/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.11128909]

"Now I am become Death, destroyer of worlds" edition

Old Thread:
>>11125542

[Anonymous No.11128915]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R46smYKbdQ4

Starship update in 5 min(Elon time) from SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.11128918]

Personally I'd treat the Based Launch System. It should take much fuel and launch infrastrastructure to satisfy it and fill its tanks given its towering height. But it would be well worth seeing that beautiful beast light the sky a little extra. I would delight at the prospect of treating it and build for it a gold plated VAB, complete with orange decor, an orange carpet... go all out. Give that lovely vehicle a boutique runway. Watch it deafen Cape Canaveral and knock over the tents at Cocoa. Its space-hardened RS-25s and super-sized boosters toasting the air demanding attention all over the Atlantic. Then, when it has reached orbit and feels thing can't be any better, I shall reveal it has not been burning normal LH2, but... orange LH2. Yes, I will have ensured the Based Launch System greedily gobbled up the world's only orange rocket fuel after lowering expectations initially. As the tears of joy well up in Jim's eyes and he refuses to believe I went all out, I shall let out a truly merry, comforting laugh and upend the contents of a pitcher I'll have near me; containing a sample of my special procurement. Though the packaging and recipts will be scrunched up, faded, and a little dirty, it will be evidence of how much I wanted to give the Based Launch System another glorious flight. That is what I would do to that gorgeous beast. The louder Jim laughs and more thanks me in pure euphoria, the louder and more merry my laughter of appreciation will become. Hell, it may just kill me because I'll be struggling to breath as I'll be laughing and thanking him so hard. I will then show the 24 minute 7 seconds footage of me trespassing at Tesla and commandeering their facilities, which we will laugh over. This is the fate that awaits you, you wonderful, beautiful rocket. Also... FUCK spaceX. I'd nationalize it instead and have them organize catering for our American astronauts instead.

[Anonymous No.11128921]

>>11128915
It’s just SpaceX fucking around with their livestream set up ahead of Monday’s launch.

[Anonymous No.11128922]

>>11128915
gonna reveal that lunar lander proposal

get fucked Boeing

[Anonymous No.11128925]

>>11128921
Are you sure? Well, we'll see in few min.

[Anonymous No.11128932]

>>11128922
SpaceX has no friends in the goverment, they are only getting in on the moon missions if they get a working starship in the next two years.

[Anonymous No.11128933]

>>11128922
They gon' lose the contract if it's just Starship. Hope they learned their lesson from the LSA.

[Anonymous No.11128935]

>>11128925
Yep.

Somewhat related, the launch thread will be up a few hours before launch. It’s been a while since I’ve had to make one.
t. SpaceX launch thread anon

[Anonymous No.11128936]

>>11128925
It regularly happens, it’s just been so long since a launch that people are desperate for content.

[Anonymous No.11128945]

>>11128933
Bridenstine seemed like he was fine with them bidding Starship when asked. Also, the RFP for HLS is flexible enough to allow Starship, as there’s no limit on size or number of stages.

[Anonymous No.11128968]

Apollo 12. It really is a shame that sls finna be orange and shiet

[Anonymous No.11128993]

I have a general parts list for the plumbing of my rocket engine, but the problem is that it's all NPT. I chose this because it was much easier to find parts for NPT rather than AN, but I prefer to use AN. Should I try to find AN stuff (like check-valves, pressure regulators, and pressure relief valves) or stick to NPT?

BTW, the propellant tank has an AN connection, so I would have to find an adapter for it if I went for NPT. Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous No.11129000]

>>11128993
>hmm, check-valves you say?

[Anonymous No.11129003]

>>11129000
At least it's only for laughing gas and not spicy cancer juice.

[Anonymous No.11129010]

>>11129003
Talking of spicy cancer juice, Hullo man just released a video going into depth about the wonderful stuff:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AFLmqQ5ceS8

[Anonymous No.11129017]

10 years and 9 gorillion dollars to put rockets under a shuttle tank and a ares v fairing up top.

[Anonymous No.11129029]

>>11128935
Based launch thread poster, it has been ages since the last one. This is the first time they have used a stage four times now right? And both fairing halves?

[Anonymous No.11129030]

>>11129017
More than ten years. SLS was basically envisioned in the mid 90s.
And fuck anyone that uses the “unit cost” for SLS. If it flies like three times, each flight will cost over 10 billion dollars.

[Anonymous No.11129031]

>>11129029
Only half of a fairing I think. Ms Tree and Ms Chief are both operational now, so it might be the first double-net catch. But yes, first fourth flight.

[Anonymous No.11129034]

>>11129030
>actually thinking SLS will only fly three times
I got two words for ya: block buy.

[Anonymous No.11129039]

>>11128945
I think SpaceX's play here is (once Starship is ready for manned flight) to tell NASA they can buy a ride, or they get beat to the surface of the moon.

[Anonymous No.11129040]

>>11129034
For what payloads exactly? Clipper, LUVOIR, everything is being considered for comm rockets now. And Orion can just fly on something else.

[Anonymous No.11129042]

>>11129040
>And Orion can just fly on something else.
Did you forget that the alternate launcher study trashed that idea?
The only thing that can kill the SLS now is a Starship carrying crew at quoted prices, and there's no way that's happening before the block-buy.

[Anonymous No.11129044]

Talking of the Big Orange Rocket...here’s a nice collage of the completed Artemis 1 hardware:

[Anonymous No.11129049]

>>11129044
>That silver TPS on Orion
Yes please

[Anonymous No.11129055]

>>11129040

Entire space program rigged to continue it indefinitely at a set production rate by all the people roped in by its promotion cult or too weak minded to go against or resist it. SLS continuing indefinitely and being preferentially given mission work because of that, and also to give the appearance that it is worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.11129059]

Feels like this place is getting raided by people from the SLS fanboy discords. They can't stand areas of critical thought about the program that exists outside their groupthink.

[Anonymous No.11129070]

>>11129059
>They can't stand areas of critical thought about the program that exists outside their groupthink.
Sounds like projection.

[Anonymous No.11129071]

>>11128968
I wish they still painted the towers red.

[Anonymous No.11129072]

>>11129042

The block buy can be cancelled. There's some provision in federal contracting that all government contracts can be cancelled to preserve the authority of future congresses to do so. I forget the name of this clause. It applies more widely than NASA but a few years back the SLS types were grumpy about it because they felt they should have the impunity to buck it and get access to even more money just because.

[Anonymous No.11129075]

>>11129059
>They can't stand areas of critical thought about the program that exists outside their groupthink.

I can think of a single place on the internet: the SLS subreddit, where this maybe the case. You cannot go anywhere else and talk about SLS without criticism being instantly thrown at it. It seems like the exact opposite is happening here: people who are anti-SLS (most people) are disliking that it’s being talked about in a somewhat favourable light, due to the recent circumstances of the core-stage being finished.

[Anonymous No.11129078]

Do we know how many Starlink satellites will be on the upcoming launch?

[Anonymous No.11129081]

>>11129072
There would be substantial cancellation fees, to the point where it'd likely be cheaper to just ride it out.

[Anonymous No.11129082]

>>11129078
60

[Anonymous No.11129083]

>>11129075

Not at SLS program prices.

[Anonymous No.11129084]

>>11129075
>reddit

[Anonymous No.11129090]

[Anonymous No.11129094]

>>11129081

Should SLS never end according to your thinking because there is some cost involved?

[Anonymous No.11129095]

>>11129090
>SLS core being finished
>Atlas V for Starliner being stacked
>Bids for Lunar landers submitted
This is a good month.

[Anonymous No.11129103]

>>11129094
Try to get Senators to sign off on paying a cancellation fee to make people unemployed and stop programs in their districts. My point is that it's not gonna happen. Waiting it out would be the only politically palatable move.
The Shuttle didn't die when EELVs started flying. It died when Columbia made the politics unsustainable.

[Anonymous No.11129108]

>>11129103

Waiting it out till when? After this block buy there will be the next block buy and then the next one and so on. SLS isn't shuttle, it won't suffer the same catastrophic accident by design and if it does there is more production.

[Anonymous No.11129113]

>>11129095
Next month is even better, as you’ve got the SpaceX Crew Dragon inflight abort, Boeing Starliner OFT, NASA awarding the Gateway logistics contract, Orion being pressure tested, SLS CS-1 shipping to Stennis and maybe even Starship performing a successful static fire or exploding violently.

[Anonymous No.11129114]

>>11129108
This is operating under the scenario that Starship starts flying crew at quoted prices after the block buy has been signed. The most politically palatable move would just be to not agree to any further purchases and wind down production, like what happened to the Shuttle.

[Anonymous No.11129165]

>>11129114

There may be no such impulse. When would you have SLS end?

[Anonymous No.11129184]

>>11129090
vertical integration seems so impractical compared to flat for big rockets

[Anonymous No.11129217]

>>11129165
I dunno, it was just a hypothetical.

[Anonymous No.11129223]

Why do cyro propellants have to be such a pain to work with?

