/sfg/ - Space Flight General

[Anonymous No.11042598]

This used to be a nice neighborhood edition

Previous: >>11037006

[Anonymous No.11042615]

A lot of slips are going to be announced when Gerst's old position at NASA gets filled.
Artemis 1 will almost certainly slip to 2021
CCrew will almost certainly slip to 2020
NASA will almost certainly be buying more Baseduzes in the meantime.
Basically, pic related.

[Anonymous No.11042619]

>>11042615
Wtf phone.
Baseduzes, not whatever the hell a "Baseduz" is.

[Anonymous No.11042622]

>>11042619
God damnit.

S O Y U Z E S

[Anonymous No.11042624]

>>11042598
It's going to be so cool to see New Glenn pseudo-glide and land. Hopefully it goes well for them. Spaceflight needs more companies that can recover their rockets.

[Anonymous No.11042639]

First for the Chad SLS

[Anonymous No.11042640]

>>11042615
>>11042619
>>11042622
We need a cosmonaut basedboy wojak edit...

[Anonymous No.11042650]

>>11042640
Oh, THAT'S what's causing that.

Well, I'm fine with calling them Baseduzes. As far as I'm concerned, they've earned it after their 50+ years of service

[Anonymous No.11042657]

>people talking about artemis like it's going to survive the election

[Anonymous No.11042667]

>>11042657
I don't see why Trump would change it's mandate going into his second term.

[Anonymous No.11042685]

>>11042657
It may get "canceled", but there has been too much work put into it for it to be dropped. If the next president wants to end Artemis, then it'll just come back due to Congressional mandate with a new name.

[Anonymous No.11042687]

>>11042657
>implying any president would turn down a Moon landing in their term

[Anonymous No.11042689]

>>11042687
>"My opponent was the one who started the return to the moon, so I've decided to cancel that because I don't want to carry on the legacy of someone who I disagree with."

[Anonymous No.11042698]

>>11042657
>>11042685
>>11042687
>>11042689
Artemis will survive an admin change, billion dollar gateway and lander contracts are hard to get rid of, especially when their being managed by Alabama and Texas. Also, the goal of getting a woman on the Moon resonates with the Dems. The 2024 deadline will go, but Artemis will survive.

[Anonymous No.11042711]

>>11042619
Jeff Basedos

[Anonymous No.11042725]

>>11042711
Yeah, he’s pretty based

[Anonymous No.11042777]

>>11042657
actually nasa has the perfect pitch this time.
They have been pushing the "we are going back to the moon, and this time a woman will be the first"
This means the next goverment and it's puppet president will have a hard time cancelling his predecesors projects.
In short, nasa is using sjw&feminism to make sure they survive next election, kind of sad how the first female astronaut on the moon will be there because of political bullshit, not because she was the best pick for that mission.

[Anonymous No.11042788]

>>11042777
Mike Pence is a surprisingly cunning political operator, quiet but effective. Trump doesn’t deserve him...

[Anonymous No.11042800]

>>11042788
Pence is the only reason NASA didn't get derailed to endlessly pursuing a Mars mission they can't afford again.
It's pretty clear that if it were up to Trump, NASA wouldn't be focusing on something actually possible for them to do in the near-term.

[Anonymous No.11042804]

>>11042622
>>11042619
It is probably a word filter for the first 3 letters.

[Anonymous No.11042808]

slow and steady wins the race as usual

[Anonymous No.11042809]

>>11042804
Yeah, I realized that when somebody said "basedboy."

[Anonymous No.11042812]

>>11042808
the chad turtle 15 year development vs virgin 6 month mexican hack job into RUD

[Anonymous No.11042818]

soyuz

[Anonymous No.11042825]

>>11042818
Is it just the plural? Lemme test:
Soyuz
Baseduzes

[Anonymous No.11042827]

>>11042818
>>11042825
Yup. Just the plural.

[Anonymous No.11042867]

onions service module

[Anonymous No.11042870]

>>11042657
Artemis was designed to die. They initially proposed to fund it by taking away some money from grants for college education which is pretty unpopular. Fuck it was even proposed pretty goddamn late for a big program too. Artemis is also pretty goddamn pointless unless they do ISRU.

[Anonymous No.11042877]

>>11042870
>Artemis was designed to die
>Proceeds to get funded by the Senate (aka Shelby’s stamp of approval)

[Anonymous No.11042887]

>>11042870
ISRU will be mandated for #HandsomeThursday astronauts travelling there on following artemis missions in the late 2020s under the Barron Trump Directorate

[Anonymous No.11042897]

>>11042619
Soyuz will work, maybe

[Anonymous No.11042904]

>>11042825
>>11042897
Baseduzes

[Anonymous No.11042929]

[Anonymous No.11042933]

>>11042598
did they conceive of the fire? is this going to be part of every launch?

[Anonymous No.11042943]

>>11042777
Yes, but will it be trans women of color? Otherwise it's just another proof of white supremacy.

[Anonymous No.11042953]

>>11042933
That's just Jeff's vape cloud.

[Anonymous No.11042965]

>>11042943
Nah, that spot is reserved for uranus.

[Anonymous No.11043018]

>>11042933
That’s just SpaceX’s Starship undergoing a RUD in the background, BO’s render team are apparently forward thinking and have a dark sense of humour.

[Anonymous No.11043021]

>>11042897
what a hoot

[Anonymous No.11043030]

>>11043021
What did I miss?

[Anonymous No.11043036]

soyuz
onions uz
basedooze
onions ooze
baseduzes
baseduzi
soiuz

[Anonymous No.11043041]

If I had a magic button that instantly melted all the water on Mars and heated the planet to a balmy and consistent 20°C, what would happen? Would the added pressure be enough to maintain liquid water?

[Anonymous No.11043042]

>>11042887
isn't he 14 or something
holy fuck he's tall

[Anonymous No.11043051]

>>11043042
He is a new breed, Burgoslovenian.

[Anonymous No.11043054]

>>11043041
>Would the added pressure be enough to maintain liquid water?
No

[Anonymous No.11043072]

I just want to let you guys know that the spacesuit NASA plans to use for the Artemis Moon landings isn’t vapourware. Here’s a prototype of xEMU being tested at their buoyancy lab:

[Anonymous No.11043074]

>>11043072

[Anonymous No.11043079]

>>11043074

[Anonymous No.11043091]

>>11043054
Bullshit, there's 21 million times more ice on Mars than water vapor in the Martian atmosphere, and you only need to increase Martian surface pressure by like 3-4x to maintain liquid water.

[Anonymous No.11043093]

Awesome! Now for the really nice part between seeing a really exciting NASA project and that project being cancelled before it gets anywhere.

[Anonymous No.11043099]

>>11042598
I can't believe Jeff Bezos has BO.

[Anonymous No.11043118]

[Anonymous No.11043121]

>>11043118
ftfy

[Anonymous No.11043123]

>>11043121

[Anonymous No.11043133]

>>11043079
Huh. I'm guessing there won't be any backpack tossing out the lem hatch this time then? That is quite a yuge suit.

[Anonymous No.11043136]

>11043036
>11043123
it sure is newfriend in here

[Anonymous No.11043153]

>>11043136
my memes are older than yours, my child
that other guy though, yeah

[Anonymous No.11043167]

>>11043091
Mars averages around -60 and can get as low as -150 at the poles. During the summer at the equator, the daytime temperature can reach 20 degrees. You can't have stable liquid water on Mars no matter how much you increase the pressure unless the temperature is increased too. Water vapor doesn't do a good job at facilitating the greenhouse effect.

[Anonymous No.11043178]

>>11043167
But yeah if somehow you could heat Mars up that much there could be liquid water.

[Anonymous No.11043181]

Easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff in these threads. Only Starship matters.

[Anonymous No.11043199]

[Anonymous No.11043217]

>>11043167
I did say "and heated the planet to a consistent 20°C" which would require massive orbital mirrors but you aren't even thinking about terraforming without massive orbital mirrors anyways

[Anonymous No.11043273]

Memes aside. Are there good counter arguments against the economics of reusable launch vehicles? The only one's I've heard were that the Shuttle tried that and it was too expensive, and that most payloads are so expensive that even a $100M expendable rocket is a small part of the price so there's no motive to go cheaper with reuse. What do you think /sfg/?

pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.11043285]

>>11043273
>Memes aside. Are there good counter arguments against the economics of reusable launch vehicles? The only one's I've heard were that the Shuttle tried that and it was too expensive, and that most payloads are so expensive that even a $100M expendable rocket is a small part of the price so there's no motive to go cheaper with reuse. What do you think /sfg/?

Payloads are expensive because launches are expensive. Right now, you can't afford to get it wrong.

[Anonymous No.11043288]

>>11043273
That's a valid argument only if you insist on a static model which has zero capacity for improvement. The shuttle failed not only because it's design philosophy and technology were insufficient for the intended task but because government programs are generally created with the goal of farming money and creating a static job market rather than generating value. On top of that the lifter/payload dilema is a self-feeding vicious cycle, payloads have to be super expensive because they have to be ultra high quality and made of super light materials to be launched by anemic launchers. There is no desire for better launchers because payloads designed for inferior launchers are hyper expensive. The argument against more economical reusable rockets stands only until somebody decides to pony up the investment to build a better launch infrastructure. The start will be slow because payloads will still be costly, however not all payloads have to be, things like station habs can be constructed with common materials and with the right incentives an industry can arise to create many of them. Certain manufacturing techniques can only be experimented with in zero gravity, and satellite megaconstellations promise to overturn the models of more limited service providing systems in time.

[Anonymous No.11043291]

>>11043273
The only arguments are that Shuttle tried it and space is hard. JWST costs more than Lithuania because it absolutely needs to work on the first try every time, because they couldn't afford a do-over. Rock bottom launch costs change the economics – why not build five cheaper, less reliable space telescopes for the same cost? Launch them all, if four succeed you have four telescopes for the price of one.

[Anonymous No.11043292]

>>11042598
do you guys like kerbal space program

[Anonymous No.11043299]

>>11043292
I like it. Don't really play it much because it takes so much time to get anything done, but it's fun when I find the time and energy to play. Recently started by first career mode play-through and it's nice, contracts are kinda BS though. Excited for KSP2.

[Anonymous No.11043317]

>>11043072
So it's still in development then? So basically it's vaporware.

[Anonymous No.11043320]

>>11043292
Been setting up the hardware for a full Jool tour the past few days after building/testing everything.
>>11043299
Hearing that KSP2 will be on PS4 is making me want to get a new console, already did since Ace Combat 7 also my PC struggles under the load of KSP1 so it might be easier to just go that route.

[Anonymous No.11043322]

>>11043292
Hell yeah, but I can't get excited about it anymore knowing 2 is on the way.

