CZ-5 Editionold >>10376425>reminder that this is supposed to launch three (3) times this year
>>10380329knowing china, that rocket will launch while all those guys are underneath it
A E S T H E T I C
I assume that the first mars bases will be near the poles?
>>10380368Probably, want to be near a lot of water and the loss of solar energy is well made up for by constant or near constant sunlight.
They flatt. Whatever happened to that asteroid detecting satellite pair that got bogged down in politics?
>>10380329>>10380329I thought it was only twice? Once in July and once in late 2019 to launch Chang'e 5 (which will probably slip into 2020 knowing the LM-5).
>>10380371Hmmm, also the fact that Elon says the return ticket is “included” is interesting. Maybe they’ve aiming for a lifeboat principle where everyone can leave whenever they want, and there’s enough ships for everyone? At least for the early days
>>10380329Earth is flat
>>10380381Gunter says 3
How much did Falcon 9 development cost?
>>10380383as far as i know they are still aiming for something akin to mars direct, which means that at every return launch window colonists have the choice of staying or leaving
What is the best space autism site and why is it Atomic Rockets? >it’s a fun resource ngl
>>10380388Hard to say. You can’t take the LSP contract values at face value since those are convoluted messes where some stuff funds some things but not others. you cant take SpaceX numbers exactly since they sometimes include aspects like the reusability program (about a billion I think) and you can’t trust the media because they muck up the fact that both orbital and SpaceX covered about half the costs themselves for the first round among other things. Total, if you ask me, excluding unrelated items, is definitely under 400 mil.
>>10380388If it means anything googling it returns values from 300-500mil
>>10380388https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf One of many nasa reports on the matter. This one is an earlier 2011 report
Keep in mind that NASA costs can include things like continued service support and test vehicles and other things. You really have to define “development”... does that include dragon components? Does it include the first flight hardware? Is it blank slate to first flight total expenditures? Then, you also have to look at Falcon 1. Some of those “costs” carried over into F9. Anyways, yeah 400mil or so
>inb4 spacex competitor actually comes from china
>>10380388NASA calculated they will need about 3 billion minimum for it.Knowing they were quite generous with the numbers we cannot expect much below 10 billion and that's for the baseline expendable model.
>>10380424China is a bigger player than Russia by far. While China is launching a lot, the stuff they’re launching isn’t particularly notable. Plus, overall tonnage delivered to orbit for China vs SpaceX went to SpaceX last year I think.Still, it would be great to see LinkSpace/Long March 7(?) come to frutition with their reusiablity strategies
>>10380424i just want to see rocketsmore rockets, more fucking rockets i am fully in favour of producing sound pressure levels in excess of 200 decibels, explosions, landings, dockings, just give me fucking rockets now
>>10380445>inb4 nimbys and greens shutdown most american launches because noise and deadly co2
>>10380445have you ever been to a rocket launch in person?
>>10380454i was fapping in the flame trench of apollo 11 when it launched
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-02-12/spacex-launch-certification-to-face-review-by-pentagon-watchdog>The Pentagon has come to the shocking conclusion that they accidentally EELV verified a vehicle that can be reused. Therefore, the Falcon family has been barred from all future national security launches. Furthermore, the Airforce has re-worked it's launch acquisition program which will now be ran out of Senator Shelby's office.
>>10380471What a load of political bullshit.
>>10380471>Furthermore, the Airforce has re-worked it's launch acquisition program which will now be ran out of Senator Shelby's office>Senator ShelbyI hate this motherfucker so God damn much. Sure seems like a nice coincidence that both these things came up at the same time and none of the officials had any comments as to why.
>>10380564The Shelby bit was just a joke But, I'd be surprised if he wasn't involved with this "review".
>>10380471AHAHAHAHAHAHAAA MUSKRATS BTFO AND SPACEX GOING BANKRUPT!
>>10380471That's what you get for standing in the way of national security!
>>10380471What the fuck do they care what space x does with their rockets after completing the mission?Are they retarded?
MUHHHHHHHH 22222 GAZZZILION DOLLARS Pad 39A
>>10380642>>10380471First of all, EELV meant partially reusable rockets, so exactly what the Falcons are. Second, it is about what SpaceX does with the money they are getting for development. They are putting it into BFR which is not authorised by the Air Force. So the question is should SpaceX still get Air Force money if they use that money to develop the BFR and Starlink instead of increasing reliability/performance of the Falcons.
>>10380642It's a reaction to the campaign spacex started in response to being left out from the recent usaf financing round (which gave everyone else including BO money).
>>10380668Does any company or space flight project funnel all of its winnings back into the exact rocket that made them? Seems like a weird concept to me considering the rockets already exist.How is this even a reasonable expectation to have?Why even involve private industry if you want to indirectly remote control what they do anyway. Sounds like they just want a government puppet.
>>10380671They didn't give everybody free money. It was development money. SpaceX has declared the development of the F9 is wrapped up and wont see any money anymore. A specific inquiry by the Air Force to develop a larger second stage for the Falcon Heavy got denied by SpaceX because they want to put everything into BFR. Air Force has no use for the BFR so its not getting development money.
>>10380682>A specific inquiry by the Air Force to develop a larger second stage for the Falcon Heavy got denied by SpaceX because they want to put everything into BFR.Oof. Makes me a little sad to hear that. Falcon Heavy is such a cool vehicle. I wish it actually had gotten its time to shine.Although BFR will obviously be more exciting so I understand how we got here.
>>10380682Arguable seeing the capabilities the other vehicles are supposed to offer. Lever pulling was definitely involved in the decision making. I'm looking forward to the first ss orbital flights.
>>10380691Well, apparently they simply didnt believe SpaceX can develop the BFR without needing many billions in further assistance. A FH with a new second stage would completely satisfy Air Force needs so they want to push SpaceX into doing that.
>>10380368Obviously notYou would aim for a low latitude equatorial site
And by latitude I meant altitude
>>10380872Why though? At the poles you have 24 hours of sunlight, stable temperatures, no dust storms, and the biggest ice water reserves.
>>10380902Poles do not give you 24/7 light, have you ever looked at a globe beforeAlso rotational speed is free deltav
>>10380910What? Yes they literally do. What does a colony need rotational speed for?
>>10380916Poles also have 24/7 darkness half the time.... and the overall light they get is utter shit
>>10380902>At the poles you have 24 hours of sunlightDo you know what Mars axial tilt of 25° means?
>>10380916Only for a short time during the year.
>>10380390I love that site! It has so much useful infofmation and cool things. The engines mega list us always fun to browse through.Although I don't like the author's attitudes towards anything thats softer than strict hard science fiction. I get why he doesn't like softer science fiction, but it makes reading the more speculative articles abit harder due to him being condescending about the subject.