[Anonymous No.11129244]

>>11129223
Your former boss just called me and asked the same about you.

[Anonymous No.11129249]

results
over
rhetoric

[Anonymous No.11129252]

>>11129223
because they are cold

[Anonymous No.11129270]

>Falling for the NASA lie

[Anonymous No.11129697]

>>11128909
>>11128830

[Anonymous No.11129699]

>>11128909
>spacetards taking credit from nuclear/particle physicists
nope. oppenheimer was /ourguy/ not yours.

[Anonymous No.11129729]

>>11129697

[Anonymous No.11129732]

>>11129699
Oppenheimer didn't come up with the phrase. He just popularized it.

[Anonymous No.11129860]

>>11129697
I like it. Looks Saturn-esque.

[Anonymous No.11129876]

is it true that solid rockets and more economical but the governments strongly discourage companies from pursuing them because they can be weaponized?

would a 3d printed solid rocket have the same controversy as 3d printed guns? Would the government just seize the design as eminent domain with the excuse of "national security" (military prison industrial complex?)

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-06/features/going-ballistic-reversing-missile-proliferation

[Anonymous No.11129884]

how much does an orbital loicense cost?

like if you made a 50k rocket how much money would the government steal from you to allow to launch it into orbit?

are there similar costs for suborbital tests?? How much are those?

would it be cheaper to launch ion driven low altitude satellites at about 100k feet and just deal with the air drag? Would those be subject to orbital loicense requirements just because they reach orbital velocity???

[Anonymous No.11129898]

>>11129884
I don't know, but I do know that the FAA requires that any rocket above a certain total impulse amount has to use a self-destruct system which is pretty expensive (I've heard a million dollars but that was for a pretty large rocket). That impulse amount pretty much includes every orbital rocket unless it's super tiny (like smaller than SS-520-5).

[Anonymous No.11129918]

>>11129898
>SS-520-5
yes and mossad killed that dude that tried to build an orbital gun

we can basically conclude we would have cheaper launchers by now if it weren't for government

[Anonymous No.11129927]

>>11129918
>yes and mossad killed that dude that tried to build an orbital gun
Well that guy was making it for Saddam Hussein. While I don't condone it, it's pretty understandable why some felt that his assassination was necessary.

[Anonymous No.11129933]

>>11129927
The gun would have been useless for the kind of ground invasion the regime fell to so they killed a genius for no reason.

[Anonymous No.11129943]

I hope the SLS is a success. Even if they did have issues with budget and delays, i want it to fly. It would be heart-breaking if it had an issue in its first launch and all that hard work was for nothing, since I don;t think they'd give the rocket another chance after that.

[Anonymous No.11129957]

>>11128909

I think much of the progress in things like BFR will ultimately be used in earth to earth travel like newyork to australia in 1 hr. so

a couple of questions

1) why doesnt virgin galactic just buy small merlin rockets from spaceX

2) would it make sense to attach jet engine whose intake openings could open and close when needed so it could operate in the normal atmosphere post launch during a descent, but also close during launch

[Anonymous No.11129958]

Maybe the power of friendship can stop SLS.
Pray with me, brothers and sisters.

[Anonymous No.11129961]

>>11128909
I'll admit, I like how the core stage of SLS looks. Even if it is a bloated, billion dollar old-space monstrosity.

[Anonymous No.11129962]

>>11129884

>nordvpn

Might wanna erase that one. They just got hacked.

[Anonymous No.11129967]

>>11129962
I thought that they didn't get hacked? They had a breach on one server cluster, but all it allowed the breachers to do is to make a spoof VPN server that they could link someone to. Sure, it was still bad, but you wouldn't have been able to connect to the spoof through the VPN browser.

[Anonymous No.11130004]

>>11129697
Nice ass

[Anonymous No.11130034]

>>11129697
Needs more engines.

[Anonymous No.11130061]

>>11129876
Solid rockets are bad for manned flight because they can't be throttled or stopped short of destructing them. But they are good for ICBMs because you can count on them launching with little or no maintenance, and no having to load them with fuel before launch, so they could launch on a moment's notice.
SRBs were forced for Shuttle to keep SRB engineers employed, to keep their tech current, without having to say it was part of a nuclear missile program. I wouldn't be surprised if they had to do that to cheat around a treaty.
>but the governments strongly discourage
Yeah, citation needed that they do that in the first place. Solid rockets are easier to work with, so most amateur rockets are solids. It's not like there are a lot of liquid rockets to discourage, other than NASA, government, and satellite launches.

[Anonymous No.11130069]

>>11129044
>in the 20205
doubt they can do that even with those deadlines

[Anonymous No.11130072]

>>11129927
>it's pretty understandable why some felt that his assassination was necessary
yeah god forbid some Arabian country having means of reaching space.

[Anonymous No.11130108]

>>11130034
Absolute top kino

[Anonymous No.11130149]

>>11129961
You like this >>11129961 over >>11130034 this?

I know the whole "i like em both" but be honest, what looks more aesthetically superior? Radial design or square commie blocks?

[Anonymous No.11130152]

>>11130149
>You like this >>11128909 over >>11130034 this?

[Anonymous No.11130190]

>>11130149
>>11130152
I think I’ll take the one that probably won’t explode on the pad...

[Anonymous No.11130205]

>>11130190
so uh which one?

[Anonymous No.11130233]

https://twitter.com/jacqklimas/status/1192818382267174915

[Anonymous No.11130280]

>>11130061
>Solid rockets are bad for manned flight
a tiny part of the space industry

>Yeah, citation needed
yeah well i was asking here for a reason but it's because i was looking at the ESA's 10 million dollar reward for affordable launchers and in the rules they mention "in accordance with anti proliferation" or some shit like that so i was suspicious they might be biased against solids and i would have thought rocket lab would go with a solid rocket for that market sector

in china they have an electron class rocket that is a solid but china is different and i would think the chinese know how to manufacturer things for the cheapest possible price

[Anonymous No.11130285]

>>11129034
so it'll cost the taxpayer MORE money when they cancel it than it would have to just finish out the run

[Anonymous No.11130298]

>>11130061
>SRBs can't be throttled
They can, with proper planning ahead by controlling how much of the surface area is burnt at any given second. As such, if you build a different structure of propellant into it, the thrust that you'll receive changes, giving you the choice to throttle the motor during its flight.
>but you can change liquid motor throttle freely in flight!
If you have an ascent flight profile, the engines will be throttled at specific times to specific levels. So as a booster for surface to orbit operations, SRBs are perfectly viable and cost-effective, hence their usage as boosters for the Space Shuttle and SLS

[Anonymous No.11130302]

>>11130233
>moon mans says something obvious
yea not like everyone has been saying this the whole time

[Anonymous No.11130320]

>>11130233
Based buzz

[Anonymous No.11130351]

>>11129049
the future is shiny and chrome
even Lockheed Martin understands this

[Anonymous No.11130354]

>>11130233
Buzz is just constantly seething at NASA these days because they keep rejecting his advice to build a Mars cycler...

>>11130280
>in china they have an electron class rocket that is a solid but china is different and i would think the chinese know how to manufacturer things for the cheapest possible price

In China they have at least a dozen solid-fuel small-sat launchers, both state-developed like the Long March 11 and Kuaizhou rocket family and ones from private consortiums like iSpace and LandSpace etc.

[Anonymous No.11130356]

>>11129876
3d printed rockets are easier to make, store, set up and fly, but they have only two major drawbacks:
1. They MUST be stored loaded and heavy, which makes making, storing, setting them up and flying them a royal pain in the ass
2. they're enormous fireworks that will explode at a moment's notice, which makes storing, loading, setting them up and flying them a royal, dangerous, pain in the ass

combined this means that solid rockets are always better and cheaper and easier right up until the rocket starts to too heavy to put in the back of a pickup truck, which is when all that extra complexity of liquid fuels starts to make sense
coincidentally, it's also about when the performance advantages of liquid fueled rockets start to kick in

[Anonymous No.11130360]

>>11130298
being able to throttle on demand is important for abort modes, contingency planning, and anywhere you don't know exactly what your landing site looks like or what the atmosphere above your landing site looks like (which basically covers everything)

[Anonymous No.11130363]

>>11130356
>3d printed
I meant to say "solid rocket motor", my hands aren't typing what my brain is thinking right now
>>11130354
in China the ICBM manufacturers will sell their tech for a gallon of gutter oil and a dog carcass

[Anonymous No.11130447]

>>11129876
>because they can be weaponized?
lol What? Even a bag of flour or powdered coffee creamer can be turned into a devastating weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

[Anonymous No.11130450]

Is your body ready?

[Anonymous No.11130462]

>>11130450
I'm VERY curious to know what the plan is for Starlink right now
there's just so many questions, but here's my top pics:
1: how many planes of how many satellites at what orbital parameters when
will they focus on a single shell at first for minimum viable product over the Continental US and Southern Europe?
2: which shell is going to be the first to get laser links?
3: how many ground stations are they going to need?
4: how much is it going to cost? Who's the first target market?