>>11043273
> The only one's I've heard were that the Shuttle tried that and it was too expensive
The Shuttle is what reusability looks like when you design by committee and the committee's single common concern is cost maximization.

>and that most payloads are so expensive that even a $100M expendable rocket is a small part of the price so there's no motive to go cheaper with reuse.
The assumption there is that dropping the floor out from under that 100M number would not change what payloads are practical. Smallsats already poke some holes in that theory, and that's nothing.

[Anonymous No.11043325]

>>11043288
>That's a valid argument only if you insist on a static model which has zero capacity for improvement
I think someone could argue that since spaceflight technology hasn't changed significantly in the last couple of decades, then the assumption that the industry doesn't have much capacity seems to hold true.

[Anonymous No.11043339]

>>11043291
The "cheap but plentiful" approach wouldn't really work for scientific payloads since those need to have very accurate and therefore expensive instruments. Also, isn't most of the reliability concerns with JWST come from the design compromises by having limited dimensions to work with (i.e. the folding mirror and shield)? That isn't really affected by launch costs.

[Anonymous No.11043345]

>>11043325
That's only because all people involved in professional rocketry continue to pig-headedly ignore non-chemical propulsion solutions. Realistically achievable propulsion systems can already take us to fractional C, were we to devote any significant effort to space travel.

[Anonymous No.11043365]

>>11043339
Starship can't quite launch Webb unfolded, but it could come close. You're right about the instrumentation, but everything comes down in cost as production scales up. The most expensive thing in the universe is something you make exactly one of.

[Anonymous No.11043373]

>>11043325
The industry absolutely does not have anywhere near the capacity to saturate Starship. Industry can't even saturate Falcon 9. There is something of an inherent "if you build it, they will come" gamble with reuse. But if you succeed, and the industry does come, you're going to be fucking rolling in cash. Starship and Starlink together give Musk a good shot at out-spending Bezos.

[Anonymous No.11043383]

>>11043339
>scientific payloads since those need to have very accurate and therefore expensive instruments
Or instead of sending one scientific payload with expensive parts, you send a hundred payloads with cheap parts. With weight not being a concern, you can have a lot of dumb mass shield the probe that you couldn't get away with normally.
>JWST
One telescope. Imagine instead a lot of smaller, cheaper JWSTs built in a factory setting. Maybe slightly different, more specializing in different spectrums to be way better than what the one JWST could ever hope to be.

[Anonymous No.11043421]

>>11043373
>Starship and Starlink together give Musk a good shot at out-spending Bezos.
I don't quite understand how Starlink is a solution for SpaceX if there's not enough launches for Starship. Sure, it'll keep launch costs down due to frequent launches, but each launch is a loss to SpaceX since they're launching their own payloads. Sure, if Starlink is successful, then SpaceX can make up that lost money, but Starlink is also a gamble so it might not work either. Unless I'm forgetting something?

[Anonymous No.11043425]

>>11043345
The only one we can build right now is Orion and that requires such a retarded amount of nukes it's not even worth contemplating.

[Anonymous No.11043427]

>>11043421
>Starlink is a gamble

Hardly, once they prove their interlinks works there is nothing to stop it since it's funded, even launching on Falcon 9. They could pick up a few hundred million subscribers tomorrow if they simply offer marginally better service than existing isps. Not hard given that huge rural populations have either no internet, dial up or shithouse DSL. The cashflow potential of starlink is retarded, they could get more than NASAs budget no problem. With that cash they can just bankroll their own mars colony and tell NASA beauracrats to get fucked.

[Anonymous No.11043447]

>>11043427
Any idea how much would a subscription cost for Starlink? Iridium had about ten thousand subscribers when it had to file for bankruptcy, so it seems like if SpaceX can make their money back with that many customers then Starlink may be a success even if it doesn't pull in lots of customers.

[Anonymous No.11043464]

>>11043447
Satellite internet latency sucks shit. Starlink is supposedly fixing that. How many customers? All of rural Canada and America.

[Anonymous No.11043467]

>>11043447
$50 a month could be doable. $50 a month times 1 million customers (Pretty sure starlink is going for a hundred times that) is $50 mil a month. That could easily pay for a starship launch with another cluster of starlink sats every month.

>>11043464
The bulk of the latency with current Stationary sats is simply due to travel time out to the belt and back. Starlink orbits much lower and thus it takes less time for the photons to physically reach the satellites.

[Anonymous No.11043480]

Boeing just bought a piece of virgin galactic.

[Anonymous No.11043481]

>>11042687
>>11042689
Do you not remember that Obama canceled Bush's plan to return to the moon plan so that he could make his stupid astroid capture mission, because "we've already done the moon"
If Trump doesn't survive 2020 you can bet you're ass that nasa will again be redirected to something else

[Anonymous No.11043484]

>>11043467
$100/mo is competitive with rural Canadian ISPs on price and should blow them the fuck apart on quality. It's bad here.

[Anonymous No.11043490]

>>11043481
>Bush's plan to return to the moon
I still love the concept for the Copernicus IP vessel.
RIP Constellation

[Anonymous No.11043493]

>>11043481
I wonder what the replacement will be. SLS will have to fit in there somehow.

[Anonymous No.11043506]

>>11043467
>Starlink orbits much lower and thus it takes less time for the photons to physically reach the satellites.
In fact, one of the most promising potential moneymakers for Starlink is that it could provide a low latency avenue for high frequency trading.

[Anonymous No.11043516]

Without the ISS there would be no Elon Musk, Caryn Schenewerk, Luca Parmitano, Richard Rembala, Kelly Garehime, Yusaku Maezawa, or Jim Bridenstine.

[Anonymous No.11043522]

>>11043516
your point being?

[Anonymous No.11043526]

>>11042624
>first flight in 2021

[Anonymous No.11043535]

>>11043526
At least Blue Origin seems consistent with their dates.

[Anonymous No.11043536]

>>11043526
>their competitor for falcon is going to fly after starship

[Anonymous No.11043541]

>falling for the NASA hoax

[Anonymous No.11043544]

not even a single reply for you

[Anonymous No.11043552]

>>11043536
tbf it's more of a Falcon Heavy competitor

[Anonymous No.11043554]

>>11043541
this guy is woke, I hope none of you are are falling for the SLS Block 2 fake rocket

[Anonymous No.11043557]

>>11043554
I think it's generally accepted here that SLS Block 2 will never come.

[Anonymous No.11043572]

l.. lewd

[Anonymous No.11043579]

>>11042594
give me a summary please
CRS-7, AMOS whatever pad explosion, what else are you talking about

[Anonymous No.11043581]

>>11043579
Zuma failed but that was Northrop's fault (they insisted on bringing their own payload adapter which immediately failed)

[Anonymous No.11043582]

did they fuck up the Soyuz exemption for the based filter

[Anonymous No.11043584]

>>11043579
That Falcon 9 launch where they lost an engine on ascent but made orbit fine anyway, delivered the primary payload, but NASA wouldn't let them deploy the secondary payload because of a small chance that it would get stuck in a wonky and possibly dangerous orbit.

[Anonymous No.11043588]

>>11043582
Soyuz is exempt, but the plural isn't

[Anonymous No.11043601]

Space isn't real

[Anonymous No.11043618]

how can space be real if our eyes aren't real

[Anonymous No.11043625]

How fucked is NASA if CC misses the 2020 launch?

[Anonymous No.11043627]

>>11043153
Wow epic ancient meme my fellow oldfag

[Anonymous No.11043630]

>2019
>beLIEving in the moon landing
ishygddt

[Anonymous No.11043631]

>>11043625
If CC misses 2020, then Roscosmos gets some more funds from NASA.

[Anonymous No.11043637]

>>11043292
currently leveling up Valentina
have a spaceplane on route to near kerbin heliocentric orbit
>>11043584
ah yeah, that
something about the ISS?
>>11043588
bruh

[Anonymous No.11043638]

I'm just gonna drop this here. Full of some nice reading.
http://www.clavius.org/

[Anonymous No.11043641]

>>11043638
Nice propaganda

[Anonymous No.11043644]

>>11043625
They buy the thing the word filter doesn't like.

[Anonymous No.11043645]

>>11043638
fuck off, you're almost as bad as the hoaxers

[Anonymous No.11043653]

>>11043631
>>11043644
Yeah, but what will that mean for NASA funding? It can't look good for congress or anyone managing the budget.

[Anonymous No.11043657]

>>11043653
Funding for CC will probably continue since one of the "trusted" contractors is in the program. Plus, NASA and Congress really does want to be independent of Roscosmos for sending crew to space so they'll tolerate some delays (delays that were caused by Congress for denying half of the requested funding for a couple of years at the start of the program).

[Anonymous No.11043658]

>>11043638
Anyone who still thinks space isn't real is trolling or sub 60 IQ. We have so many livestreams of space you have to be a complete moron to think it's fake.

[Anonymous No.11043679]

>>11043658
anyone who still replies to the trolls is the one with sub 60 IQ
it's been decades of this shit, even the most underage of underageb& should know better by now

[Anonymous No.11043680]

>>11043653
Congress will get mad, but they're not gonna do anything. A delayed CCrew means a few more years of Baseduzes. That's a lesser evil than a cancelled CCrew, which means a foreseeable future of Baseduzes.

[Anonymous No.11043725]

>>11043447
>Iridium had about ten thousand subscribers when it had to file for bankruptcy
Iridium was also shit back then. It was designed for handheld phones, not data. IIRC it had no digital mode, so all you could do was run 9600 baud analog through it. But at least it was low enough latency that normal modems should work.
And it only had 77 satellites, so a lot less potential bandwidth. And they could only be launched five at a time, making it much more costly than Starlink's deck of 60 cards (maybe more from Starship) deployment.
>>11043584
>a small chance that it would
...be in an orbit too close to ISS (where the primary mission went). There was a 5% chance it would be "too close" to ISS due to not having full launch boost.

[Anonymous No.11043731]

>>11043725
That's what I meant by wonky orbit.

[Anonymous No.11043734]

Imagine being an astronaut

>Get into Soyuz
>Pray that gopniks haven't drilled holes in the pressure vessel

>Get into Starliner
>Pray it doesn't spray hypergolics in your face

>Get into crew dragon
>Pray it doesn't randomly explode

[Anonymous No.11043738]

>>11043734
>Get into Orion
>Have to get out because it's still not completed yet

[Anonymous No.11043751]

>>11043123

[Anonymous No.11043756]

>>11043738
The capsule's actually done. It's what it's riding on that isn't.

