/sci/ - Science & Math

Prev >>10995832

lift imminent
workers clearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aDOpyUmfL4

>>11001349
>Chlorine Trifluoride, because if we're going with the most toxic and dangerous fuels possible, having something that can burn your rocket and anything else is a must.
FOOF is worse. Much worse.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride

>>11001632
What would make a better heavy mining rig for Mars?
>Several trucks with diggers and refineries packed up with habitation ISRU'd then packed up and stripped clean leaving concrete ruins
or
>A massive digger/refinery/habitation crawler that squats down to exploit a deposit, then packs up and leaves intact
assuming sufficient manufacturing would be set up to support either one

>>11001653
bring back operation plowshare, but for Mars

"""Starship"""" is literally the ugliest piece of shit rocket ever made. Why couldn't it be A E S T H E T I C like the original Atlas?

Let's say starship is operation around the time of Artemis 1, which is looking likely, probably a bit after that (don't reply to this post with a picture of the rocket, it is a tin can for a PR presentation). If Elon Musk insists on polluting the night sky with obnoxious trains of satellite internet so h1b pajeets can watch 4k porn in shoebox apartments, he needs to repay the favour to people who care about the natural world. I want to see the following en route by 2025, double time, courtesy of spacex to JPL.

>Ganymede Orbital Robotic Girlfriend
>Cassini 2: Electric Boogaloo
>Uranus Global Inspector
>Neptune Odyssey

>>11001668
>>11001670
Why do they call it starship when it will never leave the Sol system?
Checkmate, muskrats.

>>11001675
>>11001670 is a fully serious post. Otherwise Musk is taking the piss and ought to be sabotaged in some way.

>>11001670
Musk is onboard with that


>We should send probes to outer solar system & get high res, true color images of these strange things. Maybe there’s an alien artifact out there …
>Massive delta velocity slam from highly elliptical Earth orbit using a fully retanked, but lightened up Starship with no heat shield or fins/legs. Best choice for the impatient. Ion engines are too slow.
>Probably no fairing either & just 3 Raptor Vacuum engines. Mass ratio of ~30 (1200 tons full, 40 tons empty) with Isp of 380. Then drop a few dozen modified Starlink satellites from empty engine bays with ~1600 Isp, MR 2. Spread out, see what’s there. Not impossible.

>>11001698
Time is money
faster is always better

Last Soyuz-FG launch later today.
>https://www.rocketlaunch.live/?filter=soyuz-fg

>>11001675
Musky was trolling Boeing's Starliner. I bet some Boeing shill is mad they won't get to use Starlink or Starship.

Repostan link to NIAC symposium videos:
www.livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2019
NIAC is how NASA investigates crazy ideas to see if they'll work. Crazy stuff this year includes nuclear pulsed fusion fission propulsion, really big telescopes, really WEIRD big telescopes, Venusian manta rays, and more.

>>11001653
both suck. Near term you aren't mining deposits. Near term you get everything from dirt. Magma electrolysis is a pretty good way to do this. Although having water is pretty nice for doing hydrogen reduction.
>>11001670
Serious tier: 1 km single aperture space telescope. Jovian system nuclear space battleship.
Meme tier: Europa Clipper direct to Jupiter. Enceladus geyser cave explorer. The last needs an orbiter first, as space geysers could be VERY weird. We don't understand what the hell's going on when a stream of water exits into the vacuum for hundreds to thousands of years. The flow is probably supersonic too...

>>11001675
it is a dumb name anyway

SpaceX SpaceShip
SpaceX SpaceLink

missed opportunity right there

>british company will have a commercial payload on an upcoming lunar lander
what's the business model here? how will they make a profit from this? are they selling data to scientists?

Bezos, Bridenstein and Shelby on suicide watch.

>>11001937
I arrived at work just in time to shitpost here and witness this.
Good day. And i am gonna get paid for it.

>>11001937
damn it looks nice

>>11001937
I see shitloads of depots hauled to orbit.

Praise Elon I , Emperor of Mars, King of Arcadia, Destroyer of Bezos and scourge of Bridenstein, first of his name.

>>11001937
SOON

>>11001937
They are finished stacking. Welding now.

>>11001668
Because Elon wants to name the first one Starship Heart of Gold.

Also the word starship doesn't necessarily imply interstellar. It's traveling "on" a star just like a seaship travels on the sea.

>>11001643
So theyre going to grab the lower part and stack it on the nosecone...

delightfully counter-intuitive

>>11001920
It's tea making facilities anon

>>11001670
>when Ganymede gets a gf before me

>>11001670
Uranus Global Inspector will be the name of my first pornfilm

>>11001783
Thanks anon for the reminder. I found about NIAC last year and binge watched a ton of them.

>>11001983
They stacking it all today?

>>11001726
Neat! I hope it goes well.

>>11001668
The prototype doesn't have to be pretty, it's purely utilitarian. The finished product probably will look a lot like Atlas, which will be fucking great.
>>11001983
Witnessed.

>>11002003
I've never heard 'Seaship' in my life and I work in the industry.

>SLS Will never fly
>Orion Will never fly (why the fuck were 6 more ordered?!)
>Defund NASA and breakup the ULA cartel.

>>11002403
Orion has flown though anon

youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

Soyuz Stream is up, boys.

>orion will never fly
Kek

>>11002403
>why the fuck were 6 more ordered
Maybe they get the 7th one free?

>>11002403
So I guess 6 SLS launches are guaranteed? That means 6 launch towers expended.

>>11002487
They will be starship payload.

>>11002468
Russian stream
https://vk com/video-30315369_456241017

SpaceX wants to buy a small Texas neighborhood. If residents say no, a nonprofit that supports the company wields a power to force them out.

https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-boca-chica-texas-launch-site-spaceport-corporation-eminent-domain-2019-9

>>11002468

We norminal with the Cross?

from LabPadre livestream as of this moment, Starship now visible in morning light

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aDOpyUmfL4

>>11002498
>Condemnation
Good. Fuck boomers.

Russia's antique tin can might not be exciting, but it seems pretty damned reliable. Go rocket go.

>>11002403
>Orion will never fly
Anon...

>>11002511
If it ain't broke, just upgrade it to match the times.

>>11002403
>Orion will never fly

Holy fuck has it almost been five years already?

>>11002493
But anon! Think about all of those jobs related to making more towers. With reusable* towers like what SpaceX uses, then that means that one tower can cover for launches for a whole year roughly. You can't expect those engineers who made the towers to just sit around for a year. That's hurtful to the job market.

*In reality, reusable launch towers are practically impossible as the conditions they experience are too extreme for reuse. NASA tried that with the Shuttle and after every launch the "reusable" tower had to be completely refurbished, which made it the most expensive launch tower in history. If NASA had went with an expendable tower, then they would've saved so much. Now, I'm not saying that because NASA has failed in reusing towers then that means that SpaceX can't do it too, but I am.

