/sfg/ - Space Flight General

[Anonymous No.11644683]

Kerbal edition

previous
>>11641094

[Anonymous No.11644686]

boing btfo

[Anonymous No.11644688]

Who else here reinstalled KSP because they needed an outlet for all the BFR hype?

[Anonymous No.11644696]

>Space force could've used any myriad of military designs from history for advertisement
>Instead shows a generic design they have never even indicated a use for
What did grumpfs s-yforce mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11644699]

>>11644688
Isn't it tough to do a proper reusable first stage in KSP because of the engine?

I haven't played in a while anyway. Any time I think about getting back into it I decide to wait for KSP 2, so it's in limbo.

[Anonymous No.11644702]

>>11644683
KSP2 /sfg/ factions server when?

[Anonymous No.11644707]

>>11644699
SSTO is easy as hell on Kerbin
I'm not sure if you can do it with the basic bitch early engines

[Anonymous No.11644709]

>>11644699
I've been using disposable SRBs as my first stage for everything.

But yeah, if something isn't actively being piloted, and it's in atmosphere, it despawns, so you can't build Starships in it.

[Anonymous No.11644713]

>>11644699
>Isn't it tough to do a proper reusable first stage in KSP because of the engine?
You would have to loft the booster stage high up (100km at least) and have a good TWR on the upper stage (1 at least), but it's doable. Pic related can do 12t to LKO. Although some fuel needs to be reserved for the landing as chutes don't really work well enough for large spacecraft.

[Anonymous No.11644738]

>>11644699
Yeah, but you can do an SSTO rocket without too much difficulty, or just discard SRBs

[Anonymous No.11644750]

>>11644686

[Anonymous No.11644762]

[Anonymous No.11644773]

That fire on the base of the vertical white tank doesn’t look like venting. Is everything okay? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VtpXx1luzUg

[Anonymous No.11644777]

>>11644773
It’s smoke being lit by those orange floodlights.

[Anonymous No.11644778]

>>11644773
it's venting that's been backlit by a high pressure sodium light

[Anonymous No.11644788]

>>11644777
>>11644778
That’s cool. Thanks space cowboys!

[Anonymous No.11644790]

>>11644773
Is NSF doing a live stream for tonight?

[Anonymous No.11644793]

>>11644790
Mary's probably out there but I haven't heard anything
if there's a siren they'll start streaming

[Anonymous No.11644829]

Now that I think about it, bullets are basically solid fuel rockets. What’s the ISP of powder?

[Anonymous No.11644838]

>>11644829
Bullets don’t carry the powder.

[Anonymous No.11644854]

>>11644699
>>11644709
There's a mod called FMRS that saves the position of the first stage when you decouple, and once you're done with the ascent you can go back and do the landing, then it merges the two realities together.

Its not like there's any reason to actually do reusable first stages though, the stock delta v requirements make the game so piss easy that you can get to orbit with an ssto after unlocking the first few tech nodes. Then you do some mun missions to unlock the lab, after that just shove one towards minmus polar orbit and cheese the rest of the tech tree by doing eva jetpack missions to pick up samples from all the biomes.
I don't understand why anyone would play ksp without something like kerbalism and a planet scale up mod like JNSQ, its just not fun.

[Anonymous No.11644855]

>>11644838
You know what I mean.

[Anonymous No.11644863]

>>11644829
Gyrojets use something like gunpowder IIRC, and some quick math revealed their Isp to be about 30s.

[Anonymous No.11644871]

>>11644829
>>11644838
A cartridge is is basically the opposite of a rocket, expelling all its gases in the direction of travel and relying on the mass of gun and barrel to impart spin and get complete combustion. ISP of modern smokeless powder is probably OK but I can't find any numbers on it. Might be time for an experiment.

[Anonymous No.11644875]

>>11644855
Yeah I do but the number won’t mean anything. It won’t mean how good of a fuel is compared to any other fuel. Anyways, it is v*m1/m2, v is the bullet velocity, m1 the bullet mass and m2 the mass of powder.

[Anonymous No.11644880]

>>11644875
Unfortunately it's not that simple, you also have ballistic coefficient, barrel length, etc. that also come into play for bullets in atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11644886]

>>11644871
The number can’t be used to compare to normal fuel because the cartridge doesn’t carry the fuel, and that’s one of the assumptions you make when using ISP to compre fuels. Also you would have to count the bullet mass as fuel I guess. So m1 would be bullet mass and m2 bullet mass plus powder mass.

[Anonymous No.11644898]

>>11644880
How do those things affect the calculation? The fact that we are using the final velocity should already take those things into account.
How could we measure it?

[Anonymous No.11644923]

>>11644886
>The number can’t be used to compare to normal fuel because the cartridge doesn’t carry the fuel

Yes it does. It’s inside of the cartridge beneath the bullet.

[Anonymous No.11644937]

I asked /k/, and they answered.
>>>/k/44944543
Nitrocellulose apparently has 200s ISP at 2000atm and 2000k, or 42s less than the Shuttle's SRBs. If 4ASS wants to build SRBs this wouldn't actually be a bad first step.

[Anonymous No.11644938]

>>11644829
>>11644871
Guns are basically rockets

[Anonymous No.11644940]

Martian Space Dwemer Cities

[Anonymous No.11644942]

>>11644854
>cheese the rest of the tech tree by doing eva jetpack missions to pick up samples from all the biomes.

How does one do this?

[Anonymous No.11644945]

>>11644938
do case shoulders behave like combustion chamber throats?
does
>>11644942
You can EVA from minmus orbit to the surface with only jetpack fuel
I don't think you can get back

[Anonymous No.11644946]

>>11644937
You'd have to figure out burn rate, but it could work.

The Soviets used engines based on nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine dual base powders for most of their artillery rockets. You could probably use off the shelf smokeless powder if you figured out how to stick it together and get the burn rate right.

That or black powder/rocket candy because it's a comparable ISP for less work.

[Anonymous No.11644954]

>>11644946
>comparable ISP for less work
black powder burns faster but not as hot as smokeless, and has a lot of solid particulates in the combustion products, which will hurt your ISP

[Anonymous No.11644961]

>>11644937
I'm the anon from /k/ that answered your question. I would highly recommend using ANCP, which would be cheap in bulk and has a theoretical 260s Isp. Richard Nakka has done quite a few experiments with ANCP formulations.

http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/anexp.html

[Anonymous No.11644962]

>>11644954
Yeah, but there's commercial black powder engines. I don't know if there are commercial smokeless engines.

Rocket candy is probably the GOAT for poor people rocketry. I know they sell commercial APCP mixes too, and that's about the best ISP you'll get out of solid fuel.

[Anonymous No.11644965]

>>11644961
>I would highly recommend using ANCP
four words: light gas combustion guns

[Anonymous No.11644966]

>>11644961
ah yes, the anarcho capitalist rocket

[Anonymous No.11644968]

Elon's son's name is actually Kyle.
X - K
Æ - pronounced as 'ai' in Latin
A-12 - 12th letter of alphabet, L.
Kyle. FUCKING KYLE.

[Anonymous No.11644972]

>>11644968
He has a son named Kai I think

[Anonymous No.11644974]

ISP is the change in momentum divided by the mass of fuel consumed. When you measure the ISP of powder the “rocket” is the bullet and it’s not carrying the fuel. That means that you are doing v*m1/m2 where m1 is just the mass of the bullet and m2 the mass of the powder.
For a rocket m1 is the mass of the rocket and the fuel, because the rocket carries the fuel.
You are comparing different things.

[Anonymous No.11644976]

Elon's son's name is actually Kyle.
X - K
Æ - pronounced as 'ai' in Latin
A-12 - 12th letter of alphabet, L.
Kyle. FUCKING KYLE.
Fuck me, he's gonna be the first man in space to smash drywall and scream "FUCK"

[Anonymous No.11644977]

>>11644966
or ANAl as I like to call it

[Anonymous No.11644979]

>>11644972
AFAIK they probably made up the goofy ass name after naming the boy something that isn't retarded.

