/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11078008]

Anime edition.

Previously on /sfg/:
>>11073093

Useful links:
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/

[Anonymous No.11078025]

>nearly finalize parts list for rocket engine
>check bank account
>poor af

[Anonymous No.11078028]

>>11078025
why would you start a project if you have no funds for it?

[Anonymous No.11078029]

>>11078025
Wagie wagie get into your cagie.

[Anonymous No.11078035]

>>11078025
Sounds like you either need partners or patience.

[Anonymous No.11078046]

>>11078028
I had the funds for it, but then my financial aid ran into some problems so I had to pay for my tuition with my own money for a while. I mean, technically I can still buy my stuff, but it would leave me with very little "wiggle room" financially.

>>11078035
I need a job.

[Anonymous No.11078051]

>>11078025
This is the part where you come up with a gaudy costume and start robbing banks.

[Anonymous No.11078060]

>>11078008

OP, you forgot to put the thread title in the Options field. Now people wont be able to find this thread through CTRL+F as easily.

>>11078025

Patience is a virtue, keep saving money and learn how to budget your money.

[Anonymous No.11078073]

>>11078046
Just buy a solid rocket motor and be done with it. You will not be able to afford the development of a liquid engine unless your university is letting you use their facilities. CNC is very expensive.

[Anonymous No.11078089]

>>11078046
I know your pain, my uni job right now can only fit me in enough shifts to amount to like seven or eight hours a week maximum and the pay is nearly token. I lucked out in that somebody referred me to another department of the uni which needs somebody to basically do simple office work but at a much better pay rate that I plan to look into soon. I've got some ideas bouncing around in my head but I both need to learn the math (or engage the work of an autist who I can pay in nothing but tendies and anime) and also learn some 3D design, plus buy raw materials, equipment, and fund the renting of an additive 3D printer to do the work once a design has been figured out, or somehow convince my uni to acquire one. That latter option isn't as implausible as it might sound, since they've been working pretty hard to expand the computer design/CNC/3D printing programs available to students.

[Anonymous No.11078112]

>>11078089
Not spaceflight related.

[Anonymous No.11078115]

>>11078089
If I were going to build a rocket I'd just buy the engines and spend a few afternoons learning to weld beams and sheet metal for the structure. It's cheaper, easier and making your own engine is never going to be better than what is already on the market.

[Anonymous No.11078125]

>>11078115
True, the point wouldn't be to build anything commercially viable, the value would be in practical knowledge gained and purely for the sake of enjoyment. >>11078112 does somewhat have a point, it's unlikely to ever strictly speaking be spaceflight related, since nothing I could build just with my own resources would even be likely to even get close to the karman line.

[Anonymous No.11078127]

>>11078125
I don't think it would be too hard to build something in your yard that would reach the Karmen line, however you would get assraped in federal prison for the rest of your life so yeah.

[Anonymous No.11078130]

>>11078125
No, I meant you complaining about "uni". Doesn't belong on my board.

[Anonymous No.11078132]

>>11078008
You fugged up and forgot to include the title.

[Anonymous No.11078136]

>>11078073
I'd rather make a liquid propellant engine (or rather a tube that approximates one).

>>11078089
http://risacher.org/rocket/
This website helped me start out on some of the math. Also, what ideas do you have? I love debating designs.

As for 3D printing. I might advise looking into other manufacturing means as 3D printing can be very expensive. The quotes I've heard was around $3,000 for a 2200 kN engine (for the propellant manifold, injector plate, and the regen cooled chamber and nozzle assembly). Although, reserving 3D printing for the really hard to make parts (like the injector plate) might still be viable.

[Anonymous No.11078146]

>>11078060
I'm at fault for the last two threads but not this one. We should try to create a more informational OP, maybe with resources for those who are into building rockets. Having a longer text body may attract more attention.

I tried searching the archive to see if anyone ever attempted something like that and I didn't come up with anything. Was there a name for these threads besides space flight general?

[Anonymous No.11078151]

>>11078127
I think there's a sight somewhere in Texas that regularly hosts hobbyist launches, if I every managed to put together something significant that's where I'd go to launch it. Obviously I'd want to go through all of the proper channels, get permits and shit before even considering a launch.
>>11078130
True, it was just meaningless contextualization and shouldn't have been added.
>>11078136
Most of the ideas are too ambitious to even be undertaken with a small team and would likely need institutional backing of some kind, aerospikes preoccupy me and I'm fully aware that plenty of small startups have tried their hand at them and failed. I was going to start out relatively simple with an idea I heard proposed to Copenhagen Suborbitals as a modification of their existing axial swirl valve. The first thing I wanted to try and do is build a tiny engine with a single counter-rotating axial swirl injector, the only difference between a normal swirling and counter-rotating swirler is that the CRSI's fuel and propellant inlets are drilled in at opposing angles to one another with the idea being that if the conical sprays of fuel and oxidizer are flying in opposing directions the rate of droplet collision and thus fuel intermix can be increased.

[Anonymous No.11078155]

anyone want to make a /sfg/ / space themed doom megawad together?

[Anonymous No.11078172]

[Anonymous No.11078176]

>>11078151
>aerospikes preoccupy me
Aerospikes are everyone's favorite. Arca had a design for a linear truncated aerospike test engine that uses hydrogen peroxide. It seems simple enough to make with minimal backing.

>That single giant CRSI idea
That definitely sounds really neat. If your engine is big enough, then that injector would probably be big enough to machine without too much trouble. Plus, if one of the propellants is a gas, then that injector will probably get really good mixing properties.

I've thought about something like that too, but I was more focused on adding more "stuff" between the injector and propellant manifold to increase an engine's resistance to combustion instabilities and other related sudden pressure changes.

Whatever path you choose, good luck!

[Anonymous No.11078235]

>If you take the bluepill you will stop funding NASA after the moon and believe whatever you want to believe
>If you take the redpill we can build a martian exploration fleet of ten spacecraft with a combined crew of 70 and I can show you how easy space really is

[Anonymous No.11078245]

>>11078235
Without the US knowing Hitler must have given Von Braun the immortality serum before the end of the war.

[Anonymous No.11078254]

>>11078245

[Anonymous No.11078301]

>>11078235
>If you take the government cuckpill, you die waiting for NASA to even build a single ship, let alone a fleet of them*
Fixed that for you.

[Anonymous No.11078343]

What do you guys think of this?

[Anonymous No.11078361]

>>11078343
Ah interesting, so the ablative layer is what actually forms your combustion chamber and de-laval nozzle? It should work assuming you can quite accurately predict ablation and lay down your ablative walls accordingly, if any ablation is uneven the burning propellant will presumably exacerbate uneven burning creating unequal flow over it's surface as the shape of chamber, throat and bell become distorted.

[Anonymous No.11078373]

>>11078361
>Ah interesting, so the ablative layer is what actually forms your combustion chamber and de-laval nozzle?
Thank you, and yes. The idea being that the ablator can be easily made on a lathe and easily integrated into the rest of the engine. Whereas the more typical design for an ablatively cooled engine would have made the ablator from a composite wrap around a mandrel which is then integrated (or even just wrapped on the engine itself) and all of the headaches from having to attach composites to metal.

>It should work assuming you can quite accurately predict ablation and lay down your ablative walls accordingly, if any ablation is uneven the burning propellant will presumably exacerbate uneven burning creating unequal flow over it's surface as the shape of chamber, throat and bell become distorted.
That is an issue, but I believe that this design can be made robust enough. Also, most of the understanding on how ablators behave require extensive testing which this design is suited for with how easy it is to replace the ablator. The design probably isn't really suited for a rocket, but could work as a test stand article to train on and study liquid propellant engines.

[Anonymous No.11078402]

>>11078343
When it umm...ablates, the shape will change and screw up performance.

[Anonymous No.11078449]

>>11078402
I know, but I ran some numbers using a made up "pessimistic" ablator (I don't really have enough data to model a real one without testing for some numbers myself) such that at the end of the burn the nozzle area expansion ratio becomes 1 (and thus the engine "breaks"). The performance isn't hit that badly. In fact, the thrust increases substantially during the course of the ~5 second burn, which I attribute to the throat getting larger and thus allowing for a higher mass flow rate.

[Anonymous No.11078466]

>>11078176
>Aerospikes are everyone's favorite.

They're not MY favorite. If it were up to me, building a hobby rocket, my dream would be kerolox and oxygen-rich staged combustion.

[Anonymous No.11078580]

>>11078373
Well it sounds very interesting, if it works as you intend it to what in particular would it be acting as a trainer for? Any particular things you'd use it as a tool to explore?

[Anonymous No.11078620]

>>11078466
I'd guess your enginefu is the RD-180?

[Anonymous No.11078685]

>>11078580
>Well it sounds very interesting, if it works as you intend it to what in particular would it be acting as a trainer for?
How to operate a liquid propellant engine. It's a pretty complicated system even if pressure fed.

