/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 184 KB, 1024x550, Saturn_V_launches.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 11:48:22 2015 No.7546353 [Reply] [Original]

>/sg/ - Space general
Thread 1

there's a lot of space discussion on sci but I feel that it's time it was all consolidated into one thread so that us space enthusiasts can have something of a community here

Thread topics:
>Launch vehicles and spacecraft
>Astronomy and astrophysics
>Manned and unmanned missions
>Future tech
>Past / present / future of any space agencies and companies
>School and work in space-related fields
>Stupid questions
>Space in media / entertainment

To avoid a shitstorm, I'd like to stay away from topics like the EM drive, FTL, and UFOs (although valid discussion about SETI / ayylmaos is fine)

Feel free to give suggestions for things to add to the OP in the future

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 12:25:06 2015 No.7546399 File: 87 KB, 660x660, AS09-24-3657-660x660.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 12:28:32 2015 No.7546412 File: 35 KB, 424x297, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw you will never patrol the Solar System hunting down Commie space-dreadnaughts I guess it wasn't meant to be

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 12:41:22 2015 No.7546430 File: 21 KB, 777x652, new-horizons-pluto-atmosphere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7546412 not too late COLD WAR 2 O L D W A R 2

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 12:44:12 2015 No.7546434

>>7546353
>>Launch vehicles and spacecraft
Last week China had their first launch of the Long March 6, inaugurating their first new launcher family in decades. This is the smallest of the new family of kerosene/LOX vehicles; the current Long March family uses the toxic hypergolics UDMH/N2O2.

China plans to follow up on the 25th with another new quick-response launcher, Long March 11.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 12:54:37 2015 No.7546445
File: 41 KB, 188x253, splendiferous.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Im entering a physics competition to explain an interesting concept in a 10min video.

Top prize is $250k. I think ill do it on the basics of orbital mechanics.

wish me luck!

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 13:25:07 2015 No.7546500 >>7546445 Protip: Don't do something that is interesting to you, do something that is interesting to others. I doubt many people find orbital mechanics to be fascinating. Something popsci is a guaranteed win.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 13:36:50 2015 No.7546526
File: 227 KB, 1024x512, mars_1k_color.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7546500
it could be good but I'm biased
>>7546445
gl m8
>>7546434
weird that that never made it to space.com, I feel like news of china's space program never makes it to me for whatever reason

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 13:56:10 2015 No.7546543 File: 317 KB, 1920x1200, 1421173316890.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Dumping some pictures

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 13:57:15 2015 No.7546545 File: 2.19 MB, 4074x4095, 1403488932101.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 13:59:33 2015 No.7546547 File: 1.05 MB, 2415x3000, 1423663928205.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:02:11 2015 No.7546550 File: 571 KB, 2389x2306, 1406016922037.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:07:19 2015 No.7546560 File: 87 KB, 934x950, 5a2cb5_5390007.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:22:47 2015 No.7546572 reminder that general threads are the cancer that is killing 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:23:35 2015 No.7546573 God damn am I hyped for asteroid mining.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:24:33 2015 No.7546578 File: 1.17 MB, 1935x1080, 1418603705640.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7546572 Why do you say that?

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:25:03 2015 No.7546580

What the fuck is the point of this gay general? The only things you could possibly talk about are:
1. The moon landing (again for the billionth time)
2. Shitty half-assed attempts to get into space in modern times
3. Shitty pipe-dreams about future warpDriveEpicMegaStarBlackHoleHoppers that won't ever happen

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:28:32 2015 No.7546587

>>7546353
Orion drive man

Such an elegant, yet simple invention. Basicly you detonate nuclear warhead up your ass (or the rear of the spacecraft) and given sufficient rear armour you get yourself a nice boost. Getting to Alpha Centauri with 100 ton ship would require only several 'splosions. And with current 'clean' devices you'll get more irradiated from cosmic radiation than boosting.

Capable of lifting from gravity well also. But nah, enviromently unclean. And nobody likes the idea of nukes above our heads, HANE trails kinda way.

Weenies. Apparently space research requires more balls than you canon expect from today's world. In '50 and '60 people used to think big.
I wonder where and why is this spirit gone, but will it ever come back?

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:32:42 2015 No.7546591

>>7546578
threads on 4chan are supposed to be ephemeral. If you want to post in the same thread every time, why don't you use a website that doesn't delete content after a certain time or # of posts instead or reposting the same damn shit day after day, thread after thread and calling it a "general" thread?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:33:42 2015 No.7546593 >>7546591 instead of*

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 14:59:16 2015 No.7546624

>>7546591
Not the guy you were responding to but I'll try to explain why I made this thread, it actually is because of the reasons that you stated, aka that posting the same thing again and again is bad.
Thing is everything that I put in the OP is stuff that people post -again and again and again- I hope for this to be a way to consolidate all of that reposting of "spaceX is doing this!" or "post astronomy pictures!" into one place so that they're not clogging up the rest of the board and so that discussion can be united into one place

If the general sentiment of the board is against this existing, however, I won't make another

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 15:46:54 2015 No.7546712 >>7546500 idk i think orbital mechanics could be quite popular - everybody likes massive rockets taking off/exploding.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 16:41:54 2015 No.7546801 File: 3.17 MB, 2000x5984, biesty_saturnv01-lg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 16:45:05 2015 No.7546812 File: 178 KB, 1284x1029, 1437858718408.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7546712 Doing an overview on why rockets fail is a good idea

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 16:56:51 2015 No.7546834 >you will never plant trees on mars. Thats what I want to do. Just bring life to mars

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 17:22:39 2015 No.7546870

>>7546624
A general thread for such a vague subject as "space" is a pretty shit idea. People make topics on certain things to discuss those things, a general on such a broad subject just means everyone who would want to discuss something would have to put up with all the other shit they don't want to see.

There has also been no actual discussion this thread so far because there isn't any one topic, its just people saying random things or dumping pictures. There is only a handful of posts though so that may be why. Those handful of posts though have taken hours to show up which may also be another reason not to bother with it, this place is too slow.

tl;dr its a shit idea

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 17:28:08 2015 No.7546875 File: 638 KB, 1280x720, it spins.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7546353 >/sg/ - Space general neat

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 18:05:51 2015 No.7546920 >>7546801 awesome picture man, thanks for sharing

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 18:33:14 2015 No.7546939 >>7546870 In the future I'll start with a more specific topic, unless of course this falls flat on its face as for speed of posts this is pretty good for /sci/

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 19:12:42 2015 No.7546986 >>7546526 >space.com space.com is for plebs. Go with spaceflight now, nasaspaceflight, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 19:29:50 2015 No.7547004 >>7546870 Fuck off if you don't like the thread. No one gives a shit what you think.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 19:48:19 2015 No.7547030 >>7546986 Spaceflightnow was my old homepage but to be honest their news was pretty focused on the commercial and they really didn't give much news on science I still liked it but I feel like I'm missing less browsing space

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 21:03:16 2015 No.7547102 Goys Men on Mars when

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 21:16:23 2015 No.7547123
File: 1.73 MB, 2560x1686, 1389143285728.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I may have a very real chance of working on Orion as a technician in the next couple of years. My goal is to work for Space X eventually but If I could work on Orion, should I? It would be great experience but I have no faith in it for the long run. I also hear Space X hires fresh technicians right out of school and trains them themselves so perhaps it would be a waste of time to work on Orion for the sole purpose of getting hired by Space X later with more experience.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 21:25:21 2015 No.7547127
File: 1.01 MB, 1280x800, ISS_moon.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7547123
I strongly recommend working on Orion, in fact I'd take that job over almost any other in the industry, including spaceX. If you haven't heard, the work environment at spaceX is one of the worst in aerospace.

I can see why you'd have little faith in Orion, but I wouldn't write it off just yet.

Can you be specific about what you do? Major, previous experience, how you've gotten this chance to work on orion, etc?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 23:05:52 2015 No.7547279 >>7547123 Go for Orion and avoid SpaceX like the plague.

Anonymous Wed Sep 23 23:40:10 2015 No.7547331
File: 62 KB, 998x500, 1419208798107.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7547123
Thanks for the response. I really need more opinions on this.

I'm no one special at all, I'm just an 18 year old kid who's in my community college's 2 year aerospace program. I was going to become an arborist so previous experience is just trimming trees, nothing relating to space. Due to a minor back injury, I realized that I couldn't, nor did I want to pursue that career and with the cold reality of not having my high school diploma past 18 staring at me, I got my shit together, got my GED, and got into the program.

Because Orion needs technicians and the program is buddy buddy with them, they choose 6 people ( out of like 50 ) a year and after 6 months of personal training, you actually get to work on Orion. It blew my mind but its true and this almost theatrically convenient, lucky point in my life has provided me with a decent chance to work on something so iconic.

I'm definitely partially self aware at how shitty spaceX's work environment is and although I wish It was more friendly, I admire their drive and goals and I only want to work my ass off for years at a place that will reach a point where I can, without bullshit, with the cynical /sci/ pessimist eating away at the back of my mind shutting up, believe that I did my microscopic, but positive part, to help advance humanity in some way. With Orion (this is just my inexperienced, ignorant opinion) I just don't want a decade to go down the drain if the end game is something like an apollo 8 right before another cancellation or budget drop. I'll definitely take into consideration what you said about not writing off Orion though, anything could happen and I could switch to spaceX anytime over the years if its going down hill but probably not the other way around.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 23 23:42:36 2015 No.7547334 File: 1.96 MB, 1937x1080, 1418606742258.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7547331 Whoops meant to reply to>>7547127

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 00:01:56 2015 No.7547356
File: 183 KB, 1877x1408, heres-what-nasas-faster-than-light-spaceship-could-look-like.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7547331
well good luck to you friend, I'm second year aerospace as well and I'd kill for a chance to work on orion, I too admire spaceX's goals and want to make a valid contribution to humanity, so I'd accept a job from them even though the environment is bad

I guess my dream job is still astronaut

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 00:17:54 2015 No.7547373
File: 112 KB, 1024x615, article-0-11EF84AB000005DC-804_1024x615_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7547356
Thanks, good luck to you to. Blue origin is gonna need a shit ton of engineers and technicians very soon in Florida so If you're still looking for a job you could check out down here. And hey once the game is changed price wise with reusable rockets, perhaps space will open up a little for more than just the best of the best to us lowly technicians. If those spots open up the just keep applying, you never know.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 00:22:15 2015 No.7547382 File: 79 KB, 1105x614, 6c4b7jQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7547373 >just keep applying that's the plan, can't do nasa with current standards though because I'm an inch over the height limit

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 01:29:03 2015 No.7547476
File: 140 KB, 400x400, mindblown.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

"Gaia is a space observatory of the European Space Agency (ESA) designed for astrometry. The mission aims to construct a 3D space catalog of approximately 1 billion astronomical objects, mainly stars (approximately 1% of the Milky Way population)... Additionally Gaia is expected to detect thousands to tens of thousands of Jupiter-sized planets beyond the Solar System, 500,000 quasars and tens of thousands of new asteroids and comets within the Solar System."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 06:35:17 2015 No.7547696 how do you justify space expenditure at a time when people are tarving to death in the streets?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 06:57:14 2015 No.7547710 File: 63 KB, 390x533, 0tLY61p.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7547696 Oh thats simple, since I cant give a flying fuck about dying niggers and other disease carrying subhuman parasites.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 07:03:32 2015 No.7547715 >>7546573 >>>/eve online/

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 07:48:15 2015 No.7547745 File: 112 KB, 952x703, 1432675975626.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7547696

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 11:04:06 2015 No.7547935

>>7547696
Heard this a million times, I have three answers: expanding to space is necessary for long term survival, not going to space will not stop anyone from starving in the streets, and the budget of NASA is that same as the budget for air conditioning our troop's tents, aka defense spending is rampant

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 11:10:37 2015 No.7547940 >>7547696 How do you justify owning a computer when people are starving in the streets

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 11:25:26 2015 No.7547950 >>7547696 If everyone thought like that, we would never make progress in anything, we would probably still be living in tents and using rock tools.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 11:51:51 2015 No.7547978 >>7547123 Sounds boring considering it will only fly every 4 years, if that because some President cancels it. The Space Launch System is primarily a job's program, kiddos.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 12:23:50 2015 No.7548014

Is there any place for chemists at companies that do aerospace? I'm planning on applying to grad school for chem in a couple months. I'm Mixing a couple of ChemE masters programs in as well, and I know that would be more applicable, but I'm not sure chemE is what I want to do/if that will work out anyway.