[Anonymous No.11130478]

>>11130462
Interesting tidbits,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)
>In the long term, SpaceX intends to develop and deploy a version of the satellite communication system to serve Mars.[14]

>In addition to the OneWeb constellation, announced nearly concurrently with the SpaceX constellation, a 2015 proposal from Samsung outlined a 4,600-satellite constellation orbiting at 1,400 kilometers (900 mi) that could provide a zettabyte per month capacity worldwide, an equivalent of 200 gigabytes per month for 5 billion users of Internet data,[97][98] but by 2019, no more public information had been released about the Samsung constellation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation

[Anonymous No.11130491]

>>11130478
>1,400 km
too damn high, they'll kessler us all with that
nobody should be allowed to put a satellite above ~600 km without paying into an orbital cleanup fund

[Anonymous No.11130497]

>>11130462
SpaceX are notoriously sketchy and vague with Starlink details. Also, they seem to change the number of satellites and shells every other week. Therefore, I doubt you’ll be able to find enough information to answer all those questions, but your best bet to answer some is probably trawling through Starlink FCC filings.

[Anonymous No.11130500]

“Another happy landing...”

[Anonymous No.11130509]

>>11130497
No, I've already read all the Starlink fillings and those are my questions afterwards. I was intending to prompt baseless speculation and FUD in equal measure. I'm about to post a hecking thought on Starlink for Mars on NSF
the really interesting thing to me is the link back to Earth, my big question there is thusly: what size telescopes do you need for the Earth-Mars laser links, and how far do you need to separate the big jump telescopes from the planetshine in order to avoid the impacts that brings?
Maybe some sort of sun-synchronous orbit? more to follow after I finish the NSF post
>>11130500
RIP all those bugmen, ded of delicious cancer juice residue

[Anonymous No.11130518]

>>11130491
Well, Samsung is a bit tarded after all.

[Anonymous No.11130521]

>>11130500
heh

[Anonymous No.11130678]

>>11130518
Rude, its not because koreans look like they have down syndrome that they actually are retarded.

[Anonymous No.11130700]

>>11130678
I was referring to historical precedents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_Note_7#Battery_faults

Now imagine that being satellites exploding at 1,400km orbits.

[Anonymous No.11130731]

>>11130700
Lithium battery combustion issue is the standard. Its rare but happens often enough due to sheer scale of it. There are hundreds of million iPhones on the market. If the batteries had 0.0001% there would still be few hundreds. Add that with shitty Chinese charger that skimp out on charge protections is a recipe for disaster.

[Anonymous No.11130740]

>>11130731
I think it is rare that a phone explosion sets off the explosion of other phones. Samsung isn't good for quality control.

[Anonymous No.11130750]

>>11130509
the big think prompts I've got for Marslink so far:
1. Mars only has a tenuous atmosphere. How long will low or medium mars orbits last? Kesslering Mars is a real possibility, although maybe Phobos/Deimos will sweep it? Too much for this aspiring mech. e.
2. There's going to be a tradeoff between orbital altitude, local ping times, and per-sat coverage area (read: number of sats required)
3. Speaking of number of sats required: a notional Starship mission would drop nearly four hundred sats out at a time. there are a million and one alternative proposals including absolutely slowboating each sat individually up and down to Mars orbit, taking full advantage of Starship aerocapture at Mars, etcetera, but my big question is this: how's orbital procession at Mars? In LEO sats at different altitudes will slowly diverge due to their orbital height changing how the Earth's equitorial bulge affects the orbit. Is this same mechanism prominent at Mars?
4. The Holy Terra/Red Mars link is fascinating. Big laser link telescopes? How many, how big, what sorts of orbits? If you separate them far enough from Mars itself you can create enough of a separation to distinguish between the laser link and planetshine, which I think should increase your bandwidth. L4/5 relays to avoid conjuction blackouts? If so, L4/5 relays to make avoiding planetshine easier? That one depends on how much of a benefit it is.

[Anonymous No.11130753]

>>11130750
The nice thing about marginal atmosphere is that you can have even lower orbits which means even less travel lag.

[Anonymous No.11130778]

>>11130753
isn't the Martian atmosphere highly variable?
also VERY low orbit moving at incredibly hihg speed requires many many satellites, when the benefit is doubtful for initial usage. Maybe improving your teleoperation ping is worth it.

[Anonymous No.11130790]

>>11130778
>VERY low orbit moving at incredibly hihg speed requires many many satellites, when the benefit is doubtful for initial usage
Yeah, I think if SpaceX wants to make a Mars satellite internet viable, it will do probably medium orbit of ~1000 km or so mainly because there's no need for hundreds/thousands of satellites on mars due to lack of population and yet get decent global coverage but still have manageable sub 20 ms latency

[Anonymous No.11130800]

>>11130233
Did Buzz slander Musk around the time Armstrong made Musk cry?

Collins is the most based in retrospect. Best book for sure.

[Anonymous No.11130827]

>>11130790
the big question is how much orbital procession /divergence can be expected from Mar's equatorial bulge

[Anonymous No.11130857]

>>11130354

No, he's more aware now, he gets it. SpaceX will land first.

[Anonymous No.11130872]

>>11130800

They gave the Apollo astronauts, a bunch of know nothings, a bus tour of Constellation and fed them lines to say when it was cancelled.

Piloting a craft in the 60s didn't mean they knew jack all about the space policy landscape in 2010. They were taken advantage of.

It was more Armstrong and Cernan, I don't remember Buzz being involved. He was a guest for Obama's KSC NASA speech. The admin were Mars inclined and so was Buzz.

[Anonymous No.11130891]

>>11130857
Lol

*Crew Dragon static fire gets delayed again*

The senile boomer doesn’t get anything: he keeps saying SpaceX and Blue Origin will beat NASA to the Moon, but that’s because doesn’t seem to understand that it’s not one or the other in this case, NASA will go to the Moon with Blue and maybe SpaceX as part of Artemis. Nobody is going without NASA, because nobody but them has Moon-rated EVA space suits, kilo-power reactors, rovers and the scientific instruments to make such a trip worth while.

[Anonymous No.11130894]

>>11130891

Whats worthwhile is up to the tourist-adventurer.

Suits are no problem. The commercial crew program entrants were responsible for delivering flights suits too.

SpaceX has to get a contract from NASA to "go with NASA".

[Anonymous No.11130895]

>>11130233
Dementia is kicking in I see.

[Anonymous No.11130896]

>>11130891
>eva suit
Can make one without taking 5 years
>kilo-power reactors
True but SpaceX has agreements with Tesla to produce Solar panels/techs
>rovers
Modified Tesla cars and it saves them billions of dollars, gains Tesla PR, experience, etc
>scientific instruments
Whoever is willing to pay. NASA has the tech but you can also get universities/private industries to take part in missions. Imagine if McDonald invests in making the first McDonald outpost on mars for sustainable human food industry.

[Anonymous No.11130899]

>>11130872
>The admin were Mars inclined and so was Buzz.

Buzz has always been Mars orientated, he keeps trying to peddle his dementia cycler to the government for Mars but they’ve never bought in. Most the Apollo astronauts dislike the Moon and prefer Mars, because they’ve been there and done that. Which I think is an enormously misinformed, selfish and damaging attitude to have (see Mike Collins trying to influence Trump to scuttle Artemis in favour of Mars).

[Anonymous No.11130906]

>>11130899
>Most the Apollo astronauts dislike the Moon and prefer Mars, because they’ve been there and done that
Alot of people seem to have that attitude. They seem to view spaceflight as achievement hunting.

[Anonymous No.11130914]

>>11130906
Current moon mission is achievement hunting. They don't want to focus on Mars because there's no viable alternative to SpaceX

[Anonymous No.11130921]

>>11130896
>mcdolan's
>sustainable human food

Nah, it'll be subway

[Anonymous No.11130943]

>>11130906
>>11130914
Going to Mars is the definition of achievement hunting, it’s a lot easier to establish a sustainable presence somewhere 3 days away, there and back (the Moon) than somewhere with a minimum 2 year roundabout trip (Mars). Furthermore, there isn’t a meaningful ‘first-achievement’ you can claim by going back to the Moon, it’s the opposite of achievement hunting.

[Anonymous No.11130961]

>>11130891

SpaceX's plans are a threat escalation ladder. "See Dear Moon? Get aboard our Starship effort or we'll land the next people on the moon without you." Later "See the people we landed on the moon? Get on board our Starship effort or we'll land the first people on Mars without you."

[Anonymous No.11130973]

Whats the state of Spaceflight History education for kids in the US?

In the UK 'Space' is a primary school subject with some basics. If anyone is named it's usually Armstrong alone. With a trip to a local observatory museum for the lucky ones.

With this new For All Mankind show it seems weird to me to do an alternate history show for something that not a large viewerbase will know much about. Is NASA stuff regularly taught to kids or played on TV like only Hitler is here?

[Anonymous No.11130985]

>>11130973
>Whats the state of Spaceflight History education for kids in the US?
Non-existent unless you look up stuff yourself. Most of my history classes focused on pre-1900.