>Any particular things you'd use it as a tool to explore?
The various nuances of operating a rocket engine that are hard to pick up on just from reading about them. Learning more about ablative cooling. Exploring different plumbing and supporting equipment options. Maybe some injector designs if my machining skills get better (or if I get a #D printer). I'd probably just use it to show off. Some of those things probably don't need a cooling system like this. Something like a water jacket/bath or just really thick metal walls would probably suffice. But I want to have it be an engine that while would most likely be only used for testing or demonstrations, it would also be maybe good enough to be possibly used on a rocket (it sort of feels nicer to use). Kind of as a "Plan B" if a more "advanced" engine couldn't be made. Although it would probably be too bulky and heavy for it to be effective.

[Anonymous No.11078693]

>>11078685
Sounds great Anon, good luck!

[Anonymous No.11078706]

>>11078620
The RD-170 is more my speed, really, but I still think the RD-180 is sexy AF.

My dream would be to build a 2-3-foot diameter Falcon 1 style rocket powered by an RD-181 style homebuilt kerolox O2-rich single chamber staged combustion engine and use it to launch a crude cubesat into orbit that broadcasts "all your base are belong to us" on repeat in a kraftwerk-style 1980-era synthesized computer voice, as a sort of "troll Sputnik".

I'm not sure what the upper stage would be. I was thinking propalox, maybe, or propane+catalytically decomposed H2O2 for maximum meme lulz and the simplest, lightest tankage relative to potential ISP this side of hypergolics.

[Anonymous No.11078710]

>>11078693
Thank you!

[Anonymous No.11078715]

>>11078706
>I'm not sure what the upper stage would be. I was thinking propalox, maybe, or propane+catalytically decomposed H2O2 for maximum meme lulz and the simplest, lightest tankage relative to potential ISP this side of hypergolics.
A solid propellant upper stage could work since those are super easy to start during flight.

[Anonymous No.11078750]

>>11078710
That underaged chest is quite aerodynamic.

[Anonymous No.11078752]

>>11078715
Yeah, but at that scale I'd have to build my own from scratch, and building solid motors of the power needed for something like a high ISP upper stage is so dangerous that it makes hypergolics look straightforward and safe by comparison. Just ask that poor fuck at Virgin Galactic.

Or to put it this way, why does the ATK/Thiokol plant in Utah have a more complex and thorough worker escape system than the LC-39 pads do?

[Anonymous No.11078815]

>>11078706
If we were talking dream rockets, like pure fantasy machines I'd go all in and launch some kind of 16-18m behemoth, approximately 160-ish meters in height, first stage would be a metha-lox consuming booster lofted by 20-30 paired truncated linear aerospike engines using either the expander cycle or full flow staged combustion cycle, sharing common turbomachinery like the RD-180, their designs being optimized by iterative software and their manufacture done mostly through supersonic deposition of a halfnium-hastelloy composite. This stage would return to land on a modified oil rig anchored in a predetermined location out in the ocean, at which point it would be checked over, hoisted onto a barge and returned to the mainland for refueling and comprehensive checking. The upper stage engines would be methane eating closed cycle nuclear gas core rockets, perfectly safe to operate with practically no risk of nuclear contamination. This stage would use regenerative cooling and robust long-lived ablative tiles on the belly side to allow for maneuvers such as landing on Mars or performing Jovian or Saturnine aerobreaking, and be supplied electrical power by a compact molten salt nuclear stirling generator. All of this atomic material would ingeniously be delivered to orbit after having been assembled exclusively in the God blessed American state of Alabama, employing hundreds of American engineers and nuclear technicians. The primary purpose of the rocket would be as an automated cargo hauler, intended to take enormously large payloads of construction material or large expandable habitat modules to be assembled in the orbits of various planets and moons such as Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan, etc. A significantly smaller crew upper stage would carry 50-100 passengers in comparative comfort throughout at least the inner planets, and possibly to Jupiter and beyond.

[Anonymous No.11078846]

>>11078815
Eh, a .75m diameter rocket of 7-10m length that could barely lob a cubesat into orbit is about in Copenhagen territory. It's on the ragged edge of what a dedicated team of hobbyists with some serious machining and fabrication skills could put together with a six-figure budget.

[Anonymous No.11078855]

>>11078846
>Eh, a .75m diameter rocket of 7-10m length that could barely lob a cubesat into orbit is about in Copenhagen territory.
Why send a cubesat to space when you can send a frog?

[Anonymous No.11078857]

>>11078855
Digits confirm, kek wills it.

[Anonymous No.11078865]

>>11078855
Colonize Mars with frogs, we owe them.

[Anonymous No.11078867]

>SpaceX is seeking permission to launch another 30,000 LEO (law enforcement orbiter) satellites for its Starlink network, which would be in addition to the nearly 12,000 satellites the company already has permission to launch
When will humanity break out of its collective duckwalk. Someone needs to slap an antitrust suit on this mogul a la Hollywood in the 1940s. Distribution (launching) and operation (ordnance maneuvering) should be handled by seperate entities. Those launches could go to the starving Shuttle program. Next thing you know, extraplanetary corporate rabble-rausers will try to pass off company policy as a variable Martian Magna Carta. Inbound interplanetary troop transport is trivial to mitigate when COOs have 6 months to fry associated life support systems via electronic warfare. Terrestial polities need to have air marshals on every Falcon 9 that leaves Boco Chico. There needs to be a plainclothes artist on the #dearmoon flight to make sure no lava tubes in the Argyre Planitia rim are being parceled off during a darkside deal when the flight LOS's Earth.

[Anonymous No.11078874]

>>11078867
>Those launches could go to the starving Shuttle program.
How can something starve if it's dead?

[Anonymous No.11078893]

>>11078874
Does he maybe mean SLS? I mean it's the same shit mostly minus the orbiter, right?

[Anonymous No.11078899]

>>11078855
>when some autists try to put you on their rocket made from junkyard water heaters

[Anonymous No.11078958]

>>11078899
You forgot the "repurposing Granny's home oxygen refill setup as the LOx tank" part.

[Anonymous No.11078979]

>>11078008
he missed the title

[Anonymous No.11078991]

I like Planetes because the main guy is such a perv. I imagine him using his penis on the female protagonist. I suppose that was the intent of the series.

[Anonymous No.11079004]

>>11078991
I watched it while binge-drinking rum about 6 years ago and remember very little of it. All that sticks out are station smoking-rooms, that little girl born on the Moon who was like 6ft tall, and the woman character making a long arduous EVA across the Moon back to safety.

[Anonymous No.11079028]

>>11078254
coincidence?

[Anonymous No.11079058]

>>11079028
No, we're just getting back on track.

[Anonymous No.11079076]

>>11079058
On track to what? Seems like the only track human civilization has ever known is circular. I see no end in sight to human drudgery, so long as we have the potential for exploitation it will never end.

[Anonymous No.11079078]

I wonder what if a private company just decided to send a random sample to mars of tardigrades and other bacteria

[Anonymous No.11079090]

>>11079078
What do you propose to be their motivation?

[Anonymous No.11079093]

>>11079078
If I had some cash I would do this.

>Fudge mission documents
>Make dummy payload for whoever to inspect
>Swap out payload at last minute for one loaded with the most bullshit tough microbes and bacterial and shit that we can find
>Payload aerocaptures into Mars orbit
>Shits out hundreds of tiny capsules loaded with the cunts over the whole planet
>Tell everyone exactly what you have done

Might go to prison for a bit but totally worth it to fuck planetary protection fags forever, shits contaminated fags, too late now we are colonising this shit fuck you.

[Anonymous No.11079094]

>>11079090
basically upset NASA to the point they either have to make it there or fear things have been contaminated, basically hold things hostage. A tiny lander that shoots some nutrient rich saline into the soil. And keeps it in orbit as leverage idk

[Anonymous No.11079097]

>>11079076
>On track to what?
Where we left off in the early 70s, So long as we have a horizon we can feasibly reach i don't see us stopping unless bullshit politics stand in the way.

[Anonymous No.11079153]

>>11079076
we left the circle of fuck when nukes were invented
without them, we would have had world war 3 ages ago

[Anonymous No.11079156]

So when is or vital trash going to start being taken care of in the real world?

A few lasers in orbit to start vaporizing and de orbiting.

[Anonymous No.11079164]

>>11079093
>NASA fucking nukes Mars to prevent contamination

[Anonymous No.11079172]

Can someone tell me how nonviable and retarded this mission profile is?
>crew starship and some number of tankers leave for mars fully fueled in some earth orbit.
>tankers transfer fuel to crew starship and 1 tanker in transit
>crew starship lands on mars with fuel to re-enter LMO
>fueled tanker captures into LMO
>empty tankers free return to earth.
>next synod
>crew starship takes-off and rendezvous with fueled tanker
>fuel transfer
>both return home

[Anonymous No.11079234]

>>11079172
If it is viable it seems way too trivial for any kind of consideration. Like, hurr what if we put fuel in the spaceship durrrr?

