🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:29:37 UTC No. 16358687
Yaogan-43 edition
previous >>16356395
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:32:11 UTC No. 16358695
>>16358687
A very Vandenberg day in China
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:37:13 UTC No. 16358707
Reposting from last thread because I'm pretty sure everyone I was talking to is asleep.
Given the amount of nitrogen currently on Mars, if you have a pressurized volume at 0.5atm with 40%O and 60%N with a ceiling height of 400m you can have a pressurized area of roughly 5,000,000km2, or half the United States.
Alternatively, increasing that by even 1% would mean mining three times the iron ever mined by human beings by mass in nitrogen ice in hostile conditions and then launching it across the solar system. There won't be any interplanetary resource gathering for centuries
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:45:11 UTC No. 16358720
someone explain to me why a system of rigid high altitude balloons can't be used as a near-space platform for rocket launch vehicles
seems like it would be a lot safer and more efficient than risking a tip over on the pad or mid atmosphere booster malfunction
is there something about atmospheric denisty and thrust I'm not getting
think a few tethered giant stratospheric airships that are launch capable and can carry a substantial payload, like the starliner system
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:48:17 UTC No. 16358727
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:49:36 UTC No. 16358731
>>16358720
Altitude does nothing for launches aside from improving isp. You need high velocity to really help.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:49:39 UTC No. 16358732
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:51:46 UTC No. 16358733
>>16358687
can someone explain why the deep space transport is a good idea?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:57:33 UTC No. 16358736
>>16358707
>there won't be any interplanetary resource gathering for centuries
Sure there will be. Within 50 years we will have good enough automation that we'll be able to build up enormous industries in space for manufacturing the machines that'll harvest nitrogen from Venus' atmosphere and launch it to Mars at a rate that matches our ability to tent additional surface area. By 2130 we'll have completely covered Mars in a comfortable breathable atmosphere, inside of canopy tents that are parceled off from one another to remove the issues associated with the extreme elevation scale.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 18:58:44 UTC No. 16358738
>>16358732
SpaceX: Fuel is cheap. Burn a bit more fuel to fly the rocket back and reuse it.
???: Let's strap the rocket to a balloon to save a little bit of fuel, and dump 11 engines into the sea.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:00:25 UTC No. 16358742
>>16358720
Being higher up only makes getting to orbit about 1% easier, but it also costs many times more.
Reusable rockets are a more economical way to get to orbit from Earth than any other launch system including hypothetical space elevators, rotovators, orbital tethers, etc.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:02:48 UTC No. 16358743
>>16358732
>launching from a balloon makes it easier to get to space, which is why our rocket requires more stages to reach orbit than rockets that launch from the ground
>also our rocket stages aren't reusable
>also our rocket tanks are toruses and as such they share no tooling in common
scam or retarded
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:03:51 UTC No. 16358745
>>16358707
400m seems excessive
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:04:50 UTC No. 16358747
>>16358733
It isn't, but a chenical and electric propulsion hybrid spacecraft would be good for crew missions to the asteroid belt and Jupiter. They'd need to be much larger than the DST of course, for crew comfort and to allow for a useful payload mass on arrival (at least a hundred tonnes).
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:04:54 UTC No. 16358748
>>16358720
getting to orbit is about speed, not altitude
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:05:12 UTC No. 16358750
>>16358732
I actually did just find out about this company.
Interesting work, there are a few more like it.
>>16358731
>high velocity
isn't most of a rocket's fuel used up just getting off the ground though
like you could launch it laterally, at an angle, so that the force of gravity wouldn't be directly opposed to it's trajectory
>isp
???
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:06:16 UTC No. 16358753
>>16358745
A dawn redwood growing in such a habitat could conceivably hit the roof of such a structure, anon. Also, you'll want plenty of headroom for your personal aircraft.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:06:58 UTC No. 16358754
>>16358748
Sure, but does the density of the atmosphere have anything to do with the achievement of escape velocity or could you do the same thing from near space where the atmosphere is really thin?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:07:09 UTC No. 16358755
>true resusability?
>no lets invent a rube goldberg machine
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:07:52 UTC No. 16358756
>>16358750
Lurk moar, tourist
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:08:35 UTC No. 16358759
>>16358720
unironically watch the estronaut video on launching rockets from aircraft
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:10:30 UTC No. 16358765
>>16358754
It's a microscopic benefit for a massive technical complication and cost.
Getting to orbit is a solved problem. We don't need new ways of getting to orbit, we need ways of bringing down the cost of the systems that work, and given that most rockets even today are still destroying millions of dollars in hardware per launch, there's obvious ways to save cost there (by building a reusable rocket, to spoonfeed)
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:10:42 UTC No. 16358766
>>16358743
eurospace, so it's latter.
>>16358750
sounds like you will actually benefit from watching tim dodd's video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAt
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:12:45 UTC No. 16358770
you can't go to mars
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:13:09 UTC No. 16358771
>>16358745
I chose the height because it would actually act as enough shielding to bring radiation down to earth levels. If radiation turns out to be less of an issue then you can do like 15% of the entire surface at 100m.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:14:09 UTC No. 16358772
>>16358759
>>16358766
okay
>>16358765
so the density of the atmosphere doesn't matter
gonna have a hard time wrapping my head around that one
considering how imporant atmosphere is to conventional aircraft
>reusable rocket
yeah I know why Musk's 1950's scifi movie rocket landing tech is good
but why not couple it with a stratospheric airship launch system if you're going to go out on boats to do it anyways
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:15:36 UTC No. 16358774
>>16358736
>Within 50 years we will have good enough automation that we'll be able to build up enormous industries in space for manufacturing the machines that'll
Alright, if you have technology like that then you can construct a system to build itself up and automatically terraform an entire solar system. So sure, if we have tech that lets us colonize the galaxy then yeah we can fling some resources around lol. I'm not betting on it
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:16:37 UTC No. 16358775
>>16358770
Everything I'm doing in life is so that I'll be able to buy a ticket when the time comes
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:17:53 UTC No. 16358777
>>16358753
you could have variable heights, if you wanted to do some mega redwood forest you could have tethers going up many kilometers, but doing that everywhere seems kind of wasteful
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:18:11 UTC No. 16358779
>>16358720
the main problems are that it's gay and retarded
it's not a replacement for a booster, it's not safe and it's orders of magnitude less efficient
also
oops, I deleted your balloons
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:21:21 UTC No. 16358785
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:21:43 UTC No. 16358786
>>16358771
15% seems excessive too, whats the point? have these near habitable areas or recreation etc, leave mars alone in the rest of the places (a bit like nature reserves here)
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:22:07 UTC No. 16358788
>>16358770
Give me specific reasons why I can't
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:22:14 UTC No. 16358789
>>16358779
>not a replacement for a booster
someone is insecure
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:22:21 UTC No. 16358790
>>16358770
then I will bring Mars to me
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:22:50 UTC No. 16358791
>>16358786
gay. there's no nature on mars. it's just rocks.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:22:56 UTC No. 16358792
>>16358707
I think it's gonna start with us living in the space ships and then build structures on the surface using the regolith as raw material. Then we'll build underground tunnels to connect the buildings so you can travel between them without a space suit. And then eventually corridors between the buildings.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:23:21 UTC No. 16358793
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:24:54 UTC No. 16358797
>>16358733
>>16358747
NASA figured out decades ago that calling something a Mars architecture was an easy way to get research funding since none of it was getting built without cheap chemical SHLVs.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:25:03 UTC No. 16358798
>>16358777
6 km is the maximum before the cables get too heavy.
How tall would a redwood grow on Mars? Their height is limited by gravity pulling water down. Would it be proportional or is there some exponential thing?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:25:26 UTC No. 16358800
>>16358772
airplanes flying and rockets getting to orbit are completely different
its comparing apples to oranges
>but why not couple it with a stratospheric airship launch system if you're going to go out on boats to do it anyways
because a stratospheric airship launch system is very complicated and costly and you can achieve the same end result (getting into orbit) by making a slightly larger rocket that uses slightly more propellant
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:27:10 UTC No. 16358804
>>16358800
*well to be precise, you need to care about aerodynamics of the rocket when its in the lower atmosphere, but other than that staying in the air with airplane and staying in orbit are completely different
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:27:59 UTC No. 16358806
>>16358793
whatever you say, booster shill
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:29:12 UTC No. 16358809
>>16358792
Digging is too expensive. Have you ever been to a factory? You needs tons of cheap pressurized floor space. Plastic sky is your best bet
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:29:41 UTC No. 16358810
>>16358791
and with this it would be rocks under some atmosphere but would use up resources and need maintenance
you only cover up areas that you are going to use, not just willy nilly
in the mean time you can study the undisturbed rocks
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:30:15 UTC No. 16358811
>>16358804
>>16358800
just a thought I had
I don't usually lurk /sci/, but thought you could provide some feedback.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:31:10 UTC No. 16358812
>>16358772
>so the density of the atmosphere doesn't matter
It doesn't matter ENOUGH to make any air launched method of boosting a rocket worth the cost and complexity.
Rockets are only in the atmosphere for like two minutes and even then only a bit of the effort they are exerting is fighting air resistance.
Also, say it with me now, propellants make up less than 1% of the cost of launching a rocket. propellants, ie fuel, is the CHEAPEST thing in space launch. If you have a system that burns 10x as much propellant but reuses both stages, your rocket will be cheaper than the 1/10th scale rocket that destroys one or more stages after launch.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:31:17 UTC No. 16358813
>>16358809
>Have you ever been to a factory?
Yes, once.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:33:45 UTC No. 16358815
>>16358810
>use up resources and need maintenance
The true cost of that will be determined by price discovery. I suspect people will find the costs associated with more space worth it
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:33:57 UTC No. 16358816
>>16358788
you lack delta-v
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:35:43 UTC No. 16358821
>>16358786
>seems wasteful
>leave mars alone
I wish you could live to seethe at spacers converting every dead rock up there into a paradise for their own benefit
I wish I could live to laugh at sentimental Earther fucks screaming and crying about spacers fucking up the solar system when in reality the Spacers are literally turning a dead hell into a bountiful, endless heaven
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:37:05 UTC No. 16358822
>>16358798
Attach the cables to towers, we could definitely build self supporting towers 2km tall on Mars
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:37:48 UTC No. 16358824
>>16358772
you can't just put a rocket on the airship and call it a day. you will also need to lift the gse - ground support equipment. and then the fuel, and assuming your rocket uses cryogenics means extra portions for evaporation losses, and equipment to keep them cool, again more gse and more weight that you now need to lift with your airship.
it's just easier to keep all the heavy infrastructure on firm soil instead of squeezing some of them into a moving airborne vehicle.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:38:12 UTC No. 16358825
>>16358810
We will use all of the areas we cover up, obviously
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:39:15 UTC No. 16358826
>>16358811
>just a thought I had
You should try not to have thoughts about anything until you've learned the basics.
>I don't usually lurk /sci/
no shit man
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:40:00 UTC No. 16358828
>>16358821
I don't care about leaving all of it alone forever, thats just a "benefit" before the planet gets terraformed which I imagine would be a goal at some point
even if it took hundreds of years
but at that point everything interesting and relevant has already been studied, so it doesn't matter and obviously you don't need to leave all of mars pristine for studying
I doubt there is really anything SpaceX could do to "spoil" it for studies even if they tried to
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:43:22 UTC No. 16358834
>>16358828
If you really think this then you should have never said anything in the first place, because OBVIOUSLY it's going to take a while to tent the entire planet Mars, and as a natural result of tenting an enture planet, you are necessarily doing geologic surveys and land studies of the ENTIRE planet during the course of your efforts, because the whole place will be a construction site at some point. You've made a non-statement.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:43:34 UTC No. 16358835
>>16358720
I approve of this because I want more people saying rockoon, which sounds racist
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:45:32 UTC No. 16358841
>>16358834
its pointless to tent the whole planet
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:46:53 UTC No. 16358842
>>16358822
Due to the pullout forces you can't really space the cables any further apart. If you go too high your sky visually would look like the underside of a bridge or something. Just cables upon cables blending into a steel grey blur
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:48:03 UTC No. 16358844
>>16358841
Why?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:50:52 UTC No. 16358847
>>16358842
kino
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:52:27 UTC No. 16358848
you can't tent the whole planet
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:52:51 UTC No. 16358850
>>16358841
You don't have to tent the whole thing
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:53:40 UTC No. 16358851
>>16358844
why would you? terraform it for real
a tent is better than some small dome but its still gay
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:54:29 UTC No. 16358854
>>16358833
brazil be the first country mars destroys
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:58:26 UTC No. 16358857
>>16358841
the gas volume will expand gradually as oxygen is generated, allowing additions to real estate, and raising the roof on selected areas, slowly as resources allow.
Its never gonna start at 400 meters, just the minimum at first, then grow, grow, grow.
Use urban sprawl on Earth as as example, that is how Mars will be built, the prime-est of prime areas snatched up first, and covered over. Thats why everyone whats to be first, they get to own the VERY BEST spots.
>>16358851
once there is SO MUCH atmosphere, we can open the roof, provided society will pay the cost of basically opening a huge leak
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 19:58:45 UTC No. 16358858
>>16358809
>Digging is too expensive.
It's a necessary expense.
>Have you ever been to a factory? You needs tons of cheap pressurized floor space. Plastic sky is your best bet
Yes I've worked in a battery factory. A factory releases toxic waste in gases, solid and liquids which will need to be accounted for so you still need a building for the factory machinery inside your plastic structure.
Radiation is still gonna be a problem on Mars so it's just a much better alternative to dig up regolith and build structures with that then to have a plastic shell that won't protect the inhabitants.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:00:05 UTC No. 16358860
>>16358720
How are you going to fuel your rocket with cryogenics while it is floating on this balloon? Every option costs more performance than the increase in starting altitude gains you.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:01:23 UTC No. 16358863
https://x.com/RocketLab/status/1831
>We’re loading up the pad for launch 53! Our next mission 'Kinéis Killed the RadIOT Star,’ is our second dedicated launch for French Internet of Things company Kineis IoT. Launch window opens: Sept. 17, 2024, NZST. This mission will boost Kinéis' global IoT connectivity with five new nanosats, enhancing their capacity to connect millions of devices globally.
>"Kinéis Killed the RadIOT Star"
Do you guys think Rocket Lab will go bankrupt if they run out of quirky mission names?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:05:22 UTC No. 16358867
>>16358851
Do you have any fucking clue the scale of industry you would need to terraform Mars? See my nitrogen/iron comparison here >>16358707. Who would be more motivated to do that than Martians themselves? But with no large pressurized volumes you don't have self sustainability or a population. It'll be like >>16358857 said, paraterraform with tents and when you finally have a thick enough atmosphere you just peel back the plastic.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:06:24 UTC No. 16358869
>>16358720
I don't think you realize just how heavy rockets are.
Just the second stage of a Falcon 9 is more than 100 tons when fueled.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:06:28 UTC No. 16358871
>>16358861
Clown hours today
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:14:08 UTC No. 16358881
>>16358863
>Do you guys think Rocket Lab will go bankrupt if they run out of quirky mission names?
I think they'll go bankrupt when they run out of meme customers
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:15:18 UTC No. 16358883
>>16358770
yet
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:15:37 UTC No. 16358885
>>16358863
>five (5) nanosats
>French
>Internet of Things
humiliating
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:17:41 UTC No. 16358889
>>16358858
>It's a necessary expense.
No, a high enough ceiling provides enough radiation shielding from air.
