/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.10879195]

Cocoa takes the lead edition

old >>10874392

[Anonymous No.10879206]

T

A

L

L

[Anonymous No.10879210]

>>10879206
I think it's full height? not sure. Boca Chica better figure something out soon if they want to stay competitive.
Their stacking rate is lower, the sections themselves don't look as good... hmmm

[Anonymous No.10879214]

>>10879210
Yeah I think that's pretty close to the height for the straight starship segment, then the cone gets stuck on top which should be happening soon hopefully.

[Anonymous No.10879219]

>>10879214
Still no big crane in Cocoa though. Boca Chica still could be the first for a full stack, at least for the first Mk I. Plus they have a launchpad sort of ready to go for Starship—nothing of the sort at 39A (yet)

[Anonymous No.10879229]

>>10879195
Anyone have spaceflight youtuber tier infogeaphic?

[Anonymous No.10879233]

>>10879229
I made it, but I accidentally deleted the template I used. I was gonna make a new one anyways

[Anonymous No.10879236]

RIP Vector Launch, losing your sugar daddy just as you get your first launch contract.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/sources-say-the-rocket-company-vector-may-be-in-financial-trouble/

[Anonymous No.10879239]

>>10879236
wonder how Astra are doing up in Alaska

[Anonymous No.10879248]

>>10879233
I love you

[Anonymous No.10879253]

Small Brain: United States Space Force

Galaxy Brain: United States Orbital Patrol

[Anonymous No.10879255]

God bless emre Kelly. Poor doggo

[Anonymous No.10879257]

>>10879253
Local Cluster Brain: United States Navy

[Anonymous No.10879259]

>>10879195
p

H

A

L

L

I

C

[Anonymous No.10879260]

>>10879257
call me when the CoDominium starts up

[Anonymous No.10879266]

>>10879257
>United states of earth

[Anonymous No.10879269]

>>10879266
No, a world where America is the only nation allowed by treaty to access space, after a limited-nuclear WW3.

[Anonymous No.10879270]

>>10879195
What will he do if Cocoa SH manages to reach orbit before New Shepard is fully operational?

[Anonymous No.10879276]

>>10879257
Laniakea Brain: United Space

[Anonymous No.10879282]

>>10879269

[Anonymous No.10879302]

>>10879270
Keep claiming that slow and steady wins the race.

Nonetheless, New Shepard will be a nice little suborbital space tourism gig until Elon announces Moon cruises on Starship for the same price as a NS ticket.

[Anonymous No.10879307]

>>10879276
>>10879266
>>10879257
>>10879253

Cringed so hard

[Anonymous No.10879311]

>>10879307
t. Non-American who's country is so inactive in space that it doesn't need something as cool as a space military

[Anonymous No.10879325]

>>10879311
I am American. It's cringe as fuck to think we are getting a "space military" anyway when we get billed a trillion dollars for a fucking new plane.

[Anonymous No.10879326]

>>10879325
trillion dollars over what, 40 years? pretty good deal for a gen 5 fighter or whatever.

[Anonymous No.10879328]

>>10879325
You realize the military can contract for Starships too, right? And that with orbital refueling and simple reuse, they can operate their own fleet of them. And arm them. Starship is literally the prerequisite technology for a space navy.

[Anonymous No.10879329]

>>10879326
>Pretty good deal

Imagine being this much of a good sheep.

[Anonymous No.10879332]

>>10879329
>Imagine being cucked by a fucking chink

[Anonymous No.10879333]

>Space force

Wow I can't wait to have more taxpayer money used to defend Israeli interests in space now, fucking great.

[Anonymous No.10879335]

>>10879329
Imagine never being able to compete in the air with the USA

[Anonymous No.10879339]

>>10879335
>Blows your shitheap out of the sky with a guided missile

[Anonymous No.10879340]

>>10879325
There are tons of US equipment in space. A good chunk of that is tied to national security and health (GPS, weather tracking, spy sats, etc.). It would be retarded not to have some organized structure designed to protect it from forces who want to do harm to the US. Especially nowadays where there are more countries and private groups being able to get into space then there were years ago, and those newcomers don't have to share the same mindset that the US has. The Space Force is just a way to organize that structure all into one agency to make things more streamlined.

[Anonymous No.10879343]

https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2019/08/top-general-says-spacex-may-have-just-changed-space-defense.html

[Anonymous No.10879375]

Starship has been officially stretched. Do a side by side with the dearmoon render.

What does this mean? More payload? More margin? Less heat shield material due to larger surface area?

[Anonymous No.10879514]

>>10879375
How fucking high will the stack be now? Also it starts looking really strange. Funny to think this thing is stable like that. Also won‘t it get more susceptible to wind the longer it gets at the same width?
Man, Elon hurry it up with the presentation.

[Anonymous No.10879519]

>>10879514
Also where are the legs?

[Anonymous No.10879529]

>>10879519
I think the straight section bolts to the top of the hopper. Gonna be a longboi.

[Anonymous No.10879533]

>>10879339
>shoots your janky missile with a better one
>with lasers on it

[Anonymous No.10879545]

>>10879375
>Starship has been officially stretched
Stretched?
Or elongated?

[Anonymous No.10879550]

>>10879219
Big Fucking Crane

[Anonymous No.10879559]

>>10879550
no, that's just a medium crane, the Big Fucking Crane is for when they need to put Starship on top of Super Heavy

[Anonymous No.10879609]

>>10879559
You guys think they will gonna need something like this for moving starship to the top of the superheavy?

[Anonymous No.10879625]

>>10879609
yo dawg, i herd you like articulation

[Anonymous No.10879683]

F U E L D E P O T S
U
E
L

D
E
P
O
T
S

[Anonymous No.10879686]

>>10879683
DELETE THIS!

[Anonymous No.10879703]

>>10879609
no. It just needs to be tall, not able to lift heavy weights. Space ships are much lighter than ships of the same size.

[Anonymous No.10879707]

>>10879375
I guess making the upper stage part of the system as large as possible makes sense. After refueling, this is what will determine the payload size/mass limits to Mars. As long as the booster can still lift it..

[Anonymous No.10879709]

>>10879683
hi, senator shelby here, DELET THIS OR I'M CANCELING NASA!!!

[Anonymous No.10879710]

>>10879514
>>10879529

[Anonymous No.10879711]

>>10879707
Overpowered second stage is characteristic of Falcon rockets, and it worked very well for SpaceX reusability plans. With SS, they will just take this design philosophy towards its logical conclusion.

[Anonymous No.10879714]

>>10879514
>How fucking high will the stack be now?
as high as me right now, dude

[Anonymous No.10879718]

[Anonymous No.10879805]

>>10879709
DON'T YOU DARE SHELBY

[Anonymous No.10879841]

>>10879302
You really think there's gonna be any market for New Shepard when SpaceX can do their own suborbital tourism flights using Starship that both last longer and are cheaper? Not to mention the much larger volume of the spacecraft.

[Anonymous No.10879845]

>>10879533
>don't mind my i'm just a flechette cloud launched by a rail gun, just passing through 'scuze me sorry

[Anonymous No.10879846]

>>10879711
Falcon 9's second stage is overpowered and thus it takes over quite early on in flight, however the booster is still a lot bigger volume and mass wise in comparison.

[Anonymous No.10879872]

>>10879841
>”New Shepard has the largest windows ever flown in space”
>yo dawg

[Anonymous No.10879874]

not much happening in Boca Chica today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqZDeKHDwb4

[Anonymous No.10879875]

>>10879874
Cocoa cam when

[Anonymous No.10879982]

Does anyone else always think of her when they read about the Cocoa location?

