/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11366546
Alternate thread image

First for orbital bombardments

>>11366546
>President Trump will propose a 12% boost to NASA’s 2021 budget, with most of the increase aimed at fulfilling his goal of returning U.S. astronauts to the moon’s surface by 2024, according to administration officials.

>The increase includes nearly $3 billion in new funding to develop human landers, these officials said, with total agency outlays projected to climb to $25.6 billion in one of the largest overall spending increases requested for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration since the 1990s.

>12% NASA budget increase

I'm sure that'll be eaten up by SLS overruns, diversity hires and programs, endless safetycuck paperwork, etc...

>>11366558
Its 12% increase due to not using commercial services and relying solely upon Boeing's goodwill.

>>11366558
I'll go to propping us Boeing because incompetence gets rewarded with corporate wellfare under neoliberalism.

>>11366560
I can't see the whole article, but does it say that Boeing would develop the human landers?

>>11366558
If you’d actually read the article you’d know that none of it goes to SLS (which is already fully funded), most of it ($3 billion) goes to developing the crewed lunar lander(s) and the rest goes to developing stuff like ISRU, spacesuits, rovers etc.

>>11366558
>>11366560
It's a roughly $3B increase going almost entirely to the HLS (human landing system) program.
But if you want to be negs about "muh diversity hires," that's fine.

>>11366563
>but does it say that Boeing would develop the human landers?

No, because the teams that will build the crewed landers (there will be 2) haven’t been chosen yet, he’s just seething over Boeing as usual.

>>11366563
Trump proposal is almost certainly going to be with the current commercially-awarded plan.
Even if the House wins out on the SLS-launched lander architecture, there will still be a competitive bid for the lander itself. Boeing does not get an autowin.

>>11366546
As if that will pass congress after the recent circus sideshow. I'm not optimistic.

>>11366566
>No, because the teams that will build the crewed landers (there will be 2) haven’t been chosen yet
Thanks. Any idea when they'll be selected?

>>11366566
Boeing (or ULA) will get one of the contracts, my money is on the second going to Blue Origin because Bezos is playing the oldspace political game.

>>11366572
yeah they've already showcased Blue Moon, and he's quite aggressive when going after contracts he really wants

>>11366569
>As if that will pass congress after the recent circus sideshow

The recent circus had nothing to do with with funding and it actually showed that Congress are starting to accept Artemis. The real problem was that some members of Congress were trying to impose their will and make NASA run Artemis the way they wanted.

>>11366572
good.
BO has somewhat realistic timelines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAIs63-ZPa4

>>11366577
What timeline do they have? I haven't seen them announce any date for New Glenn.

>Clock programming failure
>Multiple thruster failure
>Pyrotech initiator debris during separation now identified as an unacceptable threat to crewed flights
>Redesign estimated to take over 6 months before another trial launch can be attempted
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO ON.. it's unironically over for Boeing..

THAT ABSOLUTE STATE OF OLD SPACE.

>>11366579
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA641Tn34VE

>>11366571
>Any idea when they'll be selected?

In a few weeks apparently, so late February or early March.

>>11366572
ULA aren’t part of the competition, it’s Boeing’s team (which includes Intuitive Machines) vs Blue’s “National Team” of them, Northrop and Lockheed vs Dynetics and Sierra Nevada’s team vs possibly SpaceX.

>>11366581

>>11366575
>The real problem was that some members of Congress were trying to impose their will and make NASA run Artemis the way they wanted.
Can we not have political bickering over what NASA should do for at least a year?

>>11366581
>over
I wish but they have so many congressmen in their pocket they can't lose.
Dragon 2 won't be allowed to fly before Starliner despite passing all tests.

>>11366584
I would like to see Sierra Nevada get the chance to lead a big project but can't see that happening.

>>11366580
i heard that the development of new shepard was pretty much on point. might be mistaken though.
>I haven't seen them announce any date for New Glenn.
exactly. they don't try to sell some over ambitious deadline.

>>11366579

>>11366594
Who is trying to "sell" a deadline, Musk is famous for his insane deadlines but what contracts have been signed on rockets in development other than the tourist Apollo 8.

>>11366594
Talking of BO...SpaceX may have made a water tower fly, but Blue Origin have the biggest ever built:

https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2020/02/07/cape-canaveral-blue-origin-water-tower-one-tallest-in-the-world/4667516002/

>Half a dozen heavy-duty cranes pierce the horizon above Cape Canaveral's Launch Complex 36, clear visual cues of the work being done by Blue Origin teams to prepare the pad for upcoming rockets.

>Just below their tallest points, the skeletal forerunner of a massive hangar and processing facility is also taking shape here, designed to process New Glenn rockets before they roll out to the pad. Some 300 feet in height, New Glenn will rise over most structures at the complex, save for the launch tower and lightning towers.

>But eyes gazing toward the tip of the Cape can't miss one more soaring figure at Launch Complex 36: a 351-foot-tall water tower.

>Designed to store hundreds of thousands of gallons of water for liftoff sound suppression and temperature control, the new tower's gray exterior has yet to be painted, showing where teams joined its massive segments. Even from miles away, it's visible to the naked eye.

>Blue Origin, which confirmed the height to FLORIDA TODAY, might have a record-breaker on its hands, though there's no official list of world's tallest water structures. It's taller than other water towers on the range, like those at pad 39A and 39B, both of which top off at 290 feet. And it reaches higher than the 307-foot water tower at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, previously thought to be the world's tallest.

>Either way, Blue Origin's water tower is easily among the tallest ever built.

>>11366604
>Either way, Blue Origin's water tower is easily among the tallest ever built.
K, let us know when they're blasting it into orbit.

Or blasting anything into orbit for that matter.

>>11366589
No, NASA will always be a political pawn. Such is the nature of government-controlled and funded organizations. Tech billionaires are the only hope. Imagine if people actually listened 20 years ago when there were suggestions of privatizing NASA...

>>11366604
Why are people calling it a water tower? I think there should be a limit to wild speculation, that's obviously the header tank for their New Armstrong.