-t. American

[Anonymous No.11130988]

>>11130973
Went to an excellent public highschool in Massachusetts. We had two history classes, World History and US History. World History didn’t touch it. US History discussed, briefly, the early missions up to Apollo as a connection to the Cold War. That’s it.

[Anonymous No.11130998]

Starlink: In the long term, SpaceX intends to develop and deploy a version of the satellite communication system to serve Mars (colony)
The Boring Company: development of underground tunnels and travel for Mars colony.
Tesla Inc: development of battery technology for Mars colony
SolarCity: development of battery technology, solar power technology, and its usefor Mars colony
SpaceX: Reusable rockets and space ships for getting to and off of Mars.

Not directly Mars-colony-related per se, but can be used as such,
Neuralink: Machine brain implants (not directly Mars colony related per se, but can be used as such.)
OpenAI: Attempting to make human-friendly AI that won't be a threat to humanity (not directly Mars colony related per se, but can be used as such.)

[Anonymous No.11131011]

>>11130891

*Crew Dragon static fire gets delayed again*

Different projects, different priorities, different technical aspects, separate timelines.

[Anonymous No.11131015]

>>11130998
He really wants to get of this planet in his lifetime.
Is this what happens to you when you grow up as a white male autist in south africa?

[Anonymous No.11131019]

>>11130891

The only thing you find or recognize as worthwhile is a circle drawn around your SLS based moon only fetish and whatever smaller scale resultant activity it ends up providing.

[Anonymous No.11131027]

>>11131015
Maybe he really wants to get away from black people...

[Anonymous No.11131035]

>>11131015
He might have retire out in Mars outpost home. That will the most ambitious dream ever realized from a human existence pov.

[Anonymous No.11131039]

>>11131027

[Anonymous No.11131052]

Leaving this planet in the wake of Climate Change should be treated the same as wartime desertion.

And it will be.

[Anonymous No.11131055]

>>11131039
Given his upbringing I wouldn't even be surprised.

>>11130998
Can't wait to be able to fund spacex in a small way by getting behind Starlink. Will they do mobile internet as well do you think?

[Anonymous No.11131075]

The shit going on in South Africa would make any genius millionaire autist want to leave the planet.
https://youtu.be/OSOvCNeDmtY

[Anonymous No.11131077]

>>11131052
Absurd. Getting as many polluters off the Earth as possible is a positive step to preventing worsening climate change.

[Anonymous No.11131079]

>>11131052
The only way to "save" earth is for humanity to fuck off to the stars and turn the planet in to a massive reserve/vacation destination.
Humans will not stop consuming, only solution is to move it to a place where it has no impact on earth.
And earth is constantly changing, oxygen has been steadily declining for billions of years now, in a distant future humans wont be able to live her anymore without some sort of terraforming of the planet.

[Anonymous No.11131085]

>>11131052
Good luck with that. One is behind 75 Amazon warehouses, and the other is a meme machine.

[Anonymous No.11131086]

>>11131052
What is this new breed of autism? Don't you have a midget to jack off to?

[Anonymous No.11131094]

>>11131085
Imagine if they pooled their resources for space tech and space projects.

[Anonymous No.11131100]

>>11131094
they'd turn Mars into O'Neill cylinders and Amazon warehouses.

[Anonymous No.11131102]

>>11131100
I'd be cool with that. It'd certainly be better than what we currently have.

[Anonymous No.11131106]

>>11131094
Probably won't happen. Their visions of spaceflight are too different. They could cooperate on various things, but I'm sure that their endeavors will remain as separate entities. Also, there was that one time Blue Origin tried to sue SpaceX for developing barge landing tech even though Blue had the copy right to it, so it seems like they see each other as competition rather than potential partners.

[Anonymous No.11131114]

>>11131106
Even if they try to outdo each other that will be something.

[Anonymous No.11131157]

>>11131114
Hopefully they'll compete in a way that encourage rapid but useful development. Kinda like the Space Race, except it's pure capitalism.

[Anonymous No.11131267]

>>11131106
Blue has a better reputation for "playing nice" in the industry as well, which is part of the reason were able to pull-off the lander team-up with NGIS and LockMart.
SpaceX are seen as the kind of company that'll only team-up with you once, so they can learn what you have that they don't and replicate it.
I'm not saying whether or not these are accurate, but these are the perceptions as I've seen them.

[Anonymous No.11131409]

>>11131267
That perception is just fud. The main reason insiders in the space industry have a animosity towards SpaceX is due to SpaceX threatning their cushony livelihood. BlueOrigin wants to go slow and steady and maybe establish something like a Oneill in 100 years. SpaceX is doing it at a scale 10-100x better than the industry itself, so everyone is worried about their paychecks. Once SLS is done, there's no more handouts from the government.

[Anonymous No.11131411]

Who will reach the moon first? NASA's human spaceflight program with SLS, Orion, and Artemis landers or NASA's space science program chartering a couple of freelance astronauts to collect geological samples aboard a Starship moon tourism flight?

[Anonymous No.11131417]

Next man on the moon: Tom Hanks, on a Starship.

[Anonymous No.11131444]

>>11131409
Yeah, but spaceX has to go at breakneck speed because they dont have the money to do it the way blue origin is doing it.
The whole spaceX setup is one of constant risks and so far the succes rate has been high enough that they don't get shitcanned.
Frankly, the guys behind spaceX&falcon 9 must walk bowlegged all day because of the massive balls they have.

[Anonymous No.11131581]

>>11129918
I think this tech will get resurrected at some point. Surely it's cheaper to yeet inert payloads with a super gun + small solid rocket to circu Parker orbit.

Also looking forward to what SpinLaunch have to offer

[Anonymous No.11131600]

>>11131581
Maybe one day Bull's dreams will become a reality. What a depressing world we live in.

[Anonymous No.11131647]

>>11131581
Yeah probably not a bad idea for big slugs of metal and shit.

[Anonymous No.11131652]

>>11131647
Food, water, propellant, hardened electronics. Loads of stuff

[Anonymous No.11131714]

I'm reading the NSF thread on SpaceX submission for Artemis. Here's one I thought up. A one or two stage lander of SpaceX's design for launch atop a Super Heavy with a traditional disposable raptor upper stage.

[Anonymous No.11131728]

>>11131600

Starship solves the cheap launch problem.

[Anonymous No.11131734]

>>11131714
>disposable
>raptor
how DARE you!

[Anonymous No.11131738]

>>11131734
>how DARE you!
For the right price, why not?

[Anonymous No.11131747]

>>11131714
>>11131734
I just don't understand this reusable raptor meme.

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

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

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

[Anonymous No.11131758]

>>11131714
>>11131734
>>11131738
A Raptor powered ascent-stage isn’t a great idea and it’s not because of the cost. The ascent engine has to be the pinnacle of reliability, meaning a simple pressure-fed hypergolic engine like the SuperDraco is an optimum choice for the role and not a complex engine using cryogenics. If I were SpaceX I would bid Starship, but with a detachable upper-section that’s powered by SuperDracos. Not only will this design be able to satisfy NASA’s abort to Gateway requirements, but it’s also an opportunity to get NASA to foot the bill for developing a launch escape system for normal Starship operations.

[Anonymous No.11131760]

>>11131758
Wow I really misread that post, my bad.

[Anonymous No.11131769]

>>11131758

To clarify: non raptor engines on the lunar lander, raptor engines the upper stage of a two stage to orbit launch vehicle with a super heavy first stage.

Lets them use the Super Heavy as their self funded contribution to the contract and the rest of all gravy.

[Anonymous No.11131771]

>>11131758
That criticality is proportional to whether or not the astronauts will die if it doesn't work. SpaceX is already trying for that degree of reliability, anyway.

>>11131769
I had a feeling that's what you meant.

[Anonymous No.11131772]

>>11131769

*is all gravy

[Anonymous No.11131788]

>>11131769
So essentially use the "Star Yeeter" proposal to launch a big boy lander?

[Anonymous No.11131800]

>>11131094
Will we ever get an ASTP style mission, where a Starship docks with New Armstrong?

[Anonymous No.11131812]

>>11131800
The folks at Blue and SpaceX haven’t gotten on very well historically, so such a mission would likely end up like pic related:

[Anonymous No.11131909]

>>11131800
We have no idea what New Armstrong even is.

[Anonymous No.11131970]

>>11131812
but a lot of spaceX people have ended up at blue origin from what i have read in past /sfg/ threads.
Is that true?

[Anonymous No.11131972]

>>11131812
What did the British space industry mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11131977]

*ting ting*
ahem
fuck ULA and fuck SLS

[Anonymous No.11131998]

>>11131972
last convulsions of a dying empire.

[Anonymous No.11132018]

>>11131998
Odd, I see here cause of death is listed as "suicide"...

[Anonymous No.11132025]

>>11132018
Yes and it seems to be written in the languages of every other European empire that was defeated by the British.. odd.

[Anonymous No.11132072]

>>11132025
Please anon, i respect the bong empire a lot, even if current media depicts them as the nazi beta version, whatever that means.
But they made some bad decisions and when they were on the down they decided to let empathy do its thing.

