/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11260193
>What amateur rocketry have you done?
Absolutely none but I'm thinking about exploring rocketry, specifically the sort of technologies that make Starship possible, on my own, in a miniature rocket. How much would this cost?

>>11260197
a bajillion dollars

I volunteer at my local Cub Scout rocket launch event. That's about it.

>>11260197
>How much would this cost?
You can start with a level 1 certification (I think Tripoli is the primary certification management organization in the US).

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Rocket-Kits/Level-1-Certification-Kits

This goes up to level 3 with the price doubling or tripling with each level. The highest impulse motor you can get with level 3 is O. With anything more powerful requiring FAA approval (for the US). This is all for solid propellant rockets, but liquid propellant is non-existent in amateur rocketry outside of design teams and small companies.

Good luck!

>>11260205
Damn, that's actually pretty affordable. Thanks, anon.

>>11260213
No problem. Be sure to keep up with Tripoli to make sure that you get your certifications.

http://www.tripoli.org/

>momo launch scrubbed
i hate how this industry is full of delays

Any word on the autophaging rocket engine? It seems that it would be good for reducing debris and not wasting valuable alloys on satellite rocket casings but nobody seems to be testing it

>>11260235
>there were only three things certain in life: death, taxes, and delays

>>11260240
Are you talking about this?
https://newatlas.com/autophage-rocket-engine-eats-itself/54892/

>>11260245
Yes, /sci/ has enough monkeys to figure out this problem

>>11260240
>>11260245
>>11260253
Looks interesting, but it's proposed solution to reduce debris can also be fixed with reusable engines and tanks. Looks like it can find a use for very small spacecraft though.

Lol why did Elon delete the stalin tweet

>>11260261
The dude needs to start shitposting anonymously just to let it out

>>11260261
What stalin tweet?

>>11260278
it was this picture >>11260272 with the heart kiss emoji

>>11260257
It was proposed as a cheap way to get small sats up while reducing the amount of debris left over by eliminating the casing.
It could also work for a small plasma engine as a retro-thruster for small, long range space probes

>>11260193
I've fapped to space anime, does that count?

>>11260290

>>11260287
actually, it would just increase the mass fraction, right?

>>11260294
Depends on the formulation of the autophage propellant. For really small rockets the mass of the tanks takes up a significant amount of the total mass.

>>11260300
I meant dry mass fraction

>>11260303
My point still applies as tank mass is dry mass.

>Boeing/oldspace

Anything new about this lately?

>>11260523
As expected due to it’s nature as a DARPA project being undertaken by Boeing’s Skunkworks-equivalent, things are really quiet. We know both the test engine and the flight engine AR-22 are currently being stored at Michoud, because people who attended the SLS core-stage NASA social also saw them.

There’s also this press release from early this year: https://www.vacco.com/images/uploads/pdfs/press_release_PhantomExpress_Boeing_051319.pdf

It suggests Boeing have ordered parts for it and therefore, have probably started production by now. I would really like to see pictures of LC-48 (where it’s supposed to launch from)...

>>11260576
I hope that when it launches someone catches a video of it taking off and landing.

>>11260523
>a spaceplane that's also a rocket
I haven't seen pictures of this thing until today and I've been wondering why no one's ever developed anything like this yet, it's so obvious.

>>11260523
>reusable smallsat launcher
looks better than electron

>>11260669
Also, manned version when?

>>11260678
Never.

>>11260683
Why not?

>>11260669
Because its a shit idea and is only good for cheaply (developed by Boeing so lol no) launching small payloads.

>>11260669
>I've been wondering why no one's ever developed anything like this yet, it's so obvious.
Because the Shuttle was the primary reusable launch vehicle of the US and it sucked so much that it stopped any other attempts of reusability until SpaceX and Blue Origin came along.

Also, older concepts of the Shuttle had a winged first stage.

>>11260695
It's a smallsat launcher. I don't know what it's payload capacity is but it might be around that of the Electron rocket and thus way too small to carry people.

>>11260193
>What amateur rocketry have you done?
Solid motors slowly working up to ~H class, pic related is a reusable ~B from my early days.
You would be surprised the pressure schedule 40 & 80 PVC pipe can take so long as the burn time is short enough to limit heating.

>>11260193
>Thread Question: What amateur rocketry have you done?
none, and I wonder if it's even legal in my country

>>11260805
What country?

>>11260806
chile

>>11260735
That's cool! Great work! And good luck on that H motor.

>>11260808
Worst case scenario you could contact someone within your country's air force to ask them about it.

>>11260808
It was hard to find info in Australia (years ago) so I called the fire brigade, they put me in touch with rocketry groups that could help.

>>11260815
right. I don't have resources for big time stuff, though, so I guess I could try things like >>11260735
I also know nothing about rocketry, but I'd love to learn

>>11260823
This is the best resource I have ever found on making my own solids.
http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/

>>11260827
ooh, nice! thanks m8

>>11260827
You just know it's going to be a website stacked full of quality information when it looks like that. Fuck I miss the old Internet.

>>11260193
Just some dinky model rocket kits-nothing larger than a c engine

>>11260697
>>>11260669
>Because its a shit idea and is only good for cheaply (developed by Boeing so lol no) launching small payloads.


>>11260670
>>>11260523
>>reusable smallsat launcher
>looks better than electron
The AR-22 is shuttle derived. No way in hell is it gonna be cheaper than the 3D printed Rutherfords. Especially if rocketlab can manage the recovery ops they have planned

Would it be possible to make an amateur orbital rocket? how big would it need to be?

We’ve brain damaged hundreds of bad finance people. Brain damage more.

>>11261013
Yes, if you didn't care about any payload beyond control avionics you could probably do it with ~5 tons.
https://youtu.be/jBUFNgLrykc

https://youtu.be/7J9FAyrhi1U?list=TLPQMjkxMjIwMTm6Jx8Hv_tAQA&t=1179

ex-NASA employee talks about his experience with affirmative action ruining NASA

>>11261031
I knew NASA is corrupt, but holy shit, that's a whole ’nother level.

