/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[that old school rocket guy No.10819833]

I M A G I N E Edition
old thread
>>10813142

[Anonymous No.10819855]

>>10819833
>Nova
D-don't remind me.

[Anonymous No.10819869]

>Zero g construction is very much limited mechanically. A 100m dish is an engineering marvel at this point.
I'd argue that the limitation comes from our complete ignorance on how to do anything of the sort, given that we haven't built something in space before, the LEGO style ISS notwithstanding
Go ask a group of cavemen to build a cathedral, and you'll get fuck all, since that's beyond their present knowledge base

Give it a decade with a large sum of cash, R&D, and prototyping, and we'll be able to begin proper space construction efforts

[Anonymous No.10819878]

reminder that Tiangong 2 space station is going to fall back to Earth TODAY!
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2210536-chinese-space-station-tiangong-2-is-about-to-fall-from-space/

[Anonymous No.10819884]

>>10819878
F

[Anonymous No.10819894]

HOP WHEN

[Anonymous No.10819903]

>>10819894
>Error 404: HOP not found

[Anonymous No.10819904]

>>10819869
We haven't even really tried that hard. Just send up a crew of water tower welders in a Starship, and tell them to build more Starships. If they fail, let them burn up and send more.

[Anonymous No.10819905]

>>10819878
it already did silly
https://twitter.com/AJ_FI/status/1152215889313443840


>>10819894
Wednesday

[Anonymous No.10819906]

>>10819903
Forgot pic

[Anonymous No.10819911]

>>10819904
>Just send up a bunch of blue collar workers in space to get shit done
So like Armageddon, but good?

[Anonymous No.10819913]

>>10819911
If you ever want millions of people living and working in space, the vast majority of those people will be blue collar workers. You can't run an economic off PhDs alone.

[Anonymous No.10819918]

building has a roof

[Anonymous No.10819928]

>>10819918
Starshed, the newest innovation in rapid unplanned assembly.

[Anonymous No.10819937]

hurm

[Anonymous No.10819968]

>>10819937
The dent there appeared two or three or more ring segments ago. I doubt the claimed cause of the problem is related.

[Anonymous No.10819971]

>>10819937
in English doc

[Anonymous No.10819983]

>>10819971
accidental balloon tank

[Anonymous No.10820000]

>>10819918
That's one weird looking tent. /s

[Anonymous No.10820015]

>>10819918
Heresy!

[Anonymous No.10820064]

>>10819869
NASA's done work on in space construction for years. ISS was originally going to have some HUGE trusses which were to be assembled in space, but that was ruled to be too ambitious so they scaled back. NASA also had plans to make a huge mult dish structure that could fit in one shuttle launch. Might have been 100 meter. I think space construction using astronauts just turned out to be too difficult. But robotics have improved now. We can probably make these structures now that we've got better robots.

[Anonymous No.10820071]

>>10820064
>but that was ruled to be too ambitious so they scaled back.
Anything that's more than maintaining a presence in LEO and not have the agency dismantled is too ambitious for NASA.

[Anonymous No.10820072]

>>10820064
The spacesuits are the problem, not a lack of robots. Suits were too bulky to do any real work in. Modern spacesuits have been getting sleeker.

[Anonymous No.10820082]

>>10820072
modern spacesuits have never flown

[Anonymous No.10820099]

NASA has released a draft solicitation for crewed Moon landers:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=5f6768356bb378bce7b3e80cae39cf1f

[Anonymous No.10820111]

>>10820082
On the other hand antique suites are way too expensive to justify their continued existence, their PLSS units cost almost as much as the estimates for the European service module, several hundred million a piece. That's ridiculous and not sustainable, better suits aught to come sooner than later.

[Anonymous No.10820116]

>>10819869
Yes and no. No because thin structures like radiators and solar panels have a size limit of ~600-700 meters beyond which traditional structures cannot be built due to perturbation induced wobbling, if you want to stay within reasonable mass constraints aka not making them rigid. Pretty much like Karman line or Lyapunov time but for space construction. I'm not sure if there's a catchy name for it. In LEO the limit is even lower. And even this can be impractical to attain, just like the Karman line itself. Spacecraft solar panel design isn't easy precisely for this reason, panels of a couple dozen meter size are already considered large.

Yes because it might be circumventable with some kind of non-passive structures, with active response to wobbling. Nobody tried this yet, just like many other good ideas in spaceflight.

Regarding the original post
>>10818696
>offloading the major industrial requirements of Earth to space
is pretty much impractical at any level of technology.

[Anonymous No.10820119]

>>10820111
>That's ridiculous and not sustainable
For the last 50 years spaceflight hasn't really been about being cheap and sustainable, rather what kept the skilled workers employed. Probably explains the "there needs to be special materials for this" in aerospace. Hopefully this will change soon, the new suits look cool.

[Anonymous No.10820137]

>>10820116
It's certainly impractical if we insist on using space based industry to support Earth based living. In reality space based industry only works if it's supporting space based living, because of the vast reduction in transportation effort, which results in vastly lower transport costs. "Build what you need where you need it" is the rule, and that rule is only bent in the face of labor cost disparity. Since space based industry will have astronomical labor cost (at least per person involved) and likely very high process cost regardless, it's unlikely that space based industry could ever match land based industry in terms of economic competitiveness. That's before you even consider the fact that transporting things from space to Earth and vice versa will always be very expensive compared to terrestrial transport.

Industry in space will make sense for building new structures in space and for the overall expansion of human civilization into the solar system and beyond. It won't make any sense for building products for use on Earth's surface. Unless you want to actually vacate all humans from the Earth, using space based industry to solve Earth based industrial pollution problems doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.10820150]

>>10820116
>mass constraints
If you're building large things in space, it's because you have space mining to give you the materials cheaply and no sooner
it's too goddamn expensive to bring raw material up from earth, so mass constraints are a completely false problem

[Anonymous No.10820151]

HOP WHEN

[Anonymous No.10820158]

>>10820082
we have never walked on mars, that doesn't mean we can't

space progress is held back by the meme of only flying things that have already flown

[Anonymous No.10820191]

>>10819937
Pretty sure SpaceX knows more than random fart huffing Twitter personality.

[Anonymous No.10820200]

>>10820158
I agree

[Anonymous No.10820217]

>>10820111
That's not the cost
That's blatant fucking embezzlement

[Anonymous No.10820259]

>>10820217
Gotta pay for those jerbs in the South.

[Anonymous No.10820286]

>>10820259
We're closer to the equator, it makes sense to have the space industry down here. Besides, northern savages would be too busy having mandatory diversity centric office slam poetry and banning rocketry because the loud noise causes people anxiety to ever get any rocketry done.

[Anonymous No.10820311]

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

A video about everyone's favorite American booster engine. Just in case you haven't seen it already.

[Anonymous No.10820325]

>>10820311
Neat, these things are monsters.

[Anonymous No.10820339]

>>10820137
There are some things that theoretically could only be built in space. For example. In 0g you could. Theoretically. Assemble a structure molecule per molecule. Even liquids in a 3d pattern perfectly. This will basically be a necesity for organ printing

[Anonymous No.10820346]

>>10820339
surface tension

[Anonymous No.10820384]

>>10819937
Imagine being so full of yourself that you criticize a multi billion dollar company from a few blurry photos.

[Anonymous No.10820417]

>>10820339
>This will basically be a necesity for organ printing
This, isn't a 3d printing machine to test this kind of thing going up to the ISS pretty soon? Or already there?

