/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 175 KB, 2048x1168, repost.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/sfg/ – 18m T H I C C edition Anonymous Wed Sep 11 19:43:39 2019 No.10965512 [Reply] [Original]

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 19:57:26 2019 No.10965568 >>10965512 This is wrong, the 18 meter starship would be twice as thick but need to still be approximately the same length.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 19:58:19 2019 No.10965575 >no centrifuge D R O P P E D

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:00:31 2019 No.10965582 >>10965568 I would think they would at least lengthen 18m Starship a little bit vs the 9m version. Maybe not doubling the length, but 20-30% more shouldn't be out of the question.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:05:17 2019 No.10965589

>>10965575
With a ship that wide I think you could fit a centrifuge inside the hull without it having to be visible from the outside. Spincalc says 6rpm might be a bit uncomfortable and require acclimation but I'd imagine most people could adapt to it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:13:54 2019 No.10965616 >>10965512 >starship will have deflectors and polarized hulled plating

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:15:11 2019 No.10965620

>>10965568
Only if you need a TWR greater than 1 on Earth, what if you assembled the 18m hulls in orbit? You don't need a lot of infrastructure, Starship 9m is being built in a tent. Ship up the Raptors and electronics, fit the ships out in orbit, and you only need a TWR above 1 on Mars.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:20:02 2019 No.10965634 File: 45 KB, 720x405, ikamusume-2-059.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965512 >using the gay JewJewniverse enterprise redesign

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:22:34 2019 No.10965639 File: 13 KB, 492x236, NCC1701A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965634 wut? That's the Enterprise A from the original series movies. The JJ Abrams redesign wishes it looked this cool.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:23:28 2019 No.10965644 >>10965639 I stand corrected.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:45:08 2019 No.10965707 File: 587 KB, 1767x617, OV-165.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965512 >>10965639 These sci-fi ships look ridiculous! I mean look at this one from Enterprise. As if we could ever build this!

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 20:48:12 2019 No.10965720 File: 47 KB, 977x438, ExcelsiorSpacedock.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965707 My heart will always be for the Excelsior.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:07:36 2019 No.10965761 File: 39 KB, 600x400, USS Voyager.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965720 For me, it is the Intrepid Class

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:09:45 2019 No.10965768 File: 1.82 MB, 1920x1080, ST TMP.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965634 turn in your shit posting license

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:11:19 2019 No.10965773 >>10965761 VOY was for me the comfiest trek

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:12:49 2019 No.10965774

Realistically how much would a space elevator ACTUALLY cost (assuming we could produce the materials to build one)? It seems like the most practical way to get into space as it would save money in the long term, but I'm trying to calculate the ROI depending on the amount of space to ground traffic.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:17:05 2019 No.10965787

>>10965774
Cost estimates put them in the 40-60 billion dollar range, with the same in costs for development and the initiation of an industry of sufficient size to manufacture the necessary construction material. So call it 80-120 billion, assuming a relatively efficient process of development, knowing governments I think it would be easily safe to ballpark it as five times that much at least, 400-600 billion.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:18:15 2019 No.10965789

>>10965787
But... That's not even that much money compared to the insane amounts it would cost to send a couple ground to space launches to Mars and back. Are politicians just retards who don't know how to prioritize money and do what's best for the long-term?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:20:54 2019 No.10965799 File: 7 KB, 225x225, cheryl duh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965789 >Are politicians just retards who don't know how to prioritize money and do what's best for the long-term?

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:22:58 2019 No.10965805

>>10965774
Free. By the time we can make a space elevator, it would be done by autonomous robots. The material science and engineering needed for a space elevator would only happen far into the future when we would all be in space/mars/etc.

20000 miles of space elevator is not impossible, but highly improbable within our life time.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:25:50 2019 No.10965812

>>10965789
Well, NASA's budget is 20 billion, and they have nowhere near the manpower or industrial capacity to accomplish the task at all, even if we assume they magically are gifted all of the technological necessities in rapid succession it would still take them a minimum of 20 years worth of budget to get the project done, with a potential maximum of 30 years. Governments (like the people who's will they represent) and their agencies don't think or plan in timescales that long. It should be noted too that these costs don't factor in vehicles to launch all of the necessary materiel into orbit, or the cost of the geostationary orbital counterweight which must have sufficient mass (usually one or more megatons) to pull the elevator perfectly tight once the necessary components are actually in orbit. For any country that isn't America this project couldn't even be funded in a reasonable time unless we all pretend that China is as far along as they themselves pretend to be.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:29:36 2019 No.10965818 >>10965812 Not to mention I don't think the analysis even accounted for government corruption, so you could expect it to be more in the range of a few trillion by the time congress and cyberShelby are done with it.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:33:13 2019 No.10965827

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2019_Q4_(Borisov)

She's looking like a rather interstellar comet now, approaching just about in line with the galactic plane. Eccentricity is holding at 3 with a fairly well constrained perihelion of 2.04 AUs set for December 7th.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:42:46 2019 No.10965842

>>10965812
>>10965818
Why would you put NASA in charge of a space elevator? That's more of a infrastructure job, it's basically a giant highway into space.
>>10965805
It's not economically feasible to migrate people into space without a space elevator. Hell it's not even economically viable to mine asteroids without one.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:49:08 2019 No.10965854

>>10965842
>It's not economically feasible to migrate people into space without a space elevator. Hell it's not even economically viable to mine asteroids without one.
You didn't seem to get my post. By the time space elevator is being built, people would already be living in space or other planets in sizable number. By that time, robots would have displaced majority of the labor workforce.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:51:02 2019 No.10965858 >>10965854 It would cost insane amounts of money to move sizable population into space or other planets without a space elevator though. You need the space elevator FIRST because it would save trillions of dollars in fuel costs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:51:41 2019 No.10965862 >>10965827 So you're saying it's aliens

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:53:02 2019 No.10965863 >>10965858 That seems like a vast overestimate of the price of methalox

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:55:35 2019 No.10965872 >>10965863 Counting for inflation the Apollo Program cost $152 Billion. That was just to bring 24 off Earth and back.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:57:16 2019 No.10965877 >>10965872 Are you trying to compare the cost of Saturn 5 to Starship with a straight face? Saturn 5's cost was like, 1% fuel. 99% throwing giant rockets into the ocean. Starship is not thrown into the ocean.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 21:59:20 2019 No.10965880 >>10965720 Incredibly based The excelsior is peak starship design

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:09:12 2019 No.10965903 I'm praying someone can pull a miracle and crack fusion soon-can you imagine the kinds of ships you could build in orbit with that kind of power?

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:11:25 2019 No.10965906

>>10965903
I don't see fusion power being much smaller than the nuclear power we have, so you'd need a fuck huge ship to hold a fusion reactor. The moment one country started building one it would be a second nuclear arms race, every country would need one or they'd be powerless.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:18:16 2019 No.10965919
File: 576 KB, 2000x600, Enterprise-B-concept-art.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10965880
Indeed. Just something about it looks so classy and professional. Like the Constitution class Enterprise looks cool because you've heard of the legends behind it. The Excelsior looks cool just by virtue of it's design. It still looked cool even when it's introduction wasn't that flattering, it was just that good looking.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:19:42 2019 No.10965922 >>10965903 >Build fusion engines on Ceres and a shitload of asteroids >Send them on a collision course with mars to increase its mass Imagine

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:20:29 2019 No.10965924 >>10965720 >>10965919 It's fucking stupid. The best and most practical ship design is a spheroid, prove me wrong.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:20:34 2019 No.10965925

>>10965858
Let me put it another way. By the time space elevators are being built, humans would be building dyson spheres and using FTL propulsion to move to different star systems.

The matter of economy to move the humans out into other planets would be long settled by the time elevator is feasable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:20:34 2019 No.10965926 >>10965919 It’s the perfect mix of lines and curves in federation design. The only other ship that comes close to it is the aventine class but that’s not actually in the tv/films. It’s bridge in the third film is fucking amazing as well. Best bridge.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:21:30 2019 No.10965929 File: 1.95 MB, 250x250, Riker.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965512 >Forgetting the old thread >>10960783

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:27:45 2019 No.10965943 File: 236 KB, 1920x769, mark-rademaker-prequel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965926 Damn, that does look slick. Although the side view kinda looks weird. Then again not many Federation ships look the best side-on.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:28:23 2019 No.10965948 >>10965925 >FTL Opinion discarded FTL doesn't possible.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:29:07 2019 No.10965951

>>10963918
>And why would the Air Force put so much trust in an air launch startup with not only an unproven rocket

You mean like Vector Launch?

>Why should I expect to succeed where Vector and others failed?