>>11002403
>>six in a row
>>six dirty dicks in a row
because Texas felt they were missing out on the action Alabama was getting.

>>11002516
No, they should've scrapped it, built an expensive spaceplane, scrapped that, planned several replacements and scrapped them, then finally just let a bond villain do it for them while they jacked off over a 30 year design that's always a decade away from flying.

ibs habbening :D:D:D

BIIIG FUCKING CRANE MMMMMMM AAAH AAAAAAAAAAAH I COOMING I COOMING

>>11002571
>BIIIG FUCKING CRANE MMMMMMM AAAH AAAAAAAAAAAH I COOMING I COOMING

>>11001632
>https://fcc.report/ELS/Space-Exploration-Technologies/1798-EX-ST-2019
20 KM FCC Filing

Earliest date Nov 6th.

>launch and docking of three new crewmembers to the space station.

>Wednesday, Sept. 25, 3 p.m.: Soyuz MS-15 spacecraft docking to the International Space Station. Docking is scheduled at 3:45 p.m. EDT.

>Wednesday, Sept. 25, 5 p.m.: Soyuz MS-15 spacecraft hatch opening and welcoming ceremony. Expedition 61 crew members are welcomed aboard the International Space Station.

https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive

>>11002473
Can a Delta IV Heavy launch Orion on a free-return?

>>11002620
Total Orion mass: ~26.5t
Delta IV Heavy GTO payload mass: ~14.2t
My guess is "no".

BTW, the Delta IV seems to carry a small payload considering in it's size. Anyone else feel this?

>>11002628
Hydrogen rockets are big due to low density

>>11002628
Doesn't Falcon Heavy put roughly double the payload into orbit, plus you can use the rockets more than once?
Delta IV sorta looks like a shitty old gas-guzzler in comparison.

>>11002638
Fair enough, still looks off.

>>11002640
Wikipedia and SpaceX says "yes", but both don't make the distinction if it's expendable or not.

>>11002620
It might be able to if the Orion service module performs TLI.

Have you guys read any good books about recent developements in spaceflight that covers technical aspects? Talk about the last 20 years or so. (Or spaceflight in general)

>>11002644
Liquid hydrogen has roughly one tenth the density of kerosene, there's literally three or four times as much fuel on a Falcon Heavy. Also, Delta IV Heavy has pretty shit TWR coming off the pad, so it gets more losses due to gravity too. Hydrogen is just really shit for a launch vehicle, it's decent if you can get a good mass ratio upper stage though, still hard to design around.

>>11002619
Why would you dock crew members to the iss? Won‘t they let them in?

>>11001953
no, put Elon's face on the Fabricator General, not on the Emperor

>>11002530
>Just let a bond villain do it for them.
You're more right than you know.

>>11002666
checked and airlock pilled

>>11002733
>posting fake shit

speaking being EVA-pilled, Wayne fucking Hale with "What to do if the payload bay doors won't close with SpaceLab in the hold"
https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/oops/

>>11002776
You mean that didn't really happen??

>>11002780
The Answer: EVA to prod, clamp, and snip until the doors close, then [spoiler]there's no way back inside, and you strap yourself down and ride through reentry in the payload bay

Not sure if this was posted. Tangentially related.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENErda2k8iI

ITS LIFTING https://youtu.be/-aDOpyUmfL4

>>11002530
Based and Nixon-pilled.

>>11002838
Are you sure?

Wonder how much LabPadre has made from donations.

>>11002868
>flashes back to when an anon argued that livestream donations are theft

Is it actually getting lifting or is that just support while they work on the inside?

>>11002884
you can see it swaying in the breeze

>>11002884
it's dangling in the air

>>11002884
https://youtu.be/09zNrfd5WgY Going on the roll-lift. Better live stream

WHERE ARE THE NOSE FINS. HAVE THEY FORGOTTEN?!?!

>>11002896
they're on-site

So what's going on here boys. I thought we were getting a full stack but it's bottom half getting put on a mover. Are they transporting it over the lift tonight?

>>11002906
nobody knows, let's watch

>>11001632
Ganymede means catamite in English.

>>11002577
Would Everyday Astronaut be the /sfg/ version of Coomer?
He has the same enthusiasm...

>>11002920
>Coomer
A what now?

>>11002924
Newish Wojack variant some fags are pushing as a hot new meme. Best to ignore it.

>>11002928
if you report it on most boards it will get deleted

>>11002924
/pol/ brainlet forced meme

SOON™

>>11002984
how the hell is this thing going to land. that's insane

>>11002924
They tried to push cumbrain on /v/, but it got word filtered within a day so they moved on to coomer.

>>11002984
Future iterations are going to look great with the more rigid smooth steel hulls and black thermal tiles. The only thing that would make it more aesthetic is some titanium nitride foil in and around the engines.

>>11003012
Very carefully. Either that or land in front of the Michoud facility very violently to show them how to make a real rocket.

>>11003012
Propulsively.

>>11002984
>when real interplanetary vehicles are larger than science fiction vessels
Starship is about 55m tall.

3 MORE DAYS

>>11003036
Well, to be fair to the ships of the Expanse their magical torch drives only take up probably not much more than a tenth the internal volume of their ships on average, real spaceships could be that compact too if they didn't have to be 70% by volume propellant, and another 20% by volume propulsion system. Although it should be noted, even ships as massive as the Nauvoo are not fundamentally anywhere near the limit of size you could build a ship even out of nothing more than pure structural steel. The upper maximum for a cylindrical object made up of steel is something like 5x20 kilometers if you want it to be spinning fast enough to generate 1G of spin gravitation. Much larger structures are also possible if you incorporate other materials where structural strength isn't needed, include internal tension systems to hold the cylinder together, reinforce it's structural components with higher tensile strength materials or build those components out of something like titanium rather than steel. Gargantuan 16x50 kilometer O'neil worlds like the Rama spacecraft are not out of the realm of possibility if you employ some higher tensile strength materials at the points of greatest stress.

>>11003012
magic.

>>11003062
The conventional steel cylinder construction actually topped out at around the surface area of a modest European country, say Switzerland.

>>11003062
In the far future colony ships will be giant O'Neill cylinders with thrusters on both ends making pit stops in stellar systems to eat asteroid fields and set up the equipment to build new O'Neill cylinders from the planets.

>>11003077
Alternatively von neumann machines that build fusion torches to slam all available stars into the local galactic blackhole to maximize energy production efficiency.

