/sfg/ Space Flight General

[Anonymous No.10799324]

Georgia Peach flavored frozen yogurt edition

Previous thread:
>>10791873

[Anonymous No.10799328]

I'll just repost this then.

[Anonymous No.10799330]

>>10799328
>ULA liked that

[Anonymous No.10799337]

>>10799324
What comes after chemical propulsion? Is Ion thruster the future?
>high ISP
>Newer models are much more efficient

[Anonymous No.10799339]

>>10799330
SMART!

Honestly the engine parachute reuse plan would have been really cool and forward thinking if Lockheed did it back when they first proposed it in the late nineties

[Anonymous No.10799343]

>>10799337
nuclear thermal. double the ISP, decent thrust, not really that difficult (successful engine ground tests done 50 years ago)

[Anonymous No.10799344]

>>10799337
>what comes after chemical
nuclear thermal, but not anytime soon
ion is good for unmanned satellites

[Anonymous No.10799360]

WHEN IS THIS FUCKING THING GOING TO HOP

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.10799365]

>>10799337
Nuclear thermal
>>10799344
Nuclear thermal might happen sooner than you would think. NASA is working on it, DARPA is working on it.

[Anonymous No.10799371]

>>10799360
the engine's here, so
tomorrow is when it starts
>>10799365
I won't acknowledge NTR until it's as reusable as chemical rockets

[Anonymous No.10799375]

>>10799339
Yeah, some people boo on ULA for not going for SpaceX-style flyback boosters, but they fail to realize that SMART is the best for ULA. ULA uses solid boosters to "dial" the performance of their rockets, so landing legs are not feasible unless the number and position of the solids were limited (which goes against the dial-a-rocket concept). The core stage usually has fewer engines for simplicity, but that meant that the thrust of the core stage can't be lowered enough for landing by using fewer engines (and the engines' throttle range wont do either). The recovered engine module could be lofted higher and reenter more fiercely than a Falcon 9 core due to it being smaller and less massive. SMART is overall a nice and practical idea. Although, I hate the name because it was obviously a forced acronym so that ULA can say that THEIR usability is "smart". hur hur

[Anonymous No.10799376]

>>10799337
ISRU chemical propulsion, grab what you can to fill the tank

[Anonymous No.10799384]

>>10799376
I'm hoping for ISRU nuclear thermal, but I think trying to get it to work with multiple propellants is a pipe dream
maybe not that bad but it'd be rough

[Anonymous No.10799393]

>>10799375
I mean yeah, the rocket needs to be designed for flyback from the start

but SMART was getting pitched, originally, for Atlas 3 (or maybe Atlas V? For RD-180 anyway) they just never bothered to do it. Woulda been really ahead of their time, and now it isn't so much; they got complacent

But they seem to have been getting their act together the past couple years so we'll see how they do! Exciting times, anyway

[Anonymous No.10799395]

[Anonymous No.10799404]

>>10799371
I have severe doubt on the reusability of NTR too. It's also going to be expensive as fuck and come with all sorts of bullshit regulations so you might as well just launch a bunch of chemical stages instead.

[Anonymous No.10799406]

>>10799337
Yes. Solar electric is the future. Nuclear is a dead end for political reasons, and only idiots ignore political reasons.

[Anonymous No.10799413]

>>10799404
"Every rocket is good"

-choke-

"except NTR"

[Anonymous No.10799415]

The beginnings of my rocket engine just came into the mail! I'm so excited, can't wait to build and fire this!

[Anonymous No.10799418]

Spektr-RG is (hopefully) launched tomorrow. It was meant to be launched in June but technical complications forced a postponement of the launch.

Vid of the rocket being re-rolled out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-1wKL3muI

Pic is Spektr-RG.

[Anonymous No.10799423]

>>10799415
You'll need to take lots of pictures and post videos, of course

[Anonymous No.10799424]

>>10799415
when you test it make sure you're far enough away and behind several concrete or brick walls
maybe invest in some AR500 plating

[Anonymous No.10799431]

>>10799423
I will. I just don't have much right now because those parts are the very first real steps towards my goal.

>>10799424
My plan is to either have it test fired on the upcoming engine test stand that my university rocket team is going to build, or test it at the bottom of a dry creek bed.

[Anonymous No.10799455]

>>10799415
Neat, what fuel cycle are you using?

[Anonymous No.10799485]

>>10799455
Pressure-fed nitrous-oxide. I want to see if I can start a self-sustaining decomposition in a rocket engine.

[Anonymous No.10799493]

>>10799395
a fake like "it never really existed" or a fake like "it achieved zero of its stated goals and everyone involved knew that this would be the case well before first flight"?

[Anonymous No.10799511]

Been thinking a little lately and an idea occured to me. If the danger of asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions is that smoke and ash can rise high enough in the atmosphere to a point where it cannot be washed down by rain and where it'll block sunlight for years, could a constellation of artificial satellites be used to "clean" the stratosphere by raining down small ice particles that drag the smoke and ash back to the surface? Basically an artificial rain launched from LEO. Is this technically doable? How many satellites would it take? I'm asking /sfg/ because I didn't feel this topic deserved it's own thread.

[Anonymous No.10799523]

>>10799511
make the satellites nuclear and I'll sign it

[Anonymous No.10799525]

>>10799511
Sure it's possible but it would require an absolutely ridiculous amount of upmass

[Anonymous No.10799531]

>>10799525
>it would require an absolutely ridiculous amount of upmass
>"Did somebody call for me?"

[Anonymous No.10799538]

>>10799531
You're going to need thousands of those, maybe even tens of thousands.

[Anonymous No.10799543]

>>10799538
Just have a fleet of some hybrid of BFR and Sea Dragon with nukes.

[Anonymous No.10799674]

>>10799324
which company gives someone more clout for working for them
spacex or nasa

[Anonymous No.10799683]

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-fairing-upgrade-foiled-by-ula/

SpaceX cucked out of bigger F9 fairings by ULA faggots.

[Anonymous No.10799686]

>>10799674
Technically, SpaceX since it's the only company of the two. But overall both should give equal amounts of "clout". NASA would be better if your goal is government work (although, private would work too), but you could be ended up working on a project that goes nowhere. SpaceX will work you hard (no overtime pay though) which should give the impression that an employee from there is a very motivated and determined worker, but SpaceX isn't popular in the entire aerospace industry (especially internationally where SpaceX is seen as an American threat to domestic space launchers).

It ultimately comes down to which one you would see yourself having the most fun in.

[Anonymous No.10799688]

>>10799683
that's clickbait, apparently

[Anonymous No.10799735]

>>10799688
yeah afaik they're still in negotiations with ruag

[Anonymous No.10799765]

If Tom Whitmeyer had his way we'd all be stuck on prison ship Earth

[Anonymous No.10799829]

>>10799674
NASA if you want to produce paper "studies" of shit you'll never actually build

SpaceX if you want to work absolutely obscene amounts of overtime (unpaid, if you're salary)

[Anonymous No.10799835]

>>10799829
so there's no winning, eh?