Does Aevum have a sugar daddy whose departure is lethal funding the company?

https://www.space.com/40918-air-launched-rocket-ravn-aevum.html

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:31:16 2019 No.10965957 >>10965943 That’s one of the good things about the excelsior, it’s side view looks really good. The aventines front and angled views are amazing though. And it’s not that bad in STO either.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:34:43 2019 No.10965968 File: 305 KB, 2047x1236, Uss_vengenace.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965926 Sometimes angles just work.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:35:10 2019 No.10965970
File: 22 KB, 711x213, STIIIExcelsiorPatent.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10965957
>That’s one of the good things about the excelsior, it’s side view looks really good.
It does look nice side-on. The neck looks abit odd though.

>The aventines front and angled views are amazing though. And it’s not that bad in STO either.
It does. It's shape looks like someone did a masters thesis on what angles Federation ships look best at, and then designed a starship that looked the best at those angles. Shame that I couldn't really get into STO though, it got pretty boring for me even before it went FTP.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:36:31 2019 No.10965974 >you will never explore strange new worlds and new civilization Why live?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:42:42 2019 No.10965993 >>10965968 Fuck o forgot about the vengeance(?). Fucking love that ship. I’ve got a model of it on my desk. The best ship to come out of jjtrek

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:44:35 2019 No.10966003 >>10965974 Not long till we hit brain transfers into computer bodies, then we’ll be in the money for the long run. Or you can just kys and hope that you get reincarnated in the future.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:44:50 2019 No.10966004 >>10965948 Thats the fucking point. Jesus Christ. People are so retarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:47:02 2019 No.10966009 File: 74 KB, 1188x670, 1547670650087.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >gateway hab module will be jointly built by esa and jaxa oh shi- pic is of lockheed's module, not the esa-jaxa module

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:48:05 2019 No.10966012 >>10966009 >lockheed northrop*

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:51:30 2019 No.10966020 >>10966009 lol even the promotional material is sad >minimum capabilities >maximum price >northrop grumman™

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:53:18 2019 No.10966023

>Stallmer: we have to get out of our own echo chamber. I got wet sock to face 2 yrs ago with FH launch. Aviation community took off the gloves. Shuttle was OK--close airspace. But billionaire putting up Tesla? Stunt. Delays flights.
looks like the president of the commercial spaceflight federation hates spacex. funny...must be a guy from old space.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:53:25 2019 No.10966024 >>10966020 >"The more we do, the more corrupt Senators would try to nickle and dime our project, and incur delays. So we did the bare minimum to reduce price and development time. It's still expensive as hell though."

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:54:26 2019 No.10966025 >>10966009 Source on the video.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:57:50 2019 No.10966031

>>10966023
>But billionaire putting up Tesla? Stunt. Delays flights
Wasn't the first flight of the Falcon Heavy only a demonstration of it's capabilities? I'm pretty sure other launch providers do this, where they put a payload simulator on their newest rocket to show to potential customers what the the rocket can do. The only thing out of the ordinary was that Elon SpaceX and Tesla decided to do something special for their mass simulator to get more people excited for both companies involved.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 22:58:23 2019 No.10966032 >>10966025 i havent watched it https://astronautical.org/vonbraun-live/

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:00:53 2019 No.10966038

>>10966023
>Being salty about a headline-grabbing and inspiring first FH payload instead of a good and traditional concrete block test mass

About as old-space as it gets. If not for the stunt, the demo flight would have barely gotten a mention on national news. Instead, because it was a bright red sports car with a dummy in the driver's seat it was talked about everywhere and definitely got the attention of a bunch of kids who now want to grow up to be aerospace engineers and astronauts. Sometimes style IS substance.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:01:04 2019 No.10966039 >december 2022 - power and propulsion element launch >late 2023 - mini hab module "HALO" launch basically "december" and "late" mean they are expecting multiple year delays

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:02:09 2019 No.10966044 >>10966031 No reasoning will stand in the way of people who want to bitch about Musk and Spacex

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:08:43 2019 No.10966062 >>10966023 >aviation community took off the gloves funny, they don't even realize SpaceX is a threat

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:09:20 2019 No.10966065 >>10966023 >Aviation community took off the gloves What did he mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:10:44 2019 No.10966067 >>10966065 he means the aviation community doesnt like spacex because they close airspace, so they are fighting back against spacex. he's trying to portray spacex as the badguys.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:11:51 2019 No.10966069 >>10966067 I wonder what he'll think of SpaceX when they obsolete long distance airliners.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:12:14 2019 No.10966070 >>10966067 But doesn't every other launch provider close the air space with every launch?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:13:11 2019 No.10966072 >>10966070 yes but musky man bad literally elon derangement syndrome

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:13:40 2019 No.10966076 >>10966070 Yes but spacex man bad

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:14:06 2019 No.10966078 >>10966070 he says in the quote that the shuttle closing airspace was "ok" but spacex doing the same thing is wrong. lol

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:17:08 2019 No.10966084

>>10965925
>By the time space elevators are being built
Bad bet, because you were too unspecific. Falcon Heavy could loft a pre-spooled elevator system that could lift a man-sized load from the equator of the moon right now.
Larger, built in-situ lunar elevators would be serious shit with modern materials. Martian elevators are on the edge of our abilities, but well within the realm of possibility.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:18:42 2019 No.10966088 File: 234 KB, 858x475, lander2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The patrician's persuasion

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:19:13 2019 No.10966089 >>10966072 >>10966076 >>10966078 That's retarded if true. Even if you don't buy into that whole "Elon is spaceflight Jesus" idea, SpaceX has done lots of good for spaceflight. Making them out as some kind of villain is just straight up dishonest.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:22:31 2019 No.10966103 >>10966069 fantasy

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:23:12 2019 No.10966105 File: 83 KB, 250x250, Death_star1[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10965924 Grand Moff Tarkin, is that you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:24:38 2019 No.10966109 >>10966084 Martian elevators would require the removal/destruction of Phobos and Deimos. Phobos so it doesn't hit and snap the tether, and Deimos so it doesn't perturb the upper terminus too far/hit and snap the tether to the upper counterweight.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:24:42 2019 No.10966110 >>10966038 How DARE SpaceX try to make spaceflight interesting!

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:28:28 2019 No.10966118 >>10966109 Or the necessity to relocate them. This sounds like a useful exercise.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:30:12 2019 No.10966120 File: 109 KB, 1140x764, 1542216539272.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] launch imminent

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:31:09 2019 No.10966124 >>10966120 >no webcast Why even bother?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:31:29 2019 No.10966125 >>10966120 They really need to figure out a better launch site than in the interior near several villages. Hell, they probably could have made a solid argument to develop one of those islands in the South China Sea if they had put a pad on it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:33:41 2019 No.10966128 >>10966125 they just built a spaceport on hainan island in the south, but im not sure why it's not the go to launch site. maybe because this launch is for spysats? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenchang_Spacecraft_Launch_Site

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:33:51 2019 No.10966129 File: 83 KB, 736x625, e6bdec4b7f137aefbfbf9ab13a355513.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why is putting bugs in space an unpopular idea?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:34:33 2019 No.10966132 >>10966129 Space is rightful human clay

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:34:43 2019 No.10966133 >>10966088 it's shit from all angles

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:35:55 2019 No.10966138 >>10966118 Nah, I expect we'll mine both moons completely out. Strip them down and ship their material down to the surface for processing. Since both of them are essentially dusty rubble piles, it shouldn't even be that hard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:36:44 2019 No.10966139 File: 531 KB, 1101x573, lander 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10966133 Rude

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:37:00 2019 No.10966140 >>10966128 The US launches spysats from wherever the fuck we want. We even tell all of our enemies its initial trajectory, because that's how we prevent accusations or insinuations of attempted sneaky nuclear war.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:38:19 2019 No.10966144 >>10966138 Not even as testbeds for asteroid orion pops?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:39:42 2019 No.10966148 File: 130 KB, 1140x764, ZI-YUAN-2D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10966120 explosion imminent

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:43:29 2019 No.10966160 >>10966139 He's not wrong, though. That's probably the worst vehicle in Interstellar.

Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:44:13 2019 No.10966164

>>10966144
They're rubble piles loosely held together by gravity. You set off a nuke next to one and chances are it'll shatter and flood its orbit with gigatons of rock and dust. Even if it doesn't shatter, it will still shit out many hundreds of tons of rock and debris into orbit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:55:23 2019 No.10966183 first image of the interstellar object gb00234 that is approaching the solar system. it was discovered a day or two ago.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:56:38 2019 No.10966185 File: 78 KB, 512x512, 1537793590163.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10966183 of course i would forget the image

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 11 23:58:53 2019 No.10966190 nvm it looks like it was discovered 2 weeks ago? i cant read russian. https://astronomy.ru/forum/index.php/topic,175643.0.html

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 00:17:27 2019 No.10966207 >>10966183 >>10966185 >>10966190 Also known as C/2019 Q4, or Borisov after the astronomer that discovered it. It was discovered a bit under two weeks ago as of this posting.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 00:27:02 2019 No.10966220 >>10966190 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2019_Q4_%28Borisov%29 An interstellar comet or asteroid, and its hauling ass through our solar system.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 00:27:51 2019 No.10966221 >>10965512 Earth is flat

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 00:32:39 2019 No.10966227 >>10966103 mexican laborers can't weld steel rings

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 00:35:47 2019 No.10966230

>>10965924
If you have no gravity or full space magic artificial gravity, a cube is the most volume efficient design. If you have space magic drive tech and therefore use thrust gravity, you're basically designing an office building that sits on a drive cone. If you use rotational gravity, you need a hollow cylinder or ring station. There is literally nothing a sphere does best except minimize volume for a given surface area.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 00:39:23 2019 No.10966235 File: 222 KB, 80x100, 589879923766722585.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] At this rate, everything will fly before SLS.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 00:43:44 2019 No.10966243 >>10966230 The efficiency of the cube is in packing density. For enclosing the most volume with the least material, a sphere is king.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 00:48:58 2019 No.10966259

>>10965787
Even assuming it would cost that much, no material could make it work. Even carbon nanotubes which are pretty much bullshit lab tech that cannot be mass produced are only just enough for a Martian one. An earth one has to be much, much stronger.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 01:07:08 2019 No.10966297 >>10966207 >>10966220 based. it looks like interstellar events may be a regular occurrence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 01:41:44 2019 No.10966353 >>10966009 not Lockheed, Orbital ATK now Northrop Grumman subsidy. The module is basically an antares cyngus, but longer. So it should be called a chungus. Orbital ATK was the first private rocket company btw.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 02:16:22 2019 No.10966427

>>10965924
The thing about warp technology was that it wasn't a spherical field. That's why almost all federation ships had two nacelles stuck way back from crew. Even the shuttles had a two-nacelle design, but I don't think the were warp capable, they were just landing skids.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 02:17:19 2019 No.10966428

>>10966230
>If you use rotational gravity, you need a hollow cylinder or ring station.

Nope, if your aim is to maximize both usable volume and have rotational gravity, then a rotating sphere is the best design. Cram it full of propellant and put habitat on the circumference.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 02:19:49 2019 No.10966433

In real life the only way we'll ever practically get to other solar systems is chugging along under the speed of light, 0.9c if we're lucky. I think I solved the fermi paradox, nobody sends information through waves because it makes more sense to just ship information. It's faster to send a giant ship full of data storage at 0.9c than to send light communications, not to mention more practical.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 02:20:05 2019 No.10966435

>>10966427
>The thing about warp technology was that it wasn't a spherical field. That's why almost all federation ships had two nacelles stuck way back from crew. Even the shuttles had a two-nacelle design, but I don't think the were warp capable, they were just landing skids.

The Star Trek warp drive Technical Manual from 1975 basically relies on the same operating principle as the Alcubierre Metric, which is entirely possible if you can get your hands on some exotic matter.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 02:26:56 2019 No.10966449 >>10966088 Looks like piece of that grey packing plastic that's not polystyrene

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 02:28:08 2019 No.10966454 >>10966433 >I think I solved the fermi paradox It takes less than a million years to colonize the whole galaxy at 0.9c. So Fermi paradox remains,,

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 02:29:59 2019 No.10966465

>>10966454
Uh, well what if we're just the first species to be gifted with the right conditions to develop intelligence and have enough raw materials on the planet to get off of it? I mean I don't know the statistical chance of having the exact elemental composition necessary to create rocket ship on any given planet in our galaxy but it can't be very high.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 02:35:01 2019 No.10966476 >>10966465 This is one of the solutions that's been proposed for the Fermi Paradox.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 02:36:52 2019 No.10966480

>>10966465
>>10966476
One of the more realistic proposals is that a million-year Galaxy Colonization hasn't happened because the organizations that would endeavor to colonize other worlds are crippled by bureaucratic morass and the collapse of their civilizations before they can get too far.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 02:40:22 2019 No.10966484 >>10966480 I guess the only way to know is to explore every planet in the galaxy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 02:41:29 2019 No.10966487 >>10966484 That will be quite a challenge.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 02:59:41 2019 No.10966532

>>10966427
Pretty sure there are warp-capable shuttlecraft, Enterprise-D carried a number of Type 6 and Type 7 craft both of which had warp capability.
Voyager of course had the Delta Flyer, which was a souped up shuttle/fighter, and that was also warp capable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 03:02:09 2019 No.10966537 >>10966435 Other way around, Alcubierre was putting numbers to a a Star Trek warp field.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 03:10:44 2019 No.10966542 >>10966532 That would be later Trek, TOS didn't have warp shuttlecraft. But there were small warp ships a bit larger than a shuttle, in one of the movies Spock took one to get to the Enterprise.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 04:23:32 2019 No.10966618

>>10966433

I don't see how it makes more sense to ship data. You still have to accelerate to 0.9c, delecrate etc so your effective speed is less. It's still 10% less time effective than light. When distances start piling up in the thousands of light years that 10% margin matters.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 04:49:21 2019 No.10966646 sfg stands for spaceflight general, not scifi general

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 05:02:22 2019 No.10966654

>>10966480
Does not sound very realistic, because while sometimes this may happen, does bureaucracy cripple ALL species, and for billions of years? Remember, it only takes one.

Whatever the solution for Fermi paradox is, it needs to be of a very universal and inevitable nature.

Personally I think it is simply that life (or intelligent life) is very rare, to the point where we may be alone in the Hubble volume, or at least in our galaxy supercluster.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 05:07:35 2019 No.10966656 >>10966105 No, it's the maple syrup baron of questionable name order, Tyler Vernon. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Rising

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 05:15:14 2019 No.10966666 File: 148 KB, 649x1000, 71R7XQBT7qL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10966656 Solar concentrator arrays ain't nothin' to fuck with >inb4 Winter Born

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 05:36:43 2019 No.10966687 1969: Nazi rocket scientists send cutting edge rocket tech to the moon 2022: Bracero welders send water tanks to the moon

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 06:41:51 2019 No.10966743 What black project is the SLS, Orion, and lunar fuel depot funding?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 06:50:57 2019 No.10966751 >>10966125 i don't understand why they don't make a launch site on the Tibetan plateau, it's nearly 5km alt sparsely populated

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 07:45:15 2019 No.10966825 >>10966751 Because then you need to bring rockets there.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 07:51:06 2019 No.10966835 >>10966825 no anon, you build the rockets there

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 07:56:23 2019 No.10966841 >>10966243 The thing you're packing in that case would be living space. A sphere wastes a lot of space especially about 45 degrees up from the equator where it slices rooms in half, effectively.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 08:01:36 2019 No.10966852

>>10966743
SLS and Orion technician bank accounts, who vote for the guy who keeps their program alive.
Nobody is funding lunar propellant depots, in fact there's active resistance from even considering depots in space. LOP-G is not a depot, it's a tiny habitat can that isn't really useful for anything but by god it gives SLS and Orion something to do and funnels more money into those technician pockets and thus it WILL happen, for the good of America of course.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 08:09:07 2019 No.10966864

>>10966835
Then you need to build an entire industrial base to allow you to build those rockets, which is even worse.
The reason people don't launch rockets form the top of mountains is because it doesn't make any real difference. A tall mountain is like 2.5% the height of the lowest stable orbits around Earth, and even then gaining height takes far less energy than achieving orbital speed, which a mountain launch pad does not help you with in the slightest.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 08:12:07 2019 No.10966869 >>10966852 NASA could make things that actually fly. Instead of pretending to make a rocket.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 08:21:18 2019 No.10966882 >>10966869 but then there's a chance something could go wrong and then they'd have to stop building and spend time figuring out why, this way they can just perpetually build one rocket forever.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 08:41:51 2019 No.10966915

>>10966864
>Then you need to build an entire industrial base to allow you to build those rockets, which is even worse.

Soviets had no issue with building an entire launch complex with fabrication in the middle of the fucking steppes, i'm sure china could do that and more.

>The reason people don't launch rockets form the top of mountains is because it doesn't make any real difference. A tall mountain is like 2.5% the height of the lowest stable orbits around Earth, and even then gaining height takes far less energy than achieving orbital speed, which a mountain launch pad does not help you with in the slightest.

Wrong, it's the same principle as air launched rockets, a good chunk of the energy is spent punching through the atmosphere, why not take 30% off that energy needed and free it up for extra payload?

