/sci/ - Science & Math

First for Big G.

Soon.

>>11084304
For reference, pic related is what it looked like 6 months ago

do we know why the starlink launches keep getting delayed?

>>11084315
Most likely SpaceX is adding and changing shit to the sats constantly, and doing changes to 120+ satellites takes a bit. Also, the Krypton ion thrusters might need tweaking before they're optimized.

>>11084315
They're probably double checking everything to make sure that all goes well. It's pretty hard to do "test as you fly" with such a huge payload like this. Plus there has been alot of public scrutiny of Starlink lately so any major issues wouldn't help matters.

>no stickers on hardhat

>>11084451
Then again these workers don’t seem to have many hat stickers

>>11084451

You know this forbidden in most industry's now. Or is that the joke?

>>11084304
>Soon*

*first flight 2034

>>11084458
Still waiting on Red Dragon. And 10x core reuse. And SpaceX to actually fly humans. And that's not even including the big fake rocket...

>>11084465
Cancelled because no NASA sponsored Dragon propulsive landings, 4th is happening soon so just give it time lmao, Q1 2020, next month (road closures are already posted)

>>11084457
she really needs to tighten up her safety harness

how many of you will actually go to colonize the moon or mars after spaceflight becomes viable and don't give me that "we don't have the tech" bullshit we had the tech since the early 2000s at worst or are you just going to keep shitposting on earth?

>>11084477
I would gladly go be a wagey on another planet, but I don't think they'd take me

>>11084477
As long as I can buy a beefy Fritos burrito for a dollar, I’m heading to mars

>>11084304
based and chadpilled

>>11084477
>implying they'd want me

>>11084451
I'd full flow some semen into her womb if you know what I mean

>>11084466
>Q1 2020
Yeah, no. Not gonna happen. If NASA thought it was, they wouldn't need more Basedus seats.

SpaceX knows they're in danger of losing the flag, and Boeing beating them to the ISS would be far more embarrassing to them than the reverse would be to Boeing.

>>11084477
I will likely have a resume that could get me a job on Mars but a single trip there and back is a long time so I don't know if I would take an offer to go. I'd be open to a Moon trip if it weren't for the hellish Moon dust.

What would happen if somehow we had the technology to move the moon's orbit to about 200,000km? Other than prettier nights and big surf, not much?

STARLINK WHEN

>>11084570
More and longer eclipses?

>>11084570
I'd guess you would have lots of earthquakes and other geological events from the tidal forces.
The moon's gravity well would fuck up all geostationary satellites.
You'd have all sorts of fuckery happening with plants and animals that rely on lunar cycles or nocturnal animals that use the moon for sight or navigation.
Frequent eclipses that cover larger areas.
As you mentioned higher/lower tides, so all coastal areas are fucked.

Note that the current orbit is 362kkm to 405kkm, so that's only about half the distance.

>>11084606
bruh it's big M, not double k

Should starship actually be considered a super heavy class lifter? If it is reaches its aspirational goals and is as game changing as that implies, shouldn't it be considered the new standard to which other rockets are compared rather than the anemic historical precedents. As such, should it not be considered a medium class lifter?

>>11084640
yeah, obviously
anything under 100 tons is a smallsat launcher

>>11084570
Skyscrapper sized waves.

>>11084474
elon agrees, tight is right

>>11083607
by who?

>>11084723
me

>>11084643
>100 ton cubesat

>>11084477
I would, but with my criminal record and bad eyesight I doubt they would take me.

>>11084285

>>11084304
At least half of the people in this picture appear to be morbidly obese.

M-M-M-M-M-MAXIMUM BONER

>>11084832
>these RS-25s will fly once

baw

>>11084513
I don't get it

>>11084629
>unironically using megameters as a unit

>>11084874
These engines have all flown to space a few times already, there’s some resources on NSF that can tell you which engine is which and what Shuttle missions they flew on e.g. the second engine which is currently being installed, flew on Atlantis for STS-135.

>>11084640
I don't think there's really any fixed classification system for rockets, most of them are so hyperspecialized they fall into their own "whatever-we-built-it-for-launcher" class. I think it's relatively reasonable however to do something like:
>100s kg to 10 tons
Smallsat lifters and prototype demonstrators.
>10 tons to 50 tons
Light lifter
>50 tons to 100 tons
Medium lifter
>100 tons and up
Heavy lifter
>Multiple 100s of tons
Superheavy lifter

While BFRShip has a "superheavy" booster, the whole package is not in-and-of itself a superheavy lifter. Those would be more like ITS and Sea Dragon, rockets with multiple hundreds of tons of hoisting capacity.

>>11084981
The 18m variant of Starship and its associated booster might be able to hit Superheavy tier.

>>11084984
Oh assuredly so, the hypothetical vehicle would be closer to the diameter of Sea Dragon and probably it's height or maybe even a bit taller, seeing as how the original 12m ITS was already almost the same height. The increase in diameter is about 33%, if you increased height to keep the dimensions of the rocket identical it would be about 162m tall. If you increase it's payload by the same degree you'd get a reusable payload capacity of around 400 tons in reusable mode, and 731 tons in expendable mode.

>>11084981
>>11084984
>>11084998
>A small-lift launch vehicle is a rocket orbital launch vehicle that is capable of lifting up to 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) of payload into low Earth orbit (LEO).

>A medium-lift launch vehicle (MLV) is a rocket launch vehicle that is capable of lifting between 2,000 to 20,000 kg (4,400 to 44,100 lb) of payload into low Earth orbit (LEO).

>A heavy-lift launch vehicle, HLV or HLLV, is an orbital launch vehicle capable of lifting between 20,000 to 50,000 kg to low Earth orbit.

>A super heavy-lift launch vehicle (SHLLV) is a launch vehicle capable of lifting more than 50 tonnes (110,000 lb) of payload into low Earth orbit (LEO).

>>11085042
Seems outdated by a great margin, since 50 tons is nowhere even remotely near the upper limit of launch capabilities with current technology. More like a tenth or so, 50 tons should be an MLV at the very most.

>>11085048
I think your really overestimating the capabilities of current launch vehicles:

D4H does 28 tons to LEO
Proton does 23 tons
LM-5 does 25 tons
FH does 30 with reusability
NG will do 45 tons with reusability

They are all considered heavy launch vehicles (NG and FH could be SHLVs but only without reusability).

>>11084750
Cubesat, Borgsat
Poteto potato

>>11085059
Those vehicles are built for the already existing market, which is depressingly unambitious. If every family only ever had two kids and never traveled you'd also never see a minivan. If there were no such thing as big cities and factories or industrial farms you'd rarely or never see 18 wheeler trucks. If there were only very limited international trade you'd never see cargo and fuel tankers the size of aircraft carriers. Small rockets are all that exist only because lack of ambition, funding, and motivation has created a market in which small rockets are all that is necessary.

I'm talking technological capability, there is nothing preventing the design of rocket engines larger even than the F1, there's nothing preventing the construction of much wider and taller rockets or the remodeling of existing launch pads or creation of new ones to service and fuel them. All that's lacking is the market demand for their existence.

>>11085069
Yikes, miss me with this sci-fi shit

>>11085070
Jesus Christ, how can you tolerate posting in a space thread when you hate even discussing the possibility that space technology could ever advance past the 60's?

