/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.11146344]

Crew Dragon breathing fire edition

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-BYd2b3thg

old thread: >>11134766

[Anonymous No.11146354]

>>11146344
https://spacenews.com/house-committee-raises-doubts-about-artemis/

>tl;dr less Gateway, less commercial launches, moar SLS

[Anonymous No.11146375]

Is L2 worth it for someone who's just a spaceflight nerd but not actually in the industry?

[Anonymous No.11146381]

>>11146354
The headline is kinda misleading, the committee didn’t raise doubts about Moon return itself, actually it was surprisingly pro-Moon before Mars. What they raised doubts about is the 2024 deadline and the use of commercial companies/distributed launches. The House Representatives want more SLS and less commercial because their on Boeing’s paycheque and the Apollo-astronaut witnesses want NASA to build the lander traditional style and dislike the Gateway and use of distributed launch because “docking is hard” (despite the fact that most docking is done automatically nowadays) and more launches means bigger chance of failure. The Apollo guys are basically advocating for, unsurprisingly Apollo 2.0...

[Anonymous No.11146392]

How much of the idea is true with regards to spacex using dc-x rocket technology? Or is it just outward similarity because physics of vertical landing and spacex independently created their own tech?

[Anonymous No.11146411]

>>11146375
If you had to ask the value of your money, then no.

[Anonymous No.11146412]

>>11146392
SpaceX probably took some notes from the DC-X, but I think that they mostly made their own tech using the DC-X has inspiration. I think this mainly because Blue Origin was the one who took in most of the DC-X engineers which would leave few for SpaceX. The rest is convergent desgin due to similar parameters.

[Anonymous No.11146421]

>>11146392
>How much of the idea is true with regards to spacex using dc-x rocket technology?

Not much, while both vehicles are VTVL, that is basically where similarities end.

[Anonymous No.11146437]

>>11146392
From Wikipedia: “Several engineers who worked on the DC-X were hired by Blue Origin, and their New Shepard vehicle was inspired by the DC-X design. Blue Origin does not require the high cross range capabilities, and therefore uses a base-first re-entry profile. Also, the DC-X provided inspiration for many elements of Armadillo Aerospace's, Masten Space Systems's, and TGV Rockets's spacecraft designs.”

[Anonymous No.11146492]

>>11146375
I thought so. Also gains access to terabytes of historical movies and documents you can't find elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.11146499]

>>11146344

[Anonymous No.11146623]

How would your decorate your starship's interior?

[Anonymous No.11146639]

>>11146623
Gaudily, with a focus on chrome detailing and retrofuturistic elements.

[Anonymous No.11146750]

>>11146623
>How would your decorate your starship's interior?

Coffins needed for the massive deaths from the first Mars accident.

[Anonymous No.11146760]

>>11146623
Anime tiddy wallpaper

[Anonymous No.11146821]

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-005.pdf

OIG report on CCP

[Anonymous No.11146838]

>>11146623
no starbucks?

[Anonymous No.11146845]

>>11146821
$90 million vs. $55 million per seat

[Anonymous No.11146854]

>>11146821
>$50 billion

[Anonymous No.11146856]

>>11146854
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1194667564498137089

[Anonymous No.11146857]

man I wish I got paid 287 million dollars because I was Boeing because Boeing

[Anonymous No.11146866]

>A few pics taken this morning at the launch site.

[Anonymous No.11146867]

>>11146845
how the fuck is the soyuz still cheaper despite being 4 times the price it should be

[Anonymous No.11146868]

>>11146821
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-boeing-seat-prices-are-60-higher-than-spacex/

Berger article is up already

[Anonymous No.11146872]

>>11146867
What's the justification for the rise in cost seen here? Just greed?

[Anonymous No.11146885]

>>11146872
Notice how the price starts to rise just as the shuttle is retiring

[Anonymous No.11146887]

>>11146872
That and a break down in relations between the US and Russia after Crimea and the 2016 election...

[Anonymous No.11146889]

>>11146854
Atrocious. The launch tower alone costs almost 1 Billion because it fucking bends and they have to replace shit all over. 1 fucking billion.

[Anonymous No.11146901]

Anyone read pic related? I just begun reading it, so far seems interesting.

[Anonymous No.11146908]

>>11146889
Technically the launch tower was a freebie left over from Constellation (it was originally designed for Ares 1) and the increased weight due to modifications needed for SLS made it lean.

[Anonymous No.11146913]

funky ass high-flow plumbing - maybe for the header tanks since they're at janky angles and need to circumvent the Chomper?

[Anonymous No.11146936]

Does NASA have an abort sequence for their launch tower collapsing? Asking for a friend

[Anonymous No.11146944]

>>11146872
>greed
Can you blame them? There is also more liability as the outdated Soyuz becomes less reliable, according to the Russians themselves. So far NASA has given Russia more money for these seats than what they gave SpaceX for the Dragon. They were smart enough to lull NASA in with relatively cheap seats and then tighten the screws as the got more desperate.
>>11146854
Where is the Boeing shill to defend this? I summon him.

[Anonymous No.11146946]

>>11146936
"Run"

[Anonymous No.11146954]

>>11146623

[Anonymous No.11146967]

>>11146954
>Luxury-class Starships
We got the best spaceships.

[Anonymous No.11146969]

>>11146854
>>11146856
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/MC-2019.pdf

$50B is just for 2020-2024.

NASA has already spent $34 B as of 2019 on SLS project. So that's $88 B spent on just 2024.

So who was saying SLS's $2B is fake? Or that $4B adjusted is fake? Those are low ball estimates. The estimate is going to be >$10 billion per flight by 2030. Screenshot this moment in history.

[Anonymous No.11146984]

>>11146889
I just don't understand this reusable launch tower meme.

The amount of money you can save from reusing towers isn’t enough to justify how much harder it makes it to complete the difficult launches that usually make money in the rocket launch 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 structural science in general, it’s almost always much more effective to throw away the tower after it’s done its job than to figure out how to make recovery part of the mission. I know of no major technology on the near term horizon that would change that.

Even if reusable towers are possible now, but when reliability is THE number one priority (in this case the rocket takes up 2/3rds of the cost and the actual tower only 1/3rd) it makes absolutely no sense. Like, look at this tower (pic related). This represents some of the most advanced technologies in the civil engineering 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 towers popular, then that doesn't mean that we will have the sci-fi future of millions of towers per year. We'll be lucky to see more than a couple dozen per year. Dial down your expectations, don't buy into the 'reusability for launch towers' meme.

[Anonymous No.11147000]

"However, Boeing continued to press NASA for additional funding. After "prolonged negotiations," according to Martin, Boeing offered some benefits to NASA, such as reduced lead times before the missions and a variable launch cadence. NASA then agreed to pay the additional $287.2 million for these four missions, which are likely to fly in the early 2020s.

Perhaps the most striking rationale for approving the additional funds was that Boeing may have discussed backing out of the commercial crew program (CCP)"

How is this not extortion? What was going to happen with the billions of dollars they received if they backed out? I thought the point of a contract was to ensure something like this couldn't happen.

[Anonymous No.11147003]

>>11146984
Is this sarcasm? Or a thunderf00t-post?
Because i honestly cant tell anymore, 4chan has jaded me

[Anonymous No.11147004]

>>11147000
>What was going to happen with the billions of dollars they received if they backed out?
Who cares? It's taxpayer money. /s

[Anonymous No.11147009]

>>11147000
It looks like extortion. They already got almost twice as much money for CCP and then they demand actual per flight contract to be much higher as well. What a crock of shit.

[Anonymous No.11147016]

>>11147003
It's a copy-pasta, bro.

[Anonymous No.11147021]

>>11147000
>I thought the point of a contract was to ensure something like this couldn't happen
Yeah, about that.....you dont want to take money away from god-loving, good-old american blue colar workers, right? Such a thing is highly unpatriotic, almost worse than proposing to build something like a dep...de...i cant even utter the word, desu

[Anonymous No.11147028]

>>11147000
NASA rewarding Boeing for bad behavior, AGAIN.

[Anonymous No.11147054]

>>11147009
The extortion is terrible, but Boeing got more money initially because SpaceX underbid to win the contract and because they had a head start due crossover with the CRS program, Boeing started from a clean sheet.

>>11147028
These negotiations occurred all the way back in 2016, it’s weird that OIG would only bring it up now...

[Anonymous No.11147061]

From SLS L2:

Re: Core Stage-1 status, Boeing says the engines should be hard-mated (fully connected, ready for testing) by first shift tomorrow. Final Integrated Functional Testing (FIFT) set to start on Saturday.

Last major connections are a few sections of the tank (re)press lines, which should be completed and leak tested next week.

All the other major connections are done or will be ready to support FIFT by Saturday and they can start with test cases that don't apply to the press lines.

Timing of the rollout for ship to Stennis will depend on how clean FIFT is and there is some post-testing work and preps for shipping. Plus a bunch of NASA reviews, some of which are beginning soon.

The goal is for the Michoud team to be home on Christmas -- i.e., the stage has left MAF on Pegasus by then.

[Anonymous No.11147063]

>>11147054
>These negotiations occurred all the way back in 2016, it’s weird that OIG would only bring it up now...
Not so, they got rid of the old guy who was probably mis-characterizing these "negotiations" in order to either/both play the long game and to appease certain senators.

[Anonymous No.11147072]

>>11146623
just cover every available surface with dragon dildos

[Anonymous No.11147079]

>>11146381
>despite the fact that most docking is done automatically nowadays

isn't it only russian vehicles Soyuz and Progres that dock automatically

[Anonymous No.11147080]

>>11147079
Crew Dragon does and Starliner will, they use the same universal docking systems and hardware.