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 08:51:00 2019 No.10966931
File: 60 KB, 484x261, samara.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10966915
No, Soyuz is manufactured in Russia and transported by rail to Baikonur.
>Soyuz is a family of expendable launch systems developed by OKB-1 and manufactured by Progress Rocket Space Centre in Samara, Russia.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 09:02:21 2019 No.10966950
File: 322 KB, 1132x1536, 1563658564508.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>SLS will never fly
>Orion will never fly
>JWST will never fly
>Artemis will run on an on, each new delay will fire another NASA figurehead and give ULA and Boeing another 999,999,999 shekels to keep the dead political project going.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 09:03:11 2019 No.10966953 >>10966931 still proves it's feasible to have such a remote launch site

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 09:04:46 2019 No.10966961 I'm attending a panel discussion about JFK and the Apollo Program this evening, and Jim Bridenstine is one of the panelists. One of the topics is "future moonshots". Should I ask him about the importance of robust fl d**s to future moon missions?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 09:10:20 2019 No.10966970 >>10966961 Don't shitpost in public, anon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 09:27:25 2019 No.10966986 >>10966970 You're no fun

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 09:44:13 2019 No.10967012 >>10966931 nations of the world should build much more railways. They are powerful infrastructure for industry

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 09:54:45 2019 No.10967022 >>10966961 Nah, only if Shelby was there

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 10:02:38 2019 No.10967032 >>10966961 SCREAM RED PILLS AND DAB

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 10:15:15 2019 No.10967055 https://twitter.com/PBNS_India/status/1170998778268016640 "Vikram not broken into pieces; Vikram had hard landing but it remains in single piece."

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 10:22:42 2019 No.10967071 >>10966953 The railway need would be prohibitively expensive. Currently Chinese rail loading gauge is 11'2" wide by 15'4" tall. Which wouldn't fit a F9.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 10:25:12 2019 No.10967077 >>10967071 >The railway need would be prohibitively expensive. china has just built an entire high speed rail network, i don't think that's an issue >Which wouldn't fit a F9. why are the chinese using falcon 9s?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 10:35:15 2019 No.10967094 >>10966961 do a richard shelby shitpost irl

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 10:40:42 2019 No.10967099

>>10967077
They didn't build into Tibet.

2% is a steep mountain grade for a train.
Given the delicate cargo, wide gentle curves, and massive loading gauge needed. Go from Jiuquan to your spot in tibet with while staying under s 2% grade slope(3 inch rise for 3 feet of run).

Forget tunnels. You'll have to blast away entire mountain sides to cut the right of way into them. Massive bridges spanning whole valleys. Thousands of feet high above the surface.

China could do it. But is it really worth it?

F9 is just a reference for a medium ricket.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 10:50:58 2019 No.10967113
File: 531 KB, 850x414, Map-of-the-location-and-topography-of-the-Tibetan-Plateau.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10967099
You do realize by Tibetan plateau I mean this right? I'm not talking about building a launch site in a mountain, as for railways into Tibet there already is one operating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinghai%E2%80%93Tibet_railway

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 10:51:28 2019 No.10967115 Why do all these boomer contractors have to hamfist an acronym on to every single concept.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 10:55:40 2019 No.10967120 >>10967115 Because NASA loves acronyms. I've been told that some projects get turned down because it's acronym wasn't cool enough.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 10:56:28 2019 No.10967121

https://spacenews.com/smallsat-launch-services-feel-pricing-pressure/

>Serkin said GK Launch was working with Roscosmos on ways to lower the cost of Soyuz launches. That includes the development of a new variant of the Soyuz rocket, the Soyuz 2M, based on the Soyuz-2.1b but without the Fregat upper stage. That version will cost about $30 million and place two to three tons into sun-synchronous orbit.

Interesting. Did he mean the cost to manufacture?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 11:06:17 2019 No.10967135 >>10966124 be grateful, China barely even gives the world notice that they are even launching a rocket. They only do official webcasts for manned or moon missions.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 11:10:30 2019 No.10967143
File: 129 KB, 1041x674, tsg_49729_1_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10967113
Haixi is the nearest major city to the current spaceport and along that relatively flat green region in the north.

The rocket train is significantly wider and taller than a passenger train. Plus the special rolling stock probably has curve radius restrictions. Since it so long. So it probably can't use the existing rail. So the rocket goes thousands of Mike's out of the way to avoid most of the mountains in the north east. Or they dig and bridge across all those damned mountains

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 11:13:55 2019 No.10967148 File: 73 KB, 940x627, 535966-3x2-940x627.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10967143

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 11:14:48 2019 No.10967149 >>10967143 Why not ship smaller prefab parts and assemble them at site instead of having to do major rail infrastructure upgrades just to accommodate a big ass oversized rocket?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 11:16:42 2019 No.10967154 >>10967012 Dreaming of RailX rn

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 11:24:50 2019 No.10967169 >>10967135 >be grateful I'm going to continue not caring, thanks.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 11:34:18 2019 No.10967191 >>10967148 why not light the rocket to help get up the hill

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 11:46:13 2019 No.10967218 >>10967191 ebin

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 11:48:30 2019 No.10967223
File: 46 KB, 484x279, sdfasd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>SpaceX isn't wasting much time now that Starhopper has completed its hover test. The company has filed an FCC communication permissions request that, as Elon Musk confirmed, prepares for test-flying the "orbit-class" Starship. The vehicle will fly much higher than its stubby predecessor, reaching an altitude of 12.5 miles before it comes back to the same landing pad used during earlier tests. It's not a true orbital test, then, but it's clearly much closer to SpaceX's goals.

>The FCC filing came days after word from Business Insider (later verified) that the FAA was effectively granting SpaceX permission to expand its Boca Chica launch facility for the sake of Starship launches. The company also hasn't tried to hide its construction work on the orbit-quality vehicle, and Musk has alluded to a September 28th update event that could show off the completed spacecraft. It's poised to launch sometime in October, possibly as soon as the 13th.

>It's a fairly quick testing cycle, but SpaceX is clearly under pressure to move forward. The company hopes to launch its first commercial Starship flight in 2021, and that doesn't leave it much time to both complete the spacecraft and prove that it can reliably deliver payloads to orbit.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/09/11/spacex-orbital-starship-fcc-filing/
its happening lads

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 11:50:38 2019 No.10967226
File: 151 KB, 1099x990, Screen Shot 2019-09-12 at 11.50.08 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10967223
https://fcc.report/ELS/Space-Exploration-Technologies-Corp-SpaceX/1631-EX-ST-2019

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1171513413274460161

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:02:16 2019 No.10967248 File: 97 KB, 1422x800, slowpoke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10967223 >>10967226

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:14:45 2019 No.10967260 File: 1.93 MB, 962x826, slow motion reaction.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10967223 >>10967226 Well I'm still excited anyway.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:25:41 2019 No.10967275 File: 20 KB, 650x464, pV42Gw9qcsE3ZiRe68Mkr7-650-80.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Hard to believe the SpaceX x Desani Nation Station will be bottling Sparkling Saturnalia in only 50 short Earth sols.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:27:01 2019 No.10967279 >>10965512 So do they all use transparent aluminum for windows?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:29:53 2019 No.10967282 >>10967275 >implying Nestle won't have warships orbiting Saturn to deny access to rival companies/nations

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:30:03 2019 No.10967283 >>10965774 >assuming we could produce the materials to build one Since we can't, because he very probably cannot exist, it is hard to answer that, sine material costs cannot be even roughly estimated. How much does a ton of Unubtainium cost?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:32:26 2019 No.10967287 the senate appropriations committee (ran by our guy chairman shelby) just voted on approving funding for a space force. every democrat voted no because the bill also includes funding for the border wall.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:34:44 2019 No.10967294 >>10966230 >There is literally nothing a sphere does best except minimize volume for a given surface area. And thus holds internal (or external) pressure most efficiently. A good thing, if you like breathing while you fly through space..

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:39:46 2019 No.10967301 >>10966084 >Falcon Heavy could loft a pre-spooled elevator system that could lift a man-sized load from the equator of the moon right now. No it couldn't, because right now there is no such system, and no Falcon Heavy on the moon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:39:48 2019 No.10967302 >>10965789 are you the same guy who thinks each starship launch will cost as much as a saturn v

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:43:05 2019 No.10967306 Space elevators on Earth are not possible using any currently known technology. They're "magic deflector shields" tier. They are not happening. Why do you insist on replying to a science fiction poster?

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:44:20 2019 No.10967309

>>10966089
This is half of a very good point. "Musk/SpaceX is a villain in all ways with no good qualities" is as retarded as the fanbois for whom "Musk/SpaceX can do no wrong and everybody else in the industry is evil and retarded" approach.

But that's the culture we live in now. Politicians, religions, countries, consumer product brands, sports teams; all must either be defended as perfect in every respect or attacked as utterly corrupt, stupid and evil.

