/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.11604548]

SpaceX test stream live now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-drIOjUXkPs

previous
>>11598415

[Anonymous No.11604557]

First for please for the love of God can we start colonizing space the meteor is coming holy shit it's the Younger Dryas all over again.

[Anonymous No.11604571]

>>11604548
God damn can this test fucking happen

[Anonymous No.11604575]

>>11604571
I think it is happening
they're probably doing water first before they pour in the cryogens

[Anonymous No.11604599]

>>11604548
Does anyone actually believe that space is real???

[Anonymous No.11604602]

>>11604575
I heard no water, only N2

[Anonymous No.11604603]

At what time does Starship usually blow up? I'm getting tired.

[Anonymous No.11604613]

>>11604548
Why is this not on the spacex official channel where i normally watch it?

cool thread anyway so posting to bump, how close are we to me being able to work on a spaceship as a cleaner or some shit?

[Anonymous No.11604621]

>>11604613
50 years

[Anonymous No.11604624]

>>11604575
I don't know shit about shit but residual water would freeze and expand in the real test so >>11604602 is probably the dude to listen to

[Anonymous No.11604625]

>>11604599
Just fuck off retarded nigger

[Anonymous No.11604629]

>>11604613
spacex doesn't officially broadcast water tower explosions

[Anonymous No.11604630]

>>11604621

[Anonymous No.11604632]

>>11604613
You must be mistaken, SpaceX doesn't live stream their pressure tests, at least not to the public.

[Anonymous No.11604636]

>>11604632
Yep, this is just an unofficial stream from a camera some dudes put up a mile away.

[Anonymous No.11604645]

Also if you want to financially support spacex you can buy their satellite internet package up to 1Gps

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8255199/Elon-Musk-reveals-SpaceX-launch-Starlink-internet-service-just-6-MONTHS.html

[Anonymous No.11604652]

FUCK

[Anonymous No.11604654]

>>11604652
That's SN3 isn't it?

[Anonymous No.11604658]

>>11604654
it is, do not be alarmed

[Anonymous No.11604666]

>>11604548
Reminder: Starship Super Heavy will be two times powerful than Saturn V

[Anonymous No.11604668]

>>11604666
In expendable config maybe.

[Anonymous No.11604671]

>>11604668
"Powerful" means total thrust here.

37 Raptors = ~ 5 F-1 x 2

[Anonymous No.11604685]

>>11604668
it will have more lift capacity to LEO, if you consider the full weight of the Saturn IVB/CSM/LEM stack in the LEO parking orbit vs the full weight of the Starship vehicle in a comparable orbit

[Anonymous No.11604691]

>>11604666
Reminder: Every time super heavy crashes they have to build dozens of raptor engines again

[Anonymous No.11604698]

>>11604691
Reminder: They don't have to build new engines after every launch.

[Anonymous No.11604715]

>>11604698
I mean that waiting for them to land one of these is going to be a slog

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

falcon 9 had less crashes than I thought before propulsive landing worked though

[Anonymous No.11604719]

>>11604698
Even if each full spec SuperHeavy only reflew TWICE that's still over $75 million saved on engines vs. flying expendable.

>>11604715
IIRC Elon has said that SuperHeavy will start with fewer engines and scale up to 37, probably in part to minimize cost of testing losses.

[Anonymous No.11604728]

>>11604715
Most falcon 9 crashes we’re them experimenting

[Anonymous No.11604740]

WE HAVE VENTING

[Anonymous No.11604742]

>>11604691
Just attach some parachutes to it lol

[Anonymous No.11604746]

What are they even testing?

[Anonymous No.11604750]

>>11604746
to see if it can actually withstand being pressurized

[Anonymous No.11604752]

IT'S HAPPENING

[Anonymous No.11604753]

frosting now

[Anonymous No.11604758]

question: when they put the liquid methane and liquid oxygen in the tanks, how do they get the air out?

[Anonymous No.11604759]

>>11604758
IIRC the tanks are in (partial) vacuum already before loading.

[Anonymous No.11604764]

>>11604758
they don't, it's fine
they might purge them with gaseous nitrogen first, I don't know

[Anonymous No.11604767]

>>11604764
Might as well just purge with methane and pure oxygen
Which properly happens on its own as gas evaporates and air vents

[Anonymous No.11604785]

I’m going to bed, see you all tomorrow.
That means YOU TOO SN4

[Anonymous No.11604791]

Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom.

>did it work?

[Anonymous No.11604798]

>>11604791
It will be fine

[Anonymous No.11604806]

Guys, GUYS!
We have footage!!

[Anonymous No.11604817]

does anybody have any good shots of the Hopper vaping

[Anonymous No.11604818]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcpoUhHVryA

Have some stream watching music.

[Anonymous No.11604824]

>>11604818
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dGK51GsQqc

[Anonymous No.11604828]

Visual inspections is never a good thing.

[Anonymous No.11604836]

Looks like ambient test is over and she’s still here.

[Anonymous No.11604838]

did they spray SN1 and SN3 down like this?

[Anonymous No.11604905]

BIRD

[Anonymous No.11604906]

>>11604905
Yeah, he heard there might be some RAPTOR testing going on.

[Anonymous No.11604909]

majestic raptor descendant on cam 3

[Anonymous No.11604936]

>popped again
RIP

[Anonymous No.11604939]

>>11604909
link?

[Anonymous No.11604941]

>>11604936
cant believe it, it went again , space x fanboys on suicide watch.

[Anonymous No.11604943]

>>11604939
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTDiD965A_s

[Anonymous No.11604946]

>>11604936
NEXT STOP MARS BHWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11604949]

>>11604936
Hmm, WhEre?

[Anonymous No.11604955]

>>11604949
Nowhere. They're using lifts going up and down checking welds. They haven't even started frosting the fucker.

[Anonymous No.11604957]

>>11604936
>>11604939
silence faggots, go farm Reddit up votes or something.

[Anonymous No.11604962]

>>11604548
big chonkus boi

[Anonymous No.11604979]

so, when's the proper cryo?

[Anonymous No.11604982]

>>11604979
Who knows. They've been going over it with flashlights and spraying shit. They've got permits for road closure for days if need be.

[Anonymous No.11605009]

So they are preparing to test it "this week"?

[Anonymous No.11605018]

>>11604806
underrated post

[Anonymous No.11605023]

>>11604624
They used water on SN2 and it passed fine. They used room temp N2 on SN3 and had to fight leaks early in LN2 test which may or may not have contributed to later fuckup. I still have no idea what they're testing exactly, because with compressed gas you can't bring the tank close to burst pressure or you're risking a lot more damage than just the test article if it pops, and you can't detect small leaks either because they're, like, too small to tell from pressure drop at this size.

[Anonymous No.11605025]

>yeah we've just pumped it up to 7bar but it's leaking a little, if you guys could just go over it and spray it with some dishwash liquid so we can see where it's leaking, regards, management.

[Anonymous No.11605037]

>>11605025
Why do I never see much footage of the clean up afterwards. They make such a mess when they pop does LN just evaporate itself?

[Anonymous No.11605041]

>>11604909
Falcon 1 a cute.

[Anonymous No.11605046]

>>11605037
>does LN just evaporate itself?
Yes, that's the fucking point of LN2, it evaporates into room temperature nitrogen, aka air.

[Anonymous No.11605056]

>>11605037
>does liquid air evaporate into regular air

Let me think on that one anon, I'll get back to you.

[Anonymous No.11605067]

>>11605046
Just be in the open, because inside a building it can be fatal.
It has happened before at nasa.

[Anonymous No.11605076]

>rockets are powered by LOX
>rotating toroid stations look like bagels

[Anonymous No.11605097]

>>11605067
In German Nitrogen is called Stickstoff. Stick as in Ersticken. Which means suffocating.

[Anonymous No.11605148]

>>11605097
>Uh oh, I got liquid suffocatingstuff on my handshoes.

What a precious people.

[Anonymous No.11605166]

>go to sleep
>expect results in the morning
>wake up
>no test taken
sigh

[Anonymous No.11605180]

>>11605166
At least it hasn't blown up yet

[Anonymous No.11605191]

>>11605166
At least you didn't stay up with work to go to the next day.

[Anonymous No.11605236]

What are the black tanks bolted on the outside for?

[Anonymous No.11605243]

DId it fail the test, the time window is ending soon

[Anonymous No.11605274]

>>11605243
Anyones guess what's going on. I'd say it's unlikely that it failed. Usually they have manlifts up pretty immediately if there's leaks.

[Anonymous No.11605283]

>>11605274
Ok thanks, it did frost up at one point but not like full snow like it usually does. See what happens tomorrow

[Anonymous No.11605284]

>>11604806
that must be the new ablative landing technique Elon was talking about

[Anonymous No.11605287]

>>11605243
>>11605274
They did some minor testing, had some dudes up on lifts with flashlights and spraying for leaks then nothing.
So I'm guessing they either found something and might have to repair that, or they're waiting for a proper test tomorrow. We'll see when the sun comes up if they put people up with torches to start repairing shit or not.
They have permit for several days of closing.

