/sfg/ - Space Flight General: Big Gemini Edition

[Anonymous No.12498701]

Previous: >>12495014

[Anonymous No.12498707]

Steel doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.12498713]

>>12498701

Mission control: U guys can't just smuggle a corned beef sandwich aboard, there are important nutritional requireme-

Grissom: Hold my beer
Young: Hold my beer as well, please, sirs

Mission control: THAT TEARS IT. Beer is RIGHT OUT. Gus, we promise that you will NEVER FLY A MISSION AGAIN

[Anonymous No.12498721]

Mission control: U guys can't just smuggle golf gear aboard, there are strict requir-

[muffled, possibly Shepard and/or Mitchell, or both]: Sirs, beers, holdin'

Mission Control: Stu pls try to use the high-gain, try to do a better job then you did with docking

CMP (cracking teenager ginger voice): yes sirs

[Anonymous No.12498726]

Mission control: U guys can't just smuggle stamps abord, we've been over this, this is bigger than commercial-

[CDR and LMP in Unison, during LRV-1 movement]: DE BEERS

CMP: WAZZZAAAAPPP

CDR: WAZZAAAAP

LMP: WAZZAAAP

Mission Control: WASABI

[Anonymous No.12498728]

[Anonymous No.12498730]

Mission Kontrol: U comrades can't just stay nicely for three weeks and then not depressuri-

[indistinguishable]: Wodk-

[Anonymous No.12498733]

Hmmm

[Anonymous No.12498771]

>Jim Lovell has been married to the same woman since 1952
may we all be so lucky

[Anonymous No.12498788]

>>12498771

Mission Control: U guys can't just fly an incredibly dangerous C' first-ever mission to the Moon and come back on Christmas, putting a good button on a really shitty year, U guys can't all just live peacefully for the next 50 years through 2020 and coronavi-

[CDR, CMP, LMP]: hold our beers

[Anonymous No.12498796]

>>12498713
>corned beef sandwich
wat

[Anonymous No.12498812]

Was it a failure?

[Anonymous No.12498814]

>>12498788
It's Apollo 8 ? the title is because they read the Genesis, while that atheist bitch was screeching ?

Also, can astronauts be that cool anymore ? hillbillies fighter pilot jocks ?

[Anonymous No.12498818]

>>12498814
>Also, can astronauts be that cool anymore ?
Astronauts now are given strict guidelines when it comes to public engagement

[Anonymous No.12498832]

>>12498818
Got examples ? aside pop culture references and onion faces ?

[Anonymous No.12498835]

>>12498812
So bad they spent 50 billion just to throw the engines in the ocean.

[Anonymous No.12498879]

>>12498835
I'll haunt you in your dreams you little bitch

[Anonymous No.12498882]

>>12498879
I want to put my dick in the nose thrusters

[Anonymous No.12498884]

>>12498879
also, don't think I can't tell that's KSP with a graphics pack or something

[Anonymous No.12498987]

>>12498879
>explodes

[Anonymous No.12498999]

>>12498987
*in your face

[Anonymous No.12499000]

>>12498987
it's the perfect craft for kerbal

[Anonymous No.12499005]

[Anonymous No.12499013]

pad B is a bit further from the landing site than pad A

[Anonymous No.12499024]

>>12499013
Why nosecone is still there?

[Anonymous No.12499035]

>>12499013
they want to keep it. Maybe they need that bigass crane to lift it

[Anonymous No.12499051]

>>12499035
>>12499024
whoops

anyways you guys should check out this video on Artemis: https://youtu.be/6HtFQAzp_kM
By far the best/most detailed one I've seen. The way they're doing the orbit is really cool. Shame about all the hardware issues

[Anonymous No.12499099]

>>12498701
Who else is looking forward to some pure, unadulterated spaceflight based kino

[Anonymous No.12499110]

>>12498788
Borman is always such a cool guy on interviews. He also reminds me of Cotton Hill, only without the dementia.
And Lovell is the eternal '60s sitcom father.

[Anonymous No.12499115]

>>12499024
That's not the landing pad bro. They DID move the nosecone.

[Anonymous No.12499122]

>>12499099
>space shuttle to the moon

[Anonymous No.12499125]

>>12499122
Well, it'll be interesting to see how they'll do that one at least. Garett Reisman was an advisor on the show after all, I'd like to think he knows a thing or two about the shuttle.

[Anonymous No.12499136]

>>12499125
the only ways it could possibly have worked was by either refuelling the orange tank in LEO or by docking with some kind of space tug, either way its retarded and pointless.

[Anonymous No.12499139]

>>12499136
Yeah, I'm just hoping they'll fucking roast the shit out of the shuttle in S2.

[Anonymous No.12499143]

>>12499125
It's a very retarded idea and there's no way to do it. Armageddon tier spaceflight.

[Anonymous No.12499147]

>>12499143
Of course there's a way to do it. We're talking about an alternative history show where they just launched a sea dragon.
For all we know they'll do some retarded SRB depot in LEO to boost them to the moon.

[Anonymous No.12499151]

>>12499139
I had high hopes for season two, looked forwards to a fullscale space transportation system with fully reusable space shuttles, space tugs, nuclear ferries and 50 man space stations. what a waste.

[Anonymous No.12499155]

>soon...

[Anonymous No.12499158]

>>12499155
Bn1?

[Anonymous No.12499160]

>>12499158
sn10 is on the right

[Anonymous No.12499161]

>>12499158
SN10 on the right. BN1 on the left

[Anonymous No.12499180]

>expectations

[Anonymous No.12499185]

>>12499180
>reality

[Anonymous No.12499190]

>>12499185
>fall off ladder
>die

[Anonymous No.12499198]

>>12499190
>not sliding down the ladder like a pro
That's why you will never be astronaut

[Anonymous No.12499199]

>>12499190
I love how the ladder is ALWAYS turned away from the camera.
In fact, I wonder if they scrubbed all images that had the ladder in full view because I couldn't find one last time I looked.

>>12499185
>>12499180
the only cool think about this project is that they're making a dual expander cycle engine for it.

[Anonymous No.12499200]

>>12498812
the only worse rocket was the N-1

[Anonymous No.12499202]

>>12499185
It looks angry

[Anonymous No.12499204]

>>12499190
>I WARNED YOU ABOUT LADDERS BRO

[Anonymous No.12499213]

>>12499200
Fuck you

[Anonymous No.12499216]

>>12499202
It's mad that it will never land on the moon

[Anonymous No.12499219]

>>12499213
is that what I think it is?

[Anonymous No.12499231]

>>12499213
>song for denise intensifies

[Anonymous No.12499232]

>>12499216
Not so fast, Mr. Musk.

[Anonymous No.12499234]

>>12499216
It will never be a woman either

[Anonymous No.12499266]

>>12499125
Hullo did a video about this. TLDR - impossibru

[Anonymous No.12499267]

You asked for this.

[Anonymous No.12499272]

>>12499266
I could put a fucking Volvo in orbit, dock a fucking booster to it I already had there in a depot and send it to fucking Pluto if I wanted.
So yeah, "impossible" if you think in the limited sense that this is anything but a TV show and an alternative history.

[Anonymous No.12499279]

Are the egg brains at NASA seriously only planning on letting 2 people land on the moon in HLS starship for a week?
2 people could live on the moon for possibly years in Starship, or you could land like 10 people there comfortably, for months

[Anonymous No.12499280]

>>12499267
better than SLS

[Anonymous No.12499284]

>>12499267
>$100 billion and 50 years in development

[Anonymous No.12499285]

>>12499231
>having to stretch the image to be thicc

https://youtu.be/zDJ4l6Mc-IM
you guys think that this thing was ever viable?

[Anonymous No.12499288]

>>12499267
>3 big gay tanks worth of hydrogen
bet the entire center core could make it to orbit

[Anonymous No.12499308]

>>12499136
Its impossible. The SSME are not designed for re-ignition in orbit. They only way they have control authority would be to stuff the cargo bay with as much OMS fuel as possible, which is too heavy to launch with. It would be the stupidest mission ever. I'm not even sure if the shuttle heat shield could withstand lunar orbital reentry speeds.

[Anonymous No.12499312]

>>12499199
I legit had no idea the BE-7 was a dual expander cycle engine.
Thats pretty much the only cool thing BO has ever done.

[Anonymous No.12499319]

>>12499285
Wait, how is this SSTO if there are 2 stages and one parachutes back to earth

[Anonymous No.12499335]

Would you date a girl who insists hydrogen first stages are a good idea?

[Anonymous No.12499336]

>>12499288
Technically the SLS core stage can make it into orbit. They boost the payload into a highly elliptical suborbital trajectory, so if they decided to put the core into a normal orbit, they could

[Anonymous No.12499338]

>>12499335
I would date any girl that knew what "hydrogen first stages" even are

[Anonymous No.12499344]

>>12499312
unless they mean something different by it.
Yeah though it's cool to see someone else actually trying for a change. This seems pretty out-of-character for them but I'll take it.

>>12499336
the SLS actually wouldn't be bad at all if they could do orbital refueling. Bet you could really cruise with 4 RS-25s tied to that giant tank. Though they'd have to throw in anti-boil-off measures which would increase weight.

[Anonymous No.12499348]

>>12499344
>the SLS actually wouldn't be bad at all if they could do orbital refueling.
lol, no. Everything about it is broken. The fact that the center core has enough dV to make orbit is not a point in its favor, it's because the SSME is a pointless compromise which never made sense. It's basically a second stage that fires on the ground and requires its first stage to be placed around it in the form of solids (which is another design problem).

[Anonymous No.12499366]

>>12499155
>we in here doin' bad shit nigga

[Anonymous No.12499372]

reminder: starship is the future that was promised to us

[Anonymous No.12499375]

>>12499372
>cranes still don't look like tracked ion cannons
RUINED

[Anonymous No.12499401]

>>12499288
probably

[Anonymous No.12499439]

>>12499099
very onion but S1 was fucking great desu. Sad we dont have more LSAM shots

[Anonymous No.12499441]

>>12499372
Did Elon ever made a list of those 50's comics he read that gave him inspiration ?

