/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.11661759]

Space blimps edition.

Previous: >>11658134

[Anonymous No.11661766]

>>11661759
What the fuck is that?

[Anonymous No.11661770]

>>11661759
Remember to have anal sex biweekly to prepare yourself for the Martian environment

[Anonymous No.11661771]

>>11661759
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG_Eh0J_4_s
new hullo, discussing new rocket engine
RDFFSCE when?

[Anonymous No.11661772]

>>11661766
A space blimp. It almost crossed the Karman line in 2011.

https://www.space.com/13433-balloon-airship-altitude-record.html

[Anonymous No.11661776]

>>11661770
Ah shit, I've been cooming inside my girlfriend's unprotected tight juicy pussy this whole time. She isn't on birth control by the way.

[Anonymous No.11661781]

>>11661776
Great! Create as many children as you can support economically.

[Anonymous No.11661784]

>>11661771
Semi-related, but is anyone having issues with getting randomly unsubscribed from HULLO? I thought he wasn't making videos for a while before I realized that YouTube unsubscribed me from him for some reason. This is the third time this happened to me.

[Anonymous No.11661785]

>>11661772
>We can make space zeppelins
I NEED IT

[Anonymous No.11661787]

>>11661784
YouTube does that all the time with everyone for any channel. Trainwreck of a website.

[Anonymous No.11661794]

>>11661776
Sounds nice, can I do that too?

[Anonymous No.11661797]

>>11661771
>You can see the rotating shockwaves spiraling in the exhaust jet from that PDE demonstrator powerhead.
Oh fuck, OH FUCK I'M GONNA COOM.
As to how long it's gonna take, Idunno development cycles for complex technology like this can often take a decade, somebody would have to pour enormous resources up front into fast tracking it. You could maybe halve that time then to five years if you started a company devoted exclusively to creating the new engine.
I'm also noticing that a lot of them look a lot like aerospikes due to the nature of the combustion chamber needs. This will make them most ideal for second stages.

[Anonymous No.11661802]

How's this as a basic layout for a spacecraft? This would just be one section of the spacecraft not including any living space or anything.

[Anonymous No.11661803]

Could you make this into a high thrust LANTR style rocket?

[Anonymous No.11661806]

>>11661771
So it's technically a pretty massive improvement but the combustion is about as stable as Elon's twitter feed?

[Anonymous No.11661811]

>>11661794
Sure, you just need to find a girlfriend and you can start cooming
>>11661781
I had some trouble staying hard our first time so she said we could forget the condom and take the risk. She can't take birth control because it messes with her cycle really badly. Since then neither of us have brought up the fact that we aren't using protection of any kind. Also she has an impregnation fetish and loves semen.

[Anonymous No.11661825]

>>11661785
You could probably get away with a pretty small rocket launching from 30km up and at least 200kph land speed. Hydrogen is well understood these days so just make sure there's no oxygen in the balloon and don't paint it with anything flammable to avoid a Hindenburg.

[Anonymous No.11661831]

>>11661802
That would be fine for something like a pressurized tunnel to reach the engine section of a very long spacecraft, for example.

[Anonymous No.11661832]

>>11661802
I'm guessing most of this is for shielding in which case you're probably better off just staccing it and putting it all between you and the sun instead of a little bit of it all around you.

[Anonymous No.11661833]

>>11661803
No, it requires that you generate a lot of electrical power from the reaction in order to run the reaction, and that much power is going to come along with a huge amount of waste heat to reject. You can get much better TWR than an ion drive or other purely electric thruster, but something as high TWR as a nuclear thermal engine would be out of reach.

[Anonymous No.11661834]

>>11661806
Well, it's still extremely early days so I'd hesitate to say the engines are inherently more unstable than any other rocket engine. There have been plenty of cases where conventional rocket engines pop themselves due to combustion instability. Doesn't seem like an impossible problem even if they are fundamentally tougher to reign in though, that will just demand an advancement in real-time flight computer control of each engine. In the end if faster and smarter and more robust engine regulation is needed it might eventually lead to all rockets being inherently closer to the edge of their limits while simultaneously being much less likely to actually fail.
Consider aircraft, many modern fighters are so aerodynamically unstable they'd be nearly impossible for a human to fly manually, we invented better computers and flight systems to take up the job and now aircraft can perform aerobatic maneuvers which would have ripped older planes apart or caused them to completely lose all control. Modern planes as a result are actually safer for being more difficult to control.

[Anonymous No.11661843]

>>11661802
I don't think you'd actually want a water jacket like that. It is good shielding, granted, but if it gets punctured by a micrometeor strike or just leaks because it's not perfectly water tight that could cause a significant problem. The water will start to fly free in zero-g and might contact electrical systems or something else important, under thrust it will slosh to the bottom of the ship. Either way it would probably better to just use self-sealing conformal water tanks as a separate piece attached to the hull. If you're building a ship that big you have already stopped being autistic about mass.

[Anonymous No.11661844]

>>11661806
Well, the idea would be to be able to control the tuning of the engine to control the number of detonation wave fronts and their stability, but of course that's still a problem to solve.
The magnitude of the improvement would be pretty extreme. Methalox would go from 380 vacuum Isp to 456 vacuum Isp, hydrolox would go from 460 to 552 Isp, and if you're a crazy person hydrogen-lithium-fluorine would go from 542 to 650 Isp.

[Anonymous No.11661845]

>>11661832
There’s also radiation from the galaxy and around, say, Jupiter which has to be considered.

[Anonymous No.11661856]

>>11661802
Side View for style

[Anonymous No.11661865]

>>11661811
>impregnation fetish
literally don’t we all?

[Anonymous No.11661870]

>>11661843
You could add a substance in the water to make it more gelatinous. Or you could just pressurize it to something simple like 5-25 psi to ensure even spread throughout the ship. As for leakage, "drawbridge" style doors can be installed every now and then that can seal off and sectionize the whole tank so that only one area is effected at any given point. Along with maybe wrapping it in a structure or material that can rush in to seal the hole if their is one.

[Anonymous No.11661874]

So the starship just had another good test, how is the outlook for the future missions it has planned?

[Anonymous No.11661878]

>>11661833
It can stay running as is. All you are doing is superheating a propellant such as LH2 or H2O and shooting it out the back while injecting LOX to get that go baby go level of thrust. The reaction itself wouldn't seem to alter in any way and heating would be mitigated due to you turning it into an open cycle engine from the amount of propellant you're chucking out the back.

[Anonymous No.11661887]

Have their ever been any SSTO spaceplane concepts that include typical turbofan engines to get it to take off and reach a high altitude before lighting the big boy rockets?

[Anonymous No.11661895]

>>11661874
Static fire and/or 150m hop SN4 coming real soon. SN5 is to complete stacking anyday now. SN6 stacting has started. SN5/SN6 will do 150m hop and/or 20km/100km flight test.

[Anonymous No.11661899]

>>11661895
They just had a static fire, I'm hoping for a hop soon

[Anonymous No.11661900]

>>11661887
Yes
Shuttle
Skylon

[Anonymous No.11661913]

>>11661895
imagine the salt if starship pops the karman line

[Anonymous No.11661921]

>>11661900
Which design version of the shuttle had jet engines and was an SSTO?

[Anonymous No.11661922]

>>11661913
Shelby would go full senator Armstrong "NanoShuttles, son" on Elon

[Anonymous No.11661926]

>>11661825
>the Hindenburg could do 125kph through thick atmosphere with old piston driven propellers
200kph seems doable with jets if the thing can get up to 30km to begin with.

>>11661913
*when

>>11661922
If that involves SLS actually flying it might be worth it.

[Anonymous No.11661930]

Virgin Galactic went public last year, does anyone here own any shares? In an ideal world a pleb like me could invest in SpaceX/Blue Origin for those retirement gainz but they’re both private and SPCE is all we’ve got.

I bought some shares just on the off chance 25 years from now it’s huge and I get a 1000x ROI or something

[Anonymous No.11661936]

>>11661930
Bruh

[Anonymous No.11661938]

Skylon is actually really impressive, easily the best non-nuclear SSTO concept of all time. Could get a legit load of cargo to the space station, and that atmospheric oxygen condenser system is really impressive-gulping up to mach 5 air, ripping out the oxygen and chilling it down for later rocket use in a fraction of a second is pure witchcraft.

Imagine a passenger variant for space tourism/LEO application. That would be sick.

[Anonymous No.11661939]

>>11661938
Now if only someone actually built it.

[Anonymous No.11661946]

>>11661938
What, for a whole two passengers? Skylon looks cool, visually, but it would be nonsensical in a world where reusable rockets will be it's contemporaries.

[Anonymous No.11661952]

Is virgin galactic doing anything? also thoughts on blue origin and Dynetics getting lunar lander with SpaceX?

[Anonymous No.11661962]

Mods are asleep, post HFY

[Anonymous No.11661963]

>>11661952
>The virgin galactic
Haven't heard anything major, as to Blue it's more like they're building one third of a lander. I like the Dynetics tin can most as a lander, unlike the prom queen Lockheed/Blue/etc lander it doesn't look like it could tip over on a dime. Moonship is almost meme tier in it's radically larger size and scope as a lander, I understand why NASA awarded them the lowest fraction of the prize budget.

[Anonymous No.11661968]

>>11661772
>put SRB on space blimp
>launch from 90,000 feet, lose absolutely zero Delta V to atmosphere
>total launch costs are just the cost of the SRB

Move over BFR, there's a new meme in town.

[Anonymous No.11661972]

>>11661936
Masterful response

[Anonymous No.11661976]

>>11661938
>CURVED. ENGINES.

[Anonymous No.11661979]

>>11661946
It is a reusable rocket, and it could carry up to 30 passengers, its payload bay is massive. I hope it becomes a ting and is legit competition for Starship for LEO applications.

[Anonymous No.11661981]

[Anonymous No.11661983]

Fusion powered SSTO when?

[Anonymous No.11661984]

>>11661865
Perhaps, but hers is strong

[Anonymous No.11661987]

>>11661938
>Skylon
When is it coming out again? 2050? KEK

[Anonymous No.11661991]

>>11661968
balloon launch was a thing, briefly. think they are insolvent now.

[Anonymous No.11661996]

>>11661878
>It can stay running as is
If that's true we have a working fusion reactor and we need to stop the fucking presses. In reality it doesn't and it isn't that easy.

[Anonymous No.11661998]

>>11661983
Depends on if Helion energy/Zap Energy/Tokamak Energy/SPARC work anytime soon. If one of these people calls a big press conference, get excited and afraid. Fusion rockets are insane in every way-velocities of 10% c become possible, and space instantly becomes weaponized, since 500 kg at 10% c has similar energy to the Tsar Bomba. It's going to be nuts.

[Anonymous No.11661999]

>>11661887
No, turbofans become useless at too slow a speed and too low an altitude. While more efficient on paper you'd much rather use a turbojet-ramjet hybrid to accelerate up to ~mach 4 then switch to rocket mode. Despite all this SSTO is a meme and will never be better than reusable TSTO in any way.

[Anonymous No.11662001]

>>11661979
>Legit competition for Starship in LEO.
Anon Skylon can only carry 24% more payload than a Falcon 9 and it's projected final cost per unit is nearly 200 million, substantially more than Falcon Heavy which greatly exceeds it's lifting capabilities. Starship/Superheavy is in an entirely different weight class.

[Anonymous No.11662007]

>>11661983
>Not the pelican
Absolutely disgusting

[Anonymous No.11662022]

>>11662001
The added cost does come with a few advantages-since it takes off as an airplane it can deal with negative launch conditions that would ground a normal rocket-think of how many times a bit of erratic wind has shut down SpaceX launches and pushed them ahead. IT can also land at most airports, which means you have more options for how you use it and may increase its appeal for the military. A Skylon could be wepaonized as well-it's got enough payload to carry some really nasty bombs or missiles and it can reach distant targets very quickly and safely by going into space.

[Anonymous No.11662023]

>>11661963
>radically larger size and scope as a lander
The fact that it could easily go back and fourth is a large plus also if the program is meant to set up a moon base then the moonship's payload is preferable

[Anonymous No.11662026]

>>11661930
>I bought
You bought?

[Anonymous No.11662027]

>>11662022
Isn't Starship being designed with weather hardening in mind as well so that launches don't have to be scrubbed?

[Anonymous No.11662029]

>>11661938
>ripping out the oxygen
It doesn't rip the oxygen out at all, it just shoves everything into the engine

[Anonymous No.11662035]

>>11661963
>I understand why NASA awarded them the lowest fraction of the prize budget
It's because SpaceX bid that low.

[Anonymous No.11662038]

>>11661991
Of course, because their idea is a bullshit scam.

[Anonymous No.11662040]

>>11661968
Spaceblimps also have the neat property of not even requiring a runway, so any old stretch of empty east-facing coastline will work. And of course the 4ASS blimps would be tastefully painted with anime waifus.

>>11661983
When we stop caring about portions of the planet glowing blue for millions of years.

[Anonymous No.11662044]

>>11662022
Skylon can't do any of those things. It can only launch in favorable conditions because it's so razor-thin on delta V margins it can't afford to spend even one minute in atmosphere not accelerating to orbit. It's too heavy even when empty for most airport runways and also requires a very long runway to land because it needs to land at such a high speed. It also uses hydrogen fuel and liquid oxygen, which wait lemme think NO AIRPORTS CARRY. Finally, no idiot is going to put bombs on Skylon when they could just launch an ICBM instead.

