/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11384445
1st for hop!

Reminder to not be a fag and shit on everything not spaceX related, it's called spaceflight general, not spaceX circlejerk general.
But SLS is free game.

>>11384490
Should have named it SSP, Spare Shuttle Parts.

>>11384490
Sorry, Europe is trash.

>>11384445
>possibly a guarantee
mm yes quite
>>11384490
Stop looking for people to blame and realize that your own space agency lacks any concept of ambition and literally sees itself as nothing more than a busywork program lol

>>11384490
If anyone else was doing anything exciting they would get praise, how do I get excited for le expendable meme rocket number 627426. The only other people who get decent praise is Rocketlab because at least they are trying.

>>11384490
You always bitch in every thread but you barely ever post anything other than to whinge pathetically about the proportionate focus on SpaceX or other American space endeavors sorry to break it to you, but there are only two powers who ever did major large scale space projects, the US and the Soviet Union, and the Soviets don't exist as an organization any more. China will probably be the next country to make a big push with their modern version of Mir, but until that point there's only a few groups who are actually focused on making for example, completely new human rated rockets, SpaceX and Blue Origin are by far the furthest along but Blue is playing their cards very close to the chest, so guess who gets most of the spotlight right now? Make sense?

When you people get your act together and do something interesting in space, post it in this thread so it can be discussed. Speaking of new human rated rockets, why do you spend time bitching about SpaceX when you could be talking about Copenhagen Suborbitals, who are getting close to starting the assembly of a tiny crowdfunded rocket to send a single person to space?

>>11384509
Boo!

So what countries other than the US, Russia and China are actually getting somewhere with spaceflight?

>>11384490
Whatever was the point of this thing? They never used the data gathered from it to do anything.

>>11384566
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies

India shit on the moon, so there's that.

>>11384572
Isn't ESA just the European grant farm, similar to how NASA is the US grant farm?

>>11384566
Norwegian Space Program Stronk! (pls no bully)

>>11384573
is Jim really going to take some Japanese to the moon or was that just a politics thing?

>>11384566
Is Russia really getting somewhere? Obviously they have one great, reliable launch vehicle which keeps them relevant but that doesn't scale into future advancement. Meanwhile the level of cronyism around everything else makes congressional NASA jobs programs look efficiently run.

>>11384582
I think they're fairly content being U-Haul for everyone willing to pay them.

>>11384490
I agree, but I suggest that you don't try to be proactive about it. How about just posting interesting non-American, non-Russian, non-Chinese space flight whenever you feel like it?

>>11384582
Russia are planning to launch their second ever Angara A5 heavy-lift rocket later this year, after 6 years of hiatus due to financial troubles and moving production to a different location. Their also developing a new crewed spacecraft called Orel (Eagle) to replace Soyuz, which will be capable of lunar spaceflight if their planned super-heavy Yenisei rocket ever materialises.

>>11384618
Yenisei for reference

>>11384625
>tfw nobody will ever do Asparagus

>>11384618
With Angara A5 replacing Proton in the heavy-lift category and Angara 1.2 replacing Soyuz 2.1V in the light-lift category, Russia are also looking to replace Soyuz as their medium-lift launcher with the new Soyuz-5. The Soyuz-5, despite it's namesake essentially having an upgraded + de-Ukrainised Zenit first-stage instead of the iconic Korolev cross, whilst retaining a Soyuz second-stage. There will also be a modified sea-launch variant called the Soyuz-6.

>>11384618
>>11384625
The Russian space program is kinda sad desu. They're sitting on technological gold, but can't do much with it due to lack of funding and politics. Hopefully the Russian Federation takes space flight more seriously once the US (and to a less extent China) makes accessing space easier.

is no one else trying to build reusable rockets because Elon holds all the patents?

>>11384645
No, because it would reduce jobs and reduce cost to maintain the program for space, this scares the industry who hasn't had to innovate since the 60s.

>>11384645
Maybe when they run out of old shuttle parts for the SLS.

>>11384575
Similar but with an obvious inferiority complex

>>11384645
you need the right cluster of throttleable, relightable engines and the right 1st stage 2nd stage ratio. Most rockets literally cannot do 1st stage retropropulsive recovery.

>>11384645
China is taking steps towards it, ULA has Vulcan, and ESA is working on some concepts (pic related). I think the two big (non political bs) reasons why everyone else is being slow to adopt reusability are; SpaceX's unique development structure, and the legacy of the Space Shuttle.

SpaceX is pretty unique when it comes to developing things, testing as they fly. This is a rapid way of developing things, especially compared to the more methodical ways of developing that's more common in space flight. So why isn't everyone jumping on this new way? Because it's also more risky, if something goes terribly wrong during development then the company is left with vehicles and tooling to make those vehicles for a design that's flawed. That is a major loss. The typical way of developing things in space flight, while slower, could spot issues with only some simulations and scale prototypes wasted. Or at least, that is the perception. Another reason why few are adopting the new ways is because it requires a different company structure, which is going to be tremendously difficult to change. SpaceX is a young company and thus free to have "unusual" structures.

Before SpaceX, the sole major icon of reusability was the Space Shuttle, and that was a terrible model of it. It had parts that require lots of time and money to refurbish. It lacked flexibility in missions. It was possibly the least efficient vehicle to use economically. And worst of all, it was critically unsafe. This is due to loads of problems both within the Shuttle program structure and the management of NASA. Anyone who's going to do research into reusable launch vehicles is inevitably see the Shuttle and all of it's issues and be discouraged about reusability, especially if they're a starting company strapped for cash. Expendable rockets, while old tech, was a much safer option.

>>11384664
>if something goes terribly wrong during development then the company is left with vehicles and tooling to make those vehicles for a design that's flawed
surely this is much more of an issue with traditional waterfall development

>>11384664
Ran out of space for my last thought...

There was an unspoke general notion that if NASA, with all of it's manpower and funding (even at it's post-Apollo budget it's still the most well funded space agency in the world), couldn't figure it out, then the chances of a company, much less a small start up, figuring out is slim to none. Only just recently with SpaceX has that notion been broken.

>>11384666
Not so much with the extensive amount of studies done nowadays. Meanwhile SpaceX scrapped a facility and prototypes for making carbon fiber tanks when they shifted to steel for Starship. That is a loss, that is money wasted on development that might not be used. It seems like most companies would like to avoid that sort of loss whenever possible. Even if that means moving at a slow pace.

>>11384677
yeah but figuring out that the carbon fiber tanks wouldn't work the SpaceX way cost less than the million engineer hours it would have taken an old-space company, and they still probably wouldn't have caught it and then been down both the production tooling AND the million engineer-hours at the end of the day

>>11384677
>That is a loss, that is money wasted on development that might not be used.
It's almost certainly less money wasted than the R&D it would have taken to make the decision otherwise

>>11384679
We have the benefit of hindsight to know that. Before SpaceX, failure of any kind was unacceptable. That was the mentality that was (and still is) common is space flight. With that mentality, there would've been no way to propose building a factory to make a material that has a not-insignificant chance of not being used. It would've been seen as easier and safer to do those studies and simulations even if it costed more than going ahead with the plan. That is why the SpaceX concept of "fail smartly" is so revolutionary. It opened up possibilities that were never considered before.

>>11384703
that's because ignorant idiots are in charge of the purse strings in traditional aerospace
SpaceX changed it up, they have a gullible, idealistic, ignorant idiot in charge of their purse strings

>>11384703
>That is why the SpaceX concept of "fail smartly" is so revolutionary
it's been the mantra of the software community for decades

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1228340205586796544

Some cool footage of the BE-4 from BO to celebrate them opening their new engine factory in Alabama on Monday.

>>11384445
>possibly a guarantee

what exactly does that mean? it might be 100 percent certain?

>>11384709
Nice. Sad to see the Saturn V test stand go though.

>>11384712
It's not going tho, Blue are just modifying the stand to mount their engines on it.

>>11384716
I know. Just would like to have it not be modified and kept as a historical site. I've seen the stand myself, and it looks awe inspiring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YTaG91KD5s

>>11384645
You can't patent a concept, like a reusable rocket, or an airplane, or anything like that. The idea for reusable rockets has existed basically from day one of rocketry as a concept, however until very recently nobody has developed both the process and material science necessary to make reusing rockets both physically feasible and economically feasible. SpaceX would hold the patents for anything they came up with on their own, like the design for the Raptor engine and the process for manufacturing it, stuff like that The reason every other company/country is behind is simply because SpaceX got a head start, and is leveraging both government contracts from NASA, significant investment capital, and Elon's own personal fortune, along with a team of engineers who know what they're doing.

