/sci/ - Science & Math

so Gwynne's going to absolutely spam Starlink
They only have fourteen or fifteen commercial launches lined up, and she's aiming to hit thirty-eight launches next year.

>>11243376

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tLQ6lqpVd0

Copenhagen Sub got their heat exchanger.

>>11243384
They know the longer they take the more the public opinion will turn against it. They need to get it up fast and actually offer cheap internet to the 3rd world instead of just offering low ping to traders.
The future on humanity is going to be dependant on space industry so it's only a matter of time until there are hundreds of thousands of satellites but I would like SpaceX to demonstrate dead satellite deorbit capability before going hard on starlink.

>>11243404
low ping to traders is a nonstarter until Starlink 2 with the free space optical laser links

>>11243404
>I'd like to demonstrate SpaceX waiting a few years for the atmosphere to deorbit a satellite before they launch more of their satellites

>>11243405
I was under the impression starlink 1 would offer lower ping over vast distances eg. London to New York.

>>11243409
>don't worry about the Kessler bro, it'll only last a few years

>>11243417
check out this video for what London to New York requires without the free space laser links (which Starlink 1 doesn't have)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m05abdGSOxY

the satellites will deorbit within five years (at minimum atmospheric solar agitation)
it's fine don't worry about it

Nothing personal kiddos, just the most important launch of December coming through...

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/LP0S8jhmT9KDndOrT8t8EQ

>>11243425
ah, yes of course
I understand everything now <- doesn't get it at all

>>11243425
What's in it?

>>11243425

>>11243435
Some Ethiopian niggas gave them a satellite to launch.
Ironically a country in africa is developed more then my country which is somewhere in the balkans.

>>11243441
What's the difference between Africa and the Balkans?

>>11243444
We are not black but we are as poor as them.

>>11243445
I was going to say the Balkans are better at killing each other

>>11243423
Interesting, looks like the ping between US east and west coast could be halved with a dozen ground stations. While not as vital for traders as a UK / EU / US link I could still see people being willing to pay stupid amounts for the lowest US ping on the market.

>>11243447
Eh that might be also true

>>11243450
and let's be honest, the Balkans have better folk music

How is it possible that SpaceX does better than NASA/ESA or whatever country with a space program?

>>11243462
SpaceX doesn’t even have a “space program” currently, they launch satellites and sometimes capsules/payloads for NASA’s space program...

>>11243462
Governments are extraordinarily inefficient and they have either very poor or nonexistent mechanisms for weeding out incompetence. Their objectives are often meant more to line the government's own coffers and those of it's close friends rather than to actually accomplish concrete productive goals. Basically anybody with means can do a better job at any given thing compared to a government, who's only advantage is that it's a (possibly) necessary structure to bind large groups of likeminded people together.

>>11243425
>most important launch of December
it probably is for the poor fuckers living downrange from the launch site

>>11243435
Tibetan monks

>>11243470
no, this is a coastal launch, there aren't any peasants downrange from this one

>>11243470
It’s being launched from Wenchang, which is by the Ocean. So no debris will be dropped inland.

>>11243474
>>11243477
oh, im sure they'l manage to hit some poor fucker in a sampan

Boeing and NASA are doing exactly what I assumed they’d do with Starliner after it’s anomaly: practice docking with the ISS, without actually docking.

https://starlinerupdates.com/starliner-completing-test-objectives-while-on-orbit-given-go-for-landing-sunday/

>The Mission Management Team has given approval for a Mission Day 3 landing at 5:57 AM MST (6:57 AM CST) at our landing site at White Sands Space Harbor on the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, with a backup opportunity at the same site at 1:48 PM MST (2:48 PM CST).

>Late yesterday and overnight, flight controllers completed the below activities:

>Conducted two orbital adjustment burns and several smaller checkout burns of the propulsion systems

>Tested Guidance, Navigation and Control hardware including successfully using VESTA camera star tracking functionality to augment Space-Integrated GPS/INS (SIGI) navigational control. These are the “eyes” of the vehicle, which include using star trackers (capturing spacecraft orientation by comparing known star maps to stars the spacecraft observes) and far and near field observations.

>Observed positive performance of Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and executed cabin fan switching

>Communication, commanding and tracking systems testing through both ground links and space-to-space communication, including a positive command uplink from mission control through the International Space Station

>Station keeping and attitude control demonstrations

>Throughout the day on Dec. 21, Starliner will attempt to complete NASA docking system checkouts and extension of the soft-capture system and docking ring.

>Of note, the vehicle remains healthy, the power system is operating exceptionally and solar arrays are operating at above predicted efficiency, and all separation events to-date were nominal, including ascent cover jettison, aeroskirt jettison and separation from the launch vehicle.

starliner update in 8 min
https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive

>>11243595
>hey I know, let's just list everything it has done right to make the public forget about the fact that starliner's LOM rate is now 100%
>good idea!

>>11243608
nah bruh here's the REAL link https://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-news-audio1

who the fuck is this black chick on the line

CORTNEY WHAT DID YOU SAY

>>11243608
What is this shitty music that sounds like a phone system?
then suddenly
>you are on hold for a conference call, press *0
WTF this is a stream?

>>11243623
The world may never know

>>11243405
I saw a video on YT (I wish I had saved the link) where someone explained how it would work, and it only takes a few ground stations to beat the speed of fiber across north america. Getting across the ocean is a bit more tricky, but hopping over novia scotia and iceland could do it.
Even with the laser links, a lot of the time it's faster to do ground station links.
>>11243404
>cheap internet to the 3rd world
That's not going to make anyone care, plus you have to deal with their shitty governments to be allowed, especially now when it's completely dependent on ground stations to reach the internets.
It's cheap internet to the rural US that will be their killer app after high speed traders.

>>11243405
With enough ground stations you don't need the laser links.

>>11243627
ah, this was the video >>11243423 glad someone reposted it here

>>11243425
I eagerly anticipate the possibility of a THIRD second-stage engine failure.

>successful launch

>>11243630
third?

>>11243632
much like ZUMA. Atlas dropped off Starliner in precisely the right spot. The payload fucked itself over, not the launch vehicle

Boeing is sticking to their story that it was a launch vehicle integration issue, they didn't interface properly with AtlasV/Centaur and grabbed the timing data wrong.

>>11243643

Yeah right... All that is just pure BS and a pisspoor attempt at damage controll because they dont want to admit that their software is pajeet-tier of shittyness.

>NUUUUUU ATLAS GAVE US THE WRONG TIME
>OUR CODE WAS FINE

>>11243663
The Boeing guy explicitly said it was a fault on Starliner’s end and not to do with Atlas. Stop trying to twist words...

Berger with the clickbait question

>>11243673
Berger just shitposted on a conference call, what a madman

JESUS FUCK IRENE

>>11243676
If you call asking a retarded question shitposting, then yes. It’s a redundant question anyway considering if Boeing recover the capsule nominally and solve the timing issue, NASA will likely allow them to do CFT next. At this point NASA can’t actually afford to delay either one of the providers in such a way unless something terrible happens.

>>11243673
What did he ask?

>Asks why they won't show the tapes, gets cut off

why is this industry so cringe

>>11243684
If NASA forced them to do OFT again, would they quit the program.

Which is a retarded question considering nobody but NASA is in the market for human spaceflight seats.

OOF

>>11243700
Oh no no no no

>>11243595
This is the space equivalent of not knowing the answer in a test, so instead you write down everything you know in hopes of partial credit.

>>11243705
Not really, docking with the ISS isn’t even a requirement for the uncrewed test flights, it’s a bonus.