[Anonymous No.11662055]

>>11661968
>>launch from 90,000 feet
That's 2.7g/cm^3 atmosphere density. To get up there, a blimp would need to be less dense than that. The Hindenburg empty was about 1538g/cm^3 (thanks, Wolfram Alpha), so you'd need to make a blimp WITH a 20,000kg booster hung underneath about 570x LESS dense. Super thin rigid shell around a pumped vacuum maybe?

[Anonymous No.11662057]

>>11661938
no, that's not how it works
it's just an afterburning turbojet with a precooler to get it up to about mach 5 and then it's a regular old boring rocket

[Anonymous No.11662058]

>>11662027
It’s how all spacecraft should be designed in the future honestly. Able to withstand storms and the mud and the muck. Conditions on terrestrial surfaces are nowhere near prisons lab conditions, so I really like the setup they have in Boca Chica compared to the standard oldspace levels of pristine

[Anonymous No.11662065]

>>11662027
Yep. F9 has weather issues cause its a thinbody. Starship's chunky body makes it much harder for wind to do much against it.

[Anonymous No.11662072]

blob

[Anonymous No.11662092]

>>11661963
what is blue origin even doing?

[Anonymous No.11662099]

>>11662092
suborbital dildos

[Anonymous No.11662105]

>>11661999
>Despite all this SSTO is a meme and will never be better than reusable TSTO in any way
Being able to take off and land on a regular runway without any major ground operations with quick turn around times will be the true determining factors of a cheap STO spacecraft. This is where SSTO spaceplanes shine.

[Anonymous No.11662110]

>>11662040
>nuclear fusion
>fallout and nuclear waste
Pick one and only one. You can't have both.

[Anonymous No.11662117]

>>11662105
wrong, what you want is an impossible dream
even if SSTO is possible (it isn't without magic) it will never be able to fly from regular runways with or without major ground operations

[Anonymous No.11662132]

where can I find the most info on the mars plan?

[Anonymous No.11662148]

>>11662132
almost everything you'll find on the internet aside from a single slide from SpaceX is fanfiction
the slide can be summarized as such:
>1st synod: EDL tests
>2nd synod: cargo and ISRU system delivered to surface
>3rd synod: more cargo, humans delivered to surface, ISRU system set up
>4th synod: more humans, more cargo, scaling. optimistically, first cargo/science Starship launch from Mars surface to Earth

[Anonymous No.11662156]

>>11662117
>Recent breakthroughs in novel compact fusion designs never really attempted are seeing success
>Better designs and materials from other projects such as Venture Star that had promise to eliminate issues such as hard to work with thermal protection that can allow for quicker turnaround times
>More and more interest to get shit into space both from the civilian market and military
>"Never gonna happen"
We'll see.

[Anonymous No.11662161]

>>11662156
fusion counts as magic, desu
I hope it works out, but it still won't be able to fly from regular runways with or without major ground operations
even if fusion works, the engine will be neutron activated (unless it's disposable and never fired) and thus radioactive

[Anonymous No.11662163]

Let's say Elon builds some Libertarian powered roads on Mars to connect some colonies and outposts together. How would /sci/ modify a vehicle like pic related to function on Mars?

[Anonymous No.11662167]

>>11662161
Depends on the fuels you use.

[Anonymous No.11662170]

>>11662167
helium fusion is harder than hydrogen fusion

[Anonymous No.11662172]

>>11662055
>The Hindenburg empty was about 1538g/cm^3
The hindenburg empty was not 1538 times more dense than liquid water you fucking retard, lmao

[Anonymous No.11662177]

>>11662163
Remove everything, scrap metal, reforge the metal into sleek and light weight body. Put electric motor in there with battery power. Dig underground tunnels with Boring Machine and create hyper loop system that connect Mars colonies/cities across each other. Each hub of hyper loop can be host of underground eco system.

[Anonymous No.11662178]

>>11662167
Helium 3 barely counts as aneutronic. Proton-boron is the true aneutronic fusion option and it fucking sucks as a fusion fuel.

[Anonymous No.11662191]

>>11661759
there was a space launch proposal for a gigantic blimp glider that would gradually skip of the top of the atmosphere until it had orbital velocity, anyone remember that?

[Anonymous No.11662193]

>>11662148
>mans, mo
dammit I already know this. I was hoping to see planned infastructure

[Anonymous No.11662194]

>>11662178
Sucks as in hard to do sucks? Or sucks as in not as powerful sucks? Cause honestly at this point with what we got (chemical rockets and ion drives). Any fusion power will be leaps and bounds better than what we have now.

[Anonymous No.11662206]

>>11662193
the only thing out there is fanfiction, disregard it

[Anonymous No.11662218]

>>11662194
It's like 500 times harder than D-D fusion. It's also less powerful per kilogram of fuel.

[Anonymous No.11662220]

>>11662218
Well the direct fusion drive mentioned above is designed to conduct a helium-3 helium-3 reaction. How much harder would a boron reactor be from that?

[Anonymous No.11662224]

>>11662206
dammit

[Anonymous No.11662225]

>>11662156
Dude, SPARC is the most promising fusion concept for a long time and the full size reactor is easily going to be a thousand tonnes, let alone all the ancillary shit like turbines, working fluid, etc... for a couple of hundred MW, absolutely not going to be any use for spaceflight for a long fucking time

>venture star

SSTO hydrogen spaceplanes have and always will be memes.

[Anonymous No.11662235]

>>11662225
What about Princeton's Field Reversed Configuration reactor? Or the university of Washington's shear flow stabilized Z-pinch? Both are compact and both show promise.

[Anonymous No.11662236]

>>11662220
You need plasma temperatures of over a billion degrees at higher plasma density, which means the bremsstrahlung xray losses will be extreme, so you need extremely efficient capture of that energy and conversion of it back into electricity that can be used to re-pump the plasma to keep it hot and confined.

Also, please remember that the fusion drive mentioned above is not REAL, it is a design but there's no guarantee it would actually WORK. It if could work, we'd basically have tabletop fusion reactors that we could mass produce and solve every problem on Earth immediately. Do not take the bait that scam artists work so hard on crafting to draw you in.

[Anonymous No.11662238]

>>11662092
Crew capsule part of a three part lander.

[Anonymous No.11662245]

>>11662206

disregard attempts at understanding the underlying program better and informed projection of events?

there was "fan fiction" discussion of higher mounted landing rockets for moon flights to sidestep the projectile debris concerns too, before they ever appeared in any Spacex planning.

[Anonymous No.11662249]

>>11662218
There has been some progress on proton boron,but the groups pursuing it makes me a little suspicious-the laser guys from NSW seem fairly legit, but the dense plasma focus guy and TAE seem like they are miles from a proper reactor.

The ideal current gen fusion drive would burn only deuterium-neutrons that come out are less powerful and you have abundant fuel and no need to mess with tritium breeding, although it is harder than D-t fusion it's not undoable. The Firefly concept shrunk down and with a top speed of 1% c would be a sick interplanetary system. That's reliant on us making getting cargo to space as cheap as possible so we can build it in orbit, because no one is approving a fusion rocket that fires on earth since it's got gigajoules of neutrons pissing out in every direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25jRvzTPL4A&

(If the FRC colliding reactor Helion is working on pans out that could be better since it's got very low neutron levels,but they've been pretty quiet)

[Anonymous No.11662250]

>>11662238
wrong, they're doing the middle descent stage of a three part lander

[Anonymous No.11662256]

>>11662245
that's just fantasy bullshit to extract easy money from NASA, we'll figure out if it's relevant after the CLPS starships drop their cargo off on the moon

[Anonymous No.11662265]

>>11662163
It's been discussed before but electrical motors or even compressed CO2 piston motors can be used on Mars in lieu of the internal combustion engine, you can either cut down the frame by 60% or leave it whole to be super durable on Mars. Normal tires wouldn't be idea, I think there'd be pressure issues plus the super strong UV of Mars would degrade rubber quite quickly. They could be spring steel or titanium alloy mesh tires or just simple hoops of steel with cleats for traction. Obviously the cab needs to have an environmental seal if you want people to be able to drive it, replace one door with a suit lock so you can get in and out in the field. Because of the hard direct UV radiation you might not have windows at all, it might simply have complex camera systems to give you a wide view ahead of the cab. Autodriving software as well so that humans aren't an absolute necessity for it.

[Anonymous No.11662268]

>>11662132

make rockets cheap, make money to pay off cheap rockets, spam mars with paid off rockets and paid off payloads

[Anonymous No.11662271]

Hot take: Humanity will never achieve fusion power.

[Anonymous No.11662273]

>>11662235
None of them are working. None of them are getting even close to Q=1.
SPARC is a design that could absolutely reach Q=1 if the numbers they are talking about are real. IF, being the operative word. Literally every other fusion design EVER has had a Q factor at least an order of magnitude below 1. Until you're getting into Q between 1 and 10, you have a science experiment. Q between 10 and 100 means you have a working reactor. Q greater than 10 in a compact platform means you are edging into fusion propulsion systems territory; SPARC in Space could someday act as a propulsion system, but it wouldn't produce much greater thrust to weight ratio than an ion drive, albeit at a significantly higher Isp. That's not to say it'd be bad, but it'd be a FAR cry from having any impact on actual launch vehicles whatsoever.

Currently, the only theoretical fusion device I've seen that could do anything in terms of launching payload is a dubious design that requires a state of matter that apparently most people haven't heard of even in academia (rydeberg matter?) which causes deuterium to persist in an ultra-dense state at room temperature, which can be ignited to fusion using a laser that only needs to deposit a few kilojoules per gram into the ultradense deuterium stream. Also, the proponent for this system claims that because of the very low temperature and high density of the fusion plasma, deuterium actually becomes a totally aneutronic fuel by coupling with other deuterium nuclei at low enough velocities to keep both neutrons bound, producing helium 4. Quite a few dubious claims to bundle up into a single design.

[Anonymous No.11662276]

>>11662092
Blue Origin? Let me tell you about Blue Origin friend. There's this guy Jeff who went from computer nerd to the richest man in the world and he's now using that money to fulfill his _actual_ life mission which is ruling over an empire of O'Neill Cylinders with untold quantities of humans packed in them. I think Blue Origin gets too maligned, they've been in stealth up until as recently as 2016 so they've been pretty quiet and thus haven't gotten a space "fandom" like Musk has gotten, but I have no reason to doubt a guy like Bezos couldn't use the same ruthlessly efficient processes he used on Amazon but in creating a logistics network in space.

[Anonymous No.11662281]

Will Breakthrough Starshot work?

[Anonymous No.11662284]

>>11662236
Any real niggas out there that actually know a thing or two about fusion shit say something about this? How legit or bullshit is this?

https://www.zapenergyinc.com

[Anonymous No.11662302]

>>11662284
bullshit

[Anonymous No.11662321]

>>11662273
Who is this guy or company claiming this? Never even heard of rydeberg matter.

[Anonymous No.11662327]

>>11662284
It's legit enough to get millions of dollars in gov funding, including one million just recently from ARPA-E'S bethe PROGRAM
https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/BETHE_Project_Descriptions_FINAL.24.20.pdf

https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/Shumlak_arpae2019_compressed.pdf

https://youtu.be/b21pxLKnQ30?t=385
I'm very intrigued by this approach, and usefully it's simple enough that if it doesn't work we will know about it quite soon.

[Anonymous No.11662331]

>>11662284
>Direct energy converter component on the diagram
>Is this bullshit?

Tough question m8

[Anonymous No.11662337]

>>11662284
The UW research is legitimate. The office address on that website is a fairly high rent part of downtown Seattle even by Seattle standards, so someone is clearly throwing enough money at them for this to be somewhat serious.

[Anonymous No.11662360]

>>11662331
Why is Direct Energy conversion bullshit?

[Anonymous No.11662368]

>>11662271
>Hot take:
shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.11662372]

>>11662368
Sorry, I just don't see any progress in the last couple decades.

[Anonymous No.11662375]

>>11662372
Because the effort has been a joke until very recently.

[Anonymous No.11662377]

>>11662375
>Because the effort has been a joke until very recently.
Explain.

[Anonymous No.11662380]

>>11662377
>All the world's fusion budget dumped into a gigantic beauracrat nightmare project that was obsolete before they even poured any concrete

[Anonymous No.11662413]

>>11662380
ITER?

[Anonymous No.11662444]

>>11662377
Obligatory.

[Anonymous No.11662454]

>>11662444
So when the fuck will we actually get fusion?

[Anonymous No.11662465]

>>11662454
After we nuke China and no longer have to worry about them stealing it.

[Anonymous No.11662466]

>>11662337
>you can tell they're serious because they're spending a large amount of money on an office in downtown Seattle

[Anonymous No.11662472]

>>11662466
yeah, serious about scamming money out of venture capitalists lol

[Anonymous No.11662483]

>>11662413
Yes, the fusion worlds version of SLS

[Anonymous No.11662485]

lol, just take an atom in one hand, another atom in your other hand, and slap them together. Nuclear Fusion is so fucking easy. haha respond to this post by saying hi-five mr. fusion man or else your mother will die in her sleep tonight haha.

[Anonymous No.11662489]

>>11662485
hi-five mr. fusion man

[Anonymous No.11662494]

>>11662485
hi-five mr. fusion man

[Anonymous No.11662498]

>>11662485
That's right. Fusion is so easy you can rig up a fusor in your garage in a week if you want.

Designing a fusor that produces enough fusion power that it can run a generator that powers the fusor, in a sustainable arrangement, is the hard problem. That's what requires hundreds of millions of dollars and breakthroughs in multiple fields of technology to achieve.