>>11366620
>Imagine if people actually listened 20 years ago when there were suggestions of privatizing NASA...

That’s an absolutely terrible idea

>>11366620
Oh yeah, all that profit in sending probes to other planets and making deep space telescopes....

>>11366601
well at that point it's pretty obvious that SLS won't make any of it's deadlines for example. same as starship and basically every other bigger space related project.
not saying that BO is the great exeption, but at least for new shepard they were pretty much on point

>>11366627
Yeah, because NASA is so much efficient, productive and effective than even Blue Origin... If NASA was a purely scientific organization it would be essentially no different today, except without the ridiculous pipe dreams wasting billions on contractors, engineers and plans that change with every day a congressman's team tells him spaceflight is no longer a key platform for reelection.

>>11366624
kek

>>11366636
>congressman's team tells him spaceflight is no longer a key platform for reelection.
I personally blame general public apathy-to-disdain of space flight. If it were taken seriously like any other industry (like maritime trade, or steel works) then space flight wouldn't be in the political situation it's in right now (at least in the US).

>>11366636
Imagine thinking that a launch services provider and a space agency do the same thing

>>11366636
>666
hi satan

>>11366581
>>11366588
Dragon V2 suffers catastrophic failure during testing and explodes
>"That's okay. This is why we test."
Starliner suffers software glitch and thruster issues during test
>"OLDSPACE BTFO LMAO"

>>11366722
I’m just sad to see such a good capsule design be brought down by poor quality control and software issues. Although, Soyuz had a far more troubled beginning to it’s career and still turned out a great spacecraft.

>>11366722
Boeing having nearly twice the contract payout SpaceX received for the commercial crew program means having twice the number of retarded setbacks. Whats the starliner cost per seat again? Surely its not $20 million more than the fucking soyuz right? That would be crazy!

>>11366741
>Boeing having nearly twice the contract payout SpaceX received for the commercial crew program

Boeing asked for more because they were starting completely from scratch, whilst SpaceX had lots of transferable experience and hardware from the CRS program, so they asked for less. Both contractors negotiated how much they wanted.

>Whats the starliner cost per seat again? Surely its not $20 million more than the fucking soyuz right? That would be crazy!

You mean the inaccurate estimates by the GAO which were debunked by NASA?

How could you be so mean to boeing? wow really unfair double standard

>>11366746
>one mission per year
That's barely enough to keep the ISS crewed without Soyuz...

>>11366746
>proceeds to post debunked estimates

>>11366745
I'm glad the paragon of efficiency and fiscal responsibility that is NASA was able to debunk the evil government accountability office.

>>11366749
>my defense contractor would never overcharge the government. it's the statistics and oversight agencies that are wrong
ok retard

>>11366750
>>11366754
Lol, Jim literally just said they haven’t negotiated seat prices for operational missions yet, so any estimates are unfounded. GAO came up with those wonky estimates with some calculations dividing the total development costs via the number of seats per flight.

>>11366760
If they haven't negotiated seat prices, why is NASA posting their own "wonky estimates" for seat costs in official fact sheets, and what are those estimates based on?

>>11366722
SpaceX suffered two setbacks and fixed both of them, Boeing has failed in every way imaginable with new failures at literally every testing phase. P embarassing considering that Boeing is more expensive with more support.

>>11366771
>why is NASA posting their own "wonky estimates" for seat costs in official fact sheets

Those fact sheets are from GAO not NASA.

>what are those estimates based on?

I believe they calculate the number from the total dev costs and the 4 seats NASA astronauts will occupy. NASA has always advertised the cost per seat as $50 million for both vehicles.

>>11366774
>Boeing has failed in every way imaginable

But they never lost a capsule?

>>11366746
What's going on with the integration of trunk and lifter, why's there a big gap? Don't you normally make some kind of adapter so it doesn't look like you fucked up?

>>11366784
Pretty sure flooding your crew compartment with spicy nitrogen is a loss.

>>11366787
>What's going on with the integration of trunk and lifter, why's there a big gap?

Aerodynamics, it used to look like pic-related but an aeroskirt was added to reduce aerodynamic shockwaves on the Centaur upper-stage. The gap at the bottom allows engine exhaust to escape in case of an abort.

>>11366795
>nitrogen
That's NTO you idiot.
Nitrogen isn't spicy at all, it just makes you go to sleep.

>>11366781
>Those fact sheets are from GAO not NASA.
4 years old, https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_olia_fact_sheet_final_508-10-27.pdf

>>11366802
>skirt
Yeah that looks more like what I was expecting, the other pic made it look like a design by someone still unlocking the KSP tech tree.

>>11366809
You know what I was jokingly getting at considering that you immediately referenced NTO, you're just sidestepping the fact that your point was bullshit.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-boeing-to-provide-update-on-starliner-orbital-flight-test-reviews
>NASA, Boeing to Provide Update on Starliner Orbital Flight Test Reviews
>NASA and Boeing will host a media teleconference at 3:30 p.m. EST Friday, Feb. 7, to discuss the status of the joint independent review team investigation into the primary issues detected during the company’s uncrewed Orbital Flight Test in December as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
the absolute state of boeing

>>11366836
>the absolute state of boeing

The absolute state of being transparent?

The Boeing shill is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs of him like water off a raincoat. But show him GAO reports and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: 'I've been found out.

Can we not have football team-tier arguments over which company is cooler?

>>11366821
>I was only pretending to be retarded

>>11366857
>why are you getting mad where your tax money goes. cant we just ignore massive incompetency guys

>>11366857
I don't think that's possible, not when juicy (you)s compel anons to bait one another over it.

>>11366857
There's no argument to be had, the competition isn't even close. I'm here to laugh.

>>11366871
>doubling down on missing the point
I also wasn't being retarded, you just didn't get it because you're autistically literal on top of everything else wrong with your cognition

>tfw

So, OneWeb VS StarLink, which one is going to be the superiour service provider of global Internet?

>>11366907
Starlink's only competition at this point is crying astronomers with audiences

>>11366904
We will never stop making fun of this planet's unfortunate name will we

>>11366916
Probably not, no.
And Carl Sagan is no longer around to solidly pronounce uRAnuss to the unwashed masses.

