Space General

[Anonymous No.10419229]

Discussions about SpaceX, Starhopper construction watch, Blue Origin, OldSpace, NASA and anything else spaceflight is welcome here. Please keep standards of discussion high, we take ourselves VERY seriously around here.

Useful links:

https://www.spacexstats.xyz/
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/with_replies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7zia2HqOOc
nasaspaceflight.com

[Anonymous No.10419231]

>>10419229
previous

>>10414125

[Anonymous No.10419242]

[Anonymous No.10419248]

here comes another thread where the paid shill spams the ever loving fuck out of it

[Anonymous No.10419250]

>>10419248
it's almost like he doesn't understand the importance of a clean and optimal OP
how are we supposed to drag all of that dead weight to orbit?

[Anonymous No.10419263]

>>10419248
>Please keep standards of discussion high

sigh..

[Anonymous No.10419266]

>>10419229
flying penis LOL

[Anonymous No.10419268]

>>10419263
I'm not going to post in this thread because of how much of a flaming faggot the OP is, and then I'll make a new thread after this one dies

[Anonymous No.10419285]

Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey look at this.

Elon being an engineering genius might not just be a meme. Mueller's linkedin also reflects that he's now just an adviser over at SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.10419288]

>>10419285
oh snap, coming from based Mueller himself

[Anonymous No.10419297]

>>10419285
Tom Mueller himself is a huge meme. He was never a great engine designer, don't know why people kept believing that.

Also Elon isn't involved in actual development since Falcon 1 days. He just sets the goals and outlines the strategy like a regular CEO.

[Anonymous No.10419298]

>>10419285
Wow. That's surprising.

[Anonymous No.10419299]

>>10419297
>cope

[Anonymous No.10419302]

>>10419299
>projecting

[Anonymous No.10419309]

>>10419299
If you can't see through the obvious "Elon Musk is le real life Tony Stark" marketing ploy it's not my issue.

[Anonymous No.10419310]

>>10419299
do you know how much shit is involved in running a business, let alone multiple?
he probably doesn't do any designing even if he wants to, for he's too fucking busy doing other shit

[Anonymous No.10419322]

>>10419309
we get a couple of those threads a week and they're always shitshows
I don't know why somebody thinks it's funny enough to make the same thread over and over again

[Anonymous No.10419336]

Some BE-4 / Vulcan progress

[Anonymous No.10419415]

>>10419297
>>10419309

Oldspace is LITERALLY SEETHING !!!!

[Anonymous No.10419419]

http://sci.esa.int/soho/61130-earth-atmosphere-stretches-out-to-the-moon-and-beyond/

Space-based telescopes would need to be well past the Moon to cleanly observe the atmospheres of exoplanets.

[Anonymous No.10419430]

>>10419285
Elon responds

[Anonymous No.10419432]

>>10419430
Seems like Mueller was working only part time at SpaceX since 2016, maybe he is not as involved with Raptor as many think he is?

[Anonymous No.10419594]

Beresheet is having problems it seems

[Anonymous No.10419600]

>>10419432
>>10419430
The “radical redesign” of late is interesting then; did they throw out some of mueller’s designs?

[Anonymous No.10419603]

Aerial views https://youtu.be/p599hentmbs

[Anonymous No.10419605]

Now that spacex is finally being nationalized by the us government things will finally settle down and we'll have a real grounded in reality space program.

[Anonymous No.10419608]

>>10419430
>doesn't mention raptor
Interesting.

[Anonymous No.10419612]

>>10419268
this
Just say “spaceflight” and have a cool pic. Lobbing on links and the word general leads to bad juju

[Anonymous No.10419702]

>>10419594
Do you have a source? I couldn't find anything.

[Anonymous No.10419750]

Europe is copying SpaceX https://streamable.com/aix69

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/europe-unveils-design-of-reusable-rocket-that-looks-a-lot-like-a-falcon-9/

[Anonymous No.10419753]

Themis, a methane powered copy of Falcon 9, was unveiled by Ariane.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/europe-unveils-design-of-reusable-rocket-that-looks-a-lot-like-a-falcon-9/

[Anonymous No.10419759]

>>10419750
>>10419753
damn, great minds think alike

[Anonymous No.10419760]

>>10419268
>>10419612
>being so new that you don't know how generals work

They are usually like micro forums unto themselves with tons of links, pastebins, and some even had a shitcord botnet voip link. Some are shit while others have the best content on the chans.

[Anonymous No.10419761]

>>10419750
SpaceX didn't invent the idea of rocket landing nor were they the first ones to land a suborbital booster (NASA and Blue Origin did it before them).

[Anonymous No.10419766]

>>10419759
I'm sure that is it exactly.

>...and fools never differ.

[Anonymous No.10419771]

>>10419753
>>10419750
>RTLS

into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.10419772]

>>10419761
rocket landing isnt new, but it looks very similar to spacex's re-usable rockets

[Anonymous No.10419774]

>>10419760
Kek generals are so reddit

[Anonymous No.10419780]

>>10419774
Never been there, so you may or may not be correct.

[Anonymous No.10419783]

>>10419772
It does, that's why I don't like it actually. Blue Origin landing technique means they will have almost the same payload capacity for reuseable and expendable mode. RTLS will mean they are taking a huge payload penalty. Truely reusable rockets shouldn't mean you have to trade-off payload capacity.

[Anonymous No.10419790]

>>10419783
That’s bad thinking. So what if it has potential for more payload? It’s just then in a lower class of mass delivery, in exchange for simplified logistics.

[Anonymous No.10419793]

>>10419783
>Truely reusable rockets shouldn't mean you have to trade-off payload capacity.

Why not? Most launches do not even utilize full payload capacity. From an economic standpoint, it arguably makes sense to burn a bit more propellant so that the rocket returns to launch site, instead of bothering with a ship landing.

[Anonymous No.10419794]

>>10419761
>suborbital
ha ha ha ha ah ah haaaaa

[Anonymous No.10419797]

>>10419780
That webm reminds me of the SpaceX article from the other day where Musk mentioned using lots of robots to go out and mine water.

[Anonymous No.10419798]

>>10419771
Starship will also be RTLS only (at least in the near term), because barge landings are counter-intuitive to reusability; as they put more stress on the booster, are more costly due to the use and maintenance of recovery infrastructure e.g. droneship and prevent the utilisation of rapid reusability.

[Anonymous No.10419804]

>>10419793
Most launches, but some do. To be able to do all launches in reusable mode means you have to significantly over-size the rocket. This means you are having a lot of refurbishment cost that you otherwise wouldn't have.

The landing technique of New Glenn means it can utilize almost the full payload capacity of the rocket while still being reusable. That's a pretty big advantage you shouldn't underestimate.

>>10419794
Falcon 9 lands the suborbital 1st stage, in case you are having difficulties understanding what I said.

[Anonymous No.10419806]

>>10419797
and NASA's actually doing it. So when SpaceX wants to mine water, NASA will be jump at the opportunity to provide the tech to them. NASA loves tech transfer.

[Anonymous No.10419810]

>>10419761
>NASA and Blue Origin did it before them

People were vertically landing small suborbital rockets since the 60s.

The difference is, SpaceX is vertically landing a huge building sized orbital grade stage, after going 150km high and thousands of km/h speed, and doing it while flying real orbital payloads at low costs. If you cannot see the significance of that, then I dont know what to tell you.

