/sfg/ - Space Flight General: Flying Water Tower edition

[Anonymous No.12564652]

Prev thread: >>12560971

[Anonymous No.12564688]

First for Zubrin smelling.

[Anonymous No.12564697]

[Anonymous No.12564698]

>>12564697
RIP Soviet latticwork interstages for hot-staging

[Anonymous No.12564713]

>makes nuspace SEETHE
Is SLS based?

[Anonymous No.12564719]

>>12564713
No. It is Cringe.

[Anonymous No.12564725]

I don't really know much about rockets but this looks pretty smexy to me.

[Anonymous No.12564728]

>>12564725
it needs at least one more RS-25
probably two or three more

[Anonymous No.12564730]

>>12564713
Is being nothing but a senate pork barrel for 50 years based? Some would agree.

But for space flight, its boomer tier cringe.

[Anonymous No.12564751]

>>12564713
No, that image is fake.

[Anonymous No.12564763]

NASA space exploration is back now that Biden is president. Since 2016, nothing happened, no Moon, no Mars. The only comfy thing was ESA and Rosetta.

[Anonymous No.12564766]

>>12564763
yeah but that was intentionally set up by Obama

[Anonymous No.12564768]

>>12564763
>Cope

That money is needed to welfare now, NASA will be defunded.

It's for the best really.

[Anonymous No.12564769]

>Makes SLS, Starship, New Glenn OBSOLETE
Nothing personnel, 小孩

[Anonymous No.12564787]

>>12564688
Um...based?

[Anonymous No.12564791]

>>12564769
Is Long March supposed to be that tall? Seems fake

[Anonymous No.12564815]

It was fun hanging out with you spaceflight bros
I loved talking about rockets and space and aliens and gay shit like that
Im doing suicide today

[Anonymous No.12564817]

>>12564815
Ok bye have fun

[Anonymous No.12564818]

>>12564815
We did it Reddit!

[Anonymous No.12564825]

>>12564815

[Anonymous No.12564830]

>>12564815
Do a flip faggot

[Anonymous No.12564844]

>>12564769
>SLS tier expendable rocket, but ten years late
>relevant in any way except garnering pity "at least it's better than europe is doing" approval
I know I'm being baited but everyone's just replying to the suicide bait anyway at least this one is a rocket. Give me your chink cope bait.

[Anonymous No.12564848]

>>12564844
how is suicide bait

[Anonymous No.12564850]

>>12564848
Attention whoring.

[Anonymous No.12564870]

Hi, I'm going to post spaceflight pictures

[Anonymous No.12564871]

[Anonymous No.12564879]

[Anonymous No.12564882]

>>12564815
just keep dilating faggot

[Anonymous No.12564889]

[Anonymous No.12564895]

>>12564815
cool

[Anonymous No.12564897]

>>12564815
Call cope hotline.

[Anonymous No.12564918]

are terraformers the niggers of space colonization?

[Anonymous No.12564921]

So when the hell is the SN9 hop

[Anonymous No.12564927]

>>12564921
If it's anything like snate, a couple days after I stop regularly checking /sfg/

[Anonymous No.12564931]

>>12564918
Yes.

[Anonymous No.12564975]

>>12564815
my health is shit so I've thought of this too. But I've learned that if you stick around you eventually run into better times. But enduring a shitty present can REALLY suck. Life is hard, man. Godspeed .

[Anonymous No.12564984]

>>12564870
damn that looks amazing

>>12564652
you can see the improvements in the welds

>>12564815
dude at least wait until the first starship stack launches

[Anonymous No.12564986]

>>12564889
wonder if aerospikes could be redesigned with a permanent magnetic containment field

[Anonymous No.12564987]

>>12564975
>Godspeed
There is no god.

[Anonymous No.12564995]

>>12564986
If you had a powersource fit for the task that while being light enough, you would just power the rocket with that and nozzle geometry would be the last of your worries.

[Anonymous No.12565007]

>>12564769
why is the tiny toy paper rocket New Glenn mentioned alongside super heavy lift launch vehicles that completely outclass it?
and starship dwarfs ""long march 9""

[Anonymous No.12565021]

>>12565007
Long March 9 is the best rocket ever conceived and will BTFO capitalism

[Anonymous No.12565030]

>>12564986
Fuck that's aesthetic looking

[Anonymous No.12565048]

>>12565007
Starship is just on paper. Rong march is real. You've seen it down at chinatown

[Anonymous No.12565059]

>>12565048
Is that what they call the bathroom line?

[Anonymous No.12565061]

>>12565048
so this is just a big 1:1 scale cardboard cutout?
damn I had no idea
china I kneel

[Anonymous No.12565062]

Gey fucked SpaceX stans. Vulcan Centaur is fucking here

[Anonymous No.12565064]

>>12565062
>his second stage can't even hop
disgustain

[Anonymous No.12565065]

>>12565059
If it's full of trannies?
Wrong march.

[Anonymous No.12565066]

>>12565062
>all that for a WDR

[Anonymous No.12565068]

>>12565065
obsessed

[Anonymous No.12565069]

>>12565064
Says the stan. Just fyi, you dont even have a first stage booster. and you wont until Q2 2022 at the earliest. Vulcan will launch this year, you can bet your ass

[Anonymous No.12565076]

>>12565069
>ULA will launch a fully expendable answer to falcon heavy before a SpaceX launches a full Starship stack that will completely mog it on price and capability
I should hope so

[Anonymous No.12565080]

>>12565076
is that before or after elon goes to prison and bankrupt? your con man wont be around much longer. the bubble will burst soon

[Anonymous No.12565083]

>>12565080
keep it up McShort

[Anonymous No.12565087]

>>12565080
>tfw a pot smoking con man outdoes your launch rate by over 4 times
laughing my ground equipment off

[Anonymous No.12565092]

Hopefully this SN9 hop will be on Tuesday the 12th

Cnet says it might be on Tuesday too

https://www.cnet.com/news/the-next-high-flying-spacex-starship-test-could-blast-off-as-soon-as-tuesday/

[Anonymous No.12565096]

So I took the Prime chan...

[Anonymous No.12565102]

>>12565096
and then...

[Anonymous No.12565104]

>>12565092
well, if cnet says so

[Anonymous No.12565106]

>>12565102
I put more power

[Anonymous No.12565108]

>>12565106
I feel conflicted about this.

[Anonymous No.12565111]

>>12565106
because moar is better.

[Anonymous No.12565126]

>>12565104
Well i don't know where to get official info from, SpaceX don't seem to post on their Twitter about the hops, at least they haven't recently about the upcoming one

[Anonymous No.12565132]

>>12565126
Even SpaceX only has a best guess. It's not like they go in planning aborts.

[Anonymous No.12565136]

>>12564713
i hope it blows up at it's first test flight
billion dollar per lauch, wtf

[Anonymous No.12565142]

>>12564769
>building a giant disposable moon rocket in the year of our lord 2021
God bless the chinks, give them another 20 years and we can watch them redo the shuttle program all over again.

Charrenger Disaster 2: Erectric Boogaroo. Watch in awe as China attempts to launch a teacher into space, only to launch them into a heavily-populated village instead due to faulty O-rings made of newspaper.

[Anonymous No.12565145]

>>12565062
>that fancy clean facility with nice shiny floors and a big overhead crane
No wonder they haven't launched anything yet, they wasted all their time building this thing instead. Didn't anyone tell them that now you can just build rockets in a big open tentshed out in the elements using pieces of scrap?

[Anonymous No.12565146]

>>12565136
>billion dollar per launch
It's probably crawling up to three now

[Anonymous No.12565152]

>>12564815
don't do it, you will not see the spaceship fly next week

[Anonymous No.12565153]

>>12565145
Only if you use the fuels of the proletariat. Proud aristocratic hydrogen knows if its tanks, engines, and full lines have been man-handled by beasts and will self-sabotage accordingly.

[Anonymous No.12565154]

spaceship heatshield

[Anonymous No.12565156]

>>12565153
fuel* ay fuck

[Anonymous No.12565159]

sense of scale

[Anonymous No.12565162]

MRO overflying a crater

[Anonymous No.12565167]

>>12565154
Again, why don't they put single, recessed bolts with the necessary play in them and then cap off the heads with a wedge shaped fitment? Like so that they are all slanted over eachothers.

[Anonymous No.12565169]

>>12565162
If you listen really closely you can hear him talking trash on terra.

[Anonymous No.12565172]

>>12565162
Martian Goatse

[Anonymous No.12565177]

>>12565167
A single bolt might help in some ways (expansion), but overlapping is definitely not necessary, not with a steel structure, little gaps won't compromise it. And being hard but brittle means you want to keep them apart anyway.

[Anonymous No.12565184]

>>12565142
>Watch in awe as China attempts to launch Jack Ma into space

[Anonymous No.12565189]

>>12564871
>the Shittle never launched from the west coast

[Anonymous No.12565192]

Which one of you made a thread before this one hit limit?
No. Bad.

[Anonymous No.12565194]

>>12565177
But they have problems with the glue since like 4 decades, so slanting them would start where it's reducing sheer forces from the air trying to wedge them off of the craft and it would also give the tiles fewer directions to get lost into and more surface area to glue them to.

