[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 226 KB, 1440x758, falcon-9-reutilizado-1440x758.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8774547 No.8774547 [Reply] [Original]

Y'all ready for this?

>> No.8774571

Yes. Yes I am. If they pull it off then we are officially living in the future.

>> No.8774584

>>8774571
It's going to explore you fucking idiot. The duture is not now, and people evolved to live on Earth, not in space so we don't belong there. Deal with it.

>> No.8774585

>>8774547

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvTm_BhZdOE right on dude

>> No.8774596

>>8774585
Definitive thread theme right there
>tfw your kids could live on Mars
BEST TIMELINE

>> No.8774622

But how does this solve white genocide?

>> No.8774623

>>8774547
I'm ready for the butthurt after it blows up.

>> No.8774642

>>8774622
>implying Mars won't be whiteopia

>> No.8774650

>>8774622
It gets people off their asses.
Thats more than what you, and me, are doing to stop white genocide.

>> No.8774654

>>8774584
Yes I can't wait for it to explore too, SpaceX is truly ushering in a new age of space exploration.

>> No.8774660

>>8774547
Im so jealous, you guys have the best flag, the best chant and the best patriotism.

**;-;**

>> No.8774667

>>8774654
>yfw Musk unveils an autonomous rocketdrone horde that will colonize the Solar System inside and out, surroundings included

>> No.8774677

>>8774642
>implying the first person on Mars won't be a stronk independent black non-binary trans otherkin muslim amputee.

>> No.8774705

>>8774584
lol earthfag

>> No.8774712

>>8774547
>2017
>born on earth
low tier plebs

>> No.8774755

>>8774705
>>8774712
Press F for the 300,000 mobile infantry troopers lost on Klendathu

>> No.8774998

>>8774677
>muslim
>ALLAHU AKBAR *explosive decompression*

>amputee
>cant hold control column, crashes on decent

>otherkin
>leaving the base: "ow my tail got caught in the airlock door"
>fellow crewmember breaks otherkin's visor with a hammer

>> No.8775020

>>8774547
Is it soon?

>> No.8775044

>>8774677
Muslims are not allowed to go to Mars, visiting other planets is litterally haram.

>> No.8775048

>>8774584
When, of when, will the duture become now?

>> No.8775055

>>8775020
Asplosion is currently scheduled for March 29.

>> No.8776283
File: 1.58 MB, 1888x2956, STS120LaunchHiRes-edit1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8776283

A groundbreaking mission for spacex but hardly a groundbreaking mission for spaceflight.

Pic related flew to orbit and back 39 times already.

>> No.8776289

>>8774642
>whiteopia
Wishful thinking. You just know as soon as the public gets a whiff of more than 50% white people they'll start demanding diversity quotas. Mars will become the testing grounds for a grounds-up experiment in diversity.

>> No.8776309

>>8776283
That tank didn't come back, and the boosters just fell into the sea. SpaceX will perform a powered landing with all of the vehicle, on a ship no less.

>> No.8776315

>>8776309
>That tank didn't come back, and the boosters just fell into the sea.
The second stage never comes back and the fairing falls into the sea.

>> No.8776713

>>8775044
If only they weren't allowed to visit other continents as well

>> No.8776715

>>8774584

dack to da duture

>> No.8776720

>>8774642

First people there will be "diverse team". I can guarantee you that 100%.
There's simply no way, absolutely no way the PC brigade will not raise fires to the sky if it's even hinted otherwise. The very notion that the astronauts might be all-white will be something akin to a holocaust, you'd see shit from the highest ranking politicians to the lowest shit infused facebook discussion.

That is assuming us-eu gets there first. If others by some miracle do it things will turn out differently, for obvious reasons.

>> No.8776728

did they say how much it cost to refurbish the fucking thing

>> No.8776763

>>8776315
Fairing reuse later this year, I believe

>> No.8776822

>>8776728
IIRC they said they only x-rayed it and said there is no damage and it can be used again without further investments.

>> No.8776851

>>8776720
Find your blanket and cry u Fucking faggot

>> No.8776894

When's launch?

>> No.8777034

>>8776315
>fairing
>a small ring of structural metal
oh no

>> No.8777048

When's launch

>> No.8777102

>>8777034

According to Musk the fairings cost a few million each and they've been trying some ideas to recover them for some time now.

>> No.8777271

>>8776851
well shilled, m'friend

>> No.8777351
File: 218 KB, 1200x800, qQ2EX4R.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8777351

>>8776720
Elon Musk is from South Africa.

Besides, look at the people who work at SpaceX right now. Plenty of folks from China/Japan/India but they're not going to be winning the NBA Diversity Award anytime soon.

>> No.8777736

>>8776894
>>8777048
29th

>> No.8777777 [DELETED] 

Praise Kek

>> No.8777791 [DELETED] 

>>8777777
XDDD

>> No.8777814

>>8777351
>tfw no nerdy, spacehype gf

>> No.8777828

>>8776720
I know you're suffering, but it will pass.

>> No.8777914 [DELETED] 
File: 5 KB, 250x204, 1488950265715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8777914

>>8777777
holy shit

>> No.8777922 [DELETED] 
File: 1.47 MB, 353x448, a8c3bec984b115d6ad99060a6307763bc04736e48b50f6ef8865cf5d511de53e.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8777922

>>8777777
imbressive

>> No.8777997

>>8777351
>only two nogs in that picture
Wow, I definitely wouldn't mind all the Asians and Pajeets if it meant very few niggers

>> No.8778030 [DELETED] 

>>8777997
why not have a white country
Don't give excuses for why our white country must be destroyed
ALL WHITE COUNTRIES are being destroyed

>> No.8778055 [DELETED] 
File: 66 KB, 600x486, topcheck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8778055

>>8777777
okay that's pretty cool even for a board as slow as /sci/

>> No.8778084

>>8774584
>people evolved to live on Earth, not in space so we don't belong there.

Now there's a basement-dwelling beta coward if I ever saw one!

>> No.8778115

>>8778030
Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side here. But to be realistic, that's unfortunately not going to happen. The only realistic outcomes are
>Company full of niggers and spics, too incompetent to actually help the company
or
>Asians and Pajeets that actually contribute something

>> No.8778340

>>8778030
Jesus christ, you're a little bitch.

>> No.8778366

>>8778115
I think the displacing of competent whites that happens due to the pajeets/asians intruding is more harm than the poo-in-loo or slants bring to civilization.

>> No.8778373

wait what's the big deal, a sea landing? havent they done that already

>> No.8778380

>>8778373
first reused booster

>> No.8778385

>>8778380
ah, that is important

>> No.8778400

>>8778385
Yeah, they say it currently takes about 3 months to check out and refurbish a stage for reflight, but they're making lots of changes in F9 Block 5 for better reusability.

>> No.8778407

>>8778115
>to be realistic, Trump is unelectable

>> No.8778781 [DELETED] 

>>8777777
Jesus

>> No.8778940

>>8777351
>from China/Japan/India
They're not from China Japan or India. They're born and raised in America. US arms control laws make it all but impossible for Space-X to hire from outside the US. Which is good since it means that the poo in loos will never get our space jobs.

>> No.8779530

>>8776720
Isn't it ironic that u use victimhood to propagate ur retarded ideas

>> No.8779657

>>8778940
>americans are the victims here
haha

>> No.8779684

>>8774660
usa has a shit flag

>> No.8779686

>>8774547
What does this mean? Google is vague, and I don't keep up with meme space exploration, can someone give me a QUICK RUNDOWN?

>> No.8779687 [DELETED] 
File: 29 KB, 500x500, KEK (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8779687

>>8777777
Hail Musk

>> No.8779714

>>8774642
>>8774677

A RAT DONE BIT MY SISTER, NELL.

>> No.8779721

>>8779686
there have been several sea landings already by the reusable first stage booster on the falcon 9

this will be the first flight and re-use of one of those boosters, the eventual goal being to launch a rocket, let the booster land, take it back to a refurbishing facility, and launch again very soon after

if it doesn't explode, hooray?

>> No.8779727

>>8779721
If it doesn't explode then the major economic obstacle to effective colonisation of Bars is gone. It might actually be in reach within our lifetime.

>> No.8779751

>>8779727
eh, not necessarily, rockets are expensive no matter what and really reliable really cheap rocket re-use is a ways off yet.
as with many things, change will be gradual but appreciated

>> No.8779776

>>8774547
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSx4DGBstYA
>tfw you want to be on a boat again

>> No.8779828

>>8776309
>and the boosters just fell into the sea
>reusing SRBs
>literally just a piece of pipe and an exhaust cone
>oh, and an american flag painted on it too
BUT MUH LOCAL JERBZ

>> No.8780975

>>8779828
>>reusing SRBs
>>literally just a piece of pipe and an exhaust cone
The electronics and actuators are also important.

High-power rocket hobbyists reuse solid rockets all the time, and they don't even have electronics and thrust vectoring. It's just easier and cheaper to refill it than to build or buy a new one.

The reusable SRBs weren't a bad idea, but they needed a higher flight rate to be practical. As an experiment, they were worthwhile, too. They demonstrated the potential practicality of splashdown boosters. The best part of the shuttle project, really. In the end, the SRBs didn't cost many times more as reusables than they would have as expendables (unlike the orbiter, which was grossly uneconomical), and may even have saved a little money.

