/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10043221
it doesn't exist yet
falcon heavy works

>>10043237
This. Lets wait until its actually flying. By that stage, the BFR should be close if not already completed.

>>10043237
>it doesn't exist yet
Neither does a Falcon Heavy fairing that isn't child-sized

>BFR chuckles in distance
none of this really matters anyways. large GEO sat orders are plummeting. Most payloads are smaller ones that F9 can lift just fine.

I’m giving BO like a 50% chance that they go straight to New Armstrong development once BFR hops are looking promising

>>10043221
Why is new glenn so pathetic? 7m diameter and almost 100m tall yet will launch less than half the payload to LEO than an underpowered BFR, with the second and third stages being expendable.

>>10043485
Are you retarded or do you not know how to do simple math?

>>10043523
>u dum dum why dun u know maff???
Why is this the go to response for /sci/niggers instead of just providing a proper counterargument? All I'm saying is that (((new glenn))) has vastly inferior capabilities to BFR.

>>10043580
Do you think a 7m diameter tank and a 9m tank of the same height have the same volumes?

>>10043586
Nope, but blue origin is retarded if they think they're gonna compete with BFR, the sole advantage they have over a current Falcon heavy is a larger fairing size, it was over before it began for blue origin cucks. By the time new armstrong comes out BFR will be in service for almost a decade and optimised to maximise performance, 2018 BFR could theoretically launch 180-200 tons to LEO with vacuum engines.

>>10043221
>rocket A doesn't exist
>rocket B does
>rocket B is also going to be rendered obsolete by a new rocket before rocket A even comes out

>>10043339
the next GEO launch boom will be to launch up space stations or their construction materials
Humanity is about to experience a golden age

>laughs in 10 meter fairing and hydrolox upper stage

Keep talking about LEO you fucking retards, what really matters are high energy trajectories like TMI and Europa.

>>10044071
Which is impossible with SLS because it's expendable which doesn't allow for LEO refueling, also retardedly high price tag makes it even more worthless than it already is.

>>10044082
>falling for the reusable super heavy launcher meme

Doesn't need on orbit refueling, the main core puts EUS on a shallow almost-orbit, which is then circularized with a small burn after separation. EUS is not an ascent stage, it ends up in orbit basically fully fueled.

>>10044124
Just a billion $ for that "advantage" for that Bezos will lift a freaking full SLS core worth of hydrolox into LEO waiting to refuel tugs like ACES or whatever they do out of second stage of Glenn

>>10043620
Jeff has close to 10x the amount of money that Musk has and is liquid.That means he does not have to beg others to pay for BFR like rocket that gets smaller and smaller.With Jeff resources he can build something even bigger than original ITS think 15-20m diameter 500-1000t into LEO a real Huge Fucking Rocket if he decides that humiliating Musk is would be fun.

>>10043221
The funny thing is that using a bigger fairing to get one over SpaceX is pointless, because both the Ariane 5 and Atlas 5/Delta 4 have larger fairings than the Falcon 9 but it still wins more commercial contracts. Also let's just admire that massive hydrogen-powered second-stage for a second, it's bigger than the Saturn 5 third-stage and uses twice as many engines; it is also the reason Blue Origin will never be able to undercut SpaceX's prices unless they wish to sell at a massive loss, as chucking away such a large stage isn't exactly cost-effective.
>>10043885
Unfortunately for this guy and BO, the GEO boom has ended; with more and more companies focusing on LEO constellations due to the lack of GEO demand, I guess Bezos can just fight for the small handful of GEO launches that will happen every year from now on.

>>10044238
Jeff doesn't have tens of billions in liquid assets he has billions in amazon stock which he has to sell to fund his space dreams. How do you expect Blue Origin to make such a quantum leap in a short time, with SpaceX engineers? Musk has already stated he's gonna go full 12-15m diameter ITS when BFR proves successful, Bezos is literally a decades behind on a similar goal.

>>10044290
Amazon stock is relatively liquid at that scale compared to Tesla it won't be a problem to sell 20 B worth over 5 years while in case of Tesla it is impossible.Bezos is developing capability slowly but steadily since 2016 when we saw both BFR and Glenn the latter only changed stage layout while the former has transformed twice and is now 1/3 the size of the initial concept.

>>10044299
You seem to fail to realise that throwing your money at a problem like this doesn't just make it happen. You need a fuck load of expertise, and even more experience. Space x has a lot of both, Blue origin is severely lacking in the experience category.

