/sci/ - Science & Math

>"Let's be very honest again," Bolden said in a 2014 interview. "We don't have a commercially available heavy lift vehicle. Falcon 9 Heavy may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. SLS is real. You've seen it down at Michoud. We're building the core stage. We have all the engines done, ready to be put on the test stand at Stennis... I don't see any hardware for a Falcon 9 Heavy, except that he's going to take three Falcon 9s and put them together and that becomes the Heavy. It's not that easy in rocketry."
Threadly reminder.

Second for depots.

>>11644675
>SLS was "real" and "ready" in 2014
>that was 6 years ago

what a clown world we live in...

>>11644675
Didn't they already launch a falcon heavy?

>>11644841
>Bolden said in a 2014 interview
>2014
The quote was from 4 years before the first FH launch.

>>11644675
if starship goes to orbit before SLS is tested it's all over for oldspace.

>>11644657
Martian space Dwemer cities

>>11644675
Turns out its THAT easy

>>11644675
>SLS is real. Starship is not
This summary has been updated for 2020.

>>11646547
>"Let's be very honest again," Anonymous said in a 2020 interview. "We don't have a commercially available super heavy lift vehicle. Starship may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. SLS is real. You've seen it down at Michoud. We're building the core stage. We have all the engines done, ready to be put on the test stand at Stennis... I don't see any hardware for a Starship, except that he's going to take junkyard parts and put them together and that becomes the Starship It's not that easy in rocketry."

>>11644657
You linked the wrong thread.

The previous thread was:
>>11644683

>>11647193
Both is and the last thread were both up at the same time, this one was just dormant.

>>11647199
The other thread is a full day older than the one I linked. It's not a big deal, just own your mistake and stop doing mental gymnastics trying to defend it.

Hop when? Delayed by new elonmeme arrival?

Elon returns to Joe Rogan podcast
https://youtu.be/RcYjXbSJBN8

>>11647255
Nice.

>>11647255
Its good for Neuralink and a little bit of Tesla but Joe has no interest whatsoever in SpaceX. Theres nothing there and anytime Musk tries to mention Starship Joe moves the conversation to Covid or whatever shit.

>>11647439
kek, REKT

Stop making the threads so early. Wait until page 10

>>11647439
MAD MAN

>>11647570
It's dead, Jim.

>>11647439
Same, Ol'Musky. Same. I'm still amazed that people (outside of Congress) support SLS as the future of American space flight.

>>11644839
And it’ll still be real and ready for at least another 2 years
Really makes you wonder what exactly is the hold up but I guess when you are strapping 600 million just in rockets on you can’t destructively test
Shows the racket in aerospace pricing when Spacex comes along building engines for the cost of a million each

>>11647604
>Really makes you wonder what exactly is the hold up
Cost plus.
The plus stands for the ability to delay indefinitely for more of that pork barrel.

>>11647439

>>11647611
Look at the Orion capsule program
That’s a serious goddamn boondoggle

Still receives an annual budget despite the fact the damn thing should be finished

then I guess everyone just stays employed for the 10 years of delays until it’s used ?

>>11647611
It's not just that, but also the mentality of the work behind it. There's no sense of urgency. They could be testing a prototype of the engine mounting structure until it breaks, and then take a month or two to figure out what went wrong using FEA simulations. A month of analysis that's unneeded when they had a sensor laden test article to look at exactly what happened, but instead they opted to take this long way to have an analysis that's more detailed than necessary.

>>11647628
>There's no sense of urgency
Of course not, Cost Plus is the antithesis of urgency. It operates on the same practice as patreon. Donate money every month and no real strings attached for return on money invested. It encourages procrastination.

>>11644675
oh $ay can you $ee

>>11647628
It’s also that every article comes from wildly cost inflated sub contractors, meaning there is nothing in the budget to destructively test

>>11647439
Yeah

>>11647637
It just pisses me off that not only didn't the higher ups in American space flight didn't start seriously question the whole charade, but they're for this mess.

>>11647661
Welcome to the swamp. You don't get paid better for delivering better or faster and it's nearly impossible to fire people. There's a reason the DC metro is the richest in the country.

Public Notice of Cameron County Order to Temporarily Close State Highway 4 and Boca Chica Beach
Primary Date May 8, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date May 9, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date May 10, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled

Reminder that in 20 days spaceX will deliver astronauts to the ISS or blow them up.

>>11647230
Waiting for FCC approval

>>11647713
they can do 15 meter hops without approval

>>11647713
FAA, FCC deals in communications.

>>11647736
I believe they already have the FCC permits for the hop, yeah

>>11647739
Unless he plans on that hop ending in SN4 bursting into treats at the end like a pinata full of starlink satellites, I doubt the FCC were involved.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/05/aerojet-rocketdyne-expands-operations-to-deliver-four-sls-engines-a-year/

>2 RS-25 engines produced per year, ramping up to 4 per year, with some talk about maybe being able to expand further to up to 8 engines per year
>"Right now it takes a little over four years to build an engine and if we could implement some design changes to the nozzle and the powerhead we could take that down to three years"
>THREE YEARS FOR EACH ENGINE START TO FINISH
Absolutely abysmal. You're telling me SpaceX can churn out a Raptor every two weeks using a more complex combustion cycle involving the highest pressure oxygen-rich preburner environment ever, but it takes a company that has been building this same engine for 40 years OVER 36 MONTHS to complete ONE?? Defund Aerojet, defund SLS, arrest everyone involved, purge all Shuttle influence from NASA, shut down oldspace, it's OVER.

>>11647749
SPACE IS HARD.

>>11647749
>>11647754
AND EXPENSIVE.

>>11647749
This must be about the older model of RS-25, not the RS-25E, right?

>>11647754
Space is hard if you make it that way.

>>11647744
if you want to properly remote control something that big you need to talk to the FCC

>>11647759

>>11644889
>if falcon heavy goes to orbit before sls it's all over for oldspace

protip; no.

https://www.aiaa.org/events-learning/event/2020/05/06/default-calendar/space-policy-pod-episode-1-(scott-pace)
>when I say nuclear you think of Nuclear-electric or nuclear-thermal propulsion, which of course are vitally important for going to Mars, but
>>11647792
Falcon Heavy is in the same category but it is, in fact, smaller than SLS
Starship is bigger than SLS

>>11644889
No, that's not how the pork barrel works.

>>11647792
>>11644889
Don't matter lol. Falcon Heavy has already won good chunk of contracts for gateway. Oldspace is only kept for lifesupport

>>11647799
>Oldspace is only kept for lifesupport
And still takes 90%+ of the total yearly budget.

>>11647799
Most likely the national team will get the go ahead to go to the moon and they will use the SLS.
That's just the way it is, but as soon as the first PR stunt moon landing has happend and a woman has boots on the moon and then leaves, starship will be on the pad ready for the next moon mission where the real work starts.

>cost plus
Very counter intuitive in how it works.

It's like ordering pizza but with the pizza guy being continuously tipped as he's delivering it. The longer it takes the better and even if its cancelled it doesn't matter. Then again you are ordering it with someone else's money and you get to pocket some of it so everyone wins.

>>11647838
Also your job is secured for another 4 or 6 years depending on how many cooks were involved in the process of making the pizza. The more the merrier.

>>11647713
>>11647725
I've heard they also don't want to do the hop before Crew Dragon flight because if it fails it would be very bad for optics.

>>11647825
Yeah but given that NASA is giving 100M+ to SpaceX to test Starship means they can simply build/test out all their stuff for the next year.

>I showed you my life support umbilical please respond

>>11647765
The RS-25D is the current one that takes 4 years to build.
RS-25E is the one that they THINK they can get built in 3 years per engine. No guarantees.

>listen to this whole rogan podcast
>they don't bring up space once
fuck

>>11647871
I'm glad you took the bullet for us, anon
thank you for sharing

>>11647858

>>11647794
>Nuclear-electric or nuclear-thermal propulsion, which of course are vitally important for going to Mars
Wrooooong. Chemical plus aerobraking is the way. Greater performance than expendable NTR stages, using much more storeable and easier to handle propellants.

