/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8703711
look at the way the washpost is going after Trump.

He's a petty asshole, just because someones a billionaire doesn't make them a logical or nice person.

>>8703711
I think Blue Origin's problem is that they just don't have any experience with the sort of PR that Space-X does. They're older than Space-X but they've only really started to talk about shit within the past couple years. For most of their existence they've been close lipped so they never really created a brand like Space-X did. It doesn't help that Bezos is nowhere near as charismatic as Musk.

Also Blue Origins names aren't cringey. There's nothing wrong with naming rockets after astronauts.

>>8703953

His code-name for New Glenn was 'Very Big Brother', how he expected that to generate hype is beyond me.

>>8703953
>Elon Musk
>charismatic

>>8703711
This will be remembered as the age when rocket fanbois ruined space exploration they way platform fanbois ruined gaming. Fanbois are like furries: they ruin everything.
Ohhhh, my iPhone is the only true best phone evar!

Nah, yer just a cunt, fuck off.

>>8704678
Also, judging by OP's pic, this will be remembered as the era when rocket designers just said, "Fuck it, we're building giant dildos."

Paper rockets are just that.
There's actually no sign SpaceX is actually working towards making it happen.

>>8703711
They can both promise to make gigantic rockets with twice the power of superman's fart, the truth is it's meaningless as of today. As of today, Spacex is not yet capable of delivering contracts seamlessly and on time, and keeps delaying all launches (echostar 23 got delayed again by another 12 days just yesterday). They do cool things, but compared to other companies (i'll name Arianespace as a biased eurofag) they're still young and sloppy. However they do have the best PR ever which causes people to believe them when they promise sending people to mars in the 2020's. They try to make it look easy, but truth is their technology is far from being reliable enough for human-rating, especially not for super complex years long interplanetary manned missions.
YET.
They have potential, and if they were a little more modest and realistic they could probably do great things (but that just isn't the American way is it...)

>>8704916
Let's be hones here.
WHEN SpaceX (not IF) can get a fleet of reliable first stages flying all their stuff to orbit, Arianespace won't launch anything but government contracts.
I think they went the wrong way with Ariane 6, when they should emulate what SpaceX is doing.
And my tax money is paying for it.

>>8704937
Regarding that matter (which wasn't what I was discussing btw) the thing is we still don't know if spacex is making any profit or even launching at a loss. Ariane 6 was designed by ESA and CNES engineers after thoroughly exploring the case of reusability, and it was deemed non viable in terms of profits, and would have costed much more in R&D and would have taken much longer to get to the launch pad. What counts is the launch price tag, and Ariane 6 (as projected) makes it very competitive even next to spacex with the added reliability of the twice record holding launcher family in terms of flaweless launches in a row. Ariane6 is also meant to be more flexible, which is harder to acheive if you build experimental rocket concepts. Ariane is trying to build on what has made it's success so far, and has more long term plans regarding reusability that will come in as Ariane 6 upgrades (Prometheus, Adeline and maybe Ariane Next. Do note that although it may seem as though Ariane 5 is getting less launches than Falcon 9, but she hauls over twice the former's payload to GTO, and remains dominant on the market even before Ariane 6's drastic cost reduction. The conclusion is, although Ariane 6 may look less sexy than a reusable monster rocket, it is in fact competitive (at least on paper) since bringing back first stages is expensive in terms of added fuel requirements (payload reduction) and refurbishing costs and tests, as well as possible performance loss. Spacex has a good plan going for them, but they are in fact making a gamble, and Musk ins't the messiah. Bottom line is a lot is influenced by image, and this brings us back to spacex great PR. ESA and Ariane could (and should) take notes, as PR is mart of what makes a company, and without it space exploration is just science jerk offs.

>>8703953
the problem with blue origin is that jeff bezos doesn't know dick about aerospace engineering
Musk knows plenty, and has been involved in all aspects of the rocket design.

So blue origin wasted years dicking around on stupid stuff

>>8704937
Oh and Ariane actually gets less government contracts than U.S, India or China launchers as it is not mandatory for E.U nations to launch on european rockets. Furthermore your taxes are safe, as Ariane is making profit each year, and Ariane 1-4 had I believe (deserves to be checked) generated a 4x return on investment for european countries.

>>8705091
Let's be clear. Ariane 6 was decided before SpaceX even landed a first stage.
I honestly believe they didn't take it seriously.
The thing is, Ariane 6 customers can't take into account ariane 5's launch history as granted. That's a risk for them, being a new launcher.
Falcon Heavy will most likely seal the deal on GTO launches.
What bothers me is that, they see these milestones being accomplished, and keep saying to themselves they're competitive.

