/sfg/ - SpaceFlight General

[Anonymous No.10647453]

Moonbase Edition

Previous Thread:
>>10642498

[Anonymous No.10647459]

So I found this alternate evolution of the shuttle that was never built. Looks aesthetic as fuck.

Anyone know anything about this? Hard to find much info on the internet.

[Anonymous No.10647482]

dubs and the starlink rocket explodes tomorrow

[Anonymous No.10647484]

>>10647459
replace those hydrogen boosters with kerosene or methane boosters and I'm sold

[Anonymous No.10647488]

>>10647482

[Anonymous No.10647490]

>>10647488
based

[Anonymous No.10647493]

>>10647484
Interestingly, from what I could find, those WERE supposed to be methalox after some iterations. The boosters' engines would be a modified RD-170 (known as the RD-17X), and the boosters would be recovered and flyback after every launch.

I have some more art. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.10647495]

>>10647490
I was going to call you a faggot but I got distracted by some discord fag posting about eurovision so the post timer counted to zero while my attention was elsewhere

[Anonymous No.10647996]

>>10647453
John Madden

[Anonymous No.10648295]

>>10648268
>It's 2019, literally nothing is more important than libs feels
More like it's been almost 50 years since the last push to the moon and NASA is pulling all the stops to get as much political support behind it as possible so that when (not if, when) the next Democrat president comes along he won't trash the whole thing simply because a Republican started the whole mission.

[Anonymous No.10648297]

>>10647493
>>10647459
why did they never do this?

fucking SRB's

[Anonymous No.10648305]

>>10647459
>crew vehicle still on the side
At least it doesn't have SRBs and their shit O-rings.

[Anonymous No.10648313]

>>10648305
It also has an abort system. Not sure how effective it is compared to a capsule on top of a stack, but at least it's something. Also the SRB o-rings work fine if their operating conditions are respected. Challenger wasn't due to the o-rings failing, it was due to management knowing that the o-rings were compromised and decided to launch anyways. Like I said before, shit management can kill any project.

[Anonymous No.10648330]

>>10648297
Because muh ICBMs, can't spend money to keep the SRB engineers employed working on ICBMs because of treaties, so find a way to use them in the manned spaceflight budget to keep them employed.

>>10648313
And the abort system is integral, unlike all the oldspace rocket-on-top designs. Only now that reusability is a thing is it getting into non-paper spacecraft.

But look at the drawing, there seems to be literally no space outside of the 10 seats. Shuttle was cramped enough with 7 crew and two decks. Good luck doing experiments without loading up a space lab module. I'm not even sure where they planned to put the EVA airlock. And I'm going to assume that they figured out a way to have crew access to a space lab module that works with the abort system.

[Anonymous No.10648355]

>>10648295
their efforts are futile on that one
if a non-leftist is in any way shape or form associated with a thing, they'll burn it to the ground no matter what

[Anonymous No.10648507]

NASA is right now doing an ama on le reddit about the new lunar initiative

https://www.reddit.com/user/nasa/comments/

[Anonymous No.10648527]

Landspace assembles methalox engine, signs international agreements

80 tons of thrust is comparable to Merlin

https://spacenews.com/landspace-assembles-methalox-engine-signs-international-agreements/

[Anonymous No.10648585]

>>10648527
>article mentions BE-4 and that one Soviet attempt but neglects to mention Raptor
huh?

[Anonymous No.10648640]

>>10648507
Guy's wife GG got shot at the intersection of AZ-77 & INA Rd years before Assange made a thing of the INA papers.

[Anonymous No.10648674]

>>10648507

They should also do an AMA on /sci/. Someone tell them!

[Anonymous No.10648681]

>>10648674
How about we just write a letter to NASA one word at a time? I'll start.

Dear

[Anonymous No.10648689]

>>10648681
Space

[Anonymous No.10648699]

>>10648689

Negroes.

[Anonymous No.10648705]

>>10648699
Will

[Anonymous No.10648706]

>>10648705
you

[Anonymous No.10648708]

>>10648706
Give

[Anonymous No.10648717]

>>10648708
Contracts

[Anonymous No.10648725]

>>10648706
Give

[Anonymous No.10648749]

>>10648725
Orbital

[Anonymous No.10648750]

>>10648717
and

[Anonymous No.10648770]

>posters: 11

[Anonymous No.10648834]

new ultima thule results

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/News-Article.php?page=20190516

[Anonymous No.10648855]

>>10648834
lovely

[Anonymous No.10649019]

>>10648770
What do you expect from a general on one of the slowest boards?

[Anonymous No.10649027]

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-taps-11-american-companies-to-advance-human-lunar-landers/

NASA Taps 11 American Companies to Advance Human Lunar Landers

[Anonymous No.10649148]

>>10648750
monies

[Anonymous No.10649170]

Nobody fucking cares about the moon.
There's nothing to do there.

[Anonymous No.10649176]

>>10649148
,Tendies

[Anonymous No.10649181]

>>10649170
We would be doing your mom on the moon so there is that.

[Anonymous No.10649193]

>>10649027
Nice they're definitely gonna leverage what they learned from COTS program for this

[Anonymous No.10649194]

>>10649181
I'll let you know my mother is ded, so good luck boning her.
Jokes aside, the Moon's surface is hell if you're gonna spend more than a few hours on it.
Even Mars looks welcoming when you do a simple comparison.
And more importantly, there's no ground-breaking science to do on the Moon.
At least on Mars you can pretend into searching for extra-terrestrial life.

[Anonymous No.10649199]

>>10649027
>The agency also is looking at refueling capabilities to make these systems reusable.
oh fuck yes finally

[Anonymous No.10649214]

>>10649170
Let me guess, you want all space agencies/companies to scrap all work they have on returning to the moon and instead they should focus their efforts on your personal project?

[Anonymous No.10649216]

>>10649194
Ain't necrophilia if you're a necromancer

[Anonymous No.10649227]

>>10649194
REspoonding to my own post in anticipation.
>B-but muh perpetual light at the pole
These places do exist but they're not exactly "landing friendly"
The reason they're in perpetual light is because they're crater rims to begin with.
Also, lighting condition would make it a nightmare to operate in.

[Anonymous No.10649230]

>>10649214
They don't want to go anywhere.
They're just forced to to keep getting funds.

[Anonymous No.10649236]

>>10649230
>They don't want to go anywhere.
>They're just forced to to keep getting funds.
What makes you think that? I'm pretty sure that NASA has wanted to go back to the moon since Apollo.

[Anonymous No.10649238]

>>10649170
There is plenty to do, you just have a small mind.