>A factory releases toxic waste in gases
There will already be a local supplier for air miners and life support. This is not a difficult problem for a Mars city to solve.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:18:41 UTC No. 16358892
>>16358861
We will live in the tent whether you like it or not
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:22:40 UTC No. 16358894
>>16358892
you will live in the pod
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:27:54 UTC No. 16358901
>>16358892
you will live in the tunnels and you will fucking like it
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:31:03 UTC No. 16358906
>>16358898
scrub due to non-weather related reasons + 2 more weeks
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:31:59 UTC No. 16358907
>>16358832
Cursed launch.
These tanks were supposed to be for this flight btw
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:32:21 UTC No. 16358908
>>16358906
>+another weather scrub
>now Europa Clipper needs to launch
>Polaris Dawn stands down
its ogre, only disappointment awaits
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:34:05 UTC No. 16358910
>>16358892
The tent is just a holdover until the canyons are done.
Imagine living in a tent forever. Like some kind of clown. Is that what you are? A clown?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:35:15 UTC No. 16358913
IFT 5... I am forgotten
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:37:01 UTC No. 16358915
>>16358892
I already live in a tent
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:43:16 UTC No. 16358919
>>16358915
But you could live in a tent on mars if that crazy anon gets his way.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:47:14 UTC No. 16358922
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/01/
>The contract between Boeing and the International Association of Machinists is due to expire at 11:59 pm PT on September 12. Without a new contract, the workers who build its planes in Washington state are set to start the first strike at the company in 16 years. And right now, the chances of a deal don’t look good, according to the head of the union local.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:50:32 UTC No. 16358924
>>16358687
why we dont fill the solar system with air so we can go with ballons everywhere?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:52:14 UTC No. 16358925
>>16358924
Prepare to have your mind blown: the solar wind is an atmosphere and it extends out past Pluto
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:56:45 UTC No. 16358926
>>16358925
How do we tap into that air?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:57:24 UTC No. 16358927
>>16358926
Plasma magnet
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:57:35 UTC No. 16358928
>>16358863
Did they add wallonia and french switzerland to France? lol
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 20:57:55 UTC No. 16358929
>>16358927
What's that
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:07:41 UTC No. 16358935
>>16358929
>he doesn't know
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:10:34 UTC No. 16358941
>>16358929
a scam
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:12:39 UTC No. 16358944
>>16358926
https://youtu.be/rXjjCbqVGAI?si=C9_
Solar sails, duh.
(Fuck that cat lady was hot)
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:15:57 UTC No. 16358946
>>16358922
They still have their SC plant but its been the source of a lot of the build problems due to a lack of skilled workers on top of the hiring policies that don't select for competence.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:17:03 UTC No. 16358948
>>16358907
what a shitshow that was, quietly swept under the rug to avoid further embarrassment.
They were debating on whether to use some test articles from 2012 as replacements (since the production line was already shut down), but decided to adapt some Vega-C tanks instead.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:18:05 UTC No. 16358951
Polaris Dawn and IFT-5 have been delayed so much bros...
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:19:12 UTC No. 16358954
>>16358951
IFT-5 can't be delayed if it never had a date
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:20:13 UTC No. 16358955
>>16358953
Jesus this is embarassing.
Is this entire life’s devotion to spiting spacex really because he was an idiot and lost money shorting tesla?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:20:49 UTC No. 16358956
>>16358953
What exactly did they event? It's a converted barge. The patent went in the trash for a reason.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:21:31 UTC No. 16358957
>>16358955
Literally yes given that everytime I bothered to load his posts there would always be TSLAQ content when I scrolled down to the Discover more feed below it which is influenced by the poster
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:22:12 UTC No. 16358959
>>16358953
>spacex did something perfectly fine with a cheap barge
>heys lets just do something more expensive and fancy
idiots
They watched spacex do multiple tests before any sort of actual landings...
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:22:18 UTC No. 16358960
>>16358953
built by the same company of the spacex barges
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:24:47 UTC No. 16358965
>>16358960
?? a quick google says otherwise
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:25:53 UTC No. 16358968
>>16358960
Nope, BO barge was built in Romania.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:26:57 UTC No. 16358969
>>16358968
>>16358965
It seems that I have been lied to by trusted sources
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:27:35 UTC No. 16358970
>>16358907
Kek forgot about that hahahah
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:30:57 UTC No. 16358973
>>16358944
https://youtu.be/JHMdr9J5Vfs?si=_Ry
>tfw you will never be a swashbuckling pirate raiding colony shipments with your genetically engineered cat wife
space travel would be so much more kino if it had an atmosphere.
The vaccuum of space is cringe, we should abolish it.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:36:00 UTC No. 16358978
>>16358973
>vaccuum of space is cringe
giga cringe, why do you hate the ability to go faster than 0.001% the speed of light
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:36:42 UTC No. 16358979
>>16358953
LMAO
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:37:11 UTC No. 16358980
>>16358953
Maybe he’s just a ragebaiter lol, I tip my hat
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:43:45 UTC No. 16358985
>>16358915
based and homeless pilled
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:44:02 UTC No. 16358986
>>16358860
>How are you going to fuel your rocket with cryogenics
you fuel it before it goes up, I'd imagine that's how they did it with the plane
but I can't find any information on that procedure, so it's possible they carried the fuel on the plane and did that en route
the advantage an airship launch system would have over a plane is that you wouldn't have to drop the rocket first, because it would be suspended below the craft rather than attached directly to it
the fact that it launches from near space means you don't need that much fuel, or can carry fuel that would go to boosters
really though none of that would matter if we just had space elevator
>>16358869
what part of "you don't even need heavy boosters" if you launch from near space are you missing here
if you don't need much fuel, the weight drops significantly
you can carry more fuel for additional maneuvers that way if your system can carry it up, rather than dumping it all just to get out of atmosphere
but the weight is why you would need a group of very large rigid airships
the platform would ideally be reusable
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:44:54 UTC No. 16358987
>>16358953
>Jacklyn
is that the name of some woman Bezos is trying to bag?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:45:13 UTC No. 16358988
>>16358944
>(Fuck that cat lady was hot)
Man of taste spotted
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:45:25 UTC No. 16358989
>>16358915
tent life good life
stay humble, nomad
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:47:35 UTC No. 16358990
>>16358987
Its his mother lol
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:49:18 UTC No. 16358992
>>16358990
That sick fuck!
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:49:20 UTC No. 16358993
>>16358915
based anprim
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:52:27 UTC No. 16358994
>>16358990
good for him. can't fault the guy for naming a ship after his mother.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:57:38 UTC No. 16358998
>>16358994
The last ship he named after his mother, which was much larger and frankly 10X better, got scrapped for a fucking garbage barge, named for is dead mother.
Aim for the feather, mom! Now, ignite the thermite! Take that MOM!
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:00:17 UTC No. 16358999
>>16358978
That’s another thing too, thing should be closer together. Change it now.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:01:28 UTC No. 16359005
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:01:33 UTC No. 16359006
>>16358980
Fedora redditnigger go the fuck back
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:02:30 UTC No. 16359007
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:02:52 UTC No. 16359008
>>16358994
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZQ
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:03:03 UTC No. 16359009
>>16359000
the clock is ticking, muskrats...
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:04:37 UTC No. 16359012
>>16359009
Shut up bezoscuck
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:05:45 UTC No. 16359014
>>16358941
Behead those who insult the prophet Greason pbuh ameen
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:11:51 UTC No. 16359018
>>16359014
Plasmag nigger cant take his shit invention WNGTS
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:12:06 UTC No. 16359019
>>16358953
Today I shall remind them.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:12:43 UTC No. 16359020
>>16359006
gonna cry?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:14:26 UTC No. 16359023
so if SATAN II (RS-28 Sarmat) has a nuclear propulsion unit that lets it indefinitely circle the planet before targeting, why can't we make spacecraft that use nuclear engines
why were these projects shelved decades ago if they are possible to implement
is TEM even real
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:17:42 UTC No. 16359025
>>16359019
Did CSC make this? That's hilarious
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:18:37 UTC No. 16359027
>>16359023
I'm pretty sure that missile requires intake air, which is unfortunately lacking in outer space.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:18:43 UTC No. 16359028
>>16359019
>teamspace is rooting for all the interest groups and companies that perform lawfare to have their more capable than them competition (spacex and other newspace companies) slowed/eliminated.
You’re retarded.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:18:43 UTC No. 16359029
>>16359006
Are you retarded?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:19:56 UTC No. 16359031
>>16359023
Try learning more about nuclear propulsion so you do not make this mistake again.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:20:56 UTC No. 16359035
>>16359019
if BO wasn't a constantly suing, non-orbital, slow as fuck, oldspace-esque whiny shit, then maybe the first portion would have a point
but it isn't so it doesn't
maybe this has changed with Limp and the latest info posting, but that remains to be seen
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:22:53 UTC No. 16359039
>>16359020
>>16359029
Samefag
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:22:59 UTC No. 16359040
>Elon Musk defies X ban in Brazil by beaming app from space
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:23:36 UTC No. 16359041
>>16359023
Because it doesn’t and that’s bullshit.
I thought by now that people would have learned to take thirdie propaganda claiming they have certain technology less seriously
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:31:32 UTC No. 16359049
>>16359039
Sorry man. I'm afraid multiple people think you're stupid.
>>16359040
Fucking journalists man
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:35:01 UTC No. 16359053
>>16359041
dude the fact that Russians have nuclear propelled hypersonic missiles has been acknowledged in official documents for years now
I just looked at a report from 2018 that encouraged US weapons developers to come up with their own nuclear propulsion systems to respond.
>>16359027
The missile might, but nuclear propulsion is not limited to those systems.
It's the only feasible way we get to Mars and back.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:38:40 UTC No. 16359064
>>16359053
Russia does not have nuclear propelled hypersonic missiles and nuclear space propulsion still requires a propellant to be carried along with them as they cannot use air.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:40:21 UTC No. 16359070
>>16359040
Based 541132 Leleākūhonua poster
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:45:28 UTC No. 16359076
>>16359070
Whats so special about this TNO? Is it that its nickname is The Goblin?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:47:50 UTC No. 16359077
I just started playing KSP1 since it was on sale, I need a ship name that matches up with SFG, so far what I have is Spaceferry, but I cant think of anything with a G to add. Any ideas fellas?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:49:01 UTC No. 16359084
>>16359077
Gemini
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:49:54 UTC No. 16359086
>>16359064
>Russia does not have nuclear propelled hypersonic missiles
You're adorable.
Very serious people have been talking seriously about this big problem for years now.
I cannot take this blanket denial seriously, not when systems like Poseidon and Burevestnik are publically recognized by normie media outlets.
see Nyonoksa radiation accident
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:50:02 UTC No. 16359087
>>16359077
oh yeaah the space exploration sale is on now, forgor
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:51:27 UTC No. 16359090
>>16358720
>>16358748
>getting to orbit is about speed, not altitude
specifically horizontal speed, which a balloon gives you fuck none of
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:51:31 UTC No. 16359091
>>16359087
Give me a word then
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:52:36 UTC No. 16359092
>>16359077
Space Faring Gondola
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:53:14 UTC No. 16359094
>>16359076
There aren't that many sednoids known out there, so any object confirmed from that group is of great interest for the study of the Oort Cloud. Hell, it's also been theorized that some of these rocks could have actually been captured from other planetary systems.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:53:39 UTC No. 16359095
>>16359091
gay
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:54:26 UTC No. 16359097
>>16359086
The missile you are speaking of 1) is not a hypersonic and 2) blew up in testing.
This isn't even weak vatnik bait this is just you suffering from a bad case of dunning kruuger.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:54:45 UTC No. 16359098
>>16359095
Nigger
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:55:44 UTC No. 16359100
>>16359098
from
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:55:51 UTC No. 16359102
NOOOO NOT AGAIN WITH THE PIGGER VS ZIGGER NUCLEAR BOT WARS THEYRE FUCKING BACK
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:56:16 UTC No. 16359103
>>16359077
Gliese, you know, from that ol' star catalogue.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:57:07 UTC No. 16359104
>>16359023
>>16359103
Oh I actually like this one and isnt directly ripping off another rocket family. May use it
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:57:24 UTC No. 16359105
>>16359090
but you could launch horizontally instead of vertically with an airship system
which makes hitting certain hard to reach orbital inclinations very much easier than ground or sea level launch, since the carrier vehicle can align the rocket to any given orbit
there are a large array of target orbits that ground launch systems can't effectively reach without inordinate cost
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 22:57:32 UTC No. 16359106
>>16359097
>vatnik
I don't know anything about nuclear missiles but you should probably go back. We haven't fought any wars in space yet, let's refrain from involving ourselves in this mess.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:01:01 UTC No. 16359108
>>16359106
>>16359097
>>16359086
>>16359064
>>16359053
>>16359023
Go the fuck back to /k/ or /pol/ or wherever the fuck you came from /sfg/ regulars dont want to hear about your russia vs west wars its annoying as fuck and doesnt belong here. If youre going to discuss Russia vs West discuss the space race or current tensions on the ISS
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:01:10 UTC No. 16359109
>>16358953
>CockSuckerSkeptic
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:03:54 UTC No. 16359111
Canadarm2 cam inspecting dragon trunk right now for some reason
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfE
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:05:30 UTC No. 16359113
>>16359100
outer
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:05:50 UTC No. 16359115
>>16359111
Dragon is so sexy! Love that cute little trunk
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:06:19 UTC No. 16359116
>>16359097
SATAN II is indeed hypersonic, this has been reported again for many years
you're not even going to address the tsunami torpedo, huh
it's hilarious how /sci/ is filled with denialist retards who pretend nuclear propulsion is somehow impossible to implement
this story has been old for more than five years now
you're on the same level as people who think nuclear bombs are fake
just precious
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:07:14 UTC No. 16359118
>>16359111
concerning
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:09:05 UTC No. 16359122
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:10:32 UTC No. 16359126
>>16359000
I like SpaceX a lot more than BO but after all the gloating here it will be really funny if New Glenn becomes operational before Starship
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:10:54 UTC No. 16359127
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:11:11 UTC No. 16359128
>>16359108
If you want to realistically get to Mars and back you will need nuclear propulsion in space.
There's no getting around this fact.
I'm not pulling for any side in the meme world war 3 prelude.
That's the anon who denies these weapons even exist at all.
He's probably petrified that the words "nuclear propelled hypersonic missile" even appeared next to one another.
It used to be MUCH easier to find information related to this subject that used those words openly in conjunction not even that long ago.
Different projects to that end have been explored for more than 80 years now.
You're not fooling anyone. This shit is in official government documents.
>current tensions on the ISS
That is thread topic though.
Boeing a shit.
They kill people to hide their incompetence.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:11:13 UTC No. 16359129
incoming 500 long bot post about russian missiles because nuclear is a triggerword for them to swarm the thread. for 4chanx users you can mute all replies from the original post here >>16359023 and it should be like normal. the rest of you are fucked
>pic unrel
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:11:35 UTC No. 16359132
>>16359102
the rockets are being measured
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:12:47 UTC No. 16359135
>>16359105
You don't seem to comprehend. You don't just need horizontal speed to reach orbit, you need ABSURD horizontal speed.