[Anonymous No.11043760]

>>11043756
>hello I am the quality control manager
oh fug

[Anonymous No.11043768]

>>11043383
>> send a hundred payloads with cheap parts
It's scientific equipment you're gonna have a hell of a time making it cheaper. Telescopes literally have parts machined and aligned to NANOMETER tolerances. That's right NANOMETERS. Just because you can't buy it off the fucking shelf is going to make it very expensive. Still even the stuff we can buy off the shelf ain't produced on the scales we make fucking consumer electronics. I mean even producing up to 1000 units of something is still pretty small compared to the scale at which we make cellphones.
>> Imagine instead a lot of smaller, cheaper JWSTs built in a factory setting.
great, so you can take the same damn shitty pictures we've been taking before, only more of them. The idea behind JWST is to take better ones rather than more.
>>more specializing in different spectrums
then they'd be so radically fucking different that you'd have to change everything. But there is a way to achieve basically what you want, but you're going to fucking hate it because it's mass efficient. What you do is simple: make the telescope bigger. Pretty much everything gets better when you make a bigger space telescope. Just because it's so goddamn fucking big you still have to worry about mass efficiency. I'd also like to remind you that it's FUCKING SPACE, so we can build things ungodly fucking big while not using much mass per unit area because our structure doesn't need to support itself under gravity. We only need to design it to have a reasonably high resonant frequency so it doesn't take fucking days to point at something. We also still get the benefit of mass production. Pic related uses a frame made of aerospace grade tent poles and what are basically JWST mirrors which we make many copies of. Tent poles and a mirror are going to be cheaper than basically that same goddamn mirror, precision thrusters, precision pointing system, downlink, fucking accurate positioning, and a whole bunch of other crap.

[Anonymous No.11043774]

>>11043627
And yet another newfag outs itself. Perhaps you should look into the relevance of that particular meme and how it applies to this thread.

[Anonymous No.11043804]

>>11043774
I'm the one who got the (You) and I knew what he posted, newfriend is a faggot.
Newfriends need to lurk moar.

[Anonymous No.11043814]

>>11043768
Now remember how I said you need nanometer tolerances for telescopes? Well if you can make your telescope big enough you can use millimeter and even centimeter tolerances. The idea in pic related is that you can make really fucking big telescopes from some inflatable spheres which we rigidize with sunlight once they are inflated and are shiny in some places. Sure stuff can be off by centimeters in places because an inflatable isn't perfectly rigid, but we can use corrective optics and software to fix it. There is even the potential for this design to be cheaper than ground telescopes for the same size. Because a mirror made of shiny plastic is a hell of a lot cheaper than one made from glass. Oh yeah and telescope mirrors made from glass take months to YEARS to produce... NASA has a bunch of crazy telescope concepts they are investigating to make kilometer scale telescopes which could be similarly cheap. My favorite is a telescope made from a cloud of sand held in place with lasers:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/orbiting-rainbows-phase-ii/_test/

[Anonymous No.11043871]

can starship get anywhere close to these numbers in pic related? Those early space manufacturing proposals wanted lots of mass from the moon. And the factories to process that mass were moving so much of it so fast that they had to be designed so that moving all that mass wouldn't cause the structure to spin out of control
https://space.nss.org/space-resources-library/#MIT

[Anonymous No.11043951]

>>11043814
>direct imaging of exoplanet continents and moons
My fucking dick

[Anonymous No.11043961]

>>11043951
>direct imaging of OP's micropenis

[Anonymous No.11043990]

any good space music? this is what I'm listening to right now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6DmtPQv7V8

[Anonymous No.11044002]

>>11043951

[Anonymous No.11044019]

>>11043990
Deepchord, basic channel, almost any dub techno.

[Anonymous No.11044020]

>>11043990
Echoes of Blue Mars.

[Anonymous No.11044025]

>>11043631
Don’t they need to buy them like 3 years in advance?

[Anonymous No.11044154]

>>11043990
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPU8992gL1E

[Anonymous No.11044158]

>>11044154
wow this is incredibly homosexual
do you think they ever get embarrassed worshiping some dude from South Africa?

[Anonymous No.11044159]

>>11043990
https://youtu.be/0mcw9TuKDh4

https://youtu.be/-zaaCgiIP7A

[Anonymous No.11044178]

>>11044158
why the homophobia?
that shit was badass and you're a fucking pussy.

[Anonymous No.11044200]

>>11044178
homophobia isn't real

[Anonymous No.11044206]

>>11043588
Test baseduzes

[Anonymous No.11044249]

>>11043339
Just stack and average the results, like they do with astronomy all the time? In that case many inaccuracies in the equipment could be averaged out.

[Anonymous No.11044251]

>>11043427
Imagine an African nation giving everyone in the country free internet via Starlink. Or the UN doing the same. Or Gates. It's really not hard to imagine.

[Anonymous No.11044292]

The people on NSF L2 who make spacecraft simulations don’t like Super Heavy’s new design:

>“My fluid dynamics training tells me that not only is an arrow flying backwards a stability issue, but that there will be an interesting shock pattern formed by its six fins if the Super Heavy re-enters tail first. These are both reasons why F9S1 doesn't deploy its landing legs until the last possible moment. In particular, the shock pattern should form a central node near the seven SL nozzles.”

[Anonymous No.11044330]

>>11044251
>The UN actually doing something useful
That is really hard to imagine desu
But yeah, rolling out to the third world will be a goal of the system, probably not its a big monetary motivator though.

[Anonymous No.11044339]

doing some reading: found this
>4. The CM cabin had three seats side-by-side, but below the seats and past the footrests was a relatively small area called the Lower Equipment Bay, or LEB. The hygiene station was located there, where something that some of the crews ironically named "Myrtle" awaited them. This was actually a condom-like affair that attached to a plumbing pipe with a fine-control valve on the cabin side, and nothing but a nozzle end on the outside of the spacecraft. You placed your penis into the loose condom (something each crewman could change out so you didn't share the same condom), opened the valve a bit to get some air flowing through the pipe, then started flowing your urine right out into space. If you were late opening the valve, the urine popped out the sides and got all over. If you opened the valve too far, your penis got pulled painfully onto the pipe at the end of the condom. It was a hit-or-miss kind of operation.

[Anonymous No.11044344]

>>11044339
>If you opened the valve too far, your penis got ripped off and ejected at high speed into solar orbit, remaining there possibly for billions of years.
Jesus Christ. The Apollo missions were hardcore.

[Anonymous No.11044345]

>>11044344
only 5 psi in the command module, not enough to rip it off (I would know)

[Anonymous No.11044380]

>>11044339
>If you opened the valve too far, your penis got pulled painfully onto the pipe at the end of the condom.
What are the odds someone did that on purpose?

[Anonymous No.11044389]

>>11044339
Everyone scoffs at the idea of an all female Artemis crew because “muh feminism”, but the engineering logistics of taking a piss are a thousand times more complicated.

[Anonymous No.11044401]

>>11044345
>(I would know)
do tell

[Anonymous No.11044512]

>>11044345
>I would know
... Buzz?

[Anonymous No.11044515]

>>11044389
Why? How does a female take a piss? Why is it simpler? Seems like it would be more complex..

[Anonymous No.11044527]

>>11044515
I'm with you. I'm afraid to google that funnel that enables women to pee upright...

[Anonymous No.11044535]

>>11044527
>modernfeminist.org/articles/2018/how-to-piss-like-a-man-with-the-empowered-piss-funnel-pro-plus-industrial-edition

[Anonymous No.11044700]

>>11044389
>>11044515
Modern systems are essentially a condom and a cup for men and women respectively, the only issue would be that you require two different pieces of...equipment to be built, and of course since this is NASA building a slightly different piece of plastic to piss into will be a major undertaking.

[Anonymous No.11044717]

Well Chris B just confirmed that Blue Origin have an orbital crew capsule stored somewhere in their Kent, WA factory...I’m guessing that’ll be one of Bezos’ big announcements at IAC in two weeks time.

[Anonymous No.11044719]

>>11044700
>and of course since this is NASA building a slightly different piece of plastic to piss into will be a major undertaking
kek The plastic is probably some super special aerospace grade too.

[Anonymous No.11044726]

>>11044717
whoa, it re enters nose first? I guess the feel pretty confident about cold gas thrusters keeping things under control.

[Anonymous No.11044728]

>>11044717
Source? Also I really hate how secretive Blue is about their development. I get why they do it and I understand that they're a private company, but their style is too much like how government aerospace development is, and that carries the stereotype for me that nothing is really happening and that the project will be canceled in a couple of years.

[Anonymous No.11044733]

>>11044292
I would have thought it would be quite stable, given the vast majority of the weight of the SH will be down at the engines.

[Anonymous No.11044738]

>>11044728
s l o w a n d s t e a d y

[Anonymous No.11044753]

>>11044728
One of NSF’s investigative journalists probably, they know the capsule exists but nothing more apparently. Also, Blue’s projects don’t get cancelled even though they have an old space approach, because these projects are dependent neither on taxpayer money or profit margins thanks to Jeff.

[Anonymous No.11044765]

>>11044717
I particularly like how the astronauts have to be strapped in face-down for launch. Either that or the capsule gets launched ass-end-up, which is just as crazy.
>>11044700
The good news is that men and women both poop the same way.

[Anonymous No.11044801]

>>11044765
It’s not a traditional capsule design, it re-enters front-first like the shuttle orbiter instead of ass-first like a traditional capsule. This is because the biconic shape produces more lift allowing the capsule to ‘glide’ through the upper atmosphere. This was Blue’s commercial crew entry, so I’m interested to see if they’ve stuck with it.

[Anonymous No.11044804]

a dood on twitter just got the NRO to gib vector version of the NROL-39 patch
https://github.com/palewire/nrol-39-logo

[Anonymous No.11044811]

>>11044801
It strongly reminds me of a wingless Kliper capsule, intended originally for launch on a hypothetical Soyuz-3 rocket, Onega, or the Angara-A3.

[Anonymous No.11044812]

>>11044804
This is such a weird mission patch. Imagine finding out Russia or China launched a mission with this shit on it.

[Anonymous No.11044813]

>>11044804
when was the NRO officially acknowledged as existing?

[Anonymous No.11044815]

>>11044717
somehow I doubt the people will be sitting like that, because that would be retarded.

[Anonymous No.11044821]

>>11044801
I'm not talking about re-entry, notice the crew position in the diagram. Either the crew gets strapped to the ceiling on launch (as drawn), or they face forward during landing.

[Anonymous No.11044822]

>>11044812
NRO just does whatever they want desu it's pretty based for a government agency

[Anonymous No.11044826]

>>11044822
>hoard 3.5 billion dollars in slush fund money for a "rainy day"

[Anonymous No.11044832]

>>11044765
Here's the first pics from the astronauts enjoying their ride on the maiden launch of the BO crew capsule.