[Anonymous No.12565196]

>>12565194
they're using spring clips right now, which seems to work better than the bolts did

[Anonymous No.12565202]

>>12565194
Pretty sure their persistent issues are impact and vibration resistance, not glue. For one they're already pinned in place, what cement is there is most likely simply to smooth the contact surface. For two, the tile failures we see usually involve them exploding into pieces.

[Anonymous No.12565205]

>>12565196
I didn't even know about the bolts so that's great. A mechanical fit seems just logical to me (not having any background in tiling spacecraft).

[Anonymous No.12565239]

>>12565092
"as soon as" tuesday. Given past precedent it'll be later. EDA says the 14th and he has some inside info

[Anonymous No.12565241]

So. SpaceX started out with 301 stainless, which has the best spherical cow performance, but proved to be difficult to execute on (in a shed, in a swamp)
They then swapped to 304, which is the easy mode of stainless steel.
Now they're going to a variant of 308 stainless to attempt to recapture some of the spherical cow performance of 301 in the real world.

>>12565205
Yeah, SpaceX is four or five steps ahead of you already.

[Anonymous No.12565247]

>>12565194
Wouldn't even be too much harder to make, just cut the roll at an angle, specially if the bolts would also be angled

[Anonymous No.12565249]

>>12565241
I think we'll see continued experimentation with the formula. Seems unlikely that the first roll of in-house steel (if that's what it is, but seems likely enough) does exactly what they want, and if it does that means there's probably extra performance on the table to squeeze out.

[Anonymous No.12565259]

>>12565154
this tufroc stuff sounds pretty cool
>The cap includes a high-temperature, low-density, carbonaceous, fibrous material whose surface is optionally treated with a High Efficiency Tantalum-based Ceramic Composite (HETC) formulation. The insulator base and pin(s) contain similar silica-based materials.
>The mechanical design is arranged so that thermal expansion differences in the component materials (e.g., cap and insulator base) are easily tolerated. The technology is applicable to both sharp and blunt leading edge vehicles. This extends the possible application of fibrous insulation to the wing leading edge, fuselage, and/or nose cap on a hypersonic vehicle
>The lightweight system comprises a treated carbonaceous cap composed of Refractory Oxidation-resistant Ceramic Carbon Insulation (ROCCI), which provides dimensional stability to the outer mold line, while the fibrous silica-base material provides maximum thermal insulation for the vehicle structure. The composite has graded surface treatments applied by impregnation to both the cap and base. These treatments enable it to survive in an aero-convectively heated environment of high-speed planetary entry. The exact cap and base materials are chosen in combination with modified surface treatments and a specially formulated surface coating, taking into account the duration of exposure and expected surface temperatures for the particular application.

>>12565159
she big

>>12565241
Also 301 gets brittle at cryo temps. So instead of a small leak you get a catastrophic failure. 304 doesn't have this issue.

>Now they're going to a variant of 308 stainless
I've not heard of this. Is this coming from NSF?

[Anonymous No.12565270]

>>12565259
oh, is TUFROC a carbon cap over silica fluff

[Anonymous No.12565274]

>>12565259

[Anonymous No.12565305]

>>12564815
Damn

[Anonymous No.12565309]

>>12565305
Look like pikachu shooting the hopper

[Anonymous No.12565315]

>>12564918
no, parateraformers are

[Anonymous No.12565343]

>>12565309
Doge using the force

[Anonymous No.12565346]

>>12564713

>using hydrogen for first-stage propellant
>ever

[Anonymous No.12565348]

>>12565346
>booster-sustainer architecture

[Anonymous No.12565351]

>>12565136
there is no test flight anon
first flight is an operational flight with payload

[Anonymous No.12565356]

>>12565348
I hate the term 'sustainer', it's just a cope for "our first stage has shit thrust"

[Anonymous No.12565366]

If one could build this, who would be a good place to launch it into space and who could track it as it flies?

[Anonymous No.12565378]

>>12565351
That doesn't seem like a bad idea whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.12565408]

The weather is going to be shit for the next few days. We not see a hop till the end of the week or the week after.

[Anonymous No.12565417]

>>12565408
We must endeavor before this decade is out to defeat weather once and for all.

[Anonymous No.12565418]

>>12565408
>buzzes ominously

[Anonymous No.12565419]

>>12565356
it's an entire design paradigm where you intentionally give your first stage shit thrust so as to minimize its engine mass and therefore dry mass so as to eek maximum delta v out of it
but it's SHIT and they should just build a bigger booster instead

[Anonymous No.12565424]

>we could have got a military spaceplane more than half century earlier than we actually did

[Anonymous No.12565426]

>>12565419
That's just restating the same thing, it's still a cope. The dV benefit of adding an engine through negating gravity losses would easily offset the penalty of the extra dry mass, but equally importantly the engines themselves simply have shit thrust density and the entire "paradigm" was written up as a cope around that fact.

[Anonymous No.12565427]

>>12565356
The only good booster-sustainer rocket

[Anonymous No.12565430]

>>12565062
OH NOOOOO! Employee number 5521-XD7 just tracked in a few particles of dirt into our audacious clean room! We will have to delay Vulcan by another year to make sure our rocket is perfectly clean for her maiden scrub

[Anonymous No.12565431]

>>12565427
incorrect, simply replace that engine with an engine that's worth a shit and you've eliminated that whole bullshit

[Anonymous No.12565438]

>>12565062
>merely pathfinder engines

[Anonymous No.12565452]

>>12565062
Oh, nice. It will look ballin at the bottom of the sea.

[Anonymous No.12565471]

>>12565366
why a solar array and an RTG? I don't really see the point.

[Anonymous No.12565476]

>>12565452
Do you want to fly on USED goods? Or do you want a VIRGINAL rocket? At ULA, we never have to HOSE out the LAST mission. PURITY over RHETORIC.

[Anonymous No.12565477]

>>12565452
SpaceX clearly doesn't care about the environment or wildlife, otherwise they'd be making artificial reefs with every launch like ULA.

[Anonymous No.12565481]

>>12565062
weird that they went with an engine that was designed from the ground-up for reusability. Either they REALLY didn't want to go with aerojet or BO and them had an arrangement in the background

[Anonymous No.12565491]

>>12564725
One time use only for all that.

[Anonymous No.12565494]

>>12565481
Technically they do have plans for reusability, they're just halfassed and it's unclear they will ever be seriously pursued. Also could say a lot about BO but they're still better than AJRD.

[Anonymous No.12565508]

>>12565062
You have this and then you have SpaceX carrying their engines with forklift, the contrast is pretty hilarious.

[Anonymous No.12565526]

>>12565494
SMART and ACES looked pretty damn cool. Too cool for oldspace, apparently

[Anonymous No.12565530]

>>12565471
maybe to power the sail while its accelerating

[Anonymous No.12565532]

>>12565526
ACES is cool, SMART is an oldspace parody of reuse.

[Anonymous No.12565538]

>>12565494
Which is funny because Lockheed bought AJRD.

[Anonymous No.12565544]

>>12565192
It was the faggot OP of this thread that didn't bother to link it in the previous one.

[Anonymous No.12565553]

>>12565476
>Do you want to fly on USED goods?
Absolutely.

[Anonymous No.12565564]

>>12564986
Exactly what is wrong with aerospikes that can't be solved as of 2021?

[Anonymous No.12565568]

>>12565564
they're worse than the Raptor
everything is worse than the Raptor

[Anonymous No.12565583]

>>12565568
RAPTOR AEROSPIKE

[Anonymous No.12565584]

>>12565583
worse than the Raptor

[Anonymous No.12565587]

>>12565584
RAPTOR NTR ROTATING DETONATION FULL FLOW STAGED COMBUSTION AEROSPIKE DRIVE

[Anonymous No.12565588]

>>12565583
What if you pointed them at one another and turned them both on. Which one would win?

[Anonymous No.12565589]

>>12565584
volume savings that come from aerospike over vacuum bell are pretty cool, but likely unnecessary. I think Elon specifically mentioned that an aerospike would be too heavy to gimble well enough

[Anonymous No.12565592]

Fun MLS Yuzhmash video.
https://youtu.be/XBzmrfpqlI0

[Anonymous No.12565593]

>>12565589
>volume savings
who gives a shit, I only care about area savings

[Anonymous No.12565596]

>>12565564
Because NASA got stuck in the seventies, and private companies can't afford the development of advanced spacecraft on their own. SpaceX is the exception to the rule on this account.

[Anonymous No.12565600]

>>12565007
when it launches NG will be the second strongest rocket in the world right after starship

[Anonymous No.12565601]

>>12564713
>Non reusable rockets
>30 years too late.
>Expensive as fuck.

LOL

[Anonymous No.12565602]

>>12565593
compared to a vacuum bell it offers area savings too. Everyone talks about the all-altitude performance but space savings are perhaps more notable.

[Anonymous No.12565604]

>>12565600
it's easy to compare New Glenn and Starship, because the BE-4 is nearly identical to the Raptor in thrust (despite being twice the size). So, you just look at how many engines the first stage has.