>>11647884
yes, thank you for making my point

>>11647749
>THREE YEARS FOR EACH ENGINE START TO FINISH
Imagine my shock.

>>11647891
20 bucks says nasa sets that timeline

>>11647891
This picture reminds me how objectively massive Starship is going to be. Toy-like proportions make it harder to appreciate the scale.

>>11644839
>>11647604
>>11647611

HEY, FUCKER, GRANT FARMING IS A LEGITIMATE CAREER!

>>11647960
Wish I had a grant desu

>>11647858
punished bob, a man denied his shuttle

>>11647972
At least he gets to ride the dragon.

>>11644657
>tfw we could already have major moon settlements by now
what squandered potential, thanks boomers

>>11647749
Lead time =/= production rate (but yeah, SLS is still fucked up)

>>11648000
Sure, but no way is Raptor's lead time more than a few months.

>>11647891
Something something handcrafted artisan engines.

>>11648014
Somebody should ask Elon about it

>>11648103
Using only the finest hand-crafted bolts, lovingly frosted with molybdenum and flown in fresh from Florida, hand dipped in chromium and allowed to mature in clean rooms for a period of 36 months before assembly.

>>11647870
Wtf are they doing? Carving it from a solid block of metal by hand?

>>11648118
daily you must anoint the sacred oils, light the holy candles, and make pleas to the spirit of the grant givers

>>11648114
top kek

>>11647851
>Elon or SpaceX in general caring about optics
Doubt

>raptor was removed from SN4
what now?

>>11648162
Probably just analysis after the two test fires

>>11648162
it made the bad noise after that last test
they might be pressure testing it again, the thrust simulator ram has been spotted

>>11648195
D-don't put your thrust simulator ram there, onii-chan, I'll--I'll--BRRAAAAPPPPP

>>11648203

>>11648203

SpaceX is making a custom version of Starship for Artemis, so would they make a custom space yacht for some random billionaire?

>>11647851
>implying they care about optics
>implying the crewed launch won't be scrubbed 3 times in a row

>>11648237
it's called Dear Moon, yes

>>11647439
This sums it up.

Every time you think about any aspect of SLS or talk to anyone about it, you start thinking it could be neat, it could have its uses, shuttle hardware is kinda cool, it's a moon rocket and we didn't have one for the longest time... until you mentally hit one of the many roadblocks.
So you start asking logical questions in order to find potential solutions for these issues.
Until finally the realization sets back in that nothing about that vehicle is governed by logic. None of the problems will ever be fixed and the whole thing is about factories first and space flight not at all.
Then you get sad.

>>11648244
That's just a mission, does Yamato get to keep his ship?

>>11647619
Why do they keep making promo material for the first version that's only supposed to ever fly twice?
It's like everyone involved knows that the project will never amount to anything.

>>11648195
>>11648162
I don't like how cautious they are with raptors. Very short static fires (and no news of a full duration one), weird issues with Hopper, now this. Makes me have doubts about its readiness.

I wonder which one is closer to completion - BE4 or raptor. I used to think it's the latter but now I'm not so sure.

>>11648288
BE4 better damn well be ready. They've been working on it for the better part of a decade. Raptor, meanwhile, is going lightning speed by any sane metric.

>>11648288
fuck i think you're right

>>11648281
They'll refurbish and re-fly it until not a single atom of stainless steel is left from the original.

>>11647749
I don't think Raptor is that much more complex than the RS-25. That thing is kind of absurd as well.

>>11648288
I had heard that there were at least minute long tests

>>11647933
I used an AR app to put a Starship in my flat.
Turns out I instead put my flat into a Starship.
It's pretty roomy in there.

>>11648318
the RS-25 is a single turbine pushing two pumps
the Raptor is two seperate turbines pushing one pump each and feeding each other fuel

>>11648337
>the RS-25 is a single turbine pushing two pumps
Nope. It uses two. In fact, its H2 pump is pretty complex due to the seals needed to hold back hydrogen from interacting with hot oxygen.

>>11647875
It was all autism about AI and neuralink and two people who are not epidemiologists talking about epidemiology.
Basically as worthless as the last interview.
Fuck, I think Musk told him the same shit as last time, come to think of it.

>>11648359
RS-25 is more complex, sure, but Raptor uses a more complex cycle. This basically means that RS-25 is significantly over-complicated, which is the important takeaway. I have zero doubt that if NASA offered SpaceX enough cash to make it worth their while, they'd be able to shit out a hydrolox staged combustion engine that they could print three dozen of a year which would have performance metrics (most importantly thrust and Isp) within a few percent of RS-25 for over an order of magnitude lower cost. Hell, at this point they'd probably do a full-flow engine like Raptor, except using hydrogen, and they wouldn't need to hit even close to the same chamber pressures. NASA would give the the data sheets for the alloys RS-25 used to handle hydrogen, SpaceX would get a supplier up and running, and engines would be hitting the test stand within 6 months, looking like a Raptor with a bigger nozzle for better expansion ratio and a bigger fuel pump because lmao hydrogen density.

>>11648337
The RS-25 is in fact more complex, at least plumbing wise. It also has two preburners, both fuel rich. The problem there from a complexity standpoint is that with both turbopumps putting out fuel rich mixes you then need yet more plumbing to delivery more oxidizer to the combustion chamber. As a result the RS-25 ends up with three separate pipes entering the powerhead, two fuel rich lines and one pure oxidizer line. That's six distinct pipes in total, Raptor's cycle is more complex, in that the preburners are respectively fuel and oxidizer rich, however the plumbing is simpler since the mix is half-and-half fuel rich and oxygen rich mixes they can then go straight to the powerhead. Thus Raptor only has four distinct pipes involved with managing fuel and oxidizer.

So, Raptor is more complex in terms of it's fuel cycle but simpler in terms of it's engineering. Plus it's not dealing with the LH2 meme, so the LOX pump and CH4 pump don't have to be as radically different as the turbomachinery of the RS-25, where one turbopump is a relatively normal LOX setup and the other is a lovecraftian nightmare of seals to keep any LH2 from leaking out.

>>11648364
Mr. Rogan probably forgot the first interview

>>11648398
>Thus Raptor only has four distinct pipes involved with managing fuel and oxidizer.
Raptor has three pipes, the oxygen rich turbopump exhausts directly into the combustion chamber, in fact it forms the upper end of the main combustion chamber itself. The only thing separating the oxygen turbine from the main combustion chamber is the fuel injection manifold. That being said, see >>11648395
The fact that RS-25 is so complex is a joke.

>>11648395
Anon. SpaceX has been working on Raptor for years now. And it’s still not entirely proven. They won‘t be shitting out new engine designs in a few months.
Don‘t let the memes get you.

>>11648428
Oh neat, most rocket diagrams simply don't show that kind of shit but I should have remembered from previous raptor pics. I though at first when examining diagrams of RS-25s that I was simply a bit confused by their complexity because I was just a bit of a brainlet, but now I realize that while I am a bit of a brainlet having not gotten my engineering education yet, it's also simultaneously true that the RS-25 is, like most of what NASA has produced, a bit of a fucking engineering mess.

rs-25's are cool as fuck

Their complexity is at least as much of an achievement as it is a handicap

inb4 the weekly "falcon 9 raptor upper stage lmao" shitpost

>>11648398
the LOx pump is also a lovecraftian seal nightmare to prevent any hot hydrogen gas from leaking into the LOx pump

>>11648452
we don't get those here

>>11648455
>OH NO TURBOMACHINERY I'M GOING INSAAAAAAANE!

>>11648442
It‘s not like they did it for no reason. They didn‘t have the right alloys to build it simpler without taking sizable performance losses.

>>11648464
True, the F1-b was a great example of what NASA could do with a legacy engine if they were allowed to rebuild them right, 500 hand-tweaked parts down to 50 computer optimized parts, thrust uprating and ISP improvements on top of it too. Shame they were sacrificed at the alter of SRBs.

