/sfg/ – spaceflight general

[Anonymous No.11033512]

the thread died lol edition

[Anonymous No.11033536]

>>11033512
How do i best follow Blue Origins progress?

[Anonymous No.11033546]

when i was a kid there were 9 planets, but there are now 90 planets

[Anonymous No.11033670]

>>11033546
what a time to alive.

[Anonymous No.11033682]

>>11033536
plant spyware on Jeff Who's phone?

[Anonymous No.11033685]

>>11033512
INCLUDE THE PREV LINK MOTHERFUCKER, YOU CAN'T LET DISCUSSION OF ALL-AMERICAN, DEPOT-FREE ROCKETS DIE
>>11028922

[Anonymous No.11033707]

>>11033408
>They had fucking decades to find life on Mars.
It's time to "get off the pot" as another anon was saying. Mars is as good as dead, move over and let the big boys play already.
Europa and Enceladus are water moons and have a lot better chance of life, and they also haven't been trading rocks back and forth like Earth and Mars. Incel-adus even had organics detected in a geyser.

[Anonymous No.11033709]

>>11033536
NSF L2, there’s some nice imagery of their LC-36 pad and KSC factory. They may not be good at reaching orbit, but they sure do build some impressive infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.11033743]

we are seeing the mcdonalds on the moon scenario unfold before us and some of you have hard wood over it. Baffling, the whole point of leaving earth is refuge from this gay faggot iron prison we have created down here.

[Anonymous No.11033758]

>>11033743
I have a hard-on all right, the whole point of leaving Earth is to colonize the stars and bend the universe to our Will, not to enact some irrational commie fantasy.

[Anonymous No.11033761]

FUCK SPACE
SAVE THE HUMAN RACE

[Anonymous No.11033763]

>>11033685
the line to the past shall not be broken

[Anonymous No.11033777]

>>11033763
It is severed all right. If you follow the links then it only goes back a month before you run into OP who forgot to link back.

>>/sci/thread/10942631

[Anonymous No.11033794]

>>11033743
The sooner we spread the sooner we can have a planet totally beyond Earths influence.

[Anonymous No.11033798]

https://www.strawpoll.me/18742864
so when will starship mk1 launch? place your bets

[Anonymous No.11033815]

>>11033758
>turning bolts on prostituet space buses
>sitting in cubicle... BUT its 1/3 earth gravity :DD
>muh will to power
kek
>>11033794
any solar system colony will be dependent on the motherland to varying degrees if they aspire to the same luxuries

[Anonymous No.11033838]

https://twitter.com/flcnhvy/status/1180352319948513280

[Anonymous No.11034061]

>>11033838
Nice, I had the Bladerunner soundtrack playing at low volume when I watched the presentation the first time and had a similar effect.

[Anonymous No.11034089]

I just don't understand this reusable plane meme.

The amount of money you can save from reusing planes isn’t enough to justify how much harder it makes it to complete the difficult flights that actually make money in the air transport world. I’m sure one day reusability will be more effective, but the truth is that when you have all the challenges that come with jet science in general, it’s almost always much more effective to throw away the plane after it’s done its job than to figure out how to make recovery part of the mission. I know of no major technology on the near term horizon that would change that.

Even if reusable planes are possible now, but when reliability is THE number one priority (in this case cargo takes up 2/3rds of the flight cost and the actual flight only 1/3rd) it makes absolutely no sense. Like, look at this engine (pic related). This represents some of the most advanced technologies in the aeronautical world. Do you honestly think that such a complicated machine can be made tough and reliable enough to be reusable? I doubt it. Best example in my opinion is condoms, sure you could reuse them but making sure that they do not suffer a drop in reliability will cost a lot of money and time.

Just because some company made reusing planes popular, then that doesn't mean that we will have the sci-fi future of millions of flights per year. We'll be lucky to see more than a couple dozen per year. Dial down your expectations, don't buy into the 'reusability for planes' meme.

[Anonymous No.11034092]

>>11034089
literally nobody thinks youre funny or clever or providing any interesting insight here.

[Anonymous No.11034096]

>>11034089
Planes were reusable since their inception, rockets were not and will not be.

[Anonymous No.11034104]

>>11034096
>>11034092
t. retard

[Anonymous No.11034108]

>>11034092

[Anonymous No.11034111]

>>11034092
>>11034096
always remember to delete expendable posts, please

[Anonymous No.11034117]

>>11033838
Elon is onto something with this big picture view. Next few hundred years could be decisive in whether intelligent life expands all over the galaxy and lasts for trillions of years until heat death of the universe, or it fizzles out and then all life dies with the Sun. We truly live in interesting times, don't we.

[Anonymous No.11034121]

Russian experts are giving spacex starship less than 20% chance of success. It's DOA.

[Anonymous No.11034126]

>>11034121
Source?

[Anonymous No.11034134]

>>11034111
>the madman actually did it
based expendable poster

>>11034121
It was actually closer to "20% of the project is technically feasible" which is really even more critical, since it implies 80% absolutely cannot be accomplished. It's hilarious to see people project oldspace to become competitive when they are in this much denial

[Anonymous No.11034140]

>>11034126
The guy running the russian space program.

[Anonymous No.11034171]

>>11034121

[Anonymous No.11034173]

>>11034140
You mean this? https://news.ru/en/amp/cosmos/roskosmos-head-is-skeptical-about-mask-s-starship/
He doesn't really explain why only 20% of Starship is feasible nor what 20%. It seems more like he's just throwing some shade on SpaceX rather than voicing actual criticisms.

[Anonymous No.11034246]

>>11034171
>we will see the day come when a private company brings a small trampoline to the moon with a Roscosmos logo on it as a joke

[Anonymous No.11034253]

>>11034246
>pic related
How much sense does that make anyway?
One would think that without the protection of an atmosphere, building underground would be preferable.

[Anonymous No.11034257]

>>11034246
I wonder how hard you'd have to drop something on a moon-trampoline to bounce it into a return trajectory? Assuming the stretchy fibers didn't shatter in the cold, which realistically yeah it'd probably break like a dinner plate.

[Anonymous No.11034261]

>>11033838
my boymoder sense is tingling

[Anonymous No.11034264]

>>11034121
So far Russians have achieved 0% reusability.

[Anonymous No.11034268]

>>11034253
Any colony will have surface parts, too. And people can still spend hours in surface buildings, even if it is wise to spend majority of time underground. It is best to treat similar pics as tip of the iceberg.

[Anonymous No.11034277]

>>11034264
Well they did reuse a Soyuz capsule one time IIRC. So that's like 0.059%.

[Anonymous No.11034288]

>>11034121
>Country with the only NASA-usable crewed vehicle says other crewed vehicles won't work
What a shock.

[Anonymous No.11034293]

>>11034121
Add it to the compilation and move on

[Anonymous No.11034296]

>>11034288
I mean they haven’t been proven wrong so far...

[Anonymous No.11034299]

>>11034288
I wouldn't look too much into that particularly.
The starship is only getting what, 5% of SpaceX funds? Dragon is what NASA will likely be using in the coming decade.

[Anonymous No.11034304]

>>11034299
>Dragon is what NASA will likely be using in the coming decade.
That is if NASA safety regulations allow for it.

[Anonymous No.11034322]

>Talks to friends and parents about starship presentation
>Don't even know what it is
>Ask them if they watched the falcon launch
>No idea what that is either
Why do normalfags not give a fuck about space industry? It's a billion dollars a year industry, how is it such a mindhole for the general public?

[Anonymous No.11034330]

>>11034304
I don't see why they wouldn't. So far the only incident was on one that was being reused and NASA aren't planning to reuse them.
If I remember right, the issue was with a check valve that was only needed to make the escape engines relightable, but that is now replaced with far safer one use check valve, since they canned the plans for reusability.

[Anonymous No.11034335]

[Anonymous No.11034336]

>>11034322
>Why do normalfags not give a fuck about space industry?
Yes, this has been painfully obvious since Apollo.

>It's a billion dollars a year industry, how is it such a mindhole for the general public?
Two main reasons IMO. The first is that most people don't care because they're not directly connected to it. Do most people know about the details of maritime shipping and the developments of? No, because it doesn't concern most people. It's the same for the launch industry. Second, spaceflight is seen as "nerdy" by society in general and thus not really something that's important. I mean, just look at the general reactions against the Space Force (beyond the 'orange man bad' comments). Despite that it will play a crucial role in the security of the US, it was made fun of because it seemed too much like low grade sci-fi.

There's probably other reasons like the fact that NASA hasn't done anything substantial and inspiring to the general public in years which made most people feel that space is boring. But that should cover the broad parts.

[Anonymous No.11034338]

>>11034330
Have they even gotten to a design freeze? They need to have 6 successful tests with no design changes to even be considered.

[Anonymous No.11034360]

>>11034330
True, but IIRC NASA is treating the modified escape system as a whole new system and is making SpaceX do all of the tests again. So that'll take a while.

[Anonymous No.11034369]

>>11034322
The US generates nearly twenty trillion dollars a year, being a billion dollar industry in the states isn't particularly impressive.

[Anonymous No.11034376]

>>11034335
What would be the purpose of folding canards on this? It would put less stress on the airframe, and the fins already have heat shields. This arrangement makes no sense

[Anonymous No.11034378]

>>11034335
Why is superheavy attatched

[Anonymous No.11034385]

>>11034360
As they should, you don’t have to be as risk-conscious as NASA to understand the virtues of having a reliable launch abort system that has been thoroughly tested.

[Anonymous No.11034387]

>>11034360
Oh for sure. It's certainly much closer than starship though.

[Anonymous No.11034396]

>>11034385
Seeing as for starship the starship itself IS the abort system, that one will be interesting.

[Anonymous No.11034402]

>>11034378
>>11034376
It is some twitter tard 3D artist. Who fucking cares.

[Anonymous No.11034403]

>>11034089
Thunderf00t?

