/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10825842

400KiB, 1080x1413, NASA's_Orion_Spacecraft_for_Artemis_1,_July_2019.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

/sfg/ Spaceflight General

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 22:06:37 2019 No.10825842 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10825847 >>10825849 >>10830146

Orion in one piece edition

Previous thread: >>10819833

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 22:08:19 No.10825847 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825842
looks like they haven't finished attaching all the tiles yet.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1550624141123.jpg, 387KiB, 780x601

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 22:08:33 No.10825849 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825842
Hopefully it's first mission goes well.

Pic semi-related.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1563742912035.jpg, 53KiB, 1080x809

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 22:15:56 No.10825864 Report

Quoted By: >>10825899 >>10825904 >>10826618 >>10827668

HOP

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 22:28:33 No.10825899 Report

Quoted By: >>10825908

>>10825864
We get it, you vape

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 420HOPIT.png, 3MiB, 1910x1069

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 22:30:11 No.10825904 Report

Quoted By: >>10825908 >>10826075

>>10825864
I'll repost this.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1502045428773.jpg, 49KiB, 634x484

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 22:32:21 No.10825908 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825899
>>10825904
POP

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 21 Jul 2019 23:53:24 No.10826075 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825904
420 VENT IT

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 00:04:11 No.10826091 Report

Quoted By:

>35 Raptors on SH

This thing is going to be an absolute fucking beast, going to be more impressive than Saturn V for sure.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1280px-KSC_speech_with_Orion_-_D (...).jpg, 271KiB, 1280x853

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 00:06:38 No.10826097 Report

Quoted By: >>10826134 >>10826207 >>10829294

I love this picture showing all the capsules the US is building.
Wish there was a more recent one, showing Dragon V2 and a completed Starliner (not just the pressure vessel of a Starliner and a Dragon V1)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gee billy.jpg, 4KiB, 149x160

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 00:24:22 No.10826134 Report

Quoted By: >>10826163

>>10826097
Gee NASA, how come your taxpayers let you make THREE capsules?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1472765536489143844.jpg, 59KiB, 800x450

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 00:37:56 No.10826163 Report

Quoted By: >>10826169 >>10826189 >>10826408 >>10827784

>>10826134
Because NASA are a bunch of fucks who didn't award SNC crewed Dreamchaser contract

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 00:42:13 No.10826169 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826163
>inbefore the retard who starts bitching about the abort options.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 00:48:59 No.10826189 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826163
good news is that SNC might have found alternate ways to fund a crewed version.
they apparently got the UN to pitch in with it, actually. some sort of "UN-funded spaceflight for the poor countries who can't afford their own space programs" gig

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO lyPXuKT.jpg, 1MiB, 2048x1270

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 00:52:33 No.10826196 Report

Quoted By: >>10826203 >>10826412

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 00:56:01 No.10826203 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826196
Jesus it's so fucking shiny

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Federation space craft.jpg, 136KiB, 1600x900

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 00:59:13 No.10826207 Report

Quoted By: >>10826226 >>10826297 >>10826801 >>10828046 >>10828069

>>10826097

The 2020's are going to be crazy with Dragon 2, Starliner, Orion, Federation (Russia) and Gaganyaan (India) capsules operating.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 01:08:50 No.10826226 Report

Quoted By: >>10826254

>>10826207
I hope the Russians can actually get Federation running by then. I'd like another lunar capsule beside Orion, but they have an even worse track record than NASA when it comes to schedule slips.
I make poke fun at them, but I'm legitimately excited that the Indians are starting a manned spaceflight program. Unlike China, there's a good chance they could cooperate with the US.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 343545453345.jpg, 176KiB, 1160x725

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 01:28:00 No.10826254 Report

Quoted By: >>10826267

>>10826226

>but they have an even worse track record than NASA when it comes to schedule slips.

Yeah its unfortunate but they got good excuses for the delays (sanctions, economic downturn, budget cuts etc.). The first Federation capsules are being built though as of march this year:

https://habr.com/ru/post/451646/

>I make poke fun at them,

Why? They've been doing exceptionaly well when it comes to their space program.

>Unlike China, there's a good chance they could cooperate with the US.

Yeah, they would make a great addition to the ISS coalition and speaking of China, the Shenzhou will also start flying again in the 2020's after a hiatus with the last Chinese manned mission in 2016.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 01:36:06 No.10826267 Report

Quoted By: >>10826281 >>10826286 >>10828640

>>10826254
Looks like a spiffier Soyuz, this is my first look at the craft. What's with the section on the front though, just crew seating? Looks like a tiny ISS module.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 01:43:42 No.10826281 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826267

Yeah, that is the Shenzhou and its like the Soyuz but bigger. Aft section is the service module, center section is the crew capsule and front section is the orbital module.

Pic related is the Gaganyaan.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 433425342342.jpg, 227KiB, 2000x1500

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 01:45:17 No.10826286 Report

Quoted By: >>10826335

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 01:50:16 No.10826297 Report

Quoted By: >>10826309

>>10826207
What’s Russia’s endgame for this capsule? Is it meant to rreplace Soyuz for LEO operations or is it something morre akin to Orion?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 3324432324.jpg, 97KiB, 1280x848

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 01:56:54 No.10826309 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826297

Well, its both actualy, both to replace Soyuz and for lunar missions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 02:13:33 No.10826335 Report

Quoted By: >>10826338

>>10826286
>orbital module.
So that bit is a larger area for the crew to hang out in en-route to the ISS, so they don't have to stay strapped in the whole time, or what? Strange to me that it looks like a little module you'd leave attached when you depart, though I'm sure that's not the design intention.
Other than that, it's just Soyuz XL? I haven't paid much attention to China or India's manned flights, mostly just aware of their lunar rovers, and in India's case, their Currysputnik they sent to Mars some years back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 02:15:36 No.10826338 Report

Quoted By: >>10826347 >>10826354

>>10826335
IIRC, orbital modules are a good way to increase the livable volume of a spacecraft while not increasing the mass as much as just making a bigger capsule with a bigger heatshield would.
Both the Shenzhou and Soyuz use orbital modules. Don't think anyone else does, though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 02:21:38 No.10826347 Report

Quoted By: >>10826383

>>10826338
It also makes it so that the capsule will have an easier reentry. Since most of the equipment necessary for space (life support, navigation, and docking systems) can be put in the orbital module, that means that the capsule can be made less dense compared to a capsule with all of the previously mentioned equipment. This reduces the capsule's ballistic coefficient which is more conducive to reentries with less deceleration.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 02:25:35 No.10826354 Report

Quoted By: >>10826365 >>10826383

>>10826338
>orbital modules are a good way to increase the livable volume of a spacecraft while not increasing the mass as much as just making a bigger capsule with a bigger heatshield would.
I've never really looked closely at the Soyuz design, so I've never considered this until now, actually an interesting choice by the ruskies, might have to incorporate that idea in my future KSP designs just because it makes sense.
Because I've not been following China's spaceflight endeavors that closely, I have to ask if they've had any major mishaps or has it been smooth sailing so far? Last thing I heard about them, prior to their last station re-entering, was that they sent a woman to space.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 02:30:25 No.10826365 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826354
This link covers some of the development history of Soyuz.

http://astronautix.com/s/soyuz.html

Just a small warning, the author of the site doesn't like modern NASA and it shows in how he writes some these articles.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO re-entry vehicles.jpg, 554KiB, 4920x2430

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 02:38:38 No.10826383 Report

Quoted By: >>10826471 >>10826483 >>10826492 >>10826808 >>10827797

>>10826347
>>10826354
To further expand on spacecraft capsule design and re-entry, American practice for the past 30 years has preferred re-entry vehicles that perform non-ballistic re-entries. Part of the reason behind this is to reduce the g-forces astronauts experience on re-entry, with a major consideration being the possibility of transporting an injured astronaut back to Earth.

For capsules, this means designs that have a steeper side-angle, and that are fairly "squat." You can see this in the Apollo CM, Orion, and Starliner.

Dragon bucks this trend, going for a less-steep side angle, which is closer to what everyone else (the Russians, Chinese, and soon-to-be Indians) does. I believe hearing that because of this, astronauts re-entering on Dragon will experience more g-forces in comparison to Starliner due to Dragon's reduced gliding capability.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 02:52:25 No.10826408 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826163
While this thing is almost totally pointless I have to say it looks fucking great.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 02:56:07 No.10826412 Report

Quoted By: >>10826418 >>10826457

>>10826196
Is it just me or does the roof they are putting on the big building look too low for the height of either superheavy or starship?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 02:58:14 No.10826418 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826412
Its not just you, and it's the same at both facilities. I'm starting to think its a fitting-out structure for the crew/payload section of the ship.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 03:19:31 No.10826457 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826412
the top 1/3 (payload bay) of starship is much different than the bottom 2/3 (tanks, engines). The structures can fit the bottom part.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 03:27:19 No.10826471 Report

Quoted By: >>10826500

>>10826383

Needs Gaganyaan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 03:33:23 No.10826483 Report

Quoted By: >>10826500

>>10826383
Russian capsule is really very aesthetic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 03:36:14 No.10826492 Report

Quoted By: >>10826498 >>10826500

>>10826383
Would any of these not fit in the Shuttle cargo bay? It's fuckhuge compared to the rest.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 03:38:04 No.10826498 Report

Quoted By: >>10826500 >>10826518

>>10826492
Apollo, Starliner, and Dream Chaser probably wouldnt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 03:40:06 No.10826500 Report

Quoted By: >>10826528

>>10826471
Agreed, but I didn't make the image.
>>10826483
Soyuz or Federation? Soyuz has a very retro-futuristic look to it, which I like.
>>10826492
Gonna have to concur with >>10826498. Diameter is the limiting factor, not size.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1563763118642.jpg, 668KiB, 4920x2430