[Anonymous No.10880004]

>>10879982
GWEEN TEA

[Anonymous No.10880007]

>>10880004
>>10879982

[Anonymous No.10880011]

>>10879325
>when we get billed a trillion dollars for a fucking new plane

Oh look it's a dumbfuck who thinks their opinion has value.

[Anonymous No.10880044]

>>10879340
What your ignore is the Space Force was made by Donald Trump. Drumpf!! Drumpf's Space Force!! MMMEEEEMMEEEESSS!!

[Anonymous No.10880049]

>>10879874
Breaking: SpaceX expected to control 90% of the grain silo market by 2022.

[Anonymous No.10880164]

>>10880049
>russia announces plans to develop a superior silo by 2050

>chinese start up iSilo releases a video of a tiny 2 foot tall silo that looks way bigger than it actually is

[Anonymous No.10880202]

>>10880164
>Arianesilos claim that reusable silos are unsustainable

[Anonymous No.10880208]

>>10880202
>Silolab announces plans for pursuing reusable small silos, backtracking on promises that making reusable small silos would not be economically feasible.

[Anonymous No.10880217]

>>10880208
>NASA (National Agriculture and Silo Administration) awkwardly tries to support both SiloX and SLS (Senate Legume Silo)

[Anonymous No.10880228]

>>10879872
The hell will those be made of?

[Anonymous No.10880232]

>>10880228
borosilicate

[Anonymous No.10880234]

>>10880228
Transparent Aluminum

[Anonymous No.10880237]

>>10880228
Transparent aluminium maybe?

Knowing spaceX they'll probably find some way of using cheap glass, but making it work out okay.

Imagine the headlines if one of the windows broke and 50 artists get sucked out and scattered all over lunar orbit.

[Anonymous No.10880238]

>>10880234
jej
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KwCSHWKhjs

[Anonymous No.10880246]

can I get a quick rundown on the # of raptors on current SH and SS?

[Anonymous No.10880254]

>>10880246
alot

41 total
6 on upper stage
35 on first stage
last I checked

[Anonymous No.10880256]

>>10880254
2x liftoff thrust of Saturn V then. woooh

[Anonymous No.10880259]

>>10879375
All the better to depot your fuel with.

[Anonymous No.10880264]

>>10880259
Hey! Do you have your d-word pass!!!!

[Anonymous No.10880277]

>>10880246
somewhere between 20 and 35 on Super Heavy
between 3 and 9 on Starship

[Anonymous No.10880297]

>>10880237
>50 artists get sucked out and scattered all over lunar orbit.

now that is what I call performance art

[Anonymous No.10880306]

>>10880217
>farmer shelby cuts pay to silo depot builders.

[Anonymous No.10880318]

>>10879195
whats this exactly?

[Anonymous No.10880322]

>>10880318
Cocoa, FL SpaceX Starship Mk I.
big stainless steel 9m-diameter reusable rocket, powered by methalox Raptor engines.
The building on the left is for hurricane protection or something, idk

[Anonymous No.10880327]

>>10880318
the pointy bit goes on top of the grain silo and you have a rocket

[Anonymous No.10880328]

>>10880228
There's so many different types of glass these days, one HAS to fit their needs.

[Anonymous No.10880333]

>>10880256

[Anonymous No.10880334]

>>10880297
Imagine the Scott Manley episode video
>"Detecting the Dead Starship Artists with my Telescope"

[Anonymous No.10880338]

>>10880297
Do you want the plot of 3001? That’s how you get it

[Anonymous No.10880346]

How many refuels to put empty SS on the moon and return it?

[Anonymous No.10880347]

>>10880327
hmmm,..
a rocket you say?

[Anonymous No.10880384]

>>10876809
>Lockmart wanted to expand the SR71 program from reconnaissance to fighters/bombers/commercial craft, but the government ordered the tooling destroyed to cancel the program.

[Anonymous No.10880454]

>>10880347
the most based genetic dead-end

[Anonymous No.10880472]

>>10880346
nobody knows but it's somewhere between "fully fueled in LEO" and "refueled in a GTO parking orbit"

[Anonymous No.10880473]

>>10880347
>>10880454
flat earthers are a natural reaction to science becoming too complex and expensive for any one person to replicate meaningful results

mike hughes is a based schizo who wants to prove it anyways

[Anonymous No.10880479]

>>10880334
complete with KSP re-enactment of the event
FLY SAFE

[Anonymous No.10880494]

>>10880479
Is there a mod for Ksp that would give you random landing leg failures?

[Anonymous No.10880509]

[Anonymous No.10880531]

>>10880509
so this... is the power... of tents...

[Anonymous No.10880537]

>>10880531

[Anonymous No.10880543]

>>10880494
landing legs are glichy enough on their own that they'll set your spacecraft spinning at 20 rpm about 30% of the time you try touching down

[Anonymous No.10880554]

>>10880509
I'm fucking stoked bros, they're literally assembling a rocket that will be larger than a Saturn V when complete, and they're assembling it in open air for us to watch

[Anonymous No.10880560]

>>10880543
yeah, it's basically impossible to hoverslam in KSP due to the stupid way the legs are implimented
maybe if you set the damper to max and the spring to zero you'd get more of a crush-core effect?

[Anonymous No.10880565]

SpaceX facilities map

http://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1wvgFIPuOmI8da9EIB88tHo9vamo

[Anonymous No.10880572]

FOURTEEN CHERRYPICKERS / CRANES

F O U R T E E N

[Anonymous No.10880580]

>>10880560
Any time i need reliability i just build them out of girders and autostrut them to everything.

Modded ones that don't have the dumb piston effect implemented also tend to work well because they're just solid.

[Anonymous No.10880590]

>>10880572
cherrypicked photo

[Anonymous No.10880594]

>>10879709

[Anonymous No.10880603]

>>10880594
>imagine stopping by a lunar 7-11 in the late hours during a full Earth for some Space Doritos (tm)

[Anonymous No.10880615]

>>10880572
flyby
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNO2ElxXueQ

[Anonymous No.10880629]

>>10880603
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxAYii0TDSw

[Anonymous No.10880690]

>>10880509
there's no fucking way the stack on the left isn't a Super Heavy Booster prototype

[Anonymous No.10880697]

>>10880690
I agree, I't gotten way too tall to be mated with the nose cone section and be Starship. Also
>Building your giant hangar w/o giant doors

[Anonymous No.10880699]

>>10880690
it's Starship, it's the lower tank portion of the Cocoa Mk I vehicle.
Fuel load according to the 39A environmental report has gone from 1100T to 1500T. Or, like a 7m / 3 section stretch.

SH comes wayyy later

[Anonymous No.10880701]

>>10880690
>>10880697
Anon, starship+superheavy is +120 meters tall.
Its just that big.

[Anonymous No.10880711]

>millerfags in Boca Chica
>no Lincoln
MARS CANCELLED
PACK IT UP BOYS

[Anonymous No.10880737]

>>10880711
ESAB forever

[Anonymous No.10880764]

>>10879609
Why not dig a pit for the starship so you can use a smaller crane?

[Anonymous No.10880767]

>>10880764
cranes are cheap, and exist.
Holes require effort, rather than writing a check. Plus you'd still need a crane anyways. Higher cranes aren't that different than lower cranes

[Anonymous No.10880782]

>>10880699
>>10880701

Not a perfect shop by any means but this is basically what you're saying is the case, assuming they don't make the cylinder section any taller.