[Anonymous No.11034405]

>>11034360
This is at least slightly silly imho. It was a single point fault that was identified and fixed, by replacing a moving part with a burst disk.

[Anonymous No.11034418]

>>11034376
By folding up the aerosurfaces, their aerodynamic contribution to the flight is minimized, improving aerodynamic stability. Having the flight surfaces that far forward can make the vehicle unstable enough to exceed the control authority of the engine gimbals on the first stage. Stability concerns are believed to be the reason why they also have six landing-leg fins.

[Anonymous No.11034421]

new Expanse trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jc76QrX5Vg

[Anonymous No.11034440]

>>11034405
How do you know it’s actually been fixed until it’s been tested?

[Anonymous No.11034442]

>>11034421

[Anonymous No.11034445]

>>11034418
False

[Anonymous No.11034447]

A Raptor engine has been removed from Starship Mk1.

[Anonymous No.11034450]

>>11034445
>False
You're gonna need to be a little more specific than that for me to believe you.

[Anonymous No.11034452]

>>11034447
IIRC two of them hadn't even been test fired yet.

[Anonymous No.11034462]

>>11034418
Wouldn't that make vertical flight unstable because of shifting weight and aerodynamic loads?

[Anonymous No.11034464]

>>11034403
kek

Anyone got that crying wojak image of him with Falcon Heavy?

[Anonymous No.11034490]

>>11034462
A predictable asymmetrical load is easy. Forward fins that catch as much air as possible are not so predictable.

[Anonymous No.11034510]

>>11034257
Do you have a problem with expendable trampolines?

[Anonymous No.11034519]

>>11034464
Of course I do, I made it.

[Anonymous No.11034525]

>>11034330
>NASA aren't planning to reuse them.
I've heard they might get reused for cargo missions.
>>11034360
And yet NASA complains that it's taking too long. Well no shit, Sherlock.
I'm happy that Starship will be hypergolic-free.

[Anonymous No.11034534]

>>11034519
was just scrolling by... I was going to ask if that was thunderf00t, well done

[Anonymous No.11034538]

>>11034519
Thanks! Have this pic I found while trying to find your pic.

[Anonymous No.11034545]

>>11034525
>SpaceX! You're spending too much time on your super large rocket! You need to focus on the investments of the American taxpayer and finish CC. It's time to deliver!
>Oh? You're behind on CC, Boeing? That's okay, you must be so busy finishing that super large ro- oh...that's behind too? Don't worry, we'll give you some extra money if you pinky swear that you'll finish it on time, but if you can't then feel free to stop by and ask for more. It's only taxpayer money afterall.

[Anonymous No.11034548]

>>11034538
What's the thing on the left?

[Anonymous No.11034555]

>>11034548
http://www.astronautix.com/d/dc-x.html
The DC-X. Think of it as the New Shepherd of the 90s.

[Anonymous No.11034560]

>>11034548
NASA's reusable rocket (DC-X)

[Anonymous No.11034568]

>>11034560
Douglas' reusable VTVL test vehicle.

[Anonymous No.11034623]

>>11034534
>>11034538
why is thunderf00t a meme here?

[Anonymous No.11034629]

>>11034440
Because the problem was a leaky check valve, and they replaced the valve with a burst disk? You can't have a leaky burst disk, so the same problem can't happen.

[Anonymous No.11034631]

>>11034623
He's very pessimistic against SpaceX to the point where he would lie or twist the facts to make it seem like SpaceX is a bad company and that their achievements aren't anything.

https://mobile.twitter.com/thunderf00t/status/961312911393218560?lang=en
Here's an example. He says that reusability is not worth perusing because of the Shuttle, the worst attempt of a reusable spacecraft in history. That's like saying that cars aren't worth persuing because the Reliant Robin exists.

[Anonymous No.11034635]

>>11034631
the reliant robin was a better car, nay, a better space shuttle, than the space shuttle
https://youtu.be/pJdrlWR-yFM

[Anonymous No.11034637]

>>11034631
why did shuttle reusability fail? What is the starship bringing to the table that's different?

[Anonymous No.11034642]

>>11034635
the sad thing is most of that is CGI...

[Anonymous No.11034644]

>>11034629
Has that been tested in practice? No, so a repeat static fire is necessary. SpaceX do so many static fires these days that one more won’t kill them.

[Anonymous No.11034648]

>>11034642
Fucking top gear. As fake as their tesla roadster review.

[Anonymous No.11034651]

>>11034637
those are both pretty big questions that could have a huge amount of discussion but suffice it to say
>shuttle tiles were terrifyingly fragile
>shuttle tiles had to be hand-fit, with glue, with a specific tile for every location on the shuttle
>the shuttle SRB wasn't reusable economically
>the big orange dildo was thrown away every flight
>the SSME engine needed a total rebuild after every flight
versus
>starship tiles are thin, tough ceramic
>all of them are octagons and can be applied by machine
>secured by bolts, not glue
this is enabled by stainless steel being able to take a higher temperature, so the tiles don't need to be as insulative
>100% of hardware flies back for reuse, nothing thrown away
>raptor is designed to be able to be rapidly reused, teardowns only on airline engine schedules (this is unproven)

[Anonymous No.11034654]

>>11034635
Have a webm

[Anonymous No.11034655]

>>11034637
Firstly it was enormously expensive to build thanks to being a government project, secondly it's propellant Hydro/LOX demands more engine, plumbing, and tankage refurbishment due to embrittlement damage over time. It still discards it's boosters and tank, they are often so badly damaged when they hit the ocean that they still need to be either replaced or refurbished to such a degree it would be cheaper to just replace them. It's delicate, the belly and wing tiles are highly sensitive to any impact and this not only made it hazardous to fly but also a pain to fix up after returning. It's a fragile vehicle, large portions of it are literally silica glass canvas. Starship on the other hand is made of stainless steel, it's temperature change resilient and highly durable, it's very reflective so useful for passive heat management, it's engine costs about a tenth of an RS-25 and uses Metha/LOX which is much more plumbing friendly. No components are dumped on the way up, everything that goes up will come back down, everything from engine to tile refurbishment has been made much easier by smarter design and tighter tolerances thanks to improvements in computer design.

[Anonymous No.11034658]

>>11034655
The Raptor's even better than that - it currently costs one tenth of the cost of an RS-25, but tracking towards 1/100th.

[Anonymous No.11034659]

>>11034635
MY
FUCKING
SIDES

[Anonymous No.11034661]

>>11034658
>Actually believing Elon’s predictions...

ONONONONONONONONONONO

[Anonymous No.11034663]

>>11034658
>mass production has allowed Raptor prices to fall sufficiently that they are now considered consumables
>delightfully counterintuitive

[Anonymous No.11034662]

>>11034642
Is it? it looked real to me but I was wondering a) where did they get the money for this from b) how did they find rocket engineers in England?

[Anonymous No.11034667]

>>11034661
this post contributes nothing to the discussion but to reiterate your dislike of the musk man

[Anonymous No.11034668]

>>11034661
>what you think you're doing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1UtRnGn5hc
>what you're actually doing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mKIuZ4tIzk

[Anonymous No.11034669]

>>11034662
a) Top Gear at it's peak was swimming in BBC dollars, not as much as The Grand Tour on Amazon but they were pretty well funded for a car show
b) clearly they didn't, it was a bunch of fireworks and paper mache strapped to a reliant robin

[Anonymous No.11034671]

>>11034635
Ah, I see that you're a man of culture as well.

>>11034637
>why did shuttle reusability fail?
Lots of reasons. A whole documentary can be made about what went wrong with the Shuttle, but I'll try to sum it up in two broad points. One, the design was expensive to refurbish. For example the RS-25s had to be practically rebuilt each flight. Also the tiles were made from a relatively fragile ceramic that needed to be reapplied after each flight, and each tile was a unique shape so it was expensive and time consuming to both make and replace them. This made the Shuttle the most expensive launch vehicle relative to payload size in history. Two, the design wasn't iterated on. Due to complicated reasons both within NASA and with the government, the Shuttle wasn't allowed to be improved or modified in any significant way. So those expensive engines and tiles stayed expensive for the entire program. Any other fault of the Shuttle remained for the length of the program as well.

>What is the starship bringing to the table that's different?
Well, firstly that Starship can be iterated upon as SpaceX has shown to not be afraid of making significant changes on their designs. Second, Starship is an entirely internal program of SpaceX unlike the Shuttle where NASA had to allow its desgin to be dictated by multiple different agencies. This along with SpaceXs general engineering culture of being as financially lean as possible means that Starship can be focued on what matters most to the program (better reusability than the Falcon 9 and to reduce the cost to space access by an order of magnitude). There's also technical stuff like the Raptors being designed and made with much more modern tools so they can be cheaper to make and refurbish, and that Starship will use tougher and more uniform metalic tiles.

[Anonymous No.11034675]

>>11034661
>Rocket man bad!
Yeesh, it's already down to 2 million or less and there's only a handfull of them in existence, this indicates that the engine is already inherently cheap to manufacture. What do you think is going to happen to the price when they start getting turned out one a week, and then one every few days?

[Anonymous No.11034677]

>>11034655
But is the starship tile material any better?

[Anonymous No.11034678]

>>11034675
They'll become so cheap to produce that it won't make sense to reuse them, and thunderfoot will finally have his glory

[Anonymous No.11034680]

>>11034677
Yes, it's much thinner and tougher. Shuttle tiles were basically ceramic foam and were too fragile to attach by any method other than glue. Starship tiles are bolted on, which means they're strong enough to bolt on, which means they can probably survive a piece of foam hitting them. Which is what killed Columbia.

[Anonymous No.11034686]

>>11034667
Just tell me when a single Falcon 9 booster does 10 flights and 24 hour reuse, ok? Oh wait you forgot about that? That’s what Musk does, he charms you with a big promise, fails to fulfill it and then distracts from the failure by announcing an even bigger one, saying this’ll definitely be the one. Your like cats chasing a laser beam, I’m sure you’ll find your rapid reusability one day, just keep looking!