[Anonymous No.12499445]

>Washington, DC to Beijing in 28 minutes
KINO

https://twitter.com/US_TRANSCOM/status/1341780106851856384

[Anonymous No.12499446]

>>12499372

[Anonymous No.12499448]

>>12499372
Anyone got the pic of a woman riding a horse with Mk1 in the background?

[Anonymous No.12499449]

>>12499372
Boca chica needs a steam locomotive to fuel starship!!

[Anonymous No.12499451]

>>12499204
kek

[Anonymous No.12499453]

>>12499445
Reminder this is why Wallops exists.

[Anonymous No.12499474]

>>12498788
>Borman was a turbo manlet
>now the tallest of the three
vot ze fug?

[Anonymous No.12499480]

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/ev68b8/serious_we_are_building_memesat1_the_worlds_1st/
/sfg/, we can do better then these reddit fags

[Anonymous No.12499486]

>>12499474
Disc collapse and fused discs in the spine. My father used to be taller than me, before he passed I was actually taller than him and I've shrunk like a centimeter or so myself thanks to some fucked discs.

[Anonymous No.12499493]

so even US government expects this may happen

[Anonymous No.12499495]

>>12499448
I've got this one

[Anonymous No.12499500]

>>12499445
>Now, with China, Russia, India, the European Union (EU), and others developing far larger reusable rockets [than Falcon]
Do they know something that we don't?
>their Long March 9 rocket system is poised to offer a 140-ton capacity reusable rocket as early as 2021
I guess not

>the Falcon 9 brought launch costs down from $1.6 billion to $62 million per launch
lmao

>Smaller companies, such as Astra, are promising thousands of annual launches with their launch schedules
I'd love to see them try

>In a protracted war, the US might detect a launch of 100 Spacelift vehicles, but there could be no comprehensive denial of landings across 3.5 million square miles of the US.
>If Spacelift vehicles included anti-air batteries, they could become deeply intractable wherever they land
>The US could effectively respond to any Benghazi-like scenario by posturing a rapid response team in the CONUS
unf

[Anonymous No.12499505]

>>12499493
>and this represents only one company’s contribution to this newest logistics modality.
It represents the ONLY company with this modality lmao

[Anonymous No.12499507]

>>12499500

[Anonymous No.12499509]

>>12499495
>>12499505

[Anonymous No.12499510]

>>12499480
no. sfg is finished

[Anonymous No.12499511]

>>12499507

[Anonymous No.12499512]

>>12499507
idk how I missed that bit, especially when it's right before one of the sentences I quoted

[Anonymous No.12499513]

>>12499507
Useless. The vehicles can easily be shot down with nuclear umbrellas.

[Anonymous No.12499514]

>>12499507
>battalion of Marines being able to "drop"
ORBITAL DROP SHOCK TROOPERS BROS

[Anonymous No.12499516]

>>12499486
thank the ayys for their retarded job

[Anonymous No.12499518]

>>12499480
Several anons already killed themselves making srb mixtures. The best of the best here have already lost their lives.

[Anonymous No.12499520]

What's the difference between SN9 and SN8?

[Anonymous No.12499521]

>>12499511
>>12499518
We'd have to launch it on a ride share on an electron or something. I think thats what those redditors are doing too.

[Anonymous No.12499522]

>>12499516
Well, both me and my father got that shit from genetics and hard labor. I can only imagine that test pilots and astronauts who have been going through some heavy G forces in their lives have it even worse.
But shit sucks and happens to most. The cushions between the discs dry out with age and shit starts fusing, shits gets worn out and so on and so forth.

[Anonymous No.12499525]

>>12499521

[Anonymous No.12499530]

>>12499525

[Anonymous No.12499532]

>>12499495
Horse butts are so sexy

[Anonymous No.12499535]

>>12499530

[Anonymous No.12499538]

>>12499521
I have actually suggested circling forward sites with starship-based area denial. I guess the DoD listens to /sfg/ shitposts now.

[Anonymous No.12499539]

>>12499535

[Anonymous No.12499541]

>>12499539

[Anonymous No.12499543]

>>12499538
I genuinely wonder how many DoD people watched the SN8 stream. Probably a lot, I would assume.

[Anonymous No.12499545]

>>12499541

[Anonymous No.12499549]

>>12499486
>NPCs actually think humans were designed by a conscious creator

[Anonymous No.12499551]

>>12499545
>DoD already wants to put anti-air batteries on starship

[Anonymous No.12499553]

>>12499549
Yes. Sort of.

[Anonymous No.12499557]

>>12499549
What the fuck does that shit have to do with anything I posted? I'm not even fucking religious.
Go bait christians on /pol/ instead.

[Anonymous No.12499558]

>>12499551
I bet you they talk about this shit in the break room every day
>hey jenkins! we should add anti-air batteries
>oooh yes, and make it nuclear-capable for a strike anywhere in the world
>what about troop transport?
>sounds good to me! we have an unlimited budget!

[Anonymous No.12499562]

>>12499549

[Anonymous No.12499563]

>>12499509

[Anonymous No.12499568]

>>12499563
thread reminder that living in a swamp biome is unequivocally based

[Anonymous No.12499571]

>>12499522
I know. I have a fucked up disc due to vibrations.
Still getting away with it except for some bad days.
I don't care about the height, I was already short.

[Anonymous No.12499574]

>>12499571
I'm early retired over it, I didn't get away from it. At least I can shitpost all day and read books on rocket propulsion now.

[Anonymous No.12499575]

>>12499563
14/88

[Anonymous No.12499584]

>>12499521
>Starship uses as anti-air tower and could autonomous deploy anywhere in the world in less than 1 hours.
The future is fucking amazing.

[Anonymous No.12499591]

>>12499563
I can't wait to see anon's getting baited by this in a few months

[Anonymous No.12499594]

>>12499543
They probably had drawings on how to weaponize Starship the moment Starhopper left the pad

[Anonymous No.12499600]

>>12499507
>>12499514
Wouldn't it be better for starship to deploy a cheap massed produced capsule that lands supplies and maybe troops by parachute? Then starship does a RTLS after deployment to possibly send another capsule. Isn't the risk of starship being captured and reverse engineered too great, since any orbital rocket is also an ICBM. Plus its helpless after it lands and extremely easy to explode if any fuel is left.

[Anonymous No.12499604]

>>12499493
are they saying that there will be thousands of flight per year by 2024?
or they expect there will be thousands some time after first flight of 2024?

[Anonymous No.12499614]

>>12499604
they are saying they expect SpaceX to have the capacity for thousands of flights by 2024

[Anonymous No.12499615]

>>12499600
>reverse engineering starship
Anyone who wanted to do that could just watch the boca chica livestreams.
Besides, the important part of what make starship so important is the propulsive landing and you're not going to be able to reverse engineer that just with a physical starship.

[Anonymous No.12499619]

>>12499600
possibly, but then again they might just have a bunch of explosives strapped to starship and they believe its in danger of falling into enemy hands they detonate it
>>12499584
Its crazy to think the Space Force might have an actual fleet of manned and weaponized space ships by the mid to late 2020s, even if they are only suborbital.

[Anonymous No.12499622]

>>12499568
ok Shrek

[Anonymous No.12499624]

>>12499562
>American
>Sandnigger cult

[Anonymous No.12499626]

>>12499600
Reverse engineering is trivial. It's the landing software that will fuck them up. Anybody can slap around DIY'd starship even without air restartable engines (separate one off engines for ascent and landing minus restartable vacuums) Can go for other fuels as well.

The issue in all of them - reliability, and landing...

[Anonymous No.12499627]

Wait until they figure out it can deploy kinetic impactors.

[Anonymous No.12499640]

>>12499513
>nuclear umbrellas
You mean the defensive strategy? Those places listed are allied to the US. If you mean some kind of nuclear weapon, then that will just quickly escalate into a full strategic nuclear exchange

[Anonymous No.12499644]

>>12499584
See you stupid warfaring monkeys? This is how you buy your return tickets to the stone age.

[Anonymous No.12499656]

>>12498713
Reminder that Young was the only guy in NASA who flew Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle, TWICE

[Anonymous No.12499657]

>>12499505
I read somewhere that this thing can fit 7 buses, i don't see how that's possible when comparing with the 2 ford trucks in the picture!

[Anonymous No.12499660]

>>12499563
>Literally Whoberg
fucking kek

[Anonymous No.12499669]

>>12499626
>separate one off engines for ascent and landing
In theory this can be done with solids. Not sure how viable this will be however

[Anonymous No.12499675]

>>12498701
Why does a space ship have a steering wheel?

[Anonymous No.12499679]

>>12499675
How else are you going to drive it dumbass?

[Anonymous No.12499682]

>>12499675
It's 40 years old anon

[Anonymous No.12499691]

>>12499669
Solids could be used to kill horizontal AND vertical velocity at some altitude but they can't be used for (reliable) landing - there is no way to control their cutout. Ergo this means you need to perfectly nail the landing every time because firing them too early means you fall back at the and too late... well, SN8 style. The problem with conventional engines that aren't the Raptor is that they are also super expensive. And if someone is not willing to design something that is both cheap and reliable such frankenrockets are nothing more than props for dickwaving.

[Anonymous No.12499704]

>>12499640
I guess he was just planning to Atari the fuck out of everything.
>>12499657
It's perspective and foreshortening. You don't really think that cactus is bigger than Starship, do you?
Just follow back the lines of the road that the two trucks are on, and you'll see that it's probably about as wide as Starship, and you could easily fit for four of them wide across on the road.

[Anonymous No.12499716]

>>12499691
A possible design is to use the motors/engines to slow the booster stage while it's in the upper atmosphere to the point that chutes can work, and then use a guidable parachute to bring the stage down. It won't be as fast or as efficient as propulsive landings, but it would be less software intensive in theory. The next issue with reuse that's as big as recovering the stage is the refurbishment. SpaceX has refurbishment figured out by simplifying the manufacture of their rockets and strengthening parts where necessary, but that runs counter to most common aerospace engineering philosophies and will take some time to unroot.

[Anonymous No.12499723]

>>12499716
You can't land something this size on chutes. Dragon/starliner capsules are roughly your limit and they require either water landing or airbags and that's after they've dropped quite a bit of weight post launch.

