/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8869540]

Space General

>Under 24 hours til launch of Falcon 9 w/ NROL-76 payload.
>"A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch a classified spacecraft payload for the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office. This will be SpaceX’s first launch for the NRO. Delayed from April 16."
>https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

Also, looks like the launch schedule of SLS is sadly starting to slip again

>It's looking likely that the first flight of NASA's new heavy lift rocket, the Space Launch System, will slip beyond its November 2018 launch date
>http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170424-first-sls-flight-delayed.html

[Anonymous No.8869608]

SLS will probably never fly
Whats the point
They are spending billions a year, doing what? who knows

[Anonymous No.8869672]

>>8869540
This thread will probably turn in to a shitfest, but thats still a million times better than the 15 Bill "muh gender "threads up here now

[Anonymous No.8869694]

>>8869608
This.
Like anything government funded the point of the SLS is not to go anywhere.
SLS is funded because congressional representatives and senators from districts employing the aerospace workers fund it as a jobs for reelection votes program.

[Anonymous No.8869700]

>>8869608
All SpaceX has to do in addition to their stated plans is take their work on the reusable FH upper stage and make a stretched one that can last in orbit long enough to dock with a payload waiting in LEO, then they'll be able to do two-launch missions equivalent to SLS for under $200 million. The first launch would be a normal launch of a payload to LEO which would allow recovery of all three lower stages, the second launch would be a fully-expendable launch of the earth departure stage. With this system, they could also do smaller launches (such as Red Dragon to Mars) without expending lower stages (which means the cost floor might be as low as $20 million). Quick as they produce variants of Falcon 9, they could have it working next year, before SLS even test-flies.

[Anonymous No.8869711]

>>8869700
SpaceX can't and probably won't be doing stuff like that
What they need to do is increase their launch rate
Which means NOT expending boosters.

Once they've filled their backlog and finally have room in their schedule for their own launches, then they can do experimentation on their upper stages.

You don't need a special earth departure stage, you just need a second launch that can transfer fuel to the upper stage which contains the deep space probe.

[Anonymous No.8869727]

>>8869711
This stuff brings the money they need, welcome to the private space age.

[Anonymous No.8869742]

>>8869711
>>With this system, they could also do smaller launches (such as Red Dragon to Mars) without expending lower stages (which means the cost floor might be as low as $20 million).
>What they need to do is increase their launch rate
>Which means NOT expending boosters.
Getting reliable, efficient booster reuse will let them increase their launch rate and still allow them to do almost as many fully expendable launches.

>Once they've filled their backlog and finally have room in their schedule for their own launches, then they can do experimentation on their upper stages.
They're talking about attempting recovery of the upper stage on the first flight of Falcon Heavy.

>You don't need a special earth departure stage, you just need a second launch that can transfer fuel to the upper stage
Do you have any idea how much easier the "special earth departure stage" is than in-orbit refuelling?

ITS may be delayed by three or more Mars launch windows from their ideal schedule. If so, advanced capabilities for Falcon Heavy will be very useful, especially launching Dragons to Mars without expending boosters and being able to launch a Dragon plus 20 tonnes (which would allow a Dragon lander plus transit hab for a manned landing).

[Anonymous No.8869805]

Here's my imitation of the Falcon 9 NRO launch:

BOOM! FAIL!

That's my imitation. Deal with it, Muskfags.

[Anonymous No.8869827]

>>8869540
What's inside?

Anyone know how these classified payload launches work with the provider? Does the NRO give them a mechanical & electrical model and in the last few days say here strap this fully encapsulated payload on your boosters?

[Anonymous No.8869857]

>>8869827
Did they do vertical payload integration on the pad?

[Anonymous No.8869861]

>>8869827
Looks like>>8869805's buttplug has finally arrived! Congratulations!

[Anonymous No.8869868]

>>8869827
I assume it's on a need to know basis with NDAs.

[Anonymous No.8869887]

>>8869540
also wtf is this shit?

[Anonymous No.8869907]

>>8869887
It's civilization-hating liberals.

Anyway, what they're really launching is Trump's manned mission to Mars he talked about.

[Anonymous No.8869975]

>nasa delays the SLS yet again and pushes the schedule to 2019
They really want to get fired, don't they?

[Anonymous No.8870207]

>>8869827
I wonder if it was a weapon, would Musk agree to bring it up? Or would he even know it's a weapon?

Anyway theres 300 American, commercial satellites in orbit and 290 American govt/military satellites. Many of the latter with classified purpose. How is this capitalism and how is this democracy?