>>11648461
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HOW HORRIBLE AAAAAAAA IT'S BREAKING MY MIND OH NOOOOO

>>11648470
solids are an absolutely fantastic technology if what you're trying to do is kill people, or any other application where minimal setup and rapid deployment are a benefit (like hobbyist shit)

>>11648459
ok but like what if the second stage of the Falcon was actually methane?

>>11648461
wow this might be worse than ovaries

>>11648474
Or if you are trying to launch really heavy rockets, as they're easier to scale up thrust wise.

>>11648487
I kinda like how the H-1 handled it by having a separate SRB to power the pumps.

>>11648438
The work that went into Raptor was to get the alloys right, the mass as low as possible, the complexity as low as possible, in-flight restart capability, rapid throttling response, etc etc.

If NASA wanted to pay them a billion dollars for a Raptor variant that burned hydrogen, it would not take a restart from scratch in order to get that engine available. They wouldn't even need to work out the alloys needed fro the hydrogen rich side on their own, because NASA already found something good enough to make a reusable engine back in the 70's (and lest we forget, this would be an RS-25 replacement for SLS, meaning no reusability required).

Here are the exact changes needed to develop a hydrolox RS-25 replacement based on Raptor;

Swap all fuel lines for ones that are bigger to incorporate the increased volume of fuel required, as per hydrogen's low density and the engine's overall more fuel-rich design.
Replace methalox turbopump with hydrolox turbopump, this is where 90% of the dev time goes, it will use zero-embrittlement alloys and be physically much larger than Raptor's methalox fuel rich pump.
Adjust nozzle regenerative cooling gap thickness, again because hydrogen meme density
Adjust oxygen rich pump's fuel injector to accommodate hydrogen, no alloy changes needed except maybe for injector face which shouldn't encounter high oxygen environment anyway

Misc changes; Don't need air-restart, don't need fast throttling, don't need any reusability systems or design considerations beyond ability to test fire before expendable launch, don't need oxygen autogenous pressurization system, don't need fucken uuuuuh some other things I can't think of atm

>>11648488
it would cost ten times as much and get an extra 5% mass to orbit

>>11648464
>They didn‘t have the right alloys to build it simpler without taking sizable performance losses
How do alloys have anything to do with deciding to have two entirely separate propellant pumps BOTH running the fuel rich cycle, instead of having one larger pump with the same gearing system required for the original design of the oxygen pump? How do alloys have anything to do with not integrating the output of either pump directly into the top of the main combustion chamber to save a good four feet of large diameter high pressure piping?

We need to collectively face the facts and wake up anons, RS-25 is actually a shit engine disguised under good performance figures, and even then it is only really impressive at all in terms of Isp. It gets moderate thrust (less than a Raptor, significantly less than a BE-4, and way less than a number of other engines. It isn't even the highest thrust hydrolox engine). It gets meh thrust to weight ratio (73 for a staged combustion engine? Are you kidding me?). Obviously it has ABYSMAL cost to thrust ratio. It wasn't even that good at being reusable, they had to tear the thing down between flights and sometimes plug injector holes with 'muh solid gold pins'. RS-25 is FULL of bad design solutions, and it shows.

>>11648524
>it isn't even the highest thrust hydrolox engine
what is?

>>11648487
It's great, the Ruthorford actually has really good ISP for a small LOX/Kerosine engine too. 311s at sea level, 343 vac. Once that cannuck company figures out how to manufacture the Bragga/Goodenough doped glass electrolyte battery an electrically powered turbopump system would be viable for bigger rockets as well.

>>11648544
why the fuck are people still using kerosene? everybody should have switched to propane by now

>>11648474
They're great if you want to build a large number of ICBMs and keep them on standby for launch at a moment's notice for decades.

>>11648496
Don't do it, anon. Don't fall for the solid fuel meme. They offer high thrust but that's it, forcing you into the booster-sustainer launch vehicle architecture, which is objectively the worst one. It's far better to focus on developing high chamber pressure liquid fueled engines with a few mega-newtons of thrust, and just use a cluster. Remember, Starship Super Heavy actually does ~300 tons to LEO, the only reason they only talk about it sending between 100 and 150 tons is because full reusability cuts payload in about half. Starship beats the absolute SHIT out of SLS, which itself doesn't manage to beat Saturn V, despite the latter using exclusively lower-pressure engines with lower efficiency than anything on SLS except the boosters.

>>11648549
>not building the world's widest SRB and then putting your upper stage on top of that

>>11648544
Forget kerosene, just make an hydrolox engine and use fuel cells to power the pumps instead of batteries.

>>11648555
*Kerbal intensifies*

>>11648558
Fuel cells cannot provide enough power for that

>>11648497
It used a small solid fuel gas generator to spin-up the pumps and simultaneously light the main combustion chamber, but after the startup sequence the engine firing was sustained by normal super-fuel-rich combustion in the gas generator chamber. The F-1 engines on Saturn V used exactly the same method of startup, a short plug of solid fuel behind a diaphragm that was lit electronically and started the engine through a series of domino mechanisms.

>>11647851
>I've heard they also don't want to do the hop before Crew Dragon flight because if it fails it would be very bad for optics.
This makes no sense to me. It looks great. "Yeah our Crew Dragon is better than anything else you fags have flying now and we're already working on its successor. Get on our level plebs."

>>11648530
RS-68, it makes ~150% the thrust of an RS-25.

>>11648580
isn't the RS-68 the ablatively cooled gas generator engine for the Delta IV?

>>11648544
It gets good Isp because 100% of the propellants get burned in the main combustion chamber. This comes at the price of additional dry mass in the form of batteries; if the 2nd stage didn't drop half of its batter mass during ascent it probably wouldn't be able to achieve orbit at all, let alone with any payload.

>>11648580
So why aren't they using those for SLS? Muh shuttle?

>>11648544
>betting on meme batteries
Never ever. Even solid state batteries based on otherwise traditional chemistry are still a few years away at best.

>>11648560
hmm, you're right in terms of power to weight ratio they're at around 1kW/kg while li.on can reach 5kW/kg and above.

Still, even just using something other than exhaust gases to power the oxidizer in an hydrolox engine would simplify it's construction immensely.

>>11648510
>taking the bait

>>11648586
it's too hot in between the SRBs for the RS-68
it just ablates away into nothing before the mission completes

>>11648555
>shakes the shit out of your upper stage, causing fluid hammering everywhere and destroying it N1 style
heh, nothin personnel

>>11648560
Perhaps you could use some kind of heat engine instead, like a jet that burned a small amount of propellant in order to generate the power needed to spin a pump to feed the main engine. You'd lose some efficiency compared to a fuel cell but gain a lot more power, pretty sure that could scale to any arbitrary thrust level.

>>11648586
The RS-68s use an ablative nozzle which ablates faster if next to the hot exhaust of the SRBs. A regen cooled RS-68 was developed, but I assume that it would take just as much time (or more) to set up the manufacturing for as the RS-25.

>>11648548
Don't know, it's already created as a byproduct of refining LNG and crude oil, and it keeps as a liquid at a mere -44f, so barely any chilling is needed at all compared to LOX or LCH4, or god forbid, LH2. Interestingly once subcooled it can actually share a common bulkhead with a LOX tank without insulation in spite of the huge differences in their liquid temperatures. I also have no clue as to what kind of ISP it would produce, although I think it ought to be higher, Propane is less complex than Kerosene and has a higher density of H bonds per carbon atom. On top of that RP-1 at least form a quick google search MSRPs at about 400 bucks a gallon, compared to Propane's 4 bucks a gallon.
Sounds like a clean burning kind of rocketry I tell you hwhat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETlrUW8Cx_s

>>11648584
Yes
>>11648586
See post linked above, you can't cluster the Rs-68 that close together and burnt hem for that long in that close proximity to the SRBs, the ablative nozzles would char too much and fail. It's also because muh shuttle, yes. The reason they justified spending a gorillion dollars in perpetuity on RS-25 rather than upgrade RS-68 to use regenerative cooling and not piss hydrogen everywhere during the startup sequence was that doing so would require too many changes, too much money, and take too long. Of course at the time they wanted to get SLS launching no later than 2017, lmao.