What fields of chem are applicable to aerospace? More specific topics?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 12:34:41 2015 No.7548025 File: 45 KB, 559x390, Space.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7546412 I'm just waiting for somebody to digitize my brain so in 100 years they can put it in an android so I can be a future space warrior.

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 12:40:30 2015 No.7548026

>>7546573
The solar system is like a national park, or a cave.
Take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints.
The solar system is a cultural heritage that must not be denied to any humans in the future millennia.
Mine outside the solar system.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 18:38:42 2015 No.7548565 >>7548026 yeah fuck that shit nigga i hear some of them asteroids are made of diamonds

Anonymous Thu Sep 24 19:22:22 2015 No.7548624

>>7547331
>>7547356
I really don't want to get the rep as the resident SpaceX booster on /sci/ but you shouldn't so readily buy into the whole SpaceX is the worst place in Aerospace to work meme.

I think Musk/SpaceX/Tesla get a lot of heat for being over hyped, probably rightly so, but I think that tends to amplify all the negative aspects people hear about SpaceX.

That isn't to say that everything is perfect at SpaceX or that none of the bad things you hear are valid but ULA, Boeing, LockMart, BO, Orbital aren't heaven either.

I've had coworkers come from more traditional aero/defense corps and absolutely love it here and be much happier than they were at prior jobs and of course the inverse has occurred as well.

I stay in pretty close contact with some colleagues that have moved on and the one thing that sticks out is that even among those that didn't enjoy their time here, or did enjoy it but are simply happier elsewhere, there is an almost universal feeling that the talent/drive/dedication of the people they had a chance to work with is pretty unparalleled.

Either way, good luck and just be sure to get a good idea of what you're getting yourself into. I always feel like a lot of bad experiences are the result of employees having an unrealistic expectation of what work will be like, which always puzzles me since our rep as a challenging place to work is well known and made very clear during interviews.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 24 23:57:36 2015 No.7548926 >>7548624 I appreciate the input, I'd still take a job at spacex any day What position do you have there?

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 00:34:52 2015 No.7548948
File: 50 KB, 736x394, 1436899090022.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

this general gives me a huuuuge space boner. please make it a regular thing op.

as with any general, you'll have a few issues
>dedicated shitposters - people who literally find a general, and live there to shit post
>people saying its a stupid general
But with the bad comes good
>collection of people with same interests
>topics of discussion never thought about before will arise
>expect literally the dankest memes of all time to come out of a dedicated thriving general

also, a cool idea would be to get a list of all areospace, or space related companies and make a list for people looking for jobs there.

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 01:48:17 2015 No.7548987
File: 140 KB, 1600x1200, The_International_Space_Station_with_ATV-2_and_Endeavour.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

So has the ISS given us the knowledge we need to get healthy humans to Mars? Im starting to think we need to use a rotating module to prevent muscle atrophy.

There was a great episode of BBC Horizon recently and it showed we still have some serious problems to overcome

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 07:14:36 2015 No.7549199 >>7546434 >China plans to follow up on the 25th with another new quick-response launcher, Long March 11. And it was a success. Two new launch vehicles within a week, go China!

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 07:33:26 2015 No.7549218 >>7548014 I can think of propellant and life support systems.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 11:42:04 2015 No.7549512 Which is better to work on spacestuff? Im not too picky - id take a janitorial job if it got me close to rockets. >Aerospace Engineerig >Pure physics >Electrical Engineering >Systems and Control

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 12:19:28 2015 No.7549555

>>7548948
Thanks for the vote of confidence! I really like that suggestion, I'll work on getting one together for the next general
>>7548987
Ehhh the best thing it's done is keep a permanent presence in space, that's useful but I wouldn't say it's necessary by any means for mars
>>7549512
Well I'm biased cause I'm studying aero, but I'd say aero

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 12:47:38 2015 No.7549596 File: 298 KB, 1700x1200, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Space General Neat. I'm always a slut for space.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 12:50:07 2015 No.7549601 File: 220 KB, 1000x1280, 5f50f3afgw1ee0d21r6unj20rs0zkjx7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Anyone want me to dump some pictures? I've got a lot of shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:00:35 2015 No.7549627 File: 53 KB, 308x799, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549601 Sure why not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:01:37 2015 No.7549631 File: 71 KB, 344x625, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549627 Could Venus be the home world of the spoo

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:02:06 2015 No.7549633 File: 117 KB, 1200x1050, Human_Orbital_Rockets_RK2013.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549627

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:02:57 2015 No.7549638 File: 64 KB, 800x486, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549631 *spookies? Also, best moon coming through.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:03:33 2015 No.7549640 File: 228 KB, 1200x800, ISS_All_Visiting_Vehicles_RK2012.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:04:24 2015 No.7549643 File: 64 KB, 440x440, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549638 Pic related, Venus if it were habitable apparently.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:05:24 2015 No.7549644 File: 205 KB, 1200x700, Mars_Probes_1200x750_RK2012.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549640 >>7549643 Wouldn't be possible, it spins in the opposite direction so slowly that a venus year ls shorter than a venus day

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:05:25 2015 No.7549645 File: 65 KB, 900x318, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549643 Moons of Saturn.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:06:24 2015 No.7549649 File: 41 KB, 600x350, First_Launches_RK2013_600x350.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549644

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:07:25 2015 No.7549654 File: 198 KB, 1200x800, ISS_Visiting_Vehicles_Feb2011_RK2011.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549649

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:07:31 2015 No.7549655 File: 36 KB, 440x381, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549644 I assume if it were able to rotate at a proper rate and have liquid water, that's what it would look like. >>7549645 Mercury cross section.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:08:27 2015 No.7549658 File: 115 KB, 600x600, ISS_VV_Spacecraft_RK2012_600x600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549654 >>7549655 I'd assume it would look drier than that. I seriously doubt it would ever have been that green.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:09:39 2015 No.7549662 File: 68 KB, 800x600, Saturn_Rockets_RK2013.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549658

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:09:41 2015 No.7549663 >>7549601 Would love that! always looking to expand my folder

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:10:55 2015 No.7549665 File: 153 KB, 728x425, lunar-probes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549663

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:12:22 2015 No.7549668 File: 109 KB, 1200x700, Pioneer_Probes_RK2014_1200x700.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549665

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:13:26 2015 No.7549673 >>7549658 These pics are pretty great, they appeal to my cats gory autism Also I read a lot about terraforming venus, it's doable but I don't wanna get into details because I'm typing on a phone during calc lecture

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:15:10 2015 No.7549678 >>7549673 Category Phone autocorrect a shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:15:34 2015 No.7549680 File: 38 KB, 500x305, Magnum-3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549673 I don't think it's doable with its rotation. It would require a shit of direct thermal manipulation to do anything with.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:18:38 2015 No.7549683 File: 457 KB, 1200x700, Space_Telescopes_RK2011_1200x700.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549680

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:19:39 2015 No.7549687 File: 536 KB, 4283x4394, spacesize.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549683

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:20:42 2015 No.7549691 File: 400 KB, 3407x1000, capsule_size_comparisons_by_rogelead-d53yqpk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549687

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:21:52 2015 No.7549695 File: 220 KB, 1000x618, lockheed_family.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549687 >>7549691

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:23:01 2015 No.7549699 File: 235 KB, 646x444, oFffwXn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549695

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:24:21 2015 No.7549703 File: 114 KB, 600x350, Outer_Planet_Probes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549699

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:25:22 2015 No.7549705 File: 36 KB, 467x417, evolution.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549703

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:25:51 2015 No.7549706 File: 1.96 MB, 2992x2992, as07-03-1545hr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Gonna post some of the stuff I've got saved.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:26:53 2015 No.7549710 File: 252 KB, 1600x1065, bloop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549706

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:28:34 2015 No.7549718 File: 343 KB, 1024x770, DIRECT_Jupiter-120_Exploded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What did you guys think about the DIRECT launch system?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:31:17 2015 No.7549720 File: 169 KB, 1395x1600, ares1X-781391.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why is the Ares so sexy, but so shit?

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:31:19 2015 No.7549721
File: 52 KB, 720x498, KH-recon-chart-Giuseppe-De-Chiara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7549718
basically what they ended up doing with the SLS. It had its problems as well.

There's only so much you can do against the Boeing/ATK/Aerojet lobby.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:32:42 2015 No.7549723 >>7549720 vibrations, srbs are super deadly when they fsil

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:34:46 2015 No.7549729 >>7549723 fail*

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 13:42:58 2015 No.7549753 File: 543 KB, 2245x978, up034019.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549729

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:01:28 2015 No.7549798 >>7549680 Orbital mirror arrays to simulate day night or induced rotation through multiple KBO impacts

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:05:15 2015 No.7549806 >>7549798 I've yet to see any serious studies that showed increased rotation was actually possible with the energy requirements to shove that significant of mass into a Venus interception.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:07:40 2015 No.7549810 >>7549806 Terraforming: The creation of worlds It gets very technical at times but it's quite enjoyable

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:08:16 2015 No.7549811 >>7549810 Tip your fedora harder dude, that's a shitty comment. You should delete it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:17:04 2015 No.7549824 >>7549753 >Indians have human spaceflight >Indians still shit in the streets pick one

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:21:15 2015 No.7549826 File: 127 KB, 1164x1005, slvs6nt1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549824 India is a strange place indeed

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:26:52 2015 No.7549835 >>7549811 You're gonna have to explain yourself better, bring generally rude doesn't actually explain the problem you have with what I said

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:28:11 2015 No.7549839 *being

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:36:33 2015 No.7549844 Does anyone know how to plan an Aerogravity assist?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:41:59 2015 No.7549853 >>7549844 Never heard of that before, I'm surprised that the drag doesn't just make the maneuver useless

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:47:35 2015 No.7549868

>>7547123
>I may have a very real chance of working on Orion as a technician in the next couple of years.
Orion has a very real chance of getting cancelled in the next couple of years.