[Anonymous No.8870210]

>>8869608
Trump would never let SLS get cancelled like Constellation was.

[Anonymous No.8870216]

>>8870207
A year or two ago, SpaceX launched a satellite for Turkmenistan, a dictatorship. Musk didn't mind because the launch wasn't purchased directly by Turkmenistan, but rather via Thales.

[Anonymous No.8870280]

How will Musk prevent her from running off with 50% of the company?

Serious question.

[Anonymous No.8870293]

>>8870210
Why? SLS was a pointless design settled on during the Obama administration.

>>8870280
Prenup. It's not his first rodeo.

[Anonymous No.8870411]

How much of Constellation was cycled back into SLS? Just the Orion?

[Anonymous No.8870430]

>>8870210
Nothing wrong with cancelling SLS
It's not doing anything, and will never do anything

[Anonymous No.8870443]

>SLS has no missi-

[Anonymous No.8870445]

>>8870443

[Anonymous No.8870453]

>>8870443
>tens of billions of dollars to do the same shit SpaceX can do with a Falcon Heavy & a Dragon 2

just grate
Sending people on joyrides to lunar orbit to justify the existance of the program.

[Anonymous No.8870465]

>>8870453
this is what bugs me about nasa currently, it'd be totally find to drop nasa funded launches and focus entirely on private space for launches, it'd be MUCH cheaper and the product would probably work much better too.

that said i can understand them making the orion capsule in house

[Anonymous No.8870468]

>>8870453
>the same shit SpaceX can do with a Falcon Heavy & a Dragon 2
What's your source on that?

[Anonymous No.8870471]

>>8870465
All of SLS is built commercially, including Orion.

[Anonymous No.8870476]

>>8870443
>>8870445
>Less than one launch per year.
>Each one a moon flyby FH/Dragon could do, plus a station module FH could do.
>Arbitrarily say they'll launch a few 41 tonne payloads, which could obviously be broken up to fit on FH.
>Maybe do a manned flyby of Mars sometime after 2030. Maybe. Certainly no landing.
Wow, it's fucking nothing.

[Anonymous No.8870480]

>>8870465
yeah, NASA is great at building probes and rovers. let them do that and ditch the other hardware production - suits, launchers, etc.

Excluding the DSN and other useful resources like that, though

[Anonymous No.8870486]

>>8870480
hell if they did only that stuff they'd have tons of spare cash
>>8870471
but it's heavily influenced by congress from many levels.
i guess a shorthand is "scrap SLS"

[Anonymous No.8870487]

>>8870471
Is MAF a part of NASA or a commercial site?

[Anonymous No.8870494]

>>8870480
NASA is just as bad at building probes/rovers

These are things some university team could do for a couple million dollars, meanwhile NASA spends billions

[Anonymous No.8870495]

>>8870487
are Boeing, Orbital ATK, Lockheed Martin, and Aerojet Rocketdyne branches of NASA?

[Anonymous No.8870496]

>>8870465
>>8870480
I love big orange rockets as much as the next guy, but it seems a lot more logical to push launch vehicles over to the commercial actors and instead focus on deep space stuff like probes, rovers, habitats and landers. Just push all cash over to JPL and let them go bonkers.

[Anonymous No.8870499]

>>8870476
>doesn't know the difference between flyby and orbit
>expects to be taken seriously

[Anonymous No.8870502]

>>8870496
>JPL with a massive inflush of dosh
europa probes and feasible moon base proposals pls

[Anonymous No.8870503]

>>8870494
is all of /sci/ really this retarded?

[Anonymous No.8870521]

>>8870502
>>8870496
not only that, but we need to increase RTG production as well, and ignore the environmentalists who scream about them

there are a bunch of probes that have been crippled in the design phase due to having to switch over to solar power or only being allotted a smaller weaker RTG

[Anonymous No.8870529]

>>8870465

>that said i can understand them making the orion capsule in house

Even Orion is pretty useless when you realize it is just overpriced Dragon.

NASA should stick to pushing technological boundaries, such as creating deep space payloads. Let private companies handle already proven technologies such as rockets and capsules.

[Anonymous No.8870541]

>>8870495
No.
But every time i read about MLF, it is just mentioned as "NASA's MLF is producing x and y for SLS", with no mention of where the workers inside are actually employd at.

[Anonymous No.8870549]

>>8870471

using cost plus programs and with details of production mandated by congress

[Anonymous No.8870710]

>>8870521
Just imagine, a fleet of Cassini-like probes, spammed in every direction possible throughout the solar system, carpetbombing each piece of rock with a souped-up Huygins probe powered by RTG's

[Anonymous No.8870748]

>>8870710
like what this anon said

[Anonymous No.8870812]

>>8870541
>NASA's MILF
Do you mean MSFC or MAF?