>>11605283
Yeah, they had a tiny bit of gas in it just to test for leaks.

[Anonymous No.11605292]

Given that SN3 was destroyed over human error they may simply be pacing out the tests to avoid fatigue enduced accidents.

[Anonymous No.11605306]

>>11605236
diversity

[Anonymous No.11605345]

>>11604806
>>11605284
i needs that kerbal webm landing like this

[Anonymous No.11605353]

So, what info are they getting from the latest POP! over at boca chica? Or, is it no POP! yet?

[Anonymous No.11605356]

>>11605292
If that is so, then it is nice to have that sort of thing happen now instead of later when someone is riding the rocket up.

[Anonymous No.11605364]

>>11605353
No pop today.

[Anonymous No.11605405]

apparently the test has been extended by 2 hours.

[Anonymous No.11605426]

>>11604548
How they gonna get it back to upright again?

[Anonymous No.11605430]

>>11605426
It's just sleeping.

[Anonymous No.11605634]

>>11605405
source?

[Anonymous No.11605644]

at this rate SN5 will be on the test stand before they finish testing SN4

[Anonymous No.11605645]

>>11605426
There's a NASA/old space joke in here somewhere.

[Anonymous No.11605662]

>>11605644
MEGASTACC

[Anonymous No.11605673]

>>11604557
That South African fuck better get us to Mars pronto.

[Anonymous No.11605683]

>>11605662

[Anonymous No.11605716]

>>11605284
Delightfully cuonterintuitive!

[Anonymous No.11605822]

>>11605426
I just woke up and I don't know the state of SN4 and I read this

[Anonymous No.11605826]

>>11605822
They did an ambient test, went up in baskets and shone a lot of flashlights on it and pretty much called it a day. Guess they're doing actual pressure testing tonight.

[Anonymous No.11605830]

Why is musk using in orbit refueling when a space tug would clearly do the job better?

[Anonymous No.11605832]

>>11605822
From the cam live chat
>Yay it’s still standing!!!
It's kind of sad to be cheerful just because it didn't blow up (yet).
I know, I know. Prototyping and stuff. Still.

[Anonymous No.11605834]

Any launches in coming weeks? I'm getting bored. Wish ISRO quickly launches the SSLV. Any other important flight plan to look after for?

[Anonymous No.11605835]

>>11605834
Well there's the big one, commercial crew launching may 17

[Anonymous No.11605837]

>>11605835
27th.

[Anonymous No.11605839]

>>11605837
yeah my bad

[Anonymous No.11605843]

>>11605835
>>11605837
So then Soyuz's revenue will be cut I guess?

[Anonymous No.11605853]

>>11605634
never mind its tonight he just tweeted this, it was just an ambient test today which it has passed.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1254431839399411718?s=20

[Anonymous No.11605854]

>>11605830
It wouldn't, that's why.

[Anonymous No.11605862]

>>11605830
Whats a space tug

[Anonymous No.11605873]

>>11604979
probably either tonight or later in the week

[Anonymous No.11605874]

>>11605834
X-37b is next, followed by commercial crew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_in_spaceflight

There could still be some launches inbetween then because several governments tend to not announce anything until they launch.

[Anonymous No.11605878]

>>11605023
they can soak it with water loaded with a surfactant to find the small leaks, which they were doing

[Anonymous No.11605879]

>>11605853
>cryo test tonight
pog

[Anonymous No.11605882]

Re-watching moonraker before and it was weird seeing not just how much they got wrong about the shuttle but equally how much they got right considering the movie was released 2 years before the shuttles first launch.

[Anonymous No.11605883]

>>11605874
Yeah, this Corona thing has fucked up all timings.
JWST has been delayed again ffs.

[Anonymous No.11605884]

>>11605873
Tonight boys

[Anonymous No.11605886]

>>11605883
That was going to happen regardless of corona.

[Anonymous No.11605887]

>>11605843
I suppose, they'll still be buying seats off them.

[Anonymous No.11605896]

>>11605887
they're trying to negotiate on the barter system so that they can trade commercial crew seats for soyuz seats

[Anonymous No.11605903]

Please don't blow up

[Anonymous No.11605913]

>>11605882
Not a surprise at all, those weren't the times of Musk's insatiable appetite for speed.
Two years before the launch the shuttle project was already almost finished.

[Anonymous No.11605921]

>>11605903
feels like we've slid far to the right

[Anonymous No.11605926]

>>11605921
absolutely, but his timescales seem to be more sane now
they really are pumping them out at a ferocious pace

[Anonymous No.11605932]

>>11605882
HNNNG that shuttle is beautiful

[Anonymous No.11605934]

>>11605913
True, they did have enterprise to work off which seems to be where they got the idea for that weird hijack opening with the glider test footage but still seeing that Discovery was only just entering construction I think it was quite impressive.

[Anonymous No.11605939]

>>11605934
Not Discovery, I meant Columbia.

[Anonymous No.11605949]

>>11605932
Movie overall was corny but the moonraker/marines shuttle was kino.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG5v7ng0o4A

[Anonymous No.11605952]

>>11605884
I can't wait

[Anonymous No.11605978]

>>11604548
Does anyone else here feel like they'd be more at home in space?

[Anonymous No.11606015]

>>11605978
probably, depends on my day-to-day crew role though

[Anonymous No.11606022]

>>11605978
Meh, Earth is pretty cool. Lots of people and seeing a blue sky and having the ability to do whatever the fuck you want is cool. If space was like staying on the ISS, maybe for a year or two.

If it was on the moon or mars? 5-10 years. Depending on the amount of people maybe forever.

[Anonymous No.11606024]

>>11605978
my soul is currently weighed down by gravity

[Anonymous No.11606030]

>>11606022
if you want to see the blue sky, look down

[Anonymous No.11606032]

>>11606022
>Earth is pretty cool. Lots of people
this is the least cool part of Earth

[Anonymous No.11606034]

>>11605882
Watching that movie always made me wonder what they were smoking.
It only occurrs to me now that that movie‘s script must‘ve been entirely been written based on pre-launch space shuttle hype.

[Anonymous No.11606035]

LOOOOOOOOONG

[Anonymous No.11606041]

>>11605882
wish modern rockets were launched from bunkers

[Anonymous No.11606058]

>>11606032
You forgot 4chan.

[Anonymous No.11606135]

>>11606035
A fine addition to my collection.

[Anonymous No.11606138]

>>11606135
do you have the scale right?

[Anonymous No.11606141]

>>11606138
Probably not. Just eyeballed it.

[Anonymous No.11606144]

>>11606035
I like old fashion THICC rockets.
Like the antares.

[Anonymous No.11606148]

>>11606144
soon we will have new school THICC

[Anonymous No.11606174]

>>11606148
We better.
I hate q-tip rockets.

[Anonymous No.11606180]

/sci/, got a question for you, If you could invest in one publicly traded company as a space play, what would it be? No SpaceX, no RocketLab, all you have is stuff listed on the NYSE and NASDAQ.
Let's try to make some cash off our hobby.

[Anonymous No.11606183]

>>11606180
US Savings bonds

[Anonymous No.11606225]

>>11606180
LockheedMartin.

[Anonymous No.11606249]

How is settling on another planet going to fix anything? Bret Weinstein likes to make the argument that humankinds only chance is to leave earth, but is it not just going to postpone the inevitable destruction by ourselves?

Asking here because I cant think of another board

[Anonymous No.11606251]

>>11606249
is postponing it not enough? we just need to keep kicking that can down the road

[Anonymous No.11606256]

>>11606251
Seems a bit futile to me. If we havent fixed our tendencies by the time we achieve interstellar travel, our destructive potential will be so incredible that we live on the brink of extinction all the time.

If you think about it, its just like we do right now, looking at the destructive potential we have

[Anonymous No.11606258]

>>11606256
yes, we already have the potential to destroy ourselves, so there's no reason to hold back now
might as well go for it lol

[Anonymous No.11606278]

>>11606249
We have to leave Earth at some point because we have all our eggs in one basket. We need other planets and eventually other stars because the Earth and Sun won't last forever. It has nothing to do with muh self destruction and everything to do with asteroids, comets, and red giant phases.

>>11606256
That's just nihilistic twaddle. Any species increases its odds of survival and decreases fighting between members as it expands into new territories. Space expansion makes total destruction of the species less likely and makes it easier to find untouched land to settle if you can't reconcile with your neighbors.

[Anonymous No.11606308]

>>11606249
It's not meant to fix anything that's broken now, why does people always assume that. It's preparing a path in case we ever need to have a beta site.

[Anonymous No.11606309]

>>11606256
Buddy, it's the difference between humanity and our descendants lasting a few hundred thousand or million years maximum, and lasting a few hundred trillion years easily, and a few hundred quadrillion years if you're a bit more optimistic.

