/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.11360704]

Any Questions? edition

previous: >>11354939

[Anonymous No.11360809]

>>11360704
But /sci/ said that Starship can't land on Moon due to dust making the engines explode!

[Anonymous No.11360837]

>>11360704
>About Space Travel, the Mars Mission & Star Wars
https://share.dmca.gripe/V6hFptQRCdMwKTPL.webm

[Anonymous No.11360853]

Terrordyne is creating Terrordyne: the discord channel for general spaceflight chat discussion for the 4chan userbase. Join or don't.

https://discord.gg/ZCWtZFS

[Anonymous No.11360858]

Terrordyne is creating Terrordyne: the discord channel for general spaceflight chat discussion for the 4chan userbase. Join or don't.

https://discord.gg/ZCWtZFS

[Anonymous No.11360867]

>>11360809

Rocket engines can't propel any object in space. They can only propel when there's an atmosphere. Sorry.

https://u.trs.tn/nzixp.webm

https://files.catbox.moe/so2rrt.mp4

https://u.trs.tn/vzdkr.mp4

https://u.trs.tn/lwmnzv.mp4

https://u.trs.tn/oteour.mp4

[Anonymous No.11360870]

>>11360858
>Terrordyne
Who's that? Google keeps leading me to spotify.

[Anonymous No.11360872]

Don’t respond to trolls. Report and ignore.

[Anonymous No.11360877]

>>11360809
I know that your post was a joke, but wasn't there a paper about how far moon dust would get thrown if a Starship sized lander landed on the moon?

[Anonymous No.11360882]

>>11360870

Someone's random username that has nothing to do with the music artist of the same name.

[Anonymous No.11360884]

shit’s popping in Boca Chica. Waiting for another big stack...

[Anonymous No.11360892]

>>11360882
Oops. Thought it was some new aerospace company that's trying to be with "it" by making a discord channel to reach out to the young crowd.

[Anonymous No.11360893]

>>11360870

Oh. The poster here who has written anti-sls screeds on here over the years.

[Anonymous No.11360929]

>>11360809
I'm the faggot behind that meme. My concerns were the exhaust plume kicking up debris and excavating a hole which tips it over. So it was thought that curiousity had a sensor damaged during landing from grit flying in the air. This was later shown to be due to the pyrotechnics. Pebbles were thrown up on to curiosity though. This may not happen on the moon it's predicted that debris in the plume will get thrown away very fast. How fast? Potentially as fast as lunar escape and indeed the astronauts on lunar missions saw debris from landing FLY OVER THE HORIZON AND DISAPPEAR. In some experiments we've seen the exhaust plume fluidize the underlying regolith and dig a hole. Excavation seems to be an issue when the engine is much closer to the ground. And many of our rocket excavation experiments have been done at 1 atm. Really compact soil also tends to decrease excavation and lunar regolith is fairly compact. Anyway here's some fun experiments on plume regolith interaction:
https://sciences.ucf.edu/class/landing-team/the-science-of-plume-effects/
And even if these turn out to be problems, probably the only way we can study them is by attempting to land a rocket of that size.

[Anonymous No.11360937]

>>11360809
no, Starship would be fine
it would be everything else on the surface of the Moon or in cislunar space that would be screwed

[Anonymous No.11360939]

>>11360884
yeah it seems like they're really about to start moving on this production thing, only with real tooling this time so it doesn't look like a big piece of trash

[Anonymous No.11360944]

>>11360937
>Walls don’t exist lol

[Anonymous No.11360946]

>>11360944
what walls?
how do you build walls without first landing a Starship?

[Anonymous No.11360949]

>land your big fucking rocket in the moon
>watch the dust and debris it knocked up cause kessler in the earth orbit

[Anonymous No.11360959]

>>11360946
>what walls?

There’s nothing there!
So it doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous No.11360973]

>>11360939
they now have
>suction flipper
>x-ray machines
>gantry crane
lots of new hardware

[Anonymous No.11361119]

You've seen the Starship hammer guy, now see the SLS hammer guy!

[Anonymous No.11361308]

The CZ-5B has arrived at Wenchang for it’s first launch in April

[Anonymous No.11361377]

>>11360704
Mirror when?

[Anonymous No.11361413]

Stringers welded to the inside of the 3-ring stack. Also another 2-ring stack is inside the tent with it.

[Anonymous No.11361504]

glad to see the mods cleaned this thread up

[Anonymous No.11361542]

>>11361413
Looks like matzo

[Anonymous No.11361972]

Starship/Spaceflight discussion Discord channel link for anyone who wants it, /sfg/ readers and contributors welcome:

https://discord.gg/ZCWtZFS

[Anonymous No.11362008]

>>11361308
Is it gonna land on some poor fucker's village?

[Anonymous No.11362009]

>>11361504
What did i miss?

[Anonymous No.11362013]

Anyone here going to the starship career day tomorrow

[Anonymous No.11362018]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1225109674904772608

[Anonymous No.11362020]

>>11362008
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11362029]

>>11362013
>>11362018

>Anyone here auditioning to be Elon’s slave tomorrow?

>>11362008
>>11362020
No, it launches over the ocean from Hainan Island.

[Anonymous No.11362033]

>>11362009
Another janny pretending to be a space denier.

[Anonymous No.11362039]

>>11362029
>Anyone here auditioning to be Elon’s slave tomorrow?

Imagine not wanting to work for Elon Musk, the most important living person.

[Anonymous No.11362074]

>>11362039
>Hawthorne
>frozen yogurt

>Boca Chica
>TACO TRUCK

it’s clearly the better spacex facility anyways

[Anonymous No.11362094]

You can book your flight now.
https://www.spacex.com/smallsat

[Anonymous No.11362192]

There was an attempt.
I couldn't be arsed trawling for a more fitting font.

[Anonymous No.11362194]

>>11362192
nice

[Anonymous No.11362200]

>>11362194
Life imitates art.

[Anonymous No.11362215]

>>11362192
Pretty sure half of the parts in Kerbal Space Program are literally trash, so it’s fitting.

[Anonymous No.11362220]

>>11362009
people advertising for a discord, somebody posting a video of Varg unrelated to the topic at hand, and a flat earther

[Anonymous No.11362225]

>>11362215
"Found by the roadside" seems to be a recurring trend in early Jeb's parts and it seems Elon has spent more than a couple of hours in KSP before he hit upon the Starship iterative process.

[Anonymous No.11362226]

>>11360946
>it is impossible to land anything else that could construct a pad site before landing Starship

[Anonymous No.11362227]

>>11362226
the answer is "no", it was a rhetorical question

[Anonymous No.11362230]

>>11360949
nah, not earth orbit, just a BTFO of gatewat as the lunar dust gives it a good sandblasting

[Anonymous No.11362253]

so why isn't Elon planning on just making his own habitat or earth orbit space station once he gets starship and heavy up and running? Surely the technology behind the space habitat is insignificant compared to the LV, he could have a ~1G rotating habitat up and built within 10 years, soon enough that he himself could go up into space. Companies would pay plenty of money to send up proof of concept tech to test in a mature space habitat and I'm sure plenty of billionaires would be down to take a trip. It feels like such a waste to not get started on that ASAP.

[Anonymous No.11362271]

>>11362253
he is. it's called starship. oodles of m^3 space to fuck around in

[Anonymous No.11362277]

>>11360929
The plan is to glass a landing site with a nuke

[Anonymous No.11362282]

everyone always talks about 3D printers that can print new 3D printers, but has anyone actually done it yet?

[Anonymous No.11362286]

>>11362253
>so why isn't Elon planning on just making his own habitat or earth orbit space station once he gets starship and heavy up and running?
Because he doesn't want to make is own habitat or LEO space station, he wants to go to Mars.

>Companies would pay plenty of money to send up proof of concept tech to test in a mature space habitat and I'm sure plenty of billionaires would be down to take a trip. It
Him and SpaceX would be happy to drive the costs of their launches down to the point where others do it, but that's not their goal. They want to achieve their own goal while allowing others to achieve their goals.

[Anonymous No.11362289]

>>11362282
I remember one being advertised like 5+ years ago that printed something like 75% of its own components, so you could make one for a friend and all they needed was a smaller kit with the motors and other gizmos to assemble with it.

[Anonymous No.11362307]

>>11362282
There are parts that need to be precision like leadscrews. When you use a 3D printer to print parts for a new 3D printer, they're called "vitamins". Except it's generally a pain in the ass and less precise than properly molded parts, and there are plenty of them for sale now, and the filament probably costs more than injection-molded parts, so it's not done much anymore unless you're cheap or just want to do it for the lulz.

[Anonymous No.11362314]

REMINDER.

Starship SN1 is being built NOW. We are watching the 2020 HD-Remake of the Apollo Program. This will get a human to the moon, to the SURFACE of the moon before NASA.

What a time to be alive.

[Anonymous No.11362318]

>>11362314
it will be on the surface of mars before the end of the decade
I wonder if it will put humans on mars before the end of the decade?
remember, the first boots on Mars are going to be a one way ticket, they've got to punch their own ticket on the way back with ISRU propellant production

[Anonymous No.11362323]

>>11362314
Spacex launch rate has been declining musky has no money
Mars is a bust

[Anonymous No.11362326]

>>11362323
>musky has no money
Tesla is surging, Musk has plenty of money

[Anonymous No.11362331]

>>11362323
I'll bust on your chin.

[Anonymous No.11362340]

>>11362326
Tesla doesn’t fund spacex
Not like Tesla makes money either
Just retards blowing stocks up

[Anonymous No.11362342]

[Anonymous No.11362343]

>>11362340
>Just retards blowing stocks up
this is literally money in Musk's pocket which he will happily reinvest himself into SpaceX if he needs it.

[Anonymous No.11362349]

>>11362314
>We are watching the 2020 HD-Remake of the Apollo Program.
No, that's HR 5666.

[Anonymous No.11362353]

>>11362314
>actually thinking the pile of rings is going to beat the fully-armed and operational rocket

[Anonymous No.11362355]

>>11362314
Do you really think anyone will land anything on the moon from the US before Artemis?
That's not fucking happening.

[Anonymous No.11362356]

>>11362323
ah yes it checks out

[Anonymous No.11362358]

>>11362353
>Scrub? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate the weather.

[Anonymous No.11362361]

>>11362342
>Orange rocket isn't real, it can't hurt you
>orange rocket:

[Anonymous No.11362362]

>>11362355
If Trump loses the reelection and this successor wants to change NASA's direction to distance it from Trump's "legacy", then SpaceX could have a chance. Reminder that Obama absolutely wanted nothing to do with the moon, which is why Gateway is in NRHO near the moon rather than in lunar orbit. The next president could easily feel the same.

[Anonymous No.11362367]

>>11362343
Uh no idiot companies do not magically make money if their stock price changes...

[Anonymous No.11362368]

So, when will Starlink get a albedo-lowering paint job on their Earth-facing sides?

[Anonymous No.11362370]

>>11362362
There's more to space and politics than just the figurehead in the house.
Look at the SLS behemoth and subcontractor list. That's how the old space contractor cartels do business and why representatives pick them to do it.
It's not about efficiency or the best product, it's about telling their constituents that they got X jobs to their states working on the SLS for the Artemis program for Y years.

