/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6265851
>What's the future of manned exploration for NASA?

It's dead. Have you looked at NASA's budget? Have you looked at US state of economy? Sending men to other planets or satellites is just a giant waste of money with little to no scientific value.

Just be happy we still send rovers to other planets and we still make space telescopes.

>>6265885
NASA shouldn't get any money at all. I don't want my money to go towards hobbies.

>>6265885
>Sending men to other planets or satellites is just a giant waste of money with little to no scientific value.
In some sense I agree. Curiosity is doing just as much on Mars as a team of scientists for a significant fraction of the price, but if we're going to advance technology enough to travel to other planets, we're going to need to start somewhere.

>>6265894
>NASA shouldn't get any money at all. I don't want my money to go towards hobbies.
gr8 b8

>>6265851
NASA's new orion capsule will undergo its first test launch later this year, and other than that they're relying on private companies to provide their astronauts with launch vehicles, like SpaceX's dragon capsule and Sierra Nevada's Dreamchaser.

>>6265904
>Actually agreeing with me
lel

Are you stupid? I was being sarcastic. A large part of life consists of "hobbies", nothing is wrong with that.

>>6265904
>curiosity vs team of scientists

but you would argue that Curiosity has more potential for game-changing discoveries, no?

The future of manned spaceflight will obviously fall to zero. Manned spaceflight was an imperial fetish for a period of rising fossil-fuel energy inputs to civilization. That period is over, forever.

Even a billionaire or two can't get us out of the rut we're in, now. And who can blame them? No economic model that's possibly acceptable, allows manned spaceflight.

Economics is the only reason Humanity does anything of note. Economics before allowed manned spaceflight since it suited the leading imperial powers in the full flowering of fossil-fuel exploitation to leverage the fetish into industrial growth. But industrial growth is over, forever... since the dirt-cheap fossil fuels that powered it, are over, forever. The future will be more and more desperate. There's no room for spaceflight of any sort, much less manned, in such a future.

I only promised to tell you the truth. I never promised it would make you happy.

>>6265894
>NASA shouldn't get any money at all. I don't want my money to go towards hobbies.

Where do you want your money to go? More to welfare recipients that just keep on breeding or do you want it to go to military industrial complex so they can bоmb more brown people or do you prefer it to go to Wall Street crooks that subsidize all of there losses?

>>6266065
>welfare recipients that just keep on breeding

>>6265961
We only need to develop mind upload to erase 99% of problems with manned spaceflight. Stop being so pessimistic.

>>6265961

if fossil fuel is the only impediment to continued manned and unmanned space exploration, then I still have hope.

Is all rocket fuel fossil fuel? At least we already have radioisotop generators for rovers like Curiosity, etc.

All the shuttle/constellation money was reallocated to build a neo-Shuttle because NASA and it's congressional supporters were corrupted by the Shuttle program and want to continue the graft for eternity. The neo-Shuttle is a heavy lift vehicle and capsule built by the space shuttle contractors/industry. The heavy lift vehicle is called SLS and the capsule is called Orion. SLS will have a test flight this decade and five flights the next decade. The first will orbit the moon, and the destination for the other four are up in the air, but the lead times for an actual exploration program are long and they sunk all their money into the rocket and capsule, so it probably won't be much, but will be trumpeted up as the greatest thing anyone has ever done in the usual propagandic fashion.

There is also a LEO crew capsule program for sending crews to the ISS that is funding two capsules by Boeing and SpaceX, and a spaceplane by Sierre Nevada Corp. Next year they will probably downselect to either the Boeing or SpaceX capsules. That LEO capsule will fly to ISS during the second half of this decade and replace the Soyuz.

General thoughts on space exploration? SLS sucks, it's robbed from us a prosperous space exploration program, fuck it and its culty and sniveling twerp supporters.

>>6265961
The military cares not about your profits.
The glory of space battle calls them.

>>6266473
boggles the mind that Soyuz is still kicking, since 1967. That's a long bloody time.

Sounds like you're not a fan of SLS. Why is it so bad? I don't follow. Sounds like it's just a revamped version of the Shuttle to continue manned exploration. If it's just a shuttle replacement, why did the shuttle program need replacing the first place?

>>6266492

The SLS is a shuttle replacement in that it recreates the industry roles that were maintained with the Shuttle program, not that it does exactly what the shuttle does.

There were many options for accomplishing manned exploration, and I consider a revamped shuttle to be a very poor option for doing so. I preferred the way the space science program conducts it's robotic exploration: they build space probes, but leave the launch to commercial launch providers who compete for and then are awarded launch contracts. This process stimulates evolution in the launch industry. Boosting it further with the manned exploration payloads would stimulate it even more, and would have beneficial effects for all users of the commercial launch industry including space probes, military sats, and comsats, and whatever new business could arise in the better conditions.

A quintessential problem with spaceflight is that it is locked in a chicken and egg scenario: spaceflight costs so much because there aren't many users of spaceflight since it costs so much. A program like I described could help get us further away from that trap, while the Space Shuttle and now the SLS contribute to the stagnation by depriving the market of more demand to help drive down costs.

cont.

>>6266524

cont.

This cycle has an impact on the extent of the exploration program. NASA is now locked to its own seldomly used and expensive vehicle, because it is the only customer for it really and it must bear all the costs associated with getting it up and keeping it running, whereas its exploration could be more extensive if it could better allocate its budget toward necessary exploration payloads while taking advantage of a thriving market for space launch that drove prices down and allowed it launch more into space and thus acheive more. A thriving manned exploration program needs more launch that NASA is going to get with SLS. SLS supporters might weigh in that you need a large single launch mass and volume that SLS delivers, but there are mission concepts that effectively work around that if you purchase batches of cheaper smaller launchers, and it is not essential as it is painted to justify SLS.

That's about it.

>>6265851
>>manned exploration
hey humans, how's that radiation hardening coming along? Have you figured out closed loop life support yet?

>>6266526

huh. quite informative. thanks for that.

Any thoughts on projects like Mars One?

>>6265916
this
Orion.
just came from Cape Canaveral
They have one little cheesy poster board display about the future behind the half century old rocket garden

>>6266524
>but leave the launch to commercial launch providers who compete for and then are awarded launch contracts

That's not the case. NASA's launch services program use very few rockets for NASA payloads. The only large one being Atlas, there is no possibility competition in most cases. Most missions are designed with a launch vehicle in mind with a back up in case it't not available which is not always possible. They are proposed with the launch vehicle specified and that is included in calculating the budget of the proposed mission.

So few vehicles are actually developed with mainly commercial money (note only Pegasus and Falcon 1 currently) that you can't really say competition stimulates development.

>>6266930
Many vehicles were being developed with private money.

NASA picked a couple and pulled up dumptrucks of money to their corporate headquarters, so now nobody else has any hope of competing with this absurdly subsidized competition, and even these companies are made dependent on NASA.

Government has many ways of smothering private industry when they don't want it to develop.

>>6265851
Buying Dragon capsules from SpaceX.

Which isn't actually bad; SpaceX can do it way cheaper than NASA can, and with a shrinking budget the ability to contract out launch to someone who can do it much cheaper than they can, AND have a pre-existing heavy lifter that they don't need to manufacture, is a life-saver. If they get their act together, NASA might actually be able to do shit for once.

>>6265851
Not sure it's such a bad thing, as I would imagine the economic resources required could be put to better use (as parts of missions at later stages) in the form of actual scientific research.

>>6265851
Space X

china is supposed to be sending a man to the moon relatively soon. maybe they'l continue space exploration.

>>6266492
> boggles the mind that Soyuz is still kicking, since 1967.
Tried and tested, if it ain't broke don't fix it, and all that.

Yes it is. Space science’s relationship with launch procurement is an entirely different paradigm to that being used for SLS. The launch vehicles are not in house, rather they piggyback on rockets that have many users.

>that you can't really say competition stimulates development.

Then you are blind, because it is happening before your very eyes. The business case for SpaceX rests upon winning launches in the future for their Falcon 9 and Heavy line of rockets that they are developing and fielding, inluding those of the NASA Science missions as well as comsats and military satellites. These are payloads that would otherwise have gone on competitor rockets, and thus to be able to launch them, they must take them away in competition with those rockets.

You have allowed the special circumstances of a period of time where there is only one domestic commercial launch provider, ULA, for larger science missions to occlude from your awareness that there is a process built to take advantage of more, in a more healthy competitive environment.

Furthermore, that the launch industry is anemic at the present isn't an argument against wanting to take measures to help grow it.

You are also out of date. The Falcon 9 is on the launch services contract already and is eligble for being selected for future missions, in competition with Atlas 5 variants. An Atlas 5 not owned or operated by NASA, btw, but by a commercial launch services provider.

>>6266930

this post is in reply to you:

>>6267492

>>6267084

China is only sending a sample return mission to the moon. ie more robot probes. They may very well choose to send a man to the moon in the future, but that has not happened yet and there is no approved plans for such.

>>6267492
No it isn't. I never said they were in house, I said there is no bidding process.

>Then you are blind
You never addressed the reason I had for saying that, good job ignoring my argument.

>Falcon 9
A great example of a rocket developed with NASA money, not based on competition. There are very few vehicles which have actually been developed commercially (2 as I noted).

>The Falcon 9 is on the launch services contract already and is eligble for being selected for future missions, in competition with Atlas 5 variants. An Atlas 5 not owned or operated by NASA, btw, but by a commercial launch services provider.
But it hasn't been used which is what I said. I never said Atlas was operated by NASA, you're putting words in my mouth now.

>>6266145
> Is all rocket fuel fossil fuel?

You don't understand anything I've said. Typical for /sci/tards.

Rocket fuel doesn't end up manufactured, placed in the tanks and attached to the space vehicle by means of telekinesis. It is created, transformed and transported by fossil fuel energy sources, largely coal (for electricity production) and petroleum (for transportation).

Without fossil fuels, you won't get SHIT done in the world. That's the point. We'll go back to burning wood for energy. We can't even keep our nuclear power industry alive using wood as a fuel source.

>>6267984
I'll accept running out of petroleum, sure.

But running out of coal? Are you mad? We have 260 billion tons of the stuff in the US alone. At current mining levels we have 222 years of the stuff left. Running out of coal is not a problem for the forseeable future.

>>6268001

You clearly don't understand the issue. How many of you actually understood the PRIMACY OF ENERGY when you studied physics?

The oil's definitely running out. Fracking is Humanity's next desperate attempt to keep it and NG flowing. CATCH: Fracked wells run dry a lot faster than 'normal' wells.

And so, what do you think will happen, idiot? The oil runs too dry and gasoline stations simply close up? FUCK NO. Coal will be more and more tapped for liquifying and gasification. Hence, demand for oil must translate into demand for coal.

Why do I even have to explain any of this to you? As a Mentat would say, it's a first-order calculation from the common data inputs. When Mankind starves out of oil, it will fall like a ravenous wolfpack upon NG and coal, which will deplete those much faster.

Bottom line: Fossil fuels are finite, VERY finite, and can't sustain Humanity's voracious energy appetite. And this doesn't even take into account the 2+ billion Chinese and Asian Indians who WANT TO GULP DOWN ENERGY LIKE AMERICANS DO. America's 4.5% of the world population consumes 20% of the world's energy production.

Time to drink your sapho juice, don't you think?

>>6268001
And that's not even counting natural-gas reserves, which we've discovered enormous quantities of, and which is the ONLY fuel that stands any chance of replacing our current petroleum-based transportation economy (you can just convert a car to run on natural gas; it's like a $400 kit.)

