/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9409071]

Will it work? Or is it a big Musk scam?

[Anonymous No.9409075]

>>9409071
If something sounds too good to be true it usually isn't.

[Anonymous No.9409078]

>>9409075
It usually isn't too good to be true? What?

[Anonymous No.9409081]

>>9409071
Putting payloads into orbit at less than current costs per pound? PROBABLY Yes.
Colonizing Mars? Doubtful. At least, nowhere near as easy as his rosy scenarios.

[Anonymous No.9409084]

>>9409078
It doesn't work

[Anonymous No.9409086]

>>9409084
Ah I see.

[Anonymous No.9409088]

>>9409086
Not my fault you have poor reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.9409093]

It looks like a vibrator

[Anonymous No.9409100]

>>9409088
I had understood but was making fun of your syntax you brainlet.
>If something sounds too good to be true it usually isn't.
This sentence means
>If something sounds too good to be true it usually is not too good to be true.
It should be
>If something sounds too good to be true it usually is.
Thanks for making me spell this out to you.

[Anonymous No.9409101]

>>9409075
>>9409084
>being this much of a brainlet
This thing isn't actually new, something of it's size and launch capacity has been designed before

[Anonymous No.9409103]

>>9409071
"A big white dildo, how did this get here? Jesus! :D"

[Anonymous No.9409111]

>>9409103
It's not a dildo, it's the true form of Musk's dick

[Anonymous No.9409135]

If it was that easy to build such huge rocket it would have been done by now.

And it is actually not the rockets that are bottleneck in space exploration - but the payloads and the related technical and cost difficulties.

So while I wouldn't call it exactly a scam, its pretty close.

[Anonymous No.9409136]

>>9409071
It's not a scam because SpaceX is actually trying to build it and have already produced/tested some of it's components (engines, fuel tanks.etc) It could be a failure but Musk's got a good record of delivering so far; but on the other hand it will definitely be delayed (just like literally every other rocket ever created) and miss the aspirational dates Elon stated at IAC 2017.

[Anonymous No.9409139]

>>9409111
post pics amber

[Anonymous No.9409145]

>>9409135
>we cannot have inventions because if they worked they would have been done by now

[Anonymous No.9409150]

>>9409135
I think you underestimate the progress space tech has come since the 60s you cunt

[Anonymous No.9409272]

>>9409100
Actually he's right. Read it as "if something sounds too good to be true it usually isn't true".

[Anonymous No.9409280]

Dude just make a big rocket it'll surely work

[Anonymous No.9409289]

>>9409145
>>9409150
>responding to it
they've been shitposting furiously about everything ever since /sci/ came into existence

[Anonymous No.9409388]

>>9409272
Yes, the sentence is actually ambiguous and has both readings.

[Anonymous No.9409462]

>>9409388
Got to love the English language

[Anonymous No.9409467]

>>9409462
Are you suggesting ambiguous sentences only exist in English?

[Anonymous No.9409506]

>>9409467
Native english speakers usually don't know other languages exist.

[Anonymous No.9409710]

>>9409071
It will work, not as cheaply or efficiently as he says it will, but it will work. Elon musk has one real scam going right now and it's the hyper loop. The train he's having people dump money into that hole is to advance his boring company.

[Anonymous No.9409725]

>>9409506
IMAGINE not knowing at least 3 languages, the true mark of a brainlet

[Anonymous No.9409729]

>>9409136
They have same levels of produ tion, yes, that doesn't mean it's not a scam. Your comment implies that you think it's only a scam if they are only pocketing money and lying. A good scam isn't thatt obvious .

[Anonymous No.9409738]

>>9409272
But that's not what he said. He left the sentence unfinished leaving us to assume wether he meant that it was too good to be true or that it was true.

[Anonymous No.9409741]

>>9409071
It is a very big dildo

[Anonymous No.9410616]

>>9409738
It still works as a sentence

[Anonymous No.9410746]

>>9409280
The N1 could have worked if it had gotten more development. The main problem was just the sheer complexity of lighting 30 engines simultaneously, which is something modern computers make a whole lot easier.

If they can get Falcon Heavy with it's 27 engines working, then I don't see any reason BFR won't fly. The real question is whether it can meet it's cost/re-usability goals.

[Anonymous No.9411156]

Musk is really good at selling bullshit to naive and overly optimistic retards.

[Anonymous No.9411244]

>>9409071
I dropped my magnum condom

[Anonymous No.9412074]

>>9411156
>musk says he will do thing
>/sci/ brainlets shitpost furiously about how it's impossible
>he succeeds
>/sci/ brainlets pretend it never happened
>musk says he will do another thing
>/sci/ brainlets shitpost furiously about how it's impossible
like clockwork

[Anonymous No.9412104]

>>9412074
What have people said is impossible that he has succeeded with?

[Anonymous No.9412123]

>>9409272
If you leave a sentence unfinished you would assume that its reflecting on something said earlier in the sentence. If we can finish the sentence however we like what stops me from interpreting it as "if something sounds too good to be true it usually isn't a flying elephant."

[Anonymous No.9412134]

>>9412104

He's succeeded in fooling the public.

[Anonymous No.9412138]

>>9412134

How? He's delivered on a fair amount of his promises and will likely produce multiple profitable ventures. Some of his businesses won't work, he doesn't pretend to be a riskless investment.

[Anonymous No.9412142]

>>9412134
What is this supposed to show?

[Anonymous No.9412143]

>>9412134
It is always cool watching for the ice formations.

[Anonymous No.9412148]

>>9412138
>>9412142
do not respond with flat earth posters

[Anonymous No.9412178]

>>9412138

SpaceX has an 'X' in its name for a reason. Ain't no one going there.

>>9412142

Watch the "ice" closely, it's actually an animation of someone jumping/diving off.

[Anonymous No.9412189]

>>9412143

[Anonymous No.9412198]

>>9412178
> it's actually an animation of someone jumping/diving off.

I'm getting baited so hard here, but what is that supposed to prove? I'm really not following you here.