New president coming very soon, and the last couple of new presidents have taken a "change everything" attitude toward NASA's spaceflight capabilities. On the current plan, NASA can't promise the new president a manned flight on its own platform even if he wins a second term.

When JFK came into office, America hadn't even put a man in space. But he announced a plan which very nearly put a man on the moon by what could have been the end of his second term.

He did it, not by starting from scratch, but by looking at the people making good progress, and giving them what they needed. People making *good* progress, not people floundering and falling behind schedule.

What's lined up for the next year or two on SLS/Orion? Nothing much. The first SLS flight is still three or four years off.

What's lined up for the next year or two at SpaceX? Dragon V2 test flights. Dragon V2 propulsive landing tests. Dragon V2 crewed flight. Falcon Heavy debut. Booster recovery and reuse. Raptor tests.

A president who wants something amazing to happen with NASA in two terms has one option: make heavy use of SpaceX. And without spending any more money, he can find a couple billion of dollars a year for it by cutting SLS/Orion.

A manned test flight toward or after the end of his second term? Or a dozen Falcon Heavy launches with payloads per year starting in his first term, culminating in a manned Mars landing during or shortly after his second? Hmm...

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:52:39 2015 No.7549875 Anyone else go into aerospace entirely because of kerbalspaceprogram?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:54:06 2015 No.7549878 >>7549875 And just like that, this general went to shit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 14:59:41 2015 No.7549887 >>7549875 >>7549878 Adding KSP to the list of shitstorm topics to avoid for next thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 15:00:03 2015 No.7549889 >>7549835 You made a statement that has no bearing on that discussion and it just sounds sagan degrasse tyson tier euphoric

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 15:01:42 2015 No.7549892
File: 434 KB, 2500x2036, Chenalian Space Program Heavy Launch Vehicles - Small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7549875
KSP is my favorite game.

I've been into space stuff though since like 95, so more than 20 years before KSP even existed. It's fun, but I think it makes too many idiots think that space is easy/SpaceX can just ADD MORE BOOSTERS and send a single dragon capsule to Mars and expect people to survive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 15:02:47 2015 No.7549893 >>7549889 I was quoting the title of a book, I can see how that would look cunty if you didn't know that though

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 15:04:40 2015 No.7549895

>>7549893
Ah lmao fair enough!

I've read quite a bit on terraforming and in my view it seems that people really underestimate the energy requirements of some of these activities.

I do think Venus would make a better candidate if you can manage to bleed off all that C02 and manage to reverse its spin. The gravity is a lot kinder than Mars.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 15:07:47 2015 No.7549900 >>7548026 Fucking astrohippies

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 15:15:16 2015 No.7549908 File: 434 KB, 3703x1200, Chenalian Space Program Launch Vehicles-Small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 16:00:36 2015 No.7549976

>>7549853
Apparently you're supposed to use lifting surfaces to keep you at periapse for a longer time, which gives you a larger turn angle; I just have no idea how to find out what kind of turn angle/periapse I would need for any arbitrary trajectory. There's this PDF but I can't make heads or tails of it. https://engineering.purdue.edu/people/james.m.longuski.1/JournalArticles/2002/DesignofAerogravity-AssistTrajectories.pdf

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 16:21:06 2015 No.7550006 >>7549895 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 16:27:16 2015 No.7550019 File: 7 KB, 274x184, Download (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] so is that emdrive thingy legit?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 16:47:43 2015 No.7550064 >>7550019 No

Anonymous Fri Sep 25 17:49:03 2015 No.7550181
File: 652 KB, 4409x2362, 1418606132486.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7548624
Thanks a lot for the response. Do you think its critical to have something cool like Orion under your belt to stand out enough to be hired as a technician or should I just go straight for SpaceX with a basic SpaceTec certification if that's where I truly want to work?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 25 23:40:26 2015 No.7550739 >>7549895 Yeah according to this book venus is very very challenging, a 10,000 year project, and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if we're out of the solar system. At that point it's a lot less relevant

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 26 00:42:42 2015 No.7550848 >>7550739 10,000 years seems like a realistic time frame for sure. That's a whole different level of tech, hell, we'll all be genetically perfect beings by that point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 26 06:38:50 2015 No.7551235 >>7550019 its not clear. likely not, but if it is it would blow classical physics out of the water

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 26 12:28:34 2015 No.7551641 >>7549824 >>7549826 POO IN THE LOO

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 26 13:27:31 2015 No.7551722 >>7546353 Why they get rid of the pointy thing on the top?

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 26 13:37:05 2015 No.7551739 >>7551722 That's the launch escape system, since that last launch didn't have people on board it would be useless

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 26 20:38:48 2015 No.7552633 >>7550006 Should the first mars mission be all women? Title of suggested video by the same douche.

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 00:01:06 2015 No.7552991
File: 164 KB, 919x701, BEAM_mockup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7546353
>space thread general
>50 other space threads are created anyway
Anyway, am excite for the ISS to finally get Bigelow's inflatable BEAM space station module. It will launch on an upcoming SpaceX flight (SpX CRS-8). Pic related. Inflatables could be a really great thing for in-space hardware.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 00:22:00 2015 No.7553034 >>7546353 what time is the mars announcement on monday?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 00:26:04 2015 No.7553046 >>7547123 >mfw I work at a machine shop that makes parts for spaceX all the time feels good

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 00:36:45 2015 No.7553060 >>7552991 I was not aware of this. I thought Bigelow was dead in the water for some reason. Pretty stoked, in any case. >>7549892 Orbiter is more srs business than KSP, but not even that sim models life support systems natively.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 00:46:16 2015 No.7553080 File: 113 KB, 1920x1200, venus_visable.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7549643 >Venus if it were habitable. Pic related.

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 00:57:44 2015 No.7553100
File: 254 KB, 2048x2520, maxresdefault98790.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7549601
Why does /sci/ hate the SLS?

It's probably the best outcome possible considering all the retarded hoops that NASA has to jump through tbh
>plenty of pork, meaning that it will easily maintain funding throughout its life, beings that muh jobs is all congress cares about
>flight rate concerns are slowly being alleviated, especially recently (40+ flights leading up to mars mission are expected)
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/sls-manifest-phobos-mars-2039/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/nasa-considers-sls-launch-sequence-mars-missions-2030s/
>is pretty sexy tbh, especially the block 1b version
>USA needs a flagship rocket; spacex isn't guaranteed to not go under, and is prone to massive delays like with falcon heavy
>it can enable stuff like Ice Giants missions, Europa lander, ect. which would be impossible without it
>primary purpose is to launch cargo to Earth-Moon Lagrangian points, which is cool as fuck
>ESA wants to have a moon base of their own. they could contract with NASA to use SLS, including potentially a metholox reusable lunar lander
www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/sls/docs/sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdfa
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/boeing-discusses-sls-robust-lunar-program/
>block two could use two liquid fuel strap on boosters, powered by 2 F-1 engines from Saturn V each (pic related), bringing its cargo capacity to 150,000 metric tones

inb4 muh it costs too much
>it costs about the same as shuttle per launch
>actually does stuff, compared to the shuttle

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 00:59:44 2015 No.7553105 >>7553100 sorry, broken link :( http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/sls/docs/sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 02:08:47 2015 No.7553200 >>7547123 How can anyone who isn't an autist deal with all those fucking buttons, knobs, and wiring. Its almost as bad as the space shuttle cockpit.

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 02:18:22 2015 No.7553216

does anybody here have an educated opinion about the next 20-25 years of the space industry?

Right now I'm shaping my life around applying to astronaut corps, and with there only being nasa now, I am hoping that the commercial space industry gets started and companies will start looking to draft their own astronauts for all of their operations in space

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 02:47:44 2015 No.7553254
File: 271 KB, 2410x1406, ovj11Eu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7553100
Fucking this!

So many Spacex Shills get so ass hurt over it being pork. Of course Jews hate pork isn't it obvious?
SLS is literally the most Based rocket out there
>bigger then a Saturn V in a Block 2 version
> more thrust then a Saturn V for first launch
>bill is footed by government so cost isn't an issue
> Flight flown hardware Insanely reliable
> Has GIANT FUCKING CAPSULE seriously Orion is fucking HUGE. 5 meter diameter, Apollo and Dragon are only 3 meters in diameter roughly

I would fucking kill to get a job with SLS or Orion, currently have like 20 some credit hours going to Community college to get GPA up and learn Calc. I wanna make Space happen for US again. Want an internship somewhere So bad.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 05:18:53 2015 No.7553402 File: 138 KB, 1280x1878, space_launch_system_block_1b_by_okan170-d8pbi40.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7553254 would fugg tbh

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 10:33:03 2015 No.7553714

>>7553254
>>7553100

It's not the best we could have hoped for - there are problems even when you consider "the hoops"

What you people forget is that NASA has done this to themselves to a large degree. NASA tries to save their employee's jobs at Marshall, Stennis, and Michoud instead of condensing them down to one facility near the cape. With all of these facilities operating all these years nowhere near max capacity like they were under the Apollo program, it's going to make the SLS cost more in development costs for inflation adjusted USD than the shuttle program -despite much of the technology being "shared" - isn't that the fucking reason we went with this terrible design in the first place?

"Oh but anon, it isn't a terrible design"

Yes it is. It's 2015, we should have gone with a re-usable engine pod rocket fueled with RP-1 at the least in the first stage, powered by proper engines instead of expensive to make, old-ass engines from the 70s.

We shouldn't be using ATK's old boosters either, we should be going straight to their advanced solids that cost 40% of the 5 segments and have superior thrust.

We shouldn't be focusing on Mars so much with the money they have - instead, we could be setting up a badass L2 station/fuel depot, working on near earth asteroid mining, and practicing building bases on other worlds with the moon.

Instead, we're getting an inefficient hydrogen powered rocket with expensive old ass engines and expensive boosters to launch a low flight rate of missions and will take forever to get anything done, even if its approved - and its not fucking likely to get approved with the budget issues the US is stupidly having every fucking year. SLS is a bloated, 3 billion a year even without launching a rocket program.

>>7553100
>>7553100
this guy's sources either don't imply what he thinks they simply or are fucking pipe-dream filled lunacy.

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 10:36:26 2015 No.7553718

>>7553714
continued

I agree we need a flagship rocket, and yeah, it's gonna cost a lot. Should it be the SLS? No, we could have done better.

Is NASA/congress focusing on the wrong things? Absolutely.

>>7553402
Is it a sexy rocket? Yeah, I can agree with that.

>>7553254
I'm not a spaceX shill, the people who think SpaceX will go to Mars by themselves anytime soon are delusional fuckwits.

>>7553254
>bigger then a Saturn V in a Block 2 version

Don't count on Block II happening. They don't even have the design settled, and if they go with the Dark Knight boosters, it won't be able to reach the tonnage they're hoping for at all. Block II involved more than just advanced boosters, many at NASA things they'd need to add a fifth engine. They're also going to need a better upper stage, but the J-2X isn't that.