[Anonymous No.10799929]

>>10799835
let me let you in on a little secret

back when NASA was actually getting shit done, in the Apollo and Gemini and Mercury days, they were working ridiculous overtime too

it's just what it takes

the time to run away is when you're working the overtime and it's not going towards actually accomplishing something big

[Anonymous No.10799965]

>>10799929
correct. The divorce rate was insanely high among engineers and technicians. Apollo-era people worked themselves to near death basically

[Anonymous No.10799971]

>>10799929
>>10799965
The divorce rate was high because they made no time for their families.
>to near death
You must be Chinese or Russian. The lack of capital letters is usually more of a Chinese thing, though.

[Anonymous No.10800016]

Starship news

>"Raptor engine mounted on Starhopper. Aiming for hover test Tues."
>Will be live-streamed
>"~20m up & sideways for first flight. Mk1 Starship hopefully 20km up in a few months."
>"We changed the design quite a bit. More about this in late July."


Yet another redesign, wonder what it entails.

[Anonymous No.10800036]

>>10800016
FOUR DAYS

O

U

R

D

A

Y

S

[Anonymous No.10800037]

>you will never be the first man on mars
>or the second
>or the third
>or the...

[Anonymous No.10800060]

Gotta love Tory, you'll find no other aerospace CEO regularly making detailed posts on a memesub.

[Anonymous No.10800073]

>>10799531
Yeah someone named Cam Buzz Stan Instability.

[Anonymous No.10800079]

>>10800016
Didn‘t he already say they dropped an engine and completely changed the leg fins?

[Anonymous No.10800095]

>>10800060
fuck off reddit

[Anonymous No.10800099]

>>10800060
Go the fuck back and fucking stay there
Redditors have no place on this site, and never fucking will

[Anonymous No.10800117]

>>10800095
>>10800099

"Excellent advice, I ought to take it."
- said no one ever

[Anonymous No.10800126]

>>10800117
yeah but it makes me feel bettter

[Anonymous No.10800189]

>>10800117
FUCK OFF REDDIT SCUM

[Anonymous No.10800215]

>>10800117

[Anonymous No.10800251]

>>10799493
Ive actually talkee to people who believe watching a launch is just being on drugs and watching a hologram and some smoke.

[Anonymous No.10800255]

>>10799829
Can someone explain the whole "free overtime" thing for me? How is it even legal? I come from a sosialist eutopia/hellhole (depending on who you ask), and we either get overtime pay or earn "time of", depending on who you work for.
Even interships gets paid decently here

[Anonymous No.10800260]

>>10800255
From my understanding either you are on a salary and get pressured into working overtime, since you are salaried your pay is the same regardless of worked hours. If you are on hourly rate then you will usually get paid for overtime but just at standard rates.

[Anonymous No.10800263]

>>10800255
salary works like this: you get payed a certain amount a year, everything else is worked out in the contract
as long as you're making more than minimum wage/hr there's nothing shady going on
there might be an absolute limit on hours in there somewhere

[Anonymous No.10800268]

Any news on Hayabusa-2?

[Anonymous No.10800272]

>>10800268
it's doing the thing, which isn't very exciting now that it has detonated its anti-tank mine

[Anonymous No.10800276]

>>10800268
It's pretty much done, scooped up its payload and should be back in just over a year or so.

[Anonymous No.10800398]

>>10800117

[Anonymous No.10800400]

Why did we stop building them?

[Anonymous No.10800407]

>>10800400
Because

>Muh MIC
>Muh budget
>Muh shuttle

If the program kept up as it was, a lot of the Apollo guys were very interested in reusability of regular rocketry conponents, first it would have been recovering bits with chutes, sort of like SMART, then flyback boosters, then recoverable upper stages and eventually we would have ended up with a BFR style concept decades ago. People deserve to be executed for this mismanagement.

[Anonymous No.10800530]

>>10800400
To add to >>10800407, it was also done to keep NASA under control. The idea in the US government was that if NASA keeps their Apollo equipment then they would keep trying to push for bigger and more costly missions. Which is true, NASA was eyeing Mars and a permanent lunar base after Apollo. However, the government wanted to dial back NASAs funding, so it was encouraged to scrap as much of the Apollo equipment as possible to make way for a new launch vehicle. One that would restrict NASA to LEO and would prevent them from having ambitious goals again. The Shuttle.

[Anonymous No.10800552]

>>10800400
bullying is a fundamental requirement

[Anonymous No.10800565]

>>10800400
shits expensive yo

[Anonymous No.10800595]

>>10799324
Why do these Silicon Valley firms all have frozen yoghurt machines in their offices?

[Anonymous No.10800628]

>>10800595
>Why do these Silicon Valley firms all have frozen yoghurt machines in their offices?

Why not?

[Anonymous No.10800659]

>>10800400
So we could afford to build the Shuttle instead. Muh reusable space plane meme.

>>10800407
>People deserve to be executed for this mismanagement.
It was all the fault of Congress dictating the budget. Not that you're wrong there. But they also had to pay for gibs too.

[Anonymous No.10800660]

>>10800595
It costs almost nothing and makes the employees feel like management gives a shit about their happiness

[Anonymous No.10800661]

>>10800660
Why don't you blow off some steam in the games room?

[Anonymous No.10800676]

>>10800659
>So we could afford to build the Shuttle instead.
And even that failed spectacularly. With the money spent on the entire Shuttle program from 1981 to 2011, NASA could've afforded just about 5 Saturn Vs per year during the same period. Sure, it would've been impossible to have the Saturn launch that frequently, but it shows just how wasteful the Shuttle was.

[Anonymous No.10800686]

>>10800661
Everyone with half a brain knows the games room is a trap. Froyo you can eat while you work

[Anonymous No.10800719]

>He doesn't get take advantage of the unlimited toppings and asks Maria the frozen yogurt lady for extra gnocchi

I bet you don't like the cerise food trucks either

[Anonymous No.10800725]

>>10800719
>gnocchi

Pic related are gnocchi. Dunno what your shit is.

[Anonymous No.10800731]

>>10800268
Our little girl has a sister!
:)

[Anonymous No.10800733]

>>10800725
Gnocchi can also be a topping on Frozen yogurt, it's usually Sweetened and in different colors like in the pic you're replying too.

[Anonymous No.10800734]

>>10800719
You put tiny tomatoes in your ice cream?
GROSS!

[Anonymous No.10800750]

>>10800734
I know this is bait, but those are cherries fren

[Anonymous No.10800754]

>>10800750
Cherry tomatoes?

[Anonymous No.10800755]

>>10800719
>not putting yogurt raisins on your plan tart frozen yogurt

[Anonymous No.10800758]

>>10800755

They don't have those here fren. Those are top tier though.

[Anonymous No.10800777]

>>10800734
Look at the the place where the pedicel was you dumb retard.

[Anonymous No.10800795]

>>10800777
Fine, they are normal sized tomates in a giant tub of ice cream.

[Anonymous No.10800817]

I've been thinking about this for a while now.

Why do you think Elon has such a phobia with expendable mode for Super Heavy? If they start producing the number of engines at the rate he said, or even faster down the line then we can assume they'll have an absolute surplus in no time. Building the first stage en mass would then be a cinch due to its extremely low complexity in comparison to the 2nd stage.

So one would think that you'd eventually launch one of the boosters used in refuel missions in expendable mode. This is after it has effectively paid for itself. I'd assume this would allow Super Heavy to launch a mission that becomes volume restricted rather than mass restricted.

I don't know. My brain is telling me that using a booster that's already been used dozens of times in expendable mode would be the smart thing to do. Sure, you are losing engines, but what's it matter if you're making a shitload as it is?

