/sfg/ - Space Flight General: Crawler-Transporter Edition

[Anonymous No.11695620]

My two boys are ancient, I worry about them. Please let me know about them and all other ground craft IT.

Previous: >>11692548

[Anonymous No.11695629]

Hey guys, I'm launching a rocket to GEO and have a few spare pounds. You want anything on it?

[Anonymous No.11695634]

I think it's reasonable to say starship could reach the moon by 20202.

[Anonymous No.11695641]

>>11695620
The virgin crawler vs the chad roll lift

[Anonymous No.11695671]

>>11694917
>Eventually but right now rockets are statistically orders of magnitude more dangerous than planes.

To a large extent that just relies on us getting a shitload of flight hours. Planes weren't particularly reliable at the beginning either, but when you've got thousands of them flying around the globe at all times it gets a lot easier to pick out the issues in your designs and streamline the entire process. It won't be overnight, but if they get even a fraction of the launch cadence they want with Starship you'll start seeing the failure rate plummet within the first few years.

>>11694810
>Average Falcon 9 launch is about $200k in fuel
And that's with kerosene. If SpaceX can actually get a reliable and large scale sabatier setup running off solar, then their fuel costs could wind up being practically zero beyond basic maintenance of the system. You're basically fueling a rocket off water at that point.

[Anonymous No.11695672]

>>11695629
If you have GEO money could you spare a few shekels to engrave the best posts ITT on a plaque?

[Anonymous No.11695712]

pic of a baby planet being formed

[Anonymous No.11695718]

I know we all say the Space Shuttle was a shit, but damn it's kino.

[Anonymous No.11695733]

>>11695718

The thing I really love is the hyper-autistic service structure.

[Anonymous No.11695737]

>giant retarded crawler that moves 1 mph

And people wonder why nasa is expensive

[Anonymous No.11695740]

>>11695737
So we'll move the large unstable load much faster for no raisin, then.

[Anonymous No.11695750]

>>11695740
Literally 5 hours to crawl out to the launch site lol

[Anonymous No.11695761]

>>11695733
What the fuck

[Anonymous No.11695776]

Ayys at SN4

[Anonymous No.11695806]

>>11695776
Even they want to see it do a hop already.

[Anonymous No.11695813]

>>11695776
That drone is still there and it has a spotlight on it. I think that it is being operated by SpaceX and they are trying to check something for detanking.

[Anonymous No.11695817]

>>11695813
Nah, definitely aliens.

[Anonymous No.11695834]

>>11695712
this is... how babby is formed?

[Anonymous No.11695899]

>>11695641
the crawler-transporter is capable of lifting a lot more than that roll lift can
still, it's not really necessary, they should have used a rail line like the Soviets and SpaceX do

[Anonymous No.11695980]

[Anonymous No.11695982]

first for Starship V

[Anonymous No.11695999]

>>11695980
Rip Energia. Coulda done so much More if she lived

[Anonymous No.11696021]

>>11695999
RIP the Soviet Union, you mean

[Anonymous No.11696059]

WFIRST telescope is now literally the Niggerest.
https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1263121838286176256

[Anonymous No.11696065]

>>11696059
holy fuck Jim
NGRST is an awful name for a telescope

[Anonymous No.11696068]

>>11696059
I am glad that JWST was made and launched on time and under budget so we can focus on such things

[Anonymous No.11696079]

Unofficial word is that Space Force will get black/silver uniforms to distinguish themselves from the Air Force.

[Anonymous No.11696082]

>>11696079
They will share some facilities so helping to distinguish each other will be needed. They'll still use those camo pattern uniforms for field duty.

[Anonymous No.11696085]

>>11696059
>NGRST

[Anonymous No.11696100]

>>11696079
They'll just take it from that Steve Carell show.

[Anonymous No.11696123]

>>11696079
>Unofficial word is that Space Force will get black/silver uniforms to distinguish themselves from the Air Force.

[Anonymous No.11696146]

>>11696021
No fuck the Soviet Union

>t. polish

[Anonymous No.11696165]

Finally some good news from Norway for a change, they decided to fund Andøya after all. Total funding 1.3bn NOK of which the state is chipping in 365 million.

[Anonymous No.11696196]

>>11696059

[Anonymous No.11696202]

>>11696059
>jogs into your administration
>steals your budget

[Anonymous No.11696256]

>>11696021
>RIP a shitty communist hellhole

No

[Anonymous No.11696266]

>>11696165
is it a rocket?

[Anonymous No.11696278]

>>11696266
https://www.andoyaspaceport.no

[Anonymous No.11696284]

take off

[Anonymous No.11696307]

>>11696256
those places didn't stop being shitty hellholes just because they stopped being Communist, anon

[Anonymous No.11696345]

>>11696278
>smallsat spaceport
It's a nothingburger.

[Anonymous No.11696367]

>>11696345
Better than fucking nothing.

[Anonymous No.11696376]

>>11696367
*cough*UK*cough*

[Anonymous No.11696384]

>>11696376
The thing is, it's a start and it's 100 jobs for aerospace industry.

[Anonymous No.11696417]

>Watch new NASASpaceflight video
>Suddenly Mexican Music in the background
KEK

[Anonymous No.11696477]

>road closure ends in 10 mins
>methane still in tank and flare lit
oh no no no no no no no...

[Anonymous No.11696482]

>>11696477
the flare has nothing to do with the rocket, anon
the flare is for the ground tanks

[Anonymous No.11696523]

>Virgin Orbit's maiden launch is on the 24th
I can't wait. They're the only smallsat launcher that interests me. Sure, Rocket Lab may start doing re-use, which is good and all, but Virgin Orbit can launch from almost anywhere. I expect them to get alot of government backing if they are successful.

[Anonymous No.11696559]

>>11696284
it's a beauty way to go.

[Anonymous No.11696694]

>>11696079
>normies making fun of "space camo" is going to result in awesome looking uniforms
I'm ok with it

[Anonymous No.11696733]

>>11696694
I don't get the normies. The Space Force personnel are all working in bases on earth, and mostly bases surrounded by forests. Why do normies not understand this?

[Anonymous No.11696760]

SSSSSSSSSS

[Anonymous No.11696845]

love the new mission badge

[Anonymous No.11696847]

>>11695634
>20202
Most definitely.

[Anonymous No.11696874]

>>11696760
>the moment Americans revolutionize spaceflight again
Can't wait.

[Anonymous No.11696878]

>>11696059
>NGRST

[Anonymous No.11696880]

>>11696847
Meant to say 2022 but kek

[Anonymous No.11696884]

>>11696760
Why is this FOREIGN company allowed to not only launch from AMERICAN soil to carrying AMERICAN astronauts but also have the AMERICAN flag on it? This is a disgrace! I demand that this UNSAFE and UNRELIABLE company be nationalized for the security and pride of the AMERICAN people.

[Anonymous No.11696888]

>>11696884
Why does he hate SpaceX so much anyways? Does he not want to see advancement in spaceflight done by americans?

[Anonymous No.11696897]

>>11696059
>NGRST
>Whatchu lookin' at foo'?
>MUHFUKING STARS NIGGUH

[Anonymous No.11696904]

>>11696897
>space coons
Can't wait to see them fight the space wolves.

[Anonymous No.11696908]

>>11696888
Meme answer? Because SpaceX is a FOREIGN and DANGEROUS company who is a threat to AMERICA and the SLS (pbui). Who practices forbidden arts such as REASONABLY PRICED LAUNCHES and PR*P*LL*NT D*P*TS.

Real answer? Because SpaceX isn't bribing him with jobs in his key districts, and is a threat to said jobs due to the company's lean spending practices and market dominance. SpaceX has definitely cost Boeing some key contracts, and Boeing has tons of jobs in Huntsville.

[Anonymous No.11696914]

>>11696908
What’s he gonna do if Elon goes “fuck it” and opens up shop in Alabama?

[Anonymous No.11696922]

>>11696914
He would probably be thrilled considering how friendly he was towards Blue Origin when they moved into Huntsville. Shelby seems like a selfish prick, but is easy to please if you know what he wants.

[Anonymous No.11696958]

>>11696914
>SpaceX brings operations to fuck nowhere, Alabama
>it's just a bunch of mexicans churning out rolls of stainless

[Anonymous No.11696987]

>>11696914
That would be fucking amazing.