Could SpaceX develop a larger payload fairing for the Faclon9/H?

>>10044340
See the SLS, also Bezos has already admitted to dumping over a billion a year on New Glenn's development costs. That's twice the Falcon Heavy's lifetime development costs in a single year.

>>10044349
They've talked about doing it if an outside source (e.g. the Airforce) payed for the development. We could see it happen if SpaceX receive some money to do it in the upcoming EELV.

>>10044450
No, the overall investment is 1 billion a year, this includes the construction of the factory and the launch pad. How high the development cost of the New Glenn is is unkown.

>>10044340
Blue is actually hiring en masse people from SpaceX, which is one of the reasons why Musk is so salty about Bezos.

>>10044453
No, he recently said 1 billion for the pad and facilities and 1 billion for New Glenn's development.

http://latimes.com/business/la-fi-blue-origin-investment-20180919-story.html

>>10044454
It seems the other way round honestly, Bezos seems really salty with Musk (he keeps subtly dissing SpaceX in speeches) while Musk is indifferent and likes competition; also, SpaceX has always had a quick turnaround of low-level workers, but has kept most of it's key staff e.g. Tom Mueller and Hans Koenigsberg.

Spacex is on the verge of bankruptcy and there are already talks in the industry about their merger with ULA.

>>10044500
anon, lay off the sips

>>10044502
Not him but look a Tesla. Everything Musk touches turns to dust...

>>10044509

>>10044124
>EUS is not an ascent stage, it ends up in orbit basically fully fueled.
No, that's the ICPS (a modified Delta IV upper stage). At about 150 tonnes fully fuelled but with no payload, sitting on top of stages that can only put about 70 tonnes into LEO, the EUS is absolutely an ascent stage, and will burn most of its propellant just getting to LEO.

>Doesn't need on orbit refueling
Without on-orbit refuelling SLS will be capable of launching under 40 tonnes to trans-lunar injection, and the EUS will then be dead weight. With Orion, it will only be able to take 9 tonnes of propellant and 10 tonnes of crew and cargo, with 9 cubic meters of habitable space for up to 4 crew.

With on-orbit refuelling, BFR will be capable of launching about 450 tonnes to trans-lunar injection from LEO (but it can be refuelled in higher orbits), and the BFS will then be a useful vehicle. In a passenger configuration, it will be able to take 350 tonnes of propellant and 100 tonnes of crew and cargo, with a thousand cubic meters of habitable space for up to 100 crew. With a light load, refuelling in a higher orbit, or ISRU replenishing liquid oxygen on the moon, it will be capable of landing on the moon and flying back to LEO with its crew.

So: SLS/Orion is designed to go to the moon, and maybe Mars. It can't land men on the moon and definitely not on Mars. BFR can land men on the moon or on Mars, and bring them back, at far lower cost than a lame-ass SLS/Orion moon flyby.

No matter where you want to send payload, BFR can send more of it there at a much lower cost than SLS. About the only possible advantage of SLS is that they might build a slightly larger fairing, and if you think that SpaceX couldn't build a larger fairing if this became important, you are frankly delusional. BFR is the most ambitious aerospace undertaking since the 1960s, whereas SLS is an attempt to almost-sort-of recreate the capabilities of a 1960s vehicle without significant cost reduction.

>>10044522
BFR is not happening because it is not possible and nobody will dump half a trillion into another space shuttle.

>>10044549
All those engineers at SpaceX seem to think that the BFR is possible, and are building it right now. What evidence do you have that the BFR won't work?

>>10044549
Screencapping this shit since first BFR reveal. The butthurt at launch will be glorious.

>>10044522
SLS is a safe bet that will work.
Orbital refueling and inefficiently integrating upper stage, transfer stage, habitat, lander, return stage, experimental engine fuel and fuel cycle, and expecting not only it works but also somehow turn out "cheap" AND refurbishable, that does not even qualify as a madman's bet because nobody could be that insane.

Waiting for an EU/RUS collaboration project to blow these capitalist weenies out of the fucking water.

>>10044554
he's a shill
stop responding to them, they get paid by the reply

>>10044549
It will happen, after another round of shrinking. Final BFR will be 75 metres and have a LEO payload of 50 tons max.

Screencap this.

>>10044594
It's not like a methane engine is some ludicrous unsolvable engineering conundrum like hydrolox is

>>10044450
>They've talked about doing it if an outside source (e.g. the Airforce) payed for the development.
So basically they're looking for some guarantee they'll actually use the larger fairing enough that it would be worthwhile to operate the manufacturing required for it.