>>11384669
>broken
Hahaha!
Nope. It's going strong hence no real reusable booster development from competitors. At these rates starship will be fully operational by the time they even get merlin like retropropulsion capable engine in a test stand. Ironically jeff who is the closest to getting in the game but still quite a bit late. The rest are going to be subsidized pigs until economic reforms write them off into the grave.

>>11384712
>Naked BE4
This is a blue board Anon you fucking sicko.

>>11384445
I hope I save enough money to one day take a tourist space flight. I hope I've lived such an isolated and withdrawn life that I'll have no more family or friends. I hope something horribly catastrophic goes wrong during the flight and I get ejected via decompression into space. I hope my last view in my adrenaline fueled panic is the Earth and then the vast black infinite. my final thoughts would be how absurd everything is and how Camus was right. I die feeling nothing.

>>11384726
What are the mods gonna do? Ban me?

>>11384725
To be fair, Bezos is the richest human bean on Earth and has devoted only a small fraction of his gargantuan wealth to booting up Blue Origin, if he were really committed to "winning" in terms of cornering the spaceflight market I think he could radically accelerate and expand Blue if he had the urge. It strikes me that he's more interested in simply developing the technology, thus taking it slow and starting out with relatively conservative designs. Not only is he worth a bit more than three times as much as Elon is in terms of individual net worth, but because he already heads up basically the single most successful modern business on Earth he could I'm sure easily find plenty of investors willing to pour money into a huge spaceflight project, honestly if I were him I'd be using Amazon as essentially a giant wallet to fund the construction of huge new spaceports both in existing locations and in international waters, entire new factories for the mass production of rocket components and engines, propellant factories and barges to transport the stuff and unfueled rockets to static launch platforms out at sea, etc.

>>11384730

>>11384738
They'll let you do it, when you're vice president you can do anything, just grab her by the heat shield, anything.

>>11384445
>>possibly a guarantee
isn't a guarantee

>>11384737
That nigga literally writes a check for $1 billion every year for Blue Whorigin. It's amusing to me because they have literally not done sperm with it.

Oops. Dropped my ass pic of the Falcon 9.

>>11384746
I think what that means is that once they have figured out the final designs, processes, and timetables for building their rockets the process which normally stalls out any large-scale project, getting factories built and tooled up, won't be a major issue for them. If they aren't spending most of that billion dollars, it means Blue will have an enormous starting pot when they're ready to switch from design over to production.

Is there any actual use case for Earth-to-Earth travel using BFR beyond passengers? There's exactly 0 chance anywhere near the amount of needed passengers will travel on it for the same reason the Concord went out of business. Packages? Transporting industrial equipment? Transporting cars? Feels like nothing on Earth actually benefits from turning a 5 hour trip into a 30 minute trip, even at an only slightly higher ticket price.

>>11384722
>assuming you need raptor for fully reusable rocket
>assuming you need material sciences magic when spacex are literally making it out of generic steel
>assuming you need vaselin-vasmir- point singularity generator powered generations void ship
>assuming...

The real reason is there was NO NEED for rocketry as means of transportation. There still isn't!

The primary view of the elites is that rocketry is simply a means to deliver warheads of various types across the globe, and possibly ability to deliver small equipment dedicated to espionage or communications in earth orbit.

Engineers, companies, research, and everything was poured into those goals whose end results are vehicles that simply are not suitable for manned spaceflight in any reasonable scale beyond what is essentially stunts.

As the early pioneers, note, both in the us and the ussr, who had dreams beyond "big boom fly go city x in y min" about rocket technology died away and were replaced by new blood, so did all more interesting proposals about rocketry and with that it seemed it was settled until now.
It is no coincidence you'll find considerably more interesting, crazy, and even starship-like proposals dating from the 60's than you will find in the years after and even today.

>>11384755
>It is no coincidence you'll find considerably more interesting, crazy, and even starship-like proposals dating from the 60's than you will find in the years after and even today.
Like this one?

>>11384749
I still don't understand his endgame with BO. At least Elon has known autism for Mars, what is Jeff's?

>>11384766
Something like this.

>>11384765
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JJL8CUfF-o
it's a real tragedy that Earth governments think so small and shortsighted

>>11384766
It seems like they just want to be part of the space expansion effort, and explicitly say in their mission statement that they don't view the project as a race. I think Bezos literally just wants to see more reusable rockets and is willing to start his own rocket company to make it happen. Blue seem to view themselves as just a starting off point to creating less expensive reusable rocket technology, and they don't seem particularly interested in pushing the technology to it's absolute limits.

>>11384769
That's actually more realistic than a colony on Mars. Minus the windows of course. lol

>>11384776
Stations like this will be trivial to assemble once rockets with 50-100 tons of payload can easily transit from the ground to orbit every few days or even every day. For example if it takes a whole day to inspect and clear a Superheavy or New Glenn for launch, two rockets alone can rotate launches to allow for an every-day launch schedule for at least their total lifespans. A fleet of four or five rockets could get all of the materiel necessary for a Von Braun style rotohab in place in a matter of a week.

We need to commit a mission to Europa to see if it has an ocean and geothermal vents
If it has those but no signs of life, we need to send chemosynthetic organisms and hydrothermal vent animals there

>>11384794
>realistic
Lol. You think building a city in the middle if the ocean is more realistic than building one on land?

>>11384801
>we need to send chemosynthetic organisms and hydrothermal vent animals there
why? For what purpose?

>>11384806
So more bodies have life
Why else?

>>11384805
A boat doesn't have to use the majority of all it's fuel stores just to get close to land. A spaceship on the other hand expends the majority of it's propellant (which makes up the majority of it's mass) simply to take off or land on a gravitationally substantial body. Not only that but spacecraft must also be adapted for any entry into an atmosphere with extra thermal and aerodynamic protection which adds weight and thus detracts from payload capacity and range. In addition, no other significant body in the solar system is even remotely human habitable, meaning that at least as much work will be required to construct a ground colony as would be required to construct an orbital. You still need your own power source, you still need thermal management, you still need life support and radiation shielding, the only difference is that in open space you don't need anywhere near as much propellant to get yourself into position.

\- Next Block upgrade of BE-4 already being worked on now

\- BE-4 engine tests are now replicating flight profile and vehicle(New Glenn).

\- BE-4's will be delivered to ULA this year.

\- Marshal Test Stand 4670 will be able to fire a BE-4 on one side and a BE-3 on the other side.

\- First two flight ready engines have already been built and will be integrated onto Vulcan for a pad hot-fire (this year) after acceptance testing.

\- BE-4 will fly at-least 25 missions before any significant refurbishment.

>>11384808
>intentionally spreading the virus of life to other celestial bodies
disgusting

>>11384490
I know, that's why I was shilling for Bigelow too. Those guys could help expand my conceptual Starship frigate.

>>11384805
Anon, gravity is a major issue on Mars for human health. You can't just hand wave that shit away. However, you can easily spin something in space. You'll be living in caves in both locations anyway.

>>11384822
>T. Butthurt dead world

>>11384824
Induce a point mutation upregulating bone density and they’ll be as strong on Mars as we are on earth
It’s just one gene

>>11384824
>gravity is a major issue on Mars for human health
this is not true. The only problem will be the 0G transit, but once they get to Mars they'll almost certainly be fine.

>>11384824
Where's the paper on that that says 1/3 earth gravity on Mars is worse than 0g in space/moon/etc?

>>11384833
38% is going to noticeable, can only speculate what it'll do to someone actually born and raised there. We have no data, that's the issue.

>>11384824
Muh brittle bone martians is a meme. It's based on experience from negligible gravity environments which have absolutely no barring on a world with a third of Earth's gravity, and even then the rhetoric is behind the times as they literally just realized high load low reps prevents major issues.

>>11384830
>hand waving the post

>>11384833
>>11384840
Sure thing, kid.

>>11384836
It will be 38% less terrible than 0g.

>>11384838
>virgin martian jello baby vs chad spinning colonist

>>11384830
Those people are no longer human and do not deserve human rights.