[Anonymous No.10800818]

>>10800733
This. Gnocchi is just carbs.

[Anonymous No.10800922]

>>10800817
He is not against expendable vehicles, in fact an expendable starship has been proposed by him for high energy trajectories. Throwing away 36x0.5-1m dollar engines plus all the other expensive superheavy shit is just fucking retarded instead of refuelling a starship in orbit for all your fast trajectory needs.

[Anonymous No.10801188]

Spektr-RG delayed again. Launch expected tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.10801377]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-scr6FsddY cocoa

[Anonymous No.10801436]

>>10800016
I imagine the changes are to re-entry

[Anonymous No.10801443]

NOTAM https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_9_0258.html

[Anonymous No.10801467]

>>10801443
That NOTAM leaves lots of safety margin, SpaceX permit lets them to fly up to 25 meters

[Anonymous No.10801547]

>>10800016
whatever anyone else was planning for the Apollo 11 50th anniversary, I think this will top it

[Anonymous No.10801605]

>>10801443

[Anonymous No.10801613]

SpaceX fire truck at the launch site.
A pic of StarHopper.
There was a CH4 delivery today.
There was a LN2 delivery yesterday.

[Anonymous No.10801630]

>>10801613
That thing still looks like a chromed R2-D2 to me. Whenever I see it I can't help but to imagine it making R2's screech as it hops.

[Anonymous No.10801644]

>>10801630
Hope somebody makes a webm with that sound when it hops

[Anonymous No.10801695]

>>10801644
I don't want it to tilt over and crash during the hop, but that'd make for an even funnier webm with the R2-D2 scream.

[Anonymous No.10801716]

So, SS/SH can do ~100t useful payload to useful orbit. What will Gen 2 starship be able to do? Will a diameter increase result in significant payload increases?

[Anonymous No.10801793]

>>10801716
Yes, and fusion power

[Anonymous No.10801805]

HIPPITY HOPPITY

[Anonymous No.10801809]

>>10801805
LETS SEE SOME VERTICAL VELOCITY

[Anonymous No.10801838]

>>10801809
that rhyme is an atrocity
now witness my hypocrisy

[Anonymous No.10801868]

>>10801805
MAKE MARS OUR PROPERTY

[Anonymous No.10801870]

>>10801793
>Yes, and fusion power

No viable configuration exists due to the very high mass to power output ratio on viable nuclear fusion reactors (polywell isn't).

[Anonymous No.10801927]

>>10801716
bolt three boosters together and call it Super Heavy Heavy

[Anonymous No.10801940]

>>10801927
Super Ultra Heavy

[Anonymous No.10801943]

>>10801927
that's stupid, if you're trying to get more mass to orbit you're better off just doing more launches
MOAR LAUNCHES

[Anonymous No.10801973]

>>10801377
Have we ever seen a spaceship have such a public development in history?
People can just stop outside the site and take photos and fly drones without a problem

[Anonymous No.10801993]

SARGE launch footage from last time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cTNevdDCN4

[Anonymous No.10801999]

>>10801993
oh nice

[Anonymous No.10802003]

That's it for the windshield structure height. Being topped off

[Anonymous No.10802014]

>>10800676

>NASA could've afforded just about 5 Saturn Vs per year during the same period

Meme number.

[Anonymous No.10802018]

>>10801993
it's some sort of 360 VR cam

[Anonymous No.10802019]

>>10802014
How so? I did the math just before I made the post.

[Anonymous No.10802038]

>>10802019

My gut feeling says 1 per year.

[Anonymous No.10802048]

>>10802019

I get the feeling you're subdividing total shuttle program cost by a figure you have for the marginal cost of a Saturn 5 divided across the years in question. I don't think that captures ongoing sustained program expenses that eat into what you could afford each and every year.

Every SLS fanboy will tell me that SLS is cheaper than a Saturn 5, yet look at its flight rate.

[Anonymous No.10802068]

>>10802019

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Griffin_Space_Fantasy_999.html

[Anonymous No.10802069]

similar structure thing going up in Cocoa. Different shape though

[Anonymous No.10802150]

>>10802003
>windshield
I guess so, but it would also probably function as a sound breaker if I had to guess.

[Anonymous No.10802162]

>>10802048
>I get the feeling you're subdividing total shuttle program cost by a figure you have for the marginal cost of a Saturn 5 divided across the years in question.
Yes I did.

>don't think that captures ongoing sustained program expenses that eat into what you could afford each and every year.
I guess you have a point. I'll stop using that figure then. However, for what the Shuttle did, the money spent on it was still a waste in my opinion.

>Every SLS fanboy will tell me that SLS is cheaper than a Saturn 5, yet look at its flight rate.
Honestly, with how divided up the SLS is, it's probably very difficult to get the complete and total cost of the entire program. Probably by design as to not scare off support for the contractors.

[Anonymous No.10802249]

Alright boys, bet.
Does the hopper survive
or does it tip over and crash.

[Anonymous No.10802252]

>>10802249
the most boring hop test imaginable, shaking the whole of Texas, and absolutely nothing goes wrong

[Anonymous No.10802255]

https://youtu.be/f28zPtIx0j0

God damn Raptor is one big boy.

[Anonymous No.10802277]

>>10802255
For the thrust it produces it's amazingly small.

[Anonymous No.10802283]

>>10802249
I expect it to horribly wrong but hope it goes well.

[Anonymous No.10802326]

>>10802069
It's kinda neat seeing what can only be described as a shipyard for spaceships.

[Anonymous No.10802328]

Will humanity ever leave the solar system or we stuck here forever, sending at best probes outside it?

[Anonymous No.10802333]

>>10800407
Would it have been possible to build the computer systems reqruied for automated flyback and landing? Computing power in the 70s was shit tier compared to now.

[Anonymous No.10802394]

>>10802333
Maybe not in the 70s but certainly coming into the 80s and 90s yes.

[Anonymous No.10802399]

>>10802333
>LM's in your path

[Anonymous No.10802404]

>>10802328
we'll either destroy ourselves or we'll leave eventually
>>10802399
mostly flown by humans, wasn't it?

[Anonymous No.10802412]

>>10802404
if the moon had landing pads it wouldn't have needed manual control

[Anonymous No.10802413]

>>10802326
a spaceshipyard if you will

[Anonymous No.10802428]

>>10802069
>tents
>tents everywhere

Does Elon have a tent fetish?

[Anonymous No.10802437]

>>10802255
It's only slightly larger than Merlin, but with waaaaay more thrust and better specific impulse; it's really impressive

[Anonymous No.10802438]

https://spacenews.com/bridenstine-says-leadership-changes-linked-to-urgency-in-nasas-exploration-programs/

[Anonymous No.10802445]

>>10801716
It will have to pay off first

Elons not going to want to do rocket mods that turn into a whole new rocket

[Anonymous No.10802460]

Man Foust got fat

[Anonymous No.10802468]

>>10802438

What the fuck does Jim mean that he doesn't know if there will be any Commercial Crew in 2019? Fuck you Jim, figure it out.

[Anonymous No.10802470]

>>10802468
probably waiting on Dragon 2 report or something

[Anonymous No.10802475]

>>10802428
Same function as a full building for the most part, but at a fraction of the time, cost and permitting bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10802478]

>>10802468
Jim doesn't know if Boeing and SpaceX will have gotten their shit together by then

speaking of, is there some website where I can place bets on who gets there first?

