/sfg/ - Space Flight General: STS-135 Edition

[Anonymous No.14635682]

Previous: >>14632293

-1 thread lol

[Anonymous No.14635687]

What happened to the last one?

[Anonymous No.14635688]

you're gonna carry that weight

[Anonymous No.14635690]

>>14635682
FTS Archive
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1KCJBL632oieD1r6JOh_5Eg9NTcf_-hH8?usp=sharing

[Anonymous No.14635692]

>>14635682
I feel like I saw a painting of this when I was at KSC, they have some nice art over in the conference center

[Anonymous No.14635694]

>>14635687
I deleted it since having a thread with a currently appropriate theme seemed better than a thread with a random one.
Probably should have checked anniversaries before creating a new thread.

[Anonymous No.14635695]

>>14635694
I mean, it wasn't exactly random, turn on the news bro

[Anonymous No.14635698]

>>14635694
appreciate having an anon putting thought and effort into OPs~

[Anonymous No.14635699]

[Anonymous No.14635701]

>>14635695
is the ex-PM ok?

[Anonymous No.14635708]

When is giant shiny dildo flying?

[Anonymous No.14635710]

>>14635682
11 years since the end of the dark ages, and the beginning of the renaissance

[Anonymous No.14635711]

>>14635708
07/22/22(Fri)01:52:45

[Anonymous No.14635716]

Glass the earth, demigod war eventually

[Anonymous No.14635720]

>>14635711
nice. Also checked

[Anonymous No.14635722]

lmao NASA put out a press release for the grand opening of their new cafeteria

>NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland will unveil its new Research Support Building (RSB) on Tuesday, July 11. Media are invited to attend.
>The contemporary new building will serve as a campus center and provide a flexible, inclusive, and collaborative workplace for employees to meet NASA's future mission needs. The RSB will house 164 employees and include open office areas, private offices, conference rooms, collaborative engineering rooms, a gift shop, credit union, and cafeteria.

[Anonymous No.14635723]

>>14635708
We just need someone to take over Starship from the evil billionaire Musk and reach Mars so that he can't take control of Mars and suppress the people. You can't trust billionaires

[Anonymous No.14635729]

>>14635722
this will make up for the lack of static fire next week at least

[Anonymous No.14635730]

Finally got a post-mortem on Capstone's glitch

https://www.space.com/nasa-capstone-moon-cubesat-first-engine-burn

>On Monday, while investigating inconsistent CAPSTONE ranging data noticed by technicians with NASA's Deep Space Network, "the spacecraft operations team attempted to access diagnostic data on the spacecraft's radio and sent an improperly formatted command that made the radio inoperable," NASA officials wrote in another update today.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/07/07/mission-team-determines-cause-of-communications-issues-for-nasas-capstone/

>While CAPSTONE was out of contact with Earth, the spacecraft autonomously maintained its orientation to keep its antenna pointed towards Earth and allow the solar panels to keep its battery charged. CAPSTONE also used its thrusters to perform a standard maneuver to dump excess momentum from its reaction wheels, which are internal wheels that help the spacecraft rotate and point itself.

[Anonymous No.14635735]

>>14635730
I wonder where this ranks in world's most expensive typos

[Anonymous No.14635737]

>>14635735
way cheaper than the missing hyphen that killed mariner 1

[Anonymous No.14635741]

>>14635730
>>14635722
>open a cantine
>fuck up a radio transmission
nasa was busy this week.

[Anonymous No.14635747]

>>14635722

[Anonymous No.14635763]

https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/07/07/nasas-webb-telescope-nirspec-instrument-ready-for-science/

[Anonymous No.14635801]

Hope you guys are ready for a lot of raptor swaps in the coming year...

[Anonymous No.14635803]

>1% chance for X flares in the next 24 hours
is it time to freak out?

[Anonymous No.14635808]

>>14635801
only if they are hot swaps where a mexican changes them out mid static fire

[Anonymous No.14635817]

Vega C is now stacked and preparing for launch

[Anonymous No.14635822]

>>14635803
Nah.

[Anonymous No.14635827]

>>14635817
When is it launching?

[Anonymous No.14635839]

>>14635827
13th July

[Anonymous No.14635887]

>>14635688
RIP

[Anonymous No.14635889]

On this day in 2011... Space Shuttle Atlantis launched the final STS.

[Anonymous No.14635892]

>>14635889
good riddance

[Anonymous No.14635900]

>>14635889
what a piece of shit

[Anonymous No.14635906]

>>14635889
Glad this garbage is finally dead.

[Anonymous No.14635911]

>>14635889
Atlantis a CUTE

[Anonymous No.14635916]

>no closures again until Monday

CUNT FUCK

[Anonymous No.14635917]

>>14635911
challenger was cuter!

[Anonymous No.14635925]

>>14635889
You've just given me flashbacks to all the nauseating wank going on at the time about how important and inspiring the Shuttle program was and how it radically pushed the boundaries of what was possible in spaceflight

[Anonymous No.14635927]

>Shinzo Abe died
How does this affect JAXA?

[Anonymous No.14635934]

>>14635927
he's not dead, just no vital signs

[Anonymous No.14635935]

>>14635927
>how can i loosely tie in current news with spaceflight?

[Anonymous No.14635938]

>>14635927
JAXA is dead already. Shame about Abe though

[Anonymous No.14635979]

Look at this wild Soyuz pushed out of its natural habitat due to evil corporation SpaceX. Man Made expansion has forced this LEO vehicle into environments that are unsuitable for it.
Dragons are an invasive species and must be stopped.

[Anonymous No.14636015]

Uhh... wasn't it supposed to be in like a year or two?

[Anonymous No.14636024]

>>14635889
>>14635892
>>14635900
>>14635906
Isn't this just starship?

[Anonymous No.14636054]

>>14636024
yes, but starship will never be crewed thankfully

[Anonymous No.14636063]

Space Shuttle and SLS were/are disasters for humans spaceflight

[Anonymous No.14636070]

>>14636015
Edifis knew he would be
finished in time...

...which, in the field of construction,
was rare in those days.

[Anonymous No.14636080]

>>14636024
gross
delete it

[Anonymous No.14636084]

>>14635934
"It didn't explode, just suffered a major malfunction"

[Anonymous No.14636097]

>>14636024
ironically still better than the shuttle

[Anonymous No.14636109]

>>14635889
it was a bad design but still sexy and it really took a fuckton of engineering to make it work, which somehow makes me appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.14636136]

I really want to see how torched Starship gets once it comes back in for landing.

[Anonymous No.14636164]

>>14635916
It's always funny when the NSF 24/7 livestream has a poll about when an upcoming event will happen, most people usually vote for the closer options (which also tend to be far too close), and almost invariably end up being wrong, yet the same happens with the next poll. You'd think especially the people who constantly tankwatch and keep seeing things getting delayed and taking many attempts would expect things to take longer, but no, this time it'll be different!

[Anonymous No.14636247]

>>14636024
one big difference is starship has no launch abort

[Anonymous No.14636263]

>>14636247
???

[Anonymous No.14636267]

>>14636109
I still can't fathom how the Shuttle is able to fly in a parallel configuration. Like I know the engines are offset and they gimbal, but it still seems like black magic.

[Anonymous No.14636291]

Is it true that robots are better and cheaper for space exploration?

[Anonymous No.14636295]

>>14636291
google the NASA insight mole saga

[Anonymous No.14636308]

>>14636291
no
just look how much ingenuity cost

[Anonymous No.14636312]

>>14636291
Yes, when they're controlled by on-site humans. Automate everything.

[Anonymous No.14636316]

>>14636291
Absolutely, when done right.

[Anonymous No.14636324]

spaceflight is boring lately, even though technically alot of stuff is happening

[Anonymous No.14636326]

>>14636324
go back to tiktok then

[Anonymous No.14636327]

>>14636324
It's only boring because the one thing we all want to happen hasn't happened. We're spoilt for choice, but the only thing we want on the menu is currently out of stock.

[Anonymous No.14636329]

>>14636291
Depends if it's NASA that's responsible for the manned mission

[Anonymous No.14636343]

https://twitter.com/katlinegrey/status/1545363345485742080
>Answering to the NASA statement about Russia using the ISS for propaganda purposes, @Rogozin wrote in his Telegram channel: "We will do in the Russian segment everything what we consider necessary and useful. And I advise Western partners to cancel their stupid sanctions."

[Anonymous No.14636345]

>>14636343
ISS was a mistake

[Anonymous No.14636350]

>>14636343

[Anonymous No.14636351]

>>14636350
Is this the russian whataboutism attempt?

[Anonymous No.14636352]

>>14636345
Bringing the Russians in gave focus to the space station project that without probably would have resulted in the first module not being launched until the mid 2000s even more overbudget than it ended up being. Now you can argue that NASA's obsession in the Shuttle era of building a space station was a mistake but unfortunately that's the reality of the world we live in

[Anonymous No.14636355]

>>14636343
Wonder if the american astronauts are sleeping with a gun/knife in their sleeping bags

[Anonymous No.14636378]

>>14636015
I will take another shit in my lifetime

[Anonymous No.14636384]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/nasa-shares-list-of-cosmic-targets-for-webb-telescope-s-first-images
>SMACS 0723
>WASP-96b
>Southern Ring Nebula
>Stephan’s Quintet
>Carina Nebula

[Anonymous No.14636386]

>>14636343
>>14636345
It would be worth it to me to deorbit the entire ISS, against the wishes of Russia. Nothing of value is lost to us, meanwhile Russia has nowhere to send their Soyuz and no capability to create their own replacement station.

[Anonymous No.14636387]

>>14636384
First target should be Elon's Roadster.

[Anonymous No.14636388]

>>14636384
>hot jupiter atmosphere spectra
I sleep

[Anonymous No.14636391]

>>14636386
>destroying a $150 billion space station to own the russians

[Anonymous No.14636392]

>>14636391
starship wet lab is bigger and cheaper

[Anonymous No.14636409]

>>14636392
wet workshops are haram on /sfg/

[Anonymous No.14636413]

I'm unbanned

[Anonymous No.14636416]

>>14636413
Bro your router reset?

[Anonymous No.14636432]

>>14636391
ISS is not only a depreciating asset, its a negative asset since it costs $4 billion per year to maintain it.

Functionality of ISS could be reproduced by Axiom or Starship as an orbital station. For 1/1000 the cost.

[Anonymous No.14636434]

https://twitter.com/NASAWebb/status/1545413807996129280

>The targets of Webb’s first images have been announced: https://go.nasa.gov/3ysrC73

> SMACS 0723

> WASP-96b

> Southern Ring Nebula

> Stephan’s Quintet

> Carina Nebula

[Anonymous No.14636437]

>>14636434
Look at something interesting, jackoffs.

[Anonymous No.14636438]

>>14636384
if aliens exist then why isn't webb taking pictures of them

[Anonymous No.14636441]

List of all of the locations of the pics being taken by the JWST that will be released next week

[Anonymous No.14636443]

>>14636441
Why nothing close?

[Anonymous No.14636448]

>>14636441
The fact its not pointed at proxima or alpha is grounds for turning all of NASA into prop

[Anonymous No.14636449]

>>14636024
Can someone deboonk this design? SLS can get 95t to LEO, and a Shuttle without any engines barely fits within.

[Anonymous No.14636451]

>>14636443
Why look at something close when you can see further than ever before?

[Anonymous No.14636454]

>>14636443
>3/5 targets sub-10k light years away
That's pretty close as far as these things go.

>>14636448
Can it even safely do that?

[Anonymous No.14636472]

So I am rewatching the SpaceX slides video for the 2022 update from two months back and I can't be the only one who feels sort of underwhelmed by the amount of internal volume of Starship that can be used for payloads right? Roughly two thirds of the interior is prop tanks, and the upper 10-15% is the nose so that cuts down on further usable volume as there is very little that would fit that sort of shape.

All in all it makes me wonder what the point of being able to heft 150+ tonnes into orbit (or further) if you are still greatly constrained by volume.

[Anonymous No.14636476]

When do we get to learn what's up with TROPICS? Astra has two more flights to fuck up, when will they get to try again?