>>11384843
>not an argument the post

if two starships were locked together, one with cargo and the other with passengers, could you start spinning them to produce some level of artificial gravity assuming the cargo starship has significantly more mass?

>>11384813
>thermal on re-entry
If Bezos wants to launch to space, he will need a reusable rocket. Any reusable rocket must survive atmospheric reentry heat. Its not an impossible thing, heck, its a very possible thing given SpaceX already does it regularly. In fact, its a problem for Bezo as as he hasn't demonstrated an orbital vehicle yet after 20 years.

>fuel
There's no fuel in space, but there's virtually an infinite fuel on Mars for refueling.

>habitable
Mars is the closest body that can be made habitable on dome by dome basis or through underground structure. You can drill underground about 15 meters/50 feet down and you'll get temperature and earth level atmospheric pressure. No such thing can happen in space.

>Thermal management
Space is even worse for thermal management. As well as life support, radiation shielding, etc.

Your argument is stupid. All the problems you listed are 10x worse in space. At least on a surface like Mars, you can have underground shelter, or you can build dome structures, or buildings, etc. The materials are all on the surface within your reach. No such thing is in space. In space, you'd need to haul in multiple asteroids for various types of elements. If you're hauling in asteroids in space, then you might as well haul it in Mars orbit for mining or have it crash land for terraforming/etc.

>>11384850
There are people with this one mutation with the bone density of a grizzly bear and they’re normal
Besides, that’s the response of an untermensch clinging to the myth of human purity to cope with a superior specimen and being ruled by Jewish reptilians

>>11384863
Also the benefit of planetary body over space is you have a 100000000 trillion tons of materials right under your feet.

>>11384851
>It will be 38% less terrible than 0g.
Seems valid to me.

>>11384857
You can spin a single ship to do that too and multiple ships shouldn't pose a problem depending on ship sizes. The problem comes down to where the center of mass is and the radius of the spin for the area the crew spend their time in. The radius needs to be large enough to not cause problem from Coriolis force with the crew. The radius will be determined from where ever the center of mass is to where the crew will be. If the ships are too small then this won't work out well for the crew since they will start getting sick due to terrible Coriolis forces.

>>11384863
>>11384869
That is as hand wavy as asteroid mining is.

>>11384869
>100000000 trillion tons
Also 10^20. Also a tenth of a sextillion in the short scale.

>>11384876
Why do orbital-first fags act like access to actual workable mass is negligible? You think you're going to spin fuel and steel from raw aether in a parking orbit? Primary mass from Earth is precious, even with the best methods. The Moon and Mars are the launching points you need if you're ever going to see even the beginnings of an O'neill cylinder due to what a ridiculous materials hog it is.

>>11384869
>>11384877
>100000000 trillion tons
Mars is like 639,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons.
100000000 trillion is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 I think?
So, that's 15.65% of the planet's mass?

>>11384889
>So, that's 15.65% of the planet's mass?
Yes. I think we would need alot of Sea Dragons to lift that much. Maybe some Sea Dragon Heavies?

>>11384887
Because, we don't want some faggot company making people sick because of the lack of gravity. The company doesn't give a flying fuck and has your world view at hand because, "muh bottom line." Which is why ISS has shitty sheilding too.

>>11384876
>Your argument is stupid. All the problems you listed are 10x worse in space

>>11384892
>>11384887
I really don't see a problem with mining Mars dry and using that to make spinning colonies around the sun. Starting a swarm of colony space stations around the sun is the end goal of the solar system anyway.

>>11384863
>Mars dome
Argument invalidated. Stop consuming popsci/sci-fi art and media. I hope you enjoy your caves.

>>11384901
Not an argument. Colony inside a crater or a cave would be a half dome city. ANY dome structure provides ton of protection against radiation. A walled city also works in similar ways.

>>11384901
It’s far easier with similar results to build big ass domes than it is for you to build the fucking Citadel
You’re the popsci consumer here

>>11384908
Dome caves and domed buildings without windows would be fine, I concede that at least.

>>11384895
I'll take that over magical thinking. In the meantime, reserve your tears over Martian colonists' supposed health issues until we actually have data from the Martian surface.

>>11384899
I don't think anyone's point is that we'll never have xbox-sized space colonies, some people just think you can skip the step where you actually build up the infrastructure for the steps along the way. Mars first.

>>11384917
>It’s far easier with similar results to build big ass domes than it is for you to build the fucking Citadel
What manner of weed are you smoking anon? There's a reason everyone who builds fast & cheaply as fuck doesn't build domes.

>>11384924
>reserve your tears over Martian colonists' supposed health issues until we actually have data from the Martian surface.
I'm making a mug that reads, "Martian Tears," and I will post me drinking it every time news of Martian colonists are reported to have health problems due to lack of proper gravity.

>>11384925
It’s much easier to build a dome on a planet than it is to build an entire megastructure and lift all of it into space, like you’re suggesting

>>11384924
>Mars first.
If there was only 1 company in the world, I'd sorta agree, but Earth has a fuck ton of capable people, resources, companies, governments, etc who could be working on every single aspect of all of this sort of thing. Instead we have pretty much nothing and what we do have is based on unicron farts until proven otherwise. I blame NASA, ESA, and Russia for that level of ball dropping.

>>11384932
>build an entire megastructure and lift all of it into space
Still smoking weed. No one said that.

>>11384932
retard, Bezos could spend .1 percent of his wealth on starship launches to put a space station of this size >>11384776 into orbit over the course of at most 2 or 3 years. The reason nobody has done it is because there's no viable business model for having a space station, not because it's not possible.

>>11384838
You've clearly never read The Expanse

>>11384946
Trash that's not even hard sci-fi.

>>11384946
Fiction is not fact. I've read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy cover to cover more times that I'd care to count and while it makes a convincing argument for how things could possibly unfold, it's still fiction.
Yes, it's plausible that kids growing up under a third of our gravity would be taller and skinnier as well as have bigger chest cavities and lung capacity to make up for it, we still won't know until we've actually done it.

>>11384954
>Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy cover to cover more times that I'd care to count
Oof, I couldn't get past the 1st book because the characters are so fucking insufferable.

>wanting to go to Mars to become virgin tall lanklets
>not wanting to go to a hyper-g space station to become Chad fit powerdwarfs

>>11384958
Not for everyone, I'll admit that.
It's still pretty well grounded in plausible reality without too many asspulls. The theories on society is the most interesting.

https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2020/2/14/21137791/amazon-new-patent-whip-payloads-launch-space-aerial-craft?utm_campaign=theverge&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

>>11384968
Dats crazy. lol

>>11384968
yeet

>>11384968

>>11384988
wtf

>>11384968

>>11384990
ikr

>>11384968
Not to be left behind by the US giants, Europe proposed a new catapult launch system. Pics related, its their new launch system.

>>11385012
Nah, we've got trebuchets at least. That's the old design.

>>11385012
pic related

>>11384951
Then what do you recommend reading mister fat contrarion

>https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1228325869539610627

Static fire done. Launch will be on sunday, feb 16 10:25 am EST due to weather issues.

>>11384960
thanks

>>11384565
The absolute state of British aerospace, before and after Brexit.

>>11385019
Non-fiction.
http://astronauticsnow.com/AstroBooks/index.html

>>11384664
>China is taking steps towards it
In fact, they just announced that they will make a first stage reuse attempt this year! They are designing CZ-8 (Long March 8) to be a Falcon 9 clone.

>>11385041
a falcon 9 clone with BIG HONKING SOLIDS

>>11385039
Got a couple of books on that list and a few more on the way when my local supplier can get their fucking thumbs out of their asses and ship them.

>>11385041
Looking forward to that. I want to see more actual efforts towards making access to space cheaper.

>>11385041
what percentage of the boca chica career day applicants do you think were Chinese industrial espionage spies?

>>11385048
I'm finding them on,
https://b-ok.cc/
as PDFs, mobi, and epub files you can read using Calibre. Some hardcovers are near $1k in price still.

>>11385041
>The Long March-8 rocket is being assembled and is estimated to conduct 10 to 20 launches annually after it hits the market.

>>11385056
all of them, some of them twice

>>11385057
Not a fan of OCR'ed stuff, typically littered with typos from being just auto'ed through. I focus better when I have a physical copy to work with anyway, always did.
But yeah, some of the stuff is ridiculously expensive.