>>11085078
>when you hate even discussing the possibility that space technology could ever advance past the 60's?
Not him, but it sure does feel that way sometimes.

>>11085077
sideways integration seems much more practical than vertical when dealing with rockets this big. Hopefully the next few cores will get smashed out now that they've worked out how to actually do it.

>>11084513
that's a male though

>>11085081
I've really had it up to the chin with this kind of blackpill fucking bullshit. Demoralization leading to lack of ambition and acceptance of the status quo is a fucking plague on civilization in general and so many different things could get done if people would just get off their asses and stop pretending that nothing can be done.

Rocket technology hasn't failed us, we've failed rocket technology.

>>11084937
0.405 Gm

>>11085088
>Rocket technology hasn't failed us, we've failed rocket technology.
I just hope that this new wave of progress in spaceflight is here to stay.

>>11084792
*ruins the night sky forever*

>>11085102
This has been debated to death. Starlink will not "ruin" the night sky. At worst it'll inconvenience some astronomers.

>>11085102
Fucking sky-environmentalists, they never gave a single shit until there was something new for them to complain about. Just like normal environmentalists.

>>11085083
I’ve just realised that despite people calling SLS’ construction slow, 4 months ago it was just 3 separate tank sections, but now it’s a full core with engines attached. Ever since NASA forced Boeing to switch from vertical to horizontal integration they’ve been making steady progress, with no fuck ups.

>>11085102
Blah blah. They're on record as saying they care about the view and will not ruin it.

>>11085105
That's enough to shitcan it.

>>11085113
How so?

>>11085088
Try living in the UK. It truly is the most cynical, depressing, downtrodden, demoralised, zero-sum thinking place around. Well, except for France of course.

>>11085105
>>11085107
>>11085110
>oh no, 30,000 new satellites of which 100 will be visible at any time and are brighter than any star for 3 hours at dusk and 3 hours at dawn will have no negative effects on the night sky whatsoever :^)
Die.

>>11085102
No, anon. A few more com sats in the night sky won't do shit. However, there are other very serious very real threats you should spend your energy on trying to prevent...

>>11085121
>brighter than any star
I thought that the Starlink sats were pretty dim?

>negative effects
Such as?...

>>11085121

>>11085121
>muh sky
>muh sky mufugga
How many hours a night do you spend watching the stars as opposed to say, sitting in your house with the lights on, pretending to care about the sky on a Texan flying water tower manufacturing forum?

>>11085095
>giga
now we're talking

>>11085121
There's this amazing colour called black. Heard of it?

>>11085125
They are, the ones seen early on were still trying to reach final orbit and were far closer to Earth than their final orbit altitude. Thus, at that time they were far brighter than they normally would ever be.

>>11085130
>colour

>>11085128
>Texan flying water tower manufacturing forum
Hey, HEY!!!

>>11085133
Imagine spending hours of your precious life making this image, and then posting it on a completely different website from which it originates.

>>11085132
Educate yourself:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

>>11085137
What website is it from anyway?

>>11085131
when they were grouped up like that they were also tumbling, in final orientation they're much dimmer

>>11085137
>Imagine spending hours of your precious life....
>*seen posted on 4channel*

>>11085140
NSF

>>11085143

What am I looking at.

>>11085127
>SRB first stage

I like this.

>>11085145
The soap is imprisoned for our safety.

>>11085143
This, nobody who posts on this fucking cancer singularity of a board needs to imagine wasting hours of their life.

>>11085143
>n-no u!
Is that they best you can come up with?
Why don't you go back to where you came from?

>>11085141

>>11085083
>>11085108
The engines were always planned to be installed horizontally, but the original plan was:
>join the engine stage to the LH2 tank vertically
>join the LOX tank to the LH2 tank horizontally
>install the engines
The new plan that NASA and Boeing came up with to save a couple of months is:
>join the LH2 tank to the LOX tank horizontally
>join the engine section to the core stage horizontally
>install the engines horizontally
The new horizontal installation plan required a couple of tools to be fabricated and/or repurposed, but it probably saved about 6 months of time and so will be used for all the new core stages from now on.

>>11085157
yeet

>>11085158
It makes sense, horizontal seems like it should give you a lot more space to work with, and require less time hoisting parts straight up or letting them straight down.

>>11085162
Not to mention, anything that falls has a lot less time to build up momentum.

>>11085102
I dunno about you guys, but the number of satellites per hour I can count passing over my head on a clear night is already in the range of a few dozen, usually there's at least one scooting across the sky but often enough there are two and sometimes three or four satellites visibly moving overhead.

Complaining about SpaceX's plans with Starlink in terms of how the """""pristine""""" night sky will be ruined is like complaining about someone dumping biodegradable plastic cups into the Ganges river, even though it's already packed with non-biodegradable plastic bags and drowned brown people. The night sky is ALREADY 'ruined' lol. I wonder how fags like you will complain in the future that they can see giant O'Neill cylinder habitat clusters in Earth orbit at night. Our brightest future is one where all the NIMBYs get eternally BTFO.

>>11085162
The main time-saving actually comes from the engine section. Under the old plan they would've had to wait until it was finished and installed before they could work on putitng the the LH2 and LOX tanks together. However, the engine section ended up being more complex to build than expected, so even as the LH2 and LOX tanks, it wasn't ready. This will generally hold true for all engine sections, so they needed to change up the order.
Under the new plan, they were able to get work done on the rest of the rocket while they finished up the engine section, which saved a LOT of time.

>>11085174
So, you can cram multiple pieces of the rocket into the building to work on at once?

>>11085173
>Complaining about SpaceX's plans with Starlink in terms of how the """""pristine""""" night sky will be ruined is like complaining about someone dumping biodegradable plastic cups into the Ganges river, even though it's already packed with non-biodegradable plastic bags and drowned brown people.
No, it's like complaining that there's a few flies in your house vs complaining that someone dumped a dead carcass in your house and left it there for a month until you can't breathe in without inhaling flies,

>>11085121
There will be nothing but positive effects, because we'll finally have the incentive to stop fucking around sucking native cocks to beg permission to build terrestrial telescopes on top of ((sacred)) mountains on Earth, and just build big ass telescopes in various high-Earth orbits instead, using inflatable bubble telescopes and spin-stabilized rigid telescopes anywhere between a handful and hundreds of meters across, vastly increasing our scientific data gathering capability and the value of that data while simultaneously finally making bullshit primitive cultures totally irrelevant to astronomy forever. Yes I'm salty about the amount of objects and structures in space named after unpronounceable Hawaiian penis gods or whatever.

>>11085176
Yeah, it physically fits, but that's not really the point.
It's mainly... well, I don't think "integration work" is the right term for it, but it's close enough. Basically, there's a lot of stuff that can only be done once the LH2 and LOX tanks are together. Think of wiring, plumbing, etc. Thanks to the new plan that mated the two tanks ahead of time, they were able to get started on that work before the engine section was mated.

>>11085186
Ah, that makes sense.

>>11085185
>Hawaiian penis gods

>>11085185
kill yourself, racist.

>>11085145
reusable soap

>>11085176
reusable assembly scaffolds!