[Anonymous No.11034687]

when the BFR was planned to be 550 tons to LEO and people said that was bullshit /sci/ shouted them down. Why should I believe in this 100 ton starship?

[Anonymous No.11034689]

>>11034680
>which means they can probably survive a piece of foam hitting them. Which is what killed Columbia
Actually it was the foam hitting the carbon leading egde of the wing that killed Columbia. Which is a tough material, but the foam was going so fast that it didn't matter. Then again, Starship won't have a large foam tank strapped to it's belly.

[Anonymous No.11034691]

>>11034680
I suspect a tile failure on starship is less dangerous also considering how heat tolerant the stainless steel is. Part of why she shuttle was so dangerous was that so much of it was made of aluminium.

[Anonymous No.11034695]

>>11034677
At least in terms of durability, yes, as for performance they've been proved to cope with 2500+F for at least the whole duration of a reentry without significant hazardous ablation or damage. Cost is up in the air, I haven't heard any word on how expensive they'll be to make although I'd assume that like every other high quality component SpaceX has been turning out the cost will be radically lower than those achieved by NASA.

[Anonymous No.11034697]

>>11034686
When did he promise a timeline for that?

[Anonymous No.11034700]

>>11034686
>he thinks people who closely follow spacex aren't aware of musk delays and ADHD target changing
Falcon Heavy never landed Res Dragon on Mars, either. Because SpaceX decided to go all-in on Starship. But SpaceX has never gotten this far into a program without eventually completing it, so the burden is on you to keep making up fantastical reasons why it's totally doomed this time guys, for sure

Three years ago people like you were saying Falcon Heavy would never fly, three years before that saying SpaceX would never reuse a booster

[Anonymous No.11034707]

>>11034687
1. You're conflating reusable and expendable numbers. BFR never targeted 500+ tons with reuse, that was the "maximum yeet" of an expended booster.
2. It was scaled down literally to make it more cost effective and achievable, I dunno why you're complaining there, if you thought it was too big before they made it smaller, idk what would make you happy
3. The hardest part of a new reusable rocket are the engines and thermal protection, both of which are in final development / starting into mass production

[Anonymous No.11034718]

>>11034697
Between when the Block 5 was introduced and the DM-1 launch, he kept going about 10 reuses per booster and 24 hour “rapid reusability”. They seemed like challenging but somewhat realistic goals, but it’s like he’s completely forgot about them and is now pushing ridiculous claims about the extremely complicated and untested Starship.

[Anonymous No.11034725]

>>11034718
*on

[Anonymous No.11034726]

>>11034718
They're required for the switch from Falcon production to Starship production, which will happen when Commercial Crew is finally finalized. Falcons will only be produced for CC contract flights, all other flights will be reused boosters, and all other production will go into Starship. Therefore, existing Falcon stocks will need to fly 10~ times. However, Commercial Crew has been delayed significantly, so this transition hasn't happened yet. It's not "forgotten about", boosters are still clocking flights.

[Anonymous No.11034728]

>>11034707
>It was scaled down literally to make it more cost effective and achievable, I dunno why you're complaining there,
People who said it wasn't cost effective and achievable were shouted down. I feel that there is a strong fanboy culture here supporting every single thing SpaceX does. Literally zero criticism ever. I think his designs are interesting but I remain skeptical until I see it working.

[Anonymous No.11034729]

>>11034726
also Gwynne Shotwell (who is more reliable as a source than Elon and can be considered his autism wrangler) said that the 24 hour turnaround is "technically possible" and an "aspirational goal" but not a priority (because they just don't get contracts fast enough to justify it)

Starship however needs that turnaround rate to make the orbital refueling meme happen.

[Anonymous No.11034730]

>>11034651
>>11034655
>starship
>present tense

[Anonymous No.11034734]

>>11034728
>I feel that there is a strong fanboy culture here supporting every single thing SpaceX does. Literally zero criticism ever
because 90% of the "criticism" in threads like this is in forms like:
>>11034661
>>11034121
>>11033761
if all you're providing is canned memes and angry shitposts, what level headed discussion do you expect?

[Anonymous No.11034735]

>>11034680
How would you bolt a tile on without leaving a big fuck me weak spot where the steel bolt poke out?

[Anonymous No.11034736]

>>11034730
the two systems discussed, Raptor and PICA-X tiles, both exist and have flown

[Anonymous No.11034740]

>>11034654
The story behind that top gear episode is great.
Turned out they used up the budget of a entire season and then some on that one episode.
BBC trew a shitstorm and the topgear team just told the bbc to fuck off because they were the only ones actually bringing in money with viewnumbers.
The topgear team won that discusion and recieved a even larger budget.

[Anonymous No.11034744]

>>11034718
It really says something about the pace of development at SpaceX that you're complaining about "forgetting" when Block 5 is barely a year old and still needs to be design frozen for NASAbucks.

>extremely complicated starship
wat

[Anonymous No.11034745]

>>11034735
Looks like there is a visible hole where the bolt goes, but a high temperature resistant bolt recessed from the flow might be perfectly fine, I don't think we have any technical cutaways or anything neat like that yet

[Anonymous No.11034747]

>>11034691
Depends, a lost tile in the wrong place would turn that spot in to a blowtorch that would work its way through the rocket.

[Anonymous No.11034754]

>>11034734
That wasn't me.

[Anonymous No.11034757]

>>11034730
Well the functionality of the Starship tiles and engines has already been demonstrated. The Raptors work, they are cost efficient compared to the RS-25, the tiles work as they've been blowtorched up to reentry temperatures and kept at those temperatures long enough to determine that they'd survive a reentry. The properties of stainless steel are very well known. I'm sorry, I thought you were asking about what Starship will be bringing to the table, are you dissatisfied with the answers you've been provided? If you don't want anyone to give you an answer until the final version flies then why don't you just shut the fuck up and wait then?

[Anonymous No.11034759]

>>11034754
I'm not saying it was, I was saying that the low quality of criticism in general is why we don't spend a lot of time discussing it, if all that's brought is "musk man bad" there's no real discussion to have

[Anonymous No.11034760]

>>11034134
it's Shuttle, but two stage to orbit with an integral fuel tank and orbital refueling

[Anonymous No.11034762]

>>11034734
>Everything I dislike is memes and shitposts

This is the 4chan equivalent of putting your hands over your and saying NA NA NA can’t hear you!

>>11034736
Starship doesn’t use Pica-X

>>11034744
Are you implying Starship with it’s actuating fins isn’t a complicated design?

[Anonymous No.11034764]

>>11034757
>functionality of the Starship tiles and engines has already been demonstrated
>hasn’t even seen if they survive re-entry yet

Yikes

[Anonymous No.11034765]

>>11034762
>some fag posts NONONONONO spam and literally nothing else
>call it a shitpost
>>This is the 4chan equivalent of putting your hands over your and saying NA NA NA can’t hear you!
Can you please put a trip on so we can filter your retarded ass?

[Anonymous No.11034766]

>>11034762
>Are you implying Starship with it’s actuating fins isn’t a complicated design?
Excuse me? Is it the 1920s?

[Anonymous No.11034769]

>>11034764
They literally put test panels of the material on a vehicle which re-entered.

[Anonymous No.11034773]

>>11034735
Bolt from the other side

[Anonymous No.11034775]

>>11034762
I guess we'll see around the end of the year when 20km hop flies, because the prototype they're currently building is literally the fin actuation testbed. That's the point of the 20km hop. It shouldn't be super hard, just a hydraulic system with a chunky motor, but maybe it will be.

[Anonymous No.11034778]

>>11034765
Your ignoring my criticism because you can’t refute? Now your going to filter me because I threaten your echo chamber?

>>11034769
Did they survive? and I’m pretty sure they weren’t hexagonal either, so not exactly an accurate simulation.

[Anonymous No.11034779]

>>11034707
can't you see his point? There is a recurrent theme here. Musk is aspirational to the point where many of his promises and grand presentations are just fantasy. Starship replacing commercial intercontinental flight. Lmfao. Please. Starship could indeed change the game, if it gets off the ground. What it won't do is obsolete the 747. Be realistic. Spacex is doing a lot of impressive things, no doubt. But people here and especially the faggot hangers on twitter and shiet that treat him like tony stark cheapen that by trying to validate these nonsense timelines and promises.

Crew Dragon still has only been flown remotely and has also exploded. Yet when Bridenstine points this out (while still giving Russia congressbuxx for Soyuz seats), as Musk stands there in his field next to the Tintin tin can rocket, stuttering about orbital refuelling and so forth. None of these things have been done yet, it's not even funded. Meanwhile NASA, the main reason why spacex has money, is still waiting for what they paid for. And he's talking about this new thing which has nothing to do with NASA and is clearly his main priority. Not a good look.

[Anonymous No.11034780]

>>11034288
right now, Starship is just a heavy lift vehicle, the (integral) crew capsule is just a checkmark on a whiteboard right now
literally powerpoint
luckily, they're figuring out crew capsules with Dragon 2.0

[Anonymous No.11034781]

>>11034762
>Actuating fins is a complicated design.
Grug, you right, Gruglon am go too far, he play gods by sending big shiny rock too far into sky!

[Anonymous No.11034783]

>>11034778
>the shape of the tiles matters
nigga, if anything hexagonal tiles would work better because the air stream can't force its way along continuous seams because there aren't any on a tessellated hexagonal pattern.

[Anonymous No.11034789]

>>11034775
I really don’t like the actuation hinges, they seem like a massive failure point (especially when their being powered by Tesla battery packs), replacing the actuating fins with a more conventional Shuttle-esque wing or even a small winglet like BFR 2017 seems far more reliable. The skydiving re-entry looks really sketchy as well, a simple gliding reentry like Shuttle or Dreamchaser looks a lot less butthole clench-worthy.