[Anonymous No.11644983]

>>11644961
>>11644937
This makes me want to build a (large) motor of rocket candy and make it fly. Anyone know an easy way to have an auto-deploy chute?

[Anonymous No.11644985]

Nitrous oxide is a good oxidizer that's not too expensive or have the ATF come shoot our dogs
It stores as a liquid at room temperature under the same pressure as a propane tank, a Nitrous oxide/propane fuel blend would be a good monopropellant if you can get it to not detonate trying to ignite it
Or you could use it as an oxidizer in a hybrid motor with less explosive risk, perhaps a first stage

[Anonymous No.11644995]

>>11644983

You're best off buying one, otherwise you'll need to make some sort of timing or airspeed circuit

Nakka's rocketry has designs for both but make sure your soldering connections are good if you build homebrew

[Anonymous No.11644996]

>>11644979
What’s wrong with the name? It’s cool

[Anonymous No.11644998]

>>11644983
Fuse connected to the top of the solid fuel that sets off either flash paper or a small gunpowder charge.

[Anonymous No.11645001]

>>11644966
That'll have to wait until we have moon pirates. Imagine a world with Lunar manual-control SSTO hopper raiding parties.

>A pair of hop-rockets descends on your research station
>The four pirates riding on them run over to your solar arrays immediately after landing
>Before you can even start putting on a suit, they've unhooked eight panels and fried your security drone
>One of them has a clear lexan codpiece on his suit and takes the time to helicopter-dick at your cameras while his buddies load the loot
>As fast as they arrived, the hop-rockets disappear over the horizon, leaving you only enough power to run life support and the coffee machine
>God damn moon pirates

[Anonymous No.11645005]

>>11644976
He's going to be an edgy teenager and demand that the peasants call him Archangel

[Anonymous No.11645014]

>>11644985
I have worked with the stuff in the context of rocketry and I don't think it's worth the effort for a hybrid. Even something as seemingly simple as transferring the N2O from the storage tank to the rocket oxidizer tank is a huge pain because it is a pressurized liquid and switches back to being a vapor at the drop of a hat.

[Anonymous No.11645020]

>>11644996
Nothing. I am one too. We're fucking taking over the world.

[Anonymous No.11645026]

>>11645014
Why do oxidizers suck so much for amateur rocketeers?

[Anonymous No.11645027]

>>11644985
>Nitrous Oxide/Propane mixture monoprop
do you like explosions? because this is how you get explosions

[Anonymous No.11645031]

>>11645014
>oh no, my oxidizer is self-pressurizing, woe is me
bitch

[Anonymous No.11645034]

>>11645001
>Contract Earth to have space defense silos and anti-ship railcannon built as part of your moontown
>Thing's surrounded by anti bomber AAA towers and bunkers for infantry/tank defense
>Moonpirates raid
>BTFO in 2 bursts
>loot the wreckage
Lel, get fucked

[Anonymous No.11645036]

>>11644961
>ANCaP
>N(eeds more D)akka
This looks suitably orky, thank you.

[Anonymous No.11645043]

>>11645001
>trying to raid a lunar research base
>billy got popped by the automated micrometeor defences
>solar panels automatically retract as a debris countermeasure
>everything of value is under tons of regolith and behind airlock chokepoints
>just grab a random antenna and run
fuckin got 'em lmao

[Anonymous No.11645058]

>>11645034
what wreckage, lol

[Anonymous No.11645061]

>>11645001
Imagine loading up a Starship with these and using them to fly circles around the losers at the Blue Origin landing site blasting yaketysax on wideband while waving Zeon flags.

[Anonymous No.11645064]

>>11645061
>waving Zeon flags

[Anonymous No.11645069]

VTOL Martian aircraft based off of the Project Pluto concept. Yes, or yes?

>requires no fuel
>infinite range
>can explore as much as you want, anywhere on the planet
>who the fuck cares about pollution, you're not breathing the air anyway

[Anonymous No.11645071]

How hard would it be to construct a VTOL spacecraft lander that can change its direction of thrust entirely like so many science fiction craft do?

[Anonymous No.11645072]

>>11645031
>yfw oxidizer line vapor lock

[Anonymous No.11645077]

>>11645071
Just add more RCS ports bro.

t. played KSP

[Anonymous No.11645078]

>>11644976
Have you seen Kyle?

[Anonymous No.11645082]

>>11645069
Pluto was a ramjet, it would only work at mach numbers above 2ish
I don't think Mars' atmosphere is thick enough to support any sort of air-breathing VTOL

[Anonymous No.11645083]

>>11645077
I guess you could use RCS, but can they really be made powerful enough to propulsivey land with on, say, Ganymede?

[Anonymous No.11645086]

>>11645061
I want a Starship with a full complement of Balls

[Anonymous No.11645087]

>>11645082
I was thinking you just use methalox rockets to speed it up to a high enough Mach speed that it can operate.

Now that I'm thinking about it, you could probably exceed exit velocity pretty easily.

[Anonymous No.11645090]

>>11645083
Well, we've had successful propulsive landings on earth.

I think it's really just a question of how good the fly by wire software is and how much Delta V you're willing to expend.

[Anonymous No.11645092]

>>11645087
I don't know the operating limits of ramjets, but combustion powered ramjets stop working at about mach 5

[Anonymous No.11645102]

Wouldn't legs be the ideal reusable lithobreaking mechanism.
They'd give more distance for the people riding to decelerate over when contacting the ground.

[Anonymous No.11645107]

>>11645102
I too want to do lunar hops in my moon liger zero

[Anonymous No.11645109]

So is the Direct Fusion Drive going to be the future of space travel?
>inb4 Atomic Rockets
Fite me

[Anonymous No.11645113]

>>11645109
When we get fusion working, sure. We don’t really need anything but chemical engines for travelling between Mars and Earth, and that’s all people will really be doing for quite a while. Centuries, even.

[Anonymous No.11645117]

>>11645061
>losers at the Blue Origin
>while waving Zeon flags
Got it a little backwards

[Anonymous No.11645123]

>>11645102
yes, we call them landing legs and have used them for basically everything that's landed on the moon

[Anonymous No.11645126]

>>11645109
>So is the Direct Fusion Drive going to be the future of space travel?
Sure, once the secret to fusion is cracked, but it's decades away.

>>inb4 Atomic Rockets
>Fite me
What's wrong with RocketHub? Are there posters here who don't nut to it?

[Anonymous No.11645127]

>>11645117
so if Jeff Who wants to be the progenitor of the Zabi family, who does that make Elon

[Anonymous No.11645136]

>>11645109
Atomic Rockets is a fantastic resource. One propulsion tech described there helped me out of a corner I'd written myself into.

[Anonymous No.11645141]

>>11645127
I guess Zeon Zum Deikun. Guy who started it all, does all the hard work, the real visionary.

[Anonymous No.11645151]

>>11645109
>>11645136
The only times I've seen rho get shit is when someone was having a breakdown because it didn't support their dreams of arbitrary heat rejection or space stealth.

[Anonymous No.11645161]

>>11645117
I hope we and Jeff live to see Space-X make the first O'neill Cylinder on Martian clay

[Anonymous No.11645165]

>>11645001
I wonder what kind of range/performance you could get with a small lunar vehicle that ran dead-simple compressed gas thrusters. Would the low gravity and zero air resistance allow you to get a reasonable combo of tank size/vehicle size/range?

[Anonymous No.11645167]

>>11644985
oh no anon

oh GOD no

[Anonymous No.11645170]

>>11645161
>O'neill Cylinder on Martian clay
That would be kind of stupid, you don't build O'Neill cylinders on the surface of a planet, but in its orbit or langerange points.
The structural loads from gravity alone would crush such a megastructure.

[Anonymous No.11645173]

How quick would Earth to Mars missions be if you constantly accelerated at 0.5g burn flip burn style? Is a mission like that somewhat feasible with near future technology?

[Anonymous No.11645175]

>>11645170
'Clay' for 'territory', obviously you do the assembly in orbit. Given the small gravity well you could probably do quite a bit of pre-assembly planetside, though, where your industry and resource gathering will be concentrated already.