Have you noticed all the pretty firey things that happen when spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere *from* orbit? That's from being at orbital speed with just a fraction of the atmosphere that a balloon can't get above.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:13:09 UTC No. 16359136
>>16359129
>4chanx users
open shill detected
DONT TALK ABOUT NUCLEAR PROPULSION IN SPACE
THAT IS A BIG NO NO TOPIC
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:14:44 UTC No. 16359141
>>16359128
>If you want to realistically get to Mars and back you will need nuclear propulsion in space.
wrong
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:15:34 UTC No. 16359144
>>16359128
>If you want to realistically get to Mars and back you will need nuclear propulsion in space.
no
rest of opinion discarded
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:15:39 UTC No. 16359146
>>16359140
Something so satisfying about posting a random ass thing and changing the entire trajectory of what the thread is talking about lol
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:15:52 UTC No. 16359147
godamn I wish that was shuttle we were seeing right now
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:16:23 UTC No. 16359148
>>16359147
I wish it was buran
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:16:39 UTC No. 16359149
>>16359135
the airship isn't the source of velocity, just as the ground launch platform isn't
everyone knows you can use airships to launch rockets, the only question is how do you achieve the scale necessary to lift something that heavy into near space
>>16359140
what is happening based knower
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:16:52 UTC No. 16359150
>>16359146
Its the first time I think we're getting an angle like this, can't remember any other time, wish they had this view during spacewalks
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:17:02 UTC No. 16359151
>>16359140
Thats insane
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:17:54 UTC No. 16359153
>>16359149
>what is happening based knower
inspecting dragon for rats
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:17:54 UTC No. 16359154
>>16359149
idk what's happening but its giving us some cool views
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:18:03 UTC No. 16359155
>>16359144
>>16359141
You must realize that with conventional fuel propulsion that is a one way trip.
A return trip would be impossible without nuclear propulsion. A hypothetical, pipe dream, pie in the sky shit.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:18:05 UTC No. 16359156
>>16359116
RS-28 is a liquid fueled ICBM not a nuclear powered hypersonic missile, this just keeps getting worse for you.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:18:23 UTC No. 16359157
>>16359140
>Dragon looks sleek and new
>Starliner looks like something out of the last century
Kind of incredible to see them both there like that. Now that Starliner is dead who's gonna be NASA's redundant crew capsule?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:18:54 UTC No. 16359158
>>16359155
>with conventional fuel propulsion that is a one way trip.
no it isn't
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:19:02 UTC No. 16359160
>>16359155
if you were from around here you would be familiar with the concept of ISRU propellant production
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:19:19 UTC No. 16359161
Just two spaceships perched above the Earth
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:19:30 UTC No. 16359162
>>16359149
The airship is no aid in getting that kind of velocity either. We've already done air launch, and it doesn't really help unless you have no good launch sites.
The simple fact is, the scale of what a balloon can lift doesn't compare with what rockets can lift.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:20:41 UTC No. 16359164
>>16359157
I like both of their looks. dragon kind or reminds me of the inside of airplanes, where as starliner feels like shuttle textures mapped onto a capsule mesh.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:21:05 UTC No. 16359167
>>16359150
Yeah I rewound the livestream by like 20 or 30 mins (randomly scrubbed back on my phone) and got a really cool sweeping shot of Starliner with Dragon framed pretty coincidentally well in the foreground.
I’ve been sitting on making some drawfag undocking OC so it was inspiring. Need to get started on it
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:22:13 UTC No. 16359169
Wouldn't finding big ice asteroids in the kuiper belt to then slam into mars be a better idea before establishing a mars base?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:23:52 UTC No. 16359172
>>16359149
the potential energy of getting up to orbital altitude is like 1/100 the kinetic energy you need to achieve the horizontal speeds to stay in orbit
one way to think about is, you are going forward so quickly that by the time you have fallen a certain distance towards the earth, you have gone forward so much that you are at the same altitude with respect to where you were previously
you keep falling but you keep going forward too and the earth curves below you, so you never fall down
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:24:33 UTC No. 16359175
>>16359164
>dragon kind or reminds me of the inside of airplanes
Yeah or the seats on a city bus, it's the molded plastic look.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:25:01 UTC No. 16359176
>>16359169
Big ice asteroids would be fun to have to give Mars some more volatiles.
>before establishing a mars base
absolutely pointless, it's a drop in the bucket, it's like saying we should thaw Antarctica before building any bases there.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:25:01 UTC No. 16359177
>>16359155
nuclear propulsion is not as good as you think it is
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:25:07 UTC No. 16359178
>>16359160
>>16359158
okay then buddy, so your machine turns things we should be able to find on the surface of Mars into propellant
big deal
>processing water ice detected at the poles
>requires large amounts of equipment and power to achieve. Alternatively, it may be possible to heat water in a nuclear or solar thermal rocket
oh yeah that's going to be so easy
so much easier than just using a nuclear engine instead
which would be able to do the thing you want to do anyway because it puts out a fuckton of energy, which is what you need in the first place for electrolysis
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:25:34 UTC No. 16359179
>>16359167
>I’ve been sitting on making some drawfag undocking OC so it was inspiring
Someone needs to draw an EVA to unstick the stubborn Starliner with a fucking crowbar
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:26:35 UTC No. 16359183
>>16359025
no he would be like the bottom but anti SpaceX instead of anti SLS
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:27:07 UTC No. 16359185
>>16359179
a slim jim to unlock it from the outside, just as if someone left the keys in it
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:27:20 UTC No. 16359186
>>16359176
Well if the asteroids are big enough it would be some significant disruptions when they land
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:27:45 UTC No. 16359188
>>16359172
>the potential energy of getting up to orbital altitude is like 1/100 the kinetic energy you need to achieve the horizontal speeds to stay in orbit
I'll take your word for it.
>>16359177
it's probably better than I think
or at least it would be if it's funding hadn't been cut many years ago for basically no reason
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:27:57 UTC No. 16359189
>>16359185
kek good idea
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:28:22 UTC No. 16359190
>>16359169
Wow yeah lets wait 200 fucking years at the bare minimum to get the capability to go all the way out to the Kuiper belt just to send one stupid shitty iceball back to Mars to colonize it. Yeah good idea lets just skip over the most obvious place to start our extraplanetary life on to first wait centuries for your retarded terraforming idea, NOT EVEN MENTIONING THE TIME IT TAKES FOR EVERYTHING YOU JUST SLINGSHOTTED AT MARS TO SETTLE OUT IN TO THE SYSTEM YOU WANT. Whats that? Literally everyone is protesting because that would develop the technology to slingshot random asteroids back at Earth? You have thousands of bounties on your head now due to this? Oh well who couldve expected people dont like getting the dinosaur treatment!
Terraforming niggers WNGTS
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:31:20 UTC No. 16359193
how the fuck did Einstein figure out relativity in nineteen hundred and fucking 5. was he really that smart?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:31:52 UTC No. 16359195
>>16359193
Autism
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:32:43 UTC No. 16359198
>>16359186
If the asteroids are that big, then you're not going to be moving them with anything we can make today. Yes, I am counting heavy lifts like Starship.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:33:08 UTC No. 16359199
>>16359194
This was the one I was looking at! The way canadarm swept in an arc was very cinematic lol. It actually looked like a movie shot set up by a cinematographer
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:33:27 UTC No. 16359200
>>16359188
>>16359177
NTP is mistakenly viewed as being at the same state of development as it was during NERVA because that is really the only known example to the layman.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:34:04 UTC No. 16359201
>>16359199
Yeah and then the Starliner reveal afterwards, pure cinema
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:35:35 UTC No. 16359206
>>16359200
yeah it's worse now
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:35:46 UTC No. 16359207
>>16359126
Half of /sfg/ would an hero in that scenario
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:36:30 UTC No. 16359208
>>16359190
>200 fucking years at the bare minimum to get the capability to go all the way out to the Kuiper belt
NTA
if we implemented nuclear ramjet technology it might not take so long
we could even start harvesting space rocks like in Homeworld
>Despite the successful tests, the Department of Defense, the sponsor of the Pluto project, had second thoughts. The weapon was considered "too provocative",[40] and it was believed that it would compel the Soviets to construct a similar device.[41]
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:36:57 UTC No. 16359210
today I learned the guy that made the mercury capsule was also an avid spaceplane faget
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:38:48 UTC No. 16359214
>>16359188
>airship fag is also ntp fag
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:39:30 UTC No. 16359215
>>16359210
Umm based? Guess he knows what he's talking about
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:41:29 UTC No. 16359220
>>16359214
Wait wait wait hold up, just for the record I am an airshipchad myself and I fucking hate NTP
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:41:48 UTC No. 16359221
>>16359200
>NASA's plans for NERVA included a visit to Mars by 1978, a permanent lunar base by 1981, and deep space probes to Jupiter, Saturn, and the outer planets. NERVA rockets would be used for nuclear "tugs" designed to take payloads from low Earth orbit (LEO) to higher orbits as a component of the later-named Space Transportation System
>cancelled by President Richard Nixon in 1973
lmao why though
was it the booster shills at work again
just reading about this I can't imagine why it would be defunded and canceled other than military-industrial contract corruption so endemic in the US around that time
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:42:08 UTC No. 16359222
>>16359126
>New Glenn becomes operational before Starship
Almost a certainty at this point.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:42:44 UTC No. 16359223
>>16359215
>t. Maxime
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:42:51 UTC No. 16359224
>>16359221
>Space Transportation System
This name sounds familiar for some reason
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:43:12 UTC No. 16359225
>>16359220
airships are cool as fuck and I wish they had more appreciation
nuclear propulsion is scary, but the only way to get to Mars and back
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:43:21 UTC No. 16359227
>>16359126
moving the goalpost here but define “operational”
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:44:26 UTC No. 16359228
Someone post the moron to idiot stairs image with nuclear fags and airship fags
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:45:31 UTC No. 16359230
>>16359225
I want to own my own airship and tool around the sky at a leisure pace getting drunk among the clouds. Is that so much to ask?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:45:37 UTC No. 16359231
>>16359228
with Chads (spaceplanes) at the very top
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:46:02 UTC No. 16359232
>>16359225
>he thinks nuclear is scary
>he thinks it’s the “only way” to get to Mars… and back? for some reason?
Explain both of these further anon—why is it scary? How is it the only way?
You are wrong and an embarrassment to airship enjoyers but you just defend your claims right now or get dogpiled for being a sodomite
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:46:16 UTC No. 16359235
>>16359227
Able to deploy a payload to orbit
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:46:34 UTC No. 16359237
>>16359224
they reused the name for the shittle.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:46:51 UTC No. 16359238
>>16359230
you can get a hot air balloon for the price of a new car.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:46:53 UTC No. 16359239
>>16359230
now I'm deeply interested in an alt-hist where Rome develops airships somewhere around the time of Hadrian or Marian
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:46:56 UTC No. 16359240
>>16359231
That would still make you a moron, oldfag.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:47:31 UTC No. 16359241
>>16359235
Starship has already demonstrated this ability
>inb4 erm akschually
It did it shut the fuck up
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:49:42 UTC No. 16359245
>>16359243
>gravity assist
cuck
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:49:48 UTC No. 16359246
>>16359241
it hasn't though, the payload door didn't work, they didn't demonstrate a in-orbit burn
some air molecules going into orbit is not a demonstration, they need to actually deploy something to orbit
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:50:21 UTC No. 16359247
>>16359230
I think variable buoyancy propulsion is the coolest discovery in aviation history and nobody even knows about it.
Who needs an engine when you can simply oscillate your craft's buoyancy between positive and negative, so that your airfoils naturally produce thrust.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:51:04 UTC No. 16359248
>>16359239
Right? If they'd been able to harness natural gas instead of just getting young women high with it in caves they might've. I love wondering about how Rome could have endured and advanced, had history taken a different turn.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:51:34 UTC No. 16359249
manned nuclear scramjet HAVOC mission to Venus’ upper atmosphere
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:51:40 UTC No. 16359251
how big of an Airship would you need to lift a Starship stack to 50km?
Would need to add a propellant depot, chillers, power and so on to keep it topped off of course
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:51:49 UTC No. 16359252
In the end why were they looking at Dragon upskirt?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:52:42 UTC No. 16359254
>>16359053
>It's the only feasible way we get to Mars and back
Are you retarded?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:52:44 UTC No. 16359255
>>16359249
wait fuck I just realized there’s no O2 for the engines to breathe its’ over
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:53:09 UTC No. 16359257
>>16359249
>atmosphere
Surface or nothing.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:53:31 UTC No. 16359258
>>16359232
>How is it the only way?
see >>16359178
otherwise you're going to need to store enough fuel to get off Mars and back to Earth for the entire length of the voyage
how does that sound realistic to you
it's a massive liability, for one
two, that is a ridiculous amount of extra weight
landing that shit would be ridiculously difficult
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:54:35 UTC No. 16359260
>>16359221
Nixon retarded the development of spaceflight by decades in order to save money in the near term.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:54:46 UTC No. 16359261
>>16359128
Is this you?
>>16357740
>>16357734
You don't know what you're talking about
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:54:49 UTC No. 16359263
>>16359169
How about you slam your dick into some bitches?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:55:32 UTC No. 16359264
>>16359258
>it's a massive liability, for one
no it isn't
>two, that is a ridiculous amount of extra weight
no it isn't
>landing that shit would be ridiculously difficult
no it isn't
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:55:50 UTC No. 16359265
>>16359262
https://x.com/pronounced_kyle/statu
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:56:01 UTC No. 16359266
>>16359254
oh yeah dude, your method is so much more feasible than just using nuclear propulsion
nuclear would make all this shit way easier
but we just can't do it, for reasons
>>16359261
nope, not me
this thread is the first time I post to /sci/ in many years
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:56:04 UTC No. 16359267
>>16359258
We’re getting giant direct-inject hypergolic return vehicles back to Earth until the ISRU machines get reliable enough to reFILL starship on the Martian surface
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:56:53 UTC No. 16359268
>>16359252
Because they could, the nasty little pervs.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:56:54 UTC No. 16359269
>>16359265
light pollution from starlink is making ground based astronomy hard or something
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:57:44 UTC No. 16359270
>>16359160
>ISRU
Just send a tanker ship or two. Starship will be cheap enough that this is viable for the early missions. Not that this makes this dumbass right
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:57:56 UTC No. 16359271
>>16359246
>>16359241
I love the goalposting of the EDS crowd, a soft landing of both stages is significantly more technically difficult than circularizing your orbit.
I'm just waiting for the ESCAPADE launch to have a big failure because Blue is rushing to meet their launch window.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:58:45 UTC No. 16359273
>>16359262
So what exactly is the point of data centers IIIIIIINNNNN SPAAAAAACE other than bamboozling VCs?
- can't repair them when they fail
- harder to get rid of excess heat (no air to blow the heat away, no cheap water utility either)
- obligatory latency with ground comms
- better not need someone to drive over to press The Button
I guess they can get free solar power, but only so much, and solar panels decrease in power as they age.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:58:55 UTC No. 16359274
>>16359262
https://www.ycombinator.com/launche
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T-
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:59:20 UTC No. 16359276
>>16359248
Yeah that's always fun to imagine, imagine a spacefaring Rome
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:59:54 UTC No. 16359278
>>16359270
The tricky part is that you can wait to send humans until after you've already landed enough capacity to return them.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:59:56 UTC No. 16359279
>>16359200
Tell us what the Isp and T/W ratio of this operational post-NERVA ntr is pls
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:00:33 UTC No. 16359280
>>16359264
the fuel you need to achieve escape velocity from the surface of Earth is indeed ridiculously heavy
even if Mars has lower gravity than Earth, you couldn't feasibly land something that heavy in the way Musk would want to
it's never been tried before, they don't have the test data because Mars environment gravity and atmosphere are just plain different and it would be absurdly difficult to pull off
even if you locked your Mars craft in orbit around Mars with enough fuel to get home, and used a lander system to do whatever limited operations you wanted to do from that teeny tiny vessel, getting that lander back into orbit and docked, then everyone back to Earth would be highly unlikely
two way trip requires nuclear propulsion
fight me
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:00:34 UTC No. 16359281
>>16359276
>imagine a spacefaring Rome
I do all the time
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:01:04 UTC No. 16359283
>>16359274
>cooling
They mentioned that word, but they don't say how they're going to achieve that in space.
