/sfg/ – Starship Upskirt Edition

[Anonymous No.10926320]

Previous: >>10919900
Upcoming Rockets (spaceflightnow.com)
>Aug 30 – Rockot (10am EDT, Russia)
>Sep 10 – H-2B (5:30pm EDT, Japan)
>Sep 25 – Soyuz (10am EDT, Russia)

[Anonymous No.10926328]

>>10926323
Is it even legal for the US government to nationalize a company like that?

[Anonymous No.10926337]

>>10926328
A lot of things become legal if you throw the words "national security" around.

[Anonymous No.10926338]

>>10926328
It's not legal for them to print fiat currency or conduct mass surveillance yet they still do it because they just make the laws up as they go.

[Anonymous No.10926345]

>>10926338
Where is it not legal for them to print money?

[Anonymous No.10926350]

>>10926345
Not printing money but printing unbacked currency is explicitly outlawed by the constitution because it leads to all the banking fuckery you see going in.

[Anonymous No.10926351]

>>10926345
Its a common misunderstanding a bunch of libertarians have. The Constitution specifies States can't make money that isn't gold or silver, but it puts no restrictions on the Federal government. The idea behind it wasn't to stop fiat.

[Anonymous No.10926365]

>>10926350
You know the US used Fiat before Gold/Silver backed currency yeah?

[Anonymous No.10926387]

>>10926365
Yeah the continental dollar which they printed into oblivion to finance the revolution.

[Anonymous No.10926393]

>>10926351
Why are libertarians so stupid? They are truly up there with the dumbest political groups. They are just a fraction dumber than hardcore socialists. Almost every position they have falls apart with 2 or 3 simple questions.

[Anonymous No.10926404]

>>10926393
Because freedom attracts schizos. Fascism attracts people with insecurity and daddy issues, (modern american-context) liberalism attracts people who have a pathological need to enforce morality.

Can we talk about rockets now?

[Anonymous No.10926406]

H-hopper was d-damaged, I guess you h-have to fly on SLS now h-haha right g-guys?


please take the time to spot and ignore shills

[Anonymous No.10926411]

>>10926393
>Defending fiat currency and overbearing federal government

Cool politics bro, so much to ask for real money and actual freedom.

[Anonymous No.10926432]

I drew that Starship spin station concept I keep posting about. This should all be off the shelf hardware by the early 2020s.

[Anonymous No.10926437]

>>10926404
>Can we talk about rockets now?
Sure. Do you guys think that there will be space law enforcement soon?

I'm not talking about something like the Outer Space Treaty, or the FAA, or something else that regulates space by doing stuff on Earth. I mean actual attempts to enforce law in space while in space. Things like, spacecraft that grabs satellites that aren't on the legally allowed orbits, and weapons that destroy dangerous non-lawabiding spacecraft?

[Anonymous No.10926476]

>>10926432
But what is going to be done with the modules when the convoy gets to its destination? They can't be shrunk back, right?

[Anonymous No.10926482]

>>10926476
I mean, you could send that whole contraption out as a colonyship, but you can also just leave it in orbit as the largest space station ever built by a factor of 10

the bigelows could be left in orbit as satellite busses or just discarded, if you're going the colony ship route

[Anonymous No.10926487]

Will we live long enough to see the next gen starship?

[Anonymous No.10926490]

NEXT

GENERATION

STARSHIP

EIGHTEEN

METRE

DIAMETER

[Anonymous No.10926495]

>>10926487
>18 meters
OOOOH FUUUUCK IM CUUUUMMMMIIINNNGGG UUUUUUUUGGUGHGHGHHHHHHHHFFFFFUUUUUUCCCCKKK

[Anonymous No.10926497]

>>10926487
Glad to see Elon ignoring the VASIMIR meme

[Anonymous No.10926503]

>>10926487
>18m
They would have to make a new larger engine for that. There's no way SpaceX can fit ~120 Raptors on the first stage and have it all work.

[Anonymous No.10926504]

>>10926487
Looks like the Starship update date is more or less fixed now.

[Anonymous No.10926506]

>>10926337
This, laws can and often are writeen with some wiggle room for governments to fuck around if the circumstances demand it, but these can easily be abused

[Anonymous No.10926507]

>>10926487
>18 m
That's not a starship anymore, it's a flying skyscraper. Not that I'm complaining.

[Anonymous No.10926511]

>>10926504
>20km flight in Oct.
Christmas it is then

[Anonymous No.10926512]

>>10926504
The update is a press conference/presentation?

[Anonymous No.10926514]

>>10926512
going over the latest design yep

[Anonymous No.10926522]

Bertha TBM makes a 17.5 meter tunnel. Here’s a pic.
This is approximately the internal size of the next gen system.

[Anonymous No.10926523]

>>10926512
It's something he promised a while back. Think to his IAC presentations for ITS/BFR. The date has been slipping from July, August, Mid-September and now this.

[Anonymous No.10926524]

>>10926320
What’s the best degree to get into the space exploration industry? I’d like to do aerospace/astronautics and build rockets but I also want to do research regarding space like so I don’t know. Maybe a PhD in astronomy or physics?

[Anonymous No.10926532]

>>10926320
>https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1166860032052539392
>Sept 28 - Starship presentation for their anniversary of reaching orbit.
>October - 20 km Starship Mk1 flight then orbit shortly after

[Anonymous No.10926538]

>>10926487
B E H O L D

[Anonymous No.10926541]

>>10926522
Bigger diameter than discovery’s sphere in 2001

[Anonymous No.10926546]

>>10926538
NSFW

[Anonymous No.10926548]

isn't 18m about the size of the original ITS concept?

[Anonymous No.10926550]

>>10926524

Dunno about the current situation but historically, aeronautical engineering was the key degree for American astronauts - and they weren't even the ones who built the things. So you had to have a squad of other people with AE degrees on top of the rest of it. I really don't know much about engineering but it's clearly an engineer's job.

[Anonymous No.10926551]

>>10926503
140. Doubling radius makes the area x4

[Anonymous No.10926552]

>>10926522
2nd gen BFR will be 1 meter wider than the maximum flared diameter of the N1 rocket first stage

[Anonymous No.10926556]

>>10926548
Original ITS was only 12 meters, refer to >>10926538 for guidance on how CHAD BFR 2.0 is going to be.

[Anonymous No.10926558]

>>10926538
THICC

Sea Dragon should be beside it tho

[Anonymous No.10926561]

>>10926538
This is going to look ridiculous parked next to the ISS

[Anonymous No.10926567]

well if we see any 18m diameter concrete rings being poured I guess we know what they’re for

[Anonymous No.10926568]

>>10926561
>implying ISS wouldn't have been demolished out of the utter shame by then

[Anonymous No.10926574]

>>10926561
Someone should make that render.

[Anonymous No.10926576]

>>10926538
guys that thing gets like 600 tons to LEO in reusable mode, what the fuck

[Anonymous No.10926581]

>>10926576
a special yeeting variant to sent probes to the outer planets could get them there in record time

[Anonymous No.10926584]

>>10926568
It'll be parked next to the ISS to dismantle it then put it in a museum.

[Anonymous No.10926586]

>>10926482
>send out a bunch of landing-capable spacecraft rigged up sort of like a space station
>don't land the landing-capable spacecraft
>use the rigged up spacecraft instead of a proper space station
>funny angles mean they can't even maneuver properly to insert into orbit
If you weren't going to land them, why even bother to send Starships? Why not just make a proper station ship?

[Anonymous No.10926589]

>>10926538
Why even bother with New Glenn if its already going to be small by 20s standards.

[Anonymous No.10926591]

>>10926538

[Anonymous No.10926594]

>>10926581
at some point you've got to strap an Orion drive to the bottom and yeet further than man has ever yoten before

[Anonymous No.10926596]

Be completely honest, would you suck off Elon Musk if it meant we land on Mars 5 years earlier or he tackles another futuristic project (assuming you are a straight male)?
I would in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous No.10926597]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1166856662336102401

Elon says the next thing after Starship+BFR is a 18 meter diameter vehicle

[Anonymous No.10926602]

>>10926596
I'm bisexual. Yes.

[Anonymous No.10926604]

>>10926497
this is true chadness

>>10926511
I checked my images and it looks like the first bits of hopper appeared in late December. That'll be less than a year from the first steel rings of the hopper prototype to fucking orbit, even with Elon Time. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.10926606]

>>10926552
Imagine the size of Korolev's boner even after being dead and buried for decades.

