/sci/ - Science & Math

>not flat earth edition

predictions for 2021?

>>12491205
This is not a pictures for ants edition.

>>12491210
would be a shame if someone shooped a tiny peepeepoopoo pepe right above that glowing part

>>12491208
oops, here's the full res version

Hi guys, thanks for being my only friends

>>12491213
I think it's supposed to be a "solar moth" thermal rocket.

>>12491216
It's crazy how the base Falcon 9 got so aggressively up rated that it cannibalized most of the market for the Heavy in LEO. All the big ticket Heavy launches like Gateway modules and Psyche keep getting delayed.

I think I just found the next Cost Plus Content bros
https://youtu.be/jzoZnYZ2ZT4

>>12491216
weird that despite all these starlink launches they still havent managed 24hr turnaround

>>12491244
interesting

>>12491210
How do we convince aerolock rocketmartin to invest R&D into a fuckhuge aerospike

>>12491264
Falcon 9 is not capable of 24 hour turnaround even with RTLS because it takes too long to clean the coke and TEA-TEB out of the engines, add a new upper stage, integrate payload, stack, etc. Starship should be able to do 24 hour turnarounds within a year.

>>12491272
For the inner system it's actually a pretty neat idea. Skip the wet mass penalty of oxidizer and the dry mass penalty of oxidizer tank and rocket engines, and focus light on your propellant to heat it. Isp is over 900s with LH2 which puts it into solid core NTR territory with waaaay less dry mass. That means you can still get an Isp of close to 800s with LCH4 with the dry mass savings we see with methalox vs. hydrolox chemical rockets.

Also you can use it with liquid water as propellant for real ghetto mode ISRU and still get an Isp on par with an RL-10. Pic related. NASA was studying using this for farming icy NEAs.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id--Beamed_Power--Solar_Moth

>>12491286
yeah but even as recent as the NRO stream their goal is still 24hr turnaround. musk must really want it, or maybe it's just to keep them on their toes

>>12491279
Send the Pentagon a picture of an F-35 with an aerospike and label it "stealth SSTO multirole space superiority fighter." They'll demand Lockmart build the thing.

>>12491279
xrs 2200 is coming back bros. we are finally gonna do hydrolox ssto again, the future is bright bros

why are people obsessed with space planes and SSTO?

>>12491298
Because they're cool

>>12491298
Wow why aren't you? did someone hurt you frend?

>>12491298
1. SSTO heavy lift spaceplanes are basically scifi tier spaceships for everything except interplanetary burns... and with orbital refueling that's possible too.
2. Spaceplanes look cool as fuck.
3. The Shuttle spent 30 years conditioning people that SSTO spaceplanes were the future since we built a 1.75STO spaceplane in the 70s.

>>12491298
Common sense?
You can't have easy and regular access to space if you junk your vehicle every time.
And we don't have the motivation yet for orbital ring or launch loop.

Happy 1 year anniversary of Starliner OFT :)

>>12491313
Starship actually gets pretty close to space elevator $/kg numbers if they hit Elon's mass production and cost targets.

>>12491318
inb4 starship is a spaceplane poster

>>12491308
Well, when we lost the Shuttle, we literally went half century back in time, relying on old soviet capsules, or commercial knock-offs of Apollo

>>12491318
All those $/kg numbers were just guesswork anyway.

>>12491301
Star Raker was such an awesome plan. Pity it was fucking Rockwell so it would never have been as cheap as advertised.

>>12491238
Go make friends

>>12491318
1) I don't trust those musk numbers
2) space elevator number are even faker

Reusable VTOL rocket is likely the most efficient we can get until we make progress in hypersonic plane or reentry heat
beyond I'm betting on space tether and orbital ring

>>12491216
hey nice picture, who made it?

>>12491301
understandable
>>12491306
i'm drunk af rn
apparently being drunk gets me (You)s tho which is nice i guess :)
>>12491308
understandable
>>12491313
i'm too inebriated grasp your reply at the moment, but i want you to know that I appreciate it nevertheless

>>12491350
i found it on r/spacexlounge

>>12491355
dude fellow sfg redditor. i tip my fedora

>>12491353
I'm told there's a direct link between the ability to understand stuff and inebriety but don't quote me on that.

>>12491364
aye lad I think you might be right

Who are the key people at SpaceX? Musk of course has limited time so who are the important project lead, engineers and so on?

>>12491369
Are you now or have you ever been an employee of either United Launch Alliance or Blue Origin?

>>12491379
I am not at the moment.

>>12491355
>>12491358
well at least some plebbitors produce quality pictures for mainstream science topics

>>12491298
Because in that case it all remains forever on the drawing board and you can spend decades producing nothing
Grant seekers selling in pop sci magazines

>>12491369
Do you need their addresses too

If falcon heavy is so much cheaper than falcon 9 why do we mostly see falcon 9 launches?

>>12491418
>in that case it all remains forever on the drawing board
Completely irrelevant to most of the spaceplanes ever designed
>you can spend decades producing nothing
You have just described sls

>>12491436
>falcon heavy is so much cheaper than falcon 9
who told you this? maybe cheaper per kg, but not cheaper overall.

>>12491436
because satelites are fairly lightweight and you are more likely to hit Falcon Heavy's fairing volume limit than F9's mass limit
unless you plant to yeet it to TLI and beyond I suppose

>>12491298
Simple, intuitive concepts. Humans are inherently fallible.

>>12491399
What meanigful content has /sfg/ produced?

>>12491581
Piss airlocks.

>>12491294
Can you put aerospikes on a "classsic", falcon-type rocket ?

>>12491383
Degree ? where do you wanna work ?

>>12491654
It's a good question to ask why before doing something especially if its going to be a really expensive and hard thing to do.

>>12491581
Have you not seen the cutting edge engine designs we have

New update video for KSP 2
https://youtu.be/cNMxoyw1Qoc

>>12491581

>>12491777
It's going to be the /sfg/ equivalent of cyberpunk

>>12491854
Literally all they have to do is make it not crash and use 40 gigabytes of ram and it will be a success to me.

>>12491777
Seems abit overedited given that they just had a setback on the release date

>>12491868
If you watched to the end, they had one dude shoot and edit it.
Hardly something that would set back development any further, as if that was possible.

In honor of the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction, what's your favorite gas giant mission? Where should the next outer solar system probe be sent?

>>12492053
The next outer solar system probe should be a 100 ton probe sent to europa to drill into its oceans

Hey chaps. Is it normal that engines on a first and second stage like starship/super heavy are the exact same? I just assumed previously they made specific engines for shuttle etc

>>12490780
>>12490753
Look at those waste lagoons on the right side.

