074 >>11017072 Fag

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:30:44 2019 No.11017084 >>11017074 why the homophobia?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:31:04 2019 No.11017085 >>11017071 I’m not saying SpaceX is, but the overconfidence Elon expressed last night e.g. “life support isn’t super hard” gave me the wrong impression, one that’s not of someone who’s taking the challenges seriously.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:33:27 2019 No.11017095 >>11017085 but life support ins't that hard. Recycle water, air and keep the rooms at a nice 20ºC

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:33:33 2019 No.11017096

>>11016808

Everyone has their faults, but Elon is a good space CEO and has above par judgement on what to pursue and how. see: stainless, reusability, full flow staged combustion

Plus there's a movement on the internet to slam Elon, don't buy so heavily into it. No one said you need to worship the guy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:35:26 2019 No.11017100 >>11017085 This is just a matter of perspective. You're taking it to mean a cavalier attitude towards life support whereas Elon means "that isn't a problem with new or fundamental issues, that makes it an easy problem".

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:36:09 2019 No.11017101 >>11017095 Tell that to the crew of Apollo 1...

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:36:21 2019 No.11017102 >>11017085 The Dragon 2 has life support. Sure, it can't sustain a person for longer than a trip to the ISS and back, but it does show that SpaceX at least understands the principles of life support.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:37:00 2019 No.11017104

>>11016092
He said this one right now is 200t.
Their goal is 120t.
Either way, what's a good estimate for this thing?
I think the biggest cost is still the raptors and I don't know what those cost to make.
All those cranes and crawlers and stuff also needs to get bought or rented.
Plus labor costs, although it never seemed like that many people were working on it at a time.
Although I guess some people were pre-making a lot of the parts in a factory somewhere so maybe there's a bunch more people involved than can be seen.
But then all of them only worked for like 4 months total, which doesn't amount to more than a few million at most.

Anything else? The couple Tesla power packs probably don't make a large impact on the calculation. The motors for the fins maybe?
So what's a good estimate here? 10-15 million maybe?
I mean as far as I can tell it's basically going to be (cost of raptors) + a few million in change.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:37:26 2019 No.11017108 >>11016601 that's just a free space

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:39:06 2019 No.11017116 >>11017101 This is where critique just turns to off the rails searching for anything to throw at the walls. Old mistakes aren't proof that the same thing will go wrong again and again and again, they're useful data that make future endeavors easier.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:39:22 2019 No.11017118 >>11016603 THEY'RE NOT FUCKING DOING SPIRAL WELDING THEY'RE DOING RINGS MADE OF A SINGLE PIECE INSTEAD OF MULTIPLE PANELS PER RING FUCK

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:39:44 2019 No.11017119 >>11016565 its marketing dog

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:41:12 2019 No.11017129 >>11016694 Boeing deserves bullying. SpaceX is actually ahead of Boeing despite getting less money.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:43:38 2019 No.11017134 >all of these basement dweller spacex shills Take your hand off it. They built a dented tin can in a field. Big deal. Meanwhile, all of the hardware for Artemis 1 is completed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:45:32 2019 No.11017138 >>11016786 He was talking about UV light, which is piss easy to shield against.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:46:00 2019 No.11017140 >>11017134 >Meanwhile, all of the hardware for Artemis 1 is completed. That is false. NASA doesn't even have a lander design selected.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:46:04 2019 No.11017142 >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqXy7-UNc7E Someone posted a video of the BocaChica area. Shit looks PACKED. Hundreds of people with probably hundred+ of cars. Parked for a mile or so along the road.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:46:05 2019 No.11017143

>>11017031
>>11017058
Reminds me of SSTL (Surrey Satellite Technology) - their founder recognised that the satellite industry had failed to take advantage of increasingly cheap COTS technology, instead continuing with their old approach of big, expensive, bespoke engineering. Surrey Satellites turned things upside down with a different approach of building small, modular, cheap satellites based on COTS. If we'd listened to the incumbents the satellite industry might be decades behind the kind of thriving innovation we're seeing at present.

Interestingly enough I just found out SpaceX bought 10% of SSTL in 2005. Not sure if that ownership is still the case since Airbus bought a majority stake in SSTL though.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:46:40 2019 No.11017145

>>11017104
As I see it, once these things are being produced with the intent of being capable of ferrying humans, the internals are going to take over a massive proportion of the costs. With full reusability there's no reason not to overengineer safety factors and redundancy, since none of that is in the actual recurring cost.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:47:31 2019 No.11017149 >>11017129 It’s actually a lot closer than you think if the NASA employees on L2 are telling the truth...

