/sfg/ Space Flight General

[Anonymous No.11544098]

Farewell Dragon

Old thread >>11538238

[Anonymous No.11544148]

>>11544098

Dragon out, Soyuz in tomorrow. It is going to be the first manned launch of a Soyuz 2.1a rocket because the Soyuz-FG was retired last year.

This is done to standardise the production of Soyuz rockets so that only the 2.1a, 2.1b and 2.1v are being built.

[Anonymous No.11544298]

I gotta write a paper on navigation in space, as in how spacecraft's navigate. Can someone please link some interesting resources on this?

[Anonymous No.11544326]

MARS ETERNAL

[Anonymous No.11544334]

>>11544148
Good. Soyuz FG was an old piece of tech that couldn't even do a roll program.

[Anonymous No.11544336]

>>11544098
>>11544326
Reminder that colonizing Mars and terraforming is idiotic and if we are going to live in dome we might as well do it in space with robot bringing everything to our self-made space paradise.

[Anonymous No.11544348]

>>11544336
Reminder that on surface of earth-like planets you don't have to worry about lack of gravity, raw resources, atmosphere pressure and a lot more shit.

[Anonymous No.11544353]

gas the greens, space war now

[Anonymous No.11544366]

>>11544336
>>11544348
This. If we ARE going to live in a dome anyway then we might as well do it on a planet or a moon, not only is it safer and less potential for error but people won't go crazy from being in space not to mention the potential for terraforming/resource gathering

[Anonymous No.11544370]

>>11544366
>>11544326
i hate the expanse because there are so few political entities. everyone united on earth and mars? boring.

[Anonymous No.11544381]

>>11544348
Good luck finding a Earth-like planet with gravity that won't kill you or fuck up your metabolism, liquid water, atmosphere you can actually breath in, resources you can actually reach without having to dig forever.
And considering recent event, you'll wish to be able to compartmentalize everything in case you woke up a deadly alien virus that evolved on such a life-friendly planet.

So if you are going to live in sophisticated tin-box anyway, better build where you can chose if you want gravity and aren't at the bottom of a gravity well.
Even living on the Moon is better than living on Mars.

>>11544366
It wouldn't be safer because it would introduce new variable like the planet atmosphere eroding/damaging your shiny ship and getting more dirt in.
All you truly need is to have access and control over resources production. You can do that more easily from space.

[Anonymous No.11544385]

>>11544348
>on surface of earth-like planets you don't have to worry about lack of gravity
Especially if its mass is comparable to Jupiter's.

[Anonymous No.11544393]

>>11544370
Well, there are the Belters who represent the countries that doesn't want anything to do with the other factions if we compare the Expanse to the Cold War. They could be like the Middle East

[Anonymous No.11544402]

>>11544381
>Good luck finding a Earth-like that is Earth
Yes.

>>11544385
>Especially if its mass is nothing at all like Earth
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11544408]

>>11544381
>All you truly need is to have access and control over resources production. You can do that more easily from space.
If something goes wrong and you're in fucking space you're fucked

[Anonymous No.11544413]

>>11544408
>If something goes wrong and you're in fucking space you're fucked
unlike on the surface on Mars where you're fine?

[Anonymous No.11544424]

>>11544413
I mean I'm sure people will think of something if they know they're not gonna die in the void of space

[Anonymous No.11544430]

>>11544402
So basically all you are advocating is to not leave mankind cradle's? Because if you had the ability to magically cross the galaxy in search of a mystical Earth-like planet to terraform, your technology would be so great you'd have no reason to terraform it in the first place

>>11544408
If something go wrong and you're down a fucking gravity hole you are even more fucked.
You aren't going to grow potatoes magically.
However if your entire infrastructure is in space, you'll have access to more contingency plan than you can hope for.

>>11544424
They'd think of how easier it would be to solve their problem if they had even better infrastructure, in space.

[Anonymous No.11544434]

>>11544424
If you lose pressure in a Mars dome you're just as dead as losing pressure on a space station. Mars surface pressure is basically nothing.

[Anonymous No.11544437]

>>11544424
>my mars colony will have everything I need for every contingency ever
>I won't apply my standard to your superior space based civilization
Typical

[Anonymous No.11544438]

>>11544402
Oh, so it has to be Earth then?

[Anonymous No.11544455]

>>11544430
I'm saying that is orders of magnitude easier to live in an environment that retains some kind of resemblance to our natural own.

[Anonymous No.11544460]

>>11544437
>that pic
Semi related, but why not just have the station on Phobos itself to have more direct access for it's resources?

[Anonymous No.11544478]

Is the Rhino engine from KSP an analogue to any real-life engine?

[Anonymous No.11544481]

>>11544336
People want to live on the ground so they’re gonna live on the ground.

[Anonymous No.11544483]

>>11544478
The J-2X. At least in it's model design an purpose in-game compared to irl.

[Anonymous No.11544484]

>>11544455
I live in a house shape box, then I get into a car shaped box to go to a work shaped box and occasionally store shaped boxes. A space station is just another box.

[Anonymous No.11544486]

>>11544381
>Good luck finding a Earth-like planet with gravity that won't kill you or fuck up your metabolism

Humans can survive any gravitational field except for extremely strong ones over 2g. The planet doesn’t need to be earth-like at all.

[Anonymous No.11544490]

>>11544486

[Anonymous No.11544492]

>>11544460
it's a lot harder to build a rotating hab into a moon than it is to just build it around the moon. Attaching your station to a planetary body like phobos has exactly 0 benefit when getting things to and from an orbiting body is stupidly easy.

[Anonymous No.11544494]

>>11544455
Sure... which is why SPACE COLONIES are better at that.

Just count the number of variables,
>space colony built on specs to match Earth
- can include 1G artificial gravity as you wish,
- must protect you only from vacuum and radiation which is just a simple shade
- If you need to leave in a hurry, you can use rockets who don't have to be built for reentry and landing

>surface colony built on specs to match Earth
- except it can't give 1G nor 0G
- must protect you from deadly toxic atmosphere
- radiation, which is harder if you have to build your entire civilization underground
- constant erosion
- if you were stupid enough to live on a very geoactive planet, earthquake
- If you need to leave in a hurry or need anything from outer space you require a spaceship built to land, protected from all the kind above, and it will waste fuel just fighting gravity
And we assume you maintained full access to your escape rocket through a pressurized tunnel instead of needing 2 airlocks and extra suits.

>>11544460
Considering Phobos negligible gravity it's no different from having a simple structure separating both with a rail system on it.

>>11544481
You can have better ground by building it in space yourself.

[Anonymous No.11544495]

>>11544494
>You can have better ground by building it in space yourself.

That’s fake ground. I want real ground.

[Anonymous No.11544497]

>>11544495
then stay on Earth

[Anonymous No.11544501]

>>11544494
Is there a higher res image of this?

[Anonymous No.11544504]

>>11544497
>then stay on Earth

No. I will put holes in your shitty space station and kill everyone onboard by dumping 100 tons of perchlorate-filled Martian dust in your orbital path.

[Anonymous No.11544508]

>>11544486
>[citation needed]
We don't have enough data to know this for sure.

[Anonymous No.11544511]

>>11544504
I'm pro-planet habitation too, but you're being abit facetious.

[Anonymous No.11544512]

>>11544504
Orbitards BTFO

[Anonymous No.11544513]

>>11544495
It's less fake than any ground you'd make on other moon/planet because you could have 1G as you wish

[Anonymous No.11544515]

>>11544513
1G is boring. I want to be able to jump around like John Carter

[Anonymous No.11544517]

>>11544504
At least once you've Kessler syndromed your own orbits we will have all retard confined down a gravity hole they won't ever be able to leave.

[Anonymous No.11544523]

>>11544508
>ISS don’t real

People do fine on the ISS where there isn’t any practical gravity, so they’d do even finer on Charon, Mars, Pluto, Ceres, or wherever as long as they exercise. This is assuming you want to maintain a physique adapted to Earth conditions rather than letting it adapt to the local environment, which you don’t really have to.

[Anonymous No.11544525]

>>11544515
Space colonies it is then,
You'll have whatever gravity you want and even floating ship thanks to the specificity of rotating habitat.

[Anonymous No.11544526]

>>11544517
My orbit is like my courtyard, I shoot hobos that try to camp there.

[Anonymous No.11544527]

>>11544525
No, the ground there is fake. There’s zero natural features to look at or investigate. You literally want to live in an aquarium.

[Anonymous No.11544539]

>>11544525
Something I'm concerned about is the time it would take to build a cylinder of that size compared to digging more tunnels in Mars or the moon. That making more living space in space would represent a significant limitation of the growth of a space colony due to the challenges of building something in micro-g. Meanwhile tunnel boring machines are fairly well understood, and the gravity provided by the celestial body would make construction easier.

[Anonymous No.11544541]

>>11544523
No one have lived on the ISS for more than two year. We don't know if a baby born in 0G or Mars gravity would develop correctly or ever be able to get back to Earth.
The point is, you might as well choose space so you can have centripetal gravity if you want.

[Anonymous No.11544551]

>>11544541
>No one have lived on the ISS for more than two year

The health-problems caused by micro-g are understood and already nullified. Stop goalpost-shifting.

> We don't know if a baby born in 0G or Mars gravity would develop correctly or ever be able to get back to Earth.

They’d be perfectly fine. Going back to earth is really gay, but I’m sure they can just wear some silly robot suit if they ever actually decide to go there.

[Anonymous No.11544564]

>>11544551
>They’d be perfectly fine
source?

[Anonymous No.11544569]

>>11544527
>live in an aquarium
Far better than living in a hole like >>11544539 advocate for.
You'd be able to see entire planet from space and if you ever need to create a big living space, you'll face no hard contrain except time and your production capability.
You could build a 30km^3 open pressurized area in space if you needed to. Building the same underground would be impossible no matter what.

>Meanwhile tunnel boring machines are fairly well understood
...on Earth where you don't have to fear about your air leaking away through fissure and you don't need an airlock to get rid of extra dirt.
Underground tunnel will require the exact space level of pressurization, except in space you can check integrity from both side.

[Anonymous No.11544574]

>>11544569
you don't have to live in a hole, you can live in a conical depression on the surface that rotates to simulate higher gravity, but at that point why not just build it in space?

[Anonymous No.11544577]

>>11544564
>source?

Muscle-wasting is a solved problem. Can you read?

[Anonymous No.11544579]

>>11544577
he was talking about the babies and there has been little-to-no experimentation on insemination or gestation in lower gravity.