>>11385016
*hearty chuckle*

>>11385064
Yeah, but I try before I buy in every case possible now. There's just too much to waste your money on out there to find a diamond in the rough.

>I focus better when I have a physical copy to work with anyway, always did.
Same.

>>11384968
>>11384993
Gotta get dat fulfillment center staffed somehow.

>>11385058
>Space-mutated corona virus.
I can't wait. Though, it seems like China is pretty much fucked and their space program along with it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHA5Nfg5sCI
Elon needs to hurry the fuck up with this Mars colony thing.

>>11385071
Kek. Amazon's manually operated satellites staffed by wage cucks who go up for eight month long shifts.

>>11385071
kek

>>11385041
>>11385045
>>11385055
>>11385058
Calling the CZ-8 a Falcon 9 clone is basically admitting that you think anything that lands retropropulsively is a F9-clone. The only thing CZ-8 and F9 share in common is gridfins, CZ-8 has a dual-engine S1 with 2 side-boosters that don't detach, nothing like the F9's 9 engine cluster. Also, talking of CZs, the first CZ-7A recently rolled out for it's first launch (pic-related).

>>11385080
I do not like this
how to tether a drone?

>>11385101
Just take solace in the fact it is fake for now.

>>11385080
>"A new life awaits you in the fullfillment center! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!"

Starship de geso

>>11385107
>"compulsory employment opportunities await! Please remain still while our new-employee acquisition drone delivers you to your exciting new life inside The Machine!"

HULLO
https://youtu.be/6txkItycgYQ

>>11385124
That's how 2049 should have started if they wanted proper dystopia.

Landing zone map for next starlink?

>>11385084
Absolurutery dis China rocket is 100% originar China rocket actuarry China invent rockets 10000 years ago!

CRS-13 Cygnus got delayed until tomorrow.

>>11385084
While CZ-8 is not a direct clone of F9, it was definitely inspired by the F9.

>>11385162
That anon is completely right.You can argue similarities in form factor due to similarities in mission profile, but CZ-8 is not a clone.
Also, r-l distinction exists in Chinese. You're thinking of Japan.

>Muh F9 clone
Seriously, this is bordering on calling every car that came with spring shocks after the first car with spring shocks a clone of that car.
There's only so many ways to invent the wheel.

>>11385084
We'll see more gridfins in many future rockets anyways, they're a good move in design space. It's like the eye in nature, a very useful adaptation which will crop up multiple times due to it's utility.

Is there even demand in China for so many launch vehicles?
No one except some South American countries and Africa using their launch services because you can't launch payloads with US components on chinese rockets.

>>11385292
China are building a new space station, and on top of that you have to remember that commie governments don't need a demand to justify spending, they'll spend the people's money and resources to do whatever they please so long as it's in their interests to do so, and it is if only because they don't want to be left behind by their western counterparts.

>>11385292
They're still catching up to 60 years of US/USSR satellite launches for various purposes. As they develop, their own launch needs will rise. If they do it right, they can capture a large share of the future worldwide launch market, substituting domestic components of increasing quality for restricted American components.

>>11385305
>they do it right, they can capture a large share of the future worldwide launch market,
I thought China was excluded from providing launches for most of the world?

>>11385306
>substituting domestic components of increasing quality for restricted American components.
Then get space clients to switch over.
Also, really only the US has problems working with China's space program.
It's just that the US is important enough to space that their restrictions have effects that go beyond them.

>>11385235
It's a clone. Rocket landing is dead end and just a meme. If they were really going for ruesability they'd be building a winged vehicle but they aren't they just want to pretend they have the same toys as the us.

>>11385397
Thanks for weighing in, Cletus.

>>11385397
>Rocket landing is dead end and just a meme.
How so?

>>11385397
>winged vehicle
So an orbiter that would be mostly dead weight?

>>11385397
>winged vehicle
>for reusability
ohhoho, please stop anon. I can only take so much retardation in a day. Wings, good for a reusable craft, lol

>>11385306
Europe wants to be buddies with China/Russia because they want the US to become weaker so France can be the leader of EU. EU countries wants to be buddies with China becase China provides loans and money for those weaker EU nations.

The only ones being wary of China right now are the US/Canada and parts of Asia(india/japan/vietnam).

>>11385402
>much harder
>more dangerous
>less efficient
3 minor ones as a start.

>>11385408
Which is why ESA is partnered with NASA and not China?

>>11385410
More dangerous? Challenger and Columbia disagree with you there bud.

>>11385410
still worth it for the savings (which is what matters at the end of the day)

>>11385410
Yeah, because the shuttle was a fucking paragon of ease, safety and cost efficiency, right?

>>11385412
You are comparing the safety record of an existing historical winged space vehicle with... what exactly? F9 booster landings?

>>11385424
In other words if the STS was a manned rocket booster that landed on its ass it would have been cheaper and safer.

I don't think so.

>>11385410
>>much harder
Depends on how you define harder in this case. Winged boosters are easier to land since they're just a glider, but they're harder to implement in a rocket as they require the entire rocket to be designed around being winged. Propulsive landing boosters are trickier to land, but don't require much in the way of design to accommodate it.

>>more dangerous
Not really. Both winged and propulsive landing boosters would be landing in places far from people.

>>less efficient
No. While propulsive landing boosters need to hold some reserve fuel for landing, winged boosters have higher dry mass overall.

>>11385408
Europe is not a single entity.
Countries like Germany, France or Italy want to be friends with Russia/China because they have economic interests there while countries like Poland or Romania want to be friends with US because for them security is in a priority.

>>11384766
Elysium, but IRL

>>11384892
like this, but with 18m Starships

>>11385411
ESA is partnered with CNSA. The have multiple projects together.

>>11385475
Matter of fact is EU is being led around by Western EU interest which is led by the vocal anti American sentiments. Realpolitiks is the game that the French wants to play.

Are there any Laser com sattilites in the works?
If we’re gonna be traveling long distances, testing high bandwidth communications should be on the to do list

>>11384710
As a former roommate used to say: "Maybe. Definitely. Probably."

>>11385133
>a couple of Discovery missions every 5 years
Yawn. Pick up the pace, NASA.

>>11385482
What the fuck would they even by carrying with that amount of power? Fat rights activists?

>>11385499
NASA is doing that with DSN for the new Mars rover. For Earth, Starlink doesnt need it right now since its Starlink can probably handle few million users without much hit to latency. In the future where they reach >5m user, then they might have to upgrade.

>>11385519
how else would you yeet them out past Pluto in one shot? Starship-class Trash Remover™

>>11385519
Pure osmium.

>>11385519
>>11385559

>>11384769
I like the Slovene's design. So did von Braun.

>>11384445
>So, now that Mars travel is possibly a guarantee, what do you plan on boarding?
So while I do agree that we'll probably go to Mars, what exactly makes it a guarantee?

also, I hope to go one day. Not sure when though.

>>11384578
Are those fins made of cardboard?

>>11384645
Bezos holds the patents and had to sue Musk because of his blatant disregard for intellectual property.

>>11385637
I thought that was just for landing rockets on ships? And that it was determined that the concept was broad enough to not warrant a copy right?

>>11384752
It's more like turning the 12 hour trips to 1 hour ones.

NASA confirmed SpaceX is launching crew first. AND Boeing may have to refly their test vehicle again due to host of issues with the vehicle.

>>11385718

>>11385718
Source?

>>11385755
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/02/14/spacexs-crew-dragon-delivered-to-cape-canaveral-for-first-flight-with-astronauts/

>>11385718
>>11385749
>>11385755
NASA did confirm SpaceX would go first, unsurprisingly. But they said nothing about Boeing; yes, there is a possibility Boeing will have to re-do OFT, but NASA have given no hints in regards to the decision, they will not make a decision until the investigation is completed in late-February.

>>11384766
Space colonies, but Bezos himself already said that he won't live to see it, the short term plan with BO for him seems to be space tourism/mining/research, the Blue Moon lander is pretty much a freighter for rovers/people/materials to bring back from the moon

>>11385771
>Musk will retire on Mars and die there
>Bezos will still not have an orbital vehicle

Whats the deal with SpaceX, what have they actually done? Not what have they talked about doing.

>>11385039
Yeah I'm sure these are some real page turners. How autistic do you think I am?

>>11384824
I'm on board with BOTH ideas and think they should both be pursued (along with Venus colonies, though that's far trickier imo), but Mars gravity won't even be that big of a problem if people exercise properly, and introduce bone mutations, making them stronger in .38 Earth gravity.