>>11085192
nah m8 that soap is expendable, and the assembly scaffolding is refurbishable

>>11085126
>>11085122
>implying in our higher-tech future there won't be some mad lad crazy enough to make his own model rocket capable of reaching the billboard orbital altitude, and load that 'model rocket' up with a stick of dynamite surrounded by a few kilograms of lead shot
>implying nobody is gonna shoot that shit down within a month of it being deployed, initiating low orbit Kessler syndrome and allowing the colony worlds a chance to secure their own independence while also causing the government of Earth for forever bring the hammer down on 'potentially inflammatory space objects' and ban advertising in space for all eternity
>implying coca cola wouldn't be dissolved and its executives imprisoned in a supermax prison for their trouble

honestly the best timeline to live in would be the one where humans are simultaneously doing deep space colonization and expansion while also slowly transitioning to an ancap civilization, so we get space pirates and inalienable right-to-bear-nuclear-weapons laws etc.

>>11085127
wait, it gets 10.7 tons to Earth escape but somehow gets 12+ tons to trans-Mars injection? what the fuck?

>>11085191
>christians oppose science
>hahaha stupid christfags
>some island natives oppose science
>MUH SACRED ROCKS MUH RAYCISM
fuck off

>>11085131
I hope I get to see the next train

>>11085127
>>11085146
>>11085202
YOU THOUGHT YOU COULD ESCAPE ME?

OH hi there men of science whats up

>>11085198
>ancap belter space pirates
>LEO is Kessler'ed due to corporate shitbaggery and homegrown terrorism and the prison is complete
>inalienable right-to-bear-nuclear-weapons laws

>>11085191

>>11085141
lol I'd love to troll the world by putting up Mylar mirrored sats that perfectly orient their mirrors so sunlight hits earth the entire time they are reaching orbit then position them away when they are there.

>>11085198
>inalienable right to nuclear weapons

>>11085208
>crashes into it's upper stage

>>11085212
kill yourself, cupcake

>>11085224
It didn’t have an upper-stage, it was a mass simulator.

>>11085241

>>11085241
>>11085242
>a nuclear-tipped missile only needs to be as big as a man to hit Earth from Mars
>when Mars declares independence it writes into law that every citizen will be issued a personal nuclear missile aimed at Earth, so Earth doesn't get too uppity about trying to maintain jurisdiction
>later, not taking the threat seriously, Earth demands Mars send Earth sinodal gimmedats in the form of orbital habitat structure building materials
>in response Mars Mars fires off ALL the nukes, kesslers every satellite in Earth orbit, fucks up the ionosphere and the electrical grid on the ground, throwing Earth civilization into collapse and chaos for the next 200 years, and then rewrites its laws so that each citizen gets 10 personal interplanetary nuclear ballistic missiles instead of just 1

>>11084640
After Starship, the real performance of a launch system will be expressed in tons to LEO per year. Per launch number is quite meaningless for a rapidly reusable launch system.

Both Falcon and SLS are in ~100 ton per year class. Starship will be in several thousand tons per year.

>>11085242
>hybrid rocket motor
when will they fucking learn, anons. Why don't they just use one of the same engines that the Skycrane uses along with the same propellants anyhow? Hard to go wrong with pressure fed hypergolic propellants.

>>11085263
so, for transfers, is there a way that the nukes are launched and then come in before there's a good launch window for Earth-Mars?

>>11085268
>After Starship, the real performance of a launch system will be expressed in tons to LEO per year.
Least intelligent comment of all time. Do you think the Air Force's most important metric for the C-17 is how much it can lift per year?

>>11085285
How else would you differentiate between Starship and SLS? Both have 100 tons to orbit of payload. Yet one of them is two orders of magnitude more capable than the other.

>>11085285
That is a significant factor, but not quite in those words. Reliable and dependable very heavy lift with a short turn-around time is directly translatable to "very high mass per year"

>>11085289
Lunch rate and max payload don't always need to be considered separately you fucking retard.

>>11085292
Sounds tasty...

>>11085278
Yeah, if they're early they'd launch onto an orbit that would take them away from the Sun first, hence going slower and allowing Earth to catch up, before falling back in and entering Earth's SOI. If they're late they launch onto an orbit that takes them closer to the Sun than Earth, and thus going faster than and catching up to Earth.

>>11085306
the question is does the Earth-Mars porkchop line present launch opportunities during the time after Earth will be able to recognize the incoming Mars-Earth payload as nuclear weapons

I watched a satellite whizz directly overhead at the park the other day in broad daylight. That was also the same moment I decided i wouldn't see my now ex girlfriend any more. What means.

What will be the race, sex, gender identity, religion, and political affiliation of the first person to step on Mars?

>>11085312
It doesn't really matter if they notice the payloads are nukes, if you're launching a swarm of ten million ten-kiloton-yield nukes on missiles the size of a human you are gonna overwhelm any reasonable defense system completely. The idea would be that the swarm would arrive as a cloud over the course of a week or so, constantly detonating all over the place in Earth's SOI and also in Earth's upper atmosphere, causing general havoc and destruction. While Earth could in the mean time shoot back, it's gonna be a much more expensive attack for Earth to pull off than Mars, and the advantage the Martians hold is that they already live and have their important shit underground in what are effectively nuclear bomb shelters to begin with, while even if Earth has 100x the fortifications on the surface they''ll also have 1000x the population to get fuckered, and probably won't have the closed-loop food and waste systems needed to handle such an attack.

>>11085322
>race
martian
>sex
no
>gender identity
EVA suit
>religion
Cult Mechanicus
>political affiliation
see: religion

>>11085263
I'd be cheaper and easier to attach rockets and heat shielding to asteroids and drop those on another planet. When you are outside a gravity well, you have the ultimate high ground. Basically, you have a continual swarm of asteroids sling-shotting around the entire solar system, maintaining top speed, but not so much they exit the solar system and not too much to prevent an easy trajectory change at the right time to hit a target. It'd like like a big multiple race tracks where one section of each comes "close" to the target all the time depending on the time of year. Because of the speeds involved the asteroids don't need to be very large at all.

A 3 meter shielded asteroid hitting a 70km/s would be around 25 kilotons of energy before hitting the atmosphere. Comparatively, Trinity nuclear test was 22 kilotons yield (pic).

>>11085322
>>>/pol/

>>11085331
What?

>>11085322
irrelevant on all counts

>>11085322
>script to get dubs
>frog post
>inflammatory /pol/ posting question
That's a big yikes for me!

>>11085327
It's not about destroying stuff ON Earth, it's about destroying stuff AROUND Earth, and there's not much you can do with any reasonably sized rock to that effect. Nukes on the other hand have the usefully weaponize-able effect of producing EMPs, which can fry satellites and planet side electrical grids. That's the real method of attack, a two-week long sustained EMP barrage knocking Earth civilization back to the iron age at least, and wiping out all orbital infrastructure.

>>11085342
How could I be a /pol/tard when I believe that sex and gender are not the same thing?

>>11084304
>Explodes on launch pad

>>11085242
>>11085271
this is unironically a great application for a single superdraco

>>11085348
That would be brutal. Funny, but brutal all the same.

>>11085324
oh no, the issue here is second strike, if Mars is also nuked then get fucked
>>11085345
first off:
frogposters are not welcome
secondly:
the subject of your discussion belongs on /pol/, it's a containment board for all politics and such, it's not just the alt-right hangout, so please go back

>>11084939
>Contract for billions of dollars
"Grab that used engine from the back, it'll fit"
FUCK Boeing

>>11085385
Boeing didn’t build the engines, Congress mandated they should be used and the RS-25s are the best engines for a sustainer design anyway.