100ton+ structure? Maybe on Venus.

[Anonymous No.12499730]

>>12499716
SpaceX "figured out refurbishment" by designing starship from the ground up to be fully reusable. Having engines that don't deposit soot and making the rocket out of a material that doesn't degrade unless it exceeds a stress limit helps a lot with that.

[Anonymous No.12499731]

>>12499682
1980 was 40 years ago so more like 45 years old.

[Anonymous No.12499774]

>>12499675
So you can larp as pirates during downtime.

[Anonymous No.12499779]

SpaceX competitors will all look at gliding and possibly even jet engine powered recovery, eating up mass penalty in the process and forfeiting beyond LEO operations.

Parachutes will not be an option after the obvious difficulties SX had with fairing recoveries.

I'm expecting to see either dolphin sex or SS sized horizontal landing upper stages without drop tanks.

There's also the full retard option of course - ignore Starship and spend the next 20 years on R&D to build pisspoor Falcon 9 clone. Someone WILL take that option.

[Anonymous No.12499784]

>>12499779
>Someone WILL take that option.
I think ESA has that covered

[Anonymous No.12499785]

>>12499779
>>12499784
>ignore Starship and spend the next 20 years on R&D to build pisspoor Falcon 9 clone.
Roscosmos, ESA and China are all doing that at the moment.

[Anonymous No.12499787]

>>12499779
>There's also the full retard option of course - ignore Starship and spend the next 20 years on R&D to build pisspoor Falcon 9 clone. Someone WILL take that option.
My money is on China. Russia was working on flyback boosters for Energia a while ago.

[Anonymous No.12499793]

>>12499779
Oldspace can still try to save face and revive the Delta Clipper.

[Anonymous No.12499801]

>>12499779
Still waiting for the ULA Falcon 9 clone announcement

[Anonymous No.12499807]

>>12499801
Now why on earth would they do that? That would hurt their market which is really only building new tanks. They don't build engines and shit like that.

[Anonymous No.12499809]

>>12499785
>>12499787
>>12499779
it's not that bad is it?
especially if they have scaling already in mind
like an engine that they can just transfer to their starship clone after proving its use in their falcon 9 clone

[Anonymous No.12499817]

>>12499809
Roscosmos has a F9 clone that was so bad everybody laughed at it and they went all "well we're going to go all secret about it so there!". ESA has some clone in the works and China has LM-8, which in reality is just cobbled together of other Long March parts and they promise will be able to land propulsively WITH the side boosters attached "some time".

[Anonymous No.12499822]

>>12499807
not if someone jump starts an industrial revolution on the moon and then space
there will be demand for launches that spacex alone won't be able to meet, no matter how good starship is

[Anonymous No.12499830]

>>12499822
>jumpstart lunar economy
>when companies seriously offer 10B$ lunar landing tincans

[Anonymous No.12499832]

>>12499822
Oh you mean ACES which was well and truly taken behind the shed and shot? That shit is never coming back. At best they might try for that silly engine recovery thing of theirs because it won't cut into their own bottom line which is selling launches and building new tanks.
ULA is firmly lodged into the pork barrel and never coming out of it.

[Anonymous No.12499835]

>>12499822
With hundreds of starship operating from Earth/Moon, I'm sure SpaceX alone can fill any demand to the Moon and back.

You're not suggesting Musk is only going to build a dozen and then stop building, are you?

[Anonymous No.12499844]

>>12499779
>There's also the full retard option of course - ignore Starship and spend the next 20 years on R&D to build pisspoor Falcon 9 clone. Someone WILL take that option.
I don't think you can jump right to 18m "Le Starship" to one up SpaceX
even SpaceX started with Falcon 1 before Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and only then Starship
you need to figure out how to land something that big first, only then you can start thinking about next iteration

they are however HORRIFICALLY behind

[Anonymous No.12499852]

>>12499844
Keep in mind SX had to do it because it was not certain if it's even POSSIBLE to do. Older, optimistic articles gave them 50% chance to recover boosters. The rest said they'll go bankrupt and laughed at the idea. Now it's known - many in-between steps may be omitted.

[Anonymous No.12499853]

>>12499817
Theres also a few start-ups working on propulsive landing.

[Anonymous No.12499856]

>>12499853
Yes, but I was focusing on the big boys. It's more a shameful thing that they are than some small startups doing it.

[Anonymous No.12499864]

>>12499852
Just knowing that landing boosters is POSSIBLE cuts down on R&D for everyone else.
So instead of SpaceX being 20 years ahead of everyone else they are now only 15 years ahead.
Until Starship becomes online then SpaceX becomes half a century ahead.

[Anonymous No.12499870]

>>12499779
Starship isn't proven

[Anonymous No.12499886]

>>12499870
yet

[Anonymous No.12499892]

>>12499185
what is with that fucking ladder

[Anonymous No.12499894]

>>12499185
i dont understand why it needs to be so high up, apollo wasnt that high. starship is a better option, no ladder

[Anonymous No.12499899]

>>12499521
>hundreds of little Normandys with Pearl Harbor-like results

thats fucking metal

[Anonymous No.12499905]

>>12499716
I sure hope Starship and Raprtor don't use any rare-earths supplied from China...

[Anonymous No.12499912]

>>12499190
nope you bounce

[Anonymous No.12499915]

>>12499894
Part of the reason is it needs massively more delta v for descent and ascent - it does not start in low lunar orbit. It starts if in the bumfuck nowhere NRHO which has been picked solely because the SLS can't physically push the orion capsule any closer to the moon while retaining return capability.

They are pulling off the same thing just twice as hard.

[Anonymous No.12499921]

Holy shit Starship could serve as a legit rods from gods platform or deploy such a platform

[Anonymous No.12499922]

>>12499835
Heh, I remember how some IBM guy once said the world would only ever need ten big computers. Literally oldspace-tier thinking.
>>12499899
It's like ~100 years ago when airplanes were new, suddenly war had to adapt to everything being open to the air. Now pull back a few dozen miles out of the atmosphere and, hey, it's all like a back yard, just toss your ball up and you can play catch with another continent.
I think the most sobering thing is that they hadn't been thinking about the potential of ballistic passenger/cargo vehicles until they suddenly almost exist, when it should be their job to have already thought about it.
>>12499905
You do know we have plenty of rare earths in the US, right? They're not "rare" at all, but China undercuts everyone else because they dgaf about all the other crap that's left over when they refine them. So what mines we've had got shut down because they can't compete with the EPA breathing down their neck.

[Anonymous No.12499928]

>>12499922
I know there's one mine in Texas, but as you said environmental regulations will fuck them over, China has us beat on that, they don't care about the environment like we do.

[Anonymous No.12499931]

>>12499675
It controls the rudder, but they only use it when they deploy the solar sails

[Anonymous No.12500000]

Starship, what a dumb name

[Anonymous No.12500002]

>12500000
What a shitty get

[Anonymous No.12500014]

>>12500000
BFR was the best name, ITS had the coolest design, but Elon could call it your mother's dildo idgaf as long as it gets us to Mars.

[Anonymous No.12500015]

>>12500000
based

[Anonymous No.12500021]

>>12500014
Starship is the best name because it's not an acronym

[Anonymous No.12500023]

>>12499549
>anything created by a conscious creator must be flawless

[Anonymous No.12500025]

>>12500000
>>12499999
We should call it Cirnoship instead.

[Anonymous No.12500026]

>>12500014
How about this: 2016 ITS design, but with the window layout of 2017 BFR. And the upper starship stage is steel like 2019 Starship. But just the upper stage; superheavy is still white like F9

[Anonymous No.12500027]

>>12500014
Mars Colonial Transporter best name because it's to the point and triggers you know (((who))) but it would never fly for that reason

[Anonymous No.12500028]

>>12500026
Forgot pic. This is the naming scheme I’m using

[Anonymous No.12500031]

>>12500000
The name could've been better, but it's hard to come up a name for a vehicle that's the first of its kind without picking something super generic. Eagle may work though

[Anonymous No.12500032]

>>12500021
Starship is a retarded name because it's not an interstellar ship. BFR was based, gave off SpaceX don't give a fuck vibes. Boing is crying that this guy who smokes weed beats us while autistic billionaire meme man Elon does it with a ship named Big Fucking Rocket it's based beyond belief.

[Anonymous No.12500033]

>>12500000
Quints of truth

[Anonymous No.12500039]

>>12500032
Why would a starship only apply to interstellar vessels? Shouldn't it apply to ships literally sailing on the surface of a star?

The rest should be I don't know mostly-vacuumships, I guess.

[Anonymous No.12500041]

>>12500028
The ITS presentation was dreamlike. Sure the design was ridiculous, but for that brief moment most spaceflight fans believed that this was possible instead of immediately thinking back to the decades of broken promises made by others.

[Anonymous No.12500043]

>>12500032
Yes agreed 100 percent. Maybe (hopefully) Elon is still saving the BFR name for a future rocket. Perhaps by the time they are ready to upgrade to 18m, they will just say fuck it and make a 25+m ITS design and call it the Big Fucking Rocket

[Anonymous No.12500050]

>>12500043
Just call it the BFOS, Big Fuck you Old Space.

[Anonymous No.12500051]

>>12500041
is it ridiculous when Starship is basically the same but reduced in size so it can earn money instead of Mars colonization only?

[Anonymous No.12500053]

>>12500041
I don’t think he was trying to lie to people. His engineers were probably drafting that design for weeks. Hell, it took them a long time to iterate to the modern design and they even thought MK1 would fly. They’re just slowly finding the most realistic rocket, but I think BFR/ITS is still going to make a comeback once they get starship flying and they are ready to build a bigger variant

[Anonymous No.12500057]

>>12499809
China has already made diagrams of Starship landing directly at airport terminals. They clearly aren't ignoring it.
They must think it's going be the elevator of rockets.

[Anonymous No.12500058]

>>12500027
bigot

[Anonymous No.12500061]

>>12500057
Source.

[Anonymous No.12500065]

>>12500057
>Yes uh, rand here prease
>It’s a village in the middle of mainland China

[Anonymous No.12500066]

>>12500053
I didn't mean to imply that SpaceX or Elon lied. I meant the design was an ambitious first iteration that definitely was going to change, and is extreme in hindsight.

