/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12570420

676KiB, 1920x1080, C6hNa8ZCvwowU4rVmhUAcj.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Artemis

Anonymous Mon 11 Jan 23:04:41 2021 No.12570420 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12570432 >>12570491 >>12570554 >>12570921 >>12571651 >>12571926 >>12572202 >>12574445 >>12575435 >>12575589 >>12575758 >>12577391 >>12577412

Be honest
By 2024, which one of these proposals is more likely to fail? And which one do you reckon will be used for cargo only and not crew transportation?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jan 2021 23:08:10 No.12570432 Report

Quoted By: >>12570447 >>12570510 >>12570857 >>12571137

>>12570420
Artemis will get pushed back and back SLS style. China will have Moon base first.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jan 2021 23:13:06 No.12570447 Report

Quoted By: >>12570509 >>12570566 >>12571540

>>12570432
This. Space exploration is always pushed back, because nobody in the government cares how inspiring it is. Nor do they want to admit their energy crisis could be solved by mining for Helium 3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jan 2021 23:25:31 No.12570491 Report

Quoted By:

>>12570420
>which one of these proposals is more likely to fail?
Purely within Artemis? SpaceX for being "too ambitious" and not falling in line with the intentionally slow process that NASA has to go with. Outside of Artemis? National Team because their whole project is based on the hopes of Artemis picking them

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jan 2021 23:32:41 No.12570509 Report

Quoted By: >>12570574

>>12570447
That's real? I thought Moon (2009) made it up

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jan 2021 23:32:45 No.12570510 Report

Quoted By: >>12572190

>>12570432
SpaceX is more likely to beat both NASA and China to the moon with a manned vehicle. Artemis-1 (which has to launch within 12 months because they started to assemble the SRBs and they expire) doesn't exactly count because it's a test flight.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jan 2021 23:39:02 No.12570545 Report

Quoted By: >>12572205 >>12572350

Joe Biden does not care about space, only women and trannies, so it will all be scrapped.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jan 2021 23:41:01 No.12570554 Report

Quoted By: >>12572361

>>12570420
I'd repost my evidence against Dynetics having much probability of succeeding but it's gotten me the banhammer twice in the past. I'll just say they're very distracted with things unrelated the science, engineering, or even defense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jan 2021 23:42:33 No.12570566 Report

Quoted By:

>>12570447
Trump cared about returning to the Moon permanently but he's about to be gone so that opportunity is now lost.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jan 2021 23:44:11 No.12570574 Report

Quoted By: >>12570598

>>12570509
It's conjecture but is worth exploring given its potential positive outcome.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jan 2021 23:49:03 No.12570598 Report

Quoted By: >>12570619

>>12570574
Only when you have a working fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes, which is at least another century off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jan 2021 23:52:49 No.12570619 Report

Quoted By: >>12575544

>>12570598
A known large reserve of Helium 3 that can be extracted relatively easily (big emphasis on relatively) would make increased investment into fusion R&D easier to justify. But we really don't know how large of a supply the Moon has or what would be the cost to extract it. We can hope the supply is large and the difficulty to extract low. At this time we simply do not know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 01:07:53 No.12570857 Report

Quoted By:

>>12570432
this

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 01:31:35 No.12570921 Report

Quoted By:

>>12570420
National Team will win the contract, but Lunar Starship will land there years before them anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 02:56:19 No.12571137 Report

Quoted By: >>12572194

>>12570432
Chinas experience in orbital space os 7 crewed shenzou missions and two single can stations that were probably based on soviet tks modules. They are way behond the west and have a long way to go.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 05:12:59 No.12571421 Report

Quoted By: >>12571527

Democrats don't give a shit about space anymore. Space X will reach the Moon themselves. Space X Starship for spaceship, Lunar descent and Lunar base. Musk should buy an Alpaca from Dynetics for Lunar ascent into Lunar orbit. Transfer to another Starship for the trip home. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO space-1999-the-complete-series1.jpg, 188KiB, 863x1180

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 06:09:13 No.12571527 Report

Quoted By: >>12571598

>>12571421
The only Democrat I can think for since LBJ to give a crap about the space program was Bill Clinton and even that was just him deciding to fund the US section of ISS instead of the Texas Superconducting Super Collider. It just really isn't their thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 06:17:58 No.12571540 Report

Quoted By: >>12571653

>>12570447
Perhaps because it is largely worthless and better done by robots anyway?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 06:56:30 No.12571598 Report

Quoted By:

>>12571527
>Texas Superconducting Super Collider
there's problem - they used the word super only twice
if the named it Super Texas Superduperconducting Ultra Collider, ISS would be toast

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 07:21:22 No.12571651 Report

Quoted By:

