|
Why even do art, when you could be busy building sewage pipes?? EDIT: Wow that's a terrible snipe, I am so sorry. 
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Nah it's basically this thread summed up and in pill form, works great as a snipe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
aniviron posted:Nah it's basically this thread summed up and in pill form, works great as a snipe.  Here is a cool picture I found on R/Space this morning.  I really love the old Soviet/Russian designs, the conical look is really pretty. Safe too, with the flared base. Can you imagine if they'd actually built the N1? What an incredible thing! DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Apr 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 15:52
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:
They did build the N-1; it blew up 4 times. Now UR-900? That was pretty much on paper only.  OddObserver fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Apr 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
I know very little about Starship other than it's where Musk puts his extra MIC dollars but it looks like it's two stages??
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:
I mean, what do you mean 'old?' The current best way to get to space is still on top of, essentially, an upgraded R-7 Semyorka; they got it right enough the first time around that the design is still basically state-of-the-art
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:They did build the N-1; it blew up 4 times. Now UR-900? That was pretty much on paper only. If it got built and didn't blow up I mean. Lmfao I love that they were basically doing KSP in real life at that point because they didn't have fancy Western alloys that could handle the pressures/casting process of making a single big chamber (if I'm recalling the story correctly). "Strap more boosters onto it, comrade engineer!  "HookedOnChthonics posted:I mean, what do you mean 'old?' The current best way to get to space is still on top of, essentially, an upgraded R-7 Semyorka; they got it right enough the first time around that the design is still basically state-of-the-art Old I guess as in "designed many decades ago"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
breadshaped posted:I know very little about Starship other than it's where Musk puts his extra MIC dollars but it looks like it's two stages?? Divorced and Twitter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:I mean, what do you mean 'old?' The current best way to get to space is still on top of, essentially, an upgraded R-7 Semyorka; they got it right enough the first time around that the design is still basically state-of-the-art IIRC the soyuz 2 costs between 20,000$ and 30,000$ per pound while the falcon heavy costs around 1,400$ per pound, and lifts more. And of course due to current events the Russian rockets aren't ideal politically. I suppose they are reliable but there's better and cheaper designs being put into use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 16:49
|
|
|
The Falcon Heavy and other Space X designs are actual really excellent step-ups in lifting. As much as I'd love to hate something associated with Elon Musk, they've done a good job keeping him from interfering in the business and it's paying dividends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
breadshaped posted:I know very little about Starship other than it's where Musk puts his extra MIC dollars but it looks like it's two stages?? Yes. The first stage is the super heavy booster, which only goes suborbital, and returns for landing. The second stage is Starship, which goes to orbit and is intended to reenter and land. Will have payload doors more like the shuttle than detachable fairings, so the entire thing is intended for reuse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 00:46
|
|
|
Isn't Starship with a full tank of gas supposed to be able to land and take off from the Moon? I have also heard/seen these claims in regards to Mars, but that seemed... generous. Even if you could presumably fly the drat thing to Mars, the question is if you can get there fast enough (and return) before you'd run out of MREs and O2 canisters for any unfortunate humans aboard. Landing and ascending seems generous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
It can land on the moon, assuming you refuel it orbit; that's currently the NASA plan for Artemis. It's also not that generous in regards to Mars, the delta v required to go to there is basically the same as going to the moon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 01:41
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Isn't Starship with a full tank of gas supposed to be able to land and take off from the Moon? I have also heard/seen these claims in regards to Mars, but that seemed... generous. Even if you could presumably fly the drat thing to Mars, the question is if you can get there fast enough (and return) before you'd run out of MREs and O2 canisters for any unfortunate humans aboard. Landing and ascending seems generous. Starship is intended to have more pressurised volume than the ISS and is around the same as a 747, for a reasonably sized crew taking enough provisions will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 02:36
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Starship is intended to have more pressurised volume than the ISS and is around the same as a 747, for a reasonably sized crew taking enough provisions will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
Nessus posted:No poo poo? That seems surprising, more for how small the ISS must be. I believe it was only 2 or 3 Saturn V launches that could put up more volume than the entire ISS. Building it using only the relatively light launch vehicle of the Space Shuttle meant they needed a zillion launches of these real narrow canister modules and they ended up using a pretty high proportion of payload mass in just the docking collars between the modules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
Coldbird posted:I believe it was only 2 or 3 Saturn V launches that could put up more volume than the entire ISS. Building it using only the relatively light launch vehicle of the Space Shuttle meant they needed a zillion launches of these real narrow canister modules and they ended up using a pretty high proportion of payload mass in just the docking collars between the modules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