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:47:50 2019 No.11017151 >>11017140 Why even bother to give it a (you)?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:48:33 2019 No.11017152 >>11017140 He said Artemis 1 idiot

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:49:06 2019 No.11017153 >>11017140 Can you read, boy? >Artemis 1 is a re-run of Apollo 8 with Orion. There is no lander or rendezvous element to the mission. Everything that will be launched has already been built.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:50:03 2019 No.11017158 >>11017152 >>11017153 Oops, misread that. Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:53:31 2019 No.11017174 https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1177711106300747777 what did he mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:54:45 2019 No.11017177 >>11017174 Same thing he meant when it got posted yesterday.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:58:45 2019 No.11017189 >>11017174 In the meantime, SLS is years behind schedule. Everyone expects NASA to take the investments of the American taxpayer seriously. It's time to deliver.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 11:58:59 2019 No.11017190 >>11017174 He thought SpaceX is using ton of resources to build Starship so he's mad. Instead Elon said its less than 5% of SpaceX resources. With the majority of SpaceX focused on CrewDragon/Falcon9.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:00:33 2019 No.11017194 >>11017190 Surely the conclusion has to be that a good chunk of the staff of oldspace companies are dead weight?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:01:56 2019 No.11017198 File: 1.69 MB, 4032x3024, 1569772868390.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Will it work? It would be a nice science fair project

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:05:31 2019 No.11017203

>>11017190
I wouldn’t take Elon’s word as gospel on this matter, he’s been known to frequently shuffle around his employees and assets to boost his pet projects e.g. The Boring Company and Solar City. NASA also has people inside SpaceX acting as oversight for Crew Dragon, they probably told Jim what Elon was doing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:05:47 2019 No.11017204 File: 97 KB, 362x393, meme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11015734 I was amazed to find this was Shelby's default facial expression.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:06:13 2019 No.11017207

>>11017198
Interesting concept. I assume that the torque of the cone rotating due to gravity applies a moment to the rocket to keep it upright?

A problem I see with this is that the drag from the airflow can easily end up being much stronger than the force of gravity and thus align the cone with the rocket, stopping whatever stabilization effect you're going for.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:07:15 2019 No.11017212 File: 565 KB, 715x873, keep talking shit, jim.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11016827 This rascal

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:07:34 2019 No.11017213 >>11017207 True. And i just discovered that the drag that cone fives are opposite of upright direction. lol

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:09:35 2019 No.11017217

>>11017174
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-crew-dragon-nasa-flights.html

>SLS was delayed by shitty management
So what did congress do? Gave them hundreds of millions of dollars and now today, billions extra dollars.

>Commercial Crew was delayed by funding being withheld for the first 5 years
Commercial Crew delay was created BY the congress.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:10:42 2019 No.11017220 >>11017203 The 5% statement is just to drive home the point anyway, SpaceX could be devoting 99% of its resources to SS and it would not change the fact that Crew Dragon has been going as fast as NASA will allow it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:12:01 2019 No.11017222 >>11017149 Only Starship matters now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:12:04 2019 No.11017224 File: 55 KB, 960x480, dick_shelby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11017217 >cuts CC funding >CC falls behind >"hey, you know since CC isn't performing very well, maybe we should cut it's funding some more."

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:12:33 2019 No.11017226 430 posts in and nobody has shopped that rocket into a dildo

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:13:58 2019 No.11017229 >>11017226 See >>11016094

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:14:17 2019 No.11017231 >>11017213 That may not be the case. Drag is opposite but the moment that air will gives will make it upright. We don't know until we try it and maybe we can find a working parameter.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:15:45 2019 No.11017232 >>11017134 A presently non existent Starship will fly to orbit before it. Didn't you watch the stream?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:16:46 2019 No.11017235 >>11017217 Sure the early delays were Congress’s fault, but that doesn’t excuse the more recent failures which include SpaceX blowing up a capsule and having multiple parachute failures.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:17:01 2019 No.11017236 >>11017174 >SpaceX was going to be halted by us shutting them out of anymore contracts and SLS and Orion was going to be all there is! How can they do this!

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:18:32 2019 No.11017239

>>11017235
Part about testing is failures. So I don't see the issue there. Right now CC hardware is already built. The delay in the pipe line is just series of reviews they have to do with NASA/independent reviews/etc.

SpaceX can't control how fast NASA works at.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:18:40 2019 No.11017240 >>11016860 Single seam weld RINGS.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:19:23 2019 No.11017243 >inb4 SpaceX get's nationalized or specifically regulated to stop it from competing against SLS

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:20:14 2019 No.11017244 File: 71 KB, 991x828, 4769B482-D48E-41CF-8BA7-8FC0E905BDCA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >hahaha >cows

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:20:59 2019 No.11017246 >>11017235 Why the fuck would failures in testing need an excuse, that's what the testing is for. Eg. the parachute re-test performing well above standard

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:22:21 2019 No.11017251

>>11016940
As Elon said, the Booster is waiting on engines. The timeline associated with building the Booster to flight readiness from scratch is so short that they aren't even bothering to start yet because it'd just be sitting in a field waiting on engines for months. Meanwhile SLS's engines are a decade older than the rocket itself, as in the engine hardware has been built and used and sitting in warehouses waiting for the rocket to be built.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:23:03 2019 No.11017253

>>11017239
>>11017246
Don't you know guys? You're not supposed to find faults in tests. That's not what its for. You're supposed to find every single potential fault in a series of endless studies. Testing is to just inflate your program's job count to maybe the Shelby-fairy will bless you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:23:16 2019 No.11017254 Meanwhile, the fancy single weld rings are getting stacked in Cocoa

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:25:57 2019 No.11017259

>>11016973
Plumbing was never an issue on N1. The issue is that the G-reduction shutdown sequence caused hammering which blew the lines, which happened when a bunch of engines suddenly shut down on purpose at the same time, causing the structure to 'bounce' in flight. With BFR they're going to do like they do on Falcon, which is throttle down as they shut down engines to allow the structure to relax and eliminate bounce. No bounce, no hammer, no problem.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:27:07 2019 No.11017267 File: 367 KB, 1634x942, TIGHT.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11017244 >tight is right

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:28:10 2019 No.11017269 >>11017239 >>11017246 >>11017253 When your parachutes are failing this far into a program you’ve got serious problems. You wanna know who’s parachutes aren’t failing? Boeing’s.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:28:32 2019 No.11017270

>>11017005
He means they aren't gonna test the cluster before mounting it to a rocket.