[Anonymous No.10820424]

>>10820325
Where is this one located?

[Anonymous No.10820425]

imagine tweeting about how you're going to fly a trashcan to space to a national audience and having people give a shit
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1152367082018754561
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1152369004314419201

[Anonymous No.10820429]

>>10820384
Imagine thinking that multi billion dollar companies are flawless and does not deserve criticism.
Imagine shilling this hard for free, with religious intensity.

[Anonymous No.10820432]

>>10820424
Space museum in Alamogordo, NM.

[Anonymous No.10820455]

>>10820429
Not him, but
>criticizing companies on how they carry out R&D
>focusing on MemeX rather than companies that are directly exploiting workers and customers like fast-fashion, AAA games, and electronics industries.
If you want to fight the system there's plenty of choice out there, I just don't see how anyone other than engineers can relate with a space launch company.

[Anonymous No.10820468]

>>10820311
>>10820325
It infuriates me that NASA insisted on SRB's and the SSME as the first stage boosters for SLS instead of the F-1B. Not only could SLS have had it's size and dry weight substantially reduced by using a KeroLOX first stage but we could have also had a next-generation Saturn-V and gone back to the good old F1 days. Instead we're stuck with crew killer Shit Rocket Boosters and the Shuttle's sloppy seconds.

[Anonymous No.10820475]

>>10820468
SRBs make me physically angry.

[Anonymous No.10820483]

>>10820468
>Not only could SLS have had it's size and dry weight substantially reduced by using a KeroLOX first stage but we could have also had a next-generation Saturn-V and gone back to the good old F1 days.
Well considering that the original goal of SLS was to reuse Shuttle parts to quickly and cheaply make a heavy launch vehicle, not using remade Saturn V parts made sense. The decision only looks bad in hindsight, as so much time and money have been wasted on SLS that a competent project could have probably remade the Saturn V using modern technology.

[Anonymous No.10820487]

>>10820475
Maybe NASA just does it because they don't want to look like they're emulating the Russians by using LRBs instead of SRBs. Whatever the reason though it's retarded, not only are LRBs better in terms of ISP and capable of producing sufficient boosting thrust but they're also throttleable which means you can use more of them without worrying about structural strain and SpaceX have demonstrated that they can be safely landed for rapid refurbishment too, none of this ocean splashdown crap.

[Anonymous No.10820509]

>>10820487
LRB are more complex and thus more expensive. Landing back your boosters makes sense if you expect to carry out a shitload of missioms, otherwise what you save from reusing the booster won't repay the insane R&D that's needed to achieve reliable booster landing. For some reason SLS has been a shitshow since day one, i.e. right after the space craze fade off some decades ago.

[Anonymous No.10820512]

Fucking FINALLY got to see it on my way out of town today.
Just got home, uploaded them to my computer, and they're all blurry shitty messes.
It was pretty cool to see it though.

[Anonymous No.10820516]

>>10820487
>SpaceX have demonstrated that they can be safely landed for rapid refurbishment too, none of this ocean splashdown crap.
The SLS was started before SpaceX demonstrated this. It makes sense that flyback boosters weren't considered by an agency that lacked funding to develop a whole new rocket.

[Anonymous No.10820542]

>>10820516
True, I guess I'm being hyperbolic in my expectations and criticisms. Still, even if they couldn't fly the boosters back, LRBs woulda been better and the SSME would have been better as a second stage rather than as a first stage booster. If they want to use them up they should have planned to fly a ton of large orbital payloads rather than trying to shoehorn them into the role of a primary booster where Hydrolox is probably the weakest choice.

[Anonymous No.10820556]

>>10820512
Phone cameras are garbage and should not be relied on if you want decent pictures.

[Anonymous No.10820573]

>>10820542
I understand, I don't like SLS either and I get carried away in criticizing it. Although, I do want to see SLS get build and flown.

However, your suggestions are all flawed, because they assume that NASA has competent management with a focused goal. The SRBs aren't the reason why SLS is billions of dollars over budget. The orange tank isn't the reason why it's been so heavily delayed. The SSMEs aren't the reason why some people doubt that SLS will even fly. It's the limp-wristed management at NASA and the greedy nature of the contractors.

[Anonymous No.10820591]

>>10820573
I agree completely on the technical stuff, the parts are not the issue (except those fuckin SRBs, FUCK SRBs), I'm sure they'll all perform as optimally as they can. I just think they've been configured in the wrong way, high ISP SSMEs would do better work at least higher up in the atmosphere and after leaving it where they're hydrolox propellant can develop more of it's desirable properties. The orange tank is fine too, it's done it's job just fine. The fact that the parts are being utilized in a sub-optimal way directly supports your own point about bad management. SLS is a slap-dash vehicle and things like it aren't made unless the people in charge of planning don't really know what they're doing or aren't designing it for the right reasons. I don't think it's good to build a space vehicle with NASA's limited funding just to burn up excess parts and all of it's missions will suffer because it was built to expend shuttle parts first and do everything else second.

[Anonymous No.10820593]

>>10820591
their*, SRB induced incandescent rage is not conducive to good grammar.

[Anonymous No.10820599]

>>10820591
I agree with your general points. Sadly, we're not going to see NASA change unless a large part of it's management gets cleaned out and replaced by people who actually care about spaceflight and not only on keeping NASA alive.

I'd go into more detail, but after having to argue with the moon hoaxer(s) on the Apollo 11 thread, I'm too drained emotionally.

[Anonymous No.10820603]

Speaking of flyback boosters I really like the concept for the Energia, it's like if you did a space shuttle right, 20% plane/80% rocket instead of the other way around. It would be cool to see rockets with stubby little cute wings returning to Earth but with the success of Falcon Heavy and inevitable future improvements to autonomous avionics and flight control I guess we'll just skip that step and go right to 50s scifi rockets landing and taking off on legs.

[Anonymous No.10820610]

>>10820573
>>10820591
SLS is hideously wasteful, and is unnecessarily expensive and complex. At the same time, if I was to bet real money on which booster NASA would be most comfortable launching a Nuclear Thermal cruise block to LEO (for interplanetary missions) on, it would be SLS. At least in the 2020s while the tooling still exists.

[Anonymous No.10820618]

>>10820603
I've considered doing something like that in KSP, but it's hard to do a flyback first stage in that game without either using mods or essentially making the first stage an SSTO.

[Anonymous No.10820625]

>>10820591
You've got me wondering, what could you do with an RS-25 upper that you couldn't do more easily (probably) with an RL-10-based upper? The RS-25 is a great engine but I feel like there's no good reason to keep it around anymore, in any conceivable capacity.

[Anonymous No.10820626]

>>10820625
RL-10 is too weak, imo
it just doesn't have the thrust

[Anonymous No.10820627]

>>10820556
I just wanted to snap a few pics for myself, but I was still hoping they'd turn out a little better.
Oh well.

[Anonymous No.10820630]

>>10820626
yeah but what if you just slap four of them on like that crazy lockmart (I think) lunar lander concept?

[Anonymous No.10820631]

>>10820625
It can hoist, the RL-10 despite having significantly better ISP has only a twentieth the raw thrust power.

[Anonymous No.10820632]

>>10820630
>oh no, the engines we have aren't powerful enough, what do
>MOAR ENGINES
>but muh plumbing
>FUCK YO PLUMBING, MOAR ENGINES
somebody is going to get themselves killed trying to plumb up Super Heavy, what a nightmare
30 jam-packed engines

[Anonymous No.10820636]

>>10820632
Unfortunately the RL-10 can't do that either, to get enough RL-10s to match the thrust output of a single SSME you'd need 20, which weigh 1.7x as much as a single SSME, and they're actually about the same size as an SSME width-wise so they'd take up far too many space. You could probably make something new though with ISP higher than an RL-10 with better raw thrust.