[Anonymous No.10419811]

>>10419794
>putting first stage booster into orbit

LOL wut? Let second stage do that.

[Anonymous No.10419812]

>>10419804
bo jumps up&down, shuttle boosters crash landed, spacex is the only one that sends payload to orbit and returns softly back to earth

[Anonymous No.10419813]

>>10419798
barge landings put more stress on the booster why?

[Anonymous No.10419816]

>>10419810
Don't forget landing them on drone ships at sea.

[Anonymous No.10419821]

>>10419816

[Anonymous No.10419829]

>>10419750
>>10419753
>Eric Berger

[Anonymous No.10419835]

>>10419810
>People were vertically landing small suborbital rockets since the 60s

Name one rocket that landed vertically before Delta clipper.

>The difference is, SpaceX is vertically landing a huge building sized orbital grade stage, after going 150km high and thousands of km/h speed, and doing it while flying real orbital payloads at low costs. If you cannot see the significance of that, then I dont know what to tell you.

New Shepard is not such a toyish rocket as people like to paint it. Altitude and re-entry speed are comparable. The only difference is that Falcon 9 does a reentry burn, and New Shepard doesn't. The landing itself is actually way harder to do with small rocket. Think about how hard is to balance a toothpick on your finger vs balancing a broom stick.

[Anonymous No.10419843]

>>10419816
Looks like somebody stumbling home from the pub.

[Anonymous No.10419844]

>>10419813
The vehicle stages later and due to this less velocity can be killed off, which means the booster hits the atmosphere a lot harder unless you were to do a massive entry burn. Just compare pictures of a RTLS returned booster to an ASDS one and compare the scorching.

[Anonymous No.10419851]

>>10419844
But, more forces on the payload initially. This is why the first manned dragon missions will be ASDS despite the margin being there

[Anonymous No.10419852]

>>10419843
>>10419816

[Anonymous No.10419859]

>>10419835
>Altitude and re-entry speed are comparable

Bullshit, the Falcon 9 re-enters the atmosphere between Mach 5-7 depending on the trajectory, NS barely cracks Mach 2.5; Just compare the re-entry heating of the two vehicles if you want more proof.

>The only difference is that Falcon 9 does a reentry burn, and New Shepard doesn't. The landing itself is actually way harder to do with small rocket.

I'm guessing you don't understand how centre of gravity works, because it's easier to land a fat, short rocket than a tall, thin one for obvious reasons...

[Anonymous No.10419870]

>>10419851
That's due to abort scenarios, the reason crew missions won't do RTLS is because the trajectory is very steep, so if the booster failed Soyuz MS-10 style the capsule would be faced with a very high g-force suborbital re-entry that would kill the crew.

[Anonymous No.10419874]

>>10419859
exactly, you don’t see NS catching aluminum on fire on re entry.
I think it’s important to emphasize that just because NS isn’t the same as F9 doesn’t make it “inferior”; they’re just not directly comparable in the first place. BO should be applauded for their reusability efforts, but it’s stupid to act like they’re the top dog right now

[Anonymous No.10419882]

>>10419750
About time.

[Anonymous No.10419884]

>>10419870
Ah yes, that’s the reason. I think I got it mixed up with a mission that did need less force on the payload or something.

[Anonymous No.10419892]

I still find it incredible that decades old sci-fi and children cartoons got the design right while all the overdesigned planes in space crap we were getting for decades turned out to be a joke.

[Anonymous No.10419893]

>>10419859
The reentry speeds are between 1000-1200ms, which is a bit higher than New Shepard but not by much.

You can also try and balance a very short broom stick on your finger and then try and balance the much longer one with the same diameter. Come back and post results.

[Anonymous No.10419895]

>>10419835
>Name one rocket that landed vertically before Delta clipper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTVL#History

[Anonymous No.10419900]

>>10419893
speed =\ entry pressures and heat load

[Anonymous No.10419913]

>>10419844
This is wrong. RTLS means you have to boost back, which you means you will end up with a very high altitude. You will then keep falling and accelerate for much longer. So you end up having to do a reentry burn anyway, because you have build up so much vertical velocity. The reentry speed for RTLS and barge landings are typically the same.

The reason why RTLS is chosen by SpaceX is because they want to do quick reuses and that's not really impossible if you have to first ship the booster back from hundreds of miles away.

[Anonymous No.10419919]

>>10419893
>>10419874
>>10419859
>>10419835

Comparison of NS and Falcon 9 trajectories. Falcon 9 flies significantly further, higher, faster and is bigger and much more massive.

[Anonymous No.10419921]

>>10419895
>1961 Bell Rocket Belt, personal VTVL rocket belt demonstrated.[1]
VTVL rocket concepts were studied by Philip Bono of Douglas Aircraft Co. in the 1960s.[2]
Apollo Lunar Module was a 1960s two-stage VTVL vehicle for landing and taking off from the moon.
The Soviet Union did some development work on, but never flew, a vertically-landing manned capsule called Zarya in the late 1980s

So there was no vertically landing rocket, except for the lunar lander, which did not land in an atmosphere. Thanks for proving me right.

[Anonymous No.10419923]

>>10419893
The lowest re-entry speed I've seen listed for the Falcon is 1650 m/s, which is Mach 4.81; the highest was the last launch which came in at a scorching 2.4 km/s or Mach 7.05.

[Anonymous No.10419925]

>>10419892
If you're talking about reusable flyback rockets, then you need to keep in mind that after Apollo the volume of launches for any given launch company was so small that reusable rockets weren't economically viable. The idea has been around (as a serious engineering concept) for a while but only recently has been viable economically.

As for planes in space (I assume you mean the Space Shuttle), using a smaller spaceplane instead of a capsule allows for gentler reentries and higher landing flexibility. It was really the requirement that the Shuttle had to do cargo as well that really made it a gimped design.

[Anonymous No.10419930]

>>10419919
So you think because the booster spends more time gliding around the landing itself is somehow more impressive?

I already stated the only significant difference to the landing itself is that NS does no reentry burn.

[Anonymous No.10419932]

>>10419921
Lunar lander did land in atmosphere during numerous tests. The others were also genuine VTVL vehicles as much as NS. You were proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.10419934]

>>10419923
I think you are mistaken speed at which reentry burns begins with reentry speed.

[Anonymous No.10419936]

>>10419702
https://twitter.com/TeamSpaceIL/status/1100334367589715970

[Anonymous No.10419938]

>>10419932
Maybe you should read the texts you are copying. The only actual landing that occured was the lunar lander on the moon. Nobody else ever landed a rocket until Delta Clipper.

[Anonymous No.10419948]

>>10419913
More bullshit, the boostback for RTLS cuts short the coast phase preventing the booster from reaching it's original apogee; therefore, barge landings fall further. All you have to do is compare the re-entry heating of RTLS and ASDS landings to see which is rougher on the booster.

[Anonymous No.10419960]

The funny part is arianespace was complaining a few years ago that reusable rockets cut into payload margins too much

[Anonymous No.10419964]

>>10419948
The apogee for RTLS is way higher. As I said, you are burning back, taking out all the vertical velocity. But to do this, you need to go almost 200km high, compared to 120-130 max altitude of a barge landing. So you accelerate significantly again and need to do a reentry burn anyway. So have the same reentry speed as for the barge landing.

