/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11549369
What is this
Is this Boeing's proposal? Are they even trying?

>>11549373
I couldn't find any conceptual images about Boeing proposal for the GLS, so I found the next best thing. Boeing's proposal for Orion.

http://www.astronautix.com/c/cevboeing.html

>>11549369
https://www.docdroid.net/EvbakaZ/glssssredacted-version-pdf
I feel like this goldmine came in too late last thread

>>11549369
>Rockets and capsules in current year + 5
We need to start seriously working with ships. Not rockets. SSTO or we don't deserve to be in space.

>>11549382
>useful Earth-based SSTOs ever
Until you get reborn on a low grav world you're just gonna have to deal with it sweety

>rating proposals as if jumping through government hoops is relevant to dick all

What disgusting manner of government contracting

>>11549380

>>11549380
>>11549400
This brings pure joy

>>11549047
There's also a Soviet approach where you take the SpaceX's proposal and have Boeing do it cause what could possibly go wrong.

>>11549385
Balloon launches Dr.Blackpill

>>11549382
>SSTO
No.
Reusable TSTO is the way.

>>11549459
I'm not super familiar to the Soviet space program, but this is the first I've heard of this.

>>11549481
Holy shit, you can save 5% of your delta V requirements that way! I can't believe no one's ever thought of that before!! With balloon launch, we could open up a whole new paradigm in space flight where current launch vehicles can get an extra few hundred kilograms of payload into orbit per launch, and all we'd need to do is design and build the biggest ever lighter-than-air flying machine by about two orders of magnitude!

>>11549380

>I note that Boeing received the lowest adjectival rating and score under the Mission Suitability factor amongst the four offers while also submitting the highest price.

>>11549380
>>11549543

>I have decided to eliminate Boeing from further award consideration.

>>11549499
Lay off the negativity and musk parroting kiddo.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijae/2012/830536/

>>11549369
That thing is hideous, did Boeing even try here?

>>11549499
Rekt

>>11549560
Pic related is Boeing’s Orion bid from 2011, not anything recent.

>>11549560
What's hideous about it exactly? It just looks like the dad of Starliner with a Soyuz-like orbital module on it.

>>11549498
Well not space exactly, Sukhoi's design bureau proposal for the future supersonic bomber won, but due to bla bla yada yada they had to hand it over to Tupolev, whose own proposal lost, but they didn't like it and remade it from scratch anyways (twice actually because 1st time it sucked too much) before it became what we know as Tu-160

>>11549584
>just looks like the dad of Starliner

That’s exactly what it is, Starliner originated from Boeing’s losing bid for Orion, Lockheed won and Boeing’s design was repurposed for commercial crew.

Thread theme:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4

>>11549485
>t. muskfag

>>11549380

page 20 top paragraph
Additionally, SpaceX could have been clearer in stating its launch vehicle’s performance capability, especially since this configuration has not yet flown and thus, performance margins for lifting its Dragon XL are uncertain.

What did they mean by this?

>>11549863
Falcon Heavy upper stage fairing upgrade.

>>11549382
>SSTO or we don't deserve to be in space.

The problem is the requirements to leave earth's gravity serves no purpose and has no business in space, let alone "deserves" to be there. So we split the vehicle mass into a lifter and dump it. A ship that can never SSTO out of earth can easily SSTO from the moon or mars. Why take the capability to leave earth with you in space?

header tank edition

>>11549903
Not only is it useless excess mass but in reusing the first stage the supposed benefits of an SSTO are completely washed away. No one will ever seriously put forward an SSTO design now that first stage reuse has been demonstrated, outside of discovering magic-tier propulsion.

>>11549939
Second-stage recovery is possible in principle. Engines are engineering marvels, so they ought to always be recovered.

>>11549400

>SpaceX
>5 Weaknesses
>Highest Rating

>>11549932
So, when's this one going to be tested?

>>11550046
early next month?

>>11549963
>Second-stage recovery is possible in principle
Starship

>>11550050
Shuttle

>>11549553
>Proposed LAS can be implemented with the existing off-the-shelf hardware delivering 7kg to low-earth orbit for the 5200USD per kg.
lmaoooo

>>11550026
>no serious weaknesses
>8 strengths
>2 significant strengths

>>11550083
The Shuttle doesn't count as a second stage. Its main engines were firing from liftoff. It just ejected a fuel tank and side boosters.

>>11549369
Even Boeing is copying the suprior Soyuz architecture.

>>11550111
Actually in that regard it was 75% of the way to usable SSTO in 1981.

>>11550121
Sure and every 2 stage rocket is 60% to ssto.....

>>11550121
yes and that made it worse than the TSTO design

Are three-stage-to-orbit vehicles merely a niche created by two-stage-to-orbit launch vehicles being modified by the addition of boosters to increase payload mass or is there some viability to using a three-stage-to-orbit stack?

>>11550189
typically it means that your engines suck and you don't have the ISP to do TSTO

>>11550348
>the F1 engine sucked
excuse me what

>>11550350
F-1A and J-2S would have enabled the Saturn V to put the S-I into orbit instead of putting an S-1B near orbit

>>11549481
That's not SSTO

That's TSTO with your first stage being >a fucking balloon

THE WORM! THEY PUT THE OLD WORM LOGO ON THE ROCKET! I'M GONNA BUY THE FUNCO POP!

>>11550647
The worm is neat. Learn to love the worm.

>>11550647
Congratulations. You've actually managed to become more obnoxious than the strawman you're trying to portray.

>>11550189
Currently it seems what's fashionable now is TSTO with optional kick stages as 3rd stages. Still not convinced SpaceX won't do that with starship.

>>11550684
Starship is bring your own kickstage. Although it would probably be pretty simple to strap a vacc raptor to two tanks and yeet it into the void.

>MFW after reading the Complete eternal BTFO of Boing and the rise of SpaceX

>>11550715
It is beautiful

How long do you think they'll be able to build SN4 with all the undamaged parts they were able extract from SN3 wreckage?

>>11550767
a few weeks probably. a bit more if they want to actual fly this thing this time

>cape canaveral can only support 48 launches a year
are we going to get bottlenecked soon? do we need more spaceports?

>>11550792
Boca Chica about to become Spacetown

>>11549380
>This, combined with the fact it also proposed the lowest evaluated price, leads me to select SpaceX for the initial GLS contract based on initial proposals.
>initial GLS contract
i thought there was only going to be one provider? could boing, snc, or northrop also get a contract?

>>11550820
Yes, but for now there's only one provider since there's no guarantees there'll even be a Gateway to supply.

>>11550820
>i thought there was only going to be one provider? could boing, snc, or northrop also get a contract?

There’s a clause for an on ramp, like there is for commercial crew. NASA could award another contract to either NGIS or SNC, but Boeing have been eliminated from the bidding pool. NASA have chosen not to use the on ramp at this current time.

>>11550825
Retard

>>11549400
>>11550841
Looks like NGIS would be the next choice after this. Poor SNC are never going to make it. Maybe NASA can cut them a cargo mission or two to the ISS.

>>11550854
>Maybe NASA can cut them a cargo mission or two to the ISS.

It’s not like SNC are primarily known for their CRS-2 entrant or anything...

>>11550854
>Maybe NASA can cut them a cargo mission or two to the ISS.

They’ve already got 7 scheduled as part of CRS-2...

>>11550842
noice

>>11549932
Did they just build a nosecone back for SN1 and never use it? I can't recall ever seeing a nosecone on a stack for testing, but there is always one ready to go.

Anyone here tried this show?

>>11550899
Yes, it's pretty good.

>>11550899
>>11550903
No I haven't but I hear it's good

>>11550876
Didn't know that, nevermind then!

THICC

>>11549369
So, next rocket launch should be a Falcon 9 with Starlink satellites on the 16th right? Or am i missing some other launch in these coming days?

>>11551016
Unless China has something scheduled for RUD, yes.

>>11550121
75% of the way to usable SSTO, except it relied on strap-on boosters for 70% of its liftoff thrust and on a giant expendable external tank to store its 'main' engine propellant. To evolve Shuttle into an SSTO, you'd need to add 7 more RS-25 engines to the Orbiter (and remove the boosters), and integrate the external tank into the Orbiter body. That would involve reinforcing that ET and adding a large mass of TPS coating to prevent it from being destroyed on reentry.

Shuttle only got 20 tons of payload to orbit, now add the mass of the structure and engines and TPS to make it an SSTO and it'd probably get negative payload mass to orbit, that is to say it couldn't reach orbit even empty.

>>11550189
The only truly optimized three stage to orbit design ever was the Saturn V in my opinion, which really was a TSTO carrying a slightly over-sized third stage and payload mass. Three stage designs make sense if you're going beyond LEO in a single launch. You can break up any launch to LEO into just two phases; high TWR ascent up and over to get some altitude and escape the atmosphere, then medium TWR high delta V acceleration into orbit. Going beyond that it makes sense to add a third stage, for the third phase of flight; acceleration beyond LEO to intercept target altitude.

Using 3 stages to actually reach LEO (for example staging at 2 km/s, then 4 km/s, then 7.8 km/s, makes no sense, because it's not that hard to design an upper stage that is capable of finishing the job of reaching orbit once it's lofted out of the atmosphere.

>>11550899
>premise: Russian put first man on moon instead of the US
>US response: HEY LETS PUT THE FIRST WOMAN ON THE MOON
>all woman astronaut team
What a massive pile of SJW tripe.