[Anonymous No.11606310]

>>11606249
>Bret Weinstein

That's his non-meme brother

And maybe not. If you spread out far enough mankind can't be taken out by a single event. And it's not just ourselves we need to worry about, there's a lot of cosmic natural disasters that are eventually going to destroy the solar system.

[Anonymous No.11606312]

>>11606249
It'd be pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.11606316]

>>11606256
>our destructive potential
But that's a good thing. Life at every stage has one very distinct fundamental feature: it selfishly takes away resources in whichever way is the most contextually convenient from its environment. Most humans instinctively dislike parasites, bacteria and viruses behave ultimately the same way but at a "macro" scale we aren't much different ultimately.
And this is why we, the species that has risen to the top on this planet, have a duty to reach out, spread across the stars and try our best to eradicate the cancer that is life from every speck of dust in the Universe.

[Anonymous No.11606337]

>>11606180
It‘s stupid to invest in anything right now when SpaceX is continually crushing the entire market.
Wait for Starlink IPO

[Anonymous No.11606379]

>>11606249
>How is settling on another planet going to fix anything?
I dunno, how does increasing the industrial capacity and resource base of the human race by a factor of a thousand in as little as a hundred years sound? All with zero additional environmental impact on Earth and no additional pressure on Earth based supply chains for food and water and so forth.

Settling 'another planet' isn't the point, nor the goal. The goal is very specifically to settle the Moon and Mars to the point that industries on those worlds become self sufficient. The specific industries we need to set up are materials production, structural fabrication, power plant production, and of course resource extraction to supply everything with raw materials. We need self sufficient industry on low gravity worlds that are within reach of chemical propulsion systems, which is what the Moon and Mars are. Nothing else offers the combination of resource profile, ease of access, and ease of transport that those two have (no single near-Earth asteroid has as broad a mix of minerals, Venus a fuck with big gravity, the asteroid belt is too far, Ceres is too far, Jupiter is too far etc.

Having industry capable of building and launching their own spacecraft, which is actually not difficult at all on Mars or the Moon due to the low delta V requirements, would let us immediately start to colonize everything in the solar system, while we begin constructing large rotating orbital habitats at the same time. In fact those efforts reinforce each other; expanding human influence generates more resources and manufacturing capacity which lets us build bigger habitats which let us take slow long-distance trajectories more comfortably and lets us 'colonize' basically any object with enough gravity to orbit around without needing to worry about gravity at all, which means we can expand our reach in space even further.

[Anonymous No.11606381]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1254439180664528900

Its going to blow up isnt it

[Anonymous No.11606382]

>>11606256
Destructive potential is part of growing as a species. They are completely interlinked, except that if you don't put all your eggs in one basket you lower the chances of it unleashing on all mankind. It makes no sense to not go foward just because you are scared, it only ensures your destruction.

Unless of course you think we should all just stop and live as we do now, thinking that everyone is going to cooperate and everything will go well. Not only is that idealistic at best, but it also is diagonally opposite from the way of human instinct. At least from the instinct of those who actually drive humankind foward.

[Anonymous No.11606390]

>>11606180
>what would you invest in if you weren't allowed to invest in anything that had a future in the market?

[Anonymous No.11606394]

>>11606381
Nah, design isn't optimized but should be plenty strong, just too heavy for final product.

[Anonymous No.11606425]

>>11606382
This.
Having all of humanity crammed onto one little island is a good way of making sure the next violent conflict is incredibly devastating to all of humanity. Spreading out always leads to a more robust population overall. The problem we've had in the last century of course is that we've stopped spreading out, yet our weapons technology has just kept on improving. A multiplanetary human civilization, where most populations are independent from Earth and each other, would have no fear of nuclear warheads. Likewise, an interstellar human civilization (in this case not really an actual civilization, just referring to the human race as a whole), would be pretty much immune to any natural disaster or artificial weapon imaginable, unless something like a supernova went off right in our midst while we were still only in a few star systems.

[Anonymous No.11606429]

>>11606180
maybe MDA? Robotics in space is going to be big and I guess they have the most experience next to nasa / jpl. Also they were recently acquired by a big investment firm so maybe they plan to push them into trying a little harder

[Anonymous No.11606432]

>>11606381
If they actually learn something from it and it's applied properly to the next one, who cares?

[Anonymous No.11606454]

>>11606379
Also big habs rotating at at least >0.7g with powerful mag shields oriented towards the sun will be the nurseries of the solar system, where the women and children stay to make sure the next generation isn't Belters or jellobabies. Planets and moons outside Earth will largely be the domain of science and industry. I've been thinking up a good station design that grows its own food along those lines without needing to be a full O'Neill Cylinder with real dirt farms, and I'll post it in /sfg/ one of these days when it's done.

[Anonymous No.11606462]

>>11606249
>How is settling on another planet going to fix anything?

120+ average IQ due to founder effect

[Anonymous No.11606465]

>>11606249
>How is settling on another planet going to fix anything?

What’s this shit about “fixing” things? I just think it’s cool.

[Anonymous No.11606468]

>>11606256
>Seems a bit futile to me. If we havent fixed our tendencies by the time we achieve interstellar travel

Kys misanthrope. Our destructive abilities have stopped war between developed nations entirely.

[Anonymous No.11606469]

>>11606454
No need to farm dirt really, ever. Hydro and aeroponics work, they're far more dense, and you won't have power supply problems in space. Most soil produced in space will be used for decoration along with plants, as well as for supporting tree growth because people like trees and tree fruits.

[Anonymous No.11606476]

>>11606454
>Also big habs rotating at at least >0.7g with powerful mag shields oriented towards the sun

This betrays lack of understanding of space radiation environment. You need ~10 ton per square meter of shielding mass (lighter elements) to protect against galactic cosmic rays. And once you do that, solar radiation is a non-issue as it is less penetrating than GCRs.

So big habs with thick outer hull and no magnetic fields.

[Anonymous No.11606516]

>>11606454
>Noooooo don’t adapt to local gravity conditions that’s wrong noooooo

Why are so terrified of people looking different?

[Anonymous No.11606531]

>>11605830
Orbit refueling more energy efficiency than using a space tug.

[Anonymous No.11606537]

>>11606379
>t. Mao-Kwikowski conglomerate representative

[Anonymous No.11606541]

>>11606516
>adapt to local gravity conditions by turning into a lifeless ball of mush

if you want to, I guess

[Anonymous No.11606542]

>>11606516

[Anonymous No.11606545]

>>11606516
It's all a meme. Martians and moonfaggots will be living the good life because their bodies will be understressed 95% of the time and due to low rep high load training they won't suffer at all for bone density. Based gods of fitness. Terrans will never compete

[Anonymous No.11606557]

>>11605978
Only if there is artificial gravity.
I have a weak stomach.

[Anonymous No.11606562]

>>11605830
VASIMIR is bullshit

https://spacenews.com/vasimr-hoax/

[Anonymous No.11606574]

>>11606180
god that thing is idiotic and wasteful, it's like building an entire space station just to go to mars...

[Anonymous No.11606576]

>>11606574
Bringing a space station would be cool

[Anonymous No.11606579]

>>11606183
Lol

>>11606225
This is decent, they have a future building habs and maybe any government vessels. Plus their massive defense segment.

>>11606337
Perfectly fair criticism, starlink IPO is a while away and what is gonna be their capacity for growth? I obviously think it's a great service, but how do you expand it? Better satellites? Incorporating more of SpaceXs business within it?

>>11606429
MDA? Maxar shows up when I look it up

>>11606574
You see waste, I see billions in free cashflow returned to shareholders. If old space is gonna fuck us, you might as well make a profit.


I've found BWXT, looks interesting and has a compelling story outside of space. Make nuclear components and reactors for the navy and commercial reactors and if anyone was gonna do reactors in space it's gonna be them. An arena new space can't compete in due to regulation.

[Anonymous No.11606581]

>>11606576
it will take like 20 years for that monstrosity to get built in a best case scenario. A Mars Direct style mission could be on planet in less than 10 years. Keeping shit simple is key to actually making progress in space in a timely, affordable manner.

[Anonymous No.11606584]

There's some interesting chatter from some of the fusion companies about adapting their tech to space-imagine what we could do with ISPs over 10k at high levels of thrust...