You are probably cherry picking boosters. Boosters on the barge don't look better or worse than RTLS boosters on average.

[Anonymous No.10419983]

>>10419964
>The apogee for RTLS is way higher
Not necessarily. I noticed that when they have the margin, SpaceX sometimes also lowers the apogee during boostbacks. This is especially prominent in the SSO-A mission, and when you switch to the second camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq8kS6UoOrQ

[Anonymous No.10419990]

not sure how block 5 data would look but I found this

[Anonymous No.10419995]

>>10419983
It's impossible to boost back without raising your apogee. You are changing the direction of your trajectory by going up and then back again. If you would want to burn back without raising the apogee you would have to use as much fuel as you needed so far.

[Anonymous No.10419998]

>>10419990
That's MECO velocity, not reentry velocity.

[Anonymous No.10419999]

>>10419995
This guy GNC’s

>>10419336
just seems like too little too late. The government will be happy to have two options, BO and SpaceX, for redundancy. Where will ULA fit into it? Especially if they swap roles and have a new rocket vs the proven / reliable F9

[Anonymous No.10420015]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_q2gOsSWc

SpaceX's DM-1 Crew Dragon on Pad 39A, video from January

[Anonymous No.10420018]

>>10420015
Those are the shots from the FRR. Wonder if they have changed the gantry at all, it looked sort of unfinished from the inside shot Elon shared a while back

Also, 80% go weather as of right now

[Anonymous No.10420025]

>>10419995
Oh, are you referring to the second stage's trajectory and not the first stage?

[Anonymous No.10420030]

>>10420025
No

[Anonymous No.10420057]

>>10420030
>>10419995
Ok.... are you fucking dense? This is the countdown net from SSO-A showing the first stage performing a boostback burn while also lowering its apogee at the same time.

[Anonymous No.10420065]

>>10420057
That's not a RTLS you absolute retarded brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10420072]

>>10420065
THe drone ship was just off the fucking coast. The range didn't let them use the landing pad because there was another ULA rocket waiting to be launched.

[Anonymous No.10420078]

>>10420072
this is true, some people got cool footage of it from land

[Anonymous No.10420083]

>>10420072
You are so fucking retarded it hurts.

[Anonymous No.10420085]

>>10420065
How about this one from CRS-16 then you dumbfuck?

[Anonymous No.10420093]

#spaceisfake

[Anonymous No.10420110]

>>10420085
That apogee is still higher you retarded idiot.

[Anonymous No.10420140]

>>10420110
hmmm...

[Anonymous No.10420143]

>>10420140
and yet you share oxygen with him...

[Anonymous No.10420154]

>>10420140
>puting lines in some animations instead of understanding aeronautics

You can go on and watch the actual footage and compare the altitude numbers, since calculating it is obviously way beyond your capability.

[Anonymous No.10420164]

>>10420140
Parallax effect.

[Anonymous No.10420196]

NASA Plans Transition from Robots to Crewed Moon Landing

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/02/nasa-transition-robots-crewed-moon-landings/

[Anonymous No.10420203]

>>10420140
>>10420085
I'm going to explain it to you because I feel bad for you. The other anon is right, RTLS is always higher in altitude. What your picture here shows is a trajectory that was already deliberately chosen to be much more vertical than usual. This is normally bad, because this means you are losing a lot of delta-v "fighting gravity". So this can only be done with small payloads that don't require an ideal trajectory (in this case, the payload was only 2500kg). So with this more vertical trajectory, the boost back burn doesn't need to be as long as you are already quite vertical.

What your pictures should compare it to is the much steeper trajectory that is flown in missions that have a heavier payload and where the booster land on the drone ship.

[Anonymous No.10420220]

>>10420203
Surprised no one has posted an actually to scale image yet

[Anonymous No.10420246]

Apparently Arabsat might be slipping a couple weeks to the right due to "payload issues".

[Anonymous No.10420250]

>>10420220
christ, someone took their time making this, quite an effort

[Anonymous No.10420278]

>>10420220
Looking forward to someone trying to add Arabsat's 1000km recovery to a this, if it's successful...

[Anonymous No.10420313]

>>10420278
speaking of which OCISLY is already heading out for DM-1's catch.

[Anonymous No.10420319]

>>10419930
Have you actually watched both do a landing? F9 slows down and comes to a soft landing on its landing pad in a fluid motion.
NS comes in towards it's target, fires up its booster and practically hovers while it tries to zero in on its target before landing. Their last launch was a perfect example of this.

NS it's so small and light that it can maneuver around with no velocity before touching down.

They are not similar at all when landing

[Anonymous No.10420321]

>>10420196
never underestimate the scientific output of a man with a shovel and a live-feed to a room full of geologists

[Anonymous No.10420326]

>>10420319
What you are describing there is called hovering. The only reason F9 doesn't do that is because the Merlin can't deep throttle. Otherwise it would hover before touching down, too.

[Anonymous No.10420328]

>>10420278
Am I the only one who likes calling 1000km a megameter?

[Anonymous No.10420330]

>>10420326
megagram should replace metric ton tbqh

[Anonymous No.10420334]

>>10420330
All si units are valid

[Anonymous No.10420335]

>>10420326
I said hovering, you don't seem to even read posts either.

My point was that NS comes barreling in, then has to stop and find where to land. F9 comes right in and touches down. Different landing styles.

[Anonymous No.10420344]

>>10420335
technically F9 does a late translation. It's not aimed onto the pad/ASDS until it's close to the ground

[Anonymous No.10420346]

this stuff has been lowered into the new nose thingy

[Anonymous No.10420354]

>>10420335
Lol, no. It is hovering so it lands much softer.

[Anonymous No.10420361]

[Anonymous No.10420390]

>>10420326

Let's get everything straight: the Merlin can throttle down to 40% (350kn), it's just that to be able to hover you need a thrust to weight ratio below 1.0; a F9 booster's TWR is 1.3 just before landing so it can perform a controlled hoverslam but not hover. The BE-3 can throttle to around 20% (this is referred to as 'deep throttling') and this combined with it's bulky design makes it well suited to hover. Contrary to what >>10420319 says, the main reason why NS can hover is not it's small size but the opposite, it's design is relatively bulky and underpowered which means it already has a sluggish TWR when launching (this why NS would make a terrible orbital LV) this in turn means the engines don't have to compensate much on landing to keep it's TWR below 1.0. On the otherhand, the F9 is relatively light on landing, being equivalent to a empty soda can which makes it unable to hover.

[Anonymous No.10420448]

>>10420361
ghetto ass Launch Control Center confirmed

[Anonymous No.10420456]

>>10420448
pretty sure it's for fueling

[Anonymous No.10420461]

elon tweet:
"Replying to @katlinegrey @lrocket @Alexis_wwww
Rest of SpaceX propulsion still very active, so only ~50 full-time equivalent people right now. [working on raptor]. That will grow a lot as we enter production. It’s 10X harder (at least) to design engine production system than engine. In automotive, 100X harder.

[Anonymous No.10420668]

>>10419816
It's funny until you remember how fucking big these things are.