>>12492077
Starship has 3 vacuum optimized engines and 3 sea level optimized engines on its upper stage (sea level engines are for landing)

>>12492077
Not usually. First stages typically have a smaller number of engines, so that if a single one of them was used for the second stage, it would be way too heavy/powerful.

>>12492077
That has never happened before because rockets were expendable just 5 years ago and that would make them less efficient and heavier than just staging off the booster a bit earlier to move over to second stage that is vacuum optimized

>>12492083
Are they significantly different internally or just small changes?
>>12492087
Will this make it likely competitors will follow suit for economics of scale like spacex

>>12492100
Small changes

>>12492096
But the vacuum optimised ones were never of the same engine model right?

>>12492105
Merlin.

>>12492077
Before Spacex no it wasn’t normal.
One way Elon streamlined development and production costs for Falcon 9 was to use the same engine for both stages, with the differences between both minimal besides the larger bell nozzle and some pipe

>>12492127
Would we say this is the best method in terms of performance or is it more of a cost saving/efficiency measure?

>>12492100

>>12492153
More efficiency at a small cost of performance since the 2nd stage uses RP-1. But the Merlin engine is efficient space magic so the performance cost is negligible.

>>12491298
Autism

>m-muh rockets
Oldspace pls

>>12492077
Elon's autism would not allow there to be wasted effort on a separate engine

Aerojet Rocketdyne sounds like a fucking cartoon company

It nice being able to land you rockets back, but it's actual improvement when you don't have to.

IT
KEEPS
HAPPENING

>>12492269
It's not even funny anymore. Depression and apathy are seeping in. The blackpill is real

WET DRESS REHEARSAL: COMPLETE
ORBIT: SOON
MUSKTARDS: BTFO

>>12492269
>>12492273
Someone needs to shop a clown wig and red nose on SLS.

>>12492077
No they’re usually different

> I just assumed previously they made specific engines for shuttle etc

Shuttle was really weird in that the fuel tank could be detached without detaching the engines

>NASA and Boeing engineers successfully completed propellant loading during the seventh core stage Green Run test, wet dress rehearsal Sunday, Dec. 20. The massive Space Launch System (SLS) rocket’s tanks were loaded with more than 700,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
>Engineers working in the Test Control Center monitored all core stage systems during the test as propellant flowed from six barges into the core stage in the B-2 Test Stand at NASA’s Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. First looks at the data indicate the stage performed well during the propellant loading and replenish process. Part of the test was to simulate the countdown with the tanks loaded, leading up to 33 seconds prior to the engines firing.
>However, the test ended a few minutes short of the planned countdown duration.
>The core stage and the B-2 test stand are in excellent condition, and it does not appear to be an issue with the hardware. The team is evaluating data to pinpoint the exact cause of the early shutdown. Then they will decide if they are ready to move forward with the final test, a hot fire when all four engines will be fired simultaneously.

>>12491854
kek

>>12492269
>#NASA successfully completed the test of SLS’s core stage; the tanks performed nominally with an observation noted at the very end of test involving the onloading of the fuel.

>>12491293
Throw in the word "freedom" somewhere for bonus points

>>12491298
Because they're easy to make in KSP and that's how most people on /sfg/ know about rocket science

>>12492289
Imagine only ever making a single rocket that will someday be the exact one that goes to orbit, and not making prototypes along the way to test out various systems. Then imagine finding flaws in it that are buried so deep that you have to spend a year taking it apart and putting it back together again just to reach the bad part to fix it, so you just say "fuck it, it's redundant". Then imagine you try to start it up and it fails for some random reason that takes you a month to figure out what happened, all because you never built disposable prototypes to test subsystems, and now you've got hundreds of them that weren't previously tested.
SLS: cost plus contracting's best friend forever!

>>12491581
Memes and ksp fapper

Reposting from an older thread:

R8 my KSP-tier idea for an ultra-heavy (1500 tonnes to LEO) fully reusable launch system.

>"Project Poseidon"

>amphibious hypersonic air-launch to orbit
>essentially the love child of Sea Dragon and Venture Star
>launcher is an enormous ~160 meter long suborbital spaceplane that takes off and lands on the surface of the ocean and carries a self-propelled cargo module on its back, similar to the one that would have been used on the unbuilt Shuttle C, albeit significantly larger with a 12m x 15m x 60m cargo bay
>launcher is powered by four massive linear aerospike engines that burn RP1 and LOX
>underside of the launcher is a sort of blended trimaran planing hull, with the cryogenic LOX tanks housed in the three hull profiles
>launcher has variable sweep wings with slotted fowler flaps to provide as much lift as possible on takeoff and landing

>cryogenic propellents for both the boat launcher and the cargo module are extracted in situ from the seawater by electrolysis and a generic tanker support ship fuels the launcher with RP1
>cargo module becomes the second stage and is jettisoned in-flight at about mach 6 at roughly 200,000 feet
>cargo module is powered by 6 engines: 2 SSME-derived vacuum-optimized main engines that burn LH2 and LOX for the main insertion burn, and 4 AJ10 hypergolic engines for final orbital maneuvers and de-orbit
>cargo module self-recovers by belly-flop reentry and splashdown
>launcher self recovers by simply flying itself back to the launch site, possibly using a bit of remaining fuel for supersonic cruise
>launcher does not need sophisticated heat protection because it is suborbital and thus is never exposed to the full-fury of re-entry stress, though it may briefly cross the Karman line

>overall, the system's purpose in the space program would be orbital habitat construction (particularly lifting massive torus segments into orbit), and occasionally launching deep-space expeditions

Thoughts?

>>12492274
>seventh Green Run test
The absolute state of SLS

>>12492317
>"Project Poseidon"
Gay. Stopped reading there.

>>12492317
Wouldn't rp-1 coke ths shit out of your aerospikes?

>>12492317
>RP1 SSTO
HAHAHAHAHAHA
wait a second - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Protip: check the mass of a vehicle, and how much of it is fuel. Then note the percentage for SSTO's.

>>12492309
honestly they should go with this

>Be boeing
>Spend a whole decade faking SLS problems for cost-plus gibs
>Also bank on the fact that crew dragon will fail and you’ll get extra bailout money for starliner
>starliner fails to reach ISS
>Dragon returns the flag
>sweatyjordanpeele.jpg
>Okay guys let’s get this green run in for real
>Suddenly encounter a borage of REAL problems with SLS as hard deadline rushes up, we can’t even do a fucking fuel load. Orion is internally dying but we can’t access it.
>In too deep. Spent so long crying wolf that NASA doesn’t give a shit nor does it have any pity left
>MFW Jim got pissed and decided to launch gateway pieces on FH
>MFW Jim got pissed and called our lander proposal gay
>MFW my planes are grounded, my commercial capsule can’t fly, and my shuttle-derived rocket can’t into space
>this guy who smokes pot.png
>Joe Biden appoints another boeing crony as administrator, life is good again
The next administrator would be a fool to give them a contract ever again, but it’s gonna happen

>>12492312
SSTO - launch to space on its own, and get back on its own
oldspace: that's gay, needs additional boosters, and secod stage, and third one as well, also get rid of the cockpit, manned spacecraft a shit

>>12492319

>>12492337

It's not really a SSTO bruh.