>>12570420
Musk should just go to the moon alone

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO download.jpg, 9KiB, 225x225

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 07:23:32 No.12571653 Report

Quoted By: >>12571659 >>12571768

>>12571540
Mars base is perfect for a pedo colony.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 07:24:46 No.12571659 Report

Quoted By:

>>12571653
>so senator how was the low gravity and hydroponic lettuce this time? You fly to mars every month
Lettuce... Hehe

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 08:15:43 No.12571768 Report

Quoted By:

>>12571653
airlock is that way
no need to put on suit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 09:25:04 No.12571926 Report

Quoted By:

>>12570420
HLS is most likely to succeed since it's basically just a bigger Apollo LEM.
Starship is probably the least likely to succeed because it's so radically new and being so tall and heavy it might have a hard time landing on an unprepared surface.

SpaceX is the most likely to be the first to attempt a landing though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 11:45:04 No.12572190 Report

Quoted By:

>>12570510
SpaceX needs taxpayer's money for Its projects, so if NASA doesn't finance them, the CCP will

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 11:47:40 No.12572194 Report

Quoted By: >>12572354 >>12575395 >>12575429 >>12575440 >>12575758

>>12571137
SpaceX has even less experience in manned flight yet everybody acts like they will be on Mars by 2030.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 11:52:41 No.12572202 Report

Quoted By:

>>12570420
Either the Integrated Lander Vehicle because they can't do anything on time or within budget or the Dynetics Human Landing System because they don't get enough funding.
I think Starship HLS will be built even without government support.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 11:56:05 No.12572205 Report

Quoted By: >>12575400

>>12570545
How about the first woman on the moon thing NASA is pushing hard?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO moon (2) copy.jpg, 2MiB, 3221x1163

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 13:29:50 No.12572350 Report

Quoted By:

>>12570545
This

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 13:30:31 No.12572354 Report

Quoted By:

>>12572194
Because unlike everyone else they actually want to be on Mars.

And their enthusiasm and speed is very nice to see which explains why they are advancing so quickly.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO alpaca.jpg, 152KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Tue 12 Jan 2021 13:34:08 No.12572361 Report

Quoted By: >>12575806

>>12570554
What is that evidence anon, I very much like Dynetics but rather than a lander, as a kind of outpost or mobile base, like in the series for all mankind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Kp01tzHZdc

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 00:22:22 No.12574445 Report

Quoted By:

>>12570420
Dynetics looks like simplicity itself, but old tech and not scable. HLS looks like they glommed a bunch of shit together from 6 different props.
I'm more interested in the weight of Starship lander and the avg depth of moondust

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 05:14:17 No.12575395 Report

Quoted By:

>>12572194
They will.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 05:16:16 No.12575400 Report

Quoted By:

>>12572205
NASA will put the first tranny in the Moon. You can quote me on this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 05:30:52 No.12575429 Report

Quoted By:

>>12572194
SpaceX can fail 50 times and still have enough rockets and will to keep going. Before that a lander could fail maybe twice (including unrelated launch failures) before it got cancelled.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO toscale.jpg, 137KiB, 1918x1188

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 05:32:35 No.12575435 Report

Quoted By: >>12575442

>>12570420
Now to scale them properly and with costs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 05:33:48 No.12575440 Report

Quoted By:

>>12572194
SpaceX is the only company in the last 10 years that has sent human to space.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 05:34:20 No.12575442 Report

Quoted By: >>12575450

>>12575435
>claimed costs
ftfy, no doubt the lunar starship will be much more expensive. still cheaper than the govt alt which will always be 10x more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 05:36:49 No.12575450 Report

Quoted By: >>12575462

>>12575442
SpaceX estimates that the entire Starship dev program will cost anywhere from $2B (lowest) to $10B (highest) with $~4.5B as geometric mean.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 05:41:22 No.12575462 Report

Quoted By: >>12575477

>>12575450
no doubt they are the best option, both for cost and quality but that is a low ball estimate range. calling it now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 05:45:50 No.12575477 Report

Quoted By: >>12575485 >>12575758

>>12575462
Falcon Heavy development cost SpaceX $500M. Falcon 9 v1 development cost was $300M. Falcon 1 development cost was $90M.

The entirety of SpaceX activity as a company since its foundation, r/d creation of Merlin engines, Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Cargo Dragon 1, Cargo Dragon 2, Crew Dragon, all the launches for those, all the 1000 starlink launch costs, employee pays, etc only amounts to less than $20B total.