[Anonymous No.9412241]

>>9410616
No it doesn't really, it faoils to communicate the thoughts of the writer to to the reader, so it does not "work as a sentence"

[Anonymous No.9412998]

>>9409101
>Sea Dragon is just like BFR

lol

Sea Dragon was the concept of a 'Big Dumb Booster' taken to the extreme. It was going to be made of sheet steel, its only moving parts would be a set of valves, and it would use highly pressurized nitrogen to blow liquid fuels into the combustion chambers of both the first and second stage engines. It would be cheap per kilogram of payload but cost over 500 million dollars to launch every time.
BFR on the other hand is going to use highly advanced staged combustion engines, will have hundreds of thousands of moving parts, will be made of carbon composites, it will be rapidly reusable due to its recovery system, and it will be cheap per launch as well as per kilogram payload.
Sea Dragon could only get as far as low Earth orbit, it's just a launch vehicle.
BFR can launch payloads to LEO or any Earth orbit in the single-launch cargo configuration, and payloads to the Moon or Mars with on-orbit refueling. It can also come back from these places and be reused. Only going to Mars requires ISRU since the spaceship can carry enough fuel to the Moon to come back to Earth.

Sea Dragon got as far as a few much smaller proof-of-concept rocket stages that tested submerged engine firing, as well as the basic design elements. We don't know however if such huge engine bells as the full sized Sea Dragon would require are even possible, even the F-1 engines on the Saturn V were tearing themselves apart for a while until people got that figured out.
BFR's proof-of-concept prototype is essentially the Falcon 9, which has developed stage recovery and related technologies already. BFR's engines are already far into development, as are all the other technologies it will use.

If payload mass were the only aspect to rockets then there'd be no difference between the space shuttle and a Falcon 9.

[Anonymous No.9413007]

>>9409135
>And it is actually not the rockets that are bottleneck in space exploration - but the payloads and the related technical and cost difficulties.

Payloads are literally only expensive because the companies building payloads are constrained by current launch vehicle capability and cost.

A company builds a $500 million dollar satellite because that's what it takes to build a satellite that will last for 15 years in space and weighs less than 5000 kg. Any heavier and current launch vehicles can't put it into the correct orbit, but any less than 15 years and the money they spend on launching payloads would go through the roof.

With BFR that changes. Now, they can build 50 ton satellites and buy a flight to geostationary orbit for $10 million. Not only does the difficulty in designing and building the payload drop dramatically due to the much more relaxed weight restrictions, it also drops because the company can afford to launch a satellite every 3 or 4 years and the spacecraft doesn't need to be as ultra reliable/long lived anymore. The effect of cheap launch vehicles is both a reduction in the cost of business for companies building payloads, as well as an increase in flight rate

[Anonymous No.9413010]

>>9409710

To be fair the Boring company is potentially a cash cow if governments all over the world are creaming themselves to establish underground hyperloop transport. Doing hyperloop above ground with all those thermal cycles and vulnerability to punctures is much harder form a technical standpoint than building a hyperloop tube a few dozen meters underground, where there are no thermal cycles to worry about and even if a hole was punched in the tube somehow it wouldn't lead to catastrophic failure.

[Anonymous No.9413012]

>>9412178
>Watch the "ice" closely, it's actually an animation of someone jumping/diving off.

It literally is not, you're overusing the pattern recognition bit of your brain dude

[Anonymous No.9413014]

>>9412189
Piece of sooty ice breaking off of the bottom of the stage?

[Anonymous No.9413030]

>>9413010
hyperloop is a fucking meme, boring company is not going to get anywhere.
no democrat run city is going to give them contracts, they want people to high ball bids, not try to underbid
construction projects are immense money making scams

Same as any other large bureaucrat filled industry.

Still, just watching any construction equipment work leaves you with a big impression that LOTS could be optimized, and ofc automating things so it works over night more than doubles your output.

[Anonymous No.9413074]

>>9413030
>boring company is not going to get anywhere

I don't see why not, their biggest goal is just to speed up tunneling, because if they can tunnel ten times faster with the same operating cost per hour they still blow the competition away. Of course most of that improvement comes from going for a smaller tunnel diameter, but lots of things can fit into a smaller tunnel, subways for example.

Idk, the Boring company is clearly not as big a deal as SpaceX, which is really the only Musk thing I care about other than Tesla, and I really only like Telsa because of the batteries. The cars are cool too tho.

[Anonymous No.9413099]

>>9413074
Sure but if you go to some government contract bidding, and bid half the price of your competitors, the government will just ignore you

Sure they can "prove" their stuff works, that its all practical, I dnno, it'll be slow going for them.

In the end the only point of this is that they will need to mine on mars, so they want their own automated equipment.

[Anonymous No.9413245]

>>9413014
yea

[Anonymous No.9413248]

>>9412998
commie fag. sea dragon is bad ass rocket. take your hate elsewhere

[Anonymous No.9413477]

>>9413099
>Sure but if you go to some government contract bidding, and bid half the price of your competitors, the government will just ignore you

So bid the same price but say it'll get done ten times faster and they can make a network three times bigger, too.

[Anonymous No.9413486]

>>9413007

So we'll be filling space with cheap junk.

Great.

[Anonymous No.9413502]

>>9413099
>bid half the price of your competitors, the government will just ignore you
How is that not illegal? Is the US even more corrupt than I think?

[Anonymous No.9413506]

so how much will i cost in the end

[Anonymous No.9413757]

>>9413486
>muh space pollution

fuck off kessler syndrome isn't real

[Anonymous No.9413762]

>>9413506

that doesn't even matter

[Anonymous No.9413775]

>>9413757

Space pollution is very, very real, and in no way more acceptable than any other kind of pollution we are all familiar with.

And in light of the latest talks about putting people back on the Moon or even Mars, I think it's very important to think about environmental protection of the environments beyond the Earth.

We won't have a second chance to do things right, so lets do our best, okay?

[Anonymous No.9413805]

>>9413775
>Space pollution is very, very real

You have tested this yourself?