[Anonymous No.11147093]

>>11147003
It’s a copy-pasta parodying people who think reusable booster rockets aren’t a good idea or something like that

[Anonymous No.11147097]

>>11147080
Orion will have automatic docking as well by Artemis 3. It won't for the first two missions because it's not needed.

[Anonymous No.11147098]

>>11146623
Not like that for fucking sure. What brainlet designed that?

>Two floors taken up with crash couches
>Not using your crash couches as beds, having them fold down in the cabins
>Empty fucking floor
>Bicycle machines, not resistance equipment
>Shit use of space in general

0/10 would space the designer

[Anonymous No.11147103]

>>11147098
Also orienting everything like the ship will be under 1 g constantly, leading to inefficient use of space.

[Anonymous No.11147105]

0/10 not enough beanbag chairs or spherical furniture.

[Anonymous No.11147109]

>>11147103
I would orient stuff like that if I was doing it because they really should tether two together for a little artificial g, would simplify a lot of on board systems tremendously and means it's usable on Mars for accommodation when they land.

[Anonymous No.11147117]

That’s a big rover...

[Anonymous No.11147119]

>>11147054
>These negotiations occurred all the way back in 2016, it’s weird that OIG would only bring it up now...
Maybe due to the fact that Boeing didn't speed up their lead times like they said they would and they're still years behind schedule despite the extra money.

What is odd is how a company that earns 94 billion dollars a year in revenue would threaten to drop a government contract unless they received 1/376th of that. They would be biting the hand that feeds them when they're already running low on excuses.

[Anonymous No.11147123]

>>11147109
The problem with two ships tethered together for spinning Gs is mid course corrections.

[Anonymous No.11147136]

my favorite part of Shelbyposting is how I've never seen two that were identical
truly, we have reached the age of expendable memes

[Anonymous No.11147249]

>>11146623
>Top floor gym equipment
>Floor two toilets, showers, sinks
>Floor three kitchen and rec space
>Floor four rec space
>Bottom three floors packed tight with cabins that have crash couches that break down into beds like other anon suggests

That would be a pretty good use of space I think, keeps the noisy gym equipment and washrooms away from the cabins and gives a good amount of recreational space. I would also have a shaft running down the middle, maybe a metre or so in diameter for access, run ladders up it and the walls of the shaft can be cylindrical tanks that hold potable water, waste water, etc... Gives a nice big storm shelter.

[Anonymous No.11147277]

>>11146623
I was going to go with a pool inside of it but I figure that's going to far.

[Anonymous No.11147306]

>>11147277
>pool
you can't do pools in microgravity, although pools are going to be the best thing on the Moon

[Anonymous No.11147326]

"NASA accepted the elevated risk for the March 2019 uncrewed SpaceX flight test, acknowledging that a COPV burst in the vicinity of or while attached to the ISS would result in loss of the Station."

[Anonymous No.11147330]

>>11147306
isn't there a theoretical study for a pool on the moon

imagine a huge pool with a glass dome over it. would that be doable?

also, would it be possible to do a rotating habitat in space with pools at different gs at different distances from the arm?

how about a continuous swimming pool that changes gravity along the way?

[Anonymous No.11147334]

>>11147326
lol they're tired of that piece of shit and send the crew dragon to fuck it up, only way to free up the funds, and with luck the crew makes it to the soyuz

[Anonymous No.11147351]

>>11147330
xkcd did a thing on swimming pools on the moon, something about being able to leap your body height out of the water or something

[Anonymous No.11147364]

>>11147326
The same could be said about any pressure vessel and yet they're allowed near the ISS. Why is NASA so particular about COPVs?

[Anonymous No.11147399]

>>11146623
Late 1960's future vibe aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.11147403]

>>11147364
COPVs are very complex/finicky and have been shown to fail relatively often compared to other vessels.

For example, from the Post-DM-1 press conference:

Bill Gerstenmaier, HEOMD:

>You asked about Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels. We're still working through that for the crewed flight. Again, the way we do things in human spaceflight is, we not only need to meet the design, but we need to understand physically which parameters are driving a bad outcome. So for example, what are the ignition parameters that could cause a COPV to ignite? And then we need to show physical controls of how we prevent those individual physical parameters from contributing to the final event. So I think we've done the statistical analysis that says hey, this is a very low probability event, it's not going to happen very often. But now we're going through what are the physics behind that? What could be an ignition source? So one of the things are the Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel has fibers that are twisted together into things called tows. As those pressurize, they can break. And as they break, they can potentially generate heat. If they can generate enough heat in the oxygen environment, they can be an ignition source. So now we're going back and we're proving to ourselves that this breaking is so unlikely that it's not going to be a concern to cause an ignition event and cause the problem moving forward. So that's one example of the things we're working.

[Anonymous No.11147414]

>>11147098
Bed/crash couch can be converted to a medical bed too.

[Anonymous No.11147420]

Was anyone else here following spaceflight in the Aughts during the Constellation era? God what a blackpilling time

[Anonymous No.11147421]

>1.6B in additional funding
Another furlough on Christmas, but
Whitie on the moon

[Anonymous No.11147427]

>>11147420
I tuned out of spaceflight entirely a long time ago, I was convinced we were never going to get off this shitdump rock until a friend sent me the video of the first Falcon they brought back to the droneship, what a whitepill that was.

[Anonymous No.11147433]

>>11147420
After Constellation got canned, I pretty much stopped keeping track of what's happening during spaceflight until two years ago. Felt like after the Shuttle and its planned replacement ended, there was no point to follow spaceflight (as an American) since the one agency that's supposed to be pushing the boundaries of space exploration was seemed like it was stepping down.

[Anonymous No.11147440]

>>11147427
Man remember when nu-space was just a few small groups lauching little rinky dink rockets in the desert?

[Anonymous No.11147446]

>>11147427
For me Falcon Heavy was my whitepill. I didn't even know SpaceX was successfully landing their rockets until then. I've heard about it when the concept was at it's infancy, but I was fully expecting it to be dropped later.

[Anonymous No.11147450]

>>11147420
Lol, surely you mean the most BASED and RED-PILLED time!?

[Anonymous No.11147517]

>>11146623
>>11147277
>>11147306
On second thought, screw it. The pool will either be sealed during flight or left empty and filled with melted ice from Mars. It requires a larger diameter hull so SpaceX will have to make the Super Starship, but it will still be cheaper than the SLS.

[Anonymous No.11147527]

>>11147517
if you want a recreational pool on Mars it would be better to just build one

[Anonymous No.11147577]

>>11147450
>you'll never ride the launch abort roller coaster

[Anonymous No.11147609]

>>11147527
How so? It would need its own life support system and enclosure. You would have to bring the materials there anyway so I think it would be easier to just make it part of the ship.

[Anonymous No.11147612]

>>11147609
If you are at the point where you are sending super starships to Mars you certainly already have big habitats which you can dig a hole in and line with concrete.

[Anonymous No.11147617]

So despite all the bs the SLS is a total lock for at least one launch right? I don't know if i can take another constellation 1-X sort of lauch blackpill

[Anonymous No.11147622]

>>11147617
I think at the very least it is locked in until all of the used SSMEs are gone. Which is 3 launches IIRC. And despite all the shit I give the SLS (pbui), I would happily watch it's launches.

[Anonymous No.11147624]

>>11147617
10 have been ordered so worst case the first one cato's and however many have been finished get a chance to cato too.

[Anonymous No.11147639]

>>11147622
Totally man. Depsite all the shit I give it I still believe it will be a spectactular launch. But still, the sole constellation launch(The 1-X) was so underwhelming (A 4-stack SRB with a dummy 5th stack and a dummy uppper stage) leaves me very cautious of NASA are handling the SLS
>tfw NASA would have been better off using a modernised Shuttle-C

[Anonymous No.11147644]

Haven't seen any updates on the starship prototype for a while, wonder how far we are from the 20km test.

[Anonymous No.11147651]

>>11147639
Well, SLS is far far FAR more developed than Ares I-X. I-X was pretty much a KSP rocket that was thrown together from spare parts. SLS is more "real".

>tfw NASA would have been better off using a modernised Shuttle-C
Could work, but I think it wouldn't be approved by NASA due to the fact that when it was introduced there were fears that it could kill the manned spaceflight program (or so I've heard) which is one of the reasons why the Shuttle was held on for so long. And so that negative connotation stuck with it.

[Anonymous No.11147657]

>>11147644
See >>11146866
Looks like they are close enough they are filling the storage tanks with LOX, no idea how fast boil-off is in them but I suspect it'll be within a week.

[Anonymous No.11147660]

>>11147657
When will it hop?

[Anonymous No.11147675]

>>11147660
I don't know what you consider a hop but I've read that this test will be a belly flop landing which should be entertaining regardless of if it succeeds.

[Anonymous No.11147688]

NASA's reply to the OIG audit.

TL;DR:
We dindu nuffin'.

[Anonymous No.11147705]

>>11146499
good fucking lord

[Anonymous No.11147712]

>>11146623
>we will soon have a ship so large that it will need an elevator

i love this reality

[Anonymous No.11147713]

>>11147688
>However, there is an opinion, three years after the fact and there is no evidence to support the conclusion that Boeing would have agreed to lower prices
Well, no shit. You guys have been giving them highly inflated prices for a while, of course Boeing isn't going to accept lower prices because that's what's expected now. High price, little results.

