SPACEX POST-STREAM PARTY THREAD DISCUSS BFR DISCUSS ARTISTS DISCUSS AEIOU

File: 391 KB, 1536x2048, 1537238725755.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 22:48:00 2018 No.10011425 [Reply] [Original]

SPACEX POST-STREAM PARTY THREAD

DISCUSS BFR
DISCUSS ARTISTS
DISCUSS AEIOU

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 22:50:54 2018 No.10011427 File: 1.88 MB, 269x201, 1515388013129.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011425 We're memeing Shadman to the Moon.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 22:51:51 2018 No.10011429

reminder NASA should be scrapped soon and funding be given to private organizations.

They can't give clear guidelines for anything and are pure bureaucracy now.

>We will let private companies launch our astronauts into space
>We will give them undefined and unclear safety guidelines
>When they complete the safety design and give to us, we will simply tell them "We aren't sure if it's safe enough" with on metric or criteria

NASA needs to be disbanded, head bureaucrats executed for treason, and people who want to get to fucking space put in charge.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 22:52:14 2018 No.10011431
File: 2.50 MB, 2410x1292, trajectory.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

SUMMARY:

>118m overall length (+12m)
>1100m3 pressurized volume
>380ISP raptors now
>88m3 aft cargo
>orbital testing in 2-3 years
>Vacuum raptor comes later; each one can be swapped in and replace two of the cargo racks
>5 billion dollar cost
>Yusaku Maezawa is the paying customer
>3rd “wing” is not for aerodynamics; mostly symmetry and aesthetics
>Common atmosphere engines between BFB and BFS
>Additional people onboard for the flight include 6-8 painters, musicians, film directors, fashion designers, etc
>These artists are picked by Yusaku ("MZ")
>MZ is footing a large portion of the development cost
>5 day journey, slated for 2023. Will get quite close to the moon
>MOON BASE ALPHA EVENTUALLY

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 22:53:57 2018 No.10011433 File: 307 KB, 1574x840, img1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] project site: https://dearmoon.earth

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 22:54:59 2018 No.10011435 File: 289 KB, 982x620, img2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 22:57:48 2018 No.10011441 >>10011425 >DISCUSS AEIOU mama mia papa pia epic diarrrrRRRRHEAA

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 22:57:53 2018 No.10011442 further developments: BFR is now called the Big Rocket Fucking Elon's new name is Eiron Mask LA Times is literally retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 22:58:26 2018 No.10011448 >>10011425 MECHA SHIVA MECHA SHIVA!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 22:59:05 2018 No.10011450 I claim the translator qt as my waifu.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 22:59:56 2018 No.10011451 >>10011431 You forgot 100t to orbit, a 1/3 reduction and less than the Saturn V

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 22:59:58 2018 No.10011452 File: 1.61 MB, 1428x805, 1537234777416.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] also: FLIGHT HARDWARE

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:00:08 2018 No.10011454

>>10011426
The larger issue with NASA is that their missions consistently change with every major election. Especially Presidential ones. NASA is used as political points whether or not that's funding or defunding it. They can't commit fully like Apollo if Congress keeps changing their mind.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:00:46 2018 No.10011455 timestamp of moonbase alpha comment?

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:01:34 2018 No.10011458
File: 2.25 MB, 2146x944, artists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

who would you pick as the artists?

>>10011451
it's all about the price per kg to orbit.

>>10011455
pretty sure he was referring to Moonbase 1999 the TV show, but he has said in the past at IAC 2017 that the first moonbase will be called Moonbase Alpha

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:02:28 2018 No.10011459 >>10011458 >pretty sure he was referring to Moonbase 1999 the TV show Ah damn. Was hoping he was unironically referring to the hilarious moonbase alpha videos. Still funny regardless

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:03:15 2018 No.10011460 File: 720 KB, 935x813, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >"lol those old sci-fi movie rockets were so unrealis-"

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:03:33 2018 No.10011462 >>10011454 Private really has to do it. Government programs can't do big projects in USA anymore. Will never have the attitude of the Manhattan / moon program again. Better to just focus on subsidizing private.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:03:51 2018 No.10011464 >>10011425 >this dude is taking a bunch of art people with him Who would /sci/ take on a Lunar flyby with them?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:05:08 2018 No.10011466 >>10011451 Saturn V's payload included its own third stage. And it had no re-usability. The BFR doesn't even use vacuum nozzles so it has room for more power.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:05:20 2018 No.10011467 >>10011464 two hookers and a masseuse

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:05:53 2018 No.10011468 The thrust rating and ISP obliterate the RS-25 (Space Shuttle Main Engine) for specific impulse by 14s, and they're doing it with a hydrocarbon engine to boot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:06:00 2018 No.10011469 File: 196 KB, 900x600, HTB1Dx6JJFXXXXbaXXXXq6xXFXXXp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011464 John madden John madden John madden

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:06:08 2018 No.10011470

This is one of those things that really hypes you for like 6 years from now when this shit happens. I hope space gets a massive inflow of venture funds. Just stop with the latest fucking share-scooter venture funding and put it into some interesting space ideas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:06:26 2018 No.10011471 >>10011469 don't forget solid snake

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:06:33 2018 No.10011472 File: 77 KB, 980x694, more jpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011452 Is this new though? It just looks like the thing that was revealed several months ago.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:07:31 2018 No.10011475 >>10011467 this

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:07:34 2018 No.10011476 File: 600 KB, 776x706, other hardware .png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011472 they showed off a couple other pieces

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:08:57 2018 No.10011479

>>10011472
Attracting investment, funding, etc is a pr game. Regardless of how objectively important space travel and industry will be. You need to build hype to get the dosh.

People stupidly get mad at elon for this. It's necessary to get hype. Otherwise retards will go "electric cars are just lame scooters" or "why spend money on space when dashwan needs a new TV"

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:09:05 2018 No.10011480 >>10011425 >this dude is taking a bunch of art people with him Who would /sci/ take on a Lunar flyby with them? >>10011467 >>10011469 reposting

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:09:06 2018 No.10011481 File: 180 KB, 1364x2048, DnV9_waX0AE1faV.jpg-large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] NEW HARDWARE PHOTO

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:09:51 2018 No.10011482 >>10011429 Nasa should focus on scientific missions, the type of things no private company would ever be able to afford. One BFR launches theyll probably scrap SLS.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:10:17 2018 No.10011483 >>10011472 The picture you included isn't the tank, it's the machine that's used to build the tank. They showed a picture of a half built tank.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:10:38 2018 No.10011484 This too https://twitter.com/yousuck2020/status/1041877430942674944?s=19

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:11:23 2018 No.10011486 >>10011431 >1100m3 pressurized volume BFR officially has a larger pressurized volume than the ISS. Docking will be hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:12:31 2018 No.10011490 >>10011479 >>10011479 I agree with everything you said completely anon

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:13:09 2018 No.10011493 >>10011486 Look at me, I'm the space station now

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:13:26 2018 No.10011494 >>10011480 Eight of the world's best hookers. I'm not turning down the opportunity to get a ten day trip with a hooker for free, especially if it's in zero-g.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:13:34 2018 No.10011495 >>10011486 The interior will probably be stylish too. It's going to be amazing to watch the 2023-2024 moon commercial orbit. Hopefully we all get to see it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:14:07 2018 No.10011497 5 billion dollars is.... 20% of the cost of the SLS program. jej

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:14:35 2018 No.10011499 File: 44 KB, 593x601, 1512893402066.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Realistically, do i stand a chance at getting on that ship? Is it possible for an anon to become art-famous enough to be selected by this mook in 4 years or less?

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:15:46 2018 No.10011501

>>10011493
Why bother with time-sensitive sample returns when you can just land the entire laboratory?
BFRs will be incredibly useful as leased temporary LEO platforms, set to perform experiments over months or years then quickly return all of the goodies to the ground. They're Skylabs, but reusable and way bigger.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:16:01 2018 No.10011502

>>10011490
Yep, if spacex was just a buttoned down "we will just deliver" operation they wouldn't have half the investment and capital to work with. Google would never invest 10%, etc.

