/sfg/ Space Flight General - Never ever edition

[Anonymous No.11799842]

Old thread: >>11797327

Launch schedule: https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

[Anonymous No.11799847]

>>11799842
first for DEPOTS

[Anonymous No.11799854]

[Anonymous No.11799859]

>>11799842
>Be shuttle
>Just tried my best to please everyone
>Was able to beat a lot of milestones and launch lots of people to space, but daddy government told me my time was up
>forced to go through tranny surgery to stay relevant
>Go into debt, surgery is still ongoing 8+ years later
>new comer enters town. His name is Starship. Super big Chad with the ability to do more than me at lower costs
>try to retaliate. People are on my side r- right??
>elonsmokesweed.jpg
>Get laughed at. Everybody hates me, Starship is on its way and will probably beat me to space
>He’ll probably even get to take my girl Gateway and Europa Clipper our for a date among the stars
>mfw I’ve decided to either never fly or explode on the launchpad

[Anonymous No.11799865]

Next SpaceX launch is another Starlink in a week!

[Anonymous No.11799866]

>>11799859
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II7QBLt36xo

[Anonymous No.11799871]

>>11799590
>he still thinks that Zuma was a failure

[Anonymous No.11799880]

SLS could be redeemed by prioritizing SEP and DST. SpaceX doesn't give a fuck about nonchemical propulsion, NASA can really shine in this regard given the ongoing research in fusion and plasma physics.

Let's talk future propulsion, a couple threads ago we had a cool discussion about magnetic solar sails.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wokn7crjBbA

[Anonymous No.11799885]

>>11799865
Starlink is going to make Elon too strong, and that's even before he takes over the ground transport and freight industries. We're only 20% of the way into it and I think he's already the fucking man of the century.

[Anonymous No.11799889]

>>11799885
I’ll imagine companies like Amazon will really want E2E Starships for cargo. Imagine the one day shipping. That might be the ONLY thing that would push BO to compete but idk

[Anonymous No.11799893]

>>11799842
We need to discuss plasma magnet sails now. Why the FUCK have I never heard of this shit when garbage like VASIMIR is shilled endlessly.
https://youtu.be/0vVOtrAnIxM
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2017/12/29/the-plasma-magnet-drive-a-simple-cheap-drive-for-the-solar-system-and-beyond/
>no new tech like fusion needed
>act like a reactionless drive because you don't have to carry reaction mass
>just need electricity to create magnetic fields kilometers wide to act as sails for solar wind
>0.5 G constant acceleration
>further away from the sun, the bigger the field so thrust is constant
>get to Mars in one week
>using sun as gravitational lens telescope possible
>0.2c and therefore Alpha Centauri possible
>downside is you can only go away from the sun, but you can build particle beams that can slow your descent
>Neptune's magnetic field strong enough for breaking on a direct trajectory
>nasa already tested a small scale prototype and it worked
>must be deployed outside earth's magnetosphere
Perfect system for starship to deploy

[Anonymous No.11799896]

>>11799859
>>forced to go through tranny surgery to stay relevant
>shuttle killed itself twice
It all adds up at least

[Anonymous No.11799898]

>>11799889
Something tells me Amazon might have some bias in favor of Blue Origin.

>>11799885
And what fantastic timing too. Hopefully he secured mankinds glorious future before commies and socialists make sure Elon Musk never happens agains.

[Anonymous No.11799899]

Redpill me on these 3, I only follow SpaceX

[Anonymous No.11799901]

>>11799893
yeah that was a revelation for me too a couple threads ago. I'm a mathfag and hated undergrad physics, but this sort of stuff makes me want to start reading some physics papers. The most physicsy stuff I've ever done is a bit of statistical mechanics, namely in ferromagnets and phase transitions and the like.

[Anonymous No.11799904]

>>11799893
I didn't know that NASA had already tested one, interesting. I wonder if you could get one (with a powerful enough kick stage to get out of the magnetosphere) on a small enough satellite to do a Starlink rideshare.

How would it react with the crazy magnetic/radiation environment around Jupiter, I wonder.

[Anonymous No.11799905]

>>11799859
I wonder what the shuttle program would have looked like if they went full STS

[Anonymous No.11799910]

Does Nasa have reverse humans?
>>11799113

[Anonymous No.11799911]

>>11799880
Mike McCullough's Quantized Inertia model is interesting. If true, then Woodward Effect reactionless drives are possible by manipulating current through certain conductive objects. The NasaSpaceFlight forum guys hate it, but Mike and a few people on Twitter are actually putting together models and testing them. One guy is working on stacking tapered magnetic coils to produce a larger thrust - an almost perfect realization of Star Trek warp nacelles and warp coils if it works.

The basic idea behind QI is that dark matter/energy doesn't exist and inertia propagates at lightspeed rather than instantaneously. At the quantum level it's what would be called a pilot wave model.

>>11799904
>How would it react with the crazy magnetic/radiation environment around Jupiter, I wonder.
If you stop rotating the coils it breaks the electric-motor connection to the solar wind plasma so you can use magnetospheres and atmospheres to brake. I don't know if that's enough for full planetary capture or if you'd still need a particle beam brake.

[Anonymous No.11799912]

>>11799910
yeah they are in the closet with the catgirls and apollo landing original broadcast tapes

[Anonymous No.11799916]

Do any of you guys think there’s any truth to Gary McKinnon’s claim that he found documents referring to “non-terrestrial officers” during his hacking of the US government and NASA?

[Anonymous No.11799925]

>>11799916
No

[Anonymous No.11799929]

>>11799911
Wtf is that first thing you’re talking about? I’d like to know more. Would it run by itself (assuming it works) or is it dependent on the Sun’s magnetosphere or something

[Anonymous No.11799936]

>>11799925
Why not? He definitely did hack NASA and the US military.

[Anonymous No.11799940]

>>11799936
Because only flat earther conspiracy theorists believe NASA has alien workers and Hitler was given UFO schematics

[Anonymous No.11799941]

>>11799847
did you just say the D word????

[Anonymous No.11799943]

>>11799911
>a pilot wave model.
Isn't that like arch-heresy to modern theoretical physics?

[Anonymous No.11799944]

>>11799941
Is shelby like, anti-depots? What’s the meme behind shelby

[Anonymous No.11799945]

>>11799940
Sounds more like ad hominem than genuine consideration. The non-terrestrial officers are supposedly human members of the US Air Force, or were.

[Anonymous No.11799946]

>>11799945
>>>/x/ :)

[Anonymous No.11799947]

>>11799929
>Wtf is that first thing you’re talking about?
It's a non-standard model of gravitation (Quantized Inertia) that leads to a propulsive effect (Woodward Effect / Mach Effect) that can lead to a reactionless EMDrive type device with FTL potential.

The tl;dr version is that according to Quantized Inertia if you accelerate a set of masses back and forth very quickly in a confined area you can create slight inequalities due to relativistic mass changes which sum out as directional thrust. This is being tested with visible-band light in truncated cones (flashlight EM drive) and tapered magnetic coils (warp nacelle) by separate people.

[Anonymous No.11799948]

>>11799946
Relevant to spaceflight, so on-topic.

[Anonymous No.11799952]

>>11799943
Yes, which is why I'm so excited to see home experimenters using a pilot wave model to build what appear to be functioning drives. It's still early days and there aren't published papers yet, but the setups look reasonably rigorous. QI also claims to explain wide binary stars better than general relativity if you assume neither star has a dark matter halo.

[Anonymous No.11799955]

>>11799948
>>>/x/ schizo posts are not /sci/

[Anonymous No.11799956]

>>11799946
I don't get /x/, most of them are larping right?

[Anonymous No.11799961]

>>11799865
2 Chink launches: tomorrow and the day after.
Chink Mars Rover in 30 days.
Chinahaters btfo
Burger pride on suicidewatch.

[Anonymous No.11799962]

>>11799916
Probably. Americans are whacky as fuck with their purple prose wording. It probably meant Satellite personell more than Aliens. I remember McKinnens leak and the single saucer picture he got that was like Minecraft for ants. Sad story. Can’t remember if he got deported the US in the end but they ruined his already shitty life for sure.

[Anonymous No.11799963]

>>11799955
How is the possibility that the government is hiding things “schizo”?

[Anonymous No.11799965]

>>11799893
>Why the FUCK have I never heard of this shit when garbage like VASIMIR is shilled endlessly.
VASIMR has financial interests associated. Plasma Magnet Sails don't, yet. I stumbled on it reading Atomic Rockets and went on a magsail reading binge, which is how I found Zubrin's original paper and got the idea for separate steering sails. In a way such a craft would be like a sailboat, with a spinnaker for running before the wind at top speed and smaller sails rigged at angles for tacking into the wind.

[Anonymous No.11799968]

>>11799962
He was never deported, but the UK government did send his hard drive to the US

> It probably meant Satellite personell more than Aliens

They were stationed on eight ships listed nowhere else.

[Anonymous No.11799971]

>>11799952
>dark matter
Call me a brainlet or whatever, but I never liked those concepts.
— Hey, Democritus, why are some atoms larger and heavier that others?
— LOL dark matter.

Also, couldn't some manner of pilot wave explain "vacuum energy", "virtual particles" and the like better?

[Anonymous No.11799974]

>>11799971
>Call me a brainlet or whatever, but I never liked those concepts.
Me neither. QI assumes it doesn't exist.
>Also, couldn't some manner of pilot wave explain "vacuum energy", "virtual particles" and the like better?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11799976]

[Anonymous No.11799979]

>>11799968
Its a really cool concept for a sci fi movie, but I have trouble believing that isn’t made up. Some amateur astronomers would’ve already blown this shit wide open if the US had some mega orbital battleships flying around

[Anonymous No.11799981]

>>11799944
ULA was pushing for a depot-based architecture with ACES.
But Shelby told them to shut the fuck up about that because it would‘ve made SLS superfluous.

[Anonymous No.11799982]

>>11799961
>implying any of them will work

[Anonymous No.11799985]

>>11799965
>VASIMR has financial interests associated.
But why? They constantly have shill articles in the media about this "groundbreaking technology" but ignore the fact that it needs fusion to work beyond a meme level. Chemical rockets are currently superior in every way. Zubrin also btfo'd them.

[Anonymous No.11799986]

>>11799961
>Chink Mars Rover in 30 days.
inb4 a SAM "accidentally" tags it as an ICBM and destroys it

[Anonymous No.11799991]

>>11799985
Stonks. VASIMR has investors who make money when people get on the hype train. Plasma Magnet Sails are a high school machine shop project if they work, and to my knowledge nobody has filed a patent.

[Anonymous No.11799996]

>>11799982
I hope it fails and they build two more to replace it instead, Nightingale strategy style.
Mutts all keen for a race war, when they really should be getting into a space war.

[Anonymous No.11799998]

if get, elon becomes fabricator general of MARS

[Anonymous No.11799999]

>>11799998
get and it's me

[Anonymous No.11800002]

>>11799996
>when they really should be getting into a space war
Are you retarded chink? We are so far ahead of everyone with space and we are going to be on mars in a few years.

[Anonymous No.11800005]

>>11799999
>>11800000
howabout this?

[Anonymous No.11800007]

>>11799999
Based good luck anon you will need it :)

[Anonymous No.11800008]

>>11799998
So close
>>11799999
Cheater

[Anonymous No.11800011]

Shelby did nothing wrong

[Anonymous No.11800017]

>>11800008
>Cheater
I prefer "post timer kickstage user"

[Anonymous No.11800023]

>>11799971
It's a word for something that we can't understand, it will never sit right. Just like "aether" was used before we understood General Relativity. Eventually we will find a way to explain it.
At a certain point we discovered Newtonian physics, which works perfectly at small scales and still does. Then we started pushing the envelope and trying to use it for larger scales/velocities/etc and it turned out to be missing something.
Then we got relativity which works with incredible precision on larger scales and still does.
Now we have even bigger fish to fry on extreme scales and GR seems to not be up for the task.
Dark matter/energy is placeholder and nothing else until we work out what the fuck is going on. If you want to fix it please do.

[Anonymous No.11800030]

Anyone else think what SpaceX is doing to Boca Chica is kind of fucked up?
>"Ah, a quiet place of natural beauty, I can see myself whiling away the rest of my days here"
>...
>"Nooooo you can't just build a spaceport right next to a retirement village!"
>"Haha rocket go fwooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH *KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM*"

[Anonymous No.11800031]

>>11800023
Some people think the third law of motion isn’t real

[Anonymous No.11800036]

>>11800023
>It's a word for something that we can't understand,
I know.

>it will never sit right.
It's just an idiosyncrasy, relax.

[Anonymous No.11800037]

>>11799968
That’s not unusual necessarily. The Navy has rules stating the amount of sea time officers need to progress past certain ranks. I’m listening to a book about the X15 and one pilot was registered to an island Naval base to get past the rule while he spent his career in desserts.

That actually supports the idea these were SpaceCom computer jockeys.

[Anonymous No.11800039]

>>11800030
Fuck old retirees and fuck nature

[Anonymous No.11800042]

>>11800030
the boomers got 3x the value of their houses, they can take that money and fuck off to any of the thousands of retiree communities throughout the country

Boca Chica is uniquely advantageous due to its geography, it's better suited for a spaceport than a podunk village of 30 seniors

[Anonymous No.11800044]

>>11800002
> everyone who doesn't praise the US is a chink
topnotch comeback dickhead

you are so far behind given the last few decades of being the sole superpower both technologically and economically, in absolute terms you are correct, in relative terms no fucking way, it's a stagnant pond going nowhere
Space has been a porkbarelling parasite festival for decades now and has only changed because a south African took a risk with a shitload of his meme money
try building a railway in China vs the US and tell me how far ahead you are
at least the slants can get something done when they want to

[Anonymous No.11800046]

>>11800042
3x the value of dirt cheap houses won't get much.

[Anonymous No.11800047]

>>11800044
>> everyone who doesn't praise the US is a chink
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11800048]

>>11800030
>Boca Chica
>Natural Beauty

If Rocket Lab doesn't get any rap with launching from Mahia or Japan with Tanegashima, than there's nothing wrong with what SpaceX is doing at that dump.

[Anonymous No.11800050]

>>11800044
high speed rail buildout in the last 12 years

[Anonymous No.11800052]

>>11800030
I would literally not care if they sent a ballistic missile at the village to kill every single resident there instead.

[Anonymous No.11800054]

>>11800046
they got a fantastic ROI

what's to bitch about? you can set up a retirement home literally anywhere, you can only set up a spaceport in a few locations

this is economics 101

[Anonymous No.11800059]

>>11800050
I literally don’t give a fuck about china. It’s a degenerate mess of a country with an unstable economy that only exists so long as chairman xi breathes oxygen. Have fun launching silkworms to the moon for the next 100 years

[Anonymous No.11800062]

>>11800046
It’s a sad story for them but its just how the world works. Cape Canaveral, Houston et al no doubt had similar stories.

They’ve all sold now so we can assume the holdouts got a good pay day. Peak boomers.

[Anonymous No.11800066]

>>11799899
OldSpace bad. OldSpace grant farm. OldSpace money launderers.

[Anonymous No.11800067]

>>11799911
>One guy is working on stacking tapered magnetic coils to produce a larger thrust - an almost perfect realization of Star Trek warp nacelles and warp coils if it works.

Can we have asymmetric vehicle designs in space travel or would it make your spacecraft spin?