[Anonymous No.9413820]

>>9412998
>Sea Dragon was the concept of a 'Big Dumb Booster' taken to the extreme. It was going to be made of sheet steel
The wikipedia article says this, but turns out to be wrong, if you read the original documents. The main tanks/body were going to be built of aluminum.
http://neverworld.net/truax/Sea_Dragon_Concept_Volume_1.pdf
page 84
>the tank materials were assumed to be 1024-T6 aluminum for conservatism and all weights are for this material
The 1*** series of aluminum alloys are essentially pure aluminum, with under 1% of other metals. I don't know the exact specifications "1024-T6" mean, but it's safe to assume that this is cheap stuff. Aluminum is the main structural material, with stainless steel used for the engines and some structural parts where aluminum would be unsuitable.

>its only moving parts would be a set of valves
You're thinking of OTRAG, the cluster rocket which would have used differential throttling. Sea Dragon would have had conventional gimballed engines for thrust vectoring: the first stage main engine would be gimballed (using open-loop hydraulics fed by the kerosene tank - it would be dumping oil every time it changed orientation, about 20 tons per launch), while the upper stage would have four gimballed vernier engines (electrically actuated) which would fire for the whole flight (providing roll-control to the lower stage), and a fixed-position main engine (which would have simplified the task of deploying its collapsible nozzle extension).

>it would use highly pressurized nitrogen to blow liquid fuels into the combustion chambers
Not quite. Again, this seems confused with OTRAG, which simply left the top third of each tank for high-pressure nitrogen. Sea Dragon would have pressurized the kerosene tank from methane tanks. The vernier engines would have used pressurized oxygen tanks. The main H2/O2 tanks would boil their own contents.

The distinctive features of Sea Dragon are sheer size, pressure-feeding, and sea launch.

[Anonymous No.9413824]

>>9413775

BFR is cheap enough that companies can pay for a flight that goes out and picks up dead satellites for return to Earth without much financial impact.

In fact I could see a government sponsored program for BFR that would have it go up to the dozens of already dead satellites in orbit and start bringing them down.

[Anonymous No.9413833]

Big musk sounds like a derogatory term for the the beauty/hygiene corporation monolith

[Anonymous No.9413836]

>>9413824
why bring them down
put a space station up and bring dead sats to that station to be recycled for materials

[Anonymous No.9413845]

>>9413833
lol

[Anonymous No.9413849]

>>9413477
They'll call you a quack, until you do it, and then you will discover the real reason digging in cities costs money(ass loads of regulation & government oversight)

[Anonymous No.9413865]

>>9413836
A near-GEO janitor station for that purpose would be interesting.

With its low cost, an expendable BFS makes a pretty attractive space station. That's one of the things that makes BFR plausible to me. They can even fly an expendable, near-empty BFS to LEO without the BFB, as an SSTO. Near-empty is good enough to be a station, which astronauts can visit in Dragon.

[Anonymous No.9413885]

>>9413836
what materials...
there isn't anything worth recycling in these old sat's
They are max like 2 tons of material.

[Anonymous No.9413893]

>>9413885
the materials would be that 2 tons of material you just said
It's important that they are gotten rid of to clean up space junk, why not just scoop up a bunch and make them useful instead of burning them up in the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.9413902]

>>9413885
If it's cheap enough to do, the materials they use in them tend to be fairly valuable. Lots of stuff like gold and beryllium, because any material costs were trifling compared to the expense of launch.

Anyway, they can be studied for the effects of their time in space on their materials and mechanisms, and put in museums. At the same time, by being captured, they're removed as hazards and prevented from breaking up into tons of shrapnel whizzing around at km/s speeds that make bullets look sluggish.

[Anonymous No.9413913]

>>9413893
>>9413902
Gonna be a long time before it makes any such economic sense to do it
unless the government subsidizes it

[Anonymous No.9413923]

>>9413913
If we can put up 150 tons per launch, we'll be able to make massive industrial stations for dirt cheap prices, the ISS in it's entirety is only about 200 tons
once you have space based construction, spacecraft become cheap and easy to build, making space vacuum cleaners viable for cleaning up junk

[Anonymous No.9413926]

>>9409071
I got a boner

[Anonymous No.9413938]

>>9413913
Economics are going to change rapidly if BFR works as claimed, and there are synergies to consider. The old-GEO-sat junking station could also be a station for constructing, deploying, testing, modifying, and maintaining new GEO sats (which might be updated every year), and the process of capturing the old ones could be used to develop and demonstrate methods of capturing malfunctioning satellites which are more suited to maintenance and upgrades.

Governments would likely pay to have their old GEO sats removed, since they want to project an image of being responsible and considerate members of the global community.

The data from studying materials that have spent lots of time in deep space could also be very valuable.

[Anonymous No.9413977]

>>9413923
>the ISS in it's entirety is only about 200 tons
460 tons (420 tonnes). But its construction is primitive and it uses mass inefficiently.

Two BFSes together, each fitted with a pressurized cabin (like the passenger version) would have the same pressurized volume as the ISS, and with its 5 meter diameter, also be able to have much more spacious rooms. That's before you put any payload in it, and they could launch with substantial payloads. Cost of a pressurized ITS spaceship (the earlier, larger, presumably more expensive version of BFR) was estimated around $200 million, with the cost of launching it being negligible by comparison.

I think an excellent station concept is a pressurized BFS which launches loaded with (among other things) the materials for a tether and counterweight system, so it can be set up with artificial partial gravity, and test the effects on the human body of living under Martian or lunar gravity.

[Anonymous No.9414101]

>>9409101
>seadragonfag

[Anonymous No.9414105]

>>9414101
>virgin prometheus-b

[Anonymous No.9414120]

>>9414105
>I want to deafen a continent and destroy a city with earthquakes every launch

[Anonymous No.9414140]

>>9414120
>Implying you dont stuff every single human on earth in the rocket

[Anonymous No.9414148]

>>9414140
>wanting the dregs of humanity with you
I didn't say it was a bad thing friendo

[Anonymous No.9414163]

>>9414101
>>9414105
Come on now. Why are you posting some idiot child drawings from Reddit?

[Anonymous No.9414166]

>>9413805
That's the nose cone of the Dragon spacecraft, it is jettisoned once the vehicle reaches a certain altitude.