The reserves are going to run out, mind - a century from now, we really had better be using an energy economy that's primarily running off of nuclear and solar. But it's not going to be a hard peak-oil crash; we're in a fine position to simultaneously wean ourselves off of fossils while actually increasing energy production.

>>6265851
SpaceX. Their technology is decades ahead of the shuttle program, Soyuz, and their competitors.
/thread

>>6268030
how can you be this retarded? you always get the data right, but you really suck at interpreting anything

>>6268001
>At current mining levels we have 222 years of the stuff left.
Energy consumption increases eponentially. Therefore this is only enough stuff for about 30 years.
Try this lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

>>6268060
That's nonsense. SpaceX's rockets are not revolutionary.

>>6265851
>What's the future of manned exploration for NASA?

Limited

>With the shuttle program retired in 2011, constellation cancelled in 2010, and NASA relying on Soyuz to get to the ISS, what are NASA's plans for LEO and beyond transport?

Realistically? Nill.

>Also: general thoughts on the future of space exploration/ ISS

Unmanned missions and remotely guided commercial ventures to mine Rare earth elements from asteroids. This needs to happen but will only occur with significant public backing because the risk is to high for any private enterprise to accept. As it stands Space-X and all the other supposedly private endeavours to continue space development only exist because public institutions like NASA did all the hard work making the unknowns known and in doing so absorbed most of the risk.

Manned space exploration would be awesome and would accelerate our exploration and exploitation of space significantly but it is just not going to happen. Costs too high, risks to high. Public institutions are crippled by governments make up of lawyers and an uninterested public and private enterprise is too paralysed by risk aversion.

You will not see another golden era of space exploration in your lifetime.

Sorry.

>>6268210
>NASA's plans for LEO and beyond transport?
Hitchhike on NSA spy satellites.

>>6268269
The NSA don't have rockets, manned vehicles or even a satellite program. NRO are the people with spy sats.

>>6267950
>Falcon 9
>developed with NASA money
You are wrong. SpaceX has the majority investment in developing their rockets, engines, and capsules. The COTS and CCDev contracts were only a secondary source of funding, which determined some of the specs for what they chose to develop first.

The SpaceX mission statement is based on the lack of vision found in NASA: get spaceflight cheap enough to be able to pursue manned Mars exploration missions. Hence the research into reusability and methane fuels, research found nowhere else on earth, not even national space agencies.

>>6267950

I don't buy into your puritanical notions that rockets must receive no government assistance in their development. The very basis of my argument is that government demand for launch can spurn improvements in the launch market. Those improvements do not necessarily come from new vehicles, but also improved economics of launch vehicles made more extensive use of.

You're flat wrong on the Falcon 9, the fundamental reason SpaceX exists is to become a more competitive launch services provider, that they won some monies for COTS/CRS and use some alongside their own to field their rocket is not in contradiction to that.

For further proof see the Falcon Heavy, which SpaceX is developing explicitly to compete with other rocket providers for payloads.

Obviously when SpaceX's full catalog is in operational existence then the space science side can consider it instead for their future missions. Let's propose a hypothetical: Next decade SpaceX has a catalog of launch vehicle options that are superior in cost and match the capabilities of their competitors and most NASA science missions are launched by them. This is a plausible scenario, precisely because the relationship with launch is based upon competition for NASA science payloads and SpaceX will seek to win those launch contracts from their competitors.

Like I said, you're hung up on special circumstances because the domestic launch market is not ideal and there is only one launch services provider. Not for long.

>>6265851
>What is the future for manned exploration for NASA?

Program of record:

1. LEO: continue upkeep of ISS. With shuttle retirement, that means buying Soyuz seats in the short term, and contracting commercial flights for cargo (SpaceX Dragon, Antares Cygnus) and crew (Dragon 2, Boeing CST-100, Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser) in the long term.

FYI: the next cargo mission is scheduled to fly on January 6: Antares launch of the Cygnus capsule to the ISS. Should be visible along most of the NE seaboard.

2. BEO: a Saturn V equivalent using the Shuttle manufacturing base: the SLS launcher and Orion capsule. Govt likes it; engineers hate it: a design mandated through legislation to keep jobs flowing to the old Shuttle contractors. And sucking up so much funding that there is none left for actual missions! Probably will suffer the same fate as Constellation: canceled at the next regime change.

>>6268425
>SpaceX has the majority investment in developing their rockets, engines, and capsules.
First off I said funded by NASA, not majority anything, you in fact agree that NASA funded it so I'm not wrong. You are confused. Secondly you cannot know this, SpaceX's finances are not published as they are a privately owned company. You cannot claim to know they spent the majority of the money, all we know is how much NASA awardedmthem.
Falcon 9 and Dragon were developed under the significant funding of COTS.

Lots of other people are looking at reusablity, e.g. Blue origin and REL. Others have looked at methane but there is limited reason to develop it.

>>6268145
>That's nonsense. SpaceX's rockets are not revolutionary.
Only true if you assume that their reusability plans won't work out.

The current plan is to send one up with deployable legs on the lower stage *in February*, and try to land it so it can be reused.

The goal is airliner-like operations, with lower stages that can be gassed up with cheap propellant and reflown more than once per day, and upper stages and crew vehicles that work in much the same way, aside from requiring occasional replacement of inexpensive ablative heat shield panels.

With airliner-like operations will come airliner-like flight prices. That's revolutionary.

>>6268210

You have your finger on the pulse of the problem. You're talking about ECONOMICS. The Golden Age of spaceflight has already passed. It only existed as a tensile member stretched between two hostile petro-empires. Once the tension relaxed, so did the member itself. So sorry, then, no more manned space presence.

The ISS just doesn't count. It's a last gasp from the 80s. It's scheduled to be de-orbited like everything else significant in LEO. Rational people who obey exterior economics would retain all that equipment in orbit since it cost so fucking much to get it all up there. But we don't have exterior economists. We have interior or inner-looking views on economics, and that's as selfish as possible.

We build and then destroy since that made the military-industrialists the most money, for the paradigm of leveraging that money from the taxpayers due to fear and pride. But fear and pride aren't necessary any longer to get billions, even trillions from the taxpayer. All it takes now is waving a shrieking Muslim in our faces, or a crying grandma over her mortgage papers... then we let the billions and trillions flow that way.

The future is already lost. We're making almost zero real preparations for the energy shortages to come. And energy shortage is the only real problem Humanity has to face in the moderate term.

>>6268438
It's not just assistance. All the large launchers current we're made with huge amounts of government money. This heavy government intervention stifles real competition.

I'm not saying the government must have no part, you missed the point. I'm saying at because of all this government involvement we don't see any significant evidence of competition in NASA contracts where only domestic launchers can compete.

If SpaceX want to be competitive they won't be looking at NASA. NASA fly very few payloads per year. They will be looking at what the commercial satellite market want which is the real reason for Falcon Heavy

>>6268459

I see two near term practical uses of their first stage reusability efforts: to make Falcon Heavy sales more profitable for them rather than cheaper for their customers, and to cut out a threat of being undercut on the low payload end by rockets that cost more per pound but have a payload much smaller than the Falcon 9 payload capacity and thus win contracts based upon their lower total cost. SpaceX can then sell a reduced capacity reusable first stage flight for slightly less than there full capacity expendable flight.

>>6268459
> With airliner-like operations will come airliner-like flight prices. That's revolutionary.

Except we've been sold on that scam before, with the Space Shuttle. It was all a LIE then, and it's all a LIE now.

All this "private sector" crap is being fed by government money. It's the OUTSOURCING PHASE of the general withdrawal from space. The system's primary players are playing with outsourcing to make it look like they can do better, or do it cheaper. That never happens, of course. It's just posturing.

So the next phase will be the STARVATION PHASE of the GWFS. Since the outsourcing won't produce the advertised benefits, the managers will squeeze the private players until the money flows drop below their sustainable levels.

By then, petroleum will be so depleted in the world, the US taxpayer will be 1000 times more concerned about getting affordable food and a good-paying job. Nerds will be even more pushed aside than today. And nerds were always the only ones who understood the meta-economic need to expand Humanity into space.

It's hell to understand so much, and yet be powerless to do anything about it. *Then you die.*

>>6268459
Well they haven't yet worked out so I'll say again, SpaceX rockets ARE not revolutionary. I didn't say anything about the future because I don't like speculation.

I don't put any weight in SpaceX timelines for good reasons e.g. Heavy in 2012, Demo 1 in 2008. I also remember the first round of Flacon 9 reuse attempts.

We don't know if airliner like operations will happen, or if it's possible with the current vehicles.

>>6268463

Alas, pretty much this.

>>6268465
NASA will fly many payloads per year if cheap launches become available.

They've got close to $20 billion/year to spend. SpaceX is talking about $5 million/launch when F9R is mature. NASA could buy a launch every week while barely putting a dent in their budget.

>>6268463
One day the ISS will be beyond repair. It s constantly flexing and bending. In the end it will take more to keep it going than it is worth.

Even just to keep it in orbit takes Progress or ATVs to keep it fueled, that's not cheap.

>>6268474
>I didn't say anything about the future because I don't like speculation.
So you're basically talking in the mode of a guy who would have said, "Man has no way to fly to the moon." in early 1969, and insisted it was entirely justified because nobody had done it yet.

You'll have to excuse the rest of us for think you're ridiculous and disregarding you.

>>6268479
And as launchers get cheaper missions get more expensive. People said there would be many more large missions with the EELVs, there aren't.

We have no idea what the budget will be and we have no idea what the policy will be. If they policy is big missions hen launchers are a small cost and changes there make no difference. We don't know.

20 billion isn't all space money, it's also decreasing.

The 5 million cost is shear speculation.

>>6268488
No, I made a statement about the present and surprisingly did not include speculation about the future.

If I included all SpaceX "plans" we would have falcon 1 below a million dollars per launch, falcon 1e, falcon 5 with a hydrolox upper stage and a miniature crew capsule, falcon 9 first stage reuse after landing under parachute and falcon heavy would have flown already. Forgive me for noting that things can change.

>>6268465

> This heavy government intervention stifles real competition.
>real

Look, you're an ideologue, I don't share or care about your puritanical ideology, I care about the differences between SLS type procurement and EELV/Falcon9 type procurement, the easily observed existence of such differences can then be used to determine which is more beneficial for accomplishing manned exploration and also helping the industry develop.

I don't agree with your premise anyways, I think that goverment demand is a cornerstone for why there is a launch industry at all, because the spaceflight industry is immaturely developed and startoff without any assitence is extremely difficult to the point. I could easily say that the existence of the launch industry would be precarious without any such help over the years.

Behold then my ideology: Governments using space launch for their payloads can help incubate the industry to healthier development. That fact that ULA and SpaceX exist is tantamount to that, to the DoD and NASA taking different tracks that helped enable those outcomes.

>we don't see any significant evidence of competition in NASA contracts where only domestic launchers can compete.

SpaceX already has one science mission on the books and more will follow. How is this possible if ULA has a monopoly on all payloads as you insist. Yes, SpaceX hasn't existed until now and is still unfolding, but they are eligible to be contenders for the future when they are ready. Eligible!

>>6268493
The EELVs weren't actually cheaper, it was just the usual dance of contractors, lobbyists, pork, campaign funding, and cushy job kickbacks.