[Anonymous No.11606587]

>>11606579
ya they used to be owned by maxar, but like a month ago a deal was signed and they were sold off to some canadian investment firm. They made the canada arm and do a bunch of other things relating to satellites. They also got some contracts for robotics on the lunar gateway
>private company
welp nvm if that's true then I guess no investment opportunities there

[Anonymous No.11606591]

>>11606584
>interesting chatter
>fusion companies
Tune out the hypeniggers.
Remember when everyone lost their shit because Lockheed had some drafts of a miniaturized fusion power plant? Seen that in a while? Talk costs nothing, presentations cost almost nothing

[Anonymous No.11606598]

>>11606587
Yeah, times like this made me wish I had millions in capital to throw around. Thoughts on BWXT?
https://www.bwxt.com/

[Anonymous No.11606600]

>>11606581
>it will take like 20 years for that monstrosity to get built in a best case scenario

SpaceX space station in three years tops

[Anonymous No.11606622]

>>11606600
A single Starship in orbit is already a better station than the ISS (not that that's a super high bar, but still)

[Anonymous No.11606626]

>>11605978
I think being a colonist on Mars would be really interesting even independently of the "space" aspect:
You would be in a close group, where everybody relies on everybody else. You would build and do stuff which actually impacts your environment and change the world. You see the colony changing, getting bigger and better.
One feeling I liked is when I was a boy scout, we would begin our 3-week camp by choosing a place, and do stuff as a team until you've changed a random part of a wood to a place where you can actually live.
The thing is, this kind of frontier situation doesn't really exists on Earth anymore. Places like scientific bases in the Antarctic do have this kind of tight-knit community, but people aren't there to build anything, they either study stuff or support the guys who study stuff.

[Anonymous No.11606641]

So are they launching it? I live like a couple miles away from the testing site

[Anonymous No.11606642]

>>11606626
They do build things but it’s mostly prefabs brought in on planes.

[Anonymous No.11606643]

>>11606641
Ambient-temperature pressure test was last night. Cryogenic pressure test tonight.

[Anonymous No.11606647]

>>11606641
I wonder if you will feel the earth shaking when the first bellyflop attempt RUDs

Also no, but according to elon a hop in a few weeks

[Anonymous No.11606652]

>>11606622
With a capacity of 100 tons, you could easily construct a new, bigger, space station in only a few launches.

[Anonymous No.11606654]

>>11606432
I've waited weeks to fuck this water tower you little shit

[Anonymous No.11606657]

>>11606643
why do they do the tests at night? Does the sun have that much of an effect?

[Anonymous No.11606660]

>>11606657
>does the sun have that much of an effect on cryogenic temperature tests
uh.... yes

[Anonymous No.11606663]

>>11606657
Easier to get permit to close roads etc during the middle of the night than during the day.

[Anonymous No.11606667]

>>11606584
Unless NIF suddenly turns around going "just kidding laser fusion‘s been working for years" we aren‘t gonna get a usable fusion rocket any time soon.
Meanwhile fusion power plants are 20-30 years off and they won‘t even be remotely usable for space craft. Hell, I actually have my doubts whether they‘ll even be economically viable at that point.

[Anonymous No.11606670]

>>11606657
>>11606660
I think I read that's because they have to close a neighboring road and doing it at night is less disrupting.

[Anonymous No.11606672]

>>11606667
Reactors are the only viable energy source beyond the belt.

[Anonymous No.11606680]

>>11606670
They closed the deal on all the houses, the county should just sell them the roads at this point and officially turn it into spacextown desu

[Anonymous No.11606685]

>>11606680
>boku no chica becomes a mars roleplaying colony that eventually degenerates into a commune that actually thinks they live on mars and refuse to leave pressurized habitations.

[Anonymous No.11606688]

>>11606685
>>boku no chica
*chika

[Anonymous No.11606690]

>>11606672
I doubt we‘ll see a fusion reactor small and light enough for a space craft in our lifetime. Not to mention the idea of using high Tesla magnetic confinement in a tin can stuffed with electronics will be even more challenging to design.
So we‘re stuck with fission for that, I guess.

[Anonymous No.11606692]

>>11606672
>You can't do that you need 50 acres of solar panels!
>haha moon silica printer go brrrrr

Also I don't know why you would just pretend fission doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.11606695]

>>11606690
For space stations you can use land based reactors on the planet/moon/asteroid and beam power up. Use the ground to absorb radiated heat.

[Anonymous No.11606702]

>>11606622
Imagine: a network of connected Starships...

[Anonymous No.11606705]

>>11606652
Imagine how much volume you could use for a station like that packing Starships with inflatable habs.

[Anonymous No.11606725]

Fun fact: SpaceX only reached orbit less than 12 years ago, but they will begin to launch human into orbit next month.
I bet they will reached Mars before 2028.

[Anonymous No.11606730]

>>11606725
i think it's possible they'll reach mars by 2024/2025

[Anonymous No.11606741]

FAA Approval should be easier now that the local population has been kicked out right

[Anonymous No.11606752]

>>11606705
Assuming an initial tube-shaped payload 9m in diameter and 30m tall (I'm not aware of any specific number for exactly how tall Cargo SS's payload bay will be but it seems just a bit less than half the vehicle's length), and assuming the station package expands/inflates to twice it's original diameter, you could be looking at an enormous single module. Let's however be more conservative and make the station package 8x25m, surely small enough to fit inside Cargo Starship. Let's further assume it expands into roughly a pill shape with roughly hemispherical ends and a cylindrical body. This will yield a final pressurized internal volume of about 7100m^3, in comparison the ISS has about 915m^3 of pressurized internal volume. In other words, a single shot with a cargo Starship could theoretically put a single module into space with about seven times the pressurized volume of the entire ISS.

[Anonymous No.11606796]

>>11606685
sign me up

[Anonymous No.11606799]

>>11606752
it'd be potentially possible to actually construct a rotating station with this kind of lift capacity

[Anonymous No.11606801]

>>11606796
Is there choccy milk on mars!?!?!?!?!?

[Anonymous No.11606803]

>>11606657
So they do the test when they are 15 hours in their shift and fuck it up again

[Anonymous No.11606809]

>>11606801
>he doesn't know the real reason for colonisation

[Anonymous No.11606826]

They didn't fly so good.

[Anonymous No.11606830]

>>11606826
They do get the images they need though, every 360 degrees.

[Anonymous No.11606863]

>>11606830
Not at any useful level of detail. It's a cubesat.

[Anonymous No.11606880]

>>11606826
Wait, tumbling aside, did Iran manage to put something in a stable orbit?
That‘s not too bad for some religious shithole on the verge of collapse.

[Anonymous No.11606888]

>>11606880
space is hard my ass. If Iran can do it anyone can.

[Anonymous No.11606889]

>>11606880
The cubesat is almost beside the point. It was a threat - the satellite was put up by the IRGC. It's heavy implication that they have ICBM tech. I wouldn't be surprised if sanctions escalated now.

[Anonymous No.11606897]

>>11606889
Shithole countries need ICBMs to guarantee they don’t get their shit pushed in like Iraq did.

[Anonymous No.11606901]

>>11606799
Let's say you attach two of my hypothetical habs end-to-end with one another, with a 5m rigid tunnel between them that's got it's own docking ring, arm, etc. Then assume you set the station spinning at about 4RPM, there will be a brief period of acclimation to the centrifugal spin however the vast majority of all people would be able to acclimate without any trouble at all within a day or two. At the bottom "deck" of each end of the station you'll getting almost exactly .5g. Four 2m high decks up you'll still be getting .38g, seven decks up towards the center of the station you'll still have .27, probably still acceptable for full time living. There could still be another five decks above that of increasingly low G until you reach the station trunk where gravity will drop off at the center airlock section. So you would have a station with 24 decks, 14 of which have simulated gravity high enough to prevent most if not all of the physical degeneration of low G living. Presumably your weight room, showers and bathroom facilities would be there at each end, sleeping quarters probably on the next few decks directly above, everything else further up.

[Anonymous No.11606910]

>>11606901
Let's be real big spenders and have a central core with four inflatable habs, with solar panels branching off to the fifth side and a docking port on the sixth. That still takes less than ten Starship launches plus furniture, supplies, etc.

[Anonymous No.11606913]

>>11606901
Not to mention that these two spinning stations will have a combined pressurized internal volume more than 14 times that of the ISS, and the whole thing could probably be assembled with 3 or 4 Cargo Starship launches. One for each major habitat, one for the connecting airlock and probably some solar arrays to keep it powered, and another to fill the habitats with their furniture and create walls, floors, doors for privacy, air tight zip hatches, etc.

[Anonymous No.11606920]

>>11606910
Sure, if you actually spend time to plan out a manufacturing process for modular connecting tubes then you could configure this structure in any number of ways. Connect 6 way hubs together to one another and create flower station configurations, or use horizontal connectors to create spinning doughnuts of habitat modules, all you need is to design one universal expanding module, a powerpack/utility module which could probably even be integrated into each hab like the bigelow modules, and connecting pipes to clamp them all together. At that point your constraint is how many people are willing to live in them and the material strength of your connectors.

[Anonymous No.11606924]

>$42 million lost in Q1 2019.
>$44 million lost in Q2.
>$51 million lost in Q3.
>And finally, $73 million lost in Q4.
https://www.fool.com/amp/investing/2020/04/26/virgin-atlantic-is-in-dire-straits-what-does-that.aspx

Virgin Galactic is a fucking scam

[Anonymous No.11606925]

>>11605830
Where do you think a space tug gets its fuel from? It needs to be refuelled just the same, might as well skip the middleman.

[Anonymous No.11606929]

>>11606730
Who would SpaceX actually send to Mars though?