[Anonymous No.14636479]

>>14636472
at least you can construct your habitats out of something dense, like platinum, so that's something

[Anonymous No.14636481]

>>14636472
Starship will get a stretched payload version eventually imo

[Anonymous No.14636482]

>>14636449
Aerodynamic instability, basically. Having big wings that far forward would torque it around and make it go flamey end up.

[Anonymous No.14636483]

>>14636476
Astraanon said they aren't going to launch till rocket 4 or w/e is flying

[Anonymous No.14636486]

>>14636476
Some Anon said they'd move them to their next rocket, no idea how bullshit that was

[Anonymous No.14636487]

>>14636476
Astra "What's MNPI?" Anon said that the investigation is nearing completion, but that they'll be switching to Rocket 4 anyways, so NET 2023.

[Anonymous No.14636488]

>>14636472
>All in all it makes me wonder what the point of being able to heft 150+ tonnes into orbit (or further) if you are still greatly constrained by volume.
it's plenty of space for 150 tons of methalox which is the only payload which is going to come close to maxing out starship's mass limit in the foreseeable future anyway.

[Anonymous No.14636489]

>>14636476
Rocket 3 will never fly again. TROPICS will either wait for Rocket 4 or go to another launch company.

[Anonymous No.14636493]

>>14636449
I'm not sure what you're asking

The shuttle without engines is just a spaceplane capsule with no way to abort or deorbit; you're throwing away the RS-25s every launch which makes reuse less valuable

SLS is purpose-built to get Orion to the Moon and very little else, although I have seen drawings of it with a payload fairing on top

[Anonymous No.14636494]

>>14636409
Starship's habitat section with no wet lab is bigger and cheaper than ISS.

[Anonymous No.14636495]

>>14636449
I don't know why people freak out about Starship's hinge heat shields when the Shuttle had them and they worked perfectly fine.

[Anonymous No.14636496]

>>14636487
Mnpi violates the 1st amendment

[Anonymous No.14636497]

>>14636454
>Can it even safely do that?
Yes, of course.

[Anonymous No.14636499]

>>14636493
>SLS is purpose-built to get Orion to the Moon
To the moons general area*

[Anonymous No.14636502]

>>14636499
*genital

[Anonymous No.14636506]

>>14636493
I was asking if it was possible to launch a Shuttle on top of the stack rather than on the side, which would have eliminated tile strikes. Although it's a moot point >>14636482

[Anonymous No.14636508]

>>14636502
that shouldn't have made me laugh

[Anonymous No.14636510]

>>14636487
I did a double-take because I've never heard that term before, in NASA-land they call that SBU (now CUI)

[Anonymous No.14636513]

>>14636487
>>14636489
>>14636483
>Rocket 3 is ded
Good riddance, statistically speaking that thing is just a cubesat execution method by this point.
>NET 2023
Damn

[Anonymous No.14636515]

>>14636513
The upper stage was, anyway. First stage was norminal every time after LV0006.

[Anonymous No.14636519]

>>14636472
>still greatly constrained by volume.
Reminder that even with the stuff eating into the maximum theoretical payload volume, the bay on Starship is still the largest payload volume in the world.
Besides, with Starship around we will rapidly enter a situation where developing on-orbit fabrication will make sense rather than insisting on building everything on Earth, so Starships will end up launching to LEO carrying big rolls of sheet metal and stuff at close to their maximum payload limit.

[Anonymous No.14636520]

>>14636510
CUI is a meme. All NASA info should be public

[Anonymous No.14636522]

>>14636109
Same anon, while it was ultimately a pork barreling project and the Saturn MLV would have been orders of magnitude better I still respect the engineers for getting something so retarded to fly.

[Anonymous No.14636523]

>>14636515
That's the one that did the powerslide off the pad, right? Yeah I suppose every failure since then has been due to the second stage apparently being shit.
>Astra tokyo-drifts
>Firefly flips and pops
Those two events were the same weekend or something, weren't they? I remember they were really close.

[Anonymous No.14636529]

>>14636493
>SLS is purpose-built to get Orion to the Moon
Funny considering that it was born at the same time the Obama admin cancelled the Moon landing program under the pretense of "we've already been there". Goes to show that SLS really is a rocket built not to serve a particular purpose but to keep contractors and congressman happy while keeping the illusion of progress

[Anonymous No.14636530]

>>14636519
I sat down one afternoon and planned out a lunar resort using flat packed steel
Even had a decent sized swimming pool
Then i found out NASA hasn't done any welding studies and the soviet tests were a joke

[Anonymous No.14636532]

>>14636506
No, because Shuttle didn't carry any hydrolox propellants on board. You'd need to integrate the Orbiter with the ET. You could probably get away with only having one RS-25 on the Orbiter and giving it maybe 3.5 km/s of delta V after adding some large hydrolox tank to the interior, if you also kept a large first stage with decent engines and high thrust to supply the other 6 km/s that would be necessary to reach orbit.

[Anonymous No.14636533]

>>14636449
>>14636506
The Shuttle ET would collapse, it was never designed for vertical loads; among other issues.

[Anonymous No.14636536]

>>14636519
Building spaceships and stations in space will finally break us free from the tyranny of tin cans and origami.

[Anonymous No.14636539]

>>14636522
at the time everyone considered it an embarrassment that nasa had to delay the first flight by an entire 2 years. in retrospect it's almost miraculous that they got the whole thing finished in 9 years and on a much smaller budget than apollo had to work with.

[Anonymous No.14636541]

Could NASA come to a comprimise with Alabama contractors with a safer hybrid BOOOSTER while making them still get ICBM xp? It would be safer and more efficient while keeping Shelby happy

[Anonymous No.14636542]

>>14636530
It doesn't matter if nobody's done space welding yet, it's literally just like welding in a vacuum except the vacuum is really really good. We can weld in a vacuum on Earth, why wouldn't we be able to weld in a vacuum in orbit? The worst I can come up with is heat management, which to me just says we need to put a nice big radiator on the back of our welding rig and not weld so fast that we overwhelm the cooling systems.

[Anonymous No.14636543]

>>14636539
>everyone considered it an embarrassment that nasa had to delay the first flight by an entire 2 years.
Imagine if they were alive to see jwst/sls delays

[Anonymous No.14636544]

>>14636522
What payloads would these have?

[Anonymous No.14636546]

>>14636541
How about they come to a compromize and cancel the entire SLS program for being a waste of time and money, and say "fuck you" to all those legacy contractors for not being able to compete? Also Shelby is no longer in the picture.

[Anonymous No.14636551]

>>14636472
I don't get appraising the volume against the proportions of the vehicle. Tyranny of the rocket equation etc. I'd compare it against the volume we can currently launch and its price.

>All in all it makes me wonder what the point of being able to heft 150+ tonnes into orbit (or further) if you are still greatly constrained by volume.

The expensiveness of space isn't about making things small. It's making things light. If I want weight to cost less there's nothing I can do. If I want something bigger in space I can launch it in pieces and build it, which starship can do cheaply because it's reusable.

[Anonymous No.14636552]

>>14636542
>welding in a vacuum
The only welding i have seen in a vacuum is electron beam shit
The problem is melting through the steel because of excess heat or offgassing fucking with the welds
Low gravity might cause shit tons of spluttering too

[Anonymous No.14636554]

>>14636541
The boofers are from Utah, not Alabama, and are solids because they're a bribe to the missile industry. The correct solution is to stop pussyfooting around and openly build a bunch of ballistic missiles and low angle hypersonics so we can stop pretending manned space vehicles are the same thing as nuke platforms.

[Anonymous No.14636556]

>>14636544

[Anonymous No.14636557]

>>14636541
>ICBM xp
Not worth much, there's already a program for ICBM replacement

[Anonymous No.14636558]

>>14636519
I doubt this will ever make sense, though ever is a long time. Reason being space is such a hostile work environment that's trying to kill workers unless you spend time and resources. Earth is a comfy and safe place to build where the air, pressure, temperature, is free and food and taking a shit is cheap. Even big stuff we can launch in completed modules.

[Anonymous No.14636559]

>>14636544
Mars mission related stuff like big ass hydrogen tanks and habitats and things

[Anonymous No.14636562]

>>14636556
>>14636559
I realize I phrased that incorrectly. I meant upmass.

[Anonymous No.14636563]

>>14636539
>>14636543
If SLS was flying in 2020 I would still respect it.

>>14636544
Ironically the huge payloads killed it, they couldn't forsee needing payload that big. The sad thing is it would have been cheaper to lauch 10 tons on the MLV than the shuttle.

[Anonymous No.14636566]

>>14636448
So edgy

[Anonymous No.14636569]

>>14636552
Also once you start getting closer to a fully sealed chamber and you have gas inside from your welds
What happens as you finish the last few welds? You'll surely have a pushing force inside that might cause issues
Warping of the metal will be a huge pain too with all the extra heat

[Anonymous No.14636570]

>>14636388
Webb can’t get spectra from earth sized planets

[Anonymous No.14636571]

How long will it take to build an SLS rocket?

Will they be used outside of Artemis?

[Anonymous No.14636573]

>>14636552
Weld under a suction cup shaped hood to catch spattering. Weld with copper block "shoes" in contact with the metal on either side of the welding zone that have liquid coolant circulating through. Use friction stir welding instead of arc welding. I dunno, it just seems like there are a lot of solutions to every problem and the reason we aren't researching it is because the people running these programs aren't comfortable with the fact that they would need to design and build a thing, launch it, try it, and probably fail, then try again several times. That's why I think the ones to develop space fabrication will be new players leapfrogging the old guard entities.

[Anonymous No.14636577]

>>14636571
IIRC they have to launch 2 per year for 5 years as part of the contract, I wouldn't be surprised in they end up carrying payloads Falcon 9 could take just to hit those numbers.

[Anonymous No.14636580]

The whole idea of "waste heat" is still mysterious to me. Why not convert the heat to electricity? Radiators seem so wasteful.

[Anonymous No.14636584]

>>14636441
>not proxima centauri
faggots

[Anonymous No.14636585]

>>14636573
Friction stir might be the way to go if s portable version exists. I only know the huge machines
I am sure its doable but damn i wish NASA had ruled out the low hanging fruit already

[Anonymous No.14636588]

>>14636580
Sterling motors suck ass is why
I have proposed heating water for thermals before

[Anonymous No.14636589]

>>14636580
Heat comes from everything and it isn't practical to pipe all that heat to power generation within strict weight limits.
Adding an extra solar panel is way cheaper than putting up copper heat pipes from every motor and IC to a generator.

[Anonymous No.14636591]

>>14636580
>why not just abolish the second law of thermodynamics?

[Anonymous No.14636593]

>>14636588
Engines*
Brain not worky so good. Time to sleep

[Anonymous No.14636601]

How many will die?

[Anonymous No.14636603]

>>14636601
nobody died developing stratolaunch
I guess paul allen died, but not from structural failure in an aircraft

[Anonymous No.14636604]

>>14636558
I'm talking about sending up a robotic spacecraft that does all the work without needing any crew in space, at most a team of workers on Earth doing programming and so forth, operating the spacecraft remotely.
The attraction is the major increase in effective capabilities. How big of a habitat can you make with ten Starship launches of completed modules that dock together? Now how big of a habitat can you make with ten Starship launches of coiled sheet metal and a single huge life support equipment rack? I would argue that the latter option could be much bigger in real terms while also feeling much larger due to the layout of the resulting volume.
In any case, on-orbit fabrication is how we will build enormous trusses structures for things like 250 meter radius primary reflector optical telescopes and ships big enough to do spin gravity on their way to Saturn or whatever without needing to use a tether and counterweight.

[Anonymous No.14636607]

More than Saturn V, maybe around 300,000 kg or so?

[Anonymous No.14636608]

>>14636569
Weld from the outside. Also, we already have to do thermal management of welding operations here on Earth, doing it in space just means you need a somewhat bigger heat sink for an equivalent power of weld.

[Anonymous No.14636612]

>>14636601
How viable would a hypersonic (or supersonic) mothership be?

[Anonymous No.14636614]

>>14636608
I was talking about from the outside
It doesn't matter which side you do it from. The last few welds are going to be fucky unless you bubble it or something

[Anonymous No.14636620]

>>14636541
Boosters should only ever be keralox. Any other fuel upsets the natural order.