[Anonymous No.11697045]

>>11695671
brainful post

[Anonymous No.11697068]

>>11696059
>NGRST

[Anonymous No.11697072]

>>11696146
seconded

>t. slovak

[Anonymous No.11697082]

>>11696307
>those places didn't stop being shitty hellholes just because they stopped being Communist, anon

they kinda did

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/26/this-is-the-golden-age-eastern-europes-extraordinary-30-year-revival

[Anonymous No.11697095]

>>11696059
>nancy grace roman
Shes pretty cool, well deserving of the honor.

[Anonymous No.11697130]

>>11695671
>running off solar, then their fuel costs could wind up being practically zero
If they found a way to make methane at zero cost, they could just sell said methane on the market and make literally trillions while obliterating all oil producer countries.
I have a gut feeling that it could be not really that simple.

[Anonymous No.11697149]

>>11697130
I think the word you are missing is "quantity". Also they would need a distribution network.
But what they could make right there at BC would probably be a lot cheaper than running trucks up highway 4 every day.

[Anonymous No.11697151]

>>11696059

[Anonymous No.11697162]

>>11697130
>If they found a way to make methane at zero cost, they could just sell said methane on the market and make literally trillions while obliterating all oil producer countries.
Not the US, oddly enough. Our fracking produces so much methane that it's become stupid cheap.

[Anonymous No.11697165]

>>11696146
>>11697072
thirded

t. russian

[Anonymous No.11697170]

>>11697149
In most parts of the world methane is distributed with pipelines, it's effective and cheap.
Quantity isn't an issue, if the price is so competitive you just scale up.

[Anonymous No.11697186]

>>11697130
Not really zero cost, but the cost is almost entirely up front (machinery, panels, probably batteries, land grants). So it's mostly Musk's companies paying themselves and ending up with a fuel depot, but scaling is troublesome. They will be entirely their own consumer probably, except off-planet if anyone joins them there kek

[Anonymous No.11697187]

Trump will watch DM-2 in person!

[Anonymous No.11697225]

>>11697187
top banter

[Anonymous No.11697283]

>>11697170
Pipelines don't magically appear everywhere. Someone has to dig them, and that pisses off the greenies.

[Anonymous No.11697297]

>>11696059
>NGRST

[Anonymous No.11697299]

>>11697283
Too bad, lol!

t. the President

[Anonymous No.11697306]

>>11696059
Sheeeeit

[Anonymous No.11697314]

>>11696059
Whitey may be on da Moon, but mah niggas be BEYOND!

[Anonymous No.11697320]

>>11696059
ok, which one of you did this.

[Anonymous No.11697323]

>>11697314
woke

[Anonymous No.11697330]

>>11697283
Kill the greenies then lol

[Anonymous No.11697451]

Dumbass plan incoming,trying to think of the dumbest shit,you're welcome to join:
What if we converted all the CO2 in Venus' atmosphere into Oxygen?

[Anonymous No.11697454]

>>11695620

[Anonymous No.11697465]

>>11697451
....What do you intend to do with it?

[Anonymous No.11697469]

>>11697451
Then someone lights a match and the entire planet goes up in flames.

On a semi related note Forge of God by Greg Bear involves aliens using a somewhat similar technology on Earth and it doesn't go well. Gud book.

[Anonymous No.11697481]

>>11697451
Venus would turn into one big coal mine with everyone there really black

[Anonymous No.11697482]

>>11697451
So, just to explain why my autistic self thought of this: higher oxygen levels lead to increased intelligence,growth and strength. Considering Venus' atmosphere is over 90 times denser than Earths,making even 10% of that Oxygen would mean 45 times more oxygen than Earth. It would also corrode the shit out of everything and lighting a match there would set off a global holocaust but,hey,if you can pull off shit like this and are crazy enough,that isn't gonna stop you. Also, Oxygen damages the Human body,but this is going to be a place for Transhumans anyways. Imagine the literal Gigachads 30+ feet tall mogging on all the sci-fi pussies, balling on Venus, fighting with nothing but melee weapons for fear of obliterating the entire planet. Terrifyingly based.

[Anonymous No.11697498]

>>11697465
Become a big guy.
For you.
>>11697469
Exactly,which is why this would be a Dune-sque situation with guns being prohibited (i haven't read dune for the details but it's right infront of me anyways and seems like a good time to start.)
>>11697481
Nah, the extent of technological expertise and time to do this would probably exclude this to a post scarcity society. No point coalmining there, this might even be a joke project by a hyper-rich group looking to live out their ubermensch fantasies.
As to why i thought of this, i literally just played Kerbal and realised how much easier Eve is compared to Venus (bar the Gravity).
Then the fact that Venus is mostly CO2 got me thinking, and i remembered that giant bugs existed back when oxygen levels are higher. The rest is history and Autism.
Also, it would be a great place to make fun of people with arachnophobia and the like, imagine a 100 ton spider crawling about,absolutely whack.

[Anonymous No.11697501]

>>11697482
Why not just go into a room on Earth with 100% oxygen? We could (relatively) easily mimic Venus like conditions in a lab setting if we really wanted to, and that'd be a helluva lot easier than terraforming one of the most hellish planets in the solar system.

[Anonymous No.11697509]

>>11697498
> i remembered that giant bugs existed back when oxygen levels are higher
Didn't most of the megafauna in Earth's history exist when CO2 levels were much higher?

[Anonymous No.11697510]

>>11697498
>No point coalmining there
You'd have little else to do with all the carbon left over from the process

[Anonymous No.11697511]

>>11697498
You're not just autistic, you're also retarded

[Anonymous No.11697519]

Really wonder if boeing is going to pull some dirty trick in the last minutes to suspend the falcon9 launch.

[Anonymous No.11697521]

>>11697501
Because, and this is mostly ironic:
1: Autism
2: Why the fuck not
3: It's an entire fucking planet
4: Fuck the government i'm a 30 foot tall genius who could crack FTL with a ti-82
5: Flex
On a serious note, this is not a serious consideration, more like having fun thinking about the absolute nightmare this project would be and the hilarious aftermath of it.
Also,100 ton spiders.
Based.

Biology isn't my strong suit, i'd appreciate if some anon could point out how fucking nightmarish it would be to make humans not die due to so much oxygen, and a chemistry anon to explain how fucking horrifying it'd be to run maintenance in that place.

[Anonymous No.11697522]

>>11697482
>higher oxygen levels lead to increased intelligence,growth and strength
I'm pretty sure Jules Verne wrote something along the lines like 150 years ago.

[Anonymous No.11697528]

>>11697522
They do,they just lead to death much sooner.

[Anonymous No.11697530]

>>11695620

Would a broad gauge rail system be more efficient than the crawler in ground transportation of entire launch systems?

[Anonymous No.11697536]

>>11697482
>sci-fi pussies
kek

[Anonymous No.11697559]

>>11697530
What did the N1 use to get to its pad?

[Anonymous No.11697574]

>>11697559
Hypergolic detonations.

Oh, you meant BEFORE launch.

[Anonymous No.11697577]

>>11697559
Literally two parallel tracks, with two separate locomotives hauling it.

[Anonymous No.11697605]

>>11697530
I wouldn't take the N-1 as an example of efficiency, but probably yes. Or maybe even a huge ass truck, or a road train hauling it. Both road trains and railroads are pretty established tech with plenty of companies working on them, not some unique one-shot vehicles.

[Anonymous No.11697610]

>>11697530

You'd need a 30+ foot gauge. I can't imagine what kind of monster locomotive would run on that.

[Anonymous No.11697618]

>>11697605
The crawler isn't really as specialized as it seems. It's mostly the drivetrain of open pit mining equipment, with a big hydraulically actuated pad on top.

[Anonymous No.11697637]

https://bgr.com/2020/05/20/nasa-doug-loverro-resigns-as-head-of-human-spaceflight/
Is this guy just preemptively resigning in shame or what?

[Anonymous No.11697647]

>>11697618
I'd still imagine that it's much more complex and costs quite a bit more than 2 standard locomotives and a metal structure put on standard bogies

[Anonymous No.11697672]

>>11697637
Best guess based on whispers from within NASA, official statements and timing of things that let upto the announcement have been that he didn't like the commercial lander selection, possibly because Boeing who are usually expected to build a backup vehicle incase the others fall through didn't make the final cut. He and Jim argued and he was either told to resign if he truly disagreed or did so to spite them.

[Anonymous No.11697678]

>>11695620
One of my friend’s dad worked on the Crawler.

[Anonymous No.11697702]

>>11697672
Seems like it may be the other way around and he may have been trying to shoehorn Boeing and/or slipping them info on the other competitors. No real way to know for now.