[Anonymous No.11079254]

>>11079156
After Starship makes putting those lasers in orbit cheap enough.

[Anonymous No.11079259]

>>11079172
>tankers transfer fuel to crew starship and 1 tanker in transit

But they have already expended all their fuel to match velocity with starship in transit....

[Anonymous No.11079260]

In all seriousness can we really start colonizing other planets before we go full transhumanism?

We were shaped specifically to live on Earth. It feels like giant habitats that replicate Earth are far better than Mars. Humans living on Mars would face so many issues it's ridiculous.

Besides, after we become cyborgs capable of living for centuries or start uploading minds even a decade of flight near light speed won't really be an issue. And then we can find planets far better for colonization than Mars.

I'm sure we will go to Mars in a decade or two but it really seems we are nowhere near true colonization.

[Anonymous No.11079265]

>>11079260
We can start shipping mass amounts of equipment and people to Mars within 5 years if starship pans out, there is no barrier to colonisation other than getting enough equipment there to exploit resources. Please let me know when my cyborg implants and mind uploading will be available.

[Anonymous No.11079277]

>>11079259
>all their fuel
If a cargo starship can deliver 150t of payload to mars, a tanker can deliver at least 150t of propellant.

[Anonymous No.11079283]

>>11078449
so, altitude compensating nozzle through ablation? intredasting..

[Anonymous No.11079289]

>>11079277
So you are shipping 8-9 tankers to refuel another 8-9 tankers and the tanker at LMO? That's getting on for 90 flights from Earth. Or instead you could send over a thousand tonnes for a similar number of flights from Earth which could absolutely setup your ISRU fuel usage.

[Anonymous No.11079290]

>>11079265
Even if we get travel time down to 5 months you still have people after half a year in zero G arriving in a place where one mistake kills you. We only have few astronauts who were in space that long and all of them faced serious health issues and required rehab.

[Anonymous No.11079310]

>>11079260
depends on the effects of martina gravity on pregnant women and children

[Anonymous No.11079316]

>>11079290
Hyperbole as fuck, astronauts are not fucking cripples having come back from the ISS, even if they have to spend a few weeks not leaving the starship working out and getting used to gravity it's hardly a fucking disaster and only applies to the first group where there is no infrastructure. Stop fucking FUDposting and spitting out debunked bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11079321]

>>11079316
They can't even walk.

[Anonymous No.11079324]

>>11079265
>within 5 years

More like 20. Like holy shit Crew Dragon still isn't allowed to carry people and you idiots believe they will be sending people to Mars in 5 years?

[Anonymous No.11079327]

>>11079321
bullshit, they use wheelchairs as a precaution, and can walk in Earth gravity almost immediately, Mars will be easier

[Anonymous No.11079331]

>>11079324
Crew Dragon will carry people within a year, and the lessons from it's development will transfer to Starship

no sure about Mars, but manned Starship flights in cislunar space are plausible within 5 years

[Anonymous No.11079357]

>>11079324
Life support gets easier on a larger scale, the challenge of crew dragon is making that shit small and effectively 100% reliable since there's no room for redundancy

[Anonymous No.11079366]

>>11079321
For like 1-2 days they have a hard time walking while their inner ear readjusts, they still can in that time if they really try, it's just hard, their legs are not fucking crippled. Astronauts are now coming back with near 0% appreciable bone and muscle loss thanks to their new workout machine and fitness regime.

Your whole point is moot and bullshit anyway since they will end up tethering two starships together and spinning them for some gravity even just for the sole purpose of making the plumbing and atmosphere systems easier.

[Anonymous No.11079404]

Could 3 Hwasong 15s in a Falcon Heavy like configuration be used to launch a Vostok style manned capaule? Asking for a fat friend with a bad haircut.

[Anonymous No.11079448]

>>11079164
>Elon's face when

[Anonymous No.11079654]

>>11079404
It could probably work if you did propellant crossflow, which is relatively easy to with the Hwasong 15's hypergolic fuels.

Another option would be to arrange 5
4 Hwasong 15 around a central extended one, making them into a ghetto R-7/Soyuz 1st stage, which would also allow you to see Kim Jong-Un's Cross on booster separation.

[Anonymous No.11079674]

>>11079404
>>11079654
A multi-core Hwasong-derived launch vehicle would most likely end up looking like a smaller, less capable Angara, which uses hypergolics instead of cryogenic kerosene and oxygen.

[Anonymous No.11079675]

>>11079674

[Anonymous No.11079816]

>>11079675
>using nearly indistinguishable colors to denote two different fuel types
>using a third color that closely resembles both fuel colors denote an oxidizer
fucking who designed this graphic, this suucks

[Anonymous No.11079823]

>>11079816
A drunk intern most likely.

[Anonymous No.11079848]

>>11079816
>>11079823
It’s not an official diagram, but likely accurate considering it’s from Anatoly Zak of http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ who’s the best source for Russian space stuff on the internet.

[Anonymous No.11079874]

>>11078343
This could work.
You should talk to someone anon.

[Anonymous No.11079921]

>>11079357
>Life support gets easier on a larger scale
Absolute BS

[Anonymous No.11079930]

>>11079921
mass and volume budget cures many sins

[Anonymous No.11079954]

>>11079930
Sure, but that's more than cancelled out by the increased workload of the systems

[Anonymous No.11079960]

>>11079954
nope, only a couple more people with a whole lot of extra mass and volume (as a buffer) means that it's way easier
1000 cubic meters and 150 tons to work with for less than 20 people on initial flights? easy peasy
for comparison, crew dragon has ~20 tons to play with and ~50 cubic meters

[Anonymous No.11079963]

>>11079954
depends on number of people obviously

until starship flies with 100 people to Mars, it will be easier

[Anonymous No.11079966]

>>11079960
max crew for Dragon 2 is seven people

[Anonymous No.11080022]

>>11078146
I can make a list of links if you want. What should it include?

[Anonymous No.11080025]

>>11080022
no, OP full of information is cancer

[Anonymous No.11080097]

>>11079966
So put in three units per 20 people
It's not like if one module out of a dozen goes down for maintenance it becomes a life or death situation with hours to resolve. Even at 80% capacity it'd take days or weeks to progress into a serious issue.

[Anonymous No.11080104]

>>11080097
that leaves you like a hundred tons of extra mass to play with, anon
the actual dragon 2 only weighs in at ~10 tons or so

[Anonymous No.11080209]

>>11079674
>>11079675

Don't forget the dual-chamber engines, that'd make it aesthetic AF. And that launch vehicle, if staged appropriately, would absolutely have enough "oompf" to lob a Voshkod or Gemini-sized capsule into orbit, if not something slightly bigger, like Gaganyaan or the old Zond spacecraft.

Either way, it would be satisfying AF to put a man or three into orbit using North Korean ICBM derivatives on an utterly shoestring budget.

Who wants to become the next Gerald Bull?

[Anonymous No.11080586]

I'm at the IAC and one of the technical sessions out of the first round of symposia meetings (Launch Vehicles in Service or Development) had Gary Henry from SpaceX as the keynote presenter, talking about the process of developing reusability for F9 and a really brief mention of Starship. Pretty much just company philosophy stuff, plus the Life On Mars FH video and the How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster video. Standard stuff, seen it all before.

What's really funny was that talk being followed by progress update presentations for SLS, H3, and Ariane 6. H3 and Ariane 6 are already obsolete but seem like they're proceeding along at a decent pace. The SLS presentation was just John Honeycutt trying not to fall asleep while he mumbled "integration" and "testing" repeatedly for 15 minutes.

SS/SH is like the fucking grim reaper looming over everything- being physically present and watching old space talk in circles really drives the idea home.

[Anonymous No.11080590]

>>11080586
Cool. Take a picture and post it.

[Anonymous No.11080609]

>>11080590
If you wanted a picture of the technical session, I'm no longer there. Blue Origin brought a BE-4 for display, I'll get a picture of that at the reception in a little while.

[Anonymous No.11080616]

>>11080609
yes, please, thank you

[Anonymous No.11080631]

Lol

[Anonymous No.11080635]

>>11080631
wew, it's huge
can I get a closer look at the machining marks/finish on the bell?

[Anonymous No.11080636]

Cucked

[Anonymous No.11080648]

[Anonymous No.11080656]

[Anonymous No.11080657]

>>11080636
>those bolts
some sort of proprietary aerospace grade weight-saving bolt-head design? That's next level

[Anonymous No.11080660]

[Anonymous No.11080666]

[Anonymous No.11080669]

>>11080657
Probably some kind of high-torque design. Or maybe for precision torque.