[Anonymous No.11132086]

>>11131970
A lot of people from SpaceX have ended up elsewhere in general, the company is notorious for it’s high turnover-rate. But there was a notable incident several years ago, where a sizeable amount of SpaceX’s Raptor development team jumped ship to Blue. Due to SX’s 2019 layoffs coinciding with the beginning of Blue’s big hiring spree, I’m sure there’s a sizeable amount of ex-SpaceX people at Blue. I don’t think Blue specifically target SpaceX employees like some companies do, because from what I’ve seen their casting a wide net e.g. I’ve seen lots people from both newspace, oldspace and even disgruntled SLS and Orion employees being poached.

>>11131909
The only information we actually have about New Armstrong’s design, is the size of this building’s doors.

[Anonymous No.11132131]

>>11132086
>horizontal fabrication
pleb tier

[Anonymous No.11132132]

>>11130356
>1. They MUST be stored loaded and heavy
>2. they're enormous fireworks that will explode at a moment's notice

but that's the point of 3D printing.. all you would have to do is make the nozzle and then set up the printer to build the fuel column and then you could remotely place the payload on top


https://newatlas.com/rci-3d-printed-fuel-patent/47356/
>that feel when you realize your idea is already patented


https://patents.justia.com/patent/10286599
>A hybrid rocket solid fuel grain having a cylindrical shape and defining a center port is additive manufactured from a compound of thermoplastic fuel and passivated nanocomposite aluminum additive. The fuel grain comprises a stack of fused layers, each layer formed as a plurality of fused abutting concentric circular beaded structures arrayed to define a center port. During operation, an oxidizer is introduced along the center port, with combustion occurring along the exposed port wall. Each circular beaded structure defines geometry that increases the surface area available for combustion. As each layer ablates the next abutting layer, exhibiting a similar geometry, is revealed, undergoes a gas phase change, and ablates. This process repeats and persists until oxidizer flow is terminated or the fuel grain material is exhausted. To safely achieve this construction, a fused deposition additive manufacturing apparatus, modified to shield the nanocomposite material from the atmosphere, is used.

GOD BLESS AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE

why cant someone just pour the fuel grain on the launch pad.. similar to injection molding or something?

or i guess you could just figure out some convoluted way of avoiding infringement by changing one or more items like with what they do with aircraft subsystems.. if im not mistaken the door lock on the DC-10 was faulty because they couldnt use the more established patented design

[Anonymous No.11132137]

>>11132131
Do you mean literal horizontal fabrication, or were you trying to say horizontal integration?

[Anonymous No.11132147]

>>11131728
the cost of the ship itself limits the growth and it's only one company which gives them a pseudo monopoly as other companies learn to catch up and bribe government to let them experiment

[Anonymous No.11132158]

>>11130450
>closed source
>government backdoors
>anti vpn
>anti tor
>no quantum encryption

FUCKIN INTO THE TRASH m9

[Anonymous No.11132174]

>>11130447
you can also build a gun with shit from home depot but 3d printing makes it easier and that's why bureaucrats are already talking about "regulating" 3d printers

https://www.lawstreetmedia.com/issues/technology/3d-printing-innovations-regulations/

https://www.theregreview.org/2017/03/22/hennigan-regulating-3d-printing-revolution/

https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/3d-printers-evasive-entrepreneurs-and-future-tech-regulation

there is a special place in hell reserved for the people who see a new technology and then think "hmm how can i further my career by regulating it"

it's a miracle the internet was free for as long as it lasted.. eu meme ban starts in 2020 btw

[Anonymous No.11132175]

How feasible would it be to dig a big enough hole on the Moon that it would retain its own atmosphere and have a survivable pressure for people wearing oxygen masks? How about on Mars?

[Anonymous No.11132184]

>>11132175
lava tubes

the solar system is set up like a video game to perfectly help someone get off of earth.. the moon has helium-3 and ice and perfect lava tubes that just need to be sealed on one end

also the moon is the exact same size as the sun in the sky which is objectively NOT a coincidence

also notice that venus is our closest planet and the same technology that could be used to terraform it could be used to combat climate alarmism

[Anonymous No.11132222]

>>11132184
Gotta love those irrelevant schizo answers

[Anonymous No.11132239]

>>11132184

[Anonymous No.11132245]

>>11132184
based venus first creationist

[Anonymous No.11132249]

First truly moon build structure will be built like igloos anyway.
With pressure doors transported of earth obviously.
Airlock&igloo.
And covering it with dirt.

[Anonymous No.11132272]

>>11132222
>>11132239
>>11132245
>anything besides atheist nihlist dogma academic brainwashing
>shizo
>not npc group think
are you denying that the moon is set up perfectly for a hop off this gay blue faggot world?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_lava_tube

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water

[Anonymous No.11132275]

>>11132249
nah cunt

[Anonymous No.11132293]

>>11132272
I believe complex life is made vastly more likely by a large moon such as ours, which as far as we can see if fairly rare around terrestrial planets.

[Anonymous No.11132313]

>>11132293
>complex life is made vastly more likely by a large moon
someone read "rare earth"

i forget what was the advantage that a moon provides?

[Anonymous No.11132323]

>>11129082
How many seats do they need until they start opening up the the public?

[Anonymous No.11132334]

>>11132313
Tides, both for heating and generally making oceans more dynamic. Also underappreciated is that a complex agriculture society needs a good calendar and the moon provides one for free

[Anonymous No.11132336]

>>11132272
You latched onto a completely unrelated question posing a hypothetical, and used it as a soapbox to spew a disorganized mess of unconnected ideas.

[Anonymous No.11132339]

>>11132334
also it probably absorbs some asteroids maybe

[Anonymous No.11132345]

>>11132336
that part is a bonus.. like the icing on a cake

and it is related

[Anonymous No.11132417]

>>11131039

[Anonymous No.11132426]

>>11130973
Formal education not really
But it’s such a large part of American culture that children are aware of it and the history from a very young age. Teachers and parents will bring it up, kids will watch Apollo 13 and October Sky in school And kids in the Boy Scouts and 4H will build model rockets and get trips to the observatory or maybe air and space Museum.

[Anonymous No.11132534]

>>11131055
I'm buying it because FUCK ROGERS

[Anonymous No.11132675]

get ready lads
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2019/0019.html
https://www.tmahlmann.com/2019/05/how-to-watch-or-photograph-starlink/

>tfw I got to see the first train
>it was fgucking amazing

[Anonymous No.11132688]

pic related

[Anonymous No.11132694]

>>11132426
Lul boomer detected. Kids don't learn jack shit about space anymore m8.

[Anonymous No.11132848]

>>11132694
>implying they ever did

[Anonymous No.11132864]

>>11128909
>>11128915
>>11128968
>>11129000
>>11129044
>>11129090
>>11129697
>>11130034
>>11130280
>>11130450
>>11130740
>>11131094
>>11131444
>>11131758
>>11131800
>>11131812
>>11131972
>>11132086
>>11132184
>>11132675
>>11132688

[Anonymous No.11132927]

>>11132864
Based, but you shouldn't spam (you)s like that.

[Anonymous No.11132961]

>>11132927
oi fuck off cunnie

[Anonymous No.11133045]

>>11132249
>Pressure door meme
Why not water locks?

[Anonymous No.11133068]

I’m listening to Space Barons as an audiobook in an early chapter it talks about an early space entrepreneur I think called Andy Bean of Bean Aerospace. Since i was just listening in work i can’t be sure but i want to research further.

Who was this?

[Anonymous No.11133084]

What a clusterfuck..

>One man’s mistake, missing backups and complete reboot: The tale of Europe’s Galileo satellites going dark

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/08/galileo_satellites_outage/

[Anonymous No.11133106]

>>11133084
The CHAD GPS

Vs

The VIRGIN Galileo

[Anonymous No.11133111]

>>11130899
>>11130906
>>11130914
>>11130943

Moon missions are primarily geopolitical/strategic, a country that can gatekeep the moon gatekeeps the whole solar system

[Anonymous No.11133121]

Does anyone know how I can get started with the aerospace industry? Biomed major with a liking for Space Exploration. Like what books should I read

[Anonymous No.11133132]

>>11128909
I see there are multiple thrusters. Welcome abroad, bee, commie death.

[Anonymous No.11133134]

>>11129223
Ever tried to shoot some melted steel by ion thruster?

You don't know what pain is.

[Anonymous No.11133142]

>>11133111
My grand grand grand children that will mine in asteroid belt know what you are talking about, but they will never happen.

[Anonymous No.11133154]

>>11129223
Just take the hypergolic pill anon...

[Anonymous No.11133159]

>>11133111
Sounds smart to brainlets but is in fact an incredibly stupid statement meant to promote the dead end that is the moon.

The gatekeepers are on Earth.

[Anonymous No.11133165]

>>11132864
Yes, NASA lies, SpaceX actually gets shit done.

[Anonymous No.11133185]

>>11133165
>NASA lies, SpaceX actually gets shit done.

Lol, in reality it’s the opposite.