[Anonymous No.11697703]

>>11697672
>quits in a huff 6 days before Americans launch from USA again
Poor timing, hope the door didn't hit him on the way out.

[Anonymous No.11697745]

Daily reminder that nuclear propulsion >>>>> soiboi chemical brap fuel cuck rockets

[Anonymous No.11697754]

>Bought a Labpadre Starhopper coin in March
>Still in the mail
>All sold out now

[Anonymous No.11697757]

>>11696079
One step closer

[Anonymous No.11697765]

>>11695629
Can I send a cockroach? I have a friend that breeds cockroaches and ai want to livestream one blasting into orbit
This life is too mundane, I just want to see the wonder in his little eyes when he leaves us behind

[Anonymous No.11697824]

>>11697765
Wtf, who breeds cockroaches for fun.

[Anonymous No.11697841]

>>11697745
Even NTRs would use methane lol

[Anonymous No.11697845]

>>11697824
Not his friend, but I breed roaches and rats and worms and crickets. I’m their god.

[Anonymous No.11697846]

>>11697745
>needs a fuckton of radiators not to melt itself
>uses hydrogen that needs sunshades not to boil off
meh
if you're going nuclear then nuclear electric > nuclear thermal
it has an additional conversion step, but the Isp is vastly better and it can use storable propellants

[Anonymous No.11697886]

>>11697846
NTRs can use methane or water and still get superior ISP to chemical thrusters

[Anonymous No.11697919]

>>11697845
A god is judged by his followers.

[Anonymous No.11697954]

>>11696914
He would receive him with open arms and most likely stop favouring Boeing, he wouldn't drop them compleltely as long as they keep the jobs there though

[Anonymous No.11697972]

>>11697846
>going "meh" at gigantic extra mass requirements which make it effectively useless

When will electric nuclear retards fuck off out of these threads.

[Anonymous No.11698015]

>>11697577
Aaah the russians

[Anonymous No.11698022]

>>11697846
When would you ever use nuclear electric for anything manned
>Anywhere within the inner solar system
Gets nothing out of the ISP advantage, chemical or NTR would be there and back by the time you finish burning
>Outer solar system and beyond
Pitiful thrust meets ever expanding hab size to keep any useful number of squishies alive for the tremendous transit times, just use NPP and get the best of both worlds

[Anonymous No.11698055]

>>11698022
>When would you ever use nuclear electric for anything manned
When would you ever use nuclear anything for anything manned?

[Anonymous No.11698081]

>>11698022
Plasma thrusters can have both thrust and Isp, or trade between each other at will.

[Anonymous No.11698109]

>>11698055
Because humans shouldn't be stuck shuffling around the local neighborhood by politics.

[Anonymous No.11698235]

>>11698055
For the ISP and faster transits?

[Anonymous No.11698286]

>>11698235
This, manned missions are literally the only time nuclear is worth it. With a robot you just use chemical rockets or electric thrusters and wait.

[Anonymous No.11698301]

>>11698235
Except you would do faster transits, you would do the same transit with a much larger and heavier vehicle, more internal space, carrying more people and more shielding.

[Anonymous No.11698314]

>>11698301
>you will never go faster
OK slowpoke, see you never again lmao

[Anonymous No.11698316]

>>11697745

Actually worse.

https://selenianboondocks.com/2010/02/payload-fraction-example-proof/

[Anonymous No.11698320]

>>11698314
You can take accelerated trajectories for some transfers but most of these fast trajectories are achievable with chemicals anyway so nuclear doesn't offer you any advantage there which is why you would use it to have a bigger vehicle.

[Anonymous No.11698328]

>>11698314
>accelerate at maximum NTR speed on hohhmann trajectory
>miss Mars because you don't understand orbital mechanics

[Anonymous No.11698333]

>>11698301
Im 99% sure people would desire to go to Mars in 3 months instead of 6-9 and would pay for it

[Anonymous No.11698339]

>>11698333
right now the problem seems to be paying at all though

[Anonymous No.11698348]

>>11698333
>and would pay for it

A nuclear rocket is going to be hugely expensive and not very reusable, a ticket on one would be astronomical.

[Anonymous No.11698351]

>>11698328
A faster trajectory would have different transfer window times than your standard Hohmann transfer, specifically, Earth and Mars would be closer together when you do the burn

[Anonymous No.11698360]

>>11698351
Hohhmann is the optimum transfer window, faster windows are grossly inefficient. Nuclear doesn't offer you that much better performance unless you have a torch drive.

[Anonymous No.11698361]

>>11698348
>A nuclear rocket is going to be hugely expensive

Aside from the fissile material, which would only need to be replaced on the scale of years, what’s so costly about it?

> and not very reusable

Why wouldn’t it be reusable? You’d only need new fuel rods rarely, which could be resupplied from Earth’s surface or even Mars

[Anonymous No.11698365]

>>11698360
>faster windows are grossly inefficient

Humans are not mindless probes. We want comfort, not efficiency.

[Anonymous No.11698366]

>>11698361
Because your expensive ass fuel rods can only be used once every two years. Let's say you get 20 years out of them, you are having to pay 10% of that every single trip plus the propellant as well.

[Anonymous No.11698368]

>>11698365
You aren't going to get comfort in the tiny box that a fast transfer will mean.

[Anonymous No.11698369]

>>11698365
Then build hibernation chambers
Less space, less conflict, less food needed and no radiation shielding needed

[Anonymous No.11698374]

>>11697886
>NTRs can use methane or water and still get superior ISP to chemical thrusters
Not totally true. Methane is a superpropellant when used with NTR, yes, but water only gets ~370 Isp in vacuum, with the advantage of a big expansion ratio to boot. Water NTR is narrowly defeated by methalox chemical engines in terms of Isp, and gets kicked to shit in terms of thrust to weight ratio.

[Anonymous No.11698379]

>>11698369
>Then build hibernation chambers
>no radiation shielding needed
retard

[Anonymous No.11698385]

>>11698366
>Because your expensive ass fuel rods can only be used once every two years

Yeah, so they’ll last ages. You’ll only be burning the reactor for at most a few hours every few years if you’re using the craft as a Mars-Earth shuttle. Fuel rods themselves are not actually particularly expensive, there’s just lots of red tape mumbo jumbo.

> Let's say you get 20 years out of them, you are having to pay 10% of that every single trip plus the propellant as well.

Just throw methane in it from Mars.

[Anonymous No.11698389]

>>11698366
Simple, use nuclear engine vehicles as cargo tugs in orbit of a planet most of the time, not just for interplanetary transits. That way you're using the engine more of the time.

[Anonymous No.11698403]

>>11698379
Look at this nigga thinks radiation still exists if no one is awake to see it.

[Anonymous No.11698406]

>it's another episodes of retards don't know anything about nuclear propulsion or orbital mechanics
>one retard unironically suggesting anything other than a hohhmann

Nuclear everything is hideously expensive and full of red tape. It's not happening for a long time, deal with it. Chemical to Mars and the moon is perfectly doable.

[Anonymous No.11698413]

Guys, nuclear propulsion is too broad a term to argue about. Here are some categories;

1. Nuclear thermal
2. Nuclear electric
3. Nuclear pulse propulsion
4. Continuous Nuclear propulsion

Nuclear thermal is like chemical propulsion in terms of basic utility, except you get higher Isp and lower thrust to weight ratio. The amount of radiation produced is enough to kill a person standing next to the engine but a little shielding and distance the radiation becomes negligible.

Nuclear electric has the same radiation characteristics of a nuclear thermal engine but much higher Isp and vastly lower thrust to weight ratio. It is a worse version of solar electric, UNLESS you are farther out from the Sun than the asteroid belt. Probably won't ever get used before we develop category 3.

Nuclear pulse propulsion is everything from Z-pinch fusion to Orion drives. TWR ranges from a hundred times that of electric propulsion to as much as chemical propulsion, you pick the design you want. Radiation produced by the engine is much greater than category 1 or 2 propulsion per delta V. Much more shielding, and usually a longer distance between anything radio-sensitive and the engine, is required.

Continuous Nuclear propulsion is the holy grail. Zubrin's NSWR falls into this category. Ideally, it would behave like a chemical rocket, with similar throttleability and TWR metrics, except with tens of thousands of times the Isp. Pretty much anything that fits into this category automatically becomes classified as a torch drive. The radiation produced by engines like this would be so extreme that any unprotected person with a clear line-of-sight path less than a few kilometers away would receive a fatal dose in less than a second. Usually, torch-drives are imagined to use some kind of neutron-free, low-gamma-emission nuclear reaction, or simply handwave the problem away.