They have to give people their vision of the future and it has to be optimistic. The public demands it. Elon is just supplying it for that demand.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:16:10 2018 No.10011503 >>10011497 Seriously Unless there's some really specific system that ought to be developed, I think it's better just to have the private sector do that stuff. Just request a slightly overengineered version for nasa's purposes or something

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:16:11 2018 No.10011504 >>10011499 well of the art types listed in >>10011458 's photo, which one do you think is the easiest to learn in two years? just pick it and spend 14 hours a day practicing. remember, it takes 10,000 hours to get good at something

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:17:39 2018 No.10011505 >>10011499 Elon will need test dummies

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:17:40 2018 No.10011506

>>10011499
>>10011499
no

None of us will be on that amazing exciting first voyage with the entire world watching. Sitting in the pre-launch lobby sipping fine champagne with elon and the based jap bro.

Risking a brush with death, with the world watching, for the most exciting vacation of our lives. None of us are going to be on that trip.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:19:09 2018 No.10011510 >>10011506 not with that attitude

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:19:46 2018 No.10011511 >>10011499 Do you have like a billion dollars? This is the price for being an early user/adopter of never-before-done shit of this sort

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:20:10 2018 No.10011512 >>10011499 >Realistically, do i stand a chance if you need to ask then no. And considering you are on /sci/ you have no chance of becoming """"art""""-famous anyway

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:20:49 2018 No.10011513
File: 82 KB, 780x569, weed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

OK, really.

A bunch of "artists" and possibly Elon stuck inside a tin can for a week.

Will they endure a rehab before the trip or will they select only non smokers, drinkers and drug users?

Maybe they take some pills to endure the withdrawal?

My bet is that there's gonna be vaping and alcohol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:21:09 2018 No.10011514 The point of sending artists is to make the scoffers believe that space is worthwhile. The rest of us are already convinced.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:22:57 2018 No.10011516

>>10011511
imagine all the billionaires alive today wasting their money on garbage shit like yachts or mansions. This jap dude and elon musk will be in the history books far above all that trash.

The dearmoon project is straight movie material. No one is gonna read about some billionaire who was a good business person in 50 years from now. All of them will be forgotten, with regrets, while based japanese guy has a twitter handle "yousuck2020" and is going to be the first commercial flight around the moon. meanwhile all the billionaire cucks gonna spend more on estate tax

poor buffet will be in the history books for living a boring meaningless life of money collecting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:23:39 2018 No.10011517 File: 465 KB, 1184x822, Screen Shot 2018-09-17 at 9.19.27 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] a couple screens from the stream

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:24:05 2018 No.10011518 This is who I'd personally want to see on this flight: https://dicture.com/

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:24:59 2018 No.10011520 File: 773 KB, 2560x1600, Screen Shot 2018-09-17 at 9.18.51 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011516 at least Larry page says that when he dies all of his money is going to Elon

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:25:24 2018 No.10011522 >>10011514 This. It's a public perception thing, if you get some of the celebrities that normalfags hinge their life around talking about this stuff you'll suddenly have much more interest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:25:58 2018 No.10011523 >>10011520 >SpaceX sniper team deployed

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:26:56 2018 No.10011525 >>10011523 >tests another Falcon by landing it on Larry Page

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:29:23 2018 No.10011531 >>10011523 >ULA sniper team deployed

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:31:14 2018 No.10011535 who the fuck are 6-8 living artists that are of sound enough body to go to the fucking moon?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:31:57 2018 No.10011539 >>10011535 Who do you classify as an 'artist'?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:32:06 2018 No.10011540 >six to eight other genius artists/influencers ZAREGOTO!!! We'll have a mystery murder in space!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:32:09 2018 No.10011541 >>10011535 whoever wins the 4chan vtuber contest should get a seat

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:33:12 2018 No.10011544 >>10011535 You realize the ones who get picked aren't just going to throw on their sunday best and fly to the moon right? THey're going to have to go through some training regimen

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:34:37 2018 No.10011546 >>10011520 larry page said it was a good idea, not that he would do it. Lately page has been mia and just partying at a mansion. He probably went full bluepill pleasure life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:34:50 2018 No.10011547 >>10011539 critical acclaim, someone who's made an actual career out of it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:35:36 2018 No.10011549 File: 61 KB, 1080x607, 40937058_481527782348799_4158749044641046594_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ful res from spacex insta

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:39:36 2018 No.10011558 >>10011549 >literally the Planet Express ship I love it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:40:51 2018 No.10011560 >>10011558 I can't stop seeing it as that either.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:40:59 2018 No.10011561 >>10011458 >/tv, /ic/, /fit/, /lit/, /mu/, /fa/, /3/, /p/, /po/ and /biz/ all get to go on elon's rocket, but /sci/ doesn't kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:43:38 2018 No.10011563 >people can't claim discrimination since it's a Japanese person picking the applicants GENIOUS

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:43:46 2018 No.10011564 >>10011549 >dat first stage grid fins where?? >>10011558 they should name the moon ship the Planet Express, the mars ship can be called the Heart of Gold

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:44:54 2018 No.10011565 >>10011564 they forgot to add them to the render, according to Elon on twitter.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:44:59 2018 No.10011566 >>10011561 /sci/ has already been to space, friendo

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:46:09 2018 No.10011568 >>10011549 can't wait to see the live streamed footage of interior.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:48:12 2018 No.10011569 >>10011458 >film director >painter >dancer >fashion designer >sculptor >architect how would you even do these things in zero-g?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:49:50 2018 No.10011573 >>10011549 Fuller res will probably make its way to Flickr within a couple days

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:51:05 2018 No.10011574 >>10011569 It will be really good PR for space travel. A bunch of non billionaire types who talk about feelings. This is a much better first customer than someone like thiel or bezos.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:51:50 2018 No.10011575 >turn on the live stream >a bunch of artists and rich guys are smoking a bowl in zero g while swinging by the moon times sure have changed

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:53:28 2018 No.10011577 File: 589 KB, 2046x1374, make your own oc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] what is he pointing at, /sci/?

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:55:25 2018 No.10011583

>>10011454
I think this is partially by design. Its only real purpose for the government was developing a ICBM system and getting military satellites into space, starting colonies elsewhere would ultimately upset the economy, and the perceptions that keep them and their cronies in power.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:56:23 2018 No.10011584

>>10011569
>these nerds who think they're going to do that stuff

no dude. its going to be a 4 day glamping sleepover in space where everyone is going to get stoned, have sex, and stare out into the vastness of space to get inspired. there will be some impromptu acapella singing, maybe some crying, but everyone will forge some friendships and come home to create a brilliant work of art.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 23:58:39 2018 No.10011590 File: 504 KB, 952x760, these dubs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011577 these dubs

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:01:27 2018 No.10011596 >> Miyazaki going to the moon and back. >> Comes out of retirement to make one last movie about space travel around the moon. A man can dream.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:01:41 2018 No.10011598 File: 1.42 MB, 2046x1374, 1537242808007.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011577

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:08:25 2018 No.10011619 >>10011513 There's probably going to be booze onboard, yeah

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:10:55 2018 No.10011629 >>10011619 there is going to be a smorgasboard of drugs on that flight. are they going to pimp the cabin out all comfy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:11:20 2018 No.10011631 File: 811 KB, 2046x1374, wew.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:13:20 2018 No.10011639 File: 204 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011629 Definitely completely pimped out in top end minimalist design

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:15:05 2018 No.10011641 >>10011482 I would prefer all of their funding be spent on a satellite radar system for oth detection as retards have closed all the relevant backscatters

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:19:11 2018 No.10011649 >>10011639 thats got to go. needs more boho-chic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:20:21 2018 No.10011654 >>10011482 >> scrap the SLS Oh god I hope so. Also fuck the lunar gateway to nowhere. NASA still does good work though. NASA's working on in space construction tech to make space stations that are absolute units.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:21:13 2018 No.10011658 >>10011584 Hopefully a cello and a violin are packed, and two people are capable enough to perform the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsU0nb927NA >A more complete performance of that segment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRZAEWqxbPc

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:26:06 2018 No.10011673 File: 822 KB, 499x320, giphy (1).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011629 >take cocaine into space >get pulled over by trump space force >driver shot dead on scene >20 parsecs in space prison

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:27:37 2018 No.10011676 File: 249 KB, 2048x981, SpaceX-00602-Pano.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011649 >thats got to go. needs more boho-chic. They're way ahead of you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:28:45 2018 No.10011681 >>10011676 wait, so whats the total cabin volume?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:29:03 2018 No.10011683 File: 986 KB, 1280x720, tumblr_nnov78feK01rst6e1o1_1280.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011673 >>20 parsecs in space prison >parsecs in prison >parsec as a unit of time

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:29:44 2018 No.10011688 File: 551 KB, 1600x735, 014a088504122cd082167583e8787b82.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011649 Elon's already said that it'll have a 2001 discovery-esque running track. So expect these aesthetics