>>11550899
>>11551097
If commies don't put pic as second thing on the moon it's a shitty show.

>>11551097
this
Real life response would be first man on Mars

>>11551097
>US response: HEY LETS PUT THE FIRST WOMAN ON THE MOON
Except that's not what happened in the show. The Russians put a woman on the moon as well and the show focuses on a what if scenario on the ERA bill that in real history was fucking dropped and they made it into a not particularly hidden jab at oldspace and fucking politics ruining space exploration as well

If you're gonna complain, at least watch the fucking show and not on fast forward.

>>11550895
there's two or three ready to go at all times

>>11551121
It was what the trailer stated. Maybe it was an old trailer or something. Regardless, it is obvious fucking shit on a spoon.

>at least watch the fucking show
I'd rather waste my time a shitposting on /sfg/ than watching feces.

>>11551162
Yet here you are, pretending that you watched it.
Actually what the show did was portray how political decisions and backroom deals fucked everyone over and cost the lives of shitloads of good people just so the women could pass a feelgood law to match the Soviet Union putting a woman on the moon by making a republican state vote for the law if they got contracts for a shitty factory that produced sub standard quality parts for the Saturn V that ended in explosions.
But "muh SJW tripe", right?

https://spacenews.com/senators-ask-gao-to-review-fcc-oversight-of-satellite-constellations/

two democrat senators are pushing for a "review" of "environmental" regulation of satellites, saying that starlink is too damn bright

>>11551175
>Yet here you are, pretending that you watched it.
I only watched the trailer. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? I'm >11551097

>But "muh SJW tripe", right?
From what you state it is a tv show about a factory that makes Russian space widgets. Are we even talking about, >>11550899 ??? I mean read this fucking SJW shit:

>With the Soviet Union emphasizing diversity by including a woman in subsequent landings, the US is forced to match pace, training women and minorities who were largely excluded from the initial decades of US space exploration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_All_Mankind_(TV_series)#Premise

>>11551187
It's about the entire fucking space program and society surrounding it. It's alternative history after all.
And it's not the "SJW tripe" you think it is just because it has fucking women in it.

>>11551192
You are such a bitch cuck it isn't even funny. Let them bend you over a barrel with their propaganda then.

>>11551195
Stop replying to me, retard. You've watched a trailer and read a wikipedia synopsis.

>>11551097
>Muh SJWs

Underage b&

>>11550899
No. But I want to after seeing this.

>>11551211
Cringe fanservice

>>11551206
Fuck off back to r*ddit

>>11551216
how many people do you think actually knew that the sea dragon concept existed that it could possibly qualify as fan service

>>11551181
fucking communists

>>11551216
>implying that Sea Dragon can ever be cringe

>>11551181
>oh no! Some dots in the night sky that are only visible around duck or dawn! we must do something even though most people don't see the stars anyways due to city light pollution.
Lame.

>>11551228
they got Sea Dragon wrong, which is pretty "cringe" as the kids say these days

>>11551211
Be warned though, that's basically the only cool scene.
The rest is 60s, feminism, family drama, cold war.

>>11551218
>Muh Reddit boogeyman

>>11551234
>dots in the night sky that are only visible around duck
You mean shotgun pellets?

>>11551240
>they got Sea Dragon wrong, which is pretty "cringe" as the kids say these days

This and the fact that Sea Dragon, an early 1960s paper concept with extremely questionable technical feasibility, is being touted by the show as a 1980s successor to the Saturn V is very cringe. In an alternate reality, the logical successors would be a mix of the Saturn MLV, nuclear tugs and some form of Space Shuttle.

>>11551316
>is being touted by the show as a 1980s successor to the Saturn V
Aren't you reading a bit too much into it? They're lifting heavy shit for a moon base in a post credit bonus scene. Hardly a "successor".

>>11551211
>no ocean for landing on another planet
YIKES

>>11551240
>they got Sea Dragon wrong
At this point, I've given up on Hollywood getting space related things right.

>>11551316
>Saturn MLV
Based. Imagine a Saturn V with the Shuttle SRBs.

>>11551325
At that size, a orbit-to-surface-to-orbit transport can be lifted too.

>>11551097
To be honest that's a big fucking spoiler. The sudden surprise is what makes really sets the tone for the rest if that episode.

>>11551338
Or it could be designed to be viable for landing on surface AND lifting to orbit.

>>11550767
Given that the undamaged section was the most complicated one, not long at all. Two weeks? Bets, anyone?

>friday
i hope there's some based news that drops today

>>11551383
Probably not, but there's that Apollo 13 documentary airing.

>>11551211
That exhaust plume is fucking embarrassing.

>>11551383
How can it be more based than that report which BTFO'd Boing?

>>11549553
He's not negative, you're just retarded.

>>11549846
>t.faggot
You can't just go from multiple stages to one. You're gonna have to master reusability in two stages before finally settling on one stage.

>>11551330
>Saturn MLV
So like SLS but with balls.

>>11551097
Back to /pol/

>>11549846
It's nothing to do with Elon Musk, SSTO's in a 1G, 1 Bar environment are simply inferior to TSTO's. It's all to do with being able to discard the entire dry mass of your booster stage so that the remaining vehicle doesn't have to carry it around. An SSTO can work in much lower gravity environments like the Moon or Titan if you want to avoid the complications of staging all together, but here on Earth you're severely limiting your payload mass range by insisting on dragging a mostly empty vehicle all the way from the surface to LEO.

>>11551383
I mean, hell, >>11549380 was just about enough for the week for me. At this point if we get any more good news I think I'll just be suspicious of it.

>>11551211
Is that one engine bell? Jesus christ...

>>11551495
Yep. Although, the combustion instabilities of an engine that big would probably cause the rocket to instantly detonate.

>>11551495
Yeah and the second stage was supposed to have an expanding engine bell. 7:1 to 27:1 as it climbed.

>>11549380
>As a preliminary matter, I note that Boeing received the lowest adjectival rating and score under the Mission Suitability factor amongst the four offers while also submitting the highest price. Particularly within the Technical Approach subfactor (the most important within the Mission Suitability factor), Boeing’s proposal was the lowest rated of the four offers, with the inadequacy of its cargo stowage design identified as a significant weakness. I further note that Boeing took several exceptions to the RFP and predicated its fixed price on several key
assumptions/exceptions.
>since Boeing’s proposal was the highest priced and the lowest rated under the Mission Suitability factor, while additionally providing a conditional fixed price, I have decided to eliminate Boeing from further award consideration. This offeror’s evaluation results and my assessment thereof, combined with the relative order of importance of the RFP’s evaluation factors, have led me to conclude that Boeing is not competitive for award.
Mmmmm, delicious.

>>11551495
Now you know why Sea Dragon is retarded

>>11551512
TRW apparently Ok'ed the whole fucking thing and said it would work, so we'll never know if it'll work or not. Because nobody is ever going to build a thing like that in this day and age.
Personally, I think they were just government contract farming.

>>11551502
Why is it always depicted as only carrying a single apollo command module? Are they trying to send people to fucking Neptune?

>>11551447
Fuck off plebbitor

>>11551526
Triton colony when?

>>11551526
Size comparison. That was the standard of the day after all.

>>11551525
Antimatter-catalyzed fusion sea dragon will exist in 2300

>>11551526
The upper stage is basically an orbital warehouse or something I guess, the command module just kinda moves things about.

>>11550899
But Russians actually did the same fucking thing in reality. After putting the first man in space, they also went and put the first woman in space just to make sure that Americans couldn't claim that one.

>>11551553
>Soviets
>successful Mars mission
pick one

>>11550842
I keep forgetting those have a bunch of solar panels that fold out too.

russia dropping launch prices by 30% to compete with spacex
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1248636186249302018

>>11551526
Mostly cargo for the moon base, including plutonium

>>11551617
>Oh no, we can't gouge anymore!
>Quickly! Say they're unfairly subsidizing!
Well, that was bound to happen.

>>11550899

Cannot wait for the first Taikonaut to walk on the moon. Truly, the space age will resume.

>>11551617
It's almost as if government ran launch agencies/companies artificially bump up their prices.

>>11551617
I don’t understand why, because both Soyuz 2 ($35 million without Fregat) and Proton ($50 million) are price competitive with the Falcon 9. It’s the reliability (or lack of) which is actually hurting their commercial prospects. For example, last year was the first in 7 years without a mission compromising anomaly for them.

>>11551655
They're not the only game in town for manned launches anymore as soon the Crew Dragon goes off. And while NASA will still be buying seats on Soyuz and Russians will be buying seats on Dragon (or at least they say they will), there's a loss of prestige there.
That's why.

>>11551617
They charge us by the seat at, what was it, ~$85 million?
So they're dropping their per-seat to 60? The price of an entire F9 launch?
Fuck, I hope this decade kills Russia.

>>11551553

First successful rendezvous, and first piloted spacecraft are both US milestones, and the Apollo program also includes first and only manned moon orbits and first humans to leave Earth (or any body's) SOI.

>>11551672
Dragon 2 flight costs $180 million or something like that
NASA pays a lot of money to climb up SpaceX's ass and look around

>>11551553
>First nation to collapse under the weight of the cold war

git good commies

>>11550899
I thought it started strong, I didn't mind the whole feminism aspect, in fact I think it was handled well and wasn't preachy at all. However about halfway through I think it started to get shit and stay that way for the rest of the show. I honestly would not recommend watching it.