[Anonymous No.10802509]

>>10802428
They're Sprung structures you FUCK

[Anonymous No.10802547]

>>10802478
probably not, since it's clear as day that SpaceX is gonna win it

[Anonymous No.10802570]

soon

[Anonymous No.10802587]

>>10802547
yeah unless they blow up another capsule with astronauts inside this time, then the whole company is donezo

[Anonymous No.10802604]

>>10802587
Deaths are inevitable. Hell, E2E starship deaths are inevitable. And rich important people will be onboard those. I don't think it will have long-term impacts.
SpaceX isn't public for a reason

[Anonymous No.10802614]

Calling it now: Starship won't have wings. That's the design change. None of the prototypes we've seen have wings or any way to attach wings. It'll just be a shiny steel dildo.

[Anonymous No.10802616]

>>10802614
"yeah turns out if we just jam a bunch of jumpo reaction wheels in there it'll be fine"

[Anonymous No.10802618]

>>10802587
if the capsule blows up any time after the astronauts get to the space station, then SpaceX still technically wins

[Anonymous No.10802621]

>>10802614
I think it's the opposite. Massive wing-like surfaces. This increases the thermal capacity of the ship, so no dual-hull perspiration cooling is needed. Big simplification.

[Anonymous No.10802624]

>>10802616
It's all fun and games until stacks of these bad boys are pulled out.

[Anonymous No.10802628]

>>10802624
>>10802069
in the tent, lower right

[Anonymous No.10802636]

>>10802628
that's just another section. I do wonder though when (if?) they'll start putting on SS-specific RCS thrusters. Right now the hopper is re-using F9 ones

[Anonymous No.10802638]

>>10802621
>"We're replacing the winglets for giant delta wings for good cross range gliding."
>"The sweaty stainless steeling being dropped, ceramic tiles backed up with thermal blankets will be used."
>"Starship will be moved from the top of super heavy to the side to reduce overall height."
>"The methalox upper stage will be scraped. Hydrolox is the new selection to offer better performance."
>"Delightfully counter intuitive."

[Anonymous No.10802640]

Can Starship return Hubble? One of the things I was mad about when Shuttle was canned was that the "bring Hubble home and put it in a museum" mission would never happen.

[Anonymous No.10802649]

>>10802640
For sure. Could return the ISS if you lopped the solar panels off

[Anonymous No.10802652]

>>10802649
Or retracted them. Doing that without destroying the extension structure would be interesting though.

[Anonymous No.10802671]

>>10802614
the design change is larger wings
and also it's gonna be mounted on the side of the super heavy booster instead of on top
and also they'll spray orange foam all over the booster

[Anonymous No.10802679]

>>10802671
Kek

[Anonymous No.10802683]

>>10802671
except for the first flight

[Anonymous No.10802688]

>>10802652
>>10802649

Makes me long for 12m again bros. This 9m shit just makes me sad.

[Anonymous No.10802697]

>>10802587
the first plane crashes didn't kill commercial airflight, absolutely no reason the first rocket crashes will magically do it now
especially considering that spacex isn't actually public

[Anonymous No.10802733]

>>10802697
The first rocket crashes happened fifty years ago

crashes now, it won't kill spaceflight but it probably will kill that company

[Anonymous No.10802746]

>>10802649
Are you Elon?

[Anonymous No.10802752]

>>10802746
hahaha, the virgin redditor Tory Bruno vs the chad anon Elon Musk

[Anonymous No.10802799]

>>10802752
I got to actually call Tory on being wrong on reddit and he was pretty chill desu

[Anonymous No.10802803]

>>10802799
Bruno is a stand up guy

Michael Gass was an asshole though

[Anonymous No.10802919]

Those of you thinking that Gerst's demotion was part of some scheme to kill Orion/SLS/Gateway, I present the utterly unsurprising news that, no, it was not.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691740/nasa-administrator-jim-bridenstine-bill-gerstenmaier-reassignment

Interviewer:
>So given all of these changes, does that mean that we can expect some large structural changes to the Artemis architecture moving forward?
Jim Bridenstine:
>No, not for the Artemis architecture. All of the elements are in place. We’ve got SLS and Orion. We’re going to build the Gateway, and we’re going to build a lander, and that architecture is not changing.

[Anonymous No.10802934]

>>10802688
Next iteration is probably going to be even bigger than 12m

[Anonymous No.10802948]

>>10802919
>We’re going to build the Gateway

Ugh

[Anonymous No.10802961]

>>10802948
TBF the rumor that he got kicked out because the OMB's gunning for Gateway was actually the most plausible of the anti-current-architecture rumors I've heard in a long time.
But I knew that everyone getting their hopes up that this was the culmination of Jim Bridenstine's totally-real secret conspiracy against the SLS and Orion were going to be disappointed.

[Anonymous No.10802966]

>>10801716
>Will a diameter increase result in significant payload increases?

Yes, and more than one would think, as payload fraction itself increases with rocket size. Think 300 tons reusable for 12 meter design.

[Anonymous No.10802993]

>>10802733
>The first rocket crashes happened fifty years ago
technologically, rocketry is right now where aviation was in the 1910s

Starship will be the Avro

[Anonymous No.10803036]

>>10802993
A failure so large that it crashes the Canadian aviation industry while giving literally all the technology involved to Russia?

[Anonymous No.10803042]

https://twitter.com/AJ_FI/status/1149780965532852225

Chinese launch firm iSpace has carried out a 200 second test of its JD-1 reusable methalox engine, which will power the 1st & 2nd stages of the Hyperbola-2 rocket (1.1 tonnes to 500 km SSO expendable/700 kg reusable). Test flight planned for 2021.

[Anonymous No.10803092]

>>10802638
nice design

[Anonymous No.10803107]

>>10802638
Reminds me of this

[Anonymous No.10803312]

https://youtu.be/Dy1nkGghEVk

Roscosmos finally launching Spektr-RG.
There was some issues with Proton but thanks to space grade glue everything should be fine.

[Anonymous No.10803377]

>>10803312
Is that really that hard to put some cameras on the rocket?

[Anonymous No.10803462]

>>10803377
They don't a give a fuck about your imperialist stream.

[Anonymous No.10803498]

>>10803377
They don't need publicity to get funding and labor

[Anonymous No.10803527]

>>10802966
yes, that was the first ITS-BFR design

[Anonymous No.10803547]

>>10803036
Yes. And it is going to be glorious.

[Anonymous No.10803634]

That brown plume near engines normal for Proton?

[Anonymous No.10803664]

>It's another /uosfg/ USA Only Space Flight General

[Anonymous No.10803688]

>>10803664
Ahh yes, the assmad Europoor has returned...also if you didn’t notice the last two launches we covered were European and Russian launches.

[Anonymous No.10803696]

>>10803664
So do some stuff and maybe we'll talk about it.
Remember New Zealand launched that small rocket last week? That was pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.10803709]

>>10803664
>active dscussion about the Proton
>"why is thread so American?"
If you feel that the discussion of non-american spaceflight is lacking then post some cool stuff other countries have done instead of whining about it like a child.

[Anonymous No.10803854]

>>10803634
the proton m that crashed had it too, I think it's normal, probably the exhaust of the turbopump, it's always very sooty.