[Anonymous No.11080675]

>>11080669
the extra contact surface improves the torque you can apply, yeah, and it's probably lighter than standard hex

[Anonymous No.11080677]

>>11080657
>>11080669
Seems like so.
https://www.aftfasteners.com/12-point-flange-bolts/

[Anonymous No.11080703]

>>11080666
>>11080660
>>11080656
>>11080648
>>11080636
>>11080631
can you touch it? what does the finish on the bell feel like?

[Anonymous No.11080720]

>>11080631
Thanks for saving me the trouble.
Have you checked your convention swag bag yet? Bezos really wants you to put stickers on stuff.

[Anonymous No.11080725]

>>11080720
oh, was that somebody else
post a real close-in picture of the bell finish on the BE-4 please

[Anonymous No.11080726]

Starship is looking more and more like a de-construction project.
Not gonna lie, this doesn't bode well for it flying anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.11080728]

>>11080720
No, I haven’t but those look like nice stickers, I’ll make sure to say thank you when I see the guy tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.11080733]

>>11080726
>>11080726
The whole PR put together stunt was stupid, but I’m sure it’ll get put back together soon. However, you are right about it probably being a deconstruction project, it’ll be a rapid one ;)

[Anonymous No.11080734]

>>11080726
t. Richard Shelby

[Anonymous No.11080737]

>>11080726
First flight in two months now

[Anonymous No.11080738]

>>11080720
Those are some a e s t h e t i c stickers.

>>11080726
>We can't let Elon get the nuclear launch codes!

[Anonymous No.11080743]

>>11080733
Well, they already did it with Starhopper, only for the nose to be blown away by wind.
And all we got from it was a stupid photoshooped picture.

[Anonymous No.11080753]

>>11080743
Starship has already passed a weather durability test successfully unlike Starhopper, so I guess that’s an improvement? Still considering that hopper’s Raptor set itself on fire after barely a minute of firing, I’m not super optimistic for the 20km hop, it’ll be wonderful fireworks tho!

[Anonymous No.11080760]

Will we ever escape the FUDposting?

[Anonymous No.11080767]

>>11080760
no

[Anonymous No.11080770]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH I JUST WANT TO COLONIZE SPACE BROS IT'S NOT FAIR IT'S NOT FAIR I WANT TO STEP ON ANOTHER PLANET'S SURFACE WITH MY CUTE MARTIAN WIFE BY MY SIDE

[Anonymous No.11080775]

>>11080753
Well, sure if they keep adding stuff to it, it won't do any more payload to orbit than a falcon heavy.
2016 ITS was 500 tons ffs, and they keep going lower.

[Anonymous No.11080778]

>>11080770
>WIFE
waifu*

[Anonymous No.11080780]

>>11080775
2016 ITS was much larger than the current vehicle
9m is some critical size for something or other, I forget what

[Anonymous No.11080788]

>>11080631
>>11080636
>>11080648
>>11080656
>>11080660
>>11080666

>Mfg. Date April 2018
>1 1/2 Years ago
I guess that was the older model that had issues keeping full power?

Just a reminder that BE-4's have still never flown anything at all, yet BO is trying to get contracts and acting like they are running with the big boys.

[Anonymous No.11080795]

>>11080780
Isn't 9m like the maximum size for moving things by roads, because anything bigger won't physically fit?
Rockets have to move from assembly facilities to launch sites.

[Anonymous No.11080797]

>>11080780
Let me Elon translate.
>Current vehicle will be about 200 tons, be we hope to bring it down to 80 hopefully.
30 tons to orbit. Lower than Falcon Heavy.
Well that's what I heard when he said that.

[Anonymous No.11080798]

Eric Berger:
Buzz Aldrin, 2019: "How long is SLS going to last until Blue Origin or SpaceX replaces it? Not long."
>>>Look closely, Buzz is wearing a @SpaceX >>>OCISLY and @blueorigin feather pins today!!
>>>#IAC2019

SLS btfo

[Anonymous No.11080802]

Eric Berger:
Buzz Aldrin, 2019: "How long is SLS going to last until Blue Origin or SpaceX replaces it? Not long."
>>>Look closely, Buzz is wearing a @SpaceX OCISLY and @blueorigin feather pins today!! #IAC2019

SLS btfo

[Anonymous No.11080805]

>>11080798
Oh, noes, Buzz will not fly on SLS

[Anonymous No.11080806]

>>11080780
The original explanation for the reduction to 9m in diameter was the carbon fibre tooling: the bigger the mandrel, the harder and more expensive construction gets. But now their using steel this shouldn’t be an issue; actually, building a shorter and wider rocket would be better for launches in high winds and reentry dynamics due to more drag. I’m not a rocket scientist, so can somebody explain why 9m is the magic number?

[Anonymous No.11080809]

>>11080806
there's some infrastructure, maybe at the cape, that makes 9m better, but right now I think it's because they have a bunch of number crunching and design work done for the 9m carbon fiber version so they're just jumping in with both feet

[Anonymous No.11080812]

>>11080806
because tight is right. They likely re-used some models, existing designs, etc when the stainless switch occurred

[Anonymous No.11080820]

>>11080812
>>11080809
>>11080806
Inb4 @elonmusk decides to go for lead rocket instead

[Anonymous No.11080829]

>>11080820
Actually, thinking about it, I think I made the same joke here about steel about 1 year ago.
So just in case, if you're Elon Musk, Lead Rockets are a bad idea.

[Anonymous No.11080868]

>>11080806
My guess was that the 9m was decided on based on carbon fiber wrapping technology, and then kept when the material was changed to steel to avoid having to redo alot of the studies and design work around 9m diameter (stuff that would be material agnostic such as aerodynamic models and some infrastructure considerations) that way Starship development doesn't slow down significantly.

[Anonymous No.11080953]

>>11080802
Abso-fucking-lutely
B A S E D
Doing a grade school presentation about him and the moon landing is what got me interested in space when I was a kid, he just keeps reminding me why I looked up to him. I hope he gets to see boots on Mars, even though the US let him down and is 30 years late.

[Anonymous No.11080967]

>>11080802
what a fucking madlad, love this guy

[Anonymous No.11080985]

>>11080953
>>11080967
For a while it looked like SpaceX could into space before SLS, but just look at their trashcan.
Granted it's a prototype, but they're spending more time un-building it as they are doing progress.
Nobody in his right mind will sign to ride this pile of crap.

[Anonymous No.11080998]

>>11080985
Company with heaviest launch capability in the world today and uniquely impressive record of solving hard rocketry engineering problems
> lolz these SpaceX cowboys don't know what they're doing amirite

[Anonymous No.11081006]

>>11080998
Let me point you to my previous post >>11080797

Starship is a step down from Falcon Heavy as it stands.
Only difference is that it's 'fully re-usable'. Big quotes on that.

[Anonymous No.11081008]

>>11080635
Here you go

[Anonymous No.11081020]

>>11081006
I thought it can still bring 100t to LEO, it's just that Starship is projecting to be heavier than previously expected?

[Anonymous No.11081023]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/buzz-aldrin-is-looking-forward-not-back-and-he-has-a-plan-to-bring-nasa-along/
>Just after Memorial Day this year, I began talking regularly with the pilot of the first spacecraft to land on the Moon. We had spoken before, but this was different—it seemed urgent. Every week or two, Buzz Aldrin would call to discuss his frustration with the state of NASA and his concerns about the looming 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing without a lack of discernible progress to get back.

Looks like Eric Berger is serious buzz-iness

haha

[Anonymous No.11081027]

>>11081020
Well it looks like it will barely make orbit as it stands. Without payload...

[Anonymous No.11081032]

>>11081023
Oh, noes, he's talking about his Mars cycler again isn't he?

[Anonymous No.11081034]

>>11081008
Christ that looks like shit, too hard to get a guy to hit it with some fine sandpaper for a few hours to buff it up?

[Anonymous No.11081037]

>>11081008
it looks like 3d printing to me? what does it feel like

[Anonymous No.11081038]

>>11081027
Are you talking about the Mk1 prototype? You know that it's not the final version, right?

[Anonymous No.11081043]

>>11081038
I don't know about you, but looking at it, it's gonna be pretty hard cutting 120t out of 200 into this thing.
I mean, it's pretty minimalist already.

[Anonymous No.11081050]

>>11081043
Where did you get the 200t from? Mk1 is 140t IIRC.

[Anonymous No.11081057]

>>11081050
Fucking Elon Musk told us so at his windy presentation.

[Anonymous No.11081064]

>>11080802
This is him in 2017, he was already wearing spacex and blue origin pins. absolutely redpilled

[Anonymous No.11081071]

>>11078008
>anime edition

[Anonymous No.11081079]

>>11081071
This looks like it will be dope, thanks.

[Anonymous No.11081081]

>>11081043
Just halve the wall thickness of the spacecaft and its all done.

[Anonymous No.11081084]

>>11081081
Yeah, I'm sure it's that simple.