[Anonymous No.11544587]

>>11544569
>Far better than living in a hole

I like holes and love the idea of living in little rat tunnels underground. When I was a wee lad, I created a tiny cave to sleep in under my bed and blocked it off from the outside using pillows as walls. Very comfy.

> You'd be able to see entire planet from space

Might as well look at a picture. Humans are supposed to see things from the ground, not from space.

> Building the same underground would be impossible no matter what.

Make a building.

[Anonymous No.11544588]

>>11544551
>The health-problems caused by micro-g are understood and already nullified. Stop goalpost-shifting.
So you default to making shit up? Thank you for making clear no one should trust you.

We barely started to catalog all the problem we would have to take care of, it will require extensive genetic engineering to make sure human grow healthy and stay able to adapt to heavier gravity.
https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/sciencepanorama/dangers-zero-gravity

[Anonymous No.11544593]

>>11544579
They’ll grow to adapt to their environment, and if that environment is lower gravity than Earth, they’ll look different. Oh well. Doesn’t really matter.

>and there has been little-to-no experimentation on insemination or gestation in lower gravity.

Let some mice bang then

[Anonymous No.11544594]

>>11544569
>You could build a 30km^3 open pressurized area in space if you needed to. Building the same underground would be impossible no matter what.

[Anonymous No.11544598]

>>11544588
>Noooooo adapting to space is bad noooooo

All “problems” caused by micro-g are only a problem if you go back down. Stop lying, please.

[Anonymous No.11544605]

>>11544593
>They’ll grow to adapt to their environment
That's not the point. We don't even know if it's possible to get pregnant and carry a child to term in low/micro gravity. It's entirely conceivable that the mechanism of how sperm impregnate an egg doesn't with without gravity or the formation of organs or supplying a fetus with enough food. There are many things that could simply not work without 1G. Organisms on this planet have been living in 1G for billions of years—we cannot take for granted than even the most basic, fundamental processes of our biological existence can withstand even a slight change in that gravity without breaking down completely over time.

[Anonymous No.11544608]

>>11544587
You can have better holes in space colony, less fake hole as well since they'll have 1G as you wish.

>Might as well look at a picture.
You can do that better in space.

>Humans are supposed to see things from the ground, not from space.
Putting aside that human aren't supposed to be discussing this shit on the internet, space is just like jumping and missing the ground continuously as you fall down.
Since you said yourself you might as well look from a picture, it will be easier to control drones everywhere from space.
And if you want your brain to be physically closer to a place, it's easier to reach anywhere on the planet if you start from space.

>Make a building.
Less constrain in space

>>11544594
And in 0G you'd be able to build vastly bigger with less structural support.

[Anonymous No.11544610]

>>11544605
>That's not the point. We don't even know if it's possible to get pregnant and carry a child to term in low/micro gravity

Let’s find out then. Rat sex when?

[Anonymous No.11544612]

>>11544598
That's an argument in favor of 0G space colonies then, no reason to ever go down another gravity well or bother faking gravity.

[Anonymous No.11544614]

>>11544612
I’d rather live on an actual planet with interesting features instead of in an artificial tin can thank you

[Anonymous No.11544616]

>>11544608
> You can do that better in space.

I don’t want to look at a picture. I want to look at the ground from ground level using my eyeballs.

> You can have better holes in space colony, less fake hole as well since they'll have 1G as you wish.

Holes in the ground of an actual planet are more appealing.

[Anonymous No.11544617]

>>11544608
>And in 0G you'd be able to build vastly bigger with less structural support.
Not if the station is spinning to simulate gravity. Some kind of supports would be necessary unless the cylinder walls were made very thick out of a strong material.

[Anonymous No.11544620]

>>11544617
Not to mention what happens if something goes wrong. Drop something on a planet and you can pick it up. Drop something out of a centrifuge station and it flies off into space.

[Anonymous No.11544634]

>>11544481
If the station is big enough, it's going to be ground enough.
Forget the art, that is purportedly depicted too open to space for scenery reasons.

[Anonymous No.11544637]

>>11544614
>interesting feature
Go ahead, tell us what are those feature you can't access more easily from living in space.
You'll live in artificial tin can either way

>Holes in the ground of an actual planet are more appealing.
We could make you live in one in space without telling you and you wouldn't notice the difference.

>>11544616
Glass technology also work in space

>from ground level
So basically you want to live 2/3 down in the ground with your eyes always at the same level as the separation between rock and air/void.
You have the strangest taste.
Anyway, rational people would choose to live in space fo have more experience and access to more interesting feature.

[Anonymous No.11544647]

>>11544617
Spinning the station puts all of the load bearing structures into tension. It is the lightest way you could possibly build anything.

[Anonymous No.11544651]

>>11544617
That would still be easier to build large than if you did so fighting gravity.
The difference is like building a space elevator on the moon versus trying to build a tower that reach space.

>>11544620
If stuff fall on a planet it can crush and kill you, leaving you stuck underground with no air and no way out.
A centrifuge colony have lower gravity as you reach the center, and if somehow you lost something out of the station, it will just float in orbit and your only worry will be to dispatch a space-pod to grab it. It will be even easier to grab since you won't have to worry about gravity and lifting withing your center of balance

[Anonymous No.11544652]

>>11544513
>don davis
fun fact, he's also the actor from stargate

[Anonymous No.11544656]

>>11544637
>Go ahead, tell us what are those feature you can't access more easily from living in space.

Literally any feature. Wasting propellant constantly going up and down is not economical. Make a train if you want rapid transit.

Inb4 tard says flying around in spaceships is more economical than making a train

[Anonymous No.11544664]

>>11544637
>Anyway, rational people would choose to live in space fo have more experience and access to more interesting feature.
It's not that Mars will ever be uninhabited though, so in the end people will just naturally choose.

[Anonymous No.11544667]

>>11544637
>Rational people want to live in an environment utterly hostile to human psychology

Anon people don’t actually want to live in space.

[Anonymous No.11544669]

>>11544652
Not the same Don Davis.

[Anonymous No.11544672]

>>11544667
>Anon people don’t actually want to live in space.
Then they can stay on Earth.

[Anonymous No.11544680]

>>11544577
>Muscle-wasting is a solved problem
source?

[Anonymous No.11544684]

>>11544672
Or live on any of the hundreds of resource-rich bodies hundreds of kilometers in diameter hanging out in the solar system. No one has ever said “I want to live in a space station orbiting Mars”, just “I want to live on Mars”.

[Anonymous No.11544690]

>>11544651
>>11544637
You cannot colonize space. Space is empty. You need resources. So the colony will have to orbit either an asteroid, or maybe a small moon. Anything bigger and the delta-v becomes prohibitive.

[Anonymous No.11544692]

>>11544393
The actions of this little shit in the books justified everything mars&earth ever did to the belters and will do to them in the future.

[Anonymous No.11544696]

>>11544652
rip
although yeah, the artist who made that is a different don davis

[Anonymous No.11544698]

>>11544690
Why waste thousands and thousands of tons of propellant ferrying material up and down when you could just live on the ground?

[Anonymous No.11544703]

>>11544692
Inyalowda deserves ROCKS.

[Anonymous No.11544706]

>>11544690
>Anything bigger and the delta-v becomes prohibitive.
not really. As long as the metal plates and whatever is refined and manufactured in place, transporting them around the solar system isn't really a problem.

[Anonymous No.11544710]

>>11544698
You cannot just live on the ground if gravity is too weak there. Really there are only two viable options:

1. Colonize an Earth analog planet
2. Spinning colony around a big asteroid

Anything else and you either lack resources or gravity.

Only option #1 is present in our solar system.

[Anonymous No.11544717]

>>11544710
>Only option #2 is present in our solar system.
correction

[Anonymous No.11544736]

>>11544656
>Literally any feature
So basically anything you'll get in space, except slower.
Building a train with life support for human tourism is ridiculously inefficient if you care about human comfort and it will be a bigger waste of fuel than having rocket.
If you want rapid transit, you'll want a rocket, or at best a "train" accelerated toward another planet inside a magnetic accelerator or from a space teather, with extra propulsion to adjust trajectory.
If you aren't a poorfag living on planet you'd use nuclear propulsion anyway.

>>11544664
Of course there's always be some masochist who like to live in hell hole. But if you wish to increase the choice available to people then you'll start from space and let people choose between Mars or any orbit or moons in the Jovian system

>>11544667
>Irrational people want to live in an environment utterly hostile to human psychology
Mars underground tunnel would be more hostile to human psychology than a space station.

>>11544690
By your logic you can't live in a city either, you can't grow food there, there's no clean water cycle, unless...
... unless you happen to have a whole infrastructure bringing you the things you need where you live.

>Anything bigger and the delta-v becomes prohibitive.
That only depend of your technological level and how much you own. I look forward a future where human are expected to have millions of robots and hundred of kilometers long habitable space station as part of their most basic welfare.

>>11544698
You'd spend as much effort digging them out and crawling across the planet. The only reason you want the planet is to turn it into resources.

[Anonymous No.11544743]

>>11544710
A bowl centrifuge can be used to increase apparent gravity on planets

[Anonymous No.11544756]

>>11544710
>You cannot just live on the ground if gravity is too weak there

Yes you can. There is no such thing as a gravity well too weak to live in unless it’s so weak you could reach escape velocity by jumping; that’d be too inconvenient. If you want 1 G, which you have no reason to want, you can use the centrifugal force to spin the surface habitat around, and you get to skip wasting thousands of tons of propellant needlessly reaching orbit.

[Anonymous No.11544760]

>>11544756
>you get to skip wasting thousands of tons of propellant needlessly reaching orbit
this is a meme—the propellant needs are irrelevant compared to the infrastructure cost

[Anonymous No.11544766]

>Next Starlink launch: April 16, 2020 21:31:00 UTC

Fuck Corona and Astronomerfags

Mars or Bust

[Anonymous No.11544784]

>>11544766
By the time any other company catches up, spaceX will already have been dominating the Internet Sat business for years at this rate.

[Anonymous No.11544791]

>>11544736
>So basically anything you'll get in space, except slower.

A train would literally be faster than a descent and cost zero propellant.

> Building a train with life support for human tourism is ridiculously inefficient if you care about human comfort

Trains are very comfortable. Way more comfortable than any spacecraft to ever exist and always will be, nor do they need to be for “tourism”. Ever heard of a job?

> and it will be a bigger waste of fuel than having rocket.

Trains don’t need fuel. They need energy, which can be provided by local solar power, nuclear, or whatever.

> Mars underground tunnel would be more hostile to human psychology than a space station.