>>8703711
Have you considered that Jeff Bezos might not care how hyped Redditors are, given that they're not the target market for expensive space hardware, and that everyone who is in the business of spending that kind of money isn't going to make decisions based on hype?

>>8705133
Also, in what sense would the IT'S and New Glenn even be competing? An orbital launch vehicle and a ludicrously huge Mars vehicle are not really targeting the same application. Hype about one is completely irrelevant to the other.

>>8705091
It's not a gamble, Musk has already said most of the rockets have landed in good enough condition to relaunch immediately.

Before Ariane 6 launches once, Musk will have 4 launch sites launching continuously. Plus you can't assume that the Ariane 6 will not have years of growing pains either.

I don't understand where this thinking that reuse will not be profitable comes from...

>>8705161
It comes mainly from the fact that SpaceX's prices are not particularly connected to their costs. They may actually lose money on private launches, making up the difference on government contracts.

>>8705122
Ariane 6 will be a new launcher but unlike the 4 to 5 transition it will make extensive use of existing Ariane 5 elements, especially Vulcain and the P120s which will be common with Vega C. Besides, reliability is also due to launch history (it's not merely coincidence that Ariane 4 and 5 were the most reliable commercial vehicles ever flown despite being different launch vehicles). But you are right. They did not take it seriously (ESA and Arianespace actually publicly admitted it in interviews), and It's entirely true that Falcon Heavy will probably change quite a few things on the GTO market, but the truth is right now Ariane 5 still has a solid list of customers for upcoming launches, despite it being more expensive than Spacex, which by my best guess means the launcher is competitive even though it is, let say "old space". Nothing is either black or white, and stating Falcon Heavy will "seal the deal" is a bit over-confident in my opinion. As I said previously, Spacex keeps delaying it's launches, and has yet to achieve the godlike market share you imagine when hearing what people say about their reusable rockets. I do agree that Arianespace should be a little more daring, but it's first and foremost mission is Europe's independent access to space, which requires commercial stability: they sadly can't afford to bet all on experimental technology and lack the flexibility and freedom of a company funded by the pocket of it's multi-billionaire owner (they almost had to beg Germany to get the 3 billion for Ariane 6). I know I sound redundant but Musk isn't a magician. A lot of his fans make a point of dismissing all other vehicles, especially Ariane, but I think the "old space" people's passed arrogance in not taking Spacex ventures seriously also shows that competition, albeit employing different strategies than your favorite, should not be underestimated...

If Bezos ca get his craft human-rated and start doing space tourism, that'll generate plenty of hype and raise attention.

I'm a non-partisan when it comes to space, I wish everyone luck and think it's great that there are so many options for rocket launches right now, competition breeds innovation.

>>8705161
Read my post once again anon, never have I stated reuse in general will not be profitable. What I have said I we still do not know how profitable it will in fact be, if at all, which is precisely why other launch companies and not only Arianespace, are still watching Musk's ventures, because they really want to know. I have also said that the projections made by european engineers on making a reusable rocket have shown that it is an entirely new project which would require giving up most existing Ariane 5 technology, thus being in fact non profitable for this specific company.

>>8704703
They literally just tested one of the fuel tank designs. They've already designed and tested several engines for the ITS. You're a moron.

>>8704648
Yes he is you autistic

Just because he is a nerd who speaks in front of an audience. That's endearing.

>>8705282
Sauce? I'm curious

>>8705282
You mean, the one that blew up.
Nice test.

>>8705311
>>8705282
I've made an effort to try and make this a constructed discussion, unlike most /sci threads, so please try to refrain from making 2 sentence posts that sound like you have it all figured out. If you think you can both discuss rocket science like it's a youtube argument we ain't getting nowhere.

>>8705208
Says who? They have a cheap rocket, why would they be launching at a loss?
They are now landing first stage cores almost all the time. They will be reusing their fairings later this year.

How do you think they could fund hundreds of millions of dollars of constant development/expansion if they were losing money on launches?