>>11243700

Boeing have uploaded a clip of Starliner separating from Centaur:

https://starlinerupdates.com/starliner-centaur-separation/

>>11243742
here's a webem of it

>>11243787
Nice

>>11243787
why'd they put all of their solar panels on the bottom of the spacecraft?

39a starship stool

>>11243830
I can't believe they're literally just building a second flame deflector instead of using the NOVA trench that's RIGHT THERE

>>11243840
they're going to be building a fuckton of pads for E2E, might as well start out with a design that can be built from portable sections and doesn't need a lot of excavation

>>11243827
Those look like handplaced solar cells added as an afterthought.

>>11243827
My guess is that it protects them during launch, but doesn't need fold out panels (like for example, the Dragon 1 panels) and thus saving on complexity.

>>11243425
Did they make if toxic enough to instantly kill all the witnesses when it crashes before they could upload it to the internet this time?

>>11243872
Probably not since that doesn't matter. China is murdering protesters right now and the rest of the country doesn't even care (nor the rest of the world for that matter).

>docking with the ISS was not a requirement for the Starliner test
Its a FUCKING CLOWN WORLD

>>11243692
because the earth is flat and the "industry" is nothing more than a bunch of fat faggots who get paid to shill

Mod please go away. Stop shitting up this board.

>>11243423
Ironic part for me is ground relay will be faster than laser satellite communication in some north to south communications.

>>11243885
It's okay Anon, it's not like Starliner needs to monitor it's location and distance from the ISS while doing a lengthy and precise prodedural approach while interfacing with ISS systems or anything. Let's just fucking wing it with people on board next time. Boeing QC has been impeccable so far.

>>11243885

Indeed, FFS, even the ancient Soyuz can do such a simple thing. It should at least be a hard requirement for new spaceships to be able to dock to a station automaticaly, unmanned.

Just last year, to certify the Soyuz 2.1a for manned missions, they launched an empty/unmanned spacecraft which docked itself to the ISS. It was MS-14 I believe.

>>11243897
if Starliner Пpoгpecc M-34's the ISS it would be hilarious while also a tragedy

>comfiest ride to space atm

>>11243895
yeah, it's because laser links always go along the orbits

>>11243905
I really don't want this to happen, but something inside me kinda does want to see it.

>>11243922
the ISS repair missions would be fucking sweet and you know it

>>11243924
true but I wonder if they would even try at this point if the damage wasn't something simple to fix.

So what could the on-board pilots have done if this was to happen in a real flight? They would have some control over the autonomous systems onboard but would that just be like selecting what operational mode the spacecraft is in? Also once they override the autonomous mission profile, they would then have to perform the orbital insertion burn at the proper time by hand right? Everyone is saying “but if pilots were in it” but how trivial of a situation would this really be?

from former Shuttle astronaut

>>11243955
Well I guess he'd have an intimate knowledge of shit space vehicles then.

>>11243895
There's also the fact that ground relays could technically be more robust in handling multiple satellites due to higher power/bigger antenna/etc which could mean they could offload/handle larger bandwidth.

>>11243949
I would say that since it was just a simple burn, then the pilots on board could've easily handled the situation. They would either be taught about the procedure beforehand or be given the details from mission control. The orbit they would end up on wouldn't be the orbit needed to go to the ISS, but it would only be slightly off compared to what happened with the automated craft, and thus would have more than enough fuel to make a correction afterwards.

I think the largest source of the issue wasn't that the capsule wasn't doing the correct burn, but rather that it took so long for mission control to remotely wrestle control away from the on-board computer.

>>11243949
Unless they were specifically trained to notice these issues on the spot and has backup plan without needing verification from ground control, nothing.

>>11243955
>flew on the Shuttle 4 times
>has the audacity to complain about safety
>especially when the incident in question would have caused a crew onboard no risk, unlike most the Space Shuttle’s anomalies

>>11243967
>Unless they were specifically trained to notice these issues on the spot and has backup plan without needing verification from ground control

I’m pretty sure it’s easy for trained astronauts to notice when the engines are burning when they shouldn’t be...

>>11243976
...or not burning when they should be

Time to remind people of a simpler time where jobs came second to human scientific advancement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-phxCxTlzQ

>>11243976
>easy
Not so, Astronaut training for controlling vehicles manually require lot more training, especially without any ground control to guide you.

>from the starliner gallery on the boeing website
its all starting to make sense anons

>>11243985
The commercial crew astronauts seemed pretty sure they could’ve sorted out the issue and their veterans of NASA’s human spaceflight program, nobody has had more training than them.

>>11243974
>first flight is a hardware induced mission failure
>second flight is going to be manned
I would be salty too if I was going to be ordered onto it.
Just because the shuttle wasn't safe doesn't mean making crewed flights before a successful flight is a good idea.

>>11243990
What does a docking adapter have to do with Starliner’s timekeeping software?...

>>11243992
They could do it with ground control with bit of training, but on their own, it will take a miracle.

>>11243980
>von Braun's ferry ran on fucking nitric acid and hydrazine

>>11243993
especially when the SpaceX capsule has been functioning perfectly

>>11243995
roastie detected

>>11243993
No hardware has failed, it was purely a software issue.

>>11244003
>SpaceX capsule has been functioning perfectly

Yikes

>>11243992
Everyone at the press conference seemed like they had shock collars on. The conference started off with “this was a success”. I seriously don’t trust their opinions 2 hours after the incident when they don’t know the exact details or anything like that. Boeing is plagued with this short sighted sweep the problems under the rug instead of actually admitting fault and taking safety seriously.

t. just read an opinion article on the 737 max fiasco

>>11244014
>t. just read an opinion article
>opinion invalidated

>>11244014
Boeing is not having a good time and is going to be begging congress for a bailout soon, they need everyone to pretend everything is ok because on top of being more expensive than the Soyuz per seat both tests have been failures (chute and insertion). They are going to have a hard time begging for more money if they admit they can't do anything right.

>>11244010
By hardware I meant the Starliner capsule it was a space hardware induced mission failure.

I wonder when Bridenstine will tweet about how Boeing is behind on Commercial Crew and how it's time for them to deliver.

>>11244021
2 days after his retirement.

>>11244012
no issues on orbit!

>>11243990
Because of a staged publicity photograph organised by a marketing team?

>>11244012
What has gone wrong with it since the first stage engine out on CRS-1?

>>11244003
You mean that thing that blew up?

>>11244043
functioning perfectly [on orbit]

>>11244018
>Boeing is not having a good time and is going to be begging congress for a bailout soon

>Boeing revenue: 101.1 billion USD

You do know that however bad it gets, America’s biggest aerospace company that’s sitting on a massive pile of money isn’t going to go bankrupt, right?

Please grow a brain before you post again, okay?

>>11244048
Yeah, but how much of that will the execs run away with?

>>11244045
Astronauts don't typically die in orbit.

>>11244048
>isn’t going to go bankrupt
No shit, "to big to fail" is a thing and they will get any money the ask for on top of US placing sanctions on Airbus.
I'm not saying they are going to declare bankruptcy, I'm saying they will ask for a couple of billion and get it.

>>11244062
>I'm saying they will ask for a couple of billion and get it.

Why? You don’t ask for billions to fix a single line of code. Stop saying retarded things.

>>11244070
>You don’t ask for billions to fix a single line of code
Once again no shit, they have been forced to drop their 737 Max line and are now going to need a full RnD cycle to make something that comes close to competing with airbus.
I give it 2 years tops before they get a bailout.

>>11244076
>they have been forced to drop their 737 Max line

This hasn’t happened, they literally unveiled the first MAX-10 unit built a month ago.

