/sfg/ Space Flight General

File: 204 KB, 1364x2048, sn3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/sfg/ Space Flight General Anonymous Mon Mar 30 02:58:41 2020 No.11514392 [Reply] [Original]

SN3 edition
previously >>>11506220

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 03:00:47 2020 No.11514396 File: 208 KB, 2048x1364, sn3 and tank farm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] delicious tank farm is delicious

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 03:15:27 2020 No.11514419 How do they short hop the SN3? Are they going to pull the legs off starhopper?

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 03:20:39 2020 No.11514427
File: 3.15 MB, 5925x3885, legs maybe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11514419
The current theory is that there are folding legs tucked under the skirt (circled)

To me they look too stubby and have no obvious crush core section. Time will tell.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 04:28:09 2020 No.11514618 >the tincan's not getting any leg-

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 04:35:44 2020 No.11514630 File: 718 KB, 1119x1126, Landing Leg sketch.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11514427 smol legs

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 05:15:16 2020 No.11514704 >>11514630 It seems too small for landing leg to me, likely the clamps to hold Starship on launch pad.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 05:24:37 2020 No.11514711
File: 392 KB, 2048x946, ESYQsDsXsAMhKy6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11514427
These thingies seem to flip over so if there are any crush cores, they are on top when folded. There were some leg-like contraptions spotted delivered to site not long ago, but these look nothing like that. I guess they went for some nig-rig that's just good enough for now instead of actual legs. Basically, everything extra not needed for the upcoming test they install now is a gamble on whether it pops or not. If it does they lose it, if it survives they save a bit of time later.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 05:28:46 2020 No.11514715

consider the following
>heavy(!), robust legs, that take up room
>some lines of code
both are options. Why make your landing legs bulky and whatnot when you can just code away the problem. Surely enough refinement of the landing control algorithms negates the need for physical safety margins.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 05:36:44 2020 No.11514723

>>11514715
I think the primary reason they are thinking of such legs is the need to avoid them sitting on the outside thus complicating heatshielding immensely. The space inside the skirt is limited as opposed to external mounting which obviously has impact on leg design. I'm not convinced this will work for unprepared surface landing however but as long as they are going for pads short and stubby will do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 05:50:04 2020 No.11514745 File: 1.94 MB, 3600x2400, DSC_2898 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11514392 Better photo

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 05:56:24 2020 No.11514753 >>11514630 I wonder if that will work as the final design. Might be hard to tuck that inbetween all the engines. Obviously works fine for a 3 engine hopper.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 06:01:47 2020 No.11514759 I really miss the fin legs. I hope they go back to those once reusable rocketry is a known science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 06:31:38 2020 No.11514792 >>11514759 Third leg was too much unjustified weight.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 06:42:06 2020 No.11514808 >>11514792 Thanks Elon

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 06:43:46 2020 No.11514811 my uneducated guess is sn3 will be a static fire prototype only, sn4 will be the hopper v2

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 06:46:46 2020 No.11514813 >>11514811 Heres hoping you’re wrong but all progress is good especially at this pace.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 06:51:10 2020 No.11514816 >>11514811 There's nothing really stopping SN3 from being used for a hop except if it disassembles itself ahead of schedule

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 07:13:54 2020 No.11514837 >>11514811 I thought sn3 was meant to do short flights

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 07:20:34 2020 No.11514847 >>11514808 No problem.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 07:21:50 2020 No.11514848 >>11514811 I mean they said that, but it‘s unclear what improvement they habe in mind for SN4 that‘s not already in SN3.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 08:04:37 2020 No.11514890 >>11514811 the thing is even SN1 was design for a hop. it had cold gas thruster for axis rotation. SN3 has the same

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 08:28:42 2020 No.11514922 >>11514396 Is this where they grow the future Starships?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 08:33:11 2020 No.11514937 >>11514922 no, that's down the road. This is where they destroy them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 08:34:32 2020 No.11514942 >>11514392 BOOOOM

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 09:18:48 2020 No.11515010 >>11514392 They're still preparing for pressure tests but there's a static fire scheduled in 2 days? How in the world are they going to make it in time? Or does it take like a few hours to bolt on raptors now?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 10:32:02 2020 No.11515113 >>11514396 Just strap engines to those tanks lmao

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 10:37:32 2020 No.11515122

>>11515010
A raptor engine is a simple function that takes LOX and Methane as input and produces the corresponding output of BRAAAAAAAAP.

Well I guess all that autogenous pressurization business as well as some power/data lines need to be hooked up as well. But still. Just weld it on, hook it up and fire.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 11:10:43 2020 No.11515181 File: 1.78 MB, 2344x3532, Iss009e29620.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] what is the most aesthetic space suit?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 11:11:59 2020 No.11515185 >>11515181 Who cares Coronavirus will kill every human on earth within five months

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 11:16:44 2020 No.11515196 File: 173 KB, 1909x1920, Ed_White_Gemini4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11515181 The Gemini suits look nice imo. >>11515185 Ok doomer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 11:17:11 2020 No.11515197 >>11514753 After seeing the starship landing animation, no way. Even falcon 9s with much straighter landings clearly need their large legs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 11:19:09 2020 No.11515206 >>11514792 question: why can starship get away with not having a vertical stabilizer?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 11:20:32 2020 No.11515210 >>11515196 You’re living in denial. Look at the news.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 11:21:31 2020 No.11515212 >>11515010 I'm 99.99% sure the raptors are in. I thought that's what they did when they took the engine section into the tint. They also lowered the tower on 3 jacks to press on the engines. It would be impossible to install them now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 11:24:08 2020 No.11515218 File: 174 KB, 640x1283, S71-24537-A7L_without_outerlayer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11515181

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 11:28:51 2020 No.11515229 >>11515206 The shuttle needed it for subsonic gliding, starship will not be gliding at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 11:30:36 2020 No.11515238 >>11515212 Actually wait, wouldn't pressing a jack into an rocket engine be retarded? Do the jacks just press on the mounting point?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 11:32:07 2020 No.11515242 >>11515212 there's some mechanism which is supposed to simulate raptor thrust—no raptors have been added to SN3 yet

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 11:58:51 2020 No.11515326 File: 56 KB, 348x480, 3A9D548D-F34A-4221-9D28-766DB73C73D4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:04:52 2020 No.11515339 File: 468 KB, 1792x1344, 0FFF6C2C-DCEA-49A6-9FBC-FE9991E7B523.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:05:59 2020 No.11515343 File: 665 KB, 1512x2016, 18A20B22-5740-4B0E-88B2-6201216CDD6E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:06:08 2020 No.11515344 File: 168 KB, 506x506, 1504962376753.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11515181

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:11:17 2020 No.11515357 File: 144 KB, 678x1086, 11651077-AD51-4075-B21B-8D2B38FE426D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11515344 That’s not a spacesuit, also pic-related...

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:13:50 2020 No.11515366 >>11515357 Don't know if LEGO suits or OG Battlestar Galactica props, man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:14:01 2020 No.11515367 >>11515210 >00.50% death rate k

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:17:22 2020 No.11515374 >>11515357 Are there photos of these pressurized?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:21:07 2020 No.11515382 >>11515367 No it’s 18% look it up on Worldometers where are you getting 00.50% from

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:26:25 2020 No.11515392 >>11515238 Yes, because the engines aren‘t in yet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:28:15 2020 No.11515398 >>11515344 >>11515357 >when your designers only ever designed for hollywood pretty boys

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:29:17 2020 No.11515399 >>11515382 >Worldometers That isn't an official website for tracking cases of corona (unlike the CDC website), and their page on corona was hacked before. I wouldn't trust that site if I were you.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:36:14 2020 No.11515411

>>11515238
Yup, it's either engines or jacks. They'll need to remove the jacks somehow, then install raptors, hook everything up including a million sensors and make sure it's all done correctly which can't be fast since it's their first time with 3 raptors on the actual trashcan. That's why I just can't see how they can possibly make it in 2 days (or even 5 with backup dates) along with pressure tests.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:39:39 2020 No.11515417 >>11515399 Whatever whats your source for a 0.5% death rate

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:40:40 2020 No.11515421 >>11515417 I'm not the anon who posted the 0.5% death rate, so IDK where it came from.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:43:01 2020 No.11515425
File: 70 KB, 243x307, DogTired.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

you get to choose one event to live to see:
A) unambiguous SETI signal, but it's from 50,000 lightyears away and it's just prime numbers
B) a single 100-person rotating habitat under the van allen belt, but it seems permanent human settlement outside our magnetosphere is impossible
C) a single 10-person lunar base, but it's Chinese and top secret and no images or footage of it get released to the public
D) a selfie-opportunity Mars mission and no permanent structures or habitats

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:46:22 2020 No.11515430 >>11515425 A because everything else is dumb. We'll likely see multiple bases on moon/bars within the next 50 years(hope I live that long).

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:48:56 2020 No.11515435 >>11515430 >We'll likely see multiple bases on moon/bars within the next 50 years people 50 years ago said the exact same thing

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:49:41 2020 No.11515437

>>11515425
C, because while China might try their best to be secret about their base, there's no way they can hide it. Someone else is gonna photograph it easily and knowledge of it's existence will spread like wildfire. Once the US becomes aware of this project, they'll want to do their own as a response and will put serious effort into it, starting the second space race.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:50:41 2020 No.11515438 File: 319 KB, 960x540, 1303-and-itsgone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/03/30/oneweb-files-for-bankruptcy/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:51:34 2020 No.11515443 >>11515435 Vietnam war happened, oil price shock happened. Government sanctioned monopoly happened. SpaceX/BlueOrigin will lead the way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:56:59 2020 No.11515456 >>11515425 A hands down I’d walk across a field of broken glass to see the shadow of an alien

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:01:46 2020 No.11515468 >>11515438 Bankruptcy protection isn't quite gone yet. But they're quite busy beating the vultures off. I wish them good luck though.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:15:44 2020 No.11515495

Would it be possible to construct a spacecraft in such a way that you could burn engines continuously while discarding fuel tanks as they empty, benefiting from staging while not cutting into the mass ratio by having to push around multiple sets of engines?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:17:32 2020 No.11515503 >>11515495 The plumbing alone would be a fucking nightmare.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:18:34 2020 No.11515506 >>11514811 >cold gas thrusters >legs >battery mounts The only way this thing does static fires only is if if it blows or nearly blows up.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:19:26 2020 No.11515511
File: 69 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault-5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11515495
Do you mean like how a fighter jet can discard empty tanks without throwing away engines?

Yeah, it's definitely possible. "Starclipper" was a Lockheed SSTO that threw away a large tank (I guess its not a SSTO then) with every flight. Think of it like a Space Shuttle stack without the two boosters.

In other news, how's the pressure test on SN3 going? Has it started?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:19:37 2020 No.11515512 >>11515495 >>11515503 In ksp plumbing costs nothing in reality it costs everything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:20:15 2020 No.11515515 >>11515512 >In ksp

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:21:09 2020 No.11515518
File: 396 KB, 1014x706, NASA_Copernicus_drop_tanks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11515495
Yes, it is possible and it has been explored. An issue is that once the spacecraft drops the tanks, then it's carrying more engines than needed to accelerate (unless it's meant for space only, then wouldn't matter as much). Another issue is that the added complexity of needed to crossfeed propellant tanks sort of balances out the benefit over using a separate stage, plus it would be harder to reuse the tanks (since you would have have recover them using a separate vehicle).