Space cooling is hard.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:01:09 UTC No. 16359284
>>16359262
why would anyone put data center, a notoriously heat generating facility, in space, an environment known to have difficult heat management?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:01:33 UTC No. 16359285
>>16359251
A Starship stack is ~50x the mass that a C-5M can lift and much larger in size, some anon might still have that image of a Starship next to some airliners.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:02:06 UTC No. 16359286
>>16359262
pic from these dudes whitepaper about cooling
>>16359271
lol I was just saying you were incorrect technically speaking
anyway, its irrelevant if BO launches escapade before Starship actually demonstrates a payload deployment
New Glenn is going to compete with F9, might not even beat it at cost ever, certainly won't in the short term
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:02:17 UTC No. 16359287
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:02:42 UTC No. 16359289
>>16359221
The fact that we could've been on Mars by 1980ish is something that I really love telling normies when I sperg out about spaceflight. It blows their minds, specially since most of them don't even consider it possible for humanity to reach the red planet in their lifetimes or ever at all.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:03:14 UTC No. 16359290
>>16359267
>giant direct-inject hypergolic return vehicles back to Earth
there's no way dude
that shit is a fairytale
even the tiniest miscalculation and you're fucked
it would literally be easier to develop the necessary nuclear technology to make a return possible from scratch than whatever "just so" direct injection system that has no redundancies and cannot fail even once slop you are suggesting
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:03:23 UTC No. 16359292
>>16359262
So fucking stupid lmao. Energy and computation are a fungible commodity. Adding in launch costs makes you prohibitively expensive for no benefit.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:04:03 UTC No. 16359295
>>16359280
NTP doesn't have the thrust to be a first stage for launching on Mars
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:04:07 UTC No. 16359296
>>16359237
Reusable names lmao, ironic
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:06:04 UTC No. 16359298
>>16359273
pdf link to their whitepaper
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v1
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:07:26 UTC No. 16359300
>>16359266
>your method is so much more feasible
Yeah, it is. Mainly because it exists. Also ntp is like double the isp of chemical. It isn't some magical solution where you can zip around like the Expanse
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:08:42 UTC No. 16359302
>>16359278
Assuming that's a typo, no. We aren't talking about a normal orbital depot. You can add a lot of insulation.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:09:05 UTC No. 16359304
>>16359295
oh
come to think of it that's a good objection
Wouldn't you have to send a rocket full of fuel and land that too to refuel?
Would be easier to lock the "NTP" craft in orbit, and then try to land the boosters from the second craft you would need on the surface? Then send the lander down when you are successful.
>>16359289
But what anon I replied to said is that "NTP" alone isn't enough to lift off from Mars.
Is he wrong?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:09:58 UTC No. 16359306
>>16359274
It's literally just O'Neil's plan. You know, the one whose economic principles are outdated by half a century
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:11:26 UTC No. 16359308
>>16359280
You are so fucking stupid it's unreal. You literally have 0 knowledge of what you're arguing about
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:13:59 UTC No. 16359312
>>16359302
I wasn't following the thread and assumed you were talking about the usual "land a bunch of shit an ISRU until you can send them home" situation
You can definitely avoid launching humans until you get enough resources to return.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:16:22 UTC No. 16359315
>>16359304
Ntp works in space only. The isp is high but the twr is low. You've been arguing this whole time without even knowing that?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:18:19 UTC No. 16359318
>>16359315
he's airshipfag >>16359188
of course he knows nothing rocketry related
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:18:27 UTC No. 16359319
>>16359308
that's like, you're opinion man
when Musk successfully pulls of a two-way trip not using nuclear propulsion I'll make a thread admitting I was retarded for saying it's impossible
till then even I can recognize that nuclear propulsion would make that WAY easier and more believable
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:18:30 UTC No. 16359321
>>16359298
>AI training moves to space data centers
>massive LEO infrastructure
>skynet wakes up
>only way to turn it off is by pressing THE BUTTON
>only human rated ship that hasn't been hacked by skynet... Is shitliner
Kino
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:19:08 UTC No. 16359322
>>16359290
Okay you’re just engagement baiting now lol. I suppose the old heads who designed the Apollo landings should have chosen a nuclear ascent engine as well?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:20:22 UTC No. 16359328
>>16359315
>Ntp works in space only.
no, there are weapons systems that use nuclear propulsion in atmosphere
they do require fuel for launch though, guess I just didn't consider that
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:22:30 UTC No. 16359329
>>16359322
nah, I just learn shit better this way
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:23:08 UTC No. 16359330
>>16359262
Y Combinator will fund anything these days
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:33:21 UTC No. 16359332
NGMI.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:35:25 UTC No. 16359334
>>16359262
>solar sails
>sunlight reflectors
>mega-solar panels for orbital datacenters
Yep I'm thinking its astronomoor seethe time
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:36:24 UTC No. 16359336
>>16359126
Starship is already operational and New Glenn isn't even close to competitive with Starship
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:37:00 UTC No. 16359337
I just learned that the Val Allen radiation belt was discovered using instruments launched from a rocket suspended from high altitude balloons.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:37:08 UTC No. 16359338
>>16359334
someone said it would have the same apparent size as the moon in the sky in the X thread
lmao
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:37:46 UTC No. 16359340
>>16359338
god I wish
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:39:56 UTC No. 16359343
4ASS should launch a boilerplate constellation that’s simply designed to be as bright as possible
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:39:56 UTC No. 16359344
>>16359262
>Created concept designs for our micro data center (2026 launch) and our Hypercluster data center (launching when Starship-class launch vehicles enter commercial service)
AW YEE
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:40:57 UTC No. 16359346
>>16359343
we could arrange it in a funny shape
windmill like but with 90 degree angles
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:40:57 UTC No. 16359347
>>16359343
Topkek
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:45:42 UTC No. 16359352
>>16359343
What's the most reflective, lightweight material that could be deployed by the hundreds? Little folded squares of tinfoil?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:47:04 UTC No. 16359353
>>16359352
Thats called polished aluminum foil anon.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:47:09 UTC No. 16359354
>>16359352
my guess is mylar rolls
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:48:22 UTC No. 16359355
>>16359350
Its arguably at its peak right now, with insane graphic mods that put KSP2 to shame coming out just recently
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:49:49 UTC No. 16359356
>>16359354
>>16359353
Either way sounds nice and cheap, I could assemble a constellation for 4ASS with a budget of between $20 and $28 dollars. Increase my budget by $6 and I can outfit each picosat with a tape outgas drive that'll vary their orbits over time, increasing rotation and light pollution.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:50:53 UTC No. 16359359
>>16359350
I've been playing the entire time.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:51:22 UTC No. 16359360
>>16359356
Hey retard we're not in the fully reusable era yet what gives with this brokie tight ass budget.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:53:47 UTC No. 16359362
>>16359360
>nooo you have to spend more!
Fine, I'll make it a cost-plus contract and charge 4ASS double in the end.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 00:56:23 UTC No. 16359366
>>16359262
amazingly gay idea
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:11:26 UTC No. 16359378
>>16359375
this looks very nice on my large monitor
it would look much better if you rotated it 90 degrees to the left
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:12:01 UTC No. 16359380
>>16359362
Finally, a sensible supplier.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:13:50 UTC No. 16359382
>>16359375
Normies really see this and feel nothing. I have no sympathy for the average earther. This is awe inspiring; a gift from God.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:14:37 UTC No. 16359383
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:15:27 UTC No. 16359385
>>16359378
Do it yourself gaywad
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:16:22 UTC No. 16359387
>>16359383
fuuuuck this is begging for some edits, maybe I'll finally be motivated to do some
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:16:35 UTC No. 16359388
>>16359382
I like yankin it to rockets as much as the next /sfg/ regular but you should stop freaking out over every Mars pic you come across. Do that for Starship instead.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:16:50 UTC No. 16359389
>>16359383
fucked up and converted it 100% quality, heres one that isnt 2MB
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:17:22 UTC No. 16359392
>>16358854
No, that would be shitrael
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:18:29 UTC No. 16359394
>>16359385
I did, but anon beat me to the punch.
Damn, he's quick.
>>16359389
nice
did you use paint like I did
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:18:58 UTC No. 16359395
>>16359392
Shut the fuck up antisemite
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:19:03 UTC No. 16359397
>>16359383
>>16359375
Wait a second that's not a moon, it's just a dumb fucking rock!
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:19:31 UTC No. 16359399
>>16359394
honeyview
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:20:49 UTC No. 16359402
>>16359262
wtf these guys got funding instead of me
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:21:16 UTC No. 16359404
>>16359389
Phobos looks so close
but is actually still so far
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:21:17 UTC No. 16359405
I wonder if astronauts will experience ghosts or paranormal activity on the Martian surface. I’m not sure about Antarctica; but I know navies across the world have reported really spooky shit. Like, ghosts of enemies walking on the flight deck. That sort of thing. We can be scientific and attribute it to lack of sleep, over-active imagination, PTSD, etc. But put enough humans on Mars, eventually someone is going to report seeing someone outside of the airlock. Someone will hear a child crying in a deep Martian cave. Someone will see their friend who died in a Starship landing burn failure walking the dim lit halls at dead of night. Ghosts on Mars.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:21:30 UTC No. 16359407
>>16359387
I noticed some splotchy pixels.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:22:45 UTC No. 16359411
>>16359405
US Navy reports more UAPs than any other branch, IIRC.
UUWPs too.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:23:19 UTC No. 16359412
>>16359405
imagine if Mars ends up being even more paranormal than Earth ever was- turns out each planet has its own properties and the spooky factor is 10x on Mars oops
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:23:41 UTC No. 16359413
>>16359402
Neuralink is doing their own software, why would you get funding
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:24:33 UTC No. 16359415
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:24:42 UTC No. 16359416
>>16359413
mine is hardware agnostic
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:25:06 UTC No. 16359417
>>16359412
also Phobos is somehow connected to this
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:26:19 UTC No. 16359419
>>16359415
the plot on paper has some interesting ideas but then you see footage of how carpenter executed it in all of its early 2000s cringe and want to roll your eyes so hard they bleed
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:27:05 UTC No. 16359422
neuralink chips in brazil have all been shut down. instantly killing millions
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:27:31 UTC No. 16359424
>>16359375
Phobos is so disgusting, when the Martian Republic eventually declares war against the e*thers and win, they should steal their moon.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:29:33 UTC No. 16359426
isnt phobos big enough to fit something like 10 nyc-sized cities in it with rotating gravity?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:35:10 UTC No. 16359433
>>16359405
Not believing in paranormal stuff is so boring, I wish I was 9 years old again for like a day so that I could experience that particular feeling of mystery once more. Oh well, at least I can enjoy some existential horror mixed with sci-fi here and there.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:41:13 UTC No. 16359439
>>16359424
BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT PHOBOS
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:43:49 UTC No. 16359441
>>16359412
The gods of Egypt moved to Mars and they're not particularly happy
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:44:53 UTC No. 16359443
>>16359424
Phobos and Deimos exist to be converted into enormous space stations
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:45:41 UTC No. 16359444
>>16359441
>martian colonists become possessed by this inexplicable urge to build ever grander and grander pyramids and obelisks
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:47:02 UTC No. 16359446
>>16358707
>>16358850
How would you repair this? Say it gets a big tear in it?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:47:36 UTC No. 16359447
>>16358832
https://x.com/Arianespace/status/18
>Due to electrical issues on the ground links VV24 launch chronology was interrupted. Checks are being conducted to confirm a new launch attempt tomorrow Sept. 4 at 10:50 pm local time in Kourou. The launcher & its passenger Sentinel-2C are in stable & safe conditions.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:53:09 UTC No. 16359448
>>16359446
I'd imagine something like a big patch or series of patches being airdropped into place by helicopter or airship. After that you'd send work crews up to stitch the breach back together with something a little less bulky. Ideally you'd make the canopy out of some sort of multi-layered structure so breaching it is a bit more difficult than punching trough a single sheet of Mylar.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:53:15 UTC No. 16359449
>>16359447
upper stage failure imminent
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:54:36 UTC No. 16359451
>>16359447
boomstick
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:55:35 UTC No. 16359452
>>16358792
>calcium oxide
>assorted mineral aggregates
So if you mix mars soil with water, you can make concrete or marscrete
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:55:41 UTC No. 16359453
>>16359041
>thirdie
The USSR and it's colonies are second world, not third.
When these classifications were coined, they referred to how industrially developed and ideologically aligned different countries were.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 01:56:19 UTC No. 16359456
>>16359451
We can hope. It's been a long time since we had a really impressive solid fuel failure.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:18:02 UTC No. 16359465
That dusty relic hopper got moved by the way
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:20:49 UTC No. 16359467
>>16359444
>we're working on a shorthand aphabet for signage around the base
>it's logographic, syllabic, AND alphabetic all at the same time!
>VERY efficient
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:21:40 UTC No. 16359468
>>16359465
Oh shit, where to?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:21:52 UTC No. 16359469
where are the martian topographic heatmaps
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:24:30 UTC No. 16359471
>>16359468
Mars
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:36:35 UTC No. 16359476
where are the lidar images of the martian surface
"Canadian-built lidar aboard NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander produced this graphic of a profile of a Martian cloud on the 99th sol, or Martian day, of the mission (Sept. 3, 2008). The vertical streaks at the base of the cloud on the right of the image show ice crystals falling from the cloud, similar to snow. The streaks are curved as the winds are faster around 3 kilometers (almost 2 miles) than at higher altitudes. Scientists are able to determine that the snow is water-based and not carbon-dioxide snow, since temperatures on Mars are currently too warm to support the latter."
>Photojournal Note: As planned, the Phoenix lander, which landed May 25, 2008 23:53 UTC, ended communications in November 2008, about six months after landing, when its solar panels ceased operating in the dark Martian winter.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:36:46 UTC No. 16359477
>>16359469
Up your ass
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:52:18 UTC No. 16359484
>muh phobos
MARLI: MARS LIDAR FOR MEASURING GLOBAL WIND AND
AEROSOL PROFILES FROM ORBIT
>J. B. Abshire1,2, M.D. Smith1, D.R. Cremons1, S.D. Guzewich1, X. Sun1, A. Yu1, F. Hovis3
April 7, 2022
>Abstract:
NASA’s Mars Exploration Analysis Group
Next Orbiter Science Analysis Group
(NEX-SAG) identified atmospheric wind measurements
as one of most compelling science objectives
for a future Mars orbiter [1]. To date, only very few
direct observations of Mars winds exist. Winds are
the key variable to understand atmospheric transport
and answer fundamental questions about the three
primary cycles of the Mars climate: CO2, H2O, and
dust. However, the lack of direct observations and
imprecise and indirect inferences from temperature
observations leave many basic questions about the
atmospheric circulation unanswered
>the key variable to understand atmospheric transport
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 03:13:34 UTC No. 16359497
>>16359456
anon this was like 6 months ago
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 03:14:58 UTC No. 16359498
>>16359412
theyre gonna find the garden of eden up there
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 03:25:10 UTC No. 16359505
Above is a pole-to-pole view of Martian topography from the first MOLA global topographic model [Smith et al., Science, 1999]. The slice runs from the north pole (left) to the south pole (right) along the 0° longitude line.