SpaceX is driving for low-priced launch services. Someone is going to use them. If NASA doesn't, they'll end up being humiliated when their space program is obviously irrelevant and inferior compared to what other people are doing.

>The 5 million cost is shear speculation.
It's a figure the SpaceX people have given publicly. It's obviously still an estimate, but it's not "sheer speculation".

>>6268465

>If SpaceX want to be competitive they won't be looking at NASA.

SpaceX rejecting your doofus reasoning has helped them grow to the point where they are a serious threat to other launch providors.

How many science payloads NASA flies is based upon their budget, but you can be damn well sure that SpaceX will want launch them, alongside all their other prospective customers.

Key word: alongside. It is you who can't comprehend well a multiuser market and think that NASA's missions don't add to the sum total of paylaods available to be competed for and thus partly form the basis for why Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy exist and will exist. I never said NASA's science missions stood on their own, but helped add to the effect of a larger market helping to drive innovation.

>>6268498
Grasshopper is a real rocket that has flown. It used real parts from real orbital rockets, and was built on the full scale of a Falcon 9 first stage.

Do you think the F9R that's scheduled to fly in *February* is still some distant drawing-board concept?

They've demonstrated orbital launch, controlled first-stage relight and reentry, and propulsive landing, using all of the real components except for the landing gear.

Falcon 9 1.1 is a revolutionary vehicle. It has flown to orbit. It is still in the testing and tweaking stage of deployment, but it's a real, existing vehicle.

>>6268503
They were cheaper than Titan.

NASA will use SpaceX, I never said otherwise but a rocket isn't a mission.

It is sheer speculation. They don't know the final details of the system. Important details like flight rate and the amount of servicing are unknown.

>>6268525
>They were cheaper than Titan.
Temporary, deceptive pricing, which disregarded the subsidies involved.

Once they could say, "See, we flew some flights at a lower price!" they cranked the prices up.

The EELV program certainly saved no money.

>>6268504
You misread me. I'm not preaching a free market in the US launch industry.

>SpaceX already has one science mission on the books and more will follow. How is this possible if ULA has a monopoly on all payloads as you insist. Yes, SpaceX hasn't existed until now and is still unfolding, but they are eligible to be contenders for the future when they are ready.
When did I say they had a monopoly? What mission out of interest?

>>6268540

http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/02/08/spacex-wins-first-science-mission-nasa-jason-3

>>6268459
>With airliner-like operations will come airliner-like flight prices. That's revolutionary.
That's bullshit. That analogy is one of the worst things that happened to the space industry.

>>6268513
So you call me an idiot and then modify your point to take account of my valid point?
Fantastic argument there.

There will be no less than five rockets in the US: Delta, Falcon, Atlas, Antares and SLS. All the launch systems are chronically underused and the situation will only get worse. There wont be any money left for meaningful payloads.

>>6268517
Grasshopper is a rocket but it's not a launch vehicle. DC-X too was a rocket that used parts from real orbital rockets but it never became anything after 20 years.

We don't know if it will be successful, which is the point.

>Do you think the F9R that's scheduled to fly in *February* is still some distant drawing-board concept?
Never said that. When they flew the first few falcon 9's they too were ready to recover the first stage, it never happened.

>>6268565

I never modified my point, it's not my problem you've been blathering on.

You, in both cases:

>that you can't really say competition stimulates development.

>They will be looking at what the commercial satellite market want which is the real reason for Falcon Heavy

Oh, and SpaceX's press release directly rebuts your entire "science missions aren't competed" track.

Nice talking to you.

>>6268551
But it's not bullshit. Fuel costs are currently only a tiny percentage of launch costs, whereas they're about a third of the cost of airliner flight costs.

That's what's meant by airliner-like operation: flight costs coming down near the cost of fuel. Fast and efficient reusability, inexpensive fuel, and simple pad operations.

Non-reusability (or token reusability, in the case of the space shuttle) and complex pad operations are the fundamental obstacles to cheap launch. It's true that launch prices could remain high after those obstacles are defeated, but there are just too many obvious applications for cheap launch for this to be plausible.

>>6268533
Do you have a source on Atlas 551/2 being more expensive than Titan IV? Every thing I have found says the opposite.

The pricing is deceptive all round. Delta IV still induces development cost, it may decrease in cost in the near future as this is paid off. Also Titan was USAF too so it would have been subsidised.

>>6268571
You're forgetting a few, Pegasus, Pegasus II (perhaps), Minotaur, Taurus..

>>6268584
You changed from NASA contracts to multiuser, you modified your argument.

>that you can't really say competition stimulates development.
Out of context, we were specifically taking NASA science launches.

>Oh, and SpaceX's press release directly rebuts your entire "science missions aren't competed" track.
Where exactly? And I said there was no bidding.

>>6268601
>Oh, and SpaceX's press release directly rebuts your entire "science missions aren't competed" track.
Read it, it doesn't say that at all.

>>6268580
>Grasshopper ... DC-X
Ridiculous comparison. Grasshopper didn't just "use parts from real orbital rockets", it was a stage from a real orbital rocket, with a few small modifications. DC-X was a toy by comparison. It was built without coming anywhere near the mass constraints or being able to stand up to reentry.

And the orbital version of Grasshopper is scheduled to go up in February.

>When they flew the first few falcon 9's they too were ready to recover the first stage, it never happened.
First of all, that was an experiment. They were trying out an approach, and weren't saying it was definitely going to work.

Secondly, the parachute recovery approach was abandoned more because it was grossly inferior to the propulsive landing approach than because they couldn't have made it work. They gave it a try, then they wisely stopped spending money on it that could be spent on a far superior method of reuse.

The first test flight of Falcon 9 was only 3 1/2 years ago. "It never happened" is a fucking stupid claim to make. It's all part of the same effort to make a reusable vehicle, culminating in the upcoming February flight.

>>6268601

The vehicles NASA's space science program uses are inherently multiuser. They do not own their vehicles, they make use of multiuser vehicles.

NASA science missions form part of the market for space launch services.

>Read it, it doesn't say that at all.

"SPACEX WINS"
"NASA contracts launch services for science missions, which include launching the agency’s planetary, Earth-observing, exploration and scientific satellites, as well as satellites for other government agencies such as NOAA, into orbit."

A ULA rocket would have otherwise launched this mission had SpaceX not been eligble to compete for it. SpaceX gets money from winning this launch, this money helps the economics of their launch vehicles thus making them more competitive and helping them grow and evolve.

>>6268588
Well, they're not too open about launch costs, but according to this page, they're about the same:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems

It's not likely that spending the money to develop a new rocket, and having to send some of that to Russia for the engines, has been a good deal for the USA.

>>6268621
>with a few small modifications.
One of them being a very heavy set of legs to lower the center of gravity. What were you saying about mass constraints?

DC-X few higher than Grasshopper has and that was many years ago.

>First of all, that was an experiment. First of all, that was an experiment.
They did say it would work, they thought it would take a few tries but they said by the 5th or 6th flight they would have the stage recovered.

> "It never happened" is a fucking stupid claim to make.
They abandoned an entire approach, I'd say that's significant.

>>6268639
>The vehicles NASA's space science program uses are inherently multiuser.
But you didn't say that, you're just making excuses now.

Nowhere in that article did it mention a bidding process which is what I actually said. The title is misleading, they were awarded a contract it says nothing about bidding. This is a strawman argument.

>>6268665

>But you didn't say that

Do I have to tell you the sky is blue too? My not naming the colour of the sky does not mean I am implying it's tangerine. You filled in the wrong gaps with your own assumptions.

>>6268644
>they're about the same:
What? No they're not.

That page lists the the Atlas 541 as 223 million and the Titan IVB as nearly double the cost at (431 million in 2001 dollars) 470 million. That's twice as much. Tat's a very big difference.

That page badly mistaken, if you divide 432 million by 21,682 kg you get 19,924 dollars per kg. Not the same.

The EELVs were relativity cheap to develop because they drew on existing tech. Leave protectionism out of this.

>>6268679
There were no gaps. You said one thing, I added another and then you jumped on my head and pretended you said it first.

>>6268651
>One of them being a very heavy set of legs to lower the center of gravity.
You're so full of shit. Produce one reference to support your claim that the Grasshopper legs are "very heavy" and significantly lower the center of gravity.

They're heavier than the flight legs will be, but both are insignificant fractions of the mass of the vehicle, and don't affect the balance.

>They did say it would work, they thought it would take a few tries but they said by the 5th or 6th flight they would have the stage recovered.
When they said that, they also said that they'd rather be doing flyback recovery, but didn't have the funds to develop it. When they got the funds, they abandoned the inferior approach.

They didn't even get to the 3rd flight before announcing Grasshopper. That's not a failure, that's an increase of ambition.

>>6268581
Yes, it is bullshit. Reusability isn't a guarantee for cost reduction. We've had numerous attempts in the past to bring down costs through reusability. But you can't always hope to achieve the benefits that technology X has in field A by applying it to field B where previously technology Y has reigned supreme. Sometimes the physical conditions simply won't allow that.

It's as if people were asking why we are still using car technology, when bicycle technology yields so much more in payload fraction or fuel efficiency over car technology. Well duh! The car is made for different purposes and possesses some unique abilities that bicycle technology simply can't replicate because of certain limitations. And it's the same in the comparision of airliners and rockets. The Concorde airplane aimed just at doubling the speed. But this little increase resulted in a tenfold increase in ticket price. If you extrapolate that trend you reach the traditional price of launching a satellite into orbit with airline technology at Mach 4.

All spaceplane projects have failed to delive the promised cost reductions. And reusable rockets are not very likely to be a game changer either. The rocket scientists of the past didn't come up with the idea of constructing sophisticated high tech throw away type vehicles because they were so dumb but because they were so smart. The demands of hauling something to escape velocity or orbital velocity are so extreme that we reach the physical limitations of the very materials we use. There's very little that technology can do against that. Melting points of elements aren't gonna change. These extreme demands however are working against the idea of reusability, because you need structural reserves for multiple uses. Yet the exponential factor of the rocket equation makes any increase in dead weight and any decrease in exhaust velocity result in enormous losses in payload. It's easy to get negative payload with a little loss in performance.

>>6268698
I'm not hunting for a citation, I have things to do but if you can cite this I'll happy apologse and retract it:
>both are insignificant fractions of the mass of the vehicle, and don't affect the balance.

>they also said that they'd rather be doing flyback recovery, but didn't have the funds to develop it.
I never heard that.

>>6265851
>general thoughts on the future of space exploration/
It's called the free market.

>>6268691
>That page badly mistaken
Is it? Or is the $/kg-to-LEO figure coming from a more reasonably comparable source?

You're comparing apples and oranges. The Atlas V figure is from a launch price contract (with NASA as the customer). It includes none of the development contracts or other subsidies involved. The Titan IV figure is from a total cost analysis.

>Leave protectionism out of this.
It's not "protectionism" to note that US profits and wages are taxed, and therefore US government purchases from providers in the USA effectively carry a large discount.

>>6268726
>>they also said that they'd rather be doing flyback recovery, but didn't have the funds to develop it.
>I never heard that.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/musk-ambition-spacex-aim-for-fully-reusable-falcon-9/

>>6268725
>We've had numerous attempts in the past to bring down costs through reusability.
We've had precisely one attempt in the past: the space shuttle. And that was partial reusability.

>All spaceplane projects have failed to delive the promised cost reductions.
Again: one partially-reusable spaceplane.

