/sfg/ - Space Flight General: Cassini-Huygens Edition

[Anonymous No.12234521]

Previous: >>12230879

[Anonymous No.12234540]

first for arianne waifu

[Anonymous No.12234543]

Will the russian satellite hit the chinese upper stage or not?

[Anonymous No.12234545]

>>12234543
With any luck

[Anonymous No.12234556]

>>12234521
Hop when?

[Anonymous No.12234563]

Stylish Martian colony jumpsuits when?

[Anonymous No.12234566]

>>12234540
rollan

[Anonymous No.12234568]

>>12234566
>dubs
FUCK

[Anonymous No.12234570]

>>12234556
never. scrub-x is finished

[Anonymous No.12234577]

>>12234521
The Titan 3 is one aesthetic rocket in its own rough way. Beats the typical aerospace cleanliness.

[Anonymous No.12234594]

>>12234521
nth for the meme barrel

[Anonymous No.12234607]

TAKBIR!

[Anonymous No.12234609]

>>12234577
Simply utilitarian.

[Anonymous No.12234644]

>>12234543
I think it may be one fo the highest collision chances of predicted near collision events at that altitude if I'm not mistaken.

[Anonymous No.12234646]

delicious delicious spicy nitrogen

[Anonymous No.12234658]

Could we build a prototype project Orion rocket using conventional explosives to reach orbit? Could we build a man-rated one?

[Anonymous No.12234662]

>>12234658
>could we build a prototype Orion using conventional explosives
yes
>to reach orbit
no
>man rated
ehhhhh not worth it

[Anonymous No.12234675]

>>12234540
>Starship (i had to)

[Anonymous No.12234676]

>>12234607
why do they keep making that gesture?

[Anonymous No.12234680]

>>12234676
There is only one god Allah

[Anonymous No.12234686]

>>12234676
Because they're going up.

[Anonymous No.12234691]

>>12234577
The titan is one hell of a launch vehicle.

[Anonymous No.12234694]

>>12234676
There is no god but god and muhammad (pbuh) is his final messenger.

[Anonymous No.12234695]

>>12234607
Elonhu Akbar!

[Anonymous No.12234698]

you have to make a choice, /sfg/:
you're trapped in a dying vessel
you have the choice of two lifeboats:
a Boeing Starliner
a MOOSE
make your choice

[Anonymous No.12234702]

>>12234676
There is only one moon rocket but SLS (pbui)

[Anonymous No.12234712]

>>12234676
It's a good excuse in case something blows up.

[Anonymous No.12234713]

>>12234698

[Anonymous No.12234722]

>>12234698
MOOSE

[Anonymous No.12234735]

>>12234521
Can somebody who is reasonably well versed in rocket technology give their opinion on the new Russian "Amur" light-medium, reusable rocket? I know its specifications are subject to change as Roscosmos is still designing it, but do you believe it will be worth the 900million dollar development price tag, which is a lot for a country like Russia?

[Anonymous No.12234739]

>>12234735
it's fake, it'll never happen

[Anonymous No.12234748]

>>12234698
Starliner. If I'm going to die anyway I might as well take oldspace with me.

[Anonymous No.12234754]

>>12234735
Russia's whole space program is completely different than the US's. In short- they run on a completely different philosophy when it comes to aerospace. I mean just look at airplanes... USA goes with expensive ass planes and is shifting to cheap(er) rockets especially fueled by the commercial market. Russia on the otherhand is backwards. Planes are WAY cheaper, but rockets are more expensive. They do not foster the commercial market and all the companies that DO build rockets are either bankrupt or run by corrupt people who do not give a fuck about exploration at the end of the day. The Amur thing is likely fake because people over there are very jealous (envious ?) of SpaceX and america's emerging rocket tech. As a final remark- keep in mind that nobody over here knows for sure how much a Soyuz costs to make and launch, we only speculate. The company that makes soyuz recently went bankrupt but Roscosmos lowered their prices (albeit its still expensive). This is because they are trying to undercut prices and keep people flying on it even though soyuz is obviously gonna die soon

[Anonymous No.12234758]

>>12234748
your options are pajeet code tin can or surfing some styrofoam down
I'll take the styrofoam

[Anonymous No.12234759]

I have on several occasions encountered opponents of the idea of reusable rockets. What arguments do such people usually use? Are any of them actually valid?

[Anonymous No.12234770]

>>12234607
As above, so below?

[Anonymous No.12234776]

>>12234735
If they could actually get a rocket with a similar unit cost to the Falcon 9 then it would absolutely be worth $900 million. SpaceX has already saved more money than that in 3 years of reusing F9 cores.

>>12234759
Before F9 "reusable" often meant winged boosters and spaceplanes. For stuff like that the development costs were too high to be offset by any savings in recurring launch costs. But the Falcon 9's performance since 2015 has ended any meaningful argument on the subject. It's proved that you can get reusability with low development costs and apply it to a rocket that was already cheap to make.

[Anonymous No.12234779]

>>12234759
>It’s dumb and costs more because you have to carry extra fuel with you in order to land it!
Bitch i’m pretty sure the cost of a little but more RP-1 or methane is a lot less than throwing your whole god damn rocket/engines in the sea every launch and needing to build a whole new rocket every time you wanna launch. This is the main “argument” I see people make at least

[Anonymous No.12234783]

>>12234776
actually, the success of the Falcon 9 proved that you could make a rocket with low development costs, and then could go on to reuse it
nobody in oldspace or NASA thought you could make a rocket on such a small dev budget

[Anonymous No.12234794]

>>12234759
It's quite simple really, sometimes the cost/difficulty of building a new rocket can be less than refurbishing/preparing a reusable rocket after it has been used. Also, you may have noticed that the payload capacity of a falcon 9 can be increased if they put it on "expendable mode" meaning they intentionally don't recover it . Depending on the frequency of use, it may make more economic sense to just have the extra capacity and build a new rocket each time.

[Anonymous No.12234802]

>>12234759
>refurbishment can cost as much as making a new one or more
>the payload market is too slow to support reusable rockets even if such rockets are cheaper
>reusable rockets aren't necessarily more reliable than expendable ones and the current market values reliability above all else including money
Just some of the ones that I've heard that aren't completely stupid or conspiratorial.

[Anonymous No.12234806]

>>12234802
>refurbishment can cost as much as making a new one or more
we can blame the space shuttle for this meme

[Anonymous No.12234816]

>>12234794
>sometimes the cost/difficulty of building a new rocket can be less than refurbishing/preparing a reusable rocket
>>12234802
>refurbishment can cost as much as making a new one or more
Really now? I'm not familiar with the difficulties of rocket construction, but that sounds really unlikely, especially when it comes to models like Falcon-9 and New Shepard. Can I have some numbers on that?

[Anonymous No.12234818]

>>12234783
The total development cost of F9/FH/Dragon combined was probably less than $2 billion. It's nuts to think what they're gonna be able to do once they have an oldspace-tier budget to work with.

[Anonymous No.12234825]

>>12234570
Just like I finished inside your mum last night

[Anonymous No.12234834]

>>12234816
>Really now? I'm not familiar with the difficulties of rocket construction, but that sounds really unlikely, especially when it comes to models like Falcon-9 and New Shepard. Can I have some numbers on that?
Unfortunately, neither SpaceX or Blue Origin released official numbers on how much refurbishment costs them. You can infer on the costs based on what the companies are pricing their launches, but you can never be certain. On top of that, the only reusable vehicle who's refurbishment cost numbers have been officially published was the Shuttle, and those don't support reusability.

[Anonymous No.12234838]

>>12234825
You'd better take responsibility and become anon's new dad.

[Anonymous No.12234839]

>>12234816
recovery/refurbishment infrastructure can carry a high fixed cost and if you don't have a high launch cadence then it's hard to cover the cost. the shuttle program cost about $4 billion a year even if they flew 0 times just for the facilities.

[Anonymous No.12234840]

>>12234834
>the only reusable vehicle who's refurbishment cost numbers have been officially published was the Shuttle, and those don't support reusability
You don't say?

[Anonymous No.12234849]

>>12234839
I guess that explains why SpaceX wants to launch so frequently.

[Anonymous No.12234859]

>>12234577
>>12234609
>trashbag interstage

[Anonymous No.12234869]

>>12234859
Say what you want, I am proud of India.

[Anonymous No.12234870]

Do we think the Chinese will go with a Lunar space station like NASA or will they try to directly go from the Earth to the Moon?

[Anonymous No.12234872]

>>12234849
They want to make starlink operational to start making money

[Anonymous No.12234877]

>Falcon 9 launches:

- Starlink-13 (Oct 18)
- Starlink-14(Oct 21)
- GPS III - SV04 (Oct)
- NROL-108 (Oct)
- Sentinel-6 (Nov 10)
- Crew-1 (Nov 11)
- CRS-21 (Nov 22)
- SXM-7 (Nov)
- Starlink ??? (Nov)

Holy shit

[Anonymous No.12234883]

>>12234849
Their fixed costs aren't going to be anywhere near NASA levels because they just don't have to do that much work on core stages between flights. Compare how much simpler their processing facility looks to the shuttle's.

Even so, Droneships cost money, a dock where you can unload boosters costs money, a warehouse for used booosters costs money.

[Anonymous No.12234889]

>>12234877
This is all assuming the F9 isn't grounded because of faulty turbopump parts.

[Anonymous No.12234890]

>>12234870
They will probably dumb something in orbit around the moon but only visit it a couple of times because it's too dangerous for long term missions just like the death trap they call a space station they have now.

[Anonymous No.12234893]

>>12234889
oh yeah that one abort. Did they figure out what exactly the deal was with that?

[Anonymous No.12234898]

Serious question.

Could you fit a Falcon 9 in the cargo bay of a starship?

It seems like the best way to get around Mars will be short point to point hops, but using an entire starship would be hideously fuel inefficient.

I was thinking the solution is that the first base camps on Mars either have Falcon 9s for exploration, or they just use some kind of dedicated little hopper built specifically for point to point in Martian conditions.

[Anonymous No.12234903]

>>12234898
How well would Grasshopper do on Mars?

[Anonymous No.12234906]

>>12234898
You drunk?

[Anonymous No.12234908]

>>12234893
Rumor was broken gas generator components on new Merlins because a supplier fucked up. Old core stages should be fine but a lot of payloads are contracted to launch on new boosters, including Crew 1.

[Anonymous No.12234910]

>>12234898
Not really. Unless they can make the F9 foldable, it's going to be way too long to fit in a Starship.

[Anonymous No.12234913]

>>12234870
Probably direct. Even a halfbrain could tell you that gateway is retarded

[Anonymous No.12234916]

>>12234913
Gateway is awesome

[Anonymous No.12234917]

>>12234913
Quarterbrain here. Why is the Lunar Gateway retarded?

[Anonymous No.12234918]

>>12234898
No, but a small jumper that is essentially a jeep in rocket form would be useful.

[Anonymous No.12234920]

>>12234916
based patriot

[Anonymous No.12234926]

>>12234910
If it's anything like kerbal, you could just make the fuel tank thicker so the overall assembly isn't as tall.

The amount of Delta V required for a two way trip to anywhere on Mars probably isn't that much.

[Anonymous No.12234930]

>>12234898
Why would you want a kerolox engine for a Mars hopper?

[Anonymous No.12234932]

>>12234917
Because it is just an ISS 2.0, and the ISS was just a daycare for smaller space agencies and a leash for larger ones. Also, it is in a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit around the moon which makes accessing the lunar surface from the station more difficult, but it is chosen simply because it is easier to reach from Earth.

[Anonymous No.12234934]

>>12234917
It's not. A staging area for lunar missions alone is worth the deltaV required to get there, and it will also tie NASA to the program, because they will need to support and maintain the station.

[Anonymous No.12234941]

>>12234918
>>12234930
What if you just built like a little dune buggy with Raptor engines? How much more engineering would you need to do to make it work?

[Anonymous No.12234942]

>>12234870
Why not both? A proper station would require multiple launches, but a landing mission is "just" carrying a lander down and bringing it back up. Why not build a small station, with one of the modules being a lander, send in crew on a separate rocket, land, gather some rock, go back up, and fly back home on the same rocket?

[Anonymous No.12234943]

>>12234917
They went to the moon 50 years ago in one go, now somehow we need a pitstop.
A spacestation around the moon is a good idea, but in relation to the "return to the moon missions" it's just another way to leech tax money.