>>11385823
>Whats the deal with SpaceX, what have they actually done?
They have...
>made the cheapest access to LEO in the world
>made that rocket reusable, something that hasn't been done since the Shuttle
>done first propulsively landed booster
>dominated the commercial launch market (at least for LEO payloads)
>made the heaviest rocket flying in the US
>that's reusable too
>introduced development practices to space flight that allowed for rapid prototyping
>made the first FFSC methalox engine flying

>>11385823
>Starship, in Boca Chica, Texas
they've built the (then) world's largest trashcan in a field in Texas, flew it across a football field and then left it to rust
they then build the world's largest trashcan but it blew up
now they're building one the same size as the last one

>Raptor
They built the world's most capable rocket engine and then hopped it across the football field strapped to the bottom of the (then) world's largest trashcan
they're working on cranking them out at a prodigious pace

>Falcon 9
They've built a medium lift launcher optimized for LEO (~18 tons?)
They then started cranking them out rapidly
They then optimized their shared first and second stage engines to the point where they were among the best engines in the world
Then they started landing the first stage on a barge in the middle of the Atlantic
They've done this almost 50 times now.
Now they're launching twice a month or so.

>>11385823
First(and the only) private company to launch payloads to space/iss.
First(and the only) company to have reusable rocket, launch and recover from orbit.
Also the cheapest rocket per lb right now, having flown the most rockets since its existence.

>>11385860
>They've built a medium lift launcher optimized for LEO (~18 tons?)
I really wish there's reliable information on what the Falcon 9 can carry to LEO. Most of the sources I can find mix up expendable vs reusable, or don't make the distinction at all.

>>11385880
Cygnus is private, anon, I think they were first to the ISS
just because it's oldspace doesn't mean it's not private
same with the Atlas V and Delta IV for orbit
they've never recovered a rocket stage from orbit, although I guess if you pull out a dictionary Dragon technically qualifies.
It's not only the cheapest rocket per lb it is, I believe, the second cheapest per launch (after Electron)

>>11385854
>>11385860
So basically made a medium lift rocket thats a bit cheaper?
How much of that is subsidies, cost cutting or creative accounting?

>>11385895
very little, it appears
they got a big load of dosh to make it happen at first (from NASA) but they appear to have spent it much more wisely than their competitors

>>11385860
>They built the world's most capable rocket engine

By what statistic?

>I really wish there's reliable information on what the Falcon 9 can carry to LEO

22.8 tons expendable, there isn't an official statistic for reusable capacity but it's around 15 tons.

>>11385895
Falcon 9 qualifies as heavy lift. Falcon Heavy is deep into super heavy lift capability.

>tfw when you have the launch vehicles with the coolest sounding names in the game

>>11385901
>>They built the world's most capable rocket engine
>By what statistic?
Cost per kilonewton, the most important metric

>>11385891
Dragon docked ISS in 2012. Cygnus in 2013.
Atlas/DeltaIV are not reusable.

>>11385913
Vulcans are the most boring star trek race and centaurs didn't even show up in lord of the rings.

>>11385901
a couple of statistics, the ones I find meaningful and enlightening
Price per thrust
thrust per area
thrust per weight (only second best by my estimate but it could be third?)
ISP in-class (hydrocarbon booster engines)

>>11385895
>So basically made a medium lift rocket thats a bit cheaper?
No. They made it substantially cheaper. It beat the Proton in cost effectiveness, while being much more reliable. While the current price is $50M, there was a leaked confidential presentation said that the rocket costs around $30M to make, which implies that SpaceX can go even cheaper.

Also, there's the fact that it's booster is reusable, and economically so. Which is an amazing feat. Reusability would allow for even cheaper and more frequent launches. This is revolutionary in space flight as access to space has been a significant barrier in expanding more into space.

On top of that, SpaceX's methods to develop the Falcon 9 allowed for an astonishingly fast and cheap development that shocked even NASA.

>How much of that is subsidies, cost cutting or creative accounting?
The finical ongoings within SpaceX are currently unknown, but given that their rockets are by far the cheapest for their class AND they maintained that price all while putting in the effort to reuse their rockets is a good sign that their prices are legitimate.

>>11385923
>The financial ongoings within SpaceX
Correction.

>>11385923
$30 million to launch all told, not to make

>>11385895
>bit cheaper
Not just "bit cheaper" but multiple times cheaper.

>>11385908
>A heavy-lift launch vehicle, HLV or HLLV, is an orbital launch vehicle capable of lifting between 20,000 to 50,000 kg

Falcon 9 in expendable mode counts as heavy-lift, in reusable mode it's medium-lift. Also, I wouldn't describe FH at 64 tons in expendable mode as "deep into super-heavy", it's at the relatively lower end of the SHLV scale and is merely heavy-lift in reusable mode.

>>11385929
is that number for Falcon Heavy up-to-date?
has that Falcon 9 bar been updated for $30 million for 16 tons to LEO (Starlink launch?)

>NASA tweet about Dragon 2 beating Boeing in the race has been deleted

Heh, someone is getting their pp slapped for that right now

>>11385938
$30M is internal number for their own launches. For profit generation, $50M is fine for reusable rockets. What's more, Starship will bring the cost down by a factor of 10 or more. Down to under $100/kg.

>>11385948
if it works as well as Elon's predictions (it won't)
it'll still be crazy cheap tho

>>11385952
>it won't
Won't matter. Even if its 5x the cost of Elon's prediction, it will still be the best rocket EVER made and the cheapest and the most powerful. 10x is also a conservative number too. Internal goal is more like factor of 15-20. With factor of 10 being selling point for good profit margin.

>>11384752
Highly perishable or rare and in demand goods is what occurs to me - food, flowers, certain drugs, organs for transplantation etc

>>11385952
>>11385960
According to my (rough) math, Starship would have to cost about $380M per launch to match the Falcon 9 in terms of cost effectiveness. That is about 190 times higher than Elon's $2M prediction. So there's ALOT of margin for error.

>>11385965
you're say I could get my favorite sandwich made in a deli in New York and get it delivered to me in Shanghai while it's still warm? I'm in

>>11384795
It's going to be hella interesting to see what happens once the gravity well issue is resolved. At that point we start needing all kinds of different things and the opportunities will explode. And, I forecast huge volumes of money will pour into emulating SoaceX/BO. Nobody will want to be beholden to them as gatekeepers - and expendable won't cut it anymore when they are lobbing hundreds of tons up each week.

>>11385946
The narrative that Boeing is somehow competitive must stand, would not at all be surprised to see sudden artificial roadblocks for Dragon

>>11385969
Yeah, freshly caught wild barramundi from Australia on your table in London 6 hours later, or less, for example. Might even be able to keep the poor buggers alive in zero G.

>>11385991
>Nobody will want to be beholden to them as gatekeepers
They're not giving themselves a choice. At this point F9 will live out its lifespan without ever encountering a comparable entry from the rest of the industry/agencies. By the time they're dipping their toes into partial reusability SpaceX and (hopefully) BO will be well into the era of full reusability and running the table.

>>11384644
Smaller economy than Italy. Russia is a dead state.

Not sure if old but here's Crew Dragon in EMI Chamber for any interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1jYx4UKvUk&

>>11386031
>Elon's FW

>>11384929
All they'll need is 10 minutes on a centrifuge per day.

>>11386026
I'm talking about the Chinas etc.

>>11384824
>Anon, gravity is a major issue on Mars for human health. You can't just hand wave that shit away.

You have zero (0) data on the long-term effects of partial gravity on human physiology. We have 1g and 0g, that's fucking it. It's disingenuous and plain stupid to assume the effects of Martian gravity over months or years.

>>11386045
I'm sure it will be 38% less shitty than zero G.

>>11386037
>doubt

>>11384752
Military, perhaps.

>>11386050
Except we have no reason to believe the effects of gravity on biology are a linear scale from zero. It's like saying "if I'm supposed to drink 8 glasses of water a day, then 4 is half as bad as dying of thirst"

>>11386050
Nice peer reviewed papers fuckhead.

>>11385929
Nice meme. Here is the actual updated trend.

>>11385913
Vulcan ACES when

>>11385058
China will surpass the US in space within the next two years.

>>11386132
China is quite literally mid collapse.

