Launch Tread? Launch Tread

File: 49 KB, 710x585, aoiR4Dl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Launch Tread? Launch Tread Anonymous Thu Mar 30 03:28:50 2017 No.8790018 [Reply] [Original]

The last thread is nearing the end of its useful life and its time to start a new one.

Bring all your memes, rare Musk's, shitposting and fanboyism, in less than 15 hours we HOLDHOLDHOLD

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 03:33:16 2017 No.8790025 File: 6 KB, 160x160, metal o silver white background shadow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8790018

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 03:52:26 2017 No.8790043 File: 3.87 MB, 2880x1800, f3enyj3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 04:01:44 2017 No.8790050 Reused booster?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 04:31:14 2017 No.8790072 >>8790050 Yes. Not sure if they will land this one as well though

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 11:16:14 2017 No.8790655 File: 26 KB, 630x420, 160117-landing-630x420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >soon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 13:44:45 2017 No.8790947 T - 5 hours

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 13:56:58 2017 No.8790967 TAKING ALL BETS https://strawpoll.com/9rf56w2

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 13:59:39 2017 No.8790978 >>8790967 >https://strawpoll.com/9rf56w2 Needs more options

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 14:01:31 2017 No.8790984 >>8790978 Are there intermediate states of explosion? Is there some sort of possible half exploded rocket?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 14:03:14 2017 No.8790987 >>8790984 Conflagration vs. Detonation?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 14:04:45 2017 No.8790990 here is a better poll http://www.strawpoll.me/12640365

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 14:31:29 2017 No.8791055 File: 34 KB, 996x138, delme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8790990 >http://www.strawpoll.me/12640365

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 14:32:51 2017 No.8791058 >Two polls, no HOLD^3 postponement option.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 14:35:53 2017 No.8791063 >>8791055 >http://www.strawpoll.me/12640365 works just fine.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 14:39:03 2017 No.8791070 >>8791063 It didn't for me,though, as illustrated by the screencap. Good news is, my life is great either way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 14:39:34 2017 No.8791073 Will be first attempted fairing recovery too

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 14:45:06 2017 No.8791089 >>8790987 You can stop trying so hard, sweetie. Nobody cares.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 14:58:52 2017 No.8791130 >>8791073 Any info on how they plan to accomplish that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 15:00:26 2017 No.8791134 they should try landing the second stage of the rocket

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 15:02:44 2017 No.8791142 >>8791130 Looking around on the ground, I think.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 15:06:20 2017 No.8791152 >>8791134 Yea, and when they got that, they should try landing the payload!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 15:07:08 2017 No.8791156 >>8791130 Parachutes, and helicopters to grab them with hooks before they hit the water

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 15:09:04 2017 No.8791161 >>8791152 At that point, you might save the fuel all together and just not launch it at all >ELON CALL ME, I'VE FIXED IT!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 15:15:32 2017 No.8791184 File: 449 KB, 769x607, 13.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791073 >fairing recovery Seems like a waste of time imo Doubt the fairings are that costly in the grand scheme of things

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 15:41:18 2017 No.8791278 >>8791184 They're probably doing it to cut down on time between launches. Since manufacturing fairing halves might take take more than their planned time between launches.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 15:48:15 2017 No.8791305 T-02:40

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 15:54:03 2017 No.8791327 File: 13 KB, 560x315, Jeff_Bezos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791278 Manufacturing new fairings has gotta be faster and cheaper than recovering used fairings and refurbishing them? Can't see the logic m8

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 15:55:04 2017 No.8791330 Got here from 4chans front page, Never posted on /sci/ before. Is Musk launching a rocket? Are they livestreaming it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:01:33 2017 No.8791354 >>8791330 Here's the hosted webcast, there should be a non-hosted as well but i cant find it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8&feature=youtu.be

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:04:10 2017 No.8791360 >>8791354 Thanks

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:06:09 2017 No.8791367 >>8791360 If you are interested, there is an app called Space Launch Now that will alert you of launches, give countdowns and links to livestreams.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:08:31 2017 No.8791373 >>8791327 Each fairing costs like 2-3 million to make plus they are the current bottleneck in their production line. Recovering them would save them a good chunk of the rocket cost.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:21:43 2017 No.8791410 >>8791373 I really want to see a recovery attempt of these. Just to see what kind of whackadoodle solution they have gone for

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:25:54 2017 No.8791420 >>8791410 they are just gonna attach parachutes and let them fall into the ocean Won't be anything elaborate

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:28:45 2017 No.8791431 File: 86 KB, 800x533, 1484416233405.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791330 Hell yeah. They're sending him back to the moon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:30:31 2017 No.8791435 File: 628 KB, 1277x958, IMG_1098.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8790018 >when you married twice to get alien secrets

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:37:41 2017 No.8791452 File: 722 KB, 576x432, SpaceX Launch.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNO571C7Ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8 Hurry up and wait.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:39:06 2017 No.8791455 File: 2.57 MB, 480x270, SpaceX.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >fairing recovery I thought they were going to use a fairing that wasn't ejected? It just opens then closes and returns. Like get rid of the fairing completely so to speak.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:39:18 2017 No.8791458 File: 119 KB, 483x400, spacex fairing recovery.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791420 >they are just gonna attach parachutes and let them fall into the ocean They're catching them with helicopters.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:40:58 2017 No.8791461 File: 2.76 MB, 1280x720, Curiosity Has Landed.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791458 Is Jackie Chan going to pilot both copters?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:42:24 2017 No.8791464 File: 2.68 MB, 640x480, Tarded Landing.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >EU

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:45:49 2017 No.8791467 File: 2.02 MB, 320x240, lol wtf landing is that.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791464

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:46:27 2017 No.8791469 >>8791464 WTF are they thinking?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:46:58 2017 No.8791472 >>8791464 Somebody add what actually happens to this webm

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:47:31 2017 No.8791474 File: 2.70 MB, 640x480, Mars Opportunity Rover.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:48:48 2017 No.8791477 File: 1.62 MB, 160x120, NASA - Mars Pathfinder Atmospheric Entry.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:49:50 2017 No.8791478 >>8791477 I lol so hard when it lands.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:51:13 2017 No.8791480 File: 2.37 MB, 640x480, Viking 1-2 Landed.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:52:40 2017 No.8791483 File: 2.67 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Falcon 9 Development Supercut 1-3.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:54:06 2017 No.8791487 File: 2.69 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Falcon 9 Development Supercut 2-3.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791483

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:56:18 2017 No.8791490 File: 2.58 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Falcon 9 Development Supercut 3-3.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791487

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 16:59:13 2017 No.8791491 File: 885 KB, 3000x2000, 33299697331_09313ac49d_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] hype

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 17:02:40 2017 No.8791497 File: 2.87 MB, 320x240, Classic NASA Film - Skylab - #4.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 17:07:30 2017 No.8791507 File: 2.74 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Next Phase - 3mb - no sound.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 17:07:49 2017 No.8791508 Dream on, Mars-man

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 17:10:44 2017 No.8791516 wtf https://www.instagram.com/p/BSRatgyDdJ8/

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 17:17:10 2017 No.8791530 File: 348 KB, 2500x1667, 0l34lzzigkoy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 17:20:59 2017 No.8791538 File: 3.00 MB, 800x450, NewGlenn.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791507

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 17:35:01 2017 No.8791578 Holy shit, are they really going to try and recover the fairing on this launch as well?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 17:42:52 2017 No.8791596 >>8791578 It's a shame they can't recover your oxygen

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 17:46:04 2017 No.8791606 >>8791073 sorry what's that, for non-english speakers?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 17:51:38 2017 No.8791621 >>8791458 What? The fairing recovery method is pretty wild. It'll be fun to watch if they show it: >>8791596

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 17:57:28 2017 No.8791630 IT'S HAPPENING https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:01:30 2017 No.8791645 File: 211 KB, 600x451, 1475006085628.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:02:37 2017 No.8791649 File: 11 KB, 362x453, FALCON-9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >31,025 watching now I'm here, so it will probably explode if it is to land somewhere. I've yet to see a live successful landing. They either abort or something blows up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:04:46 2017 No.8791660 >>8791645 Dream on, Mars man

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:06:28 2017 No.8791666 File: 318 KB, 2457x1447, zpjsFEh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791649 this will be their most difficult landing yet the last satellite launch for this company caused a giant hole on the deck of the barge

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:06:53 2017 No.8791667 >>8791645 Dream on, mars man

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:07:01 2017 No.8791668 File: 550 KB, 646x1002, Elon's spaghetti.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791645 Dream on, Mars man

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:08:16 2017 No.8791673 >>8791606 The fairing is the aerodynamic cap of the rocket that protects the payload from drag during launch. It's usually jettisoned after the rocket leaves the bulk of the atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:08:44 2017 No.8791678 File: 473 KB, 650x811, 1453220836127.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] intro starting!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:08:46 2017 No.8791679 IT'S LIVE NIGGERS

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:09:17 2017 No.8791682 we're live

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:09:52 2017 No.8791683 File: 684 KB, 1280x719, 4545.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:10:00 2017 No.8791684 HERE WE GO BOYS

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:10:22 2017 No.8791687 >inb4 scrubbed

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:10:33 2017 No.8791689 File: 2 KB, 125x125, 1490752710229.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >when people say nasa needs to be defunded

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:10:44 2017 No.8791690 uuuuuhHH THICC

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:11:20 2017 No.8791693 File: 224 KB, 600x451, 4YAgyWq2ysFmaqAUxfdnZt5L-R-6PdqsjcFrEJjtYGU.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] WE SPACE NOW

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:11:50 2017 No.8791696 File: 11 KB, 188x196, 1417166039331.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It will explode doesn't it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:12:03 2017 No.8791697 File: 709 KB, 1275x717, 4545.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] So, if it bricks we know who to blame.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:12:33 2017 No.8791701 >>8791689 NASA needs to stop sucking dick >a rocket that costs $2 billion per flight oh shit nigger what are you doing

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:12:37 2017 No.8791702 >>8791696 First it's 'won't it' Second shut the fuck up

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:13:13 2017 No.8791706 >>8791693 DREAM ON, MARS MAN

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:13:17 2017 No.8791708 >>8791697 Stop insulting my jew hubando

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:13:42 2017 No.8791709 >>8791701 SLS is basically a job creation program. The heaby launcher is just a bonus. It's win win

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:13:54 2017 No.8791710 File: 20 KB, 460x276, 1357859666703.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >John Insprucker I love this guy

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:14:06 2017 No.8791711 >>8791693 DREAN ON, MARS MAN

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:14:20 2017 No.8791714 >>8791702 I hope you realize how stupid you are.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:14:24 2017 No.8791716 File: 161 KB, 1366x768, spacexqt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] THICCC H I C C C

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:14:36 2017 No.8791718 >Insprucker YES Also they said they'd say something about what they did to prepare the reused Falcon, so you might want to open the hosted webcast in a second window.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:14:47 2017 No.8791719 >>8791455 Second stage currently isn't recovered, so making the fairings remain attached to the stage would not help them be reused. The plan right now is pretty simple, the fairings will fall through the atmosphere and deploy chutes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:15:23 2017 No.8791721 >>8791716 She can reuse my rocket if you catch my drift.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:15:38 2017 No.8791722 >>8791645 Dream on, Mars man

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:16:43 2017 No.8791725 "toolose, France" Never change frogs

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:16:47 2017 No.8791726 File: 312 KB, 1069x702, lyonsandtice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Coconaut or Barbienaut

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:16:51 2017 No.8791727 File: 209 KB, 1281x717, 4545.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Latino TV Programming

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:17:43 2017 No.8791728 File: 320 KB, 287x713, 1475010672052.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] T MINUS 10 MINUTES FAGGOTS

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:17:57 2017 No.8791730 >>8791690 >>8791716 >I yell THICC whenever I see a female, no matter what she looks like Settle down, virgins

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:18:16 2017 No.8791732 >>8791726 My launch platform is big enough to host both type of thickkkk rockets. >>8791727 ayyy caramba

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:19:03 2017 No.8791735 File: 891 KB, 1278x717, 4545.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:19:12 2017 No.8791736 File: 122 KB, 640x713, 1475006857616.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791728 >not the hyper version

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:19:50 2017 No.8791737 So much damage control going on in the hosted stream. It's almost like they're expecting it'll fail.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:20:01 2017 No.8791738 How much of the rocket has been replaced? Is it basically the same rocket, or has everything outside of the tanks and engine nozzles been swapped out?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:20:41 2017 No.8791741 Fuck, Gwynn aged like shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:20:46 2017 No.8791742 File: 216 KB, 458x402, spacex-1472819062361.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:20:51 2017 No.8791743 >>8791738 ? It's all the same rocket, they just took shit apart to check it