>going to need a full RnD cycle to make something that comes close to competing with airbus

I mean the best thing they can do to compete with Airbus is just fix the MAXs problems because nobody wants to buy an unsafe plane. Are you just a salty Europoor? because the detour from spacecraft to tariffs and Airbus suggests this is the case.

>>11244087
>This hasn’t happened
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/16/boeing-737-max-production-faa

>I mean the best thing they can do to compete with Airbus is just fix the MAXs problems
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wto-aircraft-timeline/timeline-highlights-of-the-15-year-airbus-boeing-trade-war-idUSKBN1WH198
It's a trade war with the US trying to keep boeing alive by saying the EU giving money to airbus is bad while the US gives billions to boeing through military sales and ULA.
>Europoor
Nah, western nation in the east, I have no dog in this fight. I just find it funny that everything is going wrong for boeing all at once and it reminds me of the US automobile bailout of 2008 when old companies become complainant and stopped being competitive.

>>11243909
Saw an ISS tour where they went into the Soyuz capsule. It's a tight fit but that makes it 10 times comfier and snug.

>>11244108
>when old companies become *complacent

>>11244108
Production being temporarily suspended doesn’t mean they’ve been forced to drop the line, dipshit. It means their running out of space to store all the planes they can’t sell.

>>11244109
two person soyuz is comfy and snug
three person soyuz makes sardines in a tin look roomy

>>11244117
>their running out of space to store all the planes they can’t sell
You have convinced me, they are economically viable and not going to need a bailout at all.

>>11244118
>two person soyuz is comfy and snug
>YWN ride with your gf to the ISS in a Soyuz

>>11244048
I heard this same argument a week before Thomas Cook (one of the world's biggest travel agencies) went bankrupt a few months back.

What has made /sfg/ so much more hostile compared to a few months back? Everyone just chill pls

>>11244120
The funny thing is that the 737 MAX is actually the most popular aircraft in Boeing’s history:

>As of January 31, 2019, Boeing had 5,011 firm orders from 79 identified customers for the 737 MAX

The problem is they were churning them out at a rapid pace and now have hundreds of planes they can’t deliver. Their storage is overflowing to the point that MAX’s are being parked in the car parks of their facilities.

>>11244126
no starship tests to placate the masses. mk3 won't be flying for a while anyways so get used to it

>>11244126
I think between Starship popping and Starliner turning into a roller coaster while Crewed Dragon is being held to a higher standard than everything else has just got us all a bit down.
There was rapid progress and lots going on and now it seems like everything is going to shit. I know in the mid term progress is still rapid but personally it's got me a bit down.

>>11244131
how do they get them out of there?

>>11244126
SpaceX fan wars IMO. Not blaming SpaceX, but there's been alot of fights about them here and those tend to bleed over to other spaceflight topics.

>>11244123
Thomas Cook was in an economic down spiral for years before it went bankrupt, Boeing made record revenue last year.

>>11243376
boeing shit the bed. their excuse was it was sent into a wrong orbit... there is only 1 object to orbit at the distance they reach from the surface of the earth... its the earth

so its official india isnt allowed to code anything but unity projects. im not saying im any better at coding but there is like a 3 strikes policy on this sort of shit where lives hang in the balance

>>11244134
as they say, the "blackpill" is creeping back
FIFTY FUCKING YEARS of NOTHING
>>11244137
cooking the books

>>11244126

People are agitated about the Boeing failures and the heaps of unecessary redtape that burdens SpaceX and the irritation that Boeing apparantly gets a free pass while SpaceX doesnt.

A couple of successes in 2020 should alleviate that.

>>11244139
>cooking the books

I accept your surrender

>>11244135
I assume they drive them around really slowly. Sometimes I see planes drive over a bridge I pass under

>>11244141
we'll see how much paperwork Boeing gets saddled with

>>11244134
>Starship popping

It’s just a beta model breaking like it was expected to.

>>11244151
Seeing they have changed their design for less welds and setup a welder training station I don't think "we totally expected this" is remotely close to the truth.

Does anybody know what’s the purpose of these holes which are leaking hypergolic vapour? I’ve seen them on a few Chinese rockets.

>>11244155
"The purpose of today’s test was to pressurize systems to the max, so the outcome was not completely unexpected. There were no injuries, nor is this a serious setback,"

It’s a learning process my dude.

>>11244155
Welder here. Looking at the dogshit quality of the welding work on that thing I can't see how they wouldn't expect some kind of failure, apparently Elon was not happy with it either.

>>11244169
Dust some unruly peasants who have bad social credit scores.

>>11244169
Look like vents to stop the tank getting over-pressurized as the Dinitrogen tetroxide boils.

>>11244171
I get they are doing it cheap but welders than can't weld is going a bit too cheap.

>>11244176
Yeah, I work construction and see structural welders working all the time. The Starship welders were shit.

>>11244176
what really got me was they were using inert gas shielding in the texas coast breeze, there's no way they got good shielding on that
also you need to shield the backside of the welds and that's a pain in the ass on such large structures

>>11244126

Everyone's tired of your shit.

>>11244185
What I would do is seal the bottom and just fill the thing with Argon as you go, it's heavier than air so should just sit in there.

>>11244189
sounds like a really really good way to drown some fucking workers
if the argon is concentrated enough it'll cause blackouts in ten seconds flat

>>11244194
So put a lid on the top of each piece as you go.

>>11244197
and the argon would blow away in the texas coastal wind, you just need a firewatch/welder helper holding the argon hose to the backside of the welds the whole way around

>>11244200
I still think they should assemble it horizontally in a sprung tent, looking at some of the crazy automated machines Tesla has I can't see how hard doing one circular weld and lining the next piece up would be. Once you have the tube stack it outside and send Jose in to fit out the inside.

>>11244189
......Argon? Pretty sure Starship isn’t using ion engines.

>>11244210
to protect the Stainless Steel it's made out of from reacting with atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen

>>11244215
Didn’t know iron reacted with nitrogen. All I ever see is rust.

>>11244216
it's rust at STP, but when the iron is approaching its boiling point and the atmosphere is an electrified plasma at 3000℃ nitrogen does bad things to iron as well

>>11244216
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1533/wint.2004.3235

>>11244228
>>11244265

Cool. Sounds like an engineering problem that was figured out fifty years ago, honestly. Must be bad welders

>>11244294
they might not have had the manpower or the knowledge to apply purge gas to the backside of the welds, either way it's a learning experience
I'm glad they can move on quickly instead of spending six months justifying their fuckup to the circus known as Congress

>>11244185
Should've stick welded it

>>11244340
where's the tool room where they're going to keep their rod ovens?
where's the worksite culture that's going to be diligent about rods?

>>11244345
where are the mexican welders who can stick weld

Is it time to breed intelligent humanoids for the purposes of crewed test flights?

>>11243976
>I’m pretty sure it’s easy for trained astronauts to notice when the engines are burning when they shouldn’t be...
This video I saw of a simulation from telemetry shows the maneuvering thrusters doing a freaking boogaloo for 30 seconds. (dammit mechjeb!)

>>11243922
It's NASCAR for nerds.

>>11243966
>it took so long for mission control
Right, because it was during a TDRS blackout window.

>>11244012
>>11244043
But NASA told them they could only use each capsule for one mission, so they made it expendable! (it seems Boeing only plans to make 3 or 4 starliners and will re-use them)

>>11244340
But stick requires actual skill which Mexicans don't have.

>mission failure
>still can move on to CSF

What the fuk.

>>11244566
Don't you trust the most skilled and experienced aerospace company in America?!!!??!!!?