[Anonymous No.12234944]

>>12234918
Looks cool but a cybertruck will get you where you need to go for the first like 5-10 years. As multiple colonies are established further and further apart I would HOPE that simple train infrastructure could be built. Take advantage of the natural "vacuum" of Mars and build a rail system like Minecraft but way faster. This would be more efficient than a rocket jumper (and probably safer, and would let you keep all your ISRU methalox for starship returns)

[Anonymous No.12234949]

>>12234941
A Raptor might be too big even for a bus sized rocket-jeep.

[Anonymous No.12234950]

>>12234917
It was originally a make-work project for SLS that got sold on the bullshit premise that it was somehow a gateway to Mars even though NHRO as a launching point for a Mars mission makes no sense. Zubrin was correct that it was more a tollbooth than a gateway in that sense.

Now that Big Jim moved it from SLS to commercial launchers I don't see that it's a problem now though. If you're going to have reusable landers and you haven't developed ISRU refueling on the lunar surface then you're going to have to have a d*pot SOMEWHERE in lunar orbit.

[Anonymous No.12234951]

>>12234934
It's only useful if you are launching on a shitty rocket like SLS that is so weak it can't even get to the poles by itself. If you have starship tech or a huge rocket like Long March 9 you don't need a pitstop. Gateway exists for two reasons, jobs - and as a life buoy to keep Artemis and SLS alive. If you can launch even one module to Lunar orbit you basically can tell congress "look we already have stuff there so now we NEED to go"

[Anonymous No.12234959]

>>12234932
>Because it is just an ISS 2.0, and the ISS was just a daycare for smaller space agencies and a leash for larger ones.
Don't forget a destination for the Shuttle to go in order to justify still using it. Similar to what Gateway was to Orion before they went full steam ahead for a manned landing

[Anonymous No.12234970]

>>12234959
If/when the 2024 landing gets cancelled we're going to end up with Artemis 3 being Orion just visiting the gateway for a week.

[Anonymous No.12234982]

>>12234970
I'm convinced that the Artemis program is either going to do everything cool at once, or nothing at all. No in between. And SLS is making it look like it's going to do nothing at all. Just a huge nothingburger with a useless gateway and a capsule that doesn't have a purpose because its launcher is shit

[Anonymous No.12234988]

>>12233346
I'm scared bros...

[Anonymous No.12234989]

The only way i see a spacestation around the moon happening is when the ISS gets deorbited because of age and the budget gets shifted to building a successor in moon orbit.
With starship delivering the modules, and a big ass fuck you shelby depot that suplies at least 3 different reusable landers that will do missions all over the moon.
No more billions of dollars for microgravity research alone, a dude with a shovel can do in day on the moon what robots do in months.

[Anonymous No.12234996]

>>12234989
>No more billions of dollars for microgravity research alone, a dude with a shovel can do in day on the moon what robots do in months.
but think of all of the farmable research grants lost if we go down that path!

[Anonymous No.12234998]

>>12234982
I'm pretty satisfied with how Artemis has been developing the last couple of years. The Dynetics lander looks great and if Moonship is ready to go then even better. Bridenstine's pared back the role of SLS as far back as he can without killing it outright. There's just one thing left to do...

[Anonymous No.12235015]

>>12234989
We need a moon base NOW for the helium first and foremost. This is civilization ending shit.

[Anonymous No.12235026]

>>12234996
Plus all the valuable research into how roses smell when grown in a microgravity environment

[Anonymous No.12235035]

How big do you guys think the first Mars mission will be?

I was thinking it should be at least a few dozen because being trapped with like 2 other guys for a year would just be intolerable from a mental health standpoint.

[Anonymous No.12235038]

>>12234998
Is national team’s lander launching on SLS/ULA, or new glenn?

[Anonymous No.12235052]

Starship centrifuge when?

[Anonymous No.12235054]

>>12235038
It could go up on either Atlas/Vulcan/New Glenn/SLS depending on what's available. I'm sure New Glenn is the launcher of choice.

[Anonymous No.12235056]

>>12235052
As soon as long manned flights happen, but not like that.

[Anonymous No.12235060]

>>12235035
about 8 to 10, international team, no CCP chinks.

[Anonymous No.12235062]

>>12235054
That's what I thought but we haven't seen SHIT from new glenn development (I'm hoping they are testing it right now). If this is the case then Artemis will have New Glenn and Starship launching- which will very likely keep it alive even if SLS manages just 5 launches or something.

[Anonymous No.12235063]

https://twitter.com/jeffrayner/status/1316773250232283136

>At the @TheMarsSociety conference and @robert_zubrin just announced that @elonmusk will be presenting tomorrow at 4pm

Think he's got any surprises to announce?

[Anonymous No.12235075]

>>12235063
Starship made of plywood to save costs and effective heatshild made of cork.
Iron oxyde (Thermite )as fuel for Mars.

[Anonymous No.12235085]

>>12235063
Delay on the Starship Mars program until the 2030s. New focus on exclusively LEO activities

[Anonymous No.12235087]

>>12234869
yup, im British and I've got to say, ISRO is impressive; I see big things in the future for India in terms of space.

[Anonymous No.12235098]

>>12235085
Starship orbit refueling and moon starship will be the main goal, mars starship flyby in late 2030s.

[Anonymous No.12235099]

>>12235063
SpaceX is being shut down because space travel is inherently a white supremacist fantasy

[Anonymous No.12235107]

>>12235085
>>12235098
Are these just jokes or are you guys serious

[Anonymous No.12235111]

>>12235087
Tbh they were impressive when they were still the cheapest launch provider.

Then Elon BTFO everyone else and now pretty much every other space program on the planet looks like a waste of time by comparison.

[Anonymous No.12235119]

>>12234759
The people in my congressional district build expendable rockets for a living

[Anonymous No.12235126]

>>12235056
why not?

[Anonymous No.12235128]

>>12234783
It wasn't wrong of them to think that, I don't think alot of people realize just how close Space X came to complete failure

[Anonymous No.12235132]

>But by the time 2001 A.D. rolls around, things may be more fantastic than the picture shows. Today's scientists may be over conservative in their predictions—and over pessimistic about what man can accomplish.
https://www.popsci.com/how-they-filmed-a-space-odyssey/

[Anonymous No.12235143]

>>12234698
MOOSE

[Anonymous No.12235144]

>>12235126
The differential in the gravity between your feet and your head that would come from trying to generate artificial gravity from something only nine meters in diameter would be too severe to be at all worth doing.

[Anonymous No.12235148]

>>12235144
retard, we're using tethers, not slinning the barrel. are you absolutely retarded???

[Anonymous No.12235152]

>>12235132
2001 just hurts to watch but if you read the background material it's even worse. We were supposed to have

>multiple lunar bases
>mars base
>phobos base
>mercury base
>venus station
>rail-launched two-stage spaceplanes
>gas core NTRs with 4500s+ ISP

If it was Star Wars pewpew it'd be easy to get over. But Clarke knew exactly what he was talking about and he thought it was perfectly plausible to expect.

[Anonymous No.12235156]

>>12235152
He got pessimistic at the end and expected humanity to stay in solar system for thousand years without interstellar travel.

[Anonymous No.12235157]

>>12234951
>If you can launch even one module to Lunar orbit you basically can tell congress "look we already have stuff there so now we NEED to go"
The tollbooth orbit also has another purpose: it's trivial to escape Earth orbit from it. The Gateway is eventually going to have a big engine bolted on to it and become a permanent station orbiting Mars.

[Anonymous No.12235161]

>>12235148
Not him but a lot of people are under the impression that because Starship can dock at the ass™ it will dock in space and spin while attached to another starship. This would be the easiest way to do it but would fuck you up because of the high gradient of centripetal force between your feet and head. DESU the best way, in my opinion, is to dock a rotating hab. Something like image related but smaller could be done for the first few dozen or hundred human flights

[Anonymous No.12235170]

>>12235148
Speculative tetherfags are so dumb. You also want 3D printers and EM Drives on our ship?

[Anonymous No.12235177]

>>12235156
There's enough to do in the solar system that you can easily have a thousand years of material progress without leaving. Anything would be better than the last 50 years of doing basically nothing other than sending out a couple of probes to take the temperature on Jupiter.

[Anonymous No.12235181]

>>12235148
No, which is why I said "not like that" to the picture of doing something equivalent to spinning it around it vertical axis, because that would be stupid, and spinning two Starships together around a center point of arbitrary distance between the two allows for significantly easier and simpler artificial gravity for what you can get out of it.
>>12235161
https://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/
Considering that it would end up being approximately 80 meters in effective diameter, were it to do it like that that wouldn't even be all that bad, so it's not unreasonable for many to think it might be done.

[Anonymous No.12235183]

>>12235170
I like space elevators

[Anonymous No.12235188]

Tried to contribute

[Anonymous No.12235189]

>>12234540
an anime about rocket waifus would e GOAT

[Anonymous No.12235195]

>>12234869
>Designated shitting orbit

[Anonymous No.12235201]

>>12234540
>>12235189
But that would be a good, novel, and interesting anime, and those aren't allowed.

[Anonymous No.12235203]

>>12235170
EM Drives would be nice. If they worked, that is.

[Anonymous No.12235205]

>>12235156
You can support trillions in the solar system easily. I do expect us to fuck around and meander around the sun for atleast another 400 years.
Unless we create some sort of FTL that just do how it be ya know.

[Anonymous No.12235208]

>>12235189
Ends with all the girls moving away to a far away place, but the Falcon twins come back, to live with New Shepard daughterwaifu

[Anonymous No.12235215]

>>12235205
There are feasable designs of ships that could go to Alpha Centauri in 30 years already.

[Anonymous No.12235218]

>>12235208
>if only saturn-senpai were here...

[Anonymous No.12235220]

>>12235099
*confused chinese noises*

[Anonymous No.12235223]

when's the next launch?

[Anonymous No.12235224]

>>12235181
Nice. I did a rough calculation. Assuming it has to be stored in a 9m cargo bay at 8 meters and expand to five times its size (thus having a diameter of 40 meters overall) you would need to do 1 rotation every ~13 seconds. And in all honesty you don't even need 1g. you could do a rotation every 20 seconds and have enough gravity to live and work in for a few hours a day. Sierra Nevada rotating habs for Starship would be peak besttimeline

[Anonymous No.12235225]

>>12235208
i was kinda hoping we could see some naked rockets and boobies

[Anonymous No.12235227]

>>12235170
What's wrong with tethers? The capability is already built into the preexisting Starship design due it being intended to be lifted up by a crane attached to it at the nose for stacking onto the first stage.

[Anonymous No.12235230]

>>12235205
what's that pic from

[Anonymous No.12235233]

>>12235225
they take off their clothes when they stage

[Anonymous No.12235237]

>>12235015
>We need a moon base NOW for the helium first and foremost
No, lunar He3 is pure meme.
It is almost a thousand times harder to create a burning plasma with helium-3 than it is using a mixture of deuterium and tritium, and it's almost a hundred times harder than creating a burning plasma using jus deuterium.
Deuterium exists on Earth in concentrations a million times greater than the He3 on the Moon, AND there's a vastly larger inventory of deuterium on Earth vs He3 on the Moon.
Tritium is a geologically short lived isotope and therefore needs to be manufactured if we want to use it as fusion fuel. To make tritium you just expose lithium to thermal neutrons; the lithium absorbs the thermal neutron and splits into tritium and an He-4 nucleus. Since both D-T and D-D fusion fuel cycles produce neutron flux, the operation of either reactor design can generate more tritium from lithium than is actually being used in the reactor, meaning the D-T reactor effectively runs on deuterium and lithium fuel. Both of these are vastly more available than He3 and the energy density is on par. Again, if we have the technology to even make a self sustaining He3 fusion reactor, we have the technology to make a very high specific power pure-deuterium fusion reactor, which makes the He3 reactor moot.
Finally, in order to sustain the united states alone, we'd be using about 20,000 kg of He3 per year, which would require the 100% efficient zero-loss processing of two trillion kilograms of lunar soil in order to be extracted. Realistically, given the extremely low concentrations and no ability to increase concentrations via chemically fixing the helium, you're looking at about 100 trillion kilograms of lunar regolith being mined, ground to ultrafine dust in a super high vacuum extraction chamber, and then dumped on a big pile, every single year. It's completely unfeasible and also stupid. For WAY less effort we could go full retard and do geostationary solar power satellites.