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:20:57 2017 No.8791744 >>8791737 Got to lower expectations.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:21:21 2017 No.8791745 File: 870 KB, 3686x2765, H0AXlQ0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the roomba they have on the ASDS yet

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:21:30 2017 No.8791746 File: 1.00 MB, 1024x509, Rand-Paul-1024x509.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Here we go

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:21:49 2017 No.8791748 >>8791743 and they either repainted it or took it to a really big car wash

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:21:58 2017 No.8791749 >>8791666 No it didn't, they haven't had a failed barge landing in many launches.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:22:12 2017 No.8791751 >>8791738 Engine has been refurbished, not replaced, as I heard it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:22:39 2017 No.8791753 >>8791745 What does it do?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:22:48 2017 No.8791754 File: 430 KB, 3107x2330, 1487408647584.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791737 I think the rocket won't explode but it will fail the ASDS landing. 5300kg payload is fucking heavy and leaves little margin for error.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:22:53 2017 No.8791756 >>8791738 80% will be reused

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:23:06 2017 No.8791758 File: 25 KB, 349x349, Elon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Ticket to Mars >Only $100,000

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:23:10 2017 No.8791759 115 000 people watching

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:23:16 2017 No.8791760 >>8791745 >roomba you mean optimus prime?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:23:17 2017 No.8791761 >>8791749 Last time they missed it was a launch to geosync orbit as well though. That's a lot of energy in the booster and not a lot of fuel remaining to brake

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:23:20 2017 No.8791762 >8791753 holds it down

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:23:27 2017 No.8791764 >>8791748 Powerwashers cuz

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:23:35 2017 No.8791765 >>8791753 Scoots out from a garage on the side and clamps the landed booster

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:23:58 2017 No.8791767 link

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:24:11 2017 No.8791768 >>8791759 17k on technical lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:24:17 2017 No.8791769 >>8791749 ses-9 made a hole in the barge m8 it was nearly a year ago

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:24:19 2017 No.8791770 >>8791767 fucking youtube

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:24:20 2017 No.8791771 >livestream up IT BEGINS

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:24:31 2017 No.8791773 >>8791753 Grabs and secures the rocket autonomously after landing

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:24:38 2017 No.8791774 160 seconds bois

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:24:44 2017 No.8791776 >>8791767 >>8791630 fag

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:24:45 2017 No.8791777 Fuck those vent noises made me jumped.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:24:59 2017 No.8791780 >115k people watching This has enough viewers to be on a cable channel.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:25:08 2017 No.8791781 I'm nervous

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:25:12 2017 No.8791782 >>8791767 see >>8791452

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:25:19 2017 No.8791783 >>8791767 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNO571C7Ko

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:25:39 2017 No.8791787 Technical or hosted?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:25:41 2017 No.8791788 >>8791767 http://www.spacex.com/webcast

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:25:52 2017 No.8791791 dubs = boom

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:25:57 2017 No.8791792 >>8791780 Is it on Censorship News Network, or are they still yapping about Ronald McDonald Trump being literally Hitler?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:01 2017 No.8791793 It won't explode.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:12 2017 No.8791794 Who chose this shitty camera angle? Fucking cameraman looking right into the sun

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:14 2017 No.8791795 >all these hissing noises makes me nervous every time

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:15 2017 No.8791796 1 minute

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:16 2017 No.8791797 1 MINUTE LEFT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:37 2017 No.8791798 Predicting thic bang 30 seconds after liftoff.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:50 2017 No.8791800 AGE OF REFLIGHT

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:52 2017 No.8791801 if dubs it will fart and not lift off

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:52 2017 No.8791802 HERE WE GO!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:53 2017 No.8791804 >>8791795 >ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:57 2017 No.8791805 >>8791769 That was the one before the first successful landing, since then only one failed barge landing, not counting the one that blew up at max-Q.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:59 2017 No.8791806 >>8791787 Both on both monitors

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:26:59 2017 No.8791807 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:27:11 2017 No.8791809 File: 47 KB, 793x530, 1435431329378.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] KEK BLESS THIS LAUNCH

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:27:27 2017 No.8791811 OH SHIT HERE WE GO

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:27:47 2017 No.8791814 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:28:17 2017 No.8791815 First nominal of the launch.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:28:21 2017 No.8791816 File: 31 KB, 429x253, Zeon-flag.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It's going!!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:28:43 2017 No.8791818 Why don't they put a person in the rocket

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:29:00 2017 No.8791819 >fire among the engines - p a n i c -

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:29:17 2017 No.8791820 We mars now boys

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:29:35 2017 No.8791821 He is a fucking GOD!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:29:36 2017 No.8791822 WE'RE WINNING YES

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:29:42 2017 No.8791823 >>8791818 Christianity and socialism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:29:48 2017 No.8791824 File: 72 KB, 620x413, loo-1452685604262.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791818 because they have no space toilet yet

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:30:07 2017 No.8791828 MECO

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:30:24 2017 No.8791829 First stage has done it's main job.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:30:25 2017 No.8791830 Stage 2 now!! Reuse is a partial success

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:30:29 2017 No.8791831 >where were you when BO shills were btfo

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:31:18 2017 No.8791832 What a quick acceleration

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:31:26 2017 No.8791833 >>8791831 On /sci/ Fairing separation!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:31:35 2017 No.8791834 File: 19 KB, 510x207, feed-165.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] NO THIS CANT BE HAPPENING DELETE THIS DELETE THIS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:31:43 2017 No.8791835 >>8791823 >>8791824 a guy could just ride in the stage 2 then hop out in their personal little reentry tent when it deorbits

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:31:45 2017 No.8791836 File: 417 KB, 653x635, 1433274806105.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] GOOD LUCK STAGE ONE

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:31:55 2017 No.8791839 dream on, mars man!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:32:00 2017 No.8791840 CHECK ELON'S DOUBLES CHECK EM

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:32:02 2017 No.8791841 File: 175 KB, 1324x866, elon-1460375432517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791831

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:32:09 2017 No.8791842 File: 27 KB, 707x490, 1470971333984.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >government doesn't work >civil society doesn't work >economy doesn't work >win space anyway

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:32:50 2017 No.8791844 is he going to land it too

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:33:01 2017 No.8791846 >earth is a sphere

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:33:05 2017 No.8791847 File: 434 KB, 2000x3000, 26812794034_c8903602ea_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] brace for landing my lads

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:33:13 2017 No.8791848 >planet Earth is a sphere FLAT-EARTHERS BTFO

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:33:16 2017 No.8791849 >>8791844 yes and recover the fairings >i still love you what?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:33:24 2017 No.8791851 File: 37 KB, 140x133, ucheekycunt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >since planet earth is a sphere

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:33:29 2017 No.8791852 File: 303 KB, 598x714, 1490216696937.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] If dubs 1st stage is kill

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:33:33 2017 No.8791853 File: 518 KB, 600x890, 1451427936491.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Trips and the First Stage survives a third relaunch

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:33:35 2017 No.8791854 Cameras on barge are going to cut out, calling it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:34:06 2017 No.8791856 Calling failed landing

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:34:24 2017 No.8791859 >>8791849 SpaceX is filled with redditors that like that space communism book, Culture Where people exist only as pets of AI's

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:34:24 2017 No.8791860 >>8791849 >i still love you name of the drone ship it's gonna land on

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:34:26 2017 No.8791861 NOW THE LANDING

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:34:29 2017 No.8791862 Holy shit, those flaming grid fins

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:34:29 2017 No.8791863 >>8791849 Of Course I Still Love You, Ian M. Banks' Culture series.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:34:36 2017 No.8791865 >>8791842 /pol/

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:34:45 2017 No.8791866 PERTY VIEW

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:34:56 2017 No.8791867 >>8791859 >the culture >communism only on the back covers

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:35:01 2017 No.8791868 >>8791862 Little toasty

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:35:04 2017 No.8791869 why are they saying of course i still love you every miniute

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:35:28 2017 No.8791870 HERE WE GO

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:35:29 2017 No.8791871 FALCON 9 BOOSTER FLIHGT #2 ELECTRIC BOOGALOO

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:35:35 2017 No.8791872 >>8791869 That's the name of the drone barge.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:35:37 2017 No.8791873 >>8791869 Name of drone ship

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:35:55 2017 No.8791876 FIST ME DADDY

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:36:02 2017 No.8791877 COMBO COMING UP LADS

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:36:04 2017 No.8791878 NO CONTINUOUS VIDEO FEED

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:36:32 2017 No.8791879 >no video feed

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:36:33 2017 No.8791880 Aaaand,,, T-Pain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSx4DGBstYA

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:36:34 2017 No.8791881 >communications blackout IT'S ALL A RUSE

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:36:36 2017 No.8791883 >>8791878 Landed!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:36:37 2017 No.8791884 WE DID IT I guess.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:36:42 2017 No.8791885 File: 83 KB, 1064x560, NM99T.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791869

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:36:43 2017 No.8791886 File: 343 KB, 1000x1000, 1489790771976.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] we mars now

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:36:51 2017 No.8791888 ELON GOD

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:36:53 2017 No.8791889

>>8790018
NIGGERS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

JEWS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

COMMIES BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

SOCIALISTS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

LIBERALS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:36:57 2017 No.8791890 I think it's landed

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:04 2017 No.8791891 a c h i e v e m e n t u n l o c k e d

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:04 2017 No.8791892 THE FUCKING MADMEN DID IT

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:06 2017 No.8791893 elon's got doubles my friends

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:07 2017 No.8791894 IS THIS A COMPOSITE VIDEO AFTER THE BLACK OUT?!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:12 2017 No.8791897 ULA ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:15 2017 No.8791898 >No video >Suddenly it has landed False flag as fuck

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:21 2017 No.8791899 File: 74 KB, 400x387, 1428826079056.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:24 2017 No.8791900 LANDING IS COMING GUYS

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:25 2017 No.8791901 PRAISE KEK

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:26 2017 No.8791902 File: 567 KB, 794x650, launching_intensifies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] nice

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:30 2017 No.8791904 File: 119 KB, 362x266, Ainsleeeee.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Elon Musk confirmed for a living Deity We are now Sci Fi

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:34 2017 No.8791906 MOON LANDING WHEN?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:41 2017 No.8791907 MUSK JUST DELIVERED!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:41 2017 No.8791908 WHAT A GOD

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:43 2017 No.8791909 NASA ON SUICIDE WATCH!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:44 2017 No.8791911 >no feed >cuts right back after landing whatever im out

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:52 2017 No.8791912 >>8791898 all CGI rockets

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:37:54 2017 No.8791913 File: 1.30 MB, 1920x1080, 4545.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] HOLY FUCK THEY ACTUALLY DID IT THE ABSOLUTE MADMEN

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:38:02 2017 No.8791915 >>8791889 >>8791889 >>8791889 >>8791889 >>8791889 >>8791889 >>8791889

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:38:03 2017 No.8791916 File: 89 KB, 287x713, 1475006533008.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:38:09 2017 No.8791917 How long until they try for the hat-trick lads?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:38:18 2017 No.8791918 >>8791913 I love humans desu.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:38:20 2017 No.8791919 >>8791911 first stage didnt make it back to earth, they had to show old footage

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:38:26 2017 No.8791920 Elon have my babies you awkward fuck

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:38:37 2017 No.8791922 File: 528 KB, 899x504, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] YE BOII

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:38:40 2017 No.8791924 >>8791913 nice cgi

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:38:49 2017 No.8791925 File: 186 KB, 400x307, elon-1338032586509.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791904

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:38:51 2017 No.8791926 MAI HUSBANDO

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:38:52 2017 No.8791927 oh hey Elon you should get a better haircut

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:39:10 2017 No.8791929 >>8791920 Elon is only for cuddles.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:39:11 2017 No.8791931
File: 198 KB, 407x559, GodfreyKneller-IsaacNewton-1689.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:39:16 2017 No.8791932 E-man!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:39:29 2017 No.8791933 >>8791919 Say whatever you want but if this wasn't fishy for you then you are one very naive guy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:39:31 2017 No.8791934 File: 676 KB, 1000x1000, elon_musk_tesla_spacex_openai_boring_company_dumb_frogposter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] gj Elon Musk

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:39:35 2017 No.8791935 File: 37 KB, 750x747, C7oNX-7VQAAoPIL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Eurofags will never land a reused rocket

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:39:36 2017 No.8791936 File: 169 KB, 600x976, 1471153087810.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] BASED

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:39:39 2017 No.8791937 dreeam on space man