[Anonymous No.9414180]

>>9414163
>REEEEE NO FUN ALLOWED
>EVERYTHING I DON'T LIKE IS REDDIT

[Anonymous No.9414183]

>>9413977
>5 meter diameter

BFS is 9 meters in diameter

[Anonymous No.9414184]

>>9413502
There's no way to control it. Engineers and science-thinkers always get furious over this kind of thing, but show me a process that can actually combat systemic cronyism, which is as old as human history.

[Anonymous No.9414187]

>>9414163

Technically they're drawings of rockets someone's built in Ksp realism overhaul.

[Anonymous No.9414201]

>>9414180
It is Reddit. That's where it comes from. That's the only place you find it if you search for it.

>REEEEE NO FUN ALLOWED
You post extremely obscure garbage, which contains text suggesting it was a real concept, in the middle of a discussion about real rockets, with no explanation that it's just someone's stupid fantasy. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.9414224]

>>9414166

I know what it's supposed to be, it's just it's fake as fuck. It's far too small and its trajectory away from the rocket doesn't make any sense when you look at the direction the (2D graphic) rocket nozzle is facing.

[Anonymous No.9414227]

>>9414183
Good point, my mistake.

I get a little mixed up sometimes, because I suspect they're going to make a 5-meter single-Raptor mini-BFS that launches first on Falcon Heavy, and later on a mini-BFB. It would be much easier and faster than the full BFR, useful as an incremental development step toward the full BFR, and would enable a near-term moon program (if fully-refuelled in LEO, it could carry a Dragon 2 all the way to the moon surface and launch it on a return course to Earth, or carry a whole B330 station, for example, one-way).

[Anonymous No.9414239]

>>9414227
>because I suspect they're going to make a 5-meter single-Raptor mini-BFS that launches first on Falcon Heavy
Highly doubtful, rockets aren't lego and the Falcon is about as big as it gets for that diameter, you can't just mount an upper stage twice the size on top.

[Anonymous No.9414251]

Hide flat earth threads
Ignore flat earth posts
Do not reply to flat earth posters

[Anonymous No.9414258]

>>9414251
report them too, so they can fuck off and stay fucked off

[Anonymous No.9414270]

>>9414258
I would if I knew what rule they are breaking

[Anonymous No.9414286]

>>9414239
>you can't just mount an upper stage twice the size on top.
...yet somehow they mount a 5-meter fairing.

SpaceX committed to offering the US government the option of building a Raptor-powered upper stage for Falcon Heavy when they took the DOD money for Raptor development. They've almost certainly designed for the possibility of putting a 5-meter upper stage on top of it. The BFR Raptor thrust numbers they've put out fit it neatly, and the large ch4/o2 thrusters they've been developing for BFR are functionally similar to SuperDraco and would serve as landing thrusters for a reusable 5-meter stage.

Anyway, even without reusability, due to being the same size as the fairing, it could fly purely as a payload, and be fuelled in orbit by a sister spacecraft which also flies as a payload, bringing up ~30 tonnes of propellant per conventional, reusable-booster FH launch, taking 6 or 7 launches to be fully fuelled for a moon landing, or 3 launches of the expendable FH. Using this method, I estimate they could do 4 moon landings per year with a $2 billion/year program.

[Anonymous No.9414290]

>>9414251
>>9414258

Not very scientific is it? What are you so scared of?

[Anonymous No.9414292]

>>9414270
Flat earth shit doesn't belong in /sci/. It goes in /b/ or /x/.

[Anonymous No.9414302]

9414290
>fear is the only reason one could not like several years worth of daily spamming and shitposting
no amount of evidence makes you leave, since your purpose here is just to smear shit on the walls 24/7, not discuss science

[Anonymous No.9414313]

>>9414292
>computer science jobs
> >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9414316]

>>9414302
>daily spamming and shitposting

What are you doing on 4chan?

>not discuss science

Ah, but I contend it is you that doesn't want to discuss science.

[Anonymous No.9414317]

>>9414290
>>>/global/rules/6/
>>>/global/rules/2/
Do I need to say more?

[Anonymous No.9414319]

>>9414286
"Options" just mean paper presentations, and they continue testing the subscale raptor that they always intended to
Unless someone starts throwing money at them, they are not going to be doing any extra work on the Falcon system.

[Anonymous No.9414324]

>>9414317

>Do I need to say more?

Absolutely. And you are also currently violating those rules with your posts.

[Anonymous No.9414330]

>>9414317
Global Rule 3 is the relevant one: trolls and off-topic replies.

Flat Earth debunking threads are arguably relevant on /sci/, but bringing up flat Earth theory in other space-related threads is certainly a violation of Global Rule 3, especially being a persistent pest with it when it's clearly unwanted.

If you want to talk about theories of spaceflight being a hoax, make your own thread for it, only one at a time, and if you find that nobody wants to come talk to you about it there, you just have to live with it. And be aware you may still get a ban for posting /x/ stuff on /sci/, or for trolling.

[Anonymous No.9414351]

>>9414330

No one has brought flat earth up until people started throwing tantrums about it. If people wish to question the validity of space flight and there's scientific evidence to do so, then what's the problem?

[Anonymous No.9414363]

>>9414351
>there's scientific evidence
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.9414368]

>>9414319
>they are not going to be doing any extra work on the Falcon system
The 5-meter mini-BFS wouldn't be limited to use on the Falcon, and in any case is the most sensible way to begin orbital development flights for BFR. It would use most of the same systems and require only a single Raptor to be built per orbital test flight. With its smaller size, it could likely be built in their current factory (the cost of transporting a 9m stage through LA to the docks was determined to be prohibitive, due to having to take down streetlights and such, but with a 5m stage, it might be far more affordable, allowing them to proceed without waiting on the construction of any new facilities).

A reusable 5-meter mini-BFS on a BFS-based mini-BFB could launch from the same pads as the full-size BFS, or from a more affordable lighter facility, and would make sense as a permanent offering for when customers don't need the full 150 ton payload of BFR.