>>11648608
check out the density figures for subcooled (liquid oxygen temps) propane and compare them with kerosene and such

>>11648601
>A regen cooled RS-68 was developed
Nah, it was "considered". Not actually developed seriously IIRC. They nitpicked excuses to not choose RS-68, because like the other anon said, 'muh shuttle'

>>11648612
>Of course at the time they wanted to get SLS launching no later than 2017, lmao.
"Reusing Shuttle hardware would be best" they said. "The development would be much faster and cheaper than making new parts" they said. "It'll be a quick gap from the Shuttle" they said. "This will usher a new age of space flight" they said.

>>11648613
At minimum liquid temperature the difference it pretty wide, 500kg/m3 for propane compared to 800kg/m3 for kerosene. However at least according to this Bruce Dunn fuel table if you subcool propane down to the same temperature as liquid methane it's fuel density is within about 40kg/m3 of kerosene's and it's bulk density becomes nearly identical. So for no more cooling than is already used for say Starship you could have a rocket with very slightly better performance than a kerosene equivalent (by less than 10s of extra ISP), however the main advantage of propane is that it costs literally a hundredth of what RP1 costs.

>>11648613
>>11648653
Oops, here's that table.
https://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fuels/fuel_table.html

>>11648608
propane has a trash isp
it burns but it doesnt burn violently

>>11648600
Are you trolling?

>>11648653
>however the main advantage of propane is that it costs literally a hundredth of what RP1 costs.
Methane is NatGas, it's practically free with fracking.

>>11644675
And yet somehow we made it to the moon in a tin can in the 60s.

>>11648650
Everyone who bought this meme was the most gullible motherfucker. It's not like the Shuttle was cheap and reliable before being defunct for years. Everything that followed was obvious.

>>11648698
Yeah LNG is about 5-6 bucks/gal for deliveries, 4-5 bucks by pipeline, and 11-13 bucks for "industrial deliveries" which I assume means if you want a shitload of it for industrial scale projects, which I'd say is about right for a large rocket. So it seems like the only advantage of propane is it's cost, still slightly lower and that you can essentially keep your rocket the same size whether you're using RP-1 or LP, so long as that propane is subcooled to the 100k range.

>>11648686
Not trolling, just joking

>>11648364
There was nothing about epidemiology that was discussed other than standard "keep good hygene." Musk was discussing hospitals being incentivized to fudge numbers to get money ortherwise they'd have to fire people.

>>11648717
permitting the fuel and oxidizer to be in thermal contact is also beneficial for stage life

Where can I get some actually unbiased info on SpaceX? Any media outlet and reddit just say positive things about them and turn off the negatives as "the cost of progress"

>>11648748
what negatives lol?
aside from Elon being a memer and an idiot, of course

>>11648748
the worst thing they've done is been over optimistic with timelines, but it's still orders of magnitude faster than oldspace. Not sure what negatives you're thinking of... like in the designs themselves?

>>11648755
Right now, mainly Starlink's impacts on visibility. Only argument I've heard is "move all the telescopes to space"

>>11648755
>but it's still orders of magnitude faster than oldspace
this, in order for there to be meaningful criticism of SpaceX, there needs to be a competitor to compare them against

>>11648758
what impacts on visibility, they've proposed a solution that will fix the problem
it's launching in June for testing

>>11648755
Not that anon, but SpaceX does have issues with overworking its employees.

>>11648763
If you're talking about covering them in black paint, isn't that going to overheat them?

>>11648766
No, I am not talking about the Darksat test. That already flew, didn't make the satellite dark enough, and introduced thermal issues.
I am talking about the sunshades they just made public, let me find the paper.

>>11648758
>Only argument I've heard
So you don't even follow the program itself which is already instituting multiple concessions to address the concerns you're talking about. Cool opinion, bro

>>11647749
>Absolutely abysmal. You're telling me SpaceX can churn out a Raptor every two weeks using a more complex combustion cycle involving the highest pressure oxygen-rich preburner environment ever, but it takes a company that has been building this same engine for 40 years OVER 36 MONTHS to complete ONE?? Defund Aerojet, defund SLS, arrest everyone involved, purge all Shuttle influence from NASA, shut down oldspace, it's OVER.

That is absolutely ridiculous. In World War 2, the US could throw together a 14,000 ton ship in less than a month.

>>11648766
>>11648758
nigger, at least try before you come whinging
https://www.spacex.com/news/2020/04/28/starlink-update

>>11648758
Actual real astronomers already have to correct for all kinds of noise and starlink is no different. Amateur astronomers? A blinking light goes by their telescope and they move on. Normal people? The sky is already "ruined" by planes and light pollution and air pollution—starlink is barely a drop in the bucket in terms of mankind "ruining" the sky.
the outcry is manufactured and is a big non-event

>>11648776
Why do I have a feeling they had this planned for the beginning and the visible satellites was a publicity stunt..

>>11648764
Basically anyone in the industry would cut off their right arm for a chance to work at SpaceX. They take advantage of it by wringing everything out of them.

>>11648780
>the outcry is manufactured and is a big non-event
This. It's probably an anti-capitalist push.

>>11648780
I could see it fucking up really long exposure shots by washing the sentire sensor. Plus streaking. The space telescope thing is a meme because you have very limited time on them. You'd need 50 or so optical space telescopes to sub in for the ones on the ground. Not to mention actually controlling a space telescope is probably harder than one on earth. Unless it's one of the extremely massive ones that need cryo cooling or whatever. I have faith in SpaceX but it is a problem.

>>11648549
>Remember, Starship Super Heavy actually does ~300 tons to LEO

Couldn’t it therefore take 300 tons to Mars via refueling?

>>11648798
no, they're limited in their downmass capabilities
I don't know what raises the Mars downmass up to 150 from the 50 it is on Earth

>>11648758
>Right now, mainly Starlink's impacts on visibility

Not a real problem.

>>11648792
>I could see it fucking up really long exposure shots
good. astrophotography is a bad meme and dishonest art
>by washing the sentire sensor
they're not that bright

>>11644657
>stressed
>depressed
>constantly feeling like im a piece of shit
>only thing that brings a smile to my face is this general

why the fuck is wrong with me?

>>11648841
Same, but I know why.

Finals week.

>>11648841
Stop being negative and embrace Nietzschean Affirmation.

>>11648819
When you're looking at things less than magnitude 14 or whatever then it's pretty damn bright. Astrophotography is how land based science is done. I interned with a uni prof doing quasar research and time on these scopes is competitive. He literally built a multi million dollar observatory on campus to not deal with it.

>>11648841
Get more sunshine. Also find some friends dude. And get more sun. And then maybe do some sports.

>>11648841
Get some rays, do some pushups. Not a substitute for social interaction but it generally helps with malaise as long as there's not a deeper issue.

Sunshine is the best.

>>11648874
I agree

>>11648783
Its too bad general public views this as negative impact on sky. Stupid fucks really. We live in a fucking timeline where we have manmade satellite constellation orbiting earth. It was my dream to see something like this happen in my lifetime, and it happened. I hate how everything has become so hateful of new innovation.

>>11648877
Romanticism is the greatest evil in human history.

>>11648775
back when people actually cared about their work
but in fairness a liberty ship is box cake, and a rocket engine is baked alaska

>>11648783
>>11648786
Faggots sincerely wanted to all be stuck on this rock. fuck them

Adapt or die

>>11648899
Based.

>>11644657

It's even slouched like the Virgin. THe only thing missing is the Chad as counter-example.

How difficult would it be for aquatic aliens to construct habitable spaces in spacecraft?

>>11648917
Probably easier.

Liquid won't expand and exert pressure against a vacuum.

It'd be heavy as fuck getting it up there though.

>>11648929
Water is really heavy, so it’d cut into delta/v to a nasty degree, but water is also really widespread and thus easy to utilize via ISRU, and doubles as powerful radiation shielding. It’d also reduce the effect of g-forces and the health effects of micro-gravity, and maneuvering in any habitat would be really easy since you could simply swim around. Suits would be a cartoonish fishbowl helmet.

>>11648929
>liquid doesn't exert pressure
ah, you are motherfucker, yes?