[Anonymous No.10649240]

>>10649236
Maybe my whole life of nothing happening and NASA still existing despite that.
I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.10649245]

>>10649238
Yep, I'm convinced.
How didn't I see it before.
/s what the fuck are you talking about?
He3? make fusion reactors before.

[Anonymous No.10649246]

>>10649170
titanium

[Anonymous No.10649250]

>>10649245
There is a good amount of water in on the moon.

[Anonymous No.10649255]

>>10649250
There's a good amount of water on Earth, bro.

[Anonymous No.10649269]

Look, everyone, we've had this talk before, and nothing short of sending a nuclear reactor to the Moon will solve having a settlement there.
Mars only needs solar panels. Even though nukes would help too, but it's optional.

[Anonymous No.10649284]

>>10649255
What a retarded post.
Anyway, if you don't think having an extreme sports dome on the Moon is the best reason to go, then I'm not sure you know what fun even is.

[Anonymous No.10649292]

>>10649240
>Maybe my whole life of nothing happening and NASA still existing despite that.
That's a very complicated issue of NASA, but it's not due to NASA not wanting to do anything. It's mostly due to Congress not wanting to do anything, and every president since Kennedy wanting their own pet project while canceling their predecessor's. I know that the spaceflight scene seems depressing with nothing happening in the 50 years since Apollo, but things are appearing to get better with the rise of China and private space companies, and NASA finally getting some hardware to go beyond Earth orbit. Have hope.

[Anonymous No.10649309]

>>10649255
Water on the moon can be turned into hydrolox for propellant depots. That way, fewer launches will be needed to establish space infrastructure, transfer stages can be reused, and give more flexibility to interplanetary missions.

[Anonymous No.10649315]

>>10649255
>gravity well

[Anonymous No.10649331]

>>10649292
I've seen at least 10 Mars/Moon mission projects being pushed in the news since the early 90s, so I just know better now.

[Anonymous No.10649338]

>>10649309
Storing Hydrogen.
Yeah, this comes with a bunch of complications on its own.
And last I heard, we never detected water on the Moon, but hydrogen traces that hinted at water.
You can also make methane on Mars if you're talking infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.10649360]

I'll sum it up for retards.
So you can make hydrolox from water and solar power through electrolysis?
Just send a water tank into orbit, lol. It's much easier and not a big loss if mission fails.
Anyway you wrap it, it's also way less cost than a fucking moon settlement.

[Anonymous No.10649367]

>>10649360
lunar titanium aluminum and iron bruh
there's entire continents worth of the shit
and a pound in space is worth a million dollars

[Anonymous No.10649368]

>>10649367
Iron is useless to make shit in space because you can't into steel.
Or is there coal on the Moon too?

[Anonymous No.10649377]

>>10649368
steels that don't use carbon exist, it's a spicy problem for sure

[Anonymous No.10649379]

>>10649360
>I'll sum it up for retards.
No need to be rude.

>Just send a water tank into orbit, lol. It's much easier and not a big loss if mission fails.
Which a launch has to be paid for each time it happens. Meanwhile less launches would be needed to set up a moon propellant station.

>It's much easier and not a big loss if mission fails.
How so?

>Anyway you wrap it, it's also way less cost than a fucking moon settlement.
In the short term it has less cost, but in the long term it'll be more expensive and will restrict any space industry due to lack of equipment in space.

[Anonymous No.10649383]

>>10649379
I'm being sarcastic.
The problem is power, really.
Your moon propellant station is gonna be so slow it won't provide shit.
It's just a headline they use to make people buy into their pork jobs plans.

[Anonymous No.10649386]

>>10649368
There's plenty of carbonaceous rock on the moon. It's hydrogen that's somewhat hard to come by.

[Anonymous No.10649403]

>>10649019
>>10648770
Kek, even the posts to IPs ratio for the Homegrowmen threads is nearly identical to these threads and /out/ is far far slower.

[Anonymous No.10649404]

>>10649386
>plenty of carbonaceous rock on the moon
oh hey say what now

[Anonymous No.10649409]

Sigh this new lunar program is so gay, it's just more tin cans stuffed with a few dudes. This shit is so pointless, the money should be used to develop serious launch systems so sending a few people isn't so fucking difficult.

SpaceX is literally the last hope for any real progress since BO seems to be doing sweet fuck all.

[Anonymous No.10649410]

>>10649386
Ok, let me add a rock crushing and sorting facility to the list of things my solar panels and batteries will have to handle.

[Anonymous No.10649413]

>>10649410
>Batteries
>Not putting your equipment near the poles for almost constant sunlight and replacing the massive weight of batteries with giggawats of thin film solar instead

[Anonymous No.10649416]

>>10649413
Poles aren't flat.
So called peaks of eternal sunlight are named peaks for a reason.
It's like making a camp on top of mount Everest. Good fucking luck doing that.

[Anonymous No.10649418]

>>10649368
Making steel on the moon would be pretty easy. It just wouldn't be quick unless you use sources of carbon you bring with you.

>>10649377
Those are not steel. Steel is specifically iron + carbon. It is like you said mercury is a good water substitute and also called "waterless water."

>>10649386
>>10649404
>>10649410
>Carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) appear to be present only in trace quantities from deposition by solar wind.

You won't find much at all and it won't be worth it to attempt to mine. You are actually better off getting carbon from your carbon scrubber system for removing carbon from the air you are breathing.

[Anonymous No.10649419]

>>10649383
What would you rather have NASA do?

[Anonymous No.10649420]

>>10649418
>stainless steel isn't steel

[Anonymous No.10649424]

>>10649419
For starter stop pretending they can to the Moon with half a Saturn V, and resume SLS block 2 development.

[Anonymous No.10649426]

>>10649420
It has carbon too you mong.

[Anonymous No.10649427]

>“In the past, steel has been described as an alloy of iron and carbon. Today, this description is no longer applicable since in some very important steels, such as interstitial-free steels and some stainless steels, carbon is considered an impurity and is present in quantities of only a few parts per million. Steels are iron-base alloys containing one or more alloying elements, generally including carbon, manganese, silicon, nickel, chromium, molybdenum, vanadium, titanium, niobium, and aluminum”.
thanks google
you'd need to be an actual material's scientist and engineer to do the work to tell you exactly what sort of wonder-metal you could make out of moon rock

[Anonymous No.10649431]

>>10649416
>Camp on top of mount Everest
>Except there is no weather to worry about and the conditions are the same as everywhere else on the moon except you get solar power all the time

Dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.10649432]

>>10649409
blue origin is doing well, they just have mountains of cash and don't need to get their shit operational as fast as possible.