>>11551659
>Russians will be buying seats on Dragon (or at least they say they will), there's a loss of prestige there.

The Russians don’t have to buy seats on Dragon and Starliner, just like NASA continuing to buy Soyuz seats is just a gesture to support continued international cooperation. There’s no loss of prestige or sacrifice here. Russia are currently courting Middle Eastern and Third-world countries, offering to train an astronaut and fly them to the ISS as a diplomatic gesture, just like they did with the UAE. These customers will replace America as seat fillers and revenue generators for Soyuz.

>>11551689
From what I've heard, the Russians will use Dragon and Starliner too. I don't know how much they get charged for it though.

>>11551696
the Russians are refusing to use either Dragon or Starliner because they're "unproven" launch vehicles

>https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/a-nasa-analysis-of-boeings-lunar-cargo-delivery-plan-is-very-unflattering/
>New document reveals significant fall from grace for Boeing’s space program
>NASA's acting chief of human spaceflight, Ken Bowersox, wrote, "Since Boeing’s proposal was the highest priced and the lowest rated under the Mission Suitability factor, while additionally providing a conditional fixed price, I have decided to eliminate Boeing from further award consideration."
>"I have decided to eliminate Boeing from further award consideration."
BOEING BTFO
RUSSIANS BTFO

I'm 2m tall. Am I fucked if I wanna become an astronaut?

>>11551755
yeah, you big weirdo

>>11551697
They’ve got a reasonable point there, both capsules are relatively unproven and have had major issues over the last few years.

>>11551709
This same document has been posted dozens of time now, it’s getting a bit stale...

>>11551760
>it's getting a bit stale
just like Boing lmao

>>11551765
Haha...

>>11551755
No, you're fucked regardless. You wont be an astronaut anyway.

>>11551781
Anyone can become an astronaut if they try hard enough.

>>11551755
No. Size limits are only due to the cramped nature of crew capsules. Some can fit people over two meters tall.

>>11551110
Von braun would have been thrilled with that scenario.

>>11551755
The suits are going to be a problem that no space agency will want to deal with because of the extra cost.

>>11551820
Buy lottery tickets. You'll be a millionaire before you become astronaut.

>>11551895
If I was a millionaire then I could buy myself into space

>>11551902
Nobody is flying tourists up right now.
maybe russia when spaceX takes a shit on the soyuz taxi.

>>11551928
The last tourist to fly was on a Soyuz to the ISS in 2009

Spot the helicopter

>>11551902
Exactly. You can try your hardest, spend years getting double masters, and have a very slim chance of being selected. Or you can play lottery and become 100+millionaire and have guaranteeed spot. Its easier to become a 100+ millionaire through lottery than to become an astronaut.

>>11551951
Dragonfly when?

>>11552039
2027

>>11551617
>>11551659
Russians are getting desperate since they pretty much lost all OneWeb contracts (they had 9 of them were planned for this year) and they can't gouge Americans for ISS launches anymore thanks to Crew Dragon. Add the whole pandemic situation on top of this and all that's left is government launches.

>>11551181
>one of the senators is from illinois
>boing is is headquartered in illinois
"If you cant innovate, litigate."

>>11552110
>all that's left is government launches.

Soyuz has a good few none OneWeb commercial launches lined up actually and Russian should be able to sell plenty more at cheap prices, considering they’ve currently got 52 Baseduzes in storage.

>>11552126
I love the wordfilter

>>11552129
Soyuz is pretty based ngl

>>11551983
That’s not going to always be true.

>>11552126
Still, 9 launches lined up gone *poof* hurts the bottom line. They're not running a charity over at Roscosmos.

>>11549932
update

>>11552126
>Baseduzes
The fuck, /sci/ has wordfilters?

>>11552141
>Still, 9 launches lined up gone *poof* hurts the bottom line.

Actually, Roscosmos isn’t the one getting shafted here as the construction of the Baseduzes for OneWeb was all pre-paid, they’ve built a bunch of Baseduzes that can now be used for government launches instead and can walk away with the money OneWeb payed them to build the rockets. However, Arianespace who were providing the launch services through their Starsem program won’t be getting paid, they’ve lost a significant slice of revenue (around half their commercial launches).

>>11552171
all of 4chan has that wordfilter

>>11552171
moot is a faggot and didn't like that /pol/ used söy too much.
Hiroshimoot hasn't figured out how to edit the wordfilters yet I think.

>>11552172
>it's 2020, Boeing is BTFO, OneWeb is dead and taking a chunk of Ariane with it
I would have been laughed at for suggesting a timeline as SpaceX-biased as this one not long ago

>>11552180
>Hiroshimoot hasn't figured out how to edit the wordfilters yet I think.
He probably could do it, but he is putting all his effort in trying to make a profit out of this norwegian amateur astrology forum.

>>11552197
Behold! Norway's Space Program!

Just finished off "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin. Awesome book although a bit dated. Highly recommended. Don't be disheartened if you don't get the more complex chemical details.

>>11549932
how can a hundred people fit in the top bit lmao

>>11551211
>slow as shit main plume
>Verniers fucking SHUT DOWN the moment the main engine clears the water line, as if they aren't there for steering
It's the best Sea Dragon animation, sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't inaccurate shit

>>11552200
Czech's space program is powered by quad dubs

>>11551526
>Are they trying to send people to fucking Neptune?
Sea Dragon couldn't really send anything beyond Earth orbit, bigger doesn't equal more delta V it equals more payload mass with the same delta V budget.

>>11552235
that top bit is bigger than my entire apartment

>>11552209
Zubrin should have been made lord general of NASA decades ago and been given infinite money.

>>11552400
Infinite money doesn't work. What you need is an infinite drive/motive, like Elon

>>11552400
Imagine the kind of cost-plus contracts with an infinite budget...

>>11551427
Nothing like the sls, the sls is just the shuttle minus the retarded orbiter

>>11552472
Zubrin would be the cost plus contract annihilator, he is always seething about it.

>>11552172
Based Russians taking the money up front

>>11552400
>>11552209
He needs to get himself out there more.
He is an effective enough science communicator. That is, he can explain complex concepts to an average person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuVJSc4P-DI

>>11552400
Zubrin has spent 4 years bitching about Trump on Twitter
He’s deranged

>>11552536
Zubrin has spent his entire life bitching about dumb shit and being ignored

>>11552547
O R A N G E
M A N
B A D

>>11552556
this but unironically

>>11552556
someone disagreeing on one point on which reasonable people can disagree with you does not invalidate his other points, nor can it be used as an argument for such.

>>11552597
Anything is possible on the internet!

>>11552599
cheers

>>11552039
Not soon enough

>>11552556
Senile racists are bad, yes. At least Orange Retard benefits aerospace in some ways.

>>11552547
It's a sad fact that Zubrin's Mars Direct mission, proposed waaay back in the 90's, will never happen. His methodology and mission architecture is echoed at SpaceX, specifically in terms of how Starship will work, but rather than immediately embracing Starship and the plan SpaceX is working towards, he was actually pretty dismissive of the idea of using Starship (until he was able to bring his gripes to Elon, and had Elon shut him down by simply saying "Then that's what we'll do" when Zubrin showed him the calculations for how much solar panel area they'll need to be able to refuel each Starship).

Basically, Zubrin was like Von Braun 2.0, geared towards accomplishing great things with minimalist architecture instead of with unlimited funding. The problem was that Zubrin didn't exist at that special point in history when governments actually wanted to accomplish great things, and instead wanted to settle for keeping the status quo and use space as a political mire instead of a new frontier.

>>11552688
also he's a big whiny baby who's been shit on for the last forty years because he's a big whiny baby covered in shit
it's really unfortunate

>>11552688
>until he was able to bring his gripes to Elon, and had Elon shut him down by simply saying "Then that's what we'll do" when Zubrin showed him the calculations for how much solar panel area they'll need to be able to refuel each Starship
I love that moment. That kind of "then that's what we'll do" attitude is exactly what space flight needs right now.

>>11552536
It would be interesting to see what would happen if Trump of all people decided to clean out NASA and extended an offer to Zubrin to take charge of that effort with minimal oversight so long as shit gets done in a timely manner.

>>11552718
Why would he do that?
How would he have the authority to do that?
What type of meth induced fantasy do you live in?

>>11552718
Presidents do not have the authority to unilaterally fire people or micromanage bureaucracy
Literally everyone at nasa is guarrenteed to be a democrat anyways
All of DC is democrats or never trumpers
How the hell do you think a professional grant chaser like zubrin can manage a bureaucracy either

>>11552730
I'm just entertaining a hypothetical, what would Zubrin do if an executive he vehemently hates offered him an opportunity to put the considerable resources of the US space program where his mouth is? Set aside for a second that (unfortunately) Trump can't just fire NASA's incompetents outright.

>>11552741
Probably... look at von Braun. Anything to realize his dream.

>>11552737
Its always Democrats who think that only their world view exists and is harbored by others, or is right.

>>11552737
>Literally everyone at nasa is guarrenteed to be a democrat anyways

Except for the administrator who was literally a Republican politician. Also, I don’t see what difference people’s political leanings make, when no partisan divide exists at NASA. The new chief of human spaceflight, who’s in charge of CC & Artemis was a significant Clinton donor and registered Democrat, the current administration still hired him.