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:22:09 2020 No.11515520 >>11515518 >2033 >2044 >2055 >2066 >2077

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:57:06 2020 No.11515592 whats a neat starship related url /sfg/. i need a good one for a project i want to do

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:59:49 2020 No.11515600 >>11515592 marsorbust.sex

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:01:20 2020 No.11515604 >>11515592 rock.et

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:06:32 2020 No.11515617 >>11515592 starship.studio is available starship.earth from.earth is available but godaddy wants 30k for wtf

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:07:45 2020 No.11515618 File: 10 KB, 537x169, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11515617 bam, here you go

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:22:44 2020 No.11515662 File: 328 KB, 1000x1000, 1583932831850.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11515437 We'll know about it because of the wet market. And they will start the Lunar Flu there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:35:07 2020 No.11515695 >>11515425 A, it would push space exploration beyond everything we have seen so far. And 50/50 for meeting but also being ready for them if they are hostile.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:37:07 2020 No.11515700
File: 24 KB, 387x628, 80388D8C-F20C-42C4-8EC8-DC7B23F90692.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Do you think vortex cooled engines will go anywhere? If they perform as advertised then engines like raptor can get even lighter and drive launch costs down.

Also why hasn’t anyone tried to automate production of some rocket parts? Falcon fuselages are a high grade silo so it should be simple to have a factory that produces fuselages and fuel tanks with minimal labor, this alone could drive costs down like how robots drove down car production costs

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:39:58 2020 No.11515707

>>11515700
>why hasn’t anyone tried to automate production of some rocket parts?
Because the acceptable margin of error in those "high grade silos" is quite a bit smaller than your average Model T.
For the record, it is not a manual job, it is partly automated. Friction stir welds are automated for instance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:45:09 2020 No.11515715 File: 783 KB, 1536x2048, EUYKUYxXsAUy9fr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Fresh upskirt Starship porn from Elon

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:45:39 2020 No.11515720 >>11515715 Lewd.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:45:50 2020 No.11515721

>>11515695
I don't think so, honestly. 70,000 lightyears away means they won't know we exist for at least 69,900 years even with insanely advanced telescopic technology—and we can't be sure they even exist anymore. It might prompt people to get more excited about space travel and the universe, but there will be no need to even begin thinking about preparing to meet with them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:51:08 2020 No.11515738 >>11515721 Aliens have FTL

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:55:42 2020 No.11515745 >>11514392 Water based spaceships, Spacecoach design, thoughts? http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/advdesign.php#spacecoach https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2016/06/28/spacecoach-toward-a-deep-space-infrastructure/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 14:57:42 2020 No.11515753 >>11515738 If they have FTL then why are they sending prime numbers from 70kLY away?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 15:02:46 2020 No.11515770 >>11515753 Old message. God knows how technology would improve over seventy THOUSAND years.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 15:33:50 2020 No.11515847 So do we have any idea when SN03 might undergo pressure testing and fly?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 15:34:26 2020 No.11515849 >>11515847 >>11506220

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 15:34:42 2020 No.11515852 >>11515847 Isn’t it supposed to do it within two days?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 15:40:40 2020 No.11515866 >>11515745 So is there any reason why we're not pursuing this kind of design? >>11515849 >>11515852 Thanks, my bad for not paying attention. Damn, that's exciting as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 15:55:47 2020 No.11515909 >>11515866 I’m not sure they’ll actually fit the timeframe but Musk is Musk.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:03:03 2020 No.11515933 what's new with space force?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:05:24 2020 No.11515939 >>11515933 They posted a pretty uplifting speech about the pandemic last week.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:07:10 2020 No.11515947 >>11515933 launched a satellite last week part of a new(ish) military data transfer constellation for a few big western governments

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:10:02 2020 No.11515954 >>11515939 "make no mistake, the virus will wipe out most of the population, but centuries from now civilization will have bounced back and the stars will finally welcome us amongst them"

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:19:57 2020 No.11515988 >>11515954 >0.000004% is most of the population

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:24:28 2020 No.11516004 File: 144 KB, 1200x630, download (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] this big orange bastard WILL BTFO every single SpaceX fanboy, ULA fed, Blue Origin chink, and non-American space agency and there's NOTHING you can do to stop it

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:25:35 2020 No.11516008 >>11516004 ok boomer

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:25:55 2020 No.11516009 >>11516004 votes dem in november heh, nothing personal, kid

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:27:45 2020 No.11516014 >>11516004 >Nooooo! >I'm not ready yet! >I need 10 more years! >And 20 billion dollars more!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:30:35 2020 No.11516022 will we ever see missions that go from the ISS to the Gateway or vice versa?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:34:02 2020 No.11516033 >>11516022 maybe if they build a real orbital spaceship that's never supposed to land, but never with a chemical rocket that's supposed to launch from Earth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:41:10 2020 No.11516055 >>11516022 No, nasa doesn’t actually do stuff in space and gateway will not happen

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 16:46:31 2020 No.11516067 >>11516004 The ultimate money making machine

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 17:10:10 2020 No.11516138

>>11516055
this, by the time they want to launch the first module of gateway there will in the best case scenario already a cargo version of starship.
why bother with making a tiny station then whey you can use starship to make a station with +8m modules.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 17:51:27 2020 No.11516264

>>11516022
Why are we dismantling the ISS anyway? I honestly think it'd probably be really useful as its intended use as a staging base and fuel depot to get to the Moon and/or Mars. Just expand that shit to use it as a sort of space dock, and also as a tourist thing to keep Axiom Space involved.

>>11516033
Seriously why are we not looking into that?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 17:53:20 2020 No.11516268 >>11516264 >Seriously why are we not looking into that? there's a billion different designs, but they're all irrelevant if there's no infrastructure to build them in orbit

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 17:54:37 2020 No.11516272

>>11516268
>there's a billion different designs, but they're all irrelevant if there's no infrastructure to build them in orbit
Fair enough.

Why are we not looking into centrifugal artificial gravity then? Is there any need anymore since we now know how to combat the issues with blood clotting and muscle dystrophy?

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 17:58:10 2020 No.11516286

>>11515425
A, because the other three things are in our control and we'll get there no matter what barring some ind of flood basalt eruption or similar mega-scale disaster.

B is dumb because there's literally no scenario possible that allows for 100 person rotating space habitats that doesn't also allow for similar scale or larger habitats anywhere in space including on the surfaces of deep space objects. Literally coat the exterior (or interior if it's easier for material reasons) with a one or two meter thick layer of hydrogen rich material (HDPE plastic would be great) and you get LESS dose inside the habitat orbiting INSIDE the VA belts than astronauts currently get on the ISS in LEO.

C is gonna happen eventually and as soon as it becomes clear that it will, the money will magically materialize in the western world to launch and construct a larger base in a better location in order to prevent China from taking over the entire universe uncontested.

D could happen but it's more likely that even the first Mars missions will involve significant permanent construction even if the structures aren't reused on subsequent missions. 2 week surface-stay mission architectures are retarded and won't ever happen, the 1.5 year surface mission architecture makes the most sense by far, and if you're spending 18 months on Mars you have time to dig some root cellars and inflate a few kevlar bladder habitats inside them to expand your living space. You can also dig pits for the simple purpose of burying a few habitat cans in order to cut down on the cosmic ray dose cooking your nuts. Just a few feet of loosely packed sandy soil will block the vast majority of cosmic rays. A guy piloting a zero-lag remote control skidsteer could easily get that job done in hours, or days if you include some delay from being super duper careful.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 17:58:21 2020 No.11516287

>>11516272
>Why are we not looking into centrifugal artificial gravity then?
Most likely answer, because it didn't seem interesting enough to research compared to other things while NASA is on a tight time and money budget. My person belief, it would be hard to farm artificial gravity for grant money compared to nebulous mirco-g research.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 17:59:37 2020 No.11516293 >>11515495 the shuttle had essentially that capability

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:00:20 2020 No.11516296

>>11515438
>SpaceX buys Oneweb
>SpaceX forces the remaining employees to deorbit their babies prematurely
>SpaceX fires everyone and destroys all ground assets including blueprints
>SpaceX pulls a Northrop Grummen and deletes every trace of Oneweb and never mentions them anywhere
It'd be pretty based actually

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:01:33 2020 No.11516299

>>11516272
>Why are we not looking into centrifugal artificial gravity then?
there's not much to look into. It's a well understood mechanism, it's just that nobody has bothered to build a rotating habitat because it has to be pretty big and launching that much material into space is currently insanely expensive.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:03:12 2020 No.11516304

>>11515495
Carrying extra engines on your fuel tanks actually helps you, because you don't lose acceleration from using a relatively small engine to push a huge fuel mass, and you can just throw those engines away along with the tanks as they empty.

It's called asparagus staging, was realized in Ksp, and is completely impractical in real life because the plumbing mass and complexity goes up very quickly and doesn't result in as much performance gain as you may expect.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:04:41 2020 No.11516306 >>11516286 How do you do a 1.5 year stay when launch windows are 2.2 aparT? Why come back at all The only reason the Apollo missions came back was because nasa is retarded and they didn’t have solar panels yet

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:04:48 2020 No.11516307

>>11516287
Gravity research from 0,1G up to 0,9G will be a thing when starship and new glen significantly lower the cost of building a space station.
Starship could put the mass of ISS up in space in 4 trips, for a fraction of the cost.
honestly, if starship really deliveres what shotwell&musk are promising then we are going to have space stations in the next two decades that dwarf ISS, with spinning sections most likely.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:05:03 2020 No.11516310

>>11515511
It's a style of 1.5 stage to orbit, the other style being to drop engines instead of tanks. The old Atlas rockets did that, they staged off the two more powerful booster engines and their thrust structure mid-flight and got all the way to orbit on the center engine using a single set of fuel tanks. It's the closest thing we've ever built to a true SSTO, and funnily enough it was made of stainless steel.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:05:37 2020 No.11516312

>>11516287
>. My person belief, it would be hard to farm artificial gravity for grant money compared to nebulous mirco-g research.
Why's that?

>>11516299
Makes sense.

>tfw none of the really cool space-related stuff isn't until 20-30 years away minimum probably

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:06:23 2020 No.11516314 >>11516312 >>tfw none of the really cool space-related stuff isn't until 20-30 years away minimum probably the worse feeling is that it has been 20 years away for 60 years

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:06:40 2020 No.11516316 >>11515715 Legs are cute! CUTE!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:07:13 2020 No.11516317 >>11516314 >the worse feeling is that it has been 20 years away for 60 years Considering how expensive traveling and staying in space still is, does anyone really think we would've been on Mars decades ago and have stayed there?

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:07:13 2020 No.11516318

>>11515515
Exactly. He's saying it works in Ksp, because it's not realistic. IRL it's too complicated and difficult to even feed the propellant from two boosters into a single core (one asparagus layer). In Ksp you can have 7 asparagus stages, which offers you great performance because you maintain a high TWR for so long, but in real life you literally cannot build that. Besides, it'd have to be an expendable system, and those are probably going out the door by the end of this decade.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:09:32 2020 No.11516329 >>11515745 >Water based spaceships Absolute meme. Whatever it brings to the table doesn't warrant adding this much extra complexity to your launch vehicle.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:12:59 2020 No.11516342

>>11515715
Those are definitely legs, and they definitely collapse to at least 1/3rd their length judging by the telescope sleeve. I'm digging the leg design, the hinge stays so simple and light because it doesn't need to take literally any weight, the force is transferred directly from the leg post to the buttress and into the skin.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:15:04 2020 No.11516346

>>11516312
>Why's that?
Because post-Apollo NASA became more focused on maintaining relevancy and long lasting funds than daring to seriously push space flight forward. Thus something like artificial gravity research wouldn't be seen as key to NASA because such research is limited in scope despite how useful the technology would be in space flight. Every major thing about it would be known in short order even if done at a slow rate. However, micro-g research would be seen as key because it's research scope is very wide and often require very long term studies. Such a research project can be used to grantee longer term funding for NASA during an era when they were on the verge of irrelevancy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:15:39 2020 No.11516347 >>11515770 It improved so much they went extinct 100 years after they became advanced enough to send a long distance 10 second message to several million stars surrounding their home system.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:18:53 2020 No.11516355 >>11515425 If you have billions of pulsars firing away for an eternity, will they eventually produce a perfect sequence of primes?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:20:42 2020 No.11516360 >>11515425 I think I'll just shoot you instead and forge my own destiny.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:21:37 2020 No.11516361 >>11516346 Damn, that's really sad. Can modern NASA be saved?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:23:02 2020 No.11516366 >>11515435 Well they couldn't know Nasa would turn into a jobs program and gap filler for icbm contractors.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:24:41 2020 No.11516369

>>11516004
>flies in a year and a half
>"We did it! We beat SpaceX!"
>"Just two more years until the next launch!"