[Anonymous No.11645176]

6-10 mil for 80kg into interplanetary space. What would you do with it?

[Anonymous No.11645182]

>>11645176
Drop a low yield nuclear weapon on the Moon/Mars base

[Anonymous No.11645183]

>>11645173
>How quick would Earth to Mars missions be if you constantly accelerated at 0.5g burn flip burn style?
Less than a week iirc. You'd be able to go even at opposition.
>Is a mission like that somewhat feasible with near future technology?
The only thing capable of burn flip burn is some sort of nuclear rocket, whether fusion, antimatter, or that ridiculous salt water fission torch.

>>11645176
Test a plasma magnet sail. See if I can reach Mars with it.

[Anonymous No.11645186]

>>11645176
Send 80kg worth of dragon dildo's out into deep space for a voyager esque mission but with the sole purpose of wanting to confuse the AYY's from my real intentions.

[Anonymous No.11645187]

>>11645176
Honestly I like Peter Beck's idea of a Venus probe. Not enough love for Venus

[Anonymous No.11645192]

>>11645176
send one of Woodward's gadgets up and see if it does anything.

[Anonymous No.11645197]

>>11645173
> Is a mission like that somewhat feasible with near future technology?
You could probably do that or close enough with a nuclear pulse rocket which is technically feasible, although just as unlikely to be made any time soon as yet undiscovered tech.

[Anonymous No.11645198]

>>11645176
they just want to stay relevant

[Anonymous No.11645199]

>>11645173
At one G it's about a day and change, so at half that it would be double, 2-3 days. Add on some extra at the start and finish to get the ship up into Earth Orbit and everything checked and squared away, and to do your final orbital maneuvers at Mars to put you exactly where you want to be, maybe five days total.
>Would it be feasible with near future technology?
Yes and no, you could do it with an NSWR, but NSWRs shoot out a jet of cancer and cesium and they'd be intolerable to any government. The best you'll get in the middling future say 50-100 years from now will probably be some kind of nuclear powered magnetoplasma rocket or an hybrid inertial/magnetic confinement fusion torch. You could probably get it to push up to .5g if you use water or ammonia as a sort of "afterburner" to get some more reaction mass moving.

[Anonymous No.11645201]

>>11645187
Okay so listen to me on this one, how about Venus blimp using stock Starship as the lifting volume

[Anonymous No.11645208]

>>11645192
That'd be freaky if it did.

>>11645199
Don't forget the cesium is accompanied by lots of water which means it's going to explode again if you travel through the exhaust plume.

[Anonymous No.11645211]

>>11645173
if a major nationstate threw 20 billion into something like this-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25jRvzTPL4A

then sure

[Anonymous No.11645212]

>>11645199
Why water and not something lighter?

[Anonymous No.11645214]

>>11645187
I wanna like Venus too but it just doesn't have that much of interest. Anyway with a small probe I wonder if you would even be able to do anything worthwhile with Venus. I was wondering if a lander would be possible. Maybe something like pathfinder, just wonder how much the parachutes and heatshield would weigh. Probably too much. Although with TUFROC it should be pretty light and you'd have optimistically 20kg for parachutes.

[Anonymous No.11645222]

>>11645214
NASA is planning on using analog electromechanical computers for a Venus lander because integrated circuits won't work on the surface.

[Anonymous No.11645224]

>>11645212
Lighter remass is good for ISP, not thrust

[Anonymous No.11645228]

>>11645222
>>11645214
Oh yeah I was talking about mars, thought I typed that out in my head. Venus is a whole nother story. Don't think you're getting any more than an orbiter at best with Venus.

[Anonymous No.11645232]

>>11645212
Because it's not propellant, it's just reaction mass, so it's better if it's denser but not difficult to source. Water is very abundant in the solar system. You would still have to dope it with a tiny amount of cesium though, so that it can be magnetically confined. Nothing is going to survive contact with it once the fusion reaction transforms it to plasma if it's just uncontrolled. Upside is that it ought to burn a very beautiful blue-violet color.

[Anonymous No.11645240]

>>11645232
Wouldn't the water react with a magnetic field on its own once turning into a plasma from the heat of a reaction?

[Anonymous No.11645247]

>>11645222
You've got me interested, how the hell would an analog computer for that purpose work?
I know signals can be recived and in some way decoded by analog electronics, but these are based on the same principles that would allow a digital computer to work.

Would it be a primitive PPM signal like used in old remotes for RC-models transmitted from the orbiter and the data coming in via AV to remote controll it via a digital computer in orbit?

[Anonymous No.11645255]

Would an Alcubierre drive break the laws of causality? Such as time travel? Or does it negate those issues because it's technically not going FTL, but space itself warped around it is?

[Anonymous No.11645256]

>>11645255
>Would an Alcubierre drive break the laws of causality?

No such thing.

[Anonymous No.11645263]

>>11645240
Honestly I'm not sure, I'm not a magnet doctor at all. I'm not even sure if you could actually use reaction mass in the way I describe, maybe it can be done the same way NSWRs work where the reaction takes place inside of a beryllium or hafnium lined chamber flooded with your other reaction mass to protect the chamber walls from being instantly melted. On the other hand almost every torch drive I've heard of "holds" the reaction out far away from the ship itself by some few hundred meters with the fields creating a virtual nozzle instead of a conventional solid slab of metals. I'm not sure if you could use any kind of afterburner at all if you can't keep the fusion reaction inside of a solid structure.

[Anonymous No.11645264]

>>11645255
In general relativity any kind of FTL enables time travel, barring some currently unknown phenomenon that stops that from happening.

[Anonymous No.11645265]

>>11645247
I do think they're doing C&C and low rate data transmission to an orbiter for initial processing.

[Anonymous No.11645269]

>>11645264
>In general relativity any kind of FTL enables time travel

Spacetime is expanding faster than light, meaning practical FTL achieved by warping of spacetime must be exempt from any supposed causality violations.

[Anonymous No.11645275]

>>11645269
Correction: any kind of FTL that lets you go back and forth. Expansion of the universe doesn't do this.

[Anonymous No.11645277]

>>11645255
The causality thing is a gigantic meme on interstellar distances because of signal degradation. Unless you start detonating planets or firing terawatt scale soliton lasers at Earth nothing you do STL will ever be visible from here other than faint radio signals that take significant time to decode, so the only way to violate causality is by building a faster FTL drive.

[Anonymous No.11645282]

>>11645277
Why would any causality violation occur at all??? If you flew a spaceship at double the speed of light to Alpha Centauri and beamed back a signal on arrival, why wouldn’t it arrive six years later?

[Anonymous No.11645287]

>>11645255
No because it's not time traveling, it's more like it's abusing a game mechanic of the universe (gravitational fields distorting space) to cheese the light speed rule. Can't break the light speed rule if it's technically the fabric of space which is moving the ship.

[Anonymous No.11645291]

>>11645282
nah man. read into it.

[Anonymous No.11645314]

>>11645255
no. Your reference frame doesn't change at all-even if you were moving at exactly c there would be no time dilation for you, which means the weirdness of a tachyonic antitelephone can't happen. I've heard a researcher call it "ref-locking" and say it's like a new kind of inertia.

[Anonymous No.11645317]

>>11645265
It would make sense to move as much of the computing to the orbiter as possible since analog computers for complicated tasks are kind of a nightmare to design.
A simple remote-controll as well as a analog video stream coming from a video-tube would probably be the way to go for such a mission.
It would mainoy rely on a few small tubes and ceramic capacistors that can deal with the heat instead of semiconductors that get issues there.
Meanwhile the computer of the orbiter could controll it remotely and use the analog camera to navigate while controlling the rover via PPM.

