/sfg/ Space Flight General

File: 372 KB, 1277x1920, J-2X_powerpack.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/sfg/ Space Flight General Anonymous Sun Jan 26 21:59:49 2020 No.11335132 [Reply] [Original]

J-2X Edition

Old: >>11328778

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:06:30 2020 No.11335153 >>11335132 RIP J-2X, aborted in the womb

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:08:27 2020 No.11335158 File: 659 KB, 1968x3000, 1554141903083.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Hey fellas can you watch my shuttle while I go to the store? I don't want anything to happen to it

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:09:41 2020 No.11335161 File: 168 KB, 1160x629, dick_shelby03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11335158 Hmmm, could get some more use out of it before it gets mothballed...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:09:49 2020 No.11335162 File: 287 KB, 580x441, jwst25.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11335132 When are the space soientists gonna have the JWST edition?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:12:51 2020 No.11335167 File: 1.35 MB, 2784x1848, J-2X_mounting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11335153 F I think it was abandoned because SLS was taking so long and so much funding, that it had to be dropped to speed up the program abit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:19:37 2020 No.11335186 >>11335162 When it launches.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:28:56 2020 No.11335205 I'm hoping the BE-3U will be a modern J-2X, we are going to need a big upper-stage engine if we are going to get serious about space.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 22:31:55 2020 No.11335209 >>11335205 The BE-3U has a little more than half the thrust of the J-2X, but it should have higher Isp due to the expander bleed cycle. I'm sure Blue Origin will use that engine thoroughly, but I don't think others will use it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:49:00 2020 No.11335355 >>11335167 No. It was uneeded after CxP was cancelled because SLS chose to use RL-10s on the EUS instead, since they were cheaper and better-suited for TLI performance.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 23:50:02 2020 No.11335359 >>11335209 Blue Origin has at this point pitched the BE-3U to Vulcan, OmegA, and SLS. They've gotten turned down every time in favor of the RL-10.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:46:28 2020 No.11335487 File: 778 KB, 3776x4096, EO1SjuaW4AIuvnh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] anti-Starlink morons are back.... with charts!

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:52:59 2020 No.11335508

>>11335487
I think this chart is ignoring places where internet is available but the service is poor compared to what Starlink could offer, such as rural US (which is infamous for it's poor internet infrastructure). There, Starlink would be a good upgrade AND would be affordable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:56:00 2020 No.11335515 >>11335508 yeah lumping every customer in one country together is stupid

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 00:57:45 2020 No.11335522 >>11335487 How do they know how much Starlink is gonna cost?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:01:16 2020 No.11335532

>>11335522
>Shotwell said millions of people in the U.S. pay $80 per month to get “crappy service.” She didn’t say whether Starlink will cost more or less than $80 per month but suggested that would be a segment of the public the company would target as well as rural areas that currently have no connectivity.

She has had one other comment sometime that it would be competitive. No hard numbers though. What the chart maker fails to realize is the money potential from ISPs for backload and HSTs. 200 different HST's paid $2.8b for a 13ms cut between Chicago and New Jersey recently

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:03:40 2020 No.11335538 >>11335132 >>11335167 oh god, that's making me so hard right now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:34:41 2020 No.11335610 goodnight /sfg/. Will poop out the Starlink-4 launch thread in the morning pending a weather delay or not. First person to post in /sfg/ through Starlink once it is operational gets a delicious (you)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:49:51 2020 No.11335640 File: 42 KB, 600x599, launch faggot.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm looking at you Starlink-3

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 01:53:59 2020 No.11335650 >>11335640 *Starlink-4 SpaceX is being funky with designations again. Air Force is convinced it's StarlinkV1.0-L3, so who knows.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:01:14 2020 No.11335661 >>11335532 The problem is that they ditched the interlinks and no way is it going to be latency competitive using ground stations. I don't know why they did that, seems like a real fucking bad move.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:03:42 2020 No.11335664 File: 82 KB, 175x173, skelly.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11335661 nah https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m05abdGSOxY

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:06:57 2020 No.11335667 File: 1.34 MB, 1718x670, Screen Shot 2020-01-27 at 12.06.10 AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11335664 with these few sats and ground stations, it's similar to optimized fiber (a straight fiber connection NY-Seattle)

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:11:20 2020 No.11335676
File: 1.04 MB, 2160x2160, 20200127_011008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11335661
latency competetive as compared to what.
Im in middle of fuck nowhere Iowa and the best ping I get to anywhere is 70ms
The least starlink could fucking do for me is not make me pay for retarded shit like 911 calls and other costs

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:15:24 2020 No.11335681
File: 29 KB, 307x300, 1534970465817.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11335676
Ill be completely honest the
>up to 100mb (73-125mb)
fucking floors me everytime I look at it
I only get 50 down (4mb/s) and 20 up (1.5mb/s)
that up to autism means jack fucking shit and is just an extra 10$ that they have monopoly ro fucking charge me, ive called them and
REEEEE'd about it but since they have a monopoly tough shit

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:16:41 2020 No.11335684

>>11335676
>Modem rental & protection
>protection
From the local broadband mafia?
>Up to xx mbit
God damn I'm glad I live in a country where practices like that are outright illegal. If I don't get the speeds I'm promised, I get refunded money, if my net goes down, I get refunded and I get free net package on my phone while they fix it.
And there's no fucking download limits ever.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:33:38 2020 No.11335702
File: 258 KB, 1080x2220, Screenshot_20200127-012743_Settings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11335684
>protection
it should be labeled insurance, I have actually had to have 2 of them replaced entirely because they just shit the fucking bed and it did not cost me anything extra
>up to xx bit
I have nothing to say there because you arent wrong the only fucking upside is I have friends 30 miles north and south of me on mediacom who have 1tb limits and I dont have any limits.
>pic related
is what I use just on my mobile connection from livestreaming to torrenting ect. Thats not counting my gf and I using our roku for netflix or me downloading shit on steam which I bet money would put me into the 2~2.5tb range

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:39:49 2020 No.11335709

>>11335702
I don't own my cable modem, that belongs to the provider. But then again they just send me a new one if it breaks no questions asked. They don't tend to break. Last time I got a new one was when they upgrade to EuroDOCSIS3.0 since the old one didn't support it.

The only data package shit we have is on cell phones, never on a proper internet package. I'll be the first to admit they're fucking gouging us on cell phone packages compared to the rest of Europe though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:43:04 2020 No.11335716 Wheres based launch thread poster, next starlink mission in like 7 hours.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:45:20 2020 No.11335718 >>11335716 Weather permitting, they're going live in 7 hours.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:47:24 2020 No.11335721 >>11335718 Thick clouds, so if there's even a launch, it'll be anything but spectacular to watch. Launch window is extremely small, backup window tomorrow. Weather conditions expected to be far better.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:49:22 2020 No.11335723 >>11335359 Unless you need the extra thrust there is no reason not to pick the RL-10, it's an amazing engine with a great record. The only downside is the limited thrust and long burn times needed for heavier payloads.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 02:50:30 2020 No.11335725 >>11335640 >>11335650 I think it's Starlink-3 with Starlink-0 being more a proof of concept than actually planned to be part of the network.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 03:08:39 2020 No.11335755

>>11335664
Heard a German interview with Hans recently. He said there would be no bounce back up. Just one bounce to the next conventional infrastructure available for now. Not sure how reliable Hans is on the issue though. He earlier said himself he‘s not super deep in the know about Starlink.
https://raumzeit-podcast.de/2020/01/17/rz083-spacex/
2:35:25

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 03:11:16 2020 No.11335762 >>11335755 Also to be fair, he said this is "in the beginning" so who knows.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 03:13:58 2020 No.11335767 >>11335762 I could be wrong, but I thought it was common knowledge that they will insert interlinks at a later date in a future iteration, which I think could be in a year type timeframe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 03:55:49 2020 No.11335820 >>11334781 Arrow should be pointing at Alabama.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 03:57:40 2020 No.11335822 >>11335820 Also relinquere means giving up as well as leaving. So it could be read positively as Never Giving Up Earth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 03:58:44 2020 No.11335823 >>11335822 We need somebody with actual Latin skills to work out the new official NASA motto for us instead of relying on google translate.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 04:06:08 2020 No.11335831

>>11334851
>the thing was going to need batteries that would take 15+ minutes to charge from the ISS solar cells for one small station-keeping burn
Didn‘t solar and battery tech make leaps and bounds since ISS was made?
Surely there has to be some improvement.
Although then again the real problem is probably that VASMR would be best suited for journeys to other planets and their moons while solar becomes less and less powerful when trying to get to any of the actually cool ones.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 04:11:16 2020 No.11335837 >>11335823 I used to be half decent at it when I was 16 or so. Sadly most of that is gone now.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 04:41:25 2020 No.11335861

"Liftoff of the Falcon 9 rocket is scheduled for 9:49 AM EST (14:49 UTC), the middle of a ten minute window.

The United States Air Force’s 45th Weather Squadron predicts a 50% chance of acceptable weather for launch. A backup launch opportunity is available on Tuesday, January 28, with an improved 70% chance of acceptable weather.

These probabilities do not include estimates of upper level wind shear or speed criteria, which vary from mission to mission. The forecast predicts upper level wind speeds of up to 135 knots on Monday, decreasing to 85 knots on Tuesday."

I think we're going to get cucked by the weather again today.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 04:43:45 2020 No.11335865 >>11335861 60% chance of cancelled launch during that tiny 10 minute window is what I've read so far. Backup window tomorrow. Weather predictions indicate 80% chance of launch.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 04:57:55 2020 No.11335877

>>11335831
VASIMIR is useless without a magical power source, how many times have we been thorough this shit anon. The only conceivable way to do it at the moment is to have several football fields of solar film and figuring out how to somehow stabilise that for almost no weight penalty. Even then you can only go to planets you can aerobrake into and have to dump those miles of film.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 05:28:48 2020 No.11335904

>>11335877
>VASIMIR is useless without a magical power source, how many times have we been thorough this shit anon. The only conceivable way to do it at the moment is to have several football fields of solar film and figuring out how to somehow stabilise that for almost no weight penalty. Even then you can only go to planets you can aerobrake into and have to dump those miles of film.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Just use a reactor.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 05:34:21 2020 No.11335906 >>11335904 Care to explain to the class how you intend to make a reactor generate electricity out of operating a steam reaction in a micro/zero gravity?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 05:39:29 2020 No.11335908 >>11335906 That engineering problem was figured out decades ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilopower

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 05:43:07 2020 No.11335912

>>11335908
>Stopped working after 43 days, admittedly for other reasons, never tested again.
>Planned, never tested.
Yeah, sure has been tested and solved.

Look, I'm all for thinking outside the box and using every tool in the shed and the neighbors workshop for that matter, but to say that it's already been solved is simply not the truth.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 05:59:40 2020 No.11335923

>>11335912
>but to say that it's already been solved is simply not the truth.