[Anonymous No.10820639]

>>10820636
so you mean strap a fuckhuge bell to an SSME

[Anonymous No.10820649]

>new Elon tweet, 2-3 months until starship tests

I love you Elon but I'm calling bullshit on that.

[Anonymous No.10820653]

>those Elon tweets
>6.9km/s

You niggas ready to explore the Solar System?

[Anonymous No.10820661]

>>10820653
Absolute unit

[Anonymous No.10820662]

what's at the edge of the universe?

[Anonymous No.10820663]

>>10820662
who the fuck knows, nigga
who the fuck knows

[Anonymous No.10820665]

>>10820662
Him

[Anonymous No.10820668]

>>10820665
Panic

[Anonymous No.10820671]

>>10820649
They don't look like a huge step up from the hopper, so three months is possible though unlikely.

[Anonymous No.10820697]

>>10819937
This makes me realize how long producing the starship will really take. And it's at least twice as long as Elon thinks it will.

[Anonymous No.10820744]

>>10820649
When is he going to announce the new Raptor 9000 that now runs on bio force and the souls of the damned? His SuccuBus announcement as a competitor to Uber got me excited over what other demonic stuff he'll bring to the table.

[Anonymous No.10820752]

>Starship launch structure is being built off-site in steel subsections

Fire up that autism, we've got more build sites to find

[Anonymous No.10820782]

>>10820752
A year from now:
>it's the day of LC39A retrofitting for starship being unveiled. It's hidden behind a big Sprung tent
>everyone's awaiting for what it looks like, for the tent to come down
>...
>...
>Wait, that is the launch structure?

[Anonymous No.10820809]

Anyone want to bet money that Starship is in orbit before the year is out?

[Anonymous No.10820830]

>>10820809
no

[Anonymous No.10820831]

>>10820782
>>10820752
>Starship will launch from parking lot outside visitors center at 39A. Much cheaper than building new structure.

[Anonymous No.10820882]

>Hullo

[Anonymous No.10820900]

>>10820339
>In 0g you could. Theoretically. Assemble a structure molecule per molecule.
semiconductors...

[Anonymous No.10820926]

>>10820809
heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy, Elon wants an orbital prototype by November but the team is thinking like April is more realistic

[Anonymous No.10820930]

>>10820475
youre a fegget

solid rockets produce superiorly aesthetic exhaust plumes

also wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy cheaper and less complex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPfcwT4Fcy8

how does it feel to agree with global warming faggots?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/31/17287062/rocket-emissions-black-carbon-alumina-particles-ozone-layer-stratosphere

[Anonymous No.10820945]

>>10820930
cheaper? lol, what do you think this is, kerbal fucking space program? Northrop Grumman has never made anything cheaper in their entire corporate existence and they damn well won't now

[Anonymous No.10820953]

>>10820930
global warming guys are right
solid rockets suck and are expensive due to how fucking dangerous they are
they're just big dumb fireworks, you can't reuse them, and you're gay

[Anonymous No.10820971]

>>10820945
Did i say i was specifically talking about the Ares??? I meant in general solid rockets can be cheaper!

>>10820953
>and are expensive due to how fucking dangerous they are
depending on the payload a 1 percent failure rate isnt even enough of a difference to justify the expensive of miles of plumbing and multiple turbines.. and more modern solid rockets, and even hybrid rockets have proven to be JUST AS SAFE, for example the arienne 5 used solids and never had a failure except when their software was updated wrong!!!!!!!

>cant reuse
as if launching multiple boats and paying dozens of people to go to the middle of the ocean is cheaper than launching a fucking BOTTLE ROCKET

Rockets were solid rockets in the beginning and it's their optimal form!!!!!!!!1 And just watch the newest "private" chinese rockets will outfly america ahhahahahahahhaa

[Anonymous No.10820973]

HOP WHEN

[Anonymous No.10820979]

>>10820953
god fucking troll.. newer materials and inspection methods make solid rockets more reliable because theyre simple and you dont have to look at 17 different turbines and a tangle of metal tubes and 3 giant pressure tanks

look at the fucking failure rates if you dont believe me

arienne 5 never had a failure of the solid rockets in over 100 launches.. only the LIQUID ENGINES failed and software

[Anonymous No.10820982]

[Anonymous No.10821003]

>>10820475
just get some environmental groups pissed off about perchlorate in the water. If you can ban mass perchlorate production, SRBs become untenable.

[Anonymous No.10821015]

>>10821003
>If you can ban mass perchlorate production, SRBs become untenable.
exactly and solid rockets are a necessary part of self defense because ICBMs use them and it's just like how they want our guns

[Anonymous No.10821016]

>>10820971
anon, they're expensive because they're dangerous just sitting around in a warehouse, because they're hundreds of tons of explosive compounds
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Fatal-blast-at-rocket-fuel-plant-2nd-explosion-2557374.php

[Anonymous No.10821017]

>>10821003
im obviously joking about everyone having their own missiles but it's true that the neoliberal state always tries to control and monopolize transport and energy, like with nuclear energy and fossil fuels and they want you to only have one expensive option such as liquid rockets or expensive patented lithium batteries.

[Anonymous No.10821020]

>>10821017
I agree, when's my recreational McNuke arrive

[Anonymous No.10821024]

>>10821016
>they're expensive because they're dangerous just sitting around in a warehouse

theyre only explosive when mixed together just like liquid fuels and there are even designs for hybrid rockets and binary solid rockets that only bring the oxidizer into contact when it's operation or right before launch

also having a fuel production facility in the desert is a viable solution and the only expense would be faggot government regulators and the fuel grain can be 3d printed with automation which could eliminate exposure

[Anonymous No.10821029]

>>10821024
But what advantages does it have over reusable liquid fueled boosters? Solids are cheap but natural gas and lox are cheaper.

[Anonymous No.10821057]

>>10821029
>not 10 miles of stainless steel plumbing in a tangled knot
>0 turbines vs 26 single crystal high temp turbines
>no pressure tanks
>can be stored in a ready state for military applications
>because of this it's cheaper
>exhaust plume looks cooler

it's not just the cost of the fuel haha and you realize how much work it takes to inspect a tangled knot of tubes and all the turbines? not to mention the actual refurbishment

solid rockets can be literally 3d printed and made with complete automation which makes them barely more expensive than the fuel itself vs hundreds of million of dollars plus the refurbishment and inspection

reuse is sort of a meme and cant compare to cheap 3d printed solids

ie magneto hydro dynamics ie circulating conductive fluids between magnets:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29236.0
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960021025.pdf

[Anonymous No.10821059]

>>10821029
>not 10 miles of stainless steel plumbing in a tangled knot
>0 turbines vs 26 single crystal high temp turbines
>no pressure tanks
>can be stored in a ready state for military applications
>because of this it's cheaper
>exhaust plume looks cooler

it's not just the cost of the fuel haha and you realize how much work it takes to inspect a tangled knot of tubes and all the turbines? not to mention the actual refurbishment

solid rockets can be literally 3d printed and made with complete automation which makes them barely more expensive than the fuel itself vs hundreds of million of dollars plus the refurbishment and inspection


a cool idea is solid state liquid engines which use magneto hydro dynamics, ie circulating conductive fluids between

magnets:https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29236.0
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960021025.pdf

so you'd still need the plumbing and the tanks but you could replace the turbines with magnets although they would be a lot heavier and i think there are some cool things you can do with MHD that you cant do with conventional turbines but i still need to read through the whole paper

[Anonymous No.10821060]

a

[Anonymous No.10821064]

b

[Anonymous No.10821119]

Why don't we just terraform the Moon?