>>10380926>>10380924>>10380921You would obviously have solar panels that reach across the sun-night frontier or whatever so you would have continous energy production throughout the whole year.
>>10380902>i'm pretending to be retarded i swear
>>10380961>Let's create an empire where the sun never sets
>>10380973On the poles, that's like a few kilometres apart.
>>10380985Not on Mars. There are no peaks of eternal light on Mars.
>>10380902Poles are shit because there is no 24 hour sunlight, it is very cold, sunlight is weak due to sun being low on the horizon, CO2 ice cycle would froze your base in during the winter.Equatorial sites are better because subsurface ice layer extends almost to the equator.
>https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/military-to-investigate-decision-to-certify-the-falcon-heavy-rocket/looks like boeing is putting it's lobbying money to good use by shutting down the competition
>>10380985A few thousand kilometers*
>>103810213000km if sun at the horizon is enough,4000km if you want to have sun 10° above horizon
>>10381018I think he mistook the moon for mars.....
>>10380383If you can't handle it, it's better to get you out than keep you around
>>10381007Sun being weak at poles is an atmosphere thing, moon doesn't have that issue
>>10380564Blue Origin is playing ball with Shelby: https://alabamanewscenter.com/2019/01/25/blue-origin-launches-construction-of-200m-alabama-rocket-engine-plant/
>>10381147Is that vampire immortal?
>>10381147Blue Origin and ShelbyA match made in HELL.......
>>10381147>Jeff Bezos the American Patriot>vs>elon musk the white immigrant conman with links to the criminal apartheid regime in south africa that imprisoned and tortured Nelson MandelaWho should we, proud free Americans, trust with the future of our space efforts? I know who. You know who. Everyone knows who.
>>10381147Blue Origin simply removed the competitive advantage AJR had by also having a factory in Alabama.
>>10380388$1.6 billion, not including Dragon 1 or 2, or pad 39A.
>>10381016If there's no issue found, nothing will happen. If there is an issue found, Falcon 9 will be temporarily struck from competing for DoD launches, as the rightfully would be in that situation.The only real question is, why would SpaceX be afraid of transparency in this process? What do they have to hide?
This just came out, anyone read it yet? http://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/News/Military%20Power%20Publications/Space_Threat_V14_020119_sm.pdf
>>10381029Im going to give you a visual aid. The red circle is approx where your settlement would be (obviously for mars).
>>10381242what about the perma night in winter ?
Why do people do this shit to themselves?
>>10381204i'll look at it now
>>10381147They have a supply contract with ULA, so it's obvious they open a plant near ULA. ULA and BO team will have to work together to make BE-4s that fit Vulcans.I wonder though if they manufacture BE-4s down at their NG-factory in Florida, too.
daily dose>>10381281it's better than most tats. Would be cool if he got all sorts of launch vehicles not just F9
>>10381324BE-4 can fit on the back of a standard truck. The move was really to undermine the political empire of AJR and SLS. Props to Blue, honestly. SpaceX has yet to make a direct move like this that could actually affect SLS.
>>10381356That's what bleeding edge rocket design looks like?
>>10381354Yeah, but it's still a bit weird that the New Glenn in manufactured in Florida and the engines not. It was a move to win the contract with ULA first and foremost. It might have some political shenengians tied to it but its also kind of obvious ULA would prefer the engine facility to be close by. They will need to build the Vulcan around it so its good to have the development team close.
>>10381356I still dont know what the whole deal with the metal sheets is supposed to be about. It makes it look so cheap.
>>10381364Vulcan will probably need more engines than New Glenn, so it actually makes sense for the most part. I still think the move was primarily to warm up to Senator Shelby and to get him to stop unfairly favoring AR-1 and AJR in general.
>>10381368it's supposed to be cheap. Starship could, supposedly, be cheaper than F9.
>>10380383it's included because it doesn't cost anything to not bring anyone back. it's a jokey way of saying it's a one-way trip
>>10381374well, he might have a point in that return starships will be pretty empty. what will you bring back? Sort of like cargo containers going from the US back to China. Extremely cheap to fill them up.
>>10381368because musk wanted it to be shiny like the final product will be, so they just tacked that shit on a normal steel cylinderIt was all for this money shot, really.
>>10381381I'm sure there are practical benefits, like gaining experience working with SS, building a SS supplier relationship, and having data from how much of a pain in the ass a super reflective ship is.
>>10381204>>10381312i only read through the part about china but didnt see anything interesting. so far it's similar to other reports that have been released over the past few years.
>>10381390no, it's just a water tank wraped in tinfoil, there is no practical benefits>>10381381>this money shotTHIS
>>10381281It's honestly pretty cool, as long as they never gain/lose weight or age at all.
>first flight delayed by 5 years>one year after first flight, no subsequent flights so far>first boosters won't be reused>no new contracts being signedWhat went wrong?
>>10381381it's a good money shot desu>>10381411it's a big disappointment but it has like five flights lined up
>>10381363YeahWho says you need to plate the thing with gold and build it in a clean room to be a real rocket shop
>>10381411the first boosters were block 4's. The upcoming 3rd FH flight will actually use the boosters from the 2nd flight. pretty quick turnaround planned
>>10381411It's good, but not quite good enough to start the space crusade snowballWe need sub $1000/kg for that
>>10381416Musk is real life Tony Stark, builds a revolutionary rocket in a tent
>>10381430no, he's real life Bruce Wayne except without the punching people in public
>“The SpaceX company creates the Raptor engine on oxygen and methane components or, as is customary in the Russian classification, the gas-gas scheme. In such schemes, such pressure level in the combustion chamber is not something outstanding - in our developments for these schemes we lay down the pressure level in the chamber over 300 atmospheres. And the parameter pressure in the chamber is not the output characteristic of the engine, such as thrust and specific impulse.>However, Mr. Musk, not being a technical specialist, does not take into account that the RD-180 engine for the Atlas launch vehicle uses a completely different fuel circuit - “oxygen-kerosene”, and these are other parameters of the engine operation. It is like comparing a diesel and a gasoline internal combustion engine. And if we take into account the fact that Energomash certified the engine with a 10% reserve, then the pressure in the RD-180 combustion chamber is above 280 atmospheres.>Despite the fact that our companies are competitors, we as engineers welcome the first successes of colleagues from SpaceX in the field of rocket engine building. Indeed, during the development of the Raptor engine, American engineers reached a record pressure level in the chamber. This indicates a fairly high level of development and production processes at SpaceX. ”elon boasts about some petty achievement and gets absolutely BTFO by real engineers!The absolute state of memex!