Fission reactors can and will operate in a vacuum in microgravity. Any engineering problems left can be ironed out in the design and testing phase of whatever craft it’s going on.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 06:14:37 2020 No.11335931

>>11335904
It's the weight of the reactor dipshit. It's too fucking heavy which kills your TWR and negates all the advantages over chemical engines. Why do we always get some retard every few weeks sperging out about the magic of VASIMIR without knowing why its never been employed and why there are no plans to do so. Do you guys just watch a pop sci video on YouTube and then come here?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 06:22:21 2020 No.11335943

>>11335931
>It's the weight of the reactor dipshit. It's too fucking heavy which kills your TWR and negates all the advantages over chemical engines

The reactor doesn’t have to be very big, especially since you can just irradiate space and not bother with shielding. If you want more thrust, make the VASIMR engine bigger.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 06:23:00 2020 No.11335945 File: 44 KB, 800x450, monkas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm worried that Boca Chica won't get the pressure needed in the Booper 2 test. All this work and infrastructure, and the math just does not work out for this design?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 06:29:36 2020 No.11335951 >>11335487 What do they care if Elon burns a bajillion on it and it doesn't work? It's not their money or public money. So many haters. It's sad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 06:34:08 2020 No.11335956 >>11335945 I wonder if they might end up going back to carbon fibre. Or maybe just wrap the welds in carbon fibre or something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 06:34:51 2020 No.11335957 >>11335945 What pressure will they be trying to achieve in this test? The first Bopper already reached the pressure needed for Starship to complete an orbital flight.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:07:33 2020 No.11336006 >>11335923 The Soviets used nuclear reactors on satellites extensively.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:07:47 2020 No.11336007 >>11335951 At this point it's safe to assume these guys are being paid by OneWeb or Amazon's Project Kuiper. The only critics of Starlink that are worth noting are by astronomers, and even then there's a limit before it just becomes FUD.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:10:42 2020 No.11336010

>>11335487
I don't get this political compass chart, which one is ancap again?
>It's not going to be absolutely perfect, so it shouldn't be done!
And when you said anti-Starlink morons, I thought it was going to be about muh starry skies.
>>11335522
Because they know it all! Everything! Just turn off your brain and let them be in charge!
>>11335532
>the price in the US is exactly what they are going to charge everywhere, it's impossible to do otherwise!
It's all so tiresome.
>>11335661
>ditched the interlinks
haven't started them yet, and see >>11335664, they're overrated
>>11335676
>all caps
>100MB
>not 100MBIT

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:10:49 2020 No.11336011 >>11336007 >astronomers The age where we observed the stars with the naked eye from the ground is long past.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:13:17 2020 No.11336014 >>11335945 Worst case they will have to re-enforce the join between the lid and walls with brackets, this would add weight but be an easy fix.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:14:26 2020 No.11336015 >>11336011 Starship can launch a fuckhueg telescope.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:15:40 2020 No.11336018 >>11336015 Exactly. We've seen what's to be seen from down here, we've had orbital telescopes for decades. It's time now to extend the range even further and put telescopes on other stellar bodies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:16:28 2020 No.11336019 >>11336011 Agreed. But that's no reason for SpaceX to shoddily handle PR and spurn possible clients by ignoring the astronomy community.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:18:30 2020 No.11336021 >>11336019 >ignoring the astronomy community As if there's no other junk up in orbit already. Not like haven't been putting shit up there for close to three generations or anything, right?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:27:42 2020 No.11336026

>>11335487
What is funny about this stupid graph, besides their completely arbitrary use of '10% of GDP per capita is the limit of affordability for internet service', is that they're disregarding the use case of Starlink Internet. For example, there are tens of thousands of villages in Africa without internet and cellphone services. The cost running internet to these places can be well over $10,000, but if they can just get one satellite internet connection for their school or community hub, it opens up the world for them. They don't need everyone to have their own separate connection.

I don't expect SpaceX to shoulder the whole burden of giving free internet to impoverished areas. Nonprofit organizations can buy and install the receivers. SpaceX can give a reduced rate with a data cap or slower speeds.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:28:57 2020 No.11336030 >>11336007 Telescopes can just remove a few frames from their footage.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:31:28 2020 No.11336033 File: 72 KB, 974x1209, BAE7C615-CA4B-4813-B83D-72B826C281CB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] That’s a big fairing...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:31:39 2020 No.11336034 >>11336015 If only NASA could build one without embarrassing themselves for a decade.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:33:02 2020 No.11336035

>>11336021
I'm just saying don't piss off the community unnecessarily. If there are space based telescopes launching in the future, it'll be the same group of people deciding who'll they launch with. SpaceX may have the best rocket in the business, but a clientele with a grudge just means lost profits. Besides, SpaceX is already doing the bare mininum now, so hopefully it bears fruit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:40:13 2020 No.11336045 >>11335957 8.5 bar, got just over 7 in test one, with 6.5 "bare minimum". Might need thicker steel and actual robots/fabs to build something that good.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:41:13 2020 No.11336048

>>11336007
Might also be Big Internet companies, although I guess many are still in denial right now. Maybe someone started early.
At the very latest when Starlink starts eating into AT&T‘s pie, I expect FUD from morning till sundown. People will claim their car got hit by a starlink satellite, there‘s increased cancer near these antennae, the ground stations are making people nauseous because of unseen factors, the sattelites burning up cause climate change, the rockets launching them are a significant percent of global CO2, astronomy is ruined forever, LEO will be Kesslered and I‘m sure one of the materials they used will be mined by child slaves. Oh and the mining destroys rainforest, the size of Utah every week.

Then lawmakers will step in and demand no more launches until all of this unproven stuff is disproven scientifically and then we‘ll never get to Mars.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 07:47:00 2020 No.11336052

>>11336019
>>11336035
>ignoring the astronomy community.
There is absolutely no general consensus on Starlink within that community. Most professional astronomers seem to be indifferent. The people who are upset seem to be mostly amateur astronomers or worse, former amateurs that used a backyard telescope two decades ago and want to claim they are an authority on the subject. Some of them don't seem to know that these satellites are not visible during the bulk of the night in most places.
>>11336045
I thought 6 bar was for orbital flight and 7.5 bar was for human rated. I don't understand why they would risk slowing down the project by testing to failure unless they're not worried about getting another tank ready or they're confident this one will pass.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 08:07:56 2020 No.11336074 >>11335956 >gigantic never done before carbon fiber experimental thing as a solution to some pressure vessel problem That's a great way to kill project, anon. Fix the welds or add reinforcement.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 08:20:40 2020 No.11336097 >>11336048 Imagine caring about rainforests like some kind of Gaia-worshipping Homo erectus.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 08:21:41 2020 No.11336101 launch thread >>11336079

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 09:50:48 2020 No.11336271 File: 91 KB, 1280x720, yiu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11336033 for yiu

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 09:58:05 2020 No.11336283 File: 75 KB, 924x800, 9114A3CF-965F-4CF7-A8F1-743B8C7C4BD6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11335822 For Artemis

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 10:07:03 2020 No.11336298 >>11335487 Who spends $540 per month on internet access? $100 per month PPP would be more realistic. Even that is probably too high.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 10:47:29 2020 No.11336381 File: 157 KB, 667x1000, 28BDF8F3-5F8A-45E7-A537-404B082A51FB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 10:50:48 2020 No.11336390 File: 404 KB, 1920x1277, J-2X_plumbing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11335538 Here's another.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 10:54:54 2020 No.11336399 >>11336381 Ever notice there's always at least one "that guy" in a group pic?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 11:20:05 2020 No.11336458 File: 467 KB, 1308x2048, 59367601-E521-471F-9A9F-72456A065B11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11336381

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 11:21:56 2020 No.11336461 >>11336458 >Meanwhile, at the space accordion factory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 11:33:52 2020 No.11336492 File: 1.55 MB, 1118x745, space_accordion.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11336461 >"It never get's old huh?" >"It kinda makes you want to break into song?" >starts playing Boom De Yada on an accordion

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 11:35:29 2020 No.11336496 >>11335908 robert stirling is such a fucking god what the fuck

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 12:02:44 2020 No.11336560 File: 578 KB, 1600x1080, J-2X_mounting2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11336390 Found another one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 12:16:27 2020 No.11336583 Test tank #2 is at the launch site

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 13:05:36 2020 No.11336747 HULLO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=graC_Vib1IE

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 13:25:36 2020 No.11336795 >>11335822 Never gonna give you up? Never gonna let you down?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 13:28:31 2020 No.11336802 File: 1.13 MB, 656x655, Jesus_manley.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11336747 HULLO

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 13:40:41 2020 No.11336821 >>11336802 >mfw I use orbital mechanics and major in physics to play a videogame but cant multiply two single digit numbers together without a calculator.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 13:42:35 2020 No.11336824 >>11336821 Those two things aren't mutual. And I play KSP with my spaceflight mechanics notes in my lap.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 13:55:41 2020 No.11336844

>>11336747
You know I was gonna blame Boeing for XS-1/Phantom Express’s failure, until I read that DARPA had only contributed $146 million to the project. Imagine telling Boeing to develop a hypersonic mini-Shuttle capable of travelling mach 10 and launching 10 times in 10 days, with a price per-launch of $5 million; whilst simultaneously offering them a relative pittance for achieving such lofty goals, in turn forcing Boeing to mostly fund the multi-billion $ development of such a vehicle on their own dime. Now Boeing’s going through some financial troubles due to the MAX crisis, they’ve decided to drop such an unattractive, financially draining project as quickly as possible. Even if Masten had been picked instead, I still think the project would have failed because unlike Boeing, they lack the financials to support such a ambitious, one-sided and draining public-private partnership.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 13:59:06 2020 No.11336851 >>11336821 >>11336824 amateurs the only real way to play ksp is to eyeball everything. like the ork technology in 40k, ksp rockets should only work if you believe in them. also moar boosters

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 13:59:50 2020 No.11336852 >>11336844 >$146 million For Boeing, that just about covered the fancy drawings they released and nothing else.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:00:00 2020 No.11336853 >>11336583 Is it gonna pop?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:05:09 2020 No.11336865 >>11336492 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBhh23-paLU

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:13:04 2020 No.11336886 >https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/house-bill-seeks-to-gut-nasas-artemis-plan-resurrect-journey-to-mars/ >House legislators want to hand NASA’s human spaceflight program over to Boeing Corruption at play

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:19:01 2020 No.11336896

>>11336844
>until I read that DARPA had only contributed $146 million to the project
This is why I'm have some disdain for US government space flight. It's willing to throw billions at a space station that does little to push the boundaries of space flight. It's willing to throw billions at a poorly managed rocket program that developed little new technology. It's willing to throw billions at other projects and then have them lead nowhere. But yet, what about a reusable launch platform that could drive costs down? What about new forms of space propulsion that could make the outer solar system more accessible? What about doing anything meaningful? Nah, just throw the government spending equivalent of spare change at those. They do stuff like this while complaining that space is hard. Of course it's hard when you regularly make poor decisions on it. I'm starting to hope that China beats the US to the moon just so it triggers a massive purge within US space flight and have it replaced by something with actual brains and drive.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:30:41 2020 No.11336926

>>11336896
>This is why I'm have some disdain for US government space flight.