>Meanwhile at SpaceX, Starship Super Heavy is undergoing regular test flights launching dummy payloads to prove out the on-orbit payload deployment manipulator and orbital refueling couplers, they've demonstrated an elliptical orbit through the VA belts out to geostationary orbital altitude and come back, and have negotiated moves from the Falcon 9 launch manifest over to Starship with a discount to incentivize payload providers
>SLS-fags continue to deride Starship as wishful thinking, pointing to the fact that they've only launched a few regular sized satellites as the system "not being worth the development effort" and the near-constant test flights as "SpaceX hemorrhaging money spending hundreds of millions on a useless white elephant vehicle" (with no sense of irony)

I for one am waiting for the day that SpaceX demonstrates an orbital refueling flight and every FUDposter simultaneously ignites with hellfire and evaporates into a cloud of sulfurous dust.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:25:25 2020 No.11516371 >>11516347 Technological improvement can’t make you go extinct dummy stop reading Unabomber shit

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:26:34 2020 No.11516375

>>11516138
They could probably outright buy a Starship from SpaceX custom-built with no flaps, legs, and reduced engine count, and have SpaceX park it permanently in the Moon's orbit, for less money than they'd spend doing studies and building mock-ups of any "simple" 8m module they decided to develop.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:27:33 2020 No.11516378 >>11515695 the ayyyy signal Would force humanity to realize we need a multiplanetary economy as fast as possible

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:27:43 2020 No.11516380 >>11516375 After spending like 50 billion on the sls and Orion and whatever else

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:30:51 2020 No.11516387

>>11516264
>Why are we dismantling the ISS anyway?
Shit's old. Shit breaks down when it's old.
>>11516272
>Why are we not looking into centrifugal artificial gravity then?
Because if we built a relatively simple single-module-with-tethered-counterweight station in orbit that simulated Earth G or Mars G or Moon G, then we'd prove that not only does artificial G work, we can use it to eliminate the bad effects of zero G spaceflight, and the people with a vested interest in the programs that study zero G health effects would not get money anymore. Therefore, they shut down any artificial G proposal as being "risky" and "unknown" and instead want every space mission to rely on a supply of pharmaceuticals and a daily 4 hour workout until we develop a magic pill that just rewrites how the human body works so we can live in zero G forever no problem.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:31:39 2020 No.11516390 >>11516004 It makes the employment rate skyrocket

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:31:48 2020 No.11516391 >>11516375 Pretty much the modern verison of skylab.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:37:40 2020 No.11516404

>>11516287
>My person belief, it would be hard to farm artificial gravity for grant money compared to nebulous mirco-g research.

This make sense. nasa has no reason to give a fuck if an astronaut can stay in space longer. They can just swap them out with the revolving door of candidates that want to go.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:41:11 2020 No.11516417 >if SN3 and SN4 don't blow up they will start on Super Heavy please don't blow up. I don't even care if Super Heavy blows up. I just wanna see the size of that thing. And how it looks blowing up, I guess.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:41:34 2020 No.11516419

>>11516404
Of course the ideal would be an ever increasing number of astronauts doing things in LEO rather than simply swapping once a year

But then again that would not be the nasa way, and it’s not like they are actually doing snyting up there anyways

>>11516387
But then where would they get the funding for these ext4a modules? Needs a rigid structure because lose tethers are unstable, etc
So it’s a totally new space station
Coulda been done just fine but in reality this small experiment is a billion dollar program

Makes no sense to do things cheap in space when launches cost hundreds of millions

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:44:59 2020 No.11516430

>>11516287
>because it didn't seem interesting enough to research compared to other things while NASA is on a tight time and money budget.

To who though?

The average person, if they care about space at all, cares about space travel. And the two major milestones needed are radiation shielding and gravity. Until those are solved no one can fund anything. The rocketry shouldn't exist before those solutions either but elon musk is just that desperate.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:45:11 2020 No.11516431

>>11516306
At the same moment that the launch window opens from Earth to Mars, so too does the window open to come back from Mars to Earth. Basically you stay on Mars for as long as it takes for the window to open back up, which is equal to the periodicity of the launch window minus the time it takes to get there.
The reason you have return flights is because the pool of people who would go to Mars for 1.5 years and come back is much lager than the pool of people who would go to Mars permanently. This means you have a much larger group of people willing to go at all, and maybe decide to stay permanently or for at least an extra sinode, and overall you get a much bigger labor pool and skill set to work with. This is important because you want the Mars settlement to expand physically very fast, you want to construct large enclosed spaces and resource extraction and refining and power plants and so forth, so that you have the industry necessary to start building very large, and more comfortable habitats. That causes the fraction of people who would decide to live permanently on Mars to go up drastically, because let's face it, more people will be willing to live on Mars if they weren't going to be spending most of their lives bottled up in a 'building' the size of a small apartment with four other people.
The point of return flights is to have more people go. More people = bigger workforce = more work accomplished = faster growth. We need growth to be very fast because the umbilical cord form Earth can only last so long before a war or natural disaster or pandemic or whatever causes the supply chain to stall or get cut off entirely. Mars needs to be self sufficient before that happens. If we can get Mars self sufficient and growing on its own, then we've unlocked the entire solar system, and after a few decades we could jump from Mars to colonizing pretty much everything with a surface to stand on.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:52:29 2020 No.11516447

>>11516417
super heavy is more important than starship IMO

The whole planetary ship thing isn't solved, elon is taking a big risk. You may just have to brute force mars with a vessel that's much more massive. But if super heavy works you can just build the ship in space.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:53:52 2020 No.11516452 >>11516286 ok, but which do you want to be alive to shitpost on /sfg/ about

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:55:45 2020 No.11516458 >>11516430 >the two major milestones needed are radiation shielding and gravity both of them are theoretically solved, but require way more mass to be launched into orbit than is currently economically viable

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:57:19 2020 No.11516462

>>11516430
I alluded to it in >>11516346. artificial gravity research is limited in scope. If you research artificial gravity in space, then you'll learn that artificial gravity is possible. That's it. While the implications for space flight are huge, the amount of work done is small and not exciting. At least not exciting compared to mirco-g research. That has a wide scope of research with studies that could be done on both organic and inorganic specimens over a long period of time. Not only that, it's just small research. Something that could be done in the Shuttle cargo bay and later in the ISS. Artificial gravity research requires more materials to perform and thus is much more expensive for a comparatively smaller amount of research to be done. For an agency that is worried about getting the most out of their small budget for as little work as possible, the choice is obvious.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 18:59:13 2020 No.11516465

>>11516306
>Why come back at all

First of all we don't know if martian gravity is enough to give you a normal lifespan. The second reason is people probably wouldn't be happy on mars for the rest of their life. You'd need enough infrastructure to make a complete colony. Then you get into hard problems like family and child rearing which again, low gravity might make impossible. What happens when astronauts get old and they should be in a retirement home and not on an off world mission for military test pilot badasses? Basically this question gets dumber and dumber the longer I think about it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:04:21 2020 No.11516471 When is the static fire cunts

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:06:17 2020 No.11516473 dragon xl can be used as short term station modules. could a private buyer purchase some for their own commercial station?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:09:12 2020 No.11516477 >>11516471 april 1st I guess

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:13:50 2020 No.11516484 why the fuck is Earth so massive like seriously wtf if it were just 5% smaller everything would be a billion times easier

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:15:51 2020 No.11516488 >>11516484 Just be glad we aren't ocean life, they don't get fire at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:17:12 2020 No.11516489 >>11516465 >First of all we don't know if martian gravity is enough to give you a normal lifespan Gravity has nothing to do with lifespan.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:18:15 2020 No.11516492 >>11516465 >Then you get into hard problems like family and child rearing which again, low gravity might make impossible. Nope. Low gravity is harmless.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:22:33 2020 No.11516503

>>11516465
>What happens when astronauts get old and they should be in a retirement home and not on an off world mission
a lot of people think low gravity would actually benefit the elderly a lot since there would be less stress on their joints and bones

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:23:59 2020 No.11516507 >>11516329 >launch vehicle read the fucking links bonehead

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:30:21 2020 No.11516514

>>11516492
Sure, humans could probably evolve pretty fast to adapt to 0,5G of mars, but they could never return to earth.

>>11516503
The heart would also be less strained.
The anime "planetes" actually adressed this kind of, there was a large moon colony and it was popular with the rich elderly because they could live their and live longer and with less pain while doing stuff they could not do anymore on earth.
That could be a thing in reality too , low gravity elderly care could be big business in a distant future.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:32:28 2020 No.11516518 File: 463 KB, 1500x1098, 232324334.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11516489 >>11516492 >>11516503

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:34:41 2020 No.11516520

>>11516514
>Sure, humans could probably evolve pretty fast to adapt to 0,5G of mars, but they could never return to earth.

Exoskeletons. Mars has higher gravity than basically every other body in the solar system except earth and Venus so they’d be fine going to any other location.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:35:31 2020 No.11516522 >>11516518 I was hoping to see jello babies again. Disappointing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:39:50 2020 No.11516529 >>11516518 Lmao

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:44:42 2020 No.11516541

>>11516520
>be earth human in 2150
>visit ceres colony on vacation
>feel frisky
>go to the red light district
>whores refuse me because i would destroy their pelvis because they have weak bones because of generations of low g.
>spend the rest of my money in a bar and dare the locals to armwrestle me only to see them all look away in shame.

only thing is, they manlet jokes would be constant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:48:32 2020 No.11516545 File: 163 KB, 723x666, gigachadposting.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11516541 >visiting ceres >not taking the spinpill and visiting Gainz Station 13 Not going to make it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:58:49 2020 No.11516559 >>11516503 >>11516514 Don't think grannies heart would take a 3-5g takeoff that well lul.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:08:00 2020 No.11516577 File: 524 KB, 1536x2048, EUYJcfEXsAQ-rXV.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Getting pornographic out there

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:09:14 2020 No.11516580

>>11516559
i suppose in scenario where you have a massive mooncity that can sustain a large elderly population you would also have a space elevator on earth.
i read that making carbon nanotube cable in zero G would be a lot easier then making it back here on earth in theory, so who knows what will hapen in the next couple of decades when reuasable heavy lift rockets make it easier for experiments&production in space.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:11:29 2020 No.11516586

>>11516419
>But then where would they get the funding for these ext4a modules?
Module*. You only need the one, it can tether off of the upper stage.
>Needs a rigid structure because lose tethers are unstable, etc
They aren't unstable who told you that? They already did a demonstration of tethered spacecraft during the Gemini program, they didn't have any problems with instability.
>Coulda been done just fine but in reality this small experiment is a billion dollar program
Only if you're NASA. If we imagine a world where people actually want to accomplish things in space, then the module you design looks like a cylinder with two bulkheads and an outer surface covered in solar panels, along with a radiator array, and a cable winch attaching it to the last stage that put it into orbit. The only real development effort required would be to design a coupling mechanism that can keep the capsule attached at full RPM.
>when launches cost hundreds of millions
You wouldn't use Shuttle for this. A Proton (or nowadays a Falcon 9 or even Ariane V) could launch a big enough single unit module to be useful for this. Hell we could skip the manned component altogether and put some mice in a reentry vehicle, launch it, spin it for a few months, then clip the tether and bring the can back, then study the animals inside. We could even let generations of mice live in these cans and study how they change when they reproduce in alternate G environments (from less than Moon gravity up to beyond Earth gravity).