[Anonymous No.14636623]

>>14636620
Core stage should also be kerolox.
https://youtu.be/uSZtnRJzSBA

[Anonymous No.14636630]

>>14636603
Very nice, let's see Paul Allen's Starship

[Anonymous No.14636632]

>>14636620
>>14636623
I have no issue with boosters and ICBMs being derived from the same design to save a fuckload of money and you sure as shit don't want cryogenic oxidizer in an ICBM.

[Anonymous No.14636633]

>>14636580
You can only convert heat to another form of energy if you are allowing that heat to move from an area of high concentration (high temperature) to an area of low concentration (low temperature), and the efficiency of conversion is directly related to the difference in temperature between the two. If you don't allow the cold side of your heat engine to continuously get rid of heat as it flows into it from the hot side, the cold side will warm up to equal the temperature of the hot side, and then no work can be accomplished.
The misconception is that heat engines convert heat into useful energy: they DO NOT do this. They convert temperature differential into useful energy. The heat on its own is worthless and can do nothing. It's only a heat DIFFERENTIAL that can do work. It's similar to how a pressurized bottle of air does nothing at all until you start letting air out of it: the differential in pressure must exist and must be allowed to flow in order for work to be performed.
Waste heat is a problem in every system but it's most obvious in spacecraft. A heat engine takes a source of concentrated heat and lets it flow to an area of much lower temperature, doing work in the process. However, in a spacecraft the thing sitting at low temperature probably only weighs a few thousand kilograms at most, which means it'll very quickly heat up if your heat source is operating. Therefore the spacecraft must get rid of waste heat as fast as possible, and needs big radiators that allow the heat of the spacecraft to leave the spacecraft as an infrared glow out into the emptiness of space. Another thing is that the amount of radiator area you need is inversely proportional to the temperature of the radiator, so a hotter radiator can be much smaller while getting rid of the same heat load. This also means you are reducing the delta T between your heat source and your "cold sink" though, and so you are more limited in the work you can do with each unit of heat.

[Anonymous No.14636635]

>>14636601
>Virgin Galactic STILL isn't in a position to commence commercial flights but went ahead with their first flight last year anyways just to cuck Bezos
There's something almost admirable in their pettiness

[Anonymous No.14636637]

>>14636584
Wouldn't want to front-load the science return! How would they be able to justify their next 20 year $20 billion project??

[Anonymous No.14636639]

>>14636632
>to save money

[Anonymous No.14636640]

>>14636585
NASA hasn't even done spin gravity experiments in LEO yet.

[Anonymous No.14636642]

>>14636632
Do not look up how much each sls srb costs

[Anonymous No.14636644]

>>14636614
Leave a hatch open. The vapor pressure of hot metal in a vacuum is extremely small, and you won't even have much hot metal around anyway if you're just making a weld. It's a non-issue.

[Anonymous No.14636645]

>>14636612
I’m still mad that in the new Top Gun Tom Cruise makes sharp turns in his hypersonic plane at Mach 10 and ejects without the plane or him disintegrating

[Anonymous No.14636649]

>>14636632
>to save a fuckload of mone
It doesn't save any money, if anything it wastes money by paying defense contractors even more cash to build boosters that are customized for an orbital launch vehicle that can carry people. They don't NEED any of those contracts, they just WANT them, because they can ask for more money.

[Anonymous No.14636651]

>>14636645
The plane's made from miraculite it's fine

[Anonymous No.14636652]

>>14636644
>The vapor pressure of hot metal in a vacuum is extremely small
Its a fairly large amount if you are doing say a standard bedroom sized room
You have to remember this is industrial scale. You can't do little welds or you will be taking months/years just for the shell
Which makes the heating problem even worse

[Anonymous No.14636659]

>>14636438
It has taken high resolution photos of the aliens, but unfortunately they can't be posted here because the aliens resemble blue anthropoid foxes.

[Anonymous No.14636666]

>>14636652
You can't be serious. The vapor pressures are on the order of millipascales and a huge weld bead is a couple centimeters across. You are either very misinformed about how welding works or you are purposefully spreading FUD.
When I say "welds are small" I mean the actual region of melted metal that exists while welding. The welded joint could be hundreds of meters long in a spiral welded pressure vessel cylinder. The length is no problem for the issues you're trying to talk about. As for heat, again, it's a solved fucking problem. You suck the heat out of the metal you're welding using copper or aluminum blocks that have internal liquid coolant that passes the heat off to radiators. These remove the heat of the weld and prevent the heat affected zone from spreading more than a couple centimeters from the weld zone, which is normal for uncooled welds on Earth anyway.

[Anonymous No.14636667]

>>14636644
> no 50s tech escape pod
do Scientologists really?

[Anonymous No.14636673]

>>14636645
> no 50s tech escape pod
do Scientologists really?

[Anonymous No.14636680]

>>14636523
August 28th for Astra, September 2nd for Firefly. Within a week. Different results, but two engine outs that weren't immediately terminated. That was a glorious time.

[Anonymous No.14636681]

>>14636666
Just friction weld it, supersatan

[Anonymous No.14636694]

>>14636666
>hit back and deleted my reply
Going to neck myself
https://youtu.be/kcH_M2FR2ig
Wrong video but i don't care now
The amount of offgassing from a long ass weld is going to be a problem.
We don't have time to set up water cooling blocks either
The more i think about it the more i think doing this in a bag is the best way

[Anonymous No.14636702]

Biblical Earth is truth God didnt make a ball he made a plane under a dome structure you have your beliefs I have mine. There has never been an outerspace and never will. The earth doesnt move at 1040 otherwise a helicoptor could not hover thats all the proof I need. Its not a flatearthers job to explain or argue your fake space College knowledge because it matters not until you have your own spaceship and go there for yourself. Be careful dont crash and burn into the dome. There is plenty of proof for the dome. Thunder echos off of it and the rainbow is its reflection. The cartoon ball is your religion and I reject it all. Sun worshippers are pushing there religion on the world and Its all a fake science. Space Science is garbage and im gona trash it.

[Anonymous No.14636716]

>>14636702
i take a moderate position: earth was flat until the crucifixion but then it became round

[Anonymous No.14636719]

>>14636543
Don't research how much they spent of the stupid launch tower alone...
>>14636563
>Ironically the huge payloads killed it, they couldn't forsee needing payload that big. The sad thing is it would have been cheaper to lauch 10 tons on the MLV than the shuttle.
The cost of having the air force involved and the additional military bureaucracy. They forced it into an oversized space truck to carry their spy satellites on it's back, and they even ended up using titan III rockets for that. A smaller, lighter shuttle might have worked after all.

[Anonymous No.14636729]

>>14636702
Ok. But who?

[Anonymous No.14636730]

>>14636558
You're right that manufacturing is more convenient on Earth, but the problem (as has been mentioned already) is that the scale of your manufacturing will be bottlenecked by whatever you are using to get your products into space.

Manufacturing in space removes this bottleneck - instead your only constraint really is setting up the necessary infrastructure up there. Manufacturing in microgravity is simultaneously better and harder, but I would lean towards the former on account of the energy savings granted by movement in microgravity, as well as the abundancy of energy in space. Considering the majority of work will be done using automated machinery (as it presently is on Earth), I think the human factor is of minimal concern. Few human workers will be needed, and so the cost of safely accommodating them is more than tolerable.

[Anonymous No.14636732]

>>14636601
Tens of thousands

[Anonymous No.14636733]

>>14636694
Yeah in space there's no shielding gas being used during welding, my guy. The amount of offgassing needed to PRESSURIZE a space you are welding inside is greater than the mass of the metal being heated, let alone the actual amount of metal vapor produced. Besides that, metal vapor can't really pressurize a space to begin with, as it solidifies on contact with anything colder than its boiling point, which is all solid objects.

[Anonymous No.14636734]

>>14636580
You can't obtain energy from heat if everything is at the same temperature. If you let stuff get hot in space it will not dissipate easily because the only way for it to escape is electromagnetic radiation, and that takes radiators or any other form of cooling that tries to maximize radiation. Radiator panels with fluids are "simple" but a system that dissipates heat trhough metal particles moving conained on a magnetic field could in theory work as well. Many such systems have been proposed.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/heatrad.php#id--Heat_Radiators--Radiator_Types

[Anonymous No.14636739]

super heavy explodes on the first full static fire and the entire planet is plunged into the darkness of methalox winter

[Anonymous No.14636744]

>>14636694
>We don't have time to set up water cooling blocks either
According to who? You have the blocks physically mounted to the weld head and they scoot along with the weld head as the joint is made. Each block is a series of smaller blocks that can be rotated out of the way when necessary for welding in tight spots, and for very tight corners we just accept the heat affected zone because in actuality it's not that big a deal, especially if you're making something massive in zero G which will never accelerate faster than 0.1 G.

[Anonymous No.14636746]

>>14636733
>metal vapor has no gasses
lol
i bet you weld without wearing a papr

[Anonymous No.14636748]

>>14636744
>zero G
This is a lunar resort sir. Not a spinhab

[Anonymous No.14636755]

>>14636746
Fumes aren't vapors and more importantly the amounts that are necessary to make you sick versus the amounts that are necessary to matter in terms of fucking up the welds on a pressure vessel due to a pressure differential forming between the vacuum of space and the interior of the vessel is an insanely huge gap.
>>14636652
This is the argument I'm referring to. This anon believes making the last weld on a tank in orbit is going to mess up the weld due to vapor pressure of gasses FROM THE WELD effectively blowing the molten metal of the weld zone out into space. This is of course fucking retarded, because MIG welding on Earth happens just fine even with the pressure of the shielding gas flow blowing on the weld pool, and lest we forget the pressure of this shielding gas flow is at least several thousand times higher than the pressure of the metal vapor and fumes escaping from the molten metal.
>>14636748
We are talking about fabricating orbital vehicles on orbit. Even so, welding on the Moon is going to be easier than welding in orbit anyway.

[Anonymous No.14636761]

>>14636744
>According to who?
According to me
My steel behemoth has now been upgraded and is closer to the size of this
https://youtu.be/ZA83N9jZOmQ
Going to make sure its reflective as possible just to make people seethe

[Anonymous No.14636763]

>>14636493
>SLS is purpose-built to get Orion to the Moon and very little else

SLS will be used to construct the Gateway station and deliver nuclear propulsion into high orbits without refueling in low orbit.

[Anonymous No.14636769]

>>14636761
Guess what faggot, a robotic weld head welds at the same speed whether or not it has cooling blocks attached.

[Anonymous No.14636771]

>>14636519
>Reminder that even with the stuff eating into the maximum theoretical payload volume, the bay on Starship is still the largest payload volume in the world.

If we are talking theoreticals SLS Block IB can have a 10+ meter fairing.

[Anonymous No.14636772]

>>14636763
>SLS will be used
I doubt it

[Anonymous No.14636775]

>>14636755
>because MIG welding on Earth happens just fine even with the pressure of the shielding gas flow blowing on the weld pool, and lest we forget the pressure of this shielding gas flow is at least several thousand times higher than the pressure of the metal vapor and fumes escaping from the molten metal.
sure but the shielding gas is blowing on metal in a 1g enviroment.
even the smallest of cracks can ruin a good weld, now we have an entirely new enviroment that is just trying to mess with it.
perhaps gas bubbles inside the weld will be a bigger problem too

[Anonymous No.14636776]

>>14636771
That rocket does not exist and will not exist. Starship is real, you've seen it down at Boca Chica

[Anonymous No.14636784]

>>14636769
Proofs?
I have only been around one robot welder and it was a piece of shit that was always breaking in one way or another

[Anonymous No.14636788]

>>14636775
>sure but the shielding gas is blowing on metal in a 1g enviroment.
MIG works on Earth whatever orientation you're welding in. It works if you are welding directly overhead and 1G is pulling the weld bead directly away from the weld zone. It works if you are welding from bottom to top on a vertical gap between plates. It turns out the surface tension and adhesion of molten metal is dominant over pathetic Earth gravity and will only be more dominant in reduced or zero gravity.

[Anonymous No.14636793]

>>14636694
>We don't have time to set up water cooling blocks either
How much time/effort does it take to slap on some copper blocks? Just use some magnets, make sure all the hoses are set up, and see that the heat pump is switched on. Once you're done your work, just yank them off and you're done.

[Anonymous No.14636794]

>>14636784
Observe SpaceX's welding rigs for building Starship vehicles.