>And reusable rockets are not very likely to be a game changer either.
They actually very obviously are. See, Falcon 9 doesn't cost more to build than non-reusable rockets. It's really hard to make an orbital rocket cheap, since it has to be built to such exacting specifications. Yet the airframes, tanks, and liquid-fuelled rocket engines are inherently reusable.

So, when you make a conventional expendible liquid-fuelled rocket, you're building something that's very expensive and pretty much reusable to start with... and then not reusing it.

The only trick is how to get it back to reuse. And now that's been sorted out: boost-back with propulsive landing.

Upper stage reusability will take a bit more mass, but it's still not really tricky. Ablative heat shields are well-understood and not terribly expensive. Landing thrusters would add mass, but are well understood and simple. It will follow pretty easily from lower-stage reuse, when it makes sense to spend the money.

>>6265851

Future of space exploration, long-term, would be a carbon nanotube-based space elevator that is used to "shuttle" materials to space for construction of long-range solar sail or nuclear pulse vehicles.

>>6268695

Here's NASA's press release for when they added Antares to the Launch services contract:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jun/HQ_C12-027_NLS_II_mod.html

"NASA has modified its NASA Launch Services (NLS) II contract with Orbital Sciences Corporation of Dulles, Va., to add the Antares launch vehicle, formerly known as Taurus II, for future missions.

The NLS II on-ramp provision provides an opportunity annually for launch service providers not presently under NLS II contract to compete for future missions, and allows launch service providers already under contract to introduce launch vehicles not currently on their NLS II contracts, such as Antares. "

Keywords: "Antares for future missions", "compete for future missions", "introduce new launch vehicles"

As you can see, launches are competed, and NASA is open to further competition when new vehicles come online. That a rocket, lets say Atlas 5, has no current competition, does not mean it cannot face competition when competitors arise. A larger Atlas 5 not facing competition is due to no other systems being online to compete with it, not that it cannot be competed with when they do.

NASA science both fosters and benefits from this type of competitive procurement.

Are we done here?

>>6265851

Once we run out of rare-earth minerals, all space funding will explode as we race to Asteroids to get what we need for electronics manufacturing.

>>6268743
>Or is the $/kg-to-LEO figure coming from a more reasonably comparable source?
It has no source, it's has zero reliability.

>The Atlas V figure is from a launch price contract (with NASA as the customer). It includes none of the development contracts or other subsidies involved.
If you can find compatible numbers I'll be happy to look but that's all we have.

>>6268785
I said there was no bidding process, I see no evidence of that.

>>6268771
>We've had precisely one attempt in the past: the space shuttle. And that was partial reusability.
>Again: one partially-reusable spaceplane.
You have to count all the projects that were broken off because very quickly it became very clear that it just wouldn't work out. That's precisely because it's such a stupid idea. The Shuttle was merely the only such project that was pushed through till existence for political reasons, even though it was clear before the first flight that they couldn't hold their promise.

>Falcon 9 doesn't cost more to build than non-reusable rockets.
I don't give a rat's ass about the claims of SpaceX, because those claims are less reliable than the weather forecast. Just take a look at how the payload of their rockets as announced in the user manual has continually decreased and the launch price continually increased. They've also announced like six launches per year for several years and never achieved more than three. And these wild claims continue to this day. Right now their launch manifest claims a whopping fourteen launches for this year. I bet a hundred bucks they won't make six. SpaceX lives off the enthusiasm of its fanboys and their ignorance to facts.
Their combination of launch price and payload right now is no better than, say, the Russian Proton rocket. We don't need yet another launch service provider with similar capabilities in a market that provides as little as ~60 contracts per year. They can only survive with government money.
The only chance we have to bring down launch prices is via economies of scale. For this they are counterproductive. We need to produce more rockets of the same type, not disperse the launches over even more types with even lower production rates.

>>6268779
>we nead to weave a rope 1 meter thick and 40000 kilometers long made out of a material that's 2-3 times as expensive as gold. That'll make everything cheap.

>>6268853
>If you can find compatible numbers I'll be happy to look but that's all we have.
So your argument is, "Even though we know these numbers can't reasonably be compared, we have to compare them anyway because they're what we have?"

The total cost of a Titan IV launch is about twice the contract price to NASA, not including subsidies and contracted development costs, of the Atlas 541. The Titan IV carries up 25% more payload.

The subsidies and development costs are deliberately kept obscure but known to be large, and are generally estimated to roughly double the cost of launch, above the individual launch contract price.

>>6268786
We don't run out of minerals. They don't disappear. Right now we build machines that are specialized to extract them out of the earth's crust, put them to use and after use we throw them on a big pile called a landfill. At the time the earth's crust doesn't yield enough anymore, there will be more than enough in that pile. We will then build other machines that are specialized to extract them out of that pile, put them to use and after use we throw them on that pile again. We will then have achieved recycling. It will be much less expensive than scifi dreams of asteroid mining.

>>6268875
>You have to count all the projects that were broken off because very quickly it became very clear that it just wouldn't work out.
So now we have to count every bad idea that everyone has had?

The big problem with spaceflight cost is that government projects are inefficient, and governments were extremely hostile to private development of launch systems. The former has not changed, and the latter only changed about a decade ago.

Fundamentally, the less efficient project is the larger project, which means more stakeholders and more influence to strangle smaller projects. This is why government projects aren't efficient, and how we ended up with a monstrosity like the shuttle.

Now is about as soon as private industry could possibly have developed cost-effective launch options, given the legal and regulatory climate in the past. Lo and behold, we have the first test of an efficiently reusable rocket scheduled for February. Behind SpaceX are Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, and XCOR, along with many others.

>Just take a look at how the payload of their rockets as announced in the user manual has continually decreased and the launch price continually increased.
Um... their payloads for Falcon 9 1.1 and Heavy went way above their previous estimates as the Merlin 1D was developed and turned out to have superior performance on top of the reduced cost and increased rate of manufacture it was designed for.

The delays SpaceX has had in getting their manufacturing and launch infrastructure set up are hardly unusual in the aerospace industry. NASA threw money at them to skip the Falcon 5 and build a crew-capable vehicle. Then they got enough funding to develop the production model of the Falcon 9 to have flyback reusability barely after flying the test model.

What's happened here is that they've made huge leaps in the ambitiousness of their program, which required major replanning and reorganization. Naturally, this has meant that lesser goals were abandoned.

>>6268931
>Even though we know these numbers can't reasonably be compared, we have to compare them anyway because they're what we have?
Did I say that? No.

>and are generally estimated to roughly double the cost of launch
Massive citation needed. This is pure guesswork.

>>6269014
Not the same person.

>Um... their payloads for Falcon 9 1.1 and Heavy went way above their previous estimates as the Merlin 1D was developed and turned out to have superior performance on top of the reduced cost and increased rate of manufacture it was designed for.
Although you are correct he is also not wrong. Before v1.1 the advertised payload of F9 did decrease after the first few flights and the price did increase.

>NASA threw money at them to skip the Falcon 5 and build a crew-capable vehicle.
F5 was intended to be a crew vehicle but when it came to COTS SpaceX (not NASA) entered F9 instead some say because it did not require a hydrogen upper stage.

>>6268858

I'm sure NLS is provided vehicle pricing by the launch services providers. Offering your product for a known price is the bidding process. NLS then makes an informed selection with that information in hand.

Transactions come in all shapes and forms, this is no different. Whatever you hold in your head as "the correct way" is specious, like all your other ">real" criteria.

>>6269019
>>and are generally estimated to roughly double the cost of launch
>Massive citation needed. This is pure guesswork.
It has to be guesswork. The development and sustainment of capability contracts are kept secret. However, the estimates tend to come out so the launch prices are only around half of the total money paid for launch services. If you find smaller estimates, feel free to share them.

It seems that the lesson they learned from the Titan IV is to not let people see how much it really costs, rather than anything about actually reducing cost.

>>6268875

Well, SpaceX can outcompete the other rockets and gain economies of scale, and if they cannot, then the other rockets face no threat.

>>6269047
No, if you don't know, you admit that. Bullshit is not an acceptable substitute for knowledge.
>The development and sustainment of capability contracts are kept secret.
The total cost of the EELV program is accessible, it's just over 70 billion. That however covers over 150 flights of two vehicles.

>However, the estimates tend to come out so the launch prices are only around half of the total money paid for launch services.
[citation needed]

>>6269014
>So now we have to count every bad idea that everyone has had?
If it's to serve as indicator of how flawed the concept is, yes.

>The big problem with spaceflight cost is that government projects are inefficient
That's only part of the reason, but yes.

>Now is about as soon as private industry could possibly have developed cost-effective launch options, given the legal and regulatory climate in the past.
In principle, yes. But for it to work the US government would have to shut down a couple of their other launchers. I don't see it happen. It'll be the usual battle over competencies between different government agencies and defense branches. Plus doubts about job losses, stupid arguments about independent access for this'n'that etc.

>Um... their payloads for Falcon 9 1.1
The Falcon 9 v1.1 was the first time they aimed low. The Falcon 9 v1.0 and the Falcon 1 were ridiculous displays in this regard.

>The delays SpaceX has had in getting their manufacturing and launch infrastructure set up are hardly unusual in the aerospace industry.
If you compare yourself with Russians or Chinese, maybe. But not if the benchmark is the market leader, Arianespace, as it should be. Their reliability is part of the reason they hold that large portion of the market, despite their prices being higher than the Russians and much higher than the Chinese. It's also stupid to try to compete with the Russians or Chinese. They can always undercut your prices. The bulk of the cost of rocket launch services is labor cost. And the Russians are doing it in part to earn foreign currency and can always subsidize with Rubles. The Chinese are doing it for strategic purposes above everything else and are likewise willing to subsidize beyond economic reason.

I'm not discounting SpaceX. We'll see how it works out. I'm just sceptic about their claims and announcements, because of past experience.

>>6269087
>The total cost of the EELV program is accessible, it's just over 70 billion. That however covers over 150 flights of two vehicles.
So, roughly half a billion dollars per launch, double the launch price, and about what the Titan IV cost per flight, with a considerably lower capacity on most of the flights?

>>6269115
No, that's two different vehicles, were only talking Atlas. it's not a comparable number.

>>6269059
I don't see the market for that. Increasingly more countries are gaining the ability to launch into orbit. And they will all want to have independent access to space. We just had a little space race between North and South Korea about who of the two will launch a satellite successfully first. The north won. But the South has that ability now, too. While more countries coming into the game will most certainly mean more launches, it will hardly mean more free market launches. The increase will be largely in military satellites. The market potential for com sat or weather sats is quite limited.

>>6269087
>>6269115
On reflection those numbers I posted cannot be correct. There hasn't been 150 EELV flights. The source must be wrong.

>>6269099
>But not if the benchmark is the market leader, Arianespace, as it should be.
The established satellite market is not SpaceX's goal. Like NASA crew and cargo services, it's just a stepping stone.

SpaceX's goal is a radical reduction in launch costs, to create new a market for space exploration, exploitation, and settlement. Delaying some satellite launches so they can build a flyback booster is exactly the kind of tradeoff they should be making.

Anyway, if you want to compare them to Arianespace, you should be comparing the way they started up, not their mature launch services to SpaceX's schedule slippage while developing their launch vehicles and setting up their factories.

>>6269144
It might be contracted flights.

Anyway, you can't seriously argue that the development costs and subsidies are likely to turn out to be small compared to the launch prices. Everything I've seen, including your numbers, supports that the launch price is only around half the total cost.