[Anonymous No.11044834]

>>11044822
>can so whatever they want
>no slutty anime titty monster patches
pls

[Anonymous No.11044836]

>>11043481
Wasnt that linked with Constellation being a dumpster fire from the start, as per the Augestine report?
Ofc, SLS is like fixing the dumpster fire with a napalm airstrike

[Anonymous No.11044840]

>>11044832
This, they aught to head into space and return headfirst, negative Gs are much safer than positive Gs, while dropping blood pressure can make you black out it's better than +Gs exploding the blood vessels in your brain.

[Anonymous No.11044846]

>>11044836
one of the paths the Augustine report recommended was developing propellant depots and more commercial spaceflight. But SOMEBODY didn't like that recommendation.

[Anonymous No.11044864]

>>11044840
> negative gs are much safer than positive gs

Not true

[Anonymous No.11044905]

>>11044864
This. Complex Gees are the ones that hurt the most. Have you seen someone survive 3-4i Gees? Me neither.

[Anonymous No.11044909]

>>11043153
>>11043804
Funny seeing my soiboard meme being posted on /sci/ of all boards pretty much a year after I spammed it in /mkg/ and got the word soi filtered lol

[Anonymous No.11044910]

>>11044905
>3-4i
IMAGINE

[Anonymous No.11044915]

>>11044154
this is awesome

[Anonymous No.11044919]

>>11044909
let's be fair: getting that filter put in place was a team effort from all of you faggots spamming every board with it

[Anonymous No.11044932]

>>11044919
True, I like to pretend otherwise though because it makes me feel like I've made a real impact on this site somehow. I now regret ever spamming it and I've grown tired of the constant wojakspam myself ironically. If I could go back in time a year and slap my past self I would

[Anonymous No.11044933]

>>11043990
space shanties!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w34fSnJNP-4&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDXfQTD_rgQ

[Anonymous No.11044946]

>>11044836
>Ofc, SLS is like fixing the dumpster fire with a napalm airstrike
something something expendable launch tower

[Anonymous No.11044959]

>>11042777

To be fair, Apollo and everything leading up to it was motivated at its root by "political bullshit". You can get a lot done when you're concerned with dickwaving. To your point however, the men succeeded or failed by individual merit. Besides, any woman taken into space is payload/ballast at all events, so it's a bit moot to grouse about the politics of placing such-and-such ballast on the lunar surface. Women are things.

I prefer to make a more optimistic interpretation of things, which is not of course the real intent, but which is a thought as comforting as it is amusing: "We are going to put a woman on the surface of the moon. Not as a political program for diversity, but as a proof that we are so superior, that we can even afford to place such hazardous ballast there, under male supervision." If she survives, great. If not, cold water is thrown on the idea of women in spaceflight. Either way, we win.

Also, whoever should next step foot on the Lunar surface, will be the 13th person to have done so. Given NASA's track record with the number 13, if I'm the commander, I would be more than happy to defer to the ballast, for this reason.

[Anonymous No.11044962]

>>11044933
To add to these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud6LiVJkwyA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8cCDoDYgc0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ziRMLrriu0

[Anonymous No.11044971]

>>11044959
My man.

[Anonymous No.11044974]

>>11044905
What would 3-4i G even feel like? The stress must be unreal. I can only imagine.

[Anonymous No.11044987]

>>11044959
This. People really forget how much bullshit there was around Apollo. It's all seen in a very romantic light now.

>JFK tells UN he's thinking of canning Apollo, do something with international co-operation instead because it's a stupid waste of money that everyone hates.
>JFK shot, now everyone only remembers his stirring speech about how we gotta land on da moon. Plans to cancel Apollo are cancelled.
>Spend a trillion dollars for some moon rocks and directly nearly cause the dollar to collapse.

Yeah, we got some great Space tech out of it, and I'm personally glad it happened. But I think it's forgotten often how blundering the politics behind it were.

[Anonymous No.11044994]

>>11044987
Don't forget that it set NASA up to be highly dependent on the whims of the administration who since want to recreate that "JFK Apollo magic" but doesn't want to continue the plans of the previous administration.

[Anonymous No.11044995]

>>11044987
>JFK turned down Orion because "muh weapons in space"
Damn hippy.

[Anonymous No.11044999]

>>11044932
just don't be a memespamming retard, it's that simple

[Anonymous No.11045000]

>>11044822
Was this designed by the guys who make Archer?

[Anonymous No.11045004]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1181980074037301248

[Anonymous No.11045005]

>>11045000
Doubt it. I don't see a tactical turtleneck on her.

[Anonymous No.11045016]

>>11045004
Wonder how long until the US military orders a 100 ship fleet of starships for "reasons"

Fills them up with warheads.

[Anonymous No.11045021]

>>11045016
Probably never because it would start an arms race.

[Anonymous No.11045024]

>>11045016
What would be the gain over a normal ICBM?

[Anonymous No.11045027]

>>11045024
cheaper to maintain, spare parts easier to find i guess. Much easier to shoot down.. oh wait..

[Anonymous No.11045028]

>>11045021
You think China could make a knockoff Starship in short order?
>>11045024
I suppose you could air-launch from a Starship on a suborbital hop, turn around and bring it home to reload, but even then it doesn't seem any more useful than what we already have with subs.

[Anonymous No.11045032]

>>11045028
>You think China could make a knockoff Starship in short order?
It doesn't matter if it's in short order or not. In the scenario of an arms race, China would eventually get more dangerous to match the US. This isn't a good situation for the US.

>I suppose you could air-launch from a Starship on a suborbital hop, turn around and bring it home to reload
In the event of a nuclear war, there wouldn't be a home to return to.

[Anonymous No.11045038]

>>11045032
>there wouldn't be a home to return to.
Fully-expendable configuration then?

[Anonymous No.11045043]

>>11044909
It's been one of the best newfriend detectors around. The worst newfags are the ones who have to prove their newness by 1:thinking they fucked up their epic sѹ may-may and posting again, 2:getting angry and posting a third time, 3:testing every form of it it in the same thread.

[Anonymous No.11045046]

>>11045016
Unironically I'll keep beating this drum until it happens or Starship dies, the two biggest markets for Starship are E2E logistics and E2E military logistics. Moving 100t of cargo across the world in 30 minutes for the cost of an airliner flight is game changing. You could stage an invasion in fucking hours.

[Anonymous No.11045050]

How much of this prototype is aluminum?

[Anonymous No.11045055]

>>11045050
how much of it is rusty-ass iron, jeez
welding iron to stainless fucks up the stainless

[Anonymous No.11045062]

>>11045046
Imagine landing 20 of them in the middle of beijing filled with nukes. If anyone touches them they explode. I anything interrupts their connection to US base stations they explode. If the US feel like blowing them up for any reason they explode.

That should make trade negotiations more interesting.

[Anonymous No.11045068]

>>11045062
I'm pretty sure China would start flinging their own missiles before those Starships land.

[Anonymous No.11045072]

>>11045062
We could do that now with icbms from the 70s

[Anonymous No.11045094]

>>11045072
1970s icbms can self land? Awesome!

[Anonymous No.11045106]

>>11045094
If you count hitting a city at hundreds of miles per hour as landing, then yes, they can land.

[Anonymous No.11045118]

>>11045062
Every nuke in the world would be in the air as soon as those starships came close to china.

[Anonymous No.11045121]

>>11045118
nuke were fun until everyone else got them..

[Anonymous No.11045127]

>>11045121
Tell that to the japs.

[Anonymous No.11045131]

>>11045127
I would but I can't hear them over the sound of two nukes

[Anonymous No.11045135]

[Anonymous No.11045140]

>>11045062
That's a very stupid idea to try to send Starships out to perform nuclear blackmail because the enemy...
>will have plenty of time to plan an appropriate response
>can threaten to send out their nukes if the Starships enter their airspace
>can simply shoot down the Starships if nukes aren't an option
>will study the Starships once they land to discover weaknesses
>can just launch their own nukes if the Starships detonate

[Anonymous No.11045144]

>>11045062
That'd trigger nuclear war before they even touched the ground.

[Anonymous No.11045168]

>>11045062
That's dumb and you should feel dumb

[Anonymous No.11045187]

>>11042827
Soyuz
Baseduzes

[Anonymous No.11045209]

>>11045187
>capsule designed to go to the moon
>modular
>uses air rather than a pure ox for breathing
>can fit on a rather small rocket
>is still flying to this day while the Apollo capsule gets trashed and NASA struggles to remake it decades later
Baseduz indeed.

[Anonymous No.11045235]

>>11045209
Very cool

[Anonymous No.11045248]

>>11045209
Soyuz has even reentered upside down and still landed safely.

[Anonymous No.11045255]

>>11045248
story?

[Anonymous No.11045263]

>>11045209
Soyuz is a near-optimal design for small capsules but has shit reusability factor (unless you left orbital modules in orbit for reuse which is actually a neat idea, build an entire station out of orbital modules and refurbish them up there)

[Anonymous No.11045288]

>>11045050
>How much of this prototype is aluminum?
The inner structures of the aerosurfaces seem to be the only aluminum parts.

[Anonymous No.11045336]

>>11045288
The plates covering the seems on the aerosurfaces are an aluminum alloy.

[Anonymous No.11045351]

>>11045336
Those plates *look* like they're in the area that will be protected by stainless aerocovers or leeward of the primary airstream, but I'm not certain.

[Anonymous No.11045410]

>>11044846
>He who shall not be named

[Anonymous No.11045416]

>>11043990
Vangelis

[Anonymous No.11045433]

I want to believe. To believe in a day when mankind is united for a single goal.

[Anonymous No.11045449]

>>11045433
this, but only if "mankind" excludes chicoms and South Americans

[Anonymous No.11045476]

>>11044728
>project will be canceled in a couple of years.
It's a shame Paul Allen's mothership jobby - retarded as it was - didn't go any further apart from the one single test flight. Think it's up for sale now?

[Anonymous No.11045482]

>>11045351
they aren't but it doesn't matter because its only going to 20km

[Anonymous No.11045483]

>>11045476
Nope, StratoLaunch been saved and their currently hiring more test pilots:

https://www.geekwire.com/2019/year-paul-allens-death-stratolaunch-rebuilds-team-worlds-biggest-plane/

[Anonymous No.11045492]

>>11045336
>>11045482
Does it really matter when their currently removing the fins?

[Anonymous No.11045504]

>>11045482
It will matter because any data they extract will be slightly off. I'm sure they are accounting for it, but it's another vector for error.

[Anonymous No.11045533]

>>11045024
Last thread (or the one before that) showed they could carry a similar number of warheads as an Ohio-class submarine. Except if you launch from a lunar site when your target can't see the moon, and deploy the warheads when the sun is behind you relative to your target, there is almost no warning from a launch at all. It's a terrifying first-strike weapon.
Then again, I think a more terrifying first-strike weapon is a rods from god implementation because we might actually use that, nukes have too much baggage around their use.