>>11261031
>Stefan Molyneux
go back to /pol/

11261058
>attacking the source and not the information
no (You) for you
you should go back to plebbit instead

>>11261031
I'm not listening to over half an hour of fake and gay staged politics bullshit, timestamp the relevant sections please.

>>11261069
I already did timestamp it retard

>>11261058
Fuck off retard, this is crucial information concerning decades of lost progress in space, with the additional blow of ungodly amounts of money lost. But you'll just dismiss it because it triggers your sensitive feelings

How much has been lost because of the demand to appeal to niggers and women?

>>11261085
>How much has been lost because of the demand to appeal to niggers and women?
if you understood how far the defense *contractor* industry has fallen, you would know that this is nearly incalculable.

>>11261066
try applying some critical thinking, most of his complaints are due to him being a subcontractor. Even if NASA wasn't required to favor minority owned businesses, he would still be a subcontrator. He chose a shitty job and if he doesn't like it he can fuck off and get another one.

>>11261085
>blaming lack of development on minorities
fucking neck yourself. I'm not giving you more (You)'s

>>11261107
the defense contractors aren't suffering because of niggers, they're suffering because of communism and government contracts

>>11261113
I don't blame niggers & women, I blame people who give government contracts to niggers & women

>>11261058
>>11261113
>>>/lgbt/
>>>/Reddit/
>>>Thousands of other sites where you can be a huge faggot in peace and you wont have to be triggered because someone linked a video by a Youtuber you disagree with politically.

>>11261134
sorry for triggering you, do you need to go to your safe space? I'll stop pointing out how wrong you are

>>11261172
You haven't pointed out anything wrong. You are just another snarky libshit, YAWN

>>11261172
Not am argument, back to rebbit.

11261172
you still haven't proven his statements illegitimate, just attacked the people themselves like a redditor
return to your hovel

>>11261031
>>11261085
Yes, clearly the big problem facing NASA is wimmin.
Look at all these fake companies sucking up NASA"s budget .
http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Top-100-NASA-Contractors.html

>>11261325
The video literally states these fake companies exist to please affirmative action quotas, I never blamed women directly either

Insufferable moron

>>11261085
>How much has been lost because of the demand to appeal to niggers and women?

The JWST was announced in 1995 with an expected cost of $500 million and expected launch date of 2007. Its now 2020, a full quarter of a century after the announced start of the project, they haven't set a real launch date yet, but any time before 2023 is out of the question and the expense is now more than $12 billion.
Does that answer your question?

>>11260193
I used to do a lot of model rockets when I was younger. Single stage, two stage, you name it. One time my friends and I tried out are own fuel and packed it into pvc, the exhaust hole ended up being to small so pressure built up once it was lit and shrapnel went everywhere.

>>11261330
>I never blamed women directly either
This anon did >>11261085
>Insufferable moron
As opposed to someone who gets their "facts" from anonymous callers on some dude's youtube channel.

>>11260966
>The AR-22 is Shuttle-derived
>saying that like it's a bad thing
boy, they cranked out like 10 restarts on that thing with zero refurb, and it's just a fucking non man-rated RS-25

>>11261404
It’s been designed to be reused 10 times within 10 days at $5 million a launch. In 2018 they fired the AR-22 10 times in 10 days to prove the feasibility of this concept.

>>11261465
>five million dollars a launch
>boeing

Imagine actually believing this, it will be five million dollars for the basic package plus extras, plus special expenditures,+++.

>>11260193
Earth is flat

>>11261482
Held up by elephants standing on a turtle?

report and ignore, faggots

>>11261404
It's kinda sad that they could've made a truly reusable RS-25, but never did it for the Shuttle.

So is spaceship kill or whats going on in boca chica/cocoa? No more pics. Havent been following these threads actively in the last month or so.

>>11261732
I think most of their effort is on Boca Chica now, and they're working on their first flight design which they have changed the naming convention of (MK 3 is essentially to become SN 1, i.e. Serial Number 1). Elon claims there will be 20 or so iterations of the spaceship, just as there were many iterations of the Falcon 9 (five different 'blocks' plus other minor tweaks), with SN 1 the first.

>>11260193
I made a 3D printable water rocket, that's about it...

>>11261759
Like one of those pressure driven ones?

>>11261732
They've matured some of the process (automated welding machines) and big tents structures being propped up for comfort/weather issues. Elon said timeline for flight is in few months (~early spring)

>>11261766
not him but fuck i hope everything goes well

>>11260700
>and it sucked so much that it stopped any other attempts of reusability until SpaceX and Blue Origin came along.
Was the Shuttle necessary in developing better versions of the spaceplane or should we have just skipped it and gone on to develop better rockets?

>>11260290
Only post here i can relate to

>>11261852
>Was the Shuttle necessary in developing better versions of the spaceplane
Yes, and no. The Shuttle in-of-itself taught lots of valuable lessons on spaceplanes and reusability, but due to how it was managed and how it effectively suppressed other spaceflight developments within NASA things may have gone better if the political and management issues that made the Shuttle so terrible weren't there in the first place.

I'm just gonna preemptively drop this here.

http://www.clavius.org/

Are there any open source reusable rocket projects?

>>11262307
You wouldn't download a reusable rocket

>>11262307
I think any source for amateur rockets are for reusable ones since such rockets don't fly fast and high enough to make reusability tricky. You could just start with a level 3 certification rocket and find ways to reuse more of it's parts.

>>11262250
>let's make a simulator to convince everyone that the earth is round
I'm sure that will work

>>11262382
Sure, but there's other much more convincing evidence.

>>11262307
Learn about rocketry, then trial and error from there
Patents are for fags

>>11262792
kinda old photo

>nasa
>china
>spacex
will any of them land people on the moon in the next 2020s? nasa is serious but congress keeps pulling the rug out from under them. china takes forever to do anything. spacex haet moon.