>> No.8781088
File: 630 KB, 1024x768, 051d88a943048b9f4f7d33e26eb813d99cd72e09df63aa1d06b7d1a69187b464.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8781088

Can any Spacex stalker tell me how the static fire test went? It was supposed to be today (March 26th)

Launch is 29th

>> No.8781098

>>8781088
They put it off until tomorrow for some reason. I don't think they've said why.

>> No.8781146
File: 41 KB, 600x599, 1423437174553.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8781146

>>8781088
The Falcon 9 rocket's static fire test planned for today has been delayed until Monday, likely pushing back the launch until Thursday evening. SpaceX typically needs around three days to prepare for a launch after a static fire test, a series of steps that include the attachment of a satellite payload atop the rocket.

>> No.8781195

>>8781146
source?
Nothing written anywhere.
space.com or spacenews.com all don't mention it

>> No.8781329

>>8780975
1.1 million pounds of solid rocket fuel is much more expensive than LOX & CH4/kerosene

Right so thats how the economics works out for SRB's, its cheaper up front in the design to add SRB's, but much more expensive in the long run

>> No.8781349

>>8781195
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/03/24/ses-10-flight-preps/

>> No.8781360

>>8781329
>1.1 million pounds of solid rocket fuel is much more expensive than LOX & CH4/kerosene
Completely true, but you're pretty optimistic if you think either is going to be most of the cost of a rocket launch soon, never mind what things looked like in the 1970s when they were designing the shuttle.

>> No.8781421

>>8781349

FUCK

>> No.8781553 [DELETED] 

>>8777777

DELETE THIS

>> No.8781653
File: 375 KB, 1280x720, Falcon 9 CRS-6 landing.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8781653

>>8776309
>with all of the vehicle
Wrong. Falcon 9 is a 2-stage rocket, they're only reusing the first stage. No 2nd-stages have been recovered at all. And half of the spacecraft itself (Dragon) is expendable as well, while the other half remains yet to be reused.

Shuttle reused all of the spacecraft (Orbiter itself), some of the main stage (Orbiter w/ SSMEs; ET was expendable), and all of the parallel boosters. And it was STILL a fucking quagmire. Hopefully Falcon 9 will fare better at reusability in the long run, but I'm not holding my breath.

>> No.8781660

>>8774585
yes...yes I am

>> No.8781731

>>8781653
>Shuttle reused all of the spacecraft (Orbiter itself), some of the main stage (Orbiter w/ SSMEs; ET was expendable), and all of the parallel boosters.
The ET alone cost as much as a complete expendable rocket with the same cargo payload as the shuttle, because it was fucking huge, deep-cryo compatible, and extremely mass sensitive.

>And it was STILL a fucking quagmire.
There was no tension between reusing more and being a fucking quagmire. Rather than only doing reuse where it made economic sense, they forced senseless reuse of parts for appearances, and that's the root cause of your quagmire.

The only interesting, near-practical reuse on the shuttle was the boosters, and this was grossly inferior to Falcon 9's flyback boosters. SRB reuse, done sensibly and at an appropriate flight rate, might have saved a 20-30% of the booster cost, making only a small dent in the total launch cost. Flyback boosters, when mature, might save 80+% of the TOTAL launch cost on their own, and enable 99+% savings as part of a fully-reusable system.

>> No.8781749

>>8781731
>Flyback boosters, when mature, might save 80+% of the TOTAL launch cost on their own, and enable 99+% savings as part of a fully-reusable system.


hmmmm, [citation needed], that sounds pretty hyperbolic

>> No.8781756 [DELETED] 

>>8777777
Meme magic has officially passed peer review.

>> No.8781771

>>8781749
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_System#Fabrication_cost_projections
$1.83 million per booster launch
$1.6 million per tanker launch

That's $3.43 million per launch of 380 tonnes, or $9/kg.

These are their own projections: under $10/kg to LEO.

They were talking as well about Falcon 9 launches (with expendable upper stage) under $10 million, when booster reuse is mature. However, that was before their aggressive ITS schedule, which might mean they never develop Falcon 9 booster reuse to a very high level. If they want to continue operating a smaller launch vehicle, it would probably make more sense to base the booster on the ITS upper stage, rather than to continue to develop Falcon 9.

>> No.8781783

>>8774584
People did not evolve to fly, yet we still do it.

>> No.8781830

>>8774547
>Y'all ready
shore enuff, Tex

>> No.8781841 [DELETED] 
File: 25 KB, 300x245, 1488564690534.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8781841

>>8777777

>> No.8781850

>>8777814
To bad for you m8.

>> No.8782627 [DELETED] 

>>8777777
AND PRAISED BE HE!!!

>> No.8782832

Blow up, already! God damn it.
Gimme future nao.

I need a reason to procreate. Them methane lakes will burn the lungs of my unborn children. Gonna need a backup plan-E.T. Save us WeylandX.
Or at least show some fireworks.

>> No.8783089

>>8774584
WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU ON ABOUT! I AM GOING TO HECKING SPACE IF IT IS THE LAST HECKING THING I DO. HECK OFF! HECK YOU TO FRICK CHARLATAN! YOU POLTROON! YOU VAGABOND! YOU NE'ER DO WELL!

>> No.8783101

>>8774642
Why don't we send all the niggers to mars and just have the Earth be white. That would be good.

>> No.8783142
File: 70 KB, 500x375, 1465615725148.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8783142

>>8783089
>trying this hard to be funny

>> No.8783739

>>8774547
Yes I'm hype as fuck. Also, >>8777778

>> No.8783802
File: 11 KB, 362x453, FALCON-9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8783802

>>8781653
>that one thruster tries so hard to save it

>> No.8783808

>>8783802
If I worked at SpaceX, I'd have this logo on my t-shirt or something

>> No.8783814

so did they do the statis fire

>> No.8783820

>>8775048
I to am ready for the of when of duture.

>> No.8783832

>>8778380
STS did not have engines?

>> No.8783894
File: 1.85 MB, 180x140, 1417386937728.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8783894

>>8774547
The Earth is flat and the universe is a picture, everything is made up of electrons and vibrations exclusively, open your eyes to the ruling elite lie. Oh and it's fake like the moon landing because I said so. Pic related.

>> No.8784161

>>8783814
Yup.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/03/27/watch-a-replay-of-the-falcon-9-engine-test/

Is comparing Elon to Vernher von Braun ok?

>> No.8784169

>>8784161
>Musk is a Nazi.

>> No.8784189

>>8784169
Well... he collaborates with Trump's administration...

>> No.8784397
File: 554 KB, 1920x1080, 1473348401528.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8784397

SpaceX is a meme.

For the time it takes to refurbish one rocket stage, they could launch 10-15 expendable rockets. Somebody is not doing the correct math. Man-hours and materials to refurbish in my opinion does not cost less than manufacturing to finality a regular one. When that bulk consumption subsides and man-hours explode exponentially, an unsustainable event materializes. Musk is hard-set that flying rockets should be on-par with Boeing airliners. Boeing airliners never leave the atmosphere and undergo cryogenic hysteresis. When he pushes the envelope that hard, the odds of dire consequences vastly increase. Point in fact; the basis of his venture is what is at the root of ..basically...low intelligence being "re-purposed" into higher intelligence? Give me a break. 1940's technology remains 1940's technology.

But Musk is not alone. NASA, Amazon, and all of the others are doing the EXACT SAME THING. They are all competing with each other using the exact same technology....hahahaha. Nothing like using hobby shop drone software to engage the "rocket come home and land over there" commands.....Wonder where the algorithms came from actually......hmmm

There is a way to lift a 500 ton payload into space and move it anywhere it is needed. Deep orbit, next to the moon, stationary orbit - anywhere. It is just these so-called scientists cannot see the forest through the trees. Too many like-minds and all focused on one thing: build a tube and attach liquid fuel burning engines to it...YEAH! THAT'S THE TICKET! We at NASA just blew through 20 billion building the next rocket......which is no better than ATLAS......Should have just upgraded ATLAS...would have saved 19 billion and would have already been doing things and going places.......

My tax dollars not at work. I want to pull a "Exorcist" moment and spin my head around 360 degrees and then projectile vomit green pea soup......

Scientists - - -idiots, highly trained and highly specialized non-free-thinking idiots.

>> No.8784495

>>8784397
>For the time it takes to refurbish one rocket stage, they could launch 10-15 expendable rockets.
Yes, but how many could they _build_ in that time?

>Should have just upgraded ATLAS
Ah, it's just a ULA shill. How cute.

>> No.8784497

>>8784495
What kind of a fucking fish bites on pasta noodles?

>> No.8784948

>>8784495
>zero arguments
kek

>> No.8784982

>>8784397
holy shit you're an idiot, and seem a little neurotic

>> No.8784983

>>8784982
not an argument

>> No.8785329

>>8783832
as in the first reused SpaceX booster

>> No.8785849

>>8785329
Ah, gotcha, thanks.

>> No.8786158

>>8783739
>>8777778
underrated palindrome

>> No.8786167

>>8784161
Since the static fire was late, the required 13 hour checkout of the payload after mating is going to bring it down to the wire to launch on time. Weather goes from 70% to 40% if they are late a day.