Problem is that this doesn't even matter because the rockets themselves are really cheap, and the engines are the expensive bit.

Unlike N1, it's literally cheaper for them to just mount the engines to the Booster and fire them to see if it'll blow up rather than construct a big ass test stand. In fact they can put the engines on a completed Booster sans expensive bits like computers and bolt it to the ground to test it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:31:10 2019 No.11017277 File: 91 KB, 655x655, 8E66CDFB-6E93-4EC0-BF1D-E12C960AADAE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ELON NO IT’S A TRAP

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:31:36 2019 No.11017278 >>11017270 I think your underestimating the damage which will be caused by a Super Heavy RUD. Also, Elon seems to be rushing it’s development for some reason so I expect tests to be minimal...

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:31:42 2019 No.11017280 >>11017269 Bruh, Boeing had parachute issues and needed to undergo further testing as well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:33:14 2019 No.11017285 File: 654 KB, 2048x1980, 1545663825369.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] how many interviews did elon give out? have any been posted yet? i want more details about spacex's plans.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:33:54 2019 No.11017286 File: 265 KB, 610x714, Annotation 2019-09-29 183338.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11017174 Bridenstine later retweeted Berger's explanation. https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1177711302296395776

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:33:55 2019 No.11017287

>>11017269
https://spacenews.com/crew-dragon-parachutes-failed-in-recent-test/
>SpaceX said that, prior to last month’s test, it had performed five similar “parachute-out” tests where one of the four parachutes deliberately did not open. All of those were completed successfully. The company has performed 19 tests of the parachute system to date with “a number of additional tests” planned before the Demo-2 test flight of the Crew Dragon vehicle, with two NASA astronauts on board.
You make it sound like that test is the only test of the chutes that SpaceX has done, or that somehow the failure was critical, when it seems more likely that the failure was an outlier fault that was fortunately caught during testing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:33:55 2019 No.11017288 >>11017285 CNN one here >>11016827

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:36:46 2019 No.11017293 >>11017267 who's the pedo now

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:40:31 2019 No.11017302 File: 89 KB, 287x713, 1546578178147.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] nu >>11017299 >>11017299 >>11017299

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:40:51 2019 No.11017303 Some nigger made a new thread, this one’s still on page 5 When will you people learn

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:42:11 2019 No.11017309 >>11016565 Musk now sees before him an open highway all the way to Mars and all he needs to do is press the pedal down on his plaid mode SpaceX Starship program.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:42:13 2019 No.11017310

>>11017038
You mean Spiral welding? That works for submarines because they experience an equal amount of pressure everywhere. Starship doesn't, since it's long and tipped upright, and all the strain on it comes from the weight of the mass inside plus the force of the engines below. Basically the thickness of the walls either needs to taper from base to top, OR they are wasting a huge amount of mass fraction on useless material thickness. This is why they are stacking rings and it's why Elon said that they are doing it specifically to allow thickness variation.

In the future the biggest departure we're gonna see is the shift from very manual hands-on construction to very automated machine work. Ring rollers squeezing steel from spools down to required thickness, then bending and welding them into rings, then moving them over to horizontal jigs to weld the rings to one another, they could get a complete barrel for a Booster done every day. Bulkheads would be formed, dropped in, and welded into place in sequence (to allow the right hardware to be installed, plumbing and header tanks), nose cones would be built in parallel, as well as engine mounting plates, flaps, and legs. Once fully assembled sans engines, the hexagonal tiles go on, they tip it up to vertical, engines are fitted, everything's buttoned up and ready for testing. I could see at max output a new Starship and Booster rolling off the line every week, manufacturing cost total less than $100 million.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:44:17 2019 No.11017315 >>11017310 No, I mean cold-rolling. And I'm pretty sure neither Starship nor Super Heavy have plans to be spiral-welded, and as far as Submarines go the Virginia class is definitely not spiral-welded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:44:24 2019 No.11017316 >>11017310 >made of steel >has a point >has distal taper SS is a sword

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:44:54 2019 No.11017317 >>11016565 >a modern space program is finally progressing at Apollo rates rather than being a slow lumbering program that'll maybe achieve one of it's goals in 10 years >"i-it has to be a scam, if NASA couldn't do it then SpaceX shouldn't...."