[Anonymous No.11034794]

>>11034779
Upvoted

[Anonymous No.11034795]

>>11034779
>can't you see his point? because musk is bad at timelines, everything he says is false and I don't have to back anything up
>all I can do is attack the spacex "fanbase" but you should treat my shitposts as if they have literally any technical merit
Literally every single sentence is flowery language and literally no actual data is provided. All you have is empty rhetoric. This is why we don't bother with "critics", you don't actually bring anything to the discussion.

>Meanwhile NASA, the main reason why spacex has money, is still waiting for what they paid for. And he's talking about this new thing which has nothing to do with NASA and is clearly his main priority. Not a good look.
This is objectively false and has been refuted by both SpaceX and NASA, yet you'll repost it until the day Starship flies

This is why "da critics" aren't worth listening to. You provide nothing, your posts are not informative or informed, your criticisms are empty rhetoric, and you smell like a nigger.

[Anonymous No.11034799]

>>11034789
That's the joy of iterative development though. If you're right, SpaceX will redesign the wing. They already did redesign it from the 3 legged meme. It'll delay a few months or a year, but it's not a program killer.

[Anonymous No.11034801]

>>11034778
Yes they survived, no they weren't hexagonal. Call them up and inform them that their tests entirely failed to meet your goalposts, shut it all down.

[Anonymous No.11034802]

>>11034759
Okay. Since they ditched the preposterous 550 ton rocket my main criticisms have been economical. I don't think maintenance costs will allow for an order of magnitude drop in launch prices. Reusability is a step in the right direction but it's overhyped here. He's also vastly overestimating the space tourism market. Interest in space is still niche and his plans are unfortunately timed with a massive climate change movement. it all looks like it may go the way of Concorde Finally where is the money for a city on mars going to come from?

My other criticism is getting to Mars in the first place. Requires either a ton of shielding or a fast nuclear rocket neither of which Starship has. In orbit refuelling has never been tried. There are too many unknowns to take about flying rocket loads of people to Mars by 2025 or whatever. If his plan was to land 2 or 3 people on Mars Apollo-style I'd be fully behind it but this starship seems like a sci-fi fantasy.

[Anonymous No.11034803]

>>11034769
You mean a tiny strip on the side of a cargo capsule, right?

Do you think this compares to cladding over half the surface area of a proposed 50 metre spacecraft? With a far more complicated reentry protocol and moving flight surfaces? Would you ride the first test re-entry flight if you were offered, since it's already flight rated on another craft? I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.11034804]

>>11034662
Didn‘t England develop the lipstick rocket only to scrap it immediately after development was successful?

[Anonymous No.11034805]

>>11034525
cargo and crew dragons are fundamentally different and Shotwell explained that they would not be reusing crew for cargo missions

[Anonymous No.11034811]

When do you think space will be a common place to go for a normal person?

[Anonymous No.11034815]

>>11034811
30 to 50 years after it becomes a commercial service.

[Anonymous No.11034819]

>>11034789
>especially when their being powered by Tesla battery packs
there is literally nothing wrong with tesla powerpacks

[Anonymous No.11034822]

>>11034803
>spend half the thread whining that the tiles have been tested
>point out that they have
>BUT THAT'S NOT A 1:1 CORRELATION
No shit it's not, that was never the claim.

>B-BUT YOU WOULDN'T RIDE A TEST FLIGHT
Seriously nigger?

[Anonymous No.11034829]

>>11034811
>>11034815
Go there for what?
>>11034804
That was like the 60s, the "engineers" in the video looked about in their 30s

[Anonymous No.11034830]

>>11034802
>Finally where is the money for a city on mars going to come from?

NASA budget is huge compared to SpaceX budget. If SLS/Orion/ISS funding is redirected towards the likes of SpaceX, we can realistically fund the initial manned base on Mars. Whether it will evolve into a real city on Mars is another question, tough.

[Anonymous No.11034831]

>>11034829
>Go there for what?
This is why we're not at year zero yet.

[Anonymous No.11034832]

>>11034802
>I don't think maintenance costs will allow for an order of magnitude drop in launch prices.
Five, actually. Musk wants to reduce launch prices to Mars by five orders of magnitude, and reusability is only supposed to provide two of those. Now whether they can do it or not depends entirely on how reusable the Raptor is, something only SpaceX knows right now. What we do know is that the design choices made in the Raptor engine were all specifically chosen to increase reusability compared to existing engines. By having two full flow preburners, it actually runs the turbines cooler than the Merlin engine. Methane eliminates RP-1 coking.

>He's also vastly overestimating the space tourism market
The space tourism market is small primarily because if the launch costs mentioned previously. You can book a ticket with Virgin today, but you'll be spending a couple million dollars to barely reach space. That's not a good value proposition. If Starship can achieve the lofty goal of airliner-competitiven prices, that market increases exponentially.

>Finally where is the money for a city on mars going to come from?
Starlink, hopefully. If Starlink fails the backup plan is to let NASA do the actual missions and just provide them with a cheap ride. This is easily the sketchiest part of the plan as outlined so far.

>My other criticism is getting to Mars in the first place. Requires either a ton of shielding or a fast nuclear rocket neither of which Starship has.
Or just accept the 2% lifetime cancer risk increase. It's not something NASA would be happy with, but it's a lot better than the scurvy explorers dealt with in prior centuries.

>In orbit refuelling has never been tried
It's used to refuel the ISS fairly regularly, but cryogenic refueling has never been done in space. However, development of such systems dates back decades. ULA was ready to go ahead with such a system before Shelby demanded it be quashed. This isn't some "Elon promised magic", it's mainstream.

[Anonymous No.11034835]

>>11034829
>Go there for what?
tourism, work, business, entrepreneuring

[Anonymous No.11034836]

>>11034803
They were also tested with industrial blowtorches up to the predicted reentry temperature for the expected reentry time. The complexity of the protocol is irrelevant to the tiles so long as they are operating within their temperature threshold, and it's not like other supersonic or even hypersonic vehicles haven't successfully used control surfaces.

[Anonymous No.11034839]

>>11034811
The richest man in the world and a significantly less rich but more ambitious man, both of whom own rocket companies, want it to be within 100 years. If capitalism has taught us anything, it's that robber barons can change the world if they throw money at doing it. So I'd wager within a century.

[Anonymous No.11034841]

>>11034836
IMO what they should do is take a pair of the already built rings, cover them in tiles and reinforce the interior to starship spec, then get a bunch of afterburning turbojets and let them blast the shielded ring for a good 5 minutes at full reheat. It'd more accurately simulate the kinds heat and aero loads reentry would see.

[Anonymous No.11034844]

>>11034795
>literally every
>literally no actual data
Let's see
>crew dragon only flown once (fact)
>cd exploded (fact)
>bridenstine CC tweet (exists)
>nasa still buying soyuz seats years after CC was bankrolled and promised by 2017 (fact)
>orbital refuelling still talking point (fact)
>not funded and being wagered on starlink and a jap tycoon (fact)
>starship not intended, projected or designed for any business with NASA specifically or obliquely, just SpaceX (fact)
>clearly his main priority? Obvious, drop that 5% figure, or look at his tweets, public commentary, or the fact that he had mexican water tower welders working 24/7 to erect a steel dildo with dents and unfired engines for a powerpoint speech

>empty rhetoric

How is anything I said objectively false? You claim that SpaceX is fully independent of NASA contracts finanically? Or that the endgame and company focus is not ultimately on Starship? Then why is Musk and his fanboys only talking about it and not falcon 9? Weird.

[Anonymous No.11034846]

[Anonymous No.11034854]

>>11034844
https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1179853879418052608

[Anonymous No.11034861]

>>11034841
That would look really cool but if they plan to reach orbit sometime next year why bother?

>>11034844
Do you want me to go through with a sharpie and mark every insult, unsubstantiated claim, lie, rhetorical device in your original post?

As for your follow-up
>crew dragon has only flown once (and is a seperate program with it's own delays and developmental hurdles, why not claim SLS will never fly because Boeing hasn't flown Starliner? same non-logic, but no MUSK MAN BAD to rag on about)
>CD exploded (see above)
>bridendtine CC tweet (was immediately backtracked on as "a reminder to ALL our partners")
>orbital refueling is in active use on the ISS, has been developed independently by multiple organizations including ULA, and is part of a SpaceX-NASA research partnership as we speak
>claims it's not funded and yet claims spaceX is spending most of it's resources on it, these are literally mutually exclusive, pick one bitch
>starship is literally developed for manned missions to Mars, good luck explaining to congress why the first american on the moon isn't a NASA astronaut lmao
>obviously if we just ignore the actual figures given, ignore that we claimed it wasn't funded at all, the shoestring budget the prototypes were built on PROVES spaceX is DEFINITELY spending ALL OF ITS MONEY on a couple dozen mexican welders
your points are either false, self contradictory or irrelevant; and the rest of your post both here and above consists of nothing but buzzwords and insults

>if I call it ugly enough times it won't fly
literally empty rhetoric get wrecked nigger

[Anonymous No.11034864]

>>11034861
>on the moon
**on Mars obvs

[Anonymous No.11034868]

>>11034861
>That would look really cool but if they plan to reach orbit sometime next year why bother?
Verification that the tiles will perform as expected. I mean, yes, they have done some testing with the torches and the tile panels on Dragon, but doing a full-scale test like that would show any issues that failed to crop up with the previous testing.

[Anonymous No.11034869]

>>11034822
I have only made a couple of posts in this thread. No need to seethe. There is more than one guy posting contrary to the circlejerk in here.

The claim was that "Starship tiles" and raptors have been demonstrated as functional. Raptors have been test fired and one did a hop. and a miniscule surface area of tiling was attached (basically leeward) to a Dragon. They haven't been demonstrated as functional because neither have been hooked up to the craft, it hasn't launched, and it hasn't returned to the earth. When it does then that would be true.

[Anonymous No.11034873]

>>11034832
>Or just accept the 2% lifetime cancer risk increase. It's not something NASA would be happy with, but it's a lot better than the scurvy explorers dealt with in prior centuries.
Citizens have free choice to abuse themselves with food, booze, cigarettes, ride a motorbike irresponsi bly, do extreme sports etc etc. and all of these for nothing more noble than hedonism. Ridiculous isn't it that people would quibble over something as truly profound in importance as humanity venturing to Mars.