>precision maps are applicable to studies in geophysics, geology and atmospheric circulation. MOLA also functioned as a passive radiometer and measured the radiance of the surface of Mars at 1064 nanometers
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 03:27:25 UTC No. 16359506
>>16359446
ETFE actually welds pretty easily. Field repair is trivial. You could prevent rips by including some type of fiber in the plastic. You could also have emergency stations at each cable anchor. It could actively watch and then react to tears. Imagine a drone with an adhesive drenched airbag that flies up to the tear and then explodes, temporarily sealing it. Keep in mind the pressure difference would only be like 0.5 atm or so. Then you'd likely need some group of actual people similar to firemen to rush over and permanently seal it.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 03:30:49 UTC No. 16359507
>The map is in Mercator projection to 70 degrees North and South, and Polar Stereographic projection for the south (left) and north (right) poles. The most obvious feature of this map is the major contrast in elevation between the southern highlands (mostly orange) and northern lowlands (blue). The highest elevations are found in the Tharsis volcanic province at about 250°E, while the lowest elevations are in the Hellas basin at about 60°E.
Where do you choose to land, the optimal launch site?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 03:34:39 UTC No. 16359510
Keeping in mind the local atmospheric conditions.
Those are really important for launch and maintenance reasons.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:07:31 UTC No. 16359524
>>16359507
Hellas was scooped out by God specifically so we could put a big plastic sheet over it
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:12:58 UTC No. 16359531
>>16359507
>North side is low
>South side is high
How come the "center" of the planet isn't just more south? Mars must be more dense on the north side or something
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:18:12 UTC No. 16359535
>>16359453
That’s true, russia has since regressed back into thirdie territory however.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:19:13 UTC No. 16359536
>>16359086
>poseidon
Lol holy shit what a retard.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:25:34 UTC No. 16359540
>>16359524
so Mars has like, no ozone at all to protect from UVs
and no electromagnetic field
but you're going to terraform it
despite the thing you need to protect it, namely a magnetosphere, not existing there
until you can reactivate Mars' electromagnetic field there's no point even thinking about terraforming
that's the only thing that would keep a decent atmosphere around, because solar wind just fucks it all up
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:27:26 UTC No. 16359543
My dad and I are trying to plan a trip to Boca Chica during the next Starship launch but are hoping to find a place to camp/watch on the beach- any ideas where to find the best (free?) spot?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:29:53 UTC No. 16359547
>>16359543
Mexico, actually.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:39:44 UTC No. 16359563
>>16359540
>le solar wind atmosphere stripping
The ultimate midwit identifier. What exactly do you think that rate of loss is?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:40:02 UTC No. 16359564
>>16359536
"While some reports claim that Russia’s Poseidon may exist only as a propaganda scheme, experts generally agree that the system is “very real” and has received significant resources from the Russian armed forces, although many details remain unknown. Intelligence reports have suggested that Poseidon has undergone many trials, evidenced by the fact that some submarines have been modified and some are being specially built to accommodate for the larger and heavier Poseidon. For instance, the Sarov submarine is believed to have been modified to test Poseidon prototypes. According to TASS, the Russian Navy intends to purchase at least 30 Poseidon torpedoes and deploy them on four submarines."
>Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi
>The National Interest compiled several unclassified defense sources from General Electric experts about the similar 601B project[32][33][34] and they predicted low weight and compact gas-cooled nuclear reactor in the drone.[35] Russian submarine designers say that a low-power reactor is preferred for Poseidon because a smaller reactor is less noisy.[29]
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:41:06 UTC No. 16359568
>>16359540
the airship/ntp retard is back
>despite the thing you need to protect it, namely a magnetosphere, not existing there
>that's the only thing that would keep a decent atmosphere around, because solar wind just fucks it all up
wrong. it took millions of years for solar wind to reduce mars' atmosphere to its current state. any realistic terraforming project will have to reverse the effect within hundreds of years, and at a rate that will completely negate any loss from solar wind.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:42:16 UTC No. 16359570
>>16359543
Either take your chances in mehico (lots of cartel activity in that area) or just camp somewhere outside the vicinity of that rocket ranch place.
Gotta say the guy who came up with that was a shrewd businessman, he understood he was standing at the precipise of a decades long tourist attraction.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:44:05 UTC No. 16359574
>>16359560
shocking to EDS redditors: commies who punish people for not listening to orders that break brazil’s own laws get the rope.
It’s incredible how they’ll call musk a fascist but not their favourite commies.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:49:17 UTC No. 16359577
>>16359564
I know it’s real, i wasn’t implying otherwise, it’s not that hard to make a nuclear torpedo, it’s just that it’s a fucking meme weapon and you’re better off firing a tube-launched nuke tipped missile instead.
If you launch this thing at a shore it’s not going to create a tsunami dude, it’s gonna create a small earthquake and a steaming nuclear fartbubble that might poison a few locals.
as for attacking ships, a normal keel-breaking torp will do the exact same job for less money, poseidon and sarmat are meme weapons by a blowfish nation that wants to look big.
Idk why you mentioned them or their fairydust “capabilities” on /sfg/
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:50:53 UTC No. 16359579
Hi /sfg/, I've been under a rock since shortly after Shartliner docked at ISS. What have I missed?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:51:30 UTC No. 16359581
>>16359577
and i don't know why you responded six hours late to an off topic post that belongs to /k/
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:51:33 UTC No. 16359582
>>16359579
Starliner's haunted (and that's only kind of a joke)
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:53:55 UTC No. 16359583
>>16359579
Spooky Starliner
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:54:42 UTC No. 16359586
>>16359560
wait, I thought starlink had agreed to block X, though?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 04:57:25 UTC No. 16359591
>>16359577
it's a semi-autonomous torpedo propelled by a nuclear reactor and armed with a nuclear warhead
you call me retarded for stating facts
you can say nuclear propulsion is impossible to implement all you like
but everyone knows you're full of shit and these devices are out there
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:07:42 UTC No. 16359597
>>16359298
what a fucking joke
they talk about passive cooling
but then admit they need to actively cool the processors and probably the solar panels
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:13:20 UTC No. 16359603
>>16359568
>any realistic terraforming project
There are literally people who know more about this than you theorizing about jumpstarting Mars' core because of the massive problems no magnetosphere pose for terraforming.
I just happened to have the thought independntly.
>scientists from a star-studded list of universities and organizations, including NASA's own chief scientist James Lauer Green, are suggesting that we protect humans on Mars from deadly atmospheric conditions by jumpstarting the planet's magnetic field.
"For a long-term human presence on Mars to be established, serious thought would need to be given to terraforming the planet," the team wrote in a new paper that will print in the journal Acta Astronautica in January 2022, first spotted by Universe Today. "One major requirement for such terraforming is having the protection of a planetary magnetic field which Mars currently does not have."
>the first goals of terraforming, according to the paper, would be increasing the atmospheric pressure above the Armstrong Limit
"restarting and circulating Mars' iron core, creating a continuous solid loop or loop of solid-state magnets, or using a chain of coupled sources with a controlled beam or a plasma torus — a big ring, basically — of charged particles with an artificial current"
https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.06887
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:14:26 UTC No. 16359605
>>16359560
Trump is making so many enemies its fucking crazy, he doesn't even need to do this shit lol, just focus on Mars
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:15:27 UTC No. 16359608
>>16359605
fucking meant Elon*, literally just tabbed out of Elon's post about Lex's Trump interview and got them mixed up
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:15:48 UTC No. 16359610
>>16359603
first reply and it's appeal to authority already
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:20:58 UTC No. 16359617
>>16359547
>>16359570
Thanks, I guess all that public beach close by is shut off- could we see it in a boat off S. Padre or is that closed too? Push comes to shove I guess Rocket works. Again thanks for the advice
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:23:34 UTC No. 16359621
>>16359560
>before long he'll have them offering up spacex an equatorial launch site for free
The US has usage rights for Alcantara and a no-transfer treaty so that would actually be as simple as a zero-money pad lease.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:24:02 UTC No. 16359623
>>16359591
>you can say nuclear propulsion is impossible to implement
I’m not, i can believe they’d make a nuclear torp, bad idea as it is. But sarmat does not have nuclear powered propulsion, and it most certainly isn’t the hypersonic buzzword either, it’s just a conventional ICBM. Would probably make a cool converted launch lifter though, i hope russia does that one day.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:27:41 UTC No. 16359629
>>16359617
I’ve seen boats off south padre for every launch so if you’re a boatchad like me and you can get your bote over there, more power to you.
Getting on a bote and sitting in the channel is prolly one of the closest places you can get but it’s still not as close as the closest point on the mexican side of the border.
I’d worry about going there as a rich american though.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:27:49 UTC No. 16359630
>>16359617
Best viewing area is from the South Padre Island jetty or rocket ranch. Space will be very limited at the latter.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:28:36 UTC No. 16359631
>>16359547
>>16359570
Any paid places you would recommend to watch the launch from besides Rocket Ranch?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:30:51 UTC No. 16359633
>>16359629
I would but my trailer isn't galvanized, but maybe once wouldn't hurt.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:31:56 UTC No. 16359635
>>16359631
Cameron county park
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:32:48 UTC No. 16359637
>>16359630
Are there boats to rent easily/possibly? Can you camp in S. Padre around the jetty? I don't mind paying, but I am close, so I plan to make the drive as soon as I hear and camp with my dad to watch the launch. Thanks for help.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:34:48 UTC No. 16359640
>>16359635
Thanks
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:54:54 UTC No. 16359664
>>16359637
There should be rentals given the general nature of the area, and there is a boat ramp. You can camp at the park although its mostly RVs. Should be some camping areas further up the island. You'll need to enter the park to access the jetty in any case.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:55:17 UTC No. 16359666
>>16359560
Oh man, this is really gonna get leftists and third worlders up in arms over "muh american billionaire imperialism."
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 06:00:00 UTC No. 16359676
>>16359453
China is now the Second World. Russia joins the grimy ranks of the Third.
Russia can't keep riding the USSR forever.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 06:00:04 UTC No. 16359677
>>16359666
Good.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 06:04:49 UTC No. 16359682
>>16359415
>niggers on Mars
That is spooky. The very thought keeps me up at night
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 06:09:39 UTC No. 16359690
>>16359409
>wheels on Phobos
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 06:13:06 UTC No. 16359694
>>16359560
If you're gonna post off-topic shit at least don't make them low IQ. Do you think they have anywhere near the votes to make it happen.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 06:26:41 UTC No. 16359705
>>16358687
i just woke up! i am so excited to watch the polaris dawn mission today!
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 06:48:18 UTC No. 16359720
>>16359605
Not even the bots can tell the difference between trump and elon holy smokes
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 07:01:39 UTC No. 16359728
>>16359705
Doesnt apply since a date has been set for it. Sorry bub.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 07:03:10 UTC No. 16359729
reminder that there is a very small chance that boeing burns up and polaris launches succesfully on the same day.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 07:20:17 UTC No. 16359735
>>16359560
>>16359040
Starlink has already backed down.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/
"Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing of our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil," Starlink, which has more than 200,000 customers in the Latin American nation, said in a post on X.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 07:21:25 UTC No. 16359737
>>16359736
Hey that's my line. I shit my pants!
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 07:27:58 UTC No. 16359739
>>16359736
the era of expendable poop is over, dumbass.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 07:30:31 UTC No. 16359741
>>16359560
not spaceflight
also, musk kneeled
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 08:08:55 UTC No. 16359768
>>16359735
This cuckold is your hero, /sfg/? Pathetic
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 08:51:30 UTC No. 16359818
>>16359810
This should be the next OP
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 09:01:10 UTC No. 16359829
>>16359810
How far we've come
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 09:54:15 UTC No. 16359893
polaris dawn when
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 09:58:02 UTC No. 16359897
>>16359893
2 weeks
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 10:03:00 UTC No. 16359903
>>16359893
friday 3:38 am EDT
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 10:19:43 UTC No. 16359916
>>16359914
Find an image of the design and get some chink from aliexpress to print you one.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 10:48:11 UTC No. 16359947
>>16359914
Lmk if you find a high resolution version, 100% think it could make a dope wallpaper
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 10:50:35 UTC No. 16359950
>>16359221
>lmao why though
it was literally just trying to scape together pennies for the vietnam war. Thats it.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 10:53:54 UTC No. 16359955
>>16359950
>scrape money for a war that you were never going to win.
so smart
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:16:46 UTC No. 16359978
>>16359950
please don't reply to the ntp/airship third worlder. He just showed up and despite a dozen people telling him he's retarded he's still loudly presenting his dumbass opinion as informed fact
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:20:12 UTC No. 16359983
>>16359215
It's a pity spaceplanes are worthless dogshit, they do look cool
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:20:42 UTC No. 16359984
>>16359947
Someone on Twitter made this. Would probably be easy to make your own hi-res. Or just upscale it
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:21:35 UTC No. 16359988
>>16359916
>only the paranoid survive
>ordered from china impregnated with whatever random chemicals they have at hand
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:22:04 UTC No. 16359990
>>16359190
>Whats that? Literally everyone is protesting
Luckily the opinions of Earthers are of no concern to me
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:28:54 UTC No. 16360004
>>16359978
I'll reply to whoever the fuck I want. Enjoy pointlessly backseat modding for free.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:30:00 UTC No. 16360006
>>16359506
Also even small leakages would be easy to detect, it should form a sort of white smoke because of air humidity condensing into ice.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:31:17 UTC No. 16360010
>>16360005
I’m excited to see GS1 attempt a landing. Doesn’t mean I like it, I’m just excited to see something go disastrously wrong
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:32:09 UTC No. 16360013
>>16360010
>attempt a landing
It'll have to survive getting off the pad, max q and stage separation long before that, lol.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:33:38 UTC No. 16360016
>>16360010
Still worth checking out.
Here she comes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:44:34 UTC No. 16360035
>>16360005
What's with all the bloat on either side, begging to be hit. I thought a barge was literally just a floating plate.
Also inb4 exhaust shockwaves resonate between the fixtures and cause a fuel leak on landing, or something
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:48:24 UTC No. 16360041
>>16360035
The support structure is way too tall. What the fuck do they need all that shit for. What is in there, and why?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:51:05 UTC No. 16360043
>>16360039
show respect to your elders
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:00:21 UTC No. 16360054
>>16360043
If they wanted to show respect to each other, they would let SpaceX use this ship to increase its cadence during its certain EXTENDED downtime, where it will uselessly sit in Port Canaveral wasting space sitting idle in storage after the coming mishap and loss of vehicle. Just think of how fucking long it will take BO to close their FAA mishap investigation, and then iterate design, manufacture and test it, then refly and try again? At least a year.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:11:05 UTC No. 16360068
>>16360041
amazon fulfillment center
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:13:36 UTC No. 16360073
>>16360041
prison cells where they send the amazon workers who took a piss break on company time, they will be shaken to death as punishment.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:16:05 UTC No. 16360078
>>16360005
doesn't appear to have an active AIS at the moment
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:21:12 UTC No. 16360088
>>16360078
It also doesn't have Starlink, which means the live footage of the landing will suck, or it will cut out completely for the important part we all want to see.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:21:25 UTC No. 16360089
>>16360068
Wagie Cage Storage.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:27:46 UTC No. 16360097
>nautical miles
really grinds my gears when aerospace ppl use this term
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:30:46 UTC No. 16360101
>>16360097
it's the correct term
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:32:51 UTC No. 16360103
>>16360039
>>16360016
Noticed a Coast Guard search and rescue vessel heading north at high speed, not related to this but appears to be heading toward the LC-39 complex
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:35:51 UTC No. 16360105
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:42:28 UTC No. 16360110
>>16360103
Maybe one of their employees jumped. They couldn't bear it anymore, the shame of arriving in the great Port Canaveral, from fucking ROMANIA of all place, getting paid peanuts from Bezos, and knowing their asshole boss will take all credit for their work. Jacklyn needs suicide nets, like Foxconn and the Golden Gate.