>>11386140
Coronavirus will help China kill off their old useless boomer population. I wouldn't be surprised if it was entirely intentional.

>>11386171
>w-we did it on purpose
This is why China will fall, they don't recognize divine punishment

>>11386206
Mandate of heaven status: Lost
Chinese government status: Imminent warlords

I'm surprised people still whine about muh regolith shotgun with respect to starship landing on the moon. You guys do know there are basalt flows on the moon? And that if you pick the right spot, the shotgun effect will happen once and then it's just bare rock from then on?

>>11386237
looking forwards to it
hopefully the CIA sees fit to misplace some AR-15

>>11386243
yes, but nobody believes me
even Apollo hit a hard surface after a couple of inches, and that was on regolith
Zubrin is full of shit, once again

>>11386248
>Zubrin is full of shit, once again
What is his problem with SpaceX anyways?

>>11386253
they're not doing Mars Direct
also he hates the Moon

>>11386253
muh mini starship

>>11386256
To be fair if I was Zubrin I would be seething hard over 30 years of being cockblocked.

>>11386313

>>11386256
I hate that mindset that's infected future space flight discussions. "If it's not MY specific master plan, then we're all doomed!". It assumes that only one plan can be done at a time. Why not encourage as many participants as possible? We'll have no idea which plan is going to work ultimately, so try out multiples and weed out the failed ones.

>>11385628
Knowing my country, not just that, but recycled cardboard.
It's actually a pretty cool little rocket, uses a mix of liquid hydrogen peroxide and some rubbery secret sauce stuff. Can be started, stopped and restarted afterwards. Things a regular solid booster can't do. Releases practically nothing but water vapor.
It's just what they plan to do with it that I find uninspiring, fire up nano-satellites. Fair enough, they intend to do it from Europe as the only launchpad there, but uninspiring nonetheless.

>>11386555
>not using a massive yeet machine as your first stage propulsion

>>11386563
What's going to be the next cockamamie idea they have?

>>11386585
1 km tall space-trebuchet

>>11386589
Would be incredibly based tbqh

>>11386585
Someone's going to do a skyhook eventually.

>>11386589
>>11386591
>space trebuchet
Funny enough, that's almost what a skyhook is.

>>11386313
this new season of firefly is looking really good

The next-generation of Chinese launch vehicles

>>11385929

>>11384755
Buzz Aldrin has a long passage in his autobiography about how shitty and gay spaceflight has become in the post-Apollo era.
They flew ppl to the moon and back with a 10 year deadline back then, in the JWST epoch a moon trip at NASA's direction is probably a 50 year wait at least.

>>11387001
*coughs*

>>11385071
>>11385080
>>11385107
>>11385124
god i love this general.

>>11387001
>-8
They even copied the color scheme of SpaceX lmao

>>11387045
It looks nothing like a Falcon 9 and this is just a fan-made render.

>>11386248
What has the Mars Society contributed anyways? The only things I hear from it are conferences or them pushing the latest book Zubrin wrote for him to collect royalties on. At least the Planetary Society launched Light Sail and has that whole congress advocacy thing going on.

>>11387058
Elon/Paul Wooster(among others) are both members of Mars Society.

>>11386990
>>11386319
kek

>>11387044
I was gonna do something with this for it, but I was in a hurry and couldn't be arsed hooking all my gear up.
https://voca.ro/5q1wXnK2l12

>>11386392
It's because the way space flight is handled by governments and such, basically one thing gets focused on while the others are treated as more side stuff, so it always feels like there's only one mission going, which influences the mindset of everything around it, once more companies joins space you'll see a change in the mindset since you'll see way more space flight going

>>11386243
>happens once
Still one too many. Good luck getting back to lunar orbit with sandblasted engine bells.

Now that extremely dangerous life threatening design flaws regarding tungsten incompatibility was discovered in the dragon's rocket fuel piping system is it time we all cheer for Boeing while they quickly patch the minor software bugs?

>>11387151
I'd rather see every astronaut die than see Boeing launch again.

>>11387060
Is Elon still a member? I read he paid thousands for a VIP ticket to a Mars Society conference before SpaceX started to sell his green house idea but nobody took him seriously. And I watched Paul Wooster's recent pressntation, it sounded like SpaceX was the only one doing anythin to go toMars (besides NASA of course) while the rest were mostly bitching about why NASA doesn't don't like this, SpaceX should do that,etc

>>11387151
>minor
Almost destroyed itself kek
>software
If software bugs aren't your thing, Boeing still has you covered with malfunctioning engines, pyrotechnic initiators, and parachutes.

The absolute state of Boeing shills.

>>11387155
Mars Society is a organization devoted to finding solutions to how to get to Mars/live on Mars. SpaceX does the launching, but they're always reading research from Mars Society and other areas of interest. Lot of research/experts have their say in Mars Society.

>>11387151
>tungsten
it was titanium

>>11387135
It most likely won't be a real problem. Lunar escape velocity is 2.38 km/s (5,323mph.) Everything should settle back down fairly quickly. It shouldn't even be a problem for the first ship to land since everything is blowing away from it and there's no atmosphere for vertices.

I AM FORGOTTEN!

>>11387206
Suborbital trash

>moon regolith blasting up during landing
Why not just bring a launch pad to assemble then assemble it in orbit and drop it on the surface?

>>11387164
Boeing is in hot shit, even outside of the space industry.
Their 737 MAX that has been grounded for crashing twice, just had a wiring issue uncovered - that the FAA rules say should not have been installed the way they were.
Boeing literally didn't follow FAA guide lines, and now they argue it'll cost too much to repair all the wires to get up to standard.
When will Boeing go bankrupt, or get a massive probe shoved up their ass to find the internal corruption? Businesses like these need to be shut down.

>>11387201
Sea level raptor ISP in vacuum will be ~350, which means an exhaust velocity of 3.4 km/s

>>11387211

>>11387223
SpaceX built one of these as well, except it looked like a giant trashcan and used the world's most advanced engine

>>11387220
>exhaust velocity of 3.4 km/s
That's right at the nozzle though. Which drops off rapidly with distance from the nozzle . I don't know what the math is for that, but it is the inverse square law type of thing. You'd need to know the distance from the ground to the bottom of the nozzle. Then you can calculate what the actual thrust will be where it hits regolith.

>>11387206
>Engineers for Delta Clipper went to work for Blue Origin
>No Orbital vehicle in 90s, 2000s, 2010s, and might not even in 2020s.
Blue Origin inherited a failure

>>11387153
Anon. You said the same thing twice.

>>11387217
>When will Boeing go bankrupt, or get a massive probe shoved up their ass to find the internal corruption? Businesses like these need to be shut down.

You do know that Boeing is America's biggest aerospace company in America, right? The 737 MAX groundings may have put a dent in their earnings, but they've got their hands in lots of different jars (markets) and are sitting on a pile of money, so the chances of them going bankrupt are zilch. Also, shutting down Boeing would plunge America into a recession (the 737 MAX alone counts for 0.5% of the USA's gross domestic product) and mean completely ceding the extremely valuable airliner market to Airbus/Europe.

>>11387225
Which is sad, because the Delta Clipper did it in 1993.

>>11387229
it's constrained by the body of the rocket and the ground, it won't dissipate that quickly
>>11387240
literally nobody but SpaceX and Blue Origin are even trying on a commercial level
there are a few hobbyists

>>11387242
>it won't dissipate that quickly
Actually, that's exactly what happens. You are used to seeing atmosphere rocket firing. Check out vids of rockets that are leaving the atmosphere and how gigantic their plumes spread out to. It is quite impressive.

>>11387242
>literally nobody but SpaceX and Blue Origin are even trying on a commercial level
>there are a few hobbyists
Too bad. The Delta Clipper was kind of impressive for just this type of maneuver.

>>11387246
ground effects, anon
>>11387249
>kind of impressive
>efforts were duplicated in a few months on a beach in Texas
yeah it's still cool actually

>>11387254
>ground effects, anon
It still substantially reduces thrust per square area unit, with distance from the nozzle to the ground.

>>11387260
but does it affect the velocity of the flow?

>regolith blasting will ruin moon travel!
Uhhh....people forget that meteorite that slammed into the moon recently? It happened during the 2019 eclipse I think. The crater is 30-50 feet wide or something. The rock was like 1-2 feet in diameter traveling at around 38k mph.

