/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 2.95 MB, 1280x720, 1574867152042.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/sfg/ - Spaceflight general Anonymous Wed Nov 27 15:07:39 2019 No.11181362 [Reply] [Original]

Previous: >>11176779

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 15:16:54 2019 No.11181388 nice

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 15:26:05 2019 No.11181406 >>11181362 What's with the pause @0:18?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 15:27:56 2019 No.11181409 >>11181406 it's hovering to check out the location before final commit to touchdown

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 15:57:35 2019 No.11181457 File: 2.39 MB, 3300x4434, 1568735655498.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I just realized this meme someone cooked up when the bulkhead was installed is a hell of a lot funnier now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 15:58:17 2019 No.11181461 >>11181457 yeah it's pretty great

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:21:30 2019 No.11181508 File: 63 KB, 958x784, 1571843700362.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11181457

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:24:11 2019 No.11181511 File: 317 KB, 1440x786, Img-1574889760243.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Turns out MK3 isn't cancelled. Perhaps the revisions mentioned will be for MK4. https://youtu.be/Jw-6FEMfur4

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:25:31 2019 No.11181515 >>11181511 Mk3 was never cancelled

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:26:33 2019 No.11181519 >>11181511 Mk3 is the next one at Boca Chica. It was never cancelled. Mk2 at Cidco Road in Florida might be cancelled.

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:29:04 2019 No.11181524
File: 151 KB, 1041x694, maf_20191023_p_cs2_lox_into_110-1041.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Both of the tanks for the second SLS have been welded.

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/artemis-II-rocket-propellant-tanks-prepped-for-next-phase-of-manufacturing.html

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:35:16 2019 No.11181532

>>11181196
>I mean Blue is going to fly every engine they’ve built so far (eventually):

BE-3 has flown on New Shepard
BE-3U will be used for New Glenn’s second-stage
BE-4 will be used first on Vulcan’s first-stage and then on New Glenn’s.
BE-7 will be used for Blue Moon, Northrop Grumman’s Artemis transfer vehicle and New Glenn’s future third-stage

Not flying engines is stupid, but halting the development of future engines until a launch vehicle carrying your current engines has flown is even stupider...

All they have to show is the BE-3 that put a tin can barely into space.
I don't get how they can fly one small rocket and try to build an empire off of hopes and theory.
Its even more baffling that so many companies are pouring money and orders into it when there is nothing but papers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:35:57 2019 No.11181535 >>11181532 they do have a launchpad

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:36:18 2019 No.11181536 >>11181406 Film is sped up, its much slower real time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:37:26 2019 No.11181538 >>11181362 Is this the Kerbal Space Program General?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:38:12 2019 No.11181539 >>11181535 The one for New Shepard that has broken multiple times and caused launches to get scrubbed? Not helping.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:38:14 2019 No.11181540 >>11181538 no but I'll tell you why your build is all retarded

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:41:21 2019 No.11181547

>>11181540
I think I’m pretty good at it now, and I’ve even started recovering the launch vehicles by putting like twenty parachutes and airbrakes on them while still having enough fuel to put payloads in LKO, deorbit and decelerate to the speed needed by the drogue parachutes to kick in.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:44:51 2019 No.11181550 >>11181547 it doesn't count unless you can land at KSC

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:50:09 2019 No.11181559
File: 386 KB, 2048x1366, A4BB5A4D-9AB8-4007-8BE6-2DC3FCFB1212.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11181535
>>11181539
>The one for New Shepard that has broken multiple times and caused launches to get scrubbed? Not helping.

Blue definitely have a launch pad, actually they have the biggest (when it’s finished construction that is) out of anybody.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:51:06 2019 No.11181561 >>11181559 thanks I was trying to find it but got distracted by youtube

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 16:57:02 2019 No.11181569 >>11181559 Yeah but Amazon is quite literally evil.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:01:46 2019 No.11181575 >>11181569 ...so? If Hitler had built a colony on Mars, I'd be buying an armband and strapping in. Space is more important than morality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:03:07 2019 No.11181577 >>11181569 Amazon doesn't own Blue Origin Jeff Bezos owns Blue Origin Jeff Bezos also owns Amazon

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:03:18 2019 No.11181578 File: 38 KB, 400x388, 1nu1mt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Theyre gonna run out of money before they get to Mars, whats the fucking point...

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:05:20 2019 No.11181580 >>11181577 >Mordor doesn’t own the One Ring >Sauron owns the one ring >Sauron also owns Mordor Lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:06:03 2019 No.11181581 >>11181577 Jeff Bezos wants fucking O'Neil cylinders, he could be a literal commie and I wouldn't care, so long as we get an O'Neil. >>11181578 Why do you say that?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:06:49 2019 No.11181583 >>11181575 Okay, sociopath.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:07:51 2019 No.11181585 >>11181583 There is absolutely nothing wrong with pure utilitarianism. Every argument against it is simply emotional.

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:07:53 2019 No.11181586

>>11181580
incorrect
Sauron (proper name Mairon) created the One Ring and it contains a major portion of his essence, you could almost say that the One Ring is him.
Mordor is simply a blasted area around a volcano, where Mairon has established a headquarters because it is strategically located near his enemies.
Before near the very end of the third age, Mordor and Mairon had no special bonds.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:08:08 2019 No.11181587 >>11181581 Yeah no thanks I don’t want a shitty Weyland-Yutani controlled future where corporations own your ass

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:09:29 2019 No.11181592 File: 68 KB, 1505x744, 1476190210999.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11181587 You're already in one motherfucker, now let's go to space

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:10:21 2019 No.11181594

>>11181585
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with pure utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethics system and incompatible with the assertion that “space is more important than morality.” unless you intend to infer that space is more important than utilitarianism.
>Every argument against it is simply emotional.

Morality is simply emotional, so that’s a meaningless point. Reason is nothing but a slave to the passions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:11:23 2019 No.11181600 >>11181592 No I’m not, and space will be a nightmare if that’s how it turns out. Corporations should be banned within a century.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:12:07 2019 No.11181601 >>11181587 it's too late for that, anon

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:13:06 2019 No.11181604

>>11181594
Space provides potential value nearing the infinite, so pretty much anything can be justified in the name of space colonization. Utilitarianism is simply a net present value calculation.

>>11181600
>no I'm not
You already live in a corporatocratic dystopian society that gets worse every year. So let's make the dystopia more interesting, and feed it more resources, so when and if we emerge from it, we have the resources of the solar system open to us.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:13:52 2019 No.11181606 >>11181601 No it isn’t, but that’s probably where it’s going anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:15:01 2019 No.11181607 >>11181559 Not bigger than LC-39

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:15:14 2019 No.11181609 >>11181569 >>11181577 Ironically, Jeff treats Blue Origin’s employees a lot better than SpaceX treats their own (then again that’s the case with every other aerospace company).

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:15:22 2019 No.11181611 >>11181604 >Space provides potential value nearing the infinite, so pretty much anything can be justified in the name of space colonization. That’s what your emotional intuition tells you. Mine disagrees.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:15:33 2019 No.11181612 broke: we can change things woke: we can't change things bespoke: we can't make the world not a dystopia, but a space dystopia is inherently more interesting than an earth dystopia, and we can go to space

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:17:03 2019 No.11181614

>>11181611
No? How exactly do you come to the conclusion that physical resources are "emotional intuition"? There's limited resources on Earth. Market demand for resources is limitless in the long term. Therefore, resource gathering operations beyond Earth are necessary and potentially lucrative. This isn't emotion, it's economics.

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:22:15 2019 No.11181632
File: 30 KB, 649x361, hite.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11181609
Bezos owns a much more massive media empire than anyone else, everything you read about the guy is fake, hes just a frustrated annoying bald manlet with psychological insecurities about how unmasculine he is

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:24:04 2019 No.11181637

>>11181614
> How exactly do you come to the conclusion that physical resources are "emotional intuition"?

Why ought we consider “physical resources” more valuable than anything else like not murdering people?

> Therefore, resource gathering operations beyond Earth are necessary and potentially lucrative.

Why ought we consider resources and profit more valuable than not murdering people?

> This isn't emotion, it's economics.

Why ought we value economics more than not murdering people?
You’re exactly like a Christian, committing is-ought fallacies constantly when you try to shove the square peg of morality into the round hole that is logic. They have nothing to do with eachother.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:26:49 2019 No.11181648 >>11181586 Hah, nerd

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:27:26 2019 No.11181651
File: 1.45 MB, 1771x2313, A77B2341-1341-41B2-81FB-704C0B4621D5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11181607
It’s bigger than 39A (occupies more area and will have bigger infrastructure) but comparing it to 39B is a bit tricky, as 39B is bigger if you count both the VAB and mobile service structure, but the former isn’t part of an individual pad and the latter is non-permanent. Of course if you count both 39A and B as one entity, their bigger than 36.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:27:58 2019 No.11181652 >>11181632 Ok Donald

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:29:54 2019 No.11181659 File: 171 KB, 1361x646, spacex v blueorigin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11181609 >Jeff treats Blue Origin’s employees a lot better lol k

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:40:36 2019 No.11181677

>>11181659
You do know that SpaceX has literal bots posting positive reviews on that website, right? Their was a short-lived scandal because a bunch of companies including SpaceX were doing it. The discontent at Blue is due to growing pains: they’ve gone from 1500 employees to 3,500 in less than a year and are still hiring, so the veterans are feeling discontent and their have been management issues. Turnover rates are a much more credible way to gauge employee happiness and SpaceX has one of the highest.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/22/companies-gaming-glassdoor-reviews-to-look-better-investigation-finds/

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 17:55:02 2019 No.11181711

>>11181677
Goal post shifting.

>glassdoor
Many companies asks their employees to leave reviews, so its a non-starter question. If everyone is taking steroids, the company with the people who perform best under steroids win out.

>Turnover rate
Don't mean much. Everyone knows SpaceX is demanding of their employees but that doesn't mean they're unhappy. Some people want to work in demanding projects and others work at Blue Origin or NASA to become career bureaucrats. Different strokes/folks.

