/sfg/ - Space Flight General

[Anonymous No.14681942]

Blur Origin edition

Previous:
>>14677516

Next launch:
July 21 1313 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - Vandenberg SFB, California - Starlink 3-1

[Anonymous No.14681950]

musk is finished

[Anonymous No.14681952]

Earthers don't even deserve to be processed into nutrient sludge

[Anonymous No.14681954]

Lots of venting at the moment

[Anonymous No.14681961]

>>14681954
Preburner test imminent

[Anonymous No.14681964]

Bros I’m sick… WITH URANIUM FEVER

[Anonymous No.14681969]

>>14681961
>>14681954
Ship 24 is venting near the engine area now.

[Anonymous No.14681971]

Why are the French incapable of building a good looking flying machine? Does that Godless nation have no concept of beauty?

[Anonymous No.14681973]

What is Jeff doing right now?

Poring over BE-4 technical specs and test results?
Attending design and planning meetings with New Glenn customers?
Smoothing over problems in the supply chain for production?

[Anonymous No.14681974]

>>14681971
Vega isn't French.

[Anonymous No.14681978]

>>14681973
In his yacht

[Anonymous No.14681980]

10th for orbital colonies

[Anonymous No.14681981]

Engine chill underway on Ship 24

[Anonymous No.14681982]

>>14681974
If were French, I'd blame it on the Italians too.

[Anonymous No.14681985]

>>14681973
Bezos is pushing anti-Musk stories on his media platforms.

[Anonymous No.14681986]

>>14681971
Vega is Italian Homie. Ariane is French. Stil ugly though

>>14681973
No idea. I miss the “it’s time” posts though. We need more Blue cringekino

[Anonymous No.14681987]

>>14681980
damn. Here's another colony.

[Anonymous No.14681989]

>No apollo 11 thread

[Anonymous No.14681991]

>>14681989
Irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.14682001]

>>14681942
> not commemorating Apollo 11
delete the thread and make another you spastic

[Anonymous No.14682007]

The fermi paradox. when enrico fermi discovered there were no aliens, it proved there was a paradox. there were aliens but there are none. or there are none but there are none. this is contradicting, hense, a paradox. perhaps the great filter has stopped it from hapening, or more likely: dyson pheres. when enrico dyson invented postulated dyson spheres, it hides the star, therefore cannot be seen. von neumon says no, think smaller. think micro small. von neuman probes.
what do you think? thanks to the Drake Equation, we already know there are 10000s of intelligent life out there

[Anonymous No.14682016]

>>14682007
>we already know
proof

[Anonymous No.14682017]

>>14681991
It's the 53rd anniversary.

[Anonymous No.14682021]

>>14682016
Drake equation. look up

[Anonymous No.14682022]

>>14681989
This was my last wallpaper. This for me is the best Apollo photo. If you look carefully , you can see the Lunar Module very far back

The only way to return was going back to the red line , and if the Rover failed , they would die because the ship was like 4km away , they wouldn't have enough time to walk

[Anonymous No.14682045]

>>14681954


>/sfg/ jizzes themselves looking back at the architecture from the cancelled Constellation program
>/sfg/ also hates the SLS with visceral prejudice even though its the exact same as the Ares V

Explain yourself.

[Anonymous No.14682051]

FUCK IT JUTS RUD'ED

[Anonymous No.14682055]

>>14682022
Just sprint lmao

[Anonymous No.14682058]

>>14682045
>/sfg/ is one person
Fuck off back to /v/.

[Anonymous No.14682062]

>>14682017
I love this picture. Let's me forget about how pathetic this comparison would be for every other launch system after Saturn V

[Anonymous No.14682065]

sfg
>>14682058
retard nigger

[Anonymous No.14682066]

>>14682051
Rude

[Anonymous No.14682070]

>>14682045
Constellation has the benefit of not actually delivering any real hardware other than Ares IX, so it’s delays and overruns and disappointment are not as well known.
It is telling though that the Constellation lander, Altair, would have cost $15 billion to build. Even Blue/Lockheed/Grumman’s three stage ladder monstrosity was “only” $10 billion.
And pic related was before constellation. I will gladly shill Shuttle-C as long as the engines are recovered in a re entry pod

[Anonymous No.14682072]

https://youtu.be/1fkXLP9MgdU
GET IN HERE
L2 DISCOUNT THIS WEEKEND

[Anonymous No.14682074]

Saturn-Shuttle…home….
Ok but seriously holy fuck this seems like overkill. I know the shuttle was expensive but imagine throwing away a Saturn V first stage in every flight

[Anonymous No.14682076]

>>14682072
it's over

[Anonymous No.14682079]

>spin prime test #2
such a joke

[Anonymous No.14682080]

>>14681969
That pic is gay dude.
Stacked rockets are homosexual, please don't do this.

[Anonymous No.14682085]

>>14682080
Hnnngggggf

[Anonymous No.14682088]

How hard would it be to reconfigure the current SLS design to use RS-68's?

I'm asking this because I'm hoping it would be cheaper for the program when they finally run out of leftover SSME's which are insanely expensive to build.

[Anonymous No.14682094]

Manned mission to X will never require just a ship that can land on X and take off from X. Starship will never land on Mars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oeqJ5-oYQI

[Anonymous No.14682099]

>>14682072
I can't handle the gay 3rd worlder talking

[Anonymous No.14682100]

>>14682088
They'd need to spend a (small?) mountain of cash to develop the RS-68B, since there were apparently some cooling concerns with the nozzle.

But they're not going to run out of RS-25s. They already spent a lot of money to restart the RS-25 production line and design the RS-25E, which are superior because they cost functionally the same price.

[Anonymous No.14682103]

>>14682074

[Anonymous No.14682105]

>>14682088
Several hundred changes to the engines to make them human rated. It's never fucking happening.

[Anonymous No.14682107]

>>14682088
Impossible, or at least very expensive. RS-68 uses an ablative nozzle, so the SRBs would melt them. This was an issue with Ares V, which used six RS-68s.
NASA concluded that they could convert the RS-68 to a regenerative nozzle, but this was too expensive and they realized the SSME was just better. Of course, the SSME is 7X the cost of the RS-68 but still
Do note that in the past, there were plans to use SSMEs on proto-SLS vehicles, but to have them be recovered like SMART reuse. Why NASA didn’t do this for SLS is beyond me

An alternative idea is to use a single-core vehicle 10 meters wide without boosters and just RS-68s. This is a neat idea

[Anonymous No.14682109]

>>14681986
fuck you the A5 is pretty

[Anonymous No.14682115]

>>14682109
>bog
this is a science board

[Anonymous No.14682116]

Spin prime test at 1:20 CDT already happened. Looks like we might get a preburner or static fire today too

[Anonymous No.14682117]

This was the way .

>Buran reusable
>Side boosters reusable
>Core made so cheaply that you can throw it . Engines reused with a S.M.A.R.T - like system

[Anonymous No.14682119]

>>14681987
Only angels are meant to live in space. You will be thrown out.

[Anonymous No.14682121]

>>14682117
Agreed. Or maybe make Energia II.
>Tfw no mid-80’s space race vol.2

[Anonymous No.14682122]

>>14682107
Thing is, nobody is ever packing people on a rocket powered by engines that immolate half the fucking core stage on engine startup.

[Anonymous No.14682129]

Can NASA optimize RS-25?

[Anonymous No.14682134]

>>14682129
Towards the end of the shuttle program, the RS-25s got to the point where some weren’t even test fired between flights. They got pretty good at reuse. It’s a damn shame they’re being thrown away now

[Anonymous No.14682136]

>>14682129
RS-68 is the "optimized" RS-25.

[Anonymous No.14682138]

>>14682122
The fire isn’t a big deal. People exaggerate it.

[Anonymous No.14682140]

>>14682138
>"The o-rings are not a big deal. People exaggerate it"

[Anonymous No.14682150]

>spacex has 1 month to get starship into orbit
can they do it?

[Anonymous No.14682152]

So Starship launch order is:
>Ambient
>Cryo
>Wet Dress
>Spin Prime
>Preburner
>Static Fire

[Anonymous No.14682154]

>>14682136
>>14682121
Hold up, so they cancelled Constellation, which used cheaper RS-68, because it was 'too expensive' and went with SLS, which uses awfully expensive RS-25?

[Anonymous No.14682156]

>>14682150
Regulatory stuff aside, maybe. Depends on how Booster 7 testing goes. Once S24 static fires she’s ready

[Anonymous No.14682157]

>>14682140
>I've just dropped the oxygen tank a few inches , people exaggerate it

[Anonymous No.14682158]

>>14682150
Given zero bureaucracy? Probably.
In reality, never fucking ever.

>>14682154
Constellation was killed because it was "too expensive and had little to nothing to show for the already spent money". So they modified the drawings for the rocket a little bit, with more emphasis on "HERITAGE FLIGHT HARDWARE ALREADY HUMAN RATED IT'LL BE CHEAP TRUST ME BRO!" and came up with Artemis.

[Anonymous No.14682167]

>>14682109

[Anonymous No.14682170]

they're going to do a static fire i can feel it

[Anonymous No.14682171]

https://youtu.be/yUbnlSV4euQ
Rocket Factory Augsburg seems like a dark horse in the micro launch race. Opinions on them?

[Anonymous No.14682172]

>>14682158
>>14682154
Constellation was going to be a worse shitshow that SLS. At least SLS uses the same tooling (kind of) as the shuttle. Constellation used a brand new diameter tank.

[Anonymous No.14682175]

>>14682150
SLS will not launch on August 28th. At T-2:41 , some out of bounds sensor will trigger . They will need to get back to the VAB so next possible windows would be October 23rd

[Anonymous No.14682179]

>>14682172
Using the same tooling is not a plus considering how anemic the rocket turned out to be.