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 03:48:29 No.10826512 Report

Quoted By: >>10826519

this should be accurate. counted the pixels

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 03:51:47 No.10826518 Report

Quoted By: >>10826528

>>10826498
Sounds about right, length is fine but yeah as other anon said diameter rules those ones out I'd think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 03:52:18 No.10826519 Report

Quoted By: >>10826521 >>10826625 >>10827418

>>10826512
desu, I'm surprised it's actually not that bigger than the shuttle

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 03:53:45 No.10826521 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826519
same here. I thought it was WAY bigger when it's actually quite similar

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 03:56:26 No.10826528 Report

Quoted By: >>10826533

>>10826518
>>10826500
Orion also might not fit, that capsule is rather fat and the heat-shield protection ring around the ass-end of the capsule adds to the width. Crew-Dragon's service trunk may also have some issues due to the fins, but I'm not sure on that one.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO capsule_size_comparison.png, 234KiB, 646x444

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 03:57:46 No.10826533 Report

Quoted By: >>10826538

>>10826528
Didn't notice Orion wasn't listed. Yeah, if the Apollo CM won't fit, Orion DEFINITELY won't fit. It's WAY bigger.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 04:01:55 No.10826538 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826533
Right, just looked up the cargo-bay dimensions, the apollo CSM would fit, but the RCS thrusters would make it a tight squeeze. Starliner still wouldn't fit because its service trunk is wider still, and the shuttle bay is 4.6 meters wide.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 04:40:03 No.10826618 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825864
Wednesday

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 04:45:55 No.10826625 Report

Quoted By: >>10826634

>>10826519
The shuttle was goddamn huge, it just doesn't usually come across that way in pictures/video.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault.jpg, 110KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 04:48:28 No.10826634 Report

Quoted By: >>10826675

>>10826625
Shots like this do a decent job of showing how big it is

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 05:05:57 No.10826675 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826634
I was there the other day for the first time in my life, what a beautiful machine and yeah, it's fuckhuge caught me by surprise

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_inline_pts16ojKFj1tzhl5u_ (...).jpg, 416KiB, 1280x997

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 05:43:48 No.10826746 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 06:18:20 No.10826801 Report

Quoted By: >>10827740

>>10826207
Meanwhile EU got fucking nothing... good fucking show. Better rent some more Soyuz...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 06:23:48 No.10826808 Report

Quoted By: >>10826809 >>10826825 >>10828049

>>10826383
Why is it so hard to launch Orion? It‘s not that big compared to other capsules. Is it made of solid lead?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 06:25:18 No.10826809 Report

Quoted By: >>10828049

>>10826808
they built it wrong, as a joke

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 06:26:03 No.10826810 Report

Quoted By:

India's Chandrayaan 2 should be launching in little less than 3 hours. Anyone got a link to an official stream yet?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 06:40:42 No.10826825 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826808
It's heavy. Not a lot of rockets could launch the Apollo CSM either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 07:03:39 No.10826861 Report

Quoted By:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1153183373109542913
>starship update after hopper hover

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 08:14:59 No.10826981 Report

Quoted By: >>10827422

Will we see another milk stool for starship? Unless the access arm can slide up and down the launch structure. Otherwise if they just launch starship on suborbital missions it won’t be able to reach it (no SH underneath)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 08:18:17 No.10826986 Report

Quoted By: >>10826996 >>10827006

https://spacenews.com/nasa-outlines-plans-for-lunar-lander-development-through-commercial-partnerships/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 08:23:20 No.10826996 Report

Quoted By: >>10827001

>>10826986
>the "demonstration mission" has astros staying on the surface for SIX-AND-A-HALF DAYS
for reference, the longest Apollo mission was a little over three

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 08:26:04 No.10827001 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826996
like, damn, they really are not playing around with the specs for this

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Blue_Moon.jpg, 167KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 08:29:07 No.10827006 Report

Quoted By: >>10827013

>>10826986
>[Bridenstine] added that some unidentified companies had offered to pay 30 percent or more of the total cost of landers because of their interest using those landers for non-NASA customers.
I'm not saying it was Blue Origin.
But it was totally Blue Origin.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 08:34:04 No.10827013 Report

Quoted By: >>10827026 >>10827029 >>10828051

>>10827006
I hate to just assume that SpaceX will be successful, but all of these tiny landers seem like they might be completely irrelevant if starship works out

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 08:39:33 No.10827026 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827013
depending on how cheap New Glenn manages to be, the dozen or so Starship launches required might be overkill if you only want a small payload

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO il_340x270.1080482285_i4j6.jpg, 24KiB, 340x270

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 08:39:54 No.10827028 Report

Quoted By:

The Indians will be launching their moon mission soon. I'll be cheering them on by wearing the headpiece I bought.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 08:39:57 No.10827029 Report

Quoted By: >>10827032 >>10827118

>>10827013
Then again we currently have small boats living in harmony with massive container ships so

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 08:41:14 No.10827032 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827029
in addition to this point, Blue Moon is refuelable with ISRU and no foreign carbon

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 08:59:51 No.10827052 Report

Quoted By: >>10827060 >>10827815 >>10828663

Chandrayan 2 launch livestream:
https://youtu.be/_QvVCV1Ve5U

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 09:05:06 No.10827060 Report

Quoted By: >>10827078

>>10827052
Is that the official channel? Why does it have that shitty "DD Exclusive" watermark?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 09:09:05 No.10827063 Report

Quoted By: >>10827509

Crazy how we haven't gone back to the moon after all these years and technological advancements and the only excuse is that they lack funding and have no purpose to go back again. Even though scientists that specialize in exploration(deep sea, archeologist sites, natural phenomena, etc) do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 09:17:37 No.10827072 Report

Quoted By:

poo in space

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 09:19:20 No.10827075 Report

Quoted By:

Peanut people don't know how to host a livestream this is horrendous

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 09:21:18 No.10827078 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827060
Not official I don't think. Just what I found first.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1563783151201.jpg, 217KiB, 1080x988

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 09:22:31 No.10827081 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 09:47:01 No.10827118 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827029
Except small boats are a fraction of the cost of container ships unlike rockets.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 65q345657g.jpg, 147KiB, 1200x1831

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 10:33:21 No.10827174 Report

Quoted By: >>10827188

How did we go from this top tier kino

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 10:47:04 No.10827188 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827174
ahem wrong tab, disregard me

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 12:53:15 No.10827418 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826519
Starship is significantly bigger than the external fuel tank Shuttle used, let alone Shuttle itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 12:54:24 No.10827422 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826981
Two arms

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1526822790583.jpg, 764KiB, 1920x1280

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 13:39:11 No.10827503 Report

Quoted By:

Goys, I didnt follow hopper much anymore for the last few months. Did we get any hops at all yet out of boca chica? I understand theyre building one or two more hoppers now for the bigger tests, but I assume not much from there either?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 13:42:46 No.10827509 Report

Quoted By: >>10827514 >>10827718

>>10827063
red pill: the only significant technological advancement since then has been in computers and everything else has stagnated

they've distracted you with shiny smartphones and video games and porn

You could show the Merlin 1C rocket engine to the team building the F-1 and nothing about it would be novel

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 13:46:48 No.10827514 Report

Quoted By: >>10827536

>>10827509
Just out of curiosity, why pick the Merlin 1C over Raptor in your example?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 14:06:38 No.10827536 Report

Quoted By: >>10827544

>>10827514
Because everything about Raptor would be novel to them of course. Hell even a lot of shit going on inside Merlin 1D would be new to them; the equivalent engine at the time was the H-1, which weighed more than twice as much and produced less thrust than the Merlin 1D and at a lower Isp as well. It also cost a shitload more money and time to build, which was part of the reason why Saturn IB was so expensive. Showing Merlin 1D to a 1960's engineer at NASA would be like showing a medieval longsword to a roman soldier who was used to wielding a gladius; he'd recognize that it was a sword, and had all the same parts to it, but also that it was undeniably better in every aspect. Showing a 1960's NASA engineer Raptor would be like showing them a magic trick; I doubt that anyone working on engines then would even believe you that the thing would fire without instantly burning up due to the oxygen rich conditions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 14:11:36 No.10827544 Report

Quoted By: >>10827627 >>10829327

>>10827536
>Showing a 1960's NASA engineer Raptor would be like showing them a magic trick; I doubt that anyone working on engines then would even believe you that the thing would fire without instantly burning up due to the oxygen rich conditions.
It kinda already happened when the RD-170 (and related engines) were brought into the US.

Although to be fair to the American rocket engineers, the Russians were pretty amazed by the hydrolox engines developed in the US, IIRC. It was just that American rocketry was alot more public than Russian, so it came more as a shock when good Russian engines became known.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 15:01:44 No.10827627 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827544
exactly, now imagine the Russians had actually developed an engine using a full-flow staged combustion cycle that burned a new propellant that nobody else was even using, and that they set every performance record with that engine except for Isp and gross thrust, while also claiming that that engine cost significantly less than a single RL-10.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ark.jpg, 323KiB, 1536x2048

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 15:14:13 No.10827649 Report

Quoted By:

New Ark

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 15:17:58 No.10827660 Report

Quoted By: >>10827750

So looking at the pictures of starhopper and the starship prototypes, it seems a lot less... Sleek than the concept art, with many steel plates being visible instead of a smooth exterior. Is that likely to be the case even when starship is fully ready in you guys' minds? Or will it get sleeker?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 15:21:49 No.10827668 Report

Quoted By:

>>10825864
POP

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 15:54:22 No.10827718 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827509
They would be impressed with the thrust to weight ratio.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO columbus-hermes.jpg, 63KiB, 1412x708

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 16:08:15 No.10827740 Report

Quoted By: >>10827793 >>10827808 >>10827872

>>10826801
>EU got fucking nothing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_(spacecraft)

If Iron Curtain didn't fall and Soyuz will not become commercially available Hermes would probably made it into space.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 16:10:10 No.10827742 Report

Quoted By: >>10827754

??????????