[Anonymous No.12565607]

>>12565592
nice googly eyes

[Anonymous No.12565630]

>>12565021

[Anonymous No.12565640]

>>12565592
what is this? is this a new expendable rocket proposal? in 2021?

[Anonymous No.12565642]

>>12564713
Why would I seethe over a fictional rocket?

[Anonymous No.12565644]

>>12565142
>give them another 20 years and we can watch them redo the shuttle program all over again.

LOL , After 20 years of socialism that is just starting in the US, I doubt you will even have a TV to watch it.

[Anonymous No.12565655]

>>12565583
a purple aerospike would be really pretty

[Anonymous No.12565724]

test

[Anonymous No.12565760]

>>12565062
THIS VEHICLE WILL NOT FLY IT IS A PATHFINDER. ULA will conduct static fires with their NEXT Vulcan core, not this one.

[Anonymous No.12565764]

>>12565760
Topkek

[Anonymous No.12565765]

>>12565760
wait, so they're going to run a WDR and then junk the entire thing ?

[Anonymous No.12565771]

>>12565765
Yes. This one has a truncated LOX tank. Also the engines are “Pathfinder engines”

[Anonymous No.12565773]

>>12565771
Wtf does that even mean? Are the engines still in development? What the fuck do all these aerospace companies do all day.....

[Anonymous No.12565776]

>>12565773
>wtf does that even mean?
It means the engines are not flight worthy but are engine shaped so they can practice mounting them without worrying about making scuffs or dents in them.

[Anonymous No.12565778]

>>12565773
It means that this Vulcan core is not a 1:1 production version. It will conduct pressure tests and a WDR but will end its career then. The next Vulcan core will conduct static fires, and then fly. The engines DID static fire, but separate of the core and are now retired. They are made of mainly developmental parts rather than production level BE-4s

[Anonymous No.12565781]

>>12565477
Could you strap parts of coral to the engine bits and have it survive the trip to the bottom of the ocean so It gets to grow slightly faster?

[Anonymous No.12565782]

>>12565601
>a nigger and a woman
thank you nasa, very cool!

[Anonymous No.12565783]

>>12565781
Maybe, I'm no marine biologist anon. What does coral even like anyway? Not over-abundant sunlight, I know that much at least.

[Anonymous No.12565792]

>>12565773
Means the BE4's shit themselves because Jeff Who? can't even make a weak shitty LOX/CH4 engine and manufacture will be so sluggish they won't be getting more for a while.

[Anonymous No.12565794]

ohh shhhiiitttt is this good or bad
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-faa-partnership-bolsters-american-commercial-space-activities/

[Anonymous No.12565796]

>>12565794
idk

[Anonymous No.12565813]

>>12565794
good

[Anonymous No.12565828]

If Engineered wood has a stronger strength to weight ratio than steel or concrete why isn’t SpaceX using it for internal components

[Anonymous No.12565835]

>>12565794
bad

[Anonymous No.12565842]

>>12565424
20 years is way less than half a century

[Anonymous No.12565847]

>>12565640
>proposal
The cyclone 4M has been in development for more than a decade.

[Anonymous No.12565849]

>>12564815
Wait until SN9 launches. If it crashes you do it, if it sticks the landing you stay around until SN10. Rinse and repeat.

[Anonymous No.12565870]

>>12565564
Thermodynamics of cooling the spike is a nightmare. It generally requires a much heavier engine than a comparable bell nozzle.

With current metallurgy a viable aerospike could probably be made but why would anyone dump the hundreds of millions into R&D for something that would at best be roughly equivalent to a good bell engine? Aerospikes only make sense for SSTOs.

[Anonymous No.12565902]

>>12565794
I'm no law surgeon but it sounds good? At first I thought it was implying NASA involvement in the FAA process which would be bad, but it's just affirming the role of commercial space which is good.

[Anonymous No.12565907]

This is interesting. Someone on NSF tried to cram as many Raptors and BE-4s into a given diameter as is possible. The Raptor configurations end up with 2+x the thrust as the BE-4 configurations. Ff course stats for both engine are preliminary, so this could change.

[Anonymous No.12565912]

>>12565907
This seems like a very tortured way to say something very simple which is that Raptor has a very good thrust:area and BE4 (currently) doesn't.

[Anonymous No.12565934]

>>12565828
I don't know, how does "engineered" wood perform at 66k or 1000k, submerged in lox or methane, in 8bar pressure or in partial or complete vacuum?

[Anonymous No.12565940]

>>12565601
Government money so its basically free. And it will be the only rocket legally allowed to reach other planets so good luck with your memes.

[Anonymous No.12565943]

>>12565934
Why would you care about that space is mostly vacuum.

[Anonymous No.12565963]

>>12565943
You asked why they wouldn't use it for internal components. I gave some of the conditions internal their components would face.

[Anonymous No.12565969]

>>12565963
their internal components* apparently I'm talking back to front today.

[Anonymous No.12565975]

>>12565907
they need space to gimbal though

[Anonymous No.12565976]

>>12564713
>Implying NASA is Numale central
Top kek, enjoy getting mogged by Blue Origin and Space X

[Anonymous No.12565980]

>>12565975
I believe only the landing engines are intended to gimbal and the intention is for the non-gimballing engines to trade off throttle range for even more thrust

[Anonymous No.12565988]

Notam for SN9 flight is now 12/13/14 (tuesday/wed/thurs). Monday maybe a static fire test.

[Anonymous No.12565992]

>>12565988
TFR for SN9*

[Anonymous No.12565993]

>>12565980
yup.

[Anonymous No.12565997]

>>12565993

[Anonymous No.12566003]

>>12565997

[Anonymous No.12566004]

>>12565997
Has any rocket done throttle steer before? It makes sense, I just haven't heard of it.

[Anonymous No.12566019]

Are we still expecting another static fire before the hop? Weather's not a problem for that, yeah - just for the hop itself?

[Anonymous No.12566020]

>>12566004
N1

[Anonymous No.12566021]

>>12565963
There are plenty of components not submerged in cryogenic fluids

[Anonymous No.12566024]

>>12566003

[Anonymous No.12566028]

>>12566019
>Are we still expecting another static fire before the hop?
yes. At least 1.

>Weather's not a problem for that, yeah - just for the hop itself?
mostly correct. Though in particularly bad weather a static fire may be canceled

[Anonymous No.12566035]

>>12566021
Which components are you interested in then? Because most have to deal with exotic conditions.

[Anonymous No.12566042]

>>12566024
how close do you think they are to that 1 Raptor/day metric? It's been just over a year since that tweet

[Anonymous No.12566049]

>>12566035
Naturally the whole front end of the rocket where cargo or people will be located

>>12566042
Obviously no where near that since they haven’t posted any image of 100 raptors sitting in storage

[Anonymous No.12566054]

>>12565828
Consider that strength to weight ratio isn't everything

[Anonymous No.12566064]

>>12565870
The only regime where is makes sense to use an aerospike is for an expander cycle engine sued to launch out of a very dense, very tall atmosphere, which basically means we don't have nay use for aerospikes until we're building SSTO Titan launch vehicles.

[Anonymous No.12566066]

>>12566064
smallsat SSTO Titan launch vehicles

[Anonymous No.12566073]

>>12565912
BE4 will never get as good a thrust/area ratio as Raptor because it's limited by its ORSC cycle. Another reason is that it's being developed by BO.

[Anonymous No.12566082]

>>12566073
The oxygen rich choice for the BE4 was always weird, as you need solve all the hard issues that'd come up with a full flow engine anyways.

[Anonymous No.12566083]

>>12566049
That's less than a third of the vehicle's structural mass.

[Anonymous No.12566085]

>>12566083
Weight savings in a second stage are 1:1 with payload

[Anonymous No.12566088]

>>12566082
Agreed, plus ORSC comes with the same problem (high rpm rotating seals along turbine shafts to separate incompatible fluids) that FRSC has, with the added difficulty like you mentioned of having to do oxygen-rich anything. I can't think of a single engineering reason for picking ORSC methalox over FRSC methalox, but I can think of a couple political reasons I guess. SpaceX choosing FFSC was definitely a good decision.

[Anonymous No.12566101]

>>12566088
RD 180 was the same
Just another old space style design decision

[Anonymous No.12566108]

>>12566085
Yeah, it's less than a third of the structural mass.
With a fully reusable vehicle, design choices to increase reuse economics are superior to design choices merely to increase payload mass fraction.

[Anonymous No.12566110]

>>12564889
we could 100% make this work now given how far materials sciene has advanced, but it's not really worth it.

[Anonymous No.12566114]

>>12565870
>but why would anyone dump the hundreds of millions into R&D for something that would at best be roughly equivalent to a good fully disposable launch vehicle?

[Anonymous No.12566115]

>>12566101
RD-180 needed to be ORSC because it used kerosene fuel, but yeah, if I'm understanding you correctly, I think the BE-4 is an ORSC engine because the RD-180 was an ORSC, and not for any actual advantage from the ORSC cycle.