[Anonymous No.14682197]

Doesn’t SLS only have six days to launch once it’s at the pad? Because of the FTS issues?

[Anonymous No.14682207]

>>14682197
20 days, but yeah. The FTS is powered by its own independent batteries and once those run dry they need to roll it back to the VAB to pull and reinstal the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.14682222]

>>14682207
Typical Nasa :

>We need power for the FTS
>Got it ! lets put the system on separate batteries and if they run out , we would need to move the whole rocket to the VAB to change them
>...b-b-but what if we use the already installed core batteries to power the F....
>SHUT UP , EFFICIENCY IS NOT WELCOME HERE

[Anonymous No.14682231]

>>14682222
I can understand the FTS needing to independent from the rocket. I cannot understand not having a means to plug the FTS into the pad and run it off an outlet until ~24 hrs before launch. Makes no damn sense at all.

[Anonymous No.14682234]

https://www.amiexploration.com/_files/ugd/b4b6cb_0e96270b6f1f4828ba51284ca4e15860.pdf

Gypsybros...
Are we retarded?

[Anonymous No.14682247]

>>14682234
How on earth he sees this design and thinks : "yes this is fine, go ahead "

Its so stupid

[Anonymous No.14682252]

>>14682234
This is not retarded. There is not a word in any language to properly describe what this is.

Also, the development of this is supposed to be funded via NFTs.

There are no words

[Anonymous No.14682253]

>>14682234
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElogqKc7AIk

[Anonymous No.14682254]

>>14682234
I dub the first one the Itano Circus

[Anonymous No.14682257]

>>14682234
>Gypsy water boiler OTRAG
Yes, you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.14682265]

>>14682234
This can't be real. FUCKING LMAO

[Anonymous No.14682270]

>>14682265
It's ARCA. Of course it can be "real".
Just throw your money at the kind gypsy scammer.

[Anonymous No.14682271]

Eric Berger : ARCA Space is touting a "heavy" version of its EcoRocket that will launch asteroid mining vehicles. And it is financing the venture with the sale of Crypto tokens. This is possibly the dumbest space thing I've ever seen, and that's saying something.

>Launch asteroid mining vehicles

Is he dumb ?

[Anonymous No.14682273]

Umm, SpaceX bros??

[Anonymous No.14682275]

2nd spin prime conducted 6 minutes ago wow

[Anonymous No.14682276]

>>14682234
This is the endgame of rocket designs.

[Anonymous No.14682277]

>>14682271
I mean the ARCA guy , not Eric

[Anonymous No.14682284]

>>14681980
>This Kind Of Smart, Walkable, Mixed-use Urbanism Is Illegal To Build In Most American Cities

[Anonymous No.14682290]

>>14682234

[Anonymous No.14682293]

>>14682007
You should ask this to the rest of /sci/, /sfg/ considers this off-topic

[Anonymous No.14682294]

>>14682273
I've got a couple of holes in my back yard that needs to be filled with cash money if you're interested in investing.

[Anonymous No.14682298]

>>14682290
this is fine, it's not wider than it's tall unlike that thing

[Anonymous No.14682299]

>[ANGRY VENTING NOISES]

[Anonymous No.14682300]

>>14682276
...In that it will end rockets. People will turn away from space launch endeavors in horror and disgust, unable to rid their minds of the nightmares they have seen.

[Anonymous No.14682303]

>>14682284
the walkable city meme needs to die
upper-middle-class, new yorker reading urbanites paying 60% of their income as rent in gentrified neighborhoods who have been to Europe once and are suddenly experts on urban planning need to shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.14682307]

it's done for

[Anonymous No.14682309]

>>14682300
>Let's use OTRAG's dumb idea!
>Brilliant, only we'll do it with leftover electric water boilers!
>Also let's market it for asteroid mining of precious metals and throw in a scam crypto coin
>Popescu, you are a genius!
You know what they say about a fool and his money.

[Anonymous No.14682310]

Ngl, looks kind of cool in an unconventional sort of way

[Anonymous No.14682317]

>>14682234
I think I made this in KSP once

[Anonymous No.14682320]

>>14682310
is this a joke? KSP asparagus staging doesn't work in real life holy shit

[Anonymous No.14682325]

>>14682310
Starship looked unconventional and cool in a way , but this is grotesque , ilogical , kerbal-ish

[Anonymous No.14682327]

>>14682234
holy based

arcabros.. we won

[Anonymous No.14682328]

>>14682317
Not with water boilers, also KSP doesn't give a fuck about fluid mechanics.

>>14682320
Those are individual water boiler "rockets". OTRAG style. Asparagus doesn't enter into it.

[Anonymous No.14682329]

>>14682309
>You know what they say about a fool and his money
Both get stolen by gypsies and are never seen again

>>14682310
Well, at least it's a reusable nightmare. That's better than old space in a way.

[Anonymous No.14682330]

>>14682007
>>14682021
how could Drake equation prove anything when we don't know the variables yet?

[Anonymous No.14682331]

>>14682329
The dumb fucks probably believe the kapton foil is actual gold and that's why they got into the launch business, truth be told.

[Anonymous No.14682334]

>>14682234
This is the kind of retardation that you only see on Kerbal joke videos.

[Anonymous No.14682338]

>>14682234
So if a "heavy" configuration is when you bolt 3 common modules together, what do you call it when you link up 540 modules?

[Anonymous No.14682343]

[Anonymous No.14682344]

>>14682338
>what do you call it when you link up 540 modules?
Hot water shortage across all of Europe.

[Anonymous No.14682347]

https://youtu.be/Xr7ChBYU4Fo

THIS IS ARCA

[Anonymous No.14682363]

[Anonymous No.14682371]

>>14682363
Cope

[Anonymous No.14682373]

>>14682310
I wish I had the self-confidence that Popescu has, I would simply not even put this on the internet unless as a joke, much less trying to actually get money for it

[Anonymous No.14682374]

>>14682371
lmao those arbitrarily chosen points on the graph

[Anonymous No.14682378]

>>14682371
Someone explains to me what do the axis mean

[Anonymous No.14682380]

>>14682378

[Anonymous No.14682392]

>>14682371
Well this settles it then

[Anonymous No.14682394]

>I FUCKING LOVE INNOVATION!

[Anonymous No.14682395]

What the fuck is Arca's endgame? Surely they wouldn't put this much effort into a crypto scam

[Anonymous No.14682401]

>people poo pooing this Arca announcement

When did /sfg/ get so gay?

[Anonymous No.14682403]

>>14682378
Absolutely fucking nothing. It's retard investor bait.

[Anonymous No.14682407]

>>14682395
Never underestimate a romanian. They invented sleight of hand

[Anonymous No.14682408]

>>14682401
The arca meme was mildly amusing two years ago.

[Anonymous No.14682421]

What god would a gypsy name his OTRAG ripoff after?

[Anonymous No.14682430]

>>14682401
will we ever see a launch vehicle surpass the designation of "super-heavy lift" into its own class? It does feel like 150t is the feasible limit, mostly in terms of logistics and actual market demand.

[Anonymous No.14682433]

>>14682395
>surely they wouldn't
This is 200 pages of verbiage, one weekend with a decent graphics designer to fake the pictures, and a PDF so bloated with high resolution pictures nobody can download it properly. /sfg/ could probably make better investor bait in a weekend, and we're in a recession

[Anonymous No.14682436]

>>14682234
>otrag on steroids

[Anonymous No.14682438]

>>14682380
>Innovation through the use of old technology with small design improvements is the left bottom corner that contains the SLS, virtually a Space Shuttle technology arranged in a different configuration; LauncherOne, virtually an upgraded Pegasus design; Ariane 6, an upgraded Ariane 5 design. It has minimal innovation both in terms of technology as well as design concept. So, what these teams are doing there is to use old technology packed in design solutions that were basically done in the past. There’s almost no novelty there, therefore we can’t expect dramatic real cost reduction. That’s why these designs are heavily enjoying a lot of subsidies to survive, as in the case of Ariane 6.

Well, he's competently wrong about LauncherOne since Pegasus is a 100% solid fuel design and L1 is 100% kerolox, but he is perfectly on target about Ariane.

[Anonymous No.14682445]

>>14682421
I don't know. Do the Romanians have a deity for scamming, pan handling and prostitution?

[Anonymous No.14682446]

>>14682421
Robin hood

[Anonymous No.14682447]

>but dumitru, how are we actually going to mine the asteroids?
>idk dude, machines or some shit lmao

[Anonymous No.14682449]

>>14682401
Save it, pretending bad technology is acktually good works as a passing joke, not as a forced meme.

[Anonymous No.14682454]

>>14682447
has anyone ever demonstrated a 3D printer that could print 3D printers?

[Anonymous No.14682455]

>>14682430
Elon wants to build a bigger starship.
Won't happen for decades IMO, starship is enough trouble for now.

[Anonymous No.14682461]

>>14682455
we were much closer to something like that existing 50 years ago. If it didn't happen then, it will probably never happen.

[Anonymous No.14682463]

>>14682401
Based pic but ARCAposting is forced and not funny anymore

[Anonymous No.14682465]

>>14682438
>he is perfectly on target about Ariane.
Not really. What's not listed there is advances in manufacturing. Falcon 9 was cheap before reuse because of streamlined manufacturing. It's not necessary to build something completely new to significantly cut costs. Whether A6 does or not is another matter, but the analysis is incredibly naive.

[Anonymous No.14682467]

>>14682445
how are the romanian prostitues?