>>11262823
>nasa
Depends on the next administration. I can see them landing someone on the moon at the tail-end of the 2020s (like 2028 or 2028). But if they couldn't, then early 2030s is very possible.

>china
No. Mid 2030s.

>spacex
If they push it hard, then they could do it before 2030, but my guess is early to mid 2030s.

>>11262842
Do you seriously think its going to take almost as long again as spacexs entire operational history to land someone on the moon? I fucking don't and it goes without saying that means NASA too because they will just have to buy a few tickets for their diversitynauts so they can say "look we did it reddit!"

>Boeing sure sounds like a company that does not expect to have to refly the uncrewed flight test. It will incorporate lessons learned from OFT into “every aspect of the program …to ensure safe and successful future flights.”
https://starlinerupdates.com/starliner-data-collected-ahead-of-spacecraft-move/

>>11260193
how do i make a sugar rocket that will go into LEO?

>>11262863
>Do you seriously think its going to take almost as long again as spacexs entire operational history to land someone on the moon?
I have my doubts that they can send someone to the moon before the end of the 2020s since Starship ran into some problems, and I have a feeling that there will be many more that holds back Starship carrying people. However, that might just be growing up with a bunch of disappointments in spaceflight that have made me pessimistic. I'd really like to be proven wrong, and I have hope that they do since they've proven themselves really nicely.

>>11262905
So is that seriously it? Their next mission is going to be a crewed flight? Fucking hell you couldn't pay me to get on that thing.

>>11262931
>fly to ISS
>miss
Fucking hell

>>11262914
Put sugar rocket in big-ass space gun

>>11262940
>fly back after failed mission
>remember that this coffin has had parachute problems.

>>11260193
>flames
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsYMJWetyYA

>>11262931
>Hello welcome to Boeing technical support New Delhi how may I be of assistance today?
>WE MISSED THE ISS AND THE PARACHUTE WARNING LIGHT ON THE DASH IS BLINKING
>Ah ok sir, I believe I can be of assistance today, first could I please get you to verify that the flight computer is plugged in at the wall correctly
>*capsule hits ground at mach 10*

>>11262957
>Can you to be turning it off and on again?

>>11262916
They could certify Falcon Heavy as crewed if Starship failed though right? Or stick an expendable upper stage on SH? I don't think everything is lost at all if SS fails.

>>11262957
>sir i can definitely helping you with that today sir
>we will just be needing 300 dollars worth of walmart gift cards sir, and i can definitely fixing your problem today sir

>>11261766
One just wonders if - if the hyperactive autist had been less hands on - they might have avoided 6-12 months of wasted dev time, and I'm guessing tens of millions wasted dollars

>>11263103
> 'Sir this is Nabeel speaking'
> 'Please do the needful and revert soonest with your updation'
> (waggles head)

>>11263103
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQSY98g1sA4

>>11262823
NASA just got a shit-ton of funding for anything moon-related. What do you mean?

>>11262957
Kek

>>11263131
But they would most likely piss away their time

>>11263131
they got a bunch of funding for sls, which they didnt want. they got minimal or reduced funding for other aspects of artemis.

>>11263139
Nah NASA can’t use any of their weak excuses anymore- they have funding and a well-defined objective/timeline.
NASA has got away with it for the last decade because no one gave a shit, but upper management will get their cocks cut off if nothing happens in the next ten years

Part of the reason why NASA got reduced funding was because they refused to provide a cost breakdown of Artemis like Congress demanded. NASA doesn't want to reveal that it will cost 20x more than they talk about publicly because Congress will kill the program if they find out. So it's either take reduced funding and hobble along to the Moon, or get the program killed entirely and try again in 2040.

>>11263199
>but upper management will get their cocks cut off if nothing happens in the next ten years
Good, I'm still sore over Constellation and want them to suffer if they pull that shit again.

>>11263199
>ten years
plenty of time to retire to an MIC/SIC company and let someone else take the fall

We'd have space colonies and other cool things if companies manufactured spacecraft and sold them to spaceline companies like we do for the air industry.

>>11263272
>"You want to sell us a spaceship? Has it flown people yet? No? Not interested. What's that? You want to test your ship with people on board? No no, that's no good, apply again next year and we'll think about it"

>>11263272
>>11263283
There are already space tourism companies.
The costs are extremely prohibitive. Only the richest can go - obviously.

We need to work on reducing cost of launches, spaceflight, etc. But how?

>>11263286
Getting into orbit is the biggest hurdle to routine spaceflight
>Bury a mass driver somewhere on the equator
>Launch it on a high energy plasma pulse gun w/ particle beam booster
>More efficient booster w/ plasma upper stage so it takes up less mass

>>11263286
You got it wrong. Imagine traditional launch companies operate re-usable first stages while spaceliners operate the re-usable second stage spaceliners.

>>11263296
For simple, suborbital space tourism - I think Virgin has the right idea.
Use spaceplanes.
>>11263300
Is there money to be made in that?

>>11263296
Nice sci fi buzzwords bro

>>11263306
To clarify, I mean spaceplanes dropped from another plane.
Not using traditional rockets, but rocket powered aircrafts.
Eliminate the need for expendable vehicles.

>>11263308
Yeah what is a 'plasma pulse' gun anyway?
I'm sure someone's trying to figure out how to accelerate discrete packets of plasma as a weapon but I've never heard of anything groundbreaking coming of it, let alone trying to speed something up with it somehow for orbital purposes.

>>11263313
Payload too limited, you need a large second stage with big capacity to drop prices, this means its very heavy, much too heavy for a plane.

>>11263318
He's probably just a schizo or a star trek retard.