>>11244228
Nitrogen does bad shit to titanium even at just a few hundred C, it makes sense why they didn't consider it for Starship.

>>11244566
Docking with the ISS was not the primary objective of the test apparently, the contract specifically listed it as a 'bonus' objective.
Also pointed out by a shuttle astronaut:
>No orbital insertion maneuver(s), incorrect altitude, no docking (hardware & software demo), comm outage w/TDRS at critical time. Question(s) about integrated (Atlas/Starliner) end to end software testing.
But apparently that's all fine since old space it ((reliable)). Only hope is that the thing crashes during re-entry on live TV tomorrow.

>>11244578
Not really, no. Remember when they gave the Max-8 another chance AFTER it already crashed once?

>>11244599
The joke


Your head

>>11244598
Hopefully it nukes a couple of astronauts and Boeing gets shut down

Do you think that a smallsat launch market crash is coming up soon? I keep hearing about it elsewhere. The reason is that there's a huge backlog of smallsats waiting for launch, but there are too many launch providers for sustained support. So, the argument goes, that the backlog will run out and many of the smallsat launch providers will go bankrupt until the amount of launches provided match the amount of sats being made. Thoughts?

gif unrelated

>>11244635
Well, I thought that it was a gif

>>11244635
first, literally any of them will need to get off their ass and start launching
Rocket Labs is the only one that's launching so far, and they're only managing every other month

>>11244635
Yeah only a few small sat launchers will make it, rocket lab comes to mind since they are trying reusability. Ultimately though they will still struggle if spacex provides little kick stages to strap to smallsats and they launch a gorillion at once on starship for basically nothing.

>>11244635

vector is dead, astra is spending their spooky money on digging up dirt... what else am I missing

>>11244652
>Orbex
>Firefly
>ARCA
>Relativity Space
I might be missing some.

>>11244662
>ARCA

Lul didn't they propose some clear bullshit scam rocket that used batteries to heat wire elements and use steam as rocket fuel? My sides.

>>11244667
I don't think it's a scam. I think that they're trying to be like SpaceX and disrupt the industry with some revolutionary product, but they have no idea what they're doing.

>>11244662
>Gilmour
>Zero 2 Infinity
>CloudIX
>linkspace
>PLD
>Rocket Crafters
>/ourguys/ EXOS

>>11244662
S P I N L A U N C H
P
I
N

>>11244680
EXOS are just trying to get a suborbital rocket working, do they even have plans for orbit?

>>11244695
yes, it's called jaguar. Reusable 1st and 2nd stage iirc. 2022? They're going to start hiring soon, I might apply

>>11244701
>reusable second stage
how many stages to orbit?

>>11244635
>>11244639
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkdz63agHY

>>11244704
....two? It's only reusable 1st stage, just checked.

>>11244711
yeah, okay that makes more sense
reusable second stage is black magic that nobody's managed yet
can't wait for SpaceX to get this whole "building the world's largest trashcan" thing worked out so they can start testing

>>11244707
[insert losing boner joke here]

>>11244717
> reusable second stage is black magic that nobody's managed yet

Can’t you just attach some parachutes to it or did KSP rot my brain?

>>11244771
It's the reentry part that's tricky. Even for the first stage on the Falcon 9's is rough, and those don't go to orbit.

>>11244771
KSP has rotted your brain, Earth reentry has more in common with a Jool aerobrake than it does with Kerbin entry

Why is ULA using solid boosters on an orbital capsule launch?

>>11244771
Gotta keep that weight low while giving it enough fuel, maneuvering engines to make sure it doesn't disintegrate in atmosphere and not flatten some poor sods house and then finally space for the chutes.

>>11244779
because they learned nothing from Challenger

>>11244775
Really? Yikes. Even if you put it low enough that it will deorbit on its own in a few days?

>>11244779
Because of the design of Atlas V. The basic Atlas with no boosters has a payload capacity that's smaller than what the rocket is expected to deliver on average, while the 5 booster version sends more payload. The idea behind this is to "dial-a-rocket". If it's the typical payload, then would need some boosters. If it's a smaller payload, then it would need less or no boosters to save on costs. The larger payloads can easily be accommodated for with more boosters.

>>11244782
The boosters on Atlas are much smaller both in absolute size and relative to the total vehicle, so a booster related RUD would not be nearly as catastrophic as Challenger. Also, Starliner has a LAS.

>>11244803
DID SOMEONE SAY DIAL-A-ROCKET?
KCHUC KCHUC KCHUC KCHUC
YOU HAVE DIALED...
411!
CONGRADUATUONS!

>>11244802
70x70km low kerbin orbital speed is roughly 2200 m/s
200x200km low earth orbital speed is roughly 7,800 m/s
imagine entering Kerbin's atmosphere at 7.8 km/s

>>11244814
>imagine entering Kerbin's atmosphere at 7.8 km/s

Yeah okay I got it. Are heat shields mandatory?

>>11244838
yeah, just a little bit
I'm not convinced a KSP heatshield would survive 7.8 km/s lol

>>11244838
Why don't you tell us how much heat you think entering an atmosphere at 7800m/s will generate?

>>11244849
A whole ton, which makes me think that deorbiting whole rockets is unfeasible unless they have a LOT of delta/v leftover so they can burn retrograde and decelerate which would mean leaving more fuel in the stage and thus having a smaller payload-to-wherever. So that’s why reusable second stages aren’t a thing in real life.

>>11244859
What about a sail to retrograde "burn"?

>>11244859
the OG shuttle concepts didn't have a huge payload bay, and the shuttle served as it's own hydrocarbon upper stage
Starship uses the same concept but does vertical landing instead of horizontal landing for both stages

>>11244771
Use this to undo the damage KSP has done, realistic sized solar system, realistic orbital velocities, realistic reentry heating.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki

Pic related is my crewed LEO rocket, enough Delta-V for a Duna return mission in stock, enough to get to LEO in RP-1.

>>11244861
What do you mean “sail”? Like.....a big sheet parachute? I’d think it’d rip off and/or incinerate. But I dunno maybe it could still remove some velocity before it does so.

>>11244876
Solar sail

>>11244867
I am so getting that the moment I buy a new laptop.

>>11244880
The energy from solar sails is much too low for the task

>>11244859
Which is why you make a bigger second stage so the mass fraction of your heatshield is not as big a hit which coincidentally is exactly what spacex are doing.

>>11244635
Depends almost entirely on SpaceX's Starship.

>2x starlink launches a month next year

OH YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

>>11244906
I can't wait for good service out here in a state that doesn't exist.

>>11244906
I wonder how hard it'll break ISP monopolies.

>>11244915
They'll lobby against it and for bailouts.

>>11244890
Wait, where exactly is the heatshield? Do they chuck the engines off or does the rocket have a headshield at the top and it dives head first?

>>11244922
not all heatshields are circular, anon
Shuttle had a heatshield, so will Starship; it's the black stuff on the bottom

>>11244915
Depends how much the antenna costs, if they can keep it under ~$300 install or no upfront cost with a ~2 year contact it should shake things up but if it's a $2,000 install it won't do much.

>>11244922
Current (known) starship design has a tiled underside for reentry, titles are "soft" and light compared to the shuttles tiles so it should be able to fly multiple times without replacement. They are also bolt on instead of the shuttles glue on so replacement should be quicker and easier.

>>11244927
>>11244931

Oh that’s really cool. Based Starship

Inflatable heatshield for second stage reentry?

>>11244906
one of the launches has already been delayed since october. so dont get your hopes up.