[Anonymous No.10649433]

>>10649420
Carbon steel only has about 1% carbon.
Stainless Steel has about 0.15-0.25% carbon.

Tool steel (very high carbon steel) only has about 1.25% carbon.

[Anonymous No.10649434]

>>10649431
>Landing on mountain tops
Don't forget your ice deposits are all the way down the hill with no visibility whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.10649437]

>>10649409
>>10649432
On top of that, Blue Origin doesn't need to work up public hype like SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.10649440]

>>10649434
>with no visibility whatsoever.
>Whats a flashlight?

[Anonymous No.10649445]

>>10649432
>>10649437
You could say the exact same things about the SLS program...

[Anonymous No.10649448]

>>10649432
>>10649437
There is a difference between slow and steady and actually fucking doing something. They have been around longer than SpaceX and all they have to show is a tin can which can't even make orbit and there is practically no tourism interest for. At this rate Starship will be flying orbital tests before they even finish their New Glenn factory.

[Anonymous No.10649452]

>>10649434
>>10649431
>>10649440
>>10649416
>>10649413
>Diameter of the moon: 3474.25km
>longest power transmission line in the world (Madeira HDVC link in Brazil): 2,385km


Just make a gargantuan, circular, billboard PV array where there's always sunlight at whatever pole is best. Then run power cables to any place on the moon. Better yet, just use small nuclear generators near where you need power.

>>10649437
I think SpaceX does it because Elon really wants to share cool things. He's having fun.

[Anonymous No.10649454]

>>10649440
Well, I wouldn't be a moon miner for a billion bucks then.
Just picture it.
You're up there with your solar panels.
Everywhere you look around is absolute darkness.
Now, anon, you have to go down and grab some ice for your paycheck.
>In a spacesuit with a fucking flashlight, climbing down a mountain.
No-one would try that on Erf even without the spacesuit.

[Anonymous No.10649459]

>>10649445
SLS only has mountains of cash to keep inefficient supply chains alive

>>10649448
BE-4, albeit a bit less ambitious than raptor, seems to be ready. I very much doubt that spacex will be flying orbital starship tests before new glenn, the current hoppers are very far away from a finished first stage and ship.

[Anonymous No.10649462]

>>10649452
>Just make a gargantuan, circular, billboard PV array where there's always sunlight at whatever pole is best. Then run power cables to any place on the moon. Better yet, just use small nuclear generators near where you need power.
>What's a rechargeable battery?

[Anonymous No.10649464]

>>10649459
These aren't sheer slopes retard, climbing down "mountains" on the moon and mars is like walking down a gentle slope.

[Anonymous No.10649465]

A hassle that ends the instant you have always-on power.

[Anonymous No.10649468]

>>10649454
Hell yes i would do so. Sounds a lot more comfy than being stationed on a submarine.

[Anonymous No.10649469]

>>10649448
>They have been around longer than SpaceX and all they have to show is a tin can which can't even make orbit and there is practically no tourism interest for.
You're forgetting about the BE-4 and BE-7.

[Anonymous No.10649470]

HOP WHEN

[Anonymous No.10649476]

>>10649452
Yeah, power lines just happen, just like that.
But I agree, nuclear power is absolutely necessary for Moon settlement.
But even then, it will just be darkness forever because polar craters.

[Anonymous No.10649480]

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKlEKjcul9M

"The man in the SpaceX cap wearing a SpaceX shirt would not say whether this is a SpaceX facility; but the SpaceX trucks going in and out, the three Tesla cars in the parking lot, and the big shiny metal cylinder under construction seem to be a dead giveaway"
lmao

[Anonymous No.10649484]

>Reading about New Glenn
>They are going to be landing the booster on a huge, expensive as fuck manned ship

Are they retarded? Better hope they don't fuck up even a single time.

[Anonymous No.10649485]

>>10649480
excellent footage of the Cocoa facility. Seems to be at a similar pace of progress compared to Boca Chica?

[Anonymous No.10649492]

>>10649480
>who u wit
>are you with space x
>walks away
fucking kek

[Anonymous No.10649502]

>>10649480
>AYO HU U WIT NIGGA DIS PRIVATE PROPERTY

[Anonymous No.10649507]

>>10649485
seriously, what are they doing with that shitty ass outer skin? It can surely be only for optic and maybe aerdynamic reasons? It looks like a fucking water tank

[Anonymous No.10649516]

>>10649476
>Yeah, power lines just happen, just like that.

Where do you think anything comes from? Fairy dust? lol

[Anonymous No.10649517]

>>10649484
I'd say that they should be given a chance. They were accurate about what they can do with New Shepard, maybe they can be accurate with New Glenn.

[Anonymous No.10649519]

>>10649507
No what you are looking at is the structural shell, it's actually pretty thick steel (5mm or so near the base I think) it's just hard to tell by the scale, note the reinforcement stringers inside too.

[Anonymous No.10649524]

>>10649507
Not much is needed for a short atmospheric hopping test, Jeff.

[Anonymous No.10649525]

>>10649517
It's a whole different world dealing with a proper huge orbital booster, I guess we will see but for fucks sake they really need to have it be unmanned at the very least.

[Anonymous No.10649530]

>>10649517
it will hop the karman line not once but twice at the same time

[Anonymous No.10649531]

>>10649485

[Anonymous No.10649533]

>>10649525
It's ok, anon, they'll be in Faraday cages to protect them from work harm.

[Anonymous No.10649535]

>>10649531

[Anonymous No.10649536]

>>10649485
This stuff looks better quality than the steel in Boca Chica

>>10649507
>Doesn't know what the original Atlas was made of

Also the strength of the Starship doesn't come from just the TPS like the Space Shuttle, but the entire body because it's a hot structure like the X-15 was.

[Anonymous No.10649546]

>>10649535

[Anonymous No.10649550]

>>10649516
>giant 30km wide Power Slip Rings.

How cool would it be to see this shit in space?

[Anonymous No.10649556]

>>10649536
the original atlas was welded together in rigs so it was pretty much a homogenous stainless steel tube. This is rectangular sheets tac welded together

>>10649524
>>10649524
I just don't understand the purpose. It obviously seems very far away from what will be required for starship and yet to much for atmospheric hopping tests

[Anonymous No.10649560]

>>10649546
>>10649531
>>10649485
>Tfw lived long enough to see gigantic steel rocket ship yards assembling in the open

Hnnnnnnnnng, if this thing works the potential for massive and rapid fleet expansion is fucking huge.