>>11648937
Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't an even remotely strong container be enough to prevent the water from boiling off and exerting outward pressure?

>>11648937
Water does exert pressure but it’s actually way easier to contain than an atmosphere because it doesn’t expand or contract significantly.

>>11644675
>>11644839
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/nasa/adrift/2/
>SLS won’t be ready to fly until the end of 2017
>proponents of the SLS point out that only four big engines need to be lit for its launch, whereas the Falcon Heavy needs 27.
>In short order NASA has invested tens of millions of dollars into facilities at Michoud. One reason, of course, is to build SLS as quickly as possible.
[Circus theme song in the distance]

>>11648937
the pressure is distributed so it's a lot easier on the body. In theory if you can fill your lungs with a breathable liquid (which has been successfully done on rats) you could withstand much, much higher pressure.

>>11648939
same pressure requirements as if it were gas-phase atmosphere
>>11648940
yeah, it probably won't leak as much or as catastrophically as gas-phase does

>>11647854
i hate this shit, 100 million is peanuts, if they gave like 1/40 the budget of SLS, one billion dollars they could see some real shit, theyre not even risking it its a drop in the bucket compared to all the money they waste this shit is irrational as fuck.

even splitting the money 50/50 between starship and sls would be balls retarded, but 100 million for starship and 40.000 million for sls is balls to the walls retarded

>>11648960
Wait, what?

How is the liquid going to push against the hull if it's still liquid and can't expand?

>>11648962
you know what SpaceX would do with a billion dollars?
absolutely fucking nothing, they'd put it in the bank
>>11648964
it would make a vacuum/void if it can't fill all the space, and then stuff would boil out to fill that vacuum
like the oxygen in the water that your hypothetical fish are breathing

>>11648937
In vacuum and microgravity? Surface tension keeps it together.

>>11648966
>you know what SpaceX would do with a billion dollars?
>absolutely fucking nothing, they'd put it in the bank
nice argument, falcon heavy costed 400 million , 4% the cost of all the money spent on sls so far.

SLS IS INFERIOR TO FALCON HEAVY until SLS block 2 flies. this version of the rocket is scheduled to fly by 2030

>>11648966
What if there's no space for it to fill?

We're talking about hypothetical fish aliens. Surely they could find a way to make sure there are no bubbles and the container is sealed.

>>11648962
I don't think money is SpaceX's bottleneck atm. Once they get Starship and Super Heavy working, then money might be the bottleneck.

>>11648977
it would self-pressurize to the vapor pressure of the liquid and the stuff dissolved in it

>>11648982
But if the water is in a sealed container, and the sealed container is in a vacuum, what is the vapor pressure?

>>11648988
what's the temperature of the water?

>space force is requesting 15.5 billion USD for first real year of operation

what is this going to space?

>>11648998
* to do for

ooooh, pretty Starlink graph
>>11648998
they're going to space as soon as there's somebody to shoot up there

>>11648998
The real question is their change compared to Air Force Space Command's last budget because that's where it came from.

>>11648966
>it would make a vacuum/void if it can't fill all the space, and then stuff would boil out to fill that vacuum
>like the oxygen in the water that your hypothetical fish are breathing

Of course the liquid mass would have other dissolved gasses in it like oxygen required for any gill-using lifeforms in it, like the imagined pilots. The pilots would release CO2 into the water, too, which could be utilized by companion photosynthesizers like Cyanobacteria analogues or diatom analogues to create a closed cycle as long as there’s access to sufficient light. I wonder if you could adapt photosynthesis-performing organisms to be able to thrive in a glass tank separated from the void only by said glass.

>>11648980
thats ridiculous, you can always go faster with more money. Build 5 starships at the same time, test different shit in each one of them and build anotehr one in paralel that tries to be the final model, maybe it works who knows just burry the problem in money till its done.


remember that once starship is completed its basically airliner levels of cost to mars, so fucking game solved

if you spent 50.000 times the apollo budget on starship it would still be a gigantically fantastic god tier penis hardening vagina moestingn investmetn that incredibly reaps fantastic benefits. its fantastic that the goverment isnt willy to give them less than the cost of a school bus

>>11648998
abso fucking nothing lutely.

space force is about internet, reddit policing and maybe at tops, hypothetical plans for anti ballistic missiles that in reality cost so much that even if they 100 times the budget they couldnt even hire the team tehy would need working ont he prototype for a week.


there is no need or budget for anything even closely related to anything even remotely military sci fi or fun, its just some air force paperwork that changed names, literally it.

*is still alive*
*is better than you in every way*

FUCKING kids get off my FUCKING lawn.

>>11648998
$15 billion is about their normal operating expenses. Now they are talking about absorbing the NRO and MDA. Imagine that budget.

>>11649043
>the Space Force absorbs the National Rape Octopus and Massive Dick Agency

>>11647749
This shit couldn't have gotten more ridiculous but here we are.

I still have trouble thinking of the Space Force as a legit branch of the armed forces and not just some restructured programs. Of course in practice it's barely a branch right now, but legally it is.

>>11649092
They're certainly advertising it like a real branch.

>>11647749
>Defund Aerojet, defund SLS, arrest everyone involved, purge all Shuttle influence from NASA, shut down oldspace, it's OVER.
this, if an unabomber style terrorrist destroyed every single piece of old space hardware he would be doing america a favor, forcing a hard reset of the industry, nothing could be worst than what exists now and if nothing new comes up at least they wouldnt be around to haras and steal funding from spacex

>>11649092
it doesnt feel real right now, cause everything is still relatively new. I imagine the Air force and marines went through similar growing pains.

Next year is when the branch actually gets some fucking money, and all the initial moves should be done. Then we can track the next 3-5 years to see what happens along the way.

One thing is for certain, now that its officially a new branch it probably is going to be here forever

>>11649092
it'll slowly build up to the full swamp of the existing branches

>>11649104
Speaking of the Marines, did you know they disbanded all their tank divisions?

>>11647858
>>11647972

>>11649123
>I'm going back to space
>my spine really needs that

>>11649121
yeah didnt that happen like a year ago?

>>11649092

It's almost as if de facto and de jure are two distinct concepts.

>>11649096
do they have any concrete COOL goals, like developing some sort of combat spacecraft, doing a paralel military space program? at least a LEO space station for quick deployment?

>>11648805
>I don't know what raises the Mars downmass up to 150 from the 50 it is on Earth
Mars has 1/3rd the gravity, anon. The final landing burns on both planets require about the same delta V, but on Mars much less delta V is lost to gravitational acceleration, which means it can instead be lost to increasing the payload mass.

>>11649175
Not that I know of, but I suspect we'll see those ramp up once we get super heavy lift rockets human rated for launch from Florida again.

I love how in last thread some were talking how EDA was going to do PR for Elon and "Normify" 500IQ Space speech for normies in twitter and he literally just began just some hours ago KEK.

>>11649175
using the Air Force's satellite tracking radars to find Near Earth Asteroids in cooperation with NASA
>>11649180
>going from 66 m/s to 0 m/s is about the same as going from 300 m/s to 0 m/s
hmmmm, no
also, less gravity doesn't change the fundamental problem that it's a Center of Mass issue

Anyone see Elon's newest Joe Rogan?
It looks like he's getting increasingly fed up with the powers that be and he just wants to fuck off and rule a kingdom of nerds on Mars asap.
I can't remember the last time someone with his amount of wealth and influence has so casually brushed off the standard etiquette of the global elite

>>11648977
Liquid is a weird half-phase of matter stuck between solid and gas, and can only exist under pressure. Even if you filled a can with 100% pure water, no bubbles and not even any dissolved gasses, if you put that can in space the faster particles of the liquid would be trying to act like vapor and would exert pressure on the can enough to stretch it until the opposing force was equal to the vapor pressure of the liquid (in this case water).

You're confused because you're treating water like a flowy solid when in reality it's actually sticky gas.