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:39:44 2017 No.8791938 Russia and China on suicide watch.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:39:59 2017 No.8791940 (((no continuous feed))) No news teams covered it live?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:02 2017 No.8791941 So whats going on with the fairings

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:02 2017 No.8791942 >both videos cut mmmhhh

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:09 2017 No.8791944 File: 36 KB, 500x300, simona-chitu-simonakitzu-12h-elonmusk-elon-why-do-you-never-15711998.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] i think elon will hate himself a little bit less tonight

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:16 2017 No.8791946 >Still not that big of a deal >brainlets trying to appear smart

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:16 2017 No.8791947 AUTIST ON STREAM

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:32 2017 No.8791948 >>8791938 More like hiring more people to steal secrets.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:38 2017 No.8791949 >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:40 2017 No.8791950 >>8791936 THANK YOU BASED ELON

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:41 2017 No.8791951 >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:41 2017 No.8791952 >>8791936 Based elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:44 2017 No.8791953 File: 32 KB, 512x512, eyELdt9o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] THIS CANT BE REAL ITS ALL FAKE IT DIDNT LAND

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:44 2017 No.8791954 >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:47 2017 No.8791955 >SPACE X IS HIRING TECHNICIANS

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:56 2017 No.8791956 File: 850 KB, 1920x1080, To The Moon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Man, watching these streams while listening to the soundtrack from To The Moon is comfy as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:40:57 2017 No.8791957 >>8791940 It's in the middle of the Atlantic

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:41:02 2017 No.8791958 File: 250 KB, 1600x1600, mars-1443509516973.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] mars on, dream man

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:41:13 2017 No.8791959 >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:41:23 2017 No.8791960 >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:41:27 2017 No.8791961 >>8791929 and fat alimony payments

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:41:29 2017 No.8791962 >>8791649 >success >but blacked out I feel like I had sex for the first time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:41:37 2017 No.8791963 >>8791936 >1471153087810 >>8791936 THANK YOU BASED ELON

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:41:45 2017 No.8791964 >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:41:46 2017 No.8791965 >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:41:48 2017 No.8791966 >suddenly appears in the platform HAHAHAHA MAGIC !

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:41:50 2017 No.8791967 >>8791955 >Only muricans allowed

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:41:52 2017 No.8791968 >>8791948 And then fail to reproduce them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:42:01 2017 No.8791969 >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:42:02 2017 No.8791970 >>8791953 I PUSH MY FINGERS INTO MY

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:42:03 2017 No.8791971 >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:42:05 2017 No.8791972 >>8791957 New York Times could have at least sent a reporter in a dinghy

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:42:10 2017 No.8791973 Blue Origin fags BTFO. >M-muh suborbital flight

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:42:32 2017 No.8791974 >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:42:33 2017 No.8791975

>>8791933
its absolutely fishy. i feel a recent launch had continuous video feed from the first stage as it was landing on the drone ship, which was pretty cool. the freezing and cutting off of the video combined with no video from the first stage makes me think it didnt go as they planned it and the footage they showed us was faked/recycled.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:42:36 2017 No.8791976 they had a second drone ship with another booster right centre in the ship

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:42:37 2017 No.8791977 File: 458 KB, 2048x1327, 1467654509871.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791955 I would work for SpaceX in a heartbeat What they are doing gives life meaning

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:42:53 2017 No.8791980 >>8791958 meme on, drawers man

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:42:53 2017 No.8791981 File: 1.08 MB, 680x680, reee.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >cuts at the most important moment I WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPENING, YOU SOUTH AFRICAN KEK.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:42:56 2017 No.8791982 File: 92 KB, 1280x720, Elon-Musk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >this man is literally going to send people around the moon in the next calendar year

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:43:03 2017 No.8791983 File: 410 KB, 608x900, moon-1359286367115.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791956 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC9lGStYvYc

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:43:08 2017 No.8791984 >>8791933 Did they send two barges in your little fantasy, one with a prepositioned first stage, just in case?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:43:09 2017 No.8791985 NASA could have done this 40 years ago.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:43:26 2017 No.8791986 >>8791933 >spaceX makes CGI that looks perfectly real >cant CGI landing sequence are you guys seriously believing that? Stop searching for reasons to hate these people. IDIOTS

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:43:35 2017 No.8791987 File: 583 KB, 1380x1901, Poljus II.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791938 what could have been... It sucks to be stuck with one and a half space faring nations

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:43:50 2017 No.8791990 >>8791953 how's that French Guiana general strike treating you, mon amis? you were supposed to launch a week ago!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:43:50 2017 No.8791991 >>8791981 There should be a helicopter vid later on you can watch.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:43:52 2017 No.8791992 File: 532 KB, 995x892, git_gud.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:44:07 2017 No.8791994 File: 17 KB, 255x255, 1402208532022.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw it's now cheaper to get me and five buds to get an orbital ride with SpaceX than get a single suborbital Virgin Galactic ticket How will Richard Branson ever recover?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:44:35 2017 No.8791997 File: 17 KB, 250x250, 1300044776986.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791985 Why didn't they?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:44:40 2017 No.8791998 >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:44:47 2017 No.8791999 >>8791985 but they didn't because they're beurocratic KEKS for Congress

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:44:59 2017 No.8792000 >>8791936 THANK YOU BASED ELON

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:44:59 2017 No.8792001 >>8791985 NASA would've sent a manned mission to Mars before developing reusable rockets.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:45:02 2017 No.8792002 >>8791985 >could have >didn't It would have been fucking awesome. Imagine growing up in the 1980s and watching this shit. >tfw watching Challenger blow up on live TV in during class and school was cancelled because of it and it was before lunch.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:45:16 2017 No.8792003 >>8791994 Banging hookers and lots of blow

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:45:21 2017 No.8792004 File: 303 KB, 1707x775, elon-1472818809223.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] we did it rebbit

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:45:34 2017 No.8792006 >>8791975 The feed from the camera on the barge --> satellite --> HQ is the only thing that cut out. They will post the video when they get the footage.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:45:36 2017 No.8792007 >>8791936 Thank you, based elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:46:18 2017 No.8792009 >>8792001 You need reusable to land on mars.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:46:20 2017 No.8792010 >>8791994 he won't lel VG is so dead in the water it's sad at this point but mostly just funny

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:46:23 2017 No.8792011 >>8791997 no bucks, no buck rogers

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:46:24 2017 No.8792012 File: 252 KB, 1200x800, photo_39672.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791990 JUST FINE REUSABLE IS NOTHING IT IS NOT ECONOMICAL

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:46:37 2017 No.8792014 Didn't they already land a rocket on the barge awhile go? What makes it different this time?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:47:00 2017 No.8792017 File: 23 KB, 448x373, 1445205729499.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I thought they were relanding the fairings too?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:47:30 2017 No.8792020 >>8791986 Lots of money at stake and the company has to stay afloat. It is that simple. >>8791984 Oh please I am all for progress. >>8791975 I am almost willing to bet that it was a second platform preloaded with used first stage.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:47:30 2017 No.8792021 >>8792014 yes, multiple times. What's different this time is that this was the first reused booster that was successfully landed. Well, also the first reused booster they tried it with.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:47:35 2017 No.8792022 >>8792014 they re-used the same rocket that landed before. normally it just lands on the barge and they scrap it because they didnt trust that it could survive another launch and landing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:47:40 2017 No.8792023 >>8792014 This is the first time one of those landed rockets has ever been sent back up

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:47:43 2017 No.8792024 >>8792014 This is a reused rocket.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:47:46 2017 No.8792025 >>8792014 this rocket has already been launched and landed once

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:47:49 2017 No.8792026 >>8792009 No. Not a first stage.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:48:15 2017 No.8792029 File: 60 KB, 480x640, skylab_balladonia_03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792012 Not economical, might as well just go home and go to sleep. >new captcha >select hamsters >two hamsters, a guinea pig, and a squirrel

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:48:21 2017 No.8792030 >>8792012 I leave it to your vast expertise in NOT ECONOMICAL Ariane 5 is powered by liquid hydrogen and GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:48:22 2017 No.8792032 >>8792009 Which is something NASA refuses to accept >muh SLS+Orion capsule will be America's ticket to Mars!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:48:27 2017 No.8792034 >>8791967 We have quite a few Permanent Residents working here, you don't need to be a US citizen.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:48:29 2017 No.8792035 >>8792014 Landing a second one means the first one wasn't just a fluke.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:48:31 2017 No.8792036 File: 35 KB, 229x317, 1467045022385.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] post yfw that comfy music

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:48:40 2017 No.8792037 What music do you think Elon listens to? Because it's certainly not this

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:48:49 2017 No.8792038 >>8792023 but how much of its internal components has truly been re used?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:49:24 2017 No.8792041 >>8792020 so... >CGI the whole flight >need real rocket barge for ..... what reason?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:49:25 2017 No.8792042 >>8792037 Eurobeat

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:49:45 2017 No.8792044 >>8792034 Sure thing elon When will this stage be used a third time

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:49:45 2017 No.8792045 File: 68 KB, 960x540, IMG_0917.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792036

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:49:54 2017 No.8792046 >>8792037 Die Antewood

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:49:57 2017 No.8792047 >>8792014 because this is its second landing, see >>8791880 for the first time

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:50:04 2017 No.8792048 >>8792012 >comfy indigenous guy living my normal live in the rainforest with my tribe >go out hunting apes with frog poison >come back to find gramps crushed by weird thing that fell from heaven through my roof must suck

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:50:09 2017 No.8792050 >>8792037 Anime OPs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:50:12 2017 No.8792051 >>8792030 >Ariane 5 is powered by liquid hydrogen and GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES you can still be bros with ULA

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:50:13 2017 No.8792052 So were re-usable rockets seen as a near-future inevitability or has this happened a lot sooner that people expected?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:50:26 2017 No.8792054 >>8792022 They didn't scrap any of the landed boosters, they studied them intensely looking for indicators of failure in any of the parts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:50:27 2017 No.8792055 >>8792042 MULTICORE DRIFTING!

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:50:36 2017 No.8792058

>>8792006
they did it live for the iridium-1 launch (return to flight a few months ago) from the perspective of the first stage

https://youtu.be/NT3iiSVKbcQ?t=7m58s

>>8792020
>I am almost willing to bet that it was a second platform preloaded with used first stage.
that is exactly what i am thinking. plus i never noticed that they do the meco/staging at such slow speeds/low altitudes, guess thats so they can "recover"
SES-10 staged at ~2278 m/s at 66.8km, Iridium-1 staged at ~1915m/s at 70.4km.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:50:43 2017 No.8792060
File: 54 KB, 879x485, IMG_4323-879x485.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8792029

ITS NOT

ITS ALL FOR SHOW IT MEANS NOTHING IF IT WORKS WE WOULD HAVE DONE IT ALREADY BUT WE DIDNT BECAUSE ITS SHIT

WE STILL HAVE BEST LAUNCH SYSTEM BEST CUSTOMERS BEST EVERYTHING

ELON IS A HACK REEEEEEEE

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:50:59 2017 No.8792061 >>8792044 They are supposed to be saving some parts for SES to show off in their own offices, so not sure if they plan a third flight for this core.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:51:01 2017 No.8792062 >>8792041 >CGI the whole flight I didnt say that,but those last 30 seconds raise questions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:51:01 2017 No.8792063 >>8792052 Much sooner than expected

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:51:02 2017 No.8792064 >>8792044 Hype for the hat-trick desu.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:51:06 2017 No.8792065 >>8792022 they didn't scrap any of the landed rockets. Well, except for the ones that exploded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:51:20 2017 No.8792066 >>8792037 ABBA

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:51:58 2017 No.8792068 Elon Musk confirmed living legend, modern day Archimedes, god among lesser mortals. God bless him. Thats the TRUE power of autism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:52:07 2017 No.8792069 >>8792054 >>8792065 if its not being re-used, its fucking scrap metal that happens to be in a pretty shape.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:52:23 2017 No.8792071 How many times can they reuse the same rocket?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:52:32 2017 No.8792073 >>8792038 Nearly everything. All of the engines, tanks, pumps, etc. The only things definitely replaced were parts of the landing legs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:52:33 2017 No.8792074 >>8792058 The first stage eats all the gravity and aerodynamic losses Plus keeps margin for landing. Thats kinda normal for first stage burnouts

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:52:58 2017 No.8792075

>>8792052
later than expected. Both the soviets and the US had this stuff planned. The soviet union collapsed before they could pour more money into their energjia launcher (the boosters were supposed to be reusable), the US went for the abomination that was the shuttle program.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:52:59 2017 No.8792076 >>8792060 Too bad all these other space companies are private. Otherwise you could use their stock movements as an inverse proxy for spacex