>> No.8786176

>>8786167
meanwhile, the two launches that were supposed to happen before this one were both delayed:

an Atlas - Cygnus cargo launch to the ISS ran into hydraulics problems on the launch vehicle.

An Ariane 5 was all set to launch a week ago before a worker's strike started in French Guyana.

>> No.8786257

>>8786176
Jesus, even other side of the world frogs love to strike

>> No.8786285

>>8774584
>duture
If you can't even spell that with auto-correct, then the future really isn't for you.

>> No.8786310
File: 2 KB, 125x70, 1488247103090s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8786310

SHUT UP AND GIVE ME MORE SPACEX MEMES, NERDS

>> No.8786311

>>8786310
>>>>>>>>>>>>>saving the thumbnail

>> No.8786316
File: 261 KB, 1024x703, 1480881033113.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8786316

>>8786311
I just realized that after I posted it. Please take this Musk meme instead.

>> No.8786324
File: 175 KB, 1324x866, elon-1460375432517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8786324

>>8786176
The Atlas delay caused the F9 delay. When they realized it was too broke to fix quickly (ULA QUALITY!), SpaceX was already committed to the two-days-later schedule.

And since we seem to be posting Elon memes right now, have another.

>> No.8786344
File: 338 KB, 2048x1152, 1472808570089.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8786344

>>8786310
every repost is a repost of a repost
the internets never forget

>> No.8786411

>>8786285
>If you can't even spell that with auto-correct
Not everyone uses spell-checking, let alone auto-correct.

The kind of errors that you catch with spell-check tend to be ones where it's obvious you made a typo and you're intended meaning is plain, whereas auto-correct often introduces errors which cause confusion, and spell-check lulls you into a false sense of security so you don't pay as much attention to what you're doing, not to mention being distracting and annoying when you use uncommon words.

>> No.8786436

>>8786411
>Not everyone uses spell-checking, let alone auto-correct.
Pretty much everyone does though, hell, most modern browsers have it built in.

>and spell-check lulls you into a false sense of security so you don't pay as much attention to what you're doing

So you're saying the reason he failed to catch that typo, and not using autocorrect....was overusing autocorrect?

Look, I get that it was a hastily typed post, but his post contents, and its apparent context leave me to question his intelligence, at best it was a shitpost designed to get (You)s, which it very much so did.
At worst, that guy's a fucking retard and autocorrect probably would not have helped him anyways, not exactly someone that, you know, is exactly qualified to talk about the future and manned space exploration.

>> No.8786438

I'm going to go see it. Do any anons in this thread want to meet up?

>> No.8786441

>>8786438
Lucky
be sure to do something meme worthy for us

>> No.8786470
File: 46 KB, 400x277, 7E8D78B3-20D1-4DE7-9A48-2551B17168EC-3766-000002D554F53A59.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8786470

The

Rocket

Will

Not

Launch

>> No.8786477

>>8786436
>>and spell-check lulls you into a false sense of security so you don't pay as much attention to what you're doing
>So you're saying the reason he failed to catch that typo, and not using autocorrect....was overusing autocorrect?
Your post contents leave me to question your intelligence.

>> No.8786484

>>8786470
I, personally, think Musk is as much a scam artist as anything else, but noinetheless I jope you are wrong and the rocket flies, and the rocket and spacecraft and assorted everything else are hugely successful.

I hope the same for the other vehicles and organizations in the game.

I want more spaceflight, not less.

>> No.8786516

>>8786477
>>and spell-check lulls you into a false sense of security so you don't pay as much attention to what you're doing
Autocorrect, spellcheck, semantics.
Point is, you were implying that he made a typo as a result of something you suggested he did not do.

>> No.8786517

>>8786484
As much as I think Musk is a con artist, I love him for that, I want to make easy money and fame(srs). He's meming the world. People that declare "I fucking love science", "think about how our children will love living on Mars", he's scamming them so hard.
He's building up grand ideas and dissociates any criticism against it, "I don't care how much the hyper-loop costs or that there are better cheaper solutions now that will be benifit more people now, look how cool this thing is".
He builds things for rich people, and the low class plebs are funding him. As another anon put it, he is very akin to Lyle from the Simpsons episode about the mono rail.

>> No.8786530

>>8786438
Sure. I'll be the gentleman wearing a fedora in the viewing area.

>> No.8786549

>>8786484
>I, personally, think Musk is as much a scam artist as anything else
this is one elaborate fucking scam then.

>> No.8786566
File: 43 KB, 450x550, rocket-kitty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8786566

>>8786549
It is.

I think his basic gig is finding things that are not really economical to do, and getting the government to pay him to do them. He is, I think, noticeably scammy in the electric car for the masses he got the government to subsidize for him, then what he makes is a luxury toy for rich folks. Doesn't mean it is not a pretty neat car, or that he can't hire competent engineers.

I see less of that side of him in the rocket biz, just little things like "NASA announces maybe trying a lunar flyby in year X, Musk next week announces a couple of unnamed guys are going to pay him to do a lunar flyby in X-1! Really! No fooling!" Maybe he's telling the straight up truth, but it looks like he's just trying to freeze NASA out of the attempt.

But in any case, he can still hire competent engineers and build a good system, if that's what he wants to do.

I am not going to suck his dick and join his fanboidom, but I nonetheless hope his rockets fly all over the damn place and help kick the world's space efforts back into gear.

>> No.8786593

>>8786441
like blowing everything up?

>> No.8786660

>>8786517
If you have robust reusable rockets, then the amount of launches you are doing scales up exponentially

Certainly everything he does is about building up the tech/industries he needs for his Mars stuff

>> No.8786846

You guys think Musk ever read 'The Man Who Sold the Moon?"

>> No.8786918

>>8776720
This is why privatized space programs are so important, good luck pushing diversity quotas on privately owned programs.

>> No.8786964

>>8786918
>good luck pushing diversity quotas on privately owned programs.
Enjoy watching Saudi princes make the first footprints on Mars.

>> No.8786967

Did it explode /sci/?

>> No.8786993

>>8786158
Where's the palindrome?

>> No.8787113 [DELETED] 
File: 909 KB, 1280x853, god bless the united states of dubs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8787113

>>8777777
ave kek

>> No.8787164

>>8786566

Yeah, he does take a lot of government money, but I feel like anything he is working on (cars, rockets, etc), he is doing tangible things to improve how it is made and the cost of doing so. Telsa is forcing car companies to push electric cars, Spacex is making Arianespace build a better rocket.

>> No.8787313

>>8786566
>>/x/

Come with me my brother we will share the truth.

>> No.8787767
File: 211 KB, 600x451, 1475006085628.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8787767

this thread needs more memes

>> No.8787770

>>8776283
it was shit though

>> No.8787771
File: 49 KB, 506x386, 1471153433994.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8787771

>> No.8787772 [DELETED] 

>>8777777
dream on, mars man

>> No.8787774

>>8787770
They still did it first, and more than 30 years ago.

>> No.8787777
File: 868 KB, 1218x686, 1488230601938.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8787777

What was this expression trying to convey?

>> No.8787778
File: 219 KB, 397x256, 7474645676565.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8787778

>> No.8787783
File: 131 KB, 810x287, 1489442172096.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8787783

>> No.8787814

>>8787777
>mfw quads

>> No.8787860
File: 186 KB, 400x307, elon-1338032586509.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8787860

>>8787777
The feeling of being quads inside.

>> No.8788099

What time of the day is this thing launching?

>> No.8788110
File: 66 KB, 1062x207, spacex-164895739.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788110

>>8788099
>This milestone SpaceX launch is currently scheduled for March 30 at 6:27 p.m. EDT (22:27 UTC).
So it's about 32 hours away right now.

>> No.8788132

>>8787783
For some reason I thought the arrow pointed the other way and was thoroughly confused

>> No.8788296

>>8787774
>They still did it first
They still did what first? Roughly dropping the burnt-out shell of a solid-fuel rocket in the ocean so it can be salvaged isn't at all the same thing as soft-landing a liquid-fuel rocket in good working condition.

As for the orbiter, dropping the fuel tank stops it from being a "reusable upper stage" or "reusable launch vehicle" and makes it a "reusable spacecraft" (like sending a capsule back up after extensive refurbishing), and since that tank is ridiculously huge and cost as much as a complete expendable vehicle (let alone upper stage) with as much cargo payload as the shuttle can carry, there was never a possibility of this reuse serving an economic purpose.

There's nothing the shuttle "did first" that's of interest. It's like comparing the failed Langley Aerodrome to the Wright Flyer. The Aerodrome was launched first, it was heavier-than-air and had an engine and propeller and wings, it got in the air, but it lacked everything desirable about powered flight (it promptly broke up and fell in the water).

The shuttle lacked everything desirable about a reusable launch vehicle. Wreckage and orbital spacecraft had been recovered from other launches before. If anyone had been so inclined, incorporating some of this salvaged material in another launch would not have been a serious challenge, it just wasn't desirable and would only have been done to say it had been done. The shuttle was of this character: its reuse wasn't desirable, and was only done to say it had been done.

>> No.8788422

>>8786660
>If you have robust reusable rockets, then the amount of launches you are doing scales up exponentially

But does it then follow that there is a need for enough launches to keep you in business.

Do we have this huge backlog in launch capacity at the present?

Legitimately asking, I don't know the answer.