[Anonymous No.11045535]

>>11045504
oh shit! you better go tweet that to elon and make sure he and his team knows!

[Anonymous No.11045542]

>>11045533
>"Except if you launch from a lunar site when your target can't see the moon, and deploy the warheads when the sun is behind you relative to your target, there is almost no warning from a launch at all."
>launches some space monitoring satellites
>can easily see the moon nukes during their 3 day trip no matter what time it is on Earth
nothing personnel kid

[Anonymous No.11045545]

>>11045542
>launches some space monitoring satellites
How convenient...

[Anonymous No.11045564]

concept: swarm of inflatable telescopes launched at low cost and sold to universities as "roll your own space telescope"

how stupid is this / how do I unstupid it

[Anonymous No.11045567]

>>11045564
use of space telescopes is already more of a service (as a result of scarcity, mainly). The industry will probably just continue on that course.

[Anonymous No.11045575]

>>11045567
>as a result of scarcity
This is another "how do I leverage falling launch costs" brainstorm idea

[Anonymous No.11045583]

>>11045567
This. Although having more and cheaper telescopes of similar imaging quality to Hubble would be nice. However, the demand seems really low for that.

On top of that, the night sky has been scanned and catalogued so much that most astronomers seem to be more interested in what observations haven't been made yet. That means more exotic and therefore more expensive equipment.

[Anonymous No.11045584]

>>11045564
I'm a little more excited for radiotelescopes. It's the gate to the cosmic radio

[Anonymous No.11045587]

>>11045583
>On top of that, the night sky has been scanned and catalogued so much that most astronomers seem to be more interested in what observations haven't been made yet. That means more exotic and therefore more expensive equipment.

Cataloguing is no good for dynamic or transient phenomena, and we're only beginning to discover what they are or their cosmic abundance.

[Anonymous No.11045594]

>>11045542
Not many satellites watch the moon though, and the idea is even if there was a Space Force facility on the moon only limited resources would be pointed to it, especially if there was a large amount of arriving and departing traffic. You could hide nuclear patrols in plain sight with the rest of the flight pattern.

[Anonymous No.11045604]

>>11045594
>Not many satellites watch the moon though, and the idea is even if there was a Space Force facility on the moon only limited resources would be pointed to it
Then the satellites required to monitor the moon would be made and launched. It's going to be hard to hide Space Force traffic to and from the moon, so any enemy will know something is up and deploy proper countermeasures. Your plan assumes a passive enemy, that's a bad plan.

[Anonymous No.11045617]

>>11045564
The market's not very big. But you see this here? >>11043814
Raytheon's already doing that work. Also 'low cost' is relative. Could cost as much as a state university observatory, some of which are damn big.

[Anonymous No.11045647]

>>11043814
OOOOOOOOOOOOM I'M GONNA COME, I'M GONNA COME I'M.... CUMMING OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH AAAAAAAAAAAH

[Anonymous No.11045654]

>>11045492
>Breaking: Elon begins dismantling his Mars rocket
>"I suddenly realised how dumb the whole thing was. Like.. what the fuck was I thinking? Can you imagine how fucking hard it would be to live on mars?"
Shows over folks

[Anonymous No.11045756]

>>11045654
ONONONONONONONONONONO...LOOK AT THIS DUDE...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...LOOK AT HIS FINS...OH WAIT...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11045784]

>>11045756

[Anonymous No.11045799]

>>11044733
the grid fins will increase drag at the top too

[Anonymous No.11045800]

>>11044811
scooty puff jr.jpg

[Anonymous No.11045806]

>>11045483
It's probably got some military funding behind it now.

[Anonymous No.11045811]

>>11045024
It's not for warhead delivery, it's for rapidly sending weapons and supplies (and maybe personnel) anywhere on Earth very quickly.

[Anonymous No.11045815]

>>11045492

Would some kind and educated person enlighten me about this thing? It looks like the sort cardboard, string and licorice contraption some indie film crew would build for a science fiction film set in the 1950's.

Its not real, is it? Strap together some stainless steel panels and whack a few boosters at the bottom. Seriously?

[Anonymous No.11045819]

>>11045815
It's basically an aerodynamic testbed. It only needs to be Starship shaped and capable of getting to 20km altitude. It will not go to space, it will not reenter, so you don't need to build it to survive doing those.

[Anonymous No.11045826]

>>11045815
It's a prototype for SpaceXs Starship. SpaceX wants to make, develop, and test Starship as fast as possible so the various prototypes are not built to perfect specs as it's not needed. However, as more prototypes are made, they will be more finely constructed.

That one in particular is Mk1 and is expected to perform a 20 km suborbital hop to test general flight characteristics. It was also rushed to appear visually complete for a presentation and thus is being taken apart right now to be fully completed. It's unknown when exactly it'll be done and flying, but pretty much everyone agrees that Elons estimate was BS. It'll probably fly sometime early next year, maybe late December of this year.

[Anonymous No.11045837]

>>11045433
https://youtu.be/yC3vDGL67Zs?t=185

[Anonymous No.11045843]

How much time did humans spend with the lunar module, specifically? This is a question which can be parsed in many ways: flight times (vs. landed time on the Moon itself), individual records, mission records, etc. A little data analysis confirms some obvious/expected results (Apollo 16, 17 and particularly Gene Cernan hold certain records), but other curiosa can be teased out: Apollo 14 enjoyed the swiftest return flight to the CSM, for example, and Apollo 11's descent flight time was the shortest of any mission.

In terms of "man-hours", about 4.5 "man-days" were spent actually flying the LM (doubling counts for the two crew members aboard each craft), while just under one "man-month" was spent with the LM, from the time of undocking, to lunar exploration, to the time of redocking with the CSM.

[Anonymous No.11045912]

>>11045483
Something looks off.

[Anonymous No.11045950]

>>11045912

looks like one of the White Knights tbqh family

[Anonymous No.11045973]

>>11043467
At 50$ a month SpaceX would need 35,833,333 subscriptions to equal NASA's 21.5 billion budget.

[Anonymous No.11045988]

>>11045973
Or approximately one Canada, which seems fairly reasonable all things considered

[Anonymous No.11046015]

>>11045973
Why would they need NASA's bloated budget? Is SpaceX going to start funding SLS?

[Anonymous No.11046037]

>>11046015
>Why would they need NASA's bloated budget?
It's not like Musk wants a Mars colony or anything expensive like that, right?

[Anonymous No.11046062]

>>11046015
more shekels = more crews building shit = more shekels

[Anonymous No.11046108]

>the RC Cola of private space

[Anonymous No.11046111]

>>11046108
>space startup not named SpaceX
>actually able to put things into orbit
can anyone else make this claim

[Anonymous No.11046117]

>>11043079
>suit that looks like it could be re-designed to be attachable to the outside of a habitat
I like it.

[Anonymous No.11046120]

>>11046108
I like them, they know the launch industry is changing and are targeting the cubesate market.

[Anonymous No.11046123]

>>11045135
What I like about this webm is that the nuke is so bright that as the camera tries to adjust it makes it look like the mid-day sky is dark and the fireball is still blowing out the sensor, yeet indeed.

[Anonymous No.11046135]

>>11045433
>Orion pulse
Yes, very possible, feasible even
>Daedalus drive
Difficult, requires a really solid handle on fusion tech, probably possible, likely infeasible until we're capable of space mining an space construction
>Bussard ramjet
Physically impossible UNLESS you aren't doing fusion, you're using the matter you scoop as reaction mass and you heating it with a touch of antimatter, analogous to a jet aircraft carrying hydrocarbon fuel but using free oxygen to burn it. Fun fact, you can also do Bussard Ramjet-style propulsion WITHOUT antimatter IF you are instead using a micro-black-hole as your power source, problem is you need to make the black hole in the first place and it's gonna weight millions or billions of tons in order to be practical to work with and use.

[Anonymous No.11046150]

>>11046111
Sea Launch?

[Anonymous No.11046186]

Reminder

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-administrator-to-visit-spacex-headquarters/
the live stream of the media event now is scheduled for 5 p.m. EDT (2 p.m. PDT) Thursday, Oct. 10.

[Anonymous No.11046207]

>>11046123
>What I like about this webm is that the nuke is so bright that as the camera tries to adjust it makes it look like the mid-day sky is dark and the fireball is still blowing out the sensor, yeet indeed.

That's all analog film, Anon. Fortunately, photoelectric light meters that could automatically control exposure were commercialized in the 1930s.

[Anonymous No.11046285]

>>11045988
Looked it up xfinity and charter each have 100 million.

>>11046015
Just a comparison.

[Anonymous No.11046564]

SLS engine installation begins tomorrow. Core will be entirely complete once all 4 are finished.

[Anonymous No.11046582]

>>11046564
Boner activated

[Anonymous No.11046591]

>>11046564
Quick, someone shop Starship atop SLS core/boosters.

[Anonymous No.11046620]

>>11046591
You've got it backwards fren

[Anonymous No.11046668]

https://newatlas.com/space/india-chandrayaan2-sharpest-lunar-surface-images-from-orbit/

Poo in loos are actually doing some nice work recently. I also liked that Mars orbiter, some of the imagery it's taken is among the best ever returned. Certainly better than Israel who deserve to be permanently banned from space.

[Anonymous No.11046669]

>>11046668
India is surprisingly good at budget orbiters. Wish Canada could figure out that Chris Hadfield doesn't count as a space program.

[Anonymous No.11046672]

>>11046669
Yeah. Just cheq this shit out. Hopefully they focus on some Apollo sites. Imagine the detail compared to LRO

[Anonymous No.11046704]

>>11046117
The main problem I have with that kind of suit is it adds so many more seals that could each fail. It's not an awful idea, but I think we just haven't hit on the best option yet.

[Anonymous No.11046707]

>>11045973
SpaceX doesn't intend to focus on individual customers at the start. Initially, they look to be a way around terrestrial fiber backbones.

[Anonymous No.11046709]

>>11046668
There are a lot of good reasons NASA is reaching out to them for future projects. Their home-grown industry and agency is very competent, and the political angles are pretty sweet too.

[Anonymous No.11046720]

>>11046668
Did they ever find the lander?

[Anonymous No.11046733]

>>11046707
laser links aren't going up initially, which is the backbone replacement

[Anonymous No.11046782]

>>11046135
You don't need black holes or dark matter for the ramjet. You can use a fusion reactor to power a laser that energizes the particles

[Anonymous No.11046796]

>>11046733
Once 12000 satellites fire up lasers the solar system is going to look like a disco ball

[Anonymous No.11046818]

>>11046796
Everyone is invited to the space rave.

[Anonymous No.11046821]

>>11046796
in the future everybody's porn is delivered via space rave

[Anonymous No.11046826]

>>11046821
The future's so bright I have to wear laser safety glasses.