[Anonymous No.14636801]

>>14636793
ok now do that in low gravity and no atmosphere
also magnets won't work

[Anonymous No.14636802]

>>14636793
You don't even need to go that far. You can mount the block directly to the robotic weld head and press them onto the metal you're welding using a spring. It is literally that simple. Imagine a sewing machine where the needle guide is a cooling block and instead of a needle it's a welder. There's zero impact on the time it takes to do a weld, in fact you can probably weld faster since you are actively removing heat from the weld zone and thus can use a higher power welder and move faster.

[Anonymous No.14636809]

>>14636801
Make the cooling blocks part of the sliding jig that clamps the workpiece together, or do what >>14636744 said. No magnets needed, it's totally metal agnostic. Low gravity makes the jig much easier because it can just grab at one end instead of needing to provide all-around structural support. No atmosphere means no shielding gas needed and no oxidation of any kind, which makes every weld beautiful.

[Anonymous No.14636819]

>>14636788
>MIG works on Earth whatever orientation you're welding in.
Fuck i've done it enough times too
Guess i am just overthinking how runny it feels compared to the metal glue it is

[Anonymous No.14636820]

>>14636601
Tree fiddy.
>>14636702
>DUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRH MAH GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWD HUUUUURRRRRRR EVERYTHING I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS EVIL SAY-TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN
>I NEED TO LICK GAAWD'S FEET BECAUSE HE'S THE ULTIMATE GOOD AND LOVES US EVEN THOUGH HE'LL SEND ME TO HELL IF I STOP LICKING HIS FEET
I think I'm starting to get what Paganlarpers mean by "Jew on a Stick".

[Anonymous No.14636822]

>anons figured out how to weld on the moon
>going to get their ideas patented
kek

[Anonymous No.14636824]

>muh welding gasses
it'll be electron beam welding fags, no gasses involved

[Anonymous No.14636825]

>>14636809
>>14636802
Where are you dumping all the heat?
Don't forget the machine needs to be cooled too

[Anonymous No.14636831]

>>14636824
Erection beam welding isn't real

[Anonymous No.14636835]

>>14636822
There's nothing to patent, even a couple of dumbasses on the internet can figure out how to make it work.

[Anonymous No.14636838]

>>14636831
t. welding gas shill

[Anonymous No.14636842]

>>14636831
>Erectin' an O'Neill vessel

[Anonymous No.14636841]

>>14636825
see >>14636666 where I specifically state that the coolant flowing through the cooling blocks flows out to a radiator and back around.

[Anonymous No.14636844]

>>14636831
That's not what your mother said last night

[Anonymous No.14636847]

>>14636824
If you read the thread you'll realize I pointed out several times that you don't need shielding gas in vacuum no matter what welding method you choose. There's no oxygen to shield against.

[Anonymous No.14636850]

>>14636824
>that one jaxa capsule design
oh shit it's flat fuck friday isn't it

[Anonymous No.14636888]

Musk is too slow, i want my gundam now.

[Anonymous No.14636892]

So now that we have established that welding in space is not difficult and welding on the Moon is actually significantly easier than on Earth, what is the justification for government space programs failing to develop the technology?

[Anonymous No.14636895]

>>14635682
So where the streams or sum shit? I want to see the BBC flying into space uga buga muh dik

[Anonymous No.14636910]

>>14635688
F

[Anonymous No.14636968]

could someone post that css propulsive moon landing image, I've misplaced it.

[Anonymous No.14636971]

>>14636570
it can, and it is scheduled to do so for all TRAPPIST-1 planets

[Anonymous No.14636976]

[Anonymous No.14636982]

>>14636892
I'm just curious how they would zero out the relative velocity ahead of welding

It took years to develop docking techniques that didn't send both bodies spinning out of control and even then for decades afterwards there were constant docking mishaps

[Anonymous No.14636985]

>>14636982
we have computers now

[Anonymous No.14636987]

>>14636968
It shows up if you search "Common sense skeptic being wrong on twitter" on google images

[Anonymous No.14636991]

>>14636982
That's completely irrelevant to the development of welding in space. You may as well be bringing up traffic laws for road freight in a discussion about setting up a semiconductor factory in Maine.

[Anonymous No.14636994]

Finally, some new Eager Kino
https://youtu.be/B-tXghCccUw
today's video is about the history of cape canaveral and kennedy space center launches

[Anonymous No.14636995]

simple as

[Anonymous No.14636999]

>>14636987
wow it does kek

[Anonymous No.14637004]

RETVRN

[Anonymous No.14637008]

>>14636982
Technology doesn't do a hard reset every time you develop a new vehicle.

[Anonymous No.14637015]

>>14636995
I refuse to believe building the shuttle was easier or cheaper than refitting Saturn V to be reusable, at least partially

>>14636976
Siuuuuuuuu

[Anonymous No.14637020]

>>14637015
Building Shuttle was definitely much harder than refitting the Saturn lineup to be 5x cheaper or more, whether or not they made it partially reusable.

[Anonymous No.14637029]

What will the pics of exoplanets taken by JWST look like?
I

[Anonymous No.14637044]

>>14637015
>I refuse to believe building the shuttle was easier or cheaper than refitting Saturn V to be reusable, at least partially
I think the argument was that although building the Shuttle would be more expensive than other options, once operational it would lower the cost to orbit by such orders of magnitude that it would be more than worth it in the long run. NASA's original flight plan and cost model for the Shuttle was wild

[Anonymous No.14637047]

>>14637029
points of light on a dark background

[Anonymous No.14637062]

If you *really* want the nitty gritty on how the Shuttle came to be, read After Apollo: Richard Nixon and the American Space Program by John M. Logsdon. Its on libgen

[Anonymous No.14637071]

>>14637062
Nixon was based

[Anonymous No.14637072]

>>14637062
it's a great resource that everyone should read but i think he gets nixon wrong. lodgson reads nixon's contradictory statements in private and public as evidence of a confused, contradictory policy but i think the simpler explanation was duplicity to cover for a very politically driven self-interested policy. he made statements about the importance of exploration and supported the shuttle because he thought shuttle would help him carry california against ed muskie in 1972. he also made statements about how we need to focus on the problems here on earth and toyed with turning nasa into the national applied science agency and making them work on water desalination because those desalination plants were going to be in california, which he thought would help him carry the state against muskie in '72.

[Anonymous No.14637073]

>>14637062

[Anonymous No.14637077]

>>14636739
As a Texas anon, I won't even have to imagine the smell.

[Anonymous No.14637082]

Unfriendly reminder that most /sfg/ users have no critical thinking ability and if born 30 years earlier they would have thought the Shuttle was the greatest thing ever.

[Anonymous No.14637086]

>>14637082
and we would've treated gregg easterbrook like thunderfag for correctly calling out its problems a year before sts-1 http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/shuttle/GoodbyeColumbia.html

[Anonymous No.14637089]

>>14637082
trust in the government wasn't high in the 90s either

[Anonymous No.14637097]

>>14637082
The public didn't generally hear about how much the shuttle program actually cost until Columbia laid bare what the true state of affairs was

The first thought after the disaster was "how much will it cost to replace it?" and then everything flowed from there

[Anonymous No.14637098]

:)

[Anonymous No.14637100]

>>14637071
based on a lie

[Anonymous No.14637101]

Are there large productivity gains from mars / moon because hyperloops are basically super easy to pull off with no vacuum shit required? (plus having less weight)

[Anonymous No.14637103]

>>14637098
:)

[Anonymous No.14637105]

>>14637073
When the most level headed, practical, and based man at your organization is a Max Faget, you know your organization has something wrong

[Anonymous No.14637107]

>>14637082
You can pry my F-1's from my cold dead hands, you whippersnappers

[Anonymous No.14637109]

>>14637082
This is correct. Just look at the welding discussion in this thread where helpless anons defend the status quo by coming up with bizarre and strange reasons for why welding in space is hard, rather than accepting that welding in space is actually just fine and the reason we don't do it is because of more complicated, ground-side political issues.

[Anonymous No.14637110]

>>14637107
propellant is stored in the balls

[Anonymous No.14637111]

>>14637086
After making that call, I would trust that man with my life

[Anonymous No.14637112]

3regq34t5rqert, 3q5reter.

>q weroqiejr qweo

[Anonymous No.14637116]

>>14637082
Thats not a sign of not having critical thinking. Tech limitations from 30 years ago isn't same as today.

[Anonymous No.14637121]

>>14637098
>current year of 1944+78
>still no German rocket industry

[Anonymous No.14637125]

>>14637101
Interesting question. Productivity changes in weird ways across the board, because some aspects of working in those places become much easier while others become much harder. For instance, any work that involves physically lifting materials and fluids becomes easier in lower gravity, and obviously space access becomes far easier in low gravity. Colonies on Mars will likely find that space based solar power arrays beaming energy to the ground in microwaves is their economically superior option, especially once they start mining material from Phobos. Colonies on the Moon will be able to print massive amounts of solar panels directly onto backing substrates under ambient outdoor conditions, since the Moon has a hard vacuum at its surface, and vapor deposition production of photovoltaics is well understood technology. On the other hand, the easiest methods for farming of food are a lot harder than the easiest methods here on Earth, because you need to construct habitat volume to house the plants and you need to build all the "land" you plant those crops in, plus actively manage the climate etc etc. In space, metals like titanium will be very cheap compared to on Earth, while making plastics will be very expensive compared to Earth plastic. In space, you're probably going to use aluminum as your conductor of choice for nearly every application, since copper is far more rare and isn't concentrated on other worlds like it is here on Earth (we enjoy the fruits of billions of years of hydrology and volcanism, the only other place that may have geologic mineral deposits even close to as rich as Earth is Mars).
Anyway we won't know until we go so we better go ASAP.

[Anonymous No.14637127]

>>14637121
soon there will be no German industry

[Anonymous No.14637132]

>>14637107
>it's a test stand
>better size our propellant tanks specifically to hold the correct mass of liquid oxygen and kerosene instead of just partially filling two equally sized tanks!
>better yet let's build them as spheres instead of cylinders, making both tanks require completely unique jigs to fabricate
You can already see the autism creeping into NASA before the Moon landings even happened . . .

[Anonymous No.14637136]

>>14637127
Tesla is german industry

[Anonymous No.14637141]

>>14637121
soon

[Anonymous No.14637147]

I might be in Florida in august around the time SLS is planned to launch

If I were to go to KSC, where am I allowed to drive around? How close can I get?

[Anonymous No.14637148]

>>14637132
The Apollo era was cool but we must not forget that it was horribly expensive and unsustainable.

[Anonymous No.14637154]

>be australia
>for some reason, DON'T be currently using molten oxide electrolysis refining to produce high purity silicon and aluminum that feeds a solar panel factory that adds hundreds of gigawatts of peak capacity per year to massive arrays built across the outback and feeds an ever increasing number of molten oxide electrolysis units
>instead be selling iron ore to china
why do they do it bros, and how do we avoid this trap when we are trying to go industrially exponential on the Moon?

[Anonymous No.14637156]

Hey fellas, so I heard the was a static fire on June 29, how did that go? pretty good?

[Anonymous No.14637157]

>>14637148
Absolutely. I'm convinced that Apollo era NASA was just as bad as Shuttle and ISS era NASA but during Apollo they had competent decision makers at the top with a real mission statement to chop off heads with.

[Anonymous No.14637163]

>>14637156
It went flawlessly.

[Anonymous No.14637166]

NOTICE TO AIR PERSONS
SPACEX WILL BE CONDUCTING
SUDOKU AT 9 OCLOCK EASTERN
STANDARD TIME
THE EXACT NATURE OF THIS
TEST IS HITHERTO UNKNOWN
SFG IS TO STAND READY TO
RECEIVE FURTHER ORDERS
THAT IS ALL

[Anonymous No.14637167]

>>14637125
very good and intresting reply, what I think is starting from scratch is very capital incentive. But due to the factors you mentioned, and being able to start with a high degree of automation centralization + total resource abundance with little needed regard for any environmental regulations + being able to essentially field as many solar panels as you can make, potentially making economies of scale operate at a scale impossible to imagine.