[Anonymous No.11645327]

Vehicles now leaving the BC launch site

[Anonymous No.11645339]

>>11645327
Possible second static fire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGON3X2kCnU

[Anonymous No.11645340]

>>11645327
NASA Spaceflight is live now
https://youtu.be/mGON3X2kCnU

[Anonymous No.11645356]

>>11645314
Ripped this from Atomic Rockets talking about Tachyon drives: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#tachyon

The above-mentioned "tachyon anti-telephone" with its violations of causality is also essentially impossible. Neutrinos are fairly easy to produce (using an accelerator to create beta-decaying nuclei) but very difficult to detect. The only successful neutrino detectors use either neutrino-induced nuclear reactions (the Homestake and Gallex experiments) or hard neutrino-electron scatterings (Kamiokande and SNO) to detect neutrinos with extremely low efficiency. But to use the possible tachyonic super-light speed of the electron neutrinos, they must have mass-energies comparable to or less than 12 electron volts. This is about 10-6 of the lowest neutrino energy ever detected, neither of the above detection schemes can be used in this energy range, and there is no known alternative method of detection. Thus, even if the ne is a tachyon, the law of causality is safe from our tamperings for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous No.11645362]

>>11645356
Oh you misunderstand-the weirdness of that is in the fact that lorentz transformations fuc kup the order of messages, creating absurd situations where the response to a message arrives before it does. if there's no lorentz transformation needed due to ref-locking, then the problem of temporal fuckery vanishes.

[Anonymous No.11645379]

The military applications of starship are interesting-you could use these bad boys to set up a real rods from god system for pennies on the dollar.

[Anonymous No.11645382]

>>11645379
rod from gods doesn't work

[Anonymous No.11645386]

>>11645379
you could use it to launch chunks of Mars at Earth
>>11645382
yes it does, but it works best from elliptical orbits, which are super retardo specific about when and where you can target them

[Anonymous No.11645388]

>>11645382
Why not? It's a pretty simple concept-we know stuff can be made to go through the atmosphere and survive.

[Anonymous No.11645389]

>>11645379
Suborbital rocket cavalry.

[Anonymous No.11645391]

>>11645339
>>11645340
Everyday astronaut? More like every*night* astronaught.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beAd-zH4hRI

[Anonymous No.11645395]

>>11645391
his camera is streaming from a boat on the water, right?

[Anonymous No.11645402]

it's probably not happening, vehicles on site.

[Anonymous No.11645406]

Okay, here's something bugging me about this game. How the fuck do you perform rendezvous?
I've seen the tutorials, but I'm unable to get what they're doing. Perhaps a readable tutorial will get me going. I'm trying to see if I can build a Discovery-esque ship that can carry crew to Duna and other planets.

[Anonymous No.11645411]

>>11645402
people walking in there now

[Anonymous No.11645422]

>>11645406
You should try downloading the HAL.exe mod.

[Anonymous No.11645423]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-drafting-u-s-led-moon-mining-agreement-report
I never thought that Trump of all presidents would be the one that does the most to pursue space policy.
Trade conflicts with China on the moon soon brothers

[Anonymous No.11645430]

>>11645411
Vehicles are starting to leave again

[Anonymous No.11645441]

>>11645339
I thought hop was next

[Anonymous No.11645447]

>>11645411
>>11645430
Cut the moeshit, represent starship with an anime about CHADs, for children that grew up to be CHADS and is still enjoyed by CHADs.
[spoiler]But seriously, Meta Cooler is the perfect personification of Starship, no?

[Anonymous No.11645450]

>>11645406
>How the fuck do you perform rendezvous?

Here’s the simplest way.
If your orbit is lower than your target’s orbit, you will gain on it if it’s in front of you and fly away from it if it’s behind you, because you have higher orbital velocity. If your orbit is higher than your target’s orbit, it will gain on you if it’s behind you and recede from you if it’s ahead of you, because you have lower orbital velocity. All you have to do is position your orbit very slightly below or above your target’s orbit, by about 2 kilometers or less ideally, and wait for the closest approach. When it occurs, or just before it occurs, select “target” as the NavBall mode and burn retrograde until your relative velocity to the target is zero, which should be very easy, then select “target” in SAS and burn in that direction. You will approach it, and then burn retrograde when within 100 meters or less, killing your relative velocity to zero. Then, you can change to docking mode, change the camera mode to Locked, default is the V key, and use RCS to dock to the craft, or simply fly your Kerbals out on EVA and transfer them if you didn’t bring RCS and/or docking ports. It sounds complicated but it becomes very easy

[Anonymous No.11645455]

>>11645411
>>11645430
Forget your moeshit, represent Starship with a character that's also shiny.

[Anonymous No.11645457]

>>11645406
Situate yourself into an orbit lower than the target, create a node raising your AP to the same altitude as the target, then move the node around your orbit until you're as close as possible, then circularize and see how close you got. Perform fine adjustment with RCS or smaller rockets or very light puffs of your primary engine by pointing towards then away from your target. Try and cut your speed to something like 1m/s as you get to within a few hundred meters. Switch control of your ship to your airlock you want to attach to the target, then switch to the target and do the same thing. Target the approaching ship's airlock and get them nice and lined up and let them drift together. When they're close to contacting shut off RCS and SAS, the slight wobbling of a spaceship can drive them crazy and make docking harder.

Or just automate the process with like three or four clicks in Mechjeb.

[Anonymous No.11645458]

>>11645455
and on this day anon learned spoilers don't work on /sci/

[Anonymous No.11645459]

>>11645450
if you're within two kilometers, then it's better to try to move the prograde target vector to point at the target instead of bringing your target velocity down to zero

[Anonymous No.11645467]

>>11645423
I never pegged him for a space enthusiast, I wonder if some family member or close advisor convinced him that pushing space development and legislation was a good way to boost his legacy. Regardless of why he's doing it, I'm really looking forward to seeing that momentum keep going forward. It's the reason I'm going to vote for him instead of protest-voting third party like I always do.

[Anonymous No.11645468]

>>11644696
imagine if you woke up put on the tv and theres an ad on.

ITS TIME FOR AMERICA TO TAKE BACK WHAT ITS OWED TO THEM

*cue team america music *

*crappy 2010 cgi
show gigantic rotaing space station spaceoddisey like, inside marines are running laps around the edge of the loop, outside marines are doing the same but in space suits

cut to a shot of 50 military starships taking off from the coast then shooting a couple of satellites while in orbit and landing in some unspecified desert like place and quickly deploying tanks and infantry to the ground.

cgi shot of 50 orions taking off at the same time from the nevada desert using their nukes.

shots of them firing nukes at the moon, mars ,mars moons, and each jupiter moon

AMERICAN SPACE FORCE, BRINGING FREEDOM TO THE GALAXY. NOW THE TERRORIST HAVE NOWHERE TO HIDE

[Anonymous No.11645469]

>>11645458
Yeah, I did. But seriously, this character is the PERFECT personification of Starship.
>shiny metal
>is an improvement of past incarnations
>mass produced

[Anonymous No.11645476]

>>11645468
i wouldnt put it past trump frankly. nothing surprises me from that dude.

also, crazy thought, would it make sense to launch an F-22 fighting jet on a starship just to have it arrive quicker at its destination.

Like, suppose you need 10 fighter jets in the other side of the world asap and theres no aircraft carrier near, wouldnt you get them really fast if you launched them by rocket and just have them ignite their engines when they are in atmosphere again?

[Anonymous No.11645478]

>>11645476
how wide is an F-22?
I know WW2 era fighters were small enough to fit in a Starship, but I'm not sure about modern stuff

[Anonymous No.11645480]

>>11645476
In air refueling and forward basing let us deploy very quickly as is. There's no value in out running your supply chain.

[Anonymous No.11645484]

>>11645478
surely you could arrange that with a modified fairing or a modified plane. Like, you just keep a detachment of 20 stealth fighters and 20 stealth fighter/bombers than you can literally deploy anywhere on earth. just keep those dudes ready and training permanently.

dont know how feasible it is but sure sounds cool as hell.

i mean i know everyone says suborbital military isnt worth the money but there has to be an advantage to having every one of your military assets being as hard to intercept as an ICBM

[Anonymous No.11645485]

>>11645423
For good and for ill, Trump is an ego guy. Regaining and holding space supremacy for America would be a substantial achievement that Trump could permanently attach his name to.
>>11645478
Unfortunately it has a wingspan of 44 feet, about 15 feet too wide to fit in a Starship. You'd have to build a special variant with fold-up wings like older carrier based aircraft.