I was talking more about how DARPA manages it’s space programs, than the entire US government. DARPA’s recent space programs such as the satellite refuelling program, launch challenge and now XS-1 have had many dropouts because DARPA have failed to make these ambitious and difficult programs rewarding for the contractor, there’s little financial motivation and most the cost-burden goes to the company, instead of the government. Cost-plus contracts can be terrible in their own way, but these anaemic PPPs are arguably worse because they usually end in failure. A balance must be struck...

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:47:06 2020 No.11336965

>>11336926
>Cost-plus contracts can be terrible in their own way, but these anaemic PPPs are arguably worse because they usually end in failure. A balance must be struck...
My issue is that a balance is rarely struck in the US government with regards to space flight. It's either little funding and actual interest, or bloated funding because the project has non-space flight benefits (like jobs) that are the "real" goals. I think that this is due to a general feeling across the US government that space flight isn't of any crucial interest beyond just putting satellites into Earth orbit.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:52:05 2020 No.11336974

>>11336896
Gateway was not much a "drive progress" as make sure we have a reason to go back and actually do something that can be useful for the work towards Mars.
But now? We're getting a fucking selfie opportunity and 50-60 more years of nothing, I'm afraid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:56:13 2020 No.11336983 >>11336974 I think Gateway still exists though, it has those international partners who have invested in it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:57:09 2020 No.11336986 >>11336983 It's a vague promise with no real mission purpose now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:57:41 2020 No.11336987 >>11336974 I don’t know why your talking about Gateway in the past tense, when even if the House bill passes as is (unlikely) it’ll still exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:58:09 2020 No.11336990 >>11336886 Christ, I'm so fucking depressed by this shit. We're never getting off this rock, are we?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 14:58:39 2020 No.11336992 >>11336987 On paper, sure. We have a human space exploration program too, on paper.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 15:03:23 2020 No.11337006 >>11336990 >Nunquam Evadere Terra

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 15:29:00 2020 No.11337070

>>11335943
>If you want more thrust, make the VASIMR engine bigger.
Then you require a bigger reactor again, lol.
VASIMR is not an engine, it is a thruster. It requires outside power to make thrust.

The best power supply in terms of low weight per watt in space inside the orbit of the steroid belt is solar, no question. Thin film solar is even better, because although being less efficient per square meter, the mass of thin film panel required to make one watt is actually lower than the same mass of a more efficient panel. If you're doing anything high power in zero G and low acceleration, like VASIMR, you want thin film solar.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 15:51:50 2020 No.11337123 >>11336986 Then I hope for the sake of American space flight that SpaceX and Blue Origin start off strong in the BEO stage.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 16:08:56 2020 No.11337166

>>11337123
Need I remind you that the same people who just put forth that Boeing bill have, and I quote "Jurisdiction over the following subject matters: All matters relating to astronautical and aeronautical research and development; National space policy, INCLUDING ACCESS TO SPACE."

Technically, they can put anyone that won't give them fat kickbacks on their shitlist and there goes their launch privileges apart from getting to shoot up space junk.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 16:25:12 2020 No.11337217 >>11335487 This person arbitrarily set the line for internet being needed or not at 50%. Instead it should be a lot higher.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 16:28:39 2020 No.11337230 >>11337166 Do you have a link to that bill? Because I tried finding it and that quote and I couldn't.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 16:38:32 2020 No.11337243

>>11336795
>"When the program started back in 2013, SpaceX had been talking about rocket reusability but hadn't actually flown anything that was able to do it. By the time the contract was awarded in 2017, SpaceX had been landing boosters for over a year."
The state of oldspace, the time taken to award a contract to develop reusable launch vehicles could fit in the time needed to develop reusable launch vehicles.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 16:40:28 2020 No.11337251 >>11337243 “Let the past die. Kill it if you have to.”

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 16:41:30 2020 No.11337253 >>11337070 Nuclear thermal rockets when?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 16:45:24 2020 No.11337263 >>11337253 VASIMR needs electricity NTR is just a way to spit out mass really fast

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 16:46:52 2020 No.11337266 >>11337230 That quote is not from the bill, but from the description of the committee found at https://science.house.gov/subcommittees/space-116th-congress

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 16:57:36 2020 No.11337284 >>11337263 Nuclear thermal rockets have really good specific impulse and power themselves. Perfectly good candidate for interplanetary vessels.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:00:36 2020 No.11337293 >>11337284 Do we have to do this every thread? possibly oversold meme tech.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:01:04 2020 No.11337294 >>11337266 Thanks, but Boeing isn't mentioned there, and none of the members have any direct connection to the company. Or rather any connections I could find in a casual search.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:05:31 2020 No.11337308

>>11337294
The bill kills the entire commercial partnership program dead, gives Boeing 4+ more years, more money for SLS, lowers requirement for Artemis moon landing to a single touch and go, makes requirements for moon lander to fit the exact that only Boeing's proposal meets, makes a vague promise of a manned Mars orbit using SLS.
It was clearly written by Boeing lobbyists and benefits only Boeing, hence why people are calling it the Boeing bill.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:07:02 2020 No.11337312 >>11337293 >possibly oversold meme tech. Cope. They’ve already been explored. Works perfectly,

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:07:42 2020 No.11337314 File: 817 KB, 1280x1024, KSP.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11336851 this, although I am genuinely too retarded to use maneuver nodes Close enough I guess

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:10:28 2020 No.11337318 >>11337312 https://selenianboondocks.com/2010/02/payload-fraction-example-proof/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:11:04 2020 No.11337319 >>11337314 >I am genuinely too retarded to use maneuver nodes come on, at least try to use them. Tiny bit of practice and you'll be orders of magnitude better.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:13:20 2020 No.11337322 >>11337319 I do, expanding orbit path is ok, it's just making the correct burns, always seem to run out of fuel before a proper landing or getting into a stable orbit

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:14:53 2020 No.11337328 >>11337314 >although I am genuinely too retarded to use maneuver nodes H-how? You just place them, screw around the values until you get the desired orbit, and burn. Doing an injection burn from LKO to Duna is pretty easy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:17:14 2020 No.11337334 File: 39 KB, 415x470, 2l0ahe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11337328 gotta learn to into Hohmann transfer

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:25:26 2020 No.11337347 >>11337322 fair enough, I had a friend who bought it on steam, fired his rockets straight up, wondered why he couldn't land on the moon, and gave up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:27:18 2020 No.11337350 >>11337334 Watch YouTube videos of it. Going from orbit of the Mun to orbit of Minmus is a good small-scale approximation of interplanetary transfers. Went to Ike first.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:32:32 2020 No.11337360 >>11337334 there's no easy way to do it by just fucking around with the maneuver nodes for interplanetary. send a probe out of kerbin's sphere of influence in exactly the same orbit and it gets much easier to figure out

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:33:51 2020 No.11337364 >>11337284 The implication sounded like NTR could make VASIMR useful. Which it can't. They're both interesting memes, but they aren't peanut butter and chocolate. But if there was no implication, then whatever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:34:00 2020 No.11337365 >>11337350 landing on Minmus is also faaar easier than landing on the Mun

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:34:16 2020 No.11337367 >>11337308 I know those things, but I was specifically questioning >>11337166's claim that Boeing would somehow be given complete control over American space flight including it's competitors.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:34:51 2020 No.11337368 >>11337365 getting to Minmus is far harder

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:36:24 2020 No.11337372 >>11337367 You misread my post completely. Those who put forth the bill are not necessarily the ones who wrote it, OK?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:37:25 2020 No.11337377 >>11337365 Try Gilly. I could fly Kerbals from the surface up to the orbiting spaceship using only their jet packs, and you can put them on escape velocity pretty easily. But don’t do that because they’re not coming back if you do

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:37:50 2020 No.11337378 File: 48 KB, 640x480, am_i_disabled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11337372 Oops.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:38:57 2020 No.11337381 >>11337368 Not really, at least in my experience. You just have to change your inclination while in LKO and do an injection burn just like you would with Mun. It’s a lot further out but this is deceptive; you need barely more delta/v.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:40:09 2020 No.11337386 >>11337381 no, do your inclination burn halfway to Minmus, it's the most efficient possible burn unless it's going to be larger than escape, in which case you should just do a bi-elliptic transfer

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:43:06 2020 No.11337391 >>11337378 No harm, no foul. Politics is dirty fucking game I wish I didn't know how worked.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:46:32 2020 No.11337396 >>11337386 >no, do your inclination burn halfway to Minmus Yeah, that’s ideal, but changing inclination before the burn is more simple. A correction burn mid-course is necessary for going to Dres, Eeloo, Moho, and often Eve if you’re going from LKO.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:47:39 2020 No.11337400 >>11337396 it's incredibly nerve-wracking to not have a real encounter with your target after the departure burn

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:54:11 2020 No.11337415 >>11337396 >>11337400 yeah, thats nothing an inexperienced player should try if he cares for little green lives. also it's only like 6 degrees for Minmus so no big deal

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 17:55:55 2020 No.11337420 >>11337415 I'm making astronauts, not patashniks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:19:16 2020 No.11337466 >>11336886 On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely would it be for boeing to completly bury it's competition in sanctions&new rules if they ever get control over the US human space program?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:22:01 2020 No.11337471

COLLISION ALERT
>On Jan 29 at 23:39:35 UTC, these two objects will pass close by one another at a relative velocity of 14.7 km/s (900km directly above Pittsburgh, PA). Our latest metrics on the event show a predicted miss distance of between 15-30 meters.
https://twitter.com/LeoLabs_Space/status/1221908253627412480

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:22:21 2020 No.11337473 >>11337466 they're already attempting it/10

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:23:23 2020 No.11337479 >>11337471 >miss distance of 15-30 meters that's well within even the best estimates of actual position

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:24:23 2020 No.11337485 >>11337471 probability of collision is 1 in 100

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:24:24 2020 No.11337486

>>11337466
If they get control? 6 maybe 7. They might be stopped by the total sue power of everyone they try to screw over. And it might not even be effective since Boeing can't stop a private company from wanting to send their own equipment and even people to the moon. The chance of this happening? 2 maybe 3. Boeing would most likely be given more control, but giving one company such overreaching control over US human space flight isn't going to be feasible due to issues of having one way to go to space that were uncovered by the Shuttle (i.e. if anything bad were to happen to Boeing, then all of space flight would be stopped).

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:28:50 2020 No.11337507

>NASA has chosen Axiom Space to provide first commercial habitable module for ISS (to be attached to Node 2) under NextSTEP2 (Appendix I) solicitation.
Axiom is led by Mike Suffredini, former NASA ISS program manager (2005-2015).
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1221888997535952896

bigelow btfo

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:29:58 2020 No.11337514 >>11337507 wow, Bigelow btfo

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:31:39 2020 No.11337518 >>11337507 I wonder how many years till take before NASA cancels the project before any serious hardware gets sent up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:39:55 2020 No.11337548 >>11337473 >Boeing shuts down everyone else in US government space flight >those companies work together on their own programs >the handpicked-by-Boeing Artemis lunarnauts get greeted by a valet >"Enjoy your stay at the Tranquility Lunar Casino."