>>10381430He doesn't engineer or build any of that shit though>>10381435Based Ruskies
>>10381435>typical Russian bluster That's all they have at this point, no results or demonstrations just bluster.More good news for the already crippled Russian space industry here:>Roscosmos is bracing for a 30-percent shrinking of Russia's space industry due to severe budget cutshttps://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb/status/1095342100474941440
>3-staged lunar lander
>>10381434Bezos is Bruce Wayne, sits on a pile of money and doesn't do anything useful with it except builds gadgets like the useless New Shepard hopper.
>>10381435tldr;russia stronk we nuke amerika
>>10381451none of which are open to bids by non-american companies
>>10381451i get that it has benefits for establishing methods and tech for further exploration, but beyond that is there even anything interesting to explore on the moon?
>>10381447He's right though. Russian engines exceeded this performance 20 years ago.>>10381451>reusable>broken into smaller parts so commercial rockets can fly it there instead of relying on SLS exclusively>refuelableLooks like a good plan to me.
>>10381451Spacex supposedly bid for a lunar lander in this whole thing.What's the chance they suggested SS?Can you imagine the beauty of astronauts waiting 3-4 years for their SLS-Orion flight to the Station where they will dock, transfer to the empty Starship, descend to the moon, slowly ride down to the surface on a large elevator, walk few small steps, ascend back the elevator, and fly back to the station. Then watch as the Starship undocks and flies back to Earth for some unimportant tourist or sat launch mission.
>>10381469The problem with starship is it relies on 10 or 11 launches for a single trip to the moon.
>>10381473it's about half that if you have methane production set up
>>10381463Not explore, bit industrialize and mineThe moon would make a great industrial park for earth due to the small gravity well and no atmosphereThe moon has fantastic quantities of metals, including titanium, which would drop costs on making anything in orbit through the floorHe3 is a meme sadly, the quantities there are non-existent
>>10381477ah that makes sense, thanks
>>10381475Where will you easily get carbon on the moon?>>10381478>So?
>>10381473Speculation about the amount of refuelling required for certain trajectories and payloads is pointless when the design has changed so much; it's been lengthened, the materials have changed, the engines have changed etc. It's just pointless speculation until more info is released.
>>10380329Best of luck to themThe better china does, the better for everyone, as it will light a fire under everyone's asses to prevent themselves from being beaten by the chinese
>>103814905 t of graphite, ballistic trajectory, go pick it up afterwards>>10381490I don't see how an issue with experimental and extremely expensive carbon overwrapped pressure vessels interacting in unforseen ways with experimental sub-cooled propellants and experimental loading orders has anything to do with extremely well-understood stainless steel tanks
>>10381491No, it's not speculation at all. We got official number less than 2 years ago, and the vehicle lost its vacuum engines so its performance decreased. Anyways, this is all a pretty retarded way to run an architecture anyways. Methane just doesn't have the ISP to deliver like what is needed for a single stage Moon mission. I'm just hope they can develop nuclear thermal rockets in the near future. That would go a long way towards solving the problem.>>10381494Even one scrub for weather or pad issues will ruin the whole mission.
>Nuclear management challenges Apparently it was the DoD's desire to put nuclear warheads on a Falcon Heavy that prompted this review and not Boeing favouritism from Mr Shanahan.
>>10381371ULA wants to reuse their engines, too, as far as i know. Plus, ULA is more on the "few launches with big profit margins" kind of strategy. So they might end up not building that many BE-4s for ULA. Each Vulcan only features two. It depends on how reusable the New Glenn boosters are going to be, but probably they are going to produce more for New Glenn than Vulcan. Plus, the Vulcan BE-4s will probably be a bit different from the New Glenn ones. So I guess it would make sense for BO to have one small factory specifically for Vulcans and one main one for the New Glenns.>>10381381looks unironically like a really cheap toy. >>10381411Upgraded F9 actually is what killed it. When development started F9 could only do 10 tons to LEO and barely half that to GTO. So FH was supposed to do >4 tons satellites to GTO. Upgraded F9 however can do those, too. So FH really has no market anymore. The only satellites it can do now are GTO and beyond that weigh >8 tons and there aren't many of those.
>>10381500>We got official number less than 2 years ago Yes, 4 design iterations ago retard...
>>10381501>nuclear upper stage for falcon heavy
>>10381500>scrub of the whole missionWhy?
>>10381473>doesn't realize the nasa lander needs 4(maybe more) separate launches on low-flight rate expensive expendables
>>10381508propellant boiloff>>10381506ok, so what has changed since then?>more aerodynamic surfaces, dead weight on a moon mission>less efficient engines
>>10381451If this thing is ready by 2028 I'm becoming a woman.
>>10381510You're a retard. FH or New Glenn could easily launch these missions. New Glenn could probably launch the propellant and stage in a single mission.
Ladies and anons stop the bickering for a second and let's play a guessing game, what is pic related?
>>10381521bits of the hopper's tinfoil hat in the trash can, I recognize that rebar frame
>>10381521It's just cheap steels
How do you go from this>>10381381to this?>>10381521
>>10381517The image clearly shows 3 separate launches + SLS.>1. fuel for ascent element>2. expendable lander>3. fuel for transfer element
>>10381535Other fuels don't have enough isp to get to the moon, retard.
>>10381535>need to keep propellants subcooled or the rocket won't have the performance to reach the moon>"lol it's literally not a problem"Why the actual denial of reality, anon?
>>10381545they only need to be subcooled at launch, when it's actually possible to subcool it
>>10381532and how does that refute anything I just said?
>>10381549What did you say?
>>10381557you made a claim first, let's see your sources bitch
>>10381545You should take your meds.
>>10381556that it doesn't require expendable launchers, and doesn't require a separate launch for each component
>>10381564Its literally in the image. Your headcanon is not relevant.
>>10381560Elon has constantly explained that Raptor's performance numbers are shown assuming a subcooled propellant mix
>>10381575The image shows Atlas 5s, which won't even be flying by the time this stuff happens. Seems to me like you're full of shit.
>>10381577The current numbers from the tests are with non chilled prop, let’s keep that in mind.
>>10381586I can't wait to see ISP numbers
OH SAY CAN YOU SEE
>>10381594oi that’s not proper flag code adherence. Still, will be interesting to see if the final starship version will have a flag at all. Won’t the re entry burn it off?
>>10381594>oh nononono hahhahhaha
>>10381598if they put it on the back it'd probably survive if they were careful with the material considerationsthey really need to pick that flag off the ground
>>10381598They will dispose of the flag as is proper, by burning it in a launchpad explosion.
>>10381594it looks like they are keeping those parts for a new nose cone
>>10381610personally I'm hoping for a flight explosionthey can test reuse with this, can't they?