>>11649190
excuse me? English please

>>11649196
9.8 m/s^2 vs 3.7 m/s^2
Better Isp at Mars surface vs Earth surface
More control authority in deep atmosphere at Mars due to air being thin and RCS being stronger because low air pressure

>>11649203
EDA = Every Day Astronaut
PR = Public Relations
Normify = dumb down and explain

is that enough?

>>11649212
it doesn't change the fact of the matter that you need more fuel to slow down from Mach 1 on Mars than you need to slow down from deep subsonic on Earth
>>11649219
what 500 IQ Space speech?

>>11649212
What, you think the g in Isp = exhaust vel * g
is a variable?
It's a constant!

>>11649221
>what 500 IQ Space speech?
Probably anything Elon says about anything, I don't know dude. The guy basically stalks Elon's twitter and responds every time.

>>11649230
well yeah no shit, but where did he "began just some hours ago KEK"

Isn’t the surface of Mars nearly a vacuum as far as engine ISP is concerned?

>>11649227
No dummy, Mars' atmosphere is 0.6% Earths atmospheric pressure, which means Raptor will get ~355 Isp while burning because it's effectively in vacuum. Given the exact same landing propellant load, Starship has more delta V a kilometer above Mars' surface than it does a kilometer above Earth, for this reason.

I mention the gravity because gravity losses are a big deal during a landing burn. Killing 100 m/s of vertical velocity at Mars with a vehicle acceleration of 12 m/s^2 takes 12 seconds, but killing 100 m/s at Earth with the same 12 m/s^s vehicle acceleration takes 45.5 seconds, almost four times the burn time. Obviously you're starting off at different velocities but it does bring the numbers much closer together.

>>11649234
I don't know, I'm not >>11649190
I'm just some fag, guy

>>11649253
ah okay
well that guy's queer and incomprehensible

>>11649252
good thing that they won't have 12 m/s[math]^2[/math] acceleration
do that same math for 20 m/s[math]^2[/math]

>>11649252
Fug i misunderstood your comment

>>11649096
>Rotohabs right up against the drive.
Absolute mad lads.

>>11649197
There hasn't been since there was a globally connected elite, it's too easy for most wealthy or powerful people to just join the club by toeing the party line and making all the right noises. Why bother when you have a plan to fuck off from their influence within your own lifetime?

>>11649196
that sounds gay as fuck. Whoever is in charge of that is gonna get bullied to hell by the other generals.

-Guys, guys check it out, here comes general starboi, hey starboi come here
>Stop it guys! It's kowalsky!
-Whatever starboi, tell us what are you working on
>*insecure*Well, if you must know its very important stuff, we are actually tracking down ASTEROIDS in SPACE and this is very important for research into...
-*briskly interrupts*well ill be god damn...so basically you're doing astronomy, babysiting some civilians while they do their hobby. this country has fallen to a new low starboi, next thing you know they'll create the knitting force. Last week alone my boys took down an insurgent stronghold in a village, they killed 5000 soldiers and 10.000 civilians including men women and children starboi, i had to get another office just to fit in the united nations complaints, that's what a real man does starboi, they were so frenzied they raped their pets, THEY RAPED THEIR PETS STARBOI, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?.
>(in trembling voice with ocasional high pitch trail offs) g--gg-GUUYYS, i wo- wont be talked at like this i m an us army general i - i have lev..level five clearance and i demand to be treated with re...
-Tell you what starboi if you go get me a coffe with doughnuts and dont mess up the order ill let you ride in a tank for 15 minutes
>Y..you can't expect me to...
-I'll let you fire one round at a decoy
>How many cubes of sugar?

>>11649264
what's incomprehensible about wanting to suck dick, just imagine, hard manly powerful manhood rubbing against your soft wet lips,mm you wanna lick it and you do, you take out your tongue and its lides in, you could not RESIST sliding it back and forth into you to give intense pleasure until all of the cum is brutally injected into your throat

>>11649316
haha so fanneh

>>11649203
>>11649219
>>11649221
>>11649230
Anon was very kind to explain what I meant, hope that was enough.

>>11649234
>well yeah no shit, but where did he "began just some hours ago KEK"
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1258580078218412033
>Stalking Elon for years is finally paying off, now I get to translate his speaking to the average twitter idiot and Elon-senpai notices all the time, kyaaaaa!! - EDA
There, that wasn't so complicated.

>>11644675
Are there any more /sfg/ screencaps?

>$100/kg payload costs to the surface of FUCKING MARS
Oldspace is done if this happens. It's not even a question anymore.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1258580078218412033

>>11649344
Confirmed, living on Mars will be less expensive than living in southern California

>>11649363
I'm pretty sure living on Venus would be less expensive than southern California at this point, and with only marginally worse air quality.

>>11649344
>that fuel cost

earth2earth senpai...

>>11649288
I'm honestly really interested to see what the politics on Mars will be in the coming few decades, we just had the Trump administration say companies own what they mine on the moon so it looks like we're going to get scramble for Africa 2.0.

If you owned and operated a semi-autonomous colony I imagine you'd want something closer to a governorship than a CEO role. Can't wait for space feudalism

>>11649368
Assuming 100 passengers, this comes to $5000, which can get you to anywhere on Earth within an hour. For comparison, it was like $15000 for a 3 hour trans-Atlantic Concorde flight.

>>11649368
Get your eyes checked, faggot.
>$10/kg Earth to Earth
>ten times that ($100/kg) Earth to Mars

>>11649096
Too small. Should have stolen a render of GDSS Philadelphia.

>>11649378
yes, SpaceX is going to be the Dutch East India Company of Mars

>>11649385
People are not cargo idiot

>>11649395
for flight durations of under an hour, yes
they are

>>11649398
You don’t need a second stage for an earth to earth hop anyways, nor would you max out the payload by weight because people are volume limited

>>11649411
yes, although you aren't going to be able to shoot antipodal without Super Heavy

>>11649415
It would be it’s own vehicle, sized a bit bigger than the Starship, extra few engines too

>>11649422
it should be exactly the same as Starship, but with nine sea level engines instead of three sea level and three vacuum

>>11649344
ok but theres no way fuel is the main cost, you still have to amortize the cost of a FULL FUCKING SHIP over how much? 20 flights tops

mantainance crew salaries

theres no way each ticket is gonna be 500.000 you guys cant be that delutional

>>11649378
>I'm honestly really interested to see what the politics on Mars will be in the coming few decades, we just had the Trump administration say companies own what they mine on the moon so it looks like we're going to get scramble for Africa 2.0.

Corporation-dominated with small “free men” polities springing up settled by groups of colonists with special interests like religion or politics who want to start a new life on a blank slate and those who want to get out from under the thumb of the corporations.

>>11649443
20 flights is 45 years, no way in hell they are operating a starship built today for the next 45 years

>>11649443
Starship is very big, anon. If you lowball and assume 50 passenger capacity that means $25 million per flight from ticket sales.

>>11649453
He's talking about a suborbital passenger service and being very angry about his poor math skills.

>>11649455
No he’s talking about flights to mars
Suborbital flights will actually be cheaper than normal planes due to physics, cheaper fuel load, no need for a pilot or the same amount of crew, no need for giant paved runways, etc

>>11649462
>No he’s talking about flights to mars
No he's not, pinhead.

>>11649443
It’d be cheap enough that I could save up for it over the near future.

>>11649463
Well whatever nerd

>>11648764
I don‘t understand this reusable employees meme...

>>11649453
>20 flights is 45 years
Fly to Mars once. Fly to the Moon 100 times. Do 1000 Tanker flights to LEO. Retire vehicle 4 years after building it.

>>11648798
If you made Gigaheavy to lift super heavy into orbit as well.

>>11649462
>Suborbital flights will actually be cheaper than normal planes due to physics
no way in fuckhell this is true.