>>8705222
>they sadly can't afford to bet all on experimental technology
They have 3 billion+ dollars developing an Ariane 6
SpaceX spent less than 500 million to develop the Falcon 9

>>8705322
I think you set the bar a bit high, using more than 7 words in a sentence and all that

>>8705324
Indeed, SpaceX developped Falcon 9 + Dragon for a little under 1 Billion, not counting the extra funds from the resupply contracts signed in 2008. They did benifit from the help of Nasa engineers, but the same could be said of Ariane on a smaller scale since it's Airbus + ESA/CNES. Nevertheless, the 3 billion cost covers new launch and assembly facilities to be built, whereas SpaceX can use Nasa's existing facilities (like 39A...), and Ariane 6 is twice as heavy as Falcon 9, so should be more expensive to make. But I do concede that I was hasty on the funds part and should have done more research on SpaceX's R&D spendings.

>>8705322
Let's sum up my thoughts then.
In the near future, SpaceX will eat up the whole commercial and Dod market.
Then, they will face the fact that it's just not enough money to fund the ITS.

>>8705364
Let me sum up whats going to happen in the next 12 months
Donald Trump will announce a new space program, cancel the SLS, and offer a 10+ billion dollar contract to Musk for manned missions to Luna, Mars, Venus, and nearby asteroids

>>8705364
If you want to just sum up thoughts here are mine:
SpaceX have and will continue to make drastic changes to the space industry and forcing it to evolve.
However their not the only fish in the pond and competitors will soon react, and as with every other industry in history they will be other relevant companies that will either rise or catch up (Apple started out almost alone on the smartphone market, don't dare say they still "eat up the whole market").
Regarding manned interplanetary travel I am, as you are, unconvinced by the capability of a private company to send humans to Mars, or anywhere beyond LEO for that matter. My personal belief is that a successful Mars exploration and perhaps (I like dreaming) settelments will require something else than Apollo style space nationalism. My dream of space conquest beyond LEO requires not only better U.S/Europe cooperation as equals but also accepting countries such as China and India who are relevant in space. There is no reason for humans born from an asian vag to have less right to take part in space exploration, even if they have a strong armed government, and especially when they are a fifth of the world's population

>>8705437
>Donald Trump will announce a new space program, cancel the SLS, and offer a 10+ billion dollar contract to Musk for manned missions to Luna, Mars, Venus, and nearby asteroids

thats a fucking pipe dream

>>8705440
I see. You're one of those multiculturalist fucking idiot.
This is not gonna work. The politics of managing everyone's expectations is gonna cost much more than actually building the ship.

>>8705462
It's guarrenteed
Musk has met with him several times
He's talked about conquering space

So it's pretty much a given that it'll happen.

>>8705437

If that happens I'm putting a big portrait of his in faux golden frame above my desk and I'll also vote republican until death.

>>8705437
inb4 Trump shills for ULA and bans spaceX from commercial crew because it's not 'safe'.

>>8705440

>china is ebil and they are oppressive
>lets invest everything there!
>oh, and help them into space!
>becausewe're friends <3!

Human rights matter only when they are needed for political gain, huh? Fucking libshits. Not sure if you are insane, evil, or both.

>>8705474
Wow, you sound like someone who can have reasonable conversations. If you had properly read this multiculturalist fucking idiot's post without applying your obvious hate for whatever a multiculturalist is, you'd notice I started my sentence with MY DREAM OF SPACE. I am perfectly aware, especially considering the current political mood in the west, that it probably won't ever happen. But it would be in fact easyer to do with chinese cooperation because of their industrial and scientifical weight (like it or not they are building and have built gigantic scientific instruments, with international engineer's cooperation). Hell, the president of ESA said it himself, and actually tried suggesting the idea of Chinese on the ISS when Nasa asked him what new stuff could be done in the current space program. Didn't have a lot of impact as you might expect.

>>8705522
I thought I was talking with people who had in interest in fucking rocket science, but it seems that all that you want from these threads is a chance to insert your /poll shit.

>>8705523
Well we all dream of muh peaceful world, #alltogether we can do it.
The truth is, it will take 10 years to decide how much Chinese representative there are on the ship, even if it's all funded and ready to go.

>>8705537

>#notmypolitics

>>8703711
>divisional propaganda
>fanboi banter

Typical divisional social propaganda. You try to make a side to be on so you can hate others that are not on your side as well as bring others to your side to prevent your own cognitive dissonance. The truth of the matter is that you are using "divide and conquer" tactics you learned from entertainment propaganda meant to keep the masses off balance and disorganized.

There are no "sides" to be on. Stop making up problems where none exist.

>>8704703
>Kerbal
>check it
>it really is named after the game.

Huh.

Well, thanks for making it all about two sentences I said about internationalism instantly making me a fucking communist hippy, even though I was discussing science and space market. If anyone is still interested in that stuff, I'll repost without the multiculturalist fucking idiot content.