But if the answer is "no," then it seems to me we're back to STS days, economically.

>> No.8788429

>>8787164
>Telsa is forcing car companies to push electric cars

But if they make no sense economically or as cars, other than as toys for rich folks, is this really a worthwhile thing to do?

Hopefully, his foray into rocketry has better outcome. Here, he's competing with other providers in a way he really isn't in the doesn't -really-need-to-exist electric car market, and the stimulating effects of competition may pay off more.

>> No.8788432
File: 25 KB, 351x268, bob belcher shocked.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788432

>>8787770
Technology was not as advanced 30 years ago? Really? Shocked, SHOCKED I am to learn of this.

>> No.8788434

>>8787777
He got Teslaed right in the little Elon.

>> No.8788439

>>8788296
>was only done to say it had been done.

That is incorrect, but the economic and budget advantages it was hoped would be achieved did not, in fact, materialize. This for a variety of reasons, some of which were within NASA's ability to control, some that were not.

>> No.8788445
File: 2.74 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Next Phase - 3mb - no sound.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788445

>The Falcon 9 rocket is currently scheduled to launch tomorrow (Thursday, March 30, 2017) at 6:27 p.m. EDT (22:27 UTC).

Is this still correct?

>> No.8788475

>>8788445
Spacex Twitter
>Static fire test complete. Targeting Thursday, March 30 for Falcon 9 launch of SES-10.

>> No.8788483

>>8788422
>But does it then follow that there is a need for enough launches to keep you in business.
The current demand for launch is at the far higher prices, and at higher costs. The difference does matter, because the launch provider can use launches for their own purposes. SpaceX doesn't have to lower the satellite launch price to take advantage of a lower launch cost: they can start doing things like launching their own satellites, or providing space tourism services.

>Do we have this huge backlog in launch capacity at the present?
There actually is quite a backlog. People wait years to launch on either Ariane 5 or Falcon 9, the current preferred commercial launch options.

>if the answer is "no," then it seems to me we're back to STS days, economically.
The shuttle wasn't uneconomical because there weren't enough launches for it. It was uneconomical because it was more expensive to fly than expendable vehicles. It was years behind schedule from first launch (Skylab splashed because it was supposed to be serviced by the shuttle), and they launched it as often as they could manage to.

Even without an increase in launch volume, efficient reusability and high-launch-rate capability will mean ordering flights weeks rather than years in advance of launch, lower prices and higher profits.

It's important to remember that Falcon 9 isn't an expensive rocket even without actually reflying stages. They can pay all of the costs of reusability, and not reuse it, and it's still cost-effective. So any useful reuse they get can only lower costs.

>> No.8788539

>>8788439
>>was only done to say it had been done.
>That is incorrect, but the economic and budget advantages it was hoped would be achieved did not, in fact, materialize.
It had to have been clear early in the detailed design stage that they would not. It was certainly clear with only public information years before launch:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/835107/posts

The shuttle was only reusable to say it was reusable. Nobody seriously involved in the decision making could have believed that it would save any money. As I've already pointed out, just looking at the expendable fuel tank should have put that notion to rest.

>> No.8788559

>>8788539
>The shuttle was only reusable to say it was reusable.
I'm pretty sure the fact that the companies doing the refurbishing of various parts making the same amount or more off of that than in just building new parts from scratch had something to do with it.

>> No.8788562

>>8788539
>>8788559
Making more money I mean.

>> No.8788590

>>8788432
Not him, but it was shit compared to Vostok or Titan II. Time has nothing to do with that.

>> No.8788685
File: 337 KB, 879x690, 0b4ae5ad-ba9a-4ddb-9579-ac7f7be96b30.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788685

I would ride that, if you catch my drift

>> No.8788689

>>8787777
When you nutted, but Amber Heard still sucking.

>> No.8788699

>>8788590
Know what you are taking about, then come back and post.

Vostok could not even fucking change orbits, for fucks sake.

All sorts of engineering compromises were forced on the shuttle designers by budget constraints and lack of a specified mission once Space Station First Round, Orbital Boogaloo was Proxmired. So yes, it had some major issues and weaknesses, as a vehicle and particularly economically.

Tell me, how many ISS modules were hooked up while the shuttle was grounded? Hell, when the shuttle couldn't fly after Columbia, ISS couldn;t even find ways to get rid of the fucking garbage.

By the way, since the shuttle fleet was retired, I am guessing ISS found a work-around for the garbage/leftover equipment problem -- anybody know what it was?

And, as I type this, it occurs to me that you meant Vostok the launch vehicle, not the capsule. My error, I've been reading up on the early Soviet flights, and had the capsule on the brain there...

>> No.8788702

>>8788590
>compared to Vostok or Titan II
Both were medium-lift vehicles. More comparable are the heavy-lift Titan variants (with added large solid boosters) and Proton.

The shuttle did at least have a reliability advantage among heavy-lift vehicles (...to non-polar low-earth orbits). Both the heavy Titan and Proton families had ~10% failure rates.

>> No.8788704

>>8788699
Air Force screwed the shuttle up.

>> No.8788714

>>8788699
>a work-around for the garbage/leftover equipment problem
I think they stuff it in cargo vehicles they don't need which are deorbited and burn up when they're full.

>> No.8788715

>>8788704
Partially, yes.

But on the other hand, adding the USAF mission gave the proposed shuttle something to do and a potential steady user.

Apollo was a mission -- land a man on the moon and return him to Earth in this decade, oh, and beat the Russians -- that led to the development of a vehicle.

The shuttle was a vehicle that they hoped would lead to the development of a mission.

When the space station got axed the first time, that mission pretty much vanished, the USAF helped fill the gap, but even so they got stuck doing shit that could have been done easier by a smaller cheaper vehicle, and dicking around with Muh Microgravity Experiments, until the Phase One mission to Mir and the ISS finally gave the shuttle a place to shuttle to and from.

In the end, shuttle issues all go back to "What is our mission?" If the answer to that is, "Not really sure, sorry," it is hard to design a vehicle to efficiently meet you non-defined future needs.

>> No.8788720

>>8788714
I know that's what Mir did, but for some reason they could not do that with Progress vessels leaving ISS during the hiatus in shuttle flights. Maybe it was just a case of "this shit is still valuable equipment, potentially, just cram it somewhere until a shuttle can come get it someday.

>> No.8788721

>>8788699
>Tell me, how many ISS modules were hooked up while the shuttle was grounded?
Everything on ISS could have been sent on Proton, at far lower cost. They used the shuttle because the ISS was mainly an excuse to use the shuttle, which was a vehicle with lots of political/lobbying support and no purpose or practical reason to exist.

The ISS is ridiculous. Any halfway sensible manned LEO research program would have built smaller stations, especially to experiment with centrifugal gravity simulation.

>> No.8788726

>>8788699
>Vostok
speaking of which, I'm pretty hyped about the upcoming Russian movie "First Time" about the first Voskhod flights and spacewalks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuRN-V5mCFM

>> No.8788741

>>8788720
some of the problem might have been due to sheer size. The Shuttle hatch is larger than the Progress/Soyuz hatch.

>> No.8788744

>>8788721
>>Tell me, how many ISS modules were hooked up while the shuttle was grounded?
>Everything on ISS could have been sent on Proton,

But they had to stop sending modules up when the shuttle fleet was grounded. Including modules not belonging to the US.

>The ISS is ridiculous.
I'll go so far as to say that I would have hoped for more from it.|

>Any halfway sensible manned LEO research program would have built smaller stations, especially to experiment with centrifugal gravity simulation.

That would have certainly been one way to go.

>> No.8788751

>>8788720
I'm not sure about larger components but they used the unnecessary orbital compartment of departing Soyuz for waste, as well as the various cargo vessels that started going up there.

>> No.8788767

>>8775048
the duture is dow. cocksois piste DDD

>> No.8788768
File: 1.17 MB, 2070x3648, Saturn-Shuttle_model_at_Udvar-Hazy_Center.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788768

>>8788715
>>8788704
daily reminder that we could have had this

>> No.8788772

>>8788726
Wow.

Leonov had huge brass ones, men.

Movie looks a little over-dramatized, but what the fuck, I'd go see it.

>Voskhod

Any movie about Voskhod that does not have "How we trolled the shit out of you guys" as a subtitle is missing an opportunity for a perfect subtitle.

Oh, da, Yankee imperialists, we have multi-man capsule spaceship, no problems.

And then they do a space-walk with a fucking canvas airlock.

Amazing shit.

>> No.8788778
File: 237 KB, 575x1436, crewed-vehicle-comparison.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788778

>>8788715
>The shuttle was a vehicle that they hoped would lead to the development of a mission.
hmmmmm... what does that remind me of? I guess the US govt didn't learn the biggest lesson the Shuttle program had to teach us.

>> No.8788781
File: 77 KB, 1211x885, image3.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788781

>>8788768
Pfft

>> No.8788786

>>8788781
>Nuclear launch systems

Absolutely terrifying field. Not why rocket science ever existed in the first place.

>> No.8788791
File: 96 KB, 658x1109, image1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788791

>>8788786
Non-nuclear

>> No.8788811

>>8788744
>But they had to stop sending modules up when the shuttle fleet was grounded. Including modules not belonging to the US.
You're thinking about this entirely wrong, as if the ISS served some practical purpose and the motivation behind it was to accomplish this purpose.