Even if that state has a 10 man factory producing 100 washers a year for a minor assembly for janitorial mops for a subcontractor of a subcontractor.

[Anonymous No.11362371]

>>11362368
they have already coating one satellite from Starlink-3 with a test coating

[Anonymous No.11362373]

>>11362370
>Look at the SLS behemoth and subcontractor list.

[Anonymous No.11362374]

>>11362367
https://nypost.com/2020/02/04/elon-musks-fortune-balloons-by-13-billion-amid-tesla-stock-boom/
>Musk added $4.7 billion to his fortune Monday, when Tesla’s share price surged nearly 20 percent to close at a new high of $780, according to Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index. His wealth has ballooned by a total of $13.5 billion, or 48.9 percent, since the start of the year — an increase larger than anyone else on Bloomberg’s list of the world’s richest people.
All he has to do is offload some of that for liquid cash to inject into SpaceX if they actually need it.

[Anonymous No.11362379]

>>11362373
Yes, this is how public spending and bureaucracy works. Vertical integration? Fuck no, that doesn't create jobs in 50 states, even if most of those jobs are completely useless and only look good on paper.

[Anonymous No.11362380]

>>11362374
Yea because musk is going to fire sale his ownership of a company for liquid cash for no reason huh

[Anonymous No.11362385]

>>11362380
He doesn't have to, he has an extremely lucrative buy option that lets him buy Tesla stocks for a fraction of their current value.

[Anonymous No.11362386]

>>11362374
>a new high of $780
how many shorts have kys themselves so far?

[Anonymous No.11362387]

>>11362386
Hopefully all of them, shorting should be illegal.

[Anonymous No.11362390]

>>11362253
He is working on a minigiga stardock/foundry/herbarium.

[Anonymous No.11362393]

>>11362386
Yesterday that shit was at 940.
Went back down again now, but dear lord. Literally spiked 40% in two days. If you bought stocks two months ago, they were tripple the value yesterday.

[Anonymous No.11362394]

>>11362368
>sky just gets black with no way to filter out the satellites
great idea

[Anonymous No.11362395]

>>11362379
And that is why SpaceX could develop the most powerful and advanced American rocket flying within the development of SLS with time to spare.

[Anonymous No.11362397]

>>11362380
he owns 20% valued at 30 billion dollars, he doesn't need to fire sale to keep SpaceX running for a long time, and this even in the event that investors don't see how clearly, obviously SpaceX is so far ahead of their competitors from a fundamental level of operation that they literally can't be beat by any foreign government or private company anywhere on Earth.

[Anonymous No.11362400]

>>11362386
if the market were rational, then shorting Tesla would be the correct option
if the market were rational, then Tesla would not be valued quite so highly
but the market is not rational, and Tesla is incredibly overvalued, and I don't think it's going to stop any time soon

[Anonymous No.11362401]

>>11362395
Yeah, but they wouldn't get to put it on the moon in front of a NASA flight, not from the US anyway.

[Anonymous No.11362405]

>>11362394

[Anonymous No.11362420]

>>11362253
Space station is waste of effort. Mars is the big payout due to potential for self sufficiency.

[Anonymous No.11362423]

>>11362420
there's a ton of money to be made in 0G manufacturing which will come way before any Mars settlement is anywhere close to self sufficient

[Anonymous No.11362431]

>>11362029
Great, now the ocean will get Corona

[Anonymous No.11362432]

>>11362420
We're three days from the Moon at optimal, we have a lot to learn from working there. How long will it take to get back from Mars in case of SHTF? Seven months with 26 months between each optimal launch window?
The Gateway adds even more flexibility. You want to jump in at the deep end before you know jack shit about what's out there.

[Anonymous No.11362433]

>>11362074
I never tried froyo before my exchange program in San Diego. We have it back home, but its not really the same desu

[Anonymous No.11362440]

>>11362423
No there isn’t lol
Zero g manufacturing is s giant meme

[Anonymous No.11362441]

>>11362432
We've been in space for 50 years. We've only been on another planetary body for few hours at a time. If there's any heavy industries moving, it will be above mars with its low gravity allowing SSTO to become prominent.

[Anonymous No.11362444]

>>11362374
Lol, you ain’t seen nothing yet...

>Shares of his Amazon.com Inc. surged 12% to $2,100 in extended trading at 4:16 p.m. Thursday in New York, after the largest U.S. e-commerce company reported fourth-quarter results that smashed Wall Street estimates.

>Jeff Bezos, already the world’s richest person, added $13.2 billion to his fortune in about 15 minutes. At the current price, his net worth would be about $129.5 billion.

>Bezos, 56, owns about 12% of Amazon’s outstanding stock, making up the bulk of his fortune. His ownership of closely held Blue Origin accounts for about $6.2 billion. The late surge Thursday added more than $90 billion to Amazon’s market value, pushing it above $1 trillion.

...

>Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos sold more than $1.8 billion of shares in his company over the past week, according to financial filings.

>Bezos made similarly massive sales of Amazon stock in 2019 and 2017, and has said he sells at least $1 billion of Amazon stock a year to fund his rocket startup, Blue Origin.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-30/bezos-adds-13-2-billion-to-fortune-in-minutes-with-amazon-surge

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/02/04/jeff-bezos-sells-1point8-billion-worth-of-amazon-stock.html?__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous No.11362446]

>>11362440
Right, the only thing worth manufacturing in zero g is things you keep in space like o'neill cylinders.

[Anonymous No.11362447]

>>11362441
>We've been in space for 50 years
Now that's a truth with modifications.
We've been in low earth orbit for 20. It's been 48 years since we had a person on another stellar body.
But we're pretty good at baking cookies in microgravity, I hear.

[Anonymous No.11362453]

>>11362441
>a few hours at a time
a few days, Apollo 17 lasted a little over three days

[Anonymous No.11362455]

>>11362362
>If Trump loses the reelection
As much as i dislike a lot of what he does, i doubt he'll lose. The US is doing well in all the easy-to-take-credit-for areas under him, and the Democrats are still useless and busy with identity politics.

[Anonymous No.11362457]

>>11362432
>Seven months with 26 months between each optimal launch window?

You can shave it down to three months and less.

[Anonymous No.11362458]

>>11362393
I was considering buying for around 10 grand back when they were around 180 (this summer).
Im still pissed

[Anonymous No.11362460]

>>11362446
or anything that needs 0g for stability. If there's an Earth orbit manufacturing hub, producing critical materials for things like military planes or quantum computers or whatever can be economical, even without taxiing asteroids to it.
>>11362447
tfw the astronauts didn't even get to eat the cookies

[Anonymous No.11362462]

>>11362432
>>11362432
The Moon is a completely different environment, an actual rock with no atmosphere, an even lower gravity, and most importantly, looking for evidence of fossils or bacteria on Mars may or may not be able prove the existence of life outside Earth

[Anonymous No.11362463]

>>11362455
> As much as i dislike a lot of what he does, i doubt he'll lose.

Every year, demographic shifts shorten the period in which republican presidents are a possibility. They’ve got maybe fifteen years judging from election trends in Texas since 2000.

[Anonymous No.11362466]

>>11362462
>looking for evidence of fossils or bacteria on Mars may or may not be able prove the existence of life outside Earth
I don't see how it can be proof, the idea that it could just be ejecta from early Earth seems impossible to conclusively discount

[Anonymous No.11362467]

>>11362018
you have no idea how much I was I was an american

[Anonymous No.11362471]

>>11362462
I'm all for going to Mars, but I'm not some fucking Ork slinging shit at a rock in space and hoping for the best.
You gotta learn to walk before you can run, and we can't even fucking crawl yet thanks to the space program being on hold for close to two generations now.

[Anonymous No.11362472]

>>11362462
Even dead bacteria on Mars would be enough to explode the consideration people give to alien life. The Moon is obviously sterile enough that I have little issue with us strip-mining the whole thing, but the moon DID use to have a thick atmosphere, magnetic field, and possibly liquid water, so there might be something interesting lurking up there significant to abiogenesis and general astrobiology.

[Anonymous No.11362473]

>>11362323
Starlink

[Anonymous No.11362475]

>>11362466
Nah, it’s not that hard. Meteorites from other planets and asteroids are very distinct from native rocks.

[Anonymous No.11362483]

>>11362475
the plausible deniability that all life found on Mars is evolved from life on Earth ejected from an impact seems impossible to overcome and even if we never find the specific ejecta from Earth I don't see how there's any way, biologically or otherwise, to determine that Mars in particular was the origin of an abiogenic process separate and parallel to Earth.

[Anonymous No.11362490]

>>11362253
You can't really make money with a space station except for tourism, and Starship alone is enough for that. If it can make a trip to Mars it can easily stay a few days or weeks in LEO in luxury.

[Anonymous No.11362491]

>>11362471
>>11362472
sure, Moon colonies would be absolutely kickass, and imho Artemis is 40 years behind, just think they should be separate from being considered part of a Mars mission for now since the technology doesn't necessarily overlap for one or the other

[Anonymous No.11362495]

>>11362483
>What is genetics

[Anonymous No.11362496]

>>11362491
Tech from building habitats on the moon carries over to Mars. Not like seals and radiation shielding is radically different. The only thing different is that Mars has a thicker atmosphere and more gravity. You're still dealing with a lot of the same issues such as growing food, recycling, seals, etc. etc. Lots of boring plumbing work.

[Anonymous No.11362497]

>>11362495
have fun extracting genetic material from a fossil

[Anonymous No.11362502]

>>11362491
At minimum, it’s living space for humans to infest and a more deltaV-friendly place to launch missions from. The Moon really has more similarity to Mercury or Ceres than to Mars, but plenty of the technologies and engineering are still shared. Both require sealed habitats which would probably be covered by local regolith.

[Anonymous No.11362504]

>>11362497
Fossils?
Life is still on Mars shitting out methane and oxygen seasonally.

[Anonymous No.11362507]

>>11360704
Anyone got a link to the video in OP's pic? seems it got hidden to private for now

[Anonymous No.11362512]

>>11362507
no

[Anonymous No.11362515]

>>11361119
>one time use hamer
>thrown away after one swing
>one million per hammer
>accidents per hammer are close to zero
>old space proves to be the safest option once again.

[Anonymous No.11362521]

>>11362507
only interesting details were the 32mil F9 internal price and 10min for a starship ring

[Anonymous No.11362524]

>>11362504
there are a thousand other more plausible explanations as to why gas is leaking out of a dead planet than life

[Anonymous No.11362526]

>>11362362
The Moon missions are "new administration" proof, NASA has made a smart move by selling this as putting the first woman on the moon.
No future president will cancel a project like that in the current SJW&PC climate.

Gateway is retarded, but it's going to happen.

[Anonymous No.11362525]

>>11362515

[Anonymous No.11362529]

>>11362515
Hammers are hard. We want to make sure that we get only the best quality hammer that passes our many one-time toughness and handling tests, from a state far far away.

[Anonymous No.11362533]

>>11362529
Requesting $10million for construction of an expendable wind-tunnel for testing the aerodynamics of the Hammer

[Anonymous No.11362537]

>>11362526
>"new administration" proof
Is that why the current bill that was brought up conveniently pushed it all onto the next administration who will no doubt push it onto the next and so on and so forth?
2024 became 2028 and 2028 will become 2036.

[Anonymous No.11362542]

>>11362515
I just don't understand this reusable hammer meme.