>>11387164
Don‘t forget the antenna getting clogged everytime it flies over populated areas.

>>11384707
yeah, the point was nobody had applied software engineering development principles to rocket development until SpaceX

>>11387262
No, no atmosphere remember, it lowers the amount of energy striking the regolith, reducing the digging effect of the thrust. Even if it dug a 10 feet deep hole and didn't expand the plume it won't be a problem for other craft. unless they were parked right near it or inbound.

>>11384707
>it's been the mantra of the software community for decades
Not since the 1990s. Not it is more like, "fail only enough so we can slip in more updates that take away privacy and make up for it because of how powerful computers are now."

>>11387273
we literally only have a few examples of this happening in real life, anon, and every single time the exhaust hit the regolith and cleared out a flat area, launching debris all around the moon

>>11387278
see >>11387263
https://www.space.com/meteorite-hits-moon-during-2019-lunar-eclipse.html
it won't be a problem

>A meteorite smashed into the moon's surface at 38,000 miles per hour (61,000 kilometers per hour) while our lunar neighbor was in total eclipse in January, a new report reveals.

>Observers saw a flash during the Jan. 20 to 21 eclipse, when the object collided with the moon and carved out a crater about 10 to 15 meters (33 to 50 feet) in diameter. It was traveling fast enough to have been able to cross the United States in just a few minutes, but, luckily for Earth, it slammed into the moon instead.

>Astronomers measured a 0.28-second flash from the impact, the first ever filmed during a lunar eclipse. Lunar eclipses happen when the moon passes into the Earth's shadow during its normal orbit around our planet. The moon turns a reddish or orange color, because only sunlight around the edges of Earth's shadow can reach the moon's surface.

>>11387280
meteorite is different from exhaust impingement, anon
look at what happened with the Apollo landers
I'm not convinced that it's going to dig a crater that will be dangerous to land in, unlike Zubrin, but it will be launching debris

>>11387282
a rock making a 33-50 feet wide crater on the moon is going to blast shit all over the fucking place, high and low, yet there's still satellite orbiting the moon and landings that occurred after that

>>11387286
says a man who's never used a hypervelocity impact simulator

>intentionally blast one area with autonomous rocket hops
>wait for the debris to clear
>acquire LZ
the BROOM

>>11387290
>he uses the one that takes atmosphere into account
anon,..i...oh never fucking mind at all, lazy troll

>>11387206
Nope, still remember watching about it on TLC. Shame NASA never saw any potential in it.

>>11385519
youre mom for 2 meters

>>11387292
This is probably the best solution. I bet grant farming NASA will be like, "NO! we need a $10 billion robot drone to land and do it!"

>>11387294
>NASA never saw any potential in it.
Not enough grant farming potential, huh?

>>11387263
One is the Will of Our All Loving Earth(?) Mother while the other is just capitalist environmental destruction for the sake of profits stemming from penile veneration by the old white capitalist patriarchy.

>>11387292
>>11387299
>cut engines X meters off the ground
>soften the landing with rcs thrusters and leg suspension

>>11387299
How about a solar-powered bulldozer, remote controlled from Earth? The lag is only a second or two, that's not too bad, right?

>>11387332
Rocket + extra fuel is cheaper than rocket + bulldozer

>>11387299
>>11387302
I keep hearing this accusation, but is there any evidence for it?

>>11387351
Look at the Senate hearings on SLS/NASA. Look at the house funding demanding they don't use commercial partners and only spend money on Boeing.

>>11387358
As if Boeing is some 503c.

>>11387360
sorry, 501(c)
Either way, they're very much a commercial partner.

Unironically, though, as an American why do I have to choose between Trump and this
>we should take care of our own planet before going to others
dem attitude. Why can't the democrats care about space exploration?

>>11387362
NASA BUYS Rocket from Boeing at cost plus.
NASA buys launch service from SpaceX at firm fixed price.

NASA can buy 555+ Falcon Heavy for the same price of SLS development (before any launch). Once you take launch into consideration, that number may go up to 1000 Falcon Heavy launch.

>>11387358
Well, yes. SLS is a project that is primarily Boeing's responsibility. Is there any evidence that's more substantial?

>>11387371
>buying into the lie that either party gives a shit about space
Significant space funding only exists when it funnels into jobs programs. Honestly starting to think the moon landings were actually a net negative for the progress of space travel as they convinced everyone the government gives a shit and thus spurred decades of complacency

>>11387371
>Why can't the democrats care about space exploration
They see it as a waste of money or liberals call it "welfare for rich people" (also applies to electric vehicles ironically)

>>11387395
I know it's all politically motivated, but at least there's a goal in sight. Landing on the moon again is a huge waste of time, but it's better than turning NASA into a climate research grant farm.

>>11386313
god damn horses are sexy

>>11386563
>10,000 g exerted on the rocket on the end of that arm
>a 6 ton rocket would have an effective weight of 588 kN (60,000 tons-force)
>roughly 1000 bar pressure exerted on the inside walls of the fuel tanks and propellant lines
>needs to be released with millisecond timing in order to pass through the door and not strike the wall
>Also needs a mechanism to almost instantly re-balance the catapult arm the moment it lets go of the vehicle, so it doesn't shake itself apart
>all for a payload to LEO that might be competitive with Electron

Definitely a feasible and worthwhile technology, guys

>>11387371
Both parties don't really care about space flight, and I blame general public apathy. Mention space travel to anyone, even if it's something that has been done and this "real", and they tend to zone out about it as if you're talking about the biography of Zefram Cochrane.

>>11387401
>hated by one side of the isle for actually understanding science and the other side for wanting action on that science instead of billionaire heads on pikes
Politics is fuckin stupid

>>11387340
RC bulldozer is more fun though

>>11387422
is there a mathematical proof defining a bureaucracy's capacity to reform itself? I simply don't understand how a highly partisan system is ever capable of improving its own function as a governing body.

>>11387371
>Why can't the democrats care about space exploration?
Because when whitey is on the moon the shitskins won't vote for them.

>>11387395
I suspect the same but there was no real alternative way with governments monopolizing rocket technology for their own nefarious goals.

>>11387419
this should be posted every thread to shut up spinlaunchfags.

>>11387429
>reform itself
It's like gangrene once it really sets in...

>>11387429
It's psychohistory, you need a "Mule" to shake things up. You need an Orange Man.

>>11387440
the fascination with SpinLaunch isn't because it's a good idea, it's because it's a funny idea

>>11387437
Wasn't the welfare budget 10 magnitudes larger at the same time "whitey" was on the moon? I doubt the welfare budget has shrunk since then. NASA's budget has, dramatically.
Food for thought.

>>11387429
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130916102006.htm

Scale that to large vs small organization. Its the same ratio, most of the time. SpaceX is exception to the rule.

>>11387450
>trying to use factual arguments with people who don't care about facts

>>11387450
A good way to shut up the people who argue "NASA's budget should be redirected to help the poor people" is to tell them that NASA's budget is comparatively only 3% of what the sum total social program budget of the United States is.

>>11387454
SpaceX is too young to have become a fossilized bureaucracy, plus they have a strong leader figure. Give them half a century and see how they're doing. Then throw in some inevitable mergers, and they'll be right up there with Boing, then some new upstart will appear.

>>11387450
i remember reading somewhere that the us army spend more money on air conditioning during the iraq war then the entire budget of nasa per year.
So i can understand the frustration of some americans in this matter.

>>11387229
>Which drops off rapidly with distance from the nozzle
The speed of the exhaust does NOT slow down with distance, only the dynamic pressure per unit area. Every single bit of combustion product will be moving at 3.5 km/s forever until they hit something (ignoring the eventual path curving due to gravity, be it from the Moon or Earth or the Sun).

>>11387450
That line of argument simply is never going to work against people that perpetually want more and might even feel jealous and angry at others who are getting something even if its smaller.

>>11387466
It's maddening, that's what it is.

>>11387460
As long as progress is made every 40-50 years, then all is as it should be.

>>11387460
I wouldn't be so sure, even huge companies like Amazon and Google have managed to maintain a lot of their fail fast mentality despite being gigantic corporations. It's more of a design process than a bureaucratic process.

>>11387490
It's not the giganticness, it's the age. When the original leader(s) fade away, a big company will start to lose its way.

>>11387490
We've kinda seen it happen in fast forward recently with Apple, haven't we? The kind of person that can keep a big ship nimble is a lot less common than one that can just be competent enough to keep it on course.