The EELV program just hasn't saved money, even compared to the Titan IV.

>>6265851
constellation was cancelled, but Orion crew capsule is still online and slated for an unmanned launch this year. SLS is still online, but not sure off the top of my head what the status on it is.

long story short, we are working on most of the stuff constellation had planned, but not under the same program name, if i understand it correctly.

>>CHECK THE NASA WEBSITE. they will explain it better than I will. i got all of this from newsletters from nasa via email.
also, check out LUF (Living Universe Foundation)

im not a major member, but I have intrest in it, and will support it in what ways I can from time to time. so if your report is not limited to NASA, check us out. really cool plan. we just need to develop some things some more.

>>6269172
>SpaceX's goal is a radical reduction in launch costs, to create new a market for space exploration, exploitation, and settlement.
If there was such a potential it would have unfolded already with Chinese launchers.

>Anyway, if you want to compare them to Arianespace, you should be comparing the way they started up, not their mature launch services
Granted, the Europa rocket was a disaster. But the whole Ariane series was a success that is owed to reliability and flexibility. The Europeans capitalized on that after the Challenger disaster and sucked up the largest part of the market because they could deliver on time and sometimes even ahead of schedule to squeeze in someone who had second thoughts after delay or disaster of some other provider. And it has pretty much been like that ever since Russia and China could each grab a bite out of that pie.

>>6265961
read this. chapter 8. (Foundation)

from "The Millennial project" by Marshall T. Savage.

it solves the financial issue. however, it references the previous 400+ pages, and a lot of them are critical to understanding the context of the new system. but dont worry, the book is a great read.

>>6266492
if it works, dont change it.

also if it aint broke, dont fix it.

what the ruskies have failed to realize is that a lot of their stuff is broke, and so far they have failed to fix it.

>>6269188
> you can't seriously argue that the development costs and subsidies are likely to turn out to be small compared to the launch prices.
I don't claim to know, you do but refuse to provide a shred of evidence. I'll ask you for the third time, where is your evidence?

I can't even find a source for the Titan IV total program cost, it's uncited. The only company who comes clean about subsidies is ArianeSpace and they are less than a single A5 flight a year.

>>6266492
also, Orion is closer to Apollo than the shuttle. it is not intended to be reusable. (the capsule at least) so we dont spend so much money on refurbishing. it lands in water. much less complicated. the shuttle was too damn complicated. it was reusable, but only after you replaced every single part of it. so it really was just as if not more expensive as single use rockets. the real cost is fuel. we need to stop using chemical rockets. use laser ablative thrust systems. use mass drivers. hell, use a space elevator. what the hell, use all of them in combination with others, and more! but we cant keep carrying fuel to carry the fuel to carry the fuel to carry the fuel to finally carry the payload. too damn inefficient. too expensive, too dangerous, to complicated, and too inefficient. I know, i said that twice, but im demonstrating how inefficient it is to carry your fuel for the sole purpose of carrying more fuel.

>>6269229
>I don't claim to know
Oh bullshit. You started this by implying that EELVs reduced launch costs, then when I disputed that, specifically claimed the EELVs were cheaper than Titan IVs.

Now, after arguing about it for hours, you're saying you "don't claim to know", as if I was the one who started with the claims and you have only been expressing skepticism and asking for evidence.

>I'll ask you for the third time, where is your evidence?
Look, this isn't Wikipedia. This isn't a court case. We're having an informal conversation. I'm sharing what I've learned over years, and I'm not prepared to prove it.

You even posted some numbers yourself (without saying where they came from) that supported my position, and only dismissed them after I pointed out that they supported my position. Your skepticism is unreasonable, when everywhere you go for estimates of program cost show that the EELVs are heavily subsidized and cost much more than their individual launch prices.

The EELV program costs are secret. The information that does leak out strongly suggests that the costs are high, but you have to dig through a lot of it to evaluate the evidence. If you're interested, read up on it. Don't just expect someone to hand you a complex piece of knowledge on 4chan.

>>6269319
> then when I disputed that,
I agreed with you that the numbers were not compatible and dropped it.

I don't claim to know, I did but your challenge was correct.

>We're having an informal conversation.
What is the difference between that and making shit up? Skepticism is not unreasonable when you make claims and provide no evidence.

I asked a simple question, did you have evidence to support your assertion. The answer to that is obviously no but you wont come out and say that.

>>6269148
SpaceX is aiming for launches around $5 million, and very frequent, routine launches which mean you won't need to order them years in advance.

Launch demand isn't very responsive to small price reductions, but an order of magnitude improvement in cost and availability should make a dramatic difference in demand.

The number of people who can afford a once-in-a-lifetime space vacation for $2 million is much more than ten times the number of people who could pay $20 million. When the launch cost is 10% of your movie budget, rather than the whole thing, shooting some scenes in orbit is an irresistable movie gimmick.

Some manufacturing processes may be moved to space, if zero gravity is advantageous. A dollar per gram shipping cost is not so high compared to the value of some precision components.

Science and exploration missions would be much more affordable. The moon, Mars, asteroids would all be far cheaper to reach. We'd have more use for any resources that could be moved from the moon or asteroids to Earth orbit.

>>6269357
I can come up with evidence, just not proof. The thing is, it only takes a few seconds with google to start finding some evidence (you apparently found some somewhere, since you posted numbers), so stop being an asshole and use it, instead of repeatedly asking me to link to one or two things for you to nitpick and dismiss.

>>6269387
Don't deflect like that. Only you know what evidence you have seen, how the fuck an I supposed to find that?

I've asked you 3 times but no. And you couldn't just admit you were flat out bullshitting and never questioned the fact that the cost estimate for the Titan IV you clung to wasn't cited so you have no idea if it was marginal or total cost. You had your conclusion and weren't interested in the facts.

>>6269370
>SpaceX is aiming for launches around $5 million
Well, the laws of physics aren't gonna change for them. If you can get everything right with reusability, you can cut today's costs to 50%, maybe even 30%, because there is still optimization potential in today's systems. The reason for that is that most of today's rockets weren't optimized for the free market launches but are rather spin-offs from ICBM developments. But that $5 million figure I find unrealistic for any meaningful payload and orbit.

>>6269403
What the fuck is wrong with you? I'm bullshitting and "clinging" to things because it's complicated and I'm not trying to spoonfeed you in response to your tantrum?

Seriously, a few fucking seconds with google:
Titan IV costs:
http://archive.gao.gov/d19t9/144770.pdf

EELV costs:
http://www.weboflife.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/EELV_Costs_Paper_r2a.pdf

There's something seriously wrong with your brain.

>>6269415
They're hardly going to have to change the laws of physics to get the launch costs down that far.

Currently, at $56.5 million for a payload to LEO of 13 tons, a Falcon 9 launch is just about the best value on the market.

The propellant cost is well under $200,000. Lower stage reusability is supposed to cost 30% of payload. Upper stage reusability is supposed to cost around half of payload. So the fully reusable version is going to take up four or five tons, which is a reasonable and useful payload. When that's not enough, the fully reusable Falcon Heavy should be able to do at least 15 tons to orbit, while costing less than three fully reusable Falcon 9 launches.

The only hard floor is that propellant cost. You need to spend the energy to get to orbit. Commercial airlines usually charge passengers about triple the cost of fuel, and there's no reason a mature commercial spaceline couldn't have a similar relation between price and fuel cost.

Regulations or market conditions might prevent a $5 million Falcon 9 launch, but physics won't.

>>6269440
Wow, 2 Wikipedia citations which don't address the points you yourself raised. The Titan IV paper explicitly doesn't mention vehicle costs, I've already looked at it, you clearly have not.

You had your answer why trouble it with some basis in reality.

The free market won't do jack shit until space development becomes economical, and it won't become economical until it's proven to be profitable. Asteroid mining is the future. We need government space agencies to prove that it's profitable, and once that happens it'll all be downhill.

>>6269586

>We need government space agencies to prove that it's profitable

No government space agency is doing that though. You think government space has a necessary role to play, but what happens when they aren't living up to their end of the bargain?

>>6269586
government doesn't need to prove it's profitable. If there's enough demand/reward, someone will take the risk necessary. Apparently that demand doesn't exist yet.

>>6269606
Government space agencies have the role of pioneers, motivated by science and national pride rather than profit. It'll be just like the Age of Exploration, when royally-financed expeditions discovered the New World and opened it up to private enterprise.

>what happens when they aren't living up to their end of the bargain?
We get what we're experiencing currently. I have hope, though; if China lands a man on the moon, it'll start off space race 2.0.

>>6269630
>if China lands a man on the moon, it'll start off space race 2.0
How so?

>>6269538
It's about total program cost, including vehicle cost, you cretin. The total cost of doing launches with different programs is what we're comparing here.

And if you want to get some understanding of the issues involved here, you're going to need to work a little harder at it than to beg for links on /sci/ and skim what you get for an excuse to claim that it's not good enough for you.

This is what the evidence looks like. I told you before that there isn't definitive proof, since much of the information is secret. But people make reasonable estimates based on information that slips out here and there.

>>6269631
Haven't you heard? The solar system is American property. We can't have no filthy commies planting their red flags on OUR planets and moons.

>>6269630

>space race 2.0

but where? back to the moon? seems a little silly.

In the 60s the USA and NASA had a clear goal: get to the moon. With less direction now, apparently there's less motivation/efficiency.

>>6269649
Mars, obviously. The technology has been there since the 1970's, all we need is a rival to beat.

>>6269649
>>6269631

and in reality, it won't be the same as the real space race. With USA clearly dominating in every military + science aspect, it would take a lot more than a lunar landing.

The Soviet Sputnik + other initial space victories sparked fear. THere won't be the same fear/unknown with a lunar landing today.

>>6269658
Would it be possible that China overtakes America in the near future if the US government continues to care less about NASA?

>>6269658
Many people see the USA as an aging juggernaut, and the new century as the "Chinese Century". A renewed commitment to space exploration would reaffirm America's place at the top.

>>6269673
Considering China just performed the first soft landing on the moon in 40 years, I'd say it's likely.

>>6269632
Well I apologise, there is something we can work with. Was it so hard. Estimated costs will not show the true program cost but it's something.

It would cost 30 billion 2013 dollars for 41 flights. That's 732 million per launch.

This combined with cost projections 152 flights for 70 billion 2013 dollars gives us 460 mission per EELV flight.

Cheaper at least in projections.

>>6269680

I guess it all depends on how quickly you think USA (and especially their NASA funding/space initiatives) will decline and China's will rise.

I genuinely hope that China's progress spurs further interest in space development + exploration.

>>6269683

not the other guy, but the Apollo project ended up coming in 3.5 times over budget. Good times.

>>6269642
The Soviets got to both the Moon, Mars and Venus first. Suck it looser.

>>6269686
Titan IV was cancelled because of cost so you can bet it was every bit as bad.

>>6269673
The American government did the right thing by mandating that the FAA and NASA support and enable rather than impede the development of diverse privately funded and developed commercial space launch services.

China has nothing that looks competitive with what SpaceX is working on. They're pretty much just doing me-too 60s things with big missiles, while America is working out how to make a space-747.

>>6269685
Modern China is an upstart nation with a lot to prove, and they seem very committed to showing their technical mastery to the world. And yeah, I hope so too. I honestly wouldn't mind living in a Chinese century if it means I get to go to space.

>>6269688
Robotically, yeah. As detestable as the Stalinist regime was, I think it's great that they contributed so much to humanity's knowledge of the universe.