>bill is footed by government so cost isn't an issue

You are really fucking retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 10:56:39 2015 No.7553744 For someone with a fear of heights like me, space is scary

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 11:13:42 2015 No.7553774 >>7553744 Well if it makes you feel better you probably wont hit the ground if you fall in space.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 11:16:36 2015 No.7553780 >>7553254 >Government money grows on trees

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 11:58:01 2015 No.7553842

>>7553216
Human spaceflight has changed so much it the past 15 years that it makes it really difficult to predict the next 20-25 years. However, if you asked me in 1980 what the future of manned spaceflight in the US would be, I could probably take a good guess (LEO space shuttle and maybe a space station). Nowadays NASA is really in the shitter and private companies seem to be taking over, so who knows. Based on current trends, there are a few things we can make decent guesses at though:
>the ISS may very well be retired by 2030 (and there is no replacement on the agenda)
>SLS is unlikely to be doing much for the next 5-10 years
>SpaceX seems likely to make spaceflight more affordable so we may see a proportional increase in manned space activities, including projects and partnerships with NASA
>other national space programs (esp China) seem to have little-to-no impact on pressuring the government to increase human spaceflight activities
This last guess is important, because many major manned NASA projects have been in response to other national space projects (e.g. the Moon race, and the ISS). If there is little-to-no impetus for the government to get NASA to increase its manned activities, then we may continue to see a decrease in NASA's manned activities for the foreseeable future.

So if I were on the lookout to be an astronaut, then NASA would still be the safest bet, but I would temper myself with the realization that I may never actually fly into space.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 12:07:35 2015 No.7553853 >>7553842 >Human spaceflight has changed so much it the past 15 years Yeah, it got worse. It'll be better soon, however.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 12:28:51 2015 No.7553899 >>7553853 I don't know if I would say "worse," but I agree that American-based manned spaceflight is definitely going to make a return fairly soon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 12:36:04 2015 No.7553924 >>7553899 Fair enough. The russians have kept on being what they are, and China achieved man space flight. It's us Americans that royally fucked up.

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 12:47:54 2015 No.7553960

>>7553714
>NASA tries to save their employee's jobs at Marshall, Stennis, and Michoud instead of condensing them down to one facility near the cape.
If NASA were "condensed" down to one facility, they would have been shut down long ago. You have to keep in mind that everything NASA does has to be funded by congress, and congress likes to have NASA centers in their states, and loves to have contractors in their states get a slice of the cake.
>despite much of the technology being "shared" - isn't that the fucking reason we went with this terrible design in the first place?
No, it's because of muh jobs. Why do you think they went with the RS-25 instead of the RS-68?

> we should have gone with a re-usable engine pod rocket fueled with RP-1 at the least in the first stage
The only reason it would use a stage like that is for getting it out of the atmosphere. This heavy lifting is already accomplished by the boosters. Also considering how NASA's "reusability" last time around cost more than just building new engines every time, I doubt any reusibility for SLS would have worked.
>We shouldn't be using ATK's old boosters either
>we should be using boosters that are still 10 years away from being ready
what?
>We shouldn't be focusing on Mars so much with the money they have
Numerous studies have shown that NASA has enough money to make it happen, assuming the gradual increase of Mars related budget annually happens. This is likely considering that the current congress has had no trouble fully funding SLS for the past 6 years.
>we could be setting up a badass L2 station/fuel depot, working on near earth asteroid mining, and practicing building bases on other worlds with the moon
All of these things are being worked on by several commercial companies.
>inefficient hydrogen powered rocket
b8?
The core stage is essentially a ground-lit second stage. Do you not know how rockets work?

>this guy's sources are fucking pipe-dream filled lunacy.
>NSF is a bad source
What?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 12:50:14 2015 No.7553963 >>7547696 their problem.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 12:53:39 2015 No.7553968 >>7547696 How do you justify billion dollar sports teams and stadiums over space expenditure when people are starving to death in the streets.

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 13:18:48 2015 No.7554030

>No, it's because of muh jobs

Right, even though they ended firing most everyone and re-hiring new people in the time period between the shuttle, constellation, and SLS?

It's more about them corporate gibmedats than jobs.

>Why do you think they went with the RS-25 instead of the RS-68?

Because the RS-68 couldn't handle the heat from the SRBs because it was never designed to.

>The only reason it would use a stage like that is for getting it out of the atmosphere.

Which is what the first stage does. Those boosters have to work more to carry that fucking heavy hydrogen tank. They didn't go with hydrogen this time for any technical reason, they did it because of corporate gibemedats.

>Also considering how NASA's "reusability" last time around cost more than just building new engines every time,

Not true at all. NASA doesn't say this, the commissions didn't say this. The engines were not the most expensive part of shuttle re-usability.

> I doubt any reusibility for SLS would have worked.

Who are you to judge that? Is that why everyone is building reusable engines for their next gen rockets now? ESA, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and ULA.

>Numerous studies have shown that NASA has enough money to make it happen,

Over fucking eons that risk cancellation.

>All of these things are being worked on by several commercial companies.

Fair enough

>The core stage is essentially a ground-lit second stage. Do you not know how rockets work?

That doesn't change the fact that it's firing from the ground up, and it's inefficient to be doing this way. Check out NASA's own studies. NASA themselves would have preferred an RP1 first stage using modern F1s, but corporate gibmedats got in the way.

It's really too bad Aerojet had not gone belly up yet like they will soon enough.

>>7553960
The NSF sources just show outlines, but express doubt themselves about these plans, as do the writers of the articles in their respective L2/normal thread. The other sources are shit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 13:23:39 2015 No.7554039 >>7553960 >>All of these things are being worked on by several commercial companies. Whose going to pay for that?

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 13:44:28 2015 No.7554073

>>7553216
>Right now I'm shaping my life around applying to astronaut corps, and with there only being nasa now, I am hoping that the commercial space industry gets started and companies will start looking to draft their own astronauts for all of their operations in space
are you me?

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 15:31:45 2015 No.7554245 >>7554039 You're mom

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 18:09:50 2015 No.7554468

In terms of SLS I feel like 10 years ago it would have been really good, assuming they had really pushed forward the program and made it happen quickly, but at this point it's pretty disastrous. At this point, however, we just need to stick with it and move forward, because abandoning it now would be far worse than pushing for completion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 18:10:57 2015 No.7554471 File: 956 KB, 2500x1406, Multi-dome_base_being_constructed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7554468 here's a pic

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 18:25:18 2015 No.7554499
File: 173 KB, 1280x960, 1280px-DIRECT_Jupiter-232_Exploded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7554468
If only we had gone with DIRECT at that time - well, too bad DIRECT was shit until 3.0.

Even still, they took too far long because they didn't give NASA a certain amount of money to develop the entire thing - instead, they gave them a really weird limit per year to develop the rocket. All that does it makes it take a long time, but far longer than you'd think because they don't have the ability to increase the budget in case of unforeseen difficulties.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 19:22:07 2015 No.7554639 >>7554468 >but at this point it's pretty disastrous Why is it disastrous?

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 19:27:24 2015 No.7554653

>>7554639
The heavy lifter to replace the shuttle has taken since 2004 to be developed ( Ares by the end used RS-25s, always used the same 5 segment boosters, and only used a different upper stage engine that the SLS will likely use in Block 2).

Also, it's going to end up costing more in inflation adjusted dollars than the entire shuttle program did.

It doesn't even have a funded outlook past sending Orion around the moon atm, and based off of NASA's past and congresses attitudes lately, a lot of people are afraid it will just be canceled.

It has some technical flaws, but it's not like it won't work. Politics just fucked it hard.

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 19:35:32 2015 No.7554668

>>7554653
Well it started development on 2009 and will flyy by 2017/18; 9 years isn't too long of a turnaround for how small NASA's budget has been recently tbh
>It doesn't even have a funded outlook past sending Orion around the moon atm
Well no, it's funded on a yearly basis just like everything else in the federal government.
>based off of NASA's past and congresses attitudes lately
Congress hasn't been nice to commercial crew, but they have surpassed the requested funding for SLS every year.
Then again congress is still pretty stupid. They're literally spending hundreds of millions to the air force to develop an "RD-180 replacement" when there isn't even a rocket for it to power, and completely ignoring the fact that ULA is already contracted to use BE-4 engine on Vulcan
>Politics just fucked it hard.
That's the sad story of NASA m8
At least the SLS won't be stuck in LEO I guess

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 19:37:51 2015 No.7554670

>>7554653
>Ares by the end used RS-25s, always used the same 5 segment boosters
you sure? I'm pretty sure it started with RS-25 and then went to RS-68 (or a derivative of it to be precise). They also had 5.5 segment boosters for Ares V which hadn't been developed yet.

Anonymous Sun Sep 27 19:47:10 2015 No.7554687

>>7554668
The Ares V started development in 2005. The concept was first discussed ( a shuttle derived heavy lifter) in the 80s.

>Congress hasn't been nice to commercial crew, but they have surpassed the requested funding for SLS every year.

By a measly amount, which has only ensured further delays won't happen. However, there are doubts Block II will be on time whatsoever. It isn't anywhere close to being decided on - the boosters, engine config, and upper stage are all up in the air.

>>7554670
No, it started with RS-68s because the RS-68s were superior in every way, except dealing with the heat given off by the SRBs. They tried to fix it but gave up in the end.

SLS is using the same boosters basically, which again, still aren't developed yet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 19:50:42 2015 No.7554697 >>7554687 The Ares V was never "developed" past a very rough concept All testing for Ares Program when it was cancelled was pretty much all for Ares I

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 19:52:39 2015 No.7554707 >>7554697 They did RS-68 engine tests, developed the new upper stage engine, the JS-X ( which will likely be used on SLS block II), and started - and never stopped work on - the 5 segment boosters.

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 23:17:33 2015 No.7555487 bump???

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 23:26:17 2015 No.7555514 File: 107 KB, 1280x1067, 1280px-Jupiter_Family.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7555487

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 23:44:40 2015 No.7555578 >>7554687 They didn't actually start with RS-68, they started with SSME+5 segments, then moved to RS-68+5.5 segment, then moved back to SSME+5 segment. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/12/ssme-ares-v-undergoes-evaluation-potential-switch/

>>	Anonymous Sun Sep 27 23:55:58 2015 No.7555626 >>7555578 >http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/12/ssme-ares-v-undergoes-evaluation-potential-switch/ What a giant clusterfuck. Idiots.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:10:08 2015 No.7555685 >>7555626 muh armchair engineering

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:13:37 2015 No.7555695 >>7546434 >kerosene Am I the only one slightly disturbed by the fact we have to use fossil fuels even for space launches?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:15:08 2015 No.7555697 >>7555695 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:16:29 2015 No.7555704 >>>>7555695 Yeah

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:17:18 2015 No.7555708 >>7555685 Sounds like what the people who wanted to use the RS-68s were using.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:18:10 2015 No.7555713 >>7547123 Jesus Christ, man, just do it. It most likely won't fly (hoping it gets canned and replaced by something better) but it's going to be an amazing experience.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:20:18 2015 No.7555721 >>7548026 Yeah how about no you fa- >Mine outside the solar system. Now that sounds good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:20:51 2015 No.7555723 wut is this http://www.tsagi.ru/pressroom/news/735/?sphrase_id=9630

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:21:35 2015 No.7555724 time to shill, little 10 minute astronomy lessons from PBS that are more informative than most things you pay for https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtPAJr1ysd5yGIyiSFuh0mIL

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:23:39 2015 No.7555726 I did some research and found this. at minute 9:28 he debunks NASA official explanation paired with their analog experiment of how their rockets work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8IRFSPLV60 [Embed] rockets do not work in space

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:25:01 2015 No.7555730

>>7548987
Far less than you might think. It's essentially a big zoo in the sky, not even self-sufficient or isolated enough to gauge how people might react to prolonged deep-space trips, we've even got a LOT more science data from probes and ground telescopes.