[Anonymous No.11698416]

>>11698379
Radiation affects cells undergoing mitosis for the most part
Being in stasis would make radiation negligible at worse
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6359347/

[Anonymous No.11698418]

>>11698406
actually it was Musk who suggested faster-than-hohmann on methalox
>Nuclear everything is hideously expensive and full of red tape.
somehow it doesn't stop russians from developing nuclear electric, in actual hardware instead of promises and concepts like JIMO

[Anonymous No.11698420]

>>11698360
>Nuclear doesn't offer you that much better performance
You can do brachistochrome trajectories as soon as you have NPP. NTR is more marginal.

[Anonymous No.11698430]

>>11698406
>Chemical to Mars and the moon is perfectly doable.
Only one or two doomer shitters believe otherwise. Being pro-nuke doesn't mean you have to hate chemical propulsion, and understanding that chemical propulsion is the practical near-term solution doesn't mean you have to lose your mind and sperg out against the best fuel source ever devised by man.

[Anonymous No.11698436]

>>11698406
>what is continuous thrust maneuver
>what is low energy transfer
>only hohmann and unoptimal transfers exist
Actual orbital mechanics is far more complex than you can learn from KSP, anon

[Anonymous No.11698440]

>>11697637
he broke some rules negotiating the National Team down to merely asking for more than half the money instead of all of it

[Anonymous No.11698452]

>>11698420
You can't, also you keep ignoring the need for radiators.
The more thrust you need, the more mass you must carry. And the mass of solid-state radiators grows FAST with the heat you need to radiate away. You can get away with a heat accumulator and somewhat smaller radiators dissipating the heat while cruising, but this doesn't change the principle.

[Anonymous No.11698454]

>>11698413
Build an integrated fast reactor, Pipe the molten sodium to 4-5 thermal rocket motors and divert some into a supercritical CO2 turbine in power mode
Like a rocket version of pic

[Anonymous No.11698463]

>>11698452
Is it the same guy responding to any post about nuclear anything with "muh radiators"
Dog, the performance advantages of any practical design have already factored in radiator mass. Engineers know that thermodynamics exists. You don't know anything except that radiators exist and have some mass.

[Anonymous No.11698473]

>>11698452
Actually, you need radiators to produce power, not thrust. All the heat generated to produce thrust goes out with the fuel being expelled, but you do need to radiate heat away to keep a nuclear power plant running to generate electricity.

[Anonymous No.11698476]

>>11698430
I think the single biggest thing that's holding back NTRs is the fear of radioactive fallout from an accident. Sure, nuclear subs have been around for years without a major accident causing mass fallout, but they are ran by a (relatively) small number of highly trained and disciplined operators which is limiting in expanding space travel capability. If that could be worked around, then I can see NTRs being more common.

[Anonymous No.11698478]

>Nuclear Optical Converter
>a radioisotope source put into some gas @ ~100atm
>gas atoms get excited, radiate monochrome light
>which is then converted into electricity with super efficient photovoltaics built for that wavelength
>no actual reaction, virtually no heating, no heat conversion
>much more efficient than an RTG
>somewhat comparable to a reactor when the thermodynamics and conversion efficiency is factored in

[Anonymous No.11698480]

>>11698476
As soon as we secure some good off-Earth ISRU sources for nuclear fuel, it's all ogre.

[Anonymous No.11698483]

>>11698480
How so? Sure, it eliminates needing to launch the stuff but there would still be the fear of an NTR ship suffering from a major accident in Earth orbit and starfish priming (without an explosion, more like spreading fissile materials) the area.

[Anonymous No.11698484]

>>11698406
Basically this.

[Anonymous No.11698487]

>>11698418
that's because the Russians aren't American and don't need to deal with American nuclear red tape

[Anonymous No.11698489]

>>11698483
Most issues happen during launch and landing.

[Anonymous No.11698493]

>>11698483
nuke Mars

[Anonymous No.11698494]

>>11698463
You need radiators for ANY efficient thermal engine, no matter the power source. (and for electricity-producing reactors as well)

Chemical rockets can carry the "cold" with them, but the higher Isp is, the less viable propellant cooling is. Yes, nuclear thermal engines do need radiators too. They also produce residual heat for very long time after shutdown, integrate it and you'll get some pretty impressive heat load that you need to dissipate somehow.
>Dog, the performance advantages of any practical design have already factored in radiator mass.
There are no practical NTP thruster designs tested in space.
>Engineers know that thermodynamics exists.
Engineers do, 4chan posters seemingly don't.

>>11698473
You need radiators for anything that is hot. The alternative is to cool it with fuel itself, but if you want something efficient and high-power, you're out of that option.

[Anonymous No.11698495]

>>11698473
>All the heat generated to produce thrust goes out with the fuel being expelled
no it isn't

[Anonymous No.11698500]

>>11698452
>You can't, also you keep ignoring the need for radiators.

NTRs are actively cooled by their propellant. Radiators aren’t needed.

[Anonymous No.11698501]

>>11698495
that's what regenerative cooling is, anon
you get ice forming on the outside of the RS-25 nozzle during static fires

[Anonymous No.11698505]

>>11698500
shutdown transients and residual fission product decay is a LOT of heat, anon
it might not be too bad, depending on how long the burn was, but it's not insignificant

[Anonymous No.11698507]

>>11698493
Don't nuke the poles because there's not enough stuff there to fill out the atmosphere, but you would lose a great source of water. Use it as a water source and save the nukes for when you find an air source big enough to provide livable air pressure.

[Anonymous No.11698508]

>>11698483
T*rrans can have an orbital sanctuary for all it matters.

>>11698494
Just stop posting. All you have to say is that radiators exist. Yes, everyone is aware. Prove something.

[Anonymous No.11698509]

>>11698507
you misunderstand
free from the iron grip of the DoE, nuke Mars

[Anonymous No.11698513]

>>11698505
You'll need power to keep a ship running, so there's no reason you'd shutdown the reactor completely in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11698517]

>>11698507
The most useful things to terraform mars are going to be fairly "lightweight" really. Mirrors and large but fine electrical coils, the former to amplify watts/m^2 on the surface, the latter paired with solar arrays or solar concentrator generators to create a magnetic field at Sun-Mars L1 big enough to put the planet in a total eclipse of the solar wind. With dramatically reduced atmospheric losses, the whole process speeds up enormously.

[Anonymous No.11698518]

>>11698513
And you can do some other things with that energy. For example, use it plus some unused radiator capacity to supercool refrigerants so you can run above the drive system's rated thermal capacity for short periods of time

[Anonymous No.11698520]

>>11698517
Solar wind is a ridiculous meme that does nothing significant. Not that that makes terraforming make any more sense.

[Anonymous No.11698532]

The problem with nuclear materials isn't getting hold of the raw stuff, that's easy, it's fucking abundant. The problem is the gigantic industrial processing facilities you need to enrich the stuff. Also terraforming is a meme, paraterraforming is based.

[Anonymous No.11698538]

>>11698520
We’ll have to ask the aliens if they’ve ever terraformed a planet before if and when they stop playing peekaboo with the navy.

[Anonymous No.11698539]

Imagine if crew dragon ruds lmao.

[Anonymous No.11698540]

>>11698501
RS-25 can do that because it's inefficient (=consumes/carries a lot of cold propellant) and because it shuts down and stops generating heat almost immediately.

>>11698500
What NTRs? There are no "practical designs" in the first place.

>>11698508
>Just stop posting. All you have to say is that radiators exist. Yes, everyone is aware. Prove something.
That's just a shallow dismissal. I'm not even sure "everyone" here is aware of the basic fact that nuclear reactors in space get hot, you're handwaving it away like it's already solved. It's not.

[Anonymous No.11698547]

>>11698520
>https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html
Using that method alone would raise surface temperatures to a point where dry ice could no longer readily remain frozen at the poles within a few decades. After that, greenhouse effect-based heating would eventually be sufficient to melt almost all polar water ice, restoring about 1/7th of Mars' original liquid water volume.

[Anonymous No.11698549]

>>11698540
>I'm not even sure "everyone" here is aware of the basic fact that nuclear reactors in space get hot, you're handwaving it away like it's already solved. It's not.

The Soviets ran dozens of them in orbit of Earth. It’s a solved problem.

[Anonymous No.11698551]

>>11698513
So you need to design it to both provide power (include a converter in the design) and thrust. And to cool it somehow anyway.