[Anonymous No.11133190]

>>11133159

For now, eventually groups will be able to control access solely from the moon. This is why securing a permanent foothold on the moon from which to conduct commercial activity is so crucial.

Mars is a literal meme in comparison.

[Anonymous No.11133193]

>>11133190
How can I shoot lasers from moon trough earth to shoot somebody incoming down if they go from the opposite side of the planet?

[Anonymous No.11133195]

>>11133190
It's like being 18 wall on the porn site. Really hard to trick out.

[Anonymous No.11133196]

>>11133185
I meant like in today's terms, NASA was the fucking bomb back then. Now they're busy trying to support STEM for literal walking bombs.

[Anonymous No.11133197]

>>11133195
>>11132864
I'm too sad I have to manually connect nodes in your mind.

[Anonymous No.11133201]

>>11133196
While white people make this nuclear mine field with possibility of planet destruction and imminent planet destruction, the guy who commit suicide but doesn't want to be alone is blamed. You're sick.

[Anonymous No.11133205]

>>11133201
What is this racist shit you're spouting off about?

[Anonymous No.11133214]

>>11133205
Sorry for blaming somebody, but I've seen reaction that somebody has problem that NASA is inspiring people of colour.

[Anonymous No.11133221]

>>11130500
Even though I understand the dangers of spicy rocket juice I would still be tempted to get a close look at it.

[Anonymous No.11133260]

The notion of private companies in space is nothing more than pure anti-American COMMUNISM in disguise. In line with tradition and the American Spirit spaceflight must be centrally planned and government funded if we are to maintain American leadership in this new frontier.

[Anonymous No.11133263]

>>11133260
>What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class at MIT, and I've been involved in numerous secret budgetary meetings, and I have over 300 confirmed delays.

[Anonymous No.11133265]

[Anonymous No.11133269]

>>11133265
What’s the point of attaching just the lower fins?

[Anonymous No.11133280]

>>11133269
?
the top fins are on the top part

[Anonymous No.11133283]

>>11133269
They are done with the gear so why not but them back on? They can be folded flat against the side so it's not like they will get in the way and they can test them when the metal workers knock off.

[Anonymous No.11133292]

>>11133280
That’s the point...

[Anonymous No.11133308]

>>11133269
The top fins are mostly attached already.

[Anonymous No.11133331]

>>11133269
But that's the lower half, why would you attach upper fins to the lower half?

[Anonymous No.11133346]

>>11133331
I’m just saying that if they wanted to attach the fins for testing, shouldn’t they have waited until the full thing is stacked? Those flapping wings are nothing but dead weight without the electronic power which moves them and the batteries are located in the nose section.

[Anonymous No.11133349]

>>11133346
Sure but stacking before launch is great showmanship. Its a hype machine.

[Anonymous No.11133364]

>>11133349
It’s just tanking tests tho

[Anonymous No.11133427]

>>11133214
>people of color
I don't even mind black people, I was talking about moose limbs sent by Mr. Rabbi Shekelsteinberg.

[Anonymous No.11133501]

>>11133068

Andy Beal, Beal Aerospace

[Anonymous No.11133527]

>>11133111

Sure in that SLS/Orion/Artemis retards the potential of NASA to do great work across the solar system, including even more lunar development inherently possible and likely. And that's just what some malicious petty shits with stabbed in the back myths and who only want to see program activity involving their pet fanboy rocket SLS want.

[Anonymous No.11133531]

>>11133501
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_Aerospace

http://www.astronautix.com/b/ba-810.html

Holy shit, these guys built and tested a massive pressure-fed rocket engine which burnt Hydrogen Peroxide and Kerosene to produce 3,605kN of thrust! To put that into perspective, that’s nearly twice as powerful as SpaceX’s Raptor without using a turbo pump. Furthermore, Beal were the original owners of McGregor, which SpaceX bought off them after the company went under.

[Anonymous No.11133537]

>>11133501
Beal! Right thank you.

>>11133531
Yea Space Barons is a good book so far. Worth an audible free trial i guess.

[Anonymous No.11133538]

>>11133531
It's also the largest composite-wrapped rocket engine ever built. The combustion chamber and bell were basically a giant open-ended COPV. And it actually worked.

[Anonymous No.11133541]

>>11133185
That is a very low number of probes considering it is over half a century. Again we can see that NASA is very inefficient.

[Anonymous No.11133542]

>>11132864
>"My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch — next April?"

[Anonymous No.11133549]

>>11133541
Also $ tens of billions spent. We should have a probe around every rock larger than 10km in the solar system for that funding. And why the fuck is there no mass assembly line for space probes by now?

[Anonymous No.11133578]

>>11133538
I love the power, simplicity and exotic nature of the design, it reminds me of a mini-Sea Dragon.


>>11133541
Who else is building and launching more probes then retard? NASA had a period in the 90’s where they tried to do “Faster, Better Cheaper” and it was a resounding failure, turns out when you try to cut costs (and in turn corners) with planetary probes, they usually end up like Beresheet. Slow and steady has been a resounding success for NASA, ESA and China’s robotic exploration ambitions during this current era.

[Anonymous No.11133613]

>>11133549

The new age will come after Starship.

[Anonymous No.11133618]

>https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/starlink_press_kit_nov2019.pdf

Interesting info about tomorrow's starlink launch. They'll start off with lower altitude(than their previous one) of 280km and then raise the orbits in batches. They've put the laser link on hold until late next year. Possibly for few reasons, costs/safety/research/speed. Without laser module, all of starlink can burn up in the atmosphere drag without any issue.

[Anonymous No.11133633]

>>11128922
>get fucked Boeing
By a company that doesn't do shit and just talks about it?
Yeah no,just look at their launch rate going down.

[Anonymous No.11133643]

>>11129918
>3km/s
>orbit
pick one brainlet you didn't even get the basics of orbital mechanics

[Anonymous No.11133647]

>>11133531
very promising company, damn shame they went under.

Remember Sea Launch? They had a lot of people in aerospace buzzing and were a force to be reckoned with for a while in private aerospace. Shame how that turned out.

[Anonymous No.11133667]

>>11133647
>Remember Sea Launch? They had a lot of people in aerospace buzzing and were a force to be reckoned with for a while in private aerospace. Shame how that turned out.

SeaLaunch is a unique and isolated case of failure, because the only reason they went under was the geopolitical events surrounding the Russian Annexation of Crimea in 2014.

[Anonymous No.11133674]

>>11129010
>orange fuel bad

[Anonymous No.11133689]

>>11133674
Dinitrogen tetroxide is pretty bad if you happened to get doused in some.

[Anonymous No.11133723]

>>11133689
>NedelinDisaster.PNG

[Anonymous No.11133725]

>>11133643
>>the payload is a solid motor rocket....

[Anonymous No.11133751]

god astronautix.com is so poorly laid out, I don't know why there isn't a wiki for this stuff. pretty sure it's just the site owner approving these pages

[Anonymous No.11133754]

>>11133725
By that logic a crane is an orbital accelerator

[Anonymous No.11133777]

>>11133751
It’s pretty bad, but there’s no better place to look for information about obscure pieces of rocketry.

[Anonymous No.11133782]

>>11133754
did you ever look at the length of the barrel ???

[Anonymous No.11133790]

>>11133777
nice trips, and I wish somebody would create a script or something to convert that shit to a proper wiki. i'd do it but i'm too stupid and lazy

[Anonymous No.11133800]

>>11133723
>Бyдь paкeтocтpoитeлeм, cкaзaли oни. Былo бы зaмeчaтeльнo, cкaзaли oни. Bы пpинeceтe мнoгo cлaвы paбoчим миpa, cкaзaли oни ...

[Anonymous No.11133831]

>>11132184
>moon is the exact same size as the sun in the sky
wrong.
>venus is our closest planet
wrong again.

[Anonymous No.11133840]

daily reminder that you were taught a lie in grade school; the solar system barycenter is OUTSIDE of the Sun's diameter by a wide margin.
We're a Sun-Jovian system, not a solar system.

[Anonymous No.11133886]

>>11133618

>Since the most recent launch of Starlink satellites in May, SpaceX has increased spectrum capacityfor the end-userthrough upgrades in design that maximize the useof both Ka and Ku bands.Additionally, components of each satellite are100% demisable and will quickly burn up inEarth’s atmosphereat the end of their life cycle—ameasure that exceedsall current safetystandards

[Anonymous No.11133932]

>>11133886
>SpaceX has increased spectrum capacityfor the end-userthrough upgrades in design that maximize the useof both Ka and Ku bands

This is just pure PR speak, the English translation is: “the V0.9 test satellites didn’t have Ka-band antennas, but these ones do.”

[Anonymous No.11134002]

[Anonymous No.11134007]

>>11134002
that big feather pisses me off

[Anonymous No.11134016]

>>11133723
did he die

[Anonymous No.11134017]

>>11134007

[Anonymous No.11134041]

>>11134016
By him do you mean all 126 of the casualties, or just Chief Marshal of Artillery Mitrofan Ivanovich Nedelin?...