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:40:39 2020 No.11337552

>mass produced space station modules?
>the modules will be attached the ISS
>will leave the ISS to create commercial space stations after the ISS is gone
it looks like each of the modules are their own service modules which provide station keeping and individual deorbiting

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:40:52 2020 No.11337554 >>11337548 Boeing has no intention of going anywhere, only stealing money from taxpayers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:42:15 2020 No.11337556 >>11337552 have their own service modules* so, a station module + a service module

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:42:23 2020 No.11337557 >>11337554 Exactly. Why go anywhere when you can "work" for on state projects.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:42:27 2020 No.11337558 >>11337554 True, but they would have to send someone to the moon eventually to keep up appearances. If it takes 20 years to put boots and flags on the moon, then lots of questions would start to get asked about Boeing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:43:53 2020 No.11337563 7.5 bar at room temp before leak on the latest test tank according to Elon

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:44:49 2020 No.11337565 File: 11 KB, 240x300, Bridenstine_portrait_nhq201907240001-240x300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >https://blogs.nasa.gov/bridenstine/2020/01/27/nasa-authorization-bill-update/ >G-guys, stay positive. Atleast we got a bipartisan bill.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:45:29 2020 No.11337568 >>11337563 you can see the reflection of his face in the window from where he took the photo

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:45:55 2020 No.11337570 >>11337563 I wonder why it's taking a while to get that up to 8 bar. Is SpaceX working out both the design and mass production of their tanks at the same time?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:46:06 2020 No.11337571 >>11337558 > True, but they would have to send someone to the moon eventually to keep up appearances If they don’t, China, SpaceX, and Blue Origin will. Who goes first?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:46:15 2020 No.11337572 >>11337565 he's just trying to not get fired

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:47:15 2020 No.11337575 >>11337571 Out of those three? SpaceX if they feel the need, if not, then Blue Origin. China still has some catching up to do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:47:24 2020 No.11337576 >>11337518 They want the post ISS budget in the 2030s to ramp up SLS moon or mars or both activities, this is part of the termination rational.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:47:44 2020 No.11337577 File: 202 KB, 1200x1157, EPUyj80W4AEkHpl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11337568 >>11337563

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:48:49 2020 No.11337582 >>11337565 Don’t diss Jim, he’s skilfully criticising the bill whilst being preserving a diplomatic tone, so he can negotiate changes to it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:48:50 2020 No.11337583 >>11337565 >bipartisan Yeah, that means Boeing will have people working in states where both parties have representatives. That's what "bipartisan" means in cases like this. >>11337577 I want a beer now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:50:54 2020 No.11337584 >>11337576 >They want the post ISS budget in the 2030s to ramp up SLS moon or mars or both activities You mean that NASA wants to transfer the ISS budget to the SLS? Source?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:53:51 2020 No.11337592 File: 48 KB, 172x163, face.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11337577 >"Recruit a team of /sfg/ers with attitude!"

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 18:58:20 2020 No.11337606

>>11337507
>nasa wants comercial ISS Modules
>bigelow, 20 year old company, has actual experience with its own modules deploying in space docking the ISS
>pick instead some random company that's only 4 years old with little to no experience and probably only has done a few renders.

This is yet another dummy company to dump tax money in, they will never create anything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:00:15 2020 No.11337615 >>11337606 Hopefully companies like that would get deleted if (or when) China beats the US to the moon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:02:33 2020 No.11337622 What bar of pressure was needed for manned flight?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:04:54 2020 No.11337629 >>11337606 Bigelow already has a module on the ISS though. NanoRack's module is going up this year too. I think NASA is trying to spread the wealth around so as to hedge their bets, same as they did with CLPS and commercial crew.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:08:38 2020 No.11337640 >>11337622 8.5. For orbital/cargo they needed 6.5. This run they got 7.5 but with a leak. Once that leak is welded it might get higher pressure. We'll find out in a day or so whether they got good results or not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:10:41 2020 No.11337647 >>11337629 all they're going to end up doing is creating and then sinking a bunch of companies because there's no market for this shit

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:11:11 2020 No.11337649 >>11337647 The market is NASA for post ISS.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:12:02 2020 No.11337651 >>11337649 I hope NASA does Skylab-2

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:12:34 2020 No.11337657 >>11337629 That's not a comparable module. Bigelow, no offense intended, is kind of a crank, his company is iffy, his tech is probably fine, this other company got selected, run by some guy with cultural inroads with NASA.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:13:42 2020 No.11337663 >>11337640 Surely it is strong enough at this point that they will get that 1 extra bar from the strength boost at cryo?

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:15:14 2020 No.11337668

>>11337647
I think there's a market. There's already a long backlog of projects heading to the ISS, so if the ISS goes down then the market will need a new station. Beside that, NASA has said they are willing to be a major tenant for commercial stations too.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:16:04 2020 No.11337672

>>11337629
It’s mainly because NASA’s ISS commercialisation efforts have been massively underfunded by Congress, Axiom is a Houston-based company which makes the powerful Texas space-mafia very happy as the press release shows, now they will fund this commercial module. Furthermore, JSC (where ISS/HEO are managed from) is in Houston and Axiom is led by an ex-ISS program manager, so they are close by and know what their doing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:16:51 2020 No.11337674 >>11337668 I see that predicated on space access costing. As it happens, in post Starship world, things are cheap enough activity may well occur.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:17:10 2020 No.11337675 >>11337672 That sounds illegal for some reason.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:18:36 2020 No.11337681 >>11337651 I would like expansive post ISS Starship predicated LEO efforts by NASA, alongside other NASA activities.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:19:38 2020 No.11337685 >>11337675 I’m sure the bid was good as well, considering ex-NASA ISS people are behind it and Maxar are involved.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:20:12 2020 No.11337688 >>11337675 at the very least unethical. it happens all the time though.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:20:41 2020 No.11337691

>>11337651
>>11337681
But then that destroys the illusion that space is so hard that the only progress is slow progress. That's not allowed. Think of the amount of tax dollars that oldspace can't milk if space is easy. Think of those poor managers who wouldn't be able to afford their 5th car and 3rd house.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:22:22 2020 No.11337696 >>11337681 While the plans of the SLS contingents() are more paltry LEO efforts because in their worldview, it detracts from SLS activities and it doesn't involve SLS, which they despise.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:23:56 2020 No.11337699 >>11337663 We live in times when we can see assumptions tested in "real time". So we will see if that pans out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:31:49 2020 No.11337714 File: 142 KB, 1000x1000, LOP-G;docking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11337681

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:38:00 2020 No.11337724 >>11337714 I think a space agency of NASA's caliber should have a building in orbit and in the cheap Starship age.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:41:25 2020 No.11337731 >>11337714 >Gateway astronauts feel bummed out whenever Starship leaves where they have to go back to living in a cramped tollbooth The thought kinda sucks desu.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:42:36 2020 No.11337735 >ISS, Gateway, Chinese space station, commercial space stations how will space command and the space force conduct space station warfare?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:43:09 2020 No.11337736 File: 403 KB, 1478x943, Screenshot_2020-01-27 Google Maps.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11337724 This agriculture department in my country has a building where they conduct research. Something equivalent for NASA.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:44:16 2020 No.11337738 >>11337714 100+ people in LEO 25+ in Lunar orbit 100+ people on the moon's surface. 100+ people on Mars.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:44:42 2020 No.11337742

>>11337735
>how will space command and the space force conduct space station warfare?
Probably extensive use of ASWs while spamming small cheap satellites to quickly replace any crucial satellites that might get destroyed. With k-bombs being the final evolution of LEO warfare.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 19:49:21 2020 No.11337755 >>11337583 that seems to be exactly what happened >>11336886

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 20:10:53 2020 No.11337811

>>11337735
why bother with space station warfare? Space stations don't really offer much in terms of defense.
>>11337742
kinetic energy weapons lead to kessler syndrome which can damage your own space assets. So according to the outer space treaty, space is like the ocean so it's not a violation of the treaty to have one country's satellite just hang out near(km) another country's satellite. When the treaty is breached, that satellite could go right up to the other satellite and melee it. Just snip some wires or wrap it in a blanket and the satellite can't do it's job. This lets you take out other countries satellites without generating any space debris that could take out your own satellites.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 20:18:40 2020 No.11337822
File: 280 KB, 2048x1153, BC33257C-436F-40B5-9F7D-ED9BD80738B4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Moon lander engine news:

Intuitive Machines are testing a prototype for the main engine of the descent-stage for Boeing’s HLS bid:

https://twitter.com/Int_Machines/status/1221947987523514368

Blue Origin have partnered with the US Airforce Research Lab to test the BE-7 engine (for their Blue Moon lander) in a vacuum:

https://afresearchlab.com/news/afrl-and-blue-origin-partner-on-test-site-for-be-7-lunar-lander-engine-development/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 20:22:12 2020 No.11337832 >>11337822 >Blue Moon lander I've seen that mockup in-person. It's huge.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 20:30:16 2020 No.11337837 >>11337832 I’m assuming you saw it at IAC, unless your a BO employee who works in the big blue tent (it’s current home).