>>11552741
He'd jump at the chance to take the reigns, and he'd justify working for a guy he hates by making a comment during a press release that "While X and I don't often agree on things, we do see eye-to-eye on one issue, which is the issue of the trajectory of this countries space program" etc etc.

>>11552737
Kek why would a NASA employee vote to cut NASA funding and scrap NASA projects.
Left Wing=Smart Right Wing=Dumb is a false dichotomy.

NASA was founded by a Republican president after all.

>>11552781
>NASA was founded by a Republican president after all.

Half a century ago

>>11552781
>Kek why would a NASA employee vote to cut NASA funding and scrap NASA projects
Zubrin hates the bloat in the human space program. He hates SLS, he hates Gateway, he hates giant super complex mission architectures. For better or worse, he's convinced that we can basically scrap everything and rely on Falcon Heavy rockets to start doing manned Moon and Mars missions within ten years of starting the project.
Zubrin would have a 100% chance of scrapping VASIMR, as another example.

>>11552792
>Zubrin would have a 100% chance of scrapping VASIMR, as another example.

Even hypothetically, Zubrin would have 0% chance of scrapping anything because Congress holds the purse and has prevented such cancellations time after time.

>>11552656

Trump is not a racist. He has never been and will never be one.

>>11552792
He's not wrong about that, FH is cheap as fuck even in fully expendable mode, and the extended length next generation fairing would allow it to hoist some seriously beefy equipment to at least LEO. Using multiple modules it could easily construct big space stations or large spacecraft for Moon shots, Mars shots, a Venus flyby, large probes for exploring the outer planets or the belt. A lot of that would be reliant on the US government and it's regulatory machine not being fucking autistic about nuclear energy sources though.

>>11552792
Nasa is simply not allowed to do the things that made Spacex work
They don’t build shit in-house

>>11552797
Okay, but that doesn't mean he's going to do any pulling for the VASIMR team whatsoever, and if he's pushing for an architecture that minimizes risk by minimizing flight elements there won't be as much funding going towards those other distraction technologies.

>>11552805
>Trump is not a racist. He has never been and will never be one.


In the 70’s, Trump suffered a lawsuit because he had an informal racial discrimination policy at his properties. Potential black tenants were incorrectly told that there were no vacancies so that they wouldn’t move in. Lying is bad and you’re engaging in lying.

>>11552827
Deranged lunatic spotted
Lots of places were sued because they didn’t want bums moving into nice apartments
This is why literally tens of millions of people have fled American cities

>>11549382
What kind of fuel would offer the specific impulse required to reach LEO with a re-useable SSTO and any meaningfull payload?
>inb4 nuclear
Not going to be a thing in LEO or below.

>>11552835
I wonder if you could do it with methalox.
The main thing holding back ssto's right now is everyone's retarded obsession with hydrolox even though its the least fucking dense.
I suspect an airbreathing ssto using methalox could do it, and you could probably even use current engines.

>>11552835
It’s just physics
Don’t matter what sorta fuel
Two stage to orbit will always double or triple the payload in an idealized vehicle
In reality ssto designs never would make orbit

Gotta remember no one goes to minimum LEO either

>>11552848
>The main thing holding back ssto's right now is everyone's retarded obsession with hydrolox even though its the least fucking dense.

It’s also the most efficient and physically lightest propellant, which is important when you have to squeeze as much performance as possible out of a single stage. There’s a good reason why all the SSTOs from X-33 to Skylon use it.

>>11552809
>large probes for exploring the outer planets or the belt
Falcon Heavy can send more mass to any object in the solar system than any other launch vehicle that has ever successfully flown except for the Saturn V, which obviously was never used for such a purpose. It's funny, despite having a significantly smaller volume overall and way less efficient engines on every stage, FH gets more payload to anywhere than Delta IV Heavy, which really goes to show the meme status of hydrolox propellant.

To put numbers to the words, FH in expendable mode can put a bit over 6 tons on a direct trajectory to Jupiter, a bit under 6 tons to Saturn with a Jupiter gravity assist, 1.5 tons directly to Saturn, and almost 1.5 tons directly to Uranus. To put those numbers into perspective, the Cassini-Huygens probe had a total wet mass including payload adapter of 5.6 tons. Falcon Heavy could launch a modern Cassini-style mission to Jupiter with no inner solar system gravity assists required, and it could follow up with a second launch in the same launch window of a ~6 ton lander mission for one of the moons of Jupiter. That's something you DEFINITELY can't so with SLS, even if you're willing to spend the $4 billion on two SLS rockets, vs $300 million for two fully-expendable Falcon Heavy launches. What's even better is that for another $300 million the next year you could buy two more expendable FH launches and send two more 6 ton landers to Jupiter and get a surface probe on three of the big four Jovian moons (leaving Io alone because the radiation environment there makes even unmanned exploration nonviable until we can afford to put all the electronics inside a ten ton water tank shield and still be able to shove that thing around the solar system.

>>11552848
Density isn't the main issue for SSTOs, specific impulse is.
And it's hard to beat the specific impulse of hydrolox with a chemical rocket.
>>11552860
SSTOs have usefull scenarios, but these tend to be not on earth.
As an example getting from the lunar surface to low lunar orbit would be one scenario.
As of now, two stages for LEO and three stages to go beyond that are the most practical.
>methalox lower stage
>hydrolox 2nd stage
>ion 3rd stage for unmanned
>hydrolox 3rd stage for manned
Seems to be the best combination for flights reaching beyond earth orbit.

>>11552848
Probably, it would just have a much higher dry mass fraction and a much smaller payload. You'd probably need to make a good chunk of it out of aerospace materials too. COPV tanks, composite skin with an aluminum skeleton or something like that. Consider that Venturestar is almost as heavy as Starship even using hydrolox propellant (1 million kg even compared to Starship's 1.3 million), it's not quite as tall but it's enormously wider, having a 40m wingspan which is mostly it's body. Venturestar's hypothetical LEO payload is only 22 tons, it's upstaged by Falcon 9 (NOT Falcon Heavy) who's LEO payload is 25 tons. I think it would be generous to say that if a Methalox burning SSTO was built with a wingspan of say 40m like Venturestar but a height of more like 50m akin to Starship, it might possibly have a 30-35 ton maximum LEO payload.

This is assuming it's made of the same light materials as Venturestar, if you were to make it of a more robust material like Starship's steel, I wouldn't be sure it could get much of anything besides itself to LEO.

>>11552871
SSTOs would work on literally every other body in the solar system (with ground to land on) except for Venus which I’m not sure you could launch anything off of

>>11552871
Even on other solar bodies two stages would be better, it’s just there are no people out there to integrate vehicles yet

>>11552866
> C3 (km2/s2) from earth to get to various planets : Mars 12, Jupiter 80, Saturn or Uranus 147. To Pluto (with its orbital inclination) needs about 160–164 km2/s2.

>>11552877
How do you get ~10 km/s of delta V out of a single stage with a high enough thrust to weight ratio to launch from earth fully fueled and with a sufficient heatshield?

>>11552890
At some point the slight gain in efficiency isn't worth the additional complexity.
(And on realy light objects the additional engine would weight more than the fuel it would save)

>>11552864
>It’s also the most efficient and physically lightest propellant
Physical lightness doesn't make sense, you mean density. Ironically, low density is the exact opposite of a good thing, because it means to store and equal mass of propellant you need a bigger, and thus heavier, tank.

>>11552835
>>11552848
Single stage makes the math easier, so I'll give it a shot for methalox and hydrolox, methalox first.

We need about 9.5 km/s of delta V out of an SSTO vehicle in order to reach a 300 by 300 km low Earth orbit, which is really the minimum workable orbital altitude. I'm going to assume the engines involved are over-expanded at sea level to about the same degree as the RS-25, which means they will compensate for altitude and get near to ideal vacuum expansion for better efficiency. I'm also going to assume a 10 minute burn from ignition to shut down in orbit, and I'm going to ignore thrust to weight ratio requirements (they will be high for the engines in either case, just understand that it's another problem to solve).
The methalox SSTO has a sea level Isp of 328, and a vacuum Isp of 370. To avoid doing calculus I'm taking the average of 2 minutes burning at sea level and 8 minutes of burning in vacuum to find the average stage Isp during the launch, which works out to 361.6 seconds. Given this Isp and the 9.5 km/s dV requirement, the vehicle needs to be 93.5% propellant by mass sitting on the pad. For a 1000 ton vehicle that leaves just 65 tons for both structure AND payload combined.

Working the numbers for hydrolox isn't much better. Average Isp of 435.04 means the vehicle needs to be 90.5% propellant by mass, naively an improvement, but those tanks are going to be much bigger, and there's going to need to be additional things like insulation which are going to add weight. Picture the Space Shuttle ET and realize it only contained about 733.5 tons of propellant with a 26.5 ton dry mass, and no thermal protection system or wings or engines.

>>11552892
Sorry, I meant to type “aside from Earth” as well.

>>11552899
>Physical lightness doesn't make sense, you mean density. Ironically, low density is the exact opposite of a good thing, because it means to store and equal mass of propellant you need a bigger, and thus heavier, tank.

The heavier propellant makes it harder to attain a high exhaust velocity, which reduces Specific Impulse. Specific Impulse and Delta-V are correlated 1:1; the same rocket with the same fuel but 15% higher ISP engines will have 15% more change in velocity for the amount of fuel onboard.