Work on your reading skills.

bigass crane is moving. Presumably to the launch site because it needs to put SN9 on the pad.

>>12492317
needs SRBs

sls is ssto

>>12492269
I wasn't joking when I made my first post about cutting down the largest redwood on your continent, sharpening it into a shape and firmly it through the core stage of that rocket.
That shit is cursed.

>>12492337

I never once mentioned SSTO you twit.

The dummy-thicc rocket boat is the 1st stage and the cargo breadbox is the 2nd stage.

Reminder SLS is free because the government pays for it and they can print money.
>muh cost effective private sector
lmao.

>>12492387
>free
There's nothing more expensive than "free shit".

>>12492317

Make the launcher and the cargo box both burn LH2 and you got a sweet concept.

I'm saying this because if you use RP1 it would be too heavy to float and the whole thing will sink like a toy.

>>12492367
*SLS is $$TO

>>12491854
Don't you fucking dare.

>>12491581

>>12492351
man boeing got really fucked over this year
almost make you want to pity them but almost all of the shit they're in is their fault anyway

>>12492393
RP-1 is less dense than water at least at room temperature.

>>12492317

Oh god.

Now I'm imagining a new Finding Nemo movie where all the talking fish characters unwittingly hitch a ride on this thing as it goes up into space.

>>12491854
I hope so, I'm loving 2077 so far. Missed opportunity to have some generic orbital company instead of a based SpaceX cameo

>>12492417
is there any other way to disembark from these starships aside from what was shown in the moonship concept?

>>12492440
Rope ladder :^)

>>12492317

I don't know why but I like this idea more than I probably should.

Here, have this cap.

>>12492420
Would pic related be the most efficient way to make a disposable rocket if we found a way to do it?

>>12492440
Pogo sticks.

>>12492317
neat
reminds me of this thing

>>12492453
if changing shape while going up doesn't have any negative effect then yeah it might just be

>>12491777
>https://youtu.be/cNMxoyw1Qoc?t=52
>kerbal shaking in fear. On the verge of crying
I'm going to feel really bad when shit blows up now

>>12492453
As far as solids go, sure, but disposable rockets are kind of a meme when cheap reusable liquid fueled rockets exist.

>>12492426
Boeing should have gone under. Instead they got rewarded with billions in bailouts.

Fuck the boomer elites with a sharp rake. Bunch of spoiled shits who believe that they should never take an L

>>12492277

>>12492453
>Would pic related be the most efficient way to make a disposable rocket if we found a way to do it?
ESA is making some experiments involving using iron dust as a fuel.
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2020/12/Iron_s_in_the_fire

>>12492477
>Boeing should have gone under. Instead they got rewarded with billions in bailouts.
That's why they bought out all their competitors that made civilian airlines. Now the government CAN'T shut them down until a competitor exists.

>>12492317

Your design looks familiar....

>>12492473
"Once the Kerbals are up, who cares how they come down, zat is not my department"
- Wernher von Kerman

>>12492315
Imagine spending your whole career trying to launch a rocket

>>12492510
that's a good one

>>12492405
actually very clever hahah

>>12492417
The number of engines is kind of crazy, but this was my favorite Starship design. I hope the 18m+ variants look like this

>>12492316
>ksp fapper

>>12491301
This

I have a ton of questions about nuclear rockets. First question is: how much energy is each “pellet” shot on an orion rocket. Is each pellet equivalent to a military-grade nuclear bomb? Or are they way smaller

>>12492582
Try googling critical mass or anything else to do with nukes?

>>12492567
Very nice. How much payload does that thing have in RO?

rekt

>>12492653
Scottsmen used to lead the world in not being gay, look how they’ve fallen

>>12492440
Land on your head so you safely bounce off the surface

Would there be any benefit to propulsively landing an Orion drive? Specifically if the landing zone is downtown Los Angeles.

>>12492664
In Scotland's defense, he's moved to the US. Most people who move to the US turn into complete shit.
Not that Scotland isn't mostly complete shit to begin with.

NSF got some info on SN9: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/12/starship-sn9-roll-launch-site-super-heavy-ramps-up/

>SN9 is expected to run the same flight profile as SN8
>if a success they'll bump the flight up to 15 and then 20km
>pre-flight testing will be optimized to only include two tests: 1. cryo-proof with liquid nitrogen and 2. a triple raptor static fire.
>Raptors are suspected to be in the early 60s by now

>>12492317
Make it dolphin sex instead, two lifting body craft, one with relatively broad wings, more like an SR-71 or Skylon, the other with short flap-wings like Starship for bellyflopping, but a more aircraft like nose. Both vehicles should use a common LOX/CH4 FFSC aerospike, to cut down on necessary maintenance and cleaning. LOX/RP1 hopelessly cokes engines even though it doesn't destroy their metal structure like LOX/LH2 would.
Launch them vertically from a specially designed platform in the gulf, they launch like rockets, booster glides itself back to a landing strip in say Texas or Florida, 2S takes itself the rest of the way to orbit and then returns via bellyflop for a glide in and similarly returns, perhaps even to the same exact strip.

The problem is that at that point it's essentially a more complicated version of a LCH4/LOX TSTO using an FFSC fuel cycle. What I would ask if I were on your design team is "why not just build a normal vertical launch and propulsive landing two stage rocket instead?"
Aerospikes can still be used, you'll have slightly lower TWR but get a substantially higher overall efficiency curve in propellant utilization, or use the same plumbing for both stages but design two powerheads, one a truncated cone aerospike for the 2S and the other a normal converging/diverging bell for the booster, still uses the same preburners and tubromachines but different injectors and nozzles.
Or, if we're going to use an exotic powerhead technology, I'd suggest a rotating pulse detonation engine, the principle has already been proved sound at the small scale, the next step is creating a practically large engine, 25-35% ISP increase without sacrificing TWR would be quite the achievement, and you can combine such a powerhead with an aerospike nozzle to achieve optimal propellant utilization too.

>>12492682
Would there be any downside to propulsively landing an Orion drive in downtown Los Angeles?