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

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

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

[Anonymous No.11362547]

>>11362529
>>11362542

Need 50mil to test the hamer escape system
>head attached to handle with exploding bolts
>parachutes attached to head

The parachutes did not deploy correctly in the first test, we need another 50 million.

[Anonymous No.11362550]

>>11362537
>2072
>The new administration considers whether or not to renew the program of finally sending a Xer to the moon, almost 100 years after the last 'fucking males' walked on it
>Meanwhile, The Elon cuts a ribbon opening a new skiing resort at the base of Olympus Mons. Overall Population of Mars is now in the millions

[Anonymous No.11362551]

>>11362524
What’s so implausible about life being responsible?

[Anonymous No.11362559]

>>11362547
Also requesting another $15million to redesign the exploding bolts, previously did not achieve satisfactory enough separation

[Anonymous No.11362560]

>>11362550
>2073
>After successful "decolonization" of the education system and math now correctly showing that 1x1 is indeed 2, the planned moon landing took an unexpected turn for the worse as the new SRS launch system had its engines mounted at the top and punched a crater 2 miles deep in the earth's crust.

[Anonymous No.11362565]

>>11362547
>test hammer by placing it on a stand
>RUDs
I actually broke a hammer through regular use, head flew across the room and scared the shit out of my friend.

[Anonymous No.11362568]

>>11362537
>2024 became 2028 and 2028 will become 2036.

A lot of people have misunderstood the bill’s language, it doesn’t actually force the administration to move it’s self-imposed deadline. Congress doesn’t like the 2024 deadline because they think it’s unrealistic and purely politically-motivated, so the bill states NASA should land on the Moon BY 2028, if they manage to land earlier e.g. 2024 that’s ok. Congress isn’t supporting Moon by 2024, but it isn’t forcing the administration to ditch it either (which is why Bridenstine didn’t complain about this part of the bill).

[Anonymous No.11362571]

>>11362568
I know weasel words when I see them. This is "we'd rather not spend the money if we can avoid it while we're in office".

[Anonymous No.11362586]

>>11362568
>2024 unrealistic
how the fuck is 4 entire years not enough with orange rocket supposedly mostly complete

[Anonymous No.11362588]

>>11362586
Welcome to the US government

[Anonymous No.11362589]

>>11362586

[Anonymous No.11362592]

>>11362586
It’s not actually SLS which is the risk factor here, it’s developing a safe lunar lander from scratch.

[Anonymous No.11362596]

>>11362592
I still find it funny that NASA has been itching for a return to the moon for years and yet they just started working on a lander.

[Anonymous No.11362597]

>>11362588
>>11362589
>>11362592

The landers are being built by private companies, so you guys can’t cry “muh guberment bureaucracy” this time...

[Anonymous No.11362600]

>>11362592
It can’t be that hard. Look at the Apollo lander and update it.

[Anonymous No.11362605]

>>11362597
It’s being made by Boeing which gets free money from the government for doing a bunch of nothing.

[Anonymous No.11362606]

>>11362592
4 years for a lander? That can very easily be subcontracted out, bunch of companies already have started on landers, like the Blue Moon or SpaceIL

[Anonymous No.11362607]

>>11362597
I didn't say "muh guberment bureaucracy", I implied that NASA is more motivated by generating money for subcontractors than actual space flight.

[Anonymous No.11362608]

>>11362592
dig the one out of the science museum and slap a laptop in it. job done.

[Anonymous No.11362609]

>>11362596
They’ve mainly been focused on Mars in recent decades and 2020 is the first time since the 1960s that NASA has been given money to build a crewed lunar lander.

[Anonymous No.11362612]

>>11362609
Do people genuinely not know how to build lunar landers when we made several of them already?

[Anonymous No.11362613]

>>11362592
One more reason not to give Boeing the job, which they're going to do anyway.

[Anonymous No.11362618]

>>11362613

[Anonymous No.11362620]

>>11362613
>Boeing develops lander
>gives coding tasks to the same group who did the code for the 737 Max 8

[Anonymous No.11362622]

At this rate starship will transport the lunar lander to the moon surface in 2024.

[Anonymous No.11362623]

>>11362605
There will be 2 landers, Boeing could win a contract to build 1 of them. Also, the contracts will be fixed price.

>>11362606
>That can very easily be subcontracted out, bunch of companies already have started on landers, like the Blue Moon or SpaceIL

That’s basically NASA’s plan...

[Anonymous No.11362624]

>>11362623
>That’s basically NASA’s plan...
It might not be if either HR5666 passes or the same group who proposed that bill try again.

[Anonymous No.11362626]

>>11362622
NO YOU CAN'T JUST DO SPACEFLIGHT QUICKLY AND CHEAPLY AHHH

[Anonymous No.11362635]

>>11362620
>Wow! I sure have been flying for a while!
>Wow! 11 hours! I must be in space already! I'm almost at the ISS!
>Guess it's time to check my orbit and do my final orbit stabilization burns!
>Boy I sure am excited to dock at the ISS!
>Let me just check in with the local time at Boeing Chenai first
Just another day in the life of CantSustainTrajectory-100.

Protip: Spaceflight runs on GMT, not Chenai local time.

[Anonymous No.11362637]

>>11362226
what other rocket exists that could even land on the moon

[Anonymous No.11362643]

>>11362635
It wasn't a time zone problem, it was using the capsule computer's uptime instead of the MET.

[Anonymous No.11362644]

>>11362626
There are people who still unironically believe this. As if somehow reducing costs, even slightly, would mean that the failure chance reaches 100%. I wonder how they feel about doing anything in space taking years, if not decades, via the "slow and expensive" way.

[Anonymous No.11362648]

>>11362643
I know, but my version is funnier.

[Anonymous No.11362656]

>>11362635
>What do you mean "what if the timer is wrong"? The timer is implemented by a different team, it's not our responsibility. Stop asking stupid questions and move your hands, Rajesh.

[Anonymous No.11362662]

>>11362637
>what other rocket exists that could even land on the moon

Depends on what you fancy...how about this?

[Anonymous No.11362664]

>>11362662
...or maybe this?

[Anonymous No.11362666]

>>11362664
Or if your feeling something a little more exotic...

[Anonymous No.11362668]

>>11362618
We need an updated version with the squid-like Starship and a cybertruck with RPG turrets and pressurized doors

[Anonymous No.11362674]

>>11362608
Kek, lander restomod.

[Anonymous No.11362890]

>>11362277
Nukes are expensive. The US has torn down much of their infrastructure needed to make new nukes. Because of treaties the which limit how many nukes the US can have, the US really doesn't want to give up any nukes for civilian use. Nuking the Moon would also violate the outer space treaty. A nuclear bomb glassed surface might not hold up that well under repeated rocket landings. It'll be easier just to make the landing legs taller. Or actually understand soil plume interaction, if we understand it, then there's probably some simple trick we can do to deal with it.

[Anonymous No.11362905]

>>11362890
>Nuking the Moon would also violate the outer space treaty.

Throw the treaty into a toilet

[Anonymous No.11362922]

>>11362905
Good fucking luck with that.

[Anonymous No.11362948]

>>11362905
Yes because I too wish to revive the days where the threat of mutually assured destruction was both high and omnipresent.

[Anonymous No.11362961]

>>11362948
Just toss the treaty out during the unveiling of your top-secret orbital battleship fleet.

[Anonymous No.11362969]

>>11362515
>>11362542
>>11362547
>>11362550
>>11362559
>"L-look at how d-dumb and s-stupid oldspace is g-guys."
>"S-Starship is totally n-not going to get d-delayed or n-not live up to its r-ridiculously ambitious p-promises. W-We'll be colonizing M-Mars in a few y-years!"

[Anonymous No.11362975]

>>11362515
>>11362542
>>11362547
>>11362550
>>11362559
>"L-look at how d-dumb and s-stupid oldspace is g-guys."
>"S-Starship is totally n-not going to get d-delayed or n-not live up to its r-ridiculously ambitious p-promises. W-We'll be colonizing M-Mars in a few y-years!"

[Anonymous No.11362978]

>>11362890
the treaty only says
>States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
If the nuclear device is A) not a weapon and B) not placed in orbit or installed/stationed on a planet, it's fine.

[Anonymous No.11362996]

>>11362975
Starship may be delayed, but unless SpaceX suffered a major drop in profits, it'll fly one day and meet at least it's minimum requirements. Being a ultra heavy rocket that's completely reusable in an effort to reduce the cost of access to space. 'Oldspace' would be more likely to scrap or completely change the project after spending billions.

[Anonymous No.11362997]

>>11362978
>>not a weapon
the treaty doesn't care. Even if you try to call it something else, it's still a nuclear bomb. So in the most recent planetary defense exercise, space law experts agreed that a 'nuclear explosive device' is still prohibited by the treaty even if it's being used to redirect an asteroid. In such a scenario the UN security council could come together to allow it or parties to the treaty could decide to look the other way. The partial test ban treaty also prohibits blowing nukes up in space:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty
Seems like an awful lot of effort just to make a landing pad. If you aren't landing near anything else, it's probable that you don't need a landing pad

[Anonymous No.11363007]

>>11362997
>>11362890
>Muh international treaties

Absolute

Top

Lel

[Anonymous No.11363039]

>>11362961
>orbital battleship fleet
Imagine being a poor Martian bee farmer freedom fighter when this thing rolls up blasting Fortunate Son on all civilian frequencies.

[Anonymous No.11363043]

>>11363007
parties to the treaty are unlikely to break it any time soon. Parties to the treaty haven't stopped registering the orbits of stuff they launch in to space. No one wants to get rid of the space liability rules that came with the treaty. Launching a rocket with a nuclear bomb into space would be an international incident. Other countries would go ape shit and put their nuclear forces on high alert. Cause if you can launch a nuke into space, you can damn well hit anywhere on earth.

[Anonymous No.11363045]

>>11362975
>Trying to impose your own lack of confidence onto others

Cringe

[Anonymous No.11363056]

>>11362997
>In such a scenario the UN security council could come together to allow it or parties to the treaty could decide to look the other way.

Just tell them to fuck off. America has the biggest dick on Earth.

[Anonymous No.11363077]

>>11363056
What are they gonna do, nuke us?

[Anonymous No.11363092]

>>11363056
so you want to waste one of America's precious nukes just to build a parking lot on the Moon? We need that nuke for deterrence. You take away that one nuke and our enemies might decide to attack us. That one nuke might save the lives of many US citizens during a nuclear attack and you want to waste it? Oh and current nuclear treaties which prohibit us from making more nuclear bombs are beneficial to us because they also prevent the ruskies from making more too. Thing is while the we and the ruskies have about the same number of nukes, ours are better because we can aim them better. Like we only need to use a fraction of our nukes to take out the ruskies nuclear silos, so we could come out ahead in the event of nuclear war. If we start building nukes again, the ruskies will start building nukes again, but without limits. So we could lose our current advantage.

[Anonymous No.11363100]

>>11363092
>waste one of America's precious nukes
we still have a ton of nukes and modern warfare has made them useless anyway. If it's not a drone swarm or cyber attack, it's probably not going to see action any time soon.
>Thing is while the we and the ruskies have about the same number of nukes, ours are better because we can aim them better.
Russian anti-air defense is better and either way democracies just don't go to war with each other.