[Anonymous No.11034875]

>>11034861
do not reply to trolls. That post is clearly made in bad faith

[Anonymous No.11034879]

>>11034868
Yeah but if they plan an actual full scale orbital test soon, why would you do a partial scale test? The worst that can happen is they lose Mk3 on reentry, but it's still a prototype like Hopper and the Hand of Elon

>>11034873
I agree, I also eat red meat, if I moved to Mars and gave up red meat I'd probably lower my overall cancer risk. I choose to eat red meat anyways because it's delicious and the risk is small.

[Anonymous No.11034880]

>>11034635
A reusable... Reliant... Robin!
Now where's that anon complaining about the UK space programme?

[Anonymous No.11034882]

>>11034880
that episode was so good

[Anonymous No.11034886]

>>11034830
>If SLS/Orion/ISS funding is redirected towards the likes of SpaceX
But it won't because of bureaucracy/corruption
>>11034832
>The space tourism market is small primarily because if the launch costs mentioned previously
It will definitely go up with lower prices but whether it will be profitable is another question. Outside the scope of /sci/ so no point debating that here. Just have to wait and see.
>Or just accept the 2% lifetime cancer risk increase.
This can easily sink the whole thing, you know how bad the public is with statistics and how they lose their heads whenever the C-word is mentioned. The SS Great Britain was a flop largely because people believed an iron ship would sink easily so ticket sales were low. 2% risk is actually quite high anyway. Former smokers have about a 5% cancer risk increase

Thanks for actually debating me instead of calling me a ULA shill. Most of your arguments are valid so I'll remain interested but I'm still skeptical until the first commercial flight.

[Anonymous No.11034887]

>>11034869
If you want to bitch about being misrepresented, how about reading what's been posted before you start streaming in nonsense? I responded to the claim that the tiles had no been re-entry tested with the literal objective fact that they have. Get less desperate.

[Anonymous No.11034891]

>>11034839
>significantly less rich
At the moment

[Anonymous No.11034893]

>>11034873
People do all these things yet terrorism is always frontline news. It's human nature that you an't overcome. Also people will be scared of Starship because they aren't in control. This is the main reason why everybody thinks cars are safer than planes.

[Anonymous No.11034895]

>>11034886
>Most of your arguments are valid so I'll remain interested but I'm still skeptical until the first commercial flight.
This is absolutely the right attitude. I think Starship has an 80% chance of reaching orbit and providing launch services, a 50% chance it will ever be used in the "point to point" role, and a 30-50% chance it will ever take people to Mars. Even if it doesn't do the aspirational goals, the reduced launch costs will open space to small businesses and the interested public.

[Anonymous No.11034897]

>>11034886
2% of base level or 2% of absolute risk?

[Anonymous No.11034899]

>>11034897
2% "I heard the number somewhere and it's about right but I don't want to go digging through studies to find the exact figure"

[Anonymous No.11034900]

>>11034886
even if only 1% of humanity wants to go to space, that is 70 million people

[Anonymous No.11034901]

>>11034421
No annoying lesbians that I could see, good news perhaps

[Anonymous No.11034902]

>>11034899
because 2% of base level is taking absolute base level (maybe 16%?) and adding the 2% of 16%, making about 16,32%. 2% of absolute risk is, taking the base level and adding 2%, making 18%

[Anonymous No.11034903]

>>11034637
Shuttle reusability failed because it was essentially refurbishing the entire vehicle after each flight, thus costing tens of millions, if not hundreds. Shuttle reusability was dependent on heatshields that were glued together. Starship heatshield will be mechanically attached to reduce heat, thus easier time testing/verifying/replacing/etc.

[Anonymous No.11034907]

>>11034895
If SS fails but SH succeeds that's still a massive leap in capability, right? I still don't quite understand why they don't build SH first and just start with an expendable upper stage. Wouldn't this still BTFO all competitors?

[Anonymous No.11034908]

>>11034887
Don't worry, I read it. You are conflating proposed starship heat-shielding with the tiles that were stuck on the hull there for the re-entry test. From Spacex people themselves, these tests, especially the dragon one are for data. It's not a flight proof to tick off the enormous heat shield ( i believe the largest ever ) that is proposed. I don't think that strip is even comprised of tiles of the same shape. But i might be wrong. You guys see all of these disparate things, raptors being tested, torching some tiles, etc. and because the mark 1 was stacked quickly, for the sake of stacking quickly, it seems possible that you just whack it all together and you have a groundbreaking spaceship. Not happening. You can meme about rocketry being hard or whatever, but there is more than a grain of truth there.

[Anonymous No.11034911]

Stop replying to the fucking FUDposter Jesus.

[Anonymous No.11034915]

>>11034907
Because they think SH is the easy part. They've done a reusable heavy lift booster with 27 engines and 3 cores, building one with a single core and 35 engines should be easier. It absolutely will change the launch market, with an expendable upper stage it beats SLS for the price of a Falcon Heavy.

[Anonymous No.11034916]

>>11034903
Surprising they never came up with a completely detachable heat shield. Don't bother repairing, just unclip the old and attach an entirely new one. Or just ablative for that matter

[Anonymous No.11034920]

>>11034908
Once again, you're desperate to extrapolate statements that were not made. "The tiles have been tested" in your mind becomes "the tiles are 100% flight proven, I'm going to jump on the test bed flight immediately!" Every single post you've made has been tearing apart a complete strawman.

[Anonymous No.11034921]

>>11034911
meh fudposter was whining about not getting replies and there's a non-FUD skeptic anon here who's pretty chill

[Anonymous No.11034925]

>>11034729
My understanding is they'd like to try turning around a Falcon 9 in 24 hours just to prove it can be done, but it's not a requirement. As for getting the re-use numbers up, I think the first time a booster will have flown 5 times is expected to happen this year.

[Anonymous No.11034928]

>>11034925
I mean, if your entire argument is "I won't believe it until it flies", then we just have to wait for it to fly.

[Anonymous No.11034930]

>>11034925
4x is probably going to happen this year, 5x-6x next year and possibly 7x, due to the rapid Starlink launches.

[Anonymous No.11034931]

>>11034928
I'm not the poster who was naysaying earlier.

[Anonymous No.11034932]

>>11034915
The fact that SH is the easy part and even without SS could BTFO everyone else is what makes me wonder - isn't it letting competitors off the hook to not build SH first? I mean presumably they'd alter SS to something that'll work if it doesn't work initially, so in that case they might as well have started with SH?

[Anonymous No.11034937]

>>11034920
>Well the functionality of the Starship tiles and engines has already been demonstrated.
This is what was said. I'm not a spacex hater I'm just not getting swept up here. Starship tiles will be demonstrated as functional when they reach space and then protect the vehicle upon re-entry. If you think some minor tests qualify as "functional" then I guess we have a different opinion on what the function of the tiles is in this context. No big deal. Unsure why you think I'm desperate for anything, I'm just calling it as I see it

[Anonymous No.11034939]

>>11034907
>>11034932
The reason they aren't starting with SH is extremely simple, SH requires a shitton of raptor engines. Even though they say they have raptor going at a fairly high rate of production, 37 engines is a big wait. Plus, you know, more expensive.

[Anonymous No.11034940]

>>11034932
What competitors? The only other reusable vehicle even close to completion is New Glenn, which is Falcon Heavy class. If they developed SH first, they'd need to develop an expendable upper stage that they don't actually plan to use (although there's been talk about an expendable, refuelable upper stage for chucking things at Jupiter and beyond, basically a stripped down tanker without wings or TPS, with dozens of tons of payload on top, for direct Jupiter injection)

[Anonymous No.11034947]

>>11034939
also flying 37 still in development engines on one rocket is basically guaranteed to explode

[Anonymous No.11034950]

>>11034932
They're not gonna wait till they make 100 raptors of unknown condition before testing it out. Starship is the a test for both raptor and the upper stage. Its literally killing 2 in one.

[Anonymous No.11034965]

>>11034937
That was not my claim. I responded specifically to the guy who said they hadn't been re-entry tested.

That said, I don't entirely disagree with " functionality has been demonstrated". They're heat tiles. Their functionality is to absorb heat, which has been tested. That doesn't mean flight tested, 100% ready to jump on a flight tomorrow, and I doubt anyone but you interprets it that way.

[Anonymous No.11034972]

>>11034264
As regards the N1 they arguably achieved negative expandability, which is quite an achievement, albeit not one most would aspire to

[Anonymous No.11034976]

>>11034764
>>11034769
one of the only big known unknowns left from an outside perspective is if the design as a whole is controllable down through reentry, and if the hypersonic modelling is accurate enough that they've provided enough protection where it's needed
luckily, question number 1 will be answered when they hop Mk1 to 20km, and question number 2 will be answered when they yeet one to orbit and back

[Anonymous No.11034981]

>>11034947
Which is why it’s so grating to see Musk refer to SH as the “easy part”. Also, the FH is not proof of concept that SH will work, the FH has 27 engines but their split between 3 cores of 9, meaning the FH’s plumbing is no more difficult than your average Falcon 9. With SH your putting 30+ engines’ worth of plumbing into a single booster. There’s the argument that modern design and testing will make it succeed unlike the N-1 but that's currently unproven. Personally, if I was designing a reusable super-heavy LV I’d have a fewer number of larger engines round the rim like the Saturn V, but with a cluster of restartable smaller engines in the centre for landing; I hope Blue does this with New Armstrong.

[Anonymous No.11034988]

>>11034322
All the usual reptilian subversive media etc elements that don't gaf about space in reality will be all over it as soon as there's a chance of us landing on another planet again pushing their fucking diversity agenda.

[Anonymous No.11034991]

>>11034886
>This can easily sink the whole thing, you know how bad the public is with statistics and how they lose their heads whenever the C-word is mentioned
It's why in the end, space will be colonized by bugmen.