If you want to just sum up thoughts here are mine:
SpaceX have and will continue to make drastic changes to the space industry and forcing it to evolve.
However their not the only fish in the pond and competitors will soon react, and as with every other industry in history they will be other relevant companies that will either rise or catch up (Apple started out almost alone on the smartphone market, don't dare say they still "eat up the whole market").

>>8705588
Doesn't take years to design and build a new smart phone

If they are losing money in 2020 due to a lack of reusability, they will just leave the launch market rather than throw billions at new engine designs & new rocket designs

>>8705588
>Well, thanks for making it all about two sentences I said about internationalism instantly making me a fucking communist hippy, even though I was discussing science and space market. If anyone is still interested in that stuff, I'll repost without the multiculturalist fucking idiot content.
Heh, i feel your pain. Just watched a tread in /k/ turn from "US vs China radar tech" into a "not my president/muslimban/killallshitskins".

>>8705626
Yup, it takes years to design and build rockets, but SpaceX did it amidst a well-established market. Therefore, others will be capable of doing the same in the future. Also, nobody talked about it yet but there are a lot of small launcher projects for nano-satellites, which will be other actors in the space industry.

>>8705588
Man, it's not that I don't wish for it to happen.
Just that it won't.
It's the same argument people make about solving problems on Earth before exploring the solar system.
There will always be problems.

>>8705663
For the last time I said I am well aware of it not happening, but it's just not the point in this commercial launcher thread (or at least I hope it isn't).

>>8705654
SpaceX did it into a market where prices are way higher than they needed to be
A startup isn't going to be able to compete with SpaceX plus other subsidized government launchers

Small launchers are a meme, they aren't cheap and can't be made reusable, the small satellite market is tiny.

>>8705462
The Musk part is a pipe dream, bu do you really find it that unlikely that Trump will send NASA back to the drawing board so they can make the biggerer and betterer and bestest TRUMP Brand moon rocket instead of the SAD Obama nowhere rocket?

>>8705311
He means the one they intentionally blew up. Testing till failure is a thing.

>>8705690
Oh OK, so you're saying it's not happening because mankind won't cooperate on a plan?
I personally think it's even more straightforward than this.
SpaceX can't get enough margins on their launch contracts to fund the ITS, even with reusablity.
We're talking billions $ for the hardware, when a F9 reusable launch gets them maybe a few millions $.

>>8705722
There's actually no indication that was intentional.
Hell if it wasn't for some third party photographer, we wouldn't even know about it.

>>8705727
>SpaceX can't get enough margins on their launch contracts to fund the ITS

You are underestimating Musk's autism. He specifically created Tesla, so he could use the profits to fund his space dreams.

>>8705208
What??? Musk run a business that is unprofitable were it not for government subsidy??? Shocked, SHOCKED I am to learn of this.

>>8705737
>doing a test
>tests have 2 outcomes, success and failure
>test must continue until it fails
>failure happened
>extremely important data acquired
>are results within projected specifications?
>if yes then proceed onto next test
>if no then redesign

>>8705737
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_assurance#Failure_testing

>>8705301

Here's a picture of the cryogenic tank they built and had been testing, recently they tested it to failure and will likely have an improved prototype ready for testing soon.

And here's a link to the engine they've been developing that will power the ITS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family)

>>8705359

Ariane 6 is twice as heavy because it uses very heavy solid boosters instead of an all-liquid design. Solid boosters tend to be cheaper than liquid boosters in most cases.

>>8705474
>The politics of managing everyone's expectations is gonna cost much more than actually building the ship.

Exactly what happened to Space Shuttle.

>>8705694

The only hope for small launchers is the relatively tiny market of small sats that want to be placed in orbits that big launchers never go, otherwise they could just hitch a ride on a Falcon 9 or an Atlas V as a secondary cargo, probably for cheaper.

Of all the small launch vehicle companies only RocketLab seems to be on its way to launching in 2017, with the next runner up being Firefly Space which has seen shaky financial support and has yet to assemble and test their aerospike first stage engine.

>>8705713

I think that if he was smart and also wanted to replace SLS he'd push for liquid boosters on SLS rather than go for an entirely new rocket. The Pyrios booster design uses essentially a new and improved F-1 engine design, two per booster, and would actually substantially increase the payload capacity of the rocket, as well as make it safer.

>>8705945
He'd never be able to get that past Congress. Te congressman whose home districts built parts for the Solid Rocket Boosters will no doubt swoop in to insure that the worst possible option is selected once again because they'd rather we lose more astronauts over their district losing a few jobs.