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:30:48 2018 No.10011692 >>10011681 Cranked up to 10, zepplin mostly

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:32:06 2018 No.10011698 >>10011681 skylab was 360m3. BFR is ~1100. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmnmuTv4pGE

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:33:03 2018 No.10011701 >>10011676 >>10011681 >not magic carpet ride https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYE3nm9voUk I know it's not an FTL ship but c'mon man

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:34:49 2018 No.10011707 >>10011681 >wait, so whats the total cabin volume? That's a Dragon 2 capsule, so probably just a couple dozen cubic meters. It's presumably representative of SpaceX's design aesthetic for BFS' interior as well.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:34:57 2018 No.10011708 File: 233 KB, 3200x1800, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011683 Sup reddit

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:36:30 2018 No.10011712 >>10011707 >It's presumably representative of SpaceX's design aesthetic for BFS' interior as well i hope not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:40:55 2018 No.10011716 >>10011513 i can tell that you're a fucking kid for thinking that way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:51:08 2018 No.10011738 >Japs bankrolling space age Fuck this is the best timeline desu

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:52:33 2018 No.10011742 >>10011688 K I N O I N O

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:55:59 2018 No.10011757 >>10011431 380 isp that is pretty high for a chemical rocket? what is the delta-v of a fully fueled bfr in orbit?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:57:34 2018 No.10011761 >>10011757 No idea, it’s probably subject to rapid change anyways. There’s a reason that the number given today was just “100t+” and not a specific value

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 00:59:40 2018 No.10011767 >>10011757 >380 isp Only for the future vacuum nozzle version, in space. ~335 at sea level.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:01:23 2018 No.10011772 File: 2.86 MB, 1024x450, BFR 2018 EDL.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:04:49 2018 No.10011776

>>10011516
No kidding, this yosuka guy is a fucking marketing genius

>plugs his clothing/fashion label
>goes up into fucking space with a bunch of other famous people
>he is now the hot button glitterati everyone wants to know
>regular billionaires now upset they get no fame and want #metoo their way into space
>nobody will give a shit
>elon makes bank
>BFR moon tourism trips become a regular occurance in 10 years that anyone can take like it's a cruise liner trip

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:06:55 2018 No.10011780 >>10011772 That landings going to be ass puckerer

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:10:24 2018 No.10011787 >>10011780 I like how the control surfaces flails about like somebody trying to stay balanced on a tightrope

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:12:40 2018 No.10011793 Bezos on suicide watch.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:14:38 2018 No.10011797 >>10011793 Have they even launched ANYTHING into orbit yet?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:15:00 2018 No.10011800 >>10011772 question the integrity of that simulation

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:15:37 2018 No.10011801 >>10011780 It looks like it will have extremely tight margins, One small miscalculation would result in the thing pancaking into the ground. They've gotta really believe In the reliability of vertical landing to go all in on something like this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:15:58 2018 No.10011802 >>10011800 You can tell it's real by how fake it looks

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:16:36 2018 No.10011805 >>10011797 Musk’s great tragedy will be to do all the work and die penniless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:16:40 2018 No.10011806 >>10011797 nope >>10011800 why? it's probably a modified simulation instance from a F9 landing analysis >>10011801 the 30 suicide burn landings under their belt would like a word with you. But yes, it'll be pucker-inducing either way

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:18:03 2018 No.10011807 File: 218 KB, 481x491, btbev0rxkxm11.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] old vs new

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:19:27 2018 No.10011812

>>10011654
Imagine the BFS on the moon with a base capable of producing propellant. It would be able to put enough material into orbit to build stations that would make the ISS look puny. Im talking full on rotating stations for artificial gravity. I wonder how long it will take to build up that kind of manufacturing capability on the moon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:19:46 2018 No.10011813 >>10011806 I'm aware that they are regularly landing their F9's but that doesnt mean it's not still super dangerous to put peiple onboard one of those things.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:22:17 2018 No.10011817 File: 172 KB, 1279x1440, ehh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:23:55 2018 No.10011819 >>10011812 <10 years

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:25:14 2018 No.10011822 >>10011793 Seriously though why do people compare blue origin to spacex. Theyve done fuck all so far

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:26:12 2018 No.10011824 >>10011516 Bezos is spending now a billion a year on BO and that is rising and he also pushes money into fusion resarch

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:26:53 2018 No.10011826

>>10011822
>Seriously though why do people compare blue origin to spacex. Theyve done fuck all so far

They're both private rocket companies that are looking to revolutionize spaceflight with commercial launch services. They have a lot in common, but Blue Origin is moving at a glacial pace.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:27:04 2018 No.10011827

>>10011822
they have a /hype/ roadmap (industrial base in space etc), and a geeky CEO who has literally 150 billion dollars at his disposal. he could bankroll the entire BFR program ten times over and still have assloads left over.
It's only a matter of when for when BO does some cool shit

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:34:35 2018 No.10011839

>>10011822

Blue Origin has the cash to make mistakes and get it right. Other companies had millionaires who went bankrupt building rockets. Bezos is one of the richest men in history so there is a good chance he'll eventually be successful. I still think SpaceX is more nimble and has made better technical decisions though.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:36:41 2018 No.10011842

>>10011822
What >>10011827 and >>10011826 said, they are the only other player that's committed to reuse other than SpaceX, and have the funding to realize it. In fact, if it weren't for Bezo's previous disgusting attempts at patent trolling, I'd be cheering for them as well as SpaceX.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:40:04 2018 No.10011847 So the way he said it made it sound like that engine they showed was a full scale raptor, is that true and they have finished the full scale version?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:42:56 2018 No.10011855 >>10011847 I wasn't paying close attention, but it looked like recycled footage from the previous IAC talks

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:42:57 2018 No.10011856 >everyone so hyped about spacex today that nobody noticed the big space force announcement >everyone missed that shotwell said spacex would launch weapons against american adversaries in a fight space warfare best warfare

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:48:29 2018 No.10011862 I'm really glad it's some chill jap guy taking his artist bros and not some obnoxious fat fuck American.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:52:42 2018 No.10011869 File: 420 KB, 482x495, its-afraid-fraser-7246502.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011856 >everyone missed that shotwell said spacex would launch weapons against american adversaries in a fight This is a fear response.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:54:28 2018 No.10011873 >>10011856 link?

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:55:23 2018 No.10011876

>>10011842
For all the hate he gets, we're lucky spacex has a ceo like musk. They could have just stopped with the falcon 9 to hold a monopoly on the launch market. If spacex doesnt have any competition in the future and they lose musk this could still happen. They would probably forget about all this Mars shit and just launch satellites. Thats why it pisses me off when I think about the fact that blue origin has been around longer than spacex yet have gotten very little done. I mean Bezos is the richest man in the world so why are they moving so slow. And dont tell me theyre developing everything in secret cause orbital rockets need to be tested and you cant hide that. If i see another new shepard launch im gonna lose my shit.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 01:59:56 2018 No.10011882

>>10011429
problem is what is the cost benefit of even going to ISS. Dont get me wrong i want us to be a space faring species. But ISS right now is just a money swamp for academic projects.

What we need are large scale platforms capable of housing 100 to 500 astronauts at a single time. And trying to get lunar base at a 100,000 population minimum before the end of this century

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:00:55 2018 No.10011884 >>10011596 This

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:01:35 2018 No.10011886 >>10011873 https://spacenews.com/air-force-secretary-lays-roadmap-to-a-new-space-force/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-president-gwynne-shotwell-we-would-launch-a-weapon-to-defend-the-u-s/

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:04:42 2018 No.10011891 >>10011876 >all the hate he gets He gets hate but he doesn't get as much as people like thundercuck would make you believe. HIs comments section is just echo chambers anyway

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:05:43 2018 No.10011893 >>10011882 What we need is an orbital ring

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:09:21 2018 No.10011899 >>10011807 my only worry is what if the wing tip breaks for whatever reason considering its a tripod

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:11:55 2018 No.10011905

>>10011812
10 years at least, before you even start building a single thing. Thing about the heavest thing that BFR can left and then realize thats nothing compared to a industrial scale smelting and refining factory. not to mention how would you power said factory to melt the metals to shape them into useful shapes.

There is going to be a whole new breed of civil engineers in the future. exo-civil engineers

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:13:02 2018 No.10011907

>>10011886
>“It does concern me that China is flying 40 times this year. And it’s not for commercial customers. They have very few commercial customers. So what in the world are they doing?” she added. “The fact that I’m not beating them is a shame. The fact that they’re launching 40 times is something we should all be worried about.”