[Anonymous No.11046840]

>>11045483
Hey I'm pleased about that. Anything that gets more ludicrous looking planes flying gets my vote.

[Anonymous No.11046962]

>>11046782
The issue is when your hydrogen is traveling at many hundreds of km/s your ramjet may no longer be able to accelerate it's own exhaust fast enough to generate positive thrust, drag will force your speed and thus efficiency down, essentially causing your ship to "stall". A lot of Niven's stories which have ramscoops also include impossibly efficient fusion reactors, the harnessing of vacuum energy, or some other near-infinite super compact power supply which would allow a ramscoop to be useful for near-C operation. So far with only near-future technology a Ramscoop still wouldn't be able to generate it's scoop efficiently enough to sustain it's own drive without losing energy. It should be noted that this is based on a calculation done by Zubrin assuming two key points, that your ramjet cannot generate exhaust exceeding 100km/s, and that it's only got a 500kW fission powerplant as it's energy supply. There is a modification of the classic Bussard system in which a fusion reactor and accelerator are used to augment the speed of the exhaust, thus you get a ramjet which does require fuel to power it's reactor but still has essentially infinite propellant via the interstellar medium. It's obviously less efficient since you're adding in the step of the reactor and accelerator but it's more feasible. You could also get the ramjet up to speed using laser accelerators, then activate your ramscoop on approach to another star system to fill up propellant tanks and slow back down, of course the downside is that you have to build another accelerator to get back to Earf unless you want it to be a one-way trip.

[Anonymous No.11046968]

>>11046962
the second asumption is unrealistic. Modern fission powerplants reach hundreds and thousands of megawatts. It's 2 or 3 orders of magnitude better. And in some decades if all goes right, we will have fusion plants with the same capacity. It will also serve to create a magnetic field, because at relativistic speeds cosmic radiation would kill any living being.

[Anonymous No.11046972]

>>11046968
Agreed, the modern iteration called a Ram Agumented Interstellar Rocket would operate by this principle, using a much more powerful fission or fusion powerplant and acceleration coils to greatly enhance the speed of it's exhaust, allowing it to achieve much faster speeds. The only downside to a RAIR compared to a classic ramjet is that the RAIR still has to carry a non-trivial amount of fuel for it's reactor. It's higher dry mass means less cargo capacity.

[Anonymous No.11046974]

>>11046733
Then what’s the point of launching them now? They’re useless if they cannot do inter-satellite communication.

[Anonymous No.11046982]

>>11046974
Iterative development, they get the easy stuff working first. They're not expected to have more than like a 5 year lifespan anyhow. And if they're going after HFT, there's no need for the cross-feed lasers until the New York to London coverage, and they can probably just make that work without it. For internets they just need base stations in the same general land area, so maybe 2-4 could be enough for US coverage.

[Anonymous No.11046983]

>>11046974
>>11046982
Does this mean that the US could finally not have third world tier internet?

[Anonymous No.11047015]

>>11043768
Not sure I really like this image. I get that in space assembly is the future and allows for much larger telescopes, but those individual mirror pieces, could they really be manufactured quickly enough and with as much quality as the ones they use for most telescopes?

also that spider robot is kinda silly.

[Anonymous No.11047025]

>>11047015

thanks YouTube recommendations. just what I needed

https://youtu.be/e1vyd86zdPM

this is what they do to the webb mirrors. Many many months of polishing and coating to get them perfect. How do you propose they do this with those thousands of tiny mirrors?

it would take forever to make

[Anonymous No.11047035]

>>11047025
I want to walk up there and scratch it

[Anonymous No.11047075]

>>11045806
This. I'd bet DARPA or someone similar found a use for it.

[Anonymous No.11047081]

>>11044717
>tfw New Shepherd was nothing but capsule design, life support, and launch escape system testbed and New Glenn flies a manned orbital mission in 2021.

[Anonymous No.11047087]

>>11047081
new shepherd capsule is tiny

[Anonymous No.11047130]

>>11044905
>>11044905
>>11044910

Soviet astronauts survived 17gs without permanent side effects, their only treatment after it happened was cigarretes and vodka:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L

[Anonymous No.11047132]

>>11045564
once launch cost goes down every major college in the world will want to launch their own shit.

[Anonymous No.11047136]

>>11045533
aint no stelath in space little kiddy boy, this is objective science fact and theres 100.000 trillion kms of text dedicated to explaining why this is definitive, you can read all of them if you want.

[Anonymous No.11047142]

>>11047130

[Anonymous No.11047151]

>>11047136
This. The only stealth in space are either redirection, super tight program information, or blinding the enemy in some way. None of them are "true" stealth as the enemy will know something is up, but won't have much idea on what's happening.

[Anonymous No.11047161]

>>11047087
Yeah, but all of it can be rapidly upscaled to something bigger, just like how the US went from Mercury/Gemini to Apollo in a matter of years.

[Anonymous No.11047167]

>>11046620
Yeah we've all seen that one already, YOU'VE got it backwards fren.
I wanna see SLS core/boosters hefting Starship, not because it will happen, but because it is funny.

[Anonymous No.11047170]

>>11047151
This is a silly argument because the exact same is true of all "stealth" technologies, in space or not. Do you think the F-35 is literally invisible?

[Anonymous No.11047174]

>>11047081
This is a company that prides itself in taking things as slow as possible. That's still, amusingly, a better pace than the rest of the launch industry outside SpaceX, but they are not about to surprise anyone with their timelines.

[Anonymous No.11047175]

>>11047161
how can new shepheard be anything but a rich mans toy

it has like 100 times more money and 5 times more time invested than spacex, also they have 0 PROFIT and 0 INNOVATIONS to show for all that. Best case scenario, the craft that is orders of magnitude more expensive and less capable of the already ultra succesful and ultra profitable falcon heavy will be ready to fly, with luck in 2025.

No profit possibl
No innovation possible.

How is he allowed to continue. Seriously, wasting billions of dollars for literally nothign should be ilegal.

[Anonymous No.11047177]

Jim and Elon are streaming CC stuff in about six hours

[Anonymous No.11047183]

>>11047174
TBF, SpaceX has kinda spoiled us with their rapid development and very public image.

[Anonymous No.11047198]

>>11044726
>>11044765
>>11044815
I think that design is like a decade old. I bet the capsule will be more traditional than this.

[Anonymous No.11047201]

>>11047175
>No innovation possible
Nonononon:
Jeff Bezos to receive the 2019 International Astronautical Federation Excellence in Industry Award for Blue Origin
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=54698

[Anonymous No.11047210]

>>11047201
What accomplishment does this honor? Or is it vague like the peace prize?

[Anonymous No.11047214]

>>11047175
the man should be allowed to waste his money however he damn well pleases, you fucking communist
maybe he'll even do something with it

[Anonymous No.11047219]

>>11047201
it's for all the engineer charity welfare he's putting out

[Anonymous No.11047220]

>>11047201
That dude's shitty seetheposting is pretty bad but citing a meaningless award is probably worse. At least go for the recent NASA grants, that's very slightly more practically relevant

[Anonymous No.11047223]

>>11047220
Or getting ULA to accept a new engine that isn't Russian nor from an oldspace company.

[Anonymous No.11047224]

>>11047198
That, or it's even more radical. Blue origin is such an unknown that we honestly have no clue what manned New Glenn or New Armstrong will bring. It could be conservative, or it could make SpaceX look conservative.

[Anonymous No.11047231]

>>11047214
This, he can set it on fire and inhale it for all I care, it's his. Preferably a profitable space program though.

[Anonymous No.11047238]

>>11047231
>>11047214
there are limits to private property, even in full blown capitalism.

you can do what you want WITHIN THE LAW

im suret theres a law that forbids ultra stupidity of resources

for example, if someone bought all the money in the world and burned it should we just go "welp lets let the economy die and starve to death"

[Anonymous No.11047239]

>>11047224
And I really hope that Blue Origin drops something that makes SpaceX nervous. Imagine the Apollo levels of drive and innovation as two corporate giants compete against each other.

[Anonymous No.11047248]

>>11047238
Are you literally a ChiCom or something?

>im suret theres a law that forbids ultra stupidity of resources
there literally isn't

>for example, if someone bought all the money in the world and burned it
this isn't how economies work, and destruction of currency IS illegal, "spending it in ways some random commie on 4chan doesn't like" is not

[Anonymous No.11047249]

>>11047238
>there are limits to private property, even in full blown capitalism.
fuck you, Nazi, who's he hurting with that?

[Anonymous No.11047250]

>>11047238
>spacing
You gave it away too early

[Anonymous No.11047253]

>>11047224
Whatever Blue unveils it will be somewhat more conservative than SpaceX, that’s just their culture. That’s not a bad thing, actually it’s arguably an advantage. SpaceX unveils wacky and groundbreaking stuff like Starship which is off putting to NASA and other customers because there’s so many unknowns involved; Blue Origin unveils stuff that’s radical enough to be exciting, but conservative enough for NASA and others to buy in. Take the Blue Moon lander for example: It’s cool because it uses the BE-7 engine, the first dual-expander cycle engine and because it’s hydrogen fuel opens a lot of doors for future ISRU shenanigans, which NASA have already awarded them money to develop. However, unlike Starship it’s just a conventionally designed lunar lander, which fits within the Artemis architecture, this makes it a safe/traditional enough design to be attractive to NASA.

[Anonymous No.11047261]

>>11047253
>somewhat more conservative than SpaceX
not hard, considering that they're basically proposing the NASA 1960 shuttle concepts except welded out of stainless in a field by Mexicans

[Anonymous No.11047273]

>>11047239
All I know is that with stuff like that new assembly building at Caneveral and the New Armstrong-sized expansion they're already beginning to build, or their all-new LC-39 sized pad, Blue Origin seems like they're up to far, far more than they're letting on.

[Anonymous No.11047280]

>>11046672
>>apollo sites
fuck that, lets see some new shit. Can't wait till they get imagery of the lava tube skylights we've found. If you didn't know, lavatubes are great places for Moon bases because they shield from radiation. Can't wait till we get imagery of the big Mare Tranquillitatis skylight. It's like 107 m deep. I honestly wonder if one could save a meaningful amount of dV by bungee jumping into it to land. But that's probably retarded. I mean you might get like 100 m/s of dV but you'd have to be pulling like 200 g's.

[Anonymous No.11047282]

>corporate space races to land colonists on various planets and moons

[Anonymous No.11047292]

>>11047280
Maybe you could slow-motion rappel down, get cranked back up in a harness when you're done checking it out? Low-tech solution but it'd be pretty easy I think.

[Anonymous No.11047293]

>>11047282
Seven private colonias, maybe more. Contemplate.

