/sfg/ - Space Flight General

[Anonymous No.11025607]

Any day now edition
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1179122548736499712

Previous: >>11021908

[Anonymous No.11025612]

yes we know its a joke tweet

[Anonymous No.11025634]

Why does no one ever bring up the Sea Dragon? I want to talk about it with people but even people who should know everything about it have often never heard of it.

[Anonymous No.11025638]

>>11025634
Are you baiting? In the past couple of months a few of these threads have been saturated completely with discussion of Sea Dragon.

[Anonymous No.11025650]

>>11025634
>Why does no one ever bring up the Sea Dragon?
On this thread? Because it's really just a meme. While lots of elements of Sea Dragon were clever and the mindset behind it's design was a step in the right direction, it's just not a feasible design. Truax assumed some pretty optimistic try masses for the tanks which were borderline unrealistic, and he just assumed that the combustion instability of such massive engines can be easily fixed (despite the fact that the F-1 took a long time to get it's instabilities worked out). It's an impressive design, but it wouldn't really work if it were built.

Elsewhere? Probably because the rocket is fairly obscure. Since it never left the drawing board, there isn't anything tangible to get people's attention about it. Plus it's development life was pretty short.

[Anonymous No.11025655]

>>11025607
>when the shitty edit you slapped together while late for class gets reposted multiple times and even makes the OP image
makes it worth the 135 km/h sprint to college kek

[Anonymous No.11025656]

>>11025638
I meant IRL
>>11025650
I get that, but many of the people I know should at least be aware of it, but it's up there with knowledge of the launch loop amongst normies in terms of how well it's know.

[Anonymous No.11025660]

>>11025634
Among space enthusiasts, I would be surprised if anyone isn't at least passingly familiar with it, simply due to the audaciousness of the design. "Sea Dragon" still exists as basically shorthand point of reference as the ideal cheaply constructed, expendable, superheavy lift chem rocket.

[Anonymous No.11025662]

>>11025656
>real people
>knowing anything

[Anonymous No.11025668]

>>11025660
>>11025662
You'd be surprised, I know quite a few people who are big into this stuff due to my mother working at the CSA (and having met them as a kid through their parents there) and outside of autists who come here or watch Issac Arthur the Sea Dragon is practically lost knowledge.

[Anonymous No.11025673]

>>11025656
>I meant IRL
Oh my bad. Well because most normies are fucking brainlets, I don't think there's really any complex answer to the question. When I converse with normies or they converse with one-another they barely ever touch on anything of any substance in any interesting field. They're mostly concerned with gossip on twitter or faceberg, or how hysterical something the president shitposted is making them feel, or what some similarly vapid celebrity is doing or saying, or what new capeshit movie is coming out that they can't wait to waste money on in spite of the ever plummeting quality. If they are put in a situation where they have to talk about something they think is important it will usually be some platitude that's been pumped directly into their ear from whatever """news""" they consume.

[Anonymous No.11025677]

>>11025656
>I get that, but many of the people I know should at least be aware of it, but it's up there with knowledge of the launch loop amongst normies in terms of how well it's know.
Well it's only point of interest is "lol look at how big I am". Also it seems like stuff about spaceflight just moves very slowly in general. I still meet people who don't know that SpaceX can land rockets.

[Anonymous No.11025679]

>>11025634
TSTO Shuttle was a better design and was essentially a horizontal flyback Starship. It was even supposed to belly-flop on re-entry.

[Anonymous No.11025681]

>>11025634
Sea Dragon was the king of paper rockets. It was founded on a sound principal, things get bigger faster than they get more expensive, but he extrapolated an ultra-cheap engine design up to a level FAR beyond what is actually possible.

Starship today is currently taking advantage of the two fundamental things Sea Dragon actually had right, which were A: make your vehicle as simple as possible to construct, and B: bigger is better. SpaceX could ave, for example, stuck to carbon fiber BFR and not even be close to where they are by now in terms of development progress, or they could have switched to steel and fast prototyping etc but only gone from a 9 Merlin engines rocket to a 9 Raptor engine rocket, an improvement but not industry-shattering. It's the combo of size and low cost construction that makes Starship a successful architecture, so long as they get it working of course.

One thing Truax got dead wrong was the idea that more complex engines would always be about as expensive as they were at the time. It's true that back then an F-1 was actually cheaper than a cluster of 9 Merlin sized engines would have been, but nowadays that's not so; 9 Merlin engines cost less than $5 million, and offer both a higher efficiency and thrust AND thrust to weight ratio compared to a single F-1. Raptor is looking like it's gonna be about as cheap as Merlin due to economy of scale manufacturing, which would make it even cheaper per unit thrust, with much better Isp and reuse characteristics. That's another thing, back in Truax's day they weren't even thinking about large reusable rocket engines yet, and the complexity and cost at the time made it seem like an easily reusable high efficiency engine would be pretty much impossible (even the RS-25 which came about a decade later and was designed for reusability ended up requiring massive overhauls for decades before they got to the point that they only rarely needed to replace parts). Hence big pressure fed chungus.

[Anonymous No.11025689]

>>11025634
>>11025679

And the full vehicle on liftoff, where in this case, "Superheavy" was a piloted delta-winged vehicle that would have flown back to the launch site and landed either gliding or on backup jet engines.

[Anonymous No.11025690]

>>11025677
I've talked to people in current year who didn't know that SpaceX is the ONLY company that recovers their rockets, and the rest get dumped into the ocean or onto siberian or chinese houses. They thought, having actually seen several launches of other rockets, that every Delta or Atlas was actually the SAME Delta or Atlas rocket being launched over and over, hence "aaaand liftoff of the 27th Atlas V mission to blah blah blah god bless america and please exit through the gift shop".

[Anonymous No.11025695]

>>11025689
>Piloted
They'd need to account for the extra dry mass of that pilot's enormous ironclad balls.

[Anonymous No.11025697]

>>11025689
dolphin sex rocket

[Anonymous No.11025703]

>>11025689
LEWD!

[Anonymous No.11025705]

>>11025697
Which is the more erotic rocket mating system, dolphin sex or ass to ass?

[Anonymous No.11025708]

>>11025690
I had a talk with someone shortly after the last Soyuz FG launch about that. I told her that it's the last one to be launch before being replaced by the Soyuz 2, she then asked what are they going to do with the rest of the Soyuz FG's and are they going to throw them away.

[Anonymous No.11025711]

>>11025705
>>11025703
>>11025697
That's not dolphin sex. THIS is dolphin sex.

[Anonymous No.11025714]

>>11025711

[Anonymous No.11025717]

>>11025695
This was a time when the idea of having CIA OXCART crews launch D-21's off the back of an A-12 at Mach 3.5 seemed like such a good idea that they actually did it, until it *shockingly* got people killed. (vid related:)
https://youtu.be/5w64fyqmLEU

[Anonymous No.11025722]

>>11025708
Just to clarify, she thought that the Soyuz rockets were being reused.

[Anonymous No.11025723]

>>11025708
lol, what did you tell her? I woulda smacker her in the mouth I think

[Anonymous No.11025727]

>>11025717
I'm actually astounded by the durability of both aircraft, I mean obviously they're both fucked but at the same time I half expected both of them to just immediately detonate into a cloud of titanium shrapnel.

[Anonymous No.11025728]

>>11025723
I just told her that they threw it into the ocean like they do with every Soyuz and that SpaceX is the only one who recovers and reuses their rockets. She does not have an interest in spaceflight and only hears about it through popular media and me so her ignorance was understandable.

[Anonymous No.11025730]

>>11025711
>Tags: Size Difference

[Anonymous No.11025731]

>>11025697
>>11025711
>>11025714

I think the belly-flopping one actually looked more like a sperm whale than a dolphin, but nevertheless, TSTO dolphin sex shuttle is forever best boi.

Who can ever argue with Starship/SH but built with Nixon-era technology?

[Anonymous No.11025733]

>>11025730
>Vore

[Anonymous No.11025735]

>>11025727
The pilot actually survived, only the payload officer died.

[Anonymous No.11025737]

>>11025717
>the only thing fast enough to shoot it down is . . .
>. . . itself

[Anonymous No.11025739]

>>11025731
>Who can ever argue with Starship/SH but built with Nixon-era technology?
Because spaceflight was a Democrat thing and, even worse to Nixon, a Kennedy thing. So he didn't give a shit about it, and wanted nothing of it.

[Anonymous No.11025751]

>>11025730
>We could have had a shuttle 40 years ago that was 100% re-useable, looked like something out of "Thunderbirds", and was bigger than the Spruce Goose, but the NRO just HAD to bully the USAF into that fucking cross-range requirement to deliver/recover KH-9s that were obsolete by the time the damn thing flew anyways from a multi-billion dollar launch pad that never got used.

[Anonymous No.11025755]

>>11025739
Fucking politicking bullshit, these fucks aught to be jailed for fucking over the country for their own petty personal vendettas. Now it would probably be the opposite, if Trump doesn't get a second term dems would happily scrap everything on the public spaceflight table just because their adversary mandated it. This is the real reason IMO that private space industry is so important now to the overall field, governments cannot be trusted to accomplish anything in space.

[Anonymous No.11025758]

>>11025751
To be fair to them, NASA wasn't given enough money to develop the Shuttle so they had to ask around other agencies for extra money in exchange of being able to influence it's design.

NASA seems to have some pretty bad luck with development stuff after Apollo. When given too few funds, they end up with the Shuttle. When given too much, they end up with the SLS.

[Anonymous No.11025762]

>>11025739
Make The Democrats Based Again.

[Anonymous No.11025768]

>>11025762
Though to be fair, JFK was much more of an American National Socialist than anything we've ever seen from the post-1964 Democrat Party.

[Anonymous No.11025771]

>NASA needs a rocket larger than anything flying currently
>something to help establish putting people on the moon
>doesn't have the development money to make new parts
>plans to use preexisting parts to speed up development time and reduce costs
>was unpopular at first
>government tried to kill it but came back with a vengeance
>finished ahead of schedule and below budget
>flew prototype moon capsules
>put NASA on track to the moon
>loved and fondly remembered by every spaceflight fan
>it feels good to be the Saturn I
pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.11025774]

>>11025771
>pic unrelated
yeah was kind of obvious at the "ahead of schedule and below budget" part

[Anonymous No.11025780]

>>11025774
I mean, considering that Congress and contractors don't want the thing to be finished only have more money pumped into it, the SLS finishing at any time and any budget less than infinity would be ahead of schedule and below budget.

[Anonymous No.11025791]

I really like the huge variation of shit the Russians consider stacking on-top of an Energia core. I've started to grow fond of the idea of an in-line vertical stack lifting body TSTO. SpaceX has shown that you don't even have to expend boosters to do it, you can use Kero/LOX boosters and a Kero/LOX core and if you could build a stable un-moving platform in the ocean you could get your core stage back too. In the future I'd expect a few of the bigger space companies to contract with oil drilling companies to set up launch or landing pads made of modified drilling rigs, it's probably the only easy way to land reusable core stages and it would give you the advantage of being as close to the equator as you can possibly get.

[Anonymous No.11025798]

>>11025791
The Soviets were looking into reusing their boosters too.

[Anonymous No.11025816]

>>11025798
Imagine a world where the USSR never collapsed and Mir 2 was assembled and serviced in the late 90s by Buran orbiters launching on 100% flyback Energia stacks.

[Anonymous No.11025828]

>>11025731
>>11025711
>>11025714
>>11025689
>>11025679
Just a reminder that a fully reusable shuttle was rejected because it would have cost to much to develop and that was untenable with the Vietnam war happening:
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter12.html

[Anonymous No.11025833]

>>11025828
>"guys! this spaceflight thing is getting expensive, we need to be more slim about our funds."
>proceeds to make the most expensive launcher in the world
>"spaceflight is so expensive and hard"
>makes the most expensive man-made object in LEO
>"there's just no way to do things cheaply"
>throws $30B at a rocket to nowhere
>"it ain't that easy in rocketry"

[Anonymous No.11025840]

>>11025816
But Anon that would have to be a world where socialism works. It's like proposing a universe with no gravitational force, I can't imagine something with such a different organization. I think though that since they were emulating the shuttle they'd be running into a lot of the same problems, extreme refurbishment costs and delays due to organizational corruption and infighting, excessive strangulatory bureaucracy making everything slow. I guess the one thing that it would benefit from is that Russian executives don't swap out as quickly so their space program's mandate wouldn't be getting trashed every 4-8 years.

[Anonymous No.11025847]

>>11025833
but development costs were lower. It would have required doubling NASA's budget

[Anonymous No.11025855]

>>11025828
Oh, and North American Rockwell also drafted a concept for doing Starship-style point-to-point style trans-atmospheric air travel with THIS horizontal takeoff, horizontal landing monster.