[Anonymous No.10420669]

>>10420668
It’s what, 3.7m? Starship will be 9m... someone post those 6.6m Skylab webms
Like holy shit it’s going to be spacious on the inside. All of the ISS’s pressurized volume in one launch

[Anonymous No.10420687]

>>10420461
>In automotive, 100X harder.
He's never designed an automotive engine let alone its production system.
What a sham of a CEO.

[Anonymous No.10420699]

>>10420687
10,000 units a week vs maybe 10 is certainly worth a 10x increase in difficulty, dunno what your idea of it is

[Anonymous No.10420708]

>>10420390
You literally just proved his point, retard.

[Anonymous No.10420715]

>>10420699

[Anonymous No.10420731]

>>10419999
Blue Origin will likely not have the experience wanted by the DOD by the time the down select to two providers occurs.

[Anonymous No.10420741]

>>10419760
generals are fucking newchan cancer and you should fuck off back to facebook
they're always shit

[Anonymous No.10420745]

Why do pictures of other planets look like digital art while Earth's are more raw? It's really hard getting a sense of scale of Jupiter when the pictures look like this.

[Anonymous No.10420750]

>>10419248
They aren't paid shills. Musk fanboy faggots unironically do it for free.

[Anonymous No.10420754]

>>10419990
why is Demo 1 listed as expendable? they were flying a droneship landing trajectory, it's just that it failed the landing

[Anonymous No.10420762]

hi

[Anonymous No.10420768]

>>10420754
yeah that seems like a mistake to me

[Anonymous No.10420774]

>>10420361
so that plate on the leg with the red caps is hookups for the checkout gauges
makes sense

[Anonymous No.10420780]

>>10420762
who's rocket is that? don't recognize it. It's not Relativity, Gilmour, Orbex, Vector, Firefly, or Astra.
That's a twitter filename but I don't see it in any of my space news people's feeds

[Anonymous No.10420795]

>>10420780
>>10420762
not interorbital systems either, or Rocket Crafters, or PLD...

[Anonymous No.10420796]

>>10420780
>It's not Vector
ok

[Anonymous No.10420799]

>>10420796
wait holy shit it's the orbital Vector R, I'm retarded. Didn't recognize it since it's not all black

cool pics

[Anonymous No.10420807]

>>10420799
it also finally has all three engines so it looks different

[Anonymous No.10420811]

>>10420807
interesting that the middle engine has a different composite weave pattern than the outer two. The shape is different, but dunno why that means the weave has to be different

[Anonymous No.10420814]

>>10419750
>>10419753
>B-b-but re-usability is a m-m-meme!
shillboi btfo
>and it's unlikely to debut before 2028 or 2030
Watch the old-space guys kill it anyhow.
I do appreciate that they've decided to skip kerolox and go straight to methalox.

[Anonymous No.10420824]

>>10420811
Outer engines have slightly longer bells. My guess is the center engine is optimized for ground or near-ground level performance, and the other 2 engines are optimized for higher altitudes.

Hell, they might have it set up so that once it reaches a certain altitude/remaining fuel combo, it shuts down the center engine and burns the outer 2 until MECO.

[Anonymous No.10420829]

>>10420814
it's also just a prototype and not even an operational rocket

[Anonymous No.10420830]

>>10420824
Wait, nope, I'm a fucking idiot. The outer engines are simply lower than the center engine.

[Anonymous No.10420831]

>>10419753
China is already copying it through a “start up”

[Anonymous No.10420837]

Well it's been all very amusing, but now that Elon had been found in contempt it's pretty much over. SpaceX will be confiscated and sold off by the SEC. He's looking at jail time.

[Anonymous No.10420841]

>>10419229
How does the starship keep itself aligned properly on re-entry? Lots of RCS and huge reaction wheels like in KSP?

[Anonymous No.10420842]

>>10420814
meanwhile in glorious china
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc4l9mQ8HXk

[Anonymous No.10420844]

>>10420831
they don't know how to build throttleable engines so they have to leave the SRB's attached, lmao

[Anonymous No.10420845]

don't give it a you, he'll fuck off eventually

[Anonymous No.10420848]

>>10420841
massive CH4 thrusters

>>10420844
linkspace can throttle down to 9%

[Anonymous No.10420878]

>>10420848
>massive CH4 thrusters
cancelled

>linkspace can throttle down to 9%
meme scale rocket

[Anonymous No.10420886]

>>10420842
I'd say it's more of a MastenSpace copy than anything; if you look at the engines it uses, it looks like they've basically replicated a Masten Xeus lander but clustered the engines and built it in the shape of a rocket.

[Anonymous No.10420888]

>>10420878
from January
"Cold gas thrusters only. Will use body flaps & main engines for landing orientation, so won’t need high thrust reaction control. Simplifies things considerably."
so yeah you're right

[Anonymous No.10420897]

>>10420886
onespace & iSpace seem to be less copycat designs, using existing Chinese solids tech. Not much info about them thought; both are planning to do their first orbital launches this year

[Anonymous No.10420916]

recovery ops
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc2W0YHVMmk
still no folding back up of the legs.

[Anonymous No.10420933]

"They lower green tarped bundle into center. Out comes empty tarp. Then up comes another width of stainless."

[Anonymous No.10420938]

and now they're cleaning up the machine weld
or grinding it out because the machine fucked up, either one

[Anonymous No.10420941]

>>10420841
giant fucking flaps, both dual purpose landing legs/flaps and moveable canard flaperons

[Anonymous No.10420945]

>>10420897
I like how all the Chinese commercial launchers are just cannibalised ballistic missiles which were donated to the 'private' companies by the state. I thought launching satellites using missiles was just an Northrop Grumman thing...

[Anonymous No.10420952]

>>10420938
>those symbols on the welding mask
yep, this one's going in my cringe compilation

[Anonymous No.10420956]

daily reminder to go see this in IMAX

[Anonymous No.10420958]

>>10420952
welders are, universally, scum of the earth
most are really good people but they're always trash

[Anonymous No.10420966]

>>10420958
what about pipe-fitters or millwrights

[Anonymous No.10420971]

>>10420966
>pipe fitters
meth heads
>millwrights
fucking hate those wrench monkeys goddamn

[Anonymous No.10420981]

>>10420952
>>10420958
>>10420971
based blue-collar bashers

[Anonymous No.10420996]

>>10420981
it is impossible to harbor such hate as I possess without being one yourself

[Anonymous No.10421073]

>>10420996
What do you do?

[Anonymous No.10421080]

>>10421073
worked in a pipe shop

[Anonymous No.10421178]

>>10419913
>RTLS means you have to boost back, which you means you will end up with a very high altitude
The boost back burn counters all of the horizontal speed and adds a little bit to get back to the coast, but it also cancels a good amount of the upwards momentum as well, so a RTLS landing actually gets to a lower apogee than a downrange landing.

[Anonymous No.10421184]

>>10419964
>As I said, you are burning back, taking out all the vertical velocity
Boostback is about taking out all the horizontal velocity, not vertical.

[Anonymous No.10421207]

>>10420326
>Otherwise it would hover before touching down, too
Hovering wastes delta V to pure gravity losses, the most efficient possible landing would be a 100% throttle burn for like 0.2 seconds but that would destroy the rocket and would be impossible to time anyway. Their current 'hoverslam' maneuver (controlling the altitude at which the booster will come to a stop before going up again so that it is always a few meters underground until the last few seconds, allowing you to adjust by throttling up as you descend) is the next best thing. The more delta V you can get out of your booster during launch the better. That's why Starship and its Booster will both be performing hoverslam landings even though they'd be perfectly capable of slow ass hover landings.