>>10381598>>10381602Most likely yes, the majority of US rockets have one, Falcon 9 has one high-up on the interstage so it doesn't get completely covered with soot during reentry.
>>10381583So they'll use Vulcans instead. Okay.
SpaceX is about to make the launch industry a lot more boring. By 2029, only SpaceX, Blue Origin, China, and India will still be fielding launch vehicles.
>>10381632Your forgetting all the small launch vehicles being developed and ArianeSpace's government subsidised rockets...
>>10381646Arianespace has already stated that they aren't able to compete, and partners like Germany are already putting military satellites on SpaceX rockets.Small vehicles are a meme and bfr will be cheaper than them.
>>10381463>is there even anything interesting to explore on the moon?China is pushing for it since it's an easy but interesting target. America is pushing for it because China is a strategic competitor. Other nations will follow the US there because many of them are closely tied to the US. It's kind of like the Cold War's Space Race, only less interesting. It may be longer lasting though, especially if Starship works out.
>>10381650This looks ridiculous.
>>10381653it doesn't just look it, it truly is ridiculous, actually
>>10381473>The problem with starship is it relies on 10 or 11 launches for a single trip to the moon.But it lands 100 tons of payload on the surface. One such mission is worth 10 of the Apollo ones.
>>10381653looks p cool to meFriendly reminder: muskrats will criticize anything that isn't direct government funding of bfr
>>10381663the point is the mission is far more difficult
>>10381669More launches does not mean it is more difficult. It is just more of the same and if the LV is designed from the ground up for high launch rate and orbital refueling, then it is a virtue, not a vice.
/pol/ doesnt allow flat earth threads anymore, where can i go to ridicule flat earthers?
>>10381515>propellant boiloffMethane has very little boil-off. It is in fact a crucial advantage over hydrogen for long missions (one among many).
>>10381663SS will not take part in these missions because that will imply nasa oversight and man rating possibly total redesign too. Unless LOP-G is cancelled the various parts to be sent there will be split along all the providers>SX>BO>ULA>NGPlenty of things to launch for it.
>>10381680>plenty of things to be launched in the 15 ton range*
>>10381673The refueling is one area I’m worried about. The whole architecture depends on it. I bet it’ll be one of the first tests they do once starship is in orbit
>>10381676Can't you jerk off to porn like a normal person?
Reminder to filter posts that contain "Muskrat(s)", "pipe dream" "memex" and "schizo"They are the favored buzzwords of the spambot
>>10381678the fact that it needs to remain subcooled on a 6 month journey to Mars makes it more difficult than using hydrogen
>>10381689people also like to accuse him of being a schizo too, which is equally unhelpful and can thus be filtered
>>10381685The nasa plan also involves refueling. As well as everything larger than small probes. There better not be any game bugs preventing it.
>>10381693hydrogen is just as bad, what are you talking about?
>>10381689I use "muskrat" all the time and I see other people here using it too. Glad to see it strikes a nerve :^)and you can't deny that "memex" just rolls off the tongue, and it's not even necessarily a term with a negative connotation
>>10381686I'm trying to quit porn unfortunately.
>>10381696time could be an issue. How long is it to slush fuel over?
>>10381706unless it takes three actual days it shouldn't be an issue, right?
>>10381693It does not need to remain subcooled, subcooling is only for launching from Earth in order to cram more propellant into the tank and increase thrust. Also you are clueless, even subcooled methane is much easier to deal with and store that fucking hydrogen.
>>10381693>6 monthisnt the trip 3 months?
>>10381696>The nasa plan also involves refueling.yeah, but it's like, maybe 10-15 tons for a single Lunar surface mission, whereas for SpaceX it's like 1000 tons of propellant for refueling alone
>>10381711>giving him (you)The subcooling part should have been obvious.
>>10381693>6 month journey to Mars4 months or so, not 6
>>10381711>It does not need to remain subcooled, subcooling is only for launching from Earth in order to cram more propellant into the tank and increase thrust.Source?>even subcooled methane is much easier to deal with and store that fucking hydrogen.Source?
>>10381715Careful not to drop the goalposts from experience I know smashed toes are not a pleasant thing.
>>10381723everyone knows that hydrogen is a shitty thing to deal with.
>>10381728How could I drop the goalposts when I'm not even the anon you originally replied to?Are you autistic?
>>10381730That's not a source.
this is all retarded can we please talk about something interesting instead of trolling each otherI mean look at this stiffener
>>10381723Hydrogen embrittlement, you rabidly shitposting twat
>>10381531Musk is Steve Jobs on steroids, selling a vision of future he will deliver later
>>10381742They really intend to fly that thing, don't they?
>>10381742not for stiffness, but rigidity t. Got a C in solid mechanics
>>10381740the boiling point of liquid hydrogen is 14 Kthe melting point of solid methane is 90 Kit's easier to keep methane subcooled than it is to keep hydrogen liquid
>>10381762it's more like a flying rocket test stand than a dream of 50s sci-fi
>>10381723>>It does not need to remain subcooled, subcooling is only for launching from Earth in order to cram more propellant into the tank and increase thrust.>Source?SOURCE
>>10381771That chart has nothing to do with the performance of bfr.
>>10381771Yep. Chilled prop is useful for more efficient chucks to LEO, but on mars or in space it’s not worth the effort.
>>10381781it might be worth it on Mars
>>10381759also hydrogen has a much smaller molecule
>>10381784that's a benefit towards hydrogen, excepting the fact that it'll destroy your storage tanks
>>10381783I dont think so because return journey will have smaller payload and thus you can do direct return to Earth even with tanks not completely full. However subcooling could make in Earth orbit before Mars transfer burn.
>>10381777Density of your propellants are a part of your engine performance (Thrust; Chamber pressure; ISP)
>>10381786it is not a benefit when it comes to boil-off, too
>>10381799does it have a low phase change heat or something
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/02/international-partners-progress-iss-funeral-plans/how about >Starship is operational>take apart ISS and stuff it in starships>return it to earth>stick it in a museum?
>>10381806that would honestly be fantastica shame NASA and Roscosmos would probably refuse to let it happen out of spite
I like this comment on Reddit>Could see eventually there being a layover on the moon as you wait for the launch window. Minimum distance to Mars come around rotationally every 18 months. Would be a shame to miss your window for Mars because of weather on earth, so smaller launches months in advance could be coordinated to the moon and launched toward mars from there during the optimal launch window.>That would screen a bit for zero g problems and give people a chance to reconsider their Mars mission from the moon if it turns out to be a bad idea for them personally. Better to take a short trip to the moon and realize you hate space than to ride all the way to Mars and back having a panic attack.Maybe the space station at the Moon could serve a purpose of being a layover stop for SpaceX's Mars colonists.