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 20:32:02 2020 No.11337839 >>11337837 What is Blue Origin actually working on?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 20:38:37 2020 No.11337848 >>11337839 They're gearing up for New Glenn mostly, lots of expansions across the company.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 20:43:28 2020 No.11337855 >>11337839 Trying to actually get the BE-4 off the ground instead of burning fuel on a test stand.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 20:54:12 2020 No.11337873

>>11337839
Their currently working on many things: building a New Glenn pathfinder for tank testing, qualifying BE-4 for Vulcan and testing it’s suitability for reusability, developing Blue Moon, testing BE-7 for the aforementioned, trying to win the Artemis HLS competition, testing BE-3U for New Glenn’s second-stage, trying to fly humans on New Shepard this year and probably some covert stuff the public doesn’t know about at the moment...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 20:59:36 2020 No.11337884 >>11337848 >>11337855 >>11337873 That’s cool. I’ve mostly payed attention to SpaceX but more people with more space ambitions is always good. As long as we get off this rock

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:00:23 2020 No.11337886 >>11337873 I hope Blue is successful with that. They would be a great competitor to SpaceX. Encouraging both to keep innovating to stay on top.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:01:43 2020 No.11337890 File: 160 KB, 542x805, 95015425-EDDD-456C-8E5B-B5A263682A8B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11337884 Just keep an eye on this building this year...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:02:46 2020 No.11337891 File: 511 KB, 2048x1636, 43CF4CF2-E896-42B8-B09D-A9DF4C44B226.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11337890 Or more, what comes in and out of it...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:11:11 2020 No.11337902 >>11337558 >implying they don't need lots of questions right now

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:13:34 2020 No.11337906

>>11337902
Of course there are lots of questions from anyone who actually care about space flight, but I meant questions from the higher ups in the government. Those who don't really care about space flight, but would wonder why Boeing is being paid so much for so little results. Even those people have their bullshit limits.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:15:39 2020 No.11337909 >>11337890 Is that their VAB?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:20:04 2020 No.11337915 so how big is new Armstrong anyways and is it an AlLi structure or CF or what

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:25:26 2020 No.11337928 >>11337915 >so how big is new Armstrong anyways No one but Jeff knows. There are rumors that it would use F-1 sized engines. Which would mean that New Armstrong would be very big.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:31:40 2020 No.11337942
File: 1.30 MB, 2012x2121, 8994BF82-1532-4118-B99C-ED077E120274.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11337909
No, New Glenn will be assembled horizontally at the launch site like the Falcon-family. This building is called the TCAT (Tank Cleaning and Testing building) and is located at Blue’s rapidly expanding factory complex, it’s a test cell where New Glenn stages will undergo rigorous structural testing before flight.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:48:41 2020 No.11337975 File: 215 KB, 2160x1080, blue origin tech tree.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11337839

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:51:38 2020 No.11337977 File: 668 KB, 800x400, dick_shelby02.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11337975 >propellant dpts GET THAT COMMIE SHIT OUT OF MY SIGHT RIGHT NOW!!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:52:14 2020 No.11337978 >>11337975 Forbidden word spotted. Absolute madlads.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:56:36 2020 No.11337986

>>11337975
>What’s our goal as a company gonna be?
>literally everything

I do hope they plan to outsource some of this stuff or it’s gonna take decades to tick all the boxes and BO will have to grow from a 3,500 person aerospace company to a multi-million employee mega corporation to do it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 21:58:24 2020 No.11337989 File: 352 KB, 425x709, constant accordion noises.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11336461 New EVA prototypes

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:10:23 2020 No.11338011 >>11337975 Oh shit they said the D word

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:13:41 2020 No.11338017 File: 57 KB, 820x410, Richard-Shelby-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The tax slaves know, shut it down.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:24:24 2020 No.11338040
File: 149 KB, 1200x944, 1200px-Venturestar1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This was ready to go and would have improved upon the shuttle. Instead it was canned. Leading to the shuttle to be prolonged. Which set back American manned space flight and lift capabilities by decades.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:28:03 2020 No.11338049 >>11335951 Watching someone succeed burns them. It's pure envy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:41:14 2020 No.11338077 >>11338040 it would have never worked

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:45:00 2020 No.11338090 >>11338077 but theres a picture right there

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:46:29 2020 No.11338094 >>11337975 Based.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 22:46:36 2020 No.11338095

>>11338040
The SSTO concept probably wouldn't have worked, but the technology in it could've been incorporated to the Shuttle. The metallic tiles would've cut down on the amount of refurbishment needed immensely. The RS-2200 (or a version of it) could've replaced the RS-25's and reduce the refurbishment time even further. The structural material developments could've been incorporated into the Shuttle frame to reduce dry mass. The Shuttle was a terrible design, but it could've (and should've) been improved upon. The fact that the design never really left the prototype stage was a blunder by NASA.

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 23:22:06 2020 No.11338168

>>11338095
When you take the logical improvements that should have been made on the shuttle

>metallic tiles, more uniform with simple application method
>sits on top of booster not strapped to side
>switch to methane engines for better reusability and fuel density so you have a smaller vehicle or larger payload bay
>strip aero control surfaces and use aerobraking+retro burn to land

You pretty much end up with starship

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 23:26:13 2020 No.11338177

>>11338168
>strip aero control surfaces and use aerobraking+retro burn to land
Landing like a plane can still be used effectively enough. I was talking about improving the Shuttle without extensive redesigns. Which would've been very possible and had resulted in huge benefits over the base design.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 23:28:05 2020 No.11338180 >>11338177 Put a gun on it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 23:40:45 2020 No.11338192 >>11335906 Supercritical CO2 generates as much power as steam in much smaller packages 10MW turbine only needs 4 stages https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/01/f7/55455.pdf

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 27 23:40:59 2020 No.11338193 >>11338168 Starship is still using ceramic tiles, but they're a much better ceramic than STS used

Anonymous Mon Jan 27 23:55:55 2020 No.11338216

Ideas for organizations that actually do shit on a body and have responsibilities on a colony. Post em
>Vanguards
First ones in scouts. They explore promising sites for colonies or research bases and set up a base camp at the most promising site for 1st in colonists. They analyses geologic features for minerals and/or interesting sites and mark them for later. Set up listening pots for meteorologic patterns

>Constructors
Direct construction bots to build colony city proper and infrastructure. They optimize designs to better suit the conditions at the sites

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:01:04 2020 No.11338222 >>11337975 Why is Spacesuits and Human Spaceflight so high in the tech tree when New Shepard is supposed to already be ferrying passengers?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:02:32 2020 No.11338223 >>11338222 You don't need spacesuits for a 5 minute hop above the karmen line and it's hardly "human spaceflight" when they only reached space by the most tenuous definition.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:08:31 2020 No.11338232 >>11338223 ahem, it's 2020, let's use the McDowell line hmmm?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:28:34 2020 No.11338254 File: 89 KB, 799x674, 1484926527738.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Heres hoping Booper 2 holds enough pressure. Back to the drawing board if it doesn't.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:31:44 2020 No.11338259
File: 1.60 MB, 4896x2752, SpaceX engineer housing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11338254
already did great all things considered. they're using new welding equipment, constantly changing the build process and it's all a bit jank. Just loot at how they rough handle the sections and slap it all together.

After all, Elon says they're moving forward with SN1 flight hardware *right now*.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:48:01 2020 No.11338280 File: 78 KB, 800x500, laughing white males.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11335186 >When it launches.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 00:57:20 2020 No.11338289 File: 73 KB, 1200x410, Screen Shot 2020-01-27 at 10.57.01 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] what did he mean by this

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 01:02:25 2020 No.11338291 >>11338289 Covfefe

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 02:26:25 2020 No.11338406

>>11338254
It's the welds that are the problem. Worst case scenario if they can't solve it with better welding techniques is they simply weld a reinforcing strip over the welds. A bit of a mass penalty but probably not huge since its only on the bulkheads. Hardly back to the drawing board.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 02:35:16 2020 No.11338418 >>11338289 The shiny hull is reflecting the night sky?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 03:00:49 2020 No.11338447 >>11337975 >moon base only with robotic in-space ressource utilization Alright. Guess it‘ll be the marvel of the 22nd century.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 03:30:09 2020 No.11338481

>>11338406
If they have actual factual faith in the material, it's time to move the welding process indoors into a more sterile setting and start doing x-ray inspections on welds before doing the tests. Shit is tedious as fuck, but that just how shit works before things go out into production.

I haven't paid attention to the welding at all, but judging by the sooty welds and so on, I'm guessing they're just quickly throwing them together using MIG and that's not exactly a surgical weld. It's the same technique you use for bulkheads on a ship or an oil rig. Now you can switch to TIG, but then you have to go slower, which will lead to more heat and more deformation, which means you will have to do each seam in 3 or more passes and allow for the material to cool down to not deform too much, but not too slow so it doesn't contract too much and start shearing in on itself etc.

Welding is a bitch. Glad I don't do it anymore.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 03:52:55 2020 No.11338502 >>11338481 Yeah I believe that's exactly what they are doing, starting welding inside the tent and switching to TIP TIG rather than MIG.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 03:55:30 2020 No.11338505 >>11338502 It's going to be at 10-20 times slower to assemble a tank using TIG due to heat. AT LEAST.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 03:56:33 2020 No.11338506 >>11338505 Fuck my spelling. My new medication is fucking with my head in the morning. My point gets across at least.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 04:35:08 2020 No.11338542 File: 2.95 MB, 1280x720, 1553868788174.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 04:39:55 2020 No.11338549 >>11336074 Hold on a minute, they had a whole big carbon fibre pressure vessel fabrication unit before they scrapped it? I'm just suggesting they might be forced back to that for human-rated Starship.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 04:40:50 2020 No.11338553 ISS is fake

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 04:43:25 2020 No.11338557 >>11338549 Not cost efficient.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 04:45:17 2020 No.11338560 >>11338542 >>11338553 yes, replay it at least 10, no better 12 additional times then the earth becomes flat.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 04:46:03 2020 No.11338562 File: 2.90 MB, 1280x720, 1559046855080.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 04:50:52 2020 No.11338571 >>11338560 space is real and the earth isnt flat. NASA and SSP are fakes. Solar warden is real.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 04:57:08 2020 No.11338579 >>11338571 >SSP *ISS

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 04:58:54 2020 No.11338582

>>11338562
Let me give you little hint. A chromakey is not a checkerboard patterned board you put behind someone, it's a solid color, it used to be blue back in the days when we did manual matte paintings. These days, we use solid green.
And as for the tennis ball? Well, it's been used in just about every instructional video for kids where stellar bodies are involved.

Furthermore, if they were to use an object as a placeholder for a computer generated sphere of water, they would have used a smaller object than the rendered object, not a larger one.

Now go watch some behind the scenes documentaries about some blockbuster movies and a couple of NASA for Kids instructionals.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 05:05:40 2020 No.11338589 >>11338562 they play his video doing some shit with tenis ball on a tv screen you can see the chromakey blanket is folded behind him in the next video now get your meds, schizo

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 05:10:59 2020 No.11338596 File: 2.58 MB, 720x576, 1541736923123.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 05:13:00 2020 No.11338599 File: 2.92 MB, 1280x720, 1504594633723.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 05:14:08 2020 No.11338600 File: 772 KB, 844x476, 1514060963842.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 05:15:42 2020 No.11338604 File: 2.32 MB, 640x360, 1556948566590.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 05:17:45 2020 No.11338607 File: 2.89 MB, 1280x720, 1523506751726.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 05:22:41 2020 No.11338611 >>11338604 >slow zoom ><-------transparent feet This one got a laugh out of me.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:01:13 2020 No.11338652

https://www.geekwire.com/2020/nasa-clears-axiom-space-put-commercial-habitat-space-station-boeings-help/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

NASA clears Axiom Space to put commercial habitat on space station, with Boeing’s help:

>Houston-based Axiom Space has won NASA’s nod to attach a commercial habitation module to the International Space Station by as early as 2024.

>The “Axiom Segment” of the space station is designed to connect to the station’s Harmony module and provide a crew habitat, a research and manufacturing facility and a large-windowed Earth observatory. When the International Space Station reaches retirement, Axiom plans to add a power platform and turn its hardware into a free-flying commercial space station.

>Axiom’s partners include Boeing, Thales Alenia Space Italy, Intuitive Machines and Maxar Technologies.

>NASA said it will now begin negotiations with Axiom on the terms and price of a firm-fixed-price contract with a five-year base performance period and a two-year extension option.