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:09:06 2019 No.11181728

>>11181711
>Many companies asks their employees to leave reviews, so its a non-starter question.

Yes, but SpaceX are one of the worst offenders, to the point that WSJ called them out for it.

>Some people want to work in demanding projects and others work at Blue Origin or NASA to become career bureaucrats. Different strokes/folks.

Just because the aerospace engineers at Blue and NASA aren’t Mexican welders who can’t pressurise a steel tank without it blowing up, doesn’t make them bureaucrats. Wanting to have a family and not work on weekends aren’t big asks, but they don’t call it SlaveX for nothing.

>Everyone knows SpaceX is demanding of their employees but that doesn't mean they're unhappy.

Why do so many leave after a short time then?

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:14:32 2019 No.11181738

>>11181728
>Why do so many leave after a short time then?
Because SpaceX is demanding and people can't keep up? Because SpaceX cuts down their employees as they see fit to survive? SpaceX is a for profit company. Blue Origin is Bezo's pet project.

>Just because the aerospace engineers at Blue and NASA aren’t Mexican welders who can’t pressurise a steel tank without it blowing up, doesn’t make them bureaucrats. Wanting to have a family and not work on weekends aren’t big asks, but they don’t call it SlaveX for nothing.
~20-30% of SpaceX employees are veterans. ITAR prevents spacex from hiring mexicans.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:21:43 2019 No.11181747 >>11181728 >Yes, but SpaceX are one of the worst offenders, to the point that WSJ called them out for it. Asking your employees to leave reviews is not a bad thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:24:35 2019 No.11181756 what was the nasa proposal from the other day about? are they going to buy tickets on private flights like virgin galactic and starship? its just a subsidy to help out the industry? this is the same thing the italians are doing, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:24:40 2019 No.11181757 >>11181711 >>11181728 >reddit spacing Lurk for at least two years prior to posting, thank you!

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:26:10 2019 No.11181765 >>11181728 >WSJ Owned by Fox News owner Robert Murdoch. Its a political platform. It doesn't mean much. Whatever they report has a political tint.

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:27:29 2019 No.11181766

>>11181738
>~20-30% of SpaceX employees are veterans. ITAR prevents spacex from hiring mexicans.

r/woosh

>Asking your employees to leave reviews is not a bad thing.

That’s not the same as what WSJ were accusing them of: positive review bombing to artificially pump their ratings.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:28:17 2019 No.11181767 >>11181757 >Muh Reddit spacing Please leave 4Chan if paragraph structure makes you cry.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:28:19 2019 No.11181768 >>11181757 Didn't mean to click you >>11181711 Did mean it for this guy, though >>11181728

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:30:02 2019 No.11181769 File: 221 KB, 512x384, 1371379086710.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11181766 >r/woosh

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:30:31 2019 No.11181771

>>11181766
>That’s not the same as what WSJ were accusing them of: positive review bombing to artificially pump their ratings.
There is nothing artificial about asking employees to leave positive reviews. Every business asks for positive reviews. "Like and subscribe" is just that.
>woosh
??

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:30:34 2019 No.11181773
File: 58 KB, 642x793, spacex_requirments.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Be fresh aerospace graduate
>Top grades can get hired anywhere I want
>Check out spaceX
>See pic related
>Decide not to apply, that sounds like too much work
>Apply to any other aerospace company for a 100K starting salary

Wow how can spacex exploit all those highly valuable, intelligent people! They have no where else to go and are FORCED to work at spacex over the weekend against their will.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:31:52 2019 No.11181775 File: 198 KB, 800x1200, john kraus ariane V VA250.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] john kraus got some really neat pictures of yesterdays ariane V launch

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:32:43 2019 No.11181777 >>11181773 What's wrong with the list of requirements?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:32:56 2019 No.11181778 File: 171 KB, 1600x1067, john kraus ariane V VA250 II.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:34:24 2019 No.11181779 >>11181777 Nothing, that's my point. Anyone working at spacex knows what the job will be like, people who say they are "exploiting" their workers are morons.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:35:26 2019 No.11181784 File: 29 KB, 224x353, disturbing_news.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11181766 >r/woosh

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:36:08 2019 No.11181786 >>11181779 Oh wow. I guess that flew over my head.

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:36:30 2019 No.11181788

>>11181779
>are morons
Some people only believe everyone else is like them in that they only want to work 9-5 jobs 40/hour week with no drive/motivation. There are smart people like this, they fail to understand or develop a broad understanding of the society.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 18:42:58 2019 No.11181805 >>11181756 nvm i just read that its for nasa's commercial crew vehicles only. that's nice but who is going to drop $40m a seat when starship is around the corner?

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 19:29:26 2019 No.11181882
File: 106 KB, 1386x778, 06089DA1-BEBE-40A2-B284-17D76655D168.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Has anybody heard of JP Aerospace? they are a company which builds high-altitude balloons and their absolutely bonkers CEO: John Powell, has the ultimate goal of making a giant balloon that can reach...orbit

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 19:31:05 2019 No.11181888 File: 148 KB, 1000x714, C373FCC8-0E52-46DD-9299-E928B8322D10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11181882

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 19:32:07 2019 No.11181889 File: 417 KB, 1280x960, 8D76F88E-4657-48E1-B619-7DEB1A65CD70.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11181888 They’ve built some pretty big balloons...

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 19:33:09 2019 No.11181891 File: 203 KB, 892x791, 14FD43CD-841C-499E-94E6-FE51088D5971.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11181889 And a submarine...

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 19:34:15 2019 No.11181897 File: 288 KB, 1322x881, 7EBA6C00-6E9C-4567-AB84-29326BE1669F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11181891

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 19:34:51 2019 No.11181899

>>11181651
Launch COMPLEX 39 is unambiguously bigger than LC-36.
Of course, pad 39A is basically its own independent at this point, seeing as how all its connections to the rest of the LC-39 infrastructure have been severed, but even discounting 39A, the 39B complex is still much larger.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 19:35:17 2019 No.11181900 File: 189 KB, 1259x843, 5F3EEBB8-C552-4831-9596-D62F2896DB5E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11181897

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 19:41:16 2019 No.11181915 File: 1.08 MB, 320x240, thumbsup.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11181882 I haven't heard of them, but their idea sounds crazy. Good luck to them! I hope their idea doesn't sink like a lead zeppelin.

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 19:50:31 2019 No.11181937

>>11181559
>when it’s finished construction that is

Yeah, just like New Glenn and the BE-4 will be the best out there WHEN IT FINALLY DOES ANYTHING.
"B" will always be better than "A" just as soon as it gets done! Better watch your pocket books, shits going down when I get around to finishing my time machine. Oh boy, when I get my super mega awesome SSTO SOLAR ROCKET FINISHED, its game over for everyone. I've been working on it for YEARS and I have lots of diagrams on paper, its just a matter of time for me to finish it and you'll see, it'll be the BEST!

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 19:55:46 2019 No.11181954

>>11181937
>Yeah, just like New Glenn and the BE-4 will be the best out there WHEN IT FINALLY DOES ANYTHING.

I never implied any of these things, so stop projecting and BE-4 has been tested at full power for flight duration firings, so it has actually done something.

>and I have lots of diagrams on paper, its just a matter of time for me to finish it and you'll see, it'll be the BEST!

I literally just posted a picture of the pad being built with significant progress on the HAB and water tower...your enthusiastic use of caps suggests you have issues.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 19:58:52 2019 No.11181966 File: 98 KB, 1000x667, 7989E8D0-C4EE-4D95-A119-998F70135DB9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Guess who just decided to dab on the peasants with spicy death juice again!

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 20:10:02 2019 No.11182001 >>11181954 He's probably spoiled by SpaceX's openness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 20:17:06 2019 No.11182015 >>11181586 Having a nice big volcano to use as a forge was probably a plus when he was checking the real estate listings.

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 20:21:45 2019 No.11182033

>>11182001
Well, he will just have to wait another year for BE-4 to meet his definition of doing something: being used to launch something, which will likely happen in 2021 with Vulcan’s first flight. Tbf the only reason Raptor has done anything (by his definition) so far is because SpaceX decided to build a hopper/VTVL prototype, Blue decided to not go down this route and do long-duration firings instead. I’m not sure SpaceX has the ability to do the latter with Raptor because of the tank setup at McGregor.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 20:45:24 2019 No.11182087 >>11181966 you're a couple days late

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 21:00:02 2019 No.11182113 >>11182087 Nope, this launch (pic related) actually happened today. The rapid launch cadence of China maybe somewhat scary for the American government, but it’s downright terrifying for the Chinese peasants living in the flight path.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 21:02:15 2019 No.11182115 >>11182113 Don't worry. China is investigating on guided landing for boosters so they'll only land on citizens with a low social credit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 21:06:45 2019 No.11182120 >>11182113 do the first stages hit villages too? I thought it was just the boosters

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 22:03:41 2019 No.11182216 File: 205 KB, 800x640, 800px-IKAROS_solar_sail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Are solar sails the future?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 22:53:55 2019 No.11182302 >>11182216 They probably have a niche for small sats, but unless we harness the power of beamed power then they'll probably stay in that niche.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 22:55:10 2019 No.11182304 >>11182033 >Blue decided to not go down this route and do long-duration firings instead Has SpaceX not done long-duration firings?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 23:10:18 2019 No.11182333 >>11182302 >but unless we harness the power of beamed power then they'll probably stay in that niche. That's perfectly possible if we solve the issue of sustaining power for the beams right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 27 23:12:53 2019 No.11182335 >>11182333 I think the larger issue is sorting out the legality of having massive laser arrays that can potentially fry electronics all the way to Mars.

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 23:15:23 2019 No.11182341

>>11182335
>I think the larger issue is sorting out the legality of having massive laser arrays that can potentially fry electronics all the way to Mars.
Oh, that's a new one I haven't heard before. Tell me more. Also, couldn't we, say, wait until we're at a certain point past electronics, and then turn those fuckers on?