Should we worry /sci/?

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:13:59 2018 No.10011909

>>10011886
>>“I hope to be doing hot tests next year with the second stage, the spaceship , and make an orbital flight in 2020,” she said. “We would like to put large cargo on the surface of the moon by 2022. And we have our eyes on the prize to send people to Mars in 2024.”

>> Large cargo to the moon in 2022.
>> This mission launches in 2023

100 ton robots on the moon confirmed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:14:03 2018 No.10011910 >>10011876 yes it scary that musk is only one doing it. I suprised their hasnt even been a consortium of billionaires coming together to compete with him. Imagine having only one shipmaker for cargo ships that happens to slightly eccentric

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:16:37 2018 No.10011914 >>10011907 No. It's just fear mongering

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:20:10 2018 No.10011919

>>10011772
At this point it reminds me a lot of the profile of the European IXV. The latter arguably has better aerodynamics for pure reentry, but SX has their surfaces do double duty (canard is used as VTVL landing fins, back stabilizers are used as legs).

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:23:32 2018 No.10011923 Is there still gonna be an unmanned mars mission in 2022 using BFR?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:24:51 2018 No.10011924 >>10011907 funding propaganda, but China launching more only benefits USA space program too

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:25:00 2018 No.10011925 >>10011923 no, why would they use BFR for that ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:26:17 2018 No.10011928 >>10011925 Because that's one of BFR's mission profiles perhaps?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:26:47 2018 No.10011929 >>10011928 Isn't BFR replacing everything in SpaceX including f9?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:27:24 2018 No.10011931 >>10011929 yes

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:27:43 2018 No.10011932

>>10011907
Alot of the Chinese launches are military/security missions where they don't give out much information. Some of it is missile defense related, some of it is putting military satellites in space, some is anti-satellite testing. China has a ways to go to catch up to US space power, so it will take them alot of launches.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:29:19 2018 No.10011937 >>10011929 No? Can some other anon chime in on this? I can't imagine they'd launch in the BFR what would be sufficient to launch in an F9

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:29:26 2018 No.10011938 >>10011856 >>10011886 We /m/ bois now

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:29:40 2018 No.10011939 >>10011907 It would be extremely naive to think they are not launching spy sats and weapons, the Chinese do not give a fuck about treaties and you bet they are already weaponising space.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:30:44 2018 No.10011941 >>10011937 7 million a flight vs 60 million. of course they would - but that's quite some time from now. Elon says in the in-between period they'll just build up a fleet of F9 stages to hold them over, and then shift their manufacturing over to BFR

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:32:07 2018 No.10011944

>>10011939
I think it's pretty obvious with the space force creation it's in response to such weaponization from china/russia.

Rusis and China are focusing entirely on ww3 type capabilities, aka supersonic weapons, space weapons, and other tech that is only useful against other modern countries in all out war situations.

USA focuses far too much on backwater capabilities like fighting medieval era terrorists in shit holes in stupid wars.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:33:29 2018 No.10011947 >>10011425 For some reason I can't stop thinking about the possible awkwardness of based Jap getting a hardon while getting a piggyback ride from Elon. I know I would.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:33:46 2018 No.10011949 So a BFR to the moon is going to cost pretty much the same as a Mars trip right? The delta v requirements are fairly similar so a whole bunch of refuels are still needed. Also translator chan a cute!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:34:07 2018 No.10011950 >>10011941 It looks like it says on wikipedia page that it is intended to replace F9 I stand corrected Wouldn't they need to deploy multiple satellites per launch then?

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:34:17 2018 No.10011951

>>10011937
>I can't imagine they'd launch in the BFR what would be sufficient to launch in an F9
Life's full of surprises. The entire reason to use BFR in place of Falcon 9 is that the ship part is reusable too. Falcon 9 doesn't have enough oomph to fly a reusable second stage. BFR does. It'll probably be tricky figuring out how to do low refurbishment reuse with the ship, but once they do, they'll have succeeded at everything that NASA wanted the Space Shuttle to be.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:34:47 2018 No.10011953 >>10011937 BFR is ridiculously superior to f9 if it works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:36:15 2018 No.10011956 >>10011953 When I wrote that, I meant that using BFR for everything would be like using a semi truck to transport a single sofa and nothing else See >>10011950

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:36:57 2018 No.10011959

>>10011950
>Wouldn't they need to deploy multiple satellites per launch then?
That would make the launch cost lower, but it wouldn't be necessary. If each ship can fly 100 times and costs $5 million to fly, $7 million per launch would give them $200 million in revenue. Since that's less than each ship is projected to cost, either the per launch costs will be significantly less or the launch cost will be significantly more. Even at $20 million per launch, it's cheaper than literally anything else that you can order, no matter how small a payload you're flying.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:37:39 2018 No.10011962 >>10011956 If it's cheaper then who cares? You can fill the semi with your own shit too so they can save money.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:38:54 2018 No.10011965 >>10011959 I see. Cool Good thing it uses methane too. Kerosene is going to get more expensive / rare as time goes on. Hopefully we get away from oil based fuels as time goes on

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:39:21 2018 No.10011967 File: 95 KB, 770x433, elon-musk-mars-colony.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Man it's fucking criminal that we fell so far behind on space advancement. This is literal catch up to where we could have been decades ago

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:42:42 2018 No.10011972 >>10011967 blame the political 4 year and 6 year cycles.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:43:09 2018 No.10011973

>>10011967
>tfw one day looking up from the martian landscape and watch a BFR coming down for a landing, remembering today is the day your wife and kids are making the trip
>bolt for the spaceport excitedly, eager to show them mars
Why don't we have this yet bros ;-;

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:43:14 2018 No.10011974 >>10011967 Yep, absolutely fuck all these government contractors and politicians. I could have been shitposting from Europa now.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:43:26 2018 No.10011975

>>10011967
>Man it's fucking criminal that we fell so far behind on space advancement. This is literal catch up to where we could have been decades ago

We kinda couldn't. SpaceX's mars ambitions are only being enabled by a mixture of slow boil R&D that wouldn't have been accelerated by trying to create a flight engine sooner, and the state of the art for carbon fiber production has been advanced a great deal over the past decade by the commercialization of carbon fiber. Aerospace approaches are to make it work first, and to make it cheap second. By waiting for things to get cheap, SpaceX's aims of low cost actually became possible.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:46:16 2018 No.10011977

>>10011975
It’s not just that the technology is here, it’s also that SpaceX actually cares about cost. See: buying residential cooling units for the integration facility rather than “aerospace grade” ones. Or making a part in-house after being quoted an exorbitant amount.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:49:15 2018 No.10011979

>>10011977
>Cost drove lots of decisions, even how the company built its rockets. Once Musk got wind that the air conditioning system used to keep the satellite cool in the rocket’s fairing, or nose cone, was going to cost more than $3 million, he confronted the designer about it.

>“What’s the volume in the fairing?” he wanted to know. The answer: less than that of a house.

>He turned to Shotwell and asked her how much a new air-conditioning system for a house cost.

>“We just changed our air-conditioning,” she replied. “It was six thousand bucks.”

>“Why is this $3 or $4 million when your air conditioning system is $6,000?” he asked. “Go back and figure this out.”

>The company did, buying six commercial A/C units with bigger pumps that could handle a larger airflow.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-a-spacecraft-in-trouble-and-the-white-house-watching-spacex-had-to-deliver/2018/03/15/553d89cc-2701-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b1cc70174b83

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:54:14 2018 No.10011982 >>10011972 explain other countries then

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:54:17 2018 No.10011983

hmmm

>artists have to be in good shape
>sound mental state
>not too young or too old
>reasonable intellect and logical reasoning
>no hindering physical traits
>available for a year+ of robust training regimes
>willing to be on a new rocket which might explode

That narrows it down a lot... most of the weird and eccentric modern artists are excluded, along with fat old artists etc.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:54:49 2018 No.10011984

>>10011910
The monopoly spacex is going to have is going to be enormous if there's no other competition that steps up.