>>11552899
Chipping in on the methalox SSTO, Starship as an example is ballparking 132 tons of dry mass containing about 1300 tons of propellant, for that SSTO to even reach orbit it would have to be half Starship's weight dry, but it couldn't possibly be much more than 30-ish% smaller to contain the necessary 935 tons of propellant. If we assume the entire thing is made out of 100% aluminum I suppose that could work, aluminum is about 2.9x less dense than steel so if we were to convert a Starship to aluminum it would weight about 45 tons, but half of it's body will need to be covered in a TPS which will add significantly to it's weight. Shit I can't imagine a payload any greater than a few tons.

>>11552871
>Density isn't the main issue for SSTOs, specific impulse is.
Don't fall for the meme, my friend. Specific impulse is important but not everything when considering performance. In the case of SSTO vehicles, you're obviously trying for a reusable vehicle, which means needing to survive reentry and land somehow, which means landing gear and TPS of some kind, which adds mass. Specifically the TPS mass will scale up in step with the tank size, and if your more efficient propellant mixture is also 1/3rd the density (hint) it means that your mass fraction takes a huge hit and suddenly your performance can actually go down, unless you scale everything up to a ridiculous degree in order to take advantage of the fact that TPS thickness doesn't scale with vehicle size, reducing the % TPS mass to total mass ratio, at the cost of needing to make a minimum 10,000 ton wet mass hydrolox monster.

SSTO is a stupid idea for Earth launch not just because it's hard, but because it doesn't even follow that a reusable SSTO would actually save us any money. Shuttle reused its main engines, but managed to have those engines cost millions per launch because of how much work they needed. Meanwhile as far as we know Merlin 1D engines require no work at all before being re-flown other than inspections. The entire Shuttle orbiter required thousands of hours of inspections looking at every thermal tile and every join in the aluminum frame, because everything was designed to be as light as possible to the point that the tiles cracked if you held them the wrong way and the frame was in danger of fatigue cracks forming from normal flight conditions. Every problem with shuttle could easily be magnified with any SSTO design.

The real trick to lowering space access costs is to make reuse easier, and to reuse everything, regardless of the number of stages. The ideal launch vehicle for Earth is a two stage to orbit rocket, so we should just focus on that design and leave SSTO for Mars.

>>11552911
Okay, so did you look at the math I did or what? SSTO with methalox is possible, and you can do it with a vehicle that is 1/3rd the size due to the increased density, meaning you get a 2/3rd reduction in dry mass FOR FREE. You also don't need any insulation for your propellant because methane isn't any more cryogenic than oxygen.

Hydrogen is 15% more efficient and results in more than twice the dry mass. Isp is only part of the delta V equation, of course if you assume the same mass fraction hydrogen wins every time, but if you consider the real world engineering issue of having to store a propellant that is 1/7th the density of methane with 3x the energy per kilogram (effectively a 50% reduction in stored energy per unit volume), you end up needing much more structural mass and your higher Isp gives you much less performance.

For expendable rockets this isn't so bad because they don't need to survive reentry. However, for reusable rockets, having twice the required volume for the same performance means you need TWICE the heat shield mass, which means your hydrolox vehicle actually gets LESS payload to wherever.

>>11552922
Jesus Christ imagine having to make a tank to contain and cryocool that much LH2 at high pressure. Oh and of course it's got to be a specially molded tank too because normal spheres and cylinders would leave precious internal volume wasted that could have been used to cram in more propellant. Of course they'll have to be COPV tanks too to absolutely autistically minimize dry mass as much as humanly possible while keeping such a giant hollow space from imploding under it's own weight with minimum structural support.

>>11552945
I wasn't actually paying attention to your math, which was my bad. Regarding your percentage of dry mass, you're really up a creek trying to get that kind of mass fraction out of Hydrolox; the only hydrogen stage in the world with a 90% mass fraction is the Centaur upper stage, which uses stainless steel balloon tanks to achieve its best-in-industry mass ratio. Most hydrolox stages only have an 80% fuel ratio.

>>11552917
>aluminum is about 2.9x less dense than steel
This is true, but more relevant is the fact that aluminum has about 2x the specific strength of steel. One could easily imagine a material 1/3rd as strong but 1/3rd the density of another material, and both would have the same specific strength. Basically what I'm saying is, if you build Starship with the exact same structural strength but out of aluminum, that structure would weigh about half as much (not taking into account the stiffness increase due to the increased wall thickness). However, you'd also need a bunch more weight in TPS, because you'd need to add it to the leeward side and thicken it on the windward side to protect the heat sensitive aluminum. Titanium doesn't have as much specific strength as aluminum, but it would result in about a 17% reduction in weight with pretty much no additional TPS mass required. It'd also massively increase construction costs and complexity though, because it's an absolute nightmare to weld.

>>11552946
Sounds like a 20 billion dollar program that never finishes and they quietly admit it can’t reach orbit after 12 years

>>11552965
You also need more structural strength in the aluminum at the operational temperatures of the vehicle than you do with steel, because stainless' strength increases markedly as the temperature drops (like when the vehicle is standing on the launch pad or in booster flight), and is retained longer as the temperature rises.

>>11552969
$20 billion program that produces a single sub-scale prototype that flies but falls short of several vital performance points, and a single full scale tank that took three years to construct and crumples during testing, requiring a full year of redesigning with a different welding technique and new materials.

>>11552969
>>11552977
Worth remembering too that the X33 for example wasn't even a full scale vehicle, it was a halfscale of Venturestar. Contemplate the absolute nightmare of X-33's multilobed COPV tank but with doubled dimensions.

Hydrogentards should be executed by methane rocket engine test stand. In fact we should execute all death row criminals by rocket engine.

>>11552700
I mean I'd rather spacex just smuggle a reactor to Mars and not tell anyone instead of use solar.

>>11553001
Hydrolox has its place. It's a bad meme for liftoff stages though.

>>11552877
Venus might be the only place balloon launching makes any fucking sense.

Saturday, April 11 2:35 PM EDT
NEXT GIANT LEAP
Shitpost Starship Mk. II will carry Pepe Gagarin (pictured) on a free-return to the moon

>>11553022
The whole "no serious atomics in space" may just be a detour in space flight, but what I feel is more important is that SpaceX takes obstacles in stride rather than letting it stop them. They don't buy into the "space is hard" mantra which restricts space flight.

>>11553037
Holy based.

>>11553037
Kek bless you.

>>11553026
But does it actually have a place in a sane cost conscious space program?

>>11553050
It could have a place for Moon ISRU. On the Moon, it's easier to make hydrolox than methalox. The boil off wouldn't be a factor for long term stationary storage.

>>11552874
I wonder if it'd be possible to drop a lot of that TPS mass when plasma reentry protection becomes a reliable enough thing. That could make a big enough difference in craft mass to make the whole thing worthwhile.

>>11553079
What do you mean by plasma reentry protection?

>>11553079
Like a magnetic shield? There are more problems with that than it solves, and feasibly it wouldn't weigh any less

>>11553084
Some meme bullshit that doesn’t scale and massively increases complexity I assume

>>11552899
Nice job man.
But desu I think it gets a lot more interesting when you bring in air-breathing engines. I still think that something like skylon but using methalox instead of hydrolox could actually do it with some pretty good margins.

>>11553050
Earth's Moon, but also the outer solar system moons, where it's more convenient due to lack of abundant CO2. The exception is Titan, where you only need to make oxygen and the methane is all but free.

>>11553079
>when plasma reentry protection becomes a reliable enough thing
If, not when, and also what the fuck are you talking about?

>>11553103
It's going to have a lot of dry mass once you leave the atmosphere, the superchiller is quite hefty and runs off of cryogenic helium which doesn't directly participate in the operation of the engine, making it yet more dead weight. The vehicle is going to spend the majority of it's time burning in vacuum, not in atmosphere, which means most of the time the engines are running it will be wasting energy dragging along the air breathing components.

>>11553084
>>11553091
>>11553093
>>11553114
https://phys.org/news/2009-11-superconductor-magnet-spacecraft-shield.html
I heard about this years ago, but re-reading it now its a bit less practical than I remembered.
Although, you could potentially use any excess propellant left-over to cool the superconducting coil if its made out of a HTS.

>>11549369

>>11553136
Gonna press X to doubt on that one. Seems to me the energy required to deflect mach99999 plasma over the surface of a large vehicle would be fucking huge and how are you going to power it anyway? No way any kind of battery is going to meet the energy density required.

>>11553148
Brayton cycle using the heat generated from passing excess propellant through the skin of the spacecraft. On the plus side, also reduces the strength of the magnet needed ;)

>>11553103
Problem is, that still only gets you a few minutes of high performance, and the majority of the delta V comes from closed cycle rocket propulsion. Remember, Skylon's super-advanced meme engines only work in atmospheric-oxygen-burning mode up to mach 5.5, and orbital velocity is ~mach 23. After they switch to closed cycle mode they aren't doing better than 450 Isp, optimistically, so in terms of overall delta V budget you're only helping yourself a little.

>>11553136
>any excess propellant left-over
If you're doing SSTO there won't be any leftover propellant
Remember, if this magnetic shield weighs more than a traditional passive thermal shield material would, it's useless for SSTO.

>>11553158
This would do exactly shit-fucking-all to reduce radiative heating from the bow shock region onto the skin of the vehicle, and therefore would require a physical heat shield anyway. Literally useless meme technology.

>>11553037

Do you need thermal protection to perform a Mars entry?