>I'm sure someone's trying to figure out how to accelerate discrete packets of plasma as a weapon but I've never heard of anything groundbreaking coming of it

Interesting you should mention that, check this out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER

>The plasma projectiles would be shot at a speed expected to be 3000 km/s in 1995 and 10,000 km/s (3% of the speed of light) by 2000. A shot has the energy of 5 pounds of TNT exploding. Doughnut-shaped rings of plasma and balls of lightning exploded with devastating thermal and mechanical effects when hitting their target and produced pulse of electromagnetic radiation that could scramble electronics, the energy would shower the interior of the target with high-energy x-rays that would potentially destroy the electronics inside.

>As of 1993, the project appeared to be in the early experimental stages. The weapon was able to produce doughnut-shaped rings of plasma and balls of lightning that exploded with devastating thermal and mechanical effects when hitting their target and produced pulse of electromagnetic radiation that could scramble electronics.[6] The project's initial success led to it becoming classified, and only a few references to MARAUDER appeared after 1993. No information about the fate of the project has been published after 1995.

Tldr; some glowniggers somewhere have a weapon capable of shooting plasma at significant fractions of c.

>>11263306
>Is there money to be made in that?
Ah you're right. There's no destinations so spaceliners would be impossible.

>>11263335
>Payload too limited
Yeah, you're probably right.
Normal airlines make a ton of money from freighter services. Some survive primarily because of it.

>>11263335
>In 1993, the Phillips Laboratory developed a coaxial plasma gun capable of accelerating 1–2 mg of plasma
>The plasma projectiles would be shot at a speed expected to be 3000 km/s in 1995 and 10,000 km/s (3% of the speed of light) by 2000. >A shot has the energy of 5 pounds of TNT exploding
>The project's initial success led to it becoming classified, and only a few references to MARAUDER appeared after 1993. No information about the fate of the project has been published after 1995.
Y-you don't say...

>>11263318
A cannon using a high energy electric pulse to turn compressed gas into plasma to launch a rocket, It's entirely feasible. Whether it's survivable has yet to be seen

>>11263341
>>11263335
If I manage to build a crappy MARAUDER cannon in my workshop, do you think the government will disappear me or hire me?

>>11263350
ATFL will come and shoot your cyberdog

>>11263350
If they hired the nazis they'll hire some /sci/ fag

>>11263350
I mean if you can get it done in secret you've got a supervillain-tier weapon ready to use on heists and shit.
>squad cars arrive during bank robbery
>vaporize them

>>11263355
Thing only shot at most 2 ft with a shiva capacitor system.
All that money could go to a high powered railgun and several emp grenades that would do more damage

>>11263364
>Thing only shot at most 2 ft with a shiva capacitor system.
25 years ago, I'd presume at least marginal improvement of 10 ft by now.

>>11263109
>do nothing
>lose nothing
Yeah

If anything, they got a good measure of how much they can half-ass things and still have them work. I believe this way is much more efficient than spending a decade and billions to polish everything to the highest possible standard and then just having to keep going further down the rabbit hole because after wasting so much time and money failure is simply not an option.

Boo, crew dragon flight now in four months or so.

>>11263394
With DM2 now having a long-stay capsule, NASA may want to take the opportunity to get it flying by March so that Expedition 62 will have at least 5 members until the next Soyuz arrives in April.

>>11263313
Now cover the cost of the spaceplane and the carrier plane with revenues from ticket sales and maybe some freight.

>>11263364
Ionizing the plasma slug's path like in an electrolaser might help increase range. Basically you'd just have a laser plasma channel that provides a low-resistance "barrel" for the plasma projectile.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211541778639343616
apparently SpaceX were using flux core arc welding for Mk 1 and Mk 2. Makes sense that they turned out shit, fuck that goddamn process.

>>11263576
Musk's tweetstorms are always fun to have. Also confirmed autogenous pressurization on Starahop SN01.

>>11263576
>flux core

Gross, what a terrible decision.

>moving to TIG

Oh yeah that's the goods baby, TIG is the best shit.

>>11263576
Also confirmed that the bulkhead panels are being stamped in Michigan, while Raptor's nozzle jacket is explosion formed.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211539123758141445

Indoor fabrication for the Mark 4 ("serial number 2")

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211546797799288832

Is Virgin Galactic launching amateur satellites now from planes?
I read somewhere that some students launched satellites from a balloon rocket.

>>11263602
I literally called it, the wind is going to fuck you in Texas
that's the ONLY problem with welding outside
>>11263616
no it's stupid, shutup

>>11263616
A shitposting cubesat nobody could do anything about would be pretty funny desu.

>>11263618
That whole fucking state is plagued by wind, going east to west there is a stupendously bad idea unless you have lots of extra stamina.

>>11263623
based bikepacker

>>11263631
It's a hell of a way to see shit. I knew these things were big, but until you're standing next to one it's hard to get a sense of just how big they are.

>>11263623
>all that shit

How do you go anywhere with all that crap on your bike, a pair of front and back bags fit all of my shit with room to spare.

>>11263620
That's the goal exactly.

>>11263646
My gear weighed out to around 70-90lbs depending on what food I had on hand, keep in mind I was going across multiple states so I had a bit more loaded than a weekend trip's worth. Carrying the extra weight was worth having shit like an extra blanket for cold nights, a tarp for rainy nights, and an air mattress to keep me off the ground.
Pic semi-related, I feel a little bad that this relic is left to rust in the open. Are there a bunch of examples in exhibit elsewhere?

>>11263640
I want to bike to uni but I'm too pussy to go on the highway since there's no shoulder, how do you do it bro

>>11263675
Just hug the side lol. Seriously though interstates are 100% not bike-legal so don't even try, highways vary from state to state how comfortable they are. If there's no shoulder, don't even bother because yeah that shit is nervewrecking. Riding from north to south through Alexandria LA was shit for that reason, the roads had like 6inch shoulders so I wound up rubbing elbows with buses on the way through that hellhole.
All I can advise is play it cautious, cars have no obligation to not run you over so never presume you have the right of way. Let the other guy go first even if you gotta wait, it's better than getting ragdolled by a truck.