Humans have lived in caves for millions of years.

>I look forward to a sci-fi future 50,000 years away

Ah, that explains it.

[Anonymous No.11544793]

SLS Block 1B adapter hardware being made:
>I thought our @RuagSpace Decatur facility was big, until the first panel for the @NASA_SLS Universal Stage Adapter left the oven on the way to @Dynetics, our partner for this program. You can imagine that this will be a big rocket!
https://twitter.com/HolgerWentscher/status/1247829156282413056

[Anonymous No.11544859]

>>11544791
>A train would literally be faster than a descent and cost zero propellant.
If you are commuting 10km away from where you started maybe.
If you want to go on the other side of the planet a rocket is faster.

>Trains are very comfortable. Way more comfortable than any spacecraft to ever exist and always will be, nor do they need to be for “tourism”. Ever heard of a job?
For a Space-Surface transfer you won't need to stay more than a half-hour in a rocket. Train will takes hours even if you built magnetic rail everywhere.
If we are talking of real travel you could travel on spaceship more luxurious than a train will ever be.
Also check out the concept behind Aldrin's Cycler
In space you can move anything that support the acceleration. On the ground you'll be limited by size and plenty of practical limitation you don't have with self-contained transport system.
It's as if you were trying to argue for living on boat or train instead of having cars or planes.

>Trains don’t need fuel. They need energy, which can be provided by local solar power, nuclear, or whatever.
They need a gigantic infrastructure, constantly maintained even when not in use and forcing it to allow human tourism will ruin your efficiency.
You'll need to build space infrastructure and exploit space resources first to make anything out of a planet like Mars because it doesn't allow easier access to everything you need.
So in practice you'd use less propellant living in space.

>50,000 years away
That's shorter than it would take you to bring interesting features down your gravity hole.
We'll live in O'neill space colonies faster than trying to make anything worthwhile of an irradiated cold hell like Mars.

[Anonymous No.11544873]

>>11544784
I legitimately don't think it's possible for any other provider to catch up. Countries are barely able to launch their own GPS constellation—launching a thousand-strong global internet constellation is way beyond anyone else.

[Anonymous No.11544884]

>>11544859
No one wants to live in an O’Neill cylinder people want to live on Mars.

[Anonymous No.11544938]

>>11544690
This is what Venus balloontards fail to understand. The only natural resources on an O'Neill station is sunlight, and a floating station on Venus just adds some atmospheric gases. All the good shit is down on the ground beneath oceanic pressures, lead-melting temperatures, and an Earth-tier gravity well. Sulfuric acid in the atmosphere is a mere bonus quest.
There is no way for a Venus balloon station to become self-sufficient, and self-sufficiency is what makes a settlement into a colony.

[Anonymous No.11544967]

>>11544938
You are absolutely correct. I can only assume ballooners think any colonization effort will be equivalent to Apollo but bigger; one time, pointless, and only useful for glorified Arctic Outposts.

[Anonymous No.11544968]

>>11544743
Muh Tilt-a-Whirl meme

>>11544859
>2020 olympics
lel
>launching from Africa
kek
>giant wheel-shaped space station
;_;

[Anonymous No.11544971]

>>11544938
You could have an umbilical elevator.

[Anonymous No.11544974]

>>11544370
>belters , opa, earth, mars, pirates.

also Ceres itself separate from the belt.

[Anonymous No.11544993]

11544968
You have to be 18 to use this site

[Anonymous No.11545040]

>NASA selected seven proposals submitted in response to the Research Opportunities for ISS Utilization NASA Research Announcement (NRA) seeking in-space manufacturing and regenerative medicine flight demonstrations:

>Universal Glass Optics Manufacturing Module
>Thin Metal-Coated Optical Fiber Manufacturing
>Glass Alloy Manufacturing
>Semiconductor Chip Facility
>Production of Stem Cells for Personalized Medicine Applications
>Protein-based Retinal Implant Manufacturing
>Regenerative Medicine Laboratory

>https://www.nasa.gov/leo-economy/nasa-selects-for-projects-optical-fibers-stem-cells-enable-low-earth-orbit-economy

[Anonymous No.11545062]

>>11545040
>seeking in-space manufacturing and regenerative medicine flight demonstrations
Nice, we're going in a good direction, sending a message to the world that it's time to invest more in space

[Anonymous No.11545182]

>>11544504
Good luck with that Kessler syndrome where you can't even get a tiny rocket out.

[Anonymous No.11545194]

>>11544334
Could it not? I was under impression that only the ancient Soyuz models couldn't compute the roll aerodynamics on their own so they required the rotating launchpad to set them up in right direction before launching.

[Anonymous No.11545201]

neat
https://youtu.be/N3CWGDhkmbs

[Anonymous No.11545206]

>>11545201
this looks so much more difficult and dangerous than a drone ship with a net

[Anonymous No.11545221]

>>11545201
careful, last time I posted here about the helicopter capture being superior, the circlejerk told me it's the boring oldspace and VTVL is everything one might ever need


>>11545206
It's actually fairly trivial, many things heli pilots do are much harder. But it heavily depends on the weather downrange, even more than the launch itself.

[Anonymous No.11545236]

>>11544513
Problem is, you end up feeling less or more Gs if you walk left or right. Also, a planet can at least minimally protect your habitats. Habitable rings and cylinders should only be put on large ships.

[Anonymous No.11545242]

[Anonymous No.11545272]

>>11545236
>a planet can at least minimally protect your habitats.
The point of going into space is to protect mankind, stop putting all our eggs back into another basket.
A surface based station would be less secure than a space one. It have to deal with constant gravity and Mars would have to deal with constant storm and heat regulation. If anything break you need outside help and not be at the bottom of a gravity well. You'd be more secure on airless moon or inside an asteroid.

[Anonymous No.11545295]

>>11545272
anything breaks on your mars base, just walk or drive a rover to the next one, or a nearby ship. If your station breaks, it's much more of a pain get to another one, if you even can.

[Anonymous No.11545299]

>>11545040
all surprisingly very useful and cool desu

[Anonymous No.11545304]

>>11545272
>It have to deal with constant gravity
Nothing wrong with that, we seem to handle it well on Earth and Mars has even less gravity. Also gravity is useful in managing items and waste material in construction as it forces them to move in a particular way that can be managed. In space, untethered things will drift away from each other due to orbital mechanics which can be a hazard for operations near a space station under construction as the waste material and particulates that drifted away will come back an orbit later at a significant speed relative to the station and anything near it.

>Mars would have to deal with constant storm and heat regulation
Mars doesn't storm that often, and heat regulation can be managed by dumping waste heat in the ground much like geothermal heating on Earth, but in reverse.

>If anything break you need outside help and not be at the bottom of a gravity well.
Having spare parts nearby will help with that. Plus if a Martian colony needs help outside of the Mars system then it'll have to wait just as long as a space station in Martian orbit.

>You'd be more secure on airless moon or inside an asteroid.
But anything that can be done on an airless moon or inside an asteroid to make it habitable can also be as easily done on Mars.

[Anonymous No.11545345]

>>11545272
>have to deal with constant gravity
>heat regulation
>buh no one can reach you at the bottom of a gravity well
I have nothing against orbitals as a concept but I hate orbitalfags because they have no idea of even the most basic compensations involved in operating in a free vaccuum environment. You don't have the advantage of not dealing with constant gravity, you have the disadvantage of maintaining artificial gravity. You don't have the advantage of less heat regulation, you have the disadvantage of lacking meaningful passive heat rejection. You don't have the advantage of not being at the bottom of a gravity well, getting to the bottom of a gravity well (especially when an atmosphere is involved eg mars) is inherently easier than matching your orbit and docking when something goes wrong, and god help you if something going wrong also prevents easy docking.

[Anonymous No.11545354]

Don't know if this is the right place but here's a probably stupid question:

If the Milky Way and the Andromeda were perfectly parallel to eachother and I was at one edge of our galaxy looking directly at the Andromeda and then I instantly teleported to the other edge of our galaxy how much would the Andromeda "move" from my perspective? Would it move at all?

[Anonymous No.11545357]

>>11545354

[Anonymous No.11545397]

>>11545357
Is that a "No, it wouldn't move"? Despite them being galaxies instead of stars? I just want to be sure

[Anonymous No.11545408]

>>11544348
>mars
>resources
>atmospheric pressure
>gravity

retard

[Anonymous No.11545414]

>>11545397
why would it being a galaxy and not a star make any difference?
they're both objects
can you give me an example of something that, when you walk a bunch of steps to the left, you don't have to turn your head to keep looking at it?

[Anonymous No.11545415]

>>11545397
look at the diagram. It's not a complicated phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.11545425]

>>11545408
>resources
mars has all the necessary resources for a civilization
>atmospheric pressure
it's not zero, and what's stopping someone from digging a large underground city and pressurizing it?
>gravity
1/3rd of earth, far from zero
less gravity means more building options too
less forces acting on structures so you can build bigger and more expansive structures, tall skyscrapers can be taller
big caverns can be bigger
surface glass domes can be a lot bigger with the same amount of structural support

mars sounds like a good idea desu

[Anonymous No.11545446]

>>11545408
Mars has all of those things.

[Anonymous No.11545452]

>>11544938
What does lead melting mean? It’s not steel melting, or aluminium melting, no one builds with lead, s who cares

A nice safe atmosphere means you don’t need a pressurized habitat, leaks are dealt with by a slight overpressure internally
The atmosphere gives you the bulk of the resources you want anyways

[Anonymous No.11545453]

https://spacenews.com/masten-wins-nasa-lunar-lander-award/

Masten won a task order for NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program valued at $75.9 million. Masten will deliver nine science and technology demonstration payloads to the lunar surface near the south pole by December 2022 on the company’s XL-1 lander.

The CLPS payloads, with a mass of about 80 kilograms, will serve as the initial, anchor customer for that mission, Sean Mahoney, chief executive of Masten, said in an interview. He said there are “hundreds” of kilograms of additional payload space available on the lander, and that the company is working to line up additional customers.

[Anonymous No.11545479]

What will you do in the anniversary, /sfg/

[Anonymous No.11545483]

>>11545425
Mars has a whole lot of rust and ice. Sure, you could generate oxygen and stuff, but it's not exactly welcoming.

There is pretty much no pressure on Mars, for all intents and purposes it's like the vacuum of space.

As many people have said, it's not well known how much gravity people need to live and have children. 1/3rd could be enough, or it could be completely uninhabitable.