Also it's important to note the technology to (clumsily) simulate gravity with a centrifuge and give decent shielding to astroanuts on a Mars or beyond mission already exists, it'd just be so expensive to launch and set up even a working prototype that no government will commit to get it done.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:25:16 2015 No.7555731 >>7555726 >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:25:58 2015 No.7555734 >>7555726 Retarded. You can literally see the ISS with a telescope. Space is real, dindu.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:26:11 2015 No.7555735 T-4 MINUTES TO INDIAN ROCKET LAUNCH http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/27/pslv-c30-mission-status-center/

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:26:16 2015 No.7555736 POO IN LOOs LAUNCHING NOW http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/27/pslv-c30-mission-status-center/ POO IN LOOs LAUNCHING NOW http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/27/pslv-c30-mission-status-center/

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:27:32 2015 No.7555739 File: 368 KB, 1024x770, Jupiter-246.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7555736 >>7555735 Cool. Their official stream won't work unless you use niggernet exploder.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:29:50 2015 No.7555748 File: 181 KB, 1024x707, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Too bad people are such pussies about nuclear power.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:30:20 2015 No.7555752 File: 910 KB, 1936x4915, RdKUbrA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7555748

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:32:46 2015 No.7555761 Looks like poo in loo rocket has had a successful launch

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:33:30 2015 No.7555762 >>7555761 Hasn't achieved orbit yet

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:34:03 2015 No.7555763 >>7555762 2nd stage nominal, fairing sep nominal

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:36:12 2015 No.7555770 >>7555734 >see the ISS with a telescope. no you cant.

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:36:56 2015 No.7555773

>>7553080

>a volcano is habitable because you can hover above it in a helicopter

>building a settlement floating above a volcano is better than building a settlement in Alaska because a volcano doesn't get below freezing!

Grow up, Venus settlement is retarded. Floating science balloon? Sure. Colony? literally never. No reason to go to Venus as opposed to anywhere else.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:37:02 2015 No.7555774 File: 18 KB, 610x492, robbullen_iss_discovery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7555770 Yes, you can.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:38:03 2015 No.7555778 File: 425 KB, 500x500, tumblr_lplb3r01Y61qjxwvgo1_500.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7555770

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:40:31 2015 No.7555781 >>7555763 2nd stage sep, third stage nominal

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:41:30 2015 No.7555786 >>7555774 >>7555778 holograms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CqUYBopWLs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsc80evqJ88 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:41:34 2015 No.7555787 >>7555781 Third stage burnout, coast to 4th stage ignition

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:50:15 2015 No.7555801 >>7555787 4th stage burn

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:50:51 2015 No.7555804 >PS4 stage

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:51:11 2015 No.7555805
File: 37 KB, 1257x570, Opposition-of-HAL-and-Dave-in-Stanley-Kubricks-2001-A-Space-Odyssey.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

So I just saw 2001: A Space Odyssey (made in 1968) and realized that our view of the future is exactly the same as theirs during the 60's.

Why did space exploration slow down so much?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:51:52 2015 No.7555807 >>7555805 lack of political willpower

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 00:52:01 2015 No.7555808 >>7555805 Funding, space race won

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 01:54:26 2015 No.7555873

>>7555805
Warblers lay eggs in a nest, intending to raise their young and propagate their species. A cuckoo comes along and lays its eggs in the warbler nest. The cuckoo egg hatches first, and it pushes the other eggs out of the nest. The warbler then feeds the cuckoo hatchling, without understanding what has gone wrong, as the hatchling grows and grows without ever becoming the nestful of adult warblers which were the purpose of the exercise.

To do the Apollo Program, they had to find guys who knew what they were doing, and put them in charge of big budgets. The big budgets quickly attracted people who wanted to be important, or just get some of that money, who pushed out the guys who knew what they were doing and how to get stuff done. NASA continues being funded, while America scratches its head over why, if NASA could put a man on the moon, NASA can't put a man on the moon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 01:58:29 2015 No.7555875 File: 68 KB, 446x628, cuckoo and warbler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7555873 pic related

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 02:04:16 2015 No.7555885 >>7555873 >>7555875 A little like immigrants and gullible leftists, wouldn't you say?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 02:37:04 2015 No.7555918 >>7555695 >have to They use it because it's cheap, same as every other use of fossil fuels. And there are plenty of alternatives to fossil fuels that have already been proven.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 02:41:54 2015 No.7555922 >>7555918 It's not so much that the fuels themselves are cheap, it's that some are really dense and easy to handle ( kerosene) and some are really efficient and easy on the engines (methalox)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 02:54:33 2015 No.7555934 >>7555735 >>7555736 So, what is the significance of this? Or is just a technological demonstration like the mars orbiter?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 11:12:36 2015 No.7556587 File: 581 KB, 2340x2364, Apollo_17_Command_Module_AS17-145-22261HR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7555726 Conspiritards added to list of topics to avoid

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 12:17:16 2015 No.7557183 Is it safe to say we won't see a human step on Mars in our lifetime unless there's another space race (maybe even a commercial one)?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 12:25:28 2015 No.7557226 >>7546353 >water about that, it was found on mars, new topic for dis thread!?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 12:48:58 2015 No.7557324 >>7557183 I would say it's safe to say a human will set foot on Mars within 20 years >>7557226 New topic it is!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 13:38:13 2015 No.7557437 >>7557324 >I would say it's safe to say a human will set foot on Mars within 20 years People have been saying that since 1969, and I still don't believe it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 13:39:33 2015 No.7557443 File: 93 KB, 650x366, 1stphotofromspacejpg__600x0_q85_upscale.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7555726 How can someone be so stupid?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 13:42:50 2015 No.7557458 >>7557226 I wish shit posters would stop with this meme.

Anonymous Mon Sep 28 13:54:49 2015 No.7557498

>>7555922
>>7555918
Yeah, in fact the propellant cost in rockets is generally tiny compared to other costs.

If you looks at a Falcon 9, for instance, the rocket costs tens of millions to build, and then millions to set up and fly, but the propellant only costs about $30,000.

It doesn't matter if costs ten times as much, and barely matters if it costs a hundred times as much (although this could change with efficient reusability). RP-1 kerosene's used because it's really good, not because it's cheap. It's dense, easy to handle (if you spill some, it doesn't poison anyone or start a fire), and has nice features like lubricity (it helps lubricate turbopumps).

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 28 13:59:22 2015 No.7557516 >>7555695 the environmental impact of space travel as a whole is tiny

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 29 02:09:10 2015 No.7559148 >>7555726 this has to be bait right guys?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 29 10:56:08 2015 No.7559735 >>7559148 Yes

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 29 10:59:37 2015 No.7559742 >>7555726 Rockets DO need something to push against: They push against the propellent.

Anonymous Tue Sep 29 11:04:08 2015 No.7559748

>>7555734
>>7556587
>>7557443
>>7559148
He is a fool but in his defense there was legit scientific debate over whether a rocket would work in space or not back in the 1930s. Some scientists believed you had to push against air. for Newton to be appeased. This kind of thinking has cropped up in modern times as well. I was once in a /sci/ discussion that couldn't decide whether a quadcopter would yaw in space or not because some believed the blades need air to push against.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 29 13:58:58 2015 No.7560062 >>7555752 what is this picture? from some videogame?

Anonymous Tue Sep 29 14:13:35 2015 No.7560089
File: 41 KB, 600x599, 1401416439612.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7559748
I just can't see how someone can't imagine an exaggerated scenario where you chuck bowling balls to move in the other direction and then make the connection that propellant is just a bunch of tiny bowling balls. If you somehow can't grasp that you would move just pretend you were the bowling balls that are moving holy shit I can't believe scientists seriously debated that. I know i'm standing on the shoulders of giants but come the fuck on.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 29 15:12:27 2015 No.7560182 >>7546939 >>7546870 >>7546624 I've seen way worse ideas and way lower quality threads. post away OP

Anonymous Tue Sep 29 15:45:18 2015 No.7560247

>>7559748
>>7559742
It's something to keep in mind before thinking that other people are "stupid", assuming that scientists are "smart", or considering things to be "obvious": there were real professional 20th century physicists, professors and the like, who read about the idea of rockets in space, read descriptions of how it was physically supposed to work from another physicist, like Goddard, and went out and made public statements that they couldn't possibly work because there would be no air to push against.

Things seem obvious because we know them, or stumbled down the right track of thinking about them. We often even forget about having initially misunderstood them. People often seem smart because they have been trained in things and stay on the track they've been trained for; bump them even a little off the track, and they can seem like idiots.

We are most of us constantly fighting to seem a lot more clever than we actually are, and the people who seem the most clever are often just the best at that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 29 15:59:10 2015 No.7560277 >>7560247 Lol yes it's unfair to claim that these degenerates who think that the world is flat and will end in September 2015 are stupid, because of specialization.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 29 17:47:20 2015 No.7560496 >>7560277 Wow... you didn't get the point of that at all.

Anonymous Tue Sep 29 19:44:31 2015 No.7560715

>>7560089
Egg of Columbus.
>>7560247
Yeah basically, As I said Egg of Columbus. Many now accepted ideas and methods were trashed by eminent scientists at the time. Tectonic plates, space rockets, home computers, the jet engine, AC electricity, breech-loading rifles, flight, statistical mechanics. The last one I believe the creator, Ludwig Boltzmann actually killed himself such was the hostility to his ideas. I heard even using vector calculus to describe electrodynamics got off to a shaky start. Now it's like the soul of electrodynamics but when Oliver Heaviside first proposed it there were plenty doubters.

Anonymous Tue Sep 29 19:58:36 2015 No.7560754

>>7560715
To be fair, Heaviside was self-taught as a mathematician and had some unconventional ideas about rigour.

(Honestly, though, I agree with his general attitude. Rigour is a matter of taste, and often something mathematicians slather over useful math some arbitrary period of time after it has become an essential tool. Expecting new math developed in support of science or engineering to be rigorous is putting the cart before the horse.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 29 20:31:31 2015 No.7560805 File: 37 KB, 396x360, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This thread is retarded, please don't continue this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 29 21:01:51 2015 No.7560848 File: 948 KB, 2002x2002, 1406429899050.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7560715 Really makes me hopeful about pipe dreams that get shat on.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 29 22:49:08 2015 No.7561005 >>7560805 well meme'd

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 11:31:07 2015 No.7562029 >>7553100 >it costs about the same as shuttle per launch >actually does stuff, compared to the shuttle We're not digging the Shuttle out of the grave to repeat the Shuttle program. SLS is shit compared to actual SLS alternatives.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 11:55:38 2015 No.7562051

>>7553100

>USA needs a flagship rocket; spacex isn't guaranteed to not go under, and is prone to massive delays like with falcon heavy

No it doesn't.

America has an innovative and constantly improving commercial rocket industry with several vehicle families to meet its needs and one that well represents it on the world stage. NASA should be working with that launch industry instead of jealously playing in its own sandbox with its own rocket. Working with the commercial launch providers would boost the industry's competitiveness and profile, and that is what America needs.