>Unless someone starts throwing money at them
It's probably the fastest, most affordable way to put American astronauts on the moon again. I suspect they're only holding off on announcing that they're doing it themselves, because they want the US government to pay them a billion dollars or two to cover the development costs.

[Anonymous No.9414374]

>>9414363

Rockets cannot work in a vacuum. Gases equilibrate with it in all directions, it cannot provide any push.

[Anonymous No.9414380]

>>9414351
>If people wish to question the validity of space flight and there's scientific evidence to do so, then what's the problem?
1) It's off-topic for the thread, for every thread on /sci/ that's not about it specifically, and therefore a violation of global rule 3. As I've said before, if you want to talk about it, make a thread about it specifically, and enjoy being ignored by everyone and possibly still deleted and banned because...
2) It lies outside the bounds of honest, rational scientific discussion. It's off-topic for /sci/ in the same way that psychic powers are. There's a place here on 4chan to discuss such things, and it's /x/, not /sci/. Possibly /pol/ if you want to focus on the political aspects of the claimed massive deception.

[Anonymous No.9414392]

>>9414374
the only direction gases can go in a rocket is out a single direction
this produces a thing called Thrust, and it is what pushes the rocket forward
now stop shitposting and fuck off

[Anonymous No.9414411]

>>9414380

I'd argue it's very on topic.

I'd also argue that space travel is outside the bounds of honest and rational scientific discussion, your post being evidence of this.

>>9414392

Gases cannot produce thrust unless the gases themselves have something to push against. Gas from a rocket in a vacuum will not push against the rocket, it would equilibrate in all directions. Is that science or not?

[Anonymous No.9414416]

>>9414411
they don't push against anything. the thrust produced is described in newton's 2nd and 3rd law, it's simply a force opposite the one produced by expelling gas

[Anonymous No.9414428]

>>9414416

Newton's laws proves that gas powered rockets in a vacuum cannot work.

There needs to be an equal and opposite reaction taking place. If the gases are not pushing on anything, then neither can it provide the opposite force to push the rocket "up".

Just because something is moving, doesn't mean it's pushing.

[Anonymous No.9414430]

>>9414428
The gas pushes on the gas

[Anonymous No.9414448]

>>9414428
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

[Anonymous No.9414450]

Friendly reminder, the Zuma Launch thread is up

>>9414430
Stop replying dude, it’s for the best

[Anonymous No.9414456]

>>9414430

That's where the mental gymnastics have to take you. How can the gases push on each other to provide thrust in one direction, while also in a vacuum?

Do you know what happens to gases in a vacuum?

[Anonymous No.9414491]

>>9413012
I think the point is that it looks funny and not that it is an actual person.

[Anonymous No.9414514]

>>9414456
Go away Russian Web Brigade.

[Anonymous No.9414522]

>>9414491

Whatever the fuck it is, it just doesn't look right.

>>9414514

Now who's violating the rules? Can you debunk the science or not?

[Anonymous No.9414525]

>>9414522
>Can you debunk the science or not?
see: Newton's First Law

[Anonymous No.9414534]

>>9414525

Can you explain how that law applies to rockets in a vacuum? I understand they could move through the vacuum based on the launch from earth, but what can they do after that?

[Anonymous No.9414575]

>>9414534

Anyone?

[Anonymous No.9414581]

does anyone know if BO is working on something bigger than New Glenn?

They must have plans going forward.

[Anonymous No.9414583]

>>9414581
they don't even have plans now
they've been ass dragging for years, and have yet to make anything

[Anonymous No.9414599]

>>9414583
to be fair, they only finished building their factory two months ago. Sort of hard to do anything when you don't have the facilities to build them in the first place

[Anonymous No.9414616]

>>9414575
is there a vacuum in the rocket?

[Anonymous No.9414626]

>>9414581
It's called "New Armstrong". Still strictly on the drawing board. Presumably comparable to BFR/ITS, being even larger than New Glenn, fully reusable, and designed primarily for the mission of colonizing the moon.

Possibly, New Armstrong isn't a fully separate vehicle from New Glenn, but a Earth-moon shuttle system. There have been suggestions of a reusable upper stage for New Glenn.

New Shepard, a suborbital vehicle, is named after the first American in space, New Glenn (orbital) after the first American in orbit, New Armstrong the first on the moon, so it seems near certain that New Armstrong is intended to be capable of transporting men to the moon.

[Anonymous No.9414632]

>>9414626
hopefully they ensure it's 100% reusable, or they're going to get BTFO by SpaceX on costs and make their efforts pointless

[Anonymous No.9414677]

>>9414616

Thrust does not happen inside the rocket, it happens where the gas meets the air, outside of the rocket. But if your outside is a vacuum, you can say bye bye to any thrust.

[Anonymous No.9414679]

>>9414632
Well, especially after SpaceX has done it, everyone will be racing to copy them, and should be able to steal a lot of their experience and development effort one way or another. Just the concepts SpaceX has revealed so far are a huge advantage to other people wanting to build a fully reusable launch system.

[Anonymous No.9414713]

>>9414677
It's Newton's 3rd law: when you push against something, it pushes back equally against you. Imagine two people, hands against each other. They push each other away. In space, they'd both go flying in opposite directions. If one was much heavier than the other, the light person would be pushed away quickly, and the heavy person would be pushed away more slowly, because equal but opposite forces would act on each, and the more massive person would be accelerated less. It's the same whether one person is doing all the pushing, or both are pushing equally, and it doesn't matter who does it: there's always an equal and opposite force applied to each.

Imagine the smaller person is something smaller and smaller: a baby, a ball, a grain of sand, a molecule. The acceleration of the larger person is less and less, but never zero. So even throwing molecules will accelerate you in the opposite direction to how you're throwing them. At the opposite extreme, even jumping off of the ground, you're accelerating the Earth in the opposite direction a little initially (then you pull it back with gravity as you fall back).

Now imagine that you release particles from a point at the focus of an infinite parabolic dish. No matter what direction they start out going (except for on one perfect line), they will eventually hit the dish and be reflected in the same direction. A rocket engine isn't so perfect, but it does a pretty good job of getting particles going fast (making them hot by combustion) and getting to go mostly in the same direction that the nozzle's pointed, at up to 4.7 km/s.