>>6269697
>me-too 60s things with big missiles
For now. They're gunning for a moon landing, and afterward they'll put their considerable intellectual capital toward efficiency like we are.

>>6269683
>It would cost 30 billion 2013 dollars for 41 flights. That's 732 million per launch.
The $18.3 billion figure was for 65 flights, not for the initial 41-flight contract. Now it's $461 million per launch.

>This combined with cost projections 152 flights for 70 billion 2013 dollars gives us 460 mission per EELV flight.
...and most of the EELV launches are going to be much smaller than a Titan IV payload.

It's kind of like how the space shuttle was supposed to be a cost-saving program. I mean, that was the whole reason they were doing it, the only justification for a vehicle which could only go to LEO. But when the program was over, and all the launches and costs were added up, they could have launched a Saturn V AND a Saturn 1B for every shuttle launch they did, and it still would have been cheaper. They could have sent up five times as much cargo and just as many manned missions. And that's assuming no incremental improvement over decades of producing ELVs.

You need an awfully big improvement to justify designing a new rocket rather than working with one that's already in production. The space shuttle was at least founded in a reasonable level of ambition, though the execution was laughable. The EELV program was absurd in every respect.

>>6269739
My mistake. So these numbers can't tell us which was actually cheaper.
Smaller is beside the point, you're paying for launches.

It wasn't absurd. You have to modernise at some stage, parts go out of production. This isn't the final word either simply because these are projections. Titan was cancelled because of cost, if it actually stuck to these numbers it probably wouldn't have. I can find tentative numbers in 1995 that say 40 billion for 47 flights.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/at_951217.htm

Secondly you gain redundancy, if Atlas were to have a major failure assess is maintained by Delta.

>>6268903

It's not about being cheap, it's about the fact that chemical rockets are extremely inefficient and I don't think they will be viable in 2-3 centuries time. Carbon nanotubes are what, $2-6/g depending on type? It'll go down in time.

>>6268936

Perfect recycling is impossible.

>>6267247
Well it's not exactly unchanged.. just slowly upgraded over the decades. Such as replacing vacuum tube electronics with analog circuits, then with digital, the flight & stability systems have shrunk in size and weight; thus allowing more people / cargo to be carried. And that's just one change.

>>6269786
> vacuum tube electronics with analog circuits
I thought vacuum tubes were digital circuits that used vacuum tubes instead of transistors.
if so it'd be vacuum tubes -> transistors, yeah?
> flight & stability systems have shrunk
mems are the coolest things ever

>>6269763
>Smaller is beside the point, you're paying for launches.
One of the reasons Titan IV was expensive was that it was a heavy-lift vehicle. The Titan III and IV rockets were supposed to be low-development-cost, high-marginal-cost vehicles for a small number of large payloads.

You're paying to put certain payloads in orbits. If you need to launch a 17-ton satellite, an Atlas V 501 with 8-ton capacity isn't going to cut it.

>>6269773
Chemical rockets actually have quite good energy efficiency (something like 30% of chemical energy is converted to orbital energy), while realistic space elevator designs tend to have poor energy efficiency, due to needing something like microwave power transmission.

>>6269800
>If you need to launch a 17-ton satellite, an Atlas V 501 with 8-ton capacity isn't going to cut it.
Which is why you have solids and the larger delta variants. Most government payloads fit on small or medium variants, there isn't much point paying for more.

>>6269817
The point is, if you're paying for 152 launches, most of which are Atlas V 401s, Delta IV Medium, and other non-heavy configurations, and it's coming out to more than twice as much as the price for 65 launches on a heavy lift vehicle like the Titan IV, you're not getting a better deal.

The EELV program wasn't just to replace the Titan IV heavy lift vehicle, it was to replace medium lift vehicles like the Delta II and Atlas II, which had accounted for the large majority of the launches and were undoubtedly a lot cheaper.

>>6269840
>you're not getting a better deal.
That depends on how you look at things. Cost per mass isn't all that helpful as it seems to suggest that adding solids to all atlas flights would make it "a better deal" than otherwise. If you have lots of medium payloads and can't do dual launch (which is a pain anyway) you have few options.
Also the cost of the 65 flights is hardly reliable. If we take the later figure I provided we see it's EELV is cheaper for the same payload. Without a better set of numbers it's hard to conclude anything. 401 makes up less than half of Atlas V launches so it is not the mean for all EELV flights.

> it was to replace medium lift vehicles like the Delta II and Atlas II, which had accounted for the large majority of the launches and were undoubtedly a lot cheaper.
I'm really not sure that's true. not when you account for TIV. If TIV really did take 40 billion for almost 50 flights that would leave 30 million for a hundred flights of the other two launchers.

>>6265904

Putting people in space has a far greater impact than putting curiousity. To put people in space requires research into how they're going to survie up there, gives us data on long term space exposure on the body, and new human survival techniques.

>>6267497

chinese people are too small to fit into space suits

>>6269739

It's not EELVs vs Titan. It's EELVs vs Titan + Atlas + Delta, which the Air Force all had to support.

That's why its cheaper, even if its not perfect.

>>6269782
Near perfect, like nature does it, is enough to sustain life for billions of years.

>>6269484
>Falcon Heavy
Is a shitty design. With so many engines running simultaneously it's destined to either blow up or, if they manage to shut down faulty engines in time, to miss its orbit or, if they load it lightly enough to also account for that, to have such a bad payload fraction that it's not gonna achieve the promised cost reduction.

>there's no reason a mature commercial spaceline couldn't have a similar relation between price and fuel cost.
Yes, there is. It's called the tyranny of the rocket equation. It's the reason we have to engineer the shit out our launch vehicles and still end up with such large vehicles for so little payload.

>>6270192

>Is a shitty design. With so many engines running simultaneously it's destined to either blow up or, if they manage to shut down faulty engines in time, to miss its orbit

It has multiple engine-out capability while still finishing the mission.

>if they load it lightly enough to also account for that, to have such a bad payload fraction that it's not gonna achieve the promised cost reduction.

Payload fraction is not very important for economics. What is important is low requirements for human resources (Shuttle failed because it needed a standing army of engineers to operate) and high launch rate.

There is no law of physics that would make launch costs as low as <$1 million unrealistic. The hard floor is propellant cost of around $200.000.

>>6270192
>With so many engines running simultaneously it's destined to either blow up or, if they manage to shut down faulty engines in time, to miss its orbit or, if they load it lightly enough to also account for that, to have such a bad payload fraction that it's not gonna achieve the promised cost reduction.
SpaceX has had one engine in 70 fail on their Falcon 9s -- the rocket still went up, and they fixed the issue so it wouldn't happen again.

>>there's no reason a mature commercial spaceline couldn't have a similar relation between price and fuel cost.
>Yes, there is. It's called the tyranny of the rocket equation. It's the reason we have to engineer the shit out our launch vehicles and still end up with such large vehicles for so little payload.
Did you just not read the post you're replying to?

Yes, the fuel costs more for a given payload. No, the vehicle doesn't really cost more (rockets are much simpler than airliners). The fuel is going to cost more, but there's no reason there can't be a similar relationship between fuel cost and flight price, if the vehicle is reusable.

>>6270242
>The hard floor is propellant cost of around $200.000.
They're actually working on a next-generation rocket that could lower that floor by another order of magnitude. Methane is super cheap, compared to fancy rocket kerosene. So is liquid oxygen, if you have your own production facilities.

>>6269869
>If TIV really did take 40 billion for almost 50 flights
Where are these numbers coming from, now? How did we get to $40 billion for "almost 50" from $30 billion for 65?

>>6269978
But it's not cheaper. You've got your argument backward.

Atlas II and Delta II were much less expensive rockets than Titan IV. They accounted for the majority of launches. Most of that $400 million per EELV flight is for launches that would have gone up on these small, inexpensive rockets.

Delta II in particular was a mature launch system with a launch price around $50 million, and a total cost to government estimated to actually be close to the launch price, since it was being launched frequently. The EELVs that replaced it have a price well over $100 million, and a total cost to government estimated to be about double the price.

Realistically, Delta-II-class launches (i.e. the large majority of launches) are now costing the government four to six times as much as they did before EELV.

Titan-IV-class launches, on the other hand, aren't any cheaper with EELV. They still don't fly a lot of heavy lift launches. They still need to maintain the costly infrastructure for occasional heavy lift launches, in fact for two separate heavy lift launch vehicles. But now they're buying from a cartel that also wants to recover the costs of developing two new heavy lift launch vehicles.

>>6270242
what ever happened to launching airplane style and then rocketing? or even balloon launch to altitude first? the key limiting factor is today's launch style, which seems like the obvious candidate for a change

>>6270407

>what ever happened to launching airplane style and then rocketing?

Not worth it with usual propulsion methods. However Skylon is an interesting example with a new type of hybrid rocket+jet engine and is under active development.

>or even balloon launch to altitude first?

Again, mass savings if any are not worth the increase in complexity. It would cost a lot more than simply making a bit larger propellant tank.

>>6270407
>what ever happened to launching airplane style and then rocketing?
People are working on that, but you need a really big airplane to launch a medium-size rocket, and you can't do things like holddown after ignition.

In the most recent SpaceX launch, an attempt was aborted after ignition, when an issue was detected that could have resulted in mission failure. They then checked the rocket out thoroughly, fixed the issue, and launched a few days later.

Without that holddown capability at the pad, they could have just lost the rocket and payload. In an air launch, they could have blown up the giant custom carrier.

>or even balloon launch to altitude first?
This is only suitable for tiny rockets.

>the key limiting factor is today's launch style
No, the key limiting factor is not having either efficiently reusable or extremely cheap, yet also highly reliable, expendable vehicles.

>>6270426
>>6270437
interesting. Amy idea how much savings this actually gives? any idea where I'd find trajectory data for a typical rocket launch? I'm most interested in how fast the rocket goes at different altitudes

>>6270242
>It has multiple engine-out capability while still finishing the mission.
Grasp the difficulty of engine failure. Engine failure fucks your launcher in three different ways. First, apparently, is the loss of one engine and the loss of thrust that comes with it, provided you are able to shut it down in time so that it doesn't blow up your rocket. Second is the problem that failure of an engine that's not the centre engine means asymmetric thrust that must be compensated, most likely by shutdown of the opposite engine. So in most cases the failure of one engine results in the loss of thrust of two engines. Third, with two engines less you have to burn more fuel because the loss of thrust means an increase in gravitational losses that you need to compensate with longer burn time. Ergo you have to carry more fuel beforehand. This worsens your mass fraction. If you want to be a reliable launch service provider, and you want to if you want to have a certain customer base, you'll have to account for that by decreasing the advertised payload capacity accordingly. If you disregard reliability, the launch prices are gonna rise anyway through higher insurance prices. These make up a significant portion of launch prices. These circumstances foil your efforts of cost reduction.

>There is no law of physics that would make launch costs as low as <$1 million unrealistic. The hard floor is propellant cost of around $200.000.
That's a nonsensical statement. It's like saying the hard floor for drilling deep into the earth's crust is the cost of the energy required for rotating the drill. You can't get around some physical properties like tensile strength, thermal resistance, melting point and the like.

>>6270445
Well, one of the biggest savings of a high-altitude launch is that the rocket nozzles will be significantly more efficient in the low air pressure.