[Anonymous No.11606933]

>>11606752
>>11606901
>>11606910
>>11606913
>>11606920
Just FYI your payload volume numbers are way way off, refer to user's guide released by SpaceX in pic related

[Anonymous No.11606938]

>>11606924
>Virgin Galactic is a fucking scam
In other news, Earth is round and Venus-colony-fags are retarded, lmao

[Anonymous No.11606944]

>>11606925
This, keep it simply stupid. Developing entire modules to fill the role of completing a single burn just adds cost and complexity while maybe squeezing out a 5% performance benefit if you're lucky.

[Anonymous No.11606947]

>>11606929
Anyone who signed up and would make sense to send, so no fatties no trannies and no feels-before-reals niggas

[Anonymous No.11606951]

>>11606929
Supplies for a propellant plant.

[Anonymous No.11606955]

>>11606929
Forgot to add, definitely not manned the first time.

[Anonymous No.11606964]

>>11606933
Thanks. So if we want say a 15m tall station payload, it's packed diameter cannot exceed 5m. If it expands in the way I described previously that will leave it's maximum internal volume at 1700m^3. A huge downgrade from the gigastation I described previously, but still exceeds the ISS's internal volume by nearly 800m^3.

Imagine launching almost 2 international space stations worth of human habitat into orbit with a single rocket flight. More progress in a day than has been achieved in the last 50 years.

[Anonymous No.11606974]

>>11606964
And with 2-5 million dollar launch costs, we could still build far larger stations then the ISS for much less money.

[Anonymous No.11606981]

>>11606974
Like I said, even with an expando-hab only 5x15m packed in dimension, a single launch would give you a station larger than the ISS.

[Anonymous No.11606983]

>>11606938
Balloon habitats are the future

[Anonymous No.11606993]

>>11606983
lmao how are you even gonna solve your metal requirement you think metal flies around attached to balloons lamo ur so fucking dumb

[Anonymous No.11606997]

>>11606929
I’ll go!

[Anonymous No.11607036]

>>11606983
Balloons in orbit, sure, eventually.
Balloons in Venus' atmosphere, not likely. Venus will at best be a backwater with nothing going on except for ultra high capacity strip mining of the atmosphere and eventually the surface. We won't send humans to Venus in any significant respect until long after we've colonized Mars and the Moon and Ceres and a few of the gas giant moons, and have entered a phase of rapid growth and expansion in space infrastructure and industrial capacity. Even if we eventually have the technology to mine Venus, by that time people would think of living on pretty much any planetary surface as stupid, and instead they'd "colonize" Venus by maneuvering a cluster of orbital habitats from the asteroid belt into Venusian orbit and only think of the planet below as a resource feedstock.

[Anonymous No.11607045]

>>11607036
>Not living on planets

Sorry schizo anon but people like planets. No one wants to live in a box

[Anonymous No.11607062]

>>11606974
The possibilities of what starship can do on paper right now would be insane for future space stations.
Skylab sized modules, actual hydroponic labs, experimental zero G production lines, etc...
ISS zero G experiments are only a drop in a ocean compared to what you could do without weight restrictions.

[Anonymous No.11607076]

>>11607062
Starship also makes constructing moon bases / factories reasonable for the first time.

[Anonymous No.11607095]

>>11606929
expendable crew

[Anonymous No.11607098]

>>11607095
Good, reusable crews are a meme.

[Anonymous No.11607104]

>>11606688
Boku no Chaika! Yes, Chaika!

[Anonymous No.11607119]

>>11607104
Kansha!

[Anonymous No.11607120]

>>11606993
You dont need metal, you can replace most everything with plastic and ceramics

[Anonymous No.11607121]

>>11607036
Is there any practical way to siphon CO2 from Venus's atmosphere from orbit in large quantities?
What immediately comes to mind is a big low-orbit scoop that uses solar power to run ion engines that use a small portion of the gas captured to counteract drag, and then the rest is shot into a higher orbit as solid pellets to be collected and stored by another satellite. I feel like there's got to be a better way to do it though.

[Anonymous No.11607175]

>>11607121
Just another "why venus" episode tho. Mars can supply you with all the CO2 you'd practically need and it has a surface it's practical to launch from with a much smaller gravity well.

[Anonymous No.11607191]

>>11607175
You could take half the atmosphere on Venus and shoot it to Mars.

Two birds, one stone.

Too bad you'd need Von Neumann machines and like a billion years to launch adequate quantities of CO2.

[Anonymous No.11607195]

>>11607191
>Enough atmo to airbreak on
>Little enough to cause minimal drag on planetary and outgoing travel
The Martian atmosphere doesn't need to be terraformed, terraformers need to be sniped from orbit with railcannons taking advantage of the rarefied air.

[Anonymous No.11607196]

>>11607120
where tf are you gonna find plastic and ceramic on venus
it's not like it's gonna fly around in crates attached to their own balloon ahahahhahahahhahh

[Anonymous No.11607201]

>>11607195
It depends, would you rather have agriculture or heavy industry?

As a follow-up question, would you rather have boring rocks or dank Martian forests and oceans and shit.

[Anonymous No.11607207]

>>11607196
>where tf are you gonna find plastic

Make it from the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11607211]

>>11607195
>The Martian atmosphere doesn't need to be terraformed

It should be terraformed, since a habitable surface is better than one that isn’t.

[Anonymous No.11607212]

>>11607175
Playing the long game from a few angles. You can't get any practical use out of Venus without getting rid of most of its atmosphere, and that atmosphere is about 20,000 times the mass of Mars's. You're taking resources from a location and actually increasing its future utility in the process.

[Anonymous No.11607215]

>>11607201
Terraforming for agriculture is a meme. Eventually it won't even be financially practical to farm on Earth with traditional techniques, let alone doing a rube goldberg machine of a process on another planet so you can hack together some vaguely traditional agriculture on another planet in two thousand years.

>muh oceans, muh forests
Look. I like Earth. All that shit is great on Earth. You will absolutely have smaller scale versions on other planets and in habitats. But no, no one is even going to want to destroy the heavy industry on Mars so they can have that shit. It'll just be in the way of their generational mining and launching operations.

[Anonymous No.11607220]

>>11607212
>You can't get any practical use out of Venus without getting rid of most of its atmosphere
Correct. You also can't practically get rid of most of its atmosphere. Venus is a tourist destination.

[Anonymous No.11607228]

>>11606826
same thing happened to kepler but they somehow managed to make it useful

[Anonymous No.11607232]

>>11607220
If you could dump enormous quantities of calcium onto Venus, you might have an effect on it.

[Anonymous No.11607235]

>>11607211
Habitable surface is baby. Habitable subsurface strong.

[Anonymous No.11607239]

>>11607232
If you're at the point where you're dredging up and refining gigachad loads of calcium so you can dump it on Venus I can only assume you've done basically everything that is actually practical to do within the solar system first

[Anonymous No.11607240]

all starlink orbits visualized
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFrvG9C-NZ0

[Anonymous No.11607245]

>>11607045
Sure. They won't like living on Venus though, because it's like living in an orbital habitat, except more restrictive. People will want to live on the Moon, Mars, Ceres, Callisto, Ganymede, Titan, Triton, Pluto, and so on. If they don't enjoy living in a bottle in space they won't enjoy living in a bottle in an atmosphere either, especially one where they're floating about a scorched hellscape of supercritical CO2 and acid vapor.

[Anonymous No.11607247]

>>11607240
You can really see it coming together. Starlink is going to be fucking insane.

[Anonymous No.11607254]

>>11607245
>Sure. They won't like living on Venus though

I would. I’d prefer Mars because I could walk around on Mars wearing a suit, but I’d take Venus.

[Anonymous No.11607261]

>>11607196
Ceramic is made by dredging the surface and plastic is made from the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.11607269]

So are they going to do anything with this tin can today, or should I just close the stream and wait for tomorrow?

[Anonymous No.11607274]

>>11607269
cryo test tonight

[Anonymous No.11607275]

>>11607215
this, but
>Eventually it won't even be financially practical to farm on Earth with traditional techniques
there's always going to be a market of luxury goods, somebody out there's gonna want some good old bona fide Earth grown food, in the old fashioned way.

[Anonymous No.11607288]

>>11607191
>and like a billion years to launch adequate quantities of CO2.
Wouldn't it take maybe a few centuries at most?

[Anonymous No.11607297]

>>11607288
Google is telling me that Venus's atmosphere contains 4.8 x 10^20 tons of material.

So if we're trying to move half of it, that might take a while.

Then again, I don't know how much you'd need.

[Anonymous No.11607313]

>>11607297
Half wouldn't even get you there, what's half of a runaway greenhouse effect and crushing surface pressures? Still fucked. Honestly the only reason anyone even likes Venus is its big dumb atmosphere, just keep it around and admit it. It'll be the Los Vegas of the solar system, no real practical reason to exist, barely capable of keeping anyone alive but active for its novelty as a destination.