Just start nuking it now.

[Anonymous No.10821163]

>>10821119
Nukes can't solve no atmosphere moron

[Anonymous No.10821167]

>>10821163

Did I say to nuke the Moon to create an atmosphere? No.

[Anonymous No.10821168]

>>10821167
Then how will nuking it make it liveable on the surface?

[Anonymous No.10821169]

>>10821167
>>10821119
there are already tunnels full of ice in the moon but they dont want common people involved so it's not "we"

[Anonymous No.10821174]

>>10821168

Crater excavation for doming over and progressively greening the surface.

inb4 use existing craters. Nope, too unstable.

[Anonymous No.10821179]

>>10821174
>Domes

Enjoy your cancer, also

>Implying domes are terraforming

[Anonymous No.10821182]

>>10821179

I've got my lead hat for cancerous rays thank you very much.

And unless you're willing to wait thousands of years for results, they are as close to "terraforming" that any of us are ever going to see. You can terraform underneath them and super-materials will allow for structures that are as good as a kilometer across, which can then be interlinked with one another to create larger habitats where only structural legs interfere with your environment. That's good enough for me.

[Anonymous No.10821184]

>>10821174
>Let's create a radioactive crater, fill it with gigatonnes of soil from ??? And put a piece of plastic overhead to ensure we die of radiation
>Oh and better make sure we all those sub micron particles of moondust out of this huge done or everyone is going to get asbestos lung inside a year

Wow great idea

[Anonymous No.10821186]

>>10821182
>Lead hat
>He doesn't understand how radiation works

Enjoy secondary particle effects frying your brain

>Supermaterials

Which don't exist

[Anonymous No.10821459]

>>10820639
Pretty much, the diameter limit is the diameter of the stage itself minus a certain clearance limit, so like 25 feet wide maybe? RS-25 is only less efficient than RL-10 because of the RS-25's comparatively short nozzle, which is designed to allow it to fire at sea level while still offering a decent fraction of the Isp that a fully vacuum optimized nozzle would get in space.

[Anonymous No.10821461]

>>10820697
Still faster than SLS lol

[Anonymous No.10821468]

>>10820971
Another problem with solid boosters is that they need to be filled with propellant in the factory, then shipped out. This makes them extremely heavy compared to a liquid rocket, which is empty until sitting on the pad ready to go.

A solid motor may be less expensive to build, but that cost saving is more than accounted for once you include the cost of the much larger/stronger shipping and handling equipment needed, the fact that the entire rocket design needs to be adjusted to deal with things like the fact that the booster can't throttle in real time and can't shut down, etc.

[Anonymous No.10821472]

>>10821015
retard

[Anonymous No.10821477]

>>10821017
Any solid-only rocket to orbit would cost more per kg than any liquid-only rocket to orbit with the same payload mass, I guarantee it.

[Anonymous No.10821481]

>>10821024
>theyre only explosive when mixed together
100% of real life solid rocket motors have the fuel and oxidizer intimately mixed in a binder material from the factory, no autophage solid rocket motors exist, especially not large ones.

[Anonymous No.10821493]

>>10821477

[Anonymous No.10821500]

>>10821468
>shipping costs

heavier items are shipped all the time and it's cheaper than a rocket launch... look at an oil tanker for example

you can also just 3d print a solid rocket at the launch site

>>10821472
cuck

>>10821477
then prove it

>>10821481
nice excuse and solid rockets can be 3d printed on the remote launch site including the fuel grain

[Anonymous No.10821501]

>>10820662

Its a wall of reality that is expanding faster then the speed of light. I dont know if it is possible to go through that wall and if we could do that somehow, that we just dont simply vanish because we have left reality as we know it to be.

>>10820603

I am more a fan of the Baikal boosters that are developed for the Angara rocket.

[Anonymous No.10821508]

>>10821501
looks like a pee pee

[Anonymous No.10821521]

>>10820752
It's probably being built indoors by a contractor and in unrecognizable parts. We'd need more than visual confirmation to figure it out.

[Anonymous No.10821587]

>>10820973
in 7 days
maybe

[Anonymous No.10821607]

>>10820339
>Assemble a structure molecule per molecule. Even liquids in a 3d pattern perfectly.
So Nanotubes?

[Anonymous No.10821742]

Here is a livestream for the upcoming Soyuz MS-13 launch of expedition 60:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b68RfO-_Eg4

~45 minutes left untill livestream starts.

[Anonymous No.10821757]

>>10821742
Neat

[Anonymous No.10821837]

NASA should cease any development of launchers like SLS and just focus on science research. Leave launch to big boys like SpaceX

[Anonymous No.10821860]

>>10821837
>Implying NASA has a choice

[Anonymous No.10821875]

>>10821860
every day that goes by that he isn't imprisoned for his bullshit is one more failure

[Anonymous No.10821896]

>>10821837
They were given a mandate though and Pence already said something to the effect of "if you can't do what we want by 2024 we'll find other people who will." They have the same time to complete their mission as the Apollo era NASA did. They probably won't get fired though even if they fail, the next POTUS going into 2024 might be another mainstream weasel who will go back to sucking Russia's cock for launches, cut back NASA's budget again, and spend more time starting wars, raising taxes, and doubling the national debt rather than doing anything useful for humanity.

[Anonymous No.10821918]

>>10821896
Or the next POTUS might be Pence.

[Anonymous No.10821938]

>>10821742
Do Astronauts take a course in Russian before the expedition or does Andrew have a special role?

[Anonymous No.10821942]

>>10821938
Wish i knew wtf they were saying on the live stream

[Anonymous No.10821949]

>>10821918
It seems highly unlikely, I mean less improbable things have happened in the political sphere but I wouldn't bet money on it.

[Anonymous No.10821956]

https://www.geekwire.com/2019/moon-landing-anniversary-anti-space-event-seattle-wants-bezos-others-focus-earth/

here's something to induce your rage on this otherwise auspicious day

[Anonymous No.10821971]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN75W5AIQ2w

God why is NASA and Space X so fucking comfy?

[Anonymous No.10821972]

>>10821956
people need to do their duty and beat them all senseless

[Anonymous No.10821975]

>>10821956
Not as rage inducing as the formerly respected Lori Garver’s recent opinion article...

[Anonymous No.10821979]

Up

[Anonymous No.10821984]

>>10821971
two minutes to go!

[Anonymous No.10821986]

>>10821972
>>10821975
>lol fuck earth
>lets go live on some -60 degree desert planet 100 million miles away

[Anonymous No.10821989]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b68RfO-_Eg4

HERE WE GOOOO

[Anonymous No.10821992]

10821986
>shitposting this blatantly
at least fucking try

[Anonymous No.10821998]

>>10821956
Those people are very ignorant. I'm pretty sure that if quizzed they'll claim that NASA takes up a large part of the United State's budget instead of the half-a-percent it actually gets. In fact, NASA's budget is so small compared to the sum of budgets from the various social programs that if all of NASA's budget were added to those social programs, then the social budget would barely increase by 3%. 3% isn't going to solve the homeless problem. It may make things worse since now there are thousands of people out of a job.