Also what about nuclear power?

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 23:21:39 2019 No.11182359

>>11182341
>Oh, that's a new one I haven't heard before. Tell me more.
I'm not sure of there's much study on it, but if you have a facility that can send a focused laser at any appreciable power at something to the moon and beyond, then it's easily be usable as a weapon. Although, I might have exaggerated the "frying electronics at Mars" bit.

>Also what about nuclear power?
Those might be a better option than beamed power, at least in the near term. They're self contained units, that doesn't leave weaponize-able equipment around.

Anonymous Wed Nov 27 23:56:28 2019 No.11182437

>>11182359
>I'm not sure of there's much study on it, but if you have a facility that can send a focused laser at any appreciable power at something to the moon and beyond, then it's easily be usable as a weapon. Although, I might have exaggerated the "frying electronics at Mars" bit.
I get what you're saying but isn't the idea that the lasers are mounted on the spacecraft themselves? And wouldn't they purely be for locomotion? Personally I think it's exciting that we actually have the hypothetical ability to go at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

>Those might be a better option than beamed power, at least in the near term. They're self contained units, that doesn't leave weaponize-able equipment around.
Redpill me on nuclear powered spacecraft. I know next to nothing about that shit.

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 00:06:15 2019 No.11182467
File: 13 KB, 300x260, laserthermal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11182437
>but isn't the idea that the lasers are mounted on the spacecraft themselves?
No. Beamed propulsion has the power unit be separate from the spacecraft with it's power beamed to said spacecraft. This allows for the power of the spacecraft's propulsion system to be decoupled from it's size. Large reactors on Earth can generate and beam power to a spacecraft much smaller than the power source.

>And wouldn't they purely be for locomotion?
The energy output required would make them useful as weapons too. Especially if they're being used to push a spacecraft to a fraction of the speed of light. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but there would have to be alot of work put into having it not be easily be used as a weapon.

>Redpill me on nuclear powered spacecraft. I know next to nothing about that shit.
It's abit late for me to type out a full description of nuclear propulsion, but this video covers the basics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CizKnuwvXXg

For a more advanced dive...
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#ntrsolidcore

Enjoy!

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 00:29:32 2019 No.11182520

>>11182467
>No. Beamed propulsion has the power unit be separate from the spacecraft with it's power beamed to said spacecraft. This allows for the power of the spacecraft's propulsion system to be decoupled from it's size. Large reactors on Earth can generate and beam power to a spacecraft much smaller than the power source.
So how would they, say, fly to Alpha Centauri, and back?

>The energy output required would make them useful as weapons too. Especially if they're being used to push a spacecraft to a fraction of the speed of light. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but there would have to be alot of work put into having it not be easily be used as a weapon.
I mean, you're not wrong there. I just had some misconceptions about laser-based propulsion.

>It's abit late for me to type out a full description of nuclear propulsion, but this video covers the basics.
Thanks, anon!

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 02:33:56 2019 No.11182745 File: 11 KB, 183x276, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Anyone know where I can listen to the full Shuttle launch loop? Complete with abort call outs?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 03:40:02 2019 No.11182830 Rocketlab launch tomorrow, anyone know if they are attempting any parts of their reusability?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 04:26:34 2019 No.11182889 File: 168 KB, 600x899, F9CA9554-FD89-4261-B317-A1BFCD7BB592.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11181966

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 04:27:59 2019 No.11182892 File: 74 KB, 600x400, C4D787D3-E97F-4C21-9424-20E1CCDEBB69.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11182889

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 04:34:13 2019 No.11182900 >>11182745 Probably Shuttle L2 on NSF

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 04:39:16 2019 No.11182907

>>11182830
>Rocketlab launch tomorrow, anyone know if they are attempting any parts of their reusability?

Their flying a new upgraded version of Electron called “Block 1” which has RCS thrusters and other upgrades to make recovery possible in the future. But this time they’ll just be flipping the booster around and gathering telemetry as it re-enters the atmosphere, to prepare for future recovery attempts.

>>	frank Thu Nov 28 05:06:03 2019 No.11182942 >>11182892 very penisy

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 05:08:34 2019 No.11182948 Redpill me on Elon Musk

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 05:10:25 2019 No.11182949 File: 129 KB, 671x1008, cz-6-7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11182942 I still find CZ-6 the cutest. Like uncut shota penis cute

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 05:23:32 2019 No.11182975
File: 67 KB, 1026x560, 45AEF28F-7392-4BA3-AF69-2E56DAB5FAF1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11182942
>>11182949
The shota penis will soon be evolving into a slightly longer reusable penis and also into a completely different looking rocket with SRBs...

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 05:29:44 2019 No.11182981 File: 26 KB, 534x574, images (8).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11182948 He wants to gtfo the planet for a reason. Being born in SA you can probably take a good guess at why.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 05:42:36 2019 No.11183007 >>11181637 Literally schizophrenic whatabaoutism the post

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 05:46:48 2019 No.11183017 >>11181766 >r/woosh literally leave, you stupid niggers are the reason why this place becomes another reddit. If you want to be reddit go there you stupid cancerous faggot

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 06:14:27 2019 No.11183044 File: 145 KB, 394x544, 1565910211168.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11182981 >government starts enforcing diversity quotas on colony ships.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 06:37:50 2019 No.11183066 >>11182113 China had seven orbital launches this month, more than the rest of the world put together!

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 06:58:42 2019 No.11183102

>>11181882
Yeah I had heard about that. I still don't completely buy the whole 'rockoons aren't worth it because the advantage isn't worth the hassle blah blah blah' argument. Surely if you can get the rocket above most of the atmosphere with pretty rudimentary and well understood technology it's worth it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 07:24:15 2019 No.11183157 >>11183066 They have another 4 to 6 launches this year Launch cadence always pick up towards the end of the year

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 07:31:57 2019 No.11183170

>>11182520
>and back
You can't use it to get back unless you somehow build a beam power thing over there first. Oh, and for the same reason, you can't use it to decelerate when you first get there. I hope that was just a probe and nobody was on it. Have a nice day!

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 07:36:56 2019 No.11183180 >>11183157 They’re saving the best to last: the Long March 5 will make it’s return to flight on December 31.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 07:43:40 2019 No.11183192 >>11183180 >inb4 it fails again and shakes up another year of launches

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 07:49:21 2019 No.11183206 >>11183192 If it fails again the entire rocket will likely be cancelled and phased out, they’ve completely redesigned components and even brought in a bunch of specialists from Russia and Europe to help fix the troublesome core-stage engines.

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 09:04:46 2019 No.11183345

>>11181677
>The SpaceX recruiter had highlighted on her LinkedIn page Glassdoor-review campaigns, saying they had raised the firm’s overall rating to 4.4 stars from 3.8 and made the best-employers list two years running, the Journal reported.

So SpaceX was still much higher than Blue Origin before their marketing attempt. Just admit that you were wrong instead of wasting the time of others as you defend your incorrect point.

>>	Justin Ramsey Thu Nov 28 09:13:28 2019 No.11183353 Say “a buh buh buh buh” again

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 10:32:27 2019 No.11183474 File: 1.72 MB, 666x716, random noise.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11182981 this can not stand! mister bezos, do something

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 10:34:33 2019 No.11183477 >>11183206 Isn't the YF-77 just a reverse engineered RD-180? How hard can it be to copy almost half a century old soviet tech?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 10:46:31 2019 No.11183502 >>11181587 >I don’t want a shitty Weyland-Yutani controlled future Better that rather than being confined to Earth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 10:48:46 2019 No.11183508 >>11181600 Faggot we are living in Cyberpunk the only difference is lack of acid rains.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 10:50:42 2019 No.11183514 >>11181587 You'd rather die in an over populated distopian earth with no resources to exploit or to get to outer space anymore?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 10:54:22 2019 No.11183521 File: 178 KB, 1400x930, Norilsk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11183508 depends on where you live, the taymyr peninsula gets them. Norilsk is also one of the most cyber/frostpunk looking cities on earth

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 10:54:41 2019 No.11183522 >>11183044 That's why god made airlocks anon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 10:57:29 2019 No.11183524 >>11183102 Shit I do it in KSP to get my crew launcher on laythe up to 20km before starting up the engines, so it at least works with cartoon physics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 10:59:22 2019 No.11183528 >>11183524 >not using real scale solar system

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 11:01:41 2019 No.11183532

>>11183514
>You'd rather die in an over populated distopian earth with no resources to exploit or to get to outer space anymore?

False dichotomy. I’d rather have a future in space NOT dominated by megacorporations, but I’ll take the megacorporation nightmare over nothing.

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 11:07:47 2019 No.11183541

>>11183532
If you're against false dichotomies, then why would you make one yourself? If we accept that there's a whole range of futures available, then we must accept whole range of futures where megacorporations takes a large role but also a positive one.

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 11:19:37 2019 No.11183553

>>11183541
>If you're against false dichotomies, then why would you make one yourself?

I didn’t. A future dominated by megacorporations is the one we’re heading for currently.

> If we accept that there's a whole range of futures available

I said that a future not dominated by megacorporations is PREFERABLE. I don’t necessarily believe it is possible.

> then we must accept whole range of futures where megacorporations takes a large role but also a positive one.

Not a possibility. Corporate entities are wholly amoral demons driven by profit and only by profit. They only act “nice” because it increases their profits.

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 11:22:23 2019 No.11183557

>>11183553
You're mentally ill. The computer you're typing on, the smartphone you're using, the electricity you're using, the car you're driving, the clothes you're wearing, the anime you're masturbating, the shoes you wear, the food you eat, the house you're living under are all products of corporations. You're free to abandon them if you think they're products of evil. This won't change in the future where rocket travels become the norm and personal ownership of spaceships become a thing for the mass.

