/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2811466
I really hope its a super heavy heavy lift that he is announcing.

the Falcon X heavy can carry 125 metric tons

thats enough to send a man to the moon.

>>2811568


That's way more than enough.

But that rocket doesn't look like a significant size up....

>>2811577
its actually much bigger

I just scaled the outline to each rocket

>>2811591

Ah cool.

Pip pip tally ho!
Carry on then.

>>2811591
lol at falcon xx

when you put your falcon 9 into a parking orbit, does the earth's atmosphere say, "is.... is it out yet?"

>>2811630
Seeing as its bigger then the Saturn 5.

I would say so

I was at Kennedy Space Center earlier this year and met with former astronaut Robert Springer. He showed me an exclusive rocket design for the upcoming, yet unfunded, 2015 space program.

It looks very similar to this pic, but bigger lol.

>>2811663
You mean SLS?

they plan on making the designs public late june this year

Sea Dragon.

I'm fucking calling it.

inb4 colonel coffee mug....fuck

all look like dicks I'm sorry

>>2811814
its not happening.

Unlike you Elon keeps his head in the clouds AND his feet on the ground

>>2811852

herewegoagain.jpg && Can't take a fucking joke.

>>2811855
Problem Third worlder?

Anyone remember the names of those super-sized rockets they experimented with in the 60s? Apparently they had to be launched at sea but because of their scale they were vastly more efficient than sending many smaller rockets from land.

>>2811857

I'm going off to the other thread.

Have a present.

spacex are no where near ready to talk about super heavy lift. they barely have 2 demonstration flights of a mid/heavy rocket. an mid/heavy rocket which was developed from the falcon 1 which had a horrible launch history.

as elon musk said they wouldn't build even the falcon 9 heavy because there was currently no market for it. what the hell would they do with the falcon x.

obviously they wan't to start work on the falcon 9 heavy in some form because currently the falcon 9 is too small to do dual GEO launches which means other rockets are still cheaper for GEO payloads. even so the heavy will be oversized for dual launches so i don't know what they're thinking.

>>2811861
bro, you're just sad.

>>2811930
The falcon 1 was their first rocket.

After its first success the company has never had a launch failure of any rocket.

This could be great news, maybe the announcement of a serious heavy lift vehicle could give Congress the swift kick in the ass it needs regarding spaceflight

>>2811630
lol

>>2812302
>maybe the announcement of a serious heavy lift vehicle could give Congress the swift kick in the ass it needs regarding spaceflight
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

>>2812311
I can dream can't I?

Sure it probably won't have any influence at all, but I'd rather remain optimistic about the situation.

>>2812325
Personally I'm starting to personally see the possibility of private enterprise advancing space exploration sooner.

At least someone's doing interesting things.

I don't really get rocket science. If they could make the saturn v back in the 1960's before they invented lithium aluminum alloys and carbon fiber and cnc mills i mean serously they calculated things with stick. I guess what im getting at is why is it so god dammed hard to copy what they did, I would think that you could just remake the saturn v rocket replacing a few matreals with better modern ones and pay beeners to put it all together.

>>2812334
Has the commie has come over from the dark side?

>>2812352
I've always wondered this myself. I just assume the dumb fucks at NASA lost everything. They seem pretty good at it actually. Nobody knows where the original video from the first moon landing is.

The last time I checked, the plan was to create commercialized spaceflights that were semi-reasonable in price by the time I was 60 or 70 or something.

Basically, you probably won't get to go into space unless you got a shit load of money.

Watching history in the making is still exciting though.

By the way, although their website looks decent, the buttons look like they are from Dreamweaver or something. What's up with that? I thought they were working with space technology here. Shouldn't their website me more snazzy looking (I'm talking flashing, inducing banners)?

>>2812371
Spinning flaming skulls are needed?

>>2812352
It's not all that hard, it's just that there was either no profit in doing it or nobody was interested. Now there is profit aplenty and people are really goddamn interested. Hence, progress.

But that 30-year lag in development has set some things back a bit.

>>2812371
Yeah, we all love sites that totally rely on Flash.

Retard.

>>2812378
At least we are making progress

>>2812377
>>2812379

That's what I'm talking about! You don't even need flash. You could just throw up a few marquees and such....

When are they going to build a space station! I want a space station so I can be part of the anti-gravity, 100 km club! I would easily throw my whole salary away on that experience as long as their is some nice champaign and space suits to go along with experience :-)

>>2812393
GIF ANIMATIONS AS BACKGROUND!

>>2812364
>Hurr durr commie
I actually understand capitalism and how great things can be achieved with them quite well thank you, I would just greatly prefer the automated resource-based system.
And lol if you think the US is some kind of model capitalist system

>>2812393
Bigelow Aerospace is working on space stations.

Their page: http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

Articles: http://www.space.com/5328-private-space-station-prototype-hits-orbital-milestone.html
http://www.space.com/9358-bigelow-aerospace-soars-private-space-station-deals.html
http://www.space.com/9518-race-private-space-stations-russia.html

>>2812393
They plan on having a space station capable of carrying 24 people by 2017.

>>2811466
Looks like a stylized graphic of the Falcon 9 Heavy.

I'm assuming they're releasing more details about the Falcon 9 Heavy, rather than anything about a completely new rocket.

What was it again, the space elevator? Has there been any progressive on the carbon nano tubes/elevator idea? I think this would be much more cost effeicient wouldn't it?

>>2813598
I seriously doubt a space elevator will ever be built on Earth.

Launch loops or skyhooks, maybe.

>>2813598
They'll start building it in twenty years. Then somebody flies an airplane to it. Then the greenies go all nevar again and we don't get to go to space until fascism prevails as it ought to.

>>2813620
Space elevators would be more like a giant ribbon into space.

If you chop it in half, it'll mostly just float back down. It won't be like some kind of giant tower that wraps itself around the Earth a few times and kills everything.

100t payload

Old news.

asdfsadf