/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.11107952]

Very rare rockets edition. Pictured is the Soyuz 2.1v, one of rarest Soyuz variants out there.

Please post rare rockets.

Previous thread: >>11099841

[Anonymous No.11107957]

>Another thread about rockets.
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.11107960]

>>11107957
rocket threads are fine. what would you prefer, another Langan thread?

[Anonymous No.11107962]

>Another brainlet complaining about science related threads.
Yiike

[Anonymous No.11107964]

Not a rocket.

[Anonymous No.11107971]

>>11107962
>Another person complaining about someone complaining.
No, sweetie

[Anonymous No.11107972]

>>11107964
A lifting body

[Anonymous No.11107975]

>>11107952
I have got a rare rocket right here for you

[Anonymous No.11107981]

>>11107975
as in never been used like the SLS?

[Anonymous No.11108020]

>>11107952
a couple rarities: the largest...

[Anonymous No.11108022]

>>11108020
...and potentially smallest (Indonesia's design, though they were beat out by Japan's recent SS-520)

[Anonymous No.11108043]

>>11107981
Carlos on point again

[Anonymous No.11108051]

>>11107952
>Please post rare rockets.

[Anonymous No.11108076]

[Anonymous No.11108096]

Bet nobody can recognise this one

[Anonymous No.11108141]

>>11108096
The first stage engines makes me think Titan, but the overall shape makes me think Ariane 1.

[Anonymous No.11108142]

>>11108096
Nope, but google image search can.
It's probably a europa 1.

[Anonymous No.11108145]

>>11108141
Your right about it being partly a french design, but it’s not an Ariane.

[Anonymous No.11108181]

>>11108096
Diamant variant

[Anonymous No.11108439]

Congratulations! You just won a sizeable fortune from the lottery and have decided to dedicate yourself to making a startup aerospace company. What will you name your company? Be as funny or as serious as you like.

Hardmode: No space, aero, aerospace, orbtial, orbit, rocket, nor galactic in the name.

[Anonymous No.11108461]

>>11108439
ACME Propulsion

[Anonymous No.11108481]

>>11108439
Area 69

[Anonymous No.11108489]

>>11108439
Senate Launch Systems

[Anonymous No.11108522]

>>11108439
Stop Islam Aerospace

[Anonymous No.11108529]

>>11108439
Virgin Universal

[Anonymous No.11108544]

>>11107952
Big Anime Tiddies. The first rocket is called penis shaped MAN1 and MAN6 is expected to dock with the ISS. The descent module is shaped like a huge breast.

[Anonymous No.11108549]

>>11108544
>>11108439
*

[Anonymous No.11108578]

>>11108439
Bertan Mining and Gas

[Anonymous No.11108581]

>>11108439
DEM Programs

[Anonymous No.11108582]

>>11108439
Beratnas Mining and Gas

[Anonymous No.11108616]

>falling for the NASA lie

[Anonymous No.11108643]

>>11108616
nobody here falls for SLS

[Anonymous No.11108686]

[Anonymous No.11108690]

[Anonymous No.11108695]

[Anonymous No.11108699]

[Anonymous No.11108736]

>>11108699
Is this the start of the new 200m diameter starship?

[Anonymous No.11108744]

>>11108736
I choose to believe.

[Anonymous No.11108747]

>>11108736
No, it’s the hangar/HAB were New Glenn will be stored at LC-36.

[Anonymous No.11108760]

>>11108744

[Anonymous No.11108778]

>>11108736
Rumour has it this one will have enough delta v to lift Elons ego into LEO.

[Anonymous No.11108779]

>>11107952
how can something that expensive be out in the rain without at least a damn tarp over it or something

[Anonymous No.11108783]

>>11108779
Its Russian, they tend to overbuild things. It should be fine.

[Anonymous No.11108888]

>sealed for freshness

[Anonymous No.11109054]

>>11108888
How did the engineer guys get out after the stages did the lewd?

[Anonymous No.11109076]

>>11108439
Catgirl discovery ventures.

[Anonymous No.11109084]

>>11109054
They were a sacrifice to the great moon god.

[Anonymous No.11109134]

>>11108439
>name it EASYSPACE
>it triggers NASA/Congress
>they nationationalize my company and rename it HARDSPACE
KEK

[Anonymous No.11109135]

>>11108544

[Anonymous No.11109137]

>>11108439
Dynamic Depot Deployment

[Anonymous No.11109171]

Redpill me on splash-plate injectors. Why aren't they more common?

[Anonymous No.11109254]

Any thoughts on this possible explanation for how to get an engine with similar performance as the Epstein drive http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-expanses-epstein-drive.html..

[Anonymous No.11109295]

>>11109254
>Epstein
Didn't he get assisted sodoku in prison?

[Anonymous No.11109305]

>>11109295
He scribbled the design down before he involuntarily committed suicide.

>>11109254
Neat breakdown. Although, the lack of a radiator is more likely due to most people not recognizing spacecraft having them.

[Anonymous No.11109445]

>>11108439
Horizon
Hermes
Mining, Astrroids, Gas and Electricity (MAGE)

[Anonymous No.11109449]

>>11108779
Its an ICBM variant come rain, snow, hail or fire it is made to launch

[Anonymous No.11109522]

>>11109449
>ICBM variant of a rocket derived from a rocket derived from an ICBM

[Anonymous No.11109526]

Trick or Treat

[Anonymous No.11109717]

>>11109522
yo dawg i heard

[Anonymous No.11109776]

>>11109717

[Anonymous No.11109832]

>>11107952
How hard do you reckon it'd be to build pic related with a team of a dozen or so exceptionally motivated and talented hobbyists?

[Anonymous No.11109836]

>>11108020
Isn't it that Soviet rocket that Korolev forced to build and was launched after his death and blew up because so many small engines had an extremely high chance of failure and everybody knew that but they still did this because they were afraid of criticizing Korolev?

[Anonymous No.11109858]

>>11109836
It really blew up because the Russkies were in too much of a hurry and wouldn't test it a stage at a time.

[Anonymous No.11109882]

>>11109776
I was being facetious but im glad you call out faggotry where faggotry is, Im pretty sure that shit is older than half the people that post here anyhow

[Anonymous No.11109884]

I have a modest proposal
>>11109877

[Anonymous No.11109890]

>>11109882
Assuming that this website serves as a playpen for children under the age of 15 goes a long way in explaining the quality of the posts on here

[Anonymous No.11109895]

>>11109882
Redditors must be called out where ever they reveal themselves.

[Anonymous No.11109914]

>>11109895
I'm pretty sure xzibit memes literally predate reddit getting big, wouldn't "go back to 9gag" or "go back to newgrounds" be more accurate for 2007

[Anonymous No.11109987]

>>11109832
There's some technical challenges. It would probably be easier to make a smaller version of that inspired by the real thing rather than attempting to remake it. Making the turbopumps (pic related) would be the largest challenge IMO. Those are always hard to design and make. You can probably find a preexisting design that's close to the size that you want, copy it, make it work, and then design an engine around that. Still would be a massive challenge unless you can outsource it. Once that's done, the rest of the rocket should be relatively easy though.

Try to start small and work your way up. Make subscale tests of an engine (it doesn't even have to match what your end goal is) first then refine it. Look into pressure fed hoppers to build up your skill in rocketry. There's some liquid propelled rocketry competitions that such a hopper would be ideal for, so it could also be used as a source of some income will you focus on your goal.

Also, make sure that someone is on top of legal stuff.

Good luck, and be sure to keep us noted on your progress!

[Anonymous No.11110007]

>>11109832
I was trying to get hold of the blueprints. Think they are on the Web somewhere possibly. Handling the 85% HTP would be 'fun'

[Anonymous No.11110077]

>>11109832
I feel like if you're putting the immense amount of effort required into building an orbital rocket you can do a lot better than the Black Arrow. Just call it Black Prince or something.

[Anonymous No.11110095]

>>11110077
For that much effort I'd be disappointed if they called it anything besides Big Black Cocket.

[Anonymous No.11110124]

>>11110095
Go be obsessed somewhere else

[Anonymous No.11110125]

>>11108096
But i can sure reverse search that, Europa 1 rocket

[Anonymous No.11110136]

It's that part of the year again

[Anonymous No.11110150]

>>11109254
Neat, plausible so far as I can tell but I'm no fusion doctor. The ship would still need radiators though, to get rid of waste heat from crewed modules and the powerplant that's feeding your superconductors, cooling systems, lasers, etc. You'd still need either a high energy density fission or fusion reactor to provide all of that electrical power, probably some battery packs, etc. Since you're going to be using all of this power and cryogenic cooling anyways, might as well regeneratively cool your heatshield too, that aught to greatly enhance how high you can "throttle up" your fusion torch without melting the shield. There are also some metamaterials that are hyper-reflective, 98%+, and highly insulating heat shield setups like that used in the Parker probe. The writer and the Expanse show also IMO get wrong the amount of water the Roci and other ships would be carrying around, in the books they describe the ship having quite a capacious water jacket, presumably tanks contained between the inner and outer hulls, I'd guess that the ships in the expanse are always technically "afterburning", using a bit of water and running their torch drives at a comparatively low level. Most ships in the story accelerate at 1/3rd of a G in non-emergency situations.