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 12:18:19 2019 No.11183639

>>11183477
No, your thinking of the YF-100 which is their staged-combustion kerosene engine that’s used on LM-5’s boosters. The YF-100 is derived from the Soviet/Ukrainian RD-120: Zenit’s second-stage engine, which the Chinese managed to steal a couple of. In contrast, the YF-77 is a fully indigenous design, using hydrolox in a gas-generator setup. It’s basically a slightly worse version of the European Vulcain engine used on the Ariane 5, with two being used to sustain the LM-5 core stage.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 12:30:55 2019 No.11183660 >>11181362 why isn't it in color?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 12:58:55 2019 No.11183715 >>11183660 The moon is black and white

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 13:31:00 2019 No.11183788

>>11183553
>Corporate entities are wholly amoral demons driven by profit and only by profit.

Seems like ideological nonsense to me. Corporations are driven by whatever their CEO, board or those in charge are driven by. May be profit, may be other things as well.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 13:52:24 2019 No.11183833 >>11183553 There can be no profit without consumers. Therefore, we can depend on megacorporations to play a key role in safeguarding the existence of consumers. It doesn't matter why they're being nice.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 13:52:28 2019 No.11183834 >>11183474 Better filename would be random nose

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 13:52:51 2019 No.11183835
File: 108 KB, 1160x774, 8A068935-EDC7-4212-8DAF-DFC5A66BC318.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Today, ESA managed to get their mini-X-37 equivalent funded and they also got funding to begin the construction of the iHAB and ESPRIT modules for the Lunar Gateway:

https://spacenews.com/esa-declares-success-at-ministerial-meeting/

>The agency sought 12.5 billion euros for three years and 14.5 billion over five years to account for certain mandatory programs, like science. ESA ministers agreed to 12.45 billion euros and 14.39 billion euros, respectively.

>Space transportation programs received 2.24 billion euros over the next three years. That covers upgrades for both the Ariane 6 and Vega C vehicles to be introduced in 2020 as well as support for small launch vehicle development. That program also funds Space Rider, an Italian-led program for a reusable spacecraft similar to the Dream Chaser or X-37B.

>Exploration programs received almost exactly the amount requested: 1.953 billion euros versus a request of 1.98 billion.

>The funding will allow ESA to move ahead on various initiatives, ranging from continued utilization of the International Space Station to participation with NASA in a Mars sample return initiative to lunar exploration. That includes 300 million euros to start work on two modules for the NASA-led lunar Gateway, a refueling and telecommunications module called European System Providing Refueling, Infrastructure and Telecommunications (ESPRIT) and a habitation module to be developed in cooperation with Japan. A large robotic lunar lander for carrying cargo to the lunar surface, and potentially as part of a sample return system, received 150 million euros.

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 13:59:33 2019 No.11183851
File: 119 KB, 703x1040, gemini-paraglider.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11183835
Interesting design, but I'm failing to see how this would be an improvement over just launching satellites on their own or using a capsule.

Nice paraglider though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 14:15:54 2019 No.11183894 >>11183170 So our best bet is just wait until we have fusion rockets or antimatter rockets then? That's a shame. So we'll probably won't get there until the 2100s or 2200s then. I guess we can send probes over yonder.

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 14:33:41 2019 No.11183948

>>11183851
>how this would be an improvement over just launching satellites on their own or using a capsule.

It’s basically a recoverable science satellite, many experiments, especially biological and material science experiments are infinitely more valuable if recovered. Some countries like China use small capsules for this, but the US and now Europe prefer winged shuttles and lifting bodies because there’s less G-loading on re-entry, so in turn less strain is put on experiments and more fragile experiments can be used that otherwise would never be recoverable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 15:35:10 2019 No.11184104 File: 933 KB, 800x800, 1574877430048.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 15:36:17 2019 No.11184105 File: 525 KB, 800x501, 1574877443489.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11184104

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 15:37:21 2019 No.11184110 File: 359 KB, 800x325, 1574877451529.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11184105

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 15:40:19 2019 No.11184117 Fuck off back to /x/ schizo

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 16:00:30 2019 No.11184177 >>11183835 So Europe, Canada, and Japan are confirmed for Gateway, but is anyone else? What about Russia?

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 16:13:03 2019 No.11184204 >>11184177 Russia/China doing their own thing. India is doing their own thing.

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 16:38:44 2019 No.11184249

>>11184204
China is doing their own stuff because US law prevents them from working with America even without geopolitical tensions. Also, their focuses for the 2020s are robotic lunar (Chang’e series) and interplanetary (asteroids, Mars and gas giants) missions, as well as constructing a Mir-class LEO station, so crewed lunar spaceflight is currently low on their priorities. Russia is very indecisive, their planning to build their own lunar spacecraft (Orel) and super-heavy lifter (Yenisey) and probably want to build their own architecture, but severely lack the money to do so. I’ve heard Russia talk about building an airlock module for Gateway and docking Orel with it, but I’ve also heard talk of them building their own lunar station etc. It seems every other week they change their position, but in the end, their fiscal reality will likely force them to jump aboard the Gateway bandwagon. India is planning to do a Chandrayaan 3 Moon lander mission next year to replace the crashed Vikram, then they plan to do a lunar sample return mission with Japan for Chandrayaan 4 in 2023. Similar to China, India’s main priority for the 2020s is LEO spaceflight with their first crewed flight aimed for 2021 and a small Salyut-style station planned.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 16:53:32 2019 No.11184266 >>11183017 upvoted

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 20:19:43 2019 No.11184645

>>11184249

As I gathered, China space program is fully managed by the military and totally under the PLA jurisdiction, so even if the US was capable and willing to work with them it would just be another of those Chinese intelligence gathering schemes. It seems to me that the big idea of the CCP is to steal as much engineering capability as they can from the west (trough college plants, piracy and so on) in order to reach a similar technological level. On the other hand Russia is full of very good scientists, but it's only the legacy of the soviet system, and this country is too corrupt to see any real governmental effort toward space conquest. India is the unknown player, I'm sure they can get shit done because of the cost effectiveness of their missions but I've not idea how they will manage manned exploration.

What about ESA though? Are they condemned to follow America or will they be a real contender in space exploration this next century?

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 20:34:38 2019 No.11184668

>>11184645
>India is the unknown player, I'm sure they can get shit done because of the cost effectiveness of their missions but I've not idea how they will manage manned exploration.
Possibly with guidance from the Russia. Neither side has any reason to betray a long lasted mutual friendship and Russians would want a semi-counter to China, should Russian-Chinese friendship turn sour.

>ESA
ESA in short term will follow America. For them to become their own independent space agency would require a unified EU outlook and that is not possible right now. The French want one way, the Germans another, and the UK has their own ambitions.

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 20:56:39 2019 No.11184703

>>11184645
>What about ESA though? Are they condemned to follow America or will they be a real contender in space exploration this next century?

Condemned to follow is a bit harsh and not really representative of America and Europe’s relationship, it’s far more mutually beneficial even if Europe are the follower. For example, ESA are building Orion’s service module and JWST is launching on the European Ariane 5; furthermore, NASA have been practically begging ESA to join the Artemis/Gateway initiative. Despite being a follower, it’s obvious NASA heavily values European cooperation and is worried about losing them to China. Europe aren’t aiming to contend with America, or anybody for that matter (unless you count them assisting Arianespace in the commercial launch market) their far more interested in cooperation with other nations.

>>11184668

>ESA in short term will follow America. For them to become their own independent space agency would require a unified EU outlook and that is not possible right now.

This would be accurate if you were referring solely to human spaceflight, where America definitely takes the lead. But Europe has it’s own priorities separate from America: for example, ESA is more focused on weather and climate change monitoring than NASA.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 21:04:12 2019 No.11184718 >>11184703 >ESA is more focused on weather and climate change monitoring than NASA Maybe in terms of percentage of spending, but NASA spends atleast twice as much for earth science than ESA does.

>>	Transients Guy Thu Nov 28 22:59:27 2019 No.11184911 https://www.businessinsider.com/arianespace-ceo-elon-musk-colonize-low-earth-orbit-2019-11/ The Europoors are mad as fuck.

Anonymous Thu Nov 28 23:10:11 2019 No.11184928

>>11184911
>"We refuse to allow low [Earth] orbit to be cornered by one single agent, who would ultimately harm all others," said Israël.
What? Is Israel not aware of other internet constellations?

The blownout nature of the potential Starlink collision with an ESA satellite aside, the general idea of the article is true. Most of the space regulation is done on Earth, once something is in space then there's really no way to control what it does short of a missile. That does lead to a potentially scary and dangerous scenario when more players enter space. Where one of them will be opportunistic at the expense of others with no real penalty (at space). Something will have to be done to ensure that it doesn't happen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 23:13:21 2019 No.11184939 >>11184911 Doesn't surprise me the least. Arianespace cannot compete with spacex so all they do is create fud. On top of that, europoors have a weird antiamerican leaning that really clouds their judgement.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 28 23:15:38 2019 No.11184946 File: 84 KB, 958x638, 1466775366377.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11184911 >The Europoors are mad as fuck. Eurotrash can pound sand.

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 00:29:50 2019 No.11185125
File: 168 KB, 1024x741, Img-1575005130607.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Those of you who have been looking towards the MK3 prototype probably know that it's going to try resembling the final concept model. This means development is actually getting close to being finished and the final model could fly early next year.
The journey to Mars is as long as hell, so I suppose that Starship could have its rooms arranged radially to utilized by G forces generated by centripetal force. How fast do you think it will have to rotate to achieve a similar gravity level to Earth's?
My guess?
>pic related

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 00:35:31 2019 No.11185141
File: 1016 KB, 2048x1502, Speculative+interior+schematics+of+SpaceX+Starship+by+Michel+Lamontagne.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11185125
>utilized by G forces generated by centripetal force.
The fuck? I meant "utilize G forces generated by centripetal force".