[Anonymous No.11607318]

>>11607297
So if I understand thing right, there are two things you can do to get rid of the Venusian atmosphere and cool down the planet enough:
- You can boost it off the planet, which means all of that atmospheric mass has to be accelerated to escape velocity (never mind how to package it)
- You have to get all that mass to precipitate out. You can do it chemically (such as combine with calcium to get the carbon out), or you can do it with a huge as fuck sun shade to reduce the temperature. It's probably the least absurd way to go, but it'll probably only be temporary while the shade is there.

[Anonymous No.11607341]

>>11607318
Venus is probably going to be used as a testing ground for all sorts of horrific nuclear and chemical processes because almost nothing you can do to the place will make it less hospitable to life.

[Anonymous No.11607345]

>>11607318
Or you could just use Venus as a convenient source of oxygen and carbon for other planets that you want to put life on.

If I'm willing to go full retard, I can imagine a fairly good setup to get the stuff off planet.

>platform based off of balloons as high as possible in the Venusian atmosphere
>have hose dangling hanging down off of the platform a couple miles to suck up CO2 from thicker parts of the atmosphere more conveniently
>freeze CO2 into dry ice chunks
>use a railgun to shoot it out of the atmosphere and directly at whatever planet you want it to go to

[Anonymous No.11607347]

>>11607076
>>11607062
Even more fundamental than allowing the construction of Moon and Mars bases, Starship will let us start to consider true on-orbit construction technology, too.

Being able to put between 100 and 150 tons into LEO means that we can build a robotic spacecraft capable of cutting, bending, positioning, and welding aluminum and steel in orbit without having to worry about making it ultralight. Once we have that, we can start launching up rolls of sheet metal as heavy as the vehicle can carry, and use them to construct giant pressurized volumes that are way bigger than anything that could be launched from Earth, even the biggest expandable modules. You wouldn't be limited in terms of shape either, at least within whatever limits your machine can handle.

For reference, if you wanted to send a single coil of steel that was 0.5 cm thick and 200 cm wide, that coil would need to be about 1863.4 meters long in order to have a mass of 150 tons. If you uncoiled that steel and welded the ends together to make a single ring, that ring would have a radius of 295.57 meters. That's about 100 meters bigger than the pessimistic estimate for the minimum radius you need for a rotating habitat to not cause any motion sickness while spinning fast enough to produce 1 g.

[Anonymous No.11607356]

>>11607345
Unfortunately I think the dry ice will sublimate pretty fast. Although, I don't know enough to say whether the resulting cloud of CO2 would still mostly end up on target.

[Anonymous No.11607361]

>>11607356
Won't it be stable once it gets out to space?

[Anonymous No.11607364]

>>11607345
>Or you could just use Venus as a convenient source of oxygen and carbon for other planets that you want to put life on.
Again, you can source all you need from Mars if you aren't going full retard. Terraforming other planets is full retard, and might require more than you could source from Mars and other easier to lift from bodies, but no one is terraforming anything because it's a bad idea.

[Anonymous No.11607367]

>>11607361
No, the sun will heat it until it becomes a dry ice comet and it will sublimate not long after

[Anonymous No.11607371]

>>11607361
There's nothing to stop it absorbing solar energy in space. It would basically be a comet, but with only the volatiles.

[Anonymous No.11607381]

>>11607367
>>11607371
I thought that if the ambient temperature (being nearly absolute zero because it's a vacuum) was below the sublimation point, then it wouldn't boil.

Wouldn't it be cooling down and not warming up?

[Anonymous No.11607383]

>>11607345
Where are the materials for the railgun sleds coming from?

[Anonymous No.11607385]

>>11607381
>(being nearly absolute zero because it's a vacuum)
Brother you are on a planet right now that is suspended in the vacuum. What's it doing? Absorbing solar energy.

[Anonymous No.11607402]

>100 years of adding to Earths atmosphere in the easiest possible way like directly burning stuff dug up from the ground has done 100 ppm max
>retards think hurr just move venuses atmosphere or terraform mars

[Anonymous No.11607404]

>>11607318
>- You can boost it off the planet, which means all of that atmospheric mass has to be accelerated to escape velocity (never mind how to package it)

Giant magnifying glass!

[Anonymous No.11607410]

>>11607254
That's the thing though, there will never be a time where you have the option to go live in Venus' cloud layer and won't at the same time have the option to live on Mars or wherever else. You yourself just said you'd prefer Mars. It's not like we'll somehow have the capability of getting to Venus without being able to go to Mars, which is way easier.

[Anonymous No.11607421]

>>11607381
>I thought that if the ambient temperature (being nearly absolute zero because it's a vacuum) was below the sublimation point, then it wouldn't boil.

.......What?
The ambient temperature of space is comparable to that of Earth’s surface at the distance Earth orbits, and only gets warmer the closer you go.

[Anonymous No.11607452]

>>11607297
>>11607318
Even if you got rid of 100% of the CO2 there's still be about 2.5 Earth-atmospheres worth of nitrogen to deal with.

[Anonymous No.11607456]

>>11607410
Venus is closer and does not require landing mate

[Anonymous No.11607459]

>>11607452
Use the oxygen from the CO2 to give Venus enough oxygen to be breathable. We’ll get used to the pressure.

[Anonymous No.11607462]

>>11607381
It would if there weren't a giant sphere of plasma radiating heat into the general area.

[Anonymous No.11607471]

>>11607452
As long as you can turn the remaining CO2 into oxygen that'd probably be livable.

[Anonymous No.11607474]

>>11607456
It's closer but not enough to matter, and I don't know why you retards think that performing Venus atmospheric entry and descent while targeting a specific altitude to level out at (and if you sink significantly lower you are killed) would be easier than doing Mars EDL.
Besides, the real issue is that to escape Venus you need about as much rocket as it takes to escape Earth, ie a fuckton of delta V.

[Anonymous No.11607475]

>>11607459
Carbon dioxide is toxic even at 5 parts per thousand, or 0.5% of an atmosphere. Going from 90 atmospheres to 0.005 atmospheres of CO2 may as well be going to zero.

[Anonymous No.11607476]

>>11607474
>Besides, the real issue is that to escape Venus you need about as much rocket as it takes to escape Earth, ie a fuckton of delta V.

Not even that. Venus’ extremely thick atmosphere would create enormous amounts of atmospheric drag and reduce the efficiency of engines to the point they essentially don’t work.

[Anonymous No.11607481]

>>11607459
I don't think his point is really about the amount of nitrogen. I think it's to put it in perspective. You would need to absolutely strip Venus of every last bit of CO2, and you'd still have more than an Earth's worth of atmosphere to churn through before it's """Earthlike""".
It makes sense in your head only because you have no perspective for the sheer waste of human time and effort implicated in such a project.

[Anonymous No.11607485]

>>11607471
>>11607459
2.5 atmospheres worth of nitrogen gas is enough to start to cause symptoms of nitrogen narcosis. You can't breathe that shit day to day no matter what partial pressure of oxygen you add.

[Anonymous No.11607489]

>>11607481
>You would need to absolutely strip Venus of every last bit of CO2, and you'd still have more than an Earth's worth of atmosphere to churn through before it's """Earthlike""".

Doesn’t have to be Earth-like, just liveable.

> It makes sense in your head only because you have no perspective for the sheer waste of human time and effort implicated in such a project.

It’s something achievable for “humans” of the far future, if the word applies anymore at that time.

[Anonymous No.11607493]

>>11604548
Hi Chad here
>155 iq
>6'1
>green eyes
>full set of dark brown hair


Everyday i'm learning more and more how dependent living things are of the earth. Small details like how plants / trees / woods / forest weaponize our immune systems to keep us healthy.

We have a ways to go, at our current understanding of the decay of the human body in space or on other planets. People might be able to survive 3 years in space, 8 years on mars.

Anyways

[Anonymous No.11607495]

>>11607476
Yeah but not if you're using balloon habitats to start with, which is why I didn't bother mentioning it. Rocket launch from ground level at Venus is basically impossible, but rocket launch starting from ~50 km up where the pressure is about 1 bar means the atmospheric drag effects are pretty much equal to here on Earth.

[Anonymous No.11607496]

>>11607474
You don’t target a specific altitude, you target a bouyancy, which is much easier than propulsive landing
yes you will need 2 stages to leave Venus so the vehicles that go there will double as habitats for a long time

Let’s not pretend it actually makes economic sense to fly rockets back from mars, to be used once every 2+ years
When you could just use 2 stages to leave Earth orbit, the “upper” being a coasting descent stage intended as habitats.

[Anonymous No.11607501]

>>11607493
>ugga bugga I chad, I no live where no tree grow
You ever seen people living in a fucking desert you nonce lmao

[Anonymous No.11607502]

>>11607489
>Doesn’t have to be Earth-like, just liveable.
Partial pressure of 2.5 bar nitrogen plus 0.2 bar oxygen (same as on Earth) is not livable. You'd have to remove at least 1 bar of partial pressure of nitrogen to be able to have a mixture of gasses that could be breathed by a human being.