[Anonymous No.11081087]

>>11081037
That's definitely not 3d printed. It feels smoother than it looks, was probably spin-formed and then roughly machined to final size

[Anonymous No.11081092]

>>11081084
That's what they are doing, making the plates thinner.

[Anonymous No.11081118]

>>11080797

Launching starlink sats cheaper than falcon will help the bottom line, and non refined capacity is good enough for that.

[Anonymous No.11081122]

>>11081087
then how do they cool it?

[Anonymous No.11081128]

>>11078254
No, in the book the Native Martians elect a leader, his title is "Elon."

Still a pretty good coincidence, assuming irl Elon does indeed send colonists to Mars.

[Anonymous No.11081134]

>>11078706
>use it to launch a crude cubesat into orbit that broadcasts "all your base are belong to us" on repeat in a kraftwerk-style 1980-era synthesized computer voice, as a sort of "troll Sputnik".

YOU HAVE MY AXE!

[Anonymous No.11081154]

>>11081118
*cheaper

[Anonymous No.11081165]

>>11078865
And bats.

[Anonymous No.11081168]

>>11079093
Don't forget the tardigrades.

[Anonymous No.11081169]

Wait a minute. What' going on?
It's been like 6 month or so since last SpaceX launch.
Could it be there were never a market for cheaper space shit?

[Anonymous No.11081189]

>>11080802
I just hope he punches somebody.

[Anonymous No.11081190]

>>11081169
Lull in the market, it's come down by about a third or so, still fucking expensive and beyond the means of entities like universities and small private companies that would be the market for a massively increased launch rate.

[Anonymous No.11081211]

>>11080985
I've seen the trashcan, the previous trashcan has officially, objectively, without a shadow of a doubt logged more flight time already in it's short two hop life with a single fucking engine which has sat outside in a fucking sandbox, than SLS (peace be upon it).

[Anonymous No.11081243]

Some say that...
>he recently had the plumbing in is house redone to give him hydrazine on tap
>he is illegal on 17 moons of Jupiter
>his urine can heat-treat stainless steel
>he is confused by launch towers
>there is a spaceport in New Quebec named after him
>it is impossible for him to wear a counterpressure suit
>he invented Pluto
>he was turned down from Dear Moon because people have heard of him
>he thinks Soyuz is a type of marsupial
>he has 12 Doctorates, all in aquaponics
>during winter on Titian, he feels compelled to flock to the other hemisphere to make a nest for his eggs
>he is physically unable to pronounce 'Bezos'
...all we know is, he's called the Stig.

[Anonymous No.11081264]

>>11080795
No, 3.8 meters (current Falcon 9 width) is the max you can transport via road, that's why Falcon 9 is that diameter.

[Anonymous No.11081275]

Anyone going to the secret /sfg/ meetup at IAC? Just put your leg under the door...

[Anonymous No.11081285]

>>11081275
Remember the secret handshake anon, I'll see you there.

[Anonymous No.11081293]

>>11081122
bruh, read about nozzles.
Modern nozzles are sandwiches of metal with cooling channels milled between. You're only looking at the outer layer. No modern-designed engine uses brazed-tube nozzle walls anymore, because those are heavier and more expensive to build. This same sandwich method of construction is used on Raptor, Merlin, and all the Soviet-era engines Russia uses (and the ones derived from Soviet engines).

[Anonymous No.11081302]

>>11081293
I was under the impression that most of them are 3d printed, but spinning the shape out and then milling channels then spin out another shape and sandwich it also seems smart

[Anonymous No.11081307]

>>11080802
Baste.

[Anonymous No.11081361]

>>11081302
The biggest engine I know of that's 3D printed is the Superdraco, and it's about a foot long. 3D printing is the biggest meme in aerospace, almost nothing uses it because it's actually slow and produces parts that are usually shit for strength, especially compared to forced and machined shit. Think about how long it would take to actually 3D print a majority of the parts on Raptor, they'd never hit even their current production rate. 3D printing is good for very rapid prototyping and not much else honestly.

[Anonymous No.11081369]

>>11081361
It will be good for off planet production, doesnt matter if it takes ages to print shit if it can do damn near anything metal and you don't have to ship over a gorillion different metalworking machines.

[Anonymous No.11081399]

>>11081369
Not really, because we already have individual machines that can take blocks of raw material and machine them automatically into complex parts, quickly. Since it takes much less energy to refine metal, cast it, machine it, and recycle the waste shavings than it does to refine metal, grind or shred it down into micron-or-less scale particles that you can 3D print with, and then print an equal sized part, it actually makes more sense to just machine things instead. Also, the things we're gonna be building in space are NOT rocket engines, not for a long time, what we're gonna be making and using are long, wide sheets of metal and metal beams and struts, because by far the biggest concern of any person anywhere they're trying to live in space is gonna be expanding their living and working spaces. That means you need machining and more importantly FORGING capability, in a big way, early on in any colonization effort. Making engines doesn't matter, making super light or complex parts with inaccessible interiors doesn't matter, what matters is BULK PRODUCTION AT HIGH SPEED.

[Anonymous No.11081412]

>>11081361
Additive manufacturing can get you very useful parts that would be otherwise impossible or incredibly impractical to fabricate. It absolutely has a place in the industry for parts and systems that are designed from the get-go to exploit its advantages and circumvent its weaknesses.

[Anonymous No.11081417]

>>11081399
more importantly, incredible hihg speed

[Anonymous No.11081468]

>>11080675
It's a high torque bolt head design. You see bolts like that all the time in Motorsports applications for stuff like cylinder heads, crank pulleys and such that need to be torqued to hundreds of foot pounds where you'd worry about edges shearing off with a traditional 6-sidee bolt head.

[Anonymous No.11081606]

Do you guys trust SpaceX will actually get humans on Mars in a permanent way within the next decade or so? Because if so, then honestly the best time to say fuck it and start the research and design phase of a Martian pot shop is now.

Do I take the red planet pill?

[Anonymous No.11081624]

>>11081606
some people will say no, but deep down, we all hope and believe

[Anonymous No.11081633]

>>11081606
What is there to research and design. You bring some seeds and hydroponic gear, setup grow lights and go. You only need a few dozen plants to produce shitloads of weed and the hydroponic gear for that will weigh fuck all really.

[Anonymous No.11081641]

>>11081606
the real money is going to be nuclear engineering and research on Mars

[Anonymous No.11081654]

>>11081641
Drugs have always and continue to be one of the most profitable businesses there is. Digging around in the dirt for nonexistent microbes will not make you a fraction of the money of someone who owns a distillery or grows weed.

[Anonymous No.11081656]

>>11081654
yeah, but patenting the world's first operational thorium reactor design might

[Anonymous No.11081663]

>>11081656
Not hard to produce drugs, hard to design a thorium reactor that the best minds yet haven't really managed to do.

[Anonymous No.11081665]

>>11081663
that's only because THE MAN is keeping them down

[Anonymous No.11081684]

>>11081663
Yeah but drugs are gay.

[Anonymous No.11081688]

>>11078008
Should I keep watching Planetes? I watched the first 5 or 6 episodes and the scifi parts are cool but the anime tropes are hard to bear.

[Anonymous No.11081689]

>>11081688
you should, granted it's still an anime. It will get worse but it does become more intersting, higher scale and more plot centric. It's very good. But you may hate it. Such is life.

[Anonymous No.11081690]

>>11081684
Have you seen San Fransisco fags are loaded, just look at Apple, do you not see the money signs

[Anonymous No.11081701]

>>11081690
sounds like Elon is testing Starlink

[Anonymous No.11081712]

>>11081688
I didn't like those parts but I think it gets much better after those. Still one of my fav animes

[Anonymous No.11081879]

>>11081688
>anime tropes are hard to bear
cringe

[Anonymous No.11081966]

who /l a n d e r/

[Anonymous No.11081968]

Why has all Starship testing just stopped? They've done nothing in the last month.

[Anonymous No.11082024]

>>11081968
What exactly do you want them to be testing? The hopper is retired and mk1 isn't quite ready yet.

[Anonymous No.11082044]

>>11081684
>Yeah but drugs are gay.
mkay?

[Anonymous No.11082046]

>>11082024

MK1.

They've been building for a fucking age. More Musk timeline slips and delays. No idea why this board sucks his dick so much.

[Anonymous No.11082069]

>he's back again

[Anonymous No.11082087]

So it really was a water tower after all...

[Anonymous No.11082102]

>>11082069
Just fucking ignore it, there's no reason to sacrifice any spaceflight thread to some retard's personal vendetta against successful space projects.