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:22:07 2020 No.11516608 >>11516577 That looks so cool

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:32:47 2020 No.11516625 >>11516559 They took a guy in his 70’s up in the space shuttle, but to be fair he was also the first guy into space.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:33:18 2020 No.11516627 >>11516447 Super Heavy is just the first stage, dumbass. If Starship doesn't work then SH doesn't work, either.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:35:39 2020 No.11516634

>>11516452
Ayys obviously

>>11516458
Right, so we need to improve launch costs, which is what SpaceX is continuing to do

>>11516473
Why not? If some private entity approached SpaceX and said "we want to buy a Dragon XL, we want it in this orbit, how much will it cost?", SpaceX would be dumb to turn down a willing and paying customer. It's not like NASA has a monopoly on SpaceX assets.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:37:18 2020 No.11516639 >>11516484 If Earth were 5% smaller it'd be Venus, which is not an easy place to live

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:38:41 2020 No.11516644 >>11516514 >0,5G of mars Dude, do your research, Mars is 3/8ths Earth gravity, not half

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:41:02 2020 No.11516650

>>11516559
Most rocket launches start off around 1.2 G and never go above 5 G, if the market for old people on the Moon was big enough it'd be plenty possible to eat the additional gravity losses and build a slightly bigger vehicle that only does a maximum of 2.5 G to orbit. Lay those old bitches on their backs for launch and they'd be fine up to 4 or 5 G anyway, but they probably wouldn't like it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:42:32 2020 No.11516653 >>11516639 Venus is shit now due to slow rotation and being closer to the sun If Venus and Mars were switched, it likely would still have oceans and likely an ecosystem from Earth contamination

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:46:41 2020 No.11516660 >>11516644 probably same guy >>11516559

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 20:48:58 2020 No.11516668 >>11516660 fu this one >>11516625

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:04:45 2020 No.11516700

What would you need to pack if you were sailing to another star system to colonize?
Say Gliese 581 or Trappist 1 system 20 Ly and 40 Ly away.

Induced hibernation in mammals would be a well practiced process and quartz data storage is cheap to do.
Among those conditions, how would you go about it and what would you bring?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:06:47 2020 No.11516705 >>11516653 Venus atmosphere rotates fast enough, which is what you will be going by in your floating city.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:09:17 2020 No.11516711

>>11516627
Starship is a planetary transport for the moon and mars. It doesn't have to work for the cargo version to work and put large things in orbit or lagrange points

I forgive you for being immediately frustrated by information you don't understand

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:11:21 2020 No.11516717

>>11516264
Because that's the only way to make it truly dead to future funding, kind of like putting a wooden stake through the heart of a vampire.
It's also got a lot of parts that are going well past their original rated lifetime. If nothing else, by now those solar cells probably only deliver half the power. If you have to replace half the ISS to keep it useful, why not just start a new one? Besides, Russia will almost certainly remove their segments to start their own station.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:14:02 2020 No.11516724 >>11516700 realistically, you'd need to bring essentially a fully functioning, self sufficient oneil cylinder, but if you have those you have literally no reason to find other planets to colonize apart from scientific curiosity. also checked

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:15:40 2020 No.11516729 >>11516711 The cargo version necessitates all the things that will make starship fail, rapid resuse, reliable heatshield, etc... Unless you are talking about an expendable version.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:28:38 2020 No.11516755

>>11516729
I don't agree with that premise. It could be very reusable with the skydiving and propulsive landings working good enough for cargo, even for crew, but the moon and especially mars might not work out. But yeah, an expendable second stage with a reusable super heavy would still be cheaper than anything we have now. If super heavy fails, blue origin won't have a heavy commercial competitor for a long time and big space remains expensive.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:28:48 2020 No.11516756 >>11516717 A responsible space program would recycle material that literally cost billions to get there Even if all it was good for was raw materials and extra living space

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:32:51 2020 No.11516758 >>11515715 I see some structure inside the ring. Good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:34:13 2020 No.11516761 >>11516756 The issue is capturing smaller debris without getting shredded by debris, you can't just put a big magnetic funnel out and capture metal that way Also, you need a base to deploy and bring back scav-bots and their cargo

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:36:04 2020 No.11516762 >>11516004 How the fuck has this thing not even been flying? Its literally just recycling shuttle equipment. Just fix the fucking Orion command module and scrap it together. The Ares V design's existed for years. FLY THE FUCKING ORANGE ROCKET ALREADY.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:38:38 2020 No.11516771 >>11516264 I think we should just take everything down with ships that take parts rather than just toss it in the ocean. Those old ass pieces could really be put to good use in a space museum. Maybe we could attach newer parts to a bare ISS, perhaps.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:39:36 2020 No.11516774

>>11516724
You'd eventually run low on materials as 100% recycling is impossible, even just for fuel
Besides the population would eventually would want to get out onto new planets for lebensraum, craftworld life would not suit everyone forever
The Cylinder would likely become the main spaceport of the system and repurposed

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:43:31 2020 No.11516782

>>11516717
You know, I suppose that's a good point. Although I could see it still being useful for extra living space. Like maybe in the commercial sector, it could make Axiom's space station bigger as a tourist destination.

>>11516771
Yeah it seems like a huge waste. I for one would love to tour the ISS on the ground.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:43:55 2020 No.11516785

>>11516774
>You'd eventually run low on materials as 100% recycling is impossible, even just for fuel

Yeah it’s not a well-documented phenomenon but wormholes periodically do appear from the quantum foam, suck away materials into another dimension, then disappear.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:44:55 2020 No.11516786 >>11516785 Entropy applies to everything

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:45:55 2020 No.11516792
File: 161 KB, 1080x753, b7b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>starship is a huge ass cylinder with a nosecone, fins, canards, and thrusters
>an O'Neill cylinder just spins real fast to simulate gravity
>mfw realizing we could make a mini O'Neill cylinder by simply spinning an 18m starship stupidly fast

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:46:46 2020 No.11516794 >>11516786 Not true. The second law of thermodynamics only applies in isolated systems, which don’t really exist. Atoms do not teleport magically into another dimension.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:56:22 2020 No.11516815

>>11516774
>You'd eventually run low on materials
maybe you would, but only on ridiculous geological timescales, there's an insane amount of mass in the solar system to utilize , and we'll be able to fuse pretty much any element from hydrogen long before we'll have colonized any nearby stars. Interstellar colonisation is something only a kardeshev 2 civilisation would consider, and that's so ridiculously far off there's no point posturing about how they would do it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 21:56:51 2020 No.11516818 >>11516794 Yes atoms do magically turn into heat that’s entropy

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:07:46 2020 No.11516835

>>11516818
>Yes atoms do magically turn into heat that’s entropy

Holy shit no. “Entropy” is just the fact that the efficiency of all energy conversions is not 100%, some of the energy is lost as difficult-to-exploit thermal energy. This would be utterly irrelevant for any orbital habitat since they aren’t isolated systems, they get energy from their environment. Atoms never “turn into heat” except in the case of antimatter-matter annihilation, fusion, and fission.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:07:57 2020 No.11516836 Anons,here is an interesting question to see how optimistic/pessimistic you all are on the future of human space flight. Where do you see us in 5, 20, 50 and 100 years from now in terms of spaceflight?

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:15:30 2020 No.11516856

>>11516836
5 years, not much. In 20 years way too many fucking satellites. Super heavy lifting will have made a difference. Good progress on space stations and telescopes, feel good shit on the moon but nothing very useful.

I straight up don't think mars is happening even in 20 years. 50 might be long enough. Hopefully we have breakthroughs in propulsion by 100 and out solar system is very accessible.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:25:32 2020 No.11516877
File: 27 KB, 314x435, space_port_kino.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11516836
>Anons,here is an interesting question to see how optimistic/pessimistic you all are on the future of human space flight.
Pretty optimistic. Although not equally optimistic for everyone involved. I'm very optimistic for SpaceX, somewhat less so for China, even less for NASA, and neutral for Blue Origin and India. In the end, I think there will be a reassurance in human space flight BEO in some way.

>Where do you see us in 5
Probably not much. Maybe a test of some capsules if we're lucky.

>20
First Moon missions, and maybe first crew-less test missions for Mars.

>50,100
Absolutely no clue. Anything can happen because there's so many unknowns involved that would have to be dealt with. But I'm excited to see what's coming up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:26:35 2020 No.11516878 File: 48 KB, 640x480, am_i_disabled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11516877 >reassurance Resurgence not reassurance. That's what happens when one doesn't pay attention to spell check.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:31:15 2020 No.11516890

>>11516836
>5 years
We're going to have 3-5 space stations? ISS, Chinese station, Gateway, maybe that commercial space station, maybe that Indian space station.
SpaceX will keep going strong, who knows if the Artemis program or SLS will survive. Maybe Shelby will get Corona and die or maybe the Dems will take over in 2020 and kill Artemis/SLS off. I think the Gateway will be hard to kill though since so many organizations and countries are involved in it now.
I expect alot of those small sat launchers to die off, with the only exceptions being Rocket Lab and Virgin Orbit.
We'll probably see Blue Origin still around.
>20 years
We'll have to have a Moon or Mars base by then, right? There's no guarantee but it seems like we're closer than we've ever been before.
>50 years, 100 years
too far away to determine

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:37:30 2020 No.11516905 >>11516792 The large diameter on o'neils is so that the spinning doesn't make people sick 2 rpm is the general limit for most people minis don't work for this reason

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:40:59 2020 No.11516912 >>11516890 >Shelby dies >democrats are now the ones in charge and they want everything in blue states

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:42:59 2020 No.11516918 What do we think they'll call groups of space stations that are close together? Clusters? Space cities? Sides?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:43:56 2020 No.11516921 >>11516918 Scrungos

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:49:00 2020 No.11516932

>>11516856
>>11516877
Yeah definitely agree with the fact that lots of the advances will be coming from the private sector. SpaceX especially will be hauling in money with Stalink and their IPO (which I am pretty sure will be a huge haul). NASA does seem to be pretty adamant on the 2024 deadline, 10% chance of happening because I think corona will be a good excuse to delay it however, they put aside gateway just to speed it up. I think at least a flags and footprints in the next decade. A moon base should be doable in 20. And assuming the next century isn't as 'eventful' as 2020 is shaping up to be, once mars and the moon have permanent colonies, space should see a huge boom.