>>11553305
yeah

>>11553305
From interplanetary speeds, definitely. From low Mars orbit speeds, yes, but not a ridiculous amount. In fact regular stainless steel could probably withstand a Mars entry from low orbit, no problem.

>>11551697
At least the Soyuz abort systems are proven!

>>11553233
Did he died?

>>11553037
Based 4chan space program

>>11553037
Jenkem powered methalox?

>>11552400
>>11552533
>>11552688
He is just an random engineer who happened to get media coverage and it got to his head.

All he do is claim Mars could be colonized right now, suggest suicidal & short-sighted way to get there and pretend the astronaut will 'eventually' get the tech to live there and prosper.
Meanwhile, other smarter, long term, more reasonable, and safer plans plan to get to Mars or expend human civilization in space are mocked as being bloated anti-space mismanagement.
Project like MARS ONE was just an attempt to guilt-trip people into financing Mars colonization else pioneers dies. At least SpaceX want a fully reusable cargo spaceship first. Only retards argue against it because "it take longer".

Proper space exploration take time, yes we should be doing far more than we are doing right now. But we should be building a proper infrastructure with either superheavy-launch reusable spaceship or at least spacedock to assemble interplanetary tugs and so any new technology can be tested and sent everywhere faster.

If you claim the survival of mankind is your priority, stick to it and create a plan that maximize efficiency, don't go for the cheapest plan that let you put a boot on Mars and pretend you got anything done.
I'd have more respect for anyone who manage to get a spacedock in orbit than for any retard who plant a flag on Mars.

>>11552866
Bruh, you know there is literally such a mission baselined on SLS with the ESA? (okay not Jupiter primarily but Uranus and Neptune)

Your mistake is you're using the broke-ass Block 1 when doing your comparison, which nobody but Europa Clipper's ever gonna use for outer solar system science. LUVOIR, Origins Space Telescope, and the aforementioned ice giants mission all baseline SLS Block 1B.

Link to the ESA-NASA Block 1B ice giants mission:
https://sci.esa.int/web/future-missions-department/-/61307-cdf-study-report-ice-giants

>>11552866
>>11553859
Forgot to add the coolest mission that literally cannot be done by any other LV, ever™: Interstellar Probe

This mission proposal is so goddamn hardcore that not only do they propose putting a kickstage on top of SLS, but then they put ANOTHER KICKSTAGE on top of THAT.

Weird question, but is there any data out there for the long term stability of different lagrangian points in the solar system, specifically those between Jupiter and its moons? I'd imagine they're rubbish, but it'd be nice to get some confirmation.

>>11553869
actually I just thought about it and Saturn has some trojan moons that seem relatively stable over long periods, so then again maybe not?

>>11549369
https://youtu.be/I70r6moDYkY

Space? where? between your ears?

>>11553877
fuck off back to >>>/x/

>>11549369

>>11551636
same
china no1

>>11549369
NOT ENOUGH STRUTS

>>11553820
This. The original soviet plan of "slow and steady" exploration they had before the moon race (starting with a Venus flyby on a LEO-assembled spacecraft) strikes me as perfectly rational. Too bad people need bread and circuses to do anything, and flag planting happens to be the perfect circus. The pissing contest is inevitable, but the fundamental part should continue in background somewhere, otherwise you won't have anything to stand on if you want to piss higher than your neighbor.

>>11553414
Did you miss the recent kino abort test with the falcon 9 and dragon 2??

>>11551659
Rogozin already said they will use Dragons too.

>>11551655
>and Proton ($50 million) are price competitive with the Falcon 9
Proton manufacturer Khrunichev basically killed themselves (or rather, got disintegrated due to corruption, mismanagement, and the attempted transfer of the production from Moscow to Omsk). Besides, they are trying to replace it with Angara, which is worse and not price competitive at all. Forget about ILS and Khrunichev, you'll probably never hear about them anymore in the commercial sector.
>Soyuz 2 ($35 million without Fregat)
A different class vehicle. They aren't competing with SpaceX, they are competing with new microlaunch providers who might want to scale up in future.

>>11552899
Don't forget that a 300 km orbit without any delta-V left is kind of pointless.
>can't even dock with ISS
>can't go anywhere
>orbit decays quickly
And an SSTOs efficiency gets worse with higher DeltaV requirements.
Also over 90% of fuel by mass isn't reasonably possible with a vehicle that has to have thermal protection to re-enter earths athmosphere.

Not a Musk-fanboy, but his concept with two re-useable stages makes sense on earth.

>>11551697
Nice asspulling, they aren't refusing anything.
They probably won't use it until they are proven though, and it makes total sense. NASA was reluctant to use Soyuz-2 in manned launches for the same reason, that's why Soyuz-FG has been made

NSF for quality posts breaking events down analytically with input from actually intelligent people and a FUD/shill free friendly chat zone

/sfg/ for rabid shitposting and boing btfo memes

>>11552965
Wasn't the point of using a certain stainless steel alloy in starship that it gets ridiculously strong at cryogenic temperatures to the point where it's getting close to car on fiber in therms of specific strength?

>>11549382
You're welcome to work with ships instead of rockets, buddy. Noobody's stopping you, ships are cool.

Meanwhile, SSTOs make zero sense in real world. They fight their own mass on they way to the orbit (reusable ones also fight their own energy on their way back), instead of discarding most of the mass mid-flight while it's easy.

>>11551655
You're talking about all Russian launches. Soyuz was and still is pretty reliable

>>11554040
>Angara, which is worse and not price competitive at all.

Angara gets slightly better payload to LEO, but slightly less to GTO than Proton. Although the in-development KVTK third-stage for Angara will change that, by boosting it’s payload to GTO from 5.4 tons to 8 tons. However, you are correct that Angara is too expensive to be commercially viable, which is why Soyuz-5 is being developed. Btw the actual reason why Proton is being phased out is a deal between Russia and Kazakhstan to not launch hypergolic-fuelled vehicles from Baikonur after a certain date.

>A different class vehicle. They aren't competing with SpaceX

Soyuz-2 actually does compete with Falcon 9 for smaller satellite launches, it occupies a place between Vega and F9 RTLS in the launch market.

So is this Voyager Station actually happening or is it just a thought experiment?

>>11552195
I met a manager at OneWeb and he talked how not enough minorities are in space industry due to white privilage, as I am Slav I asked does he think we get privilege too in UK or Netherlands, fucking rat just scurried away with pain on his face. Fuck OneWeb

>>11554122
it's a SCAM
don't give them any money
even if it's not a scam, it's obvious that whoever is in charge is just an idea guy and has no idea how to actually execute on any of his ideas

>>11553859
LUVOIR doesn't baseline Block 1B, anon
it baselines Block 2, which will never happen

>>11553868
Starship should be able to perform a similar mission if its set up as an expendable vehicle, carrying kick stages as part of the payload, with the forward aerodynamic section of the Starship replaced with a payload fairing and the other aerosurfaces are omitted.

>>11551553
>first spacecraft landing on mars

yeah nah fuck off

>>11553991
>

>>11554113
KVTK is probably even a bigger meme than Angara itself.

>>11554589
>Mars 3 don’t real

>>11554622
thinking ksp is reddit is very reddit of you and i upboat you for that good sir XD

*ahem*
>>11554629

>>11554638
>mad because no one upvoted your cringy reddit dogwhistle

Why are so many people on 4Chan obsessed with the Reddit boogeyman?

>>11554655
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9ugh_41zrs

I'm obsessed with Reddit like how a pest controller is obsessed with exterminating a cockroach infestation.

>>11554113
Why is Angara taking so long?

>>11554655
>elite/special club
>scapegoating
>memes
Pick as many as you like.

>>11554588
Starship's high dry mass makes it less desirable for such a mission. You'd get significantly less performance out of it.

>>11554654
>wasn't even my post
first time on an anonymous board?

>>11554655
Reddit acquired relevance and clout and internet history is written there now

4chan is a 2016 election and fappening tourism board

>>11554668
Ok, I'll present it to you this way.

So you're posting on 4chan right now, I assume you are here posting because you for some reason(s) you like 4chan, I will almost certainly like 4chan for similar reasons, now, what if I tell you that Redditors and the philosophy of Reddit itself is an antithesis of the philosophy of 4chan?

For Instance, If I say something controversial/unpopular on 4chan, I guarantee i will be called a faggot, told how much my opinion sucks etc. But the thing is, 4chan still won't literally punish me for having an unpopular opinion like on Reddit, the nature of Reddit means that it punishes opinion differing from the norm, If I make a post on /r/Politics for example and advocate in favor of Trump, I will almost certainly get downvoted into oblivion, and thanks to the Karma system, will have to wait minutes just to make another post, Reddit for this reason also isn't facilitating towards arguments and discussion, if you argue for a point that is unpopular, you will not only be downvote bombed, but also your posts will be hidden, and the person's post who's arguing against you will be visible, this punishment for differing from the consensus is pervasive across Reddit and permeates into every aspect of it, that's why you see all the cringy comment chains, the unfunny memes, the uninteresting discussion, Reddit by it's nature doesn't encourage creativity or innovation, it discourages it.

So, back to 4chan, I say Reddit is the antithesis to 4chan, because unlike Reddit 4chan facilitates innovation and creativity, this is proven by the fact 4chan has generally been seen as the powerhouse of internet culture for years, so when people from Reddit come here, they are bringing their consensus bias, their unfunny memes, their moral self righteousness, and a whole slew of undesirable qualities from a website that completely goes against what 4chan is means 4chan will suffer, and the reasons that you like about 4chan will die.

