/LLV/

lift, thrust, same difference

I like how SpaceX makes their shit look aesthetic. SLS looks like a childs toy, is it too hard to repaint the ugly ass orange on an unlimited taxpayer budget? And all the Blue Origin offerings looks like fucking dildos.

elon did force the spacesuit team to make it look "badass"

Attached: ixHIWpINCRkcv-29pW-gjC9LgSFcn_fnZDyriykSydE.jpg (768x768, 99K)

>does fluted mean
"Fluted-core" is a fancy way to say it's built like a cross between corrugated cardboard and an I-beam: flat inner and outer layers, and supports between them.

50 bucks says they don't have that many windows on the final BFS

YOU'RE GOING IN MY COLLAGE BOI

..but you are probably right. Windows a shit, it's not like they're going to be doing manual docking ever.

oh hey, check out this new B5 pic. Fancy unpainted CF interstage

Attached: XEeAhRa.jpg (5184x3456, 1.53M)

They need the windows so people will be excited to ride in it. You can't sell people transportation tickets if they hate the ride. Windows are fairly expensive and heavy on aircraft as well, but they put them in so people don't feel like they're sealed in a coffin.

Its funny for Block 5 looks like 1.0 from 2009.

Attached: Falcon_9_fit_check.jpg (400x600, 170K)

Remember, this is only a (partial?) pressure suit, not a space suit.

still leagues better than Boeing's

Attached: 2017-boeing-blue-starliner-spacesuit-suit0117_0.jpg (1600x1000, 289K)

It's a flight suit. That means it's there to protect the lives of passengers if the atmosphere of the capsule leaks out or becomes poisonous, rather than being meant for space walks. It'll work in a total vacuum.

All the best parts of hydrogen and kerosene exhaust!

>he doesn't realize the SpaceX one is a cosmetic outer shell!

Attached: laughing witch.gif (500x375, 994K)

Not EVA suit, i would like to see SpaceX take on that because Mars certainly needs EVA.

Attached: d5290ec45567de8e5b865cebba9e5377.jpg (1111x1024, 683K)

>methane engines are so pretty
Also it's natural gas, not methane.

it's been tested to vacuum bruh, it's the final design for their suit. SpaceX has hired ex astronauts for feedback and design help with it

>it's been tested to vacuum bruh, it's the final design for their suit. SpaceX has hired ex astronauts for feedback and design help with it
It is, indeed, a flight suit. An EVA flight suit will be much bulkier since it will need to carry its own life support systems, not just keep the air where it's needed.

closest thing we have to that is what the artists drew in for the BFR presentation slides. low chance that they're based in reality, but still

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-20 at 11.27.39 PM.png (1976x746, 2.2M)

just about anything would be better than exploring mars as pepsi man

ah, I thought you were implying it was simply shirtsleeve clothing.

No one gives a shit about the ride, anyone going to Mars knows they are in for several months of isolation in a metal tube.

The tickets will sell themselves because the destination is fucking Mars.

That's what I said.

for reference

Attached: paojku4c7umr0j1bcdon.jpg (3188x1046, 510K)

That doesn't change the fact that the SpaceX suit has a cosmetic outer shell, and that's what you can see in that picture of it. The SpaceX suit looks better because they cover the functional suit with something that has no purpose but to look good.

You said "this is only a (partial?) pressure suit", like you didn't understand it was designed to keep the wearer alive in full vacuum.

That was a different user, actually. The outer suit is mostly cosmetic, though. The pressure suit is an under-layer.

>source?

from what I saw orbital outfitters / ILC Dover both had small parts in the suit design. 99% sure it's not a "cosmetic outer shell" lmao

What?
Do you even know what a pressure suit is?

>it's not a "cosmetic outer shell" lmao
So why does it looks like normal clothes? Where are the couplings for the air supply?

They wanted it to look good, and a pressure suit either looks like long underwear with big seams and hoses or baggy cover-alls with hoses, so they put another layer on top of the pressure suit, just to look good.

I know what "partial" means. Stop playing this stupid game.

>BFR
You guys don't actually think this is going to be a thing, do you? Please don't, otherwise this board is an even greater joke than I originally thought.