I think though that private space is gonna really surprise us. Elon, at the risk of sounding reddit, is really doing some great stuff. These threads would be way more empty without Starship. By the end of the decade, if SS/SH lives up to expectations, I can see them starting to put in the infrastructure for an extended stay base on Mars. Bezos can't be put out as well, these guys are different because they have autism guiding them, their fantasies and pocketbooks are aligned. The same cannot be said for NASA, most senators couldn't give two shits about space, they want reelection, not a man on the moon that no one will credit them for anyway. But, I still remain cautious, I don't underestimate the power of bureaucracy to fuck things up.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:51:57 2020 No.11516941
File: 707 KB, 1520x1920, 3tsa0udhjxi41.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11516905
Posted this in the last thread before it died

But I wondered how bad of an idea this was. Obviously you could only do some minority fraction of earth's gravity, but it would just be for sleeping so all the nauseous effects of small spinners are mitigated. Maybe it would keep them in shape for mars. Wish the ISS demonstrator got built so we'd know.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:52:35 2020 No.11516943 File: 700 KB, 1000x957, space_station_mir.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11516918 Archipelagos, or chains.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:55:24 2020 No.11516952 >>11516943 >Archipelagos astropelagos?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:57:06 2020 No.11516954 File: 217 KB, 1620x1079, mrw_stargate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11516952 The etymology is wrong, but that still sounds awesome as hell. I second astropelagos.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 23:04:06 2020 No.11516980 File: 197 KB, 800x519, Terra.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11516918 Orbital Plates

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 23:17:41 2020 No.11517028 >>11516941 when you have a diameter that small, you get the issue of gravity at one's feet being radically different from their head this has a tendency to make people not feel good

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 23:46:37 2020 No.11517101 >>11516815 He's talking about a SINGLE cylinder, as if people arriving in a new star system wouldn't start mining asteroids and constructing more habitats.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 00:02:09 2020 No.11517130

>>11516836
>5
SpaceX puts a Starship onto the Moon for demonstration purposes, because even though NASA is getting on board with buying Starship flights, they're just too slow
>10
Starships are doing a full round trips to the Moon's surface and back multiple times per year (once every month or two) delivering serious amounts of cargo (mostly metal struts, kevlar bags and solar panels), SLS has been 'retired' at this point and all other currently flying launch vehicles are on life support. NASA has lost all of the funding that had been supplied to make Orion and SLS happen, and yet they're accomplishing far more in human and unmanned spaceflight on a smaller budget due to the high frequency high capacity low cost launch system at their fingertips. Shelby has committed suicide.
>20
Several Moon bases exist, in various geologically different locations across the Moon, and the closest few are having new railroads installed to connect them. Moon bases are all still mostly focused on science by far, but a good fraction of that science has been prospecting for useful mineral deposits, and a moderate amount of simple resource extraction and refinement is taking place (they're making steel in order to make rails for the railroads.
Mars missions are now underway, after several unmanned Starship landings after the past few sinodes to deliver an excess of cargo. A base capable of refueling two or three Starships per sinode is nearly complete.
>50
Moon is becoming more and more industrialized, and is home to over 1 million. A kevlar space elevator has been set up, along with several long mass drivers on the surface. Mars population exceeds 10,000 and the colony is growing rapidly. At least one mission to Jupiter has been accomplished, which left from Mars orbit, and there are plans to get a base on Callisto. New breakthroughs in propulsion combined with launch capability from Moon and Mars will soon allow for manned Saturn missions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 00:49:08 2020 No.11517198 File: 20 KB, 256x389, Destination-moon-movie-poster.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11515745 The moon rocket in Destination Moon used an atomic reactor to heat water. Steam powered space ship.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 01:01:25 2020 No.11517230 >>11517028 It's for sleeping. i.e. lying down

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 01:30:38 2020 No.11517279 >Starship Users Guide https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 01:48:08 2020 No.11517304 >>11517279 Based chomper configuration confirmed. Still butthurt they won't release a crew cabin design though, you know they have a mockup sitting in hawthorne somewhere.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 01:54:31 2020 No.11517311 File: 1.63 MB, 1286x1102, Screen Shot 2020-03-30 at 10.53.48 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Anyone see those sparks >F

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 01:55:19 2020 No.11517312 Should I apply to become a NASA intern? I would have to start going to school full-time again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 02:17:45 2020 No.11517349 >>11516514 Just one problem: You need to launch them on a rocket.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 02:19:09 2020 No.11517353 Theoretically, if I have built a spacecraft, say, a satellite, who do I have to warn so they will not shoot it down or start a war when I'll launch it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 03:00:39 2020 No.11517413 >>11517311 ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 03:04:32 2020 No.11517419 >>11517279 >An extended payload volume is also available for payloads requiring up to 22 m of height. is this new?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 03:05:10 2020 No.11517423 >>11517419 yes >>11517353 FAA for a rocket large enough to get to orbit. Not sure about the satellite itself

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 03:17:45 2020 No.11517441 I hope SLS fucking obliterates on its maiden launch

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 03:23:42 2020 No.11517451 >>11517441 no. then the contractors will get congress to pay them 6 gorrilion dollars to fix the issues. It's better to let it launch like twice, and then get rendered useless by starship.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 03:43:40 2020 No.11517483 >>11517304 Probably not Why bother with a mock-up when 3D modelling is damn good It’s not like the final interior dimensions are even set yet

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 05:48:28 2020 No.11517633

So, what happened to Bigelow Genesis, in terms of pressurization and thermodynamics? I remember both of them having onboard webcams. Wikipedia says the avionics broke 2.5 years into the mission, but I distinctly remember seeing the stream on the Bigelow site somewere in 2010s, minus the telemetry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:04:07 2020 No.11517655 are deep space industries and planetary resources still around? or did they shit themselves and die

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:28:56 2020 No.11517712 >>11517419 >when your satellites dwarf regular houses

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:29:56 2020 No.11517715 >>11517419 This is for 55m Starship

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:37:13 2020 No.11517725 My prediction for Starship launch price: 100t LEO and 21t GTO for $50 million Dual or Triple GTO launch: $20-30 million per satellite

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:38:02 2020 No.11517728

>>11517655
Nah, they're dead as fuck.
Planetary Resources was bought by a meme cryptocompany and their business plan is for randos to look at the sky to observe sats (not even joking).
Deep Space Industries was bought by an actual space company, but they dialed way down on the ISRU stuff, just promoting deep space sat buses, which is still pretty cool.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:48:49 2020 No.11517748

>>11517725
For that price every western nation in the world could put it's own space station up.
And use falcon9 as the taxi service.

SpaceX really has the opportunity here to become the market leader with such a head start that it will takes decades for the rest of the world to catch up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 06:54:34 2020 No.11517762 >>11516762 It's a jobs program that evaporates once the mission is accomplished, so everyone involved is strongly motivated to never finish it.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:41:33 2020 No.11517847
File: 72 KB, 680x447, EURNQ9sXgAUBxCh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

So the new building we thought was another high-bay got a roof. Looks like it was built this heavy to contain a roof-crane.

You could use it to make rings, but why so wide? 18-meter rings already? Could the rest of the tents/high-bay contain BFR-9000 parts?

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:44:43 2020 No.11517855

>>11517728
What if theyve gone skitz from playing quantm mirrorland 48hours 9days per week for over 200years does that mean all other people in the country are totally fucked or what does it mean can you just do general theft and drive 1handed on the wrong side of the road to get over this

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:56:12 2020 No.11517885 >>11517847 The doorway is about 21 meters wide, so I figure yes, its probably designed to handle 18 meter ship parts.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 07:57:43 2020 No.11517888 >>11517885 Not necessarily. You'll want a lot of wiggle room when moving parts out the door even if they're only 9m in diameter.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 08:20:54 2020 No.11517932 >>11517847 Did someone crunch the numbers on the Starthick/Ultraheavy yet?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 08:27:19 2020 No.11517941 SpaceX has published the Starship User's Guide https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 09:29:32 2020 No.11518020 >>11517941 Too slow. >>11517279

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 09:35:09 2020 No.11518039 >>11517279 Isn’t it a bit early to be publishing a user guide?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 09:40:53 2020 No.11518050 >>11518039 Payload preparation for customers usually would take 2-3 years, so this isn't early.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 09:55:14 2020 No.11518084

>>11518020
Curses, foiled again.
>>11518039
>Isn’t it a bit early to be publishing a user guide?
They're committing to a relatively modest minimum, and only refer to the most interesting and advanced capabilities of the in-development ship in vague, non-committal terms.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:16:26 2020 No.11518115 With SLS being confirmed by NASA as the sole rocket capable of moon landing due to basic physics is it time for privatefags to go on suicide watch?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:17:07 2020 No.11518116 >>11518115 >due to basic physics Due to politics, you mean?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:18:55 2020 No.11518119 >>11518115 I don't think anyone's been terribly interested in Starship because of what it can do in one launch.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:21:34 2020 No.11518126 >>11518115 surely falcon heavy could do a moon landing

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:23:45 2020 No.11518131 >>11518126 Impossible without SLS. 27ton to TLI is the absolute basic minimum to support such mission and falcon 9's capability is well below that.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:25:37 2020 No.11518137

>"our journey to the moon is not yet possible on any commercial launch vehicle -- it's simple physics -- they just can't get there. That may not be true sometime in the future, but for right now, our national success is linked to the success of SLS."

Everything's set in stone SLS wins again newspace on full cope.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:27:46 2020 No.11518139

>>11518115
SLS isn't the sole rocket capable of sending the necessary mass for a lunar landing. For rockets that are currently flying (just american ones), the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy can do it in multiple launches. For rockets that haven't flown but are being built, New Glenn and Starship can do it too.

>inb4 but having to do multiple launches doesn't count
No, it counts. Also the SLS has to do it in multiple launches too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:28:42 2020 No.11518142 >>11518137 SLS hasn't even been assembled yet and I doubt it ever will be at this fucking rate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 10:28:55 2020 No.11518144 >>11518137 Source on that quote?

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:05:27 2020 No.11518220
File: 82 KB, 985x653, 26631233446_95d9572cdc_k.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-adds-shannon-walker-to-first-operational-crewed-spacex-mission
>NASA has assigned astronaut Shannon Walker to the first operational crewed flight of the SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft on a mission to the International Space Station.
>Walker will join NASA astronauts Michael Hopkins and Victor Glover Jr., as well as Soichi Noguchi of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), for a six-month expedition aboard the unique space laboratory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:06:18 2020 No.11518225 >>11517451 Good point. I don’t hate SLS. I’m just disappointed in it. Also- on an unrelated note- what is this about SpaceX launching a JAXA astronaut on Space Crew 1?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:08:31 2020 No.11518231 >>11518220 >"Later this year" Thanks for being so nice as to give us a firm date, NASA.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:08:42 2020 No.11518232

>>11518225
>what is this about SpaceX launching a JAXA astronaut on Space Crew 1?
I legitimately think the US government will include a JAXA astronaut on the first moon mission just to piss of China. If a Japanese astronaut walks on the moon before a Chinese one, they'd be furious.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:10:18 2020 No.11518234 >>11518232 If I knew anything about materials design, I'd start working on a spacesuit that allowed for them to teabag Chinese astronauts when they finally make it to the moon. And I'd give it to them for free.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:14:10 2020 No.11518247 File: 1.29 MB, 4096x3079, EUcHbDMUMAAp3aU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11518220

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:20:45 2020 No.11518262 >>11518115 Trolling is against the rules.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:43:04 2020 No.11518302 File: 389 KB, 2048x1583, 2F34D4A9-9E70-4CD2-B796-1C6ABB7FF473.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What a heckin chonkerino!

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:45:44 2020 No.11518304 >>11518302 >Centaur V >H2O2 RCS I thought that ULA was going to use some kind of hydrolox RCS for their new upper stage?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:50:20 2020 No.11518315 >>11518304 >I thought that ULA was going to use some kind of hydrolox RCS for their new upper stage? They still are, H202 here doesn’t mean hydrogen peroxide but H2+02, as in gaseous hydrogen and oxygen RCS.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 11:54:38 2020 No.11518323 >>11518304 I believe H2O2 means gaseous hydrogen and oxygen

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:19:45 2020 No.11518368 So the falcon 9 heavy is 3 boosters in a row, but what stops them from using 5 boosters in a cross setup? Too much vibration? Too little advantages compared to the extra cost&risk? >that quad reentry shockwave making all the girls wet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:21:54 2020 No.11518371 >>11518368 pad infrastructure limits, mostly also there wouldn't be much benefit unless you did cross-feed which is a nightmare

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:29:11 2020 No.11518379 >>11518115 +5 credits have been awarded to your ULA account!