[Anonymous No.11545485]

>>11545479

[Anonymous No.11545493]

>>11545479
Wait that's not Gagarin, Google tricked me

[Anonymous No.11545499]

>>11545493

[Anonymous No.11545510]

>>11545479
Nothing, because a gendered participation ribbon doesn't mean anything.

[Anonymous No.11545513]

>just a couple months ago we were optimistically speculating about how the 2020s would be the decade we make space our bitch and finally transition to 'the future'

>Three months into the decade it becomes clear that this decade will be defined by a chinese virus

[Anonymous No.11545524]

>>11545513
Imagine caring about the flu lol

[Anonymous No.11545530]

>>11545483
>As many people have said, it's not well known how much gravity people need to live and have children.

Zero. Our bodies adapt to micro-gravity on their own.

[Anonymous No.11545531]

>>11545524
>Just about everything including aerospace shut down due to kung flu
>"lol who cares its just the flu bro!"

[Anonymous No.11545549]

>>11545452
Lead melting is a proxy for the solder in electronics.

[Anonymous No.11545556]

>>11545531
It’ll be over in a few months lol

You know 2020 is actually part of the 2010’s, right? The 20’s don’t start until 2021.

[Anonymous No.11545564]

>>11545524
The Wuhanic plague infected and killed the economy in less than 2 months (with some help from Saudis and Ruskis). We're in Great Depression 2, it's about time you made peace with that. The dow is up quite a bit today, but that's because retards think this thing isn't going to burn across the country like a wildfire until July.

[Anonymous No.11545572]

>>11545564
>We're in Great Depression 2

Lol
Whatever you say schizo doomer

[Anonymous No.11545574]

>>11545295
>double standard
I can imagine you running to your airlock, put on a suit to survive the unsafe near-vacuum icy-hell outside, then walk/drive all the way to a conveniently ready to fly SSTO escape-capsule or reach another base through a Mars-road or even a backup train conveniently installed and maintained beforehand.
So how can you not imagine spacenoids push a button and compartmentalize the problem, float around (injury or not) across safe airlock to the escape capsule, and be immediately out of trouble with more than enough fuel/air to reach the equivalent amount of other spaceship or stations around.

>>11545304
Gravity also make sure everything stuck stay stuck. Bringing up "it's just a lighter Earth" will just get you killed.
You have all the disadvantage of a space station with none of the advantage. No gravity HELP docking for instance and rescue is only one interception away instead of needing a successful takeoff/landing. You don't NEED artificial gravity, it's a bonus.

>it'll have to wait just as long as a space station in Martian orbit.
If you are going to bring up "I have space station with everything I need" we should skip the part where colonist land on Mars for reason other than tourism and instead put those superior space station in place with more resources than Mars, like the Jovian's moons system.

>>11545345
Heat regulation in space is straightforward and don't have to deal with weather variation worse than the arctic. Outside a nuclear meltdown or someone making effort to keep things burning there's less variables to track. A surface base would have to worry about producing enough heat for survival with much larger gap in temperature and a thinner atmosphere for Mars. Just walking outside on Mars will require extra heating and protection, atmosphere don't help you when it's more deadly than vacuum.

Tomorrow we could switch the discussion to which one develop faster: space or surface centric infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.11545578]

>>11545556
>You know 2020 is actually part of the 2010’s, right? The 20’s don’t start until 2021.

[Anonymous No.11545583]

>>11545510
I mean the Yuri thing
>>11545513
The year, sure, the DECADE? Nah

[Anonymous No.11545593]

there's alot of components for artemis being worked on, but i havent heard anything about serious plans for a lunar habitat. where are the astronauts going to stay?

[Anonymous No.11545601]

>>11545578
>I don’t know how a decimal numeral system works and I post on the science board

Amazing

[Anonymous No.11545629]

>>11544766
No word on the cause of the engine explosion yet?

[Anonymous No.11545648]

>>11545629
Looks like nostradamus took a wrong turn in 1550 and ended up on /sci/

[Anonymous No.11545661]

>>11545601
>He doesn't understand that decades always have been, and will always be, defined starting with the 0 years

Be pedantic and reee about it all you want, but that's the way it is in reality, faggot

[Anonymous No.11545665]

>>11545661
>nooooo math is wrong

[Anonymous No.11545678]

>>11545665
Not sure what to tell you. Take it up with society.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020s

[Anonymous No.11545686]

>>11545665
>mathematical elegance > practicality
this is how you end up with the metric system

[Anonymous No.11545715]

>>11545574
>Gravity also make sure everything stuck stay stuck.
Trust orbitalfags to try to make it seem like a bad thing not having debris constantly trying to blow you out of the sky at multiple km/s.

> place with more resources than Mars, like the Jovian's moons system.
And to have no sense of accessibility. Mars has anything you could need available in a matter of months and, relatively to pretty much anywhere else in the solar system, is easy to land and take off from. Comparing that to the sheer gulf of distance involved in reaching jupiter and navigating its massive radiation belts makes it no contest even before you factor in that nothing in that system is actually as easy to land on.

>Heat regulation in space is straightforward
Everything outside of cutting edge theoretics is straightforward. That doesn't mean doing it isn't a constant challenge. It's one more thing you have to deal with that planetfags either don't or have massively less of a headache with.

> Outside a nuclear meltdown or someone making effort to keep things burning there's less variables to track. A surface base would have to worry about producing enough heat for survival with much larger gap in temperature and a thinner atmosphere for Mars.
Two statements that both show you have no concept of how much sheer waste heat humans put out to survive, let alone produce anything. Generating heat is the much less significant problem between the two than rejecting it, and the problems are not symmetrical, insulation is easy and passive as opposed to actively trying to vent your heat on a constant basis so you don't literally melt. And re:suits, being on Mars only constrains the problem space, every significant problem is also a problem in space but space has more in addition.

>Tomorrow we could switch the discussion to which one develop faster: space or surface centric infrastructure.
That should be a fast discussion but orbitalfags are retarded enough to try and draw it out anyway.

[Anonymous No.11545722]

"Great differences in technology exist in the world about which even hardcore technologists are unaware"

wtf does this mean, is this neuralink related? DoD, starlink?

[Anonymous No.11545725]

>>11545722
It’s schizophrenia related

[Anonymous No.11545766]

>>11545686
There is literally nothing practical about a non mathematical system.
It only seems practical to you because of habit, it's like saying english is the most practical language.

[Anonymous No.11545780]

>>11545766
>there's nothing practical about grouping like numbers together to express an arbitrary societal concept
retard

[Anonymous No.11545786]

>>11544690
>Space is empty.
dinosaurs would like to have a word with you

[Anonymous No.11545787]

>>11545722
Vague enough to be true but he's probably referring to something specific.

[Anonymous No.11545789]

>>11545722

[Anonymous No.11545797]

>>11545722
what does he even mean by "great differences"

[Anonymous No.11545813]

>>11545722
Starlink's primary public goal is connecting third worlders and Elong has some firsthand understanding of that goal as a south african, sounds like it's about that. I have no idea why it's presented so bereft of context but whatever gets the people going

[Anonymous No.11545816]

>>11545574
>Gravity also make sure everything stuck stay stuck.
That's the point. Let go of a piece of rubble on Mars and it'll drop to the ground and stay there. Let go of a piece of rubble in orbit and it'll drift away from you. Meaning that constant work is needed to manage free materials in orbit. Which is a bad thing especially for materials that are really tiny such as shards of metal or pebbles.

>No gravity HELP docking
How so? On a planet one would just land the rocket on the designated pad. Sure, it's more challenging than docking, but it is not incredible.

>rescue is only one interception away instead of needing a successful takeoff/landing.
Fair point, but the landing part wouldn't be a significant problem as the technology behind it is being refined right now.

>You don't NEED artificial gravity, it's a bonus.
For everyday living? No, it's needed.

>If you are going to bring up "I have space station with everything I need"
I didn't say that. I said that a surface martian colony would have to wait just as long as an orbital martian colony to get help from Earth.

>Tomorrow we could switch the discussion to which one develop faster: space or surface centric infrastructure.
I say develop both simultaneously. There are plenty of unknowns regarding future space flight and habitation. Only focusing on one possibility is more risky as it might turn out to not be the way of the future. Maybe orbital only is the optimal best, or maybe surface bases are better, or perhaps a mixture of both. No one will know this until it has been attempted, and attempting all possibilities should be strongly encouraged.

[Anonymous No.11545826]

>>11545786
Dinosaurs aren't real. Any fossils you may find resembling dinosaurs were put there by the devil to deceive humanity.

[Anonymous No.11545833]

>>11545826
>this guy was actually fooled into believing the lizardmen aren't real, when in fact the fossils are just their shed skins and they now walk among us

[Anonymous No.11545845]

>>11544793
can someone explain what this is

[Anonymous No.11545912]

>>11545797
Probably niggers vs the rest of the planet

[Anonymous No.11545947]

>>11545912
nah he means parts of the US/Germany/Britian and a few other handful of ventures. Stuff he might have aces too. He has contact up above.

Like do people think neuralink testing isn't already testing in the mil rnd

[Anonymous No.11545972]

>>11545947
Ah.

[Anonymous No.11545982]

>>11545947
Neuralink is an invasive and novel brain implant, tests are years away and that's just for potatoes. And no grunts don't count, unlike actual potatoes they would immediately start tweeting

[Anonymous No.11545997]

>>11545982
I think there is a good chance it could see testing with modern test pilots. Just like an extension on the see through plane helmets. Or something. But realistically, he could be meming. But he probably is saying something with substance

[Anonymous No.11546032]

Any software engineers looking a new gig? Its funny how many opportunities are coming out of all this.

[Anonymous No.11546062]

>>11546032
If you don’t know who Spacebit is (I doubt many do), their a British company aiming to land the first British rover on the Moon in 2021. This rover will piggyback on Astrobotic’s Peregrine lunar lander which will be sent to the Moon by ULA’s Vulcan, on it’s inaugural flight. The most interesting thing about the rover being that it doesn’t follow a conventional design philosophy, that being an understatement...

[Anonymous No.11546076]

>>11546032
>>11546062
Looks quite interesting

[Anonymous No.11546077]

>>11546062
You're terrible, boxbot

[Anonymous No.11546111]

>Rocketlab successfully completes demo recovery test
Some kiwi just became the first rocket sky fisherman

[Anonymous No.11546114]

>>11546032
Too bad the job is temporary, I'm a software engineer graduate(granted my experience is pretty much null) but I doubt I'll be up for the task...

[Anonymous No.11546143]

>>11546114
Apply anyway fuck sake. At least you can look back and say you applied for that.