[Anonymous No.10649577]

it does seem like a more refined operation... equipment looks better, more fancy jigs (like that wind shield thing), metal pieces seem to be welded better.

[Anonymous No.10649601]

>>10649556
the TPS is going to bolt onto the outside, so the big shitty tube fairing just needs to not collapse under it's own weight at 4g or whatever, and then they can start testing reentry characteristics
all the weight bearing bits are on the inside
I haven't seen conclusive evidence that any actual pressure vessels are being constructed yet, and those will need to look a bit better (like the hopper did, before they covered it in tin foil)

[Anonymous No.10649652]

>>10649601
that makes sense i guess

[Anonymous No.10649739]

>>10647459
shuttle C is best shuttle

[Anonymous No.10649770]

>>10649269
>nothing short of sending a nuclear reactor to the Moon will solve having a settlement there
So? We were one poor budgetary decision away from having nuclear powered aircraft in the 60s. A lunar reactor would be based.

[Anonymous No.10649772]

>>10649556
>I just don't understand the purpose

It is just a test platform, nothing more. Like this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

[Anonymous No.10649776]

>>10649245
Nobody lives on the moon. In fact, nothing lives on the moon. Meaning we can put “problematic”nuclear power plants there, we can crash rare earth metal asteroids there and scoop up the good bits, we can move all kinds of nasty industrial processes we’d never dream of doing on earth there. Its also the perfect space for doing all kinds of testing.

[Anonymous No.10649777]

>>10649360
>Just send a water tank into orbit, lol.
Are you actually fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.10649779]

>>10648834

[Anonymous No.10649816]

>>10649533
There's a good wojak edit to be had in there.

[Anonymous No.10649840]

>>10649779
I'm sorry, anon, that is not a space potato, it's more like a space snowman

[Anonymous No.10650231]

from yesterday

[Anonymous No.10650261]

>>10650231
I definitely think that low building they're constructing to the low-right of that image is where they're going to be storing engines locally. Its not tall enough for much else.

[Anonymous No.10650268]

who will get to 100km first? orbit first?

[Anonymous No.10650269]

>>10649377
>>10649427

Maraging steels, specifically. The most common ones use alloying elements of iron, nickel, cobalt, titanium, aluminum, and molybdenum, but there are some that skip the cobalt, leaving the moly the only hard to source element on the moon.

[Anonymous No.10650272]

I work at JPL and have worked at spacex and blue origin, AMA

[Anonymous No.10650308]

>>10650261
maybe a launch blockhouse

[Anonymous No.10650314]

>>10650272
Jeff? What are you doing on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.10650316]

>>10650272
Do you like Kerbal Space Program?

[Anonymous No.10650317]

>>10650308
Speaking of which, where's the pad in relation to the construction site anyways?

[Anonymous No.10650324]

>>10650316
I tried it once but it doesn't work well on arch Linux.

[Anonymous No.10650329]

>>10650317
down the road a mile or so

[Anonymous No.10650333]

>>10650324
Truly the space program is lost.

[Anonymous No.10650336]

Jesus Christ, those stainless rings in Florida are going to go together RAPIDLY

[Anonymous No.10650342]

>>10650317
super old pic but here you can see the launch pad, with the old cone'd up hopper back at the construction facility in the distance. good for scale

[Anonymous No.10650348]

>>10650329
>>10650342
Ah. Ok, point to the anon who said it might be a launch control blockhouse. Still a bit close for that IMO.

[Anonymous No.10650353]

>>10650348
KSC and CCAFS blockhouses are like half a mile from the pad, I think they're fine

[Anonymous No.10650367]

>Saturn INT-18
>Hydrolox core with solid rocket boosters
>Reuses flight proven heritage hardware to reduce costs and development time
Seems oddly familiar...

[Anonymous No.10650444]

hang on doesn't spacex have facilities here?

[Anonymous No.10650457]

what are these new ditches for?

[Anonymous No.10650462]

>>10650457
>what are these new ditches for?

I won't be surprised if they're footings for the deeper foundations needed for heavy manufacturing equipment.

[Anonymous No.10650469]

>>10650444
>500 engineers and doctors per month
this is good for spacex

[Anonymous No.10650476]

Why are we assembling 9 million pound rockets without rail tracks to a launchpad?

[Anonymous No.10650488]

>>10650476
They'll just hop to the pad.

[Anonymous No.10650596]

>>10650367
>tfw there are like 50 versions of the SLS proposed throughout history
you got:
>Saturn INT-18
>Shuttle-C (basically a side-mounted SLS)
>National Launch System (NLS)
>DIRECT's Jupiter rockets
>the actual SLS
Like, wow. It's kinda insane how old the idea is.

[Anonymous No.10650606]

>>10650272
What is your greatest criticism of each of the major players in space atm?
Including China/India/Roscosmos if you like, not just SX and BO

[Anonymous No.10650710]

>>10649470
end of march

[Anonymous No.10650716]

>>10650710
may, dammit

[Anonymous No.10650902]

>>10650596
Literally Ares V?

[Anonymous No.10650948]

>>10650488
Lel

[Anonymous No.10650964]

>>10650596
Does Energia count?

[Anonymous No.10650967]

Space exploration is cis white hetero-normative project that screams, "fuck people of colour and the disabled."

[Anonymous No.10650974]

>>10650231
They love their sprung tents don't they?

[Anonymous No.10651095]

Anyone here know if SpaceX is using contractors or actual employees to build Starship? I currently am a mechanic for an airline but would rather work on spaceships.

[Anonymous No.10651100]

>>10651095
lots of contractors. But, they also have regular job postings up for things like equipment operators and welders and tank people so

[Anonymous No.10651197]

>>10651100

As much as I support the cause I will not apply for a contract position. Will keep and eye out though.

Thanks and checked.

[Anonymous No.10651201]

>>10647996
bananananananana

[Anonymous No.10651205]

>>10650967
You got it.
Fuck those who slow down progress. Diversity and "ITS NOT FAIR" can do die in a fire.

[Anonymous No.10651237]

>>10650967
shit, gil scott heron found 4chan

[Anonymous No.10651336]

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18535813/commercial-spaceflight-federation-aviation-falcon-heavy-airspace-faa-traffic

[Anonymous No.10651341]

>>10649480
kino voice

[Anonymous No.10651349]

>>10650469

[Anonymous No.10651353]

>>10650967
no, i'm the one that screams that

[Anonymous No.10651357]

>>10650967
Make your own flying silo, you gay disabled black woman.