ULA and NASA are garbage, blue origin isn't accomplishing anything at all despite the money to do what SpaceX has done 10x over, and all the other small time competition can't get contracts to compete anymore.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:55:35 2018 No.10011987 So they already drastically reduced the payload capacity. I bet on it not being much more than the New Glenn if it is ever going to be finished.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:56:27 2018 No.10011988 >>10011982 Corrrupton and a lack of guidance. About a third of all funding for the new Russian spaceport was misused or stolen. China is doing pretty well though. cz-9 will be pretty useful

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:57:34 2018 No.10011991 >>10011967 if you probably plot out on chart in the next 100 to 200 years that 30 year gap in space tech/exploration probably wont even be a blip. We will probably start seeing exponential growth soon

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:57:40 2018 No.10011992

>>10011950
They're planning on launching like 100 satellites per launch with the BFR. They're getting the BFR done quick so they can get starlink up and running without spending an asston on falcon 9 launches.

There's already two starlink sats in orbit and apparently everything indicates it works perfectly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:57:42 2018 No.10011993 File: 311 KB, 685x685, 1484767540327.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011983 I know a guy...

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 02:59:51 2018 No.10011996 Soibois remain the most annoying fan Club in the world. Hang yourselves.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:00:41 2018 No.10011998 >>10011992 That's great I hope it triggers an explosion of spacefaring technologies like >>10011991 said I hope we at least get to hear whispers of the desire of an orbital ring in our lifetimes

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:01:53 2018 No.10011999 >>10011937 Musk probably thinks having one production line instead of 2 would be cheaper. It's why his initial plan was to strap 3 falcon 9s together, but it required too much extra hardware essentially making it a different booster anyway.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:02:21 2018 No.10012001 >>10011998 I seriously doubt an orbital ring will work If only because people will want to blow it up

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:02:40 2018 No.10012002 man how would you be able to sleep! I couldn’t imagine spending a third or so of my time AROUND THE MOON being asleep. I’d try and stay up for the whole five days and die of sleep deprivation or something.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:04:57 2018 No.10012004

>>10012001
Orbital ring would make sending things into space much more efficient than using rockets
>people want to blow it up
By that logic, we ought to want nothing
It'll be fine though. And I'm sure that outcome would be accounted for in the design phase

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:09:58 2018 No.10012011

>>10012004
An orbital ring is so far down the technological road it's ridiculous, by the time we have the will and capability to build such an insanely massive and complex structure, it will have already been rendered useless by another technology like open cycle fusion rockets or skyhooks where you could make a million of them for a fraction of a % of the effort required for an orbital ring.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:11:20 2018 No.10012013 File: 125 KB, 993x768, B19A11E3-88E2-4596-9483-5CE09A2E6729.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:12:25 2018 No.10012014 >>10012011 Skyhooks and open cycle fusion rockets aren't space habitats the way an orbital ring is

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:15:26 2018 No.10012019 >>10011431 I like how Maezawa came up with his own nickname which he politely insists that people refer to him as.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:17:34 2018 No.10012023 So now its official, SLS > BFR. BFR downgraded to New Glenn-levels of payload.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:18:50 2018 No.10012024 >>10012019 You seem to have never worked with East Asians. They always do that. Westerners horribly mispronounce their names anyway, no matter how hard they try. So they just give themselves easy to pronounce nicknames.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:19:06 2018 No.10012025 >>10012023 1/10 levels of shitposting

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:19:33 2018 No.10012026 >>10011458 >Director Werner Herzog Can't think of any others.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:20:05 2018 No.10012027 >>10011460 I know right, that think has 4 fins instead of a realistic 3.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:21:55 2018 No.10012030 >>10011431 >symmetry This means balanced weight too, faggot

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:22:34 2018 No.10012031 >>10012014 i think he didnt misunderstood what an orbital ring was, to the guy reading this, >>10012011 think the space station in 2001 a space odessy

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:22:55 2018 No.10012032 >>10011460 The BFR does look completely very from this. And the third wing will also be considerably downgraded I assume. They wouldn't waste weight like that just to make it look cartoonish.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:24:43 2018 No.10012034

>>10012025
How is it shitposting if it is true? They wanted to the fly-by with the Falcon Heavy. BFR was supposed to land. Landing on the moon is also very, very easy due to no atmosphere and 0,15g. They are not landing it because they can't. New Glenn will also be able to perform fly-bys.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:27:17 2018 No.10012036 File: 107 KB, 1024x594, Orbital ring.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10012031 >2001 space station You don't know what an orbital ring is either I'm talking about this

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:31:12 2018 No.10012040 >>10012014 By the time the capabilities to build an orbital ring are in place there will already be more habitats than you could readily count.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:32:20 2018 No.10012041 >>10012034 >New Glenn >100t payload lmao

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:33:12 2018 No.10012042 >>10012034 Oh, you're actually retarded

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:35:47 2018 No.10012044 >>10012041 Be prepared for another round of downgrades. New Glenn will be at 45 tons, BFR will be at 60-70 tons. You read it here first.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:37:46 2018 No.10012045 >>10012044 Ok buddy

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:42:31 2018 No.10012047 >>10012040 Agreed - the orbital ring being the biggest of them

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 03:48:30 2018 No.10012050

>>10012041
You shouldn't only look at LEO payload. New Glenn will have three stages, with the upper two being powered by hydrogen engines. New Glenn will argueably not have much less payload capacity to lunar orbit, than the BFR does. New Glenn can only do lunar orbit, no landing in one go. So does the BFR. New Glenn could do a landing with two launches, one to put the return vehicle into lunar orbit, and one to put a the manned lander on the surface. I actually don't know if the BFR could do it in "only" two launches. It would need orbital refueling, and I don't know how many of those to return to earth, but all in all certainly at least two launches as well.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:06:16 2018 No.10012061 >>10011956 Yeah but in this case it's like a semi truck fuel tanker with a couch strapped to the roof of the cab.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:26:41 2018 No.10012081

>>10012050
So for less than half the payload they are tossing away 4 stages each time? That means for a 90t payload they are throwing away 8 stages and lack the large payload bay of BFR. Even with orbital refuelling the BFR is going to be far, far cheaper than expendable trash.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:36:16 2018 No.10012086 File: 125 KB, 1227x1037, 1527526310755.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011967 >Mars colonization lol

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:37:51 2018 No.10012088

>>10012081
You don't seem to have understood the post. One New Glenn launch will be able to do the same thing than one BFR launch can do. New Glenn will be able to do a moon landing with two launches. If BFR can do that, I don't know. It might need a 3rd launch. However, generally speaking, the New Glenn is in the same range of capability than the BFR.

Which one will end up cheaper is completely open-ended. BFR will need expensive heatshield-tile replacement, while BO doesn't reuse the upper stages at all. So which launch is going to end up cheaper remains to be seen. Obviously, how cheap the first stage reuse is going to be on each ship will also have a big effect on the overall launch cost.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:42:41 2018 No.10012094 >>10012088 >However, generally speaking, the New Glenn is in the same range of capability than the BFR No, it's fucking not.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:49:25 2018 No.10012103

>>10012088
>One New Glenn launch will be able to do the same thing than one BFR launch can do.
Well that's about three big fucking lies right there. New Glenn is a 45 ton to LEO with three stages and booster reuse only, so that's a lie about payload capability and vehicle capability right from the get go. The third lie is Beyond Earth Orbit performance - New Glenn has an estimated TLI capacity of 20 tons. Using two New Glenn launches throws a grand total of 40 tons at the moon, and expends two sets of upper stages to do it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:52:13 2018 No.10012109 >>10012103 Yep so to match a BFR payload (in 5 tiny babby fairings no less), they will be doing 5 launches and expending 10 stages.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:52:17 2018 No.10012110 >>10012094 It is. BFR can put 25-30 tons into lunar orbit in one go and New Glenn can put 20. BFR has a much better LEO-payload, but that is not that important.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:53:44 2018 No.10012113 >>10011979 By comparison ULA would have probably spent the 3 million and then quoted the government 6.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:53:49 2018 No.10012114 >>10011429 >NASA needs to be disbanded You're an imbicile

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:53:52 2018 No.10012115 >>10012103 How large do you think the TLI capacity of a non-refueled BFR is? Keep in mind 45 tons is more than enough to do a landing, which the BFR can't do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:56:37 2018 No.10012121 >>10012110 >LEO payload is not important Thanks for your opinion Jeff Bezos but it absolutely is, just not necessarily for this one specific mission profile.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:58:12 2018 No.10012123 >>10012115 Lol look at these lies.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 04:58:44 2018 No.10012124
File: 268 KB, 1080x1080, rakete[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10011460
>>10012032
Didn't he say that the finned design isn't necessarily better than the original BFR design but that he wanted them because the rocket in tintin had them?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:00:06 2018 No.10012126 >>10012115 >How large do you think the TLI capacity of a non-refueled BFR is? About 1000 cubic meters.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:00:54 2018 No.10012128 >>10012036 If thats what you meant by orbital ring then you are completly correct, thats pure science fiction. A space station shaped like a ring that generates gravity by spinning will be possible with the BFR if its all its cracked up to be.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:02:06 2018 No.10012132 >>10011549 Someone desperately needs to shoop this with planet express colours and logo.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:03:26 2018 No.10012136 >>10012050 I find this all highly unlikely. How is blue origin going to go from shitty sub orbital new shepard to this? By the time New Glenn flies theyll be outclassed by spacex.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:04:13 2018 No.10012138

>>10012123
They are no lies. A non-refueled BFR in its previous configuration had a TLI-capacity of 33 tons. With its downgraded capacity, saying it will be 25 is actually quite generous. It's probably lower than that.