[Anonymous No.11645513]

>>11645485
One of these things in drone form would fit as is. Hell, three of them would per Starship. Arm them with laser weapons, 20mm cannon, and aggressive AI and release them at 30,000 feet. If this launches from a SuperHeavy stack, Starship can save all its fuel for a return burn. Then instead of landing the drones can just kamikaze enemy ground targets.

[Anonymous No.11645522]

>>11645513
that is retarded and i love it

the GOBLIN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kAEoCHANYY

[Anonymous No.11645530]

>>11645513
Attach a stack of them to a slide rail on the door, have the door hinge from starship's nose instead of from the waist to retain aerodynamics, pop the hatch a bit and just let them slide out, nice and neat like that insane jet carrier.

[Anonymous No.11645575]

>>11645423
There aren't many interviews of him talking about space before his presidency, but from what I've found, he's always been supportive and acknowledged how important it is for the U.S to remain dominant in space exploration. The economic gains and pure visual of power that space supremacy gives the country was a no-brainer for him.

[Anonymous No.11645577]

>>11645575
rockets are like really big penises

[Anonymous No.11645585]

>>11645513
>aggressive AI
and let our boys miss all the fun?

protip: each pilot of these aircraft is also a fully trained commando with top gear, after killing literally 100% of the countries airforce they paradrop and the airplane returns to base.

each of the commandos assasinates an army general and bombs a military factory.

you just 100% disarmed your enemy without even having to wake up the crew of the aircraft carriers

[Anonymous No.11645593]

>>11644762
>This
>All the UFO declassification
We're in the opening days of X-COM, aren't we?

[Anonymous No.11645598]

>>11645577
they physically resemble one another precisely because they perform the same role, both literally and metaphorically thrusting.
The ultimate essence of being a male is shoving a long pointy shaft into something that you dominate, and it's long and pointy because that's just the best way to thrust something.
And the USA is currently developing the biggest and baddest space dick and it's starting to mass produce them to boot, holy shit

[Anonymous No.11645599]

https://youtu.be/BDkGKz5pCts

[Anonymous No.11645602]

Reminder to make babies to populate the colonies.

[Anonymous No.11645609]

>>11645602
Keep up the good work, Elon.

[Anonymous No.11645614]

>>11645599
>twin panther dogfights over the arctic ice-cap
this is quite possibly the most beautiful thing I've ever seen

[Anonymous No.11645616]

Fuggg the top bulkhead just blew off on the nsf stream.
Rest of it looks intact though so hope the fix is to just attach a new bulkhead

[Anonymous No.11645619]

RIP SN4

[Anonymous No.11645620]

>>11645616
dumbass, the NSF stream is out of commission right now

[Anonymous No.11645623]

>>11645619
They just had a static fire yesterday, why would they do it again? Methinks this was a test to destruction as Elon said the thrust dome is outdated anyway

[Anonymous No.11645630]

lol another starship bites the dust. I'm moving on to #teamblue now. Gradatim Ferociter

[Anonymous No.11645638]

>>11645630
Can't wait to hear "this is why we test" comments on leddit. We've been building fuel tanks for decades now, this is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.11645642]

>>11645638
>>11645630
retards

[Anonymous No.11645647]

>>11645642
Seethe harder. I'm kind of embarrassed i feel for the Starship meme. It was too good to be true. After 5 tank failures, I'm out.

[Anonymous No.11645650]

>>11645630
I want to inhale your scent, alive gay.
-Jeff

[Anonymous No.11645653]

>>11645638
>We've been building fuel tanks for decades now, this is ridiculous.

You don’t know how manufacturing works. The accumulated skill of the involved workers is just as if not more important than schematics and planning.

[Anonymous No.11645656]

>>11645653
This is all irrelevant anyways since SN-4 hasn't popped.

[Anonymous No.11645657]

>>11645647
It’s kind of obvious you were never “in”. No one will miss you.

[Anonymous No.11645658]

>>11645653
report and ignore, anon

[Anonymous No.11645662]

>>11645653
Then you shouldn't hire Texas rednecks

[Anonymous No.11645665]

>>11645662
>Then you shouldn't hire Texas rednecks

You’ve never paid attention to the development. It’s a bunch of Mexican dudes.

[Anonymous No.11645667]

F

[Anonymous No.11645672]

Wait, could a Tachyon drive actually exist?

[Anonymous No.11645677]

>>11645672
Warp drives seem to by HYPOTHETICALLY possible and allow for a form of FTL travel, but likely are impossible to actually create due to insane energy levels needed and the whole negative matter requirement. Fun to think about, but i care much more about fusion rockets and exploring the solar system.

[Anonymous No.11645683]

>>11645672
well, first you'd need to find a tachhyon
then you'd need to figure out how to make more of them
and I think both of those steps are impossible, so I think a tachyon drive is impossible

[Anonymous No.11645697]

>>11645616
Why even try, Anon.

[Anonymous No.11645709]

>NOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST GO FASTER THAN LIGHT, MUH JEW WITH FUNNY HAIR SAYS YOU WILL DESTROY THE UNIVERSE IT'S LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Reminder that the rockets you discuss here are literally Nazi technology and they knew judenphysik was bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11645715]

>>11645709
Based and A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realmpilled

[Anonymous No.11645719]

>>11645709
Sure nazi, judenphysik isnt real it cant harm you.

pic related came from a letter that einstein sent to the president, guess nazis should have treated good at least some jews

[Anonymous No.11645721]

the fire RISES

[Anonymous No.11645729]

>>11645719
Nazis were working on fission technology too so it's not judenphysik, America just beat them because they had more resources available and weren't bombed to shit, nice try kike. Also reminder, Jews gave you a mass slaughter horror weapon, nazis gave you the stars.

[Anonymous No.11645733]

>>11645709
Based and flying bell craft pilled.

[Anonymous No.11645734]

>>11645729
>Nazis were working on fission technology too so it's not judenphysik
they literally failed because they didnt have jew physics.

nazi nuclear program was nowhere near close to a working a bomb

[Anonymous No.11645735]

>>11645709
>>11645733
cringey samefag

[Anonymous No.11645739]

>>11645734
they failed because the Brits sabotaged their heavy water program

[Anonymous No.11645752]

>>11645739
They failed because they didn‘t actually have a concentrated effort to build one and the individual scientists were incentivized to keep their heads down to not get noticed by the crazy dictator and his men. So nobody seriously looked into it.

[Anonymous No.11645757]

>>11645752
They failed because they were already carrying out their plans for their bases on the Moon and on Antarctica

[Anonymous No.11645760]

>>11645739
good luck making enough weapons grade plutonium with the 8th and 9th air force swooping around.

[Anonymous No.11645794]

>>11645665
Well that’s why he hires in Cali and south Texas
You don’t do that looking for whitey

[Anonymous No.11645821]

static fire 2 done

[Anonymous No.11645822]

BRAAAAAAPPPPP
Wasn't it suppose to fly 150m?

[Anonymous No.11645825]

>>11645822
That's SN5?

[Anonymous No.11645829]

>>11645822
They don't have a launch license yet

[Anonymous No.11645831]

>>11645822
>>11645825
sn4 was supposed to hop, but it only has one engine and it's off center so if it does it'll be a pain in the ass for spacex, they'll have to gimball so the thrust is vectored through the center of mass which means it'll drift like the space shuttle and they wont have control. If you ask me, they'll use 4 as a manufacturing pathfinder and hop 5 instead

[Anonymous No.11645832]

fixed the screencap

[Anonymous No.11645835]

>>11645831
that-s really bad it means they have very VERY basic stuff about the design not figured it out, expect 50 of those fuckers before anything even remotely flyable comes along

[Anonymous No.11645837]

>>11645829
They want to ammend the Starhopper license and reuse that. Not sure if FAA will allow that. The 20km flight will definitely take much longer.