[Anonymous No.8870946]

>>8870495
the only one getting fucked there is Aerojet

Delta IIs use orbital solids
Atlas solids are going over to Orbital
Vulcan is going blue origin for first stage

aerojet's got what, RL10s and leftover SSMEs?

[Anonymous No.8871085]

>>8870411
Orion and much of the work on the Ares V was rolled into SLS. If it hadn't been cancelled Ares-V would have eventually morphed into something closely resembling the SLS.

[Anonymous No.8871092]

>>8870521
NASA and the DoE have recently restarted production of Pu-238. NASA doesn't need to worry about RTGs like they did last decade. iirc the main thing limiting RTGs now is cost.

[Anonymous No.8871098]

Moon base needs to come before a mars base. It's only 3 days away - better than 10 months away

[Anonymous No.8871122]

>>8871085
>If it hadn't been cancelled Ares-V would have eventually morphed into something closely resembling the SLS.
Ares V never had a settled design. SLS is just the name they stuck on Ares V after they accepted reduced performance.

[Anonymous No.8871219]

>>8870503
No anon, just most

[Anonymous No.8871228]

>>8871098
Seriously. What the hell is taking so long, I want to live on the moon already

[Anonymous No.8871295]

>>8869540
>launch schedule slips

Weather and launch windows are always a bitch. You kids need to stay on your ADHD meds.

[Anonymous No.8871359]

>>8870207
Why would he disagree?

[Anonymous No.8871486]

>>8871295
>Weather and launch windows
That's not why SLS is slipping. They're having trouble building one to launch.

Reminder: they still haven't test-fired the four SSMEs together. When they tested three together for the first time during shuttle development, their vibrations destroyed each other, and they had to redesign them. Then, when they flew, they couldn't tolerate the heat and vibration from the solid boosters properly, were lucky to make orbit, and needed further modification. Note that they've also upgraded the solid boosters.

[Anonymous No.8871674]

>t-7 hours
>still haven't gotten a wink of sleep
convince me to go to sleep so I can wake up in time to watch this shit, /sci/

[Anonymous No.8871763]

>>8870812
I mean Michoud Assembly Facility

[Anonymous No.8871787]

>>8871295
>Be me, NASA chief, SLS project
> on the phone with the white house, look out of window at Michoud, see slight wind
>look behind me, SLS is in pieces on the floor
>Bob, the one guy we have in assembly, is home with a sick kid because a c-celeb somehow convinced his wife that they should not vaccinate
>"Looks like the damn weather will make the launch slip again, President
> "Is is still gonna be orange and yuuuuge??"
>"Yes Mr President, yes it is

[Anonymous No.8871788]

>>8871674
Have you tried jerking of until you pass out?

[Anonymous No.8871795]

>Classified Payload

WHAT ARE THEY SENDING UP THERE?!

[Anonymous No.8871796]

>>8871795

Hunter-killer sats

[Anonymous No.8871797]

>>8871787
Why does this make me think of the soviet space program after Korolev died?

[Anonymous No.8871808]

>>8869540
I'm pretty sure everyone in the Space Industry at least unconsciously know Rocket To Nowhere™ will have a binary launch record.
Too powerful for common use, not enough for actual space exploration.

[Anonymous No.8871872]

>>8871808
An anon can dream, cant he?

[Anonymous No.8871883]

Because it's gonna get posted eventually.

Also scrub.

[Anonymous No.8871885]

SpaceXVerified account @SpaceX 42m42 minutes ago

1 hour until Falcon 9 launch of NROL-76. Updated launch window opens at 7:15 a.m. EDT, 11:15 UTC.

[Anonymous No.8871887]

What the fuck, no technical webcast.
Inb4 no telemetry.
Who cares what the fuck is the US government putting up there?
It's not like any country can meddle with it anyway.

[Anonymous No.8871888]

Reporting in, near Kennedy space center cape Canaveral.

[Anonymous No.8871892]

>No live chat.
bummer.

Also; Classified!

[Anonymous No.8871894]

8 minutes left

[Anonymous No.8871896]

T minus 6 :25

[Anonymous No.8871897]

That's ULA's money bleeding right there.