SpaceX is more mature now and has a wide customer base, that risk is lessened, and SpaceX isn't the only player in American space launch to support launch needs, and that industry's continued existence will be supported for the military. If the Department of Defense can go to all commercial launches then so can NASA.

SpaceX winning more NASA contracts would help their bottom line and go toward alleviating your concern, so your argument is essentially we need to purposefully weaken SpaceX to protect against a weak SpaceX.

Falcon Heavy is being self funded, not under a government contract, so it isn't accurate to apply the profile of the former to that of the latter type. Falcon Heavy has also undergone worthwhile technology upgrades as part of its development process; it's a better vehicle because of delay. Still, it will be here sooner than SLS and see greater usage and is a more economical package.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 12:02:45 2015 No.7562062 [DELETED]

>it can enable stuff like Ice Giants missions, Europa lander, ect. which would be impossible without it

Many of those same missions can be undertaken with the other rocket options or with investment into rocket or architecture upgrades, many of them are just pie in the sky fantasy that won't happen regardless, and the waste of SLS burns entire missions worth of cash just plodding along, a Europa Clipper's worth this year alone while launching nothing, and many other missions would be possible with the lower cost of the alternative rockets rather than giving SLS special preference in continued subsidy and forced payloads.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 12:06:15 2015 No.7562068

>>7553100

>it can enable stuff like Ice Giants missions, Europa lander, ect. which would be impossible without it

Many of those same missions can be undertaken with the other rocket options or with investment into rocket or architecture upgrades, many of them are just pie in the sky fantasy that won't happen regardless, and the waste of SLS burns entire missions worth of cash just plodding along, a Europa Clipper's worth this year alone while launching nothing, and many other missions would be possible with the lower cost of the alternative rockets rather than giving SLS special preference in continued subsidy and forced payloads.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 12:06:44 2015 No.7562069

>>7562062
>>7562068
please read
>http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/sls/docs/sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf
There is no other rocket that will be available in the next 20 years that will have a payload capacity of 100+ tones into orbit

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 12:09:44 2015 No.7562073 >>7562068 also >subsidy Are you literally retarded? NASA does not pay taxes

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 12:27:20 2015 No.7562098

>>7562051

>NASA should be working with that launch industry instead of jealously playing in its own sandbox with its own rocket.

NASA will literally hand over their designs to anyone who asks. If anything they're doing the private market a huge favor by paying for all the initial design and development costs so a future company can just use an off-the-shelf legacy SLS if they wanted to. The SLS also doesn't face the possibility of getting sold to a foreign company, or being locked up with patents. From a legal standpoint it makes perfect sense to have NASA build their own rocket.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 13:45:26 2015 No.7562201

>>7562098

SLS tech and design is uncompetitive versus the technology base used by the commercial firms.

Commercial firms invest in and develop their own technology and designs.

The business case for a such a SLS duplication venture is completely dubious, costly in itself, and the commercial firms are capable of creating their own growth proposals outside it.

NASA doing tech R+D to help industry doesn't require their own booster program and SLS isn't a substantive program in such direction. A more genuine effort and role is possible.

Such a sale would have to go through government approval and could be blocked like the sale of oil firm Unocas to China or seaport management to Dubai was. There are also international rocket technology transfer agreements that come into play to limit such sales and American laws like ITAR. There are many players in the launch arena and the entire industry cannot be sold off and others would step in to fill any void. Rocket firm business is dependant upon government contracts that require domestic content and so production transfer outside the country is unlikely to continue business which would limit ownership attraction and ownership change does not mean supply disruption.

Your positives and hazards are both remote to the extreme.

In the statement in my previous post I'm talking about NASA not wanting to give up launch operations for vanity and selfish reasons upon the part of those involved in the launch operation side or NASA LV fans.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 14:09:38 2015 No.7562233 >>7562201 *Unocal

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 14:52:10 2015 No.7562292

>>7562069
>There is no other rocket that will be available in the next 20 years that will have a payload capacity of 100+ tones into orbit
That's quite an assertion, considering that:
a) SpaceX is developing one,
b) SLS stands a very good chance of failing to ever deliver a payload capacity of 100+ tonnes into orbit, and
c) 20 years is a long time.

Saturn V was developed from concept to first flight in about 5 years, in a time when nobody had ever seen a rocket near to that scale. Even if you start from the initial investigations of very large rocket engines (again, on a scale nobody had ever seen before), the whole process took only ten years.

Anyway, it would be one thing to say that we need a 100+ tonne to orbit system, because the next best thing has under 30 tonne capacity and costs half a billion dollars or more per flight, available maybe once or twice per year, but years before this super-heavy system will be ready, we should have a 50+ tonne to orbit system that costs around $100 million-$200 million per flight, available as often as wanted.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 14:57:38 2015 No.7562303 >>7562073 "Subsidy" does not mean "tax break".

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 14:59:57 2015 No.7562307 >>7562292 Why don't we just keep making Saturn Vs? It werks.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 15:02:33 2015 No.7562313

>>7562307
If we had never stopped making Saturn Vs, the space program and solar system infrastructure as a whole would be in quite a different state. Especially looking at the proposed NERVA upgrades... it keeps me up at night.
At this point though the cost of restarting it doesn't really make it worth it, we can (if we put our mind and money to it) build a far better HLV with modern tech

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 15:37:21 2015 No.7562394 >>7546353 Space threads are retarded. We will never make any more significant progress. Deal with it.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 15:38:11 2015 No.7562395

>>7562307
Well, we couldn't make the original Saturn V now. At least, it wouldn't make sense.

When you design some special-purpose thing, you start by looking for all of the suitable materials and parts that you can get off the shelf, and the skilled workers who can easily be transitioned to this work with minimal training. So a lot of the materials and skills that Saturn V was built with just aren't around any more.

We don't have so many highly skilled welders anymore. The F-1 engines were all stitched together with welds. You'd have a very hard time finding guys to do that.

Anyway, even if you could exactly replicate the Saturn V at the costs of the time, it wouldn't make much sense. Modern materials are lighter, modern production methods are cheaper, and we know a lot more about how to make rocket engines. We have half a century of general progress and experience behind us since then.

What we'd need is not to remake the Saturn V, but to approach the problem with the same practical attitude, and honestly look for the most cost-effective and fastest solution to reach the desired performance. You know, like SpaceX is doing with their Raptor-based design.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 16:04:31 2015 No.7562432 >>7546870 fuck off tard. space is a pretty specific topic under the umbrella of science, which arguably encompasses everything. >>>/out/

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 16:10:33 2015 No.7562452

>>7560062
Mission concept

>>7562029
Thing is, it's not even correct. It's going to cost more than the shuttle, but then again, it's a fuck ton more capable than the shuttle. A true comparison would be the shuttle system to any EELV tier rocket.

>>7562051
SpaceX can't even keep up with delivering satellites atm, stop being such a fanboy and thinking SpaceX can handle everything. They can't, and they don't have the ability to make a large scale rocket for quite some time.

Falcon Heavy is not a SLS competitor. IT's a DIV Heavy or Vulcan 206 competitor.

SpaceX has received the bulk of their money from NASA. Without NASA, SpaceX could have never happened.

>>7562069
That's not true, most likely. SpaceX, Blue Origin along in the US might reach that point. Space Flight is changing.

>>7562292
The Saturn V took more like 20 years of direct development. The Jupiter/redstone project fed right into Saturn.

>>7562307
If only. We would have saved all that development cost put into the shuttle, could have upgraded it with better engines ( we did that during the Apollo program as is), kept skylab up, launched a skylab 2, and have easily mantained a lunar base using the Saturn family as workhorses. Their cost would have plummeted had we used them to launch satellites.

>>7562313
>At this point though the cost of restarting it doesn't really make it worth it, we can (if we put our mind and money to it) build a far better HLV with modern tech

Yeah, we really should have built an RP-1 fueled, modernized F1 rocket with a J2X upper stage and 4 segment boosters, with the possibility to use more advanced boosters and a better upper stage later. Then again, congress forced NASA into this because of Aerojet, Boeing, and ATK lobbyists. Same people who lobbied hard for the STS shitpile.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 16:15:05 2015 No.7562460

>>7562313
>proposed NERVA upgrades
Do tell me more
>>7562395
Reminds me of Britain. People say our military is shit because we don't spend, the truth is even if we wanted to we don't have the manufacturing industry base to do it anymore. Our economy is basically just banking nowadays.

Well guys elitism at work. We have too many people being pushed to design things as opposed to people to actually make it. /sci/ shot itself in the foot, our rocket plans get nowhere because we shit on blue-collar work. Honestly I believe every engineer should start off mastering manufacturing before moving to theory and design. That's how it was done in the old days, the people in the office designing were once on the floor machining for their apprenticeship.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 16:17:22 2015 No.7562467 >>7554245 Yo'ere*

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 16:25:02 2015 No.7562480 >>7562467 You'd would of had wrote that correnctly of you'ure were'd'nt a moreon.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 16:27:24 2015 No.7562485

>>7562452

>SpaceX can't even keep up with delivering satellites atm

SLS isn't even launching at all yet. You'd give SLS a break in taking its time to go from 0 to 1 a year and taking ten years to do so and over ten billion dollars, but you won't give the same break to SpaceX to go from what they are now to what they are could do.

We know they are expanding capacity, that their launch rate keeps growing every year, that they can build new pads to meet demand.

>Falcon Heavy is not a SLS competitor. IT's a DIV Heavy or Vulcan 206 competitor.

1. SpaceX could build a SLS sized rocket with a development contract from the government to do so.
2. You can use smaller rockets, Falcon Heavy/D4H/Vulcan sized, than SLS to do some of the same things SLS will be doing and more if you think outside the HLV vehicle box.

You can land a man on the moon with them, you can put astronauts around the moon, you can put men on Mar's moons, probably even Mars itself.

>SpaceX has received the bulk of their money from NASA. Without NASA, SpaceX could have never happened.

You say that like it's a mark of shame. It's a positive result from a government public-private partnership that had as its goal to help the launch industry and it did. That was the point. It's a good thing that we should keep doing and more so.

SLS is exactly the step in the wrong direction, choosing instead to close the door to positive results from commercial launch firms being the launch base for exploration.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 16:33:25 2015 No.7562491

>>7562485
>SLS isn't even launching at all yet. You'd give SLS a break in taking its time to go from 0 to 1 a year and taking ten years to do so and over ten billion dollars, but you won't give the same break to SpaceX to go from what they are now to what they are could do.

All good points, I just don't like how people assume SpaceX can do the same things in the same time frame. I'm not saying they never will, but the attitude that we should just give SpaceX all the money and let them do things isn't a smart one.

>1. SpaceX could build a SLS sized rocket with a development contract from the government to do so.

Would only have happened/only happen if SpaceX bought more congressmen

>2. You can use smaller rockets, Falcon Heavy/D4H/Vulcan sized, than SLS to do some of the same things SLS will be doing and more if you think outside the HLV vehicle box.

Wouldn't work for everything, and SpaceX doesn't have upper stages that can loiter on orbit yet. Vulcan would work better for that. Neither are flying yet.

>You can land a man on the moon with them, you can put astronauts around the moon, you can put men on Mar's moons, probably even Mars itself.