[Anonymous No.11047300]

>>11047282
>>pepsi ad campaign to land the first people on Mars
>>WE DID IT! DRINK MOUNTAIN DEW MARS RED EXTREME EDITION!
>>suddenly no news about the mission for months.
>>everyone forgets about it
>>some reporter finds out a year later that everyone on the mission actually died
It'll be just like the Soviet space missions, secretive and full of PR.

[Anonymous No.11047312]

>>11047292
No I'm thinking even more retarded here. I'm thinking that maybe if you stretch a giant trampoline across the top you can save 100 m/s of delta V when landing. Or maybe when you land you shoot harpoons into the walls with stretchy cables to slow the probe down. It's sort of like landing with air bags on mars

[Anonymous No.11047317]

>>11047300
>flying around Titan salvaging Pepsi mission debris for sale to the illicit scrap rings in the belt

[Anonymous No.11047320]

>>11047312
Are there any materials we have that retain elasticity at those low temperatures? The Moon is cold enough, the shadows even colder.

[Anonymous No.11047324]

>>11047312
What about taking off by slingshot? At the very least you could wait to go full thrust to keep from spreading moon dust during the first few seconds.

[Anonymous No.11047327]

>>11047312
>rosocosmos was the good guys all along

[Anonymous No.11047341]

>>11047317
>digging around the ruins of the Coca Cola Mars Colony™ (brought to you by Coke)
>find old Coke signs for your lavatube basement home
Such is life on red planet.

[Anonymous No.11047345]

>>11047320
low temperature flexible things are in high demand, I have some subcooled propalox memes to sell you if you're interested and can provide the materials

[Anonymous No.11047356]

>>11047320
Yes, but they aren't plastics or organics, Iron-Nickel-Chromium alloys and some Beta-Titanium alloys retain their elasticity at extremes of temperature and you could make reliable springs out of them, however some kind of bungee chord is probably not possible unless it's either made up of interlocking springs or we develop some kind of meme material which has a high degree of elastic properties but isn't made of organic compounds or fibers that become embrittled at sub zero temperature.

[Anonymous No.11047360]

>>11047293
Here anon.

[Anonymous No.11047368]

>>11047345
propalox and propalox accessories
>>11047341
or sell it on mbay, boomers love anything with coca cola on it

[Anonymous No.11047380]

>>11047368
>Auction price: $24
>shipping: $5 to Mars, $75 to Phobos/Deimos, $100,000 to Earth

[Anonymous No.11047390]

>>11047380
If Mars gets declared as a 3rd-world shithole, they can ship for free like China does. Except instead of 3-4 weeks it'll take 6-8 months.

[Anonymous No.11047399]

>>11047390
*4th-world shithole
Imagine the future youtube channels of people unboxing packages ordered from Mars for clicks.

[Anonymous No.11047416]

>>11047399
>"Heeeeeeey what's up my peeps! Itz ya boy hitting ya with an unboxing review!! I just got this package from mutha truckin Mars from one of my subscrubbers. But before I open this bad-B up I'm gonna ask you to SLAP that notification bell for more awesome unboxing bideos! Now let's crack this boi open...hmm a toaster. Ey its a pretty nice toaster, is it from Ikea? Wait? What's this stuff oozing ou-"
>CHANNEL HAS BEEN SUSPENDED FOR SEXUAL CONTENT

[Anonymous No.11047418]

>>11047390
>they can ship for free like China does
Shenzhen, Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou are proof that this policy should be ended.

[Anonymous No.11047425]

>>11047399
>when they open the box and inhale
>"ah the smell of perchlorates"
>>11047418
In a few years when it finally gets ended, they'll just route their small packets through Ho Chi Minh city. You can always trust bugs to find another way around after you block their main hole.

[Anonymous No.11047426]

>>11047416
>taking 7 months to prank some youtube faggot from 250,000km away
The future's looking brighter every day.

[Anonymous No.11047432]

>Quote from rocket made of 301-Stainless during cryogenic fueling: "I am growing stronger".

[Anonymous No.11047438]

>>11047425
>someone sends SteveMREinfo a SpaceX Mars colony ration to open on his channel

[Anonymous No.11047443]

>>11047426
Imagine the level of patience needed to fill a toaster with cum and then wait for months until the plan comes to fruition. It would be in-human.

[Anonymous No.11047446]

>>11047443
*inhuman
idk why I added the dash

[Anonymous No.11047454]

>>11047446
It's okay, I dropped an entire order of magnitude in the distance from Earth to Mars because I wasn't paying attention.

[Anonymous No.11047472]

>>11047438
nice

[Anonymous No.11047473]

>>11047443
>It would be inhuman.
So Australian?

[Anonymous No.11047476]

>>11047454
>an entire order of magnitude
it's only one zero, m8

[Anonymous No.11047477]

>>11047432

[Anonymous No.11047485]

>>11047473
>Mars becomes Australia 2.0
idk if thats a bright future or a grim one.

[Anonymous No.11047499]

>>11047485
What better place to imprison shitposters than one which is automatically lethal if you try to leave? Why riot in a prison colony where you literally cannot survive without external help?

[Anonymous No.11047519]

So out of what's currently in service and what should be launching in, let's say, the next 2-3ish years, what would everyone's first pick be as far as seeing a launch in person?

[Anonymous No.11047525]

>>11047519
I guess SLS just because it will be such a rare event. Starship launches will be so regular I could go see one any time, hopefully New Glenn/Armstrong will be the same.

[Anonymous No.11047655]

>>11047075
There was some reporting a while back saying that it was theoretically capable of carrying like a thousand hellfire missiles or some insane number like that.

[Anonymous No.11047677]

>>11047655
I was more thinking something along the lines of using it to launch one of the TSTOs that they totally don't have collecting dust at Groom. There have been rumors that with all the recent Chinese saber-rattling and posturing they might pull the curtains back on one of the bigger black projects.

[Anonymous No.11047684]

>>11047655
Not hellfires, AIM-120 AMRAAMS, slap a good set of receivers on it and it could act as a capacious missile magazine for other platforms. IE, have F-35's and linked ground and infantry units all be able to call missiles from one of these things while it loiters, just shitting out a stream of missiles.

[Anonymous No.11047686]

>>11047025
If you can assemble stuff in space, couldn't you just use less perfect mirrors but have it big enough that it's still a big improvement? If I understand it right, they're doing them so flawless because the launch vehicle is very limiting and they have to make up for that elsewhere. If you're not limited in that way, you could just make it 50 times bigger. The last 10% of quality usually costs as much as the rest, so you'd save on manufacturing cost and if we're assuming low launch prices, the only limiting factors will be related to the fact that it can't be one-piece design.

[Anonymous No.11047694]

>>11047684
Why stop there? Standard 3s and 4s give you a Reagan wet dream Star Wars platform.

[Anonymous No.11047710]

>>11047320
Anon, landing doesn't take long and you could just prewarm it before landing. You can also bet your sweet ass that the fabric will heat up when you stretch it. The real challenge is figuring out how to make a trampoline that can catch something moving almost as fast as a bullet. I'd actually quite like to know what happens in collision of stuff to fabric at >100 m/s. Spooling cable out seems to be another option too.
>>the shadows even colder.
not necessarily
>>11047324
>>slingshots
Personally I like Zubrin's carnival ride ride idea better. You put the stuff you want to shoot into space at the end of a long piece of thick fishing line and spin it slowly reeling the fishing line out. Maybe even over months and let it go at km/s. It's really nice because you don't have to land much mass to make it work and you don't need any energy storage, the spinning stuff is your energy storage.

[Anonymous No.11047722]

Jim and Musk meeting soon. Livestream will go up at https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine

[Anonymous No.11047727]

>>11047686
You're right, not only that but it's now been proven that you can use compositing software to combine receivers to greatly improve their fidelity, and it's possible to use the sun's gravitational lensing as an actual lens this would allow us to resolve with enormous power using no new technology at all. The same goes for composite "lenses" made up of multiple receivers, the more receivers and the larger the cloud of them, the greater the fidelity you can get using compositing software. You can also use large starshades to obscure the light of stars a telescope points at, potentially allowing the 'scopes to resolve a star's planets optically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXP-Iq5m02g

[Anonymous No.11047756]

>>11047722
>I’ll be visiting @SpaceX tomorrow! You can watch live right here on Twitter as I address the media on @Commercial_Crew progress with @elonmusk at 5 p.m. EDT (2 p.m. PDT). Tune in!
One hour until then.

[Anonymous No.11047791]

>>11047756
>we mismanaged the everloving crap out of our space program, please save us elon!

[Anonymous No.11047810]

>>11047791
>capsule blows up
>parachute fails

There’s been mismanagement on both sides

[Anonymous No.11047811]

>>11047791
I don't think NASA will ever admit to how poorly it's managed, nor would it entrust a flagship mission to SpaceX given to how reckless the company appears to be sometimes.

[Anonymous No.11047820]

>>11047722
>https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine
What are we expecting? Surely nothing really new will be announced.

[Anonymous No.11047822]

>>11047820
I expect my expectations to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.11047826]

>>11047820
Maybe the announcement of Starship being the new upper stage to SLS. The SLS is already using a preexisting upper stage so the change from the Delta IV upper stage won't be that huge. Also, by the time SLS finally flies, Starship would already be flight proven.

[Anonymous No.11047830]

>>11047820
Bridenstine will disavow his infamous tweet and assert that NASA and SpaceX are great partners. Expect timelines, and I think there were rumors that they'd change the mission plan and Dragon capsule for DM-2, so if they go that route this is as good a time as any to announce.

[Anonymous No.11047831]

>>11047820
Not expecting anything more than more political maneuvering. Elon will reiterate that they're working on CC and Jim will act like the fact that SpaceX is working on CC is his idea somehow.

[Anonymous No.11047834]

>>11047820
fineness space launch system launch system

[Anonymous No.11047835]

>>11047822
that is a contradiction. If you're right then you're wrong, but then you're right. If you're wrong then you're right, but then you're wrong, ... ad infinitum

[Anonymous No.11047839]

>>11047835
The main point is that every time I've tried to make any kind of prediction regarding SpaceX's actions, I've been hilariously wrong.

[Anonymous No.11047844]

>>11047810
There are heroes on both sides.
Evil is everywhere.

[Anonymous No.11047864]

>the leaning tower of starship

[Anonymous No.11047865]

Live https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1182401255097827328

[Anonymous No.11047866]

I can't wait for all of /sfg/ to learn how shitty twitters video player is all at once.

>Mutes your video

[Anonymous No.11047870]

>>11047866
Yeah fuck this, I'll watch the upload later holy shit.

[Anonymous No.11047871]

Jim's speech was cutting out. Did he say anything of note? Most of it was other NASA projects.