[Anonymous No.11025875]

>>11025855
>Those fused together tube tanks.
I can just imagine X-33 engineers breaking out into a cold sweat imagining having to make them out of carbon composites. Somebody should really buy Venturestar from Lockmeme and finally get some version of it flying, mostly so it's excellent engine could finally get some use. Modern additive manufacturing techniques could probably easily fix the issue the original heavy and overbuilt NARloy-z aero-wedge ramp was built to deal with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcW9kUUTfxY

[Anonymous No.11025876]

>>11025677
Ah yes, the Godzilla metric scale

[Anonymous No.11025878]

>>11025798
>>11025730
>>11025711
I'm getting turned on

[Anonymous No.11025889]

>>11025798
>blyatback
Subtle, i like it

[Anonymous No.11025892]

>>11025876
>not designing a rocket so large that it can be measured in Godzillas

[Anonymous No.11025906]

>>11025875
The Rockwell concept was from the early 70s, so those tanks were almost certainly going to be Al-Li or something similar. I wonder if it was supposed to be hydrolox or methalox, I could see it being methalox, as the tankage is the right size and you could easily use the methane to power the jet engines as well.

[Anonymous No.11025921]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Y0FS8Z1Qk
Also here's a breakdown of the manufacturing process for an Aero-wedge

[Anonymous No.11025940]

>>11025921
How the fuck does that video not violate ITAR, lol

[Anonymous No.11025959]

>>11025607
How many years until the chinks successfully copy the starship concept?

[Anonymous No.11025971]

>>11025959
Assuming LM9's true form is meant to be seen by man, it's more of a super FH than a Starship competitor, so say ~10 years after that.

[Anonymous No.11025972]

>>11025959
~10 starting from the moment the old guard shifts away from the saturn/sls path.

Their so called commercial attempts will politely keep it down low out of respect.

[Anonymous No.11025973]

>>11025959
The secret is in the engines and life support
So probably a long while

[Anonymous No.11025976]

>>11025971
I don't think there's much of anything FH and LM9 have in common.

[Anonymous No.11025980]

>>11025976
It's the only partially reusable heavy lift rocket I have to compare to. Unless something changed about LM9's design goals

[Anonymous No.11025982]

>>11025973
Maybe they can train some uighurs as expendable crew to get around the life support issues.

[Anonymous No.11025986]

>>11025980
LM9 was never going to be reusable

[Anonymous No.11025989]

>>11025973
Life support for Mars, Jupiter and Beyond?

If not just put more canisters and few fans and dump atmosphere outside if you can't afford co2 scrubbers.

The engines are harder, but if you accept some hit by using separate dedicated for landing and so on it can be done in alternate non-raptor ways.

Avionics is the real killer.

[Anonymous No.11025994]

>>11025989
>The engines are harder, but if you accept some hit by using separate dedicated for landing and so on it can be done in alternate non-raptor ways
It can be done using engines that can't throttle without using separate engines for landing. You just need alot of them.

[Anonymous No.11026001]

>>11025994
I think he's saying that the chinks can't make an efficient engine, let alone something like Raptor.

[Anonymous No.11026007]

>>11026001
Efficient how? The Merlin wasn't exactly the posterchild of efficiency and yet SpaceX got it to work with the largest limiting factor being the propellant.

[Anonymous No.11026016]

>>11026007
retard

[Anonymous No.11026019]

>>11026016

[Anonymous No.11026024]

Why the fuck should we bother sending a huge and heavy TBM to Mars? Why the fuck should we send something that needs regular replacement of cutting wheels and other parts we won't be making on Mars any time soon. What should we send instead? A BFR, big fucking resistor. SpaceX is investigating potential landing sites that have buried glaciers because you need that ice to make propellant. So how about we just tunnel into that by melting it? Sure it takes fuck loads of energy to melt -80°C ice, but if we're making propellant we're gonna want it liquid at some point. And by melting crap instead of abrading it we have a heckuva lot less parts that wear down, meaning less imports from Earth and Mars colonial independence happens sooner. Sure the power plant mass may be bigger, but we can use power for other things, cutting wheels and crap can only be used for tunneling. We might be able to decrease power costs by not melting all of the damn ice. We shove in hot metal rods to the wall of ice and use them to dice it into big blocks. Still though I really fucking like just being able to tunnel with a big fucking resistor, because we could unironically 3d print that near term. Our resistor ain't getting all that damn hot so the shitty alloys we can produce directly from dirt will work fine and because there ain't many moving parts the rough crap that comes out of a printer will be fine.

Reasons why we might favor a TBM: holy fucking shit -80°C ice is moh's hardness 6, hard as rock. I'd really like know other reasons why this won't fucking work(calculations please!), before I sign up to become a TRANSPARENT ORANGE CHAINSAW touting ice miner.

[Anonymous No.11026045]

>>11026001
Not exactly. My point was you can get starship to work even without raptor but at the cost of some efficiency and operational complexity.

>starship with gas generators like merlin
>starship with non-restartable? high efficiency flight proven traditional ascent engines, but separate one or more landing/retro propulsion engines

[Anonymous No.11026076]

>>11026045
>starship with hydrazine gas generators

[Anonymous No.11026088]

>>11026076
>Hydrazineship launches
>it starts wobbling abit

[Anonymous No.11026094]

>>11026076
>expendable jettisonable hydrazine turbines land on a remote fishing village

[Anonymous No.11026095]

>>11026045
>>11026076
Your on the wrong track, it’s been known for a while that the Long March 9 will be powered on the first-stage by the YF-500- a liquid oxygen/kerosene staged combustion engine with 5000KN of thrust and powered on the second stage by the YF-220- a 2200KN liquid oxygen/hydrogen engine.

[Anonymous No.11026100]

>>11026094
Its okay. The village was full of people with low social credit.

[Anonymous No.11026103]

>>11025607
You know it's a shitty thing to say, but I hope it just blows up and gets cancelled.

[Anonymous No.11026104]

>>11026024
Couldn't they just use a raptor to melt it?

[Anonymous No.11026106]

>walk into spacex server hardware room
>see this
What do you do?

[Anonymous No.11026110]

>>11026095
Its frightening how fast they are catching up.

[Anonymous No.11026111]

>>11026106
Oh wow! Is that Jackie Chan?!

[Anonymous No.11026113]

>>11026110
Getting an A on your test is easy when you're looking over a smarter classmate's shoulder.
Hard to even be mad, it's not the worst strategy.

[Anonymous No.11026115]

>>11026110
Why do you think the US government is all of a sudden interested in spaceflight after not giving a shit about it for 30 years?

[Anonymous No.11026116]

>>11026106
Put back the head of your Winnie the Pooh furry costume are run away as fast as possible...

[Anonymous No.11026120]

>>11025840
I was thinking today that if Nixon hadn't been cucked out of 1960, with no "before the decade is out" speech (and no -gate in the name of every scandal), we'd still probably end up walking on the Moon first, only it might be more like 1972-1975.

[Anonymous No.11026124]

>>11026110
they only just this decade built a Saturn IB comparable rocket, and its first flight was a partial failure and its second flight was a complete failure. Nearly five years on and it hasn't successfully flown yet. In the space sector the chinks are falling behind, badly.

[Anonymous No.11026132]

>>11026076
>Starship with hydrazine gas generators

Stop it, anon, my penis can only get so erect.

[Anonymous No.11026134]

>>11025973
>engines
the soviet union made some great engines decades ago, why can't the chinese today? how many ethnic chinese are involved in our space industry anyways, has ITAR been effective at keeping them out?

[Anonymous No.11026135]

>>11026103
What makes you think that it'll get canceled after an RUD? The SLS has been sold as the only way to go back to the moon for years, a single failure won't end it because to most of NASA ending it would mean ending the return to the moon.

[Anonymous No.11026136]

>>11026134
>the soviet union made some great engines decades ago, why can't the chinese today?
The Soviets had been working on rocketry for much longer than China, and had a motivation boost from wanting to "beat" the US.

[Anonymous No.11026138]

>>11026135
People aren't blind, and they won't be able to unsee the backflip landing of a steel tuna can.

[Anonymous No.11026140]

>>11025607
100t can't land shit on Mars and how will it even get there without a third stage?

[Anonymous No.11026141]

>>11025940
Either the program applied for and was given an exemption from the regulation, or the processes were described in significantly vague ways that it was considered insufficient information to replicate the technology with, or the engine fell outside of the definition of military or weapons hardware and thus cannot be made subject to ITAR. It never flew, so that could also be it, since it's not in use no bureaucrats give a shit about it, same as with the documentaries regarding NERVA and other nuclear rockets.

[Anonymous No.11026146]

>>11026140
Refueling in orbit.

[Anonymous No.11026155]

>>11025959
Depends on whether or not they can get a loyal citizen into SpaceX to steal the detailed models and even then an integral part of Starship's successful design is the Raptor engine which probably needs high performance alloys to keep it's combustion chambers from exploding under the enormous pressures they're being subjected to. Chinese metalworking is notoriously shit, their jet engines are shit because they can't make high temperature alloys as good as the US or Russia and they're still using old cold war ICBM tier technology for experimental space vehicles and commercial testing right now, although I do believe they are testing some more modern engines. By the time they've got a rocket comparable even to SLS or Saturn, Starship will have been flying for probably at least five to ten years which will restrict them to serving mostly their own space needs and those of countries so hostile to America they wouldn't be willing to launch shit using an American company.

[Anonymous No.11026157]

>>11026146
has this ever been done before?

[Anonymous No.11026159]

>>11026146
>suggesting space d-word
You have just been reported to the FBI for heresy, you sick fuck.

[Anonymous No.11026160]

>>11026157
Cryogenics? At this scale? No. But neither has a fully reusable superheavy lift vehicle.

[Anonymous No.11026161]

>>11026134
>>11026136
Who says the Chinese can’t make good rocket engines? They’ve built a decent LOX/Kerosene staged-combustion engine in the form of the YF-100, the US still hasn’t done that. They’ve also built a few good hydrogen-powered upper-stage/sustainer engines and most their ‘private’ startups are into the advanced stages of building methane-powered gas generator engines.

[Anonymous No.11026162]

>>11025989
For Jupiter and to a lesser extend Saturn you need significant radiation shielding, either as pure mass or in the form of an electromagnetic shield like a very small version of the system proposed to generate an artificial magnetic envelope to shield Mars. Essentially a solid "single loop" doughnut of copper through which an extremely high voltage current is passed, such a system would generate a very powerful magnetic field with characteristics like those of habitable planets. The magnet would be easily scalable but very power hungry, another reason why deep space craft must use either fission or fusion powerplants as opposed to sol*r or RTGs.

[Anonymous No.11026165]

>>11026159
They can refuel the Starships as the Richard Shelby Memorial Depot.

[Anonymous No.11026167]

>>11026157
>>11026160
Nobody has ever successfully done cryogenic fuelling in space. On the other hand, storable propellant refuelling is done regularly on the ISS.

[Anonymous No.11026169]

>>11026165
>d-word
Why the Ameriphobia?

[Anonymous No.11026170]

>>11026165
He is worse than a dep*t, he is (may the Shuttle, peace be upon it forgive me), a Reusable Heavy Lifter.

[Anonymous No.11026174]

>>11026141
Yeah, but can't all those manufacturing techniques and alloy details be used to build more conventional rocket engine components?

Now I want to buy a 3-D printer and use it to produce wax blanks for injector plates and combustion chambers that I can use to make zirconium ceramic molds that I then use to cast the parts in high-temperature copper alloys in my home vacuum chamber so I can get into homebuilt liquid rocketry using my own proprietary gas generator cycle design.

[Anonymous No.11026176]

>>11026167
No! Orbital refueling will not be allowed and that's final! I will not let this nation fall under the degeneracy of storing propellant in space for later use. It goes against God, it goes against America, and it goes against SLS (pbui). How about you go live in the Soviet Uni- er China if you want to obsess over such a non-patriotic idea!

[Anonymous No.11026183]

>>11026176
explain this meme to me

[Anonymous No.11026184]

>>11026174
Sure, I'd assume they're used in newer engines like BE-4 and Raptor, probably the late generation Merlins, F1-B was planned to be manufactured using modern techniques, but those can't be controlled under ITAR because their application is so broad they could be used for a ton of things which ITAR couldn't possibly be justified to regulate. Plus there's no restriction against home rocketry in general, just against certain potentially hazardous parts of it like hypergolic propellants, certain weights of solid rocket motor material or cryogenic oxygen, stuff you'd have to get permits for, but just building your own home rocket engine isn't in any way restricted. Just that if you wanted to light it up you'd have to go somewhere you won't cause noise complaints, in a field away from people so if it RUDs nobody will be injured, you have to get permits to handle cryocoolilng machinery that will deal with extremely volatile substances like liquid oxygen, etc, etc. At least so far that's what I know, I am NOT a legal consultant and if I'm mistaken I'd invite anyone who knows more to correct me.

There are a couple guys on Youtube who've built and successfully fired homemade rocket motors, I've seen at least one or more Anons discuss their rocketry projects, at least one of those guys is trying to build a Karman line hopper that I believe runs on Gaso/NOX.