>>12492390
except free shit "from the government"
>>12492489
I like the bonus meatball
>>12492528
Your whole career on launching *a* single rocket, not a series of rockets. Not a planetary exploration mission that starts with a launch. Not a rover rated for 90 days but survives for years. Just getting one single pampered expendable rocket to orbit, then back down. But even after that there's not enough manufacturing capacity to make more than two a year.
And you take so long to launch that the entire space industry changes around you, and the only useful purpose of your rocket is to launch it once so they can finally cancel the program.

>>12492773
Free shit from the government is the most expensive of them all. Just because you don't understand how it's getting paid for doesn't mean it's not expensive as fuck.

>>12492682
>>12492765
There wouldn't be any downside to propulsively landing a fleet of Orion ships all along the California coast.

>>12492777
checked

>>12492509

How will you get it to float?

Is there a fusion equivalent to an orion rocket? I know of project daedalus and stuff, but all of those designs seems excessively large. Are there any designs where you could get orion-type speed with a craft the size of orion, but you’re running on fusion instead of fission?

>>12492785
isn't that what the epstein drive is in the expanse?

>>12492745
If it's going to follow the exact same flight profile, they'll probably get the exact same end result unless they've done some magic to increase header tank pressure which I sincerely doubt since it's not relying on a third gas to press it but just fluid dynamics.
Starting the righting maneuver higher up might give it more time to settle prop, but I don't really know enough about fluid dynamics to be 100% certain about that.

>>12492779
>Checking posts on a slow ass board like /sci/
>Checking posts at all

>>12492785
Any fusion rocket will get to a greater speed than Orion because it will utilize it's fuel more efficiently than a fission device will, however acceleration is a different issue. You might be able to afterburn a fusion rocket by dumping cadmium doped water into the fusion plume, your magnets will pinch it and expel it just like the rest of the ultra high temperature plasma but obviously you'll be carrying a second tank of propellant and your efficiency will take a chunky hit from that.

>>12492799
That's also how the Epstein Drive works, water bulk propellant plus fusion pellet fuel.

are orion craft so efficient because they receive their momentum more directly from the nuclear reaction? I mean like, instead of a reactor heating water or some more indirect shit it's just an intense nuclear blast directed at the craft itself.

>>12492808
I had the same question. I feel like it’s less efficient, but because nuclear reactions release a metric fuckload of energy it doesn’t matter because you are outcompeting any chemical rocket in terms of both energy density and overall thrust. I could be wrong though, but I think I’m correct. Basically you’re indirectly using the explosion for a boost, but each fission pellet is small and packs a huge punch

>>12491290
That's the beauty with how Elon operates. If he keeps pushing towards 24hr turnaround, the actual turnaround time will keep shrinking with improvements and increased efficiency. It doesn't matter if 24hrs is impossible, what matters is no one knows what the fastest time is, so you keep pushing towards that goal to find what is possible.
If the goal was 48 hours and it was reached, who says you can't do 45 hours? You can start refining the process again to keep shaving off time, or you can stay in a cycle that will constantly demand better results for continued advancement.
That's why Elon sets such ludicrous goals. He knows it's out of reach, but the end results will potentially be better than setting and achieving a mild goal.

Could reusable FHeavy launch a crew dragon around the moon and back? Could Crew dragon support 3 to 4 people on the 7 day mission?

D I S C U S S
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2020/12/20/alien-hunting-astronomers-investigate-a-signal-from-nearby-proxima-centauri/?sh=2f5029807032

>>12492821
I think this is right but I'm sure as shit not an expert in these matters. Just know that nuclear reactions are many orders of magnitude more energetic than chemical. They're on entirely different levels.

>>12492831
No

>>12492831
Wait a couple of months.

>>12492839
Alrighty then, that's alright, too.
>>12492844
You think they're gonna figure it out and explain it by natural phenomena, eh? Just like pulsars?
I choose to believe something different.

>>12491286
>because it takes too long to clean the coke and TEA-TEB out of the engines

Cleaning engines after an RP-1 run is a serious pain in the ass. ffs some F1 engines retrieved from the ocean after they had been sitting there for decades still smelled like the stuff.

2020 is coming to an end, /sfg/. We need a highlights reel for 2020.

>Starlink launches
>CrewDragon launches
>Mars 2020 launches (NASA/China/UAE)
>Solar Orbiter (ESA)
>Chang'e (Moon landing/sample retrieval China)
>Hayabusa2 Asteroid sample return
>Starship prototypes makes 12.5km flight

In total we had ~111 launches this year. Next year will close to double that and will likely be historical moment in space flight when we had the most launches EVER in history of spaceflight.

>>12492653
The Launcher CEO noted that Aerojet Rocketdyne is barely worth more than Relativity. Pretty pathetic.

>>12492851
Well... we get false positive signals all the time. But it would be fucking cool to have some neighbors. Hopefully they want to meet up with orion drives and just go explore the planets together. They aren’t welcome to our solar system though; I’m too embarrassed to show them california and joe biden and stuff

methane is cool

>>12492862
Benis Inspection day.

>>12492851
>You think they're gonna figure it out and explain it by natural phenomena, eh? Just like pulsars?
Just like water on Mars. Just like the Wow! signal. Just like Venus' phosphine. Just like KIC 8462852. Just like the Red Square Nebula. Just like the tons of other times potential signs of alien life popped up. You're free to believe that this time might be true, but I'm going to wait until further developments happen.

>>12492873
Water on Mars is real.
Wow remains unexplained.
And Venusian phosphine requires more research.
I've never heard of the other two.

So I'm not sure your point.
>>12492867
Maybe they'll be commies.

>>12492867
Could be worse. I wouldn't trust the donald with first contact.

Thought, maybe we could have convinced him a Dyson sphere is a wall...

>>12492831
What are the chances this is actually a real deal? I give it 0,1%

>>12492831
Because of the slight blueshift I think it's a probe that's on its way here from Centauri, launched by a species that has since wiped itself out.

>>12492901
Inverse square law.

Even proxima centauri is too far away for anything but a immensely powerful and focused EM signal to be heard by earth.

>>12492453
someone post the nuclear srb

>>12492901
0.02487% chance
>>12492777
Good point
>>12492588
Will do

>>12492096
Starship Super Heavy stages super early, dude
historically most rockets have staged much later

>>12492863
speaking of those two, are there any upcoming smallsats planning on launching next year?

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1341112162551525378?s=21

UNF

>>12492901
>he comes from a country that uses a comma as decimal separator

>>12492929
Second statement is weird but hopefully europa clipper can fly on a falcon

crane almost there. BTW why is it moving so quickly now but had trouble reaching SN9? Did it get stuck or something?

>>12492929
>another 3 billion
Remind me again how much has already been shoveled into this fucking thing? 24bn? More?

>>12492929

>>12492929
Remember when $2B a launch seemed like an overestimate for SLS?