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 16:13:32 No.10827750 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827660
Starhopper/prototype are boiler plate for testing specific technology. Its not meant to be pretty.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO rabbit hole.jpg, 43KiB, 512x512

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 16:14:48 No.10827754 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827742
??????????

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 16:33:18 No.10827784 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826163
crying shame. At least it is getting a cargo contract and interest from the international community.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 16:37:53 No.10827793 Report

Quoted By: >>10827820 >>10828532

>>10827740
EU Space superiority when?

I'll happily pay more euro-tax to to watch other countries shiver at the might of the god-tier european space program.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 16:39:24 No.10827797 Report

Quoted By: >>10827847

>>10826383
the Dragon still does aerodynamic reentry, it even has asymmetric tile and insulation placement for the preferred orientation. The other US capsules are steeper because they are designed for reentry from lunar orbit velocities which requires even more lift and higher attack angle, whereas Dragon is only coming in from LEO velocities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 16:44:50 No.10827808 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827740
it is extra ridiculous because it was the whole reason the Ariane 5 is as big as it is. Then Hermes was cancelled and ESA had to make do with their oversized rocket, turning dual satellite launch workaround into a feature.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 16:47:12 No.10827815 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827052
fully successful launch, btw. They even measured 15% overperformance, since they let the upper stage burn to completion to save fuel for TLI and landing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 16:49:30 No.10827820 Report

Quoted By: >>10827852

>>10827793
Maybe work on nailing down how to successfully put anything onto Mars and go from there

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 17:00:08 No.10827847 Report

Quoted By: >>10828035

>>10827797
Dragon is designed to handle interplanetary reentries in excess of a Lunar return, despite the fact that it'll only be used for LEO missions. The only capsules built by America that are actually meant to do missions beyond LEO are Apollo and Orion. Starliner is flatter than Dragon but it has nothing to do with lifting body effects, they just went with the meme. Fun fact, the shape of the original Dragon capsule was determined in a single meeting in just a couple minutes, and was done by making the bottom of the capsule as wide as the Falcon 9 tanks, and making the top as wide as the universal docking adapter, then simply picking a distance between the bottom and top of the capsule that seemed okay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 17:02:22 No.10827852 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827820
details, details

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 17:13:48 No.10827872 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827740
Hermes is a failed project, Eu doesn't have anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 18:56:39 No.10828035 Report

Quoted By: >>10828670 >>10828680

>>10827847
yeah they wanted to do circumlunar flights with Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy but then that plan became obsolete

honestly that would have kinda sucked, Dragon 2 is pretty small to hang out in for, what, six days?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO airlock.png, 183KiB, 2518x1024

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:01:41 No.10828044 Report

Quoted By: >>10828075 >>10828106

Daily reminder that if you even considered doing water airlocks on mars you are literally retarded and have an iq lower than what would be advisable for someone who scrubs toilets.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:03:24 No.10828046 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826207
All of this is shit if starship gets demonstrated.

I think that if starship flies everyone else in the world will haul ass to get a similar concept going.

Starship it's like having a modern ww2 destroyer when your opponents have XV era carabels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:06:38 No.10828049 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826809
He has just left with the orbits

>>10826808
It wont fly if it isnt on a corrupt goverment rocket

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:07:15 No.10828051 Report

Quoted By: >>10828052

>>10827013
Even if Starship turns out to be the nominal best for a lot of missions, other landers and vehicles will be built simply to prevent SpaceX form having a monopoly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:08:40 No.10828052 Report

Quoted By: >>10828066 >>10828073

>>10828051
but that makes no sense, the logical solution would be to fund other starship like projects, most likely a bigger succesor to starship, something like the ITS.

Because if you can launch on starship it will be super retarded to use other vehicles, starship will offer something like 0.001% the cost

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:15:16 No.10828066 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828052
It isn't always about what's sensible, or what's purely the most economically pragmatic thing to do. It's the same reason the US jumped into the space race to begin with, we didn't want our competitor to be able to do something we couldn't. Other countries and companies won't want SpaceX to be the only one capable of reliable interplanetary travel, you're right though about emulation of "starship like projects", if I'm not mistaken Europe has sunk some preliminary funding into a reusable rocket extremely similar to Falcon 9 simply because they don't want an American company to be the only player in reusable rocketry. If Starship starts flying successfully and continues to expand SpaceX's economic and political power then I'm sure several similar projects will be started to compete with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:17:59 No.10828069 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826207
2020 is also when the Chinese want their post Soyuz-tech capsule to start testing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:19:39 No.10828073 Report

Quoted By: >>10828082

>>10828052
>Because if you can launch on starship it will be super retarded to use other vehicles, starship will offer something like 0.001% the cost
But its not guaranteed that Starship would be that cheap. Even when it starts flying, how cheap it will be will be uncertain for a while. There was another reusable vehicle that made the same promises of cheaper launches, the Shuttle, and look at how badly that thing went.

When Starship starts flying, at best everyone else will be curious about it while continuing to fly their own spacecraft, confident about its price, until Starship proves itself (or not) after a couple of years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:21:10 No.10828075 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828044
This is the first time I've heard of such an idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:24:05 No.10828082 Report

Quoted By: >>10828087 >>10828684

>>10828073
To be fair, the shuttle wasn't a fully mature reusable technology, it still uses highly complicated, semi-non reusable engines that need extensive refurbishment after every flight, it's first stage and a half (tank and boosters) can be refurbished if they land intact but they could also just get crushed on impact with the ocean and need to be fully replaced, making their costs in line with expendable rocket systems. Add on the fact that it's a government vehicle and you can basically guarantee that it was never going to be any more economically viable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:27:41 No.10828087 Report

Quoted By: >>10828099

>>10828082
True. But at the time, such issues weren't fully known about, and American spaceflight dived headfirst into the Shuttle believing it to be a great machine. The Shuttle ended up holding back spaceflight over it's lifespan. It's understandable why some are unsure about SpaceXs similar promises, and aren't jumping into the hype train just yet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:35:22 No.10828099 Report

Quoted By: >>10828183

>>10828087
True but BFRship can't hold back spaceflight because it's being done on the initiative of a private enterprise, funded in large part by private customers, other high value businesspeople, and the profits SpaceX will be presumably taking in over the next few years from Starlink launches, on top of whatever else they do for other customers. My doubts about it are minimal simply because in spite of being a new rocket it's still standing firmly on well known principles, like NASA's revived NERVA. We knew it worked decades ago but nobody had the balls, cash, or incentive to build it then so instead it's being done now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:45:16 No.10828106 Report

Quoted By: >>10828110

>>10828044
What so you mean by water airlocks? Like a giant P-trap that you walk through in your suit?

I've never heard of anyone suggesting such an idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:46:54 No.10828110 Report

Quoted By: >>10828121 >>10828126

>>10828106
a couple threads ago some guy insisted it was THE ONLY WAY to build airlocks on mars

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:50:55 No.10828121 Report

Quoted By: >>10828124 >>10828207 >>10829853

>>10828110
Why not just the tried and true method of using a series of big airtight doors?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:52:01 No.10828124 Report

Quoted By: >>10828134 >>10828142

>>10828121
why not make the airlock operated by a coal engine, why not make a couple of naked retards in space suit push it really hard into place and fill the crevices with cookie dough???

because big metal doors are obsolete inferior technologies.

tensile airlocks are obviously best

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:52:27 No.10828126 Report

Quoted By: >>10828186

>>10828110
How could they even work on Mars? You would need a second normal airlock or they would boil every time you opened the outer hatch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:57:27 No.10828134 Report

Quoted By: >>10828162

>>10828124
>doors are obsolete
>glorified tarps are superior

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:00:42 No.10828142 Report

Quoted By: >>10828169

>>10828124
>not going with the grimdark option of using doors operated by cyborgs made from convicted criminals

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:07:48 No.10828162 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828134
By that definition a """"tarp"""" is an advanced elastomerastic microfiber nano controlled tensile determined surface wiht nanomicromillimeter precision load control.

Doors are ancient egypt technology

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:09:37 No.10828169 Report

Quoted By: >>10828174 >>10829345

>>10828142
>not engineering barely-sapient epsilons to open the doors for you

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:11:55 No.10828174 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828169
muh aldeously huxley

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:15:15 No.10828183 Report

Quoted By: >>10828187

>>10828099
the best part about Starship is that even if upper stage reusability is a total flop and they need to tear down the heat shield every time, it can operate like a big Falcon 9 with first stage reusability

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:16:43 No.10828186 Report

Quoted By: >>10828693

>>10828126
cover the mars side in oil

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:16:46 No.10828187 Report

Quoted By: >>10828190 >>10828191

>>10828183
it wotn be a flop, sci fi future hewre we come

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:17:46 No.10828190 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828187
the second best part is that even if it doesn't work, they'll keep innovating and trying until it does (looking at you, Shuttle)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:19:03 No.10828191 Report

Quoted By: >>10828203

>>10828187
I want a scifi future too, but lets be a little bit cautious about Starship's promises until it proves itself, lest we end up sacrificing 14 astronauts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:24:06 No.10828203 Report

Quoted By: >>10828210

>>10828191
its confirmed by physics calculations you fargotfgafaghomosexual

like
picture me this

thought experiment:

i drop a pen
it falls because of gravity...