As already stated, this new configuration puts it in the same range of the New Glenn, which will have at least 20 tons TLI capacity.

The Apollo CSM/LM weighted just a bit under 45 tons btw. So that is basically the benchmark at which point you could relatively easily land on the moon and return.

Also, the New Armstrong will be an 11 meter diameter rocket that will be capable to put 100tons on the moon surface.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:05:21 2018 No.10012139 >>10012088 its still expendable trash that will never be able to compete with reusable rockets

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:06:58 2018 No.10012141

>>10012115
45 tons to TLI is in fact enough to duplicate an Apollo style Moon landing. It also involves four one-time-use spacecraft - five if you count your Lunar Lander and Ascent Stage as separate vehicles. The real trick to BFR is being able to replicate these efforts with multi-use spacecraft at the cost of needing to throw up a few more vehicles with nothing but fuel as their cargo. If duplicating Apollo was the benchmark, SpaceX could throw a Falcon Heavy up with a lander and Lunar Insertion Burn stage and use a Falcon 9 to transport up a crew dragon capsule to duplicate the function of the Apollo Command Module. It would still be a stunt that doesn't achieve anything new, while duplicating last century's feats.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:09:46 2018 No.10012143 >>10012138 >Also, the New Armstrong will be an 11 meter diameter rocket that will be capable to put 100tons on the moon surface. Notice the lack of source

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:10:05 2018 No.10012144

>>10012088
>BO doesn't reuse the upper stages at all
This mere fact makes it completely unusable for any serious commercial work in the new space economy.
>On the one hand, ship A has expensive engine system
>On the other hand, ship B has a larger cargo hold but needs to be sunk at the destination.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:11:47 2018 No.10012145

>>10012139
First stage is reusable at the New Glenn. The BFS is also reusable, but who knows at what costs. Replacing heatshild-tiles isn't cheap.

Also, if New Glenn can reuse their first stage much cheaper than SpaceX reuses their first stage, they might actually end up still cheaper than SpaceX, even if heatshield-replacement turns out to be relatively cheap. So it remains to be seen who will be cheaper per launch.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:13:41 2018 No.10012147 >>10012144 It's more like >On the one hand, ship A has expensive engine system >On the other hand, 5 ship Bs have a smaller cargo hold and they all need to be sunk at the destination. >>10012145 No heatshield on BFB retard, it's all retropropulsion.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:15:36 2018 No.10012149

>>10012145
>First stage is reusable at the New Glenn. The BFS is also reusable, but who knows at what costs. Replacing heatshild-tiles isn't cheap.

SpaceX has always had PicaX as a fallback option for non-reusable, ablative thermal shielding if they can't make reusable TPS work.

If picax is used, the refurbishment cost argument goes out the window.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:21:51 2018 No.10012154

>>10012147
>No heatshield on BFB retard, it's all retropropulsion.

Lol. How much fuel do you think you need to brake down from orbital speeds (27.000km/h) through retropropulsion? Why are soibois always so insanely ignorant in the matter itself?

>>10012149
They never had to replace a heatshield, now did they? As I said, we will see how the cost factor will turn out to be. BO isn't going for upper stage-reuse for exactly that reason.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:24:50 2018 No.10012157

>>10012154
>They never had to replace a heatshield, now did they?
They have. SpaceX has flown Dragon capsules more than once to the International Space Station; they know what it takes to refurbish that thermal protection system.
>BO isn't going for upper stage-reuse for exactly that reason.
Blue Origin IS going for upper stage reuse, but they don't want to wait until they've made that work before they take customers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:25:15 2018 No.10012159 >>10012154 It brakes through retropropulsion because it is a fuck off huge booster with a massive fuel tank to hold lots of fuel. And please tell me more about the commercial viability of expendable stages LOL

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:26:59 2018 No.10012162 Why not just assemble a big ship in space that uses a non shit-tier drive like ion drive propulsion? Chemical is fucking trash.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:29:11 2018 No.10012164 >>10011484 >yousuck I like his sense of humor

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:32:38 2018 No.10012168

>>10012157
At what cost point? BO is not going for reuse of the upper stages. Unless you are talking about the Crew Capsule of the New Shepard.

>>10012159
You're a brainlet. The BFS is going to shave off 95% of the velocity by aerobraking, e.g. using heat-shields.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:34:44 2018 No.10012171 >>10012168 >Can't even read the appropriate acronym to differentiate between the booster stage and ship stage Damn maybe Bezos could pay for a few elementary school level reading classes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:36:09 2018 No.10012174 >>10012157 >Reusing Hydrogen stages Sure if they want to throw away the fuel tanks, pumps, lines and engines every flight. Hydrogen is truly shit tier for reusability.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:37:21 2018 No.10012175 >>10012171 We were talking about the upper stage reuses all along. If by "BFB" you meant BFR, then it is you who is the retard who can't differentiate the stage names.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:37:54 2018 No.10012177 >>10012050 BFR can do a lunar free return in one launch without refueling. With refueling it can definitely land on the moon and take off again.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:38:04 2018 No.10012180 File: 587 KB, 1200x1542, ula plan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10012159 >please tell me more about the commercial viability of expendable stages Refer to the pic related

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:39:02 2018 No.10012181

>>10012168
>At what cost point?
SpaceX was charging $152.2 million per launch. Since SpaceX raised their rates to increase their profit margin, no knowledge is available about what it costs them to refurbish a capsule.

>>10012174
>Sure if they want to throw away the fuel tanks, pumps, lines and engines every flight. Hydrogen is truly shit tier for reusability.

They seem to be doing just fine with New Shepard for that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:39:08 2018 No.10012182 >>10012162 By the time you go up and down a hundred times it's already more expensive than just going there. >it's 1450 >why not build a giant container ship way out in the bay and use your medieval carracks to load it

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:43:16 2018 No.10012184 >>10012175 BFR is the full stack, BFS is the ship and BFB is the booster. You would think your shill manual would cover this. Also you were clearly talking about the booster braking with heatshields which is patently false.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:43:19 2018 No.10012185 >>10012180 Double the timeframes, increase the cost by an order of magnitude and you have what ULA can actually deliver.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:55:51 2018 No.10012192

>>10012177
I wouldn't be too sure about that. To land on the moon and go back to Orbit you would need 4000 delta v. 100 tons of fuel gives the BFS only around 3000 delta v, and that is assuming no payload at all. The issue is obviously that the BFS wouldn't have seperate landing and ascent modules, so it would need way more fuel than the Apollo missions did. I'd say they are going to need two orbital refuels to do it.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 05:58:08 2018 No.10012195

>>10012184
I was talking about the BFS the whole time, and was at one point explicitly referring to orbital velocities, which the BFR is not even close to reaching, brainlet. You are just damage controlling to cover up that you were retarded enough to claim the BFS will retroprulse down from orbital velocities, which demonstrates a lack of scientific/technological knowledge that is often observed with the soibois.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 06:01:59 2018 No.10012197 >>10012013 Man, this puts into perspective how fucking massive the new wing/fin/flaps are. I can't imagine how insanely reinforced they have to be to survive a belly flop reentry into Earth's atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 06:19:49 2018 No.10012213 >>10012128 Fiction now But not for too long Orbital rings are unironically great

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 06:58:15 2018 No.10012239

>>10012192
I looked the numbers up and you are definetely going to need 2 refuelings to land on the moon and return, and this is assuming no payload at all.

Alternatively, instead of refueling, it could also launch a command/landing/ascent modules in two seperate launches. In this case, it could also do it in 2 launches.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:10:45 2018 No.10012249 File: 660 KB, 825x615, moonman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011425 Who is this Filipino midget and why is he going to the moon?