[Anonymous No.12566117]

>>12566110
>100%
Don't give the sls crowd ideas for the next 50 years.

[Anonymous No.12566133]

>>12566049
And do you know of significant separate internal bracing there? If it was a tank it would at least have stringers and bulkheads (although for various reasons it would be impossible to make them out of wood), the crew cabin on the other hand is structurally supported entirely by its own shell meaning one face open to a wide differential of pressure and temperature. You could do internal non-structural components in wood but since they're non structural you might as well use something else.

[Anonymous No.12566134]

>>12565481
This made me realize....wont BO be severely engine constrained? Not only do they have to build engines for themselves, but ULA too. and if ULA only uses them one, the price of BE4 goes up too

[Anonymous No.12566135]

>>12566114
Aerospikes have no advantage to offer and plenty of disadvantages, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.12566146]

>>12566134
Apparently the contract to sell a big pile of engines for ULA to throw into the ocean actually makes the BE-4 cheaper for BO to use, because they keep the production line running. Economy of scale and all that bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12566150]

>>12566117
The only SSTO that's worth a damn is Skylon, which if mass produced to the tune of say, 50-100 vehicles would EoS down to roughly Starship levels of cheap given 100 plus reuses with minimal refurbishment. Payload fraction is very good and the added flexibility of being able to fly around and above inclement weather and conduct suborbital missions and SS transportation give it some real strong points.

[Anonymous No.12566167]

>>12566024
>thrust per year

Okay thats a based metric

[Anonymous No.12566174]

>>12566019
Last time static fire got cancelled because Jeff went fishing to Boca Chica.

[Anonymous No.12566177]

>>12566150
lmao, no. Skylon was projected by its own creators to achieve ~$2000/kg payload to orbit, or roughly expendable Falcon Heavy launch economics.
Skylon would not be able to get by without significant refurb every flight, due to its insanely low dry mass (which would require meme materials that we don't have btw).
Skylon on paper has a 20 ton payload and can only get to LEO, so basically Shuttle but more delicate.
Also, Skylon is not an air launch rocket, it's a fucking SSTO, and it does not have the performance margins to fly around weather systems before adopting an accelerate-to-orbit profile.
Skylon does not exist. Skylon's engines do not exist. Only the precooler for Skylon's engines has been developed so far.

[Anonymous No.12566179]

>>12566088
>>12566082
>"medium-performing version of a high-performance architecture"
not sure if I get the logic they use. It sounds like they were thinking that if they took a good cycle and half-assed it they'd still have something nice because the cycle is so good and can pick up the slack. ...But it doesn't work like that? ORSC turbopump is going to be a nightmare independent of your performance goals or chamber pressure.

[Anonymous No.12566180]

>>12566150
>hydromeme

[Anonymous No.12566185]

>>12566179
>It sounds like they were thinking that if they took a good cycle and half-assed it they'd still have something nice because the cycle is so good and can pick up the slack. ...But it doesn't work like that?
That is literally their logic. Sounds like pure copium to me.
If it was about extending engine lifetime or whatever they could just use a methalox gas generator and get a nice cheap engine with a high TWR, it could even outperform Merlin in terms of reuse economics because of zero coking from the methane rich gas generator.
However, even if my analysis is wrong, there is still NO good reason to pick ORSC instead of FRSC for methalox propellant.

[Anonymous No.12566190]

>>12564697
Beautiful

[Anonymous No.12566195]

>>12566114
This doesn't make any sense. A high quality, fully R&D'd aerospike wouldn't be any inherently cheaper to manufacture than a similar belled engine (and would possibly cost more due to needing potentially dozens of combustion chambers). It also wouldn't be any more inherently reliable or reusable.

Falcon 9 and Starship make sense due to the economics of reuse, an aerospike only provides benefits on an SSTO which are pointless on Earth. Maybe once we're launching rockets from Titan aerospikes will become worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.12566217]

>>12566195
Agreed.

[Anonymous No.12566227]

Rate my idea
>third BE-4 on Vulcan
>stretch the first stage
>bring back SMART and ACES
>triple core as needed
>eliminate SRBs
It wouldn't be competitive with Starship but would BTFO every heavy-lifter currently flying

[Anonymous No.12566235]

>>12566185
I'd assume that they couldn't get the performance ula needed with a simpler design.

[Anonymous No.12566242]

>>12566227
>nothing practically reusable at all
>engines still expensive as shit

Hehehehe

[Anonymous No.12566251]

>>12566227
For the R&D investment halfassed SMART reuse would require you could slap some gridfins on it and do a simple RTLS profile. Problem is either one takes time and they're already behind.

[Anonymous No.12566279]

Dubs and New Glenn comes out tomorrow

[Anonymous No.12566284]

>>12566279
New Glenn will fly in 2023

[Anonymous No.12566296]

ah, so that's why ULA chose BO. With SpaceX putting on pricing pressure they simply could not choose the more expensive option.

[Anonymous No.12566304]

>>12566296
>AR1 was also oxidizer rich

Hehehehe
>pricing of the engines fixed before they are even designed

Hohohoho

[Anonymous No.12566303]

>>12566227
holy fuck that's a huge fairing

[Anonymous No.12566318]

>>12566304
>So how much is this engine going to cost us to buy off you?
>100 million? That's much too low, 150 million is a fair price to pay for this 200 million dollar engine.

[Anonymous No.12566321]

oh cool. So spacex will be able to replace momentus' thing (fuck you FAA) with some of their own starlinks

[Anonymous No.12566336]

>>12566304
You can't really make a fuel rich kerosene engine because of the coking problems.

[Anonymous No.12566341]

>>12566135
They should be good in very dense atmospheres, where external pressure focuses thrust downwards. Like Venus.
In these scenarios you save the weight of a metal nozzle.

[Anonymous No.12566345]

>>12565782
What's wrong, anon, you wished for male-only gay sex in space?

[Anonymous No.12566351]

>>12566321
What happened to Momentus?

>>12566296
What the fuck how much did AR1 cost? How much did BE4 cost?

[Anonymous No.12566357]

>>12566341
>Venus

Must be a pretty cool rocket you have that can work in 80 atmospheres ambient pressure.

[Anonymous No.12566379]

>>12566042
>how close do you think they are to that 1 Raptor/day metric? It's been just over a year since that tweet
Given how many they're willing to blowup in order to not make a mini starship, i'd guess close

[Anonymous No.12566403]

>>12566357
Most propellant tanks are pressurized in 1-20 bar range, so they should be redesigned to withstand greater external pressure.
Pressurizer tanks already work at 140 bar, so they should be fine.
Chamber pressures are in the range of 7 to 250 bar, so you would want one in the higher side.
The rocket body should be way more rigid.

TL;DR: moar weight.

Or just use buoyancy to get past the denser layers.

[Anonymous No.12566405]

>>12565366
Gentle reminder that the probe will always fly right to left because the plasma magnet will self-orient away from the sun.

[Anonymous No.12566410]

>>12565431
It was a literal 1950s design. It was great for the time.

[Anonymous No.12566424]

>>12566150
>hydrogen SSTO
>minimal refurbishment
"lol"

[Anonymous No.12566427]

>>12566318
You want my engines? That’ll be 1 billion dollars plus tip
And the engines themselves are extra, but don’t worry I give discount to my friends
(You are not a friend)

[Anonymous No.12566431]

>>12566403
shouldn't increasing ambtank pressure increase the maximum possible chamber pressure and such
you'd need to reengineer your engine to account for that, but...
>>12566410
yeah, no doubt

[Anonymous No.12566432]

>>12566351
momentus went bankrupt sadly

[Anonymous No.12566447]

>>12566432
lol no they didn't

>>12566351
FAA wanted "more time to review :^)"

[Anonymous No.12566450]

>>12566447
yes they did

[Anonymous No.12566455]

>>12566351
>What happened to Momentus?
FAA is cock-blocking their upcoming launch. They were supposed to launch with the upcoming rideshare F9 launch, but had to withdrawal. This also kinda fucked over SpaceX who had to scramble to find a way to fill the empty volume.

>>12566351
AR engines are just stupid expensive

[Anonymous No.12566460]

>>12566450
source?

[Anonymous No.12566462]

>>12566455
SSME’s costed $50 million in 2005 wtf happened?

[Anonymous No.12566464]

>>12566432
>>12566450
They're not "bankrupt". They just have issues with where the funding is coming from, namely a Russian.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/momentus-ipo-is-complicated-by-russian-ceo-barred-from-its-tech/ar-BB1aInRm

[Anonymous No.12566466]

What would you put on Mars once the Boring Company starts constructing an underground facility?

Also I'd like some anti-Urf propaganda images pls, I've got something being made and they would accent my project well. .

[Anonymous No.12566492]

>>12566462
Aerojew Shekeldyne

[Anonymous No.12566496]

>>12566466
>Also I'd like some anti-Urf propaganda images pls
Just ask /pol/ for China hate images or western degeneracy images. You'll get plenty of "this is the enemy" fodder.

[Anonymous No.12566506]

>>12566466

[Anonymous No.12566509]

>>12566466
Giant statue of Elon Musk shitting on Shelby

[Anonymous No.12566517]

>>12566450
>>12566460
still waiting for source

[Anonymous No.12566522]

>>12565408q
General spaceflight question for space men: how much does weather actually matter? Is it just over caution due to payload cost, or does wind and stuff have a real chance of tearing up rockets?

[Anonymous No.12566527]

>>12566522
depends on the rocket, longer and skinnier rockets are more vulnerable to wind sheer. Soyuz launches in any weather it damn well pleases, because it's built like a T-34. Falcon is a weather queen that only launches in a sunny dead calm.

[Anonymous No.12566528]

>>12566522
Depends on the rocket. Falcon 9 for example is very long and thin so high winds can fuck it up, whereas the Chad squatting slav Soyuz can launch in a blizzard because it's relatively short.

[Anonymous No.12566541]

>>12566357
By the time you're dealing with that level of pressure just use a balloon.

[Anonymous No.12566551]

>>12566528
Soyuz aborts due to weather a lot when the Euros launch of out of French Guiana

[Anonymous No.12566558]

>>12566551
that's because euros are cowards

ROCKET IS FINE COMRADE, PRESSING OF RED BUTTON WHENEVER PAYLOAD IS READY

[Anonymous No.12566563]

>>12566528
No Falcon 9 has ever failed due to high winds

[Anonymous No.12566573]

>>12566558
I'm now imagining a bunch of drunk slavs in sunglasses and Hawaiian shirts holding tropical drinks heckling ESA as they watch the launch attempt.

[Anonymous No.12566574]

>In less than a month Falcon 9 will have flown more times than the Ariane 5
>Ariane 5 has 109 flights, Falcon 9 has 104 (not including Amos 6).
>Ariane 5 first flew in 2005, Falcon 9 in 2010
Crazy.

[Anonymous No.12566579]

>>12566466
A baobab tree sapling in the atrium

[Anonymous No.12566583]

>>12566563
because no Falcon 9 has ever flown in high winds

[Anonymous No.12566600]

>>12566574
Ariane 5 has actually been flying since the mid 90s

[Anonymous No.12566605]

>>12566558
>>12566528
https://youtu.be/DKx87zc5lsg

kino

[Anonymous No.12566610]

>>12566600
That’s even worse. How the fuck?

[Anonymous No.12566611]

Reflecting upon a discussion in the last thread, I simply cannot imagine Starship offering anything other than airplane style seating for liftoff.
Either chairs in rows, or individual chair sections in living quarters for colony ships.
People, specifically Spacex's presumably high class clientele will want to take flights wearing suits as you would when flying first class. There has to be the option of dignity if it's going to be mainstream

[Anonymous No.12566631]

>>12566574
>>12566600
>4.5 launches per year
versus
>10.7 launches per year
reminder that the ariane was considered one of the most successful commercial launchers behind the soyuz.

[Anonymous No.12566638]

>>12566610
Space Is Hard (tm)

[Anonymous No.12566639]

>>12566574
These quotes are fake. Also you forgot to mention how bad our teeth and food are, etc

[Anonymous No.12566647]

>>12566462
NASA gave aeroheeb judeadyne a call and told them they wanted more engines, with a cost-plus contract. So aerojet pumped the cost up 4-fold and told them they needed more money to retrain people

[Anonymous No.12566649]

>>12566610

[Anonymous No.12566661]

>>12566574
Don't know why but I'm fucking losing it at the swamp nonsense

[Anonymous No.12566683]

post certified spaceguns

[Anonymous No.12566686]

>>12566683

[Anonymous No.12566687]

>>12566611
>Spacex's presumably high class clientele will want to take flights wearing suits as you would when flying first class.
The first clientelle flown by SpaceX (besides acting as a bus route to the ISS) will be whichever over-intelligent nutcases would want to get a one-way ticket to Mars to establish a colony, where they'll spend the rest of their lives living in a hole in the ground while drinking recycled piss and eating food grown from their own shit. Not exactly the business-class suit-wearing crowd you envision.

[Anonymous No.12566688]

>>12566683
What about those harpoons that one asteroid lander used

[Anonymous No.12566690]

>>12566683

[Anonymous No.12566692]

Look up in the sky, son. All that you see shall be yours one day.

[Anonymous No.12566694]

>>12566687
This. People who say “DUDE ONLY RICH PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MARS” don’t realize that it won’t be like Elysium or some shit lmao. I’d love to go though, to Mars

[Anonymous No.12566696]

>>12566687
Do you envision a future where Earth-to-Earth transport has replaced the concorde?

[Anonymous No.12566699]

If Centaur’s walls are really that thin, could you punch into them?

[Anonymous No.12566700]

>>12566694
you completely misinterpreted the post anon was replying to aka mine.
I'm saying launch/flight conditions would have to resemble something normal (such as airplane seating) in order for it to be palatable to normal folk. Additionally I'd imagine businessmen flying around the world would prefer not to be strapped to a bed on the way up and down

[Anonymous No.12566704]

>>12566611
Why?

The first colonists on Mars are going to have to be tough as nails. Life will be hard and will probably require you to work 12hr+ days 7 days a week.

[Anonymous No.12566708]

>>12566696
what do you mean replaced the concorde? concorde doesn't fly

[Anonymous No.12566709]

>>12566704
>>12566696

[Anonymous No.12566715]

>>12566708
Replacing it as in, becoming the newest fastest way for business normies to get from point A to point B on earth.

[Anonymous No.12566716]

>>12566696
Doubtful. Teleconferencing is becoming more popular and has proven to be reliable, and the restrictions on international travel over the last year due to wu flu have probably convinced a lot of large corporations that despite the snivelling excuses of their executives, most of their expensive business travel isn't actually necessary and is better served by video calls.

At the end of the day, changes in opinions and requirements come around because of business bottom-lines. Corporate shareholders will probably be happy to get a slightly larger dividend because Vice President Bateman didn't fly in the company learjet 5 times this year with another dozen or so transatlantic business class trips.

[Anonymous No.12566717]

>>12566687
Also indentured servitude for Martian bus fare which has all the NPCs riled up. Sounds pretty based to me. You end up with colonies full of the people who actually want to be there and are willing to put in the work.

[Anonymous No.12566719]

>>12566709
Well that's obvious the earth 2 earth transports will probably just need G chairs/suits.

Your in flight for like 40 minutes so v0v

[Anonymous No.12566725]

>>12566716
You don't think there could be any market for it whatsoever? Is it not what Richard Branson types would be doing had they not tried their own space ventures?

[Anonymous No.12566728]

>>12566717
Based I'd sign up. Wouldn't give a fuck if all I could do was be a Mars janitor. Would still be the greatest journey ever.

A life that means something instead of just consooming.

[Anonymous No.12566730]

>>12566235
That sounds fair but consider that Vulcan already uses two first stage engines, and booster performance is not heavily reliant on Isp, so as long as the GG engines had decent TWR and the required thrust (either do two 2kN engines or four 1kN engines or whatever) the booster could easily get the same performance, and at worst they'd need to stretch the tanks a bit.
Again though, there's literally no performance gain from using ORSC vs FRSC, while using ORSC is significantly more difficult and expensive to develop. Just seems really dumb.

[Anonymous No.12566731]

>>12566719
True

[Anonymous No.12566736]

>>12566696
No. Earth to Earth is a meme outside of incredibly niche things.

[Anonymous No.12566738]

>>12566730
I’m curious as to why no one else is pursuing Stainless steel for their first stage tanks.

[Anonymous No.12566740]

>>12566728
Someone's gotta push that broom up there.
Unless it's Zeus.

[Anonymous No.12566742]

>>12566725
The only way I'd see there being a market for it is if the cost managed to get low enough to be competitive with economy-class flights (e.g. a transatlantic NY to London flight costing US$500 and taking 6 hours, or going via Starship for $900 and being done in 40 minutes). I could see the average person being happy to pay that sort of premium if it means not spending hours stuck sat in a cramped cattle-class seat.

I don't see that happening though, both for reasons of realistic practicality and also my own cynicism regarding the economic trajectory the world seems to be on.

[Anonymous No.12566746]

>>12566296
>methane
>risky
Jesus christ, how did we get to a point where picking a less complex propellant that is as cryogenic as the oxidizer we've been using for over 70 years and doesn't have any toxicity or reactivity problems become a risk?

[Anonymous No.12566755]

>>12566738
Find the delta between F9 proving its commercial viability and other rocket makers drawing up copies of it, wait for Starship to hit the same milestone and apply the same delta on top. That's when everyone else starts proposing stainless steel rockets.

[Anonymous No.12566760]

Overall I'm trying to get a sense of what the average person's experience may be with starship, or something similar in the long future.

Will everybody need go through crash course flight training? Will it ever be as pedestrian as stepping onto an airplane?

>>12566742
Good points anon.

[Anonymous No.12566761]

>>12566692
dam he has his face xo

kina glad for elon, he really seems happy

[Anonymous No.12566762]

>>12564921
Probably tuesday - friday

[Anonymous No.12566763]

>>12566341
>They should be good in very dense atmospheres, where external pressure focuses thrust downwards.
That's not really how aerospikes work. They still lose efficiency as atmosphere density increases you know, and in fact at any given point they are always less efficient than a bell nozzle tuned for that ambient pressure. The only advantage of an aerospike is that ideally they stick to about 95% the efficiency of a given tuned bell nozzle no matter what the ambient pressure is; if the pressure is high enough that a bell nozzle could only get 50 Isp, the aerospike will get 47.5 Isp, as an illustrative example.
You also NEVER save mass compared to a bell nozzle, because as pressure increases the size of the bell section of the conventional nozzle shrinks very fast. The aerospike comes with a lot of inherent mass increases for the same thrust, mostly because the combustion chamber is much larger (the combustion chamber requires the thickest walls and is thus the heaviest bit of the nozzle), and the ramp or spike of the aerospike is in compression, not tension, which means it is much heavier to withstand the same force. In fact the point at which the mass of an aerospike rocket with X thrust converges with the mass of a conventional bell nozzle rocket with X thrust is in vacuum, because that's where the bell has the most mass. You'd need to go to a ridiculous expansion ratio to actually get the same engine mass though, like 500:1.

[Anonymous No.12566767]

>>12566708
>the concorde

[Anonymous No.12566772]

>>12566761
Make kids or you’re a failure

[Anonymous No.12566773]

>>12566403
>Most propellant tanks are pressurized in 1-20 bar range, so they should be redesigned to withstand greater external pressure.
Hey dummy, the tanks withstand a delta P of one to twenty bar, not an absolute pressure. At ground level on Venus you'd just have 90 bar outside and 91 to 110 bar inside, to use your numbers, and get the exact same delta P.

[Anonymous No.12566775]

>>12566455
>AR engines are just stupid expensive
Those are lockmart engines now actually :^)

[Anonymous No.12566778]

>>12566462
I want to reconvert this bitch into a tradwife with my cock

[Anonymous No.12566779]

>>12566778
She looks hot tho
I love pit hair

[Anonymous No.12566780]

>>12566772
How about if I live longer than my genes would?

[Anonymous No.12566782]

>>12566699
maybe

[Anonymous No.12566783]

>>12566772
Not if I make a really big triangle out of rocks
y'all remember that motherfucker

[Anonymous No.12566784]

>>12566466
>lewding kerbals
Little space activity is making /sfg/ weird

[Anonymous No.12566791]

>>12566687
Every glass of water you have ever drank contained water that was piss in the past, and not just a few times but piss from a billion humans and a quadrillion other individual organisms. Earth's water is an ocean of recycled piss.

[Anonymous No.12566794]

>>12566717
Indentured servitude tickets are a great idea because you are massively expanding the base of potential colonist recruitment. There will be a lot of people with good skillsets and mental fortitude but not the cash or assets to afford a ticket. Finding suitable colonists is going to be a very hard job and I'm really not sure what they are going to do about women because there will be approximately zero signing up. It's also based because it makes commies and redditors seethe.

>NOOOOOOO YOU CANT ENGAGE IN A VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION THATS LITERALLY SLAVERY

[Anonymous No.12566795]

>>12566746
in oldspace speak "risky" means "new", not "logically prone to trouble"

[Anonymous No.12566797]

>>12566791
virgin water from asteroids when? I don't wanna drink piss-water like you plebs

[Anonymous No.12566798]

>>12566687
>where they'll spend the rest of their lives living in a hole in the ground while drinking recycled piss and eating food grown from their own shit.

vs

>Spending another second on this cursed shithole of a planet

Sign me up

[Anonymous No.12566802]

>>12566791
>Every atom in your body found its start in the middle of a star, which in turn found its way into the bladder of a dinosaur. We are all made of pissy star stuff. It's beautiful.

[Anonymous No.12566803]

>>12566699
Can you put your fist through half a millimeter of steel paneling? No.

[Anonymous No.12566805]

>>12566803
Yo might not be able to, weak as you are. Me on the other hand.

Nothin personnel, kid.

[Anonymous No.12566806]

>>12566803
>Can you put your fist through half a millimeter of steel paneling?

Yeah

[Anonymous No.12566809]

>>12566803
Yes

[Anonymous No.12566810]

>>12566738
>muh grams

[Anonymous No.12566811]

>>12566763
>The only advantage of an aerospike is that ideally they stick to about 95% the efficiency of a given tuned bell nozzle no matter what the ambient pressure is
Sounds like a good tradeoff for not having different bell nozzles for every single pressure. Build once, fly everywhere.

[Anonymous No.12566812]

>>12566803
What are you, some kinda nancy?

[Anonymous No.12566813]

>>12566803
>half a millimeter
Isn't that like aluminum foil tier?

[Anonymous No.12566814]

>>12566795
I know, but it wasn't always that way. See the Mercury thru Skylab era.

[Anonymous No.12566818]

>>12566692
Do you think he'll be a total fucking loser?

[Anonymous No.12566820]

>>12566811
With aerospikes you are always miss out on Isp and you are stuck with more dry mass. Also, aerospikes are much more complex, Also, aerospikes don't work well in the velocity regime between subsonic and hypersonic, which means they lose thrust during the most critical phase of a launch.

[Anonymous No.12566824]

>>12566813
Aluminum foil is typically 0.016 mm thick. 0.5 mm is equivalent of a bit over 31 sheets of foil. Go try to punch through 31 sheets of aluminum at once, and realize that the stack is significantly weaker than a single sheet of 0.5 mm aluminum, and also realize that a 0.5 mm sheet of aluminum is far weaker than a 0.5 mm thick sheet of steel. You can't punch through that.

[Anonymous No.12566826]

>>12566811
Which sounds great if you live on the trappist system and there are a half dozen rocky planets with various sizes and atmospheres. Here in sol world what do you have? Earth, Venus, and Titan, pretty much everywhere else is either suitable for vacuum bells or has no significant surface. Venus really only sort of has a significant surface, it would be a hilarious boondoggle and anyone going there would use balloons anyway. Earth sucks for SSTO. So unless Titan is in your plans, there's not much need for aerospikes.

[Anonymous No.12566828]

>>12566826
Starship could probably lift off on Titan by wiggling the flaps fast enough.

[Anonymous No.12566834]

>>12566828
Fair. You could probably also make a giant flying tiltrotor aircraft carrier/launch platform on Titan and keep it perpetually powered from a reactor.

[Anonymous No.12566837]

Attention you stupid motherfuckers: I just wanted to express my gratitude toward /sfg/ as a whole. I check in almost every fucking day to this general, and even on its shittiest days it brings me lots of joy.

[Anonymous No.12566841]

>>12566715
>fastest way for business normies to get from point A to point B on earth
Can't they just use a videocall?
There is no need of physically putting your ass on the other side of the planet for doing business.

[Anonymous No.12566843]

>>12566837
get out and make your own spacesuit
Do it, space nigger

[Anonymous No.12566844]

>>12566828
On Titan it actually makes sense in a lot of scenarios to use electric systems for powered flight, however for an SSTO you'd probably want a turboramjet engine (with both fuel and oxygen supplied from the vehicle, air acting as the reaction mass)to get high and fast, maybe even onto a suborbital trajectory that leaves the atmosphere, then use your rocket propulsion system just for circularizing.

[Anonymous No.12566847]

>>12566843
Roger, captain

[Anonymous No.12566856]

[Anonymous No.12566859]

>>12566856
>SN10 just about to be done.
>SN11 already almost all put together.

[Anonymous No.12566860]

>>12566803
Yes

[Anonymous No.12566861]

>>12566856
Is there one for SLS?

[Anonymous No.12566864]

>>12566856
Looks like they skipping 13/14, maybe thats planned for another test.

[Anonymous No.12566865]

>>12566861
yes but it hasn't changed in years so nobody bothers

[Anonymous No.12566872]

>44 MPH wind in boca

[Anonymous No.12566873]

>>12565600
No, it's FH, 27 Merlin 1Ds > 7 BE-4s

[Anonymous No.12566874]

>>12566864
Isn't 15 meant to have some significant changes? Makes sense they'd skip 13 and 14 as a result, but build the others as expendable prototypes for fucking around with.

[Anonymous No.12566878]

>>12566639
worse than the irish somehow

[Anonymous No.12566881]

>>12566818
Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger’s kids. The only one that did anything was hold half Mexican bastard

[Anonymous No.12566883]

[Anonymous No.12566884]

>>12566872
Yeah it was snowing a lot today in cities north of Boca. Texas gets weird weather in winter

[Anonymous No.12566885]

>>12566856
What did they mean by this?

[Anonymous No.12566886]

>>12566885
They're going to scrap 12 through 14.

[Anonymous No.12566887]

>>12566885
13 and 14 got cancelled when they figured out why 8 blew up
15 is testing out a bunch of changes but they need to pressurize the header with helium

[Anonymous No.12566888]

>>12566886
Holy shit they’re really betting on sticking the landing with the next 3 prototypes.

[Anonymous No.12566889]

>>12566885
Propellant is stored in the ball.

[Anonymous No.12566892]

>>12566864
>>12566885
looks like the lineup is SN9 -> 10 -> 11 -> 15 and they'll be skipping 12 13 and 14

[Anonymous No.12566894]

>>12566889
>TIL rockets have nutbladders that they store their cummies in

[Anonymous No.12566895]

Why don’t spaceships just use helicopter blades to travel between planets?

[Anonymous No.12566906]

>>12566895
Why don't you?

[Anonymous No.12566909]

>>12566883
Sisyphus would be a decent mission name for an asteroid tug mission, not gonna lie

[Anonymous No.12566912]

>>12566895
Helicopters are just wings on a pivot point

[Anonymous No.12566926]

>>12566906
I don’t have a helicopter

[Anonymous No.12566927]

>>12566895
The aether is too thin for that

[Anonymous No.12566928]

>>12566912
Wings work in space. There’s solar wind and gas and stuff

[Anonymous No.12566943]

>>12566927
Just make them really big

[Anonymous No.12566969]

>>12566928
velocity required to achieve significant lift is not attainable unless we have propulsion systems good enough to make that force irrelevant by default anyway.

[Anonymous No.12566975]

>>12566943
>>12566943
They've done studies on it, regardless of size the blades would have to rotate so fast to generate lift in the aether that you'd break the speed of light. It's simply not possible.

[Anonymous No.12566976]

>>12566885
Totally unrelated but this reminded me of one of my classes we got to play around with Lego Mindstorms and build a robot to go through an obstacle course. It kept flipping when climbing stuff so we attached several steel testicles (pic related) to lower the CoG. Thanks for listening to my TED talk.

[Anonymous No.12566979]

>>12566872
it was 50 a few weeks ago

[Anonymous No.12566982]

>>12566889
>tfw your balls have low pressure leading to an anomaly at the critical moment

[Anonymous No.12566989]

>>12566982
>tfw you pressurize your balls with helium
>full complete stream every time but it sounds like someone throttling a balloon animal

[Anonymous No.12566990]

hullo doin a vid on nuclear salt water rockets: https://youtu.be/cvZjhWE-3zM

[Anonymous No.12566995]

>>12566885
Iterative design process. Notice how the different serial numbers have different components missing. This is so they can quickly change different features and still have prototypes ready to test quickly. The more complex the system (thrust structure, control surfaces, etc.) the later in construction it gets added, so that the engineers can take longer to optimize it. This kind of design process is most cost-effective when used VERY early in development, so you can expect Starship to become more uniform as time goes on.

[Anonymous No.12566999]

>>12566995
Got it. What’s stopping them from making a composite Starship out of the parts from SN12-14? Like a weird one off?

[Anonymous No.12567002]

Come on, let's get some stainless steel and build a rocket
We talk about spaceflight all day, now let's do something

[Anonymous No.12567006]

>>12567002
Space is hard. Can't we do it from Mars? Space is easy there.

[Anonymous No.12567010]

>>12567006
No, we do things on hard difficulty here
Then we can lob asteroids at the normalfags and kikes on Earth

[Anonymous No.12567018]

>>12566999
By the time 9-11 are done testing 15-17 will be complete so why would they waste the pad time?

[Anonymous No.12567022]

>>12566990
>salt-water with weapons-grade uranium can enable travel to Alpha Centauri in 120 years
>exhaust products would reach speeds of 0.1% the speed of light
>standard NSW rocket engine produces twice as much energy as Chernobyl every SECOND
>travel to and from Jupiter within months
>25 times more efficient than two F-1 engines at same thrust
the closing of the NERVA project was a bigger crime than Watergate. FUCK Richard Nixon for holding humanity back. I also blame him for allowing China to rise to power.
>>12566999
Checked. They could probably construct two potluck Starships with the components they have now, but it would make it harder to redesign certain things that are currently just placeholders. The landing legs for instance are currently just some crush-cores bolted to the bottom that swing out due to gravity.

[Anonymous No.12567024]

>>12566990
according to him if Starship was a nuclear saltwater rocket its delta V would go from 8-9km/s to 150km/s

[Anonymous No.12567028]

>>12567024
wonder when we're gonna see a prototype of the window

[Anonymous No.12567031]

nswr won't work though unless you have a nozzle that can withstand a continuous fission explosion.

[Anonymous No.12567034]

>>12567031
Hence you might as well go Orion. And fusion while you're at it.

[Anonymous No.12567035]

>>12567002
speaking of amateur shit I found these guys recently: https://www.youtube.com/c/CphSuborbitals/videos

they're making a suborbital rocket out of steel. Can't remember if it's pressure-fed or using an electric turbopump

[Anonymous No.12567037]

>>12567024
>>12567028
thats the 20% enrichment, 90% enrichment allows you to get to a few percent of c

[Anonymous No.12567038]

>>12567022
There’s another NTR design which is even better than the NSWR and doesn’t spew radioactive assholes

[Anonymous No.12567040]

>>12567037
90% enrichment is also called "weapons grade" so the autistic screeching for building the thing would be 500x worse.

[Anonymous No.12567042]

>>12567038
there is no NTR design that allows for 3.5c+ ∆V and continuous 1g of thrust for months/potentially years

[Anonymous No.12567045]

>>12567038
Lithium salt water (Li6-D fusion) doesn't have any radioactive outputs.

[Anonymous No.12567047]

>>12567042
>3.5c
uh

[Anonymous No.12567048]

>>12567038
Was it this one?

[Anonymous No.12567049]

>>12567040
of course, which is why it probably won't get built for a hundred years at least, or until there are largely self sufficient space colonies that don't have to worry about earth based environmentalists

[Anonymous No.12567052]

>>12567047
Sorry, 3.5% of c
>>12567048
NSWR is still a better engine design by a huge margin.

[Anonymous No.12567053]

>>12567048
no it was this one

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#pulsentr

It's not actually better than NSWR but it's a helluva lot easier to build.

[Anonymous No.12567058]

>>12567053
i'm sure BE-4 or merlin is far easier to build then raptor, that doesn't mean starship should replace raptor with BE-4 or merlin or some other worse engine

[Anonymous No.12567069]

>>12566837
even the shittiest posts here somehow manage to surpass whatever the fuck is going on in the rest of social media

[Anonymous No.12567070]

>>12567058
Orion is easier to build than NSWR and has a higher performance ceiling so glass, stones, etc.

[Anonymous No.12567079]

>>12567070
90% enrichment NSWR is pretty much the best engine we could probably do with our current technology.

[Anonymous No.12567084]

>>12567079
Just use a warp drive

[Anonymous No.12567085]

>>12567079
NSWR isn't possible with current technology. Also, again, fusion Orion.

[Anonymous No.12567094]

>>12567085
You haven't proved that.

[Anonymous No.12567097]

>>12567094
>nozzle

[Anonymous No.12567101]

>>12567097
You still haven't proved that
>. Therefore, he argued that if the proper velocity was chosen for the liquid traveling through the reaction chamber, the site of maximum fission release could then be located at the end of the chamber, thus allowing the system to remain intact and safe to operate.

[Anonymous No.12567106]

>>12567097
water deluge

[Anonymous No.12567107]

>>12567085
>fusion Orion
tell me more...

[Anonymous No.12567110]

https://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/space/M2P2/theory.html
We could just build and refine one of these
Much less expensive and less kvetching from not needing HEU with comparable ISP and velocity

[Anonymous No.12567111]

>>12567101
And anon argues that thermodynamics exists, which makes it tricky to hold thermonuclear explosions in things made of atoms. Hence you move the thermonuclear explosion outside of the atoms of the thing you want to not be a fireball.

[Anonymous No.12567112]

What’s the point of going to other stars? Stupid waste of time

[Anonymous No.12567118]

>>12567111
And zubrin argues that the reaction essentially occurs outside the engine bell/nozzle

[Anonymous No.12567128]

>>12567112
i'm dangerously close to agreeing simply from the fact that our solar system can sustain trillions upon trillions of humans, so from an unlimited growth capitalist mindset there's really no incentive to leave for thousands of years.
However I can still understand sending out generation ships to Proxima et al. in 200+ years just because we can.

[Anonymous No.12567130]

>>12567128
When there are trillions of people here the last place anyone sane is going to want to be is here

[Anonymous No.12567133]

>>12567110
still is far worse then NSWR, regardless I don't see anything like the NSWR being built by an earth based government or corporation. the benefit from a space based government or corporation making NSWR is that there is no kvetching, the issue is that there probably won't be any such governments or corporations for a century at the least. but chemical rockets and maybe NTRs are all that will be needed for the next century anyways

[Anonymous No.12567136]

>>12567112
Because it's our God Emperor given right and duty to do so

[Anonymous No.12567143]

>>12567112
What's the point of you? Stupid waste of space.

[Anonymous No.12567145]

>>12567112
You can only expand so far into the Oort Cloud. Eventually metallic asteroids will be hundreds of AU away and your colonies will die without them.

[Anonymous No.12567146]

>>12566683
A hole in the ground with a nuclear bomb at the bottom and a manhole cover at the top.