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 00:48:58 2019 No.11185160

>>11185141
>>11185125
Your elonauts will be chucking their guts out for 3-6 months if you attempt anything beyond a very slight spin to allow liquids to settle. They will slum it in freefall which is really not going to be that bad since astronauts are coming back from extended stays on the ISS with no bone or muscle loss now and your elonauts are only going to 0.38g anyway. Alternatively you tether two starships together and spin them that way for a very large diameter spin, this gives you the advantage of gravity all the way as well as your starship being usable as a habitat when it's landed on Mars on its ass. The downside of this is that the mass of your engines, cargo, fuel, etc... Is not between you and the sun at all times. Personally I would take the freefall option to cut down on the rads. Freefall sickness and long excercise hours are temporary, cancer is forever.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 00:51:15 2019 No.11185163 >>11185141 It has nowhere near the necessary radius to make that work

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 00:59:37 2019 No.11185177

>>11182001
>>11182033
>He's probably spoiled by SpaceX's openness.
>Tbf the only reason Raptor has done anything (by his definition) so far is
Cute of you all to reference SpaceX because I never mentioned them or really care about starship or water towers.
I truly despise BO. Could care less about SpaceX.
>Blue decided to not go down this route and do long-duration firings instead
Are these long-duration firings on their newest revision BE-4s that actually hit full power without issue? They're on stands at sea level pressure too? Not actually flying into the air with actual resistance, vibrations, or temperature change? No stage attached to try and get to orbit and then return?

Honestly, I really hope that BO can pull through and make their rockets like they advertise. More access to space would be great. But until they have real working boosters that can go orbital, they need to calm the fuck down and shut up. The only reason BO exists, and has survived for so long is because Bezos has been pouring money into them, with very little to show for it.
Just because it works on paper, or in a controlled environment doesn't mean it will function in the open world.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 01:01:35 2019 No.11185180 >>11182981 >>11183474 >mister bezos The irony is strong. Bezos owns the Washington Post Go check their stories. SpaceX and Tesla bashing. Elon bashing in general.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 01:47:57 2019 No.11185238 Friendly reminder Rocket Lab will launch in about two hours time and they're trying to guide back the first stage through re-entry and gather data for reusability. Webcam promised, but not guaranteed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 01:51:31 2019 No.11185244 File: 170 KB, 600x600, 1569036819024.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11185238 >Webcam promised Bueno, cunts better deliver.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 02:08:10 2019 No.11185280 >>11185180 Bezos is using The Washington Post to try to push the pentagon into a $10 billion dollar defense contract with Amazon also, hes such a cringey insecure manlet stereotype its almost funny

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 02:17:32 2019 No.11185296

>>11185160
The sickness only occurs from the acceleration and not the actual constant speed, does it not? Also, while no mass is lost in the body, i heard a stay in the ISS really fucks with the circulatory system of the human body and shit.
>>11185163
Seems understandable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 02:49:28 2019 No.11185337 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sp-HFiSBk8

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 03:00:41 2019 No.11185358 A commercial station but built near the ISS.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 03:01:04 2019 No.11185359 File: 1.57 MB, 580x433, trash.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11185238 SCRUBBED

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 03:06:53 2019 No.11185366 >>11185359 Yeah just saw it. Looks like December just got more crowded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 04:34:19 2019 No.11185471 File: 507 KB, 1070x601, 33481015d04b3974f9ed7acf616592901b13507ebdabf48ee1d6d09d63acc2c4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 05:07:18 2019 No.11185497 >>11185296 The sickness is from the Coriolis forces of spinning in a small diameter of radius, that's why the talk of a tethered spin with some unspecified mass, to increase the rotation radius.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 08:20:14 2019 No.11185708 SpaceX Raptor engine 3D model https://p3d.in/ORue9

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 08:34:12 2019 No.11185727

>>11185708
>blue
LOX
>yellow
liquid methane
>orange
hot methane past fuel rich preburner
>red
hot gaseous oxygen past oxygen rich preburner?
>cyan
?
>light yellow
?

also what is that methane bypassing the fuel rich preburner and going to the ring below the burn chamber? I thought everything needed to pass the preburners

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 09:01:30 2019 No.11185754

>>11185727
>yellow
Liquid methane (intake and after pump)
>orange
Methane returning from regenerative cooling loop
>red
Fuel-rich gasses from methane preburner
>pale yellow
Methane high-pressure vapor line up to autogenous pressurization system

>light blue
Liquid oxygen
>purple-blue
Oxygen-rich gasses from in-line oxygen pump and preburner assembly
>greenish-blue
High pressure oxygen vapor line up to autogenous pressurization system

The yellow line from the pump enters the regenerative cooling loop near the nozzle throat, and flows both down along the nozzle bell and up towards the combustion chamber. It exits the cooling circuit via the two orange manifolds that join up and flow back to the preburner side of the fuel turbopump.
Fuel-rich gas is routed both to the main injector plate and to an annular injection ring near the bottom of the combustion chamber to introduce film cooling near the nozzle throat.
A small orange pipe feeds fuel to the oxygen turbopump after is has been used to cool the nozzle assembly.
A small light blue pipe feeds oxygen to the fuel turbopump directly from the oxygen pump.
A bypass line for liquid oxygen and liquid methane run up from the oxygen-to-fuel-turbopump valve and directly from the fuel pump, respectively. These appear to terminate beside the turbine of the oxygen pump; possibly feeding main combustion chamber ignition system? A series of grey lines are connected from several points across the engine, lines to carry pressure to different sensors and bleed valves?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 11:16:29 2019 No.11185916 >>11185163 18m Starship II does, however that'd be something else

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 11:18:24 2019 No.11185919 >>11185754 thanks for explaining

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 11:26:53 2019 No.11185933 >>11185919 I'm just a fag who don't know nothin, but I can trace a pipe or two.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 12:22:31 2019 No.11186048 File: 172 KB, 1014x570, 7CDD014F-E3F1-4DBD-8ACD-7B0F64034D48.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] A picture of the 3rd Long March 5 being vertically assembled at it’s Wenchang launch site:

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 12:27:53 2019 No.11186059 >>11186048 Interesting, I'd figure that the Chinese space program would prefer horizontal integration, maybe their satellites can't be in the horizontal?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 12:32:00 2019 No.11186070 >>11185754 thx

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 12:35:45 2019 No.11186075

>>11184911
>>11184939
We're not all like that over here. Pity those of us over here that still have our heads screwed on and have to watch first hand our culture being destroyed. I wish I'd moved to the US 10 years ago when I'd first considered it. I could probably still get in on an H1B, but then it's managing to stay after that ends that's the trouble.

inb4 fuck off we're full

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 12:45:37 2019 No.11186099
File: 105 KB, 940x626, 15C59C52-80D7-48D0-AB27-90D005CB5C6B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11186059
The Chinese have always used vertical integration, their ability to build infrastructure rapidly and the deep-pocketed nature of their government dominated launch-market, has allowed the Chinese to build an unparalleled amount of vertical assembly buildings and umbilical towers. The only Chinese launch vehicles that use horizontal integration are commercial small-sat/ICBM derived LVs that launch from Jiquan and the Long March 11 which uses a mobile TEL.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 12:46:49 2019 No.11186101 File: 604 KB, 1728x2526, 006A5DC8-6182-479C-8B44-D6E7E96D11A8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11186099

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 12:47:45 2019 No.11186103 >>11186101 Isn't that their crewed rocket? Imagine how terrifying it must be to ride on a rocket fueled by that cancer juice.

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 12:51:04 2019 No.11186109

>>11186103
Yeah! It's almost like they could do with putting the crew in some kind of hermetically sealed capsule with its own air supply to completely protect them from them the poisonous chemicals, and also to mount that capsule a long way away from said poison to minimise any chance of contamination

Oh wait

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 12:51:47 2019 No.11186116 File: 2.35 MB, 478x354, themoreyouknow.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11186099 Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 12:56:13 2019 No.11186129 File: 1.05 MB, 1107x2964, 344F9614-D95C-4E81-B867-176341909A14.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11186103 >>11186109 Ha..ha..ha..imagine actually launching your astronauts on a hypergolic booster...amirite!...umm...guys?...

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 12:58:22 2019 No.11186137 >>11186109 I see your point, but that would still be unnerving to me if I had to ride it. >>11186129 Arguably worse since it didn't have a proper launch escape system.

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 12:59:55 2019 No.11186138
File: 101 KB, 950x633, 8A40C42F-51C1-4509-9CA2-BB91AF8D6DAE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11186116
Actually I made a mistake, out of all the Long March rockets, it’s the LM-6 which uses a TEL (pic-related). The LM-11 I mentioned is basically just a modified ICBM and uses a canister to cold-launch, just like it’s family.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 13:00:59 2019 No.11186143 File: 181 KB, 953x556, 502A42FE-8D85-4B64-B091-2A0E0B36E390.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11186138 LM-11

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 13:53:43 2019 No.11186225

>>11186137
>I see your point, but that would still be unnerving to me if I had to ride it.

You took it well, I'm a sarky twat at times. I think the poisonous chemicals would be the least of my worries though, since coming into contact with them in this context would probably imply catastrophic failure of the vehicle, and imminent firey death wouldn't leave much time for poisoning or cancer

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 13:57:15 2019 No.11186231
File: 57 KB, 875x492, teslachadtruck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Maybe this is more /k/ than /sfg/ but the rockets hit 97km altitude and that's better than anything Branson has done.

What do y'all'ses think of the Nork "super large" MLRS? Four launch tubes, 400km range. Potentially nuclear? Solid or liquid? There's like no fucking info on them and that annoys me.

Ahegopat cybertruck unrelated.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 13:58:45 2019 No.11186235 >>11186143 Wait, they're using canister launched rockets for regular satellites? That's fucking hilarious and potentially enables the biggest meme in history, submarine launched satellites. Just sail to your desired launch inclination!

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 14:01:44 2019 No.11186239 >>11186235 >submarine launched satellites it has been considered

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 14:02:44 2019 No.11186242 >>11186239 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_satellite I had to look it up. Of course the Russians tried it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 14:04:15 2019 No.11186245 >>11186242 as seen above, China probably has the capability I think the US has considered it but nobody was dumb enough to try

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 14:10:24 2019 No.11186257 >>11186245 AFAIK nobody has ever converted the Trident into a launch vehicle, so America technically doesn't have the capability.