[Anonymous No.11147765]

>>11146969
Can't you read?

[Anonymous No.11147789]

>>11147688
>well we need two so we have to pay whatever boeing asks
should have threatened to give it to sierra nevada

[Anonymous No.11147792]

>>11147789
Fuck SNC, they're not putting windows in the crewed dreamchaser

[Anonymous No.11147794]

>>11147789
I'm pretty sure that's impossible given Congressional preference to Boeing. If NASA gave it to someone else, then Congress would probably have written a law that said that NASA has to give it to Boeing, like how it was written into law that NASA must complete and fly the SLS.

[Anonymous No.11147797]

>>11147688
1. Ask NASA to increase PCM prices, get refused
2. Get some Boeing stooge at NASA to ask Boeing back how to optimize schedule due to technical delays
3. Quote back that same figure from step 1
4. No ???? here, lightly hint you may need to drop out for pure extortion
5. PROFIT
6. Also sell NASA Soyuz seats that would have solved step 2
7. EXTRA PROFIT

[Anonymous No.11147835]

>>11147651
>Could work, but I think it wouldn't be approved by NASA due to the fact that when it was introduced there were fears that it could kill the manned spaceflight program (or so I've heard) which is one of the reasons why the Shuttle was held on for so long. And so that negative connotation stuck with it.
I don't know about that. I think we're all aware that SLS etc exist only to fufil the contract requirments made during the Constellation Program (5 segemnt booster, Orion capsule etc). If a fresh start approach was in the wings, a Shuttle-C program would have been politically obtainable, what with all the old shuttle contracters being kept in work
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xa4f7h

[Anonymous No.11147859]

>>11147835
Sorry, I tried to find a source to that rumor, but I can't find it.

[Anonymous No.11147887]

>>11147705
That is very old now, they said they were making a robot to grab the bottom of the falcon and electro-magnet it to the deck. That said I haven't seen any photos of it in use.

[Anonymous No.11147892]

>>11147103
Even worse, under constant 1G, most of the shit would be inaccessible for half the trip.

[Anonymous No.11147898]

>>11147859
I don't know abour any rumours. It's just that NASA gave out contracts for the Constellation program prior to Obama taking office that his administarion had to account for (The Orion capsule, 5 segment booster, etc). It's mainly just Boeing propaganda you're thinking of to justify their continued existence

[Anonymous No.11147899]

>>11146969
>he can't read

[Anonymous No.11147945]

>>11146872
you wanted them to become capitalists, they did, why are you bitching about it now?

[Anonymous No.11147950]

>>11147117
Pence is resisting the urge to cop a feel

[Anonymous No.11148146]

Starlink trains make me feel like we have entered into an era of space industrialization. Before we know it, people will be able to look up into space and see all kinds of things with just their eyes.

[Anonymous No.11148153]

>>11148146
Mood.

[Anonymous No.11148185]

>>11147450
I still have no clear idea on how this was supposed to work. What was the function, besides fun?

[Anonymous No.11148189]

>>11147950
this is the man who thinks gays are a bigger threat to man's existence than climate change

[Anonymous No.11148204]

>>11148189
But gays are tho?

[Anonymous No.11148210]

>>11147399
Based and HALpilled
>>11148204
This. The sun does most of the actual climate change, it's not 100% stable.
Gays and other faggots spread AIDS more than straights.

[Anonymous No.11148278]

>>11147399
this picture is why design is bullshit

[Anonymous No.11148283]

>>11146623
decorating is for women and fags
i say this as a fag

[Anonymous No.11148286]

>>11148189
I defy you to prove sexual degeneracy contributes to climate change.

[Anonymous No.11148289]

>>11148286
>prove sexual degeneracy contributes to climate change
Isn't it obvious?

[Anonymous No.11148300]

>>11148289
I mean obviously it's because God disproves of anal, I'm just curious about the mechanism of His wrath.

[Anonymous No.11148333]

>>11148300
I g-d disapproved of anal, how would men surprise their girlfriend on their anniversary? Anal is not a degenerate practice

[Anonymous No.11148345]

>>11148185
It gets the astronauts and/or crew off the tower and into the bunker quickly in the event of a leak or fire or something.

STS had a fun zipline, and I believe ULA is using a similar setup for Starliner.

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

[Anonymous No.11148356]

>>11148286
The proof is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader.

[Anonymous No.11148363]

>>11147420
Yeah I worked at Kennedy Space Center in late 2000s. Obama made the right choice in listening to the Augustine commission

[Anonymous No.11148477]

>>11148210
How come there are huge AIDS/HIV epidemics in countries that despise fags unlike countries where its allowed?

[Anonymous No.11148583]

I noticed in the Saturn V the plume climbs up the first stage on the upper atmosphere. Anyone knows what causes this? Low pressure can make the gasses creep up the rocket?

[Anonymous No.11148640]

>>11147688
I do wonder why the OIG are bringing up an incident that happened 3 years ago now and are treating it like there’s an urgent problem with NASA’s current management. As when you consider that half the current senior management hadn’t risen to their position at that time, Jim B wasn’t made admin until 2017, Morhard was brought on in 2018 and Gerst was fired by Jim to stop these things happening. What are OIG gonna do to rectify this? hunt down Charlie Bolden, Lori Garver, Gerst and the rest of the Obama admin’s NASA HSF officials ?

[Anonymous No.11148772]

>>11148477

[Anonymous No.11148817]

>>11148278
Wasn't it just a rest stop location in that movie?

[Anonymous No.11148820]

>>11148153
Moon colony?

[Anonymous No.11148859]

>>11148640
>there’s an urgent problem with NASA’s current management
There is an urgent problem with NASA's current management. Doubling down on SLS proves that they're just as culpable as the last staff in poor decision making. We didn't need the toothless OIG to state this in order to see the clear sunken cost fallacy and corruption that drives the NASA administration. The majority of the time OIG sides with NASA, but the commercial crew fuckery was too much even for them.

[Anonymous No.11148864]

>>11148859
I have an uneasy feeling about SLS-for some reason i really think the first launch will fail. I hope not.

[Anonymous No.11148875]

>>11148864
I hope it does. It would be a visual example of the failure, which exists regardless of if the mission exceeds. This must be one of the largest wastes of money in history.

NASA could have literally bought 500 Falcon Heavy launches for the same cost as the SLS program, which is now predicted to be over 50 billion dollars, despite being a bunch of outdated space shuttle parts pasted together.

[Anonymous No.11148876]

>>11148875
succeeds*

[Anonymous No.11148877]

>>11148859
>Doubling down on SLS proves that they're just as culpable as the last staff in poor decision making

I mean the current management actually got Boeing to significantly pick up pace on CS-1 and it’ll likely be finished and shipped by Christmas. Abandoning SLS at this point would be retarded due to the lack of credible alternatives.

[Anonymous No.11148893]

>>11148875
50 billion before the first human launch in 2024.

[Anonymous No.11148898]

>>11148877
Falcon Heavy is the alternative, especially now since they're considering scrapping the Lunar Gateway entirely and going with Apollo style missions. I'm not arguing that the SLS won't soon be ready, but it's like the government spending 10 million dollars on a used 1992 Honda Civic, even if it is a good car that doesn't break down, it's still absurd to go through with it purchasing it.

NASA is, what, 20 billion dollars into the SLS program? There's at least 30 billion dollars left on the table they can walk away with and use for other missions on top of fulfilling Artemis.

[Anonymous No.11148922]

>>11148898
>Falcon Heavy is the alternative, especially now since they're considering scrapping the Lunar Gateway entirely and going with Apollo style missions.

NASA aren’t planning to scrap the Gateway and all the hardware contracts for it will have been signed by the end of this year. It’s certain Boeing-influenced elements of Congress that want to scrap Gateway and non-Boeing commercial landers, just because their likely to be launched on commercial vehicles instead of SLS. They want an Apollo 2.0 using only SLS, whilst NASA wants a mixed-fleet approach for assembling Gateway and the landers.

>NASA is, what, 20 billion dollars into the SLS program? There's at least 30 billion dollars left on the table they can walk away with and use for other missions on top of fulfilling Artemis.

Those dollars will only exist because of SLS, if it were to be cancelled the money would disappear. Congress don’t give NASA a blank cheque to buy what they want, they appropriate a certain amount for each program, that can only be spent on that program.

[Anonymous No.11148969]

>>11148922
I have to agree. I think scrapping SLS would be stupid at this point but not nearly as stupid as the program was in the first place. Also, has NASA seriously indicated wanting commercial launches for gateway?

[Anonymous No.11148979]

>>11148922
We'll have to see the outcome at the end of this year, NASA was already under a lot of pressure to limit or end Gateway before the recent lobbying attempt. Regardless, it's possible for Falcon Heavy or other vehicles to do the most of the missions and use the existing SLS contract to assemble Gateway without having to fund SLS further. It's the further funding I have a problem with, not the specifics of the projects.
>Those dollars will only exist because of SLS, if it were to be cancelled the money would disappear.
Sorry, I was being a bit specious for the sake of simplifying the argument. The money wouldn't evaporate, it would go back into the government to be used on other areas that are not nearly as wasteful. NASA would likely get funding for other projects in its place. Perhaps they wouldn't get the equivalent amount, but they don't need that much to run successful missions. Some of their best work cost well under a billion.

One of the worse things that could possibly happen for NASA's funding is Starship beating them to the moon and proving that the 50 billion dollars for SLS was wasted. It will be such a clear example that it doesn't matter how much money you give them, they'll waste it and give ammo to those who want to defund it. Cutting their losses now shows that they're at least somewhat rational in their decision making. There's hell to pay if they keep doubling down.