[Anonymous No.11607505]

>>11607485
>2.5 atmospheres worth of nitrogen gas is enough to start to cause symptoms of nitrogen narcosis

Evolve to adapt!

[Anonymous No.11607507]

>>11607347
orbital shipyards are pretty kino

[Anonymous No.11607513]

>>11607489
If you're assuming that humans are so advanced at that point why would they bother getting rid of the atmosphere at all? They should just bathe in liquid lead with their Gigachad cyborg bodies.

[Anonymous No.11607519]

>>11607513
Biospheres are pretty.

[Anonymous No.11607528]

>>11607519
I've already seen Earth. You want to make something pretty and you're a hyperadvanced posthuman with degrees in a thousand branches of biology and genetics that will not be discovered for the next thousand years, why not design an entirely new biosphere that thrives in a native Venusian environment.

[Anonymous No.11607536]

>>11607528
Good idea. Nevermind.

[Anonymous No.11607540]

>>11607496
>you target a bouyancy
So you're depending on a balloon to deploy, inflate, stabilize, and generate enough buoyancy to prevent you from plunging into hell.
>yes you will need 2 stages to leave Venus so the vehicles that go there will double as habitats for a long time
Not really the point but whatever. The issue with the need for more delta V is that in order to have a reusable method of achieving orbit, you need a much more complicated system than any other place in the solar system, on par with Earth. Earth however has the advantage of already having a very large and capable industrial base. Also, you'd still need to do multiple refueling flights from Venus to low Venus orbit in order to be able to actually go beyond LVO, unless your original launch vehicle was a three stage thing and is therefore even more complex, and much bigger unless the final stage/spacecraft is much smaller than the former design.

>Let’s not pretend it actually makes economic sense to fly rockets back from mars, to be used once every 2+ years
Okay, but it does make sense to use the same design for launching large cargo to Earth orbit in order to do Mars missions, because the delta V requirements are similar and it means you spend far less in development. Also, don't act like going to Mars and back is the only use for a rocket with that capability. Each Mars Starship for example may do a single Mars flight over 2.5 years, and upon return to Earth perform 100 Moon missions and then 500 more afterwards as a Tanker until end-of-service-life. Also, Starship would also make perfect sense for launching heavy payloads into Mars orbit and then going back to land on Mars again, once Mars industry reaches that level.

[Anonymous No.11607543]

>>11607505
No, fuck off. Just stripmine Venus for everything it has and build a quadrillion orbital habitats, each with exactly Earthlike conditions inside including gravity and air chemistry/pressure.

[Anonymous No.11607544]

>>11607528
That would be terraforming though.

[Anonymous No.11607546]

>>11607543
That’s boring and unsentimental. No thanks.

[Anonymous No.11607553]

>>11607544
Terraforming is doing it in the opposite (wrong) direction.

[Anonymous No.11607558]

You idealistic faggots never cease to amaze me.
Humanity will die out before it makes it out further than Mars.
And the only trace of humanity on Mars will be parts of the spacecraft that failed to land there in 2058

[Anonymous No.11607563]

>>11607513
Just like with everything else ever, we won't develop that until we're pushed to. Harsh pre-existing environments won't be enough to make us start to go full cyborg, because we'll just ignore them and live in comfy orbital habitats.

What WILL push us to cyborg gigachad physiques will be the eventual scarcity of phosphorous. Sure, we could build a dyson swarm of ten quintillion orbital habitats, but there's no way we'd be able to actually live in them all, because phosphorous is too rare an element. Just like the first computers, the first true bio-forming steps will be clunky and slow and expensive, and would only address the specific problem at hand (replacing all biological roles for phosphorous with another, more common element). However, with that technology a reality, it will only continue to improve until eventually we have capabilities that would have seemed impossible looking at the early stages of the technology.

[Anonymous No.11607571]

>>11607546
Of course it's unsentimental, for something to be kept as sentimental forever there'd have to be zero shift in cultural values over time ever again, which ain't gonna happen.

Even if we started off totally committed to keeping as much of the surface of all the planets and moons in the universe untouched and original as possible, eventually attitudes at least among some populations will change, and given the glut of resources they'd have from strip mining planets like that would give them a huge advantage over the populations NOT doing it, those other populations would necessarily become less and less relevant to the totality. What power to a million voices have when a trillion opposing voices speak up? fag

[Anonymous No.11607574]

@11607558

no (you) for you

[Anonymous No.11607583]

>>11607571
Okay schizo sociopath anon

[Anonymous No.11607585]

>>11607558
wait and see then lmao

>>11607571
If the optimal "total population to utilized resources" is the only limiting factor, it won't be a swarm of Earth-like habitats, it will be a swarm of servers.
desu both are equally bleak, and unlikely. Populations plateau.

[Anonymous No.11607599]

>>11607540
We are going to Venus to colonize it, not to stress over the difficulties of returning
You have several minutes of free falling to inflate the balloon, heat the air inside it for bouyancy, and stabilize your altitude.

On Venus you could bail out of the vehicle if it’s failed and float until rescue using your emergency balloon chute
Impossible on Mars

[Anonymous No.11607608]

>>11607585
Populations plateau when resources are limited, yes.

At first it would be colonies on the Moon and Mars, then colonies on the gas giant moons, then orbital habitats in the asteroid belt, then orbital habitats being mass produced via strip-mining of planets except maybe Earth, then production of vast numbers of computer satellites like you mentioned.

Each step along the way doesn't get finished before the next step becomes possible to take, someone takes it, and then that group that took the next option zooms ahead in overall capability and power.
Once you can build a rocket on Mars without needing any assistance from Earth, the rest of the solar system is just waiting for you to go take it. Suddenly Earth is not very relevant to most of space colonization.
Once you can build the habitats and vehicles necessary to get out and colonize the moons of the outer solar system, every small object in the solar system becomes 'colonize-able', by acting as feed stock for constructing habitats. The rapidly accelerating production of habitats (directly analogous to bacteria growing on an agar plate) soon overtakes both Earth and the rest of the solar system in terms of human population and overall resources.
In the race to catch up, or merely because they were overwhelmed by millions of orbital habitats in hostile takeovers, more and more of the colonized worlds in the solar system begin to treat their moons and planets like big asteroids, mining up material to launch into orbit to use to build habitats by the millions. Since even a single middle sized moon out-masses the asteroid belt by a significant amount, this group soon becomes the dominant force in the solar system.
At some point while this is happening someone manages to build a computer that can perfectly emulate a human brain. The group that uses this technology to gain low-resource-intensive human brainpower is dominant over any group depending on meat-people, and so soon comes to dominate totally.

[Anonymous No.11607626]

>>11607608
>Populations plateau when resources are limited, yes.
Look at Earth right now. Populations have plateaued all over the developed world. These people aren't facing resource scarcity.

The same thing will happen at the system level (intermittently, as it will be a phased process). People will expand exponentially for a while, find an equilibrium and plateau.

[Anonymous No.11607634]

>>11607599
Before we go down this rabbit hole arguing about why Venus is a dumpster fire of a planet and why you think that's an advantage because it lets you keep your homeless ass warm in winter, lets get back to basics.

WHY do we want to colonize anywhere else in the solar system? On a basic level, it isn't about science or 'muh adventure', it's really about increasing humanity's resource pool and increasing our power as a species to provide a high standard of living.

Given that, what are the best steps to take in order to maximize the power of our species? First of all, it'd be nice if we weren't working at the bottom of Earth's gravity well. Even with cheap Earth launch, colonizing anything will be expensive, so we need to be picky. What is the best option to colonize first? Well, it's pretty much a tie between Moon and Mars, because the Moon is close and Mars is better in every other way. Both worlds have low delta V requirements for space access, which is the big deal. Mars has more volatiles, more resources of every kind in general, and it's right next to the asteroid belt. In fact it even has to little asteroid-like moons to exploit, very convenient. Once either the Moon or Mars or both are colonized sufficiently that they can start putting together their own space vehicles, we're only a hundred years or so away from having boots on pretty much every solid surface in the solar system out to Pluto.

What does Venus get you? Nothing, except Venus. Basically, it's a dead end, a backwater, the opposite of a stepping stone. Venus may be colonized someday but it won't matter. Mars will MATTER, Moon will MATTER, Venus will be just another place on the list.

[Anonymous No.11607655]

>>11607626
>These people aren't facing resource scarcity.
Yeah they are, cost of living is higher than ever. Just because we aren't all living on a cup of rice and an onion per day doesn't mean people don't feel the pressure of resource restriction.
By the time we maximize the solar system for habitability, the standard of living may be such that "only" having an entire mansion on a rotating habitat with your own personal ferry spacecraft and several hundred thousand tons of every semi-rare to common resource at your disposal may seem like barely getting by.
To put it another way, populations plateau when growing the population means each individual has less wealth. During the first few hundred thousand years of expansion and growth in space, the increasing availability of resources will outstrip the human capacity to reproduce, and therefore there will be a period of growth limited only by human reproduction, as resource availability will scale up in step with population.

