/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9249438
Or I guess I should say "launch vehicle manufacturer"

Or "space faring company"

Whatever

>>9249445
>Or I guess I should say "launch vehicle manufacturer"

ULA doesn't actually build rockets does it? do lockheed and boeing build/assemble deltas and atlases, then transfer them to ULA?

>>9249461
Yes they do build rockets, the whole reason it was founded was so they could build their rockets in a single facility and save money

Here is a poll, please answer and BUMP THE THREAD as well

http://www.strawpoll.me/14204203
http://www.strawpoll.me/14204203
http://www.strawpoll.me/14204203

>never heard of the other two

spacex

>>9249490
ULA is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin

They basically had a monopoly on launches for the US government until SpaceX came along

And Blue Origin is something that was founded by Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon

But they still haven't built a proper launch vehicle yet because they're fucking inept and fucking stupid

>>9249490
>>9249495
Also, Boeing and Lockheed Martin have had a monopoly on building stuff for NASA for a very long time

They both built the Space Shuttle (along with another company who made the two side boosters)

So they've basically been exclusive contractors for space stuff for fucking ages. They united their rocket businesses into the jointly-owned ULA in 2006. And now ULA builds and launches Delta rockets which were designed by Boeing, and Atlas rockets which were designed by Lockheed Martin

>>9249438
4chan space program (4sp) FTW.

>>9249461
They buy Russian engines.

>>9249438
More spaceships is better than fewer spaceships. I hope they are all successful.

>>9249524
Looking at it though, I reckon ULA are fucked, it's run by boomers who have no idea what they're doing - they're claiming they can get to $100m per launch, but SpaceX already is achieving $90m per launch TODAY with vehicles they've already BUILT and which are OPERATIONAL.

ULA will only get to that figure once they've started building the new vehicle they're currently working on, but they haven't got funding for it yet so it will probably never happen, and they're probably only claiming that figure anyway because they HAVE to. Because if they said "actually it will be $150m per launch" then nobody is going to fucking listen to them because SpaceX will do it for less.

So yeah, ULA are terminally fucked, I reckon. Why should anybody fund their new project when SpaceX can do the same thing for much less.

Apparently Ars Technica calculated that ULA's launches in the near future will actually cost about $420m per launch, lol. They're totally fucked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance#Controversy

>>9249577
If BO starts competing ULA will be fucked.

>>9249594
BO are already competing, and apparently ULA even want to use their engines.

>In fact, the United Launch Alliance has reportedly been considering Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine to power its new rocket known as Vulcan.
https://futurism.com/blue-origins-space-x/

And from the same link, apparently BO's engine is more powerful than SpaceX's:
>The BE-4 is also potentially more powerful than SpaceX’s new Raptor engine. The former boasts 250,000 kilograms-force (550,000 pounds) of thrust, while the latter has a sea-level thrust of 170,000 kilograms-force (380,000 pounds).

So yes I reckon ULA are completely fucked. SpaceX and Blue Origin will fight amongst themselves.

Also I just realised there's a fourth player, NASA, who are designing and pursuing the Space Launch System (pictured) - but it's incredibly expensive and may never get built. But if it is built, it will be by ULA and other government contractors.

>>9249495
>But they still haven't built a proper launch vehicle yet because they're fucking inept and fucking stupid
well they have just tested the BE-4 engine, which is more powerful that SpaceX's Raptor engine. So there's that :/

>>9249632
But no orbital vehicle. Sad!

Blue Origin and ULA are scams. Only SpaceX is legit.

/pol/ btfo

>>9249714
Is Bezos scamming himself with BO?

*inhales*

>>9249577
Apollo-style Lunar missions could be done with just one (1) Falcon Heavy and one (1) Vulcan launch working together. ULA is fully onboard with the moon meme already. It seems like the only stopgap here is "stubborn SpaceX."

>>9249604
The first SLS is already 90% built.

>>9249484
>the whole reason it was founded was so they could build their rockets in a single facility and save money
No, there's little commonality between Atlas V and Delta IV. ULA was founded:
1) to prevent a litigation apocalypse after Boeing was caught cheating in the bidding process but had its own legal ammunition against LM, and
2) to create a rocket cartel that could charge monopoly prices to the US government, since both companies had invested their own money in the EELVs but neither had produced a commercially competitive design.

Basically, the formation of ULA was a bail-out.

>>9250146
Wrong.

Boeing couldn't afford to fly delta IV because it couldn't compete.
The consolidation under one roof was so the Feds could keep two launch providers solvent.

Ironically the same thing will happen because of SpaceX within 3 years, but this time it's worse because the Falcon 9 has joke reliability compared to Atlas.

>>9249604
>>9249486
Cool thread and everything but you are only discussing American space companies - A bit shortsighted given the scope of human space travel

Why not discuss Ariane, Airbus, Thales and the Soyuz crafts? Indian and Chinese rockets?

>>9249499
>Boeing and Lockheed Martin have had a monopoly on building stuff for NASA for a very long time
>They both built the Space Shuttle
A misleading claim. "Boeing" and "Lockheed Martin" are each products of many corporate mergers, which have simply gone by the name they consider the best brand.

The shuttle was mainly by North American. The Delta rockets were Douglas. Atlas/Centaur was Convair. Titan was Martin. All gobbled up.

Those companies are all gone, consumed by mergers driven by tax and finance law, and the desire to reduce competition for government contracts, rather than considerations of real efficiency. Even Boeing and LM aren't really the Boeing that built the 747 or the Lockheed that built the Blackbird, but too-big-to-fail contracting megacorps that are practically government agencies.

>>9249524
>More spaceships is better than fewer spaceships. I hope they are all successful.
What you have to take into account are the political factors that allow projects building bad spaceships to strangle projects building good ones.

For that reason, it's better for SLS to be cancelled, and ULA to go out of business as soon as possible, so companies that are serious about making progress like SpaceX and Blue Origin won't be impeded.