>>8705998

Agreed. which is why we should abandon SLS as a manned rocket concept and use it strictly for heavy lift capability, just use the upcoming CRS 2 capsules to launch astronauts.

>>8705945
I don't think NASA should focus on rockets, when there are already private companies that offer that service. I think NASA should use their money for more scientific probes to other moons and planets, and also space telescopes. But that's just my opinion.

>>8705440
I'd think that competition is a better motivator than cooperation. Let China start a strong move towards the moon, and watch the rest of the world get off their asses.

>>8705902
Do you get to call it "testing to failure" if you didn't really plan to make it fail?

>>8706062
If NASA is not capable of making a cost efficient decent rocket, and evolving it, and turning it into a partially reusable vehicle like SpaceX

Why do you think they are capable of doing ANYTHING at a proper price?
SpaceX sure as shit would not spend billions on some shitty mars rover

>>8706075

What makes you think they didn't plan to test it to failure? What makes you think every trip out to the range to test the tank equaled one test?

They could have easily performed multiple tests per trip, which makes sense considering the pace that SpaceX usually tries to do things.

SpaceX has also not really been releasing constant updates on their testing schedule, they simply gave us a few images in late September of last year, a video of the engine firing, and pretty much everything else has been candid photos.

>>8706088

why why WHY did they give Curiosity those shitty thin aluminum wheels and not expect them to fall apart rapidly?

>>8706088
No private company should be expected to spend money on exploration and science. The way I imagine it should be done is NASA collaborating with universities to make robotic probes, and launching them on private rockets.

>>8706105
>on exploration
There is ZERO reason to explore before we have fully reusable rockets whose cost of flight is dictated mostly by fuel

>science
Is a meme word

>>8705902
That's a lot of rocket fuel

>>8706143
for (You)

>>8705523
My dream of space is Americans landing on Mars and claiming it, relegating all the navel gazers to being stuck on the shitty rock that is earth.

>>8703711
Who gives a shit? As long as they make getting stuff into orbit cheaper who cares? With two billionares competing to build the largest spacedick, we all win.

>>8706176

My basic point was that since a start up company generally wants to get good PR, it was probably a mistake to release information about your future plans at a time when it could be interpreted as direct competition.

>>8706164
The future of space is going to be damn interesting, assuming we get our shit together and get off Earth.

There's a finite amount of resources in the solar system, if in the future different governments still exist and compete with each other on Earth, it's going to be very interesting seeing different countries / companies claiming mining rights for asteroids / comets, etc.

>>8705222
>(it's not merely coincidence that Ariane 4 and 5 were the most reliable commercial vehicles ever flown despite being different launch vehicles)

And yet the Ariane 5 had a disastrous start. So anyone launching on Ariane 6 knows that the reliability record starts from scratch.

>>8706181
PR isn't /sci/. Why should anyone who doesn't work at these companies care about PR?

>>8705440
>Apple started out almost alone on the smartphone market, don't dare say they still "eat up the whole market"

They make 90% of the profit in the smartphone market.

>>8705654
>Therefore, others will be capable of doing the same in the future.

How? Startups will be too far behind, the established players (ULA and Ariane) won't be able to adapt because of the way they run. SpaceX saves money by making stuff in-house instead of being ripped off by suppliers. Ariane's suppliers are its shareholders, they can't bring stuff in house because the shareholders wouldn't allow it. Boeing/Lockheed would probably just shut down ULA and concentrate on civilian/military aerospace.

>>8706006
The problem with that is that it would require NASA to commit to programs that require a heavy lifter. As of now the only cargo it's slated to ever carry is a probe which was originally meant to be launched with an Atlas-V.

>>8706140
Why is "its a meme" always the answer delivered by mentally handicapped when they want to shitpost?

>>8703711
New Glenn
>flying by 2020
>engine will be ready this year (2017)
>competitor to f9, fh, and better than both
>hydrolox upper stage
>built to be perfect size for large LEO and small Lunar tourism
>direct competition for SLS

"""""ITS"""""
>"""""ready""""" by 2021, but more likely 2035
>engine design goals are complete insanity, likely never achievable
>composite tanks are failing to produce results
>all mars plans are being delayed at least 2 years because reliability issues
>needs $10 billion or more to develop (chump change for Bezos)

New Glenn is a rocket for current year while ITS is a reddit fantasy.

>>8705868
Failure testing isn't done on the third test of $20 million hardware, idiot.

>>8706515
You mean the Europa mission?