[Anonymous No.11110151]

>>11110136
gotta focus on mogging nasa with that lunar starship

[Anonymous No.11110165]

>>11110151
>"Finally! The starship is here! We can use toilets again!"

[Anonymous No.11110169]

>>11110165
>yfw starship will use shit as radiation protection during mars

[Anonymous No.11110173]

>>11110136
new twitter interface is hot garbage, i can understand why he'd leave

anyway: Demo-2 WHEN????

[Anonymous No.11110177]

>>11110169
>Designated shitting starship

[Anonymous No.11110182]

>>11110136
It's good to go offline from time to time.

[Anonymous No.11110221]

Is that not due to the pedo lawsuit?

[Anonymous No.11110234]

>>11110221
He fucked up, by casually donating 1 million worth of trees to Mr Beast’s thing when his lawyers were trying to get him to act like he’s too cash-strapped to pay money to the diver.

[Anonymous No.11110240]

>>11110182
That meme is not nearly as good as the Mark Zuckerberg ones. Elon is just on the 'tism spectrum, but you can see he genuinely loves what he is doing with his companies. Mark, on the other hand, is so far off the spectrum and into something else that it's more believable that he is a reptilian than a real human, and I don't even believe in reptilians.
>>11110221
I doubt it. He's probably just stressed out from all the back and forth that happen on Twitter and some of the baseless criticism that he is powerless to do much about. Now that Tesla is doing okay financially, there's less worry about shills bankrupting his companies.

[Anonymous No.11110246]

>>11110240
>Mark, on the other hand, is so far off the spectrum and into something else that it's more believable that he is a reptilian than a real human, and I don't even believe in reptilians
Didn't he had to go to a social coach to teach him how to walk and socialize normally?

[Anonymous No.11110249]

>>11110234
That's retarded, a judge could force him to liquidate stock if he was cash broke.

[Anonymous No.11110250]

>another ambitious NASA project while the ESA scrambles for funding and cosmological identity
Nav off, m8

[Anonymous No.11110258]

>>11110250
Preliminary study? Ok, it will be cool to hear their completely hypothetical plan that autists on the internet could cobble together in a few days in 4-6 months.

[Anonymous No.11110267]

>>11110250
Each study gets $500,000 and it's guaranteed that at least a couple of these will be matured into real missions that will actually fly. Here they are:

Mars Orbiter for Resources, Ices, and Environments (MORIE) is a Martian imaging/sensing orbiter that will focus on mapping, in detail, shallow water-ice deposits across the entire surface. It will also quantify in detail the water reserves at the poles. The goal of MORIE is to allow human landers to choose a landing site that will have enough shallow water without too much overburden (rocks/soil) covering it.

Assessing Ceres' Habitability Potential will design a mission for every cost level (New Frontiers to Flagship) with the goal of enabling long-term Ceres exploration. The mission would study Ceres' water reserves and the potential for past or present life, while studying the best ways to go about long-term human exploration of Ceres.

In-Situ Geochronology will study the ability to do in-situ geochronology without Earth-based labs. At the moment, sample-returns are needed to do this type of work, but the study will attempt to prove that it can be done with landers, rovers or human bases.

Mercury Lander is what it sounds like. The goal of the study will be do develop a New-Frontiers Mercury lander to be proposed for the Decadal Survey. The idea would be to launch it in the mid-to-late 2020s so that the lander can be there not long after BepiColombo is retired.

Venus Flagship will attempt to design a flagship-class Venus mission that actually gets funded for once. It could consist of multiple spacecraft, landers, rovers or even sample-returns.

[Anonymous No.11110269]

>>11110267
Pluto Orbiter and KBO Mission is probably the best-defined concept yet. Announced here, the Southwest Research Institute will attempt to prove that a Pluto orbiter is indeed possible to launch soon. Utilizing electric propulsion and gravity assist magic, the goal here is to map, in detail, the surface (and subsurface) of Pluto & Charon including their far sides before breaking orbit and conducting a flyby of ANOTHER dwarf planet in the Kuiper Belt. This one's really interesting, I hope they can put together a convincing mission.

Mars Orbiters for Surface-Ionosphere Connections would be a first-of-its-kind (if Mars Starlink isn't already there) Mars orbiter constellation with a mothership and several smaller satellites that separate into carefully chosen orbits to do ionospheric science.

Flagship Enceladus Mission will study what the best way to do Enceladus research is - lander or orbiter.

Lunar Geophysical Network seems like an Artemis thing. Human or robot-placed geophysical research network across the Moon.

Intrepid, a lunar rover that would last for 4 Earth years and traverse 1800km of lunar surface. Landing at a lunar swirl and driving at breakneck speeds, Intrepid would effectively be in a whole new part of the Moon every week as it travels a kilometer per day taking photos and taking samples. The mission would apparently gather so many images and so much data that teams of scientists would barely have time to keep up with it all.

Odyssey, a flagship mission to Neptune and Triton. 2029 is the best year to launch for another decade at least, so Odyssey will formulate a mission plan to take advantage. Also, it seems they will be "looking at new launchers" that have come up recently.

[Anonymous No.11110270]

>>11109832
Semi-related question, is HTP a superior oxidizer for use by amateurs than LOx? The lack of cyro seems like it would be less of a headache to design plumbing for, but I've heard that it's also much more reactive to random stuff. Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.11110277]

>>11110270
Advantages of kerosene / peroxide engines from Wikipedia:

The combustion of kerosene with hydrogen peroxide is given by the formula

CH2 + 3H2O2 CO2 + 4H2O

where CH2 is the approximate formula of kerosene (see RP-1 for a discussion of kerosene rocket fuels). This compares with the combustion of kerosene and liquid oxygen (LOX)

CH2 + 1.5O2 CO2 + H2O

showing that the exhaust from kerosene / peroxide is predominantly water. This results in a very clean exhaust (second only to cryogenic LO2/LH2) and a distinctive clear flame.[11] The low molecular mass of water also helps to increase rocket thrust performance.[12]

The oxidiser used with Gamma was 85% high-test peroxide (HTP), H2O2. Gamma used a silver-plated on nickel-gauze catalyst to first decompose the peroxide.[13] For higher concentrations of H2O2 another catalyst would have been required, such as platinum. No ignition source was required since the very hot decomposed H2O2 is hypergolic (will spontaneously combust) with kerosene. Due to the high ratio (8:1) of the mass of H2O2 used compared to the kerosene, and also its superior heat characteristics, the H2O2 may also be used to regeneratively cool the engine nozzle before combustion. Any pre-combustion chamber used to power the pump turbines needs only to decompose H2O2 to provide the energy. This gives the efficiency advantages of closed cycle operation, without its usual major engineering problems.

All of these characteristics lead to kerosene / hydrogen peroxide engines being simpler and more reliable to construct than other liquid propellant chemistries. Gamma had a remarkably reliable service record for a rocket engine. Of the 22 Black Knight and 4 Black Arrow launchers, involving 128 Gamma engines, there were no engine failures.

[Anonymous No.11110280]

>>11110246
I think that was for his appearance in congress. He's likely had private social coaching unrelated to that, but I don't know if it was made public. He is however a billionaire so accessing those services doesn't mean that much when you have piles money to burn and public image becomes everything to you. He's probably sitting at home right now wearing the face of one of his victims.

[Anonymous No.11110303]

>>11110240
>Mark Zuckerberg
He could probably aply for disability care if he wanted too.

[Anonymous No.11110315]

>>11110303
Please do not insult Zucc, your social credit score will be decreased.

[Anonymous No.11110316]

>>11108096
Atlas-agena target vehicle for the gemini program!

[Anonymous No.11110323]

>>11110270
Whatever I was doing with it I'd want to be doing from several tens of feet away, and/or behind a concrete wall.

[Anonymous No.11110324]

>>11110303
I was questioning why he doesn't have his own spaceflight company and then it hit me, he already has one with capabilities far beyond that of the others but it is kept hidden from the public. We must get him to release the reptilian technology.

[Anonymous No.11110332]

>>11110324
jesus look at that face, look at the loathing and contempt he has for those congresstards

same t b h

[Anonymous No.11110336]

>>11110332
>implying congresstards don't deserve loathing and contempt

[Anonymous No.11110340]

>>11110336
oh every last bit of it

it's gotta be killing him to hide it as much as he does

[Anonymous No.11110341]

>>11110332
After seeing that fuckwit AOC attempting to grill him over fantasy nonsense I can understand his loathing for those sub-human wretches.

[Anonymous No.11110372]

Hey let's talk about lunar landers. What's the best architecture to get AMERICAN astronauts from Gateway to the lunar surface and back?

Currently two of the proposals announced:
1) Blue/LM/NG team - three stage lander - transfer stage (NG) to move it from NRHO to LLO and back, descent stage (BO) stays on surface, ascent stage (LM) reused. Presumably each piece is a separate New Glenn launch

2) Boeing - two stage lander (descent stage big enough to do the transfer) launched on SLS

3) SpaceX - rumors about Starship?

is anyone else expected to compete?