[Anonymous No.11082116]

>can't argue
>can't refute
>just ignore

Ah yes, the hallmark of the Muskrat

[Anonymous No.11082117]

>>11082116
BASED

[Anonymous No.11082132]

>>11081369
This guy >>11081361
>>11081399 is right, 3D printing is a huge meme. It's only for rapid prototyping or small hard to make parts. It's slow, expensive and produces low strength parts. If you want to do any serious work with metal you use a milling machine

[Anonymous No.11082136]

[Anonymous No.11082137]

>>11082136
>I’m putting together a team

[Anonymous No.11082143]

lets be honest if the russians/chinese had built something looking like starhopper you'd all laugh at it.

[Anonymous No.11082144]

>>11082069
I haven't posted in several days lol

[Anonymous No.11082148]

He is also not one person I too am skeptical of Starship. I was the one who said directly landing it on the Moon is stupid.

[Anonymous No.11082160]

>>11082148
YOUR stupid

[Anonymous No.11082165]

>>11082148
But I also said that and Robert Zubrin did as well, are you Zubrin?

[Anonymous No.11082169]

>>11081006
>Let me
No. I won't let you.

[Anonymous No.11082180]

>>11082143
The Russian space program deserves mockery for the same reason NASA does, they start and then quit projects constantly, wasting valuable talent and resources with little to show for it while falling back on proven but aging and fundamentally inefficient launch technology. The Chinese are still catching back up, they've built some little demonstrator hoppers already which are just a tube with legs and engines, but quite the contrary I'd commend them for ambition if they tried to jump right to a 9m propulsive landing rocket from basically nothing. I wish either of them would try something like Starship, it would be a great motivator for NASA and American private space companies to accelerate their programs.

[Anonymous No.11082189]

>>11082165
No.
>>11082180
In the defence of the Russians their space programme has been on life support since the Soviet Union collapsed.

[Anonymous No.11082193]

>>11081688

And yet you can take 4chan tropes which are much worse.

[Anonymous No.11082202]

>>11082180
>The Chinese are still catching back up

If we’re talking about the cadence and number of launches, the Chinese and Russians are destroying SpaceX this year. What’s the point of reusability, if people can launch 50 year old hypergolic rockets and cheap solid-fuel small sat launchers quicker than you?

[Anonymous No.11082211]

>>11082202
50 year old hypergolic rockets are shit, and not long term solutions to expanding space ventures. They're sufficient to maintain the status quo, the Chinese space station, probably their most ambitious feasible space project to date is still basically a modernized version of Mir. Impressive for a country which has till now not really been comparable to the US or Russia, but still not anything new. Reusable heavy lifters are new and are the technological route which has to be followed for enlarged space industry going into the future. If SpaceX and Blue Origin weren't doing it and somebody else was, I'd be most interested in that somebody else, but so far they seem to be the furthest along.

[Anonymous No.11082217]

>>11082211
>50 year old hypergolic rockets are shit
but they're simple and reliable, chink factories can shit out hundreds of them while americans spend years trying to perfect their fancy high tech reuseable rockets

[Anonymous No.11082218]

>>11082211
Talking of Blue...

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-lockheed-northrop-join-forces-for-artemis-lunar-lander/

..their slow industry takeover continues...

[Anonymous No.11082243]

>>11082217
Shitting out shit that is reaching it's ceiling is not going to be the future. When the Chinese find their hypergolic rockets will not work for their future projects they will make new systems.

[Anonymous No.11082245]

Just out of curiosity, would a FFSC Hypergolic engine even be possible?

[Anonymous No.11082249]

>>11082218
That's a nice boots-on-the-moon-see-you-again-in-fifty-years lander.

[Anonymous No.11082252]

>>11082245
Yes, the Russians built one. Testing didn’t go well though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-270

>>11082243
The Chinese have already built non-hypergolic rockets for bigger missions e.g. pic-related.

[Anonymous No.11082263]

>>11082245
Absolutely, in fact as with every other engine cycle the autoignition feature of hypergolics makes designing the engine much more convenient because you don't have to worry about how you're gonna ignite the thing and its turbopumps. The hard part about FFSC stays the same as it's always been, getting the metallurgy necessary to contain high temperature high pressure oxidizer.

[Anonymous No.11082264]

>>11082252
Its like no one wants to use outmoded rockets if they dont have to lol

[Anonymous No.11082271]

>>11082252
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-270
>6270 kN
what the fuck, that thing was only 500 kN off of the F-1's sea level thrust, and had a single chamber. Sea level Isp was 40 seconds higher, too.
also I'm reading here they were considering using pentaborane instead of hydrazine, which would have increased the Isp to 343 seconds at sea level? what the fuuuuuck, why did they cancel this shit, smdh senpai

[Anonymous No.11082285]

>>11082271
It’s funny when you hear people talk about how amazing Raptor is, when you consider the Soviets successfully built (not so much tested) an F1-class FFSC engine with 261 bar chamber pressure. According to most sources the testing failed because the Soviets couldn’t solve the engine’s combustion instability problems.

[Anonymous No.11082290]

>>11082271
It is not possible to build such a rocket engine unless one was educated in the USSR

[Anonymous No.11082300]

>>11082285
>the testing failed because the Soviets couldn’t solve the engine’s combustion instability problems.
Yeah. The F-1 had a nasty habit of tearing itself to bits so violently it could destroy the test stand. Imagine that, but with incredibly toxic hypergolic propellants and it makes sense why the Soviets dropped the project.

[Anonymous No.11082305]

>>11082087
>still more progress than SLS

[Anonymous No.11082316]

>>11082305
>SLS actually has two engines permanently installed now
>Starship currently has none

[Anonymous No.11082326]

>>11082300
why didnt they just do their usual multi-chamber fix?

[Anonymous No.11082345]

>>11082326
Probably due to a lack of the need for it. Also probably because of Korolev. The timeline of the RD-270 falls on the exact same time as the NK-33 and the Soviet moon program, which was ultimately under the control of Korolev. He disliked the use of hypergolic propellants and preferred kerolox. So it doesn't seem unlikely that in the face of needing to trim down the Soviet space program to try to beat (or at least match) the US in going to the moon, that he stopped or held back the RD-270's development in favor of the NK-33. And since the RD-270 was meant specifically for the lunar program, when that got canned the engine went out with it.

Just my guess though.

[Anonymous No.11082353]

>>11082326
Idk, the RD-270 was a 1960s engine and the Russians didn’t develop the high-performance multi-chamber engines (e.g RD-170,180 etc) until the late 70s/early 80s. Soviet engine development is very hard to chronicle due to the severe lack of information available.

[Anonymous No.11082358]

>>11082345
why is combustion instability not a problem for the raptor?

[Anonymous No.11082361]

>>11082358
Raptor is physically smaller.

Anyone got an engine size lineup image?

[Anonymous No.11082362]

Blue Origin announces a blue-chip team to return humans to the Moon

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/blue-origin-announces-a-blue-chip-team-to-return-humans-to-the-moon/

[Anonymous No.11082367]

>>11082361
Raptor is tiny for it's power.

[Anonymous No.11082368]

>>11082358
The Raptor is far smaller than the F-1. The F-1 had nasty combustion instabilities due to it's sheer size allowing for uneven combustion much more easily compared to a smaller engine. Also, there have been very few F-1 sized engines made so the understanding behind their engineering is much more limited. Meanwhile there are lots of engines that are Raptor sized so there's a much more solid understanding in how to make them stable.

[Anonymous No.11082372]

from BO presentation at IAC

[Anonymous No.11082378]

>>11082372
And more...

[Anonymous No.11082379]

>>11082367
So the BE-4 is a worse version of the RD-180 whereas the Raptor is a slightly better version?

[Anonymous No.11082381]

>>11082378
The BE-7 is a slick engine. Perfect enginefu material.

Also, does anyone know what happened to the BE's 5 and 6?

[Anonymous No.11082382]

>>11082372
I’m waiting on that New Glenn orbital capsule reveal, I know it exists...

[Anonymous No.11082388]

>IT'S OFFICIAL! Our HTX test programme has fully validated our precooler technology at Mach 5 – a significant milestone in the development of SABRE, hypersonic flight and space access!

https://twitter.com/ReactionEngines/status/1186533464339832834

[Anonymous No.11082390]

>>11082381
Possible New Armstrong engines is what people keep saying, probably in the early development phases (big engines take a while to develop). I’m betting F-1 sized.

[Anonymous No.11082393]

>>11082388
mach 5 is fucking nothing

[Anonymous No.11082397]

>>11082285
Hey, Raptor IS amazing, amazingly high performance and low cost and high TWR and amazing for all the other features it has. Raptor should in theory be a much harder engine to pull off because it uses two cryogenic propellants that don't auto-ignite, AND it gets a higher chamber pressure, all while having to be as highly reusable as a commercial air-breathing jet engine. Raptor is simply smaller than RD-270 was.
Also, pentaborane is a shit propellant for rockets other than pressure-fed or tri-propellant, because of the fact that when it burns it makes boron-oxide dust, which is very hard and highly abrasive. It would have absolutely gutted the engine after a single firing due to erosion of every surface, IF the engine's oxygen-rich turbopump didn't catch fire due to the boron oxide rubbing the protective metal oxide layer off of the turbine alloys faster than it could form.
A tri-propellant hydrogen-oxygen-pentaborane rocket would be quite kino, though. Bright green exhaust plume at launch, fading slowly to a nearly invisible hydrolox plume in the upper atmosphere (except for the blue-white glow of the inner walls of the engine nozzle), high thrust and good efficiency at sea level changing to low thrust and great efficiency in vacuum. Could be possible to do an actually-useful SSTO from Earth with that kind of engine, though I hesitate to say it because SSTO are a shitty meme technology.