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:32:52 2020 No.11518386 >>11518379 ULA are getting shafted by SLS as well, anon

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:33:50 2020 No.11518391 >>11518115 +5 credits have been awarded to your Beoing! account!

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:42:35 2020 No.11518401 >>11518247 There's 5 seats on Dragon? I thought it was 4 max (after being 7 at the beginning of commercial crew)

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:44:09 2020 No.11518403 >>11518401 No, there are 4 seats, the diagram is just wrong as admitted by the creator.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:45:31 2020 No.11518408 >>11518323 I believe it means what it says: hydrogen peroxide used as monopropellent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:46:02 2020 No.11518410 >>11518232 That would be hilarious. I wouldn’t mind a japanese astronaut tagging along. Even a russian

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:47:18 2020 No.11518414 File: 596 KB, 2048x1365, 1579490348764.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11515374

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:55:09 2020 No.11518438 >>11518408 No, it’s been mentioned before that Centaur V will use a hydrolox RCS system, it should be displayed as H2/O2

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:55:19 2020 No.11518439 >>11518232 >If a Japanese astronaut walks on the moon before a Chinese one, they'd be furious. Would be glorious, south koreans would get massively buthurt as well.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:01:19 2020 No.11518447 >>11518439 it'd be the ultimate power move. Japan is probably the US's most important ally right now and they're not happy about how much of a kiss ass Abe is towards Trump, but taking them to the moon would change that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:27:06 2020 No.11518519 >>11518247 >CFT and DM2 were neck-and-neck for a Spring launch >Boeing has its hell year and now it isn't even close anymore As a ULA shill I am somewhat disappointed though I also hate Boeing so it doesn't matter too much

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:30:01 2020 No.11518531 >>11518304 They use "H2O2" a lot for some reason but they entirely mean hydrolox RCS.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:30:29 2020 No.11518534 >>11518519 >ULA shill how about that Centaur V, huh as a SpaceX fanboy that's some cool shit

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:32:04 2020 No.11518536 >>11518519 >+% credits have been awarded to your ULAccount >>11518534 >+5 credits have been awarded to your SpaceX account

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:33:45 2020 No.11518541

>>11518534
Yep, Vulcan-Centaur definitely seems like more of an evolutionary rocket than revolutionary like Starship is to Falcon, but Centaur V is definitely the shining gem of the rocket. Hopefully ACES will someday materialize or at least its design goals can be implemented in some sort of Centaur V+/VI.

Frankenstein's Falcon Heavy-Centaur with Gem 63s WHEN

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:35:06 2020 No.11518545 >>11518536 thank you Tory I will use this to buy more ULA hats

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:48:37 2020 No.11518583 >>11518545 does he sell cowboy hats

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:55:40 2020 No.11518607 >>11518583 sadly no but they have other cool hats http://www.ulalaunchstore.com/hats/ use keyword "SMART" and my manager will stop beating me for having low sales numbers

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:56:27 2020 No.11518609
File: 321 KB, 1309x1230, mars-travel-time.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11516306
Because those 2.2 years apart are as measured from the same place. The return trip is on a different phase because it's from the other side.
Basically, the choice is either (roughly) 6 months out, 18 month stay, 6 months back, or 6/18 months out, touch boots, then 18/6 months back.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:59:00 2020 No.11518613 >>11518519 >>11518534 As a Shelby shill, you two should stop supporting rockets that aren't SLS. It's anti-American. You hate America or something?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:02:07 2020 No.11518621 File: 1.40 MB, 1280x1213, VulcanHat_v4__11149.1431457172.1280.1280__66829.1509652505.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11518607 look at how fucking American this hat is I might unironically buy one after my next paycheck comes in

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:02:42 2020 No.11518624

>>11518368
Center core will not be recoverable as it will be accelerated even more by the side boosters, the pad also doesnt' support it and of course everything will have to be redesigned as its a totally new rocket. These imply massive differences from current falcon 9. All this to spite the sls crowd with few more tons to the Moon forcing them to pull more excuses out of their ass so a total waste of time in light of starship.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:11:09 2020 No.11518644
File: 436 KB, 1380x2044, 1556584518711.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11516387
>tethered-counterweight station
Please show me how you dock to that. It's okay for stuff like Earth/Mars transit, but you can't dock with a rotating station except at its center of rotation. Just try it in Kerbal.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:13:23 2020 No.11518648 >>11518644 If you can't dock at the center you've got shit design and you'll be taking the penalty - spin up/down.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:16:56 2020 No.11518658
File: 2.20 MB, 3111x4127, starship spin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11517633
They're still working, but have been abandoned. What a shame, they seem like pretty cool craft.
>>11516941
Using your image, I finally bullshitted the concept I kept sperging over. Behold, the Space Force's Starship Battleship idea.
It provides:
>jobs for former Bigelow engineers
>more living space
>more cargo space
>ooohs and aaaahs
>an orbital HQ that can be easily transported
>temporary fuel depot
>military attack vehicle
Any thoughts?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:20:40 2020 No.11518663 >>11518658 it looks gay

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:21:25 2020 No.11518664 >>11518658 That mass ratio looks EXTREMELY ambitious, even for SpaceX standards

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:23:16 2020 No.11518669 >>11518664 I think he wants to do in-orbit assembly using a Starship/Starkicker upper stage propulsion segment

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:24:00 2020 No.11518672

>>11518663
This is why I love this site. God bless you, anon.
>>11518664
I mean, if Elon were to get a bunch of plebbit bugmen to fund him or something, i'm sure there'd be enough to build this crap? Hell, maybe the military could like it enough to fund it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:25:55 2020 No.11518676 >>11518669 Correct.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:26:30 2020 No.11518679 >>11518676 alright, I stand by my initial assessment, it's gay and has no purpose.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:26:49 2020 No.11518680 File: 32 KB, 768x432, sigmund.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11518663 Technically, all rockets are phallic in nature, so yes, it does look "gay". Anything else you would care to share?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:27:35 2020 No.11518683 >>11518679 no big, permanent space installations have "purpose" we just have to do them otherwise we'll never get to the point where space exploration is actually worthwhile

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:28:54 2020 No.11518685 >>11518679 aw

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:29:45 2020 No.11518688

>>11518680
if it were an actual phallus we could at least use it to penetrate planetary atmospheres (see: the actual Starship design) but it isn't, it's just one of those comedy sized floppy dildos that fleshlight sells that are both too big and too soft to penetrate anything

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:34:08 2020 No.11518695 >>11518688 It could just be a flying dildo that shows itself to ayys or something lmao Hell we could probably use it to make the fucking waaaahstronomers cry harder and realize prophecies for remote tribes worshipping penis gods or something

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:34:37 2020 No.11518697 >>11518688 how much does a Centaur V weigh fully fueled?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:35:39 2020 No.11518698 how much does a Centaur V weigh fully fueled?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:51:28 2020 No.11518726 >>11518621 Seems that they just copy-pasted the logo on a generic hat tho

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:51:49 2020 No.11518727 >>11518644 How would ship parking work inside? Clamps/magnets?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:52:31 2020 No.11518729 >>11518726 yes, nobody's bought one yet so it's just a photoshopped logo on a generic america hat

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:52:42 2020 No.11518730 >>11518698 just about the weight of your mother

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:53:32 2020 No.11518732

>>11516782
>useful for extra living space
For what? Sticking it onto a newer bigger space station? You do realize how fucking hard it is to change to a different orbital plane, right? ISS is on an orbit that is chosen to be easily reached from Baikonur, if the Russians weren't involved it would be on a much saner inclination.
>>11516756
>recycle material that literally cost billions to get there
Some things aren't worth recycling because it's more expensive than starting over fresh. Most paper is only "recyclable" to keep the landfills from overflowing. The financial benefits for paper recycling are zero to negative, and it would be the same with ISS parts, since they're stuck in their current orbit. The only thing they are useful for (without a lot of effort) is to put a "new" space station on exactly the same orbit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:55:41 2020 No.11518737 >>11518698 If Centaur V carries 54,000kg of propellant and Centaurs have a dry mass fraction of 0.9, the dry mass of Centaur V must be 5,400kg. So the wet mass when fully fuelled is 59,400kg.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:56:27 2020 No.11518738 >>11518737 that's within the lift capability of Starship

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:59:12 2020 No.11518746 >>11518680 I bet the big twist is every alien culture unwittingly designs their space craft to resemble their genitals

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:59:38 2020 No.11518747
File: 219 KB, 919x701, BEAM_mockup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Now that Bigelow Aerospace is dead, what will be the fate of the BEAM and inflatable modules in general? It was and still is performing really well on the ISS, and the future of inflatable space stations was looking promising.

This really upsets me, because I wanted the BA 2100 Olympus module to come to fruition. I wanted to see them experiment with spinning it and turning it into a miniature O'Neill Cylinder.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:00:39 2020 No.11518750 >>11518231 Surely they will find new reasons to cancel How can they allow Spacex to launch before Boeing is ready when Boeing got twice the money?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:01:40 2020 No.11518752 File: 286 KB, 1274x713, CC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Road closures are delayed 5 days, I guess that means any kind of test is delayed 5 days

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:02:24 2020 No.11518756 >>11518658 Looks like a little kid's first scifi attempt.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:03:12 2020 No.11518758 >>11518747 It's not like the IP is gone into the fucking aether or anything. Shits still there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:05:05 2020 No.11518765 >>11518758 Which means they’ll demand too much money for it and no one will ever build inflatable habitats

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:07:40 2020 No.11518768

>>11518765
And then they'll end up in debt until they fucking die with nobody buying jack shit.
Yeah, doesn't work that way. Somebody will grab it, if not at first, then they will when they become desperate enough. Bankruptcy protection only goes so far. Eventually you will want to move on with your life.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:08:08 2020 No.11518769
File: 814 KB, 1344x742, 88988DD6-86D2-41AE-BCA4-8843E6A44E34.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11518747
>>11518758
>>11518765
The IP for inflatable habitats actually belongs to NASA, which they sold to Bigelow in the form of patents. Thankfully, NASA also sold these patents to other companies like SNC.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:08:57 2020 No.11518771 >>11518769 Well there you go then, Bigelow has fucking nothing then.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:11:12 2020 No.11518780 >>11518683 Having resource starved expensive and thirsty for maintenance constructs helps space exploration how exactly? No matter how I look at it I think doing the exploring is better.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:15:15 2020 No.11518790

https://spacenews.com/u-s-air-force-to-transfer-23-units-to-the-space-force/

nothing too interesting but it's news i guess? basically a bunch of units from Colorado, California, Nevada, Ohio, New Mexico and Maryland are getting transferred to the Space Force.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:15:38 2020 No.11518791

>>11518780
>Having resource starved expensive and thirsty for maintenance constructs helps space exploration how exactly?
because the infrastructure needed to maintain it NEEDS to be built and until it gets built people are going to put off real shit. If the US military doesn't get a real orbiting base and develop the infrastructure and methodology of launching the pieces, assembling it and maintaining it, nobody will and nothing will ever get done.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:16:35 2020 No.11518795 >>11518769 Why can a government agency funded by tax dollars sell patents?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:24:26 2020 No.11518820 >dragon 2 crew flight will be 4 people 4 is the maximum that nasa will allow, right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:31:22 2020 No.11518852 File: 48 KB, 1394x416, 085D42CC-0399-4E94-B40C-58B933CCF25C.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11518820

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:43:16 2020 No.11518890 >>11518791 There is no need for any space infrastructure to go to the moon or mars or Venus

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:49:53 2020 No.11518901

>>11518727
You do a roll maneuver to match rotation, then a quick puff to get to a "floor". There should be barely enough centrifugal force to keep you there, but clamps/cables/canadarms inside the docking hub would be useful.
A capsule could probably dock straight to one of two ports on the hub of a smaller station, but I'm sure the maneuvers could be tricky if you weren't aligned just right, so an arm capture would still be a good idea..