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:45:08 2019 No.11017319 >>11017062 First woman on my dick: Gwynne Shotwell

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:45:44 2019 No.11017321 >>11017142 It was probably too early, but is that when Elon was in the cherry picker getting lewd pictures from inside Mk1-chan?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:46:28 2019 No.11017322 >>11017101 >pressurizing a capsule with >1 bar 100% O2 counts as a mistake in life support t. retard

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:48:10 2019 No.11017324 >>11016430 Yeah, that amount of personal space is palatial even by air travel standards.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:49:41 2019 No.11017327 >>11017322 I recently had LOx safety training and heard all of the problems of a pure oxygen environment and I'm still amazed that NASA went with it for Apollo.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:50:05 2019 No.11017328 >>11017010 >and roll each strip of steel they pull off the coil in order to thin the metal out more If I had to guess, they'll just buy rolls of different thicknesses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:50:45 2019 No.11017329 >>11016694 The thing is that all that's left for Dragon 2 is just regulatory paperwork/demonstrations. Kinda pointless to harrass them now.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 12:53:34 2019 No.11017336

>>11017149
Even if it's neck and neck, Boing has still spent far more money on this project. Even if there was a perfect 1:1 relationship between money and development time (eg SpaceX gets half the money but takes twice as long) that would still be a feather in SpaceX's cap because they proved they can do something for half the cost if you're willing to wait twice as long. Instead they're proving they can do something for half the cost in effectively the same amount of time. If you look to your left at Starship Super Heavy vs SLS, the difference is extreme to the point of absurdity; Billions of dollars and closing in on a decade of development time working with preexisting hardware, vs all-new hardware developed and assembled for shoestring budget into a vastly more capable vehicle that is designed to be fully reusable and expected to be performing orbital launches within one year from now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:06:08 2019 No.11017361 >>11017302 >page 6 too soon

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:07:00 2019 No.11017364 File: 18 KB, 480x534, 1500237175286.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11016827 OOF.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:07:38 2019 No.11017369 >>11017336 >Billions of dollars and closing in on a decade of development time working with preexisting hardware And why hasn't there been a corruption investigation on this yet?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:11:22 2019 No.11017378 >>11017369 Why would they investigate themselves?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:12:16 2019 No.11017385 >>11017328 If they rolled it down themselves, they could use angled rollers to make one edge slightly thinner than the other, and have the exact thickness every step of the way.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:13:52 2019 No.11017387

There's no way anyone can realistically compete with SpaceX at this point. National governments are going to get involved to the point of targeting SpaceX with monopoly busting practices and legislation to ensure that their space industries have a chance of surviving. Anticipate lots of regulations making SpaceX products too expensive to use or outright banning them.
>e.g. European spacecraft must be launched on European rockets or stiff penalties will be incurred

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:15:21 2019 No.11017395 >>11017387 Well, there's Blue Origin. They still have a chance.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:16:27 2019 No.11017400 File: 237 KB, 485x400, ayefairenough.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11017378

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:17:17 2019 No.11017402 >>11017369 GAO was pretty unhappy with what they found https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/new-report-finds-nasa-awarded-boeing-large-fees-despite-sls-launch-slips/

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:20:44 2019 No.11017413 >>11017402 Yeah, but they can't do anything. The most they can do is just "advise" to Congress on what to do. Since most of the problems with SLS can be traced back to Congress, this means that nothing will come of the GAO's review of NASA.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:22:11 2019 No.11017418

>>11017278
For a 10 second test to prove that harmonics won't be an issue they only need ten seconds worth of fuel. The damage caused by a few engines failing and the Booster being unzipped would be minimal, especially if they test it on a $10,000 concrete pad away from anything expensive. Building a $10 million custom stand just to test the engine cluster rather than risk a half million dollar Booster makes no sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:22:37 2019 No.11017420 >>11017413 Yes, but it will make things much more awkward and difficult to dismiss when the time comes that manned lunar flights are happening and they're not on NASA vehicles

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:23:46 2019 No.11017423 >>11017315 Okay, and yeah, you're right. No plans for spiral welding on SSH.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:23:46 2019 No.11017424 >>11017385 If you use angled rollers it will twist the metal too. The thinner part will become longer, while the thicker part doesn't. its really not so simple to just angle the rollers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:23:55 2019 No.11017426 >>11017418 >Building a $10 million custom stand just to test the engine cluster rather than risk a half million dollar Booster makes no sense. Just wait until you hear about the $1B spent on an expendable launch tower for SLS.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:25:04 2019 No.11017429 >>11017328 That'd probably cost more after 50 Starships than juts buying a roller and doing it themselves, plus that way they have fine control over the material thickness they want.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:26:54 2019 No.11017435 >>11017395 Why do people think this? Is it because of Bezorp money? SpaceX isn't even spending a lot of money on Starship, the fact that Jeff has cash means nothing if he doesn't have the same work culture in his factories.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:28:05 2019 No.11017438 >>11017426 Oh, I've heard. Just goes to show that 'mo money, mo problems' is a true statement.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:29:18 2019 No.11017444 >>11017435 Because Blue seems somewhat reliable in their schedule and capability estimations, or at the very least hasn't severely disappointed us yet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:29:42 2019 No.11017445 >>11017435 Bezorble isn't the kind of guy to adopt the >best process is no process and >tight catgirls are better than loose philosophies

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:30:58 2019 No.11017447 >>11017444 NS was supposed to be flying people in 2018 lol (right?)