[Anonymous No.11698558]

>>11698549
Please tell us the kg/w figure on those, I'll give you a hint, it's laughable.

[Anonymous No.11698560]

>>11698508
>T*rrans can have an orbital sanctuary for all it matters.
That could work.

How would ownership of NTR engines work? Would it be on a loicense basis? Or would it be kinda like Dune and there's a Fission Guild that only leases you NTR engines?

[Anonymous No.11698561]

>>11698540
>you're handwaving it away like it's already solved
It is, though. You just think that the second you put radiators on something it becomes 10,000 times more massive for some reason. Radiators are a fraction of the mass you use for shielding, for example, since radiators become exponentially more efficient the hotter they get while all you can really do for shielding is mass and distance. Accounting for all of this does not somehow eradicate all the advantages nuclear has because the gulf is absolutely enormous.

[Anonymous No.11698562]

>>11698551
Ooooo radiator panels. No one’s ever engineered those before

[Anonymous No.11698564]

>>11698518
The thermal limit to the drive system is the temperature of the core where the nuclear reaction takes place, rather than the material encasing it, at least unless you get into gas core, nuclear salt or other such theoretical drives.

The balance would be more choosing between having better thrust to weight ratio from the NTR drive, or increasing weight to produce more power and use it on super high isp ion/laser/particle drives.

[Anonymous No.11698565]

>>11698561
>since radiators become exponentially more efficient the hotter they get

There's no convection in space dumb fuck, have have to use IR radiators.

[Anonymous No.11698568]

>>11698558
They're heavy as hell (one ton), but handling 10kW of heat flow is not all that difficult.

[Anonymous No.11698570]

>>11698565
yes, radiation is fourth power

[Anonymous No.11698572]

>>11698549
>The Soviets ran dozens of them in orbit of Earth.
What are you on about? They designed small reactors for power generation (ala Kilopower), not nuclear thermal propulsion. Their NTR prototypes were tested on Earth just like NERVAs. And their orbital reactors did need the radiators too. The thing is, the mass growth is quadratic in respect to the heat profile. So you can easily design a solid state radiator for a small reactor but for a larger one it becomes prohibitive. Russians understand that more than anyone else, that's why they are making a liquid droplet radiator for their current space reactor.

[Anonymous No.11698578]

>>11698572
>What are you on about?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BES-5

[Anonymous No.11698580]

>>11698568
>heavy as hell
>shit power output
>read; useless as a propulsion system

[Anonymous No.11698581]

>>11698565
Things emit exponentially more infrared radiation the hotter they get.

[Anonymous No.11698582]

>>11698366
>Because your expensive ass fuel rods can only be used once every two years
So use bimodal and get electricity out of them the rest of the time.

[Anonymous No.11698585]

>>11698561
>You just think that the second you put radiators on something it becomes 10,000 times more massive for some reason.
Yes it is, for a high power design. Do you even understand what their growth order is?
>radiators become exponentially more efficient the hotter they get
You cannot make it really hot though, for any practical design.

Power generation in space is always hard limited by the radiator size and mass, thrust is as well.

[Anonymous No.11698592]

>>11698582
You can't just use an NTR engine to generate electricity and nuclear electric is incapable of landing on a planet, even if it was viable which its not.

[Anonymous No.11698593]

>>11698578
That's what I'm talking about though, a small reactor for power generation. Even for a megawatt-class one they had to ditch the solid state radiator because it was too heavy.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C

[Anonymous No.11698600]

>>11698593
Just stick big radiators on it. Fretting over a few tons is silly.

[Anonymous No.11698605]

>>11698592
>You can't just use an NTR engine to generate electricity
Okay but you can though. In fact as you get further out from the sun it makes more sense to use bimodal NTRs as it becomes impractical to source solar power. Just use backup thrusters for last approach ala Lunar Starship (which has the opposite problem, but the same solution).

[Anonymous No.11698606]

>>11698561
>Radiators are a fraction of the mass you use for shielding
Shielding isn't needed at all. It's easily replaced with a telescopic structure, distancing the reactor from anything important. Solid-state radiators are most of the spacecraft mass, for high power designs. JIMO was intended to be flown with asshuge "wings" to cool it, and its 1-something MW thermal is as far as you could possibly go with solid state.

[Anonymous No.11698611]

>>11698592
>You can't just use an NTR engine to generate electricity
But bimodal NTRs are a thing. They can generate electricity while not being used as an engine.

>and nuclear electric is incapable of landing on a planet
That's why separate landing and launch craft would be used.

[Anonymous No.11698613]

>>11698606
(alright, it's needed, it was an exagerration. It's not very heavy though, as it only needs to protect a narrow cone)

[Anonymous No.11698618]

>>11698592
>You can't just use an NTR engine to generate electricity

Bimodal NTR

> and nuclear electric is incapable of landing on a planet

It doesn’t have to. You can keep a little lander as part of the payload.

[Anonymous No.11698634]

>>11698606
>It's really big so it must be the heaviest part, even though it was designed to maximize surface area for obvious reasons
JIMO still only had about 1/6th of the reactor weight as reactor mass.

[Anonymous No.11698639]

>>11698634
*as radiator mass
derp

[Anonymous No.11698651]

>>11696059
>NGRST

[Anonymous No.11698655]

>>11698634
Surface area is size^2. Mass is size^3.

[Anonymous No.11698659]

>>11696059
Will it be launched by this?

[Anonymous No.11698668]

>>11698655
intellect^0 post

[Anonymous No.11698693]

>>11696059
>White first
>Nigger secont

[Anonymous No.11698715]

>>11698618
>It doesn’t have to. You can keep a little lander as part of the payload
Or a really big lander if you scale the Scorpion concept up.

[Anonymous No.11698742]

I kick myself every day for not studying plasma physics now that the field is getting really interesting...the space applications are incredible. I want to make a fusion rocket payload for Superheavy that can get to over two hundred kilometers a sec at 1 g of acceleration to make space travel really fast in our solar system. Imagine being able to go to mars in just a couple of weeks, or in a month or two if you left at a bad time.

[Anonymous No.11698748]

>>11696059
>>11698693
Well you know what they say, if you're not WFIRST, you're WLAST.

[Anonymous No.11698778]

>>11698715
What’s that?

[Anonymous No.11698791]

>>11698778
Basically bimodal NTR with heatpipes instead of direct propellant contact using an arcjet to further heat the propellant on the way out.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#serpsec

[Anonymous No.11698814]

>>11695634
>20202
I don't know man, that's pretty close to when SLS is intended to launch. Pretty sure starship will beat them by a decent bit

[Anonymous No.11698831]

>>11697187
God bless the president

[Anonymous No.11698862]

"One industry official said executives inside Boeing “can’t accept” SpaceX is flying people first. “People are annoyed by Elon — how does this guy who smokes pot beat us?” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because that person was not authorized to speak publicly. “We have a lot of humble pie to eat here.”

[Anonymous No.11698868]

>>11698862
The virgin hookers and blow vs the chad blunts and podcasts.

[Anonymous No.11698873]

>>11698862
Got a source to that? It sounds too funny to be true.

[Anonymous No.11698877]

>>11698873
Plug the quote into Google. The source is a Washington Post article from a few hours ago

[Anonymous No.11698878]

>>11698873
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/21/spacex-boeing-rivalry-launch/
>washingtonpost
Oh shit!

[Anonymous No.11698879]

>>11698873
Apparently this article https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/21/spacex-boeing-rivalry-launch/

[Anonymous No.11698880]

>>11698862
>he says as he navigates around dozens of planes to park in his reserved space every morning

[Anonymous No.11698884]

>>11698878
>Rivalry
"I don't see any Boeing up here!"

[Anonymous No.11698886]

>>11698878
>washingtonpost

[Anonymous No.11698891]

>>11698878
>Bezos Post running this story
Holy absolute fucking shit. New space is ganging up.

[Anonymous No.11698896]

>>11698886
I don't know about you, but I'd trust an Amazon Basics Rocket.

[Anonymous No.11698898]

>>11698878
>IT'S THE ONLY WAY

[Anonymous No.11698905]

>>11698877
>>11698878
>>11698879
Thanks. Oldspace is seething so much.