>>9250356
because right now the foreign options are shit

>>9250365
How are SLS and ULA impeding SpaceX and Blue Origin

fyi SpaceX won a $40 million contract the other day to build an engine that's already been built

Blue Origin has only been "strangled" thanks to SpaceX ironically

>>9250356
By all means tell us about them

Your image only shows US rockets though

>>9250365
But you could argue that SpaceX / Blue Origin would get lazy without the competition from ULA (I guess it's unlikely, because they have competition from each other)

That's what happens - humans are lazy. If they're in a dominant position, they'll sit back and enjoy it. And protect it. That's exactly what a big megacorp like ULA is trying to do right now.

>>9250385
>Blue Origin has only been "strangled" thanks to SpaceX ironically
How?

>>9250464
>How?
SpaceX and Orbital Sciences moved forward in the COTS program while Blue Origin wasn't selected.

>>9250385
>How are SLS and ULA impeding SpaceX and Blue Origin
For one thing, they're sucking up huge amounts of government money that could be going to the new players.

In SpaceX's early days, they were blocked with things like the pre-ULA companies keeping a payload on top of their rocket for long periods of time, and getting the range authorities to prevent SpaceX from launching, on the grounds that the attempt might endanger their important, costly payload. They had to move way the hell out into the ocean to be allowed to launch.

SpaceX had quite a legal battle to be allowed to bid on government launches, and just as they were winning, ULA and their allies in government rushed through a huge block-buy contract that guaranteed them years of non-competitive launch revenue.

There are multiple US senators who would like nothing better than to find an excuse to put SpaceX out of business. They'll keep trying.

>Blue Origin has only been "strangled" thanks to SpaceX ironically
I mention Blue Origin, but they're not very serious competition for SpaceX. They've been around longer than SpaceX, but still haven't put anything in orbit. Their New Glenn is scheduled to come out around the same time as BFR, but is only designed to credibly compete with Falcon 9/H, which will become obsolete around the same time, and their work so far is no strong evidence that New Glenn will function properly.

That's the difference between a boss who understands the work, and a boss that doesn't. Bezos has money, but not the ability to dig in for himself and figure out which plausible-sounding experts are bullshitting him.

>>9250464
>you could argue that SpaceX / Blue Origin would get lazy without the competition from ULA
ULA isn't competition. Once Falcon Heavy is proven and F9 is mainly a used-booster vehicle, they will never compete on price, or do anything else well enough to make the higher price worth paying. They have no plan to ever produce a competitive vehicle.

>>9249438
Compared to RKK Energia (Soyuz manufacturer) all of those are just little children toying around with billions of US government subsidies, with little to show for it

>>9250477
Maybe that's because BO don't have a working vehicle capable of doing such a thing yet

>>9250499
>I mention Blue Origin, but they're not very serious competition for SpaceX. They've been around longer than SpaceX, but still haven't put anything in orbit. Their New Glenn is scheduled to come out around the same time as BFR, but is only designed to credibly compete with Falcon 9/H, which will become obsolete around the same time, and their work so far is no strong evidence that New Glenn will function properly.
>That's the difference between a boss who understands the work, and a boss that doesn't. Bezos has money, but not the ability to dig in for himself and figure out which plausible-sounding experts are bullshitting him.
Everything I have read about the firing of Blue Origin's BE-4 the other day is saying how they're now providing actual competition to SpaceX. One reason is that the BE-4 is apparently more powerful than the Raptor which will be on SpaceX's BFR.

So I wouldn't discount Blue Origin, no way. They're clearly working on stuff. Also apparently they were only focused on suborbital flight for almost their entire existence, they only announced plans for an orbital launch vehicle in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin

>ULA isn't competition. Once Falcon Heavy is proven and F9 is mainly a used-booster vehicle, they will never compete on price, or do anything else well enough to make the higher price worth paying. They have no plan to ever produce a competitive vehicle.
I guess you're right, and I guess this is a great lesson in why the free market solves fucking everything. Well maybe not everything but it shows that a bit of competition produces the most innovative and economical solutions.

>>9250499
>For one thing, they're sucking up huge amounts of government money that could be going to the new players.
Government funding isn't a zero-sum game. If SLS was cancelled the funding would just disappear. Nasa's budget would be $15 bil instead of $18 bil again.

>In SpaceX's early days, they were blocked with things like the pre-ULA companies keeping a payload on top of their rocket for long periods of time, and getting the range authorities to prevent SpaceX from launching, on the grounds that the attempt might endanger their important, costly payload. They had to move way the hell out into the ocean to be allowed to launch.
lolwut
They could have launched from Wallops Island or some other inland site. They picked that island because it was near the equator and falcon 1 was fucking tiny so it needed the boost.

>SpaceX had quite a legal battle to be allowed to bid on government launches, and just as they were winning, ULA and their allies in government rushed through a huge block-buy contract that guaranteed them years of non-competitive launch revenue.
meanwhile in reality, SpaceX gets awarded multiple DOD payloads free of competition and nobody bats an eye (see: OTV-5, Zuma)

>There are multiple US senators who would like nothing better than to find an excuse to put SpaceX out of business. They'll keep trying.
Like who? SpaceX has more lobbyists in congress today than ULA.

>but still haven't put anything in orbit.
They've never tried.
>HURR Spacex hasn't landed anyone on Mars even though FH could do it

>Their New Glenn is scheduled to come out around the same time as BFR
New Glenn is based on proven technology. Its engine is built. Its factory is built. Its launchpad is under construction. BFR is like 5% complete. They don't even have an engine size or number finalized yet.

>and their work so far is no strong evidence that New Glenn will function properly.
They've been more successful with landing and reuse than SpaceX has ever been.

>>9250543
>Maybe that's because BO don't have a working vehicle capable of doing such a thing yet
nobody in the COTS competition had a vehicle at the time
SpaceX won because they had more funding

>brand-loyalty wars

>>9250540
Greetings Vladimir, welcome to the thread.