[Anonymous No.11363102]

>>11363092
>so you want to waste one of America's precious nukes just to build a parking lot on the Moon?

Make some more! The US is manufacturing more of them as we speak.

> We need that nuke for deterrence.

We really don’t. The stockpile consists of thousands of warheads. Some of them are on submarines so there’s basically no possibility of nuclear war.

[Anonymous No.11363108]

>>11363039
>Launches gravel in your trajectory path

Nothing personnel burger

[Anonymous No.11363110]

>>11363056
>America has the biggest dick on Earth.
>Implying Americans get to decide where their military is deployed

Lel nice joke, your military is at the command of Israel you good goys.

[Anonymous No.11363115]

>>11363110
Okay /pol/

[Anonymous No.11363121]

>>11363115
This, only more firmly dismissive.

[Anonymous No.11363127]

>>11363045
I don't need confidence that my rocket will get built, because it already is and there's also 10 more of them in procurement.

[Anonymous No.11363139]

>>11362473
This boi gets it. Starlink will be SpaceX's main money maker when fully online. All cash goes into making starships and bases.

[Anonymous No.11363144]

>>11363102
>>Make some more!
but then the ruskies start making more and we lose our advantage. We also don't have infrastructure for making plutonium on a large scale anymore. The US only expects to make 80 plutonium pits a year. So there won't be much to go around for non-defense use. Again, it's an awful lot of work just to make a parking lot. There are alternatives to nuclear bombs though. NASA's investigating pulsed fission fusion propulsion for getting around the solar system fast:
https://www.nasa.gov/puff
You use fusion to boost a fission reaction. The cool thing is that there's probably a business case for developing the tech to make it possible. The same tech might be used to produce expensive medical isotopes. So there you go, a private nuclear rocket.

[Anonymous No.11363145]

>>11363139
>when fully online
they haven't even figured out the "link" part of Starlink yet lmao

[Anonymous No.11363154]

>>11363139
Everyone who thinks Starlink is going to "print money" are betting on the wrong horse, IMO.
Most of the revenue's going to get eaten by the cost of providing the service, of which the actual launches and satellite infrastructure is but a small part.

[Anonymous No.11363160]

>>11363154
they most lucrative customers are always going to be high frequency traders who are a lot easier to service with a much smaller constellation.

[Anonymous No.11363167]

>>11363154

Just needs to print Starships.

[Anonymous No.11363189]

A P O L O G I Z E

[Anonymous No.11363190]

>>11363189
Wow, look at that Virgin.

[Anonymous No.11363211]

>>11363144
>but then the ruskies start making more and we lose our advantage

Who cares? They already have more warheads. It doesn’t matter because nuclear war is a meme.

> We also don't have infrastructure for making plutonium on a large scale anymore.

Build it again. We need it for RTGs anyway.

[Anonymous No.11363217]

>>11363127
>I don't need confidence that my rocket will get built

It isn’t yours.
Grow up.

[Anonymous No.11363227]

>>11363127
The issue is that SLS is an incredibly flawed rocket that will bring down any project it's attached to.

[Anonymous No.11363232]

>>11363115
>30 years and trillions of dollars blown in the middle East for zero gain except for Israel

[Anonymous No.11363235]

>>11363232
We know, but this is /sfg/ not /pol/ so stop or go.

[Anonymous No.11363238]

>>11363232
I rather like mutts getting blown up.

T. French

[Anonymous No.11363332]

>>11363217
>It isn’t yours.
You probably also complain about it "wasting" your tax money. Grow up.
I can call it mine if I want to.

[Anonymous No.11363338]

>>11363227
>"The issue is that SLS will be cancelled before it's even designed."
>"The issue is that SLS will be cancelled before it's even built."
>"The issue is that SLS will be cancelled before it even flies."
>"The issue is that no administration will ever be willing to fund missions that utilize SLS."
And now:
>"The issue is that SLS is an incredibly flawed rocket that will bring down any project it's attached to."
All these predictions have something in common.

[Anonymous No.11363343]

Reminder to not reply and to report him

[Anonymous No.11363357]

>>11363211
>>Build it again
that's what they're doing, it's proving to be very expensive and current plans won't support more than 80 pits a year.
>>We need it for RTGs anyway.
you can produce RTG plutonium in a dedicated reactor. Then again, RTGs are becoming less important now that NASA's working on nuclear reactors for space like kilopower.

[Anonymous No.11363358]

>>11363338
>"The issue is that SLS will be cancelled before it's even designed."
No one said that. The SLS has already been designed before the project even started.

>"The issue is that SLS will be cancelled before it's even built."
No one who actually pays attention to US politics said that. The SLS has been written into law by the Senate, it would require a massive shift in politcal winds before SLS would get canceled before it was built.

>"The issue is that SLS will be cancelled before it even flies."
See above.

>"The issue is that no administration will ever be willing to fund missions that utilize SLS."
It's a Senate project. Whatever the administration wants with SLS is ultimately irrelevant.

>"The issue is that SLS is an incredibly flawed rocket that will bring down any project it's attached to."
$2B per launch to send 26t to the moon once a year. That is a serious problem for any BEO project as it would take nearly a whole presidential term to do anything worthwhile with SLS. Europa Clipper was soft-booted off SLS so more cores can be used for Artemis because the launch rate is so low. For the price of 1 SLS launch, over 22 Falcon Heavy launches could be purchased. This means that with the FH's 16.8t to TLI, 370t could be sent to the moon for the price of one SLS. For an agency that has always dealt with funding issues since Apollo, that last point should be the most damning. SLS is not useful for space flight. It is a dead-end design that is too expensive despite using preexisting parts.

[Anonymous No.11363366]

>>11363127

The greatest trick the SLS ever pulled was convincing you it was your rocket.

[Anonymous No.11363379]

>>11363358
>22 Billion for SLS
Low ball number. SLS is a direct continuation of Constellation program. The actual cost of SLS/Constellation is $28 billion dollar. If you include the Orion capsule dev, that's another $16 billion dollar. If you include the dev cost stated through 2019-2024, that's another $30 billion. That's without any vehicles and just the development costs. $28+$16+$30 = $74 billion dollar.


>https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/07/28-billion-into-sls-through-2019-and-59-69-billion-total-cost-sls-by-2024.html
>https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/nasa-nears-50-billion-for-deep-space-plans-yet-human-flights-still-distant/

[Anonymous No.11363410]

undicking soon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

[Anonymous No.11363443]

>>11362635
The capsule knows where it is by calculating where it isnt, compared to where it should be. This is called Boeing

[Anonymous No.11363448]

>>11362975
Is this Thuderf00t cope?

[Anonymous No.11363454]

>>11363379
Fuck me, pic related should be the punishment for this shit.

[Anonymous No.11363455]

>>11363092
>So you want to waste one of America's precious nukes just to build a parking lot on the Moon? We need that nuke for deterrence. You take away that one nuke and our enemies might decide to attack us. That one nuke might save the lives of many US citizens during a nuclear attack and you want to waste it?
At first i thought i was reading the transcript from a Rush Limbaugh podcast

[Anonymous No.11363459]

>>11363338
Sounds like SpaceX predictions desu

[Anonymous No.11363475]

>>11363232
>/pol/tard understanding of geopolitics

[Anonymous No.11363493]

>>11363475
>Rebbitors lack of understanding of geopolitics

[Anonymous No.11363506]

>>11363379
>Low ball number. SLS is a direct continuation of Constellation program.
lolno.
Literally the only similarities are:
*5 segment SRBs
*Orange tanks

[Anonymous No.11363510]

>>11363379
Also: SLS ≠ Orion just like F9 ≠ Dragon

[Anonymous No.11363518]

>>11363510

tied at the hip

[Anonymous No.11363520]

>>11363358
>No one said that. The SLS has already been designed before the project even started.
??? English pls.
>No one who actually pays attention to US politics said that. The SLS has been written into law by the Senate, it would require a massive shift in politcal winds before SLS would get canceled before it was built.
Tell that to the idiots who screeched about that for years
>Clipper was soft-booted off SLS
Might happen. Hasn't yet. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
>because the launch rate is so low.
Weren't you just saying Congress determines what happens to SLS? Because Congress wants SLS to launch more, and they current bill directs NASA to reactivate High Bay 1 of the VAB for dual-launch architectures.
>For the price of 1 SLS launch, over 22 Falcon Heavy launches could be purchased.
Nice graphic. How do you like mine?
(They're both wrong, by the way.)

[Anonymous No.11363522]

>>11363518
Oh. It's you.
I can't believe you haven't figured out your "tell" yet, terrordyne.

[Anonymous No.11363538]

>>11363522

You can often recognize certain posters by their manner of speaking.
This isn't exactly a revelation nor an unexpected circumstance.

[Anonymous No.11363540]

imagine supporting expendable rockets in the first place

[Anonymous No.11363552]

>>11363540
imagine limiting yourself to being a fan of such a small subset of spaceflight

[Anonymous No.11363553]

>>11363540

dont feed the troll

[Anonymous No.11363558]

>>11363553
this is spaceflight general, not reusable-rockets-only general, anon.
it's hardly trolling to actually discuss the thread topic.

[Anonymous No.11363562]

>>11363552
>>11363558
wtf I love ULA now

[Anonymous No.11363602]

>>11363562
Titan III isn't ULA, though I suppose they both launched from (S)LC-41.
Titan III is super aesthetic as far as LVs go.

[Anonymous No.11363605]

>>11363602
Titan III is the ugliest sonvabitch I've ever seen

[Anonymous No.11363609]

>>11363605
>Don't mind me, just erecting some really tall clock towers.
You'd think Charles Whitman designed it.

[Anonymous No.11363616]

>>11363558

I was thinking a couple of weeks ago, if NASA put a 6 man capsule on that in the 70s, the subsequent follow on project to replace it might have 15 people or more.

[Anonymous No.11363620]

whatever happened to SARGE?

[Anonymous No.11363643]

Starship de geso

[Anonymous No.11363647]

>>11363643
Oh fuck you, can't unsee.

[Anonymous No.11363657]

>>11363647

[Anonymous No.11363660]

>>11363620
hiring for Jaguar I think

[Anonymous No.11363699]

>>11363647
>>11363657

[Anonymous No.11363703]

So here's a thing, can you spot the differences?

[Anonymous No.11363705]

>>11363703
Shit, I fucked up some transparency cleanups. Here's a fixed version.

[Anonymous No.11363706]

>>11363454
full clip is best >>>/wsg/3279699

[Anonymous No.11363771]

>>11363558
Kind of looks like this has an observation platform half way down, which gets me thinking - if there were such a platform could a human survive standing on it during the launch, if they had air and hearing protection? Obviously at some point it's going to pitch over and they'd have to go inside, but until then if they held on tight to the guard rail would they be ok?

[Anonymous No.11363772]

>>11363189
I wonder what the biggest possible rocket is before you have to modify the 747? Diameter is one limitation, but that could be worked around by making the rocket flared at the base. Heh

[Anonymous No.11363776]

>those spot welds
OHNONONONONONOOOO

[Anonymous No.11363783]

>>11363776
Finally some dents again. I was worried our Mars ships wouldn‘t look like trash cans after all.