[Anonymous No.11134274]

>>11134041
specifically the guy in that picture embracing the thousand degree cancer juice, idk if he was ever identified

[Anonymous No.11134283]

Is VASIMR going anywhere or is it another dead meme?
Because it promised a 1 month Mars journey time and a 6 month trip to Jupiter and it would have been great to mount those as vacuum engines

[Anonymous No.11134290]

>>11134274
I doubt there was much left to identify...

[Anonymous No.11134293]

>>11134283

Their optimistic short journey numbers required a very overly optimistic electric generation system if I recall. I don't know its validity outside that.

[Anonymous No.11134298]

>>11134283
I'd mount your mother also VASIMR requires ridiculous power which is fine if we have the balls to launch reactors but we don't

[Anonymous No.11134300]

>>11133045
>piss airlock redux

[Anonymous No.11134309]

>>11134007
Why?

[Anonymous No.11134321]

I wonder if SpaceX will invest in nuclear propulsion for their next gen engine, once Starship is steadily landing people/cargo on mars.

[Anonymous No.11134333]

>>11134283
VASIMR is still just a proposal gathering dust in a cabinet at the SwampWorks. But on the other hand, Nuclear Thermal Rocket development is really picking up momentum (and funding):

https://futurism.com/the-byte/nasa-develop-nuclear-rockets

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/NASA-boosts-nuclear-thermal-propulsion-with%C2%A0BWXT-c

[Anonymous No.11134334]

>>11134298
>Muh VASIMIR just needs nukes

No it doesn't you fuckwit how many times do you fucktards have to be told you need a LIGHTWEIGHT power rich source.

[Anonymous No.11134337]

>>11134321
Too much red tape. SpaceX will invest in nuclear propulsion once they can do so somewhere enviromentalists won't cry about it, like Phobos.

[Anonymous No.11134348]

>>11134283
It was always a meme, anon. One of those memes that actually work if you just happen to have magical weightless infinite power sources ready for action.

[Anonymous No.11134367]

>>11134283
https://youtu.be/myYs4DCCZts

If you have the time, and patience...

[Anonymous No.11134379]

>>11134321
>>11134337
SpaceX would only be allowed to invest in nuclear propulsion if the US government gave their approval, anti-proliferation guidelines are incredibly strict which is why only nation states and certain subsidised and highly regulated companies can gain access to nuclear technology. Furthermore, because of this nuclear know-how is incredibly hard to come by, which means SpaceX would have to partner with somebody like BWX Technologies (they build nuclear reactors for US navy submarines), who NASA have partnered with to develop NTP.

[Anonymous No.11134382]

>>11134333

Another meme.

[Anonymous No.11134391]

>>11134379
Antiproliferation is actually fairly easy in space, because nobody you don't want having nukes can actually get to Phobos. SpaceX would need a bunch of licenses, but environmental and proliferation concerns are minimized.

[Anonymous No.11134392]

>>11134379
Gut feeling tells me more fuel and panels is better.

[Anonymous No.11134402]

>>11134392
Correct, however it is only viable in the inner system and you need to figure out how to deploy acres of solar film without the structure ripping itself apart. But yes you could achieve those super fast transit times with current level of solar film energy density.

[Anonymous No.11134404]

>>11134382
>meme

Yikes...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GmxPRCyR-Co

[Anonymous No.11134422]

>>11134391
>Antiproliferation is actually fairly easy in space

Yes, it’s fairly easy to get a license from the US gov’t to launch nuclear material on a ballistic trajectory, just ask NK and Iran...

[Anonymous No.11134424]

>>11134404

SpaceX are the only ones who can tackle it properly, it it even has merit. NASA will continue a superfluous incorrectly engineered boondoggle with no awareness that it is such.

[Anonymous No.11134431]

>>11134404
Sometimes the question isn't whether you can but whether you should.

[Anonymous No.11134434]

>>11134424
>SpaceX are the only ones who can tackle it properly, it it even has merit.

Ah yes, SpaceX with their abundance of experience building nuclear reactors and using hydrogen as a fuel source...

Fuck off to the hole you crawled out of schitzo-retard!

[Anonymous No.11134440]

>>11134404
>how to make the price of your upper stage rival that of the sls program
(((rubs hands)))

[Anonymous No.11134465]

>>11134434

Could have said the same thing about rockets before they begun. How could some silicon valley outfit build better rockets than the established ''experts''?

[Anonymous No.11134470]

>>11134440
shh. Be a good goy.

[Anonymous No.11134479]

>>11134440
>>11134470
I thought you guys would approve of NTP because it’s biggest proponent was a Nazi...I guess I was mistaken.

[Anonymous No.11134486]

>>11134479
ZOG governments aren't capable of the effort required.
We space ancap now.

[Anonymous No.11134490]

>>11134434
That's what they said about rockets. Now they're the leaders in the industry.

[Anonymous No.11134494]

>>11134486

[Anonymous No.11134497]

>>11134283
the problem with VASIMIR is they don't make extension cords long enough

[Anonymous No.11134500]

>>11134486
This, in a non zogged world we would have NTP rockets flying all over the system by now.

[Anonymous No.11134506]

>>11134404

We're entering plentiful cheap earth launched fuel and in space fueled reusable injection stages world.

[Anonymous No.11134510]

>>11134490
Their definitely not leaders in performance and reliability, which is why all the significant NASA probes and expensive military satellites go to ULA. I guess hydrogen isn’t a meme after all...

[Anonymous No.11134512]

2 years ago, Shotwell @ Stanford gave a talk about SpaceX. In it she talked about nuclear propulsion a bit saying they had handful of people looking into nuclear propulsion research. She said it wasn't their main focus but rather a research to check the viability and do a key study on what might be doable/not.

[Anonymous No.11134519]

>>11134510
Those were from the block buy contract before SpaceX broke them up.

If NASA/airforce uses other ships besides SpaceX now, its because they want multiple operators in order to not be trapped in monopoly again.

[Anonymous No.11134525]

>>11134510
ULA is a government welfare program for subpar aerospace engineers

[Anonymous No.11134540]

>>11134510

Those launch count numbers will keep coming and coming.

[Anonymous No.11134552]

>>11134519

He's an SLS troll who wants you to say ''we need a second provider'' so he can rationalize SLS continuation when Starship is flying.

There will always be bullshit by the bullshitters.

[Anonymous No.11134556]

>>11134519
>If NASA/airforce uses other ships besides SpaceX now,

Your right about the Airforce not wanting a monopoly, but ULA are the main and SpaceX are the alternative. For example, in the last EELV phase 1 competition ULA got the big, expensive and unique payloads like the mysterious Silent Barker, whilst SpaceX got the smaller and cheaper satellites. Also, in NSSF Phase 2 awards most people expect ULA to get the 60% share and SpaceX the 40%.

[Anonymous No.11134560]

>>11134556
Russian engines are to be phased out. So ULA will be secondary or even non existent due to SpaceX/Blue dominating

[Anonymous No.11134571]

>>11134494
>Firefly
It still hurts lads, they did take our fucking sky REEE.

[Anonymous No.11134576]

>>11134556

And that's all ULA will get because they're noncompetitive outside their coddled niche and will be left in the dust by Starship.

[Anonymous No.11134578]

>>11134560
Have I forgotten to introduce our lord and saviour: the Vulcan-Centaur? An 100% AMERICAN rocket using existing parts, a bigger upgraded Centaur stage and Blue Origin’s BE-4 engines. Also, New Glenn won’t be ready in time for the Phase 2 launches, so Blue will have to wait it out until Phase 3 bidding begins.

[Anonymous No.11134581]

>>11134525

ULA aren't so bad, they are not synonymous with the SLS program.

[Anonymous No.11134586]

>>11134581
They cost half a million per launch and only reduced that price slightly because of SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.11134601]

>>11134586
Not every ULA rocket is the Delta 4 Heavy launching a highly sensitive, multi-billion dollar KH-11...

[Anonymous No.11134605]

>>11134586
half a billion*

[Anonymous No.11134618]

>>11134605
>>11134601

[Anonymous No.11134838]

Don’t post in the new thread, your computer will make mustard gas

[Anonymous No.11134863]

>>11134838
What new thread?

[Anonymous No.11134864]

>>11134863
the problem seems to have taken care of itself

[Anonymous No.11134869]

>>11134283
Needs too much magic power. Just to use it as a demo on ISS would require a bank of batteries be charged to have enough for power just for an orbital boost burn.

[Anonymous No.11134940]

Just got the engine welded! That's the injector end.

[Anonymous No.11134942]

>>11134940
Side.

[Anonymous No.11134946]

>>11134942
Throat/engine exit.

[Anonymous No.11134948]

>>11134940
>>11134942
we have stainless steel rockets so now we're going for cast iron?
Remember to season your cast iron rockets.

[Anonymous No.11134952]

>>11134948
It's 316 steel. And while I'm not going to season it, I am going to spray paint the outside to protect against rust until the engine fires. I'm thinking purple.