[Anonymous No.11026185]

>>11026183
richard shelby doesn't like depots because they make SLS even more pointless than it usually is

[Anonymous No.11026188]

>>11026174
I 3D print model jets and the tolerances are godawful, can't even manage a 1mm blade-casing gap. Also warping.

[Anonymous No.11026191]

>>11026176
It’s actually been tested on the ISS in a small experiment and it failed, it’s not just Shelby that’s preventing cryogenic refuelling from happening, there’s legitimate technical problems.

[Anonymous No.11026192]

Unfortunately the machinery used to additively manufacture plane and rocket parts is either entirely custom and thus priceless due to being completely unique or in the same range as a very nice house or high end sportscar, 100-150k+ range in freedom paper. However I have seen higher end 3D metal printers available for rent although the prices are still pretty high, several thousand for a few weeks or a month of printer time.

[Anonymous No.11026193]

>>11026185
85, damn he looks good for his age.

[Anonymous No.11026196]

>>11026193
He's a cyborg, most of his body is in fact made up of God blessed legacy shuttle equipment, built right in his home state of Alabama by good hard working American shuttle engineers. He only gets older because it takes at least ten years to replace any part of him that's broken down.

[Anonymous No.11026197]

>>11026183
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/rocket-scientist-says-that-boeing-squelched-work-on-propellant-depots/?amp=1
>ULA, in one of the few times it tries to be innovative, attempts to develop propellant dep*ts
>such technology will allow for smaller rockets to carry larger payloads beyond LEO
>this pretty much competes against SLS
>Shelby didn't like that
>told ULA to stop all work on that project
>gone so far as to get the d-word banned within ULA
>we could've had in-orbit refueling much sooner if it weren't for Shelby
There was an anon who was supposed to talk to George Sowers (a former ULA employee who was working on the project and was supposedly let go because of it), but he disappeared of this thread.

tl:dr Shelby suppressed useful technologies because it would interfere with his pork barrel project

[Anonymous No.11026199]

>>11026192
Just buy a milling machine and do it the hard way.

[Anonymous No.11026202]

>>11026188
My idea was building the gas generator around the bearings and center section of a ball bearing turbocharger so you have proper cooling, etc, with a custom shaft driving 3d-printed pumps as well as the combustion chamber/exhaust turbine, and pumping fuel into something resembling a V-2 engine's clustered combustion chambers and dirt-simple V-2/SCUD-style bell. This would be a test stand engine only, maybe.

[Anonymous No.11026203]

>>11026191
>It’s actually been tested on the ISS in a small experiment and it failed
Source?

[Anonymous No.11026204]

>>11026199
Yeah, good old milling is fine for any lone rocketeer just interested in testing out different relatively simple designs. 3D manufacture becomes useful for a lone engineer when designs become too complicated to assemble alone, as in the industry 3D manufacture saves you man hours and keeps your tolerances tight (and thus right!) by letting you dramatically reduce the number of individual components, since it can turn out shapes and generate hollow cavities in ways that are impossible for mills.

[Anonymous No.11026205]

>>11026192
The only way to do it at home is with investment casting, using the printer only as a means to build your wax investment piece.

[Anonymous No.11026210]

>>11026184
>Anons discuss their rocketry projects, at least one of those guys is trying to build a Karman line hopper that I believe runs on Gaso/NOX
I've moved to Ethanol (70%) and Nox because of lower chamber temperatures and more favorable mixture ratios while maintaining similar performance.

[Anonymous No.11026220]

>>11026197
this entire article reads like a schizophrenic conspiracy theorist wrote it

[Anonymous No.11026223]

>>11026220
Shame it's factual.

[Anonymous No.11026226]

>>11026205
Yeah, I've been strongly considering putting together a little garage forge for such a purpose, so then the other two components I'd need to build little test engines with this process would be a wax or plastic printer of sufficiently high fidelity and a vacuum chamber robust enough to hold the filled mold while it cools.
>>11026210
Cool, glad to know you're still working at it, you'd better livestream it so when it RUDs we can immortalize you with the Anon who killed himself trying to dive with Russian milserp or the Anon who chlorine gas-chambered himself.
>Anon blows himself up trying to into space.

[Anonymous No.11026228]

>>11026223
>actually believing anything B*rger writes

That’s a massive yikes from me, I bet you read T*sl*r*ti as well you plebeian.

[Anonymous No.11026230]

>>11026228
Berger isn't the original source of the information.

[Anonymous No.11026232]

>>11026228
Yes, SLS is the key to a beautiful, AMERICAN future in space, praise the Shuttle, praise SLS (peace be upon it), and praise Shelby, SLS' one true prophet.

[Anonymous No.11026233]

>>11026223
The point is you don't need 5 pages of drivel to say what a single George Sowers tweet said on its own.

[Anonymous No.11026235]

>>11026226
Thanks. Work has been slow because I've been busy with school, but my goal is to at least get a nitrous thruster done by the end of this year.

>Anon who killed himself trying to dive with Russian milserp
Wut?

[Anonymous No.11026236]

>>11026232
Why the islamophobic jokes?

[Anonymous No.11026241]

>>11026235
Infamous /k/ommando story of an absolute idiot Anon who tried to dive in a river using long-expired Russian milsurp rebreather kit famous for spontaneously combusting if any water leaked into the chemical air scrubbers, which could if exposed to even a bit of humidity begin to generate extremely poisonous gas. He went without a dive buddy, without a depth gauge, without any training or backup kit.

[Anonymous No.11026242]

>>11026241
Oh wow. Don't worry, I'm dating someone who specializes in engeering safety. I'm going to be as safe as I can.

[Anonymous No.11026245]

>>11026196
loool
>>11026197
I'm not a fan of all the SpaceX fanboyism here but I can see their point that NASA is fucked.

[Anonymous No.11026253]

>>11026242
>Tfw no safety oriented engineer gf
You lucky motherfucker, not only romantically but also from the practical standpoint.

[Anonymous No.11026255]

>>11026235
If I want to get into liquid rocketry with zero engineering experience (but a decent amount of of welding, gunsmithing, and sheet metal working experience) where do I start?

[Anonymous No.11026260]

>>11026245
>NASA is fucked
Just gotta wait for spacex and blue origin to do their thing, and then the perpetrators of this fuckery will get ousted from their positions.

[Anonymous No.11026261]

>>11026204
if your design is too advanced for you to mill it is too advanced for an amateur. The 3D manufacture is something you upgrade to once you've gained experience and profits from simple milled designs. In the case of a not-for-profit amateur you would showcase your simple designs online for support and funding to upgrade to more advanced machinery. Starting out with the advanced machinery is a waste of money. For example on my 3D printed model jet I cut the steel parts with a hacksaw. If people like it and give me $$$ for more designs I'll move up to CNC.

[Anonymous No.11026264]

>>11026106
get my gun (God bless 2st amendment) and kill all non-americans in the room.

[Anonymous No.11026268]

>>11026255
Right now I'm reading through History of Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines by George Paul Sutton among several other books, I don't have their names off the top of my head but once I get home and have them all laid out infront of me I can name what I've got for you. Brush up on your calculus too, math isn't exactly a negotiable skill when it comes to rocketry so you'll have to learn it eventually unless you have a captive autist you can use to do all of your calculating.

[Anonymous No.11026269]

>>11026260
>ousted
Promoted to new space administration agency?

[Anonymous No.11026270]

>>11026264
nd

[Anonymous No.11026273]

>>11026264
>2st Amendment

[Anonymous No.11026275]

>>11026255
Sounds like you have the practical experience but not the theory so buy some books on aerodynamics and thermodynamics. I am the opposite, I have the books but my fabrication skills are lacking. Alternatively partner up with a guy who knows the theory.

[Anonymous No.11026276]

>the chad foust
>the virgin berger

[Anonymous No.11026277]

>>11026270
>>11026273
desu that made the meme post better

[Anonymous No.11026279]

>>11026226
You are not casting the turbopumps are you? casts don't spin good.

[Anonymous No.11026281]

>>11026241
There has to be a greentext of something so epicly stupid, right?

[Anonymous No.11026286]

>>11026268
Excel is helpful too.

[Anonymous No.11026290]

>>11026279
No, turbomachinery is an arcane art which I fully admit will probably always be beyond me, I'd use whatever pumps I could get without excessive difficulty, and eventually if I am successful in my goals be well off enough to recruit a few trained autists to my project, where I would make them work 18 hours a day and pay them in tendies to slave over turbomachinery designs. I'm more interested right now in chamber design, cooling, and injector nozzles, although my greatest interest is in nuclear rocketry and I'd hope that a combination of a good relevant credential which I'm working towards now and a successful small rocket engine project would make me a desirable candidate to work in the professional field proper. I was greatly excited by the current administration's gentle pushing of NASA to revive and investigate nuclear rocketry and the fact that actual new designs are being proposed, like the Tricarbide Grooved-ring nuclear rocket.

[Anonymous No.11026291]

>>11026281
Oh absolutely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygKBj9V-XV0

[Anonymous No.11026299]

>>11026236
>>11026228
>>11026220
samefag and probably thunderfoot

[Anonymous No.11026302]

>>11026236
Are you insulting my faith in SLS (PBUH)? Behave yourself or I will give you a taste of congressional budget cuts!

[Anonymous No.11026318]

>>11026279
Most car turbochargers use cast impellors and compressor wheels, and they routinely push >50,000 RPM with no issue. Any automotive turbo shop worth their salt should have no problem balancing your impellors and exhaust turbines. The housings also beg to be casted.

[Anonymous No.11026328]

>>11026318
Okay but these casts were not done with PLA prints off an Ender 3.

[Anonymous No.11026346]

>>11026328
Fair point. Maybe you could use a UV-resin printer to cast a high-tolerance mold that you then use to cast the wax investment for your compressor wheel, lol.

That, or just use the resin plastic as the investment if you aren't too worried about poisonous fumes, lol.

[Anonymous No.11026351]

>>11026328
He could use an ebay turbo, what could go wrong with a good old shanghai spinner?

[Anonymous No.11026359]

>SLS
>Doesn't even have a real second stage
>Launching ever
They spent 10 fucking years developing a fucking tank with 4 previously developed engines strapped to it.
Can they get any less competent at spaceflight?

[Anonymous No.11026360]

>>11026346
I can't say because I have no experience with resin prints. Give it a try.

[Anonymous No.11026363]

>>11026351
>Giving yourself the good ol' spicy shanghai spinner.
No thanks, I don't want to die with pieces of poorly quality controlled Chinese turbomachinery blade lodged in my vital organs. It would be too embarrassing an end.

[Anonymous No.11026367]

>>11026351
Colin Furze made a few DIY turbojets that way so it could be a good idea.

[Anonymous No.11026370]

>>11026363
link to video?

[Anonymous No.11026376]

>>11026370
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBBIbTUvWnY

[Anonymous No.11026381]

>>11026359
No, but you can't get much more efficient at stretching your jobs program

[Anonymous No.11026385]

>>11026363
You don't trust an ebay turbo to keep hot preburner exhaust out of your oxidizer? Coward.

[Anonymous No.11026387]

>>11026104
You could, but it's probably more inefficient than just directly heating the ice with a big fucking resistor(BFR). Cause for a rocket engine you have to go through the electrical energy, chemical energy, to thermal energy, whereas with a BFR it's electrical energy to thermal energy. Although the flow coming out from a raptor will probably carry stuff with it, meaning less crap that you have to melt. The russians also invented a rocket engine based drill that used supersonic jets of hot gas to drill through soil and rock. Supposedly it could drill at up to 1 meter per second(!!!!!). See underground rocket on wikipedia for more. Although it may not be that efficient. Still it might be useful to use the exhaust from a raptor to expose the buried ice, which might only be under a meter of regolith.

[Anonymous No.11026393]

>>11026253
Thanks. She doesn't know much about rockets but she perks up when I ask her safety questions. It's pretty cute.

>>11026255
http://risacher.org/rocket/
I started here. As for the propellant to use, I recommend nos as its safe (kinda, most nonmedical and nonfood vendors put a small amount of neurotoxin to discurage huffing), and can be used as a monopropellant and thus avoids any mixing issues.

[Anonymous No.11026398]

>>11026290
>turbomachinery is an arcane art
Indeed. This was the book I used when I was part of a team to design a turbopump for an engine.

[Anonymous No.11026402]

>>11026398
>Handbooks are usually small instruction manuals
>Turbopump handbook is the size of a cinderblock.
It checks out.

[Anonymous No.11026404]

>>11026398
THICC

[Anonymous No.11026405]

>>11026174
>>11026188
DLP 3d printed ceramics have good enough tolerances that you can make investment casting molds for single crystal jet turbine blades. The resolution's so good that STL couldn't be used because of the triangulation.
>>11026346
ceramic+resin that gets fired in an oven has been used to make jet turbine blade molds. It's not going to be easy to do this though. For best results you need it to be DLP with a really strong UV lamp. You need more powah to cure resin ceramic slurry that's close to fucking opaque.