>>12492967
Yeah I just assumed /sfg/ was greatly exaggerating that number. Turns out we were undershooting it lmao

>>12492862
Trump losing

>>12492971
You know SLS is really bad if the memes about it are more realistic than the actual project itself.

>>12492851
You don't get to choose what to believe. You believe what's true, regardless of your preferences. Unless you're a woman or a conservative, then you just believe what you're told.

>>12492941
damn this thing is hauling ass

>>12492664
California/SanFran Libtard. Open Borders and free money for all, not worried who has to pay for it. Same with Estronaut.

Angry Astronaut is the only choice.

>>12492954
>24bn
That's 2 JWSTs and an half, seems like a bargain to me.

>>12492779

>>12493014
If only there were some way to get them off the fucking ground

>>12492971
>>12492967
Nah, I had already calculated that $2B was without any thing else. My own estimate suggests SLS will likely cost close to $4B per launch.

>>12492929
Super heavy lift vehicles that can send people to the Moon are not cheap. Don't let yourselves be deceived - nobody can make man rated hydrogen powered srb driven super heavy lifter with proven flight worthy legacy components for less. It's not that easy in rocketry.

>>12493015
>it's raining liquid farts oh god why

>>12493039
>Fuck this shit we're leaving except for Joe whose idea it was to go there in the first place. He can stay on the fart ball all alone. Fuck him.

>>12492788
What do you suspect the reason for the drop in pressure was?

>>12493008
Angry astronaut is a stupid Grifter, barely better than the German cuck and his chink wife who suck Elon Musk cock

>>12493039
conceptualize the aroma

>>12493051
Probably valve closing timing was incorrect. So likely it maybe a software issue which can be fixed easily.

>>12493059
>timing MIGHT BE incorrect
fixed.

>>12493051
Different anon but lots of people are speculating that it was just a valve problem. I think Hullo indicated it could have been a software issue with opening the header tank valves at the correct time? If this is the case then it’s literally a five second fix... which is why I want to see SN9 on the pad asap. SN8 was probably only 5-10 seconds away from a good landing

>>12493059
I'm guessing the rapid slosh from the flip cooled the methane gas causing it to condense and reducing pressure. Valve seems too... simple.

>>12493051
Propellant didn't get time to settle, leading to underpressure. The oxygen worked relatively fine though, since it turned into a fine blowtorch for a little while.
Shit is sloshing like a motherfucker since tanks are pretty dry on the way down, the less time you have for it to settle, the bigger the chance you have for it to start burping huge amounts of either fuel or oxidizer into the engine, both of which is a bad thing.

Elon stated it was a tank thing, not an engine thing. That would suggest it's a fluid dynamic issue and not a valve thing.

>>12492830
I think even FH has to be expendable for a single launch. If you want to be reusable, just do two launches and EOR. Make the first launch be FH putting up a TLI stage, then send crew up on a regular F9, and dock with that. Docking is hardly risky technology at this point.
Sure, you would still be expending the two second stages, the TLI stage, and their three engines, but the big muscle boosters with their four cores and three dozen engines would be recovered.
>>12492831
>F... U... C... K... O... F... F... W... E... A... R... E... F... U... L... L...
>>12492851
saved
>>12492862
D4H lighting its farts
Cargo Dragon 2 launched too
Bennu asteroid sample (still waiting for USPS to deliver it)
Lewd satellite recovery

>>12493063
>SN8 was probably only 5-10 seconds away from a good landing
absolutely. Halfway during its landing burn it lost thrust. Had it not it would have slowed down enough for a perfect landing: https://youtu.be/2hcs-QbD_DA?t=396

>>12493067
Wasn’t the initial concept of dearmoon supposed to be a dragon 2 slingshot around the moon? Not only was this a pretty cool idea but they most likely would have done something similar: a FH launch to get a booster stage in orbit, followed by a crewed F9 launch to dock with it. I feel like Musk would have gone along on the mission if they did it this way. Speaking of which, why hasn’t musk been to space yet? Does he not give a shit or is there just no room

>>12492830
>no
>yes (but it'll need additional equipment in the trunk)

You can pull it off with center core expendable I believe. Expending the side boosters does not yield that much more payload. Reusable might need launching the dragon on F9 and docking it to coasting upper stage by the FH. In that case you burn two upper stages and complicate the whole thing.

>>12493074
Holy fuck it was literally 4-5 seconds away. The first time they nail the landing this general is going to go apeshit. And the first orbital test will be such an exciting event

cane now in launch site

>>12493088
When's the crane gonna hop?

>>12493092
When you stick enough explosives underneath it.

Reminder single SLS flight costs around 650 million dollars and the price can be reduced further.

This makes it one of the most cost effective launch vehicles in history.

>>12493098
I'll be surprised if it ever drops below $5bn per launch and initial cost is anything lower than $6bn.
If it ever launches, that is.

>>12493077
>Speaking of which, why hasn’t musk been to space yet?
Because he is the Man Who Sold the Moon.

>>12493098
What did all the stuff to launch SLS cost

>>12493098
>SLS
>flight

>>12493098
>the price can be reduced further
Sure. Only if you take the shit management out back and shoot them Soviet-style.

>>12493063
Just a reminder, fact don't rest upon democracy. So it doesn't matter if a trillion person, aliens, or gods comment and say it might be valve issue. What really matters if what actually happened and we can only get confirmation from SpaceX themselves.

I wonder if they're going to pick up the nosecone with it.

>>12491369
>Musk of course has limited time
the guy is only 40 lol

>>12493117
If they spin the crane around as fast as it will go and then release the nosecone, how far would it fly?

>>12493126

>>12493124
He'll be 50 next June.
I'm no fucking spring chicken myself.

>>12493124
And expanding rapidly on the standard American diet.

>>12492745
I read the same info, and it's all speculation. They don't know shit.

>>12493109
>RS-25: $146M each
>4 segment SRB: $23M each
>Shuttle external tank: $75M
>Delta IV upper stage: ~$23M
That comes out to a total of about $728M assuming assembly, fueling, and launch cost nothing.

>>12491436
I am convinced that Falcon Heavy was a scam
>63T advertised, never lifted more than 8 or 9
>has barely flown
Either there were fatal flaws with the rocket that they never admitted or the heavy launch market isn't as big as they hoped.

>>12493143
No, I mean the infrastructure. All the stuff around the rocket, not the components of the rocket. What needed to be built in order to have an SLS that you might theoretically fly one day.

>>12493140
>can afford a hair transplant
>doesn't pay for a gym membership

>>12493144
>the heavy launch market isn't as big as they hoped
It isn't. It's a highly specific market mostly used for sending shit far out there instead if you're in a hurry and the only ones in a hurry are government.
And until fairly recently, SpaceX was shut out from govt bidding. So no shit, it's seen little use. They just did get a fuckload of cash to build a vertical integration system to launch shit on it in the future for the only ones really needing it though.