[Anonymous No.10421211]

>>10420346
scaffolding

[Anonymous No.10421212]

>>10420687
>He's never designed an automotive engine
He's talking about the entire car you dolt

[Anonymous No.10421220]

>>10420745
Jupiter in particular hasn't been recently imaged by a modern hi-res camera. Juno's was a shitty webcam from the late 90's, and every outer solar system probe we've sent on gravity assists by Jupiter has focused on the moons.

What we need is a Cassini style mission to every planet in the solar system with the ability to take true to life ultra high resolution images as a primary goal.

[Anonymous No.10421221]

>>10419285
It’s not like rockets are actually difficult with all the modern computer design/modelling/3D printing t b h

[Anonymous No.10421232]

>>10420878
>>10420888
Not cancelled, the methalox thrusters are cancelled, but the cold gas thrusters will be using methane as the cold gas. The autogenous pressurization system on Starship will fill bottles with high pressure methane and that methane will be able to feed either the methane tanks as pressurant or the methane cold gas thrusters, which by the way will be more efficient than nitrogen-based cold gas because it's a lighter molecule.

[Anonymous No.10421240]

>>10420203
Why th hell would a rtls be higher than coasting
It is either lower or identical, depending on whether they have extra margin to reduce vertical velocity

[Anonymous No.10421242]

>>10421232
>Not cancelled
>the methalox thrusters are cancelled

[Anonymous No.10421282]

>>10421220
Scientists are fucking idiots who don't see the point in that becasue it won't bring new science while ignoring that shit like this makes the average Joe interested.

[Anonymous No.10421295]

>>10421242
They are still CH4 thrusters, it was the combustion-with-oxygen bit that was cancelled.

[Anonymous No.10421297]

>>10421282
Yes, in fact Juno wasn't going to have a camera at all until the public threw a shitfit. Those scientists also all promised that that camera would be fried within an orbit or two but so far it hasn't appeared to have been affected at all. Also specifically because they had a camera to take pictures of Jupiter we discovered a bunch of new shit about its clouds, storms and atmosphere. What do you know, being able to look at something beyond a point on a plot can tell you something new.

[Anonymous No.10421309]

>>10421297
Why are there so many retards at NASA? It's incredible.

[Anonymous No.10421331]

>>10419310
That's what Shotwell's for. As she said it, she works to make the business stable, then elon sets a goal that makes the company scramble all over again.

[Anonymous No.10421352]

what could have been...

[Anonymous No.10421354]

this is the most comfy Mars architecture I've ever seen

[Anonymous No.10421355]

>ywn go on a comfy lunar science surface expedition

[Anonymous No.10421364]

>>10421331
>Gwynne Shotwell sits in her office, the door closed, trying to find a moment of peace
>She takes a drink from her coffee mug and sets it back down, the porcelain only rattling slightly- her hands aren't shaking so badly today
>Most of the critical financial emergencies have been tamped down, and projected revenue from the launch manifest is promising
>Relatively speaking, all is well- her phone hasn't even rung in the past ten minutes
>A buzzing, grinding sound interrupts the peace and Elon falls through the tiles of the drop ceiling in her office, seemingly in the middle of a conversation and unheeding of the fall as he stands up, disheveled and clearly in the middle of a multi-day adderall bender
>"-switched to stainless steel for the new rocket, which I think is going to be a great decision in the long term. Oh hi Gwynne, I think we're going to try and buy Suriname so that we can do launches there without United States oversight. Try and get us a meeting with their government."
>Without another word he charges out of the office, ripping out the doorknob in the process, which he proceeds to hurl an engineer who's trying to leave work before 8 PM
>Gwynne resignedly rails a line of fentanyl and reaches for the phone

[Anonymous No.10421379]

>>10421364
From what I hear, Elon was literally screaming at his employees on the design floor after the CRS-7 mishap. Apparently people tried leaving after working 36 straight hours and he fired them on the spot.

[Anonymous No.10421382]

>>10421379
If another Falcon 9 blows up, I'm sure the employees will be spared because he'll probably just combust with rage on the spot.

[Anonymous No.10421406]

>>10421379
it was pretty impressive tho how quickly they did destructive testing on like 10,000 of their supplier’s struts and found a few which were out of spec.

[Anonymous No.10421457]

dead

[Anonymous No.10421471]

>>10420780
It's vector, note at the front

[Anonymous No.10421497]

>>10420938
Cleaning the slag/flux off where it didn't fall off on its own

[Anonymous No.10421687]

>>10421178
Why the fuck do you retards just talk bullshit you clearly dont understand. Just watch some launches where they RTLS and some where they land on the ship and compare them, Jesus christ.

>>10421207
You are hovering for like 3 seconds with one engine on 20% thrust, the amount of delta v lost is i significant especially compared to something like RTLS.

[Anonymous No.10421762]

>>10421687
>You are hovering for like 3 seconds
New Glenn animation shows more like 8 to 10 seconds of hovering, which is a lot even at low throttle with one engine.

[Anonymous No.10421789]

>>10421762
No, it's not. That's half a second of all engines firing at full thrust, compared to 200 seconds it is firing for launch at full thrust. So really, NG will only use very little fuel for landing.

[Anonymous No.10421796]

>>10421789
those last bits of fuel are the most valuable for delta V

[Anonymous No.10421797]

>>10421789
That's not how hovering works, I feel that one of the reasons why NG is so big and powerful is because Blue needs big payload margins due to the inefficient hover. This will also allow them to stick a landing easier, they'll probably move to a more efficient hoverslam when they routinely stick landings.

[Anonymous No.10421800]

>>10419229
Earth is flat

[Anonymous No.10421802]

>>10421796
No, they're not. NG reserves only 2-3% of its fuel for landing. F9 reserves 5-10% for drone ship landings and 15-20% for RTLS. BO will not even offer expendable launches because of how small the difference in payload capacity would be. We are talking about 45 tons in reusable mode and 47-48 tons in expendable mode.

[Anonymous No.10421803]

>>10421797
That's exactly how hovering works you dip shit. BFR will hover, too.

[Anonymous No.10421804]

>>10421803
Starship and Super Heavy will hoverslam, not hover

[Anonymous No.10421806]

>>10421804
Kek

[Anonymous No.10421808]

>>10421804
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eomhvZ9ooeI

watch the end

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SCvenRvUVs

watch the end

[Anonymous No.10421812]

>>10421808
those are community made... Elon has said (in 2017)
" Landing will not be a hoverslam, depending on what you mean by the “slam” part. Thrust to weight of 1.3 will feel quite gentle. The tanker will only feel the 0.3 part, as gravity cancels out the 1. Launch is also around 1.3 T/W, so it will look pretty much like a launch in reverse…."