[Anonymous No.11026407]

POTUS should be shaming Boeing for being corrupt pieces of shit.
Maybe they'd actually try, then, but I vote for hanging them for treason.

[Anonymous No.11026422]

>>11026376
I want to see her on all fours, naked, with an apple in her mouth.

[Anonymous No.11026423]

>>11026407
I'd go after them for essentially defrauding the US taxpayer, however in the end the waste of space money is pretty small compared to how much money is being wasted in other sectors of the government. If NASA's budget were a significant portion of the budget then that might be a different story, as is even though the waste is enormous it's still practically nothing compared to the money wasted in welfare, border operations, the military, trade, social security fraud, etc.

[Anonymous No.11026429]

>>11026367
Diy turbojets were a big thing in the 90s and 00s. They suck, mostly because of the shitty, inefficient centrifugal compressors and exhaust turbines. That said, if you're going to build one, then for the love of God, get your turbo from somewhere reputable.

[Anonymous No.11026430]

>>11026423
>Corruption is fine
Yeah, that's not gonna run by my books.
The only thing they can do that is right, is cancel this abomination and get everyone at Boeing fired.

[Anonymous No.11026433]

>>11026422
Bonus points if you call her Miss Piggy and make her call you Kermit while you fuck her.

[Anonymous No.11026435]

>>11026422
>>11026433

Blessed chubby-chaser digits.

[Anonymous No.11026437]

>>11026430
It's not fine, I'm just offering an explanation as to why it's not really being addressed by anybody with the power to do so. It's corrupt but there are dozens of other corruptions going on simultaneously, and most of them are doing the same kind of money wasting on a much larger scale that requires them to be addressed first. Or they would be addressed, if half of the government hadn't dropped everything at the start of 2016 and completely ignored it's responsibilities to try and usurp a legitimate election to the detriment of every function of the government machine. It's a fucking mess, it's why privates are important.

[Anonymous No.11026445]

>>11026437
I see we're having another case of Orange man bad syndrome.

[Anonymous No.11026454]

>>11026429
The future of small-scale jet thrust is electric which isn't a real jet but they're more efficient, sound and look the same.
>>11026405
>The resolution's so good that STL couldn't be used because of the triangulation.
Wow!
>>11026430
It's now too big to cancel.

[Anonymous No.11026457]

>>11026423
It is not about waste of taxpayer money, rather about waste of decades after Apollo achieving nothing of value in spaceflight.

[Anonymous No.11026460]

>>11026255
Machining question: How much of a challenge is it to drill a small hole (5 to 2 mm ID) through a metal plate (that may be up to 25mm thick) at an angle (i.e. the hole isn't perpendicular to the plate face)?

This is for machining an injector plate for propellant where the injector holes are at angles such that the streams from the holes intersect.

[Anonymous No.11026484]

>>11026460
Not machinist anon but it depends on the material and the quality of your drill press (you are using a drill press right?) Any drill press worth it's salt can drill through mild steel just make sure to use plenty of fluid. The angle shouldn't matter but don't quote me on that I'm not an expert.

[Anonymous No.11026494]

>>11026484
I guess a drill press can be used. I was thinking of using either copper or aluminum as the plate material. However I have little machining experience (done some basic work on a lathe) so I'm not sure on the machining details. I figured that I could just get someone else to do it for me, but I'm trying to do that now to get parts of my engine welded and I'm struggling to find someone available.

[Anonymous No.11026510]

>>11026494
Aluminium is easy as shit to machine, it also melts at 600 degrees so be careful where you put it in a rocket engine.

[Anonymous No.11026515]

>>11026510
If the aluminum plate is the face of an injector assembly, then wouldn't the propellant flow behind and through it help cool it? Or would it be safer to use steel?

[Anonymous No.11026536]

>>11026515
Umm this is something you should have done the maths on. Even if the propellant did manage to keep it below 600 degrees it would deform/lose significant strength at those temperatures. 0/10 would not fly on your rocket.

[Anonymous No.11026568]

>>11025840
The USSR worked economically because of slave labor. Economic problems only really started happening in the 70s and 80s because of no more gulag and no modernization.

[Anonymous No.11026569]

>>11026536
Aluminum has no place in rocket engines.

[Anonymous No.11026575]

>>11026569
not even for the pipes?

[Anonymous No.11026580]

>>11026024
what are you even going on about?

[Anonymous No.11026582]

>>11026569
Well no shit, this thread is full of cowboy engineers.

[Anonymous No.11026586]

>>11026575
Will probably burst under pressure.

[Anonymous No.11026589]

>>11026582
>cowboy engineers.
But they are the ones who are going to be welding hotrods on the moon.

[Anonymous No.11026598]

>>11026569
Good thing my first engine is made of 314 steel.

>>11026582
I'm from the midwest, so I'll be a hillbilly engineer.

[Anonymous No.11026599]

>>11026580
Instead of creating a mars habitat by tunneling through rock, tunnel through ice instead. The idea being that we have to melt ice anyway to make propellant and that an ice tunnel boring machine might weigh less and require less consumables. Yes, the tunnel walls will be very cold and will need to be insulated.

[Anonymous No.11026611]

>>11026589
>>11026598
It's a British term meaning someone who does shoddy, reckless work. Using aluminium in a rocket engine is what a cowboy would do.

[Anonymous No.11026625]

So...
Did /kspg/ get nuked again? Is it gone for good this time?

[Anonymous No.11026629]

>>11026599
Ice at martian temperatures is just as hard as the rock around it

[Anonymous No.11026632]

>>11025847
. . . take twice as long?

[Anonymous No.11026635]

>>11025389
>>11025411

See modern F1 cars far an example. When the new turbo hybrid engines were introduced, power and efficiency shot up, but the cars became so quiet fans were complaining they couldn't hear them on the track.

[Anonymous No.11026647]

>>11026629
True, but we can melt it. If we're clever we may not have to melt all of it. IE we slice it into blocks with a hot knife.

[Anonymous No.11026651]

>>11026625
It died and someone hasn't set up a new thread yet.

[Anonymous No.11026662]

>>11026635
one of the many bad things about this decade is that care are now really quiet. Not even only for aesthetic reasons, I'm a cyclist too and I can't hear the fuckers coming.

[Anonymous No.11026663]

>>11026024
You'll need drills to reach the ice anyway, at least at any of the sites being considered (and in general, at any locale which has water ice while being near enough to the equator) so save yourself a lot of complication and stick to drills for everything.

[Anonymous No.11026688]

To the anons I called cowboys, I don't mean to put you off, it's great to finally see /sci/ doing practical work instead of just wanking off to test scores as usual but don't fall into the trap of thinking you can build something just because you know all the theory. I learned that the hard way, Keep trying and learn from your failures.

[Anonymous No.11026697]

>>11026076
>hydrazine MONOPROPELLANT engines
oh no no no

[Anonymous No.11026706]

>>11026161
>it's an RD-191 clone
Chine is good at copying, which means they'll copy Starship once it's proven to work. It probably won't use FFSC but it may use fuel-rich methalox staged combustion, which I honestly don't know why no one else has tried yet, since methane gets you nearly the same TWR benefit as kerosene, but you can avoid having to develop oxygen-rich staged combustion hardware.

[Anonymous No.11026713]

>>11026688
Don't worry. I've been told worse about my project.

[Anonymous No.11026720]

Did you guys see this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rypDCZ1H1I

[Anonymous No.11026725]

>>11026706
>Chine is good at copying, which means they'll copy Starship once it's proven to work.
Problem for China is the period between "once it's proven to work" and them producing a working copy, the goalposts will have already shifted. Whether it's the 18 meter version of Starship or something else, by the time they can approach parity the successor/s will already have obsoleted it.

[Anonymous No.11026727]

>>11026720

[Anonymous No.11026732]

>>11026111
based trips checked !

[Anonymous No.11026734]

>>11026647
You don't have to melt it or slice it with a hot knife, you just have to warm it as you dig it. Ice at -100 is quite hard but ice at -20 is soft and easy enough to dig through with hardened steel (source, I live in Canada and have had to remove large buildups of ice with an ax on very cold days).
If you were tunneling into a glacier on Mars you could first of all probably get away just fine using a road head with tungsten carbide bits to dig through the unwarmed ice, and you'd definitely get away with it if you warmed the ice first via hot water or steam, for example. Simply have a sump pump collecting water that runs off of the work face, warm it up, spray it back through the road head's bit as it digs, repeat. After each pass load the slush and ice chunks on the ground into buckets to carry away and melt.

[Anonymous No.11026741]

>>11026734
nuke the ice and it'll warm up

[Anonymous No.11026744]

China is copying Crew Dragon for their replacement of their Souyz copy.

[Anonymous No.11026746]

>>11026725
On the free market, sure, but Chine doesn't care about the free market, they want their own Starship clone that they control and operate and depend on no-one else to get. Same probably goes for other powerful nations around the world once it becomes extremely clear that SpaceX is serious, they're gonna pull it off, and then the US is gonna be the only player with a literal fleet of hundreds of rapidly reusable 100+ tons-to-LEO Starships, which can also take people and cargo to the Moon and Mars.

[Anonymous No.11026767]

>>11026741
not incorrect
If you wanna be more efficient you could get a kilopower reactor and run water through it directly instead of relying on passive heat pipes, and generate a LOT of fission heat very quickly, which due to the nature of kilopower's reaction economy would be as fast as you could remove the heat generated. Essentially you can use a slightly modified kilopower reactor core to generate water close to boiling temperature as fast as you can pump that water through the core, which could be dozens or hundreds of kg's per second.
You could spray that hot water at an ice wall (inside a pressurized work are of course) to tunnel into the wall and get a bunch of water, but once you were decently deep inside the wall and assuming there was a lot of ice below you too, you could melt a pool of water, put the reactor into the pool with a pump moving water through the reactor from the surrounding pool, and simply pump water out at your leisure, since that little pool is very quickly going to warm up a lot, melt a huge amount of ice, become a decently sized lake, and only stop growing once the amount of heat generated by the reactor is enough to keep the volume of liquid water at 0C, at which point an equal amount would be freezing and thawing constantly. Any water you remove, the temperature of the lake goes up a bit, that removed water's mass in surrounding ice melts, lake volume returns to constant.

[Anonymous No.11026806]

>>11026688
don't worry I don't know the theory either I just think I can build it because I watched a scott manley video once

[Anonymous No.11026811]

Starship landing is going to be a little intense. Swinging that thing around and coming to a suicide hover slam. All a few hundred meters from the ground. After aerobraking all the way in from mach 15.

Where are they going to fit seats to strap everyone into?

[Anonymous No.11026820]

>>11026811
the bed/bunks/capsules will probably have straps

[Anonymous No.11026834]

>>11026663
a drill for digging down may be different from a TBM which digs horizontally. Besides, we can just use an excavator, which can perform multiple different tasks unlike a TBM.
>>11026734
the idea behind melting it and using a hot knife is that we have less parts that wear. This means we don't need to keep importing tungsten carbide bits from earth.
>>11026767
>>get a kilopower reactor and run water through it directly instead of relying on passive heat pipes, and generate a LOT of fission heat very quickly
Looks like you can. There's a proposal to use one to make a probe that can tunnel into Europa:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20190026714.pdf
Descent rate's less than 1 meter per hour though. You'll probably make the ice radioactive too, which is bad cause eventually you'd like humans to live in the tunnels you're making.

[Anonymous No.11026836]

>>11026834
>your's look abit small...

[Anonymous No.11026839]

>>11026811
That stomach curdling flip is one of the main reasons why no space agency or sane customer will want to put people on it, Elon even admitted that Starship can’t flip itself without out firing the Raptors. Also, remember when Raptor was supposed to be able to throttle low enough to allow Starship to hover for a controlled descent? People dumb enough to book a crewed Starship flight really put the suicide, in suicide burn...even coming in backwards (on final descent? not reentry) like Falcon 9 would be a better arrangement. At least Shuttle could glide, if anything goes wrong with the Raptors everybody onboard Starship is screwed.

[Anonymous No.11026843]

>>11026834
On TBM vs. excavator; fair, but a good reason to use a boring machine is it potentially handles multiple jobs at once, creating compacted bricks and leaving behind a stable and shielded space for living quarters to be introduced.

[Anonymous No.11026869]

>>11026706
I was curious why Blue went oxygen rich, does anyone know? Coking isn't a problem because methane.

[Anonymous No.11026879]

>>11026869
Probably because running it closed cycle fuel-rich would mean that coming out of the pump assembly, the fuel is hot and thus would make it less effective at cooling the engine in regen cooling (since most of the fuel would be turned into a gas coming out of the turbo or at least very close to being a gas). This can be worked around (maybe) by splitting the fuel flow coming out of the pump, having one part go to the turbo then the other to the regen, but that might negatively impact how much energy the pump generates for a given mass flow rate.