[Anonymous No.8871898]

This is going to be a land landing attempt.

webcast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvs4tJ3qegM

[Anonymous No.8871900]

>>8871897
just a little, cheaper NRO launches = more NRO money on satellites = more money for lockheed

[Anonymous No.8871901]

>>8871897
gross

[Anonymous No.8871902]

post space x memes

[Anonymous No.8871903]

2:30

[SAGE No.8871904]

>>8869540
>No Memedrive
Nobody cares

[Anonymous No.8871905]

inb4 launchpad explosion

[Anonymous No.8871906]

>>8871902

[Anonymous No.8871907]

HOLD HOLD HOLD

[Anonymous No.8871908]

>>8871902
>hold hold hold
>24 hour recycle

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Anonymous No.8871909]

FUCK
hold hold hold.

[Anonymous No.8871910]

HOOOOOOOOOOOLD

[Anonymous No.8871911]

AYO HOL UP

[Anonymous No.8871912]

>>8871907
goddamn sensor

[Anonymous No.8871913]

No launch today fa/sci/ggots.

[Anonymous No.8871915]

ABORT?

[Anonymous No.8871916]

FUCK OFF

[Anonymous No.8871917]

Just let it blow up boring cunts.

Welp, glad I don't have work tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.8871918]

>>8871917
Whats a few million dollars down the drain to entertain 35,000 livestream viewers.

[Anonymous No.8871920]

[Anonymous No.8871921]

When the fuck are we going to get all weather rockets? Im sick of scrubs.

[Anonymous No.8871922]

>>8871921
This time sensor wasn't working correctly.

[Anonymous No.8871923]

>>8871921
this wasnt because of weather; this was because of a sensor on the first stage ( sounded like toto).

All weather rockets exist; ICBMs are an example. ICBM-derived rockets like the Soyuz can and do launch in snowstorms.

[Anonymous No.8871924]

>>8871920
lmao

[Anonymous No.8871926]

>>8871921
it wasn't about the weather. one of the sensors that shows the status of the rocket was broken

[Anonymous No.8871928]

>>8871918
>few million dollars down the drain

>NRO

probably >100 million (since it's their first spacex launch)

if successful, subsequent launches probably 500-1000 million

[Anonymous No.8871931]

>>8871928
>subsequent launches probably 500-1000 million
Not even sure this would pay for the first stage of the Mars rocket.

[Anonymous No.8871932]

[Anonymous No.8871935]

>>8871932

[Anonymous No.8871939]

NO LAUNCH TODAY LMAO

[Anonymous No.8871940]

>>8871359
Because he is a humanist, a decent person, and a real human bean. And it would hurt his company's image.

>>8871907
>>8871908
>>8871909
See you guys tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.8871941]

>>8871917
Don't wanna blow up that super secret low orbit ion cannon. Might take out the whole launch pad.

[Anonymous No.8871992]

>>8871908
fugg

[Anonymous No.8871998]

>>8871098

this

[Anonymous No.8872007]

Why doesn't musk let someone else be the face of his company, man he fucking sucks at giving speeches

[Anonymous No.8872058]

What's the future of astrophysics and space flight within the next 60 years?

[Anonymous No.8872059]

>>8872058
HOLD, HOLD, HOLD

[Anonymous No.8872070]

>>8872058
civilization collapsing and nothing happening

World average IQ has dropped 5+ points over the last few decades
The amount of young whites in the world is like 2% of the total population

Once these old fucking boomers die off, we will be left with minority white countries, all turning into south africas

[Anonymous No.8872103]

>>8872070

that will happen but will take longer than 60 years

and then East Asians will carry the torch of civilization, if not whites then they will be the ones to truly colonize space

once space is colonized Earth may as well be left for the niggers to rot

spacefaring race will be 120+ IQ, the future will belong to them

[Anonymous No.8872181]

>>8872103
>implying the UN will allow space colonial empires

[Anonymous No.8872214]

>>8872181
The UN has no power, it's just a neutral meeting ground for countries to talk.

[Anonymous No.8872228]

>>8871908
I long for the day that this pic is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.8872240]

>>8871788
nice palindrome dubs

[Anonymous No.8872254]

April was a slow month for orbital launches, but of the four that went to orbit, three were going to space stations! A Cygnus resupplied the ISS, Soyuz sent up two crew, and Tianzhou tested automatic docking and refueling of China's space station. Two launches within a day to two different space stations!

[Anonymous No.8872332]

SpaceX will have another launch window tomorrow morning

[Anonymous No.8872393]

>>8870502
Fund it

[Anonymous No.8872399]

>>8871787
Kek

[Anonymous No.8872755]

>>8871940
What kind of mods are you using to get that planet looking like that, my dude?