>>11366907
OneWeb has officially abandoned inter-satellite links (because Russians want to spy on internet traffic) and as far as I'm aware Starlink hasn't, so if they can get those going they'll easily beat out OneWeb on the higher end customers like governments, airlines, shipping, etc

>>11366857

The problem isn't us. The problem is you. Stop being you.

>>11366907
Both systems have different approaches to hardware, business strategies, initial target areas, pros and cons etc. Their different enough that there’s enough space for both in the global internet market. That’s why both systems will succeed along with Kuiper, because their different enough to not all simultaneously eat each other’s lunch.

>the team found the two critical software defects were not detected ahead of flight despite multiple safeguards. Ground intervention prevented loss of vehicle in both cases.
lel boeing

>>11366926
Well at least their uncrewed test-flight vehicle survived to fly again, nice save by the mission control folks.

lewd

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

Apparently, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station no longer exists.

>>11366926
We're going to see this happen, aren't we bros?

>>11366937
You’re crazy if you think that there are little robots flying over head combining like Power a Rangers

>>11366573
>doesn't run them over with the tesla
>landerliner isn't sandblasted by the overwhelming landing power of starship
2/10

>>11366857
We aren't having arguments about which company is cooler. We are having arguments about which companies are burning the space budget.

>>11366745
>Both contractors negotiated how much they wanted
Even though Boeing threw a fit and demanded more money after years of work, threatening to scrap the project if they didn't get it?
Boeing is a nightmare.

>>11366784
They've redesigned the capsule hull at least once because they had one iteration that literally cracked under stress tests. So while they haven't 'lost' one by explosion, they lost a pretty far-along prototype and had to back pedal a lot and start over.

>>11366857

Suppress of dissent, namely SLS dissent, hidden behind an appeal for civility.

>>11366983
Prove it.

>>11366954
Anyone want my KSP flag made for situations like these?

>>11366579
The fucking selfi-normies in this cringed me into a black hole. Cool to see him chat though.

>>11366857

Oh, and it's not like you guys are sports team fanboys. Rather you are grasping the objective reality of the situation. SpaceX has moved forward the measure on launch technology. NASA shouldn't be rigged around SLS, SLS shouldn't exist at all, nor all the fruits of what NASA will do crafted around SLS to make it look good in the eyes of the unsuspecting, and to hit rhetorical checkmarks to justify past actions to force in and belligerently preferentially continue SLS and the dismissal of any other way. In trying to set the terms of defining who you are and make you believe it, this poster is trying to gaslight you to make you think there is something wrong with you and your behavior when there is not.

The sports team analogy fits the SLS fanboy to a T. Here's an SLS fan, and its existence is the only thing that matters, especially so he can lord over its continuation over people who don't share his fan position.

Painting you as just a a sports team fan allows him to do two things in his mind. The first is dismissing anything you say at all about SLS by discrediting the other side as being tainted in their motivation. He doesn't care about the truth of the matter, he cares about hiding the validity of any others who do not share his rigid fan favoritism viewpoint from any sort of legitimacy to him. It also lets him off the hook: if he can paint others as having compromised positions, then that allows him to behave in the very same manner. He not only wants to behave mendaciously, but he wants to feel completely justified in doing so.

>>11367121

*With all do apologies to sports fans who don't really resemble the contrivance.

>>11366555
>Radial burn to reach the ground from orbit

>>11367121
NASA is a civilian agency controlled by the congress. So its primary purpose is to give work to senators that control it.

>>11367133
every time

>>11367133
Most people don't understand orbital mechanics sadly.

>>11367121
>SLS shouldn't exist at all
the only reason sls is a shitty rocket is because of the fast technological advance during the last years. sls would still be a great rocket 10 years ago and it would also had been a great rocket if it was finished on schedule back then.
>sls should be scrapped
thats the thing in the space industry. every few years a new exciting program is announced which then gets delayed and eventually cancalled. i really don't blame nasa if for once in god knows how many years they stick to a program (at least until now) and hopefully will get actual results.

>>11366926
If they don't demand a second test flight before a crewed flight NASA is a joke.

>>11367165
Semi-related, is SpaceX doing another test flight as well?

>>11367121
SLS can still serve a purpose until Starship is up and running, which could still be many years.

>>11367167
afaik the next crew dragon flight will be crewed

>>11367174
Technically, it's still a test, even though it will probably be part of the ISS crew rotation.

>>11367165
>>11367167
SpaceX is not doing another uncrewed test flight, but they will be doing a crewed test flight that might be extended into a full duration mission and NASA doesn’t really want Boeing to do another uncrewed one, unless it’s absolutely necessary. This is because their running out of time and Soyuz seats, with only one American crew member currently aboard the ISS, they need to start rotating operational crews with the CC vehicles to maintain an American presence on the station.

>>11367160
Mandatory Kerbal Space Program

>>11367189
based and jebpilled

>>11367184
Also probably the only real shot spaceX will have at winning this race against starliner.
If the situation was any different nasa would have been forced to make starliner the first "commercial" flight to ISS.
This entire commercial thing is a massive farce anyway, the amount of taxpayer money, high level politican moves at play and nasa involvement is ridiculous.

Even spaceX is only a thing because of taxpayer money.

>>11367184
NASA allowing Boeing to put humans on Starliner without a single followup uncrewed test is shuttle-tier tempting of fate at this point. Not that I'd put it past them.

>>11367209
>NASA allowing Boeing to put humans on Starliner without a single followup uncrewed test is shuttle-tier tempting of fate at this point.

It’s a different situation, considering all the problems with Starliner have been software and quality control related, whilst Shuttle’s unsafe nature was derived from it’s flawed design and hardware (e.g. the foam).

N U M E R O U S P R O C E S S E S C A P E S

>>11367209
NASA might be putting people on the first flight of SLS too

>>11367262
Umm no they aren’t, even though SLS goes through extremely extensive testing to the point that NASA says it’s human-rated before it even launches, NASA still aren’t planning to put human on Artemis 1.