>>10381829the simpler answer is what the hell are you going to do with your mars fleet between synocs? Thus the moon
>>10381829>going on redditgo back, go back, you have to go the fuck back
More inside information from the mediocre writer with good sources...https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1095406528545345537>Regarding the Pentagon looking into the Falcon Heavy certification: This is an audit of the Air Force’s New Entrant Certification process, not of SpaceX. Company was not alerted to the audit, and is not sure what is motivating it.
>>10381841What's wrong with Reddit?
>>10381873Yeah and Foust says that there no need for alarm; it’s a routine thing that happens. No relation to the Feinstein complaints or whatever
>>10381829>plebbit>launch windows to Mars are open for hours>going to the Moon along the way is a good ideaGo back and take the shitposters with you.
>>10381873>spacex declared threat to national security>government seizes all assets
about the whole funding thing, MZ can’t be the only billionaire who wants to dick around in space. Perhaps when dearmoon happens they’ll be more interest from the Uber wealthy for specialized flights and stuff
>>10381879Launching from a Lagrange point instead of LEO would decrease delta-v needed for Mars transfer burn by 2 km/s o so. So would launching from high orbit around Earth, tough.
>>10381910there are some wacky dV values. Like moon to the android belt is less than earth to moon or something?
>>10381817>a shame NASA and Roscosmos would probably refuse to let it happen out of spiteIt's a good thing that NASA and Roscosmos aren't filled with petulant children like yourself, or this might actually happen.
>>10381829>>10381875Get the fuck out.
>>10381910Getting to the lagrange points costs delta v and time. Utterly pointless and counterproductive thing to do if you already have vehicle than can make the transfer burn directly from LEO.
>>10381918what’s wrong with sticking the ISS in a museum? If Starship ends up being cheap, it’s only a handful of flights to get all of the modules. The solar arrays might be tricky, I don’t think they can be rollled up again
>>10381918>person doesn't like government space agencies>therefore he's a childWell aren't you a salty bitch boy
>>10381924>what’s wrong with sticking the ISS in a museum?Where in my post did I say that?Are you genuinely autistic?
>>10381924It's a symbol and symbols are meant to be burned down.
>>10381928Are you genuinely autistic?
>>10381927Only a child could come up with an idea as stupid as "everyone is out to get SpaceX, especially NASA, so everything NASA does is to spite SpaceX!">>10381935Hook, line, and sinker.
The only genuinely autistic thing itt is the non space flight discussion
>>10381879The Moon could be used as a refueling base allowing more flexibility in missions.>>10381921No.>>10381924There may be a problem if Starship hasn't had enough time to establish reliability. Few people would trust a historical object in the "hands" of an unproven vehicle. But given enough time it may be a possibility if the ISS is still around by then.
>>10381944Kill yourself reddit faggot.
>>10381944better than deorbiting it. If the Russians decide to go ahead with keeping their sections, then the US’s plan is to just burn up the American segment.
10381937>I think NASA will be spiteful on this thing in particular>YOU MUST THINK NASA IS SPITEFUL ABOUT EVERYTHING EVER AND EVERYONE IS AGAINST SPACEXStop shitposting violently you spastic fuck
>ledditor literally outs himself as the shitposterWell, at least something good came out of this thread.
>>10381952what’s wrong with being on reddit?
>>10381953what's not wrong with being on reddit?
>>10381949>better than deorbiting it.I completely agree with you, but I guess I didn't make my point clear enough. Sorry.By the time Starship gets proven as safe enough to bring down the ISS, the ISS may no longer be around as NASA may lose interest in keeping it up in orbit by then.
>lowest space insurance premiums in 25 years last year, with claims 32% higher than premiums; worst ratio in 18 yearshttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1095424478480420866
>>10381952it is no surprise as reddit is the only place with an actual community focused on hating SpaceX, and especially reddit socialists are seething anytime Musk is mentioned
>>10381953There isn't, its just another online board.However, some people like to think that their board (in this case 4chan) is some super special exclusive club where all strangers (in this case perceived strangers from Reddit) are seen as invaders that must be driven out.I really wish the internet grows out of this mentality soon, it's very childish and kills conversation.
>>10381952i made the reddit post but im not that guy. i havent posted anything since then (until now).
>>10381964>>10381968Get the fuck out.
>>10381964There was a post with some ultra vague bullshit statement earlier sitting at more upvotes than that sub has subscribers. Its true, somebody posted a screenshot here. You should really stop calling people who der though the fraud's sharade as redditors, because the typical redditor is more like you. No clue about science but fucking loves musk.
This is the average poster ITT>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU7FuAswPW0
>>10381973Isn't it tiresome to be full of so much hate?Anyways, trying to get the thread back on track about space stuff.>>10381962I'm not well versed in space insurance, so what will this mean for commercial launch services?
>>10381979>Isn't it tiresome to be full of so much hate?That's ironic, coming from a reddit faggot.
>>10381974You missed the point. Many redditors and non-redditors love Musk, or they dont care about Musk.. but ONLY redditors go out of their way to hate Musk and SpaceX. It takes a particular echo chamber to achieve such refined degree of retardation.
>>10381989>but ONLY redditors go out of their way to hate Musk and SpaceXProve it.
>>10381998That has nothing to do with what I asked you to prove.
>>10381989Thats absolute bullshit, in all german science and technology forums Elon is ridiculed.
>>10382003why? for launching your spy sats because you're too retarded to do it yourself? https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/bundeswehr-spacex-1.4299549
hey look actual space news, everyone shut the fuck up and read https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1095432441815318534
>>10382003Germany post-WW2 is below irrelevant when it comes to spaceflight so even if true, that is just pure cope
>>10382012That's not news. They've been saying this shit since 2016.
>>10382012we've known this tho
>>10382019first time Koenigsmann has said it, and it's a good indicator that they're on track for it to be true.
>>10382009>>10382017No, because Elon has no clue about anything and is a FRAUD. Russian engineers even spat on him when he tried to fraud them. But of course the I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE crowd worships him.
>>10382023>launches payloads for commercial customers and the government >fraud >...?I swear this Elon is a fraud meme is the weirdest thing. Who exactly is he swindling?
>>10381650Can't we just scratch the lop-g and just suspend one starship in the same spot?
>>10382023>Russian engineers even spat on him when he tried to fraud them.Russian engineers post-Korolev are incompetent hacks who had all the time and money in the world to decrease launch costs and did fuck all with it. They can now enjoy zero commercial launch market share, courtesy of the one who they spat on.