[Anonymous No.12235241]

>>12235225

[Anonymous No.12235243]

>>12235225
>>12235225
Lewds delivered

[Anonymous No.12235249]

>>12235243
>injector (of cum)

[Anonymous No.12235251]

>>12235233
Really? I imagined it would be that when a rocket girl stages a smaller version of her comes out of the bigger version.

[Anonymous No.12235253]

>>12235241
>>12235243
MODS

[Anonymous No.12235257]

>>12235230
its a general systems vehicle a culture ship
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/gJDgLG

[Anonymous No.12235260]

>>12234540
>saturn 5-aloof,poised,world-weary, but cares deeply about her fellow rockets,slight german accent
>falcon 9-boistrous, outgoing genki
>falcon heavy-muscular,somewhat arrogant
>new shepherd-rich,self-conscious about height/inability to orbit, idealistic about common people getting to experience space
>spaceshiptwo-close friends with new shepherd,kind of a dork, is always running late
>Starship-tall, stunningly beautiful, somewhat shy. has a crush on Saturn-5 due to a strong onee-sama complex

this is so fucking autistic why did i make this oh my god

[Anonymous No.12235263]

Elon is going to speak at the Mars Society tomorrow. Starship presentation inbound.
https://www.marssociety.org/news/2020/10/15/breaking-news-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-to-speak-virtually-at-2020-mars-society-convention/

[Anonymous No.12235266]

>>12235257
That art is fucking great. It has such a dreamy feeling, I love it.
Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.12235267]

[Anonymous No.12235273]

>>12235188
nice
>>12235260
embrace the autism

[Anonymous No.12235276]

>>12235267
more pixels

[Anonymous No.12235277]

>>12235260
Don't worry, you aren't even the first.

[Anonymous No.12235285]

>>12235260

i want falcon 9 to step on me bros

[Anonymous No.12235291]

The Space Force just got it's first Master Chief. Say something nice about her.

[Anonymous No.12235294]

>>12235157
>The Gateway is eventually going to have a big engine bolted on to it and become a permanent station orbiting Mars

Imagine believing this will ever happen.

[Anonymous No.12235300]

>>12235291
she isn't fat

[Anonymous No.12235303]

>>12235291
I like the rank symbol

[Anonymous No.12235304]

>>12235294
>shrek intro meme.jpg
>>12235291
Congratulations! Paper work and pencil pushing takes the best and brightest

[Anonymous No.12235309]

>>12235157

[Anonymous No.12235314]

>>12235157
One can dream, anon

[Anonymous No.12235317]

>>12235291
La creatura....

[Anonymous No.12235318]

>>12235304
>shrek intro meme.jpg
>not i believe i can fly

[Anonymous No.12235320]

>>12235291
Which one is it?

[Anonymous No.12235321]

>>12235291
>tiny body means lower launch costs
>woman means that people wanting to cancel space force will have a dedicated military pro at hearings vehemently arguing against it and able to show the org as rooted in equality and all that jazz

excellent.

[Anonymous No.12235325]

>>12235318
ok boomer

[Anonymous No.12235327]

>>12235318
Lmao, I forgot that song even existed. So fucking good desu. Also >>12235309 has me covered

[Anonymous No.12235329]

>>12234577
Titan III looks like brutalism in rocket form.

[Anonymous No.12235332]

>>12235291
Its about time women started getting high power roles in the military. Maybe if we removed most of the testosterone drunk meat heads from the patriarchy-based military, we would have less wars and murder happening.

[Anonymous No.12235337]

>>12235332
Devious b8

[Anonymous No.12235338]

>>12235332
>

[Anonymous No.12235339]

>>12235332
Based pacifier

[Anonymous No.12235348]

Lol at Zubrin arguing with Chris McKay about planetary protection. GIVE THOSE SCIENTISTS HELL BOB

[Anonymous No.12235352]

Name an aerospace company with a cooler name.

[Anonymous No.12235357]

>>12235132
>"It wouldn't do to have the wasteful kind of spacecraft that are used only once, like today's,"

[Anonymous No.12235359]

>>12235352
Blue Pee

[Anonymous No.12235367]

>>12235332
someone, somewhere is going to fall for this

[Anonymous No.12235372]

>>12235332
It's 'fewer' wars not 'less'

[Anonymous No.12235377]

>>12235132
>Today's scientists may be over conservative in their predictions—and over pessimistic about what man can accomplish
Describes the aerospace industry as a whole perfectly. They're so worried about what's necessary to stay afloat that they ignore what more they can do.

[Anonymous No.12235378]

Thank you /sfg/ for the outpouring of support. I won't let you down

[Anonymous No.12235383]

>>12235378
>the outpouring of support
and thank you big jim for the outpouring of tasty mtn dew

[Anonymous No.12235384]

They built all this just so boomers could relax on the ocean
https://youtu.be/_YWQZCBK5N0
What will we build so boomers and relax in orbit? Why don't we have Starliners yet? No, not the Boing capsule, a PROPER Starliner.

[Anonymous No.12235389]

>>12235378
God, if only Big Jim really graced /sfg/ with his presence.

[Anonymous No.12235390]

>>12235384
They'll be dead by that point :)

[Anonymous No.12235392]

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/2020-mars-society-international-teleconvention-tickets-102005870304

Sign up for the Mars Society Conference here, Elon, Jim, Zubrin. All there

[Anonymous No.12235393]

>>12235384
The average boomer's heart will not survive a ride on a rocket to space.

[Anonymous No.12235395]

>>12235243
I would expect the throat to be more constricted.

[Anonymous No.12235399]

>>12235390
But then WE'LL be boomers, you want to retire on the same fucking ocean booze-cruises they had or do you wanna get sloshed in zero-g?

[Anonymous No.12235400]

>>12235389
didnt he run the tory bruno mustache parody twitter?

[Anonymous No.12235401]

>>12235063
>>12235263
There'll be some tidbits for sure, but the fact that it's only being streamed through the Mars Society makes me doubtful it's the full presentation and will probably neglect many non-Mars applications.

[Anonymous No.12235408]

>>12235389
He would leave immediately lmao. Remember when Mike McCulloch popped in on /sci/?

[Anonymous No.12235415]

>>12235395
Booster engines tend to have low constriction ratios in order to increase the thrust-per-area.

[Anonymous No.12235430]

Give me one (1) reason why we couldn't slap some grid fins and landing legs on this bitch and reuse it

[Anonymous No.12235436]

>>12235430
the F1 couldn't throttle

[Anonymous No.12235443]

>>12235430
>computer tech wasn't good enough back then
>engines couldn't throttle
>still would be too expensive for nixon-era budget cuts
>nasa would still mess it up somehow

[Anonymous No.12235447]

>>12235243
YES ITAR POLICE THIS POST RIGHT HERE

What's the point of ITAR anyways when the Norks have shit like THIS

[Anonymous No.12235454]

>>12235430
Real talk, why is the exhaust super dark and sooty for about ten feet before turning into a more conventional bright oxidizing flame

[Anonymous No.12235456]

>>12235436
Bingo. The trick of landing a booster is a balancing act between the weight of the booster and how low you can throttle the engines. It's not a coincidence that the Falcon concept was scaled up from 1 to 5 to eventually 9 engines and 5 was totally skipped over. Real life is not Kerbal Space Program where you can throttle any engine to 0.1%.

[Anonymous No.12235459]

>>12235447
Their rockets only barely reach California. We want to keep it that way for reasons that should be clear.

[Anonymous No.12235467]

>>12235447
Elon has publicly said ITAR is dumb and holds back SpaceX's progress

[Anonymous No.12235468]

Today in history:
>1991 – The "Oh-My-God particle", an ultra-high-energy cosmic ray measured at 40,000,000 times that of the highest energy protons produced in a particle accelerator is observed at the University of Utah HiRes observatory in Dugway Proving Ground, Utah.
>1997 – The Cassini probe launches from Cape Canaveral on its way to Saturn.
>2001 – NASA's Galileo spacecraft passes within 112 miles of Jupiter's moon Io.
>2003 – China launches Shenzhou 5, its first manned space mission.

[Anonymous No.12235479]

>>12235454
That's the turbine exhaust. The turbine runs fuel rich to keep combustion temperatures down to something the turbine blades can handle. The exhaust is then ducted to inside the nozzle of the engine to help cool it.

[Anonymous No.12235480]

>>12235454
that's the fuel-rich gas generator exhaust. they funneled it through the nozzle to cool it instead of having a separate pipe like most gas generator kerolox engines do (f1b for comparison)

[Anonymous No.12235484]

>>12235332
War is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.12235494]

>>12235339
Pacifism is beta male soiboy shit

[Anonymous No.12235496]

>>12235408
When did that happen? Sounds crazy

[Anonymous No.12235503]

>>12235494
It's ok bro, while you're beating your chest orting all day, I'll be breastfeeding on Mars like a boss. LOL

[Anonymous No.12235506]

>>12235503
Cringe

[Anonymous No.12235507]

>>12235408
Didn't he cry or something? Clearly can't handle the bantz

[Anonymous No.12235516]

>>12235408
>implying that he wouldnt grace us with a cold refreshing mnt dew

[Anonymous No.12235528]

Andy Weir: hack fraud?

[Anonymous No.12235534]

>>12235528
No not a hack but definitely cringe. The Martian is like a vanity book you write in your freetime but he was sói enough to publish it.

[Anonymous No.12235561]

>>12235534
yup. hamsterball moon tourists rolling around the apollo sites makes me want crawl in a hole and die

[Anonymous No.12235562]

>>12235534
>The Martian
i enjoyed it, just dont take it too seriously.

[Anonymous No.12235578]

>>12235430
>>12235436
here's another dumb Q: how did they handle max Q without throttling? Just build your rocket really sturdy and floor it?

[Anonymous No.12235588]

>>12235561
we need to get a dome over that shit ASAP

[Anonymous No.12235592]

>>12235578
Pretty much, not like it's going to be reflown either so if the structure starts to bend a tiny bit or develop microfractures or anything like that it doesn't really matter.

[Anonymous No.12235598]

>>12235578
AFAIK it (like most rockets) have the ability to throttle. You throttle it to like 80% until max Q, and after that you punch it. The F1 had the ability to throttle- it just didn't have the ability to throttle down really low and turn off and on and off an on like you see in KSP (most rocket engines can't do this)

[Anonymous No.12235616]

>>12235459
Uh, sweetie, no. The Hwasong 16 is basically a road mobile Satan. It can probably hit New York with 5 warheads. North Korea has been advancing faster than any other rocket builder except SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.12235622]

>>12235578
>>12235592
You can handle dynamic pressure much easier if you're vertically stacked and don't have massive wings flopping around in the air too. The Saturn V was also designed to some conservative specifications (Von Braun's German mentality) where every individual component was built to withstand upwards of 5 Gs.

AFAIK the only time the F9 has throttled is if it's carrying a Dragon just to make abort at high Q easier, but I might be wrong about that.

>>12235598
Nope, the F-1 couldn't throttle at all. The F-1A was designed for 70% throttling and might have been ready to go as early as SA-516 if they had ever built more. The SSME was the first rocket engine designed to throttle on ascent.

[Anonymous No.12235623]

>>12235534
Why not publish your fan fiction? 50 Shades of Grey made the author a millionaire, despite it literally being Twilight fanfic.

[Anonymous No.12235636]

>>12235622
>Nope, the F-1 couldn't throttle at all
For real? Damn. So it's basically just a liquid SRB? I guess the one advantage is that it could attempt to be restarted mid flight right?
>>12235623
Good point. I just have a grudge against the martian I guess lol. When I look at andy weir he just strikes me as a star trek soience guy. Also I was in highschool when the movie came out and there was an edgy athiest kid who always argued in theology class (which was supposed to be the "just shutup and it's an easy A" class) and he always carried around a copy of the book. He never changed pages and always tried to hold the book so people could see him "reading" it. He treated it like his le enlightened science book. But I don't blame weir- he probably made millions from it

[Anonymous No.12235649]

>>12235528
The Martian was really enjoyable as a teenager interested in spaceflight. I heard his second book was kinda shit, though.

[Anonymous No.12235654]

>>12235636
I'm not him but look at the acceleration graph. See how the center engine cuts right before 4g acceleration.You can consider that a kind of throttling. It's not perfect but it's good enough and keeps things simple.

[Anonymous No.12235664]

>>12235177
The difference between earth-moon vs earth-alpha_centauri is the same as spain-usa vs 1 yard

[Anonymous No.12235669]

>>12235664
Fly harder

[Anonymous No.12235677]

>>12235636
There is a world of difference between an SRB and Liquids that are not throttling.