>>11367262
They floated the idea but eventually ruled against it

Let's design a frigate based off a Starship.
Rules:
>Only use existing or modernly feasible tech and items
>Must be reasonably sized
>at least somewhat sturdy on Earth's surface should it have to land there

My frigate would consist of:
>a modified 18m Starship that has a separable habitable fairing, moving via RCS
>4-12 Bigelow expandable modules
>1-4 ISS-esque P-trusses
The mothership starship would separate, have bigelow modules between the 2 parts, and have the trusses give structural stability to the actual ship. It could just then be refined until sort of resembling the Discovery I from the space odyssey series.

>>11367133
M-maybe they're shooting another space craft?

>>11367304
>snipes your gay space frigate from Lunar orbit
Welcome to the future, grandpa

>>11367304
honestly I hope I'm alive when space manufacturing gets to the point that huge star ships are built in orbit. Shit always looks bad after final separation, I want a huge, hard-body space ship or space station.

>>11367172
>this
people tend to forget that it is unclear when the first real starship will be even built. it's not even clear if the prototype currently in production will be the last one.

>>11366604
>Blue Origin's water tower is easily among the tallest ever built.
Only until Elon finishes his water tower

>>11367376
>space loving billionaires in a competition about who has the biggest water tower
>what a time to be alive

I heard you folks like orange rockets, so we built an orange capsule for you....

>>11367432
And we’re gonna build a station for it to dock with...

>>11367432
What's the name of this one?

>This is Why We Test™
>Space is Hard!!!
I swear to god I'm sick of reading this shit whenever some moron fucks up.

>>11367432
>be on ISS
>hear the the clunk of the docking clamps
>wait we aren't supposed to be resupplied for another 2 weeks
>float over to the airlock
>see pajeets through the glass and over the intercom "hello sir I hear you have tech support trouble very good I am here for help"
>smell of shit begins then eating through the airlock seals

>>11367444
more likely they would just slam in to the ISS and kill everybody.

>>11367456
yes that seems like a strong possibility

>>11367439
Gaganyaan

heh Garrett Reisman says that at SpaceX they used to call Starliner the POS-100

>>11367513
Did they call Crew Dragon the ‘zippo’ as well?

>Boeing
de geso

>Two Stages To Orbit
Or
>Stage-and-a-Half To Orbit (i.e. Boosters+Core)
Which is better and why?

>>11367660
I don’t see the difference

>>11367362
>implying I couldn't already have those mounted on the frigate via swivelling turrets
FOOL

>>11367439
CST-100 (Curry Space Transport)

I got an insight today. If the ITS/BFR/Starship program was a NASA program, not just the media but most people including me would attack it all the time. There would be so much indignation, spiteful comments and jokes and it would be seen as a fail story. So many design changes, so many things that didn't work out. "They are burning taxpayers' money". "How could [random design change or fail] ever happen, are they doing any calculations or planning at all?".
Now given this is not NASA and no politics and taxpayers' money are involved, everyone sees one and the same story from a completely different perspective. There are so many fanboys seeing this as the biggest success story ever. People are happy for any little thing that works out ("omg they stacked another ring") and get no negative feelings from all the failures/design changes. They actually also gain joy from these:
>they found this [weakness / design flaw /stupidity] out early and that's good
>"the [design change] makes sense and is even better

Just an insight I wanted to share. NASA has no chance to be as innovative as SpaceX or Blue Origin because of your hatred.

>>11367660
depends on if you're throwing them away

>>11367432
The caste system would mean there'd be no actual poo on it. The smell of fucking curry on the other hand...

>>11367675
You also have to remember that NASA has a couple decades of disappointment when it comes to making new launchers, SpaceX doesn't. So it makes sense that some are abit more critical of NASA over SpaceX.

>>11367675
because
>no politics and taxpayers' money are involved

>>11367660
Definitely a stage and a half, second-stages just reduce how long the fairing can be.

>>11367678
>someone saved my meme
NICE

>>11367678
Joke aside. Assume both cases reuse or expend.

>>11367660
if you don't need at least three stages and a half stages to get to orbit you're not doing it right

>>11367700
>if you don't need at least three stages and a half stages to get to orbit you're not doing it right

You called?

>>11367715
yes thank you

>>11367700
>>11367715
>>11367716
Good Monsieurs, maybe I could interest you in 4 and a half stages?

>>11367764
the best part is the alternating solid motor and toxic fuel stages

(Meanwhile, there might be an Iranian Simorgh launch in a few hours.)

>>11367675
>If people ridicule something on the internet, it can't be done
Garbage take even discounting the mountain of erroneous assumptions. Especially considering you're talking about a govt organization. Isn't that exactly the defence everyone always gives to govt organizations, that because they aren't beholden to shareholders/profits/PR etc. that they can get the real innovation done?

>>11367773
>the best part is the alternating solid motor and toxic fuel stages

>tfw when your third-stage uses solid-propellant even though your second-stage uses more efficient liquid propellant...

The Indians make some pretty neat but weird rockets, like the GSLV Mk2 for example, with it’s SRB core and liquid-fuel strap-on boosters. Maybe it’s an Asian thing? because the Chinese build rockets with boosters that don’t detach until the first-stage burns out...

>Iranian Simorgh launch in a few hours

I’m sure we’ll get initial confirmation of success or failure from Trump soon....

>>11367795
>>11367773

I hope Iran succeeds now because all its launch attempts failed the previous year.

>>11367788
>Isn't that exactly the defence everyone always gives to govt organizations, that because they aren't beholden to shareholders/profits/PR etc. that they can get the real innovation done?

>they aren't beholden to shareholders/profits/PR etc.

The government’s shareholders are Congress with votes being their investments, a government program that’s an absolute failure will be defunded because it’s ‘unprofitable’ for the gov’t to invest in it further, PR effects how they’ll vote in turn effecting government programs.

>get the real innovation done?

That’s what DARPA and black projects are for, usually no publicity or information for the public and congress to scrutinise, so no pressure to tackle truly innovative technologies.