WHAT THE FUUUUUUUCK!!! One of the NASA niac presentations is suggesting you can make >25% efficient thermoelectrics. Currently thermoelectrics suck. So how do they get this performance? By fugging IRRADIATING them. Radiation makes crappy TEG materials more electrically conductive and less thermally conductive. What this means is that they can make a power dense SOLID STATE nuclear reactor. Also note: NASA's having a hell of a time making reactors for space cause of all the moving parts. Hard to make stuff with moving parts that has to work for >10 years no maintenence ever. It might be able to get above 30%, at this efficiency it might even be practical to use thermoeletrics rather than turbines on Earth. Oh yeah, and you can use it to make a 1.3 mt cubesat carrier to Europa. 3 Kwe power, 10 year flight time. But who gives a shit? 25% efficient TEG!

>>11003162
you watching NIAC ?

>>11003162
>using an engine that irradiates its exhaust on earth

>>11003162
big if true

>>11003182
Hasn't stopped the US from considering it before...

>>11003182
Who cares? It's just a little bit of spicy air, 3.5 roentgen, not good but not too bad either.

>>11002036
Right, because a place is only considered colonized once you brew tea there.

>>11003204
Correct

Apparently they've unwrapped the nose fins.

>>11003182
You just need to dump heat to air or water. And none of that water or air needs to go through the reactor. In short the 'exhaust' wouldn't be radioactive. It's just like an RTG, in fact you could use said thermoelectric with a radioisotope, if you dope the thermoelectric with Americium.

>>11003200

I heard it was the equivelant of a chest X-ray. So its probably going to be fine.

On a more serious note and in other news, MS-15 is launched and the Soyuz capsule has allready docked with the ISS. For Soyuz terms, an end of an era with FG being phased out and 2.1 being the replacement.

>>11003217
*legs. there's 4

>>11003193
Didn't Russians actually build this thing? I heard it exploded few months ago.

>>11003321
It's unclear what they are building exactly. Might be this.

on the move!

DUN DUN DUN

>>11003348
They're gonna need that bigger crane.

>>11003321
Considering that there was an actual explosion, my speculation would be more along the lines of them trying to build a new nuclear thermal rocket and they had some kind of pressure vessel failure or reactor pressure control failure. A nuclear turbojet engine would in my opinion be a lot less likely to explode in the result of a failure and much more likely to simply start melting, since it's operating pressures and temperatures are relatively low compared to a nuclear rocket's.

>>11003363
Don't these things use regular rocket motors to get up to speed? That might be a failure mode as well.

>>11003374
They would if they were actually ready to fly, otherwise you'd test fire them in the same way you do experimental new turbojets, you stick a huge fan on the intake end and power it up. Generally you wouldn't actually ever fly something like Pluto unless you were actively using it against someone, because of it's dirty exhaust you'd not want to actually perform test flights over your own territory.

>>11003382
>because of it's dirty exhaust
I thought that only happened when it broke down or was modified to do that?

just a barn silo nothing to see here move along now move along

>>11003392

bit wrinkly on the side

>>11003406
Looks smol

>>11003385
Yeah, that's what I mean, a weaponized nuclear turbojet which is meant to deliberately cause harm to the enemy by proximity won't be tested much before it's fired up for it's first and only flight. I think it's more likely Russia were trying to build a new NTR (or manufacture and test a proven design) and it failed explosively, since NASA is considering ways to create a new iteration of NERVA and China is jumping into the new space race as well. If we were building a nuclear turbojet ourselves it would be more likely that the Russians were trying to do the same, but we aren't so they have no serious incentive to do so either.

>>11003396
Can't wait for the first official starship launch. The butthurt will be glorious.

>>11003411
I still hear occasional conspiracy theories online about how SpaceX is running an Enron-style scheme and that it'll collapse any time soon once the "fraud" of BFR is revealed. I wonder if they'll continue with those theories once BFR starts flying.

>>11003424
>Enron-style scheme
if something goes wrong they can always start selling engines...

>>11003440
No, the RD-180s are simply too good for the other American launchers to give up on for an engine that has less Isp, and launch companies in other countries would prefer local sources of engines for better national security. SpaceX could fall back on the Falcon 9, as it's the cheapest medium lifter on the market even when expending.

>>11003348
I'm gonna... ugh... COOOOOMMMMMIIIINNNGG

>>11003452
Sea level Raptors will have slightly better Isp than the RD-180, 350s compared to 338s, and could also be used with expansion nozzles as second stage engines with a vacuum ISP of 380s. Also the sea-level Merlin does have slightly lower Isp but more than double the RD-180's TWR, they're also very light, if you clustered enough of them together to match the RD-180 pair's total output they'd be lighter, which is a desirable trait to have in a booster, low dry mass and high TWR.

>>11003193
I still like the concept where a Project Pluto missile is turned into a loitering gas giant probe, with the warheads replaced by various drop/balloon probes.

>>11003508
Aren't the Raptors really expensive for thier size?

>>11003516
You could probably use it on the other gas planets as well, honestly I think the more difficult task is building the launchers and propulsion busses to get them there in an acceptably short timeframe.

they're going to stack the top to the bottom sometime today right?

>>11003411
yes, but at the same time if MK1 explodes or crashes these insects will crawl out of the woodwork to shit up every future discussion for a long time.

>>11003516
Now that would be a unmaned mission i would like to see happen.

>>11003544
Merlins are enormously cheap for their size and performance, less than a million a pop, and Raptors are estimated in the 2-ish million range, or less than a tenth the cost of an RD-180 pair which hangs in the 25 million range. Raptors are also smaller than the RD-180's by a small degree, they also have a superior TWR of 107:1 compared to the RD's 78:1, one Raptor also produces more than half of an RD-180 pair's thrust, so if you strapped two together in a configuration like an RD-180 pair you'd get more overall thrust with a higher TWR, higher ISP, at 1/5th the cost.

>>11002984
Look at that big silver bastard

>>11003410
>turbojet
if it was a nuclear turbojet you wouldn't need to use rockets to get it up to speed
no, these designs are nuclear ramjets

>>11003036
It's a real shame it went so badly to shit in season 3 with the forced lesbo storyline

>>11003592
>the forced lesbo storyline
It's the current year you biggot, so what if the books only mentioned her sexuality in only a few sentences.
We deserve more LGBT characters in our shows, even if the rest of the story has to make way for it.

>>11003544
Raptors are estimated to be about $2M a pop, and Merlin 1Ds at $600K. If SpaceX wanted to, they could sell Raptors at $5M each and Merlins at $1M each and make a decent chunk of change.

>space development agency's plans for cislunar spy sats are planned for launch in the late 2020s
me gusta if it happens

>>11003592
You mean the political advisor? I think that was left to about four scenes, total.

>>11003592
Reeeee there are different types of people represented in MY science fiction?!

>>11003592
oh no a woman likes another woman stop the press

>>11003654
Please, do stop the presses. Its not a novelty anymore; the basic interest there is gone. Once the novelty factor wore off, it started to become flatly unappealing.