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:33:10 2019 No.11017454 >>11017444 20 years. Started before spacex. They have nothing but sub orbital vehicle that can't do anything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:39:22 2019 No.11017470 >>11017429 Bros it is really not that simple... Its not just a couple rollers lol. You should probably do a little research on what goes into cold rolling steel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:43:11 2019 No.11017480 >>11017138 I know he said UV explicitly, but he also said if there's any life, it has to be deep under the surface, so he must have also thought about other radiation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:46:10 2019 No.11017487 How much shit will Boeing be in if SpaceX beats them to the ISS, and then also beats them to a superheavy lift vehicle?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:47:42 2019 No.11017493 >>11017454 They have an engine convincing enough for ULA to buy into, a launch manifest, and a factory.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:53:50 2019 No.11017503 >>11017493 And Memelon has three engines, two functional vehicles and a third upcoming, a functional (if untested with people) capsule which has completed missions, one factory running and another coming up, and a field with a box of scraps.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:54:26 2019 No.11017505 >>11017134 >empty billion dollar crew capsule launching on a throw-away billion dollar rocket on a nothing mission to nowhere Inspiring.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:58:34 2019 No.11017509 >>11017503 If Starship works as planned Blue might as well skip straight to a full reusable New Armstrong, because New Glenn won't be competitive. But I have some faith that Bezos money will let them do that if necessary.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 13:59:50 2019 No.11017512

>>11017505
To be fair, EM-1 will be an intriguing mission and be a sign that NASA is finally going to do some serious stuff beyond LEO that's not another probe. The main problem is that it's going to happen after all of the nasty faults of NASA became widely known so that kinda spoils the mission.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:02:28 2019 No.11017518 >>11017435 >work culture >work culture ahem Sweatshop

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:05:50 2019 No.11017522 >>11017327 Russians also burned one of their people to a crisp pursuing this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:08:35 2019 No.11017530 >>11017316 Starship name changed to space sword confirmed

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:09:30 2019 No.11017532 >>11017512 It's boring is what it is. An Apollo 8 rerun? On an expendable booster? You make no hardware progress doing that, you aren't doing new science, and you aren't boldly going anywhere you haven't gone before.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:09:43 2019 No.11017533 >>11017317 Man this program is actually outstripping Apollo at this point Think Raptors rolling off the line like model T cars back in the day I really feel like we could be on the cusp of the big one, guys, the BIG one, the hot tamale

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:09:43 2019 No.11017534

>>11017505
>nothing mission
pathfinder flight test
>to nowhere
the fucking MOON is a "nothing mission". Artemis 1 will be a guaranteed success due to NASA overkill autistic bureaucracy procedures. Once that's done the only barrier to moon landings is manufacturing a lunar lander.

Meanwhile, for Starship to function as intended, Spacex have to figure out....literally everything. Sure it's ambitious. But just that so far.

Aside from Falcon reusable boosters, Orion is the most exciting spacecraft hardware that actually exists right now, yet all of you are creaming yourselves over what is practically a fancy water tower with literal dents in it that will now actually be built somewhat properly now that it has performed its PR function.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:09:45 2019 No.11017535

>>11017522
>Roscosmos: We've killed people using a pure oxygen environment, maybe we should instead go for regular air.
>NASA: We've killed people using a pure oxygen environment, but let's keep using it.
>Roscosmos: This Shuttle thing isn't working. We should abandon it for cheaper and more reliable launchers
>NASA: This Shuttle thing isn't working and we've killed people on it. We don't need to change anything at all.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:12:50 2019 No.11017538

>>11017532
>It's boring is what it is. An Apollo 8 rerun?
While it's not as exciting as Apollo 8, it's still an important mission that needs to be done. It's a "full dress" rehearsal of NASA's first flight around the moon in decades. Flying the full spacecraft around the moon with no crew on it to test it before putting people on it is a necessary task as it allows for any faults in the spacecraft to be found in a safe manner.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:15:56 2019 No.11017542
File: 11 KB, 407x224, rolling.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11017470
IDK, seems pretty simple to me.

Spools of 301 stainless at 110% of final spec thickness come in, they are unwound and cold rolled while simultaneously bent onto a 4.5 meter radius, then cut into ring sections. Rings then gt their single seam weld and move off to be joined edge to edge later, forming barrels. The advantage would be that you aren't bending your cold rolled crystal structure onto a tight radius to fit onto a coil, and then unbending it to 9 m wide rings, you're forming your crystal structure via cold rolling and the output of the machine itself is a 4.5 meter radius curve.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:16:07 2019 No.11017543

>>11017534
>Meanwhile, for Starship to function as intended, Spacex have to figure out....literally everything. Sure it's ambitious. But just that so far.
Starship is closer than you realize. The engine design is ready, and since they're using a single unified engine design, they can just crank them out. Raptor has flight test hours, that's more than Blue Origin can say. The airframe testbed is literally right there in a field in Texas. That crumpled looking tin can is flight hardware. Superheavy is just a big tube with a bunch of Raptors on one end. The only big hurdles left are to prove the aero models (20km hop), prove the heatshield (suborbital hop), and make a first orbital flight (next year). By this time next year Starship will be in full series production and flying it's first commercial payloads. By the end of next year Starship might be flying crew. We are in many ways closer to a manned Moon landing with Starship than we are with Artemis (which doesn't have a lander yet).