So creating the world's first reusable first stage isn't an achievement? Wow, okay.

>>9250569
It isn't.

>>9250576
Here you go ivan

>>9249438
Let me lay down some shit for you OP from something I realized over the years.

ULA is industry leaders forming an alliance to insure they are relevant and hype of their idea to build an economy between earth and the moon.

Blue Origin is a new guy trying to get noticed but gets overshadowed by its main competititor.

Space X is for people who don't know science and think its cool. Has a dude who seems to be always in the limelight because he is a hypeman with money. Only the pathetic engineers and scientist want to work for Space X because they don't have the ability too.

>>9250543
>One reason is that the BE-4 is apparently more powerful than the Raptor which will be on SpaceX's BFR.
That's no argument. You don't measure the quality of the engine by its thrust. The Saturn V's F-1 was about three times as powerful as either of them, and it was basically 1950s tech. SpaceX isn't building the biggest engine they can, they're trying to build one at just the right size for their purposes.

Raptor's definitely the more sophisticated design: full-flow staged combustion, no-contact fluid bearings. It'll have close to double the combustion chamber pressure of BE-4, so it should have better specific impulse and thrust-to-weight, yet thanks to the contactless bearings, it should last through many more firings before needing major maintenance or replacement. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were also cheaper, per unit of thrust.

>apparently they were only focused on suborbital flight for almost their entire existence
...and they've only managed a handful of test flights. They focused on suborbital because it's easier. All the utility and profit is in orbital spaceflight.

>>9250589
>this is what americans actually believe

>>9250562
Blue Origin aren't even in the list of competitors mate
Making me think they never applied
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services

>>9250566
No mate. Nothing to do with loyalty. It's just about which rockets look the best, which ones are doing the coolest stuff.

>>9250600
Raptor has never been built or tested. It's a paper engine.

What they've tested is a miniature prototype in the same weight-class as Merlin, which is a pea-shooter engine.

Musk is also dumb enough to believe that they can make it as reliable as a commercial jet engine. Hilarious.

As for BE-4, it has been called a "low performance version of a high performance architecture." It's in the same place as Merlin A was. It'll be upgraded to much higher capacities and capabilities in the future.

>>9250576
>putting a fucking dog into space, who dies of overheating within a couple of hours, is more significant than putting men onto the moon - MULTIPLE TIMES
I will give you a B+ in shitposting effort though.

>>9250598
>ULA is industry leaders
Do you work for them by any chance?

>Blue Origin is a new guy trying to get noticed but gets overshadowed by its main competititor.
They only decided to enter the orbital flight game two years ago. And they only decided to make an orbital engine (for ULA) three years ago (in 2014). So they've got lots of catching up to do with SpaceX, but their firing of the BE-4 engine shows they are a SERIOUS competitor.

>Space X is for people who don't know science and think its cool. Has a dude who seems to be always in the limelight because he is a hypeman with money.
You're literally a fucking idiot. If you work for ULA, your business is about to get blown to pieces. Enjoy it.

>>9250629
>Work for them
Nope.
>BE-4 engine shows they are a SERIOUS competitor.
Exactly too back SpaceX is the meme company.
>You're literally a fucking idiot.
How much does Musk pay you anon?

>>9250629
He's not wrong though. The average spacex fan is a braindead redditor who knows nothing about the industry and thinks "the landings are cool n stuff"

They play kerbal space program in their free time, and their favorite movie is "Star Wars."

These are the kinds of people that would ask elon musk for an autograph, or who buy t-shirts and hats to "support" the company. Complete morons.

>>9250576
You omitted the Venera program for Venus:
• first launch from orbit to another planet
• first to reach the surface
• first to return atmospheric measurements
• first to successfully land and send data
• first artificial satellite of Venus
• first pictures from the surface
• first analysis of the soil
• first to float balloons in its atmosphere
Lotta first there, boys.

>>9250589
>sattelitte array
Obviously written by a 'Murikan.

>>9250589
The absolute state of vatniks recently gets more desperate.

>>9250644
First mission to reach Venus was Mariner 2 because all soviet probes and Mariner 1 have failed on the way to Venus.Most of what we know about Venus is due to radars on late Venera and Magellan probes and not thanks to landers.

>>9250558
>>For one thing, they're sucking up huge amounts of government money that could be going to the new players.
>Government funding isn't a zero-sum game. If SLS was cancelled the funding would just disappear. Nasa's budget would be $15 bil instead of $18 bil again.
That's a completely fucking ridiculous claim.

>They picked that island because it was near the equator and falcon 1 was fucking tiny so it needed the boost.
Do some basic background reading before you try to argue about a subject.

>meanwhile in reality, SpaceX gets awarded multiple DOD payloads free of competition and nobody bats an eye (see: OTV-5, Zuma)
OTV-5 was to prove an alternative launch option, and ULA couldn't bid because they had already announced the retirement of Delta IV. As for Zuma, it's not public knowledge what that is or how the contract was bid. Anyway, that doesn't bear on the fact of ULA and their government allies ramming through a block buy just before competitive contracting was supposed to begin.

>New Glenn is based on proven technology. Its engine is built. Its factory is built.
The engine isn't "built", it's about at the stage Raptor was a year and a half ago: they've got a non-flight-weight prototype that they've managed to burn at 50% thrust for 3 seconds. The factory's also only under construction. SpaceX has a factory already, and only needs to build a secondary assembly facility to avoid transport complications. For Blue Origin, it's their first: so far, they've been working out of a development facility. They're going to go through all the growing pains of hiring, training, and organizing production staff, just like SpaceX did, that delayed them for years.

>BFR is like 5% complete.
BFR is further along than New Glenn. Raptor's at least a year ahead in its development, and it's in the hands of a much more mature, experienced company. Blue Origin will be spending Amazon money for another decade before they can hope to compete.

>>9250622
They have over 20 minutes of firing time on engine running beyond 130t thrust that is nothing even close to peashooter they go to 20MPa on that engine and BR4 now runs at 13 but over the years they will propably exceed 25 that RD191 operates at and they have plenty of margin to pump up the power of this engine.

>>9250670
BE4 is a full size engine and very close to flight worthy engine further ahead than Raptor that is development subscale and now they are building the version that will be full 170t version but this is nowhere close to their original 300t insanity they presented a year ago they also reduced the target for chamber pressure because gox side will be a nightmare to solve at such temperature and pressure as they wanted to do it in 2016 plan.

>>9250673
BE-4 has margins for 300tons of thrust which is part of the reason why it's so monstrously huge

>>9250622
>Raptor has never been built or tested. It's a paper engine.
What an idiotic thing to say. It's very far along in its development. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had their first flight-ready prototype some time next year.

>What they've tested is a miniature prototype in the same weight-class as Merlin, which is a pea-shooter engine.
For the latest BFR designs, the final Raptor would be pretty much the size of the prototype. Anyway, with modern computerized simulation and design, the scaling is relatively simple. They aren't idiots: they designed it to be scaled. They didn't use anything on the subscale prototype that would break on the largest full-size production model they were considering building.

They made a deliberate decision to go with numerous small engines, for efficiency, economy, commonality, and reliability. Just like on Falcon 9, the rocket that has made them the world leader in orbital launch services.

>>9250635
>>9250642
I don't even play video games

The original Star Wars was good (and so's Episode I because I was a kid when it came out and I loved it) but I don't really care about it that much - also VI was total dogshit

People don't always match your stereotypes, anons - try making arguments instead

>>9250706
Yes it has these margins and we will probably see that version of it flying in New Armstrong around 2025-30 because unlike Musk Bezos has all the money to build his rockets as big as he wants

>>9250622
>Raptor has never been built or tested.
Uh, yes it has, they first fired it over a year ago you fucking stupid twat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7kqFt3nID4

>>9250670
>That's a completely fucking ridiculous claim.
Not an argument.

>Do some basic background reading before you try to argue about a subject.
Not an argument.

>OTV-5 was to prove an alternative launch option, and ULA couldn't bid because they had already announced the retirement of Delta IV. As for Zuma, it's not public knowledge what that is or how the contract was bid.
Doesn't matter. They were not competitively bid.

>Anyway, that doesn't bear on the fact of ULA and their government allies ramming through a block buy just before competitive contracting was supposed to begin.
The paperwork for the block buy began before SpaceX sued the Air Force to be able to compete.

>The engine isn't "built"
What's it like to have mental illness?
>it's about at the stage Raptor was a year and a half ago
Raptor hasn't been built yet. They don't have a final design for it even.
> The factory's also only under construction.
BO's factory is targeting completion in November. They're already shipping NG tooling there. SpaceX doesn't even have finalized plans for the one it needs to build.

>BFR is further along than New Glenn.
How so? Like I said, they don't have a design yet for the flight engine. Nothing else is even close to being complete.

>>9250738
>doesn't know what a sub-scale prototype is
>calls others twats

>>9250713
>For the latest BFR designs, the final Raptor would be pretty much the size of the prototype.
Nope.

>Anyway, with modern computerized simulation and design, the scaling is relatively simple.
Nope.

>they designed it to be scaled.
Nope.

>Just like on Falcon 9, the rocket that has made them the world leader in orbital launch services.
Ariane V still wins more yearly contracts despite being twice the price lmao

>>9250751
SpaceX is under a mountain of old contracts and until they clear the backlog no one wants to wait unknown period for them to launch their costumers because another explosion and their plans go into limbo for next 6 months.

>>9250738
rip my ears

>>9250739
>Not an argument.
...he says about the dismissal of his unsupported, and frankly idiotic, assertions.

>What's it like to have mental illness?
This from the guy responding with "Not an argument."

>>>9250751
>Ariane V still wins more yearly contracts
Ariane 5: 5 launches so far in 2017, 1 more scheduled.
Falcon 9: 15 launches so far in 2017, 5 more scheduled (plus Falcon Heavy).

They don't "still win more yearly contracts". SpaceX passed them years ago, and now that their backlog is so long, customers are starting to opt for the shorter line.

You just don't know what you're talking about. You're just a tedious contrarian, who desperately tries to mischaracterize things as evidence against SpaceX, and when that fails, just makes shit up. I hope you remember this well enough to be properly embarassed over the next few years.

Does Elon Musk actually have autism?

It looks like he has autism

Also here's another poll

http://www.strawpoll.me/14218851
http://www.strawpoll.me/14218851
http://www.strawpoll.me/14218851

>>9250864
Ariane V satisfies multiple contracts per launch.

>>9250602

>>9250953
Ariane is not going to increase their launch rate
SpaceX are spending money/doing work/taking risks to increase their rate.

So its not going to be 20 Falcon 9 launches vs 5-6 Ariane 5 launches
It'll be 100+ Falcon 9 launches vs 3-4 Ariane 5 launches

ULA
>no innovation, charges 4 times as much, cries to congress when spacex steals their lunch money.

SpaceX
>innovation. gets people excited about space travel. low cost leader while still being profitable. Big Fucking Rocket.

Blue Origin.
>suborbital dildos.

>>9250953
If you're paying any attention at all, you know that it's not more than the equivalent of two F9 launches. Ariane 5 normally carries a ~6 tonne main payload and a ~4 tonne secondary to GTO. Falcon 9 has 5.5 tonnes to GTO with stage recovery, and 8.5 tonnes expendable.

15-20 major payloads in a year is more than 10-12. Even if you throw in flights of Arianespace's much-less-capable Vega (3) and Soyuz (2) as if they were equivalent, they only pull even

SpaceX has won more contracts over the past several years than Arianespace, and now it's also launching more. And they're still just getting up to speed.

>>9251015
ULA
>doesn't blow up the customer's payloads

SpaceX
>blows up the customer's payloads

Blue Origin
>no customers

>>9249438
SpaceX. They've got the best vision, they're working hardest to achieve it, they're the most interesting and Musk is a pretty cool dude.
Blue Origin is a meme and will never actually do anything, and there is nothing I want more that to see ULA fail and fail miserably.

>>9249912
What is this and which rocket is it?

>>9251040
Falcon 9.

Blew up with a payload during fueling. SpaceX was trying something different.

most likely a strut/helium tank failure.

>>9251021
SpaceX only did that once

>>9251024
Everything I have read is saying that Blue Origin's recent engine test shows that they could become a serious competitor - picture related

Remember that Blue Origin started work on an orbital launch vehicle much later than SpaceX. BO originally just wanted to do suborbital flight, for tourists I think. SpaceX first achieved orbit with one of their rockets all the way back in 2008, whereas BO only started designing their first orbital launch vehicle in 2012.

>>9251042
To elaborate on this
>SpaceX was trying something different.
They decided to test out doing pre-flight checks and static fires with the payload already mounted to avoid having to do a rollback as is the current standard. In addition to this they also decided to test a new tanking procedure. Said tanking procedure led to a failure in the Helium tanks and a "really fast fire"

>spacex isn't a meme compan-

>>9251045

>>9251051
How about you judge them by what they make and achieve, rather than some stupid shit made by a social media manager?

>>9251045
>SpaceX only did that once
Twice actually. 2.5 if you count the failure to deliver the secondary payload into the correct orbit during CRS-1

>>9251053
FUCK YOU

ANYWAY YOU HAVE TO SPECULATE TO ACCUMULATE SO FUCK OFF

>>9251051
I wish they would bring back the technical streams.

>>9251042
Not the strut. They weren't under special load. That was the mid-air explosion that was the strut, near peak acceleration. When it broke, it released a helium tank to float violently upward, tearing its lines and releasing its helium rapidly, causing the LOX tank to burst.

The explosion during pre-flight testing was the helium tank carbon composite overwrap. They think it had flaws and oxygen seeped in between the fibers and froze, making an extremely sensitive fuel-oxygen primary explosive that could have been set off by vibration, or friction as the tank was pressurized.

>>9251053
I hope this happens to the Webb telescope.

>>9249438
If Blue Origin counts as a rocket manufacturer, then I do too, since I too can use photoshop to draw pretty pictures.

>>9250602
First satellite -- genuine achievement, beat the US by a month or so.

First man in space -- genuine achievement, beat the US by a month or so. More importantly with much more powerful boosters, they were able to put a man into orbit while the US struggled with getting Atlas man-rated to put a smaller capsule into orbit.

First robot on the moon -- well done, but if that is significant than first Mars rover is as well.

First woman in space -- not an achievement, there was no technological advancement associated with this PR stunt.

First man in open space -- Fair enough, again beat the US by a month or so, but they did it in such a shoe-string way that the achievement gained them very little. Leonov is a hero, though.

First space station -- Real achievement, well done.

NASA rides Soyuz into space now -- OK.

Columbia and challenger exploded -- Both sides lost lives in-flight twice. Th Soviets lost fewer men since their craft could never carry as large a crew as the shuttles.

First man on the moon -- Real achievement, and while the US matched all the USSR achievements you list, the soviets never flew their lunar, and their successor state has never tried.

Ignoring your list of US achievements to denigrate, since there is little point in arguing with a troll, I'll point out to anybody reading the thread that the list is cherry-picked as fuck. Left off are first rendezvous, first docking, first piloted flight (Gagarin never touched controls, he was along as a passenger and relief pilot, Carpenter took manual control of Friendship 7 and took it through the attitude changes that were the only maneuvers available to both Mercury and Vostok), first truly maneuverable spacecraft (Gemini, able to make changes in orbital parameters that Mercury, Vostok and Voskhod could not), etc.

Also, if you are counting N-1 as a bigger rocket than Saturn V, I think you can't really count a rocket unless it flies at least once without exploding.

>>9250365
Yeah, monopolies are always the most efficient, cost effective ways to do things.

>>9249524
Legend too small to read -- I recognize 12 of them.

>>9250540
The subsidies was, of course, the whole point.

>>9250569
>So creating the world's first reusable first stage isn't an achievement?

It's a technical achievement. Whether it is an important one or a meme stunt remains to be proven.

>>9250622
>It'll be upgraded to much higher capacities and capabilities in the future.

Or it won't. Difficult to predict is the future. Always in motion it is.

All sides on rocket fanboi threads here seem to want to cite what their favorite company hopes to do in the future as an achievement.

>>9251993
First space station was little more than 2 docked crafts and Gemini mastered docking on orbit and Lunar stack was 3x the weight of Salyut post TLI.

Most of Russian firsts were the result of R7 capabilities and USSR never really developed beyond that because by the time Proton got acceptable reliability we are talking about 1970s and N1 was larger by thrust and mass but had 1/2 the capability of SaturnV that used hydrogen thus was much more mass efficient but a rocket even better and the best one ever designed untill mature Falcon 9FT was Energia in the 80s that was the real moment when Russians had greater capabilities than the US since for the first time since early 60s.

Russia had a head start due to R7 being needed for ICBM role instead of US systems that just had to travel from Turkey to Moscow.But once Saturn1 was operational in the 60s USSR had no way to compete

>>9250644
You sort of count the same thing a lot of times there.

It would be like an Apollo enthusiast listing First manned landing, first man to step onto the moon, first mission to have two men on the moon at the same time, first use of manned instruments to take measurements on the moon, first deployment of laser reflectors on the moon, first launch of a spacecraft from the moon, first rendezvous in orbit around the moon, first docking in orbit around the moon, first successful return from the surface of the moon, first samples of lunar material returned to Earth and first bags of poop left on the moon as achievements of Apollo 11.

They all sort of go into the metric of First Manned Landing on the Moon.

That said, the Venera program was a great achievement for the Ruskies. Though >>9250669 is right about the achievements of Mariner and Magellan being more significant in terms of knowledge gained.

>>9250713
>It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had their first flight-ready prototype some time next year.

So, in fact, it has not yet been built?

>>9249438
I don't buy rockets

>>9252015
>First space station was little more than 2 docked crafts

But the reusability of the station was an important step towards larger stations and habitats. Of course the first one of something is not going to be as advanced as later versions -- that does not detract from the achievement of doing it first, if "firsts" is a metric you are going to use.

Gemini did indeed pioneer and master rendezvous and docking, but Gemini dockings were all with unmanned target vehicles. In the case of Agena, these increased the spacecraft's capabilities, but did not provide a habitat for astronauts to make more long-termed observations and experiments.

Citing the Apollo stack as if its size made it a space-station counterpart is farcical -- the Apollo program was not in any sense a space-station or habitat program, it was a lunar landing and exploration program. (The use of legacy hardware for Skylab was ingenious, though, and gets you some connection from Apollo to space stations, if you really want one. The sheer ROOMINESS of Skylab has never been matched.)

>>9252025
gtfo, casual.

>>9249912
Every time I see this I remember there is a God and He loves us.

Stop being contrarian faglords

I'd much rather normies masturbate all over Elon and his Spacememes than wank over some shitty reality TV stars

SpaceX are the best thing to happen to aerospace since the Cold War, and they are having fun with it

>>9252013
>Difficult to predict is the future. Always in motion it is.
cringe

The more competition the better. What SpaceX has done is really impressive though.

>>9249438
Shouldn't NASA be on there too.

>>9252196
>Naycer

>>9252036
MIR was a revolutionary project for the 80s and avoided many mistakes that ISS had to do to fit modules in the payload bay so shuttle had some reason to exist.What could have been if skylab evolved into a true modular space station made of modules of this volume instead of tiny ones that make up ISS

>>9252202
>Neesur

>>9252196
Yeah probably

>>9252226
The shuttle had a larger payload bay than any rocket

Good meme

Rockwell International because of fireworks

>>9252226
You now remember that NASA had a second Skylab module made -- they could have launched it and joined them together, then kept them in orbit for a long-ass time, were it not for Congress reducing the budget.

>>9252654
And that skylab was deorbited not because it was worn out, but because there was no funding made available to keep it in orbit.

>>9252090

elon musk is a nigger and his braindead sheep fans can suck my cock

>>9252684
It wasn't just a lack of funds. The proposals to extend its service life relied on the shuttles entering service on schedule. The delays in the Shuttle program were probably the bigger factor.

I think SpaceX is great and I think Blue Origin is great too, if they can get their shit together.

ULA is just big government alliance with weapon manufacturers, nothing new there. If ULA survives it will be through typically cronyism whereas SpaceX has now proven itself multiple times.

>>9251180
DELETE THIS YOU CUNT

>The state of SpaceX fanboys
>A woman should be the first person on Mars you sexist patriachal piece of shit!

masten since they are like 5 people or something :D

>>9252025
ever bought a phone or car or televison? then you bought a rocket

>>9253608
What the flying fuck are you talking about

None of those things is a rocket

Rocket:
>A rocket (from Italian rocchetto "bobbin")[nb 1][1] is a missile, spacecraft, aircraft or other vehicle that obtains thrust from a rocket engine.
Rocket engine:
>A rocket engine is a type of jet engine[1] that uses only stored rocket propellant mass for forming its high-speed propulsive jet. Rocket engines are reaction engines, obtaining thrust in accordance with Newton's third law.

None of the things you mentioned derive thrust from a high speed jet.

>>9253637
>What the flying fuck are you talking about
He's talking about spinoff tech, I guess. Which has little to do with this thread, but in any conversation about space tech, spinoffs will inevitable be mentioned.

>>9252889
>If ULA survives it will be through typically cronyism whereas SpaceX has now proven itself multiple times.

So wait, SpaceX doesn't get government monies?

>>9252873
Sure -- but I'd argue the delays in the shuttle program were as much budget related as anything, and certainly a small appropriation for a mission to boost SkyLab up into a more sustained orbit could have been done. But it wasn't.

>>9253660
A car is not a rocket

By definition, a rocket is something which achieves thrust by expelling a high-speed jet (and also a rocket doesn't breathe air, like a jet plane does - the rocket's thrust is derived solely from propellant contained within the rocket)

Cars don't gain thrust by expelling their exhaust at a high speed

They gain movement by the reciprocating motion of pistons causing a crankshaft to rotate, which is then connected to the wheels through a gearbox in order to drive them

>>9253637
i mean its priced in. maybe its just 10cents of the 800dollar iphone but you still paid for it(you and every other apple customer)

>"(NASA) should design the basic architecture for the mission, so that no single company has a monopoly on any critical piece"
>"It's more important that [certain things] be owned by the government, and then they are available to the wider industry and not held by one company,"
>t.NASA bigshot
Tighten your seatbelts, anons. They'll use safety and nasa's expertise on spacey things to protect the interests of the faggots who grounded human spaceflight post-apollo for perpetual gibs. Or at least try to.

>>9253712
>we at spacex need mo money fo dem programs
>t. elon musk

>>9249438
SpaceX because they have more media out than the rest. I can't judge the rest when there's barely anything to watch.

>>9251051
I miss the tech stream.

>>9254194

>blue faggot shills itt
aylmao
Meme shills for meme company making meme engines (not even rockets). Fits like a charm.

>>9252376
Shuttle C should have been built to go beyond these dimensions and mass so she stack could push 80t+ into LEO instead of 23t .TitanIV had a bigger fairing diameter and vastly superior high energy capabilities thanks to Centaur but it's low orbit payload was little under the one of the STS

bump

>>9253662
They've taken some monies but instead of charging a fuckload for a launch they charge about 1/5th a fuckload.

None of that matters much to governments because it's not their money they are spending. But it should matter to you because - surprise! - it's your money they're spending. And getting the cost down to where it starts being attractive to commercial enterprises is the goal.

>>9254198
What PS3 game is this?

>>9251051
>>9254196

Literally breddit, thank Christ they're starting to take this shit seriously.

>>9254846
Shuttle C wasn't built for two reasons
>it would work
>it would be embarrassing (lol they cut of the wings lmao xD)

>>9255512
It would be such a failure for NASA to simply admit that STS should be a small craft similar to current dream chaser or a gigantic design with internal fuel tanks using a liquid fuel reusable flyback booster.

But final STS was a caricature of the project goals and has failed to achieve anything for 30 years

>>9254846
>Shuttle C should have been built to go beyond these dimensions
yes lets build an entirely new vehicle based on shuttle because the shuttle is "to expensive" to build space stations according to you

>she stack could push 80t+ into LEO instead of 23t
don't need that much throw weight unless you're rebuilding skylab, which would be retarded as skylab was a miserable failure

>TitanIV had a bigger fairing diameter
wow 6% larger diameter and smaller length
quite amazing

>and vastly superior high energy capabilities thanks to Centaur but it's low orbit payload was little under the one of the STS
why does that matter when ISS is a LEO station?

The shuttle had built-in robotic arm, airlock, and power capabilities. Could you imagine astronauts trying to build the ISS from a soyuz? lmao

>>9255653
liquid reusable flyback boosters were not possible back then for a number of reasons

simply look at the dry mass of Falcon 9 compared to Saturn V, for example

>>9255744
>>back then for a number of reasons
Not him but thats a really good question.
I know that the engines were not that efficient in the 70s but that can be overcome with more fuel.
I guess the lack of powerfull cpus for the landing navigation and suicide burn were a big factor.
Am I missing something big here ?

>>9255733
>yes lets build an entirely new vehicle based on shuttle because the shuttle is "to expensive" to build space stations according to you
Shuttle C wasn't an entirely new vehicle. All of the important bits other than the avionics would have been common with the shuttle. The benefits of Shuttle-C also wasn't cost, it was payload. Not having to truck up a set of wings and the life support system to sustain 7 people for a week would really expand your payload capability.

>>9256043
Saturn V could possibly have recovered its first stage for a severe payload penalty but it's important to remember that it was a three stage vehicle for its published 140t figure and there's not much point in recovering only 1/3 of the stages (which really isn't any better than what the shuttle did).

>>9256086
right... and SLS is not a different vehicle from shuttle either...

>>9256178
>>not much point in recovering only 1/3 of the stages
Yes you are right but I had something different in mind:
Imagine a world: Its 1973 and you need to design
a rocket like Falcon 9. You can make a decent Merlin 1D but with more mass and less isp and thrust. The rest of the rocket is mostly aluminium-lithium alloy so thats is not a problem.
Now you have two choices:
First you build 1:1 copy and you get less mass to LEO or you add few more engines to the first stage and more RP-1/LOX so you get the same mass to orbit.
I cant think of anything except sophisticated guidance that is stopping you in the early 80s.

>>9250356
Soyuz is the granddaddy LEO launch vehicle, with more successes under its belt than all other current launchers *combined*. It is a great design that I hope is never retired. Can't say the same for Proton and Zenit, and Angara is taking way to long to develop.

China has within two years debuted an entire family of kerolox launchers and new spaceport, replacing their old ICBM-based launchers. They are still working out the kinks, but they are poised to overtake Russia as the dominant Asian space power, especially with their own space station research.

India just had the first flight of their GSLV mark III, kind of a mini-Ariane 5 in design. They are good at launching cheaply. Only the third nation to get to Mars successfully.

ESA will debut Ariane 6 in 2020. A more cost-effective form of their current Ariane 5. Vega is also ready to handle Europe's small launches, good timing for the retirement of Russia's ICBM-based Dnepr and Rokot.

(Airbus and Thales do rockets?)

I'm also pretty excited about Rocket Lab's Electron. Should be able to do small launches very cheaply. They should have another test launch from New Zealand next month.

>>9256178
>and there's not much point in recovering only 1/3 of the stages
Recovering hundreds of millions of dollars of engines/stage isn't worth doing? If you could?
Obviously if you are recovering the first stage, you will likely want to increase the size of it, because recovery more than compensates for a little inefficiency.
Making the 2nd stage reusable in a 3 stage vehicle is kinda the tricky part

I guess some ocean splash down or even a barge landing would be doable.

The shuttle is an absolutely ass backward design, trying to "reuse" the smallest least relevant part of the launch stack.

>>9255744
>were not possible
Noone TRIED
Thats not the same as NOT POSSIBLE

>>9257185
almost everything on the shuttle was reused, dimwit

>>9256231
Even if at the beginning they had to put a person in the first stage to manually land it, it was doable one way or another.

Probably would have wanted to be bigger than the Falcon 9 which is a compromise design limited by their cash reserves at the time.

>>9257191
The non-recoverable fuel tank alone cost as much as a complete expendable rocket of the same cargo payload. To carry a Proton-size cargo, they had to build a Saturn-V-size vehicle, so having a high-quality, mass-sensitive drop tank was out of the question if they ever expected to save money.

Of course, they didn't even approach the total-cost-per-flight floor set by the fuel tank.

>>9257194
It never would have been necessary to have a person flying on it. They had radio control even in the V2.

>>9257191
Boosters were not
Fuel tank was not
Both cost more than a 20 ton expendable rocket

They were the largest/heaviest part of the rocket
The shuttle orbiter itself was an insane abomination of a design, which is the only reason it cost so many billions to build.

>>9257216
>>9257223
>The non-recoverable fuel tank alone cost as much as a complete expendable rocket of the same cargo payload
so you admit that they were reused, but the real problem is the system was too expensive

you're a fucking moron lad

>Boosters were not
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHA

>>9257220
the v2 was unguided, moron

>>9257231
Booster "reuse" cost the same as building new ones
There was never a point in doing it

The real problem is the rampant insincerity throughout the shuttle design, the political bullshitting that produced it, and cost plus contracting all around which is an anti-incentive for reducing costs.