[Anonymous No.10651400]

Moon stuff didn't get funded by the house in the latest NASA budget bill draft. Europa Clipper has the 'it has to launch on SLS or else' requirement again. There's also supposed to be a separate Europa lander, but exact funding isn't provided in the draft bill.

[Anonymous No.10651423]

>>10651400
typical

[Anonymous No.10651424]

>>10649480

Leaked insider pics from facility showing the wobbly steel tanks. It's not going to work just look at it.

[Anonymous No.10651432]

>>10651424

[Anonymous No.10651434]

>>10651424
Those don't look like they're 9 meters in diameter.

[Anonymous No.10651438]

>>10651424
>>10651432
looks good to me

[Anonymous No.10651446]

>>10651434
It's mini size :V

[Anonymous No.10651447]

>>10651434
They are making a rocket out of cheap steel instead of titanium or something.

Of course its fake.

[Anonymous No.10651456]

>>10651447
>They are making a rocket out of cheap steel instead of titanium or something.
Why would SpaceX make their rocket out of titanium? It's expensive and rare which goes against SpaceX's design philosophy. How is making a rocket out of steel a sign that its fake?

[Anonymous No.10651466]

>>10651456
>it's expensive and rare
not on the moon

[Anonymous No.10651469]

Plane fags are so butthurt lmao

>But aviation lobbyists also want to take things a step further. Right now, commercial space is regulated under Title 51 in the United States Code, which doesn’t require the same regulatory and safety standards as aviation. But the aviation industry wants commercial space to be subjected to the same safety regulations as the airlines —under Title 49 — giving the FAA full authority over rocket licensing and safety as if they were airplanes.

>For the time that commercial space occupies the National Airspace System, we want them to be subject to the full authority of the Federal Aviation Administration to regulate them for safety and efficiency,” Sharon Pinkerton, senior vice president for legislative and regulatory policy at Airlines for America, tells The Verge.

[Anonymous No.10651475]

>>10651469
they occupy the NAS for like 50 seconds, lol

[Anonymous No.10651487]

>The legislation is a resurrected version of a bill from last year, also called the Space Frontier Act, which passed in the Senate but failed in the House. The original bill’s failure can be blamed, in part, on a memo by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The memo argued that the legislation would endanger the national airspace by helping to increase the frequency of launches. DeFazio also made his animosity toward commercial human spaceflight known in later interviews. “I’m not going to inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people so some rich person who can pay $250,000 to be weightless for six minutes can have a fun day,” DeFazio told Politico. “They can go at 3 o’clock in the morning from a remote area.”

Holy shit, congressmen really are fucking clueless retards 10 years behind the times.

[Anonymous No.10651525]

>>10651205
>Fuck those who slow down progress
Oligopoles and patent holders?
Don't worry, China is fucking those US based parasites right now.

[Anonymous No.10651544]

>>10651466
>>it's expensive and rare
>not on the moon
Yes, SpaceX can just go to the nonexistent Lunar Metalworks shop and buy tons of unavailable lunar titanium.

[Anonymous No.10651551]

>>10651466
that doesn't help very much when on earth, dumbass

[Anonymous No.10651579]

>>10651487
Dude, launch interference with aircraft flights is a serious problem. We currently shut off big chunks of airspace for rocket launches

[Anonymous No.10651586]

>>10651579
only because launches have a >0.1% risk of failure or whatever. When rocket launches become regular and extremely reliable, and stages aren't dropped off into the ocean any more, it won't be a problem to have a flight below the trajectory of a launch etc etc.

Nowadays we fly planes over populated areas, and fly planes over planes too. IF planes weren't reliable we wouldn't be doing that still

[Anonymous No.10651588]

>>10651424
>>10651432
Most probably some old photos from old Atlas era.
I mean, just look at how 1960s that guy looks.

[Anonymous No.10651590]

told you
>>10651579
whoever issues those is extremely (insanely) conservative with their restrictions, closing airspace for hours on either side of the ~1 minute danger zone even for instantaneous launches

[Anonymous No.10651593]

>>10651588
yeah but there's a black guy or an indian in this photo >>10651432

[Anonymous No.10651601]

>>10651590
QD stuff it seems. need it for a larger hop; makes sense

[Anonymous No.10651606]

>>10651601
yeah sorry I wasn't clear, I already said that it was a GSE quick disconnect for the hopper the first time that gizmo was posted

[Anonymous No.10651608]

>>10651579
>>10651475
>>10651586
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEHb2gAOhK4

[Anonymous No.10651615]

>>10651601
Semi related question: If SpaceX is building an orbital test vehicle, then how are they going to get it to orbit to test it? Is the Florida team making the Superheavy test hopper?

Sorry, I'm abit behind on all of this. Finals are eating my time like how a millennial eats avocado toast.

[Anonymous No.10651628]

>>10651615
both teams are making a orbital starship right now. super heavy comes second

[Anonymous No.10651644]

>>10651586
it's not even that
they shut down the airspace for fucking HOURS before and after the launch
for the first falcon heavy, the airspace, which included the fucking entirety of the florida coast out to international waters was still closed down a good 3 hours after all the cores had long since landed

[Anonymous No.10651680]

>>10651447
stainless steel is likely better than either titanium or aluminum for reusable upper stages like starship

titanium has shitty workability, aluminum would melt or require heavy heat shielding

low cost of steel is just an added bonus

[Anonymous No.10651752]

>>10649027
>“To accelerate our return to the Moon, we are challenging our traditional ways of doing business. We will streamline everything from procurement to partnerships to hardware development and even operations,”
Praise Jesus, have NASA's eyes finally been opened?

[Anonymous No.10651760]

>>10651752
Maybe. Then again NASA had projects before that there also streamlined in partnerships and those got shut down hard by Congress (ex: X-33).

[Anonymous No.10651779]

>>10651615
starship can possibly reach orbital velocities without payload, at least enough to test the heat shield

[Anonymous No.10651790]

>>10651752
I anticipate an assassination
like fuck are they going to let their billions of shekels escape

[Anonymous No.10651814]

>>10651779
That'd be hot to see. Literally.

[Anonymous No.10651828]

>>10651779
this is important because heat shield is the only known possible technical showstopper for Starship, so the sooner they can get that out of the way, the better

[Anonymous No.10651919]

>>10651615
it'll probably do suborbital tests while they build Super Heavies, they can get a lot of information out of that test regime before going orbital

[Anonymous No.10651926]

>>10651919
yeah they don't want to frag 31 raptors on a SH either. Imagine that for initial SH tests they'll only install a handful to lift SS w/o any payload

[Anonymous No.10651939]

>>10650902
Normally I'd say no, but in this circumstance, I guess so.
>>10650964
Hmm... no SRBs, but it was derived from a space shuttle... close enough, I guess.