The article also ignores that Jeff does donate to charity. He's secretive about how much but he as given out billions. If I recall correctly, Blue Origin only gets $1B a year from him.

>People are encouraged to bring their own anti-space posters, including those done by kids
Piss off.

[Anonymous No.10822000]

>>10821992
lol. Bad year for american space flight and russian nuclear power plants.

[Anonymous No.10822002]

>>10821989
interesting external camera view. A bit wobblier than other launchers.

[Anonymous No.10822005]

>>10821956
Congrats Anon, you found something that makes me more unhappy than SRBs.

[Anonymous No.10822007]

>>10821938

Every astronaut/cosmonaut that are trained in Russia to fly on the Soyuz are required to speak Russian since everything is done in Russian, everything.

[Anonymous No.10822009]

>>10821956
>anti-space-event
I ain't clicking that shit and I'm already mad.
Where's a pressure-cooker bomb when you need one?

[Anonymous No.10822010]

>>10822007
Even the "passenger", when there is one, is required to do some of the spacecraft operations.

[Anonymous No.10822014]

NASA'S BRING BACK NUCLEAR ROCKETS! They are apparently very well funded and assembling fuel now! ...First test in 5 years!

[Anonymous No.10822020]

>>10821992
I was into space back in 2015-16, I still am a bit but I'm over all the hype. Most of you are still eating up the hype because you are unhappy with your lives, frustrated at the world, all these mars city fantasies are escapism basically. I know because it's exactly how I felt. I'm all for space exploration but all of this is vaporware. BFR, Skylon, SLS, New Glenn, it's all a pipedream. Not because we don't have the technology but because there's no money or need for any of it. It's all marketing hype led by Elon Musk.

In a way the Seattle hippies are right, fix your own life here instead of fantasising about a better life on some rock in space.
>>10822014
This is also vaporware, once the SLS flops it will be scrapped because the only use for an NTR is in the upper stage of a super-heavy

[Anonymous No.10822025]

>>10822020
>I was into space back in 2015-16, I still am a bit but I'm over all the hype. Most of you are still eating up the hype because you are unhappy with your lives, frustrated at the world, all these mars city fantasies are escapism basically. I know because it's exactly how I felt. I'm all for space exploration but all of this is vaporware. BFR, Skylon, SLS, New Glenn, it's all a pipedream. Not because we don't have the technology but because there's no money or need for any of it. It's all marketing hype led by Elon Musk.
dude the Spaceship is already being tested

[Anonymous No.10822032]

>>10822020
>Most of you are still eating up the hype because you are unhappy with your lives
Fuck off retard.

[Anonymous No.10822035]

>>10822020
Found a pic of Anon.

[Anonymous No.10822036]

>>10822020
>Most of you are still eating up the hype because you are unhappy with your lives, frustrated at the world, all these mars city fantasies are escapism basically.
Poisoning the well much? Maybe some of us like spaceflight because its interesting. Or maybe because some of us are aerospace engineers who will get cool jobs if this push to the moon takes off. You're making a lame generalization so you can seem more "grown up", that's childish.

>In a way the Seattle hippies are right, fix your own life here instead of fantasising about a better life on some rock in space.
I did. I cleaned up my act, cut down on alcohol useage, started taking my life more seriously, and pretty much became a respectable adult. Now I'm aiming for a job at NASA after having a blast at an internship with them.

[Anonymous No.10822039]

>>10822020
SpaceX has figured out a way to create its own demand, with its Starlink project going up. That alone will require lots of rocket launches, and bring in enough profit to fund all sorts of other space ventures.

[Anonymous No.10822040]

>>10822020
>BFR, Skylon, SLS, New Glenn, it's all a pipedream
Why is Falcon Heavy not on your list? Is it because it's already flying and clearly profitable?

>but because there's no money
LOL. Why is there money for all the current launches but there won't be any demand for these much cheaper rockets in the future? Nigga ya dumb.

[Anonymous No.10822044]

>>10821938
I dunno about NASA guy but Italian astronaut speaks flawless russian.

[Anonymous No.10822063]

>>10822035
>I know because it's exactly how I felt
>>10822025
What, that tin can they call the "star hopper"?
>>10822036
>I cleaned up my act, cut down on alcohol useage, started taking my life more seriously, and pretty much became a respectable adult. Now I'm aiming for a job at NASA after having a blast at an internship with them.
I'm happy for you anon, keep going.
>>10822039
There's a growing LEO market sure, but not deep space
>>10822040
The Falcon Heavy is doing well, I watched it's maiden launch with enthusiasm and it is indeed half the cost of the competition but he said he was going to use it for a manned moon flyby and that never happened
>Why is there money for all the current launches but there won't be any demand for these much cheaper rockets
But will they be much cheaper than they are now? Booster recovery and maintenance costs are still a problem.

[Anonymous No.10822070]

>>10822039
this, the potential for starlink is huge.
From stockmarket aplications to suplying internet to even the most remote places.
For example my mate works for a giant dredging company and we talked about how starlink could completly change the way ships all over the world stay in contact with land.
Right now most of these ships have a expensive as fuck internet connection, and its shitty for anything else then emails and low bitrate skypecalls, and it doesnt work half the time, and the entire setup takes in a lot of space and power.
Starlink could completly take over the market and kick out all the current players if they deliver what they are promising.

[Anonymous No.10822072]

>>10822063
>but he said he was going to use it for a manned moon flyby and that never happened
and?

>But will they be much cheaper than they are now? Booster recovery and maintenance costs are still a problem.
Yes, they absolutely will. I thought you were some kind of space fan. Starship and it's super heavy booster will both be 100% reusable.

[Anonymous No.10822074]

>>10822063
Fuck off retard.

[Anonymous No.10822103]

don't respond to low effort shitposters and FUD

[Anonymous No.10822117]

>>10822020
Upper stage? Are you fucking kidding me? Ain't no way in hell you can run an NTR in the atmosphere. That shit's orbit only! Can't even start the thing until you're in a stable orbit.

[Anonymous No.10822128]

>>10822117
>Ain't no way in hell you can run an NTR in the atmosphere
But people are getting cucked all the time in the atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.10822149]

just follow the boxing legend example

[Anonymous No.10822156]

>>10822063
>I'm happy for you anon, keep going.
Thanks, I'm still in that awkward stage of "need job experience to get a job to get job experience", but I'm slowly working my way out of it.

[Anonymous No.10822171]

>>10819833

Excuse me, but how the FUGG, does an allegedly "mass-less" particle impart momentum on a space sail?

[Anonymous No.10822172]

>>10822171
Photons don't have mass, but they carry momentum.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#lasersail

[Anonymous No.10822178]

>>10822172
>Photons don't have mass, but they carry momentum.

That's not a satisfactory explanation tho. Is there a flaw in our understanding of these things perhaps?

[Anonymous No.10822186]

>>10822178
>Is there a flaw in our understanding of these things perhaps?
If there is a flaw, then it has little to do with momentum.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=20132&t=does-a-photon-have-momentum

[Anonymous No.10822240]

>>10822070
It's absolutely going to swing big dick through every single remote communication market on earth. I also imagine the US military is salivating over the possibility of an essentially uninterruptible high-bandwidth global comms network.

[Anonymous No.10822265]

>>10822178
Photons are the "free" form of energy- discrete and not bound in the form of matter. When a photon hits an object, the photon's energy is imparted to that object, which increases its momentum. That's the extremely simplified way to say it, but I don't think I've told you anything egregiously wrong.