This problem can also be worked around by just going to oxygen-rich. This way, all of the cool fuel stay's cool before being used for regen cooling. Or at least that's my assessment on this.

[Anonymous No.11026880]

11026839
Starship has multiple engines for a reason, FUD nigger

[Anonymous No.11026885]

>>11026839
fuck off you fudder

[Anonymous No.11026887]

>>11026885
>giving it the (You)
Fuck off newfag

[Anonymous No.11026888]

>>11026839
Yeah why didn't they think of making a glider for landing on fucking Mars kek

[Anonymous No.11026893]

>>11026839
So you're saying that the ROMBUS assslam is the way to go?

[Anonymous No.11026894]

>>11026879
Dude, in between being pumped and going into the preburner, the fuel would flow around the engine as coolant. That's what RS-25 does, that's what Raptor does (remember, Raptor has a fuel rich turbopump AND an oxygen rich turbopump). AFAIK Raptor's oxygen pump is the only staged combustion pump ever designed that effectively pumps and dumps in pretty much one step.

[Anonymous No.11026905]

>>11026894
Oh right, forgot about that. Then in that case, idk. Maybe Blue Origin took some notes from the RD-190 because they wanted to be conservative with their design.

[Anonymous No.11026916]

>>11026894
>virgin recirculation and cooling versus chad pump and dump

[Anonymous No.11026923]

>>11026916
>chad pump and dump
kek

[Anonymous No.11026924]

>>11026905
You're right on that score, the BE-4 is an extremely conservative design.

[Anonymous No.11026933]

>>11026923
Seems like it wouldn't be difficult for them to pump that unburnt fuel rich exhaust back into the bell. Compared to what's going on in the rest of the engine it should be comparatively cool. I guess it might just not be necessary but it still makes my autism twitch a bit to see all that good propellant being thrown overboard.

[Anonymous No.11026943]

>>11026933
IIRC, the exhaust pipe generates a little bit of thrust and the Merlin vectors that for roll control (that way two engines aren't needed for roll control). If the exhaust were piped back into the bell like the F-1, then it can't be used for thrust vectoring.

[Anonymous No.11026945]

>>11026885
>>11026887
You do know Raptor failed twice on the Starhopper right? Once where it didn’t ignite and once on the barely successful 150m hop, where it set itself on fire and cut out at the last minute leading to a hard landing. Elon keeps using the stupid airplane analogy for Starship, but what airplane has engines that fail in some way every flight? I don’t how I feel about these pictures, on one hand I’m impressed by how robust Starhopper is, but on another I’m scared by how close it came to failure.

>>11026893
Unironically , yes.

https://m.imgur.com/a/TjJd6XR

[Anonymous No.11026948]

>>11026945
what am I looking at here?

[Anonymous No.11026950]

11026945
Go expend some legacy hardware Jim, advancement requires actually trying new things which do not tend to perform at production capacity the literal first time they fly

[Anonymous No.11026955]

>>11026948
The guts and corpse of Starhopper, it landed so hard it embedded itself in the concrete...

Some schizophrenic hopped the fence and took a bunch of pictures of it, he’s been arrested.

https://www.kveo.com/news/local-news/man-arrested-for-trespassing-into-spacex-property/

[Anonymous No.11026958]

>>11026948
Someone who's going to prison.

[Anonymous No.11026960]

>>11026955
>>11026958
oh nononono

[Anonymous No.11026961]

>>11026955

[Anonymous No.11026965]

>>11026961

[Anonymous No.11026967]

11026945
no, you're not scared at all, you're the same paid shill that has been raiding /sci/ for the past few years now

the only tragedy here is the fact that you continue to remain alive

[Anonymous No.11026968]

>>11026965
Damn, those COPVs(?) got messed up.

[Anonymous No.11026969]

>>11026961

[Anonymous No.11026978]

Some more rocket porn.

[Anonymous No.11026982]

>>11026943
Ah, ok that makes sense then, although I guess you could build a non-vectoring variant for any applications in which that was required, but I do know several other sea level rockets do a similar thing. I wonder if it wouldn't be possible somehow to inject a bit of spare LOX into that exhaust chamber just to more efficiently utilize it. Idunno, I'm probably just fucking retarded and this would melt the exhaust tube or something but pic related is what I'm thinking of.

[Anonymous No.11026999]

>>11025677
>833t to LEO
what the fuck would you even do with that

[Anonymous No.11027003]

>>11026978
Atlas was a weird rocket, still can't believe one of our first operational rockets was a pseudo-single stage to orbit vehicle.

[Anonymous No.11027004]

>>11026999

[Anonymous No.11027005]

>>11026999
Build the first colony in orbit, and the necessary infrastructure to process asteroids and lunar ores into more ships and colonies.

[Anonymous No.11027006]

>>11026999
all of it

[Anonymous No.11027019]

>>11026955
>>11026961
>>11026965
>>11026945
Am I retarded if I don't think this looks that bad? I'm pretty skeptical of the starship itself, and am expecting a massive failure coming from it in the next year or two, but honestly I was expecting worse from what you described.

[Anonymous No.11027048]

Hi, "sls/orion willneverfly" guy here.

After reading up on the MK1, the info on the starhopper test and now these photos, I've lost hope.

The promise that MK1 will fly in 60 days is out the window. The entire rocket will be disassembled and rebuilt. I was clueless and thought up until Saturday that the mockup was near-entirely built, just needed some wiring. This thing will not fly by March 2020, let alone 2019.

Match that with its terrible performance numbers for moon flights (which is what the government and Blue Origin), I have downgraded my view.

NO ONE is getting to space.

[Anonymous No.11027051]

>>11026982
Choking the flow means the pressure will build up inside the gas generator outlet which directly correlates to a drop in pressure differential between the high and low pressure sides of the turbine. Basically, by trying to put a nozzle on the gas generator outlet, you rob power from the turbopump.

[Anonymous No.11027055]

>>11027048
Remember this comment when Starship MK 1 hops in three months, anon.
Take the steel pill.

[Anonymous No.11027063]

>>11027051
True, thus less propellant flow, etc, etc.

[Anonymous No.11027064]

>>11027055
Do I take that before of after my 6 a day BlackPills? Can I still drink vodka with them?

[Anonymous No.11027075]

>>11027064
worked for the soviet union

[Anonymous No.11027086]

>>11026945
>but what airplane has engines that fail in some way every flight?
Are you aware of pretty much every pre-1950 attempt at the jet engine? It's early days yet.

[Anonymous No.11027090]

>>11027019
It looks like it caught fire, shat some engine bits, and landed hard. Which is pretty much true.

[Anonymous No.11027093]

>>11027075
And they still have a crewed program. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11027101]

>>11026965
thumbnail looked like dead feral hogs

[Anonymous No.11027102]

>>11027086
anon, that's the shill
he's not here to learn, he's here to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about Musk, SpaceX and all associated items for reasons borne of ass pain
You'll never hear him speak ill of SLS or BO, which further proves the "genuine paid shill" part

[Anonymous No.11027111]

>>11027048
Remember that SpaceX hasn't disappointed spaceflight for 30 years like NASA has. They've shown that they can stay focused and move forward from problems. Sure, they might not launch Mk1 this year, but it will launch eventually and I don't mean SLS-tier "eventually".

Have hope.

[Anonymous No.11027122]

>>11027111
Trips of truth

[Anonymous No.11027133]

>>11027122
>elon_dubs.jpg
Checked and Muskpilled.

[Anonymous No.11027141]

>>11027122
>>11027133
check out those numbers...

[Anonymous No.11027148]

>>11027141
now... that's a sexy rocket.

[Anonymous No.11027153]

>>11027141
Is that thing vomiting hydrazine out the side?

[Anonymous No.11027156]

>>11027111
>>11027122
>>11027133
111,22,33.
wtf is this?

[Anonymous No.11027160]

>>11027153
It appears to be a Long March 4. I guess the propellant coming out of the side is a feature not a bug.

[Anonymous No.11027168]

>>11027153
China/10

[Anonymous No.11027177]

>July 2019
>Starhopper does first hop
>Fast and Furious writer confirms that series will go to space
Coincidence? Probably, but imagine films being made in space.

[Anonymous No.11027184]

>>11027177
>fbi agent gies undercover to find people robbing trucks.
>former us marshal and an assassin fight super soldier
>former marshal punches aliens on mars to save ambiguous brown hotty

[Anonymous No.11027191]

>>11027177
Imagine: all those actors desperately trying to figure out how the fuck they do shit in zero g and flailing about

[Anonymous No.11027198]

>>11027191
It'll make the fight scenes in good space action films awkward but funny, and it'll make the same scenes in bad films absolutely hilarious. A teribad company like Asylum trying to do mirco-g action would make lots of people bust their diaphragms from laughing.

[Anonymous No.11027216]

>>11027191
Imagine The Expanse but they actually float scenes on the float, on the float

[Anonymous No.11027224]

>>11027153
Hydrazine doesn't fume like that, that's nitrogen tetroxide. Arguably worse to breathe.

[Anonymous No.11027227]

>>11027224
>getting bisected from the bottom up is arguably worse than being torn apart by a crocodile

[Anonymous No.11027229]

>>11027216
>big daddy bezos owns the expanse now
wont have to imagine for very much longer

[Anonymous No.11027231]

>>11027153
Like the other anon said, it's Nitrogen Tetroxide, recognizable by that rusty red-orange color. It's a powerful oxidizer and is corrosive, neurotoxic, and will begin to smoke on contact with air and can very easily burst into flames.

[Anonymous No.11027241]

>>11027216
>>11027229
>episodes take years to film due to having to wait for transfer windows

[Anonymous No.11027261]

>>11027241
nah you'd just film all the mars scenes for the next couple seasons in one go on Mars, and do all the in-ship shots in LEO

Or far far more realistically use New Glenn to film in-ship scenes and keep all planet/asteroid scenes CGI

[Anonymous No.11027274]

>https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1179107539352313856
sub $250k v2.0 Raptors ftw

[Anonymous No.11027279]

>>11027241
Just have green screens in space.

[Anonymous No.11027281]

>>11027274
and the fuckers are already below $1 million on v1.0, and I'd call that an outright win. No wonder they think they can fly a passenger service on this thing, the engine cost alone on SuperHeavy are on par with a 737-MAX.

[Anonymous No.11027286]

>>11027281
I think the 737 saves on heatshield costs, though, and they definitely hire cheaper coders for flight software

[Anonymous No.11027288]

>>11027261
>new glenn
lmao
I don't think bezos gives enough of a fuck about BO to care that the money goes to them
he'd probably just use starship cause it's there and would make him far more money to do this shit here and now at low cost

[Anonymous No.11027290]

>>11027281
I'm gonna try to get marginally rich just so that I can buy a Raptor from Elon just to hang for display. Eventually Raptors will be no more expensive than a sportscar.

[Anonymous No.11027294]

>>11027288
I love Starship but I'll be surprised if it flies crew because 2022 and shocked if it flies them in 2021.

[Anonymous No.11027295]

>>11027290
just buy the starship part
they're about the same price

[Anonymous No.11027299]

>>11027294
new glenn is unlikely to fly by '22 either, and they still have to do the NASA safety song and dance, which if the technical side doesn't slide them, that certainly will

[Anonymous No.11027304]

>>11027286
Superheavy doesn't have much heat shielding (aside from the giga-dance floor)

[Anonymous No.11027305]

>>11027288
Bezos would never fund SpaceX equipment in any way, in the past he has done shit like attempt to patent barge landing to obstruct them.

[Anonymous No.11027306]

BIG BOI

[Anonymous No.11027307]

>>11027294
If Starship makes Orbit in 2020, I will bet the vehicle is trashed but does succeed in landing.

[Anonymous No.11027309]

>>11027295
>son, you are of man now, having earned first $500k
>are you of biy butiful house
>or A TIN FUCKING CAN

[Anonymous No.11027312]

>>11027309
correction
a tin can that can into space

[Anonymous No.11027313]

>>11027286
They do probably spend a lot more on buying the FAA tho

[Anonymous No.11027323]

>>11027309
I would unironically buy the husk of a Starship, stick it out in the country and turn it into a house, kinda like pic related.

[Anonymous No.11027327]

>>11027323
Make it into a restaurant and cook on methane fueled grills that were made to look like Raptors.

[Anonymous No.11027330]

>>11027327
Restore it to flight readiness with scrap parts and an angle grinder. Live in space. No property tax.

[Anonymous No.11027333]

>bezos' face when first amazon prime delivery to space will be on a starship

[Anonymous No.11027337]

>>11027330
>be uber libertarian
>want to leave this gay Earth to be free of taxes
>rebuild starship from scraped ones
>barely make it into space
>drifting in the void between Mars and Earth
>crack open a cold one and relax
>hear a knock on the door
>it's the space IRS

[Anonymous No.11027342]

>>11027337
Open the bay doors and unleash killdozer gundam to blast spaceniggers off the face of the universe for violating the NAP

[Anonymous No.11027354]

>>11027290
I want to buy a raptor and rig it onto some kind of wheeled vehicle and set a land speed record

[Anonymous No.11027358]

>>11027342
>Firefly is FUCKING DEAD.
THEY TOOK THE SKY LADS, WHEN ARE WE FINALLY GOING TO RISE UP?