>NASA said it selected Axiom from proposals that were submitted in response to a solicitation under the umbrella of NextSTEP-2’s Appendix I, which offers private industry the use of the International Space Station’s utilities and a port for attaching commercial facilities.

>There’ll be a separate opportunity for commercial partners to propose deals aimed at developing free-flying space destinations in low Earth orbit. Boeing and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space venture were among the companies laying out concepts for such outposts last year.

>Axiom’s platform could also be used for zero-G additive manufacturing, fiber optic fabrication, protein crystal production for pharmaceutical applications etc. And then there’s space tourism: In 2018, Axiom Space laid out a plan to offer 10-day stays on its space station facilities for a price of $55 million.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:26:35 2020 No.11338679 >>11338652 So basically another tin can module that when the ISS gets deorbited in 2052 gets turned into ISS 2.0. Excuse my lack of excitement.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:37:34 2020 No.11338693

>>11337314
>>11336851
>tfw playing it for years and not even knowing about the nodes
>everything is 1 burn from launch to touchdown at the correct angle like a hole-in-one on a golf course
>successful about 2 out of 5 times after 30 disasters
>actually watch a vid on /sci/ of someone doing something with a rocket in KSP and see them using nodes
>suddenly all challenge is lost and I no longer play it at all

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:38:44 2020 No.11338696 >>11336886 Now China will surpass everyone and become lords of space.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:44:06 2020 No.11338699
File: 639 KB, 1024x554, BlobTheater-1024x554.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11337471
>...and GGSE-4 (2828), an experimental US payload launched in 1967.
So, they collide and bacteria/slime mold/amoeba, mutated from cosmic radiation, lands on Earth?

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:47:37 2020 No.11338700
File: 2.68 MB, 640x360, Time Lapse Inflating Bigelow Expandable Activity Module on ISS.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11337507
>>11337514
>>11337518
>>11337606
Isn't the Bigelow module still in testing phase on the ISS and a second one is to be inflated or whatever? Doesn't that module count as the "first"? Or is the "commercial" part of the module designation mean there's going to be a taco bell in it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:47:43 2020 No.11338701 File: 65 KB, 650x524, 1580027678774 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11338696 >China Lul

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:49:49 2020 No.11338703 >>11338701 At least they're not afraid of throwing "money" and bodies at a problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:53:34 2020 No.11338706 >>11338700 Oh shit, the inflatable habitats from that KSP mod are real. Can’t imagine they’re well-shielded

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 06:57:53 2020 No.11338715 >>11338706 There isnt much radiation in low earth orbit. A fabric shell might be better at taking physical impacts. Worth trying.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 07:01:20 2020 No.11338720

>>11338706
>>11338715
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Module#Radiation_shielding
Radiation shielding

The flexible Kevlar-like materials of construction are proprietary.[48][49] The multiple layers of flexible fabric and closed-cell vinyl polymer foam[50] in the BEAM structural shell are expected to provide impact protection (see Whipple shield) as well as radiation protection, but model calculations need to be validated by actual measurements.[42]

In a 2002 NASA study, it was suggested that materials that have high hydrogen contents, such as polyethylene, can reduce primary and secondary radiation to a greater extent than metals, such as aluminum.[51] Vinyl polymer may also be used in laboratories and other applications for radiation shield garments.[52]

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 07:02:30 2020 No.11338722

>>11338715
That’s really cool, but I’m curious how we’re going to deal with radiation further out in the solar system. Any barriers we face tend to be broken given enough time, but I don’t see any good methods that don’t involve increasing dry mass significantly. Maybe...embedding the habitation module IN the fuel tanks so that the propellant itself blocks radiation?

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 07:04:59 2020 No.11338728
File: 46 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11338720
>>11338700
>In July 2019, an engineering assessment certified BEAM's ability to remain attached to the station until 2028, as it has exceeded performance expectations and become a core cargo storage module on the volume-constrained station. A contract extension will still be required to allow BEAM to serve out its extended operational lifetime.[37]

>At the end of BEAM's mission, it will be removed from the ISS and burn up during reentry.[38]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 07:10:10 2020 No.11338732 >>11338706 They are actually a substantial improvement over metal bawkses because they have a super thick composite layer that is loaded with H atoms.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 07:13:03 2020 No.11338737 >nasa admin >spacex is doing great but we will hand over the sls to boeing so that competition lives!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 07:16:54 2020 No.11338740 >>11338732 > metal bawkses The cowards, the fools!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 07:20:27 2020 No.11338745 >>11338732 What’s so great about hydrogen atoms? I was under the assumption that fatter atoms were better.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 07:36:20 2020 No.11338766 >>11338722 What about some kind of magnetic field? If it works for the planet would it be possible on a ship?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 07:37:56 2020 No.11338769 >>11338766 No, it needs to be huge. To work for a small vehicle it would have to be retard strong and that would mean some pretty bad implications for anything inside the ship.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 07:47:39 2020 No.11338779 >>11338769 Earth’s magnetic field doesn’t kill us or bother our technology significantly.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 07:53:12 2020 No.11338787

>>11338779
Im no expert but i had the same sort of impression. We dont even notice earths magnetic field on the earths surface and yet it has such a clear effect in space. I though maybe just a small magnetic field could provide some protection. Maybe im just navie.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 07:57:34 2020 No.11338797 >>11338787 You don't really notice something, per se, you notice its boundary layer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 08:22:33 2020 No.11338850 >>11338745 Solar wind and cosmic radiation is mostly protons. You get a cascade of radiation when high energy protons hit fat atoms. The best way to stop them are atoms of similar size, that is hydrogen.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 08:25:44 2020 No.11338858

>>11338850
>hydrogen
Best way to shield for long trips like to Mars, would be with thick ass radiation shelters with water inside surrounding you for SHTF stuff like a solar storm or brraapp whatnot.
Or at least the most practical with what we readily available on hand.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 08:28:39 2020 No.11338867 File: 578 KB, 678x619, nasa-fake.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 08:45:33 2020 No.11338911 >>11338797 But once we start getting heavier pay loads into orbid we could start thinking about heavy shielding?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 08:46:10 2020 No.11338912 File: 35 KB, 793x343, Du8sLf1X4AANcfa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 08:47:36 2020 No.11338915 >>11338911 Things like this is why we need to go to the moon and stay there, 20 years ago. We just don't know what we need to stay somewhat healthy for the time it'll take us to get to Mars.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 08:52:23 2020 No.11338929

>>11338911
Of course. Any place you land on you can just dig down a few meters and have all the shielding from surface radiation. You may or may not need shielding from the soil/regolith itself. Stopping at the moon to pick up regolith shielding material is an option I guess, but I think polyethylene shielding would probably be better all around.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 08:54:28 2020 No.11338932 >>11338912 That's Canada, not Greenland, xxBabyBullxx.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 08:55:55 2020 No.11338935 >>11338915 Getting robots out there i think is the first step. I am hoping we will see a gold rush in the next few years. Space is my new whitepill.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 08:57:29 2020 No.11338940 >>11338935 Fuck robots. We've been sending probes and shit since the 60s. Unless we're sending automated factories, fuck that shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:06:10 2020 No.11338961 >>11338915 Hopefully NASA will do those things instead of Apollo 2.0.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:06:22 2020 No.11338962 >>11338940 I dont mean probes. I mean mining equipment and building bots. Everything we could be doing while we are developing other technologies for carrying humans.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:07:21 2020 No.11338964 >>11338961 I like Bridenstine, but I'm afraid he's getting Charlie Brown'ed the fuck out.

>>	Sage Tue Jan 28 09:08:07 2020 No.11338967 >>11338867 >I don’t understand optics; the post

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:08:21 2020 No.11338968 >>11338964 >but I'm afraid he's getting Charlie Brown'ed the fuck out. What does that even mean?

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:09:04 2020 No.11338970

>>11338779
Yes that's because you have a relatively low strength field that deflects particles over thousands of kilometres rather than the spaceship scenario where you need to deflect particles over less than 10 metres and so would need a field of a gorillion teslas.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:09:04 2020 No.11338971 >>11338968 https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/bridenstine-promises-this-wont-be-lucy-and-the-football-again/

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:09:27 2020 No.11338974 >>11338967 Just ignore the janny, he's just trying to stir up shit for more ad revenue.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:13:13 2020 No.11338978 >>11338652 Axiom’s partners include Boeing

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:14:40 2020 No.11338981 >>11338978 Totally not a cartel.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:15:12 2020 No.11338982 File: 32 KB, 715x429, images (43).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11338978 Imagine my surprise

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:18:05 2020 No.11338989 >>11338929 I was think more like building factorys in orbit and mining asteroids with drones. I would like to see a base on the moon but it dosnt need to be our first step.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:19:28 2020 No.11338993 >>11338971 Thank you. That reference makes alot more sense now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:21:10 2020 No.11338996 >>11338989 Consider the moon a large asteroid. Mine titanium.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:21:34 2020 No.11338997 >>11338989 Exploiting resources on the moon is a necessary step that comes way before asteroids. Learn about delta v nigger.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:31:21 2020 No.11339006 File: 22 KB, 480x360, weatherman in green.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11338582 >it used to be blue too many weathermen with blue suits/ties

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:31:33 2020 No.11339007 >>11338970 >where you need to deflect particles over less than 10 metres Pussy ass tiny spaceship.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:31:57 2020 No.11339008

>>11338978
I wonder if Boeing would use this as a new tactic to gain more contracts.
>"NASA needs to fill a contract that we have no capability to meet? Don't worry, there's now this new company that can do it perfectly, and we just happen to be close partners to it. plz gib contracts"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:32:40 2020 No.11339009 >>11338611 >white socks you know the drill report and ignore

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:33:04 2020 No.11339010

>>11338978
>>11338981
>>11338982
I’m wondering if Axiom are just going to dictate the design of the modules and deck out the interiors, whilst leaving the actual construction of them to Boeing and Thales Alenia who both have experience building ISS modules. Maxar will probably build some kind of propulsion unit to allow the modules to autonomously rendezvous.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:34:53 2020 No.11339013 >>11339010 How do they intend to attach big modules without the Shuttle?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:35:01 2020 No.11339014 >>11339008 Boeing built the American-section of the ISS, it’s logical why Axiom would partner with them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:37:21 2020 No.11339017 >>11339013 Autonomous rendezvous and docking or berthing like a CRS/CC spacecraft, the modules will need their own propulsion and guidance to do this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:39:17 2020 No.11339018 >>11338997 I think its time to download this kerbal space program.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:42:04 2020 No.11339026 >>11339014 oh, is that why the ISS is so expensive

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:46:00 2020 No.11339037 >>11339026 Gotta put in the extra work to milk tax mon- err.. I mean, to ensure that all spacecraft made by Boeing meets the very high standards of technology and safety.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:48:57 2020 No.11339043 >>11339006 Blue was a power color in the 80s. t. 1977