>>12493088
>yfw starship with heavy booster can launch the whole crane into LEO

>>12493157
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/nasa-spends-1-billion-for-a-launch-tower-that-leans-may-only-be-used-once/

>>12493117

>>12493144
Of course it's a scam. If it wasn't NASA would have been drooling over using it to get back to the moon. Speaks volumes how they don't care about it.

>>12493163
Do you really think he's got time to hit the gym to keep himself 100% fit? Closing on 50, he'd have to do TRT to do that shit as well as spend significant time in the gym. I'm closing on 45 and I have a hard fucking time staying as fit as I was when I closing on 40. I can't do TRT in this country unless I've had prostate cancer.
Time is a harsh mistress and testo levels dropping is a bitch.

>>12493143
is the upper stage finished? Wasn't it supposed to have 4 RL10s or something?

>>12493175
How much did they pay for the crawler and its maintenance? I remember it was pricey too.

>>12493065
You literally have no idea how the fuel system in SN8 works. You are painfully incorrect about everything.

>>12493183
Then how about you explain exactly what went wrong, mr. insider? I have never claimed to do anything but speculate.

>>12491436
Because most launches are to LEO and they don't need FH for most leo launches. F9 can already launch close to 16T to LEO as reusable.
>>12493144
Elon wanted to cancel FH multiple times but shotwell argued they should keep it for critical AF missions. So FH is not suitable for LEO unless they want to launch in expendable mode for full 63T. However there's no market for 63T payloads to LEO. So FH is kept mainly as GTO/Airforce missions.

>>12493181
The Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage is just a Delta IV upper stage. The Exploration Upper Stage is probably still in development and is expected to cost about $800M each. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-rejects-blue-origins-offer-of-a-cheaper-upper-stage-for-the-sls-rocket/

>>12491298
Unironically because Star Wars.

>>12493144
It's a small market + FH really needs a bigger fairing. Right now it struggles to make use of its excellent payload capacity because its volume capacity is the same as the Falcon 9. Though they are working on improving it.

Looks like next year there are 4 FH launches slated. All to GTO. Looks like an airforce will involve sacrificing the center core (intentionally this time) and landing both boosters on droneships. Should be pretty sick.

>>12493178
Congress has tied NASA ball-and-shackle to the SLS. They don't have a choice in the matter. From the start NASA wanted to make a Saturn V 2.0 but were forced to play this dumbfuck contractor dicksucking game. https://youtu.be/ZNZx208bw0g

>>12491298
When you make a rocket system its made out of multiple stages. Usually different company takes different stage. Since each company then offloads its internal expenses and need for profit onto the stage the price of the total vehicle massively inflates.

As a result, when asked "how do we make it cheaper?" the industry answered in a simple way - give only one of us the money, to make a single stage.

>>12492503
Fuck. Cut every single one of their contracts NOW and wait til they die. They deserve it. Their planes, rockets, research get sold in bankruptcy sale and like 10 new firms emerge... cablamo.

>>12493188
You're talking about propellant settling. landing fuel had it's own pressurized tanks and didn't have to worry about sloshing, or else the raptors wouldn't have even relit. Elon said pressure as a whole was way too low in the secondary tanks.
Your comment made your ignorance of the fuel logistics obvious.

>>12493214
>implying anybody gives a shit about launching anything in space

>>12493179
what's the point in being a billionaire if you die of a heart attack in 20 years?
>>12493183
Instead of correcting him you act like a smug neckbeard
>>12493190
So what orbit will Starship be mainly going to?

>>12492745
Lmao NSF legit just pulling stuff out their ass now

>>12492907
Lol what a foggot type thing to say

>>12492935
Berger is a retard. It entinguishes the chance of a "NASA led mission". But who tf was putting their faith in NASA?

>>12493219
Propellant in header tanks have to settle too, faggot. They don't escape the wonderful world of fluid dynamics.

>>12493251
They don't have to 'settle' like the main tank. The fuel isn't "sloshing" around so violently that air can get in the lines and starve the raptors. Its pressurized, and not with air. The raptors got 100% RP-1 and LOX. The problem was low pressure, so the engines demanded more fuel than could be pulled from the tanks.
Once again, your ignorance of the system shows.
>faggot
Go back to /b/ if you resort to name calling instead of discussing facts.

>>12492935
I thought they had cornered Clipper to be SLS only. Glad to read this

>>12493267
Nigger

>>12493267
>The raptors got 100% RP-1 and LOX
Yes, I can see you have a lot of knowledge about this.

>>12492274
Starship will fly before SLS

>>12493229
>So what orbit will Starship be mainly going to?
Mars

Zimbabawe!

>>12493267
>The raptors got 100% RP-1 and LOX

>>12493098
>The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.
The thing isn't even cheaper than the ridiculously overpriced Shuttle

>>12493277
Zimzambwe!

>office of space commerce grows but remains under NOAA (lol wtf)
>FAA gets full funding for commercial space activities
>only 25% of budget for HLS
>Europa Clipper is allowed to launch on a commercial rocket
Not bad but why do they hate HLS?

>>12493288
HLS implies that they're actually going to go anywhere

>>12493288
25% budget means it will put immense pressure on National Team/Dynetics. Meanwhile SpaceX will do it for that budget or less.

Also euro clipper is allowed on commercial rocket only after analysis shows it can't launch on SLS

If SLS exploded everytime they tested it /sci/ would love it.

>>12492941
It was moving under its own power when it was going to save SN9. Now it's being carried back to the pad.

>>12493293
Cancellation of SLS would mean, US tax payers would save upwards of $50B over the next 10 years. Or around $20B in the next 5 years.

How much of the total cost of an Atlas V is the Centaur upper stage?

>>12493295
ah, you're completely right. I didn't notice that red transporter under it

>>12493299
Oy vey! Now do the military.

>>12493308
Cancelling the US military would mean US would shrink our GDP by 20% in the next 10 years due to China now controlling all the trade in the pacific and Europe under chaotic times.

>>12493310
>China now controlling all the trade in the pacific
What does that actually mean? And wouldn't they "control" most of it anyway already?
>Europe under chaotic times
Lol
Is that what you actually think the US military does?

>>12493310
Delusional. If you want to keep "free trade" going then just keep a few carrier battle groups running. You can get rid of everything else.

>>12493310
20% is optimistic, its more likely to be 50-70% reduction in economics power.

>>12492269
At least they are back to being able to start loading propellant! Go SLS!

>>12493324
>t. Constantine X

Childbirth at ISS when?

>>12492491
>rocket-rich ClF3* engines will finally be a thing

>>12492489
excellent, saved and reposted to reddit :^)

>>12493366
Shit...
That's disturbingly hot, but I doubt lunarians are going to be this high.