[Anonymous No.11363795]

>>11363657
It even has a single large squid eye just like a giant squid

[Anonymous No.11363816]

>>11363783
that thing will never go to mars

[Anonymous No.11363821]

>>11363776
Should I release the Elon's Junkyard & Spaceship Parts logo to slap on these?

[Anonymous No.11363823]

[Anonymous No.11363827]

[Anonymous No.11363839]

[Anonymous No.11363841]

[Anonymous No.11363882]

>>11363823
>>11363827
>>11363839
>>11363841
Great, the retard has escaped his containment field again

[Anonymous No.11363891]

>>11363882
No you're gay

[Anonymous No.11363892]

[Anonymous No.11363897]

[Anonymous No.11363907]

[Anonymous No.11363910]

>>11363510
SLS/Orion are politically driven, not mission driven like Falcon9. Falcon 9 has flexibility. SLS/Orion are tied together. They exists together. They cannot be uncoupled.

[Anonymous No.11363915]

>>11363379
This doesn't include the space shuttle engine, space shuttle core, ares boosters, etc.

[Anonymous No.11363920]

>>11363907
>>11363897
i propose flearthers to be used as targets whenever a rocket engine is testfired

[Anonymous No.11363923]

>>11363892
Sweet. They‘re moving fast. That‘s good. I guess innovating rapidly is easy though when your rockets are so smol.

[Anonymous No.11363936]

>>11363920
i propose to ur mom

[Anonymous No.11363941]

[Anonymous No.11363945]

[Anonymous No.11363949]

[Anonymous No.11363953]

[Anonymous No.11363954]

Based flat earthfag standing with his principals, nog giving a fuck how retarded he is.

[Anonymous No.11363955]

[Anonymous No.11363958]

>>11363954
based globecuck thinks time can bend

[Anonymous No.11363968]

>>11363602
huh so that's where all the early KSP parts come from

[Anonymous No.11363969]

[Anonymous No.11363971]

Get to work, jannies.

[Anonymous No.11363973]

[Anonymous No.11363974]

>>11363969
hey I recognize that feed

[Anonymous No.11363977]

>>11363974
well spotted globecuck

[Anonymous No.11363980]

[Anonymous No.11363981]

>>11363977
>globecuck
Why don't you build a weather balloon or a sounding rocket and see for yourself instead of posting these shitty computer generated webms?
Shit, why not go climb a fucking mountain if you're completely poverty?

Either way, get the fuck in here, useless jannies.

[Anonymous No.11363983]

[Anonymous No.11363984]

>>11363981
Quiet globecuck, the real scientists are posting now.

[Anonymous No.11363987]

>>11363958
I don't REALLY believe that part, but that's because it's never come up in my everyday experiences.
I've also never seen any of the evidence for it, but they claim that it's necessary to explain some phenomena so I guess I'll just believe them and verify later if it ever becomes necessary (it won't).
But globe earth explains my own observations better than flat earth does

[Anonymous No.11363992]

>>11363987
I experience the earth itself as flat and stationary, there's no empirical measurements of curvature anywhere, but plenty of empirical measurements of flatness. 10 US states are flatter than a pancake for example.

[Anonymous No.11363993]

>>11363971
>implying that this isn't the work of a mod

[Anonymous No.11363994]

>>11363992
it's just simply very large and you are very smol
this is hard to come to terms with, yes

[Anonymous No.11363996]

>>11363993
Jannies should still wipe up the spillage.

[Anonymous No.11364000]

>>11363994

[Anonymous No.11364003]

>>11363994
Doesn't mean it's not flat - plus I feel no motion.

[Anonymous No.11364004]

>>11363994
Well, there you have it. Can't argue with that logic.

[Anonymous No.11364006]

>>11363984
>as if such a thing like a flearther scientist would actually exist
please name only one

[Anonymous No.11364008]

>>11364003
inner ear kind of sucks as an IMU, the really good ones pick up on it (apparently, there have been a bunch of really expensive accidents in rocketry because people got it wrong)

[Anonymous No.11364010]

>>11364003
i feel you are a retard. and flat earthers always tell me to trust my sense so..

[Anonymous No.11364014]

>>11364006
Dr John D: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrV1BQhaufM-PsEtMjjehDQ

[Anonymous No.11364018]

>>11364008
Nah should be able to feel all of the crazy motions the earth is doing all at once in different directions/speeds.

[Anonymous No.11364021]

>>11364010
Nope, the globe is fucking retarded, as are you, child of stardust.

[Anonymous No.11364026]

>>11363602
>>11363558
The Titan overall is pretty aesthetic imo.

[Anonymous No.11364031]

>>11364018
it's going in a straight line tho
a straight line around the sun and the galactic core

[Anonymous No.11364034]

>>11364031
>it's going in a straight line tho
False, it's an elliptical orbit. Plus the earth itself is spinning on an axis.

[Anonymous No.11364035]

Anyone know what happened to PISCES (pic)? There was only one article about it and that's all.

[Anonymous No.11364037]

>>11364035
too many trekkies know what happens when you make cubes in space

[Anonymous No.11364060]

@11364018
giving the average person access to knowledge was a mistake

[Anonymous No.11364063]

>top 10 space reunions

[Anonymous No.11364065]

>>11364060
>absolutely SEETHING globecuck

[Anonymous No.11364074]

[Anonymous No.11364091]

>>11362542
I just don't understand the one-headed hammer meme. Sure, you can get one good hit out of it, then you throw it away without even using the crowbar end.

We could put a hammer head on each side, then you could get two good hits before you throw it away. Of course we the European Sledgehammer Authority will aim for the market of the biggest nails, since they are very popular and profitable.

[Anonymous No.11364107]

>>11364091
>European Sledgehammer Authority
Aren't you the guys who used the handle material from the Marteau IV in the Marteau V despite the Marteau V experiencing higher and faster pounding loads?

[Anonymous No.11364133]

>>11363923
It's also easier when you realize that expended first stages are basically free to experiment with.

[Anonymous No.11364138]

Based janny

[Anonymous No.11364158]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THE FLATERENOS MUST BE HEARED! WHAT ABOUT THE FUZZY IMAGES! WHAT ABOUT THE FISH LENSES!

[Anonymous No.11364182]

>>11362401
Why wouldn’t they? If they can show NASA and/or the general public that it could easily be done the only people left to blame are the (((politicians))) which should give the space program a kick in the arse.

[Anonymous No.11364188]

>>11364182
It'd be pretty crazy if a private citizen beats every government on Earth back to the surface of the moon.

[Anonymous No.11364190]

>>11363776
kek Look at the far right side of the tack welds. You can see where he started out all neat and straight but somewhere along the line he just said, "fuck it!"

[Anonymous No.11364193]

>>11364190
>You can see where he started out all neat and straight but somewhere along the line he just said, "fuck it!"
Story of my time in college.

[Anonymous No.11364198]

>>11364190
maybe it's a career day test weld or something

[Anonymous No.11364199]

>>11364193
ikr lol

[Anonymous No.11364214]

>>11364193
>>11364199
Start of college:
>I must write down all of the units I'm using at each step
>Explaining every single step is necessary so that others may know how I derived this
>Carefully draws a Xi
>I need to work out the derivative so I understand this

End of college:
>I'll just write down the units I'm using at the top and at my answer, the professor should be able to infer which units belong where
>Writing this down is going to be tedious, I'll just write "by inspection..." so I can skip that
>Backwards "3" with a tail
>Wolfram Alpha, whats the derivative of "ln(x) + x"?

[Anonymous No.11364247]

>>11362542
This is very advanced shitposting.

[Anonymous No.11364250]

What's the standard factor-of-safety for the temperature of the walls of a combustion chamber?

[Anonymous No.11364253]

>>11364247
welcome to /sfg/

[Anonymous No.11364256]

>>11364250
does it work?

[Anonymous No.11364381]

I'm not claiming to know better, but what would the challenges be assembling starship horizontally?

[Anonymous No.11364389]

>>11363776

[Anonymous No.11364417]

>>11364381
The unsupported rings would want to bow under their own weight which would make jigging them up to weld and keeping it circular a pita. So that's one.

[Anonymous No.11364424]

OneWeb Space Accordions set to go up in just over an hour from Baikonur.

[Anonymous No.11364427]

>>11364424
they're a day late and a dollar short

[Anonymous No.11364432]

>>11364417
Correct, they're made from rolled sheet metal, so you'd have to add intricate strut work on the inside to keep it circular while welding if you were to work flat.

[Anonymous No.11364464]

>>11364417
Another one would be large component assembly. It's far easier in terms of alignment to lower or raise and object into its supporting structure using a crane or lift than using some kind of forklift or even specialist machine. Cheaper too. There's no need to fight gravity when you don't have to. That and if it's going to be launched from where it's manufactured there's little reason to ever have it sat horizontally.

[Anonymous No.11364476]

>>11363776
Would they eventually have to flare out the rings edges a bit to counter the weld shrinkage so that the tin can would come out straight?

[Anonymous No.11364485]

>>11364432
Could they weld underwater, or in some kind of dense liquid that would support the weight of the rings?

[Anonymous No.11364490]

>>11364476
Weld shrinkage isn't that big a deal using MIG. If they were to weld with TIG, that'd be another issue entirely due to slower speed, higher heat.

>>11364485
Never done underwater welding, but that's not exactly for fancy work. Hyperbaric welding is electrode shit and far inferior to dry welding, you don't want that trash anywhere near your fuel not just for the slag, but also for the quality of the weld itself.

[Anonymous No.11364494]

>>11364485
How much duct-tape would it take to keep ring-sections together through max q?
Could one make an expendable knockoff Starship using a series of trash cans, garbage bags of fuel and an anon-sourced engine held together by tape and elbow-grease?

[Anonymous No.11364495]

>>11364485
I think at that point it would just be simpler to do things vertically.

[Anonymous No.11364500]

>>11364490
>Weld shrinkage isn't that big a deal
Well for now it obviously looks like the Michelin man

[Anonymous No.11364505]

>>11364495
I've worked with rolled steel, it's piss easy to work with vertically. We'd just use 2 by 4's at the correct diameter and a couple of spots to keep it in the right shape for ring segments.

>>11364500
There will always be a tiny bit of material shrinkage no matter what process you use. That's just how welding works. A skilled welder knows how to work around that.

[Anonymous No.11364512]

>>11364505
>There will always be a tiny bit of material shrinkage no matter what process you use
Yeah, so I say flare out edges a bit so when they shrink it would come out straight.

[Anonymous No.11364528]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-to-industry-send-ideas-for-lunar-rovers

NASA has sent out an RFI for unpressurised Lunar rovers, to enhance Artemis missions to the Moon’s surface.

[Anonymous No.11364530]

>>11364512
Nah, you work around it by not doing it in one continuous weld.
When you do pipe welding with TIG, which was what I used to do for a living most of the time back when I was a welder, on big ass pipes (6-8" and more) you had to do it in segments on opposing sides so that it wouldn't go full retard and askew, because by the time you'd finish the first layer out of maybe 5 layers in your completed weld, then the start would have cooled down completely while the end was still melting hot, leading to a completely wonky weld that would never have passed any x-ray.

So you divided it up into say, 4-6 sections, doing one section, then the exact opposite, then one, then the exact opposite etc. Then you went on to the next string and did the exact same process all over again to keep it going.
No shrinkage, everything stays put, nice and fancy weld that passes any inspection.