[Anonymous No.14682470]

yay

[Anonymous No.14682474]

>>14682454
/ourguy/ says that they do not exist and will not for a long time
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/09/02/self-replicating-robots-do-not-exist/

[Anonymous No.14682476]

>>14682430
Resource transfer, namely on-orbit refueling, creates its own demand for large launch vehicles, which is why SpaceX doesn't need a customer in order to make Starship larger.
>>14682470
cringe

[Anonymous No.14682479]

>>14682470
thats nice, the toy industry is in a pretty bleak state rn now due the tablets and smartphones, except LEGO and collectible stuff of course. it would be nice to have kids playing with rockets dreaming to be astronauts again.

[Anonymous No.14682480]

>>14682447
The use of self-replicating machines is the equivalent of filling in the gaps in a plan with some of grandmother's black magic. A decade or two ago they would have been talking about mining asteroids using Romanian nanotechnology.

[Anonymous No.14682481]

>>14682474
>/ourguy/
he's a faggot and so are you

[Anonymous No.14682489]

JWST has unlocked the horrors that we were not meant to see.

[Anonymous No.14682492]

>>14682489

[Anonymous No.14682493]

>>14682467
I can tell you have no experience with Romanian gypsies. Lucky you.

[Anonymous No.14682497]

>>14682489
talmabout this purpa keeeng

[Anonymous No.14682502]

>>14682474
>>14682481
>faggot
He is married with kids. If Tom Mueller can be considered straight despite his interests, Casey also gets a pass.

[Anonymous No.14682508]

>>14682502
Nice beard Casey, I no longer doubt your heterosexuality :^)

[Anonymous No.14682526]

QRD on Tom mueller being a fag?

[Anonymous No.14682540]

>>14682526
He constantly sucks off Musky on twitter

[Anonymous No.14682552]

>>14682540
that means nothing, everybody is gay for the Barrel Bomb

[Anonymous No.14682563]

https://youtu.be/heTQBJVzA_8?t=10
>when we examine the idea of electrical cratering, this is often given in the context of huge interplanetary discharges
WHAT

What the fuck, is there really lightning on the Moon from Earth? Or is this video having me on?

[Anonymous No.14682564]

>>14682526
On twitter he accidently liked a video of a man jerking off in a public bathroom.

[Anonymous No.14682567]

>>14682436
more like on meth

[Anonymous No.14682570]

>>14681964
Maybe you should stop eating the damn stuff

[Anonymous No.14682577]

>>14682564
I've interpreted this as him enjoying jacking off in public bathrooms.

[Anonymous No.14682580]

>>14682454
You can print a lot of the *parts* for a cheap 3D printer on a 3D printer, but just the parts that make the frame. You can't proont a stepper motor or an extruder head or a controller board, for instance.

[Anonymous No.14682583]

>>14682007
Octopussies could be a von Neumann probe that used the available resources to create a body that could slowly become more intelligent after more iterations

[Anonymous No.14682592]

>>14682564
Anyone have the vid?

[Anonymous No.14682595]

>>14682007
Hello again gpt-3

[Anonymous No.14682605]

>>14682338
Your mother

[Anonymous No.14682606]

Rocket powered by nvidia GPU running @ 100% load generating the heat and thrust by the fans spinning to bring heavy lift rocket EcoRocket Heavy.

[Anonymous No.14682608]

>>14682577
Maybe it was multiple men in a bathroom? I don't remember, it has been so long and it was quickly buried because no one here actually wanted to out him.

[Anonymous No.14682610]

>>14682007
Extrrmely insightful, it has all the popsci buzzwords. Next time try to work in Sagan and NGT

[Anonymous No.14682612]

>>14682606
Intel is the new housefire GPU. Their 225w can't even beat the 160/180w low costs of AMD/Nvidia.

[Anonymous No.14682614]

>it was calculated on the infamous online /sfg/ on the 4channel.org website

[Anonymous No.14682617]

>>14682612
4090 ti is 1600 watts at peak.

Intel has long way to go in GPU..

[Anonymous No.14682618]

>14682563
weak b8

[Anonymous No.14682623]

>>14682284
All you need for walkable shit is to remove most zoning laws and stop expanding roads. Everything else including public transport will come naturally, not all this shit about forcing you to live with niggers. See Tokyo for an example

[Anonymous No.14682625]

>>14682614
kek

cant even do their own math

[Anonymous No.14682628]

>>14682606
Ingenious. It can mine bitcoin every time it launches, thus dramatically reducing costs.

[Anonymous No.14682630]

Fireden doesn't have /sci/ searches enabled and Warosu is missing a bunch of shit, is there really no good /sfg/ archive left?

[Anonymous No.14682638]

>>14682614
I'm assuming this is for the asteroid mission

I've been saying for a while now that there is a real opportunity out there to do a private DSN

SpaceX is guaranteed to need it for Mars shit and I GUESS Relativity provided they actually launch something. The lead times on 30m radio telescope construction (or if you're feeling more modern, large radio telescope arrays) are several years long so if you were going to get into the market you'd better be pitching the concept to investors like right now

[Anonymous No.14682639]

>>14682612
doesnt matter. Intel has features invidia cant even dream of

[Anonymous No.14682641]

>>14682617
Transient spikes are not peak.
But the shit performance per watt crown goes to Intel.

[Anonymous No.14682645]

>>14682638
>The lead times on 30m radio telescope construction (or if you're feeling more modern, large radio telescope arrays) are several years long
why?

[Anonymous No.14682647]

>>14682630
google "site:boards.4channel.org/sci/ /sfg/"

[Anonymous No.14682652]

>This is the lowest budget ever used in history to design, test and launch an orbital rocket. It’s
unprecedentedly low, no-one ever achieved this and we really want you to understand the
tremendous achievement from ARCA

APOLOGIZE

[Anonymous No.14682656]

>>14682234
>no one explaining whats supposedly so stupid about OTRAG

[Anonymous No.14682658]

>>14682656
Best part is no part

[Anonymous No.14682661]

Can you use tire rubber as a rocket fuel? Asking for a college

[Anonymous No.14682662]

>>14682647
its ogre

[Anonymous No.14682671]

>>14682661
Yes. Hybrid rocket motors can burn rubber and gaseous nitrous oxide.

[Anonymous No.14682672]

>>14682638
>current year
>not communicating using light

[Anonymous No.14682673]

>>14682652
who....pays them?

[Anonymous No.14682675]

>>14682645
It took four years to build several of the DSN antennas at Goldstone

It's going to take even longer if you have to start from scratch and have no infrastructure whatsoever

[Anonymous No.14682676]

>>14682671
brb, gonna go to space. In minecraft, FAA

[Anonymous No.14682684]

>>14682675
>It took four years to build several of the DSN antennas at Goldstone
Yeah but that was by the government, and also in the 50s. How long would it take a motivated and capable corporation like SpaceX today, with modern design and manufacturing?

It's just a big metal dish, with a radio on a pole. Innit?

[Anonymous No.14682690]

>>14682672
Psyche was the mission intended to test that out

And that's permadelayed

[Anonymous No.14682691]

>>14682671
>>14682676
I don't think you could really just use literal tires, there's all kinds of other shit in them. Assuming you want to actually build a hybrid rocket, paraffin seems to be relatively easy and cheap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPM3KcHzN6I
This guy's series is pretty good, he does fairly high effort long format science videos. If you're thinking about DIYing a rocket, I'd highly recommend them. If you only really care about theory, I found his rocket nozzle video to be a pretty good overview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD6XpFfR68E

I made something very similar at a much smaller scale a few times when I was a kid, if you're into this sort of thing I'd highly recommend it. I made and launched my own Estes rocket engine form factor rocket, tons of fun.

[Anonymous No.14682692]

>>14682608
I think it had another guy walk in on the guy jacking off.

[Anonymous No.14682709]

>>14681980
How hard would it be to build a second mini mini mini mini.... Artificial moon colony?

[Anonymous No.14682713]

>>14682692
Doesn't anybody fucking knock anymore?

[Anonymous No.14682723]

>>14681989
Why see no stars in the sky?

[Anonymous No.14682730]

>>14682492
It’s a shittiverse, bobandy

[Anonymous No.14682731]

>>14682709
Just live on Phobot and Deimos

[Anonymous No.14682742]

Starlink launch tomorrow morning

[Anonymous No.14682757]

>>14682022
I've always wondered about this, I refuse to believe that NASA would have allowed them to drive a distance that would kill them if the rover failed or got stuck.

[Anonymous No.14682759]

>>14682757
Do you see any moon police up there?

[Anonymous No.14682765]

>>14682690
What's up with that mission, anyhow? I was really looking forward to it. Please tell me we're going to see a FH launch this year

[Anonymous No.14682766]

>>14682723
Those weren't released yet, they came out in a later patch.

[Anonymous No.14682777]

>>14682765
There were 4 scheduled this year, we won’t see a single one lmao

[Anonymous No.14682780]

>>14682777
I hope we at least see SLS

[Anonymous No.14682782]

>>14682765
JPL fucked up somewhere in their schedule and their wasn't enough time to complete the pre-flight testing before the launch window.

[Anonymous No.14682783]

>>14682022
>>14682757
It was a different time.

[Anonymous No.14682787]

>>14682782
how long until another window? 250 years?

[Anonymous No.14682798]

Fourth launch tower segment moving
https://youtu.be/6saHQF4ybKA

[Anonymous No.14682804]

>>14682798
WE GAAN

[Anonymous No.14682808]

>>14682787
There's launch windows in 2023 and 2024, but they take a bit longer to get there than the 2022 one. One major planning issue now is that this completely things up for the Janus probes that were launching as rideshares. They'll have to find completely new targets or get canceled.