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 15:56:50 2020 No.11518913 >>11518727 Have you kids never played ELITE?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:03:36 2020 No.11518929 File: 227 KB, 5421x4057, o9vp194prup41.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11518115 >>11518126 >>11518131 >>11518137 >>11518139

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:05:17 2020 No.11518934 >>11518890 A big ass methalox depot would be very handy so that you don't need to pump all your refuelling launches in a small window. We also do need some kind of spin station to determine if martian g is viable for long term living.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:07:44 2020 No.11518940 >>11518934 also the requirements for a spacecraft to be able to be launched from Earth are insane and if we could just build one in orbit it would remove a ton of constraints

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:08:10 2020 No.11518941 >>11518644 Simple, you dock the capsule to the module, then spin up the module and counterweight. When the mission is over you spin back down.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:08:31 2020 No.11518942

>>11518852
>g-forces during splashdown
Well they were originally wanting to do a propulsive landing with the 7-seat configuration, so I guess it's not a total surprise that a landing change would cause a seating change. But the interior volume is still the same, so at least that means more interior cargo space.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:09:14 2020 No.11518944 >>11518658 Piece of shit that will never exist and makes no sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:09:15 2020 No.11518945 >>11518913 >Have you kids never played ELITE? A five year old in 1984 would be 41 today. It's pretty safe to say that most of us probably never played Elite.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:10:17 2020 No.11518946 >>11518738 That's within the lift capability of Falcon Heavy.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:12:09 2020 No.11518952

>>11518941
Dock to what "module"? The counterweight configuration is two heavy rotating things with a cable in between. Both heavy things are moving with a rotating frame of reference that can't be matched externally with simple thrust.
You could latch onto the cable in the middle, but as you follow it outward, it becomes an amusement park ride and your capsule will be difficult to control.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:12:59 2020 No.11518954 >>11518934 >We also do need some kind of spin station to determine if martian g is viable for long term living. You can do that in a single launch of a Falcon 9.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:13:37 2020 No.11518957

>>11518940
You are still having to ship all the mass up and the vehicle still has to be tremendously strong so that it can aerobrake into orbits, it really doesn't solve many problems and the cost of building something complex like that in fucking space will be exorbitant. Maybe decades down the line.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:13:39 2020 No.11518958 >>11518945 Hey, I'm 43 this year.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:15:12 2020 No.11518963 >>11518954 You need a small station at least, not a little pod with a counterweight.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:18:26 2020 No.11518972 >>11518957 obviously building in space doesn't make sense if you're not getting the resources from space as well.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:20:50 2020 No.11518979

>>11518952
>dock with the module THEN SPIN UP
The thing isn't spinning until your capsule is already docked to the 'bottom' of the habitat and secured in place. The counterweight (leftover upper stage that put it in space) releases and backs off via some nitrogen thrusters while playing out a cable. After a few dozen meters both the habitat and upper stage thrust sideways in opposite directions to set up some rotation and pick up the cable slack. Then the upper stage counterweight continues to release cable length until the desired radius (>200 m) is achieved, while also maintaining spin rate. The artificial G force is fine tuned by adjusting cable length, reeling it in for more G and letting out some slack for lower G.

The mission (which consists mostly of camping in space) then proceeds for 6 months to a year, after which point the spin is halted via thrusters and the cable reeled all the way back in. Now in zero G, the crew pack their trash and bio samples and whatever else into their return capsule, and leave the station. The next crew to come up will bring their own supplies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:22:16 2020 No.11518982 >>11518929 are you saying we don't even NEED SLS for any Artemis missions

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:24:42 2020 No.11518985 >>11518929 Falcon heavy is unproven vehicle and betting America's space program on it is a risk too great.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:25:27 2020 No.11518989

>>11518963
The biggest modules on the ISS weigh <20 tons. That's big enough for a couple of guys to camp in for a few months. There is absolutely no physical reason why a massive ring shaped station with a hub or a very large spin-tether system is necessary to prove the concept. That's the point; proving the concept. Of course those bigger, more expensive, more complicated systems will be worth it in their time, but you can't start off by building an O'Neil Cylinder.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:26:35 2020 No.11518991 File: 198 KB, 898x766, What+a+power+move+_df415f2e7899a12fc9b43cf343d6cf01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11518985 >SLS is a proven vehicle

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:26:46 2020 No.11518992 >>11518934 Space depots impose limits on orbits that aren't worth it at all for Moon Mars and Venus. Your second argument is nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:27:54 2020 No.11518995 >>11518985 +5 credits have been deposited to your Boeing account

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:28:10 2020 No.11518996 >>11518991 SLS uses proven American made rocket hardware made with the best of the best of America's expertise in rocket science and space flight.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:29:19 2020 No.11519000 >>11518996 +5 credits have been deposited to your Boeing account

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:29:31 2020 No.11519001 >>11518982 Why would we? For anyone confused, while SLS is certainly much larger than Falcon Heavy, it uses hydrogen meme propellant and therefore doesn't have nearly as much lift capacity as you'd expect to see.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:30:41 2020 No.11519006 File: 45 KB, 1200x675, image-placeholder-title.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11518996 >more like proven to fail!

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:30:42 2020 No.11519007

>>11518992
Initially your targets will be the moon or Mars, you can launch to the moon pretty much whenever so a depot is not really necessary. What is the problem with orbit limitations when all your rockets are going to be using the same orbit and the same trajectory to get to Mars?

>Your second argument is nonsense

Yeah bro we totally don't need to know if martian gravity is viable before we start sending people there to colonise it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:31:28 2020 No.11519010 >>11518979 This is about a tethered STATION, not a ride to Mars, if you would have bothered to follow the thread.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:32:00 2020 No.11519011

>>11518989
>you can't start off by building an O'Neil Cylinder
At least not until we start strip mining the moon and NEOs that we park in Cis-Lunar space. I can't wait for the day when we can just take any potentially threatening asteroid and make it our bitch.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:32:16 2020 No.11519013 File: 56 KB, 1100x550, 5a30a6ad4aa6b51c008b4621.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11518985

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:33:03 2020 No.11519016 >>11519006 Challenger was more a failure of management than hardware. Columbia definitely leans more into the latter category.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:35:17 2020 No.11519021

>>11518989
We need more information that a a handful of dudes squatting in a can for a couple of months. We need to know about pregnancies, about the effects of different excercises on different muscle groups, about the effects of medications for various conditions, about human development, so much fucking stuff.

>inb4 lol just do it bro
>spend hundreds of billions of dollars sending people and gear and shit for a Mars colony
>pregnancy isn't viable

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:36:54 2020 No.11519025 >>11519016 >failure of management Isn't that still Boeing's problem?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:37:08 2020 No.11519026 >>11519007 >we totally don't need to know We'll definitely know once we send people there. Mobile depot aka tanker solves all refueling problems without imparting the boat anchor effect that your "stations" do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:39:10 2020 No.11519034 >>11519021 NASA won't be spending anything as it's not interested in human settlement of other worlds.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:39:11 2020 No.11519035 >>11519026 >We'll definitely know once we send people there Yeah and if there is a problem you've just pissed away a massive amount of resources for nothing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:40:27 2020 No.11519039 >>11519034 Did I say anything about NASA retard? It would be even more catastrophic if the private sector goes all in on Mars for it to fall on its face. No one would be interested in investing in anything space ever again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:41:58 2020 No.11519042 >>11519035 Are you under the impression that space stations and decades worth of difficult research is free of cost?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:43:14 2020 No.11519045 >>11519039 Who else do you suggest run you experimental project?

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:51:40 2020 No.11519066

>>11519021
>We need to know about pregnancies
No way would NASA even do that with rodents, the image of a failed baby mouse due to lack of gravity would freak the fuck out of normiefags so hard it would make the typical /pol/ reaction to things look tame.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:53:04 2020 No.11519071 >>11519039 >No one would be interested in investing in anything space ever again. Mining, threat prevention and research of potentially dangerous propulsion systems will ensure that there is still some investment remaining, but yeah.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:53:18 2020 No.11519073 >>11519066 >No way would NASA even do that with rodents they already did, though

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:54:23 2020 No.11519079 >>11519073 Where is the proofs?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:55:12 2020 No.11519082 >>11519066 Reminder NASA were afraid of releasing that one rodent floaty vid out of fear from backlash. >spin g human experiments whew

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:56:14 2020 No.11519088 >>11519082 Maybe if it was the 60's.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 16:56:38 2020 No.11519092

>>11519079
Studies Toward Birth and Early Mammalian Development in Space
Author and Affiliation:
Ronca, April E. (NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA United States)
Dalton, Bonnie [Technical Monitor]
Abstract: Successful reproduction is the hallmark of a species' ability to adapt to its environment and must be realized to sustain life beyond Earth. Before taking this immense step, we need to understand the effects of altered gravity on critical phases of mammalian reproduction, viz., those events surrounding pregnancy, birth and the early development of offspring. No mammal has yet undergone birth in space. however studies spanning the gravity continuum from 0 to 2-g are revealing insights into how birth and early postnatal development will proceed in space. In this presentation, I will report the results of behavioral studies of rat mothers and offspring exposed from mid- to late pregnancy to either hypogravity (0-g) or hypergravity (1.5 or 2-g).
Publication Date: January 01, 2002

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:01:26 2020 No.11519102 >>11519092 >30 years of microgravity study to drag a pregnant rat in space and then drag it back down to dissect it At this rate full rat test might happen by the end of the 2030's. Not sure if impressed or terrified.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:02:21 2020 No.11519105 >>11519092 >no partial g tests More or less a waste of time. Where is a summary anyway, all this shit is locked behind paywalls.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:06:08 2020 No.11519118 >>11519102 They were too busy spending the last 30 years smelling flowers grown in space. Gotta milk that micro-g research for every dime.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:09:45 2020 No.11519127 >>11518940 and what, pray tell, are those requirements?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:15:23 2020 No.11519146 >>11519127 A) build a tiny, compact capsule optimized for weight or B) build a big metal balloon with materials already in space

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:19:16 2020 No.11519158 File: 49 KB, 739x415, images (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11519146 >tiny, compact capsule

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:25:39 2020 No.11519184 >>11519158 Starship cant land on the moon without a hard surface. So first you have to find a way to make the surface hard enough that it doesnt get blown away.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:35:44 2020 No.11519219 >>11519184 Pure speculation

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:35:55 2020 No.11519220 >>11519184 >Starship cant land on the moon without a hard surface. no, it could once.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:37:38 2020 No.11519226 >>11519158 >the world's most advanced and spacious Earth-launch spacecraft only has 1000 cubic meters of space pathetic

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:39:49 2020 No.11519235 >>11519226 >only 1000 cubic meters a boeing 747 has 876 cubic meters of volume

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:43:10 2020 No.11519244

>>11519220
>approach for landing
>blows giant whole in the surface
>giant dustcloud
>seen from earth
>tips over
>blows up

Or maybe it just falls over and cracks open killing everybody inside from decompression, and those that survive that still get to suffocate to death.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:44:00 2020 No.11519249 >>11519235 >another Earth-bound vehicle

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:44:52 2020 No.11519254 >>11519146 wrong, in orbit construction is a meme

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:47:37 2020 No.11519268

>>11519184
wrong, baseless speculation, wait for ground truth
>>11519226
and can bring all of that down to the destination (the planetary surface), unlike your orbital construction contraption meme
>>11519249
bigger than Skylab
bigger than Shuttle/Mir
bigger than fucking Shuttle/Freedom

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:48:18 2020 No.11519270 >>11519254 no, the meme is space resources ever actually being dropped on Earth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:50:21 2020 No.11519276 >>11519270 Only rocks will be dropped on earth. Fuck earth, mars republic first!!