[Anonymous No.11662499]

>>11662485
hi-five mr. fusion ma

[Anonymous No.11662501]

read that the new mars rover has an ISRU experiment on board
why haven't there been ISRU experiments for the moon?

[Anonymous No.11662507]

>>11662501
Because they never expected Moon/Mars mission in their lifetime again.

[Anonymous No.11662516]

>>11662507
Big sad. Maybe now with the Space force existing and having even more of a budget than NASA. Maybe some of the Air Forces old fever dream ideas from the Cold War might be re-looked at?

[Anonymous No.11662530]

>>11662516
NASA gets ~20 B a year. Space force has few hundred millions.

[Anonymous No.11662544]

>>11662530
I heard the proposed funding for the near future would surpass NASA

[Anonymous No.11662548]

>>11662501
Yeah Moxie, a huge joke. Assuming you wanted to use that design for your Oxygen (protip: it's trash), why does it need to go to fucking Mars? We know the atmospheric composition, just fill a chamber, chuck it in and make sure it works. NASA is cancer.

[Anonymous No.11662558]

>>11662516
budget aint everything, gotta give people a reason to pursue it

that's where you need missions for resource or mining surveys, ISRU experiments, and proposals for novel materials and manufacturing techniques only possible in luna

without plans for something remotely close to these. the 202X moon mission will practically be just another flag planting photoshoot as feared

[Anonymous No.11662561]

>>11662544
Maybe once Starship comes on, then Spaceforce can buy a fleet of them and operate them either independently or with SpaceX's team for military use.

[Anonymous No.11662572]

>>11662273
>>11662321

Rydeberg matter is touted by some cold fusion proponents too, so that association kinda poisons the well.

[Anonymous No.11662575]

>>11662558
i think i watched a youtube video mentioning some theoretical magic superconductor material for computer chips that can only be synthesized on low gravity but it's been a while

anybody here know about it or something similar?

[Anonymous No.11662586]

>>11662561
Realistically, why would Space Force need more than a couple of Starships over the next five years?

[Anonymous No.11662589]

>>11662586
Dropships for space marines traveling around the world and killing everyone else's nuclear physicists.

[Anonymous No.11662590]

>>11662586
To do whatever the fuck they want. Maybe they would want couple of fleet in multiple locations for assured access launching every week/month instead of years.

[Anonymous No.11662605]

>>11662561
When will we see purposely built military spacecraft like in Children of a Dead Earth?

[Anonymous No.11662637]

>>11662605
When we have something in space that's worth protecting/destroying with spaceships of our own that can't be protected/destroyed by means that already exist.

[Anonymous No.11662642]

>>11662268
I was more talking about the ground level infastructure

[Anonymous No.11662653]

What would be the fasted method of STL travel between star systems and at what % of c do you start experiencing noticeable time dilation effects?

[Anonymous No.11662667]

>>11662191
I remember reading about and thinking it was complete bullshit.
I still don't get how the fuck a literal blimp is supposed to be hypersonic

[Anonymous No.11662671]

>>11662642

The other guy has a point then, just some fan speculation threads on places like NSF forums SpaceX/Mars sections, r/spacexlounge

[Anonymous No.11662679]

>>11662561

They can buy launch services from SpaceX for their satellites and possible personnel needs.

[Anonymous No.11662685]

>>11662544

The military has had a space program for 70 years and it was already more spending than NASA. It's just repackaged as "Space Force".

[Anonymous No.11662689]

>>11661930
SPCE is a bitcoin meme stock with no basis in reality. Their space tourism isn‘t going to make money and it‘s been delayed for years and their sattelite business is going to be crushed by SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.11662696]

>>11662671
>>11662642
lots and lots and lots of solar panels
the details are still up in the air
the solar panels either feed battery banks to keep the water electrolyzer running 25 hours a sol or the water electrolyzer feeds a hydrogen storage tank, but either way the sabatier box that turns compressed martian atmosphere (with the nitrogen and argon pulled out) into methane needs to be kept running 25 hours a day (unless it doesn't, more research is needed into the catalysts for it)
that's literally all that is known, but there's a lot of very elaborate fanfiction out there if you want

[Anonymous No.11662706]

>>11662516

I think troop transport is dumb because:

1. How do you get fuel empty Starships back from unprepared landing sites.
2. Already troops near theatre from myriad worldwide bases and global air transport relatively timely.
3. Big honkin flaming target incoming destroyable by a single bullet.

I suppose if Musk is right and extremely long distance air travel is less competitive than Earth point to point Starship and Starship can make headway in replacing long distance air flights.

[Anonymous No.11662713]

>>11662110
I pick thermonuclear Orion. What now?

[Anonymous No.11662716]

>>11662696

I think the prodigious production plan of low cost Starships to be yeeted at Mars that I outlined earlier could imply that finding water for crew return flights isn't strictly necessary in the initial phases as they can send water loads to Mars cheaply, although those crew missions would still be occupied setting up the ISRU chain, and cheap delivery slots means lots of slots for solar panels.

[Anonymous No.11662719]

>>11662132
>step 1: build rockets that can actually get their cheaply
>step 2: figure out the rest of the plan

[Anonymous No.11662720]

>>11662713
are you launching from Earth surface or from the surface of another body

[Anonymous No.11662726]

>>11662716
there's no point to bringing your own water, because at that point you're throwing away starships that could be used to bring something useful, for the sole purpose of bringing maybe one of them back

[Anonymous No.11662728]

>>11662719
>step 3: lots of solar panels, probably
>step 4: ELECTRIC CARS

[Anonymous No.11662730]

>>11662172
But that‘s the whole issue with it! They tried to fly it and it caught fire! Had they just settled for its use as a deep sea submarine, the fire never would‘ve spread.

[Anonymous No.11662733]

>>11661930
An ideal world for ULA.

[Anonymous No.11662750]

>>11662281
They need to develop a lot of technology and building the laser array will be a huge investment. We‘ll see.

[Anonymous No.11662752]

if musk doesn't chuck a fission reactor up to mars he is utterly retarded, the place has months long dust storms that make solar power totally unreliable.

[Anonymous No.11662758]

>>11662752
Elongated doesn't HAVE a fission reactor, anon
he'd need to get NASA to come along and bring one of theirs, and that would require so much bullshit that I don't even want to think about it
just have a buttload of solar panels, it'll be fine

[Anonymous No.11662759]

>>11662752

Fission is expensive and nothing off the shelf.
Solar panels cheap and relatively off the shelf.
Weak wind/ maybe not that big a problem.

[Anonymous No.11662764]

>>11662752
How many times do we have to btfo this retarded dust storm bullshit?

[Anonymous No.11662784]

>>11662284
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/laser-and-particle-beams/article/extreme-laser-pulses-for-nonthermal-fusion-ignition-of-hydrogenboron-for-clean-and-lowcost-energy/D58A2B0A9B43CCF86D60CD565DB97845/core-reader

[Anonymous No.11662787]

>>11662605
>>11662637
Definitely some time after China/Russia and the US have built up the Moon.
>it's too far/difficult to hit targets with missiles from Earth
>the Outer Space Treaty hinders military ops on the Moon, so you can't place missiles there for easy access to the region
That leaves you with military space stations and warships as your options for military space ops around the Moon.

[Anonymous No.11662790]

>>11662787
Is that supposed to be the lunar gateway?

[Anonymous No.11662793]

>>11662790
yeah

[Anonymous No.11662811]

>>11662787
>>the Outer Space Treaty
Is not something the USA is a party to.

[Anonymous No.11662818]

>>11662811
Maybe you're thinking the Moon Treaty...

[Anonymous No.11662830]

>>11662653
>What would be the fasted method of STL travel between star systems

Send mind uploads / transhumans as an information signal travelling at speed of light.

[Anonymous No.11662847]

>>11662696
>>11662716
I just wonder how much will be underground

[Anonymous No.11662850]

>>11662830
I cum inside ur mo,m sometiems hehexd

[Anonymous No.11662948]

>>11662759
Yeah but along with Martian dust storms, sunlight is already halved by the time you get to Mars, more so by Jupiter. Fluid-fuel Nuclear reactors are the best beta for power generation.

[Anonymous No.11662993]

Mars really seems like an ideal colonization target. We couldn’t ask for a better one.

[Anonymous No.11663003]

>>11662007
>Posting 343 tumorcan

[Anonymous No.11663009]

>>11662993
It’s going to be great.

[Anonymous No.11663013]

>>11662372
All effort put into fusion before the 2000s was practically wasted. You can't design an efficient nuclear fusion tokamak or stellarator without massive amounts of computational power to model plasma instabilities and the corresponding magnetic containment field. Fusion is only going to get easier. There's been massive breakthroughs because of computer designed superconductor shapes already.

[Anonymous No.11663021]

>>11663009
It has its difficulties, but every new environment does, and they’re overcomeable. Good practice for even harsher environments.

[Anonymous No.11663052]

>>11662993
I don't know, some more atmosphere maybe?
I also wouldn't mind a magnetic field and more gravity.

[Anonymous No.11663081]

>>11663052
>I don't know, some more atmosphere maybe?

Thick enough to aerobrake, use parachutes, and generate wind power but thin enough that it doesn’t otherwise bother us. A thin atmosphere is ideal.

>I also wouldn't mind a magnetic field

We don’t need that. Just go underground.

>and more gravity.

Less is better.

[Anonymous No.11663114]

>>11662948

Ship more solar panels to Mars.

[Anonymous No.11663122]

>>11663081
>less is better

Entirely debatable and unknown. Every other problem can be overcome with existing technology fairly easily but if the gravity is not suitable for long term living you are down to fucking rotating bowl cities at which point you might as well just build oneill cylinders in asteroids.

[Anonymous No.11663139]

>>11663122
>Entirely debatable and unknown

No it isn’t. Lower gravity means lower delta/v requirements for landing and launching, which is desirable.

> but if the gravity is not suitable for long term living

Humans can live in any gravitational environment between 0g and 3g. Our bodies will change in shape and proportion to match the requirements of the local environment, and vertebrate embryos can and have developed in 0g.

[Anonymous No.11663168]

>3g
GainzStation13 chads rise up.

[Anonymous No.11663170]

>>11661759
space rockets.

[Anonymous No.11663186]

>>11663168
ManletStation13.

[Anonymous No.11663193]

>>11663139
>Humans can live in any gravitational environment between 0g and 3g. Our bodies will change in shape and proportion to match the requirements of the local environment, and vertebrate embryos can and have developed in 0g.
>Source: my ass

[Anonymous No.11663195]

>>11663170

[Anonymous No.11663205]

>>11663193
>What’s your source for the sky being blue

Lol.
https://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/Experiment/exper/644
https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07417
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9502520

Muscle loss doesn’t matter at all as long as you stay in the lower gravity environment.

[Anonymous No.11663210]

>>11663193
>>11663139
floating in a fluid as dense as a human body =/= from being subjected to 0 g. Gravity is still affecting you, you just counter it with a evenly distributed force applied all around your body rather that a concentrated force in your legs.

[Anonymous No.11663232]

>>11663168
>Return to low G station workplace after workout at 3G station gym.
>accidently kill low grav Jellybaby subhuman by slightly trapping him with my shoulder while passing him in a airlock.
Move aside race&gender&color, the Future struggle is low G beta lankets VS high G chad manlets

[Anonymous No.11663241]

>>11662218
>It's also less powerful per kilogram of fuel.
...except that it produces electricity directly, so you wouldn't have the conversion losses of trying to convert plasma heat to electricity.

[Anonymous No.11663243]

>>11661759
>those UFO videos
is this fucking thing really flying at Match 10?
https://youtu.be/wxVRg7LLaQA

[Anonymous No.11663253]

>>11663168
>not training on a centrifugue on earth

It's not like you need to go to space for high "gravity"

[Anonymous No.11663256]

>>11663243
I think that’s the one that happened in 2012. GIMBAL is the more widely seen one and it’s from 2004.
No exhaust. No control surfaces. It’s swamp gas-propelled weather balloons, obviously.

[Anonymous No.11663257]

>>11663253
Could you create a station that has multiple rings with different levels of gravity?

[Anonymous No.11663265]

>>11662730
this post compressed my hydrogen

[Anonymous No.11663274]

>>11663257
yeah, just put the rings further away from the center of rotation

[Anonymous No.11663276]

>>11663243
>GOFAST
That's Sonic the Hedgehog

[Anonymous No.11663302]

>>11662163
Feel like wheeled vehicles are going to become a running joke on Mars. NASA only likes wheels because muh weight, but if you're carrying 100-150~ tons to the surface it's acceptable to trade off some tonnage and not deal with the foil/wire mesh wheel meme.

Roads are going to be a joke too, if you're not roving just use rail. More efficient, easier to power and faster. If you are roving, probably electrically driven tracks with hydrogen or methane fuel cells for long term power and folding solar panel backups.

[Anonymous No.11663313]

>>11663302
>Roads are going to be a joke too, if you're not roving just use rail. More efficient, easier to power and faster. If you are roving, probably electrically driven tracks with hydrogen or methane fuel cells for long term power and folding solar panel backups.

Reminder that the Opportunity rover died because it couldn’t wipe some dust off of itself. Unmanned missions are a meme.

[Anonymous No.11663320]

>>11663302
Mars
Dakar
Rally

[Anonymous No.11663326]

>>11663313
Used unclear language there, roving in the sense of not being tethered to a single path, not in the sense of unmanned rovers.

Although thinking about it, you probably will be properly equipped to have things survey unmanned, and with only negligible lag time as you don't need to operate them from another planet. So in the initial stages where you just want very basic data and don't want to risk anyone sending one of your vehicles on an unmanned survey mission might actually make sense.