[Anonymous No.11148986]

>>11148969
>Also, has NASA seriously indicated wanting commercial launches for gateway?

Yes, Orion/SLS will only be used to transport astronauts to the Gateway, where they will board the HLS and head to the Lunar surface. Both the Gateway modules and HLS elements are supposed to be launched by commercial rockets of the manufacturer’s choice (e.g. Northrop’s HALO module will likely be launched by OmegA) as part of a multiple-launch architecture that NASA calls a “mixed-fleet” approach. This is in contrast to an Apollo-style one mission, one launch architecture.

[Anonymous No.11148997]

>>11147000
FUCK old space

[Anonymous No.11149032]

>>11148986
Wasn't one of the arguments for SLS is that it is the only vehicle capable of fitting/lifting Gateway without needing to assemble most of it onsite?

[Anonymous No.11149034]

>>11149032
I think that was only for the blocks after block 1.

[Anonymous No.11149038]

>>11147003
Do you seriously think that thunderf00t would be against reusing the launch tower? I mean, I know the man is very pessimistic about new spaceflight developments, but I don't think he's that stupid.

[Anonymous No.11149041]

>>11149034
Looks like they're bringing a lot of the modules after that. 2025 and onward, that's definitely Starship territory.

[Anonymous No.11149065]

This raises the question, does anyone here actually think Gateway is worth it compared to going directly to the moon and possibly building a base on the surface there instead?

[Anonymous No.11149070]

>>11147117
Still smaller than the ones we've sent to mars over the last 15 years.

[Anonymous No.11149076]

>>11149070
What are you talking about? The only Mars rover that's bigger than that thing is Curiosity.

[Anonymous No.11149082]

>>11149065
I'm still not sure what it's supposed to be for, I'd have thought "place to park/refuel lander" but no they're going expendable.

[Anonymous No.11149083]

>>11149032
That argument was for SLS Block 1B with the EUS, which is designed to be able to co-manifest 10 tons of cargo (a Gateway module) along with Orion to TLI (37 tons total).

>>11149041
The first two (PPE and HALO) have been ordered and the Gateway Cargo module will be by the end of this year. But the post-Artemis 3 modules are still up in the air, a lot of the known ones are foreign/international modules e.g. Canadarm 3, a Russian airlock/docking module, ESPRIT- a ESA built refuelling module. The only American one so far seems to be a bigger habitation module.

[Anonymous No.11149086]

>>11149082
Lockheed says their ascent element for Blue Moon is reusable/refuel able.

[Anonymous No.11149089]

The old name was better.

[Anonymous No.11149090]

>>11148583
Watch any f9 flight where the cam tracks it high up and you'll see the same
tldr; yes

[Anonymous No.11149093]

>>11149083

[Anonymous No.11149096]

>>11147003
There's an element of truth to the whole expendable launch mount thing...

[Anonymous No.11149097]

>>11149041
This always blows my mind.
BE-4 hasn't flown a single thing, and NG still isn't a real rocket. However, it is already slated to launch missions in 3 years time?
I can understand funding BO to move them along and get hardware going, but actually buying launches when other hardware currently exists?
I guess BO teaming up with old space gets them automatic contracts.

[Anonymous No.11149098]

>>11149086
Just the ascent module? So then what, you land, throw away the landing stage, park the ascent stage and go home, then the next mission has to fly a new landing module out there to dock with the reusable ascent stage?

[Anonymous No.11149101]

>>11149076
Spirit and opportunity were both bigger. That one in the picture just has wrapping around the majority of the body. Sheer size/weight makes it smaller.

[Anonymous No.11149102]

>>11149097
>By 2018, Blue Origin had contracts in place with four customers for New Glenn flights. Eutelsat, Thailand startup mu Space Corp and SKY Perfect JSAT have geosynchronous orbit commsat launches planned after 2020, while internet satellite constellation fleet operator OneWeb has an agreement for five launches.

>In January 2019, Telesat signed a multi-launch contract "to launch satellites for its future low-Earth-orbit broadband constellation on multiple New Glenn missions" and thus is Blue's fifth customer.

>In May 2019, NASA awarded a contract to Maxar Technologies for the Lunar Gateway's Power and Propulsion Element, and this contract includes Maxar launching the element on a New Glenn rocket.

And this doesn’t include the ULA engine contract either...

[Anonymous No.11149103]

>>11149089
>some nazi larpers use something
>suddenly it's not cool to use that something
Lame. Treating anything the nazis (and nazi larpers) touch as awful is just going to bring more attention to them.

>Responding to a question at a press conference, Alan Stern said, "Just because some bad guys once liked that term, we’re not going to let them hijack it."
This is the best and most based reaction to this.

[Anonymous No.11149107]

>>11149097
You also have to remember that SpaceX isn't making alot of friends in the industry so they have to actually demonstrate that their stuff works to make a more compelling argument for getting government contracts. Everyone else can get away with studies because of their relations.

[Anonymous No.11149108]

>>11149098
Yes, I’m sure reusability is also in the pipeline for Blue Moon (the descent element), but that can only happen once ISRU is a thing (that’s the whole point of using hydrogen and oxygen for propellant).

[Anonymous No.11149110]

>>11149108
Sounds like more work than it's worth, but I hope I'm wrong and it works out cheaply and efficiently.

[Anonymous No.11149111]

>>11147420
Much less intense but yes. Until certain memester began landing rockets and making big early space pioneer tier promises I had signed off spaceflight as impossibility beyond the occasional small scientific probe every odd decade.

[Anonymous No.11149115]

>>11149097
>>11149102
>>11149107

Bezos is playing the politics game while Musk is pointing out the airforce guys that said ULA was the only option now "work" for ULA as in they collect a paycheck but don't actually do anything.

[Anonymous No.11149118]

>>11149110
If ISRU does it will, basing your lunar architecture on hydrogen instead of hypergolics or more benign cryogenics is a long-term investment/gamble.

[Anonymous No.11149120]

>>11149115
>Musk is pointing out the airforce guys that said ULA was the only option now "work" for ULA as in they collect a paycheck but don't actually do anything.
Did anything come from that other than SpaceX getting more contracts?

[Anonymous No.11149127]

>>11149120
Not that I have heard of, the only people that can push for criminal charges are congress and it's not in their best interests to start fighting corruption.

[Anonymous No.11149130]

>>11149127
>the only people that can push for criminal charges are congress and it's not in their best interests to start fighting corruption

[Anonymous No.11149137]

>>11149130
Proven corruption like voting to give X company a contract then taking a job or payment from that company should be treated as treason, in time of war treason should result in death.
This way you not only discourge corruption you also get congress to stop promoting endless war.

[Anonymous No.11149143]

>>11148875
>>11148893
yeah 50 billion before 2024, it will probably amount to around 100 billion by 2030 when block two launches

block two will be THE ONLY VERSION that provides any real benefit over current existing rockets.

To put it bluntly

what you could by with 50 million last year from spacex you will be spending 50.000 times more on it until 2030 when you could buy it cheaper

[Anonymous No.11149150]

>>11146354
BECAUSE BOEING! Boeing's not a contractor for the gateway anymore

[Anonymous No.11149151]

31 years ago Buran went to space for first and only time.
She wasn't perfect but did not deserve such a terrible fate.

[Anonymous No.11149155]

>>11149093
design by comitee: the movie: the game

[Anonymous No.11149161]

>>11149103
>Lame. Treating anything the nazis (and nazi larpers) touch as awful is just going to bring more attention to them.

if nasa doesnt like things even vaguely related to nazis they might want to not talk about one of their programs

[Anonymous No.11149162]

>>11149143
>$50b
>no launch yet
We could have made 400 F-35Bs for that much.

[Anonymous No.11149164]

>>11149151
Is the only reason the USSR cloned the shuttle so they could have nukes in orbit without everyone knowing?
I know the airforce made changes to the shuttle that many believe was so nukes could be kept in the cargo bay and deorbited, effectively coming in above long range warning radars and reducing retaliation time.

[Supreme priest Eric No.11149175]

>>11149162 ok this may sound like a autistic question but I dont see a point in this

[Anonymous No.11149180]

>>11149164
The soviets thought the shuttle was designed for dropping nukes and they wanted their own version.

[Anonymous No.11149183]

>>11149175
Of the VTOL capability you mean? It's so you can take off and land on smaller spaces, plus it looks really cool.

[Anonymous No.11149186]

>>11149175
There is none. The marines want CAS under their command despite being part of the navy (the second largest airforce on earth) but the navy doesn't want the marines to have real carriers so they run "assault ships". These designed for choppers but they put Harriers on them and it (kind of) worked so now the marines want VTOL joint strike fighters.
The catch with VTOL is payload is reduced greatly and to carry a useful weapons load you have to take off nearly empty on fuel and refuel in the air.

[Anonymous No.11149190]

>>11149186
>to carry a useful weapons load you have to take off nearly empty on fuel and refuel in the air.
No fucking way, that can't be true.

[Anonymous No.11149195]

>>11149190
Everything about the F-35B is still very hard to find but the AV-8B Harrier can VTO @ 22,000lb and weighs 25,000 fully fueled with no weapons. This was seen as great by the marines.

[Anonymous No.11149208]

>>11148922

>Those dollars will only exist because of SLS, if it were to be cancelled the money would disappear.