>>11244934
the spaceplane parts in KSP are treated as having a similar heathshield on them, their maximum skin temperatures are absolutely ridiculous

>>11244915
In theory most ISPs will be broke and desperate the moment starlink starts serving, in practice they will bribe politicians and lobby like you have never seen before so we will just have to wait and see.

>>11244936
Catch is materials that are flexible enough to inflate and materials with a high enough melting point have very little overlap.
Maybe a carbon based composite will be developed that will work on earth but for now they are only good for aerobraking rather than actual reentry.

Anyone remember Rocketplane Kitsler? It was supposed to be fully reusable and yeet payloads ala Starship. It had a completely blunt nosecone which also acted as the heat shield for the second stage.

Who's in the crew thats scheduled to die in the first manned launch of that billion dollar hunk of junk?

>>11245167
They have got to be nervous at this point

>Ride spacex capsule which probably won't explode, but maybe will

Or

>Ride Boeing capsule which has pajeet code like 737 max and multiple failures but is still greenlit

>>11245189
>test parachutes
Failure
>test flight
Failure

This is why they are technically enlisted, civilians with any sense would unionize and refuse to fly until it works.

What really pisses me off is Dragon is being held to the standards you would expect for a crewed launcher while Starliner is getting a free pass thanks to political influence and corruption.

>>11243995
>>11244040
toasty roastie

>>11244906
>OH YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

>>11245214
Seethe harder Boeing shill

>>11245236
We'll fly a crew before your exploding coffin fixes its killer parachutes.

>>11243909
>Soyuz with American flag
I wonder what Khrushchev would have to say about that pic

>>11245253
Depends if you can even reach the iss first lmao.

>>11243885
It wasn't. The mission was meant to test onboard systems and it successfully tested them. Once review is done we can safely move on to crewed flight.

>>11245200
those standards exist for a reason. new aviation and space flight safety rules get written every time someone finds a new way to kill themselves or others, so following the ones that exist is usually a smart choice. if boeing ends up accidentally killing to many more people by skirting safety rules it could be the end of them, there might even be people demanding blood from the folks responsible.

>>11245298
>if boeing ends up accidentally killing to many more people by skirting safety rules it could be the end of them, there might even be people demanding blood from the folks responsible.

Lmao did you miss the part where Boeings latest plane has already killed hundreds of people and they just have been given what is essentially a slap on the wrist?

>>11245286
>and it successfully tested them

Except you know, the most important ones.

>>11245258
I'm thinking more about him.

>>11245346
He did literally nothing wrong

>>11245317
I mean the only thing they can’t test is docking and they’ve been testing the docking mechanism on orbit anyway.

>>11245346
good man
>>11245357
seconded

>>11245380
>testing the docking mechanism on orbit anyway

Seems to me that to test your docking mechanism correctly you have to, you know, dock.

>>11245393
The docking mechanism has already been tested on DM-1 though, both Starliner and Crew Dragon use the NDS. NASA already knows it works.

>Boeing Starliner Orbital Flight Test Landing
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPzNHeX7OYM

>>11245421
No dubs and they wont get any footage of the actual landing.

>>11245426
but I want to watch it slam into the Earth at terminal velocity

>>11245426
No dubs and they will be the first to do manned launch.

>sniffers
I love the smell of hydrazine in the morning

>>11245432
no dubs and their crew will be turned into confetti when they hit max q

fuck the cunt is about to orbit above my house (west oz)

i wish they stream some basic telemetry too

I'm calling it, Starliner will perform the deorbit burn in an incorrect attitude

>>11245452
at least this time, unlike the launch, they are showing the control room screens

Also they are not using SI, no wonder they fucked shit up

>>11245453
I doubt they will fuck up again.

>inb4 they fuck up mission clock again and it lands way off course

>>11245458
The clock has apparently been fixed

fuck this chick's voice is fucking horrendous

>>11245461
don't underestimate Boeing incompetence

>>11245462
like nails across chalk

"TheChad138 Don’t want to see her as a cam girl for sure."

ok which one of you faggots was this.

>Jim bridenstein watching in room

please fail please fail please fail please fail please fail please fail please fail

>>11245477
Why are you all such fannboyish cunts?

>>11245481
it will be funny and i hope boeing takes another hit for being taxpayer vampires that can't even make planes properly anymore

why would someone want a space mission to fail?
I don't understand the mentality. Am I missing something?

>camera made of potato
DAMMIT

>>11245488
It’s an infrared camera, their all like that.

>>11245487
Because in this case it would actually be beneficial in helping a much more innovative company to get the contracts instead

>>11245494
Not really, it is the 1970s era datalink Nasa uses is a failure

>>11244880
>>11244886
Also it's too slow, you would drop out of orbit before you could reduce your orbital velocity enough to avoid a hot re-entry.
Solar sails are more like ion engines, slow, continuous dV.

>>11244931
>Depends how much the antenna costs
It's probably going to be a big square patch antenna like the ones on Starlink itself, so economies of scale ought to kick in nicely.
It also gets to compete with telcos wanting $5K or so to dig a new fiber to a rural location.
>a tiled underside for reentry
Also it's made out of steel, not aluminum or some expensive aerospace alloy, which starts out able to take more heat.

>>11244938
When you are throwing stacks of satellites up twice a month and miss a lunch, you can't really consider a specific launch from months ago to have been "delayed".

>>11245431
Which episode of Space Brothers was that? Only there was no SpaceX equivalent on that show.

>>11245497
But Starliner is an innovative design: a 10 times reusable capsule, that can touchdown on land with airbags (something never done before by the US).

>>11245503
Crew Dragon is capable of soft landing on its own. What is so innovative about airbags in 2020-1 again?

>>11245497
>He doesn't believe in competition

"i don't think we could have had a better flight"

wow the PR damage control is astounding

>>11245503
20 million more than soyuz (a reliable proven launch system) and 70 million more than Dragon 2 (which is fully reusable and can do propulsive landing)

starliner is overpriced shit tier

>>11245508
To be fair, it could before they had to replace check valves with burst valves, because of a problem with NTO that nobody knew about. (it probably even happened a few times in satellites on orbit where nobody could examine the wreckage to find out why)
But that was all because it would have cost money to fully develop the propulsive landing system, and NASA didn't want to pay for that.

I'm surprised they left chat enabled, space launch/landing chats are so cancerous.

>>11245522
>Dragon 2 (which is fully reusable and can do propulsive landing)

>won’t be doing propulsive landing or be reused

Also, Jim B debunked the GAO estimates about seat prices several days ago: he said that he has no idea where the estimates came from because NASA haven’t even negotiated the seat prices yet!

>>11245522
the change they did to keep it from exploding takes away the propulsive landing option

The number they gave out for the news conference (281) 483-5111

>>11245530

>won’t be doing propulsive landing or be reused

no shit sherlock it won't be, that's different from it from being a minor upgrade away from being able to do propulsive landing, heck right now they are even mulling using the superdracos to do propulsive landing anyway as a backup in case chutes fail during decent
>>11245542
in that configuration yes but it doesn't rule it out being used later on

Looks like boeing is going hard on next flight is cft and not a redo of oft.

>>11245581
I don’t think NASA will make them re-do it. They proved Starliner can safely fly astronauts from ascent to landing, I assume they’ll just do more on-orbit testing and take a more conservative approach to rendezvousing with the ISS for CFT.

>>11245612
Probably. Though it seems they're still not yet sure what caused the MET to go take the wrong value from Atlas V.

>>11245525
Propulsive landing is by design fail deadly with lots of potential failure points. While there are missions where you don't have a choice like the Moon or Mars for LEO work it makes sense to stick with parachutes that generally only need a pin to slide from a hole to fuction.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for propulsive landing but having a simle chute backup makes sense.