[Anonymous No.14637171]

>>14637147
You will get as far as the Visitor Complex lot and no closer without a badge or a ticket to the museum

On launch days you can get tickets to be bused to a viewing stand closer to the SLCs, and if you had this thought so did everyone else so I'd book as soon as the launch date is confirmed


Plan for a few days' leeway in case of delays/scrubs

[Anonymous No.14637172]

>>14637148
expensive? yes. unsustainable? i don't really think so. most of the high costs came from one-time R&D programs that weren't necessary after 1967. before 1969 even nasa hawks like PSAC and nixon's transition team thought 3 saturn v launches a year was a good idea. it was nasa guys like mueller who decided they didn't want that because they'd rather have shuttle launching 50 times a year instead.

[Anonymous No.14637173]

>>14637154
Because innovation and technological leadership isn't part of Australia's zeitgeist. Like the Kiwis across the ditch, they are geographically isolated, and politically insulated, so they mostly want to be left alone. Anything that entails risk to their comfort is an existential threat to the Australian/Kiwi psyche. It's why HobbitLab had to flee across the Pacific.

Mars won't have the luxuries that they enjoy, and Martians will be forced to innovate or live in squalor.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/21-06-2021/mahia-residents-descend-on-auckland-to-protest-rocket-lab-links-with-us-military

[Anonymous No.14637174]

>Finally got to orbit after 50 FUCKING SOUNDING ROCKET AND AIRPLANE CONTRACTS
Hooooooly shit

[Anonymous No.14637176]

>>14637174
Rocketdyne eating good

[Anonymous No.14637177]

>>14637173
>Protesting a company supporting an allied country
Lol wtf? That’s like being mad SpaceX is helping Ukraine

[Anonymous No.14637180]

>>14637166
I sentence you to two buckshot blasts to the upper back area delivered by improvised shotgun

[Anonymous No.14637184]

>>14637121
glowies wouldnt allow it

[Anonymous No.14637190]

>>14637177
Kiwi's don't view America as an ally. To them, America is a barbaric empire full of brutes. Their geographic and cultural positions enable them to sit on the fence and feed the American war machine when it suits them or tell it to fuck off when it doesn't. Beck is not well-perceived by his countrymen.

[Anonymous No.14637196]

>>14637190
ANZAC shitlibs are some of the worst in the world, as covid showed

[Anonymous No.14637199]

>>14635688
Was he pro JAXA or against it?
The answer will affect my opinion on him.

[Anonymous No.14637201]

>>14637190
They're not wrong

Americans don't generally comprehend the vast gulf between the domestic and foreign halves of US policy

[Anonymous No.14637202]

>>14637199
He was a politician from E*rth, that's all you need to know.

[Anonymous No.14637204]

>>14637154
NOOOOOO! THAT'S INDUSTRIALIZATION AND TAKING PRISTINE LAND FROM ABORIGINAL POCS! IT'S LITTERALY COLONIALISM CHUD!
>Basedjak munching on bug.png
>How do we avoid the same pitfalls when on the moon?
Simply demonstrate that it's costlier to import them from earth than a small molten electolysis setup so it gets to the moon sooner

[Anonymous No.14637207]

>>14637174
>building a V2
IIRC you can spin stabilize a few stages and make orbit that way, no avionics required but it's a pain in the ass to get the launch angle right.

[Anonymous No.14637214]

>>14637207
I’ll post it when I get home but I went the “traditional” route for the orbital vehicle. Derived from a big suborbital rocket powered by a trio of V2 A-4 engines. Vanguard second stage engine on top.
Before the orbital flight the vehicle must’ve flown 20 or so times doing various contracts and part tests.

[Anonymous No.14637220]

>>14637196
I tend to find them more annoying than the rest of the Anglosphere, but it's more due to the lack of ambition than anything.

>>14637201
I'm a Burger. I don't begrudge them for it. If I lived in a wealthy country with a lot of social nets that was politically isolated from the rest of the planet, I might hold similar sentiments. But I'm not, and I also understand that security via isolation doesn't last forever. Soon they will find themselves wedged between two brutes, one across the Pacific and the other across the Coral Sea, and they will be forced to hold their nose and align.

[Anonymous No.14637221]

>>14637214
>Vanguard second stage engine on top
if you have the aj-10 unlocked then there are so many engines better than the a-4 for the first stage

[Anonymous No.14637245]

>>14637221
I know. I just got lazy and figured “well it works fine now.” 100% replacing the A4 on future vehicles, especially as payloads get bigger

[Anonymous No.14637247]

>>14637202
one of my best friends is a politician in my local town.
But yeah, he is kind of a asshole to people who arent his friends, so i get what your saying.

[Anonymous No.14637254]

I’m 99% sure NASA could go to Mars ASAP with their current budget, they just suck with contractors and allocation.

[Anonymous No.14637257]

>>14637254
if by ASAP you mean in 10 years then sure

[Anonymous No.14637263]

>>14637254
if you really wanted you'd send someone to mars with 2 years of supplies in some kind of small cabin while already working on sending a return vehicle.

[Anonymous No.14637264]

>>14637254
I'm 99% sure any nation from the G20 could send a probe to Mars within the next couple of years or build a super heavy launch vehicle if they really wanted to, but they don't.
>inb4 it's not that easy
when you have several orders of magnitude more resources and money than SpaceX then things get easier.

[Anonymous No.14637266]

>>14637254
The government doesn't exactly have the best contract negotiation staff (if you were good at it you could be making significantly more in the private sector), and it's deliberately kept that way

The problem is that NASA is all about one-time projects with various contractors and that's no way to build experience or even a business off of (hence the move to IDIQ contracting) so if you want expertise you'd better be able to guarantee people will be able to make a career out of it or private industry will just hoover that capability up for not-NASA projects

[Anonymous No.14637273]

For All Mankind going hard on the rich bad/corporate evil route. Its a sad descent into left wing madness

[Anonymous No.14637274]

>>14637263
>return
no refunds

[Anonymous No.14637283]

>>14637273
Karen is filthy fucking rich and she isn't cast as a bad person

[Anonymous No.14637290]

>>14637283
Yeah but she's not NotMusk

[Anonymous No.14637304]

>>14637172
At the level of costs during the time it wouldn't have been sustainable, but you're right that per-mission costs would have dropped a lot over time if they continued the program.
The best course of action at the time would have been to continue development of the engines and vehicles at the time not to increase performance but to decrease manufacturing time and complexity. Maybe even put Moon landings on an indefinite hold for a while as they work on designing an F-1 engine that didn't take a gorillion man-hours to machine, for example by switching to a pintle injector instead of the showerhead design (interestingly Elon has said that pintle injection inherently results in stable combustion, which if true would be big) and using a spiral wind for the actively cooled portion of the nozzle instead of a set of hand soldered branching tubes. Saturn 1B should have been updated, to get the hell away from the admittedly kino but horrifically more complicated expensive and heavy multi-tank design on the first stage (while they're at it, think about going to a symmetrical 9 engine cluster a la Falcon 9 instead of the cross-and-square, and just have the center engine gimbal). The Apollo capsule was probably the area of greatest cost that needed to be updated, a LEO specific version that weighed 25% more due to being constructed out of simple welded metal with better strength margins would have probably been a good call. I know the Eyes Turned Skyward timeline gets a lot of credit but I do think they made some weird and sloppy decisions for how things would go in an alternate "what if everything turned out okay" history.

[Anonymous No.14637312]

>>14637173
If you want to avoid getting mired in geopolitical nonsense, you absolutely would want to have a domestic rocks-to-product industry for energy production and security. If Australia's goal is to say to the world "Fuck off, we're full", then they are making the worst possible economic decisions to do so. I'm not even saying you're wrong I just think the Aussie politicians are a particularly retarded breed.

[Anonymous No.14637314]

>>14637184
OTRAG would never work, but that doesn't make Germany's continued lack of any launch capability inexcusable.

[Anonymous No.14637321]

>>14637273
I’m a hardcore lefty but I love SpaceX so I agree

[Anonymous No.14637322]

$44B in Starship investment incoming

[Anonymous No.14637323]

>>14637321
Euro SpaceX when

[Anonymous No.14637325]

>>14637204
I always like to point out that these efforts can be 100% staffed, owned, and operated by aboriginals/natives whenever the "muh colonialism" argument pops up. Seeing these dummies twist themselves into knots and effectively argue that aboriginal/native communities should remain poor forever and never contribute to the economy to raise their standard of living is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.14637327]

>>14637247
>he is kind of an asshole
>is
anon, I . . .

[Anonymous No.14637328]

>>14637254
That statement is meaningless because it's literally always true. No matter how fast you get somewhere it's as soon as you were able to go, and therefore ASAP.

[Anonymous No.14637332]

>>14637323
I'm sure there are some Euros who want to be Eurosex today but are hamstrung by the networks of bureaucracy within the EU (and likely by certain groups who want to continue to be the only domestic provider of launch services to Europe)

[Anonymous No.14637335]

>>14637112
come again

[Anonymous No.14637344]

>>14637335
don't mind if I do

[Anonymous No.14637346]

Ok so wtf are we waiting for

[Anonymous No.14637348]

>>14637323
Cant happen with the communist/socialist government policies. Not just as a hyperbole, but rather the large industry is a government owned and run. Hence, SpaceX cannot happen, EVER.

[Anonymous No.14637349]

>>14637304
Eyes Turned Skyward’s creator stated that the most unbelievable part of the timeline is the basic premise, yeah.
If NASA did stick to LEO without the shuttle they’d probably just fly Big Gemini on a Titan

[Anonymous No.14637352]

>>14637312
I agree with you about domestic industry. More than anything, Australians value the status quo. It used to be that Australia could accomplish that by staying the course, but that is no longer the case. Their leaders must now choose between popular but ineffective actions, or unpopular but strategic policies. The rest of the Western-aligned world has similar choices in front of them.

[Anonymous No.14637362]

There is no one to blame but NASA when it comes to the shuttle. It was their idea to shill it so hard to everyone before the Air Force even got involved.
Also NASA legit got too cocky with it. They probably looked at Apollo and said “hey we did that in 10 years we can do anything :)”

[Anonymous No.14637363]

>>14637352
Shit like this is why I can't wait for colonies on the Moon and Mars. Policies there that are popular but ineffective cause everyone to swiftly die and new people can move into their empty habitat spaces and avoid making the same retarded decisions.

[Anonymous No.14637365]

>>14637332
Europeans can't be assed to do anything unless faced with imminent annihilation. They've got 20 years of catch-up to account for. Other than bespoke smallsat bullshit, Europe won't do anything of note in space on their own accord.

[Anonymous No.14637367]

>>14637362
Oh trust me I have no issue blaming NASA.

[Anonymous No.14637371]

>>14637304
>At the level of costs during the time it wouldn't have been sustainable
are you sure on that? if we go by this 1992 nature paper adjusting to 1992 dollars then the shuttle budget was over $3.3 billion every year after 1975. the entire mission cost for apollo 15, including the rocket, was $445 million in 1971, which adjusts to ~$1.25 billion in 1992 dollars. that means nasa could have afforded 2.6 apollo 15's using only the lowest shuttle budget - and most years they could have afforded well more than that. and that's assuming no reductions in costs.
it sure looks to me like they could have sustained apollo/saturn if they wanted to, but they just got too hopped up on the shuttle hopium.
>I know the Eyes Turned Skyward timeline gets a lot of credit but I do think they made some weird and sloppy decisions for how things would go in an alternate "what if everything turned out okay" history.
yeah the author wrote up a retrospective a while back about what he got wrong that was pretty good reading https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/eyes-turned-skywards.208954/page-178#post-22290358

[Anonymous No.14637376]

>>14637362
I like to think that nasa was too lenient when outside parties walked in demanding adjustments to the requirements for what the shuttle had to do.
And there and only there they should have blame.

[Anonymous No.14637379]

>>14637365
Isn't there already some euro company trying to build a methalox engine, plus a reusable booster concept?

[Anonymous No.14637380]

>>14637362
>There is no one to blame but NASA when it comes to the shuttle. It was their idea to shill it so hard to everyone before the Air Force even got involved.
You can kinda sympathize with their reasoning. They wanted the whole Integrated Program Plan and looking at it the launch costs account for more than half of the money needed for it. If they were to make a reusable launcher that could dramatically decrease the cost of launching things to space that would free up the budget for space stations crewed by 50 people and regular travel between the Earth and the Moon. They needed a Charlie Bolden to tell them that it's not that easy

[Anonymous No.14637381]

>>14637371
>are you sure on that?
Yup. Shuttle wasn't sustainable either lol.