>>11387521
Same with google. What innovation have they done with android since say, version 4?
Apart from switching from dalvik, nothing. They've fiddled with the UI a lot and done some changes here and there. They're dead in the water.

>>11387419
So use a solid rocket. The other points I suspect they think they've got a handle on too. I don't think it'll work either but I don't think your post is as awesome as you probably do

>>11387371
America is hooked on the two party system meme. Every issue except for defense of the country as a whole is a partisan issue and the parties support this by exclusively taking opposite sides on most questions, logic be damned and demonizing the other one.
To be fair though. Voters are idiots and just roll with it.

>>11387403
>Landing on the moon again is a huge waste of time
Flags and footprints is a huge waste of time. Building a manned base and staying there isn't.

what do you think the first cosplay in space is going to be? Personally I'm hoping for Captain Harlock although I'll personally be shooting for Char

>>11387526
Yeah, I would say we've seen the bloat set in with google. But they still have DeepMind doing exciting stuff and if they can just not fuck that up they have huge innovation potential moving forward there.

>>11387542
Bloat is going to set in there too soon enough. Google is dead set on sanitizing their AI to be politically correct, so it will never be useful.

>>11387526
I still think Android is a shit OS. Everything about it feels so shitty and hacked together - from the UI to the dev experience. I looked at learning Android dev a while back and gave up any thought of that once I saw what a towering pile of crap it is. And it uses fucking Java

>>11387536
This. America needs to get over it's phobia of setting up proper space infrastructure.

>>11387546
It is shit, but at least it's not iOS.

>>11387547
There's so fucking much to learn from how we function in 10% of our gravity, how to minimize resupply requirements, how to best shield ourselves against cosmic radiation using materials found in situ, resource extraction in situ etc etc.
It needs to be done yesterday and ESA, JAXA etc all need to chip the fuck in.

>>11387552
>JAXA
seriously, why doesn't NASA take a Japanese astronaut to the moon with them? I feel like the image of an American astronaut and Japanese astronaut jumping onto the surface at the same time would piss of the Chinese so much it would be worth it.

>>11387564
I was under the impression that the initial intention of the Artemis program was just that, NASA, ESA, JAXA astronauts, all of them together on Gateway and the moon.
But now, all of that is up in the air because we're back to Apollo 2.0 Selfie Opportunity.

>>11387564
That's the plan:
https://spacenews.com/japan-seeks-to-finalize-agreement-with-the-u-s-on-lunar-exploration-cooperation/

>>11387568
>But now, all of that is up in the air because we're back to Apollo 2.0 Selfie Opportunity.

>actually taking the DOA House bill seriously in it's current form...

>>11387597
I know nothing is set in stone, but that's the current proposal. I doubt congress is going to act non-partisan after the clown show they recently put on and just let Trump do as he pleases with the budget he just put forth.
If he wins in November, which he probably will, I'm guessing it'll be 4 years of stalling and fucking nothing.

>>11387597
It'll be pretty based if Japan sends astronauts to the moon before China. I hope it happens because it'd be a pretty big fuck you to anyone who chooses China or Russia over the US just because they don't like Trump.

What would a Ganymede or Europa manned base look like?

>>11387753

>>11387753

>>11387753
Like a moon base with spectacular view and considerably more interesting landscape.
Also quite a bit darker.

>>11387529
>So use a solid rocket
The rocket needs 6km/s of delta V, which means it needs to have a 500 kg dry mass. They want a 200 kg payload, which means you have 300 kg of actual rocket mass budget to work with. That's for a very good solid rocket with an Isp of 250, by the way. Also unless your payload has no maneuvering capability it's gonna have liquid propellants on board, which means the same problems of ultra high internal pressure acting on plumbing will apply.

Cygnus Launch is LIVE on NASA:

https://youtu.be/A5ApQ8k_Gt0

T-20 min

>>11387753
Much easier to tunnel in water ice, even considering that it gets very hard at temperatures so low. Simply apply heat (concentrated solar or nuclear) to soften, then chew it up. Tunnel a cylindrical shaft straight down, buttress with internal supports to prevent ice flow, dig sideways into shaft walls for habitats. Build said habitats with a gap separating them from the ice so they stay warm more easily.

>>11387983
Pretty Aesthetic rocket tbqh.

>that hotmic shoutout
kek. Northrop is my favorite old space company.

>>11387983
they really need to get that hot mic under control

>>11388009
why don't they plan to do this on Mars? If you're going to be in a temperature controlled habitat, why not be surrounded by ice, the one resource that you actually NEED.

>>11388018
Mars doesn't have a lot of ice on the surface, it's mostly confined to the poles, though there may be permafrost on the equator if you go deep enough. That means digging through soil if you're lucky and solid rock if you're not. You could possibly dig down into the ice caps but then you're definitely confined to using nuclear power only.

hot mic on countdown 1

welcome to verizon wireless

>>11387983
>Welcome to Verizon wireless

Obligatory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=139&v=S9Qszi-3uFM&feature=emb_title

wtf was that

>>11387983
Fucking Chad. Chad the Rocket Engineer.

>>11388043
Probably the animation freaking out due to loss of telemetry from the upper-stage.

How does Wallops do it? Even with all their flaws they still manage to maintain a level of professionalism and communications protocol far and above the other facilities.

I could see it.

>>11388013
>Space Stop
Right in the nostalgias anon...

Is SpaceX going to strap starship onto falcons for its first few flights? Or are they also building the BFR now too?

>>11387280
I saw this. Thought I was imagining things but no it was real.

>>11388148
No. SpaceX will launch the early Starships as its own single stage rocket tests They will build the "Super Heavy" launcher to launch the later Starships into orbit.

>>11385084
So what village is this thing gonna drop on next as it stages

>>11388177
The one where a villager shared a Winnie the Pooh meme.

>>11388177
They're probably aiming for one that got hit badly with corona-chan.

>>11387445
based and asimovpilled

>Boeing

Northrop Grumman has invented KTLS:
Kraken
To
Launch
Site

>>11388281
>second stage, first stage, AND fairing recovery
how will falcon 9 ever compete

>>11388281
https://youtu.be/mtyj8yNgzUc

>>11387419
Just attach a similar sized mass to the other end of the arm, and detach both at the same time. One (the launch vehicle) up and one ( the dead mass) down, gg ez.

>>11388374
if you make the other mass heavier you can move it closer to the CoM and thus it will move more slowly
if you make it heavy enough it won't be going fast enough to destroy your slingatron when they separate

>>11388018
Aren't there lakes underneath the surface of Mars though, with the possibility of there being much more?

>>11387403
>Landing on the moon again is a huge waste of time,
It's REALLY not. That's a huge mistake to make to believe that. In the shorter term, it's actually MUCH more important that we go there again and set up a permanent Lunar base, which will in turn, make further space exploration and colonization much, much easier, rather than immediately attempting to colonize Mars. Though we should really be doing both.

God, I hope we don't fuck that shit up.

>>11388392
>and set up a permanent Lunar base
which is not the plan

>>11388397
>which is not the plan
Actually, that is indeed part of the plan.

>>11388400
don't be naive, anon. They already backed down from Gateway, Trump just wants the glory of getting back to the moon. He doesn't care about sustainable interplanetary travel.

>>11388409
>don't be naive, anon. They already backed down from Gateway,
Source?
> Trump just wants the glory of getting back to the moon. He doesn't care about sustainable interplanetary travel.
I completely agree and that's pretty obvious but at least he's trying to get us back and trying to create a sustained presence on the Moon. I don't even like Trump but I do like that.

What are the odds of Artemis ceasing if Trump isn't reelected? Cuz I don't want to vote for him but I want us to, you know, actually go to the Moon and Mars.

>>11388400
They are actively trying to gas that part and turn it into another flags and footprint mission already. If Trump doesn't get back in you can be sure the whole thing will be canned and instead they turn NASA into a climate science observation group.

>>11388414
Guaranteed, since fuck Drumph. Constellation was a Moon mission started by Bush, cancelled by Obama. Same shit will happen to Artemis if it doesn't finish before Trump leaves office. It'll be back to an asteroid mission or just outright cut of funding so more can be shoved into gibs, and you know it.

>>11387541
>is going to be
Sorry, anon.
https://www.space.com/29161-astronaut-star-trek-uniform-space.html