[Anonymous No.11082400]

>>11082316
Only took them what, like 3 weeks?

[Anonymous No.11082403]

>>11082372
The richest man in the world has his own private space program with reusable orbital boosters and some dumb fucks are still pretending we're not on the edge of a paradigm shift

[Anonymous No.11082407]

>>11082393
It is for Skylon spaceplane. Mach 5 is as fast as it needs to go breathing atmospheric air, the rest will be done in a rocket mode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)

[Anonymous No.11082412]

When will they put New Shepard out of its misery?

[Anonymous No.11082419]

>>11082379
BE-4 is a significantly worse version of Raptor, being bigger and heavier per unit thrust, and not being nearly as efficient.
They're both a pretty bad comparison to the RD-180 though, not that that says anything about them as engines, simply because the RD-180 is a lot bigger and uses kerolox instead of methalox.
A better engine to compare to is obviously the RD-191, which is literally half an RD-180, and gets almost the same performance as Raptor in terms of thrust. It's got 20 Isp less than Raptor at sea level and in vacuum, it's bigger, and it weighs more, with a lower TWR. This engine makes it clear to see that Raptor is using better technology than RD-191, and by extension RD-180, so you're basically right.

[Anonymous No.11082421]

>>11082412
Why would Blue put the first rocket to go to space and land out of it’s misery?

[Anonymous No.11082427]

>>11082407
Don't pure ramjets work all the way up to mach 6? Why fuck around with this precooler at all? Use a pair of bimodal turbo-ramjets to accelerate to mach 6 then fire up a hydrolox staged combustion engine and go to orbit.

[Anonymous No.11082429]

Elon tweeting through Starlink

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1186523464712146944

[Anonymous No.11082435]

>>11082427
woah...someone should tell this decade long multimillion dollar project that. i cant believe they didnt consider regular old ramjets. how could they overlook that wow.

[Anonymous No.11082445]

>>11082407
>>11082388
reposting this infographic here

>1.5 times faster than the fucking Blackbird, fastest plane in history

[Anonymous No.11082450]

are women even interested in going to mars? how would you encourage women to go if it's going to be full of desperate horny men and nowhere to run?

[Anonymous No.11082451]

>>11082421
Because it's useless in every aspect, probably

>>11082316
No, it has one engine installed, they just started working on the other one. At this rate they'll have all four engines on in time for Christmas.

[Anonymous No.11082461]

>>11082451
>No, it has one engine installed, they just started working on the other one. At this rate they'll have all four engines on in time for Christmas.

The core doesn’t need to be delivered to Stennis until December so that’s fine :)

[Anonymous No.11082462]

>>11082435
I'm asking why. I'm not saying they should throw all their work away (though in terms of Skylon they definitely should, SSTO is a shit, stick to hypersonic transport). Is it because of thrust to weight problems? Is it because of efficiency problems? Is it because they can't make the air frame work if they have two or three separate types of engine on a single vehicle? I want to know why. The States had been thinking about hypersonic aircraft and air--breathing SSTO since the 70's, their designs all used ramjets and scramjets to accelerate most of the way to orbit, and had little rockets as orbital maneuvering systems.

[Anonymous No.11082463]

>>11082461
>SLS program will continue funneling money into certain economies for years so it's fine :)

[Anonymous No.11082477]

What's the smallest staged combustion engine (open or closed)? The Rutherford using electric powered pumps implies that theres a lower practical limit to turbopumps.

[Anonymous No.11082492]

>>11082477
>What's the smallest staged combustion engine?

Probably Ursa Major’s Hadley engine

https://www.ursamajortechnologies.com/engines

[Anonymous No.11082493]

>>11082492

[Anonymous No.11082523]

>>11082477
>What's the smallest staged combustion engine (open or closed)?
Open cycle staged combustion makes no sense, rather than staged combustion you're thinking of powerhead combustion. That encompasses everything that uses hot gasses to run pumps, from gas generator to all three forms of staged combustion to even combustion tap-off cycle and expander cycle engines.

[Anonymous No.11082524]

>>11082087
Why would water go in there? Are they inspecting the hole or is that a rainwater?

[Anonymous No.11082531]

>>11082524
>welder-man gotta take a leak

[Anonymous No.11082548]

>>11082524
That’s rainwater according to Chris B, It’s not the first time they’ve had to drain it.

[Anonymous No.11082574]

>>11082218
I think whether or not they're successful at monopolizing any space industry hinges on whether or not their technology is made obsolete before it even flies. I do want to see Blue's stuff fly though, it's got a nice modernized utilitarian aesthetic that I appreciate, while SpaceX's design is a bit too Iphone for me. I think staring at the inside of Dragon too long would give me a headache.

[Anonymous No.11082588]

>>11082358
Powerhead diameter, F1 and the 270 were bigly yuge, while Raptor is comparatively tiny. The more sheer volume of propellant is pouring into the combustion chamber the harder it gets to control it's interaction without adding extra parts and thus mass. The F1 still isn't at the upper limit of what you can do though, they just hit the size limitation for a kero/LOX powerhead with no extra propellant flow alterations. You can also slightly change your bell shape to reduce shockwaves and combustion instability, the RS-25 has a slightly curled in bell lip to prevent it's .6 bar exhaust from being forced back into the throat and forming shockwaves that would generate combustion instability.

[Anonymous No.11082620]

>>11082574
>I think whether or not they're successful at monopolizing any space industry hinges on whether or not their technology is made obsolete before it even flies.

I think the talk of things becoming obsolete in the space industry is incredibly hyperbolic and misplaced. The space industry is slow to react to change: Ariane 5 is still winning contracts despite it being non-reusable, Ariane 6 is the same but cheaper with better performance, why would it be obsolete? Despite it’s issues, Proton still launches commercial satellites, it recently launched the first satellite refuelling mission. Delta 4 and Atlas 5 are the only rockets that have actually become commercially obsolete and they aren’t truly obsolete because the military still values their unparalleled performance and reliability; their successor Vulcan has already won 7 commercial payloads and is a shoe in for military ones as well. New Glenn will be far from obsolete.

[Anonymous No.11082630]

>>11082588
>The F1 still isn't at the upper limit of what you can do though

[Anonymous No.11082637]

>>11082620
True, but the industry is so glacial because the status quo of relatively small and unambitious space projects has never been disrupted before. Reusable medium and heavy lifters like New Glenn, Armstrong, to an extend Falcon Heavy and soon-ish Starship are probably going to be that disruptive force. What happens to expendable light and medium launchers when reusable medium and heavy launchers start to proliferate?

[Anonymous No.11082638]

Video from Gwynne Shotwell's presentation at IAC

https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/1186665104273788929

[Anonymous No.11082684]

>>11082637
>What happens to expendable light and medium launchers when reusable medium and heavy launchers start to proliferate?
They'll probably have some niche in highly specialized and sensitive payloads until the reusable launchers become more refined.

[Anonymous No.11082693]

I can break even running a tavern and hookah bar on Mars with as few as 100 colonists

We're doing this bois

[Anonymous No.11082704]

>>11081606
i think by the end of 2029 there will have been at least visits by humans with MAYBE one semi permanent setup for multiple month habitation.

[Anonymous No.11082715]

>>11082429
oh fuck its actually happening
How long until at least limited commercial availability? 2 years?

[Anonymous No.11082728]

>>11082704
Wooster said they're still on target for a 2024 landing which would be crazy

[Anonymous No.11082743]

>>11082429
habbenin

[Anonymous No.11082767]

>>11082367
Retard question. Could you modify the SSME to burn something other than H2 or would that mean it'd be a totally different engine? Like would it be possible for SLS block 2 to move from reused Shuttle engines to something else or an improved version, boosting its yeetage? SLS is already very powerfuk and efficient but from my vantage point it seems like there is room to make it better.

[Anonymous No.11082774]

>>11082767
>Retard question. Could you modify the SSME to burn something other than H2 or would that mean it'd be a totally different engine?
It could be possible but it probably would require replacing so many different parts that you might as well make a new engine.

[Anonymous No.11082779]

>>11081606
No, but life support and food production are worth investigating. Some of the close to permanent Mars colony proposals from the Mars Society meeting require something like megatons of landed mass. Also, the diet they propose is either vegan or the only meat is insects. The cost of building growing space, power, and water requirements add up.