A rocket is a pressure engine. Work is extracted from the difference in pressure between the combustion chamber and the nozzle mouth. So sea level air pressure makes rockets inefficient. With hydrogen/oxygen propellant, the specific impulse (a measure of rocket fuel economy) of a good engine falls from about 470 in a vacuum to about 380 at sea level, with a similar lost of thrust. Just when you need the most thrust (at lift-off), the air pressure takes it away from you!

>>6270455

>First, apparently, is the loss of one engine and the loss of thrust that comes with it, provided you are able to shut it down in time so that it doesn't blow up your rocket.

This can be quite easily compensated for by firing the stage longer. A usual launch does not sped all the fuel anyway.

>Second is the problem that failure of an engine that's not the centre engine means asymmetric thrust that must be compensated, most likely by shutdown of the opposite engine.

There are other ways, for example gimbaling some of the engines. SpaceX didnt need to shut an oposite engine during their engine failure. Picture related, highly asymetric Atlas V configuration and yet it flies well.

>Third, with two engines less you have to burn more fuel because the loss of thrust means an increase in gravitational losses that you need to compensate with longer burn time.

Not an issue unless multiple engines fail.

>>6270365
>SpaceX has had one engine in 70 fail on their Falcon 9s -- the rocket still went up, and they fixed the issue so it wouldn't happen again.
lrn2engineer. There is no 100% reliability. If we assume 98.5% reliability for the Merlin 1D, then the chance for flawless operation of all 27 of them is 66.5%.

>No, the vehicle doesn't really cost more (rockets are much simpler than airliners).
You cannot possibly be this dumb.

>>6270491

More engines means more chance of failure but also less danger for the mission when a single engine fails. Falcon Heavy may very well finish the mission with multiple engines out.

>>6270490
>There are other ways, for example gimbaling some of the engines.
Very limited. Take Ariane V-36 for example. There was not an engine shutdown but merely a decrease in chamber pressure of one engine that resulted in a 50% power loss. The first stage had 8 engines. Yet after 90 seconds the gimbals reached maximum angle and couldn't compensate the asymmetric thrust anymore. This resulted in a catastrophic failure.

>>6270500
I granted that point before. You just down wanna see the downside of this approach.
On a sidenote: historically the simulanteous use of many engines didn't work out. The Russian N-1, for example, was a failure. It's the reason why rocket scientists have preferred a lower number of engines with higher reliability.

>>6270455
Vague and general hand-waving at casually-considered difficulties isn't a substitute for careful examination of specific cases.

As previously pointed out, SpaceX has had only one engine in 70 fail on their Falcon 9 launches. Furthermore, if you look at their pricing structure, they provide a large incentive for using the Falcon Heavy for relatively light loads.

Their current engine, the Merlin 1D, is throttleable. Shortly after lift-off, they have to throttle the engines down, to limit aerodynamic pressure and acceleration forces. If they suffer an engine loss, they can throttle engines on that side back up to compensate.

Furthermore, they have an additional reserve of mission assurance in their reusability plan. These lower cores are meant to be flyback-reusable. On missions with sufficient margin for reuse, they will have the option of abandoning core recovery and burning the flyback reserve to assure mission success.

Because of its commonality (both in design and production) with the Falcon 9, the Falcon Heavy is a very cheap rocket for what it can do, and what it can do is outstanding. It has the highest payload capacity since the Saturn V, while being priced like a medium-lift rocket. It's capable of doing many SLS-class missions for under 10% of the price. It can launch Ariane 5 payloads for under half of the price, or launch twice the Ariane 5 payload for what is still a considerably lower price. This is all without considering the potential for reuse.

>>6270491
>lrn2engineer. There is no 100% reliability. If we assume 98.5% reliability for the Merlin 1D, then the chance for flawless operation of all 27 of them is 66.5%.
These engines are designed for reuse, not the usual "hopefully it will survive one launch".

Do you get a 1.5% chance of failure per flight on airliner jet engines?

There's no 100% reliability, but you can do a hell of a lot better than 98.5%.

>>6270523
I don't care about their claims of payload and price. It didn't work out in the past. Why should they tell the truth this time?
It makes for great advertising, I grant you that. It's all that SpaceX fanboys talk about: what nice things are gonna be in the future. Are any Mars plans fixed? How is the cross feeding development going? One can hardly keep track of how the rockets specs change. Not to mention the communist like broadcast delay, euphemisms like 'anomaly' that are only revealed in press conferences months later. Did you know that the maiden flight of the Falcon Heavy was once scheduled for late 2012? Everything that company announces one has to take with serious scepticism.

>>6270540
>These engines are designed for reuse, not the usual "hopefully it will survive one launch".
That would actually dictate higher reliability standards. But in order to cut costs SpaceX doesn't test their engines as thoroughly as others.

>There's no 100% reliability, but you can do a hell of a lot better than 98.5%.
SpaceX, apparently, can't.

Extrapolating shit from one exploded engine is impossible. SpaceX has 14 launches scheduled for this year including Falcon Heavy. I doubt they will really launch so much but anyway we should have a lot more data points to begin judging their reliability.

>>6270578
>I don't care about their claims of payload and price.
They're signing contracts for those payloads at those prices.

>It didn't work out in the past.
What didn't work out is that they skipped the block 2 of Falcon 9 1.0, and had some delay as they built the Falcon 9 1.1, which is a much more capable rocket at a better price, and is designed for flyback reusability, which is a revolutionary advance that may soon provide an order of magnitude reduction in launch price.

The Falcon Heavy that's debuting this year has more than twice the payload capacity of the one they were going to launch in 2012, AND is designed for flyback reuse. They delayed for the best possible reasons.

>>6270582
>in order to cut costs SpaceX doesn't test their engines as thoroughly as others.
So, now you're just making shit up?

>SpaceX, apparently, can't.
They had one engine failure in their first few flights. They fixed the issue that caused it. This kind of problem is sometimes called "infant mortality". Of course they're not going to have perfectly reliable engines on what are basically prototype rockets. The more they fly these engines, the more bugs they're going to work out, and the higher the reliability is going to be.

Out of interest, did we ever get a video if SpaceX's attempted soft landing at sea?

>>6270610
>They're signing contracts for those payloads at those prices.
They are constantly changing. You don't seem to realize that. In March 2006 Falcon Heavy was supposed to have 24750 kg LEO Payload, 9650 kg GTO payload and a price of $78 million, in June 2006 it was 27200 kg LEO, in August 2007 28000 kg LEO and 11000 kg GTO, in June 2008 29610 kg LEO, 15010 kg GTO and a price of $104.5 million, in March 2010 32000 kg LEO, 19500 kg GTO and a price of $95 million.
I don't even keep track anymore. It's pointless. Their announcements are worth shit.

>may soon
>debuting this year
Stop taking their bullshit at face value!

>>6270640
Those numbers were all tentative estimates, for possible future rockets possibly launching at some uncertain point in the future. In March 2010, they hadn't even flown the first Falcon 9 test flight. Why would you even think it would be surprising for those numbers to change?

The current numbers are firm ones for a rocket launching this year, with contracts signed, pad facilities built, and a factory already producing engines and cores.

>>6270616
>So, now you're just making shit up?
No. This point is good to illustrate their North Korean like information policy. Let's take a look at this press release:
http://www.spacex.com/press/2013/04/13/spacexs-merlin-1d-engine-achieves-flight-qualification

In it they claim: "SpaceX's testing program demonstrated a ratio of 4:1 for critical engine life parameters such as firing duration and restart capacity to the engine's expected flight requirements. The industry standard is 2:1."
That's outright bullshit. The industry standard is more like 5:1 to 10:1.
If you compare it to the last US developed engine, the RS-68, you'll see that it's been tested much less: 1970 seconds burn time vs. 18945 seconds. The RS-68 already has the reputation of having been developed very rapidly. But it's been tested about ten times as long. Ten times the engine life is normal for other engines, too. The Vulcain was tested 90000 seconds, Vulcain 2 75000 seconds. The Vulcain engine is qualified for 6000 seconds operating time and 20 launches even though it's used for one launch only with some 540 seconds burn time.

In the following tests SpaceX then needed five attempts. The first four had to be aborted after 3.5s, 15s, 75s and 110s respectively. Only the fifth test, which was reduced from 180s to 11s, worked. And only that one got published. The failures were made know only in forums by SpaceX employees. During the maiden flight both relights failed. Do you think that might have to do something with the rather 'limited' testing?
They've rode their luck so far. But it's a simple matter of statistics that sooner or later they gonna run out of it.

>>6270661
The usual way of doing things is declaring a design goal and developing the rocket according to this goal.

>The current numbers are firm ones
I lol'd.

>>6265851
>Also: general thoughts on the future of space exploration/ ISS
We need to free the market.

>>6270732
Oh please. Aside from the flight qualification testing, SpaceX also does testing of each engine before it's installed on a core, and did a full-duration burn of the entire assembled core before the first Falcon 9 1.1 launch.

That's one engine that did 1970 seconds of test time in just their flight qualification test program, which you're comparing to 18945 seconds of total accumulated test time of all engines in the RS-68 testing. I can only assume your claim "The industry standard is more like 5:1 to 10:1." is a similarly dishonest apple-to-oranges comparison.

The relight attempt on the first Falcon 9 1.1 *was* a test. It wasn't important for the payload they were delivering. The second 1.1 relight, which was not a test, worked flawlessly. The two relights on the lower stage (for the booster ocean landing attempt) also worked.

Whining about aborts is just one more way you're getting it backward. SpaceX aborts when a fly sneezes. It's how they avoid blowing shit up. When they're not launched and committed to a mission, they don't force or rush things. They find any tiny irregularity, they abort, they find what caused it, and they fix it before moving forward.

>>6270578
I actually work for a different private space company, so I sympathize with them. Our maiden flight's slipped by a year or two already, and we don't give out too much information either. It's not because we have anything to hide (we have literally the most reliable rockets ever built, as confirmed by extensive testing), but because rockets are hard and the design's specifics are constantly changing as we try things and they don't work.

>>6270754
>The usual way of doing things is declaring a design goal and developing the rocket according to this goal.
I don't know if you've been paying attention to the launch industry's general failure to progress beyond the 1960s in capabilities or cost-effectiveness, but the usual way of doing things sucks.

Falcon Heavy is a Falcon 9 derivative. The design goal was, "Get as much as we can out of sticking three Falcon 9 lower stages together."

Why do we need another shuttle? Why can't we slap a capsule onto a stripped version of the rocket that's designed to heavy lift?

So when you're not hulling humans,you can use additional stages to lift large cargo into space.

If we were to use a capsule,we could get newer capsule technology on the go.

I think the idea of reusing shuttles for humans is stupid.
If we're going to use shuttles,use them for cargo.

I mean nobody,but the shareholders are going to care if a unmanned shuttle blows up over the Atlantic.


Also why can't we use atomic powered shuttles for cargo?

>>6270842
Because if we used nuclear rockets, a whole lot of people WOULD care if an unmanned shuttle blew up over the Atlantic.

>>6270846
well that's true...

>>6270842
Nuclear rockets are actually pretty disappointing for orbital launch. The first problem is the thrust-to-weight ratio. Designs suitable for use in Earth's atmosphere (i.e. not spraying radioactive waste everywhere) aren't really capable of exceeding thrust-to-weight ratios above 10:1. So over 10% of your takeoff mass is going to be rocket engine.