[Anonymous No.10651954]

>>10651939
I'd say Ares V counts since it's the direct predecessor to SLS. To be honest, I wish that Saturn INT-18 flew it seems like it would've been a better option than the Shuttle.

[Anonymous No.10651976]

>>10651954
I normally resist the idea that Ares V = SLS, because the two rockets were significantly different "under the hood," but since the original Anon was talking about designs with a big hydrolox core stage and strap-on boosters, I agree that it counts under those criteria.

[Anonymous No.10652040]

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/05/spacex-ssto-starship-launches-pad-39a/

SpaceX considering SSTO Starship launches from Pad 39A

[Anonymous No.10652048]

>>10652040
>governments of the world struggle for SSTO for decades
>mad lad builds one in the field out behind his shed tent out of steel

[Anonymous No.10652061]

>>10652040
>the company is hoping to perform orbital test flights of the Starship prototypes through Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) launches.

In Boca Chica:
>untethered test campaign which is expected to see a hop as high as 20 meters in the coming weeks.

[Anonymous No.10652072]

>>10651976
>I normally resist the idea that Ares V = SLS, because the two rockets were significantly different "under the hood,"
You have a point and I agree.

On a related note. Saturn INT-18 does something interesting to me, it lights its core stage inflight rather than on the launch pad. I wonder why this isn't done on other rockets.

[Anonymous No.10652153]

>>10652048
>mad lad builds one in the field out behind his shed tent out of steel
>from a bin of scraps

[Anonymous No.10652241]

>>10652048
>>10652153

[Anonymous No.10652304]

>>10651579
>Closing off half a continent of airspace for half a day for a 10 minute danger window

Yes this is a problem, nothing to do with the rockets, the problem as always is the fucking government.

[Anonymous No.10652326]

>>10652304
we told you this ages ago, but you lot never listen
.t Romans

[Anonymous No.10652362]

>>10652072
It's usually more efficient and reliable to have all engines that aren't blocked by lower stages burning from the get-go than to do an in-flight ignition.

[Anonymous No.10652652]

https://spacenews.com/nasa-spending-bill-clears-house-subcommittee/
>A House appropriations subcommittee approved a spending bill May 17 that provides NASA with more than $22.3 billion but largely ignores an administration request for an additional $1.6 billion to support plans for a 2024 human return to the moon.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.10652655]

>>10652652
it was just a political stunt.

[Anonymous No.10652695]

I refuse to believe that no one in /sfg/ lives in the KSC area and also has a telephoto lens.
Go get us more Cocoa starship photos goddamnit

[Anonymous No.10652757]

>>10652048
>mad lad builds one in the field out behind his shed tent out of steel

[Anonymous No.10652782]

20 meter hop... should be quite the sight to behold

[Anonymous No.10652805]

>>10652782
I love this junkyard looking shitpile, it's glorious.

[Anonymous No.10652809]

>>10652805
wonder what they'll do with it once the hopping tests are over. Should donate it to Udvar-Hazy or something

[Anonymous No.10652817]

>>10652805
R2D2-zilla

[Anonymous No.10652826]

if my last 2 numbers match, starhopper does a spectacular and very photogenic rapid unscheduled disassembly but nobody gets hurt

[Anonymous No.10652827]

>>10652826
/sci/ is slow enough that you can just refresh the board in one tab and wait for dubs most of the time

[Anonymous No.10652830]

is Elon's butthole still puckered over the superdr8co's failing?

>It was the plumbing
Cargo dragon 1's have hypergolic draco plumbing too and they would have been grounded you brainlets

[Anonymous No.10652834]

bbzzzzzzp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lYNmt_amGo

>>10652830
wasn't the superdracos. that's been confirmed. In fact, they had to remotely destroy the COPV's that survived the explosion since they were a danger to personnel

[Anonymous No.10652857]

anyone want to dump this? I don't have access https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/17/qa-with-elon-musk-founder-and-ceo-of-spacex/

Looks juicy

[Anonymous No.10652867]

I'm not sure where else I should post this question, but here it goes. I'm making a small mod for Kerbal Space Program that'll add some engines. However, I don't want to add some overpowered engines to the game. Is there any tools or tricks to make sure that the engines are balanced? Or should I just do whatever I want and not care?

Pic semi-related.

[Anonymous No.10652879]

[Anonymous No.10652882]

[Anonymous No.10652900]

>>10652857
nevermind it's just a transcript of the Starlink call

[Anonymous No.10652935]

Texas looks really fucking cramped, like they don't have a lot of room to move equipment around without choreography

[Anonymous No.10652944]

>>10652867
nah we won't help you
KSP is not welcome on this site

[Anonymous No.10652952]

>>10652944
damn catfucker and snakefucker, ruining an already awful thing

[Anonymous No.10652959]

>>10652944
>nah we won't help you
>MRW

>KSP is not welcome on this site
I thought that it was only banned on /v/ (and related boards)?

[Anonymous No.10652961]

https://news.yahoo.com/spacex-files-lawsuit-against-federal-003605201.html

Something shady is going on and SpaceX is suing the US Gov.

[Anonymous No.10652967]

>>10652961
probably some sort of Zuma/NRO thing

[Anonymous No.10652973]

>>10652959
KSP is only banned and autosaged on /vg/ nowhere else

[Anonymous No.10652982]

>>10652973
Thanks. I know that the KSP generals got so bad that a board had to make KSP a bannable offense because it was too hard to keep the general clean.

[Anonymous No.10652986]

>>10652982
Which is a shame cause the game is different now from back then, new updates, DLC, etc

[Anonymous No.10652992]

>>10652986
I starting playing it when it was free and there was no time warp or map view or mun. Had to leave your computer on for hours to see if you were in orbit or not. stopped right after they added the 2nd set of planets.

what have I missed?

[Anonymous No.10652999]

>>10652992
a fuck ton.

Just play the demo, theres too much to even list that was added since then

[Anonymous No.10653004]

>>10652992
>Had to leave your computer on for hours to see if you were in orbit or not. stopped right after they added the 2nd set of planets.
If you left the game at that point, then it's a completely different game at that point.

[Anonymous No.10653026]

>>10648674
>https://www.reddit.com/user/nasa/comments/
they should totally do an AMA on a site that hit the news because of several pedophilia and murder scandals

[Anonymous No.10653046]

>>10652982
Why were the threads so bad? Its only ksp...

[Anonymous No.10653049]

>>10653046
I don't know. I wasn't there. Apparently during a time when there wasn't much updates with KSP, the threads went really REALLY off-topic to the point that they were irredeemable. I don't know how or why though.