>>11085385
>pay billions of dollars to a company for them to use engines that were already built
Smells like a money laundering scheme to me.

>>11085460
The billions were to test and maintain the decades old engines, as well as restarting the production line for new RS-25Es.

>>11085225
>Eeeeeh kys racist
>Eeeeeh kys cupcake
Pick one.

Did Reality seem Ramsey “Infinitely Better Than Reality”?

>>11085242
>MAV
>Mars Attack Vehicle

Did Reality deem Ramsey Infinitely Better Than Reality?

>>11085271
The main requirements NASA has in mind are that it has to have a TWR >30, be short and stubby so it fits into a heatshield, and store for a long time on Mars.
>>11085349
TWR might not be high enough. Also you see this: >>11085241, originally NASA wanted to use a Dragon capsule. They really should try to avoid using solids though for planetary protection reasons. Solid rockets often use perchlorate and so does the martian soil! One of the best places to breed life adapted to Mars is a SRB factory! Not using SRBs means you can land closer to high value astrobiological sites placing less burden on the rover.
>>11085263
the MAV just goes to Mars orbit to be picked up by a spacecraft orbiting Mars

>>11085573
>>11085567
....wat?

>>11085343
A single canister of ball bearings, or box of rocks for that matter, traveling at 70km/s will completely obliterate anything you put in front of it. Destroying off-world stuff is super simple because of that and there's really no defense against it since everything can be scaled up, both in size and quantity, as needed. Shit a sand canon would mean some pretty bad consequences.

>>11085583
the picture looks like a "Moonlight" to me

>>11085585
>sand cannon
you mean an angle grinder?

behold: the most deadly weapon known to the belter

>>11084304
As long as they deliver in the end the cost or the results are irrelevant.

>>11085107
The sky is common heritage to all of humanity and has been since time immemorial NOBODY has any right to destroy it and attempting to do so should be considered equal to the greatest crimes against humanity and treated accordingly.

>>11084303
You I like.

>>11085654
>completely ignores city light pollution

>>11085708
no, we should genocide cityfolk for sure

>>11084981
>Payload to LEO
>188t-140y
>Nothing yet
>Nothing yet

FTFY

Behold the VIRGIN cherrypickers

Enter the CHAD cranes!

>>11085721
I don't get what point you think you're making, ITS and Sea Dragon are perfect comparisons to make when discussing speculative superheavy lifters with the Saturn there as a baseline for big rockets that have actually flown.

>>11085708
This Anybody concerned about night skies needs to contemplate pic related.

>>11085740
>be me
>military cargo pilot
>flying a long flight to the middle of nowhere
>get bored because autopilot takes care of everything
>download Bee Movie into the plane computer via Starlink
>"ya like jazz?"
>kek, classic
>CO enters the cockpit to check on me
>delete the movie in a panic
>he sees nothing out of the ordinary
>tells me "as you were" and leaves
>quickly redownload the movie and continue watching
Thanks, Elon.

>>11085740
Starlink internet service W H E N?

>>11085753
No, I get that. But the tonnage to orbit of lifters that have never flown should not use the same terminology as used for those that have, because you are comparing aspirations to something that was actually achieved -- and aspirations sometimes do not pan out.

>>11085764
Next year, if all goes well.

>>11084285
>Blue Origin made alliance with BIGNAME BIGNAME and BIGNAME for going to the moon
>all paid by American taxpayers
>Elon boy will probably be there before them and under budget

>>11085343
The effectiveness of EMP attacks remains dubious outside of small scales, and most devices can be cheaply and effectively shielded. Shredding satellites directly would probably be more effective, as their debris could possibly impact and destroy even more satellites and so on.

>>11085767
How much spoonfeeding do you need? All you have to do is check what Sea Dragon and ITS are to know that they're both paper rockets which haven't flown. It's also not too hard to speculate on their payloads so long as you know the characteristics of their propulsion systems, their on-paper Isp's, TWRs, dry and wet masses, etc, etc, etc. At least in the case of ITS too, at least the propulsion system is real, has been test fired multiple times, and has actually performed two flights.
>>11085769
Fingers crossed, I'm sick and fucking tired of paying out the nose for good internet and still occasionally getting shit service because I'm partially in a low coverage zone with no other options even remotely close to me. Starlink would significantly disrupt the market by providing a choice that the vast majority of people can switch to for more regular coverage.

>>11085102
we've already ruined that, orbital and moon-based telescopes are the future

>>11084304

>>11085780
It's never been tested in the modern era, but a large, single stage plutonium implosion device or uranium gun device would produce significant effects
unfortunately no data on such effects exist, because nobody's ever tried to figure out how big you can make a plutonium implosion or uranium gun type device, boosted fission with hydrogen lithium got figured out first

>>11085772
Nice free market competition they have there. Who else will bid on the lunar lander contract when most of old space is working together on it and NASA obviously not going to use SpaceX?

>>11084304
cringe

>>11085809
they are basically the only submission for the lander that NASA wants
SpaceX aren't even offering a human lander, they're offering one hundred tons of lunar surface payload delivery

>>11085555
>>11085733
>>11085738
The rational humans versus the virgin Blue Origin intern-cuck. Quit staring out the windows at nothing and get your 90 IQ boomer boss his coffee.

>>11085825
If Sx can deliver so much payload im sure they can send another rocket behind it with that dragon capsule or whatever it was called.

>>11085838
Pretty sure they'll say fuck the capsule, have a manned Starship for a semi-permanent moonbase. A space-only tanker can land, load up the crewed Starship, strip the engines and other valuables off the tanker, and fly back to Earth.

>>11085825
Blue Moon is the perfect lunar lander for NASA: it has an efficient hydrogen powered descent stage that will eventually take advantage of ISRU, it has Draper who did the Apollo guidance building its avionics, it has Northrop (who built the LEM) building the transfer stage out of existing Cygnus-derived hardware and Lockheed, with their human spaceflight know-how and incredibly reliable AJ-10 engine building the ascent stage. The second lander picked will just be a back up...

I was watching The Sky at Night recently. Everyone stargazing with their telescopes. Is it just me or is that not a thing any more. I never see Astronony threads either.

>>11085825
There is still Boeing left. I don't know if they're making a separate lander bid or if they just decided to focus their resources elsewhere. I think the fact that they're contracting the lunar lander at all, along with the recent SLS purchase, means that they plan to cut SpaceX out of everything.

NASA is like a bad gambler at this point, they keep throwing good money away due to sunken cost fallacy and don't realize they need to just cut their loses.

>>11085855
there's not enough time for Boeing to assemble a complete lander system at this point

>>11085654
>REEEEEE OLD LIGHT GOOD NEW LIGHT BAD
go find some uncontacted tribe and ask them what they thought of the starlink train, "all humanity" doesn't mean "twitter astronomers"

>>11085599
It is a weapon that shoots small particles at low to super velocities. Like a canon loaded with sand. It either puts the debris in the path of the target and allows the target's velocity to cause all the damage or it shoots it out quickly.

why not just move all our telescopes above starlink, it's only a couple hundred clicks up, right

>>11085848

>>11085848
better*

>>11085855
>they plan to cut SpaceX out of everything

If you payed any attention to what the NASA administrator has said recently that’s not the case, he talked about launching modules on Falcon Heavy and Starship in the future. However, the builder of the aforementioned modules gets to decide which launch vehicle their module will go on and because SpaceX have so little friends and partnerships, these modules will most likely launch on other companies’ vehicles e.g. PPE will likely fly on New Glenn, HALO will fly on Northrop’s Omega.