[Anonymous No.11645838]

>>11645835
stfu nigger

[Anonymous No.11645839]

>>11645831
once SN4 has finished powersliding off the pad, it can just tilt itself so that the center of mass is directly above the off-center raptor
this will give it a slight lean, but it will be controllable from that point forwards

[Anonymous No.11645840]

>>11645832
31 of those at launch will have a rather majestic fireball.

>>11645831
They're not gonna risk throwing away 3 just for the first flight test when they're perfectly capable of calculating a simple pad slide.

[Anonymous No.11645842]

>>11645835
i'm pretty sure they put the engine off center on purpose. Maybe they're practicing mounting it where it'll actually be rather than in some arbitrary central location.
>>11645839
that's cool, i didn't know that. That would look totally ridiculous tho

[Anonymous No.11645847]

was it just me or did this static fire have the "seal bark" shutdown noise that we got in those first few firings again?
I seem to remember that noise being really bad
>>11645842
it will absolutely look totally stupid and ridiculous, but it'll work

[Anonymous No.11645849]

>>11645842
Of course they put it off axis on purpose. They put in proper mounts where the engines are supposed to go.

[Anonymous No.11645851]

>Musk on Joe Rogan tomorrow
Oh shit, we gonna get another dose of ultra autism?

[Anonymous No.11645854]

>>11645842
I mean Starship will need to be able to land on less than 3 engines anyway. Just recently this lack of redundancy screwed over a Falcon 9.
So playing around with this probably makes sense. Although I guess the final vehicle will have a different center of mass.

[Anonymous No.11645856]

>>11645854
>screwed over a Falcon 9.
The primary mission completed succesfully. Engine redundancy ftw

[Anonymous No.11645862]

>>11645851
Hopefully he has a proper sesh this time

[Anonymous No.11645866]

>>11645854
>screwed over a Falcon 9

Mission still successful, failure mode identified and will be prevented in the future.

[Anonymous No.11645867]

>>11645829
>>11645837
Looks like FFA is under Boeing influence.
How long do you need to wait for such permit.
Fuck FFA and fuck Boeing

[Anonymous No.11645876]

>>11645867
FAA have always been massive Jews
That’s how any non regulated bureaucracy gets

[Anonymous No.11645897]

IT HAAAAPPPPENEEED
https://youtu.be/uoJTza2fpcg
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.11645898]

>>11645897
>IT BRAAAAPPPPENEEED

[Anonymous No.11645907]

HOLY SHIT CHECK THE NSF CAM STARSHIP FUCKING COLLAPSED

[Anonymous No.11645913]

>>11645851
Last Joe Rogan interview was utterly worthless outside of giving us weed memes. Hopefully that one will go better. But it‘ll probably just be autism about Coronachan.
Third Row Tesla interview was probably the most worthwhile thing I‘ve heard with him, despite that channel being entirely useless Tesla circle jerk in general.

[Anonymous No.11645916]

>>11645913
>But it‘ll probably just be autism about Coronachan
Yeah, that's what I'm expecting. 100% undiluted turbo autism about MUH GOVERNMENT TYRANNY.

[Anonymous No.11645917]

>>11645916
I'm not even going to watch it

[Anonymous No.11645922]

>>11645866
*screwed over a Falcon 9 booster
Happy now?

[Anonymous No.11645927]

>>11645913
It'll be his son's name, then MUH FREEDOM, maybe him and JD, simulation, theory and maaayyybe about DM-2 and Starship HLS. And Rogan may bring up what Reisman told him that Musk wants to die on Mars just not on entry.

[Anonymous No.11645936]

>>11645897
Methane?

[Anonymous No.11645938]

>>11645913
>Third Row Tesla interview
this actually does seem really good, thanks for the shout

[Anonymous No.11645939]

>>11645936
Methane doesn't have an odor, you're thinking of mercaptan. Rocket fuel grade methane might not have any odorant, but we won't know unless we inspect their shipments

[Anonymous No.11645949]

>>11645092
It's not that they stop working, it's that the inlets would reach temperatures beyond the capability of any material known.

[Anonymous No.11645955]

>>11645949
yeah, that's what I said
also combustion gets less effective at raising the temperature when it's already that high

[Anonymous No.11645960]

>>11645955
And they stopped producing any thrust at Mach 3.5 anyways

[Anonymous No.11646028]

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaba1050

Shit like this is why we need a permanent presence on the moon.

[Anonymous No.11646076]

>>11645939
They probably have fancier ways to detect a leak than by smell

[Anonymous No.11646083]

>>11646028
oh shit this is wild

[Anonymous No.11646107]

>>11646028
Big if true

[Anonymous No.11646116]

>>11646028
>https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaba1050

Of course there's carbon deposits on the fucking moon, it's a chunk of Earth and has been getting hit by big ass meteors for a long ass time. You would be an absolute retard to claim there is no carbon.

[Anonymous No.11646130]

>>11646028

What does this mean? I am a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11646131]

>>11646116
>You would be an absolute retard to claim there is no carbon.
Hindsight is an easy seat from which to pat yourself on the back and claim "I knew it all along." The guys who did the analysis of the moon's bulk composition determined, 50 years ago, that there is very little in the way of carbon or hydrogen on the moon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon#Elemental_composition

New data makes for an obvious need to reassess, and provides a good justification for sending much heavier and more robust mineralogical surveys.

[Anonymous No.11646135]

>>11646130
It means that one of the most useful chemical elements there is, previously believed to only be available in vanishingly low quantities on the moon, could actually be abundantly available. This would make it a lot easier to manufacture rocket fuels and other chemical compounds on the moon.

[Anonymous No.11646140]

>>11646116
Nooo! The moon is a barren rock with no usable ressources! You can‘t just go there and build a space industry!
You need to launch everything from earth on super heavy rockets!

[Anonymous No.11646180]

>>11646135

Thank you.

[Anonymous No.11646195]

>>11646028
>Carbon is a volatile element that has a considerable influence on the formation and evolution of planetary bodies, although it was previously believed to be depleted in the Moon. We present observations by the lunar orbiter KAGUYA of carbon ions emitted from the Moon.
Nice. Combine that with crater ice and we could get full CH4/O2 ISRU.

[Anonymous No.11646196]

>>11646131
From that wiki article
"Carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) appear to be present only in trace quantities from deposition by solar wind."

The KAGUYA observation shows concentrations that can NOT be accounted for from solar wind, solar UV or micrometeorites. So yeah, it's time to pack our bags and set up camp on the moon.

>>11646195
Bingo.

[Anonymous No.11646205]

>The solar wind includes C5+ and C6+ in addition to H+, He++, O6+, O7+, and O8+
>C5+
Ha ha, I was looking for carbon in my pictures folder and only found this. Maybe it's more appropriate than I first thought.

[Anonymous No.11646210]

>>11646195
Starship being able to do full ISRU on the Moon would be amazing.

[Anonymous No.11646311]

>>11645897
NOO THEY DID IT AGAIN YOU CAN'T JUST TEST YOUR ROCKETS WITHOUT YEARS OF PAPERWORK! FUCKING ELON HE CAN'T KEEP DOING THIS AAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.11646335]

>>11646311
Haha raptor go BRAAAAAAAP

[Anonymous No.11646352]

>>11644686

[Anonymous No.11646386]

>>11646028
Dam Son, Elon better hurry and claim every corner of the moon for america.

[Anonymous No.11646388]

>>11646386
Save a little corner for Norway thanks to contributions with pisscrete.
Dare you enter our magical realm?

[Anonymous No.11646389]

>>11646386
the whole "we're creating an international treaty, but only with nations we already know will sign it" approach is really promising. It's like they're actually trying to get shit done—Trump REALLY wants space to be his legacy.

[Anonymous No.11646395]

>>11645897
B E S T B O Y showing all of his POWEEEEEEEEEEEEEER ft Terry Crews.

[Anonymous No.11646418]

>May 7
Is anything expected today?

[Anonymous No.11646426]

>>11646418
Not really, Elon is going on turbo autist on Joe Rogan in 20 minutes or so I guess, but that's probably going to sperging out about coronavirus and whatnot.