[Anonymous No.14682811]

>>14682780
Im pretty confident we will, but on the other hand they are targeting August/September and any problems found between now and then will likely push it back to 2023.

[Anonymous No.14682812]

>>14682811
part of me wants to see it slip just so the berger prophesy will come true

[Anonymous No.14682814]

>>14682454
Stuff like the wiring and the nozzle would have to be made out of metal, which is technically possible, but I'm not sure the precision is quite there. For every bit of complexity added, the printer will have to be able to accommodate said complexity. It'd be less of a printer and more of a small(?) factory by the end, with material refining, component manufacturing, and an assembly line. Probably not impossible, especially in 0g, but goddamn, would the development of that this be difficult. Although you do need to make the properly working one only once...

[Anonymous No.14682821]

>>14682022
>>14682757
They have something called "walk-back constraints." They're exactly what they sound like. The CDR and LMP had to leave each geology site by a predetermined time to have enough oxygen in the backpacks to last them if they had to run back on foot.

[Anonymous No.14682822]

Space is the place for the human race
Chasing the race for the new place
Days on our old place waste
Starship's team full of everybody keen
Pilot in the twilight is a deep dream
Men and machine convene

Peri-perihelion
Peri-perihelion
Peri-perihelion
Peri-perihelion

[Anonymous No.14682827]

>>14682563
Looks like a schizo channel.

[Anonymous No.14682830]

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-could-lose-tesla-stock-go-prison-over-twitter-2022-7
It's over

[Anonymous No.14682831]

>>14682827
Yes, I fear you might be right. I watched another of his videos yesterday about the types of electrical discharge and it all seemed very mundane, nothing that raised my eyebrows. But now looking at the channel more closely, I see hints of schizoism. One of the featured channels linked from his channel is "Electric Universe Eyes"

[Anonymous No.14682833]

>>14682830
The shorters are getting desperate

[Anonymous No.14682835]

>>14682830
>journalists confusing their personal hopes and desires for "news"
many such cases

[Anonymous No.14682838]

>>14682835
https://news.gallup.com/poll/394817/media-confidence-ratings-record-lows.aspx

[Anonymous No.14682853]

>>14682808
They’ll get new targets. They already had new targets when psyche got delayed two months

[Anonymous No.14682859]

>>14682822
>Peri-perihelion
This bit gets md hard

[Anonymous No.14682887]

>>14682830
Why is everyone not ashamed of them selves for being jealous and envious of Elon ?

Especially conservatives since he is pretty much an ubermensch Ayn Rand character.

Tesla and space x is a million times more important and special than Twitter, no way they should try to fuck with him, that being said maybe he shouldn't have tried to buy Twitter. Oh well. These rats and weasels just sense a chance for extortion.

[Anonymous No.14682895]

>>14682887
Conservatives hate him because he doesn’t fall in line with the party ideals and he does jerk off trump.

[Anonymous No.14682897]

>>14682563
See Io and Jupiter interactions

[Anonymous No.14682902]

>>14682887
lol this is your king?

[Anonymous No.14682906]

>>14682895
But they worship Ayn Rand above all else and he's the atlas shrugged or fountainhead or John Galt whatever guy 9.0

Money + freedom

[Anonymous No.14682908]

>>14682906
conservatives don't read
they just worship whatever pisses off liberals the most
it's a punitive ideology

[Anonymous No.14682915]

>>14682887
nobody's "fucking" with him lmao, it's all a puppet show
>NASA inefficient and bad, sóyence billionaire good! please put chips in my head based sóyence billionaire!

[Anonymous No.14682922]

>>14682908
>>>/leftypol/
Shoo

[Anonymous No.14682926]

>>14682908
leftism is moral syphilis

[Anonymous No.14682929]

>>14682922
>>14682926
you will never go to space and muh niggers get billions of dollars anyway

[Anonymous No.14682949]

>>14682798

[Anonymous No.14682964]

>>14682926

[Anonymous No.14682976]

>>14682926
Worse, it's the worship of political fundamentalism as a false science.

[Anonymous No.14682996]

>>14682976
reality has a well-known liberal bias

[Anonymous No.14683012]

spaceflight?

[Anonymous No.14683013]

>>14682926
>>14682908
>>14682906
Modern politics is literally just
>Well one side said XYZ so I’ll believe the opposite that will show them haha!

Elon is based because he’s not loyal to one party; he has his own beliefs that piss conservacucks and retarded liberals

[Anonymous No.14683015]

/pol/itics don't belong here fuck off to your containment board

[Anonymous No.14683016]

>>14682996
Retarded hot takes are regularly vomited out of Coblert's mouth and midwits, halfwits, and dimwits think cable TV "comedians" are philosophers.

[Anonymous No.14683022]

>>14683013

[Anonymous No.14683030]

Reminder that the local /pol/tard is a literal tranny

[Anonymous No.14683032]

>>14682996
Honestly, it was phrases like that like were the first thing that clued me in to the existence of the cult. The idea that reality is inheritance conformist to a set political dogma is exactly how the religiously brain dead view the world.

>>14683012
Sometimes we have to remind ourselves of the things spaceflight gives us the hope of escaping, or the things we need to kill if spaceflight is to flourish.

[Anonymous No.14683033]

So anyways can someone explain to me if/why a DFD would have pretty nasty exhaust? This goes back to a discussion that happened probably like 6 months ago but we were talking about water injection in a DFD and anons mentioned it would irradiate the pad. Can someone go into more detail about this?

[Anonymous No.14683049]

>future superheavies will have no heat shield on the engines
>this is what a flight vehicle will look like
holy kino

[Anonymous No.14683051]

In 1988, STS-27 was badly damaged during launch due to a foam strike that almost destroyed space shuttle Atlantis, but didn’t due to the random chance of the area under the damaged tiles being stainless steel and resistant to reentry heat.
If STS-27 had failed, only two years after Challenger exploded, how would history have changed?

[Anonymous No.14683055]

>>14683033
D-T fusion produces fast neutrons that can be absorbed by surrounding molecules which may pump out some radioactive water

[Anonymous No.14683057]

>>14683015
everything is political

[Anonymous No.14683060]

>>14683049
That sounds wildly optimistic. A Falcon 9 failed to land because re entry heat burnt through its heatshield and scorched one of the engines

[Anonymous No.14683061]

>14683057
faggotposter detected

[Anonymous No.14683062]

>>14683055
Gotcha thanks

[Anonymous No.14683063]

>>14683060
>That sounds wildly optimistic
story of Starship development

[Anonymous No.14683070]

>>14683061
retard

[Anonymous No.14683074]

>>14683033
it depends on the fuel you use, but even with d-he3 you're going to get some t byproducts reacting and spitting out the spicy neutrons. if you did the economical thing and used a simple d-d reaction it's even worse and would make a lot of tritium. having said that, i know of no concepts for a fusion rocket that involve doing a fusion burn on the earth since our atmosphere would contaminate the plasma and seems like it would make getting the thing to work impossible.

[Anonymous No.14683076]

>>14683063
>”We we’re too dumb”

[Anonymous No.14683084]

>>14683060
>>14683049
What would be the benefit, saving relative pennies? Vs the risk

[Anonymous No.14683086]

>>14682895
>>14682906
You're both describing fictional strawmen of the people you think you hate.

[Anonymous No.14683089]

>>14683084
insane mass savings

[Anonymous No.14683094]

>>14683055
ooof i can't imagine trying to make a fusion rocket using d-t, what a nightmare! on top of the neutrons, you are fuuuuuuuucked trying to breed the tritium on the rocket without ballooning your mass to insane levels, and the whole time your fuel is rapidly rotting into helium-3 and desperately trying to leak away.

[Anonymous No.14683095]

>>14683084
It's actually safer because it reduces places where farts can build up

[Anonymous No.14683097]

>>14683094
you are now promoted to head of 4ASS nucular division. good work

[Anonymous No.14683106]

>>14683097
I want a NTP proposal on my desk next week
Configure it for maximum atmospheric thrust

[Anonymous No.14683112]

>>14683106
How do we contain the muon? If we can pump muons into the chamber we can catalyze the reaction and run it at room temperature

[Anonymous No.14683120]

>>14683112
That's for you to find out. Get to it, anon

[Anonymous No.14683151]

>>14683049
>>14683095
There's no fucking way. They add shields of some kind back before a stacked Superheavy + Starship makes orbit and is recovered successfully. Screenshot this post and make fun of me if I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.14683154]

>>14683151
The shields haven't been deleted yet so this is a stupid thing to post.

[Anonymous No.14683158]

>>14683154
Okay

[Anonymous No.14683167]

>>14683154
>>14683049
Are they trying out a new heatshield configuration?

[Anonymous No.14683168]

>Arca implying it is redpilled
>the entire gypsy detainment story
>spending a whole page attacking Estronaut
>also attacking Hullo in a footnote
>citing stackexchange for their calculations
>Arca saying they'll fix poverty
>crying about youtube dislikes
literary kino

[Anonymous No.14683170]

>>14683167
No they just want to get rid of the heat shield entirely. The picture is of an unfinished booster.
Removing the heat shield for real is gated on completely fireproofing Raptor 2.

[Anonymous No.14683187]

They should put huge methane flamethrowers like they had on hopper on the legs of the OLM.
Looks better than ROFIs and is more reusable.

[Anonymous No.14683188]

>>14682887
>>14682906
Conservatives don't give a shit about Ayn Rand, she was a godless atheistic jew. It's libertarians who like Ayn Rand. They get confused by people who use "conservative" and "votes republican" interchangeably, but they aren't actually the same thing.

[Anonymous No.14683212]

[Anonymous No.14683216]

>>14683212
Does Astra have any material that suggests they can be profitable without hitting their 300 launch / year by 2025 mark? Because that ain't happening.