As we rush towards new plateaus of technological achievement, we also are becoming stupider by the day in our culture.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:49:56 2019 No.10967316
File: 256 KB, 480x236, 1562509728677.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Since ESA was complaining about Starlink, Leolabs decided to post an example conjunction (aka collision) event from last month, showing how the system works
- SL-3 Rocket Body (5732) vs. Fengyun 1C debris (29911)
- Time of Closest Approach: 2019-08-10 13:22:39.212 UTC
- Miss distance: 33 meters
- Probability of Collision: 1.6%

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:50:41 2019 No.10967318 >>10966164 Paging Mr. Varley's Snarks!

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:51:27 2019 No.10967319 File: 46 KB, 554x527, feel rage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10967287 >every democrat voted no because the bill also includes funding for the border wall. Getting real sick of this shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:57:04 2019 No.10967332 >>10967319 Welcome to leftism

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 12:59:58 2019 No.10967341 File: 308 KB, 272x480, 1561726448465.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10966120 looks like the chinese launch was a success. next launch may be the japanese htv resupply to the iss (if they can figure out the fire problem).

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:03:35 2019 No.10967347 >>10967341 Are we gonna get video of it coming back down on an impoverished Chinese village?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:03:49 2019 No.10967349 >>10965512 Did we solve why Interstellar is bullshit yet, or is the retard still posting about it? Sorry, I was at work.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:06:00 2019 No.10967351 >>10967347 Maybe, but it probably would've been posted by now if it had happened. The launch was 12 hours ago.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:06:29 2019 No.10967353

>>10966542
>TOS didn't have warp shuttlecraft.

Well...

Depends on how you figure. In Menagerie Pt. 1, Kirk and Menendez chase after the Enterprise in a shuttle for several hours. Although they are not fast enough to catch it, they are not as hopelessly outdistanced as they would be if the craft did not have warp capabilities.

Though the shuttle is referred to as having "ion drive," the shuttle remains in transporter/tractor beam range after a chase of "several hours."

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:07:31 2019 No.10967356 >>10966646 Why not both?

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:07:32 2019 No.10967357

Rather than fapping about old TV shows we should design a space mission enabled by starship for NASA because why the fuck not. Pick a planetary science target, look up the reports of NASA's exploration analysis group on what science needs to be done on that target, pick instruments to do the science, and design something that lets those instruments do science. So basically KSP LARPing. Also don't make a retarded mission like Mars colony with anime waifus in one starship launch or that europa lander that was mandated by congress*. Don't want to waste the limited planetary science budget.

*planetary scientists don't want it because we haven't investigated europa that much. Finding a safe landing spot is a pretty fucking big issue, europa may or may not have fields of giant ice spikes. Oh we'll just orbit europa for a bit then identify the good landing spots? Good fucking luck with that. Our best rad hardened tech can only last about a month or so in the radiation Europa's bathed in. So you'd need to do the mapping and identification of landing sites before your lander gets rekt. Identifying landing sites in like a month is gonna be fucking hard because we could discover some completely new shit about europa that fucks everything up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:08:21 2019 No.10967359 You know, even now, nobody in the industry thinks Starship is gonna fly anytime soon. If that was the case, we'd see giant cheapo telescopes projects.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:09:27 2019 No.10967360 HULLO time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG38Ei8R_08

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:12:05 2019 No.10967364 Press P to drop a prayer for JWST. As much as I hate the project, and how it cost so much moneys, we're at a time where we absolutely need it to study the exoplanets around us.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:13:05 2019 No.10967367

>>10966864
>gaining height takes far less energy than achieving orbital speed, which a mountain launch pad does not help you with in the slightest.

Well, in the VERY slightest -- your rotational velocity is slightly higher.

>>10966864
>gaining height takes far less energy than achieving orbital speed
>>10966915
>good chunk of the energy is spent punching through the atmosphere

Fair enough, but the punching through is to attain the orbital velocity.

But saving energy (and thus money) for extra payload does not help you much if your launch site is so inaccessible as to make getting the extra payload to where you want to launch cost more than you saved.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:15:41 2019 No.10967377 >>10967367 Dude, it's fucking stupid. What little m/s you win, and Isp wins you get is negligible. The logistics part of getting a rocket up there is significant, though, and that costs money.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:16:08 2019 No.10967379 >>10967055 How could they possibly know it was in "one piece" if they have not established contact?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:18:47 2019 No.10967381 >>10967379 Indians are compulsive liers. Wait for real information.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:21:19 2019 No.10967387

>>10967379
IIRC the orbiter that came with the lander has some pretty high quality mascaras on board (at least as good as the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter). They probably saw the lander being one piece (although they most likely can't see if it's significantly damaged in any way).

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:22:21 2019 No.10967388 >>10967387 Correction >high quality CAMERAS on board I have no idea how autocorrect did this.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:23:50 2019 No.10967395

>>10967319
Get over it. If the President is re-elected, it will continue, if he is not, there will be no Space Force because allowing him that sort of major achievement during the term of his successor is never going to happen.

>>10967332
Nothing to do with one ideology or another. Unrelated provisions are always tacked on to bills, and "poison pill" provisions are a tactic used n legislative assemblies for centuries, at least.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:24:56 2019 No.10967397 India is lying. You know it because they always lie. What's the point of pretending it landed there when ISRO will take a picture in a week.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:26:23 2019 No.10967401 >>10967395 Keep your bitter blackpill anon, I'm not taking it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:26:45 2019 No.10967403 >>10967395 I don't think the Space Force thing was his invention. I most likely comes from the military themselves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:26:56 2019 No.10967404 >>10967341 Does anybody else miss the glorious billowing clouds solid columns of flame and impressive shit from back in the day, when space launches had hair on their chests? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzCsDVfPQqk

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:29:44 2019 No.10967408 File: 51 KB, 600x485, arguecat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10967357 >Also don't make a retarded mission like Mars colony with anime waifus Them what never asks, does not get.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:32:11 2019 No.10967415

>>10967377
I did not say it was worth doing, just that there IS a very slight velocity advantage.

It is not enough to be worth worryign abou, especially when compared to the difficulties of launching from the particular location under discussion. But saying there is NO boost is incorrect.

This is /sci/, we get things fucking RIGHT here, or prepare for a bickering the likes of which the world has never seen!

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:33:55 2019 No.10967419 >>10967357 I'm gonna be frank: probes are shit at their job. There IS a reason you'd want humans there, and that's science. All the science we did on Mars in what 30-40 years, would be a week's field work for a geologist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:34:59 2019 No.10967423 >>10967388 No idea, but I did sort of like the idea of them sending really good mascara to the moon. That would be an undeniable first for India, and the giant mutant tardigrades would no doubt appreciate some quality beauty supplies.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:39:12 2019 No.10967443

>>10967403
I don;t want to get too far out into the weeds of politics here -- but it is closely associated with him, and is seen as his proposal. As such, it is uncritically embraced by his supporters and uncritically ridiculed by his detractors. If his detractors control government after the next election, it will be ashcanned regardless of what the military wants or the merits of the proposal.

Please note I have not taken a stand on the merits of the proposal, or the President, or his political opposition, one way or another.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 13:41:57 2019 No.10967448 >>10967443 Well, it doesn't really make sense that Air Force is handling spy satellites. It's gonna be the same shit, but then Air Force will only bother about planes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:03:45 2019 No.10967495 >>10967448 But the Airforce doesn’t handle spy satellites...

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:08:31 2019 No.10967505
File: 836 KB, 1050x3281, falcon chan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10967495
Didn't SpaceX launch a military payload for the airforce just a few months ago? I thought that was on the last launch where the center stage missed the barge when landing.
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2019/02/20/spacex-ula-each-get-air-force-contracts-for-trio-of-space-launches/

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:08:38 2019 No.10967506 >>10967448 I would tend to agree, but would note that this can be addressed by a unified command such as was just instituted, without the creation of an entire service branch. Space Command /= Space Force.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:09:40 2019 No.10967512 >>10967505 My center stage would not miss her barge, if you know what I mean...

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:18:31 2019 No.10967548

>On Earth, cybersecurity professionals set up servers called honeypots that are identical to those of the internet or a company’s intranet, except that they are laced with spyware. ... By tracking the behavior of a hacker at a honeypot, cybersecurity experts can create the equivalent of a fingerprint or signature for the hacker, learn his tactics and develop defenses.
>Cybersecurity companies have adapted this concept to microsatellites. Satellite honeypots look like every other satellite in a constellation but instead of relaying communications or gathering imagery, their job is simply to record hacker behavior.
>“I can’t tell you very much” about this defense mechanism, Adhikari says, “but I can tell you the decoys are out there.”
https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/features/small-satellites-big-weakness/

Wait so there are satellites out there right now that are used to bait hackers or is the article misleading?

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:26:43 2019 No.10967568

I'm on another thread, but I feel it's important to post it here for your general information:
Earth Rotation period 24 hours.
Venus rotation period 243 days
Moon rotation Period 28 days
Mars rotation period 25 hours.