[Anonymous No.10803863]

>>10799395
Was the tail fin of the columbia really that different from the other shuttles or is this just a result of different camera distance/angle?

[Anonymous No.10803934]

>>10801809
>>10801838
underrated

[Anonymous No.10803996]

https://youtu.be/3pD5CZZfnYk

It's happening my dudes

[Anonymous No.10804002]

>>10803996
TUESDAY
also 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 launch

[Anonymous No.10804025]

>>10803996
What are they using for movement, hydraulic?
I believe the F9 grid fins for reentry are hydraulic.

[Anonymous No.10804065]

>>10804002
so that is why HOP is THEN

[Anonymous No.10804162]

So I was looking for ways to buy N2O for my rocket engine, and I just learned that people abuse it to get high apparently. Which makes the odd looks I got at the autoparts store while shopping for tanks seem more reasonable.

[Anonymous No.10804172]

>>10802570
wtf does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.10804180]

>>10804172
He is just basedboy Elon worshipping cuck

[Anonymous No.10804189]

>>10802961
yeah the gate way, for those that saw how well SLS development worked, well the gateway is just like that but even bigger in scope and launch cadence. I hate the gate way so much, oh yeah it's not a moon base, hell it's just an iss around the moon. And it's not enabling much of anything further. And it takes how many years in total, with no delays to SLS stack. Wtf is this shit, 2 week 2033 mars stay

[Anonymous No.10804199]

>>10804189
To be fair. Gateway was designed to not be a lunar base so that it can be easily* repurposed as a Mars spacecraft. That way if the next administration wants to go to Mars again, then NASA could swiftly* change its scope without much hassle*.

*its NASA, they would probably spend millions of dollars and take half a decade to make a toaster only to find out that its impossible to stuff bread into it

[Anonymous No.10804202]

>>10804199
Their scope right now is 2033 in the optimistic sense. Regardless if it's LEO or whatever they are only planning a 2 week stay. They even explicitly stated they would need more funding, and an sls launch 2 every year at certain junctions.

I am really doubting their ability to deliver both on the modules, and on the launches seeing as both their funding is not secured, and their objectives may change.

[Anonymous No.10804212]

>>10804162
nice

[Anonymous No.10804213]

>>10804202
>They even explicitly stated they would need more funding, and an sls launch 2 every year at certain junctions
Do you mean a launch every two years? That's sad considering how much money SLS gets.

>I am really doubting their ability to deliver both on the modules, and on the launches seeing as both their funding is not secured, and their objectives may change
Same here but I expect more out of the largest space agency in the world. I'm not expecting Apollo levels of competence , I want NASA to at least do something on a timely manner instead of having everything be perpetually be a decade out.

[Anonymous No.10804216]

>>10804213
I might be wrong but I think certain years for building the gate way require multiple SLS launches per year. If I am wrong then I mean back to back. Yearly launches with modules ready. Let me find the infographic that was cited, the sheer amount of SLS launches over this period is staggering.

Not to mention they can likely do nearly everything with a new glenn or starship, cheaper and more efficiently long term

[Anonymous No.10804221]

>>10804216
>Not to mention they can likely do nearly everything with a new glenn or starship, cheaper and more efficiently long term
Well, the groundwork for Gateway was set before those rockets were even thought of so it makes sense that NASA didn't make a plan for them (although I don't buy into the idea that a payload would need to be specially designed for a rocket, if you need to design a payload to fit a rocket either your payload sucks or there's something very wrong with the rocket).

[Anonymous No.10804224]

>>10804213

[Anonymous No.10804228]

>>10804162
To be fair, getting high is probably more accepted among normies than building a rocket.

[Anonymous No.10804232]

>>10804224
Considering how slowly NASA took to make a one off prototype turned main-launcher (SLS), that seems very optimistic. Where's this from?

[Anonymous No.10804237]

>>10804232
To specify, I meant Block 1. Forgot to put that there.

[Anonymous No.10804245]

>>10804228
I kept running into so many drug forums looking for information. There was one thread I've found that went like this...
>OP: So I have found a passion for starting an icecream truck, and I really need some NOS for my whipped cream and nothing else. Is there any way to get that in high purity for my icecream and not for anything else?
>FPBP: Dude, we know you're going to use it to get high lmao

[Anonymous No.10804264]

>>10804237
recent presentation they had when they were talking about how they'd get to mars, and the equipment they'd bring.

Two nasa Staffers, a black guy, and an eva suit team lead who spoke to EVA capabilities. The black man was very specific to say they need more funding for this as a miniumum. The girl said they'd be ready by 2024 with some variant of the suits.

So I am pretty sure they are honestly hoping to be bailed out of this shit show.

[Anonymous No.10804269]

>>10804237
Here is a different variant I found

[Anonymous No.10804289]

>>10804264
I'm hoping NASA cleans up it's management before they start doing some serious stuff on the moon again.

[Anonymous No.10804305]

>>10804224
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.10804311]

>>10804264
They can use the Z2, but the Z2's been designed for pretty much this whole time just for in-space EVAs, so while it'll probably work on the Moon in the pinch, it needs some refinement for its new role, and that takes time and money.

[Anonymous No.10804312]

https://t.me/randomiad12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECJFc3uD-fM

[Anonymous No.10804316]

>>10804311
>it needs some refinement for its new role, and that takes time and money.
Just put the production plant somewhere in Alabama and Shelby will support it to this grave.

[Anonymous No.10804318]

>>10804213
>Do you mean a launch every two years? That's sad considering how much money SLS gets.
No, two launches a year. That's the theoretical max the SLS assembly line can handle without upgrades.

[Anonymous No.10804372]

>A grand Space Command will be created next September in the Air Force. This will eventually become the Air and Space Force.

Said by Macron, President of the French Republic.

Thought ?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/macron-space-command-france-air-force-trump-a9003926.html

[Anonymous No.10804381]

>>10804372
It seems to me that the space force isn't primarily for sat placements, and all that bs. it seems to me that someone is thinking further ahead.

If you want to dominate for moon recourses you want a body that can expand to secure all those targets. Even on mars, to essentially lay feature lay claim to recourses weapon sites etc.

[Anonymous No.10804383]

>>10804372
America leading the way again.

[Anonymous No.10804385]

>>10804381
Space should be for science only

[Anonymous No.10804387]

Why do none of the asteroid and comet exploration missions that are so in-vogue focus on the potential resources? Rosetta should have had an auger and analyzer for mining.

[Anonymous No.10804395]

>>10804385
It won't be for science only no matter how much you kick and scream about muh rights or whatever. States already militarise it and that will only continue to intensify.

[Anonymous No.10804403]

>>10804385
Why?

[Anonymous No.10804410]

>>10804403
Because we will never colonize space if we are all dead

[Anonymous No.10804415]

>>10804385
Nothing ever gets colonized with the aspiration of "science only"

[Anonymous No.10804417]

>>10804415
science is best used for war, nukes, synthetic ammonia or whatever it was that enabled tons of fertilizer. Anyways good shit.

[Anonymous No.10804418]

>>10804415
Who is your enemy in space ? I can understand space for science, space for money but space for army ?

[Anonymous No.10804426]

>>10804418
>Who is your enemy in space ?
You. That's my space, fuck off from it.