OHHH NOOO BUT THATS JUST IN TEHROY, WE MUST COORBORROBORATIONCORROBORATE IN REAL LIFE TO SEE IF MAYBE THE PEN DOESNT GO UPSIDE AND STARTS ACCELERATING UNTIL A HUNDGRED ANGRY PRETEZLÑ CLAIM

AHHA

thats how you sound

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:25:01 No.10828207 Report

Quoted By: >>10828218

>>10828121
Because those are heavier, so if you can get some tough fiber or polymer layer to do the same job then that's preferable because that means launching your doors can cost less and they can be crammed into a smaller space so more room is available for other parts.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO EAGZqlTWwAE-hOy.jpg, 543KiB, 2222x2196

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:25:23 No.10828209 Report

Quoted By: >>10828216 >>10828233 >>10828549

Interesting day today.
>lunar lander solicitations
apparently it will stay with S-band communications, which is a little disappointing consider laser comms have been demonstrated.
>renewed interest in NTR
Will it actually happen this time? I believe we need it for Mars.
Also, Elon-spam about starship/super heavy
>35 engines
>5-6 degree gimbal on the center engine(s)
how are they gonna do it? what's the configuration going to look like?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:25:33 No.10828210 Report

Quoted By: >>10828214 >>10828222

>>10828203
What? How does that stream of thought even relate to the topic?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:28:36 No.10828214 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828210
Please be patient he has schizophrenia.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:30:24 No.10828216 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828209
ASS
BLAST
USA

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:30:31 No.10828218 Report

Quoted By: >>10828238 >>10828700

>>10828207
>your doors can cost less and they can be crammed into a smaller space so more room is available for other parts.
That's an understatement.

you could literally fill a 5meter wide tensile airlock in a literal suitcase. the whole thing weighs less than 5kg.

One steel airlock would be the size of a medium car and weight around 800-1200 kg

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:32:21 No.10828222 Report

Quoted By: >>10828227 >>10828234 >>10828251

>>10828210
You say this:

starship in theory: gooooood

in practice: maybe not gooood

imagine this:

we know the laws of physics right?

we know what happens when you drop a pen, it falls right? (if you dfeny this youre a little little little uneducated loser forever so better dont)

so would you expect that dropping a pen will make it go to the earth as the gravity theory predicts or will it accelerate in ar andom direction at the seped of light?!?!?!?!?!?!?

similarly

we know the laws of rockets

we know the laws of steel

we know the law of shapes bieng forced by air outside by speed

do you expect the experiments to corroborate known physics or discover news. YOU NON KNOWERRRRRRR

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:35:38 No.10828227 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828222
There's a large gap between theory and engineering. That's where lots of failures occur.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:37:26 No.10828233 Report

Quoted By: >>10828708

>>10828209
>Will NTPRs actually happen this time?
Well, it technically did but never flew in the form of NERVA (pretty anemic compared to some of the less well known NTPRs too, like Timberwind and DUMBO). As to it's necessity, they aren't strictly necessary but they will be highly desirable due to higher ISPs allowing for either shorter travel times for the same propellant mass, or larger payload sizes for the same propellant mass, both of which would be advantageous for a Mars or Venus shot. Nuclear reactors are also desirable in space for power supplies and can be used in a variety of different ways for different things. They can be used for example as power supplies for Magnetoplasma rockets which have much higher ISP than NTPRs, they can be used to generate large quantities of electrical power for long periods of time, useful for deep space missions or Lunar or Martian outposts. And they'll also be necessary for powering MPD drives past Mars as solar powered ships suffer severe efficiency drop-offs (and the consequent mass increases) the further they get from the sun.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:37:53 No.10828234 Report

Quoted By: >>10828263

>>10828222
Sure, lad.
What we don't know much about however is how this shit is supposed to come to a pinpoint landing from fucking orbit.
And no, Falcon 9 doesn't count as previous experience.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:38:46 No.10828238 Report

Quoted By: >>10828272

>>10828218
Based and tensionpilled, got any good PDFs on them? Airlock design isn't something I've read too much about, my particular field of interest lies mostly in propulsion and powerplants.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:43:10 No.10828251 Report

Quoted By: >>10828264

>>10828222
shuttle in theory: good
shuttle in practice: NASA = NEED ANOTHER SEVEN ASTRONAUTS

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:47:56 No.10828263 Report

Quoted By: >>10828527

>>10828234
>What we don't know much about however is how this shit is supposed to come to a pinpoint landing from fucking orbit.
yes we do, its the most widely scrutinized and precisely calculated by the most god tier minds that have put about 50 manhattan project man hours into calculating the results

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:49:09 No.10828264 Report

Quoted By: >>10828266 >>10828270 >>10828286 >>10828593

>>10828251
>shuttle in theory: good
shuttle in theory LITERALLY WANST GOOD

HHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

ENGINERS
AHHAHA
a}hsdaph
aENGIN
ENGIN

engineers
wheeeeeezeee i cant even stop of how much i am superior wining all over yuo

engineers knew the flaws of the shuttle well before it was constructed, they even warned nasa, but as all capitalist americans, they chose to kill people to keep the possibility of profit

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:49:24 No.10828265 Report

Quoted By: >>10828269 >>10828287

OMG YAAAAAAAAAAAAS SPACE!!!! WE GET TO SEE BLURRY THEORETICAL PICTURES OF WHAT THINGS MIGHT ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:50:08 No.10828266 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828264
please put on a tripcode so we know when someone intelligent is speaking, I wouldn't want to ever accidently ignore your genius level insights

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:50:56 No.10828269 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828265
>theoretical

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO indeed.jpg, 271KiB, 960x720

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:51:10 No.10828270 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828264

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:51:23 No.10828271 Report

Quoted By: >>10828310 >>10828315 >>10828317 >>10829880

Remember to select "extremely low quality"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:51:34 No.10828272 Report

Quoted By: >>10828424

>>10828238
It's such an easy engineering gadget that literally theres no need to even think about it

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

FUCKING
3600 MPA
TENSILE STRENGTH

construction steel has 42 for reference

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:51:41 No.10828273 Report

Quoted By: >>10828288

Stop shitting up the thread with your inane babbling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:55:05 No.10828286 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828264
Get this comrade out of here, graphite literally doesn't even exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:55:39 No.10828287 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828265
>he doesn't know

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:55:43 No.10828288 Report

Quoted By: >>10828719

>>10828273
ahhahahaha, you question my masterpoetryexpression mixing, which characterises god tier top 5 colleges. you know.

shitty colleges only make you learn one thing

god tiers, learn all
i know all of all, and that includes master expression advanced that mixes (poe)try and technical data. you COULDNT understand it

but even if you set that aside, i have laid down upon you EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE pieces of information that you couldnt even SUSPECT and you have the face to even attempt to imply that you do not intensely desire to keep learnign from me???? haaha, le no

seriously tough:

-tensile airlocks: god tier

-shuttle:badly designed and perfectly anticipated to fail. Its well documented.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 20:56:56 No.10828294 Report

Quoted By:

schizo likes tensile airlocks, tensile airlock guy btfo by association

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:02:53 No.10828310 Report

Quoted By: >>10828315

>>10828271
that's my favorite option on that menu
I'm also a fan of "this post is off-topic"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:06:25 No.10828315 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828271
>>10828310
It's very interesting how my posts actually contain a lot of science and engineering data while yours are just whining because youre angry i buttdestroyed you in an argument.

-Tensile airlocks are superior

there, only by saying that my posts are superior, youre not even saying anything related to science

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:06:52 No.10828317 Report

Quoted By: >>10828319 >>10828346 >>10828418

>>10828271
I have a gut feeling that "this post is extremely low quality" is probably the most common report that mods on this board see.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:07:49 No.10828319 Report

Quoted By: >>10828329

>>10828317
I mean, what else do you put down for "schizophrenic manic ramblings with tangential at best connection to reality"

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO DSC_4825 (2).jpg, 3MiB, 2953x3884

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:09:22 No.10828324 Report

Quoted By: >>10828344

taller

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:09:58 No.10828329 Report

Quoted By: >>10828330

>>10828319
"trolling outside of /b/"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:11:04 No.10828330 Report

Quoted By: >>10828338

>>10828329
"This user is underage"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:13:26 No.10828338 Report

Quoted By: >>10828400 >>10828425

>>10828330
"conspiracies outside of /x/"
Seriously, we need an option like this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:15:22 No.10828344 Report

Quoted By: >>10828350 >>10828351 >>10829433

>>10828324
So they are making a hopper version of the super heavy too?
i thought both shipyards were making a starship hopper first.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:16:00 No.10828346 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828317
"Even shitposts are of a higher quality than this schlock"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:18:07 No.10828350 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828344
If I'm not mistaken it's two starhoppers, I think the nearly finished one is shorter because of that fall, the new one will be a closer representation of the vehicle's real size.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:18:08 No.10828351 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828344
that looks like the tanks for Starship

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:39:19 No.10828400 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828338
it would get abused by the lizard people

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:47:16 No.10828418 Report

Quoted By: >>10828477

>>10828317
It would help if some autist didn't start a new thread the moment it hits the bump limit, while the old thread hangs around for hours. Being on page 1 of /sci/ is a great way to attract schizos to a thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:48:24 No.10828424 Report

Quoted By: >>10828470

>>10828272
>construction steel has 42 for reference
42 MPA yea that will be a big NO !

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:48:36 No.10828425 Report

Quoted By: >>10828443

>>10828338
but more conspiracies end up being true than not these days
>the NSA exists
>the NSA is spying on Americans
>the former South Korean president was controlled by a shady cabal of occultist billionaire crypto-feminists
>Facebook running human trials on users without consent

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO my spirit is broken.jpg, 133KiB, 456x275

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:54:55 No.10828443 Report

Quoted By: >>10828502

>>10828425
>the former South Korean president was controlled by a shady cabal of occultist billionaire crypto-feminists
I feel like not enough people know about this, probably because the news just didn't make a big deal out of it. For some reason.