Also, the SRBs for the Shuttle are throttlable, their thrust changes over time as precalculated for the mission, instead of actively controlled.

[Anonymous No.12235696]

>>12235636
>For real? Damn. So it's basically just a liquid SRB? I guess the one advantage is that it could attempt to be restarted mid flight right?

The only engine on the Saturn V that could restart was the J-2 on the third stage. It wouldn't be that difficult to set an F-1 up for multiple ignitions though.

The biggest advantage an F-1 or any liquid engine has over an SRB is that it can be shut down in an emergency. It never happened but one of the failure modes that worried NASA most with the shuttle was one of the SRBs failing to ignite at t-0 and the thing ripping itself apart on the pad.

Also to the janny that gave me a 15 minute mute for dubs/getposting: Fuck you. You can easily see isn't true and that I'm always a constructive contributor on /sfg/. If you have a problem with my posts then explain yourself and don't be a bitch about it.

[Anonymous No.12235722]

>>12235696
>I'm always a constructive contributor on /sfg/
nah m8 your posts are shit that janny did nothing wrong

[Anonymous No.12235726]

Alright bro’s hear me out. I want to write a book about an alternate timeline where MOL happens and in the late 80’s, a second Russian civil war breaks out. Anyhow the US uses Big Gemini spacecraft launches on Titan III/AJ-260 (Hypergolics Ares I) to intercept and destroy Polyus-Designed stations (Also polyus uses Proton to launch and doesn’t fail because it’s way simpler and it also flies in the late 70s instead).

Is this a good idea? How do I make space battles realistic and near future tech without being boring (Sorry CoaDE)

[Anonymous No.12235767]

>>12235243
>>12235225
Spaceships don't need boobies to be sexy
imgur.com/pKKyjIk

[Anonymous No.12235771]

>>12235257
That art is beautiful, thanks for posting it. It's hard to get accurate depictions of Culture ships.

[Anonymous No.12235772]

>>12235726
Manned satellite interception was a serious possibility although with capsules the easiest way to do it would probably just be going on EVA and planting a few charges on the exterior. Ship-to-ship combat would be a lot harder.

https://web.archive.org/web/20151122033940/https://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/mol/794.pdf is a good resource if you wanna see what sort of ideas USAF/NRO had for eventual MOL development.

Polyus as built was way too heavy to go up on a Proton though. And it would need to be that big if you want to give it a decent power source for pewpew. You might wanna give the Soviets some ETS Vulkan-style rocket to work with for heavy lift.

[Anonymous No.12235775]

>>12235352
Kaalakiota Corporation

[Anonymous No.12235781]

>>12234607
NASA can't even afford their own mask with their logo on it. Probably spent it all on SLS

[Anonymous No.12235782]

>>12235781
They had a depot for the NASA themed reusable masks, but Shelby burned it down so they're forced to used unbranded expendable ones made in Alabama.

[Anonymous No.12235786]

>>12235781
>Put on first strap of NASA mask
>Have to ask Congress for the funding the next strap
>It gets delayed
>Then gets scrapped
>Have to get a new mask that costs more
>It explodes when you try to put it on

[Anonymous No.12235792]

>>12235696
Fuck jannies bro just reset your router

[Anonymous No.12235802]

>>12235503
>I'll be breastfeeding on Mars like a boss. LOL
I take it you probably support trans rights, so you're more likely to be sucking dick since tranny women are unsurprisingly better than actual women at well, everything except mental healthiness.

[Anonymous No.12235803]

What's most feasible interstellar spacecraft?
Orion?

[Anonymous No.12235810]

>>12235803
Thousands of cubesats with giant solar sails. If you want it to be manned then yeah orion or daedalus (although i’ve heard daedalus might not work because there is way less hydrogen to scoop up in interstellar space than we originally thought)

[Anonymous No.12235814]

>>12235772
Would it be feasible for satellite interception to occur with a manned crew on both sides? Like a Big G with a payload bay of marines in EVA suits intercepts a Polyus and its defending TKS companion? How would a space gunfight go?

[Anonymous No.12235823]

This definitely wasn't an alien spaceship right guys haha

[Anonymous No.12235824]

>>12235802
>>12235503
b8ed hard

[Anonymous No.12235828]

>>12235823
>spectromety found it to reflect light in the same way as most of the asteroids in the solar system
Definately not a spaceship

[Anonymous No.12235829]

>>12235814
hullo has a pretty good space gunfight video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7qqHDViFko

Actually now that I think about it there's something messed up with Polyus. Wikipedia says it had a 1-megawatt laser but even the ISS solar panels can't generate 1 mW. Solar panels like in the pic here couldn't come anywhere close, especially not with 1980s Soviet tech. Did it have a nuclear reactor on board or have its capabilities just been badly exaggerated?

>>12235823
>tfw no orion drive USS Discovery to intercept and board derelict alien spacecraft

[Anonymous No.12235830]

>>12235823
Ayyy.

[Anonymous No.12235835]

>>12235830
weird how proof of aliens is always blurry

[Anonymous No.12235843]

>>12235823
It's a shame that we didnt have more stuff that could take a decent picture of this thing.
Would have stoped all the debate about it death in it's track.

[Anonymous No.12235845]

>>12235829
>1 mW laser
What the fuck. Also it’s neat how it’s unmanned but can still support a human crew like that ship from the Clint Eastwood movie

[Anonymous No.12235848]

>>12235835
Weird how you expect a photo of a rock on Mars taken from orbit to not be blurry
Kys tranny aliens are real and they’re here

[Anonymous No.12235855]

I work at ULA please stop bullying us we're trying our best

[Anonymous No.12235857]

>>12235848
Why is /SCI/ full of you /X/ faggots?

>>12235829
Could Polyus BTFO ground forces? There has to be more plot to the book other than “hey let’s take out spysat # 166.”

[Anonymous No.12235861]

>>12235855
You cant fool us ULA sniper.

[Anonymous No.12235870]

>>12235861
we fired the snipers long ago pls stop bully ;_;

[Anonymous No.12235872]

>>12235870
No wonder Delta IV keeps messing up. They work for my company now.

[Anonymous No.12235873]

>>12235835
Square rocks happen in nature.

[Anonymous No.12235883]

[Anonymous No.12235888]

>>12235830
I really hope that that is some ancient monolith or piece of architecture from an ancient civilization that's been dead for thousands of years

[Anonymous No.12235890]

>>12235830
Have we not gonna back and imaged this spot more than once?

[Anonymous No.12235892]

If Bridenstine got on a diet, he'd be a big slim jim.

[Anonymous No.12235898]

>>12235890
If anything its evidence of water erosion and oceans.

[Anonymous No.12235909]

>>12235898
This image makes me deeply uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.12235919]

>>12235857
according to this you'd want at least 25 mW before you could even think about using an orbital laser against ground targets

https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/24009/how-powerful-does-an-orbital-laser-cannon-need-to-be

>>12235845
yeah i can't ever find any evidence that the soviets had anything close to a megawatt-class nuclear reactor for use in space. i think it's more likely wikipedia is lying and it was just a test of the targeting system and maybe some really weak laser.

zenith star was supposed to be around 2 mW and even that was more of a demonstration than anything.

also it turns out chemical lasers, intuitively enough, are powered by chemical reactions rather than electricity so (1.) i don't know what i'm talking about when it comes to lasers and (2.) maybe polyus had a 1 mW laser on board after all

[Anonymous No.12235923]

>>12235909
Rocks are cool.

[Anonymous No.12235936]

Brown Dwarfs are under represented.

[Anonymous No.12235951]

>>12235829
>1 mW
>>12235919
>25 mW
mW = milliwatt
MW = megawatt

[Anonymous No.12235953]

>>12235857
>Why is /SCI/ full of you /X/ faggots?

Why do you deny aliens exist when the US government admitted they exist

[Anonymous No.12235954]

>>12234859
Kinda amazing that they are putting anything into orbit.
>>12235075
SpaceX has already started an oak tree plantation in Boca Chica.
>>12235898
Wow, amazing pciture, is that in Australia?

[Anonymous No.12235961]

Cleaned up the eye raping watermark from this because the pic is nice.

[Anonymous No.12235964]

>>12235951
desu~

[Anonymous No.12235966]

>>12235829
You are assuming it used the panels for powering the laser. Soviets used chemical cartridges for their flashlights.

[Anonymous No.12235967]

>>12235352

[Anonymous No.12235978]

>>12235953
pfff ahahaha

[Anonymous No.12235986]

>>12235961
based, i always do this with the best ones too. dunno why they keep plastering watermarks when it's trivial to get rid of them

[Anonymous No.12235995]

>>12235919
>25 mW
Just to put it in perspective. SpaceX's starlink launched sofar (~750 sats) total account for ~3 mW.

[Anonymous No.12236051]

>>12235995
fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you
please get SI prefixes correct it's impossible to figure out what you're saying

[Anonymous No.12236073]

>>12236051
>using SI units
>not using Sinus Meridian units

[Anonymous No.12236075]

>>12235967
>>12235352
>yoyodyne
>rocketdyne
>cyberdyne

You know what this means right?

[Anonymous No.12236082]

>>12234607
Goddamn I love Elon.

[Anonymous No.12236083]

>>12236075
-dyne is the coolest suffix

[Anonymous No.12236089]

>>12236075
>blarg im dyne

[Anonymous No.12236091]

>>12235352
Raytheon

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

SpaceX

[Anonymous No.12236109]

>>12235786
Kek

[Anonymous No.12236122]

>>12235873
Me in the middle

[Anonymous No.12236130]

Should I move to Boca Chica and beg for a job to help build Starship?

I have no degree and minimal skills. I learn quickly though.

[Anonymous No.12236131]

>>12236130
they're hiring lots of welders https://www.glassdoor.com/Jobs/SpaceX-welding-Jobs-EI_IE40371.0,6_KO7,14.htm

[Anonymous No.12236132]

>>12236130
no

[Anonymous No.12236151]

>>12236130
be careful anon, twitter told me that elon overworks his employees and gives them little pay

[Anonymous No.12236169]

>>12236131
Is welding difficult?

[Anonymous No.12236178]

>>12236169
It fucks your lungs.

[Anonymous No.12236179]

>>12236169
yes

[Anonymous No.12236184]

>>12236169
it's a skill you build up through extensive practice and study-high-end aerospace welding takes quite a bit of mastery to take part in. Look into it anon,it's an honorable craft.

[Anonymous No.12236185]

How is the build site going to expand once they move into a mass production model? If they're gonna churn out an SS a week I feel like it's gonna get way more cramped than it already is.

[Anonymous No.12236191]

>>12235352
General Atomics.

[Anonymous No.12236194]

>>12236151
If you’re working for SpaceX you honestly shouldn’t care about pay or being overworked. I’d do whatever it takes.

[Anonymous No.12236197]

>>12236185
They bought tons of land down there. They’ll be fine.

[Anonymous No.12236198]

>>12235352
NORTHROP GRUMMAN

[Anonymous No.12236201]

>>12236185
i wonder what the plan is for processing between launches. send both back to the bay, roll them out to the pad, and then stack them?

[Anonymous No.12236207]

Declare a fatwa against scum jannies

[Anonymous No.12236212]

>ESA will build two modules for the Lunar Gateway
>they will launch in 2026 and 2027
https://spacenews.com/esa-awards-contracts-for-moon-and-mars-exploration/

wtf it shouldn't take almost a decade to build two little tin cans

[Anonymous No.12236226]

>>12236212
>Thales Alenia’s Italian business is the prime contractor for the I-Hab, an international habitation module

why do we need two hab modules? are we just building our own so we don't have to wait when yurp inevitably pushes its completion date back to 2035?

[Anonymous No.12236227]

>>12236212
The ESA requires 29000 man hours (not woman hours) of paperwork in order to install a new microwave in the break room.

[Anonymous No.12236230]

>>12236212
This post is a threat to jobs in Germany and France, delete this post right now

[Anonymous No.12236231]

>>12235696
>post about dubs
>post the waifu get version of the rocket waifu pic
>complain about getting told to fuck off for getposting

[Anonymous No.12236234]

>>12236212
>letting the Euro's do anything in American Aerospace at all
Literally a bucket of crabs holding back America at this point lmao

[Anonymous No.12236241]

>>12236212
Reminder that the ESA committed to build the Columbus module in 1986 and it didn't launch until 2008

[Anonymous No.12236244]

>>12236212
See >>12235132 that rate of progress is normal to them.