Important spaceflight gear

>>11263740
I bet they miss their /comfy/ bed

>>11263772
I wonder what sleeping in 0g feels like.
I bet it'd be comfy in a sleeping bag.

>>11263777
You need a fan going to prevent a CO2 bubble from forming around your face.

>>11263781
Sounds annoying but makes sense. Even a light breeze should do the trick though right? Doesn't have to be the constant WHIIIIIRRRRR of a desk fan I'd hope.

>>11263785
Probably, but I can't say that with certainty.

>>11263788
Now that you bring it up I'm genuinely curious, does the ISS crew have to worry about that shit? From what I've seen they basically have sleeping bags velcroed to the wall. It shouldn't be a problem so long as the station has some constant airflow, but ducking under the covers might be fatal if nobody's looking and airflow is crap.

>>11263794
I'll defer to Chris Hadfield.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyFYgeE32f0

They're certainly not taking it slow.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211577293296087041

Gaganyaan when?! Any idea on crew?

COPVs not fully fucked off yet for starship either, still small ones for raptor turbine starts. Guess there is no real option for turbine spool ups since they would be using electric motors if they could.

>>11263808
Welding work and plate forming looks massively improved from the earlier bulkheads, really cool watching the iterative improvements happen in real time.

>>11263781
gases should dispense in 0g the same as they do in 1g
otherwise we would all die since Co2 is heavier than oxygen

>>11263962
Convection is a hell of a thing on Earth, and it doesn't happen without gravity. Its worth noting that humans have a physiological response to dangerous CO2 levels and suffocation.

>>11263808
Looks like they are integrating the bulkhead with the ring section before passing that ring off to be stacked, damn they are going to be putting these things out fast when production really gets going.

>>11263979
They're aiming for first flight in the next 2-3 months. If they want to do space colonization, they're going to have to build ships at a ludicrous rate.

>>11264008
Elon has said that the rate they will build these things will be almost unbelievable compared to the normal industry speed for building rockets. Looking at how this process is developing I can 100% believe that, its so simple and fast. Their real bottleneck is going to be raptor production but hopefully an economy of scale should simplify and speed that up too.

>>11264025
Aren't raptors being produced at a fast rate already? I don't think engines will be a bottleneck for awhile, if ever.

>>11263109
>they might have avoided 6-12 months of wasted dev time
There's no wasted dev time when you're not learning.

>>11264045
Pretty fast all things considered, but not as fast as they want yet. Their goal is one a day I think, 36 raptors for a SH so that's around 5 weeks. They will absofuckinglutely be able to put a SH hull with tanks together in less than that once their automated processes are nailed down, I would guess two weeks, possibly less to manufacture a hull. The fact that I'm even talking about rockets as hulls like they do in shipyards is making me hype, manufacturing this way really is going to be ridiculously fast.

>>11260245
this is exactly what I imagine when I hear "new rocket engine developed by University in Ukraine"

>>11263801
thanks for the completely useless video which doesn't mention anything at all about co2 bubbles, their presence, or absence.

>>11264087
You're welcome.

Sorry it wasn't much of a help, but at least it gives a better frame of reference for sleep accommodations on the ISS - and shows that you can't really bury yourself too deep in the sleeping bag, what with those arm holes and all.

>>11264073
Ukraine is pretty good with rockets tho. It's where North Korea got their rocket tech from.

>>11264087
i assume co2 bubbles aren't a problem, since they don't seem to have to do anything against it

>Multiple(?) Tesla plaid motors in use for Starship SN1 for the body flaps

>>11264124
>it's the year 2070
>Tesla cars now double as a spaceship
>they can fly to other planets on their own
>humanity has reached the highest possible form of civilisation

>>11264159
>meanwhile in reality-2070
>earth is plagued by famine and drought
>small wars/skirmishes common
>worldwide corruption on unprecedented levels
>demagogues rise to power
>america in a "cold" civil war
>civil liberties a thing of the past

>>11263618
>>11263623
We got a whole lot of wind power going on out in west Texas. I think they may have to declare it the new state tree.

>>11264165
But whitey doesn't give a fuck because he's finally on the moon.

Elon sleeps on the roof at GF1, and behind his desk in Fremont. I wonder where he sleeps in Boca Chica. Maybe one of those shipping containers has a couch inside it

>>11263195
>people still claim NASA doesn't want sls

>>11264183
Exactly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4

>>11262905
How is Boeing already at it again. The whole Max 8 thing is still ongoing right now. How the fuck is the government already letting them skip steps again?

>>11263653
>>11263616
>orbital cringe

>>11263971
>>11263781
ISS isn't 0g. It is in microgravity and has tidal forces acting on it all the time. No bubble of gas would form around you. There's still be convection, just a bit slower depending various variables in play. There's also gravity from any bit of mass on the ISS, though I wouldn't rely on that to move gases around fast enough to give you good respiration sans all the other variables.

>>11263602
>Moving to an enclosed (fairly) clean room environment for SN2 in Jan
Kind of a face palm moment.
How did they not see that before they started welding?

The Firefly Alpha 1st stage test-article being rolled out for a hotfire qualification campaign, which will culminate in multiple 165 second (mission length) burns:

>>11264304

>>11264307

>>11264313

>>11264314
can never keep track of all of these smallsat companies

>>11264319
I've always got Firefly and Vector confused. I knew one of them died, but I can't keep straight which.

>>11264410
>I knew one of them died, but I can't keep straight which.

It was both, both Firefly and Vector have gone bust at one point, the difference is that Firefly was saved by a new buyer and seems to be making great progress for a recently deceased company, whilst Vector’s demise looks permanent.

>>11263808
>six points, not eight
good, I see that they're resisting the forces of chaos

>>11264248
enclosed clean room can be as simple as a big tent with air conditioning, anon
as long as it has positive pressure it counts as a clean room

>>11264435
But come on. For half a year they've been welding there and only now they realize "can't weld when it's windy" and "it's really fucking windy here".