But, this is /sci/ so let's focus on the space stuff for now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:03:59 No.10828469 Report

Quoted By: >>10828503

https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1153420075938045952

RIP Chris Kraft. Hope he got to see all the 50th anniversary stuff. I actually got to meet him years ago which was cool.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:04:11 No.10828470 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828424
ok, more like 420 (blaze it farrgot) but still highly impressive

http://descom.jmc.utfsm.cl/proi/materiales/ClasAceros/ACEROS.htm

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:09:17 No.10828477 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828418
Sorry Anon :(

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1297915871323.png, 23KiB, 900x1200

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:12:57 No.10828486 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:22:50 No.10828502 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828443
Yeah, if it werent for 4chan i would not even now about it, western media completly ignored this.
This went deep and there are even rumors of human sacrifices and shit.
The ferry with all those kids sinking was on a important day for that cult too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:23:17 No.10828503 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828469
addendum from bergerboy https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/christiopher-columbus-kraft-nasas-legendary-flight-director-has-died/

Pretty sad to have passed while NASA has been in such a piss poor state for so long, even though things look to be getting better real soon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:38:49 No.10828527 Report

Quoted By: >>10828538

>>10828263
Simulations didn't prevent FH center core from crashing last time.
Starship is a totally different design, with a tatally different 'flight' profile. You can fucking bet things will go wrong.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1486839506974.jpg, 162KiB, 1024x681

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:39:50 No.10828531 Report

Quoted By: >>10828540

>tfw you will never hotbox a spaceship with musk and hadfield

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:40:06 No.10828532 Report

Quoted By: >>10828543

>>10827793
you are third world tier riddled with inmigrants. you fight amogns each other, you have less nukes altogether than one american county.

forget it europe. your reign is over, forever, you have no real power anywhere anymore, the united states owns you and when they fall whoever conquers them will own you, thats the sad cold objective truth that you can either accept or fail to see

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:42:12 No.10828538 Report

Quoted By: >>10828544 >>10828733

>>10828527
those going wrongs were expected, and now falcon heavy absoluteley owns the market and has triumphed ten trillion times as expected

so will starship, the experts are aware, pay attention

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:43:45 No.10828540 Report

Quoted By: >>10828548

>>10828531
is this picture real
did they really smoke a fat blunt on the ISS

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:45:35 No.10828543 Report

Quoted By: >>10828550

>>10828532
>A burger accusing anyone else of being overrun by migrants
LOL

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:45:58 No.10828544 Report

Quoted By: >>10828550 >>10828551

>>10828538
I fully expect it to blow up a few dozen times in the next 5-10 years.
Imagine the balls it will take to board this thing.
There's not even any kind of abort plan for it.
Because something works in advanced Kerbal Space Program doesn't make it 100% reliable.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ISS_smuggled_eggs.png, 437KiB, 612x647

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:47:32 No.10828548 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828540
No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:48:18 No.10828549 Report

Quoted By: >>10828553 >>10828737 >>10829003

New Elon tweets
>So... I cant wrap my head around how @elonmusk / @SpaceX is planning on fitting 35x O1,3m Raptors in a O9,0m enginebay and still have 5-6° of gimbal on the 5 (?) center engines.. I made a few mockups but still the most gimbal I can get is 1,9° on the #3 before the bells touch.. [picture of >>10828209]
Outer engines stick out slightly from 9m diameter, don’t gimbal & are mechanically joined at nozzle
For 37 engine config, 6 are mounted outboard under landing leg fairings
>how many do gimbal then?
Center 7 engines gimbal to 15 degrees

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:48:25 No.10828550 Report

Quoted By: >>10828556 >>10828633

>>10828544
>Imagine the balls it will take to board this thing.
space shuttle was predicted to fail PRECISELY and it failed WHEN and HOW it was predicted

>>10828543
A single american state could buy, invade, outsmart outgun and even outcompete in the olympics the WHOLE EUROPEAN UNION

ill decide your fate,slave

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:49:24 No.10828551 Report

Quoted By: >>10828564

>>10828544
Nothing is 100% reliable.

I wonder how reliable it can realistically get? What would be considered safe enough for passenger travel? 1/10,000 flights ending in loss of life?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:49:33 No.10828553 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828549
>engines mounted to your landing legs
>just strap em on and weld em in
jesus

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO eu-702716.jpg, 70KiB, 590x350

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:51:28 No.10828556 Report

Quoted By: >>10828562

>>10828550
>and even outcompete in the olympics the WHOLE EUROPEAN UNION
Who told you that one? Fox News? Woo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:56:41 No.10828562 Report

Quoted By: >>10828572

>>10828556
ok you got me. youre better at olympics.

we still could kill or buy you literally any time we want.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:57:43 No.10828564 Report

Quoted By: >>10828568

>>10828551
>What would be considered safe enough for passenger travel? 1/10,000 flights ending in loss of life?
supposedly airliner statistics.

that's like 1 crash in a million flights

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:58:18 No.10828565 Report

Quoted By:

If the post is gay, just stay away.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:59:03 No.10828568 Report

Quoted By: >>10828575 >>10828578

>>10828564
What did the 757 max have? I mean, airliners are far safer than most forms of transport. I imagine if Starship was just "safe enough" people would fly it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO US_Debt_in_Constant_Dollars_and_ (...).png, 72KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:00:53 No.10828572 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828562
>buy
With your > 100% debt to GDP ratio? Yeah, sure. Try it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:01:55 No.10828575 Report

Quoted By: >>10828582

>>10828568
It's not a question of whether or not individuals would decide to fly on them, it's a question of whether or not governments would be willing to tolerate a less safe mode of travel than airplanes, and make the investments necessary to marry BFRship landing infrastructure with their existing travel infrastructure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:03:31 No.10828578 Report

Quoted By: >>10828582

>>10828568
i think that for early stages the safety has to be at least as good as extreme sports. Something like paragliding or bunge jumping, shit like that

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:06:17 No.10828582 Report

Quoted By: >>10828589 >>10828597

>>10828575
>it's a question of whether or not governments would be willing to tolerate a less safe mode of travel than airplanes
Considering all modes of transport are less safe than planes, it would seem obvious that government would support it.

>>10828578
Reasonable take

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:08:32 No.10828589 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828582
for a long time space travel will be considered an extreme sport at best, most likely an excentric insanity like it is now for a civilian

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1558563959259.png, 209KiB, 298x329

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:10:58 No.10828593 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828264
p a j e e t
a
j
e
e
t

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:12:31 No.10828597 Report

Quoted By: >>10828603 >>10828606 >>10828634

>>10828582

airplane safety:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety

around 2 accident per million flights

Extreme sports:
https://www.tetongravity.com/story/news/your-chances-of-dying-ranked-by-sport-and-activity
hang gliding: around 1 in 560 chances of dying

The space shuttle flew around 833 times, with two catastrophic failures and one extremely close call that you could almost consider it an accident. so tahts 3 in 833 or about 1 in 277 chances of death

its safer to hangglide that to ride the american shuttle. so i guess that would be a good first start

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:14:31 No.10828603 Report

Quoted By: >>10828606 >>10828634 >>10828636

>>10828597
SCRATCH THE FUCK THAT i 833 is the number of people who flew on the shuttle, the number of missions were 135.

that makes the shuttle statistics 1 explosion per 45 flights. oh my fucking god its fucking terrible.

i mean, if you tell people its safer than the shuttle that would maybe calm them but the truth is thats not really great

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:17:16 No.10828606 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828603
>>10828597
i guess its safer to juggle knifes while standing on an alligator in a minefield in an active warzone than riding the shuttle

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO trash.png, 108KiB, 500x538

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:26:26 No.10828633 Report

Quoted By: >>10828639 >>10828654 >>10829279 >>10829494

>>10828550
>space shuttle was predicted to fail PRECISELY and it failed WHEN and HOW it was predicted

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:27:28 No.10828634 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828597
>>10828603
schizo poster get out

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:27:39 No.10828636 Report

Quoted By: >>10828749

>>10828603
Got to break a few eggs to make an omelette. How many people died in the early days of air travel? Fucking. Shitloads.

This insistence on omg 100% ultra super duper reliable safety while tens of thousands of people die in car crashes is just fucking asinine. Starship will probably blow up or experience terminal failure at least a few times, taking a few dozen-a few hundred cunts with it. Planes kill this amount every fucking year. Hopefully this doesn't end up with government stepping in and clamping down but who knows.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:28:08 No.10828639 Report

Quoted By: >>10828646

>>10828633
Not him, but I do recall that there was an Airforce study of the Shuttle when it first came out and they predicted that the Shuttle would suffer a failure one out of every 25 flights. Challenger was number 26.