>>12493366
I find childbirth highly erotic, I'd pay to watch one in low gravity.

>>12492332

How does RP1 "coke" anything?

So can it be that LockMart bought AD because of this thing? Do they want to try actually competing with SpaceX? Would be pretty cool.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a430218.pdf

>>12493366
>TFW no lunarian GF

>>12493310
Cancelling the US military would throw the international physical market into absolute chaos. Pretty much only smaller land routes and high priority air routes would remain alright. China doesn't have the capability to project their power outside of Asian waters near them and even then all of Asia would basically enter a Mexican standoff. Over half of China's food imports come from beyond that range (and that's if you include all the way down to Australia and New Zealand). Lots of countries, especially developing and Asian ones, would very quickly encounter food crises of wildly varying severities, with places like China, India, Bangladesh, and similar being by far the worst hit. Any country that didn't have a direct pipeline or very close connection to a sizable oil producer would be absolutely fucked, and even many of those that did would still have to ration it pretty much only to important (government and military) uses. All of the countries we think of as having any moderate degree of global importance would instantly revert back into regional powers, and those that didn't would only not be so because they regressed even further. I could go on, but the gist of it is that there's almost no understating just how important the US military has been in allowing a globalized economy to exist.

>>12493366
>>12493373
>>12493378
But honestly, what's stopping them from experimenting with childbirth on the ISS. I mean sooner or later they have to find out about the effect of having a child in 0G if we want to become an interstellar species

>>12493413
humina humina

>>12493413
>NOOO YOU CANT DO THAT ITS INHUMANE!!!!

We cant even do vat grown brains in the west because scientists are too scared of them developing consciousness

>>12492935
A billion dollars a year for systems that already exist, or should exist since they’ve been worked on for like 20 years now, means a 2024 launch is impossible ?
Why do these people even get a penny ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANv5UfZsvZQ
Five years ago today

>>12493413
>But honestly, what's stopping them from experimenting with childbirth on the ISS.
Just look at any study of human cells or growing plants in space. Microgravity has many yet to be known effects on organisms and the stress caused by the flight to the ISS alone could kill the child/mother.
Not to mention fetuses without limbs.

>>12493411
Fuck, now I want to fuck lunarian gf, thanks.

>>12493412
why do you assume everyone would suddenly become pirates if the US military stopped existing?

>>12493430
Shes 12

>>12493373
>>12493378
>>12493430

Pedos get the airlock

>>12493430
you sick fuck

>block 1-B will require an entirely new launch platform because it's slightly taller

Redpill me on replacing LOX with pressurized N2O as your oxidizer.

RP1 + N2O or C3H8 + N2O.

Boom, you have two fully storable, non toxic bipropellent blends.

12 is prime, friends
>>12493437
>>12493438
>>12493441

>>12493437
>>12493438
>>12493441
Time on the moon flows faster.
Not my fault she looks like an adult.

>>12493441
>>12493438
>>12493437
Maybe he's a Muslim, you shitlords. They're allowed to do that.

>>12493445
The absolute state of oldspace

>>12493409
I'd be down for it. The quicker humanity masters FFSC the better

>My understanding is that the National Team has been told, essentially, to never again submit a ludicrously high bid in comparison to its HLS competitors.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1341114067126239233

You forget where you are. 4chan has always been pedo friendly. Just look at all the anime that gets posted, even in the spaceflight threads

>>12493436
And even if they did, just put some nice machineguns on cargo ships to kill any and all Somalian pirates. Problem solved.

>>12493472
lmao fucking rekt

>>12493445
Literally why the mobile launcer? Cant you just make a big railtrack for it?

Is new Shepard dead?

>>12493445
>The total cost of the ML-2 is estimated to be $450 million.

My bet is 3x the price and at least two years of delays

>>12493472
holy shit Jim is turning the fucking screws on oldspace on his way out! between this and telling lockheed to fuck off with more orion delays, AND possibly telling boeing to fuck off with their leaky orange tank delays......super based.

>>12493480
And in a response to which two will get picked he had this to say.

>Impossible to say given we are not privy to their bids nor NASA's internal assessments, nor how the Biden administration may change things up. But I would say it probably helps to have actual hardware to demonstrate. Flying it is a bonus.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1341115709838004224

>>12493429
And already, the landings are basically mundane and an expected part of every mission. What a goddamn triumph.
If they ever got to this point, oldspace would have reviewed the data for three years and then canceled the reuse program after deeming it unnecessary.

>>12493436
Have you seen what's been going on in the US for the past year when the stupid and selfish know they won't be punished for whatever they do?
It certainly wouldn't destroy modern civilization, but it would create a massive and volatile power vacuum that would take quite a while to fill.
It would definitely have its benefits though- like the places that rely on providing dirt cheap labor and products through unsustainably large populations getting absolutely shafted and places that skimp on their militaries to become welfare states likely just being unable to continue to do so.

>>12493490
On the SLS side, I'm half convinced NASA management strat is actually trying to get the damn thing to blow up. If they can blow up a few SLS in a row that would be enough to cancel it, and NASA seems all out of fucks lately :)

>>12493485
>green-test of ML-2 postponed yet again after a family of rare indigenous rats were found to be nesting in the wheel-wells
>study and removal of the fauna is expected to cost $5million and take anywhere from 9-24 months to complete, after which time ML-2 will be torn down, inspected piece by piece, then reassembled as slow as possible
>movers are hard

>>12493445
I can't even be mad at orange rocket anymore. It's just irrelevant to actual progress.
>the virgin half billion dollar mobile launch pad because the old one was slightly too short
>the chad $10k steel frame

>>12493445
I yearn for a world where NASA is restructured such that it has the kind of budgetary discretion that would allow an administrator like Big Jim the free hand necessary to strike down this madness

>>12493497
>I hate the welfare state but I also want to get rid of unskilled labour jobs

Why cant NASA into trains?

>>12493472
>>12492935
This kills the oldspace

>>12492929
Could NASA conceivably send Congress a list of ludicrous missions that even Congress wouldn't fund?

>>12493507
Because USA

How long ago was Venus an ocean world? Was it back when Pangaea existed on Earth?

>>12493507
>What can't USA into trains?

ftfy

>>12493507
N1 was a SLS tier clusterfuck
>can't static fire the engines
>no integrated testing
>lead engineer dies halfway through
>plumbing nightmare

>>12493516
Claim your Venusian nations borders /sfg/ and explain why

>>12493519
it almost worked

>>12493492
does national or dynetics have any actual hardware?

And if SpaceX wins doesn't that make SLS kinda pointless?