>>11003667
how can a common thing ever be novelty

>>11002920
>>11002924
>>11002935
>>11002951
>>11003016
>>11003475
I'm surprised no one has posted this yet (that I've seen):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZkBbIGwOjw

>>11003671
>how can a common thing ever be novelty
The concept you're looking for is "exposure."

>>11003685
it sure looks nice

>>11003613
>>11003654
Come on, the way they depicted it was really forced to the point of obnoxiousness, and glaringly different from the way in which any other romantic relationships in all 3 series had been shown. It's just funny to me that it's supposed to be 2019 and being lesbian is totally cool and everything and they demonstrate that it's nothing out of the ordinary by being all like 'HEY THEY'RE JUST LESBIANS IT'S ALL COMPLETELY NORMAL GOD YOU'RE SO BIGOTED FOR NOTICING THIS CLASHING DIFFERENCE IN TONE WHERE WE THRUST THEIR LESBIAN RELATIONSHIP IN YOUR FACE OVER AND OVER AGAIN YOU BIGOT'

>>11003712
does it really trigger you that much?

>>11003738
Shitty romances drag everything down. Trying to pass off a shitty romance as interesting because it involves lesbians makes it extra shit because the media spinsters try to pass off criticism of its shittiness as bigotry.

>>11003738
Trigger? Is this some new American thing? It was just shit writing spoiled it for me. Alien had a strong female lead and handled it with subtlety and that was decades ago. Expanse S3 was subtle as a brick.

>>11003770
>new
Where have you been? Obsession with triggers has infested pop-culture for the better part of a decade, now.

Big boy crane is now deploying.

>>11002619
and Soyuz has docked.

Nine crew for the next week.

>>11003321
>>11003363
Allegedly they use a heat exchanger rather than passing air straight through the engine
>>11003382
a great working fluid for said heat exchanger is NaK. NaK + water tends to cause explosions. Also NaK is just about the only thing you can use for nuclear hydraulics. Regular hydraulic oil turns to rubber when irradiated.

>>11003712
Lost me at the start of season 2 where the Martian military squad of marines look like they had just stepped off the starship from sub-Saharan Africa. Terrible actors.

>>11003902
True it was a bit hit and miss. Probably won't bother with S4. Best character was killed off anyway in keeping with the book

>>11003870
I'm still amazed how long lived the Soyuz design is, both the spacecraft and rocket.

Damn crane is so big the operator's cab comes out on its own little arm.

>>11003912
You know Miller is in S4 right

>>11003931

63 years and counting. According to the Russian launch manifest, the latest launch in the planning is in late 2033, making the Soyuz 77 years old.

The manifest in question:

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/russia-man.txt

Also, congrats to the UAE for having their first cosmonaut/astronaut in space.

>>11003814
I was poking fun at it

>>11001675
They call it starship cuz PR axed BFR as a name

>>11003968
Yeah but if they keep pushing the obnoxious 'isshoos' storylines I'm not interested

>>11003977
Starship = Top
Superheavy = Bottom
BFR = Top + Bottom

>>11004040
>Starship = Top
>Superheavy = Bottom
Anon, get your slash-fics out of /sfg/.

>>11001632
>lights on Ganymede
What is the government keeping away from us? You can't fool me those lights are probably of a civilisation that's as technologically advanced as our or maybe better. No I refuse to belive there is something wrong with me, CIA has been following my every step for the past few years I see them in the shadows they're trying to silence me.

starship is FUCKING LEANING LIKE ITS MADE OUT OF TINFOIL

they're going to need to have vertical reinforcements if they want it to survive max Q and re-entry

>>11001675
It's a starship not a starsship

>>11003406
Imagine the pops it'll make when they first pressurize it and all the dents disappear.

The hell are those guys doing on the crane?

>>11004207
placing the counterweights on the crane base, dummy

>>11003983
the only race changed character was a niggress they made white (Adé), all of those "ishoos" casting decisions are book faithful

>239 people from 19 countries have now visited the International Space Station.

Looks like they're about to move the lower half off of the crawler.

>>11004298
Maybe they're about to mount the legs?

>>11004311
They'd have to get the upper half off of the processing jig first, and while the smaller crane is attached to the upper half they haven't begun moving it yet. Probably waiting for the lower to be attached to its own crane and ready to move.

>>11004256
The count for russia is suprisingly low.

>>11004354
Seven astronauts for every short Shuttle visit, all Russians have stayed there for several months.

Upper half is on the move!

>>11004423
Or im a fucking idiot and it's the lower. Nevermind.

Don't drop it!

>>11004140
post pics please

>>11004152
why did that make my penis hard
>>11004354
seven dudes per shuttle
seven dudes for both commercial crew capsules at max
2 for Soyuz
3 is you're stupid and really cram them in there

>mars is getting wet

lmao

>>11004366
Would it be then correct to say most Russians to the ISS are part of the ISS Expedition crews and Americans would have similar numbers if not for resupply missions?

>>11004140
are you retarded or even worst, right wing???

it will be filled with pressure from inside. That gives you a sturdy ballon with walls made out of stainless steel.

>>11001643
i can't believe they are doign so much of the work by hand. We are so far away from an universal machine that frees us from labor.

>11004535
>are you retarded or even worst, right wing???

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

>>11004551
you cant even quote correctly, you must be more stupid that the people in that compilation. And yes, english is not my second language, it is my fourth.

>11004570
Here's your (you).

Oh, wait...

>>11004574
>>11004551
retarded samefag newfag

>11004578
[Triggering Intensifies]

>>11003544
To actually answer your question, no, Raptors are incredibly cheap for their size.

>>11004580
playing it off like if it was a mistake all along. cringey as fuck. you must vote right wing therefore not know history books. They do not bite. if you want further free advices in education from a being trillions of times better than you you must ask politely, im done doing favors little kiddy boy

>>11003609
could you make a small stick rocket with a couple of raptors? how about a falcon with raptors instead of merlins, would it work?

>>11004604
Why bother? Starship would be far cheaper due to being fully reusable anyway.

>>11003592
expanse is a great book and the show is loyal to the book. If oyu dont understand the series, you dont understand the book. Its about left wing liberation of true people, and fight against tyriany, so sorry, not up to interpretation or negotiation, want to enjoy media done by us? embrace da diversitaaah brothaaaaaahhhahh

@11004570
how can you be so new that you don't even understand denying the (you)

>11004601
I'm just going to concede defeat, I can't out-shitpost insanity of this magnitude. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

>>11004604
>falcon with raptor instead of merlin
the hoverslam would be too tight for first stage return, and Raptor is way overpowered for upper stage use (the upper stage just doesn't weigh enough, the g-force would break it)

>>11004604
Sure, but it would need 3 uprated minimum to pull it off, probably 4 raptors if they could be crammed in. The upper stage would be interesting to do though to say the least.