The lander is slated to be 13,000 kg
Only SLS or New Glenn are capable of launching this to Jupiter

>>8706181
released a few days after their competitor blew up their only launch pad

I'd argue that it was the perfect time to reveal the info

>>8704937
>WHEN (not IF)
lol

I wish poltards would fuck off forever.

>>8706877
because its a meme

>>8706918
>engine design goals are complete insanity, likely never achievable

They already had a working 1/3rd scale engine back in September of 2016 dude

>>8707109
>1/3 design thrust
>given the above, by definition not design chamber pressure
>sub-scale
>probably two dozen shortcuts just to make the meme presentation last september

>5 successful launches and landings in a row with the same booster
Based.
When is spacex supposed to be trying their first reuse again?

>>8707621
They were supposed to do it for echostar 23 i believe, which keeps getting delayed. It should launch on the 12th, unless it gets delayed once again.

>>8707128
That is literally how you do R&D, kid.

>>8707128
Still works
Show me the clip of Bezo's working methane engine

>>8707742
subscale has zero properties in common with a full size engine

the only reason they built the "prototype" was for an air force contract

>>8707859
later this year
show me proof of raptor meeting even one (1) of its design criteria

>>8703711
Bezos is a giant cuck. I bet he's literally getting himself off on the fact SpaceX has bigger rockets.

>>8706925
The lander was originally planned to be much smaller and follower a slower trajectory. It gained weight when Congress passed legislation that required the mission to use SLS.

>>8708861
There is no lander, its an orbiter....

>>8708913
Wrong. There's an orbiter first and a lander approximately 2 years later.

>>8708861
>The lander was originally planned to be much smaller and follower a slower trajectory. It gained weight when Congress passed legislation that required the mission to use SLS.
lmao

>>8708764

It has a full flow staged combustion cycle. That's the hardest part of building the engine, and making a small one first means that if it blows up on the test stand it isn't going to destroy the stand, which itself needs to be very complex to supply the hot and cold phases of different gasses to test rocket components and so forth.

Once they get the engine cycle figured out and have a list of fuel flow ratios and so forth to reference they can build the full scale engine much more easily, fuckface. The F-1 wasn't the first gas=generator engine NASA built, and without building previous smaller gas-generator rocket engines they'd have had a much more difficult time with it.

>>8708764
>later this year

and I'm sure it's going to hit every single one of the Isp and thrust targets set out on the very first version, right.

I don't know if you're just anti-spacex fanboying right now but building and successfully testing a full-flow-staged-combustion cycle rocket engine at ANY scale is impressive, let alone one that is as powerful as their already flying gas-generator engine, the Merlin 1D, which went through several iterations and upgrades to reach its current level of thrust.

Saying "it's SpaceX therefore it's bullshit" is just as bad as saying "it's SpaceX so therefore it's pure gold".

also fuck off with your """"""""quotations""""""""

>>8708940
Early plans called for a small lander on the orbiter, that was later changed to a larger lander as a follow up mission. The 2016 Budget called for " for an orbiter with a lander to meet the science goals for the Jupiter Europa mission" and stated it would be launched on the SLS. That seems fairly clear like an instruction to do it in one mission, unless they've since changed the plan yet again, which wouldn't surprise me.

>>8709354
see >>8708697

>>8705108
>Furthermore your taxes are safe, as Ariane is making profit each year
It's not a profit if the money comes from overpaying by the goverment and they insist on using disposable rockets wich are 99% confirmed to be obsolete in less than a year

>>8709310
>and I'm sure it's going to hit every single one of the Isp and thrust targets set out on the very first version, right.
I'm sure it will, because BO actually set realistic goals for their engine because it is needed for national security launches this decade.

not even going to bother addressing the rest of that drivel you call a post

>>8706918
How many vehicles did that hack dock with the iss? 0?

how many boosters that get things to orbit did he get back landed on land therefore perfoming a completely revolutionary invention comparable to the invention of the aircraft?
oh
0?
NOT EVEN ONE?

thats a HUGE PITY

maybe when you can accomplish, (no doubt trough a lot of effort) even a little itty tiny bit of the great achievements that are piece of cake regular everyday for spacex(which they perform while providing the lowest prices ever, looking cool, being ethical and revolutionising in other areas as well)
then, and ONLY THEN we might actually allow you to, not sit, but maybe stare at the adults table from a prudent distant. For now go back to your place little silly inferio

>>8709389
BO has not shown anything approaching an orbital rocket yet
The idea that things will just all work out for them is very wishful thinking

They are still a much smaller company than SpaceX

>>8709407
>>8709412
>orbital rocket
Wow, you mean the same thing that the commies first accomplished 60 years ago? Truly remarkable.