Guess why Venus and the Moon are not good candidates at colonization? And why Mars is so sexy.
I'll help you, and it has to do with plants.

Now spread the word whenever you see a retard posting here about muh Venus colonialism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:27:49 2019 No.10967574 >>10967568 Artificial lighting will never exist, and only a fool would say otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:31:21 2019 No.10967586 >>10967574 Yeah, good luck with your batteries. And we all know they weigh a shit ton of kilograms. Not what you want in space. Don't need them on Mars at all.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:32:20 2019 No.10967589
File: 1.25 MB, 4032x3024, 1567328405534.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I was thinking about Tarkinanon's sphere ship argument and came to the conclusion that the ideal long range, long term colony ship is shaped like a tic tac.

He postulated that you could build a sphere, fill each hemisphere with propellant, and use the "equator" of the sphere as a ring habitat. However, this would only give a few dozen to a few hundred feet (depending on sphere size) of usable space. Assuming 100 feet of usable deck, elongating the sphere even slightly by inserting cylindrical sections at the equator would double the usable space for a single 100ft section added. Triple for two, and so on. So the optimal colony ship design would be an O'Neil cylinder with the ends capped by propellant filled hemispheres. The only flaw in this plan would be the requirement for a large and sketchy propellant pipe straight though the middle of the drum. Since you're building this in orbit, you can accept fairly low thrust values and simply burn for longer. So maybe something like a single NTR pushing your giant tictac along as milli-g acceleration.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:32:33 2019 No.10967591

>>10967568
I'd argue that the Moon would still be a good candidate for colonization (even rudimentary) simply because it's so close to Earth. If something bad happens on a lunar colony where they need help from Earth, then they would have to wait a day for the next transfer window (or worst a month) and then a couple days of transit. A martian colony however would have to wait months (or worst a year) for the next transfer window and then months of transit time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:32:41 2019 No.10967592 >>10967568 We aint using natural light to grow plants on Mars. Plants need pressurized volume. Good luck making a pressurized greenhouse, lol.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:33:36 2019 No.10967595 >>10967592 Huh? are you that retarded? I can make a pressurized volume by blowing in a balloon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:33:41 2019 No.10967596 File: 533 KB, 791x403, hellocomputer.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10967592 >not knowing about transparent aluminum

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:34:54 2019 No.10967598

>>10967568
Venus cannot be colonized effectively because the point of colonization is sustainable ISRU. A colony should, eventually, be able to support itself independently. The Venusian surface is essentially inaccessible, meaning a Venusian Aerostat cannot harvest materials not available in the atmosphere.

Also, this is a good documentary on the topic
https://youtu.be/LttEXjSZCoE

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:35:35 2019 No.10967600 File: 62 KB, 1000x865, natural-gas-generator-cc5000-ng-b-[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10967586 No batteries needed. Just pic related. There will be plenty of methalox in any Mars colony.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:36:43 2019 No.10967604 >>10967598 There's that too. >>10967600 Oh, but that wouldn't be needed on mars, given enough Solar panels.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:36:47 2019 No.10967605

>>10967592
>good luck making a pressurized greenhouse
Inflate a transparent plastic greenhouse. Congratulations. You've made a pressurized greenhouse. Obviously on Mars you'll want to use a fairly beefy plastic and probably double layer it, but none of that is prohibitive. You can do it with Home Depot materials.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:37:38 2019 No.10967613

>>10967595
You need a large pressuzired volume and with pressure difference of at least 50kPa or so. This is the limiting factor and why it is much easier to just dig a big underground cavern and then put solar panels on the surface and LEDs down below.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:38:22 2019 No.10967618 >>10967604 Solar panels alone wont cut it, you still need copious energy storage. Same reason why renewable grids on Earth are so hard to do.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:39:46 2019 No.10967620

>>10967419
they actually get the job done though.
>>30-40 years
and it would be a lot harder to send said geologists to Mars if we didn't send probes. Probes are also nice because they're expendable enabling us to explore places that are too dangerous to send humans. Humans can't survive much longer than a couple hours on Europa before getting terminal radiation poisoning and sending something with enough radiation shielding so they don't is going to be difficult in the near term. There's also the issue that it's much harder to deal with contamination when you send humans. You can almost completely sterilize a probe, while humans shit out bacteria. Why should we care about contamination? Because if we contaminate other planets with earth life we lose the possibility to answer big questions about our place in the universe. Finding out that life can emerge independently on other planets or NATURALLY spread from one planet to another has deep implications for humanity's future. Because if we find out either to be true it makes the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence very ominous. It could mean that intelligent life is much, much, much more likely to self destruct.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:40:13 2019 No.10967621

>>10967613
I don't think you're entirely thinking this through. 1atm difference isn't a lot. A car tire is designed for several times that. Airliner windows are designed for most of that, when you include their safety factor. Why would you not dig a trench and lay a thick polycarbonate roof over it? That's nearly indestructible, air tight, and cheap as dirt. Three inches of polycarbonate is bulletproof, literally.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:43:10 2019 No.10967632

>>10967620
If you dropped Curiosity on Earth, what are the chances it stumbles upon the Burgess Shale? If it does, what are the chances someone notices? Yes, humans are a source of contamination, but humans can cover larger areas faster than a probe can. A single surveying team would do more work in a month than all the rovers combined have since we started sending them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:43:32 2019 No.10967634 File: 52 KB, 480x320, Lounge_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10967621 >Why would you not dig a trench and lay a thick polycarbonate roof over it? Sounds like that Australian town, Coober Pedy

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:43:33 2019 No.10967635 >>10967618 Well, you only need it for 12.5 hours, unlike other proposals.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:49:06 2019 No.10967648 >>10967568 Some interesting information on incidence of sunlight on Mars. https://www.firsttheseedfoundation.org/resource/tomatosphere/background/sunlight-mars-enough-light-mars-grow-tomatoes/

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:50:09 2019 No.10967651 >>10967589 >ideal long range, long term colony ship is shaped like a tic tac. Oh FUCK, here we go.....

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 14:56:03 2019 No.10967661 File: 402 KB, 1099x1000, rama.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10967651

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:02:51 2019 No.10967675

>>10967568
At the current time, it is ridiculous to colonize the Venusian surface and all serious efforts have emphasized colonizing the atmosphere at about 55 km. The atmosphere of Venus rotates much faster than the surface, meaning that a colony can circulate the planet in about 4 days, or even close to 24 hours if it is located at high latitudes.
>>Mars
has a lower solar insolation because it's further from the sun and global dust storms which can decrease the amount of sunlight up to 99%. But hey, for growing plants in greenhouses it's really better to grow plants under LEDs providing the wavelengths plants actually need. Even if you take into account solar cell and LED conversion efficiency it's still higher than straight up glass.
>>Moon
lack of carbon and other volatiles is a bigger issue than lack of sunlight

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:06:08 2019 No.10967679 >>10967675 VENUSIAN SICKNESS VENUSIAN ILLNESS VENUSIAN NAUSEA VENUSIAN MAL DE MARE

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:10:55 2019 No.10967689

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1172215123777216512

>Ahead of our in-flight abort test for @Commercial_Crew
—which will demonstrate Crew Dragon's ability to safely carry astronauts away from the rocket in the unlikely event of an emergency—our team has completed over 700 tests of the spacecraft's SuperDraco engines

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:11:20 2019 No.10967690 >>10967675 see >>10967598 What's the point when you don't have access to resources? Might as well just do a space station.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:25:02 2019 No.10967734 >>10967679 based gizzposter

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:28:58 2019 No.10967741 File: 1.20 MB, 480x480, t.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10967689

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:29:41 2019 No.10967744 Do they plan to land or expend the crew abort test Falcon?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:37:02 2019 No.10967759 >>10967689 Hopefully Dragon 2's reputation isn't permanently tarnished by that explosion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:38:26 2019 No.10967762 >>10967744 >Do they plan to land or expend the crew abort test Falcon? I think they want to try to land it, but expect it to be destroyed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:39:17 2019 No.10967765 File: 1.03 MB, 1284x1430, ifa.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10967744 anon....

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:42:23 2019 No.10967774

>>10967568
It doesn’t matter what the rotation period of Venus is, you could never colonize the surface anyway. Colonizing Venusian atmosphere is also a meme. The point of a colony is to become self-sustaining, but a Venusian colony would always be reliant on external supplies.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:43:04 2019 No.10967775

>>10967759
Pretty sure the explosion was caused by a unchanged bit of design that was originally meant for the propulsive landings (the check valve). Now that they've switched to burst disks for the engine system, it's no longer an issue.