[Anonymous No.11110378]

>>11109836
Lots of small engines is good, it means if one or two fails you can keep going

They had some 60s era Soviet computer on board that was supposed to manage the engines, so if one of them stopped it would automatically turn off the one on the opposite side, to maintain balance

only, during flight, there was bug, one engine failed and computer turned off every engine

[Anonymous No.11110381]

>>11110372
>3 stage lander
>takes three launches to lift/assemble
Why?

[Anonymous No.11110385]

>>11110381
Size limitations maybe? Or maybe since the ascent and transfer stages are reusable, its easier to design each stage as a separate spacecraft?

[Anonymous No.11110386]

>>11110332
>not having loath and contempt for literal vaguely human shaped parasites

[Anonymous No.11110390]

>>11110372
1. Invest in the larger upper stage.
2. Have LM design lander (related to point 3)
3. Drop orion due to its prohibitive weight and replace with Dragon. Alternatively Starliner but you will need to explain why Boeing gets 2 and LM only 1.

Single launch architecture going full apollo if we can't do better might as well not do worse and embarrass ourselves in the process.

[Anonymous No.11110396]

>>11110341
Everything she says can be discounted offhand, she's basically LARPing as a politician. She doesn't know how laws, her own job, or anything else actually functions, she's an economic illiterate with no comprehension of what her purpose in government even is. Normally I'm not an education elitist, politicians actually shouldn't be "professional" politicians ever, but you'd get better results than AOC if you just dragged some poor rando off a street, sat them down and told them to make some policy.

[Anonymous No.11110399]

>>11110385
I know real life is not KSP, but it seems like a lot of extra work when the design could maybe be streamlined to a SST(L)O and a transfer stage bus that goes back and forth like they're saying. I know we meme on Gateway but it'd at least provide a place to park/refuel/maintain your lander when you're not using it, I kinda like the idea of having maintenance outposts like that.

[Anonymous No.11110401]

>>11110396
>you'd get better results than AOC if you just dragged some poor rando off a street, sat them down and told them to make some policy.
Extremely true, I don't usually feel bad for Zuck ever but seeing him have to deal with her gave me a twinge of empathy for the android man.

[Anonymous No.11110403]

>>11110399
Probably a STLL (single stage lunar lander) is simply too big for even the New Glenn. Also it could be due to the fact that each part of the alliance wants a significant part of the infrastructure so that each can have something substantial to continue work on if the alliance falls apart. Kinda like how NASA chose a three stage lunar lander so that it'll be harder to completely kill by Congress.

[Anonymous No.11110405]

>>11110396
>you'd get better results than AOC if you just dragged some poor rando off a street
this is true for all of our politicians, we should unironically switch from elections to random selection like juries do

[Anonymous No.11110417]

>>11110403
>Kinda like how NASA chose a three stage lunar lander so that it'll be harder to completely kill by Congress.

No, NASA chose a three-stage lander because of the extensive Delta V requirements to get from NRHO (gateway orbit) to the lunar surface and because no existing launcher can send more than 15 tons to TLI. Such a powerful lander has to be assembled in multiple launches.

[Anonymous No.11110431]

>>11110417
Actually, NASA hasn’t even limited the bids to three-stage landers which is why Starship is able to compete. It’s just the most conventional way to get the performance NASA wants...

[Anonymous No.11110448]

That’s no water tower...

[Anonymous No.11110461]

>>11110448
Boomer Space Programs

[Anonymous No.11110482]

Why don't we have any mirv nukes that are twice the size, with an ion kick stage and like 4 stages to accelerate out of atmo to intercept asteroids and rip them apart.

[Anonymous No.11110487]

>>11110482
>nuke rock
>make many rocks
Just spraypaint half of it and let the sun do the rest.

[Anonymous No.11110494]

>>11110417
>>11110431
And it's why Boeing's bid is two-stage: because launching it on SLS gives them the payload mass for that capability.

[Anonymous No.11110504]

>>11110494
one of two things will happen there:

either
1) Boeing is pricing themselves out of the contract by specifying another SLS launch
2) Boeing will be procuring a "commerical SLS" for way less than they're charging NASA for the same thing

[Anonymous No.11110668]

>>11110487
smol rocks burn up in the atmosphere
big rocks dont

[Anonymous No.11110703]

>>11110668
Small rocks burn up and deliver the same amount of energy as the big rock, incinerating everything on the ground via overhead radiative heating.

[Anonymous No.11110723]

>>11109445
This is like 9.5/10
Just change "Electricity" to "Energy"

[Anonymous No.11110732]

>>11110703
if more mass burns up in the upper atmosphere, then less of that energy will affect the ground

[Anonymous No.11110746]

>>11110732
WWWRRRROOOOOOONNNNNGGGGGG

[Anonymous No.11110755]

>>11110746
But not horribly wrong. The ground impact is spread over a larger area instead.

[Anonymous No.11110799]

>>11110746
It's not wrong though.

[Anonymous No.11110820]

>>11110755
>>11110799
If the asteroid poses a serious threat, making it in to smaller rocks would not help that much. Still the same energy, so you'll end up frying everything by heating the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11110821]

>>11110799
>>11110755
One of the major problems with an asteroid strike is that the ejecta goes up into space then comes back down around the world creating a super heated atmosphere that can raise the air temp near the ground to over 500F. A big asteroid that gets broken up prior to hitting the atmosphere will cause a similar problem. Such an event can sterilize everything down to 2 inches into the ground.

[Anonymous No.11110826]

>>11110820
Wrong. Break it up into enough small parts and it won't hit anything on the ground at all. It will hear the atmosphere a bit sure, but probably not as much as the dust it ads will cool it.

[Anonymous No.11110831]

>>11110821
>using Fahrenheit
unscientific, discarded

[Anonymous No.11110838]

>>11110831
>math is hard

[Anonymous No.11110840]

>>11110831
Stop being lazy and learn how to convert units.

-t. Metric fag

[Anonymous No.11110843]

>>11110821
>A big asteroid that gets broken up prior to hitting the atmosphere will cause a similar problem
nah. It will only hit one side on the earth. If that part is the middle east, it might actually be a net benefit to humanity.

[Anonymous No.11110844]

>>11110838
Math is hard. Which is why I don't trust people too lazy to use modern sensible units of measurement to do it well.

[Anonymous No.11110849]

>>11110840
>>11110838
>learn obsolete units
sure, how many leagues must i travel to the nearest archeologist?

[Anonymous No.11110860]

>>11110849
god fucking help you if you ever need to look up an old text on radiation

[Anonymous No.11110866]

>>11110378
>only, during flight, there was bug, one engine failed and computer turned off every engine
>this is why we test.webm
oops

>>11110399
>a place to park/refuel/maintain your lander when you're not using it
Most spacecraft in orbit have a limited shelf life before they have to come down. The Soyuz on ISS are rated for ~6 months, and that drives the crew rotation rate.
There can be many reasons, but the biggest are apparently battery life and fuel life, especially hypergolics.

[Anonymous No.11110959]

>>11108096
The Europa I I believe. First stage was a Blue Streak. It was a total clusterfuck.

[Anonymous No.11111074]

>>11110396
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q
She might know how islands work, which would make her slightly above the bottom of the barrel

[Anonymous No.11111164]

>>11110277
I know about the performance advantages, but I was more interested in it's handing and storage characteristics for an amateur rocketeer.

[Anonymous No.11111233]

>>11110849
Get fucked for a fortnight fag.

[Anonymous No.11111400]

>>11111233
Fucking nice my dude, also fuck you and your six farthing whore of a mother

[Halo Reach Chad No.11111413]

>>11111111

[Anonymous No.11111549]

>>11109832

[Anonymous No.11111726]

>>11110826
Yeah, read my post again. They don't hit and will heat the atmosphere instead. Still the same energy so you are fucked still.

[Anonymous No.11111747]

>>11109832
at the time it was being build, British Railways were still using steam locomotives
just to put things into perspective

[Anonymous No.11111802]

>>11110703
It is mostly the shockwave from impact that is dangerous, not energy delivered by burning in atmosphere

simply breaking up a big asteroid is thus a valid defense

[Anonymous No.11111822]

>>11110405
We should be making elections not about representatives, but about ministries/departments/agencies/whatever you call them.
For example, suppose there are elections for ministry of energy and the candidates present their priorities for the next years, whenever it's building new nukes, building massive solar parks in deserts, subsidies for rooftop solars, etc.
The main flaws of this being ministry of finance could take away the money away, sabotage everybody else and make them do whatever THEY want.
But this would solve 2 bid problem: complete laymen in being in charge for political reasons and having to vote for policies I hate because there are some completely unrelated policies that I kinda like.