The second problem is that their performance, while better than chemical rockets, still isn't spectacular. Specific impulse can't really exceed 1000 seconds, which is just a little better than double that of chemical rockets. A nuclear SSTO would still need to be at least 66% fuel at takeoff. After engine and fuel, we're down to 24% of takeoff mass for structure, fuel tanks, RCS/OMS systems, flight surfaces, thermal protection, electrical power, cargo bay, and payload.

The third is that you only get this performance from pure liquid hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen is costly, hard to handle, and has depressingly low density. This means your fuel tanks are going to be both voluminous and heavily insulated, and all of this volume is going to need to be shielded by the thermal protection system. So guess what happens to the rest of the 24%?

This is all without getting into the general sensitivity and risk of nuclear rockets.

Realistically, a nuclear rocket is only going to make sense as an upper stage, and you probably don't want it coming back to Earth, and you probably don't want to throw it away. Rather, you'll want to fuel it back up and use it for something like a lunar ferry service or a series of Mars missions.

>>6270773
Take a look at some numbers and tell me SpaceX beats the industry standard by a factor of 2 without crossing your fingers behind your back:
http://www.ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090022131_2009014234.pdf

>>6270785
I know of no other space company that does this, private or governmental. Core specs varying by 100%+ over the years is just retarded. Usually when the development is finished the final values differ a bit in the low single digit percentage range.

>>6270950
There's really nothing in there that's helpful to determine what the "industry standard" is.

NASA's own vehicles certainly aren't the industry standard. They've got more money than God, and throw it around shamelessly.

You're the one here making a strong claim (that SpaceX is being dishonest). You should be able to back it up. The only relevant number you've brought is the RS-68 total seconds of testing (development + qualification) with several engines, and you, either stupidly or dishonestly, compared it to the Merlin 1D qualification test alone, done with one engine. Normally there is a lot more test-firing done in development and acceptance than in qualification. If development testing is done properly, qualification is a formality.

You should be able to produce some valid support for your claim that "The industry standard is more like 5:1 to 10:1." and that SpaceX is doing less testing than is typical in the industry.

>>6270974
Do you know of other space companies that are currently advertising the highest payload capacity and lowest launch prices per unit mass?

Achieving unexpected improvements that allow you to double your performance at about the same price isn't some kind of failure.

>>6270796
It's not just the Falcon Heavy. It's a recurring theme of the company as a whole.
Let's take a look at the Falcon 1 for a change:

date of announcement ...................... 2005 .................... 2006 .................... 2007 .................... 2008 ............. August/2008
payload ....................................... 670 kg .................. 570 kg ................. 480 kg .................. 420 kg ..................... 420 kg
price ..................................... $5.9 million ........... $6.7 million ............. $7 million ........... $7.3 million .............. $9.3 million
launch mass ............................. 27200 kg .............. 27670 kg .............. 27670 kg .............. 27670 kg ................. 27670 kg
second stage empty weight ........... 413 kg .................. 459 kg ................. 510 kg .................. 544 kg .................... 544 kg

This resulted in the increase of the per-kilogram launch price from $8806 to $22143.

>>6270983
Look at the fucking numbers!

>>6270983
You think testing just one engine instead of many makes the results more valid?

>>6270393

False. Delta 2 was so cheap because the Air Force was subsidizing it for their GPS flights. They are switching out those flights to EELVs now and Delta 2 is being phased out because its too expensive now.

If you're going to use ticket costs to make judgements:

Cassini Hudgens Titan 4 price tag in nonadjusted pre-1997 dollars: 422 million

Orion 2014 flight Delta 4 Heavy cost in ~2012 dollars: 375 million

Also it has recently come to light that Delta 4 is relatively more expensive because Boeing has been recouping 60 million per core to pay back their investment into the system and that this surcharge will run out after a certain number of cores, I think after ~2015 or so. So, they're even cheaper than that.

When NASA buys an Atlas 5 it's nowhere near 400 million a copy.

Reasons for EELV sustainment costs are opaque. I think you're overdrawing conclusions to support your EELV smack.

>>6270582

>There's no 100% reliability, but you can do a hell of a lot better than 98.5%.
SpaceX, apparently, can't.

The engine that failed was an older model that has since been replaced by the newer model for Falcon 1.1 flights. That new engine has a perfect record.

>>6270999
At what numbers, specifically? And to what specific SpaceX numbers are you comparing them?

>>6271001
>You think testing just one engine instead of many makes the results more valid?
Are you a complete idiot? SpaceX didn't test just one engine. The retard I was replying to compared SpaceX's testing of just one engine (for flight qualification, after all of the development testing) to the entire testing program for RS-68 (qualification and development testing) as if they were the same thing.

>>6270638

No, but we got this fuzzy picture, that showed it got within three metres of the ocean.

>>6271004
page 13 and 14

>>6270998
>It's a recurring theme of the company as a whole.
This is what happens when a new company starts launching rockets, with ambitious goals, and doesn't go bankrupt.

They had a hard time with Falcon 1. This is hardly surprising, when they hadn't launched so much as a sounding rocket before that. It's really impressive that they got to orbit on only their fourth launch attempt, and the next try also worked.

Their initial plan was for an ablatively-cooled lower stage engine. If it had worked, it would have been significantly cheaper. Regenerative cooling adds a lot of complexity, but they just found that they had no alternative but to bite the bullet and pay for it in time and money.

Launch vehicles being delayed and turning out to be more expensive than originally planned is a recurring theme of the industry as a whole.

>>6271012
Okay, what I'm seeing here is "total development and qualification including stage firings" for a number of engines... and no "qualification (not including stage firings)" anywhere.

For comparison, what is your number for the Merlin 1D "total development and qualification including stage firings" or "qualification including stage firings"?

And which of these numbers, specifically, do you think establishes the industry standard for "ratio ... for critical engine life parameters such as firing duration and restart capacity to the engine's expected flight requirements" to be "more like 5:1 to 10:1". I don't see anything here about individual engine firing duration of 5-10 times flight requirements, or demonstrating 5-10 times the number of expected restarts.

I don't think you have an argument other than, "Here are some numbers! They aren't relevant, and I don't understand them, but I assume they support my position!"

>>6271020
>Launch vehicles being delayed and turning out to be more expensive than originally planned is a recurring theme of the industry as a whole.
Yet people continue to believe the most optimistic values for payload and launch price announced like it's the gospel of of the Lord himself.

>>6271136

I don't care about the specifics, but the theme is obvious: SpaceX's rockets will be more competitive than the competition and will eat their lunch. Pity the fools who don't recognize this.

>>6271146
I pity the fools who don't recognize that regarding commercial satellite launches, it's the most expensive provider that enjoys the largest market share.

>>6271151

Enter SpaceX into the arena.

>>6271156
My prediction for the future: 30% SpaceX, 30% ILS, 40% Arianespace. And no way they gonna sell like ten Falcon 9 launches plus ten Falcon Heavy launches each year.

>>6271164
>And no way they gonna sell like ten Falcon 9 launches plus ten Falcon Heavy launches each year.
They've got 14 launches contracted for 2014, and 15 for 2015, and they signed all of these up when they had barely demonstrated the ability to put any payload in orbit.

You think they're going to get *less* business as they demonstrate an ability to reliably meet demand?

>>6265851
Did NASA change its mind again or aren't they handing LEO over to the private sector so they can focus on Mars/Whatthefuckever

>>6271223
>They've got 14 launches contracted for 2014, and 15 for 2015
They have yet to show that they can do more than 3 launches per year. I know they announced many more for years. Like I said: It's believed like it's the gospel of the Lord himself.
If I believe their current payload values then ten Falcon 9s and ten Falcon Heavys represent 260.5 tons GTO capacity. Per year. For less energetic orbits like LEO/ISS supply it's even more. Where are all those payloads supposed to come from? In 2013 the commercial payloads of Ariane 5 and Proton combined amounted to a bit over 73 tons GTO. There simply isn't the market for all those rockets.

>>6271313
>They have yet to show that they can do more than 3 launches per year.
>Where are all those payloads supposed to come from?
Can you make up your mind?

They're just getting into production mode now. They've got their factory set up (cranking out engines and cores very quickly), their production launch vehicle is ready, and they've done one flight with it from each of their two main launch sites. Delays reaching this point are not indicative of inability to function, having reached it.

As for the capacity: they're mostly not going to be flying fully loaded missions. They made a strategic choice of making one large medium lift vehicle and a very large heavy lift vehicle, both at very low prices, rather than a dozen configuration options to provide barely enough capacity for each customer, at barely tolerable prices. They don't need to find 260.5 tons that need to go to GTO. They just need to find 20 payloads, and they're getting cozy with NASA and the US military in a way that no foreign launch provider could.

Bear in mind that they're also in the process of certifying a crew capsule.

>>6271379
>Can you make up your mind?
It's ridiculous. They cannot deliver on what they have and are aiming for so much more that it doesn't make sense at all. It's nuts.

>They're just getting into production mode now
They've announced that for years, too.

>They don't need to find 260.5 tons that need to go to GTO. They just need to find 20 payloads
Nobody's gonna buy a Falcon Heavy for a 3 ton satellite. And in case SpaceX are planning to launch multiple satellites with a single rocket, like Arianespace, then they have even less reason to build that many.

>getting cozy with NASA and the US military
This will help a little, but they're not gonna suck up all the launches of NASA and DoD. The US government has made it clear repeatedly that they want to have two launchers in each payload segment.

>>6271410
>They cannot deliver on what they have and are aiming for so much more
20 launches per year isn't "so much more" than 14 and 15 launches per year.

>>They're just getting into production mode now
>They've announced that for years, too.
Oh, bullshit.

>Nobody's gonna buy a Falcon Heavy for a 3 ton satellite.
Of course not, but they are going to buy one for a 5-ton satellite, because how else are you going to get it to GTO for under $80 million?

>in case SpaceX are planning to launch multiple satellites with a single rocket, like Arianespace
They're not. Not in the sense of holding up one customer while they find another, anyway.

>>6271443
>20 launches per year isn't "so much more" than 14 and 15 launches per year.
Of those 14/15 there's one FH each, one of which is a demo flight. And you have to consider that they only racked up that many in their launch manifest because they couldn't deliver in the past. What you see is not what they won on a per year basis, it's the waiting room of several years of underachievement. Even if we believe they can launch all of those as promised, which is ridiculous considering their past performance, there's no way they gonna have that many in the following years.

>Oh, bullshit.
I recall Musk babbling about his 40 cores and whatnot since 2010.

>Of course not, but they are going to buy one for a 5-ton satellite, because how else are you going to get it to GTO for under $80 million?
The Russians can do two 3 ton satellites in one launch. Do the math.

>They're not. Not in the sense of holding up one customer while they find another, anyway.
It's been a strong selling point for Arianespace in the past, because it means the customer doesn't pay the fixed price of the whole rocket but just for the weight of his payload.

>>6271470
>I recall Musk babbling about his 40 cores and whatnot since 2010.
Do you recall him saying they were ready to launch in 2010? Because they've been talking about setting up this production capacity, which took years to do, and now it's actually operational.

>The Russians can do two 3 ton satellites in one launch. Do the math.
Okay. 3 < 5. And a 3 ton satellite can go up on a Falcon 9, without needing a Heavy.

What point did you think you had?

>It's been a strong selling point for Arianespace in the past, because it means the customer doesn't pay the fixed price of the whole rocket but just for the weight of his payload.
It's been a strong selling point for people whose rockets cost too much otherwise. Did you miss the point where you can get a lightly-loaded Falcon Heavy for under $80 million, without having to share a launch?