It's just a matter of not heating up too much material at once and not letting it chill too much before you get back to it.

[Anonymous No.11364534]

>>11364528
can /sfg/ design a lunar rover?

[Anonymous No.11364541]

>>11364528
Will it be able to break Eugene "Speed Demon" Cernan's record?

[Anonymous No.11364550]

>>11364534
>take electric rally car
>replace air tires with wire mesh tires
>change seats so suited-up astronauts can comfortably buckle up inside
>add RCS thrusters
>give control of RCS to co-driver
>manuel_gasgasgas.mp2

[Anonymous No.11364552]

>>11364534
I'm more curious if we, or anyone else, can design something that isn't just the same LRV again.

[Anonymous No.11364554]

>>11364550
>manuel_gasgasgas.mp2
That's supposed to be mp3. Oops.

[Anonymous No.11364561]

>>11364534
I doubt /sfg/ could design a plastic straw, much less some kind of automotive transport

[Anonymous No.11364573]

>>11364550
Max ~500kg
Fit into CLPS max ~3.2m deck
Carry 500kg on a single charge in excess of 2 km
Fit 2 fully suited astronauts
Autonomous operation
Charge anywhere from fucking everything
Can deal with 260F to -280F over a 100 hour lunar night at the lunar south pole
Can drive over lunar highland minimum 15 degree inclinations
And more.

Yeah, you're gonna need more than a rally car frame for this job buddy.

[Anonymous No.11364584]

>>11364035
it was an STMD concept not an actual plan. The important stuff is that NASA's working on space construction techniques to make such a thing possible

[Anonymous No.11364588]

>>11364561
Look you're just going to have to accept that a launch-escape-tower is an integral part of straw design or we're not gonna get anywhere with this.

[Anonymous No.11364591]

>>11364528
There are shops on the moon now?

[Anonymous No.11364597]

>>11364541
The lunar rover is the one part of the whole moon landings story that makes me think 'ok I was willing to believe in the rest of it, but buggies on the moon is just taking the piss'

[Anonymous No.11364602]

>>11360704
but /pol/ told me space wasn't real and odin made the world in 1776...

[Anonymous No.11364614]

>>11364597
Why?

[Anonymous No.11364635]

>>11364597
>"i can't possibly see the utility of having a vehicle in an unexplored environment"

[Anonymous No.11364637]

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

oneweb stream started

[Anonymous No.11364645]

Why are Russian rockets so Aesthetic?

[Anonymous No.11364647]

>>11364637
>>11364645
Based

[Anonymous No.11364648]

>>11364614
Because he can't imagine how having a wheeled vehicle would be a huge improvement in exploration when the only other option of travel is by foot.

[Anonymous No.11364653]

>>11364648
imagine living in a gray and empty wasteland, how depressing

[Anonymous No.11364657]

>>11364648
I thought maybe he was confused as to how you'd construct and transport a lightweight electric buggy to the surface that still was rigid enough to drive? Hard to tell what exactly isn't clear to him.
>>11364653
Yeah I hate cities too.

[Anonymous No.11364660]

>>11364653
We're talking about lunar exploration, not a post-Soviet country.

[Anonymous No.11364662]

>>11364645
They always find the bulkiest, unwieldiest, yet simplest solution to absolutely every problem.
Also a general tendency towards brutalism.

[Anonymous No.11364667]

>>11364662
This is not brutalist, just aesthetic as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11364668]

>>11364653
Hey now, Baikonur does have a space port!

[Anonymous No.11364670]

>>11364667
Saved.

[Anonymous No.11364671]

>>11364667
Mate. This is the view right now.

[Anonymous No.11364672]

>>11364671
I know, but the rockets themselves are noice.

[Anonymous No.11364673]

>>11364653
haha how horrible

[Anonymous No.11364678]

>>11364637
Did they have the priest come over to give a buff in the Faith stat?

[Anonymous No.11364687]

>>11364672
Indeed, their rockets are as they say "эcтeтичecкий".

[Anonymous No.11364724]

>>11364678
not that i saw

[Anonymous No.11364742]

BIG NEWS

SpaceX will spin off Starlink Business and offer public IPO.

[Anonymous No.11364744]

If it's Boeing, I'm not going.

[Anonymous No.11364752]

>>11364744
>software bug, "catastrophic failure"
They put the probe-core in upside down. Typical, Boeing craft plunging nose-first into the ground.

[Anonymous No.11364756]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/spacex-likely-to-spin-off-starlink-business-and-pursue-an-ipo

>Space Exploration Technologies Corp. has already launched more than 240 satellites to build out Starlink, which will start delivering internet services to customers from space this summer, President Gwynne Shotwell said Thursday at a private investor event hosted by JPMorgan Chase & Co. in Miami.

>Right now, SpaceX can only cover higher latitudes, but by the end of the year, it expects to have global coverage, Shotwell said at the conference.

>Shotwell said that service will be “less than what you are paying now for about five to 10 times the speed you are getting.”

[Anonymous No.11364757]

>>11364744
If it's Boeing, Nobody's going.

[Anonymous No.11364760]

>>11364744
>could have led to a catastrophic failure of spacecraft
>a catastrophic failure of spacecraft
>catastrophic failure
>catastrophic

[Anonymous No.11364761]

>>11364744
Berger says they corrected this issue on-orbit with a software upload. So it mustn’t have been very complicated of a problem, but raises big questions about their ability to spot such issues.

[Anonymous No.11364764]

>>11364637
still another hour and a half to go
enjoy your beep beep beep

[Anonymous No.11364765]

>>11364744
Oh joy, it's the "kick Starliner while it's down" brigade.
Let's just ignore that another craft had a flaw that would lead to catastrophic failure uncovered during testing, shall we?

[Anonymous No.11364771]

>>11364765
Yeah, a failure that was
- during a ground test
- before the engines were lit up
- something that nobody knew NTO could do
- probably responsible in the past for multiple sudden mystery failures of on-orbit satellites

[Anonymous No.11364773]

>>11364744
Probably wont amount to anything. If SpaceX can get Dragon 2 reapproved after the first capsule exploded, then Boeing can get Starliner reapproved after a coding error. Still feels nice to know that NASA is actually treating Boeing seriously rather than just a mouth to feed tax money into.

>>11364765
Not that surprising, this general doesn't like Boeing. Feels like karmatic justice with the preferential treatment Boeing has been getting from NASA.

[Anonymous No.11364775]

Meanwhile Orion keeps trucking along.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1225498167380234247
>ASAP says Orion testing at Plum Brook is nearly complete and very successful beyond some minor issues.

[Anonymous No.11364776]

>>11364645

[Anonymous No.11364779]

>>11364773
Boeing is a black hole that amasses money that should go towards space exploration.
That's why nobody likes Boeing.

[Anonymous No.11364780]

>>11364773
>Feels like karmatic justice with the preferential treatment Boeing has been getting from NASA.
Yes, the "preferential treatment" that is having them undergo a full safety review.

[Anonymous No.11364783]

>>11364771
Failure during testing is a learning experience, I agree. Yet it's funny how that mentality is only ever afforded to SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.11364785]

>>11364602
Can you piss off with the redditenese?

[Anonymous No.11364789]

>>11364775
The VIRGIN Boeing vs the CHAD Lockheed

[Anonymous No.11364791]

ONEWEB STREAM ONLINE

[Anonymous No.11364792]

>>11364765
Everybody kicked Crew Dragon down at that time. Why should Starliner be coddled now?

[Anonymous No.11364793]

>>11364780
IIRC Boeing also received budget extensions despite the program being a fixed-cost contract. There was also the fact that originally the commercial crew program would only have Boeing.

[Anonymous No.11364798]

>Those satellite designs
>Not accordion music on the stream
They had one job, and they fucked it up.

[Anonymous No.11364800]

>>11364791
oh nvm it looks like they're going to loop the same 10 second promo for an hour

[Anonymous No.11364801]

>>11364785

[Anonymous No.11364802]

>>11364798
>sad space accordion noises

[Anonymous No.11364803]

>>11364798
>no Oneweb vs Starlink polka
Someone get Weird Al on this

[Anonymous No.11364804]

>>11364789
>cucked Boeing out of the F-35
>reputation isn't in shatters
>rakes in all dem government contracts
>has a cooler-sounding name

[Anonymous No.11364807]

>>11364792
>"everybody"

[Anonymous No.11364817]

>>11364783
There's failure due to stupid stuff like using the wrong clock, then there's failure due to completely unknown risks.
I'm so sorry you can't seem to recognise the difference between the two.

[Anonymous No.11364818]

>>11364534
Take JSC's SEV, but caster the wheels instead of centering them. I also want wheels mounted on 6DoF arms for handling rough terrain
>>11364550
Because things weigh less on the moon and there's no air normal force is less and consequently traction force is less. So it's harder to corner and brake

[Anonymous No.11364826]

>>11364804
You forgot:

>is the world’s biggest defence company
>has a monopoly over hypersonic weapons contracts
>is responsible for the Atlas 5, the most reliable rocket
>partners with top-tier aerospace companies like Blue and Northrop for Artemis, whilst Boeing is forced to work with C-tier companies like Intuitive Machines

[Anonymous No.11364837]

Mars 2020 has been packed and is now being shipped.

[Anonymous No.11364844]

>>11364837
>reusable container - do not destroy
I just don't understand this reusable container meme...

[Anonymous No.11364846]

>>11364817
we literally have no idea what the issue that could have caused catastrophic failure is, other than it's something separate from the clock
>>11364818
yeah you need a really low CoG on a lunar rover, lest you want it to flip all over the place.

[Anonymous No.11364851]

>>11364837
i hope they don't end up naming it something stupid
my vote's for 'Tenacity'

[Anonymous No.11364854]

>>11364851
20/20 ‘Vision’ for the win!

[Anonymous No.11364865]

>>11364851
I liked Clarity the best. It's the only one even tangentially related to the scientific aims of the mission to begin with: Opportunity -> Curiosity -> Clarity. And Spirit, I guess

[Anonymous No.11364870]

>>11364865
Clarity is good too. It fits the naming scheme.

[Anonymous No.11364899]

>>11364851
I voted for Endurance, but Tenacity sounds better in retrospect.

[Anonymous No.11364900]

Reminder Boeing needs only minor javascript code update on their flight control app and everything's good to go.

Meanwhile spacex STILL hasn't solved the severe life threatening parachute problems plaguing their 60's style sea-landing capsule and on top of that there are serious questions if a capsule that already catastrophically exploded once during testing can ever be trusted with the life of human beings.

[Anonymous No.11364903]

>>11364900
>minor javascript code update
Thanks for the sensible chuckle.

[Anonymous No.11364904]

>>11364900
Pls stop with this obvious baiting

[Anonymous No.11364905]

>>11364900
>Meanwhile spacex STILL hasn't solved the severe life threatening parachute problems
I thought they did?

>serious questions if a capsule that already catastrophically exploded once during testing can ever be trusted with the life of human beings.
It can be since the issue that caused the explosion was traced to a valve issue. Changing the valves to ones that won't allow the same conditions that caused the explosion happen again would be enough to regain trust.

[Anonymous No.11364908]

>>11364904
>>11364905
Yikes

[Anonymous No.11364936]

>>11364744
THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF THE BOING TRAMPOLINE COMPANY!