They had to stop sending modules up when the shuttle fleet was grounded because demonstrating that the shuttle was unnecessary would have been absolutely counter to the primary reason the ISS was undertaken in the first place.

>> No.8788812

>>8788786
Project Orion is cool as hell, we could send people to alpha centauri within a few decades using that sort of tech

>> No.8788813

>>8788812
yeah, that would be cool one would hope.

>> No.8788822

>>8788715
>In the end, shuttle issues all go back to "What is our mission?"

If they had just driven down the cost to orbit, then everything would have been fine
Instead they increased it.

>> No.8788825

>>8788812

But muh irradiation.
I'm surprised the hippies didn't get to ban chemical rockets too, but I guess they are too dumb to realize how much nasty stuff one of them farts out.

>> No.8788827
File: 105 KB, 1000x773, image49.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788827

>>8788791
Oh, and for the curious this concept is pretty similar to the ITS launch vehicle (mass, methane launch vehicle, intended for reuse), just with a lower payload capacity.

>> No.8788828

>>8788822
Yes, but I'd maintain that this was largely due to trying to make the Swissknife of spacecraft, to handle the potential Air Force mission requirements, and maybe build a space station that hadn't been designed yet because it got Proxmired, and then maybe we'll get that Space Tug and need to be able to go on up to missions undefined in higher orbit...

Designing vehicles to a mission is generally better.

>> No.8788834

>>8788772
newer trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygSZlQQmCyc

>> No.8788837

>>8788778
In limited modified defense of Orion -- they started with a mission -- we're going to send crews to the Moon/Mars. But there was no political will to follow up the various Presidential speeches that proclaimed that mission, it then, soon... yeah, we're back to trying to design a ship that has to do... we're not sure exactly what.

>> No.8788845

>>8788811
You are correct, I guess, in terms of what one impact of it would have been. I believe you are incorrect in assessing motives.

They didn;t CHOOSE to stop connecting modules that were sitting in a fucking warehouse while the nations who owned them screamed about the delay -- they had to. The system was designed to work a certain way, and needed the vehicle it had been designed to work with.

>> No.8788850

>>8788837
It wasn't a case of political will
It was a case that they were like 5 years into the program, and nowhere near any potential launches, and key components hadn't even been started

At the end of the day they were spending billions to recreate apollo, was a mad idea

>> No.8788851

>>8788812
I sense some political realities that would intrude at some point between announcing the project and flying off into space. I suspect they'd start right exactly when you said "We'll use atomic bombs to launch."

>> No.8788854

>>8788827
That's butt-ugly, though.

No ugly spaceships, please.

>> No.8788870

>>8788715
>In the end, shuttle issues all go back to "What is our mission?"
I think it goes deeper than that. Why should the first reusable launch vehicle have a mission?

The Wright Flyer just flew. There wasn't a job for it. Making it fly was hard enough.

The first RLV should have been small, inexpensive, developed on a brisk schedule, and primarily research-oriented, like a cross between the X-15 and Gemini programs. And they should have had a plan to tolerate failure and develop two or three more generations before having the confidence to build something practical.

>> No.8788872

>>8788834
OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT, that looks pretty amazing. I hope I am right in thinking I glimpse Korolev in there a few times, would love to see him get some props.

But shit, I don't understand a word of it, and I still got this space-boner...

>> No.8788890
File: 66 KB, 813x813, sb_fuck_yeah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788890

>>8788870
With hindsight, that seems to me to be one of several good ways they might have gone.

But I think they hoped/believed that "We choose to go to Mars in this decade, not because it is easy, but because it is hard" was out there, but the sad truth is nobody with power to make shit happen in Washington really wanted to go anywhere that was hard. They were happy to make a speech to SAY they had the dream, when speaking to voters in Florida or around Houston, say, but not to back it up.

A shame, but there we are.

Good news is, at the moment it looks like we have several governments and several firms fighting to accomplish things in spaces again.

Best of luck to every fucking one of them, as far as I'm concerned, what a time to be alive.

>> No.8788903

>>8788296
>Roughly dropping the burnt-out shell of a solid-fuel rocket in the ocean so it can be salvaged isn't at all the same thing as soft-landing a liquid-fuel rocket in good working condition.
Not sure why you're acting like it's so different. You don't think SpaceX has rebuilt and refurbished the rocket stage they're reusing in the 10 months that have elapsed since CRS-8?
>As for the orbiter, dropping the fuel tank stops it from being a "reusable upper stage" or "reusable launch vehicle" and makes it a "reusable spacecraft"
F9 doesn't reuse it's upper stage either. Fuck outta here with your double standards.
And the Shuttle Orbiter DID bring all of its engines back from orbit, which is something F9 will never accomplish.
>there was never a possibility of this reuse serving an economic purpose.
>Reusing three $40 million SSMEs serves no economic purpose
Wew lad
>It's like comparing the failed Langley Aerodrome to the Wright Flyer. The Aerodrome was launched first, it was heavier-than-air and had an engine and propeller and wings, it got in the air, but it lacked everything desirable about powered flight (it promptly broke up and fell in the water).
The Langley didn't fly. Calling the early attempts "flight" is flatly dishonest. The Shuttle, by comparison, DID reach orbit and was subsequently partially-reused DECADES before the F9 did (err, will). The ONLY real parallels between the Langley and the Shuttle were that they were both bloated, expensive government-sponsored programs fraught with bad engineering. But as far as milestones go the Shuttle blows the Langley out of the water.
>The shuttle was of this character: its reuse wasn't desirable, and was only done to say it had been done.
That's not what they were expecting in the early stages of the program... they were fully expecting to see real savings from reusability. It didn't pan out. And we STILL don't know if it will pan out for SpaceX either. But at least F9 is competitive as an all-expendable system.

>> No.8788904

>>8788850
I dunno -- if they had been able to "recreate" Apollo on a reasonable budget (large, but not insane) that seems to me to have been a fine thing. AAP had some stuff you could continue to do with Apollo, and shit, at the end of the day, throwing away Apollo was the mad thing to do.

>> No.8788906
File: 25 KB, 500x400, bugfuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788906

>>8788854
It's not just butt ugly, it's butt fucking. It literally looks like two shuttles having anal sex.
And I guess they have to launch it next to a trench because of that second tail.

>> No.8788907

>>8788870
>The Wright Flyer just flew. There wasn't a job for it.

There was a very clearly defined mission, though. Wilbur and Orville didn't dick around with "Well, we need it to fly, but I'm not sure if maybe it needs to be a submarine as well."

>> No.8788923

>>8788903
>And we STILL don't know if it will pan out for SpaceX either.

Really? You going to pretend getting the booster back in slightly used condition has no financial benefit for SpaceX?

>> No.8788929
File: 73 KB, 952x646, Shuttle Columbia with missing tiles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788929

>>8788923
>Really? You are going to pretend that getting the Orbiter back in slightly used condition has no financial benefit for NASA?

>> No.8788943

>>8788929
The shuttle started with a baseline cost of 250million or so in hardware expended
There was never a possibility of it being cheaper than an expendable rocket.

Then they developed a fucking boondoggle multi-billion dollar orbiter that had tens of thousands of delicate tiles hand glued onto it...

Like SpaceX has demonstrated, it doesn't make sense to turn the smallest part(and most mass sensitive) of the vehicle into "reusable" first. If NASA had started with a large reusable booster, with expendable upper. They would have had much more success.

>> No.8788947
File: 308 KB, 1024x853, 1317752646315.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8788947

>>8788929
Look at picture.

Hair literally stands on end.

>> No.8788953

>>8788943
>There was never a possibility of it being cheaper than an expendable rocket.

Sure there was -- if there were a ridiculously high but just barely possible number of launches.

>> No.8788961

>>8788953
A giant tank of precision engineered aluminium, or 1000 tons of solid rocket fuel have minimum costs.

With all the delicate stuff on the orbiter, they would have known it was going to take a lot of refurbishment to make flight capable again.

Sure its easy for them to say "Well we will do 100 launches a year", when they know they aren't capable of producing anywhere near that many drop tanks.

>> No.8789000

>>8788903
>>Roughly dropping the burnt-out shell of a solid-fuel rocket in the ocean so it can be salvaged isn't at all the same thing as soft-landing a liquid-fuel rocket in good working condition.
>Not sure why you're acting like it's so different. You don't think SpaceX has rebuilt and refurbished the rocket stage they're reusing in the 10 months that have elapsed since CRS-8?
Each recovered stage landed on rocket power. They stuck the first one on the test stand without refurbishment, fuelled it up, and did a burn. Think anything like that ever happened with an SRB?

Yes, they're currently doing some refurbishment, but they're working toward not doing refurbishment, just as Falcon 9 started out as an expendable rocket and they worked toward recovering the stages.

>And the Shuttle Orbiter DID bring all of its engines back from orbit, which is something F9 will never accomplish.
It didn't bring them back in condition worth having. And the only reason F9's not going to have a reusable upper stage is that SpaceX is shifting to ITS.

>>Reusing three $40 million SSMEs serves no economic purpose
>Wew lad
Imagine spending $1.5 billion per launch and thinking it's an economic win because you recover hardware in severely degraded condition that had an original fabrication cost of $120 million (and could have been much cheaper if it wasn't supposed to be reusable).