>>11110703
the energy is dissipated as heat in upper atmosphere and bigger surface area to mass ratio means lower terminal velocity, which means lower kinetic energy retained
If somebody drops 1kg of feathers from the 5th floor on you, it wouldn't even be unpleasant, while 1kg steel cube would kill you instantly

[Anonymous No.11111852]

>>11110504
I have it on good authority that the lander procurement was also part of a strategy incentivizing Boeing to get creative in cutting SLS costs before NASA does the 10 SLS block-buy.
It's unironically a really smart strategy, because they either cut SLS costs for the bid, and therefore NASA negotiates the vlock buy around those lower costs, or Boeing doesn't cut costs and loses the bid, which could be billions of dollars worth in landers development contracts.
It's both carrot and the stick.

[Anonymous No.11111865]

>>11111852
>tfw Jim Bridenstine

[Anonymous No.11111927]

Antares launch in three hours.

[Anonymous No.11111991]

>>11111927
Live view of launch pad for now:

https://youtu.be/nTLjdIu_t0w

[Anonymous No.11112066]

>>11111726
We don't live in the upper atmosphere dingus, and the heat would quickly dissipate into space. Just because it's the same total energy doesn't mean we get affected the same.

Imagine driving around in heavy hailstones and watching them hitting your windscreen for 10 minutes. Now imagine instead of all that hail, one giant ball of ice with the same weight and kinetic energy of all that hail hits you windscreen at once. Do you think that will hurt you and your car just as much because it's "the same energy"? The ball of ice would probably go through your windscreen and crush your head in. The hail wouldn't even come close to damaging you windscreen.

[Anonymous No.11112087]

Northrop Gremlin on the pad

[Anonymous No.11112088]

Has there been anymore news on the EMdrive. Like actually launching it into space because all of the papers, tests, and experiments that they have done in 2019 so far have stated they failed to eliminate noise and still cant rule it out.

emphasis on the 2019 because the shit from 2018 is pointless and theorized everything from thermal expansion to earths magnetic field to people saying the guys from germany ran it at extremely low power ect.

[Anonymous No.11112112]

>>11110843
>It will only hit one side on the earth
That depends entirely on its trajectory. It may scrape itself all over and around the entire planet if it is at the correct trajectory.

>>11110844
4channel is an American website. We use freedom units here. You should disconnect your euro net from us and toddle off, bong.

[Anonymous No.11112118]

>>11112112
4chan is japanese now.

[Anonymous No.11112120]

Everyday Astronaut going Live:

https://youtu.be/RzpSxoEwN7g

[Anonymous No.11112121]

>>11112118
That is why we should stop using backwards Euro date formats.

[Anonymous No.11112123]

>>11112118
This isn't 4chan, tourist.

[Anonymous No.11112127]

>>11112121
100% based and has sex.

[Anonymous No.11112129]

>>11112121
I use year-month-day all the time for maintaining proper file and folder naming and order.
>2019-11-2

[Anonymous No.11112130]

>>11111927
>>11111991
>Pad 0-A
Remember that great prank they had five years ago?

[Anonymous No.11112134]

>>11112129
The only acceptable format for the high IQ man.

Worst thing about the normie US/EU formats is never being sure what format you are looking at. Often you'll see something like
>3/10/2016
Now is that 3rd of October 2016, or 10th of March 2016? There'll often be no context to inform you. But with based ISO 2016/10/3 there's no ambiguity.

[Anonymous No.11112139]

>>11112066
That's not comparable at all, it only shows how you really don't understand the amount of energy a big space rock can carry. If your ice ball misses the windshield, nothing happens. If a big enough asteroid missed you by a continent, you die. If the same asteroid is made in to small rocks, it heats the earths atmosphere to hundreds of degrees, burning you and everyhing else, not just heating the first layer of air it hits. It would not "dissipate to space", partly for sure.

[Anonymous No.11112147]

>>11112129
>>11112134
>not zero-padding
>then expecting it to maintain folder order

[Anonymous No.11112163]

>>11112147
My OS and programs don't mess up like that.

[Anonymous No.11112165]

10 MINUTES TILL LAUNCH!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWZKQ73aGrg

[Anonymous No.11112174]

N O M I N A L

[Anonymous No.11112177]

>Beginning of load relief

[Anonymous No.11112178]

Where are they launching this?

[Anonymous No.11112179]

>>11112178
Cygnus resupply mission to International Space station

[Anonymous No.11112182]

>>11112178
Wallops Air Force Base in NE US

[Anonymous No.11112184]

Stage 2

[Anonymous No.11112185]

>>11112182
thanks

[Anonymous No.11112190]

Why are you guys watching Nasa playing with Kerbal Space Program?

[Anonymous No.11112194]

>>11112190
New trend is to watch people playing video games instead of actually playing video games.

[Anonymous No.11112198]

So how hard is it to mount some GoPros to make this Livestream a bit more exciting?

[Anonymous No.11112203]

Guys, how can i get one of those blue chairs with the headrest in the command center?

[Anonymous No.11112213]

>>11112203
DIY

[Anonymous No.11112218]

>>11111802
WWWRRROOOOONNNNGGGGGG

[Anonymous No.11112221]

>>11111822
Lower terminal velocity sure, but the particles still come in at fucking 13 km/s or more, they're gonna slam to a halt in the upper atmosphere all at the same time at flash-heat to 6000 degrees C resulting in a gigantic pulse of infrared radiation that will fry everything on the ground.

The dinosaurs for example didn't go extinct because of the impact of that comet, they went extinct because the impact ejecta splash came back down globally as small rock particles traveling at near orbital speeds, which heated up the atmosphere so much that the Earth's surface temperature was briefly higher than Venus' modern day surface temperature, all surface plant life auto-ignited and all large animals too big to shelter underground were burned to death.

[Anonymous No.11112225]

>>11112088
Emdrive a shit, mach effect thruster is best fringe drive.

[Anonymous No.11112226]

>>11112066
Now conduct the same experiment except every grain of ice hitting your windshield has enough kinetic energy to do pic related, and also is going fast enough that it will heat up to thousands of degrees via shock heating in the atmosphere alone.

[Anonymous No.11112233]

>>11112088
>Like actually launching it into space because all of the papers, tests, and experiments that they have done in 2019 so far have stated they failed to eliminate noise and still cant rule it out
It isn't that the noise levels are so high that its hard to pick up on the engine's thrust. It's that the measured thrust is so low that it's impossible to tell if its actually thrust or random noise even with highly sensitive sensors. This strongly suggests that the engine doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.11112265]

[Anonymous No.11112267]

[Anonymous No.11112271]

[Anonymous No.11112290]

>>11112265
>>11112267
>>11112271
What's this?

[Anonymous No.11112296]

>>11112290
>OWO

[Anonymous No.11112314]

>>11112290
China’s new rocket, designed specifically for launching crew.

[Anonymous No.11112329]

>>11112296

[Anonymous No.11112334]

>>11112314
Is it one of their Long March rockets or is it from one of their new startups?

[Anonymous No.11112354]

>>11112334
Neither, it’s a different family of government-built rockets that will compete with the Long March family. It’s origin is the Chinese human-spaceflight authority becoming disgruntled with the LM family and asking for a launch vehicle specifically designed to launch crew to both LEO and the Moon.

[Anonymous No.11112389]

>>11112265
>""5-meter diameter module overall technology and engineering application" project."

>"the launch vehicle is about 87 meters long, the take-off weight is about 2,200 tons, the take-off thrust is close to 2,700 tons, and the LTO (Ben Moon orbit) carrying capacity is not less than 25 tons."

[Anonymous No.11112394]

>>11108439
Shelby's
Depot
Transportation

[Anonymous No.11112420]

>>11112389
So it's a copycat new glenn

[Anonymous No.11112450]

>>11112221
>The dinosaurs for example didn't go extinct because of the impact of that comet, they went extinct because the impact ejecta splash came back down globally

The SPLASH was caused by the shockwave of one big rock hitting the ground. Many smaller rocks would have a much lesser effect.

[Anonymous No.11112463]

>>11108439
Sneed's Feed and Seed

[Anonymous No.11112486]

>>11112265
>>11112267
>>11112271
The race is on holy shit what a time to be alive.

[Anonymous No.11112492]

>>11112486

Literally irrelevant Chinese rocket.

[Anonymous No.11112507]

>>11112492
Seething mutt

[Anonymous No.11112529]

>>11112507

The chinese are building a horse and buggy for the Daytona 500 because all you space nerds have known is a chariot race.

[Anonymous No.11112532]

>>11112265
What does this run on? Is Anon's meme dream of hypergolic Starship going to be preceded by hypergolic New Glenn?

[Anonymous No.11112536]

>>11112198
But Anon! The mass budget! The mass budget!

[Anonymous No.11112542]

>>11112532
No, it’s powered by the same staged-combustion kerolox engines as the LM-7 and LM-5’s boosters (YF-100).

[Anonymous No.11112550]

>>11112507

By the time it is ready the proper course of action would be to immediately junk it and not use it to build the readily apparent actual current gen rocket approach. Using it slows them down for meagre return.

[Anonymous No.11112565]

>>11112265
Is this boostback or expendable

[Anonymous No.11112575]

>>11112226
Err yeah, that was why I mention the large ball of ice doing more damage.

My whole point was if you break an asteroid into small enough pieces it will burn up in the atmosphere, where the kinetic energy will be released as heat.