[Anonymous No.11800069]

>>11799899
Northrop Grumman is lobbying the government to declassify The Good Shit so we can build Tomcat based space fighter mechs like Macross.

[Anonymous No.11800072]

>>11800067
You'd do what Trek did and have paired nacelles to avoid that, or just run them along the center of mass.

[Anonymous No.11800078]

>>11800067
It can be asymmetric as long as the center of mass is in front of the center of thrust.

[Anonymous No.11800081]

>>11800069
The real question is, how close are we to finding an actual new form of thrusters that supersedes propellant chemical thrusters. EM Drive seems to just be a meme. Every experiment has been small as fuck and always comes back with the
>mmmmm yeah it worked but it could also be experimental error
I want results

[Anonymous No.11800087]

>>11800081
NUKES WHEN

[Anonymous No.11800104]

>>11800087
Nuclear propulsion is cool but not what I’m looking for. Orion is a cool idea and all but I want some groundbreaking stuff that will give us FTL travel

[Anonymous No.11800110]

>>11800104
too bad faggot it's time for NUKES

[Anonymous No.11800120]

>>11800059
Pretty sad you care more about jingoism than space exploration bro.
Ever consider you may have simply been programmed by the media to hate everything chink-related? People underestimate how much the news shapes their worldviews unconsciously.

Hope they do well with their Mars lander anyway, as a society they actually give a shit about science at least and seem keen to follow through, as much as it pains the Americans.

You are probably not old enough to remember but every other time a country has threatened US economic dominance it's a constant barrage of unwarranted criticism and mutt insecurities.

[Anonymous No.11800124]

>>11800081
>The real question is, how close are we to finding an actual new form of thrusters that supersedes propellant chemical thrusters

NTRs would work but have lower TWR, but it’s still good enough for our purposes.

[Anonymous No.11800126]

>>11800087
efficient antimatter generation and associated charged particle propulsion or gtfo

[Anonymous No.11800130]

Slow day for space flight bros

[Anonymous No.11800140]

>>11800087
I predict mars is aspirational bullshit for starship and it's really about super heavy lift and moon stuff. When that's done mars still won't be on the table so I can imagine elon proposing they develop nuclear propulsion.

To me it's our premiere basic bitch propulsion technology. It's like not having nuclear subs and nuclear carriers.

[Anonymous No.11800144]

>>11800140
>I predict mars is aspirational bullshit for starship
lol

[Anonymous No.11800145]

>>11800126
looks like you've had too much drink

[Anonymous No.11800149]

Are Sunkar/Feneks/Soyuz-5/Soyuz-7/Rus-M all the same project or what?

[Anonymous No.11800151]

>>11800149
>what if we build all this huge shit
>then we throw it away the first time we use it
bruh

[Anonymous No.11800163]

>>11800140
>I predict mars is aspirational bullshit for starship

Musk started SpaceX because he wanted to put stuff on Mars and Russian rockets were too expensive. You’re an idiot.

[Anonymous No.11800167]

>>11800130
We're just waiting for the sudden explosive decompression of the Crew Dragon module and emergency ISS deorbiting.

[Anonymous No.11800170]

>>11800151
The boosters are recovered and recycled

[Anonymous No.11800172]

>>11800163
Oh my mistake, chemical propulsion became not shit when you posted that

[Anonymous No.11800175]

>>11800172
Chemical propulsion is sufficient to get to Mars and land. If you don’t like this fact, it doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous No.11800179]

>>11799899
>can't make it to the ISS without getting lost
>can't build a fucking payload adaptor
>can't do anything relevant

[Anonymous No.11800182]

>>11800175
And you can't get back without making your own fuel and refueling on mars. This is way more complicated than just using better propulsion that was going to work but we bitched out on the mid century

[Anonymous No.11800187]

>>11800182
>And you can't get back without making your own fuel and refueling on mars

So? We can produce fuel in situ since the transfer windows are many months apart. It’s not a big deal.

> This is way more complicated

No it isn’t. Land a fuel refinery and a source of power and let it run. Pretty simple.

[Anonymous No.11800206]

Just take every oldspaceSHIT companies funding, budget and contracts and give them to SpaceX immediately. Fucking defund them, money laundering faggots.

[Anonymous No.11800207]

>The cost for the second flight is an estimated $410 million. The Starliner is scheduled for launch no earlier than mid-November 2020.[1][2]

holy shit why is boing so slow

[Anonymous No.11800208]

>>11800207
I think the question we have to ask now is why the fuck is SpaceX so god damn fast?

[Anonymous No.11800210]

>>11800206
I feel that way too anon. I know one of these days I’m going to wake up and see Jim tweeting that boeing needed to move the SLS launch to 2023 and I might actually snap

[Anonymous No.11800213]

Man I’m still giddy about DM-2 and the direction NASA has gone with really embracing competitive private industry in leading the way. Like they’ve been giving so many important contracts to SpaceX this year and Jim’s whole “cost per ton” tweet is so fucking important holy shit it’s going to set the stage for some crazy developments in just the next few years

[Anonymous No.11800216]

>>11800208
SpaceX is a rocket company run like a software company. Rapid iteration, test until it breaks, work hard, optimize for build cost and speed during development since you do it a gorillion times.

[Anonymous No.11800219]

What happens to space if biden wins

[Anonymous No.11800222]

>>11800219
Everything good gets nationalized and then sold to China. The US dies as a nation state.

[Anonymous No.11800224]

>>11800219
The moon hits earth and explodes everyone

[Anonymous No.11800237]

>>11800167
> A million die from a novel flu strain that people had been predicting for over a decade now and Bill Gates even did a TED talk about
No one really cares much
> Less than 10 people die on the frontiers of exploration doing what they loved
Everyone loses their fucking minds and considers it too risky to continue until we do a decade of soul searching.

I want out of this clown world so badly.

[Anonymous No.11800242]

>>11800237
People are very bad at understanding relative risk. Dying from the flu isn't as scary to our lizard brain as exploding in a spaceship.

[Anonymous No.11800243]

>>11800207
>>11800210
First Starliner crewed launch will get lost in space. Mumbai time.

[Anonymous No.11800260]

>>11800242
Yeah it's stupid kneejerk stuff, there's probably a cognitive bias for it.
The media has a part to play also, they always go for hype, blame and clicks rather than acknowledging everyone involved very much knows the risk and price.
It's painful to watch and hard to explain to many people.
Imagine if naval exploration stopped in the middle ages because a few ships sinked.

Anyone can go basejumping and no one bats an eyelid when it goes wrong. Astronauts choose this stuff, I think that should really be drilled into the public beforehand to manage expectations for the inevitable.

Even if the risk was ridiculously far higher you'd still get applicants. Look at that MarsOne thing, they got a shitload of people willing to go oneway to certain doom. Risk/Reward is a spectrum that everyone judges differently.

[Anonymous No.11800272]

>>11800031
How do rockets actually work in space though?

[Anonymous No.11800275]

>>11800272
Hot gas pushes against the rocket engine when it exits the combustion chamber and works against the nozzle trying to flow out into space.

[Anonymous No.11800282]

>>11799911
>Mike McCullough's Quantized Inertia model is interesting.
It's really not if you have some basic knowledge of cosmology, he's just a crank. Half of the claims he puts out are just utter bollocks, literally just made up. He cannot get rid of either dark matter or dark energy. For dark matter his model is MOND rebranded, which is not novel and requires it's own dark matter to explain galaxy clusters. For dark energy his claims are even weaker. He's terrible for cherry picking data and then never even considering that his model could affect any other result. I called him out on one particularly stupid point, and he just waved his hands and then stopped responding. Physicists don't take McCullough seriously, engineers definitely shouldn't.

[Anonymous No.11800283]

>>11800017
Kys

[Anonymous No.11800341]

>>11800275
Not even sure who is trolling who at this point.
That last thread was such a shitshow I tuned out for a whole day. The "rockets dont work in space" retard has really done a number on this place.

[Anonymous No.11800342]

going back to based gemini aesthetics when?

[Anonymous No.11800344]

>>11800342
When the DoD starts operating manned spacecraft again.

[Anonymous No.11800351]

*snaps angrily in your direction*

[Anonymous No.11800352]

>>11800219
Space dissapears

[Anonymous No.11800357]

why doesnt elon just land starship like this?

[Anonymous No.11800359]

>>11800357
Wings and parachutes scale poorly.

[Anonymous No.11800362]

>>11800359
This. Starship can get 4x the Shuttle's payload to orbit.

[Anonymous No.11800364]

>>11800359
just make a bigger wing bro

[Anonymous No.11800365]

We all know expendable hydrolox rockets are a double meme, but could they be made less shitty? What happens if you use eight SRBs instead of two and don't light the RS-25s until booster separation?

What happens if you strap all that to a Super Heavy as a second stage? Would the SRBs get you all the way to orbit?

[Anonymous No.11800366]

rate my gaming rig bros

[Anonymous No.11800371]

>>11800182
my man, you know what's up
faggots in the thread will post COPE though
nuclear propulsion is all that is needed, all the rest in just wasting time
only effiminate lefties in here though so they will not get it

[Anonymous No.11800375]

>>11800365
A lot to unpack here damn. Okay so more SRB’s would barely get your heavy lift vehicle off the ground. It would be like playing KSP. You would light all the SRB’s and barely fucking move.
That being said, you should check out the Ares I. It was NASA’s plan before SLS. It got cancelled, but one rocket was actually tested
https://youtu.be/EqRqpG5G5Iw
It used a modified shuttle SRB as the first stage and put a capsule on top. Regardless, SRB’s are memes in and of themselves. They can’t be turned off once they’re lit, and they can be wildly unsafe.

[Anonymous No.11800379]

>>11800366
How long would something like this take to build? Months? Years?

[Anonymous No.11800381]

>>11800365
according to my extremely advanced computer fight simulations, SRBs have no gimbals and it would go off course, most of the time

[Anonymous No.11800382]

>>11800375
>Regardless, SRB’s are memes in and of themselves. They can’t be turned off once they’re lit, and they can be wildly unsafe.
I'm surprised China doesn't use them exclusively then.

[Anonymous No.11800386]

>>11800381
just stack a bunch of reaction wheels on the SRBs, it'll be fine

[Anonymous No.11800394]

>>11799842
The virgin two-stager vs the chad Moon rocket.

[Anonymous No.11800401]

>>11800381
Most large SRBs have thrust vectoring

[Anonymous No.11800404]

>>11800216
SpaceX will kill people because of this.

[Anonymous No.11800410]

>>11800404
The Falcon 9 was the most heavily proven rocket since the Soyuz by the time DM-2 launched. Starship will be the same way. Good software companies know how to change gears from rapid iteration to careful release management, and SpaceX has showed that with Crew Dragon.

[Anonymous No.11800419]

>>11799968
Probably meant to throw off/scare the chinese or russians

[Anonymous No.11800422]

>>11800404
Nonsense FUD, they won't fly human until they think it's absolutely safe like Demo-2.

[Anonymous No.11800432]

>>11800410
I was talking mostly about the CrewDragon.
It clearly doesn't have the reliability of previous American ships, let alone the Soyuz.

Software culture is harmful in Space. Software is mostly crafted, not engineered, and needs a huge safety net in terms of QA to be reliable. It is not rare that companies skip big testing to get to market on time, and then deal with the failures.

Starship is a meme straight out of some Flash Gordon comic.

[Anonymous No.11800436]

>>11800404
Doesn’t matter. Every time there’s space tourism post on zogbook i see comments saying ‘rockets are too dangerous i’m waiting for Virgin Galactic. I would just feel safer.’. Regardless of Virgins respectable K/D ratio.

[Anonymous No.11800454]

>>11800237

[Anonymous No.11800457]

>>11800432
You’re not even an oldSpace hipster. You’re just uninformed. Manned Dragon missions were delayed by years because of the careful rigor put into safety standards. If you would rather your loved ones flew in a Soyuz than a Dragon capsule capsule you’ve never seen one. Certainly not a Soyuz. I’ve seen more modern wiring in Church halls.

[Anonymous No.11800458]

>>11800394
Did someone say three stage moon rockets?

[Anonymous No.11800459]

>>11800432
>doesn't have the reliability of previous American ships
yeah, it's much better lmao

[Anonymous No.11800463]

>>11800432
>I was talking mostly about the CrewDragon. It clearly doesn't have the reliability of previous American ships, let alone the Soyuz.
What is this based on? The fact that there has only been 2 launches? I mean I guess yeah but nothing went wrong on those 2 launches (thus far). It’s certainly more reliable than Starliner
> Starship is a meme straight out of some Flash Gordon comic.
Just because of its shape, or because you think the whole launch and landing is dumb. If you think it’s dumb I suggest you look at the “reliability” of the Falcon 9 (since you seem to think that reliability is that important). Starship will use the proven technology from F9, something no other company has

[Anonymous No.11800464]

>>11800432
>It clearly doesn't have the reliability of previous American ships
1/3 of all Space Shuttle orbiters ever built experienced total loss of crew in their lifetime.

[Anonymous No.11800467]

>>11800432
>It clearly doesn't have the reliability of previous American ships, let alone the Soyuz.
It has a superior mission delivery rate in its current iteration over everything else currently flying in terms of schedule and launch vehicle reliability in flight. What nonsense are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.11800470]

>>11800432
Also, have you forgotten Soyuz MS-10, which failed in flight just last year?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5boa6wAK0Sc

[Anonymous No.11800479]

>>11800044
Who else would objectively lie just to say China is better than the US in space exploration?

[Anonymous No.11800486]

Chinese BeiDou launch in 17 hours

[Anonymous No.11800487]

>>11800030
IT‘S JUST A FUCKING SWAMP!

[Anonymous No.11800491]

>>11800486
This launch will complete their GPS-equivalent satellite navigation system

[Anonymous No.11800492]

>>11800491
Pad RUD odds 50/50.

[Anonymous No.11800496]

>>11800030
Not really, no. Displacing a couple of dozen retirees to create hundreds or even thousands of direct jobs to turn that sleepy village with almost nonexistent infrastructure into Man's gateway to Mars is an absolutely worthwhile trade.

[Anonymous No.11800498]

>>11800216
>like a software company
Kek how many have you worked for?

[Anonymous No.11800506]

>>11800491
prelaunch event video (in english) https://youtu.be/SYInzV1LIUk

[Anonymous No.11800507]

>>11800491
>Mr. Uygher prease turn reft prease. Oh yes prease, thank yurr. You have arrive at destination prease, Communist Retraining Camp

[Anonymous No.11800508]

>>11800219
Jim gets replaced, artemis gets abandoned, we focus on overfunded weather satellites. NASA gets a funding freeze or cut. It'll be exactly like Obama

[Anonymous No.11800509]

>>11800498
AWS

[Anonymous No.11800514]

>>11800508
>Like Obama
>The man who gutted NASA's science to have a myopic focus on this one rock we've been locked on for all of human history
Fuck that noise.

[Anonymous No.11800516]

>>11800365
Could they convert the SLS to methalox?

[Anonymous No.11800521]

>>11800516
Not really, no. The entire point of the design is the big orange LH2 tank, the SRBs, and the RS-25s, as continuity of the Shuttle. As anon from the previous thread wrote, the SLS is a Space Shuttle that's had tranny surgery to pretend it's a Saturn V. If you're not going to use those Shuttle components then you don't have a rocket at all. Just lean on Falcon Heavy until Starship comes online.