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:52:01 2020 No.11339051 >>11339026 >>11339037 Considering the modules are 20 years old and still functioning fine, it seems like money well spent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:52:21 2020 No.11339052 >>11339017 I like the idea of using a tug that can carry junk around, attach it to the ISS, and then stay there or enter its own orbit until something else needs to be attached.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:54:08 2020 No.11339056 >>11339052 You’ve basically just described what Cygnus is...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:55:36 2020 No.11339063 >>11339052 Pretty much anyone who made a space station in KSP has done something like that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:56:47 2020 No.11339067 File: 447 KB, 466x466, Eiffel65.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339043 Blue you say?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:57:48 2020 No.11339070 >>11338967 has nothing to do with optics, these are full scale earths portrayed by NASA throughout time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 09:58:08 2020 No.11339071 File: 3.52 MB, 499x206, cornflower blue.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339067

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:12:09 2020 No.11339094 >>11339008 Are they planning to send it up on Orange Rocket?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:15:21 2020 No.11339098 >>11339094 I think SLS is strictly for BEO missions due to the design of the upper stage. Not staying that the SLS can't do LEO missions, but that would require modifications and we all know how speedy it is to develop upon the SLS.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:15:47 2020 No.11339099 File: 86 KB, 300x280, 1534488832112.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339013 Canadarm of course.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:16:47 2020 No.11339101 >>11339098 SLS is strictly for BEO due to the design of the core stage, it needs to burn out much quicker if they want it to be useful for going to LEO

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:17:52 2020 No.11339103 >>11339098 Why the fuck would you send anything up to LEO on that big ass cannon? Talk about shooting sparrows with a nuke. For LEO you got Atlas V and Falcon 9 from the US as well as the shit from ESA.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:18:33 2020 No.11339104 File: 191 KB, 1000x449, hadden.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339103 Because Boeing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:18:40 2020 No.11339105 File: 443 KB, 1056x1219, Canastation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339099 pic semirelated

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:20:45 2020 No.11339109 >>11339104 >Yeah, we need to put some shit into LEO >Pull up the SLS >Top up the tanks >How much Sir? >about 10% capacity >10%? >Isn't that a bit of a waste? >ARE YOU QUESTIONING ME?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:23:19 2020 No.11339111 >>11339104 Ah, I forgot Delta IV. Which along with Atlas V is owned by ULA, which is a subsidiary of Boeing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:24:22 2020 No.11339112 >>11339111 Well, "joint venture" with LM, but whatever.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:26:33 2020 No.11339117 File: 66 KB, 941x709, aces.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339111 To be fair, ULA has some brilliant minds. They even worked on propellant d***ts.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:27:28 2020 No.11339119

>>11339094
No, if Boeing influences the choice of LV for the Axiom modules, they will go up on ULA’s Vulcan; which wouldn’t be a bad choice IMO considering Vulcan’s long payload fairing.

>>11339098

> Not staying that the SLS can't do LEO missions, but that would require modifications and we all know how speedy it is to develop upon the SLS.

Modifying SLS for LEO missions would actually be very easy, just remove the upper-stage. But SLS is very expensive and more importantly, NASA wouldn’t allow anybody to eat into the extremely limited stock of SLS boosters which are all needed by the agency for Artemis/BLEO missions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:28:23 2020 No.11339120 >>11339117 Oh no doubt, I just don't think they get to put their ideas into motion too often. Boeing and other dinosaurs has a lot of old bits and pieces laying around they want to get rid of first.

>>	Vicious Tue Jan 28 10:30:03 2020 No.11339122 File: 49 KB, 800x450, honklhonk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] JANNIES, TIME TO CLEAN YOUR THREAD UP, FLATFAGS ARE HERE! GET TO WORK, ALSO FUCK NIGGERS!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:31:31 2020 No.11339123 File: 55 KB, 900x810, smug_anime_girl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339122 >implying that the jannys aren't pretending to be flatflags

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:53:31 2020 No.11339172 >>11336033 Looks like an Ariane 5 knockoff desu

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 10:59:27 2020 No.11339189

>>11337284
This. Only caveat is that if each NTR costs hundreds of millions and only lasts for one mission, then they aren't worth it compared to just doing chemical everything, except for those rare missions that actually require more performance than a chemical rocket can attain.

If some company figured out a molten salt fueled NTR that could last for hundreds of hours of firing and achieve >1 TWR on Earth, that engine would immediately unlock cost effective large scale transport vehicles to Jupiter and beyond. The best use case for NTR is actually on orbital shuttle vehicles around low gravity icy moons, after all. This is because the propellant becomes trivial to attain in that scenario, whereas chemical synthesis requires months refilling an NTR would take hours or days at most.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 11:00:30 2020 No.11339192 >>11338180 >Space Shuttle with Thanix cannon mounted on it My freedom boner can’t get any harder

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 11:03:23 2020 No.11339196 >>11339172 There's only so many ways you can design a rocket before it starts looking like something a mekboy came up with in a fevered dream.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 11:04:18 2020 No.11339199 File: 30 KB, 800x530, challenger_explosion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] On this day 34 years ago, Space Shuttle Challenger tragically exploded during STS-51L. All seven astronauts on board were killed by the accident.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 11:10:05 2020 No.11339210 File: 359 KB, 2048x1365, 5615F1A6-AA4D-4193-97C2-31B27FBE339C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339199

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 11:10:46 2020 No.11339214 >>11339196 A Rok would actually make a good long distance ship. The asteroid would be a sourc of building materials and the crust would be good physical and radiation shielding

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 11:12:43 2020 No.11339217 >>11339199 Thank god we're reusing the fair weather systems that is the SRB's responsible for blowing it up on the SLS, only with more things that can go wrong this time around!

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 11:15:51 2020 No.11339223

>>11339217
The Challenger explosion was caused by the weather being much colder than what the SRBs were designed for. This can be easily fixed by not letting them sit out in the extreme cold. The SLS also has a launch escape system which is something the Shuttle didn't have.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 11:18:11 2020 No.11339228 >>11339223 Doesn't matter if people survive as long as it blows up and takes expensive payloads with it. It is death, killer of human space exploration.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:00:44 2020 No.11339324 >>11338095 >The Shuttle was a terrible design Terrible, or an awkward compromise?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:08:20 2020 No.11339338 >>11339324 Both. It was a terrible design because it was so awkwardly compromised. Then it became a tragic design when it wasn't iterated upon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:11:43 2020 No.11339342 >>11339338 Yeah but it was cool

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:17:02 2020 No.11339360 File: 16 KB, 281x388, feynman-challenger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339199 F >>11339217 >>11339223 >SRBs S

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:21:51 2020 No.11339374
File: 789 KB, 3000x3011, 3AFF95B1-E75F-48BD-B49D-00FFF64454A0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11339338
It was definitely an awkward design with serious faults, but had unique capabilities still unmatched by capsules/vehicles currently in development. Also, as >>11339342 says, it was really cool.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:24:47 2020 No.11339385 >>11339342 >>11339374 >it was cool That I can't deny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:25:43 2020 No.11339386 >>11339385 The shuttle almost traumatized my 8 year old ass when I watched it blow up live.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:27:29 2020 No.11339393 >>11339374 I know it's beating a dead horse by this point, but if the Shuttle had been treated as an auxiliary to US manned space flight rather than its focus we'd probably see an iteration of it still flying today

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:36:43 2020 No.11339413 File: 32 KB, 640x360, 1571494610881.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339386 It was a beautiful way to go though, you either vanished in a huge cloud or became a shooting star

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:39:15 2020 No.11339422 >>11339413 IIRC some of the Challenger astronauts survived the explosion and were killed when they crashed into the water. So, I'd argue that it would be a terrifying way to die.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:39:20 2020 No.11339423 >>11339189 I wonder if the T/W ratio improves when switching to denser propellants like it does when using chemical engines

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:40:54 2020 No.11339429

>>11339413
>beautiful way to go though
>"The exact timing of the death of the crew is unknown; several crew members are known to have survived the initial breakup of the spacecraft. The shuttle had no escape system,[a][1] and the impact of the crew compartment at terminal velocity with the ocean surface was too violent to be survivable"
The crew didn't go in the explosion.
I remember that shit as if it was yesterday, I got home from school, excited as shit that I was going to watch the launch live on TV at 4 in the afternoon, a very uncommon experience in my country. Then that shit happened.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:41:53 2020 No.11339433 >>11339422 >>11339429 Beautiful and horrifying aren't mutually exclusive

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:43:17 2020 No.11339439 >>11339342 The best parts about it can be done better by Starship

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:43:20 2020 No.11339440

>>11339433
My point was they didn't die in that ball of glorious flame. They died in that fucking impact with the water some time later, most likely while in excruciating pain from various bits and pieces of aerospace technology protruding from their twisted bodies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:51:36 2020 No.11339457 File: 201 KB, 1600x800, C1A33F70-7031-4B5A-B989-B4829EDBEDF4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339429 >>11339440 This football survived though!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:53:15 2020 No.11339462 >>11339457 Amazing how much more suited a sphere filled with air is at dealing with impacts at high G's than the human body is, isn't it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:54:47 2020 No.11339468 File: 47 KB, 539x720, 1563516713858.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339457 and an airlock

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:54:55 2020 No.11339469 File: 910 KB, 600x600, 1572951907522.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339457 >football

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:55:49 2020 No.11339475 File: 38 KB, 402x289, handegg_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339469 were you expecting a handegg?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:57:04 2020 No.11339480 >>11339475 Handeggs make for bad teaching tools when making instructional videos for kids from orbit. Unless of course, you're Sir Bedevere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fubf81OoIr8

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:57:36 2020 No.11339482 >>11339468 that's from Skylab, in Australia

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 12:58:46 2020 No.11339485 >>11339482 it still fell down because of Shuttle

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 13:00:14 2020 No.11339488 File: 315 KB, 1920x1342, 0302337_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339482 Has that littering fine been paid yet? >>11339485 Fair enough, but Skylab had nothing to do with Challenger.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 13:00:26 2020 No.11339489 NTR meme advantage, decades away, expensive Starship Reusable refueled chemical injection stage, filled by cheaper than moon water propellant from reusable launch, already being worked on, a few years away.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 13:08:27 2020 No.11339511 >>11339489 >moon water propellant from reusable launch That’s hydrolox not methalox...

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 13:29:24 2020 No.11339550

>>11339511

The purpose of lunar isru propellants is to provide cheap propellant in space, according to their arguments.

What does Starship do? It puts cheap propellant in space for the cheap injection stage.

I'm looking around. I dont see any moon water mine. I dont see any honest earnest effort to build a moon water mine that lives up to the claims. I don't see any understanding that a NASA that has its head up its own ass making sham programs for SLS is going to produce anything but a sham efffort that does nothing but produce sham results. I do know many meme pumpers are frauds who just want the sham program. I don't see any understanding that meme water has a cost and that cost isn't competitive with non meme space methalox for the foreseeable future and in extremely unneeded size quantities.