Does anyone remember the first time SpaceX put up a Janitor job and loads of us applied?

[Anonymous No.11546147]

>>11545479
*blocks your anniversary*

[Anonymous No.11546216]

>>11546143
>tfw didn't get the janny job

Feelsbadman

[Anonymous No.11546241]

>>11545221
helicopter capture is great if you have a small rocket or capsule

[Anonymous No.11546272]

>>11545272
that image is trolling me
>>11546077
lol

[Anonymous No.11546277]

so this made it to drudge, thoughts?

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

[Anonymous No.11546296]

I'm about to get mental problems. Can you tell me any good news or ideas to think of the whole time and distract and calm me? Thinking about mars colonization was really useful at times but I can't get into it currently. Need your stimulation.

[Anonymous No.11546312]

>>11546296
fuck off, nigger

[Anonymous No.11546321]

>>11546296
playthrough off kerbal space program, you have to visit every body and return science data to be complete

>>11546312
only huwhites think about interplanetary colonization

[Anonymous No.11546349]

>>11545221
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08K_aEajzNA

[Anonymous No.11546361]

>>11546277
Interesting, looks pretty convincing. If it's a fake it's a very fucking well made one.

[Anonymous No.11546381]

>>11546361
it was posted here a few days ago, it had its own thread, and I gave him a thoughtful critique that the atmospheric distortion effect was too much like water and needed tweaking to more closely resemble heat waves. I should say that I've had exactly zero experience looking at the moon through a really nice telescope, and maybe it does actually look like water, which is why I posted it here, because someone here might actually have looked at the moon like this and would know better.

[Anonymous No.11546388]

yeah looking at it again, the wavy distortion totally stops at 0:33 but the video keeps going for a few more seconds, it's fake

[Anonymous No.11546391]

>>11546277
My thoughts are, am I supposed to believe this guy just happened to be looking at the Moon through a high power amateur telescope and pull out his camera to start filming just as three alien spacecraft appeared? That's retarded to begin with, but more retarded is the velocity and trajectory of the 'spacecraft', as well as their size. They're rendered like they are orbiting the Moon, except they're going a thousand times too fast. Fake as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11546396]

>>11546381
there's a few things that aren't quite right like any camera zoomed in that much wouldn't shake around like that or sound like an old digital camera being handled and the shadows don't make any sense. Also like you said the "heat" effect is clearly an after-effect overlaid on top of the footage.

[Anonymous No.11546400]

>>11546391
not to mention they'd be a mile across to be that many pixels wide at that distance

[Anonymous No.11546474]

>>11546400
>a mile across
More than that, probably close to 100 miles across

[Anonymous No.11546530]

>>11546400
>not to mention they'd be a mile across to be that many pixels wide at that distance

So what? When we’re talking ayy lmaos all bets are off

[Anonymous No.11546583]

>>11545564
>thinking it's going to end in July

[Anonymous No.11546609]

>>11545845
>can someone explain what this is

[Anonymous No.11546737]

>>11546391
Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if multiple people were at all times filming the moon. Actually the clearest evidence against it is there's only one video of the aliens.

But it's fake because it looks fake. That's all that needs to be said.

[Anonymous No.11546764]

>>11546737
>But it's fake because it looks fake. That's all that needs to be said.

Literally what flat earthers say

[Anonymous No.11546771]

>>11546764
Flat earthers also say how good your mom was

[Anonymous No.11546827]

where do you guys predict we'll be 4 years from now in regards to:
>quantity of space companies (doing something, not just saying they'll do something and collecting funding)
>major government or private backed space projects
>countries, other than the current major players, taking an interest in space
?

[Anonymous No.11546874]

>>11546296
If you want something to think about play chess, or pick up the piano. Astronomy is also cool, 120 dollars for a nice starter 4.5 in telescope. You'll be able to see all the planets and some deep space objects

[Anonymous No.11546888]

>>11546381
Nope this is what the moon looks like through any amateur telescope during the day, can confirm. The heat waves are especially pronounced because of the cool tube and air inside the telescope kept indoors, and the fact that these telescopes are usually on asphalt makes it worse. The vid is fake, but not for those reasons.

[Anonymous No.11547009]

soyuz launch to the iss carrying 3 astronauts
starts in about an hour

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

[Anonymous No.11547011]

>>11547009
>*coughs*

[Anonymous No.11547083]

>>11545513
I had high hopes for this decade.

[Anonymous No.11547127]

>>11547009
We launch now, and hopefully posting available again.

[Anonymous No.11547131]

>>11546143
Very well

[Anonymous No.11547136]

>>11545513
the year has been a massive disaster since day 1, there have been very few good things that have happened this year

[Anonymous No.11547155]

>>11547136
The plague is a good thing. People need periodic mass adversity.

[Anonymous No.11547158]

>>11545513
Don't worry the government will fund spaceflight as usual even if the private sector is kill from the recession.

[Anonymous No.11547163]

>1 minute

[Anonymous No.11547192]

Oh what a night!

[Anonymous No.11547202]

Rocket Lab making progress on their recovery efforts

[Anonymous No.11547206]

>>11547202
how much cheaper will this make electron?

[Anonymous No.11547209]

Soyuz MS-16 is of launch, comrade!

[Anonymous No.11547212]

boinginging
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIgOdZJjWek

[Anonymous No.11547214]

>>11547206
It's impossible to say until they actually catch one and examine it thoroughly. Reminds me of Elon's comment after SpaceX's first landing "We're a little bit like the dog that caught the bus"

[Anonymous No.11547218]

>>11544430
>If something go wrong and you're down a fucking gravity hole you are even more fucked.
Not really because that same gravity is extremely beneficial to people's well-being while not relying on centrifugal force, and obviously Mars colonies are going to have triple redundant backups and fail-safes for everything including food and water and once that mass or production/filtration/etc. capacity has been deposited on Mars it costs almost nothing/no energy to store it and it's at least roughly where it supposed to be. There's plenty that can go wrong in transit/space that can not be accounted for with contingency plans too. The whole point of SpaceX realizing what it'd take for viable Mars colonies was realizing you have to account for pretty much everything that can go wrong, and if done properly it's about as dangerous as a exploratory sea voyage to one of the poles, maybe even less so, just requiring several orders of magnitude more resources.

[Anonymous No.11547219]

Nominal launch and beautiful Korolyev cross. Really wish the Russians would upgrade from 240p though.

[Anonymous No.11547221]

>>11547206
I remember Beck saying it's not about making Electron cheaper, but increasing launch candence.

[Anonymous No.11547231]

>>11547219
It not Russia, it NASA fault, they rebroadcasting Roscosmos stream in potato quality for some completely unknown reason.
You can watch launch on Roscosmos VK page in 1080p.

[Anonymous No.11547236]

>>11547221
Which also makes stuff cheaper
But then you discover you have no payloads left

[Anonymous No.11547241]

Good show, Space Gopniks.

[Anonymous No.11547244]

>>11544971
insanely difficult, you need to know the wind speed picks up to 700mph in sulfiric acid and carbon dioxide storms.

People have this idea you wont be living on a literal ocean that operates like the atmosphere with its own storm cells that btfo earth

[Anonymous No.11547346]

>>11547236
>But then you discover you have no payloads left
rocket lab buying out oneweb?

[Anonymous No.11547392]

>>11547241
>>11547219
Russians always have the best space aesthetic

[Anonymous No.11547418]

>>11546530
Not it fucking would not
Anything that large would be shitting heat and be visible from the fucking outer solar system with real telescopes

[Anonymous No.11547449]

has anyone by any chance the original thunderfoot quote about how he thinks reusable rockets are e meme?

[Anonymous No.11547468]

>>11547449
Keep that insufferable cunt away.

[Anonymous No.11547517]

[Anonymous No.11547522]

[Anonymous No.11547531]

[Anonymous No.11547536]

[Anonymous No.11547557]

>>11547517
>>11547522
>>11547531
>>11547536
kino

[Anonymous No.11547582]

>>11544756
Weak gravity is deleterious on human health and spinning entire surface habitats is extremely impractical due to friction.

[Anonymous No.11547588]

>>11547582
>Weak gravity is deleterious on human health
0 gravity is, for all we know weak gravity is fine

[Anonymous No.11547606]

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2020_Phase_I_Phase_II/Direct_Multipixel_Imaging_and_Spectroscopy_of_an_Exoplanet/

[Anonymous No.11547611]

>>11547582
Low gravity has never been tested
Zero =! low

[Anonymous No.11547617]

>>11547606
>we confirmed that a mission to the strong interference region of the SGL (beyond 547.6 AU) carrying a meter-class telescope with a solar coronagraph would directly image a habitable Earth-like exoplanet within our stellar neighborhood
another JPL plan that'll never see the light of day, but it would be incredible if they did it
550AU is way too impractical, though

[Anonymous No.11547632]

>>11545513
>>11545524
>>11545531
>>11545564
>>11545572
>>11546583
>>11545556
>>11547083
>>11547136
>>11547155
>>11547158
It is just an election year for the US. All the attention on this fat nothing burger of a disease is just to distract and control people for this year specifically. I keep telling people that "China is bad "and people said I was racist, yet they never told me why I wasn't correct. Now this shit happens and no one will shut up about how China is bad.

The nice thing about it is that more people are getting into gardening and prepping. Two things that will help stabilize against any real future disasters and something every government has been trying to get citizens to do since WW2 but companies have been trying to squash and going so far as to make TV shows about how crazy preppers are; despite natural disasters tearing the shit out of entire communities every fucking year.

But, if this shit is killing the future of space in our life time I will be fucking livid to no end. All we have are a few scant satellites in orbit, a few rovers, and some half-assed space station that does almost nothing except t o drain money away from real advancements.

How old do you think any of your will be when/if we have a Moon base, non-earth-orbit space stations, and/or a Mars base?

/coffee rant

[Anonymous No.11547635]

>>11545766
>>11545686
>>11545665
>>11545661
>>11545601
>>11545578
I hated 1999-2000 new years. My OCD reached new autistic heights then. Any of you who lived through that and KNOW what I'm talking about have my sympathy, brothers.

[Anonymous No.11547638]

>>11547635
>Any of you who lived through that and KNOW what I'm talking about have my sympathy, brothers.
Yeah, I was there. I also had the joy of trying to explain to an extended family of luddites that y2k was not going to send us to the stone age.
Repeatedly.
Trying.
With varying success.