TL;DR: Go back

>>11554707
>less performance
Fuck all that expendable shit anon was talking about, refuel it the same as you would with a Moon/Mars mission. You ain't gonna match a fully fueled starship in orbit with any version of SLS.

we need a final solution to the redditor question

>>11554668
>Why is Angara taking so long?

One’s actually supposed to be launching later this year, the winding story of Angara’s delays is long and complex.

>>11554668
>Why is Angara taking so long?
Because the Russian space industry has structural issues at a fundamental level and is also being asked to run a first-world space program on a third-world budget.

>>11554725
Create a new report option "This user is a Redditor"

>>11553859
I was only considering successfully flown launch vehicles. SLS hasn't flown yet, obviously it gets more payload to everywhere than Falcon Heavy but then again it has like ten times the volume so that's to be expected.

>>11554722
No, he was right to go expendable. You're not going to be getting a Starship burning like crazy to the outer solar system back. Sending the refueling flights alone would take decades. Absolutely not worth it.

>>11554042
Just look at all the problems associated with tryign to make two stage rockets reusable, and apply those same challenges to the already razor thin mass margins of any SSTO design, and it's pretty obvious that Earth-SSTO is a pipe dream

>>11554655
just because its funny to have a rivalry desu. when you can detect redditors by their e-mannerisms you just dunk on them because you caught them out.

>>11554053
The point of steel is twofold, first of all it's almost the same specific strength as carbon fiber at cryo temperatures, and secondly it's far more temperature resistant than carbon fiber composites. What this means is that a reusable vehicle made of carbon fiber would actually end up weighing more, due to the increased TPS mass, than a stainless steel vehicle of the same size.

Any idea when they be ready to test this starship?

>>11554721
>what if I tell you that Redditors and the philosophy of Reddit itself is an antithesis of the philosophy of 4chan?
Who cares about reddit's philosophy? This isn't reddit.

>>11554122
The fact that they baseline a shitload of Dreamchaser 'escape pods' should tell you everything you need to know. It's never going to happen.

>>11554748
give them another week or so

>>11554726
>the winding story of Angara’s delays is long and complex.
Longer and more complex than SLS?

>>11554749
Due to the philosophy/design of Reddit (as i outlined before), it fosters undesirable behaviours of it's users who when they come over to 4chan, will continue to express these behaviour to the detriment of this site, decreasing it's quality.

>>11554738
why hello there

>>11554755
The Russian space sector makes NASA's issues look like the little leagues

>>11554753
Cool thanks

>>11554721
You are so disconnected from reality.

Philosophy is not the same as results. You mentally block what this website is actually like and still cling to the theory, while at the same time perpetuating its ruin. Your praise hasn't been true for at least 5 years.

In modern history, 4chan is highly constrained both in the ideology of its users, culture, and sense of humor. You can tell because if you step off the line of board culture or you'e not funny you get the instant reply of "reddit". The same pepe and wojak memes are repeated here to nauseam. 90% of the board is shitposting, known to you as "interesting discussion". No one relevant comes here, and the only relevant things that happen here are things that aren't allowed on reddit. Understand that. You are second wheel to reddit, you are what's left over. If reddit tolerated ring wing ideas and didn't censor the fappening even you wouldn't be here.

You get the last word because this is a space flight thread and I won't shit up the few things I still browse here

>>11554764
>when you absolutely positively need to shatter everyone's eardrums in a 50 mile radius on launch.

>>11554769
I keep hearing about that, but I've never heard about specific examples. Got any? Like Shelby keeping SLS alive so there would be more jobs in Alabama.

>>11554773
anon, 4channers are not this guy. this is the smug anime newfags pretending to be oldfags. real newfags dont call others newfags or redditfags.

>>11553991
My laptop fan would rotate into the shadow realm trying to launch this

>>11554707
>>11554722
>>11554738
You guys aren't thinking it through all the way.

First of all, expendable Starship won't be a regular Starship that they just don't reuse. Expendable Starship would be a custom built, stripped down vehicle, with no TPS, no flaps, no legs, and none of the structural support that those things required. It would basically be a pair of giant propellant tanks with engines on one end and payload on the other. Speaking of engines, it'd probably only carry the vacuum Raptors for the increased Isp and of course reduction of dry mass and cost.
Second, expendable Starship wouldn't just be flown directly to escape trajectory from launch, instead it would launch into orbit and park, where it would then be refueled completely. You're throwing away a stripped down vehicle, so it's not as expensive as throwing away a complete Starship, but you may as well get as much bang for your buck as possible.

If stripped-down Starship plus payload weighs 100 tons dry, and 1300 tons fully loaded with propellant, and vacuum Raptor has an Isp of 378 seconds, that gives the vehicle a delta V sitting in LEO of 9.5km/s. If expendable Starship has a totally empty mass of 80 tons, that mean it can push 20 tons to 750 m/s faster than solar escape velocity, no gravity assists required. This vehicle setup can push 65 tons of payload directly to Neptune, 115 tons directly to Saturn, 188 tons directly to Jupiter.

Basically it does about an order of magnitude more payload to anywhere compared to SLS. Also, there's NO way this thing would cost as much as SLS, even taking all the refueling missions into account.

>>11554773
>"You can tell because if you step off the line of board culture or you'e not funny you get the instant reply of "reddit""
Yes, because no one here (apart from redditors) likes a redditor or what a redditor has to say (for the reasons i outlined earlier), and if you're getting called out as one you must be an especially bad redditor.

>" The same pepe and wojak memes are repeated here to nauseam."
Yet for some reason other websites including Reddit still use them to death? e.g. doomer meme etc

>"No one relevant comes here,"
I'm sorry Keanu Reeves won't do a 4chan AMA for you

>"You are second wheel to reddit, you are what's left over."
Only a Redditor could believe something as deluded as this.

>>11554782
>Nauka (Russian science module for the ISS) was originally planned for launch in 2007, now it's supposed to launch in 2021
>Vostochny Cosmodrome was built to replace Baikonur for most domestic launches, went massively over budget and it was found that officials had been embezzled more than $100M in construction funds
>It took 22 years from conception for the first Angara to fly.
>The whole debacle with the hole drilled in Soyuz
>The whole debacle with the upside-down sensor in Proton

In a previous thread, someone compared the current state of the Russian space agency to that of Warhammer 40k; In a lot of places the processes and techniques are maintained by sheer institutional inertia, with the actual reasons behind the techniques lost to time. While obviously an exaggeration, it's true that they're pretty much just coasting off the legacy of Soviet hardware right now. Their new projects just keep hitting barrier after barrier.

>>11554800
why are you smooth brained retards not pimping starlight with solar sails in your scifi wetdreams?

>>11554800
You're not getting the issue.

Okay, so we get a stripped-down Starship with the interstellar probe into LEO and top it off, right? This is the first and last opportunity for refueling. Then we send it off towards the deepest sections of the solar system. With me so far?

Here's the issues:
1. Once it's out of LEO, you're never getting it back within a human lifetime. Further refueling is not an option.
2. The dry mass of Starship is higher than SLS no matter what due to the stainless steel construction. 80 tons dry is not consistent with what we see currently. Reality will likely be somewhere in the middle, which hurts performance BAD until the payload plus kick stages separate.
3. Starship uses Methane, which is not going to get you as good a performance as hydrogen at the ridiculously high C3s we're talking about, especially not the beast that would be SLS Block 1B with a Centaur kick stage (this is actually a thing that SLS can do).

>>11554814
Interstellar Probe is explicitly meant to be an extrasolar probe mission accomplishable with today's technology. That's the whole pitch.

>>11554840
I think I'd rather have Starkicker (expendable, refueled Starship in a highly elliptical earth orbit) with a centaur kick stage on top than I would an SLS with a centaur kick stage

>>11554811
Thank you. Honestly, there should be more discussion in this thread about non-American space flight and what they're doing.

>>11554862
Somebody would have to run the numbers, but I don't think that would be enough to overcome the mass handicap that is the Starship upper stage.

>>11554869
it absolutely would dude, refueling in a highly elliptical earth orbit lets you do absolutely stupid shit already

>>11554773
>nobody relevant comes here
Numerous celebrities have been confirmed to come here, including William fucking Shatner
The only difference is that they don't flaunt their name and status, instead choosing to stay anonymous
this is the critical difference between redditors and 4chan
Redditors have no reason for existence other than siphoning attention for themselves at all times
4chan intrinsically disallows that, with violators being reviled and ostracized.

>>11554877
I wish I knew how to run the numbers on this, because now I'm genuinely curious.

>>11554918
it really depends on how elliptic you're willing to get
if you go too elliptic you're liable to start floating around the lagrange points or become an unbound near earth object

>>11554926
Good point. I was only considering LEO, but HEO would let you just brute force the crap out of the dry mass issue.
Let me amend my original statement to "SLS Block 1B is the only SINGLE LV capable of performing Interstellar Probe," then.

>>11553173
Cutting that ~1.8 km/s off the delta V requirement makes an enormous difference in mass ratio though. Plus it means your firing your rockets at a lower atmospheric pressure and can get a higehr isp out of em.

>>11554814
Solar sails are shit, and you don't need them to send >100 tons to Saturn if you have non-anemic launch capability by using Starship vehicles.