>But yeah, what if the pieces were big enough do to a lot of damage
Then they would do a lot of damage. But if there are small enough they won't.

[Anonymous No.11112584]

>>11112565
Aren't all Chinese products expendable?

[Anonymous No.11112600]

>>11112550

This also sheds light on the SLS situation. SLS is worse than expendable falcon heavy tier rocket tech, and NASA will get full access to Starship to use without having to build it.

Then NASA could be the other side of the coin to Starship: being all the cool shit that a well funded space program could do based on having Starship.

>But I only like a couple of guys picking up rocks.

You like it because it happened, and you've been told to like it your entire lifetime by the people who liked it because it happened. If other things happened you might like that too. And a full geological survey of the moon in your lifetime is part of the package deal.

[Anonymous No.11112602]

>>11112584
Only certain products, such as electronics, cars and people.

[Anonymous No.11112605]

>>11112565
This an expendable design, despite the clustering.

>>11112584
Upcoming Linkspace rockets and LM-8 will be reusable.

[Anonymous No.11112650]

>>11112600
>SLS is worse than expendable falcon heavy tier rocket tech
In what way? I'll give you cost, but it's better than FH in performance.

[Anonymous No.11112661]

>>11112650

Low cost can make up for lesser performance and there is a whole bunch you could do with smaller rockets that can outpace the slate of the bigger more expensive SLS based program.

Falcon Heavy size is arbitrary and you could apply expendable falcon heavy tech to an arbitrary size rocket in SLS class or beyond.

[Anonymous No.11112673]

>>11112661
There are some missions though that will have high KG per flight requirements.

[Anonymous No.11112679]

>>11112673
There is nothing that a bit of distributed lift cannot handle.

[Anonymous No.11112684]

Neat graphic on the EUS

[Anonymous No.11112695]

>>11112673

There are some missions that will simply not exist in SLS paradigm because you spent all the effort of two decades of the space program on SLS and Orion and a peculiar slate of a modicum of activity for them.

Imagine two piles of non identical items. They each all don't contain the same things as the other. The FH pile is still bigger than the SLS pile.

Using FH didnt preclude bigger rockets down the line for bigger payloads down the line. You can electively choose to build a bigger non SLS rocket at an arbitrary date, and a big rocket like Starship can come into existence to be used as a company's competitive market strategy.

So the FH pile was bigger and also included those options you thought it didn't include for big payloads, and big payloads were actually more likely by picking that FH pile because there was more room for them to come into existence and it could include the earlier stage activity that they needed to be more real rather than the focus on the SLS and Orion and activity for them program.

But it is late 2019 and Starship is just about here anyways.

[Anonymous No.11112704]

>>11112695
I don't think that's a very strong argument. A lot of the congressional buy-in for the Lunar return comes from the idea of "putting the SLS to work." That wouldn't have existed for the FH.

[Anonymous No.11112710]

>>11112704

The moon would still continue to exist and so would the inclination for moon program activity by those moon inclined space policy people in a world where shuttle derived was old news.

[Anonymous No.11112714]

Canards installed. Crew compartnent window also?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e6t4HqJCOU

[Anonymous No.11112717]

>>11112710

And they would have found a better foundation and environment for including and realizing that inclination, and on a larger scale, and one that didn't have to come at the expense of other things possible.

[Anonymous No.11112718]

>>11112714
>Crew compartnent window also?
Gun emplacement to ward off ULA snipers and FAA attack-drones during launch.

[Anonymous No.11112721]

>>11112717
You keep saying that, but what are these "other things" you're referring to?

[Anonymous No.11112736]

>>11112721

Things we'll never know because we can't show you the veritable better path that could have existed*, and other surmisable activity like more LEO, Mars, Asteroid, space tech research and development and an expanded science and robotic slate of activity.

*and could still from points onward

[Anonymous No.11112742]

>>11112736
But that's a really weak argument because you're not showing concrete evidence of harm. Example:
Going after funds spent on SLS would be stronger, because that's concrete; it's something you can quantify. A nebulous "better plans could've arisen" isn't very convincing because the reverse is also true.

[Anonymous No.11112756]

Fuck china and fuck competition.
Go SLS!
USA USA USA and our international friends and partners
#firstwoman

[Anonymous No.11112759]

>>11112742

Sometimes you have to wake up and smell the coffee.

[Anonymous No.11112771]

>>11112714
>Canards installed. Crew compartnent window also?
Can't be. The side the slot was cut into is labeled as the leeward side in some of the vehicle markings.

[Anonymous No.11112774]

If you do not support the mighty SLS the greatest piece of American patriotic engineering and technological genius you are a traitor to this great nation and possibly a russian spy.

[Anonymous No.11112804]

>calls himself a "spaceflight fan", or worse, "spaceflight expert"
>doesn't have an aerospace grade kitchen sink made of flight proven 501 stainless

[Anonymous No.11112818]

>>11112804
>calls himself a "spaceflight fan"
>doesn't drink rocket fuel

[Anonymous No.11112820]

>>11112804
>not using expendable sinks
Communist

[Anonymous No.11112836]

>>11112329
>notices Tharsis bulge

[Anonymous No.11112843]

Lulu is my STAR!
I'm her GUARDIAN!

[Anonymous No.11112851]

>>11112450
Isn't the extinction of dinosaurs not pretty much directly linked to the ever decreasing percentage of oxygen in earth's atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.11112862]

>>11112851

No. The decrease of the oxygen might've contributed but the killer blow is infact that massive asteroid who killed them all. At the very least it was the thing that pushed them over the edge and into extinction.

[Anonymous No.11112873]

>>11112575
>the kinetic energy will be released as heat.
heat that bakes the atmosphere via infrared radiation and charcoals everything on the surface of the Earth.

One bit of sand hitting the atmosphere won't do anything. One mountain sized chunk of rock hitting the ground will do physical impact damage (pretty much irrelevant) as well as a thermal irradiation pulse (enough to cause an entire group of dominant organisms to go extinct). A mountain-mass cloud of sand grains strikign the upper atmosphere and burnign up all at once would not produce the irrelevant physical impact damage, instead it skips straight to the massive thermal pulse that burns everything.

[Anonymous No.11112895]

>>11112873
>instead it skips straight to the massive thermal pulse that burns everything.
first off, better to have that "thermal pulse" in the high atmosphere that deep in the earths crust.

Also it wouldn't be a so much of a pulse because the dust would be hitting the atmosphere over several minutes at least. As if there's any practical way to blow an asteroid into dust, and yet still have that dust cloud so confined together that it hits the atmosphere with a few seconds.

[Anonymous No.11112903]

Speaking of asteroids hitting the Earth, how much heat did the Chelyabinsk meteor generate? Enough to (partialy) melt the snowy landscape around the city (It hit in February).

[Anonymous No.11112907]

>>11112903
Scott Manley did a pretty nice video on it. Decent watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_faNY70L78

[Anonymous No.11112912]

>>11112903
One gram of heat

[Anonymous No.11113037]

>>11107957
>>11107960
what is the evolutionary purpose of rockets?
when will nuclear fusion be avaivable, for rockets?
will rockets let us live forever?
how long till rockets bring us into the singularity?

[Anonymous No.11113045]

I want Artemis to fail so hard and blow up a few astrothots.

[Anonymous No.11113056]

>>11113045
I bet most of them have a fantasy about absolutely wrecked by a giant rocket.

[Anonymous No.11113065]

>>11113056
>pic related
Also how the fuck would they even survive? Remember the poor fuck who landed right on to a traffic pole and died because his organs got utterly destroyed from the impaling? Holy fuck.

[Anonymous No.11113074]

>>11113056
Nothing could be more American than an exploding 360-foot orange dildo.

[Anonymous No.11113079]

>>11113065
>Remember the poor fuck who landed right on to a traffic pole and died because his organs got utterly destroyed from the impaling? Holy fuck.
Why did you have to remind me of that?

[Anonymous No.11113084]

>>11113045
It'd be pretty based if the only Moon mission attempt to kill humans also happened to be the only all-woman Moon mission crew ever

[Anonymous No.11113102]

>>11113045
Based

[Anonymous No.11113103]

>>11113065
N-no. Link?

[Anonymous No.11113117]

>>11113103
I saw that shit on a rekt thread. https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=s07G8_1538483948
Poor dude.

[Anonymous No.11113121]

>>11113084
>Crew: Houston we have a problem
>Houston: What's the problem Artemis?
>Crew: Never mind.
>Houston: What's wrong?
>Crew: Nothing.
>Houston: Please tell us.
>Crew: I'm fine.

[Anonymous No.11113127]

>>11113117
oof. I'm not sure what made someone think of this in a spaceflight thread.

[Anonymous No.11113154]

>>11113117
>he lived until he got to the hospital
I fucking knew it, no one believed me

[Anonymous No.11113158]

>>11111111

[Anonymous No.11113168]

>>11113158
fuck off

[Anonymous No.11113176]

>>11113158
this is why your mom doesn't love you

[Anonymous No.11113227]

>>11113117
>https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=s07G8_1538483948
>that back to the future sound playing in the background.
The fuck.