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:50:42 2020 No.11519282

>>11519268
>and can bring all of that down to the destination (the planetary surface), unlike your orbital construction contraption meme
no, that's the entire fucking point. Trying to mash the requirements of the two different use cases means you get a shitty, half-baked version of both.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:51:08 2020 No.11519283

>>11519226
the biggest spaceship to date and you call it pathetic?
not only is it the biggest, it's the biggest by a HUGE MARGIN
and the booster it sits on top of is an absolute monster that dwarfs even the Saturn V.
37 engines, not even the soviet N1 comes close.
literally a flying nuke and you call it pathetic

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:53:41 2020 No.11519295 >>11519282 What is your orbital spaceship going to do when it gets to Mars? Fly right past it because you built a balloon that can't take the huge forces of an aerobrake? Then what? How do you get people down to the surface?

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:59:08 2020 No.11519315

>>11518929
SLS is so pathetic. I mean, I know it‘s just that wimpy Delta upper stage making that TLI look terrible. But as always with SLS, that just leads down the rabbit hole of where the fuck the exploration upper stage is, which only loops back to questions about budget allocation and timelines, which as always ultimately just leads to the same disillusioning realization that SLS is not actually a space program, but just a job creation scheme masquerading as a space program.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 17:59:21 2020 No.11519316 >>11519295 >How do you get people down to the surface? how did Columbia get people to the surface of the moon without aerobraking? You saved on weight specifically to have the fuel for these kinds of maneuvers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:01:02 2020 No.11519322 >>11519316 >bro just carry like 16km/s delta v to decelerate Yeah ok you're retarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:07:05 2020 No.11519344 File: 372 KB, 1277x1920, J-2X_powerpack.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11519315 They did the J-2X wrong!

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:12:50 2020 No.11519365 >>11519105 Scihub is your friend, friend.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:25:06 2020 No.11519412

>>11519282
the use cases of an interplanetary space craft are a subset of the use cases of an interplanetary reentry craft
and making your whole craft capable of aerobraking means that you don't need to propulsively capture, which makes the combined craft better than your meme

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:25:59 2020 No.11519413 >>11515715 How many legs is that? Five, six?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:27:27 2020 No.11519416 File: 170 KB, 600x600, 1569036819024.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11519365 Absolutely based website, thank you fren

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:28:30 2020 No.11519419 >>11519413 Based garyposter

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:31:41 2020 No.11519438 >>11519184 mooncrete

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:32:06 2020 No.11519440 >>11519413 six legs

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:33:09 2020 No.11519446

>>11519412
>the use cases of an interplanetary space craft are a subset of the use cases of an interplanetary reentry craft
this is very wrong. There's so much shit needed for interplanetary travel that has exactly 0 reason to be required to land and launch on planetary bodies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:35:09 2020 No.11519455 >>11519438 Just nuke the moon lol.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:36:14 2020 No.11519461 >>11519446 such as? there is one exception: airless bodies if you're going to an airless body, first of all kill yourself now, it'll be faster, and secondly, leave the atmospheric landing craft as far away from the surface as possible

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:38:32 2020 No.11519468

>>11519446
>There's so much shit needed for interplanetary travel that has exactly 0 reason to be required to land and launch on planetary bodies

Yeah, no. The vast majority of the mass needs to be delivered to the surface because you know, that's where people are going.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:46:30 2020 No.11519493 >>11519468 and splitting up the mass is incredibly inefficient mostly because planetary atmospheres are like big cushy mattresses full of hope and plasma and death they're very good

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:50:05 2020 No.11519505 >>11518729 kek

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:54:50 2020 No.11519522 >>11519468 >The vast majority of the mass needs to be delivered to the surface no, the vast majority of mass is the delivery of the tiny portion of mass (people and supplies) that need to go to the surface

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:56:41 2020 No.11519528 >>11519522 wrong it's roughly half and half between aeroshell and payload

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:58:27 2020 No.11519532 >>11519522 Cool so your ship is not only going to have to carry tens of km/s of delta v to brake but also shitloads of tiny pods to deliver the cargo to the surface.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 18:59:30 2020 No.11519539 >>11519468 Unless you're travelling one way only there's a lot of shit aboard like radiation shielding or comfortable living quarters that have absolutely no business going to surface and back

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:02:54 2020 No.11519547 >>11519539 radiation shielding and comfortable living quarters will be needed on the surface as well, unless you're on Venus or Earth, in which case you only need living quarters

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:12:46 2020 No.11519572 File: 94 KB, 1242x1198, EUdgNc9XkAI6WTd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11518752 Back on for Tomorrow but not the 2nd and 3rd

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:16:40 2020 No.11519586 >>11519455 This is actually a good idea Anything left would be solid ground and geological composition would be revealed

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:17:54 2020 No.11519590 >>11519586 >>11519455 >Elon Musk deploys the first recreational McNuclear™ device Best timeline

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:20:47 2020 No.11519594 >>11519572 That's eastern time, right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:21:10 2020 No.11519595 >>11519572 Are the raptors even integrated yet? I didn't think they were.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:28:37 2020 No.11519609

>>11519547
Like I said, that's only if you're travelling one way to an empty planet and have no choice but to reuse your craft as a surface habitat. For regular flights (and that assumes there's already enough ground infrastructure to support the inflow of new settlers) it's more efficient for the transfer craft to stay in space and land using smaller specialized reentry module

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:33:06 2020 No.11519619 >>11519595 Tomorrow's static pressure test. Raptors are next week at best.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:36:47 2020 No.11519628 >>11519609 >rocket equation out the ass to carry all the fuel you need to slow down as well as all the weight of the re entry vehicles >this is more efficient than launching from earth and aerobraking everything onto the surface You have brain damage

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:37:14 2020 No.11519632 File: 70 KB, 640x450, 1459373115098t.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11519594

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:38:53 2020 No.11519637 >>11518747 Wait, is Bigelow really dead?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:40:29 2020 No.11519639 >>11519619 Oh I thought it was static fire. Pls don't explodearino starship chan uwu.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:42:44 2020 No.11519645 >>11519639 maybe, but they have so far done the most work on the tech. And the fact that a bigelow module is docked to ISS right now should be a reason enough to not let this company die.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:44:11 2020 No.11519646 >>11519632 >Brownsville, Texas >Time zone UTC-6 (CST) > • Summer (DST) UTC-5 (CDT) Your country's time zones can go fuck themselves.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:49:18 2020 No.11519655 File: 263 KB, 600x304, 1464624321139.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11519646 >tiny eurolet country only has one time zone >can't even into summer time

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:51:14 2020 No.11519659 >>11519609 >I have no idea about the rocket equation

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:51:18 2020 No.11519660 File: 42 KB, 480x300, monty python parrot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11519637 They're just restin'.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:52:13 2020 No.11519666 >>11519628 Have fun launching all that stuff back to space when you want to go back. Meanwhile the teansfer craft doesn't even have to enter planetary orbit, just drop off the lander and pick up the return craft, then go back to Earth

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:53:00 2020 No.11519668 >>11519655 Rent free

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:53:36 2020 No.11519670 >>11519655 More than 600 km^2 isn't exactly tiny and unfortunately we still very much have the summer nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:53:41 2020 No.11519671 >>11519010 YES, I KNOW I'm talking about a single launch, small, rotating space station that gets parked in LEO until a crew arrives, then it spins for a few months/a year, then stops and the crew comes home to be examined.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:54:45 2020 No.11519675 >>11519666 You need to take babbys first orbital mechanics class holy shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:55:22 2020 No.11519678 >>11519021 So your argument is that basically there will always be something we won't know unless we go, so we should never go. That's retarded

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:55:52 2020 No.11519680 >>11519655 >>11519670 600000 km^2, I should try getting a better sleep schedule.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:57:18 2020 No.11519684 >>11519184 >as if exposed plates of bedrock do not exist on the Moon

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:59:00 2020 No.11519690 >>11519315 Yea these nasa programs that get a billion dollars spent on them then for some reason never actually produce a product Oh I see EUS is a Boeing project

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:59:21 2020 No.11519692 >>11519675 At least go play some ksp before you can start pretending you have any idea what you're talking about

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 19:59:47 2020 No.11519695 >>11519678 Not being able to produce babies and have them grow up in your colony is a pretty fucking big deal retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:01:01 2020 No.11519699 >>11519692 >hurr u need to play ksp bro >yes my spaceship is carrying enough delta v to brake why do you ask?

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:01:08 2020 No.11519700

>>11519316
>saving, at best, half of the dry weight will make up for the immense increase in propulsive delta V required

Your argument MAYBE works for bodies without atmosphere, except the Moon, because that's so close that the convenience of only having to refill a Starship which can also be brought back to Earth for maintenance etc blows all the benefits of a big jello baby spacecraft out of the water.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:08:30 2020 No.11519721 >>11519699 What part of >the transfer craft doesn't even need to enter planetary orbit do you fail to understand?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:09:24 2020 No.11519725 File: 21 KB, 328x422, 1435454945123.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11519680 >Texas >Area, Total: 268,581[1] sq mi (696,241 km2) ONE. STATE.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:11:24 2020 No.11519729 whats the post limit again on /sci/ ?

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:13:18 2020 No.11519734

>>11519721
>muh cycler

Yeah now you need shuttles that can match its velocity, brake to zero velocity and have enough delta v to return to the original planet. A shuttle that's an easy order of magnitude bigger than starship to deliver the same size payload to the cycler as it would to Mars, oh and it still has to get off its original planet so needs a booster an order of magnitude bigger than superheavy to do that. You literally don't understand anything and need to go watch more pop sci videos.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:14:18 2020 No.11519738 >>11519725 USA occupies most of the continent, duh.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:15:41 2020 No.11519746 >>11519680 Mate, you are a rounding error

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:17:12 2020 No.11519750 New thread: >>11519747

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:21:25 2020 No.11519766

>>11519695
Who says we need to colonize the surface? It's not like people are going to land on Mars and immediately start pumping out babies, either.

WORST CASE SCENARIO, pregnancy can't be carried to term in Mars gravity, so we don't bother. Instead we focus on using Mars, Phobos, and Deimos as raw material to feed propellant plants, smelters, basalt-fiber extruders, etc and build large rotating habitats in high Mars orbit for people to live on when they feel like having and raising kids. The rest of the time they live in habitats on Mars, because that's where most of the work is. Run the clock forward and eventually we can completely disassemble Mars to build quadrillions of habitats. That's obviously a bit off in the future, but the fact remains that a pseudo-colony made up entirely of people sent from Earth can expand their infrastructure and industrial capacity to the point that they can build their own damn 1G environments to use to become fully self sustaining.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:22:34 2020 No.11519772 >>11519721 >cyclers FUCK OOOOOOFFF

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:23:38 2020 No.11519773 >>11519734 Like I said again, have fun launching all the stuff cycler has (or rather doesn't in your case) that you need for interplanetary travel along with your payload

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:29:34 2020 No.11519793 File: 46 KB, 650x447, 1454847888384.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11519746 based straya

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:43:22 2020 No.11519826 >>11519609 no, because then you need to propulsively brake into orbit, then do aeroentry, when you could just do aeroentry from the start and skip bringing all that extra propellant

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 20:48:58 2020 No.11519843 >>11519721 oh so now you're advocating for the Aldrin Cycler, which doesn't help at all

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 01:04:49 2020 No.11520426 I hope none of you guys are infected

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

/sci/ - Science & Math