[Anonymous No.12236245]

>>12236212
>ESA

What a fucking joke

[Anonymous No.12236250]

>>12236194
don't end up a castrated slave

[Anonymous No.12236252]

>>12236245
At least they are not Roscosmos.

[Anonymous No.12236260]

>>12236252
Roscosmos at least have a valid reason for the way they are beyond just "space is hard xD"

[Anonymous No.12236263]

>>12236260
ESA is disjointed multinational conglomerate.

[Anonymous No.12236265]

>>12236231
Alright, janny, if you say that rolls are against the rules that's fine. I can handle you lacking the ability to discern between gets and rolls because I never expect anything out of jannies to start with.

But I never posted dubs, you cockgobbling ingrate. You're either mendacious or a moron who needs to either gain basic competence at doing your job or hand over the reins to somebody who can.

[Anonymous No.12236268]

>>12236131
>be me
>back in highschool
>looking at jobs for when I graduate
>hear that welding can pay pretty well
>even a big place nearby that I could get plenty of experience from
>nah fuck that, I'll look for something better
Why does this always happen to me?

[Anonymous No.12236270]

>>12236265

[Anonymous No.12236276]

>>12236241
This is why I think America should adopt a "move fast or bleed fast" approach with international partners in space. It's not the super friendly "we're all one people" approach that some people like to have with space flight, but it's better than slowing everyone else down because someone can't tighten more than two bolts a day.

[Anonymous No.12236277]

>>12236260
Roscosmos is still regularly using a spacecraft designed in the 1960’s. That’s insane.

[Anonymous No.12236284]

ESA might be a bigger meme than Boeing. Boeing is just easier to make fun of because of how blatant it is and how much NASA has to cover for them. But ESA can't even accomplish their own goals within the same decade

[Anonymous No.12236285]

>>12236051
Yes, SpaceX's 750 satellites with solar panels produce 3 milliwatts of power.

Nice going retard.

[Anonymous No.12236286]

>>12236284
Until JWST gets off the ground NASA's still the king of memes

[Anonymous No.12236291]

>>12236277
Worse than that is still using modules like Nauka which were build in the 80s that sure enough has a mountain of problems to comb through every time they switch on its lights

[Anonymous No.12236296]

New thread

>>12236289

[Anonymous No.12236300]

>>12236296
>page 1
what.

[Anonymous No.12236301]

>>12236277

>Roscosmos is still regularly using a spacecraft designed in the 1960’s.

Make that the 1950's. Development of the R-7 ICBM started in 1953, when Stalin was still alive. That makes the basic design of the Soyuz, 67 years old and they plan to launch Soyuz rockets well into the year 2033 which would make the rocket design 80 years old.

[Anonymous No.12236302]

>>12236296

[Anonymous No.12236304]

>>12236277
I partially blame that on the environment of spaceflight not moving on from the 60s. If there were much more BEO stuff going on, then Russia would've moved on from Soyuz or at least made a BEO variant.

[Anonymous No.12236309]

>>12236296
PAGE ONE!

[Anonymous No.12236315]

>>12236296

You moron, dont make new threads untill the general has reached page 10. We do that here to avoid cluttering up /sci/ out of courtesy and the fact that the board doesnt move that quickly.

[Anonymous No.12236321]

>>12236304
Soyuz was designed to be a capable BEO spacecraft in its own right but they just never ended up having to use it as such

[Anonymous No.12236324]

>>12236315
S-sorry

New here and I thought I was being helpful

[Anonymous No.12236331]

[Anonymous No.12236336]

>>12236324
It's ok breh

[Anonymous No.12236338]

>>12236212
>>12236241
How do they even justify this without making themselves seem incompetent?

[Anonymous No.12236339]

>>12236185
The US military will give them as much land as they need if they can deliver what they are promising.

[Anonymous No.12236340]

[Anonymous No.12236345]

>>12236338
Space is Hard

[Anonymous No.12236351]

>>12236338
>I suck, but everyone else sucks, so actually I'm doing really well and don't need to rethink anything
the space industry in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.12236354]

>>12236169
Welding is not "hard". Being a great welder is fucking hard.

[Anonymous No.12236359]

>>12236227
Yes, but you can be damn sure that microwave will be up to spec!!
Best microwaved lasagna in all of goddamned french guiana.

[Anonymous No.12236361]

>>12236212
China's space industry has completely surpassed ESA on every level and it's fucking embarrassing

[Anonymous No.12236363]

>>12236339
Holy shit what if the US gov demands ULA to build a fully reusable TSTO ship? I don't see this as too crazy. ULA as a company is basically a forced conglomerate to assure launch capability (which they can't even achieve lol) Starship will be the soyuz of US rockets; capable of launching whenever. DoD will use SS but pretty soon I speculate that they will want more, bigger, better. I will laugh my ass off if they force boeing to design a TSTO

[Anonymous No.12236368]

>>12235870
Nothing to do with memes and bullying. It’s simple: Evolve or perish.
In orbit refueling and reusing engines would be a nice start, but that‘s probably not enough to keep up with what SpaceX continues to do.

[Anonymous No.12236369]

>>12236276
We’re not all one people.

[Anonymous No.12236370]

>>12236351
I want to be mad at you, but you're right.

[Anonymous No.12236374]

>>12236324
What's the first rule of being new?
>LURK
What's the second rule of being new?
>MOAR

[Anonymous No.12236376]

>>12236340
what a great achievement that will be for team space :)

[Anonymous No.12236383]

>>12236361
Wasn't there a series of polices that the EU want to adopt to be more economically close with China?

[Anonymous No.12236385]

>>12236363
All the money in the world can't help ULA deliver

[Anonymous No.12236390]

>>12236376
yas! i cant wait to stand hand in hand with my blue origin and virgin galaxic comrads. we will bring equality and justice to the stars!

[Anonymous No.12236398]

>>12236368
I could handle a timeline where ULA handles all things hydrolox/hydrogen NTR and Starship just carries their spacecraft and fuel up to orbit.

[Anonymous No.12236403]

>>12236383
Mandated hydrazine first stages and stealing IP from the US? I hope the spent stages get dumped on the French

[Anonymous No.12236405]

>>12236383
Most of those deals were pre corona and all of them are out of the window, and nations like italy who stepped in the belt&road project got fucked hard in the ass.

CCP has burned a lot of bridges in a year.

[Anonymous No.12236406]

>yfw the first human on Mars is a buh-lack woman

[Anonymous No.12236408]

I liked it...I was good at it...when I did it I felt...alive

[Anonymous No.12236414]

What IP ranges are we going to allocate to the moon and mars?

[Anonymous No.12236416]

>>12236406

[Anonymous No.12236429]

STATIC FIRE TODAY BUDDY BOIZ

[Anonymous No.12236430]

>>12236429
Really?

[Anonymous No.12236434]

Why does it feel like nothing is happening for weeks now?

[Anonymous No.12236435]

>>12236429
Source? I sure hope so

[Anonymous No.12236436]

>>12236405
do you have any sources on this? been researching chinese space policy recently and haven't read much on the esa or italy/china relations

[Anonymous No.12236440]

>Landing on Mars is a HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT, not just American

[Anonymous No.12236442]

>>12236434
Gotta be patient with spaceflight anon. It’s been a work in progress for decades, and we’re still just getting started.

[Anonymous No.12236443]

>>12236440
Xe-Xir-Person, not human you neonazi literally Hitler.

[Anonymous No.12236449]

>>12236430
>>12236435
14th was primary but they didnt do anything, 15th and 16th were backups .
This morning Nomad on NSF forum got the general "overpressure event" warning letter-
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51332.2160

[Anonymous No.12236451]

>>12236434
spacenews.com

Read your daily space news.

[Anonymous No.12236458]

Is ESA gonna sign onto the Artemis Accords? Not that it fuckin matter ofc, but they just seem like they're getting too cozy with Russia/China. Or maybe they are hippies who prefer stagnation

[Anonymous No.12236461]

>>12236398
>ULA handles all things NTR

[Anonymous No.12236463]

Here's your precious aerocover bro

[Anonymous No.12236465]

>>12236458
No, they're doing their own thing with Russia/China afaik.

[Anonymous No.12236466]

>>12236436
The space part of it is not really clear yet, but the EU was looking in to chinese companies bulding it's 5G network and that got rejected recently, and italy had a massive amount of chinese in it's country because of belt&road and they got hit first and hardest by corona.
EU population stance on china has taken a massive dive and politicians have been responding to this.
There is also the whole china faking it's gold reserve.

In and in my personal opinion, most of the west leadership knows all too well that corona is the fault of the CCP and a corrupt WHO.
And the CCP will pay.

[Anonymous No.12236467]

>>12236440
German landed people on the Moon using US money.

[Anonymous No.12236473]

>>12236467
Nah, the US conquered Germany and made their smartest people American.

They were American people.

[Anonymous No.12236476]

>>12236467
The krauts wanted to go to mars, the yanks just didn't think big enough.

[Anonymous No.12236479]

>>12236440
>>Landing on Mars is a WHITE MANS ACHIEVEMENT, not just human

Ftfy

[Anonymous No.12236480]

>>12236458
>Is ESA gonna sign onto the Artemis Accords?
I thought they're already in on it? If not, then they'll be left behind.

[Anonymous No.12236482]

>>12236463
She'll be right mate.

[Anonymous No.12236484]

>>12236463

[Anonymous No.12236487]

>>12236324
Nigger

[Anonymous No.12236488]

>>12236473
American is not an ethnic identity, although I suppose we could maybe begin classing those 300lb mystery meat creatura you have over there as ethnic Americans.

[Anonymous No.12236490]

>Starship Earth-to-Earth

Is this realistic? Even with the benefits, I don’t know if I could see this getting government approval. Plus, if just one blows up they would never be allowed to fly again.

[Anonymous No.12236492]

>>12236324
Don't worry about it bro, all you probably knocked off was some shitty college/maths/homework thread. This board is garbo.

[Anonymous No.12236496]

>>12236405
There was also this
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/china-makes-italy-buy-back-its-personal-protective-gear-during-coronavirus-pandemic-report

[Anonymous No.12236499]

>canada
at least they couldnt sign the wrong page this time

[Anonymous No.12236501]

>>12236490
I doubt it, but better to explore an option and have it not work rather than constantly asking "what-if".

[Anonymous No.12236502]

>>12236490
it'll never happen for ordinary travel or transport because jets are much more fuel-efficient. but there might be a military application for rapid cargo transport during a war situation.

[Anonymous No.12236506]

>>12236490
We already know it's not, thanks to Phil Mason. We don't have to wonder about these fantasies, they have simply and completely been debunked. The meatheads in the US military has been thoroughly duped

[Anonymous No.12236508]

>>12236496
jesus christ, the chinese are the jews of the east.

[Anonymous No.12236511]

>>12236499
I really like the canada space agency mommy

[Anonymous No.12236513]

>>12236506
Thunderfoot is a retard nigger

[Anonymous No.12236514]

>>12236463
fuck lads its all over...spacex is finished...the dream is dead...i guess i'm gonna have to...vote biden...

[Anonymous No.12236516]

>>12236499
what the fuck is this supposed to be

[Anonymous No.12236517]

>>12236506
>>12236513

[Anonymous No.12236521]

>>12236490
>Is this realistic?
How do you define realistic in this scenario? Realistic compared to what?

Falcon 9 already lands near perfectly from orbit, so its not such a gigantic leap. The application of Starship Earth-to-Earth is merely an extension of F9 landing. If they've done the fuel consumption/orbital mechanics calculations and came up with proper guidance enough then they're on the path to making it real. Will there be issues? Ofcourse. They don't know how well engines will last, how well the landing can be perfected, how well the shields will survive, how cost effective it would be, etc. Those will come years from now.

[Anonymous No.12236524]

>>12236521
It has high failure rate still.

[Anonymous No.12236529]

>>12236524
Failure rates can be reduced over the lifetime of usage. I suspect human passengers E2E transport wont be a thing for another 5-10 years or atleast until SpaceX hits 300+ Starship landings. We'll likely see E2E cargo transport once they reach ~50-100 landings.

[Anonymous No.12236531]

>>12235803
Manned or unmanned? Be specific anon
>>12235995
>SpaceX's starlink launched sofar (~750 sats) total account for ~3 mW.
Starlink sats sofar produce ~3 megawatts anon, not 3 milliwatts. Mega is the big M, milli is the small m. A megawatt is a billion milliwatts.