>Some members of Congress even wondered why NASA would bother awarding contracts to two companies to build capsules to fly astronauts to the International Space Station under NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. Just let Boeing do it.
>In the beginning, SpaceX was largely dismissed as a long shot that would never achieve much. “One industry veteran told me, ‘You know their rockets are put together with rubber bands and sealing wax,’ ” recalled Lori Garver, a former deputy NASA administrator who pushed the agency to outsource human spaceflight to the private sector. ” ‘It’s not real. It won’t fly.’ ”
>Inside the company, officials were embarrassed by the setback — another bit of bad news that followed the fatal crashes of two 737 Max airplanes. It also triggered a role reversal. Boeing, once the trusted partner, was now under renewed scrutiny by NASA, which said it had been lax in its oversight of the company.

[Anonymous No.11698907]

>>11698886
Surprise, guess who will benefit most from a total war between SpaceX and Boeing?

[Anonymous No.11698910]

>>11698898
>Lockheed-Martin ad

[Anonymous No.11698911]

>>11698862
>>11698878
>>11698884
>>11698886
>>11698891
>>11698898
IT'S %100 OVER NOW! THE PROMISED DAY IS FINALLY HERE!

[Anonymous No.11698918]

>>11698907
Yeah lemme know when Blue Origin puts anything in orbit

[Anonymous No.11698919]

>>11698911
How did Boeing fall so far? They had all of the advantages?

[Anonymous No.11698922]

>>11698919
The bean counters traded man-millennia of engineering expertise for discount poo in loos and repeatedly overrode the remaining white engineers on safety concerns. It's a textbook example of how to ruin an engineering company.

[Anonymous No.11698924]

>>11698919
You know the Ship of Theseus?

Now replace all the planks of wood with diversity hires.

[Anonymous No.11698956]

>>11698742
>can get to over two hundred kilometers a sec at 1 g of acceleration to make space travel really fast
Alternatively, instead of falling for the fast meme, you could send a normal payload on that trajectory with a vehicle that was 8% propellant by mass, which in reality would mean sticking a 100 ton, 50% wet mass ratio tug onto the side of a 1000 ton payload.

[Anonymous No.11698958]

>>11698907
Blue Origin is taking shape to replace Boeing.

[Anonymous No.11698966]

>>11698919
Good old complacency

[Anonymous No.11698971]

>>11698878
No wonder Boeing had to resort to questionable practices to stay competitive.

[Anonymous No.11698972]

>>11698919
Resting on their laurels, being an old bloated company and becoming stagnant once they were the only launch provider along with Lockheed charging $200m a pop for launches. They were ripe for the taking by a disruptive company like SpaceX
>>11698922
>muh poor whites
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11698975]

>>11698956
speed is everything anon-we should seek to push our tech as far as it can go.

[Anonymous No.11698983]

>>11698956
If you're at the point that you're using torchships to slowboat cargo, you already have people zipping around in them on brachistochrome trajectories anyway. It's not one, it's both, but in this case the fast option is far more relevant due to the significance of the stretches of time relative to a human lifetime.

[Anonymous No.11698985]

[Anonymous No.11698997]

>>11698983
200 km/s at 1g doesn't let you do brachistochrone trajectories to anywhere except the Moon. I get what you're saying though. FYI, the vehicle described above would get you to a cruising speed of 100 km/s in 2.8 hours, at which point you'd coast for a couple weeks until you arrived at Mars, and then burned for another 2.8 hours to capture.

[Anonymous No.11699002]

>>11698742
>I want to make a fusion rocket payload for Superheavy that can get to over two hundred kilometers a sec at 1 g of acceleration
But anon, why not just launch using your high TWR fusion rocket directly? It's not like orbiting the Earth would take a significant amount of delta V for that thing.

[Anonymous No.11699006]

>>11698985
I really hope they keep Jim in charge if trump looses in the fall

[Anonymous No.11699014]

>>11699006
He won't.

[Anonymous No.11699031]

>>11699006
almost certainly not. It's tragic-even reddit likes jim now. guy has worked his ass off to get NASA well-funded and in commercial collabs.

[Anonymous No.11699032]

>>11698997
I'm not the original guy, so I didn't match it up exactly. Yeah, it doesn't really matter in the end the manner in which you give traditional transfer the finger so much as the fact that you can do it at all.

[Anonymous No.11699068]

>>11698905
>Just let Boeing do it.

[Anonymous No.11699082]

>>11699068
The Nike swoosh represents Starliner missing its orbit.

[Anonymous No.11699207]

>>11698862
It's nice to see Boeing getting BTFO so hard after shitting on Spacex

[Anonymous No.11699248]

>>11699002
There is no high twr with high Isp rocket, it’s not even physically possible
They are mutually exclusive things

[Anonymous No.11699254]

>>11699248
What are the boundaries for this?

[Anonymous No.11699268]

>>11699002
>But anon, why not just launch using your high TWR fusion rocket directly?
Politics.

[Anonymous No.11699287]

>>11698983
torchships are almost purely a thing for interstellar journeys and are a long long way off-even further than fusion rockets,which are potentially possible within the next 20 years (probably take longer than that,but it's conceivable a breakthrough could cause a SpaceX style company to go turbo mode and get them working in that timeframe). It takes a lot less insane technologies to get a spaceship up to 100-200 klicks per second within a few hours or days than to have a ship that can burn for weeks on end and get to multiple percentages of the speed of light. As high as 100-200 klicks per second is, it's actually been done by spacecraft using gravity assists before-the parker solar probe for instance.

If you have the ability to more or less not care about the year you leave for going to mars, and your journey time is cut by like 80%, your throughput of people to mars sharply increases,and you make going to places like the asteroid belt and the outer planets easier. It's not impossible with chemical rockets, but it's waaaaaaay faster and easier with fusion.

I want to go to Titan before I die and fly. That's really the long and short of it.

[Anonymous No.11699303]

>>11699287
To add on to this-I'd really like to figure out a good prototype for an outfit for Titan's surface, ideally it would include a very carefully proctored test of the outfit in simulated titan conditions (raised pressure,nitrogen-methane atmosphere, very very cold). From what i've gathered you could probably make something using largely off-the-shelf cold weather clothing that is comically layered, but part of the challenge is to make something that's not bulky and limiting. I was thinking that using aerogel and mylar you might be able to make something with about the same bulk as a light jacket that could keep you comfy,perhaps with an additional electrical heater system to keep your extremities warm.

[Anonymous No.11699310]

>>11699287
>It takes a lot less insane technologies to get a spaceship up to 100-200 klicks per second
All you need is a magsail, at least outward. Then all you need is 200km/s dV to slow down and refuel.

[Anonymous No.11699329]

>>11696146
fourthed
t. Kazakh

[Anonymous No.11699422]

have a bachelors in aviation and my industry is fucked, what could i do to move into a position at spacex?

[Anonymous No.11699447]

>>11698369
>Hibernation Chambers

[Anonymous No.11699458]

>>11698476
Nuclear subs aren't launched into the stratosphere tho

[Anonymous No.11699490]

>>11699447
We’ll figure it out eventually

[Anonymous No.11699492]

>>11698972
They actually did ship major engineering jobs overseas to corporations with lower labor costs and no industrial experience, competence, or hands on understanding of the needs of the product. Naturally, they also tended to not really care, which is a product of national and business cultures more than anything else.

[Anonymous No.11699495]

>>11698919
paperwork and middle managers
thousands of middle managers

[Anonymous No.11699497]

>>11698985
look at how happy Big Jim is

[Anonymous No.11699505]

>>11697519
I was worrying whether they'd sabotage the launch to embarrass SpaceX

[Anonymous No.11699507]

Flight Readiness Review has adjourned for the evening and will reconvene tomorrow

[Anonymous No.11699521]

>>11699447
I think some form of suspended animation will be possible for deep space flight eventually, probably around the same time fusion happens.

[Anonymous No.11699533]

>>11699006
I honestly dont see trump losing to a dem right now especially not a guy with Alzheimer's

[Anonymous No.11699542]

>>11699533
>I honestly dont see trump losing to a dem right now especially not a guy with Alzheimer's
three words
mail in ballots

[Anonymous No.11699546]

>>11695620
uncanny

[Anonymous No.11699549]

There have been cubesats for photon sails but not electric sails, magnetic sails, or plasma magnet drive. How far out from Earth's magnetosphere would you need to get for them to work? Just past the Van Allen belts?

>>11699542
Let's just say that's being worked on and go back to spaceflight.

[Anonymous No.11699556]

>>11699068
looks like its dabbing

[jojo No.11699606]

>>11695620
am i alone in this feeling musk is rushing to mars when building out a lunar platform would be a bigger better bet.
having 1000 to 10,000 people on the moon is feasible in 10 years and those 10,000 people would create an economy.