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:18:09 2019 No.11017552

>>11017454
this
>>11017503
and this

BO and SpaceX are in completely different dimensions. Lest we forget how long it took for BO to achieve 100% throttle on their BE-4, meanwhile SpaceX built full scale Raptor, achieved 250 bar chamber pressure baseline, started ramping up production to rates approaching their own Merlin 1D engines, and even flew one, twice. All the money in the world cannot guarantee good competition. Just observe SLS.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:20:14 2019 No.11017557 >>11017493 You can't conjecture reliability from promises. You get reliability from performances and delivery.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:23:19 2019 No.11017561 >>11017542 >dunning kruger - the post

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:23:21 2019 No.11017562

>>11017487
One big pile of it.
Also consider the ongoing 737 MAX debacle.
>>11017538
>it's still an important mission that needs to be done.
NOTHING about SLS needs to be done except cancellation. We will learn nothing new about the Moon from any of the Artemis missions, we will gain no practical space exploration capability, and we will not build a Lunar settlement using SLS, because it is too expensive and slow to build and launch. Throw it in the trash, stop sinking cost, and focus on what's new and real and stands to improve space access; reusable booster technology.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:26:23 2019 No.11017566

>>11017561
You can buy cold rolling machines off the market. There's nothing new in terms of technology to develop. At most they need to train their guys on how to operate a cold roller machine. I'm not claiming to be an expert but you're essentially saying SpaceX, the company that figured out mass production of an engine that contains multiple staged combustion turbopumps which needs to withstand 800 bar 1000 degree oxygen rich supercritical fluid, won't be able to figure out cold rolling sheet metal in-house.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:26:44 2019 No.11017567 >>11017562 >Also consider the ongoing 737 MAX debacle. And the tankers they delivered to the Air Force with trash and tools misplaced inside.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:29:09 2019 No.11017573 >>11017562 >One big pile of it. >Also consider the ongoing 737 MAX debacle. More like. >NASA has found Boeing's performance to be "satisfactory" rather than "very satisfactory" >nothing changes

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:29:13 2019 No.11017574 >>11017567 lol, Boeing more like "boing"

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:29:54 2019 No.11017578 >>11017557 How many flights will SLS have before flying crew?

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:32:01 2019 No.11017581

>>11017578
Since NASA expects that CC launchers need to have 7 consecutive launches with no major failures before putting crew on their rockets, then it's only fair that SLS would need to meet the same requirements...

...kidding, it's only one. Maybe zero if NASA gets desperate.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:33:28 2019 No.11017584

>>11017543
It will be probably ready before SLS Block 2. I highly doubt Starship will orbit the Earth by the end of 2020, but if it does, i'll tip my hat. SpaceX has had issues with every bit of machinery they've built, just like any other rocket people. Starship will have problems and they will delay the program, because it's a giant undertaking. Elon is kidding himself with some of his schedules for this thing. it is exciting that they are so ambitious but don't be fooled by some steel rings welded into the shape of a tintin rocket for a marketing presentation. That thing is not close to reaching space. They are still chopping and changing fundamental aspects of the design.

Every rocket is just a big tank with engines on the bottom. That hasn't stopped dozens of them having epic fails. Spacex isn't invincible.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:34:22 2019 No.11017587 >>11017581 >Maybe zero if NASA gets desperate. If NASA does 0 test flights before crew and the thing RUDs, that's the end of NASA building launch vehicles.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:35:04 2019 No.11017590 >>11016591 >saying something is easy that is provably hard because his engineers haven't explained to him why it's hard yet

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:35:35 2019 No.11017591

>>11017581
tbf SLS is so ridiculously expensive and late because it must work the first time every time, if Starship Mk 1 explodes it's not the end of the world. If New Glenn is as old space as it feels, we can assume it'll work right the first time as well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:36:54 2019 No.11017595 >>11017587 SLS is probably the end of NASA launch vehicles anyways, because two commercial companies are building superheavy lift vehicles capable of colonization. What's NASA going to build that Starship or New Armstrong can't do?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:37:14 2019 No.11017596 >>11017512 >EM-1 will be an intriguing mission and be a sign that NASA is finally going to do some serious stuff beyond LE Except that the plan is to do nothing for another 2 years until Artemis 2.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:38:54 2019 No.11017599

>>11017584
I expect SpaceX will still be making fundamental design changes and alterations after the first few orbital flights have already happened. It won't even slow down their progress, they'll just have multiple different vehicles flying at the same time accomplishing things and gathering data.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:39:39 2019 No.11017603 >>11017595 >What's NASA going to build that Starship or New Armstrong can't do? A rocket that will always be in favor of Congress. Congress can easily make a new law that heavily regulates reusable spacecraft to try to kill Starship and NA.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:42:21 2019 No.11017611

>>11017566
I'm not saying they can't do it, just that they shouldn't.
Yes, you can buy cold rolling machines off the market for smaller things, but in the size they need, its far more involved than the ones you can just buy, not to mention annealing and tempering the steel after rolling.
It's very simple to just buy exactly what they need from existing steel companies, whereas they can't just go buy rocket engines like raptor.
>At most they need to train their guys on how to operate a cold roller machine
It seems pretty easy to weld some strips of metal together to make the rocket, so why hire a water tank company to do it?
At most they just need to train their guys to run a welder, right?