[Anonymous No.11663376]

Planet independence
Any attempt to unify mankind is a concealed attempt to rule it

[Anonymous No.11663379]

>>11663326
Just have the panels fold away when there’s dust storms, or walk out yourself and wipe them off

[Anonymous No.11663384]

>>11663313
>it couldn’t wipe some dust off of itself. Unmanned missions are a meme.
Do you seriously think today's robots wouldn't be able to do that?

[Anonymous No.11663391]

>>11663384
Mars rovers have to be super low power because of how inefficient solar is

[Anonymous No.11663392]

>>11663384
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzlsvFN_5HI

[Anonymous No.11663393]

>>11663384
these things weigh 44kg with payload, imagine sending literally a couple thousand of these on a starship to set up your base, absolutely fucking wild

[Anonymous No.11663395]

>>11663379
Now I don't know what you're actually responding to. I was just trying to point out that I'm talking about primarily manned rovers not unmanned ones. If they do have unmanned missions those aren't going to be so long term that you have to worry about the kind of issues our rovers deal with anyway.

Wiping off solar panels is neither here nor there. Most of the time you'll be running on battery power and kicking in the fuel cell when necessary, solar panels aren't even going to be your main way of powering a vehicle as vehicles made for heavy work and manned usage are going to draw way too much power to rely on them day to day.

[Anonymous No.11663398]

>>11663391
that's why we need to land solar base stations to run rovers out of

[Anonymous No.11663402]

>>11663398
which needs to be set up by humans

[Anonymous No.11663403]

>>11661938
Gettin' Naboo vibes here

[Anonymous No.11663407]

>>11662132
>where can I find the most info on the mars plan?
You can start by having a higher res of your pic

[Anonymous No.11663425]

>>11663402
not really

[Anonymous No.11663429]

>>11662026
>dump eet

[Anonymous No.11663433]

>>11662728
dune racing cyberquads when?

[Anonymous No.11663442]

>>11663425
how is the dust wiping robot going to wipe dust off its power source if its power source can't supply it power because its solar panels are covered in dust?

[Anonymous No.11663451]

>>11663442
What is with this fuckin dust meme? There are so many better reasons doing things unmanned on Mars is a dead-end. Wiping off dust has nothing to do with it. One low-power compressor/blower per ~1m2 of panels, boom, goodbye to your fuckin dust.

[Anonymous No.11663470]

>>11662485
hi-five mr. fusion man

[Anonymous No.11663486]

What do we think of the UAE? They sent one astronaut to the ISS recently via Soyuz, now they are planning to send another, either by Soyuz or Dragon 2/Starliner, though they said Virgin Galactic could be a possibility too. Funny they said they won't work with China.

https://spacenews.com/uae-to-select-next-astronauts-in-january/

[Anonymous No.11663490]

>>11663451
the dust storms and lower power availability are one of many problems to robot colonization

[Anonymous No.11663498]

>>11663486
The only ones who want to work with China are Italy and that's because they got themselves trapped in the debt scheme that is the Belt & Road Initiative.

[Anonymous No.11663510]

>>11663442
>>11663490

what do you think batteries are for? regardless opportunity kept going for 14 years, so it hardly failed before it's time.

If they wanted to plan for longer missions they could have fited a radioisotope power generator for backup power, but it was supposed to last for less than a year.

And for all we know the reason it won't respond could be due to damage from the sandstorm, like bent comm arrays or damaged wiring.

[Anonymous No.11663512]

>>11663490
Dust storms aren't something you go out and wipe off. They're a problem for humans too, an even bigger one.

[Anonymous No.11663513]

>>11663498
Not really. Europe-China space cooperation programs are a thing since 2004, look up ESA-NRSCC Dragon.

[Anonymous No.11663518]

>>11663384
>Do you seriously think today's robots wouldn't be able to do that?

I think they could, but NASA retards apparently disagree.

[Anonymous No.11663520]

>>11663513
Look at who is the only part of ESA going to work with them on their station.
Italy. They own them now, so they have to play ball.

[Anonymous No.11663522]

>>11663442
>how is the dust wiping robot going to wipe dust off its power source if its power source can't supply it power because its solar panels are covered in dust?

Batteries, backup fuel cells.

[Anonymous No.11663524]

>>11663486
>Funny they said they won't work with China.

Smart nation. If they want to come along, let them.

[Anonymous No.11663526]

>>11663512
>Dust storms aren't something you go out and wipe off. They're a problem for humans too, an even bigger one.

It’s just dust lol. Turn on your dust wipers if one happens while you’re out tooling around in your Mars truck.

[Anonymous No.11663534]

>>11663526
>just wipe off the eternal darkness bro

[Anonymous No.11663543]

>>11663534
>Orbital dust wipers

[Anonymous No.11663551]

>>11663534
I mean bunkers can fix that pretty easily

[Anonymous No.11663561]

>>11663551
enjoy your bunker when your CO2 scrubber goes into hibernation mode

[Anonymous No.11663567]

>>11663490
If your power source is improperly scaled they are a problem. If it's properly scaled they are merely a nuisance like all bad weather.

[Anonymous No.11663570]

>>11663520
Italy got butfucked hard by Corona because of it's 300k+ chinese with origin from wuhan in the country and belt&Road, so i think Italy is going to rethink all deals with China.
They have to be retarded if they don't.

[Anonymous No.11663572]

>>11662163
honestly you'd have to 3d print and laser scinter alot of that, i imagine any first vehicles on mars or moon would basically be over powered ATVs with big hollow wheels.

The best thing for put on mars or moon is a 3d metal/plastic printer, chemical factory to synthesize polymers from co2 and methane, almost everything else would be a waste of space.

[Anonymous No.11663573]

>>11663561
Consider suing whoever made the life support and power systems in that case.

[Anonymous No.11663574]

>>11663551
Everyone on Mars will be living on bunkers before any dust storm hits. The problem isn't getting out of the storm, the problem is lack of energy generation. It's not insurmountable (probably handled with backup batteries and fuel cells) but it's not trivial either.

[Anonymous No.11663576]

>>11663570
I don't think you understand BRI. You don't just "rethink" all the fucking money they borrowed from China.

[Anonymous No.11663578]

>>11663567
you can't properly scale your power source if you need the properly scaled power source to be set up before you can mobilize the robots needed to set it up. This requires humans and if you have humans there setting it up, you've already done the hard part.

[Anonymous No.11663580]

>>11663551
>bunkers
Are you under the impression that dust storms on mars are like midwest tornadoes or something?

[Anonymous No.11663583]

>>11663576
Did Italy whore itself out that much to China?
No wonder most of europe was against aid for Italy for so many weeks.

[Anonymous No.11663587]

>>11663583
BRI is a debt trap. Everyone on board that train is getting fucked to some extent.

[Anonymous No.11663602]

>>11663534
>eternal darkness
>can still see the ground

[Anonymous No.11663606]

>>11663561
Treadmill CO2 scrubber. Easy.

[Anonymous No.11663612]

>>11663534
Go inside. Never had snow??

[Anonymous No.11663616]

>>11663574
>Everyone on Mars will be living on bunkers before any dust storm hits. The problem isn't getting out of the storm, the problem is lack of energy generation. It's not insurmountable (probably handled with backup batteries and fuel cells) but it's not trivial either.

Actually, the dust storm energy problem solved itself. During the storms, Mars has pretty high winds, so just use wind turbines

[Anonymous No.11663618]

>>11663561
Why would it do that? You’d never rely entirely on solar.

[Anonymous No.11663624]

>>11663618
Musk has said many times he plans to rely entirely on solar

[Anonymous No.11663625]

>>11663616
The wind is very fast but you also have to remember the air it's pushing is only a fraction as dense. The wind farm will have to be much lighter than those on Earth and it will still never generate the same kind of electrical power.

[Anonymous No.11663626]

>>11663616
I really agree, but so far we've seen no indication of plans to set up turbines. SpaceX has shown 100% interest in solar panels and nothing else.

[Anonymous No.11663629]

>>11663578
That's a different problem then. Thought it's one of those recurring 0.000000000001% power generation in dust storm memes based on the curiosity tau value and that video from manley.

I'll start by saying robot-base-setup is stupid idea and won't work for reasons related to robotics.

Dust storm killing them off in the early base building phase is not an issue because they can simply wait it out. Emergency power if no solar panels at all are deployed which is farfetched and implies landing amidst a dust storm in the first place, or a glacial like tempo of work, will still be available from the landers themselves in the form of solar panels - likely up high and at a big angle so no dust buildup - and fuel cells converting whatever remaining prop there is into energy to maintain critical systems warm like batteries and electronics.

If it's humans and they get caught in a dust storm on day 1 its harder but still not certain doom. The simplest way out is delaying landing and waiting it out in orbit, a bit unpleasant but works. The second is deploy sufficient panels to produce energy without relying on fuel cells then wait it out. The last one is die.

While on this topic if dust storm hits base with MW+ power generation already up and running the worst that can happen is delaying fuel production until the crew misses the return window.

[Anonymous No.11663641]

>>11663624
>3 year long dust storm kicks in
Hope you packed batteries, bro.
But in all seriousness, nobody's going anywhere without triple redundant systems when space is involved. A colony effort will be using solar, wind (which will get literally blown the fuck out due to dust and fines in such a scenario), nuclear, chemical fuel cells, fucking hydrazine generators or anything else we can come up with for maximum redundancy.

[Anonymous No.11663644]

>>11661983
I'm not sure fusion engines will work in atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11663649]

>>11663624
Considering how quickly SpaceX revises it's plans I don't think that strategy is going to survive an extended round of scrutiny. I think the best way to do it would be to use super low enrichment thorium fueled sterling cycle reactors. The thorium is held in a beryllium chamber and slowly starts to breed uranium as all of it's excess neutrons are bottled up in there, eventually over a predictable period of time it will become a self-sustaining reaction. You could fly these in to space without worrying about nuclear pollution from accidents because you can just leave your fuel inert until you need it.

[Anonymous No.11663650]

>>11663625
>The wind is very fast but you also have to remember the air it's pushing is only a fraction as dense

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/amazonian2018/pdf/4004.pdf
It’s not too bad. Combine solar and wind with battery reserves and backup fuel cells and you’ll be fine until someone starts a reactor. Speaking of batteries.
https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/blog/introducing-megapack-utility-scale-energy-storage

Bring some of those.

[Anonymous No.11663654]

>>11663626
>SpaceX has shown 100% interest in solar panels and nothing else.

That’s very preliminary. Once Starship is fully operational, they’ll inevitably look into alternative energy sources.

[Anonymous No.11663661]

>>11663641
>But in all seriousness, nobody's going anywhere without triple redundant systems when space is involved.
Unless it's with oldspace. Redundant systems are too expensive for little gain in jobs.

[Anonymous No.11663663]

>>11663574
id imagine power wouldnt be a big issue. Nasa would just gift everyone a very low yield nuke reactor and maybe turn the human poop and algae into gas for generators.

https://www.space.com/39413-small-nuclear-reactor-kilopower-mars-colony.html

[Anonymous No.11663668]

>>11663649
Thorium is not a near-term solution, it still needs development. Even kilopower which has no real technical barriers can't be counted on as a near-term solution until a deal is worked out. In the meantime, it makes more sense to use things we can be confident in the lack of political or technical barriers - panels, turbines, batteries, fuel cells. That'll still do the trick.

[Anonymous No.11663669]

>>11663661
You don't get it. It's going to cost billions and billions of dollars to set up a small scientific station on Mars. If that one fails and the crew is lost because some retard went "let's save money and go for solar power and batteries only", that's fucking it. You're not going to see anything for 50 years ever again.
Nobody is going to want to risk investing and normies are going to scream it was wasted money blah blah blah need mo money fo dem programs send rovers instead.
We got one fucking chance, blow it and it's gone, for our lifetimes at least.

Nothing goes up without multiple redundancies for that exact reason.

[Anonymous No.11663674]

>>11663669
>You don't get it. It's going to cost billions and billions of dollars to set up a small scientific station on Mars

If NASA did it, sure.

[Anonymous No.11663678]

>>11663674
Yes, Elon is going to pull it out of his ass and pay for it with pocket lint.
Curb your enthusiasm, son. Shits gonna cost a fucking lot. Old or "New" space.

[Anonymous No.11663679]

>>11662530
>>11662544
Their budget for this year is only $40m.
However, it is to skyrocket in 2021 to $15b.
It's because of how they split off. Some of their money is technically still air force money.

NASA's budget is around $22b, so the Space Force gets less.

[Anonymous No.11663698]

>>11663678
>Yes, Elon is going to pull it out of his ass and pay for it with pocket lint.

500-800 million. The launches and the payloads just aren’t that costly.

[Anonymous No.11663701]

>>11663698
Yeah, infrastructure is free. Everything you need to set up a colony just grows on Mars.

[Anonymous No.11663708]

>>11663701
>Yeah, infrastructure is free

Not prohibitively costly. Could lob a bulldozer to Mars for under fifteen million.

>Everything you need to set up a colony just grows on Mars.

This but unironically.

[Anonymous No.11663715]

>>11663708
>Could lob a bulldozer to Mars for under fifteen million.
except you have to R&D that bulldozer to begin with which will likely take on the order of hundreds of millions

[Anonymous No.11663720]

>>11663701
I think you misread that post. Once launches for very large payloads becomes cheap, then having very sturdy and/or redundant systems won't be terribly expensive. The mass budget would be able to fit systems that are designed for ruggedness rather than minimum mass (which is the cause for many in-space failures). The low cost per mass of payload for launches will also cut down on costs in ways that should be obvious to you.