[Anonymous No.11800522]

>>11800486
Hope it explodes killing people on the pad

[Anonymous No.11800523]

>>11800464
1/3 of Crew Dragon capsules have exploded.

[Anonymous No.11800531]

>>11800514
Obama didn't cut science. He cut Constellation, which was never about science.

[Anonymous No.11800532]

>>11800523
Damn you have a point not gonna lie

[Anonymous No.11800541]

>>11800531
Obama gutted the planetary sciences budget. Why do you think there haven't been any missions launching to space to study the solar system? It's because his administration reallocated NASA's budget priorities away from it. Only a handful of missions survived.

[Anonymous No.11800546]

>>11800522
>>11800492
>>11800507
lol at the butthurt

[Anonymous No.11800549]

>>11800546
Hope it explodes

[Anonymous No.11800560]

>>11800546
>>11800549
Honestly I hope it explodes too - rocket explosions are spectacular, and I won't be losing money or schedule on the timeline of human advancement if it goes boom.

[Anonymous No.11800563]

>>11800541
>"gutted"

Yeah, no. The dip you can see in 2013 corresponds to the year sequestration came in, which was nothing to do with the admin.

>Why do you think there haven't been any missions launching to space to study the solar system?

Mars 2020 (Perseverance) launches this week.

[Anonymous No.11800568]

>>11800432
So you have very limited understanding not just about spaceflight but of programming, or "software development" as it's called today, as well.

What you incorrectly inferred from >>11800216 to be some nebulous "software culture" (by which you have probably meant an ingrained set of bad practices perpetuated by bad management, which all stems from short-sighted/greedy/uncaring investors, boards of directors or CEOs) is a somewhat recent doctrine called "Agile development". Unrealistic deadlines, incompetent management, underqualified programmers and other systemic problems plaguing the industry are not inherent properties of this Agile.
If you possess any capacity for analysis you might notice that successful start-ups all owe their success to well-performing programs. They have to because otherwise they would never succeed. They do not have investors to throw millions at them because some sly fuck with a silver tongue sold a few bridges to the investors. They do not have millions for joint marketing, disinformation, social networking and whatever other consciousness-manipulating campaigns to ensure that their product sells. They do not have zombies performing some of those tasks for free due to brand loyalty. Their shit has to be good enough for someone with money to become interested in.
It should be surprising that you didn't bother to do even minimal research about the subject you lack sufficient knowledge about on a science board, especially considering the keywords you've got from that anon's post. But this is Internet in 2020, after all.

[Anonymous No.11800572]

>>11800563
>Mars 2020 (Perseverance) launches this week.

Mostly developed under Trump. Notice the significant increase after he becomes president.

[Anonymous No.11800575]

>>11800546
I should clarify it’s not necessarily out of malice. Same as >>11800560 said, it isn’t a direct hit on me. It’s just funny to see the Chinese blow shit up and hadouken the local villages of chang-hai. But I do respect them for being independent. The chinese space program isn’t awful (in fact, if they ramped up production it might spark space race II). But it’s funny watched them from the sideline as the top dog nation as they fail to launch while we’re preparing colonies and pushing rocket technology

[Anonymous No.11800586]

>>11800572
>Mostly developed under Trump.
Not really. It would not be launching now if it started under Trump. It was into phase C by the time Trump took office. This is how long missions take.

[Anonymous No.11800592]

>>11800586
Regardless, there's nothing disingenuous about the kick to the crotch planetary mission funding took in 2013.

[Anonymous No.11800597]

>>11800592
Sequestration. Nobody had a choice.

[Anonymous No.11800601]

>>11800586
pre-trump, "research" was mostly into global warming. Under obama, nasa kept on coming up with more and more doom scenarios for the world and kept pushing mars mission back. It was meant to have launched by 2012 originally if I remember right. it was all the nasa's space inactivity that was the catalyst for a bunch of space companies popping up. Even russians got their share.

[Anonymous No.11800603]

>>11800597
Nobody tried to fix it when that wrapped up, either.

[Anonymous No.11800613]

>>11800601
>pre-trump, "research" was mostly into global warming.
That's fucking stupid. Earth Science is a separate division within the science directorate, with their own funding stream.

>It was meant to have launched by 2012 originally if I remember right.
No you don't. You're confusing MSL with 2020. Two different missions.

> it was all the nasa's space inactivity that was the catalyst for a bunch of space companies popping up

You mean it wasn't because of NASA giving them billions through COTS and CCDev?

[Anonymous No.11800621]

>>11800603
For which you can blame both parties. The president doesn't write the budget, at that time the houses were split.

[Anonymous No.11800625]

>>11800621
There is a degree of administrative budgetary priority that can be controlled by spending political capital in the form of dedicated Presidential attention. In Obama's case, he only brought things up back to his pre-administration levels when he was balls-deep on Securing His Legacy™

[Anonymous No.11800644]

>>11800625
I'll take apathy any day, over the current admins repeated attempts to gut astrophysics.

[Anonymous No.11800650]

>>11800644
In what way

[Anonymous No.11800656]

>>11800650
They have proposed to cut both WFIRST and SOFIA. A cut which would remove about 1/3 of the astrophysics budget. They have tried to cancel WFIRST multiple times.

[Anonymous No.11800661]

>>11800656
SOFIA is pretty bloody silly desu, and WFIRST makes little sense if JWST can actually launch at some point.

[Anonymous No.11800670]

>>11800661
JWST and WFIRST have very different science goals. JWST will not answer any of the questions that motivated JWST, which are all about large scale cosmology.

Both cuts together would cripple astrophysics for years. No more big projects. You could forget all the proposed flagships like LUVOIR, Habex, Lynx and Origins.

[Anonymous No.11800681]

>>11800670
The latter does not follow the former.

[Anonymous No.11800686]

>>11800644
Getting established on the moon is a better use of budget. If the lull continued for ever the taxpayer would be demanding more and more cuts regardless. The advances a Moon base and regular traffic back and forth bring would oil the gears of everything else.

[Anonymous No.11800705]

>>11800681
The money for a new flagship depended on assumptions about the future budget. If the budget is cut by 1/3 then there will be no wedge for that new mission.

>>11800686
And yet the deficit grows year on year. They don't care about spending. That's just an excuse they use to defund programs they don't like. These are separate budget items, it's not one or the other.

[Anonymous No.11800711]

>>11800575
>The chinese space program isn’t awful
2019

[Anonymous No.11800716]

>>11800711
Can we make friends with India already and just stop interacting with China?

[Anonymous No.11800721]

>>11800711
>India has the same amount of launches as Europe
wtf is europe doing? stop holding the world back.

[Anonymous No.11800726]

Tfw you realize launching off the surface of Eve is very similar in difficulty to launching off of Earth

[Anonymous No.11800742]

>>11800721
ESA participant population is under 500 million, india has almost 3 times as many. Per capita, we're kicking their ass.

[Anonymous No.11800748]

>>11800742
>beating india at something per capita
Calling this an accomplishment is so much sadder than admitting your space program is in the trash

[Anonymous No.11800751]

To be fair I can see why Boomers went with the Space Shuttle. Imagine if the US just flew by and plucked one of China’s new GPS satellites out of orbit and stored it into the shuttle for banter

[Anonymous No.11800759]

>>11800748
oh it's absolutely trash lol but it's not india tier yet

[Anonymous No.11800769]

>>11800748
Remind me when India start launching missions which actually accomplish something novel. ESA has a phenomenal science program (pic related). But apparently launching more trash into space is how you assert dominance.

[Anonymous No.11800774]

SN7 testing underway

[Anonymous No.11800780]

>>11800774
>a bopper
wow_its_nothing.jpg

[Anonymous No.11800781]

>>11800774
You mean 6?
Or did something happen in the few days that i haven't been here?

[Anonymous No.11800784]

>>11800781
SN6 sank into the swamp.

[Anonymous No.11800787]

>>11800742
cope
EU has GDP/economy 6 times the size

[Anonymous No.11800788]

>>11800170
>recycled
...by villagers with horse-drawn carts
>Nyet we can not make reusable Soyuz, think about peasant in steppes who recycle crashed booster for vodka money!

[Anonymous No.11800790]

>>11800781
sn5 and sn6 are flight vehicles, sn7 is a tank section

[Anonymous No.11800794]

>>11800487

[Anonymous No.11800798]

>>11800379
Electrician here, to do that much wring at the quality they would want it would take ~10 guys (not going to fit many more) ~3 months.

[Anonymous No.11800808]

>>11800458
not sure if cursed or blessed

[Anonymous No.11800837]

Soon...

[Anonymous No.11800850]

>the military put out a contract for companies to build nuclear propulsion spacecraft within 5 years
will it happen? has anyone made one before?

[Anonymous No.11800856]

>>11800850
Source

[Anonymous No.11800857]

>>11800856
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/the-us-military-is-getting-serious-about-nuclear-thermal-propulsion/

[Anonymous No.11800864]

>>11800857
Thats badass. The only working NTR constructed I know of was NERVA from the pre-Shutle era, but there’s a huge amount of concepts of varying power and efficiency.

[Anonymous No.11800905]

>>11800864
>>11800857
Those degenerate weebs love their NTR, don't they...

[Anonymous No.11800907]

>>11800857
Cool shit. Hoping it gets through. It's not like US and USSR were worried when they threw a dozen nuclear reactors in space last century anyways, or when they disassembled in space or reentered over Canada

[Anonymous No.11800910]

>>11800864
fusion torchdrive or bust

[Anonymous No.11800943]

>SLS is real
SpaceXfags on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.11800946]

>>11800905
NTR is a thinking man's hobby. It just shows that weebs have high IQ.

[Anonymous No.11800951]

>NTR has 800-1000 ISP
is that faster than starship?

[Anonymous No.11800962]

>>11800943
2 billion vs 2 million per launch, kek

[Anonymous No.11800967]

>>11800951
What do you mean “faster”?
Starahip’s ISP is 380 with vacuum optimized Raptors

[Anonymous No.11800969]

>>11800951
starship's raptor use methane + oxygen, which is around 350 isp
so 2-3 times more effective

[Anonymous No.11800970]

>>11799956
There are A LOT of genuine schizos in 4ch, most of the wacky shit that comes out of /pol/ and /x/ is paranoid delusions

[Anonymous No.11800973]

>>11800030

A bunch of houses for like 12 people total.

[Anonymous No.11800978]

>>11800951
It means it will utilize it's propellant more than twice as efficiently, so if all things were completely equal an NPTR using ship using the same mass of propellant as Starship would achieve a final speed more than twice as fast. In reality it's a bit more complex, basically every NTPR engine uses LH2 so it would need 30+% larger propellant tanks to hold the same mass of LH2 that Starship holds in CH4. On the upside, NPTRs don't require an oxidizer component at all, imagine a Starship where the entire body section bellow the payload/crew area is a single tank.

[Anonymous No.11800982]

>>11800219

Good chance nothing changes.

[Anonymous No.11800983]

>>11800978
You forgot to mention that an NTR can actually use methane and still get higher isp than a chemical engine

[Anonymous No.11800994]

The SN7 tank is being pressure tested right now in Boca Chica.

[Anonymous No.11800995]

>>11800983
Can they use CH4 without it depositing carbon in the plumbing? If so it wouldn't actually be very difficult (hypothetically) to convert Starship to use atomic engines. Simply exclude the center bulkhead, add a layer of neutron reflective shielding to the thrust plate and swap the engines.

[Anonymous No.11800996]

>>11799880

Doesn't redeem SLS, rather it's its own separate thing that is either worth doing or not on its own. SLS continuing is the equivalent of dumping several SEP and DST equivalent projects in the trash.

[Anonymous No.11801001]

>>11800365

SLS doesn't need effort dumped into salvaging, it needs to be thrown away completely and entirely new things formed without any distortion from its legacy.

[Anonymous No.11801010]

>>11800365
>"15% more thrust than Saturn V at launch!"
>Can only do 26 tons to TLI vs 48 tons on Saturn V
I want to find the people responsible for forcing us to use hydrolox at sea level and strap them to a fucking SRB and launch them at the sun.

[Anonymous No.11801022]

>>11800458
Why not use Delta IV Heavy at this rate? Hell they already did it before.

[Anonymous No.11801026]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
LabPadre's SN7 pressure testing time.

[Anonymous No.11801028]

>>11800943
How much will they pay for the work crew to keep it dusted off until Orange Rocket gets there?

[Anonymous No.11801030]

>>11801026
Dude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37CTuEfWhOA

[Anonymous No.11801031]

>>11801026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NMRn-2h8X8
The fuck lol

[Anonymous No.11801034]

>>11800864
in the eighties the military was working on a classified nuclear engine that had higher thrust and better efficiency than NERVA, under the codename TIMBER WIND, they needed it for a bunch of Reagan's missile defense stuff

then the USSR collapsed and the program got cancelled

[Anonymous No.11801036]

>>11800995
>Can they use CH4 without it depositing carbon in the plumbing? If so it wouldn't actually be very difficult (hypothetically) to convert Starship to use atomic engines. Simply exclude the center bulkhead, add a layer of neutron reflective shielding to the thrust plate and swap the engines.

This would only be really good on a different sort of ship; because Starship is designed to be a second stage of a launch vehicle and to land propulsively. The problem with NTRs is that they have a worse TWR than chemical engines, and Starship is really fucking heavy already. They’re much more powerful than ion engines, so they’re perfectly workable for doing manned interplanetary burns, but much less capable of, say, entering orbit from Earth’s surface or landing propulsively. A way to work around this is to drag along a lander that uses less efficient chemical engines to do the grunt work of landing on the ground.

Starship with 380 ISP raptors and 150 ton payload
6314 delta/v
Enough to get to Mars and land

Starship with 600 isp NTR and 150 ton payload
9970 delta/v
Enough to get your ass to Mercury.
But, this would most likely be used to simply get more payload to Mars, so let’s check that out.
Starship with 600 isp NTR and a 500 ton payload
6336 delta/v enough to carry a fuckton of stuff to Mars, but the problem is that this Starship couldn’t land. It wouldn’t have enough thrust to do so

[Anonymous No.11801049]

>>11801036
simply send cargo and humans from the orbiting NTR rocket like soyuz does
simple as
seems like /sci/ is finally seeing the light when it comes to nuclear propulsion
musk is doomed to fail

[Anonymous No.11801057]

>>11801049
>Musk is doomed to fail for no reason

Cringe

[Anonymous No.11801060]

>>11801057
he's the cuck being NTR'd

[Anonymous No.11801063]

>>11800769
When you're not in the humungous poo area, India does somewhat resemble the superpower it hypes itself as.

[Anonymous No.11801067]

>>11801060
NTRs will be used later for higher payloads. Chemical is good for now.

[Anonymous No.11801068]

>>11801063
Lol no cope more pajeet

[Anonymous No.11801097]

>>11801068
Hey, I'm just saying. Pajeet is basically an overcooked white man.

[Anonymous No.11801111]

>>11800568
The use of Agile and automated configuration and delivery pipelines (DevOps) for software also plays a massive role in how SpaceX is able to operate the hundreds of Starlink satellites in orbit seamlessly.

[Anonymous No.11801116]

India fucking crippled their own submarine by forgetting to close a hatch.

[Anonymous No.11801129]

>>11801111
>automated configuration
>delivery pipelines
They will never stop inventing new important sounding terms for optimizations and bloat removal, don't they.