>>10044594
Sometimes you just gotta dream big, Anon.

>>10044493
You now realise the "who owns the media" tweet was a jab at Bezos buying Business Insider and Washington Post.

>>10044631
>>round of shrinking
How is the weather down in India my friend ? I see you still cant read...

>>10044780
BFR is nothing revolutionary it's just a reusable nova class rocket incorporating traditional multiple stages into two vehicles.

>>10044865
>just a

>>10044880
Yeah no big deal it's just potentially one of humanities most meaningful achievements

>>10044661
That's because 'The Amazon Post' and Business Insider keep publishing obvious hit pieces (although, they do that for everyone) on SpaceX; for example, that time when they published an article about some guy at McGregor causing an explosion, by fucking up the test stand fuelling procedures and tried to pass it off as the Merlin 1D exploding and SpaceX's engines being unreliable. There were also loads of hit pieces centred around NASA's indecisiveness about 'load and go'.
>>10044649
Despite what BO tells you, bigger fairings aren't really that much of an advantage unless your gunning for military payloads; despite what you've heard about how expensive and state of the art they are, nearly all commercial commsats are based on standardised satellite buses, which are made by a relatively small group of aerospace manufacturers such as Lockheed, Boeing, NG, SSL etc. These buses are all designed to fit a standard 5 meter wide fairing, therefore a Falcon 9 can carry even the biggest GEO satellites as shown by Telstar 19 + 18 which are the biggest ever to be launched. The length of the Fairing is a more accurate criticism of SpaceX, the F9's fairing isn't big enough for some unique military payloads (e.g. telescopes) which require the longer fairings of a Atlas 5 or Delta 4. However, as shown by SpaceX inactivity on the matter, the short fairing isn't really an issue for SpaceX's commercial competitiveness as the main benefit of a long fairing is the ability to co-manifest (launch two at a time) commsats; the F9 isn't really powerful enough to launch two heavy GEO sats at a time in it's reusable form anyway, so it's not really a problem. The only launch provider who currently co-manifests is Arianespace (who are generally regarded as the premium GEO launcher) on their expendable Ariane 5 and soon 6. Therefore, Blue Origin's entrance into the market won't really damage SpaceX's GEO business but Arianespace's due to their co-manifesting.

>>10044556
I've been collecting posts for quite a while now, for a collage to post when BFR flies. Up to 93 entires now. I hope I can fit it all into 4mb heh

>>10044594
>SLS is a safe bet that will work.
So why hasn't it been able to stay on schedule? SLS is based on pushing obsolete technology (and legitimately old hardware... they are literally using salvaged engines from retired shuttles), which has already proven dubiously reliable, beyond its design parameters.

A conservative design for an expendable shuttle variant would have used three engines, four-segment boosters, an unaltered main tank, and a side-mounted payload. This was known as Shuttle-C, and it could have been done quite easily on a very predictable schedule, and would have provided probably an equivalent or larger payload to LEO, compared to the SLS Block 0 base vehicle.

How can this be? Well, the original shuttle could put over 90 tonnes to LEO, without any upper stage: that's the ~70 tonne orbiter and its ~30 tonne maximum payload. Most of the mass of the orbiter was related to crew and recovery. On an uncrewed, expendable rocket, the orbiter (including engines) could probably have been stripped down to about 15 tonnes, allowing a ~80 tonne payload.

It's important to remember that the SLS is already a failed design. The reason for not going with Shuttle-C is that they wanted to build Ares V, with more than double the payload, so they could recreate the Apollo missions with modern safety standards.

The trouble is, the Shuttle propulsion only barely worked in the first place. When they first fired three engines together, they shook each other apart, and it required redesign of the engines. Trying to get more than three working together, without being able to design a new engine, is a development nightmare. Moving them closer to the violent SRB nozzles also puts them in a much harsher environment. Besides that, the skills and knowledge no longer existed at NASA to reproduce the "proven technology" they were going to use to save time and money and reduce risk, so they effectively had to reinvent it, which defeated the purpose.

SLS may not fly.

>>10045047
*SLS will not fly
ftfy

>>10045087
ehh, it’ll fly twice.

>>10043885
>the next GEO launch boom will be to launch up space stations

Why the fuck would you put space stations in GEO? LEO is the most important orbit, period.