[Anonymous No.11113229]

>>11108439
THE TERRAN DOMINION

[Anonymous No.11113233]

>>11113117
>the picture under the video

It's astounding he was alive for any real amount of time. The fact that the body wouldn't just shut down immediately after a pole got shoved through it from ass to collarbone is impressive.

I wouldn't even want them to try and fix me up. Cut my head off and freeze it.

[Anonymous No.11113275]

>>11109832
> copying a cold war design
wew.

i'm a crazy stranger on the internet, so it's not my fault if you injure yourself.

i'll help your amateur rocket break records and save you a bunch of trouble.

KEEP IT SIMPLE
NO NEW TECH
NO COMPLICATED TECH
NO EXPENSIVE TECH
NOTHING YOU CAN'T BUILD IN YOUR GARAGE IN UNDER 4 HOURS
BE HUMBLE

Get the biggest carbon fiber tube that is available as a COTS item.
Get solid propellant mix that has been used by hobbyists and proven to work.
Get a nozzle that has been used by hobbyists and proven to work.
Don't use any steering, it's too complicated.
Don't use a single thing that hasn't been used successfully by at least 4 unrelated projects.
Use an existing design for a large-scale rocket that's like a scaled-up Estes model (spin stabilized, launch on a launch rail, solid propellant, parachute recovery).

Before buying anything, build a complete model of every key part of the system. originality = mistakes. keep it simple. use equations (for performance calcs) or procedures (for safety) that have been used by at least 3 other successful teams.

Things to consider:
- safety: how far away do you need to be to avoid shrapnel if it fails? how to avoid igniting the propellant during shipping? how to avoid airspace violations? your opinion doesn't matter. the opinion of the regulators is what matters.
- stability: center of gravity ahead of center of pressure.
- maximum pressure of combustion gases, safety factor for your carbon fiber tube including all glue joints. use peel strength, not shear strength.
- exhaust velocity.
- nozzle durability.
- ballistics (range, max. altitude, flight time, etc.)
- verification tests for each component (don't skip this). measure mass and cg. hang from cg and put in air stream to verify it's aerodynamically stable. attach to test fixture and test fire on the ground to verify everything.
- cost to build -- multiply by 2
- time to build (labor) -- multiply by 4
Proceed only if all the above is OK

[Anonymous No.11113309]

>>11109832
> how hard do you reckon it'd be to build
if you have to ask...

> pic related with a team of a dozen hobbyists
do you realize that rocket is the result of a $32 million dollar development effort. That's $32 million of 1970s money. That's about as much money as your dozen hobbyists will make in your entire lifetimes, assuming you're all engineers. What I'm saying is that if all 12 of you dedicated your entire lives to this task, and were all fully qualified engineering professionals, then you might succeed...but at what cost?

Let's think about the parts in that rocket. For each of these, consider the cost to buy, let alone the cost to test:
- turbo-pump sized for a rocket (ballpark $20k)
- fuel (ballpark $80k per launch)
- chassis, fabricated from aerospace aluminum (ballpark $600k, non reusable)
- nozzle with boundary layer cooling and thrust vectoring, with guidance system (ballpark $1 million, non reusable)
not to mention ground support equipment (gantry crane for assembly, full set of shop tools, metrology equipment for inspecting precision machined parts, electrical test equipment for troubleshooting high-power low-latency servos, hazardous liquid handling pumps, tractor for transport to launchpad, radar tracking, safety gear including fire extinguishers and oxygen deficiency monitors and fuel leak detectors, test stand for test firing (consider the noise and blast produced by supersonic exhaust), etc.

Look, I have this dream that "Starcraft" is real...that I can point and click to have SCVs build a full-on battlecruiser factory on a mineral-rich asteroid. While not technically impossible the reality is that robots are basically not used in rocket assembly and test. Sure, CNC machine tools might make individual parts, but every single mechanism, cable, wire, sensor, and fuel tank is installed by hand and tested by hand. There's no free lunch here. Instead, there are teams of experienced technicians who typically earn at least $80k a year.

[Anonymous No.11113313]

>>11113275
>>11113309
Or are you guys saying that he's better off making something like this?

[Anonymous No.11113339]

>>11113313
that's still way too complicated if he's never done this before. sure, it's an order of magnitude cheaper, but that's still a few million dollars of effort.

i'm guessing the actual budget he has available is $40k and six months full-time, which means the most he can plan to spend without running out of money/time is about $8k and one month full-time. (his inexperience means that he will seriously underestimate costs and time, so he gets a 5x multiplier to both). that means that the biggest rocket he can realistically expect to build is pic related. which would be pretty cool!

[Anonymous No.11113359]

>>11108096
>Workshare on the programme was a politically charged matter. Tasks were to be distributed between nations:
>the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), >France would build the second and
>Germany would construct the third stage [24][21]
>It would carry a satellite, which would be designed and manufactured in Italy, and weighted roughly a ton.
>The telemetry was to be developed by the Netherlands,
>while Belgium was to develop the downrange ground guidance system.[21]


>By 1969, the ELDO was beginning to realize that dividing work up by country led to not enough overall collaboration and had resulted in a disjointed framework of planning. This disjointed structure has been accredited as having been responsible for the lack of successful launch. In affect, there had been no single authority or group that was entirely responsible or in control of Europa. Notably, in November 1971, the West Germans publicly blamed the failure and explosion of Europa 2 upon immense divisions within ELDO.

el autismo...

[Anonymous No.11113369]

>>11113359
there's a reason that the current standard for these projects is earned-value management with monthly gantt chart updates, detailed planning of verification tests, and yearly design review meetings. This methodology enables politicians to spread out big projects among different states/countries and have them not fail.

[Anonymous No.11113380]

>>11113275
That reminds me that I had an idea of starting a company that sells premade engines and supporting parts for small liquid propellant engines. That way amateurs can easily get into that field of rocketry and small-sat launcher start-ups can jump into making their rockets without the expensive R&D. Was told by some people high up in the aerospace industry that it wouldn't be viable, but it was a nice dream to have. Imagine the joy of some new rocketeer as he unpacks a fully fledged rocket engine.

[Anonymous No.11113385]

>>11113380
If the math makes sense then go for it. It's maybe 3x as hard as turbine engines for r/c aircraft.

[Anonymous No.11113389]

>>11113385
I haven't done the math. I'm not even sure where to begin with the math. That's why I asked professionals about it first.

[Anonymous No.11113400]

Reddit doesn't think Constellation and SLS aren't just welfare projects to the same group of contractors.

[Anonymous No.11113406]

>>11113389
well that's outside my field. this is 4chan where every answer is a troll for maximum lulz.

i knew a guy who made small liquid propellant engines for fun, so it's possible...
for a company:
> have a proven system that is fully tested and works reliably
> sell it for 5x its cost to build

[Anonymous No.11113413]

>>11113406
Maybe. The engine could be pressure fed with a pressurant tank bolted onto it so that all a customer needs is the propellant tank and the proper plumbing to it. Or just sell the engine and whole propellant systems together as a unit.

What impulse range should it be in? Class O might be too big. Maybe high M?

[Anonymous No.11113430]

>>11113413
You tell me, it's your company.

[Anonymous No.11113482]

>>11113389
Well, low cost hobbyist liquid rocket engines could be something nobody's actually done the math on. So maybe start with deciding on the basic configuration, like what fuels and what cycle to use. Then design the engine. Then you'll know how much it costs.

[Anonymous No.11113508]

>2026
>CNN – What is an O'Neill Cylinder? Amazon megaproject explained
>WashPo – SpaceX Lands First Man, Catgirl on Mars
>Google News – Starship Flights Begin from London to Shangai, New York
>AP – California Declares Secession From Union, Wildfires Destroy Bay Area Refugee Camp

[Anonymous No.11113517]

>>11113482
keep it as simple as possible.
> liquid kerosene (what does it sell for?)
> liquid oxygen from a gas supply company (what does it sell for including delivery?)
> tank with pressure relief valves, feed pumps, insulation, etc. Tank material that won't react with liquid oxygen and explode.
> copy an existing design for a nozzle and feed system. don't forget boundary layer cooling, an ignition sequence that won't blow up the pipes, and the correct feed pressure and flow rate for supersonic flow at the nozzle throat.
i don't know how to do this. it's literally rocket science. meaning it's well-understood but if any part messes up then it catches fire and then the whole thing explodes.

[Anonymous No.11113534]

>>11113508
The best possible future.

[Anonymous No.11113535]

>>11113517
Something like ethanol might be better than kerosene. Ethanol can be watered down to reduce chamber temperature without significantly impacting performance. It's also easier to get. Nitrous oxide would probably be preferred over LOx as you don't have to worry about cryo, plus it's already somewhat prevalent in amateur hybrid rocket motors. As for cooling, ablative cooling might work best with simple small engines if the design can be made with reloadable ablator. Although, if the engine operates cool enough, then a chamber made from refractory materials likes alumina could be viable if cheap enough.

[Anonymous No.11113565]

I hope SLS fails spectacularly and is replaced by Starship or New Glenn.

There's actually a high chance it will have a single launch at most before that happens, if even that.