[Anonymous No.11547643]

>>11547632
>The 'rona killing spaceflight
I see this idea bumping around and I don't buy it one bit. For one, /sfg/ thinks everything is killing spaceflight all the time. For two, I don't see Elom letting it stop him and SpaceX is the only thing I actually have faith in advancing spaceflight as a whole right now.

[Anonymous No.11547646]

>>11547638
just wait until the 2038 problem to try to explain to them that it's a real issue this time

[Anonymous No.11547652]

>>11547643
>I don't see Elom letting it stop him and SpaceX
SpaceX sends supplies to the ISS, they're one of the few ACTUALLY necessary businesses to keep operating.

[Anonymous No.11547654]

>>11547638
Did you also try to explain to them that 2,000 wasn't the new century and that 2001 was?

>tfw that Prince song keep playing all the god damn time.

>>11547643
Any moment that SpaceX has to curtsy to this current bullshit is a moment taken away from the future of space. That includes every tweet Elon makes about it, every delay due to launch push back due to people not coming to work because of Chinese flu fears, and when people need to pack their own lunches or leave to get food because the taco truck does not show up for the same reason.

The state of space technology is fucking abysmal, despite the amazing feats done in the past 10 years. What is happening now with space is what your parents should have been talking about in their childhood. Not us pining away hoping that we will live to see someone walk on Mars.

[Anonymous No.11547657]

>>11547643
Look at all the small companies that have folded over the last month. SpaceX is down to a skeleton crew. NASA is running on a skeleton crew. The Soyuz launch today was also on a skeleton crew.
Everything is running on the fucking backburner.

And once the dust has settled and it's time to tally up the total cost for all the shit that's been shut down and the programs that's going to be set up, you can be damn sure that "space exploration" is going to be way down on the list of things most politicians are willing to spend money on.

>>11547652
I learned my lesson well back then, now I'm just going to be either incommunicado or play dumb.

>>11547654
Yeah, I had that argument back when shitfaced and stoned out of my mind on new years eve even.

[Anonymous No.11547661]

>>11547657
Whoops, one of them was intended for >>11547646 but I guess you figured that out.

[Anonymous No.11547663]

>>11547654
>and when people need to pack their own lunches or leave to get food because the taco truck does not show up for the same reason.
>...
>Haysus fucks up the welds due to low blood sugar because the taco truck driver's wife conveinced him to stay home because of WuFlu
>next test blows up on the pad

God fucking damn it, China!!!!

[Anonymous No.11547674]

>>11547218
>SpaceX
By themselves they don't have any plan or all the technologies needed to follow their crazy CEO, they can build a big ass rocket so naturally they'll advertise their cargo spaceship as a reusable space Conestoga for the new frontier.
If they can get one flying while a suitable president is at the helm they might at least get paid to carry a moon base.

[Anonymous No.11547676]

Which is worse for space:

1: Chinese flu
2: Boeing steeling funds
3: Taco truck not showing up at Boca Chica
4: NASA red tape

[Anonymous No.11547678]

>>11547676
No Taco Truck, no Methane.

[Anonymous No.11547679]

>>11547657
>"space exploration" is going to be way down on the list of things most politicians are willing to spend money on.

NASA budget is roughly the same for 50 years when adjusted for inflation. No politician wants to be known as someone who defunded NASA, the most positively viewed part of US government.

The money will be there, we just have to ensure that it goes to the likes of SpaceX rather than OldSpace cronies.

[Anonymous No.11547686]

>>11547679
NASA doesn't do anything, but suck money.

[Anonymous No.11547689]

>>11547679
Wait and see. There will be unpopular cuts in the wake of this shit. You've been printing money and buying dips for weeks.

[Anonymous No.11547693]

>>11547686
Some of that money goes to SpaceX through COTS programs.

[Anonymous No.11547694]

why are so many people against the military being in space? why are so many astronauts against regular people being in space?

[Anonymous No.11547695]

>>11547686
The same could be said of science.

[Anonymous No.11547704]

>>11547694
>why are so many people against the military being in space?
there are some people who are just anti-space altogether and want to treat it like a national park or no-mans-land, but afaik most people don't care
>why are so many astronauts against regular people being in space?
astronauts hated the tourists who came to the ISS, but I don't see why they'd give a shit about people going to another space station

[Anonymous No.11547711]

>>11547695
"Science," is a term, not an organization or even a tool.

>>11547694
>why are so many people against the military being in space?
You mean hippy-dippy peace types with inaccurate world views and foreign governments who don't want to get pummeled into dust? Military in space is a great idea. Just don't let China into space. That wouldn't end well for anyone on Earth.

>why are so many astronauts against regular people being in space?
Job security.

[Anonymous No.11547757]

>>11547679
>the most positively viewed part of the US Government
that's not USPS but yes you're right

[Anonymous No.11547779]

>>11547617
Jusging by James Web it‘d take a century to even build and verify it.

[Anonymous No.11547785]

>>11547704
>why are so many astronauts against regular people being in space?

They have huge superiority complexes and have been brainwashed that you need five different degrees and 10000 hours flying jet planes to press buttons on pre assembled experiments in the ISS. So naturally they seethe over the fact that someone like a commercial diver might be more effective than them at fixing shit on an EVA.

[Anonymous No.11547798]

live soyuz arrival at ISS:
https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1jMKgQdqVDlJL

[Anonymous No.11547800]

>>11547522
>>11547531
>>11547536
>>11547517
Beautiful

[Anonymous No.11547802]

>>11547694
>why are so many people against the military being in space?
General "military bad!" attitude. Especially if the US is involved. Anti-space military sentiment made sense during the Cold War when it was believed that any new territory wars could start atomic armageddon, but not nowadays.

>why are so many astronauts against regular people being in space?
Hot take, because regular people would risk the jobs of astronauts. Look at the kind of discoveries and research that astronauts do in the ISS, smelling roses, growing beans, doing a new exercise routine, etc. These are pretty basic stuff. Stuff that a regular person might try to do in space anyways. This would remove those things from potential grants for the government space agencies to farm for money, and thus could harm the livelihood of the astronauts.

Although, the more likely answer is due to frustration of having to go through rigorous training to be an astronaut and then seeing Jimmy Johnson, ball cap factory worker, float around not taking anything seriously.

[Anonymous No.11547803]

>>11547798
It's like a rave party with RCS thrusters set to HARD BASS, very gopnik.

[Anonymous No.11547808]

>>11547798
Kino

[Anonymous No.11547814]

>>11547808
normally livestreams like this are boring as fuck, but this is really compelling

[Anonymous No.11547824]

>>11547814
Aye

[Anonymous No.11547825]

>>11547798
I wish I could reason Russian so I know what the display means.

[Anonymous No.11547828]

CONTACT, HOOKS ENGAGED

[Anonymous No.11547836]

>>11547136
This year is fine. The problem is you.

[Anonymous No.11547839]

>>11547798
Already? I thought it took days.

[Anonymous No.11547840]

>>11547236
>But then you discover you have no payloads left
Low launch rates are due to a small amount of payloads, small amount of payloads are due to low launch rates. It's a trap that's keeping space flight from blooming. To break the trap high launch cadence and low launch costs are needed even if there is no need for it.

[Anonymous No.11547842]

>>11547582
>Weak gravity is deleterious on human health

No it isn’t. It’s deleterious if you intend to return to Earth.

[Anonymous No.11547845]

>>11547418
>Anything that large would be shitting heat and be visible from the fucking outer solar system with real telescopes

They don’t emit heat with alien super tech

[Anonymous No.11547848]

>>11547845
>aliens defeat entropy

[Anonymous No.11547851]

11547845
>>>/x/
go home

[Anonymous No.11547853]

Americans and Russians together have arrived at the ISS in a Russian space rocket. WW3 couldn't be farther in our time

[Anonymous No.11547854]

>>11547845
Then the spaceships might as well be piloted by wondrous Welsh wizards.

[Anonymous No.11547855]

>>11547848
>aliens defeat entropy

Hell yeah. She’s a weak bitch so it isn’t that hard

[Anonymous No.11547856]

>>11547853
[China has joined the match]

[Anonymous No.11547864]

>>11544515

Do you want your children to have deformed bodies as well? Because colonizing space in anything but 1G is how you make all future generations physically deformed if not miscarried.

[Anonymous No.11547889]

>>11547839
Only takes 6 hours with Soyuz’s super-fast rendezvous capability

[Anonymous No.11547908]

>>11547848
can you nuke entropy?

[Anonymous No.11547915]

>>11547864
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.11547918]

>>11547915

[Anonymous No.11547925]

if spacex wanted to send starships to the moon, how would they refuel there? are they just going to land a bunch of ships full of fuel then return only a handful of ships, leaving the rest behind?

[Anonymous No.11547938]

>>11547864
>Do you want your children to have deformed bodies as well?

Adaptation to a different environment is not deformity. In respect to that environment, Earth humans are deformed.

[Anonymous No.11547943]

>>11547925
It ought to have enough delta/v to not need to refuel.

[Anonymous No.11547957]

>>11547856
I'm sure we'll find a way to work together

[Anonymous No.11547976]

>>11547864
>>11547915
>>11547938
>>11547918
Inyalowda niggers all of you

[Anonymous No.11547981]

>>11547957
China shouldn’t even be permitted in space.

[Anonymous No.11547985]

>>11547925
I doubt a single launch would work but if they ever managed to refuel the ship while in Earth orbit they'd have far enough fuel to go and come back.
"back" might not include a powered landing thought, they can't aerobrake that easily and reducing their velocity will use enough fuel to either make the mission minimalist or impossible without another refuel.

[Anonymous No.11547997]

>>11547925
Expandable Starship for beyond LEO (this is why Musk want to build a cheap Starship)

Full reusable Starship for LEO (like mass deploy Starlink)

Musk's obviously a mastermind

[Anonymous No.11547998]

>>11547757
>USPS
People shoot up the USPS though. Literally, no one ever says "Going NASA," but they do say, "Going Postal," don't they?

[Anonymous No.11547999]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/china-suffers-its-second-launch-failure-in-less-than-a-month/

why didnt we talk about this?

[Anonymous No.11548005]

>>11547999
Because we didn't know? China doesn't really advertise and most of us don't read Arse Technica.

[Anonymous No.11548035]

>>11547999
NASA snipers need to make it less obvious

[Anonymous No.11548060]

>>11547999
I guess they made the right choice not streaming it live then.

[Anonymous No.11548088]

>>11548035
Not like 3B hasn't failed the 3rd stage before or anything.

Communist Space Program gonna Communist.