[Anonymous No.11801135]

>>11801129
not until people stop buying the books and going the to talks

[Anonymous No.11801136]

>>11800943
Holy shit they still know how to recreate antique SRBs?!

[Anonymous No.11801173]

>>11801136
Well, that's why they're mandated for the orange flying turd after all, so you don't forget how to make them.

[Anonymous No.11801180]

Where does sfg think spaceflight will be in 20 years? 40?

[Anonymous No.11801186]

>>11800837
There will be a day when bezos becomes competitive with spacex, but that is many years away. if they don't hurry they might miss their chance to enter the market on a good footing

[Anonymous No.11801187]

>>11801180
We going Mars baby.

[Anonymous No.11801192]

>>11801180
>20 years
The ridiculous projected cadence for SS is a reality and the vehicle will have improved significantly over initial spec. The SS program has so much inertia there are only paper plans to supplement it, but orbit is so easy it hurts and the focus is on building out lunar and martian infrastructure instead of launch infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.11801194]

>>11801180
the same thing people thought spaceflight was going to become in the 80s and 90s and 00s, except I think they're really going to do it this time

[Anonymous No.11801195]

>>11801180
In one way or another, there will be a Renaissance in space flight with so much more involvement in space, especially BEO, that it makes the Shuttle years look like a huge mistake.

[Anonymous No.11801200]

>>11800050
China just steals all the good shit from other countries. European cars, Japanese trains, and american air/space craft are always ripped off by china.

[Anonymous No.11801203]

>>11801194
This, the Shuttle era will be remembered as a dip in the continuous upward spike of spaceflight development, a dark age followed by a renaissance.

[Anonymous No.11801220]

>>11801180
In 20 years maybe there will be Moon landings, and then get canned a few years later. I suspect NASA will stick with Gateway regardless, even if it becomes totally pointless. Fans of Gateway seemed so happy because it was a commitment that would anchor NASA to it. I suspect like the ISS, all the advanced uses will die out when the realise they can't afford to do two things at once.

I don't think Musk's revolution is happening. I suspect SS will fly many years late and never reach the cadence needed to make it as cheap as claimed. Just like the shuttle, hyped for cheap payloads but based on assumptions about flight rate. Without the cadence I think all the plans which heavily rely on refuelling will also die.

China will slowly build a space station, maybe done by 2035. Probably with ESA and Russia.

I hope the future is more interesting, but I just don't see it.

[Anonymous No.11801238]

>>11801220
>Just like the shuttle, hyped for cheap payloads but based on assumptions about flight rate.
You've misunderstood the Shuttle, Starship, and economics in general.

[Anonymous No.11801245]

>>11801220
>Just like the shuttle, hyped for cheap payloads but based on assumptions about flight rate.
But the lower cost of SS has more to do with how it's made than just flight rate.

[Anonymous No.11801247]

>>11801238
Nope, it's basic economics. Fixed and recurring costs. Hype doesn't change that calculation.

[Anonymous No.11801250]

>>11801245
It will depend on both. You don't build a bigger, more complex rocket to cut manufacturing costs.

[Anonymous No.11801254]

Fun read:
http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-expanses-epstein-drive.html
Really wonder what crazy shit we will see if we ever crack fussion.

[Anonymous No.11801256]

>>11801220
>In 20 years maybe there will be Moon landings
Make it 5 and change "maybe" to "certainly".
The spacerace is back with a vengeance, gloom-anon. You best bet on it.

[Anonymous No.11801260]

>>11801247
You forgot that Starlink exists and will require a high launch cadence (of Starship, not F9) to be completed in time.

[Anonymous No.11801262]

>>11801220
>China will slowly build a space station, maybe done by 2035. Probably with ESA and Russia.
China's space station will be assembled in two years. It's like a smaller Mir.

[Anonymous No.11801263]

>>11801247
>Shuttle fixed cost
Every piece of manufacture and refurbishment equipment must be cleanroom spec and equipped to handle crystalized autism. Every single piece of this jigsaw puzzle of a machine is a small city in itself.
>SS fixed cost
Boats, steel mills, some stands in a swamp. Engine manufacturing which is already most of the way there.
>Shuttle recurring costs
Again, and say it with me: refurbishment. Thousands of tiles hand-checked, engines torn apart and painstakingly put back together with thousands of replaced parts, solids dredged out of the ocean and refilled for higher cost than making new solids, and oh hey a big new insulated orange tank.
>SS recurring costs
lol

[Anonymous No.11801267]

>>11801260
Imagine the shitstorm on MSM&social media when a starship deploys several hundred starlink sats.
The sat train will be huge.

[Anonymous No.11801269]

>>11801250
>You don't build a bigger, more complex rocket to cut manufacturing costs.
True, but a larger rocket can cut on reuse costs which was one of the major issues of the Shuttle. A larger rocket means that parts can be made sturdier without fear of cutting too much into payload, and it also experiences less reentry heating due to its lower ballistic coefficient. Both (along with the use of more reliable and cheaper technologies compared to the Shuttle) would make Starship substantially cheaper to reuse than the Shuttle.

There's also the issue that the Shuttle was planned around trying to keep as many jobs in NASA as possible which will drive up costs. SpaceX is all about slim spending and has no issue with firing a large part of its work force if necessary.

[Anonymous No.11801272]

>>11801220
This is bait.

[Anonymous No.11801274]

>>11801256
Not in 5. Look at Commercial Crew and extrapolate to the landers. Contracts were handed out in 2014, with initial flights planned in 2017. In reality it took 3 more years for SpaceX and Boeing still haven't launched. With Commercial Crew SpaceX already had a lot of the components, as Dragon had already flown and no new launchers were required. This time all bids are entirely new spacecraft, and all of them depend on new rockets which haven't flown. Dynetics are the probably the new Kistler, they will crash out if selected.

Just based on history it's very unlikely they will stay on schedule.

[Anonymous No.11801277]

>>11801262
>China's space station will be assembled in two years.
Yes, but look how long they've been saying they would start next year. And then that becomes the year after. It's not about how quickly it can be done. Speed doesn't seem to be a political priority.

>>11801260
>You forgot that Starlink exists and will require a high launch cadence
That doesn't mean it has to happen. That just means starlink would be in jeopardy if SS doesn't live up to expectations. In reality I think SpaceX will just pivot to fewer satellites and possibly reinstate the higher orbits.

[Anonymous No.11801278]

>>11801274
The rules have changed, the time of oldspace schedules has ended.

[Anonymous No.11801279]

>>11801060
NTRs are great but they can’t get shit off of earth. Musk’s starship and especially any larger iteration in the future could throw up the parts for NTR spacecraft that could explore the solar system.

[Anonymous No.11801280]

>>11801277
>Yes, but look how long they've been saying they would start next year. And then that becomes the year after. It's not about how quickly it can be done. Speed doesn't seem to be a political priority.
It was because their booster had a RUD awhile ago, but it's back in action.

[Anonymous No.11801286]

>>11801274
The issue with using commercial crew as an example is that members in congress opposed it (especially SpaceX's involvement) and withheld funding. Meanwhile, the moon landings are popular with all but the most space-hating Democrats who won't be getting into office anytime soon. When allowed to develop more freely, SpaceX has shown to build test and fly new vehicles at a pace that even shocked NASA.

>This time all bids are entirely new spacecraft
Yeah, because no one has been to the moon in decades. New vehicles have to be developed.

>and all of them depend on new rockets which haven't flown.
False, the Dynetics lander can fly on Falcon Heavy.

>Just based on history it's very unlikely they will stay on schedule.
Ok doomer. Sure, the "boots on the moon by 2024" goal might not be met, but there will be manned landings well within 20 years.

[Anonymous No.11801289]

Yessss, bought their stock just for this.

[Anonymous No.11801292]

>>11801277
>In reality I think SpaceX will just pivot to fewer satellites and possibly reinstate the higher orbits.
They've already brought orbits down, not up, and are planning even lower orbits for the future. Just one more thing that makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about, tourist.

[Anonymous No.11801293]

>>11801263
>Boats, steel mills, some stands in a swamp.
And the army of people who keep the system running and build the new ones. Or are SpaceX not going to pay people from now on?

The point about the shuttle is that they had to pay all those thousands of employees regardless of whether or not they had a mission to work on. So ultimately it didn't matter much if the shuttle flew 6 times in a year or 7 times in a year, the total cost was only slightly different.

>>SS recurring costs
>lol
If the recurring costs are insignificant then the flight rate will be a huge factor in determining the cost. It's just basic arithmetic.

[Anonymous No.11801297]

>>11801277
I'm pretty sure they're required to launch all/most of the satellites in order to keep the license. They can't just decide to stop at some arbitrary number or change the orbit at a whim.
Also as someone mentioned above, comparing SS to Shuttle is misleading because Shuttle's refurbishment was VERY inefficient.

[Anonymous No.11801299]

>>11801278
So SpaceX are oldspace now? Interesting.

>>11801272
Look how upset people get if you even question the hype train.

[Anonymous No.11801300]

>>11801293
>The point about the shuttle is that they had to pay all those thousands of employees regardless of whether or not they had a mission to work on. So
Because NASA wanted to hold on to as many Apollo engineers as possible in the hope that the government would want another Apollo mission later. SpaceX does not have this issue.

[Anonymous No.11801305]

>>11801293
>And the army of people who keep the system running and build the new ones.
And they get to enjoy the lowest payouts in the industry because they draw on so many low tech parts and low Texan labor costs.
>The point about the shuttle is that they had to pay all those thousands of employees regardless of whether or not they had a mission to work on.
There will never be a time when SS has no mission to work on. SpaceX will fill any gaps with their own endeavors, see Starlink.
>If the recurring costs are insignificant then the flight rate will be a huge factor in determining the cost.
Which brings costs down from "ridiculously low" to "ungodly low".

[Anonymous No.11801306]

>11801299
(you)

[Anonymous No.11801307]

>>11801293
They won't have to painstakingly replace the 900 000 000 heat tiles on Starship.

[Anonymous No.11801314]

>>11801286
>the moon landings are popular with all but the most space-hating Democrats who won't be getting into office anytime soon.
House democrats have already made it clear that they don't want NASA to push for 2024.

>there will be manned landings well within 20 years.
The bigger problem is political. If it doesn't happen within the next 5 years the probability of being cancelled rises sharply.

[Anonymous No.11801316]

>>11801269
>True, but a larger rocket can cut on reuse costs which was one of the major issues of the Shuttle
I don't disagree. It will never be as expensive as the shuttle, but that doesn't mean it will reach 2 million a flight.

[Anonymous No.11801318]

>>11801292
Try reading you cretin. If SS fails to meet expectation then SpaceX will pivot to a constellation that requires fewer satellites, i.e. with higher orbits. Why was that so difficult for you to understand?

[Anonymous No.11801321]

>>11801297
They haven't actually got approval for the full constellation yet. And they can always amend their FCC filing, as they did to lower the orbits.

>>11801300
The point was not that Shuttle=Expensive, therefore SS=Expensive. Try reading.

[Anonymous No.11801323]

>>11801321
>The point was not that Shuttle=Expensive, therefore SS=Expensive. Try reading.
Your point was that SS needs high cadence to drive down costs because the Shuttle did, which is wrong on both counts. SS has good fundamentals across the board and will be cheap out of the gate. Cadence will only drive home its existing advantage. Shuttle, on the other hand, was so inefficient to refly that higher cadence would have done nothing but strain the project even further.
>>11801318
And I told you what they're doing right now, without relying on SS at all, you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.11801332]

>>11801314
Those Democrats can't do anything when Trump regains office, by that point Artemis will have further developments done to it to the point that when a Democrat president takes office after Trump he or she will have to kill a project that's near completion. Considering the excitement and development behind the project, that would make that president incredibly unpopular if it were cancelled.

And that is just for Artemis. If it does get canceled or significantly delayed, then SpaceX and Blue Origin will just continue along with their plans, and will offer their services to anyone who can pay them. Which will take less than 20 years. SpaceX especially, since they have shown to be able to rapidly develop technology.

>>11801316
Starship will have to cost more than about $320M per launch to not be able to compete with Falcon 9, over $1000M to not compete with SLS. Both of which are incredibly high numbers for SpaceX. Even if their $2M goal isn't achieved, they would still have an incredibly cost effective launch vehicle with a capability unmatched by anyone so far and will allow them to corner a new market.

[Anonymous No.11801341]

>>11801220
>muh we're never going to advance in spaceflight because i think a private company using modern tech that has already revolutionized launch service providing and will have billions upon billions of funds from starlink will repeat the mistakes of a badly managed government organization's program which was pretty much purposely held back and used 1970s era technology
cringe

[Anonymous No.11801342]

>>11801323
>Your point was that SS needs high cadence to drive down costs because the Shuttle did
No, that wasn't my logic. SS needs high cadence because of basic economics. Fixed vs recurring costs. SS is not a unicorn that defies basic arithmetic. My comparison to the shuttle was merely pointing out the similarly. People also thought the shuttle would be cheap as fuck, flying 30 missions a year. It didn't happen and costs rose.

>And I told you what they're doing right now, without relying on SS at all
But I assume you're the same person who told me that SS must work because Starlink "required it". Flawless logic.

[Anonymous No.11801351]

>>11801342
NASA purposely went for a program that was expensive to maintain for the Shuttle to retain employees. SpaceX isn't making that mistake.

[Anonymous No.11801353]

>>11801332
I think starship has a very good chance of reaching less then $10m/flight.

[Anonymous No.11801357]

>>11801351
Honestly, just ignore him. He's probably either a tourist or an oldspace shill seething that SpaceX has done pretty much everything oldspace said they couldn't do over the last 18 years.

[Anonymous No.11801363]

>>11800069
This man gets it!

[Anonymous No.11801364]

>>11801357
Maybe he's Shelby, quick someone ask him about depots.

[Anonymous No.11801369]

>>11801332
>Those Democrats can't do anything when Trump regains office
They write half the budget, so yes they can. The Moon Landings are vulnerable in exactly the same way that commercial crew was.

>If it does get canceled or significantly delayed, then SpaceX and Blue Origin will just continue along with their plans, and will offer their services to anyone who can pay them
Golden Spike tried the whole "selling a Moon mission" thing, there was no interest. I don't think either company will do in on their own money. BO completely abandoned manned capsule after they lost CC.

>Starship will have to cost more than about $320M per launch to not be able to compete with Falcon 9
Did I say it would be more expensive than F9? No.

[Anonymous No.11801370]

>>11801342
>But I assume you're the same person who told me that SS must work because Starlink "required it".
70 unique IPs and only one (you), I'm not the guy you were arguing with, I just jumped in because you were being flagrantly wrong.

>SS needs high cadence because of basic economics.
Achieving high cadence is not really the question. What's up in the air is if it will hit the insanely low projected cost or insanely high projected cadence. Both of those would be nice, but neither is necessary for baseline capability, including refueling. SS will revolutionize spaceflight if it never comes within an order of magnitude of either.

[Anonymous No.11801373]

>>11801351
You didn't even try to read my comment. I really don't understand what's so fucking complicated. The shuttle has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.11801376]

>>11801373
You haven't given a single reason as to why starship will fail.

[Anonymous No.11801378]

>>11801364
This place sounds more and more like reddit every day.

[Anonymous No.11801380]

>>11801378
A lot of tourists are coming here with starship development ramping up.