[Anonymous No.11646428]

Musks new JRE interview is at 9am PST thursday. Is that in 2 hours?

[Anonymous No.11646432]

>>11646428
Yeah, sorry, 2hrs 20mins. My time was off.

[Anonymous No.11646433]

>>11646428
it's 6:40 AM on the pacific coast right now

[Anonymous No.11646436]

I know the condom failed but did the Chinese capsule return to Earth?

[Anonymous No.11646437]

>>11646433
>>11646428
Thanks. Perfect just as i get out of work.

[Anonymous No.11646440]

Will JRE release on youtube at the same time?

[Anonymous No.11646444]

>>11646440
It's pre-recorded.

[Anonymous No.11646446]

>>11646311

[Anonymous No.11646454]

>>11646428
>>11646426
It's tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.11646460]

>https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/05/p-t-p-transportation-boost-nasa-virgin-galactic-saa/
If Starship Earth-to-Earth is like the commercial airline industry, then Virgin Galactic would be the private jet company of spaceflight?

[Anonymous No.11646466]

>>11646454
>tomorrow
Considering he releases them at 9 in the morning, that'll be in 2 hours and 12 minutes. That was also posted before midnight PST.

[Anonymous No.11646470]

>>11646460
Starship Earth-to-Earth is something that will never happen so Virgin Galactic is like a niche expensive version of something that will never happen with even less appeal than something that has no appeal

[Anonymous No.11646471]

>>11646460
I hope some straps Richard Branson to a real booster and sends him into the sun to be honest.

[Anonymous No.11646476]

>>11646470
How so?

[Anonymous No.11646480]

>>11646470
Did you miss this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=zqE-ultsWt0

Starship sub orbitals is very much a possibility as well as a planned scenario they've had in mind.

[Anonymous No.11646492]

>>11646480
just because it's possible doesn't mean people will pay for it. See: Concorde, and that didn't even have the added stress of being propelled by a powerful rocket. The tiny number of people who actually need to get other places fast AND can afford it would rather just take their private jets.

[Anonymous No.11646493]

>>11646460
Virgin's manned efforts will have already been shelved by the time point to point ever materializes, if that even happens. And the closest thing to a private jet equivalent for suborbital point to point will be exclusive contracts, private ownership along with setting up the infrastructure and managing clearance would be infeasible even for billionaires.

[Anonymous No.11646496]

>>11646492
Jets are slow and expensive. If Starship delivers on cost per launch, it's a revolution not just in speed but also in cost.

[Anonymous No.11646508]

>>11646480
Isn't the problem with this that these launches are indistinguishable from ICBM launches and thus a risk to global security if there's multiple of them being lobbed up every day?

[Anonymous No.11646513]

>>11646496
private jet:
- private
- <1.5g at all times
- enough time to engage with high class prostitutes
- you get paid for travel time

starship:
- a hundred people packed like sardines
- serious, uncomfortable g's
- less paid travel time
- sitting on an ICBM

[Anonymous No.11646514]

>>11646480
>Massive Rockets flying everyday to every major city around the world, show up on every alert system as icbm.
What can go wrong.

[Anonymous No.11646517]

>>11646492
>just because it's possible doesn't mean people will pay for it
Just because Joe Executive won't interested doesn't mean nobody will.
The US military is very interested in it as a quick way to deploy troops anywhere on the globe on very short notice.
Basically it's an ICBM troop carrier.

[Anonymous No.11646518]

>>11646508
Of all the things that you could levy against point to point that seems like one of the more trivial. As long as everyone relevant is well informed of your schedule it shouldn't be an issue, and there's no particular reason why that would be hard to do.

[Anonymous No.11646519]

>>11646508
>the russians have launched an ICBM from the Moscow SpaceX pad right at a scheduled Starship launch. Crafty bastards!

[Anonymous No.11646520]

>>11646517
>The US military is very interested in it as a quick way to deploy troops anywhere on the globe on very short notice.
that's the one viable business plan and it leaves out Virgin Galactic 100%

[Anonymous No.11646522]

>>11646508
>>11646514
Well, people tend to let everyone know that a rocket is going at place x at time y.
We've had scares like that around my parts during the cold war, even when we let the Soviets know, but they just fucked up on letting the radar operators know so they thought that a sounding rocket coming over the north pole was a US ICBM even when everything was informed in advance.

Every single fucking rocket launch is a "risk" as you call it. But we do let everyone know what we're doing in advance.

[Anonymous No.11646529]

>>11646513
Degeneracy like sex with anyone but one’s spouse should be banned

[Anonymous No.11646536]

>>11646519
da

[Anonymous No.11646539]

>>11646517
>ICBM troop carrier
we're finally catching up to those crazy 60's ideas, and I love it

[Anonymous No.11646540]

>>11646529
Shut up. I'm going to introduce communal orgies on the moon, and you can't stop me.

[Anonymous No.11646544]

>>11646529

Even having sex with prostitutes is hard for me due to my social phobia. Without their service I would never have sex again because I can't flirt.

[Anonymous No.11646548]

>>11646540
You’ll stop yourself. Degenerate societies are unsustainable.

[Anonymous No.11646552]

>>11646544
Learn to flirt dummy.

[Anonymous No.11646564]

>>11646548
t. virgin who gets dabbed on by billionaire chads

[Anonymous No.11646566]

>>11646548
Calm down we'll make a line marriage like in the book The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress so the orgy is legit.... You wouldn't suggest the author of Starship Trooper is a degenerate right anon?

[Anonymous No.11646569]

>>11646548
Diddling in private doesn't make your society non-degenerate, retard.

[Anonymous No.11646570]

>>11646548
>implying that communal orgies wouldn't be a return to tradition

[Anonymous No.11646571]

>>11646552

maybe If I were 16 and had the time and women around me to develop that skill

[Anonymous No.11646572]

imagine trying to clean up after sex in micro gravity

[Anonymous No.11646581]

>>11646569
Only diddling with your wife in private is acceptable. People with more sexual partners are less happy.

>>11646570
Bad traditions all civilized societies abandoned.

[Anonymous No.11646587]

>>11646571
Go interact with women. There’s like four billion of them.

>>11646566
Sounds like something that isn’t lifetime monogamy so it’s unhealthy.

[Anonymous No.11646592]

>>11646581
You miss the point.
>hurr everyone come join my perfect non-degenerate society
>only attracts the worst boy-touching scum of humanity while putting on acceptable face
It's like you people have learned nothing from Christianity, or maybe you're just addicted to boy rape.

[Anonymous No.11646597]

>>11646544
>>11646571
I'm in the same boat, brother. Here's to both of us.

[Anonymous No.11646600]

>>11646587
>lifetime monogamy
t. has never had a partner and honestly believes the first one he ever has will last forever

[Anonymous No.11646601]

>>11646587

nah, the prostitution service nowadays is so streamlined I don't think getting with normal woman would be worth it in any way

[Anonymous No.11646608]

>tfw you're using among the most advanced engines in the world but you keep being delayed into oblivion

[Anonymous No.11646623]

>>11646592
>It's like you people have learned nothing from Christianity, or maybe you're just addicted to boy rape.

Cope. Religious people are measurably more happy, have more children, and live longer. People with more sexual partners are measurably less happy.

[Anonymous No.11646625]

>>11646600
I have one, and am confident it will last forever.

[Anonymous No.11646635]

>>11645897
soon

[Anonymous No.11646704]

>>11646518
>>11646519
>>11646522
Look I didn't come up with the idea

[Anonymous No.11646710]

>>11646704
No, but it's a thing we've been doing since the cold war. We've had a global system in place for informing one another of launches to avoid just a situation like the one you described since before you were swimming in your fathers nads.
Except for tiny shithole states like Best Korea, which is why we're reacting to them like we are whenever they go full retard and launch something without having the common courtesy of letting anyone know in advance.

[Anonymous No.11646726]

>>11646710
They told people about their satellite launch

[Anonymous No.11646730]

>>11646726
Because that was a prestige program. "Best Korea Can Into Space!"
Every other launch they fucking ignore.