Blue Origin is leading the way in reusability and engine development; spacex is playing catch-up.

New Glenn makes falcon look like a pea shooter.

How can muskrats even compete?

>>8709389
>I'm not even going to bother addressing that SpaceX has in fact built a functioning FFSC rocket engine because it undermines my point of view

If SpaceX is currently achieving their goals then they are realistic goals.

>>8709441
their goal is an engine for their mars rocket

the engine they tested was for an air force contract

>>8709435

B.O. hasn't launched anything into orbit nor made any money. If reusability of rockets alone is all that matters to you then B.O. actually loses to the Delta Clipper, Masten space systems, and several universities.

>>8709455
>B.O. hasn't launched anything into orbit nor made any money.
Spacex lost money the last two years despite getting handed billions by NASA.

>B.O. actually loses to the Delta Clipper, Masten space systems, and several universities.
None of those are space vehicles.

>>8709451

The engine they built was a scale prototype of the Raptor. It has the same combustion cycle and other components, smaller than the final engine will be. They are working out the kinks of the design on a smaller and easier to work with prototype engine until they can comfortably scale up. The reason they chose the size of the scale model they did is because their tooling is built to work with Merlin, so the prototype is Merlin-sized.


That air force contract was a 50% funding share, meant to develop the engine alone. There are no plans to actually use the sub-scale engine on any stages, as they are not in development.

>>8709438
New Glenn looks like it could almost launch the Falcon 9 as a payload.

>>8709459
>SpaceX lost money

source

>Delta Clipper is not a space vehicle

It was fully capable of flying into space on a suborbital hop and landing back at the launch site, which is the extent of what BO has accomplished. Masten Space Systems have sent several of their vehicles onto suborbital trajectories into space multiple times. They also have very fast vehicle turnaround times.

>>8709466

New Glenn has less thrust than Falcon Heavy, kerosene is really dense compared to liquid methane and liquid hydrogen. The low density of the fuel makes New Glenn much larger but it isn't as heavy as you'd think.

>>8709481
It's far more powerful than FH regardless (thanks to more efficient engines, upper stage)

>>8709491

It's more capable, less powerful, less thrust.

Solid boosters are the most powerful engines we can build, with the highest thrust, but they're far less capable than liquid fueled rockets because of their low Isp

>>8709502
semantics bullshit

>>8709509
>accuracy in language is bullshit

It is a fact that the Falcon Heavy rocket will produce more megawatts of power during takeoff than the New Glenn.

I'm starting to think you aren't much of a /sci/-guy after all.

>>8709523
when people say "power" in the context of rocketry they mean payload

nothing else matters

Talking about the payload capabilities of a paper rocket like New Glenn is just stupid

It won't fly till 2020
It'll take them months/years to work out reuse

>>8709537
not even going to bother addressing everything wrong in this comment

>>8703711
The New Glenn "announcement" was literally just an email with a picture. In maybe a year, we'll see a real announcement with actual details. SpaceX has done this with their Falcon Heavy, crew Dragon, etc.

>>8709550
Nothing is wrong
The New Glenn will have several years of delays, and rocket blow ups that are all part of the maturing process.

Then they will run into problems with the regulatory jews never letting them launch when they want or where they want.

>>8709555
>>8709575
New Glenn manufacturing facility being built right now.

The engine will be finished by the end of this year.

2020 is a pessimistic launch date, not an optimistic one.

>>8709588
Where will it be launching from

>>8709502
>Solid boosters are the most powerful engines we can build, with the highest thrust, but they're far less capable than liquid fueled rockets because of their low Isp
As boosters? Not necessarily... kinda depends what terms you compare them in.
SRBs have more impulse density. So while a liquid booster of a given *weight* will offer more kick than a solid one, a solid one will give you more kick for a given set of dimensions. And since it's first stage, the extra initial mass doesn't hurt performance at all.

Now for UPPER stages, on the other hand, heavy solids are an obvious non-starter unless other considerations demand it (i.e. military applications, or small, simple kick-motors which would be too complex and unreliable as liquids).

>>8709599
SLC-36

>>8703711
The feather looks stupid.

>>8704916
To be quite honest I think people have become thorough sick and tired of sub-inchworm-speed approach taken by NASA/JPL/associated contractors in recent decades. The fact that SpaceX is bold overoptimistic with their PR is the reason why SpaceX is becoming more and more of a familiar name to everyday folks and why their brand is so healthy, because even if they deliver on half their promises 150%-200% late they're still doing leagues more than traditional space is in that same time span.