NASA haven’t been cutting SpaceX out of contracts, SpaceX have been cutting themselves out by developing Starship- something that doesn’t really fit with the Artemis architecture and is being built without any partnerships. Blue on the other hand have been partnering with as many people as possible...

>>11085867
Yes, that's what they were doing long before Starlink and Starship will rapidly decrease the cost of getting them into orbit.
>Fucking around with a $500 telescope in my backyard makes me an astronomer and grants me a right to complain about satellites that I maybe see once every twenty minutes.

>>11085886
convince me it's not a brilliant business plan to take one of the TESS cameras, slam it on a cubesat, and start shitting them out by the dozen

space telescopes as a service

>>11085764
Hopefully soon so I can get more than 100kb/s up.

>>11085901
It's not that simple.
Astronomy is hard.
Astronomy is expensive.

>>11085102
In my experience, people like to see ISS more than some random star.

>>11085905
So you're saying I should build it out of stainless steel and DSLRs in a field

>>11085883

NASA management purposefully selects that method knowing manufacturers of rival vehicles would prioritize their own offerings above utilizing a better value rival vehicle. They are minimally competent enough to occlude their special preference behind procurement and architecture design machinations.

>>11085913
How can someone say so much, whilst also saying so little?

>>11085919

And there is always some bad faith SLS fanboy turd making see no evil rationalizations predicated on presumed naivete.

>>11085908
If you can beat the jwst both terms of results and time have a go at it just don't expect my tax payer money for your amateur garage tier work. My money go only to serious efforts by serious people who have serious levels of experience and tradition in the field.

>>11085927
Here he goes again, I believe this guy is the schizophrenic poster from a while ago.

>>11085883
I have paid attention to the NASA administrator, which is why I know that a fair amount of what he says is contradicting nonsense and shouldn't be taken without a grain of salt. Just minutes before Jim said if the SLS wasn't ready by 2024 they will take a falcon, he implied that SpaceX will never carry humans on their Artemis missions.
>doesn’t really fit with the Artemis architecture
That's a bit obvious. If they went with Starship they wouldn't need a lunar lander in the first place and the 20 billion they spent on SLS would also go up in smoke. It should be plain to anyone that they're intending to double down rather than own up to all the wasted money. It doesn't matter if they give SpaceX a few token launches, that isn't the problem here.

>>11085901
damn I like it

>>11085930
but he's right

>>11085938
I'm actually doing a market analysis on exactly that for a business to business marketing class I'll post the results when it's done

t. that one business major who likes space

>>11085945
you really need to talk to hardcore amateur astronomers (the scrappier the better) to figure out just how much of the telescope autism is required and how much is hyperbole budget inflation

>>11085935
>Just minutes before Jim said if the SLS wasn't ready by 2024 they will take a falcon, he implied that SpaceX will never carry humans on their Artemis missions.

>accuses Jim of saying nonsense
>writes bullshit himself

Dude the whole “we’ll use a different launch vehicle to meet 2024” boat sailed months ago when they realised rockets aren’t Lego bricks. What Jim said was that only SLS is capable of sending humans to the Moon, which is currently true because Orion is the only lunar-rated vessel at the moment.

>>11085585
You're not gonna get 70 km/s relative velocity into anything using modern propulsion systems, and once again the problem with physical impactor weapons is that they can miss. An EMP is omni-directional, it doesn't miss, and even if something is hardened to EMPs it's not gonna survive literally a million of them going off over the course of 14 days or so. The point of the attack is to cripple advanced technology on and around Earth as efficiently as possible, to buy as much time as possible for expanding Mars industry and fortifications to the point that Earth can never catch up again.

>>11084832
It may have taken 12 years and 30 billion dollars, but NASA finally figured out how to weld shuttle engines to a shuttle tank.

>>11085956
I believe Dragon 2 was designed with Lunar reentry in mind, but would need a beefier service module

>>11085935
NASA doesn’t give out launches schitzo, the companies building the hardware decide who launches what.

>>11085956

That statement was bullshit on day zero. They could expect SLS to roughly make some date, the timeline dates don't actually really matter but are PR placeholders, by heaping program funding on it and an alternative program would require funded activation and wouldn't be available as a pickable alternative if that funding stream went to a SLS predicated program. These things are years in the making, and considering alternative approaches is a near term priority if serious.

Plus they can make statements they don't have to follow through on.

Nothing more than worthless rhetoric over an entirely SLS continuation program.

By total Starship happenstance, that option will end up a veritable last minute possibility.

hop in

>>11085956
>Everything you say is bullshit and I'm not listening to you because I spend my days shilling for companies that are designed to take as much taxpayer money as possible and give us very little in return. I do it for free.

>What Jim said was that only SLS is capable of sending humans to the Moon
>If SLS isn't completed in time, we're going to go with SpaceX to send humans to the moon
Those are two contradictory statements. Are you denying this?
>Dude the whole “we’ll use a different launch vehicle to meet 2024” boat sailed months ago
He said it again last fucking week, don't pretend otherwise.
>>11085980
What? I never stated that NASA was building the hardware, I implied they're the ones that create the contracts and then hire companies to fulfill them, hence giving out launches.

>>11085577
>>11085573
>>11085567
Are you OK, anon?

>>11085654
The sky is already littered with a bunch of satellites, upper stages and a motherfucking space station, all visible to the naked eye. Yet the people complaining about this wouldn't know this. Because they never looked at the sky for a single, uninterrupted minute in their lives.

outdated but it summarizes the talk really well.

>>11085945
>>11085901
Just so you know, I believe other companies already planning to do this or at least rent out their larger telescopes.

>>11086005
>I implied they're the ones that create the contracts and then hire companies to fulfill them, hence giving out launches.

Schitzo still can’t read, NASA don’t give out launches, they give out gateway module contracts. The builders of these modules will decide who launches their modules.

>>11086045
Can you name them because that would be super useful for my project regardless of whether it ends up being viable

>>11086058

That's an elective decision. NASA could buy modules, and then contract for a launch service for them or NASA could buy modules and have the module manufacturer select launch.

>>11085198
>>11085211
>>11085220
>S H A L L
>N O T

>>11086058
NASA has many different contracts, not just the cost-plus contracts with Artemis and in some cases they buy a rocket before specifying what hardware the contractor needs to build for it. Even if they didn't, they're still by proxy giving out launches. When you hire Boeing to build you something, it's likely not going to be launched on a Falcon...

Are you going to respond for the rest of my argument or just pretend arguing about a definition of something at all defends your previous bullshit?

>>11086103
>Even if they didn't, they're still by proxy giving out launches. When you hire Boeing to build you something, it's likely not going to be launched on a Falcon...

Boeing hasn’t been awarded any gateway contracts. Maxar chose New Glenn to launch PPE and Northrop will likely launch HALO on OmegA. SpaceX just isn’t popular enough these days it seems...