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:43:32 2019 No.11017613

>>11017534
>the fucking MOON is a "nothing mission".
Israelian startups are going to the fucking MOON now.
Who cares unless you're actually landing people there to establish a base?

Artemis 1 means nothing by itself. They have to pull through with the entire program. But there's so much uncertainty what with them needing three SLS cores, exploration upper stage, the station, the three-piece lander without a design yet...
And even if they accomplish all of that, this is just the beginning. And you just know it's tempting for them to just put a flag right next to the bleached one from last time, have their woman astronaut take one selfie with the little blue earth and call it a day for moon missions for another 2 decades because SLS is just too expensive and slow to maintain.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:46:12 2019 No.11017625 File: 1.02 MB, 3000x2000, 1567136513386.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11017534 >the fucking MOON is a "nothing mission" What if the mission isn't a NASA mission, and involves installing modified mk45 naval guns around rich ice deposits?

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:46:13 2019 No.11017624

>>11017603
As much as we like to beat the "congress bad" drum, Starship will show the Chinese up, and that's all anyone really cares about. The jobs meme is good for senate pork when there's no space race, but Congress gets pissy if you don't give them results. If it comes down to shuttle jobs versus dabbing on China, American pride demands the dab.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:47:44 2019 No.11017627 >>11017625 Space Force Starships armed with off the shelf Navy lasers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:51:06 2019 No.11017635 >>11017535 >Roscosmos: We've killed people using a pure oxygen environment, maybe we should instead go for regular air. To be fair, they did put a stove in that environment.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:53:08 2019 No.11017643

>>11017611
>It seems pretty easy to weld some strips of metal together to make the rocket, so why hire a water tank company to do it?
>At most they just need to train their guys to run a welder, right?
Yes, the MOST they would have to do is train their guys from scratch. However, as you aptly pointed out, water tower companies exist, so they hired those guys and only had to train them a little.
I'm saying the MOST they would have to do, set up their own cold rolling machine and operate it, is still not that big a deal. Obviously they can buy the shit pre-made. The only question is, does bending the steel from its coil radius up to a 4.5 meter radius negatively impact it, and by how much? If they can get significant strength to weight savings by customizing the process, say by ordering much wider spools or by doing their own cold rolling in house, then it will eventually make sense to do so.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:54:55 2019 No.11017652 File: 444 KB, 200x150, bfd957bd4a32e1c1bf17f420c241a609.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >SpaceX Starship Update 2024 >Elon presenting live from the surface of the Moon while Artemis 3 is delayed

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:56:59 2019 No.11017654 >>11017652 >people complain online that his proposed Titan mission is going to take more than the 6 months he proposed, just like the 2 years his Starship/Superheavy actually took to get ready

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:57:55 2019 No.11017657 >>11017654 starship will never go to the outer planets. other large craft built in orbit will, however

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 14:59:14 2019 No.11017665 >>11017657 I was thinking if Elon is on the moon already, he might propose something new.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:00:34 2019 No.11017668 >>11017657 >starship will never go to the outer planets Definitely not directly from Earth, at least.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:03:59 2019 No.11017679

>>11017657
I used to believe in building in orbit but I can't see it being competitive in an environment where the Moon or Mars have bases. Easy access to material, miniscule gravity, little/no atmosphere; you could pretty much launch anything you want.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:04:27 2019 No.11017681 >>11016861 yeah, 400 to 1000 people in airplane style transport to LEO, maybe 100 people to the moon, 50 people to Mars?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:05:46 2019 No.11017686 File: 96 KB, 1024x725, bernal sphere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11017679 It will require bigger stations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:06:50 2019 No.11017689 >>11017686 In fact, other than nuclear craft, stations will be the majority of in-space construction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:13:36 2019 No.11017712 >>11017050 yeah, we had this conversation weeks ago

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:18:06 2019 No.11017727

>>11017643
Bending the 4.5m radius is very simple and does not negatively impact it, and can be done with a simple roller.
Squeezing it down to a thinner thickness is not simple at all, especially in that width
I'm not sure what kind of roller you're envisioning but it's a lot more involved than you're probably thinking
this video shows probably about as simple as you're going to get it and even this probably doesn't have the capacity to handle starship's ring width-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwhrNC1fF98
If they need to make the thickness in a way that is not readily available, for example varied thickness in each ring, then yes it would make sense to do it themselves, but if not then it would be insane to do it themselves given that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of companies that already do it.