[Anonymous No.11364941]

>>11364765
You shouldn't need to depend on one final all-up test to find fucking software problems. Boeing's processes for development itself as well as QA must be pretty fucking dismal. Although I guess we already knew this from the last two software glitches of theirs.

[Anonymous No.11364975]

>>11364801
Exactly. Those faggots going "I DON'T LIKE YOUR OPINION SO YOU'RE A /POL/ USER" would be much more comfortable there.

[Anonymous No.11364987]

>>11364534
Just build roads, desu.

[Anonymous No.11364993]

>>11364987
is there a concrete recipe that can be made out of moon stuff? Without water I can't imagine there is

[Anonymous No.11364997]

>>11364987
Building roads violates the Space NAP (or SNAP). You'll get shot by McCruise Missiles.

[Anonymous No.11365005]

>>11364637
When will it launch?

[Anonymous No.11365016]

>>11364837
Oh, something actually launching in time. Feels refreshing.

I mean it still seems ridiculously priced and is baffelingly missing features from the original. But still.

[Anonymous No.11365019]

>>11364837
Cool, was super hyped for Curiosity, I hope this one is just as successful. Glad they fixed the wheels and added some new instruments.

>>11364667
I still say the Delta 4 Heavy is the best looking currently, but the N1 was my fav aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.11365020]

>>11365016
>baffelingly missing features from the original
Such as? This is the first I'm hearing of it.

[Anonymous No.11365037]

>>11365019
DIVH looks really great with Orion on top, but I think normal DIVH is merely "okay."

[Anonymous No.11365042]

OneWeb stream showing same ad over and over again.

[Anonymous No.11365046]

ONEWEB STREAM BEGINNING

>>11364637

[Anonymous No.11365050]

>>11365046

[Anonymous No.11365061]

Maybe I missing something, but what Arianespace have to do with this? The launching from Baikonur not from French Guiana.

[Anonymous No.11365064]

>>11365061
they built the LV

[Anonymous No.11365071]

>>11365061
Partnership with StarSem. They split launches between Kourou and Baikonour on the same launch vehicle in order to up the launch tempo.

[Anonymous No.11365072]

>>11365064
No they aren't.It just regular Soyuz-2 without any adjustments for Guiana.
I pretty sure only dispenser for OneWeb sats build in US.

[Anonymous No.11365079]

>>11364744
I know nothing of software development beyond that these systems can run into the millions of lines of code. The complexity of doing this and how anyone would keep track of it baffles me. How is it that a company such as SpaceX is able to largely go without these problems whilst Boeing seems plagued by them? What exactly is going wrong here?

[Anonymous No.11365081]

>>11365072
>No they aren't.It just regular Soyuz-2 without any adjustments for Guiana.

That’s not true, the Soyuz ST (Arianespace operated version) does have some modifications and performance improvements over the basic Soyuz-2 used by the Russians.

[Anonymous No.11365082]

>>11365071
probably also gives a better assortment of inclinations

[Anonymous No.11365086]

>>11365079
IIRC Boeing outsources it's coding, SpaceX does it in-house. The SpaceX way is more expensive but they have better control on quality. Boeing's way can be more error prone, but much cheaper.

[Anonymous No.11365087]

>>11365020
No chemistry lab. I probably wouldn't mind as much if it didn't cost the exact same to build as its predecessor took to get designed and built.

[Anonymous No.11365090]

>>11364844
kek

[Anonymous No.11365092]

>>11365087
Inflation hit the probe market hard.

[Anonymous No.11365095]

>>11365081
My point is that this is not Soyuz-ST it's a regular Soyuz 2.1b.

[Anonymous No.11365096]

[Anonymous No.11365102]

>>11365079
>How is it that a company such as SpaceX is able to largely go without these problems whilst Boeing seems plagued by them? What exactly is going wrong here?

Boeing’s software department doesn’t have the best reputation due to recent events and SpaceX does have a decent team of code monkeys, they needed to for cracking retro propulsive landing. But you’ve also got to remember that Starliner is Boeing’s first spacecraft to the ISS ever and their first capsule, whilst SpaceX have a massive backlog of experience coding capsules to rendezvous with the ISS from the CRS program.

[Anonymous No.11365103]

REEEEEEEEEE increase the file size limit so I can post the Korolev Cross gif.

[Anonymous No.11365110]

>>11365079
Efficient ways of building and managing huge bodies of software are well know and documented, but big old companies like Boeing have a ton of shitty old programmers who refuse to learn anything new. SpaceX is comparatively younger and software design principles are utilized in many other aspects of their R&D, clearly since Musk was originally in software. I do software consulting and the quality of a company's software is directly derived from their corporate culture.

[Anonymous No.11365112]

>>11365086
>>11365102
I guess what I'm asking is a) far beyond what to expect of a reply on 4chan and b) even if I got it I wouldn't understand it. I've only ever dealt with mechanical stuff, some base electrical shit and a little bit of meme controllers. This stuff is as fascinating as it is mind boggling to me.

[Anonymous No.11365118]

>>11365086
>>11365110
Your making a lot of big assumptions about the demographics of Boeing’s space division’s workforce with no evidence to support them.

[Anonymous No.11365119]

>>11365037
I dunno. I think it's a pretty bold design.

[Anonymous No.11365125]

>>11365119
“We can go wider”

[Anonymous No.11365127]

>>11365119
>Well, it worked in Kerbal Space Program

[Anonymous No.11365131]

>>11365118
I don't work at boeing, I can't give you "evidence" but believe me anecdotally that individually competent people put together shitty software if the culture coming down from the top doesn't harmonize them in a productive way.

[Anonymous No.11365134]

>>11365127
One day we will see a rocket like this. One day...

[Anonymous No.11365138]

>>11365119

[Anonymous No.11365142]

>>11365131
>but believe me anecdotally
"No!"

[Anonymous No.11365145]

>>11365134
I'm waiting on a couple of text books on rocketry. You never know.

[Anonymous No.11365150]

>>11365134
this looks familiar

[Anonymous No.11365151]

>>11365150
I heard the guy who designed it was a former Kazi.

[Anonymous No.11365152]

>>11365142

[Anonymous No.11365153]

>>11365134
What could you do with it if each stage was made up of Starships/Superheavies?

[Anonymous No.11365157]

>>11365153
What couldn't you do?

[Anonymous No.11365163]

>>11365142
ok, go write a letter to Boeing's CTO and ask why their software is shit

[Anonymous No.11365164]

>>11365153
A rocket that can take you to the moon and back in almost an hour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikQ7XYcQBzg

[Anonymous No.11365191]

>>11365153
Superheavy is gonna be nuts, and thats just the 9m version. When they start with 18 meter cores...

[Anonymous No.11365192]

>>11365164
>25 SS/SH strapped together
>Earth to Moon return in 1 hour
>STILL cheaper than a single SLS flight

[Anonymous No.11365199]

>>11365192
>mrw Starship would have to cost more than $80M per launch for this not to be true
>mrw that it would still be cheaper per mass of payload than Falcon 9

[Anonymous No.11365207]

>>11365191
I've heard the 18m stack could have almost a Sea Dragon size payload

[Anonymous No.11365212]

>>11365207
If ITS is anything to go by? This is true.

[Anonymous No.11365215]

>>11365079
Software development just needs to be done carefully every step of the way. Make sure it's not just a collection of lone guys each hacking away independently without any oversight.
First of all, every little feature is worked on on a branch, basically a seperate copy of the project. So not everyone is just messing with the main code base at every step.
On these branches, it is common practice to do code reviews whenever the feature is finished and is supposed to get integrated back to the main code base. Code review means other coders look at what was done and look at whether the code is readable, performs decently and it's not some weird hack solution.
Then you have QA on top of that, making sure both that the new features work before they get added to the code base as well as that already existing features will still work as intended after the new stuff was integrated into the code base.
This is aided by automated tests. You basically write extra test code that calls all your individual real functions with dummy data and makes sure they always produce the results that you predetermined earlier. In a properly set-up system, you would usually run these tests before you can merge a feature back into the main code-base. So this makes sure that nobody fucks something up when trying to fix something unrelated.
You can also automate UI tests, but I doubt they play much of a role in rocketry... well maybe with SpaceX where everything is touch screens.
I'm not sure about such humongous projects as this one. But I assume they have even more audits on top of all of this.

At least these are the basic procedures we use to build apps. You'd hope rockets are programmed at least as dilligently.

[Anonymous No.11365251]

>>11364528
Elon's going to try to sell them a nearly completely unmodified Model X or Cybertruck isn't he

[Anonymous No.11365254]

>>11365251
Did you even look at the spec document?

[Anonymous No.11365257]

>>11365254
Those specs are based on using weak virgin landers rather than massive chad starships.

[Anonymous No.11365263]

>>11364552
honestly if you just beefed it up slightly and gave it a modern battery tech with a modern temperature management system it's literally perfect

[Anonymous No.11365271]

>>11365215
Lost track of what I was replying to.
The bottom line is:
SpaceX probably does a lot of that stuff if not more and better stuff. Boeing might do less of it.

Come to think of it, company culture might also have something to do with it.
If you're at SpaceX and you get told to just use one sensor instead of two for your emergency software, you'd probably speak up, later that day everybody would sit down in a room for 20 minutes and two days later someone will have written up a new system for you that uses both.
Meanwhile, if you're Pajeet, getting employed by some guy on the other side of the planet and he gave you a document he got from his boss who got it from his boss.
Assume the best case scenario, you're a brave and smart Pajeet, you're gonna tell the guy in America what you think of this. And the guy in America is acutally interested in his job and he's listening to you and he will agree with you. So he is going to his boss and it takes a month until he hears back from him. So he tells you that he checked the schedule of his boss who would have to order the system designers to reexamine this entire thing and the long and short of it, is, he's not expecting a reply in the next half year.
Oh and the software must be done in 3.
Well ultimately, Pajeet will bloody well have to implement that one sensor solution after all.

[Anonymous No.11365284]

>>11365192
>>11365199
To be fair, aerobreaking at that velocity might end up impacting reusability a little tiny very large bit.

[Anonymous No.11365285]

>>11364756
>>11364742
Did people not see this? Shits gonna be hueg if they make Starlink public. If they ever go public, everyone should buy a piece of the share. It will go skyhigh in a matter of hours with market capitalization well over 100 billion on its own.

[Anonymous No.11365313]

>>11365285
why does this shit always happen when i'm broke and can't partake

[Anonymous No.11365330]

>>11365285
That's basically free money. Even if it doesn't explode right at the start, I very much doubt this isn't going to skyrocket at some point.
I mean there is still some risk of the antennas just not working out enough or being to expensive or whatever. But SpaceX wouldn't have pushed it this far if they didn't think the technology would work out.

[Anonymous No.11365335]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHA
https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1225542555141537794?s=19

HERES YOUR BILLION DOLLAR DECADE LONG CAPSULE PROGRAM BRO

[Anonymous No.11365341]

>>11365335
would have just been better off restoring or replicating one of these at this point desu

[Anonymous No.11365342]

>>11365313
It will cost tens of dollars at start. Buying couple will very likely give you 5x the return in just few days and if you keep it long, 100x

[Anonymous No.11365347]

>>11365330
Spinning it off also is a risk mitigation as well. If there's ever a catastrophic event, SpaceX wont be liable.