[Anonymous No.11801381]

>>11801378
How would you know anon

[Anonymous No.11801382]

>>11801378
>the depots post did trigger him
Ladies and gentlemen, we got him

[Anonymous No.11801387]

>>11801369
>They write half the budget, so yes they can. The Moon Landings are vulnerable in exactly the same way that commercial crew was.
Then SpaceX and Blue Origin will continue on as their funding isn't tied to Artemis.

>Golden Spike
Who?

>I don't think either company will do in on their own money.
SpaceX has a customer for a lunar trip, and has made it clear that they will send people to Mars on their own dollar.

>BO completely abandoned manned capsule after they lost CC.
And Blue Origin's lander is different from that. It's being developed as a commercial venture, not a government product.

>Did I say it would be more expensive than F9? No.
If Starship beats the F9 in cost effectiveness, then it has succeeded. It would do everything F9 can, but cheaper and better in every way. Which not only means that it'll do F9's payloads, but the payloads that F9 couldn't do.

[Anonymous No.11801390]

>>11801378
This scares the doomer oldspace shill.

[Anonymous No.11801393]

>>11801376
The question was about opinions of the future. I never claimed to know SS would fail. You are literally offended at the idea that things might not work out.

[Anonymous No.11801401]

>>11801393
No, just you haven't given any good reasons to back your position, which makes me wonder why you have it.

[Anonymous No.11801404]

Come to think of it, trying to land on a body as massive as Earth and the same diameter as earth but without an atmosphere would be an engineering nightmare. You’d need to have multiple stages just for the descent.

[Anonymous No.11801413]

>concern trolling

it's all so tiresome yet I keep taking the bait...

[Anonymous No.11801415]

>>11801387
>Who?
And people call me the tourist.

>SpaceX has a customer for a lunar trip
Who was going to fly on Dragon plus falcon heavy, until they gave up with that. Also note that Virgin Galactic have paying customers too, so did XCOR.

>And Blue Origin's lander is different from that. It's being developed as a commercial venture, not a government product.
Until they don't have a customer. Do I think LM and NG are going to continue their part of the National Team if the NASA money dries up? No. Maybe they can sell the lander for unmanned missions.

>If Starship beats the F9 in cost effectiveness, then it has succeeded.
Did I say it would fail? No. You're arguing with the voices in your head.

[Anonymous No.11801417]

>>11801404
Tylo's a bitch.

[Anonymous No.11801423]

>>11801417
And orbital velocities are lower in KSP, too. Orbital velocity in LEO is over 7000 meters a second, whereas low orbits over Tylo or Kerbin are about 2000 meters a second. Since there’s no air, you’re gonna have to kill off every meter of that by burning retrograde.

[Anonymous No.11801431]

>>11801401
Nobody that responded to that post gave any reasoning, the question did not ask for it. And yet I'm the only person you attack.

[Anonymous No.11801439]

This lame doomerposting is depressing. Post things that make/made you hopeful for space flight.

[Anonymous No.11801446]

>>11801431
Because I agree with them. I do not agree with you and wanted to know why you believe starship will likely end up the same way the shuttle did.

[Anonymous No.11801452]

>>11801439
Doomers need to be shunned wherever they exist, their "input" is utterly valueless to any and every discussion.

[Anonymous No.11801455]

>>11800531
Obama did cut science, he cut NASA funding across the board but also cut science in general until his last year in office so he could look good. Science funding is surprisingly a quality of conservative politicians.

[Anonymous No.11801458]

>>11801455
Liberals don’t give a shit about science unless it’s related to the climate change doomsday religion.

[Anonymous No.11801459]

>>11801370
>Achieving high cadence is not really the question. What's up in the air is if it will hit the insanely low projected cost or insanely high projected cadence.

Oh, I'm sorry. "high" and "insanely high" are such objectively different numbers clearly. Such a precise argument.

[Anonymous No.11801466]

>>11800563
You do understand your graph shows his point, if the nasa budget didn't increase at all for 7 years that means he cut funding. Also see here>>11801455 for a more accurate graph

[Anonymous No.11801467]

The money that Starship received through Artemis. Is that already handed over or could it be cut after the election.

[Anonymous No.11801469]

>>11801455
>Obama did cut science
As in the division within NASA, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.11801475]

>>11801459
Sorry, I was assuming you knew something about the subject. Projected cadence is on the order of multiple reflights per ship, per day. High cadence by modern standards is flying the same make multiple times a month.

[Anonymous No.11801476]

>>11801455
This makes some sense, at least in theory the purpose of the conservative wing of American politics is to preserve social order and prosperity based in American tradition. Investment in technological progress and the STEMs along with a disproportionate number of patents and scientific achievements is a hallmark of the country, and it also generates prosperity which invigorates the American economy and allows it to remain competitive with more heavily industrialized and populous competitors like China.
They'll never have a harmonious relationship with science though, because novel technology is disruptive and both parties have degenerated to the point where they're more interested in status quo than their own supposed core values.

[Anonymous No.11801477]

>>11801469
>>11801455

[Anonymous No.11801478]

>>11801477
>Waste time studying the climate change meme instead of other planets like NASA was made to do

[Anonymous No.11801485]

>>11801477
I hate this.
>Ayo lets take our SPACE agency and use it to study Earth sciences!

[Anonymous No.11801488]

>>11801475
It has nothing to do with knowing anything. When you use subjective words like "high", that doesn't mean the same thing to every person. There is no objective frequency scale for flight rates like their is for radio bands. It's therefore fucking stupid to say "no that should be ultra mega high".

[Anonymous No.11801489]

>>11801439
I forgot that they messed up the camera veiw. the bottom two are the same. They fixed that in the youtube replay.

[Anonymous No.11801492]

>>11801452
Giant stacking bay for Superheavy coming soon.

[Anonymous No.11801496]

>>11801485
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958

DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE

Sec. 102. (c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:

(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

[Anonymous No.11801499]

>>11801488
>don't use vague words it's painful for me to work out meaning through context
You've been using vague wording this entire time, though.
>there is no objective frequency scale
You do realize industry data exists, right?

[Anonymous No.11801500]

>>11801478
>climate change waste of time
this really all depends, if the data collected is used for development of total human climate and weather control, it'll be all worth it
if they're gonna just prop the studies as some political victory trophy, then yeah, it was a waste

[Anonymous No.11801502]

>>11801492
Why is the big VAB leaning so much?

[Anonymous No.11801505]

>>11801502
Shitty video angle

[Anonymous No.11801506]

>>11801492
So I guess that would be the prototype stacc bay, full sized Starship stacc bay, Superheavy stacc bay. Interesting that they'll not stacc Starship and Superheavy in their own bay, I guess Starship will just be trucked out to Superheavy and slung ontop via crane with no dedicated bay.

[Anonymous No.11801507]

>>11801502
high winds

[Anonymous No.11801510]

>>11801500
>this really all depends, if the data collected is used for development of total human climate and weather control, it'll be all worth it

I’d really rather just move to Mars in fifty years instead of worrying about the ocean being a foot higher in the same amount of time.

[Anonymous No.11801511]

>>11801502
It was made by Bonanno Pisano.

[Anonymous No.11801513]

>>11801499
>You've been using vague wording this entire time, though.
Read, for fuck sake. I'm not attacking you for using vague words. I'm pointing out how stupid it is to try to be anal using these vague words.

>You do realize industry data exists, right?
And how does industry data define "high" from "very high"?

[Anonymous No.11801518]

>>11801455
Because science funding helps with U.S. military dominance, which is something espoused by conservatives. I thought this was common knowledge?

[Anonymous No.11801519]

>>11801496
>>11801478

[Anonymous No.11801522]

>>11801489
It was pretty confusing to see live, but then the camera angle showing both landing at almost the same time was cool as hell.

[Anonymous No.11801523]

>>11801513
>I'm not attacking you for using vague words.
Well, you're sure as shit not making any point worth the time to post it.
>And how does industry data define "high" from "very high"?
I used the words "high cadence" and "projected cadence". Projected cadence is objective, and you'd understand what I was talking about if you were familiar with the subject, but you don't follow spaceflight so much as look for arguments. High cadence is only vague if you don't understand what the standard of the industry is.

[Anonymous No.11801532]

>>11801523
>I used the words "high cadence" and "projected cadence".

The words I'm clearly referencing are "high cadence" vs "insanely high". Tell me how "high" and "insanely high" are defined by industry data.

[Anonymous No.11801536]

>>11801532
Re-read my fucking post because I said what I fucking said, I even clarified it for your retarded ass. Stop fucking posting you dumb cunt.

[Anonymous No.11801537]

>Saturn V using modern engineering and Methalox engines along modern avionics
Imagine...

[Anonymous No.11801539]

Goddamn these retards gettin' granular over here.

[Anonymous No.11801547]

>>11801537
Imagine the smell.

[Anonymous No.11801550]

>>11801536
You didn't answer it. In fact, you don't even seem to understand my point, again.

Exactly what cadence is "high" and what is "insanely high"? How are these defined by industry data?

[Anonymous No.11801551]

>>11801022
Falcon Heavy is more powerful.

[Anonymous No.11801552]

>>11801550
It must be hard to have both autism and a reading disorder.

[Anonymous No.11801560]

>>11801180
>20 years
We may or may not have starship in the way musk predicts. I suspect that SS is going to work, but it will mostly be used for cargo and tourism bc NASA is going to sperg out over safety concerns about reusing the crewed variants. Probably SS will be used as a dedicated crewed Mars ferry with refueling in LEO. BO will have their systems up by then and will probably focus on supporting telecommunications launches and orbital construction of commercial space stations. Lunar communications infrastructure might be a big payload provider at this point as the benefits of robotic construction/ resource extraction ahead of manned landings will be obvious by then. Spacex still doing their thing, and we might even have a small NASA + commercial Mars base with rotating crews. It's also possible we might not make it to Mars quite yet. We will have the Artemis program which may or may not be extended indefinitely via gateway, but I suspect there won't be many landings bc of costs. They will switch over to a focus on commercial development of permanent habitats on the surface using robotics and occasional maintenance missions

40 years is pointless to predict

[Anonymous No.11801561]

>>11801537
>a alternate reality where the saturn was never canceled and they improved on it over the decades.
Freedom station would be real and it would have skylab sized modules.

[Anonymous No.11801562]

>>11801552
If it's so objective just answer the fucking question.

It took more words to wave your hands saying "you don't understand" than it would take to give me a number.

[Anonymous No.11801567]

>>11801022
Delta IV Heavy is not powerful enough. Plus it cost 2-3x as much as Falcon Heavy.

[Anonymous No.11801569]

>>11801537
It would also be flared toward the base, like the N-1 or Nova, since the M1 rocket is much larger than it's F1 LOX/Kerosene counterpart.

[Anonymous No.11801570]

Jesus can you two jerk off in a discord or something, nobody wants to read you retards back-and-forth all thread.

[Anonymous No.11801580]

>>11800048
Tanegashima is aesthetic as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11801583]

>>11801567
It amazes that the Delta IV carries a small payload compared to its size. It still looks cool though.

[Anonymous No.11801588]

>>11801580
The US has our own fancy spaceports.

>>11801583
>It amazes that the Delta IV carries a small payload compared to its size.
That's hydrolox for you.

[Anonymous No.11801593]

>>11801583
>LH2/LOX in all stages
Was there ever any doubt the payload capacity would be shit?

[Anonymous No.11801597]

>>11801569
OH SAY CAN YOU SEE?

[Anonymous No.11801599]

>>11801588
It's a shame they never actually managed to finish the DARPA challenge.

[Anonymous No.11801600]

>>11801580
>>11801588
We should set up shop in an old equatorial or gulf of mexico oil rig and make it into a rocket launch pad/factory

[Anonymous No.11801601]

>>11801583
>It amazes that the Delta IV carries a small payload compared to its size.

It’s that fucking hydrolox

[Anonymous No.11801602]

>>11801180
>in 20 years?

>ISS replacement is finished, huge as fuck station with rotating habs, hydroponics labs, fuel depot and orbital shipyard.
>ESA&ROSCOSMOS&JAXA&NASA will all have stopped making rockets all together and buy flights from providers do to science with extra budget they saved by not making rockets anymore.
>spaceX will have competition from all over the world at this point but spaceX will be king because of the several decades of experience at this point.
>permanent moonbase, not self sufficient.
>several succesfull mars missions, plans to make a permanent base on hold until they can become self sufficient closer at home.
>NTR powered probes build in LEO that go on missions all over the solar system and bring back data&materials to research.
>a large deep space arena at the dark side of the moon.

Best case scenario if starship delivers what musk is promising.

[Anonymous No.11801603]

>>11801600
Sealand 2.0 space program when?

[Anonymous No.11801606]

>>11800644
No way in hell. Science funding across the board sucked under Obama, that isn't apathy.

[Anonymous No.11801607]

>>11800721
Ariane 5 launches 2+ large sats to GTO at once.
Indian poo rocket launches 1 small sat to LEO

[Anonymous No.11801608]

>>11801439
>whole purpose of the worm logo was to symbolize a new era of the industrialization and colonization of space
>finally brought it back for DM-2

We really are going to the stars.

[Anonymous No.11801609]

>>11801600
It's only a matter of time before bezos acquires one for BO

[Anonymous No.11801617]

>>11801609
We have plenty to choose from first, just need an expedition to one to claim it

[Anonymous No.11801652]

>>11801599
They're taking another shot at the rocket launch on July 20.

>>11801267
>NOOOO MY HECKIN' ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY!
>HOW WILL I GET REDDIT POINTS NOW!?

[Anonymous No.11801668]

>>11801652
astrophotography is cool though

[Anonymous No.11801670]

>>11801668
So is taking video of 400 fucking satellites deploying at once from a spaceship the size of a Saturn V.

[Anonymous No.11801671]

*Krillin death scream*

[Anonymous No.11801682]

>>11800742
Dude its India...

[Anonymous No.11801723]

>>11801293
You understand they are designing it around manufacture ability

[Anonymous No.11801749]

>>11799880
>SpaceX doesn't give a fuck about nonchemical propulsion
Anon they're deployed more electric propulsion systems into orbit than any other organization (every Starlink satellite uses krypton ion thrusters).

[Anonymous No.11801761]

>>11801749
It's not some meme propulsion system with a fan club, so that doesn't count.

[Anonymous No.11801808]

>>11801671
Is this the new alloy?

[Anonymous No.11801822]

>>11801808
Word on the street is that they’re using an element from the island of stability to confer preternatural levels of corrosion resistance.

[Anonymous No.11801837]

>>11801477
Funny that this starts at 10

[Anonymous No.11801849]

>>11801496
Planetary sciences helps earth sciences whereas earth sciences doesn't really help planetary sciences

[Anonymous No.11801852]

>>11801671
let's hope this one doesn't pop

[Anonymous No.11801856]

>>11801849
What? False

[Anonymous No.11801862]

>>11801849
Earth is a planet therefore the two should be merged

[Anonymous No.11801872]

>>11801560
You do understand that SpaceX's mars plan is independent of NASA. Sure starship won't be sending NASA crews soon but it'll sure as shit be sending crews

[Anonymous No.11801874]

imagine being a xenobiologist
what are they going to do when they find out there's no life in the solar system outside of Earth

[Anonymous No.11801877]

>>11801467
My guess would be it’s pretty much set in stone. Although NASA can still kick out one of the three finalists.
Keep in mind SpaceX didn’t get a TON of money, like they got a lot- but it wouldn’t kill them if NASA pulled out for political reasons. NASA only paid for like 10 months of development

[Anonymous No.11801882]

>>11801874
what if there is life in the solar system outside of earth

[Anonymous No.11801886]

>>11801862
>planetary sciences
>studies Pluto
Yikes sweaty. Let's unpack this

[Anonymous No.11801887]

>>11801882
you can't get a doctorate off of "what if"s

[Anonymous No.11801890]

>>11801882
I would hope it looks drastically different then what we’re used to on Earth. It would be cool if it weren’t DNA based.