Meme from SLS fanboy rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.11149209]

>>11149164
>Is the only reason the USSR cloned the shuttle so they could have nukes in orbit without everyone knowing?
While a shuttle-like spacecraft can carry something into orbit with no outward indication of what the payload is, I think the Soviets copied the Shuttle mostly because they wanted to prove that they can.

[Anonymous No.11149213]

>>11149195
I'd sure as fuck hope the F35B has better stats than a Harrier after all the money we spent developing it, if it can't even lift the fuel and weapons it needs to be useful then what the fuck would the point of it be?

[Anonymous No.11149217]

>>11149208
No, he has a point. The billions going to NASA for the SLS is specifically meant for it. If the program gets canceled, then the money stops. NASA doesn't get one lump sum of money to do what it wants. It gets a budgets for each specific project and those budgets can only be used for their respective projects.

[Anonymous No.11149224]

>>11149217

New program initiatives would be created to fill the budget wake because both the administration and congress has interest in the continuation of NASA and its human spaceflight role.

They would decide what to do instead.

[Anonymous No.11149225]

>>11149209
https://www.flitetest.com/articles/why-did-the-soviets-copy-the-space-shuttle

The Soviets literally copied the Space Shuttle because they thought it would be used for launching large space weapons, due to the size of it’s payload bay. They were half right, the large payload bay was designed to serve a military purpose: giving Shuttle the ability to launch large spy satellites for the NRO.

[Anonymous No.11149226]

>>11149162
>DabsOnTaxPayers.webm

[Anonymous No.11149227]

>>11149224
Isn't that's what exactly happened between Constellation and SLS?

[Anonymous No.11149228]

>>11149217

See the space science program as a veritable example. They have finite projects that end but the budget scope continues and new projects delineated to fill the same overall budget scope.

[Anonymous No.11149229]

>>11149213
Looking at this (wikipedia) it seems like the F-35B can VTO with ~50% fuel and no weapons based on thrust to weight with a little safety margin.

[Anonymous No.11149233]

>>11149227

Yes. It just went sour then. It doesn't necessarily mean it always goes sour.

[Anonymous No.11149239]

>>11149213
Watch this video for a comparison:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zDujFhvgUzI

The F-35B is better than the Harrier for many reasons.

[Anonymous No.11149243]

>>11149164

The nuclear strike rational for the soviet shuttle seems flawed. They were worried that the shuttle would allow a one orbit decapitation strike on them. Building another shuttle didn't remove that threat. It is not clear their own shuttle project gave them any such first strike capability in response.

Parity in space capability even though it turned out to be dubious capability: sure.
Getting a mega project approved on contrivance for their own similar interest in working on one: sure

[Anonymous No.11149247]

>>11148877

>Abandoning SLS at this point would be retarded due to the lack of credible alternatives.

Your own problem with not being willing to recognize, comprehend, or generate alternative paths of action for the space program.

[Anonymous No.11149261]

>>11149227

Also after Apollo was cancelled and they decided on the space shuttle program as what to do.

[Anonymous No.11149274]

>>11149164
No, they wanted to be able to do whatever the americans could do with their shuttle.
They later concieved spy and military satellite repair and refuel missions but by the time they realized the shuttle wasn't so useful military wise the project was so advanced that they intended to repurpose it basically as a space truck, same as the sts.

[Anonymous No.11149275]

>>11149089
Imagine letting people that have been dead for 70 years live rent free in your mind like that

[Anonymous No.11149276]

The big orange boi is rolling out again

[Anonymous No.11149283]

>>11149276
To launch the coolest type of satellite in the NRO’s known arsenal:

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/orion-5_nro.htm

[Anonymous No.11149285]

>>11149089
>have literal nazies win the space race for you
>can't have use a name nazi propaganda used

[Anonymous No.11149324]

>>11149283
>>11149276
Neat! When is it due for launch?

[Anonymous No.11149340]

>>11149324
Sometime in 2020

[Anonymous No.11149348]

>>11149283
>>oh it's just some boring sigint sat
>>OH FUCK IT HAS A 100 METER DIAMETER DISH!
Christ that fucker could dwarf the ISS. I mean it's just a big lightweight umbrella, but that's a huge motherfucker

[Anonymous No.11149351]

>>11149097
>Falcon 9 was shunned as fuck because it was new and unproven
>NG gets orders three years even before its first launch
"B-b-b-but mah New Shepard flew!"
That's like saying F9 would be reliable because F1 launched.

>>11149065
>does anyone here actually think Gateway is worth it
Sure, if your goal is to give SLS Block 1 some kind of mission that isn't obviously pointless, like repeating Apollo 8 fifty years later.

>>11149089
>a name that means 'sky' in Native American
>in Native American
That's not a language, there's at least a dozen native languages in North America.

>>11149098
>>11149108
The only feasible reuse scenario for the descent stage is to have Starship land next to it and pick it up with a crane.
>>11149118
Even when ISRU is a thing, you still have to get it from the ISRU factory to the vehicle. I don't think they're putting wheels on that lander, so you have to bring the fuel to it.

>>11149143
>when block two launches
Which will be approximately never. By 2030 something from SpaceX will have already landed on Mars. This will kick the fire ant nest of public opinion.

>>11149164
USSR built Buran because they couldn't believe we were so stupid to make Shuttle like it was, so they had to have one of their own just in case we really weren't that stupid.

>>11149340
>Sometime in 202x
Fixed that for you.

[Anonymous No.11149358]

>>11149351
>Falcon 9 was shunned as fuck because it was new and unproven and was made by a company that is unpopular and unfriendly
>NG gets orders three years even before its first launch because the company that makes it is very friendly and gaining in popularity
FTFY

[Anonymous No.11149361]

>>11149351
>That's not a language, there's at least a dozen native languages in North America.
I know. It's a dumb article.
It's Algic.

[Anonymous No.11149367]

>>11149358
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ_DyimkS54

[Anonymous No.11149368]

>>11149358
>You're so nice that it's impossible your rockets will blow up the first time they launch! And even though nobody has seen shit yet, they'll be on schedule too!

[Anonymous No.11149370]

>>11149367

[Anonymous No.11149373]

>>11149367
He's a supervillain, isn't he?

[Anonymous No.11149374]

>>11149358
(((unpopular and unfriendly)))
(((very friendly and gaining in popularity)))

[Anonymous No.11149376]

>>11149367
What a weirdo.

[Anonymous No.11149385]

>>11149373
It's a good thing we have the wonderful Hugo Drax... I mean Elon Musk to save us all!

[Anonymous No.11149386]

>>11149376
Is Richard Branson the only normal self made billionare? All the rest seem like a mix of autists and sociopaths while Branson seems like a normal enough guy having fun with his money.

[Anonymous No.11149388]

>>11149367
>>11149368
>>11149374
Its true though. SpaceX is trying to disrupt the launch market and trying to break the pseudo-competition that's in the US government launch industry. That's definitely not going to make friends.

Meanwhile Blue Origin is playing into the system. While this makes them slower than SpaceX, it definitely makes the US government much happier with them.

[Anonymous No.11149390]

>>11149386
>branson
>normal
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50386594

Yeah, he's probably the closest to normal.

[Anonymous No.11149426]

Redpill me on splash plate injectors. Why aren't they used more often?

[Anonymous No.11149436]

>>11149097
Bezos is not stupid. Elon's got a hell of a fight comung up, thats why he is hell for leather with starship.

[Anonymous No.11149441]

>>11149426
There are other ways to produce a high pressure stream of atomized fuel and oxidizer inside the combustion chamber. Every deflection off of another surface robs the droplets of kinetic energy, and your rocket engine won't work unless your injector operates at substantially higher pressure than your combustion chamber.

[Anonymous No.11149443]

>>11149065
A more ambitious Gateway than what's currently planned is certainly worth it.

[Anonymous No.11149453]

>>11149426
How do you cool the plate to stop it melting?

[Anonymous No.11149463]

>>11148922
>Those dollars will only exist because of SLS, if it were to be cancelled the money would disappear.
>>11149217

I call bullshit. NASA budget is roughly the same ever since the end of Apollo when adjusted for inflation. If SLS is cancelled, then the money would be redirected towards some new program, likely much more sensible. No politician wants to be known as someone who defunded NASA.

[Anonymous No.11149465]

>>11149463
>No politician wants to be known as someone who defunded NASA.
Then let's hope that the anti-spaceflight sentiment never gets popular in the US.

[Anonymous No.11149472]

>>11149453
I think the propellants splashing on the plate protects it from the heat, or cools it at least.

[Anonymous No.11149483]

>>11149472
I think film cooling would be the only viable option but for that you are deliberatly not mixing your propellants well.
I think the standard technique of forcing jets of oxidizer and fuel together works fine.

[Anonymous No.11149485]

F9 stage held by octagrabber, note the engines blackened by soot from four launches

[Anonymous No.11149491]

>>11149485
all of the black marks on re-used boosters is actually scorch marks, and not soot

[Anonymous No.11149495]

>>11149485
Finally, this is the first picture I have seen of the octagrabber.
Do they clean the engine bells to increase radiation cooling or is it negligible?

>>11149491
It's both but mainly soot, watch the entery burn and landing burn and you will see a red flame as it burns fuel rich at reduced throttle.

[Anonymous No.11149499]

>>11149485
No wonder methane/LNG is all the craze for the new reusable launchers.

>>11149491
Are the marks from the reentry heating? Or from the reenty burn to slow the vehicle down?