[Anonymous No.14637383]

>>14637381
from a budgetary perspective the shuttle got sustained for 45 years

[Anonymous No.14637384]

>>14637371
>https://www.alternatehistory.com
very gay site, only whig faggots allowed

[Anonymous No.14637387]

>>14637379
Yes, and the time to start that project was 10 years ago. The capability gap is already wide and it's only widening.

[Anonymous No.14637391]

>>14637384
until we stop living in the whig timeline most people are going to be incapable of imagining anything else

[Anonymous No.14637408]

>>14637383
And what did they have to show for it? Shuttle costs, and later ISS costs, killed any actually innovative human space flight programs in the crib for decades.

[Anonymous No.14637410]

>>14637387
Yes but I thought someone said they hadn't even started yet

[Anonymous No.14637413]

[Anonymous No.14637417]

[Anonymous No.14637422]

>>14637417
What is this?

[Anonymous No.14637423]

>>14637422
"work platform for OLM"

[Anonymous No.14637426]

Chopsticks are going up
https://youtu.be/mhJRzQsLZGg

[Anonymous No.14637427]

Found it.

[Anonymous No.14637434]

>>14637408
>Shuttle costs, and later ISS costs, killed any actually innovative human space flight programs in the crib for decades.
To play devils advocate it could be argued that Apollo's costs killed most human spaceflight programs. Apollo seemed to prove that doing anything truly innovative in manned spaceflight demands gigantic investments thus paving the way for something like the Shuttle to take root. Fiascos like the Space Exploration Initiative would only go on to seemingly prove that perspective in the minds of congress

[Anonymous No.14637461]

How will super heavy and starship land at the same pad together? Is super heavy moved over to the side with the chopsticks or does the starship land elsewhere?

[Anonymous No.14637473]

>>14637461
Starships won't land at the same time as Super Heavy obviously. The sticks can put SH back on the OLM and then back to catch position

[Anonymous No.14637480]

>>14637434
Counterpoint: SEI was cool
>https://falsesteps.wordpress.com/2016/10/10/stcaem-cab-a-mouthful-of-a-mars-mission/amp/

I read it back in high school and it inspired me to do STEM. It will always have a special place in my heart. I did sports in high school and between games I would read my printed out copy of the SEI. Oh man those were the days.

[Anonymous No.14637485]

The space shuttle is obviously the most iconic piece of space hardware—maybe tied with sputnik for boomers. Will starship ever reach the level of pure iconography that the shuttle has?

[Anonymous No.14637492]

>>14637485
Eventually yeah.

[Anonymous No.14637500]

aight who's apply to be the sfg Janitor
state your qualifications

[Anonymous No.14637502]

>>14637500
Ten years as a space janitor

[Anonymous No.14637503]

>>14637174
I've designed an orbit capable rocket, I just need to build and launch it.
Although it will probably take a couple launches since I can't afford any performance losses, I should make orbit in 1958 hopefully.

The trick is to use a science avionics pack for the last stage and use spin stabilization to make it fly straight.
You can get a 3k dv stage with just an aerobee this way.
The guided, near earth avionics are way too heavy to take all the way to orbit, at least at that stage of the career.

[Anonymous No.14637510]

>>14637480
>Space Exploration Initiative
BATTLESTAR GALACTICA REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.14637511]

Is it happening?

[Anonymous No.14637512]

>>14637408
>And what did they have to show for it? Shuttle costs, and later ISS costs, killed any actually innovative human space flight programs in the crib for decades.
if you were launching 3 saturn v's a year then stuff like the ISS would be a fraction of the cost to develop and manufacture.

[Anonymous No.14637516]

>>14637500
>become jannie
NOPE

[Anonymous No.14637517]

>>14637480
>I did sports in high school and between games I would read my printed out copy of the SEI.
KING

[Anonymous No.14637519]

>>14637500
i have the best anime tastes of anyone in this thread.

[Anonymous No.14637536]

>>14637485
Jesus Christ, man, leave the US for once. The Apollo Lunar Module is by far the most iconic piece of space hardware. The vast majority of the global population has no idea about the Shuttle, or they only about it due to its death toll, or they saw it in some shitty movie.
>>14637500
>state your qualifications
I would give this(>>14637519) faggot a lifetime ban

[Anonymous No.14637546]

>>14637536
I mean, if you want to be pedantic it's probably the lunar EVA suits, but you're 100% wrong about the eagle—the eagle is ugly and utilitarian and even if more people have actually seen it, they don't think of it in the same way that they think of the shuttle. The shuttle just has a strong profile and symmetry and the orange, white and black is striking.
Apollo 11 is obviously a more iconic event than anything the shuttle ever did, but it's just fucking cool looking.

[Anonymous No.14637548]

[Anonymous No.14637554]

>>14637546
>it's just fucking cool looking
so true

[Anonymous No.14637591]

>wake up
>elons twitter is banned
oh no...

[Anonymous No.14637610]

>>14636994
thanks fren just watched. Comfy.

[Anonymous No.14637620]

>>14637536
>The Apollo Lunar Module is by far the most iconic piece of space hardware. The vast majority of the global population has no idea about the Shuttle, or they only about it due to its death toll, or they saw it in some shitty movie.
beyond delusional. as a eurofag i can promise you that if you showed people a picture of a lm not on the surface of the moon the vast majority would not be able to make heads or tails of what they were seeing. in contrast, "space shuttle" is still the common phrase used in place of rocket or spacecraft

[Anonymous No.14637664]

>>14637199
Yes

[Anonymous No.14637677]

>>14637136
Not for long with the ongoing "Energiewende".

[Anonymous No.14637687]

>>14637591
If only. Would be for the better of everyone since he clearly can't stop by himself.

[Anonymous No.14637696]

>>14636343
>we only want to rule over half of the europe, now cancel the fucking sanctions, or we will take all of it
russia can go to hell (and it will)

[Anonymous No.14637704]

>>14637696

[Anonymous No.14637708]

>>14637696
Volya i trud, Novorossiya will be free at last

[Anonymous No.14637710]

Using some of the responses in the last thread, I tallied up the offboard posters in /sfg/. Unsurprisingly, /k/ommandos make up ~1/3 of the posters, followed by an assortment of /g/entoomen, /v/irgins, /fit/izens and weebs. I expected to see stronger cross-board correlations, but then again this is a pretty small sample size and the features are sparse, so the margin of error relatively large.

[Anonymous No.14637723]

>>14637710
Very cool. General census when? I want also want to know things like favorite spacecraft, what got you interested in spaceflight, and bets on what will launch first.

[Anonymous No.14637730]

>>14637620
>Europoor US sycophant speaking on behalf of the global population
lol, leave your region of globohomo controlled nonautonomous countries
>>14637546
The Shittle just looks like a weird plane to those without your autism or previous knowledge that's it was actually made to create jobs, I mean made to go to space

[Anonymous No.14637732]

>>14637730
Damn, you're even more retarded than I thought

[Anonymous No.14637747]

>>14635979
Lel

[Anonymous No.14637750]

Why do Delta IV and SLS have orange foam while Ariane 5 doesn’t, despite all three being hydrolox

[Anonymous No.14637752]

>>14637610
i thought so too

[Anonymous No.14637755]

>>14637750
Yuros did one thing right

[Anonymous No.14637769]

>>14637750
Ariane 5 uses SRBs, hydrolox stage is just a sustainer. Delta IV in that configuration is pure hydrolox and the SRBs used for Delta IV medium was a magnitude smaller than Ariane 5's.
GEM 60 was a 1.5m x 14.7m strapon, Ariane 5 boosters are 3m x 31m.

So yes, Ariane can afford a paint job without dropping below a TWR of 1.

[Anonymous No.14637774]

>>14637769
As for thrust, a single GEM 60 provided 879kN each, flown in 2 or 4 configuration, the Ariane 5 boosters provide 13,300kN.

[Anonymous No.14637775]

>>14637732
Cry. The legacy of the Sh*ttle is that of an unmitigated disaster in multiple ways that was objectively bad for human progress. More people should know about it just to help prevent the same mistake from happening again but instead it will just be a footnote in history and interest in it will die out shortly after the last spaceplanefag slips a rope around their neck

[Anonymous No.14637777]

>>14637591
we are witnessing the beginning of the downfall and what a hard fall it will be

[Anonymous No.14637784]

>>14637723
I think the answers will largely be
>starship
>starship
>starship

I'd be curious to know the composition of attitudes on controversial /sfg/ topics (flatspace vs curvespace, nuclear vs solar, anime vs antianime, moon vs Mars, etc.) to see if there's any clustering of opinions, but I think the potential thread derailing wouldn't be worth it.

[Anonymous No.14637791]

[Anonymous No.14637798]

>>14637777
bros...

[Anonymous No.14637801]

>>14637784
Nuclear vs Solar doesn’t matter. Solar is easier to “allow” but nuclear is better all-around. Nuclear is ideal but even Elon plans on brute-forcing with a bunch of solar panels

[Anonymous No.14637828]

>>14637801
>>14637784
solar is just nuclear

[Anonymous No.14637834]

The next ten years will be brutal. ol musky will end up in the hottub with jeff. it's human nature, an it will take space-x with it

[Anonymous No.14637846]

https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=301648&x=..
new starship filing
>The Starship-Super Heavy test flight will originate from Starbase, TX. The booster stage will separate and will then perform a partial return and land in the Gulf of Mexico or return to Starbase and be caught by the launch tower. The orbital Starship spacecraft will continue on its path to an altitude of approximately 250 km before performing a powered, targeted landing in the Pacific Ocean.

[Anonymous No.14637864]

Did you guys remember to wish Clear a happy birthday the other day?

[Anonymous No.14637873]

big news lads
https://spacenews.com/web-entrepreneur-eyes-small-launcher-market/

[Anonymous No.14637874]

>>14637846
>or
that's a big or. my guess is they do this to save time on future requests.

[Anonymous No.14637879]

>>14637873
Based Ross 154 poster

[Anonymous No.14637880]

absolutely punished tom, forced out by faceless suits

[Anonymous No.14637885]

>>14637828
With fewer steps as the Sun is unsurprisingly a better energy source than a man-made reactor and its energy is actually free.
>>14637801
>nuclear is better all-around. Nuclear is ideal
It's not though, if you think the average satellite or spacecraft should be nuclear powered even absent of regulations you are severely autistic and devoid of any rational thought. Absent cost, "nuclear is better" in places where the specific power of a nuclear system would be greater than that of a solar/battery system, or a solar/ISRU fuel/fuel cell system, or a beamed power system, or where solar would be volumetrically constrained. Those use cases are rare and with the inclusion of cost they become exceedingly rare.

[Anonymous No.14637894]

>>14637880
Replaced by a jew

[Anonymous No.14637896]

Space solar will always be a nerdy version of the Hammer of Dawn from Gears of War or Icarus from Die Another Day.

[Anonymous No.14637903]

>>14637896
The real play is to disassemble Mercury to build a gigantic PROCSIMA array.
Then, you use it to preemptively sterilize every star system within effective range.

[Anonymous No.14637907]

Holy shit the Soviets just launched a “satellite” into orbit

[Anonymous No.14637909]

>>14637907
begone commies

[Anonymous No.14637910]

>>14637907
soviet media coverage of sputnik on day one was minimal. it didn't even make the top half of pravda's front page. it wasn't until they saw the western media freakout that they realized this was a big deal.

[Anonymous No.14637915]

The biggest mistake Dev Ayesa made was putting Ed Baldwin in charge of Pheonix. What a coward. First he eggs on his first in command to take the risk, and then when its time to put money where your mouth is, pulls out.

[Anonymous No.14637918]

>>14637915
wut anime is dis

[Anonymous No.14637920]

>>14637915
Hello fellow WeMartians listener

[Anonymous No.14637927]

have we ever sent the Iliad into space?

[Anonymous No.14637930]

>>14637910
glorious russia can send satellite to orbit and not even care

[Anonymous No.14637936]

>>14637930
>in soviet russia, satellite send YOU into orbit!

[Anonymous No.14637944]

>>14637873
>By Brian Berger
Is this Eric's dad?