[Anonymous No.11663724]

>>11663708
>Could lob a bulldozer to Mars for under fifteen million.
Get the fuck out of here. Provided you can land it, you also have to R&D a fucking bulldozer that works in a really thin atmosphere.
You're just pulling numbers out of your fucking ass and fantasizing.

Setting up a tiny scientific station on Mars is going to cost in the trillions of dollars.

[Anonymous No.11663737]

>>11663715
>except you have to R&D that bulldozer to begin with which will likely take on the order of hundreds of millions

If NASA designed it using fifty subcontractors scattered across all fifty states. Everything is lighter on Mars, so all you’d really have to do is strap a pressurized cabin to a skinny bulldozer with a Tesla-made battery and some radiator fins to dump waste heat. To recharge, dock it like an iPhone to any nearby power source, even a parked Starship.
You’re stuck with the “overcomplicate everything because we need to make money for contractors and our launch vehicles are anemic.”

[Anonymous No.11663740]

>>11663715
>get electric bulldozer
>strip cockpit
>slap radio control system

Done, can be operated by a guy in mars suit standing 20 meters around with pic related.

[Anonymous No.11663744]

>>11663669
Starship is 50 meters tall and 9 meters in diameter. They can literally park several Starships on Mars and use them as research facility by itself. Its fucking HUGE. It has a cargo capacity of 1000 cubic meters. To put that in perspective, that's about 15 of the large 40 foot shipping container. A single 40 foot shipping container is enough for 1-2 person living for tiny house. 15 of them can support 30 researchers comfortably with the space optimized for privacy, comfort AND research equipments.

[Anonymous No.11663745]

>>11663724
>Provided you can land it, you also have to R&D a fucking bulldozer that works in a really thin atmosphere.

The thickness of the local atmosphere has literally nothing to do with how effective a bulldozer is

“ You're just pulling numbers out of your fucking ass and fantasizing.
Setting up a tiny scientific station on Mars is going to cost in the trillions of dollars.”

This contradiction is too obvious for this to not be a troll post. I am sorry for being tricked.

[Anonymous No.11663750]

>>11663745
Not the other guy but, given the low gravity, low weight, I would assume you can use a very light weight bull dozer to do heavy weight lifting on Mars.

[Anonymous No.11663753]

>>11663715
Agree with this. Even road car development runs in this range. A Mars vehicle will have some advantages in that regard since it has nothing to compete with, doesn't need collision safety, can be overbuilt, etc., but it still seems pretty unlikely that designing a new vehicle for a harsh environment will run significantly less than one built for a known environment.

>>11663724
>Setting up a tiny scientific station on Mars is going to cost in the trillions of dollars.
That's getting into ridiculous territory though. Billions, maybe low tens of billions.

[Anonymous No.11663759]

>>11663750
It’s 38% of Earth gravity, so the vehicle’s bulk can be stripped down significantly while still supporting equivalent strength.

[Anonymous No.11663761]

>>11663724
>Setting up a tiny scientific station on Mars is going to cost in the trillions of dollars.
No. A Bigelo- style transhab shouldn't cost more than a hundred million, and kilopower reactors are $20M. Have a reasonably large transhab with an airlock that can be walked into with as many kilopowers as needed, and the cost of the base alone shouldn't be more than a billion or two.

[Anonymous No.11663763]

>>11663753
>Agree with this. Even road car development runs in this range

If designing cars is that expensive, what is there to blabber about in terms of cost? You could even make a profit out of it by selling them to other nations who want to come along to our new red summer home.

[Anonymous No.11663766]

without a doubt 80% of the first few industrial machines we send to Mars will not work. Unless by some miracle the gateway foundation actually makes that 1/3g taurus hab and you can actually test them.

[Anonymous No.11663772]

>>11663744
Starship does not fucking exist and your batteries are an extremely vulnerable source of energy.
Fuck the plastic tesla shit, there's no tesla repair center within a 21 month launch window, you need something mechanical you can repair if shit hits the fan.

>>11663753
Do you even know how much R&D + logistics for running this shit would amount to? Every fucking little bit of equipment would need to be sent up from sabatier processors to water separators to reclamators to fuck knows what.
Every little chemical process involved in survival whether it's taking a fucking dump or taking your next breath of air would have a piece of machinery involved that would need to be sent up with spares.

>>11663761
Ignore that the shuttle put most of it together, what do you think the individual parts of the ISS cost even if you had launched them on cheaper solutions?
A billion or two? A cuckshed for two? Hope you don't plan on staying for very long, because you won't be bringing anything but the shed itself.

[Anonymous No.11663773]

>>11663766
What makes you say that? The rovers work fine, and they’re just small electric RC cars.

[Anonymous No.11663774]

>>11663772
>Starship does not fucknig exist
Research outpost on Mars doesn't exist. It doesn't exist on the Moon either. So what are we talking about?

[Anonymous No.11663778]

>>11663772
>Do you even know how much R&D + logistics for running this shit would amount to?
Do you? Your numbers seem to go up by an order of magnitude every time your blood pressure rises a few notches. You can't seriously believe that's a good scientific metric.

[Anonymous No.11663782]

>>11663772
>what do you think the individual parts of the ISS cost even if you had launched them on cheaper solutions?

A trillion dollars because they were designed by the government.

[Anonymous No.11663783]

>>11663774
You're making cost calculations on a rocket that does not exist based on a highly optimistic wouldn't-it-be-nice number.
Let the man get it into orbit first at least.

[Anonymous No.11663784]

>>11663772
>Starship does not fucking exist

Neither does a Mars outpost. We’re discussing the foreseeable future, not the immediate present.

[Anonymous No.11663792]

>>11663168
can you slow it down anon?

[Anonymous No.11663793]

>>11663784
>We’re discussing the foreseeable future
No, you're being fanboys jerking yourself off to a number with no basis in reality.
If and when that number actually comes to fruition, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. Until then, it's a fucking pipe dream and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.11663795]

>>11663793
>No, you're being fanboys jerking yourself off to a number with no basis in reality.

“Trillions of dollars”

[Anonymous No.11663800]

>>11663793
Your mom dreams about my pipe lmao

[Anonymous No.11663801]

>>11663772
>Ignore that the shuttle put most of it together, what do you think the individual parts of the ISS cost even if you had launched them on cheaper solutions?
I said a single large Bigelow module, not the whole ISS. The Shuttle is a poor example to bring up because it had severe design limitations which drove up costs dramatically. Also, a fair number of ISS modules was launched from the much cheaper Proton rocket.

>A billion or two? A cuckshed for two? Hope you don't plan on staying for very long, because you won't be bringing anything but the shed itself.
You said a "tiny scientific station on Mars". I gave you "tiny scientific station on Mars". And as >>11663744 said Starship is huge. It can carry a very large volume. Which means that the station will be spacious.

[Anonymous No.11663802]

>>11663783
What you never believe in future prediction? You don't pay attention to weather? Your own judgment of future events? Whether the sun will rise tomorrow or not? Or if you'll still be eating the same food?

Stop being a literal retard.

[Anonymous No.11663803]

lol, the discussion about the Mars station makes me wonder how old most people are ITT
I bet all Musk lovers are either underage or really retarded

[Anonymous No.11663806]

>>11663803
>Changing status quo bad. Old and overexpensive good.

[Anonymous No.11663809]

>>11663795
Yes. R&D, Infrastructure, logistics for feeding 50-100 or however many people they intend to ship for the first batch is not fucking free. Do you really fucking think they're going to live in the hulls of the Starships and eat one another or something?

>>11663802
>future prediction
This is not prediction the weather based on models, this is pulling shit right out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.11663812]

>>11663772
>Ignore that the shuttle put most of it together, what do you think the individual parts of the ISS cost even if you had launched them on cheaper solutions?
Skylab provided 1/3 the volume at tiny fraction of the cost.ISS is showing everyone how not to build space stations

[Anonymous No.11663817]

>>11663806
the fuck does this have to do with any of that, you absolute retard? the guy is not doing anything because of some humanitarian reason or whatever, he does it because of money. and if you think "changing the statu quo" is ALWAYS good, then you are are an absolute retard
also, well done deflecting the topic, dumbass

[Anonymous No.11663818]

>>11663809
>Yes. R&D, Infrastructure, logistics for feeding 50-100 or however many people they intend to ship for the first batch is not fucking free

Not free, but not trillions either.

> Do you really fucking think they're going to live in the hulls of the Starships and eat one another or something?

What’s wrong with the Skylab approach? Even if we assume each Starship launch is thirty million, you could use that launch to bring enough food to Mars to feed people for literal years.

[Anonymous No.11663819]

>>11663803
if you still don't believe that Musk/SpaceX has the greatest potential for thrusting humanity into the space age, you're just willfully ignorant at this point. The technology and business model are proven.

[Anonymous No.11663821]

>>11663812
Skylab isn't exactly a great example of how to build a space station either though. It didn't last particularly long.

[Anonymous No.11663826]

>>11663821
It didn't last long because NASA was going through a massive restructuring at the time and couldn't service it. The Shuttle was supposed to "save" it, but the Shuttle took too long to be developed.

[Anonymous No.11663830]

>>11663817
>the guy is not doing anything because of some humanitarian reason or whatever, he does it because of money.

No, it’s definitely for humanitarian reasons. He originally wanted to buy rockets from Russia to launch payloads to Mars, but decided to make his own rockets instead.

[Anonymous No.11663833]

>>11663821
It was fine, but it’s orbit decayed because no craft could boost it.

[Anonymous No.11663838]

>>11663821
Why didn't it last long?

[Anonymous No.11663844]

>>11663818
What do you think developing and sending up machinery for separating water out of the atmosphere on Mars will cost for instance?
Sabatier processors? Any other chemical processors?
All of that shit will be developed here, built here launched and sent off. Shit recyclers, hydroponics, regular gardenic stuff, you name it. Stuff like that costs time and money to be researched, developed, built and shipped off.
And nobody's gonna want to rely on fucking tesla batteries on Mars. If that shit breaks down, what the fuck are you gonna do? Wait for the next shipment? No, you'll want something mechanical that you can fix.
So you're gonna need a combustion engine that'll work in the thin atmosphere and that's gonna need R&D, which is more time and money.

See where this is going?

>>11663838
You can fucking read, can't you?

[Anonymous No.11663847]

>>11662787
>>the Outer Space Treaty hinders military ops on the Moon, so you can't place missiles there for easy access to the region
Who needs missiles on the Moon? Just use your mass driver to launch dumptruck loads of regolith into Earth orbit, ruin Earth with Kessler syndrome for 10,000 years, and in the mean time expand beyond the Moon to colonize and develop most of the solar system before Earth can launch even one spacecraft, lol.

[Anonymous No.11663849]

>>11663052
Both of those things would make it worse for a space faring civilization to colonize, and magnetic fields don't block shit anyway.

[Anonymous No.11663850]

>>11663844
*gardening, not gardenic

[Anonymous No.11663853]

>>11663844
>let's just make up non-problems to run costs up by fighting phantoms
Sasuga Boing

[Anonymous No.11663855]

>>11663122
Lower gravity is always better because long-term you are reducing that planet to a swarm of rotating habitats spinning at the perfect artificial g and containing the perfect conditions for human life anyway. Lower gravity makes disassembling via orbital launch that much easier.

[Anonymous No.11663856]

>>11663853
>non-problems
I can see you've never had a real job in your life.

[Anonymous No.11663857]

>>11663809
>This is not prediction
>the weather based on models
Aka prediction/estimation/assumptions.

Weather model can't even predict the next week. But someone with no scientific degree, 0 education, a 5 year old, can predict the sun will rise 10 years from now without much issue. Its not based on scientific data. Its just personal estimation.

[Anonymous No.11663861]

>>11663724
>Setting up a tiny scientific station on Mars is going to cost in the trillions of dollars.
I've decided to do some math.
Bigelow BA-2100: $500M
Kilopower: $20M
Starship/Superheavy: $2M (although since in-orbit refueling is needed, that figure would be doubled)

Let's be generous and increase the cost of everything by a factor of ten. A single mission to Mars carrying a BA-2100 and a kilopower would cost around $5240M. Using a budget of a trillion dollars, 95 of these missions can be done. The remaining half can be used to send 12,500 resupply missions via Starship/Superheavy

If Starship/Superheavy were to cost an additional two factors of ten more, then the mission would cost $9200M. A half trillion budget would allow for 54 missions, and the remaining half trillion for 125 resupply missions.

[Anonymous No.11663862]

I love how you people didn't even deny what I said

>>11663819
>technology and business model are proven
yeah, OK. let's see if it works then...
it's easy to survive on govt subsidies, scamming customers and investors, inventing stories about how people are going to do this or that, fomenting nationalism and so on. I really wish spacex the best, but I doubt they'll get as far as they promise to

>>11663830
>No, it’s definitely for humanitarian reasons. He originally wanted to buy rockets from Russia to launch payloads to Mars, but decided to make his own rockets instead.
??? non-sequitur. also, anyone can see that those russian rockets are really fucking expensive compared to their costs

[Anonymous No.11663863]

>>11663856
I don't know what job you had that convinced you no one is going to rely on batteries to do anything when the one man in a position to do anything is heavily infested in battery tech, retard. You do realize those things you bitch about are already integral to Starship right? You already lost that fight dumbass. Eat shit.

[Anonymous No.11663867]

>>11663861
>Using a budget of a trillion dollars, 95 of these missions can be done using only half of that.
Messed up a sentence.