[Anonymous No.11149522]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-boeing-seat-prices-are-60-higher-than-spacex/?fbclid=IwAR1OPSRLrMD_13793m8cO42QzLDbp94tQf9m2nS6aBjmC27Qj4x2tWNxlZw

[Anonymous No.11149529]

>>11149522
100% made in the USA quality comes at a cost. Them spacex boys buy engines from Russia. Russia!

[Anonymous No.11149534]

>>11149463
>likely much more sensible
Shuttle derived reusable space plane.

[Anonymous No.11149536]

>>11149522
I wish I could just ask for more money simply because I exist.

[Anonymous No.11149545]

>>11149229
>VTO
The f35b can take off fully loaded. Vertical take off is a meme for airshows.

[Anonymous No.11149546]

>>11149536
Make your nose more hooked, you'll be good

[Anonymous No.11149547]

>>11149545
You really think a F-35B can take off in 800ft @ 60,000lb without a catapult?

[Anonymous No.11149549]

>>11149485
Did someone say optigrab?

[Anonymous No.11149559]

I have no idea desu. VTO is still a meme and irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.11149562]

>>11149559
Fuck, this for (you) >>11149547

[Anonymous No.11149573]

>>11149559
VTO is a bit of a meme but STO is literally why is was made, it doesn't seem to have the 62 deg flaps of the AV-8B so I seriously doubt it's payload capability off an Assualt Ship as even with decent lift @ 50 knots the Harrier couldn't carry shit off a deck.
I know the whole idea of the small diameter bomb is to get lots of drops out of little weight but you are always going to need 2,000lb bombs in the CAS role because concrete buildings are a thing.

[Anonymous No.11149590]

>>11149573
It has a big fan pointing down at take off. The same fan it uses for vertical landing.
Plus the engine nozzle pointing down with full afterburner that the harrier didn't have.

[Anonymous No.11149591]

What genre of music fits spaceflight the best overall?

[Anonymous No.11149605]

>>11149590
We'll see when they start flying off assult ships, if I'm right you will never see one carrying 4 mk-84 bombs, if you are right they will be carrying 6 mk-84s with full burner scorching the deck.

[Anonymous No.11149612]

>>11149591

[Anonymous No.11149659]

>>11149605
>We'll see when they start flying off assult ships

That’s been happening for ages

[Anonymous No.11149680]

WHEN IS THE TRASHCAN GOING TO FLY

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.11149689]

>>11149591
shanties!

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

[Anonymous No.11149698]

>>11149612
speaking of metal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPU8992gL1E

[Anonymous No.11149713]

some Boring company news

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-15/elon-musk-s-boring-co-is-run-by-a-former-bar-owner-who-can-quote-ayn-rand

[Anonymous No.11149723]

>>11149713
Great guy looks like, but not strictly space related, atleast not yet. Maybe when Starship stack launches this will be relevant again.

[Anonymous No.11149739]

>>11149485
>octagrabber
>4 arms

[Anonymous No.11149762]

>>11149713
> Twin master's degree in particle physucs and aerospace engineering
> Phd in economics
> One of the first SpaceX hires, and have kept at it for more than a decade

Bloomberg headline is about how he owns a bar

[Anonymous No.11149763]

>>11149713
>While the two men talked, between them, a snail crawled around in a pineapple-shaped terrarium, meant to symbolize the slow pace of competitors’ tunneling equipment.

What a surprise, another major news outlet that can't correctly report basic details and attempts to make Musk look bad.

[Anonymous No.11149779]

>>11149591
Eurobeat.

[Anonymous No.11149782]

>>11149763
The whole snail thing is legit though: Musk says current boring machines are too slow, they are slower than a snail apparently. Which is why he wants to build one that drills quicker to speed up construction of tunnels. The Boring Company’s mascot is a snail called Gary who Musk hopes to beat...

https://www.inverse.com/article/44997-boring-company-gary-the-snail

[Anonymous No.11149790]

>>11149782
It's there as a reminder of a goal for them to achieve, not as a snide fuck you to other companies like these lying media fucks are insinuating

[Anonymous No.11149797]

LISTEN UP CHUCKLEFUCKS, NASA are announcing the contracts for the second round of CLPS on Monday, these are for Moon landers to carry bigger and heavier science payloads like the VIPER rover. Which means stuff like Blue Moon and possibly Starship are in consideration for these contracts.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-announce-additional-commercial-moon-delivery-providers

NASA to Announce Additional Commercial Moon Delivery Providers:

>NASA will host a media teleconference at 4:30 p.m. EST Monday, Nov. 18, to announce additional American companies joining the competitive pool for delivery services to the surface of the Moon through the agency’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) project.

>The teleconference audio and supporting visuals will stream live on the agency’s website.

>In July, NASA announced an opportunity for American companies to join the CLPS contract to deliver larger, heavier payloads to lunar surface. The newly selected companies, along with the original nine selected in November 2018, all will be eligible to bid on future lunar delivery services, including task orders for heavier payloads, as well as payload integration and operations.

>The investigations and demonstrations launching on CLPS flights will help NASA study the Moon as it prepares to send the first woman and next man to the lunar surface by 2024 through the agency’s Artemis program, with eventual human missions to Mars.

[Anonymous No.11149808]

>>11149186
>the navy doesn't want the marines to have real carriers so they run "assault ships"
You know your military spending is getting out of hand when an individual branch of your military is investing into crazy expensive RnD as a way just to sidestep some semantic technicality in a regulation.

[Anonymous No.11149815]

>>11149224
No, you don't understand. In the unlikely scenario that SLS is cancelled, it would be because Trump loses in 2020, which would make NASA cuts a bigger prospect than they are now.

People are straight up ignoring things like the block buy and the fact that CS-1 is about t go to Stennis because F9 booster reuse and the "completion" of the mk1 prototype several weeks ago made Starship look like a done deal and SLS obsolete. There is a shitload of forks in the road and water to go under the bridge for that to be the current situation.

the annual NASA budget is not a pool of spaceflight money that is just getting sent to Boeing for doing not much. If SLS wasn't in the picture that money would be spent shipping mcdonalds to Afghanistan or supporting LGBT initiatives in Namibia or paying for coke and child molestation parties for intelligence community managers. This is the essence of why the kvetching about MUH 50 GORILLION PER LAUNCH SLS is mostly baseless. You can't compare costs and funding between a private company and a publicly funded bureaucracy. Focus on what is being made, not the money. You guys would pay 5 bucks to eat shit if Elon Musk told you it was 100% reusable.

Also addendum, acting like Falcon 9/Heavy is on par in capability terms to SLS 1B is disingenous, at best.

[Anonymous No.11149895]

Can we not have another pointless discussion about how much the SLS costs or about SLS vs the crumpled trash can, please?

Also, talking of the steel can:

https://twitter.com/SpacePadreIsle/status/1195450343657811970

[Anonymous No.11149896]

>>11149388
>Its true though. SpaceX is trying to disrupt the launch market and trying to break the pseudo-competition that's in the US government launch industry. That's definitely not going to make friends.
Also some of the more encrusted parts of NASA probably hate it as well.
If Starship actually lives up to its promisses, NASA is rapidly going to get swept up in building a Mars colony whether they want it or not.
So if Elon's timeline even remotely holds, whoever is gonna win the election in 2024 has the unique chance to be the president who started the colonization of Mars.
I'm sure this idea is scaring the shit out of a lot of old space employees. They'd actually have to stop with the decades long hypothetical feasability studies and actually have to start delivering things and people to Mars.

[Anonymous No.11150025]

>>11149895
Hop?

[Anonymous No.11150042]

>>11150025
Never, apparently...

[Anonymous No.11150045]

>>11149591
Bach synth covers

[Anonymous No.11150050]

>>11150042
Oh.

[Anonymous No.11150055]

>>11150050
War’s over kid, you can go home now...

[Anonymous No.11150058]

>>11150045
I have the complete box set of Wendy Carlos’s synth classic stuff if anyone wants it in ALAC

[Anonymous No.11150060]

>>11146354
NASA is literally a boeing subsidiary at this point

[Anonymous No.11150077]

>>11149038
thunderfag is a contrarian retard

he just bitches about new things because they are new, and tries to come up with absolutely fucking retarded reasons for why they won't work

[Anonymous No.11150096]

>>11150025
Cute bun. My sister used to have one looking just like that when we were kids.

[Anonymous No.11150100]

>>11148875
The best thing that could possibly happen is SLS exploding and boeing/NASA both being dismantled, executives and management going to jail or being executed for fraud, corruption, and a host of other crimes they've been committing, and a smaller, better, more cost effective space administration taking their place

[Anonymous No.11150108]

>>11149093
I can already tell this is a piece of shit that won't accomplish anything

[Anonymous No.11150111]

>>11149107
SpaceX is literally going to have to create and fund their own space program from scratch simply because everyone else in the industry is that corrupt.

[Anonymous No.11150115]

>competitors faces when ChadX royally fucks them over and establishes a Mars colony whether they want to or not
I do like the Dream Chaser Shuttle though, why not just slap that on a falcon rocket and use that to go to the ISS?

[Anonymous No.11150117]

>>11149093
It looks kinda cool, but honestly shit like this should only handle hazardous materials.

[Anonymous No.11150123]

>>11149386
branson's a pedo

[Anonymous No.11150140]

>>11149815
>the annual NASA budget is not a pool of spaceflight money that is just getting sent to Boeing for doing not much.
That is in fact, exactly what NASA is and why the entire administration team belong in jail, along with boeing executives.

t. taxpayer who is sick of the corruption and would support criminal probes, also into the media entities boeing is using to try to sway public opinion. Marketers shouldn't be left out of the jailhouse either.