>>11086083
Sorry, I don't think I can remember a source for that. I think it came up during the Starlink sky is falling light pollution media storm and they mentioned how the decreased cost of getting things to space is really g going to open up a race for space telescope renting services. You can already rent the Hubble Space Telescope.

Anyone else here space pics? Highly recommend the Epson XP-960 for anyone after a colour printer. Doesn't come out on this photo but the colours and detail are stunning

Explain to me why as velocity increases, it takes more energy to accelerate an object at the same rate

>>11086138
*talking about relativistic speeds

>>11086111
My comment was not specific to gateway but all of NASA's programs.
>SpaceX just isn’t popular enough these days it seems
It's a real mystery, just like why so many former NASA employees who supported the wasteful SLS contract now work the companies producing it.

>>11086083
>>11086123
Here is something on one of the companies trying to start a rental service using nanosats:
https://www.efe.com/efe/english/technology/space-telescope-rental-joins-china-s-sharing-economy/50000267-3321086

>>11086152
Thanks senpai

>>11086138
that's only from an outside reference frame, from the reference frame of the spaceship you can speed up arbitrarily fast
it's just that time speeds up everywhere else when you do so

>>11086152
V. interesting. I never buy this
> bug people hurr durr
narrative about the Chinese. I've watched a few videos about hi tech entrepreneurs and manufacturing in China and it looks to me like there's plenty of innovation happening. It's just that they're starting from a different place to the rest of the developed world. And yes, the economy has loads of problems, ageing population blah blah. I still think they'll be equal to or surpass anyone else at some point. There's too many of them not too.

>>11085971
It would also need the retro rocket landing be human rated. SpaceX isn't going to pay for that on their own because of Starship, and with the little RUD problem that they found, the design itself would need some update.

>>11086138
>>11086139
Because the relativistic speeds cause your mass to increase.
Note that light goes at light speed (when not otherwise slowed by a medium) because it has no mass.

>>11086221
I don't think Dragon 2 has enough dv to land on the lunar surface, but it might be able to do the job of the apollo command module in a LOR mission

>>11086129
>Epson XP-96
that printer is dirt cheap, so you probably pay a fortune in cartridges, no thanks merchant.

>>11086230
Yeah, nowhere near enough, only probably 1.7-2km/s. Since it does have external built in fuel connection lines though it would be *relatively* easy to design and attach a lander segment which would at least allow it to land, although again it doesn't have enough delta-V to return all the way to LLO though. It's really just not designed right to be a LEM, too heavy, not enough internal propellant. It was just supposed to be enough for maneuvering and propulsive landing after doing a bunch of aerobraking on Earth or Mars in the case of Red Dragon.

Is there a spaceflight related book chart?

>>11086218
I don't know, I think China's rapid technological advancement has reached it's peak rate and is now going to slow under red tape, corruption, bureaucracy, and the real disease of the first world, complacency. China is seemingly losing a lot of the things that made it so competitive in the first place. Their space program is a good example, aiming for a human moon landing in 2030. It's good for a country that isn't yet a space superpower but you think they would have loftier goals or start building their version of the Starship.
>>11086235
Not him, but what if I told you that you can refill your own cartridges for barely anything? It just takes a few minutes and a syringe full of the right ink.

>>11086266
>China is seemingly losing a lot of the things that made it so competitive in the first place. Their space program is a good example, aiming for a human moon landing in 2030. It's good for a country that isn't yet a space superpower but you think they would have loftier goals or start building their version of the Starship.

China isn’t currently competing with anybody and it’s not trying to copy anybody’s unproven design. Their current focus is getting the Long March 5 up and running, so they can start launching space station modules. They’ve also got a Mars lander and several Moon landers in the pipeline. The Chinese space strategy is steady, incremental and evolutionary which is a nice change of pace from erratic western programs. Also, let’s not forget that China is currently launching far more than SpaceX with ‘obsolete’ expendable launch vehicles.

>>11085806
The Saturn I was an awful rocket design, fite me.
Now the Saturn V on the other hand...

>>11085360
Earth will have nuclear missile silos on the moon, and other moons, to ensure a nuclear armed mars is certain to face total destruction in a second strike, should their first strike succeed.

Or you know, no nukes on mars. Ultimately, we are going to mars to ensure humans have a second chance on another planet. Should we bring weapons of mass destruction, we are certain to face a similar cataclysm as earth will face should it use nuclear weapons in war again.
On the other hand, if both sides have total ability to destroy the other, there might be a lot of moral consideration in not striking back even after detecting a planet ending strike. If one planet dies, humanities's only chance to survive is the other.

>>11085959
>You're not gonna get 70 km/s relative velocity into anything using modern propulsion systems
This is a conversation where projectiles are using gravity of planetary bodies and the sun to sling shot themselves to a target: >>11085327 but that isn't needed anyway.

Also, Juno was estimated to be traveling a max of around 73 km/s.

>emp
>nuke emp
All of that is sci-fi. Anything close enough to cause problems with solar wind/GCR hardened equipment will need the explosion so close that the explosion debris will harm it more than the EMP could. Though a nuke is nearly useless in space due to no atmosphere. The inverse square law make EMPs pretty useless for any thing of any distance away.

A river-like swarm of controllable debris is a better long term solution. You can not dodge a rock when there's no where else to dodge to.

>>11085859
You're crazy if you don't think they saw the writing on the wall and prepared one ahead of time.

>>11085930
Schizoposter?
This guy's sentences are readable, though.
Although the conspiratorial angle sounds like him.

>>11086321
>developing anything on their own dime
not happening

>>11085987
Okay, I take >>11086328 back. This HAS to be schizoposter.

>>11086313
At least it took preexisting rocket parts and used them in a timely manner, unlike the SLS.

>>11086340
it was the Little Joe of orbital rockets

>>11086330
wut?
That's Boeing's modus operandi. They develop a concept on their own dime and pitch it to NASA. If NASA likes it, they earn millions of dollars. If NASA doesn't like it, they only wasted a couple hundred thousand.

>>11085757
the fucking islands actually kind of resembles the UK

>>11086139
Energy has mass. Kinetic energy has mass. Mass requires energy to accelerate. The more kinetic energy you have, the more mass you have, the more energy it takes to accelerate, but now you've got more energy still, so the trend goes exponential, and the asymptote it approaches is at 100% light speed. Any other questions?

>>11086229
no REST mass, the energy of a photon has mass.

>>11086314
>Mars and Moon are on cahoots to get out from under Earth's thumb, Moon turns the nuclear missiles on Earth instead of shooting at Mars as ordered

>>11086316
>Also, Juno was estimated to be traveling a max of around 73 km/s
For a few minutes, while close to Jupiter. You clearly don't understand how gravity assists work if you think you can just ping pong around the solar system at 2x escape velocity. This is almost as bad as the ending to that book Aurora by KSR where the ship is coming in at like 1% light speed and is using gravity assists to stay in the solar system and keep losing speed, when in reality at that initial speed even Jupiter's gravity on close approach is not going to bend your orbital path very much.

>>11086304
To be fair, it is China we're talking about. They prefer to wait for technology to develop before stealing it for rapid deployment. It isn't surprising that they haven't yet copied the Starship but are likely very interested in doing so once it proves itself.

