Space and Science BS Thread

And like I said, ISRU methane from water and CO2 is, by definition, carbon neutral. And any thing utilized outside of the atmosphere makes it negative.

Braking on Mars is free compared to slowing down via rockets only (like the moon), though you're trading heat shielding mass for fuel mass at that point. Quick check says that you can save up to about 40% of the dV requirements overall, which, if you go back to the 1200T of prop in a topped off starship, is 480T of prop mass. That buys you a lot of heat shielding.

 

Not on this planet. We don’t make ANY of the methane used by that process so NONE of it is carbon neutral. All of it is produced from wells. That process will only be used on other planets for the foreseeable future if and when it does get used. Yes, you get significant braking but still less than de orbiting here but arriving Mars you’ll have a significantly higher velocity than just orbiting earth so still need to burn fuel both for orbital insertion and landing.

 

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction is over a century old, and while it's not used in bulk, it's also not rocket surgery.

The real question is, 'is the mass of the heat shield less than the mass of fuel used by a retropropulsive EDL' and the answer is 'by a lot'.

Take a look at your resident subway map sometime -



Going from transfer orbit directly into EDL (direct insertion profile) is going to cost ~ 4.5km/s of dV, much of which could be converted to heat by shielding instead of needing to burn prop. Going Mars to earth EDL is even better, roughly 11km/s of dV that you get for 'free' instead of needing prop. Meanwhile, LEO > Moon landing takes 6km/s of propellant, never mind the return trip.

 

Last Atlas V launch tomorrow:
https://x.com/ussf_ssc/status/1818079345245557212?s=46

 

Old and unused is still unused. Claiming carbon neutrality for it despite that is absurd. And it’s not just the heat shield. It’s the structural enhancements and aero braking not necessary in deep space. That aside, I’m not claiming they of no use but that their best use is what they are still working to achieve which is heavy lift to orbit and reentry from same which can be done at both ends without compromising mass on the journey. Delta v would be better served by long low thrust with turnover using much smaller and lighter engines than carrying raptors as dead weight for completely unnecessary high G burns lasting a fraction of the time. It’s a brute force short cut that while necessary in the short term still remains a very bad idea if carried out to its full extent.

 

SF51 went at 0645 this am and it was a good one. When the sf guys won't talk about the payload, you know what it is.

 

What is it?

 

Per this article, F9 being recertified post second stage failure.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-proceeding-with-august-launch-of-crew-9/


“We’re going to go through a rigorous certification of that,” Stich said of the changes to the upper stage, including both hardware changes and modifications to software that will no longer use data from the removed sensor. “We’ll go through that and take it to the program control board, and we’ll baseline that change for Crew-9.”

 

Like I said, 'IF' ISRU style CO2+H2O methane generation is used. But the rest of your argument is also absurd. Each launch is literally a couple of airliners or trucks worth of fuel. Even a hundred launches to support the entirety of Atermis won't be that much.

You want dirty? SRBs. NTO+UDMH. Etc.

Except they'll be used for Earth <> Mars ops.

That said, HLS (starship) is a quick and dirty shortcut, but that's a pathfinding and high mass lander option, and aero/heat sinks are useless in vacuum.

 

The problem is additive. Only a couple? We’re talking tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of launches. That’s not “a couple”. SRB’s are dirty too, so what? Why even bring them up? Try doing the math on bringing a million people to Mars 100 at a time(wishful thinking at present) along with the tooling they’ll need to survive. Independent sustainability might be a century away if it’s even possible.

 

https://x.com/airandspace/status/1818665208006541607?s=46

 

Plans subject to change, along with equipment. And even at best, in the first few decades we'll see antarctica numbers of people on Mars, at first. At some point the starships will be packed tight with a thousand a pop during launch and EDL, with cyclers providing hab space during the deep space portions, but all that is going to be enabled by starship launches. And ISRU methane.

H2 is dead tech. Hate to burst your bubble.

 

Rounding up the additional 326 mill to .3 billion, if this is accurate, Boeing’s made roughly 2.9 billion on Starliner
https://x.com/joroulette/status/1818722121285283989?s=46

 

“At some point” in your dreams. Talk about a bubble! When the numbers you’re so fond of actually add up then we can resume the conversation but until then you’ll just keep crediting them with achievements before they’ve been made. If Methane is so easy to produce then they should have no trouble making way more than they’ll use without resorting to other fossil fuels to power the process since it’s such a piddling amount. When that happens and not before you can legitimately claim carbon neutrality. Have you even the slightest idea how much life support it will take for even 100 people. If we do send them 1k a shot it won’t be on a Starship though they’ll probably get ferried up on several. That’s what it’s really good for.

 

In other news:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CdDqm6pAK5A&pp=ygUGc3BhY2V4

 

Not necessary for a test program, or the low rates needed for even something like Atermis support. You're the one talking about the impacts of shipping a million people, but in any realistic scenario, the flight rate won't increase until a LOT of things get proven out. That said, there's a bunch of pilot facilities for power to methane production, so by the time the flight rate ramps up, likely just an off the shelf purchase.

Do you? I'd ballpark it in the amount of supplies you'd have in a SSBN on a 6 month patrol, which, y'know, we've figured out for a while now.

Aldrin cycler for hab space (maybe even made out of a bunch of docked together starships), then everyone gets to the cycler(s) via starships and does EDL on starships, just packed together in economy class seating.

Seriously, man. You're so blindly hating that you 1) can't even do the ballpark math, and 2) can't see solutions that are right in your face.

 

From Reddit hopefully to lighten it up a bit:

 

Just bought my first tabletop telescope for my camping trips! Sky-Watcher Virtuoso gti 150 for $420 bucks. Can't wait. Also pick up a used Celestron Ultima 2x for $50!! I'll buy some additional accessories and a planetary camera in time. Can't look or breathe outside with all this smoke...

Feels good to get something that isn't truck related

 

No, your lost in fandom and are blind to the realities involved. I like Starship and what it will actually be able to do but I don’t worship it. However, let’s just table this and enjoy this early part of the process since at best it’s decades away and Elon himself has admitted that the ships are only a part of the advances needed for this undertaking. Solutions are possibilities only at this point, some requiring relatively straightforward ramping up while others are only imaginable assuming advances we haven’t yet made. We can barely deal with a dozen even with additional cargo transfers of supplies. Maybe if/when we can manage months long induced comas without muscle atrophy & bone loss then stacking bodies like cordwood might become a thing but that’s not the only hurdle.

 

Huh, Col McClain gets a second flight as commander..
https://talkoftitusville.com/2024/08/01/nasa-announces-crew-10-astronauts/