[Anonymous No.10653050]

>>10652967
Could be, or could be something else. Whatever the case, the article writer sure seems to have a bias against SpaceX and is implying SpaceX is childish in calling out these lawsuits.

[Anonymous No.10653054]

>>10653049
There were a lot of offtopic posts like a guy takin pictures of its snake. But i think the one who did it was the guy who constantly talked about performing oral sex to his cat

[Anonymous No.10653059]

if you want to understand KSP just go watch all of Scott Manley's channel
you'll soak it up eventually, everything he won't teach you, you need to do math and they don't give you the numbers for it (ie the phase angles you need for hohmann transfers between the planets)

[Anonymous No.10653063]

>>10653059
>phase angle
>>10652999

[Anonymous No.10653065]

>>10653063
interplanetary hohmann transfer, not orbital rendezvous phase angle shit
that stuff is easy enough to eyeball and the maneuver/rendezvous nodes are super powerful

[Anonymous No.10653069]

>>10653054
>But i think the one who did it was the guy who constantly talked about performing oral sex to his cat
He what!? Please tell me that there were screen caps of this.

[Anonymous No.10653070]

>>10653065
the virgin hohmann

the Chad Brachistochrone

[Anonymous No.10653072]

>>10653070
excuse me

[Anonymous No.10653075]

>>10653070
KSP memes? KSP memes.

[Anonymous No.10653077]

>>10653075
>>10653072
no

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/torchships.php#id--Brachistochrone_Equations

[Anonymous No.10653078]

>>10653077
>projectrho
Fuck yeah. Better than Pornhub.

[Anonymous No.10653079]

>>10653069

these are intermediate examples of the degeneracy of the threads, by the end there was almost no content about the game
https://boards.fireden.net/vg/thread/118568139/
https://yuki.la/vg/145515869

[Anonymous No.10653081]

JWST and WFIRST will never fly

[Anonymous No.10653083]

>>10653079
ah /kspg/ too autistic even for 4chan, a rare honor

[Anonymous No.10653087]

>>10653079
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.10653151]

>>10653081
JWST will definitely fly but 99% chance will shit the bed. WFIRST for sure will never fly.

[Anonymous No.10653160]

>>10652935
its just the site. texas is huge with wide open spaces. spacex are stuck on a tiny island though.

[Anonymous No.10653176]

besides starlink, whats the next interesting bit of news that we are waiting for?

[Anonymous No.10653189]

>>10653176
NASA funding.

[Anonymous No.10653203]

>>10653151
If JWST breaks then it'll go down as one of the biggest failures in NASA history.

Hubble had its redemption story. JWST would not - it can't be human-serviced.

[Anonymous No.10653211]

>>10653203
I mean. NASA could try. Orion can go that far, right?

[Anonymous No.10653219]

>>10653211
no because corruption making it a zero trick pony
A proper space industrial base would be able to easily service it
had they not been embezzling fuckwads, we'd have numerous stations at the Lagrange points by now, which would be next door neighbors to JWST's intended spot

[Anonymous No.10653380]

>>10653211
No, for the very simple reason that Hubble was designed from the outset to be human-serviced, so almost all of its systems were modular and could be easily pulled in and out of the body. No such design accommodations have been made for JWST.

>>10653219
lol

[Anonymous No.10653540]

>>10652040

Can Starship do SSTO on Earth?

"It technically could, but wouldn’t have enough mass margin for a heat shield, landing propellant or legs, so not reusable"

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1129629072097775616

Well there goes that entire discussion

[Anonymous No.10653603]

>>10651205
>>10651237
>>10651353
>>10651357
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4

>...You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us.

[Anonymous No.10653676]

yesterday hopper leg detail

[Anonymous No.10653680]

>>10653676
I do wonder if there's any additional structural elements inside the fuel tanks to help absorb the shock of landing.

[Anonymous No.10653694]

When is starlink launch going to happen?

[Anonymous No.10653792]

>>10652048
Nobody struggles for SSTO. It's a dead end and doesn't make any sense. Maybe it does for a prototype testing, but not for an actual launch vehicle.

[Anonymous No.10654059]

>>10653540
Good, SpaceX SSTO speculation is always feverish grasping for straws. There've been similar discussions for the F9 first stage that were just as fruitful.
Doesn't mean the 39A test pad won't happen though.

[Anonymous No.10654124]

>>10653792
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1129629072097775616
RIP memes

[Anonymous No.10654126]

>>10653680
there are, we got a really good look inside while they were building it
it's pretty beefy, there's a few archives scattered around the web

[Anonymous No.10654181]

>>10652986
>>10652973
KSP is no longer banned or auto-saged on /vg/, as of this past week.

[Anonymous No.10654200]

>>10653680
Did you forget that inside of where each leg attaches there are huge steel beams forming a triangle, one at the lower attachment point and one at the upper?

[Anonymous No.10654269]

>>10653792
you are so fucking wrong

Linear aerospike + SSTO is the way to go

[Anonymous No.10654281]

>>10654181
Good to hear, the game has renewned life, maybe the general will too without all the shitposters and blog/off-topic fags shitting it up this time

[Anonymous No.10654295]

>>10654269
>as much payload as a Falcon 9 for twice the price
>vastly more complicated vehicle costs far more to build
>can't send anything to any orbit beyond LEO
yeah, truly the way of the future

[Anonymous No.10654428]

>>10653603
Retard

[Anonymous No.10654432]

>>10654281
I'd join a /kspg/ if there was one.

[Anonymous No.10654454]

Cocoa facility

[Anonymous No.10654459]

[Anonymous No.10654470]

>>10653694
Thursday I think

[Anonymous No.10654708]

>orbital prototypes
>Won't reach orbit without superheavy

[Anonymous No.10654710]

Starship will be SSTO and back, ship itself without crew/cargo

[Anonymous No.10654713]

>>10651593
>a black guy or an indian
Yeah but SpaceX only hires competent people

[Anonymous No.10654733]

>>10654708
yeah but they're going to test the bejeezus out of them suborbital, then put them over superheavy and test orbital when they're ready for that

[Anonymous No.10654741]

>>10654733
Are the Saturn V launchpads dense enough to launch the Superheavy (31 raptors) ?

[Anonymous No.10654743]

>>10654741
good enough for C-8

[Anonymous No.10654746]

>>10654269
>hydrogen SSTO spaceplane

truly a triple whammy

[Anonymous No.10654751]

What's with the new dislike for hydrolox in these threads?