[Anonymous No.11027360]

>>11027354
Been done before
The issue is not thrust, but preventing your wheels from clanging into the warp and disintigrating your vehicle when you slam into the ground

[Anonymous No.11027361]

>>11027354
I mean not much of you will actually continue existing but man, what a record those parts will hit.

[Anonymous No.11027364]

>>11027337
it's okay you DID get a Star Helix security contract, right fren?

Remember, no laws on Ceres, only cops

[Anonymous No.11027381]

[Anonymous No.11027390]

>>11026720
>>11026727
Are those the rolled/shaped ones that just use one weld Elon was talking about?

[Anonymous No.11027415]

>>11027390
>Are those the rolled/shaped ones that just use one weld Elon was talking about?
Apparently they have started doing that at the Cocoa Facility but I think most of those have been assembled in multiple parts like the older ones because I saw a video from two weeks earlier with a similar amount of rings all over the property.

It's child's play for SpaceX to make a 30 foot ring from a roll of metal, I don't think it's going to be that long before we see them make single seam rings at both facilities. I'm surprised they didn't do it from the start.

[Anonymous No.11027442]

What did we think of the Italian Air Force signing up for a Virgin Galactic flight?

[Anonymous No.11027460]

Eastern times, I think

"Wednesday, Oct. 2:

9:20 a.m. – Space station change of command ceremony, during which Ovchinin will hand over command to ESA (European Space Agency) astronaut Luca Parmitano.
11:45 p.m. – Farewell and Soyuz hatch closure coverage (hatch closure at 12:15 a.m. Oct. 3)
Thursday, Oct. 3:

3 a.m. – Soyuz undocking coverage (undocking scheduled for 3:36 a.m.)
5:30 a.m. – Soyuz deorbit burn and landing coverage (deorbit burn at 6:06 a.m. and landing at 7 a.m.)
At the time of undocking, Expedition 61 will begin aboard the station, with Parmitano, NASA astronauts Christina Koch, Jessica Meir and Andrew Morgan, and Russian cosmonauts Alexander Skvortsov and Oleg Skripochka comprising a six-person crew on the orbital outpost."
NASA TV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

[Anonymous No.11027467]

>>11026720
so many rings...

[Anonymous No.11027477]

>>11027327
>not grilling on grid fins

[Anonymous No.11027485]

>>11025681
>Sea Dragon was the king of paper rockets
Nah, it came in behind Orion.

[Anonymous No.11027516]

>>11027485
And that's without its weapons and secondary craft bays open

[Anonymous No.11027519]

>>11027485
>>11027516
Retard tier meme rocket for zog

[Anonymous No.11027532]

>>11025840
>implying that the USSR was a socialist society

[Anonymous No.11027537]

>>11027532

[Anonymous No.11027545]

>>11026968
Amazing what happens to oldspace-style composites left outside in the weather, isn't it? This is why it is so important to only build spacecraft in clean rooms! <cough>

[Anonymous No.11027570]

>>11027537
i'm not a communist, epic meme though. I challenge anyone to name one (1) fundamental difference in the economic system of the ussr and any typical western country.

[Anonymous No.11027573]

>>11027177
>plot reason why they have to E2E hop to Japan

[Anonymous No.11027579]

>>11027570
The vast majority of production was state owned...

[Anonymous No.11027580]

>>11027570
USSR never devised a system/method to effectively deal with "cheating," especially in terms of cooking the books. This led to all kinds of problems, as 1-2% off a monthly quota every month for 50 years conceals a real instability that the planners of a centralized economy are unaware of.
This exists on a smaller scale today in China: they've been cheating GDP figures on provincial levels by about 2% for 10-15 years, and now the discrepancy is getting too big to compensate for even with a partial market system.

[Anonymous No.11027585]

>>11027570
>>11027580
The most dramatic effect of one small "cheat" were falsified approvals and test results for Chernobyl Reactor 4. The building's construction was never to spec, and its safety tests had never actually been properly conducted. Both of these were done to create the illusion the reactor had been brought online on time and under budget.

[Anonymous No.11027595]

>>11026720
That tank bulkhead is looking spiffy. The Cocoa site is definitely working off a lot of good lessons from Boca- the process looks better, the pieces look smoother, all in all the Mk II looks like its coming along beautifully. It's gonna be wild watching this kind of rapid iteration out in the open.

[Anonymous No.11027613]

>>11026839
>At least Shuttle could glide, if anything goes wrong with the Raptors everybody onboard Starship is screwed.
Surely you don't seriously think that the Shuttle could fucking glide down from space without any propulsion and land normally.

It had a terrible glide ratio and it would fall out of the sky. On approach it's ratio is half that of a Cessna and a quarter that of a 747.

[Anonymous No.11027626]

>>11026839
The same was true of all lunar landings, it's almost as if the Starship is designed to be lunar landing capable.

[Anonymous No.11027643]

>>11026134
high temperature metallurgy is basically black magic and the high temperature oxygen resistant stuff that the Soviets invented for the RD-180 and SpaceX invented for their Raptor is even more so
The culture among the Chinese aerospace suppliers just isn't autistic enough to manage that sort of stuff.

[Anonymous No.11027667]

>>11026767
Kilopowers core isn't built for the r high power output there are limits to what you can get away with. What you're suggesting will generate more electricity for an equal thermal power though so I more or less agree with you.

[Anonymous No.11027676]

>>11026241
>>11026242
don't forget that said Soviet milsurp rebreather kit was rated for a maximum depth of a couple of meters

[Anonymous No.11027692]

>>11026625
it can't maintain a thread in modern /vg/

[Anonymous No.11027707]

>>11026834
ice doesn't become radioactive
it's the dirt that becomes radioactive

[Anonymous No.11027712]

>>11026839
it seems that Methalox hot-gas blowtorch RCS is still on the table
they'll probably have that developed before they manage to get their crew version up and running
with that, they don't need to fire the Raptors to finish the flip

[Anonymous No.11027718]

>>11027692
This is why they elect to raid /egg/ instead
They should have remained banned

[Anonymous No.11027739]

>>11027390
yeah, they've been doing that in Florida for months
they had a lot that they trashed, however

[Anonymous No.11027749]

>>11027613
that was basically the plan, anon
they never fired an engine in atmosphere, I don't think

[Anonymous No.11027777]

>>11027613
>>11027749
The profile was, point retrograde, burn, turn prograde, glide / bank to control decent rate.
If the (RL-10s IIRC?) didn't fire it was stuck in orbit but didn't fire any engines after the de-orbit burn.

[Anonymous No.11027795]

>>11027777
they weren't RL-10, it was the OMS
same engine as the Apollo service module, burning hydrazine and whatever

[Anonymous No.11027805]

>>11027749
>>11027777
That's crazy. I don't understand how something with such a low glide ratio could land this way. Even a helicopter has a better ratio than the shuttle. I understand they wanted drag to slow it down but how do they get so much horizontal distance out of it during the final part of the landing where they are at a lower speed? What am I missing?

[Anonymous No.11027808]

>>11027805
The speed, in the upper atmosphere it was going fast enough to actually climb despite having the aerodynamics of a brick.

>>11027795
Thanks anon, I just knew it wasn't the RS-25s.

[Anonymous No.11027823]

>>11027808
Sure, but what about when it was doing 350 km/h close to the ground? How does a brick manage to land itself in this fashion when a 747 with a much better glide ratio still needs thrust in order to safely land? Whatever the answer, it seems very counter intuitive to me, but it looks like I was definitely wrong.

[Anonymous No.11027832]

>>11027823
This kid nails it if you have 20 minutes to spare.
https://youtu.be/Jb4prVsXkZU

[Anonymous No.11027851]

>>11027823
>>11027832
Also pay attention to how much speed they lose in the flare, they lose ~130 knots in 900ft of altitude.

[Anonymous No.11027919]

>>11027313
We'll see about that.

[Anonymous No.11027924]

>>11027354
>I want to buy a raptor and rig it onto some kind of wheeled vehicle and set a land speed record
Leave us something anon, it's not easy being British these days

[Anonymous No.11027952]

SPINLAUNCH
P
I
N
LAUNCH

[Anonymous No.11027964]

>>11027952
Any news?

[Anonymous No.11027970]

>>11027964
no, just a reminder that they exist

[Anonymous No.11027972]

>>11027970
I want to know what they're up to. Suspiciously quiet

[Anonymous No.11027982]

>>11027972
supposedly we'll find out sometime next year, they're going to be launching from Spaceport America in New Mexico
I guess launching over land/populated areas is fine with slingatrons because your instantaneous impact point instantly transitions from the walls of your launch assembly to over the Atlantic during release

[Anonymous No.11028002]

>>11027537
but it's true that communism has never been achieved. All intents were stopped in the nacionalization phase, that turned into dictatorship. In real communism, there ia no state.

[Anonymous No.11028087]

>>11028002
If something fucks up so bad it cant get past the initial stage it might be a fuck up from the get go.

[Anonymous No.11028089]

>>11028002
i agree, its also unfortunate true free capitalism has never been attained. we've only fallen into corpratistism every time.

[Anonymous No.11028093]

>>11028002
When your ideology keeps failing every time it meets the real world, it's not human nature that's wrong, it's the ideology.

[Anonymous No.11028105]

>>11028002
so what's the difference between anarchy and true communism?

[Anonymous No.11028107]

>>11028105
wishes and faery dust

[Anonymous No.11028115]

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11028117]

SpaceX have a new page up on their website

[Anonymous No.11028121]

I think this is... LUVOIOR A?
also this beautiful graphic
https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/01_starshipspinvertwide_2mbs_1.mp4

[Anonymous No.11028123]

look at this thing

[Anonymous No.11028129]

very large, very pretty render

[Anonymous No.11028144]

>>11027982
Going to be interesting to see how the payload handles the 'slamming into ground level atmosphere at mach 10 bazillions' problem that pessimists always raise

[Anonymous No.11028145]

>>11028117
Not that new, still neat tho
>>11028123
This one is so funny to me. May as well just expend an SS, flush the tanks and quadruple ISS capacity

[Anonymous No.11028156]

>>11028144
it's not an insurmountable physics problem, the DoD has put a lot of effort into hypersonic heatshields and have a bunch of short term solutions cooked up
but you're not carrying that thing to orbit with you

[Anonymous No.11028158]

If 3 or 4 crew dragon stacked, can it reach orbit?

[Anonymous No.11028170]

>>11028145
There is something comical about the quantum leap that SS will represent if it comes off, like a race between a Model T and a Veyron or something. I just cannot fathom why the national agencies cannot see what's coming down the tracks at them and take appropriate action. I mean if I were the head of ESA I'd say 'ok we are facing a new reality of reusability. The entire philosophy of our organisation starts to change today. We may or may not have need for as many rocket manufacturers. We may even have need for *more* rocket manufacturing. However it goes we will ensure continuing funding for our contractors. If they have to retool to build off world habitats and robots instead of rockets to take advantage of drastically lower cost access to space, we will support them to do this'. They can still have the juicy high skilled jobs. Just make them be in something other than reusability if necessary.

[Anonymous No.11028231]

>>11028170
>I mean if I were the head of ESA I'd say 'ok we are facing a new reality of reusability.
SS goes beyond mere reusability. They're already barely accepting F9. SS is also an enormous jump in scale.
It's like going from wooden biplanes to a 747.

[Anonymous No.11028233]

>>11028123
>>11028145
for comparison:

[Anonymous No.11028245]

>>11028145
That'd be a waste of a starship
ISS has long since past retirement age

A new station was needed decades ago

[Anonymous No.11028247]

>>11028170
I wonder why such agencies aren't really accepting reuse even on the Falcon 9 scale. Are they expecting that the commercial market wouldn't be able to generate enough payloads to justify reuse? Do they think that government payloads still dominate the market and said governments are willing to pay extra for expendable rockets? Is it merely because the Shuttle left a bad impression of reuseability? Or is there some economic problem to Starship that I'm forgetting?

[Anonymous No.11028249]

>>11028231
>SS is also an enormous jump in scale
Good point. Makes things even scarier for ESA. I just find their inertia and stubbornness incredible when the writing is on the wall, fat lady is clearing her throat etc. etc. and I can't understand why they can't as I say keep everyone happy by maintaining the budget and substituting any jobs that are threatened with other space work, which if the SS/SH model works will surely be a bonanza. I can only conclude that either a. the French can't swallow their pride and/or b. there would be a massive loss of face for some powerful people if they were to scratch current plans and go all out new space tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.11028254]

>>11028123
>>11028170
>>11028233
Look up what Bigelow Aerospace is doing with inflatable modules, something with 3 times the volume of the ISS could be launched on a single Falcon 9 in a few years.