[Anonymous No.14683220]

https://youtu.be/p3CXCgXONc4
>Artemis media briefing streamed today
>literally everything on schedule
>crickets on /sfg/
While you SpaceX stans are busy coping, I was busy staying up to date with the Artemis program, and happy a man I am. 100 years space launch system, we are going.

[Anonymous No.14683224]

>>14683220
I desperately desperately want SLS to suceed, there is no chance of NASA pivoting to another more effective platform, or a cheaper platform, or anything else that makes sense. SLS is what we have, and if this doesn't fucking work space exploration gets pushed back another four decades.

[Anonymous No.14683226]

>>14683212
Pot meets kettle. How is that reuse coming along, Mr. Beck?

[Anonymous No.14683227]

>>14682822
this album is such a bizarre mix of space-optimism and Earther drivel talking points

[Anonymous No.14683234]

>>14683170
Wouldn't part of the sheild be protecting all those cables from wear and tear from flame or from air?

[Anonymous No.14683236]

>>14683220
>Artemis IV won’t even land on the moon
It’s over

[Anonymous No.14683238]

>>14683216
Oh it's definitely happening

[Anonymous No.14683245]

>>14683212
He fucked up and thought the guy was asking about rocket lab

[Anonymous No.14683249]

>>14682234
>283 pages

[Anonymous No.14683250]

>>14683234
Yes but integrating the wiring into a metal tube weighs less than the skirt and its nitrogen purging system.

[Anonymous No.14683251]

>>14683224
>I desperately desperately want SLS to suceed
I am literally going to curse that rocket into RUD on ascent with chaos magick

[Anonymous No.14683254]

>>14683220
>stans
You need to go back

[Anonymous No.14683260]

>>14683254
>not finding that post funny
You have to go back

[Anonymous No.14683264]

Anyone else get worried about Falcon 9 launches? I always have a feeling something will go wrong idk how to describe it. No engine out during the stage 2 burn is scary

[Anonymous No.14683266]

>>14683251
>SpaceX witches to blame for Artemis failure?
>see how Elon Musk inspired thousands of women to attack democracy

[Anonymous No.14683271]

>>14683266
Witches lost their power when they traded their toads for cats

[Anonymous No.14683272]

>>14683260
Nigger

[Anonymous No.14683277]

>>14683266
>>14683251
We should psyop witches into thinking SLS is a monument to evil white Christian men so they get it hexed

[Anonymous No.14683286]

So apparently the JWST follow up is supposed to be the same size but visual light

[Anonymous No.14683287]

>>14683224
Breath of fresh air to hear opinions of a likeminded SLSupremacist
>>14683236
It's not supposed to. Have you been paying any attention?

[Anonymous No.14683289]

>>14683277
The problem is that witchcraft is bogus, plus there are too many boomer christian engineers praying to God that SLS works (or at the very least, that they keep their jobs). Starship must be blessed by a bishop in order to obtain supreme divine favor over the space launch system

[Anonymous No.14683292]

>>14683289
I pray to god whenever Falcon 9 launches no joke

[Anonymous No.14683299]

>>14682234
This reads like some ESL arguing a passing grade from their professor, which I guess is what's happening here.

[Anonymous No.14683300]

>>14683289
>>14683277
The path of the materialist unionism and blessings has left humanity dithering in the darkness, incapable of advancing on the paths of knowledge. Embracing the power of Autism reveals technology that the sycophants on Earth could never dream of wielding.

[Anonymous No.14683313]

>>14683300
>dithering
/sfg/ signal filtering general

[Anonymous No.14683322]

>>14683313
Random fact I learned from /sfg/ a while back but there is some weird principal in analog imagery where you can purposely increase noise and somehow end up with a sharper image

[Anonymous No.14683332]

I can't find any pics of the Soyuz rocket bottoms painted with the flowery designs by a Russian artist.

Any of ye anons have that saved?

[Anonymous No.14683342]

>>14683332
https://3dnews.ru/assets/external/illustrations/2021/10/24/1052043/pro2.jpg
This?

[Anonymous No.14683353]

>>14683342
das it. well done anon!

They should adorn rockets like this more often.

[Anonymous No.14683357]

>>14683332
For me, it’s Delta II with shark teeth

[Anonymous No.14683358]

>>14683353
NP, more images of it can be found here
https://kosmosnews.fr/2021/10/23/lancement-progress-ms-18-assemblage-final-termine/

[Anonymous No.14683362]

Kino

[Anonymous No.14683375]

>>14683357
Yep based

[Anonymous No.14683385]

>>14683357
>>14683362
Delta II was a fantastic rocket

[Anonymous No.14683386]

Big window? Not happening. Common area? Not happening. Docking port on nose? Not happening. 1100m3 volume? Not happening. HLS? Cancelled.

[Anonymous No.14683389]

why's it taking them so long to get to a static fire?

[Anonymous No.14683392]

>>14683389
with raptor 2 they basically starting from square 1

[Anonymous No.14683402]

Soon.

[Anonymous No.14683406]

>>14683386
>Common area? Not happening
starship WILL have a masterbaitorium and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

[Anonymous No.14683409]

>>14683386
>Looks like a tuned mass damper
Imagine the slosh dynamics.

[Anonymous No.14683417]

>>14683386
The big window was always retarded. It needs a B-17 flying fortress type window

[Anonymous No.14683426]

>>14683417
just shut up before you say anything ever again

[Anonymous No.14683431]

>>14683386
I don't think anybody knows what the double header tank configuration looks like but it's probably this right now.

[Anonymous No.14683462]

>>14681980
Why on earth would you want huge regions of exposed glass in your O'Neill cylinder. Fucking death trap.

[Anonymous No.14683475]

>>14681980
Bezos is well and truly delusional

[Anonymous No.14683485]

>>14683386
crew rated starship wont be a thing until 2026 at the earliest

[Anonymous No.14683490]

kinda cool. i bought the hotweels starman roadster back in the day. wonder if we'll get a nice set of rockets. when i was a kid i had a really cool set of toy rockets inluded delta ii and redstone

[Anonymous No.14683493]

>>14683485
That’s still super soon desu. Elon is right though that there’s no launch escape system for re entry on every single spacecraft, so what makes launch itself any worse? Also all of NASA’s mars mission plans involve an ascent vehicle which doesn’t have a launch abort, so why is it ok on Mars but not Earth?
On that last point, most NASA manned Mars plans involve one or two EDL demonstrators for the crewed mars lander on Earth, then skip straight to landing the habitat or MAV. SpaceX might have hundreds of EDL simulation missions done by the time they try to even land cargo on mars

[Anonymous No.14683498]

Mattel has a decent amount of cool space toys

[Anonymous No.14683502]

>>14683485
Crew rated or not, dearmoon is still scheduled for 2023.

[Anonymous No.14683504]

>>14683498
You can tell these were made in the 90’s

[Anonymous No.14683527]

>>14683504
God I remember having a toy Sojourner growing up as a kid. It even came with a little booklet that talked about Mars exploration and had those optimistic watercolors of men landing on Mars in like 2010.

[Anonymous No.14683555]

>>14683386
What even is this?

[Anonymous No.14683567]

Bros... Elon needs to start working out or he's going to have a fucking heart attack before starship even gets off the ground.

[Anonymous No.14683570]

>>14683567
I hear aquarobics is pretty nice

[Anonymous No.14683575]

>>14683555
hello new fren

[Anonymous No.14683576]

>>14683567
only pussies die of heart attacks, unironically. only 12% of heart attacks kill

[Anonymous No.14683581]

>>14683386
Virtually confirmed that they are going to stretch out Starship then. Especially since they keep making the LOX tanks bigger. Doesn't make sense to spend all this money and up with a system that has half the volume you expected it to because you won't stretch it out.

[Anonymous No.14683592]

What is this double header tank meme?

[Anonymous No.14683593]

>>14683592
>>14683386
yes where is this even coming from? Was there a update I missed?
>inb4 baited

[Anonymous No.14683595]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9GHJal-o1I

[Anonymous No.14683602]

>>14683593
Combine the filters into one AAAAAAAAAAAAA

use | as separators

[Anonymous No.14683603]

>>14683592
>>14683593
a CH4 header tank was spotted for the first time, and based on the attach points, the most logical placement is just beneath the oxygen header.

[Anonymous No.14683604]

>>14683595
THE EAGLE JUST FLEW OVER MY HOUSE

[Anonymous No.14683606]

>>14683567
Don't worry anon, he already uploaded his brain to the cloud
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1549197098226171906

[Anonymous No.14683618]

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1549936843361325059

ULA plan is to separate the engine section for Vulcan, have it come down in parachute, have a helicopter catch that engine section mid air. (Ala RocketLabs)

[Anonymous No.14683628]

>>14683618
They changed their mind. The new plan is to let the engines sit on the water and use the inflatable heatshield as a raft. Apparently this saves a lot of reuse money and means they just need to fly three times to break even instead of six like with the extra cost of the helicopter

[Anonymous No.14683632]

>>14683618
kek
honestly, if true and capable, not a bad deal.

[Anonymous No.14683644]

>>14683628
it also kills less helicopter pilots

[Anonymous No.14683645]

>>14683593
let me guess, /gif/?

[Anonymous No.14683647]

>>14683632
and the chinkies will be ready to catch it
>>14683593
>no cuck filter

[Anonymous No.14683651]

>>14683462
i dont think its glass, maybe is some kind of hyper heat/impact resistant polymer.