[Anonymous No.11150219]

>>11150115
>I do like the Dream Chaser Shuttle though, why not just slap that on a falcon rocket and use that to go to the ISS?
Probably won't meet the "two independent providers" requirement of commercial crew. Dream Chaser would have to launch on a different rocket.

[Anonymous No.11150273]

>>11150219
Dream Chaser physically can’t fit in the Falcon 9 fairing, which is why the decided to book 6 flights on ULA’s Vulcan instead. Also, a crewed version of DreamChaser currently doesn’t exist, but SNC plan to build one in the future.

[Anonymous No.11150283]

>>11150273

[Anonymous No.11150306]

Speaking of Dreamchaser and its current lack of IFA ability, why not do what soyuz does? Stick the spacecraft in a fairing like done for the cargo version, but add solid rocket escape motors to the fairing and a decoupling mechanism to the bottom of the fairing/payload assembly.
When the abort is needed, the fairing solids fire long enough to get the craft away from the rest of the rocket, the fairing pops open, and the service trunk jettisoned in place of separating off the top of the payload adapter, allowing Dream-chaser to fly free.
The problem then lies in a way of keeping it from splattering all over the ocean after the abort.

[Anonymous No.11150322]

>>11150100
Amen

[Anonymous No.11150341]

>>11150306
>Speaking of Dreamchaser and its current lack of IFA ability

I believe the plan was always for DC to have an integrated abort system, similar to Dragon and Starliner with dedicated abort thrusters at the back. The crewed DC was also planned to ride on a fairingless rocket to allow it to safely abort in atmosphere, but since they’ve switched to encapsulation for the CRS-2 version maybe that’s changed.

[Anonymous No.11150346]

I can't believe none of you remembered Carl Sagan's birthday last week. Shame on you

[Anonymous No.11150352]

>>11150100
Based and executionpilled

[Anonymous No.11150357]

>>11150346
He did some interesting stuff and made some good speeches, but was a massive libtard who though testosterone was poison (literal toxic masculinity) and complained about the lack of black people in Star Wars...

[Anonymous No.11150364]

>>11150357
*thought

[Anonymous No.11150374]

>>11150357
t. literal retard

[Anonymous No.11150516]

>>11150341
This literally looks like "hey the space shuttle was a boondoggle that made billions off corruption, nepotism, and graft - how can we trick dumbfuck boomers and recapture that?"

It's space shuttle fraud lite.

[Anonymous No.11150629]

I don't know why, but I think the Titan looks pretty cool. Especially with those massive SRBs.

[Anonymous No.11150651]

>>11149162
Shoot, we could have built half a train line in California.

[Anonymous No.11150667]

>>11148477
Reaganomics. The AIDS trickles down, and the elite make sure to keep their planetary escape technology 1 step ahead of the masses realizing their true condition en masse.

[Anonymous No.11150802]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3-tVOH4nYk
An interesting video about the RL-10. I like the emphasis on clean manufacturing conditions.

[Anonymous No.11150816]

>>11149162
I like the greasy spot on the deck where the exhaust from previous landings has built up.

[Anonymous No.11150857]

>>11150816
If they aren't leaking oil, then there's no oil in them.

[Anonymous No.11150891]

What happened to them?

[Anonymous No.11150945]

>>11150891
Roscosmos is a dying organization just as Russia is a dying country. It'll have a a handful of launches after the mere five year stall in the program, and then the project will be scrapped in favor of MORE SOYUZ. Standard oldspace.

[Anonymous No.11151003]

>>11146845
JUST

[Anonymous No.11151116]

>>11149659
>marines have a stronger airforce than canada
>this isn't even a carrier by american standards

[Anonymous No.11151281]

>>11150945
I mean, Angara doesn't look that much cheaper than Soyuz other than maybe be cheaper from economies of scale due to the design being scale-able for a wider range of payloads.

[Anonymous No.11151367]

>>11149815
>the annual NASA budget is not a pool of spaceflight money that is just getting sent to Boeing for doing not much. If SLS wasn't in the picture that money would be spent shipping mcdonalds to Afghanistan or supporting LGBT initiatives in Namibia or paying for coke and child molestation parties for intelligence community managers.

baseless assertion, see this post
>>11149463

NASA funding is roughly the same since the end of Apollo. It wont be defunded just because SLS is cancelled, either.

[Anonymous No.11151503]

>>11149127
It's a good way to gain popular support and is a tool get rid of your opponents
that's how Xi got into power
but you need to 100% control media to make sure it won't backfire on you

[Anonymous No.11151512]

>>11150891
>>11150945
>>11151281
Angara still exists (pic related) and they want to launch one in 2020 or 2021. Also, Angara isn’t supposed to be cheaper than Soyuz, it’s a heavy-lift replacement for the Proton which is being retired in 2024.

[Anonymous No.11151535]

>>11149120
He's lucky he aint in jail I say!

[Anonymous No.11151593]

>>11151512
I thought the proton was already out.

[Anonymous No.11151610]

>>11150025
december

[Anonymous No.11151623]

>>11151593
No, there’s an agreement between Roscosmos and Kazakhstan’s government that they will stop launching hypergolic-fuelled vehicles from Baikonur by 2025.

[Anonymous No.11151628]

>>11146354
>less gateway

At least there's a silver lining.

[Anonymous No.11151701]

>>11150357
based and well rounded analysis

[Anonymous No.11151713]

https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1195401988382453760

[Anonymous No.11151719]

>>11151713
Cool, if true.

[Anonymous No.11151783]

>>11151713
What? Now we've got REUSABLE TOOLS?
Don't they know that for every house that gets built in AMERICA, a fresh set of tools is bought for it, then scrapped, because after all that usage they're all worn out! I mean, okay, they get only the cheapest of tools that don't last very long anyhow, but who wants to pay more for tools that will last for more than one construction project?

[Anonymous No.11151841]

The OIG audit further implied that the timing of a Boeing proposal – submitted just days after NASA agreed to pay the company extra to prevent that access gap – was suspect.

In other words, NASA officials somehow failed to realize or remember that Boeing owned multiple Soyuz seats during “prolonged negotiations” (p. 24) with Boeing and subsequently awarded Boeing an additional $287M to expedite Starliner production and preparations, thus averting an access gap. The very next week, Boeing asked NASA if it wanted to buy five Soyuz seats it had already acquired to send NASA astronauts to the ISS.

Bluntly speaking, this series of events has exactly three explanations, none of them heartwarming.

1. Boeing intentionally withheld an obvious (partial) solution to a perceived gap in astronaut access to the ISS, exploiting NASA’s panic to extract a ~7% premium from its otherwise fixed-price Starliner development contract.
2. Through gross negligence and a lack of basic contracting due-diligence, NASA ignored obvious (and cheaper) possible solutions at hand, taking Boeing’s word for granted and opening up the piggy bank.
3. A farcical ‘crew access analysis’ study ignored multiple obvious and preferable solutions to give “numerous NASA officials” an excuse to violate fixed-price contracting principles and pay Boeing a substantial premium.

https://www.teslarati.com/nasa-snubbed-spacex-overpaid-boeing-astronaut-launches-audit/

[Anonymous No.11151845]

>>11151841
This report has been posted about hundred times in this thread previously and can we please not stoop to the rock bottom of posting T*slarati articles.

[Anonymous No.11151852]

>>11151841
Old news.

[Anonymous No.11151865]

>>11151845
No, it hasn't. I've been in both the recent threads, these three possibilities have never really been discussed. The OIG audit as a whole received a few dozen posts, not hundreds.
>the rock bottom of posting T*slarati articles.
Eric Ralph is one of the good spaceflight journalists. Your fallacy of origins sucks.

Are you the same guy who keeps complaining about people mentioning the price of SLS? It's hard to take you seriously when you're clearly biased and just want to shut down any conversation that goes against Boeing.
>Waaah, stop mentioning corruption! BasedSLS is the best rocket! I'm an SLSChad!

[Anonymous No.11151869]

>>11151845
>>11151852
Stop trying to police discussion.

[Anonymous No.11151874]

>>11151865
>Eric Ralph is one of the good spaceflight journalists. Your fallacy of origins sucks.

That’s a massive yikes from me...also, Eric is barely a space reporter because he mostly, only reports on a single company...

>Are you the same guy who keeps complaining about people mentioning the price of SLS? It's hard to take you seriously when you're clearly biased and just want to shut down any conversation that goes against Boeing.

I do want to shutdown the conversation about the Boeing because it’s been done to death already and is just tedious at this point. There’s nothing constructive or productive about seething about corruption from 2016. As >>11151852
Puts it: old news.

[Anonymous No.11151884]

>Here's How Much NASA Is Paying Per Seat on SpaceX's Crew Dragon & Boeing's Starliner
https://www.space.com/spacex-boeing-commercial-crew-seat-prices.html

>NASA will likely pay about $90 million for each astronaut who flies aboard Boeing's CST-100 Starliner capsule on International Space Station (ISS) missions, the report estimated. The per-seat cost for SpaceX's Crew Dragon capsule, meanwhile, will be around $55 million, according to the OIG's calculations.
>To put those costs into perspective: NASA currently pays about $86 million for each seat aboard Russia's three-person Soyuz spacecraft, which has been astronauts' only ride to and from the ISS since NASA's space shuttle fleet was grounded in July 2011.
>To calculate the per-seat estimates, the OIG team subtracted development and testing costs, which were $2.2 billion for Boeing and $1.2 billion for SpaceX, and "special studies costs" from the value of the CCtCap contracts, according to the new report.

What I don't see is whether those are literal per-seat prices (like with Soyuz) or if filling out those other three or four seats will cost more on either Dragon or Starliner.

[Anonymous No.11151889]

>>11151874
His beat is SpaceX news, what do you expect? Very few news outlets cover these topics in depth. That Business Insider article was terrible compared to this.
>I do want to shutdown the conversation about the Boeing because it’s been done to death already and is just tedious at this point.
It literally came out two days ago. Have you considered that some of us here have a life and haven't yet have time to discuss it? No one is forcing you to read posts about Boeing's corruption, and seeing as this thread has barely moved in the last few hours, you're not keen on talking about anything else or else you would have posted something.
> There’s nothing constructive or productive about seething about corruption from 2016
Again, the discussion is around the audit. We didn't know about this corruption until two days ago.

No one gives a fuck about what you think we should talk about. Either post something relevant or screw off, this isn't your personal Boeing circlejerk.

[Anonymous No.11151894]

>>11151884
Oh wait, I'm a retard, those were the net non-R&D costs from the whole contract. So I guess more crew could mean less per seat. But I think they were planning to put some cargo in that space, so it's still not that simple.

[Anonymous No.11151909]

Today is the 45th anniversary of the famous Arecibo transmission.

https://www.space.com/39251-on-this-day-in-space.html

Also this moldy oldie from 20 years ago:
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/11/25th-anniversary-first-attempt-phone-et-0

[Anonymous No.11151964]

>>11151909
What in the absolute fuck is an alien supposed to get from this atari art bullshit

[Anonymous No.11152011]

>>11150108
Nope, before any permanent luna base has been constructed, this station is the key to deep space expeditions.

[Anonymous No.11152042]

>>11152011
It’s in a dodgy orbit (LPO would be better), but it’s location will allow loads of biological science in regards to how the human body will act in deep-space to be done. Furthermore, it’ll likely end up as a fuel depots for landers and having a powerful communications relay around the Moon will be pretty neat. The coolest thing about the Gateway for me is that NASA are planning to allow astronauts to control rovers on the lunar surface from it, which means you can have a couple guys on the surface whilst one assists them with a remote-controlled rover like a top-down strategy game.

[Anonymous No.11152062]

>>11151841
I can't wait for New Glenn to start flying so that there can be some legitimate competition in the American launch market.

[Anonymous No.11152071]

>>11151874
>There’s nothing constructive or productive about seething about corruption from 2016
/sfg/ is a company now? What to we construct or produce? All this time I thought we just talked casually about interesting spaceflight related topics. Corruption at a major spaceflight company sound interesting to discuss weather it happened in 2016 or 1966.

[Anonymous No.11152089]

>>11146845
>Almost 40% cheaper
THE ABSOLUTE STATE

[Anonymous No.11152095]

Could Starship's steel be protected by Flex Seal instead of WD-40?

[Anonymous No.11152100]

>>11151783
its just a lathe you retarded fag.
i know you're trying to meme but its only funny when its based in truth.

[Anonymous No.11152101]

>>11151003

[Anonymous No.11152108]

>>11152089
That's what no competition gets you. But hey, at least NASA will get some perks from this. Such as having to pay extra randomly or else they lose the service completely. Aren't monopolies enforced by the government fun?

[Anonymous No.11152119]

>>11152108
There’s currently no competition for human spaceflight services because the market is tiny (1-2 crewed launches a year) and the only customer is NASA.

[Anonymous No.11152172]

>>11152119
Also, the aforementioned market only exists because NASA have massively subsided it both monetarily and with technology transfer.

[Anonymous No.11152223]

>>11151003
>>11152101
346 DEATHS!

[Anonymous No.11152255]

>>11152223
McDonnell Douglas killed way more and people remember them fondly...

[Anonymous No.11152343]

CHINA SETS OUT LONG-TERM SPACE TRANSPORTATION ROADMAP INCLUDING A NUCLEAR SPACE SHUTTLE:

>The main contractor for the Chinese space programme has set out a space transportation roadmap which could massively boost capabilities and reduce costs for access to space.

>The China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) roadmap sets out a string of ambitious targets related to space technology, space science and space applications from 2017 to 2045.

>By 2020 CASC will have a wide range of launch capabilities through its Long March rocket families, with the reusable, low-cost Long March 8 rocket to be in action by this time, adding to the new capabilities of the Long March 5 and 7.

>2025 is the marker for the successful development of a reusable space plane, initially using two stages for suborbital flight, including for tourism purposes. The debut flight for the space plane has earlier been stated as being set for 2020. Eventually the spacecraft would use combined cycle propulsion for orbital flight.

>The first super heavy-lift launch vehicles, referred to as the Long March 9, will make their maiden flights by 2030, with a payload capacity of over 100 tonnes. The Saturn V-class launcher will be capable of a Mars sample return and crewed lunar missions.

>To this end Long Lehao, chief designer of the Long March rocket series, told state media that progress has been made on forging 10-metre-diameter stages and 500-tonne thrust kerosene-liquid oxygen and 220-tonne thrust hydrolox engines.

>Following this, CASC has set 2035 as the target for full reusability for its launch vehicles.

>By 2040, a next generation of launch vehicles will be put into operation, capable of multiple interplanetary round-trips, exploiting space resources through asteroid mining and constructing megaprojects such as a space-based solar power station.

>Another target explicitly mentioned for 2040 is a nuclear-powered space shuttle, though no details are revealed.

[Anonymous No.11152344]

>>11152255
Mostly remembered for the Death Chamber-10. The reason why aerospace manufactures are no longer trusted by authorities to make fixes to their airplanes that would otherwise kill hundreds of people.

[Anonymous No.11152347]

>>11152343
https://gbtimes.com/china-sets-out-long-term-space-transportation-roadmap-including-a-nuclear-space-shuttle

(Old, but interesting article)

[Anonymous No.11152357]

>>11152344
>Mostly remembered for the Death Chamber-10

I’m pretty sure MD are mostly remembered for building two of the best fighter jets ever: the F-15 and F-18...

[Anonymous No.11152395]

>>11152343
I can see China going for a nuclear shuttle, they don't seem to be as hyper-focused on safety nor as fearful of nulcear applications as the US. Interesting to see how this plan develops.

[Anonymous No.11152406]

>>11152395
I think when most people read nuclear powered Shuttle they think the STS powered by a NTR and not what it actually is (pic-related).

[Anonymous No.11152408]

>>11152406
I think its more to do with nuclear being the second most feared n-word by the public.

[Anonymous No.11152409]

>>11152395
the russians are also working on nuclear rockets.
US most likely has a program running too for some time now.
They are late to that race.

[Anonymous No.11152453]

>>11152409
Russia has had a nuclear rocket project for a while, but like all ambitious Russian space projects it’s been extremely slow moving. The US didn’t actually have a nuclear rocket program until this year, NASA were awarded some money by Congress to develop the technology for the first time since the 70s and partnered with the same people who build nuclear reactors for the US navy’s submarines.
Furthermore, in a bi-partisan NASA authorisation bill that’s currently floating around Congress, there’s text telling NASA to demonstrate an NTR by 2024.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nasa-nuclear-thermal-125m/

https://spacenews.com/senators-introduce-new-nasa-authorization-bill/

[Anonymous No.11152746]

[Anonymous No.11152760]

>>11152746
fuck is that?

[Anonymous No.11152765]

>>11152760
The containment vessel for your mother.

[Anonymous No.11152795]

>>11152765
Oh thank god. Momma needs to be in a perfectly sterile sealed environment due to her destroyed immune system. Hold on a little longer momma! :(

[Anonymous No.11152819]

>>11152760
SLS SRB section
it said "DO NOT HUMP" which made me laugh so I posted it here

[Anonymous No.11152829]

>>11152819
Gotta try to stop the rocketphiles from molesting critical flight hardware.

[Anonymous No.11152855]

>>11152819
>Keep Mike Pence at least 100m away from SRBs at all times

[Anonymous No.11152889]

>if consciousness arose 10% later it would never have happened
>if consciousness arose 10% earlier Venus would still be in its habitable period

[Anonymous No.11152894]

>>11152889
Venus has a habitable period? Am I a huge retard for not knowing that? Is that common knowledge?

[Anonymous No.11152896]

>>11152894
You're not, and it didn't. The minerology is not consistent with Venus ever having a watery landscape.

[Anonymous No.11152898]

>>11152894
Venus was Earth like until the entire fucking planet turned inside out and melted, and we have no idea why. This was only a few hundred millions years ago. All that CO2? Carbonate rocks melted to release it.

>>11152896
This is out of date.
https://m.phys.org/news/2019-09-venus-habitable.html?&ampcf=1

[Anonymous No.11152906]

>>11152898
Maybe a a species evolved there that started burning the planets abundant supply of hydrocarbons for energy and was too stupid to realise it was triggering a complex runaway environmental catastrophe.

[Anonymous No.11152907]

>>11152898
>turned inside out
Inside out? I thought it went upside down.

[Anonymous No.11152917]

>>11152898
That article is awesome. Would be cool to save a human operated base station on venus. There'd a crazy amount of science to do there if it turned out it used to be earth like.

Maybe even one of those station that floats in the atmosphere and scientists just control probes and robots sent to the surface.

[Anonymous No.11152930]

>>11152906
No, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere requires most of the carbonate rocks in the crust be melted, orders of magnitude more than fossil fuels could ever achieve.

[Anonymous No.11152931]

>>11152223
IF ITS A BOEING IM NOT GOING