[Anonymous No.11028259]

>>11028247
>I wonder why such agencies aren't really accepting reuse even on the Falcon 9 scale.
From their perspective, drawing up plans now and competing with the Falcon 9 in 5-10 years seems like an alright plan. They probably still think F9 will actually be flying in that time period, kek

It really says something that Blue Origin is the only entity even coming close to thinking on the right level of scale and concept to compete with SpaceX with a mission statement of "eh, we'll get there when we get there"

[Anonymous No.11028262]

>>11028247
>Are they expecting that the commercial market wouldn't be able to generate enough payloads to justify reuse?
I think one problem they have is they refuse to believe that there is a market for lower-cost launches. They act like the only purpose anyone could have for space launches is to put satellites up, hence Ariane 6 being designed to launch two big GEOsats at once.
They have no concept (or simply refuse to believe because it would shatter their blue pilled worldview) that at a lower launch cost, more applications of space become affordable enough to try.

[Anonymous No.11028264]

>>11028247
SpaceX has been engineering reuseability into their rockets since the Falcon 1 and no one else though it was practical until the Falcon 9 was recovered and re-flown.
Falcon 1 started development in 2006 and Falcon 9 booster B1021 was re-flown in 2017. SpaceX have an 11 year headstart because they were the only ones that considred it viable. Assuming oldspace can move as fast as SpaceX (they can't) I would expect the first re-flight of a booster to be ~2028.

[Anonymous No.11028275]

>>11028264
You don't think they can learn from SpaceX's mistakes and leverage improvements in technology over time, and do it quicker than SpaceX? Second mover advantage or whatever

[Anonymous No.11028282]

>>11028264
The funny thing is, these designs are only becoming simpler to emulate - you're not going to pull a full flow stage combustion engine out of a hat, but a 'good enough' engine on a flying grain silo is cheap and fast enough to iterate on, and full reusability would still blow away the current paradigm even with concessions. Problem is no one in the space has the right mentality to try that. You'd be laughed out of any oldspace boardroom for even suggesting it.

[Anonymous No.11028283]

>>11028275
Such blistering speed is a deeply cultural thing among spacex
"Eternal silicon valley start-up" isn't a joke, here
Old space would have to fundementally change how they exist from the ground up, a full 180, to even begin cranking out shit on a similar level
Stagnancy is a plague like none other, and is not easily cured

[Anonymous No.11028286]

>>11028144
ablative heatshields. Similar to the one's nuclear warheads use.

[Anonymous No.11028291]

>>11028121
Nope it's the James Webb Space Telescope after it got force fed steroids

[Anonymous No.11028293]

>>11028275
They have the advantage of seeing a technique work which is huge but they are so tied down with bureaucracy and politics. They haven't had any competition since the USSR and even then it wasn't like the US government was going to pay the USSR to put up their spy satellites.
They tried to crush SpaceX by buying congress and SpaceX sued congress. They have survived on corruption and monopolies for so long I don't think they can restructure any time soon, at least not until all the politicians they bribed with board possitions retire.

>>11028282
That is why SpaceX is a legit game changer, everyone else just excepts that a fairing AC costs $4m while Musk says "will a house AC work" and his engineers find that yes, yes it will.

[Anonymous No.11028296]

>>11028291
>JSWT on steroids
Terrifying thought. Imagine the delays and cost overruns on that bad boy

[Anonymous No.11028297]

Too many shuttle huggers in the room

[Anonymous No.11028301]

>>11028296
>inb4 SpaceX applies for satellite contracts

[Anonymous No.11028315]

>>11028293
>everyone else just excepts that a fairing AC costs $4m while Musk says "will a house AC work" and his engineers find that yes, yes it will.
Wasn't there a space locker latch that NASA uses/recommends that was fairly expensive and had over 20 parts and SpaceX came up with a latch that costs mere dollars and made up of few parts?

[Anonymous No.11028321]

>>11028315
Yep, NASA approved one was $2000 SpaceX replacement was $5 and lighter.

[Anonymous No.11028322]

>>11028291
that's what I said, LUVOIR A

[Anonymous No.11028326]

>>11028293
the question wasn't "will a house AC work" the question was "let's just use triple redundant house AC units instead of this 4 million dollar aerospace tested into the ground bespoke fairing environmental conditioning solution"

[Anonymous No.11028327]

>>11028321
Source? I swear there was a news article on that, but I'm struggling to find it.

[Anonymous No.11028334]

>>11028327
I think it was the modified bathroom stall thing

[Anonymous No.11028340]

>>11028327
Found this but they don't provide source https://qz.com/281619/what-it-took-for-elon-musks-spacex-to-disrupt-boeing-leapfrog-nasa-and-become-a-serious-space-company/
ctrl + f latch

>>11028326
True but it had the same effect, 3 $5k units is a whole lot better than 1 $4m unit.

[Anonymous No.11028350]

>>11028340
Thanks, I think that's the article I'm remembering, but there needs to be a source on that because it seems almost too funny to be true. The "aerospace grade" AC for payload fairings makes some sense because it was probably designed to suit some super sensitive payload that needed the perfect temperature and humidity and it's just used for other payloads because the money was already spent on it. But a latch? How the hell do you overdesign a latch?

[Anonymous No.11028362]

>>11028350
>How the hell do you overdesign a latch?
The same way you overdesign anything, I would imagine. "As long as the part meets performance guidance I literally don't care how much it costs" "got it boss"

[Anonymous No.11028364]

>>11028350
>How the hell do you overdesign a latch?
>be making Gemini
>space walk = total depressurization of cabin
>never been done b4
>run a million tests
>over engineer the shit out of it
>use it ever after
>forget that post Gemini no latch is ever going to be under those operating conditions again
Even if there was a complete decompression of anything since assuming the crew was suited up and actually survived what is going to be in that locker that is important? Why can't they just break the latch off if it is seized?

Also >>11028362

[Anonymous No.11028380]

>>11028283
Good point, I'd forgotten the cultural angle of the actual workers themselves. Whilst it's a bit of a meme to point out the inefficiency of Europeans having 8 week summer holidays (vacations), I'm guessing the average ESA subcontractor employee could get away with murder and not get fired compared to someone at SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.11028390]

>>11028293
>so tied down with bureaucracy and politics
Fair enough, I think these guys are even beyond the ESA stage because I think ESA could feasibly get away without too much trouble with justifying the redirection of funds from strict rocket production to accompanying space-related activities. Just a case of greasing the right palms in member state governments/European Commission/Parliament etc. Whereas US oldspace - even with the open robbery already taking place - would struggle to just maintain those funds and redirect them into something other than what they were earmarked for. Maybe?

[Anonymous No.11028397]

>>11028390
Just say that the funds are going to the SLS, but don't mention that you meant the SpaceX Launch System and not Space Launch System.

[Anonymous No.11028411]

>>11028390
I would actually assume the opposite, NASA can change direction with each POTAS and often does while ESA was structured from the getgo to be less susceptible to political change because it has multiple members and they foresaw that issue.
I can see NASA making the move away from rockets towards pure research but ULA is going to throw a hissy fit and probably get to make all the rovers for 100x the price NASA could have done it.
ESA is going to maintain their rockets because it's strategically stupid to be dependant on US rockets but they will start feeling pressure to go reuseable.

[Anonymous No.11028429]

>>11028411
>but they will start feeling pressure to go reuseable
At some point SS/SH will presumably be able to loft many multiples what ESA can for the same cost. I'd expect commercial payloads to migrate to SS/SH first as commercial pressure forces it, then science as European science starts falling behind from having tiny payloads, and lastly even the security/defence aspect will be undermined because the US will utterly dominate space with SS/SH. What the hell are the Chinks and Russians going to do when there's countless SSs buzzing around as they please up there?

[Anonymous No.11028433]

>>11028397
kek

[Anonymous No.11028441]

>>11028429
EAS will never rely on the US for military payloads, everything they do rely on the US for the US uses to apply political pressure and that is just too bigger bargaining chip to hand over.
As for Russia the Soyuz isn't that expensive and as they update the engines over time it's payload keeps increasing. They can run it for many years while developing a reuseable booster whithout falling too far behind.
China is already testing grid fins on the Long March 2 and will probably beat the EU and Russia to 2nd place in reuseability.

[Anonymous No.11028461]

>>11028441
I'm just saying at some point the old model will become unsustainable for ESA. The strategic disadvantage will make their 'independent access to space' argument moot when the US has a 100:1 or 1000:1 level of capability. It'd be like saying 'we having an independent navy!' when you have a single RHIB

[Anonymous No.11028465]

>>11028461
A more apt comparison would be the US having a C-5 Galaxy while ESA has a DC-3, it can do the same job just much slower. They can easily keep up with their military space requirements but can't do anything like the Lunar Gateway.

[Anonymous No.11028487]

>>11028465
Not the other guy but I agree with him. Do the same job? Ariane isn't able to keep them in the same league. They don't have plans to compete with the Falcon 9 before 2030. In that landscape, launching a medium payload partially reusable rocket will look like an amateur effort.

[Anonymous No.11028504]

how many starships full of bricks does it take to induce kessler syndrome?

[Anonymous No.11028506]

>>11028487
Lets just say the EU does shitcan their space program, now how do they launch a satellite without the US inspecting it? How do they maintain and improve their ICBM capability?
I'm not saying they won't lose the commercial market because they will (unless subsidized) but it's a matter of national security to maintain rocket production capability.

>>11028504
Use ball bearings in a westward orbit for higher efficency.

[Anonymous No.11028508]

>>11028506
how many starships then?

[Anonymous No.11028510]

>>11028233
Starshit will only be able to draw level with Shuttle aesthetics if they paint the leeward side white for the elite black/white combo. SLS having a fucking orange stage is actually the biggest shortfall of the program.

[Anonymous No.11028514]

>>11028508
If your goal was to induce kessler you could probably do it with a single Falcon 9 launch. Tag the ISS @ ~16km/s and it is done.

[Anonymous No.11028515]

>>11028283
>deeply cultural
Musk runs it like a sweatshop, nothing wrong with admitting that, just don't pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11028518]

>>11028487
What are you talking about? Ariane 5 is already competitive with Falcon 9 in the GTO market (where most the money is) and due to better performance and dual-berthing usually wins in a straight competition. Ariane 6 is more of the same, but cheaper to build and with better performance. Arianespace also benefits from European protectionism and subsidies, which makes A5/6 cheaper and European payloads more likely to fly on it than foreign rockets.

[Anonymous No.11028520]

>>11028510
>>caring about aesthetics at all
>>thinking aesthetics is the biggest problem SLS has
If you want aesthetics just go watch some hollywood movies.

[Anonymous No.11028540]

>>11028518
I'm not saying Ariane is irrelevant in current year, but they don't have a DIRECT answer to F9, and yes they do very much wish they did.

[Anonymous No.11028543]

>>11028520
Spacex have this very Indian imimgrant type attitude to how their shit looks. Have you seen the inside of the Dragon crew capsule. Trying too hard. I suggest they try with what works instead of jerking off over a super sexy launch tower render.

Another thing about spacex. Why aren't they, or nasa, manoevering to integrate the two entities.In stead of the current quasi competition. Spacex provides launch vehicles, NASA focuses on astronauts, space hardware, habitats, vehicles, science laboratories. Spacex wins, because they get gazillions of Congressbuxx and get to be NASA's favourite child. NASA wins because now their legions of boffins have essentially a blank cheque to yeet whatever they want all around the solar system.

Juno is the only vehicle doing anything past Mars and is nearing its end already. Next up is Titan drone! Estimated arrival mid 2030s. Dire. I want dedicaed orbital labs around all the outer planets en route pronto.

Musk also benefits from this by killing all of the competition. In addition he avoids what will happen if he tries to play space baron and do everything as a private company. Imagine the first man to step on another planet being associated not with a country but a corporation. Grim.

[Anonymous No.11028550]

>>11028543
>SpaceX
>NASA
>integrate
putin go away

[Anonymous No.11028561]

>>11028543
>Why aren't they, or nasa, manoevering to integrate the two entities
ULA brought congress for so long NASA can't just turn their back on them. By all rights SLS should be shitcanned and that money used to speed up BFR but the people needed to sign off on that have been promissed "jobs" at ULA that involve not needing to actually show up or do anything in exchange for a couple of million PA paycheck.
If you doubt me watch the SpaceX vs Congress trial, the congress woman says it's "unfortunate you mention that" when Musk points out all the airforce guys that said ULA was the best launch provider now "work" for ULA.

[Anonymous No.11028566]

>>11028506
>How do they maintain and improve their ICBM capability?
They could, oh I don't know, set up a dedicated entity to maintain and improve ICBMs instead of (literally) bolting it onto their satellite launch programme? Apart from that I never suggested they would can their programme. I'm suggesting that at some point the
>matter of national security
justification will become utterly moot unless they adapt because the capabilities of the US (held in deep suspicion by some EU member states let's not forget) will be superior by orders of magnitude.