A rocket in a vacuum is just the same as pushing a partner away from you, or jumping while standing on a planet: you go one way, the thing you're throwing goes the other way.

Now that you've had your lesson in basic physics, go away you idiot, and in the future ask questions humbly instead of going around insisting that physics doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.9414737]

>>9414534
Stuff in the rocket leaves the rocket. When this happens it must be pushed by everything else behind it in the rocket due to higher pressure inside than outside.

[Anonymous No.9414741]

>>9414677
Funny thing about rockets. They are more efficient in space because of the vacuum. The pressure difference between inside and outside a much greater.

[Anonymous No.9414750]

>>9414679
not really
Nothing SpaceX has done is truly revolutionary

[Anonymous No.9414777]

>>9414713

All of your examples use two solid objects applying force to each other.

We're talking about gas, and a solid object, in a vacuum. How do gases behave in a vacuum?

Also, it's not the rocket itself pushing the gas out, the gas creates its own pressure and finds the path of least resistance. The air offers enough resistance to produce thrust, but a vacuum offers no such thing, completely the opposite in fact.

>>9414737
>>9414741

The pressure difference is what stops it from working. The same type of positive pressure inside and outside of a rocket is required for it to work. Positive pressures can repel each other (to produce thrust), but positive and negative pressures (vacuum) will attract each other, much like the fundamental behaviour of magnets.

[Anonymous No.9414780]

>>9414741
>>9414737
Why are you still responding to that guy?

[Anonymous No.9414796]

>>9414780

>>>/global/rules/6/

[Anonymous No.9414801]

>>9414777
>The pressure difference is what stops it from working.

[Anonymous No.9414804]

>>9414801

Please explain why that is such a shocking thing for you.

[Anonymous No.9415365]

>>9414224
could you be a little more ignorant of perspective please, you're noooot quite stupid enough

[Anonymous No.9415368]

>>9414286
it's not gonna happen buddy

[Anonymous No.9415371]

>>9414411
>Is that science or not?
It isn't because you're ignorign the mechanism that makes the gasses go into equilibrium.
Each gas particle is moving quickly. In order to move away from the rocket they must first bounce off the rocket. It's this bounce that produces thrust.

[Anonymous No.9415381]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dVGQlhpA0Y
TUUUUUUUUUBES

[Anonymous No.9415394]

>>9414777
You realize that you can just put a rocket in a vacuum chamber, right?

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

[Anonymous No.9415656]

>>9415394
other guy btfo

[Anonymous No.9415700]

Rockets of this size are no child's play like spacex's current vehicles. Two attempts were made in the history of humanity and both were quickly buried. The "successful" because the costs involved were astronomical, and the other because of the engineering difficulties that had to be faced proved to be near unbeatable.

So you have to be quite ignorant on the topic to take Elon Musk's words and promises at face value.
xx24 we might have infrastructure capable to maintaining Martian and other colonies, 2124 that is.

[Anonymous No.9415736]

>>9409071
Space X has delivered on everything it's set it's sights to. They might fuck some things up but it's far from a "scam". It's not any more of a scam than NASA itself.

[Anonymous No.9415798]

>>9415700
>Two attempts were made in the history of humanity and both were quickly buried.
Rather, a rocket on this scale was working fine a mere decade after the first object was ever put in orbit.

Rockets want to be big. They get easier in most ways as you make them bigger: the materials become thicker and more tolerant of flaws, you can put more layers of surface treatments on things, air resistance becomes a smaller and smaller issue, etc.

>The "successful" because the costs involved were astronomical,
On a per-kg rate once the development cost had been spent, they were quite reasonable. It was the Saturn V payloads that were terribly expensive, and Congress was quite worried that continuing Saturn V would lead down a slippery slope to paying for a Mars exploration program even more costly than the Apollo program.

America made an even more expensive vehicle, that was comparable in size (2000t on the pad, to Saturn V's 3000t), and flew it over a hundred times: the shuttle.

>and the other because of the engineering difficulties that had to be faced proved to be near unbeatable.
Or how about because it was the Soviet Union's moon rocket, and America had already beaten them to the moon by years? The N1 was making good progress (it was being developed on the cheap with a test-by-flying philosophy, so repeated failures were to be expected), but the Soviets couldn't throw resources at a project like the Americans could, because communism causes poverty.

[Anonymous No.9416079]

>>9415700
why do people not have any comprehension of time
we were making the very first aircraft a century ago, and have made it to this level
these things do not take entire lifetimes to do anymore

[Anonymous No.9416096]

>>9415394

You do realise that space isn't a chamber, right? The gas is able to build up pressure against the solid walls of that chamber. This is basic stuff.

[Anonymous No.9416210]

>>9415798
this

[Anonymous No.9416215]

>>9416096
downvoted

[Anonymous No.9416219]

Guys I have a question and I couldn't find answer for it.

So Elon says going to Mars is easy every 2 years. He means Mars and Earth is close every 2 years.

What about Saturn's moon Titan? How would it be going there? How many years Earth and Titan gets close?

Thanks.

[Anonymous No.9416222]

>>9416219
Bump. Please someone answer I want to know.

[Anonymous No.9416262]

>>9416222
almost every planet has a synodic period of close to 1 year (except venus at 1.6 and mars at 2)

[Anonymous No.9416266]

>>9416262
oh i forgot about mercury at ~100 days

[Anonymous No.9416275]

>>9409071
Looks too back heavy

[Anonymous No.9416426]

>>9416219
>He means Mars and Earth is close every 2 years.
no it means that the trajectory is optimal for transfers

[Anonymous No.9416479]

>>9416219
>>9416426
To be specific, it means that Earth and Mars are in a relative position such that, by the time you get to Mars, it will be at roughly the farthest position from where Earth was when you launched from it, because the simplest transition from one circular orbit to another is half an elliptical orbit. While this exact transfer (the Hohmann transfer orbit) isn't preferred for manned missions (because they're a bit slow), the preferred ones are relatively minor variations on it.