[Anonymous No.12500068]

>>12500000
I agree
>>12500014
BFR was okay but then it got a cringe le epic Redditor tier meaning as "big fucking rocket".I guess they should have stuck with ITS
>>12500032
>acting autistic in the professional world is cool

[Anonymous No.12500072]

>>12500066
Oh yeah okay I agree completely. Hopefully they upscale to something like ITS in the future

[Anonymous No.12500074]

>>12500065
>Eron not first to rand rocket stage China randing rocket stages for years China #1.

[Anonymous No.12500076]

>>12500061
I wish I had it. It was a whole collage of Starship doing a bunch of different things. I don't think they even changed a single part of the design. If it weren't for China being China then it could easily be mistaken for them wanting to have SpaceX doing all of that stuff.

[Anonymous No.12500078]

>>12500043
elon confirmed 36m after 18m

[Anonymous No.12500081]

>>12500068
>a cringe le epic Redditor tier meaning as "big fucking rocket"
Too young for the reference? That's exactly what it means. It was sanitized as "big falcon rocket" as a bastardization for diplomatic purposes.
>>acting autistic in the professional world is cool
Yes.

[Anonymous No.12500083]

>>12500074
>>12500065
Reusable rockets are a meme

Expendable rockets and villages have been a proven technology that has served the CCP space program well for decades

[Anonymous No.12500090]

>>12500083
How can sfg say this isnt based

[Anonymous No.12500092]

>>12500068
>BFR was okay but then it got a cringe le epic Redditor tier meaning as "big fucking rocket".I guess they should have stuck with ITS
And starship will be worse in that department. I can already see redditors making the soijack face as they want "epic" names like Starship Enterprise.
>>acting autistic in the professional world is cool
Unironically yes in this case. These old space pork addicted boomers have been sucking us dry for years, getting billions of dollars to do nothing, taking a month to screw in a bolt. They deserve to be exposed and humiliated by a guy who can't even give a public presentation without looking autistic who fucks art hoes and names his son something retarded and not pronouncable in English.

[Anonymous No.12500095]

>>12500092
starship endeavor

[Anonymous No.12500096]

>>12500078
Unironically how will other people even compete? At 36m you might as well just slap a nuclear pulse engine on the back and go about your business at project orion speeds

[Anonymous No.12500098]

>>12500068
>BFR was okay but then it got a cringe le epic Redditor tier meaning as "big fucking rocket"
You do realize that B.F.G was a thing before you were born right?

[Anonymous No.12500100]

>>12500078
>not a 110m version
elon youve gone soft.

[Anonymous No.12500102]

>>12500095
>you now realize that there will be so many starships that SpaceX will probably have online polls to name some of them
So what names will we rig the polls for /sfg/?

[Anonymous No.12500103]

>>12500096
I think anon is lying, but 36m Starship...I feel like at some point bigger becomes less cost efficient

[Anonymous No.12500106]

>>12500098
Ok boomer

[Anonymous No.12500110]

>>12500102
Peepeepoopoo
Le Reddit Army Is Here
Forward Unto Dawn
Uh Oh Stinky

[Anonymous No.12500113]

>>12500103
Not really. The main barrier to increasing rocket diameter is the warehouses to build them and roads to move them. That's why the most ungodly large one ever designed was meant to be built in a shipyard and launched at sea.

[Anonymous No.12500118]

>>12500113
We should just build fuckhuge cars and then everyone can ride where they need to go in the big car

[Anonymous No.12500120]

>>12500102
>Fukurf
>Spintowin
>Hydromeme
>I Took Out A Mortgage For This
>von Braun
>Spaceshipy McSpaceshipface
>Red Dwarf

[Anonymous No.12500122]

>>12500102
SS Hitler Did Nothing Wrong

[Anonymous No.12500123]

>>12500118
I think those are called trains.

[Anonymous No.12500125]

>>12500118
that's a bus anon.

[Anonymous No.12500130]

>>12500125
no,i mean bigger

[Anonymous No.12500135]

>>12500057
Lol, they're so far away from having a starship that it isn't even funny anymore. They can't even make an engine as efficient as a merlin. Why the fuck are you guys so worried?

[Anonymous No.12500136]

>>12500113
Its not a barrier when your launch site/build site eliminates the road size barriers. SpaceX can just expand a 1 mile local road to facilitate this or let the local gov do it.

[Anonymous No.12500138]

The rocket equation makes me believe in intelligent design. If Earth were just 5% more massive, virtually nothing else would change but it would be impossible to leave. Seems like a pretty clear message to me.

[Anonymous No.12500140]

>>12500102
H.P. Lovecraft’s Cat
H1T-L3R
Covfefe
Sea Eichfor
Boeing’s Failed Revenue (BFR)
Engine Rich
SN8
Spirit of Von Braun

[Anonymous No.12500141]

>>12500120
>SS Pisslocks
>SS Proooonter
>SS It's not that easy in rocketry
>SS SLS is real
>SS Space is hard
>SS village destroyer 9000

[Anonymous No.12500150]

>>12500135
Imagine being this deep in denial after the Chinks manage the first lunar sample return since '72. You're the reason why Biden got elected, and now that fuck is gonna be buddy buddy with the fucking insects. Maybe will help subsidize their space program. They're market it as "international cooperation" lmao wow

[Anonymous No.12500159]

>>12500141
>SS SLS is real
Kek it’s such a mouthful

[Anonymous No.12500168]

>>12500150
lol what lunar return, if they had landed a man, i would be worried, but a probe? Come on man, you are better than this. Heck, even the japanese are ahead, instead of copying the us, they went for an asteroid mission. If china wanted to impress, they would have done something no one has ever done before.

[Anonymous No.12500171]

>>12500058
faggot

[Anonymous No.12500175]

>>12500159

[Anonymous No.12500177]

>>12500150
>Maybe will help subsidize their space program
You mean tether it?

CCompetition with the US is the main thing driving sudden increase in Chinese rocket development.

[Anonymous No.12500181]

>>12500138
>impossible to leave
Would it? You could just add stages a huge rocket. And rockets are not the only way to get off planet, you could use a mass driver or some shit.

[Anonymous No.12500183]

>>12500177
Not competition, copying.
China does nothing but copy what others have already done.

[Anonymous No.12500185]

>>12498701
what are these balls?

[Anonymous No.12500194]

>>12500185
propellant storage

[Anonymous No.12500196]

>The Manhattan project equivalent of the third world war will be the race to develop a space based infrastructure that can throw asteroids at earth.

huh

[Anonymous No.12500204]

>>12500181
or balloons. never forget what they took from us https://youtu.be/iA45XcmUB8Q

[Anonymous No.12500205]

>>12500196
DROP A ROCK!

[Anonymous No.12500209]

>>12500183
They copy a lot of things but that's mostly because they have been playing catch up basically everywhere.
In fields where they are close to (or surpassed) technological parity to the US they develop their own concepts.

[Anonymous No.12500212]

>>12500098
>naming a spaceship after a video game gun is not cringe

[Anonymous No.12500219]

>>12500209
>In fields where they are close to (or surpassed) technological parity to the US they develop their own concepts.
like what?

[Anonymous No.12500222]

>>12500212
>I don’t like video games so it must be reddit

[Anonymous No.12500223]

>>12500027
>>12500000
>>12500032
Big Fucking Colonizer

[Anonymous No.12500224]

>>12500138
based and jesuspilled
>>12500181
you can't just keep adding stages you reach a point where it's impractical.

[Anonymous No.12500225]

>>12500204
Bros...wtf is this?

[Anonymous No.12500229]

>>12500204
would this even work

[Anonymous No.12500234]

>>12500031
Eagle is such a cringy name

[Anonymous No.12500235]

>>12500212
NOOOO YOU CAN'T LIKE VIDEO GAMES IF YOU MAKE ROCKETS

[Anonymous No.12500237]

>>12500204

[Anonymous No.12500242]

>>12500223
>the 49 year old coolonizer
>shoots massive rockets
>doesn't know anything about politics just fucking coolonizes
>zero social skills
>"IS THAT A PLANET? AAAAAAAAAA I'M COOLONIZING!"

[Anonymous No.12500245]

>>12500229
I think that it would work but it would save you a lot less delta-v than you'd suspect

Same reason nobody ever said "Oh wait we should launch rockets from the top of Everest"

[Anonymous No.12500253]

>>12500171
Why do you always fall for it?

[Anonymous No.12500257]

>>12500209
Yeah and the US did illegally use European IP to build up its industry during the 18th and 19th centuries, that's one of the reason it's the most powerful country today. Better to play catch up even if it means cheating at first if you want to compete with the big players in the end.

[Anonymous No.12500258]

>>12500025
Fuck off back to your containment board 2hu faggot.

[Anonymous No.12500270]

>>12500092
>a guy who can't even give a public presentation without looking autistic who fucks art hoes and names his son something retarded and not pronouncable in English.
This is why I like him so much. His idgaf attitude towards everything and obvious contempt for anything traditional that isn't streamlined. If someone does something dumb or inneficient he lets them know and doesn't hold back.

[Anonymous No.12500273]

>>12500245
we absolutely should

[Anonymous No.12500283]

>>12500025
Ok, but lets keep the pedophilia to a minimum

[Anonymous No.12500291]

>>12500102
No More Mr. Nice Guy
So Much For Subtlety
Grey Area aka Meatfucker
Falling Outside The Normal Moral Constraints
No Reason To Get Excited
It's Supposed To Look Like That
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath

[Anonymous No.12500297]

>>12500138
>random coincidence
>it must mean the religion my parents made me believe when I was a kid, is true!

[Anonymous No.12500298]

Any of you ever play KSP RP-1? Recreating the space race is the tightest shit, wish there was a proper modern BARIS-like simulator for it.

[Anonymous No.12500303]

>>12500150
>muh chinese conspiracy
Fuck off. You're worse than the >muh russia-trump conspiratards

[Anonymous No.12500304]

>>12500138
>If Earth were just 5% more massive, virtually nothing else would change but it would be impossible to leave
???