>>10045047
Shuttle C never had a chance because Ares was a thing and needed money. SLS is essentially Ares V and involves the related workforce and contractors.

>>10045135
>Why the fuck would you put space stations in GEO?
- 24/7 solar power for most of the year, then only eclipses ranging up to one hour per day.
- Can communicate with Earth using fixed directional antennae.
- Not surrounded by space junk flying every which way.
- Thermal management simplified by distance from Earth and constant lighting conditions.
- Generally very similar to deep space environment for research purposes.
- Above the most intense part of the Van Allen belts.
- Still close enough to Earth for quick travel (only one tenth of the distance from Earth to the moon, so travelling to or from Earth only takes a few hours).
- Awesome big Earth in the sky, about a foot across at arm's distance.
- Most of the way out of Earth's gravity well.

>>10044943
>tfw you will be immortalized with this

>>10045047
>So why hasn't it been able to stay on schedule?

you don't increase shareholder value by delivering. you stretch out that cost plus contract as long as possible

>>10045269
>not a polar LEO that processes around in lockstep with the sun, so you're permanently over the day/night divide

>>10044943
This is the type of autism i can get behind

>>10044943

>>10043237
>>10043339
>SpaceX announces giant launcher that doesn't exist
>"Omg best thing ever"
>Blue Origin announces this
>"Doesn't exist yet! Too big to be useful!"

>>10046088
Be honest about the criticism. This paper rocket is being declared the doom of SpaceX, while SpaceX has already gone all-in on a product that'll render every previous launch vehicle with a realistic prospective payload obsolete (I don't consider LUVOIR realistic due to the inability to control space telescope costs and to get the cost per mirror area below $250 million per square meter).

>>10046182
truth.
Also, NASA is already funding studies to see if a slightly down scaled LUVOIR would work on BFR.

https://twitter.com/MartianColonist/status/1015213352434454528?s=19

>>10046088
Because it's a whole generation late and is at the same stage of development (factory under construction, paper design, engines tested) as the vehicle that will make it and every single other launcher totally obsolete.

>>10046204
Add to that BOs absolutely glacial speed of getting anything done compared to SpaceX

>>10044943
Godspeed anon!

>>10044943
Do you save ALL the anti BFR posts or just the most memeworthy ones?

>>10046251
both. Also ones that are just generally anti-SpaceX etc. I'll only pick the most relevant BFR ones for the launch day collage, of course.

>>10046255
Kek it's gon b gud

>>10045333
why not two stations so we can have both?
making one station for everyone was retarded
we should have made a dozen

>>10046325
we should have done a lot of things

>>10046088
SpaceX is currently constructing the BFR in LA in a fuck ass massive tent
Blue Origin doesn't intend to ever start construction until the sun burns out

>>10046327
Funny fact, it turns out that Hans koenigsmann lives close enough to San Pedro that he rows his own boat out to the facility whenever he needs to visit.

>>10046326
F I V E S T A G E S

I

V

E


S

T

A

G

E

S

>>10046326
>EIGHT (8) F-1's
OH BABY

>>10046255
You have any from of basic SpaceX threads or maybe the FH?

>>10046402
I'm hard now
How many raptors is Elon going to bolt to the bottom of his mars penis?

>>10047181
ITS was going to have 42 on the BFB. '18BFR has 31.

>>10046336
The Saturn V moon missions used six stages: S-IC, S-II, S-IVB, Service Module, Lunar Module Descent Stage, and Lunar Module Ascent Stage.

latest GTO numbers

>>10047198
>ITS was going to have 42 on the BFB. '18BFR has 31.
2017 BFR has 31 as well.

>>10047219
These are either not accurate or up to date, the F9 block 3 has sent 6.5 tonne satellites to super-synchronous GTO.

>>10044943
Based

>>10047563
Or SpaceX is low-balling their launch masses to encourage more payloads to use Falcon Heavies than risk expending a Falcon 9, or from experiencing undue wear and tear from almost nonexistent recovery margins

>>10044943
you do us all proud anon

>>10043221
>napkin drawing vs actual rocket with successful missions

>>10047563
Can you specify which satellites you are talking about?

>>10044943
>>10046255

>almost 50 years since we landed on the moon
>Saturn V still unmatched

>>10048033
>Saturn V still unmatched
NASA, SpaceX, and Blue Origin are all working on fixing that.

>>10048036
SpaceX is working on a rocket that could surpass Saturn V. NASA and Blue Origin are working on lesser rockets and fantasizing about eventually building bigger ones.