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:18:45 2019 No.11017731

>>11017686
Stations don't have spare mass lying around, so they'd have to pull it from somewhere. No one wants to fuck with the Terran gravity well if they can help it, so the Moon and Mars are obvious sources. Once you've gotten that far, it makes more sense to cut the middle man and build locally. Admittedly, some designs would be better served being built in a true 0g environment, but then many are probably easier to build with a 'down' direction

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:19:30 2019 No.11017734 File: 55 KB, 487x340, fdab54bb6dc25a5966773fe7ad90c411.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11017204

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:21:42 2019 No.11017748 >>11017239 those weren't failures, that was learning new fucking science nobody had ever seen that titanium dinitrogen tetroxide failure before, and everybody learned a bunch of new shit about parachute modeling

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:21:53 2019 No.11017753

>>11017657
Big orbital craft have no advantage over Starship, because they can't do aerobraking on arrival at their destination and get free velocity change. Big orbital-assembly vehicles only make sense if they use propulsion systems far more efficient than chemical engines, while also having decent thrust to weight ratio, which discounts solar electric or electric of any kind. Basically if you aren't doing gas-core nuclear thermal or some kind of fission or fusion pulse engine, you need aerobraking capability. Otherwise you simply can't get the delta V needed to match a chemical rocket that can slam into atmosphere to slow down.
Going to Jupiter with Starship is very dubious because you definitely need to do everything propulsively (aerobraking at Jupiter itself is out of the question, because Starship would be hitting the atmosphere at >50,000 meters per second and the shock heating at any useful level of aerobraking would be impossible to manage). Starship to Saturn is actually doable though, because Titan has a dummy thicc atmosphere. In fact if you plan carefully you can arrive at Titan while it is moving away from you in its orbit around Saturn, and end up hitting the atmosphere at a much lower relative velocity than you may expect given Saturn's motion around the Sun (you can use Titan's orbital velocity around Saturn to effectively let you ignore a whopping 5570 m/s of relative velocity, and use its atmosphere to scrub off the rest). Anyway my point is that if you can put up with the transfer taking a long time even with a faster-than-Hohmann transfer orbit, you can arrive and land there no problem, especially if you send Starships in pairs and spin them lengthwise connected by a cable for artificial G. You could send entire fleet this way all at once.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:23:38 2019 No.11017759 >>11017686 Mars' Moons are even better real estate for sourcing Station material than our Moon, owing to the negligible gravity compared to weak but still very real gravity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:25:41 2019 No.11017769 >>11017327 where do you think all that information about the problems of a pure oxygen environment came from?

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:26:23 2019 No.11017773

>>11017727
They could always use a narrower ring if it was necessary, and yeah I'm considering the situation in which they've run up against the wall of what industry can cheaply do and they need to do something like variable thickness across a single ring on their own. Once they transition to rapid horizontal machine welding on a jig they can do narrower rings with little penalty, right now wide rings are faster because they require fewer welds, but an entirely mechanized process is likely to be faster even with narrow rings than what the engine production line can keep up with.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:27:46 2019 No.11017775 >>11017748 What's funny is we may have actually seen this problem before, but only on satellites way up in space where we have no ability to go pick apart the scrap and find out why exactly the thing suddenly blew itself up.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:28:48 2019 No.11017780 >>11017769 1800's basic chemistry science experiments

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:28:55 2019 No.11017781 the wings and canards look heavy. They also look easy to remove. Why not just remove them in LEO if you plan to go to the moon? Wonder what the mass % breakdown is. The portion of the 200t in the rings, the bulkheads, etc

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:30:18 2019 No.11017786 >>11017753 my point wasn't that it won't work, just that it would take forever and a half. I guess you can use Starship, but I'd imagine for time's sake it would make sense to stick it on a massive boost tug

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:35:02 2019 No.11017797

>>11017781
>Why not just remove them in LEO if you plan to go to the moon?
You need them on the way back, not on the way there. So if you were in orbit about the moon and wanting to get back to earth you'd have to wait for the ferry to come with your control surfaces, and at this point all of the energy wasted in this process makes the savings of not dragging them over yourself look like peanuts

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:35:42 2019 No.11017802 >>11017781 Because you need them to recapture at Earth, otherwise you'd need to propulsively enter LEO which seems like a bigger waste

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:39:15 2019 No.11017816 >>11017775 yeah, it's probably happened before but nobody has been able to pick up the pieces before >>11017780 the lessons were relearned in the modern era at the cost of about six lives if I remember correctly

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:40:58 2019 No.11017820 >>11017786 imagine replacing the engines of Starship with methane nuclear thermal engines maybe some kind of dual-bell thing so you can use them to land

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:41:15 2019 No.11017822
File: 47 KB, 475x417, 1535501115465.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Starship is currently getting only 5% of SpaceX's resources
>when Crew Dragon is finished Starship will get literally 20 times more resources than it currently has
>current resources are already enough for Raptor production and airframe prototyping

Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:44:21 2019 No.11017828

>>11017773
>They could always use a narrower ring
True, they would have a lot more welds to deal with but it can be done if they automate it in some way.
Personally the only way rolling their own makes any sense at all is if they need to do something that isn't readily available.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 15:45:26 2019 No.11017831 File: 2.32 MB, 1920x1080, NUB_01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Superheavy has 37 engines You know what else has 37 engines?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 16:10:59 2019 No.11017895 >>11017831 You mom. She needs those engines to move her fat ass.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 16:13:03 2019 No.11017901 >>11017895 Anons use her in fully-expendable mode, her snatch is a jizz depot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 29 18:49:37 2019 No.11018284 >>11016764 Those things aren't mutually exclusive

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 ]