HEEY HEYYY wanna ride in a 100 year old flying machine that even third world countries can build??
HA, YOU FUCKING BURGEOIS ELITIST, THAT IS FOR THE OBSCENELY RICH, HOW CAN YOU ENGAGE IN SUCH OBSCENELY WASTEFUL PRACTICES. OBVIOUSLY THE REAL MEN OF THE PEOPLE, THE WORKING CLASS MAN ON A BUDGET WOULD ONLY TAKE A ROCKET MADE OF TECHNOLOGY SO ADVANCED ONLY ONE NATION ON EARTH HAS IT, WITH ULTRA COMPLICATED PLUMBING TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED VIA STATE OF THE ART 3D PRINTING WITH MATERIALS THAT MUST ENDURE THE EDGE OF WHAT'S PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE MULTIPLE TIMES PER DAY AND NOT REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT MANTAINANCE, SUUURELY THIS IS THE CHEAPER CHOICE

>>11649491
No third world country builds planes...

>>11649491
this but unironically

>>11649496
Brazil, arguably Russia.

>>11649496
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A1brica_Argentina_de_Aviones

>>11648758
Starlink trains are a meme anyways. When they're on the final orbit you'd have a hard time seeing more than like two satellites at once in the sky from most populated places

At the moment, it costs $250,000 to go to space for ten minutes. Is it worth it for you guys? The only reason I'm in Pre-Med right now is so I can afford my flight in a few years.

Is space anyone else's obsession?

>>11649517
at the moment, there are no real tickets to space
the Virgin spaceplane isn't ready to take customers and won't be for the forseable future
same with all the rest of the tourist sounding rockets

>>11649476
>Fly to Mars once. Fly to the Moon 100 times. Do 1000 Tanker flights to LEO

you really think youre gonna have parts heat up to the limit of what materials can withstand and cool down to near absolute zero a couple of times per hour for a couple of months in a row after being shaken around harder than in a ricther 5 earthquake, non stop and not need so much mantainance that youll basically build it from scratch?? youre delusional

>>11649517
>Is it worth it for you guys?
of course not, not like it currently is, youll spend 90% of all the money youll ever make, youll be scared and sick and you wont enjoy it it will be over in a heartbeat, it will not be special and youll feel like shit, save for a mars ticket, thats truly an adventure

>>11649517
Too expensive. Space is cool but I want to go to Mars or the Moon. Once you’re there, you’re there.

>>11649524
yeah

>>11649529
>Once you’re there, you’re there.
also, by goign to either, youll get the full space experience in all its variations

>>11649536
Mars also has its weird moons a short hop away.

>>11649536
On that note, what's taking Blue and Virgin so long? They already have the vehicles built, and New Shepard has already flown damn near a dozen times! it's not like they need advanced life support its a fifteen minute flight! And Virgin has already gone to space in 2006. Why did it take them damn near 15 years to build a ship (And I know Enterprise was destroyed).

>>11649538
Which you will never go to

>>11649010
Gov't money come with implied obligations. Imagine starship was funded from the budget, by the time mk1 popped public would be screeching a waste of money, funding cancelled and Elon dragged to court for fraud. To avoid this they would basically have to resort to oldspace methods and spend orders of magnitude more time and money to make sure everything always works perfectly on the 1st try.

>>11649542
Not with that attitude, you won’t. You can stay here while I build better worlds with Musk-Yutani.

>>11649546
Also comes with government oversight and government timelines and official government approved subcontractors

NASA likes being the way they are

>>11649517
I fully expect to be able to visit a moonbase in my lifetime for less than that.

>>11649443
20 flights? Try 100 or more nigger.

>>11649541
Blue Origin is building engines for Vulcan too.
Virgin idk, they don't seem very serious. They still haven't even passed the Karman line.

>>11649541
>On that note, what's taking Blue and Virgin so long?
Blue Origin is focusing on New Glenn for NASA and Amazon contracts. I have no idea why that rocket is going so slowly, but Bezos is less willing to fail in public than Musk is so that's probably why he's so secretive.

>>11647754
ITS REALLY HARD

>>11649669
SPACE IS THROBBING AND MASSIVE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ6wwA9wXog

Soon motherfuckers....

>>11649472
Apparently they can be refurbished by a taco truck.

>>11648877
The general public doesn't give the slightest fuck about the effects on astronomy. Shitting on Musk gets clicks so media pushes it out.
No one will say shit when it's commercially available.

An important part of manmade constellations is the fact that they're objectively superior to natural stars. We can not only vary their intensity and location but we can even create intensity patterns with them.

>>11649599
>Bezos is less willing to fail in public than Musk
And that's why Bezos will be a footnote in history and musk a entire chapter.

>>11649768
I sure can't wait to see a coca cola ad in the sky

>>11649778
It'll be a glorious day.

>>11649462
>less fuel
If you need a better fuel fraction than a plane you are gonna spend more fuel.

>no need for a pilot
The only thing stopping airplanes from being unmanned right now is the airlines fear that they will be made responsible if an accident happens, as well as the passengers fears. The same rule applies to starship.

>no need for giant paved runways
Giant paved runways are way cheaper than the cryogenic fuel facilities required for starship.

It's nice to dream, but don't try to pass it over for reality.

You could question if starship would make a better business proposition than concorde, answer would only be yes if it's allowed to land somewhere interesting rather than in the middle of nowhere to avoid supersonic boom after reentry.

>>11647708
well the LES is functional so probably not

So i guess condom shield did its job?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpm05o0g288

>>11649965
Nah, the condom popped. That thing looks roasted beyond belief though.

>>11648998
I think the space force might evolve to some sort of space police. Holding up peace up there since it's kind of agreed that politics should not have power in space.

>>11649794
>less fuel
He said cheaper fuel, not less. I don't know the actual breakdown offhand but methane is cheap enough that it might be the case. Even if it isn't, production will eventually be brought-in house in order to prepare for Mars ISRU.

>The same rule applies to starship.
No one will ever "pilot" a Starship, that's farcical. The pilot cannot be a backup for the automated controls when it's literally impossible for a human to actually safely operate the vehicle.

>>11649491
yes

>>11649994
>No one will ever "pilot" a Starship, that's farcical.

Giga-chad Martian cyborg wired into the ship says you are wrong.

>>11649971
>>11649965
There were two capsules in the test. The condom one was cargo which was completely lost. This footage is of the crew capsule.

>>11649731
They have like three robots just to make sure nobody drops a fucking hammer. Just clip shit to harness.

If we keep letting nerds setting the course to a space faring civilization we'll never get there.

>>11650069
Or just make the designs idiot-resistant enough to mitigate the rate of loss. The ISS probably wouldn't have so many issues if it were actually designed such that everything fit together easily in the first place.

>>11650069
We need the practicality of engineers and architects.

>>11649773
>the richest man of the 2010s and 2020s who completely changed the entirety of retail will be a footnote
Uh no.

>>11650102
God-Emperor Musk will delete all mentions of him from the Domain once he ascends through Neuralink.

So. Why would they remove engine?
Like seriously, this thing is supposed to run hundreds of times unchecked.
Or are they doings pressure tests again?

>>11650151
Maybe they want to check out that sound it made? Maybe they want to stick on one of the others and see if it makes the same sound? Maybe they're winding down for a bit since they're setting up some solar power shit on site next week for recompressing methane?

>>11650151
Yes, they brought the hydraulic rams again

>>11650102
yeah he probably will be a footnote
he isn't a showman, even most people today don't care about him unless he starts delivering parcels via drones

>>11650151
>this thing is supposed to
Its still being worked on.

>>11650151
Raptor is still in development. Even though they're producing them at a fast pace now every run almost certainly has significant alterations and the tests are as much of the engines as the shell.

>>11650151
I didn't think I'd trigger that much.
>>11650152
>>11650155
>>11650165
>>11650177
>>11650188
Triple doubles at that.

Look, rocket isn't gonna fly if it doesn't got no engine.

>>11650196
>ask question, get answers
>Triggered XD got you
huh

>>11650196
It's not gonna fucking fly anytime soon. If you thought that, you were sorely mistaken.
And no, you didn't "trigger" anyone. You asked a question and got replies.

>>11650200
Getting doubles again.
Look, you know it should fly without removing engine, for whatever reason.
>>11650201
It's supposed to do the same thing as the other tuna can a year ago.

>>11650207
Yes, but it's an engine under development strapped to a tank under development. Speed bumps happen.

They're probably testing higher pressures before plopping back on.

>>11650211
You do know SN4 is supposed to fly 150m into the air are you?