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 14:42:04 2019 No.11186303
File: 38 KB, 700x467, 93A6591C-3F20-4FF7-B6B5-A9C3E766B92E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11186235
>>11186239
>>11186242
>>11186245
China have actually launched an LM-11 from a barge at sea, so that’s only a couple steps away from a submarine launch.

>>11186257
The DoD, particularly DARPA keeps talking about responsive launch capabilities. The idea behind this is that: small launch vehicles could be used to quickly replace destroyed orbital assets (e.g. spy satellites) during a potential conflict, by launching a temporary replacement smallsat on short notice. This prevents the enemy from permanently denying valuable intelligence to the DoD via ASAT weapons during a conflict. A submarine launcher would be the ultimate responsive launch capability, as it could even launch a satellite during a nuclear exchange in which all the potential launch sites and airports (air launch) had been obliterated.

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 14:48:54 2019 No.11186318
File: 540 KB, 350x563, badwelds.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Bad news everyone. Did a pressure test and my engine failed it. Tried to mark where it was leaking but it's leaking everywhere. I'm pretty disappointed by this. I can send it back to my friend for him to weld it again, but he's going to be busy this time of the year and I doubt that he can fix the issue given his novice skills at welding.

I'm debating on scrapping this thing and looking to have a similar sized engine be machined from a block of aluminum, but if I'm going to do that then I might as well start over on the design as alot of elements were dictated by the preset pipe sizes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 14:53:53 2019 No.11186334 >>11186318 yeah your buddy fucked it for you

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 14:54:55 2019 No.11186337
File: 941 KB, 750x750, aheago combination M90 NVA strichtarn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11186231
cybertruck already looks military-ish, should be multicam or strichtarn.

neither nti/fas and the other usual suspects nor 38north really have anything substantial yet. We know it's not a KN-09 since it has a longer range of at least 250 km. The diameter may be around 400 mm. Just like the KN 09 it is guided (everything else wouldn't make sense). The similar chinese WS-2 system (200 km range) achieves a 600 m CEP with inertial guidance, so it's most likely less accurate than that (due to the increased range alone. Nork inertial guidance is also most likely worse). The KN-09 appears to be closely derived from the soviet SM-30 smerch/chink WS1, so it's using a solid rocket motor too. The new one, that is similar to the chink WS-2, is most likely as well.
Throw weight is hard to estimate, most likely around 200 kg like similar systems. Maybe less, maybe more, no one really knows. If it can launch nuclear payloads entirely depends on the throw weight (which can probably be traded of for range like with most other missiles) and how far the nork miniaturization program has progressed

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 14:56:44 2019 No.11186343 >>11186303 would only work for signal intelligence though, the photo reconaissance sattelites require fuckhuge mirrors

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 15:01:40 2019 No.11186361

>>11186334
Yeah. My guess is that he was only taught structural welds (which is generally more applicable) instead of sealing welds. My fault was me assuming that since he's a pretty good machinist then that means that he should be good at welding too. At least I tested the thing before firing it, or else that could've ended badly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 15:02:20 2019 No.11186364 >>11186361 no, he's just a bad welder in general

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 15:13:25 2019 No.11186394

>>11186343
>would only work for signal intelligence though, the photo reconaissance sattelites require fuckhuge mirrors

Sure, if you want sub 10cm imagery your gonna need a big mirror. But commercial companies like PlanetLab are building shoebox-sized imagery satellites that get 3m imagery. These rapid response satellites aren’t meant to fully replicate the capabilities of multi-billion dollar spy satellites, just partially mitigate the intel gap caused by their loss.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 15:19:30 2019 No.11186412 >>11186318 >those welds chinese sweatshop/10

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 15:20:47 2019 No.11186418 >>11186231 that truck decal is the ultimate power move

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 15:26:14 2019 No.11186435 >>11186303 DoD is probably creaming themselves over Starship. Rapidly reusable and capable of deploying a good sized constellation in a single shot. Even a Falcon can throw 60 Starlinks at a time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 15:50:28 2019 No.11186495 >>11186318 >That welding Oof, probably could have done a better job yourself op with a cheap inverter welder and some practice on scrap metal from the dump. Fuck your friend.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 18:06:48 2019 No.11186675 >>11186435 Not to mention the size of fairing potential with starship. The DoD would love to send up better spy satellites, but they require huge diameter mirrors and so huge fairings are required.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 18:32:14 2019 No.11186699 >>11186435 >>11186675 Yeah, the DoD loves Starship so much it was the reason they rejected SpaceX’s NSSF Phase 1 bid and there’s also the likelihood SpaceX opted to propose Falcon Heavy with a bigger fairing instead for their Phase 2 bid...

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 18:51:55 2019 No.11186723 File: 59 KB, 794x960, 53186684_474932926407387_8950117241001607168_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] When is dm-2

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 19:32:52 2019 No.11186786 File: 1.64 MB, 1260x720, f5aa63a267ed42e9e22a6498ce3a4924.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 20:03:52 2019 No.11186829 >>11186786 >the virgin cramped near rectal lunar 'gateway' >the chad roomy Olympic dance-off Skylab

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 20:53:23 2019 No.11186908

>>11186829

>the chad roomy Olympic dance-off Skylab

>chad skylab...

>loses a solar panel and sun shade during launch, leaving station with severe power and overheating problems
>only carried 3 people at a time
>only occupied for half a year in total
>scene of a crew mutiny
>abruptly abandoned and left to rot until it de-orbited, with no rescue mission coming to fruition
>litters debris across Australia, leading to NASA getting fined for littering

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 20:54:01 2019 No.11186909 >>11186723 never

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 20:58:31 2019 No.11186915

>>11186908
>despite a rocky start it persevered, showing how tough it is
>so much space that NASA didn't know what to do with and couldn't meet it's full potential
>a year and a half of being the largest space station
>scene of a Space Mutiny
>was so awesome that it could only be killed by NASA's incompetence
>in it's final moments, it helps the Aussies by landing on some emus

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 21:09:14 2019 No.11186939 >>11186829 Starship as envisioned now will be another height of a man across when compared to Skylab. Skylab was 6.6m Starlab will be 9m

Anonymous Fri Nov 29 21:11:38 2019 No.11186941

>>11186908
>became the scene of one of only two times ever where a space station was brought back from the dead
>brought up to operational capacity by three men in a week from being completely uninhabitable
the Skylab mutiny was an important lesson in crew relations for Houston

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 22:20:05 2019 No.11187026 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 22:52:07 2019 No.11187056 >>11186939 If Bigelow ever stops being dumb we could see a massive inflatable station launched in a Starship fairing eventually

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 22:53:28 2019 No.11187058 >>11187056 I'm not convinced it'd be bigger than Starship by itself, because it needs to be able to fit outside the payload bay door

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 22:56:26 2019 No.11187061 >>11187058 I mean the bottom of the fairing could be filled with power and docking port and shit and the top part of it be blown up with air after it’s all deployed

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 22:57:45 2019 No.11187065 >>11187061 you mean an expendable starkicker thing, with a Bigelow module on top being its own fairing like a capsule?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 23:03:24 2019 No.11187068 >>11187065 I meant just like a station single-launched and deployed like a regular payload from a Starship with part of it being inflatable

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 29 23:21:26 2019 No.11187093 >>11187068 it still needs to fit out the payload bay door, anon

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 00:02:17 2019 No.11187138 >>11187093 Chomper design solves this problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 00:27:52 2019 No.11187172 >>11187138 Chomper has really strange payload restrictions, think about that geometry

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 00:29:49 2019 No.11187177 >>11187172 Depends how wide the jaws open, if they have any sense they will make them hinge them to 90 degrees which would allow them to yeet out anything that can fit inside as a single package.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 00:44:49 2019 No.11187200 >>11187177 the length of the jaw and the actual width of the chomper really changes how big of a unitary payload you can snake out

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 01:27:02 2019 No.11187240 >>11182948 Absolute mad lad

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 02:10:34 2019 No.11187286 >>11187200 I assume it would be split in half down the length of the payload bay, at least it would make sense to do that if you are going through the trouble of making a huge hinged section you might as well go all the way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 02:13:22 2019 No.11187292 >>11186303 >>11186435 How big a submarine would you need to launch SS/SH from a tube, SLBM style?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 02:26:53 2019 No.11187313 >>11187292 no

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 10:32:19 2019 No.11187900 Dead thread?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 10:37:17 2019 No.11187913 File: 58 KB, 626x754, Double_dose.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Dr. Bigelow's extra heavy dosage

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 10:46:21 2019 No.11187939 File: 47 KB, 1000x750, geminis_side_by_side.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Post your comfy spaceflight images.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 10:47:51 2019 No.11187942 File: 700 KB, 1000x957, space_station_mir.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11187939

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 10:48:53 2019 No.11187944 File: 91 KB, 1920x1200, PIA17171-1920x1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11187942

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 10:50:04 2019 No.11187947 File: 534 KB, 2560x1600, qgGkrnB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11187944

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 10:51:53 2019 No.11187950 File: 2.32 MB, 2369x3000, 1550624592906.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11187947

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 11:21:09 2019 No.11188004 File: 350 KB, 1024x811, ACAF86E4-CFCE-41CC-9977-B4E7DB1145EC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11187950

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 11:23:24 2019 No.11188009 File: 1.86 MB, 2998x1602, 5E3DE8AF-EE1F-45F1-BB21-F5B745FA92A8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11188004

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 11:24:37 2019 No.11188011 File: 437 KB, 1920x1280, 03B2E283-B74D-413F-B311-24E51987F1AD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11188009

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 11:25:55 2019 No.11188014 File: 3.96 MB, 1494x1125, SLS9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11188011 Not enough engines.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 11:26:47 2019 No.11188017 >>11186939 where do you live that men are 2.4 meters tall

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 11:27:24 2019 No.11188018 >>11188014 Unironically not enough engines on the SLS core. If there was a fifth, it'd have a much better payload fraction to orbit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 11:28:33 2019 No.11188021 >>11188017 Maybe he’s an NBA player?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 11:30:22 2019 No.11188022 File: 49 KB, 603x500, Chad-map-boundaries-cities-locator.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11188017 Where else?