Out of curiosity, what do you believe China's plans are for space?

>>11085757
every time I see a map of the world I notice how fucking far north the UK is, and it reaffirms my belief that if the NAC ever stopped transporting warm ocean water up that coast Europe would turn into a frozen mad max hellhole.

>>11086197
>>11086229
>>11086409
thanks


>>11086197
>it's just that time speeds up everywhere else when you do so
but why?

>>11086409
>Any other questions?
yes see above

>>11086430
>what do you believe China's plans are for space?
chopstick maximizer

>>11086429
>For a few minutes, while close to Jupiter. You clearly don't understand how gravity assists work if you think you can just ping pong around the solar system at 2x escape velocity.
Easy for an inert rock you want to have its final slingshot be the sun before it comes to earth. It may come around as molten slag, but that doesn't matter at all if the trajectories were correct.

>sci-fi books
Jesus fucking christ.

>>11086438
>but why?
because time runs slower for you, from an outsider's perspective
the speed of light is constant for all observers

>>11086452
>time runs slower for you
why?

>>11086454
because you're going fast, duh

>>11086462
that doesn't answer my question. Why time speedd changes when going fast?

>>11086463
just because

>>11086429
>solar system at 2x escape velocity
A final sling shot around the sun would be super high. Just don't change the trajectory for that close until you want to make a kill. When you do want to make a kill, you change the trajectory so it is far close to the sun. Then it can zip by at around 70-80 km/s. FYI, Mercury is cruising along at only like 50 km/s at its orbit. Anything much closer will have the potential to get traveling at blistering speeds. If you miss the target then the object won't be seen again as it exist the solar system.

>>11086463
It doesn't. Time is a concept for measuring. Like inches or liters. If your ruler's inches start stretching out, it doesn't change what an inch is. It just changes you measuring device.

>>11086463
because fucking google it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

>>11086443
>Easy for an inert rock you want to have its final slingshot be the sun before it comes to earth.
Hey, dumbass, your rock will hit 70 km/s and then be decelerated by Jupiter's gravity as it moves away from Jupiter, that's why orbits are elliptical and it's why an object always approaches a source of gravity at the exact same speed that it leaves that source of gravity, from the source of gravity's perspective. Basically you can't use gravity to go from X speed to Y speed with respect to the planet you're getting an assist from, you can only change your angle of motion with respect to that planet, which changes your speed relative to the Sun by a certain MAXIMUM value, which even in the case of Jupiter is much less than 70 km/s, and that MAXIMUM can only be attained if you are arriving and leaving at the exact right angle, which is NOT the same angle that would have you come screaming into the inner solar system.

TLDR your idea of how gravity assists work is wrong and you need to read more about orbital mechanics. In fact you need to read more in general, because you seem to think somehow that I was sourcing my argument on a science fiction book, and not likening YOUR flawed understanding to that of a very inaccurate sci-fi book. Eat ass.

>>11086466
>A final sling shot around the sun would be super high.
Only with respect to your motion aroudn the center of the galaxy, from the perspective of everything in the solar system you'd approach the Sun and leave the Sun at exactly the same velocity, just in a different direction.

>>11086466
>FYI, Mercury is cruising along at only like 50 km/s at its orbit
FYI if you had an object on a ballistic trajectory that crossed Mercury's orbit moving at 50 km/s, then did a close approach of the sun and got up to 70 km/s, then swung back away, it'd cross Mercury's orbit moving at 50 km/s because the Sun's gravity would be slowing it back down. Because that's how orbits work.

>>11086430
>Out of curiosity, what do you believe China's plans are for space?

Their current priority, as I previously stated is getting their Mir-sized space station launched. To do this, first they have to get the Long March 5B (specialised heavy LEO payloads version) up and running, which they plan to do next year. Furthermore, apparently their building a new Long March 7 variant- LM-7A to replace the current crew launcher: LM-2F and initially launch the Shenzhou and new crewed spacecraft to this station. The LM-7A is also in consideration to launch future probes. However, apparently the Chinese crewed spaceflight authority doesn’t like the LM-5,7,11 family and wants a new family of launch vehicles specifically for crewed spacecraft. This family involves two LVs: a LEO version using a single core with 7 YF-100 staged combustion Kerolox engines clustered and a Moon version with three cores (Falcon Heavy style), they would launch China’s next generation capsule and potential landers. This family would be used in coordination with the Long March 9 mega-rocket (140T to LEO and 50T to TLI) for China’s crewed lunar landings, the latter being used only for heavy cargo e.g. big Moon base modules. Finally, China is building a medium-sized reusable rocket called Long-March, it uses Falcon-style retro propulsion but also has non-jettisoned SRBS for ballast. Moving onto probes, China plans to send a Mars orbiter, lander and rover in 2020 on a LM-5; LM-5 will also be used to launch the next Chang’E lander- Change’E 5 which is a sample return mission, China plans to launch more Chang’E Moon missions with a 6 and 7 being in the pipeline. In the mid 2020s China plans to launch a Jupiter probe as well. Finally, China has fuck ton of ‘private’ companies who are building solid booster (missile derived) small sat launchers and then moving onto to bigger liquid fuelled designs, some even designed to be reusable, examples are iSpace, LinkSpace and LandSpace.

>>11086532
*medium-sized reusable rocket called Long-March 8

>>11086478
it doesn't explain why it happens

>>11086551
it just does

>>11086552
that isn't a satisfactory answer

>>11086554
universe isn't always satisfying

>>11086555
I wish it was

>>11086557
yeah
turns out gravity/relativity just don't have satisfying answers

>>11086421
Nuking earth so you don't pay taxes is a lot harder than simply not sending the taxes.

>>11086554
It might not satisfy you, but if you buy premium currency now you can at least afford one universe reskin.

>>11086559
for example this image in that wikipedia page
The text below the image says:
Left: Observer at rest measures time 2L/c between co-local events of light signal generation at A and arrival at A.
Right: Events according to an observer moving to the left of the setup: bottom mirror A when signal is generated at time t'=0, top mirror B when signal gets reflected at time t'=D/c, bottom mirror A when signal returns at time t'=2D/c

why is the light pulse ange modified? It should not matter which direction the observer moves, the mirrors will always reflect the light perpendicular to the surface

>>11086562
yeah but it's the principle of the thing, just like that tea incident in Boston

>>11086572
uh because the dude moves?

>>11086554
then get a maths degree so you can read and understand all the nitty gritty bits of special relativity

Is it true that the spaceflight industry has too many people interested in propulsion? I'm about to graduate with a degree focused on propulsion, but there doesn't seem to be very many job openings. A friend of mine told me that propulsion is the most popular subset of rocket engineering and thus is the most flooded.

>>11086554
Curious that you're sticking so hard on time dilation when you simply accepted that energy has mass.

>>11086562
By not sending taxes you know that there are nukes on the way to you

I don't know why people get butthurt about the lightspeed limit when we can't even get anywhere close to 1% c.

>>11086684
Naturally curious creatures are always buttblasted by things they cannot understand.

>>11086660
My understanding is that mass and energy are the same thing. I am so perseverant on the why of time dilation because I don't understand it

>>11086484
>>11086489
>i know fuck all about anything being discussed
Yeah, we could tell.