[Anonymous No.14637945]

there will be a time when the ISS no longer exists
that day approaches too quickly

[Anonymous No.14637952]

>>14637903
A colony around the Sun would have such an enormous tactical advantage over the rest of the solar system it's unreal. You wouldn't even need to use directed-energy weapons outside of point-defense, simple laser pushed light sail kinetic impactors would clean up shop and your enemies would not be able to reach the same orbit as you in a timely fashion without absurd amounts of delta-v.

[Anonymous No.14637954]

>>14637945
When the ISS dies it will be a mercy killing. Some of its parts are older than anyone posting in this thread.

[Anonymous No.14637957]

>>14636971
They can't let that lingering fear that they might have got it wrong just lie, can they?

[Anonymous No.14637960]

>>14637086
>There is something noteworthy a rocket can do that the shuttle cannot. A rocket can be permitted to fail. What if a billion dollar spaceship wipes out on a "routine" mission "commuting" to space with some puny little satellite?
>Here's the plan. Suppose one of the solid-fueled boosters fails. The plan is, you die.
the guy didn't miss

[Anonymous No.14637963]

>>14637710
Lmao obvious which is mine. Second from left.

[Anonymous No.14637975]

>>14637710
i just lied about /a/ for trolling purposes btw

[Anonymous No.14637977]

>>14637963
since none of them are the same it's obvious to everyone which one is his

[Anonymous No.14637978]

>>14637960
>"The whole philosophy is that the shuttle is like a commercial airliner," Day explains. "You test everything like mad, but once it's checked out, you take your chances."
I wonder how we will look back at Starship 50 years from now. The promise of cheap rapid reuse to lower space access sounds all too familiar.

[Anonymous No.14637980]

>>14637710
>>14637963
third column best column
*dabs*

[Anonymous No.14637987]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am7EwmxBAW8

[Anonymous No.14637988]

>>14637978
it takes a world-historical figure to break the chains of the past but it can be done. even in a best-case scenario starship's going to have all sorts of problems that are going to take years and years to address. and if it fails then at least we'll have an even better idea of what not to do the next time someone gives it a shot.

[Anonymous No.14637993]

>>14637978
>>14637988
eric gunnerson made a very good video on why the shuttle failed. big difference between shuttle and starship programs is that NASA and congress didn't care if shuttle met the promised goals or not, spacex almost certainly does care about starship meeting its goals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-qUrV6Odrw&t=12s

[Anonymous No.14637998]

>>14637993
Yep. NASA figured the shuttle was “good enough” and decided not to iterate on it. Also, every shuttle flight had a crew.

[Anonymous No.14637999]

>shuttle failed
STS may have been a death trap, but it did not fail
they orbited the fuck out of that thing

[Anonymous No.14638000]

>>14637998
Yes, very different from the starship program, where they make huge changes even from ship to ship, and where manned flights will not come until several years later

[Anonymous No.14638003]

>>14637957
got what wrong? lol

[Anonymous No.14638004]

>>14637999
if the goal of the program was to put something in orbit then you would be correct

[Anonymous No.14638007]

>>14638004
the goal of the program was a jobs program for nasa and congress, and as a semi-military program for the us air force

[Anonymous No.14638013]

>>14637963
>>14637980
Both of you were in the outliers in board alpha-diversity. The majority of anons only visit a handful of boards.

[Anonymous No.14638015]

>>14638007
yeah but they could've had a jobs program that put military satellites into orbit with any launcher. except other launchers would've worked much better because DOD could've actually launched them into polar orbits.
if nasa had wanted to go with titan-derived or saturn-derived rockets it would have been an easier sell to congress. they didn't because they actually believed klaus heiss and the mathematica report.

[Anonymous No.14638024]

>>14638013
Of course. We are alpha Chads. Alpha Chads are attracted to the well-rounded Greek ideal.

[Anonymous No.14638028]

>>14638013
>The majority of anons only visit a handful of boards.
I wonder about others, but I barely browse boards anymore. Just a couple recurring threads and generals such as this one always open. Everything else has been feeling pointless for years.

[Anonymous No.14638029]

>>14638028
that photo would make a good book cover

[Anonymous No.14638045]

We could potentially see super heavy return to launchpad
https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1545593143633932289?s=21&t=m1wOZSyKj4pqlEpmXx3B1g

Also, spacex is planning on having starlink terminals aboard Starship and Superheavy

> Starlink will allow "high-data rate communications" and remove telemetry blackouts during reentry.

What are the implications of this?? That communications blackout tends to be a huge problem for the industry as a whole.

[Anonymous No.14638052]

>>14638028
I didn't bother quantifying it, but a substantial fraction of anons seem to only go to some boards for specific generals. I would hazard a guess that those tend to be high traffic boards which are often trash.
>Everything else has been feeling pointless for years.
Even though 4chan has always been trash, it's gotten even more repetitive and boring over the past 6-7 years. There's still the occasional gem among the turds, but they're getting fewer and further in between. If it weren't for /sfg/, I wouldn't come here anymore.

[Anonymous No.14638056]

>>14638052
>which are often trash
Sometimes it's literally /trash/.

[Anonymous No.14638063]

>>14638052
>If it weren't for /sfg/, I wouldn't come here anymore.
Can I get uhhhhhhhhhhhh you're here forever.

[Anonymous No.14638074]

>>14638056
I didn't even know that was a board until I was collating the data. It got created after I stopped coming here for a bit. Seems like it's just /b/ overflow?
>>14638063
13 years and counting. Christ. It's probably time to call it quits but we both know that's unlikely to happen.

[Anonymous No.14638076]

>>14638074
>Seems like it's just /b/ overflow?
/trash/ is every other board's rejected topics. /b/ has gone incredibly down-hill from even its once nonexistent standards.

[Anonymous No.14638087]

[Anonymous No.14638090]

>>14638087
member when /sfg/ was fervently opposed to tiles? I sure do.

[Anonymous No.14638093]

>>14638090
What about a "thermal blanket"? Perhaps a liquid or flexible material

[Anonymous No.14638094]

I understand the idea of catching the rocket is possible, but based on Starship prototype landings I dont see how it's acurate and graceful enough to not rip the arms off. SN5-SN15 landings were all over the place

[Anonymous No.14638098]

>>14638087
Wouldn't it be worse if they painted it black because it would absorb heat?

[Anonymous No.14638099]

>>14637864
why is japan so into spaceflight

[Anonymous No.14638100]

Is outland an sfg approved movie?
>>14638094
look at early falcon 9 landings. they can definitely improve accuracy. also theoretically they could hover more since they are losing a lot of mass from taking out the landing legs.

[Anonymous No.14638101]

>>14638090
>member when /sfg/ was fervently opposed to tiles?
I still am.

[Anonymous No.14638102]

>>14638094
What's the worst that can happen? The launch tower ending up being expendable? NASA does it too, so nothing new.

[Anonymous No.14638110]

>>14638100
Outland is the best Sean Connery movie nobody watched

A good SS13 rp round

[Anonymous No.14638111]

>>14638102
nasa doesnt launch anything

[Anonymous No.14638115]

Is Echo Night Beyond an sfg approved game?

[Anonymous No.14638117]

>>14637710
>/tg/
COIN bros?

[Anonymous No.14638120]

tim dodd vid is up on patreon
some interesting details in this tweet
https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1536425211091816448

[Anonymous No.14638123]

>>14638120
>sighs
>unzips

[Anonymous No.14638131]

>>14638120
https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1545507911467577345
the follow up is amazing too
he wasn't kidding when he said it would be a deep dive

[Anonymous No.14638132]

Can someone explain how ULA's depot plan would have worked? Do they just launch an empty rocket and use the extra upper stage fuel to refuel the depot?

[Anonymous No.14638137]

>look up "most powerful rocket" on google images
>pictures of SLS everywhere
lol

[Anonymous No.14638138]

>>14636519
>>14636520
I think this will be how it goes too- lots of rolls of steel, trusses, etc.
I think one of the best use cases is bringing up a welding robot that basically welds specially rolled sheets of steel (or polygonal sections) together. You know how you can peel an orange and keep the skin just one piece? You can do basically the reverse with sheet steel. Or you could do it with a bunch of triangles like a 20 sided die, or a higher n-sided approximately sphere shape. Basically the robot welder would hold two pieces together at a certain angle (with magnets) and weld them together. Then it would weld another piece. Eventually the whole thing would be welded. And you could potentially seal it off and detonate a small charge in the exact center to expand it to an even more spherical shape (same way that hydro forming metal works). You would probably do at least 2 concentric spheres so you could further insulate it (is vacuum a better insulator than aerogel or some self-expanding foam? Maybe the foam is better for micrometeorite shielding?) you’d have at least one specialty polygon with all the valves, pumps, stirring, refrigeration, etc that would be built into the tank.
A single starship with a whole load of these triangle/hexagon/pentagon pieces and welding robots could build a single massive spherical propellant tanks or habitats. At 150 tons of payload and steel being 8000 kg/m^3, a single starship could hold about 19 m^3 of steel. a 4mm thick sphere would have a radius of almost 20m, a surface area of 450m^2, and 900 m^3 internal volume (4mm was the i unoptimized thick starship skin— eventually starship will probably be just 2mm thick).

[Anonymous No.14638142]

>>14638137
starship doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.14638143]

>The largest planet, Jupiter, is 0.09% the mass of the Sun, while the Earth is about three millionths (0.0003%) of the mass of the Sun.
The most brutal mogging in the history of our solar system. How can planets ever compete?

[Anonymous No.14638147]

>>14638142
AresIbros.. Constellation may be gone but not forgotten..

[Anonymous No.14638149]

>>14638142
>best rocket in the world
>New Glenn
of course

[Anonymous No.14638152]

>>14638045
The Navy is going to be watching the landing area like a hawk, right?

Odds on them blowing it up at sea versus tugging it back home.

[Anonymous No.14638154]

>>14638099
Because they're White. Only White nations have achieved orbit.
>Nation(days since first orbit):
>Soviet Union: 4 October 1957(0 days)
>United States: 1 February 1958(120 days)
>France: 26 November 1965(2975 days)
>Japan: 11 February 1970(4513 days)
>China: 24 April 1970(4513 days)
>United Kingdom: 28 October 1971(5137 days)
>European Space Agency: 24 December 1979(8116 days)
>India: 18 July 1980(8323 days)
>Israel: 19 September 1988(11,309 days)
>Ukraine: 28 September 1991(12,413 days)
>Russian: 21 January 1992(12,528 days)
>Iran: 2 February 2009(18,750 days)
>North Korea: 12 December 2012(20,159 days)
>South Korea: 21 June 2022(23,637 days)

[Anonymous No.14638155]

>>14638147
>number of launches: 1
Imagine having to design an entire new rocket every single launch. That's taking "expendable" to a whole new level.

[Anonymous No.14638156]

>>14638137
>>14638142
>>14638149
bingbros....we won

[Anonymous No.14638157]

>>14638138
Orb2 got crucified in the CLD reviews. NASA isn't interested in funding anything other than low-risk, legacy bullshit for the immediate future.

https://twitter.com/DrKaram17/status/1538086213994762245#m

[Anonymous No.14638158]

>>14638003
That there might be ayys around there. In one of Godier's videos, he talks about how astronomers have begun to notice a strange phenomenon surrounding stars around TRAPPIST-1.

[Anonymous No.14638164]

>>14638158
>astronomers have begun to notice a strange phenomenon surrounding stars around TRAPPIST-1.
What's that about?

[Anonymous No.14638165]

heard some rumors that the capstone fuckup was partially because of dsn issues and timing requirements or something of that nature?

[Anonymous No.14638174]

>>14638158
>a strange phenomenon surrounding stars around TRAPPIST-1.
I remember hearing that there's a clustering of stellar dimming events for stars within about a thousand light years of KIC8462852, but nothing about TRAPPIST (which is much, much closer to us)

[Anonymous No.14638176]

>>14638154
is this a gpt bot reply? what the fuck is this supposed to mean

[Anonymous No.14638177]

>>14638165
Look at the top of the thread bro

[Anonymous No.14638178]

>>14638176
anon pls
this is /sfg/

[Anonymous No.14638181]

>>14638165
>DSN
Today I will remind them
>Currently, the DSN can receive up to 4 spacecraft signals at the same time, or MSPA-4. However, apertures cannot currently be shared for uplink. When two or more high-power carriers are used simultaneously, very high order intermodulation products fall in the receiver bands, causing interference to the much (25 orders of magnitude) weaker received signals. Therefore, only one spacecraft at a time can get an uplink, though up to 4 can be received.