[Anonymous No.10804430]

>>10804418
Other humans you fucking corn nut

[Anonymous No.10804434]

Should I get a white Steyr AUG for maximum space force aesthetics

[Anonymous No.10804443]

>>10804434
silly k/ommando you cant shoot guns in space ! there is no atmosphere to push against !

[Anonymous No.10804446]

>>10804430
The irony : the only people/country on Earth that can truly hurt you from space are YOUR allies too.

[Anonymous No.10804448]

>>10804434

[Anonymous No.10804497]

>>10804434
Unironically, a Hi-Point bullpup conversion in 10mm
>just wish the bottom of the grip, magwell, and stock were connected in a straight line

[Anonymous No.10804515]

>>10804497
There is a guy who sell this bullpup sks mod, shit looks dope.

[Anonymous No.10804529]

>>10804515
>bullpup sks mod
nyet comrade, rifle is fine

[Anonymous No.10804570]

>>10804434
>Not using actual rockets
They have the advantage of being very quiet which helps when firing inside the cramped tin can space stations.

[Anonymous No.10804582]

>>10804570
If you are shooting guns inside a space station that place will be vented in about 10 seconds at which point noise doesn't matter so much.

[Anonymous No.10804684]

What do you guys think would trigger NASA to clean up it's management for the better? China beating the US to the return to the moon? A catastrophic failure of the first SLS launch?

pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.10804709]

>>10804684
BFR moon landing 2022

[Anonymous No.10804735]

>>10804709
This, and it won't cause them to get their rocket game together, that's just not gonna happen, they will just end up buying payloads on BFR. Hopefully they gas ULA and co and use the funds to design habitat equipment and stuff.

[Anonymous No.10804794]

>>10799337
Ion is the thruster of the present, they're already being used in some satellites, the versions yet to come would need to be enormously more power intensive, to the point where most solar systems would be even heavier than nuclear reactors to provide the necessary hundreds to thousands of kilowatts necessary to make MPD drives viable for human use. Even now they're enormously more efficient than conventional chemical systems but to get humans to places like Mars or the Moon quickly they'll simply have to be upsized, and bigger size means more power consumption. Nuclear thermal rockets would be a good improvement over chemical rockets, there are versions which can produce similar thrust and still significantly exceed the ISP of chemical rockets but there will be numerous political roadblocks to such a practical solution because politicians are ultra-brainlets.

[Anonymous No.10804815]

>>10804794
Nuclear Thermal has the thrust to weight ratio of a chemical rocket but twice the efficiency, which is kind of amazing
the current designs are disposable, which isn't really a sustainable method for something that contains many kilograms of nuclear waste (with plenty of useful life left in it)

[Anonymous No.10804822]

>>10804815
That could easily be fixed if brainlets would just give up the hydrogen meme. It's only ideal on paper, the wear and tear on piping tankage and turbopumps and the weight of tankage and insulation plus the extra size of hydrogen tanks makes it pretty shit tier. Methane NTRs would do much better, less cryocooling, no embrittlement, smaller tanks, less foam, smaller turbopumps.

[Anonymous No.10804825]

>>10804822
I wonder if the required pump sizes would be close enough to water so you could make it dual mode, methane or water

[Anonymous No.10804833]

>>10804684
>China beating the US to the return to the moon?
This, other countries catching up to US will force their hand on NASA, a lot of NASA's problems have roots in politics, once another country catches up the politics will be forced aside for more pragmatic decisions

[Anonymous No.10804841]

>>10804833
If that happens and the US "catches up" with everyone else and everything settles down, then what could be done to prevent the downsizing of NASA? This happened at the end of the space race where the US reduced the scope of NASA because their role was done. The result was management who didn't really care about spaceflight beyond getting minimum funding for NASA while resting on the Apollo laurels.

[Anonymous No.10804845]

thread theme https://youtu.be/D6DmtPQv7V8

[Anonymous No.10804868]

>>10804709
Gonna be fun when literally no one remembers this 3 years from now.
Red Dragon, anyone?

[Anonymous No.10804874]

>>10804841
Not gonna happen.
The crash of interest in manned spaceflight post Apollo was because that generation didn't give a single fuck about spaceflight once we "beat" the Soviets. NASA came *this* close to being dissolved entirely, partially because lol Vietnam.
Though spacefans are still a tiny minority now, there are enough to keep the funding train rolling, as it has for the past 30 years.

[Anonymous No.10804876]

>>10804868
Red Dragon was always a dumb plan, interplanetary missions like that have totally different requirements from LEO only capsules like Dragon
should be interesting to see how different interplanetary Starships are from LEO or Lunar designs (Lunar will probably be the same, it's basically the best testing environment for interplanetary)

[Anonymous No.10804888]

>>10804874
>Not gonna happen.
How so? What's going to keep American's from losing interest in spaceflight once China or India get's "beaten"? Sure, Elon Musk and SpaceX are bringing in some popularity for spaceflight, but that's still a minority "nerdy" thing because I've met people who don't know that SpaceX can land their boosters.

[Anonymous No.10804889]

>>10804825
Nah, even at it's densest it's less than half as dense as water is at room temperature and 1 atmosphere of pressure.

[Anonymous No.10804895]

>>10804888
Ideally because this next boom in space activity will be enough to establish some more permanent infrastructure, permanent infrastructure needs people and resources. That might make it big enough to be worth investing in outside of just shitting out more cheap telecom satellites, some mining concern might be interested in the potential trillions in rare metals held in the belt, somebody with means and a tight schedule might get interested in a mode of transport an order of magnitude faster than conventional air travel, one of the bigger hotel chains might want the prestige of being the first ever to offer an orbital suite. Once it gets pushed hard enough to get the private sector fully engaged it can't ever contract like it did after the lunar landing.

[Anonymous No.10804924]

>>10804895
Hopefully you're right, sorry for being a downer. Grew up being disappointed in spaceflight, stopped following it after Constellation got canceled, only started following it again after the first Falcon Heavy launch. I'm excited for this newest push to go beyond LEO, but I'm not going to hold my breath for it (almost expecting something bad to happen).

pic semi-related, a comfy space scene

[Anonymous No.10804925]

>>10804924
Well, I thought the picture got uploaded. My bad.

[Anonymous No.10804928]

>>10804925
is that one of the gas giants? Jupiter?

[Anonymous No.10804936]

>>10804928
Research says, "yes". The artist is Mathias Verhasselt.
https://mv.cgsociety.org/hclg/low-jupiter-orbit

[Anonymous No.10804940]

>>10804936
being that close to Jupiter is impossible, even for unmanned probes, due to the severity of the radiation belts.
A truly nasty environment.

[Anonymous No.10804953]

>>10804940
Story idea: Doomed Jovian manned mission makes a desperate slingshot dangerously close to Jupiter to escape it's sphere of influence. The crew battling the severe depression and isolation of their situation along with hallucinations from radiation poisoning. Be sure to include a glory shot of the Great Red Spot.

[Anonymous No.10804967]

>>10799324
you will never go to space. interstellar travel is a fantasy, and so is space mining, etc

[Anonymous No.10804981]

Could we assemble giant ships insulated with lead nuclear engine blocks. I wonder if that's the future, instead of LEO transfers we are chasing large tug boats or cruisers. Do larger nuclear propelled ships make sense even when you limit the radiation contamination inside?