Also, the whole smash would be expendable and in engines alone a 4-raptor Falcon would be about 3 million more than with Merlins with no chance of recovery.

>>11004604
If BFR doesn't pan out, but the Raptor engine works, then maybe. A rocket with 9 Raptors on the first stage and then one on the second (like how Falcon is arranged) would still be a pretty good launcher. It'll still be much larger than the Falcon due to both the slightly larger engine and the higher thrust (which allows for more liftoff mass).

>>11004624
no good reasons for the bfr not to work out aside from the fuel transfer thing. Two wings, landing legs, super heavy basically a giant f9 lower

>>11004623
You could make an intermediate heavy lift vehicle. 5m diameter, 5 Raptors with flyback reuse, single vacuum Raptor upper stage. You could probably use Falcon 9s as boosters, since that ability is already mature for Heavy. Could be an SLS Block 1 competitor. But why?

>>11004624
You could put a small number of overexpanded Raptors on the core and use Falcons as kerolox flyback boosters. Raptor gets really decent vacuum ISP.

>>11004633
There could be the issue of it having such a massive payload capacity compared to what's currently flying that the market takes too long to make new payloads for BFR to be worth keeping around.

>>11004601
Different poster. The point of replying like that is intended to be an insult, because if you take it seriously it forces you to waste time.

>>11004633
In fact, I think there was some futzing that figured BFR's earth-to-earth transport technique might be viable even without Superheavy. Just launch a very lightly loaded Starship with a full fuel load on a suborbital trajectory.

>>11004633
if you wanted to copy F9 with Raptor, Starship Super Heavy is too big
if reusability doesn't work out (by which I mean TPS and EDL just can't be made to work within mass limits) then an F9 copy would be nine raptors on the first stage and one on the second
I don't know what diameter that would be

>>11004642
by being so cheap it changes the logic.

Take the james webb telescope. Its costing 20 billion dolars and 10 years to build because it needs to have a 0.0000001 chance of failure.

For less than one quarter the money you can put in orbit 20 telescopes that each has a 1% chance of failure and have left over money for service missions if needed.

>>11004633
>Meanwhile in 1980
>no good reasons for the space shuttle not to work out aside from the heat tile things. Two wings, lifting body, the orbiter is basically an airplane

>>11004650
We have a pretty good guess, actually. Seven BE-4's are meant to be used on a single New Glenn first stage, then two BE-3U's on the second stage. The two engines are similar, with BE-4 being a little more thrusty but heavier. So it should be possible to do at least a seven-Raptor 7m rocket for the booster, and one or two vacuum raptors for a second stage.

>>11004657
To be fair, the Shuttle main engines weren't really that good for reusability, meanwhile the Raptors seem to be made better.

>>11004661
>to be fair, the factors that are already known are well known. No one would think there are unknowns.

>>11004657
Really the problem is going to be how much hardware does SpaceX need to perform microgravity fuel transfers, and if changes need to be made how does that effect plumbing. Their current/last published idea used automated docking, pressure, and inertia, but if a more complicated technique is necessary all that means is it will take a few more iterations until the process is ready for prime-time.

If ULA was ready to do a full-scale proof of concept on depots (much of the information about said project having now been transferred to SpaceX by NASA), then it shouldn't take too long to sort out.

>>11004663

>>11004665
sauce?

>>11004681

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1177051800769138690

>>11004681
>>11004686
huh. It looks like it stretches out a bit when lifted.

>>11004690
Interesting, I'd figured that 5 would be the minimum for redundant legs.

>>11004691
Imagine being pressurized

do we know how tall the complete mk1 starship is?

>>11004709
About 55 meters on the old tintin fin legs, but it's probably close to that with the new six-leg format.

>>11004690
So 4 main legs similar to F9 + 1 on each end of fins for redundancy.

>>11004709
>>11004711
Mk1 is little taller than the design Starship. Musk said this was due to Raptor's higher than planned performance.

>>11004714
No, it's confirmed that flaps have no legs

>>11004725
See >>11004690

>>11004729
They'll be under the wings but not attached to them.

>>11004729
UNDER each fin. Mounted to the body of the vehicle. That may be why they left such a big gap between the fins and the body, have to fit two legs in there.

>>11004742
Cool, I don't really care unless they post video though, and that picture is clearly at a low throttle setting, just look at the shock diamond.

>>11004742
Does anyone else feel like they just got some oldspace dudes to build a methalox RS-25?

Blue Origin's forecast
big if true

>>11004752
I mean, the scale is looking remarkably similar

>>11004752
I've heard some of the engineers who worked on the engine are from Russia/Ukraine so there's definitely some oldspace wisdom involved

>>11004714
under the fin, by which he means aligned with the fin
it's still separate from the fin

>>11004748
what if I told you that BE-4 was a shit engine with a low chamber pressure and had unimpressive mach diamonds

>>11004789
Chamber pressure doesn't correlate to mach diamonds, nozzle expansion ratio does. Also we've seen video of 60% throttle tests and even those push the shock diamond out father than that picture. It's just a low throttle test.

>>11004789
It's not a shit engine. It's just not an ambitious one compared to the Raptor.

>>11004795
considering their relative sizes and weights, that seems fairly obvious

>>11004752
I'm sure there are oldspace people there, it's not like the professional rocketry community is very large right now, most of the experienced rocket engineers you'll get will be ones you poach from oldspace. That being said, the BE-4 is said to have a significantly lower chamber pressure than the RD-180, and it's wiki at least puts it at 1950psi, less than half that of the Raptor, with the result that while it's nearly double raptor's size and probably it's weight as well it only develops 400kN more thrust which is likely to lend it a pretty anemic TWR, probably lower by a good bit even than that of the RD-180. The only advantage it has over any of the oldspace engines is that like Raptor it's cost is only a fraction of that spent on oldspace designs, and the only thing is has over a Raptor is 400kN extra thrust, if SpaceX is forced to build a larger engine for any reason then even that won't even be in the BE-4's favor.

>>11004813
look at how big that chungus is
look at how it's not even better than Raptor despite being huger

>>11004686
>That panel gap

>>11004813
For a new metha/LOX engine it's extremely conservative, the only thing that makes it unique among rockets will be it's sheer size and it's very low cost compared to oldspace alternatives. It will lose out in Isp thanks to that very low chamber pressure, it definitely loses out to other existing engines in TWR, and in fact if SpaceX's ballpark is correct and they max out the sea level Raptor's chamber pressure for use in Starship then it will actually develop higher thrust, 2452kN, which means that the BE-4 couldn't even lay claim to being the most powerful metha/LOX engine currently flying.