[Anonymous No.12500307]

>>12500298
LK is such an aesthetic lander
Nothing comes even close

[Anonymous No.12500308]

>>12500245
Yeah believe it or not Atmosphere is not really that much of a big deal for rockets.

Saturn Vs atmospheric losses to orbit were only 40m/s

[Anonymous No.12500311]

>>12500297
Yeah? What's your point

[Anonymous No.12500312]

>>12500175
>S.S. ESSESS is real

[Anonymous No.12500316]

>>12500303
Libtard

[Anonymous No.12500317]

>>12500312
It's from Hot Shots!

[Anonymous No.12500319]

>>12500307
Yeah I really like it myself, although it's kinda weird that despite all the mass saving efforts it doesn't look as minimalistic as the Gemini lander.

[Anonymous No.12500322]

>>12500224
Believing sandnigger cults is the most cringe and bluepilled bullshit ever

[Anonymous No.12500324]

>>12500138
Ever heard of nukes, retard?

[Anonymous No.12500335]

>>12500304
To put it in the simplest, least accurate terms, to put 110kg into space you have to burn 100kg of fuel.

If the gravity were any higher the fuel you use for combustion would be too heavy to propel itself into orbit.

[Anonymous No.12500340]

>>12500312
>ESSESS launch system
>SS ESSESSELESS Is Real

[Anonymous No.12500343]

>>12500335
That's not how the rocket equation works at all. Stop making up bullshit to justify your religion.

[Anonymous No.12500345]

>>12500335
No it wouldn't lol you would just need a bigger rocket with more staging.

[Anonymous No.12500353]

>>12500343
>That's not how the rocket equation works at all.
no u, I didn't bother to cite exact decimals or anything but that is just how the rocket equation works

>>12500345
>muh stages

[Anonymous No.12500354]

>>12500335
If Earth had 1.05g and was larger, you would need 5% higher TWR and more dV to reach orbit. Obviously due to the tyranny of rocket equation the required rocket would be substantionally larger, but it would still be possible to make orbit. I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.12500358]

>>12500138
nope, you can use FTL to escape dumbass

[Anonymous No.12500361]

>>12500353
>source: just trust me bro

[Anonymous No.12500365]

>>12500353
no

[Anonymous No.12500368]

>>12499551
Wait until they realize Starship is just stainless steel and you can totally weld a Mk 41 VLS unit into the nose

[Anonymous No.12500374]

>>12500353
SSTOs are possible on earth lol.
You aren't going to be landlocked by a 5% increase in mass, things will just be a bit more difficult.

3Gs and then we are talking.

[Anonymous No.12500400]

>>12500374
how the fuck do you get off of a planet with 3Gs and a thick atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.12500413]

>>12500400
FTL, nukes, stages, balloons, hydrogen

[Anonymous No.12500417]

Are there any good KSP walkthroughs on how to escape a super earth in 5x earth surface gravity?

[Anonymous No.12500440]

>>12500223
Based

[Anonymous No.12500445]

>>12500400
Nuclear engines from the 70's have ~900 ISP. You could escape anything with those.

[Anonymous No.12500448]

>>12499493
I just realized that with that many Starship flights it's only a matter of time before the spaceflight equivalent of the Tenerife airport disaster. Can spaceflight even survive a PR disaster like that?

[Anonymous No.12500453]

>>12500445
Do nuclear engines even work at sea level? Have you ever tried using a nerv first stage in KSP? Doesn’t do shit

[Anonymous No.12500454]

>>12500448
Yes. Right now most rockets have ~1-4% chance of failure. So with hundreds of flights, there will be handful of accidents.

[Anonymous No.12500455]

>>12500053
kinda like how you build a more reasonably-sized cargo plane before you build the comically huge ones. SpaceX were just a bit eager and trying to skip a node in the progression tree

[Anonymous No.12500456]

>>12499013
Is there any good drone/plane photography specifically of the tank farm? Large industrial plumbing installations are sexy.

[Anonymous No.12500461]

>no abort mode
>built for frequent flying
What are they thinking?

[Anonymous No.12500465]

>>12500461
? it will have parachutes

[Anonymous No.12500466]

>>12500453
Obviously you wouldn't use them at sea level, even hydrogen engines aren't optimal at sea level. Escaping the thick atmosphere is a matter of 2 minutes.

[Anonymous No.12500471]

>>12500455
Exactly. Once starship becomes a common vehicle they can easily upscale the design. All the hard work will be done (hypothetically, at least. I don’t think rockets are too difficult to scale up).

[Anonymous No.12500476]

>>12500118
>Canyonerooooo

[Anonymous No.12500477]

>>12500453
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA
>840 vac ISP
>710 SL ISP
ISP/thrust ratio is linear so you have 20% lower thrust at sea level. KSP is a video game.

[Anonymous No.12500480]

>>12500461
By doing something like pic you would add more failure modes than you remove. Abort modes only exist for capsules because capsules are so small you can treat the entire thing like an ejection seat without the system itself becoming so overbuilt, overcomplicated and overly demanding that it itself becomes the main point of failure on the vehicle. That stops being true a long way before you get to Starship scale.

[Anonymous No.12500481]

>>12500465
Abort mode is not about surviving the landing, it's about pulling away from the exploding rocket. You know, the whole part that Challenger couldn't do.

[Anonymous No.12500486]

Why do Americans love flying deathtraps so much?

[Anonymous No.12500487]

>>12500481
>You know, the whole part that Challenger couldn't do.
Starship doesn't have SRBs nor shit management

[Anonymous No.12500490]

>>12500481
>Abort mode is not about surviving the landing, it's about pulling away from the exploding rocket.
Starship can actually do that part, at least according to Elon a long time ago. I'm not sure what an abort module for Starship is supposed to solve because it's not that.

[Anonymous No.12500491]

>>12500481
Challenger was stuck next to two giant firecrackers with an egg of hydrolox in the middle. Starship's crew compartment is a steel box on top of a grain silo filled with methalox. It's entirely possible to conceive of a crew compartment design for Starship that simple eats or deflects the blast wave. A half inch thick, downwards cone shaped steel plate would work.

[Anonymous No.12500505]

>>12500490
I can believe that the orbiter can survive a 2nd stage explosion, but surviving massive orbiter engine failure sounds fairly difficult to accomplish.

[Anonymous No.12500507]

>>12500491
What material is the unequivocally best at absorbing or diffracting shock waves from blasts? Is it some sort of liquid like water, or maybe a solid like a non newtonian fluid?

[Anonymous No.12500508]

>>12500417
It's possible to escape 10G
https://youtu.be/rVhl6fIodXE

[Anonymous No.12500509]

>>12500486
Balls of steel(filled with propellant)

[Anonymous No.12500515]

Please stop using KSP as an argument unless you at least use RO

[Anonymous No.12500525]

>>12500491
>>12500507
The problem with the Shuttle design for survivability isn't the fragile hydrogen egg, it's that SRBs don't give a shit. If something goes wrong with the engine, too bad, we're trucking along at X G's until these babies run out. Starship doesn't have that problem and the second stage has good throost so in theory it can pull away. The blast wave isn't the biggest issue, and usually these "explosions" are more conflagrations anyway.

[Anonymous No.12500528]

>>12498771
Love'll do that for a couple.

[Anonymous No.12500530]

>>12500507
Being on the other side of something solid

[Anonymous No.12500552]

>>12499669
okay Joe Barnard

[Anonymous No.12500576]

>>12499922
they had been thinking about that
there's pages and pages and pages of theorycrafting on it that you'll never get to see and some quiet requests towards private enterprise to see if anybody was willing to make it happen

[Anonymous No.12500581]

>>12500515
RO is a meme. Do it in stock fag, or else you're a pussy

[Anonymous No.12500584]

>>12500025
blessed
pictured: SN9 on her bellyflop

[Anonymous No.12500592]

>>12500581
Stock is literally one tenth the challenge

[Anonymous No.12500593]

>>12500135
China is literally the only other entity in the world that can pull it off.

[Anonymous No.12500596]

>>12500592
stock at 10x scale is harder than RO.

[Anonymous No.12500600]

>>12500138
if the earth were 5% smaller, SSTO would be practical and nobody would ever invent two stage rockets

[Anonymous No.12500608]

>>12500453
NERV is based on NERVA, a nuclear rocket specifically designed for vacuum use only with a TWR of only about 1.2. Other nuclear rockets however, like Timberwind or Dumbo could be designed with TWRs ranging from 30-130, still low for a chemical rocket but more than sufficient for a booster. However you wouldn't want to use an LOX/LH2 rocket for a booster because LH2 is poor for boosters, NTPRs are best for second stages, tugs, cyclers, etc where high ISP and relatively low TWR are preferable. Pure methane, as in chemical rockets, would probably yield superior overall delta-V due to density and dry mass savings, but I know of no NTPR which has experimented with LCH4 as reaction mass.

[Anonymous No.12500614]

>>12500600
TSTOs would still yield superior performance, in fact the performance gap between SSTOs and TSTOs would widen even further on low gravity worlds.

[Anonymous No.12500619]

>>12500505
crash couches should make a skydive with no landing burn survivable

[Anonymous No.12500624]

Why dont we use rockets to speed up Earth's rotation so that launching rockets into space becomes easier?

[Anonymous No.12500628]

>>12500624
doesn't work that way

[Anonymous No.12500668]

>>12500505
>surviving unsurvivable failure is difficult to imagine

Who would have thought.

[Anonymous No.12500695]

>>12500525
I think that the people who say that humans should never ride on SRBs have a point

[Anonymous No.12500698]

>>12500102
SS HIM First Technocrat of Sol

[Anonymous No.12500713]

>>12500668
>>12500619
>belly flop until the last moment, reorient with flaps only, and use the tankage as a crumple zone
It wouldn't be fun but you could probably make it survivable on planets with thick atmospheres like Earth. Obviously losing all your landing engines during Mars descent is a bad problem and you will not be walking away alive today.

[Anonymous No.12500722]

>>12500141
>SS Richard Shelby
>SS Pride of Alabama
>SS Jobs Program
>SS Congress

[Anonymous No.12500724]

>>12500722
>SS Depot

[Anonymous No.12500736]

>>12500724

[Anonymous No.12500744]

>>12500724
>SS Rogozin

[Anonymous No.12500746]

>>12500713
I don't thing it's possible to re-orient with flaps only.

[Anonymous No.12500758]

>>12500744
>A Superior Trampoline
>Energia II
>Korolev

[Anonymous No.12500767]

>>12500746
It should be when they have the methox RCS.

[Anonymous No.12500771]

>>12500736
Coolest one is bottom row, second from right

[Anonymous No.12500782]

>>12500771
>propellant is stored in the depot balls

[Anonymous No.12500788]

>>12500736
I like the based depot

[Anonymous No.12500799]

Orion-class fission pellet depots when?

[Anonymous No.12500811]

>>12500713
>SN 35
>cargo: kevlar tents, shovels, spool of copper wire
>mission status: cargo delivered, update 36 landing was hard

[Anonymous No.12500820]

>>12500713
no, just skydive directly into the fucking ground

[Anonymous No.12500822]

>>12500799
there is literally no difference between an Orion depot and a fractional orbital bombardment system

[Anonymous No.12500824]

>>12500822
fractional orbital bombardment system requires les bomba have reentry shielding

[Anonymous No.12500826]

maybe aim for some water or something, with appropriate crash couches it should be suvivable at 60 m/s or whatever it's at

[Anonymous No.12500828]

[Anonymous No.12500839]

>>12500826
>crashing into water at 216 kilometers per hour

You're fucking dead kiddo

[Anonymous No.12500844]

Has anyone ever done a rocket fuel purely out of oxygen?

[Anonymous No.12500846]

>>12500844
Where's the energy going to come from, mr chemist?

[Anonymous No.12500847]

>>12500846
He's from Titan

[Anonymous No.12500849]

>>12500847
Still, I'd very much like to know where the combustion is going to come from with only 2 out 3 requirements in the ole' combustion triangle being met comes from.

[Anonymous No.12500850]

You know, I've been thinking lately that there's not enough demand for reusable rockets to justify their development for most countries. That's why they've been so slow at catching up with SpaceX.

Commercial market for launching satellites is relatively small.
Military doesn't need to launch a bunch of stuff every day or even every week. Current rockets are more than enough for them, e.g. the Chinese who were perfectly fine with their 30+ expendable launches this year.

Reuse makes sense if you launch a lot and frequently, which may be needed in two cases:

1) you're making a megaconstellation with thousands of satellites like SpaceX
2) you need to launch a LOT of stuff into space/to other planets, typically for colonization

The blackpill of the situation is that even with the current "space race" to the moon, reusable rockets would be nice but they're not necessary. You don't need it for America's moon missions or even for the Gateway.
The only exception to this blackpill is the Chinese who are crazy and paranoid enough to start making their own Starship soon.

[Anonymous No.12500853]

Has anyone made a rocket that uses ozone as an oxidizer?

[Anonymous No.12500855]

>>12500853
There have been attempts, read "Ignition!".

[Anonymous No.12500867]

>>12500850
>new technology is unnecessary to satisfy demand based entirely on incumbent infrastructure
and other circular musings

[Anonymous No.12500877]

>>12500828
Talk about a gay name. Why not name it something cool like homodyne or something

[Anonymous No.12500878]

>>12500849
Probably some solid catalyst like a iron rod of something.

[Anonymous No.12500880]

>>12499267
unironically better than SLS

[Anonymous No.12500881]

>>12500878
If you want the thrust and the Isp of a slightly wet fart, do explore that route.

[Anonymous No.12500882]

>>12500850
>The blackpill of the situation is that even with the current "space race" to the moon, reusable rockets would be nice but they're not necessary
Well, given SpaceX wants to colonize Mars and wants fast/mass amounts of starship for launching thousands of sats in LEO and replacing them every 5 years, there's a definite need.

[Anonymous No.12500883]

>>12500000
SpaceX Albatross

[Anonymous No.12500886]

>>12500881
I'm just saying, maybe there is some other solid material that can be a catalyst. Iron was just an example. Are there some solids or semi-solids that combusts greatly?

[Anonymous No.12500889]

>>12500886
Oxygen is just not very reactive.

[Anonymous No.12500893]

>>12500889
Well, until it meets certain conditions, that is. Then it helps other shit become very reactive.

[Anonymous No.12500905]

>southern texas is a shithole
Will Boca Chica save it?

[Anonymous No.12500913]

>>12500000
Checked and based. I miss ITS.

[Anonymous No.12500916]

>>12500905
No, boca will just become a walled off spaceport city.

[Anonymous No.12500919]

>>12500886
hybrid rocket

[Anonymous No.12500928]

>>12500204
>that music
Kekus maximus

[Anonymous No.12500935]

>>12500850
>The only exception to this blackpill is the Chinese who are crazy and paranoid enough to start making their own Starship soon.

They said one of their goals was to have industry on the moon, after setting up an outpost and walking on it. So you can bet they will adopt any technology that permits them to do that more easily if it's proven to work.

[Anonymous No.12500942]

>>12500935
>China sets up a colony on the moon
>the colonists realize that their oppressive government is always days away
>they declare independence and become space Taiwan

[Anonymous No.12500957]

>>12500839
you have multiple meters and like fifty tons to engineer a crash zone

[Anonymous No.12500964]

>>12500942
The Moon and independence don't exactly go together. Which of course is probably better for the Chinese government, but regardless good luck with that it will grow literally thousands of times slower than a Martian one just based on the resource reliance.
To put it another way, every gram of carbon and nitrogen you need on Mars you simply get out of the air. Every gram you need on the Moon, you fly in from somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.12500976]

>>12500964
There is 100% going to be giant carbon deposits on the moon? See those craters? Over 90% of them were caused by carbonaceous chondrite asteroids. I'll bet my life savings if you start digging at the bottom of them you will find shitloads of carbon.

[Anonymous No.12500984]

>>12500976
Cool story, now find a worthwhile supply in useable distance of the equally highly localized water deposits and get in touch so we can set up a Starship colony while Mars is already blazing ahead. Then we can bus in the nitrogen from Mars because it's unironically easier than getting it from Earth.

[Anonymous No.12500992]

>>12500984
The point is that there is going to carbon on the moon and lots of it so stop sperging out you retarded cunt.

[Anonymous No.12500993]

>>12500976
Precious, precious carbon.

[Anonymous No.12500996]

>>12500992
Moonbats are so touchy lmao. Verify one(1)(one) source before you start using big boy words.

[Anonymous No.12500997]

>>12500298
is that moon texture vanilla or modded with scatterer or EVE, looks really good

[Anonymous No.12501017]

SpaceX uploaded a recap of SN8 flight, some new views-
https://youtu.be/_qwLHlVjRyw

[Anonymous No.12501027]

>>12501017
Omega kino based

[Anonymous No.12501039]

>>12501017
>HQ onboard shots
>landing view from the west (high bay roof?)
>twilight build site flyover
>SN9 confirmed
very nice

[Anonymous No.12501040]

>>12498812
It looked cool as fuck. That is it.

[Anonymous No.12501049]

>SSME costs 150mil a pop
>Entire Falcon 9 stack costs 60-70 mil a pop
What in the fuck?
What the fuck is going on with the SSME? Is the entire inside of the engine coated in fucking gold or something?

[Anonymous No.12501055]

>>12501049
Coated in autism so hydrogen doesn't escape or make turbopump and everything else brittle.
Because as you're aware, it's an engine intended for reuse that they're just going to ditch in the drink.

[Anonymous No.12501056]

>>12501017
Okay and? I’ll have you know that Blue Origin has a perfectly serviceable CGI mockup of their Artemis lander. Funded by the government and endorsed by Jack Schmitt. Starship is not real and blue origin is winning

[Anonymous No.12501057]

>>12501017
Kino

[Anonymous No.12501058]

>>12501056
sad but true

[Anonymous No.12501064]

>>12501049
The SSME is worth more than its weight in pure iridium

[Anonymous No.12501070]

>>12501017

[Anonymous No.12501074]

>>12500942
This makes no sense, taikonauts are probably required to be party members and more often than not military personnel, they wouldn't fall for capitalist deception.

[Anonymous No.12501075]

>>12501017
reminder that virgin galactic apologists think needing a runway is a good thing

[Anonymous No.12501078]

>>12501064
is that alot?

[Anonymous No.12501087]

>>12501078
ever played stardew valley? it's not fucking cheap that's for sure

[Anonymous No.12501091]

>>12501087
>it's not fucking cheap that's for sure
the game or the iridium?

[Anonymous No.12501099]

>>12501091

[Anonymous No.12501106]

>>12500828
it's like alphabet but less evil

[Anonymous No.12501110]

neat

[Anonymous No.12501119]

How will Starships flaps survive reentry heat/pressure and still hold up against aerodynamic stress of the flip flop maneuver?

[Anonymous No.12501125]

>>12501119
Perfectly fine. Screencap this.

[Anonymous No.12501126]

Pretty cool that Boeing is taking some initiative here, I trust they will dot every i and cross every t with this megarocket (the most powerful rocket ever built)

[Anonymous No.12501129]

>>12501119
>https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1314689966870425605
it's a tough problem

[Anonymous No.12501131]

>>12501119
It wont. SpaceX is finished

[Anonymous No.12501132]

>>12500000
Agreed. BFR and ITS were better designations.

Hopefully each starship will be named after non-trek sci-fi ships. Heres to the SS Moya and SS Nauvoo.

[Anonymous No.12501134]

>>12501119
Why wouldn't they? Pretty sure they already demonstrated that as they were intact until the crash. It's a low speed maneuver. Pressure,
and heat are not the issue, vibration and shock are the limitations.

[Anonymous No.12501137]

>>12501119
>Reentry pressure
Non issue
>Rentry heat
Issue
A tile breaking off won't destroy starship, steel isn't fragile like Aluminum

[Anonymous No.12501143]

>>12501126
What the fuck is partial success in a fueling test? Ground equipment failure?

[Anonymous No.12501147]

its job complete, the crane disappears into the darkness

[Anonymous No.12501151]

>>12501119
They probably wont have a perfect flap from the start of the first few dozen of orbital landing. However they'll learn and get data soon enough and change the flaps to meet their needs.

So answer is: fast iteration.

[Anonymous No.12501156]

>>12501134
12km is not from orbit. Space X gave up on trying to recover the upper stage of Falcon 9.

[Anonymous No.12501157]

>>12501017
>that ending shot.
lmao, so that's why the drone was flying around a few nights ago

[Anonymous No.12501163]

>>12501143
The orange rocket was angered by offensively small sacrifice of small rectangular green paper pieces. They are now attempting to placate it by applying sacred unguents and singing in binary cant.

[Anonymous No.12501164]

>>12501156
The question was about the flip maneuver. Do you know what terminal velocity is?

[Anonymous No.12501165]

>>12501129
>starship flap O-ring failure
ruh roh

[Anonymous No.12501182]

>>12501129
i just realized that since a cylinder is a cylinder they are not gonna end up with the retarded problem the shittle had of every tile needing to be uniquely shaped around the shape of the orbiter at least

[Anonymous No.12501186]

>>12501129
Space is Tough™

[Anonymous No.12501191]

>>12501129
elon doesnt know what he's talking about. it will be easy to solve

[Anonymous No.12501201]

>>12501132
>not SS Rocinante or SS Serenity
You had one job

[Anonymous No.12501209]

>>12499551
How much mass can Starship land with for point-to-point? I assume its possible, but surely not fully loaded unless maybe it partially refuels in orbit.

[Anonymous No.12501216]

>>12501049
absolutely autistic

[Anonymous No.12501218]

>>12501182
Starships will probably lose tiles every landing due to engine vibrations, luckily they can just grab a tile out of a random tile bin

[Anonymous No.12501229]

>>12501216
>SSME
The ssme is tame compared to the Raptor
Also the raptor is literally 1/100th the price of an ssme, and will probably cost less than a million per unit after a while

[Anonymous No.12501232]

>>12501229
Raptor makes my dick hard

[Anonymous No.12501235]

Merry Christmas faggots :)

[Anonymous No.12501237]

>>12499921
RfG are cool, but also retarded

[Anonymous No.12501239]

>>12500258
He's been ethnically cleansed from /jp/, please understand

[Anonymous No.12501243]

>>12501235
NOOOO YOU CANNOT USE ROCKET ENGINES AS CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS! IT NEEDS TO BE IN A CLEAN LAB! MR SHELBY STOP THEM!!!

[Anonymous No.12501244]

>>12501229
>>12501232
>>12501235
>Not work safe image on work safe board.

[Anonymous No.12501251]

>>12500102
Your Mom's Dildo
The Shelbinator
Bad Dragon
Curtis LeMay
Douglas MacArthur
Green Run
2 Stages 2 Furious
Challenger
Columbia
N1+1
Elon's Trampoline
Marvin the Martian
Short Tesla
Orbiting Ferociously
Joseph McCarthy Was Right About Everything
Keep On Rocket in the Free World
Big Frackin' Rocket (SpaceX LCH4 is sourced from fracking)
Tubgirl (for tanker variant)
One Giant YEET for Mankind (for Mars colony ship)
Mars Direct (Zubrin will lose his remaining hair on the spot)
Apollo 18 (for HLS)

[Anonymous No.12501253]

Uhhhh....guys??

[Anonymous No.12501255]

>>12501129
What are you talking about? That's not about the same thing or anything even close. All it has to do with the question is that both involve the heat shield.

[Anonymous No.12501262]

>>12501253
perfect, run the 8 minute engine test

[Anonymous No.12501263]

>>12501253
this means they have to redo the entire green run campaign

[Anonymous No.12501264]

>>12501253
Goddamn it really is going to RUD on the pad for Artemis 1.

[Anonymous No.12501268]

>>12501209
100+ tons

[Anonymous No.12501272]

>>12501253
Lol so the test wasn’t actually run and missed a whole buncha key points...

[Anonymous No.12501277]

>>12500102
SNOOPY 2
>>12501253
Lmao didn't they have practice filling the orange tank hundreds of times before?

[Anonymous No.12501278]

>>12501253
Perfectly fine. Skip Artemis 1 and go straight to crewed launch.

[Anonymous No.12501280]

>>12501253
sls haters gonna hate, despite this mostly successful test. when spacex fans watch sn8 crater and explode violently that's a massive success. hypocrites

[Anonymous No.12501282]

>>12501253
Oopsie whoopsie guess we need to re-do the whole green run.
We’ll need another 14 months and $400 million.
>plus tip

[Anonymous No.12501286]

>>12501277
they've been practicing fueling on concrete blocks before this

[Anonymous No.12501287]

>>12501070
End of 2020 and we still haven’t even seen test articles for whatever blue origin is planning

[Anonymous No.12501289]

>>12501280
I know this is joking but if you're gonna give me a strawman I'm gonna take it, Snate went the full duration and achieved testing of all of the intended parameters. Despite being a much more involved test it was a wildly, unfathomably more successful one.

[Anonymous No.12501295]

>>12501287
Berger is pretty sure we will see New Glenn fly NET 2023

[Anonymous No.12501296]

>>12501287
>muh tortoise
>muh hare

[Anonymous No.12501299]

>>12501280
At least SN8 got it's engines running at a reasonable time.

[Anonymous No.12501300]

>>12501295
It's fucking insane that NG will probably not even be in commercial operation before Starship is, given that it's going to be the first operational F9/FH competitor.

[Anonymous No.12501301]

>>12501289
yeah i was joking, but there's a guy on twitter called theprimaldino, he's probably the most prolific sls shill. sometimes i impersonate him here. i used to think he was a troll but i'm really not sure anymore

[Anonymous No.12501305]

>>12501280
This is top quality bait.

[Anonymous No.12501311]

>>12501300
NG is full of oldspace autism. They're also not starting with a small rocket like Falcon 1, they're jumping straight into the deep end and trying to swim.

[Anonymous No.12501312]

>>12501311
Whats even taking new glenn so long?
The hard part is the engines and the propulsive landing. Blue origins got both down, so whats the issue?

[Anonymous No.12501315]

>>12501295
2 years from nothing to orbital launch? Maybe
But I doubt it
How many years until successful reuse?

[Anonymous No.12501316]

>>12501312
I've got no idea. I can only assume Jeff forgot literally everything he learned about delegation at Amazon and so a bunch of stuff is waiting for his personal signature.

[Anonymous No.12501320]

>>12501312
step by step ferociously :^)

[Anonymous No.12501321]

>>12501311
well they have new shepard, i dont understand why they dont fly it more, or with people. the cadence is insanely low, and i doubt they learn much per flight

[Anonymous No.12501322]

>>12501311
I feel the opposite on jumping straight into the deep end, they should have jumped farther. Full reusability was always very clearly the end goal. Their big shot was to go for a moving target. Had they developed for full reusability from the beginning, they would be in a strong secondary position even if they ended up worse on every metric. NG won't even pay itself off and the minute it's out the door they'll have to start their Starship competitor late, and in the meantime it's not like developing NG gave them any tech that developing a fully reusable rocket wouldn't have.

[Anonymous No.12501323]

>>12501253
>half baked WDR
>not repairing artemis module with failed backup power supply
This is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Anonymous No.12501324]

>>12501315
first try, they need to land on that actual boat with a crew, remember? :)

[Anonymous No.12501328]

>>12501323
orion*

[Anonymous No.12501332]

Blue Origin has the chance to be the Pepsi to SpaceX's Coke and they're losing it. If New Glenn doesn't launch next year, then I see their chances of competing on the commercial launch market being very low. I understand not taking up SpaceX's "fail fast" approach, but they're moving too slowly given the amount of new blood and cash they have.

[Anonymous No.12501340]

>>12501322
Then you would have a company which has never produced a rocket before talking about building some 100+ ton super heavy for full reuse...

>>12501324
Yea they didn’t even plan at all around return to landing site... and the boats supposed to be moving for more stability..

[Anonymous No.12501344]

Wait a second..if SLS does a full duration fire, and then has a refurb, then flies artemis 1, does that make it a reusable rocket?

[Anonymous No.12501349]

>>12501332
Blue Origin's progress wont matter to SpaceX if they get their Starship up and running. Not only would it completely outclass anything in the field, it will outclass even those trying for "cheap" small sat launchers. SpaceX will eat everyone's lunch at this point and they can do it affordably enough.

Recent rocket/sat industry meeting/discussion was had where SpaceX wasn't present. They described SpaceX as an "Apex" predator of the industry.

[Anonymous No.12501350]

>>12501332
>I understand not taking up SpaceX's "fail fast" approach
That's literally the only reason SpaceX has come as far as they have. You can't catch them without it.

[Anonymous No.12501352]

>>12501344
No

[Anonymous No.12501354]

>>12501332
Even ULA will overtake them, they'll end up being the Dr. Thunder of spaceflight, a knockoff of something better and week after week while the other brands are sold out and restocked the same boxes of it sit on the shelf ignored.

[Anonymous No.12501355]

>>12501340
>Then you would have a company which has never produced a rocket before talking about building some 100+ ton super heavy for full reuse...
They produced a rocket. It's a glorified sounding rocket, but it's not like they don't know which end is up. The rest is just testing. "Starting small" isn't starting at all in this sphere. Remember F9 itself is a heavy lift rocket and came off the heels of F1 amounting to a glorified test platform. I'm sorry to say it but smallsat companies are not going to bloom into superheavies through organic growth. They're just going to die out.

[Anonymous No.12501361]

>>12501340
it's weird. they talk a lot about "step by step" but new glenn is so deep into uncharted territory it feels foolish. it took spacex many returned boosters and refurb to make production and iterative change that have informed development. new glenn benefits from none of that. they dont even have a single orbital booster, let alone a returned one to study the damage and weak points

[Anonymous No.12501369]

>>12501352
yes it does

[Anonymous No.12501376]

>>12501147
hop when?

[Anonymous No.12501380]

>>12501376
>hop when?

[Anonymous No.12501381]

>>12501361
Well it’s like, if they were doing full duration engine testing in 2017
Why couldn’t they slap together a partial vehicle to practice landings ? Just dump your 100 million dollar rocket a few times to test things out?

Looks like Vulcan will launch before New Glenn ...