>>11028518
>Arianespace also benefits from European protectionism and subsidies, which makes A5/6 cheaper and European payloads more likely to fly on it than foreign rockets
It simply doesn't work over the long term:

>SS/SH succeeds in greatly lowering cost of access to space
>Boom in launch activity
>Payloads threaten to go to SS/SH
>ESA looks on jealously
>Ever increasing subsidy required to keep payloads on ESA rockets
>At some point subsidy of commercial payloads becomes unsustainable, else drop subsidy and make companies subsidise Ariane employment scheme themselves, making those companies uncompetitive
>Let commercial payloads go, force science and defence to stay on ESA rockets
>EU space science slowly becomes a joke as US lobs massive amounts of payload into space
>Defence aspect slowly becomes a joke as space becomes effectively US territory

[Anonymous No.11028572]

>>11028275
Second mover requires they start moving. Only Blue Origin is serious about reusable rocket right now.

[Anonymous No.11028577]

>>11028561
desu I think it's for the best that the SLS pork isn't going to the SS program. If it was, the build may very well not have developed as far from the original as it has. Much more impressive, but much less cost and time efficient.

Maybe they really are THAT good at sticking to first principles over there, though.

[Anonymous No.11028580]

>>11028543
>Dragon's interior is too fancy.
And yet it is also functional, it's got a large cargo volume and can carry a large crew once that's ready to go, fold-away screens are great because they can be articulated to make more space inside the capsule and the low-profile sleek crash couches help to cut weight and again make more space. Personally I don't like the whole Iphone aesthetic either but at least with the way it's been done in Dragon it doesn't subtract from any of the capsule's vital functions. What you deem to be "trying too hard" is irrelevant because they have a functional capsule which only a few other space programs can claim, it's also the first proper spaceship which contains all of the necessities for propulsion, habitation, and power storage in a single stage, allowing it to operate without the necessity for a separate propulsion and service module.
>Why aren't they integrating with government.
Because congressbucks take away your liberty to decide on your own how your program aught to be run. Once you tie yourself up with the government you lose your autonomy and the government fucking sucks at running basically everything. NASA can already benefit from SpaceX's capacity to YOTE because SpaceX launches are mega-cheap compared to NASA's or ULA's.
>Musk would benefit by killing off competition.
Except monopoly fucking sucks ass for innovation and for efficiency, monopolies have zero incentive to improve their fields and often if not always deliberately inhibit the field to secure their own position. Imagine the first man to step on a new planet being associated with a Gove*nment instead of free enterprise and unfettered human ingenuity. Grim.

[Anonymous No.11028583]

>>11028543
The strategy your describing (becoming NASA’s golden child) is basically what Blue Origin are trying to do. Blue are essentially trying to twist their architecture to fit NASA’s e.g. Blue Moon for Artemis. Their also setting up a factory and engine testing facility in Alabama to bribe NASA’s piggy bank. It’s kinda payed off considering in the recent technology awards Blue has been the top recipient.

[Anonymous No.11028587]

>>11028561
Yes I am aware of the corruption levels. Im just wondering the following. Lets say starship makes orbit in around 12-18 months (This is the mostly likely scenario - people in this thread arguing six months or some other nonsense also believed the presentation model was an actual rocket and not a water tower with wings and a cone). Musk would then be in a position to extend the olive branch to NASA for a serious partnership. Both would benefit, mainly NASA avoids being upstaged, Spacex gains credibility, security, and fat stacks. Seems like a win win to me.

I doubt NASA bureaucrats would continue to stick their fingers in their ears. Jim can already see the writing on the wall, I bet , but is hamstrung for obvious reasons. If Starship is functional and Spacex offers to partner with nasa, I doubt ULA would be the main concern. Bridenstine is pretty sharp, people here don't really talk about that. Also Trump is going to win in 2020 so they have 5 years to sort this out which is more than enough time. If they sit on their hands, well, we know how that will likely unfold.

[Anonymous No.11028591]

>>11028583
BO is really treading the waters between oldspace and new. I hope it works out for them, we need competition in reusability.

[Anonymous No.11028592]

>>11028566
>the capabilities of the US (held in deep suspicion by some EU member states let's not forget) will be superior by orders of magnitude.
Hmm, I never considered how many MIRVs a single fully fueled Starship could loft from the moon to Earth while obscuring deployment with the sun behind it.

[Anonymous No.11028604]

>>11028591
Their playing the long game, signing contracts, partnering with loads of other companies and placating NASA.

[Anonymous No.11028605]

>>11028587
What is the benefit to partnering with NASA right now? Their budget grows at a glacial pace, their plans indicate severe fossilization of the few brains there that aren't buried in bureaucracy already, they're already building their own heavy lifter and capsule and it's highly unlikely they're going to make it modular so partners can contribute significantly to it because it's existence is justified only so that NASA can avoid having to fire people. Becoming more closely associated with them will likely obligate you to certain things which will probably waste your resources for little or no gain. It seems to me that the greater benefit for both rocketry and spaceflight as a field and for SpaceX and other growing private industries is to remain independent of government control as much as possible. Most of their successes have been the result of them specifically not being part of a government, they can run risky projects that end in RUDs without being accused of wasting tax dollars and forced to slow down development, thus they can innovate and solve problems at a much faster rate and as SpaceX has demonstrated assemble prototypes and parts at a much higher pace. If some fail you're fine as long as investment is still solid, and you have no political alliances or corrupt obligations to sacrifice your project for the monetary or political gains of your allies as government space agencies do.

[Anonymous No.11028613]

>>11028583
I would say it's really working well for them seeing the BE-4 was sold before it was tested.

>>11028587
As others have said they wouldn't be able to change designes on the fly which is a big part of what is getting shit done fast. If SpaceX was attached to NASA when they said BFR will be carbon fiber then it would be carbon fiber even if it took them a decade to make that work.
I think the best way to progess is for SpaceX to keep making the cheapest launch vehicles while increasing their capability and every time ULA wins a contract drag congress though the mud again. Evenutally those in congress will get more scared of being charged for corruption than excited to get ULA bucks (read taxpayers money) when they retire.

>>11028591
BO know that to be competitive in 10 years they are going to need a huge rocket so that is what they are building while funding it with oldspace sales tactics on the BE-4.

>>11028592
We will never know but I do wonder if the airforce has a guy at SpaceX / BO saying, change this design a little so the warhead is compatible.

[Anonymous No.11028615]

>>11028592
>Hmm, I never considered how many MIRVs a single fully fueled Starship could loft from the moon to Earth while obscuring deployment with the sun behind it.
? the EU clearly aspires to becoming a big swinging dick on the global stage, wants its own army, wants independent access to space. Putting your ridiculous scenario to one side, how will the EU prop up its wilting ego in the face of utter dominance by the US in space? France even has its own pretty decent fighter jets etc. due to the need to feel independent.

[Anonymous No.11028630]

>>11028615
It was more a reflection on what kind of silly capabilities Starship might offer that would freak out Europe enough to get their ass in gear.

[Anonymous No.11028638]

>>11028630
Ah sorry space fren

[Anonymous No.11028652]

>>11028615
>feel
Kind of the operative word there. Europe lacks any public or political will in military matters. Put into a space context what little is there will dwindle even more.

[Anonymous No.11028658]

>>11028592
By weight alone it could hold 400 475 kiloton W87 thermonuclear warheads assuming the weapon and it's reentry vehicle is roughly 500 pounds, the exact weight isn't stated but ballparked between 400 and 600lbs. 400 of them would only take up a fraction of Starship's enormous 1000^m3 volume though, if you just piled W87's into it without caring about it's hoisting capacity you could fill it up with about 7142 of them. This would give a hypothetical Starship Interplanetary Guided Missile a potential maximum yield of 182 Megatons firing in reusable mode, if fired in an expendable mode it could probably have near to double that, call it a 364 Megatons. If you detonated a Starship filled by volume with W87's it would have a 3263 Megaton yield.

[Anonymous No.11028668]

>>11028658
>If you detonated a Starship filled by volume with W87's it would have a 3263 Megaton yield.
Those are some nice Martian polar ice caps. Would be a shame if something were to happen to them.

[Anonymous No.11028669]

>>11028652
Europe doesn't want to give up their free healthcare or education in favor of increasing their military in the face of Russian encroachment. They want to blame America and claim America is the bad guy.

[Anonymous No.11028684]

>>11028658
Surely the US military realizes what Starship can bring them. Or does Musk really fail that hard at marketing his projects to the government?

[Anonymous No.11028691]

>>11028684
I would guess that if the US government wanted a militarized Starship then they'd keep it quiet until the necessary modifications were ready to be applied, or if possible they'd be applied in secret and nobody would know until it was rolled out for launch and photos showed that it was different from normal production model Starships.

[Anonymous No.11028705]

>>11028669
I hate this pretense that healthcare and education welfare is "free", you know the people behind it are being malevolent because they're deliberately lying about the definition of what they're doing. All that's going on is that the government is spending your money for you, rather than you spending it to buy things directly for yourself. It's really more like "involuntary middle management" the government becomes your middle man, you don't get a choice in it, and you had better be happy with what you get because if you stop paying they'll either send legally empowered kneebreakers to take the money from you or just go over your head to your boss and SUCC it directly out of your wages. It's like a fucking protection racket but brainlets pretend the service is free.

[Anonymous No.11028711]

>>11028705
It wont matter, whatever the reason, increase in military will require sacrifices from people either in the form of less income or less programs (healthcare/education coverage/refugee programs/etc)

[Anonymous No.11028747]

>>11028561
>the congress woman says it's "unfortunate you mention that" when Musk points out all the airforce guys that said ULA was the best launch provider now "work" for ULA.
What does she mean that its "unfortunate"? Unfortunate for Musk to make the government seem corrupt? Or unfortunate that there's corruption?

[Anonymous No.11028818]

>>11028705
If our education system weren't hopelessly subverted we'd be educated about the magnitude of the scammery at school.

[Anonymous No.11028848]

>>11028705
it's virtually free if you take the ratio of what you pay for ealthcare via taxes to what you would actually pay if it was private. Also, the government can negotiate much further to get very low drug prices.

>>11028669
I would agree to pay more in taxes if that money was directed to space develpment

[Anonymous No.11028865]

>>11028848
That's a crock of shit at least where I live, in my experience government negotiated healthcare is both poor in quality and expensive compared to what it offers, my own family has used exclusively private healthcare for at least three generations even when we were poor and in spite of numerous health issues none of us has ever been dissatisfied in a substantial way. I agree with you about subsidizing space travel though, although I must say if you're consenting to give away your money then it's really more like charity than taxation, and if taxation is charity for the government then it aught to just be called charity for the government so we don't confuse our language with redundant terminology.

[Anonymous No.11028878]

>>11028865
I don't know where you live but here in Spain public healthcare is excellent, to the point people from many many countries around the world come here for treatment, even european countries

[Anonymous No.11028910]

>>11028848
>Also, the government can negotiate much further to get very low drug prices.

When has the government ever negotiated lower cost for anything instead of for guaranteed services? They very, very rarely do it, until any singular contract becomes double digit giga-bucks. "Muh Government negotiating power" means fucking nothing in the face of two centuries of knowing what Governments actually do in reality.

[Anonymous No.11028911]

>>11028910
The example is the low drug prices in Europa vs the shitshow of the US

[Anonymous No.11028913]

>>11028878
I'm in the US, so it could simply be that my government is much more incompetent at it than your own is, however we also get a large number of healthcare tourists because while private healthcare does insist on payment in full for it's services it's also expedient and of the necessary quality to provide lifesaving care. Personally I will always invariably oppose socialized services, my government can't even pull together the necessary competent individuals and brainpower to fix a pothole, much less care for the physical wellbeing of nearing half a billion people, or for that matter to drag this discussion back on-topic, a space program. Pencil pushers are good at exactly that, and stamping papers, and securing their own jobs, and basically worthless for every other task in my estimation.

[Anonymous No.11028916]

>>11028911
And that is an example of what happens when the Government doesn't provide a guaranteed subsidy. Every, single, time it happens, that just becomes the baseline added to whatever the consumer will accept paying out of pocket.

[Anonymous No.11028919]

>>11028911
US government is strictly prohibited from negotiating because republicans do not want lower cost of medical bills for the US medicare.

[Anonymous No.11028924]

new >>11028922

[Anonymous No.11028925]

>>11028919
>Republicans
Bitch please, corporate welfare, especially towards pharmaceuticals, is entirely bipartisan.

[Anonymous No.11028938]

>>11028919
This is a popular myth but there are bipartisan bills sitting on the sidelines right this second to reduce drug costs while also generating new employment and opening up the US to wider pharma markets than the current state-backed monopolies, however the current house speaker is more interested in tearing apart their political opposition and hanging onto the stability of their party for personal political gain, these bills and others have been sitting, ignored entirely since 2016 at least.