[Anonymous No.11663872]

>>11663241
It doesn't produce electricity directly, it produces charged particles but you still need a way to efficiently convert their kinetic energy into electricity. Also, normal neutronic fusion produces charged particles too, so if you really wanted to lighten things up and had abundant fuel supplies you could literally treat all of the heat generated by the fusion reactor as waste and run the reactor and the grid off of nothing but direct charge-particle-to-electricity generation. It'd be like 10% efficient, but even with that handicap making it harder to break even, it'd still be much easier to do Q=10 D-D fusion than Q=1 P-B fusion.

[Anonymous No.11663873]

>>11663844
>What do you think developing and sending up machinery for separating water out of the atmosphere on Mars will cost for instance?

Just dig up ice and throw it in a warm place

> Sabatier processors?

Since we’ve already created Sabatier processors that work in simulated Mars atmosphere, at most a hundred million.

> Any other chemical processors?

At most a hundred million, again.

> And nobody's gonna want to rely on fucking tesla batteries on Mars. If that shit breaks down, what the fuck are you gonna do? Wait for the next shipment?

Yes. Tons of spares can be brought along.

> So you're gonna need a combustion engine that'll work in the thin atmosphere

Or just use fuel cells, a very well understood and mature technology.
What an OldSpace boomer.

[Anonymous No.11663876]

>>11663861
>I decided to do some maths on a rocket that does not exist based on some numbers that Elon pulled out of his ass.

>>11663863
Too bad the nearest Tesla service center has a 21 month launch window and a 3-6 month travel time should anything go wrong with your battery pack.

>You already lost that fight dumbass. Eat shit.
lol
Get a fucking job.

[Anonymous No.11663881]

>>11663862
>??? non-sequitur

Elon wants to put stuff on Mars, not just make money.

[Anonymous No.11663883]

>>11663384
Evidently it wasn't in the budget to install a 50 gram rotating brush head assembly on Spirit and Opportunity in order to allow them to clean their solar panels periodically.

[Anonymous No.11663886]

>>11663876
>Too bad the nearest Tesla service center has a 21 month launch window and a 3-6 month travel time should anything go wrong with your battery pack.

Plug a spare in. The lithium-ion batteries Curiosity uses have been working for ages.

[Anonymous No.11663888]

>>11663442
Obviously it'd wipe before the panels got so dirty that it died of low power, anon. The thing would probably be programmed to start off every morning by wiping the panels for 20 minutes to get rid of the dust from the day and night previous.

[Anonymous No.11663889]

>>11663876
>>I decided to do some maths on a rocket that does not exist based on some numbers that Elon pulled out of his ass.
You missed the part where I assumed that the cost of the rocket was a thousand times more than what SpaceX is aiming for ($2000M) which puts it among the most expensive launchers in the history of spaceflight. Yet with a trillion dollars it can still deliver considerable amounts of payload to Mars. Much greater than a "tiny research station".

[Anonymous No.11663893]

>>11663510
>but it was supposed to last for less than a year.
It was only supposed to last like 90 days

[Anonymous No.11663895]

>>11663886
I'm not sure they're so great for powering a bulldozer. They're probably nice for a little 980 odd kg rover plodding around at a pedestrian pace though.

>>11663889
Maybe it's time to stop assuming jack shit about that "rocket" until it's actually in orbit and capabilities and cost is actually finalized?

[Anonymous No.11663896]

>>11663876
There's a 150mwh station of Tesla batteries somewhere in the middle of Australia that's been working nonstop for years. How many "muh service stations" are around? None. Now think about how much maintenance a regular internal combustion takes and magnify that by "we made some fucking magic so it works on Mars". You are mentally deficient.

[Anonymous No.11663897]

>>11663881
>Elon wants to put stuff on Mars
that on itself is not humanitarian

[Anonymous No.11663899]

>>11663895
>I'm not sure they're so great for powering a bulldozer.

Bigger vehicle, bigger batteries.

[Anonymous No.11663901]

>>11663897
>that on itself is not humanitarian

Yes it is. Going to Mars is badass and we should go there.

[Anonymous No.11663903]

>>11663895
>Maybe it's time to stop assuming jack shit about that "rocket" until it's actually in orbit and capabilities and cost is actually finalized?
Fair enough, but the discussion was about what future capabilities are possible. If you want to pull "lets not assume things until we see it", then you shouldn't assume out of thin air that such Martian missions would cost trillions of dollars.

[Anonymous No.11663905]

>>11663901
>humanitarian
>badass
OK, whatever

[Anonymous No.11663906]

>>11663897
>humanitarian
>concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare
Putting humans/stuff on Mars is the ULTIMATE humanitarian effort. Making life a multi planet species is one of the great filter to advanced civilization.

[Anonymous No.11663907]

>>11663903
Maybe you should fucking read several posts ago?

[Anonymous No.11663909]

>>11663895
>I'm not sure they're so great for powering a bulldozer. They're probably nice for a little 980 odd kg rover plodding around at a pedestrian pace though.
If anything, it's the opposite. If anything in that little rover's pack goes bad, it's fucked. A honking ~100+kwh pack for a bulldozer has a shitton of internal redundancy. Power isn't an issue either.

[Anonymous No.11663917]

Li-ion is a fucking issue because lithium is fairly rare.

[Anonymous No.11663918]

would hydraulics work the same way on mars?

[Anonymous No.11663920]

>>11663917
So? We harvest and utilize lithium on industrial scales. There’s mountains worth of the stuff still in the ground waiting to be dig up and put to good use.

[Anonymous No.11663921]

>>11663917
Not in the context of a manned mission to Mars from Earth it ain't. No one's talking about setting up battery production in situ yet.

[Anonymous No.11663922]

>>11663918
Hydraulics is oil/fluid filled pistons. Why the fuck would they not? Hydraulics work in outer space for that matter. What do you think opens the grid fins on F9 launches?

[Anonymous No.11663926]

>>11663922
the grid fins don't open until it's almost on the ground

[Anonymous No.11663932]

>>11663917
Lithium isn't strictly speaking necessary for batteries. A company has picked up the Bragga/Goodenough sodium+glass electrolyte cell and if all goes well it should be commercialized at some point in the near future. Those cells require even cheaper resources that could easily be sent to Mars in bulk if the Martian colonists need to manufacture equipment to their own specifications without the half year lag of shots from Earth.

[Anonymous No.11663938]

>>11663926
There's a hydraulic piston in the stage separation too. On the FH launch, there was hydraulics involved in the side booster separation. They're not telling what fluid they're using. Trade secret.

[Anonymous No.11663941]

>>11662132
doesn't mars have fuck-off-huge super tornadoes? who the hell would want to be there

[Anonymous No.11663942]

>>11663941
>who the hell would want to be there
I would. Anything to get off this gay rock.

[Anonymous No.11663943]

>>11663941
Same people who climb mount everest every year.

[Anonymous No.11663950]

>>11663644
Why wouldn't they? A totally open fusion rocket would be out of the question, sure, but if we can get fusion reactors power dense and small enough that they can be stuffed into airplanes, I see no reason why a reactor couldn't be designed to fire 50 grams per second of 250 million degree plasma into the compression section of a large turbo-ram-scramjet. All air breathing jet engines are agnostic when it comes to their heat source, be it chemical combustion or electrical resistance heating or fission thermal of fusion torch.

Doing a quick calculation, 50 grams of plasma at 250 million degrees mixed with 10,000 kg of air per second would produce an exhaust flow of 10,000.05 kg at ~1250 degrees, which would then move through the expansion section of the jet to continue to spin the turbine and produce thrust. At higher airspeeds the turbojet would close up and the fusion plasma would instead be directed through a magnetic manifold into a ring of small outlets inside the shock compression zone of the ramjet, increasing the temperature and therefore pressure of the air inside and allowing for thrust to be produced. As the velocity increased from around mach 3 to around mach 5.5, the geometry of the ramjet nacelle would adjust to keep the shock front in the correct position, until the ramjet was fully switched into scramjet mode (admittedly no supersonic combustion would be taking place, just supersonic plasma mixing). At that point the vehicle's propulsion system could continue to use the outside air to enhance thrust all the way to low orbit velocity. Materials able to ingest mach 18 air without being vaporized would be a challenge though, so it's more likely that beyond a certain speed the vehicle would switch to an internal supply of propellant, likely water due to its density and ultralow cost. The vehicle could easily do SSTO on this internal propellant supply alone of course, however air-breathing mode would still be useful for flying around.

[Anonymous No.11663954]

>>11663941
The strongest winds on Mars are going to feel like a stiff breeze, remember that Mars' atmospheric pressure is only a fraction of a bar. The dangerous part of Martian weather is that the environment allows for storms to get dummy thic and last for weeks, months, or sometimes even years on end. It's not kind to exposed equipment like solar panels which don't function well if they've been badly abraded.

[Anonymous No.11663959]

>>11663941
>who the hell would want to be there

Me!

[Anonymous No.11663975]

>>11663932
>it should be commercialized at some point in the near future
kek.
Lithium is the chemistry of the foreseeable near future for high performance batteries. If you just want storage and don't care about density, there's lead acid or flow batteries. If you REALLY need to make high performance batteries off-Earth, your saving grace is that you only need about ~2% lithium, so shipping it in bulk from Earth or wherever you can source it is still somewhat feasible.

[Anonymous No.11663986]

>>11663941
>doesn't the midwest have fuck-off-huge super tornadoes? who the hell would want to be there

[Anonymous No.11663990]

>>11663649
>super low enrichment thorium
Thorium can't be enriched, first of all there's only one naturally occurring isotope in significant quantity and second no thorium isotopes are actually fissile. You'd need to breed it into U-233 first, which is fissile.
>The thorium is held in a beryllium chamber and slowly starts to breed uranium as all of it's excess neutrons are bottled up in there, eventually over a predictable period of time it will become a self-sustaining reaction.
Your total lack of understanding of nuclear fuel cycles is embarrassing. The thorium fuel cycle works as such; you bombard Th-232 with a thermal neutron, which it absorbs. The resulting Th-233 soon decays into Pa-233, which has a half life of around 27 days. This Pa-233 decays into U-233, your fissile fuel isotope. There's a hitch in this fuel cycle though; Pa-233 is a very strong neutron absorber, and does not fission. This means that in our hypothetical chunk of thorium, as it's being bombarded by neutrons from fissioning fuel, Pa-233 is being made from Th-232 like we want, but almost all of that Pa-233 is absorbing a second neutron and becoming Pa-234, which decays into U-234, which is also not fissile and has a small neutron cross section. In order to breed fuel from thorium, the protactinium-233 poison must be constantly removed and allowed to decay into U-233, which then must be reintroduced to to keep the reaction going. This is why every serious Th-232 fuel cycle reactor design has relied upon liquid fuel; it's the only way to enable efficient and fast scrubbing of protactinium from the breeder blanket and the reintroduction of uranium into the reactor core.

[Anonymous No.11663999]

>>11663986
i don't disagree with that either

[Anonymous No.11664003]

>>11663918
As long as the fluid doesn't freeze over it won't be a problem.

[Anonymous No.11664004]

>>11663669
>$150 per kg to the surface of Mars
>base will cost billions
So you think there'll be over ten thousand tons of cargo delivered to Mars' surface by the time we send the first few people? Such an optimist

[Anonymous No.11664010]

>>11663551
>>11663561
>>11663526
>>11663512
>>11663490
Can we just build nuclear reactors and not put up with this shit please.
On that note, are there any known reserves of uranium/thorium outside of Earth in the solar system?

[Anonymous No.11664012]

>>11663715
They will literally stamp out the parts for a skidsteer, flat pack them along with a tesla battery pack and a couple other add-on parts, and launch it to Mars to be assembled in-situ.

[Anonymous No.11664018]

>>11662653
14% of C is when relativism kicks in.
As for time dilation,anything below 0.8c is worthless, and even at that speed you need something like energy shields which i don't even know how to begin imagining or something like a phase drive, subspace drive or whatever, basically serious sci fi shit.

[Anonymous No.11664021]

>>11663759
Don't bother trying to save mass anon, that will cost you more re-development expense. Send everything built as if for Earth gravity and you'll just have an additional 62% strength margin.

[Anonymous No.11664029]

>>11663917
Oh no there's only a trillion trillion tons of lithium on Earth! We can't rely on there being lithium because it's a finite resource!

[Anonymous No.11664032]

>>11663926
No? They open immediately after stage separation and boost-back burn are complete. The stage is still in space, which makes sense because it needs the find to guide it through reentry and landing.

[Anonymous No.11664036]

>>11664010
We know very little about ore deposits anywhere except on asteroids. Mars definitely has them but we don’t know precisely where.

[Anonymous No.11664037]

>>11663941
>doesn't mars have fuck-off-huge super tornadoes?
No, it doesn't. Just to be clear, as other anons haven't pointed that out yet. Mars has little dust-devils that you wouldn't be able to feel blowing on you.

[Anonymous No.11664038]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/large-chunks-of-a-chinese-rocket-missed-new-york-city-by-about-15-minutes/

>almost hit nyc
>21 tons, including 1 ton of fuel (hydrazine?)

[Anonymous No.11664043]

>>11664018
The common idea is to have powerful lasers on the front of your spacecraft that turn anything in front of you into hot plasma which can get shunted aside by a powerful magnetic field. Another idea is to 'blow' a diffuse particle cloud ahead of you acting like a gigantic wiffle shield, so that any dust or even macroscopic grains of material would be vaporized completely by thousands of hyper-velocity impacts with micron sized flakes of aluminum before it could get close. Of course that means you're effectively hitting your destination with a massive relativistic shotgun, but that should be okay as long as the system you're going to isn't inhabited, lol.

[Anonymous No.11664061]

>>11664038
15 minute * 7 km/s = or ~ 4000 miles. In other words. A debris hitting twice as far as the distance between New York To California. I know chinks, but this is literally nothingburger.

[Anonymous No.11664067]

>>11664038
Damn it China fucking do it already
>>11664043
How powerful would the lasers need to be? Ngl that sounds fucking badass, if you have lasers that powerful you might as well go full on laser highway and get to Proxima C in,what,6 years?
I am wondering how to decelerate the spaceship in this scenario.

[Anonymous No.11664074]

>>11664061
>Yes, that's why "15 minutes" was used. It's more alarmist than "middle of the Atlantic" but it also gets the point across a bit better which is that this could have landed anywhere and they were just lucky it didn't hit a populated area. A game of statistics you're likely to win but a stupid game to play.

[Anonymous No.11664084]

>>11664038
>15 minutes
so in Africa?

[Anonymous No.11664089]

>ywn be chilling in your space hotel watching as the space force fleet does a formation flyby
born too early...

[Anonymous No.11664090]

>>11664084
I bless the (hydrazine) rains down in Africa!

[Anonymous No.11664096]

>>11663576
Sure you do. Just default and invoke NATO Article V if China forces the issue physically.

[Anonymous No.11664099]

>>11662485
fusion man, slap me by the hand
lead me through the band, that you understand

[Anonymous No.11664107]

>>11664037
>Mars has little dust-devils that you wouldn't be able to feel blowing on you.
The only thing they're good for is cleaning the dust off (rover) solar panels.

[Anonymous No.11664157]

>>11664067
>How powerful would the lasers need to be?
Powerful to evaporate any dust into plasma, and powerful enough to shove larger particles to either side before impact. We're probably talking about a maximum power output of gigawatts per square centimeter at least.

[Anonymous No.11664169]

>>11662667
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/6548/is-the-airship-to-orbit-mission-profile-feasible

FUCKING ORBITAL BLIMP, READ EM AND WEEP

[Anonymous No.11664175]

>>11664043
how about if you use the same lasers that propel a laser accelerated craft for particle clearing? you could aim the laser to where you want to go, fire it at max intensity then inmediately launch your ship behind it, propelled by the same laser, its travelling behind a wave of cleaning laser

[Anonymous No.11664179]

>>11664067
They wouldn't need to be as powerful as a laser-highway array, not by a long shot. You're basically just pushing on grains of dust and small pebbles you come across while they're still several AU away. That being said, I suppose if you were willing to go full ham on laser propulsion you could send a full array of lasers and use some heavy aluminum mirrors you packed along with you to slow down; you'd fire at the free floating mirror you released and have it reflect that light back and forth between itself and the vehicle over and over. The mirror would accelerate a lot faster than your spacecraft, but the spacecraft would still slow down. Pack a few mirrors and strap some additional mass to them and you could laser-bounce your way to capture velocity and switch to a normal propellant-based thrust method, such as a direct fusion rocket. You'd also at that point be pretty much free to separate from the laser array and attach it to some quadrillion ton rock the size of Phobos to provide laser propulsion to other incoming ships.

[Anonymous No.11664202]

>>11664175
The laser would need to be ridiculously powerful in order to ensure protection from larger debris without the benefit of using the thrust of ablation to move the objects out of the path. Much more powerful than what is necessary for a robust laser accelerator array. You'd be approaching the scale of a small Nicoll Dyson beam.

[Anonymous No.11664221]

>>11664202
>The laser would need to be ridiculously powerful
so what? ridiculously powerful is the kind of thing you can pull off when youre firing from a planet and not from a spaceship. Just concentrate 1% of the output of the sun into a corridor 3 times bigger than the spaceship, youre fine then

[Anonymous No.11664264]

>>11664096
Yeah, because NATO gives a fuck about debts.

[Anonymous No.11664277]

>>11664264
NATO would give a fuck if any non-NATO country engaged in hostile military action against a NATO nation.

[Anonymous No.11664311]

>>11664277
Who needs military action when you own the IMF through votes?

[Anonymous No.11664336]

>>11664221
That capability will take a lot longer to build up to that the ability to put a powerful enough laser array onto a spacecraft to allow it to shoot down oncoming debris. Giant superlasers could eventually be used to send a massive pulse of energy ahead of a laser propelled vehicle, but that won't be something we're going to wait for.

[Anonymous No.11664348]

>>11664221
Yeah but you'd lose a lot of efficiency that way unless you use X or Gamma ray lasers in which case you're probably only accelerating a RKM because no human is going near that laser.
Though converting Pluto into a giant laser for interstellar travel sounds fucking cool.

[Anonymous No.11664357]

>>11664348
you just the asteroid kill laser first and the spaceship propulsion laser second, the ship travels behind the asteroid kill one

[Anonymous No.11664399]

>>11664311
Who needs the IMF when you have the USA?

[Anonymous No.11664405]

>>11664399
Fair weather friends aren't worth much.

[Anonymous No.11664413]

>>11663243
there's a video debunking it around here somewhere that convinced me that it was just the pilot mistaking the range

[Anonymous No.11664419]

>>11663320
Mars Dakar is going to be fucking sweet
imagine the boost from a methalox piston engine

[Anonymous No.11664442]

https://iss-sim.spacex.com

[Anonymous No.11664498]

>>11664442
Hold on, Matt Lowne taught me this

[Anonymous No.11664502]

COMING IN HOT

[Anonymous No.11664524]

>>11663715
CAT already did the work for NASA a while back

[Anonymous No.11664529]

>>11664419
>starts at the top of olympus mons
>first one down wins.
>electric&fuel engines allowed
>small thrusters for midair control allowed while doing insane jumps
>ramming each other encouraged

I would pay to watch that.

[Anonymous No.11664542]

>>11663759
No, you want it to weigh the same in order to support the same movement speed
if you strip it down to the minimum you're going to be forced to move in slow motion all the time, and your working men are going to break it

[Anonymous No.11664544]

final approach

[Anonymous No.11664549]

Remember to take your victory lap before docking.

[Anonymous No.11664551]

>>11664549
is this model of the ISS publicly available?

[Anonymous No.11664555]

>>11664096
>Yeah I don't understand global finance

[Anonymous No.11664561]

It has a flat earth mode lmao

[Anonymous No.11664564]

yeeeeee
now to speedrun it. the red approach speed indicator means nothing

[Anonymous No.11664565]

fuck off, NASA red tape

[Anonymous No.11664574]

>>11664564
You’re hired

[Anonymous No.11664583]

COMING IN HOT

[Anonymous No.11664587]

>>11664583
ahem, anon >>11664565

[Anonymous No.11664590]

>>11664587
>Not treating your crew transfer like a Nascar pit crew

[Anonymous No.11664592]

>>11664561
top kek, that's some advanced banter

[Anonymous No.11664628]

so uh you can clip through parts of the ISS

[Anonymous No.11664642]

When will a full Starship stack fly? Normally I'd say 2020, but Superheavy is not really tested yet. 2021?

I can't believe they're going to either beat SLS, or at least come close to it in terms of launch date. SLS' parts have existed since the 70's, and work was started in 2011. Starship's engines were first fired in 2016, and the Stainless steel was only stacked in 2018 first.

How did NASA mess up so bad? I remember in 2014 NASA telling everyone "Yeah SLS is on track for a 2017 flight" and then seeing cool slideshows with various missions that are enabled by it. Now SLS is just sad.

Also what the fuck is wrong with Blue Origin? They flew New Shepard in 2015, and still haven't put a person on it. It's miles simpler than Dragon 2 yet Dragon 2 will fly people before it.

If Blue wanted to actually do stuff they could've flown people back in 2016, after the In-Flight Abort. Yet here we are, four years later, and zero people have flown. The flight on New Shepard is literally short enough to have a person wear a pressure suit the entire time just in case of emergency.

They tested everything needed for New Shepard to carry people back in 2016. Why haven't they flown anyone yet?

[Anonymous No.11664645]

>>11663772
bring extra batteries
a methalox combustion engine would be even more finnicky, it doesn't have the nitrogen buffer that earth does so it'll run way too hot for the common man to tinker with it
>>11663821
Skylab is the perfect example of how NOT to SERVICE your space station
it worked fine
>>11663844
combustion engines can't work pulling from the thin air of Mars, not because it's thin, but because there's no oxygen
so your options are:
armored batteries, with spares
methalox fuel cell
methalox APU (which isn't user serviceable, it's too delicate due to lack of nitrogen buffer gas)
>>11664038
Liquid oxygen and I forget which fuel.
>>11664348
turn Mercury into the giant laser
>>11664529
if you were using methalox CPU (combustion power unit) then it would be easy to siphon some of that off to light small blowtorches (RCS/maneuvering thrusters) to permit everything from hovers to flips

[Anonymous No.11664648]

>>11664628
It's a bug, normaly you can only have that with the starliner DLC.

[Anonymous No.11664654]

>>11664642
>but Superheavy is not really tested yet. 2021?

Super Heavy is actually the simpler of the two to design.

[Anonymous No.11664660]

>>11664442
fuck this shit is too hard

[Anonymous No.11664662]

>Two months without a single plane sold for Boeing.
>No Gateway supply missions
>No Lunar lander
>Starliner Can't Sustain Trajectory-100
Well, at least they have shares in ULA, right?

[Anonymous No.11664672]

>>11664654
Yeah I get that, I'm just saying its thrust puck isn't built yet. I retract my statement that it isn't built yet as a lot of its systems are on Starship. It's just a longer version of SS' tanks.

[Anonymous No.11664679]

>>11664672
It's gotta hold together under the thrust of 31 raptor engines with a full tanks and a fully loaded starship on top though.
Then it's gotta fucking land too.

[Anonymous No.11664680]

>>11664583
>suicide burn docking

[Anonymous No.11664681]

>>11664642
SLS is a jobs program first and a space program second. NASA can't change vendors, withhold money, or penalize them in any way for fucking up so the vendors can just keep shitting their pants and rake in the money.

As for Blue Origin I have no fucking idea. Maybe Bezos is just holding out hoping for Trump to lose this fall so the Democrats take credit for fixing spaceflight.

[Anonymous No.11664682]

>>11664680
NO
TIME
FOR
CAUTION

[Anonymous No.11664689]

>>11664679
>It's gotta hold together under the thrust of 31 raptor engines with a full tanks and a fully loaded starship on top though.

Easier than it sounds. A full fuel tank is strong on its own because of the pressure.

[Anonymous No.11664693]

>>11664689
Tell that to N1.

[Anonymous No.11664695]

>>11664679
Landing the Booster is the easy part.
Most of the structural loading problems are being figured out by Starship, on the Booster they just need thicker walls.
As for the thrust structure that holds the engines, getting a working one isn't going to be super difficult. What will take some time will be the transition from a beefy dumb structure which will work for ~100 ton payload launches to a much lighter but more involved design which will allow ~150 ton payloads, by giving the first stage higher delta V figures.

[Anonymous No.11664696]

>>11664645
Why not both? I know Mercury is great for Solar but 30+ au distance between them is a lot, though ideally you'd use them both.
How much power does it take for a laser to push a 1000t spacecraft at 1g? I'm guessing it's extinction event-tier.

[Anonymous No.11664702]

>>11664682
>It's not possible

[Anonymous No.11664706]

COME ON TARS

[Anonymous No.11664714]

>>11664442
It was fairly easy, but the interface was fucking cancerous to say the least.

[Anonymous No.11664718]

I'm predicting Q4 2020 for orbital Starship/Super Heavy launch
it might slip into Q1 2021
>>11664693
where are you going to get the power for your gigalaser out at fucking pluto?

[Anonymous No.11664725]

>>11664714
probably easier with touch controls instead of mouse controls
be even easier with controller

[Anonymous No.11664729]

>>11664718
No getting to Pluto unless you have fusion power regardless, so I'd assume a fuck-off large fusion reactor array

[Anonymous No.11664742]

>>11664442
>success second time, first time I ignored the red numbers
This is way easier than docking in KSP lmao

[Anonymous No.11664748]

>>11664742
does KSP give you reference yaw/pitch? It's all IFR basically

[Anonymous No.11664760]

>>11664748
no, KSP doesn't give you any of these numbers and flying VFR is very hard, especially when you don't have very fine control

[Anonymous No.11664761]

>>11664725
I did it on first and 2nd try with mouse no problem, it's not hard. It's just fucking really badly designed for a web browser on desktop.

[Anonymous No.11664763]

>>11664748
Yeah I believe it doesn't, I would always end up pointed in some random direction relative to the target

[Anonymous No.11664765]

>>11664763
If you use the navball properly, it gives you exactly what you need to dock.

[Anonymous No.11664768]

>>11664763
Docking in KSP is easy. Just set the docking port you want to connect to as the “Target” and make the SAS point at it, and approach it at like 0.2/ms

[Anonymous No.11664783]

>>11664718
Massive Fusion rector powered by the ices from TNO's or Hydrogen from the GGs.
>>11664742
Ksp docking is fucking cancer.

[Anonymous No.11664786]

>>11664783
If you can't dock in Ksp you shouldn't be allowed to vote

[Anonymous No.11664792]

>>11664786
docking is easier now that they allow you to adjust the strength of the docking magnetism
way easier than using the grabber arm

[Anonymous No.11664802]

>>11664786
Fuck it i just praise the Omnissiah and let the machine spirit guide me.