[Anonymous No.11113570]

>>11113535
Nitro-methane/ alcohol mixes are readily available from the r/c car and racing industries.

[Anonymous No.11113572]

>>11113570
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFkvo0xHoA
Holy shit that's so cool! Imagine that but with R/C rockets. Competitive propulsive landings.

[Anonymous No.11113783]

>>11113772
She is the sweetheart of the Democratic Party with higher favorability ratings than the whole 2020 field. Being retarded doesn't prevent you from becoming the president and in some ways it aids it.

I also forgot:
>SpaceX nationalized after anti-competition and lack of diversity worries

[Anonymous No.11113745]

The House appropriations bill has been amended to contain lander funding for Artemis.
Exploration Research and Development (aka Gateway and HLS) went from $962.1m to $1.64b, so basically a $600M increase for the lander.

[Anonymous No.11113807]

>>11113783
Let's continue the nightmare train.
>SpaceX gets nationalized because they're not playing nice with the government
>all the technology, knowledge, and skill that they've been developing gets spread across the country so it won't be used again
>Blue Origin gets forced to only being an engine manufacturer for ULA
>any attempt by either Blue Origin or ULA to inovate gets shut down by the government as to not threaten American national space programs
>such programs don't progress as they're meant to please Congress than do actual spaceflight
>"space is REALLY hard" propaganda gets pushed to stop the public from questioning why nothing is happening in spaceflight
>the achievements of Apollo are downplayed incredibly and are reconstructed as reckless and stupid
>American spaceflight winds down to the occasional interplanetary probe every decade
>China gives up on spaceflight after a while since the only reason they were into it was to show off to the US but the US is clearly not interested in space anymore
>ESA iterates on their GEO sat launchers but doesn't do much beyond that due to lack of interest by the public and being tied to the US
>Roscosmos dies a slow death due to corruption and negligence
>spaceflight is now seen as just an incredibly geeky and useless thing
>moon hoaxers are now generally accepted because "if we can't do it in the year 202X then how can it be possibly done in the 60s!?"
>even probes get dialed back as scientists rely more on advanced computer modeling to "explore" planets
>"its much cheaper to use a computer than to spend a billion sending a toaster oven sized machine beyond LEO"
>manned spaceflight is abandoned and almost forgotten
>the universe feels incredibly small now

[Anonymous No.11113755]

>>11113745
Kinda wish they weren't leaving 3/4 of it on the surface but still cool I guess.

[Anonymous No.11113812]

>>11113807
100% pure, unadulterated nightmare fuel

[Anonymous No.11113762]

>>11113755
The ascent module contains most of the expensive hardware anyways. The descent stage is just some engines and tanks

[Anonymous No.11113765]

>>11113745

More funding good
Tin cans bad

[Anonymous No.11113766]

>>11113508
Actual 2026 headlines:

>NASA manned mission to the moon delayed again to 2029 in order to train the first disabled two spirit astronaut who will make the historic trip in place of the CIS f*male that was originally chosen.
>The mass genocide of white men is set to begin next year after president AOC finalizes the New Hope agreement and ends 2000 years of oppression.
>Elon Musk sentenced to life in prison for his heinous crimes against the Mars environment including landing a rocket that contaminated the ground and possibly the water beneath the planet.

[Anonymous No.11113826]

I don't know why I bother posting shit like >>11113745 when posts like >>11113807 exist.

[Anonymous No.11113772]

>>11113766
>president AOC
At least base it somewhat in reality, c'mon now

[Anonymous No.11113829]

>>11113826
Just what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.11113831]

>>11113826
just because you don't get (you)'s doesn't mean people aren't appreciating space happenings posts

[Halo Reach Chad No.11113832]

>>11113807
delusional

[Anonymous No.11113839]

>>11113745
Hopefully this means that this return to the moon push will carry through the next administration.

[Anonymous No.11113868]

>>11113826
Sorry. It was mostly venting. Here's a bright future scenario to cheer you up.
>SpaceX finishes developing Starship
>acceptance is slow at first, the design needs to be iterated on
>New Glenn is some serious competition for Starship and gives Blue Origin the backbone needed to develop New Armstrong
>Starship finally "blooms" and creates a paradigm shift in the launch market
>not wanting to be left behind, the US government buys in on Starship and boosts development of New Armstrong
>China sees this as an attempt by the US to gain space superiority and pushes for the moon
>"space is within reach" propaganda gets pushed by the US to encurage more people to work in spaceflight
>the race is on
>both sides set up space infrastructure to protect their space assets
>ESA and Roscosmos clean house and become rejuvenated developing new technologies so they won't be left behind
>this has the side benefit of lowering the bar to access space drastically
>now it's no longer a matter of if an exploration mission gets approved or not but rather more of a case of when it can get the meager funds to buld something
>first semi-permanent bases set up for research
>eventually permanent residence
>people being sent out as far as Saturn to gather samples from it's various moons
>all sorts of space industry and services being set up
>all on the backs of massive fleets of titanic reusable rockets
>over time as spaceflight matures a new wave of feeling comes
>spaceflight is becoming boring
>not for lack of anything happening quite the opposite
>its no longer a niche interest resting on laurels earned in the 60s, barely surviving
>its thriving and becoming mundane
>it's a whole new aspect of civilization
Better?

[Anonymous No.11113873]

>>11113868
God I wish that was me

[Anonymous No.11113899]

The LH2 for the second SLS has been welded.
https://images-assets.nasa.gov/video/MAF_20191014_CS2_LH2_Move%20from%20VAC-complete/MAF_20191014_CS2_LH2_Move%20from%20VAC-complete~medium.mp4

[Anonymous No.11113902]

>>11113899
*LH2 tank

[Anonymous No.11114020]

>>11113783
>tfw when Idiocracy starts for real because of this donkey-face bitch
>Terry doesn't like this woman!

[Anonymous No.11114022]

>>11113899
But SLS will never fly , anon!

[Anonymous No.11114077]

>>11114022
It will fly a few times, achieve nothing notable, and then be retired in favor of Starship or a similar vehicle, which is when the real expansion of humanity into solar system begins.

[Anonymous No.11114083]

>What's happening to the rings of Saturn? A little moon making big waves. The moon is 8-kilometer Daphnis and it is making waves in the Keeler Gap of Saturn's rings using just its gravity -- as it bobs up and down, in and out. The featured image is a colored and more detailed version of a previously released images taken in 2017 by the robotic Cassini spacecraft during one of its Grand Finale orbits. Daphnis can be seen on the far right, sporting ridges likely accumulated from ring particles. Daphnis was discovered in Cassini images in 2005 and raised mounds of ring particles so high in 2009 -- during Saturn's equinox when the ring plane pointed directly at the Sun -- that they cast notable shadows.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap191103.html

[Anonymous No.11114110]

>>11114077
Artemis is the most far reaching spaceflight program to date and in your view is going to achieve "nothing notable" lmfao

Forget about europa clipper, or dragonfly. "Nothing notable". Remind me how many people spacex or blue origin have sent to space and their respective achievements? Jesus lol. The anti nasa circlejerk in here is pretty funny

[Anonymous No.11114116]

>>11108439
Full: Hypergolic Systems Inc.
Tag: A Titan based company

[Anonymous No.11114315]

>>11114077

The danger is that although SLS is complete shit, morons like

>>11114110

keep it going for decades because theyre wrapped up in its cult of personality.

[Anonymous No.11114366]

>>11113783
>She is the sweetheart of the Democratic Party with higher favorability ratings than the whole 2020 field
No, no that's not true, it's impossible.

[Anonymous No.11114369]

>>11114077

The market can stay irrational longer than your ability to remain solvent.

Your perspective is a rational one, but irrational actors involved in the space program policy arena can continue the irrational thing.

SLS will fly because they kept spending the resources of the space program on it as the main focus of the space program. Money over time on a bad program = some results eventually. A prospect that can continue indefinitely, or at least as far as it goes. SLS benefited from an inertia that kept it in place as the main focus.

[Anonymous No.11114380]

>>11114366

Republicans are human garbage. You are the shit you eat.

[Anonymous No.11114391]

>>11114380
>>>/b/

[Artémis Fowl No.11114499]

The coming decade is going to be momentous for space flight.
>I'll become an aerodynamist.
>First human colony on Mars.
>Permanent moon and mars village.
>Probes sent every year exploring every corner of the solar system.
>Launch of first interstellar probe.
>Asteroid mining is common.
>Space Hotels are the norm.
>200,000+ satellites orbiting earth alone.
London to New York in under an hour.
>Space will grow from a $300 billion industry to $3 trillion+ industry.
I'm not describing a "best reality", I'm simply describing what is going to happen.

(I'm taking a screenshot of this and will be back in 10 years time).

[Anonymous No.11114507]

>>11114499
>>Launch of first interstellar probe.
I want this one ASAP so I can maybe live long enough to see the results.

[Anonymous No.11114516]

>>11114110
It's not going to accomplish anything. Neither is SLS. Or Orion, or Blue Origin, or SpaceX, or the DSH, or that silly Venus idea.
Manned spaceflight is a meme and it's never going to happen. There's a grand total of one example to the contrary and it employed technology made by a crack team of bra seamstresses that we can't understand or replicate today.