The Superdracos themselves are quite reliable, and IIRC the set installed on the pod that exploded survived the explosion undamaged.
Hell I'm not sure if there's even been a failure with the Superdracos at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:43:14 2019 No.10967776 >>10967765 big rip

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:52:53 2019 No.10967803

>>10967598
>>10967774
Venus has CHNOPS, all elements necessary to sustain life available at the altitudes at which a colony could be established. We also know that there's fluorine and chlorine available in the atmosphere. This means we can make a wide variety of materials like plastic, resins, teflon, kevlar, carbon fiber, graphene, carbon nanotubes, organic electronics and more. In addition there might also be aluminum and iron present the clouds(see "Vega Mission Results and Chemical Composition of Venusian Clouds"). And while the idea of harvesting resources from the atmosphere may seem crazy, consider that starship's going to make propellant to go home from by extracting CO2 from Mar's almost vacuum atmosphere. Second Venus might have precipitation meaning that some of these resources could be harvested almost for free. In addition, systems that handle fluids are much more reliable than systems that handle granular materials because we understand fluids much, much better than we do granular materials. In addition, scaling laws also exist for fluids and effectively don't exist for granular materials.What this means is that we can build and test a machine at sub-scale for harvesting Venus' atmosphere on Earth and be pretty damn sure it will work. Whereas for a machine that moves around dirt on Mars we have to do all the testing at full scale and can't be sure it will work until it gets there. Even new concrete plants on Earth can only be tested at full scale and even then they still don't work that well. And if worst comes to worst it should be possible to harvest materials from the surface by using a dredge bucket at the end of a carbon fiber tether. Carbon fiber rope rated for continuous use at 450 C, which is about how hot the Venusian surface is, actually exists:
http://www.sealco-group.com/productshow-204.html
However, atmospheric turbulence might make it such that large floating colonies can't be built practically.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:54:24 2019 No.10967808 >>10967803 Why colonize Venus. What does it help us do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 15:56:48 2019 No.10967813 >>10967803 Just take a deep breath. Why the fuck would we spend our energy synthesizing everything from Gas? If it's such good, why aren't we making shit out of Earth's CO2 that we have too much of?

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 16:05:38 2019 No.10967829

>>10967813
>>Why the fuck would we spend our energy synthesizing everything from Gas?
because gas harvesters are going to be much more reliable than dirt harvesters and we can be pretty sure they'll work before we send them to Venus. Just look at the problems the mole's having on the insight lander for an example of the difficulties of making stuff to work with granular materials.
>>If it's such good, why aren't we making shit out of Earth's CO2 that we have too much of?
We do. Plants and trees obtain basically all their carbon from the atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 16:19:26 2019 No.10967864 Colonising Venus is retarded, lol look at my lando calrissian gay floating sky colony

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 16:37:37 2019 No.10967905 I'm wondering how anyone can realistically compete with SpaceX and can only come up with the realization that nobody can or will. The only thing that can stop SpaceX is itself. Everyone else will have to deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 16:40:09 2019 No.10967911 >>10967864 It'd be a cool vacation spot one day when the rest of the system is settled, but not a place to live year-round.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 16:43:55 2019 No.10967924 >>10967905 What comforts me is that Musk seems to be a benevolent god

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 16:43:59 2019 No.10967925 >>10967911 news from the future: "woman falls overboard on venusian vacation cruise"

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 16:52:43 2019 No.10967942 >>10967905 >how anyone can realistically compete with SpaceX Cronyism. The old space want government to continue to fund them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 16:54:33 2019 No.10967945 File: 807 KB, 2758x2478, starship.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 16:55:17 2019 No.10967947

>>10967905
SpaceX will still have competitors. Blue Origin might be a serious contender once New Glenn starts flying. ULA will always have a chance due to US government preference. National payloads of other countries will not fly on SpaceX rockets due to security concerns.

There's also the fact that BFR and Starlink are somewhat of a gamble. The reason why most commercial rockets don't really have payload capacities above 20 metric tons to LEO is that there aren't any commercial payloads with that mass. BFR may be a technical masterpiece but could fail on the open market because very few customers have the need for 100t to LEO. There have been multiple attempts at LEO commsat constellations before Starlink, and they all had serious problems gaining money. IIRC Iridium was the most "successful" of the bunch and it went bankrupt before marginal profits started coming in. One of these two failing would seriously hurt SpaceX. Both failing would be catastrophic.

There's also the fact that SpaceX is very vertically integrated. This is an advantage now as it allows SpaceX to cut costs dramatically. However, as other competitors invest in reusability and make their own equivalents to the Falcon 9 (ex: Blue Origin's New Glenn), SpaceX may find it harder to adapt to these new competitors as it is forced to make significant changes to it's supply chain to remain competitive (ex: methalox is superior to reuse than kerolox, but the Falcon 9 was made before this revelation was widespread, so SpaceX's competitors can take advantage of this idea right away while SpaceX is forced to try to adjust it's more rigid system).

Also, competitors of SpaceX is a good thing as it prevents them from gaining a monopoly on launches, and thus encourages them to keep the quality of their products high.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 16:56:54 2019 No.10967953 >>10967947 >BFR could fail on open market Thankfully they're banking on Starlink. If Starlink becomes even a minor success, SpaceX's mars plan is secured.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 17:16:27 2019 No.10967981 >>10967945 Can't wait for 28th

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 17:23:58 2019 No.10967992 God Starship is such a fucking paradigm shift if it works.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 17:35:19 2019 No.10968013

>>10967864
Let me give you a quick run down:
>>90% of Earth's gravity
>>Martian jello babies bow down to Venusians
>>temperature and pressure are Earth like at about 50 km
>>atmosphere provides sufficient cosmic ray and solar proton event shielding
>>similar insolation to Earth's surface, even when cloudy
>>all elements necessary for life support available in the air and clouds
>>breathable air's a lifting gas on Venus, enabling huge floating cities
>>faster transit time to asteroid belt than from Earth or Mars because phasing opportunities occur more often.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 17:41:14 2019 No.10968024 >>10968013 how retard can you get

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 17:47:53 2019 No.10968044 >>10967947 How many LEO constellations had the interest of the US military before Starlink?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 17:50:11 2019 No.10968049 >>10968013 thanks for itemising how bent it is m8

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 17:51:44 2019 No.10968053 File: 19 KB, 768x432, knock_on_wood.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10967992 Hopefully it doesn't end up like the Shuttle.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 17:56:06 2019 No.10968059 Business idea: Sandblast Venus atmosphere from orbit

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 17:56:09 2019 No.10968060 File: 1.47 MB, 762x1125, myidealfuture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 18:19:47 2019 No.10968110 >>10967319 Be grateful your Parliament hasn’t deadlocked your country for three years because they reuse to accept a democratic vote

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 18:22:49 2019 No.10968116 >>10967364 >use some retard tier unfolding mechanism because you’re too cheap to use multiple launches to assemble it in space I hope it doesn’t screw up, but some dust spec is gonna get in the gears and fuck it up

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 18:23:25 2019 No.10968117 >>10968110 The joys of being a subject to an impotent crown, amirite?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 18:25:45 2019 No.10968124 >>10968117 >would rather arrest the PM for adhering to democracy than just accept it To think of all the spess this money could be spent on

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 18:28:39 2019 No.10968132 >>10968110 >>10968124 At the risk of derailing this thread, what's this about?

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 18:33:21 2019 No.10968140

>>10968132
I don’t want to derail either somill make this the last post on it but here’s a qrd:
>govt holds vote to leave the EU
>leave wins, taking everyone by surprise
>but
>Parliament is made up almost exclusively of remainers and globalists
>proceed to spend the next three years delaying brexit because they can’t accept that the goyim went against the plan
>BoJotaro gets PM, goes “fuck this we’re leaving at Halloween”
>parliament passes a bill to force him to ask for an extension until next January
>boris says “You can make the law, but I will not follow this one”
>Arlie then tell him he will be arrested if he refuses to delay brexit

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 18:42:04 2019 No.10968149 File: 1.30 MB, 1063x582, NASAthenandnow.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10968140 Thanks. Have a spaceflight meme.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 18:56:44 2019 No.10968171 File: 3.57 MB, 5184x3456, IMG_9141.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] PRECISION AEROSPACE MANUFACTURING

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 19:01:26 2019 No.10968182

>>10968171
I drove past an industrial area where they were building an LNG ship or something and was confused why there was a Starship site in Canada

Starship is literally low complexity industrial construction, which is incredibly based. It's like Sea Dragon, but real, reusable, and with magical engines.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 19:03:26 2019 No.10968190 File: 40 KB, 133x149, SoulSand.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10968171 Hopefully the "you don't need a clean room to make rockets" thing isn't a meme and this fancy grain silo takes off both literally and metaphorically.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 19:06:21 2019 No.10968198
File: 52 KB, 719x699, 1541382247930.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I don't see how it's possible for Starship to fail on economics if this is how you build them. They're fucking cheap. The Raptors are expensive but they're reusable. Starship is going to be cost competitive with Falcon 9. If they can do that, the economics are sound, because Falcon economics are sound.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 19:08:35 2019 No.10968206 >>10968190 >Hopefully the "you don't need a clean room to make rockets" thing isn't a meme and this fancy grain silo takes off both literally and metaphorically. She seemed to do alright two weeks ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYb3bfA6_sQ