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:11:31 2018 No.10012250

>>10012239
>Alternatively, instead of refueling, it could also launch a command/landing/ascent modules in two seperate launches. In this case, it could also do it in 2 launches.

With a chomper and 100 tons to LEO, they could probably do it in one launch.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:14:33 2018 No.10012253 >>10012250 LEO payload =/= TLI payload. Saturn 5 carried 48 tons to TLI, with the modules weighing a bit less than 45 tons. BFR was able to do 33 tons to TLI before it got downgraded. Don't know about the new configurations.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:22:14 2018 No.10012261 File: 300 KB, 1024x776, 1537239412648.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I think we need Dr. Shaym on the moon. He deserves a better life. https://youtu.be/TyAJdW4KqJs

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:24:32 2018 No.10012262 File: 32 KB, 556x506, tw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] My vote goes to these two, so that the decolonization of science can begin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:38:22 2018 No.10012286

>>10012253
>LEO payload =/= TLI payload. Saturn 5 carried 48 tons to TLI, with the modules weighing a bit less than 45 tons. BFR was able to do 33 tons to TLI before it got downgraded. Don't know about the new configurations.

The "probably" shows up because they have plenty of room left in that 100 tons to throw in a TLI burn, in addition to the hypothetical 50 ton lander they send up for the ride.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:42:35 2018 No.10012294
File: 69 KB, 520x678, 1366252961867.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Does anyone else think that Musk sees the writing on the wall about climate change and created SpaceX as as his ticket off this doomed rock? As exciting as this all is, I can see it leading to a dystopian future where we're all lorded over by an elite which has relocated to Mars away from any possible repercussions for their actions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:43:24 2018 No.10012296 File: 225 KB, 517x445, 1496862678627.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011738 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcAfBkSXFxs >this will be real in our lifetime What a time to be alive.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:46:19 2018 No.10012300 >>10011967 End of Cold War turned everything to shit. Humans simply need conflict to keep going.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:50:28 2018 No.10012309 >>10012294 World is not even as hot as it was during late Roman Empire or middle of Medieval. Humans are fucking up the planet but it's not something that will happen over 10 years.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:50:43 2018 No.10012311 File: 960 KB, 1440x1474, ic-9180.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10012294 I bet it'll be a space Jew. EVERYBODY GET UP IT'S TIME TO SERVE NOW GIVE LOVE TO THE SPACE JEW (SPACE JEW) ALRIGHT COME ON AND SCHLAM AND WELCOME TO THE JEW

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:55:21 2018 No.10012319 File: 1.15 MB, 1207x1296, ic-7263.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10012300 Why don't we nuke the sandniggers? A goal to conquer goat-sex-lands with orbital weapons?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:55:25 2018 No.10012320 >>10012294 >future where we're all lorded over by an elite This literally already happens and the entire point of Mars civilization is to escape Earth problems.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:56:58 2018 No.10012322

>>10012309
>World is not even as hot as it was during late Roman Empire or middle of Medieval.
But that's wrong.

>Humans are fucking up the planet but it's not something that will happen over 10 years.
Yeah, no shit sherlock. But 50-100 years down the line and we're gonna see some real nasty changes.

>>10012320
That was literally my exact point

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:56:59 2018 No.10012323

>>10012286
What exactly are you on about? You mean releasing the modules in LEO, and let them fly to TLI themselves, so essentially constructing a third stage? In that case, 100 tons for the whole stage would not be enough. You would have 55 tons left for going from LEO to TLI, which would simply not be enough. The J-2 hydrolox engines needed over 100 tons of propellant to do that burn. A methlox engine would need even more than that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:57:29 2018 No.10012324 Russia+EU+China will band up and fuck your shit up.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:57:54 2018 No.10012326

>Does anyone else think that Musk sees the writing on the wall about climate change and created SpaceX as as his ticket off this doomed rock? As exciting as this all is, I can see it leading to a dystopian future where we're all lorded over by an elite which has relocated to Mars away from any possible repercussions for their actions.

Anyone who goes to mars won't be able to come back. Colonists will probably have a hard life for a long time, and I doubt they'll give a shit about the petty events that are happening on earth. There's no reason to think that a powerful person on earth will be a powerful person on mars. "You have chosen a paltry kingdom on an insignificant planet"

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:59:40 2018 No.10012328 File: 76 KB, 1000x291, 1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10012322

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 07:59:40 2018 No.10012329 File: 216 KB, 471x384, 1535430168667.png.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10012324 GUYS, HERE'S THE SOLUTION, NUKE CHINA

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:00:07 2018 No.10012331 >>10012294 No matter how bad we fuck up this planet, the worst thing that could happen is still waaaaaay better than living on Mars.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:00:45 2018 No.10012333 >>10012326 Would it be possible to have an entirely different race declared by the colonists? Kinda like how the USA was made?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:00:48 2018 No.10012334 File: 202 KB, 800x575, Harris-Mann_Historic_Temp_Chart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10012328

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:03:39 2018 No.10012338
File: 298 KB, 500x660, Temperature_Pattern_MWP.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10012328
>doesn't understand gradual change over millions of years vs short and sharp changes

>>10012334
>those "long range weather" hacks
Please stop with this embarrassing denier shit. Adults are talking.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:04:39 2018 No.10012340

Another downgrade. It's pretty much becoming LEO only launcher at this point giving even more edge to the SLS.

I expect further size reductions.

No single company can manufacture Saturn sized vehicle without massive government funding. It's questionable if a single company can even with it.

If you want something like this becoming reality then push for it to your local representatives.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:04:50 2018 No.10012341 >>10012338 The solution to climate change is to nuke China, so it stops producing smog. Duh.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:05:41 2018 No.10012342 >>10012338 As a matter of fact though, temperature on earth can easily rise by 10 degree without being a real existential threat to humans. Sure, lots of humans are going to die, but mainly in the poor southern hemisphere.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:06:39 2018 No.10012344

>>10012323
>You would have 55 tons left for going from LEO to TLI

The S-IVB's entire wet mass was 117 tons - 12 tons dry, and it needed to do two burns. The first was to complete orbital insertion of the vehicle. Of the 475 second burn time for the stage,165 seconds was for orbital insertion, and 335 seconds of it were for TLI. So, you're right about the fuel burn requirement for completing TLI being larger than 55 tons, but of that fuel, but 70% of its fuel reserves were for TLI, not all of them. The TLI burn required a bit over 74 tons of fuel and oxidizer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:09:23 2018 No.10012349 >>10012340 >I expect further size reductions. They made it bigger.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:11:31 2018 No.10012352

>>10012338
Dude stop, it's scientists who decide what is an anomaly for them and this shit is just embarrassing. Earth was far warmer in the past and we literally just came out of mini Cold Age.

Yes human have an effect on this but it's minimal. The real problem is pollution and destruction of forests.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:11:43 2018 No.10012353 >>10012349 The payload downgrade came from raptor development obviously not going so good. You can expect another roung of downgrades for sure.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:12:05 2018 No.10012354 File: 43 KB, 231x363, 1366182280467.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10012340 >giving even more edge to the SLS.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:13:31 2018 No.10012356

>>10012353
>The payload downgrade came from raptor development obviously not going so good. You can expect another roung of downgrades for sure.

The payload downgrade came from skipping vacuum raptors for the first iteration of the vehicle and using sea level models in space. The rest of the performance numbers are consistent with moving up from a 250 bar to 300 bar chamber pressure.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:14:44 2018 No.10012357 >>10012124 He said napkin math indicates the tintin design might be slightly better but he'll never really know.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:16:33 2018 No.10012358
File: 580 KB, 750x698, mann08_s6e_eivGLlandocean.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10012352
>comparing gradual change over millions of years to sudden changes
>bruh C02 is totally not a greenhouse gas and levels are totally not rising drastically due to human activity lalalala I can't hear you

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:17:17 2018 No.10012359 >>10012356 I'd like a source that they scratched the vacuum variants altogether. Also, even if they did the difference between those are 10%, not 33%.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:17:48 2018 No.10012360 So the new BFS is >1000 cubic meters volume >100 passengers So if alot of the space is going to common areas and other things, then that means each person is going have less than 10 cubic meters volume to themselves. It's going to be cramped.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:18:14 2018 No.10012361
File: 155 KB, 1000x942, open_as_layer.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10012132
That someone is you, anon. Learn the holy ways of GIMP.