[Anonymous No.11801899]

>>11799893
>>11799901
>>11799904
We need a dedicated plasma magnet sail discussion thread
>>11801868

[Anonymous No.11801905]

>>11801856
>>11801862
Maybe they should be merged. And yes my statement was somewhat objectively false as both help each other but what i am getting at is that a focus on planetary science can help us with earth science immediately whereas a focus on earth science(while still helpful to planetary science) postpones any planetary knowledge gains.

[Anonymous No.11801909]

>>11801852
If it pops there is a good chance that it is intentional.

[Anonymous No.11801915]

>>11801905
Yeah I’ll agree to that. When it comes to finding, NASA has recently been divided into “this or that....”
you either get funding for cool planetary missions, or those get canned so you can do shitty climate science and waste money on contractors building earth observation satellites. In reality Earth is just another planet and it should be lobbed into one big philosophy of “let’s explore all the planets”

[Anonymous No.11801917]

>>11801872
I think it's unlikely NASA doesn't get involved. plus they are the ones with all the experience with life support systems and space habitation

[Anonymous No.11801942]

>>11801917
Yes it is unlikely that NASA won't be involved but they won't be able to stand in the way. They may not send their own people until their standards are met but SpaceX will send people with NASAs help. I would say if anything NASA will figure out an expedited vetting process so they don't miss out on the opportunity. Elon is trying to get the colony set up before he dies because he knows when he dies that the incentive will disappear.

[Anonymous No.11801950]

>>11801915
I agree, however if they merged i would be worried that they put planetary exploration on the backburner.

[Anonymous No.11801957]

>>11801917
>what is leverage

[Anonymous No.11801970]

>>11801942
The colony isn't going to be set up by spacex alone. hell, i doubt spacex can afford a mars mission by themselves because life support systems etc. will have to be developed by NASA unless they can front those costs. It's just not within the reach of spacex to develop the plethora of things needed to make mars happen. a more realistic first mars mission is a special SS used as the mars ferry with an orion used to carry astronauts to LEO and then to the surface

[Anonymous No.11801985]

>>11801970
>life support systems etc. will have to be developed by NASA
Relying on NASA for that shit would be absolute suicide for the program. They'll dev it in house, they already have experience with life support systems.

[Anonymous No.11801996]

>>11801970
>>11801985
The only expensive thing would be the moxie system, everything else is pressure swing absorption to pull out the CO2 and something to condense the water vapor and a filter for smells

[Anonymous No.11802003]

>>11801985
>>11801996
I'm not saying NASA builds everything, but there will need to be a lot of collaboration between NASA and other commercial partners to make a mars colony viable. even a mars mission

[Anonymous No.11802024]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1272624978811187200
>will this tank be tested to destruction?
>yes

[Anonymous No.11802026]

>>11801996
>moxie
Why would they use that when they're splitting water anyway
>>11802003
"there will be collaborative effort" is a far cry from the original "we won't be on Mars in 20 years because SpX completely bent over for NASA"

[Anonymous No.11802029]

>>11802003
NASA is only good as a repository of data about space and planets, they contract companies to build shit for them
Science personnel would be a necessity but not to build shit as we have seen with oldspace

[Anonymous No.11802031]

>>11802024
>ha ha rocket test stand go boom

[Anonymous No.11802033]

>>11802026
Because CO2 is super plentiful everywhere in Mars so it would be reasonable to use that

[Anonymous No.11802036]

>>11801970
>i doubt spacex can afford a mars mission by themselves because life support systems etc.

Basic industrial equipment omg so expensive

[Anonymous No.11802042]

>>11801970
>It's just not within the reach of spacex to develop the plethora of things needed to make mars happen

Yes it is.

>>11802003
To make an expedition viable, NASA must be cut out.

[Anonymous No.11802045]

>>11801970
>It's just not within the reach of spacex to develop the plethora of things needed to make mars happen.
If you believe this then you haven't been paying attention.

[Anonymous No.11802047]

>>11802033
Water is plentiful on Mars too, and the mission architecture wouldn't be possible without a good source of it. If it's a significant expense there's no real reason to pursue it

[Anonymous No.11802051]

SN7 CONFIRMED TO GO BOOM WATCH NOW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NMRn-2h8X8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NMRn-2h8X8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NMRn-2h8X8

[Anonymous No.11802053]

>>11802036
basic industrial equipment doesn't work in space

[Anonymous No.11802057]

>>11802036
the R&D and testing is the expensive part

[Anonymous No.11802058]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/the-us-military-is-getting-serious-about-nuclear-thermal-propulsion/

Is this a meme? Seems almost too good to be true..

[Anonymous No.11802060]

>>11802051
>ELON AKBAR!

[Anonymous No.11802061]

>>11802003
>but there will need to be a lot of collaboration between NASA and other commercial partners to make a mars colony viable
That isn't limiting though, spacex will absolutely start a colony with or without help and the others will come willingly

[Anonymous No.11802068]

>>11802051
SHE CANNAE TAKE THE PRESSURE CAP'N, SHE'S GOING TO BLOW!

[Anonymous No.11802069]

>>11800857

Why nuclear thermal? Just go straight to Orion...

[Anonymous No.11802071]

>>11802069
Nuclear thermal works with low-enriched uranium which means it might be feasible to put on private spacecraft or colonies.

[Anonymous No.11802072]

>>11802058

Sorry, meant to post this link:

https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2017/12/29/the-plasma-magnet-drive-a-simple-cheap-drive-for-the-solar-system-and-beyond/

But nuclear is cool too..

[Anonymous No.11802073]

>>11802069
God I wish
I think Orion is going to have to wait for an independent Mars to be developed

[Anonymous No.11802074]

>>11802053
SpaceX knows how to design life support systems. Dragon 2 exists.

>>11802057
>R&D they already did

[Anonymous No.11802076]

>>11802068
SHE’S TAKIN’ QUOIT A WALLOP CAP’N

[Anonymous No.11802077]

>>11802069
>Orion
Daedalus or bust

[Anonymous No.11802078]

>>11802051
Its whiter than i am

[Anonymous No.11802084]

>>11802072
Yes, it's legit. The thread up about it is based on /sfg/ discussion from yesterday.

[Anonymous No.11802086]

>>11802057
It really doesn't matter how expensive it is, it will still be financially more efficient in the long run to put in the investment than rely on NASA. Just imagine you have an SS program fully ready to go but it relies on one part that is produced at SLS-tier pricing and periodicity. Suddenly that one part makes the whole program 100 times more expensive and time consuming.

[Anonymous No.11802089]

>>11802073
Antimatter bomb Orion when

[Anonymous No.11802092]

What do people like the nasaspaceflight guys and gals actually do as a day job? Are they just freelancers who live in hotels at boca chica?

[Anonymous No.11802096]

>>11802074
>R&D they already did
a 4-person capsule doesn't scale up to a 100+ person Martian settlement, anon

[Anonymous No.11802100]

>>11802024

[Anonymous No.11802104]

what's even the point of this cam is the heat distortion is this bad

[Anonymous No.11802106]

>>11802096
the settlement is the easy part for life support tho

[Anonymous No.11802109]

>>11802104
implying labpadre's rolling shutter abomination is any better

[Anonymous No.11802112]

>>11802100
Perfect. Post yfw this thing pops

[Anonymous No.11802116]

>>11802074
>comparing a LEO rated capsule to a massive spacecraft of a never before seen scale
life support systems don't scale that easily btw. it's going to be billions in R&D alone to build any sort of mars transport, whether it's crew starship or anything else. if you think life support systems and waste management are simple you are deluded

[Anonymous No.11802117]

>>11802104
I got a clear one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37CTuEfWhOA

[Anonymous No.11802118]

>>11802096
>a 4-person capsule doesn't scale up to a 100+ person Martian settlement, anon

You’re right; it gets much easier because you can just construct a 100 ton MOXIE and plop it on the ground and let it fill up big ass oxygen tanks, or use the poorly understood and rarely seen organisms known as Cyanobacteria, algae, and plants.

[Anonymous No.11802121]

>>11802096
>implying a company that will have almost unlimited funding and life support experience won't be able to figure out large life support systems.

[Anonymous No.11802122]

What even are the points of these tests? I mean don’t get me wrong I understand they’re going for pressure testing different welds and designs and stuff... but how will that manifest into the final starship? Are they building stainless steel fuel tanks inside a stainless steel ship?

[Anonymous No.11802124]

>>11802116
>Muh billions of R&D to make some gas

Okay Boeing

[Anonymous No.11802125]

>>11802109
>>11802104
actually it is he must have fixed it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QbM7Vsz3kg

[Anonymous No.11802128]

>>11802117
Awesome thanks anon

[Anonymous No.11802131]

>>11802122
They're testing the new alloy. Makes sense to have a test tank to find weak points (which they already have for this tank per EM) rather than blow up another full scale starship.

[Anonymous No.11802133]

>>11802122
I thought that was the case, they want to know the upper limit of the design. Same thing as when the big orange SLS tank popped some months back.

[Anonymous No.11802134]

>>11802122
The ship and the tanks are the same thing, anon
The point of this particular test is to test the new in-house stainless formula that they want to use going forward

[Anonymous No.11802138]

>>11802134
> new in house formula
This isn't 30X, this is 304L. 30X is supposed to be ready by the end of the year.

[Anonymous No.11802142]

>>11802122
>Are they building stainless steel fuel tanks inside a stainless steel ship?
Yes. Starship is basically a series of stainless steel tanks, a bunch of engines, a thin skin, and support structures.

[Anonymous No.11802145]

>>11802138
Huh. Okay, I'm confused as well then, because that was what I'd been reading about the new tank. I guess 304L is closer to what they want to switch to than the current steel?

[Anonymous No.11802156]

>>11802122
the main premise behind a test like this is to stop dumb engineers from pointing out and trying to fix "weaknesses" in the design when they don't need to. Test it until you break it prevents over-engineering which is the real problem with oldspace and NASA.

[Anonymous No.11802159]

>>11802122
They are testing the new type of welds the new type of steel and those tank domes which will be a part of the internal structure I'm pretty sure. Honestly this is more important than the normal testing because the full size starship wont need to test as many limits.

[Anonymous No.11802167]

>>11802122
>>11802142
>Yes. Starship is basically a series of stainless steel tanks, a bunch of engines, a thin skin, and support structures.

The walls of the tanks are the walls of the starship, to eliminate confusion >>11802134 said it best

[Anonymous No.11802174]

>The tank is BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPING

[Anonymous No.11802182]

>>11802174
When did this meme become farting? It used to be spanking at the beginning.

[Anonymous No.11802183]

ha ha SN7 go pop

[Anonymous No.11802191]

>>11802182
it has been a mix of braping and "elon 420 blaze it" for a while now.

[Anonymous No.11802192]

>>11802182
>farting
>spanking
I know what I see.

[Anonymous No.11802193]

anon-san I--I'm gonnaa... VEEEEENNNNNTTTTTT

[Anonymous No.11802194]

>>11802191
Ah i see

[Anonymous No.11802197]

bubble bubble toil and trouble

[Anonymous No.11802200]

it poped?

[Anonymous No.11802202]

Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!

[Anonymous No.11802206]

>>11802200
It looks like less of a pop and more of split that let out pressure more slowly than instantly.

[Anonymous No.11802207]

>>11802200
Idk it seems like it

[Anonymous No.11802208]

>>11802202
Maybe they didnt even get the presure high enough for a big pop.
now that would be a massive failure.

[Anonymous No.11802209]

>>11802202
I guess the vent failed. She's still standing.

[Anonymous No.11802212]

Is it leaking out of the top or side? It's hard to see but it doesn't look too damaged.

[Anonymous No.11802214]

Will super heavy always land on land and not drone ships?
Have they said specifically what about the design or both starship and super heavy that allows them to refly with no refurbishment?
Like why will super heavy be able to go again immediately when the falcon 9 booster takes several weeks?

[Anonymous No.11802217]

>>11802212
It's either leaking out of the top or the ground equipment failed first

[Anonymous No.11802221]

>>11802212
Top. I've been watching 2 angles and it looks like something on the top started to fail. Like the vent regulator gave out and let the pressure dump.

[Anonymous No.11802223]

>>11802214
whe dont now, no, we dont now.

[Anonymous No.11802231]

Uh, how much gas is in there it's been leaking for a long-ass time. Aren't they gonna shut the hose off or whatever?

[Anonymous No.11802233]

Hah, its still standing. Doesn't look like the walls failed, something else did

[Anonymous No.11802234]

Oh hey there it is, cool.

[Anonymous No.11802237]

She cannot be killed

[Anonymous No.11802247]

THAR SHE BLOWS

[Anonymous No.11802252]

haha tank go fwsshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Anonymous No.11802253]

Upper bulkhead weld failed.
SN7 is kill.

[Anonymous No.11802255]

>>11802252
Yep, its dead

[Anonymous No.11802258]

>>11802231
They might be able to continue some testing.

[Anonymous No.11802264]

>>11802258
Get the weasel to finally pop?

[Anonymous No.11802265]

>>11802252
Top confirmed
>>11802253
They always struggle with the domes

[Anonymous No.11802275]

>>11802265
EM said they've found out the weakpoints of SN7 and the next test tank (SN8 I suppose?) has those adressed.

[Anonymous No.11802277]

>>11802275
Thats honestly really good. I hope that means we hop SN5 SOON

[Anonymous No.11802280]

>>11801180
look at what happened between the years 2000 and 2020
we won't be very far, maybe humans will go to the moon again, maybe a base? but thats asking too much

[Anonymous No.11802284]

GSE failure? This seems bad.
>>11802277
HOP WHEN?

[Anonymous No.11802285]

>>11802280
I almost envy this degree of ignorance. Imagine thinking this and SpaceX just makes a fuckin mars base. You'd think it's magic.

[Anonymous No.11802296]

>>11802284
>GSE failure
The tank failed successfully, it's just got a lot left to vent, probably.

[Anonymous No.11802300]

>>11801220
this is one of the only realistic comments, all the other anons are too young to remember that in the year 2000 people were as optimistic as them now

[Anonymous No.11802306]

>>11802296
Oh wait, self reply, nvm I see the bit you mean. Yeah, could be? Or maybe they're just bleeding off.

[Anonymous No.11802311]

>>11802300
I remember the early 2000s, I just knew better than you back then. You bought a meme because you have poor judgment and now you think everything is the same because you still have poor judgment.

[Anonymous No.11802321]

>>11802300
Commercial Space is the difference. Even IF SS fails. Like stops existing, FH and New Glenn are there. Too many players, and they have institutional backing with NASA and DoD now.

[Anonymous No.11802330]

>>11802300
Sojourner to Perseverance isn't anything to sneeze at, nor is the development of reusable rocketry and the commercialization of cargo and crew flights.
If you don't think things are changing you've not paid enough attention.

[Anonymous No.11802331]

>>11800951
You can go much faster with less fuel but they have awful TWR so it's pretty much only good in space. Though Timberwinds had about 30 twr,that's less than a 5th of the Raptor.

[Anonymous No.11802335]

>>11801970
absolutely right

[Anonymous No.11802336]

>>11802321
Didnt the DoD / Air Force start having talks with Elon?

[Anonymous No.11802339]

>>11801036
Wouldn't Methane give it much more thrust though? You could pump out over 80 tw/r with a Methalox NTR (per engine).

[Anonymous No.11802350]

>>11802339
You seem confused.

[Anonymous No.11802353]

>>11802336
Yes, they're very interested in both Starlink and Starship.

[Anonymous No.11802366]

>>11802321
>>11802330
>>11802311
this cope is so good, your salt is truely appreciated
I'll enjoy seeing you seethe and be depressed at the realisation that we realistic anons were right.
We'll get to Mars, eventually, (think project Orion), but it will be late in our lifetimes.
We could have been on Mars right now if 70 years ago we hadn't ditched nuclear propulsion.

Keep seething

[Anonymous No.11802370]

>>11802366
>Mass reply
>cope
>salt
>seethe
Lol

[Anonymous No.11802373]

>>11802366
>having hope for the future based on a rational assessment of the current state of the industry
>cope seethe seethe cope cope cope cope seethe
Yes you've convinced me, doom is upon us, truly

[Anonymous No.11802377]

>>11802366
>cope seethe
Add a 'tranny' in there too why don't you

[Anonymous No.11802384]

Probably shared already, but interview with BIG JIM
https://offnominal.space/episodes/origins-jim-bridenstine

[Anonymous No.11802396]

>>11802370
>>11802373
>>11802377
dilate and go back to discord silly trains

[Anonymous No.11802397]

>>11802396
haha he said the line

[Anonymous No.11802400]

I don’t think being skeptical of starship is bad. We’ve had a lot of “the future of spaceflight will forever be different” in the past, and it hasn’t added up. Shuttle being the shining example.
None of us believed in falcon 9, yet elon delivered. Starship has the POTENTIAL to continue this trend and show us low cost, low launch, multiple flights per day... but he will have to push his company to max production or he won’t be flying 10 launches a day and it will just end up being a low cost heavy transport vehicle that does a cargo mission maybe 2 times a month
INB4
>Whaaaaaaat Elon is pumping out starships like crazy bc welded water towers are obvious the same thing as an entire spaceship

[Anonymous No.11802410]

gemini when

[Anonymous No.11802414]

>>11802400
This is reasonable. I just don't like that other anon because he's obviously baiting. We've gotta be patient

[Anonymous No.11802415]

>>11802400
>If it doesn't do 10 launches a day, it will achieve max 2 launches per month
The problem isn't that being skeptical of Starship is bad. I post cautiously when I see something I consider overly optimistic, like taking Elon's timelines for granted when we know they are aspirational and tend to slip. The problem is 99% of the "skeptical" posts have no logical backing whatsoever, like yours, and when pushed they devolve into pointless pedantry or insane doomerism.

[Anonymous No.11802417]

big gemini when?

[Anonymous No.11802418]

Spooky propellant depots!

[Anonymous No.11802419]

>>11802400
the thing with starship is that even if it's orders of magnitude worse than what was promised in every single category (price, capacity, production, reusability), it's still revolutionary. It has to completely fail and be abandoned for it to be "a failure" and I just don't see that happening.

[Anonymous No.11802420]

DARPA wants a flyable nuclear-thermal rocket by 2025.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/the-us-military-is-getting-serious-about-nuclear-thermal-propulsion/

[Anonymous No.11802427]

>>11802420
I hope this finally means throwing out the OST for good in favor of a more generic arms proliferation treaty

[Anonymous No.11802431]

I want my McPlutonium

[Anonymous No.11802433]

>>11802427
Or we could just build an orbital defense network and say "new treaty: you do what we say or we drop nukes on your cities." Erasing Beijing would be a great day for humanity.

[Anonymous No.11802437]

>>11802117
Blurry shit.

>>11802125
Laggy shit

[Anonymous No.11802439]

>>11802400
It's fine being skeptical of Starship. There are lots of doubts to be had on the initial and final prices of launches, the exact payload capacity, what year it'll start flying, what unforeseen challenges that might come up, and other things. Starship is a type of vehicle of which only one other example was flown, the Shuttle. It's reasonable to be worried about the development of Starship and wanting to encourage discussion to figure out why we should be confident in it.

What isn't fine is spreading FUD about it under the guise of being skeptical, and then throwing a fit when called out for it.

[Anonymous No.11802442]

>>11802420
Yup, and if anyone here does stocks, buy BWXT. They're working on Kilopower too. They turn weapons grade uranium into civilian grade.

[Anonymous No.11802455]

>>11802400
>Shuttle being the shining example.

Why is something born out of a shitty bureaucratic political culture a shining example? Nasa saying aspirational bullshit while doing the same old thing has nothing to do with spacex's outcomes.

[Anonymous No.11802458]

>>11802437
Its such a travesty that we can't even get a decent shot of tests. Blurry shit like 20/100 vision or someone being spastic with video camera and pausing the video every few seconds .

[Anonymous No.11802460]

>>11801423
Install the rescale. 10x the scale and it's sufficiently realistic. And burning off 7 km/s after transfer is completely impossible for at least 20 years if not more. Not even NTRs could manage that.

[Anonymous No.11802462]

>>11802420
I wonder if the anon that constantly throws a fit when somebody brings up NTR propulsion in /sfg/ has read this.
His tears must be delicious right about now.

[Anonymous No.11802463]

>>11802437
The first one is far superior to the others, objectively

[Anonymous No.11802471]

>>11802463

[Anonymous No.11802482]

this random guy just got 3 CEOs of orbital rocket launch companies to reply to him

[Anonymous No.11802483]

>>11801583
Why is it called the Delta IV?
Because Hydrolox does not deliver upon its promised delta-v.

[Anonymous No.11802487]

>>11802339
Methane in an NTR still doesn't give you nearly the TWR of a Raptor.

[Anonymous No.11802490]

>>11802462
You're wasting your time. There's no material on earth that can withstand the temperatures needed for efficiency.

[Anonymous No.11802492]

>As part of the in-flight medical experiments, the crew were required to collect and save some of their bodily wastes for post-flight analysis, a task they described as less-than-enjoyable. The urine collection device proved particularly difficult and unpleasant to use, especially because of its habit of leaking urine, which happened several times during the flight.

[Anonymous No.11802493]

>>11802400
>just end up being a low cost heavy transport vehicle that does a cargo mission maybe 2 times a month
Even this would be worth getting super fucking hyped about.

[Anonymous No.11802494]

>>11802482
Even ULA? Wut.

[Anonymous No.11802498]

>>11802483

[Anonymous No.11802502]

>>11802494
Yeah, not surprised about Elon, he loves this stuff, and peter breck too, but ULA ceo surprised me.

[Anonymous No.11802506]

>>11802482
If I were him I'd go to a bar and cash that check for free pussy right now

[Anonymous No.11802507]

>>11802490
I get that this is a joke but it's also why I prefer >why contain it engines like Orion
NTR is okay though

[Anonymous No.11802509]

>>11802494
What do you mean by even ULA? Tory Bruno is very active on social media. He even comments in r/SpaceXMasterrace (can't wait for the "hurr durr, go back to plebbit faggot")

[Anonymous No.11802510]

>>11802350
How so? A methane NTR could very easily land and take off, and a 500 ton payload won't fit inside any reasonable rocket with a diameter <10 meters.

[Anonymous No.11802511]

>>11802502
ULA CEO looks like he wants to join in on Elon's moment of shine to highlight his own company. Do you remember the CEO before him? He was terrible. There was a video of him/elon at congressional to represent their own side of the company. Elon trashed the previous ULA ceo that he quit/was fired right afterwards.

[Anonymous No.11802513]

>>11802502
Tory comments on reddit all the time and even on spaceXmasterrace
Yes I'm outing myself as a dirty reddit fag, you won't be able to tell if I'm here or not in the future

[Anonymous No.11802514]

>>11802280
>t:retard
Do you understand that the majority of R&D for spacex is done now? Or that with trump in office NASA is actually getting funding? Thinking that 20 years will equate to nothing is the most ignorant position you could have with our current information.

[Anonymous No.11802515]

>>11802509
what does he say

[Anonymous No.11802520]

Update on SN7.

[Anonymous No.11802522]

>>11802510
>a 500 ton payload won't fit inside any reasonable rocket with a diameter <10 meters
Depends on the payload. The transition to cheap and reusable launch vehicles will spur the development of on-orbit fabrication technologies necessary to allow us to build shit out of sheet metal and wire delivered in large spools.

[Anonymous No.11802523]

>>11802510
One, because you said methalox NTR and that's kind of nonsensical. You can combust NTR exhaust ala LANTR but that only gets you to ~9TWR and it's no longer methane at that point. Two, that (with the accompanying ISP hit) is the highest TWR you're gonna see out of NTR - less than an eighth of your projection.

[Anonymous No.11802524]

>>11802511
My bad, my memory isn't what it used to be.

>https://www.geekwire.com/2016/ula-exec-resigns-after-making-controversial-comments-about-blue-origin-spacex-and-aerojet-rocketdyne/

[Anonymous No.11802525]

>>11802487
You don't need much TWR if you have a booster that can get you on a decent suborbital. And doubling the ISP would let it fly to Mars more often anyways.

[Anonymous No.11802527]

>>11802366
Nice bait

[Anonymous No.11802526]

>>11802520
Holy shit, so the metal resisted being ripped even once there was enough pressure to force open a hole in the steel? That's great.

[Anonymous No.11802530]

>>11802523
Timberwinds had about 30 twr, and i prefer Hydrogen NTR's,i'm just replying to the original question.

[Anonymous No.11802534]

>>11802515
See it for yourself. u/ToryBruno

[Anonymous No.11802535]

>>11800943
>two solid rocket boosters
>for artemis missions
>missions
>plural
Yeah, no.

[Anonymous No.11802539]

>>11802526
I love that Elon is so completely transparent about this stuff until it gets to shit like proprietary alloys. It helps narrow the research space for other people making big rockets.

[Anonymous No.11802541]

>>11802522
Idk man you aren't going to launch a solid lump of steel to LEO, but NTRs are really only worth it for interplanetary anyways,Methalox will still dominate for LEO,GEO.

[Anonymous No.11802544]

>>11802525
You need significant engine TWR to be able to land propulsively.

[Anonymous No.11802547]

>>11802541
>Idk man you aren't going to launch a solid lump of steel to LEO
Why not?

[Anonymous No.11802548]

>>11802534
I think he recognizes the irony of SLS.

[Anonymous No.11802549]

>>11802539
Not just being transparent, but he's being extra clear on most of his word choice too so that even amateurs can understand the basics. He implemented the policy of avoiding all jargons because it just alienates those who aren't in the industry, not those who are rocket engineers. The mandate comes top down from Elon to everyone in his companies. No jargons. Use common words if possible so everyone who isn't strictly in the specific field can understand what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.11802551]

>>11802520
Is 7.5 bar for SN4 the maximum pressure reached in previous tests?

[Anonymous No.11802553]

>>11802530
I doubt test stand NTR numbers are taking into account what a final engine would demand (radiators and shielding for example). Maybe I'm wrong though.

[Anonymous No.11802554]

>>11802400
Comparing the shuttle is apples to oranges. Starship is purposefully designed to be simple and easy to manufacture. The design itself is very similar to falcon. Even if it ends up being mostly a failure it will still be revolutionary and if its a total failure falcon heavy will still push us faster than we would have

[Anonymous No.11802556]

>>11802549
In some sense that methodology reminds me of Feynman's way of understanding things. Something about how your PhD thesis must be a explainable to a 12 year old child. If you can't dumb it down enough like that, then you don't understand it yourself. Also reminds me bit of Dr. Seuss choosing to limit himself to 50 simple words so everyone can understand his stuff.

[Anonymous No.11802559]

>>11802551
Yes.

>>11802553
All the TWR calculations for NTRs assume radiator mass and other stuff. That's why the Serpent NTR-Arcjet looks so good, they're using low-mass heat exchangers.

[Anonymous No.11802561]

>>11802442
Fuck thats kind of expensive for my normal purchase

[Anonymous No.11802562]

>>11802544
1.1 TWR is more than enough,and the TWR will be better on arrival to target due to burning off fuel.
But propulsive landing wouldn't be useful on Earth, Mars is great for NTR's and so is every Satelite in the solar system.
TWR of NTR's is only important for Earth take offs, which is why you'd use a booster.

[Anonymous No.11802577]

>>11802559
1300 ISP and 2MN thrust...
This kills the Orion,we're talking manned to Jupiter,perhaps even Saturn here.

[Anonymous No.11802583]

>>11802577
>This kills the Orion,we're talking manned to Jupiter,perhaps even Saturn here.
If you use a plasma-magnet sail to accelerate away from the sun and capture at your destination, you can save all the NTR propellant for the trip home. There's your manned mission to Triton.

[Anonymous No.11802602]

laser propulsion when
microwave propulsion when

[Anonymous No.11802604]

>>11802400
Good post

> but he will have to push his company to max production or he won’t be flying 10 launches a day and it will just end up being a low cost heavy transport vehicle that does a cargo mission maybe 2 times a month
this still isn't a bad outcome necessarily

[Anonymous No.11802607]

What should the next edition be? I'm thinking either Snap Crackle Pop or a random spacecraft.

[Anonymous No.11802611]

>>11802607
gemini

[Anonymous No.11802613]

>>11802577
Orion still gets like 3 times the ISP at a useful level of thrust, you'd come out ahead even carrying dedicated landing craft

[Anonymous No.11802616]

>>11802556
and thats obviously bullshit no 12 year old can understand a physics phd thesis
faggot

[Anonymous No.11802636]

>>11802607
Use the art from the Ars Technica NTR piece.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/06/the-us-military-is-getting-serious-about-nuclear-thermal-propulsion/

[Anonymous No.11802639]

>>11802482
>Peter Beck not verified
ngmi

[Anonymous No.11802642]

>you will never get to yeeehaw on an agena in orbit

[Anonymous No.11802645]

>>11802616
Reading comprehension issue

[Anonymous No.11802654]

>>11800364
but then it weighs too much :(

[Anonymous No.11802658]

>>11802654
make a bigger rocket too

[Anonymous No.11802659]

>>11802583
Redpill me on these, what tech do we need,how expensive and so on?

[Anonymous No.11802670]

>>11802659
The basic setup is a small arrangement of magnets that's already been demonstrated to work in a lab. No new physics required, only the funding to put a bunch of smallsats out past the moon to test them. You can read back a couple of /sfg/ threads for more details or check out the dedicated thread.

>>11801868

[Anonymous No.11802683]

>>11802112
Why do you keep posting that woman. I sincerely want to know

[Anonymous No.11802687]

>>11802611
>>11802636
If only there was an NTR Gemini concept.

[Anonymous No.11802688]

>Elon won't make it and space bad comments are back and greater than ever.
Fuck I'd love to be a paid shill bet those checks are fat AF.