Is moon water 5 cents cheaper per gallon than Starship standard methalox at 10,000 Starship loads a year?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 13:29:45 2020 No.11339552 File: 574 KB, 250x164, ntr.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339489 >NTR Hmm?

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 13:37:21 2020 No.11339573

>>11339550
>The purpose of lunar isru propellants is to provide cheap propellant in space, according to their arguments.
Yes, but also cheaper launches as spacecraft wouldn't need to be filled with propellant at launch. This means that smaller launchers for the same payload mass can be used which results in cheaper launches.

>I'm looking around. I dont see any moon water mine. I dont see any honest earnest effort to build a moon water mine that lives up to the claims.
That isn't because using moon water has no merits, it's that the only organisation that's capable of doing that soon, NASA, has terrible focus and management which prevents them from doing any project that's purely for the benefit for space flight.

>I don't see any understanding that meme water has a cost and that cost isn't competitive with non meme space methalox for the foreseeable future and in extremely unneeded size quantities.
It'll be difficult to quantify how much moon water costs per mass compared to methane, but the fact that it's available locally for any lunar mission would put considerable merit to using it over propellant shipped from Earth. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell which option would be ultimately used as there are tons of unknowns with space infrastructure right now.

>at 10,000 Starship loads a year
I doubt that even Elon's deepest fantasies envisions 10,000 Starship launches per year. It'll be much MUCH less than that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 13:47:49 2020 No.11339593 >>11339552 Nuclear Thermal Rocket if it ever gets off the ground it'll be THE option for dicking around the Saturnian and Jovian systems

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 13:50:09 2020 No.11339601 So has anyone designed any moon/mars habs let?

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 13:57:51 2020 No.11339625

>>11339550
The main problem with lunar ISRU is the lack of carbon. You can get hydrogen and oxygen from the ice that's supposed to be found in ever-dark craters near the poles, but you can also get oxygen by smelting metals out of regolith. Oxygen is supposed to be more heavy to carry up than hydrogen or methane, so the other half of fuel could be brought up from Earth, and it avoids the whole hydrogen/methane argument too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:05:09 2020 No.11339643 anybody want to convert this from mp4 to webm?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:06:11 2020 No.11339648 >>11339643 https://video.wixstatic.com/video/8625ec_5dc894c4b5ec4b49b29d3c731281d5a2/1080p/mp4/file.mp4 fuck

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:07:12 2020 No.11339653 File: 134 KB, 800x317, index.php.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:33:11 2020 No.11339734 File: 316 KB, 962x695, буран.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339653 Good night sweet prince

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:47:40 2020 No.11339768 >>11339653 F Will the Russian space program ever gain back their graces?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:49:12 2020 No.11339770 >>11339625 >The main problem with lunar ISRU is the lack of carbon. Wouldn't the moon have some deposits carbon compounds from being hit by carbonaceous asteroids?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:50:06 2020 No.11339772 >>11339734 Man, what a shame that a hangar collapsed. It could be somewhere in Moscow being major tourists attraction.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:50:21 2020 No.11339776 >>11339770 we need to start properly prospecting the lunar surface for carbon deposits in order to find out, which requires that we do anything at all on the lunar surface, which we haven't done for fifty years

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:50:24 2020 No.11339777 >>11339768 They seem satisfied being U-Haul for anyone willing to throw money at them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:51:36 2020 No.11339781 File: 2.90 MB, 640x360, axiom.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339648 60MB 2:04 mp4 compressed into 3MB 2:00 webm

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:52:59 2020 No.11339785 >>11339781 bravo

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:57:25 2020 No.11339795 >>11339781 So which will reach the station first. Axiom's module or Nauka?

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 14:57:27 2020 No.11339796

>>11339772
It not the Buran.
It a second orbiter, it was mostly complete but obviously never went to space. And behind it a mockup for refueling operations.
And it still sitting there in Baikonur. Technically it belongs to government of Kazakhstan and Russia have nothing to do with it anymore.
But even if they wanted to transport it to Moscow it impossible because only way to transport it are An-225 or Myasishchev VM-T.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:08:18 2020 No.11339819 >>11339781 Wait the arm can crawl? That's pretty cool.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:09:41 2020 No.11339823 >>11339819 It's like a caterpillar, or rather a Canadpillar.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:17:37 2020 No.11339843 >>11339781 Saved.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:21:16 2020 No.11339850 >>11339777 That really is a good business plan though. >Ruskie UPS/DHL/Fedex of Space

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:23:22 2020 No.11339854 >>11339768 Once their economy actually functions and their government stops being the embodiment of crony capitalism, then maybe

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:27:07 2020 No.11339862 File: 98 KB, 880x660, canadarm2-a-propos-id-7805-eng.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339819 Each end can attach itself elsewhere on the ISS so that it can move around to where it's needed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:43:21 2020 No.11339891 File: 982 KB, 500x364, 1489043489920.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339781 >planned 30 year lifespan for the modules, assuming minimal maintenance Nice, at least basic LEO research is handled for a generation.

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:49:12 2020 No.11339908

>>11339891
Maybe after those 30 years we will unlock the secrets of what other flowers smell like when grown in zero-g. We know that roses smell the same as those grown on Earth, but what about all of the other flowers? I'm looking forward to them finally cooking brownies or even mini cupcakes a decade or two down the line. It'll be an exciting generation of LEO research, such as growing baby carrots in space or blowing bubbles in space. The research possibilities are endless! Much more interesting than prospecting for lunar resources or establishing a manned presence at Mars. Those things are bleh and too expensive.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:52:26 2020 No.11339916 >>11339862 >>11339781 Does, "Canadarm," mean, "inch worm," in leaf? Because, I'm not seeing "inch worm" anywhere in the name.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:56:23 2020 No.11339931 File: 218 KB, 1271x1102, image-20150811-11077-49o7xu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339908

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:57:28 2020 No.11339936 File: 251 KB, 1162x1390, international-space-station-expedition-40-cosmonaut-alexander-skvortsov-E7CHYB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339931

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:58:13 2020 No.11339940 >>11339931 >>11339936 SCIENCE!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 15:58:31 2020 No.11339941 File: 157 KB, 1300x954, nasa-international-space-station-expedition-44-mission-prime-crew-H60C91.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339936

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:05:11 2020 No.11339962
File: 34 KB, 316x337, 1564277830597.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11339908
>>11339931
>>11339936
>>11339941
It's more that we're not going to be backsliding (unlike what's happened with a certain human spaceflight program). A viable ISS replacement will be in operation contiguously with ISS, starting as some additional modules and then continuing separately.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:06:42 2020 No.11339966 File: 165 KB, 602x400, come on man, smell the flowers, anon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339940 DUDE!

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:07:22 2020 No.11339970 File: 2.02 MB, 863x1125, rip_saturnv.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339962

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:08:29 2020 No.11339974 >>11339850 No. First prize is a Cadillac. Second price is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. SpaceX is number one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:08:42 2020 No.11339975 File: 32 KB, 660x371, Elon_TheDankMaster_Musk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339966

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:08:42 2020 No.11339977 >>11339962 Constellation needed to die

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:10:50 2020 No.11339984 >>11339977 That's not constellation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:14:25 2020 No.11339993 >>11339984 Jupiter never had a chance at working

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:21:42 2020 No.11340011 >>11339993 Was that due to Jupiter using modified Shuttle tanks which wouldn't be able to handle axial loads very well?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:23:56 2020 No.11340017 SLS is Jupiter. The direct people were just turds who wanted "not shuttle derived" to NOT be the program of record, and they got what they wanted.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:27:55 2020 No.11340029 File: 55 KB, 960x480, 1569773524545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339993 It's not Jupiter either, it's the doomed world we're stuck with because NO DEPOTS

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:28:47 2020 No.11340031 >>11339970 I wonder what von braun would think about rockets like the falcon 9 and how we still havent been to mars, knowing that the saturn was actually build by von braun with mars in mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:29:31 2020 No.11340032 >>11340029 Shelby didn't create SLS.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:31:22 2020 No.11340039 >>11340031 he'd probably love the Falcon 9, it's basically the perfect version of the Saturn 1

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:33:41 2020 No.11340045 >>11340039 Wut???

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:42:39 2020 No.11340060

>>11340045
they:
have similar lift capacity
were developed for similar purposes (hauling crew capsules into LEO)
have clustered first stage engines
reused technology for the upper stage (Saturn I reused the RL-10 from the Atlas-Centaur, Saturn IB reused the entire SIVB upper stage, Falcon 9 US is very much a derivative of the first stage, with most of the similarities in the tank structure)

but he wouldn't love it just for that: most importantly, he would understand the absolute breakthrough enabling technology that vertical landing is

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 16:48:08 2020 No.11340067 Maybe they can boost ISS crew size with Axiom modules for astronaut living berths.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 17:14:33 2020 No.11340148 >>11340067 If all the Axiom modules launch and the Russians finally get around to finishing their half I could see the permanent crew rise to 12

Anonymous Tue Jan 28 17:14:34 2020 No.11340149

>>11340067
I don't see a reason why other companies couldn't add to the Axiom station either as long as Axiom is willing to lease out berthing ports and power. Bigelow's modules can perform Service Module duties (station keeping, life support reload (water/O2), etc) much like Zvezda does for ISS now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 17:21:34 2020 No.11340170 >>11340149 Bigelow's modules can be fucking 'uge

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 17:24:41 2020 No.11340178 >>11340170 A B330 could fit on the aft axial end of the Axiom station as it's depicted

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 17:36:00 2020 No.11340214 >>11340178 I think anon's point is that any size Axiom you can fit into a faring you can instead fit a deflated Bigelow module that takes up the same space and have it be massive when finally deployed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 18:25:52 2020 No.11340363 File: 2.57 MB, 1280x720, gotta go fast.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11339781

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 18:44:46 2020 No.11340415 File: 41 KB, 472x445, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1222304219815993356 Let's hope so

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 18:45:58 2020 No.11340421 >>11340415 we can only hope

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 18:46:42 2020 No.11340423 File: 72 KB, 945x1200, fingers_crossed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11340415

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 19:03:38 2020 No.11340493 >>11340214 It's still going to be smaller than ISS on the separation date though, and one B330 would fix that very cheaply.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 19:37:56 2020 No.11340589 File: 1.56 MB, 2616x2796, sad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] thread aboutta die

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 20:03:33 2020 No.11340658 some shithead redditor is making a meme satellite

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 20:06:48 2020 No.11340670 >>11340658 More info?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 20:07:44 2020 No.11340674 >>11340670 nah

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 20:10:47 2020 No.11340682 Aight, p10. T-minus 5, 4, 3...

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 20:12:32 2020 No.11340685 File: 1.01 MB, 315x236, 1578364088076.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ...2, 1 New thread: >>11335132

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 20:13:36 2020 No.11340691 File: 1.27 MB, 854x480, Starlink Mission Launch.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11340685 fuck New Thread, for real: >>11340683

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 28 22:06:10 2020 No.11341113 >>11339781 >M'lagrange

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 ]

/sci/ - Science & Math