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:53:08 2017 No.8792077 >>8792071 I think they've speculated up to 20.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:53:14 2017 No.8792079 >>8792071 Elon says with Block 5 they could probably be re-used endlessly with proper maintenance

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:53:29 2017 No.8792080 File: 86 KB, 1000x750, MGF211.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792012 It won't be at first. Over the decades we will have shit that can land and launch as soon as more fuel is put in. See: >>8791455

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:53:31 2017 No.8792082 >>8792062 They gave a legit explanation which is a pretty common problem with long range communications anyways. Dude. There are landing videos with no cut in them. Whats your excuse for them?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:53:32 2017 No.8792083 >>8792061 >so not sure if they plan a third flight for this core hmm SES-11 and SES-12 are up later this year

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:54:00 2017 No.8792084 File: 56 KB, 600x600, 23e67eef.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792037

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:54:21 2017 No.8792087 >>8792071 They don't really know, but IIRC they think at least 10 or 20 launches before they have to worry about significant maintenance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:54:31 2017 No.8792089 >>8792044 From what I've heard this stage is going to be retired and put on display. Also, I'm not Elon, I'm just a dumb welder who isn't smart enough to normally hang out on /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:54:31 2017 No.8792090 >>8792071 We dont know, this is literally the first time they've done this. We do however know that a full set of engines is good for at least 10 full flight cycles.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:55:31 2017 No.8792093 >>8792042 Do you think the Falcon landing gave him DEJA VU?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:55:42 2017 No.8792095 >>8792089 >too dumb for /sci/ Buddy let me tell you such a thing is impossible

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:56:06 2017 No.8792096 so what about those fairings

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:56:10 2017 No.8792097 File: 79 KB, 480x646, portal-band.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792037 Hymns from another dimension

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:56:27 2017 No.8792101 File: 18 KB, 626x551, 1476235123165.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >"good enough" orbit

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:57:08 2017 No.8792105 >>8792074 i guess its normal for f9 first stage burnouts, i kind of figured it would be sooner so they can land and re-use, i just never compared the speed and altitude for other lv until now

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:57:41 2017 No.8792108 >>8792096 When they deploy the satellite they will separate and fall with parachutes so they can be caught on the way down.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:57:46 2017 No.8792109 >>8792101 >no call yet >"good enough" it's done for

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:57:59 2017 No.8792110 so how much does a reused rocket cost now?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:58:26 2017 No.8792113 >>8792095 Kek. Thanks, I guess. I usually only catch these threads hours after a launch, I gotta admit the RUDs make for better shitposting.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:58:38 2017 No.8792114 >>8791936 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:59:03 2017 No.8792117 >>8792108 They separated just after the first stage detached and the second stage fired up. At this point they are either already recovered or are sinking in the ocean.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:59:05 2017 No.8792118 >>8792110 $40 million instead of $60 million for a new one

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 18:59:47 2017 No.8792119 File: 796 KB, 1032x595, Falcon9_Grid_fins_on_fire.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:00:11 2017 No.8792120 Spacecraft deployed. Mission complete!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:00:31 2017 No.8792121 >>8792118 It'll get cheaper as it goes along.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:00:53 2017 No.8792123 >>8792110 Depends if it runs real good.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:00:54 2017 No.8792124
File: 121 KB, 1024x1560, launch vehicle weight and cost by major elements.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8792110
>>8792118
i found this infographic useful. Can't be much different for the falcon 9. The fuel is nothing. I wonder how far down they can bring maintenance costs and what parts will have to be changed after every launch.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:01:09 2017 No.8792126 ENJOY YOUR COMMUNICATIONS, BEANERS

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:01:19 2017 No.8792127 >>8792119 >PANIC

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:01:25 2017 No.8792129 >>8792121 supposed to reach the 10 million dollar range if things go to plan.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:01:51 2017 No.8792132 >>8792119 could be propellant that wasn't fully combusted? either way I'm pretty sure they replace those fins anyway, there's not much to them

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:01:57 2017 No.8792133 >>8792119 the grid fins being heated up so hard during reentry suprised me. I can't remember seing that during the previous landing attempts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:02:05 2017 No.8792134 >>8792127 indeed

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:02:24 2017 No.8792137 What happens to the other half of the rocket in space?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:03:08 2017 No.8792139 >>8792137 goes to the moon

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:03:22 2017 No.8792140 >>8792133 Soot or some shit left over since hte first flight maybe?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:03:23 2017 No.8792141 >>8792137 deorbit burn, then burns up over Indian Ocean

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:03:27 2017 No.8792142 >>8792132 It's sunlight reflecting off them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:03:30 2017 No.8792143 >>8792132 that was before the landing burn started., it's normal shock heating from atmospheric reentry. Also there should be no unburnt propellant unless there's something seriously wrong with the engine/turbopumps.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:03:31 2017 No.8792144 File: 21 KB, 400x386, дъ_енд.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792137 It dies alone.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:03:53 2017 No.8792146 ABSOLUTE MADMAN

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:03:57 2017 No.8792147 File: 41 KB, 430x317, ayy-1439744384171.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792137 Ayy lamos capture it and put in their museum.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:04:09 2017 No.8792148 >>8792137 crashes into NRO satellite

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:04:13 2017 No.8792149 >>8792137 space jews pick it apart and make loads of shekels from it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:04:33 2017 No.8792150 >>8792141 >deorbit burn, then burns up over Indian Ocean designated lv shitting ocean?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:04:36 2017 No.8792151 >>8792140 i really doubt that they didn't clean it up after the first launch. It looks like shock heating to me, it's just that i never noticed it before that suprises me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:04:37 2017 No.8792152 >>8792144 >stagelets

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:04:40 2017 No.8792153

>>8792137

beanersat will deploy then will it fall back to earth and crash in ocean like any other rocket. Its too small and cost too insignificant to invest in the technology it would need to bring back for reuse.

Major driver of any rocket launch cost is the primary booster.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:04:42 2017 No.8792155 >>8792058 Enlighten us next about the so called "moon landings."

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:04:58 2017 No.8792156 >>8792137 It goes to satellite heaven, aka a disposal orbit. Or it goes back to earth to burn in the atmosphere if its been a bad boy (more likely)

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:05:03 2017 No.8792157 So what other big things are there to expect?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:05:26 2017 No.8792158 >>8792143 gotcha, couldn't remember if it was before or after the entry burn

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:05:53 2017 No.8792161 >>8792157 related to what? Falcon 9? Recoverable first stages? Space flight in general?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:05:55 2017 No.8792162 File: 114 KB, 207x207, S151go2f.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792157 Russian butthurt.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:06:01 2017 No.8792163 >>8792157 Second re-use, hopefully.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:06:01 2017 No.8792164 >>8792157 In 2 years we'll be able to see 13.5 billion years into the past and put an end to religion once and for all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:07:11 2017 No.8792166 >>8792161 space flight in general

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:07:11 2017 No.8792167 >>8792158 i mean't before the entry burn by the way. But you understood it correctly anyways. >>8792162 why? Their angara seems to be doing somewhat fine.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:07:40 2017 No.8792168 >>8792164 you are talking about james webb i suppose? Good boy.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:07:58 2017 No.8792169

>>8792153
>Its too small and cost too insignificant to invest in the technology it would need to bring back for reuse.
second stage has to work harder to get satellite to correct orbit since first stage slacks off so it can be reused. if second stage was to be reused too, spacecraft would never get to correct orbit without them having an expendable third stage to pick up the slack

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:08:04 2017 No.8792170 >>8792118 >>8792124 ok 40million still seems way too much

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:08:14 2017 No.8792172 >>8792164 >>8792168 man i with they could hurry the fuck up with that shit i mean, they can reuse rockets now, why can't they just put the fucking telescope in the sky already

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:08:25 2017 No.8792173 >>8792157 Falcon Heavy flight later in the year Crew flight testing and flight in a year or so. A crewed flight around the moon in a couple of years. ITS development and testing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:09:24 2017 No.8792175 >>8792170 magnitudes better than the competition. Space is expensive (for now) There is a reason basically everyone except the french are moving towards reusability

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:09:26 2017 No.8792176 File: 21 KB, 570x379, 0eNRDIY.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792119 press F to pay respects

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:09:31 2017 No.8792177 >>8792164 >>8792168 If the Euros make JW go boom I may never forgive them desu.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:09:40 2017 No.8792179 >>8792172 Because we all know that James Webb is going to either blow up or not work in orbit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:09:49 2017 No.8792181 >>8792167 >why? Their angara seems to be doing somewhat fine. It's not. Angara is dead.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:10:26 2017 No.8792186

>>8792166
Falcon heavy later this year. As for completly new stuff, more designs going for reusable first stages, the russians said they'd try that for their angara. We'll see how that works out. The transition to liquid methane as fuel and full flow staged combustion engines.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:10:27 2017 No.8792187 Mars fucking when?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:10:33 2017 No.8792188 >>8792169 the treatment for that problem is called "developement" and it has worked pretty good in the last few decades.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:10:57 2017 No.8792191 >>8792124 >>8792170 Spacex are basically doing themselves a giant profit margin while they can.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:11:13 2017 No.8792192 >>8792164 how tight is your anus gonna be when they finally launch that beast? Imagine if it exploded...

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:11:23 2017 No.8792193 >>8792157 mars my nigga

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:11:28 2017 No.8792196 >>8792181 what did i miss? Didn't they just built a new cosmodrome for it? What reason would they have to abandon it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:11:38 2017 No.8792198 >>8792187 30 years from now

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:11:43 2017 No.8792199 >>8792179 why would it blow up? i mean i can easily picture one of those foil pieces wrecking the whole thing, but why would it bow up? and if it does blow up, why wouldn't they have an extra just in case? haven't you seen Contact?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:11:50 2017 No.8792200 >>8792187 Dragon 2 in 2020

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:12:07 2017 No.8792201 >>8792172 it is clumbsy as fuck. and they want to make sure it works.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:12:26 2017 No.8792203 >>8792170 competing flights are WAY more. space x is by far the cheapest right now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:12:30 2017 No.8792204 >>8792192 I'm not sure I'll be able to watch it live. That stress might kill me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:12:45 2017 No.8792205 >>8792192 >Imagine if it exploded... imagine it gets all the way out there and one of the mirrors is off by 0.00000001cm and the telescope is permanently broken

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:13:29 2017 No.8792207 >>8792167 >why? trampoline banter

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:13:31 2017 No.8792208 >>8792199 the thing is pretty expensive. I think they can be happy to build at least one in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:14:54 2017 No.8792211 >>8792204 Nah m8 you gotta watch it with us so we can collectively kill ourselves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:15:07 2017 No.8792214 >>8792205 Then it's time for Spacex to fly NASA astronauts out to L2 to fix it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:15:27 2017 No.8792217 >>8792187 I'd settle for spacesuits for now desu

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:15:56 2017 No.8792220 >>8792176 Good meme.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:16:08 2017 No.8792222 >>8792173 >Falcon Heavy flight later in the year Hype as fuck. It's too soon for me to see interplanetary civilization, but if a human gets to Mars in my lifetime I'll at least go with a slight feeling of hope.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:18:08 2017 No.8792230 >>8792222 are you not going bro? why the fuck wouldn't you go?

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:19:09 2017 No.8792233

>>8792196
> what did i miss?
No people. No resources. Old scientists and engineers mostly are dead because of age and youth doesn't want to work there for 300$ per month.
>Didn't they just built a new cosmodrome for it?
They built only one launch zone for old Soyuz and that was several years ago.

Since then nothing has changed. Moreover, currently builders and workers there are rioting because no one pays them their salaries for six months.
>What reason would they have to abandon it?
Russia is like Midas - the Greek king. Everything it touches transforms into shit and ash.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:20:29 2017 No.8792236 >>8792222 Elon is from mars, so multiply that by 26/12, as ha works on Mars calendar

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:21:47 2017 No.8792239 >>8791936 THANK YOU BASED ELON

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:24:20 2017 No.8792249 File: 152 KB, 1191x1200, spacex-size.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] We choose to go to Mars in the next decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are FUCKING AWESOME.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:24:52 2017 No.8792252 >>8791831 >did the same thing more than a year ago >btfo

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:25:30 2017 No.8792255 >>8792252 >>did the same thing more than a year ago nice try retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:26:06 2017 No.8792257 What are the advantages of having a telescope in space rather than on Earth?