Then again, I can't back that up, so take that with a grain of salt so large that it could crush someone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:28:33 No.10828640 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826267
it's basically a bigger soyuz, the main difference is that the orbital module can operate in a independant way, undock and dock again, which can't be done with the soyuz. It's like a mini-space station.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:30:32 No.10828646 Report

Quoted By: >>10828664

>>10828639
1/50 is closer to actual failure rate IMO. still not good, but about the same as soyuz. diff is that when Soyuz fails it has an LES. shuttle did not

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:35:40 No.10828654 Report

Quoted By: >>10828754

>>10828633
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/21/470870426/challenger-engineer-who-warned-of-shuttle-disaster-dies

pheeww brother, your ass must hurt, i just buttdestroyed your tiny little sluthole in one second more than all of the porn actreses in the whole world got fukced in their whole career

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:39:03 No.10828663 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827052
It's really a dick shaped spacecraft

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:39:13 No.10828664 Report

Quoted By: >>10828759

>>10828646
were talking about fatal accidents, by that standards newest soyuz without the extreme soviet pressure has a 100% safety record, its literally safer than riding a car or a bike, its safer than eating a taco.

people have died wrongly eating a taco, no one has died in post 90s soyuz

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:43:35 No.10828670 Report

Quoted By: >>10828682 >>10828690

>>10828035
The Dragon 2 has an internal habitable volume 50% greater than that of the Apollo capsule, and 25% less than the combined Apollo+LEM spacecraft. It wouldn't be in the lap of luxury but two guys could definitely do a Lunar free return trajectory in that thing without going insane.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:46:17 No.10828680 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828035
Dragon as an interior volume almost twice the volume of Apollo capsule, it's spacious enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:46:56 No.10828682 Report

Quoted By: >>10828769 >>10829281

>>10828670
yeah but the Apollo CSM has all sorts of nooks and crannies to hide in, I'd need to make a hell of a pillow fort in Dragon 2 personally

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:47:40 No.10828684 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828082
>it's first stage and a half (tank and boosters) can be refurbished if they land intact
The Boosters required extensive refurbishment no matter what, and the external fuel tank burned up on reentry 100% of the time as planned. Fun fact, it's estimated that the external fuel tank on a Shuttle launch alone cost more than an entire launch of Falcon Heavy, yet Falcon Heavy is much more reusable than Shuttle was.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:51:24 No.10828690 Report

Quoted By: >>10828769

>>10828670
50% more space than apollo 8 is quite good

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:52:01 No.10828693 Report

Quoted By: >>10828696

>>10828186
That's not how it works dumbass. If you have a pool of water under a layer of low vapor pressure oil in a pressurized vessel on Mars, and you open the door, sure the oil doesn't boil, but the water underneath that's no longer being forced together by air pressure certainly does. That's why a naked human pushed into space will experience their blood starting to boil even though it's totally contained inside their cardiovascular system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:53:23 No.10828696 Report

Quoted By: >>10828808

>>10828693
hmmmmmmmmm
oil airlock

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:55:30 No.10828700 Report

Quoted By: >>10828702

>>10828218
>One steel airlock would be the size of a medium car and weight around 800-1200 kg
It'd help me sleep at night desu

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:55:57 No.10828702 Report

Quoted By: >>10828814

>>10828700
this, I like big steel vault doors

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:58:54 No.10828708 Report

Quoted By: >>10828713 >>10828716 >>10828771

>>10828233
I could be wrong but just going by some performance numbers typical of NTR using several different propellants makes it seem like NTR should be sufficient purely on its own as a means of performing manned missions to the Jupiter and Saturnine systems. Methane in particular, which offers >600 Isp at much higher propellant densities and thus better mass fraction than hydrogen, appears to be an extremely attractive propellant for use in NTRs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:01:15 No.10828713 Report

Quoted By: >>10828839

>>10828708
how's ammonia compare?
densified propane?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:02:08 No.10828716 Report

Quoted By: >>10828839

>>10828708
>I could be wrong but just going by some performance numbers typical of NTR using several different propellants makes it seem like NTR should be sufficient purely on its own as a means of performing manned missions to the Jupiter and Saturnine systems. Methane in particular, which offers >600 Isp at much higher propellant densities and thus better mass fraction than hydrogen, appears to be an extremely attractive propellant for use in NTRs.
the problem with jupiter missions is that when you account that your ship needs to have around 50% of its mass be radiation shielding then its prohibitevly expensive

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:03:22 No.10828719 Report

Quoted By: >>10828736

>>10828288
>-tensile airlocks: god tier
Tensile airlock vs one muslim guy with ten seconds and a razor, who would win?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:07:09 No.10828733 Report

Quoted By: >>10828738

>>10828538
They have literally never successfully recovered a Falcon Heavy center core

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:08:01 No.10828736 Report

Quoted By: >>10828746

>>10828719
the tensile airlock has the advantage of being literally tens of millions of kilometers away

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:08:23 No.10828737 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828549
Underappreciated information

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:08:34 No.10828738 Report

Quoted By: >>10828848

>>10828733
they did land one, but it fell over
which is a success for "can they recover cores" and a failure for "did they recover cores"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:13:28 No.10828746 Report

Quoted By: >>10828755

>>10828736
>Implying the first mission isn't going to be loaded with diversity

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:14:23 No.10828749 Report

Quoted By: >>10828782

>>10828636
>Got to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Except in Shuttle's case they never made the omelette, they just kept breaking eggs, because to actually improve the safety of the system would require massive investment in further development that nobody wanted to pay for, as well as a fundamental reshuffling of the way the Shuttle even worked to begin with.
In the early days of air travel there were many different entities working simultaneously to improve the problems and develop better vehicles all the time. For the entire Shuttle era there was only one outright competitor, which was in effect a carbon copy but tweaked to be undeniably superior when it came to performing as a launch vehicle and to safety overall, and it took 30 years before finally Shuttle was cancelled, and even then it took a presidential mandate to stop the Shuttle program continuing until the 2030's as planned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:15:42 No.10828754 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828654
Warning the night before because the vehicle is being operated out of thermal tolerances is not the same as warning the engineers before they've even started bending metal that their design is inherently unsafe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:16:17 No.10828755 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828746
if you expect sabotage from one of your own crewmembers then no matter what tec you use you are 100% fucked.

Missions can and will fail even if everyone in the station AND in the world is working coordinately to make it happen

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:17:26 No.10828759 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828664
Hell they had a launch failure a few months back with people on board and it wasn't even a big deal, LES worked perfectly and the guys stepped out of the capsule later like it wudn't no thang.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:20:01 No.10828769 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828682
They have a privacy curtain that you can use if you need to take a fat astronaut shit and don't want your fellow crew mates to watch, not much reason why they wouldn't just lave the curtain up the whole time to break up the space into a couple 'rooms'.

>>10828690
Exactly, so bearing in mind sending 2 regular people instead of 3 highly trained astronauts and there should be plenty of room as not to trigger any psychotic breakdowns.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:20:04 No.10828771 Report

Quoted By: >>10828839

>>10828708
It absolutely can, once you get there and so long as your drive can operate on water you've got enough propellant to go anywhere you want due to water's extreme abundance in both the Saturnian and Jovian systems. The issue with missions there is that ships will need to be much more heavily or perhaps magnetically shielded against intense radiation which is captured in supercharged versions of the Van-Allen belts by both Saturn and Jupiter's enormously powerful friction fueled magnetic fields. If you're going to magnetically shield your ship (basically using large doughnut shaped copper electromagnet to generate a very concentrated magnetic envelope that acts like a planet's magnetic field) then a nuclear reactor becomes essentially necessary, nothing else has the same power to mass ratio that far from the sun and you'll need that magnetic shielding to approach either giant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:24:05 No.10828782 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828749
I know that, I was more talking about BFR going forward.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Oil_airlock_retarded_won't_work.png, 121KiB, 600x591

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:38:34 No.10828808 Report

Quoted By: >>10828813 >>10829379

>>10828696
Now THAT'S a galaxy brain moment

However the oil airlock would need to look like pic related in order to actually work, and god help you if some dumbass opens a pressurized air cylinder too fast and manages to put bubbles into the oil column, because that oil is going to shotgun out onto the surface of Mars and your airlock will then be an open hallway to vacuum.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:40:05 No.10828813 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828808
it is 2000% galaxy brain nonsense that would never work but I love it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:40:08 No.10828814 Report

Quoted By: >>10828816

>>10828702
I think tensile airlocks would work great as part of both emergency airlock systems in permanent structures and as the main airlocks on temporary structures, like pressurized tents erected at work sites far from any main bases.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:41:12 No.10828816 Report

Quoted By: >>10828821

>>10828814
tensile airlocks also open up the potential for emergency shelter tents

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:43:29 No.10828821 Report

Quoted By: >>10828823

>>10828816
Absolutely, you could have something as big as say a backpack which is basically a cylinder filled with ultra compressed air, a co2 scrubber and a 10m3 tent made of ultra strong material.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:44:30 No.10828823 Report

Quoted By: >>10828829

>>10828821
>backpack
you're already wearing a life support backpack, you don't have room for that
put it in the trunk of your car

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:48:03 No.10828829 Report

Quoted By: >>10828830

>>10828823
your car is probably has a fucking pressurized space already.

Why not have the backpack mounted on a big blimp (lower grav on mars, much easier to do) with propellers a solar panel and an ai that makes it follow you around, and when you have an emergency it drops the tent of you. practical and cute as fuck

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:48:49 No.10828830 Report

Quoted By: >>10828847

>>10828829
dude just build a big train to tow your blimp, fuck walking

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:49:16 No.10828833 Report

Quoted By: >>10828841 >>10828849 >>10828876 >>10828914 >>10830219

spacex rejected me, bros :(
no job for me

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:50:13 No.10828839 Report

Quoted By: >>10828884

>>10828713
Ammonia is pretty shit (may as well just use water since it performs very similar but is mega cheap and common in the solar system), densified propane is worse than methane in terms of isp but better in terms of density, however the difference is very slight.

>>10828716
You only need extra radiation shielding at Jupiter if you'e going closer than Callisto, which lies completely outside the radiation belts. If you can get to Callisto you can use it to restock on both propellants and cheap radiation shielding (water) and definitely go as far is an Ganymede, maybe Europa but that's pushing it unless your guys are landing and immediately going underground.