The shuttle was four or five times more massive on the pad, and at least ten times more expensive to build, than an expendable would have needed to be. That's how the drop tank alone ended up being as expensive as a complete expendable launch vehicle would have been.

>The Langley didn't fly. Calling the early attempts "flight" is flatly dishonest. The Shuttle, by comparison, DID reach orbit
The novel goal wasn't to reach orbit, though. It was to dramatically reduce launch costs through reusability.

>> No.8789026

>>8787767
Dream on mars man

>> No.8789091
File: 4 KB, 300x57, falcon 700m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8789091

>>8788929
The difference is: Falcon 9 isn't more expensive to build and launch than the expendable rockets that were on the market when it showed up.

What does Falcon 9 need for reusability that the expendable version doesn't? Legs, cold-gas thrusters, small fins, a place to land, software, and about 50% more vehicle. Reasonably affordable stuff, with the additional expense mitigated by using the latest technology to keep costs down relative to the aging competition.

This makes it very easy to benefit from reusability. Recovery can have a high failure rate. Refurbishment costs can be borne. Vehicles only have to be reflown once or twice on average to make reuse beneficial. The design can be evolved rapidly as problems are discovered through experience.

What did the space shuttle need for reusability that an equivalent expendable rocket wouldn't have? Parallel staging, parachutes, wings, control surfaces, OMS, RCS, heat shielding, landing gear, a crew cabin, a pilot, and about 400% more vehicle. Very expensive stuff.

This makes it very difficult to benefit from reusability. Recovery must be highly successful. There's very little tolerance for refurbishment costs. Vehicles need a long lifetime of many launches to make reuse beneficial. The design must be committed to early, without the benefit for experience.

>> No.8789104

>>8789091
what you're forgetting is that falcon 9 doesn't need reusability to dominate

reusability for falcon 9 is to help make a little bit extra profit off the top for its development and for practice

cost reduction from falcon 9 reusability is a meme

>> No.8789108

>>8784397
>For the time it takes to refurbish one rocket stage, they could launch 10-15 expendable rockets.

They can only launch as many as they have, and then they have to build the rest, which takes way longer than refurbishing.

Ergo it's better to have 10-15 refurbishable and reusable rockets than 10-15 rockets you can fire once and never use again.

What's your alternative to building a tube and attaching liquid fuel and burning engines to it?

>> No.8789110

>>8789091
I think we are drifting back into the area of you asking me to be amazed that technology has advanced in 30 years.

In case I have not been clear (and I am only one of at least two people you've responded to) I wish Space X and all the different parties trying to make space great again, including NASA, as much success as possible.

But I am not into denigrating accomplishments of the past in order to feel smug about the present. The shuttle program was flawed, for a lot of reasons, but at least they kept the torch burning.

Those who are taking the torch and advancing it do not make themselves look better by dumping on those who handed it to them.

Anyway, keep 'em flying, I think I've said everything I want to say n this thread, no need to repeat myself.

See you in the next one.

>> No.8789116

>>8789110
haha troll BTFO

its sad taht ULA keeps paying these trolls

WHO IS THE SPACE AGENCY OF THE FUTURE THAT IS GOOD AND NOT CORRUPT AND BRINGS IMPROVEMENT!!!

(X)Spacex
()ula

>> No.8789121

>>8789104
SpaceX is depending on booster reuse to hit their flight rate goals, especially for Falcon Heavy.

They can't produce 450+ all-new Merlin engines per year. Even the ones they just strip for parts will help.

>> No.8789122

>>8789121
core availability has never been a problem for them

fairings are literally more of a constraint than cores

>> No.8789149

>>8788943
>Then they developed a fucking boondoggle multi-billion dollar orbiter that had tens of thousands of delicate tiles hand glued onto it...
It also needed thousands of people on the ground to launch it.
Ground launch crew is a cost over time that has to be paid even when there is only a launch every few months. Multiply that by the size of that crew (gummint jobs!) and that's where a big part of the Shuttle (and someday SLS) cost came from.

Then there were the tiles to replace every flight, and the SSMEs were basically completely rebuilt after each flight, and then recovering those empty tubes that were almost as expensive to refurbish as they cost new, only they put jobs in the right district.

I think SpaceX has a few less* crew for their launches than NASA.

*actually a lot less

>> No.8789160
File: 215 KB, 1080x862, 1-aawQy3kE4vBQDL4TTAhD7A.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8789160

>>8788429
>But if they make no sense economically or as cars, other than as toys for rich folks, is this really a worthwhile thing to do?

muskfan3005 coming through

Tesla's newest model 3 is 35k, meaning he's trying to get technology to the common people. It's really expensive material/engineering-wise to build electric cars that can be affordable for everyone; all technology takes time to develop.

Now in defense of Musk:

If anybody being exposed as a scam artist would surprise me, it would be this autistic nerd. The guy was bullied all his childhood and had an existential crisis at 14 years old. His only solace was in reading books from his local library.

He came to the US and took advantage of the internet boom that was happening with two companies (one shitty, one you know today as paypal). After this the guy was rich enough to retire but like any other nerd he likes space travel, and so he decided to make a space exploration company just cause NASA didn't seem to have any Mars plans. Oh and then he stole some guy's electric car company.

IMO Elon Musk is completely authentic in wanting to save the world and helping humanity, he just wants to make money from it too. He's not a scam artist, just a massive asshole (e.g. Elon fired one of his employees because the employee had missed work to attend his child's birth).

I'm actually surprised he's not more of /ourguy/ since he's such a fucking autist (have you heard him speak?)

>> No.8789166

>>8789160
zip2 was objectively a better win for him than paypal

>> No.8789177

>>8788961
>Sure its easy for them to say "Well we will do 100 launches a year", when they know they aren't capable of producing anywhere near that many drop tanks.

And Marshall can't reasonably produce more than two SLS rockets a year. So much for making more launches to bring the cost down.

>>8789000
>The shuttle was four or five times more massive on the pad, and at least ten times more expensive to build, than an expendable would have needed to be. That's how the drop tank alone ended up being as expensive as a complete expendable launch vehicle would have been.
But by god, the USAF got their capability to bring down entire satellites on black mission flights! Can't risk the Russkies seeing a piece of them!

>>8789091
>What does Falcon 9 need for reusability that the expendable version doesn't?
Oh, and re-startable rockets. SRBs BTFO.

>> No.8789181

How many bongs and bings till the launch, spaceboys?

>> No.8789182

>>8789166

Of course

It put him in the big boy's club and gave him the capital to make paypal

I just use paypal as an argumentative example because it is well-known

>> No.8789188

>>8789110
>I think we are drifting back into the area of you asking me to be amazed that technology has advanced in 30 years.
It's certainly true that SpaceX has benefitted from the general advance of technology, but that's far from the only reason Falcon 9 is a good reusability plan and the shuttle was a terrible one.

They might not have been able to do a propulsive-landing flyback booster (although remember that this was years after the lunar lander, and they could have had ground control), but they could certainly have put an inexpensive expendable upper stage on top of an inexpensive splashdown booster.

>The shuttle program was flawed, for a lot of reasons, but at least they kept the torch burning.
No, the shuttle program was a sham, and a major obstacle to real progress in launch technology. It was always-manned just to say it was manned, and reusable just to say it was reusable. Rather than being designed for practical reasons, it was a product of turf wars, careerism, politics, and profiteering.

NASA didn't want to lower launch costs. They wanted another fuckhuge program to keep growing the bureaucracy after Apollo was over.

The underlying desire to spend a lot of money and man-hours was directly in conflict with the stated goal of reducing costs. So there was never an honest effort.

>> No.8789213
File: 232 KB, 1024x780, Cargo_transport_from_Space_Shuttle_with_the_space_tug_to_Nuclear_shuttle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8789213

>>8789188
top kek, get a load of this retard
>No, the shuttle program was a sham, and a major obstacle to real progress in launch technology. It was always-manned just to say it was manned, and reusable just to say it was reusable. Rather than being designed for practical reasons, it was a product of turf wars, careerism, politics, and profiteering.
>NASA didn't want to lower launch costs. They wanted another fuckhuge program to keep growing the bureaucracy after Apollo was over.
bunch of conspiratard crap

the shuttle was originally part of the larger STS program, and as originally envisioned it would have been a major success

when all parts of STS (the nuclear tug, lunar tug&lander ect.) except the shuttle were cancelled for budgetary reasons, the program was already screwed
this is where the "reduced cost" part of the project died, in the concept stages

then the air force and navy got their hands in on the design process and decided that it needed to be fuckhuge to allow it to capture foreign polar orbit spy satellites (something it never even came close to doing)

then congress wanted to spread the jobs love to places other than the southern USA (understandable at the time, because LBJ was a southern-biased dixiecrat moron who placed every NASA center in the south) so thiokol got to have their meme boosters in the project

also, it was going to have to be manned because that was the only way to land something back when it was designed

by the time of Challenger there was already cheaper alternatives for satellite launch, so the only purpose of shuttle was to launch astronauts or missions that required EVAs

>> No.8789218

>>8776720
Why do you care?
How does the color of the first man or woman to die in martian dirt from some unforseen mistake affect you in any way?