>>11264451
upper management isn't involved with the grunts enough, probably because Elon insists on micromanaging or something
they need to move their engineering on-site, having half the team in California and half the team in Texas and half the team in Florida isn't working out for them

>>11264451
I doubt that's the cause. I think they were intent on building it vertically so a tall building was deemed to pricey. With the shift to a horizontal build for SN2, making a long building to house it became feasible again.

So a cable for a space elevator is still a long way off, but can we not build a skyhook with the tech we have today?

>>11264495
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqwpQarrDwk

>>11264498
cute, what's the catch?
Can we really build the cable?

>>11264495
>So a cable for a space elevator is still a long way off

We could build one on the moon right now and export fucktons of ore from it, assemble spaceships in orbit, etc.

>>11264459
>having half the team in California and half the team in Texas and half the team in Florida isn't working out for them

Uhhhh ackthually I think you’ll find that this is mathematically impossible

>>11264495
moon elevator is the real pro-strat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZlzYzyREAI
kino

>>11264428
where can i sign up for beeing a SpaceX Commissar so i can motivate those Mexicans to work faster for emperor Elon?

>>11264520
The catch is we can't even get a fucking rocket off the ground when half of its design came from Shuttle, so how are we going to build a mega structure like a skyhook or a launch loop?
>>11264525
Exactly what kind of ore does the moon have that we can't get or is expensive on earth? Lunar mining is for building space habs, not for earth export.

>>11264739
>Exactly what kind of ore does the moon have that we can't get or is expensive on earth?

https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/lro-finds-moon-filled-titanium-ores/
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Space_for_Earth/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface

https://space.nss.org/l5-news-the-value-of-the-moon/

The materials don’t necessarily have to be destined for Earth, and could be used in orbital construction or shipped further away from the Sun. Delta/v requirements for getting off the moon are dramatically less harsh than those for Earth, especially if you use no delta/v at all to get to orbit of it using a space elevator.

>>11264775
elevator still has a bunch of restrictions, it's not a free lunch

>>11264782
>elevator still has a bunch of restrictions, it's not a free lunch

Other than building and maintaining it, like what?

>>11264793
you can only move so much mass per unit time, depending on the size and strength of your rope

>>11264775
>Helium-3
space nutter detected, that stuff is completely useless for decades to come, it's a second-generation fusion fuel at best
>>11264775
>orbital construction
let's see some happen first

>>11264805
it also doesn't fucking exist on the moon, there's not enough of it there to justify shifting billions of tons of moon rock

>>11264805
>space nutter detected, that stuff is completely useless for decades to come

As if mining the moon isn’t also decades at minimum away.

> let's see some happen first

We did it in the 1960s and have also constructed the ISS, among other space stations. The hell are you talking about? The Apollo missions involved disconnecting and re-docking the Lunar Module and the CSM in earth orbit before heading towards the moon.

>>11264818
>it also doesn't fucking exist on the moon

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890005471.pdf

>>11264498
I can't stand that youtube channel.

>>11264834
It's one of those "I FUCKING LOVE SPACE SHIPS" channels, isn't it?

>>11264846
I think it is, yeah. But I'm not sure that's what I don't like.
It just seems... off...

>>11264851
Who’s he

>>11264854
Joe Biden

>>11264854
...who?
The shitty youtube channel or von Braun?
You're in /eseffgee/ and don't know von Braun?

>>11264854
when people say that NASA hired Nazis to take us to the moon, they're talking about him

>>11264860
Didn’t recognize him there. Used to seeing him with darker hair

>>11264864
Yeah, he's a bit older in that pic.
Kinda just looks like a typical inbred germ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY

>>11264876
>Kinda just looks like a typical inbred germ.

Not even german and wut?

>>11264920
Don't mind me, I'm just still pissed off about Rome.

>>11264072
if you can't make something fast, make them in parallel
if a raptor HAS to take a week, seven factories gives you one a day

>>11264072
What does SH mean???

>>11265003
ultra weighty

>>11264944
Please tell me they’re recovering the Super Heavy’s raptor engines

Elon huffs muff' haha

>>11265012
why wouldn't they be?

>>11265003
extra bulky

>>11265003
thicc

>>11265012
Super Heavy is just a huge Falcon 9.
Plumbing might be a bit more convoluted, but there's absolutely no reason to think it wouldn't be recoverable.
Hell, in a lot of aspects it should be easier to recover than the Falcon 9 itself.
The whole concept of Superheavy with that many expensive Raptors only exists in the first place since they want to return it to launch site every time and relaunch it pretty much immediately.

>>11265077
That’s pretty awesome. They must have some gargantuan fuel tanks nearby.

>>11265003
sliced ham

>>11265084
They don’t...

>>11265089
How do they intend to fuel it back up, then? It’s a big launch vehicle.

>>11265077
Falcon 9 is just me jumping 2 feet up

My question is this. With the volume production of starship will access to the launch architecture be globalized.

For example could it be a vehicle say offerred to be used by the Russians for their payloads, or the chinese or will it be solely an american launcher?

Secondary question, is the US looking long term to build military installations on the moon. Nuclear missiles on the lunar service or in some strange orbit would arguably the strongest part of the nuclear triad. Guaranteeing a nuclear response anywhere regardless of circumstance.
In the case of nuclear arms, and military developement it seems likely that a military base is planned on lunar surface, if there is an expectations of the chinese to try.

>>11265139
ITAR nips selling Starships internationally in the bud. I don't know if Elon would even want to let foreign companies get their hands on Raptor to reverse engineer it.

>>11265139
>letting the chinese anywhere near it
ha ha
no

>>11265139
>Nuclear missiles on the lunar service or in some strange orbit would arguably the strongest part of the nuclear triad.
Too far away, far more expensive then just having boomers.