>>11554814
The same reason we're not pushing ion engines. We don't have all fucking eternity to get somewhere.

>>11554986
when humanity uploads to the matrix we will have all the time in the world.

>>11554986
with constant uncapped accelleration you can reach velocities as high as you like. it does not rely on on board fuel. it is like a ship in the wind with no counter gale.

>>11554997
Nice theory.

>>11554999
you can slingshot off of near star orbits to accumulate speed as well as near planetary orbits.

>>11554840
>Starship with the interstellar probe
What fucking interstellar probe? I'm talking about sending 100+ ton robotic landers to the Jovian and Saturnine Moons using a stripped down expendable version of Starship that can be refueled in LEO.

>Once it's out of LEO, you're never getting it back
Of course, it's EXPENDABLE in this scenario.
>80 tons dry is not consistent with what we see currently
Of course, because currently they're building REUSABLE Starship, which will have flaps and TPS and legs.
>Starship uses Methane, which is not going to get you as good a performance as hydrogen
So tell me, does SLS with a Centaur kick stage get you 65 tons to Neptune? Does it get you 188 tons to Jupiter? No! It merely gets you faster, with a payload weighing several tons, but Starship could get a payload greater than ten tons to the same speed. Do not fall for the fucking hydrogen Isp meme. Falcon Heavy uses kerosene, which is even less efficient than methane, yet it beats the shit out of Delta IV Heavy to EVERY orbit anyway despite being physically smaller, because it carries MORE propellant mass in a LIGHTER vehicle.

If you really want to consider additional kick stages, then you picked the wrong horse anyway, because there's no reason why this stripped down expendable Starship couldn't carry the exact same Centaur kick stage, or one even more massive, and supply the probe with a truly ridiculous C3 energy. Taking the 188 ton payload as an example, if that payload were 180 tons of hydrolox kick stage and 8 tons of probe (making it almost double the mass of Cassini-Huygens), the kick stage would supply another 8239 m/s of delta V ON TOP OF the 6304 m/s imparted by the Starship, meaning it would be leaving Earth at over 20,000 m/s. No fucking way does any iteration of SLS even get close to this performance.

>>11554972
You're cutting ~1800 m/s of low efficiency delta V but adding a shitload of dry mass, so it almost evens out as a net neutral effect. There is an increase in feasibility but it's small.

>>11555007
That's retarded and not relevant to human civilization. Using gravity assists to accelerate, when the source of gravity is anything weaker than a neutron star, means your trip times are still at minimum thousands of years long.

>>11555029
just pure misinformation

>>11554997
>>11555007
yeah but again, I don't have all eternity so fuck you, namefag

>>11554986
The main issue for why SEP isn't currently used for outer planet missions is the limited lifetimes of the engines due to erosion. There's been some big breakthroughs in magnetic shielding over the past few years, so that may change soon enough.

>>11554999
nice digits. what about this then? it will get you there faster im pretty sure if it.

>>11555033
im namefagging for this thread >>11552507. actually trying to get people doing something productive.

you lack imagination.

>>11555038
>im pretty sure if it
Said nobody who actually put something into space.

>>11555019
>What fucking interstellar probe?
I thought you responded to my post here >>11553868 talking about it.

Anyway, >>11554926 beat you to the punch.

>>11555032
Not true. To do an interstellar trip to Proxima Centauri in 100 years requires travelling at about 4% light speed, which is 12,000,000 m/s. A gravity assist from any planet sized object cannot impart more than a dozen kilometers per second of delta V or so, roughly 1/1000th the speed you need. Basically if you used any of the available gravity assists in our solar system (can't use the Sun because we're already moving along with it), your trip to Proxima will take 100,000 years minimum. Not relevant to human civilization. Neutron stars and black holes are only relevant in terms of supplying gravity assist energy for rapid interstellar trips because they have gravitational accelerations that are already a decent fraction of the speed of light. However, to use that gravity you'd actually need to have two of these objects in orbit of one another, because gravitational energy can only be extracted from a PAIR of objects (in Jupiter's case the other object is the Sun, and your maximum assist speed is equal to your incoming velocity plus Jupiter's orbital velocity around the Sun). Basically, gravity assists aren't relevant to interstellar probes because those probes need to move much faster than anything a gravity assist can provide.

>>11555041
Congrats, you now have a probe that can reach at most about 50 km/s of departure velocity, and will take over 20,000 years to reach the closest star to the Sun.

>>11555045
Note that my numbers don't even consider elliptical orbit refueling of the expendable Starship, which means it gets even more payload to anywhere and even higher transfer velocities than I laid out in my other post.

>>11554782
I just noticed this now, but isn't it crazy how Soyuz can just be laid down like that without the boosters tearing themselves off of the core stage structure?

>>11555063
how long will it take with just fuel?

>>11555077
Its partly due to the fact that the Soyuz was designed to be built by poor gopnik workers in a repurposed arms factory using a box of parts of varying tolerances, rather than highly specialized engineers in an unnecessary clean room using carefully packaged parts sent from at least five different states.

>>11549369

>>11555125
>OUT OF MY WAY RURAL CHINESE VILLAGER SHITS.

>>11555125
They got a new 3rd stage light show lined up for us?

>>11555125
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fjdh0b7DMc

>>11555089
>just fuel
You mean just rockets? Well, say we want a probe that weighs 1 ton dry and 8 tons wet, which uses hydrogen propellant, and launches atop a hydrolox kick stage inside the payload envelope of an expendable Starship like in >>11555019

The probe carries 7 tons of hydrolox, and uses a small expander cycle engine that provides thrust at 450 seconds of Isp. The probe alone has 9176 m/s of delta V, on top of the 14,543 m/s supplied by the two departure stages below, and starts off in an elliptical Earth orbit.

At burnout, the probe is travelling close to 30 km/s relative to Earth, and ~60 km/s relative to the Sun. However, it's going to slow down a lot as it escapes the Sun's gravity, so it's going to end up with a final velocity of somewhere around 18 km/s leaving the solar system. Not good. Clearly chemical propulsion isn't going to cut it for any kind of significant departure velocity.

Let's replace the 8 ton hydrolox fueled probe with an 8 ton ion-propelled nuclear electric probe. It's roughly half xenon by mass, and the thrusters operate at an Isp of 5000 while producing about 16.6 mN of thrust (the weight of 0.0166 grams in Earth gravity). The acceleration is tremendously slow of course, but it hardly matters, because the probe is being dropped off onto a solar escape trajectory to begin with, so all it needs to do is point and shoot. With a wet-dry mass ratio of 50%, and several decades of continuous thrusting (sometimes punctuated by ion thruster failure, which is compensated for by switching to one of the many backup thrusters), the probe exhausts all of its xenon and ends up with a final stage delta V expenditure of 33,987 m/s. That gives it an actual final cruise velocity of around 42,820 m/s, about 3.5 times the maximum gravitational-assist-only departure velocity. If you want to do a Jupiter gravity assist along the way anyway you can, but it's only going to increase your final cruise speed to about 55,000 m/s at MOST.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZHuS93Rxlo

>>11555164
Doesn't really bother me that china enters space even if they steal all the knowledge to get there

But it made me think of a different space war scenario. What if instead of shooting a satellite/space station with a missile, you hit it with a high speed paint chip or some other inconspicuous debris accelerated by a stealth vehicle? You wouldn't need to obliterate it either, just punch a hole in it to disable it or make it uninhabitable.

I'm worried that "accidents" like this are actually going to be the modus operandi of space warfare and the plausible deniability will create a huge shitshow.

>>11555443
I hope this is true and it means we get big, thick space stations and satellites instead of the light metal balloons we currently have

>>11555443
So, space "M.A.D." is weaponized kessler syndrome, eh?

>>11555443
>>11555494
Probably not
while it would definitely work, kessler syndrome is not picky in who it fucks in the ass, so pulling those stunts will immediately piss everyone the fuck off, and prompt them all to dogpile the niglet responsible
China will not grow larger if they do that shit

>>11555566
>Probably not
>while it would definitely work

jesus.... cope much?

>kessler syndrome is not picky in who it fucks in the ass

oh, my bad, you don't know what "M.A.D." means.

here, let me google that for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

>>11551198
>>11551206
>watch movie
>anon was right it is 200% SJW propaganda
Wow. What a shitshow of a show.

>>11551342
>To be honest that's a big fucking spoiler.
Trailers always show all spoilers.

>>11551553
>russians win if you cherry pick the missions

>>11555710
Not that guy but the US could have just as easily lost the moonrace, the russians where close too.
Ofcourse it would have turned in to a marsrace.
But still.

>>11555657
>>11555566
Dumb. MAD only works on equal forces. US dominates space right now. If US/China destroy each other's sats right now, China wins out in this kesseler syndrome war. We would lose HUGE chunk of our advantage and China would lose relatively very little as have space assets. MAD also doesn't work against China. MAD's origin comes from Chairman Mao lol. He said he would sacrifice 500 million of his countrymen to defeat US/Russia. China can sacrifice a billion people in an all out war and they'd still have 400 million left over. Can US sacrifice 200 million and function?

>>11554811
Honestly this seems true for both the Russian and American (government) space programs. SLS is also mostly older technology, improvements obviously have been made in computer technology and manufacturing process, but individual components like the tankage and all of the boosters and engines are still just minor iterations on now-decades old technology.

New
>>11556065
>>11556065
>>11556065

>>11555041
I know, you're a dumbass in that thread too