>> No.8789224

>>8789181
23 hours

>> No.8789233

>>8789218
not him, but it should be a group of people who designed and built the rocket plus maybe a few astronauts that go first

the ITS will not have a ladder, but instead a crane/winch with a platform

what they should do is have all of the crew literally hold hands and jump down so no one person is first

>> No.8789240

>>8789213
>because LBJ was a southern-biased dixiecrat moron who placed every NASA center in the south)

Excuse me. Space launches have to be as near the equator as possible to reduce fuel needed.

>> No.8789243

>>8789160
>Tesla's newest model 3 is 35k, meaning he's trying to get technology to the common people.
$35k is over the mean price of a new car. The "common people" don't buy new cars at the average new-car price (dragged up by all the rich people frequently buying new expensive cars). They buy low-end new cars (around $20k) or used ones (which can go well under $10k). And nobody who needs reliable, versatile transportation is going to buy an electric as their only car in the near future. Tesla's a second or third car for people who are well off, and that's going to be true of Model 3 as well.

Tesla's still new enough that people haven't really experienced the effect of batteries wearing out on the used car market value, or the general issue of maintainability of electric cars.

>> No.8789246

>>8789240
I wasn't aware that Marshall, Stennis, and Johnson space centers hosted launches. Boy did I learn something new today!

>> No.8789261

>>8789213
Why would they be designing and building fancy space vehicles before producing an effective launch vehicle?
Cancelling some shit that never got off the design board is not a problem.

>> No.8789276

>>8789246
Well the one in florida has two advantages, one being that it is southern, and the other being that if anything goes wrong it lands in the ocean, and if it goes really wrong only floridians will die

All those other places don't have those same advantages

>> No.8789278

>>8789261
because the shuttle actually makes sense when it's two of them strapped together, 100%

recoverable or strapped to the top of a saturn S-IC with potential flyback capability

>Cancelling some shit that never got off the design board is not a problem.
Cancelling that "shit" is why we've had no progress in space in 50 years

>> No.8789285

>>8789261
>you just need a good car dude, who cares about roads or destinations!

>> No.8789291

>>8789285
I guess really its more like "you just need a road dude, who cares about what kind of car you drive or where you're going or if this is the right road and the right car to get there!"

>> No.8789329

>>8788699
>>8788702
I didn't want to just go and compare it to Saturn V and totally blow the shuttle out while still keeping lower budget. I'm not that kind of a guy.

>I am guessing ISS found a work-around for the garbage/leftover equipment problem -- anybody know what it was?
The unmanned cargo ships (Progress, ATV, HTV, Cygnus) get burned in the atmosphere with garbage in. The SpaceX's Dragon (and in small doses Soyuz) returns astronaut's shit safely to the ground, so ask around - maybe you'll be able to buy a bag of space shit.

>heavy Titan and Proton families had ~10% failure rates
What is human-rated?

>> No.8789353

>>8789213
>as originally envisioned it would have been a major success
Total fantasy. The larger STS program was interesting, but there's no reason to believe it would have gotten any closer to its stated goals than the shuttle did.

>then the air force and navy got their hands in on the design process and decided that it needed to be fuckhuge
When NASA didn't get the moonbase STS plan approved, they decided the shuttle needed to be fuckhuge so they could still spend absolutely as much money as possible.

NASA tried to sell it as the only orbital launch system America needed. When asked if this was true, the military responded with their actual requirements, which included large payloads to polar orbits, something the shuttle was extremely poorly suited for. NASA insisted they could do this (and then compromised their design for it, without achieving this capability).

>when all parts of STS (the nuclear tug, lunar tug&lander ect.) except the shuttle were cancelled for budgetary reasons, the program was already screwed
...and yet NASA kept pushing it. Don't try and claim that NASA was some innocent victim. They were just looking for excuses to spend as much taxpayer money as possible. They never took a stand and said, "Okay, with these changes, now it's a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." Instead, as the concept got worse they kept pushing it, until they ended up operating an RLV that cost several times more than ELVs for three decades.

>also, it was going to have to be manned
That was in the plan from the very earliest proposals.

>by the time of Challenger there was already cheaper alternatives for satellite launch
By the time the shuttle was proposed, there were already cheaper alternatives for satellite launch.

>> No.8789366

>>8789353
>When NASA didn't get the moonbase STS plan approved, they decided the shuttle needed to be fuckhuge so they could still spend absolutely as much money as possible.
Source: your ass

>> No.8789421

>>8788825
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

Also:
>The trend among western space launch agencies is away from large hypergolic rocket engines and toward hydrogen/oxygen engines with higher performance. Ariane 1 through 4, with their hypergolic first and second stages (and optional hypergolic boosters on the Ariane 3 and 4) have been retired and replaced with the Ariane 5, which uses a first stage fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The Titan II, III and IV, with their hypergolic first and second stages, have also been retired.

>> No.8789473

>>8789122
source?

>> No.8789492

>>8789160
>I'm actually surprised he's not more of /ourguy/
He would need to die first. We can't have nice things.

>> No.8789604
File: 71 KB, 625x469, spacex_spaceport_625n3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8789604

>>8789276
>All those other places don't have those same advantages
Boca Chica has the gulf instead of the ocean, and it's easier for it to take out Floridians, too.

>> No.8789608

>>8789261
Cutting arts of the concept stage that made the part that you kept into something that made sense was, in fact, a problem.

>> No.8789619

>>8789329
But that misses the part of the question that was interesting -- Progress continued supplying ISS while the STS fleet was grounded, but the trash build-up on ISS was such that the first operational mission back to the station was largely to get the fucking trash out.

But nothing I can find explains why Progress et al are apparently able to haul the trash now but couldn't then.

>> No.8789623

>>8774584
>duture

Dankest meme.

>> No.8789631

>>8789366
Read the thread -- when NASA had to drop chunks of the STS concept that would have made it maybe work, that made it not work any more.

Making it fuck-huge happened when the USAF agreed to use STS, so that it would have a mission other than just flying for flying's sake and doing a few more micro-gravity experiments, and would have at least one steady customer. But the Air Force needed a fucking huge cargo bay, so the shuttles had to be much larger to accommodate that.

>> No.8789632

>>8789604
So it's a win/win, let's use 'em both so no Floridian is safe.

>> No.8789635

>>8789608
Cutting parts... The "p" dropped off cause I typed faster than I can actually type.

>> No.8789675

>>8788872
Did you see Secret Space Escapes when it was on last year? Sounds like you would have enjoyed it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5117150/

>> No.8789680

>>8789675
Fuck, I miss all the good stuff...
Will see if I can find it somewhere... Thanks...

>> No.8789729

>>8788870
>The first RLV should have been small, inexpensive, developed on a brisk schedule, and primarily research-oriented, like a cross between the X-15 and Gemini programs
Dyna-Soar was basically that. Cancelled right as they started vehicle construction.

>> No.8789751

>>8789000
>They stuck the first one on the test stand without refurbishment, fuelled it up, and did a burn.
Liar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Flight_20#Post-mission_landing
>SpaceX does not plan to fly the Falcon 9 Flight 20 first stage again.[28] Rather, the rocket was moved a few miles north to Launch pad 39A, recently refurbished by SpaceX at the adjacent Kennedy Space Center, to conduct a static fire test.
>REFURBISHED by SpaceX at the adjacent Kennedy Space Center, to conduct a static fire test.
>R E F U R B I S H E D

>> No.8789791

>>8789751
>SpaceX does not plan to fly the Falcon 9 Flight 20 first stage again.[28] Rather, the rocket was moved a few miles north to Launch pad 39A, recently refurbished by SpaceX at the adjacent Kennedy Space Center, to conduct a static fire test.
>Launch pad 39A, recently refurbished by SpaceX at the adjacent Kennedy Space Center,
Yes, Launch Pad 39A had been recently undergoing refurbishment by SpaceX when that was written. "Refurbishment" is an odd choice of words, since it was being extensively modified for SpaceX's very different requirements compared to the shuttle that used to fly on it. It didn't see an actual launch until about a month ago.

>On 31 December, SpaceX announced that no damage had been found on the stage and that it was ready to perform a static fire again.
So after inspecting the stage, they pronounced it ready to go with no refurbishment. Then two weeks later, they did so.

Timeline:
December 22, 2015: launched and landed
December 31, 2015: inspection completed
[someone said something about moving it to pad 39a, maybe this happened maybe it didn't, but they didn't test it there]
January 12, 2016: moved to pad 40
January 15, 2016: static-fired

If you think they refurbished it, you must believe they did some kind of Indy 500 pit crew job of that. The one they're relaunching tomorrow got 3 months of refurbishment.

>> No.8789800

>>8789751
>Launch pad 39A, recently refurbished by SpaceX
The pad was refurbished, not the rocket, you faggot.

>> No.8789848

>>8781850
>to
Wtf anon, I'm not American but it is spelled "too"

>> No.8789855 [DELETED] 

>>8777777
>>8787772
TOASTING AN EPIC BREAD

>> No.8789860

>>8789791

Are they even doing any real refurbishment beyond double checking, cleaning the stage, and replacing the ablative materials?

>> No.8789928

>>8789860
There is ablative material on the first stage?

>> No.8789992
File: 1.30 MB, 3000x2000, UY3E4Ok.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8789992

rollout starts in a few hours

>> No.8790002

>>8784397
>There is a way to lift a 500 ton payload into space and move it anywhere it is needed.