So ironically enough, if they were "modest and realistic" it'd likely damage their brand considerably and put the industry at risk of slipping into another multi-decade lull.

>>8707722
It's SES-10 that's flying the previously used booster. Echostar 23 is disposable (hopefully, one of the last SpaceX flies).

NASA should focus on R&D & space coordination/logistics, which has always been a primary mission.

Tests on Bigelow's BEAM and upcoming tests on VASIMR are invaluable.
NASA has a lot to do. We need fast internet connections to Mars and the Moon. We need them to pave the way for space mining, while continuing their pure science research of probing the rest of the solar system and of course everyone wants the data from the James Webb. The later of course being way over budget shows that NASA can't build these things on budget and on time. They should design and bid them all to private contractors.

>>8709435
>Wow, you mean the same thing that the commies first accomplished 60 years ago?
the commies invented an orbital rocket with a first stage that lands?? oh no, beacuse thats impossible, oh wait... its only possible for the ultra super spectacularly succesful, like spacex...

BTFO little boy

>>8703711

ITS hasn't even been built, nor contractors decided upon. It's vaporware until there is one sitting on a launchpad, but even then the actual design for a 100-seat shuttle seems extremely questionable because I reckon there is a much larger market for general cargo than there is people. Easier to certify and get flightworthy as well.

>>8705902

Testing the fuel tank =! building it. See NASA's VentureStar.

>>8706208

.mil aerospace includes the X-37 and associated projects. ULA has plenty of teeth because of their access to black projects.

>>8709603
What I mean is, solid motors are currently the highest thrust rocket engines we've ever made, by quite a large margin. That's because it's really easy to make a solid motor that can burn tons and tons of propellant very quickly, whereas a liquid engine has to actually pump that propellant around and into the combustion chamber.

I'm not saying solid boosters are superior, just that they offer high thrust. In essentially every scenario is you replaced a solid booster with a liquid one, even if it had slightly less thrust, the overall performance of the vehicle would go up substantially.

>>8709607

More than looking stupid, it will hurt performance.

Paint isn't weightless, which is why bot the Shuttle external tank and the upcoming SLS first stage tank will be orange, it hurts the mass fraction to add several hundred kilograms of useless aesthetic even on the first stage.

>>8709934

Exactly, if SpaceX followed NASA/JPL/ULA development approach they'd be in the early stages of implementing Falcon 5 right now.

>Captcha; select images that contain shelves
>entire picture is of a bookshelf

>>8709965
B-but, BO has already reflown their rocket!

>>8710907

Venture Star's multi-lobed liquid hydrogen fuel tanks =/= SpaceX's monolithic liquid oxygen fuel tank. There are different design challenges involved specifically with the oxygen, but as for the structure making one big cylindrical tank is going to be much easier than the Venture Star's tanks.

I wouldn't wait until something is on the launch pad to stop calling it vaporware. If SpaceX built and successfully tested a finalized test article for the ITS oxygen tank and began construction on the actual rocket stages themselves we can move on beyond vaporware.

Raptor stopped being vaporware when they successfully tested the 1/3rd thrust scale prototype, because it verified the FFSC engine cycle and propellant choice, meaning the Raptor could actually be built.

>>8708861

>gained weight

For people people that is definitely bad since being fat is disgusting.
Not so for space toys.

>>8711244
It's no good for space vehicles either because if your vehicle can only lift 100 tons to LEO, and you need 120, then your mission just doesn't work

>>8711373
Or, if your mission calls for lifting 100 tons but your vehicle can lift 120, you can add a 20 ton second payload for increased profitability.

>>8711407
>increased profitability

Increased scientific data, more bang for your buck, but you're not making any money. You're paying for a 20% increase in rocket size plus the additional payload hardware but you can get quite a bit more science done that way so it makes sense.

>>8704682
How would you suggest they design the damn things then? Giant fucking vaginas?

>>8704053
Seeing "Amazon CEO" and "big brother" in the same sentence would really activate my almonds.

>>8709607
Agreed.

That feather logo is gay as shit

>>8709607
agreed rockets have a reputation for being powerful and badass it doesn't fit the theme

>>8712758
yup

Atlas launch in four minutes!

>>8713650
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdaqQ8FaXX0

>>8705322
>try to refrain from making 2 sentence posts
He says in his 2 sentence post
To be fair, one of those sentences was a run on, but still.