[Anonymous No.11699607]

Fellows /sfg/ can you do a Loverro gtfoing roundup? Catching up righi now, what are the alleged reasons?

[Anonymous No.11699630]

>>11699606
He feel certain that has a good reason for wanting to get to Mars. The sheer inaccessibility from Earth is an advantage, not a drawback.

[jojo No.11699635]

>>11699630
not opposed to going to mars but, im wondering how ambitious the project will be that any set backs will literally destroy the project. Considering so many entities seem very very hestitant to end goto space.

[Anonymous No.11699656]

Pls share your /sfg/ MOOCs
https://www.coursera.org/learn/human-spaceflight/home/welcome
https://www.edx.org/course/engineering-the-space-shuttle

[Anonymous No.11699705]

>>11698905
>SpaceX isn‘t real
>it can‘t hurt you
>SpaceX:
<-

[Anonymous No.11699714]

>>11699607
Wanted Boeing to win so that they can reach the 2024 deadline. Thought other companies incapable of 2024.
So shared bid info to Boeing to help them.
That's what Eric Burger is sayin and it sounds plausible

[Anonymous No.11699734]

ULA sniper in position, awaiting orders

[Anonymous No.11699753]

>>11699505
Musks too on public with his opinions Boeing would take a much harder hit to their reputation than SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.11699759]

>>11699630
>>11699635
he and his company has looked into it pretty thoroughly. The reason they picked mars over the moon is that mars has gravity. As for setbacks they intentionally are doing things as cheap as possible because it means failures aren't unrecoverable. Plus with starlink coming, the company will have the funds to pay for everything.

[Anonymous No.11699830]

>>11699714
Thanks. How he can possibly think that Boeing is able to keep deadlines better than the others is beyond me. SpaceX got setbacks on CCP, sure, but come on.

[Anonymous No.11699857]

>Old Space: "This is not real"

>SpaceX:

[Anonymous No.11699917]

>>11699606
It’s because Apollo already did the Moon, and a base there counts as revisiting it. Mars is the next step simply to one up.

[Anonymous No.11699928]

>>11699714
>seriously believing that we could get FOUR (4) SLS launches by 2024
Sure, they could have done it if SLS wasn't such a pork pit. The problem with extending a cost-plus project that long is then you can't use it to bid on the next level.
As I recall from the an ArseTechnica reply,
1 - the initial uncrewed launch of SLS
2 - the lunar lander
3 - the crew launch
4 - I forget what the fourth launch would be needed for, but even three launches by 2024 is still a joke
And after trying to help them, Boing still couldn't make a winning bid, with three winners out of five.

[Anonymous No.11699936]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/21/spacex-boeing-rivalry-launch/

Man boeing really is losing its shit.
At this point i'm thinking it's not unlikely that boeing will go under if they dont purge the suits who are fucking up the company.

[Anonymous No.11699951]

>>11699857
Wasn't CST-100 expected to be to be the more likely of the two? Proven technology, etc. Old space BTFO.
And then SpaceX had a ground boom that set them back a year or so. Boing had a chance after that, then they forgot to set up a parachute properly in the abort test (but muh redundancy) and botched the clock on the unncrewed launch, exposing other fuck-ups, one of which could have damaged the capsule on re-entry if they hadn't noticed because of the original fuck-up.

[Anonymous No.11699964]

Soyuz third stage reentry over Australia
https://twitter.com/AJ_FI/status/1263769171487318016

>>11698898
That facemask ad on the right feels dystopian as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11699966]

>>11699964
Yeah, I see these gay mask ads everywhere now.

[Anonymous No.11700006]

>>11698480
Aren't fissile elements really rare outside of earth?

[Anonymous No.11700013]

>>11699936
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/rocket-scientist-says-that-boeing-squelched-work-on-propellant-depots/
This is when I knew Boeing had to die

[Anonymous No.11700019]

>>11699656
https://www.coursera.org/specializations/spacecraft-dynamics-control
https://www.edx.org/course/space-mission-design-and-operations

[Anonymous No.11700026]

>>11700006
Mars looks promising.
>The Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer (APXS) found rather high levels of phosphorus in the rocks. ... Because the solubility of phosphorus is related to the solubility of uranium, thorium, and rare earth elements, they are all also expected to be enriched in rocks.[92]

[Anonymous No.11700041]

>>11700019
>Spacecraft Dynamics and Control
>Level : Advanced
I'll try my best

[Anonymous No.11700044]

>>11700013
>Richard Shelby, had told NASA to stop talking about propellant depots.
Fucking richard shelby at it again

[Anonymous No.11700071]

What will Boing do when Shelby is gone? Will they turn things around or just find another Congressperson to suck off?

[Anonymous No.11700077]

>>11700071
Paying off politicians is cheap, that's why everyone does it. Restructuring is expensive and the fat that needs to be cut goes all the way to the people who would be in charge of the the restructuring itself, so take a guess.

[Anonymous No.11700091]

>“Orbit is hard,” he tweeted. “Best wishes for landing & swift recovery to next mission.”
Madlad

[Anonymous No.11700296]

How long till really interesting stuff starts happening in space that I can watch on TV/online as entertainment?


I'm basing my decision to kill myself on this please answer realistically

[Anonymous No.11700303]

>>11700296
Tom Cruise is going to the ISS soon. The astronauts onboard REEEing about how they can't do their green bean clipping and rose smelling 'experiments' during filming should be incredibly entertaining even on it's own.

[Anonymous No.11700320]

>>11700303
Hope they airlock him.

[Anonymous No.11700325]

>>11700320
He could airlock everyone else up there and there's nothing you could do to stop him.

[Anonymous No.11700350]

>>11700296

In a few months to a year you'll start seeing Starship being proven out for suborbital and orbital flights, and then further improved for crew travel to the moon and Mars which will occur by the half decade mark. Basically, the next five years are going to be cool as fuck, and then you'll see even more activities unfold in a great new age of spaceflight.

[Anonymous No.11700401]

[Anonymous No.11700404]

>>11700296

Plus this thing in a week.

[Anonymous No.11700461]

>>11700404
>Plus this thing in 5 days
ftfy

[Anonymous No.11700462]

>>11700404
fuck
I'm excited

[Anonymous No.11700463]

>>11700026
Mars is going to be a forgeworld for our galactic empire.

[Anonymous No.11700473]

>>11700404

[Anonymous No.11700505]

>>11699606
Mars is cooler so Mars it is

[Anonymous No.11700508]

>>11700463
unironically, the chemical byproducts of industries like aluminium also help in terraforming

[Anonymous No.11700514]

>>11700404
schwing!

[Anonymous No.11700518]

>>11700296
Like 10 years ago when spacex started testing falcons. Just watch the old footage till they start doing hops with starship, and we get more.

[Anonymous No.11700545]

>>11699422
It will recover completely in no more than two years.

[Anonymous No.11700549]

>>11699248
I agree, but it was the other anon that suggested TWR >1 with a fusion rocket, not me.

[Anonymous No.11700553]

>>11700549
That’s not true literally nothing says you can’t have both

[Anonymous No.11700557]

>>11699287
>As high as 100-200 klicks per second is, it's actually been done by spacecraft using gravity assists before-the parker solar probe for instance.
Total misconception. PSP goes fast because it falls close to the Sun. Also, maximum velocity does not equal delta V capacity. You can't use the maneuvers PSP used t get close to the sun to let you fling off a spacecraft at ~100 km/s, it's impossible.

[Anonymous No.11700560]

>>11699521
>probably around the same time fusion happens.
Why, why would anyone correlate two technologies so completely and utterly removed from one another?

[Anonymous No.11700565]

>>11700006
>Aren't fissile elements really rare outside of earth?
No.

[Anonymous No.11700579]

>>11699606
Elon is doing both. Starship can go to the Moon and Mars. In fact the true reason he picked Mars as a target is because any rocket big enough to send serious payloads to Mars can also send serious payloads to the Moon.

Anyone who actually has the 'been there, done that' opinion about the Moon is an actual retard. We hardly went there, over half a century ago, and we did fuck all. We haven't explored basically any of the Moon beyond basic visual recon using satellites; the composition of the surface one meter down is a total mystery.

[Anonymous No.11700586]

>>11700553
HEY
RETARD
I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU
I'M DISAGREEING WITH ANON'S FANTASY USE OF HIS MAGIC ENGINE
FUCKING LEARN TO READ

[Anonymous No.11700593]

>>11700586
Calm down

[Anonymous No.11700596]

>>11700296
soon

[Anonymous No.11700597]

>>11700579
Let’s start digging big ass holes on the moon

[Anonymous No.11700602]

>>11700597
Yes, big assholes

[Anonymous No.11700611]

>>11700602
The Moon ought to have a core rich in metals. I’d bet we could dig to it with modern technology.