[Anonymous No.12236532]

>>12236499
>13.10.20
I didn't know Canada uses European date format!

[Anonymous No.12236534]

>>12236531
Both.

[Anonymous No.12236536]

>>12236532
Canada is part of UK.

[Anonymous No.12236543]

>>12236285
>points out that the other guy can't even get his prefixes correct
>he's the retard
I see the jew has his claws set deep within you, my brother

[Anonymous No.12236547]

>>12236296
based

[Anonymous No.12236549]

when?

[Anonymous No.12236553]

>>12236549
After new glenn

[Anonymous No.12236560]

>>12236549
>launching with your back facing away from the rocket
how safe would this be?

[Anonymous No.12236561]

>>12236434
This has become your new normal. If you were transported from 2010 to today you'd be getting whiplash by how fast things are moving, yet the anons who've been here the whole time would be complaining that the last hop test was already a month ago.

[Anonymous No.12236562]

Double penetration.

[Anonymous No.12236564]

>>12236549

[Anonymous No.12236565]

>>12236549
imagine pulling 10-15g's into your straps and neck if the LES went off

[Anonymous No.12236566]

>>12236560
eyes asplode

[Anonymous No.12236569]

>>12236536
No it isn’t this isnt the 1800s

[Anonymous No.12236580]

>>12236562
threesome

[Anonymous No.12236581]

>>12236560
I think the illustration is wrong. It's the old Boeing Personnel Launch System/Kliper concept. The spacecraft is launched upside-down with a conic fairing on top of it, so that both launch and reentry are eyeballs-in. It's a great design for a horizontal landing biconic capsule and I wish someone would actually build it.

[Anonymous No.12236584]

>>12236569
Still have the Queen on your money.
With any hope you Canucks will find yourself under the Union umbrella.
God Bless the US of A.

[Anonymous No.12236587]

>>12236581
>horizontal landing capsule
for what purpose

[Anonymous No.12236589]

>using a shitty dying ballpoint pen to sign
come on man, couldn't you at least just grab a gel pen or something like koichi did

[Anonymous No.12236593]

>>12236587
Because it's cool.

[Anonymous No.12236596]

>>12236589
A Pilot G2.

[Anonymous No.12236598]

>>12236562
Only small plane was manned.
http://www.astronautix.com/o/ok-m1.html

[Anonymous No.12236600]

>>12236589
>the panic Shinji must of felt when he realised his one and only pen was drying out
thats happened to me on more exams then i care to count

[Anonymous No.12236605]

>>12236589
Fucking Shinji ruins everything again

[Anonymous No.12236606]

>>12236587
>>12236593
Exactly, the purpose of looking awesome.

[Anonymous No.12236619]

>>12236463
Looks good to me, maybe a bit too pretty in fact.

[Anonymous No.12236624]

imagine being as cucked as russia is on launch sites
when are they going to annex some equatorial shithole?

[Anonymous No.12236627]

>>12236624
They are going to build more sea launch platforms.

[Anonymous No.12236631]

>>12235205
you can support absurdly high numbers in the solar system, far more then trillions even

[Anonymous No.12236633]

Who else here is predicting that the SN static tonight fails.

[Anonymous No.12236637]

>>12236631
Only with terraforming or building impossibly large stations, there is limited space you can possibly build even with hundreds years of work.

[Anonymous No.12236641]

>>12235267
>>12235276
it'd be funny if somebody washed out the neopork logo and began reposting them as their own on twitter

[Anonymous No.12236643]

>>12236637
>impossibly large stations
I believe you mean O'Neill Cylinders, anon.

[Anonymous No.12236644]

>>12235408
what happened

[Anonymous No.12236645]

>>12236534
For unmanned, nuclear powered plasma magnet sail riding a 1 GW particle beam array up to 10% light speed, braking using the local stellar wind on arrival to the target system, transitioning to a combination of plasma magnet sail and pulse microfission rocket for visiting target objects in system.

For manned, plasma magnet sail + fusion plasma rocket engines on gigaton class rotating space habitat generation ships that cruise at 3000 km/s and slow down using their magnet sails on arrival, focusing colonization efforts in regions of space populated with a high density of objects with low gravitational binding energy (ie asteroid belts, minor regular moons of giant planets, Galilean Moon sized objects at maximum) in order to restock on important resources and begin manufacturing more large space habitats. Last places to colonize are always the heaviest, ie if aliens were colonizing our star system they'd do the asteroid belt and Kuiper belt first, then the Gas giant moons, then Mars and Mercury, then Earth (Venus would probably just get harvested by robotic drones as a source of nitrogen and carbon for a few thousand years until the atmosphere got thin enough to make colonization of the surface a viable thing).

[Anonymous No.12236648]

>>12236633
this is giving me trypophobia

[Anonymous No.12236650]

>>12236633
predicting and hoping. #jobs4alabama

[Anonymous No.12236656]

>>12236627
Sure they are lmao

[Anonymous No.12236657]

>>12235829
>>12235919
>>12235995
good thing chemical lasers use chemical reactions as original anon found out...

[Anonymous No.12236659]

>>12236633
>ywn have this on your face
why live?

[Anonymous No.12236662]

>>12236643
O'neil cylinders would quickly become unhabitable space hulks, just because they are so large, on part failing will doom entire station, you will need swarms of replicating repair robots to fix things.

[Anonymous No.12236663]

Scientifically speaking, how would the Russian space program fare if communists lost the civil war?

[Anonymous No.12236664]

>>12236633
gods i hope so

[Anonymous No.12236666]

>>12236662
>one part
fix

[Anonymous No.12236667]

>>12235378

[Anonymous No.12236668]

>>12236663
More people would be alive and well but it would be unlikely to be financed, even though empire supported early aviation.

[Anonymous No.12236674]

>>12236663
Hitler probably never comes to power if there's no USSR and without WW2 there's probably no serious effort at spaceflight until decades later than IRL. Russia would have still been right up there with UK/USA in a pack behind Germany, though.

[Anonymous No.12236675]

>>12236663
would probably be more like Europe, which is to say stagnated. they probably never would have had a space industry at all. germany would have steamrolled them, and the jews would have been eradiated

[Anonymous No.12236677]

>>12236675
>and the jews would have been eradiated
I picture mutant radioactive jews.

[Anonymous No.12236678]

>>12236674
>>12236675
Ok bros, which is it? Germany winrar or not?

[Anonymous No.12236682]

>>12236436
>>12236466
it's also happening within china. A lot of Chinese are pissed that the CCP has made their country the enemy of the world virtually overnight: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/china-xi-jinping-facing-widespread-opposition-in-his-own-party-claims-insider

That said, I'm not expecting anything to come of this. In the past, perhaps, but the CCP's dystopian control, powered by US tech™, is probably too much to break: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/us-money-funding-facial-recognition-sensetime-megvii

[Anonymous No.12236684]

If he were alive today, then what do you think he would feel about Boing?

[Anonymous No.12236686]

>>12236549
>A biconic hull is made from two cones and provides a better lift-to-drag ratio for atmospheric flight than does a simple cone-shaped design
So what, are standard cones sub-optimal or something? Why would you want your capsule to do more atmospheric ""flight""?

[Anonymous No.12236689]

>>12236684
He was a noted racist.
He would be too preoccupied complaining about America to even begin addressing the mismanagement of his company.

[Anonymous No.12236690]

>>12236682
Progress may only come from Xi and friends relinquishing their stranglehold, which is unlikely. But, if things get bad enough internally, there may be some sort of coup

[Anonymous No.12236694]

>>12236686
if the body generates lift you can limit the g-load on reentry by descending at a controlled rate

[Anonymous No.12236697]

>>12236324
Lurk more, but you are excused anon
>>12236398
How the fuck would you get something this size to space? It looks cool as fuck though
>>12236440
You already know this is going to be said... unironically...
>>12236663
Loaded question. All things considered Roscosmos would be in a better state, but spaceflight overall would be shitty. We would probably have never landed on the Moon because Germans would not have developed the V2

[Anonymous No.12236701]

>>12236697
Liquid fuel rockets existed before V-2, yet it probably advanced rocketry by 50 years.

[Anonymous No.12236703]

>>12236697
a 15000 sq ft sphere has a radius of 15 feet, so it could be launched in pieces on top of a 2-stage saturn v.

[Anonymous No.12236705]

>>12236694
ah, that makes sense. Thanks

[Anonymous No.12236714]

>>12236458
Maybe ESA will sign next year. It's not terrible that they aren't a founding member, any country can sign at any time. When it becomes clear that the US is serious about returning to the Moon, they'll beg to join

[Anonymous No.12236715]

>>12236598
>that external/center tank
Gee bill, THREE propellants?

[Anonymous No.12236718]

>>12236715
>oxidizer
>fuel
>premixer

[Anonymous No.12236719]

>>12236714
Does it even make sense for ESA/EU to sign? They're not a country. Maybe only individual countries can sign on, and EU members are hesitant or bureaucracy is slow

[Anonymous No.12236720]

>>12236703
>>12236697

meant 17000 cubic foot sphere but the point stands

[Anonymous No.12236723]

Watching IAC thing for ESA is kinda embarrassing.
>ESA has built their first ever metal 3D printer
nigga we've been using these in mass production of engines for multiple companies, what the fuck is talking you retards so long

[Anonymous No.12236726]

>>12236723
maybe they meant "in-space" 3d printing, which we havent done yet. i wonder how that would work

[Anonymous No.12236728]

>>12236657
Even if it didn't, there's no reason why a spacecraft couldn't carry a laser weapon with a power output that exceeded its power supply. It'd just need a capacitor bank or other energy storage method in order to build up a charge, then discharge that energy quickly in a pulse. Charge at ten kilowatts for 100 seconds and you can fire a one megawatt laser for one second, simple as. Bigger solar array equals higher 1 MW shot frequency, until at a 1 MW array you can fire continuously.
The chad move would be to use a laser platform that can sustain a continuous laser output that can cause damage (say 100 kW), but can also pulse fire at power levels much higher (one 1 second shot per minute at 6 MW, one tenth-of-a-second shot at 6 GW every ten minutes). That way your first shot kills your target, and your subsequent sustained beam pushes any oncoming debris away (via thrust from vaporizing materials).
Also imagine just spamming the ground with a continuous 100 kW laser all night, think of all the permanent blindness lmao. So funny it should be a war crime.

[Anonymous No.12236735]

>>12236720
Oh shit you're right. If I did my math correct that's only about 5 meters if you want to launch them in halves. Imagine an 8m radius dome (16 meter total, ~75,000 cubic feet of fuel PER dome)

[Anonymous No.12236736]

>>12236662
>My big metal and basalt fiber pressurize tube rotating in a frictionless environment while coated in thermal insulation which was built with a 5x safety factor strength overhead is falling apart because ????
Explain your reasoning, anon. Are you trying to make a point about life support? You realize that ten thousand people breathing in an orbital habitat a kilometer long and 500 meters wide would take years to consume enough oxygen and exhale enough CO2 to start causing problems? If we can't figure out how to shine a lamp on some algae in a year in order to scrub out the CO2 then we can't figure out how to go to space in the first place.

[Anonymous No.12236743]

>>12236728
>switch giganigga laser to diffuse mode
>blind huge swathes of enemy country

Warcrimes don't exist if you win

[Anonymous No.12236748]

>>12236743
>not using low orbit nuke screens just to blind enemy sensors

[Anonymous No.12236749]

>>12236662
>What’s redundancy

[Anonymous No.12236750]

>>12236743
>cook enemy country from the inside out

[Anonymous No.12236753]

DIOS MIO

[Anonymous No.12236756]

>>12236749
now we have TWO impossible to maintain O'Neill dildos

[Anonymous No.12236758]

>>12236756
I think that anon meant double the parts in one cylinder rather than two of them.

[Anonymous No.12236760]

250t to orbit WHEN?

[Anonymous No.12236763]

>>12236760
Starship Heavy

[Anonymous No.12236765]

>>12236760
when starship launches 3 times

>>12236758
that'll just make it break twice as much!

[Anonymous No.12236766]

>>12236736
>>12236749
Have fun with your power source or impossibly complex radiators breaking.
Or thermoregualtion, microclimate, etc.

[Anonymous No.12236767]

>>12236743
Just use targeted X-FELs to instantaneously assassinate every member of the enemy's chain of command by blasting them with 3.6 roentgens.