>>11367687
The longboi’s fairing has arrived!

>>11367827
While we're admitting that NASA's inability to innovate is an inherent part of their structure as a congress dependent, I'll point out that's exactly why NASA could not do something like SS. Not because of whining on the internet, but because SS ISN'T a pork project. Congressmen want these major cornerstone projects to funnel jobs and cash, so something which hinges entirely on being cheap and efficient makes absolutely no sense.

>>11367687
>>11367838
Will they even launch it? Their launch site is the island(Hainan Province) at the bottom of this image and the factory for it is that tiny little place(Tianjjin) that looks like it is flipping people off in the big bay near the top right.

>>11366937
Will there be a gender neutral version for this system?

>>11367675

>If the ITS/BFR/Starship program was a NASA program

Keep in mind that in reality it's SLS and Orion and you're supposed to love it, give it accolades, and shut up otherwise.

>>11367675

We want NASA to be doing better things though.

>>11366937
>insert the probe into the thrust chamber

>>11367957
>seems like some premature fuel-leakage on entry
>ground-control asserts this failure-mode is unprecedented

Joe Rogan interview with ex-astronaut and current SpaceX Senior Advisor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RG5pXTpLBI
first JR podcast I've watched all the way through

>>11368009
That's crazy man. Does DMT affect how zero gravity feels?

>>11366937
>insert the probe into the thrust chamber
Relevant song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrC6paNUry0

>>11367861
>a few hundred people being sick in an area with a population of a few million is going to stop a rocket launch

>>11366581
all that for a stumpy cone containing like 2.5 people

>>11366604
yer but thats an actual water tower, whereas spacex is using a machine that makes that to, you know, put stuff in space.

>>11366746
>one mission a year
we're decades away from anything that looks like proper adventure

>>11366857
It would be nice. Any companies focusing/specialising on all these planetary habitats were going to be seeing? What about resource extraction/processing? Ships are nice and all but useless if no one has anywhere to live.

>>11366907
there will be competition leading to better services for the consumer.

>>11366954
either that or starship. sorry bros but it's shoddy level fabrication taken to an extreme. dudes will die and they will be heros.

>>11366857
>imagine sports-tier space competitions
>imagine watching the annual Lunar races where teams compete to send a person to the moon and back as fast as possible
>imagine watching Jovian moon marathons where teams need to pass by each of the major moons on the lightest spacecraft possible using mostly gravity assists
>imagine rocket drag races where the gees can easily hit the twenties
>imagine microsat battle bots

>>11368056
Just go basic as fuck, make a dome and do moon-football with an extra-large field. Or moon-baseball, moon-soccer, whatever.

>>11368067
lunar water polo

>>11368067
>moon-baseball
I'm pretty sure that homeruns would have to be redefined on account of the lower gravity.

>>11368068
lunar-wife carrying

>>11368070
it's only a double if it goes out of the park, it's a homerun only if it makes it to orbit

>>11368071
>batter wacks a ball super hard
>the whole game is put on hold for two hours to see if the ball makes a complete orbit

>>11368075
baseball would suck on the moon

>>11368077
>baseball would suck on the moon
youre mom would suck on the moon if you knoe what i mean

>>11368077
BMX shit might be fun though.

>>11368077
What about...
>Lunar Chess Boxing
>Lunar Cheese Rolling
>Lunar Extreme Ironing
>Lunar Egg Throwing
>Lunar Musical Canine Freestyle
>Lunar Toe Wrestling
>Lunar Underwater Hockey
?

>>11368095
imagine a dog on the moon

Luna Slamball so it can fail a second time

>>11368096
For the last time, anon, your mother doesn't qualify to be an astronaut.

>>11368096
Amerikkkan dogs already went to the moon

>>11368096
Would they love it, or be all fucked up like when they stand in the back of a moving van?

>>11368104
there's only one way to find out

>>11368108
I support putting a dog on the moon by 2030.

>>11368113

>>11368067
Screw that, I want to see someone reach LEO in less than a minute.

>>11368138
>puddle of red gore breaks world record

>>11368146
Well, red does make things go faster IIRC.

>>11368148
It provides a spd+1 but not as much as painting racing-stripes on the side which adds spd+10

>>11368156
So by adding drains to the bottom of the capsule which leads to sprayers that are lined up in groups that spray the human jelly into lines down the rocket would make it go faster?

>>11368156

>>11368156
>Building Ork rocket
>Paint red racing stripes on the side
>Paint all high-mass structural elements purple
>Paint all critical high-stress components blue
>Paint the rest green

>>11366555
Rods From God or Ion Cannon?

>>11368162
Those are very clearly rods.

>>11368159
>expendable pilots
Briefly

>>11366907
Starlink currently has superior cost structure and economics due to launcher reusability. However if OneWeb ever gets access to cheaper launches via Blue Origin or Soyuz-5 then they can give Starlink a run for their money. New Glenn when?

>>11368189
OneWeb is trash on a fundamental technological level

>>11368197
What do you think is wrong with OneWeb? It's just a mass produced constellation of relatively cheap relay satellites flying around the earth just like Starlink. The most significant difference is Space-X can get their system into orbit much cheaper and faster.
>inb4 laser crosslinks because neither constellation has them yet

>>11368096
>>11368113
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsV-qozMz9A

>amerismalls

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv5UX2j2UBs

Boeing/NASA safety update. Audio only.

>>11368211
Oh hey I remember this guy, he did that song about Pluto and Charon, "I'm your moon"

>>11368214
our nazi's > your nazi's
Stay mad

>>11366745
>Both contractors negotiated how much they wanted.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
I thought the USA was a capitalist country. We communist/socialist now?

>>11368189

Thus Starship.

>>11368026
Sensible Chuckle

>>11367700
Kerbal stage to orbit aka mash space every second to orbit.

>>11368056
>imagine watching Jovian moon marathons where teams need to pass by each of the major moons on the lightest spacecraft possible using mostly gravity assists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCyGIJl1XUA

>>11368454
Needs more hammond organ squeezed through an overdriven marshall stack, otherwise Jon Lord approved.