>>11245623
>Though it seems they're still not yet sure what caused the MET to go take the wrong value from Atlas V.

Publicly their not sure, but L2 tells a difference story. They’ve apparently tracked the problem to a single line of code.

>>11245624
>I'm all for propulsive landing but having a simple chute backup makes sense.

When SpaceX were doing propulsive landing with Crew Dragon they still were going to have a parachute for backup.

>>11245629
It would be more accurate to say that they've blamed it on a single line of code. I don't believe a word of that, not from Boeing.

>>11245652
It didn’t come from Boeing itself, it came from a NASA employee involved with commercial crew. He suggested their too embarrassed to reveal how such a minor error scuppered the mission. He also talked about how Starliner’s RCS went through a serious workout to raise the capsule’s altitude; Starliner’s software had to shut down some of the thrusters when they triggered overheating sensors.

Clean as a whistle!

>>11245652
>SpaceX say they expected their flight hardware to explode on the ground
>Boeing say that 2 failed tests in a row were really successes
>ULA say SLS is going to be worth it
>Blue Origin say they will never make an orbital launcher smaller than New Glenn
>Rocketlab said they would never recover boosters
>Virgin said they would be flying passangers years ago
I don't trust anyone in this industry.

>>11245133
IIRC the reentry of both stages would be tricky to work out, especially for that upper stage. Also, I think it would need some kind of nose cone to cover that heatshield because that blunt nose would cause way too much drag.

>>11245664
>Blue Origin say they will never make an orbital launcher smaller than New Glenn
Did they go back on that? I'm pretty sure that New Glenn is still their smallest orbital launcher.

>>11245667
We will see, they haven't gone back on it yet but I would be amazed if it's cost effective to fly something that big for every mission when there are so many ~5 ton comms payloads that can't really ride share due to weird inclinations.

>>11245669
>really ride share due to weird inclinations.

It works for Arianespace, so why wouldn’t it work for Blue to?

>>11245664
>SpaceX say that their flight hardware exploded in a test where they were making sure their flight hardware wouldn't explode
>Boeing say that whoopsie we forgot a pin and whoopsie our corporate culture doesn't respect programmers
>Boeing (NOT ULA) ask for more money for SLS
>Blue Origin are building a giant fucking launch facility in Florida
>Rocket Lab were pleasantly surprised at how well their rocket survived first stage reentry
>suborbital tourism is once again proven to be a fucking scam
these range from unfortunate to holy shit (both good and bad)

>>11245671
Lets just say SpaceX and Blue Origin are competing for the same contracts, both are recovering and reusing the first stage.
Now you have heavy-lift and medium-lift competing on price, I'm assuming the medium rocket is going to be cheaper for single ride launches it's capable of making.

As for ride sharing on weird inclinations it just isn't an option if they are more than few degrees apart due to the huge delta-v cost of inclination change in LEO. Out at GEO it's more reasonable but pretty much everything at GEO is 0 inclination.

>>11245667
They don't have an orbital launcher, just a few CGI animations and silly illustrations

>>11245687
Yeah, that’s not true anymore. Anybody who’s toured Blue’s Florida factory or even has a NSF L2 membership knows this isn’t the case.

>>11245689
How far along are they? I saw the short BE-3U burn the other day.

>>11245655
>Starliner’s RCS went through a serious workout
You mean this workout? >>11244444
It looks like disco fever.

>>11245669
>I would be amazed if it's cost effective to fly something that big for every mission
If the vehicle is reusable then your fuel costs for using a larger vehicle are minimal, especially if the larger size improves re-usability.

>>11245686
It all depends on how expensive New Glenn ends up being. I don't think it'll be that expensive per launch, probably less than an Ariane 5 since New Glenn is going to compete with that and due to the fact that New Glenn is largely built by Blue Origin instead of having a distributed production like with Ariane.

New Glenn would also allow for better cheaper heavy lifting. The only thing comparable is Falcon Heavy and that design is heavily constrained and we may never see it's full potential, meanwhile New Glenn don't have those restrictions. Smaller cheaper launchers are nice for sustained services, but the future of spaceflight depends on cheap access to space for heavy payloads.

>>11245693
Their currently building a pathfinder version of New Glenn’s first-stage to test in a hydrostatic cell (the new tall building at their Florida factory). Think of it as Blue’s equivalent of SLS’ test tank. These tests are supposed to begin in the first-half of 2020.

>>11245697
>The only thing comparable is Falcon Heavy and that design is heavily constrained and we may never see it's full potential
It's as though SpaceX decided to make something else instead. Hmmm...

>>11245697
I agree that we need bigger launchers but I also thing "we will never go smaller" isn't going to be an economic reality in the mid term.

>>11245698
I hope they start being more public with their tests, it'll be interesting to see how they fo.

>>11245702
Falcon heavy is a direct competitor to Delta IV Heavy with a smaller fairing, because of this + politics it will never get government launches and commercial launches generally don't need to go that big.

>>11245702
I was just comparing New Glenn to what was currently flying.

Also, even if SpaceX pushes for more Falcon Heavy flights, the design of the rocket has some issues that are holding it back such as the small core diameter and the kerolox upper stage. There's also the issue of them losing core stages which might make them fly the Falcon Heavy on a less aggressive trajectory at the cost of performance.

>>11245687
they also have a fuckhuge launchpad complex

>>11245726
For a rocket made of plywood

>>11245712
>I agree that we need bigger launchers but I also thing "we will never go smaller" isn't going to be an economic reality in the mid term.
Lets see how that develops. They have all the parts for a smaller rocket, but I'm not sure how they can do reusability with the BE-4 on a smaller rocket.

>>11245712
>Falcon heavy is a direct competitor to Delta IV Heavy

It actually isn’t, Delta 4H’s remaining launches have all been planned out as part of the “block buy”. These launches weren’t able to competed on because they are all Class C payloads, which only the D4H can currently launch due to their size and other requirements. After this block of payloads are launched, D4H will be retired.

Falcon Heavy will however be competing with Vulcan, New Glenn and OmegA for the next block of Class C payloads in 2023.

>>11245510
>Implying throwing even more money down the endless pit of boomerspace is somehow competitive

>>11244672
I do think they are a scam. Remember their aerospike endeavour, for which they had only promocional youtube vídeos to show, but never reportes any progress on? I think they just act like they do things to grab money from investors

This is a great picture of the drogues popping off

>>11245773
The top half looks like some deep ocean picture of some jellyfish.

>>11245669
Size doesn't correlate to cost in absolute terms. If an expensive company builds a bigger rocket it's gonna be more expensive, but a cheaper company can build a rocket for the same price of a smaller competitor. BO is betting on being both a cheap company and to operate a partially reusable vehicle, so they shouldn't have any issue with an oversized launcher.

>>11245693
>the short BE-3U burn
It wasn't a short burn, sure it was shorter than a full-duration mission burn, but it was definitely long enough to get into a stable full thrust configuration. The engine is effectively complete in terms of startup sequencing, which means it's very very close to complete overall.

I'm glad they're going to be raking Boeing over the coals for this one
https://twitter.com/nasawatch/status/1208769392164687872

so uh the MET was off by 11 hours
wtf

>>11245870
>rake boeing over the coals
NOOOOOOO their $750 million open ended contract will be changed to a $800 million dollar contract. the extra $50 will be paid to boeing for them to internally investigate their processes

>>11245870
Nobody is getting raked over the coals, NASA is just going to review Boeing’s software with more scrutiny in case there are more undiscovered issues. Furthermore, NASA seems pretty confident that Boeing won’t have to re-do OFT.