In fact, Starship's $2B is their most expensive program to date.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO sx.jpg, 109KiB, 772x492

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 05:48:38 No.12575485 Report

Quoted By:

>>12575477
Oh and that $20B also includes Starship development cost as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 06:09:55 No.12575544 Report

Quoted By: >>12575598

>>12570619
The helium 3 meme, an element many magnitudes harder to use for fusion than hydrogen already is

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 06:26:38 No.12575589 Report

Quoted By: >>12575591 >>12575600

>>12570420
Isn't Dynetics the book that Scientology is based on?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 06:28:18 No.12575591 Report

Quoted By:

>>12575589
No, thats dianetics

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 06:32:26 No.12575598 Report

Quoted By:

>>12575544
And the technology being researched for fusion right now is not even capable to fuse helium 3. A complete new kind of reactor technology is needed for that. Considering how much we struggle to fuse hydrogen already, this wont happen for another century

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 06:33:38 No.12575600 Report

Quoted By:

>>12575589
doesn't look like the dc10 l ron promised. hmm...
>l ron hubbard
>el ron
>elron
>elon
elon musk is l ron hubbard confirmed.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 512.jpg, 194KiB, 1200x1800

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 08:22:21 No.12575758 Report

Quoted By: >>12577200

>>12570420
i would say SpaceX, even if they have barely any experience with the moon
>>12572194
because they tried their best even if they fail, what has NASA achieved in 10 years? nothing.jpg
>>12575477
>all the launches for those, all the 1000 starlink launch costs, employee pays, etc only amounts to less than $20B total.
that's NASA budget for a year, can you believe that? bureaucracy kills us

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 08:49:48 No.12575806 Report

Quoted By: >>12577325

>>12572361
How does that hab handle 14 days of lunar night?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 18:31:45 No.12577200 Report

Quoted By: >>12577294 >>12577341 >>12578779

>>12575758
>that's NASA budget for a year, can you believe that? bureaucracy kills us
fucking hell

americans voted for biden so that means they dont care about space, just like obama did with bush's program to go to the moon and install a base, artemis will be scrapped by bidenbro

money will be given to non whites, women and other social causes
the climate change hoax too probably (its just a money making machine, in fact the planet is getting greener)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Untitled-1 copy (2).jpg, 2MiB, 2480x3269

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 18:47:26 No.12577294 Report

Quoted By:

>>12577200
>money will be given to non whites, women and other social causes
It is already

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 18:55:01 No.12577325 Report

Quoted By:

>>12575806
The mission won't be that long.
Longer missions will either require nuclear reactors or landing on a pole.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 18:57:52 No.12577341 Report

Quoted By:

>>12577200
>the climate change hoax too probably (its just a money making machine, in fact the planet is getting greener)
What about you take this bullshit out of /sci/? You're lowering quality of this board.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 19:07:19 No.12577391 Report

Quoted By:

>>12570420
>Blue Origin
lmoa

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 19:12:13 No.12577412 Report

Quoted By: >>12577436

>>12570420
SpaceX could have a human on the moon within a year if they really pushed for it. They already have orbital rockets and human certified pods. They could assemble a modular lunar transfer vessel with a handful of launches with their currently used rockets and put it into a lunar orbit with ease. The biggest issue would be getting a safe lunar lander and takeoff module.

But given the lethargic competition they can wait until 2028 and they'll still be the first to get there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 19:16:19 No.12577436 Report

Quoted By: >>12577522 >>12578686

>>12577412
This. Falcon heavy could do a lunar mission with ease. The issue is not to land in the moon and put another flag. The issue is to put enough material to have a sustainable moon base.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 19:35:39 No.12577522 Report

Quoted By:

>>12577436
I'm sure there's some lockdown lover that would do fine on the moon for a year given 200 kg of instant noodles, a water boiler and sufficient water to not have to make piss noodles. A netflix connection too.

They'd probably end up sending a separate rocket to nuke the degenerate extraterrestial outpost he creates but it's feasible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jan 2021 23:54:19 No.12578686 Report

Quoted By: >>12578757

>>12577436
falcon heavy is not certified for crewed flight. yeah, they are falcons, which separately are, but not in the heavy configuration

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1d4a4f7464.jpg, 69KiB, 564x704

Anonymous Thu 14 Jan 2021 00:15:41 No.12578757 Report

Quoted By:

>>12578686
No, is not certified, it doesn`t mean, it can`t do it.
Imagine, not going to the Moon when you can, because you don`t have the right approved loicence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlw3S3v13TY

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO braindamage.jpg, 61KiB, 640x645

Anonymous Thu 14 Jan 2021 00:28:07 No.12578779 Report

Quoted By:

>>12577200
Commercial Crew is was literally an Obama administration project. Why do you retards from /pol/ love bringing this shit here?

It's easy to find the % federal budget under each year and which administration, and they pretty much all have been fucking NASA since Nixon.

Take your meds, schizo.

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