Anonymous Sat Nov 30 11:35:28 2019 No.11188029
File: 828 KB, 2580x2158, D92C13AF-C227-403E-9660-2060150F5CD2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11188018
>If there was a fifth, it'd have a much better payload fraction to orbit.

Five engines you say? Hmmm

Also, I’m pretty sure tacking more engines on the core wouldn’t have that significant of an effect, considering 70% of SLS’ thrust comes from the solid boosters and it’s core only outputs a level of thrust comparable to the Falcon 9, albeit with a far longer burn time and far better efficiency.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 11:39:10 2019 No.11188036 >>11187292 Underwater aircraft carrier.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 11:44:21 2019 No.11188050 File: 1004 KB, 758x554, ATLANTIS-SUBMERSIBLE-AIRCRAFT-CARRIER.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11188036 >>11187292

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 12:14:42 2019 No.11188116 >>11188017 it's... less than one and a half men okay

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 12:53:29 2019 No.11188169 >>11188029 reducing the burn time would improve gravity losses, I think

Anonymous Sat Nov 30 13:04:45 2019 No.11188194

>>11188169
I think that’s why they want to upgrade to more thrusty boosters. Having more thrust after SRB sep would help too, just not as much. And considering how much trouble they had getting four engines to work I don’t wanna think about how long it’d take for them to design a way to get a fifth one in there

Anonymous Sat Nov 30 13:08:43 2019 No.11188201

>>11188169
>reducing the burn time would improve gravity losses, I think

It would, but the whole design of SLS revolves around the core-stage pushing the stack all the way to just shy of orbital velocity. Using the RS-25s like for example, the Saturn V first-stage (which separated at only 60km in altitude) would be a complete waste of money and potential, as the RS-25’s biggest selling point is it’s ability to maintain unparalleled efficiency throughout the entire ascent profile.

Anonymous Sat Nov 30 13:39:23 2019 No.11188246

I know this is probably going to get deleted but today is my 20th birthday.
I just want to say that I'm very grateful to /sci/ for changing my life the last year. I'm in STEM because of you all.
You inspire me. You made me work long hours and nights. Thanks folks. Probably the best board in 4channel

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 13:43:47 2019 No.11188254 >>11188246 shut up, NIGGER

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 13:44:13 2019 No.11188255 >>11181362

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 13:44:53 2019 No.11188257 >>11188246 Happy birthday, anon! Good luck on your degree!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 13:53:58 2019 No.11188268 >>11188246 Love you too faggot.

Anonymous Sat Nov 30 17:10:26 2019 No.11188577
File: 153 KB, 1788x903, iwishivetakenaheattransfercourse.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I've written a MATLAB code model film cooling in a small engine. Right now it is only taking into account the convective heat transfer between the engine exhaust and film cooling.

Something I've noticed is that the coolant temperature continues to rise after the throat, but other sources I've read says that the highest temperature should be at the throat and it'll cool at the nozzle. Is there some other heat transfer mechanism that I'm missing? I've considered radiative, but it's contribution is too small.

Pic related, an example of some of the plots the code generates.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 18:19:14 2019 No.11188690 File: 110 KB, 750x563, 1269605165869.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] $20 says SLS delayed again and asks for $10b more in funding

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 18:27:42 2019 No.11188706 >>11188690 >$10b more in funding i dont think they even need to ask for it anymore, the US gov just keeps throwing it at them anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 18:47:12 2019 No.11188747 What should Starship's exterior be coated with? I'm guessing a tough elastic, like Flex Seal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 18:49:12 2019 No.11188754 >>11188747 WD40

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 18:54:12 2019 No.11188766 >>11188747 froglube

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 18:56:22 2019 No.11188773 File: 143 KB, 1922x746, Tempering_colors_in_steel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11188747 Bare, let that beautiful fucking tempering coloring stand in all it's glory

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 19:03:51 2019 No.11188787 File: 5 KB, 300x168, space_robin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11188747 Black and white paint.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 19:11:49 2019 No.11188802 >>11188747 Polyurethane foam

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 19:27:44 2019 No.11188840 >>11188766 balistol

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 19:49:01 2019 No.11188884 >>11188773 This, there will be a sweet colour gradient spreading back from the heatshield, kino as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 19:51:39 2019 No.11188893 >>11188840 cosmoline

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 19:59:36 2019 No.11188918 >>11188893 they're going to need a LOT of cosmoline on Mars

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 20:49:32 2019 No.11189046 File: 1.02 MB, 3196x1808, flextape-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11188747 Flex Tape

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 21:23:09 2019 No.11189103 how did we go from this >>11188004 to this >>11188011

Anonymous Sat Nov 30 21:27:23 2019 No.11189111

>>11189103
I assume you mean that in a negative way? Lack of strong interest in spaceflight by the US government since Apollo. Combine that with an industry that was very hostile to companies (in the sense that the high cost low cadence payloads meant that only a very few government-back companies can survive) created an environment that encouraged stagnation, and you end up with an industry that desperately needs a rework.

Anonymous Sat Nov 30 21:51:36 2019 No.11189153

>>11186435
Oh yeah, the DoD just LOVES Starship so much that they slapped down SpaceX's LSA bid for using Starship, causing them to lose out on hundreds of millions of dollars in free development money.

The US Government is not even SLIGHTLY interested in Starship.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 21:52:54 2019 No.11189155 >>11186699 >>11189153 samefag

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 21:53:29 2019 No.11189157 File: 618 KB, 1920x1200, Screenshot_20190413-133953_Drive.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11188029 This is why the Booster Obsolescence and Life Extension program is such a big deal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 21:54:32 2019 No.11189159 >>11189155 Looks like someone else beat me to the punch.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 22:08:39 2019 No.11189179 >>11181882 Would like to smoke with that CEO and have him explain to me how he will achieve orbital velocity using trade winds

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 22:48:58 2019 No.11189249 >>11188747 The blood of B*eing employees. I would say the blood of the congressmen that support SLS as well, but I don't want to get a visit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 22:54:52 2019 No.11189253 >>11189179 MAGICAL DRAG REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 22:56:23 2019 No.11189257 File: 415 KB, 1421x992, voFRDZ1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What would Starship's integration flow look like? For reference, this is SLS's.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 22:57:26 2019 No.11189260 File: 44 KB, 762x574, 1575142450383[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11189257 And this is the Atlas V's

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 22:57:40 2019 No.11189261 >>11189257 José, his amigos, his semitruck, and his power washer.

Anonymous Sat Nov 30 23:00:13 2019 No.11189263

The starship steel thing is a farce, right? I haven't fucked with KSP in a hot minute, but I don't understand how making your craft 50%+ heavier is supposed to be more efficient? I thought minimizing dry mass was the one of the most important things in rocketry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 23:04:21 2019 No.11189264 >>11189263 There are legitimate use-cases where steel wins out. For example, the Shuttle SRB casings were made of steel despite the higher weight so that they could better endure the heat and aerodynamic forces after detaching from the external tank.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 23:06:33 2019 No.11189265 >>11189249 Why not chain their skeletons to the tailfins? Extremely kino.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 23:07:12 2019 No.11189266 >>11181362 Earth is flat

Anonymous Sat Nov 30 23:07:30 2019 No.11189269

>>11189263
>The starship steel thing is a farce, right?
No. It seems like that's the way SpaceX wants to go with Starship.

>haven't fucked with KSP in a hot minute, but I don't understand how making your craft 50%+ heavier is supposed to be more efficient?I thought minimizing dry mass was the one of the most important things in rocketry.
Where are you getting that figure from? Sure, I think a steel Starship would be heavier than an equivalent aluminum or carbon-fiber one, but SpaceX has chosen the material based on other properties that they felt was more important than weight. Which is a reasonable perspective, a reusable vehicle would need to focus on things other than just being a light as possible. Such as better repear potential due to steel being much more weldable than the types of aluminum used in aerospace (and forget about repairing carbon-fiber parts), or better strength at extremely high and low temperatures which makes the vehicle much more sturdy, or just plain cost cutting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 23:08:26 2019 No.11189270 >>11189266 Is it worth the bans just to shitpost that every day

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 23:09:39 2019 No.11189272 >>11189270 Damn, the mods were fast on that one. Are they finally cracking down on flattards?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 23:10:36 2019 No.11189276 >>11189264 Yeah, but then that weight is ditched with the SRB, while the starship's weight is part of the final payload and effects the entire flight.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 23:10:52 2019 No.11189277 >>11189272 They respond quickly to reports, if they're awake. Evidently they are still up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 23:12:46 2019 No.11189279 >>11189269 the steel tolerates reentry heating better, so they save mass on TPS too also at such large sizes, the things that make steel heavier balance out and it really is a wash

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 30 23:16:38 2019 No.11189285 File: 12 KB, 249x249, images (32).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Jannies are around Fuck Niggers Fuck Jannies Fuck SLS Fuck Boeing Fuck Shelby Fuck NASA

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 00:05:11 2019 No.11189353 File: 731 KB, 990x737, Skylab_joins_the_Emu_War.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11186915 >in it's final moments, it helps the Aussies by landing on some emus You can't prove to me that this didn't happen.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 00:20:02 2019 No.11189391
File: 38 KB, 1024x576, Stainless-Steel-VS-CC-vs-AL-1024x576.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11189279
Especially since stainless steel is also just much tougher than aluminum to begin with. The only issue I see is corrosion, and that can be alleviated with a thin protective coating, like WD-40 or as I'd like, a specialized version of flex seal clear to protect the hull.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 00:23:02 2019 No.11189394

>>11188747
Why would you cover it with anything? The bare polished steel does a good job at passive heat management, is structurally tough and with regular application of anti-corrosives won't rust or wear too quickly. Liquid rubber/sealant could help protect it from corrosion but it would also catch on fire during reentry. Plus UV radiation will shred it with prolonged exposure as it does with all polymers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 01:46:14 2019 No.11189548 >>11188246 Gay