You aren't doing any of those things with the Falcon Heavy. without a metric shit ton of launches. It wouldn't necessarily come out cheaper than the marginal cost of the SLS. Who knows, I personally don't give the SLS that much time before it gets cut by some president.

>You say that like it's a mark of shame.

No, but you have idiots who think that SpaceX is better than NASA at everything. I fucking hate SpaceX fanboys.

>SLS is exactly the step in the wrong direction, choosing instead to close the door to positive results from commercial launch firms being the launch base for exploration.

Yep, and you can thank congress for that one. Just imagine, had McCain been president...

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 16:44:50 2015 No.7562511

>>7562452
>SpaceX can't even keep up with delivering satellites atm
>atm
SpaceX is a new company with a new vehicle that's still ramping up production and flight rates and finishing construction of its facilities.

Their first real production-mode launch was only last year, after their first development flights of their first production-model vehicle (Falcon 9 1.1) toward the end of 2013. They did a very respectable six launches in that first year, and their first failure was their sixth launch (attempt) of this year.

They "can't even keep up" with the huge demand for their services. They'll be able to launch at least twice a month once they've worked the bugs out.

>Falcon Heavy is not a SLS competitor. IT's a DIV Heavy or Vulcan 206 competitor.
Funny, though, how if you look at any proposed SLS-class mission, you can see ways to do it with Falcon Heavy, and generally it could be done a lot sooner at a much lower cost.

When SLS flies its first development flight (in incomplete form with a borrowed upper stage), Falcon Heavy will already be capable of launching a capsule to the Mars surface.

If the next president has any balls, there could be a Falcon-Heavy-launched man on Mars before the scheduled moon flyby of the SLS program, without increasing the NASA budget at all, just by taking the money from SLS/Orion and spending it on something worthwhile instead.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 16:46:31 2015 No.7562520

>>7562491

>Wouldn't work for everything,

The big lie of SLS is that we will be doing all the everything it is proposed doing. We will be doing some things, not everything. Falcon Heavy can do some things, and could do more "some things" than what SLS will be doing for us. They may not be exactly the same things but they can also be worthwhile and worth having instead.

>It wouldn't necessarily come out cheaper than the marginal cost of the SLS.

SLS requires substantive ongoing fixed costs as well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 16:46:50 2015 No.7562522 >>7562480 ecuzse me? Fak ofe mait

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 17:00:01 2015 No.7562549

>>7562511
>Falcon Heavy will already be capable of launching a capsule to the Mars surface.

Yeah and there isn't much you can do with that. In its current form, crew dragon likely wouldn't survive the trip. I do not believe for one second that the current designs for crew dragon would survive the voyage for the so called Red Dragon proposal. It would need a lot of upgrades and development cost.

>They'll be able to launch at least twice a month once they've worked the bugs out.

I hope they eventually beat that.

>you can see ways to do it with Falcon Heavy, and generally it could be done a lot sooner at a much lower cost.

Of course, if they can get a better upper stage. Their current one is not very capable. I'd love to see them develop a hydrogen upper stage.

>there could be a Falcon-Heavy-launched man on Mars

Just how many launches do you think this would take?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 17:02:17 2015 No.7562555 >>7562520 >>7562511 There are many things the Falcon Heavy can't do, and will have to be done on SLS or the BFR. Blue Origin's rocket is rumored to be quite large as well, and might have a larger fairing - something that holds back the Falcon Heavy.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 17:24:09 2015 No.7562601

>>7562452
>The Saturn V took more like 20 years of direct development. The Jupiter/redstone project fed right into Saturn.
Saturn V first launched in 1967. 1947 was basically America starting from zero on developing space rockets at all. They were still playing with captured V2s at that point. If you want to make that sort of claim, you might as well say that SLS has taken 60 years so far.

We're talking about specific vehicle development programs here. They decided to make Saturn V in 1962, and it flew in 1967. The call for development of its first major component, the F-1, went out in 1955 (and it was cut due to lack of any need for such a powerful engine, then revived for the Saturn V after the program being cancelled, so this was not developed at anything near the fastest speed possible).

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 17:49:48 2015 No.7562661 >>7562601 They were developing the Saturn V long before the first human even went to space

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 17:50:48 2015 No.7562663 >SLS 100% on schedule >falcon heavy 3 years behind schedule nuff said tbh

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 17:57:13 2015 No.7562673 >>7562555 I've heard that Blue Origin's rocket will have three BE-4s on the first stage in a similar configuration to the original Atlas Do you know if its true?

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 18:06:24 2015 No.7562698

>>7562511
>Funny, though, how if you look at any proposed SLS-class mission, you can see ways to do it with Falcon Heavy
That's objectively and factually incorrect.

Falcon heavy cannot put Orion around the moon, and cannot send Dragon to Mars without being in expendable mode

The primary purpose of SLS is to launch cargo to Earth-Moon L2
Falcon heavy's capacity to L2 is just barely over half of what block 1b SLS's capcity will be

>there could be a Falcon-Heavy-launched man on Mars
there isn't enough cargo space on dragon to have enough food for the trip, and the person would die there if they even survived the trip.

Where did all you Reddit SpaceX shills come from anyways?
You are aware that SpaceX has a 17% failure rate, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 18:07:47 2015 No.7562701 >>7562673 Min three, could be up to 5.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 18:09:00 2015 No.7562705

>>7562698
He's probably thinking that everything SLS can put into orbit, Falcon Heavy can do if you just "assemble it in orbit"

Also it's not just reddit, the amount of people on the SpaceX section of NSF is just mind-boggling.

Fuck SpaceX fanboys, you almost make me dislike SpaceX.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 18:09:50 2015 No.7562706 File: 38 KB, 560x560, 2dd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7546578 >No artificial lighting >No glare on the atmosphere >Perfect stars at night I really hope light pollution is managed on mars when we start colonies there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 18:10:38 2015 No.7562708 File: 147 KB, 1001x1001, 1443477886812.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562706 >mars when we start colonies there. lmao can't wait to see people's faces when they finally realize that it would suck to live on mars

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 18:10:46 2015 No.7562709 File: 70 KB, 594x400, 1438115377601.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562701 That would be a big rocket for me tbh

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 18:16:57 2015 No.7562719 File: 85 KB, 1157x628, earthlings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562708 >earth >good pick one

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 18:25:07 2015 No.7562737 >>7562719 Go live in Antarctica, that's a fairly good analogue, apart from the sunlight, gravity and being able to breathe outside.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 18:47:21 2015 No.7562783

>>7562708
It would be hard living initially but it would get better and transport prices, people and cargo alike, would go down.
Smelting and refining could be performed on site to create new structure and it would go from small colony to bustling city in a matter of decades and it would become self sufficient and able to grow on it's own.
You'd have all the stuff you enjoy on earth, just less space, and as time goes on it gets better.
It's a chance to rebuild and dump all the stupid infrastructure that continues on Earth just due to that fact that it's more expensive to uproot all our outdated stuff.

Although I imagine the internet would have to be cached between earth and mars to prevent the enormous lag that would be present for fetching webpages.

>Playing CS:GO
>Shit some martian just joined the lobby.
>500k ping.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 18:50:04 2015 No.7562790 File: 1.86 MB, 1920x1080, 2NlXQ6A.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562705 "ewww stop liking what i dont like"

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 18:54:41 2015 No.7562797 >>7562790 Read carefully. He's saying "stop liking what I like while being annoying". >Fuck SpaceX fanboys, you almost make me dislike SpaceX.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 18:59:44 2015 No.7562804

>>7562549
>>Falcon Heavy will already be capable of launching a capsule to the Mars surface.
>Yeah and there isn't much you can do with that.
Except, you know, transport crew, supplies, and equipment to the surface of Mars.

If somebody was going to do Mars-to-stay, they could build it all around this single transportation option. They could start building stuff up in the 2018 launch window, do the test run for a manned mission in 2020, and send humans in 2022. Then just keep resupplying in every window.

>In its current form, crew dragon likely wouldn't survive the trip. I do not believe for one second that the current designs for crew dragon would survive the voyage for the so called Red Dragon proposal. It would need a lot of upgrades and development cost.
Soft-landing on Mars by rocket power is easier than soft-landing on Earth by rocket power. This has been thoroughly analyzed as only needing a software change. There's no reason that this would take "a lot of upgrades and development cost".

>>7562555
>There are many things the Falcon Heavy can't do, and will have to be done on SLS or the BFR.
There's nothing interesting that SLS can do that Falcon Heavy can't. It's a lot easier to develop orbital-rendezvous storable-propellant propulsion units than to develop a bigger rocket (especially since they already have made storable-propellant rocket engines and an orbital rendezvous system). Nearly anything you could do with one SLS, you could do with three Falcon Heavy launches. Many things you would otherwise need an SLS for, you could do with a single Falcon Heavy launch.

> a larger fairing - something that holds back the Falcon Heavy.
I'm sure they can do a larger fairing if someone needs one. It would just reduce performance somewhat. There's no demand for a larger fairing. 13 meters long with a 5.2 meter diameter is a huge volume. SLS people are talking about an 8.4 meter fairing, everyone is saying back to them, "Nobody asked for that."

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:05:28 2015 No.7562810
File: 489 KB, 1463x962, SLS - Deep Space Habitat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7562804
>Except, you know, transport crew, supplies, and equipment to the surface of Mars.

Lel, you can't transport much with a dragon. You cannot launch a crew dragon with people in it straight to Mars with the FH.

You have no fucking clue what it takes to do space missions if you think that.

>There's nothing interesting that SLS can do that Falcon Heavy can't

Bullshit. I'm no SLS fanboy, but you're a fucking lunatic rabid spaceX shill if you think that is true.

Just because of you, I'm dumping my entire folder of SLS mission profiles - most of which FH could only do in many, many more launches.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:06:35 2015 No.7562812 File: 347 KB, 1463x961, SLS-Large Telescope.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562804 >SLS people are talking about an 8.4 meter fairing, everyone is saying back to them, "Nobody asked for that." Bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:08:11 2015 No.7562813 >>7562804 >This has been thoroughly analyzed as only needing a software change. There's no fucking way Crew Dragon is rated for multi-year on orbit times at the current moment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:10:55 2015 No.7562815 File: 402 KB, 1463x962, SLS - Crewed Lunar Surface Mission.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562804 the SLS in this config would only be able to deliver Orion with a 2 person lander. FH can't do that.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:12:01 2015 No.7562817
File: 436 KB, 1463x962, SLS - Mars Surface Mission.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7562804

Oh look, some Mars infrastructure that needs a larger fairing, and needs to be sent up in one piece - and it's just one element of the mission. Would take three FH launches in expendable mode to achieve, if that because of the extra weight of needing to dock it all together.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:12:10 2015 No.7562818

>>7562698
>Falcon heavy cannot put Orion around the moon
Orion is shit. Overweight and primitive, dependent on external systems for basics like life support, with an endurance of only 3 weeks in space, can't go to Mars, can't land on Mars, can't handle re-entry from Mars.

The Falcon Heavy/Dragon system is just generally more capable than the SLS/Orion one.

Also: if you were really insistent on doing such a thing, Falcon Heavy could put Orion around the moon in a two-launch mission with a separate launch of a modular storable propellant stage (which would be ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE easier and cheaper to develop than SLS, and would immediately allow you to do things with Falcon Heavy which could not be done with SLS).