>>11368009
Check out Randall Carlson episodes.

>>1136768
>that perceptible joy between two men reconnecting with their childhoods love of space


Tell me, would Jeff bezos do that if another adventure seeking billionaire gave him money to help fund his space pet project if things went awry at Amazon? I’m so glad that Elon and his company is leading the race to space and not some stale corporate boomer billionaire like Bezos

>>11367685

>that perceptible joy between two men reconnecting with their childhoods love of space together


Tell me, would Jeff bezos do that if another adventure seeking billionaire gave him money to help fund his space pet project if things went awry at Amazon? It feels good to know that Elon and his company is leading the race to space and not some stale corporate boomer billionaire like Bezos

Trump does it again! He just can't stop doing good things for the American people, can he?

>>11368531
>Trump does it again! He just can't stop doing good things for the Israeli people, can he?

>>11368531
>>11368544
Go away.

Ariane 6 when? Angara when? Vulcan Centaur when? New Glenn when? Is Space-X the only company that can actually build and fly new heavy lift rockets nowadays?

>>11367687
Kinda looks like the Ariane 5

>>11368587
How many way are you gonna reinvent the wheel?

>>11368578
>Ariane 6 when?

Supposedly late 2020, but more likely 2021.

>>11368578
>Angara when?

This year apparently.

>>11368578
>Vulcan Centaur when?

2021, first flight booster is currently being built.

>>11368578
>New Glenn when?

2021, it’s been that way for ages.

>“The project is now managing to a March 2021 launch date but estimates only a 12 percent likelihood that this date will be achieved,” the GAO said. “NASA plans to reassess the launch date in the spring of 2020.”
I missed this. Jesus christ, will JWST ever deploy, if ever launch?

>>11368685
This thing is years older than me

>JWST fuck my shit up

>>11368685
Only if equally large and durable program is given to NG as a drop in replacement.

>>11368685
>Jesus christ, will JWST ever deploy, if ever launch?

Considering GAO predicts the launch will only slip from March to July 2021, yes. Also, this report was based on outdated information (only valid up until September 2019) and since then NASA have confirmed they still have two months of schedule margin to reach the current targeted launch date.

>>11368027
>>11367861
They'd better move faster if they want to use that rocket to escape the quarantine zone.

>tfw they dock with ISS and 2 weeks later ISS crew is kill

>>11368769
>Considering GAO predicts the launch will only slip from March to July 2021

Kek how many times has this happened now?

>2016 launch
>2017 launch
>2018 launch
>2019 launch
>2020 launch
>Ye maybe 2021 launch now lul

>>11368685
>12 percent
Wild number pulled out of their asses.

>>11368716
You should go bar hopping with JWST sometime.

>The JWST originated in 1996 as the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST). In 2002 it was renamed...
I remember in 1996 I was worried about high school graduation. lol Seems it is older than 4chan/nel.

>>11368781
I wonder how much insurance they will have on it when it launches.

>>11368784
Boomer get out reeeeeeeeee

>>11368787
What insane insurance company is going to insure them for like 20b or whatever it is lmao.

>>11368794

>>11368787
>>11368794
After reading up about this thing, i'm pretty sure it will explode at launch as the final cherry on top.

>>11368587
No it does not.

A5 = 2 huge solid boosters (actually ICBMs because France owns ESA)
LM5 = 4 small liquid fueled boosters.

They're radically different.

>>11368850
>They're radically different.

Their actually very similar in design and function. Both use hydrolox-powered sustainer-stages for their cores and powerful boosters to provide thrust early into the ascent profile. The only big difference between the two is that, as you’ve mentioned the A5 uses 2 solid-fuel boosters, whilst the CZ-5 uses 4 kerolox liquid-propellant boosters instead.

>>11368873
>Hydrolox sustainers

Why do they keep falling for this meme?

>>11368879
I see the LM5 as an evolution of the Soviet Energia, it worked fine enough, so just change minor stuff and make it your own.

>>11368879
Because maybe it’s not a meme?

>>11368882
> I see the LM5 as an evolution of the Soviet Energia, it worked fine enough, so just change minor stuff and make it your own.

In function and design it’s somewhat similar, but technically they are very different launch vehicles e.g. booster engines are derived from RD-120 instead of RD-170 family.

>>11368914

>>11368787
It'll be just like insuring a custom / restored car

>can I get $50k coverage
The car is 40 years old, book price is $500
>can I get $10k coverage
The book price is $500

They will end up with 50m insurance on a 10b payload.

>>11368925
>can I get $10 billion coverage?
>"The satellite is 23 years old, 1997 book price is $500k."

kek

Keep rollin' rollin' rollin' rollin'

>>11369039
Now I know why'all be lovin' this shit right here
U.L.A. is right here
People in the VAB put them hands in the air
'Cause if you don't care, then we don't care
One, tow, three times two to the six
Jolts in for your fix with the United Launch Alliance mix
So where the fuck you at punk?
Shut the fuck up and back the fuck up
While we fuck this probe up

>>11367861
>That webm
I can hear the plague inc theme clearly.

>>11369039
Is that the drifty boi Atlas V 411?

>>11368846
Having it fail during the unfolding process would send a better message.

>>11369214
Yes

"Fine...I'll launch it myself."

>>11368685
This image is not a joke anon

>>11369235
This, blowing up on the pad would give NASA and Northrop an excuse

>>11369053
This is gold, bless you kind sir

>>11369214
>>11369039

>>11369552
>asymmetrical booster
I'm not familiar with this rocket, can anyone tell me why this thing is tokyo-drifting all the way to orbit?

>>11369566
>I'm not familiar with this rocket, can anyone tell me why this thing is tokyo-drifting all the way to orbit?

Because Atlas 5 follows a ‘dial a rocket’ design philosophy and ULA have calculated that the 411 (4m fairing, 1 RL-10 and 1 SRB) is the optimum configuration for this trajectory and payload. The RD-180 has very good gimbal range (8 degrees), so it can handle the asymmetrical thrust.