>is it too hard to repaint the ugly ass orange on an unlimited taxpayer budget?
Enough paint to cover up all the orange would probably weigh a couple hundred pounds. Not painting it increases payload slightly.

This haha spacex are such a meme lol!
They are going bankrupt next year anyway so who cares about them Musk's best bet is selling to big companies like Boeing.
Feelsgood being European and laughing at amerifats h-haha, r-right?
EU money + Russian tech = america btfo!

Isn't it already orange because they paint it?

Are there any hints anyone else is working on large reusable vehicles? It feels like a lot of people are sleeping or praying.

aesthetic as fuck

AESTHETIC

But why exactly a vacuum suit shouldn't work in open space?

Pressure suits generally don't have environmental controls built in, which means that if you are in the Sun you cook, if you are in the shade you'll start to freeze.

You'll survive a short time, but they're not for EVA work.

New Glenn, Ariane is developing methane Callisto for next rocket, Energia is studying to make Souyz 5 reusable.

It is insulating foam not paint look up first shuttle mission it had painted foam over the tank

>rocket doesn't create lift

Attached: flat,750x1000,075,t.u1.jpg (750x1000, 35K)

I think that aesthetic is lame. Same thing with a lot, not all, of the Tesla design. It is very cheap-90s-sci-fi.

comfy and practical

that suit is pure JUST

It‘s either going to become a thing or Elon is going to go bankrupt trying to make it one.

Ariane won‘t be reusable. ESA is confident in the fact that EU will still force all kinds of satellites onto their rocket no matter how comically overpriced it becomes in comparrison.

BRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAPPP

Get on my level.

Attached: shuttle_comparison.png (588x1000, 21K)

>>Landing a rocket booster ass first
You guys don't actually think this is going to be a thing, do you? Please don't, otherwise this board is an even greater joke than I originally thought.

>how to annoy an aerodynamicist

Fundamental difference between SLS at left, and the Blue Origin and SpaceX ones at right: reusability. Since the SLS is not reusable, it only makes sense to use it for the huge payloads for which it is designed. But we can only afford to have one of those payloads every one or two years. Thus the whole system's cost is swamped by overhead due to low launch rates.

The New Shepard and BFR when reusable can scale to any size payload, so it can fly more often. That reduces the costs just as much as the ability to reuse the cores.

"The way God and Robert Heinlein intended."

McDonnell Douglas DC-X says hi.

Good grief he’s pretending to be dumb can’t you tell? He’s taking the piss on that BFR denier a few posts up

New Armstrong, but that’s way down the line

No shit dumbass, I'm just mocking him for being a retarded fanboy.

>Let's talk about large launch vehicles!
>let's use a picture that doesn't feature any of the HLLVs that have actually succesfully launched!

saged blocked swatted reported to the nsa

future LLV's lad

I didn't know Orbital ATK was making a large launch vehicle

heh

Attached: big.png (2100x1212, 1.39M)

Where we you few years ago when that comment was everywhere ????

For anyone who doesn't get the joke: those post office trucks are made by Northrop-Grumman which now own Orbital ATK.

To talk about actual super heavy lift vehicles, NASA has started looking at comerical sources for Lunar landers since Trump wants them to land on the Moon.

nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/nasa-courts-commercial-options-lunar-landers/#more-55492

On the other side, Russian is said to be working on their own Super heavy vehicles with by progressively creating larger and larger rockets until they have a super heavy in the 2030s. Some proposals use the Soyuz 5 as a basis while some others use Angara or Energia as a basis. Neat stuff.

russianspaceweb.com/rockets_launchers_2010s.html

Calling those people retarded for thinking a rocking landing on its tail is impossible when it had already been proven to be possible.

Forgot image.

Attached: lv_strategy_2017_1.jpg (730x548, 95K)

russia unfortunately just won't be able to to anything with their tiny space budget. Combine that with the loss of proton commercial launches and the switch of the US to comm. crew, and it's not looking good for the future of the Russian space program.

Yea, sadley. But it's still interesting to read about. Hopefully they can get fly back boosters to work. on Angara.

all of those kazak scrap collectors will go out of business!