>cannot send Dragon to Mars without being in expendable mode
Oh my god, you're acting like this a drawback of Falcon Heavy in comparison to the fully-expendable SLS.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:16:40 2015 No.7562822
File: 451 KB, 1463x962, SLS - Asteroid Deflection Mission.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7562817
>Orion is shit.

No it's not. It's perfect for what we need for around the cis-lunar space. Dragon is not capable of this, because it was not designed to do it. Mostly, because of its service module, something you clearly have no clue is essential for life support.

>with an endurance of only 3 weeks in space, can't go to Mars, can't land on Mars, can't handle re-entry from Mars.

IKR? Orion will need upgrades to do this.

>The Falcon Heavy/Dragon system is just generally more capable than the SLS/Orion one.

False. You have no proof, SpaceX makes no such claims, and you will get roasted anywhere online for making such a retarded statement. Dragon is meant to go to LEO, that's it.

>Also: if you were really insistent on doing such a thing, Falcon Heavy could put Orion around the moon in a two-launch mission with a separate launch of a modular storable propellant stage (which would be ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE easier and cheaper to develop than SLS, and would immediately allow you to do things with Falcon Heavy which could not be done with SLS).

There are some things that just don't make sense doing, and this is one of them.

>Oh my god, you're acting like this a drawback of Falcon Heavy in comparison to the fully-expendable SLS.

What you are failing to understand is that yes, you could send that dragon there, but it couldn't do anything much without many changes for basic things, and multiple fh launches for other things.

Things FH can't do with dragon:

* deliver people to mars in one trip - no rocket can send people to mars in just one launch

* send anything but maybe a few hundred pounds of supplies to the surface

* return to earth without an enhanced heat shield and improved electronics for better on orbit time

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:17:44 2015 No.7562825 File: 396 KB, 1463x962, SLS-Solar Probe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562822

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:19:17 2015 No.7562828 File: 431 KB, 1463x962, SLS- Europa Clipper.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562825

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:20:19 2015 No.7562830 File: 432 KB, 1463x962, SLS-Uranus Orbiter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562828

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:21:21 2015 No.7562833 File: 431 KB, 1463x962, SLS-Orion MPCV.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562830

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:22:35 2015 No.7562837 File: 404 KB, 1463x962, SLS-Interstellar Explorer.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562833

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:26:04 2015 No.7562842
File: 824 KB, 5454x3893, wSgEo59.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7562818
oh dear jesus, one of those nutters who thinks we can go to Mars straight with a falcon heavy

my sides are in fucking orbit!

Fact is SpaceX doesn't intend on achieving everything with the FH. It was meant to allow them to compete for DOD payloads.

SpaceX should hopefully have a far larger rocket, with a larger fairing, and easier to manufacture (you think FH has three identical cores in the first stage, when actually the middle one is distinct and the outers are still different from the Falcon 9) than the FH.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:31:39 2015 No.7562848 >>7562737 nah strong winds on Antartica makes it worse than Mars. There is not enough air on Mars to feel the cold.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:33:34 2015 No.7562853 >>7562848 Mars is a lot fucker colder than Antartica. If we do end up making science outposts on Mars, I could see them building underground and covering the tops with with a kind of concrete that NASA has been working on.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:40:11 2015 No.7562863 >>7549720 At the current rate, the Falcon 9 is gonna look like that in a few years.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:40:59 2015 No.7562865 >>7562863 Look like what? Your comment makes no sense.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:45:01 2015 No.7562874
File: 159 KB, 1000x666, 4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7562853
what concrete?
>>7562842
dragon could fly to mars on falcon heavy, not a full mission back but the getting there is possible. they considering it for a sample return of the 2020rover.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:45:16 2015 No.7562875 >>7553100 >the same as ares v but a bit smaller >expensive as fuck >prone to delays just like falcon heavy >into the garbage if reusability ever happens They may as well go back to the Saturn V.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:47:07 2015 No.7562878

>>7562874
>dragon could fly to mars on falcon heavy, not a full mission back but the getting there is possible. they considering it for a sample return of the 2020rover.

It's going to need electronics upgrades for this, and it won't be able to bring much back in this config. Some at SpaceX have said they'd need 2 launches to achieve this.

>what concrete?

Marscrete. Something like that. I forget the name.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:48:25 2015 No.7562881

>>7562817
>Would take three FH launches in expendable mode to achieve
What you don't seem to be grasping is that 3 FH launches is a MUCH smaller cost than 1 SLS launch.

SLS is a system that's costing $40 billion dollars to develop, with no commercial application. It might be capable of one or two launches per year, always months apart from each other. It won't be available for ANY use before the mid-2020s. There's no way that, after it's developed, and the development cost has been swept under the rug and forgotten about, it's going to cost under a billion dollars per launch.

Falcon Heavy is a system that's being developed for the commercial satellite launch market. It should be available for routine use starting in 2017 or 2018. It should be available for a dozen or more launches per year, and clustered launches of several in the same month, in case that is needed for a multi-launch mission. Even as an expendable, the *price* (not incremental cost, after $40 billion in development, but the price to the customer who has not spent a penny on development) should be well under $200 million.

A program centered around the Falcon Heavy would get shit done a decade sooner than one centered around the SLS.

>>7562810
>Lel, you can't transport much with a dragon.
A tonne, in a pressurized space. Imagine being able to routinely put a tonne of pressurized cargo on Mars using an off-the-shelf option costing ~$200 million.

>You cannot launch a crew dragon with people in it straight to Mars with the FH.
One person. It wouldn't be luxurious accommodations. He'd have to accept a fairly high radiation load. But you can have 1 person and supplies to make the trip.

A more reasonable plan would be a mission (to an established base) assembled at L2 with 4 or 5 FH launches, which would end with 4 astronauts landing on Mars in one Dragon, having a more comfortable habitat and more supplies for the journey. It only takes about 1 km/s to get from L2 to a Mars intercept.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:49:21 2015 No.7562884 File: 41 KB, 940x400, titan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7546353 Can we just stop all of the fucking Mars missions and send one decent probe to Titan?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:51:08 2015 No.7562887 >>7562865 >>7562863 He's saying the Falcon 9, which has already flown 19 successful orbital launches, is going to look as "full of shit" as the never-went-to-orbit cancelled Ares in a few years. Because he's an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:52:20 2015 No.7562888 >>7562706 this picture is a compilation bro

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:52:21 2015 No.7562889

>>7562881
>What you don't seem to be grasping is that 3 FH launches is a MUCH smaller cost than 1 SLS launch.

No, I understand that. What you don't understand is that somethings really can't go any smaller and still be useful. FH can't do everything. It's upper stage is still quite shit. SpaceX needs a cyrogenic upper stage.

> it's going to cost under a billion dollars per launch.

I agree with you here. SLS is way too expensive, mostly because its acting as a jobs program, not because it has to be.

>A program centered around the Falcon Heavy would get shit done a decade sooner than one centered around the SLS.

I agree, I just hope SpaceX doesn't diddle around with their next rocket.

>A tonne, in a pressurized space. Imagine being able to routinely put a tonne of pressurized cargo on Mars using an off-the-shelf option costing ~$200 million.

Source that it can do a ton to Mars? I've never seen that quoted anywhere.

>One person

Literally fucking no. Stop being retarded. That is not possible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:52:56 2015 No.7562890 >>7562865 >>7562887 I was implying that it gets taller every year, that is, every year that it isn't grounded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 19:54:56 2015 No.7562891 File: 361 KB, 1451x859, Ares_I_Evolution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562890 lel

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 20:00:36 2015 No.7562898
File: 312 KB, 1920x1080, KBsDXcd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7562891
Like legit getting taller, not just the plans getting taller. If you look at a Falcon 9 from 2010, 2014, and presumably 2017, they will all be different lengths. Ignore the right half of the diagram.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 20:22:24 2015 No.7562920 >>7562837 >>7562830 >>7562828 I really hope each of these happen tbh NASA is still goat when it comes to unmanned probes, and the ice giants are lonely ;_;

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 20:23:54 2015 No.7562922 >>7562884 A SLS stack could send a lander with submarine directly to Titan

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 20:25:25 2015 No.7562924 File: 1.07 MB, 944x530, 1435502507086.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7562887 >19 successful orbital launches

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 20:26:02 2015 No.7562926

>303 posts
Do we bake a new bread at 300 posts?

>@AmericaSpace No resumption of SpaceX ISS resupply missions until January 5, 2016 earliest. Next launch on Nov. 15. Jason-3 launch expected in December.
I suppose that this means the BEAM module won't be going up until next year. >>7552991

http://spacenews.com/ula-wins-882-million-u-s-air-force-contract/
ULA allowed to buy more Russian engines because "SpaceX is too hard to compete with."

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 20:28:03 2015 No.7562927 >>7562926 make new thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 20:35:58 2015 No.7562938 >>7562935 New thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 20:36:15 2015 No.7562939 >>7562924 In contrast to zero launches of the Ares V. But yeah, he should've mentioned that not all Falcon 9 launches have been successful.

Anonymous Wed Sep 30 20:42:49 2015 No.7562947

>>7562889
>Source that it can do a ton to Mars? I've never seen that quoted anywhere.
You've never fucking looked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dragon_%28spacecraft%29
http://digitalvideo.8m.net/SpaceX/RedDragon/karcz-red_dragon-nac-2011-10-29-1.pdf

Plus Elon Musk has said that Falcon Heavy could launch a "fully loaded" Dragon V2 to the Mars surface.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
>Payload to Mars 13,200 kg

Red Dragon's landed mass is limited to ~ 1 tonne by the SuperDraco propellant tanks. Falcon Heavy has over 5 tonnes of spare capacity to Mars transfer that you can use for supplies and equipment for the months of coasting.

Even with relatively simple support systems, people don't need all that much in terms of consumable supplies. CO2 scrubber/oxygen replenishment supplies are similar in mass to food supplies. This is ample.

Two people are probably possible using a direct launch of one Falcon Heavy to the Mars surface in a Dragon V2. One almost certainly is.

These huge Battlestar Galactica mission concepts you see out of NASA are not what's necessary. They're the product of hundreds of managers fighting to get their work included so it won't be cut. That's how the timescales get pushed back so far, too. It's all, "Wait for my work to be done! (so I can keep my job!)" They play politics to get their way.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 20:48:50 2015 No.7562955 >>7562924 >>7562939 I misremembered, and thought it was their 20th that blew up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 21:03:59 2015 No.7562996 >FH vs SLS: The Thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 21:11:00 2015 No.7563018 >>7559748 >yfw this thinking is crippling our thinking in current times with the EM drive. Wake up people!

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 21:28:11 2015 No.7563068 File: 168 KB, 372x496, YouCantBeAnAstronaut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7553216 >>7554073

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 21:54:56 2015 No.7563125 >>7563018 What's the status on that thing?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 30 21:55:58 2015 No.7563128 >>7563068 Why do you have to crush people's dreams

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 1 10:05:41 2015 No.7564146 >>7563068 Not that unrealistic these days considering there are far fewer people trying and within the next axe or so there will (hopefully) be a lot more people going up Saved that pic though, it's elk

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]