>>10828771
See the previous about Jupiter, and note that Saturn doesn't have radiation belts that are nearly as powerful, plus they only extend out as far as Enceladus and all the bigger moons of the Saturnine system are out further than that. Titan specifically with its thick atmosphere would completely shield anyone standing on the ground even if Titan orbited directly inside Jupiter's radiation belts instead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:50:17 No.10828841 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828833
it's for the greater good. Imagine /sci/tards running spacex. rockets would blow up in launchpad

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:51:25 No.10828847 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828830
could the rails be mounted on a series of rocket planes that steer the tracks to wherever they need to go?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:51:28 No.10828848 Report

Quoted By: >>10828860

>>10828738
I'm agreeing with you, but the point is that despite the engineering knowledge and arguably nothing being engineered incorrectly, they still haven't managed to get a FH center core back to shore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:51:42 No.10828849 Report

Quoted By: >>10828874

>>10828833
I'm sure the froyo machine and game room would outweight the unpaid after-hours seven days a week.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:55:06 No.10828860 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828848
but they will, as planned

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 00:59:24 No.10828874 Report

Quoted By: >>10828963 >>10829284

>>10828849
KEK. I got to tour their hawthrone facility and it was really awesome actually. they have all these clean rooms where the assemble the engines and rockets. they didn't show me a game room but the froyo was real. I also saw their control room (which Elon was occupying to do some sort of tv interview)

the impression I got was everyone working there was 100% invested of the mission™ and a quite a bit indoctrinated into the elon fanboy cult. the recruiter and the team were a little rude and didnt give me an opportunity to ask them the sort of questions I wanted to ask before shuttling me off to the next interview. overall a terrible experience would not recommend applying

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:00:40 No.10828876 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828833
neetlyf

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO steeVbQDTNm7ikspshc23D-320-80.jpg, 9KiB, 320x323

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:03:41 No.10828884 Report

Quoted By: >>10828902 >>10828907 >>10828965 >>10829391

>>10828839
Titan is really fucking neat, considering how much Ethane and Methane is present it might make a useful outpost in the outer planets as a source of petrochemicals and relatively high ISP methane propellant, along with providing strong natural radiation shielding that doesn't require excess mass or technology. It would also be incredibly easy to fly on Titan, 1.45ATM combined with only .138G would be excellent for flying, you could probably operate some kind of peddle helicopter or glider with ease.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:07:36 No.10828902 Report

Quoted By: >>10828915 >>10828975

>>10828884
Titan is fucking cool, sucks it's so fucking far tho. Why couldn't it be around Jupiter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:08:27 No.10828907 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828884
how easy would it be to convert the titan atmosphere into ethanol

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:10:04 No.10828914 Report

Quoted By: >>10828920

>>10828833
same but I got a comfy job at a satellite manufacturer instead

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:10:25 No.10828915 Report

Quoted By: >>10828934

>>10828902
Just wait until oil on Earth starts to run out, then it'll get plenty closer. Because Titan would suddenly be in desperate need of democracy to free it from the totalitarian oil on it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:11:28 No.10828920 Report

Quoted By: >>10828960

>>10828914
how do you like it anon?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:14:39 No.10828934 Report

Quoted By: >>10828953

>>10828915
implying a super futuristic sci fi XXII century civilization wont use fusion or some shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:20:43 No.10828953 Report

Quoted By: >>10828975

>>10828934
Petrochemicals will always be relevant even if they're no longer used for power generation, modern society is always hungry for more plastic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:22:41 No.10828960 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828920
I haven't been around for a launch yet but those seem to be hectic. Otherwise it's pretty calm. There is a mix of (really) old stuff I have to decipher and new stuff that we are developing, which is good. It's a small division of a large company so we have resources but everyone fills multiple roles. It's a good time to be in the business, I think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:24:18 No.10828963 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828874
Sadly with people applying to the space industry out of "passion" Big Space can push around anyone they want and they'll just have to accept.
I'd rather go NASA than SpaceX though with how things are loooking for the future.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:24:44 No.10828965 Report

Quoted By: >>10828968

>>10828884
On Titan a human can fly using muscle power alone given an artificial wing surface area of about one square meter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:26:47 No.10828968 Report

Quoted By: >>10828977 >>10828978

>>10828965
pedal powered helicopter
pedal powered tilt-rotor

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:28:15 No.10828975 Report

Quoted By: >>10828991

>>10828902
It would have had its atmosphere assblasted by now probably

>>10828953
You can make hydrocarbons from CO2 and water, it's a very simple process, the reason we don't do it is because our cheapest energy comes from burning hydrocarbons to begin with so it's currently more efficient to just use what we've already got, sulfur and nitrogen impurities and all. In the future we'll still have jet fuel and ocean tankers burning oil and thousands of products containing plastics and so forth, but none of those compounds will have come out of the ground, instead they will be made artificially by using CO2 from the air and incredibly cheap power provided by 5th generation nuclear reactors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:29:21 No.10828977 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828968
literally just strap wings onto your arms and flap to fly around

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO TitanTransportVehicle.jpg, 31KiB, 450x361

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:30:14 No.10828978 Report

Quoted By: >>10829013

>>10828968
And you all laughed at da Vinci when he came up with this. Look who's laughing now?

Not da Vinci, he's dead, but the people riding Aerial Screws on Titan are having a fun time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:34:46 No.10828991 Report

Quoted By: >>10829025 >>10829034 >>10829061

>>10828975
>5th gen nuke reactors

Not going to happen, nuke plant production has been dropped to fuck all and normies are so scared it's just not going to happen. Fusion is the only option for cheap energy, that being said with some of the new designs from MIT and CFS it seems like basic commercial fusion reactors with positive Q are pretty much on the table using existing technology.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:37:34 No.10829000 Report

Quoted By:

>157:03:55 News report: Nixon predicts visiting other planets within 31 years
bastard

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:39:17 No.10829003 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828549

I guess this confirms there will be a 41 engine and a 44 engine version of Superheavy.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Leonardo-da-Vincis-human-powered (...).jpg, 57KiB, 550x422

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:42:39 No.10829013 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828978
a screw's a horrible way to make a propeller. Da Vinci's ornithopter, now that might work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:46:29 No.10829025 Report

Quoted By: >>10829034 >>10829127

>>10828991

Good talk on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 01:50:00 No.10829034 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828991
>>10829025
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29074/skunk-works-exotic-fusion-reactor-program-moves-forward-with-larger-more-powerful-design

Some interesting related news.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 02:01:17 No.10829061 Report

Quoted By: >>10829189

>>10828991
Q>1 fusion does not equal cheap fusion, you know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 02:23:50 No.10829127 Report

Quoted By: >>10829185

>>10829025
I posted this on /sci/ a while ago, did you find it from my post?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 02:52:58 No.10829185 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829127
Nope. I've had it saved for a few years now.

What was your post about?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 02:55:09 No.10829189 Report

Quoted By: >>10829237

>>10829061
The designs are a lot better than just a bit over 1, the latest iteration of ARC is i'm pretty sure nearly a giggawatt net electricity generation. Besides if you eliminate the Super radioactive waste shit and expensive as fuck and heavily regulated uranium processing and handling it's going to be a lot cheaper by default.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 02:58:58 No.10829199 Report

Quoted By: >>10829217 >>10829243 >>10829302

So are they actually going?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl6jn-DdafM

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 03:04:57 No.10829217 Report

Quoted By: >>10829243

>>10829199
Sure, why not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 03:17:04 No.10829237 Report

Quoted By: >>10829253

>>10829189
My point is that fusion reactors are going to be very expensive and take a long time to build, even for ARC, assuming it actually works. The goal should not be fusion power, it should be any source of clean power that is cheaper than all current sources of power by a significant amount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 03:21:54 No.10829243 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829217
>>10829199
You guys read The Next 100 Years? The military industrial complex sure has. There will be no civil war in the US, simply for the fact of how much longer they can kick this can down the road. We have LOT more weapons to make.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 03:26:08 No.10829253 Report

Quoted By: >>10829260

>>10829237
Nuclear is hideously expensive though. If you want clean and cheap and don't want to look at fusion then solar is by far your best price/watt option. Given that there is no consistent required baseload unlike the civilian grid then solar is a good option.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 03:30:09 No.10829260 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829253
based retard

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO columbia.png, 145KiB, 1314x469

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 03:39:15 No.10829279 Report

Quoted By: >>10829300 >>10829311 >>10829899

>>10828633
That's not wrong. In both cases the failures were predicted by engineers. Columbia was still mostly engineers' fault because the way they communicated that debris seen during launch could cause catastrophic failure (there had been an earlier incident that was similar but didn't cause failure because the debris was not quite as intense and the damage was done over a portion of the spacecraft that exposed the steel airframe which was able to tolerate reentry) was with a footnote on a PowerPoint slide, but with Challenger the engineers responsible for the SRBs told NASA explicitly that launch temperatures lower than 53 degrees freedom could cause catastrophic failure of the SRBs, but were ignored because of time constraints.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 03:40:55 No.10829281 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828682
But we have VR now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 03:43:06 No.10829284 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828874
Cults are often very fun to be a part of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 03:49:00 No.10829294 Report

Quoted By:

>>10826097
Dig the sign language interpreter at far left.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 4MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 03:52:26 No.10829300 Report

Quoted By: >>10829304

>>10829279
Tufte has a good section on it in Visual Explanations

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 03:53:28 No.10829302 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829199
>We are going to the Moon to stay, by 2024. This is how.
>to stay
>post-Apollo NASA
I know exactly how they're going to accomplish this "mission."