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:26:09 2017 No.8792258
File: 401 KB, 864x627, 1488130415151.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8792181
so is the guy that ran roscosmos

don't fuck up , you go to prison and get stabbed

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/20/russia-murder-space-agency-roscosmos

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:26:55 2017 No.8792260 >>8792257 no atmosphere in the way that distortes light

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:27:39 2017 No.8792261

>>8792233
nah, that doesn't sound reliable. The thing already flew, the harderst part is already done. And i'm pretty sure they launched it from the new cosmodroem too. They got solid engine and launcher technology, there is little they need to do there to keep up. Making the boosters recoverable will be a challenge but they've been on and off working on that for three decades so there are probably some plans to base it on in the drawers of some obscure OKB. Considering the budget they're on it's rather admirable that they were able to field a new launch vehicle to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:27:55 2017 No.8792263 >>8792257 no fucking atmosphere to fuck up your image no light pollution

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:28:18 2017 No.8792264 >>8792257 No political arguments about land use.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:28:58 2017 No.8792266 >>8792255 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74tyedGkoUc

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:29:19 2017 No.8792267 >>8792260 >>8792257 >>8792263 >>8792264 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=073GwPbyFxE

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:30:38 2017 No.8792273 >>8792258 Some folks call it a sling blade...but I call it the kaiser blade mmhmm

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:31:12 2017 No.8792275 >>8792119 Ablative paint bruh

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:31:49 2017 No.8792278 >>8792263 How big of a deal is light pollution in the countryside? Or are those huge telescopes placed in cities? >>8792264 Do you have an example of that being an issue that I can read about? >>8792260 >>8792267 Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:33:20 2017 No.8792281 >>8792278 >Do you have an example of that being an issue that I can read about? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/science/hawaii-thirty-meter-telescope-mauna-kea.html

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:35:44 2017 No.8792293 >>8792199 >why would it blow up? During launch, if the rocket launching it blows up.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:36:49 2017 No.8792303

>>8792181
Angara is fine, but the Russian space program is out of money. They still need to finish its launch pads at the various cosmodromes.

Russia has the fewest scheduled launches in 2017 since before the Cold War! And many of those are for ESA and ISS crew and resupply (other countries paying for it).

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:37:33 2017 No.8792304

>>8792261
> nah, that doesn't sound reliable. The thing already flew, the harderst part is already done.
You judge from position of western man. Here things are different
I don't want to convince you - it's 2:35 AM here and I want to sleep. Just remember my words - Angara will never fly again and roscosmos will continue to fall into nothingness.

Oh. Forgot to mention a thing. Today Roscosmos discovered that ALL (ALL available 72 engines) Proton second and third stage engines contain mayor defect related with solder quality and cannot be used - they should be reassembled to use them again. Just a thing about real business in Russian airspace agency. The show is over.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:38:29 2017 No.8792306 >>8792278 The atmosphere strongly absorbs infrared light, so an infrared telescope can never be Earth based. It'd be like trying to build a visible light telescope if Earth had permanent 100% cloud cover.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:39:40 2017 No.8792311 >>8792267 We are fucking gods. Too bad there aren't any other beings capable of appreciating our greatness.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:40:28 2017 No.8792314 >>8792303 >Russian space program is out of money hey nasa's about to buy a bunch of soyuz seats at 80? million a pop

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:41:06 2017 No.8792317

>>8792304
>Today Roscosmos discovered that ALL (ALL available 72 engines) Proton second and third stage engines contain mayor defect related with solder quality and cannot be used

This is actually true, sub-par welds discovered during quality control inspections have essentially grounded Proton for as much time is needed to manufacture, test, and quality assure an entire new production run of engines. Since Roscosmos is not SpaceX, and doesn't produce around 5 engines per week, that means a significant delay.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:41:48 2017 No.8792319 >>8792157 reflight in 24 hours https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847594208219336705

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:42:12 2017 No.8792320 >>8792311 We arent gods. We are just doing what we are able to do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:42:22 2017 No.8792321 >>8792314 The USG basically owes Roscosmos the business after all the military satellites Russia has helped America put in orbit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:42:34 2017 No.8792322 File: 65 KB, 250x236, 1455658689841.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792319 WHAT THE FUCK ELON

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:43:17 2017 No.8792328 >>8791859 >Where people exist only as pets of AI's That's the good ending, anon. Do you want to be under the control of your fellow shitty apes forever?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:43:25 2017 No.8792330 File: 118 KB, 327x333, 1478148372010.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792319

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:43:36 2017 No.8792331 >>8792322 Oh, let me retract that somewhat. Thought he was talking about 24h from now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:43:53 2017 No.8792334 >>8792320 we are as close to gods as anything that exists in the universe we have observed

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:44:01 2017 No.8792335 >>8792319 MADMAN A D M A N

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:44:06 2017 No.8792336 File: 1.79 MB, 400x300, mSH68pE.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792319 MADMAN i like it

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:44:28 2017 No.8792337

>>8792124
>Can't be much different for the falcon 9.
The Atlas V upper stage is more expensive than the booster. That's very different from Falcon 9.

>>8792118
>$40 million instead of $60 million for a new one
$60 million is a price, not a cost, and they're not lowering the price much right away.

The first stage only costs about $20 million to manufacture, so just the cost savings of not needing to build a first stage is not enough to justify a $20 million price cut.

Basically, they need to increase launch rates, and streamline launch processes, before they can make a big price cut. If they go far enough along this line, they might get it down as low as $10 million.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:44:53 2017 No.8792341 >>8792320 Yea, true. Actually let me rephrase that. Too bad there aren't any other beings that we could pass all this knowledge on to. All that we've learned and accomplished. If we go it all goes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:45:29 2017 No.8792345 >>8792319 He going to try that now?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:45:36 2017 No.8792346 This was some pretty elaborate hoax I'll give them that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:45:48 2017 No.8792347 >>8792334 So when the people one hundred years ago saw a smartphone that guy would also be god to them. Now thats an everyday thing. Its progress.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:45:54 2017 No.8792348 >>8792317 how come russian industry can't get its shit together like the chinese did

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:46:23 2017 No.8792349

>>8792304
but why wouldn't it fly again? The structure itself is rather trivial, and the engines are comparable to stuff like the NK33 that's like half a century old. Infrastructure may fall into ruin, personal may die or leave. But there should still be enough to base a decent space program on. It's not like they're not launching rockets anymore.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:46:47 2017 No.8792352 >>8792311 Excuse me, but what do gods need with a spaceship?

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:47:21 2017 No.8792355

>>8792304
>Oh. Forgot to mention a thing. Today Roscosmos discovered that ALL (ALL available 72 engines) Proton second and third stage engines contain mayor defect related with solder quality and cannot be used - they should be reassembled to use them again.

tfw Russian engines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5eddt-iAo

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:47:29 2017 No.8792357 >>8792337 yes, overall vehicle cost and design is very different. But how much money is spent on what parts of the stage should be similar. AT least that's what i'd assume

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:47:42 2017 No.8792360 >>8792352 to cruise with bill shatner

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:47:59 2017 No.8792362

>>8792319

I wonder though, what is the exact commercial advantage of 24-hour turnaround? I guess if they're anticipating much higher customer volume...

>>8792337

>If they go far enough along this line, they might get it down as low as $10 million.
Indeed, I think the ultimate goal is still single-digit millions per launch.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:48:01 2017 No.8792363 >>8792348 Russia has always been shit. It's their way of life and culture you insensitive bigot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:48:19 2017 No.8792364 >>8792355 At least they spotted that shit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:48:31 2017 No.8792365 >>8792348 how did the chinese get their shit together? Their space program is still a joke. They haven't managed to build an engine that surpasses 60 year old soviet designs yet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:48:44 2017 No.8792366 >>8792348 Oil prices dropping kicked the legs out from under them would be my guess.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:49:02 2017 No.8792367 File: 586 KB, 2048x1539, WTu7C9L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792319 THE DREAM IS HAPPENING

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:49:41 2017 No.8792371 >>8792362 they will only be able to go to mars once every two and a half years, so the objective is to put up as many rockets as they can in the period leading up to this

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:50:23 2017 No.8792378 >>8792355 to be fair, that was an engine that was sitting in some kuznetsov warehouse for like 40 years before it was imported and relabeled as AJ26.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:51:11 2017 No.8792381
File: 328 KB, 1353x976, multi-track-drifting-1343633349859.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8792319
>next goal
not
>next flight
cool your jets, guys

>>8792362
>I wonder though, what is the exact commercial advantage of 24-hour turnaround?
Multi-launch missions? Two or more pieces that dock in orbit, with the crew in the last launch?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:51:38 2017 No.8792384 >>8792371 >>8792362 also, i imagine that they would be able to outbid literally everyone else for any rocket contract if they do achieve that, so more money in their pockets for expensive things like going to mars

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:53:20 2017 No.8792390 File: 990 KB, 400x224, Elon Musk on Twitter Incredibly proud of the SpaceX team for achieving this milestone in space! Next goal is reflight within 24 hours.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792319 >reflight in 24 hours >its real mfw

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:53:20 2017 No.8792391
File: 260 KB, 620x640, 1490298296356.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8792367

...What am I supposed to be looking at here?

>>8792371

I don't think it's quite that simple.

>>8792381

>Multi-launch missions? Two or more pieces that dock in orbit, with the crew in the last launch?
Yeah I was thinking of that. but if that's the case, it seems like it would make more sense to use two separate vehicles. Then again, if re-use saves enough money, I'm sure there will be customers who go that route.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:54:29 2017 No.8792397 >>8792391 >...What am I supposed to be looking at here? the dream of a space dc-3 which now might be happening

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:55:43 2017 No.8792401
File: 44 KB, 600x325, 7686178464_fdc8ea66c7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8792362
Optimal launch windows are pretty narrow. Squeezing in 1 launch every 24 hours is a NASA wet dream where they wake up all sweaty at the good part then have to cry softly into their pillow..

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:56:46 2017 No.8792404 >>8792381 >Multi-launch missions? Two or more pieces that dock in orbit, with the crew in the last launch? See webm here: >>8791455

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:56:47 2017 No.8792405 >>8792355 I like seeing the little spiral explosion things.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:57:03 2017 No.8792408 >>8792401 kek

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:58:36 2017 No.8792413 >>8792266 Orbit and the edge of the atmosphere are not the same thing, not even remotely

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 19:59:32 2017 No.8792415 File: 2.97 MB, 200x180, 1484614369273.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8791455 >SpaceX.webm

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:00:07 2017 No.8792418 fairing recovered also

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:02:14 2017 No.8792424 SpaceX will probalby have found a way to cheaply recover the ISS until it expires.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:04:39 2017 No.8792430 >>8792266 >W-we crossed the Karman line and landed, guys... look... >Th-that's just as good as reaching orbital speeds... we promise... >Guys?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:05:25 2017 No.8792432 >>8792424 well, without the falcon heavy they don't have the payload capability to launch new modules. I wonder how long what's up there right now would be OK as long as you kept supplying it.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:05:51 2017 No.8792433

>>8792365
Huh? They just updated their whole launch vehicle line with new modern ones, and started several more or less private spaceflight companies. They are sending robots to the Moon. They are building a modular space station by themselves, after nasa literally telling them to fuck off ISS (compare that to Russians, nasa PAID for russian space module with their own money, basically saving their industry!), and almost not failing their timeline (compare that to nasa failing 2.5 manned mars programs and countless post-shuttle launch vehicle concepts). To me, that sounds like resounding success relative to what they had.

>They haven't managed to build an engine that surpasses 60 year old soviet designs yet.
Too fucking bad russians can't do it themselves. And I never seen them flying LH2 engines like Chinese did, Russians only did this with Energia and lost the tech since that.

>Their space program is still a joke
Ask ESA how they are eager for cooperation with Chinese on their next lunar lander, then think again.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:06:28 2017 No.8792434

>>8792391

Elon wants to put up a several-thousand satellite constellation that will provide fast internet to the entire globe, the constellation will sit in low orbit and will use mass produced cheap satellites that will be replaced continuously, with a lifetime of several years.

Keeping this constellation flying will require a massive increase in launch cadence, which is why Falcon 9 is targeting such ambitious reuse specs, the the payoffs would be huge; Elon thinks he can not only break even with the satellite internet plan, but that he can fund the entire ITS development with the profits.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:09:39 2017 No.8792446

>>8792415

I'm probably going to actually cry the first time I see that rocket fly. I don't mean a single manly tear, either, it's going to be ugly.

The presentation where Elon showed that animation was fucking crazy, I'm so glad I was there. Getting to witness a billionaire autist lay out his plans to save humanity, live and in person, was incredible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:09:53 2017 No.8792448 >>8792430 Falcon 9's first stage doesn't reach close to orbital speeds, but it does go way faster and higher than New Shepard, and it has horizontal velocity to deal with during the landing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:11:59 2017 No.8792449 >>8792434 I'm going to sign up for Elon-Net the second it's live, just to say that I had a small part in funding the biggest rocket in history.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:13:22 2017 No.8792453

>>8792418
WHOA!! That is big news! That is almost a bigger achievement than recovering the booster, because nobody has done that before.

Elon's news conference just now:
>Payload fairing LANDED SUCCESSFULLY. Fairing has thruster systems and steerable parachute. Was just shown pic of intact fairing floating in ocean.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:13:38 2017 No.8792457 >>8792446 are you the faggot who said he was at burning man, and asked how people would deal with their shit once they go to mars?

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:14:15 2017 No.8792459

>>8792432
Falcon Heavy is not enough, US orbital segment modules are passive (no engine, no control system), so you also need some kind of tug to drag and berth them to the station. There's no shuttle for that anymore, you need to develop a separate spacecraft for that. (not nececcarily that complex of course)

Also, Delta IV is capable of lifting both.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:15:31 2017 No.8792462 >>8792449 Hell I'm gonna do it because my current internet company is shit and Elon's will probably be faster.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:16:00 2017 No.8792463 >>8792453 >Elon's news conference just now: WHERE

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:16:20 2017 No.8792465
File: 86 KB, 1280x729, ScorchedFins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8792448
>Falcon 9's first stage doesn't reach close to orbital speeds, but it does go way faster and higher than New Shepard, and it has horizontal velocity to deal with during the landing.

Case in point, the charring on the grid fins during re-entry.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:16:54 2017 No.8792467 >>8792463 Don't think there's a stream

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:18:48 2017 No.8792472 >>8792465 ...speaking of Grid Fins... >Musk: New design coming for Grid Fin. Will be largest titanium forging in the world. Current Grid Fin is aluminum and gets so hot it lights on fire... which isn't good for reuse.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:19:12 2017 No.8792473 File: 66 KB, 1062x207, spacex-164895739.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792453 Elon, you sly dog. Putting in fairing chutes and keeping quiet about it until after the launch.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:19:15 2017 No.8792475 >>8792463 NSF forums sent a reporter. Summarizing here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544 Latest: they are going to redo the grid fins from titanium instead of aluminum.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:20:18 2017 No.8792479

>>8792457

Nope, I was there with the group from r/spacex (hurr durr reddit, sure, but that's the best place on the internet for Spacex info), and we sat outside the doors to the presentation hall from morning until the actual presentation. That got the attention of some actual Spacex people who were setting up for the talk, and they got us a group of seats in the front section with the delegates and heads of agencies and all those folks. The people in the front actually couldn't get to the Q&A microphones.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:20:31 2017 No.8792480

>>8792433
The US and soviets had moon rovers and landers on venus almost 50 years ago. That doesn't tell much of the launchers capabilities except its capability to throw a certain amount of mass into orbit. The chinese are far behind in terms of engine and launcher technology.

Also i'm pretty sure the russians didn't "loose" their LOX/LH2 technology. The RD0120 was a very capable engine. All they lack is the funding to put it to use, not the technology to build it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:21:33 2017 No.8792483 >>8792459 good to know

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:22:07 2017 No.8792485

>>8792349
Oh it could fly. And the engines are quite decent. Purely from an engeneering point of view, Russia could even make reusable rockets long ago, it lacks only software advancements of SpaceX.
And money. And motivation. And personnel. And vision. And future.

>>8792433
> And I never seen them flying LH2 engines like Chinese did, Russians only did this with Energia and lost the tech
Lol, that's the whole point, they still have achieved less than what we have lost.

And they're too much into hydrazine.

So. this aside. Falcon Heavy when?

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:22:18 2017 No.8792487

>>8792453
>>8792473
Fairing recovery has been done multiple times, not just by spacex. Russians do it routinely since they drop stages on the land and they have to remove debris. It's relatively easy to get fairings intact since they have high drag, several parachute recovery attempts have been done back in early 2000s (as well as upper stage recovery with inflatable decelerators). No reuse attempted though, as far as i know, actual reuse of fairings is what would be somewhat new.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:22:55 2017 No.8792488 >>8792475 >https://www.facebook .com/everydayastronaut/videos/764917663684983/ stream from news conference!!!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:23:45 2017 No.8792493 >>8792434 Ah! Yes, that explains it nicely then.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:24:48 2017 No.8792498

>>8792480
>Also i'm pretty sure the russians didn't "loose" their LOX/LH2 technology.

the problem isnt losing the technology but losing the expertise to make said technology

both in terms of the engineers who design it and the skilled labor that actually makes it

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:24:56 2017 No.8792499 >>8792485 of course they're decent. The NK33 was already an oxidizer rich staged combustion design, after that there's not that much you can improve on a kerosene/LOX engine.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:25:48 2017 No.8792502 >>8792472 >titanium YEHEAA BOI

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:26:38 2017 No.8792504 File: 58 KB, 731x423, Flybackboost.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8792485 I'm sad Energia never put their flyback boosters into production. They even had a prototype they sent around to aerospace exhibitions.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:26:59 2017 No.8792508

>>8792498
why would that be lost? Kuznetsov is still alive and kicking, their military is one of the few things they didn't cut funding for to almost nothing. The designs are there, the equipment wasn't scrapped if they weren't completly retarded and the know how and personal also still exists.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:27:22 2017 No.8792509

>>8792480
>The US and soviets had moon rovers and landers on venus almost 50 years ago
Yes, but chinese didn't. They figured this out lately, that surely sounds like they got they shit together.

>The chinese are far behind in terms of engine and launcher technology.
Check out their new launcher line and get your facts straight, that's absolutely not true.

>Also i'm pretty sure the russians didn't "loose" their LOX/LH2 technology. The RD0120 was a very capable engine. All they lack is the funding to put it to use, not the technology to build it.
No, they lost RD0120 completely because the engine production and tech was dustributed across the whole union, that was stated multiple times by companies officially.

>>8792485
>And they're too much into hydrazine.
They don't, they're phasing it out. Their new launchers are on APCP, kerolox and LH2, with possible methalox.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:28:01 2017 No.8792512 >>8792504 yeah, the fall of their space program was by far the saddest part of the fall of the soviet union.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:28:24 2017 No.8792513 >>8791538 >They literally copy every single thing SpaceX has already done, down to the drone ship kek

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:29:37 2017 No.8792518 >>8792509 >>The chinese are far behind in terms of engine and launcher technology. >Check out their new launcher line and get your facts straight, that's absolutely not true. In fact, their next Long March 7 launch is coming up on April 23

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:31:07 2017 No.8792526 >>8792513 to be fair, SpaceX had to invalidate Bezos' existing patent on barge landings before they could proceed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:32:01 2017 No.8792528 >>8792526 How do you invalidate a patent?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:32:14 2017 No.8792529 >>8792488 thanks >half a dozen or so reflights this year >double that next year

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:32:56 2017 No.8792530 >>8792528 By claiming Prior Art and arguing that it's a trivial patent in court. They succeeded.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:35:05 2017 No.8792535

>>8792362
>what is the exact commercial advantage of 24-hour turnaround?
It's less the fact of it, and more the implications of it.

A 24-hour turnaround implies no refurbishment, no extensive inspection, no requalification. None of these things that have costs. They're pretty much just refilling, restacking, and reflying.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:36:28 2017 No.8792539

>>8792508

old engineers who havent seriously done work in decades

skilled labor that is also old and retired or hasnt made a rocket engine in decades

they slashed their military budget a shitload when the cold war ended

most of their manufacturing base went to shit

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:37:12 2017 No.8792541

>>8792504
Everything they've had on Baikal was a mockup which is still hanging in some hangar, that wasn't a prototype. Although the concept itself looks much more mass efficient than VTVL. But I guess it's more complex to implement, and I'm not sure how they were supposed to deal with transversal strength in a rocket.

>>8792485
>Purely from an engeneering point of view, Russia could even make reusable rockets long ago, it lacks only software advancements of SpaceX.
Software, what? SpaceX didn't advance software in any way, that's basic control theory. Russians flew a fully automatic spaceplane in 80s which was much more challenging than first stage VTVL. SpaceX achievement is that they are trying something relatively new in a lazy era.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:39:58 2017 No.8792546 >>8792513 No, BO doesn't do a boostback burn, so they're going to be forever limited on launch cadences unless they build a large fleet of boosters and have a large operating fleet of ships to catch them. That's called thinking ahead.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:45:25 2017 No.8792557 >>8792504 They did some wind tunnel testing in 2010s and decided it has to be too heavy due to unexpected thermal loads on foldable wings or something

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:48:06 2017 No.8792562 >>8792557 oh! I hadn't realized development had continued that long, and that it reached a dead end.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:50:06 2017 No.8792569

>>8792485
>Purely from an engeneering point of view, Russia could even make reusable rockets long ago, it lacks only software advancements of SpaceX.
>And money. And motivation. And personnel. And vision. And future.
You could say exactly the same about US industry. SpaceX was the only ones who tried that, nobody really wanted to do this after the Shuttle/DC-X, everybody was focused on spaceplanes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 20:59:58 2017 No.8792594 File: 117 KB, 1024x749, 1490829542139.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >fairing has its own thruster and steerable parachute

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:01:05 2017 No.8792597

>>8792562
It didn't, the concept got shelved for several years because nobody funded it, then they dug it back out in 2011 due to MRKS program receiving some (small) R&D funding. They ditched foldable wings and simplified the concept substantially. AFAIK it got shelved again since it's intended for URM-1 (Angara first stage module) which is not in production yet, and due to Khrunichev beibg in a miserable state lately.

The concept is still considered promising due to potentially having less dead weight than VTVL, and better suited to landing without access to sea/ocean. If they will continue their MRKS program with their new launchers (Sunkar?) they will probably use flyback scheme, not VTVL.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:01:46 2017 No.8792599

must be interesting balancing low prices and keeping the industry alive. As he said in the presser, he wants a competitive and thriving launch market. But if spacex can start offering lower-than-low prices w/o a big backlog, then the Russians, french, Chinese, Japanese, ula, orbital, and heck even those kiwis with the tiny rocket are all going to go bust. So I wonder if they are lowering their prices at the recommendation of some economist or something to encourage innovation in the industry while still keeping it alive

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:04:41 2017 No.8792606

>>8792599
>even those kiwis with the tiny rocket
There's plenty of competitors in ultralight niche, not just kiwis. No idea what they are all hoping for though, that seems to be a bad business plan since they would never compete on price ratio with medium/heavy rockets, and small satellites are all about price.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:04:46 2017 No.8792607 Great Success!!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:10:24 2017 No.8792618 >>8792606 Yeah. I see the cubesat market heading towards a monthly launch of those India-type deals where you stick an medium lift rocket full of 80 of the buggers Save on price that way

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:12:21 2017 No.8792624 >>8792599 Let's be realistic here, currently Musk struggles with 1 launch per month. He cannot possibly dominate the market this way, no matter the price, he's got to speed up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:14:08 2017 No.8792625 >>8792624 seems like they are doing pretty well cadence wise. It's just been unfortunate with the lost of one of their pads. Next launch is in 2 weeks - NROL 76. Which is what their cadence is planned to be for this year going forward.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:21:38 2017 No.8792643 >>8792546 They're only planning 12 launches per year with New Glenn. It's in the same class as SLS and Falcon Heavy, not Falcon 9.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:23:17 2017 No.8792651 >>8792599 They will never reduce prices significantly until a competitor comes along that can match them. They will just use the surplus profit to fund their Mars rocket.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:24:25 2017 No.8792653
File: 41 KB, 1054x244, 32-33-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8792504
What more puzzling to me is that they never continued the IRDT Fregat recovery experiment. Historically, their upper stages were compact, very high-tech and costly (i.e. well suited to reuse), and they somewhat successfully tested the inflatable recovery system for the Fregat upper stage in 2005.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:29:46 2017 No.8792665 >>8792624 umm they already hit their target of eleven day turnaround on 39A with this launch. march 30 last launch was on march 19

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:42:59 2017 No.8792691 >>8792625 It was also planned for 2016, all year along

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:45:12 2017 No.8792699 >>8792691 I think one per month was the target for 2016. You got a source on twice a month?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:45:40 2017 No.8792701 >>8792691 actually it's been their planned cadence since early 2015

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:45:57 2017 No.8792702 How many launches do they expect to get out of one rocket?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:52:28 2017 No.8792718 >>8792699 >You got a source on twice a month? http://fortune.com/2016/03/22/spacex-rockets-every-few-weeks/

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:54:02 2017 No.8792724 >>8792718 Oh, wrong link, it states a total number of planned launches. Their schedule at a time (March 2016) was planned to be once per 2 weeks though, have to find a correct link then.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:56:12 2017 No.8792731 >>8792702 10 for falcon 9, 100 for ITS booster, 10 Mars trips for ITS spaceship these are all theoretical of course, but the fact that Blue Origin already has 5 launches on one booster makes it seem very possible

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:57:47 2017 No.8792734 >>8792731 Clarification: 1000 for its booster 100 for f9 with refurbishment 10 for f9 w/o doing anything to it Per Elon at the pressed today

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:57:50 2017 No.8792735 >>8792526 >>8792530 The fact they even patented means they are desperate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:58:42 2017 No.8792736 >>8792734 where did you get that info?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 21:59:44 2017 No.8792739 >>8792735 they patented it before either company had launched a single rocket patents as a concept are retarded anyways

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 22:00:50 2017 No.8792740 >>8792736 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.340

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 22:03:12 2017 No.8792745 >>8792740 >Musk: New design coming for Grid Fin. Will be largest titanium forging in the world. Current Grid Fin is aluminum and gets so hot it lights on fire... which isn't good for reuse. neat

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 22:04:43 2017 No.8792749 video of presser https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3LQFpuzqs

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 22:19:20 2017 No.8792768

>>8792535

>A 24-hour turnaround implies no refurbishment, no extensive inspection, no requalification. None of these things that have costs. They're pretty much just refilling, restacking, and reflying.
I hadn't thought of it that way. That would certainly be huge.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 22:24:19 2017 No.8792780 >>8792606 They discarded Falcon 1 for exactly this reason btw, the niche doesn't have the future. The only launcher still being used is Pegasus, and it doesn't see much demand.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 22:41:55 2017 No.8792807

>>8792780
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LauncherOne
>On 25 June 2015, the company signed a contract with OneWeb Ltd. for 39 satellite launches for its satellite constellation with an option for an additional 100 launches.
That's potentially a billion dollars worth of business.