>>11004824
No panels gaps, it's a dark weld line.

>>11004748
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI7NpouUv14

>>11004863
And Raptor for comparison, I like how it REEEs before firing up, presumably due to the much higher working pressures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7kqFt3nID4

>>11004869
nope turns out that was a vibrational mode that wasn't getting damped out, and it was breaking the engine
like Audi diesel Le Mans racers, Raptor is disappointingly quiet

>>11004877
Shit, oh well, a quiet engine is a structurally sound engine. Better to have it quiet and not shaking to pieces.

>>11004863
I meant a video of the full thrust test, you goose.

>>11004839
why did Shelby threaten to cancel NASA's space technology program because of propellant depots when much of it's based at MSFC in Alabama? Is it just because of Orion? I mean shit couldn't we make a version of Orion that could use propellant depots? I mean I guess MSFC did do some structural testing for the SLS tanks.

Starship mass goes *up*, payload increases? But it actually decreases?
What?

>>11004942
The missing value here is how much more fuel does Starship get for that jump in dry mass.

>>11004955
Makes sense.

>>11004716
Elon says 50m

nice

>>11004893
And I thought the Shelby memes were ironic.

1400 t wet for mk1... that's 1200t of fuel. Even higher than the (estimated?) 1100t bump. Wonder what sort of fuel increase SH got. And, wonder what the later Mk's will have for fuel capacity. Does the -80t for Mk4 mean +80t fuel?

>>11004942
starship is the payload. Starship can deliver stainless steel to orbit in the form of itself.

is cocoa’s SS a Mark 2?

>everyday retard goes hurf durf how tall is starship instead of asking important questions or holding his tongue

absolutely infuriating

after this conference I want information on serial production numbers and the state and performance of 18m starship

>>11004990
We've known it's 1200t for over 2 weeks
it got stretched taller

and the extra payload would only be fuel on the tanker or yeet variants

>>11004821
The weak performance translates to low strain, higher reusability, and lower cost
(in theory)

>>11005082
While raptor is full flow staged combustion

hmmmmmmmm
sqwincher
delicious
https://twitter.com/BocaChicaGal/status/1176959732373962758?s=20

>>11005201
so where are the canards?

>>11005209
on the ground behind the shed-tent

https://www.space.com/nasa-orders-second-mobile-launcher-sls-megarocket.html
In other news, NASA gets a second mobile launcher for SLS Block 1B since it'll take too long to convert the existing one used for SLS Block 1.

>>11001632
General question, what does „Mk“ stand for as in „Starship Mk2“? I guess it means prototype, but why the letters M and k?

>>11005220
It's our fault. We memed expendable launch towers into reality.

>>11005237
MK can stand as abbreviation for mark, model or variant.

ooooof

>>11005346
pls explain to non-americans

>>11004245
I'm talking about the lezzas, which tbf I could have tolerated if the preacher weren't such a frigging wet blanket. That's the thing you see, one or two annoying things I can tolerate but it's an overall combo of it going a bit shit in S3

>>11001632
>sound of ganymede
>is one of those HURR DURR DEEP MEDITATION videos that just distort the original audio
Fuck you. Post the real sounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLs7emtY8So

>>11004545
Indeed, some of these jobs that have a rapid feedback loop between physical input and result look phenomenally hard to automate. I don't think we're going to have robot dentists for a long time, nor (except for easy jobs) even robot welders

>>11005366
From what I gathered.
SpaceX wantd to buy out every house in Boca Chica cause they want to build a proper space port there. They made public an offer to buy any house for 3 times the market value. This guy is saying they are really shit at estimating that market value. +they set like a two week deadline on the deal.

>>11005397
Yup, and now they have the right to eminent domain so the boomers who didnt sell their houses will get rekt anyway

>>11005220
>>11005239

If there's any justice then the VAB, the crawler transporters, and the new SLS pads will get repurposed as the launch infrastructure for New Armstrong after SLS gets cancelled in 2022.

>>11005346
Holy shit. Why the fuck am I not living in Florida.

Here in shithole no launch UK $40k wouldn't get you anything with plumbing.

>>11005476
Good.

>>11005542
It probably is an abysmally low estimate, I don't live in Florida but a suburban house like that in my state can easily run you 150-200k.

>>11005552
Dirt race battery kek

>>11005555
I guess they’re factoring in their own impact on the sales price.

>>11005593
I forget sometimes that most people are fucking normies who wouldn't enjoy living right nextdoor to active rocket facility and spaceport.

>>11005607
I think anyone would want to move after they start launching a Saturn V sized rocket 20 times a year.

>>11005607
My dog doesn’t like fireworks.

>>11005082
In theory, if I'm not mistaken in practice the full flow staged cycle delivers this same quality in a different way. By having both turbopumps and both preburners running fuel and oxidizer rich respectively while you are still having to cope with high pressure the thermal load is much reduced by the relatively low amount of actual combustion going on inside the preburner chambers. This is good for longevity because so long as the pressures are within the tolerance limits of the preburner and turbomachinery's designs the (relatively) low temperature means that those metals won't undergo any fundamental changes in their structure and as a result they won't weaken substantially with each use. However even if the BE-4 is more long-lived, Raptors are cheaper to manufacture (2 million compared the the BE-4's 8 million) which means that once SpaceX starts putting out the production Starship Raptors with their 300 Bar chamber pressures (giving them 52kN more thrust than a BE-4), even if the Raptors live only 25% as long as the BE-4 they'll still be providing essentially the same amount of raw power per dollar spent to build them, ignoring that Raptors are substantially more efficient and their parent vehicle will launch substantially heavier payloads.

From a purely technical perspective I don't really see any upside to the BE-4 here, in pretty much every category some other engine excels in at least one or more performance characteristics compared to it. Maybe it's because metha/LOX is such a middle-tier propellant choice, maybe any engine you build to use it has to be highly ambitious in it's design to excel.

>>11005346
So what exactly is eminent domain? Can SpaceX just take their house and not pay them a dime? That's pretty fucked up. I had a feeling the reason these people weren't selling at 3x market value was because the market value of their homes was so low. SpaceX is about to get a shitload of bad publicity if they do this.

>>11005555
What the fuck? My friend just closed on a nice house in my town for just over $30k, big fenced yard and a detached garage big enough to tinker on shit in. 150-200k sounds insane, what are you buying the whole block?

>>11005796
It's a very unAmerican idea.

>>11005796
SpaceX still has to pay them the market price and some extra. But not 3x market price as they had offered earlier.

>>11005817
That's unbelievable. Where does he live?

>>11005817
you lucky fuckers

in the uk a tiny shoebox costs the equivalent of $300k

>>11005823
Michigan, not the mitten part. I don't know how he finagled such a good deal, but the place looks great for what little he spent.
>>11005826
More people might come up here to live, were it not for the poverty and blizzards.