[Anonymous No.11607660]

>>11607626
>These people aren't facing resource scarcity.
Yeah they are. It's artificially induced by certain rootless cosmopolitans to make room for their pet imported voters, but it's still scarcity.

[Anonymous No.11607672]

>>11607626
>Look at Earth right now. Populations have plateaued all over the developed world

Very short-lived phenomenon. The people with inferior and degenerate mindsets that result in them not reproducing will die of old age, and so will their genes, and the breeders will dominate.

[Anonymous No.11607675]

>>11607634
> WHY do we want to colonize anywhere else in the solar system? On a basic level, it isn't about science or 'muh adventure',

No I only care about the adventure.

[Anonymous No.11607680]

>>11607675
You will never go to space

[Anonymous No.11607683]

>>11607672
This, natural selection baby

[Anonymous No.11607684]

>>11607045
Depends on how big the box is, really.
>>11607275
Can you fucking IMAGINE the profit margins on exporting authentic Earth luxury goods? On fucking WINE?

[Anonymous No.11607694]

>>11607626
What would you call increased costs for everything from housing to child care if not "scarcity"? A scarcity imposed mostly by, well, the powers-that-be, scarcity nonetheless.
>>11607672
To change the mindsets, we must change the economic conditions.

[Anonymous No.11607696]

Venting started. Cryo tests soon.

[Anonymous No.11607697]

>>11607684
>mixes ethylene glycol into your ((authentic)) Earth-wine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhN-o2ame-4
Nothin personnel, kid

[Anonymous No.11607698]

>>11607680
>You will never go to space

I will, and I will have many fun adventures. You’re trying to imagine human civilization like it’s some sort of RTS game, and that’s not how real people see it or life. Leave your house.

[Anonymous No.11607699]

Frost spotted! Cryo in progress!

[Anonymous No.11607700]

>>11607655
I feel like you're basically agreeing with me, just with the niggle of recontextualizing the idea of scarcity. There will be periods of exponential growth each followed by a settled equilibrium in your model. There won't be a mass stripping of every planet down to its component resources for O'neill cylinders because there just won't be the gargantuan oversupply of human bodies to necessitate such a thing.

>>11607672
This is a /sci/ meme (probably inherited from /pol/). It doesn't stand up well to scrutiny. All societies follow the same trend.

[Anonymous No.11607703]

>>11607694
>To change the mindsets, we must change the economic conditions.

The economic conditions don’t actually have any relevance. People have been content to reproduce prolifically in horrible conditions for thousands of years. Low birth rates in developed nations are 100% due to cultural and potentially biological factors; for example, the unfortunate decline of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.11607705]

>>11607696
:0

[Anonymous No.11607713]

>>11607699
Why is the frost appearing on the top tank first?

[Anonymous No.11607717]

>>11607713
NVM Frost just appeared on the bottom, and real frost, not the Gaseous N2 condensation. We are a go. Pray for her boys.

[Anonymous No.11607722]

>>11607700
>All societies follow the same trend.

Yes, all modern developed societies tend towards lower birthrates, but this trend isn’t a particularly old one, and has no hope of continuing since it would lead to everyone eventually dying. The genes of people who do reproduce will outcompete the genes of those who don’t. It’s basic biology.

[Anonymous No.11607727]

>>11607698
People don't need to see human civilization as a sort of RTS game for it to follow RTS rules.

>>11607700
>There will be periods of exponential growth each followed by a settled equilibrium in your model. There won't be a mass stripping of every planet down to its component resources for O'neill cylinders
I agree with the first statement, but disagree with the second. Obviously step 1 isn't to go balls deep on planetary mass stripping to produce billions upon billions of habitats. More likely, the process of mining would start off very slow, imperceptible in fact, and would simply be sustained for a long time while slowly growing in capacity. Just as we right now have grown such that we don't personally notice the hundreds of millions of tons of coal being mined and burned every year, despite starting off only mining and burning a few hundred tons, our descendants in space living in habitat constellations (and later habitat swarms) around the Sun won't notice as the annual mass mined from Mars/Mercury/Venus/Moon/Asteroids/whatever grows from thousands of tons to thousands of gigatons, because the rate of increase will be slow, and merely in step with normal minimal-scarcity population growth.

It's not that there will be vast hunger for more living space due to people having 6 kids per adult, it's that having 1.05 kids per adult eventually grows to requiring a billion cubic kilometers of new habitat volume every year. The population would eventually plateau at that new scarcity boundary, however that will only be set by the maximum rate at which it is practical to strip mass off of a planet. At that point growth would shift from exponential to linear, and once we surpassed peak-planet the rate of growth would steadily decline and eventually stabilize at zero, with old habitats being recycled into new, dust being swept up and refined, etc. That is of course unless we decided to start mining the Sun, which would be very possible.

[Anonymous No.11607731]

>>11607699
>>11607713
>>11607717
In case you're a dummy like me, the link to the stream in the OP still works

[Anonymous No.11607736]

Is it just me or is the frost decreasing?

[Anonymous No.11607739]

>>11607736
They've vented some gases from the lower tank so I think they're finishing up the test now.

[Anonymous No.11607742]

>>11607739
Don't they need to fill the thing up? Or are they recycling the rocket because they had a problem?

[Anonymous No.11607743]

>>11607742
>Don't they need to fill the thing up?
They did. This was a cryogenic pressure test.

[Anonymous No.11607744]

>>11607722
No longer having the birthrate to support the peak population doesn't mean everyone dies. It means populations depress. The old model was continued growth forever, not a stable population. That obviously cannot sustain itself forever.

The worst is to come as populations depress under the weight of dying boomers. Once we get through that phase there will be some bounceback, but it will stabilize.

>>11607727
Technically this could happen... but only if you intentionally kept up the cylinder production to invite the population booms that support it. If you ever stopped, each would locally reach equilibrium. So the question becomes if everyone will decide that that's the best course of action to take. I'd say it seems unlikely.

[Anonymous No.11607747]

>>11607703
People have been content to reproduce prolifically in conditions in which more children means more manpower.

[Anonymous No.11607751]

>>11607743
Usually the cryo tests have think frost on the whole tank

[Anonymous No.11607755]

>>11607744
>No longer having the birthrate to support the peak population doesn't mean everyone dies. It means populations depress.

Populations cannot depress forever or they’d go extinct. Those who fail to breed won’t see their genes expressed in future, so such periods are at best cullings of nu-males and atheists. A society that isn’t growing in population is a society in decay.

[Anonymous No.11607756]

>>11607755
I'm sorry to have stressed your braincell with this discussion.

[Anonymous No.11607759]

>>11607747
More manpower is always good. People without a strong urge to reproduce simply aren’t going to be around after a few generation cycles.

[Anonymous No.11607761]

>>11607756
Whatever you say nu-male. How’s the vasectomy?

[Anonymous No.11607763]

>>11607761
Going better than your breeding lmao

[Anonymous No.11607768]

>>11607763
Gross. Your bloodline will not survive you. Such is nature’s will.

[Anonymous No.11607771]

>>11607759
Not if having many children puts extreme strain on your financial or temporal resources to the point of deterring you from seeking to have more children. Not if the costs of having children vastly exceed the benefits.

You misunderstand: People without a strong urge to reproduce exist because of these costs.

[Anonymous No.11607775]

>>11607768
Tell you what, if you ever get around to finding a woman that puts up with you I'll put one in your daughter.

Just one though, so we'll still be under replacement

[Anonymous No.11607776]

>>11607775
kek

[Anonymous No.11607779]

>>11606929
They won't, instead NASA will just contract them to supply cargo to the new Mars base.

[Anonymous No.11607789]

>>11607771
>Not if having many children puts extreme strain on your financial or temporal resources to the point of deterring you from seeking to have more children

Obtain more financial resources. Temporal resources are a non-issue. In the past, and even today, many men would range away from their families for months and sometimes over a year to provide an income. An unemployed partner and the extended family unit is sufficient to provide for care otherwise.

>Not if the costs of having children vastly exceed the benefits.

The satisfaction outweighs any costs. As I said, those who don’t reproduce will cease to exist on a genetic level.

[Anonymous No.11607790]

Alright sci, time to flex your understanding of chemistry on me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ7QvMqM9Jc
What the hell is this thing burning? This is not your typical light-hydrocarbon blue, and it ain't the nearly invisible blue-white of a hydrolox engine either.

[Anonymous No.11607793]

>>11607775
You can’t, you’ve been cut.
Your bloodline is already over, and will be forgotten.

[Anonymous No.11607795]

>>11604548
Its gonna blow

[Anonymous No.11607796]

noooooooooooo ice come back

[Anonymous No.11607804]

>>11607790
Whatever it is, I don't think it's solid propellant because it's burning too clean, and the fact that the thrust appears to be decreasing over the course of the burn makes me think that thing is a pressure fed engine. I dunno what propellant that is though, maybe something with sulfur? Sulfur burns blue.

[Anonymous No.11607808]

Elon Musk is under SN4

[Anonymous No.11607829]

We're getting frosty again boys