[Anonymous No.11365350]

>>11365335
yeah, we saw
>>11364744

[Anonymous No.11365364]

>>11365341
>would have just been better off restoring or replicating one of these at this point desu

The hardware is fine, it’s the software which is the problem.

[Anonymous No.11365368]

>>11365285
I have 10K saved and was thinking of starting to invest, but i guess it's too little to even be able to buy anything Starlink related

[Anonymous No.11365392]

>>11365335
Did it get the MAX casualty update?

[Anonymous No.11365404]

>>11365368
10K @ $30 per share will give you ~333 shares. Shares will be sold cheap initially.

[Anonymous No.11365472]

>>11364528
>>11364534
Holy fuck, it has to be reusable across missions which means withstanding a lunar day and night at the south pole. Temperatures could vary from 127 C to -173 C. And the lunar night's 100 hours long. And it has to be self driving. The driving distance requirements aren't all that stringent at drive more than 2km, but the requirements for withstanding the lunar night will dominate things. Unless you spend a lot of money, electronics break at antarctic ambient temperatures due solder joints popping.
>>11365251
even if you ignore mass constraints the cybertrucks not that great for this mission. The cyber truck has a lot of components which won't do well at cold temperatures. Just running the AC's not going to work because NASA requires that the rover be unpressurized. It's also hard to get into the cyber truck with a spacesuit on. Stainless steel that's SHINY AND CHROME is probably a good idea though. Because it performs well over that temperature range and because stainless steel is great for high vacuum work. NASA wants an unpressurized rover because they want to explore a permanently shadowed crater to find volatiles, and depressurizing the rover would contaminate those volatiles. Stainless steel's great for vacuum work cause it doesn't out gas, so that's a big plus for the science team. Oh and said rover might need ICE TIRES, because there's good indications that the moon has water ice on the surface. >>11365263
>>temperature management
is what's going to drive engineering here. The rover has to drive in a vacuum. This means that heat transfer sucks which is great when we're trying to survive the lunar night, but it works against us when you're driving the rover as you need to get rid of heat from the motors and power electronics. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if a tiny EV company based in Norway or a Siberian tractor company wins this damn thing because of how crazy the temperature requirements are.

[Anonymous No.11365525]

So it's actually three issues, not just two.

[Anonymous No.11365538]

>>11365086
Boing has a large software division in-house in multiple locations
it's shit, but that's not related
>>11365118
They're absolutely full of old people who are just coasting
>>11365254
No

[Anonymous No.11365555]

>>11363776
Is this thing actually meant to fly? Looks like shit, looks like a low quality Mercury-Atlas replica.

[Anonymous No.11365557]

>>11363127
>my rocket

[Anonymous No.11365575]

>>11365525
You know when these issues are described in a technical and eloquent manner they seem much less alarming and manageable, than when described using the vague and hyperbolic language of ASAP and Berger. This isn’t a one time issue for either of these denominations btw... (check literally every ASAP briefing and Berger article ever)

[Anonymous No.11365579]

>>11363602
Looks like something of Thunderbirds

[Anonymous No.11365584]

>>11365575
they grabbed the wrong timer off the rocket and then had their thrusters mapped wrong so that they were firing basically randomly
letting these sorts of basic fucking errors slip through QA is seriously fucked up

[Anonymous No.11365586]

>>11364494
Kek

[Anonymous No.11365592]

>>11365584
>they grabbed the wrong timer off the rocket and then had their thrusters mapped wrong so that they were firing basically randomly

That’s your interpretation of what happened based off press statements, we don’t actually know what happened and won’t until NASA’s investigation is done. So hold off your judgement until we no for sure what the issues were and don’t prematurely judge based on loose speculation?

[Anonymous No.11365593]

>>11365584
I thought the third one was caused by a gap in TDRSS coverage, but it looks like another shitty Boeing product.

[Anonymous No.11365595]

>>11365592
*know

[Anonymous No.11365596]

>>11365592
>that's just your interpretation
shut up fag

[Anonymous No.11365600]

>>11365575
These issues keep cropping up while Boeing is allowed to declare itself successful through all of it. All this would be a lot less embarassing if they were being held to a reasonable standard, imo

[Anonymous No.11365604]

>>11365593
All we know is that communications dropouts occurred, no cause has been revealed. Boeing initially thought it was TDRSS, but later dismissed this notion.

>>11365596
What an elegant rebuttal...

[Anonymous No.11365609]

>>11365600
>All this would be a lot less embarassing if they were being held to a reasonable standard

What’s a reasonable standard? NASA are doing both root cause and workplace safety investigations in response to the issues. Just like they did for SpaceX after the Crew Dragon anomaly.

[Anonymous No.11365613]

>>11365604
I must have missed the news about TDRSS not being the cause before. Hopefully all the space news outlets pushing on JimB to issue a statement would bear more information.

[Anonymous No.11365627]

>>11365613
>Hopefully all the space news outlets pushing on JimB to issue a statement would bear more information.

Funnily enough I’m getting massive deja vu from back when the Dragon anomaly happened, from hearing certain prominent space fandom people criticise NASA’s transparency and demand a imminent press conference about the issues. Jim will likely do what what he did back then: ignore them until the investigation is done and hold one.

[Anonymous No.11365636]

>>11365609
I was surprised when the chute failure was completely glossed over on the abort test, then amazed that the orbital test was considered successful after being such a fiasco. Now it's been revealed that it was worse than we thought and could easily have RUD'd itself. These are Starliner's "successes". And they admit that the issues aren't all fixed, hell they still don't even know what some of them are. A reasonable standard would be admitting what a fiasco it is instead of congratulating it.

[Anonymous No.11365648]

>>11365636
>I was surprised when the chute failure was completely glossed over on the abort test, then amazed that the orbital test was considered successful after being such a fiasco.

The chute deployment failure was glossed over because it was caused by human error when rigging the deployment mechanism, the parachute itself never failed. The test was successful because it safely landed even under only 2 chutes.

>Now it's been revealed that it was worse than we thought and could easily have RUD'd itself.

[Citation needed]

>A reasonable standard would be admitting what a fiasco it is instead of congratulating it.

You want NASA to publicly shit on a company their trusting to send astronauts to the ISS and build their Moon rocket?

[Anonymous No.11365662]

>>11365368
don't invest all 10k into something like starlink, anon. Go talk to a financial advisor.

[Anonymous No.11365691]

>>11365648
>The chute deployment failure was glossed over because it was caused by human error when rigging the deployment mechanism, the parachute itself never failed.

>[Citation needed]
Okay, technically we only know it could have led to "catastrophic failure" and RUD is only an extrapolation. Maybe it would have filled the capsule with cotton candy.

>You want NASA to publicly shit on a company their trusting to send astronauts to the ISS and build their Moon rocket?
Isn't that all the more reason to be more stringent with them? Boeing is gambling with the lives of NASA personnel with the absolute state of their QA.

[Anonymous No.11365699]

>>11365691
Oops, overwrote my response to the first bit. Basically I don't see why human error is an excuse. Do it again. Performing as expected should be the bare minimum to call it a successful test. They were allowed to get away with 'anomalous' results in chute testing before this with no followup as well. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.11365705]

>spacex not using ISO 8601
REEEEEE

[Anonymous No.11365718]

>>11365699
>don't see why human error is an excuse. Do it again.

Boeing fixed the issue by simply making the drogue sheath transparent so the connection is easier to inspect. It’s not a fix that requires a whole new test to verify...

[Anonymous No.11365730]

how fucking hard is it for a bunch of troglodytes to make rings the same size?
Stack them all together flat and cut them at the same time, goddamn

[Anonymous No.11365737]

>>11365730
Thickness and welding is the issue. The ring material comes from a Finnish company’s American foundry

[Anonymous No.11365838]

>>11365119
A man of taste, I see

[Anonymous No.11365851]

Whoever was running the oneweb stream must have fallen asleep, they left it running at the end card. Frickin noob streamers.

[Anonymous No.11365873]

>>11365212
How much marine life would this thing kill?

[Anonymous No.11365891]

>>11365873
>caring about fish

[Anonymous No.11365929]

>>11365851
Thats russians for ya

[Anonymous No.11366172]

>>11365929
Passed out drunk from celebration vodka at yet another successful Korolyov cross demonstration, no doubt.

[Anonymous No.11366189]

>>11365102
Werent atlas 5 supplying iss aswell or are the ula guys not working with the boeing coders?

[Anonymous No.11366206]

>>11365662
> financial advisor
Oh you mean the people that mostly don‘t act in your best interest AND take a cut AND frequently fail to beat the market? Obviously gambling all your savings on a company and technology that may yet fail is risky.
Still, if the recent Tesla stock has told me anything it‘s that having technical insight into a new technology probably beats some dude just looking at his standard financial models and following "analysts" who make their recommendations based on who knows what.
Don‘t know that I‘d put all my money into Starlink. But given that it will be a de-facto monopoly and SpaceX so far has succeeded at just about everything they ever tried does warrant a good chance that the stock will surge sooner or later. And if there are still problems, Elon‘s philosophy means they‘ll probably fix it yet.
I guess the only real obstacle would be if the government stepped in because of muh nightsky.
Or maybe getting the approvals in each country might be difficult.
I like the odds here, although I‘d never put down all of my money on this either.

[Anonymous No.11366209]

>>11365873
Well it would probably deafen every whale in at least three oceans I‘d wager.

[Anonymous No.11366295]

>>11364756
Wait, if Starlink goes public, doesn‘t it mean they have to invest all their money back into itself? I thought the plan was to siphon as much money as possible out of that business to fund Mars. They‘d be down to just selling their rockets at a markup to fund Mars. I guess they could sell their stocks, but that‘s not a constant source of revenue longterm.

[Anonymous No.11366367]

>>11362997
>the treaty doesn't care
The treaty isn't a person, and has no ability to enforce itself.

[Anonymous No.11366370]

>>11363043
>Cause if you can launch a nuke into space, you can damn well hit anywhere on earth.
Yes, they're called ICBMs, and still exist.

[Anonymous No.11366410]

>>11366295
By that logic, no CEOs, influential shareholders etc would never walk away with monstrous bonuses. Yet somehow they do! There are countless contrivances available to legally extract money from a public company.

[Anonymous No.11366431]

>>11366206
>t. 21 year old with $1k in savings account

[Anonymous No.11366464]

>>11366410
A CEO bonus won‘t get you to Mars.

[Anonymous No.11366476]

>>11366464
Ah FFS don't be a dick and split hairs - to reiterate the point you chose to ignore, there are countless fiendish ways of extracting money from a public company. For example critical IP could be owned by Elon and licensed to Starlink. Or you can have different classes of shares. You can bet that however it's structured will enable extraction of large amounts of cash for Mars, else why even bother?

[Anonymous No.11366538]

>>11366189
ULA was temporarily launching Northrop Grumman's Cygnus capsule, not a vehicle designed by Boeing.

[Anonymous No.11366545]

>>11366295
Going public would give Starlink a significant cash boost from investors which they can plow straight back into building up the orbital infrastructure. With everything set up, customers would pay Starlink for internet services.
Periodically SpaceX would charge Starlink for launches, and then Starlink would also give them regular dividends for being the largest shareholders

[Anonymous No.11366550]

New thread (and a 12% NASA budget increase):
>>11366546