>>11005845
>Michigan, not the mitten part
I think that's your answer. Makes sense that land in the UP is cheap.

>>11005817
That‘s what happens when they build your houses from toothpicks and some duct tape.

>>11005857
Your comment means nothing.

>>11005845
its probably haunted

>>11005854
Yeah, makes sense, I always forget that nobody wants to live here.
>>11005892
This too.

>>11005845
That hut would be worth at least half a million if it was in the SF bay area. It's all about location. Not a lot of people want to pay money to freeze their ass off and live in the middle of a bunch of yoopers.

>>11005913
>Not a lot of people want to pay money to freeze their ass off and live in the middle of a bunch of yoopers.
Their loss, the night sky in the dead of winter is an incredible sight, almost worth the numb toes and fingers.

Praised be the fields and the sheet metal and all watertower companies. Praise Elon, who will open onto us the doors to the solar system and deliver us from this tiny rock. Praise his heart, which burns red with the dusts of Mars, and praise his mind, which glows blue with the light of stars. Seperate yourselves from the ground on which we stand, fall and die. Embrace the void of space and the dim pastures of world's far away. Devote yourself to the power that can lift us beyond all atmospheric boundaries. Worship the ship that will take us to the stars.

GET ON WITH IT

>>11006059
YES GET ON WITH IT

LIFT

WITH THE CRANE

THAT'S WHAT THE CABLES ARE FOR

2 more days

>>11006031
Praise Starship (PBUI)
>>11006059
>>11006065
G E T O N W I T H I T

>>11006115
MUH

NIAC talk by George Sowers, who headed prop depots for ULA, on mining ice right now.

why is there a 1200t crane if stacked mk1 is 1400t

>>11006148
Just slap some extra cables and counterweights on there, everything will be daijoubu.

If anyone was wondering and too lazy to do the math themselves, a 200t dry / 1400t wet Starship with 350s ISP gets a dV of 6679m/s

>>11006161
And with the theoretical maximum for Raptor at 380s Isp?

>>11006170
7251 but that would imply launching Mk1 on Superheavy to get vacuum Raptors up to vacuum

>>11006174
Even 6.6679km/s is enormous, just hypothetically if you say halved the payload and replaced the wing/leg/flaps with normal stiff wings it might have enough dV to be an S*TO.

>>11006148
Suggestion: Only fill up Starship with fuel AFTER you've craned it where you want it to be.

>>11006204
Elon wants to halve the dry weight going from Mk 1 to Mk 4. Slapdash steel tubes in a field are cost effective, but weight inefficient. That will likely give it a minimal SSTO capability, but I'm doubtful it would be used like that (except maybe E2E)

If you put the dry mass to 100t and ISP to 360 you get 9300m/s and change

>>11005542
that's "market price" for a house in shithole, Texas
the issue is that anybody purposefully living in shithole Texas is never going to sell, and nobody wants to buy, so the prices are like a tenth of what you pay into them to build it

>>11006115
is this the first ever dabbing rocket

>>11006218
I wonder if you could do something like a strongk steel frame with a carbon/carbon hull, pretty good high temperature resistance, lower weight, exchanged for higher cost and more difficult manufacture.

>>11006258
Dabs on niggers and nu-male culture.

>>11006258
BDR - Big Dabbing Rocket

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3RjayAF0b4

New trailer for sci-fi For All Mankind is a tv series from Apple about alternate timeline where Russians landed on the Moon and space race never stopped. Now with 50% more SJW content!

>>11006350
>oh no women :(

>>11006350
>women in MY science fiction television shows?

incels and redpill was and will always be a mistake.

>>11006115
I thought the legs were inside the body?

>>11006386
nope, we've seen the sheathes on a truck somewhere

>>11006371
As was reddit
Now go back to your home

>>11006402
I'd figured that those would cause issues during reentry. I assume those are just for the Mk1?

>>11006411
doesn't look like it, although I have no idea how they're going to manage the TPS on the two windward bumps

>>11006115
S T E E L Y D A B
T
E
E
L
Y

D
A
B

>>11006350
>>Comments are disabled for this video

>>11006371
No lesbians? :(

>>11004755
That is a terrible prediction, what the fuck is BO smoking when they do this crap?

>>11004742
>>11004752
>>11004759
Thats cool.
BE-4 has still never flown.

>>11006350
Inspiring.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>11006472
ONONONONONONONONONONO...THEY FUCKED IT UP...AGAIN!

>>11006472
JUST

>>11006472
it's fine, as long as it's on the leeward side there's no issue
that'll pop right out when they pressurize it

>>11006472
As I've said in previous threads, it's going to be wonderful watching the mass suicides at NASA when based Elon beats them to the moon with this Dr. Apostle Kwadwo Safo Katanka looking piece of shit and externally BTFOs oldspace harder than Challenger, Columbia, and Apollo 1 combined.

>>11006472
This piece of shit is probably going to log more flight hours before retirement than all SLS launches combined.

>>11006472
Gotta redo that if they want to keep the structural integrity. Another 1-3 days of delay.

>>11006472
Prepare for costly delays and budget overruns.

Mistakes much smaller than this have buried billion dollar space projects.

>>11006503
Nope. Its a minor delay that's a work in progress. I doubt it will take more than a day or two to get that fixed.

>>11006472

>>11006506
How would one go about fixing something like that? Just trim the bottom x inches off?

>>11006503
You're saying it like that thing is supposed to fly in space or something. It's just a prototype for early testing.

>>11006495
It depends on how bad those critical faults of NASAs moon program found by the GAO are, and if SpaceX doesn't suffer a catastrophic failure in the meantime.

Whoever gets to the moon first, if BFR starts flying and is even a fraction as good as SpaceX advertised then it won't matter who made it first because SpaceX would have the superior infrastructure for more involvement in space than NASA.

>>11006510
Hammering it in place is the only option.

>>11006510
Yep. Nothing a few hours with an angle grinder won't fix. They might just cut out the offending seam/corners and weld in a steel plug that's been cut to fit what was removed. Steel lets you do stuff like that.

>>11006510
Hammer/trim depending on the problem.

>>11006490
Judging by the angle of the racetrack fairings, it looks like it's right in the middle of the windward side, lol.

>>11006544
Who cares. It won't be operational for at least a month

Yikes

>>11006672
kek

There are people who refuses to believe Falcon 9 is a working rocket because they're too far in deep with their conviction of Elon being BAD.

>>11006472
Just bang on it with a sledgehammer
It'll be fine

>>11006206
We don't believe in fuel depots at the launch pad. We believe the Starship Lift System should be designed strong enough to lift a fully fueled Starship!

>>11006672
>anyone who criticizes me is a cultist
I hate this mindset.