[Anonymous No.14638182]

>>14638154
>Japanese and Indians are white now
Absolutely based. It's time to merge all races into one. A race with the strengths of all, and the weaknesses of none.

[Anonymous No.14638184]

>>14638154
you forgot the brits in 1968
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow

[Anonymous No.14638186]

>>14638184
>Developed during the 1960s, it was used for four launches between 1969 and 1971, all launched from the Woomera Prohibited Area in Australia. Its final flight was the first and only successful orbital launch to be conducted by the United Kingdom

[Anonymous No.14638187]

>>14635730
>"the spacecraft operations team attempted to access diagnostic data on the spacecraft's radio and sent an improperly formatted command that made the radio inoperable,"
>>14638177
what i mean is they got rushed on the command because someone else wanted to use the dsn

[Anonymous No.14638188]

...

[Anonymous No.14638190]

>>14638181
i've said it before but spacex will need to build their own DSN
and no, starlinks can't do the job

[Anonymous No.14638192]

>>14638188
Technically correct, the best kind of correct

[Anonymous No.14638195]

>>14638192
>The answer depends on more than just total thrust

[Anonymous No.14638199]

>>14638195
>So, which is more powerful? It appears pretty even, but it looks like time will be the ultimate judge.
?

[Anonymous No.14638200]

>>14638090
Shuttle tiles

[Anonymous No.14638201]

>>14638190
I think that ground stations, deep space or not, is going to be the biggest obstacle to space commercialisation. Its useless to have all these satellites and probes in space when you can only collect kilobytes of data twice a day.

[Anonymous No.14638203]

>damn kids and their tiles

[Anonymous No.14638204]

>>14638190
>starlinks can't do the job
it's just not that easy in deep space networkry

[Anonymous No.14638208]

>>14638157
>>14638138
Luckily nasa doesn’t have a say. They’ll be spacex depots.

[Anonymous No.14638210]

>>14638190
There's a market for the "private sector DSN" job and it may not involve ground-based antennas like the current one uses

The US already proved you can get antennas that large in space so I figure it's only a matter of time until someone puts two and two together

[Anonymous No.14638214]

>>14638190
SpaceX is using Universal Space Network

[Anonymous No.14638225]

>page 8
>not even 500 replies
/sfg/ is dead

[Anonymous No.14638231]

https://www.space.com/russia-anti-satellite-laser-facility-satellite-photos

star wars is back baby

[Anonymous No.14638238]

>>14638231
I say we launch sharks with frickin laser beams attached to their heads into space. That'll show those damned oriental steppe barbarians what's what.

[Anonymous No.14638242]

>>14638214
The St. John's station appears to independently operated and not part of the DSN or USN, there are probably others.
>>14638231
They won't do shit but I wish they would.

[Anonymous No.14638258]

Jacobs put out a press release to the effect that they won a contract to run JSC

I'm reading the RFP and it's kind of amazing what the scope of their operation is
https://sam.gov/opp/65d0b530e1794e92b7f42c0d470888fd/view

It's not unique though, there are some national laboratories run the same way (Sandia and Los Alamos come to mind)

[Anonymous No.14638281]

>>14638231
Time to take a page out of the Strangereal history books.

[Anonymous No.14638284]

>>14638045
>We could potentially see super heavy return to launchpad
Yeah that's not happening on their first launch.

[Anonymous No.14638288]

>>14638132
A payload is a payload. If the payload just happens to be carrying fuel, that's that.
It's not magic or anything.

[Anonymous No.14638293]

>>14638231
ground to orbit lasers can't possibly do much damage on short notice
maybe they could blind something but mostly all this can do is slowly cook the satellite

[Anonymous No.14638306]

>>14638281
Stonehenge is cooler anyway

[Anonymous No.14638309]

>>14638288
So they launch it up with an empty fairing? Or is their a dedicated tanker spacecraft?

[Anonymous No.14638316]

>>14638293
Apparently the sensors on satellites are very sensitive, just like my penis and general emotional state.

[Anonymous No.14638322]

>>14638231
This thing uses adaptive optics to pinpoint sats sensors apparently? Very fancy

[Anonymous No.14638341]

>>14638309
Payload goes inside fairing. What part of this is confusing?

[Anonymous No.14638349]

>Starship? Oh like a ship that travels between stars?
>No, between planets
>Starfactory? Oh like where stars are made?
>No, space ships
>Stargate? Oh like the hit scifi franchise?
>No, just some office building

[Anonymous No.14638350]

>>14638231
Ohhhhhhhhh I'm so scared. Also that journo should kill themselves for not delivering said satellite imagery.

[Anonymous No.14638362]

going to watch the martian finally

[Anonymous No.14638371]

>>14638362
tell us how it is after youre done, ive only read the book

[Anonymous No.14638372]

>>14638362
go read Project Hail Mary instead

[Anonymous No.14638377]

>>14638362
dont listen to anon

[Anonymous No.14638390]

>>14638349
>starship
>it doesn't ship stars

[Anonymous No.14638392]

>>14638362
Ah! The wind is pushing me!

[Anonymous No.14638396]

>>14638372
> Drew Goddard (who adapted The Martian, Weir's traditional publishing debut, into a 2015 film) is slated to adapt the book into a film.
>Actor Ryan Gosling plans to star as Grace in the film adaptation.
Can't wait

[Anonymous No.14638401]

>>14638392
What does Dragon's Dogma have to do with The Martian?

[Anonymous No.14638407]

>>14638231
>russia
>anything technologically advanced
pick one

[Anonymous No.14638413]

So why did Musk pull back from his twitter deal?

[Anonymous No.14638415]

>>14638090
The Black material looks different. The white wool like stuff is missing too.

[Anonymous No.14638416]

>>14638413
Maybe he just felt the insane amount of criticism he'd receive so long as he owned it was detrimental to his other interests. It would be an anchor around his neck.

[Anonymous No.14638418]

>>14638392
>>14638362
ok the storm was retarded but i already knew about that
wtf was that decompression/explosion at the 1 hour mark
no fucking way it would have enough pressure to do that

[Anonymous No.14638419]

>>14638087
Didn't we see some new, textured tiles a few days ago? Not the ones below the SpaceX symbol on SN24 but these were on SN25, I think it was.

[Anonymous No.14638421]

>>14638413
He came to his senses, thankfully

[Anonymous No.14638424]

>>14638418
also i hate the rover design
no airlock is such a shitty design

[Anonymous No.14638425]

>>14638419
ur gonna have to post a pic

[Anonymous No.14638427]

>>14638413
Environmental review came in and his focus shifted.

[Anonymous No.14638429]

>>14638424
>i hate the rover design
elaborate

[Anonymous No.14638432]

>>14638429
it should be suit ports or a smaller airlock on the back
imagine wasting all that oxygen every time you want to get out

[Anonymous No.14638438]

>>14638421
>>14638427
And now he's getting sued. Doesn't seem like a wise decision.

[Anonymous No.14638444]

>>14638438
He is one of the most sued individuals on the planet. He'll either win or settle like he always does.

[Anonymous No.14638446]

>>14638438
the wise thing would have been to not make an offer. the next wisest thing would be to pull out. He'll countersue and may or may not end up wasting about a billion

[Anonymous No.14638454]

The targets of Webb’s first images have been announced:
>SMACS 0723 (deep field)
Meh
>WASP-96b (hot jupiter)
Gay
>Southern Ring Nebula
Meh
>Stephan’s Quintet
Meh
>Carina Nebula
Looks like shit in infrared

[Anonymous No.14638457]

>>14638454
i will wait for /sfg/ resident astronobro before forming any opinion

[Anonymous No.14638471]

twitter.com/elonmusk

Elon's banned now lmao

[Anonymous No.14638475]

>>14638471
>offer to buy twitter for way too much money
>lol fuck off you white cis male
>twitter algorithm gets leaked and turns out most of the accounts are fake
>actually please buy us now!!!
>what you dont want to buy us?
>fuck you we will see you in court.

Musk is right to walk away.

[Anonymous No.14638481]

>>14638362
well i watched all of it
the ending was alright
but man so many retarded decisions along the way
if NASA projects weren't so barebones it wouldn't have been a problem

[Anonymous No.14638485]

>>14638481
RTG triggered me a bit
he didn't even use it for power from what i saw either
JPL wankery was a bit much
at least duct tape got some action

[Anonymous No.14638556]

lmao, boing is at it again

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/boeing-threatens-to-cancel-boeing-737-max-10-aircraft-unless-given-exemption-from-safety-requirements/ar-AAZlPB5?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a2fd2296328b4325aae4dcaf5aa7e01b

[Anonymous No.14638612]

>>14638556
How does this happen at literally every fucking department in Boeing?

[Anonymous No.14638629]

>>14638612
Corporate rot and Too Big to Fail is a dangerous combination.

[Anonymous No.14638641]

uh oh
https://twitter.com/TalkOTitusville/status/1545727091752271873?s=20&t=3MxibbQE8bFBv8REumwh0A

[Anonymous No.14638646]

>>14638090
They'll try something more exotic if the tiles are unworkable. The only bad thing about the tiles is how long it's taking to test them during reentry and actually attempt to refurbish them.

[Anonymous No.14638648]

>>14638641
>Relativity
And nothing of value was lost.

[Anonymous No.14638652]

>>14638641
>100 feet high flames

[Anonymous No.14638657]

>>14638646
Has the metallic TPS problem ever been solved? They can just get rid of the tiles altogether.

[Anonymous No.14638658]

>>14638641
Noooo! It can't be!!!!

[Anonymous No.14638663]

>>14638349
>Starship? A ship that sails on the surface of stars? No? Oh, it dives into stars then? Okay, but it's powered by a star, right?

[Anonymous No.14638678]

>>14638132
there was more than one ula depot plan but the most detailed one that people think of is the commercially based lunar architecture pdf. that called for dedicated tanker launches on the most cost-effective rocket available to refuel the LEO depot. in practice, this would have meant atlas v with 5 solids plus ACES.
but the whole thing is pretty short and you should read it yourself.

[Anonymous No.14638709]

>>14638678
>>14638132
i say the likely candidate for launching tankers was atlas+aces because that's obviously what ULA was hoping for in that pdf. BUT they did have one slide in a presentation from 2009 which dangled the possibility of another launcher which looks way more enticing now than it did at the time...
would elon have overcome his disdain for hydrolox if nasa was awarding contracts for 15+ commercial propellant program launches per year? probably, but he wouldn't have even needed to, since 89% of hydrolox's mass is in the lox. you could've just had F9/FH handling the lox and then a couple of atlas/aces launches a year to top off the LH2.

[Anonymous No.14638717]

ABLchads... we won

[Anonymous No.14638718]

>>14638678
This is some Black Buck shit

[Anonymous No.14638738]

>>14638076
>>14638074
It started that way, (and some threads do still wind up transferred there) butnow it is the defacto furry board with its own set of generals.

[Anonymous No.14638771]

>>14638663
kek

[Anonymous No.14638774]

So when will Starship be cooming to orbit ?

[Anonymous No.14638779]

So when will the N1 rocket be splodin oops I mean Starship oops I mean launchin?

[Anonymous No.14638785]

>6 flights in 2021
>only 2 flights in 2022 so far and no details on the next flight
did jeff get bored or did cryptofags just run out of money to pay for the carnival ride

[Anonymous No.14638790]

>>14638785
The novelty wore off, no doubt.

[Anonymous No.14638795]

>>14638785
you can get the same experience for 8k/seat on a parabolic flight

[Anonymous No.14638799]

>>14638785
Blue Glenn is working on ramping up cadence

[Anonymous No.14638801]

SOMEONE MAKE A NEW THREAD

[Anonymous No.14638811]

>>14638801
sure, i'm getting /sfg/ anime edition ready as we speak

[Anonymous No.14638824]

>>14638811
HURRY UP

[Anonymous No.14638841]

FINE I'LL STAGE GODDAMN
>>14638840
>>14638840
>>14638840