>>10382027Can't we just scratch starship?
>>10382012>Starship will be cheaper than F9Seems exciting, but also seems unlikely due to the massive size difference between the two. Plus one factor that drives down cost is high launch frequency, and massive rockets are at a disadvantage since there are very little massive payloads per year compared to smaller payloads. While I can see Starship being the cheapest rocket of it's size category due to SpaceX's design philosophies and its full resuse, it seems silly to say that it will be cheaper than a significantly smaller rocket.I know there's little direct comparison between the two, but the Shuttle made similar claims and burnt the aerospace industry. I think it's best to be cautious until proven otherwise.
>>10382027yeah but that doesn't use SLS. you see, we need LOP-G because it utilizes SLS, therefore using SLS for launching LOP-G. This way both SLS and LOP-G are used.
>>10381650>implying lop-g will be anywhere near that close to the moonWoah there, stop making it look like it's not a station in the middle of nowhere, please.
>>10382029They have "zero market share" because they are cooperating with Arianespace now you complete idiot. A soyuz is going to launch oneweb sats soon.
>>10382035i didnt make the pic
>>10382032As soon as a smaller rocket comes around that is also fully reusable, bfr will be finished.Look at the A380 vs the 787The former is too large and is getting BTFO in sales.
>>10382032yeah, it really depends on availability of payloads, Starship is technically very advanced and capable of placing thousands of tons per year up there, but it will not do much to decrease launch costs if it flies a dozen times per year as usual
meanwhile: actual space news
>>10382032Hes saying BFR might have lower launch costs because of higher reusability, not like Elon the fraud who claimed BFR will have lower production cost.>>10382024Ask SEC.
The shill doesn't even hide who he works for anymore
>>10382041I don't think that's comparable. The marginal cost to fly starship vs a fully reusable ship 2/3rd the size is likely negligible.>>10382053sure is /r/realtesla in here
>>10381817could they stop SpaceX?
>>10382056>The marginal cost to fly starship vs a fully reusable ship 2/3rd the size is likely negligible.Prove it.
>>10382045>700 people >4 years construction >only just started pouring concrete That's actually embarrassing, I get that it's got to be a sizeable launch pad but that pace of work is terrible, especially with such a large workforce; and they still have to build all the GSE and erect the launch tower before it's ready...
>>10382061thus why the earliest launch date is now 2021/2022. >>10382060the costs per flight are in launchpad refurb, fuel, processing, integration range fees or whatever, vehicle refurb, and so on. Most of that is highly independent of the actual vehicle size once you get to stuff half to 2x starship size imo
>>10382061>4 years construction They've been leasing the pad for just over 2 years. Meanwhile, SpaceX has owned the Boca Chica site for nearly 5 years and it's still just a hole in the ground.
>>10382061>hurr i have no fucking clue durrif it was spacex you would be all over how amazingly fast they are working. fucking shills.
>>10382065>thus why the earliest launch date is now 2022.Source?>>10382065>the costs per flight are in launchpad refurb, fuel, processing, integration range fees or whatever, vehicle refurb, and so on. Most of that is highly independent of the actual vehicle size once you get to stuff half to 2x starship size imoThat's not proof. Post your source.
>>10382041>As soon as a smaller rocket comes around that is also fully reusable, bfr will be finished.I agree, smaller and more flexible vehicles are usually preferred over massive ones even if the payload capacity is significantly smaller for the smaller vehicle, especially for the launch industry. However, I can see BFR being reserved for massive missions where a smaller rocket wouldn't do, much like how jumbo jets are used for ultra long duration flights (such as over the Pacific) while smaller jets are used for other trips.>>10382043>but it will not do much to decrease launch costs if it flies a dozen times per year as usualYeah, and thats the issue with ultra large launch vehicles. Their payload capabilities are so much larger than most payloads out there so launch volume is low by default. Stacking smaller payloads won't do much help either as that hurts launch flexibility.Unless SpaceX is going to just use BFR for their Mars missions where the massive payloads are needed, then I don't see BFR being successful on the commercial market outside of novelty. Or unless that "If you build it, they will come" effect that Atomic Rockets theorizes comes true and all of a sudden everyone wants Mars bases.
>>10381598only matters for the military
>>10382067why would they construct a launchpad for a vehicle that didn't exist yet, and was still in a fluid development phase>>10382071why should I spoon-feed what can be easily googled? your sourcefaggotry is annoying, honestly https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1082678161584861184
>>10382077That says 2021, not 2022 like you claimed.Where's your source on the 2022 claim?
>>10382067They've had the pad since 2015, also SpaceX has just been moving at Boca Chica dirt up until two months ago.
>>10382073all of a sudden people will realize that a 8x size probe or satellite with massive energy and mass budgets is probably cheaper to build than a smol complex one, especially if you instantly save millions by having a 20mil launch cost vs an older 100+mil cost>>10382082it's been bouncing between 2022 and 2021 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3214/1
>>10382083You're full of shit.>>10382086>http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3214/1Not a single mention of 2022 in the article
>>10382086>http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3214/1that source says 2020 you fucking retard
If memex is so great, why to muskrats constantly overstate their achievements while downplaying the achievements of others?
>>10382098>>10382097fuck me I'm blind, I knew it was 2019-2022, had a brain fart and did 2022anyways Reuters says 2020 as well https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-blueorigin/bezos-throws-cash-engineers-at-rocket-program-as-space-race-accelerates-idUSKBN1KO0HN
>>10382086>all of a sudden people will realize that a 8x size probe or satellite with massive energy and mass budgets is probably cheaper to build than a smol complex oneI think the Starship could do what the Shuttle used to do with probes, where it launches a probe to LEO with a second stage attached due to the large payload bay. For example, a Starship can lift a Jupiter probe attached to a fully fuelled Centaur stage to LEO, significantly increasing the payload's Delta V compared to a conventional Atlas launch.
>>10382103lol I misspelled it again2020, not 2022. 2019-2020 that is numbers are hard
>>10382103It got delayed to 2021 after the EELV contracts were announced.
>>10382108"Numbers are hard."-/sci/ 2019>>10382105That could be a good way to use Starship. The probe can be launched into LEO well before the departure window, this can remove a common problem with outer Solar system missions where launch conditions at a departure window forces said launch to be scrapped and the window closes.
>>10382101I don't see any downplaying. I see puerile shitposting from the anti-Musk crowd. There's even a "musk fraud" thread on /tv/ right now. It's a 4channel-wide obsession for some people and not specific to spaceflight in general. in other words, >>>/get out/
>bump limitshould we create a new thread or wait till it reaches page 9/10
uh oh https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-share-results-of-effort-to-recover-mars-opportunity-rover
>>10382118wait. we made a new one right away once and a mod knicked it
>>10382115>I don't see any downplaying.