>all starships scrapped yet again, back to square one with zero new data collected (with the exception of one (1) raptor engine flight test)
>florida starship plans scrapped, meaning any and all existing superheavy pad plans are scrapped too
>zero successful falcon heavy core recoveries and continual failed fairing recoveries
>dragon 2 exploded during a test
>80% of starlink missions that were expected this year did not happen; starlink close to being banned in the regulatory world
>starliner just went belly-up, delaying things for another 2 years
>vulcan is years behind schedule and now ULA only has atlas V
>rocketlab recovery test failed
>virgin orbit delayed another year
>virgin galactic delayed another year
>firefly delayed another year and aerospike engines dropped
>dozens of smallsat launchers going belly-up
>Europe, Russia and Japan doubling down on expendable launchers
>orbital debris problem growing with no solution in sight
>multiple lunar lander and mars lander failures
>Northrop Grumman meme solid booster rocket which is essentially holding taxpayers hostage
>Blue Origin building dozens of new facilities with no purpose and New Glenn is moving back even more
>New Shepard manned flights moved into next year, exactly like how the end of last year went
It's over.

>>11245923
space is hard

>>11245930
the same tired old excuse

>>11245923
They're continuing to collect data on Raptors with production ramping up and new test stands coming online at McGregor
The Pad 39A Super Heavy deflector is continuing construction while the area at Roberts Road on KSC has SOMETHING going on back there
Falcon Heavy always was and forever will be a mistake
Dragon 2 is progressing and will take the flag
Starlink has permission to proceed and launches are queuing up and the DoD is already signed the fuck on
Starliner is coming along I guess
Vulcan is going to come online to compete with the new generation of medium lift launchers
RocketLab is following the recovery roadmap they established at the start
Virgin Orbit/Galactic is still a scam
smallsat lift in general is completely irrelevant
the rest of your shit is also dumb and stupid but I won't explain why, aside from Northrop Grumman complaints

There are people in this thread that actually give money to this guy so that he can run a 2000 era Invision tier web forum despite the fact its hosting could be paid for by change found underneath the seat of a couch.

Imagine being a pay piggy for this retarded boomer and his autistic zoomer staff who already receive their paycheck directly from Boeing.

>>11245923
>starlink close to being banned in the regulatory world
What? How?

>Blue Origin building dozens of new facilities with no purpose and New Glenn is moving back even more
No. New Glenn is on schedule.

Look, spaceflight can be pretty depressing at times, but there are still good things happening. Have hope.

Boca Chica is awfully busy, even if they're not actually building Mk3 hardware yet. Plenty of buildings going up, lots of shipments, lots of testing equipment. I'm sure that we'll see good progress on the starship front soon.

>>11245958
the guy's biggest mistake that really drives up his hosting costs are that he hosts his own images and lets users upload images to be hosted on his servers

the people drawing parallels between the 737 MAX and Starliner are completely correct, the disrespect for programmers and code in general at Boeing is top down, it comes straight from the CEO

>>11245958
>spaceflight news websites drama

>>11245962
the guy's a retarded frogposter and everything he said was either wrong or phrased poorly

>>11245948
>the rest of your shit is also dumb and stupid but I won't explain why, aside from Northrop Grumman complaints
t. northrop grumman shill

>>11245962
>What? How?
mass orbital debris and disturbance to astronomy
it's already being talked about in congressional circles

>No. New Glenn is on schedule.
Source?

>>11245992
kys, bozos-worshipping retard

>>11246010
where's your source for any of that shit?

>>11246013
There is no source. Blue Origin are still internally aiming to fly New Glenn in the first-half 2021, whether that actually happens is anybody’s guess. His points about Vulcan being delayed (it isn’t and is probably the most likely new rocket to fly in 2021) and Rocket Lab’s recovery test failing (it didn’t and actually went better than expected) are false as well.

>>11246010
>mass orbital debris and disturbance to astronomy
The astronomy community is very small and they've been aware of starlink for a while. They had plenty of time to make their case but haven't.

>it's already being talked about in congressional circles
Source?

>Source?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
>Blue Origin indicated that the first orbital launch was expected no earlier than 2020
>Blue Origin aims to launch New Glenn in 2021
It seems like they're still on course with New Glenn, and the vast amount of hardware being built seems like a good sign. Stop being depressive when theres no real reason to be.

>>11246031
I'm still a believer on Starship, New Glenn AND Vulcan

>>11246010
Since BO gave a somewhat realistic timeline from the very beginning and nothing changed since then, i am curious where this rumor about them beeing not on schedule anymore comes from.

>>11246035
fuck SLS

>>11246038
>Bezos sets super conservative timeline
>falls behind anyway
>Elon sets hyper-aggressive timeline that's impossible to meet
>nearly fucking makes it
>>11246040
god bless

>>11246033
>>11246013
>>11246031
>>11246035
>>11246038
kys blue origin losers

>>11246054
Why are you shitting in Blue Origin?

>>11246047
>Blue Origin sets super conservative timeline
>They're still on schedule
FTFY

>>11246054
Fuck off with your space tribalism. Nobody gives a shit.

>>11246066
I mean there’s nothing conservative about New Glenn...

>>11246047
>nearly fucking makes it
depends entirely on how generous you define "nearly"

>>11245900
They never proved autonomous operation of approaching and docking to the ISS.
Something SpaceX proved on their Crew Dragon and is fully in operation on the Cargo Dragon.

>>11243376

>>11246206
I PUSH MY FINGERS INTO MY

>>11246197
>They never proved autonomous operation of approaching and docking to the ISS.
I thought they did via a pretend docking approach in orbit?

>>11246231
Its like taking a gun and firing blanks and pretending you now know where the bullets are going to go and you know how to shoot.
You can pretend all you fucking want, but it doesn't mean you are completely and 100% capable.

>>11246260
But it’s enough to get a waiver from NASA ;)

>>11245990
t. L2 paypiggy

Oink for us like the animal you are.

>>11246038
Because New Shepard has been progressing at a snail's pace and not much had been seen or heard about New Glenn development until recently.

>>11246395
The thing is that they are very secretive, new glenn could be nearly finished or it could just be a pile of engines because they don't release jack shit.

>>11246403
>new glenn could be nearly finished or it could just be a pile of engines because they don't release jack shit.

In reality New Glenn is neither of these things: Blue have been busy practicing welding tank sections together and are now manufacturing a pathfinder/test first-stage which they expect to have completed by Spring 2020. By late-summer they expect to have completed their first “flight-quality first-stage”, whilst the launch pad at LC-36 won’t be finished until next winter. Their aiming for New Glenn’s first test-flight to occur in Spring, 2021.

This was the last Blue Origin progress report we got, from early November.

t. L2 paypiggy

>>11246426
question, what will it do... better than F9/H? I assume SpaceX will pretty much have fairing recovery nailed down by then. Will they still be cheaper than 50 mil for a F9?

>>11246437
>what will it do... better than F9/H?

It will have a vastly bigger payload fairing, bigger payload capacity, be able to dual-berth even the heaviest GTO satellites and have superior performance to high-energy trajectories because of it’s hydrolox upper-stage.

>>11245923
>>rocketlab recovery test failed
What? It was a resounding success, they were only trying to get it to survive reentry, which it did better than expected.