SpaceX's big plan to make lots of money with its own satellites is also a smallsat network, they're just launching them in bundles.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 22:47:02 2017 No.8792814

>>8792546
Say it takes a week for the stage to get back to the launch site, another week to put it up on the pad + launch it.
Thats still doing 20-25 launches per booster

As well nothing stops them from doing a boostback burn, its not any harder than landing on a ship

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 22:48:15 2017 No.8792815 >>8792768 Also cost goes down, demand goes up. More rocket launches equals more profit equals more rocket testing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 22:52:02 2017 No.8792821 >>8792814 with the block V / v2.5 f9, the extra 8% thrust should allow heavy payload missions to all do RTLS. However, they were discussing flying the booosters back to land; refueling them on the droneships and such Will be cool

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 22:54:36 2017 No.8792826 >>8791730 >Settle down, virgins make me chad, keep bullying me and ill land a rocket on your house, us nerds arent so easy to fuck with anymore

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 22:55:46 2017 No.8792829

>>8792651
I don't think prices are even a big thing right now
They are going to drop it down to like 30 or 40 million in the near term.

But otherwise just clearing the backlog and being able to launch within a month of ordering it will dramatically change the market.

These satellites getting tens of millions a month just sitting there, price of launch is irrelevant compared to WHEN they can get a launch.

Also rich people paying for a cruises in a Dragon 2 capsule could easily be 100+ launches a year.
Then we get into cheap probe launches, and SpaceX will have ample stuff to do in space for the foreseable future.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 22:58:03 2017 No.8792832 >>8792829 >cheap probe launches cue to colleges being able to afoard probe launches. Mabye harvard backed by coca cola and mcdonalds will be the first to explore that shiny spot in ceres

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:00:10 2017 No.8792838

>>8792807
>That's potentially a billion dollars worth of business.
Not with small launchers. They are inherently much more costly per kg than medium/heavy launch vehicles. You can lift a cubesat for ~$10K per unit already, that's within the reach of a single individual, this is impossible with these nano launchers. SpaceX realized that with their Falcon 1 in practice. Even light ICBMs like russian submarine ones which are paid by military cost too much to launch something into space on being decomissioned. Generally, the heavier the rocket, the cheaper it is per kilogram to orbit.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:03:05 2017 No.8792843

>>8792829
I think tourism will be a bigger market than we think.

The whole reason that we have $600,000,000 yachts all over is that some rich dork bought one and invited all of his rich friends on it, who then went out and bought their own

same thing will happen with space travel. Once a couple rich dorks go up and dick around in a Bigelow space masterbatorium for a week, all of their rich friends will want to do the same.

There are more people out there that have more money than they know what to do with than you think. It's just that most are now lazy slobs. IF you dangle an easy and unique vacation opportunity to the moon in front of them they'll take it

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:06:28 2017 No.8792848

>>8792829
>>8792843
>Also rich people paying for a cruises in a Dragon 2 capsule could easily be 100+ launches a year.
Space tourism is a fad, several people doing it is exotic and cool, but a constant stream of tourists is absolutely unfeasible, especially with .
>100+ launches a year
Good luck with that when you can't even make 30 launches per year total due to weather or the inherent complexity of an orbital launch system. And 100 MANNED launches a year is a completely different ballpark due to safety standards in manned space systems, I don't think you realize how much more strict they are.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:09:32 2017 No.8792853 >>8792848 Oh, and I'm not even talking about the space launch system operated by untrained staff. In other words, it was unfeasible in 80s, it's still unfeasible today.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:10:35 2017 No.8792856 >>8792119 I thought it was rust

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:11:57 2017 No.8792858

>>8792848
>but a constant stream of tourists is absolutely unfeasible

What do you think rich people spend their money on? They have nothing other than dumping millions on luxuries
There are a LOT of billionaires/multi-hundred-millionaires in the world.

The reason space tourism doesn't exist is that there was no option for it, once SpaceX has set a price tag + a date + people have an idea what to expect, then you can expect lots of business in space tourism.

NASA astronaut standards have nothing to do with SpaceX standards for passengers in a Dragon 2

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:17:17 2017 No.8792874 >>8792848 No anon, that's 100 launches per year per ITS. 100 per year total is tiny. And the weather in south texas at their future ITS launch facility is perfect 99% of the time.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:18:26 2017 No.8792876

>>8792858
You don't seem to hear me. It's technically unfeasible, in the first place.
>They have nothing other than dumping millions on luxuries
It's not a luxury. It's hard work for your own money. Do you see many people parachuting from the stratosphere after Alan Eustace did this? The company which made the suit and balloon for him even tried to sell these jumps at $75K and failed to get any customers because you needed substantial training for that and not that many rich people like to engage in high risk activities which are appealing only as "firsts".

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:21:07 2017 No.8792881 >>8792876 jumping off of a balloon for 7 minutes of falling, and having to train to begin with, is different than a week trip to Bigelow's LEO masterbatorium suites with complentanmentary bubble massages. Be this tall to enter.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:23:14 2017 No.8792885 >>8792876 >It's technically unfeasible, in the first place. It's the inevitable future, to be doing thousands of launches a year Once the rocket is proven to be safe & durable then you will see stuff like city to city suborbital flight.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:24:10 2017 No.8792886

>>8792874
>100 per year total is tiny.
I'll beleive it when I'll see it.

> ITS.
There's a general rule of thumb in space industry: if it never flew, it doesn't exist. Doesn't matter that it comes from SpaceX. The whole concept of ITS is horribly suboptimal and is a "rocket to nowhere", there were dozens of much more sane concepts that even got implemented in hardware that never flew.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:26:39 2017 No.8792891

>>8792886
>scale raptor engines are in development
>spacex signed the largest deal with the largest Japanese carbon composite material firm ever for its structures
>its updates coming soon from spacex
>the entire fucking goal of spacex is to have ITS like systems in the first place

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:33:49 2017 No.8792901

>>8792829
>Also rich people paying for a cruises in a Dragon 2 capsule could easily be 100+ launches a year.
There's only about a quarter million people who could afford to drop multiple millions of dollars on a single brief experience, and most of them would be hurting to do it.

I fully believe at least 100 of them would do it, if the price gets into single-digit millions). But 100+ loads of them every year?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:34:20 2017 No.8792902 >>8791184 They still cost several $million. I've seen $6mil thrown around as the cost, but that seems a bit high to me.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:36:14 2017 No.8792908

>>8792885
>It's the inevitable future, to be doing thousands of launches a year
Any talk of an inevitable future is inevitably a delusion. The reality is always more nuanced. People thought since 80s that flying cars, orbital chip factories and cyberpunk cities were inevitable, and neither one is a good idea due to many reasons: flying cars are energy-suboptimal and have dangerous failure modes, orbital chip factories need much less gravity gradient than LEO can provide, and too dense cities are actual shitholes, not romanticised ones.

>you will see stuff like city to city suborbital flight
I promise you'll never see that, unless you are willing to argue with Tsiolkovsky on his equation.

>>8792891
ITS is a horrible concept and doesn't make sense in practice, period. I'm not even starting on the goals, they don't have anything to fly to, they don't even have a concept for life support for that many people, they have nothing. This is all planned in 10 years, coming from a company which intended to do a fully reusable (with a second stage) Falcon 9 launch in 2007, in two years after the announcement?
https://web.archive.org/web/20050910040404/http://www.spacex.com/aboutus.php
Yeah, I totally beleive that.

And yes, I'll repeat myself:
>if it never flew, it doesn't exist

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:40:33 2017 No.8792913

>>8792891
Russians also made their ultra high tech tank for MAKS, and where is it now? Oh I forgot, russians are evil, poor and not cool like Elon. (actually, russians were absolutely great at this at the time, it's just MAKS was a poor concept that looked good only on paper)

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:45:22 2017 No.8792923

>>8792901
And what fraction of those people, do you think, would love to go to space?
25%?

Sure yea it's not going to be a massive wave of space colonization, not at those prices, but there will be a lot of people interested.
Also governments/space programs who would like to just pay a flat price to have their own ecuadorian astronaut.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:48:22 2017 No.8792928 >>8791497 Jez, ISS is like a station for ants compared to Skylab.

Anonymous Thu Mar 30 23:49:17 2017 No.8792931

>>8792838
>>That's potentially a billion dollars worth of business.
>Not with small launchers
They're talking about $10 million, and over a hundred launches. Yes, it's a small launcher. Yes, that adds up over a billion dollars.

>They are inherently much more costly per kg than medium/heavy launch vehicles.
Not true. It's far easier to mass-produce a small launcher, to make each one an assembly-line product rather than a construction project.

>Even light ICBMs like russian submarine ones
You're talking about surplus equipment. The price has nothing to do with the cost of manufacture. They were never set up to do a lot of launches operationally-cheaply, and never could be because of the unreliable supply.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 00:02:07 2017 No.8792950 >>8792886 >There's a general rule of thumb in space industry: if it never flew, it doesn't exist thats not space industry, that's everywhere, but you cant stop planning just because theres a high rate of failure tahts severely retarded

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 00:04:25 2017 No.8792958

>>8792931
>They're talking
Here, found your problem. There a lot of people who are talking.

And all of those who tried small launchers in practice (Orbital, SpaceX etc) have failed so far, despite initially talking a lot (about mass production specificially). Most startups that tried to develop a micro launcher (there were literally dozens of them) are either silently died or entered the zombie stage. There are semi-ready vehicles like the japanese heavily subsidized one which is still unreliable and not cheap, and Super Strypi. And yet the only truly mass produced launch vehicle was Soyuz-U.

Welcome to the space industry. There are far too many concepts, ideas and business plans. Far too little of them make business or tech or even basic sense. Even less are implemented in hardware. And even less of them proved to be successful, none specificially in this area. It's always cool to have someone who delivers, but those who haven't flew don't deserve much attention yet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 00:07:31 2017 No.8792963 >>8792950 ITS lacks any signs of planning. It's just a very suboptimal concept for its goal, very rough and without a program, like many others.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 00:11:06 2017 No.8792968 >>8792963 What do you mean any signs of planning They have clearly done months/years of planning in that design Their final rocket WILL look like something like that..

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 00:12:29 2017 No.8792970 >>8792963 >>8792968 Not to mention the raptor engines and the test tank. Its still very much a WIP but it's gotten much farther than any other concept like it.

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 00:14:04 2017 No.8792975

>>8792923
>And what fraction of those people, do you think, would love to go to space?
>25%?
Holy shit no. It isn't 25% of people who'd be willing to go to space if you paid them to do it, let alone who would pay significant fractions of their fortunes.

Price aside, the average person will start wanting to go to space for the fun of it after there have been tens of thousands of manned flights and accidents are freakishly rare, and there's a nice big space hotel with artificial gravity areas and zero-g playgrounds and some nice restaurants with a view of the Earth.