[Anonymous No.14683654]

>>14683462
Because it looks cool

[Anonymous No.14683659]

>>14683462
Because Bezos is well and truly delusional

[Anonymous No.14683662]

>>14683628
>fly three times to break even instead of six like with the extra cost of the helicopter
So how will Rocket Lab do it if the total price of their rocket is 7.5 million? Someone is lying, probably the snake in chief

[Anonymous No.14683671]

[Anonymous No.14683677]

>>14683662
Why not both? They're both known liars. see entire Neutron reveal debacle

[Anonymous No.14683679]

>>14683671
is this the same manga from the previous thread's jupiter drawings?

[Anonymous No.14683683]

>>14683679
Miura managed to copy Juno's photos pretty closely

[Anonymous No.14683684]

>>14683628
>inflatable heatshield as a raft.
The engines wont be too hot?

[Anonymous No.14683685]

>>14683684
they will,it wont work

[Anonymous No.14683697]

>>14681980
Honestly, if you could build structures like this successfully, them being reverting to a more dynasty and historical style of architecture throughout the lands for residency on two of the three petals and commercial districts taking up the third petal. All large scale industry would be moved entirely outside of the O'Neil Cylinder or would be moved underground and between the various layers that make up the landmasses deposited on top of the petals.

I hope we as a species survive long enough to achieve this future.

[Anonymous No.14683698]

>>14683683
murata

[Anonymous No.14683703]

>>14682310
>second and third stages have strict vertical trajectories
>strict vertical trajectories
>when the earth spins
>and gravity ensures that movement under its influence is always parabolic

This faggot is a genuine retard.

[Anonymous No.14683710]

>>14682310
>ecorocket
>uses hypergolic third stage

[Anonymous No.14683717]

At what mission stage would a base have need for some sort of flight vehicle to get shit from point to point without going into orbit?

[Anonymous No.14683726]

>>14683112
>How do we contain the muon?
Cats.

[Anonymous No.14683732]

>>14683362

[Anonymous No.14683734]

>Some asshole decides to micromanage NASA with a rider on a "must-pass" Intel pork giveaway bill

https://spacenews.com/nasa-authorization-included-in-chips-act/

[Anonymous No.14683738]

>25 years
>still no real Mars exploration
>still no ability to dig more than 5cm into ground
bros it hurts

[Anonymous No.14683740]

>>14683717
can pisslocks be achieved in a mobile form factor?

[Anonymous No.14683742]

>>14683734
>The technology section of the bill backs continued development of space nuclear power and propulsion systems, “including in cargo missions to Mars in the late 2020’s and crewed missions to Mars in the 2030’s.”
Yeah looks like Elon's micromanaging NASA. How can we stop him bros?

[Anonymous No.14683743]

>>14683717
I actually expect Starships to be used for this. Once large-scale colonization begins, there will be perhaps 10x as many unmanned supply Starships as there are manned vessels. The number returning to Earth will be a small fraction of those going to Mars, meaning an accumulation of perfectly functional Starship's on Mars. Since Starship already needs to be capable of taking off and landing from Mars, using these for point-to-point just makes logical sense.
I'd also add that you will have private ownership of Starships (leased or sold by SpaceX) and independent owner-operators competing for transport contracts. I will have my Martian tramp freighters, damnit.

[Anonymous No.14683744]

>>14683742
Same way NASA was stopped every other time a congress critter got a bright idea watching TV

No money

[Anonymous No.14683746]

>>14683734
> The bill extends NASA’s authorization to operate the ISS from September 2024 to September 2030
>The bill directs NASA to launch the SLS annually
> NASA would be required to have the larger Exploration Upper Stage ready by the Artemis 4 mission in 2027.
> One section directs the NSF to support research on mitigating the effect of satellite constellations on astronomy
I guess the silver lining is that this bill now requires, at a minimum, one HLS flight whereas the older version explicitly demanded a second option. Seems that’s no longer the case. But fuck me, everything else in this directive just holds the united states back to Mars in twenty-twenty-never

[Anonymous No.14683749]

>>14682325
It literally is Kerbal tier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhdrCxin7A0

[Anonymous No.14683759]

>>14683738
I still don't understand why nobody has build a Soviet style "plop and drill" return sampler yet. You could probably get it done for less than $50 million.

[Anonymous No.14683762]

>>14683603
I don't get it, personally. If they moved the header tank to deal with them adding even more RVACs then why the fuck are you adding more RVACs? By all estimates, thrust isn't the problem here. Starship has more than enough, especially since the whole system hinges on refueling. So why add even more thrust that's just going to chew into your usable volume?

[Anonymous No.14683766]

>>14683759
Better and easier to dig shallow in many places than to dig (not really very) deeply in just one. Martian Bulldozer is the answer.

[Anonymous No.14683769]

>>14683759
That's China's proposed sample return

It's a complete joke

[Anonymous No.14683771]

>>14683527
there was a construction site near my house and i'd go over there on saturdays and make sojurner drive through the red dirt

[Anonymous No.14683772]

>>14683759
Chyna

[Anonymous No.14683773]

>>14683762
The moar thrust argument was always bad, I suspect they're going to stretch the tanks and make Starship longer.

[Anonymous No.14683789]

>>14683773
This is what bugged me about Estronauts interviews with Elon. They bring up adding more thrust several times, and Elon talks about having double the thrust at least twice and yet Estronaut never once asks why the fuck they keep laser focusing on the thrust. I thought I had a grasp of what they were doing with Starship until they stretched the LOX tank slightly and then added three more RVACs. Now I am just completely lost unless Elon announces in a few months that they're making a Starship 2.0 that's like 10 meters longer or some shit. Granted, I am not some big brained rocket nerd, so I am talking entirely out of my ass except for the fact that what they are doing seems (on the surface) to be completely counterintuitive.

[Anonymous No.14683795]

>>14683789
>>14683773
Elon wants more thrust because it means higher TWR which means less gravity losses. Superheavy is very fat

[Anonymous No.14683810]

>>14683789
Bumping up the thrust just a tiny bit results in significant performance gains.

[Anonymous No.14683829]

>>14683810
not on a second stage when they already had plenty

[Anonymous No.14683832]

>>14683795
>>14683810
I think you guys are really missing the point:
>Performance doesn't matter.
Starship has already gone well past where they initially intended. Remember, just back in February of this very year they were planning on using 3 RVACs and 3 sea-level engines on Starship. Then all of a sudden Elon adds three more RVACs. And this came after the change from Raptor 1 to Raptor 2 anyway. By all metrics, the amount of thrust that Starship has should completely outstrip the previously planned versions. And yet here we are with them still trying to add more thrust at the cost of the one thing that they actually need: volume.

Why keep eating into your volume? It doesn't matter if you can hurl a 200 ton object at Mars if you've only got half the volume you had when you could hurl a 125 ton object at Mars. Do you see what I am saying?

[Anonymous No.14683842]

>>14683789
That was made confusing because Elon claimed you can never have too much thrust when he was actually referring to total impulse(thrust over the duration of the burn, the area under the thrust-time curve).
>>14683795
>>14683810
>gravity losses
It's not a linear relationship, too much thrust is at the expense of payload and they would delete engines if it got too high. The TWR of Starship of Raptor 1s was a bit underwhelming but obviously quite optimized for maximizing payload, the difference with more powerful engines would be marginal unless they stretched the tanks or the Starship stack is much heavier than estimated. Also (>>14683829)

[Anonymous No.14683849]

Elon probably saw that Saturn vs. Starship comparison and decided if he was going to have the biggest space dick it should be bigger by dozens of meters

[Anonymous No.14683858]

>>14683842
>or the Starship stack is much heavier than estimated

I think this is what is happening desu

[Anonymous No.14683859]

>>14683849
That only happens if they make a new version of the vehicle that's significantly taller, and this in and of itself is sort of contrary to Elon's only talking out loud feelings about the size of Starship as it is (granted, he was talking about diameter, but the point still mostly remains).

[Anonymous No.14683862]

>>14683832
90% of the Starship launches are going to be refuelling flights or Starlink, which are mass limited rather than volume limited. The ability of Starship to land on Mars is just a bonus feature.

[Anonymous No.14683865]

>>14683842
>>14683858
>Starship stack is much heavier than estimated.
Feel free to call me a retard, but let's presume this is the case. Why add three RVACs then and not three sea-level engines? If weight is your concern, and the booster is already tossing your ass out deep then why add RVACs? I can absolutely see the weight being a real concern when it comes to landing the vehicle, but if that's what you're doing you'd want sea-level engines, no?

[Anonymous No.14683867]

>>14683734
>>14683746
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1549984685371146240
>Requires that human lunar landing missions under the Program incl surface and in-space activities are carried out solely by government astronauts.
its fucking over

[Anonymous No.14683871]

>>14683865
>>14683842
starship stages much lower in the atmosphere now so the stress on superheavy is reduced

[Anonymous No.14683872]

Can we just get a non-sycophant to interview Musk and insist he gives a clear explanation on the subject?

[Anonymous No.14683873]

>>14683867
that'll just eat a lawsuit and get thrown out
Elon's lawyers are very jewish, and the size of one's kippah is the only thing that matters in the mutt legal system

[Anonymous No.14683876]

>>14683867
>government programs must use government astronauts
What's the problem here? You didn't actually think that NASA would let Elon just stuff whoever paid him the most on the HLS, did you?

[Anonymous No.14683879]

>>14683738
>>14683759
Even better:
>billions on mars mission
>collect samples
>strew them about your path for a return mission that will never happen, pray they aren't buried (they will be)
>if it did happen, it will now need a $700 gorillion dollar robot to travel and collect and load samples
>into a massive self contained launch platform
>into SRB rocket
>into a free floating soccer ball
>into a satellite
>into a pod
>into deep space

Maybe the real sample were the contractors we met along the way

[Anonymous No.14683898]

>>14683717
A fleet of 40 or so drones that can click together to be a super drone that can carry heavy stuff, if it's not strong enough make it 100 drones

[Anonymous No.14683904]

>>14683865
>Why add three RVACs then and not three sea-level engines?
That's most perplexing part because it also negates the gravity losses argument and the argument that a higher TWR would lower propellant costs. I've posited that the additional engines are for some type of launch abort function but previously Musk implied that the fireball would happen so fast that Starship couldn't fly away from it in time, only withstand it.