[Anonymous No.11047873]

tim THE FUCK

[Anonymous No.11047875]

Estronaut in the QA ahaha

[Anonymous No.11047877]

>>11047866
JUST PLAY THE FUCKING STREAM ITS ONLY 360p WHAT THE FUCK

[Anonymous No.11047879]

Stream breaking up for me, who the fuck decided to stream on TWITTER?
Anyhow I blame estronaut for the stream breaking up.

[Anonymous No.11047884]

>>11047879
Jim has a perfectly capable streaming platform in NASA TV. Why didn't he just bump off whatever zero-viewership program is on there now?

[Anonymous No.11047886]

>>11047866
It's so bad and this event has no significance, I should stop trying to reload and just let it die

[Anonymous No.11047889]

>>11047884
Right now is a fucking RERUN block on NASA TV.

[Anonymous No.11047892]

Youtube stream but the audio is fucked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaJ0n0j-UB8

[Anonymous No.11047896]

I'm recording it with ffmpeg, and will upload it unce it's finished. Don't worry.

[Anonymous No.11047897]

>Best parachutes ever
We'll see elon

[Anonymous No.11047903]

>>11047897
>”Believe me folks, I’ve got the best chutes”

[Anonymous No.11047905]

>>11047865
CNBC has a stream that actually works

[Anonymous No.11047909]

DM-2 mission patch is there on Doug & Bob's shoulders

[Anonymous No.11047910]

Sometimes it's hard to tell if the stream is skipping or Elon is just saying "Mark 3 parachute" a lot.
That fucking video player though... click to another tab, AUDIO MUTES, seriously Twitter is the worst thing to put a stream on.

[Anonymous No.11047915]

>>11047910
Youtube stream is way better

[Anonymous No.11047924]

Jim said the S word!

[Anonymous No.11047926]

>>11047924
Starliner?

[Anonymous No.11047930]

>>11047926
yes

[Anonymous No.11047931]

streamlink works fine, I just need to rotate the video (-pmpv -a'--video-rotate=270 {filename}')

[Anonymous No.11047934]

>>11047930
He started off by talking about SLS, JWST, Starliner, etc., which was funny to hear at SpaceX HQ.

[Anonymous No.11047937]

>>11047934
Jim’s a chad, flexin on them at their home turf

[Anonymous No.11047944]

>Manned launch Q1 2020 if everything goes right

[Anonymous No.11047949]

>>11047944
Elong "if everything goes right" Musk at it again

[Anonymous No.11047965]

Jim really said the Starship word!!

[Anonymous No.11047971]

Bridenstine is a closet Starship fan

[Anonymous No.11047979]

>>11047965
>>11047971
He’s addressed it (Starship/New Armstrong etc) loads of time, he keeps saying if such a capability materialises NASA will utilise it. In reality it won’t be that simple...

[Anonymous No.11047981]

>>11047979
*times

[Anonymous No.11047987]

Did anybody ask them about SpaceX’s Artemis lander entrant?

[Anonymous No.11047988]

>propellant transfer in orbit is a capability in the national interest
JIM YOU SON OF A WHORE I'LL HAVE YOUR HEAD

[Anonymous No.11047992]

>>11047965
He also said the other S word... Soyuz es
>>11047987
I think the questions were supposed to be all about CCrew

[Anonymous No.11047997]

>>11047992
This is what inhabits Jim’s nightmares

[Anonymous No.11048018]

I'm going to a candidates forum for my riding tonight to poke the candidates about making the Canadian Space Agency something bigger than Chris Hadfield's pension

Also there's an unironic stalinist running in my riding so that's a great meme

[Anonymous No.11048025]

>>11048018
>An unironic stalinist.
So the average Can*dian?

[Anonymous No.11048027]

>>11048025
they unironically had connections with Mao and Hoxha
https://cpcml.ca

[Anonymous No.11048033]

>>11048027
Ah, so an actual connected political asset for Commie China, maybe more along the lines of your average DNC staffer.

[Anonymous No.11048035]

>>11048033
no they got rejected by the chicoms in the 80s and formed a pact with the people's labor alliance of albania

also we have two communist parties and they hate each other

[Anonymous No.11048039]

>>11048035
>Enough commie parties for there to be infighting.
Jesus Christ, how horrifying.

[Anonymous No.11048058]

>>11048039
tbf, two communists in shouting distance is infighting

[Anonymous No.11048089]

[muffled “oh say can you see” in the distance]

[Anonymous No.11048154]

>>11048089
>*crinkling intensifies*

[Anonymous No.11048185]

>>11047892
key note summaries?

[Anonymous No.11048207]

Missed it, can I get a rundown?

[Anonymous No.11048219]

>>11048185
>>11048207
Manned dummy test in Q1 2020 if all goes well
Nasa still likes likes spacex/starship
Dragon capsule going through a ton of parachute tests, elon has Mk.3 is the best parachute ever

Maybe more but the stream was shit.

[Anonymous No.11048244]

>>11048219
>Nasa still likes likes starship
Still? I'm pretty sure they're on the fence and don't know if its paper rocket or will become a reality.

>Manned dummy test 2020 Q1
Does that mean they have to buy Russian launch now? AFAIK, their contract expires march 2020. Q1 2020 dummy test, then manned launch soon after?

[Anonymous No.11048249]

>>11048207
Bridenstein confirming NASA is full bore on the Starship train, and he basically said the D word without saying it

see
>>11047988

[Anonymous No.11048271]

>mfw don't know wtf is happening to the starship program

[Anonymous No.11048283]

>>11048271
q u i c k r u n d o w n
>35 raptors on superheavy
>orbital refueling fully reusable 2STO
>stainless steel construction
>no seriously just 501 stainless
>thin durable ceramic heatshield
>3 rapvacs and 3 raptors on starship
>raptor is full flow staged combustion methalox engine
>prototypes being built in fields in texas and florida outdoors by mexican welders
>20km hop hopefully this year, orbit early next year
>still on track for mars 2024

[Anonymous No.11048289]

>>11048283
301 stainless

[Anonymous No.11048301]

>>11048289
my bad famalam

[Anonymous No.11048357]

I have to say, I really like the final design of starship and superheavy, definitely my favourite iteration behind ITS. That was a fucking Italian racecar design of a rocket.

[Anonymous No.11048364]

>>11043273
The only argument against reusability that makes any sense is for Big Dumb Boosters to launch extremely heavy loads. The BDB concept could potentially put up huge loads cheaper than multiple reusable launches but it would need to be manufactured more like StarShip 1 than Delta to keep costs low.

>>11043292
KSP + Realism Overhaul + PR-1 = Autistic fun.

[Anonymous No.11048366]

>>11047253

More like Bezos didn't really have a clue.

NASA? They'll purposefully rig things to exclude Elon as far as possible on contrivance. Well, the inertial shuttle/shuttle derived culture of NASA.

[Anonymous No.11048379]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg
>airborne launch of a Northrop Grumman Pegasus XL rocket with NASA’s Ionospheric Connection Explorer satellite

[Anonymous No.11048390]

>>11048249

Unless its more than rhetoric, then it is him rehabilitating his image for posterity.

[Anonymous No.11048392]

>>11048379
>aborted
>contact lost with pilot

[Anonymous No.11048394]

>>11048390

And roping in you rubes who mistake rhetoric as being what is meaningful so the shitshow gets a pass for another few years until the rhetoric gets a shift into some new topical fashion to rope in the next cohort of rubes.

[Anonymous No.11048401]

Anyone know a database of ablators that can be used in rocket engines? In particular the erosion constants of those ablators.

pic related

[Anonymous No.11048406]

>Boeing officials said Wednesday that the company is targeting Dec. 17 for the launch of the first unpiloted orbital test flight of the new Starliner crew capsule from Cape Canaveral on a week-long demonstration mission to the International Space Station
>Officials did not say when the Starliner could be ready to launch with astronauts.
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.11048437]

>>11048379
>>11048392
It's back on, jet circled round for second launch run.

[Anonymous No.11048455]

[Anonymous No.11048461]

>>11048379
What is the advantage of Pagasus vs something like Electron?

[Anonymous No.11048471]

>>11048461
Electron is limited in the orbital inclination it can put a payload in due to it's launch site (which I think can do a 39 degree inclination minimum), Pegasus can launch where-ever it's carrier plane can go (which is pretty much anywhere in the world), and thus isn't limited by that. Also I think it used to be pretty cost competitive for a long time, not sure about it now.

[Anonymous No.11048506]

>>11048461
If only planes could carry bigger, reusable rockets there could be some serious potential in an air launch system. It a a shame they are stuck carrying cucked little payloads.

[Anonymous No.11048596]

>>11047317
>Areolian Pickers

[Anonymous No.11048621]

Doug winked at Elon

owo

[Anonymous No.11048634]

>>11048621
rewatching, it appears that he actually winked at Jim

[Anonymous No.11048641]

>>11048621
>2025
>Elon and Doug commit to the first off-Earth wedding

[Anonymous No.11048662]

>>11043299
Try to go for custom contract

[Anonymous No.11048667]

>>11048662
What do you mean? You mean download a mod to make a custom contract?

[Anonymous No.11048693]

>>11048667
You need contract configurator as a dependency, but there's contract packs to do everything from set up a remotetech network to station science to building bases. DMagic science parts also have a contract pack (I think it comes with the parts) to do surveys and stuff with the science gear added with the mod.

[Anonymous No.11048718]

>>11046564
It only took like what? 11 years thats fast for Nasa

[Anonymous No.11048876]

>>11048641
go away big gay

[Anonymous No.11048879]

cananon here I got to ask all the candidates a question and it was a good one

>in 1962, Canada became the third country behind the United States and Soviet Union to orbit a satellite. Today, the Canadian Space Agency is a robotic arm and Chris Hadfield's pension. What plan, if any, does your party have for Canada to participate in this century's new space race?

of the six candidates, one refused to answer because they didn't know their own party's platform, one denied the moon landing and then proposed a commercial crew program, one was afraid of "the energy use of space", one said it cost too much to consider, one didn't like I wasn't asking "local questions" about sawmill layoffs and shit, and the one insisted "yeah but the Canadarm is pretty cool"

can I have a greencard I want out

[Anonymous No.11048882]

hey, new thread please

[Anonymous No.11048884]

>>11048879
let's be fair, the canadarm IS pretty cool

[Anonymous No.11048886]

>>11048884
ok but the canadarm is not a fucking space program in and of itself

[Anonymous No.11048890]

>>11048283
Kthx I was talking about the anons roasting those pics of mk1 being deconstructed or something

[Anonymous No.11048921]

>>11048890
they're taking parts off so they can do work under where the parts go

[Anonymous No.11049052]

>>11048884
Darm is German for colon.

[Anonymous No.11049054]

>>11049052
I always read it as CanaDarm as well although that's an interesting fact

[Anonymous No.11049275]

BUMP

[Anonymous No.11049283]

New

>>11049281
>>11049281
>>11049281