>>10382109Why though, considering they already have both an engine factory in Alabama and a rocket factory in Florida up and running. Assembling a single New Glenn surely wont take them 2 years.
>>10382101dont forget the constant shitting on NASA while being literally breastfed by it.
>>10382127but you shouldn't. One translates laterally a whole lot, one doesn't. One can hover, one doesn't. One is big, one is small(er). Lots of differences. NS is closer to DC-X.
>>10380902We're talking about Mars here, not the Moon
>>10382127they are fundamentally differentNS is more like a better Falcon 1 than Falcon 9
>>10382135The only "shitting on NASA" I regularly see from SpaceX fans is about the SLS.Considering how badly handled that whole project is, NASA and the US government deserves some shit for it.
>>10381242>how does a rotational axis work
>>10382135Good point. I don't think I've seen a muskrat post a positive opinion on NASA in the past 3 years. Kind of funny since Elon himself is usually pretty vocal about support for NASA.>>10382137>NS is closer to DC-XNS flew like 100km higher than the highest DC-X flight>>10382141>fundamentallythere's that word again>>10382144>The only "shitting on NASA" I regularly see from SpaceX fans is about the SLS.and ISS, and the gateway station, and all their unmanned probes, and all their test programs, and pretty much everything else they do
>>10382150hey now, unmanned probes are coollove me some probes, my favorite was that one they crashed dick-first into Saturn
>>10382150NASA minus SLS, LOP-G, and commcrew nonsense is fine. Best return on $ for taxpayers out of all the agencies.
>>10382150>and ISS, and the gateway station, and all their unmanned probes, and all their test programs, and pretty much everything else they doMaybe you have a point, I don't often visit SpaceX forms unless there's some major events going on.
>>10382167as in the red tape, delays, and silly MMOD/LOC requirements. the program as a whole is fine. Just wish that SNC had won crew in the first round
>>10381435lol russia seething
>>10382163>minus commcrew nonsenseYes, let's just throw away America's domestic crew launch capability and force it to buy up-priced seats from Russia.
>>10382170yeah there was a lot of bullshit in commercial crew, they're salty as fuck about it for some reasonprobably because they killed 17 people
>>10382170>why does a crew vehicle need to be safe?!?
>>10382179see >>10382170>>10382182I wouldn't mind if NASA applied the same scrutiny to SLS. Nope. Either way the MMOD stuff & 1-270 LOC is retarded
Define safe crew vehicle.
>>10382186>I wouldn't mind if NASA applied the same scrutiny to SLS. Nope. Either way the MMOD stuff & 1-270 LOC is retardedYou're a moron. They are applying the same scrutiny to SLS, if not more.
>>10382141They aren't fundamentally different. The hard part is the actual touch down, the manuveurs above the atmosphere and some burns isn't. F9 is more impressive because it's much bigger and heavier. NS however did demonstrate hovering, which is also impressive. Delta Clipper was first, anyways.Generally speaking, I have the feeling New Glenn will really BTFO the whole space industry way more than Falcons did. That rocket has good odds in becoming the best and cheapest rocket in the world at the same time.
>>10382193it will be coming into service just as the cheaper starship becomes fully operational. Dunno how it will survive, especially only being 1/2 reusable
>>10382201>it will be coming into service just as the cheaper starship becomes fully operationalWhere is bfr's launch pad?
>>10382201It wontThey're pushing it because daddy bezos is giving them infinite money to do what ever the fuck they please
>>10382206why do you keep asking this? Boca Chica. It's down the road from the building facility.
>>10382213That's a launch pad for the test article, not for bfr.
>>10382206A little place down in florida, another in california, and a third in texasPossibly Canada and the UK too
>>10382212Blue has less revenue than SpaceX on a year-to-year basis. You just sound like a moron when you repeat this nonsense.
>>10381577They have done every test with 'warm' cryogenic methalox so far, they haven't even started testing with sub cooled propellants yet. All the chamber pressure and thrust figures so far come from tests with warm propellant.
>>10382215you only need a flat area and some GSE. Elon says the initial SH will have legs like Starship.
>>10382219So nothing that's been built yet? How would they be "fully operational" in 2021 if they haven't even selected a launch site yet?
>>10382193yeah, NS is really coolI think it's a race between NG and Starship right now
>>10382226they have, the main launch site is Boca Chica. E2E is different, but that comes later.
>>10382232>they have, the main launch site is Boca Chicasource?
10382226This isn't a video game where you may use only one single place everThey can use the already built and ready launch sitesNow stop shitposting and goalpost moving
>>10381693Raptor doesn't need to use sub cooled propellants, it will have high enough performance using 'warm' methalox. Sub-cooling the propellants for launch from Earth is just a way of improving the overall performance of the vehicle.
>>10382201Super Heavy is doing RTLS only so there is no way they will be able to compete with New Glenn, which will only do boat landing. They also have no alternative as it will be way too heavy for a boat landing.
10382258>you can only use a place for one thing ever and can never upgradeWe know you're retarded but this is ridiculous
>>10381242oh no, it's retarded
>>10381242Your diagram literally shows that for that to work, you'd have to have panels on either side of the arctic circle.Really though, you'd be better off just shitting some mirrors out in orbit and reflecting light down to your base when in the dark, out of mylar or smth.
>>10382278But if some other company puts a large fuel depot there?
>>10382141>NS is more like a better Falcon 1It doesn't put anything into orbit lol
>>10382262launch from texasland in florida
>>10382221Except Blue's entire budget is spent on nothing but development, whereas SpaceX actually has a business to run and products to deliver.
>>10382298And then transport it back all the way to Texas each time? Yeah no.
>>10382304they did win that one engine deal
>>10382307just launch it without payload suborbital
>>10382262Boat landing is better for per-launch performance but it's absolute shit for launch cadence, which will be NG's biggest downfall.
>>10382313Don't need a high launch cadence when they're only supposed to fly 12 times a year.
>>10382313Plus>mess up landing>Stena Freighter is destroyed
>>10382285It still costs delta V and time to get the fuel to that depot. There is zero justification for using lagrange points as jump off points unless your vehicle lacks the delta V to get to your destination *unless* it starts off at those points. Starship can go directly to Mars from LEO, therefore any use of fuel depots anywhere but in LEO is a diversion and a waste of resources.
>>10382312That would be a RTLS in the most retarded fashion imaginable. That would very obviously be even much worse for reusability. In case you don't seem to understand, it's about reducing the burn times.