Isn't Romania famous for Gypsies scamming, everyone else scamming too, hacking, being poor, and many other fine qualities? This ship must be a real gem of cutting edge tech, given their sourcing of it.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:51:55 UTC No. 16360118
>>16360110
I think he just wants to go to the cafeteria
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:53:03 UTC No. 16360119
>>>/wsg/5652346
Probability that the saarliner burns up during re-entry?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:58:55 UTC No. 16360123
>>16360119
ChatGPT code writing can be improved if it learns from its failures
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:59:48 UTC No. 16360126
>>16359019
SLS is an abominable relict of a thankfully bygone hellish era. I cannot wait for the day it is taken out back and put down so I don't have to be reminded of how bad things used to be.
BO is cool though except for the acronym.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:00:48 UTC No. 16360127
>>16360124
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/
>The public release of a photo suggestive of a payload fairing that Relativity built for its Terran R rocket—but which seems to be an Ariane 6 payload fairing manufactured many months ago—is confusing at best. But this was a clarifying moment for me, as the photo’s release validated other information my source had been sharing in recent weeks.
>These documents, files, and comments raised a singular question: What the heck is going on at Relativity Space?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:02:12 UTC No. 16360129
>>16360118
Is it based? Do they serve Salisbury steak? How are the chicken nuggets?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:03:24 UTC No. 16360132
>>16360127
> A rendering of the original design of Terran R rocket in flight.
>Relativity Space first publicly discussed the Terran R rocket about three years ago. At the time, Ellis said it was intended to be fully reusable, with both the first and second stages making propulsive landings back on Earth. Relativity planned to use its additive manufacturing to print the vast majority of the vehicle. The original concept looked futuristic, not dissimilar to a smaller version of SpaceX's Starship rocket.
>Today, however, the Terran R rocket is starting to more closely resemble a traditional rocket developed by the European Space Agency—the Ariane 64, which is an Ariane 6 rocket with four solid rocket boosters. First, there is the commonality in payload fairings. After the company's social media posts about the fairing, I interviewed Ellis about what was going on with the Terran R rocket.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:06:52 UTC No. 16360137
>>16360132
>According to internal documents reviewed by Ars, Relativity had difficulty printing pressure domes for the Terran R rocket. One of the documents references a "large buckling event" with a printed dome. As a result, Relativity seems likely to purchase these pressure domes from a European aerospace company.
>In a private letter to "investors, advisors, and friends" summarizing the company's operations after the first half of 2024, Relativity said it currently has a backlog of $2.6 billion in commercial launches and is in discussion or has signed a contract with many major megaconstellation providers (but not SpaceX). Ellis would not confirm this, but multiple people have told Ars that Relativity recently signed a deal for multiple launches with Amazon's Project Kuiper constellation.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:07:56 UTC No. 16360138
> Relativity plans to unveil the new Terran R rocket during a presentation this fall, possibly sometime next month.
new Terran R render dropping soon lol
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:13:19 UTC No. 16360140
>>16360127
>>16360132
>>16360137
>american ariane 6
fucking disgusting
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:16:40 UTC No. 16360143
>>16360137
So at this point Kuiper is going to use Vulcan, Ariane 6, New Glenn, a few Falcon 9 and now Terran R
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:20:42 UTC No. 16360146
>>16360127
I told you guys 3d printed rockets was a meme. Really nothing more than an investment scam.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:38:58 UTC No. 16360159
>>16358687
>2031
>first manned mission to mars by space x
>starship leaves the gravitational field of earth
>the crew immediately loses consciousness and turn into soulless fracks
how would you feel about that?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:39:13 UTC No. 16360160
>>16359029
Not him, but yes.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:40:26 UTC No. 16360161
>>16359113
space
We're back on topic!
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:40:44 UTC No. 16360162
>>16360159
Shut up, dumbass.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:41:01 UTC No. 16360163
>>16360159
frack?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:43:31 UTC No. 16360166
>>16360163
wrecks* esl moment
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:49:28 UTC No. 16360177
>>16359346
This but with negative space so it's a white disk with a black image inside.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:53:02 UTC No. 16360182
>>16358788
Too fat
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:54:42 UTC No. 16360184
>>16359433
Just move past naive materialism and physicalism. There are plenty of things that aren't simply patterns of particles and energy.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:57:51 UTC No. 16360189
>>16359581
You must be new here
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:08:43 UTC No. 16360199
We're not going to see Proxima Centauri this lifetime, are we?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:08:46 UTC No. 16360200
>>16360137
>Relativity recently signed a deal for multiple launches with Amazon's Project Kuiper constellation
lol, lmao even
these kind of shitty anyone-but-elon deals will ruin both parties
you love to see it
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:10:17 UTC No. 16360203
>>16360199
Do you have dinner plans there?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:11:44 UTC No. 16360206
>>16360203
I just want to see what a different star system looks like.
>Why?
Because I'm white. I'm curious and want to explore. If you are non-white like most anti-spacefags you wouldn't understand.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:12:39 UTC No. 16360208
>>16360206
>>16360199
Where'd you blow in from, outsider
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:15:52 UTC No. 16360211
>>16360210
Starlink in a couple hours, then Vega saar tonight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZz
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:17:05 UTC No. 16360212
>>16360211
Why are those french faggots making a huge event out of a regular launch?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:17:46 UTC No. 16360216
>>16360206
I'm white and not anti-space. I just think there's enough left to see in this solar system that we don't need to get all emo and start cutting over not being able to go to another one yet.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:19:49 UTC No. 16360217
>>16360206
have fun listening to Linkin Park and looking at photos of other galaxies
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:22:11 UTC No. 16360219
>>16360208
>>16360206
Hey newfag, you do know that proxima centauri anon has been around way longer than you right? Maybe dont pipe up when youve only been here a month at max.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:29:17 UTC No. 16360228
>>16360219
Fuck off retard
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:32:56 UTC No. 16360231
>Wahhhh! I don't want to live under the Mars tent!
>Wahhh! I don't want to live in a spinhab!
Fags have been brainwashed by Hollywood into thinking there will be rapid transit to plentiful Earthlike worlds and anything less than that gives them ouchies. Spoilt brats.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:33:31 UTC No. 16360232
>>16360212
Because it's one of their only launches of the year at all
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:36:10 UTC No. 16360237
>>16360231
>>Wahhhh! I don't want to live under the Mars tent!
>>Wahhh! I don't want to live in a spinhab!
I don't know who is saying that, but if those are their opinions then they are unimportant. I will live in whatever I have to in order to get off of this cursed Earth.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:42:07 UTC No. 16360241
>>16358842
Good thing I didn't say we should space the cables further apart. Also pullout forces aren't a real concern, add more anchor mass.
I think a forest of towers and cables reaching to the top of the troposphere will have more visual appeal than the same thing but a lower ceiling.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:46:40 UTC No. 16360248
>>16358858
Hey moron, I'd rather live in a house with a 5m thick roof inside a giant pressurized habitat to go hiking through than live in a house 5m underground with no "outdoors".
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:47:12 UTC No. 16360249
>>16360231
I just hate on spincels because they were annoying about pushing their ideas for years on here.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:47:38 UTC No. 16360252
>>16360199
You can already see proxima centauri dipshit. Buy a cheap telescope.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:49:24 UTC No. 16360256
>>16360248
Just dig sideways and make more space.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:49:50 UTC No. 16360257
>>16358924
If the solar system were filled with air at Earth sea level density, the resulting sphere of gas would have so much mass it would form a black hole. It would not *collapse* into a black hole, rather a black hole with an average density equal to air would have a schwartzchild radius smaller than the radius of the solar system.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:53:12 UTC No. 16360260
>>16358986
>the fact that it launches from near space means you don't need that much fuel, or can carry fuel that would go to boosters
Incorrect, most of the fuel of a rocket is needed to gain enough speed to be in orbit. Starting higher up saves less than 1% of the fuel requirements.
>if you don't need much fuel, the weight drops significantly
This would be true except a rocket launching from a balloon high up still needs 99% as much fuel to reach orbit, because getting high up is a tiny amount of the energy cost.
You lack an inuitive understanding of rockets and should stop speaking now, start listening instead.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:56:30 UTC No. 16360261
Why not make aerodynamic shapes that are at or near neutral buoyancy? Why don't they put lifting gas pockets in planes? If it's lighter it takes less fuel to fly.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:58:54 UTC No. 16360263
>>16359053
>It's the only feasible way we get to Mars and back.
I'm sure you have a very deep technical understanding of NTP that gives you the confidence to state this opinion and it isn't just something you're regurgitating
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 14:59:15 UTC No. 16360264
>>16360211
>already delayed
kek
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:01:42 UTC No. 16360270
from someone who doesn't live and breath space shit, I have an inquiry. Given that Mount Chimborazo is the closest point on Earth to space, wouldn't that make it, maybe not at the very peak, but within stone's throw of it(maybe somewhere on Andes in general) the ideal place to launch shit? i'm aware there's like, a dozen other major considerations like logistics/infrastructure but it seems hypothetically like a good idea.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:06:23 UTC No. 16360274
>>16360270
I think the gain is so slight that the effort of building a launchsite on a mountain becomes moot. I don't know though, maybe.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:07:31 UTC No. 16360276
>>16360270
there's a video from eastro about that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m7
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:08:42 UTC No. 16360278
>>16360270
So many rockets were constrained from their already advantageous and accessible launch sites because of a maximum limit on diameter size, it'd be comically and catastrophically more expensive to move all that stuff where there isn't even access to bodies of water, infrastructure and people.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:09:48 UTC No. 16360280
>>16360270
Mountains are ok but think about how much closer to space an airship puts you.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:10:28 UTC No. 16360282
>>16360270
>closest point on Earth to space
Furthest from the equator you mean, the atmosphere is taller at the equator however, so is it actually closer? But more importantly if it were worth doing it would have been done already.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:13:41 UTC No. 16360287
>>16360270
Watch the next Starlink launch and carefully watch time, speed and altitude of rockets. It takes Falcon 9 about 3 minutes tor reach 100 km. Any mountain or air launch is simply not worth it.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:16:06 UTC No. 16360291
>>16360210
>musk visits the FAA building in washington
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:16:12 UTC No. 16360292
>>16359094
>be me, planitesimal
>accreting mass as usual, not really trying to reach main planet status but definitely not trying to end up as a total loser asteroid
>suddenly feeling something's wrong, a new gravitational force is perturbing my orbit
>it's fucking Saturn, getting its orbit pumped higher by Jupiter (what a slut)
>Saturn doesn't even notice me, get flung out even further from the Sun, now among the ice giants
>manage to keep accreting despite the disc being a lot more sparse out here, but it's mostly water ice.
>Saturn keeps moving outward and now it's starting to pump Neptune even as Saturn gets pumped by Jupiter (degenerates)
>Neptune doesn't like the attention and goes nuts, swaps places with Uranus, gets even further from the Sun to escape Saturn's molestations
>blows up the entire outer disc in the process, I get fucking scattered
>accretion stops, it'sover.jpeg
>so fucking far out now that a passing star manages to raise my solar periapsis way beyond any hope of interacting with any of the planets, can't be drawn back into a lower orbit OR get slingshot into interstellar space as a cool rogue at least
>try to accept my fate and talk to a few comets nearby (if you can call 3AU 'nearby')
>comets call me a Sednoid
mfw
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:20:45 UTC No. 16360297
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbA
Starlink launch coming up
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:21:04 UTC No. 16360298
>>16359128
>If you want to realistically get to Mars and back you will need nuclear propulsion in space.
>There's no getting around this fact.
Threadly reminder that to get to Mars from LEO only takes 5km/s of delta V, and chemical rockets can achieve 9km/s in a single stage, so not only is Mars within reach of chemical spacecraft, it is EASILY within reach, and all talk about needing nuclear propulsion is a smokescreen to ensure practical Mars exploration is never publically funded.
Luckily private space is building the chemical rockets we nerd to go to Mars despite not getting any public funding support, ergo it cannot be cancelled by congress et al.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:22:43 UTC No. 16360300
>>16359155
Dumbass tourists always out themselves
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:23:26 UTC No. 16360302
>>16360270
Most of the rockets used for launch are already overpowered for their payloads, it's really not worth the effort. Also only chinese and russians let rockets fly over inland areas
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:24:22 UTC No. 16360303
>>16359169
Nope, literally any idea that starts with "before we go, we should do X" is a bad idea.
The FIRST thing we should do for Mars is build a settlement.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:25:24 UTC No. 16360307
>>16360252
Based
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:31:59 UTC No. 16360312
>>16359178
Cope and seethe but it won't make you correct.
Nuclear engines aren't power supplies, and cannot be converted into power supplies. At best they can achieve about 0.0001% conversion of their max thermal power output into electricity, according to advanced NTP studies.
However, the biggest reason NTP will never be used for Mars missions is because each NTP engine WILL cost billions, and NTPs can only be run for a few hours before their nuclear fuel is too degraded with neutron absorbing fission products to function. They would need to be replaced entirely every mission. For the cost of one NTP engine Starship will be able to put 1000 tonnes onto Mars' surface, enough to build out the entire ISRU propellant factory in a single sinode.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:35:24 UTC No. 16360319
>>16359188
>it's probably better than I think
Unless they came up with a magical way to make uranium weigh much less and a magical way to store hydrogen at at least five times the density of liquid hydrogen, then no, NTP is still not as good as chemical for crewed Mars missions.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:36:36 UTC No. 16360320
>>16359208
>if we implemented nuclear ramjet technology it might not take so long
>nuclear ramjets in space
retard
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:41:41 UTC No. 16360324
>>16359225
>but the only way to get to Mars and back
Nuclear propulsion is a worse way to get to Mars than either Chemical, Solar-Electric, or Chemical & Solar-Electric hybrid, actually.
All of the above options have enough delta V to do a Mars mission, but NTP is the only one that must deal with nuclear reactor radiation & startup/shutdown complications, plus the extreme cost of a NTP engine, plus the limited reusability of nuclear engines (good for one or two missions only).
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:50:15 UTC No. 16360329
>>16359258
>otherwise you're going to need to store enough fuel to get off Mars and back to Earth for the entire length of the voyage
You need to solve that problem for NTP as well, except it's a much harder problem to store hydrogen than it is to store methalox, and despite needing less propellant mass per unit vehicle mass, hydrogen is so low density that for an equivalent vehicle mass the NTP vehicle must store a greater VOLUME of propellant.
>how does that sound realistic to you
Again, still necessary for NTP except it's harder with NTP than with chemical.
>it's a massive liability, for one
Same issue faced by NTP.
>two, that is a ridiculous amount of extra weight
Weight doesn't indicate cost, complexity, OR difficulty. Both systems would require large volumes of propellants launched to Earth orbit & transferred between vehicles, except the NTP vehicle needs a much greater volume of much harder to store propellant. Cope.
>landing that shit would be ridiculously difficult
NTP mission would also need to land large masses on Mars, except instead of launching straight back to Earth they'd need to do a Mars orbit rendezvous & docking while remaining inside the radiation-shielded corridore upon approaching the mothership because NTP engines are disgustingly radioactive even months after being fired and shut down.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:50:37 UTC No. 16360331
>>16360005
>>16360039
>welcome to the club
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:53:59 UTC No. 16360332
>>16359266
>nuclear would make all this shit way easier
NTP would make literally everything about a Mars mission significantly harder.
Even if we absolutely insisted on building an all-chemical, partially expendable, mothership to Mars (with separate carryalong landers) in LEO, and refilled it using Starships, it would still be cheaper and less complex to both build and operate than doing the same thing with nuclear thermal propulsion.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:55:12 UTC No. 16360333
>>16360319
>a magical way to store hydrogen at at least five times the density of liquid hydrogen
Metallic hydrogen. Lets figure it out!