[Anonymous No.10880795]

>>10880782
there are two more rings waiting to be added inside, so it's even taller than that

[Anonymous No.10880802]

>>10880795
Unless of course they're building a Booster. Remember, Elon wants this thing to be doing ORBITAL test flights by early-to-mid NEXT YEAR, and to do that they 100% need a functioning Booster. Starship is not an SSTO despite having slightly more than 9 km/s delta V on paper when carrying no payload.

[Anonymous No.10880842]

>>10880347
He'd get higher if he just went mountain climbing
It still wouldn't be enough to see the curvature of the earth, but still.
This guy is 7 layers of retard.
But I guess he gets other schizos to fund his hobby to build a terrible death machine. So maybe he's pretty smart after all.

[Anonymous No.10880843]

>>10876809
It also pissed itself constantly.
Fucking majestic.

[Anonymous No.10880846]

>>10880842
he just wants publicity. He tried to get attention for his water rocket years ago, but no one cared.
Enter: flat earth movement, which he "joined". Wa la, publicity.

[Anonymous No.10880849]

>>10880842
lol, his "test flight" only got him to an altitude of about 1,300 feet.
your right, he could get higher by going up in the Shanghai Tower or something

[Anonymous No.10880852]

>>10880699
I'd guess a greater tank would make moon missions easier, which is now their declared goal.

[Anonymous No.10880859]

>>10880852
or the whole thing is just longer in general, because calculations. I assume there is a sweet spot of performance for liftoff weight / fuel load

[Anonymous No.10880866]

>>10880802
>Starship is not an SSTO
it is, just not a reusable one in a empty starship only configuration.
which of course defeats the point.

[Anonymous No.10880871]

>>10880866
SSTO is a stupid term. It should be SSTOWPAL. Singe stage to orbit with payload, and landing. Why bother otherwise

[Anonymous No.10880873]

>>10880859
>still 12 days till the presentation
At least there's the 200 meter hop inbetween then and now.

[Anonymous No.10880881]

>>10879270
He might stop dozing and start spending 5 billion a year on his space vanity project-at this point he' waaaaaaay behind. Never even been to orbit for fuck's sakes.

[Anonymous No.10880900]

They're constantly squeezing more power out of the engines, they might have made the starship larger to take advantage of that.

Lads...this thing is going to be fucking amazing. I really hope it happens.

[Anonymous No.10880905]

>>10880900
elon_rowboat_statement.quote

[Anonymous No.10880906]

>>10880866
>it is
No it isn't, Starship alone has such a low TWR on liftoff that due to gravity losses it would never achieve orbit even if it carried zero payload and burned to depletion. For Starship to achieve orbit alone even with zero payload it would need to launch with no legs and no thermal protection system hardware whatsoever. At that point you're basically saying 'Starship's propulsion section on its own is an SSTO'. Since the whole point of the orbital test flights is to prove out the reentry hardware and techniques, the fact that it can't get orbital when carrying that hardware even if it didn't reserve landing propellant means that they definitely need Super Heavy to be ready in time for the orbital tests.

[Anonymous No.10880923]

>>10880906
How many sea level engines would you need to get a respectable TWR?

[Anonymous No.10880938]

>>10880881
>S-slow and steady, g-guys . . .

[Anonymous No.10880939]

>>10880906
Would a fully fuelled starship with 3 raptors even have a TWR of > 1?

[Anonymous No.10880950]

>>10880923
more, but that adds more weight as well, lowering delta V and precluding SSTO capability. It's the old catch-22.

[Anonymous No.10880955]

>>10880939

[Anonymous No.10880958]

Are there any /sfg/ approved KSP simulations of the current starship-superheavy design?

[Anonymous No.10880961]

WHAT IT COCOA IS STRETCHING STARSHIP MK1 SO THE ORBITAL PROTOTYPE CAN SSTO

IT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING

[Anonymous No.10880982]

>>10880958
>approved KSP
we don't approve of KSP, we just play it sometimes (but never admit that in public)
the only approved game is Orbiter

[Anonymous No.10880991]

What's the point of the 3 raptor and 9 raptor starship variants?

[Anonymous No.10881004]

>>10880958
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0nlVOr7D1w

[Anonymous No.10881013]

>>10880991
there are two different three raptor versions, the first is for testing and is the bare minimum to get Starship to orbit on top of Super Heavy; the second is only vacuum raptors and is for absolutely yeeting a starship out to the outer planets or something else that requires stupid amounts of delta v
the 9 raptor version is for launching Starship suborbital with minimal gravity losses and maximum range for point to point travel

[Anonymous No.10881018]

>>10880991
testing most everything without risking a lot of engines

[Anonymous No.10881255]

>>10880958
tundra exploration default RO configs

[Anonymous No.10881297]

>>10879219
>It's fucking leaning

Oh no no no

[Anonymous No.10881346]

>>10881013
hmm, I thought starship would be able to use the vacuum ones by the time they staged

[Anonymous No.10881350]

are heat tiles still projected or were they discarded?

[Anonymous No.10881405]

JWST will never fly
Orion will never fly
SLS will never fly
All defunded for Biden-Rocket 2022

[Anonymous No.10881416]

>>10880958
not KSP but here is the physics sim Elon showed like a couple years ago

[Anonymous No.10881425]

>>10880594
>>10880603
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEEwAvlJOcI

[Anonymous No.10881434]

>>10881350
>are heat tiles still projected
yes

[Anonymous No.10881472]

>>10881297
That's what jib cranes do mate. They're supposed to be like that, unlike certain other launch related towers.

[Anonymous No.10881476]

>>10881297
>It's fucking leaning

[Anonymous No.10881479]

>>10881346
yeah, it can
that's why the expendable version doesn't have any sea level raptors

[Anonymous No.10881582]

Vacuum Raptors would be fine on Mars, right? Suggesting the colonial version might use 3?

[Anonymous No.10881586]

>>10880572
What in the actual fuck is up with that hangar? Clearly meant to house a rocket portion, but doesn't actually have an opening large enough to put it in there!

[Anonymous No.10881590]

>>10881586
perhaps the roof can come off? or the front area hinges?

[Anonymous No.10881635]

>>10881586
Yeah it's weird, it looks like the right size to house the cone section which they would be integrating all the payload and cabin stuff into but

>>10881590
It doesn't look like that, looks like all those sections are fixed and there is nothing to indicate anything could hinge or come off

[Anonymous No.10881655]

>>10881635
>>10881590
It's for building the canards/fins/legs. Bet you five bucks.
>needs to be large for the fins to be rotated around all which way
>doesn't need to have a large door since along the "long" dimension their cross sectional area is comparatively small

[Anonymous No.10881686]

>>10879195
Friendly reminder that we never went to the moon.

[Anonymous No.10881719]

>>10881586
>>10881590
>>10881635
Maybe it's a test facility for the engines? As in they need the large volume for air flow purposes or something.

[Anonymous No.10881727]

[Anonymous No.10881728]

>>10881719
no wayyyyyy. That’s what McGregor is for

[Anonymous No.10881776]

>>10881727
>910 ISP

Nice, I still can't be sold on NTR though since it's hard enough to make even regular chemical engines reliable enough for reuse.

[Anonymous No.10881788]

>>10881727
Wtf how

[Anonymous No.10881796]

>>10881776
I think it'd be easier if you weren't trying to use hydrogen
imagine if somebody proposed using helium, that's how I feel about hydrogen

[Anonymous No.10881811]

Wtf is going to power the heavy machinery on Mars? Elecricity? Methane/LNG? Syngas?