[Anonymous No.12501391]

>>12501381
They've been testing their engines since like 2014 or something. Pretty much haven't changed the configuration either, it's still massively undertuned. Lack of urgency in all things is BO's consistent vice, the way Bezos has treated it, filling it with members of the incumbent industry, putting no pressure on, giving a constant dripfeed of cash regardless of results, it's like he completely forgot everything he knew about running a company.

[Anonymous No.12501392]

>>12501376
Flight*

Cryo/static coming up soon. Maybe next monday/tuesday/wednesday.
If those go alright, we might see flight on Jan 1st (friday)

[Anonymous No.12501396]

>>12501391
He's slow playing it until Trump is out of office so the Democrats take credit. Yes he is that petty. Remember he owns the Washington Compost.

[Anonymous No.12501401]

>>12501255
don't be an obtuse faggot

[Anonymous No.12501405]

>>12501253

[Anonymous No.12501411]

>>12501396
Don't be retarded. Lately he's been staffing the place with even more trash. There's no switch being turned, there's no grand plan, Bezos just fucked up and is doubling down on fucking up.

[Anonymous No.12501412]

>>12501396
>can't even utter the name without referring to it with a meme
The mark of an NPC

[Anonymous No.12501417]

NASA
>oopsie woopsie! Uwu our rocket made a fucky wucky!!! A little fucko boeingo! our rocket monkeys are working VEWY HAWD to fix this!
SpaceX
>klap dit harder

[Anonymous No.12501421]

Would you?

[Anonymous No.12501424]

>>12501401
>guy asks if something is a problem
>point out a completely different issue
>i'm an obtuse faggot for pointing it out somehow
Connect the dots for me captain fagtron

[Anonymous No.12501433]

>>12501421
>short stack

[Anonymous No.12501445]

>>12501424
see
>>12501137
then try to think about it.

[Anonymous No.12501448]

>>12501445
I think the pot is calling the kettle black here because you're being obtuse as fuck. I have no idea what you're trying to communicate because you keep couching it in nonsense. All I said was your reply had nothing to do with the post.

[Anonymous No.12501453]

SN9 got Raptor SN49 today

What raptor SNs did SN5 and 6 have, again?

[Anonymous No.12501454]

>>12501417
https://youtu.be/94zo6j6trXA

[Anonymous No.12501458]

>>12501453
iirc SN6 wasn't even in the 30s and then SN7 was a tank demonstrator. They've been going wild between SN6 and SN8/9. Must be a stacked graveyard in McGregor or Hawthorne right now.

[Anonymous No.12501462]

>>12501448
This >>12501255 was a very cunty way to ask for clarification so I'm obviously not exactly enthusiastic to engage with it or you respectfully. Good day anon.

[Anonymous No.12501464]

>>12501216
uterus

[Anonymous No.12501467]

>>12501157
The drone shot was taken before SN9 was stacked. Maybe the drone was taking promo shots then too though.

[Anonymous No.12501471]

>>12501462
So you got upset because you don't have a response?

[Anonymous No.12501486]

>>12501471
>How will Starships flaps survive reentry heat
>post Elon talking about what seems to be the biggest problem to be solved so that "Starships flaps survive reentry heat".
Good day anon.

[Anonymous No.12501496]

>>12501486
So we've finally gotten to the part where I can tell you to fuck off because you've actually explained how retarded you are? Fuck off, retard. He wasn't talking about the tiles' abilities whatsoever, which aren't really in question where heat and aerodynamic forces are concerned. He was talking about the problem of covering a moving part with heat tiles.

[Anonymous No.12501520]

What's the comfiest celestial body to have a vacation home on?

[Anonymous No.12501524]

>>12501312
New Glenn has been on their conceptual drawing board for over 10 years, and has been officially in development since 2012

[Anonymous No.12501536]

to that anon I'm sorry for calling you an obtuse faggot. I'm having a shit day and saw hostility in your response and responded in kind. Should have just tried to explain myself.

[Anonymous No.12501540]

>>12501520
Probably earth.

[Anonymous No.12501547]

>>12501458
I remember reading that they were destroying engines so quickly that they were having trouble getting good information from it, ha

anyways I looked it up. Raptor SN6 was on starhopper. Followed by raptors SN7 and 29 for Starships SN5 and 6

[Anonymous No.12501553]

>>12501520
For me, it's Titan

[Anonymous No.12501565]

>>12501316
I think it might be the opposite. BO is a trust fund kid that puts up the appearance to its dad that it's always busy, but doesn't actually do much of substance while the money just keeps coming because dad basically never puts them under scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.12501577]

https://youtu.be/u4kRwhH8VDI

[Anonymous No.12501582]

>The Japanese cabinet has released its planned FY 2021 budget and JAXA’s exploration funding will rise from roughly $120M USD to $500M. This robust increase will enable Japan’s important role in the Artemis program and, together, we will enter into this new era of exploration.
a 4 fold increase in funding? japan is going all in on artemis.

[Anonymous No.12501585]

>>12501582
Good for them. I guess they feel confident that it's not going anywhere, or maybe national sentiment is being influenced by the Chinese push for space.

[Anonymous No.12501587]

>>12501520
Titan

[Anonymous No.12501589]

>>12501577
kinda feel like the ESM could be repurposed for something else after mission end but without refueling capability its not possible

[Anonymous No.12501591]

>>12501582
nice. The nips do good work and are more cost-effective than most others .

[Anonymous No.12501592]

>>12501520
Imagine the vineyards on the slopes of paraterraformed Hellas Basin. A secluded estate among the wild rocky terrain of Valles Marineris. If you got ambitious with some automated earthmoving, you could hollow out the tops of the Tharsis Montes and build a paradise in the former caldera of each.

[Anonymous No.12501596]

has anyone here tried making their own rocket engine?

[Anonymous No.12501600]

>>12501596
Working on a motor now. Progress has been slow because I'm losing motivation to finish it after a couple of failures though. I hope it works eventually.

[Anonymous No.12501603]

>>12501582
It also shows in their increased involvement with ISS, where it's almost guranteed that whether Crew Dragon or Starliner, there will be one seat for JAXA.

[Anonymous No.12501613]

>>12501591
>and are more cost-effective than most others
What? Japanese aerospace/defence usually costs 1/3rd more than anything else. Why do you think that the jew fears the samurai?

[Anonymous No.12501617]

>>12501582
Japanese people fucking love space for some reason. It's no coincidence that there are a ton of space related anime. I think previously they haven't spent a lot on JAXA because space tech is usually double purpose as ICBM tech (which is why JAXA keeps launching orbital sounding rockets), I think commercial crew and commercial rockets in general are really a game changer for Japan though since China can't claim some nefarious purpose behind a JAXAnaught going up to the ISS on a commercial flight.

It's really a shame that Japan can't develop their own domestic manned space program, Japanese autism and love of space is huge and they should by rights be right behind the US and Russia in the space game.

[Anonymous No.12501624]

>>12501617
>It's really a shame that Japan can't develop their own domestic manned space program
is this explicitly disallowed?

[Anonymous No.12501627]

>>12501577
>European Service Module perspective
Without watching the video, the title makes me laugh

[Anonymous No.12501641]

>>12501624
Why would it be?

[Anonymous No.12501648]

>>12501617
I don't think they axed their HTV-R plans yet, but they ran into problems with their heavy launcher, so sending Japanese astronauts up on commercial spacecraft will do for now.

[Anonymous No.12501655]

>>12501641
>>12501624
Could be Article 9 autism conflating orbital class heat shield tech with ICBM re-entry vehicles, but I'm just speculating.

[Anonymous No.12501656]

>>12501624
It's not disallowed, but anything bigger than a sounding rocket makes their neighbors extremely nervous and the last thing Japan wants is a nervous and trigger happy China.

[Anonymous No.12501668]

>>12501577
I want to see 4k video from moon robot
olympics

[Anonymous No.12501669]

https://astra.com/blog/space/
>Astra can immediately begin delivering for our customers. As of today, we have contracted over two dozen launches, representing over 100 spacecraft. We are immediately executing our plan to ramp up rocket production and launch operations.
doomers btfo
blm rocket is gonna make it

[Anonymous No.12501674]

>>12501669
>inb4 RUDs on the pad

[Anonymous No.12501689]

>>12501656
Considering the stunt that China pulled this year, Japan can't care less about trigger happy commies, their only option is to retain the technological advantage.

[Anonymous No.12501692]

>>12501656
Are they that concerned? They retrofitted their helicopter carriers to be able to use F-35s, which is a far more brazen move that a rocket.

[Anonymous No.12501697]

Starship de geso

[Anonymous No.12501706]

Theoretically, what has better Psp (W/kg), big flat arrays of solar panels, or parabolic mirrors focusing concentrated light on smaller, more efficient panels? I'm thinking about what Starship's fairing size means for being able to push SEP design up to megawatt scale with inflatable mirrors.

[Anonymous No.12501718]

>>12501692
They also created their own muhreens and changed legislature so that they can deploy abroad.

[Anonymous No.12501754]

>>12501322
New Glenn is a really good platform to try to develop upper stage reusability off of
turn up the power on those engines a little bit and it's golden

[Anonymous No.12501783]

Thread has staged.

Ignition:
>>12501780
>>12501780
>>12501780

[Anonymous No.12501802]

>>12498771
since high school actually
>In 1952, following his graduation from the Naval Academy, Lovell married his high school sweetheart, Marilyn Lillie Gerlach (born July 11, 1930), the daughter of Lillie (née Nordrum) and Carl Gerlach. The two had attended Juneau High School in Milwaukee.[10] While she was a college student, Gerlach transferred from Wisconsin State Teachers College to George Washington University in Washington D.C. so she could be near him while he was training in Annapolis.

[Anonymous No.12501808]

>>12499915
doesn't the cygnus derived tug drop it off in LLO?

[Anonymous No.12501811]

>>12501808
not Orion

[Anonymous No.12501833]

>>12500223
the word colonizing has long since been cancelled.

[Anonymous No.12501894]

>>12501344
Most rockets would be reusable if they didn't crash the engines and tanks into oceans/villages
The SSME was specifically designed to be reusable, which makes throwing it into the ocean so much worse