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:55:31 UTC No. 16360334
>>16359280
>even if you locked your Mars craft in orbit around Mars with enough fuel to get home, and used a lander system to do whatever limited operations you wanted to do from that teeny tiny vessel, getting that lander back into orbit and docked, then everyone back to Earth would be highly unlikely
How exactly does this problem change if the ship waiting in orbit has NTP instead of chemical engines, retard?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:56:34 UTC No. 16360335
what kind of hubris does blue have to not try a water landing first?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:57:42 UTC No. 16360337
>>16360335
They solved landing (rocket is too expensive to do tests first)
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:58:52 UTC No. 16360338
>>16360335
I don't really see a reason not to go for a ship landing first. It's not like failing the land will ruin the ship.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:58:58 UTC No. 16360339
>>16359290
>even the tiniest miscalculation and you're fucked
Even if you were way off, budgeting for correction burns is standard practice and wouldn't need to reserve more than 200 m/s of delta V. Unlike popular conception, the precision necessary for spaceflight isn't actually hard to achieve at all.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:00:04 UTC No. 16360340
>>16359304
get the fuck out of here
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:01:23 UTC No. 16360341
>>16359319
>that's like, you're opinion man
Actually it's extremely evident from your posts that you have barely been introduced to this topic & know nothing.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:02:50 UTC No. 16360342
>>16360338
SpaceX just proved that a failed droneship landing is the same as a successful SMART reuse.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:04:13 UTC No. 16360344
>>16359328
>no, there are weapons systems that use nuclear propulsion in atmosphere
A nuclear ramjet doesn't produce a thrust to mass ratio above 1, dumbass. That's why they can only be used on missiles with wings. Besides that, a nuclear ramjet in Martian atmosphere would produce next to no thrust due to the thin atmosphere, and more importantly, ramjets cannot produce thrust if the vehicle isn't moving fast enough to ram enough air into the thing.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:05:38 UTC No. 16360347
The virgin nuclear thermal vs the Chad nuclear pulse
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:06:03 UTC No. 16360348
>scrubX
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:06:16 UTC No. 16360351
>>16359329
You should fuck off
>>16359352
Dielectric mirrors made of plastic film probably
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:06:56 UTC No. 16360352
scrubtober begins
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:07:15 UTC No. 16360353
>>16360335
They can change their mind and decide to go for a soft water landing up to about midway through the landing burn. I suspect the plan is to do this if gs1 finds itself outside of expected course.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:07:23 UTC No. 16360354
>>16360347
Scuse me, coming through
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:07:48 UTC No. 16360356
>>16360338
It adds unncessary complications to meet the deadline for the first launch
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:07:59 UTC No. 16360357
>>16359375
Really puts into context how grey Phobos really is, every picture showing it as this red brown thing is like those exhaggerated-color pictures of the Moon.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:08:48 UTC No. 16360358
>>16360356
What complications would it add that a water landing wouldn't?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:11:49 UTC No. 16360363
>>16359690
go round and round
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:12:13 UTC No. 16360366
>>16360358
resources spent on the barge and recovery operations. but understandiby, blue has infinite money and infinite time.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:12:49 UTC No. 16360367
Just killed that other shit /sfg/ thread.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:14:37 UTC No. 16360368
>>16359448
Block holes from below using giant buoyant balloons (made of the same strong membrane as the canopy above).
Repair the hole with a patch/sewing/whatever.
Canopy should have like 10 membranes spaced a few meters apart so they act like a whipple shield, with the air pressure between the layers dropping by 25% relative to the layer underneath, to keep the delta P at any given membrane smaller.
Also keep in mind that even a 10m by 10m hole would generate a leak rate that would be very slow relative to a tented structure kilometers tall & dozens/hundreds of km long & wide. You'd have weeks to plug the leak before the air pressure inside dropped enough to start affecting the habitability.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:15:33 UTC No. 16360369
>Zhu using r5 60 saarlight
>S11 using r1 50 saarlight.
I feel retarded doing it, but is two maxed saarlights optimal with no 5 star weapons?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:17:18 UTC No. 16360372
>>16360354
Zubrins NSWR doesn't work according to recent studies
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:18:27 UTC No. 16360374
>>16360372
>cites recent studies
>doesnt link them
Classic
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:18:42 UTC No. 16360375
Holy shit the Starliner undocking news conference is "experiencing technical difficulties" and is streaming over at NASA instead.
Technical difficulties huh?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:19:09 UTC No. 16360376
I applied to Stoke Space. Fingers crossed.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:21:34 UTC No. 16360379
>>16359507
The optimal first settlement site is anywhere in the northern basin with a good mixture of mineral deposits and water ice at low latitude.
This is because driving long distances across the flat basin will be relatively easy, as will building rail networks, so that first settlement will be defacto "closer" to all of the resources it needs than it would be if it were located anywhere else.
It's like how if Earth were depopulated, we would want to set up our first colony on an oceanic coastline, because boats can move huge cargo masses huge distances & therefore let us set up resource colonies anywhere without paying huge transport costs.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:23:28 UTC No. 16360383
>>16360381
Actually 15 minutes now
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:25:12 UTC No. 16360385
>>16360381
The Portugal asteroid was estimated 30cm. This is a meter. Should be plenty visible too.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:26:43 UTC No. 16360386
>>16360270
You'd save a bit on fuel, but imagine having to build and whole facility and have people work there. It's just not practical.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:26:56 UTC No. 16360387
>>16360366
all that can be it's own team separate and not impacting anything to do with the rocket.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:27:07 UTC No. 16360388
>>16359540
Ozone blocks UV, but so does glass, and glass actually does a better job of it. UV is a non issue when you literally never once get exposed to unfiltered sunlight.
A magnetosphere isn't necessary.
The atmosphere of Mars is like a cottage beach on the outside bend of a river. The river always erodes on the outside bank of a curved section, so any sand you dump at your cottage will be washed away eventually. However, since the rate of erosion is slow, you only need to add one dump truck's worth of sand every decade. Building up Mars' atmosphere would work the same, except the proportional atmosphere erosion rate is incredibly slow, much slower than beach erosion.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:27:33 UTC No. 16360390
>butch and suni coming home on a cobbled together seat out of scrap
damn
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:27:52 UTC No. 16360391
>>16360381
Will they have any cameras actually pointed at the sky where it will be?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:28:31 UTC No. 16360392
Time is running out for Polaris to launch before Europa Clipper...
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:29:20 UTC No. 16360393
>>16359597
>active cooled solar panels
Solar panels are their own radiators
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:30:27 UTC No. 16360394
>>16359603
>There are literally people who know more about this than you theorizing about jumpstarting Mars' core
Those are retards actually, and the fact that you trust them makes you one as well.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:31:34 UTC No. 16360395
#quantisedinertia has never had counter evidence against it, whereas #darkmatter has never had any evidence for it. If you want to join the winning side before the rush, #QI is described simply here:
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:31:38 UTC No. 16360397
>>16360374
We went over it a few months ago as you would know if you weren't a tourist
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:31:51 UTC No. 16360398
I'm not sure how much warning time we got for this one, but if it was enough for people to be setting up countdown streams there should have been enough time for people to get outside with basic camera gear.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:32:29 UTC No. 16360399
>>16360381
Whats the point of this stream if we can't actually see the meteor?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:36:52 UTC No. 16360405
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpM
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:38:39 UTC No. 16360409
>>16360159
>starship leaves the gravitational field of earth
This is literally impossible since gravity has infinite range & propagates at light speed btw
People could go to Andromeda and they'd still be inside Earth's gravitational field, they just wouldn't be influenced by it significantly, just as how you right now are not significantly influenced by a given exoplanet in the Andromeda galaxy.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:41:42 UTC No. 16360412
>>16360381
What a gay stream
Fuck you for posting it
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:41:49 UTC No. 16360413
>>16360409
he meant the consciousness field that Gaia (bless her mercy) emanates, it ends somewhere past the moon
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:42:12 UTC No. 16360415
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:42:28 UTC No. 16360417
>>16360261
Because it isn't worth it.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:44:30 UTC No. 16360419
>>16360270
Getting to orbit isn't a problem.
Reducing the cost of getting to orbit is the problem.
Building a launch complex on top of a mountain would add aton of costs, and result in a tiny payload benefit. More cost per ton payload, counterproductive, ergo bad idea.
Same logic is why balloon launch/spinlaunch/gun launch are all stupid ideas.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:45:53 UTC No. 16360420
https://x.com/sciencekonek/status/1
>PRELIMINARY: There are already reports of a momentary lightening of the sky in some places in Luzon possibly related to the entry of asteroid 2024 RW1 around 12:39 AM. Stay tuned for more information.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:52:56 UTC No. 16360429
>>16360372
Actually the main problem pointed out by the paper can be mitigated by going bigger. Think of it like the study is saying 0.1 newton thrust full flow staged combustion engines aren't feasible: it's true, but that doesn't somehow invalidate 2 meganetwon thrust FFSC engines.
Scale up the NSWR engine and the keff value of the fuel salt & water mixture can be raised far above 1, to achieve prompt supercriticality.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:55:50 UTC No. 16360430
>>16360390
>a cobbled together seat out of scrap
A seat cobbled together out of scrap.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:59:10 UTC No. 16360433
At what point does surface base planning start in the Artemis program? Are we really going to have HLS landing crew on the Moon with no pathway in place for beating China to the first lunar industries?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:00:40 UTC No. 16360434
https://x.com/raymongdullana/status
>SUCH A SPECTACULAR NIGHT SHOW, ASTEROID RW1!!! Taken from Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Philippines!
It looks like RW1's projected trajectory was pretty steep so it came in hot and then popped rather than streaking across a larger area. Between that and the weather viewing opportunities may have been limited.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:12:25 UTC No. 16360439
>>16360379
wow a real response by someone who knows how to think ITT
keep in mind your settlement needs to be a good launch site
Do you know what orbitals you need to reach in order to escape Mars gravity and get back to Earth? To me this would be a key factor in deciding the first landing site.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:14:11 UTC No. 16360442
>>16360434
neat
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:31:53 UTC No. 16360452
Landing on the Mun is hard even with this tutorial
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:37:21 UTC No. 16360456
>>16360452
it gets easier. also the mün is a trap for noobs only ever go to minmus.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:37:28 UTC No. 16360457
>>16360443
So this is the power of roggs? Earth has nothing to worry about from uppity rustsuckers
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:40:18 UTC No. 16360460
>>16360361
anybody listened to this?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:40:34 UTC No. 16360461
>>16360381
I read this as
>We're 20 min out from the forecast impact asteroid the size of the Philippines
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:43:58 UTC No. 16360463
>>16360439
>Do you know what orbitals you need to reach in order to escape Mars gravity and get back to Earth?
Sort of irrelevant since Starship needs to tank up in LMO to return to Earth anyway.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:49:59 UTC No. 16360472
>>16360439
Any orbital inclination around Mars including polar can be suitable for a return to Earth, but regardless, any orbit with a 30 degree inclination or less should have zero problem returning to Earth even in a worst-case orientation. Inclination around planets simply isn't well preserved when exiting a planet's SOI into the solar system at large, and can be removed with a minor course correction is needed.
The first settlement will ideally be on the northern basin somewhere to the west of the Tharsis plateau and as far south as feasible given resource availability, but even if the only viable spot were as far north as Elysium montes that'd be pretty close to equivalent to cape kennedy on Earth, ie totally fine for an interplanetary launch site.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:53:46 UTC No. 16360476
>>16360456
no umlat in Mun.
Mun is also easy btw
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:54:38 UTC No. 16360479
>>16360460
I only caught the last few minutes, them talking about backing up and going around the station. There's a bunch of tiny burns involved apparently, maybe one of the thrusters will explode.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:55:06 UTC No. 16360481
>>16360463
>Starship needs to tank up in LMO to return to Earth
No it doesn't. Starship with 100 tonnes of roggs in the payload bay and full tanks has enough delta V sitting on Mars' surface to launch directly to an Earth intercept with over 10% delta V margin.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:55:44 UTC No. 16360484
The Philippines really is the king of disasters. They get earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, supertyphoons, landslides, famines, disease outbreaks, etc. Now, a fucking asteroid targeted them, is there a strange planetary disaster attraction here? I know its only 1 meter rock and a nothingburger, but it just seems to be a favored place for the Earth to shit on.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:57:21 UTC No. 16360486
>>16360484
Plus all that WWII business. I'm pretty sure that one Japanese soldier who didn't surrender 'til the '70s lived there, occasionally robbing and shooting at random Filipinos.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:59:41 UTC No. 16360489
>>16360332
>replying to the ntp fag multiple times
Did you do that just to fuck with me
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:03:05 UTC No. 16360493
>>16360376
Good luck anon. I hope you can stomach the entire customer base being kuiper and your only payload being one(1) kuiper sat
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:04:39 UTC No. 16360497
>>16360413
>ends somewhere past the moon
I like that this could be possible and we still wouldn't know
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:05:23 UTC No. 16360498
>>16360443
pretty impressive for something that is only 1 meter
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:05:52 UTC No. 16360500
>>16360493
I'm pretty sure they have plans for a bigger rocket later. Full reuse is cool either way.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:06:52 UTC No. 16360501
>>16360476
>no umlat in Mun
Maybe to you but I come from the timeline where Nelson Mandela died in prison in the 90s and mün is spelled with an umlaut.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:08:45 UTC No. 16360503
>>16360443
>1m
Utterly horrifying. A reasonably developed space economy would let someone commit a terrorist attack that could destroy the biosphere. There's no way they let it happen
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:08:55 UTC No. 16360504
>>16360489
I did that because he's wrong.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:09:42 UTC No. 16360505
>>16360463
That's another complicated operation.
It's hard enough to refuel mid flight in atmosphere on Earth.
Lining that shit up in a gravity environment that humans aren't familiar with is going to be a nightmare. That's the physiological aspect, the 6 month trip there is going to absolutely wreck these astronauts both psychologically and physically, and they are the ones who are going to have to pull off all these extraordinary operations.
There are too many things about this mission that have to go perfectly right the first time around with no room for error.
I can't shake the feeling that nuclear propulsion would be a factor that gives all these maneuvers the margin of error they need.
And that a nuclear reactor source for electricity would be necessary for any base of operations that isn't just for show.
Since NASA agrees with me that establishing nuclear power on Mars is going to be important factor in the long term success of the mission, why not use nuclear propulsion to help make that happen? It would cut down significantly on the travel time, and facilitate realistic rescue operations in less time than it will take Boeing to rescue two people from the ISS.
>NASA’s fission surface power project expands on the efforts of the agency’s Kilopower project, which ended in 2018. Currently, NASA is working with the Department of Energy (DOE) and industry to design a fission power system that would provide at least 40 kilowatts of power – enough to continuously run 30 households for ten years. A future lunar demonstration will pave the way for sustainable operations and even base camps on the Moon and Mars.
"NASA and DOE selected three design concept proposals in June 2022 for a fission surface power system design that could be ready to launch by the end of the decade for a demonstration on the Moon. This technology would benefit future exploration under the Artemis umbrella."
https://www.nasa.gov/tdm/fission-su
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:10:44 UTC No. 16360509
>>16360501
Occurs nowhere ingame outside of one graffiti scrawl on the side of a crashed vehicle. Conclusion: mentally insane kerbal equivalent to a flat earther who used the umlat due to schizophrenic ideology
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:10:44 UTC No. 16360510
>>16360472
>>16360472
>as far south as feasible given resource availability
That makes sense to me.
What worries me are the minute details concerning the geology of the landing site. It needs to be flat, and stable. It's one thing to take soil samples with a rover, it's another thing to have a firm foundation for something as heavy as Starship to land safely.
IIRC, Musk is literally suggesting that Starship land on the martian surface correct? He doesn't want to park that baby in orbit, he wants it to touch down.