[Anonymous No.11082787]

>>11082445
wasn't it hinted, wink wink, nudge nudge, that the sr71 actually beat 3.3?

[Anonymous No.11082801]

>>11081606
SpaceX is a transportation company. So I will give them ~70% chance. However setting up a permanent settlement requires a societal support. SpaceX doesn't have billions sitting around. If NASA wants to ignore Starship and if private companies do not pull their legs, there's a smaller chance of SpaceX creating something permanent.

However if government/private enterprise fails, SpaceX has to find a way to create a new economy to build their own colony and claim it as theirs. And build some nukes in case earth decides they want takeover from SpaceX by force.

[Anonymous No.11082803]

>>11082787
The real top speed is still classified, if that’s what you mean.

>>11082767
Idk why you’d wanna replace the RS-25s, unless it’s to save costs which isn’t a factor for SLS. The RS-25’s altitude compensating design is perfect for a sustainer design, it can burn for 8 minutes and get a similar efficiency to the RL-10 in vacuum.

[Anonymous No.11082812]

>>11082767
Your guess is right, it would basically be a different engine even assuming you could keep the powerhead and bell, which I doubt just because an engine's shape and dimensions are so heavily interlocked with it's propellant mix, pressure, mass flow rate, etc.

[Anonymous No.11082814]

>>11082450
>it's going to be full of desperate horny men and nowhere to run?
Hot.

[Anonymous No.11082816]

>>11082767
that's basically what the BE-3 is

[Anonymous No.11082822]

>>11082787
I believe the SR-71 was limited by the temperature resistance of the airframe and skin, so if you pushed it flat out it would just melt

[Anonymous No.11082827]

>>11082816
>>11082767
uh whoops I'm retarded I meant the BE-4

[Anonymous No.11082898]

Per IAC Industry Day Firefly/Aerojet Rocketdyne Press Briefing: Aerojet is already producing large components of the Reaver engine for Firefly through additive manufacturing. The AR1 will also be used as the first stage to the single stick medium lift “Beta” within about 3 years when both projects are expected to reach completion.

[Anonymous No.11082922]

>>11082421
>the first rocket to go to space and land
>to go to space
>to space
kek

[Anonymous No.11082937]

>>11082922
The Karman line is the internationally recognised boundary marking the start of space.

[Anonymous No.11082954]

>>11082630
>If the civil rights movement and the counterculture never happened we could have had M-1 powered Saturn V successors launching Werner Von Braun's nuclear-powered Mars constellation for a 1980 landing but instead we got hip hop and the space shuttle.

[Anonymous No.11082958]

>>11082390
God, I hope New Armstrong uses a Kerolox 1st stage so it puts on a Saturn V-shaming flame show on launch and mogs Superheavy's virgin pink bunsen flames.

[Anonymous No.11082963]

>>11082382
This. They'd better pull the curtain back on it soon.

[Anonymous No.11082972]

>>11082954
Nah, the vietnam war ate up all the funds. The war also made nasa choose a shuttle that was cheap to develop, but expensive to operate rather than being fully reusable.

[Anonymous No.11082989]

>>11082963
It’s somewhere in their Kent, Washington factory. If somebody could break in and take one for the team to get pictures...

[Anonymous No.11083046]

WARNING NSFW

https://twitter.com/NASA_SLS/status/1186730199343419392

[Anonymous No.11083056]

>>11082989
I've long dreamt of using video-equipped mouse or cockroach-sized robots to infiltrate USAF Plant 42 or something like this, something like the remote-controlled cockroach from the 5th Element.

[Anonymous No.11083060]

>>11082954
>4 8m Solids

My. Fucking. Dick.

[Anonymous No.11083075]

>>11082715
end of 2020 as a last recol

[Anonymous No.11083080]

>>11083046
im gonna coom

[Anonymous No.11083098]

>>11082419
Keep seething, SpaceX cucks

[Anonymous No.11083112]

>>11083098
Ironic

[Anonymous No.11083221]

>US segment of ISS cleared for 2030+
>looking at extending it to 2045
what the fuuuuu

[Anonymous No.11083226]

>>11083221
https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/status/1186721491729178624

[Anonymous No.11083248]

>>11082403
Uhh, isn't it even more of a paradigm shift that someone who is nowhere close to being the world's richest man has his own private space program with reusable orbital boosters (reusable Mars colony ships soon)?

[Anonymous No.11083301]

>>11083248
Yes, but Blue Origin is a low risk hedge for high risk SpacrX

[Anonymous No.11083311]

>>11083046
READY TO BE PUT ON THE TEST STAND AT STENNIS!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11083316]

>>11083221
>>11083226
On the one side i think humanity should have a constant presence in space, on the other hand i think the ISS has become a massive money sink that needs to go down back to earth MIR style.

They have been doing testing in low G for half a century now, it's time to start doing test in artifical gravity from 0.1G up to 0.9G

[Anonymous No.11083317]

>>11082372
SHOW US THE FUCKING CAPSULE, JEFF!

[Anonymous No.11083329]

>>11082954
>but instead we got hip hop and the space shuttle.
I am listening to Action Bronson right now and I'm okay with this.

[Anonymous No.11083364]

When the fuck are we going to deorbit the ISS and finally build a rotating space station?

[Anonymous No.11083385]

>>11083364
>deorbit
No. Boost it to geosynchronous orbit and leave it there forever.

[Anonymous No.11083450]

>>11083364
It'll happen when it becomes affordable to haul that much material up to orbit. That won't be until after Starship has had ten or so orbital launches.
But I agree that we've had more than enough time with humans in zero-gee, it's time to get rotating partial gravity stations up, and a moon base too.

[Anonymous No.11083492]

>>11083226
Inb4 ISS pops due to metal fatigue because loads somewhere were higher than anticipated.
>>11083316
>>ISS has become a massive money sink that needs to go down back to earth MIR style.
Just add a big rack of docking ports, a bigger hab module, and convert it into the the ISS Bar and Grill.
>>11083364
ISS was meant to study the effects of microgravity. A centrifuge would have made the piss poor microgravity environment of the ISS even worse.

[Anonymous No.11083534]

>multiple non-elon spacex bigwigs have confirmed hand of elon will fly this year

[Anonymous No.11083563]

>>11083046
Why are there's always barely any people in these pictures, and they're always standing around nattering?

[Anonymous No.11083577]

>>11083563
Because it’s a PR shot? If you see videos of them working on SLS they climb right up inside it.

[Anonymous No.11083585]

the chad SLS siesta and 2 hour lunch banquet vs virgin spacex frozen leftovers and sleep in cubicle

[Anonymous No.11083595]

>>11083534
>hand of elon
What?

[Anonymous No.11083601]

>>11083585
The SpaceX workers at BC actually get lunch from a shady looking Taco van...I’m sure the food in New Orleans far outclasses whatever slop Carlos the illegal immigrant can whip up.

[Anonymous No.11083607]

>>11083595
the initial prototypes have been dubbed The Hand of Elon informally

[Anonymous No.11083621]

>>11083577
But you'd think they'd put EXTRA people on it to look good, not make it look like the project manager has begged just hard enough to get a few people allocated away from review meetings for half an hour

[Anonymous No.11083631]

>>11083385
no, deorbit it, it's a waste of resources to boost it, that thing has eaten enough time and money.

[Anonymous No.11083656]

>>11083621
What their currently doing doesn’t actually require lots of people. It’s mainly a just small group of AJR specialists installing the RS-25s.

[Anonymous No.11083668]

>>11083607

[Anonymous No.11083670]

>>11083595
Elon said the rocket is his hand, therefore, the rocket is the Hand of Elon

Mk2 should the "the cows are confused" but that hasn't caught on

[Anonymous No.11083801]

>>11083670
Um, okaaay.

[Anonymous No.11083942]

>>11082989
I wonder if it'll be similar to the biconic capsule Blue Origin pitched for Commercial Crew.

[Anonymous No.11083959]

>>11083601
Some of those taco trucks are bomb man dont hate them.

[Anonymous No.11084035]

oh no
a girl

[Anonymous No.11084150]

>>11081879
>cringe
How is hating retarded anime tropes cringe?

[Anonymous No.11084207]

I'm flying out to New Mexico again tomorrow evening to work on our payload before the EXOS launch. I'll post pictures again like I did last time.

[Anonymous No.11084265]

>>11084035
absolute starbabe

I'd refuel her womb in orbit of my dick if you know what I mean

[Anonymous No.11084274]

>>11084035
damn gurl
who dis?

[Anonymous No.11084286]

11084285

[Anonymous No.11084289]

>>11084285

fixed

[Anonymous No.11084350]

>>11084035
0/10 not as much muscles as the last girl I worked with

[Anonymous No.11084391]

>>11084035
Solid 10/10. Would lick her feet