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 01:48:38 2019 No.11189553 How do I become spaceflight

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 01:50:48 2019 No.11189555 >>11189553 Fly in space

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 02:36:35 2019 No.11189616 File: 132 KB, 1000x842, 489.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Submarine-launched satellite I am amazed. A submarine that's also a satellite.Can't wait for it to start taking tourists to Europa.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 02:49:48 2019 No.11189640 >>11189616 Scoot Moonbeam has decidedly proven that submarines can fly to other worlds.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 03:07:08 2019 No.11189653 >>11188577 Can you share the code?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 05:00:38 2019 No.11189812 File: 31 KB, 614x586, AB43A789-F1B1-4493-B885-302B75A5BEFD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11189640 Immanentize the eschaton.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 05:05:42 2019 No.11189813 File: 35 KB, 379x214, is this what you want.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11189812

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 05:47:20 2019 No.11189851 File: 758 KB, 3408x2556, 2AD834E2-8234-4B43-9FD9-DC700B2BBEA8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 05:48:37 2019 No.11189852 File: 3.33 MB, 2549x1912, 644E5A59-2878-4E45-AD9E-69DEC72034B1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11189851 Blue Origin’s HAB is currently getting a roof

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 06:44:44 2019 No.11189909 Why are we not sponsoring moon programmes yet? I thought we have the technology already. What about Mars? Don't rich people want to build shit in the space and tax us?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 06:52:54 2019 No.11189934 >>11189909 https://dearmoon.earth/

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 07:01:10 2019 No.11189947 >>11189934 >sending a bunch of useless hacks to moon I'm talking about serious projects aka building infrastructure and starting to exert geopolitical influence

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 07:02:33 2019 No.11189952 >>11189947 too expensive

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 07:05:20 2019 No.11189957 >>11189952 How expensive? It was expensive to colonize America too, but it pays off to set foot on new land and claim territory unchallenged

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 07:11:23 2019 No.11189966 Did ULA snipers really sabotage a SpaceX launch?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 07:23:58 2019 No.11189979 >>11189966 No, that was just Elon being a speculative idiot, the Amos-6 explosion was due to a failed second-stage COPV.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 07:32:40 2019 No.11189993 >>11189979 A rather exotic and previously unseen COPV failure mode, to be fair.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 07:57:40 2019 No.11190021

>>11189957
>but it pays off to set foot on new land and claim territory unchallenged
No it doesn't. Only if that territory is rich in resources that make up for the cost of colonisation. Antarctica isn't colonised for this reason. The moon would be 100,000 times harder to colonise than antarctica.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 08:06:55 2019 No.11190041

>>11190021
Antarctica isn't colonized because there's a treaty against it. Said treaty was motivated, in part, by the daunting expenses of trying to inhabit a constantly shifting ice block, but the lack of accessible resources is a big reason not to try. The Moon's biggest natural resource is its shallow gravity well and close proximity to the Earth.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 08:07:05 2019 No.11190042 >>11190021 The only resource on earth is human labor. The more humans are the more we can create value.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 08:13:50 2019 No.11190054

>>11190041
>The Moon's biggest natural resource is its shallow gravity well and close proximity to the Earth.
That's what I mean. There's not enough of value there to see private companies throwing billions at it. Some governments are throwing money at it, but there's not some huge space race, because there's not a lot of value there in the near future.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 08:18:06 2019 No.11190065

>>11190054
We don't have detailed subterranean geological surveys of the Moon yet, so its not clear what, exactly, could be gained by colonizing it. There are moneyed interests in turning the Moon into a factory for space installations, but they will take a lot of time to come to fruition. That hasn't stopped Bezos from pouring billions into the first levels of infrastructure needed to do it, though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 08:36:05 2019 No.11190086 >>11189909 That's what most of Artemis is. It's called Commercial Lunar Payload Services. Nasa has no interest is launching astronauts on anything other than SLS & Orion due to politics.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 08:38:52 2019 No.11190089

>>11190021
>launch space missions from the moon
>use titanium and helium to develop fusion energy
>study solar system history from a geology that's not been affected by so much vulcanic activity
>better optical and radio observatories
>godlike tourist destination for the richest fo the rich

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 08:42:46 2019 No.11190102 >>11190089 >Titanium I think you mean tritium.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 08:44:01 2019 No.11190106

>>11190089
That all sounds good to me. But it's all bit expensive now to expect anyone to finance it all any time soon.

There's plenty of cheap titanium and helium on earth atm too. And launching from earth going to be cheaper than launching from to the moon for a long time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 08:47:55 2019 No.11190112 >>11190106 We're in the middle of a global helium shortage...

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 08:52:19 2019 No.11190122 >>11190112 >global helium shortage nah https://www.wired.com/2016/06/dire-helium-shortage-vastly-inflated/ There'll be cheaper ways to get helium without going to the moon for a long time. Someday sure, but not soon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 08:58:31 2019 No.11190133 >>11188577 shock heating potentially, don't know if you've modelled that though

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 09:23:02 2019 No.11190182 >>11189852 I wish I could afford to build a factory like that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 09:35:18 2019 No.11190216 >>11190182 It’s more of a rocket warehouse actually...

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 10:44:05 2019 No.11190379 File: 3.05 MB, 4977x3991, DSC_0704 (3).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] MK3 reporting in

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 10:44:52 2019 No.11190384 >>11190089 >to develop fusion energy We already have more than enough fuel for it, it's not a supplies problem, it's a technology problem. Going to a remote airless rock covered with sharp dust is not going to make fusion happen any faster.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 10:45:57 2019 No.11190388 >>11190384 Mars might make fission cheaper tho

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 10:47:46 2019 No.11190392 >>11190379 Chinese?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 10:54:33 2019 No.11190408 File: 1.43 MB, 750x1334, File 01-12-2019, 15 53 49.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11190379 Chinese it seems like.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 10:58:27 2019 No.11190417 >>11190388 And how would that work? Monkeys might fly out my ass too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 10:59:29 2019 No.11190421 >>11190417 nuke Mars

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 11:01:38 2019 No.11190425 >>11190421 nukes are mostly about fusion these days.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 11:02:00 2019 No.11190426

>>11189653
Sure. https://pastebin.com/3dN8SpZS Sorry if it seems like a mess.

>>11190133
I've only modeled convective heat transfer between the engine exhaust and film coolant. I have added provisions for other types of heat transfer, but haven't used them.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 11:06:33 2019 No.11190438

>>11190425
No, while staged sausage-link fission-fusion devices exist and are the biggest weapons, nobody fucking uses them; everybody is using boosted fission (where fission is used to provide extra neutrons to more fully fission the plutonium
this is because all of the development efforts have been towards the miniaturization of nuclear weapons instead of making the biggest boom. Sorry, Edward, but the Teller-Ulam device is just infinitely scaleable and that scared the big-wigs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 11:08:13 2019 No.11190442 >>11190438 oh. neat.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 11:25:01 2019 No.11190481

>>11190438
This is inaccurate. Most of the yield comes from fast fission of the tamper, which is free extra yield once you release neutrons from nuclear fusion in the secondary. Launch vehicles for nuclear weapons are always constrained by size and weight, and adding more fusion yield is inefficient.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 11:38:47 2019 No.11190499

>>11190481
yeah that's what I said
wait whoops.
>everybody is using boosted fission (where fusion is used to provide extra neutrons
I typed fission instead of fusion in that sentence the first time
is the tamper enriched uranium instead of plutonium, and also separate from the primary? stuffing deuterium into the core of the primary lets you dramatically boost yield while keeping it super small or something???
or was I dreaming about the perfect device for creating an apocalyptic EMP device and got those wires crossed regarding reality? for EMP it's important to make it a single stage device

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 11:43:41 2019 No.11190506 >>11190481 >and adding more fusion yield is inefficient Even with fusion, hydrogen is still a shitty meme fuel.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 11:49:33 2019 No.11190515

>>11190506
lithium is the good shit: some types of lithium will fission when hit by neutrons (turning into fusion fuel and helium), and other types will fusion, or something
however it worked, nobody thought it'd work like that, so Castle Bravo killed some Japanese fishermen

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 11:54:50 2019 No.11190525 >>11190515 Aneutronic fission is underrated. Electron emission = DIRECT ELECTRIC POWER >Castle Bravo That was because they specifically underestimated one isotope of lithium, I think it was lithium 7.

Anonymous Sun Dec 1 12:00:19 2019 No.11190534

>>11190525
yeah, -7 will fusion, when all they wanted was for -6 to fission and produce fusion fuel (deuterium?)
anyway, once there's an actual outpost on Mars with ISRU equipment, they'll have all the mining equipment they could ever need to dig up a bunch of thorium and start a molten salt breeder development program without the USGov and internatinoal busybodies sticking their noses in

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 13:16:56 2019 No.11190691 File: 104 KB, 955x1300, cyberwomancorn11363551.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Shouldn't the moon have pretty much the same minerals Earth does given how we think it formed?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 13:21:45 2019 No.11190700 >>11190691 Isn't it low in iron because most of our iron fell to the core, and the moon formed out of blown-off crust when Thea smacked proto-us?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 13:30:23 2019 No.11190728 >>11190700 "low" in iron, it's still top ten most common element that we've seen in the lunar basalt and etcetera

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 13:50:31 2019 No.11190763 >>11190700 true but the lunar "crust" if that term even exists would most likely have a similar amount of iron as the earths crust

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 15:39:49 2019 No.11191019 >>11190763 it does, but I think it's much thicker than the Earth's crust

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 15:46:20 2019 No.11191026 >>11191019 does the moon have a molten interior? i always assumed it has solidified into a solid rock by now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 15:55:14 2019 No.11191053 >>11191026 we don't know

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 18:07:18 2019 No.11191338 New Thread: >>11191336

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 1 18:25:37 2019 No.11191386 >>11189553 Kill the current one.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]