[Anonymous No.11035007]

>>11034981
>Which is why it’s so grating to see Musk refer to SH as the “easy part”
SH IS the easy part. SS is easier to build and test, but its flight profile is novel to SpaceX and the spaceflight in general. The only thing making SH a harder problem than a Falcon booster is scale and new engines.

>muh N1
Stop

[Anonymous No.11035009]

>>11034803
>would you ride a test flight?!?
no that's the point of a test flight
can't wait to watch them pick bits of Starship off of Texas

[Anonymous No.11035016]

>>11034991
>ywn be a genetically modified bugman equipped to handle the ravages of space clad in nothing but your carapace and solar sail wings

[Anonymous No.11035017]

>>11034662
UK is one of the world's largest arms exporters anon, including systems that integrate solid fuelled rockets

[Anonymous No.11035024]

>>11035016
Considering the environment many chinks are living in, a voyage to Mars would probably be in improvement as far as risk of cancer goes.

[Anonymous No.11035027]

>>11034663
This is what I was asking the other day - could mass produced SS be so cheap that even in expendable mode it's still significantly cheaper than competitors?

[Anonymous No.11035031]

>>11035027
>could mass produced SS be so cheap that even in expendable mode it's still significantly cheaper than competitors?
Maybe. The Falcon 9 is like that. Although the Falcon was an expendable vehicle that was iterated into a reusable one while the Starship is going to be reusable from the start.

[Anonymous No.11035036]

>>11035027
With steel construction, cheap engines, and no need to equip for re-entry survival, it honestly doesn't seem unlikely that an expendable chomper would be highly cost competitive.

[Anonymous No.11035037]

>>11034669
The BBC is so full of incompetents and so politically correct that they really struggle to come up with decent ideas, hence throwing money at the few shows that prove popular. It's a real shame Jezza belted that paddy

[Anonymous No.11035039]

>>11035027
SS is supposed to cost ~$10-$30 for hardware itself, including raptor engines.

[Anonymous No.11035043]

>>11034686
I wasted time reading that. Can't you prefix your text with RETARD POST or something?

[Anonymous No.11035048]

>>11035039
>~$10-$30 for hardware itself, including raptor engines
Don't you mean ~$10m-$30m? Or even ~$10k-$30k? Come on, SpaceX's cost cutting abilities are good but not THAT good.

[Anonymous No.11035054]

>>11035048
M

[Anonymous No.11035060]

>>11034745
There's actually something pretty sexy about those tiles. They look genuinely futuristic

[Anonymous No.11035069]

>>11035060
>t. Toaster Fucker

[Anonymous No.11035072]

>>11034783
Hexagon are the perfect space filling shape. Bees are onto something

[Anonymous No.11035073]

>>11035060
>High-Tech Hexagons

[Anonymous No.11035074]

>>11034623
He posts here and rages.

[Anonymous No.11035080]

>>11034893
True. What's worse is that the Marstronauts would be getting on willingly as opposed to an unwanted random snackbarring

[Anonymous No.11035085]

>>11034654
>UK can't get the altitude.
So sad.

[Anonymous No.11035087]

>>11034940
Launch market. Won't SH drop launch cost on its own? Couldn't they just bang a Falcon second stage on top?

[Anonymous No.11035092]

>>11034939
>>11034947
>>11034950
Ah I see. Someone probably told me this the other day, my memory is terrible anons plz forgiv

[Anonymous No.11035096]

>>11035016
Thargoids

[Anonymous No.11035101]

>>11035039
Which is pretty cheap right?

[Anonymous No.11035107]

>>11034879
what would losing Mk3 on reentry look like?
Columbia? Bits of Starship all over Texas?

[Anonymous No.11035109]

>>11035101
Assuming the upper end of that estimate (because why not, it's mind boggling enough) a Falcon 9 second stage is still more than half that, for comparison.

[Anonymous No.11035110]

>>11035069
You may not like it, but this is what peak Mars looks like.

[Anonymous No.11035113]

So with this talk of an expendable starship, is there any need for more than a single vaccuum raptor? TWR doesn't matter in space and the single engine can just do a longer burn rather than a shorter multi engine burn right? A tin can with a raptor and some electronics in it sounds cheap as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11035121]

>>11035113
The upper stage is still necessary to complete orbital insertion, and you don't want the thrust to weight ratio to be below one if you can avoid it, otherwise you suffer extensive gravity losses in return for reduced acceleration loads.

[Anonymous No.11035122]

>>11035113
>TWR doesn't matter in space

Well it kinda does matter when trying to achieve orbit as you have to gain enough velocity to make it before you enter the atmosphere again. After achieving orbit it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.11035125]

>>11034907
>>11034932
they'll be waiting for Raptors anyway so why not try to figure out how to Starship
>>11034937
it's not the tiles that need to be tested in reentry, those have been tested
the hard part of reentry is the whole of reentry: are your hyperaero heating models and such up to snuff? if Starship fails a few times it's going to be because they fucked up the amount of tiles they need or they came in too steep

[Anonymous No.11035129]

>>11035107
Probably it would come apart into very large chunks rather than disintegrate into a fireball. Steel is much more durable, it would get hammered into a few solid chunks of super hot twisted metal on impact.

[Anonymous No.11035131]

>>11035121
>>11035122
I thought the SH yeeted the upper stage SSTO?

[Anonymous No.11035133]

>>11035109
Big drop.

[Anonymous No.11035135]

>>11035101
Yeah. Total cost of Super Heavy + SS probably wont even exceed $100M. Which they can make up the loss in 1-2 Airforce/NASA mission if they really need it.

[Anonymous No.11035136]

>>11035131
Not even close, SH won't even be going as fast as an F9 booster iirc, which is part of why it is projected to forego entry burn

[Anonymous No.11035139]

>>11035125
Yeah I see now wrt raptors.

[Anonymous No.11035148]

I'm still butthurt they dropped BFR and went with this gay starship naming scheme.

[Anonymous No.11035151]

>>11034972
>negative expandability
what do you mean?
>>11034981
once it was "more than four engines" and now it's "more than nine"
it's just plumbing, so can it
>>11035131
no, it's possible if they really really really trim the mass on either SH or Starship it could be capable of SSTO alone, but we've already done that, we called it Atlas
>>11035129
well, more importantly, where would it fall?

[Anonymous No.11035156]

>>11035151
If it were on the way back home I assume if it broke up during reentry it's chunks would land somewhere in the ocean.

[Anonymous No.11035158]

>>11035148
NASA and Air Force doesn't want BFR. They're old school conservative and see it as immoral.

[Anonymous No.11035161]

>>11035156
Columbia was and Starship will be returning to KSC, and Columbia ended up over Texas. Will Starship end up in the Gulf if it melts?
>>11035158
fucking boomers

[Anonymous No.11035165]

>>11035161
Hm, might end up falling even further beyond Texas then, since it's more durable hull aught to hold together for longer even after it's come into multiple parts. I'd hope it overshoots Texas and ends up falling on commiefornia like an ICBM.

[Anonymous No.11035166]

>>11035151
Sorry stupid autocorrect. I meant negative expendability as in, an expendable rocket would usually make it to orbit and then be thrown away, whereas the N1 never actually achieved orbit, but was still thrown away three times. Negative expendability.

[Anonymous No.11035167]

>>11035158
>Having a ambiguously implied fuck in a vehicle name is immoral
>Destabilising countries over the globe, murdering countless innocents, propping up puppet dictators, installing pipelines in "liberated" countries for Saudi and Israeli oil interests is not immoral

Murika fuck ye

[Anonymous No.11035168]

>>11035158
Maybe there's been some backchannel talk but NASA and Airforce have absolutely no involvement with the project so there's no reason to assume the change is because of them. BFR was only a working title and has changed multiple times over the course of evolution

[Anonymous No.11035172]

>>11035165
Kek

[Anonymous No.11035173]

>>11035165
going the other way, anon
traveling west to east

[Anonymous No.11035174]

>ITS
>Top kino design, a bit pretentious name

>BFR
>Shitter design, top kino name

>Starship
>Final design is bretty cool, not as kino as ITS, dogshit tier Reddit meme naming

[Anonymous No.11035175]

>>11035173
Hopefully it would "land" in New Orleans then, fuck those faggots.

[Anonymous No.11035176]

>>11035166
no. do not.

[Anonymous No.11035182]

>>11035174
They should've stuck with the bird-of-prey motif like with Falcon, Merlin, Kestrel, etc. Something like Eagle.

[Anonymous No.11035183]

>>11035175
let me pull up ground track for KSC returns of shuttle
oh shit, NASA has ground tracks for some potential returns of most missions
wew what a trove

[Anonymous No.11035190]

[Anonymous No.11035194]

[Anonymous No.11035205]

>>11035176
What's the matter anon? Do you hate America? Negative expendability is the patriotic solution to the threat posed by dangerously cheap reusable systems!

[Anonymous No.11035207]

>>11034117
We already made it through the great filter by being a land animal with a highly capable body and a high level of consciousness. The results of this is already a civilization with languages, ability to make fire, tools, computers, rockets and AI is just to come. So either humanity or the AI that humanity created has a great future.

We are this one green string going further because we are already through ~80% of the period of Earth habitability and there is no other species in sight that could reach us besides other monkeys (having the Hominoidea branch was already a fluke).

>but craws are so smart
>but elephants have so many more neurons
Good luck building bow and arrow or making fire with a peak/trunk.
>but Dolphins are so clever
Good luck making fire under water, necessary to trigger most chemical reactions.

[Anonymous No.11035208]

>>11035167
Well yea. That's how we operate in the world. We have localized morals and then externalized morals. We all say "we care about other people's lives" and then do nothing about it.

Its not a Murika thing, but a human thing.

[Anonymous No.11035213]

>>11035085
Thats pretty damn cool.

[Anonymous No.11035214]

>>11035110
Mars will be a forge world, and the furnaces will be fueled by the weak!!

[Anonymous No.11035222]

>>11035213
Surely that's CGI

[Anonymous No.11035227]

>>11035087
With a Falcon second stage the effective payload would be limited to what the Falcon Heavy can carry simply by diameter and thrust, and I'm not convinced Superheavy is cheaper than a fully reused FH.

[Anonymous No.11035236]

oh, here we go
the final Hubble servicing mission STS-125 (a launch to 29 degrees, probably where they'll send the first Starship orbit (unless they launch Starlink or something, then it could look like the ones above)
two posts incoming

[Anonymous No.11035238]

[Anonymous No.11035245]

>>11035085
webm is better with audio >>>/wsg/3073630

[Anonymous No.11035248]

>>11035085
>typical ISRO launch
I like the parachute at the end.

>>11035151
>>11035107
>Bits of Starship all over Texas?
Bits of Starship in the Gulf is more likely, they'd probably have it on an water-bound trajectory until right at the end.

>>11035173
>going the other way, anon
>traveling west to east
Alabama? We can only hope.

>>11035207
Kangaroos, they're already sort of bipedal, they just need to evolve thumbs.

[Anonymous No.11035252]

>>11035248
basically, they could come in from literally anywhere, if you look at the STS reentry ground tracks

[Anonymous No.11035258]

>>11035248
Roos only real positive is bipedalism. If primates never made it, my bet is raccoons. They're already halfway to being mammalian kobolds

[Anonymous No.11035323]

>>11035085
What is this?

[Anonymous No.11035333]

>>11035323
Shamiko, that would be some sort of an Indian fireworks display celebrating one or another of their pagan gods or something, I don't understand Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.11035347]

>we have approximately one shot left at interplanetary society before the decline of the west and instability of china lead to a new century of fractured states and warfare
>this is our launch vehicle
>it's got better than even odds of working
[worried laughter]

[Anonymous No.11035360]

>>11035347
>instability of china
kek
China will outlast all of these rotten western states.

[Anonymous No.11035365]

>>11035360
...

[Anonymous No.11035367]

11035360
Your social credit score has increased for this post

[Anonymous No.11035369]

>>11035360
China can't even quell Hong Kong because it'd trigger multiple full blown insurgencies and prevent Taiwan from ever peacefully integrating.

[Anonymous No.11035375]

Nox thruster anon here, sorry for taking so long to get anything done. Been busy with school and funds are tight due to really stupid financial problems.

Anyways, I've been shopping for fittings and been making progress on that. Here's a drawing of the plumbing for my engine. My goal is to have the bare minimum for safety and functionality. Any suggestions to what's needed?

Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous No.11035376]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.03856

This should be applicable to a Mars colony, right? Only 98 humans required for a viable self sustaining colony? Mars would be easier than a generation ship because you can conduct ISRU.

Has anyone bothered to design a minimum viable self sufficient colony? Given that's kinda the point of Musk memes.

[Anonymous No.11035377]

>>11035375
Why would you have two check valves in series with nothing between them that could cause back flow?

[Anonymous No.11035379]

>>11035360
Mate the history of China is literally

>Stable regime
>Something happens
>Country goes to shit
>Millions and millions dead

Repeat ad naseum

[Anonymous No.11035381]

>>11035365
When the day of the dragon comes, you japs and weebs will be the first to go.

[Anonymous No.11035384]

>>11035347
imo the real gamble you need to worry about isn't even Starship, it's the Starlink constellation necessary to fund it. I'm fairly confident about SS but could easily see starlink hitting roadblocks which hold it back for a few years

>>11035360
I miss steppe nomads

[Anonymous No.11035386]

>>11035381

[Anonymous No.11035387]

>>11035379
83 dynasties now, was it?
China had its beginning, Usurping the rightful rulers of china, had its golden age of growth, and now comes the cracks and impending implosion

[Anonymous No.11035388]

>>11035377
The one closest to the engine was originally downstream to the second valve, but I changed it last minute. The reason why I want two check valves is because I am very worried that the nos will spontaneously start to decompose and ride up the plumbing right into the tank causing a massive explosion. So the two check valves are for redundancy.

[Anonymous No.11035393]

>>11035376
>Has anyone bothered to design a minimum viable self sufficient colony? Given that's kinda the point of Musk memes.

Mars society is coming up soon. They are hosting an early colony design event. They are supposed to be full of technical details, everything from power, food, airlocks, ISRU processes etc...

Your boy Zubrin himself has called the top ten designs "outstanding" so you know it's some good shit. It's late October some time I think.

[Anonymous No.11035395]

>>11035381
America hasn't woken up to the threat of China yet. Do you know what happened last time America got in a pissing match with commies?

[Anonymous No.11035396]

>>11035384
At least we still have Bezos in reserve
>tfw humanity is saved by a literal robber baron and we become an ancap utopia/dystopia In the Stars™, Brought to you by Amazon

[Anonymous No.11035402]

>>11035395
>Do you know what happened last time America got in a pissing match with commies?

[Anonymous No.11035404]

>>11035388
there's a thing for that, it's called a flashback arrestor

[Anonymous No.11035413]

>>11035388
That's like doubling up on condoms. Check valves add pressure drop, i.e. will increase the pressure in your system and make it more likely for a reaction to occur, right? A single check valve and a pressure relief valve should be all you need.

[Anonymous No.11035415]

>>11035396
>Amazon Prime serves as a basic citizenship for the Moon
>Prime Security is literally just Star Helix irl
>Prime Video is still showing The Expanse, but now it's a reality TV show set on Ceres
>Mars is independent, ruled by Musk, and in a trade war with Amazon
>Earth is just a radioactive shithole, literally entire countries have fled to space
>Earth is entirely populated by Africans and Indians because we figured out a way to make white flight from Earth possible
>Venusian cloud cities are attempted, fail, and the lawsuit brings Mao Kwik into being
>There is absolutely nothing stopping you from buying a retired Starship and setting up an ice hauling route
>There is absolutely nothing stopping you from strapping miniguns to your Starship, and with all the pirates around you probably should
>Asteroid communes fight wars for mineral rights until Amazon Resources™ purchases the entire belt
>Amazon and Mars fight a nuclear war over the asteroid belt, but Musk and Bezos make a gentlemen's agreement never to target cities
>Humanity's future is ensured by megacorporations ruled by visionaries

[Anonymous No.11035427]

>>11035404
Struggling to find one in 3/8 NPT, unless 3/8"-24 is another name for that.

>>11035413
Maybe you have a point. So something like this?

[Anonymous No.11035429]

>>11035427
you'd have to ask a plumber
or you could ask if they take returns

[Anonymous No.11035434]

>>11035415
Bezos can never stop the Lunar Insurgency, their tunnels go too deep. The fool thinks he owns the Moon, but he can't even keep a lid on surface piracy.

[Anonymous No.11035440]

>>11035434
>luna-cong fighting in unmapped lava tubes under Armstrong City

[Anonymous No.11035449]

>>11035222
It is aerodynamics, not CGI.

[Anonymous No.11035454]

>>11035440
>Keep sending mapping drones, Jeffy-boy, we need the parts

[Anonymous No.11035466]

>>11035454
>Smell that? That's glassed regolith. It smells like victory.

[Anonymous No.11035471]

>>11035466
>the Lunar Insurgency has nuclear weapons

[Anonymous No.11035484]

>>11035471
Would only make sense. If the Moon has a similar geological composition to the Earth, then there's definitely enough uranium for huge weapons stockpiles if you can find the stuff.

[Anonymous No.11035489]

>>11035471
>supplied by martian smugglers

[Anonymous No.11035500]

>>11035489
>which were secretly funded by the "queen bees"

[Anonymous No.11035511]

>>11035360
There is literally an ongoing bank run in Honk Kong. Right fucking now.
>https://twitter.com/Jkylebass/status/1180553806846791681

[Anonymous No.11035514]

>>11035511
There's going to be an ongoing tank run too pretty soon

[Anonymous No.11035522]

>>11033536
>>11033546
>>11035514
>>11035511
>>11035500
>>11035484
>>11035471
>>11035466
>>11035449
>>11035434
>>11035429
>>11035427
>>11035415
>>11035413
>>11035404
>>11035402
>>11035396
>>11035395
>>11035387
>>11035386
>>11035381
>>11035379
>>11035377
>>11035376
>>11035360
>>11035365
>>11035236
>>11035227
get in her bois we making space white again >>11035516

[Anonymous No.11035528]

>>11035522
Fuck off, faggot.

[Anonymous No.11035529]

>>11035440
>When you're patrolling the warrens in Armstrong City's subsector Gamma 3, level 47 and the cubic starts speaking sino-slavic creole

[Anonymous No.11035534]

>>11035528
report and ignore

[Anonymous No.11035545]

>>11035529
gud post

[Anonymous No.11035550]

>>11035529
>the autotranslator on your HUD returns a snippet which seems to describe your location and heading

[Anonymous No.11035551]

>>11035511
>implying Xi isn't about to genocide Hong Kong now that it's economically irrelevant

[Anonymous No.11035557]

>>11035551
which would give the US a reason to move China to rogue state status while continuing to move manufacturing to India, Mexico, and Vietnam

[Anonymous No.11035558]

>>11035529
God I wish I were ambushing corpies in lunar tunnels- bounding along in my patchwork pressure suit, screaming in broken semi-russian, distracting them while my buddy Ivan takes aim at their rover with a solid-core chem laser.

[Anonymous No.11035564]

>>11035550
>You don't need the autotranslator when the tunnel walls start yelling CУКA БЛЯTЬ at you

[Anonymous No.11035566]

>>11035557
The EU has also stated how much they would dislike a Tienanmen repeat, and they're now on-board with the US' relatively soft moves against China.

[Anonymous No.11035570]

>>11035566
kinda hope it happens desu, something really fucking dramatic like nuking hong kong, it would literally be the end of communist china

[Anonymous No.11035577]

>>11035529
>Your map is no longer reading you as in a mapped tunnel. You suddenly realize the Kube Kultists have started drilling their own, and you know where that spare atomic tunnel bore must have gone to.

[Anonymous No.11035582]

>>11035577
no, the followers of the /k/ube chant in latin and mostly speak English, although some speak a few russian catchphrases

[Anonymous No.11035590]

>>11035582
rumor has it a branch of the /k/ube followers decided unnaground wasn't deep enough, and now reside on a secretly made submersible platform within Uranus' seas.

[Anonymous No.11035630]

>>11035577
>Output is a highly radioactive slurry

What a terrible idea.

[Anonymous No.11035632]

>>11035630
>highly radioactive slurry
mildly radioactive slurry

[Anonymous No.11035638]

>>11035570
Not even the norks are crazy enough to nuke their own people.

[Anonymous No.11035644]

Is the sci-fi trope of agri-worlds theoretically possible? Could there someday be planets or moons dedicated to producing crops for export, for space-based colonies in particular? Or would the energy cost of sending stuff into orbit be too high to make such an endeavor worth it?

[Anonymous No.11035645]

>>11035630
You're taking your anti-rads, right anon? Getting your yearly gene boosters? Right?

[Anonymous No.11035647]

>>11034916
But ablative tiles aren't reusable(TM).

[Anonymous No.11035650]

>>11035638
The chinks already killed 50 million of their own people.
What's 5 million more to them?

[Anonymous No.11035653]

>>11035647
neither was the shuttle?

[Anonymous No.11035655]

>>11035644
Sure, they just need to be smaller than Earth or have an elevator

[Anonymous No.11035657]

>>11034916
They probably came up with lots of ways to upgrade the Shuttle. However, NASA never could upgrade the Shuttle because they were never given money and permission to do so.

[Anonymous No.11035670]

>>11035644
you wouldn't be able to stick enough people on a planet to not have enough space to grow their food with them
having dedicated planets/moons for it is unnecessary, a logistical nuisance, and easily interrupted by war or blockade

[Anonymous No.11035673]

>>11035650
Hong Kong is a major economic center for both china, and the world at large
if it gets trashed, either by a nuke or an army marching through it, everyone from the common people to the big top jews will be mad at them

[Anonymous No.11035677]

>>11035644
Space-based colonies yes, planets/moons probably not. Space colonies don't have to deal with as much of a gravity well or unusual weather conditions.

[Anonymous No.11035713]

>>11035677
Would it take more resources to build a space station for agriculture than preparing more land on a planet or moon for farming?

[Anonymous No.11035847]

>>11035713
orders of magnitude more, since you'd be building the exact same shit in both places, having a station just means you have to build the station in addition to the agriculture/hydroponics

[Anonymous No.11035895]

If 4 crew dragon stacked, can it reach orbit?

[Anonymous No.11035933]

>>11035650
Not saying they won’t kill them, but there’s no way they’d risk the international backlash of using nuclear weapons.

[Anonymous No.11035947]

>>11035933
is manual genocide better or worse than nuclear genocide?

[Anonymous No.11035987]

>>11035947
For me uh genocide is more about the journey instead of destination.

[Anonymous No.11036008]

>>11035987
don't be sad it's over, be glad it happened
– dr seuss

[Anonymous No.11036037]

>>11035415
Where's the UN in all this?

[Anonymous No.11036042]

>>11036037
trying to keep darkies fed on earth

[Anonymous No.11036080]

>>11036037
they died on Earth with the rest of the old world Earthgov bureaucrats

[Anonymous No.11036210]

>>11035376
interesting

>Under the set of parameters described in this publication, we find that a minimum crew of 98 people is necessary ensure a 100% success rate for a 6300-year space travel towards the closest telluric exoplanet known so far.

[Anonymous No.11036218]

>>11035434
>Bezos can never stop the Lunar Insurgency, their tunnels go too deep.

1000km solid mantle deep.

[Anonymous No.11036253]

>>11034760
It‘s shuttle, but the two failure modes that killed shuttles and I think even those that almost killed shuttles aren‘t a part of the design anymore. Also the engines and the heat shield are more reusable and it can launch a lot more payload and the engines and components in general are worlds cheaper and there‘s no SRBs at all which are expensive to refurbish and it might actually have launch abort(although I guess this is hypothetical). And as you said it has orbital refueling so it‘s not eternally cucked into being a glorified leo crew capsule. Probably missed a shitton of other stuff.

[Anonymous No.11036256]

>>11036253
yeah, that's what I said
no SRB, integral fuel tank, orbital refueling

[Anonymous No.11036293]

>>11035182
Reusable
Offworld
Cruiser

[Anonymous No.11036299]

>>11036293
9m isn't big enough to call something Roc

[Anonymous No.11036398]

>>11035360
You should read up on the current state of china and how desperatly they are trying to keep the population under control.

[Anonymous No.11036462]

>>11035360
doesn't china have a long history of calla[sing into smaller states and becombining?

I would consider the current set up "stable".

[Anonymous No.11036544]

>>11036462
China has a long history of getting buttfucked&conquered&enslaved by all its neighbours, and everytime millions of chinese become a genocide statistic.
And now china is trying hard to keep the population under control, massive spynetworks down to streetlevel camera's, "rehabilitation" camps, beyond fucked up civilian point system, massive brainwashing at early age, etc....
And the chinese economy is already breaking, international company's are already moving to even cheaper countries, chinese refuse to buy chinese products, the housing market scheme is in freefall and the goverment is blowing it's reserves on it to keep from bursting.
They have a shitload of deals made with african countries for goods&etc.. but dont seem to realize what the whites already now for ages now, that is that african leaders do not honor deals and all those mines, etc.... they have "bought" will just get taken away in a hearbeat by those african warlords.
In short, there is a lot going on that could fuck over china, and the honk kong roits&bank fraud is just the start.

[Anonymous No.11036551]

Talking of China, their currently building a new launch vehicle with a 3.8m wide core and powered by 7 clustered YF-100 engines. It’s being built from the ground up to have a ‘heavy’ configuration with 3 boosters.

[Anonymous No.11036554]

>>11036551
>booster/sustainer
they done fucked up

[Anonymous No.11036561]

>>11036554
No, it’s a very practical architecture. The single core version is used for transporting crew to China’s LEO station, whilst the Heavy version is for Moon missions.

[Anonymous No.11036564]

>>11036561
>booster
>fucking
>sustainer
THEY
DONE
FUCKED
UP

[Anonymous No.11036570]

>>11036564
I’m pretty sure you don’t understand what a sustainer stage is illiterate subhuman.

[Anonymous No.11036576]

>>11036570
Things like the shuttle, SLS, Falcon Heavy, Delta IV with solids, Atlas V with solids, Delta IV Heavy
if you light more than one engine on the ground and then stage only some of them away in your next staging event, it's a booster/sustainer design
theoretically it may be optimal if you implement cross-feed (this is known as asparagus staging) but modern (non-hydrogen meme) engines have such good thrust to weight ratios that it's really not needed and may even lose you efficiency due to the broader cross-section and worse ballistic coefficient

[Anonymous No.11036594]

>>11036576
Delta 4 Heavy isn’t a sustainer design, it uses three common-core boosters and neither is the Falcon Heavy. Just because they throttle down the side boosters, doesn’t automatically mean their sustainer designs. Also, what’s wrong with a sustainer design when the world’s most premier commercial lifter (Ariane 5) and world’s most reliable rocket (Atlas 5) both use it?

[Anonymous No.11036597]

>>11036594
they throttle down the core booster, and run the side boosters at max
then they stage those boosters directly into the trash, while the core stage sustains the burn
BOOSTER
FUCKING
SUSTAINER

[Anonymous No.11036599]

>>11036597
Are you a schizophrenic?

[Anonymous No.11036606]

>>11036599
so I'm going to make a statement, and I want you to tell me if you disagree with it: common core launch vehicles are a type of booster sustainer design

[Anonymous No.11036622]

>>11036594
>Also, what’s wrong with a sustainer design when the world’s most premier commercial lifter (Ariane 5) and world’s most reliable rocket (Atlas 5) both use it?

It is obsolete without any first stage reusability.

[Anonymous No.11036628]

>finish morning coffee, check /sfg/
>it's a semantics episode
Almost wish we were still bitching about China desu

[Anonymous No.11036697]

>>11036622
Say that to the Ariane 5, which with dual-berthing is cheaper to launch on an than a Falcon 9. In fact it recently stole a payload from the reusable Falcon Heavy because of this...

[Anonymous No.11036719]

[Anonymous No.11036739]

>>11035713
Assuming your planet is actually ideally earth-like (with either neutral or actively useful biosphere, 1G, and an essentially identical atmosphere circling a nearly identical star with nearly identical seasons) you will still expend more resources having to constantly launch rockets to-and-from that planet for trade. If you build a megastructure like a mass-driver and skyhook pair or a space elevator then you'll be expending enough resources to build giant rotohabs like an O'niell Cylinder or Bernal Sphere anyways. I think if you're an interplanetary species who at the very least use laser accelerator highways and fusion torch drives to get themselves up to .5C and above, or you've discovered some kind of nearly-magical gravity drive or other spacedrive that actually makes intersteller travel fast enough for you to have an old age-of-sail like space civilization then colonizing planets is never going to be comparably efficient to just building your own habitat orbiting one. That's not to say you wouldn't have planetary colonies, but they'd mostly be for RnR so your civilization doesn't go space crazy, you'd go down to a planet to map and study it, make art about it, breath fresh air and stand on ground you know isn't artificially manufactured, not because the planet is valuable for it's resources, since everything it's got can be had everywhere else in the universe more easily.

[Anonymous No.11037008]

New thread: >>11037006

>>11037006

>>11037006

>>11037006

[Anonymous No.11037276]

>>11035248
Kangaroos are retards though, dumber than deer

[Anonymous No.11037286]

>>11037276
Kangaroo's drown dogs for fun.
They are evil cunt's.