/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6446754
That doesn't mean they started from a clean-sheet design beginning with the question, "How do we fit this thing on trucks?"

They decided to make a long, thin, cylindrical rocket (just like almost everybody else who has made an orbital launch vehicle) for a lot of other reasons, and then when they were deciding on the exact length and diameter, they took cost and convenience of shipping into account.

When they saw that the range of sizes that would fit on a truck overlapped with the range of sizes that would be good for other reasons, they made their choice from within the overlap.

Please stop being absurd.

Space Pencil goes to space again today. Hopefully.

Watch it with me (launch scheduled for about 5 PM EST, live webcast starts about half an hour before that):
http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

This will be their second launch of a commercial satellite to geostationary orbit, barely a month after their first, and their third launch of Falcon 9 1.1.

It may sound like a routine commercial launch, but this going smoothly will be important for SpaceX to proceed with their work toward a manned vehicle, the most powerful heavy-lift rocket since the Saturn V moon rocket (planned to debut later this year), and most importantly, the flyback reusable version of this same rocket (which will hopefully be tested next month, and with which they hope to be able to offer launches at less than one tenth of current market prices).

Space pencil is going to space!

For reals this time!

Glorious Space Pencil flies again! (maybe)

T -8 minutes
http://www.spacex.com/webcast/
Falcon 9 1.1 second launch, first GEO launch. Second try at this launch.

>>6175576
Space pencil frowns on your shenanigans.

If you post "Thank you, space pencil!" in this thread, much spaceflight will come into your life.

>What are some of the current obstacles to space exploration, aside from the obvious funding problems?
The absolute biggest obstacle is our ineptitude at reaching orbit.

While it only takes an amount of energy roughly equal to a gallon of gas to put a pound of payload in orbit, it costs thousands of dollars and the launch generally has to be ordered years in advance. These launches often fail, too.

What we need are orbital launch craft which are both reasonably priced and efficiently reusable, such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and XCOR are trying to build.

The orbital rocket the Grasshopper 2 is based on, the Falcon 9 1.1, went to orbit for the first time two weeks ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU7Li5rX_OQ

It's designed to function as a reusable vehicle, but is cheap enough to fly as an expendable (as the most cost-effective expendable on the market, in fact) while they work out the bugs.

Actually, in terms of propellant cost, rockets are pretty efficient. To make space travel affordable, you only need to make them simply and reliably reusable, which is what SpaceX is doing with their Falcon 9 and follow-up methane rocket.

Energy cost of putting a pound in orbit is about two gallons of gas. Use cheap methane and oxygen for fuel, reuse the rocket, and you can put stuff in orbit for a few dollars per pound.

>>6066076
You know it's not going to be a jet this time.

It's going to be a SpaceX rocket. They even named this one the Falcon 9 1.1.

Thank you based Space Pencil!