>>10382308Yeah but they're still developing that engine as well, and they won't actually be producing finished BE-4s for Vulcan for a while. SpaceX has o actually produce Falcon 9 booster cores, 2nd stages, fairings, and Dragon capsules.
>>10382313Boat landing = less stress on the rocket = less refurbishment time = higher launch cadence
>>10382323or you could put it on a barge, it's not very far from Cape Canaveral to Boca Chica
>>10382312m8, it's a shill, it isn't going to listen, it's going to move the goalposts endlessly until the thread dies, inwhich he'll pretend the refutation never happened and spam the same shit again
SpaceX monopoly confirmed
>>10382316That's a bit circular, 'we are limited in launch cadence so we will design our architecture for low launch cadence', but okay.
>>10382330I'm actually just shitposting, launching from texas and landing the booster in Florida is probably the dumbest thing I've ever said
>>10382328Boat landing = more salt water corrosion = increased refurbishment time = lower launch cadenceAlso even if Starship is experiencing more stress they're just going to design for that, take the small hit in per launch payload, and end up with a huge flight rate.
>>10382325>>10382212What the fuck are you gigantic idiot talking about? They both will launch in 2021 and BO actually already has its factories up and running and launch site under construction, unlike SpaceX.
>>10382334it takes 2-3 days to get back to port with a powered ship whereas it takes months to refurbish a boosterseems like you're just making shit up>design our architecture for low launch cadenceliterally doesn't even make sensethey are expecting 12 launches a year, not designing for it
>>10382346This is even dumber than that other post of the anon who suggested the rocket should just fly back from Florida.
>>10382350As Elon says most of the production is still happening in Hawthorne. Large structure building will be on site though.
>>10382353>it takes months to refurbish a boosternot necessarily. And yes, if you are expecting something, that means you are designing for it.
>>10381501>nuclear warheads on a Falcon HeavyThat sounds as dumb as SRBs on a manned mission.
10382350They're trying to compete with BFR with a rocket inferior to the Heavy, a rocket spacex isn't even launchingyour boss isn't going to win the space race
>>10382332FUCK YEA USA USA USA !!!!
>>10382115>There's even a "musk fraud" thread on /tv/ right now.I tried to bite my tongue, but you and your consensus of haters are the definition of Envy. Your thoughts on super-speed, and dope doors is “inefficient”? Go produce another Yugo, or Gremlin. Never seen a disappointed owner of a Tesla. Not a real one. An average Joe can hit the local badass quarter mile track after a hard week at work and kick the shit outta Whatever muscle car he runs against. Can you do that in your whatever? You describe a failure as someone who’s biggest problem is filling orders because he has so many. Did you write the same article about Harley Davidson when people waited bragging for a year it was coming. Some made businesses up selling the day after theirs came off the line. He’s got problems.. Welcome to the Global Market. VW didn’t fold and they.. Well you know. Who went bankrupt among the American auto industry? Not Tesla. It’s awesome to see a car get this much negative attention. Shows it’s badass. Of all the mediocre cars on the market you criticize it for being unnecessarily awesome. Call your shrink. You might have an inferiority complex. Maybe your just in love and playing hard to get. Kiss emoji.
>>10382371A rocket SpaceX isnt launching because nobody wants it. That was a wise 500 million dollar investement.
>>10382371lurk more and stop embarrassing yourself
>>10382380Elon agrees with you
>>10382380FH isn't the most popular launch vehicle ever, but that doesn't mean nobody wants to launch on it...https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-milestone-three-boosters-arrive-in-florida/
This is how you know for sure it's a shillPointedly ignoring the point of a post to shit up the thread some moreHe honestly thinks his boss' rocket will get sales despite being inferior to existing equipment and being unproven hardware
>>10381503>The only satellites it can do now are GTO and beyond that weigh >8 tons and there aren't many of those.And it's exactly the market that Ariane 6 is chasing after. >>10382041>>10381557The fuels only need to be sub-cooled to fit more fucking fuel mass into the tanks at Earth launch. After launch there's plenty of room for warmer fuel. It doesn't make the engine run differently, it just holds more fuel. What's your source that it's any other reason?>>10381598>Won’t the re entry burn it off?Then etch it into the fucking metal. Or weld it on in strips of some other alloy.
>>10382445colder liquids means denser propellants which means more mass flow per volume (the definition of density)the turbopumps are volume limited, not mass limited, so denser propellants means more fuel goes into the chamber which means slightly better numbers
>>10382285Lagrange points aren't a "point" that you sit on. They're unstable, so you orbit around them, and there is plenty of room if someone else is already there.>>10382448They don't need those better numbers after it reaches Earth LEO.
>>10382470some of them are stable
>Durr we shud stop at the moon on the way to MarsHow fucking stupid do you have to be to suggest this? What reddit tier garbage. If costs nearly the same dv to get to the moon as to go to Mars, and for fucking what?
>>10382484Yes it does take roughly similar DeltaV to get to the Moon and Mars, but going to the Moon is still significantly easier to get to and set up a base on than Mars due to the Moon's proximity to Earth. It takes 3 days to get to the Moon compared to months for a Martian trip. Plus communications are easier between Earth and Moon than Earth and Mars.
>>10382520Those are reasons for making a moon base, which is fine. Not reasons for muh pit stop.
>>10382536Oh sorry. Misinterpreted your post. My bad.Although one reason for a "lunar pit stop to mars" I can think of is maybe most of the Martian trip material were constructed or assembled on or near the Moon.
everyone talks about the earth-moon lagrange points, but i wonder if we'll end up putting stations at the earth-sun lagrange points. we already put satellites there.
>>10382045Literally 700people on a launch site lol old space nonsenseWhat will those people be doing while they wait for cement to cure?
>>10381800LH has this wonderful quirk where it can exist in two different spin states that have a slightly different energy levels. After being liquified, it slowly starts to shift from the higher energy to the lower energy spin state. The energy released by this change is just enough to vaporize that molecule.Tldr, even perfectly insulated, liquid hydrogen will vaporize over time.
>>10383002wow holy shit, sounds like a bug somebody better report it
>>10383036Quantum mechanics is fucking weird.
>>10382086>all of a sudden people will realize that a 8x size probe or satellite with massive energy and mass budgets is probably cheaper to build than a smol complex one, especially if you instantly save millions by having a 20mil launch cost vs an older 100+mil costSomething that immediately comes to mind is that this makes it practical to build satellites and deep space probes with heavy shielding and cheap off the shelf electronics instead of expensive and severely limited rad-hardened electronics. That alone would make development much faster and cheaper.
>>10381281Should be tattooed on the shaft.
>>10381411No payload demand in the market, simple as this. Space development is currently a meme, the most missions are satellites, and they do not require a lot of payloads to do so.