[Anonymous No.14683911]

>>14683743
Serious solution for fueling up on mars?

Or is the scifi fantasyists dreams of grandeur really the best hope, of 'bro just go to the ice caps or break off some rocks and put it in your matter to fuel converter machine, yea just take the oxygen and hydrogen out of the rocks while your at it to make water

[Anonymous No.14683916]

>>14683743
Has any space ship traveled as far as a proposed mars mission with as big of a tank of fuel on board?

Is there any physics fears about pressures or belts or ospheres

[Anonymous No.14683935]

>>14683911
There are plenty or realistic solutions that only require adaptations of existing machinery, but judging by the tone of your post you are just being a faggot.

[Anonymous No.14683947]

>>14683911
It's that easy in in-situ resource utilization.

[Anonymous No.14683958]

>>14683766
A real thin drill 40 or so feet tall, 12 inch diameter or so, drill down and capture the material like an oil dip stick, a rover robot would need to stabilize it's legs in the ground some how, or I geuss big drill experiments to see what some cross section is like will wait for manned mission.

The mars rovers collected samples and chemically analyzed it onboard?

[Anonymous No.14683986]

>>14682234
Odinbros.. we're coming back

[Anonymous No.14683988]

>>14683738
>>14683879
That'll be 20 billion plus tip

Trips and Elon will modify a Tesla like this and land it in 2024, live.

>>14683958
I don't think you realize how fuckhuge that would be

[Anonymous No.14683995]

>Dec 18, 2021
>The ship is just begging for three more vacuum engines to be added. Tanks will stretch for more propellant load.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1472060261309759488

So why is he now being so coy about idea and possibly getting Estronaut to run interference? Will a larger Starship spark another fight with the FAA?

[Anonymous No.14684003]

>>14683988
>I don't think you realize how fuckhuge that would be

the drill bit would be in multiple parts just like every single drilling machine on the face of the planet today retard.

[Anonymous No.14684021]

>>14684003
y so mean :(

[Anonymous No.14684029]

>>14683988
>I don't think you realize how fuckhuge that would be
The drill can be folded up.

[Anonymous No.14684098]

>>14683995
Gwynne probably told him no because it would cost too much

[Anonymous No.14684178]

>>14683879
The fetch rover has been eliminated from MSR.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62234196

[Anonymous No.14684185]

>>14682045
Ares V
>used non-reusable RS-68s that were in production
>had payload capacity ~50% higher than Saturn 5
>nothing was even close to its capabilities at its time
SLS
>uses reusable engines in non-reusable rocket
>engines that are not in production and never will be again
>payload capacity lower than 100t, need two of them to even do Apollo reenactment
>1-2 Falcon Heavies could do the same job for 1/100th the cost (even if you were to ignore Starship)

it still would have been overpriced, non-reusable vanity project, but at least it was marginally better that Saturn 5 and theoretically somewhat sustainable as a launch vehicle, rather than as an excuse for perpetual corporate welfare for zero results

[Anonymous No.14684200]

>>14684185
Ares V had 188 tons to LEO it was a beast. The issue was that using the RS-68s sucked because they had lower isp and awful TWR compared to the SSME (50% more thrust at 3X the weight), but moreso that they melted when next to the SRB’s, and fixing their nozzle to regenerative would’ve been expensive. Maybe better in the long term.
The best scenario is one where Ares V is built with SSMEs, but the SSMEs are recovered via SMART reuse
Final fun fact: a lot of Shuttle-C designs had the engines and avionics carry the payload to orbit (like a regular shuttle) then detach, deorbit, and land for reuse

[Anonymous No.14684211]

>>14684178
I wonder how many months of science they will lose sending the rover to the MSR lander

[Anonymous No.14684248]

>>14684211
Well the alternative is just to take samples immediately around the return vehicle. Which would certainly be worse in terms of scientific return.

[Anonymous No.14684255]

>>14684185
SLS's main failing with respect to AV is the fact that it has an anaemic upper-stage with not enough thrust. J2X would be more than an order of magnitude higher thrust than RL10.

[Anonymous No.14684295]

>>14684178
fucks sake, what stupid idea. let some europeans test their first mars helicopter as part of a CRITICAL mission component. just give another billion to JPL, at least we know theyre capable of doing it. i dont fucking trust europoors to do it im sorry, it will fail in transit

[Anonymous No.14684303]

>>14683867
>>14683873
>>14683876
it's a nothing burger
private lunar expeditions will want something much cheaper and less convoluted than the artemis architecture anyway

[Anonymous No.14684338]

Helga, Zohar, Commander Moonnequin Campos, the first crew Orion

[Anonymous No.14684423]

>>14683876
Why not? He did that with Dragon.

[Anonymous No.14684424]

>>14682320
>KSP asparagus staging doesn't work in real life holy shit
It does, just need to come up with a fitting that can flow tons per second and completely seal near instantly when disconnected. We already have this at tons per minute with aerial refueling so we are only a single order of magnitude off.
Catch is it's just an extra level of complexity that requires lots of smaller tanks instead of a single larger tank so economics and mass fraction play a huge role.

[Anonymous No.14684426]

>>14684295
None of the European missions have failed in transit, only landing. Which they won't be doing.

[Anonymous No.14684427]

>>14684098
Or maybe that they need worry about getting starlink 2s up first since they'll have plenty of time before they need to work on their HLS contract

[Anonymous No.14684447]

>SpaceX is up to at least Raptor 106

[Anonymous No.14684470]

feels like bezos gave up

[Anonymous No.14684501]

>>14684178
>The fetch rover has been eliminated from MSR
About time. NASA's insistence on one has been one of the major bottlenecks of MSR since the 80s due to the added complexity and costs associated. I wonder what it was that made them finally simplify the plan they've been stubbornly holding on to for so long

[Anonymous No.14684521]

soon...

[Anonymous No.14684530]

>>14683710
It's beyond the environment

[Anonymous No.14684534]

>>14683759
The soviet lunar sample collectors were so ingeniously simple
>land
>single hinge drill
>drills into soft ground
>deposit into reentry capsule
>direct ascent into a reentry Earth orbit

[Anonymous No.14684544]

>>14684295
Anon, Ingenuity was a test in a critical mission component. How is this any different?

[Anonymous No.14684548]

>>14684530
>60 km

[Anonymous No.14684594]

>>14684548
There's nothing out there. All there is is space and gas and dust, and 20,000 tons of hypergolic fuel.

[Anonymous No.14684642]

>>14681942
Aliens are not hostile. If they were hostile then we would already be dead or enslaved. This can effectively be taken as fact. The only way this could potentially not be true is if aliens have evolved to the point we have at pretty much the same point we have. And that this is true of every single alien species out there. The chance of that is virtually zero and it can be dismissed as an impossibility for all practical purposes.

[Anonymous No.14684644]

>>14683832
it's all about refueling

[Anonymous No.14684648]

>>14683904
>That's most perplexing part because it also negates the gravity losses argument and the argument that a higher TWR would lower propellant costs.
confirmed retard. all nine engines fire at stage sep

[Anonymous No.14684665]

>>14684644
>>14684648
What are you talking about? It doesn't matter what engines fire, they're firing after stage separation where gravity losses are low whereas more sea level engines could conceivably be used for landing but Starship is already overpowered for that with 3 230tf engines. Increasing the TWR of an already high TWR upper stage by 2.55x doesn't help with refueling, you actual fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.14684673]

>>14684665
>stage separation where gravity losses are low
wrong
>Increasing the TWR of an already high TWR upper stage by 2.55x doesn't help with refueling
it does with stretched tanks because fuel as payload is not volume limited but mass limited

[Anonymous No.14684678]

>>14683593
>not using 4chanx
I shiggy diggy

[Anonymous No.14684679]

>>14684665
I meant the thrust of the vacuum engines is increased by 2.55x, not the TWR. Part of that is the switch to Raptor 2
>>14684673
>it does with stretched tanks
That's my claim, you imbecile, that they're gearing up to stretch the tanks because otherwise the extra thrust wouldn't be justified

[Anonymous No.14684721]

Okay very basic bitch question here, but I feel less embarrassed about asking it because it’s obvious that half the users in this general don’t understand optimizing your first stage for thrust.
I don’t play KSP. I know it’s haram but I don’t. But if I had 2 ships right next to eachother: both with the exact same fuel tank, but one of them had one vac engine and the other had three vac engines, what would happen if I fired them? Would the one with three engines reach the destination in exactly 1/3 the time at the cost of burning fuel exactly 3x more rapidly? Or is it less efficient? Or more efficient?

[Anonymous No.14684754]

>>14684721
3 engines give you higher twr, but ultimately result in a lower dv because of the increased mass.

What is the destination in this case?
If it's like a drag race running the engines all the way horizontally with no intertial cruising the multi-engine variant would be faster, but that's a pretty useless metric for a rocket.

More engines can be more efficient when launching from the ground, but it's not that important when starting from, say LEO

[Anonymous No.14684758]

>>14684721
>Would the one with three engines reach the destination in exactly 1/3 the time at the cost of burning fuel exactly 3x more rapidly? Or is it less efficient? Or more efficient?
If they already are in orbit having three vac engines will only make you burn the fuel faster while getting less delta V because of extra mass of the other two engines. You won't get to the destination faster, you might not even reach it now because of the loss in delta V.