[Anonymous No.11114519]

What a gay post.

[Anonymous No.11114525]

>>11108020
>>11108022
>>11108076
>>11108096
>>11109832

OP here, thanks for posting rare rockets, i knew about the N1 and Black Arrow but not about the Europa and RPS-420.

[Anonymous No.11114539]

>>11114499
>Asteroid mining is common.
Yeah, good luck with that one.

[Anonymous No.11114597]

>>11108022
>420

[Anonymous No.11114912]

SpaceX team has completed 13 successful tests in a row of upgraded Mark 3 parachutes for Crew Dragon. Most recent test demonstrated the parachute system’s ability to land the spacecraft safely in the unlikely event that one of the four main parachutes fails.

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1191067348914098176

[Anonymous No.11114918]

>>11114912
For those of you keeping track, they needed to complete 10 in a row, and by my rough estimates, 13 in a row seems to be more than 10... SO I THINK THEY’RE GOOD! Certification here we come, DM-2 coming up!!!
https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1191067791509610499

[Anonymous No.11114923]

>>11114912
Is it hard to make a parachute at home? For base jumping

[Anonymous No.11114959]

>>11114912
>>11114918
I wonder if they have to do 10 successful tests with an actual mock-up capsule like they have in the past? I wonder if it was destroyed in the accident, which is why they are just using a mass simulator for these recent tests...

[Anonymous No.11114992]

>>11114912
Great! Hopefully we'll see Dragon 2 flying to the ISS soon.

>>11114959
That's probably the case. Maybe NASA relaxed the testing requirements abit for SpaceX due to success from previous demonstrations.

[Anonymous No.11114999]

>>11114959
>an actual mock-up capsule

Like this?

[Anonymous No.11115044]

>>11114315
Well you're half right. The general public is going to go absolutely gaga for Artemis and SLS after Artemis 1. It'll be a bigger public event than the FH launch.

[Anonymous No.11115056]

>>11115044
Ehh, I think it depends what order various missions launch in. If Starship launches before Artemis 1 there might be a public reaction of "wtf NASA why isn't SLS landing". The vast majority of the population doesn't follow rockets enough to know most rockets are expended, they just see the big fancy Elon landings on CNN.

[Anonymous No.11115066]

>>11114110
Can we put the NASA bashing and NASA fellating aside for a second and objectively talk about Artemis?

I don't see how Artemis is really groundbreaking if NASA uses SLS launches for every mission. It'll be an Apollo style program where missions end the moment Saturn's funding dies. Without a cost effective way to get to the Moon, a permanent presence can't be maintained. This is where the Elon worshipers jump in with dreams of Starship, and if Starship works it'll be the biggest transit revolution since the jet engine, but taking it's too early to take that for granted.

[Anonymous No.11115070]

>>11115056
Well if Starship launches before Artemis 1, it's not going to be landing, is it?
There's no way the orbital protoype will survive re-entry.

[Anonymous No.11115080]

>>11115066
Not all Artemis missions use SLS. SLS handles the big-ass payloads and Gateway crew transport. Logistics will be primarily handled by existing commerical launchers such as the Falcon Heavy.
Here's a pic showing the notional mission outline and the spread of various launchers. Be aware that if the Boeing lander bid wins the lander will also go up on SLS.

[Anonymous No.11115082]

>>11115070
Mk 1 isn't going orbital, Mk 4 is. We don't know if Mk 4 will have heat shielding, but I think it's a fairly good guess that it will. Either way, the first Superheavy will absolutely be recovered, and Superheavy is the size of an SLS or Saturn core.

[Anonymous No.11115086]

>>11115080
>>11115066
And here's the notional plan for surface missions. Be aware that if the Boeing bid wins here, there will be 3 astronauts going down to the lunar surface, not the 2 pictured.

[Anonymous No.11115088]

>>11115080
Not every launch in the Artemis program requires an SLS, but every crew transfer to Gateway does; which means each manned landing requires an SLS. If they manrated the Bridenstein Stack they could maybe get around this, but it was a pretty short lived meme.

[Anonymous No.11115089]

>>11115044

And you'll be the guy who understands better than them how junk it is after Starship had already flown.

[Anonymous No.11115097]

>>11115088
The Bridenstine stack was a fun meme, but I can't believe some people took it seriously. It was always a way for Bridenstine to scare Boeing and light a fire under their ass, not something that was a serious proposal.

[Anonymous No.11115100]

>>11115089
The peak of obsolete technology is always interesting and cool in it's own way. Just look at the last gasps of the steam powered car, or the propellor powered plane.

[Anonymous No.11115109]

>>11115097

>I just can't take anything that is an alternative to SLS seriously!

Great mentality they cultivated in you.

[Anonymous No.11115110]

>>11115097
It was worth taking as seriously as Starship was at the time, though. Every component part of the Bridenstein stack is already built and man rated. Integration would still take years, but it COULD be done. But now Starship has gone from "Elon's meme" to "Elon's pet project" to "oh god they have a Raptor factory and they're building hulls".

[Anonymous No.11115113]

>>11115109
He's sort of right, though. Think politically, I know it sucks, but the politics are a real problem with that stack. You're trying to get SpaceX and ULA to cooperate on integrating a stack with Orion. You know how many contractors and shareholders are involved in that? It's not a technical hurdle, it's a political one.

[Anonymous No.11115115]

>>11115109
No, it was the fact that it was proposed as an alternative for EM-1 that made it clear it was not serious. As behind as Boeing was, building the Bridenstine stack would not have been faster than finishing the first SLS.

[Anonymous No.11115117]

>>11115088

''Hey guys, if we actively suppress the investigative definition of alternative program constructs like crew delivery and displace their funded development with an SLS only road then some guy on the internet is going to think SLS is actually necessary for some role that could have been done sooner and with less cost half a dozen different ways!''

[Anonymous No.11115118]

>>11115115
The Bridenstein stack would have probably stolen the ICPS right off the first SLS along with Orion. You just need the adaptor and the integration.

[Anonymous No.11115119]

>>11115113
>>11115113
Also that too.
Shelby's influence on NASA appropriations is often overrated, but in this scenario it was absolutely right to say that Bridenstine had to placate him and reassure him he wasn't undermining SLS in the aftermath of it.
Shelby would not have let it ever get past EM-1 (at-best), and as previously mentioned, there was no schedule advantage for using it on EM-1.

[Anonymous No.11115129]

>>11115100
Example: high-speed steam trains are kino despite being outmoded and obsolete in every possible way

[Anonymous No.11115174]

>>11115113

NASA procures work from two different contractors. Literally no problem at all.

[Anonymous No.11115177]

>>11115129
That looks like it came right out of a steampunk novel.

[Anonymous No.11115185]

>>11115115
>>11115115

You'd think there would be at least one glimmer in your mind for a moment: where were the serious proposals and why did they never exist and at a better time?

Bud, they only show you the contrived alternative(which is probably a little more legitimate on it own even if it's ungainly and of uncertain expense over theoretical better options).

[Anonymous No.11115199]

>>11115185
I'm just saying that it was blatantly obvious that the Bridenstine attack was not going to happen; i.e. it was not a serious proposal.
To clarify, there's not any technical showstoppers that make it an impossibility, but with the criteria it was being evaluated under, it was not going to happen.

[Anonymous No.11115208]

>>11115110
I don't remember falcon heavy being man-rated.

[Anonymous No.11115223]

>>11115208
It's not, and the stack was only ever proposed for the unmanned EM-1 mission because of that.

[Anonymous No.11115224]

>>11115208
Every component of it is, the integrated system isn't.

[Anonymous No.11115269]

>>11115224
The difference is academic.

[Anonymous No.11115296]

>>11115269
The difference is delightfully counter-intuitive.

[Anonymous No.11115324]

>>11115129
Toot Toot! World's fastest steam train coming through.

[Anonymous No.11115335]

>>11114525
to be fair, the RPS-420 is in the ranks of hundreds of other small rocket designs that exist on paper only.

[Anonymous No.11115396]

>>11114923
It's easy anon. Go for it and let us know how it went!

[Anonymous No.11115399]

>>11115129
Look how wrinkly that thing is, clearly a publicity stunt that will never be used

[Anonymous No.11115410]

>>11115082
Indeed. Even if Starship fails to meet expectations SpaceX will have reusable Superheavy, itself a fearsome capability. They can stick whatever redesigned massive payload they like on top of it and base it around an awesome motor i.e. Raptor. Even with an expendable Raptor-based upper stage they would still piss all over the competition.

[Anonymous No.11115800]

>>11115410
whether it be politics, law, business, or anything else under the sun: reaching as far as you can is the way to go, cause you can always slide backwards to "reasonable" levels that are still well beyond your initial expectations

[Anonymous No.11115825]

Is it possible and practical to make a combustion chamber, throat, and nozzle assembly out of alumina for a small engine if the combustion temperatures were kept below the material's melting point? Is it cost competitive compared to graphite?