There are several ways to do that, but tubes with liquid fuel burning engines is a pretty tried and true method. What method are you proposing ought to be used?

>> No.8790006

rocket is now at the pad

>> No.8790015

>>8790002
Memes

>> No.8790019 [DELETED] 

>>8777777
successful landing confirmed

>> No.8790030 [DELETED] 

>>8790019

>>8790000

>> No.8790082

>>8776715
Kek

>> No.8790159 [DELETED] 

>>8777777
Witnessed

>> No.8790168

>>8774755
F

At least they kikked 33 000 bugs.

>> No.8790179

>>8786566

This is one fucking amazing scam then...
Why do they need to reuse rockets if all they are doing is scamming people?

>> No.8790198

>>8789122
Yoh can make more fairings if you dont need to produce 25 cores a year.
Besides fairing recovery is gonna happen as well.
Only second stage is forever expendable.
Because it doesnt reduce cost if it was reusable.

>> No.8790264

>>8786566
First of all, Elon busts his ass for these companies because he believes whole heatedly in making the biggest impact in the most challenging fields possible.
He is not running a scam. Oil companies are infinitely bigger than Tesla, and are spending insane amounts of money to keep "green" technology from proliferating.
Elon would be a dumb ass not to take advantage of government subsides.

>> No.8790436
File: 478 KB, 1920x858, they-live-landscape.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8790436

>>8786566
Fake news

>> No.8790442

>>8790198
>fairing recovery is gonna happen as well
Source
>it doesnt reduce cost if it was reusable
Some day, anon.

>> No.8790491
File: 1008 KB, 280x203, 1489951333106.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8790491

>>8786566
>blah blah blah

Why even type up all that shit?

>> No.8790553

>>8790198
>Only second stage is forever expendable.
>Because it doesnt reduce cost if it was reusable.
No, it's just the last thing you'd want to make reusable in a sensible incremental process, and they're moving on to ITS rather than continue to develop Falcon 9.

>>8790442
>>fairing recovery is gonna happen as well
>Source
Come on man, just google it.

>> No.8790623

>>8790553
Mid-air retrival of fairings. Not flying back home on tiny rcs.
Step it up, Elon.

I sometimes envied the brainlets their interest in watching sports. Never really got into that. This here is an event for me.
HYPE

>> No.8790668

>>8789421
Russia, China, and India are now the largest users of hypergolic propellants. But both Russia and China are phasing out their ICBM-based launchers for next-generation kero/lox launchers (CZ-5,6,7 and Angara).

>> No.8790687

>>8789928
there are some cork layers under the paint near the engines at least. we've seen pictures of it peeling off after it has landed on the barge. Also some kevlar blankets around each engine to protect against engine explosions and entry heating.

>> No.8790693

>>8790668
>2017
>liquid fuel nuclear missiles.

shiggy.png

>> No.8790723
File: 7 KB, 200x166, 1490840441921.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8790723

>>8774584

>> No.8790728

>>8775044
Isn't running (male) child prostitution rings also haram? Then again, it probably isn't.

>> No.8790772

>>8790693
no argument there. Turning them into Strela, Rokot and Dnepr orbital launchers is a far better use for those ICBMs. Too bad they were Ukrainian designs, so Russia put a hold on using the last remaining surplus.

>> No.8790881

>>8790693
Liquid-fuelled missiles can be made larger far more easily. A large missile can carry larger warheads or a larger number of small warheads, and a bigger load of decoys and countermeasures. Furthermore, while they're more complex to launch, they're easier to store, transport, maintain, and test. For instance, the propellant can be brought in multiple truckloads, while the unloaded vehicle itself may be bulky, but is light, so there's no need for any terribly special transportation, which makes it possible to conceal movements even in remote areas.

A single large liquid-fuelled missile can be a credible existential threat to all of America's or Europe's major cities.

>> No.8790902
File: 2.76 MB, 1280x720, Curiosity Has Landed.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8790902

>>8790623
>I sometimes envied the brainlets their interest in watching sports. Never really got into that. This here is an event for me.

ikr

I had to sit through so many football turkey dinners as a child and friends always wanted to play sports games or watch NASCAR.

>Getting hype for a fucking rocket launch...
>...by myself.

>> No.8790904
File: 2.48 MB, 608x360, g.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8790904

>>8786436
>Pretty much everyone does though, hell, most modern browsers have it built in.

>Not proof reading.
>Not bettering yourself.
>Use tech as a crutch for your brainlet.

Don't you have a twitter account to update?

>> No.8790988

Why doesn't 'murica just invade some saharan shithole, that doesn't have weather problems, and launch from there.Seems like every time there's a delay it's because of >muh weather.

>> No.8790999

>>8790904
Thought that was a black dude wearing a shirt at first.

>> No.8791005

>>8790264
>he believes whole heatedly

Neither you nor I have any idea what he actually believes. We know what he says he believes.

Protip: People lie. Gazillionaire businessmen are not exempt from this

>> No.8791012

>>8790881
>A single large liquid-fuelled missile can be a credible existential threat to all of America's or Europe's major cities.

With a credible claim to possess enough nukes to MIRV it up, and to have mastered reentry technology, yeah.

>> No.8791017

>>8790902
Holy shit, did Rube Goldberg help design that? Amazing.

>> No.8791029

>>8774584
>It's going to explore you fucking idiot.

>launch red rocket
>it explores

>> No.8791057

>>8790988
thats colonialism & morally wrong. Better to let savages squat on the land instead of building a civilization.

They could just launch from the interior of the country but regulatory jews prevent that.

>> No.8791087

>>8774547
I hope they land the second stage aswell

>> No.8791090

How long in hours, until launch?

>> No.8791092
File: 60 KB, 620x410, divide by zero.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8791092

>>8791087
What if they land one moire stage than they launched?

>> No.8791093
File: 143 KB, 1024x670, bsg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8791093

>> No.8791095

>Owned by SES of Luxembourg, the spacecraft will provide direct-to-home TV broadcasting and other telecommunication services for Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America and South America. It will also cover Brazil

So the payload is completely irrelevant, got it

>> No.8791128

>>8791095
>So the payload is completely irrelevant, got it

Yet he felt the need to make a post about it.
What did he meme by this, /pol/?

>> No.8791141

>>8791090
https://www.youtube.com/user/spacexchannel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNO571C7Ko
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8

>live in 3 hours

>> No.8791146

>>8791128
The juxtaposition of a very important launch for SpaceX and an irrelevant payload is pretty fucking funny, and is worth posting about.

Not /pol/, but you need to get your head checked if you think anything outside of America matters at all. One American life is equivalent to 10000 foreigner lives, because we are the chosen people. Fucking brainlets get out

>> No.8791158
File: 155 KB, 1024x1024, 1490738876430.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8791158

Does anyone know which booster this is, like what launch did it go up on originally?

>> No.8791170

>>8791158
Crs 8 I think

Nice easy landing

>> No.8791292

>>8791158
CRS-8, the first successful ocean landing

>not just googling for wiki falcon9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

>> No.8791359

>>8787767
dream on, mars man

in this thread

>> No.8791364

>>8791359
Gotta go for work... please forgive me /sci/ the burger, the burgers are calling

>> No.8791389

>>8791364
americans or actuall burgers?

>> No.8791399

>>8774547
ready with fingers crossed

>> No.8791405

>>8791146
>The juxtaposition of a very important launch for SpaceX and an irrelevant payload is pretty fucking funny, and is worth posting about.
You figure there's something remarkable about a low-value payload going on an experimental flight?

>> No.8791561

Auto-sequence has started. T-minus 60 minutes!

>> No.8791564
File: 484 KB, 166x133, 1357493779880.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8791564

>>8791561

>> No.8791575

>>8791561
NB4 HOLD HOLD HOLD

>> No.8791634
File: 3 KB, 198x54, spacex-1337946437926.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8791634

MUSIC

>> No.8791675

>>8791634
debuting a new track appropriately called "Reflight"

AND WE'RE LIVE!

>> No.8791676

How is the

W E A T H E R
E
A
T
H
E
R

looking?

>> No.8791691
File: 65 KB, 526x350, 1489596205029.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8791691

NEW THREAD: >>8790018
NEW THREAD: >>8790018
NEW THREAD: >>8790018

>> No.8791692 [DELETED] 
File: 161 KB, 1366x768, spacexqt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8791692

THICC
H
I
C
C

>> No.8791700

>>8791691
bump limit is 500 faggot
see how that 308 at the bottom isn't in italics?

>> No.8791704

>>8791700
310

>> No.8791717
File: 911 KB, 360x202, 1490493955566.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8791717

>>8791700
should be at 310

>> No.8791723
File: 1.38 MB, 245x244, 1490217565214.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8791723

>>8791700
Italics now, faggot.

>> No.8791724
File: 12 KB, 791x1024, pi.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8791724

>>8791717
wait wtf, not a /sci/lon here, why is the bump limit 310?

(for that matter, if it's not going to be an even hundred, why not 314?)

>> No.8791729

>>8791724
Because 314 isn't pi.

>> No.8791905
File: 528 KB, 899x504, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8791905

YEAH BOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

>> No.8792212

SCI BLOWN THE FUCK OUT! MUSK MASTER RACE

>> No.8792223

>that cut
Conspiracy theorists incoming