[Anonymous No.10926607]

>>10926574
>>10926561
B E H O L D
A G A I N

[Anonymous No.10926610]

>>10926597
read thread before posting

[Anonymous No.10926613]

>>10926538
w i d e

[Anonymous No.10926619]

>>10926607
A B S O L U T E U N I T

[Anonymous No.10926623]

>>10926320
Iran is being secretive but there's speculation that they will have at least one or two launches within the next few days.

[Anonymous No.10926627]

>>10926613

[Anonymous No.10926634]

>>10926538
THICC

[Anonymous No.10926636]

>>10926613
based

>>10926634
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10926639]

>>10926607
forgot to account for the stretching between then and current design

[Anonymous No.10926640]

SpaceX gobbles up more market; Foust notice this changes
>1M for a 200 kg satellite (versus $2.25M for a 150 kg sat), with more launch opportunities.

https://www.spacex.com/smallsat

[Anonymous No.10926642]

>>10926640
rip Electron

[Anonymous No.10926643]

Why 18m though? 9m, even 12m seems like more than enough? We need to make the move to orbital shipyards instead of making rockets thicker.

[Anonymous No.10926646]

>>10926640
>earliest launch scheduled March 2020
e x c i t e m e n t

[Anonymous No.10926647]

>>10926643
I can sense through my screen that you’re not an American

[Anonymous No.10926652]

>>10926643
Everything is larger in Ameriac.

[Anonymous No.10926653]

Header tanks

[Anonymous No.10926657]

>>10926538
>>10926639

[Anonymous No.10926661]

>>10926627
>>10926610
Holy crap /b/ and /a/ nostalgia

[Anonymous No.10926666]

>>10926643
>instead of just making a wider rocket we should switch to building rockets entirely within the most expensive and challenging operating environment possible
No. Besides, the underlying architecture of Starship is that by using aerobraking to reduce delta V requirements and by using ISRU propellant, you can bring down the maximum one-time mission delta V to within the range of what can be achieved using chemical propellants, which means yo can do it using real technology and not hyper expensive hyper regulated nuclear thermal propulsion or meme magic electric engines that will never be used in real life (vasimr). Basically, it means you need your vehicles to be able to land on Earth and to survive high aerodynamic pressures, otherwise they aren't practical and therefore aren't useful anyway.

[Anonymous No.10926667]

>>10926643
orbital shipyards are a retarded sci-fi idea

[Anonymous No.10926668]

>>10926643
Women like it thicker.

[Anonymous No.10926669]

>>10926640
F to pay respects to RocketLab

[Anonymous No.10926673]

>>10926653
VERY cute and sex

Also I really am in love with this manufacturing style, "super mission critical landing propellant reserve tanks? Yeah just nail some 2x4s together so they won't roll away. How are you gonna lift them? Weld on a couple lugs, man."

[Anonymous No.10926674]

>>10926667
orbital shipyards make sense for building things that don't need to ever operate in an atmosphere, but that presupposes a space economy where that's something you might want

until we're literally running ice haulers between ceres and mars we don't need orbital shipyards (and even then, mars' thin atmosphere and low gravity would make them unnecessary)

[Anonymous No.10926675]

>>10926667
Yes, everyone should have it beat into them that space planes and orbital shipyards are hold-over concepts from before we had even launched an orbiting satellite, and they ARE NOT PRACTICAL.

[Anonymous No.10926679]

>>10926673
using slightly thicker steel will always be cheaper than treating the rocket like fragile glass (like SLS does)

[Anonymous No.10926681]

>>10926675
water towers will never fly either right

[Anonymous No.10926682]

>>10926674
orbital shipyards do not ever make sense because it involves launching everything required to support construction into space, rather than simply sending the constructed vehicle. what's the fucking point?

[Anonymous No.10926683]

>>10926674
>orbital shipyards make sense for building things that don't need to ever operate in an atmosphere
Right, and until we have fusion rocket engines or something else with the thrust and the specific impulse to compete with chemically powered vehicles that can aerobrake, we will NEVER need to bother building things that can't handle atmosphere or gravity, since everything we do will either be done on the surface of some planet/moon/big asteroid, or inside of the aerobraking-capable chemical vehicles we build (research stations are memes but unironically, it always makes more sense to just launch a Starship-style vehicle and just bring it back down at the end of each mission OR resupply it periodically until its mission ends.

[Anonymous No.10926685]

>>10926681
Water tower is the antithesis of orbital shipyard, dude. Unfortunately I need to inform you that you have posted cringe.

[Anonymous No.10926686]

>>10926683
gravity well slaves will just dock with gravity free ships

[Anonymous No.10926688]

>>10926681
why on earth would you go to the expense of many launches to get one spacecraft into orbit when one would do just fine?

[Anonymous No.10926689]

>>10926686
You don't seem to have actually properly thought about """orbital shipyards"""".

[Anonymous No.10926694]

>>10926643
You obviously dont have a kink for anal expansion.

[Anonymous No.10926697]

>>10926686
gravity or not you can't magic away delta V, and the ability to scrub off >10,000 m/s of velocity without needing any propellant effectively gives Starship about 20 km/s of delta V in the tanks when departing either towards Mars from Earth or to Earth from Mars. Basically Starship with its less-than-hydrolox chemical engines gets better payload mass ratio to Mars than a nuclear thermal hydrogen propelled tug (provided the latter cannot handle atmosphere).

[Anonymous No.10926723]

>>10926682
Because if you send the infrastructure once you have it there. You don't send a new shipyard for every ship, idiot.

[Anonymous No.10926724]

>>10926675
Space planes make sense as descent vehicles. Like the Dreamchaser.

[Anonymous No.10926729]

>>10926723
you still have to send the components. again, what is the fucking point? why add complexity? read your zubrin

[Anonymous No.10926732]

>>10926724
obsoleted by bellyflopping rockets

[Anonymous No.10926733]

>>10926723
No but you have to send all the material to build it into fucking orbit.

[Anonymous No.10926739]

>>10926640
>"launch opportunities"
>12 missions in 2020 alone

They can't keep getting away with it.

[Anonymous No.10926741]

>>10926623
Wow how do i learn more?

[Anonymous No.10926742]

>>10926487
>>10926538
>18 meters in diameter
Jesus H christ, that's a flying skyscraper. I live in a 70ft/21m long trailer, and this thing will be about 90+% the length of my home in width alone.

[Anonymous No.10926746]

>>10926732
this
Spaceplanes are fundamentally unsuited to reentry aerothermodynamics because they have leading edges. Belly-flop reentry with flaps instead of wings presents maximum possible cross sectional area to the oncoming hypersonic flow, pushing the bow shock region far away, minimizing both convective and radiative heating of the structure, requiring less thermal protection, while simultaneously producing much more drag. It's literally more advanced AND easier in every way.

[Anonymous No.10926750]

imma go outside and mark an 18m ring in some dirt. see how big it 'feels'

[Anonymous No.10926752]

>>10926742
why do you live in a trailer anon

[Anonymous No.10926765]

>>10926752
Trailer, mobile home, whatever term floats your boat, and the answer is because lot rent is cheaper than apartment rent around here, and I get more room out of it.
At least the trailer itself is fairly new; some of the shitboxes around here are literally pushing 50+ years old with all that implies.

[Anonymous No.10926769]

>>10926742
your trailer is much larger than my britbong house

[Anonymous No.10926772]

What will reach orbit first? A water tower or the SLS?

[Anonymous No.10926773]

>>10926682
there is a limit to what you can build and launch into space. Once you get big enough, launching into space requires so much energy that it's better to build it in space.

[Anonymous No.10926777]

>>10926773
mass is mass

if some in-orbit assembly is required, there are better solutions than fucking battlestar galactica

[Anonymous No.10926778]

>>10926772
Elon has tweeted that orbital Spaceship will probably fly this year

[Anonymous No.10926797]

it's important to consider that while BFR and Raptor have been in development for ages, the modern incantation of BFR (starship) only came into existence like less than a year ago—by that I mean the stainless steel switch. It's an awfully fast development process.

[Anonymous No.10926801]

>>10926797
imagine when we would be if all industries were as fast as SpaceX

[Anonymous No.10926809]

>>10926778
They're gonna send a starship in orbit to photobomb the DM-2 mission

[Anonymous No.10926813]

>>10926746
>Delightfully counter-intuitive.

[Anonymous No.10926815]

>>10926801
That's cause it's privately owned. Imagine if SpaceX had a parent company or worse, publicly traded. They'll stil be flying Falcon 1s.

[Anonymous No.10926823]

>>10926797
Another thing to consider is that all the technology for BFR has been around for longer than SpaceX has existed.

[Anonymous No.10926831]

>>10926823
Humanity had the tech to reach orbit in the late 1930s

[Anonymous No.10926835]

>>10926831
Unga Goddard had the basic principles of rocketry worked out a mere 30 moons after fire was discovered.