[Anonymous No.10421815]

>>10421812
>>10421804
however the dry mass and thrust math disagrees. I think SS starship will be able to hover, but they just won't bother with it

[Anonymous No.10421818]

E2E still being planned
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1100662757945294848

[Anonymous No.10421828]

>>10421797
Some additional info: NG needs to hover because Blue Origin plans to land them on a moving ship. It's pretty hard to do a hoverslam on a moving ship. The fuel used for hovering is minimal, like 0,x% of the first stage's fuel.
So why is BO bothering with landing on a moving ship? The answer is because they want to have the same identical flight profile on every flight. Always ~1000km downrange, always on a moving ship. With this, they hope to achieve to "routinely" refurbish the booster, as it should come down in the same state every time, since the flight profile is going to be near identical every time (unlike Falcons, where flight profile can vary by a lot, and therefore a lot of ressources have to go into assessing the state of the booster each time). The ship moves so they can also reliably land when the weather is bad and there are heavy waves.

[Anonymous No.10421850]

>>10419816
Do you think the first part of the clip (not the last part, obviously) is sped up? Or is it real time?

[Anonymous No.10421895]

>>10421850
The waves look real time.

[Anonymous No.10421940]

>>10420196
>2024
uncrewed human Lunar lander arrives at the Gateway
descends to Low Lunar Orbit then to the surface
meanwhile at the Gateway, Orion is attaching the ESPRIT and U.S. Utilization modules

>2026
new Lunar lander is assembled at the Gateway
ANOTHER UNCREWED LANDING TEST (wtf)

>2028
new Lunar lander is assembled at the Gateway
humans will land with the lander this time

It's sad that it's going to take NASA at least 4 years of testing a lander before they allow humans to use it.

[Anonymous No.10421947]

>>10421940
>2028
>NASA
>manned lunar lander

[Anonymous No.10421948]

>>10421947
its like the commercial resupply to the ISS where multiple companies were awarded for developing hardware to resupply the ISS. this time they dont have to launch anything themselves though. they just have to build the hardware and someone else can launch it.

[Anonymous No.10421953]

>>10421940
Here is the mission plan. It is a total mess. Good for them for being partially reusable and utilizing commercial launchers, but other than that this is laughable as far as modern 21st century space program is concerned. Also only one short duration mission every two years, lol.

[Anonymous No.10421956]

>>10421948
You are putting excessive faith in nasa schedules and promises. Probably too young to remember even Constellation.

[Anonymous No.10421962]

>>10421956
it's just a comparison wtf

[Anonymous No.10421965]

>>10421953
Ditch the descent element, ditch the transfer vehicle element, scale up the lander to compensate, ditch the SLS, add LEO refueling to compensate.

[Anonymous No.10421974]

>>10421953
Partial re-usability is essentially optional and left for the future so you can safely bet it's going to be fully expendable (if it happens at all). Prolonged stays are naturally impossible on the gateway because of solar flare risks - LEO you can go back down, Moon you can sit in the hab, but in the tiny gateway and its solar baked orbit days away from Earth or even the nightside of the Moon... Hence short week or two stays per year. A base would have been considerably less ridiculous but we can't have nice things. The Gateway has one major advantage - SLS can do it and if administration changes direction to Mars, Jupiter, Alpha Centauri or a trek along the Orion's Belt, the Gateway can be easily repurposed unlike a lunar base.

[Anonymous No.10421983]

>>10421974
In the gateway you can sit inbetween water tanks and be fine. Lunar base requires way more Delta v for landing, so Gateway is easier to build. Lunar base is only necessary if you plan to mine lunar ressources, which is not on the plan yet. Once it gets into focus, having the gateway will make building the lunar base much easier.

[Anonymous No.10421990]

what the deuce is this? https://twitter.com/maxhaot/status/1100383476325457920

[Anonymous No.10422002]

>>10421990
Literally says in the title

[Anonymous No.10422003]

>>10422002
knowing what something is called doesn't help you understand what it is

[Anonymous No.10422125]

>>10421990
what engine is that?

[Anonymous No.10422377]

>>10421983
The gateway can make everything(tm) easier - just build it.

[Anonymous No.10422397]

The OneWeb launch will be happening out of French Guiana later today. Six satellites for their LEO Internet constellation.

[Anonymous No.10422405]

>>10422397
>first of 21 launches over the next two years
>satellites will be inserted into LEO around 1,000km
>650 satellites in the initial constellation
>demo service available in 2020, with full service available in 2021

[Anonymous No.10422408]

>>10422405
Are all 21 launches Airanespace?

[Anonymous No.10422421]

>>10422408
They are launching with Russian Baseduzes in French Guiana and Russia.

[Anonymous No.10422426]

>>10422421
Yeah, but the russians have joined Arianespace.

[Anonymous No.10422427]

>>10422421
>cant even say So-yuzes because of filters

[Anonymous No.10422434]

>>10422427
What? Why?

[Anonymous No.10422444]

>>10420741
Depends on the board and the general really. Some are great, some are shit. Like how /tg/ is made mostly of generals. /v/ had so many that >>>/vg/ was created.

>newchan

That started around 2007.

[Anonymous No.10422468]

>>10422434
s o y is filtered because leftists were offended at being called s o y boys

[Anonymous No.10422471]

>>10421965
Then ditch gateway
And ditch NASA while you are at it

[Anonymous No.10422480]

>>10421983
Imagine going to lunar orbit because landing and using easily available resources to build things or replenish food/water, is “not part of the plan”

Then they will reenact the ISS strategy of endless billions spent shipping air +food + water out to it

[Anonymous No.10422518]

>>10422480
>easily available resources

no. neither on moon nor on mars.

[Anonymous No.10422629]

elon stahp

[Anonymous No.10422646]

>>10421983
>the gateway will make building the lunar base much easier.
By adding additional 1km of delta v (-30% payload) to the already steep lunar requirements?
By consuming budget?
By consuming most SLS launches?

[Anonymous No.10422672]

>>10422518
Literally a single guy in a bobcat could mine everything you could possibly need

[Anonymous No.10422681]

>>10419750
A few weeks ago they were still bitching and moaning about reusability.
So I‘m guessing they have nothing but this render and a couple back of the envelope calculations. Nice that they finally yielded and hopefully found the money for this though.

[Anonymous No.10422737]

It grows larger...

[Anonymous No.10422739]

>>10422471
Gateway can make some sense if you put it in polar LLO and make it primarily a propellant depot. It takes a lot of delta-v (~6km/s) to go from Earth orbit to lunar surface, breaking up the trip into two legs is not a bad idea.

[Anonymous No.10422744]

>>10422681
It's not really happening. It has no funding. It's like "SMART" reusability from ULA, just some PR to soothe some politicians who want reusability. Arianespace like ULA both know reusability is a meme.

[Anonymous No.10422745]

>>10421808
I have serious doubts about landing right next to the tower. how does this seem like a good idea?

[Anonymous No.10422776]

>>10421282

This.

I hope one day we have video of the planets, that would really spark the imaginations.

[Anonymous No.10422815]

Tidally locked habitable planets are likely more numerous than non tidally locked habitable planets. This sets a limit on habitabile surface are, but actually not much is Earth's surface is habitable. Most of the oceans are nutrient deserts and near lifeless deserts are there most prevalent biome in land. Compare that to a band of habitable land on a tidally locked world that will have many nutrient rich fresh water rivers and will be very climatically stable.

The main problem would be a lack of an internally generated magnetosphere allowing the solar storms of the red dwarf to bathe the world on radiation storms.