Saturn takes so long to go around the sun that a good direct launch window comes up pretty much every year. The Mars ones are less frequent because Mars and Earth are going around the sun in the same direction at comparable periods.

The Martian year is 1.88 Earth years. That's its orbital period, the time it takes to come back to the same absolute angular position around the sun. Now we need the concept of a synodic period: the length of time it takes for two objects in circular orbits to come to the same relative positions (how long it takes Earth to lap Mars):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period#Synodic_period

To calculate the synodic period Ps, you take the faster orbital period P1, and the slower orbital period P2, and use:
1/Ps = 1/P1 - 1/P2
1/Ps = 1/(1 Earth year) - 1/(1.88 Earth years) = 0.468 Earth years^-1
Ps = 2.136 Earth years

And this synodic period is how often the same launch window between Earth and Mars repeats.

Saturn's orbital period is roughly 30 Earth years (29.46), so the synodic period with Earth is: 1.035 years. Basically every year, the same direct transfer window.

However, Saturn probe trajectories often rely on slingshot maneuvers to reduce delta-v requirement or complete the mission faster, flying by Mars, Jupiter, or other planets. Windows for these may be much more scarce. There are also options to consider like low, continuous thrust electric propulsion, which change the game completely. So it gets very complicated.

[Anonymous No.9416697]

>>9416262
>>9416266
this is accurate

[Anonymous No.9416712]

>>9414368

BFR/BFS will allow SpaceX to hit pricepoints where lunar tourism becomes viable. Falcon Heavy is mostly still too expensive for private human spaceflight.

They want to spend their limited capital on jumping ahead to their next gen fully reusable launch system ASAP that can hit super low pricepoints, and is its own lunar/mars lander/spaceship.

Some guy was going to spend 150 million to ride the Soyuz around the moon. He blew 7 million of that getting ripped off and he'll get to use some portion of the rest to actually walk on the moon with SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.9416759]

>>9416712
>They want to spend their limited capital on jumping ahead to their next gen fully reusable launch system ASAP
The subscale FH upper stage makes sense as a step in developing the full-scale BFR, though. It gets them testing the technology in orbit sooner.

When they built Raptor, did they go directly to the size they wanted, or did they build a subscale model that they could test on the equipment they had?

With the 5-meter mini-BFS, they can build it as soon as they can afford one Raptor. In fact, they can build it even when they don't have a single Raptor to fly, and launch it as a payload, to test the materials, long-term propellant storage in space, try the thrusters out, etc. Then they can launch a second (with or without a Raptor) to test the orbital propellant transfer. They can even launch two stubby ones at once, stacked on top of each other, to separate and dock and do the prop transfer tests. Or they can have it built with recovery hardware and bring it in for a landing, test their upper stage reusability plans.

There's so much stuff they can learn with a 5-meter mini-BFS that it's probably cheaper to build it than to try and build BFR without it.

[Anonymous No.9416808]

>>9416759
what is the point of testing these things on hardware that doesn't look anything like what it will on the BFS?
This takes money, it takes time, it takes manpower, it takes tons of design work, etc

[Anonymous No.9416830]

>>9416808
But the hardware would look very much like it would on BFS.

The one big difference is if they do recovery testing, they'll have to use landing thrusters or a parachute splashdown, or just let it crash, rather than landing on Raptor power, otherwise it would just be a matter of scale: smaller diameter and shorter body, smaller wings/fins and legs if they do re-entry, fewer Raptors, etc.

It costs money and takes time to build and test full-scale BFR stages. They'll probably learn things in the process that they could learn with a subscale version sooner and at lower cost.

[Anonymous No.9416849]

>>9416830
You are talking about something that is more like a proof of concept. When they clearly don't need that at all, they don't need to prove that you can do fluid transfers in space, obviously you can do it. They don't need to prove you can store propellant. Those sorts of things are easily modelled/tested on Earth.

A subscale Raptor Upper stage would physically look nothing like the BFR, and cost them hundreds of millions to develop/launch, for little practical gain.

[Anonymous No.9416871]

>>9416849
>A subscale Raptor Upper stage would physically look nothing like the BFR
You keep saying that, and you don't make any argument for it. I make an argument against it, and you just repeat your assertion.

What differences do you mean specifically when you say it "would physically look nothing like the BFR", and why do you think SpaceX would not be able to do those things in the way they would on the BFR? I don't think you're going to answer, because you don't understand this stuff well enough to be able to make an argument, you're just taking a position so you can feel like someone might believe you know what you're talking about.

Like this shit:
>they don't need to prove that you can do fluid transfers in space, obviously you can do it. They don't need to prove you can store propellant. Those sorts of things are easily modelled/tested on Earth.
These things are not that easy. When they do them for the first time, they are going to be tense moments, and they might get nasty surprises. The cheaper and sooner they have that first try, the less it costs them when it needs to be fixed.

[Anonymous No.9416912]

>>9416871
Where has SpaceX EVER talked about this Raptor powered upper stage ? Or making a bigger upper stage for the Falcon 9 ?

>These things are not that easy.
Of course its that easy, if it wasn't then engines couldn't work in zero g.

The thing we will see is a proper sized suborbital test vehicle.

[Anonymous No.9416942]

>>9416912
...and of course, there's no answer to the question, no support for your repeated assertion.

>Where has SpaceX EVER talked about this Raptor powered upper stage?
SpaceX took over $30 million from the USAF, and committed to spending over $60 million themselves, in order to develop the Raptor specifically as an upper stage engine for Falcon 9 and Heavy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_prototype_upper-stage_engine

They've said publicly that they'll only develop it if a customer requests and pays for it. As I said earlier, I think they want to do it, but believe they can get the government to pay for its development for them.

They've built a Raptor ground-test prototype, but not a flight-weight engine they could stick on an actual vehicle. I think they're already in negotiations and the Raptor upper stage will get announced shortly after they demonstrate a full-scale, flight-weight Raptor engine.

[Anonymous No.9417003]

>>9416942
They took some free money to do something they were always going to do, build a subscale test engine.