[Anonymous No.11700613]

>>11700597

[Anonymous No.11700617]

>>11700611
no, that's like the one defining feature of the moon is that it's not rich in heavy metals

[Anonymous No.11700623]

>>11700617
It’s a differentiated body with an iron core. They all sank down there, so let’s go after them.

[Anonymous No.11700629]

Experience Earth’s wonders from space—from the Great Barrier Reef, Himalayas, Amazon River, and Giza’s Pyramids by day, to the glow of city lights, lightning storms, and the Aurora Borealis by night. Dragon fully orbits the Earth every 90 minutes, making a highly customized flight path possible. Fly over your hometown, famous landmarks and other places meaningful to you.

For inquiries about our private passenger program, contact [e-mail]


Source : https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/earth/index.html

FUTURE IS HERE BOIS

[Anonymous No.11700631]

>notam extended to June 5th
>Concrete poured at second stand
>Tankers arrived with fresh CH4 this morning
>Large crane at SN4 to lift and place legs on the bottom
There gonna try it the madmen. It's gonna fucking hop within the next 2 weeks... all they need is the FAA green light..

[Anonymous No.11700637]

>>11700629
Axiom and the UAE bought out all of the flights already, no?

[Anonymous No.11700653]

The FAA takes forever to approve launches. Elon should send Starship out on one of the boats and have it hop in international waters.

[Anonymous No.11700663]

>>11700653
If you think there wouldn't be punitive measures against SpaceX for that you're wrong. Getting on the FAA's bad side would be the very last thing you want to do if you're SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.11700668]

>>11700663
Drop a Starship on the FAA building

[Anonymous No.11700673]

>>11700629
/sfg/ you will crowdfund me right?

[Anonymous No.11700675]

>>11700673
>>11700629
I'm serious

[Anonymous No.11700676]

>>11700653
>The FAA takes forever to approve launches.
What the fuck they could they possibly be trying to figure out? It's a 150m hop over land owned by SpaceX

[Anonymous No.11700678]

SpaceX's new homepage, absolute madman.

[Anonymous No.11700686]

>>11700613
Hmm, I'm not so sure I'd want to play a Kerbal MMO.

[Anonymous No.11700687]

>>11700678
They removed all dates (2020 orbit, 2022 mars cargo).

[Anonymous No.11700692]

>>11700686
Kerbal suicide bombers

[Anonymous No.11700693]

>>11700687
"SpaceX has been rapidly iterating on the design of Starship with orbital-flight targeted for 2020."

https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/index.html

[Anonymous No.11700699]

>>11699607
gave the National Team confidential information during the negotiation phase to get their bid down to the point where he could choose three landers

[Anonymous No.11700768]

>>11700631
>Large crane at SN4 to lift and place legs on the bottom
It has had legs installed since before it first went on the stand weeks ago.

[Anonymous No.11700812]

>>11700692
*Kerbal Sand People

[Anonymous No.11700845]

>>11700692
>>11700812
holy shit, a full-PvP kerbal MMO could be so kino

[Anonymous No.11700896]

>>11699966
they were around even just before corona, I think it was related to pollution though - an Australian company capitalising on the shitty air quality after the fires. Bet they're absolutely minted now lol

[Anonymous No.11700905]

>>11699966
Imagine not using an adblocker.

[Anonymous No.11700908]

>>11700692
If not suicide bombing, I will be doing a lot of nuclear pulse fly-by's of my friends bases. As low as I can get.

[Anonymous No.11700930]

>>11700678
kino

[Anonymous No.11700933]

>>11700905
you can learn about the state of the world by seeing what they're trying to shove down your neck

[Anonymous No.11700959]

>>11700933
Diapers?

[Anonymous No.11700960]

>>11700933
Not worth the infection risk, ironically enough.

[Anonymous No.11700991]

Bezos will be seething in the upcoming week with the amount of publicity musk&spaceX will get with this launch.

[Anonymous No.11701019]

>>11700959
anything, yes

[Anonymous No.11701023]

>>11700991
wonder if he'll do anything autistic to cope

[Anonymous No.11701039]

>>11701023
he'll probably try to capitalize on the space hype by showing off some insignificant new glenn component

[Anonymous No.11701041]

>>11700991
Even Virgin is getting its 'rocket' into orbit to show it's still has some movement. Embarrassing for the 'richest man on the earth' tbqh.

[Anonymous No.11701062]

>>11700991
>>11698878
Given that his personal news company is singing Spacex's praise and dissing Boing, he might have realized that the better tactic is to cheerlead for other newspace people and thereby make the playing field better for BO.

[Anonymous No.11701067]

>>11700991
I'm not sure he will. BO is a side gig for him. He's been mostly focused on the surprise crunch-time for Amazon driven by people staying home and doing more things online.

t. Amazonian

[Anonymous No.11701098]

>>11701067
>BO is a side gig for him
This

[Anonymous No.11701099]

>>11701041
he might be the richest man on earth, but no amount of throwing money at your sky-penis will ever make it as good as his Chad rival's sky-penis

[Anonymous No.11701102]

>>11701067
>t. Amazonian
what knowledge can you impart on us, dear insider

[Anonymous No.11701108]

>>11701102
Project Kuiper is hiring hardware engineers and working on allocating spectrum, so as far as Amazon is concerned either New Glenn is pretty far along or they're willing to buy rides on Starship. AWS Ground Station ( https://aws.amazon.com/ground-station/ ) is hiring like crazy too so I think the general consensus is that we're heading for a private sector space boom.

[Anonymous No.11701141]

Is 4 years old old enough to begin explaining the basics of orbital mechanics?

[Anonymous No.11701163]

We got a good look at the thing that was on fire earlier. Looks like they managed to safe the rocket, finally.
>>11701141
they need to understand algebra and pre-calc first, I wouldn't bother until they were in middle school

[Anonymous No.11701165]

>>11701141
Should have started a year ago.

[Anonymous No.11701168]

>>11701141
>didn't start in the womb
not going to make it brah

[Anonymous No.11701190]

>>11695620
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmcavwf2b8s

[Anonymous No.11701202]

>>11701163
>they need to understand algebra and pre-calc first
No, lol. Not any more than a child needs to understand those things in order to hit a target with a thrown ball.

[Anonymous No.11701232]

>>11701108
>Project Kuiper
One of many starlink clones that we will see in the upcoming decade.

[Anonymous No.11701256]

>>11701163
> they need to understand algebra and pre-calc first, I wouldn't bother until they were in middle school

You don’t need to understand any formal math to know how and why things move around how they do. They know that they can throw things and make them move through the air, so they can understand an orbit I figure

[Anonymous No.11701259]

I need to practice programming. What's something spaceflight related that I could work on?

[Anonymous No.11701270]

>>11701259
Program an AI that can design and execute missions in KSP.

[Anonymous No.11701302]

>>11701259
Create a Hohmann orbit calculator for all the major bodies in the solar system.

[Anonymous No.11701359]

New thread since page 9 is spooky

>>11701350
>>11701350
>>11701350

[Anonymous No.11701385]

[math] \displaystyle

\left [
\left .
\begin{matrix}
1 & 3 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & -1 \\
3 & 11 & 5
\end{matrix}
\right |
\begin{matrix}
9 \\
1 \\
35
\end{matrix}
\right ]
\begin{matrix}
~ \\
II-I \\
III-3I
\end{matrix}
\\
\left [
\left .
\begin{matrix}
1 & 3 & 1 \\
0 & -2 & -2 \\
0 & 2 & 2
\end{matrix}
\right |
\begin{matrix}
9 \\
-8 \\
8
\end{matrix}
\right ]
\begin{matrix}
~ \\
~ \\
II+III
\end{matrix}
\\
\left [
\left .
\begin{matrix}
1 & 3 & 1 \\
0 & -2 & -2 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{matrix}
\right |
\begin{matrix}
9 \\
-8 \\
0
\end{matrix}
\right ]
\begin{matrix}
I+II \cdot 2/3 \\
II\cdot (-1/2) \\
~
\end{matrix}
\\
\left [
\left .
\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 & -2 \\
0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{matrix}
\right |
\begin{matrix}
-3 \\
4 \\
0
\end{matrix}
\right ]
\begin{matrix}
~ \\
~ \\
~
\end{matrix}

[/math]