>>12493490
I'm going to miss him. And be livid if we go back to 24/7 corruption afterwards

>>12493504
the fact that Congress, the most hated part of our government, decides what we do in space is complete horseshit.

>>12493509
>>12492935
yeah, that HLS number alone may make national team's high bid impossible

>>12493523
so will Artemis 1, almost

>>12493481
SORRY. I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER ALL THE CONCRETE I'M POINTLESSLY DRIVING AROUND.

>>12493528
SLS will have its N1 moment after 3 detonatations

>>12493506
What? How did you come to think that I want to get rid of unskilled laborers?

>>12493436
Lacking order, chaos reins.

>>12493532
do you guys think spacex will drive concrete around on boats some day?

>>12493519
>tfw working on a jet rn and there's no money for blade tests so blades will be tested when it runs
How many inches of perspex will protect from a 10k rpm impeller explosion?

>>12493528
>SLS will become a fabled rocket where the engineers insist that the fifth flight would have been successful had the funding not been cut before they could launch it

>>12493524
>does national or dynetics have any actual hardware?
BO has engines and Lockheed/Northrop have muh heritage. I haven't seen shit for Dynetics beyond their mockup.

>And if SpaceX wins doesn't that make SLS kinda pointless?
They could still go through some mental gymnastics to justify SLS, such as calling it "assured access", saying that it requires less launches for missions beyond LEO, and saying that a Block 2 could lift more in one go than a Starship.

>yeah, that HLS number alone may make national team's high bid impossible
Supposedly they were allowed to adjust their bids, but I'd be surprised if they went from the 10B they wanted to a fraction of that.

>>12493540
Earth-to-Earth concrete delivery via Starships equipped with cement mixers in the cargo area.

>>12493546
what has Dynetics built ever?

>>12493522
That would take fucking hours to mark out in any meaningful level of detail.

virgin orbit venus air launch when bros

>>12493472
The respective bids.

BlueOrigin tried to bid $10B on HLS LMAO. They could try to go for a 1/5 of what they did and try to compete with SpaceX, but they'd have to sacrifice a lot of things.

>>12493549
better yet, make a cargo bay sized mixer

>>12493559
What the hell is Blue Origin's endgame? Are they completely out of touch?

>>12493567
OLDSPACE

>>12492787
Does that drive kill itself?

>>12493561
>uses flaps to do mixing-flips on the descent towards target
Fresh hot-n-ready cement to your door, anywhere on Earth in 30 minutes or less or the next one's free!

>>12493575
Like all Epsteins, no.

>>12492831
Could be aliens but I think we should wait for a while for more info

>>12493575
Well the inventor did, but only on accident

>>12493559
>BlueOrigin tried to bid $10B on HLS

>>12493559
>10b

Why the fuck would they need that much money on a goddamn lander?

>>12493522
I claim all of it because mine.

>>12493472
Guys

>>12492851
>You think they're gonna figure it out and explain it by natural phenomena, eh?

It’s either aliens or somehow a human transmission that bounced off of something, or sent from a satellite. It was narrowband and nature doesn’t make narrowband signals

>>12492873
Wow! Signal and Venusian phosphine are completely unexplained still.

>>12493590
That'll be 20b plus tax on a cost plus basis thank you.

>>12493490
>on his way out
Almost like he knows he's not leaving.

>>12492913
A narrowband signal hitting earth is essentially 100% intended specifically for us. It was in a frequency rarely used by humans too

>>12493524
>And if SpaceX wins doesn't that make SLS kinda pointless?
Incredibly pointless, yes. Orbital refueling makes Starship superior performance for 1% the price whether you're talking about moon landers or yeeting probes at the outer system.

>>12493559
the fucking nerve of a company that has accomplished fucking nothing demanding such that ungodly sum

>>12493602
>trumpkin_copium.jpg

>>12493595
>Wow!
it's fucking nothing

>phosphine
it's fucking nothing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVm4t6Cu_3A
Nasa is SCREAMING

>>12493559
>TEN BILLION DOLLARS

>>12493549
>>12493561
Starships customized for in-orbit construction would be pretty sweet.

>>12493622
How does concrete harden in zero G vacuum?

>>12493559
I bet they just drop out. They're probably not down for it if they can't make mad cash

>>12493620
perfect

What the fuck in this even screams for ten billion?

>>12493635
cgi and marketing teams anon

>>12493635
10B also covers the lawsuits for when an astronaut breaks something on that ladder

>>12493635
Well, it could have been looking like this.

>>12493635
It's not easy to land people on the Moon anon

>>12493632
I dunno, let's put a mixer and 100 tons of concrete in orbit and find out. It'll only cost $2M to launch.

Starship is legitimately mind blowing.

>>12493619
I liked watching the team that made this celebrate on twitter. Pretty wholesome. Apparently this dude is a volunteer firefighter too.

>>12493635
Anon, it has a ridiculously long ladder to mitigate dust contamination and a million lines of code. Also heritage.

>>12493641
>>12493635
>>12493590
would it kill these mf to design something that doesnt look massively half assed? at lesst try to make it look nice.

>>12493635
The ladder is machined from a single slab of titanium for weight savings without compromising durability.

>>12493635
>>12493641
Maybe they'll pay SpaceX to ship it? LMAO

ALPACA IS CUTE.

CUTE!!!

>>12493654
is this true

>>12493658
Wonder if the great starship leg debate going on inside spacex is acrually just elon wanting it to have cool legs but his team telling him fuck no it isnt worth the penalty

>>12493654
Also with isogrids machined into it.

>>12493662
W I D E

>>12493662
would fuck an alpaca. a 12 year old alpaca

>>12493665
There's various leg designs and also no-leg designs. Each one has downsides so they're figuring it out.

>>12493664
ni it's 3d pronted

>>12493670
>uses cutting-edge S.T.A.I.R. tech

>>12493662
While Starship is probably the best for long term lunar planning, ALPACA is best in terms of astronaut friendliness. There's no stupid long ladder or elevator to get to the surface

Dynetics is a shell company, they've never bent metal in their entire history

>>12493615
>it's fucking nothing

Prove it

>>12493684
just jump pussy

>>12493678

Would be fun if that was made and when ascending the bottom half would break from the top leaving the astronauts on moon while thrusters yeet to space.

>>12493684
Starship really needs a gantry at the landing site so astronauts can walk out and use external elevators.

>>12493687
>Prove it

Not an argument

>>12493692
That makes no sense as a reply.

>>12493692
>>Prove it
>
>Not an argument

>>12493684
The elevator will be a literal non-issue

>>12493662
>>12493670
How are you supposed to reuse it? I know they said the fuel tanks on the side were expendable, but what do you do next? Figure out how to strap a pair of fresh/fueled tanks on a second stage and send it out there? Hardly seems efficient.