Tools > Transform tools > Shear, Rotate, and Perspective, in whatever order you think best
Also a little Layer > Scale Layer, obviously.

It might take you an entire hour, it might be shitty and embarrassing, but memecraft is a holy duty laid upon us all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:22:18 2018 No.10012366 >>10012128 Orbital rings are perfectly feasible to build with a rapidly reusable BFR in a few years. They're an alternative to space elevators for space launch, the actual ring part is just a momentum exchange tether that can initially be lightweight.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:26:00 2018 No.10012375

>>10012359
>I'd like a source that they scratched the vacuum variants altogether. Also, even if they did the difference between those are 10%, not 33%.
Its right out of Elon's presentation today. In addition to that, they added large flight surfaces for reentry at the nose and tail, which are hinged for the rear and downward fins, while re-adding the large panoramic window in the front. They're definitely being more conservative by saying "at least 100 tons" but the degree to which they're being conservative is uncertain. If you want to be pessimistic about that, you do you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:26:04 2018 No.10012376 >>10012359 They scratched the vacuum variants for V1, it's still something they plan to do but they won't need them initially.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:26:17 2018 No.10012377 >>10012358 >1500 BC to 600 BC >millions of years

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:29:02 2018 No.10012383 >>10012377 The only sustained period when global temperatures were higher than now was millions of years ago, see >>10012328 But deniers trot out "well it was warmer before!" as if that means what's happening now is just fine

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:30:30 2018 No.10012386 File: 142 KB, 1080x607, 1537241736920.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] well I guess it was my holy duty too had to tweak the colors a bit

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:30:50 2018 No.10012387 >>10012356 Are they chasing some schedule? Starlink? The new EELV program? I see no other reason for skipping vacuum optimized raptors other than saving development time and manufacturing capacity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:32:47 2018 No.10012393 >>10012387 Starlink is a very good and likely reason for the time pressure. The FCC requires >50% of the constellation to be operational by 2024, or else they lose their operating permit.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:32:52 2018 No.10012395

>>10012354
With this downgrade the SLS and especially the later blocks with the improved upper stage outperform it drastically for everything including LEO.

The further out the target the bigger the difference.

And this is all without the dangers of orbital refueling.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:34:20 2018 No.10012396 >>10012395 Goodness me, what would all those non-existant, high mass to Beyond Earth Orbit payloads do without SLS?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:34:55 2018 No.10012397 >>10012386 nice

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:41:03 2018 No.10012408 >>10012396 Funny you say that when "build it and they'll come" is pretty much Musk's plan.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:43:31 2018 No.10012415 Btw did he say 200 ton thrust? That should be about 2MN. With 7 of those the TWR of the ship should be 1> and probably into 1.1 or so meaning its starting to look more and more suitable for ssto.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:44:20 2018 No.10012416

>>10012375
>>10012376
ISP for Sea-level raptors in vacuum is 356, and the vacuum engines 375. That's a difference of 5%. This would explain a 7,5 tons payload reduction, but certainly not 50 tons. I also highly doubt the BFR dry mass ends up 42,5 tons heavier than expected.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:44:39 2018 No.10012417

>>10012408
>Funny you say that when "build it and they'll come" is pretty much Musk's plan.

Musk's dream is based on "if you build it, they will come" (and that has been validated to some extent by this whole lunar tourist stunt). Much more practical uses like geostationary communications satellites and National Security launches offer a much more practical industry use case, not to mention Starlink.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:45:47 2018 No.10012419

>>10012416
>I also highly doubt the BFR dry mass ends up 42,5 tons heavier than expected.
They did increase the length of the ship to make the pressurized section (or cargo section) bigger, and have 1MN actuators for the folding rear wings/landing legs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:46:48 2018 No.10012421 >>10012416 >>10012419 Adding to this, if you assume a reinforced carbon-carbon based thermal protection system, the dry mass of the vehicle goes up considerably. The shuttle didn't use them past the leading edges because RCC is heavy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:47:42 2018 No.10012422 File: 271 KB, 1080x607, 1527377210768.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10012397 obligatory the colors got a bit fucked this is not a haiku

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:54:58 2018 No.10012429 File: 260 KB, 1080x607, 1527377210769.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ive lost control i think its bedtime

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 08:55:41 2018 No.10012430

>>10012421
All I'm finding is that the dry mass of the BFS is still 85 tons, unchanged. I cant find anything about the dry mass of the first stage. But I doubt it can be much higher, since it isn't much longer and doesn't have wings. So if the whole BFR was supposed to have a dry mass of around 200 tons, they somehow increased that by almost 25%, while increasing the length by not even 10%. None of this adds up. The only plausible explanations are less engines, or less capable engines. However, the number of engines had remained the same for both stages. So it can only be less capable engines.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 09:05:12 2018 No.10012439

>>10012430
It can also be lowballing the performance figures to not step on NASA's toes, since SLS is politically sensitive. Elon didn't offer any updates on the specs of the vehicle besides the moldline, the winglegs' actuator strength, the ship's length, and the pressurized volume.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 09:09:41 2018 No.10012444 >>10012429 This is an unironic 10/10

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 09:32:27 2018 No.10012471 >>10011541 Underrated.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 09:42:46 2018 No.10012490 Sigh. So Saturn V is considerably more powerful than bfr?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 09:46:47 2018 No.10012499 >>10012490 >Sigh. So Saturn V is considerably more powerful than bfr? Nope. 31 raptors on the first stage should push almost twice as much thrust at liftoff as a Saturn V.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 10:00:58 2018 No.10012531 >>10011974 kek

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 11:08:48 2018 No.10012630 >>10012499 Sat v has 140t payload though?

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 11:37:37 2018 No.10012679

>>10012395
>>10012396
>>10012415
>>10012416
>>10012419
>>10012430
>>10012439
>>10012490
>>10012499
I've recently noticed that SpaceX staff have changed to using the statistic of 'at least 100 tons to LEO' when talking about BFR. This suggests a downgrade in payload capacity has occurred, however the wonderful people on https://www.nasaspaceflight.com have done many detailed calculations to come to the conclusion that the new BFR's payload capacity should be between 120-130 tons; due to the loss of some ISP because of lack of vacuum nozzles and increased mass. Therefore, it's likely that Musk was either just low balling or fluffed up the statement (which knowing his public speaking skills is likely) with the 100 ton statistic. I also managed to garner some inside rumours from L2 that give insight into some of the design changes that have occurred: firstly, the lack of vacuum Raptors on the new BFR isn't due to laziness or cutting corners, but due to reliability concerns and technical difficulties. Elon apparently wants the BFR to be reliable as possible, seven sea-level Raptors gives the BFS the ability to land safely with 4 engine outs and vastly more control authority on descent. The other reason is the technical problems experienced with a larger nozzle, apparently tests showed that the Raptor had a bottomless appetite for eating vacuum nozzles. The extremely hot gases expelled from the Raptor due to it's high chamber pressure of 250-300 bar destroyed bolted on vacuum nozzles (the same type used on M-Vac engines, which glow due to lack of cooling) during tests; so SpaceX came to the conclusion that they either had to build a heavy regeneratively cooled vacuum nozzle or lower the chamber pressure, they decided to do neither...I also know that Musk was okay with the slight downgrade to increase the BFR's payload volume, as he's wary of creating another Falcon Heavy situation were the payload capacity is massive but the fairing is not capable of fitting big payloads.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 11:48:12 2018 No.10012699 >>10012679 Interesting, thanks. I really don’t see why people are all in a huff about the payload capacity. It’s the cost per kg that matters...and 100t is still a fine amount for lugging large payloads to orbit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 11:55:41 2018 No.10012714 >>10011673 >get anally probed by your ayylmao cellmate >become prison bitchboy

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 16:24:21 2018 No.10013210 >>10012019 I don't care what nickname he wants, I will forever call him Mechazawa.

Anonymous Tue Sep 18 16:40:33 2018 No.10013249

>>10012630
The shuttle actually lifted more.
>orbiter - ~90 tons
>payload - ~10 tons
>orange dildo (needs 50m/s for orbital though) - ~60 tons
>add 100 or so tons if using murrifat ones (everything fatter over there)

See how that goes?

The BFS is by far the biggest and most useful thing. To see it developed by private company without government retards and muh public money is almost as beautiful as seeing the rocket itself. Maybe even more so.

The butthurt from government bootlickers is a nice addition.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 18 23:15:39 2018 No.10014157 File: 1010 KB, 400x400, 9xWW.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10011899

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math