>>11086734
mass and energy are not the same thing, mass is a property of energy just the same as mass is a property of matter

>>11086482
>t. smoothbrain
Not an arguement, kiddo.

>>11086734
Maybe you should start a new thread instead of shitting up a spaceflight thread?

>>11086749
>shitting up sfg

>>11086737
No actually, YOU don't understand conservation of orbital energy.

>>11086304
>China isn’t currently competing with anybody and it’s not trying to copy anybody’s unproven design.

No, they only copy proven designs.

>>11086374
That is not the Falkland Islands.

>>11085186
It's almost like critical path project management works.

>>11085901
>>11085938
>>11085945
>>11085950
>>11086045
>>11086083
>>11086123
>>11086152

Wasn't that the business model of Planetary Resources in the initial stages? Spam a bunch of meh quality telescopes in orbit and use them to search asteroids suitable for exploitation, and sell some scope time on the side to raise revenue to fund the actual mining business.

>>11084285
GOAT thread, kudos OP.

>>11086912
It would work great now that it's been figured out how to synchronize multiple scopes together to create supersized lenses by spreading out your receivers. Using a large quantity of meh-tier 'scopes spread out over a large area acting as a giant incorporeal optic you could form super-high fidelity composite images of pretty much any object in the solar system proper.

Boeing stealthily announced their lander proposal: https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187115328389746688
3 person, two-stage, SLS-launched lander with an awful name (whoever came up with "The Lander" should be fired).
Don't trust the image in the video. I can almost guarantee that's not representative of the actual bid.

>>11087004
>The Lander
That's just plain awful. I really hope that it's just a development name. Why not name it the Boeing 800 to continue their general naming scheme?

Good news for SpaceX supporters, Elon's head is above water financially now since the Tesla stock sky rocketed after a good quarter. It also means a lot of bears are considering suicide right now. I can't blame them, some of those dumb motherfuckers were betting their life savings in belief that it was only a matter of time before Tesla would become bankrupt and the stock would hit zero. It was one of the most shorted stocks ever.

As it stands right now, Elon Musk has some 11.5 billion dollars in Tesla stock. Still couldn't afford SLS...

>>11087014
Or "Moonliner"

>>11087019
>It also means a lot of bears are considering suicide right now
I didn't know bears hate Tesla. I wonder why though.

>>11087029
They're too big to fit in the roadster.

>>11086968
you need incredible timing and incredibly accurate positioning data for every single one of those satellites to make that work, I don't think it's possible cheaply

>>11087058
Not that accurate. The larger the virtual lens the less accurate individual locations can be and even then aberrations can be fixed in post.

These suits are chad as fuck. Why couldn't Boeing or SpaceX come up with something half as interesting or aesthetic?

>>11087065
It also correlates to wavelength, the shorter the wavelength the more accurate your positioning and timing data need to be. We were only able to do the black hole image because of the fact that we were looking at radio waves with big wavelengths and even then it was really difficult.

>>11087076
middle suit actually looks good in white and with the bearings hidden by covering (as it will be in the final product), but looks ugly as sin in that red and blue color scheme.
On the other hand the orange OCSS suit is absolutely kino and blows the SpaceX IVA suits out of the water.

>>11087087
you can just hear them thinking "my feet hurt" by looking at that image

>>11087087
The more I look at it the more it grows on me despite how ridiculous this picture is.

Them boys
W I D E

>>11087076

>>11087101
now I can't unsee how wide these suits are
you motherfucker

>>11087087
What video is this from? Is this screenshot that keeps getting posted indicative of how it looks on the astronauts all the time or is it the absolute least flattering frame of the video that someone thought was hilarious?

>>11087019
>It also means a lot of bears are considering suicide right now.
haha fuckem

>>11087076
I mean the EVA suit is baller, for sure. It's in a whole different class from the flight suits though. I really like how it's rear-entry with the life support pack on a hinge just like the Krechet-94.

>>11087113
I will freely admit the angle and lighting isn't flattering, but the SpaceX IVA suits really are that girthy.
They'd probably look quite a lot better if the visors were down, but real astronauts are going to wear those helmets with the visors up 99% of the time.

>>11087140
I'll believe they're that wide, but I'm still curious about where that specific still is from. It's clearly a youtube video but I haven't found it yet.

>>11087164
I actually took that screenshot, but I don't remember what video it's from. Think it's one of the Dragon V2 promos on the SpaceX youtube channel.

>>11087166
How much is old space paying you to find unflattering photos of the SpaceX spacesuit while posting media photos of the others?

>>11087026
or Moon MAX

>>11087168
I didn't actually post the other photo.

>>11084304
>>11084981
>>11085101
The US has sent someone into space since 2011. Sorry, but this is what success looks like. This and AK's might have been the only cool things to come out of Communism. NASA is such a bloated bureaucratic mess with a large focus on diversity and all female space walks. We are fucked, space is fucked, the military is fucked. This country is fucked. NASA funding will be cut when the other party takes over, I fucking promise.

>>11087233
>NASA funding will be cut when the other party takes over, I fucking promise.
when which party takes over?

>>11087233
The schizo russian appears again

>>11087318
>Goes to space.

I'm American, I just appreciate shit that actually works.

>>11087347
For curious definitions of "works." A Bicycle actually works. A car is still better, but it took a while to make them not garbage.

>>11087076
Thankfully they will probably ditch the red/blue and go all white for practicality.
Also I think that suit would look better on a taller person with longer limbs.

>>11087499
Here’s a render showing what NASA envisages the final Moon-faring model looking like.

>>11087528
Pretty cool. The waist ring is going to make them all look like fat little fuckers though The Apollo suits are probably far inferior to these but they had a certain charm. Fortunately the orange flight suit are absolutely baller.

Boeing lander. Looks absolutely tiny and also mid 2000s hatchback and not in a good way.

>>11087429
Kinda like how we thought the shuttle was better, then realized it was a coffin?

I don't know about you, but I rather take the shitty Soyuz to ISS. At least we know it works.

>>11087788
I actually like the design, that ascent module looks really cool. However, you are right about the small size; the descent stage doesn’t look like it can carry much cargo unlike Blue Moon, which has been shown deploying sizeable rovers.

>>11087788
>Snaps in two

>>11087788
That's a very old render they used. It's not representative of their current design.

>>11087799
Is there a more recent render?

>>11087809
Not yet. We should see one fairly soon, though.

>>11087799
>>11087809
>>11087817
I hope all the companies release renders of their bids before the two winners are picked.

>>11086235
XP 960. It actually compares well to others... any nm

>>11086266
>Not him, but what if I told you that you can refill your own cartridges for barely anything? It just takes a few minutes and a syringe full of the right ink.

If you're skint sure (and if you are, are you really going to have a £200 printer sitting around?), but for my use it's simply not worth the arse of messing about. I'm not churning out hundreds of prints. An A3 print is at very worst a few quid's worth of ink - and that's for something that's gallery quality and will hang on my wall for years. There's also the fact that the paper is specifically matched to the ink, both of which are specifically tied to the printer driver. Nerds on this stuff actually go about the trouble of making custom printer drivers to match particular ink and paper combos. I seriously cannot be fucking arsed with that.

I was just wondering if anyone else prints out space pics, since this is a spaceflight board.

Page 9. New thread?

bread
>>11087922

>>11085198
>universal basic tactical nuke becomes a reality