>>11369566
Atlas V has a number of configurations from zero to five solid boosters.
That particular version is the 411 which means 4m fairing, 1 SRB, and 1 centaur engine on the upper stage.

When they need just a little boost they strap one SRB on it and drift into orbit, as two SRBs would be more expensive for no benefit.

>>11369620
one engine on the centaur upper stage*

>>11369235
I feel like it would have been easier and faster to have sent up a tug that can dock and undock from the ISS and support EVA, park the JWST near the ISS, unfold it in LEO so ISS cucks can fix it if something breaks, and then send up a booster that would rendezvous with it and push it to its orbit.

>>11369955
I think it's most likely because if something does go wrong on the ISS then the procedure to fix the issue would be too difficult for the crew to do considering how complex the whole telescope is. To make JWST serviceable and able to be attached to a tug would require changes to the design, which would just delay it even further.

Plus, decision-makers at NASA seem to be allergic to setting up any meaningful in-space industry.

>>11369995
At this point I'm convinced that JWST(fuck my shit up) will be surpassed by a superior telescope before it's even ready for liftoff.

>>11370003
>be surpassed by a superior telescope before it's even ready for liftoff.

What superior telescope is going to magically appear in the next year or so?
These things don’t just randomly come into existence, their development is measured in years or even decades.

>>11370003
>>11370038
Yeah beryllium mirror honed to one of the strictest tolerances on earth, probably

>>11370038
True, Hubble is still considered the king of telescopes despite it’s age. Also, NASA can’t really focus on another flagship telescope until JWST is launched.

Towers be arising....

>>11369955
I reckon attaching it to the ISS for construction would carry a risk of debris strikes. Safer perhaps to just fling it straight out in one go.

>>11370081

>>11370081
the landing gear seems a bit long

>>11370085
I agree. Going through the process of getting it worthy to approach the ISS would be a nightmare. That's why I think it would be good to have a tug, that's not specific to JWST, that lives on the ISS but can detach and support crew briefly and allow them to EVA away from the ISS. Although now that I think about it, the shuttle had that capability.

>>11370038
A swarm of smaller, less perfect telescopes can be used to create an enormous "virtual" lens using modern software, in the end size is easier to achieve than absolute focusing mirror perfection. The bigger the better, consider the brad ATLAST and the gigachad RAMST.

>>11370106
it's stupid that JWST is smaller than starship

>>11370100
I meant debris strikes on the telescope. Just being in LEO for a length of time has a much higher risk of getting struck by something than being way out at the L2 point

>>11370110
Starship is still years away from flying, and was pretty much unthinkable just 10 years ago, much less when JWST got started.

>>11370110
JWST was done being constructed in 2016, and the final decision for Starship's diameter wasn't made till 2017.

>>11370117
>Starship is still years away from flying
screencapping this post, see you in six months retard

>>11370122
they literally delayed until the point that all of their effort was trivialized

>>11370106
On-orbit assembly technology hasn’t reached a sufficient level yet for this type of project to be undertaken. The most ambitious on-orbit assembly project currently being undertaken is Maxar’s Space Infrastructure Dexterous Robot, or SPIDER demonstration:

>Maxar Technologies on Jan. 31 announced a $142 million NASA contract to demonstrate in-space assembly using a robotic arm.

>Maxar’s demonstration contract calls for the in-orbit assembly of multiple antenna reflector dishes into one single reflector. Communications satellites use reflectors to beam television channels and internet connectivity to users.

>Maxar said SPIDER’s demonstration could show how commercial satellites and telescopes could carry fixtures currently too large to fit inside rocket payload fairings.

>Maxar said NASA will select the launch vehicle for Restore-L, equipped with SPIDER. They declined to give a launch time frame more specific than the “mid-2020s.”

https://spacenews.com/maxar-wins-142-million-nasa-robotics-mission/

>>11370144
>technology hasn’t reached a sufficient level yet
It has. We just need to piece that shit together for that purpose. Everything is fucking LEGOS now.

>NASA
Who?

>>11370110
>>11370117
>>11370122
>>11370124
This is a stupid discussion, considering it’s not just about Starship launching in some capacity, but it having a reliability record good enough for NASA to trust it with a billion-dollar flagship telescope, like it has done with Ariane 5. Their not gonna pick an non-existent or new vehicle for such a job...

>>11370149
>delusion

>>11370154
why does it need to cost a billion dollars?

>>11370144
>Mid-2020's
reeeee speed up faggots!

>>11370157
How else are we going to fund the aerospace engineer welfare system?

>>11370157
Because cutting-edge sensors and optics are expensive, just ask the NRO who mass produce large telescopes that still end up costing billions.

>>11370165
make them work ten times as hard

>>11370166
why does it need to be cutting-edge

>>11370169
Because that’s the point of flagship telescopes? To push boundaries in fields of astronomy.

Whatever happend to that Iranian rocket launch?

>>11370173
what if we just need really big boring telescopes up in orbit
make 10000 of them

>>11370204
But then if thousands of telescopes are needed to be built, then the production of them needs to be slim and efficient. This would mean that the manufacturing can't be spread across the country to maximize the amount of money our constituents get. And that's unacceptable.

>>11370106
So can we read newspapers in Proxima Centauri with that?

>>11370288
Probably not, we'll need aragoscopes and JWST-like high quality telescopes with glare filtering sunshade spacecraft obscuring the target star to actually optically pick out an extrasolar planet. Luckily Aragoscopes don't use any new technology, their special feature is just a large plastic sheet which will be held at great distance from the scope and then unfurled to focus light much more effectively into the normal-sized optics. None of that is completely novel, just a clever use of existing principles of optics.

Remember the Starship frigate i suggested? Well fuck you all, I made a model of it.

>>11367133

>>11370352
Here's another view of the thing, I may have oversized it oops

>>11370357
Here's a top profile of the whole thing. Perhaps the first model of this idea won't be so damn long, but those bigelow modules should provide lots of mass. This could be the beginning of the US Space Force's cosmic armada

>>11370124
Well, realistcly, the first human going up to space in a starship is closer to 10 years then 5 in my point of view.
Starship will also get a scale down sometime in the future, it still will be fuckhuge.