Climbing Mt. Everest isn't all that expensive, maybe a billion people in the world could afford to do it as a once-in-a-lifetime thing if they really wanted. A few hundred people per year actually do it, because it's uncomfortable and dangerous.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 00:16:33 2017 No.8792980 >>8792124 Fuel for Falcon9 is ~$200,000. Pennies compared to the hardware cost.

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 00:37:37 2017 No.8793008

>>8792970
An engine of that class can be used literally anywhere and is good on its own. On tanks, you have this >>8792913, and trust me, that tank was a decade ahead of its time. History has seen lots of semi-finished cool things that never flew.

>>8792968
>What do you mean any signs of planning
I mean it literally.

First stage, okay I can see some sense in it, although they'll fail it like they failed to meet their target in Falcon 9 (fully reusable in 2 years). You can't just scale your previous rocket designed within common industry experience to get a much bigger one which never been attempted before.

Second stage is a trainwreck. The thermal and structural loads on that thing alone would require the TPS and overall complexity of a shuttle, this is not even speaking of its intended landing method involving flipping in dense layers. (!) This reminds me of their cute hope to use only cold gas thrusters on F9. They don't have a life support system for that many people, you need a relatively closed loop one for Mars and developing one in 10 years is impossible, there's not enough science on that.

The general concept of putting dozens of people on an unproven vehicle with no stats which is also under its own high-thrust power (= high pressure/fuel tanks nearby/dangerous failure modes) is also not very reassuring. There's a reason NASA asked SpaceX to land their astronauts on parachutes in Dragon 2, they have some understanding what manned spaceflight really is. This is a can of worms on its own.

More importantly, what are they going to do with it? They have absolutely nowhere to fly to. Not even a concept. Not a business plan. If they mean this thing seriously and not as some kind of morale boost to the industry and a method to get the right people involved, they are seriously overestimating themselves.

etc etc etc

In other words, that doesn't look like a plan to me, more like "throw something and see if that sticks".

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 00:49:07 2017 No.8793021 File: 35 KB, 780x438, pepe the frog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >payload doesn't even break even with fuel/launching costs are they even trying or just pandering to /r/space

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 00:51:36 2017 No.8793028

>>8793008
>They don't have a life support system for that many people, you need a relatively closed loop one for Mars and developing one in 10 years is impossible, there's not enough science on that.
the first few trips will not carry more than a few passangers, and it has more than enough room for supplies.

About the thermal stress of reentry, its much MUCH less than the shuttle because of its bigger size, meaning it reenters at a less steep angle and generates less heat.

Anyway, even if you have to rebuild the entire heatshield with each fly it is a great deal, considering it will fly once every couple of years bringing a shit ton of supplies to mars

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 00:53:41 2017 No.8793032

>>8792958
>all of those who tried small launchers in practice (Orbital, SpaceX etc) have failed so far
SpaceX didn't fail, they decided that switching entirely to a larger rocket was a better opportunity.

Orbital also can hardly be said to have failed. They put 38 payloads in orbit with Pegasus and also graduated to larger rockets.

The customers just weren't there in the 90s. That was a bad time for launch providers in general. The technology for what smallsats to do wasn't as advanced. Plus they didn't have an enthusiast billionaire backing them up.

>Welcome to the space industry. There are far too many concepts, ideas and business plans. Far too little of them make business or tech or even basic sense. Even less are implemented in hardware.
LauncherOne is hardly in that category. They're just about ready to start launching and they have a customer who wants a lot of launches, and has signed a contract with them.

What you have to recognize about the space industry is that, until very recently, governments had their pet programs and were generally waiting to strangle fully-private efforts in the crib, so only hopeless space cadets failed to recognize the situation and pressed on regardless. First orbital rockets were ICBM technology, then private competition with the space shuttle or ArianeSpace was banned.

Orbital's Pegasus got a special dispensation for providing a special service and not competing with anything any established major space interests in the US cared about. The big change was the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, which effectively legalized private spaceflight in the USA, and even then SpaceX had some legal battles to fight, and basically needed to become a NASA contractor (and therefore, really only semi-private) to get enough support to win them. Their success punched a hole.

The realistic legal potential for a private launch industry has only been around for about a dozen years. It just hasn't been tried.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 00:55:31 2017 No.8793037 >>8791936 THANK YOU BASED ELON

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 01:00:32 2017 No.8793044 File: 476 KB, 3107x2330, death stare.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >muh space >whilst BASED George Soros is funding Pussy Riot and abortion clinics all over the globe /sci/ should get their role models right

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 01:10:39 2017 No.8793054

>>8793032
>Orbital also can hardly be said to have failed. They put 38 payloads in orbit with Pegasus and also graduated to larger rockets.
They expected it to be mass-produced and to have substantial benefits due to being air launched. It was costly, unreliable and air launch didn't provide any competitive advantage. Even today it's not even close to making this true despite having TONS of potential clients, who use medium to heavy launchers instead. Pegasus just costs too fucking much. Orbital can't change that, and they are fairly large .

>SpaceX didn't fail, they decided that switching entirely to a larger rocket was a better opportunity.
That didn't stop Orbital from providing Pegasus while still using Antares though.
SpaceX ditched it because they didn't get many customers, which they commented on. It was just too expensive. You have to create your own market for small launchers (not small satellites!) if you want it to exist, and a small company is unlikely to do that alone.

>The big change was the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, which effectively legalized private spaceflight in the USA
Private space launches were legalized long before that, during Reagan IIRC.

>The realistic legal potential for a private launch industry has only been around for about a dozen years. It just hasn't been tried.
I'm not talking about legal obstacles though. I'm talking about common sense, which many projects often lack of. Also, I'm not disputing that somebody might come and change all that, I'm talking about believing only after seeing, not vice versa.

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 01:22:49 2017 No.8793073

>>8793008
>Second stage is a trainwreck. The thermal and structural loads on that thing alone would require the TPS and overall complexity of a shuttle,
This is a pretty stupid assessment. They're using an ablative heat shield and capsule-like entry, which requires the TPS and overall complexity of a capsule.

The shuttle was a spaceplane. It was designed around its need to function as a subsonic glider and land without power. They didn't want an ablative heat shield in part because they wanted a low-maintenance system (and their ablatives were pretty primitive), but also because the changing aerodynamics of an ablative surface are complex, and make things like wings and control surfaces hard to design (and their simulation capabilities were pretty primitive).

ITS isn't going to have more than fins. When it slows down, it's not going to be flying, it's going to be falling.

>this is not even speaking of its intended landing method involving flipping in dense layers. (!)
It's not "flipping", it's just turning, and they'll be using the main engines for it, with loads of thrust and control authority to do so. There's no reason to expect this to be a problem.

>This reminds me of their cute hope to use only cold gas thrusters on F9.
I don't know what you're referring to. The cold gas thrusters worked fine alone for reorienting the F9 for burns and for stabilizing it during descent. The grid fins were added to steer it to a chosen landing site. There was never a "cute hope to use only cold gas thrusters", and your condescension toward an engineering team that just demonstrated that their method of reuse works is absurd.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 01:25:14 2017 No.8793078 >>8793073 >and your condescension toward an engineering team that just demonstrated that their method of reuse works is absurd. this to the max niggas at spacex just changed history and lonely virgin still try to prove them wrong

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 01:32:29 2017 No.8793084 >>8793073 >There was never a "cute hope to use only cold gas thrusters" Really? Because I still remember the 2013 (?) technical talk by Elon on some aerospace conference where he says otherwise. I guess I need to find it to refresh my memory.

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 01:35:26 2017 No.8793090

>>8793084
>In order to achieve an historic feat of engineering they introduced a minor change in design in one iteration of the project.

Woah!, what a loser, im guessing von braun just woke up one morning and drew the exact plans of the saturn v that took the astronauts to the moon.

kys please

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 01:38:23 2017 No.8793092 >>8793090 Hey slow down, I didn't say anything about their achievement as you seem to imply. (and this guy apparently >>8793073 ). Stop being a brain damaged fanboy please.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 01:44:59 2017 No.8793102 >>8793092 >Stop being a brain damaged fanboy please. haha, says the wrong person who got caught. ;) good luck ad-hominim your way out of an argument next time. you failed this one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 01:51:36 2017 No.8793114 File: 609 KB, 2448x3264, delivery_to_sweden.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Will they keep landing Falcon Heavy boosters on barges or will they use land?

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 01:54:08 2017 No.8793122

>>8793054
>It was costly, unreliable and air launch didn't provide any competitive advantage.
Pegasus hasn't been especially unreliable, and air launch provided a sufficient competitive advantage to keep it around even at high prices.

As for being costly, they initially offered barebones launches at $6 million. There's no reason to believe that price was unsustainable with sufficient demand. However, the 90s optimism for launch customers was unfounded, and the market didn't emerge. Furthermore, the customers that did exist wanted full-service launches (basically, offloading much of the payload cost onto the launch provider), often with larger payloads, and weren't all that price-sensitive.

>That didn't stop Orbital from providing Pegasus while still using Antares though.
It did stop Orbital (now Orbital-ATK, a company with not only the Cygnus contracts, but fat slices of SLS and the EELV program, and firmly in the OldSpace camp) from giving two shits about Pegasus unless someone waved fat wads of cash under their nose. Why should they be trying to sell launches for under $10 million when NASA is buying a $56 million Pegasus launch from them?

>>The big change was the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, which effectively legalized private spaceflight in the USA
>Private space launches were legalized long before that, during Reagan IIRC.
In theory, but not in practice. The 2004 act was the first law that required government agencies to cooperate in establishing a private spaceflight industry, and therefore gave private spaceflight companies grounds to sue when they were obstructed.

>I'm not talking about legal obstacles though.
I'm bringing them up because there simply hasn't been time for a private spaceflight industry to develop, so cynicism based on "past experience" is unjustified. There is no past experience.

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 02:22:43 2017 No.8793156

>>8793122
Not being cynical, more like sceptical and trying to provide a different point.

> There is no past experience.
That's also no reason to believe particular companies until they fly, preferably without going all Iridium. Hopes and bets aside, let them demonstrate it first, then it's all great.

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 07:23:13 2017 No.8793459

>>8792874
Boca Chica is only cleared for 12 launches a year right now, they'd have to get approval for more, due to noise vs neighbors, and being next to a wildlife area and all that. But at least the weather is better on the average than Canaveral.

>>8792901
>But 100+ loads of them every year?
Yeah, the weather, including the droneship landing area. That's probably going to be a big limiter on launch cadence, that and other launches (ULA, etc.) Having 20-25 launches per year is one thing, 100+ is another. To get that many would surely require more launch sites.

>>8793008
>There's a reason NASA asked SpaceX to land their astronauts on parachutes in Dragon 2
They also initially asked for a new vehicle every flight, yet the next CRS is going to be a re-used capsule. And sure, there's no way they're going to get ITS working in the time frame of their current plans, but they'll just keep doing the next thing after the next thing until they get there eventually.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 07:27:05 2017 No.8793467 >>8791480 did viking not have any parachutes?

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 08:23:22 2017 No.8793524

>>8792391
>...What am I supposed to be looking at here?
An early Space Shuttle concept I believe. The Shuttle was all about making space travel affordable too. It was supposed to launch 50 times a year and they reused the shuttle as well as the solid rocket boosters.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 12:03:58 2017 No.8793851 >>8791936 Thank you Elon

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 12:52:35 2017 No.8794016 >>8793114 It depends. LEO launches are more suited for land, but GEO launches work better with the flexibility of barge landings.

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 13:20:43 2017 No.8794100

>>8793459
>>But 100+ loads of them every year?
>Yeah, the weather, including the droneship landing area.
Dragon launches don't need the droneship, they can fly back to land.

Aside from having two pads at the Cape and one in Texas, they're going to have dramatic changes in operations, routinizing and automating things. No more test burn one day, launch a few days later. They're going to be able to launch multiple times from one pad in one day.

Anonymous Fri Mar 31 13:34:45 2017 No.8794135

>>8793114
>Will they keep landing Falcon Heavy boosters on barges or will they use land?
I think it's most likely that the center core will typically land on the drone ship, while the side boosters fly back to land.

They can fly back the center core directly to land, but the performance penalty will be severe.

I don't think they have any plans to produce more drone ships to support side booster landings. I have heard they plan to upgrade the drone ship so it can partially refuel the landed core and relaunch it back to land.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 31 14:20:00 2017 No.8794254 >>8794135 >I have heard they plan to upgrade the drone ship so it can partially refuel the landed core and relaunch it back to land. What a great idea. Make the drone ships floating bombs.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math