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 2MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 03:53:40 No.10829304 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829300
All of his books are great

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 04:02:05 No.10829311 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829279
IMO, they were failures of management, but said failures were only dangerous because of the Shuttle's inherently flawed design.
Schizo-anon wasn't saying anything that intellectual though. He's just an idiot.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO boostertest.jpg, 79KiB, 946x628

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 04:10:30 No.10829327 Report

Quoted By:

>>10827544
>the Russians were pretty amazed by the hydrolox engines developed in the US
The sad thing is that a big part of the Buran program was developing Russian hydrolox capability. They succeeded at it too, but then the USSR fell. By the time the scraps of the Soviet industry were able to pull themselves back together in the mid-90s, they had completely lost all that knowledge, and they still haven't regained it.
In general, us Yanks are bretty great in all fields of rocketry, but the three fields we absoutely EXCEL at are:
* hydrolox engines
* methalox engines
* fuckhuge SRBs

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 04:17:22 No.10829345 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828169
*contented sigh*

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 04:42:11 No.10829379 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828808
Is RP1 non volatile enough?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 04:49:22 No.10829391 Report

Quoted By: >>10829398

>>10828884
Peddle gliders already work on earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacCready_Gossamer_Albatross

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 04:53:56 No.10829398 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829391
someone call Miyazaki

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 05:24:48 No.10829433 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828344
You severly underestimate how fuckhuge their plan for Starship itself is. Super Heavy is going to be even more insane. Full Stack will just be ludicrous.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO H-II_series.png, 64KiB, 644x908

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 05:25:44 No.10829437 Report

Quoted By: >>10829444

Why is it so hard to find info on the H-IIB rocket compared to the H-11A?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 05:27:44 No.10829444 Report

Quoted By: >>10829469

>>10829437
Is that quad-SRB's?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 05:43:30 No.10829469 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829444
Yup.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 05:54:44 No.10829494 Report

Quoted By: >>10829514 >>10829544

>>10828633
http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/shuttle/GoodbyeColumbia.html
>During blast-off, unlike those capsules and modules with escape rockets to pull the pilots free in case of trouble, there is no way out of the shuttle. Columbia has ejection seats like a jet fighter, but they're useless during take-off. Punching out at several thousand m.p.h. doesn't work. If the slab of rushing air doesn't kill you, the engine exhaust flames will. Here's the plan. Suppose one of the solid-fueled boosters fails. The plan is, you die.
>Once you get into space, you check to see if any tiles are damaged. If enough are, you have a choice between Plan A and Plan B. Plan A is hope they can get a rescue shuttle up in time. Plan B is burn up coming back.
From 1980.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 06:05:16 No.10829514 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829494
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8AisTXgAGA

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 06:21:19 No.10829544 Report

Quoted By: >>10829782 >>10829826

>>10829494
Not entirely true. The ejection seats were rated for 3400MPH and 130,000ft, and an SR-71 pilot survived the plane disintegrating around him at MACH 3.2. There's definitely a pretty good chance you get BTFO by SRB plume, but there was a solid chunk of time during ascent where ejection was possible, if unlikely. Ultimately it was a decision by the astronauts to have the ejection capability disabled rather than abandon crew members to their deaths, since only the commander and pilot had ejection seats.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 09:47:10 No.10829782 Report

Quoted By: >>10830282

>>10829544
The main point of that paragraph is that an SRB failure of any proportion would lead to a loss of crew, which was proven entirely correct by the challenger disaster.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 10:19:34 No.10829826 Report

Quoted By: >>10829855

>>10829544
kek, imagine sitting in the back of a shuttle launch and shtf and you hear the captain "say every man for himself" moments before he and the pilot eject.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 10:32:05 No.10829853 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828121
A regular airlock lets dust in.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 10:32:30 No.10829855 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829826
hahaha i think the correct term would be "see ya later suckerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 10:49:48 No.10829880 Report

Quoted By: >>10829886

>>10828271
now what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 10:51:59 No.10829886 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829880
I've been banned for 4 minutes yesterday. It's done

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 10:58:59 No.10829899 Report

Quoted By: >>10829923

>>10829279
It boils my blood how this shit is reported in the mainstream media.

In both cases the story is told that no one could of predicted the failures, and they needed to bring in a big brain like Feynman to tell NASA that rubber gets stiff when it's cold.

The same for columbia, with the story going that no one could have known that that foam could damage the wings.

It was effectively manslaughter at least on both accounts.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1465613268365.png, 55KiB, 281x355

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 11:11:37 No.10829923 Report

Quoted By: >>10829928

>>10829899
>could of

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 11:14:04 No.10829928 Report

Quoted By: >>10830090

>>10829923
Well that's what they say.
>Space is hard guys, when you're pushing the boundaries of technology there's always a risk of something unexpected happening.
Which is fair. But both of the shuttle failures were due to things very well understood by the engineers as being extremely dangerous.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 20190625_014122.jpg, 3MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 11:20:45 No.10829936 Report

Quoted By: >>10830034 >>10830148

How are your cubesats doing this morning, /sfg/?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 11:26:29 No.10829943 Report

Quoted By: >>10829945

guys I'll use a BMW to get to Marz.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 11:27:33 No.10829945 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829943
Based, I'll see you there

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO e65cd44295293587317562f975985a6e.jpg, 96KiB, 885x1000

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 11:50:31 No.10829983 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO STM32F103VGT6-1024px-HD.jpg, 191KiB, 1024x996

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 12:34:11 No.10830034 Report

Quoted By: >>10830300 >>10830438

>>10829936
>ST-Link
STM32 fuck yeah

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 13:10:30 No.10830090 Report

Quoted By:

>>10829928
it's 'could have', bucko

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 13:48:08 No.10830146 Report

Quoted By: >>10830168

>>10825842
Does this version of Orion still lack toilets or was that a meme?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 13:48:13 No.10830148 Report

Quoted By: >>10830152

>>10829936
I would petition my uni to get one going but the paperwork literally takes like four years alone

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 13:50:50 No.10830152 Report

Quoted By:

>>10830148
And it'll take longer before it launches. My uni has a satellite thats been ready to launch for 5 years. There have been students who worked on it and graduated without seeing much progress on it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 14:01:03 No.10830168 Report

Quoted By: >>10830173

>>10830146
What, are you too good to shit in a plastic sandwich bag?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 14:03:58 No.10830173 Report

Quoted By: >>10830184

>>10830168
I'd rather not have to poop in a diaper and have to sit in it for 3 days on the way to the moon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 14:10:24 No.10830184 Report

Quoted By:

>>10830173
no, you poop in a baggy
look up how Gemini and Apollo handled their waste
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htm

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 14:31:15 No.10830219 Report

Quoted By:

>>10828833
Just watch it from youtube dumbass. They want engineers not dumb people.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 15:12:22 No.10830282 Report

Quoted By: >>10830292 >>10830293

>>10829782
>which was proven entirely correct by the challenger disaster
Actually, it was proven dead wrong. Contrary to popular belief, the crew capsule of Challenger survived the explosion; the forces weren't anywhere near what the compartment was designed to tolerate, and the connected, trailing debris stabilized it's descent. The flight crew was also aware of the anomaly before the explosion, and it's very possible the crew didn't die until impact with the ocean. If the ejection seats were available, it's fairly likely the pilot and commander could have survived, and had the crew compartment been fitted with an airframe parachute, and even better had been jettisonable, the entire crew could have potentially survived.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 15:18:08 No.10830292 Report

Quoted By:

>>10830282
>had the crew compartment been fitted with an airframe parachute, and even better had been jettisonable, the entire crew could have potentially survived.
Yeah, but this is the same program that stopped painting their propellant tanks to gain a whooping ~250 kg of payload, so adding a parachute and cockpit jettison system would have been seen as too costly payload mass-wise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 15:18:10 No.10830293 Report

Quoted By:

>>10830282
Yup. Shuttle II was gonna have a whole detachable crew module after what happened with Challenger

of course it never got built

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 15:21:00 No.10830300 Report

Quoted By:

>>10830034
Atollic is a piece of a shit ide to program in though

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 16:23:23 No.10830438 Report

Quoted By: >>10830529 >>10830548

>>10830034
is that a factorio blueprint?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 16:56:42 No.10830529 Report

Quoted By:

>>10830438
close, it's something completely different.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO NO THE OTHER ONE.jpg, 62KiB, 640x432

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 17:03:52 No.10830548 Report

Quoted By: >>10830633

>>10830438

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 17:33:13 No.10830632 Report

Quoted By: >>10830746 >>10830852

Light sail deployment stream soon https://youtu.be/LxcsLSpFV4c

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 17:33:27 No.10830633 Report

Quoted By: >>10830679

>>10830548
>expecting me to know what a "random assortment of letter and numbers" is

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1412715664959.png, 328KiB, 497x658

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 17:51:01 No.10830679 Report

Quoted By:

>>10830633

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 18:25:41 No.10830746 Report

Quoted By:

>>10830632
could someone spoonfeed this to me?

whats the relevance? will it be bigger htan the preivous one?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:05:05 No.10830852 Report

Quoted By:

>>10830632
Deployment complete! (according to telemetry) Sounds like they've broken their curse!

They have a shoestring budget, so they have to wait for the next pass to download the more digestible data like onboard camera images.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:16:29 No.10830870 Report

Quoted By: >>10830875 >>10830887 >>10830992

wait, super heavy has legs now?
And twice the output of the saturn now?
what kind of monster are they making and how long before they start scaling it down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:18:14 No.10830875 Report

Quoted By: >>10830887

>>10830870
>how long before they start scaling it down?
I give it 6 months to a year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:23:34 No.10830887 Report

Quoted By:

>>10830870
>>10830875
https://youtu.be/VtJUHGjVm0E

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 20:06:09 No.10830992 Report

Quoted By:

>>10830870
>And twice the output of the saturn now
Heh made me check and you are 100% correct.
This will be a monster to watch

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 20:08:50 No.10830998 Report

Quoted By:

>no step on snek

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO DSC_4955 (2).jpg, 3MiB, 4770x3687

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 20:10:00 No.10831001 Report

Quoted By: >>10831016

>no step on snek
nice

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 20:13:34 No.10831016 Report

Quoted By:

>>10831001
Someone shop Musk's face on that one gasdsden flag edit that says "fuck around and find out", you know the one.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1555023469296.jpg, 449KiB, 2463x3178

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 20:38:11 No.10831056 Report

Quoted By:

HOP WHEN

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 21:02:48 No.10831107 Report

Quoted By:

New thread
>>10831106

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches