/sfg/ - Spaceflight

[Anonymous No.11413236]

look at the sheer size of it
>>11409244

[Anonymous No.11413247]

>“you are like little baby, watch this...”

[Anonymous No.11413253]

>>11413247
the shuttle looks much bigger there due to how small Mir is

[Anonymous No.11413268]

>>11413253
>the shuttle looks much bigger

And so much more aesthetic

[Anonymous No.11413270]

>>11413236
Starship de geso!

[Anonymous No.11413292]

in this episode of Starship welding watch:
Starship is lewd

[Anonymous No.11413294]

lewd

[Anonymous No.11413296]

that's what she said

[Anonymous No.11413300]

>>11413268
>And so much more aesthetic
Nah

[Anonymous No.11413303]

Assuming I have access to this, paintball gas tanks, fittings, a graphite nozzle from alibaba, butane/propane, a gimbaling mechanism, proper fittings and solenoid valves, what else do I need to make a functional rocket?

[Anonymous No.11413304]

>>11413303
balls of steel, a concrete bunker, a place to test it without dying horribly, a way to ignite it, uhh

[Anonymous No.11413306]

>>11413294
>>11413294
ｷﾀ━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━!!

[Anonymous No.11413307]

>>11413292
>>11413294
ｷﾀ━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━!!

[Anonymous No.11413326]

>>11413253
that's the old 2018 design, you can tell because it has the rear control surface that they got rid of.

[Anonymous No.11413329]

>>11413326
yes, nobody's done a comparison shot with the new flat bottom and side mounted flappers

[Anonymous No.11413335]

>>11413329
>>11413326
they appear to have updated that image

[Anonymous No.11413352]

>>11413292
>>11413294
these people probably have the best job in the world at the moment I hope they're getting payed well.

[Anonymous No.11413415]

Nuclear Pulse Engine

[Anonymous No.11413418]

Stirling Engine

[Anonymous No.11413419]

Nuclear Pulse Stirling Engine

[Anonymous No.11413449]

>>11413415
Antimatter has some of the best promise. Generate it onboard, push the charged ions out the back. Few kg of Noble gases could get you to Mars and back at constant 1g acceleration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_rocket

[Anonymous No.11413456]

Boca Chica soon

[Anonymous No.11413457]

>>11413449
Who needs rockets when you can make the world's largest car with this baby >>11413419

[Anonymous No.11413463]

>>11413449
>at constant 1g acceleration
At a larger scale you could probably have multiple pulse engines going off in sequence to produce slightly smoother acceleration.

[Anonymous No.11413489]

>>11413449
Antimatter has no promise at all because you have to produce the shit in quantity. The appeal of nuclear pulse is not that it's the best rocket possible but that it's the best rocket we could technically produce with modern technology.

[Anonymous No.11413500]

>>11413253
Absolutely mogged holy kek.

[Anonymous No.11413511]

>>11413500
the shuttles had a few hundred m/s dv
Starship has multiple km/s dv
it's what shuttle should have been from the start but NASA were too cowardly to propose

[Anonymous No.11413519]

>>11413511
>Starship has multiple km/s dv

Possibly, but only with many refuelling trips

>it's what shuttle should have been from the start but NASA were too cowardly to propose


Space Shuttle was always designed specifically for LEO

[Anonymous No.11413524]

>>11413519
no, Starship always has multiple km/s dv, but it uses most of it to get to orbit with payload
then it can be refueled in orbit to reset and get it all back

[Anonymous No.11413528]

>>11413524
>Starship always has multiple km/s dv, but it uses most of it to get to orbit with payload

Wow, so did the Space Shuttle and literally every other orbital rocket that has come before...

[Anonymous No.11413535]

>>11413519
yes, the space shuttle as proposed in the late 60s would not be able to shed the crew quarters to gain enough payload to LEO so as to serve as its own refueling shuttle, which is what enables the Starship design to be such an interplanetary workhorse
The shuttle stack with drop tank had multiple km/s dv
the shuttle orbiter by itself did not

[Anonymous No.11413542]

>>11413511
>the shuttles had a few hundred m/s dv

Are you serious?

[Anonymous No.11413544]

>>11413542
they had the onboard hypergolic OMS thrusters and nothing else, anon

[Anonymous No.11413551]

>>11413544
That’s dumb. They could have just put it on top of a booster rocket like normal people do but instead they made it some weird ass contraption that hangs off the side of a fuel tank that doesn’t even have its own engines.

[Anonymous No.11413555]

>>11413551
never forget that which was taken from us by the cowardice of those who came before

[Anonymous No.11413558]

>>11413555
I feel this way about the modern state of copyright law... I fucking hate the government and oldspace and lobbying.

[Anonymous No.11413562]

>>11413551
the Russians were smart, and didn’t carry a big engine on the orbiter for Buran.

[Anonymous No.11413564]

>>11413542
Why would the Space Shuttle need any more?

[Anonymous No.11413565]

>>11413562
>the Russians were smart, and didn’t carry a big engine on the orbiter for Buran.

I mean they got a couple tons of extra payload in exchange for disposing of expensive staged-combustion cycle engines?

[Anonymous No.11413566]

>>11413564
because then it could be a proper upper stage instead of just a glorified, oversized, overweight payload bus and portable coffin

[Anonymous No.11413568]

>>11413558
Don't forget the nuclear test ban treaty.
And the fact that people are still so scared of any technology with the word "nuclear" in it that nuclear power plants get shut down constantly. You know, despite the fact that coal plants literally give off MORE ionizing radiation than a well designed and maintained nuclear plant.

[Anonymous No.11413576]

>>11413564
>>11413566

What he said. Make it a three stage to orbit that sits on top of a rocket with however many boosters attached to it. Drop the boosters off first, then detach the Shuttle from the rocket. The RS-25 engines have impressive delta/v so you could get away with it relatively easily.

[Anonymous No.11413578]

>>11413566
>because then it could be a proper upper stage instead of just a glorified, oversized, overweight payload bus and portable coffin

Why would the Space Shuttle need an upper-stage when it could just carry one?

[Anonymous No.11413579]

>>11413576
no, the RS-25 engines wouldn't work, you could never fit all that hydrogen in the payload bay

[Anonymous No.11413580]

>we'll never have an IRL von braun wheel station because faggots are too busy being sissy bitches to accept nuclear power

[Anonymous No.11413581]

>>11413580
a lot of satellites are nuclear powered

[Anonymous No.11413584]

>>11413581
Not the kind that matters

[Anonymous No.11413585]

>>11413581
Yes, but those "EEEEEH WE NEED SOLAR AND WIND BECAUSE I'M A REDDITOR WHO SHOVES METAL UP HIS DICK HOLE" fagolas don't know that.

[Anonymous No.11413586]

>>11413579
Depends on how much delta/v is in the earlier stages, but you would probably have to use chemical engines on it without making it long as hell and even more ungainly.

[Anonymous No.11413588]

>>11413586
Hydrogen is bulky as fuck no matter what form it is in. It's got very impressive specific impulse, but that's the drawback. Look at the fucking tank it was strapped to going up.

[Anonymous No.11413590]

[Anonymous No.11413592]

>>11413588
>Hydrogen is bulky as fuck no matter what form it is in.

Push it into a black hole.

[Anonymous No.11413596]

>>11413592
but then you'd just have a black hole, which would either be large enough to never appreciably decay on a useful scale, or small enough to spontaneously explode

[Anonymous No.11413602]

[Anonymous No.11413614]

[Anonymous No.11413623]

>>11413580
SOON

[Anonymous No.11413630]

>>11413623
>we'll shove anything up there

[Anonymous No.11413643]

Press F

[Anonymous No.11413649]

>>11413303
A combustion chamber that goes with that nozzle, an ignition system, some way to control the rocket remotely, and lots of courage. Godspeed.

On topic of that. Once nitrous oxide would have to be pressurized to become a liquid, would there be significant flow problems in the plumbing due to phase changes if the combustion chamber were at a lower pressure than what's needed to keep the nos liquid? Is there a way to easily deal with that? Would it just be easier to chill it to liquid form?

[Anonymous No.11413652]

>>11413643
rip calculator lady
movie should have been about Margaret Hamilton, though

[Anonymous No.11413654]

>>11413542
found it, pic related from https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-oms.html
>>11413649
gas-gas mixing is much easier than liquid-liquid mixing
as long as you restrict the flow enough that the liquid only boils as it enters the chamber you should be fine

[Anonymous No.11413697]

>>11413654
>as long as you restrict the flow enough that the liquid only boils as it enters the chamber you should be fine
Looking at a phase diagram of N2O, at about 300K the pressure required in the propellant manifold to keep it liquid until injection is about 100 MPa. Which doesn't seem feasible. Sadly.

[Anonymous No.11413700]

>>11413697
there's only one way to find out the effects of boiling N2O in your lines

[Anonymous No.11413702]

>>11413449
>Generate it onboard
Gee, how are you gonna power that hypothetical antimatter generator?

[Anonymous No.11413721]

>>11413542
Why do you think he's not serious?

[Anonymous No.11413729]

What are some good books to get learnt on this shit? Current knowledge level is ksp.

[Anonymous No.11413731]

>>11413729
>how to get put on a watchlist

[Anonymous No.11413737]

>>11413729
https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf
http://risacher.org/rocket/
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/

[Anonymous No.11413739]

>>11413731
If you're not already on a watchlist or two, you're an extremely boring person and you're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous No.11413742]

>>11413739
gotta go for the high score

[Anonymous No.11413743]

>>11413731
I just wanna learn more about aerodynamics and rocket science.

[Anonymous No.11413748]

>>11413742
Fuck no. But having "unsanctioned opinions" and learning about things like rocketry is apparently abnormal these days.

[Anonymous No.11413750]

>>11413731
Why would you get put on a watchlist for looking up rocket shit? Do they really think you're gonna build a fucking ICBM in your garage? Hell even the chinks can barely manage it after all this time

[Anonymous No.11413752]

>>11413739
FBI, CIA, MI6, DGSE, KGB, NOAA, NPS, NCAA ,MikeyD, more. I'm in all of their lists!

[Anonymous No.11413755]

>>11413750
I recall reading that googled automatically offered job interviews to anyone who googled specific software shit, so maybe SpaceX is monitoring people who are interested in rockets and they'll reach out to you if you buy enough books and google the right terms.

[Anonymous No.11413758]

https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1231839047565266944

[Anonymous No.11413759]

>>11413752
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

Now scroll down to Nine Eyes/Fourteen Eyes. If your country is on that list, they have a metadata profile on you, if you deviate a bit from the "norm", they probably have a bit more than that on you as well. Everybody has a file today.

[Anonymous No.11413760]

>>11413750
Dangerous highly specialized skillset involving explosives being learned by a loner.
Definitely not watchlist tier, mr glows.

[Anonymous No.11413762]

>>11413755
That would be cool except 75% of the science and engineering stuff I search ends up completely going over my head because I never did into calculus

[Anonymous No.11413765]

>>11413762
calculus isn't hard
you just start with limits and then go towards rectangles and end up with calculus

[Anonymous No.11413774]

>>11413759
Fvey is tops, English speaking only. F those GCHQ bastards, tho

[Anonymous No.11413777]

Do you think SpaceX would hire me as an "ideas" guy? I can't math, have a generic degree, and I have no noteworthy skills that aren't sports related at all.

[Anonymous No.11413780]

>>11413762
How, though. I got my first into to calc in the 5th grade.

[Anonymous No.11413785]

>>11413777
no they already have Elon

[Anonymous No.11413788]

>>11413755
I'm probably disqualified when I looked up some Bridenstine and Musk slash fiction.

[Anonymous No.11413796]

>>11413780
American school systems, changing schools a lot, and going through most of high school online I guess.
Never had to do geometry either, just algebra.

[Anonymous No.11413798]

>>11413788
Big Jim and old Musky haha was it any good

[Anonymous No.11413810]

Now that the thread has moved in that direction lets have some fun with the three letters and their keyword checks.

Knowing the full explosive high yield potential of the Starship's methane fuel tanks and available delta v they provide we can safely assume it will be easy to apply it's capability to high value targets all over the solar system and the globe. Using the existing base of operations in the United States we can utilize the Starship to its full potential to cause maximum impact in the public and the authorities' perception on spaceflight using a single massive high power launch live streamed directly from Texas. Those worried about the difficulty of easily moving the high amount of explosive fuel need not worry as the base of operations is placed in close proximity to a major fuel pipeline. Nonetheless the potential civilian panic and terror should not be underestimated during launch as we know well from the various reactions in California to the North Korean nuclear rockets incidents, and action must be taken to maximize exposure using social media presence to counter that. In addition to that it is important to target various political figures and attempt to convert as many of them as possible to our side so that we can make humanity an interplanetary species.

[Anonymous No.11413811]

>>11413798
It's a modern retelling of Romeo and Juliet of lovers separated by newspace and oldspace

[Anonymous No.11413813]

>>11413811

[Anonymous No.11413818]

>>11413811
>>It's a modern retelling of Romeo and Juliet of lovers separated by newspace and oldspace

Now theres a sentence I never expected to see

[Anonymous No.11413820]

>>11413810
absolutely
physical visibility should extend throughout mainland Florida as well as Cuba, yes? I don't have the ground track forecasts for orbital launch events wit me

[Anonymous No.11413832]

>>11413810
I think you hit all the major points of interest, spread the word brother. One day humanity will conquer the system

[Anonymous No.11413896]

I know there's a tentative launch schedule, but is there one that shows when they will take off and land at Cape Canaveral?

[Anonymous No.11413931]

>>11413813
>>11413818
On that night, the two retreated to a nondescript hotel. Sipping on margaritas at the top balcony. Jim is still sharply dressed as if he is expecting to be called away on official NASA business at any moment. Elon is more unwound, with his short unbuttoned partly down and his drink even further down it's glass. He's rambling while bursting with enthusiasm about his new "Big Fucking Rocket" that his company recently started work on. His eyes gazing out to the horizon imagining a whole fleet of impressive rockets but they always seem to drift back to Jim's eyes. Jim pleasantly watching his Elon while calmly sipping on his drink.

"Umm anyways," Elon turns towards Jim "thanks for sticking your head out for me with commercial crew."

"No problem" Jim replies, "It's the least I could do for you." he said with a wink. Elon blushes, "umm well, do you think Shelby will suspect something? With you umm doing all this for me?"

"Oh no, Shelby just thinks I bought into your hype from you being the hottest man on the internet." Jim says with confidence "and besides, he couldn't care less as long as I pull the SLS line".

Elon's face shifts to slight disappointment "Is that true? Am I just all hype to you?" he stammered in his usual dorky way that Jim always found cute. Jim smiles as he knew the answer the moment the question left Elon's soft lips. "Of course not, Ol'Musky" Jim says with a suave smile "you're the hottest man to me".

"I told you not to call me that." Elon embarrassingly smiles while trying to cover Jim's face with his hand. Jim swiftly brushes aside Elon's hand and grabs his shirt to pull him inward with the same smoothness and confidence that landed Jim the position of the Administrator of NASA. Before Elon could react, Jim brought their lips together for a romantic docking. Their kiss burned with a love that was brighter than all the stars in the night sky. Elon succumbed to Jim's advances as he tugs on Jim's SLS tie.

[Anonymous No.11413939]

[Anonymous No.11413943]

>>11413939
is that orange rocket going to go inside that barge

[Anonymous No.11413947]

>>11413931
What in the mother of God did I just read

[Anonymous No.11413970]

>>11413939
What's this, an expendable factory?

[Anonymous No.11413980]

>>11413970
>The unveiling of the B-2 Test Stand model for the SLS management team and employees in building 4220.

[Anonymous No.11413983]

>>11413750
You actually could build an ICBM in your garage, solid rocket castings are pretty fucking easy, most chemicals for them are available off the shelf and modern guidance systems for all sorts of remote vehicles are available off the shelf for fairly little money. If you have some electronic and hands on aptitude you could definitely make a moderate sized missile with some kind of nasty air busting payload loaded with alpha particle emitters for a DIY dirty bomb.

>fbi pls no bully

[Anonymous No.11413984]

[Anonymous No.11413988]

>>11413983
collecting fire alarms will get you in trouble, anon

[Anonymous No.11413991]

[Anonymous No.11413995]

>>11413984
>>11413991
is this happening now?

[Anonymous No.11414002]

>>11413980
That's one fancy model kit. I always want to own the scale model shit NASA uses in their demonstrations/talks.

>>11413988
Yeah now, thanks a ton David you pockmarked dip.

[Anonymous No.11414003]

>>11413988
Scavenge site skips at house renovations, the dump, etc... Would be pretty easy to amass a small collection without attracting notice.

[Anonymous No.11414004]

>>11413947
The purest form of love.

[Anonymous No.11414007]

>>11413995
nah just browsing the 2020 image library, this is from last month

There's some really good pics here

[Anonymous No.11414020]

>>11414007
>tfw you will never have a mirrored gold face
the lighting in space is simultaneously the most beautiful and the most awful thing ever

[Anonymous No.11414025]

>>11414007
>Italian flag
Was this during that one resupply mission where NASA delivered pizza to the ISS?

[Anonymous No.11414028]

>>11413988
Wait why will fire alarms get you in trouble?

[Anonymous No.11414030]

>>11414007
I love these high res exterior shots of the structure, the ISS is pure function over form and there's a strange beauty in that which I cannot explain

[Anonymous No.11414031]

[Anonymous No.11414034]

>>11414028
IIRC it's because every fire alarm has a small amount of fissile material that is used in the sensor. One could theoretically harvest this and use it in a home built nuclear reactor, or worse a dirty bomb.

[Anonymous No.11414036]

>>11414028
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

[Anonymous No.11414037]

>>11414028
Never heard of the Nuclear Boy Scout? Kid made a reactor in his shed and irradiated his neighborhood, and self.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0QMeTjcJDA

[Anonymous No.11414042]

>>11414028
some nutcase collected a large pile of fire alarms and poisoning himself with the americium inside them

[Anonymous No.11414045]

>>11414036
>>11414037
Absolute /sci/ and /diy/ chad.

[Anonymous No.11414046]

>>11414031
orbital rings are fake

[Anonymous No.11414050]

>>11414030

[Anonymous No.11414055]

>>11414020
>the lighting in space is simultaneously the most beautiful and the most awful thing ever
It can look really beautiful sometimes

[Anonymous No.11414059]

>>11414045
That's the kind of hardcore giga autism you'd expect out of a 4channeler

[Anonymous No.11414061]

>>11414045
Poor guy died in '16, drunk and covered in open sores. He probably should have made a rad-suit in his shed first.

[Anonymous No.11414064]

[Anonymous No.11414066]

holy fuck

[Anonymous No.11414076]

>>11414066

[Anonymous No.11414084]

[Anonymous No.11414095]

>>11414084
so how does Cygnus work? which orientation is the spacecraft in during launch? Naive guess would say that the bus (and grapple fixture) is down and the airlock (and cargo) is up

[Anonymous No.11414099]

[Anonymous No.11414102]

[Anonymous No.11414112]

Man, cable management in space must be a nightmare

[Anonymous No.11414118]

[Anonymous No.11414119]

>>11414112
It's what happens when everything comes from several countries, each using several companies, from multiple generations of different equipment. I can only imagine the compatibility hell in which the poor ISS engineers exist.

[Anonymous No.11414124]

[Anonymous No.11414125]

>>11414112
Just send up a pound of zip ties. Or twist-ties if you want reusability.
Then again as we all know, reusable twist-ties is just a meme.

[Anonymous No.11414128]

>>11414125
especially in space, the bits that float off of them won't sink to the ground and will just float about and get stuck in things

[Anonymous No.11414141]

>>11414128
Oh yeah if you're using bread-ties, I was thinking those plastic-coated metal wires they used to package toys up with, those don't fray. The only issue I can think of might be a floating tie making contact between two points what should not make contact.
Once as a kid I bent one into a battery-sized housing shape and slipped in a AA, watching until the plastic started smoking and melting off.

[Anonymous No.11414144]

>>11414128

[Anonymous No.11414145]

>>11414141
oh right, plastic twist ties instead of paper ones
forgot about those, it's been forever since I've opened a children's toy

[Anonymous No.11414149]

what is this guys, looks legit

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1245959/NASA-official-space-cameras-UFO-ISS-alien-latest-news

[Anonymous No.11414153]

>>11414149
probably a piece of orbital trash thrown from the ISS
frozen space pee

[Anonymous No.11414155]

Reminder that there is literally zero contingency in place should an astronaut die on the ISS. You can expect the same for Starship.

[Anonymous No.11414158]

>>11414144
didnt mean to quote

[Anonymous No.11414160]

>>11414155
just don't die lmao

[Anonymous No.11414161]

>>11414155
just space them
or if that's not acceptable, dress them in their flight suit and seal it up

[Anonymous No.11414162]

>>11414158

[Anonymous No.11414169]

>>11414160
I came

[Anonymous No.11414176]

[Anonymous No.11414184]

>>11414153
but it shoots up at the end of the vid.

[Anonymous No.11414191]

>>11413780
>intro to calc in 5th grade
lol bull fucking shit, you can sugar coat the PEDMAS and algerbra you learned all you fucking want you dogshit dumbass retard but it was not
>intro to calc


Is this also the part where you tell me you learned matrices geometry and trig in 2nd grade

[Anonymous No.11414194]

>>11414145
I don't even know if those metal ones are in use anymore, all I see nowadays are those stretchy hammerhead ties you have to cut, same kind that affix the tag to your shirt when you buy it.
-t. /toy/

[Anonymous No.11414195]

>>11414160
>people on the forward facing side's reaction when the Earth passes through the rings

[Anonymous No.11414199]

Scott Munley
https://youtu.be/1DKnnEp61l0

[Anonymous No.11414211]

>>11414191
No, but we were also introduced to trig in the 5th... Did y'all's elementary schools not do accelerated classes?

[Anonymous No.11414224]

>>11414211
Please do tell me what trig you learned/were introduced to in 5th grade
and oh please tell me it was pythagoreans theorom
Please tell me you were also doing multivariable calculus and differential equations by 8th grade and that you are a walking talking 300k math earning god

[Anonymous No.11414242]

>>11414224
>Seething this hard

[Anonymous No.11414245]

>>11414242
You are the worst, you baiting fuck

[Anonymous No.11414247]

>>11414160
oh lawd he comin

[Anonymous No.11414262]

>>11414245
Dude, don't get mad at me because you had to go to a school in an economically challenged neighborhood that was dedicated to leaving no child behind at the expense of everyone else.

[Anonymous No.11414264]

Hmmm....

[Anonymous No.11414268]

>>11413983
Problem with off-the-shelf guidance systems, especially GPS-based ones, is they pretty much all have an altitude limit built into them to prevent just this.

[Anonymous No.11414270]

>>11414264
>Gemini on Atlas

[Anonymous No.11414273]

>>11414264
???

[Anonymous No.11414282]

>>11414037
>made a nuclear reactor in his backyard
>as shocking as that is...
Except nuclear reactors are so fucking simple that they occur in nature. Nah, kid was just fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.11414283]

>>11414264
>>11414273
Where's this from? Please tell me that this isn't from an official published video.

[Anonymous No.11414289]

>>11414262
>he says as he is currently posting on 4chin
Tell me what is your grad level

[Anonymous No.11414297]

>>11414160
Damn how the hell did they get Earth to travel at 1% the speed of light?

[Anonymous No.11414299]

>>11414283
No, their from KSP, but the concepts did exist in real life...

[Anonymous No.11414300]

>>11414297
Someone used a Dean drive on the Earth.

[Anonymous No.11414308]

Will we see a reusable SSTO in our lifetime?

[Anonymous No.11414311]

>>11414308
Shit bait

[Anonymous No.11414319]

>>11414308
if Starship and superheavy are successful enough, probably not. The marginal return on the investment into the R&D would be much too small to make it worth it.

[Anonymous No.11414321]

>>11414037
Absolute fucking mad lad.

[Anonymous No.11414322]

>>11414299
Can you land rockets in KSP?

[Anonymous No.11414328]

>>11414322
You can land anything in KSP if you're good enough and don't come at the ground too hard and at a too steep angle.

[Anonymous No.11414334]

>>11414328
Well? Have you?

[Anonymous No.11414335]

>>11414322
Yes, but it's challenging. Mainly because KSP automatically deletes spacecraft in the atmosphere if you're not controlling them. So you can't do a Falcon 9 style rocket easily. You'd have to make the booster perform much more than in reality so it has lots of time above the atmosphere for the upper stage to reach orbit. That's how I do it.

[Anonymous No.11414336]

>>11414328
Lithosphere breaking is an acquired skill

[Anonymous No.11414338]

>>11414282
Okay

[Anonymous No.11414354]

Who is excited for KSP2?

[Anonymous No.11414356]

>>11414335
>KSP automatically deletes spacecraft in the atmosphere if you're not controlling them.
there are probably mods that prevent this

[Anonymous No.11414357]

>>11414335
KSP 2 is getting brachistochrone trajectories so that'll probably help enable time warp and background predictions while under acceleration

[Anonymous No.11414361]

>>11414338
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

[Anonymous No.11414362]

>>11414354
Yes! Hopefully it fixes alot of the core problems of KSP.

[Anonymous No.11414368]

>>11414361
I said okay.

[Anonymous No.11414373]

>>11414354
I finally bought a PS4 specifically for it (and AC7) knowing full-well my PC wouldn't be able to handle it.

[Anonymous No.11414376]

>>11414354
Not quite so excited after I heard it got moved to a new studio.

[Anonymous No.11414379]

>>11414362
Hopefully I won't need to download so many mods to make things like mun bases as hard as they should be.

[Anonymous No.11414380]

>>11414376
That’s a red flag for development hell...

[Anonymous No.11414382]

The first magnetic measurements from the Martian surface show a local magnetic field that's 10 times stronger than detected from orbit, and weather instruments have found a surprisingly dynamic atmosphere around the spacecraft.

[Anonymous No.11414388]

>>11414380
Yes, it is. So is the no date thing.

[Anonymous No.11414389]

>>11414382
10 times stronger is still pitifully irrelevant. All this is saying is that our naive models don't properly account for the complexity of planetary geology.

[Anonymous No.11414390]

>>11414388
Isn't it supposed to show up anytime between next month and March of next year?

[Anonymous No.11414391]

>>11414380
It looks just like ksp... im guessing the new studio is just modding the shit out of the first game.

[Anonymous No.11414398]

>>11414390
Was slated for April, now it's just "Planned Release Date: 2020".
Development hell is a very real thing.

[Anonymous No.11414401]

>>11414031
BOOOOOO!!!

[Anonymous No.11414406]

>>11414401
so no rings?

[Anonymous No.11414409]

>>11414406
Pretty much. You might be able to an orbital chain where the forces can't propagate through fully.

[Anonymous No.11414418]

>>11414409
Isaac Arthur lied to me man

[Anonymous No.11414419]

I need to go play ksp now... nothing gets me diamonds like a good korolev cross

[Anonymous No.11414427]

SPACE FORCE!

[Anonymous No.11414428]

>>11414419
I just started playing again.....
can't wait for ksp 2!

[Anonymous No.11414429]

>>11414418
Sci-fi consumption is not advised. Everything can't simply be referred to, "but look at what the Wright brothers did and no one believed them!" Handwaving is the death of real science.

[Anonymous No.11414434]

>>11414418
If something works in a completely isolated idealized environment with infinite resources, Isaac Arthur declares it nothing more than an engineering problem. Megastructure shit is major wank for the most pat.

>>11414376
I'm glad it's moving to a new studio, wish it was moving to a new engine as well. KSP is about as interesting now as it will ever get without a massive fundamental change.

[Anonymous No.11414459]

>>11414409
Isn't any practical orbital ring pretty much a chain already? Even if you make it 1km thick it'd be still negligible to the total size and the only forces able to propagate non-locally would be tensile

[Anonymous No.11414470]

>>11414199
>Space Is hard
No it isn't. Space is challenging, not hard.

[Anonymous No.11414473]

>>11414459
>>11414409
Naw, physics doesn't work like that. Shits fucked.

[Anonymous No.11414475]

>>11414470
Underwater cities are hard, certainly not space.

[Anonymous No.11414476]

>>11414475
What are you implying?

[Anonymous No.11414481]

>>11414476
It is more expensive to build things deep underwater for long term use than it is to send things into orbit. Evidently, 1atm of internal pressure in space, is damn easy to ward off, but 1atm per every 10 meters of saltwater depth is a more difficult matter entirely. At least you don't need to worry about radiation.

[Anonymous No.11414483]

>>11414470
>>11414475
actually i'm kinda getting a little hard right now tbqhwy

[Anonymous No.11414486]

>>11414376
At least it's not being made by a mexican construction company run by the mob now

[Anonymous No.11414572]

>>11413743
Go to school

[Anonymous No.11414588]

>>11413702
Coal

[Anonymous No.11414598]

>>11413303
fun fact-the NOS company makes like 50 times more money from the energy drink than the nitrous oxide now. ngl, for an energy drink it tastes pretty good.

[Anonymous No.11414602]

>>11413931
yaoi of jim-sama and elon-kun?

suuuuuugoooooooiiiiiiii~

[Anonymous No.11414610]

>>11414598
>energy drink
Coffee or tea?

[Anonymous No.11414617]

>>11414610
sugary heart poison

[Anonymous No.11414625]

>>11414030
Why do they have canvas bags on the outside?

[Anonymous No.11414627]

>>11414617
Which one is that then?

[Anonymous No.11414667]

Can you make a liquid fuel rocket where the fuel is vegetable oil?

[Anonymous No.11414671]

>>11414667
Possibly, but unless you're wanting a property specific to vegetable oil, you'd get better performance from a fuel like ethanol or gasoline.

[Anonymous No.11414686]

>>11414667
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11414693]

Don’t give that moron any (you)‘s in his premature sfg thread

[Anonymous No.11414700]

>>11414693
Wait I thought the thread died
Said i couldn't reply

[Anonymous No.11414738]

Anyone got any details about the BE-1 and BE-2 engines? Or are those secrets forever stashed away in Jeff's underwear drawer?

[Anonymous No.11414742]

>>11413236
I want to buy 2 of those and open the first space hotel.

[Anonymous No.11414750]

>>11414738
>barely used experimental engines for a glorified grasshopper
Dunno why you would expect anything, they're not keeping anything under wraps they just didn't pursue them.

[Anonymous No.11414751]

>>11414354
I’ll get excited once someone remakes the Real Solar System and Realism Overhaul mods

[Anonymous No.11414764]

>>11414376
squad were horrible developers though

[Anonymous No.11414779]

>>11414738
BE-1 was a HTP (high-test peroxide) monopropellant engine producing 9 kN (2,000 lbf) of thrust. 9 of these were used to power ‘The Goddard’, a small sub-scale demonstrator which flew up to a height of about 85m (285ft):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jTpoL5GVSOI

BE-2 was a kerosene and HTP bipropellant engine producing 140 kN (31,000 lbf) of thrust. Five of these were used to power the PM-2 New Shepard prototype, which had a single successful short hop before failing on it’s second flight:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wXhZVB6bi34

[Anonymous No.11414788]

>>11414391
>>11414434
Looking at the trailers, it really does seem like a modded KSP, at least graphically. That being said, is a sequel really needed?

>>11414398
What will happen first? KSP2, Boeing CFT, SN1 hop, SLS or JWST?

[Anonymous No.11414793]

>>11414788
>That being said, is a sequel really needed?
From what I've heard? Yes. KSP is somewhat ramshackled code-wide which makes adding more stuff to it hard. A clean start with better forward planning might be best. So, if that's the case, then why not brand it as a new game?

[Anonymous No.11414807]

What's the best cheap catalyst for a hydrogen peroxide thruster? Silver and platinum are too expensive.

[Anonymous No.11414808]

>>11414807
a very warm piece of stainless steel

[Anonymous No.11414829]

>>11414788
Just building in what is being promised for KSP2 on top of the old game's spaghetti code would leave you with a 1fps mess if you actually tried to do anything. So yes a sequel is needed or at least warranted.

>KSP2, boeing CFT, SN1 hop, SLS, JWST
That's tough. All those dates are going to slip, it's basically between SN1 and CFT as they have the furthest to go before running into the others.

[Anonymous No.11414836]

>>11414788
SN1 hop is obviously first

[Anonymous No.11414863]

>>11413588
Metallic hydrogen

[Anonymous No.11414867]

>>11414863
kek

[Anonymous No.11414871]

>>11414863
is that significantly denser than normal hydrogen?

[Anonymous No.11414872]

>>11414808
Will that work? I can't find a article about that.

[Anonymous No.11414875]

>>11414863
Bad meme.

[Anonymous No.11414877]

>>11413931
Beautiful articulation

[Anonymous No.11414880]

>>11414872
what's the decomposition temperature of hydrogen peroxide?

[Anonymous No.11414898]

>>11414880
I don't know, but I've read that concentrations above ~65% will be hot enough to self decompose if started.

[Anonymous No.11414902]

>>11413268
shit taste

[Anonymous No.11414903]

SPACE FORCE

[Anonymous No.11414905]

>>11413542
If you're thinking that's too small, you've played too much KSP

[Anonymous No.11414907]

>>11414905
its not enough to go to the moon or even HEO, i think Hubble was max limit

[Anonymous No.11414908]

>>11414903
THREE-PEAT WORLD WARS!!!!
GREAT SOLAR WAR CHAMPS!!!!
VENUSLETS BTFO!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11414909]

>>11413418
How can you turn one of those aliexpress stirling engines into a cryocooler so you can make liquid oxygen?

[Anonymous No.11414917]

>>11414908
NUKE EARTH! TERRAFORM MARS!

[Anonymous No.11414935]

>>11414871
So?

[Anonymous No.11414939]

Man these spaceflight threads are getting really busy and hard to keep up with- is it possible to we can break them up into two topics or something?

[Anonymous No.11414942]

>>11414939
WTF are you on? These threads aren't that busy.

[Anonymous No.11414943]

>>11414871
Sorry, misread your reply. Yes, it is much denser

[Anonymous No.11414949]

>>11414942
/sci/ is a slow board I know, but these threads move fast. Sometimes I get busy with work and miss a days worth while I leave this thread up in a tab- then I’m reading through 3 old threads trying to catch up

[Anonymous No.11414954]

>>11414949
IIRC before /sfg/ became a thing. There were multiple different space themed generals on this board, but they all ended up talking about the same thing so it made sense to consolidate them.

[Anonymous No.11414960]

>>11413729
On what shit exactly? Spaceflight is a huge topic. Assuming you want the very basics, forget armchair stuff like Project Rho and try this:
- playing with GMAT to build the intuition https://sourceforge.net/projects/gmat/ which is an open source astrodynamics software and a general mission planner from NASA
- any lagrangian mechanics and calculus course. There's no way around the math, things can be extremely counterintuitive at times.
- Planetary Landers and Entry Probes by Andrew Ball. An introductory overview of practical interplanetary mission planning and systems engineering. Great stuff, very clear, accessible and concise.

I have some advice on the specifics as well.

[Anonymous No.11414961]

>>11414949
That's not our fault you retarded faggot

[Anonymous No.11414995]

>>11414939
Brainlets here are rarely interested in any practical spaceflight topics, these threads are 99% random shitposting about rockets and politics.

[Anonymous No.11415047]

>>11414949
Spaceflight as a field is speeding up, at this point I'm worried I'll have to accelerate getting my academic credentials to keep apace. There might be some speed in these threads due to painfully artificial shitposting, however on the whole I think it's mostly down to a result of increasingly rapid action in the industry itself.

[Anonymous No.11415049]

>>11413729
For some mission porn, see the https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.207.7507 which is a no-nonsense presentation of the Apollo Lunar Module landing strategy, written in 1966. Just to show the difference in thought level between KSP and a real mission.

[Anonymous No.11415062]

>>11414907
>shuttle
>moon
>HEO
As I said, you've probably played too much KSP. Shuttle was severely limited by its thermodynamics, for one. It needed the Earth shadow to stay cool, which also meant it couldn't even be launched in certain times of the year, let alone to HEO.

[Anonymous No.11415071]

>>11413544
>implying you need something else in orbit

[Anonymous No.11415072]

>>11415062
God seriously? What a mess, why not just open up the radiator hatch for those other times?

Also it did launch to HEO to deploy and then repair Hubble didn't it

[Anonymous No.11415075]

>>11415072
>What a mess, why not just open up the radiator hatch for those other times?
It wasn't good enough.

[Anonymous No.11415086]

>>11415072
Hubble is at about 540km (was a bit higher but not significantly). That's pretty far from HEO, Van Allen belts etc.
>What a mess
This is a routine complexity real spacecraft have to deal with, and they have to make tradeoffs in everything. Shuttle was everything at once, so it had to deal with everything at once.

[Anonymous No.11415087]

>>11415049
yeah I think I'll stick with KSP

[Anonymous No.11415089]

>>11415072
>Also it did launch to HEO to deploy and then repair Hubble didn't it

Hubble’s in a low 537x540km orbit, HEO is anything above 35,786 km (geostationary).You wouldn’t wanna go above 1,600km in a crewed spacecraft unless your on an escape trajectory and threading the needle, due to the Van Allen belts.

[Anonymous No.11415094]

>>11415089
>HEO is anything above GEO
no, wrong
HEO includes GEO and some stuff below as well as everything beyond, although much beyond GEO and you're in cis-lunar space and can be easily lost to a solar orbit

[Anonymous No.11415095]

>>11415049
Hell, I'd love to see window markings and designators described there, in KSP. That sort of manual flying would be great to have.

[Anonymous No.11415122]

...

[Anonymous No.11415124]

>>11415122
>solids

[Anonymous No.11415127]

>>11415095
There's still a functioning wide angle periscope on ISS's Zarya, called VShTV, similar to Lunar Module's Alignment Optical Periscope. It's an artifact of the older Almaz and TKS, meant to be used as a manual attitude correction helper in case of emergency. Never used in practice, obviously.

[Anonymous No.11415129]

>>11415127
>Alignment Optical Periscope
*Telescope

[Anonymous No.11415132]

>>11415124
Solid Snake...Solid Centaur?

[Anonymous No.11415134]

>>11413307
This is how I want to die: with a rocket flying out of my crotch.

[Anonymous No.11415135]

just had a thought
Falcon Heavy could deliver a fully fueled Centaur upper stage to orbit with payload, huh

[Anonymous No.11415142]

>>11413568
But the thing is, an improperly maintained coal plant will give off the same amount of ionizing radiation as one that is maintained. If a nuclear plant goes off the rails, its emissions go up considerably.

Im not saying your wrong, just that people have a reason for being afraid.

[Anonymous No.11415144]

>>11413590
This never ceases to amaze me.

[Anonymous No.11415145]

>>11415135
>deliver a fully fueled Centaur upper stage to orbit with payload

[Anonymous No.11415146]

>>11415145
Shame Challenger killed that concept.

[Anonymous No.11415147]

>>11415145
Any lunar lander that stages off of Starship will be functionally identical to Shuttle-Centaur
the future is so fucking bright I need shades

[Anonymous No.11415148]

>>11415146
It was pretty dangerous anyway, cancellation was probably for the best in this case...

[Anonymous No.11415260]

>>11414322
You can go full autistic and write small programs and land them in modded ksp that over the years and work of many autists has transformed the game https://youtu.be/wwae-wqOJV8

[Anonymous No.11415283]

>>11414335
There is a mod that works around that by jumping between game saves FMRS
>>11414322
Try 1.7.3 version it is a bit of a pain to install real solar system mod but there is a stable release and it is worth it https://youtu.be/aPXzNDhz6p8

[Anonymous No.11415354]

[Anonymous No.11415359]

>>11415354
this kills the oldspace

[Anonymous No.11415362]

>>11415359
SN2+ shouldn't take long at all to complete, with the tall bay being finished, and the 3rd Sprung structure. NSF article says that they expect SN1 to be rolled out early next month for a hop.

[Anonymous No.11415363]

Oy vey Elon, don't you dare go to Mars before us.

[Anonymous No.11415367]

>>11415354
Apparently they're going to be pressure testing this very soon which I'm kinda torn about because I'm impatient to see it fully STACC'd

[Anonymous No.11415382]

>>11415148
But how is this that much different from other upper stages launched by the shuttle? In fact since Centaur is liquid fueled, shouldn't it be "safer"?

[Anonymous No.11415389]

>>11415382
fuckers were paranoid about the wrong shit

[Anonymous No.11415433]

>NEVER renumber, per engineering

[Anonymous No.11415442]

>>11415433
Literally the definition of soul

[Anonymous No.11415445]

[Anonymous No.11415455]

[Anonymous No.11415459]

>>11415455
this is a really really good chart imo

[Anonymous No.11415460]

>>11415442
>>11415389
Elon put the engineers and the production teams right next to each other in Hawthorn to increase the problem solving / diffusion of knowledge / communication / whatever between the two groups for F9. I guess it’s slightly harder when you’re trying to wrangle some contractors in southeast Texas, two time zones away

[Anonymous No.11415462]

>>11415445
O shit is this new?

[Anonymous No.11415464]

>>11415460
Plus three shifts

[Anonymous No.11415466]

>>11415445
>>11415455
>Them costs
Almost as if Ariane is a French run monopoly that abuses the EU's trade barriers to impede progress to protects it's only greed and laziness..

[Anonymous No.11415467]

>>11415462
frogs are trying to stay relevant

[Anonymous No.11415483]

>>11415455
Will we ever evolve to the point where our rockets don't look like massive penises?

[Anonymous No.11415496]

>>11415483
Only if the propulsion technology advances greatly past "really big, really thin walled fuel tank with engines on one end."

[Anonymous No.11415499]

space elevator when?

[Anonymous No.11415504]

>>11415483
Purely space based vehicles (like the ISS) would have more varied shapes, though if they are supposed to also move around lot then they would still be mostly based around one long axis.

[Anonymous No.11415508]

>>11414764
How so?

[Anonymous No.11415509]

>>11414788
>That being said, is a sequel really needed?

Very badly. Many very-desired features are simply not present and the coding is a bit roughshod.

[Anonymous No.11415520]

>>11414905
>If you're thinking that's too small

It’s perfectly fine for maneuvering in LEO or LKO but you couldn’t actually go anywhere but LKO or LEO with it.

> you've played too much KSP

Delta/v requirements are actually much kinder in KSP than in reality, so I don’t see how. I’ve just never launched anything in KSP with so little delta/v that it couldn’t at least get to one of Kerbin’s moons and back. Even the Pseudo-Shuttle I built has more delta/v than the actual Shuttle because I put two fuel tanks on the sides of the fuselage which the wings are attached to.

[Anonymous No.11415533]

>>11414335
>KSP automatically deletes spacecraft in the atmosphere if you're not controlling them
Hmmm I actually recovered spent stages that entered atmosphere out of my sight and had no chance of surviving reentry or lithobraking in 1.8. Haven't played earlier versions so maybe they changed this somewhere along the way? I once switched to science module/upper stage that I discarded before reentry to find it standing upright in the water, then it immediately tipped over and RUDed. I then reloaded a save and was able to recover it from the tracking station along with the science it had. It was like they had most physics turned off once they were too far from me. Clean steam install with zero mods.

[Anonymous No.11415545]

>>11415483
No that’s just physics
Cylindrical isn’t even because of air drag either, it’s the optimal shape in terms of material and volume and strength along one axis

[Anonymous No.11415554]

>>11415520
>Delta/v requirements are actually much kinder in KSP than in reality
Autistic mission planning and optimisation along with precision computer controlled burns and MOAR BOOSTERS not being an easy way to success saves a lot of dV

[Anonymous No.11415583]

>>11415142
The problem is there are no truly modern nuclear plants. Modern nuclear plants have so many extra safety elements engineered in that you could let toddlers go ham on their control boards and no catastrophe would occur.

[Anonymous No.11415584]

Anyone else worried that the cost of the 7x+ refueling trips to a starship will totally fuck the planned cheap $/kg to anywhere outside of LEO?

[Anonymous No.11415586]

>>11414322
I've done it, it's not that difficult, managing the landing of the booster and the 2nd stage at the same time is actually a lot of fun. Way more fun than SSTO shitboxes in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.11415587]

>>11415584
Would it be easier/cheaper to make expendable tankers for refueling flights? It's what I do in KSP when making too-big IP ships.

[Anonymous No.11415589]

>>11415520
>Delta/v requirements are actually much kinder in KSP than in reality, so I don’t see how.
Classic KSP way is "just add boosters", that's how. Adding a couple km/s is no biggie there, not so much IRL. 300m/s plus the deorbiting reserve is a lot for the task at hand, in fact.
>you couldn’t actually go anywhere but LKO or LEO with it.
It puzzles me even more. What even makes you think Shuttle was designed to go anywhere after it was launched into its mission target orbit? Or to go anywhere else other than LEO, for that matter. Do you want this contraption to do even more than it was designed for? It was already super versatile and super useless due to precisely that reason. Again, this is a fucking 110 ton spaceplane which didn't use ablation, good luck getting it back from anything more energetic than LEO.

[Anonymous No.11415601]

>>11414863
Grat, now design me a turbopump that can feed roughly 5 parts of metallic hydrogen into a combustion chamber per part of liquid oxygen, smart ass.

[Anonymous No.11415602]

>>11415584
Nah, It'll still be cheap enough to enable all kinds of crazy shit
>>11415587
No, no such thing as a cheap expendable rocket. Just fly more Starships as tankers, and reuse them every day.

[Anonymous No.11415605]

>>11415601
Fuck it, the other way around, I just woke up, also, "Great, not grat"

[Anonymous No.11415608]

>>11415584
It's already going to be absurdly cheap, 7x absurdly cheap is still cheap.

[Anonymous No.11415611]

>>11415601
You wouldn't add the oxygen, the energy release by metallic hydrogen decomposing into gaseous hydrogen is huge, and the exhaust is very light, which means the specific impulse and therefore thrust per kilogram propellant is enormous. Adding oxygen would add more weight than it would add energy, which would actually make your rocket less efficient. You would want to add some water though, to act as a fluid curtain to keep the incredibly hot hydrogen produced from the decomposition reaction away from touching the walls of the chamber, otherwise it'd melt.

A pure metallic hydrogen rocket could get something insane like 3000 Isp, with a 'flame' temperature of over 7000 kelvin. A more realistic water cooled metallic hydrogen engine would achieve closer to 1500 Isp with a flame temperature around 4000 K. That'd still shit aaaall over the most efficient chemical rocket engines we have today of course, and it'd even shit on the more advanced nuclear thermal engine designs.

The biggest problem with metallic hydrogen engines is that they're actually impossible because we can't make metallic hydrogen and even if we could a voltage potential of a few electron volts would be enough to cause it to decompose, which means even if you could magically spawn in a fully fueled metallic hydrogen rocket, a tiny static electric charge would be enough to cause it to detonate instantly with more than ten times the energy of TNT per kilogram.

[Anonymous No.11415613]

>>11415611
>The biggest problem with metallic hydrogen engines is that they're actually impossible
that’s a big problem

[Anonymous No.11415615]

>>11415602
>No, no such thing as a cheap expendable rocket
What if the rocket wasn't the expendable part?

[Anonymous No.11415616]

>>11415554
n-body gravity also lets you do a larger variety of gravity assists and lagrange shit

[Anonymous No.11415619]

>>11415611
Shit like this goes way over my head before I get hand holding like you just did at 8 in the morning on my first cup of coffee. Thanks man.

[Anonymous No.11415631]

>>11415589
>Or to go anywhere else other than LEO

There is literally no reason to make a manned spaceplane just to deliver some payloads to orbit. It’s a titanic waste of money and time.

[Anonymous No.11415637]

>>11415631
Why not toss off the thermal shield on starship if it’s only going to be a moon shuttle or whatnot? I’ve been thinking of that. The only reason for a lot of the design is EDL.

[Anonymous No.11415643]

>>11415637
>Why not toss off the thermal shield on starship if it’s only going to be a moon shuttle or whatnot?

It’s intended to travel to Mars, aerobrake, and land back on earth itself.

[Anonymous No.11415652]

>>11415631
Sure, you just described the entire Shuttle in your last sentence, no argument here.

[Anonymous No.11415659]

>>11415643
I think he just meant a moon-centric variant, which would only be a shuttle back and forth and never leave Earth's SOI.

[Anonymous No.11415669]

>>11415659
also could apply to mars-mars shuttles. Leave the earth cycler in mars orbit, transfer the payload; Elon did say that mars EDL doesn’t need the thermal tiles

[Anonymous No.11415676]

>>11415637
Need to aero rake to reduce needed delta v
Otherwise the system doesn’t work

Saves like 3 km/s on a minimum energy transit, much more if you are burning fuel to speed things up

[Anonymous No.11415678]

>>11414112
In fact no, most of it is done on Earth by a team of people, astronauts just follow a relatively simple set of rules and instructions. ISS inventory management and logistics (also done on Earth) is more complex though since it has to be done with absolute precision.

[Anonymous No.11415749]

What does Elon mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11415752]

>>11415749
Robot Martian waifus by 2050

[Anonymous No.11415755]

>>11415749
It means he is balls deep into his wine and valium sesh and about to go on a shitposting rampage.

[Anonymous No.11415769]

>>11415755
Truly a man of the people.

[Anonymous No.11415805]

https://www.space.com/amp/nasa-insight-lander-mars-seismically-active.html

[Anonymous No.11415918]

Anyone know where I can get the entire archive of Hubble imagery? I'm talking like those shitty-HTML white background pages, none of these flashy image galleries with highlights. Where is the full list?

[Anonymous No.11415942]

>>11413643
ah yes the lady that is singlehandly responsible for all the Apollo landings. Or so the media would have us believe.

Nonetheless, f

[Anonymous No.11415962]

>>11415483
Stop projecting. You can't piece the heavens with your limp dick, anon.

[Anonymous No.11415967]

>>11415496
Only if we don't give a shit about max-q forces and/or start using nuclear propulsion.

[Anonymous No.11415971]

>>11415918
this?
https://hla.stsci.edu/

[Anonymous No.11415987]

>>11415971
Yes that. Thank you anon.

[Anonymous No.11415998]

>>11415987
The google search was, "hubble database."

[Anonymous No.11416059]

>>11415998
Who'd have thunk it?

[Anonymous No.11416206]

THE ALIENTS TOOK SN1

[Anonymous No.11416261]

>>11414625
I'm not an expert but I believe the canvas bag looking stuff is for thermal insulation.

[Anonymous No.11416267]

>>11416206
for the best, probably

[Anonymous No.11416269]

>>11416206
are they finally using that big shed they built?

[Anonymous No.11416272]

>>11416269
No it's going to the launchpad for pressure testing, probably

[Anonymous No.11416282]

>>11414401
>roche limit
Kind of irrelevant considering that the orbital ring isnt reliant on its own gravity to stay together
>wave propagation
there's plenty of ways to damp that enough (probably in such a way to tap for energy too) to make anything significant build up
>extra planetary tidal forces
the "orbit" of the accelerated material is also warped by this, in such away that the change in centrifugal force exerted still cancels with the weight of the stationary part.
>solar phase declination partice flux cumulative charging
we can deal with that in modern spacecraft, and on something with so much potential mass, it's not too tricky to generate a big enough net current that no major charge builds up.
>linear mass acceleration shear force
iirc, none of the components of the orbital ring need to be solid, while it could be a bit of a pain from an engineering perspective, it's not a concept destroying issue.
>metal fatigue due to temperature fluctuations
weird argument, and is also an engineering issue (and may also be negated for the same reasons as for the previous bit). I'll agree that, for a solid ring, it would be a major pain in the ass to keep things heated/cooled uniformly for most rings (though still entirely possible). One way to just completely ignore this, is to put the ring into a sun synchronous orbit, such that no region of the stationary part of it ever goes from dark/light or vice versa.
>basal shear stress
I struggle to see how this is super relevant, unless you've got some funky eccentricities going on, and even then that's only for a solid ring.
>secular & periodic gravitational pertubation
>constant orbital degradation & related forces
I doubt that these would be severe enough that it couldn't be manually corrected, and even then they may be slow acting enough that lateral forces from the orbital part may nudge the stationary along with it.

Overall, fuck knows about their viability without running the numbers, but none of those rule them out.

[Anonymous No.11416299]

>>11415533
You can have multiple craft re-enter together, but only if they stay within 2.5km of each other. Past 2.5km vehicles switch from physics simulation to on-rails, and the game just deletes anything that gets too close to a celestial body while on-rails.
The 2.5km limit is because of the 32-bit coordinates in Unity, beyond about 2.5km physics get wonky. Same reason the game is kind of hitchy when you're moving fast. It has to pause everything and relocate the map origin so you never get too far from the 0,0,0 coordinate.


There are mods that can "recover" re-entering stages by calculating whether or not they have the necessary stats/fuel/parachutes when the game deletes them, and then returns a portion of the funds based on what parts/fuel you recovered.

[Anonymous No.11416311]

>>11416299
>Unity at it again
Said it before but the biggest concern I have with KSP 2 is retaining the engine. Not much point in expanding the scope of the game if the engine remains the major bottleneck.

[Anonymous No.11416315]

>>11415354
Nasa needed 12 years to build five shuttles.

Tame your fanboyism and prepare to be patient because you'll be waiting a loooong time for fully operational at least in some form "starship".

And no, badly welded trashcans prone to explosive raptures and meant for props or some incredibly primitive testing do not count as space worthy vehicles.

[Anonymous No.11416320]

>>11416315
>comparing NASA development cycles to SpaceX's
Literally the opposite ends of the spectrum. You could not make a more retarded post.

[Anonymous No.11416321]

>>11415998
Anon, we wanted you to have the satisfaction of having provided a good answer.

[Anonymous No.11416333]

>>11416311
Yea it's a big concern. They said they've redone everything from the ground up, but afaik Unity still doesn't have 64-bit floating points so they're still gonna have to use the floating origin system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXTxQko-JH0&t=260

[Anonymous No.11416345]

>>11416321
*feels pretty*

[Anonymous No.11416354]

>>11415545
*explodes spherically*

[Anonymous No.11416355]

>>11414336

[Anonymous No.11416367]

>>11416355
aced it

[Anonymous No.11416368]

>>11416333
There's nothing forcing them to use Unity's coordinate system for anything beyond the display tier of the game. The problem isn't really Unity, they just need to be more clever with their data structures—there's no real reason to actually model anything with position and velocity until they actually collide with each other.

[Anonymous No.11416376]

>>11416368
>there's no real reason to actually model anything with position and velocity
what alternative would you use? just straight plotting trajectories?

[Anonymous No.11416391]

>>11416376
it's just a curve and a time value. Something like this:
https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1841&context=etds

[Anonymous No.11416450]

Meanwhile in Alaska...

[Anonymous No.11416454]

>>11416450

[Anonymous No.11416457]

>>11416454

[Anonymous No.11416512]

>>11416355
Mad Mike landing?

[Anonymous No.11416547]

>>11415615
No such thing as cheap expendable space hardware. Happy? Even the 'cheap, disposable' payload faring shrouds on rockets usually cost millions of dollars.

[Anonymous No.11416553]

>>11415637
Starship with a heat shield can be sent to the Moon using two rounds of refueling, and after landing it'd still have enough propellant to get back to an Earth-intercept trajectory after launching from the Moon again.
Starship with no heat shield would still need to be refueled twice in order to reach the Moon's surface with a slightly higher payload mass or leftover fuel mass, but it won't be able to get back to Earth, because even though it can intercept the Earth it can't use the atmosphere to slow down. That means it would need to slow down propulsively, and it won't have the delta V for that by a long shot.
Using a heat shield to use the Earth's atmosphere to slow down is an incredibly powerful tool for scrubbing off delta V requirements for a round trip mission.

[Anonymous No.11416556]

>>11416299
Well I cant remember the exact distance but I'm pretty sure it went way beyond the 2.5 km distance when the aerobraking started. Also it had no heat shields or anything and even if it somehow managed to enter the armosphere without overheating and blowing up it still should've hit the ground at a few hundred m/s. Yet it stood upright in the water completely intact up until I noticed it a few flights later in the tracking station along with 5 or 6 similar pieces from earlier missions all around Kerbin, and only blew up from hitting the water too hard after tipping over when I switched to it.

[Anonymous No.11416560]

>>11416547
Wouldn't a throwaway fuel tank be cheaper than designing something that can reenter, guide itself and land propulsively? If the tanker only needs to go up to LEO, why bother making it more complex than a big bag of gas?

[Anonymous No.11416565]

>>11416553
I think anon meant purely reserved for off-Earth missions hence the EDL reference.

That said the weight hit for TPS is probably worth the potential mission flexibility even if you don't specifically intend to bring it back.

[Anonymous No.11416566]

>>11415749
absolutely based

[Anonymous No.11416574]

>>11416560
There's no such thing as a cheap expendable vehicle for throwing a bunch of mass into LEO. Case in point: there aren't any after six decades of development.

Starship will be ridiculously cheap even if they miss every price target by overshooting an order of magnitude or more. Just citing its capabilities like they SHOULD be expensive doesn't change that.

[Anonymous No.11416579]

>>11416574
>There's no such thing as a cheap expendable vehicle for throwing a bunch of mass into LEO. Case in point: there aren't any after six decades of development.
I don't follow the logic, there's lots of still-possible stuff that doesn't currently exist after decades of development. Self-landing rockets fit that criteria up until just a few years ago ffs.
I do hope Starship winds up being as cheap as they say, I'm not a proponent of expendable shit I just wondered how basic you can make something if you're just gonna throw it out after, and if that would be easier than reusing the same fuel-ferry seven times over.

[Anonymous No.11416611]

>>11416579
Dude, Shuttle had a 'cheap expendable' drop tank for just hauling propellant and it cost about $70 million alone, even after 30 years of flight. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS CHEAP SPACE HARDWARE.

[Anonymous No.11416619]

>>11416611
Anon, why are you still talking about the booster? My original question way up there indicated you'd use BFR as the recoverable first stage, the only potentially expendable bit I'm referring to is the final payload.
>THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS CHEAP SPACE HARDWARE.
Then what's Starship doing?

[Anonymous No.11416632]

>>11416579
You realize the entire reason self-landing rockets were pursued in the first place is the trash economics of expendable rockets, right? Admittedly, Starship should end up being pretty cheap per kg even expendable, but that's not a reason to throw it away when you could land it instead and recoup the vast majority of your cost.

Also, there's a limit on how basic a refuel rocket can be considering it has to reliably dock, offload, and undock without putting either ship at risk.

[Anonymous No.11416633]

>>11416619
As per "the shuttle was never cheap, ergo it will never be cheap," Starship has never gone to space, ergo "it will never go to space, or if it does, it will be very expensive when they finally make it go." Obviously.

[Anonymous No.11416655]

>>11416632
>You realize the entire reason self-landing rockets were pursued in the first place is the trash economics of expendable rockets, right?
Yeah that's why I keep saying you don't throw away the lifter, I don't know why you keep talking like I want the whole vehicle tossed out each time when I'm clearly talking about a small expendable maneuvering second stage steering a big bag of fuel launched via BFR. There is no way that bare-bones idea is MORE expensive than a water tower designed to reenter, flip over and land on rocket power.
>Also, there's a limit on how basic a refuel rocket can be considering it has to reliably dock, offload, and undock without putting either ship at risk.
Yeah that's what I'm musing about here in the first place anon, it's at least worth talking over since you never know when a novel idea might change the accepted norm.
Like when someone makes a rocket land itself.

[Anonymous No.11416713]

“No one’s ever really gone”

[Anonymous No.11416792]

>>11416619
>why are you still talking about the booster?
I'm not, I'm using the Shuttle ET as the closest thing there has ever been to being a propellant tank that was designed to be cheap to dispose of. The final payload you're referring to needs to be manufactured, which means it will be more expensive than just launching a Starship and using that as your propellant carrier, dummy.

Think of it this way; you can either deliver a load of sand to a job site in a truck bed, or you can deliver a load of sand to a job site in a special disposable container sitting in a truck bed. Which option is cheaper? Obviously, the option that DOESN'T use a piece of disposable hardware is the cheaper option. It's also the simpler option, go figure.

[Anonymous No.11416794]

>>11416565
Do you actually NEED space bound starship? If it's special vehicle it's a special vehicle. If it's shieldless starship then its one that can't be brought back for maintenance. I don't think the performance gain is worth all the trouble as the situation is vastly different from traditional minuscule payloads where 50 grams are the difference between having an instrument or not having it. Just ship the shipping containers as usual and don't bother.

[Anonymous No.11416803]

>>11416655
>I'm clearly talking about a small expendable maneuvering second stage steering a big bag of fuel launched via BFR. There is no way that bare-bones idea is MORE expensive than a water tower designed to reenter, flip over and land on rocket power.
What's more expensive, launching propellant using a water tower designed to reenter, flip over and land on rocket power, or launching a second expendable propellant pod inside of that water tower designed to reenter, flip over and land on rocket power? Your idea is dumb because it cannot possibly cost LESS than just using Starship. The vehicle already carries methane and oxygen, and it already has orbital maneuvering and docking capability, so why the FUCK would you want to use it to deploy a smaller vehicle that would also need those features that can't later be reused?? Think with your brain, man.

[Anonymous No.11416809]

>>11416713
That one specifically was never really here in the first place, either

[Anonymous No.11416811]

>>11416803
Think further. Expendable maneuverable stage deployed by the expendable maneuverable second upper stage.

[Anonymous No.11416819]

>>11416803
>so why the FUCK would you want to use it to deploy a smaller vehicle
I don't know where you got that idea from, but okay retard.

[Anonymous No.11416823]

>>11416811
Why not make the whole stack expendable? That way you can cut out all of the costs associated with recovering and re-flying the rocket.

[Anonymous No.11416826]

>>11416792
>which means it will be more expensive than just launching a Starship
A Starship is cheaper than a standard expendable tank? I guess, if you're reusing them enough times, which hopefully becomes reality.

[Anonymous No.11416831]

>>11416823
Based Kessler promoter

[Anonymous No.11416836]

>>11416823
We can make it even cheaper if we use cheap srb's!

[Anonymous No.11416838]

>>11416823

[Anonymous No.11416841]

>>11416819
>I don't know where you got that idea from

>>11416655
>I'm clearly talking about a small expendable maneuvering second stage steering a big bag of fuel launched via BFR

I can't spell it out to you any more clearly than I have already. The 'bag' will cost money. The small expendable second stage will cost millions. You NEED to launch it with the full Starship stack to even get it into orbit (no, just putting something on top of the Booster and leaving out Starship won't get anything into orbit, it won't even get you halfway to orbit). Therefore you are proposing using a fully, rapidly, cheaply reusable spacecraft to launch bags of propellant into orbit for several hundred times the cost of just launching Starships with no payload, and having them hook up with other Starships to transfer their leftover propellant across to refuel them.

If you have seriously been arguing this whole time that you could put a fuel pod on top of the Booster only and have it reach orbit, you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.11416842]

>>11416826
It doesn't matter if a Starship costs ten times as much as the fuel pod it's carrying, the fuel pod has cost of its own, and therefore launching propellant inside a fuel pod inside a Starship will cost more than launching propellant inside a Starship with no fuel pod (you'd use leftover propellant in the Starship main tanks).

[Anonymous No.11416855]

>>11416841
What if it didnt have to orbit, just hit an altitude high enough for intercept by an orbiting craft.

[Anonymous No.11416862]

>>11416826
Your idea of how space and rockets works is somewhat different than reality's. For one, if the scribble few posts above is any indication, your fuel tank will plop into the sea shortly after booster separation.
Assuming it was designed in a way that it 'works' then your simple expendable tank will essentially have to be a starship in itself and expendable one at that. That alone should be making it quite obvious it can't be cheaper than the reusable starship.

[Anonymous No.11416866]

>>11416855
You can optimize it further if you use helium balloons to gain altitude instead of rockets.

[Anonymous No.11416883]

>>11416866
Makes sense, just float through the most dense parts of the atmosphere, then switch to lf. The switch seems like an instant catastrophe tho.

[Anonymous No.11416908]

>>11416855
Intercept at multiple km/s, we call that a kinetic kill vehicle anon

[Anonymous No.11416930]

>>11416908
Just have the orbiting vehicle slow down, dock and refuel, then speed back up.

[Anonymous No.11416991]

Personally I look forward to flying a space rescue orbiter/tug to refuel rich kids space yachts because they spent all their deltav impressing college girls.