Nessus posted:How did our Commie brothers get MIR and such up there? This is kind of shocking me that we just stopped having heavy lift capacity like this. They didn't give up their heavy launch platform, Energiya. It was only us who ditched ours. We still had some medium-launch platforms, especially later on, but after Saturn V wrapped up, there was nobody in town for decades who could launch as much as Energiya. edit: though I just looked it up and apparently the Mir was put up using 6 Proton platforms and not Energiya Russia also tried to copy our shuttle - look up their Buran project sometime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
Coldbird posted:I believe it was only 2 or 3 Saturn V launches that could put up more volume than the entire ISS. Building it using only the relatively light launch vehicle of the Space Shuttle meant they needed a zillion launches of these real narrow canister modules and they ended up using a pretty high proportion of payload mass in just the docking collars between the modules. Skylab was 350 cubic meters of pressurized volume, about a third of the ISS, so checks out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 05:40
|
|
|
Nessus posted:How did our Commie brothers get MIR and such up there? This is kind of shocking me that we just stopped having heavy lift capacity like this. The shuttle program really screwed US lift capacity for a whole generation, is the short answer. It strayed too far from it's original design niche due to political interference and bad NASA management, and as a result NASA fell behind in this department as the shuttles were meant to provide the lift capacity but just weren't terribly good at it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 07:16
|
|
|
Starship launch is scrubbed for today, sorry for the double post. They'll probably be trying again in a few days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 14:20
|
|
|
Space, the Final Frontier: It Gazed Into My Open Refrigerator
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 22:30
|
|
|
Anyone play High Frontier 4? I looked at a screenshot and was like, "wow". I was talking to a friend who was selling me a pitch on the game and we remarked how the screenshot of how the board looked basically acted like a Great Filter in keeping people from playing the game!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
 I've actually heard about it because it came up while reading about Lagrange points, as the map is an attempt to represent the Interplanetary Transport Network. I've not bought it myself, but reviews are that there are better industry building games, but if you're a sucker for rockets it's pin point targeted at your heart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:
Look at that board, it's beautiful. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
Starship has just exploded. Looks like a failure to separate, and it spun out of control.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 14:40
|
|
|
Was it really supposed to separate so soon after Max-Q? Anyway that was spectacular
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:Starship has just exploded. Looks like a failure to separate, and it spun out of control. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 14:52
|
|
|
I laughed out loud seeing him too, especially with all the SpaceX people cheering and clapping. It took a lot of the sting away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
 stages of grief lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
breadshaped posted:Was it really supposed to separate so soon after Max-Q? Anyway that was spectacular https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=273481 So MECO (main engine cutoff) was supposed to happen at 169s and first separation at 171s From what I can see the trajectory instability started at ~130s
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
Unfortunate news but this does happen all the time even with NASA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Unfortunate news but this does happen all the time even with NASA. In the Saturn program, yes. They blew up at least one Saturn V because they didn't have a diversion tunnel for the back thrust. They solved that problem 50 years ago. Build a diversion tunnel and water deluge system. Guess who built a launchpad without either of those things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
mdemone posted:In the Saturn program, yes. They blew up at least one Saturn V because they didn't have a diversion tunnel for the back thrust. I mean, if the US tried to start up production of saturn vs today they'd probably face the same issues, because the tribal knowledge isn't there. Just because something was solved 50 years doesn't mean that experience and the institutional knowhow is preserved perfectly. See the US needing to relearn dogfighting in the Vietnam war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
Artemis already launched successfully dogg
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I mean, if the US tried to start up production of saturn vs today they'd probably face the same issues, because the tribal knowledge isn't there. Just because something was solved 50 years doesn't mean that experience and the institutional knowhow is preserved perfectly. We don't need to relearn it. https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/status/1288773089061470208?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:Artemis already launched successfully dogg What is this in response to? Owling Howl posted:We don't need to relearn it. I'm not sure what this is in response to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
You implied that NASA rockets blow up all the time and someone replied that SLS didn't and pointed out one specific Saturn-era development it used that Starship didn't (for some reason) and you're confused by all of this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 23:46
|
|
|
eXXon posted:You implied that NASA rockets blow up all the time and someone replied that SLS didn't and pointed out one specific Saturn-era development it used that Starship didn't (for some reason) and you're confused by all of this? I think what's confusing is people arguing that this is a "solved issue" 50 years ago; what are they implying by suggesting this? To clarify I am not claiming NASA is incompetent, or that literally they have failures left and right, only that over the course of the entire history of NASA they have had set backs; and I don't think SpaceX having a set back is that noteworthy. Sorry that I wasn't clearer as I was phone posting and meant to just convey "drat that sucks but this isn't new".
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
The idea isn't disparaging NASA, but that SpaceX is facing issues that NASA already figured out and solved for that SpaceX is choosing to not to include in their build out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 00:07
|
|