[Anonymous No.11802690]

>>11802554
I honestly doubt there's any way Starship could be a complete failure, the worst failure scenario it could practically end up falling into would be that of a 100+ ton launch vehicle that is not reusable, costs ~$200 million, and is relatively fast to manufacture (ie they can roll a complete stack off the pad every couple months). This would still be a success in the modern launch industry, in fact if you went back to 2010 and told people SpaceX was building what I described above they'd probably call it a revolutionary launch vehicle. The Military would certainly be interested in buying 'failed' Starships, because it'd give them access to far greater capabilities in space for far less cost.

[Anonymous No.11802691]

>>11802645
>Something about how your PhD thesis must be a explainable to a 12 year old child.
You indeed do have one.

[Anonymous No.11802708]

>>11802691
In no part is there a statement about how a 12 year old must understand PhD thesis. Again, reading comprehension issue.

[Anonymous No.11802715]

>>11802577
>1300 ISP and 2MN thrust...
>This kills the Orion
Dude, Orion could give you whatever thrust you wanted (GN if you went big enough, MN scale is probably more practical in any real world scenario though), and I've never heard of any Orion pulse drive that got an Isp of less than 10,000 seconds. That figure by the way would be for the minimum-optimized Orion drive, which uses spherical warheads instead of shaped charges and no neutron-absorbing propellant mass (propulsion nukes generally were baselined as shaped fission charges that dumped a significant portion of both the x-ray energy and the neutron flux energy into a dense metal like tungsten, producing a near-relativistic jet of heavy plasma that would strike the pusher plate from a distance of a few kilometers).

[Anonymous No.11802719]

>>11802688
Nah it's all outsourced to india now.

[Anonymous No.11802722]

>>11802688
Its just butthurt libtards and conservatards still butthurt about covid/fascism and solar/ev, respectively.

[Anonymous No.11802725]

>>11802602
>laser propulsion when
Once we have the capacity for building large laser arrays in space, and any use for such high-investment infrastructure
>microwave propulsion when
Once we have lots of outposts and colonies in the asteroid belt and want to be able to beam power to thermal propulsion systems pushing rocks around to maneuver valuable objects nearer to pre-existing industrial complexes.

[Anonymous No.11802736]

>>11802708
>PhD thesis must be a explainable

[Anonymous No.11802739]

>>11802414
>>11802415
>>11802419
>>11802439
>>11802455
>>11802493
>>11802554
>>11802604
Thank y'all for being reasonable. Obviously I don't want Starship to fail. I want to see the future Elon is pushing for. I'm just going to be bummed out if it underwhelms us and I see a lot of over optimistic posts on /sfg/. But I just bought some whiskey so I'll have a drink to y'all and to the future of spaceflight.
I hope Elon really pushes the boundaries and there will be a future /sfg/ meetup on Mars to push the boundaries of autism

[Anonymous No.11802750]

which will come first, starship making it to orbit or ksp2 being released

[Anonymous No.11802757]

>>11802750
SS

[Anonymous No.11802759]

>>11802750
With the dev drama that went on and how the scope of the game has expanded probably starship.

[Anonymous No.11802762]

>>11802750
Starship's going smoother than KSP2 at the moment
>hasn't pretty much everything exploded so far
Yes

[Anonymous No.11802779]

> Full system n-body gravity is, of course, not planned for KSP2, as it would be overly compute intensive and also require complex station keeping on all vessels in orbit that, we feel, distracts from the fun of the game.
dude
just fucking do what coade does, make station keeping a toggle that automatically maintains your orbit as long as there's fuel left unless you want to turn it off for some sick perturbation moves

[Anonymous No.11802780]

>>11802715
Sure,but you could actually build the NTRArcjet without every single secret service in the world ant-manning your asshole.
Besides, the Orion would be far more complex.
A Orion drive + Casaba propellant though...

[Anonymous No.11802784]

>>11802750
Hard to say. Maybe SS given the sudden change in KSP2 development.

[Anonymous No.11802788]

>>11802780
Orion doesn't really have a problem with complexity, it's just scale and political willpower. Although those are enough to keep it shelved for some time. desu you can say the same about any NTR launcher though, NTR is best off-planet just like Orion

[Anonymous No.11802789]

>>11802779
>as it would be overly compute intensive

[Anonymous No.11802797]

>>11802789
works on coade :)
works on fucking ksp with the nbody mod, except for ui and controls being a clusterfuck because the game was designed for patched conics :)

[Anonymous No.11802798]

Stop saying NTR you weirdos. Come up with a better term.

[Anonymous No.11802799]

>>11802736
Are you confused by what explainable means?

[Anonymous No.11802801]

>>11802513
A lot of us are probably plebbitors, just not the ones who spam about trannies having rights
>that one (((anon))) spewing about (((femboy hooters)))

[Anonymous No.11802803]

>>11802799
being explained

[Anonymous No.11802805]

>>11802798
What? Why?

[Anonymous No.11802808]

>>11802798
>not having NTR fetish

[Anonymous No.11802810]

>>11802801
>((()))

How ironic considering that a lot of trannies and femboys are right-wing/racist

[Anonymous No.11802814]

>>11802509
Going on reddit doesn't matter if you aren't a redditor. Thats kind of the point, we are 4chan, you conform to 4chan culture or get shit on.

[Anonymous No.11802818]

>>11802482
Lol, Indian Bots 1 CEOs 0

[Anonymous No.11802819]

>>11802805
also means netorare which is japanese for cuckolding.

[Anonymous No.11802820]

>>11802798
Nuclear Fart Rocket.

[Anonymous No.11802821]

>>11802798
Atomic rockets.

[Anonymous No.11802826]

>>11802819
Well I didn't know that, seems like anon is the weirdo here.

[Anonymous No.11802828]

>>11802810
It's all lies. Most of them are alt-right, just a bunch of LARPers like Antifa, only slightly less stupid.

[Anonymous No.11802830]

>>11802826
Agreed. Everyone with half a brain likes NTR anyway.

[Anonymous No.11802832]

>>11802797
Fair enough then

[Anonymous No.11802834]

>>11802830
I'm more into chemical and NPP but I'll fuck >>11802798's wife

[Anonymous No.11802835]

How exactly NTR transport work? I'm not talking about the jewpanese term by the way.

[Anonymous No.11802852]

>>11802683
>woman

[Anonymous No.11802855]

>>11802835
>functionally
Vent reactor coolant instead of utilizing it, now it's propellant. Gets better than chemical ISP while retaining usable thrust.
>infrastructurally
Basically just fills the niche of chem engines while being better but unsuited for Earth launch/land.

[Anonymous No.11802857]

post good ideas

[Anonymous No.11802862]

>>11802855
The main advantage for orbit-only spacecraft is as bimodal - you accelerate into your transfer orbit, switch off the open exhaust cycle and turn on a closed electricity generation cycle, and then you aren't stuck hauling a gorillion solar panels around for energy.

[Anonymous No.11802866]

>>11802857

[Anonymous No.11802869]

>>11802857

[Anonymous No.11802876]

>>11802866
>>11802869
Based

[Anonymous No.11802877]

>>11802739
Explanation of that picture you posted? I don't know what PC 1 or GRS are, but the colors seem to correlate to the Mars dichotomy

[Anonymous No.11802881]

>>11800486
The launch scheduled for a few hours from now has been delayed
>The Long March 3B carrier rocket, which launched Beidou-3’s last global networking satellite, found technical problems with the product during the pre-launch test. The launch mission was postponed and the launch time was to be determined.

[Anonymous No.11802889]

>>11802862
Yeah, Bimodal NTRs make particular sense as, say, workhorses with the gas giants' moon systems and slowboats to/between outer planets. For a main transit line I think you'd want something faster, but you'd still want reactors on board so you'd probably carry bimodal NTRs as terminal ferries probably.

[Anonymous No.11802911]

why did nature shape dicks like rockets?

[Anonymous No.11802916]

>>11802911
rockets work best with long, hard thrusts

[Anonymous No.11802917]

>>11802857

[Anonymous No.11802919]

>>11802780
Orion is as complex as a large vending machine combined with a large hydraulic shock absorber. The most complex bit is the fuel fabrication, since you're actually talking about needing several thousand ~30 kg nukes roughly the size of a scuba tank, which will require a very high capacity factory working with a lot of fissile material efficiently and safely.

For these reasons it will probably make more sense in pretty much every scenario to use a microfission nuclear pulse rocket instead of Orion, because instead of self-contained nukes you're only needing to manufacture fuel pellets of a few dozen grams at most, which never form a critical mass even when piles together in the millions, and which undergo fission inside the rocket after being crushed by electromagnetic fields while simultaneously being hit with a neutron beam. The result is a propulsion system that produces less thrust and requires more thermal management, but importantly retains the high Isp performance (and in fact increases Isp compared to Orion, up to as much as >100,000 seconds), while also offering much smoother acceleration (the detonations would be occurring with a frequency of 60 Hz or so, possibly more) and the ability to conserve nuclear propellant by adding additional mass flow in cheap, readily available propellants like water (shuttling back and forth between several icy moons for example could be done a few dozen times on nuclear pellets alone, or hundreds of times using water reaction mass heated by pellet detonations, with the water tank being refilled at every stopping point).

[Anonymous No.11802921]

>>11802877
It's an interpretation using multiple datasets: Data from chemical mapping (Mars Odyssey Gamma-Ray Spectrometer) and Dust Cover Index (DCI, thermal properties inferred from IR emission spectra) can be combined to study bulk soil processes.
The TL:DR is that you combine multiple datasets to form what is called a PCA (Principal Component Analysis) to see the relationship between composition and topography on Mars. We had to do a lot of PCA when studying our landing site for Perseverance

[Anonymous No.11802922]

>>11802889
>For a main transit line I think you'd want something faster,
Plasma magnet sail! There's your long haul propulsion for less than 1mt of mass budget! You just need beamed power or a mass driver to move sunward.

[Anonymous No.11802926]

>>11802798
I don't know man, it's a thermal rocket, and its thermal power source is nuclear reactions. Nuclear Thermal Rocket. What can you come up with?

[Anonymous No.11802939]

>>11802857

[Anonymous No.11802941]

>>11802939
Bros I can’t stop rolling my cryogenically-rated stainless steel I CAN’T STOOOOOP

[Anonymous No.11802942]

>>11802939
Change "Fuck California" to "Fuck Arizona Bay" and you're golden.

[Anonymous No.11802947]

>>11802922
Plasma magnets are cool and all but I'm skeptical that they scale well for transit that is both fast and high throughput. >>11802919 is on the right track, I think.

[Anonymous No.11802960]

>>11802683
I don't keep posting it its a new reaction image. It came from the riots where they pulled down a statue. This was the moment she realized they just killed a guy

[Anonymous No.11802961]

>>11802835
You can use propellants lighter than water (basically only methane and hydrogen are practical, and offer very similar real-world performance as one another because of methane's density advantage resulting in lighter tanks) and get higher specific impulse (~1000 Isp for hydrogen, ~610 Isp for methane). Some people will tell you this is good for getting more payload places or for getting to places faster, but really it's best for going farther, ie pushing your ellipse out to Jupiter or Saturn and being able to actually do something when you get there.

This leads to what will probably be the main use of NTR in the solar system; surface to orbit cargo shuttles on ice-rich low gravity moons. Refilling a water tank with enough mass to give your craft the delta V it needs to go to orbit and come back for landing on Ganymede is a lot faster and energetically less expensive than doing the same with a hydrolox chemical rocket. The nuclear rocket can perform a launch every day, or even faster. The same power supply would only let you make enough hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis to launch a chemical rocket on the same mission once every few months at most. This means NTR is a huge mobility enabler in the gas giant systems of the outer solar system.

Note that a nuclear thermal rocket (with the tech to get 1000 Isp using hydrogen or 610 Isp with methane) can get about 350 Isp in vacuum using water, making it about as good efficiency-wise as kerosene and oxygen chemical rockets. If you really need higher Isp for whatever mission profile, instead of going for chemical propulsion (~470 Isp with hydrolox combustion). You'd probably just skip right to 1000 Isp hydrogen NTR, since you'd need to do the electrolysis anyway, and only use smaller hydrolox engines to get a boost kick off of the ground, since hydrogen NTR has shitty thrust to mass ratio.

[Anonymous No.11802965]

>>11802866
I still can't get over how dumb this concept is, and that they wanted to do it using SLS, lmaooo

[Anonymous No.11802979]

>>11802921
So what is it saying about the actual soil conditions, then? Meaning, what does red mean and what does blue mean?

[Anonymous No.11802981]

>>11802961
>You'd probably just skip right to 1000 Isp hydrogen NTR, since you'd need to do the electrolysis anyway, and only use smaller hydrolox engines to get a boost kick off of the ground, since hydrogen NTR has shitty thrust to mass ratio.
That's what LANTR is for.

[Anonymous No.11802984]

>>11802548
Awesome and innovative? Lol
Even if it worked it wouldn’t reach anything beyond LEO with an anemic payload
It wasn’t a propellant tank issue, it was a retarded design that called for something that wasn’t physically possible

[Anonymous No.11802985]

>>11802965
The X-Wing Space Shuttle concept is CUTE.

[Anonymous No.11802986]

>>11802960
Huh, I thought she was coooming or something

[Anonymous No.11802987]

>>11802965
Yeah but imagine it with the logistics of Starship. Starship could deliver supplies and help fabricate an orbital lab, and lockheed martin (fingers crossed they stay away from boeing and try to take some lessons from starship) could launch this on a Vulcan or some new reusable ULA vehicle. This idea was only shitty because of SLS- at least that’s my opinion

[Anonymous No.11802995]

>>11802961
I think water has a niche as NTR propellant. It's low performance in ISP, on par with the high end of chemical, but IRSU is stupid easy almost everywhere, it's denser than methane and easy to store.

[Anonymous No.11803007]

>>11802979
Hmmm it's in my notes somewhere, I'll try to see if I can find it. From what I remember I believe these represent two different soil types (which end up behaving differently, due to their chemical composition). Red is high in hydrous sulfates, and blue represents extremely anhydrous soils.

[Anonymous No.11803028]

>>11802981
"Don't . . ."

[Anonymous No.11803041]

>>11802960
Ahhh I see. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11803069]

>>11802987
Lmao like this? I whipped this up to make fun of you but now that I think about it Lockheed has the potential to do this. They should buy out Boeing and take control of ULA... and focus on reusability.

[Anonymous No.11803070]

Sliding in...
>>11803068
>>11803068
>>11803068

[Anonymous No.11803071]

>>11802810
Bullshit

[Anonymous No.11803100]

>>11802869
Funny how the plan has been the same over the years. Orbit stations-lunar orbit stations-moonbase-marsbase

[Anonymous No.11803109]

>>11802986
Thats why its such a good reaction image, could be a few things.

[Anonymous No.11803154]

>>11802300

X-33 failed because it was a shit approach. Starship is altogether different and includes lessons learned from it.

[Anonymous No.11803164]

>>11802462

Wait, am I that guy? Darpa doesn't know what they're doing, and NTR is still meme. Throw more money onto the dollar fire.

[Anonymous No.11803243]

>>11801485
What's wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.11803458]

>>11802214
>Like why will super heavy be able to go again immediately when the falcon 9 booster takes several weeks?
ask yourself that question again and think about it
yes it will absolutely take a few weeks to refurbish it

[Anonymous No.11803597]

>>11802616