>>11265179
*sip* moon nukes were a good idea

>>11265139
These extremely sensitive tech industries usually have regulations on top to prevent them from getting cozy with anyone that could be a threat to the US, so it's usage would probably be restricted to US allies and/or countries that have technology safeguard agreements with the US. The chinese would probably not get anywhere close to a starship, best case scenario they would have to hand over whatever thing they want to launch to americans to put it on the rocket, not sure how current space relations between russians and americans are, but i think russians would probably have a little easier time to use starship

>>11264846
It's the epitome of popsci

>>11265084
They don't have a super heavy built. They're not yet building one right now either. And their pad has barely begun construction. They're starting with Starship itself because that has a lot more issues they need to investigate and work out.

As for how they get that much fuel there, I'd suspect they'd use a pipeline like most of the airports in the world instead of clogging the roads with tanker trucks.
As for the far future, in his last presentation(might've been in the Q&A) Musk has stated that he's interested in producing his own Methane on-site from water, air and solar energy just like on Mars. This would mean a lot of the climate impact of Starship/Superheavy launches would be offset. But as I said, that's far away and will be pretty expensive to set up.

>>11265139
>having them in a strange orbit
this was thought about during the cold war, The Soviets viewed the shuttle as a threat because they thought it was going to be used as a single orbit cold nuclear launch

>>11265240
I feel like its not too terribly far away because I would imagine the starship super heavy 1st stage will be using identical processes to the starship second stage.
But it all comes down to when they are satisfied with the 1st stage performance

>>11265256
If anything SH will be easier because they don't have to fuck around with tapering section bullshit and flappy flap fin things.

based, should never have been sold in the first place. think those NPC biz fags are planning to give them a bunch of money to do something more than be a US side kick or just hold the investment as the corporate space race begins?

>>11265264
Elon said SH is relatively solved as they understand the mechanics behind a giant tub landing. SS is the big issue as the mechanics of landing are bit exotic and it requires more heatshielding/structure test to endure cold space/hot atmosphere.

>>11265409
it's just lots and lots of debt

>>11264640
yeah im thinking kino

>>11265264
SH is just a really big Falcon 9.

>>11265421
>>11265456
Yeah I was talking more about the construction of it.

Starlink was spotted over the UK last night.

BBC journalists were clueless, boomers were confused and zoomers were crying UFO! UFO!
God I hate this country..

>>11265777
Huh it's been quite a while since the last launch, didn't expect there to still be a train.

Can someone lead the Fundamentals of Astrodynamics (BMW) study group please?

I'm at my parents' for the holidays and 4channel has range blocked this city from posting images.

Ideally we could do 1 chapter per week. There are 9 chapters in total.
Also as someone suggested we can also try solving the exercises with python or whatever language you want to.

Some chapters can have outdoor activities where we try to estimate orbital paths by taking observations on consecutive days.

All in all I would say this book is required reading for /sfg/ and mastering this book would be a nice way to start the 2020s.

>>11265809
I second this request.
And I'm also curious to hear any other book suggestions. Of any kind - theory, history, etc.

>>11265788
Considering they are slowly raising orbit, those sats are pretty far apart for being gently released from the second stage only 7 weeks ago.

>>11265788
they only recently got the FCC permit for new orbital layouts

>>11265809
discord might be best?

>>11265823
Kek I still remember the first starlink launch and everyone was hype about what special systems they were going to use to deploy 60 satellites at once with a bunch of experts chiming in to day they needed specialised gorillion dollar busses and it was borderline impossible. Then they just popped the fairing and yeeted them out.

>>11265857
like a deck of fucking cards

>>11265878
>>11265857
it's an interesting example of chasing 9's of reliability and the exponential increase in cost. For a massive geo bird, you need 99.9999..% reliability. Because you have one. For starlink, you're replacing the whole fleet every 5 years. 12,000 birds. You can survive fine with 99.9% reliability. Those extra three 9's add an enormous amount of complexity and cost to your systems. Enter: you don't care if the satellites bump into each other during deployment. you don't care if every single component is redundant. you don't care about sophisticated rad-hardening. or anything really. because you have to build twelve thousand of the fucking things

>>11265897
you need to build twelve thousand of the fucking things every five to ten years

>>11265911
>For starlink, you're replacing the whole fleet every 5 years.

>>11265911
Good thing the income stream for providing high speed, low latency and reasonably priced Internet to the entire globe is in the billions, if not tens of billions every year then huh?

>>11265809
This would be sweet, someone do this please

>>11265926
yeah

>>11265809
Kek. Sounds good

>>11265809
>and 4channel has range blocked this city from posting images

Kek but yeah I'm just an anonymous shitposter so learning something actually useful about spaceflight sounds fun, count me in.

>>11265809
Not sure if will have the time, but It would be really cool

In the show The Expanse they have these small transports which appear to be single stage to orbit vehicles.

My question is can a fusion drive make a single stage to orbit ship?

>>11266046
Probably, but we don't understand the physics well enough to do it.

>>11266046
Yeah sure but it requires some significant advances over even god tier SPARC program. Even with room temperature superconductors and some kind of lightweight laser plasma heating system it would still be far too heavy, sorry bro. SPARC is still kino though, Q=1 or more in electrcitiy output is going to be incredible for any kind of space application outside of launches.

>>11266046
The engines in The Expanse are impossibly powerful/efficient. It's one area where they ignore realism for the sake of storytelling.

ooooh, pretty

>>11266108
>744x481
You got a pump up those numbers Anon, those are rookie numbers.

>>11265911
They are fucking simple though.
It's a slab of aluminum they machine to size, then some cheap ass electronics they strap onto it, with a solar panel and a little krypton fueled ion engine.
12k every 5 years is no problem.

>>11266117
>“Production on Starlink is going really well,” she said earlier this month in a meeting with reporters at SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthorne, California. “I think the next flight (set) was shipped to the Cape. We build roughly seven satellites … Starting into the new year, you should see a mission every two-to-three weeks from us. We will hold a Starlink mission for a customer launch. But that should be roughly the cadence.”