>>11370124
I was referring to the final product Starship that is flying to orbit and back, not a junkyard special prototype.

>>11370352
>>11370357
Looks like a fucking Volkswagen.

>>11370370
A long one at that.

>>11370081

>>11370401

>>11370403
why does it need to be so tall?

>>11370403

>>11369235
Meh. I‘d like it to fail due to something really obscure like unforeseen radiation pressure or something.
Or maybe reaction wheel failures. Power or cooling failure. Something benign and overlooked.

>>11370406
to beat SpaceX water tower!!

>>11370364
>>11370365
you are incredibly wrong
I just redid my math: before the end of the year I predict an orbit and return by a Starship
people in less than ten years, there's no real way to know until after it's started flying

>>11370407

>>11370401
>>11370403
What an odd looking rocket.

>>11370407
I bet the locals are pissed that they're building a huge, ugly structure right next to that pretty Florida lighthouse

>>11370416
Sure, a succesfull orbital hop this year could be real.
Landing is another thing.
Making starship human rated is a completly different thing.
Starship will be flying cargo for years before the first human rides it up to space.
But Falcon9&dragon will probably be the workhorse of nasa after boeing got enough money out of starliner.

>>11370420
>huge, ugly structure right next to that pretty Florida lighthouse

I think Von Braun would really appreciate Blue building a massive launch pad next to his lighthouse. Also, the only neighbours at CCAFS are other launchpads, so it would be hypocritical for them to complain.

>>11369235
This is NASA, it's going to explode while still in the atmosphere because of a bent fuel pipe that NASA was made aware of by engineers but chose not to replace because it would delay the launch by another week

>>11370440
I think that "launch fever" part of NASA got hammered out after Challenger.

>>11370440
>This is NASA,

Your view of NASA seems to be greatly detached from reality....

>>11370446
Yeah, it makes no sense. For NASA it would take at least half a year

>>11370431
it's not a "hop" if it's to orbit

>>11370475
thank you

>>11370106
Why can't we launch a modular and self assembling telescope with dozens of smaller 3 meter stack like Starlink satellite stack? That way we can launch cheap and large array in our l3 or something. What type of telescope bottle is JWST facing? Or is it just a cost plus incentive the actual bottleneck?

>>11370491
cost plus and the biases of the scientists who propose these telescopes
as long as scientists are the ones designing these things they're going to be expensive bloated monstrosities

>>11370491
JWST is essentially a single piece job, I think it partially folds but yes it would be much more space efficient to have a telescope with hexagonal reflectors that are folded in a stack, or which are stored in a sort of magazine that a small robot arm can draw them out from to assemble in-situ.

H-2A launch in ~45 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBtfD_uvBJg&feature=emb_logo

>>11370513
I wish I can read Japanese.

>>11370513
nice, go Japan

>>11370440

>>11370522
John Madden

>>11370491
It may also be doable with an umbrella like foldable/flexible array.

>>11370416
>an orbit and return by a Starship *prototype carrying no humans or important payload*

>people in less than ten years
So like I said, it's still years away.

>>11370513
打ち上げます

>>11370513
LAUNCH

>>11370567
FUDposter begone

Salvatore ‘Tory’ Bruno gives a quick and fun rundown of what makes both the Atlas 411 aka ‘The Slider’ and it’s payload, the Solar Orbiter so special:

https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1226318955356311552

>it'll take a decade to human-rate Starship
Human rating is something NASA is interested in, but I don't think there is anything preventing people from riding on Starship without NASAs approval. And the SLS is going to be "human rated" after just one flight, which puts the bar really low for what Starship has to do. Even if they demand 100 flights, they could just test their reusability goals + launch their entire Starlink constellation doing these 100 flights maybe on just one Starship + Super Heavy.

>>11370590
I'm just being realistic. Elon is always highly optimistic with his timelines, which is fine as a goal, but with things as complicated as rocket/spacecraft development delays are inevitable.
Full Starship+SuperHeavy operation with crewed flights by 2030 is a realistic timeline I think. If they can do it sooner then great, but I won't hold my breath.
If SLS can launch next year then it will fill a niche in launch capability for at least the better part of a decade. It may end up not being worth the cost, but at least they will be able to make some use of it before cancellation.

Let’s focus on the now instead of debating possible futures...for example, these pretty pictures of the recent Japanese H-IIA launch!

>>11370643

>>11370649

>>11370643
Shame that there's very little information about this rocket. Would like to read about what JAXA did to get to that design.

Yo Dawg, we heard you like Cygnus...

>>11370658
a little bit of explanation please

>>11370666
These are renders of all the Cygnus variants ever proposed:

Cygnus PCM, UCM (unpressurised cargo), Enhanced Cygnus PCM, Stretched PCM, Enhanced UCM, CRS2 PCM, cislunar cargo, HALO (Gateway habitation module).

Some have flown and some will in the future.

>>11370683
Their in chronological order btw

>>11370683
>HALO (gateway hab)
they really expect astronauts to live in a lunar trashcan, huh

How many of yall are STEM students secretly wishing to be an astronaut?

>>11370683
Does Cygnus have a for-sure habitability module lined up? That would be fucking awesome

>>11370740
tfw software engineer and would never be sent to the moon or mars because all work can be done remotely.

>>11370747
Im studying geology so I guess I "have a chance," but put that in BIG QUOTES. I've met with so many career geologists over my college career and they seem so much more driven than me. Tfw I know I'll never get close to living a Star Trek fantasy :(

>>11370752
>>11370747
Should have got a trade faggots, blue collar bros will be off planet building shit while stemcucks sit behind their pcs on Earth "analysing data"

>>11370513
damn, I wish I could go to my island launch site by high speed hydrofoil ferry!

>>11370352
Starship Tadpole

>>11370361
Why stop at just that length? You've designed a space-train, anon. Make it a couple KM long, what would be the challenges?

oh neat Elon says that two dimes of SN2 are already done.
They’re going to need a lot of raptors...

>>11370406
ΔP

New thread:

>>11371240