[Anonymous No.14684774]

>>14684754
>>14684758
I am dumb and didn’t even consider the extra mass. Thanks anons. I guess I have to ask wtf the benefit would be of adding more vacraps to SS then

[Anonymous No.14684783]

>>14681980
If you entered the end of a spinning habitat slightly above the ground wouldn't you just sit there, floating above the floor while experiencing wind as the inside of it rotated around you?

[Anonymous No.14684788]

>b7 is getting scrapped
>b8 will be used for orbital launch
>stage zero suffered significant damage
>first orbital launch is now NET October
https://twitter.com/DutchSatellites/status/1549668274580905984

[Anonymous No.14684789]

>>14684774
Starship fires way before it reaches orbit and still experience significant gravity loss. The extra thrust from three more engines lessen gravity loss which probably justifies the extra mass.

[Anonymous No.14684814]

>>14684789
also if the thrust is too low you either loose a lot of efficiency as you have to burn over a long stretch of orbit instead of at essentially a single point, or you have to waste a lot of time doing it over multiple passes

[Anonymous No.14684820]

>>14684789
I guess that’s because you can only optimize SH so much. At some point (I imagine) it becomes untenable to fire Super Heavy any stronger/longer because then you have way too much energy that needs to bleed off if you ever want to try and land it back at the launch site. I.e. if you take it too high it might burn up. Again this is just an assumption but are they trying to find that sweet spot where SS can make up the rest of the gravity losses after stage sep but still have enough fuel to lug more engines?

[Anonymous No.14684826]

>>14683060
>absolutely no one mentions how Falcon 9's 1st stage flies a much more demanding profile than Superheavy will
Disappointed.

[Anonymous No.14684862]

>>14684721
Isp would be unchanged in a vacuum because that's engine specific, but in atmosphere three engines could be more efficient than one if they delivered more impulse at a higher attitude and that could lead to more delta-v or a higher payload. It could also have fewer gravity losses which decreases the delta-v needed to reach orbit but that must be balanced with drag, g-loading, and of course mass. It's not that anyone is saying that a stage shouldn't be optimized, it's more that it was assumed to be already optimized so increasing the thrust per engine by 28% without removing engines to reduce mass is confusing. It's even more confusing to then add engines when the space to fit more was open the whole time.
>>14684789
Source? The most high performing upper stages actually have a low TWR and a long burn time, they tend to go higher in space before dropping closer to the Earth and circularizing. 3+3 engine Starship would have a much higher TWR than most of its counterparts even adjusting for the earlier staging and shutting down SL engines as it continues.

[Anonymous No.14684877]

>>14684788
Clearly this is sabotage by the FAA so it launches after SLS, right my fellow schizobros??

[Anonymous No.14684886]

L2 pretty much agrees that B7 is done and orbital flight is NET October. SpaceX wants to be more careful so they’ll go a bit slower and also the launch ring was damaged a bit

[Anonymous No.14684897]

>>14684862
>Source?
NTA, but Starship has to stage early because Super Heavy has to do the RTLS maneuver. Even earlier than a Falcon 9 RTLS to reduce heating loads IIRC.

[Anonymous No.14684912]

>>14684886
>spacex will start going slower and being more careful
and the NASAification of spacex continues. by the end of the decade you'll have to go through years of meetings and risk analysis before an idea gets approved.

[Anonymous No.14684937]

>>14684783
yes but only if the door you entered through was not rotating with the habitat.
if you had a jet pack in an oneill cylinder you could go in the opposite direction of rotation and then just float freely right above the ground until the wind accelerates you back.

[Anonymous No.14684944]

>>14684783
How do you simply "enter" the end without first matching its rotational speed, other than "down" from the hub?

[Anonymous No.14684951]

>>14684944
It's open. Like a paper towel tube.

[Anonymous No.14684955]

>>14684912
They don’t want to nuke Stage Zero, anon

[Anonymous No.14684957]

>>14684951
Open to what, the vacuum of space? Whatever "door" you come in from has to be counter-rotating relative to the "ground".

[Anonymous No.14684959]

>>14684957
>Open to what, the vacuum of space?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.14684966]

i dunno guys now that dumitru turned his meme pdf into a slideshow i'm kinda tempted to buy his shittoken
https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=z4edxgmumxo

[Anonymous No.14684969]

>>14684897
Sure, hence why the TWR for Starship is higher than the second stage of Falcon 9, and both are much higher than Centaur which IIRC is only around 0.3. My point is that a stage like Centaur, despite its great performance, can have relatively high gravity losses because it gets lofted high into space and it has a long duration burn so it starts losing attitude before it is completed, literally falling towards Earth. Starship cannot have such high losses, it will stage early at a high TWR and have so much thrust as it approaches apogee that it may have to shut down or throttle even vacuum engines to reduce g-forces and get an accurate insertion.

[Anonymous No.14684991]

>>14684957
Some designs have sealed ends with docking ports on the center axis so you simply match the rotation to dock.
Others have walls extending most of the way up with open centers, the idea is the artificial gravity stops it escaping. What I don't get with this design is how you fill it, seems to me a fuckload of gasses would be lost to the vacuum before enough started moving with the cylinder for the gravity to effect it. I guess you could have a temporary seal for filling or if you are building a big enough cylinder for gravity to hold gasses in the first place losing hundreds of tons might be negligible

[Anonymous No.14684998]

>>14684788
>Do we have a source on this?
>My uncle works at SpaceX

[Anonymous No.14685034]

https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=Xr7ChBYU4Fo
GUYS HOW EXCITING IS THIS COME ON

[Anonymous No.14685057]

>>14685034
What the flying fuck is invidious.namazso?

[Anonymous No.14685066]

>>14685057
invidious is an open-source alternate youtube frontend. i like it because i'm an autist who can't use the actual youtube site without seething these days.

[Anonymous No.14685068]

>>14685057
invidious is like nitter but for jewtube, namazso is just the instance name

[Anonymous No.14685074]

>>14685066
>>14685068
Thanks

[Anonymous No.14685101]

>>14683260
It's gay and so are you

[Anonymous No.14685109]

>>14685066
Does this mean I can watch a video without giving the channel any (you)s?

[Anonymous No.14685114]

spacewalk
https://youtu.be/21X5lGlDOfg

[Anonymous No.14685128]

>>14684788
>stage zero
I hate this term when it isn't used to refer to everything on the ground, just say the launch stand was damaged.

[Anonymous No.14685140]

>>14685109
not only that, you can directly download the video in webm format and paste it straight to /sfg/

[Anonymous No.14685144]

whats the point of going to space

[Anonymous No.14685146]

>>14685144
Space isn't real, retard

[Anonymous No.14685150]

>>14685144
Getting away from accursed e*rfers

[Anonymous No.14685157]

>>14685144
there isn't one, so stay on earth where you belong.

[Anonymous No.14685160]

>>14685144
women will find you more attractive

[Anonymous No.14685167]

>>14685144

[Anonymous No.14685183]

[Anonymous No.14685185]

page 10, staging...
>>14685184
>>14685184
>>14685184
>>14685184

[Anonymous No.14685188]

>>14685140
There won't be a water heater left in Europe after the Arca crew has gone scrounging for parts for that piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.14685194]

>>14685167
I saw this drawn on a wall at the Jungfraujoch recently

[Anonymous No.14685282]

>>14684937
if it was a slowly rotating cylinder, could you just drive some motorised vehicle counterspinwise, then jump off and float?

[Anonymous No.14685495]

>>14682107
> Do note that in the past, there were plans to use SSMEs on proto-SLS vehicles, but to have them be recovered like SMART reuse. Why NASA didn’t do this for SLS is beyond me

It makes sense if you remember the objectives of the SLS program.

[Anonymous No.14685536]

>>14682231
Delays and the attendant cost overruns are a feature. Imagine throwing away tens of billions of guaranteed profits.

[Anonymous No.14685577]

>>14684544
wrong. it was a tech demo and was expected to die in about a month. it was absolutely not needed for anything critical

[Anonymous No.14685584]

>>14683342
>>14683332
>what is an image board?

[Anonymous No.14685615]

>>14684788
And this was obvious

[Anonymous No.14685617]

>>14683386
>>14683581
>>14683485
What do I keep telling you people? From day one, Starship has been intended for launching and maintaining massive constellations of satellites. Human rated Starship is an afterthought, if at all.

Terms to pay attention to:
>Proliferated Low Earth Orbit (pLEO)
>National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA)

https://www.sda.mil/home/about-us/faq/#

[Anonymous No.14685631]

>>14683567
Rich as he is, he could pay a full time nutritionist and chef to control every morsel of food that enters his mouth, and lose weight effortlessly. Rich fat people either DGAF, or are too obstinate or impulsive to obey their nutritionist.

[Anonymous No.14685657]

>>14685034
I aint clickin that shit nigga

[Anonymous No.14685671]

>>14684470
100%, he stopped giving a fuck a while ago. All he cares about now is a hedonistic life of yachting with his goblina. He's effectively retired and checked out from everything else.

[Anonymous No.14685699]

>>14685671
who is this muscly hunk

[Anonymous No.14685944]

>Spacewalk
>Starlink
>Starship testing
>all right now
aaaaaaa

[Anonymous No.14686166]

>>14683227
What album?

[Anonymous No.14686309]

What do we expect to learn from the SLS SRB test fire?

[Anonymous No.14686330]

>>14686166
King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard - Infest the Rats' Nest
Lyrics are from Perihelion.

[Anonymous No.14686521]

>>14682822
I prefer Highway Star.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCyGIJl1XUA