[Anonymous No.10822266]

>>10820286
WA here, this person is correct.

[Anonymous No.10822683]

>tfw you've been avoiding all the apollo aniversay content because it'll just make you depressed

[Anonymous No.10822686]

>>10822683
nice blog, faggot
fuck off

[Anonymous No.10822693]

>>10822686
thanks I'll keep your feedback in mind friend

[Anonymous No.10822695]

>>10822693
no problem, glad to hear it

[Anonymous No.10822704]

>>10822686
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.10822767]

The first Orion is now done. D-O-N-E.

[Anonymous No.10822801]

Imagine if on Apollo anniversary american spacecraft would deliver american astronauts to ISS.
What could have been.

[Anonymous No.10822845]

>>10822767
and it only costed a few billion dollars, praise old space!!

[Anonymous No.10822857]

>>10822704
Hello, newfriend! Welcome to 4channel!

[Anonymous No.10822877]

>>10822767

[Anonymous No.10822878]

can I masterbate in space?

[Anonymous No.10822891]

>>10822878
maybe, it depends on your body
also you better be good with a tissue

[Anonymous No.10822899]

>>10822891
nah don't need a tissue I'd just aim for the mouth and it would just go

[Anonymous No.10822904]

>>10822878
yes, but only if you dont recieve any genital mutilation at birth.
in other words, the mark of the jew.

[Anonymous No.10822907]

>>10822878
I vaguely remember PornHub making a joke post about buying blowup dolls for the astronauts in the ISS. Or was that a fever dream?

[Anonymous No.10822911]

>>10822907
the porn industry has 200% expressed an interest in filming in space, but they don't have anywhere to do it yet

[Anonymous No.10822915]

>>10822911
Bigelow will fix that.

[Anonymous No.10822926]

>>10822911
>porn in space
might be a novelty fetish which will fade off after a couple movies
also, I don't think fucking in zero g would be easy, even fucking while skydiving is probably easier

[Anonymous No.10822929]

>>10822911
>Dear Moon, featuring renowned artists like Taylor Swift, Damien Chazelle, Sasha Grey, and Geddy Lee

[Anonymous No.10822932]

>>10822926
fucking while skydiving is functionally equivalent to fucking in zero g, the only difference is wind rushing past you

freefall is freefall, yo

[Anonymous No.10822936]

>>10822932
at terminal velocity you're no longer in freefall, because the wind is exerting 1g of acceleration on your body

[Anonymous No.10822941]

>>10822911
BLACKED In Space

[Anonymous No.10822944]

>>10822932
not really, you have air pressure

[Anonymous No.10822948]

>>10822944
you'd have air pressure in space too unless you wanted to make the world's shortest snuff film

>>10822936
this is true though

[Anonymous No.10822950]

>>10822941
are blackedfags or footfags worse for pushing their fetish into literally everything? it's a pretty close call desu, both are worse than furries though

[Anonymous No.10822988]

>>10820311
Do they have to replace every bearing in the turbopump after each flight?

[Anonymous No.10822993]

>>10822988
They have to replace the entire rocket

[Anonymous No.10823011]

>>10822993
boostback saturn when

[Anonymous No.10823033]

So, another successfull Soyuz launch. That is 3 out of 4 Soyuz launches this month and the 4th one overall for the Russians. July is powerhour for Roscosmos.

Only launch left is the Progress MS-12 (73/73P) on july the 31st.

[Anonymous No.10823043]

>>10823033
I'm amazed at how long lived the R-7 design is, especially considering some if it's dated inefficiencies (such as stage and a half, turopumps powered by peroxide, no hydrolox upperstage). Goes to show that one doesn't need the perfect design to be effective. Hopefully it keeps flying.

[Anonymous No.10823052]

>>10823011
soon

[Anonymous No.10823056]

>>10823011
>New S-ICR does it's first RTLS
>Hundreds die from exhaustion due to orgasming so hard

[Anonymous No.10823097]

OHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOO
https://www.digitaltrends.com/dtdesign/environmental-costs-of-space-tourism/?utm_campaign=julytp2019&utm_source=reddit

[Anonymous No.10823108]

>>10823097
>turbodyke starts trying to drag down men on the verge of success
History repeats itself again and again.

[Anonymous No.10823117]

>>10823097
what a little bitch

[Anonymous No.10823118]

>>10823097
While I'm not really into space tours for the wealthy (for different reasons that were stated in the article), I highly doubt that it's going to trash the environment. The number of launches specifically meant for tours is going to be low compared to the volume of launches for other projects such as satellite constellations, manned lunar and Mars missions, space telescopes, etc.

[Anonymous No.10823122]

>>10823097
fuck, why did you make me click on that, anon?

[Anonymous No.10823176]

>>10823117
shit is he wearing lipstick?

[Anonymous No.10823189]

>>10823117

[Anonymous No.10823223]

>>10822950
All three should be purged.

[Anonymous No.10823288]

>>10822950
Imagine, furries in space.

Pic unrelated.

[Anonymous No.10823397]

>>10822857
>replying to obvious bait
Hello, newfriend! Welcome to 4channel!

[Anonymous No.10823404]

>>10823097
Nice web design and not so overly dramatic with the quantities.

[Anonymous No.10823410]

>>10819937
Are these KSP screenshots?

[Anonymous No.10823416]

>>10821501
uwu what's this?

[Anonymous No.10823427]

>>10822178
E = hc/λ = hf

[Anonymous No.10823639]

>>10822767
Looks like it still needs the outer shell to me.

[Anonymous No.10823646]

>>10823097
>>10823117
Why is it always these people? Every single fucking time, overly quaffed expensive shitty looking haircut, fake glasses, comically self-satisfied smug grin, empty fucking eyes. Why is it that every time I hear some dumb bullshit it's one of these spouting it?

[Anonymous No.10823747]

>>10823646
Aposematism

[Anonymous No.10823750]

>>10823397
>I was only pretending to be retarded

[Anonymous No.10823766]

>TFW you'll never see a complete M-1
Someone should try to make an F-1 sized methalox engine.

[Anonymous No.10823783]

>>10823766
If ITS is still on the table SpaceX might be forced to make a larger class of MethaLOX engine. At least if I were them I'd take the hit and build a new large thruster rather than risk cramming so many Raptors onto one booster.

[Anonymous No.10823791]

>>10823783
Honestly, making a bigger engine makes more sense. I know that SpaceX is full of competent engineers, but the idea of trying to get 42 engines all working at once gives me visions of RUDs. Hell, maybe NASA should develop a methalox F-1B and sell the rights to the highest (American) bidder.

[Anonymous No.10823800]

Can't believe we're going back to the motherfucking moon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccZsrlSEov8

[Anonymous No.10823837]

>>10823791
>Honestly, making a bigger engine makes more sense.
It really depends on details. It may or may not make more sense.

[Anonymous No.10823953]

>>10823800
Don't worry whoever is in next will shit an it since it was evil orange man's idea. Besides, there's nothing fucking exciting about doing the exact same thing as half a decade ago.

[Anonymous No.10823962]

>>10823953
>there's nothing fucking exciting about doing the exact same thing as half a decade ago
Either you have some really interesting alternate history going on in your head, or you meant century instead of decade.

[Anonymous No.10823968]

>>10823962
Yeah that one lel

[Anonymous No.10823969]

>>10820697
>And it's at least twice as long as Elon thinks it will.
Yeah but any reasonable person doubles the time Elon claims about anything.

[Anonymous No.10823978]

>>10823043

What's wrong with turbopumps?