[Anonymous No.10422884]

>>10422815
If the planet is tidally locked and being bombarded with radiation storms, the storms themselves wouldn't affect the shaded side of the planet as much. That means there's a possible niche for life to utilize that energy without getting blasted before it can evolve to do so. If that were to occur, there's a chance further evolution may allow life to go further into the radiation storm zone directly.

[Anonymous No.10422923]

>>10422518
What is the Martian atmosphere, Alex?

[Anonymous No.10422933]

>>10422737
Is it just me or is it taller then the last one? Seems like it should start tapering by now

[Anonymous No.10422939]

>>10422933
Nvm, original had 5 sections before taper

[Anonymous No.10422940]

I mentioned in a previous thread (>>10395983) about Hewlett Packard testing computers on the ISS and what kind of value a Mars mission could get out of it. A bit of news came out today where the company confirmed that they are working with both NASA and SpaceX to get similar hardware on either of their Mars missions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47377707

[Anonymous No.10422942]

>>10419229
Earth is flat

[Anonymous No.10422954]

>>10422940
holy fuck how were the original ISS computers that expensive?

[Anonymous No.10422976]

>>10422954
Aerospace(tm) grade.
Google their coffee machine too. Check the printer too while at it.
Based on this information you will convince yourself that
>space colonization is impossible due to cost, or
>someone is jewing hard

[Anonymous No.10422983]

>>10422976
>>someone is jewing hard
and almost nobody cares because it is public funding

[Anonymous No.10423016]

>>10422954
radiation hardened electronics is expensive, but still they shouldn’t cost $8m

[Anonymous No.10423023]

>>10422976
Are you fucking retarded son? They specifically developed computers that take care of the, you know, life support and all that.

But dont worry, there are a lot of off-the-shelf laptops being used too.

As per the coffee machine and the printer, a small hint: Off the shelf ones don't work in 0g. If you need to develop one (that works in 0g) things get expensive quickly.

[Anonymous No.10423027]

>>10422427
you can say Soyuz, but apparently you can't fuck with the spelling

[Anonymous No.10423041]

>>10423023
BASED.

There is no way to make things cheaper AND functional.

Space is expensive. Space is hard. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.10423056]

I want to see how SpaceX deals with deep space radiation. Right now they get away with regular IT systems because they use a triple redundant network but it's still regular IT equipment.

[Anonymous No.10423100]

>>10422884
So basically photosynthetic life would be in a random cycle of Holocaust and recolonization of the lit areas of the world.

[Anonymous No.10423125]

>>10423056
Its hard for me to imagine SpaceX using Starship beyond Earth-Moon travel. It seems much more practical to assemble a specialized craft in space for interplanetary trips.

But if SpaceX is intent on using Starship for that, then they may apply a special coat in-space on the outside of Starships destined for interplanetary trips.

[Anonymous No.10423126]

DM-1 has passed it's LRR, looks good for rollout tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.10423176]

>>10423041
there is, but you need to be able to spread the cost of development around over many items before it becomes cheap

[Anonymous No.10423182]

https://www.oneweb.world
Launch live stream from Kourou

[Anonymous No.10423187]

>>10423182
im having trouble getting a video to show on there. you got a link to the stream itself?

[Anonymous No.10423192]

>>10423187
>you got a link to the stream itself?
no, the video is at the front page

[Anonymous No.10423193]

>>10423182
>Scarlet Ibis

[Anonymous No.10423195]

there's a youtube stream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPtr4Eec4Hg

[Anonymous No.10423196]

>>10423195
the youtube stream is twenty seconds ahead of the oneweb stream

[Anonymous No.10423197]

>>10423195
thanks

[Anonymous No.10423210]

>>10423016
>>10422954
The ISS has a lot of computers so its not certain which computers they are referring to. As far as talking to the experiments goes, it's a more complicated task than it looks. One has to be able to make sure the experiments don't fuck up the station, that the experiments are in good health, that astronauts don't fuck up the experiments too much, etc. Some experiments have freezers and cryogenic equipment that can either spoil or spew inert gas if they get too hot. One also needs to monitor for fire and be able to shut everything the fuck down in an emergency. Avionics can be surprisingly expensive because of all the little things. Also software is a huge pain in the ass.

[Anonymous No.10423217]

ghetto af launch feed

[Anonymous No.10423219]

>>10423217
yeah, Ariane doesn't do a good job on public relations with their launches

[Anonymous No.10423224]

>>10423219
That's a Russian rocket

[Anonymous No.10423231]

>>10423224
being launched by the French, from South America

[Anonymous No.10423234]

>>10423224
But it's being launched by a European company. Russia doesn't even do streams most the time because all their launches are military now.

[Anonymous No.10423241]

>mars technocracy confirmed

[Anonymous No.10423243]

Why are they launching satellites to polar orbit from Kourou? Isn't that the worst place to launch to that orbit?

[Anonymous No.10423251]

>Branson and the Softbank guy are there watching
???

[Anonymous No.10423257]

>>10423243
Polar orbits are not picky.

[Anonymous No.10423271]

>>10423257
the pickiness is flying over people

[Anonymous No.10423283]

Sideboosters seperating forming the Korolev cross is kino.

[Anonymous No.10423291]

>>10419309
The skillset required to design and engineer spacecraft is seperate from the skillset required to run a company that designs and engineer spacecraft.
Managerial positions do not have to know nearly as much as those under them about what they do, their job is to manage, not to do everything themselves.

[Anonymous No.10423312]

>>10423100
Most likely.

[Anonymous No.10423313]

So was the launch successful?

[Anonymous No.10423323]

>>10423313
Orbital insertion hasn't occurred yet

[Anonymous No.10423342]

>>10419816
they obviously need some kind of docking clamp, one of these days that shit IS going overboard

[Anonymous No.10423346]

>>10423342
They have one now, if you look at the most recent booster recovery images you can see it clamped onto the bottom of the booster.

This was before they had it, and the only way they had to secure the booster was to get people on board and weld the fucker down.

[Anonymous No.10423349]

>>10423342
>>10423346
It's called the Octagrabber, it reminds me of something from Robot Wars.

[Anonymous No.10423364]

I still cant believe they expect to launch 650 satellites by the end of next year.

[Anonymous No.10423374]

>>10423364
who?

[Anonymous No.10423379]

>>10420456
kek "do not take parts"

[Anonymous No.10423381]

>>10423364
They launched almost 40 just today mate.

[Anonymous No.10423385]

>>10421352
we have to feed the starving brown people of earth anon, have to focus on them first.

[Anonymous No.10423388]

>>10423381
6

[Anonymous No.10423389]

>>10423312
Plant equivalents on such worlds would likely evolve deep roots to propagate from and grow very quickly outward, not worrying about growing talk die to radiation storms and high winds.

But who know, a niche of very sturdy and radiation proof trees may evolve.

[Anonymous No.10423390]

>>10423374
OneWeb

[Anonymous No.10423398]

>>10423364
Why can't you believe that? All the launches to do that are already booked and scheduled.

[Anonymous No.10423401]

>>10423398
Oh wait, I think I know why "you cant believe it" --> youre a salty little muskrat

contain your jealousy, muskrat.

[Anonymous No.10423403]

>>10423398
It just seems kind of surreal. We're entering a new era of space with the arrival of megaconstellations.

[Anonymous No.10423414]

>>10423257
True in terms of launch window but not in terms of performance; to get into a polar orbit from the equator you need to cancel several hundred meters per second of easterly velocity while also accelerating to orbit, launching father away from the equator reduces this penalty.