[Anonymous No.10654767]

>>10654751
Hydrogen embrittlement makes for poor reusability
Methalox is the new hip trend: relatively efficient, minimal carbon deposits, and straightforward tankage/plumbing

[Anonymous No.10654771]

>>10654746
it is the big meme

[Anonymous No.10654772]

>>10654269
No, you are wrong.
An SSTO loses efficiency precisely because it does not stage which means it has to drag all of it's mass to orbit all the way using one propulsion system. A staged rocket can also equip an aerospike engine and benefit from the same propulsion efficiency increases while also losing all of the weight of it's expended tanks.

[Anonymous No.10654773]

>>10654751
>What's with the new dislike for hydrolox in these threads?

Because hydrolox sustainer stages are terrible.

[Anonymous No.10654775]

>>10654751
heavy tankage, hydrogen embrittlement, low thrust
methane is an extremely good compromise

[Anonymous No.10654785]

>>10654751
- low density
- very low temperatures even by cryogenic standards
- faster boil-off and seeps through everything
- hydrogen embrittlement
- a bitch to handle in general

[Anonymous No.10654790]

>>10654775
Did people just forget about RP1 and hydrazine?

[Anonymous No.10654796]

>>10654790
> -zine
anon....

[Anonymous No.10654802]

>>10654767
>Hydrogen embrittlement makes for poor reusability
I doubt that it's as bad as some on this thread say. If embrittlement were as bad as they say then it wouldn't have been developed.

>>10654773
>Because hydrolox sustainer stages are terrible.
You have a point. But a hydrolox engine is great for an upper stage, or as a space propulsion unit. Plus, it can be used for lunar ISRU since hydrogen is easier to make there than methane.

[Anonymous No.10654804]

>>10654796
Yes, you know N2H4, aka, H2NNH2?

[Anonymous No.10654809]

>>10654785
You have a point, I know there are issues with hydrolox, but I was wondering why as of late people in this thread (and related ones) are being more vocal about it.

[Anonymous No.10654811]

>>10654790
>>10654804
>RP1 and hydrazine
is that a real thing

[Anonymous No.10654818]

>>10654802
Hydrolox rockets are used because practically no rocket has been built for constant reuse until now, and those that are reused are often extensively refurbished to the point where most all vital components are replaced.

[Anonymous No.10654822]

>>10654802
>If embrittlement were as bad as they say then it wouldn't have been developed.

Because it did not matter for expendable rockets.

[Anonymous No.10654826]

>>10654811
>is that a real thing
They're both fuels for bipropellant engines.

[Anonymous No.10654828]

>>10654818
Isn't New Shepard reusable without much refurbishment.

[Anonymous No.10654841]

>>10654790
>Did people just forget about RP1 and hydrazine?

Hydrazine is irrelevant for high performance stages, it is used for things like thrusters and such.

As for RP-1, it has its own disadvantages, namely rather low specific impulse, not burning very cleanly which leads to coking in the engine and is bad for reusability, and being much harder to make from in situ resources in space.

Methane is really the sweet spot.

[Anonymous No.10654853]

>>10654828
New Shepard is absolutely tiny and modern, and I don't know very much about it, but the majority of hydrolox rockets over time haven't been very reusable without significant refurbishment.

[Anonymous No.10654878]

>>10654767
another advantage of methane is that it is basically natural gas, and there is a huge and mature industry built around natural gas, with all that rich technological heritage transferring into your rocket fuel processes

[Anonymous No.10654961]

>>10654878
plus the snifff memes

[Anonymous No.10655066]

+1 ring

[Anonymous No.10655105]

>>10652072
Titan 3 and 4 did this. They let the solids lift it then at a certain point inflight they ignited

[Anonymous No.10655138]

>>10654432
they are banned. Now get out!

[Anonymous No.10655166]

>>10654828
we just don't know

[Anonymous No.10655211]

>>10654432
>>10654281
We tried rolling one this week, it died from inactivity. We're back in /egg/.

[Anonymous No.10655231]

>>10655166
Bezos said at the Blue Moon event that it's basically zero referb for the latest string of launches

[Anonymous No.10655374]

>>10655211
we'll try again when the DLC releases

[Anonymous No.10655376]

>>10655374
>DLC
I thought you people said KSP was much better now

[Anonymous No.10655378]

>>10655376
Its much more active now at least

[Anonymous No.10655437]

>>10647453
>Look at the Earth
>of course we see the united states of America

[Anonymous No.10655440]

>>10655437
As we damn well should.

[Anonymous No.10655521]

>>10655437
>look at the lander
>no US flag anywhere
Fucking traitors.

[Anonymous No.10655541]

>>10655437
To be fair everyone else is supporting cast.

[Anonymous No.10655552]

>>10654281
Damn, that screenshot is a thing of beauty.

[Anonymous No.10655557]

>>10655437
All I can see is Australia, are you high?

[Anonymous No.10655558]

>>10655552
I know this game can look so good with mods, and I think this is RSS too

[Anonymous No.10655573]

>>10655211
no you are not back in /egg/ you subhuman
you lot can fuck off and stay fucked off

[Anonymous No.10655578]

/vg/ please go

[Anonymous No.10655685]

>>10655558
One thing I've been meaning to figure out: has the more recent versions done anything about the out of control memory and/or running most of everything on one thread?

[Anonymous No.10655695]

>>10655685
I believe that the memory leak issue has been fixed if that's what you're wondering. I saw a video recently of a guy (using the current version of the game) take a 100+ part spacecraft, duplicate it in the VAB, attach the copy to itself, and the game didn't slow down much. He then showed a clip of him attempting the same thing the previous version of the game and it took a while for the game to process what was happening.

[Anonymous No.10655701]

>>10655695
I ask because I'm still on 1.4(ish), and I'd rather not update until there's a good reason to because getting all of my shit relaunched and rebuilt takes quite some time.

[Anonymous No.10655718]

>>10655701
Well you can see the video and make your own conclusion. However, I was wrong. That wasn't the current version of the game, but I believe that the demonstration still holds for the current version.

https://youtu.be/LVtg6uG7t54?t=135

> I'd rather not update until there's a good reason to because getting all of my shit relaunched and rebuilt takes quite some time.
You can use the built-in cheat menu the stuff into orbit if you really want to save time.

[Anonymous No.10655734]

>>10655718
Huh. Ok now I have an excuse to go pirate the latest version. They've fixed the leak issue (thank fucking god), and apparently it uses more than one thread now.

[Anonymous No.10655796]

New thread:
>>10655769

[Anonymous No.10656053]

>>10654809
Hivemind starting to set in.