Quoted from a spaceflightnow article. Gwynne cut herself off before clarifying what timeframe they're building "roughly seven satellites" within. Wouldn't make sense for that to be per week, since she's also stated that 2nd stage availability is the limiting hardware factor on 2020 launch cadence rather than satellite numbers. I can really only assume she means about seven per day, and they're stockpiling them. So, at 7 per day they're already outpacing a full 12,000 unit turnover every 5 years, and this is still relatively early in their manufacturing process. I also doubt that the turnover is going to be that extreme.

>>11266128
>Seven satellites per day

Fuck me

>>11266150
They probably brought over a few assembly line process designers from tesla

>You mean our unit per day target is only 10?
>I have more than a year to get the factory to that output?
>Excuse me while I go cry tears of joy in my office and try to forget all those nights of sleeping in a corner of the Fremont plant during the model 3 production ramp

>>11266128
>7 per day
I would believe it, that means like 98 per 2 weeks, however I would imagine they would need to do qc and other shit so
more probably 49 per 2 week period. However if things are going well that is where that 2~3 week leeway comes into play and that will 100% fit a launch of 60 satellites.

>>11266008
>>11265995
>>11265955
>>11265928
>>11265840
>>11265818
Glad to see that many are interested!

Here's the discord link
/sci/ Astrodynamics study group
https://discord.gg/WwwFbmH

>>11266128
>Starting into the new year, you should see a mission every two-to-three weeks from us

>>11266348
God I wish more anime was as fun to look at and watch as Redline.

>>11266150
there's never really been an attempt to mass-produce satellites, has there? Each one, other than starlink satellites, is basically unique and so has no production line

>>11266112
So this is the power of non-Mexican welders...

>>11266401
And god tier TIP TIG welding, not filthy nigger flux core garbage.

>>11265003
Very large

Will 2020 be the year of spaceflight?

>>11265911
That means cost will be ultra low.

>>11266817
yeah, it's just a totally different paradigm and it's kinda mind-boggling

>>11266883
But how can you fund the engineer welfare programs?

>>11266920
The longer and longer the development of the JWST goes on the more and more I get this feeling of dread that there will be some major malfunction in the hardware that makes it inoperable once it goes up

>>11264854
A SS concentration camp director.

>>11266942
I pray it goes up in flames so that the entire development and funding model behind that trainwreck gets discredited.

We need some kind of SpaceX of space telescopes instead. Make lots of cheap ones and iterate from there, instead of these one-off megaprojects.

>>11266968
>We need some kind of SpaceX of space telescopes instead. Make lots of cheap ones and iterate from there, instead of these one-off megaprojects.
See >>11266920.

>>11266112
Rusty welds strike again?

>>11266112
Not sure I like the angle those pieces are joined at

>>11267097
it DOES look kind of... wibbly

>>11267097
When will it pop so we can eat the new PopcornX?

>>11267107
at least there's no tinfoil crinkles

>>11267371
yeah, an improvement

L2 anon what he mean by this

>>11267431
Elon's already talked about it, there's a crazy plasma welder and TIP TIG system

>>11265105
Presumably once Starship proves workable and they settle on a first production iteration they'll then start in earnest on the superheavy and launch facilities. They might just build copies of the Superheavy's own tank with some extra insulation and structural reenforcement for the ground facility, that's the first thing that comes to my mind if cost efficiency is a desired trait.

>>11264087
You can hear the air management system running in the background of the video.

thanks Scott
https://youtu.be/FZVOSZqth70

>>11267873
>2010s
>Starship render in the thumbnail

>>11267916
the 2010s had a lot of Starship/BFR/ITS/MCS renders

who's ready to read a shitty opinion piece by an asshole
https://web.archive.org/web/20191231085029/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/29/be-wary-of-elon-musk-despoiling-the-vault-of-heaven

>>11267931
>Another seething astronomers trash opinion piece

Lmao

>>11267931
>However, they would cause more confusion to projects that monitor or search large areas of sky to seek transient objects – exploding stars or even more exotic cosmic explosions. Especially confusing will be the cases when part of the satellite acts like a mirror, creating a specially bright and brief flash when it’s oriented so that it reflects the sun.
Then move such projects in space where it should've been years ago.

>>11267970
the evidence points to neither Starlink (the only megaconstellation that's going to actually happen) nor OneWeb (a regular sized constellation lol) flaring like Iridium, so he's literally raising points that aren't even relevant to this generation of constellations

>>11267975
My point still stands. There should be more space telescopes.

>>11267985
yeah

when are we discovering aliens?

>>11268050
When we get to Titan.

>>11268090
>2034

Ill have my Martian weed growing business set up by then lmao.

>>11268119
>not starting a bee farm on Mars to sell to Earth during the Terran Bee Shortage of 2027

>>11267097
The other side looks even worse.

>>11268119
>>11268126

I am curious I know people want to print organs in 0g.

But shouldn't 1/3 G have some amazing business opportunities. It's obvious we don't really know. But there must be some theoretical basis, for crystallization or some other mechanism that at low gravity would function better. I know the bloomerg thing had those cables created in 0g which were more effective. But I am curious, about that side of things.
New drugs, animals, therapies. Who knows.

>>11268444
Fat trichromes yo

>>11268444
nah, if it works in 1/3 it probably works in 1
the big exception is, of course, SSTO

>>11266738
No, but it will be a pretty big year for Mars exploration.

>>11264073
Ukraine has some good leftover Soviet tech.

>>11268126
>space bees

>>11268444
Industrial Adheisves & Tapes
Alot of our work in this sector is limited by our jumbo size to around 1 ton, because it causes the adhesive on the liner to sag and give uneven distribution before it is cut down to smaller tape rolls.

Same with welding/making/transportinf farm equipment you could 100% lighten the load on the hoists and other equipment before final assembly.

sources: Dude trust me

>>11268650
Bees

new >>11268763