[Anonymous No.11134962]

>>11133221
here bro.
https://www.varusteleka.com/en/product/nva-nbc-coverall-sba-1-surplus/11631
wait fuck they're out of stock
just look around

[Anonymous No.11134970]

>>11134962
bro, just make your own devil's venom. Be sure to ask the FBI for some tips.

[Anonymous No.11134980]

>>11134940
>>11134942
>>11134946
>>11134952
What fuel / oxidizer are you using? Are you going with pressure feed?

[Anonymous No.11134987]

>>11134980
>What fuel / oxidizer are you using?
Nos monoprop. What I'm going to test for (along with just making an engine that works) is if Nos could be made to self-sustain decomposing if the inside of the engine gets hot enough. That way a heated catalyst wouldn't be needed beyond just starting the engine.

>Are you going with pressure feed?
Yes, being fed from a ~900-1,000 psi Nos bottle. The chamber should be about 189 psi.

Pic related, a small stat sheet.

[Anonymous No.11134998]

>>11133831
isn't the moon a bit bigger
>>11133840
that only happens when the planets start lining up
>>11134007
>painting your rockets
how blasé

[Anonymous No.11135003]

>>11134321
Nuke Mars (by which I mean come join the nuclear test program on Mars (we only test when the Earth can't see us))

[Anonymous No.11135018]

>>11134434
>hydrogen
meme, use Methane, or like
water
>>11134940
>>11134942
>>11134946
your welder friend is an incompetent moron, and make sure to either wear a bulletproof vest or stand behind multiple brick walls when you test that

[Anonymous No.11135024]

>>11135018
>your welder friend is an incompetent moron, and make sure to either wear a bulletproof vest or stand behind multiple brick walls when you test that
I was going to stand a safe distance away behind a concrete wall anyways. What's wrong with the weld though?

[Anonymous No.11135031]

>>11135024
it's bubblegum
get a dentist's mirror or something to look at the backside, it should be fused shut with only a barely visible seam and no big holes
a super visible seam means you only got weld on the outside
a big hole that fell out means you're missing a bunch of material and have a weak spot

[Anonymous No.11135038]

>>11135024
>>11135031
oh, and make sure you videotape it and upload it to youtube, I want to see how many holes your combustion chamber has in it
I bet you're going to get little jets shooting out of the sides
there's also a decent chance that once your mild steel engine heats up, it will turn to iron oxide dust immediately because it's being exposed to hot oxygen gas

[Anonymous No.11135040]

>>11135031
He told me that we was only going to weld the outside since the threads should be able to carry the stresses. The weld is mostly there to securely hold the pieces in place and to create a seal.

[Anonymous No.11135043]

>>11135040
oh right you got threaded, not welded and then decided to weld it anyway
eh? it should be alright but it looks ugly as hell

[Anonymous No.11135050]

>>11135043
>oh right you got threaded, not welded and then decided to weld it anyway eh?
Yeah. I was just going to keep it threaded only and then use a sealant, but I was worried that a sealant would melt away.

>>11135038
>oh, and make sure you videotape it and upload it to youtube, I want to see how many holes your combustion chamber has in it
I'll try to get something like a GoPro to record it.

>there's also a decent chance that once your mild steel engine heats up, it will turn to iron oxide dust immediately because it's being exposed to hot oxygen gas
That is something I'm worried about too. Hopefully it wont turn into a nos+iron hybrid rocket motor.

[Anonymous No.11135052]

>>11135018
>hydrogen
>meme

“I see my superiority has lead to some controversy...”

[Anonymous No.11135059]

>>11135050
once the oxygen starts to meaningfully erode the iron, the iron will actually be burning, which will heat up the rest of the iron, and it'll basically instantly turn to dust
it's an EXTREMELY impressive phenomenon up-close and personal, I highly recommend getting your welder friend to teach you how to fuck with a fuel-oxy cutting torch

[Anonymous No.11135085]

>>11135059
>>11135050
anyway, the solution to that problem is to have an inhibiting layer on the surface of your engine
my meme solution would be to florinate it somehow, or just use stainless which will form a chromium oxide layer on the top
you could send the next one off to be treated with titanium nitride, or something like that
I'm sure there's a solution

[Anonymous No.11135102]

>>11135085
>>11135059
Thanks. I think if it happens with this engine, then I'll just let it happen so long as everyone is safe. It's only going to fire for about 5 seconds anyways.

If I have the time, money, and motivation to make another engine then I'll just machine it out of a block of aluminum or something like that (or maybe make it a bipropellant engine so that the free oxygen isn't as big of an issue). The only reason why I made this engine out of steel piping was because I don't have access to a lathe right now.

[Anonymous No.11135109]

>>11134552
>we need a second provider
I wonder who we could find.
I mean someone who has already launched something to orbit, of course. I'm not totally crazy.

[Anonymous No.11135110]

>>11134578
Vulcan Centaur Heavy with SMART will be a really neat rocket desu

[Anonymous No.11135137]

>>11135110
it's an absolute rube goldberg scheme JUST BECAUSE they don't want to bump up the diameter of their rocket by a couple of meters and put an extra two or three BE-4 on there

[Anonymous No.11135140]

y/n stick the F9 launch thread up at T-12 or wait for later? Got the txt ready to paste.

[Anonymous No.11135144]

>>11135140
what time are they launching? trying to figure out if I can drive home and then go to the library to watch it or need to stay at my parent's place and watch it here

[Anonymous No.11135146]

>>11135144
6:50am vancouver

[Anonymous No.11135147]

>>11135146
just use the local time for the Cape or UST or something intelligible

[Anonymous No.11135149]

>>11135144
~13 bongs from now, 9:56 AM EST / 14:56 UTC. The patch is the same as the first starlink launch! Booo.

[Anonymous No.11135152]

>>11135149
>creating new patch designs for every single Starlink launch would appreciably increase SpaceX's costs to put up and maintain the constellation
what a world we live in

[Anonymous No.11135156]

>>11134998
>isn't the moon a bit bigger
For a few hundred thousand more years, at least.

[Anonymous No.11135175]

>>11135102
I've got it: nitride it
dip that thing in a super strong nitric acid solution

[Anonymous No.11135191]

>>11135110
>>11135137
ULA’s choice of SMART over retro propulsion has got nothing to do with Vulcan’s diameter or number of engines and everything to do with it’s performance: Rockets that use retro propulsion impose large performance penalties on their first-stages because they have to stage early and preserve fuel for landing. Their are ways to mitigate this problem e.g. New Glenn first-stage’s planned gliding trajectory will allow it to stage at a higher velocity and carry relatively less fuel for landing than a Falcon, meaning less of a performance penalty due to reusability than the latter. SMART completely sidesteps this problem by ditching the 1st stage all together and preserving just the engine segment with parachute recovery. Therefore, SMART allows a partially reusable Vulcan to get the exact same performance as an expendable one because no fuel needs to be preserved and the NASA-derived heat shield allows the engine segment to be recovered at much higher velocities than a booster can withstand. SMART is particularly useful to ULA due to their use of the Centaur second-stage, which has unparalleled efficiency but low thrust; this means ULA’s vehicles have to stage at really high velocities, too high for booster recovery, to yeet Centaur far enough to reach orbit. Retro propulsive landing which requires slow, early staging, is therefore incompatible with ULA’s golden goose, making it a non-option for ULA.

[Anonymous No.11135196]

>>11135191
yes, SMART is better than retropropulsion if you've yeeted your core stage 70% of the way to orbit
the late staging is caused by the solid rocket motors, there's going to be two different separation events for them I think

[Anonymous No.11135202]

>>11129697
>>11130034

[Anonymous No.11135213]

>>11134987
Interesting, you might need some kind of "flame catcher" for lack of a better term to increase mixing time of the fuel and exhaust.
I wish you the best of luck.

[Anonymous No.11135220]

>>11135202
I don't think that would work, but six, with Atlas style skirt bulges on the side, would totally work and probably improve the ascent profile and efficiency for heavy payloads

[Anonymous No.11135221]

>>11135213
it's a monoprop, the only fuel that's going in there is the combustion chamber itself

[Anonymous No.11135223]

>>11135202

[Anonymous No.11135224]

>>11135220
eight, two engines in each bulge

[Anonymous No.11135225]

>>11135213
Well it's too late to add that, but hopefully the steep contraction to the throat might serve the same purpose.

[Anonymous No.11135242]

>>11135202
>not doing an octaweb layout

[Anonymous No.11135304]

[Anonymous No.11135306]

[Anonymous No.11135310]

>>11135304

S T A C C

T

A

C

C

[Anonymous No.11135319]

suppose I should make the launch thread now that someone's posting the pics heh

>>11135314
>>11135314
>>11135314

[Anonymous No.11135382]

>>11135304
Are you ready to play "52 Pick-Up", Elon-style?

[Anonymous No.11135387]

>>11135382
>these bitches need internet
>YEET

[Anonymous No.11135444]

>>11134552
You know, you have a 'tell' yourself my friend.

[Anonymous No.11135448]

New thread:
>>11134766

[Anonymous No.11135771]

>>11128909
spacexfags btfo