>>11006702
>We don't believe in fuel depots at the launch pad
Expendable fuel trucks

>>11006350
Wow! First woman on the moon! That sure as fuck makes up for losing the space race in the first place! If only the soviets had known! They could've turned that one around yet.

>>11006472
>just tuck that steel in
How did they even manage that?
Also how does this keep happening?

>>11006559
Don't get me wrong. I thought this "build it with Mexicans in a cornfield" strategy for Starship was retarded at first but now I'm drinking the koolaid hardcore. I'll be erect when this rusting piece of shit manages to match New Shepherd's flight envelope despite being built 10x as big for 0.25x as much money.

I grin every day reading about the construction updates. I'm addicted.

>>11006672
I'm so used to the shitposting in here that I can only giggle at someone doing it unironically. Because I know that at the end, either they will be BTFO with a salt meteorite, or we'll get to see a NASCAR-tier RUD. It's a win either way.
>>11006678
Tesla Man Bad

Is the Starship event even happening? We're now two days out, and Elon's been promising the vehicle will be done by then, but besides that I've heard no news on event logistics. Media-only maybe?

>>11006777
media people plus locals have said they got invites

owo, anon don't look up there~~~~~

>>11006788

>>11006788
can't posting pictures online looking up a rocket engine bell land you in federal prison

>>11006788
>>11006795
lewd

Also makes me wonder if they can space the engines out a bit more and slap a 4th in the center.

>>11006803
nope. vacRap has a phatt bell. Can't squeeze a 4th SL raptor without reducing performance of the vacuum ones. 6 Raptors is a pretty hard limit for SS

>>11006803
three vacuum bells around the outside is the current plan of note, I believe

>>11006809
are they really dragging three whole SL raptors along to orbit just to have redundancy on landing?

>>11006809
>>11006810
I'm aware of that, I was suggesting going to a 4 SL/3 Vac design instead of a 3/3, unless they plan on doing the double bell with the Vac engines.

>>11006815
do they need more than three raptors worth of thrust ever?

>>11006795
chunguses

>>11006822
Launch abort, plus additional redundancy in the event one of the engines fails to ignite for whatever reason during landing. IIRC Musk said in a tweet a while back the Raptor turbopumps are capable of spinning up much faster than what is done now, and even if it's not enough thrust to get away from an exploding superheavy, it'll be enough to keep starship from falling into the fireball and the twisted mass of metal on the pad.

We'll see how it pans out in the future.

>>11006761
>Because I know that at the end, either they will be BTFO with a salt meteorite, or we'll get to see a NASCAR-tier RUD. It's a win either way.

This. Either we get to see the most monumental upending in aerospace history as Starship blows the solar system wide open and we see a Star Wars/Firefly-style gritty "used universe" ascent to the stars on the backs of interplanetary vehicles built like crab trawlers in literal open air boatyards, or we get to watch the biggest most spectacular RUD since STS-51-L. It's the greatest win/win scenario in modern space history.

>>11006788
thanks for the technical data
t. nork

>>11006815
They should simply go with 4 raptors, but give them XLR-129 style dual-position extending nozzles so they can all do both in-atmosphere and vacuum duty.

If starship actually works and brings the cost of space transport down, what does that mean for the current industry which revolves on complex lightweight solutions?

Why build something complicated, small, and expensive when you can build something big, cheap, and simple?

Will all the technologies used today to minimize weight and volume die out and cause new technologies to emerge?

>>11006854
correct. The increase in power, weight budgets as a result drastically reduce cost and time. off the shelf solutions become feasible.

>>11006853
Mechanical complexity. If one fails to extend or retract you're in trouble. Its why the double-bell is the most likely option: Mechanically its very simple with no moving parts, and whether it's operating in atmospheric or vacuum mode simply depends on the outside air pressure.

>>11006854
Well I'd guess we'll certainly simply larger structural components however reducing volume will still be highly desired for spaceflight, simply because if things can be stowed small and made large in orbit then you can send more shit into orbit. Expando-habs are a great example of this, they're lighter per cubic meter of internal usable volume but overall all of the up-and-coming versions are going to be a good bit heftier than their aluminum-can hab counterparts, on top of being structurally tougher and better shielded from radiation. Other weight saving technologies like using better alloys than aluminum such as perhaps Allite magnesium alloys or aluminum/lithium alloys, or titanium/aluminum alloys won't die out but you won't see them in lifters or big equipment, just in quality equipment where their use is going to provide strictly better quality (rovers made with lighter materials can have longer operational time because they use less energy to move about, etc). In addition, weight saving measures like expando-habs and magnesium alloys are actually cheaper and more robust than their aluminum counterparts as well, so they offer other values besides weight saving.

>>11006953
iToddler detected

>>11006954
Yea I didn't get the text in before it autoposted. PEAK phoneposting.

what in fuck

>>11006964
Crane moving crane parts.

>>11006964
extender bit for the big crane

>>11006966
yep

>>11006964
Is it leaning?

>>11006964
Is this shit leaning?

>>11006968
>>11006970
just perspective, the upper part on right has the same angle to it

>>11007008
>just perspective
Been a while since I've heard that outside of a flat Earth discussion.

>>11006720
The Russians won the space race by every single measurement, until America moved the goalposts.

>>11007032
This is the (you) you requested.

>>11006964
hawt crane-on-crane action

>>11006964
LITTLE STARSHIP GANGBANGED BY 4 BIG BLACK CRANES

>>11007032
America set the moon as the goal at the start of the space race specifically because it was seen as far enough ahead that they could catch up and prestigious enough to end the race. There was no "shifting goal posts", that's a post-hoc Russian rationalization for slipping behind from an early lead.

>>11007052
both the Soviet goal of figuring out how to do things in space with LEO space stations and the American moonshot backed up with autonomous satellites have laid the groundwork for what's happening in Florida, California, and Texas right now. It is only through lessons learned doing those things that SpaceX can attempt what they do, for they stand on the shoulders of giants.

With the shine off this thing it's going to be very easily seen from Earth when it's in Orbit right?

God I can't wait.

>>11007078
it really depends, one side is going to be shiny stainless, the other is going to be black ceramic, like the shuttle tiles

S O O N

O

O

N

>>11006967
God, heavy machinery makes my peepee hard.

It's gonna be a busy night. Reckon we'll get a stack by this time tomorrow?

>>11007177
If we don't get a stack by this time tomorrow it'll be hard to get it stacked before the presentation. And if it's not stacked before the presentation Elon will probably shitcan all contractors involved.

>>11007175
I maintain that no straight male can view the Bagger 288 without popping half a stiffy.

>>11007208
post it

>>11007208
Nothing's more indicative of the white man's domain over the laws of physics.

>>11007212

>>11007227
I wonder how quick it could chew up a small office building?