[Anonymous No.12236772]

Is there a practical limit for how many tons to orbit for a rocket? I know we joke about 36m diameter starship and shit, but really how big can you make it before it stops making sense?

[Anonymous No.12236773]

>>12236767
Might as well use neutron beams.

[Anonymous No.12236774]

>In Korolev's defense of the N1 draft project in July 1962 he stated that he first sketched out the N1 design in 1956-1957. The requirement at that time was to support a large manned expedition to Mars. This first serious examination in the Soviet Union of manned flight to Mars was initiated by M Tikhonravov's section of Korolev's OKB-1. The study group first considered a complete manned expedition to Mars. This followed the classic scenario worked out by Von Braun's group in their Mars Project of 1948. The Martian Piloted Complex would be assembled in low earth orbit. Using conventional liquid propellants, it would fly a Hohmann trajectory, enter Martian orbit, and a landing craft would descend to the surface. After just over a year of surface exploration, the crew would return to earth. It was calculated that the initial mass of the MPK would be 1,630 metric tons, and a re-entry vehicle of only 15 metric tons could be returned to earth at the end of the 30 month mission. At the planned N1 payload mass of 75 to 85 metric tons, it would take 20 to 25 N1 launches to assemble the MPK.

when?

[Anonymous No.12236777]

>>12236772
That's the origin of Nova Ultima.

[Anonymous No.12236783]

>>12236772
Until combustion instability breaks large engine bells.

[Anonymous No.12236784]

who is gonna be autistic enough to actually do fuel crossfeed IRL for once

[Anonymous No.12236787]

don't migrate it's too early you fucks

[Anonymous No.12236789]

how is vostochny coming along these days

[Anonymous No.12236792]

>>12236772
There is no practical limit other than how large a rocket your ground equipment can handle, in fact the bigger the better and this just keeps scaling.

500m diameter when

[Anonymous No.12236794]

>>12236777

[Anonymous No.12236796]

>>12236772
>>12236783
That's why you don't use bells if you want to go really wide, like, say, a 60-meter convair nexus.

[Anonymous No.12236797]

[Anonymous No.12236799]

>>12236792
No, you're saying there's no theoretical limit. Of course there must be a practical limit, and it may be related to the amount of capex or rnd development time/$ that determines the limit. the tooling for those sizes would scale just as much

[Anonymous No.12236802]

>>12236772
Bigger than 36m in diameter probably. The thing is, at those sizes the clusters of engines needed will prevent the rocket from being a nice neat tower as with Saturn V or Starship. The mega-sized heavy lifters of the future will look more like ever-more bloated versions of the N1, getting thiccer and thiccer at the base.
If my huge spacecraft in KSP are anything to go by, they will eventually look more like a giant pistol cartridge with a flared out base.

[Anonymous No.12236803]

>>12236794
I wonder how much that would cost.

[Anonymous No.12236805]

>>12236799
At some point materials should just break apart because of size.

[Anonymous No.12236808]

>>12236792
There are limits to the practice tensile strength of tank materials
Eventually a tank will be so large it can't hold itself together without internal bracing, and eventually lack of fuel and weight will make it impossible to get off the ground, since internal bracing takes the plane of fuel, and adds dry weight

[Anonymous No.12236809]

[Anonymous No.12236813]

>>12236753
I unironically love it

[Anonymous No.12236814]

In terms of payload the largest "rocket" I've ever seen proposed was the advanced interplanetary orion. Some of the Nexus designs went wider, though.

[Anonymous No.12236819]

[Anonymous No.12236825]

what are the pro/cons to using a ton of small engines vs. a few big ones?

[Anonymous No.12236827]

>>12236814
>1300 ton payload to Titan
what the fuck

[Anonymous No.12236829]

>>12236825
Less instability, harder to control.

[Anonymous No.12236830]

>>12236808
to add, in zero g you can have significantly larger tanks, since gravitational forces aren't pulling apart the tank itself, which means you can have tanks that are miles wide, and structurally supported by the pressure of fuel they hold, the only limit is how fast you accelerate

[Anonymous No.12236832]

>>12236794
Imagine how many starlink sats you could stuff in that daddy

[Anonymous No.12236836]

>>12236825
pros: if you can cluster small engines on the first stage then you can get away with only using one kind of engine which saves a lot of $$$. more engines means more engine-out capability, all else equal.
cons: the n1

[Anonymous No.12236840]

>>12236827
Wait wait wait. I skipped over that because my brain automatically tried to convert it to "13" tons. 1300 tons?? Holy FUCK

[Anonymous No.12236841]

>>12236832
~3500 or over a tenth of Starlink's total planned satellites.

[Anonymous No.12236842]

>>12236720
Hey, that looks like some autism I drew up a few weeks ago

[Anonymous No.12236846]

>>12236799
I'd probably ballpark it somewhere around the size of Seawise Giant, one of the largest boats ever constructed. It gives us a good look at the practical limitations of modern tooling. At it's largest dimensions it's about 30mx460m. Your spaceship would be squatter than 460m, probably no more than 300, maybe 40-ish meters at the base tapering gradually up.
Boats of course are built much, much more heavily than rockets are, and are subjected to different and in many regards more violent stresses (especially lengthwise bowing and bending when hit by waves), so your rocket would only displace a fraction of the same tonnage.
Your limiting factor really isn't going to be the material durability of the rocket itself, it's going to be how many engines you're willing to build to lift it off the ground. You'll hit the limitations of your rocket engine industry before you hit the structural durability of your rocket's base material.
>>12236825
Big Engine pros:
>Usually simpler
>Fewer points of failure
>Grossly large parts are in some ways easier to work with
Big Engine cons:
>More expensive and time consuming per unit
>Ballooning turbomachinery sizes and costs
>Combustion instability
>Need bigger tools
>Generally lower TWR ceiling

Small Engine pros:
>Cheaper per unit, less build time
>Higher top chamber pressures and thus often higher efficiency ceiling
>Lend themselves to the complex fuel cycles
>Smaller tools needed to make them
>Generally higher TWR ceiling
Small Engine cons:
>Clustered engines have more points of failure
>More overall engines have more points of failure
>Less thrust per engine unit

[Anonymous No.12236847]

>>12236827
>>12236840
*payload to Titan
**and back

[Anonymous No.12236851]

>>12236797
why

[Anonymous No.12236853]

>>12236847
*on a high-energy trajectory that cuts the trip time down by 75%

[Anonymous No.12236856]

>>12236789
Knowing roscosmos probably not at all

[Anonymous No.12236857]

>>12236766
>Have fun with your power source or impossibly complex radiators breaking.
Partially reflective glass to filter direct sunlight and keep the temperature a comfy 23 C. The Sun won't break for a while.
>Or thermoregualtion, microclimate, etc.
Water in the floor. Don't manage any of the weather inside, let it sort itself out. No machines doing anything actually, the habitat is a monolithic pressure vessel with no penetrations and no active systems. We terrarium now. If we die, we die.

[Anonymous No.12236864]

>>12236808
>Eventually a tank will be so large it can't hold itself together without internal bracing
False, you just make the walls thicker
>mfw 100 meter wide rockets of the future are built from 50 cm thick forged stainless steel armor plating assembled via deep penetrating electron beam welding

[Anonymous No.12236865]

>>12236825
with big engines you can fit bigger nozzles on them, but you get square cubed scaling up turbopumps and shit so generally lower TWR
with clustered engines you can easily make rockets bigger or smaller by just changing the number of engines instead of having to design new ones every time
big engines have combustion instability issues and are a lot more expensive to develop, since you have to get everything right as a unit instead of just getting small ones working and repeating them
multiple engines you have to deal with much more complicated synchronization and control issues, but this is much easier now than it used to be
multiple engines makes control much easier through gimballing or thrust differentials if they are throttleable, single engine will need verniers or something to provide roll control

for reliability it can go either way depending on the specifics, more engines = less fucked if one of them goes out, but also more things that can go wrong
If you have pretty reliable and well tested engines then more engines = better, but if you have something like the N-1 with single-use valves making static fire testing impossible and shitty control systems then more engines = worse because one of them is going to explode and take out the surrounding engines and the whole stage

[Anonymous No.12236867]

>>12236809
Not developing the one on the far right was a mistake

[Anonymous No.12236880]

>>12235810
Don't think Daedalus relies on scooping up hydrogen out of interstellar space.

[Anonymous No.12236881]

SN8 static fire tonight?

[Anonymous No.12236885]

godammit fuck

[Anonymous No.12236889]

>>12236881
kinda late for them to be getting started, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.12236894]

>>12236889
No? SpaceX testing all moved to late night due to county judge requests to make sure the beach is open durin day time

[Anonymous No.12236897]

>>12236881
>>12236889
They have from 9pm-6am tonight and another window from 8am-4:30pm tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.12236899]

>>12236881
Road closures soon, cops are near the roadblock.

[Anonymous No.12236901]

>>12236894
I thought I remembered the static fires usually happening before 10 local time but I could be off.

[Anonymous No.12236903]

>>12236889
Almost all tests are supposed to happen at night now.

[Anonymous No.12236905]

>>12236901
Its whenever they're ready to go. It could be 10, 11pm, 3AM, 4AM, etc.

[Anonymous No.12236909]

>>12236885
Well GOOD
spent stage retrieval services WHEN

[Anonymous No.12236910]

>>12236885
Despite being between abandoned rus and chink garbage in LEO, a collision would absolutely have caused the media and known provocateurs to ""raise the alarm"" over Starlink's self-maneuvering VLEO constellation because they know the public is completely brainless. So I'm glad there's no habbening.

[Anonymous No.12236915]

>>12236910
This, good point

[Anonymous No.12236921]

>>12236909
when TEM is done :)

[Anonymous No.12236930]

>>12234698
i'm dumb, what's MOOSE?

[Anonymous No.12236933]

>>12234698
starliner, at least then I have room to jack off before I die

[Anonymous No.12236935]

>>12236930
Man Out of Space Easiest

[Anonymous No.12236941]

>firefly
lmao
https://twitter.com/DavidNagySFgang/status/1316911786298363904

[Anonymous No.12236946]

>>12236935
A plastic bag filled with styrofoam that you wear around your spacesuit to re-enter the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.12236950]

anyone else have this issue in RSS where often the KSC view has shadows and clipping spazzing out and mouseover on the buildings is out of place so you have to use the side buttons instead?
it's not a huge issue, but thinking of starting a new game and want to fix as much of this jank as I can for it

[Anonymous No.12236951]

>>12236935
Would that plastic bag really be stable during reentry?

[Anonymous No.12236958]

>>12236950
going into the tracking station always fixes it for me

[Anonymous No.12236963]

>>12236951
Doubtful, I'm more concerned with the expanding foam. Once the plastic burns away how well would that shit take the heating?

[Anonymous No.12236964]

>>12236958
yeah, just trying to figure out if it's something I can get rid of or not
I started a new game and it wasn't happening at all, but then after I loaded my old save and went back to new game it started again
probably something with loading saves triggers it that doesn't happen with just starting new game, i dunno

[Anonymous No.12236983]

>>12236941
Lmao just some good ol fashioned rocket science. They know how to have fun over at Firefly!

[Anonymous No.12237000]

>>12235772
>the easiest way to do it would probably just be going on EVA and planting a few charges on the exterior
Satellites are fragile. Just bring an axe and chop holes in it.

[Anonymous No.12237001]

>>12236963
Well I'm sure it's ablative foam, so heating probably won't be an issue. Also, due to the bag's light weight and large surface area, I imagine it would decelerate really quickly.

[Anonymous No.12237007]

>>12235408
>>12235507
He basically ragequit when anons called his ideas dumb.

[Anonymous No.12237012]

>>12236226
>are we just building our own so we don't have to wait when yurp inevitably pushes its completion date back to 2035?
Given the EUS delays yeah.

[Anonymous No.12237019]

Gateway is DOA before modules have been built, 1 starship will have more working volume, and a wet workshop conversion would make it the largest satellite in human history, especially if you parked a few of them together in lunar orbit

[Anonymous No.12237024]

>>12236265
A. not a janny, just an oldfag
B. gets and rolls are the same thing

[Anonymous No.12237026]

>>12236963
Had a flexible ablative heat shield unknown to me what it was made of.

[Anonymous No.12237028]

>>12236398
the question is "why do you need so much fucking power to store your propellant in the balls"
the answer is "how else do you keep it cold"

[Anonymous No.12237029]

>>12237019
It's easier to just launch more starships.