[Anonymous No.11548110]

>>11547997
do you mean "expandable" or "expendable"

[Anonymous No.11548115]

>>11547981
We'll need their inexhaustible supply of bodies to work the asteroids

[Anonymous No.11548123]

>>11548115

[Anonymous No.11548128]

>>11547853
Look at space budgets as a percentage of GDP.
That means nothing for national priorities or outlook.
And the US is paying tens of millions of dollars for those seats.

[Anonymous No.11548132]

>>11548123

[Anonymous No.11548145]

>>11548123
Higher res

[Anonymous No.11548160]

>>11548110
"expendable" ok

[Anonymous No.11548163]

>>11548160

[Anonymous No.11548186]

>>11547854
It may well be true, welsh is most definitely an alien language.

[Anonymous No.11548244]

https://youtu.be/ZBhQPHwJWdI
https://youtu.be/q9rW3RZV4kI

[Anonymous No.11548300]

Today's Long March 3B flight carrying a payload for Indonesia ended in failure during third stage flight.

https://twitter.com/sybil_ms/status/1248253670476546048

[Anonymous No.11548336]

>>11548300
Failed the payload, succeed in killing chinese villagers.
Great succes for china!!!

[Anonymous No.11548356]

>>11548336
China will grow larger!

[Anonymous No.11548359]

>>11547449
"Nah dude, those SpaceX engineers just don't get it, rocket engines work by combining OXYGEN and FUEL in a COMBUSTION CHAMBER, there's just no way to have a machine operate under those conditions and not be destroyed after practically one use! I am very smart by the way, check out my amateur time lapse recordings of Jupiter and high speed clips from the time I dropped sodium alloy into water."

[Anonymous No.11548364]

>>11547582
>friction
No significant friction on maglev bearings or air bearings, bro

[Anonymous No.11548370]

>>11548359
He comes off as pretending to be smarter than he is. My guess is that his perceived self-intellect plays a large part in his self-image.

[Anonymous No.11548374]

>>11547449

[Anonymous No.11548380]

>>11548374

[Anonymous No.11548385]

>>11548380

[Anonymous No.11548401]

>>11548374
>>11548380
>>11548385
God what an insufferable little prick he is. I was hoping he ended himself after Brexit, but no such luck.

[Anonymous No.11548407]

>>11548374
>>11548380
>>11548385
This kind of reminds me of that edgy atheist phase that some kids go through in high school. They tend to grow out of it eventually, but it looks like he never did.

[Anonymous No.11548421]

>>11548374
>>11548380
>>11548385
what a fucking contrarian, jesus

[Anonymous No.11548437]

>>11548407
He’s been in that phase his whole life

[Anonymous No.11548464]

>>11548401
>>11548407
>>11548421
Just wait until you see the video where he takes an image of a landing F9 booster with Mach condensation around it, and uses it as proof that landing boosters is too hot and claims that SpaceX is struggling with reuse.

[Anonymous No.11548473]

>>11547632
Corona may be killing CHINESE spaceflight. Of their last three launches since the outbreak, TWO HAVE FAILED, including the one that was just a few hours ago.

This may be further evidence that the impact to their skilled workforce is heavier than they've reported.

[Anonymous No.11548491]

>>11548464
>uses it as proof that landing boosters is too hot
And this guy supposedly works as a scientist?
Jesus, the bar must be low.

[Anonymous No.11548502]

>>11548491
I think he specialized in chemistry, so he might be alright in that field, but poor in others. I "liked" one of his videos where he pretty much makes a case against space flight in general in order to dis on the USSF.

[Anonymous No.11548507]

>>11548502
>dissing on the USSF
the entire purpose of the USSF is to get the satellite desk jockeys out from underneath the fighter pilots

[Anonymous No.11548530]

>>11548507
I think he was just taking a jab at the orange man rather than actually having grievances against the USSF as a concept. It's just amusing that in the video he went into so much detail about how hard it is to get into orbit, and thus it's pointless for the USSF to exist since it can't put significant hardware into space or something like that. He just goes so deep into that argument that one would have to ask "then what's the point in going to space at all?".

[Anonymous No.11548533]

>>11548530
>man famous only for crawling up his own ass crawls up own ass live on video
amazing, thank you for sharing this with us

[Anonymous No.11548542]

>>11548530
>it's pointless for the USSF to exist since it can't put significant hardware into space

>can't put significant hardware into space

[Anonymous No.11548543]

>>11548542
there's like, three of those left and they're all booked
they discontinued the production line because it was too expensive

[Anonymous No.11548545]

>>11548542
Yeah but you know, he was probably shifting the goalpost so that "they can't put it into space on their own".

[Anonymous No.11548570]

>>11548543
>there's like, three of those left and they're all booked

Yes, all booked with Class C payloads through to 2024

>they discontinued the production line because it was too expensive

Partly because there’s a relatively small amount of Class C payloads for it to lift, simple supply and demand.

[Anonymous No.11548583]

>>11547925
Starship can land on the Moon with enough propellant to return to Earth without needing any ISRU. The trade off is they need to refill it twice in orbit, once in LEO and once in a highly elliptical Earth orbit, but they can do that quickly by staging fuel in a Tanker that boosts along with Starship as it departs LEO. Basically, twice the refueling launch cost of a Mars mission, but much more simple ground ops and faster mission cadence.

In fact, if they wanted to, they could do oxygen-only ISRU on the Moon (since it's made almost totally of oxides), and since oxygen makes up 3/4ths of the propellant mass, they can short load on oxygen for a Starship going to the Moon and instead pack more payload mass, then once they land they can remove the payload and refill the missing oxygen and be able to launch back to Earth. In that case ISRU would help the mission effectiveness, but isn't vitally important.

[Anonymous No.11548588]

>>11547997
>this is why Musk want to build a cheap Starship
Elon wants a cheap Starship because it makes everything cheaper, not because he plans on throwing them away.

[Anonymous No.11548701]

So why haven’t any working SSTOs been constructed? What exactly makes them so hard or even impossible to construct?

[Anonymous No.11548713]

>>11548701
Mother earth has a heavy embrace, she is smothering us.

[Anonymous No.11548718]

>>11548701
>What exactly makes them so hard or even impossible to construct?
Do you happen to have some miracle fuel or miracle engines that have the TWR required?
I mean, we could probably make some mini SSTO , but it wouldn't be able to deliver anything meaningful up there.
If all you were looking for was to deliver a six pack to the ISS, then sure.

[Anonymous No.11548745]

>>11547531
>>11547536
I love the industrial, un-glamorous look of Soyuz launches. It's like a glimpse into a brighter world of mundane and routine transport to space. Almost makes you forget about the price tag.

[Anonymous No.11548757]

>>11548718
So is it thrust-to-weight-ratio or the maximum achievable delta/v using chemical thrusters or what? Could you make a single stage with enough delta/v to enter LOE but it would have to be so big that lifting it initially without boosters would be difficult, or could a single stage simply not have enough delta/v to reach orbit carrying any meaningful payload mass?

[Anonymous No.11548793]

>>11547632
I do actually think we'll have a functional if somewhat gimpy moon base in the next ~6 years thanks to Trump's desire for a legacy. Beyond that, I think the two madcap billionaires who want to see humans in space have us pretty well covered.

Jeff Who runs the largest and most sophisticated distribution service in history, and Musky (aside from his other ventures) is about to own the biggest leap forward in telecomm since the Internet itself came into being. Neither of those men will give up on space travel because they know what it means for humanity's future. If for whatever stupid hypothetical nonsense reason NASA were shut down tomorrow, I'd still be confident in the next decade being a renaissance for the space industry.

[Anonymous No.11548805]

>>11548757
Single stage performance requires juggling delta V budget with thrust to weight ratio. Delta V budget is a function involving both Isp and vehicle mass fraction. At minimum, you need a single stage that can get you 9.5 km/s of delta V while also being able to lift off of the launch pad with a TWR around 1.2 while full of propellant and payload. That's really hard, but doable.

What makes SSTO almost impossible is, it's effectively useless unless you can also make it reusable. In order to have a reusable SSTO, you need to survive reentry and be able to land. Either landing propulsively or aerodynamically (gliding), you're adding to the mass you have in orbit (propellent and/or structure), and reducing your mass fraction. You're also required to have TPS coatings, which further reduces mass fraction. To compensate for reduced mass fraction, you can try to increase Isp, but chemicals only give you so much Isp and hydrogen is so low density that it eats your mass fraction even worse.

Reusable SSTO is a hard problem because you're trying to accomplish several goals which have a direct negative impact upon each other's performance. SSTO requires very high mass fraction, but you need TPS, so the TPS needs to be thin and lightweight, which makes it fragile and require a lot of preventative maintenance work, while still reducing performance because no TPS system weighs as little as a lack of TPS. Basically we don't have magic materials or magic engines with magic thrust to weight ratio and magic efficiency, so reusable SSTO aroudn Earth doesn't work.

The solution is to break the vehicle into two reusable stages. Only the upper stage needs TPS, which vastly reduces overall mass and complexity. The lower stage can use a pile of engines because it stages off 3 km/s into flight anyway, instead of being hauled to orbit. Upper stage by extension requires 6.5 km/s instead of 9.5 km/s, making everything easier. Payload mass is way better, reusability way easier.

[Anonymous No.11548808]

>>11548757
You can solve any problem in rocketry with high thrust and delta-v combined. It's kind of pointless to use that as a basis for any argument as it just begs for a magical solution.

[Anonymous No.11548813]

>>11548793
I find it very sad how we basically hand all industrial power and decision power over the future of mankind to plutocrat.

[Anonymous No.11548819]

>>11548701
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfc2Jg1gkKA
Everyday Estronaut has you covered. For all his faults, his videos are very well-researched and organized. I don't think HULLO has done a video exclusively on why SSTOs are bad, or I'd link that too.

[Anonymous No.11548822]

>>11548813
>Rich man bad

Cry more hobo

[Anonymous No.11548840]

>>11548813
It is by far the most efficient way to go. The resources of a small country, focused on the goals of a single individual, can go extremely far. You can't get that kind of fiscal and ideological focus from any sort of democracy.

[Anonymous No.11548841]

>>11548805
Cont.
Things that would make reusable SSTO around Earth possible and practical;

Engines that could achieve 600 Isp or greater with a thrust to weight ratio comparable to chemical engines (at least 50:1).
Engines that could achieve TWR of 300 or greater, with efficiency in the same range as hydrolox engines (360 to 450, sea level to vacuum).
Structural materials that could partially or fully withstand reentry heating while having comparable specific strength to steel, AL-Li alloy, or carbon fiber composites.
Structural materials that still required TPS coatings but had specific strengths far in excess of steel, Al-Li alloy, or CFCs.