[Anonymous No.10823997]

>>10823978
he means that the RD-107 turbopump is monopropellant-fed (with a separate H2O2 source)

[Anonymous No.10824001]

>>10823043
>stage and a half
that's not stage and a half means, that term usually refers to the engines being jettisoned

[Anonymous No.10824005]

>>10823978
I meant what >>10823997 clarified. Its more efficient use of propellants to power the turbopumps using the same propellants that the combustion chamber uses. Imagine having to refuel your car with both gasoline and diesel, one to power your car and the other to power the fuel pump, and having to keep track of both. Using hydrogen peroxide to power the pumps instead of kerolox meant thay the R-7 has three propellants to manage, and thus has space inside it that could be used to store kerolox but instead its storing peroxide.

[Anonymous No.10824006]

>>10823043
Reminder that Soyuz ignites its engines using what are effectively matches.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a19966/russia-actually-lights-it-rockets-with-a-giant-match/

[Anonymous No.10824007]

>>10824001
Stage and a half is retarded anyway.

[Anonymous No.10824018]

>>10824001
A core with boosters can be considered a stage and a half.

[Anonymous No.10824046]

>>10824018
Not really

[Anonymous No.10824079]

>>10823953
>Besides, there's nothing fucking exciting about doing the exact same thing as half a decade ago.
You're a fag, and your shit's all retarded.

[Anonymous No.10824089]

>>10824006
Amusing but literally nothing wrong with that

[Anonymous No.10824091]

>>10824079
>Land a handful of dudes on the moon
>They fuck off
>No one has done this so is bretty cool

>50 years later
>Land a handful of dudes on the moon
>They fuck off
>Already did this with 1960s shit tier tech

Please explain what is exciting about this Redditor? No technology has been advanced and nothing new done. Unless you are staying for much longer or sending bigger payloads it's not exciting at all except for Reddit tier bugman nostalgia.

[Anonymous No.10824095]

>>10824091
>blah blah blah
>blah blah blah
Suck my dick

[Anonymous No.10824100]

>>10824095
Back to rebbit

[Anonymous No.10824101]

>>10824091
The richest man in the world wants to build factories on the moon and legit has the money to do it

Fuck NASA, Bezos or Musk is going to make it lunar before Artemis ever does.

[Anonymous No.10824102]

>>10824101
I thought he wanted to build them in orbit? Either way I agree, NASA is boomer tier shit and is about to get shoved out of the way.

[Anonymous No.10824144]

When the fuck is this thing going to HOP?

HOP

HOP

HOP ALREADY

HOP!

[Anonymous No.10824148]

>>10824144
Wednesday you fuck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c02HKkKXYo

[Anonymous No.10824149]

>>10824144
Since the post-static-fire fire didn't do any real damage, they're tentatively going to attempt the first flight on Wednesday.

[Anonymous No.10824150]

>>10824148

Based, thanks for the video.

[Anonymous No.10824151]

>>10824149

Thank you fellow HOP enthusiast

[Anonymous No.10824157]

Posted an old photo of Orion earlier. Here is a pic of the ACTUAL completed Orion spacecraft that will fly on Artemis 1.

[Anonymous No.10824163]

>>10824157
Why is it blacked? Whatever happened to the original design?

[Anonymous No.10824165]

>>10824163
They switched from a shuttle-derived blanket TPS to a shuttle-derived tile TPS for better performance on lunar return trajectories.

Also, I'm an idiot and posted the wrong pic. I actually had it right the first time.

[Anonymous No.10824207]

>>10824144
HOPPU DA YO

[Anonymous No.10824208]

Starship super heavy... 35 raptors https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1152853620682924032

[Anonymous No.10824210]

>>10824208
I know it's a meme to say this but what did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.10824211]

>>10824208
This doesn’t appear to be new information? It’s been 35

[Anonymous No.10824214]

>>10824211
Never mind

>>10824210
SH is now 35 raptors, up from 31

[Anonymous No.10824217]

>>10824214
are you sure he's not talking about the full stack, with a reduced load of raptors for initial testing?

[Anonymous No.10824219]

>>10824211
Old ones is 31

[Anonymous No.10824221]

>>10824217
Super heavy specificity

[Anonymous No.10824227]

>>10824210
He lurks 4chan and read
>>10823783
>>10823766
>>10823783
and wanted to show off by increasing the thruster count instead

[Anonymous No.10824229]

I assume this doesn’t change his 100t useful payload figure from recently.

[Anonymous No.10824230]

>>10824221
read it again, nigger
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1152853620682924032

[Anonymous No.10824232]

>>10824230
SH is a subset of starship

[Anonymous No.10824233]

>>10824232
and "Starship Super Heavy" refers to the full stack

[Anonymous No.10824242]

>>10824233
Hmm. So what changed then? Aren’t the first few SSSH stacks going to have reduced raptor counts in case of failure?

[Anonymous No.10824247]

>>10824242
I have no idea what the fuck Elon is on about, and I refer you to my previous post:
>what the fuck did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.10824281]

>>10821975
>Not as rage inducing as the formerly respected Lori Garver’s recent opinion article...
She apparently only wrote all that because she got hired as a lobbyist by some climate firm. Ergo: fuck human spaceflight, climate change is her payroll now.

[Anonymous No.10824306]

>>10819833
wait wait wait. All those stages just to reach orbit?
Seems a bit too much to me.

[Anonymous No.10824336]

>>10820979
c o p e

[Anonymous No.10824351]

>>10820979
The software almost never fail on any rocket or spacecraft

[Anonymous No.10824371]

>>10820542
Rusability is a economic decision why do it when you don't even save money?
SpaceX has not demonstrated that they actually save money by reusing first stages.

[Anonymous No.10824374]

>>10824371
>SpaceX has not demonstrated that they actually save money by reusing first stages.

SpaceX billed their most recent launch contract for NASA at $50 million dollars. That's cheaper than a Pegasus XL launch.

[Anonymous No.10824399]

>>10824374
>implying startups never run at a loss to build a customer base and reputation
do think their costs are legitimately lower tho, just don't think reusability has much to do with it

[Anonymous No.10824419]

>>10824399
I had a feeling you'd exercise skepticism. Frankly, they could probably make their cash flows and expenditures public, with a line-item breakdown, and you'd probably think they're lying in the accounting somewhere.

[Anonymous No.10824438]

spaceflight is the most retarded thing there is yet the entire western world is losing its shit about it. It will fail

[Anonymous No.10824468]

>>10824438
>says this while using one of the results of spaceflight

[Anonymous No.10824503]

>>10821500
>then prove it
Minotaur I vs Electron.

[Anonymous No.10824521]

>>10822178
>Is there a flaw in our understanding of these things perhaps?
Maybe there's a flaw in YOUR understanding, lol

[Anonymous No.10824522]

>>10822767
I will say this, it looks a lot sexier irl than it did in any of the shitty renders.

[Anonymous No.10824547]

Just to be clear.

[Anonymous No.10824553]

>>10823766
CHAD

>>10823783
In the case that they really NEED a bigger engine, it'd still only make sense to go as big as they can without running into instability issues, because the solutions to those issues invariably add weight, reduce performance, and increase complexity. 3x current Raptor (in terms of thrust) is probably close to if not the limit for building an engine that doesn't need things like injection plate baffles or reduced chamber pressure to function without exploding. That being said, 3x Raptor would still be getting very close to the power of an F-1 anyway.