>first mass colonization launch window opens
>all the ships are tanked up and waiting in LEO
>Elon tweets "Unlimited Blade Works" as a hundred TMI burns start at once

[Anonymous No.12237050]

>>12236829
>>12236836
>>12236846
>>12236865
thanks, anons. Extremely informative. Especially >>12236865 and >>12236846

[Anonymous No.12237055]

>>12236881
that's the plan, with a preburner test before that

[Anonymous No.12237059]

>>12237029
Kino

[Anonymous No.12237070]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXeUkrlxQ98
when?

[Anonymous No.12237082]

alarmist and fearmonger BTFO

[Anonymous No.12237112]

spoonfeed me a link to the tank streams

[Anonymous No.12237121]

>>12237112
no

[Anonymous No.12237124]

>>12237112
no

[Anonymous No.12237136]

>>12237112
no

[Anonymous No.12237153]

>static fire in boca and race war in SA both live streaming tonight

Time to get comfy bros

[Anonymous No.12237168]

>>12237153
ultimate habbening night

[Anonymous No.12237189]

>>12237153
link to race war?

[Anonymous No.12237192]

>>12237189
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAtOh7KYF4o
supposed to go live in 2 hours i guess, no idea what the habbening is

[Anonymous No.12237194]

>>12237192
>buttcoin garbage

[Anonymous No.12237195]

>>12237168
Statics fire ain't habbenin until NSF start streaming. Those niggers got insider info coming out their ass

[Anonymous No.12237198]

>>12237192
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuSk6Rwa28s&has_verified=1 better stream from people actually on the ground

[Anonymous No.12237210]

>>12236212
bolting together a bunch of cygnuses would take half the time

[Anonymous No.12237232]

road is closed

[Anonymous No.12237234]

>>12237232
Due to aids.

[Anonymous No.12237262]

>>12237234
and stingrays

[Anonymous No.12237264]

>>12237195
>Statics fire ain't habbenin until NSF start streaming
Yeah, I’m kinda surprised they don’t have anything up right now. Debating whether or not I should just get some sleep.

[Anonymous No.12237266]

>>12237234
:D

[Anonymous No.12237269]

>>12237262
stinggays*

[Anonymous No.12237271]

>>12237264
they usually don't start until the pad's clear

[Anonymous No.12237283]

>>12237264
Road closed so I'd say pretty high chance of something happening, might not be for a few hours though.

[Anonymous No.12237286]

>>12237271
perhaps. probably changed their habits after being burned by scrubs so many times. used to start some streams immediately at the window open. then again, that gives them even more time to grift, so not sure why they stopped

[Anonymous No.12237295]

>>12236941
Apparently it wasn't a big deal
https://twitter.com/DavidNagySFgang/status/1316918021177430016

[Anonymous No.12237400]

>>12235898

[Anonymous No.12237406]

>>12237112
sent ;)

[Anonymous No.12237425]

post cute sounding rockets bros

[Anonymous No.12237432]

>>12237425
Mid part would feel awful in urethra

[Anonymous No.12237435]

>>12237432
speak for yourself

[Anonymous No.12237436]

>>12237432
>not doing your stretching

[Anonymous No.12237450]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QunVAWABQSc
actually pretty cool video, I wonder how long it took to download all the lidar data and images for making that model

[Anonymous No.12237468]

>>12237425
All RP1 sounding rockets look basically the same for the first couple tech nodes, some combination of 0.38m BEEEE stages and solids, or a V2 derivative (and 1.6m tooling with better engines and tankage is usually good enough for your first orbital rocket too)

After that you CAN do interesting things or you can be boring and efficient with an Atlas tribody like everyone else (LR105 core, common diameter LR89 boosters)

LR105 actually makes an interesting second stage on top of an LR79

[Anonymous No.12237473]

>>12237450
Asteroids are horribly underrated. I’m glad that we’re getting Psyche and Lucy coming up. But for real, how would mining water on asteroids work?

[Anonymous No.12237481]

>>12236662
Amazon already has bot swarms being used in fulfillment centers.

[Anonymous No.12237515]

>>12237473
Some small asteroids, particularly NEAs, are mostly ice. Current plans basically amount to wrapping them in bags and applying concentrated solar thermal energy to melt them.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/mining.php#rap0

[Anonymous No.12237535]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMxcrTFO4Lc
bring her back bros......

[Anonymous No.12237563]

>>12237535
Blue Urine has brough her back....New Shepard is DCX

[Anonymous No.12237584]

>>12235352
Jebs Junkyard

[Anonymous No.12237585]

>>12236766
Living in a technologically mature O'Neill cylinder will likely be safer than living on an actual planet. You have the "ground" on the outside and the air inside, giving you protection from radiation, debris etc, on top of that no weapon of mass destruction will even work on you. Nuclear weapons are hilariously weak in vacuum compared to their atmospheric performance. Your biosphere is also hermetically sealed from foreign interference, so contamination with viruses and harmful chemicals is much less likely.
Next time a Spanish flu tier virus rolls around, the space-dwellers will just shut their traffic down and bring out the popcorn.

[Anonymous No.12237592]

>>12237585
lol just blast the nuke inside wtf

[Anonymous No.12237596]

>>12237592
IMMA CHARGIN MAH CASABA HOWITZERS
IMMA FIRIN MAH CASABA HOWITZERS
SHOOP DA WHOOP

[Anonymous No.12237597]

>>12235775
based, fuck sukuuvesta and fuck ishukone and FUCK GALLENTE

[Anonymous No.12237630]

So how exactly does ACES do zero boil off?

[Anonymous No.12237635]

>>12237630
>Shelby agitator
kek

[Anonymous No.12237654]

>>12237630
>liquid hydromeme

It doesn't

[Anonymous No.12237660]

>>12237630
put it in a fridge

[Anonymous No.12237667]

>>12236089
>wine and dyne orbital restaurant

[Anonymous No.12237671]

>NASA almost flew Big G due to the shuttle being over budget
>MOL literally had a test flight

What the fuck bro’s? We almost lived in a Big G/MOL timeline...

[Anonymous No.12237681]

>>12237596
Yes hello, based department?

[Anonymous No.12237698]

>>12237671
If SpaceX man rated the Falcon Heavy they could stack a MOL type hab under a Dragon capsule and get a sleek 21st century version of Big G / Titan... but that would still be inferior to just a single Starship.

[Anonymous No.12237712]

>>12236846
>>12236799
the practical limit is probably around where your upper stage tankage is spherical instead of cylindrical

[Anonymous No.12237716]

>>12237698
FALCON HEAVY LAUNCHED MINI STARSHIP TO MARS

[Anonymous No.12237725]

damn this nigga been skippin his drinks and snacks

[Anonymous No.12237728]

>>12237716
Starship launched 8m hydrolox tugs!

[Anonymous No.12237733]

>>12237725
>two years
bro

[Anonymous No.12237753]

>>12237733
>>12237725
boogie looks great now, wtf??

[Anonymous No.12237758]

Pad clear

[Anonymous No.12237767]

>>12237271
>>12237758
Pad's clear, still no NSF stream. Not a peep from those chucklefucks. Clearly they know SpaceX ain't firing shit tonight

[Anonymous No.12237784]

what's the ISP of a nuclear bomb propulsion system?

[Anonymous No.12237789]

>>12236753
Big Dilator.

[Anonymous No.12237790]

>>12237767
venting

[Anonymous No.12237793]

>>12237784
yeah

[Anonymous No.12237796]

>>12237784
yes

[Anonymous No.12237805]

>>12237082
If you actually read the fine print, it said "larger than 10% chance of collision". All this kessler syndrome shit is alarmism at its finest just like all the fucking "near miss" articles.
That said, it's about fucking time we start a program to clean up some shit and actually start an industry in LEO through that.

[Anonymous No.12237809]

>>12237790
>still no NSF stream
it's ok man, just go to bed

[Anonymous No.12237811]

>>12237809
i'm watching the senekal shit, if a static fire happens that'll be an added bonus

[Anonymous No.12237816]

Whatchu guys think elon's gonna say at the mars society stream 2moro?

[Anonymous No.12237817]

>>12237816
starship is cancelled

[Anonymous No.12237825]

>>12237816
It says he's giving a presentation about SpaceX's plans for the Moon and Mars.
>SpaceX CEO and founder Elon Musk will be joining us virtually tomorrow (Friday, October 16th) at 3:00 pm PDT (6:00 pm EDT) [PLEASE NOTE NEW TIME] to provide our global audience with a special update about SpaceX and its plans for the Moon and Mars

Bridenstine will do a presentation covering NASA's contributions to the Moon and Mars on Saturday.

[Anonymous No.12237827]

>>12237816
>elon musk looks directly into his webcam
>"I have an announcement"
>he unzips his pants, reaching inside
>pulls out what appears to be
MINI STARSHIP

[Anonymous No.12237828]

SpaceX might be waiting do to the static fire during the day so they don't wake people up. Can someone point out where the grass vent is?

[Anonymous No.12237836]

>>12237828
lolno, they're only allowed to do testing at night

[Anonymous No.12237838]

>>12237753
He is still a dipshit.

[Anonymous No.12237847]

>>12237836
The test runs through the day today, until 4:30pm.
https://www.cameroncounty.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PUBLIC-NOTICE-OF-CAMERON-COUNTY-ORDER-TO-TEMP.-BEACH-CLOSURE-AND-HWY.10.14.20.pdf

[Anonymous No.12237879]

>>12236819
SNIFF

[Anonymous No.12237883]

>>12236772
Cut Earth in half, put a whole lotta engines inbetween and launch. Now you can't really tell what's orbiting what.

[Anonymous No.12237887]

>>12237883
Ok wise guy

[Anonymous No.12237889]

Venting

[Anonymous No.12237892]

>>12237889
SNIFF SNORT

[Anonymous No.12237893]

Hour and a half left? No way they'll get through it all tonight.

[Anonymous No.12237895]

>>12237889

[Anonymous No.12237896]

>>12236667
>yellow
>not Dew green

[Anonymous No.12237899]

>>12237827
Ok you got me

[Anonymous No.12237901]

Why did he do it?

[Anonymous No.12237902]

>>12237825
Probably the same shit as always but we might get a few factoids here and there.

[Anonymous No.12237903]

NSF is live, which means something is actually about to happen

[Anonymous No.12237913]

SN8 is venting now

[Anonymous No.12237916]

>NSF L2 gets the testing schedule leaked to them
Still ain't buying L2.

[Anonymous No.12237918]

>>12237916
If you buy L2 and post the leaks I'll send you my rare pepe collection.

[Anonymous No.12237924]

>>12237913
(You)

[Anonymous No.12237925]

>>12237924
It's been venting for like 10 minutes now. I don't know why LabPadre is slow to update.

[Anonymous No.12237938]

SN8 is frosty

[Anonymous No.12237952]

>>12237918
surprised this hasnt happened yet. or has it.....? spooky o_0

[Anonymous No.12237954]

Maybe they will do an engine test within the next 45 minutes.

[Anonymous No.12237961]

>the triangle
based new developments

[Anonymous No.12237966]

>>12237916
The testing schedule is public my man
https://www.cameroncounty.us/spacex/

[Anonymous No.12237968]

>>12237966
They said on the stream that they were given the expected time that a static fire would happen. They said SpaceX is behind schedule by at least an hour.

[Anonymous No.12237977]

>>12237968
Sounds like shit they made up to bait donos and subs. If their time is off they can always just claim there's a delay

[Anonymous No.12237982]

>>12237977
Could be.

[Anonymous No.12237991]

Defrosting

[Anonymous No.12237996]

Scrub?

[Anonymous No.12238002]

>>12237996
Doesn't seem like it.

[Anonymous No.12238024]

>>12237961
the wut

[Anonymous No.12238034]

>>12238024
The bottom three vents in a triangle formation. It's a new development that we haven't seen before.

[Anonymous No.12238056]

>no 10 minute siren
Guess a static fire is not happening this morning. We might get a shorter preburner test instead.

[Anonymous No.12238062]

RCS testing

[Anonymous No.12238065]

migrate? 12236289

[Anonymous No.12238071]

>>12238065
die

[Anonymous No.12238072]

>>12236289

[Anonymous No.12238095]

Detanked! Get dunked on nerds

[Anonymous No.12238214]

>>12238095
All the dinosaurs died. Space is cancelled.