[Anonymous No.10881813]

>>10881811
steam. Unironically

It’ll be the 1890s all over again

[Anonymous No.10881816]

>>10881811
Batteries

>>10881813
Retard

[Anonymous No.10881819]

>>10881811
my enormous boner

[Anonymous No.10881820]

>>10881816
Steam doesn’t have complicated electronics or delicate blobbley bits. You can repair it with basic hand tools.
Steam is extremely well understood. Robust machinery can be designed with ease.


Of course, HEATING the water is a different story. But the machines themselves will be driven off of steam

[Anonymous No.10881829]

>>10881776
If I'm reading that chart right they ran it for a total of an hour over 10 burns. I'm not even sure Spacex has run any single merlin for a combined hour.

[Anonymous No.10881830]

>>10881829
I think for one of the extremely early stages that was landed they ripped out some Merlins and tested them to failure

[Anonymous No.10881833]

>>10881830
>>10881829
...but the time they logged on a single one idk. It is a good question- there must be some seals and other parts that have a limited lifespan

[Anonymous No.10881917]

>>10881820
>boil
>0.006 atm

[Anonymous No.10881930]

>>10881820
>Heating the water

Yeah this is the problem you tard

[Anonymous No.10882076]

>>10881582
>Vacuum Raptors would be fine on Mars, right?
yeah
>Suggesting the colonial version might use 3?
No, Starship needs the thrust of at least 7 Raptors to launch off of Mars with low enough gravity losses to be able to get all the way back to Earth without refueling. It also needs 3 sea level Raptors to perform the landing burn at Earth with acceptable redundancy. Therefore, 3 SL Raptors and 4 Vacuum Raptors.

[Anonymous No.10882079]

>>10881796
Helium would cut into the specific impulse a lot, which is the main benefit of NTR. Helium is also thousands of times more expensive than pretty much all rocket propellants, for example the helium alone on Falcon 9 costs more than all the liquid oxygen and highly refined kerosene and TEA-TEB starter fluid they use, combined.

[Anonymous No.10882204]

>>10881727
Is this what they were doing that caused the rush on iodine pills recently? I heard they were testing some kind of nuke engine for a cruise missile. NERVA even? And there was that sub incident a few months ago. Has Ivan getting crazy with nuclear shit lately or what?

[Anonymous No.10882239]

how the fuck does starship stay aerodynamically stable once it's out of the bellyflop regime?

[Anonymous No.10882243]

>>10882239
one meganewton’s worth of canard actuation
Massive RCS

[Anonymous No.10882247]

When is 200m hop?

[Anonymous No.10882252]

>>10882247
16

[Anonymous No.10882256]

>>10882204
More like they never fucking stopped. They just put a nuclear power plant on a boat.

[Anonymous No.10882259]

>>10880228
Metal mesh covered glass. It's the preferred way for making HUGE windows for space colonies. It won't be that transparent though.

[Anonymous No.10882262]

>>10882204
and 5 deaths. NERVA might be dead and finished now because of those goddamm russki bastard. Well at least NASA's NTR efforts are well funded because they lead to more money going to Shelby's state...

[Anonymous No.10882266]

>>10882262
It’s up to like 9 now
>Chernobyl intensifies

[Anonymous No.10882290]

From L2: 39A Starship pad work begins this week.

[Anonymous No.10882370]

>>10882290
they do have a 2 month lull in launches, seems like a good time to get some work done

[Anonymous No.10882376]

>>10882239
Engine gimbal, center of mass is far back to begin with, once flipped the Starship is mostly stable falling backwards.

[Anonymous No.10882386]

>>10882204
>NERVA even
NERVA was a specific engine program, you're thinking of nuclear thermal engines in general. Also, in regards to the nuclear missile they were talking about a while back, that was most likely an air-breathing nuclear ramjet, not a self-contained rocket engine. For more info on the subject look up project Pluto and the SLAM (supersonic low altitude missile) which America was developing in the 50's, it was a large nuclear powered cruise missile that would have carried over a dozen nuclear warheads and would have flown at over mach 3 at just a few hundred meters altitude, in fact one of the features of the design was that even after hitting all of its targets and running out of warheads it could still be directed to fly over major population centers and cause huge amounts of damage and injuries due to the powerful shock wave it would give off, which would be easily capable of shattering glass windows. Eventually the project was cancelled both because of the advent of more reliable ICBMs and more importantly the fact that an arms race in nuclear ramjet technology would have been very bad for both sides, since such a weapon is extremely difficult to defend against even if you know it's coming.

[Anonymous No.10882388]

>>10882256
Everyone has nuclear submarines, where have you been. The development project is for a high power to weight ratio nuclear reactor that can power a heavier than air vehicle, be it an air breathing jet or a rocket engine.

[Anonymous No.10882394]

>>10882290
Based. SpaceX moves so quickly.

[Anonymous No.10882445]

>>10882394
>"But rockets are supposed to take decades to develop. How else can they be made safe? SpaceX is going to kill a hundred people PER DAY if they keep moving at this childish pace that they're going."

[Anonymous No.10882446]

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-files-protest-over-flawed-air-force-launch-procurement/

[Anonymous No.10882448]

>>10882266

[Anonymous No.10882458]

>>10882446
Didn't SpaceX filed a similar protest a few months ago, or am i mixing things?

[Anonymous No.10882499]

>>10882446
It would be hilarious if they picked ULA and Northrop Grumman.

[Anonymous No.10882572]

>>10882499
That's basically worst case "Airforce Commander Shelby" scenario. Although I'm not sure Blue Origin actually needs the money when they have a sugar daddy.

[Anonymous No.10882575]

>>10882572
>That's basically worst case "Airforce Commander Shelby" scenario
I don't understand this reference.

[Anonymous No.10882618]

>>10882446
>>10882499
I suspect Northrop will be selected to support the industrial base for solid fuel rockets, this is the military we are talking about.

[Anonymous No.10882629]

>>10882572
>sugar daddy

[Anonymous No.10882641]

>>10882629
billions fucking billions.....

[Anonymous No.10882710]

ULA and SpaceX vs blue "muh government procurement process" origin, holy fuck lmao

today is a good day. Protip for BO: have you considered LAUNCHING something to orbit BEFORE you force your lawyers to shitpost in front of everyone regarding contracts?

[Anonymous No.10882742]

>>10882618
This. Remember that they have the replacement programs for Minuteman and Trident coming up in the 2020s.

SLS is going to get killed, and the USAF/NRO will select Omega to keep Thiokol's remnants busy and well-staffed heading into that major strategic-level procurement project that's looming just over the horizon.

[Anonymous No.10882749]

>>10882629
Shes beautiful ;-;

[Anonymous No.10882758]

>>10882710
Blue's engines will probably be in Vulcan rocket for ULA.

[Anonymous No.10882784]

>>10881811
electricity, either directly or through a battery

electricity will be made by solar panels, backed up by methalox generators and batteries

[Anonymous No.10882785]

>>10882710
Instead of bitching about the process, Blue and NorGrum should have entered an agreement to pitch each other as bilateral backup vehicles. New Glenn fails, launch on Omega, and vise versa.

[Anonymous No.10882807]

>>10882785
I don't think Northrop is bitching, they are the only shoe in of the four competitors.

[Anonymous No.10882809]

>SpaceX’s next Falcon 9 missions likely two back-to-back Starlink satellite launches

My body is ready.

[Anonymous No.10882892]

not really sure if this is the right place to ask, but how do I get to work in the space industry as a software engineer? I graduated a couple months ago and have been looking for defense / aerospace jobs because I think they would be my best bet to lead into a space related career. I'm in canada so we don't have a real large space presence, but we do have a decent number of regular aerospace companies. Anyone here work in the industry can comment on how you got started or what you'd recommend?

[Anonymous No.10882894]

>>10882376
I cannot make this work at all in KSP.

[Anonymous No.10882897]

>>10882894
KSP aero is notoriously dogshit, don't rely on it.

[Anonymous No.10882929]

>>10882894
Try FAR
if that fails, you're just a retard and doing it wrong probably

[Anonymous No.10882944]

>>10882892
I'm a newbie to the space industry, but you can probably find work in GNC especially considering reusable rockets are going to be a thing across the world soon. As for actually finding a job, then you should just cast a wide net (apply to many different companies) and do it frequently. I'm not Canadian, but I guess that there is an online database somewhere about Canadian space companies, that'll be useful.

It's not easy to get started, but it will get easier as you gain momentum. Good luck!

[Anonymous No.10882960]

>>10882807

>yo dawg, I heard you like SRB's so I put SRBs on a giant SRB that launches another giant SRB

Based Orbital ATK master race

[Anonymous No.10882964]

>>10882929
I am certain I am retarded, but it still makes me ass mad.

[Anonymous No.10882971]

>>10882964
you've got too much wing on the back, and control surfaces suffer a control inversion as you flip backwards, which KSP does not account for in the slightest
I don't know if there are any mods that cope with control inversions due to traveling retrograde through an atmosphere

[Anonymous No.10882987]

>>10882964
Needs canards, smaller tail fins, and bigger control surfaces.

[Anonymous No.10882997]

>>10882971
I've built tons of KSP spaceplanes with inverted control surfaces (a Su-57 with it's adjustable leading edges, for instance) and had precisely zero issues with any of them. It's not that hard.

[Anonymous No.10883002]

>>10882997
I do saucepan reentries with my spaceplanes for maximum deceleration, and every time I fuck up and end up going backwards my controls invert and KSP never adjusts.

[Anonymous No.10883037]

>>10883002
Yeah, you just have to get used to flying them with inverted controls. How do you think real airplanes work?

Just reset SAS to retrograde from prograde (or vice versa), etc.

[Anonymous No.10883040]

>>10883037
there's no way to do that fast enough for all the different control surfaces and such

[Anonymous No.10883049]

>>10883040
I'm not talking about right-clicking and changing them all, I'm talking about learning to reverse your keyboard inputs on the fly

[Anonymous No.10883053]

>>10883049
reaction wheels do not suffer inversion and so ends up inverted compared to aero surfaces in that situation, and the reaction wheels are super strong in stock

[Anonymous No.10883064]

>>10883053
Eliminate the reaction wheels and build a starship that flies on thrust vectoring, RCS, and aerodynamic surfaces like the real thing does, and toggle RCS for the inverted flight modes. That, or eliminate aerodynamic controls altogether and fly off RCS alone since most of how Starship's aerodynamics work is unreplicateable in KSP anyways, and use only static canards and tailfins to maintain center of drag relative to center of mass on reentry.

[Anonymous No.10883067]

>>10883064
yeah I wish that guy good luck and just continue to do horizontal landing or parachute splashdown/ground impact

[Anonymous No.10883069]

>>10883064
Fwiw I'm the anon who built the stock Space Shuttle and Buran that both could fly to orbit without any MechJeb tricks, so I know what I'm talking about here.

[Anonymous No.10883072]

>>10883069
yeah, I know what I'm talking about too and I have a solution that isn't pointlessly copying real life and working within the limitations of the game system to produce an inherently superior product

[Anonymous No.10883112]

>>10882892
Image processing for satellite imagery

[Anonymous No.10883133]

>>10882960
Sort of a /k/ story here, but before Orbital ATK split off from Vista Outdoors, there was a huge drought in the market of .22 long rifle ammo. It was right around the time of the Sandy Hook garbage. I have a relative who worked for ATK, running the .22lr machines, and they said production never changed, ~2 million rounds produced per day, but what did change was they were warehousing 80-90% of the ammo they produced. They were up to 7 warehouses packed full of .22lr last I heard. After that the next thing to happen was the split, so in retrospect they must have been stacking a couple billion dollars in product to be used as leverage in some deal or another.

[Anonymous No.10883143]

>>10881811
batteries, fuel cells, or direct electricity usage. Pic related is powered by a really long extension cord. There are already electric excavators:
https://electrek.co/2019/01/29/caterpillar-electric-excavator-giant-battery-pack/
The real problem is how you're going to get heavy construction equipment there in the first place. Heavy construction equipment weighs a lot and the cost of shipping stuff to mars is still not free. Something has to be done to reduce their weight so that we can ship them or figure out how to make parts of them in situ.

[Anonymous No.10883147]

>>10883143
>something has to be done to reduce their weight so that we can ship them
just remove the ballast, it can be manufactured in-situ out of regolith and eventually bulk iron from the foundry

[Anonymous No.10883149]

>>10879195
But why does it have so many dents?

[Anonymous No.10883153]

>>10883149
they're going to pressurize it, they'll pop right out

[Anonymous No.10883167]

>>10883143
forgot my pic
>>10883147
I would appreciate some exact numbers as to how much this reduces weight. I'd imagine the mass without a counterweight is still going to be quite high.

[Anonymous No.10883170]

>>10883167
as long as it's under 100 tons you'll be fine, just send more rockets

[Anonymous No.10883174]

>>10883143
ISRU is the only answer. Start small, with 1900s-scale mining equipment and self-replicating ISRU foundries, 3-D printing, etc, and build bigger as you mine bigger.

[Anonymous No.10883175]

>>10882458
ULA, BO and NG were awarded development contracts and SpaceX protested being left out.

[Anonymous No.10883176]

>>10883174
hate to break it to you but self replicating anything isn't quite here yet from a technology perspective

[Anonymous No.10883179]

>>10883176
it's fine as long as you have a lathe and a wrench monkey

[Anonymous No.10883180]

>>10883143
On Mars everything is lighter. So all earth equipment is overbuilt for the jobs there.

[Anonymous No.10883181]

>>10883180
but it needs to survive launch/landing as well as many many years on Mars, it needs to be durable
send more rockets

[Anonymous No.10883184]

>>10883174
we might be able to do a bit better than that. For example making the entire excacvator as lightweight as possible by making it from composites, like this giant CNC machine for wind turbine blade molds.
>>self-replicating ISRU foundries, 3-D printing, etc
and we still need to figure out how do that.
>>10883176
1 ton of microchips goes a very long way.

[Anonymous No.10883188]

>>10883184
>composites
anon you're fired if you don't propose a solution that's serviceable in-situ with nothing but a TIG machine, an air liquefaction and separator, and my massive balls

[Anonymous No.10883191]

>>10882629
>Paying literal billions for THAT

[Anonymous No.10883192]

>>10883176
That's why you fly the control boards and the CNC machines by the starship-load.

Ditto for the "laser" part of the laser-simtering 3d printers.

[Anonymous No.10883194]

>>10883188
>> serviceable in-situ
just don't break it before you've bootstrapped enough of an industrial base to make an equivalent part. Or wait, maybe you don't need to service it because it'll be cheaper just to send another one

[Anonymous No.10883196]

>>10883191
She has a cute, girl-next-door sort of vibe and was probably a blast in bed as all those plain-jane girl-next-door types always are.

[Anonymous No.10883200]

>>10883194
>an hour welding a cracked piece of steel is more expensive than shipping an entire new vehicle across the interplanetary void
if it's that cheap to send shit, you should lower prices on what you send over, which means steel

[Anonymous No.10883208]

>>10879195
Are they building Super Heavy yet? Or just Starship prototypes?

[Anonymous No.10883218]

>>10883200
lower mass means you can send more stuff that isn't excavators. Plus sending a new excavator means there's more parts you can cannibalize into your ISRU made excavators.
>> welding a cracked piece of steel
and how often does that happen on current excavators?

[Anonymous No.10883222]

>>10883218
often enough

[Anonymous No.10883228]

>>10883208
2 prototype for starship mk1/mk2 + starhopper (for 200m test and then will be decommissioned)

12 more days till we hear official presentation on Starship development.

[Anonymous No.10883328]

desu just get the crews that operate mining in harsh environments on earth like arctic drilling and yukon goldminers, they're not trained for space but they're well trained at making shit work without a consistent line of supply and replacement parts

[Anonymous No.10883477]

/sfg/, what's your comfiest spaceflight image?

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.10883483]

>>10883477

[Anonymous No.10883485]

>>10883477

[Anonymous No.10883532]

>>10883328
It's not as simple as picking who you want. The people going will have to be willing to start with and the number willing to go to a shithole planet with a high chance of dying is probably less than 1/1000, then they have to have a broad general skillset comprising of practical skills as well as half a mil or so in assets they can sell for their ticket. This rules out your "omg I can't wait to go to Mars" rebbit types because they have no money or skills, it also rules out richfags because they have no skills and you can't be sending mouths to feed. What you are down to is blue collar types who have inherited some assets or made it as well as STEM types who have some applicable practical skills as well as the field they are needed for (botany, engineering, etc...)

[Anonymous No.10883549]

>>10883477

[Anonymous No.10883636]

>imagine an entire S-IC with wings flying back to base

[Anonymous No.10883637]

>>10883636

[Anonymous No.10883639]

>>10883637

[Anonymous No.10883819]

>>10883218
Excavators need to be heavy to work properly.
A carbon fiber excavator is going to have a lot of trouble moving much dirt, especially if its rocky.

[Anonymous No.10883825]

>>10883532
>tfw stem and blue collar
>tfw poor

[Anonymous No.10883846]

>>10883143
>electric excavator
based. spacex will send their own heavy equipment for their ice mining ops. they will probably build some infrastructure too like storage tanks and piping and that requires heavy machinery. major mining organizations would be able to afford it too if they went to mars. alternatively someone could set up an equipment rental business on mars.

[Anonymous No.10883871]

>>10883819
it's also going to be working in a 40% earth gravity environment

[Anonymous No.10883882]

>>10883871
>gravity changes mass

[Anonymous No.10883884]

>>10883819
just add dirt for the extra mass

[Anonymous No.10883896]

>>10883819
The weight for something like a digger can easily be provided by in situ ballast, the thing is made of lightweight materials, CF is probably too keen but aluminium would be fine, then you have a big square box in the back where you dump a few tonnes of regolith into.

>>10883882
It means that whatever you are pushing or lifting weighs less than it would on earth for the same volume you retard, weight is what you are concerned with for moving dirt, not mass. So your digger only has to counterweight .38 of the weight for the same bucket size.

[Anonymous No.10883901]

You are going to be size limited, not weight limited on heavy machinery anyway unless they are stripped right down and flat packed. I guess that's a possibility further down the line but the initial few synods will need machinery immediately available for use, maybe with just a few easy to connect parts being assembled like attaching excavator arms or dozer blades.

[Anonymous No.10883909]

>>10883477
>>10883549

[Anonymous No.10883967]

>>10883477

[Anonymous No.10883989]

We should come up with our own plausible version of a SpaceX Mars colony.

[Anonymous No.10883998]

>>10883989
Just fucking expendable starships as infrastructure, the cost per pressurized volume is going to be rock bottom

[Anonymous No.10884001]

>>10883998
Starships aren't shipping containers.

[Anonymous No.10884018]

>>10883998
Not as rock bottom or radiation proof as tunnels drilled with boring company machines.

[Anonymous No.10884022]

>>10884001
No, but the first few cargo ships make more sense to use as fuel tanks and emergency habitat for ground operations. Just strip the ships of flight components and erect berms around them for protection.

[Anonymous No.10884031]

>>10884022
>Erect berms around them

Lel what 30m high berms? I agree that the crewed ships will be used for initial operations but the crew are just going to have to suck down some rads until they have a properly shielded habitat to live in. Cargo ships are not usable for habitable space.

[Anonymous No.10884032]

>>10882629
Oh ffs, he knew it could happen and cheated anyway. He's still ungodly wealthy. I have no pity for him.

[Anonymous No.10884035]

Making a shelter on Mars that resists radiation isn't THAT hard-some lightweight titanium posts and boxes to fill up with gravel and boom,you have a few feet of mass between you and the sky and knock the rads down enough to not matter much. Stick a pressurized double-layer hab under it, set up the kilopwer reactor nearby (FUCK relying on solar, we just lost a rover to a massive planet-choking dust storm we NEED nuclear power on Mars), get some veggies growing and s t a r t d o i n g s c i e n c e

some fucking dude swinging a pick to set this up could find a fosil, i hope that happens. people would go apeshit

[Anonymous No.10884075]

>>10884035
>A few feet of mass is enough to stop radiation
>Square shaped pressure containers
>Kilopower

Check out this retard

[Anonymous No.10884085]

>>10884035
>Kilopower

How to out yourself as a retard, you have to go full size nuclear or gtfo which is too heavy compared to solar anyway.

[Anonymous No.10884258]

>>10883477

[Anonymous No.10884288]

>>10883998
??

[Anonymous No.10884350]

>>10882894
KSP doesn't have any flaps that actuate in the same way that Starship's flaps do. Others have already made it work.

[Anonymous No.10884352]

>>10882897
they improved the aero a lot in one of the past updates, a couple years back iirc, still not as accurate as FAR but way better than old stock

[Anonymous No.10884355]

>>10883170
this
also in the beginning you only need to send relatively small earth-moving equipment to satisfy all of the base's needs, a single skidsteer can move hundreds of tons of material per day easily, meaning it'd be able to keep up with feeding multiple industrial processes at once.

[Anonymous No.10884362]

>>10883194
>t. man who has never worked in an indusrial process before

Everything breaks, and most often things are broken by idiots not using equipment correctly. You cannot idiot proof a machine, you can only make it so that it can be fixed even after being exposed to idiots 24/7. The reason the rovers we've sent to Mars still function at all is because every move they make is pre-planned and programmed in ahead of time by a team of eggheads who are TERRIFIED of being the guy who got the rover stuck. Meanwhile, operators on Mars will be working in real time for long hours and will have a very busy schedule, so shortcuts will be taken and mistakes will be made. In such an environment building a machine that is 50% more likely to break down but a hundred times easier to fix is ABSOLUTELY the ideal scenario.

[Anonymous No.10884371]

So if starship works do you think we will see private space telescopes?

A lot of billionaires wants to play space exploration they just have no ways to do it now.

[Anonymous No.10884372]

>>10883218
>and how often does that happen on current excavators?
you would be very surprised, evidently. All heavy equipment is in a constant state of breaking down and being fixed again. Also, what no one has touched on yet is the actual reason you want to use steel no matter what, which is the fact that steel has a fatigue limit. Unlike aluminum, which will eventually develop cracks even under the slightest load strain, steel does not ever develop cracks until a minimum amount of strain is developed in the crystal structure. If you design your beam or arm or whatever to be beefy enough that no part of the steel is brought up to that level of strain, it will literally NEVER crack or break. An aluminum excavator's days are numbered however even if you treat that thing like a newborn baby, and it WILL suffer a catastrophic failure at some point.

Even if your main goal is to reduce weight no matter what, which is an old-space viewpoint and rendered moot anyway by the advent of Starship, you will still want to use steel for all of the load-bearing parts of the equipment you send. The only other option I can think of would be titanium, since it also has a fatigue limit and is significantly lighter for almost the same strength, however building anything big out of titanium is a nightmare and extremely expensive to boot.

[Anonymous No.10884395]

>>10883477

[Anonymous No.10884399]

>>10883639
>cork cover
nowadays they'd use some artificial super-material that gets 1% better thermal properties and costs a mere 10,000% more per square meter

[Anonymous No.10884400]

>>10884372
This. For any Mars Colony equipment, robustness and repairability will take precedence over mass efficiency. You cannot colonize Mars by counting every kilogram, that is Old Space thinking.

[Anonymous No.10884402]

>>10883882
It changes weight and that's what's important. Your vehicle gets a much higher strength to weight ratio unless you add a lot of ballast, which you want, because otherwise you can end up flipping yourself easily or in really low gravity you can accidentally launch yourself a fair distance.

[Anonymous No.10884405]

>>10884395
at least post a bigger pic so i can see shit

[Anonymous No.10884408]

>>10884031
Lay an empty Starship on the side. Burry under 3 meters of soil. Make access points into propellant tanks, too.

3000 cubic meters of pressurized, radiation protected space, and no need to do any complex work for it.

[Anonymous No.10884414]

>>10883896
>CF is probably too keen but aluminium would be fine
Both of these materials have no fatigue limit and would therefore have a much shorter life span compared to a steel machine

>>10883901
This, KISS is the most important philosophy in any design, we can't afford to waste time and money developing ultralight earth-moving equipment if really the only benefit available would be the ability to send slightly more payload other than the digging equipment itself. You'd probably spend more monetarily than you'd gain in weight savings anyway, compared to just sending another Starship. Also, consider that if it's made of ultralight materials it's probably going to be broken by operators a lot more and you're going to be sending spare parts and entire new vehicles far more often. It makes sense to invest the mass in a very highly reliable, heavy, easy to fix machine, and get >10 years of use out of it, than to send a new machine every launch window because they grenade themselves every two years.

[Anonymous No.10884445]

>>10884085
>too heavy
Only if you're using a pressurized water reactor, which is retarded anyway. As for the radiators needed to keep the heat engines running, those can be made as light or even lighter than the thin film solar that fags cream themselves over, and instead of operating at 8% efficiency like the aforementioned thin film panels the reactor's heat engine is running at 35 to 40% efficient, so for very little extra mass you get just as much power and it's 100% reliable and runs continuously day and night for multiple years between refueling events (if you're using a design that cannot be continuously refueled).

[Anonymous No.10884449]

>>10884371
At the least I'd expect to see new telescopes being produced as a small constellation rather than a one-off, one of the biggest things hampering research right now is the jockeying for telescope time, if we had 6 or 10 of every new telescope design we launched we could vastly increase the rate of data gathering.

[Anonymous No.10884460]

>>10884408
How dense/deep is Martian soil? Wondering if Starship could be driven into the ground and the interior then emptied of soil. If driven at an angle there would be a deeply shielded area at the bottom and a surface access point. And lateral excavation could be started at the bottom to build a heavily shielded subsurface area.

[Anonymous No.10884481]

>>10884445
Based retard

[Anonymous No.10884547]

From KSC guy on L2: Two weeks of concrete work at LC-39A expected for the mount/deflector base.

[Anonymous No.10884548]

>>10884460
Easier to just dig a hole and put Starship into it, you don't have access to the 100,000 ton press that would be required to force the thing underground even if you cut the bottom bulkheads off and encountered no rocks bigger than gravel on the way down. Just dig a hole.

[Anonymous No.10884555]

>>10884408
>Bro just lay it in its side lmao

How? Without large cranes and other ground equipment all you can do is push it over which will wreck it. Besides like I said before the cargo ships are not suitable for habitation, only the crew versions are.

[Anonymous No.10884557]

>>10884547
remember when people were saying that they were going to take multiple years minimum to construct a new launch pad for SSH

[Anonymous No.10884559]

>>10884547
Kek morons saying this would take years btfo.

[Anonymous No.10884569]

>>10884555
You're right, cargo ships are only useful for propellant storage (which in itself is a perfectly decent use) if they can't be launched again after sitting for too long, and trying to either convert them into living space or chop them up to build living space out of the steel paneling would be far more work than it'd be worth. Actually if you're using them for propellant storage anyway you may as well just leave the electrolysis/sabatier equipment installed in the cargo bay and hook up lines from the water harvesters and power supply on the ground.

[Anonymous No.10884677]

>>10884362
then don't send idiots

[Anonymous No.10884691]

>>10884677
everyone is an idiot. You don't have the option to not send idiots.

[Anonymous No.10884766]

>>10884548
Best way to dig the hole? Excavators or blasting?

[Anonymous No.10884770]

>>10884555
Airbags

[Anonymous No.10884785]

>>10884766
Excavators, you don't want to fuck around making explosives on Mars (the chemistry is complex and you're starting with nothing but water, CO2, and nitrogen), while even a small machine could dig a pit big enough for a Starship sized habitat in a few days or weeks at most.

[Anonymous No.10884849]

>>10884555
>How? Without large cranes and other ground equipment all you can do is push it over which will wreck it

A large crane along with heavy vehicles will likely be one of the first things brought in to Mars. How else are you going to build anything else?

>Besides like I said before the cargo ships are not suitable for habitation, only the crew versions are.

The point is that they are much more suitable for habitation than anything else on Mars.

[Anonymous No.10884850]

>>10884559
doubters have been serially btfo by spacex of late, elon is on a kill streak

[Anonymous No.10884872]

https://www.wemartians.com/episode062/

>We talk Relativity Space 3D-printed rockets

[Anonymous No.10884932]

>>10884555
airbags
bring or build a large crane, you'll need one anyway
>>10884677
unfortunately the entirety of humanity is idiots in this context
I don't know if you've ever seen eggheads try to do manual labor

[Anonymous No.10884959]

You know, I was all hyped about Starship before, but now that it's become a flying tuna can, I'm having cold feets about it.
I hope it works, but at this point, I don't really expect it to. At least not like what Musk is selling.

[Anonymous No.10884961]

>>10883477
my favorite, even though it's out of focus

[Anonymous No.10884996]

>>10884959
I believe in steel

[Anonymous No.10885000]

they are craning them things

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqZDeKHDwb4

[Anonymous No.10885012]

>>10885000
How are they gonna stack those things, when the crane is already at maximum extension?

[Anonymous No.10885017]

>>10884961
based space cowboy

[Anonymous No.10885019]

>>10885012
A. you can see YE BIG CRANE off to the right there, it's large enough to stack them
B. they're only moving it right now, not stacking it

[Anonymous No.10885024]

>>10884959
I'm actually more hyped about the starshitbox, because keeping it dumb and made out of well understood materials should make it highly reliable, or at least able to be fixed by a guy with flames printed on his welding mask

[Anonymous No.10885027]

>>10885012

[Anonymous No.10885066]

>>10885027
>This kills the cleanfags

[Anonymous No.10885107]

>>10885066
This is a hopper we are talking about, starship and the booster will probably be made indoors.
Stacking the parts will probably be done in a huge hanger.
I'm not saying spaceX will go for nasa cleanroom levels of autism but, at least airplane factory's level of safety&clean room will be in place.

[Anonymous No.10885118]

>>10884959
Building space ships in ship yards is the best way to go.

[Anonymous No.10885124]

>>10885118
Should I start working on an intergalactic ship in my yard?

[Anonymous No.10885149]

>>10882960
Learning from the best

[Anonymous No.10885156]

>>10885149
How did the last Vega launch go?
The commentator kept reading her script even thoug everyone saw the rocket go ballistic dive into ocean

[Anonymous No.10885158]

>>10885124
>intergalactic
If you've figured out the warp drive, do share.

[Anonymous No.10885159]

>>10885156
Yeah, that was cringy as fuck, when the graph was clearly showing wrong things.

[Anonymous No.10885166]

>>10885107
no, that's not a hopper
hopper already flew, they made a battleship stage and covered it in tin foil to do engine tests with, these are legit flight articles

[Anonymous No.10885177]

>>10885156
>How did the last Vega launch go
it had its ups and downs

[Anonymous No.10885223]

>>10885159
Link to VOD? I didn't watch it live and that sounds hilarious

[Anonymous No.10885239]

>>10885159
IIRC the people who read off the condition of the launch read off a script that's based on a typical launch, and they're not allowed to go off it until they're told otherwise.

[Anonymous No.10885251]

>>10885239
I'm curious what SpaceX would do with a RUD during a webcast, given that they've increasingly been willing to fail publicly.

>This is, uh, not norminal

[Anonymous No.10885261]

>>10885251
yeah, aren't their webcasts done by engineers? you occasionally get a gasp or something when something goes off-nominal but recovers

[Anonymous No.10885268]

>>10885261
The webcasts are done on the balcony above the food court, where most of the company's engineers are watching it on big screens

You'll absolutely hear them react to problems and successes before the webcast does

[Anonymous No.10885273]

>>10885261
yeah, sometimes stage separation or especially deceleration burns cause some gasps

[Anonymous No.10885274]

>>10885223
Can't find it.
I guess they shoaed it.

[Anonymous No.10885280]

>>10885274
ariane vega vv15

[Anonymous No.10885290]

>>10885280
2:35 forward...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJd7-0GDaBU

[Anonymous No.10885349]

>alabama will be given control of the moon program
FUCK SHELBY

[Anonymous No.10885352]

>>10885349
Source?

[Anonymous No.10885375]

>>10885349
Invade Alabama.

[Anonymous No.10885380]

>>10885352
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/alabama-space-center-will-manage-nasas-lunar-lander-program/

[Anonymous No.10885391]

Talking of Alabama...

https://twitter.com/timothytchen1/status/1161261562713137153

[Anonymous No.10885404]

>>10885380

[Anonymous No.10885410]

HOP
https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_9_9032.html

forgot my image

[Anonymous No.10885416]

[Anonymous No.10885419]

>>10885391
Please explain. This confirms SpaceX is working on a bigger fairing for F9/Heavy?

[Anonymous No.10885422]

http://europe-usa.com/eng/news/names-athletes-who-join-team-europe-match-are-announced


How can one senator (Shelby) have so much power?
I'm not American but I think I understand most of what is going on in American politics?

[Anonymous No.10885423]

>>10885419
no, it means they bought an existing one

[Anonymous No.10885455]

>>10885419
>>10885423
It’s unknown at this point, but one thing is for sure: SpaceX’s new Class C fairing is going to be made in ULA’s Decatur Alabama factory....

[Anonymous No.10885475]

>>10885422
SHE MOVES

[Anonymous No.10885477]

>>10885177
Kek

[Anonymous No.10885482]

>>10885149
Why are ESA such a bunch of utter shithouses? Apart from being French I mean

[Anonymous No.10885487]

>>10885482
they launch from South America

[Anonymous No.10885495]

IT
BEGINS

[Anonymous No.10885496]

>>10884959
Yeah they scrapped the carbon fibre plant completely right? Wonder if that could have come in handy

[Anonymous No.10885508]

NOOOOOOOOOO COME BACK

[Anonymous No.10885512]

>>10885495
>SpaceX was founded under the belief that a future where humanity is out exploring the stars is fundamentally more exciting than one where we are not.
Now that's my kind of ethos.

[Anonymous No.10885516]

>>10884555
Here's another idea: build a dirt mound next to it that's shaped like a circular ramp, then roll it down slowly to horizontal. Some method of arresting the roll would be required - cables fixed into rock bundles (like you see in civil engineering) would do it

[Anonymous No.10885524]

>>10885487
Ahhh

[Anonymous No.10885553]

>>10884555
1/3rd gravity, just strap in and tip it over

[Anonymous No.10885571]

>>10885508
What is that shed for? Are they going to cover it with fabric/metal?

[Anonymous No.10885573]

>>10885571
who the fuck knows (not me)

[Anonymous No.10885598]

>>10885422
The bills that get voted on by the whole Senate are put together by smaller sub-committees who decide what is and what isn't on said bills. Shelby has spots on the right committees to give him a lot of influence on how those bills are written. I am sure your country's equivalent legislative body has some similar "sausage making" (to reference Bismark) in how various appropriation bills get written.

[Anonymous No.10885644]

>>10885391
This makes my fairing THE BIG FAIRING.
Nice to see Falcon Heavy getting some love. I want to see it be useful. It's such a cool vehicle, even if it's made irrelevant by meme ships soon.

[Anonymous No.10885654]

>>10884677
A man who never made a mistake never made anything. Anon who mentioned eggheads trying to do manual labour had a point. These machines will be operated by people who are closer to your average industrial worker than Chris Hadfield.

[Anonymous No.10885785]

>>10885644
Falcon Heavy is a pretty nice backup to have. And wasn't there talk of Falcon Super Heavy?

Part of me thinks why not just save the dev costs for BFR and just build a modular ship in orbit instead with FH?

[Anonymous No.10885789]

>>10885785
they want upper stage reuse, by which they mean they want to do Space Shuttle But Good This Time Instead of a Flaming Trashfire

[Anonymous No.10885795]

When is that faggot Shelby up for re election? Alabama has been browned hard so he is probably out next round.

[Anonymous No.10885796]

>>10885789
>they want to do Space Shuttle But Good This Time Instead of a Flaming Trashfire
The bar for that is pretty low though.

[Anonymous No.10885830]

>>10885795
Will take a while, he got elected in 2016, so 2024

[Anonymous No.10885835]

>>10885830
>8 year term for senators

Fucking hate this shitdump country, oh well at least he will definitely be either voted out, dead or eternally buttblasted by starship by 2024.

[Anonymous No.10885847]

>>10885835
>proposes bill authorizing funding for shooting down so-called "terror depots"

[Anonymous No.10885920]

>>10885830
>>10885835

[Anonymous No.10885934]

>>10885847
>"These 'propellant depots' in low Earth orbit are merely a front for their true purpose, kinetic orbital strike satellites. They have a potential to delete entire cities down to the crust. These weapons of mass destruction are prohibited by The Outer Space Treaty. Not only that, but these illegal weapons are made by a private company that we in the United States government have no way to rein that company in. So one day, these so-called Americans can suddenly decide that Sidney shouldn't exist any more, or New York, or (god forbid) Huntsville. This menace hanging over our heads, unchallenged, should be stopped at all costs!"

[Anonymous No.10885938]

>>10885934
>SpaceX colony dropping Huntsville and D.C. off the map

[Anonymous No.10885960]

Any news from that anon who was going to talk with Sowers about propellant depots?

[Anonymous No.10885966]

it's time for a new thread

[Anonymous No.10885993]

>>10885960
suicided

[Anonymous No.10886001]

>>10885993
Lotta that going around right now, hope I don't catch it.

[Anonymous No.10886032]

>>10885966
here
>>10886029
>>10886029
>>10886029