[Anonymous No.11664809]

>>11664786
Just because it's doable doesn't make it good.

[Anonymous No.11664832]

>>11664809
How could it be “better” or “worse”? It’s just making some things in orbit bump into eachother at low speeds

[Anonymous No.11664840]

How are things going with starship? It passed 7.5 but now what?
Did they put another engine on?
Testing tonight?
Hop when?

[Anonymous No.11664846]

>>11664840
Who knows, Elon is too busy playing fuck the man in Cali to make big waves in Texas I guess.

[Anonymous No.11664855]

>>11664840
Next up is a static fire, which is possibly on for today/tonight. Once the FAA gives the go ahead, they can do a hop. That will probably be a week or more.

[Anonymous No.11664857]

>>11664840
Switched out the old engine for a more recent one (SN18 -> SN20), thinking is they want testing to be consistent with the batch that will also be installed on SS SN5/6. No clue on testing schedule

[Anonymous No.11664864]

>>11664846
Does he have a private jet? He zooms all over the place.

[Anonymous No.11664866]

>>11664864
Probably has several.

[Anonymous No.11664867]

>>11664864
Yes, it occasionally triggers r*dditors

[Anonymous No.11664868]

space force may bankroll oneweb https://www.defensenews.com/smr/2020/05/12/a-bankrupt-oneweb-could-get-some-help-from-the-defense-department/

>The Defense Department is considering taking action to help fortify OneWeb and other vulnerable space startups, said Lt. Gen. David Thompson, vice commander of Headquarters Space Force.
>Thompson did not lay out options under consideration by the Pentagon to aid OneWeb, but he did say the department’s Space Acquisition Council devised a list of proposed investments for space companies that need rapid, aggressive action. That capital is needed to ensure emerging space technologies remain available to the U.S. military but also so “that potential adversaries don’t have the opportunity to acquire those capabilities,” he said.

[Anonymous No.11664869]

>>11664864
yes, SpaceX own a private jet and Elon uses it for all of his businesses. Tesla payed SpaceX a considerable sum for Elon to use that jet on Tesla business lol

[Anonymous No.11664874]

>>11664868
All I'm saying is pick another sat provider than OneWeb in the future. That shit's getting backdoored.

[Anonymous No.11664875]

>>11664868
>NATIONALIZE

[Anonymous No.11664877]

>>11664867
Why would a private jet trigger someone? MUH GREENHOUSE GASSES OMG

[Anonymous No.11664879]

>>11664874
SpaceX has CONSIDERABLE investment from USGov already
everybody is compromised

[Anonymous No.11664883]

>>11664877
Rich people will always trigger some. I used to be young and pissed off at the rich once too.

[Anonymous No.11664888]

>>11664868
excited for the US government to provide internet access to Chinese citizens that bypasses the great firewall leading to the first militarized conflict in space

[Anonymous No.11664902]

>>11664662
At this rate they will need yet another bailout.

[Anonymous No.11664905]

>>11664902
They need to trim some fucking fat.

[Anonymous No.11664908]

>>11664868
ah yes the edgy reboot
Punished OneWeeb

[Anonymous No.11664909]

I wonder how OneWeb will get to space if they are being financed by the Space Force? Does that mean Russia is out as a launch provider? Will they be forced to use SpaceX?

[Anonymous No.11664915]

>>11664909
a billion dollars a launch on atlas 5

[Anonymous No.11664916]

>>11664883
I just want to be rich. No point being a petulant child because someone has better toys than you.

[Anonymous No.11664919]

>>11664915
Wouldn't be surprised.

[Anonymous No.11664920]

SOON

[Anonymous No.11664922]

>>11664909
Workers at BO on suicide watch that they have to actually build rockets now, considering that most of their launch contracts are with OneWeb.

[Anonymous No.11664924]

>>11664920
well, there's the layout for the tiles

[Anonymous No.11664931]

oops nope I lied, NOW

[Anonymous No.11664932]

>>11664761
>>11664725
WASDQE and numpad 456789.

It's really easy.

>>11664748
>>11664760
>>11664763
>>11664768
KSP does have fine controls, just hit Capslock.

On top of that if you want real braindead docking then just set both vehicles' SAS to normal/antinormal, then all you don't need to touch rotation controls at all and can just translate underneath and move in.

[Anonymous No.11664935]

>>11664920
Do we now how big the crew is there?
Must be quite a lot to have guys working around the clock even more so in corona times.

[Anonymous No.11664936]

>>11664932
yes, it has fine controls
it doesn't have VERY FINE controls

[Anonymous No.11664939]

>>11664920
>>11664931
Basecoat on the nosecone? They painting them now?

[Anonymous No.11664944]

>>11664939
no, I don't think so
it's just the finish on the panels

[Anonymous No.11664949]

>>11664932
Ah, didn't know. Not that I'm gonna run through it on easy mode when I've already done so two times on hard.

[Anonymous No.11664952]

>>11664932
Fine controls kinda suck, there's some smoothing but your inputs are still just 0% and 100%

[Anonymous No.11664953]

>>11664935
500+, they were about 250 in february then they had two big hiring events where they brought in 250+ people
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/inside-elon-musks-plan-to-build-one-starship-a-week-and-settle-mars/

[Anonymous No.11664956]

>>11664936
Just disable some RCS or reaction wheels if it's that squirreley, the docking magnetism is such that you really don't need to be all that accurate.

[Anonymous No.11664981]

>>11664442
need some timewarp, I did an antiradial burn to see if I was going to "orbit" the ISS but it's 90 minutes is loooong

[Anonymous No.11664986]

>>11664981
The simulation stops if you go too far :(

[Anonymous No.11665025]

>>11664953
Wonder if a lot of the blue collar workers there feel pride in what they are doing, or are just there for the money.

[Anonymous No.11665035]

>>11665025
They're building a rocketship. That's pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.11665036]

>>11664869
>Elon payed Elon a considerable sum for Elon to use that jet on Tesla business
wut

[Anonymous No.11665044]

>>11665036
It's a tax thing.

[Anonymous No.11665048]

>>11665036
yeah
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/28/heres-how-tesla-and-spacex-worked-with-and-paid-each-other-in-the-past-year.html

[Anonymous No.11665057]

>>11665036
corporate accounting: spend profits from a business before they´re taxed.

[Anonymous No.11665071]

>>11664931
those rings are looking mighty shiny

>>11664939
reflection of the cloudy sky, duh

>>11665025
I'm ~250 miles away and just thinking about it too much gives a real strange feel. It's bonkers, not just a spaceship, but one that looks like '50s pulp cover art, and they're trying to churn them out in quantity too. And an engine unlike almost any other, which sort of appeared like "oh yeah we have a engine for this thing too", ¡plop!. It's Kerbal as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11665075]

>>11665071
>oh, you know that new engine we've been talking about for our future rocket?
>IT'S REAL BITCH
plop

[Anonymous No.11665096]

We need a code. Something can say when we are onboard and heading to mars and only anons will get.
I has to be funny if you know it and it has to be casual if you don't.
What will it be?

[Anonymous No.11665104]

>>11665096
"Fuck niggers and fuck jannies"

You say that right as you're stepping onto the surface for the first time, Neil Armstrong style.

[Anonymous No.11665120]

>>11665025
most blue collar workers arent soulless knuckle dragging drones anon

[Anonymous No.11665125]

>>11665096
>We need a code. Something can say when we are onboard and heading to mars and only anons will get.

“Eat the green cumulon”

[Anonymous No.11665134]

>>11665104
>First person on Mars is secretly a shitposter
>Get given a gay ass speech about diversity and one human race to deliver on first footall
>Step off the starship elevator
>ahem
>*ting ting ting*
>Can I have everyone's attention please
>Fuck NASA, Fuck Boeing, but most importantly, fuck niggers and jannies

Imagine the absolute seethe across the globe lmao

[Anonymous No.11665136]

>>11665096
"another IQ thread"

[Anonymous No.11665137]

>>11665104
based

[Anonymous No.11665139]

>>11665134
>Fuck Boeing
BOING
>>11665136
This one is good.

[Anonymous No.11665146]

>>11665120
yes, they are

[Anonymous No.11665151]

>>11665146
>t. Soulless office drone

Get a real job and actually produce something you fucking parasite.

[Anonymous No.11665153]

>>11665025
If you don't feel pride in trying to create the best rocket in the world by a large margin, there is something wrong with you.

[Anonymous No.11665159]

>>11665146
>yes, they are

Please leave your house

[Anonymous No.11665160]

>>11665151
I do, I'm an engineer.
Now go back to carrying bricks around subhuman.

[Anonymous No.11665162]

>>11665134
a beautiful thought

[Anonymous No.11665163]

>>11665159
I don't need to because I'm not a illiterate blue collar "worker"(nigger).

[Anonymous No.11665166]

>>11665160
Sure you are sweetie :)

[Anonymous No.11665178]

>>11665166
>imagine being so poor you can't believe someone went to college

[Anonymous No.11665181]

>>11665160
engineers don't produce anything, their job is to know how to produce things, so that they can then slave away in an office and figuring out either why it's all fucking broken or making something better
sometimes they get to do some real shit and bother the workers on the floor

[Anonymous No.11665183]

They need to get the second test stand up asap.

[Anonymous No.11665185]

>>11665096
>Jeff Who is a bald ass mother fucker...

[Anonymous No.11665186]

>>11665178
Ok sweetie I'm sure you're very rich :)

[Anonymous No.11665187]

>>11665181
Cool! Now go back to carrying bricks around.

[Anonymous No.11665190]

>>11665160
>engineers
>producing anything

Unless you are in the very small niche of engineers actually advancing technology then you are just another drone.

[Anonymous No.11665192]

>>11665187
please, I'm a pipe fitter
I carry pipes around, and little bottles of anti-seize

[Anonymous No.11665193]

I work as skilled labor, it's horrible. I'll take a comfy office gig over that shit any day.
>tfw you walk in from freezing ass weather into the warm office and the office staff are laughing it up and munching on snacks not doing any real work

[Anonymous No.11665196]

>>11665186
>imagine being so poor that you think middle class families are very rich

[Anonymous No.11665202]

>>11665183
>SN6 gets stacked before SN5
>Whoops, turns out we're doing a hop with SN7 today, forgot to tell you guys about that
>Hey look, SN8 was behind this shed the whole time
>Never mind that full-stack lunar launch in the background, we have another SN4 static fire to do

[Anonymous No.11665203]

>>11665193
Its nice until you realise the reality of office politics, especially women office politics and that your body is going to be even worse shape sitting around all day.

[Anonymous No.11665210]

>>11665203
>cope

[Anonymous No.11665214]

>>11665196
Enjoy designing more consumer goods middle class poorfag, enjoy paying off your loan too lmao.

[Anonymous No.11665218]

>>11665210
I've worked in more offices than you cunt, I'm pretty much a boomer. How old are you, 20? Offices are pure hell.

[Anonymous No.11665221]

>>11665096
aeiou

[Anonymous No.11665222]

>>11665214
What loan? My family saved for my education while I grew up, as non-retarded people do.
>>11665218
ok boomer

[Anonymous No.11665232]

>>11665222
Ok boomer is not an argument. Do you genuinely enjoy office politics? If you don't you will definitely enjoy your lower back pain in 10-15 years.

[Anonymous No.11665237]

>>11665232
I don't work at shitty places. The environment is fine and the people are fine.

[Anonymous No.11665252]

>>11665193
I hear ya, college drop out (eu, so no dept) and started working in a big steelplant as a blue collar worker, worked my way up supervisor and now i get to deal a lot with the white collar workers of the plant
Outside of the technical departments all of these people are a waste of air, they manage to use so many words, mail so much shit, have so many hour long meetings but achieve nothing with all that.
And blue collars dont like white collars, that much is true, but white collars downright loathe blue collar workers.
These people can sit around for hours drinking coffee doing no work and talking about how lazy the "grunts" in the factory are.
And i'm not going to start about HR because then i'm going to be talking for hours.

[Anonymous No.11665266]

>>11665134
hello, based department?

[Anonymous No.11665283]

>>11664809
It's not just doable, it's EASY.

[Anonymous No.11665287]

>>11664442

[Anonymous No.11665297]

>>11665134
That would literally be remembered for all time, no matter how many thousands of galaxies humanity eventually colonized.

[Anonymous No.11665317]

>>11664442
Haha oh noooo I crashed into the ISS at 10m/s maybe they can build a new one haha

[Anonymous No.11665318]

>>11665134
>ahem
>*ting ting ting*
would that person have to sneak a wine glass to mars, or would it be ok for them to just use their visor?

[Anonymous No.11665323]

>>11665318
Nah they could just say "ting" a few times

[Anonymous No.11665331]

>>11665237
>>11665222
They salty

[Anonymous No.11665338]

>>11665331
How is this being salty?

[Anonymous No.11665346]

>>11665338
Cope, enjoy your herniated discs

[Anonymous No.11665349]

>>11665338
The people he is replying too. Regardless this isnt space related.

[Anonymous No.11665356]

>>11665349
I see.
>>11665346
I misunderstood your post, sorry.

[Anonymous No.11665360]

Starlink launch coming this sunday, Crew Demo in 2 weeks from now.

[Anonymous No.11665366]

>>11665362
New Thread
>>11665362

[Anonymous No.11665372]

>>11665366
Ohhh shit, I missed comment 543.
>>11665346
nigger

[Anonymous No.11665704]

>>11665096
If it was a /mu/tant, "This ain't the kind of place to raise your kids."