[Anonymous No.12567147]

>>12567130
there are plenty of spaces to run to if you want to get away from the noise and commotion, and will be for centuries, but I'm sure we'll begin our first interstellar voyages shortly after they become technologically and economically viable

[Anonymous No.12567148]

>>12567112
Same reason you're wasting your time posting on 4chan - because it's there. It's something to do.

[Anonymous No.12567151]

>>12567107
>orion
>h-bomb
That easy.

[Anonymous No.12567157]

>>12567111
apparently it doesn't really "hold" the reaction à la a chemical combustion chamber. And the nozzle more or less has film cooling from a pure water source. Goes without saying that it's still not a trivial thing to do

[Anonymous No.12567176]

>>12567147
Yeah good luck with make believe sci fi tech

[Anonymous No.12567199]

>>12567176
Fusion engines are something we know will work eventually, and they can reach 10% the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.12567209]

>>12567112
Because the stars belong to man.

[Anonymous No.12567217]

so um, what sort of noise level will a crew transiting to mars experience on starship? ISS is loud as fuck even after 15 years of installing dampeners and sound proofing

[Anonymous No.12567228]

>>12567112

[Anonymous No.12567253]

>>12566527
It helps that Soyuz is basically an ICBM at its core.

[Anonymous No.12567254]

Mars colonies will grow to be large, cybernetic arcologies where the artificial and biological ecosystem will become interdependent on eachother to thrive
Reject dichotomy, embrace technorganic

[Anonymous No.12567263]

>>12566696
>>12566736
>Niche things
IRL ODSTs, deployable anywhere on Earth in less than 40 minutes would be one for instance.

[Anonymous No.12567269]

>>12566818
Does not matter, has 6 spare sons. That will create a hell of a Martian Throne succession war though.

[Anonymous No.12567270]

>>12567263
And light up every anti-orbital, anti-air defense in that goddamn nation? That's retarded

[Anonymous No.12567279]

>>12567269
Succession Trial, have them compete in it and only the most competent and intelligent leader can succeed
All those who fail are automatically barred from the throne

[Anonymous No.12567284]

Where my shelbyposters at?

[Anonymous No.12567291]

>>12567133
>talking about some paper nuclear engine that wouldn’t even physically work

[Anonymous No.12567310]

>>12567284
Shelby is gone

[Anonymous No.12567314]

>>12567270
STEALTH STARSHIP

[Anonymous No.12567322]

>>12567058
Actually I think Raptor is easier to build, because they designed it to be so.

[Anonymous No.12567333]

>>12567217
Blissful silence because if it's noisy spacex will just fix the problem immediately. Remember how NASA took literally 40 years to figure out high weight low rep exercises put stress on the skeleton enough to prevent bone degradation, rather than needing to do a billion hours of lightweight cardio every day?

[Anonymous No.12567336]

>>12567333
>Remember how NASA took literally 40 years to figure out high weight low rep exercises put stress on the skeleton enough to prevent bone degradation, rather than needing to do a billion hours of lightweight cardio every day?
For real?

[Anonymous No.12567337]

>>12567284
shelby got ousted bro, dead meme

[Anonymous No.12567339]

>>12567336
For real. In my opinion, this thing alone makes ISS a joke. Fucking eggheads, man. They don't know a thing.

[Anonymous No.12567342]

>>12567339
Is there an official published journal paper that explains it anywhere?

[Anonymous No.12567345]

>>12567342
yeah, years of russian lifting textbooks

[Anonymous No.12567347]

>>12567314
Can someone explain if CQB can indeed happen in space and how space warfare won’t be retarded and boring?

[Anonymous No.12567355]

>>12567347
Boarding action

[Anonymous No.12567359]

[Anonymous No.12567365]

>>12567342
/sfg/ was made aware of it during some fairly recent internet interview with an astronaut, can't remember the source. But yes, the collective response was are you fucking serious you stupid niggers you didn't change your routine for like four fucking decades and used the most nonsensical routine to start with?

[Anonymous No.12567367]

>>12565065
kek

[Anonymous No.12567381]

>>12567310
>>12567337
No he didn't, you tards.

[Anonymous No.12567394]

>>12567342
>>12567365
Joe Rogan podcast with Garret Reisman. I dont care for Rogan but it was a great interview.

[Anonymous No.12567399]

>>12567040
>90% enriched nuclear salt water

[Anonymous No.12567431]

Reminder, Musk is now worth 210 Billion dollars. 185 Billion? That's yesterday's news. LMAO

[Anonymous No.12567435]

>>12567394
I don't think the problem was that they didn't know, I don't think they had a way to safely lift heavy weights on the station.

[Anonymous No.12567449]

>>12567435
>I don't think they had a way to safely lift heavy weights on the station.

What, they didn't have some Velcro to tie their shoes in place?....

[Anonymous No.12567509]

>>12567209
>Because the stars belong to ma'am
Fixed it for you

[Anonymous No.12567511]

>>12567431
Holy shit Elon doesn’t even need the HLS contract. Also who do you think will win?

[Anonymous No.12567525]

>>12567511
>who do you think will win?

Given that SpaceX is the only person in the race..

[Anonymous No.12567532]

>>12567435
Bowflex. Weightlifting is not very straining in micrograv. You need spring tension based apparatus to replace it.

[Anonymous No.12567547]

>>12566990
huh, didn't know Zubrin invented it

[Anonymous No.12567559]

>>12567547
Yeah, we even call it Zubrin's Nuclear Salt Water Rocket every once in a while to be formal about it

[Anonymous No.12567575]

>>12567525
But what about Boing?

[Anonymous No.12567578]

>>12567575

[Anonymous No.12567579]

>>12567575
What ABOUT Boing?

[Anonymous No.12567581]

>>12567575

[Anonymous No.12567591]

>>12567575
>But what about Boing?

[Anonymous No.12567615]

>>12567128
Anon, the point of going to other stars is not to colonize them, but to gather energy and store it in a centralized place to prepare for the heat death of the universe. Funnel the energy into black holes for long term storage.

[Anonymous No.12567633]

>>12566813
It's metal siding tier.

[Anonymous No.12567639]

>>12567615
come on anon you know that's too big brained for the early interstellar period

[Anonymous No.12567700]

>>12567615
Nah. The goal is it to coooooolonize. Most plants pLz

[Anonymous No.12567709]

>>12567145
Why expand into the Oort Cloud? Sounds retarded and depressing. Oooo I'll live on a frozen rock billions of miles from Terra

[Anonymous No.12567714]

>>12567199
>Fusion engines are something we know will work eventually

No they aren't. Net-energy fusion technology could be completely impossible.

[Anonymous No.12567722]

>>12567615
>prepare for some meaningless BS trillions of years away
The bullshit futurists pander is utterly disconnected from how real people think and act

[Anonymous No.12567754]

So, how will Europa clipper be launched?

[Anonymous No.12567770]

>>12567754
falcon heavy with a star 48 kick stage

[Anonymous No.12567801]

>As of late 2015, the SLS program was stated to have a 70% confidence level for the first crewed Orion flight by 2023,[125][126][127] and as of 2020, NASA is continuing to project 2023

[Anonymous No.12567804]

>>12565424
What for? There was no need for it. There are only two reasons to put something into space in the first place: dropping it to a location from orbit or doing recon. Sattelites do the latter better, and there's no point in putting people up there to do recon or be landed.

[Anonymous No.12567860]

Let's build the Ferry Rocket

[Anonymous No.12568035]

>>12567714
I mean, it's not though. Using modern superconductors plugged into old tokamak designs is Q>1 out of the gate. See SPARC. Whether any of the in development commercial reactors can be worked as a profitable unit is yet to be seen, but positive energy gains from a technical standpoint is guaranteed at this point. And this is only the beginning when you consider the world's fusion budget has been pissed away on ITER for what, like 20-30 years? Expect a SpaceX tier explosion once one of the many commercial fusion projects really gets going. Of course powering steam turbines is a totally different prospect from a propulsive engine, but still.

[Anonymous No.12568073]

Dear Elon,
I'm a game dev. and I am making a game about colonizing Mars with you and SpaceX in it. If you think it's cool, all I need is the "Go ahead" to use your name and Logos.

[Anonymous No.12568085]

Actually kill yourself

[Anonymous No.12568088]

>>12568073
Sure anon. You can go ahead and fuck my wife too while you're at it.

~Totally Elon

[Anonymous No.12568211]

Reminder that the first launch of 2021 was based Turkeys missile command satellite that made middle -eastern shills seethe

[Anonymous No.12568486]

Quiet this morning. New thread soon.

[Anonymous No.12568490]

>>12568486
I've already got one brewing, so it's gonna be a luck of the draw on who gets it first

[Anonymous No.12568519]

>>12567542
>>12567542
>>12567542
>>12567542

[Anonymous No.12568562]

>>12568073
I'm 90% certain Elon at least occasionally browses here, so who knows, you might get a reply

[Anonymous No.12568931]

>>12568562
Nah, he spends all his time on twitter.

[Anonymous No.12568981]

>>12567038
>NTR
kek

[Anonymous No.12569156]

10 hours later and next thread's OP is still a faggot