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 19:10:59 2019 No.10968213 >>10968206 A spacecraft that's supposed to go to orbit and back is abit more complex and involved than a hopper.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 19:16:44 2019 No.10968229 >>10968213 Well, it needs to reenter and survive. It needs to keep methalox chilled during a Martian transit. There's more Raptors. There's more tankage. But that's about it. Don't need life support yet, these are test articles.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 19:17:40 2019 No.10968230 >>10968213 It pins down all the fundamentals of orbital flight, sans dynamic pressure. Making it back down is going to be another story, and honestly, I don't expect it to come back in one piece.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 19:24:31 2019 No.10968240 We all know about America benefitting from Op Paperclip but how German was the Russian space program and say say Soyuz particularly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 19:42:33 2019 No.10968267 >>10968044 There's a few of them including OneWeb. I think it's the DARPA Blackjack program that has been investing in multiple megaconstellations.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 19:56:34 2019 No.10968290
File: 55 KB, 879x485, 1556022216939.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10967287
looks like shelby was able to wrestle the democrats into voting for funding the space force. they also funded a new military space program called "Tactically Responsive Space Launch". and they also approved a provision which calls for a study of building an inland spaceport (like the chinese have see >>10967341 ). there's also $70m for space command, and $45m for the space development agency.
https://spacenews.com/senate-appropriators-add-22m-for-small-launch-approve-72m-space-force-request/

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:01:21 2019 No.10968299 >>10968060 Too bad its just after sunset, when it gets really dark you can see the lights of the tether way-stations and counterweight bases on the lunar elevators

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:01:38 2019 No.10968300 >>10968290 >building an inland spaceport Is that a good idea?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:03:26 2019 No.10968301 >>10968300 Probably not now, but it can be in the future once fly-back boosters become more common.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:08:06 2019 No.10968310 File: 34 KB, 576x1024, D33ua_sW4AIqGpP1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10968290 It doesn't get much more "tactically responsive" than "yeet anything, anywhere, on earth or in the solar system, on a few days notice"

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:10:09 2019 No.10968312 >>10967953 starlink will become an overwhelming success FUCK COMCAST

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:12:18 2019 No.10968314 is there even a backup plan to funding mars colonization if starlink were to be a flop for whatever reason?

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:15:02 2019 No.10968317

>>10968314
Get Starship costs below Falcon 9 costs and continue the current business model while waiting for Big Yeet contracts to come in. Starship is developing far faster than any payloads that would require it, but if it's cheaper than Falcon 9 they can simply replace it one for one and still make profit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:16:22 2019 No.10968320 >>10968314 I think the Falcon 9 is a good moneymaker from what SpaceX has said. So if the BFR/Starlink plan flops, then they can just dial back their ambitions while keeping themselves afloat with F9's until a new plan comes up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:17:26 2019 No.10968322 File: 798 KB, 4096x2731, 1541095366961.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The Cupola is the most amazing part of the station.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:23:12 2019 No.10968330

>>10968314
Industrialization of the moon, probably. If Spacex took it upon itself to begin establishing lunar infrastructure within the next decade, the rest of the world would have no choice but to follow. That really should have been the plan instead of mars first.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:24:38 2019 No.10968333

>We watch and evaluate monthly. No change in our strategy at this time. Propulsive flyback is still pretty far from being economically sustainable, but we are watching closely.
>Propulsive fly back needs a fleet average of around 10 flights or better to make it work economically. A business transitions to sustainable when it no longer requires significant outside investors to cover its costs and investments.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1172167574244642817

The president of ULA coming out and saying that ULA doesn't get enough launches to economically justify developing reusable rockets. They aren't going to get any customers if their rockets keep being so expensive.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:31:03 2019 No.10968343

>>10968333
there are two things at play. Development cost and actual cost per reflight vs new rockets.
SpaceX has spent billions on the R&D for reusability. But even a Block 5 F9 being reused like once "saves" them money.
Bruno doesn't want those few years of operating in the red until they're guaranteed a "payback".

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:36:40 2019 No.10968357

>>10968343
But by not investing early into reusability and big boy boosters, SpaceX is going to be able to keep pushing prices down to the point where nobody else can effectively compete. Starship can realistically do direct GEO insertion of multiple satellites for smallsat-like costs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 20:59:15 2019 No.10968385 >>10968357 $BA $LMT is your answer

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 21:04:14 2019 No.10968395

Reminder, SpaceX has no real competitors. They're right now competing with themselves by trying to outdo Falcon 9 with Starship. Even their development of Starship has no real competitors except themselves, which the teams from Texas/Florida compete with each other to get the benefit of the best construction techniques but also cost/time effective methods.

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 21:10:14 2019 No.10968408
File: 3.17 MB, 1574x1125, ksp_01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Can you guys help me with rocket plumbing? I'm trying to find pressure reducers, solenoid valves, and a pressure transducer for my test rocket engine. However, the connection type that my propellant tank uses is a AN-6, and I can't find anything in that size. Am I just being blind and I'm missing them? Or should I instead invest in an adapter that changes the pipe size into something more reasonable?

Thank you in advance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 21:12:33 2019 No.10968412 >>10968408 McMaster

Anonymous Thu Sep 12 21:14:59 2019 No.10968419
File: 3.49 MB, 5392x3448, SS2_and_VMS_Eve.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10968333
I mean he has a point. Space tourism is still in its cradle and the current costs just to get to 100km means that it is well out of the reach of normal citizens and therefore re-usability is still not at the forefront of peoples minds.

My bet is that ULA are going to wait until SABRE (Boeing is now an influential investor for reaction engines) is developed over the next decade then use the lessons from that to rapidly build their own version.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 21:16:11 2019 No.10968421 >>10968412 That was the first place I looked. They don't even offer AN size for pressure regulators.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 21:34:01 2019 No.10968455 >>10968421 Fastenall

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 21:47:53 2019 No.10968483 >>10968455 Could only find pressure regulators for welding equipment (which I guess would work), but they also don't offer stuff in AN. Unless A-LH is another identification for AN. Thank you though.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 22:19:01 2019 No.10968535 >>10968483 Granger?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 22:34:59 2019 No.10968564 >>10968408 If the option is between an adaptor and having to order custom plumbing parts, just buy an adapter.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 22:44:49 2019 No.10968584 >>10967149 Do you want SRB o-rings? Because that's how you get them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 22:48:46 2019 No.10968595 >>10968535 Couldn't find one with the pressure range I'm looking for, and I don't think those were AN. >>10968564 Fair enough. I'll look into that, thanks.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 23:06:18 2019 No.10968649 File: 36 KB, 780x438, 190912160845-wonders-of-the-universe-190912-exlarge-169.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10966183 Obviously an approaching cruiser. Oumuamua was just the vanguard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 23:23:35 2019 No.10968696 File: 1.76 MB, 300x225, 1491279178906.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10968649 >That's not a comet tail >That's a deceleration plume

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 23:31:31 2019 No.10968714 >>10968696 Probably not. If it were a deceleration plume, it would appear very bright in infrared.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 23:36:41 2019 No.10968723 >>10968714 Are there any potential novel drive types with cold plumes? Maybe something like pure magnetic acceleration?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 12 23:46:54 2019 No.10968738 >>10968723 The faster and more energetic your exhaust is, the better your specific impulse is. Neutralizing and making the particles cold just saps exhaust energy, in exchange for making them impossible to direct with simple magnetic fields.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 13 00:23:11 2019 No.10968781 I have baked a new bread. No, I don't give one flying fuck about "ettiquette"-the present thread is autosaging. >>10968779 >>10968779 >>10968779

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 13 00:58:49 2019 No.10968810 >>10968781 Do you know what a "slow board" is? This thread is on page 3 and will last for at least a day more, no matter what.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 13 01:16:43 2019 No.10968829 >>10968781 Imagine being so desperate to be OP

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 13 06:15:39 2019 No.10969130 >>10968810 >what is reading comprehension

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 13 13:10:30 2019 No.10969679 >>10968320 And then they'll just be a boring middle-sized rockets company. I'm willing to bet they're going for broke with those plans.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 13 15:40:20 2019 No.10970128 As much as I like Musk's vision, it just doesn't have the backing. He'll find himself in a position where he can throw things at Mars for basically free, but nobody thought that would ever happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 13 15:49:19 2019 No.10970155 >>10970128 I'm not even kidding, maybe Dod will take them more seriously.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]