[Anonymous No.8872923]

>>8872755
Scatterer & Stock Visual enhancements for the planet

[Anonymous No.8873239]

SpaceX is a meme.

For the time it takes to refurbish one rocket stage, they could launch 10-15 expendable rockets. Somebody is not doing the correct math. Man-hours and materials to refurbish in my opinion does not cost less than manufacturing to finality a regular one. When that bulk consumption subsides and man-hours explode exponentially, an unsustainable event materializes. Musk is hard-set that flying rockets should be on-par with Boeing airliners. Boeing airliners never leave the atmosphere and undergo cryogenic hysteresis. When he pushes the envelope that hard, the odds of dire consequences vastly increase. Point in fact; the basis of his venture is what is at the root of ..basically...low intelligence being "re-purposed" into higher intelligence? Give me a break. 1940's technology remains 1940's technology.

But Musk is not alone. NASA, Amazon, and all of the others are doing the EXACT SAME THING. They are all competing with each other using the exact same technology....hahahaha. Nothing like using hobby shop drone software to engage the "rocket come home and land over there" commands.....Wonder where the algorithms came from actually......hmmm

There is a way to lift a 500 ton payload into space and move it anywhere it is needed. Deep orbit, next to the moon, stationary orbit - anywhere. It is just these so-called scientists cannot see the forest through the trees. Too many like-minds and all focused on one thing: build a tube and attach liquid fuel burning engines to it...YEAH! THAT'S THE TICKET! We at NASA just blew through 20 billion building the next rocket......which is no better than ATLAS......Should have just upgraded ATLAS...would have saved 19 billion and would have already been doing things and going places.......

My tax dollars not at work. I want to pull a "Exorcist" moment and spin my head around 360 degrees and then projectile vomit green pea soup......

Scientists - - -idiots, highly trained and highly specialized non-free-thinking idiots.

[Anonymous No.8873264]

SLS Block 1 will put less cargo in orbit than Saturn V? So this is the power of NASA...

[Anonymous No.8873291]

ok. in Gundam Unicorn, a ship on a suborbital arc is supposed to be caught with a cable from a larger spaceship in LEO. Then the larger ship would pull the small ship the rest of the way into orbit.

could this be done in real life?

yes, i know about the skyhook concept.

[Anonymous No.8873338]

>>8873291
If the orbital ship first slowed and equalized velocity, caught the suborbital one, then accelerated back to orbital it'll be somewhat doable. Knowing how sci-fi and especially ones with robots depict space however, I suspect that critical slow down part was likely omitted in which case no it's completely retarded.

[Anonymous No.8873345]

>>8873338
That's exactly why you need cable, so you don't have to slow down.

[Anonymous No.8873361]

>>8873239
>i smart they dumb money math no worky worky
>this is what the mind of a demented sub-80 IQ moron with a C at GCSE maths thinks of some of the smartest people on earth who are experts at rocket science

[Anonymous No.8873365]

>>8873345
The cable would break or the people inside the ship would die from the sudden acceleration. Orbital velocity is much greater than suborbital.

[Anonymous No.8873378]

>>8873345
Yeah, it's fundamental to the skyhook concept: a long cable, swinging from back to front very quickly, like the spoke of a very tall wheel rolling along the Earth's surface.

It can dip down to a basically stationary target and latch on, then as it swings to the back, the target is lifted up into space and accelerated to orbit.

This costs orbital speed of the lifter ship, which you can replenish with a large, high-Isp drive (for instance, if fusion rockets only work on very large scales, or if you use a low-thrust solar-electric ion thruster) or by momentum transfer (for instance, throwing packages of rock down from the moon for the skyhook to catch and slow down to a low orbit, reboosting its own orbit).

[Anonymous No.8873408]

>>8873365
That all depends on how long the cable is. The idea is, you're swinging on it, not just getting yanked in a straight line.

If you work the math out (just search for "skyhook" or "rotovator") it turns out the cable doesn't have to be nearly as long as space elevator, so it doesn't need such exotic materials. On the downside, you have to reboost it with something like rockets.

It's an interesting idea for the future, if you're getting enough rocket traffic that there are bad effects from the exhaust in the upper atmosphere, but it's not very plausible that it'll be the easiest or cheapest way. Reusable rockets take a minimum of up-front investment, and are reasonably energy efficient.

[Anonymous No.8873427]

How long til next launch attempt?

[Anonymous No.8873487]

>>8873427
I heard same time tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.8873498]

>>8873239
This a copy-pasta or did he bothered to write all that autism?