Anything beyond that is pure unsupported speculation, unless you are reading stuff on paywalled sites you don't want to admit to.

[Anonymous No.9417011]

>>9409741
Uuuu

[Anonymous No.9417161]

>>9417003
The fact that they took the money as funding for the development of an upper stage engine for Falcon 9/Heavy is serious. If they never had any honest intent of even offering the option to build the Raptor upper stage, that's 33 million dollars worth of fraud.

Besides, as I've already pointed out, they've stated publicly that they would build it if a customer (i.e. the government) paid for it. It's historically common for development of a vehicle or stage to not officially start or be funded until the engine has been prototyped and tested.

They will build it if the US government funds it. The US government is likely to fund it as the fastest way to put men on the moon again, once these three things happen: Falcon Heavy begins flying routinely, a flight-weight prototype of Raptor is built and tested, and Dragon carries crew into space and returns them safely to Earth.

[Anonymous No.9418785]

>>9413865
>>9413885
>>9413893
>>9413902
>>9413913
>>9413923
it will never make economic sense, trying to intercept into so many different orbits will take too much fuel, then you either have to deorbit the lot or go to some station that "recycles" the sattelites.

better to just build a space elevator and use that.

[Anonymous No.9418803]

>>9418785
>or go to some station that "recycles" the sattelites.
that's literally what was said
learn reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.9418821]

>>9418785
>trying to intercept into so many different orbits will take too much fuel
Most satellites fall into one of two classes of orbits: geosynchronous, or polar LEO. Retired geosynchronous satellites are all in orbits close to each other, so it's not that hard to travel from the orbit of one to the orbit of another. With polar orbits, they're in different planes, so that might seem prohibitive, but there are tricks to change planes in a polar low-earth orbit using very little propellant due to irregularities in Earth's gravitational field. With low launch costs, many small, mass-produced deorbit drones with aerobraking capability can also be launched all at once to a highly elliptical orbit, where plane change is cheap, and then bring themselves down to their target orbits.

It's important to clean up space junk. Someone will pay for it to be done eventually. Right now, it makes more sense for launch costs to come down than to rush to do it immediately.

>better to just build a space elevator
Ah, the hallmark of the clueless space fanboy. Space elevators are a pipe dream. They offer no cost advantage over highly reusable rockets, which are easier to develop.

[Anonymous No.9418830]

>>9416275
That's really based on cargo load in the end. I don't think they forgot one of the most fundamental parts of rocket science that any amateur rocket enthusiast knows.

[Anonymous No.9418835]

>>9418785
>too much fuel

Fuel is cheap and most satellites are in only a very limited zone.

[Anonymous No.9418847]

>>9409741
For you.

[Anonymous No.9420226]

>>9418835
Fuel is cheap on the ground, getting it in orbit is not.
And that "limited zone" is huge. The range of orbits of just LEO sats is 1700 km, not including the ones that will eventually reenter due to drag.
That's a huge area to track, maneuver, match speed, capture and return with. You don't just have to be the same orbit as the thing, you have to be right next to it and perfectly match its speed after you catch up. Any imprecisions, you pay with even more fuel. Not to mention that Orbital Velocity varies by as much as 2km/s which you're gong to have burn to match.
That is a lot of dV.
Catching satellites with eccentric orbits, in polar orbits or geostationary orbits are entirely different problems. You're basically going to need entirely different processing facilities to deal with those.

[Anonymous No.9420283]

>>9409071
Rockets that big are far from feasible in my imagination. I mean why, the chances for it to fail grow with the size of the thing. Build more small ones

[Anonymous No.9420308]

>>9420283

It is not much bigger than Saturn V. Revised 2017 BFR is even a bit smaller than Saturn V. Methane as a more dense propellant means it still has more launch capacity.

Big rockets are desirable because their payload fraction increases, especially for reusable rockets which must sacrifice some payload for reusability.

Of course, high launch rate is also very important for economics.

[Anonymous No.9420431]

>>9420283
>Rockets that big are far from feasible in my imagination.
>in my imagination
Good thing we're in reality then.

[Anonymous No.9420841]

>>9420308
>Revised 2017 BFR is even a bit smaller than Saturn V.
BFR is a little more slender and a bit shorter, but it's 50% heavier than Saturn V.

[Anonymous No.9420851]

[Anonymous No.9420877]

>>9420841
>BFR is a little more slender and a bit shorter, but it's 50% heavier than Saturn V.
How though? Is that just wet weight, and the differences in propellant densities?

[Anonymous No.9420927]

>>9420877
Look at this: >>9420851
BFR looks bigger, doesn't it?

Saturn V tapers way down for its third stage, which is only 123 tonnes but accounts for about the same amount of height as its 500 tonne second stage. The 2300 tonne first stage, loaded with hydrocarbon propellant, accounts for less than half of its height.

>just wet weight
It's hard to compare their empty masses, since BFR will have integrated accommodations and recovery hardware (and SpaceX hasn't released full specifications), whereas Saturn V was simply an expendable launch vehicle for whatever payload they put on top of it (always some form of the Apollo spacecraft, other than the Skylab launch).

>and the differences in propellant densities?
While this is a major factor, the more consistent diameter also matters. BFR will use methane, which is less dense than RP-1, but more dense than hydrogen, and it will have subcooled propellants (most substances, especially liquids, shrink as they get colder).

[Anonymous No.9421139]

>>9420877
BFR is wider at the top, is monocoque, uses carbon fibre for the fuel tanks, and only has two stages instead of four (staging is dead weight). It's basically a cylinder of fuel whilst the Saturn V is full of all sorts of other stuff.

[Anonymous No.9421408]

>>9409071
is that a new rocket?

[Anonymous No.9421419]

>>9414101
Pyrios is the biggest autist in the classroom of aerodynamics

[Anonymous No.9421457]

>>9421408
It's in development

[Anonymous No.9421581]

>>9409136
Elon Musk has a terrible record of delivering what he says when he says. He's missed every single deadline he's imposed on himself.

[Anonymous No.9421590]

>>9421581
Yet Falcon 9 is the most advanced rocket ever, engineered and built for price considered impossible before. Makes you think.