[Anonymous No.10926839]

>>10926653
I like that weld

[Anonymous No.10926840]

[Anonymous No.10926845]

>>10926538
OH GOD OH FUCK MY DICK.
UH
THICCER
T H I C C E R

[Anonymous No.10926852]

>>10926538
How tall would this be? It's obviously not going to scale 1:1 like diameter (or lol 600m rockets, we're not doing that, r-right?)

[Anonymous No.10926863]

>>10926487
>>10926640
jesus christ, the rest of the industry is fucked

[Anonymous No.10926873]

>>10926863
18m rockets is beyond the environment. There's no competition there. Nobody has built something that big, by a couple fold. Imagine an N1 that doesn't taper, so probably more than twice the volume of N1. Building and operating something lime that is outside the context of current launch markets completely. I don't think anyone's even considered a commercial rocket even a third that size. It's a supertanker being compared to a raft.

[Anonymous No.10926876]

>>10926873
I doubt that the 18m BFR would sweep the floor. There are much more smaller payloads than there are larger ones, and those smaller payloads may be better suited on smaller rockets.

[Anonymous No.10926879]

>>10926773
And what point is that, anon? Is it when you 'feel' like it makes more sense to stop building bigger rockets, or is it when the economic forces involved make it so that building a bigger rocket stops being advantageous? Remember that building a bigger rocket always gives you a mass ratio advantage compared to a smaller rocket.

[Anonymous No.10926881]

>>10926823
Not flight-capable FFSC engines, nyuk nyuk

[Anonymous No.10926884]

>>10926823
We've had the ability to expore the moon/mars since 1200s AD

[Anonymous No.10926886]

>>10926876
That's what I mean, an 18m rocket is just outside the scope entirely of both customers and launch providers. Nobody's making anything that would require remotely that capability. The fun part is seeing what customers come up with if the price is low enough. Probably commercial stations at the very least, since Starship 9 is going to blow the doors off orbital tourism. If they can offer it point to point for the cost of an airline ticket, going the extra few hundred m/s to orbit probably won't cost much more.

[Anonymous No.10926888]

>>10926884
No, a gunpowder rocket cannot take you to space, no matter how much you scaled it up. xkcd did a thing on this.

[Anonymous No.10926889]

>>10926888
Not with that attitude

[Anonymous No.10926893]

>>10926524
dunno but I'm a software engineer at a satellite company and we sure as fuck could use more of those

[Anonymous No.10926897]

>>10926840
reported for lewd

>>10926852
Rocket height is a function of diameter, propellant density, and total thrust power. Assuming that Raptor doesn't change between 9m BFR and 18m BDE (big dick energy), then the propellant density stays the same and the thrust power per unit cross sectional area stays the same, which means height actually doesn't change no matter how wide you make the tanks.

If BFR ends up 120 meters tall, don't expect anything to get much taller, unless it either improves considerably on engine chamber pressure (only way to increase thrust power to cross sectional area ratio) or switches to a lower density propellant (hydrolox).

[Anonymous No.10926911]

>>10926873
>probably more than twice the volume of N1
Anon, tapering like N1 means that 18 meter BFR with its chad-like cylindrical walls would have exactly three times the volume, IF the N1 were the same height as 18 m BFR. Considering that 18 m chad fucking rocket is both 1 meter wider and ~15 meters taller than N1, I wouldn't be surprised if it were more than 4 times the volume of the former.

[Anonymous No.10926917]

>>10926879
things grow not only in mass but in size too. At one point the drag is too big to even take off.

[Anonymous No.10926921]

press release
apparently there was a lot of interest from customers after the initial rideshare announcement

[Anonymous No.10926952]

I like Chad Fucking Rocket for the 18 meter monster.

[Anonymous No.10926958]

>>10926552
this looks shooped
I can tell from some of the pixels
And from seeing a lot of shoops in my time
:^)

[Anonymous No.10926959]

>>10926889
more like "not with that specific impulse"

[Anonymous No.10926961]

One thing we don't touch on is the space ports, Modern Vonbroun station designs. I think it's very possible starlink is the engine for the next step.

Remember the retarded million arrays to warm up mars? What if, just maybe Elon is way more ambitious about than anyone expects?

[Anonymous No.10926963]

>>10926911
And I almost guarantee you it'll be even taller than anon's Big Fucking Chode. The BDE will have to have both length and girth, it looks silly like that.

[Anonymous No.10926968]

>>10926897
>reported for lewd

[Anonymous No.10926971]

>>10926741
thought-click the icon, scrub

[Anonymous No.10926977]

>>10926921
Oh, every rideshare is a Starlink mission? That makes a lot of sense.

[Anonymous No.10926984]

>>10926917
The drag on a vehicle ten times as big is not ten times higher than the smaller vehicle, in fact ten of the smaller vehicles have the same thrust and mass as the single much larger vehicle but have to fight through a larger combined drag force. Everything about launch vehicles gets MORE effective and MORE efficient the bigger you go.

[Anonymous No.10926986]

>>10926958
I've been shopping the original bigger and bigger and posting it in several thread and you're the only one who's said anything

[Anonymous No.10926993]

>>10926963
>it looks silly like that.
If you try to make the rocket taller as well as wider you're either going to have to flare the bottom to pack on the additional required engines, or find out some way to double the combustion chamber pressure of the engines you're using, because otherwise your rocket will weigh too fucking much. Going twice as wide adds area to the bottom of the rocket in proportion to the mass, so you don't run out of engine room. Going twice as TALL doesn't add any area at all but does double the mass, and you need to make up the difference.

[Anonymous No.10927001]

>>10926993
I'm assuming SpaceX will be building an F1 or M1 sized engine instead of trying to slam on literally hundreds of Raptors, and flaring the bottom isn't out of the question (but it would be a first for SpaceX)

[Anonymous No.10927005]

[Anonymous No.10927006]

>>10926977
Sounds to me like the SSO missions are not Starlink though, but have garnered enough interest that SpaceX has three dedicated just for them.

[Anonymous No.10927007]

>>10927005
>those fucking fins
build it immediately

[Anonymous No.10927008]

at what point do they just start using ASTM I-beams as internal supports

[Anonymous No.10927011]

>>10927001
>I'm assuming SpaceX will be building an F1 or M1 sized engine
Following the convention, an F1 sized methalox engine should be called the U1?

[Anonymous No.10927012]

>>10927006
That's the joy of reusable boosters, you can just scale second stage production to meet demand. Once Starship is running, it's literally as simple as flying more often (including regular maintenance ofc)

[Anonymous No.10927015]

>>10927011
So if he makes an even bigger rocket with 4 U1s will he call it the U U U U assembly?

[Anonymous No.10927016]

>>10927001
Except building a bigger engine doesn't get you more thrust per square meter of rocket cross sectional area, dude. In fact it can lead to less thrust overall because of packing efficiency issues. Each engine produces more thrust but you can't fit as many. You need to get TWICE the thrust out of the SAME number of EQUAL sized engines, and the only way to do that is by doubling the chamber pressure. This is a fundamental thing that doesn't change with scale factor, rocket engines are limited in how much mass they can lift, and therefore they are limited in how tall a column of structure and propellant they can push that fits within their footprint.

[Anonymous No.10927022]

>>10927005
>mom says it's my turn to shake up the launch industry

[Anonymous No.10927026]

>>10927015

[Anonymous No.10927030]

>>10927012
Rideshare to Moon and Mars next then.

[Anonymous No.10927032]

>>10927005
>Yeah that's right. I'll carry a million ton to orbit how did you know

[Anonymous No.10927033]

>>10927015
It's a big rocket

[Anonymous No.10927034]

±4 pixel accuracy or so for width. included the slight stretch that we're all assuming

[Anonymous No.10927035]

>>10927033
Four U's

[Anonymous No.10927037]

>>10927005
imagine the RUD

[Anonymous No.10927041]

>>10927034
Stardreadnought / Superduperheavy

[Anonymous No.10927044]

>>10927037
BRAAAAAAP

[Anonymous No.10927048]

>>10927033
>"The contract that I just filed with NASA lists me, my supporters, SLS here, but only one of you."
>"The first one to talk gets to stay on my rocket."
>"Who paid you to knock out SLS?"

[Anonymous No.10927057]

>>10927048
Tell me about Elon. Why does he build the depots?

[Anonymous No.10927060]

>>10927037
1 million cubic feet of 1:1 LOX/CH4 yields energy equivalent to 0.0671 KT of TNT. Do with that math what you will

[Anonymous No.10927066]

>>10927037
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2I66dHbSRA

[Anonymous No.10927067]

>>10927057
>He didn't launch so good! Who's next?!
>Alot of loyalty for a hired water tower welder!