>>10823783
>Hell, maybe NASA should develop a methalox F-1B and sell the rights to the highest (American) bidder
No one would buy that, because everyone other than SpaceX wouldn't want to spend any money on designing a new vehicle to use it, and SpaceX would rather just develop a new engine in-house which would probably end up at least ten times cheaper and would probably perform better as well.

What I'd like to know is, will SpaceX ever build themselves a hydrolox engine/rocket? It's really the only direction to move in in terms of increasing efficiency beyond what Raptor achieves, and with their experience building the super high chamber pressure FFSC design and getting it to work they're probably the most qualified on Earth right now to take up the challenge of developing a hydrolox engine that actually gets a good thrust to weight ratio and high thrust overall. Nobody has ever done an oxygen-rich or FFSC hydrolox engine cycle before, which in theory offers better performance across the board than fuel-rich staged combustion using hydrogen simply because oxygen is so much more dense and requires a much smaller turbine to produce the same amount of power compared to a hydrogen-rich gas generator driven turbine. Smaller turbine = lighter, which also means if you make it big you can generate a LOT more pumping power and get much higher chamber pressure/thrust out of a smaller engine.

[Anonymous No.10824556]

>>10824005
Important to note that the reason the RD-107 and RD-108 use peroxide decomposition to power their turbopumps is because those engines were designed in the mid 50's and they simply didn't trust that a turbine driven by gasses from a fuel-rich gas generator would be reliable enough. Instead they used decomposition of hydrogen peroxide because it was cheap, available, didn't require an ignition sequence (the main combustion chambers of the engine were lit by what were effectively giant matches stuck up the nozzles by the way, and still are today), and was much more independent from the main propellant flows, making throttling of the engine more simple in theory (I'm not sure if either engine is actually designed to throttle or not).

[Anonymous No.10824562]

>>10824018
No, that's either booster-sustainer or two-stage, depending on your nomenclature. Personally booster-sustainer is what I'd file the R7 and its derivatives under, as well as Ariane 5, Falcon Heavy, SLS, Shuttle, any Atlas V configuration other than 401, 402, 501, and 502, any Delta IV configuration other than Medium, etc. Stage-and-a-half is specifically a single rocket stage that jettisons unneeded engines at some point during its operation; the 'half stage' consists of the engines and their support structure that separates away.

[Anonymous No.10824574]

>>10824102
His eventual goal is orbit, but he's going to need the Moon for raw materials and he has acknowledged this.

Musk's eventual goal is also orbit, as well as the entire solar system and as far as humanity can possibly expand beyond as well, but he's also smart enough to constrain the scope to just Moon and Mars for now, because it's a much easier sell to convince people that a science outpost on the Moon or colony on Mars is possible than to tell them tales of our eventual 10 quadrillion population living in a Dyson swarm, with a dyson swarm in construction around every star in the traversible universe.

[Anonymous No.10824581]

>>10824217
>>10824230
>>10824233
>>10824242
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1152870247612874752

35 Raptors is for Super Heavy only, full stack is 41, since 6 Raptors on Starship now (3 sea level and 3 vacuum in final config).

[Anonymous No.10824627]

>>10824208
>>10824547
>>10824581
just do the fucking presentation already

[Anonymous No.10824634]

>>10821501
This is how spaceflight should be.
reusable 1st stage with wings
reusable 2nd stage with wings (only LEO)
reusable 2nd state without wings (past LEO)

[Anonymous No.10824661]

>>10824627
After hop

[Anonymous No.10824676]

>>10819833
how many years until people go back to realizing this shit is expensive and unprofitable

[Anonymous No.10824696]

>>10824634
>reusable 1st stage with wings
How to fuck the mass ratio of your first stage, since not only do you add wing mass you add internal supports to allow the wings to not be ripped off during ascent or descent, and to have the cylindrical core handle strong horizontal as well as strong vertical loads.

2nd stage should be a lifting body without wings, if it's only going to and coming back from LEO. Starship only has wings/fins because it needs to handle Earth entries and Mars entries, and many different regimes of entry in both atmospheres at that. If your vehicle is only ever entering the atmosphere from LEO then it's better to min-max for that regime alone, and lifting bodies are best for that since they get decent lift and drag for their mass but also get decent wet-dry mass ratio.

Beyond LEO vehicle (third stage effectively) would be better off in two variants; One without wings or aerodynamic considerations beyond what is needed for ascent, and one that is a lifting body, because the latter allows you to do aerodynamic capture either at outbound destinations with atmospheres or coming back to Earth. The one without the ability to aerobrake would be useful either as a permanently orbiting space tug in a regime with low delta V requirements (shuttling between asteroids for example), but even for Moon missions the lifting body would be better because it lets you ignore the delta V required to get back into Earth orbit on the return trip.

[Anonymous No.10824715]

>>10824676
Everyone already knows SLS is expensive and unprofitable. Falcon Heavy on the other hand is remarkably cheap for a not-100%-reusable vehicle, and Starship will be even cheaper since it'll be fully reusable and not made of aluminum or composites.

[Anonymous No.10824751]

>>10824676
By the end of the year. Starship prototypes will be doing orbit.

[Anonymous No.10824885]

>>10824715
what about these guys? They're a composite right? After all an anon posted the other day the new permit thingy for a SpaceX Starship heat title factory at the cape

[Anonymous No.10824937]

>>10824696
I dunno, buddy. I am just dreaming.

[Anonymous No.10825018]

>>10824937
Launch it.

[Anonymous No.10825023]

>>10825018
Launch my dreams?

[Anonymous No.10825033]

>>10825023
y e s

[Anonymous No.10825087]

>>10824634
>reusable 2nd state without wings (past LEO)

As long as you are landing either on Earth or Mars (planets with atmopshere), then wings still make sense.

[Anonymous No.10825128]

>no hopper livestream link in the thread
Imbeciles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHL3v4_w1WY

[Anonymous No.10825160]

>>10825128
Why? It's not doing anything.

[Anonymous No.10825445]

The difference in size between Merlin and Raptor

[Anonymous No.10825511]

>>10824751
>Starship prototypes will be doing orbit.
lmao Muskrats actually believe this

[Anonymous No.10825515]

>>10825445
Isn't this just merlin and merlin optimized for vacuum flight?

[Anonymous No.10825517]

>>10825445
I think the comparison is abit off considering that the Raptor engine in the image is only the main thrust assembly and doesn't have the plumbing and electrical components like the Merlin engine. But it does show how much chamber pressure can affect how much thrust an engine makes with respect to its size. Neat image, anon.

[Anonymous No.10825564]

>>10825445
>>10825515
That looks like a Merlin and an MVac bell with no motor.

[Anonymous No.10825625]

>>10824885
no, it looks like stainless steel to me
it conducts heat too quickly to be a composite

[Anonymous No.10825634]

>>10825517
that's an MVac bell, not a Raptor bell

[Anonymous No.10825645]

>>10825634
Oops. My bad.

[Anonymous No.10825669]

>>10825515
>>10825564
>>10825634
Pretty sure that's not mvac.
The right engine in pic related is mvac.

[Anonymous No.10825721]

[Anonymous No.10825729]

>>10825721
a e s t h e t i c

[Anonymous No.10825759]

>>10825721
sauce

[Anonymous No.10825791]

>>10825721
KINO

[Anonymous No.10825843]

New thread:
>>10825842

[Anonymous No.10826131]

>>10824091
The point, this time, is to land and then fuck off only partially, repeating this process until enough people and equipment have failed to fuck off that they can start doing really neat things up there.