>>11246437
>what will it do... better than F9/H?
Some things.
>methalox first stage instead of kerolox which removes coking issues
>hydrolox upper stage which performs much better than a kerolox upper stage
>larger fairing
>designed from the ground-up to be reusable

>>11246460
>>11246448
But, is it cheaper though?
Interesting advantages either way. Plus I suppose they can always generate launches for themselves if Bezos’s Kuiper starts building satellites

>>11246448
What will it do better than Starship SuperHeavy then? Or is that New Armstrong territory?

>>11246497
>But, is it cheaper though?
Per launch? Most likely "no" since it is larger than F9. Per mass of payload? I'd say that it can be fairly competitive due to Blue Origin building all of the major components themselves.

>>11246503
I’m as big of a SS fanboy as anyone, but I doubt that SS will be able to take away contracts from NG for at least a year and a half.

>>11246504
Also, with it’s big fairing and big payload capacity it has the potential to launch hundreds of constellation satellites at a time. Personally, I think it’ll put more pressure on Arianespace than SpaceX, by dethroning the former’s A5/6 as the premium GTO launcher, whilst also reaping the cost-savings of reusability.

>>11246525
>I think it’ll put more pressure on Arianespace than SpaceX, by dethroning the former’s A5/6 as the premium GTO launcher, whilst also reaping the cost-savings of reusability.
I think Ariane already knows this considering this quote from last year.

>"It is about future business," Charmeau said. "Why do all the billionaires invest in space? Why does Jeff Bezos come to Germany and declare that the country should not go to space? He makes money with your personal data. Today he knows your Amazon orders, tomorrow he drives your car."

>>11246503
Since we only have the theoretical/planned performances of the two vehicles to compare, New Glenn would most likely be something like a reusable SLS/Saturn V.
Starship, especially if orbital refuling works out the way it's planned, would be an entirely new category. How New Armstrong will compare to that we don't know, since all information we have about NA is that it's going to be huge as fuck.

Personally i doubt that even Blue Origin knows exactly what they want to build as of this moment.

>>11246535
>Why does Jeff Bezos come to Germany and declare that the country should not go to space?

How about you useless fucks take some of those billions of gibs to develop competitive reusable launchers?

>>11246540
>New Glenn would most likely be something like a reusable SLS/Saturn V.
Not really. SLS/Saturn V are ultra-heavy launchers while New Glenn is more like a high-medium to heavy launcher.

>>11246607
I mean, DLR had the concept of a flüssigkeitsgeflügelterbooster back in '99.

>>11246616
>flüssigkeitsgeflügelterbooster

German was a mistake

>>11246629
I don't think it was ever called that. I just made up a hässlichkomplexeswort for laughs. Someone who actually understands German would probably scoff at it.

>>11246640
so what does it mean, my top men can't make hide nor hair of it

>>11246674
>flüssigkeitsgeflügelterbooster - liquid winged booser
>hässlichkomplexeswort - ugly complex word
I just used google translate and deleted the spaces.

>>11246610
New Glenn is planned to have a capacity of 45tons to LEO in reusable mode. comparing that with the performance of other rockets we can assume it would have about 90-100 tons to LEO capacity when used in expandable mode. This would definetely put it in about the same category as the rockets i mentioned earlier

>>11246723
>New Glenn is planned to have a capacity of 45tons to LEO in reusable mode. comparing that with the performance of other rockets we can assume it would have about 90-100 tons to LEO capacity when used in expandable mode.

I’d say it’s expendable payload capacity is closer to 75 tons to LEO; considering it’s longer, gliding-reentry and lack of entry burn means it loses much less Delta V to recovery margins. Therefore, it doesn’t get it’s payload capacity roughly halved by reusability unlike the Falcon series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

someone please call in make us proud please.

I still can't believe they are landing new glenn on a fucking manned ship, did they not see all those falcon 9s grenade the drones ships?

>>11246509
In that sense, wouldn't NG also take time to take away F9/FH contracts. Which after that we will have SS ramping up then take away NG contracts and so on.

>>11246747
How many of those F9 barge landing failures resulted in the booster hitting the barge directly (at high velocity I mean)? I only recall one. I think most of those failures had the boosters crash nearby. Maybe if the crew retreated to a well armored part of the ship, then it's safer?

>>11246747
Droneships are only needed cause F9s need to do a suicide burn to land. The NG will slowly throttle to a hover and once all is fine scoot over to the actual ship.

>>11246747
We don’t actually know where the crew will be for the landing, they could be evacuated to another boat or to an armoured citadel somewhere inside the ship.

>>11246758
Even if New Glenn can hover, I assume they’ll try and make the landing burn as efficient as possible because unlike NS, maximising payload is important.

Also here’s a recent picture of the ship everybody is talking about for reference:

>>11246783
And another one...

>>11246746
>246 people watching
The state of NASA

Space isn't real and spaceflight is just money laundering.

>MET clock was 11 hours off

jesus

>>11246802
Did they fuck up timezones or something

>>11246796
Meanwhile tens of thousands of viewers for a spacex launch.

>>11246833
Because Elon pays them to. He also forces employees to watch the stream.

>>11246815
No, Starliner apparently snagged the wrong timing data from Atlas 5 when updating it’s internal clock due to a small software error. Think of it as Starliner grabbing the wrong baton in a relay race. What’s interesting is which variable it mistakenly snagged to create such a big timing error.

>>11246839
Lul ok

>>11246862
nice retort redditbro

>>11246852
Uh, they just had on a special program on where people could call in and ask questions directly to the NASA administrator and Boeing leadership. At no point was anyone talking about the ISS feed, which came on after this event. Delete your post and then delete urself.

>>11246796
>>11246833
>>11246839
>>11246862
I don’t know why you idiots are comparing the viewership of astronauts just talking to an exciting event like a rocket launch, you’ve obviously run out of intelligent things to talk about.

>>11246869
I’m pretty sure that was just a repeat of this mornings’ post-landing press-conference.

>>11246867
Seethe boeing

>>11246833
well to be fair the starliner launch got near 20,000 viewers

>>11246839
I doubt that. SpaceX does much more work to popularize their events than NASA.

You’ve all been watching repeats you dumb fucks, the talk with Boeing and NASA leadership happened this morning after the landing...

>>11246881
>popularize
That's a weird word for "shilling"

>>11246871
I don't know why you keep spamming this thread with your shitty hot take after you got the original details wrong, had to cover them up, and ironically were audacious enough to call anyone here an idiot afterwards.

Why does it offend you that someone pointed out the laughably low viewership rate of NASA events? I could start a Youtube stream right now with me just dancing like an idiot and get more viewers than them. There's near zero public interest in their programing despite the money they spend on it.
>>11246888
Calm down, autist.

>>11246893
Well, technically both are the same thing.

>>11246896
>I don't know why you keep spamming this thread with your shitty hot take after you got the original details wrong, had to cover them up, and ironically were audacious enough to call anyone here an idiot afterwards.
I missed it, what did he say?

>>11246197
>>11246231
They did the pretend approach, and SpaceX already validated the ISS side of things, so technically they're copying some of SpaceX's test answers.

>>11246900

>>11246867
>you cannot disprove my arbitrary retarded claim :)

>>11246881

Competent video feed coverage.

Boeing can't even get that right.

>>11246840
thats more than 1 line of code fucking up

>>11247224
One line would have fixed the clock. The bigger problem was (from what I've read) a design WTF that gated vehicle operational modes exclusively by the MET. It thought it must already be on orbit, and used the wrong kind of course correction. This is a much different specific situation, but a similar sort of design laziness as the MCAS trouble.

>>11246758
>once all is fine
Nothing is ever fine when there's a tank of oxidizer next to a tank of fuel next to a chamber with high pressure gas at temperature above melting point of most construction materials

>>11246260
Fuck analogies