[Anonymous No.10804990]

>>10804981
I think the biggest fear about nuclear tugs around LEO isn't the radiation they put out (a simple shadow shield will do), but the radioactive material they'll spread around if an accident were to happen (and will happen if there's enough tugs flying about). Just a small non-nuclear satellite spreads lots of debris around if destroyed, the Indian satellite killer test is an example of this. It would've been a catastrophe if the satellite had a nuclear reactor on it like a nuclear tug.

[Anonymous No.10804995]

>>10804981
the radiation isn't all that much, for a couple of reasons:
it's not that much radiation
it's very far away from the crew capsule
in between you have the entire weight of all the propellant

[Anonymous No.10804997]

>>10804990
nuclear debris in orbit is exactly as big of a deal as non-radioactive debris in orbit, for Kesler reasons
nuclear debris coming out of orbit is a very big deal

[Anonymous No.10805000]

>>10804997
>nuclear debris coming out of orbit is a very big deal
Which, unless the tug is in a high orbit, will be guaranteed due to atmospheric drag. A solution could be to not have tugs be closer than medium Earth orbit and have a radioactive material cleanup ship on standby for emergencies (like EMS)

[Anonymous No.10805083]

>>10804997
I assume there isn't a clean solution if we are doing it between the moon - earth, because of the limited space, or earth/moon - mars, because once more the orbits might work out later to swing the material back.

Because of the speed of random debree, I imagine there really isn't a way to run nuclear reactors, unless you entomb them with some massive honecombed reinforced blah blah blah, some massive containment vessel which will make the weight to power ratio get far lower.

[Anonymous No.10805102]

>>10805083
If you are just doing earth-moon there is little point In a nuclear tug, you would get much much better power to weight from solar.

[Anonymous No.10805108]

>>10804953
I like the way you think

[Anonymous No.10805158]

>>10804570
You're right but for the wrong reason. The real advantage is gyrojet is pretty close to recoilless.

[Anonymous No.10805228]

we're getting closer, lads.
Closer and closer.

[Anonymous No.10805232]

closer

and

closer

[Anonymous No.10805250]

man it's fucking big

[Anonymous No.10805261]

>>10805232
add me to your image comp
ill eat my hat if they fly anything but the shitty watertower with people inside it before 2024.

[Anonymous No.10805273]

>>10805250
I'm actually more hype for this than Falcon heavy

[Anonymous No.10805306]

>>10805273
That's sensible, if it works out correctly it is the logical progression from Falcon Heavy. FH is the functional testbed for a lot of the technology that will be necessary to make BFRship work, and once they start flying regularly, assuming that their launch costs are even in the ballpark of as low as they can be, then FH will be made somewhat redundant because it would probably be cheaper per kg to launch with a BFRship.

[Anonymous No.10805337]

>>10805273
I'll have a launch thread up for the hop, now that it's confirmed they're streaming it officially.

[Anonymous No.10805377]

>>10805261
That's a lot more reasonable than the screenshot guy. I could see Starship fly 2019 or 2020, be operational 2021, and fly Dear Moon 2024.

[Anonymous No.10805380]

>>10805377
speaking of which MZ is now saying non-'artist'-artists might go. Like engineers perhaps

[Anonymous No.10805437]

>>10804833
>>10804841
>>10804888
Funding is not the issue with spaceflight. NASA has fully half the budget of Apollo peak, and $20 billion is plenty enough for both sustained Moon and Mars missions. The issue is gross mismanagement corruption and inefficiency, not size of the budget.

[Anonymous No.10805543]

>>10803996
Lookit the little wiggles. It's adorable.

[Anonymous No.10805655]

>>10805250
GOOD LUCK TRASH CAN CHAN

[Anonymous No.10805684]

>>10805437
Jesus, no wonder NASA got desperate during the Shuttle's "golden age." It's never dipped that low again.

[Anonymous No.10805723]

>>10805437
now post welfare spending

[Anonymous No.10805769]

>>10805723
Imagine where we would be if we didn't give all this free shit to fucking parasites.

[Anonymous No.10805904]

so with the launch of Spektr-RG, this is the first spacecraft from the East Bloc to leave the Terran well post-fall
congratulations

[Anonymous No.10805917]

>>10805437
Also Congress dictates what most of it goes to. If you saw that chart with subdivisions for SLS, Commercial Cargo/Crew, and everything else you would wonder how CC gets anywhere.

[Anonymous No.10805980]

>>10805769
Imagine having a working economy and not living in Great Depression era situation. You'd think people would still remember the worst economic downfall since the Depression era, but noooo.

[Anonymous No.10806020]

>>10805437
>The issue is gross mismanagement corruption and inefficiency, not size of the budget.
Politics also affect it, it is as you say, budget isn't a problem it's how it is spent that is, and politics have a hand on it

[Anonymous No.10806144]

hey guys
guys


heyyyyy guys


>hop soon

[Anonymous No.10806151]

Indian moon launch today

[Anonymous No.10806201]

>>10802468
id rather an idk than an 'erm 3-6 months maybe, 12 months definitely'

[Anonymous No.10806202]

>>10805769
bribing the plebs not to riot is necessary to keep civilization trucking, anon.

[Anonymous No.10806227]

>>10802277
will it ever get to 180 seconds?

[Anonymous No.10806249]

>>10806202
were it not for the fact that it doesn't stop certain someones from doing so at all, I'd agree

[Anonymous No.10806252]

>>10804967
Fag

[Anonymous No.10806268]

>>10806227
do you mean impulse or burn time

[Anonymous No.10806278]

>>10806268
burn time, their specific impulse is over 300 right now I've heard

[Anonymous No.10806297]

>>10806278
I think their most recent test in McGregor was like 80 sec

[Anonymous No.10806322]

>>10803042
>1.1 tonnes to 500 km SSO expendable/700 kg reusable
wow it's fucking nothing

[Anonymous No.10806332]

>>10803854
Proton's first stage engines aren't gas generator, they're oxidizer-rich staged combustion. My guess is the brown plume we always see shitting out of the base of the rocket is a bleed valve dumping a small amount of nitrogen tetroxide for whatever reason. That or the technicians that build Proton consistently fail to prevent the plumbing on Proton from leaking.

[Anonymous No.10806378]

Florida's building some sort of tank dome now, probably the upper dome

[Anonymous No.10806392]

>>10806378
It’s a fuel or oxidiser tank bulkhead, there are also two at Boca but they are both hidden behind crates and only visible on L2.

[Anonymous No.10806398]

>>10806392
oh, nice
they should only need two domes, right? is methalox close enough in temperature for a shared bulkhead? probably not without insulation.
Anyway, the very bottom bulkhead needs to be a thrust structure anyway so it won't be a dome

[Anonymous No.10806521]

>>10805261
remindme! 5 years

[Anonymous No.10806551]

https://www.google.ca/maps/@28.5432617,-80.6672591,1053m/data=!3m1!1e3

[Anonymous No.10806560]

>>10806551

[Anonymous No.10806571]

>>10806398
liquid methane and liquid oxygen have compatible temperatures and can share a bulkhead

[Anonymous No.10806610]

>>10806560
12 minutes from 39A

[Anonymous No.10806620]

>>10806560
>>10806551
seems like it's changed a bit from the April 11, 2018 report on the Roberts land. It didn't mention Starship in it at all

[Anonymous No.10806690]

Hop test is Tuesday right? I hope it doesn't get postponed due to weather.