[Anonymous No.8873583]

>>8870480
>>8870529
>>8870496
>>8873264
>yeah, NASA is great at building probes and rovers. let them do that and ditch the other hardware production
ULA is not gubberment. NASA became a whore of two corporations that merged into one monopoly. This is the same problem that exists in every part of your govt. - corporations fund oligarchy that brings inefficiency. I'm watching an empire rotting away. Capitalism was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.8873822]

>>8873583
SLS has nothing to do with ULA. It's a NASA vehicle with Boeing as the main contractor. Lockheed Martin got the Orion contract.

Also, ULA is very much a government thing. It started out as the EELV program, where Boeing and LM got government money to develop competing rockets, which would fly both government and commercial payloads. However, neither turned out to be competitive for the commercial market. The result was a combined merger/bail-out, with capability-maintenance payments in addition to payment for actual launches.

In other words, the US government pays ULA to keep its doors open in addition to paying for launches, and rather than making the two parent companies compete to keep costs down, it let them form a cartel and guaranteed profits for both. It's not officially cost-plus on paper, but it effectively is.

[Anonymous No.8873888]

>>8873498
That's a Russian, anon. They get paid to trash American space companies online so we keep paying for their Soyuz launches. Just read it in a shitty russian accent, you'll see what I mean.

[Anonymous No.8874473]

what do you think sci

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nss_chart_v23.pdf

[Anonymous No.8874577]

>>8874473
I think /sci/ hates it because muh it doesn't use falcon heavy, even though falcon heavy could be used for resupply missions to it.

[Anonymous No.8874828]

One hour left til launch

[Anonymous No.8874853]

>>8873888
holy shit you're right

[Anonymous No.8874884]

GAME IS ON:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzQpkQ1etdA

>>8873822
>SLS has nothing to do with ULA. It's a NASA vehicle with Boeing as the main contractor. Lockheed Martin got the Orion contract.
Don't see much difference here.

>Also, ULA is very much a government thing.
With private ownership it's hardly a government thing. It's socialism for the corporations... so actually corporatism.

[Anonymous No.8874895]

>>8874884
>Time to light the fires and kick the tires

[Anonymous No.8874899]

Tourist here, could anyone give me a quick rundown on how difficult it is to use a rocket and send it back down intact?

[Anonymous No.8874905]

>>8874899
2010 - impossibru
2015 - very difficult
2017 - oh yeah, we're doing that on this flight

[Anonymous No.8874910]

>>8874905
Cheers senpai
Inb4 blows up

[Anonymous No.8874915]

in after max Q

[Anonymous No.8874925]

Stage recovery makes for a much more entertaining webcast for an NROL launch!

Normally, ULA would end the webcast at this point.

[Anonymous No.8874928]

Which engines are used for a three engine burn? A line in the middle? A triangle?

[Anonymous No.8874933]

>>8874928
It's a line in the middle.

[Anonymous No.8874934]

>>8874925

Pretty cool seeing the nitrogen thrusters go off at high altitude

[Anonymous No.8874937]

>>8874910
That would be nice fireworks too.

>>8874925
Yup. I'm actually happy no second stage footage. This is more interesting

[Anonymous No.8874939]

And landed! Good job on that one SpaceX!

[Anonymous No.8874943]

Still baffles me when it all of a sudden is out of the clouds and lands in 7 seconds

[Anonymous No.8874944]

This shit is crazy. Fuck yeah.

[Anonymous No.8874953]

Amazing

[Anonymous No.8874955]

/sci/, the Falcon has landed. Repeat: the Falcon has landed.

[Anonymous No.8874957]

>>8874937
Way more interesting, holy shit! I've wanted to see them follow the first stage all the way ever since their first landing attempt. This morning launch was the perfect time to do it, you could see everything!

I'm going to watch this coverage over and over.

[Anonymous No.8874958]

Oh SpaceX, you spoil us with those amazing footage.

[Anonymous No.8874961]

wow great pictures this time it all looked so easy

[Anonymous No.8874974]

It's awesome seeing the seperation like that and the thrusters actually waving into each other

[Anonymous No.8874977]

>you will N E V E R have a high enough IQ to contribute meaningfully to space travel

:(

[Anonymous No.8874999]

[Anonymous No.8875060]

>>8874977
you probably would've had 80 years ago. Propellant and metallurgy research was trial and error to a large extent.

[Anonymous No.8875065]

Thank you based Elon

[Anonymous No.8875069]

>>8875060

Yep

People were in sheds and banging shit together and lighting fires and seeing the outcome

Now, it's all about those refinements, which requires education to put out the numbers

[Anonymous No.8875081]

>>8875069

[Anonymous No.8875862]

>>8874999
Do aerospace engineers not use safety factors?