[Anonymous No.10423420]

[Anonymous No.10423424]

[Anonymous No.10423425]

[Anonymous No.10423427]

>>10423420
hey where'd the tanks go?

[Anonymous No.10423432]

>>10423427
You mean the COPVs? The red things? There on the side facing away from the camera and not visible.

[Anonymous No.10423445]

>>10423389
You've described grass.

[Anonymous No.10423456]

>>10423125
If you build some bigass ship that can't land then you can't benefit from aerobraking at the other end. Delta-v becomes a much bigger problem.

[Anonymous No.10423458]

>>10423445
Grass is unique in that it has silicate particles within to dissuade grazing animals. That's kind of irrelevant to the discussion. Plants that specialize in front wide rather than tall is a widespread niche that goes well being grass. Grass is just a particularly successful example. Also, the major difference would be the critical need of ALL plants on such worlds to have deep roots to grow back from after a radiation storm.

[Anonymous No.10423464]

>>10421379
Jesus,thats brutal if true

[Anonymous No.10423486]

>>10423125
>apply a special coat in-space on the outside of Starships destined for interplanetary trips
zero g paint pellets

[Anonymous No.10423487]

>>10423251
investors

[Anonymous No.10423490]

>>10423458
All a plant would need to survive on a planet around a flare star would be the ability to regenerate efficiently from buried biomass. Grass is the perfect example of this because it only grows its leaves and flowers aboveground, everything else including roots, rhizomes, and stems are all underground and protected. Grasses also already grow out and compete 'sideways' rather than for greater height, as grasses tend to choke out other plants by forming a very dense network of roots and rhizomes underground.

The best feature of Earth's grass is that it can grow back extremely quickly even when 100% destroyed aboveground by fire. All that is lost is the plants leaves, which are a relatively small energy investment.

Oh, and many plants have silicate particles, that's not unique to grass.

[Anonymous No.10423501]

>>10423291
i would still prefer if head of the company was a engineer who decided to get an mba instead of a phd

[Anonymous No.10423507]

>>10419999
ULA is the only company bending metal on their new orbital rocket so far.

[Anonymous No.10423509]

>>10419229
hopefuly the 4chan gods eventually create a seperate space category.but say we want to seed life or say life would get seeded, what organism are like to survive on the surface of mars
could some astronaut accidentally track moss or fungi on unto the shoe bottom and it end up growing in the many canyons of mars where it will be shielded from severe radiation.

[Anonymous No.10423510]

>>10423490
Interesting, then you are right.

>Oh, and many plants have silicate particles, that's not unique to grass.
I feel lied to. I was told that was the critical adaptation that defined the divergence if grass from other closely related non-grass plants

[Anonymous No.10423513]

>>10423490
taggging you in this question
>>10423509

[Anonymous No.10423525]

>>10421965
>LEO refueling
can't be done with only LEO refueling :^)

[Anonymous No.10423553]

>>10423509
>survive on the surface of mars
At the moment pretty much nothing, the salt perchlorates and even UV flux don't really matter but the fact that only a few low elevation areas could support even ultrasalty brine means that life as we know it on the surface is pretty much impossible.

That being said, there is a good sized lake buried under Mars' south pole that would be suitable to some extremophiles, and any liquid aquifers elsewhere on the surface would also be habitable to microbes. There's also the fact that we've discovered bacteria that eat and live inside solid rock that exist multiple kilometers down pretty much everywhere on Earth, which would have no trouble surviving if transported to Mars' interior. Hell they could probably survive inside the Moon's crust in at least a few places.

If you want to seed life on Mars what you need to do is redirect a few comets to hit Mars in the polar regions and deliver water and nitrogen compounds as well as heat pulses that will cause the CO2 frozen inside Mars' soil to sublimate. Anything you can do to increase the atmospheric pressure would help, the goal is to make a large portion of Mars capable of supporting liquid fresh water on the surface. Once you achieve that you can start spraying out photosynthetic bacteria all over the place (plants aren't suited for initial colonization because they require atmospheric oxygen to survive, they just produce more than they use normally.

[Anonymous No.10423565]

>>10423056
>radiation
This is not something new. NASA did a lot of studies starting from the 60s. For high energy EM radiation (X-rays Gamma-rays) you use mass and materials with high atomic mass.
For Neutron radiation you use molecules with Hydrogen, Boron, Lithium.
Here is an example: Tungsten + Lithium Hydride.

[Anonymous No.10423656]

>>10423565
this just reinforces the need for mining and manufacturing in space
launching heavy shit like that out of a gravity well just isn't economically viable

[Anonymous No.10423714]

>>10423553
The first thing that would need to be done is to launch up a few artificial magnetic field projectors into stable orbits that put them consistently between Mars and Sol to shield Mars from solar wind, it wouldn't actually take some enormous hundred year effort either, all you'd need is either a huge solar foil and a powerful thick copper solenoid, or an oversized kilopower type stirling engine generator and the same. Current generation CANDU reactors can produce 700+MW per core, enough that one single core could power this system, ideally though a molten salt reactor would be designed for the task, as they're a superior design optimized for lower weight and smaller size.

Once you've got a system like that set up to prevent new atmosphere from being stripped away by solar wind then you can start dropping water rich comets onto the surface.

[Anonymous No.10423725]

2 days to DM-1 lads

[Anonymous No.10423739]

>>10423714
Atmosphere erosion happens on time scales of millions of years, not relevant to the human species.

[Anonymous No.10423748]

>>10423739
it's inconvenient, and a station there would be useful anyhow

[Anonymous No.10423772]

>>10423739
>millions of years
>not relevant to the human species
maybe if you're a defeatist

[Anonymous No.10423878]

check out the commcrew website https://www.nasa.gov/specials/ccp-press-kit/main.html

[Anonymous No.10423884]

>>10423772
We wouldn't be humans by then.

[Anonymous No.10423885]

>>10423884
I don't see how that's relevant, it's just semantics

[Anonymous No.10423903]

>>10423424
>metal shaving from angle grinder remains in tank
>engine test starts
>shaving zooms through plumbing and fucks up the engine

[Anonymous No.10423907]

>>10423903
I will have a huge boner if the star hopper explodes during testing

[Anonymous No.10423909]

>>10423885
Regardless the point is that you don't need to do anything about atmospheric erosion for literally millions of years, so don't worry about fixing it before you start hitting Mars with comets.

[Anonymous No.10423911]

>>10423903
They will clean the tanks before attaching the engines.

[Anonymous No.10423975]

t-48hr DM-1 launch bread is going up at t-48hr

[Anonymous No.10424051]

>>10423903
What do you think all the nitrogen is for?

[Anonymous No.10424122]

DM-1 is in 48 hours!
>>10424117

[Anonymous No.10424295]

>>10423525
Use both LEO and LLO refueling. Propellant depots at both of those orbits, fed by commercial launches. Maybe even lunar ISRU.

[Anonymous No.10424317]

>>10423656
True but I was talking about your main electronic systems and forgot to add that water tanks are a great rad shield.

[Anonymous No.10424480]

new
>>10424479

[Anonymous No.10424741]

>>10419229
SpaceX, NASA and most other space-oriented ventures are money laundering operations.