Wjolcz

Not to derail this thread but I feel like the fuel tank issue was never solved because there never was a need for a cheap launcher like X-33. Now that the launch prices get lower and boosters are landing they will be more likely to spend a little more time and money on making sure the fuel tank works. And, yeah, composites have been around for a while now so the infrastructure shouldn't be too much of a problem.

There was an idea someone posted in this thread and it looked like a ballute around the engine. So I'm guessing it would reenter "nose" first. It would be interesting if instead of that the second stage had half of the interstage left on it (to protect the engine) and a pair of wings. Then the engine (assuming they modified the fuel tanks to deflate somehow) could be moved into the stage to control the center of mass. Maybe, just maybe they could land it on a runway that way. I doubt it will ever happen but I'd like to see that. I hope I'm not repeating myself.

Just went to see it again and I'm glad I did because I really enjoyed it the second time. Or maybe I just have a soft spot for westerns ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I won't say L3 was a good character but IMO she wasn't terrible. The movie wouldn't be the same without her. I will be repeating myself but the actor playing Han really nailed it. You see him and the way he acts and talks and you know that's young Han Solo.

Its components would be 3D printed though. And there are only so many ways you can build a rotating space station. I like the idea. It depends on cheap space transport though. If BFR is successful it will be very likely to be built. All they would have to do is to set up the welding/3D printing factory and then just transport cheap components there.

That thing on the north pole looks like a solid rock. Also, is it me or does the equatorial ridge look a bit brighter than the rest? Maybe it's just how the light reflects off of it.

Awwww yissss. TBH, if I was to decide how that telescope should be build like I would go with mirrors like this: Instead of having dozens of origami folded smaller mirrors it would be better if each was as big as the cargo bay allows it to be. Should minimize complexity. Butmaybe once JWST is finished the tools and technology will already be in place to make the same kind of telescope but bigger.

The same stuff that was launched and tested on Electron?

Air-augmented super heavy NTR SSTO? Are the 60s back? I'm skeptical. It's probably not impossible but I need to see it first.

That's the bouncy castle? So I'm guessing stage 2 will have a parafoil too? Edit: I mean, it has to have a parafoil but I thought they won't be catching it like that. Anything special about this stage?

Stock Kerbal Attachment System. That way kerbals wouldn't be just dead weight and there would be a reason to bring crew instead of landing just a probe.

Such thing would be useless for me since I've never built a boat or anything sea related. However, more launch sites is always better. A mobile water-based launch site for rockets and planes would be great.

That's a really good idea actually. Probably better than most of already ongoing Mars simulations. The great thing about this is there are people alreadt there who, if something goes wrong, could send a helicopter and help. They could probably test ISRU fuel production there too and have the BFS fly there and back on its own. I'm just not sure how long it would take to produce that much fuel and if BFS will be capable of doing such hops without the booster.

Apples and oranges. SpaceX uses rocket technology that has been around since WWII (though to be fair goddard used the same fuel in his first tests). The only difference is they land their rockets because nobody cared until they did. Now JWST is a whole lot different. It's a telescope, not a rocket. It's the first space telescope of this kind, it's meant to go for the Lagrange point, it's got crazy sophisticated tech that has to work the first time they try to use it. So saying that SpaceX is doing better than NASA because JWST is taking so long is like saying that Wirght Flyer sucked because trains were first, or something.

I don't think they will colonize Mars. Not in the near future at least. However, once the rocket is operational and the first one lands on the surface of the planet there's simply no going back (unless something really horrible happens). I believe we will see regular and affordable space flight and there will be people living and working in space after that. Heck, it probably doesn't even need to land on Mars for that to happen. The Moon and NEOs are good destinations too. Besides, there's not only wealth in asteroids but Musk's primary plan is to set up a constellation of internet satellites. Once in orbit and working it will be a golden tap pouring endless money. AFAIK that's their primary plan to fund all of that.

Are we talking KSP or some sort of realistic n-body physics simulation? If KSP then either carry a thick heat shield and/or try to use Titan's orbital motion. Then from there aim for the moon. If simulation then check what Cassini and Galileo did to slow down around Saturn and Jupiter. IIRC Galileo used a retrograde slingshot and a retroburn around Io to insert itself into orbit. IIRC Cassini did some funky n-body manouvering.

I don't think an RTLS would be possible in this scenario. And the payload would probably be reduced too. I don't think discussing reusable SLS makes much sense. Especially that this is the SpaceX thread and NASA doesn't plan to do anything like that anyway.

Scott Manley made a video on it. Looks like they will have to replace some stuff, like pipes, near the tower.

Can somebody explain the Bell's theorem to me like I'm an idiot? What I don't get is why people assume that the particles' spins are unknown until they are measured. Their spins (I'm aware there are other properties) are always opposite no matter what so what's the problem? If you measure for 'up' then one will be up and the other down. If you rotate the measuring device 90° then one will rotate 90° to one side and the other to the other. So, if you do the same but with 60° angle then one will rotate 60° and the other >60° to match the opposite spin and that's the problem? And yes, I've seen the Veritasium and minutephysics videos and I still don't get it. Maybe I'm just dumb.

If they are planning on doing something like that I really hope they will be making a multiplayer sequel/prequel with kerbals, procedural parts and atmospheric activities (flying, driving, etc.). Basically better and more adorable SimplePlanes. I'd buy that.

Press F to pay respects and crash o7

Oooh! That looks like a spacecraft. IIRC it's a two-seater? Also, that SM looks kinda unusual. 3 engines and some sort of pylons? RCS? BTW once India has their astronauts will it join the ISS research? China won't any time soon, but India isn't communist (or whatever western countries don't like about China) so there's a chance they will, right?

I'm sure they will. Just not on LOP-G. I'm 95% sure it will either be a BFR or on whatever BO is planning to build in LEO. There's also a third option and it's ULA. AFAIK they don't have any plans for an interplanetary spaceship. Unless they do and that's LOP-G. If that't the case it will take a while before that one is finished and used as a transfer vessel. I might be fanboying here but I feel like once the BFS grashopper is hopping SpaceX will be much closer to landing one on Mars than whatever NASA is planning to do with LOP-G. Assuming it hops next year. But they still need that factory in place so I'm afraid Elon time will kick in again. I like the idea but the problem is it's not designed to do that. So more R&D which then means it needs more time and more money so Europa Clipper is not happening any time soon. They would probably be better off ditching this one (expendable SLS) and making a new rocket in its place instead. Or just ask private companies to do their launches.

July 10 is the planned launch date (for anybody who doesn't speak Russian). Btw, I always liked the picture on the wall. It's Korolyov, isn't it?

The 5x part sounds a bit dodgy. Can we have a link or at least quotation? We had a discussion about this a while back. I too think rockets can fly just fine even without any additional intakes/cowling used to boost their performance but it's mostly the lack of R&D being the reason why we don't see air augmentation on rockets. That and the fact that reusable stages became feasible very recently. Similar case with the aerospike. It could fly and be used instead of regular rocket engines. It's just that it would need more R&D and nobody wants to do that since regular nozzles work just fine. With all the New Space companies I wouldn't be surprised if somebody tried to build something like that eventually. Edit: Got it. But it says "citation needed" so we will never know unless somebody decides to do more R&D.

AFAIK it's not that bad and (compared to other types of engines) relatively easy to make kind of structure/engine. I'd imagine having something like that and an aerospike would make for a pretty good SSTO design.