[Anonymous No.8875887]

>>8875065
Thank you based Elon

[Anonymous No.8877149]

>>8875862
lol just divide by 2 nigga lmao

[Anonymous No.8877150]

>>8875862
They do, but they're much smaller than say, civil engineering safety factors.

[Anonymous No.8877172]

>>8875862
aerospace guys are often working within safety factors of 1.1 and sometimes 0.9

[Anonymous No.8877198]

>>8874974
Is F9 stage separation and boost back burn the next Korolev cross?

[Anonymous No.8877255]

>>8877172
If I recall correctly it's closer to 1.25 as industry standard, and 1.5 for higher end cases. Mass fractions are a hell of a thing.

[Anonymous No.8877256]

>>8871795
>>8871796
>>8870207
>>8869887
>>8869827

Not sure if anyone remembers this story, but it was big news at the time. From Wikipedia:
>The 2012 National Reconnaissance Office space telescope donation to NASA was the declassification and donation to NASA of two identical space telescopes by the United States National Reconnaissance Office. The donation has been described by scientists as a substantial improvement over NASA's current Hubble Space Telescope
From Washington Post:
>The telescopes were built by private contractors for the National Reconnaissance Office, one of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. The telescopes have 2.4-meter (7.9-foot) mirrors, just like the Hubble, but they have 100 times the field of view. Their structure is shorter and squatter.
>The announcement Monday raised the obvious question of why the intelligence agency would no longer want, or need, two Hubble-class telescopes. A spokeswoman, Loretta DeSio, provided information sparingly. “They no longer possessed intelligence-collection uses,” she said of the telescopes. She confirmed that the hardware represents an upgrade of Hubble’s optical technology. “The hardware is approximately the same size as the Hubble but uses newer, much lighter mirror and structure technology,” DeSio said. She added, “Some components were removed before the transfer.” Which components? “I can’t tell you that,” she said.
>At a presentation to scientists Monday in Washington, Alan Dressler, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution for Science, showed an image of one of the telescopes, but it was so thoroughly blacked out — redacted for national security reasons — that the audience burst into laughter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-gets-military-spy-telescopes-for-astronomy/2012/06/04/gJQAsT6UDV_story.html

[Anonymous No.8877278]

>>8877256
Even if we don't have far superior technology right now, this is an excellent PR move - keeps our enemies guessing as to our tactical ability.

[Anonymous No.8878225]

>>8877256
Shoot, that was 5 years ago already?

[Anonymous No.8878266]

>>8877256
The hubble is an old piece of shit, it says more about the competence of NASA that they can't produce a new telescope in 20 years than about whatever magic NRO keeps

[Anonymous No.8878782]

>>8878266
It's not incompetence, it's budgetary. I'm sure the overall quality of NASA has decreased slightly since their funding has been cut over the years, but mostly it's the focus on pumping money into the intelligence agencies while civilian science agencies are steadily defunded. That's why there is a large disparity in NASA's capabilities versus a spy agency like the NRO.

[Anonymous No.8878999]

>>8878782
NASA has gotten much more money than the NRO
If they waste 90% of what they get now, its not like more money would solve their problems.

They would just embark on more boondoggles like JWST

[Anonymous No.8879110]

>>8878999
What's your definition of "wasting" money?

[Anonymous No.8879135]

>>8869694

>Like anything government funded the point of the SLS is not to go anywhere.

The F-22, V-22 and F-35 all exist despite much longer development cycles and controversy. SLS will fly.

>>8869700

SLS Block II still has a larger payload, which is the only reason it's still being developed.

[Anonymous No.8879217]

>>8879135
Block II isn't even considered in their roadmap beyond 2030. There's never going to be a Block II.

Anyway, even if you disregard ITS, it would still be way cheaper and faster to upgrade Falcon Heavy to do SLS Block II payloads, with something like in-orbit propellant transfer. For instance, they could build a large Falcon Heavy upper stage based on their ITS work: Raptor-powered and more suitable for long orbital life and propellant transfer because of self-pressurizing propellants with similar boiling points.

[Anonymous No.8879250]

>>8879217

>There's never going to be a Block II.

There is though

[Anonymous No.8879274]

>>8879217
Well even if the ITS isn't going to happen, they would still produce an "ITS" with lots of raptor engines.

Maybe they would change the layout, maybe they would optimize around going to the moon first
Maybe they would drop the carbon composite design.

But they woudln't run a Mars colonization program with the Falcon Heavy, its not at all optimal for that, nor for upgrading the 2nd stage.

[Anonymous No.8879295]

>>8878266
>>8878999
The NRO wasted more money than JWST on the Future Imagery Architecture programme, which cancelled after huge delays and the budget exploding.

[Anonymous No.8879335]

>>8879295
They got 5 satellites from the FIA program so far

R&D does cost money, and sometimes you waste money.
Hard to say things like that about a program that is all classifed too

[Anonymous No.8879357]

>>8879250
The space shuttle was supposed to get:
- a hydrolox upper stage for GEO sats
- SRB upgrades for polar launches

It carried on for three decades without getting either. With NASA already making plans a decade and a half into the future for not having Block II, it's just not something they're serious about producing. They will spend development money on Block II, they won't actually build it.

>>8879274
>they woudln't run a Mars colonization program with the Falcon Heavy
It's rather absurd to take a Mars colonization program for granted.

Falcon Heavy is just about ready, and looks like it will be really good, with rapid booster reusability appearing after its first few flights due to commonality with Falcon 9, which has worked through most of the reusability development process first. Upgrading its upper stage to increase its performance by a small multiple will be much cheaper and faster than developing something like ITS.

FH/Dragon is a little undersized for manned exploration missions to Mars, but consider the case that they develop a large reusable upper stage with propellant transfer capabilities. Then consider if they build a manned vehicle based on that size and shape: a voluminous cylinder, rather than a cramped capsule, designed for EDL, but not launch escape. Now that's a plausible Mars transit/lander/hab. It could also land a small rocket on Mars, to depart to orbit.

Now you're looking at a three-Earth-departure Mars visit: an Earth-to-Mars crew vehicle, a Mars-to-orbit departure vehicle, and a Mars-to-Earth crew vehicle. That's an attractive possibility.

[Anonymous No.8879584]

>>8879357
Even if they were stuck with the Falcon Heavy, and making a new upper stage for it, they would still copy the ITS plan of refueling in orbit then launching the whole craft to propulsively land on Mars.

Rather than recreating the Apollo style of mission with all disposable hardware being ditched along the way.

[Anonymous No.8879652]

>>8879584
Falcon Heavy's not big enough for that. You get to a certain size beyond your basic, and you have to start constructing things in orbit rather than simply refuelling them there.

Anyway, it's not really "disposable hardware" when you land a hab on Mars to live in, or when you aerobrake one in Mars orbit and then bring it back to Earth. The only disposable hardware in this example is the rocket from the Mars surface and its lander, and those could be made reusable in local Mars space if you really cared to.

The initial exploration vehicles are likely to be smaller, cheaper, and less sophisticated than the colonization vehicles. SpaceX talks like it's skipping that step, but it's likely that they'll be delayed by lack of funds and the usual technical difficulties, and spend some years working with what they have: Falcon Heavy, its reusable lower stages, Dragon 2, and the freedom to incrementally improve the initially-expendable upper stage using mature Dragon tech and developing ITS tech.

[Anonymous No.8879670]

So why isn't the upper half reusable too?

[Anonymous No.8879722]

>>8879670
It made no sense to develop upper stage reusability before lower stage reusability, because it costs much more performance, requires more additional complexity, and saves much less hardware.

By recovering the lower stage, they recover 9 engines (or in the case of Falcon Heavy, 27), and it's largely done in software. The engine end was already able to stand up to the heat of re-entry, and the main engines could be used for landing. Only a little fine-tuning and some simple fins, legs, and cold-gas thrusters were needed. This reduced its performance by about a third and increased the cost by a small percentage.

The upper stage will need a special heat shield, orbital maneuvering thrusters, and landing engines. This will likely double or triple its cost and halve its performance.

[Anonymous No.8879735]

>>8879722
>The upper stage will need a special heat shield, orbital maneuvering thrusters, and landing engines. This will likely double or triple its cost and halve its performance.
So the Falcon 9 will probably never have a reusable upper stage?

[Anonymous No.8879755]

>>8879735
They're talking about starting to experiment with reusable upper stages from the first Falcon Heavy launch, this summer.

It would increase the construction cost, but if you reuse it enough there'd still be a launch cost saving.

Falcon 9 could have a reusable upper stage, but the payload would be low enough that it's not clear there'd be a market for its launches, so they're mostly looking at doing it on Falcon Heavy.

[Anonymous No.8879762]

give me 1.3 billion dollars and I can put 580 metric tons into orbit every year. step aside rocket boys