>>11650216
And you do know that it's not the same construction as last year, right?

>>11650207
You seem to think you're entitled to something. That's testing, get over it.

>>11650214
Guess that's where it explodes again...>>11650219

>>11650221
Bottom line, they're not gonna fly that before DM-2 just because it might explode. I don't give a shit if it explodes. That's rocket development.

>>11650219
It certainly is not.
What changed is thinner steel walls.

>>11650229
It's a bit larger, isn't it?
Just a teeny tiny bit?

But yeah, totally the "same construction". Get the fuck out of here.

>>11650229
plus stronger and fewer welds which are the actual weak point

>>11650220
Look, I'm fine with it. But Mars Launches by 2024 is not real.
>>11650221
Well, how many falcon 9 exploded that Dragon escape system couldn't manage.

Old Space BTFO

>>11650232
Look, them removing engine doesn't say confidence, when it's supposed to bring back people from Mars.

>>11650241
>doesn't say confidence
It says "testing". Are you fucking brain dead?

>>11650227
Starship has nothing to do with Crew Dragon, but SpaceX probably don't want a bad press just few weeks before DM-2...

>>11650242
Please quote me when first matians can't get back to Erf.

>>11650245
No shit.

>>11650249
Please fuck off until you understand what prototype testing means.

>>11650249
Martians would have never been on Earth in the first place.

>>11650234
>What is aspirational timeline
Protip, if you want shit to get done you set guidelines as targets, you don't try to satisfy the little people who bitch about everything anyway. Setting "realistic" non-aspirational goals only ensures that your performance will slow down to match a slower pace.

>>11650250
>>11650255
Guys, please understand.
I want it all to be safe, but it looks like Raptor isn't that much of a re-useable engine.

Stop baiting for (you)'s.

We're dealing with a troll meant to generate (you)s for the site to profit off of, like the flat earthers and china shils. Just ignore him.

>>11650262
>>11650263
It's gonna be fine, as long as we can replace the engine on Mars.

>Watch Chinese Dragon copy reentry
>Parts fall off mid flight

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAHAHAH
Fuck them.

>>11647754
I just watched that 8 Days (to the Moon) documentary while visiting family and was stuck explaining as "the space guy" why things are as they are today in spaceflight.

>>11650277
SOurce, faggot.

>>11650278
I wonder how many people wonder why we haven't gotten back to the moon in decades, and how many bought the NASA excuse that "space is hard".

>>11650278
Best thing ever to watch about the moon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIGbOoZzlYI
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQOEC9gHpmA

>>11650279
Watch the video at the usual Chink propaganda sources.

>>11650289
Chinks are lying, though?

It’s taking a while to build the sls but that’s because it’s the first one right?
How long should it take to build more after the first one is ready?

>>11649316
>be strongest military on Earth
>get decimated because you didn't bother tracking near Earth asteroids
Kowalsky's out there saving EVERYONE'S asses and is the superior man.

>>11650308
>It’s taking a while to build the sls but that’s because it’s the first one right?
Partly that, partly because the production line is naturally very slow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpm05o0g288

Toasty

>>11650263
This, I hate the anons who reply to them even more than I hate those faggots. It's like being at a party with some insufferable retard who thinks he's the funniest guy in the room and won't take the hint to just pipe down.

>>11649965
You gotta admire chinks determination to copy the real thing jus as everything else in history, can't wait for the chink Falcon 9 and chink starship.

>>11650354
If everyone would abandon their shitty F9 knockoffs and set their sights on Starship things would actually get interesting. Unfortunately they're just sitting around on their thumbs waiting for the design to be mature to care just like they did with F9.

>>11650359
No, that’s good. The further behind all the other inferior countries are, the better.

>>11650354

it's another "faggot op doesn't link in the old thread even though it's still up" episode
>>11650430

I love old NASA explainers such as these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTKHqfloB7Q..
Good old days

>>11650308
Nah, it took them years to finish that tank in Michoud, the timeline for completion of one (ONE) RS-25 engine is currently four years, with a possibility that the newer version will take "only" three years. SLS block b seems so far off that it will probably never fly, etc.

>>11650354
Long March 8 will be chinese Falcon 9. At least it will have flyback first stage.
It should be tested later this year.

>>11650573
It will guide itself through re-entry and carefully hover over a dissident's house before shutdown and plummeting straight down.

>>11650151
>you dont need to inspect prototype engines, I'm going to fly a couple hundred times on the final version regardless

>>11650079
>>11650095
I do rock climbing and you need to use various pieces of gear to go up a route. Sometimes you're on a route where if you drop gear you don't get it back. So you leave it clipped to your harness until it's fixed into the wall. It's a basic protocol that we can expect anybody working on a space station can be expected to follow.

That whole station should be bolted together after being placed with a robot arm.

>>11649541
>Why did it take them damn near 15 years to build a ship
somethign similar to old space. Jeff bezos thought money was the solution to everything and that if he gave a blank check with no timeline the engineers would deliver something fantastic as a result. Newsflash,human nature is a thing and they just used that money to live off him while delivering a mediocre result.

Its interesting that jeff bezos is a ruthless capitalist with amazon treating his employees a human garbage and getting fantastic results, but on BO hes a softie piece of shit.

ELon musk is the opposite, outside of spacex hes a bleeding heart liberal he kinda supports all "good" causes hes close to an sjw videogame player but in spacex he works his employees so hard they are close to suicide, and it yields results.

brotip, no one works well without pressure

>>11648841
cum inside young pussy

>>11650573
Looks more like a unholy booster variant clone of FH.

>>11650095
>architects.
im an architect, we have no practicality, we do 100 drawings, dance around them while making up poetry and then triple the building costs so that its pretty (for us and a few select architectural critics)

>>11650573
those extra tanks, so much useless mass, this is gonna have a shitty usable payload

>>11649491
>ULTRA COMPLICATED PLUMBING TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED VIA STATE OF THE ART 3D PRINTING
Raptor uses pretty much no 3D printing, Elon originally wanted to use it simply to speed up production but it turns out that normal machining techniques are actually good enough to beat even advanced 3D printers, and they don't want any unnecessary complications in the design regardless. In terms of relative complexity, Raptor is actually quite simple for a staged combustion engine, and much more simple compared to what most people though a FFSC engine would be.

>>11649524
>you really think
Yes, there's nothing hard about any of that.

>>11649731
What a piece of shit, that makes no design sense and will never be built.

>>11650019
Still a computer piloting in that case, still an autopilot.

>>11650888
>>11650885
wait so it could legit be cheaper to fly via rocket?

like, you could really have a world in which rich people get to travel via airplane like, for comfort reasons like people take a cruise today, but "economy" will imply going trough space?

>>11650801
it's true

>>11650920
Yes. It's a myth that rocket are soooo complex an hard; in reality a rocket that can put 20 tons into orbit is cheaper to build than a plane that can fly 20 tons from the US to China. The only reason anyone can afford air travel is because we fly the plane a lot. The only reason that expendable rockets have been operating for decades is because of the myth of "space is hard" combined with the fact that the military would pay any price to get their spy sats and GPS sats up there.

>>11650970
Although I agree with most of that, reusability seemed like a much harder problem when software was more limited. All of the efforts and concepts prior to "just let the rocket do it dummy" were pretty half-cocked.

>>11650885
Maybe some day supersonic metal deposition printers will start to make their way into manufacturing, then you'd get most of the best of both worlds. High speed creation of parts along with the ability to create normally impossible single-piece complex parts.

>>11651099
there's a new thread, I'll respond over there

>>11651109
Actually, I'm mistaken, they're already starting at least on small rocket parts. Now obviously the process still needs some work, probably to do with increasingly fine heads and heads that produce different patterns, but I could easily imagine upscaled versions of these kinds of machines churning out bells and combustion chambers rapidly. Since it's spraying metal particles I think you could probably also use them for creating single-piece composite bells and other stuff like that, instead of having to fit and fuse an inner bell and outer jacket you just switch materials print the outer component directly onto the inner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hze1D_B2ui4&feature=emb_title