Attached: sj9.jpg (600x394, 85K)

I thought they started cleaning up the downrange at Baikonur? Plus aren't they working on a Baikonur replacement in Russia?

Yeah the Russia pad is operational, I think they’re going to gradually phase out baikonur eventually. But the new launch site can only do Soyuz at the moment iirc

At least they aren't crashing rockets into villages like China. Is there any indication that serious work is being done on the Long March 9?

Attached: main-qimg-5cf28a57dfb359bc19f7d4bca569513a.png (602x771, 209K)

They’ve got to figure out long march 5 first. It’s not like they have anything that has to launch on 9

Wouldn't it be easier to just have high-def display panels instead of actual windows?

To look at what? During takeoff and landing you’ll be facing the wrong way

China and Russia are building real rockets meanwhile america is buying russian engines and even with that they can't get one to fly...

you live under a rock m8? ULA is likely picking a BO engine for Vulcan, and meanwhile SpaceX is churning out over one Merlin per day. Sure, AR-1 is dead in the water, but that was a silly engine anyways

Video screens are no substitute for windows. Think of any vacation you've been on with beautiful sights, compared to looking at a youtube video on your computer. Besides, the field of view is far larger through a real window, since you can move up close to it and move around to look at different angles. The screen will always just be a picture on the wall, and will never feel the same as looking at something directly.

>AR-1 is dead in the water
>ULA is likely picking a BO engine for Vulcan
It's not really up to them. ULA is 100% dependent on the US government for business, and 100% subservient to its parent companies. If ULA had the choice, they've have fully committed to Vulcan and gone with BE-4 long ago. However, their only customer is undecided whether they'll let Jeff Bezos in on the pork and let Aerojet be cut out, and the parent companies are only funding development of the obviously-uncompetitive Vulcan on a quarter-by-quarter basis.

On top of that, unlike Aerojet, Blue Origin is an entirely unproven company. They've never flown hardware on an orbital launch, or brought hardware into routine production or routine use. The BE-4 is an engine of a type and size entirely outside their experience (BE-3 is a tap-off cycle engine, which is a variation on the gas generator), to be produced on a scale outside their experience. The US government does not want to get stuck depending on this, nor do the parent companies want to risk the total humiliation likely if it turns out to be a bad choice, or let ULA be dependent on a competitor (BO's main goal for BE-4 is to make their own rocket, better in every way than Vulcan).

The Atlas V's RD-180 is heavily based on the RD-171 used on the Zenit rockets, where the bugs in the technology were worked out over decades before being reliable enough to be attractive to Lockheed Martin. It's typical for a new engine to have some failures, and unlikely BE-4 will be comparably reliable out the gate.

And after BO backtracked on their promis to ULA not to bid on nat sec missions, ULA might not want to work with them on anything...

>ULA
>relevant

>ESA maybe beginning slow "development" work on reuse

lol
What a buncha clowns
SpaceX landed their first rocket years ago
And hell, those test water "landings"showed that the idea of landing a rocket was perfectly sound.

monitors are 4k now and increasing fast
It's already well past the point where you can see individual pixels

It may be inferior but it IS a substitute

Yeah Falcon is using Russian engines or is not a real rocket.top kek

ULA fucked up big time by trusting that kike Bezos, he's more likely to hike the engine prices than Russia are, purely to put ULA out of business. I can't believe that Lockheed/Boeing/Rocketdyne cannot make a better rocket engine than a bunch of suborbital nobodies. The guys who built the legendary F-1 and RL-10 beaten by the guy who owns an internet shopping website, is this reality?

quarter by quarter funding a shit

ULA is not an independent private company like SpaceX or BO
They can't just "do things"

>monitors are 4k now
It's still just a picture on the wall, not even close to being the same thing as a window.

oh noooo bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/there-s-a-new-cold-war-brewing-in-space

there isn't enough room for my bulge

fuck those look good, even if it's a terrible pic

desu I think moonsuits will be like the ones in moonbase alpha, where it locks onto an airlock and you climb out through the back. don't want moondust getting in habitats