[Anonymous No.10927073]

>>10927067
or perhaps he's wondering why someone would fire a welder before throwing him out of a rocket.

[Anonymous No.10927110]

Musk & Jack Ma at 2019 World Artificial Intelligence Conference today (Shanghai, China)

[Anonymous No.10927138]

sci-hub.tw /10.1016/j.actaastro.2005.05.004
Do potential SETI signals need to be decontaminated?
It's a very interesting question.

[Anonymous No.10927157]

Check em

[Anonymous No.10927159]

>>10927157
height won't be 1:1

[Anonymous No.10927163]

>>10927159

[Anonymous No.10927169]

>>10927159
Somebody make 1:2 or 1:0.5 please. A real BDE

[Anonymous No.10927174]

>>10927163
>10m+ wide spaceship window
Holy moly

[Anonymous No.10927182]

>>10927169

[Anonymous No.10927192]

>>10926986
Fuck i didnt noticed

[Anonymous No.10927195]

[Anonymous No.10927210]

>>10927182

[Anonymous No.10927213]

>>10927060
>>10927066
not nuclear but easily halifax tier
https://youtu.be/JKcXSCzcSZ4

[Anonymous No.10927226]

>>10926986
what iteration of shoops is
>>10926552

[Anonymous No.10927232]

>>10926581
>>10926487
The reason is Musk knows full well that Oumuamua is not a piece of rock. He intends on catching up to it.

[Anonymous No.10927254]

>>10927210
Deled dis

[Anonymous No.10927259]

God I fucking hope an SLS failure turns this stupid cunt into a fireball.

It's not Elon's fault she bought a house next to multiple explosives facilities.

[Anonymous No.10927267]

>>10927210
I like the chode one personally.

[Anonymous No.10927268]

>>10926773
False

[Anonymous No.10927299]

>>10926773
WRONG https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.11384.pdf

[Anonymous No.10927441]

>>10926773
>Once you get big enough, launching into space requires so much energy that it's better to build it in space.

Lol what? It requires less energy to send a lot of stuff to space on one big rocket then on several small ones. This is true for every scale.

[Anonymous No.10927444]

>>10926674
>until we're literally running ice haulers between ceres and mars

Mars has an atmosphere good enough for aerobraking. Ice hauler going between Ceres and Mars will thus likely still have an aeroshell.

[Anonymous No.10927454]

>>10926881
Replace Raptor with a methalox FRSC and we could have built Starship back in the 60s. This is half a century overdue.

[Anonymous No.10927463]

>vasimir doesn't work

uhh I was under the impression that vasimir worked perfectly on the ISS except for needing some kind of discharge of ions or roll momentum or something and of course sucking down tons of electricity

[Anonymous No.10927468]

>>10927441
>One big rocket is more efficient than two small rockets and a propellant depot

Shelby spotted

[Anonymous No.10927474]

>>10927454
Nice bait

[Anonymous No.10927485]

>>10927468
Big rocket is more efficient, meaning higher payload fraction. It may not be cheaper, tough. Even Starship is designed for high launch rate and orbital refueling first, size second. The only reason why Starship is so big is because as a system it aims to land tens of thousands of tons on Mars, a huge goal. Otherwise they would have gone with a smaller rocket.

[Anonymous No.10927486]

>>10927474
why bait? it is true

[Anonymous No.10927493]

[Anonymous No.10927497]

>>10927493
Nice. Which tanks are methane and which oxygen? Why those rings on the pipe?

[Anonymous No.10927502]

>>10927493
That’s really cool actually

[Anonymous No.10927503]

>>10926952

> Big Chonk Rocket

[Anonymous No.10927511]

>>10927444

Build the aeroshell from the ice you're hauling.

[Anonymous No.10927514]

has the second hop happened yet?

[Anonymous No.10927533]

HOP WHEN

[Anonymous No.10927555]

>>10927514
>>10927533
ONONONONONONONONONONO...LOOK AT THESE DUDES...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Anonymous No.10927557]

Yea

[Anonymous No.10927583]

E I G H T E E N
I
G
H
T
E
E
N

[Anonymous No.10927588]

Calling it now: Elon is going in on a sea-launch system, there's no way an 18m diameter rocket uses a land pad, the sound pressure would BTFO everything around for miles and miles.

WATER TANKS LAUNCHED FROM WATER.

[Anonymous No.10927599]

It is widely accepted in the industry that spacex is nowhere near financially or technically capable to achieve its so called "starship" goals even if generous downscaling is involved.
Maybe slight improvement to falcon heavy payload capability mostly involving hydrogen upper stage but leaps beyond that lie only in the realm of national mega projects.

I'm surprised some people take that 18meter joke at face value... That's just not possible, and in fact such outragous claims do more harm than good and reduce faith in spacex' management.

Lets be realistic.

[Anonymous No.10927602]

>>10927463
It's great for station keeping and orbit adjusting yeah. For propulsion it's a fucking joke unless you have a magic nuclear power plant that weighs next to nothing or the ability to deploy football field sized solar film panels somehow. The power/weight requirement for the power source is just ridiculous. Nuclear is a total non starter, solar could be a possibility but there are pretty big challenges with deploying such big amounts of solar and even then it's only viable out to Mars or maybe Ceres.

[Anonymous No.10927609]

[Anonymous No.10927610]

>>10927599
Elonmemes tears are more delicious every time.
F9 denialfags BTFO, FH denialfags BTFO and now BFR denialfags on suicide watch., soon to be BTFO.

[Anonymous No.10927611]

>>10927599
Hi Senator, you are glowing nigga.

[Anonymous No.10927612]

>>10927599
...meanwhile

[Anonymous No.10927614]

>>10927599
>Why yes I do work in old space, why do you ask?

[Anonymous No.10927618]

>>10927599
Is this a pasta? Let me try

>It is widely accepted in the industry that spacex is nowhere near financially or technically capable to achieve its so called "Falcon 9" goals even if generous downscaling is involved.
Maybe slight improvement to Falcon 1 payload capability mostly involving hydrogen upper stage but leaps beyond that lie only in the realm of national mega projects.

>I'm surprised some people take that 9 Raptors joke at face value... That's just not possible, and in fact such outragous claims do more harm than good and reduce faith in spacex' management.

>Lets be realistic.

[Anonymous No.10927619]

>>10927612
>That cope about water towers on sandy soils

Nigger what the fuck lmao

[Anonymous No.10927623]

>>10927618
That first sentence, you are replying to, is 100% invalidated because of the word, "if". That single word just makes everything fantasy speculation. There's really no point in replying to that post.

[Anonymous No.10927629]

>>10927610
megatonnes of btfo rolling over the land, it's fucking beautiful

[Anonymous No.10927630]

>>10927463
IT's so amazing it makes any rocket practically scifi tier. Until you calculate the mass of the power source that is then its stuck in whatever orbit your chemicals left it in. Careful with the fine print they don't mention those things in the commercials.

[Anonymous No.10927633]

>>10927610
Enjoy it until the end which comes the moment spacex kills a bunch of people and gets nationalized or split.

[Anonymous No.10927635]

>>10927633
cope harder shelbyfag

[Anonymous No.10927638]

>>10927623
It's sound like a pasta though. Nobody sane would think this way about SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.10927639]

>>10927638
>Nobody sane
Which is why we shouldn't need to talk about it.

[Anonymous No.10927644]

I just want to conquer space, bros

[Anonymous No.10927646]

>>10927638
>nobody sane
Plenty of sane but insanely biased people think that way hoping maybe reality will go along with their hopes dreams and maybe even pockets.

[Anonymous No.10927648]

[Anonymous No.10927656]

>>10927454
>we could have built Starship back in the 60s.
except for that sweet avionics that lets it land on its butt

[Anonymous No.10927659]

>>10927638
Plenty of insane people around if you haven't noticed. Especially around Elon.

[Anonymous No.10927660]

>>10927656
Yes we could have, just would have meant more mass dedicated to computing. Certainly in the 70s the computing power would have been enough to not need huge computers.

[Anonymous No.10927686]

Bigelow Aerospace just posted this photo of interview inside their inflatable module.

[Anonymous No.10927688]

>>10927656
Plenty of options ranging from ground based automated system, to semi automated systems, to pilots. Payload may be traded for hover capability, just as it can be traded for all kinds of things so long as there's payload to be traded.
Something like that was possible as continuation of the saturn, a cost effective space transportation system. Alas public and political winds blew in the direction of SHUT IT DOWN and things took turn for the worst both in terms of cost and in terms of capability.
Also, BFR is doable with gas generators like the merlin so you don't even need advanced combustion types. You just lose payload and mars isru.

[Anonymous No.10927701]

>>10926503
Raptor 2 will probably be in the RD-170 or F-1 class, power-wise.

Actually, what would be utterly lit would be if Musk copied the RD-170 and Raptor 2 was just 4 raptor combustion Chambers built around a massive new single turbopump assembly.

[Anonymous No.10927705]

>>10927232
How would you get the delta-V needed to catch and intercept it with anything short of nuclear?

It'd have to be something like a Starship launching a NERVA-powered 3rd stage that in turn launched a New Horizons-size probe with multiple RTGs powering ion engines.

[Anonymous No.10927708]

>>10926653

[Anonymous No.10927784]

>>10927599
It is widely accepted in the industry that NASA is nowhere near administratively nor technically capable to achieve its so called "space launch system" goals even if generous delaying is involved.
Maybe slight improvement to the commerical programs involving better support but leaps beyond that lie only in the realm of privately funded projects.

I'm surprised some people take that Block 2 joke at face value... That's just not possible, and in fact such outragous claims do more harm than good and reduce faith in NASA's management.

Lets be realistic.

[Anonymous No.10927842]

>>10927705
an 18m diameter bfr with 150+ raptor engines should do it

[Anonymous No.10927854]

>>10926921
rocketlab should throw in the towel. It’s over

[Anonymous No.10927857]

>>10927842
that's far, far too many raptors
the harmonics would clang it into the fuck realm
A brand new engine will need to be designed for Chungus Prime

[Anonymous No.10927861]

>>10927686
they still exist?

[Anonymous No.10927866]

>>10927861
Last I'd heard they're still planning to launch their first B330 hab to the ISS on a Vulcan. That will basically expand the habitable volume of the station by a full 1/3rd, and they want to send another out to act as a lunar station similar to Gateway, except their single module will I think have more habitable space than Gateway does.

[Anonymous No.10927872]

>>10927599
Starship will fly before SLS.

[Anonymous No.10927882]

>>10927872
Shit, the bootleg starship testbed has already flown before SLS.

[Anonymous No.10927885]

>>10927656
That's why all the functionally-identical concepts from the 60s used wings instead. They still would have been every bit as big and re-useable as Starship/Super Heavy, though.

[Anonymous No.10927898]

>>10926487
>>10926538
Mother of God, just think of the sonic boom that it'll make on re-entry.

[Anonymous No.10927903]

>>10927872
Seems unlikely, but since SLS's dates keep slipping it might be a good possibility. If it happens, then NASA is dead to me.

[Anonymous No.10927925]

>>10927638
Kek

[Anonymous No.10927929]

>>10927872
Starship flying is actually kinda subjective with the prototype regime they've been doing. Elon is talking about putting one in orbit in mere months, but since it'd be a prototype with possibly many missing features (I'm thinking fewer engines, temporary heat shield, no cargo/passenger space, no refueling capability), I dunno if it'd count.
An operational Starship beating SLS is possible, but proto-Starship beating SLS is near certain.

[Anonymous No.10927931]

>>10927872
It does not even matter which rocket will fly first. Which rocket will fly the second, or the third time? You know, flying actual missions and payloads?

SLS may fly first and then it is back to twiddling our thumbs for two years. Starship will fly and then rack up a dozen flights quickly.

SLS is obsolete already.

[Anonymous No.10927942]

>>10927931
>SLS may fly first and then it is back to twiddling our thumbs for two years.
It's already twiddling its thumbs just waiting for the green test. Like I can't find a reason why it hasn't been shipped to Stennis already.

[Anonymous No.10927947]

>>10927903
>seems unlikely
Elon claims October for Mk1 making orbit

[Anonymous No.10927949]

>>10926504
>anniversary of SpaceX reaching orbit
can't wait to hear the awkward early SpaceX/Falcon 1 failures monologue again

[Anonymous No.10927952]

>>10927942
You can't just DO TESTS and LAUNCH ROCKETS what if you set a brushfire or annoy NIMBYs?

[Anonymous No.10927954]

>>10926487
There will be no launch pad left

[Anonymous No.10927955]

>>10927949
>early SpaceX/Falcon 1 failures monologue again
People cared enough about hating on SpaceX back then to complain about them?

[Anonymous No.10927957]

>>10926673
Every day Elon seems to me more and more like Malenfant and his Big Dumb Booster from Manifold: Time.

[Anonymous No.10927959]

>>10927955
No, he means Elon's teary eyed "this was our last launch, we were bankrupt, it had to work" speil

[Anonymous No.10927975]

>>10927952
>NIMBYs
I haven't heard about them in relation to spaceflight until very recently, did something happen with them?

[Anonymous No.10927976]

With the speed they are building this there is bound to be some kind of total loss of one of the test rockets.
They will learn a lot from it but the media will lose its shit over this and nasa&shelby&etc... will use this to fuck over spaceX.

[Anonymous No.10927977]

Space Command is getting activated today, the press conference will be on in awhile.

[Anonymous No.10928028]

>>10927226
Like 4 or 5, I didn't save a series or anything I just kept the photoshop file so i could easily make it a bit bigger each time without having to go through the whole process

[Anonymous No.10928042]

>>10927975
Boca Chica residents bitching about living in the coolest house in the world

[Anonymous No.10928053]

>>10927612
With a box of SCRAPS

[Anonymous No.10928058]

>>10927210
Saturn V looks so tiny

[Anonymous No.10928063]

>>10927949
>You know... people don't realise but we were super close to going bankrupt with Falcon 1.....
>.....
>*elon visibility teary eyed*
>Audience: ....
>Elon: ....
> ....
> ....
>Elon: Yeah... super close....
>....
>....
>Audience: ....
>Elon: ....
>Everyone: ....

[Anonymous No.10928065]

>>10928063
Is there a video?

[Anonymous No.10928068]

>>10928065
I feel like I've seen him do this like 5 times. Every time the topic comes up in an interview. Maybe some other anon will have a vid and timestamp handy.

[Anonymous No.10928069]

>>10928058
For you.

[Anonymous No.10928072]

>>10927842
No, bigger does not mean more delta V, it means more payload mass to the same delta V.

[Anonymous No.10928078]

>>10928072
Or same payload mass with higher delta v.

[Anonymous No.10928081]

>>10928078
Only to a certain degree because the dry mass of the vehicle also scales up with the wet mass. To get appreciably more delta V once you're already close to the limits in terms of wet-dry mass ratio, your only option is to increase the specific impulse of your engines.

[Anonymous No.10928085]

John Carmack on Joe Rogan is worth listening to bais. Talks at some length about his Rocket Company, Spacex and what Blue Origin is doing wrong. Very enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.10928092]

It’s pretty scary when these renders of the BDE make Starship look like a toothpick

[Anonymous No.10928101]

>>10928069
If i go on starship maiden human voyage, will I die?

[Anonymous No.10928106]

>>10927110
Some quality laughs. Elon really rekz him.

[Anonymous No.10928107]

>>10928058
Those are words I didn't think I'd ever see

[Anonymous No.10928110]

>>10928101
It would be extremely momentous.

[Anonymous No.10928117]

>>10928110
For you

[Anonymous No.10928143]

>JWST will never fly
>SLS will never fly
>Orion will never fly

[Anonymous No.10928160]

>>10927686
looks like bigelow is bringing back the y2k aesthetic

[Anonymous No.10928175]

>>10928160
It looks like a set from an Austin Powers film.

[Anonymous No.10928187]

>>10927872
So?
The requirements for SLS cancellation are clear

>10 HLV flights
>10 HLV flights from a second provider
>equivalent program to the SLS to guarantee jobs of critical to the national security industries

Musk can colonize jupiter as long as he's doing it with his money. But he sure as hell ain't getting taxpayer money to fund his pet projects.

[Anonymous No.10928189]

>>10928143
For all the bureaucratic bullshit surrounding it, I really do want JWST to eventually launch. If it works that'll be a kickass telescope.

[Anonymous No.10928190]

>>10926653
I AM BEATING MY MEAT SO HARD

[Anonymous No.10928192]

>>10926320
Eartgh is flat

[Anonymous No.10928197]

>>10926653
That’s a nice pair of cans.

[Anonymous No.10928198]

>>10928189
It's so big, can we handle it?

[Anonymous No.10928203]

>>10928198
You know damn well it’s going to be broken before it ever does anything useful.

[Anonymous No.10928204]

>>10928189
Oh they'll deliver... eventually.

The question is how much more could have been gotten if corruption was kept under control.

If the launch industry is any indication I suspect the answer is a lot.

[Anonymous No.10928211]

>>10928203
Well that's okay, we'll just send up a shuttle crew to fi-
oh, right.

[Anonymous No.10928216]

>>10928204
I hope that New Glenn and Starship upstage the launch industry so much that it triggers a mass cleaning of government management in regards to that industry.

[Anonymous No.10928217]

>>10928198
We are gone have such awesome telescops with the starship

[Anonymous No.10928219]

>>10928187
>equivalent program to the SLS to guarantee jobs of critical to the national security industries

Treating space program as a jobs program is why we havent left LEO for 50 years.

[Anonymous No.10928223]

>>10926653
This is not aerospace grade hardware.

[Anonymous No.10928233]

>>10928219
This. Spaceflight should be for spaceflight's sake.

>inb4 but that's just the political reality of things you just have to accept it
No, it's unacceptable. Just accepting it made spaceflight regress for 50 years. Just accepting it killed 14 people needlessly. Just accepting it broke the dreams of people who loved spaceflight. It needs to change.

[Anonymous No.10928252]

>>10927686
first i thought "cool" but then i wondered just how much time and money were required to develop an inflatable plastic bag

[Anonymous No.10928253]

>>10928223
but it's going to space anyways, so doesn't that make it aerospace hardware

[Anonymous No.10928259]

>>10928198
>diameter 6.5m
just wait a little longer and launch it unfolded in a 9m gargo bay.

[Anonymous No.10928261]

>>10928252
Apparently alot if you keep scaring off your engineers.

[Anonymous No.10928265]

So the Starships that are getting made now. Are they full completed Starships or prototype test beds??

I don't see windows and shit. I take it these are totally bare bones.

[Anonymous No.10928275]

>>10928198
How crazy would it be if we were able to launch a whole fleet of big dumb telescopes with almost no moving parts and 8 meter mirrors

[Anonymous No.10928276]

>>10928265
test articles

[Anonymous No.10928281]

>>10928265
Suborbital / orbital prototypes

[Anonymous No.10928284]

>>10928265
These are very likely the testbeds. They'll get up to orbital and generally make sure the architecture they have planned actually works, and then mass production of boosters and starships begins.

[Anonymous No.10928286]

>>10928275
But then how can you send gibbs to contractors?

[Anonymous No.10928295]

>>10928275
I thought I saw some concept someone did of a really wide telescope constructed in orbit by some little drones using a big stack of smaller mirrors. Anyone remember what I'm thinking of? I don't recall the specifics but I might've seen it here.

[Anonymous No.10928297]

>>10928265
StarHopper is total barebone to test the raptor engine's avionics/flight/landing capability.

Starship Mk1 are prototypes that will do 20km suborbital flight in Oct(or with bit of delays to Nov). Mk2 will do more one after that.

[Anonymous No.10928300]

>>10928297
I know it's too early even by the best estimates but I'd love if MK1 flew on the second for my birthday.

[Anonymous No.10928302]

>>10928300
How old are you in Elon-years?

[Anonymous No.10928310]

>>10928302
Are Elon-years the same as Martian years? That'd make sense I guess, if so 16 Martian years roughly if this is accurate.
https://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/age/

[Anonymous No.10928316]

>>10928211
No problem at all, these days we can just launch a Starship to scoop the whole entire thing into it's cargo fairing and return it to the ISS or something for maintenance. Speaking of which, isn't that the plan for the new Chinese station and it's companion telescope?

[Anonymous No.10928324]

>>10928316
>isn't that the plan for the new Chinese station and it's companion telescope?
First I'm hearing of it, got more info anon? I'd like to know more.

[Anonymous No.10928336]

>>10928316
i only knew that NASA goddard was planning to launch some of the telescopes they are making inside a starship.

[Anonymous No.10928339]

>>10926623
At least one of the Iranian launches ended in a RUD.

[Anonymous No.10928341]

>>10928336
>inb4 Shelby orders that the telescope is to be put on a future undetermined launch of SLS to further justify the rocket's existence

[Anonymous No.10928343]

>>10928265
Anything forward of the propellant tanks is going to be interchangable between four variants, it makes sense to get the propulsion system built and tested before designing a passenger version, a tanker version, a yeet cannon, and a satellite launcher

[Anonymous No.10928344]

>>10928339
Hopefully they're not using hypergolics.

[Anonymous No.10928345]

>>10928344
They almost certainly are since their entire technology base is North Korean hand me downs (lmao) based on Scuds (l m a o).

[Anonymous No.10928346]

Space Command announcement will be streamed here https://www.c-span.org/video/?463778-1/president-trump-launches-us-space-command at 4pm EST.

[Anonymous No.10928351]

>>10927588
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F--3aBhAKCY

[Anonymous No.10928359]

>>10928346
Space Command is both a goofy name and an awesome one somehow.

[Anonymous No.10928360]

When will the Chinese start innovating instead of copying? How long did it take the Japanese and Koreans?

[Anonymous No.10928366]

>>10928360
>socially oppressive communist dictatorship
>innovating
when they stop being a socially oppressive communist dictatorship

[Anonymous No.10928377]

>>10928366
Another decade or two probably, they're getting restless over there.

[Anonymous No.10928392]

>>10928360
Economy will probably go into the shitter before that happens.

[Anonymous No.10928401]

Does China stand a chance to beat the US to the moon? (Just on government projects alone, ignoring solo private companies)

[Anonymous No.10928404]

>>10928401
probably.

[Anonymous No.10928412]

>>10928401
As it currently stands, I doubt it because China is focused on their upcoming space station. Plus they barely launch people into space as is. Meanwhile NASA seem hellbent on getting to the Moon asap. Things could change real quick though.

[Anonymous No.10928432]

>>10928401
Yes, because they're an oppressive communist dictatorship. They can throw resources and bodies at the problem without any worry about Congress.

[Anonymous No.10928448]

>>10928359
Marc Scott Zicree will be furious. Underrated youtube channel.

[Anonymous No.10928460]

>>10928432
Because that worked so well for the USSR.

[Anonymous No.10928501]

>>10928085
timestamp for that that?

[Anonymous No.10928509]

>>10928460
"is there a chance" the Soviets could have won the moon race? Yes. It didn't work in the end, but NASA worked faster then.

[Anonymous No.10928526]

>>10928509
Now imagine if NASA back then worked at an SLS-pace.

>"After $50 Billion (in 1973 USD) we are planning to launch Apollo 1 late 1971, although this date is expected to slip."

[Anonymous No.10928563]

>>10928509
It didn’t really work out for the Soviets anyway, it all went down hill after Korolev died.

[Anonymous No.10928571]

>>10928563
>make sure chinkolev-san stays alive
>win moon race

[Anonymous No.10928577]

Starship test heat shield tiles after reentry on a Dragon.

[Anonymous No.10928597]

>>10928577
captain, how bad does this look like?

[Anonymous No.10928601]

https://space.nss.org/ask-not-for-whom-the-bell-tolls-whither-sls-orion/

[Anonymous No.10928611]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/nasa-inspector-general-begs-congress-to-let-space-agency-do-its-job/

>NASA’s inspector general has apparently had enough of meddling by Congress

[Anonymous No.10928615]

>>10928577
Looks toasty. They'll have to replace them after each flight, won't they? This reminds me of Shuttle in a bad way...

[Anonymous No.10928629]

>>10928611
Can't wait to see this get ignored by Congress later.

[Anonymous No.10928631]

>>10928597
>>10928615
Recall, capsules generally enter the atmosphere steeper and thus substantially hotter than spaceplanes or falling water towers.

[Anonymous No.10928635]

>>10928597
Id figure SpaceX were expecting them to fall apart a bit. Get the most useful data about how much heat they can tolerate.

[Anonymous No.10928641]

>>10926490
>>10926495
>>10926503
I was expecting a three stage BFR first

[Anonymous No.10928644]

>>10928509
No but they would have dominated the post-apollo era if they weren't dumb communists who scrapped their nearly complete rocket.

[Anonymous No.10928647]

>>10928597
I suggest revisiting active cooling.

Might turn out for the best in the long run.

[Anonymous No.10928669]

>>10927110
Mogged

[Anonymous No.10928678]

>>10928611
He has been inspector general for ten years, and only now he begins to think that maybe possibly perhaps the SLS is behind schedule and over budget, and that there might be cheaper commercial alternatives?

[Anonymous No.10928679]

>>10928601
The cancellation requirements read like bad rpg questline.
One of them essentially makes the whole cancellation pointless because it states if you take away my toy you must give me another one of equal value. Why take it away then?
I'm betting on embarrassment and or chinese to cancel it.
SLS will not survive musicians moonrave partying on a large space yacht while 3 sweaty dykes in diapers fight over prime estate in a car trunk.

[Anonymous No.10928690]

>>10926589
Kind of wonder this myself. Though I'd guess once they've built New Glenn they'll have a lot of the IP developed that's required to scale up.

[Anonymous No.10928691]

>>10928253
You need to go through a rigorous certification process to become "aerospace hardware".
Launching has nothing to do with it.
You need to keep the thing grounded to do the proper paper work to ensure it‘s actual aerospace hardware.

[Anonymous No.10928707]

>>10928691
Oh right, so that the "proper" contractors get paid a hundred times more for a "special" part that a cheaper part sold by a different vendor could do.

[Anonymous No.10928713]

>>10928615
The major difference between starship and shuttle is that for like 90% of starship's hull, the tiles will be exactly the same and will bolt on, so they dont have to do this fuckstupid "every tile has its own slot and takes 40 hours to bond to the frame" bullshit the shuttle tiles had.
On top of that, the substrate beneath can take more heat as it's steel and not aluminium.

[Anonymous No.10928716]

>>10928707
Safety and reliability come at a price.

[Anonymous No.10928730]

>>10928716
Meanwhile SpaceX uses cheaper off-the-shelf parts and has made a rocket that's just as reliable as other currently flying rockets of comparable size.

[Anonymous No.10928733]

>>10928713
Interesting trivia I've read somewhere. In some pre-columbia flight a specific shuttle had near identical tile damage that killed the aforementioned bird. But, the damaged tile lied below some steel component instead of the usual alluminium and that made all the difference in the world. Wish I remembered the name of the sts flight but I didn't really care about that crap then.

[Anonymous No.10928738]

>>10928730
And this is why they aren't real aerospace grade company.

[Anonymous No.10928742]

>>10928713
I'm always amazed that NASA didn't try to iterate on the Shuttle tiles. IIRC, the tiles were the largest slowdown on reusing the Shuttle.

[Anonymous No.10928744]

>>10928716
Safety and reliability come from launching early and launching often. Not from endless certification studies.

[Anonymous No.10928747]

>>10928738
And hopefully never will be. Aerospace-grade is a meme.

[Anonymous No.10928751]

>>10928733
Columbia was a leading edge strike, the tile incident you're talking about took out a tile that was backed by a steel substructure.

>>10928742
Pretty sure they weren't allowed to, cause jerbs.

[Anonymous No.10928754]

>>10928691
or we can yolo a water tower until it works enough times that we trust it

[Anonymous No.10928755]

>>10928738
In that case, what you define as a "real aerospace grade company" should be reevaluated.

[Anonymous No.10928758]

>>10928742
Many proposals. Some of which probably will worm their way into starship if it uses ceramics. None of them reached the shuttles because firing maintenance workers is political suicide, and there were a lot of maintenance workers on the shuttles.

[Anonymous No.10928766]

>>10928751
>Pretty sure they weren't allowed to, cause jerbs.
I thought it was because the Shuttle was already expensive enough, and the US government didn't feel it was necessary to give NASA even more money. Either way, it's a lame excuse.

>>10928758
I believe the X-33 had many Shuttle upgrade concepts in it, so there may be some good ideas in that.

[Anonymous No.10928774]

Silence. Mr. President is speaking.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1167175093241438214

[Anonymous No.10928777]

>>10928412
Oh yeah, I can easily see NASA speeding up now. What with SLS remaining the critical lynchpin of all their plans and it continuing to slip.
I mean EM1 is just a shitty test flight and god knows how long it‘ll take them to get to EM2.
Let alone having another SLS ready to lift their meme station that their entire jobs program revolves around.

[Anonymous No.10928780]

this is both hilarious and sad:
http://astrobiology.com/2019/05/nasa-oig-audit-management-of-nasas-europa-mission.html
So NASA's been wanting to send a mission to Europa for a while, the Europa Clipper(it ain't an orbiter, but close to it) and congress wants a reason for the SLS to exist, so congress funded Europa Clipper with funding contingent on it being launched on SLS. Except SLS keeps getting delayed and it has a low launch rate. So because of the Moon mission the SLS they were gonna use for Europa Clipper is going to the Moon. This means they can't make the congressionally mandated launch date of 2023 and the mission's delayed at least two years. Oh and just storing the Europa Clipper costs millions of dollars per month. NASA continues to maintain "continues to maintain spacecraft capabilities to accommodate both the SLS and two commercial launch vehicles, the Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy." So even NASA doesn't want to use the SLS.

[Anonymous No.10928782]

>>10928777
>What with SLS remaining the critical lynchpin of all their plans and it continuing to slip
But is it profitable to keep delaying SLS due to how the program is structured?

[Anonymous No.10928783]

>>10928766
x-33 is a great example of how not to do things. Some say it was intentionally made as hard as possible precisely so that it becomes impossible and the shuttles can go on...

[Anonymous No.10928788]

this makes my worry become the big worry

[Anonymous No.10928792]

>>10928788
This is why making two prototypes was a good idea after all.

[Anonymous No.10928796]

>>10928780
>Oh and just storing the Europa Clipper costs millions of dollars per month.
Where the hell are they keeping the thing? At a 6 star penthouse with a gold plated bathroom? Just a clean air conditioned warehouse should do.

[Anonymous No.10928799]

>>10928788
Better tie down those cranes.

[Anonymous No.10928803]

>>10928788

[Anonymous No.10928804]

>>10928796
Aerospace Grade Clean Air Conditioned Warehouse.

[Anonymous No.10928807]

>>10928799
>if we allow the crane to swing freely with the entire starship hanging from it, nothing will be damaged
>delightfully counter-intuitive

[Anonymous No.10928809]

>>10928799
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpmTe3TDdVU

[Anonymous No.10928811]

>>10928738
Wait.. why? Because they cost less? Is that the only reason?

[Anonymous No.10928813]

>>10928811
I think he's either joking or trolling. SpaceX is by definition an aerospace company.

[Anonymous No.10928814]

>>10928509
I mean Americans started the moon race knowing full well that Russia probably didn‘t have any plans for it yet and they might be able to get a lead that way. They were right. Russia took a while to commit to their own moon program and when they did they were still lacking the resources they needed to properly test their stuff.
Korolev dying on them in the middle of that was probably the last nail for the N1 program. Well that and all the explosions.

I‘m still sad that the next two N1s were just thrown in the trash after being completed. They were learning and maybe the next ones could‘ve worked out. Although they probably thought that the last 3 iterations as well.

[Anonymous No.10928815]

>>10928799

[Anonymous No.10928817]

>>10928814
You can blame communism for a lot of things but "oops lead engineer died lol" isn't really one of them

[Anonymous No.10928819]

>>10928817
But he died because of communism.

[Anonymous No.10928821]

>>10928366
I don't understand this meme that it's impossible to be innovative unless one has political freedom, as if having the ability to slag off your political leaders (for example) unleashes Newtonian levels of genius or something. I only ever seem to see this in US-centric forums, whereas the evidence shows the USSR were plenty innovative, notwithstanding the dire economic backdrop.

[Anonymous No.10928822]

>>10928817
Not sure if its exactly related to communism or just how the Soviets were organized, but it wasn't just that the lead engineer died. He was the largest political supporter who while had absolute control over the Soviet space program he also had rivals under him who were looking for any opportunity to crush his plans. Him dying meant that his rivals were free to completely trash the N1.

Or at least that's what I've gathered.

[Anonymous No.10928823]

>>10928821
Watch the miniseries Chernobyl. If the Party says something, it's true. Regardless of whether it's actually true. That can have devastating consequences in engineering and development.

[Anonymous No.10928833]

>>10928821
Keep in mind Korolev died young from a complication to surgery that would not have killed him if the Soviets did not ruin his health by locking him in a gulag for years after he was condemned. He literally lead their rocket program while imprisoned in the gulag kek. Russia eats its children

[Anonymous No.10928845]

>>10928821
>be in good close relations with great wise leader(s) = be allowed to do stuff
>not be in any relations with great wise leader(s) = not allowed to do any stuff
>be in bad rela = no such people

If you don't see how such system tends to lead to less and less "stuff" being done then you are an idiot. Pet projects of great leaders such as massive worthless architectural concrete tombs are piss easy almost as easy as stamping a paper, yet things that are incredibly useful but not within the immediate area of interest of the great leader - things like different types of pants to wear, or working tvs, or banans and eventually any food - get the back seat if they get a seat at all.
Communism is utterly, completely, irredeemably failed disastrous system, cancer of nations.
t. eastern european

[Anonymous No.10928847]

>>10928823
>>10928833
But it's just possible that a. a future autocratic regime might learn the lessons of the Soviets and act differently, whilst still managing to preserve their power and b. with a big enough population you can find plenty of brilliant engineers that don't give a shit about political freedom and are quite happy to toe the party line.

I just see this 'Chinese can't innovate!', 'All Chinks do is copy!', 'Bugmen!' stuff everywhere and can't help think it's just a massive cope when the evidence is there's plenty of Chinese innovation happening.

[Anonymous No.10928854]

>>10928847
>there's plenty of Chinese innovation happening

what are their innovations in aerospace?

[Anonymous No.10928862]

I mean, soviet communism is kinda responsible for Korolev’s death, considering his health got fucked up by gulag which lead to his early death. Then again Glushko, who built all the notable rocket engines for the Soviet’s and Proton + Energia is also partly responsible, as he handed Korolev over to the KGB in the 1930s.

[Anonymous No.10928883]

>>10928845
But China isn't Communist, is it? It's something different. And it's still an open question as to whether it's possible to have a successful capitalist totalitarian state survive over the long term. Obviously in the West, all we hear is that it is not sustainable and as the middle class grows they will inevitably clamour for democracy - because democracy is working out so well here in the UK wrt Brexit ha ha.

I'm not pro-China/totalitarianism BTW, just observing that if a country can deliver high living standards to its citizens perhaps that might be enough to suppress political dissent, and not having that one thing might not make a jot of difference to scientific progress. Certainly the US seems to be pretty f-ing paranoid about the number of PhDs etc. China is producing these days, which suggests policy makers etc. are not so dismissive.

.>>10928854
I'm not an expert in aerospace, but they did orbit and inhabit their own space station recently. I think it'd be a bit rich to handwave that away as not innovative. I bet they had to solve loads of problems on their own.

Apart from that, China is basically the world's workshop these days. Plenty of innovation going on there.

[Anonymous No.10928894]

>>10928862
And Korolev’s death basically killed any hope of the Soviet’s winning the space race, so I guess communism prevented them from winning. Also, the communist state bureau system was hella bureaucratic (this is where the word originates from) with only exceptional individuals like K & G being able to influence the direction of the government, so when they died or lost favour everything went to shit because engineers had no influence over projects.

[Anonymous No.10928902]

>>10928883
>I'm not an expert in aerospace, but they did orbit and inhabit their own space station recently. I think it'd be a bit rich to handwave that away as not innovative.

This is Mir’s core module from the 1980s:

[Anonymous No.10928905]

>>10928902
This is the yet to be launched Chinese modular space station’s core:

[Anonymous No.10928909]

>>10928883
This is the Russian Soyuz capsule:

[Anonymous No.10928914]

>>10928909
This is the Chinese Shenzhou capsule:

[Anonymous No.10928926]

>>10928883
This is the Soviet’s small Salyut space station:

[Anonymous No.10928927]

>>10928902
>>10928905
To be fair to the Chinese, "tin can with six-sided structural adapter on one end" is a perfectly serviceable design for a space station core stage.

[Anonymous No.10928931]

>>10928926
This is China’s small Tiangong space station:

[Anonymous No.10928934]

>>10928615
>>10928597
>>10928577
Guys, ignore the colors, those tiles were basically untouched by the reentry. They're dirty because the heat shield is still mostly PICA-X and that shit works by burning away, releasing vaporized soot and tar, which stuck to the Starship tiles a bit.
Also consider that those tiles were dunked in the ocean and went for a swim for a few hours. The fact that they held up as well as they did on a reentry that is probably hotter than anything the actual Starship would experience is very promising.

[Anonymous No.10928940]

>>10928647
Active cooling is best for ultra high energy atmospheric entry, like rapid-transfer interplanetary aerobraking maneuvers, or aerobrake maneuvers in gas giant atmospheres. For something like reentry from Earth orbit, you don't need active cooling.

[Anonymous No.10929006]

>>10928931
To reiterate: people in the US that are paid to worry about these types of things for a living seem anything but laid back about China's progress.

[Anonymous No.10929017]

is 4chan kill or what

[Anonymous No.10929027]

test

[Anonymous No.10929035]

>>10929027
test successful

[Anonymous No.10929047]

>>10929017
Someone must've spilled lube on the server again.

[Anonymous No.10929083]

What if we nuked Venus?

[Anonymous No.10929094]

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-27/space-cancer-frontier-uts-cells/11454430?pfmredir=sm
???
>0g kills cancer
if this is real and the trial on the ISS goes well, it's a hot fucking meme

[Anonymous No.10929115]

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1167236236404305926
Starhopper is now just a static test stand - will not fly anymore. All further tests will be done in Starship

[Anonymous No.10929113]

>>10929083
probably wouldn't help

building a massive sun-shield maybe?

[Anonymous No.10929119]

>>10929094
wtf

[Anonymous No.10929128]

>>10929113
>>10929083
I don't think you can possibly do anything to help Venus. Wiki said you'd need to overturn the top several kilometers of crust over the entire planet (to sequester carbon as carbonate).

[Anonymous No.10929169]

>>10929128
So cracking the bastard and building spess tubes out of it is then.

[Anonymous No.10929170]

Any guesses as to why Elon delayed a presentation he was ready to give nearly a week ago to a month from now?

[Anonymous No.10929172]

>>10929170
waiting for the hop turned into waiting for the anniversary of making orbit with Falcon 1 & Mk1 starship being completed

[Anonymous No.10929193]

>>10928577
What tile is the starship tile exactely? They all looks alike

[Anonymous No.10929200]

>>10929193
The 4 tiles that look distinctly different? There's a noticeable gap between them and the surrounding PICA-X tiles.

[Anonymous No.10929203]

>>10929193
The 4 tiles that look distinctly different? There's a noticeable gap between them and the surrounding PICA-X tiles.

[Anonymous No.10929212]

>>10928460
something tells me that if america lost however many millions of men and tens of billions in lost economic output due to war, they would not have made the moonshot quite so easily. bear in mind the USSR went from ravaged shithole to a shithole that beat the unharmed US in multiple space goals.

[Anonymous No.10929215]

>>10928758
>because firing maintenance workers is political suicide

can you elaborate on this? are they political appointments or what? idgi

[Anonymous No.10929216]

>>10928817
it's almost exactly why died, he got the shit beat out of him in the gulag so badly it led to kidney disorders, among other things

[Anonymous No.10929242]

>>10929094
>The simulator mimics the space environment by reducing gravity.
How does one simulate microgravity, on Earth?

[Anonymous No.10929250]

>>10929242
It's pretty ghetto it basically simulates a net zero g when measured over a period of time by randomly rotating the petri dish. So it's less "cancer dies in 0g" and more "cancer dies when we shake it, wonder what it would do in space"

[Anonymous No.10929331]

>>10929250
Whats the update on Space Force, Americans? All party affiliations/hate aside has anyone hear anything rational and objective about its likelihood of getting Congressional approval. Does it depend entirely on Trump winning 2020?

[Anonymous No.10929430]

>>10929331
Space Command has been reactivated. A dedicated combat branch will require an act of Congress, and that will be probably contingent on President Trump being reelected and the House flipping in 2020.

[Anonymous No.10929431]

>>10929242
The only ways are neutral buoyancy and the vomit comet. The vomit comet only gives you a minute at a time (or is it 30 seconds?) Neutral buoyancy is fine for practicing EVA missions, but your internal organs are still under the effect of gravity. And sky diving too, but not the vertical wind tunnel kind.

[Anonymous No.10929479]

[Anonymous No.10929507]

whats that blue thing?

[Anonymous No.10929511]

>>10929507
A blue synthetic fiber tarp.

[Anonymous No.10929530]

>>10926365
The US dollar stopped being backed by gold -or anything- after 1971. That's why the enormous inflation that will pop up the american economy in a few years

[Anonymous No.10929626]

>>10929479
Didn't realize the Enterprise was so small.

[Anonymous No.10929649]

>>10929430
Both houses of congress have backed creating a space force of some sort. They will meet next month to finalize the proposal before voting on it. Expect a space force in october.

[Anonymous No.10929744]

https://www.dezeen.com/2019/08/29/space-hotel-architect-von-braun-space-station/

[Anonymous No.10929866]

>>10926653
new shit

[Anonymous No.10929980]

>>10929479
Remember, it wouldn't be twice as long, just extra thicc

[Anonymous No.10929993]

Has there been any word as to the damage starhopper took when it set down?

[Anonymous No.10930009]

new >>10930007