[Anonymous No.10806795]

>>10806690
weather seems fine

[Anonymous No.10806899]

Road has closed.

[Anonymous No.10806910]

>>10806899
That engine is not in level.
It's gonna tilt.
Based r2d2 Anon better prepared that robot scream

[Anonymous No.10806911]

>>10806899
Looking at the size of the raptor compared to the size of the hopper, it really sinks in just how stupid powerful rocket engines can be for their size

[Anonymous No.10806920]

>>10804825
I'm not a rocket engineer but from what I do understand about rockets, nuclear reactors, NERVA specifically, and how water and methane behave in high temperature/neutron flux environments, I think it may be possible to do a dual-mode NTR that can switch from methane to water propellant, by doing it the brute-force way of having two entirely separate turbopump assemblies that only run one at a time.

The two main issues are the relative corrosiveness of steam and the fact that methane and water interact with the neutron flux and thus alter the behavior of the reactor in different ways.
At high temperature and pressure, water (or rather steam) can directly attack and corrode a lot of metals and materials it usually doesn't touch. You couldn't use graphite as a structural material in a water-propelled NTR for example because at those temperatures the steam will directly reduce the carbon in the graphite to carbon monoxide. This would lead to a burn-through of those parts of the machine.
It's well known that water is a moderator of neutrons in a reactor, and while steam is much less dense and thus much less effective in this way, it still has some non-zero effect on the rate of fission. I'm not sure about the moderating effects of methane, although my instinct based on the fact that both hydrogen and graphite are moderators tells me that methane is probably also a moderator and a slightly better one than water at that. If that's the case then while using methane the reactor would have a greater potential power output due to the increased moderating effect as compared to water. However, it may also be true that due to the lower binding energy of methane plus the high neutron flux environment that methane is decomposed inside the engine and tends to form carbon deposits on the walls of the channels. That would be a dangerous thing to occur since pure carbon is also a moderator and would choke off the flow leading to hotspots forming in the core.

[Anonymous No.10806927]

>>10804868
Red Dragon was only in the cards as a means of testing reentry dynamics at Mars, back when BFR probably looked like a big capsule that reentered ass-first.

When the plan changed to have it reenter belly first, all data they would've gained by doing Red Dragon would've been inapplicable anyway, plus their timeline to achieving the first launches of BFR didn't have a lot of room leftover to fit in the development of a new Dragon variant and to actually get it launched. Even if they had announced a subscale belly-first prototype that they were going to launch to Mars, they'd effectively need to pause development on BFR for two full years minimum just to wait for data in order to go ahead. Instead, they decided that they'd simply trust simulations to be at least 99% accurate and do their design work based on that, then validate the designs here in Earth's upper atmosphere instead, saving a shitload of time money and effort.

[Anonymous No.10806937]

>>10804889
Just spin the pump at half speed lol

>>10804925
>that 'Zeus' spacecraft is going at least 40 km/s assuming it's that close to the cloud tops in a low Jupiter orbit, if it's in an elliptical orbit it's going more like 50 km/s
speedy speed boi

>>10804936
nice laythe SSTO and rover my dude

[Anonymous No.10806951]

>>10804940
>What is Juno?
Similarly to Earth's radiation belts, Jupiter's radiation belts have both a maximum and a minimum extent in altitude, and they only start several thousand kilometers above Jupiter's 'surface'. The Juno probe takes advantage of this fact and is currently placed in a very elliptical and inclined orbit that allows it to pass over and under the radiation torus, skimming by Jupiter at about 4200 km altitude, before being flung away again all the way up to 8.1 million km away from the planet. Juno does this to study Jupiter's interior and magnetosphere from orbit while avoiding the supermajority of the radiation.

[Anonymous No.10806956]

>>10805228
>>10805232
I'm going to literally cum when this comp finally drops, it's going directly into my personal archive folder

[Anonymous No.10806972]

>>10805306
>t would probably be cheaper per kg to launch with a BFRship
Pretty sure it won't just be cheaper per kg, it'll be cheaper per launch. Reusability of all stages means that while FH risks three reusable boosters and throws away one stage guaranteed, SSH risks only two stages and throws away nothing. Maybe in the very very beginning SSH costs more than Falcon Heavy to launch, but by the time they actually take it commercial it should have an absolute cost much lower than FH and a cost per Kg ridiculously low by comparison.

[Anonymous No.10806981]

>>10804888
Hell I've met people that didn't know that SpaceX is the only one's landing boosters; I showed my coworkers a launch with a RTLS landing and they thought that the big deal was that the booster didn't have to be fished out of the water to be reused "like everyone else's rockets". I had to explain that everyone else doesn't fish out their boosters, they are destroyed when they hit the ocean or in most cases before they even finish reentering the atmosphere. This is the state of the general population's awareness of space technology.

[Anonymous No.10806989]

>>10805980
Imagine where we'd be if we turned these people into fertilizer and transitioned to a highly automated industrial society instead of forcing ourselves to remain trapped in our current antiquated system

[Anonymous No.10806997]

>>10806227
Not until they bolt it to a larger propellant supply, at McGregor the tanks are only big enough to handle an 80 second test before they're empty.

[Anonymous No.10807001]

>>10806910
The engine is tilted over a bit, it will correct that as soon as it lights off. The actual mounting structure of the engine is level with the base of the vehicle.

[Anonymous No.10807047]

poo in the lunar launch scrubbed, it seems

[Anonymous No.10807064]

>>10807001
Sure it is, just like that nose cone.

[Anonymous No.10807084]

>>10807064
The engine can actually steer, so it doesn't matter. Also the hopper doesn't have the autistic nosecone.

[Anonymous No.10807223]

https://youtu.be/GlgN1bJWO48
https://youtu.be/2qYF-0SwM94
more footage from SARGE

[Anonymous No.10807248]

>>10807223
an ISIS tier launch

[Anonymous No.10807330]

PRODUCTION MANAGER (THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS) - Cape Canaveral

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4345369002?gh_jid=4345369002

Space Exploration Technologies DBA Starship Tile Facility
8550 Astronaut Blvd Ste E Cape Canaveral


https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/8550-Astronaut-Blvd-Cape-Canaveral-FL/6666781/

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47825.msg1945322#msg1945322

[Anonymous No.10807372]

Where do you guys hear about upcoming launches from?

[Anonymous No.10807379]

>>10807330

credit to pyromatter for that job link

[Anonymous No.10807381]

>>10807372
I hear about 'em from you guys.

[Anonymous No.10807403]

>>10807372
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

There are others but this is the most frequently updated one.

[Anonymous No.10807405]

>>10807372
Spaceflightnow . Com

[Anonymous No.10807440]

>>10806989
Imagine rounding off those edges.

[Anonymous No.10807444]

HONK

venting going on btw

[Anonymous No.10807456]

>>10807444
V E N T

E

N

T

[Anonymous No.10807513]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhl6KJnj1yE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhl6KJnj1yE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhl6KJnj1yE

raptor action soon...(?)

[Anonymous No.10807517]

>>10807513
no, they're cooling down the tanks and plumbing to make sure that nothing leaks or breaks when it's cold
they might do pre-chill on the Raptor but nothing's going to live today

[Anonymous No.10807521]

>>10807517
yeah that's what I thought

[Anonymous No.10807526]

>>10807513
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfisOnjcVY0

[Anonymous No.10807552]

New thread >>10807544