None of these technologies are very likely to be possible or feasible. Furthermore, literally every single one of these technologies would give you far greater payload mass fraction, robustness, and overall payload mass per launch, if used on a reusable TSTO instead of a reusable SSTO. Reusable TSTO is simply a better vehicle architecture given the high minimum delta V requirements.

With that being said, there are niches where SSTO makes sense. Unfortunately for advocates for SSTO, all of these niches are only found on other worlds, like the Moon and Mars. There's no need for a Moon Orbit shuttle vehicle to use multiple stages or boosters, because with a round trip delta V budget of only ~4 km/s, doing that single-stage is easy. Mars Orbit round-trip is actually slightly easier in terms of delta V, only requiring 3 km/s to reach low Mars orbit, and a tiny delta V in order to initiate aerobraking and reentry for propulsive landing (say another 500 m/s, for 3.5 km/s total). Forth these worlds, multi-stage vehicles would be used only for launching things away on interplanetary trajectories. In the case of Starship Super Heavy, the Super Heavy Booster would actually be able to drop Starship off fully loaded directly into low Mars orbit, AND return via aerodynamic reentry and propulsive landing.

[Anonymous No.11548843]

>>11548813
>I find it sad that the big decisions are being made by individuals competent enough to be highly successful in the highly predatory global industry market instead of the lowest common denominator of dumb facebook ape

[Anonymous No.11548849]

>>11547999
>make trash
>it breaks
>surprise.jpg

[Anonymous No.11548852]

>>11548701
>hauling all the mass to the orbit instead of dropping most of it mid-flight when it's still easy
>just to heroically drag it back through the reentry heating, essentially fighting you own energy you spent building the velocity on your way to orbit
All of this just to avoid one separation event. Which simplifies things, but not nearly as much as the single stage complicates them.

[Anonymous No.11548911]

Boeing got absolutely fucking BTFO'd today.

https://www.docdroid.net/EvbakaZ/glssssredacted-version-pdf

>In sum, my comparative assessment of these proposals in the non-price area do not lead me to conclude that a tradeoff to the higher priced proposal is in the best interest of the government, since in my view, SpaceX has the superior Technical Approach, a slightly superior Management Plan, and has, by a small margin, the best Past Performance among the other offerors. This, combined with the fact it also proposed the lowest evaluated price, leads me to select SpaceX for the initial GLS contract based on initial proposals.

Some absolutely choice words in that document.

[Anonymous No.11548920]

>>11548911
holy FUCK
Boing on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.11548925]

>>11548911
Boeing cut back on their bribe budget and it cost them dearly

[Anonymous No.11548929]

>>11548911
>SpaceX not only reliable on technical/performance/design merit but offers the cheapest option
Why wouldn't anyone choose them? Seems like a no brainer.

[Anonymous No.11548935]

>>11548929
Significantly cheaper than the next lowest (SNC). They must be offering 1/2 the price of Boeing at least.

[Anonymous No.11548943]

>>11548920
>>11548925
>>11548925
>>11548911
>>11548929

ONE. NOTHING WRONG WITH ME.

>However, Boeing’s price proposal included an inaccurate conditional assumption and two exceptions to the contract terms, which Boeing used as the basis for its proposed pricing.

TWO. NOTHING WRONG WITH ME.

>As a result, the total evaluated price for NGIS, SNC, and SpaceX was determined fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition. Specifically, three out of four priced offers were received from responsive and responsible offerors, competing independently, to satisfy the Government’s expressed requirements, and there was no finding that any of the prices were unreasonable or unbalanced. The SEB was unable to determine whether Boeing’s proposed price was reasonable given its inaccurate conditional assumption and exceptions to the contract terms.

[Anonymous No.11548959]

>>11548943

THREE. NOTHING WRONG WITH ME.

>This offeror’s evaluation results and my assessment thereof, combined with the relative order of importance of the RFP’s evaluation factors, have led me to conclude that Boeing is not competitive for award.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.11549005]

>>11548959
based offeror

[Anonymous No.11549035]

Boeing exe's have been too greedy with sucking the taxpayer tit and forgot they also need to have some results now and then.
it's a pity that those guys are never the ones who get punished for this kind of travesty.

[Anonymous No.11549047]

>>11548911
>>11548943
>>11548959
So when will Boeing decisively win this contract?

[Anonymous No.11549051]

>>11548911
>>11548943
>>11548959
Let the Boeing hit the floor.

[Anonymous No.11549091]

>>11548840
History also demonstrated it as the most direct way for a disaster.
A democracy would give you something that profit to everyone. Not just the friends of whoever is in power.

>>11548843
>competent
>plutocrat who inherited their fortune or were handed the money of others' work.
No wonder the US let an idiot become president.

[Anonymous No.11549099]

>>11549051
There is a 737 MAX joke in here somewhere.

[Anonymous No.11549100]

>>11549091
>A democracy would give you something that profit to everyone.

Do you actually believe this?

[Anonymous No.11549104]

let's not get into politics in this thread again

[Anonymous No.11549128]

>>11548841
how would it be possible that you need less delta V for low mars orbit than to orbit the moon???

[Anonymous No.11549133]

>>11549100
I don't need to believe, history demonstrated that only democracy with responsible representant brought prosperity to everyone.
Whereas a retard who have power but no incentive and no responsibility will only serve his personal interest and lie about it.

>>11549104
Afraid politic is the only way you'll see grand space project done.

[Anonymous No.11549163]

>>11549133
>Afraid politic is the only way you'll see grand space project done.
Meanwhile corporate rocketry paves the way forward while governments keep pursuing dead-end jobs projects to satisfy constituents. Everyone involved in this discussion is retarded but this is actively disingenuous. You sound like a eurofag and in that case this goes double but it applies pretty much everywhere.

[Anonymous No.11549214]

>>11549104
>>11549133
>Afraid politic is the only way you'll see grand space project done.
This. It's through politics governments stopped the space advancements and it is through politics they will return to space

[Anonymous No.11549222]

>>11549133
>history demonstrated that only democracy with responsible representant brought prosperity to everyone.

[Anonymous No.11549226]

>>11547694
Military in space (as in actual soldiers going to space) is completely useless right now and probably for a few decades.

>>11547999
China launch record isn't too stellar right now

[Anonymous No.11549232]

>>11549214
The "we are going back to the moon, and this time it's her turn" is probably the only reason why these new moon missions won't be cancelled even when the next president takes office.
So yeah, politics will take us back to space.

[Anonymous No.11549237]

>>11549214
t. stockholm syndrome

[Anonymous No.11549238]

>>11549163
Not that guy but I have a SLIGHT mistrust in companies leading us into the future, I don't want to end up in some corporate-run space cyberpunk shithole
>>11549232
Aye, we have to play along if we want to see further investment in space from rich fucks and governments

[Anonymous No.11549245]

>>11548911
holy fuck, it's finally happening.
boomerspace have had their last BOING

[Anonymous No.11549246]

>>11549237
As I said I'm not willing to give it all to companies. Not even a little bit.

[Anonymous No.11549266]

>>11549238
Degeneration into a cyberpunk shithole has nothing to do with space, though. It has everything to do with governments actively colluding with whoever can mine the most/highest quality data on their constituents. Relying on governments to get us into space just means we get that cyberpunk future without any meaningful space infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.11549267]

>>11549238
>Not that guy but I have a SLIGHT mistrust in companies leading us into the future, I don't want to end up in some corporate-run space cyberpunk shithole

Then leave. Space is the final frontier. There will always be more room.

[Anonymous No.11549272]

>>11548911
>>11548943
it begins

[Anonymous No.11549279]

>>11548911
>>11548943
>>11548959

[Anonymous No.11549297]

>>11549091
You're an actual child- if not physically then at least mentally. Bill Gates' charity foundation is probably responsible for saving tens of millions of lives to date. Musk is funding a satellite constellation that will make the internet accessible to anyone on earth who can get their hands on an antenna.

Democracies are hilariously exploitable and universally corrupt. It's within the obfuscating framework of a democracy (or really any traditional form of government) that you have the problem of politicians benefiting themselves and their friends off the public's dollar. A billionaire has to make sure that the companies they operate are market-viable (unless they're a defense contractor and thus part of the problem with democracies). A democracy has no incentive to spend or act efficiently because the political machine hides the bad behavior of politicians.

[Anonymous No.11549315]

>>11549238
The corporation is a superior system of governance to the state. A corporation has to actually compete for your dollar.

[Anonymous No.11549324]

>>11549315
t. state school undergrad who has never actually had a job

[Anonymous No.11549334]

>>11548701
They aren‘t hard or impossible. Just really, really useless. Just put a stage on there and get a shitton more performance.

[Anonymous No.11549342]

>>11548929
Lobbying, usually.

[Anonymous No.11549347]

>>11549091
>>competent
>>plutocrat who inherited their fortune or were handed the money of others' work.

>implying Elon and Jeff Who didn't work for their fortunes
Elon in particular has built himself up from near bankruptcy several times. If he's not competent, then what does that say about you, who has never been and will never be a millionaire, let alone billionaire?

[Anonymous No.11549361]

>>11549128
The delta V for a round trip, anon. The Moon requires ~1.8 km/s of delta V to launch into orbit from, and an equal amount to go from low Moon orbit to the surface.
Mars orbit requires 3 km/s to achieve, launching from the surface, and 3 km/s to return. However, since Mars has an atmosphere, you only need to supply about 30 m/s of delta V propulsively in order to intercept the atmosphere and slow down aerodynamically, then another 200 or 300 m/s to propulsively land. The fact that Mars has an atmosphere to use as a braking mechanism is what allows manned missions to Mars to even be considered in the first place, it's a HUGE benefit.
And yet there are retards out there who insist that it would make more sense to build large orbit-only spacecraft to get to Mars and come back purely propulsively. They're obviously wrong.

[Anonymous No.11549364]

>>11548911
>I felt a great disturbance in Old Space, as if hundreds of contractors suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly BTFO. I think some Significant Weaknesses were found.
This is one hell of a big oof

[Anonymous No.11549370]

New >>11549369

[Anonymous No.11549398]

>>11549361
ah i see thanks for explaining

[Anonymous No.11549590]

>>11544326
I love The Expanse but the MCR flag looks like shit. Looks like some shitty drawing made in Flash.

[Anonymous No.11549621]

>>11549324
It's always these faggots who have never had a job or has had it easy in their lives/got lucky who seem to worship capitalism and corporations because they tend to be retarded