[Anonymous No.11646732]

>>11646492
Concorde had very limited range so only london NYC was possible and could go supersonic only over water that killed it.If you had a supersonic jet capable of crossing the pacific or do long over polar routes between us europe and china it would be a viable idea.Concorde used 1960s tech don't forget that they had to use afterburners to maintain supersonic speed and were horribly inefficient by modern standards look at CFM56 derived engines that AS2 will use to get any idea on what is possible now and slap on cmc core and composite geared fan and you are at what we can do today

[Anonymous No.11646739]

>>11646513
>implying sitting on an ICBM isn't playing in favor of starship

[Anonymous No.11646744]

>>11646739
Riding an ICBM to work every morning was the future I dreamed of as a child.

[Anonymous No.11646767]

>>11646732
The biggest crossover in the difficulty of these is the the clunky and limited nature, and at least airports existed before the Concorde did. Starship has to cope with off-shore takeoff and landing in order to be anywhere close to viable markets, with load/unload and ferrying eating up a significant part of the time advantage. It'll also be limited in ports by the whole "let us land a sub-orbital rocket right off your coast please" process and constructing the infrastructure to actually handle that.

[Anonymous No.11646780]

>>11646744

[Anonymous No.11646829]

Well, the JRE podcast is out if anyone wants 2 hours of autism.

[Anonymous No.11646842]

>>11646732
It wasn't just the range, the public got scared into oh noes sonic boom booms all day think of muh chilrrrens. That's part of what killed the SST programs in the US. Only Concorde survived because it focused on trans-Atlantic routes.

[Anonymous No.11646910]

>>11646780
Be it an ICBM or a shitbox the average worker will never be happy on a commute.

[Anonymous No.11646917]

>>11646436
>I know the condom failed but did the Chinese capsule return to Earth?
It is planned to return tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.11646920]

>>11646910
Nobody is happen when they know that they are their way to hell.

[Anonymous No.11646925]

>>11646917
Here's hoping it makes a heavenly crater right in the middle of Beijing.

[Anonymous No.11646927]

>>11646920
Nobody is happy***

[Anonymous No.11646936]

>>11646920
Working isn’t Hell. Imagine being such a crybaby that you can’t handle flipping patties or moving boxes.

[Anonymous No.11646942]

>>11646936
You've never had awful bosses then.

[Anonymous No.11647064]

>>11646028
Finally, thank god. Looks like if you're willing to do a lot of processing, self-sufficiency on the moon is perfectly possible. Lunar ancap madness here we come.

[Anonymous No.11647146]

>>11646732
no, conconde only used afterburners for take-off and to cross the transitional mach barrier (from mach 1 to mach 1.4-1.7), and it's engines at mach two are still some of the most efficient internal combustion engines built, at 43% thermal efficiency.

[Anonymous No.11647168]

>>11646480
what ever time you might be saving while flying with the rocket will be more than lost during your trip from and to the launchpad.
the facts that it will always be more expansive and never as save as normal air travel are just additional nails in the coffin

[Anonymous No.11647171]

>>11647168
If it's on the other side of the globe, I somewhat doubt that.

[Anonymous No.11647175]

>>11644696
Because the space force is a response to Russian and Chinese equivalents that just look at satellites and missiles all day and the only reason for all the Star Trek aesthetic is that he wanted popular support from POGs normies and the dipshits that pass for representatives in the US

[Anonymous No.11647229]

>>11645468
epic haha

[Anonymous No.11647272]

>>11647168
>Have a good time for an hour on a boat in transit to pad
>Spend <30 minutes packed like sardines during the actual trip
>Relax afterward on the boat ride back to shore at some third world shithole

[Anonymous No.11647277]

>>11646195
>Starship does full ISRU between Earth and the Moon
>lunar colonies build up manufacturing capacity
>NASA builds and launches Orion ships on the dark side of the Moon hiring workers from every state so Congress can't kill it

[Anonymous No.11647295]

>>11647277
So lets be serious here, would orion actually work?
I always think of this as a "murica, fuck yeah" thing you dont need to take serious.

[Anonymous No.11647302]

>>11647295
The biggest engineering challenge of Orion isn't really space related, it's how to deliberately nuke yourself hundreds of times and not get killed, irradiated, or slammed around violently. If Orion doesn't end up working we could build other types of nuclear engine.

[Anonymous No.11647325]

>>11647295
scale model worked as far back as the 50's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Sv5y6iHUM

Shaped explosion tech is similar to the one used to make thermonuclear warheads, so hardly impossible. It would take decades to make something reliable though, and it would not work in the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11647334]

>>11647325
>and it would not work in the atmosphere.
That's why you launch it from the moon, duh.

[Anonymous No.11647336]

>>11647295
Yes. From a physics/engineering perspective there's no doubt you could propel a vehicle using explosives, conventional or atomic. The small scale test vehicles already demonstrated the feasibility of explosive-powered flight using a pusher plate craft. The more pressing challenge would in my opinion be to design a nuclear shaped charge to maximize the ISP of your Orion craft. It can work by just catching some of the explosion in the pusher plate, but in the ideal world you would want 100% of the explosion's energy to contact the surface of the plate so it can be translated to propulsive force.
Now obviously you'll never get true perfection, some of the bomb's energy will escape as light and heat moving away from the ship without contacting the plate, some of it will move sideways and fly off into space without ever touching the plate, but you still want as much as possible to strike the plate directly. You can't get that with a normal thermonuclear warhead, you'd need to design some kind of casing for it which will focus most of that energy into a cone you adjust to the size of the plate itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Sv5y6iHUM

[Anonymous No.11647353]

What is /sci/s opinion on him?

[Anonymous No.11647358]

>>11647353
Kind of a weird band.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kCe_VZztUg

[Anonymous No.11647359]

>>11647353
forgot the fucking image

[Anonymous No.11647370]

>>11646710
>do daily NYC to Beijing BFR flights
>one day, load up BFR with nuclear warheads instead of businessman
>MIRV with like a hundred warheads destroys everything in value in China with only about ten minutes notice
>launch salvo of Minutemen and SLBMs to finish off any silos that the initial barrage didn't get, while hunter-killer subs sink China's nuclear submarines
>declare world domination

[Anonymous No.11647371]

>>11647370
>Entire rest of world nukes you because you just proved you can't be trusted.
Oops.

[Anonymous No.11647373]

>>11647371
>let's nuke a country with robust second strike capabilities and the world's largest arsenal
>what's the worst that could happen

[Anonymous No.11647375]

>>11647373
And what would you know about China's capabilities, mr. Armchair Analyst?

[Anonymous No.11647376]

>>11647371
>>Entire rest of world nukes you
Other than the Russians, nobody has ever posed a serious nuclear threat to the USA. That's still true.

[Anonymous No.11647379]

>>11647376
Yes, yes. Ignore the fact that the mighty US army buckled under Israeli threat of detonating one of theirs in the middle east if they didn't get supplies when they were about to get their shit kicked in.
Fact is, nobody wants any to go off, because they're afraid that if one goes off, many more will follow.

[Anonymous No.11647408]

>>11647359
I can't stand his face and voice. If he at least didn't showed his face, he would have lot more subs.

[Anonymous No.11647417]

>>11647359
>First search result
>Donate to my patreon
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.11647424]

>>11647359
No clickbait or erroneous rambling, he mostly just gets to the point. I don't see what's not to like unless you have a chip on your shoulder.

[Anonymous No.11647436]

>>11647359
Pretty good for day to day space news. Decent

[Anonymous No.11647450]

I didn't notice this until today. NASA will provide algorithms to the Space Force to help it's sensors detect near Earth asteroids. The Space Force will then provide this data back to NASA's planetary protection office.
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-and-space-force-to-work-together-on-planetary-defense/

[Anonymous No.11647564]

>>11647302
Nukes in space are vastly less destructive than on Earth, where the atmosphere keeps the plasma ball confined enough that it stays extremely hot for multiple seconds. In space, the bomb material cools down extremely rapidly and ends up being little more than a pulse of fast moving particles by the time it hits the spacecraft.