That is so risky man. There has to be a better way.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:11:46 UTC No. 16360511
>>16360500
I agree. I'm probably most optimistic about stoke right now. I think Lapsa's business plan is extremely solid and the fact that he came from BO only reinforces that. Good luck
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:12:19 UTC No. 16360513
>>16360443
https://youtu.be/g31R8unh0TM
Witnessed something similar to this a few years ago in TX, not quite as bright as this as I remember but it happened so quickly it's difficult to judge in hindsight. It took a moment to mentally process what was happening as I was outside mowing on a tractor so not something I expected to see. It looked much closer than it was though and when it dropped below the treeline I put my arms up bracing for a shockwave that never came, just a flash.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:13:00 UTC No. 16360514
>>16360497
Would be a huge bummer
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:16:53 UTC No. 16360517
>>16360505
Orbital docking is easier than mid-flight docking.
Computers do the flying.
The first crewed missions will follow after a dozen uncrewed Starships have already made the trip and landed on Mars. The first crewed missions will be performed by a small fleet of Starships that are undercrewed in order to act as lifeboats for one another even if multiple vehicles are deemed unfit to land on or launch from Mars. Massive margins for error.
Nuclear thermal rockets cannot be used to generate a significant amount of electrical power. A few kilowatts at maximum.
NTP doesn't get you to Mars outside of the launch window, so the transfer speed is irrelevant. As previously mentioned there's zero chance of being stranded in a robust Starship Mars architecture.
As for NASAs authority on spaceflight, they still talk about SLS as if it's actually important for spaceflight, which should tell you everything you need to know.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:18:42 UTC No. 16360520
>>16360504
Over the course of the thread it was revealed that he is too stupid to research anything or read what people were replying and instead he maintained his original opinion which was based entirely on vibes
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:21:44 UTC No. 16360524
>>16360517
NASA is fake and gay
>a dozen uncrewed Starships have already made the trip and landed on Mars
>undercrewed in order to act as lifeboats for one another even if multiple vehicles are deemed unfit to land on or launch
Now that checks out.
That is ludicrously expensive.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:21:56 UTC No. 16360525
Will starship be refueling ready by the 2026 mars window? I want to see musk try to land some dummy payload on mars
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:22:36 UTC No. 16360526
>>16360524
>That is ludicrously expensive.
Elon is ludicrously rich.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:23:38 UTC No. 16360527
>>16360517
>they still talk about SLS as if it's actually important for spaceflight
Seeing this makes me feel insane. The official implication that the piece of shit will have anything to do with Mars is so disconnected from reality that it makes me feel like I'm peeking into another dimension and reading the NASA website there. This must be what women feel like when I gaslight them
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:23:40 UTC No. 16360528
>>16360510
It will be flat. It's the northern basin, flatness is its defining feature.
Stability will be tested by landing uncrewed Stsrships in the target area. This will also expose any potential vehicle/leg stability issues. By the time Starship is attempting uncrewed Mars landings it will have successfully landed on Earth hundreds of times. Also, Mars Starships will be specialized variants and will have level adjusting legs with large foot pads. Landing Starship on Mars will be totally proven IRL before we ever send crew.
The Starship Mars architecture is to launch from Earth, refill, transfer to Mars intercept, directly aerobrake to a landing, land, offload payload, fill with ISRU propellants, launch directly back to Earth when the window reopens, and directly aerobrake for landing.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:24:57 UTC No. 16360530
>>16360381
isnt this guy like 600lbs
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:25:09 UTC No. 16360531
>>16360526
Oh yeah, we'll just make two dozen of the most ridiculous rockets ever made and just keep throwing them at Mars until they stick.
EZ
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:26:34 UTC No. 16360534
>>16360524
>That is ludicrously expensive.
We don't know that yet. Also we need to send tons of mass so those extra ships can be packed with cargo. If NASA wants to pick up the bill they're more than welcome.
>>16360528
>fill with ISRU propellants
If it's a NASA mission there's no chance. They'll send insulated tanker ships.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:26:36 UTC No. 16360535
just construct a space elevator to mars
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:27:34 UTC No. 16360538
>>16360531
Are you new? That is literally the plan
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:30:30 UTC No. 16360540
>>16360524
>That is ludicrously expensive
Sending one Starship to Mars uncrewed with 100 tonnes of simple payload (ie solar panels, struts, 3D printer wire, sheet metal) will require no more than a dozen launches and of course 1 non-reused Starship vehicle. Total cost: ~$300M, assuming each launch costs $15M and the Starship itself costs $100M.
Assuming we do 10 attempts to prove Starship Mars landings are reliable, that's $3 billion for the staging of materials for a pioneer Mars base plus proving the architecture works.
Meanwhile the cost of a SINGLE nuclear thermal rocket engine would not be less than $1 billion, and each vehicle will require multiple engines, which are only reusable for a couple of flights. Also each NTP mission would still require around a dozen propellant launches. Also you'd still need to do uncrewed missions and multiple lander tests to get the same level of confidence as the Starship architecture.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:31:59 UTC No. 16360541
>>16360525
Yes but Starship won't be ready to land on Mars yet.
Doing a Mars Starship free-return flyby (uncrewed obv) would be based and cool though. We could be attempting uncrewed Starship landings on Mars by the time that one arrived back at Earth.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:33:00 UTC No. 16360543
>>16360531
anon, how expensive exactly do you believe Starships are/will be to build?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:35:20 UTC No. 16360544
>>16360534
I'm describing the fully built out & operational architecture, not the first missions. Obviously the first astronauts to step onto Mars will do so on a Starship surrounded by pre-staged Starships each carrying methane delivered from Earth plus oxygen produced in situ from CO2 during their wait period. It would be silly to rely on being able to produce all your return prppellant *after* arriving.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:35:29 UTC No. 16360545
>>16360540
>sheet metal
Every Starship launch will deliver a few hundred tons of sheet metal kek
>>16360534
>Starship itself costs $100M.
It isn't even that high in the prototype phase and they're going to mass produce them. Get optimistic
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:38:19 UTC No. 16360548
>>16360545
I prefer picking sandbagged and anti-optimistic figures when making these arguments because it drives the point harder.
Starship architecture beats NTP architecture on cost so badly that I can assume an unrealistically shitty Starship and pit it against an unrealistically good NTP system and Starship still wins.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:43:43 UTC No. 16360555
>>16360538
I'm not saying it can't work, I just think it's funny.
Sounds like a plan to me.
It's just the 6 month travel time *one way* with a window of opportunity only once every two years is still too high.
Like, once you even get people on the martian surface they're just going to have to chill out and wait 3 more months before they can even launch back to earth. Which is another 6 months.
Doing very intensive maintenance work the whole time in pressurized suits, right?
Who is going to volunteer for that?
How much are we paying these people?
>>16360540
>>16360543
>~$300M
That does sound like a very low cost.
Could that be a mite overly optimistic?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:49:55 UTC No. 16360564
>>16360132
ROFL. The original Hard R starship design was kinda cool but I always suspected it was a pipe dream. Ellis is still cocky he will get his rocket to orbit before Neutron. Maybe he can ask Tory for some GEM-63XL SRBs and develop a SUSIE competitor lol
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:54:45 UTC No. 16360569
I think Musk is going to be kind of disappointed when all the babies he's been pumping into different women to breed a new race of supergeniuses grow up to be completely average because that's how regression to the mean works.
In reality, if you want to increase the number of geniuses in the population you need to increase the size of the entire population.
Just selecting for people with high IQ isn't going to produce those results, because exceptional people tend to produce normal children on average.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 18:57:13 UTC No. 16360573
okay reddit
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:05:29 UTC No. 16360582
>>16360569
>babies he's been pumping into different women
no, the doctors do that
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:09:07 UTC No. 16360585
If gravity extends infinetly from everything, why am I not being ripped apart from the gravity of literally everything else in the universe.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:15:13 UTC No. 16360593
>>16360585
because while it's range is infinite, it follows the inverse square cube law and thus gets exponentially less powerful with distance.
that doesn't mean...
oh fuck this why am i spoonfeeding this retard.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:15:40 UTC No. 16360595
>>16360593
Ez (You) thanks for that bud.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:15:55 UTC No. 16360596
>>16360582
he's using fertility drugs to breed his harem
basically the average hentai protagonist
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:16:07 UTC No. 16360597
Better to be lonely out in space than lonely here on Earth.
Though I suppose that’s just running from the problem
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:16:14 UTC No. 16360599
>>16360585
Why doesn’t looking at the night sky blind you like looking at the sun?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:16:16 UTC No. 16360600
>>16359129
>incoming
So when's this going to happen? Did it get pushed back?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:17:19 UTC No. 16360605
>>16360599
Another one for the count
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:18:16 UTC No. 16360606
(you)'s are not reddit updoots, my friend.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:18:29 UTC No. 16360607
>>16360600
I dont know I think janny got off his ass and took care of it before it happened again.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:19:34 UTC No. 16360609
>>16360606
Yet you seem to not want to give me on there. Its almost like what I want isnt upboat equivalents but something completely different. Dont get mad now!
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:19:53 UTC No. 16360610
>>16360607
nah the guy spouting russian propaganda figures just didn't have a meltdown after people questioned it this time.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:20:57 UTC No. 16360614
>>16360605
how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren’t real?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:21:55 UTC No. 16360615
>>16360609
>he thinks i did that on purpose
i actually just forgot lol, you were looking for some deeper meaning in there.
your behaviour is indicative of an offsite tourist who doesn't really belong here and has attentionseeking behaviour, likely as a result of parental neglect.
pretending to be retarded was worth mockery 15 years ago, and it still is now.
nobody pretends to be retarded for (you)'s unless they actually have a mental disability.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:22:47 UTC No. 16360619
>>16358687
what they mean with.. cum water?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:23:59 UTC No. 16360623
>>16360596
the only thing he breeds are plastic cups
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:26:45 UTC No. 16360631
>>16360615
>the classic armchair redditor psychologist act
>pretending to be retarded is asking about inverse square law
>actually youre a newfag because i said so
2020 is still /sfg/ newfag too in your opinion i assume?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:29:15 UTC No. 16360637
>>16360555
>It's just the 6 month travel time *one way*
Refilling chemical in LEO gets a 4 month transfer to Mars, same as NTP.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:31:07 UTC No. 16360642
>>16360555
>Like, once you even get people on the martian surface they're just going to have to chill out and wait 3 more months before they can even launch back to earth. Which is another 6 months.
After arrival the crew will need to spend 2 years on Mars before the Earth return launch window opens, not several months. Also this does not change with NTP missions.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:32:12 UTC No. 16360644
>>16360631
it's true thoughever. almost invariably the people i've interacted with who are this desperate for (you)'s and lord them over others as some weird statement of victory were neurotic people with big lolcow potential, there's no other reason you're even talking to me now because an actually succesful troll would just ignore me and go about his business.
>2020
i'd be more inclined you found this site in 2020, judging by your behaviour.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:32:26 UTC No. 16360645
>>16360555
>That does sound like a very low cost.
>Could that be a mite overly optimistic?
If you look at my cost breakdown I'm being pessimistic against SpaceX's given estimates both for the cost of a Starship launch and for the cost of expending a Starship.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:32:26 UTC No. 16360646
>>16359128
solar electric is better than nuclear in all cases unless you're going beyond the asteroid belt
weapons grade nuclear copium is for gas giant huffers, even the belters know better
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:34:45 UTC No. 16360650
>>16360619
Cumulative. They didn't use the word "total" because they are egghead fags.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:34:52 UTC No. 16360651
>>16360005
NG can hover right? so Jeff's mom won't be slammed fast and hard like F9 does but gradually ferociously mating pressed?
>>16360013
Eagerspace said he thinks a successful launch is likely.. was kind of surprised.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:34:58 UTC No. 16360652
>>16359621
>Alcantara
its located in a metro region with a 7 figure population, it might be suitable for the small fireworks and bananas launched by the Brazilian space agency, but starship couldn't be launched from there.
SpaceX's equatorial launch site should be at high altitude in a remote area of the Ecuadoran Andes or on Mt Kenya
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:36:13 UTC No. 16360656
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:37:09 UTC No. 16360660
>>16360651
Wishful thinking. They've never launched jack shit into orbit.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:37:32 UTC No. 16360661
>>16360658
https://x.com/davill/status/1831362
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:38:06 UTC No. 16360665
>>16360646
Even for missions that cannot be done with solar electric, we would get better performance from nuclear electric than we would from nuclear thermal.
Nuclear thermal simply isn't good unless you consider fantasy technology like nuclear lightbulb engines, and even those aren't much of an improvement.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:38:49 UTC No. 16360669
>>16360661
>but if we're not succesfull, we'll learn, and keep trying until we do
this is the kind of mentality i was hoping for.
if that same mentality exists among their engineering department i actually think they'll figure this re-use thing out in the first few flights.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:39:13 UTC No. 16360673
oh my god I do not care about jeff's boat and neither should any of you
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:39:59 UTC No. 16360676
>>16360673
Faggot rockets are cool.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:41:46 UTC No. 16360682
>>16360642
About a month after arrival the Mars-Earth window opens up. The first mission will likely be a month if it's NASA. If it's SpaceX they'll probably have moved there
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:44:12 UTC No. 16360692
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:44:31 UTC No. 16360693
>>16360682
>opens up
closes*
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:46:03 UTC No. 16360696
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:47:21 UTC No. 16360700
>>16360545
>you are not optimistic
>>16360555
>you are too optimistic
lol
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:48:06 UTC No. 16360702
>>16360661
>>16360669
The FAA mishap investigation will take ages. And BO will take ages to iterate, and manufacture a potentially big change in design. Then they have to test it all, and get approval to fly again. NG will not be operational until nearly 2026.
Good luck, but no fucking way the first launch & landing will work without major issues, mission failure, and loss of payload and vehicle. Clearly they have second place talent, a bad management structure, and are now rushing like crazy to meet a hard deadline, which will cause them to make mistakes.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:48:18 UTC No. 16360703
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:49:58 UTC No. 16360707
>>16360702
better to make mistakes and progress instead of doing nothing like they did with the bob smith
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:55:35 UTC No. 16360716
>>16360707
Sure, but still turtle slow. Expendable NG will be a thing, landings will come later. No confidence in this "first try, stick the landing"... that's clown talk, and you know it. Honk. Truly "operational" and reasonable cadence is AT LEAST 2026.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 19:59:55 UTC No. 16360729
>>16359262
This is 4ASS tier, I love it.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 20:07:05 UTC No. 16360748
>>16360637
>4 month transfer to Mars
On only the rare synods with a payload penalty
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 20:14:32 UTC No. 16360766
>>16360676
rockets are cool, too bad a boat isn't a rocket
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 20:22:01 UTC No. 16360784
>>16360682
The first mission will not be a short stay.
NASA's favorite is a short stay, but that requires a mission designed for a short stay, which SpaceX isn't doing.
Since SpaceX's Mars vehicles will be ready before NASA's, and the government will not allow a private mission to occur before a NASA-associated one, NASA will be effectively forced to buy into SpaceX's architecture, which will involve adding NASA livery and carrying some NASA payloads (maybe they'll drive long distance to pick up those sample caches Perseverance shat out).
The first crewed NASA Mars mission will be a defacto SpaceX mission and it'll involve a long stay on Mars with the huge majority of working hours focused on base building and ISRU, with a minority of work focused on pure science (this mission will still produce more valuable science data than all previous Mars missions combined).
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Sep 2024 20:25:14 UTC No. 16360790
>>16359443
>inb4 the "They're just clouds of sand!" faggot shows up
this, can you imagine how much concrete you could make out of Deimos let alone Phobos