>>9257247
moving the goalposts yet again

Saturn V was much more expensive than the Shuttle to fly and yet you think there was some massive conspiracy at NASA to replace the Saturn V with the "more expensive" shuttle so as to siphon more money to congressional districts (or whatever the fuck retarded theory you have as to what happened)

complete delusion as is typical with the average musk fanboy

>>9249438
ULA is a government sponsored jobs program

Blue Origin is barely a company currently, and have only launched something the size of a small university/amature rockerty team

SpaceX is in do-or-die mode on BFR, opting to retire all the current F9 boosters on FH rides before transitioning entirely to BFR as their primary launcher

That all said, Currently SpaceX is the only one actually innovating in the rockerty field, while one is only an investor trap, and the other is so behind they're still buying engines from the Soviets.

>>9257254
Saturn V was designed and run in a "cost is irrelevant" mindset
Of course it cost plenty

It is not goalpost moving, there is a difference between true reuse and a charade being engaged in by a government organization.

also I like how no one mentions Orbital ATK in these lineups.

The motherfuckers where air launching cubesats from a Tristar. Not even Stratolaunch has done this, and ATK has been doing it since the early 2000's

>>9257254
>le conspiracy
Everything is a conspiracy to retards like you.

>>9257194
>>Probably would have wanted to be bigger than the Falcon 9
Yes I use it as a stepping block and proof of concept.I would even start with 5 engines for the first stage and a really small payload just to test the guidance.
>>put a person in the first stage
That would create even bigger problems.You need to add too much mass for the safety of the pilot.

I found out that for less mass you can use "Intel 80286". It had 134k transistors and 6MHz clock rate. It was introduced on 1 February 1982.I dont know what is the current processing power of Falcon 9 but we can assume that you can exchange mass for extra cpus. The sensors at the time were developed to a decent performance so that is not a problem.
If you still dont have enough precision you can increase the landing zone and focus on the most important part: the suicide burn. I see the russians had an advantage because east of Baikonur you have land not ocean like Florida.The extra fuel you need to get back to the lunch pad with less efficient engines is one extra challenge to a big list of challenges.

>>9257440
> I see the russians had an advantage because east of Baikonur you have land not ocean like Florida

there's zero chance the Chinese or Mongolians would have let soviets land their shit in their countries, especially after the Russo-Shinto split.

>>9257440
It should be possible to have most of the processing power on ground. There will be some slight delay as well as the risk of radio jamming but still doable. I think nobody simply bothered with the idea because they were satisfied with how things are.

>>9257258

Yeah and they have a rather high cost per kg. 33x higher than Falcon9 by payload mass.

$40m for 443 kg vs 22,800 kg for $62m, and you can sell off extra capacity to secondary and tertiary payloads.

Pegasus is a sexy rocket though. It just is not financially viable these days... well ever. The thing was projected to cost only a couple million during design.

>>9257447
that's defense contractors for you, the best thing they know how to do is break budgets.

>>9250602

You think the abortion that was the N1 counts as the biggest successful rocket ever?

>>9257461
the only thing good that came out of the N1 program was the engine design (later refined into the AJ26-62) and a bunch of incinerated russians when one detonated on the pad.

IIRC there was only one flight that lasted longer than 70 seconds, and it ended up spinning out of control on the 3rd stage.

>>9257440
>That would create even bigger problems.You need to add too much mass for the safety of the pilot.

I don't know if the electronics needed to do this stuff was availible in the early 70's though, so as a last resort you COULD put a person in the stage 1 for the final landing.
This would be a test vehicle, an element of risk is acceptable, all you need is an escape capsule

>>9257495
at this point you might as well make the 1st stage a stratolaunch system out of the back of an AN-225. the N1's first stage gets it to, what, 80,000' at mach 2? you could launch with half the payload by kicking an Energia fully fueled out of the back of the 225 at 40,000', and launch a second one in a turnaround flight of the same booster in a little less than 3 weeks.

>>9257501
>The airlifter holds the absolute world records for an airlifted single-item payload of 189,980 kilograms (418,830 pounds),
So you want to set an absolute cap of 200 tons for your rocket? Considering a 4% payload to LEO thats a max 8 ton payload.
Most of that velocity from the first stage is vertical, which will allow the 2nd/3rd stages to burn horizontally, unlike a plane which is horizontal + nowhere near as high as a 1st stage, also going a fraction of the speed.

Air launch is not at all a replacement for normal rocketry. It's an old idea because noone ever wanted to learn how to land rockets.

>By comparison, the Saturn V reached around 2.7 km/s with its first stage

Thats mach 8

>>9250186
The atlas is impressively reliable, but it makes sense that a more conventional design would be. A few blown rockets is worth it if reusable launch vehicles become mainstream imo.

>>9251051
>the PR team represents the whole company
I'd bet you a hundred dollars neither of those people know how a rocket works further than "it shoots fire to go to space"

>>9249438
spacex is actually innovating and getting shit done, which forces everyone else to keep up with them or get dropped. musk is also a good meme, i guess

why is everyone always jerking of to this rocket that rocket? its what you actually DO with the rocket that matters. payloads its where its at

>>9249445
.

>>9254198
>Dem exhaust effects

here have a sexy enginge

>>9257803
That's the Ariane 6 engine right?

>>9257803
What are the two tubes either side?

Are they for positioning/thrust vectoring?

>>9257473
>the only thing good that came out of the N1 program was the engine design (later refined into the AJ26-62) and a bunch of incinerated russians when one detonated on the pad.

I believe the pad explosion you mention was before the N-1 -- the R-16 pad fallback that took out Nedelin and a bunch of other guys.

N-1 kept exploding in flight.

>>9257530
>A few blown rockets is worth it if reusable launch vehicles become mainstream imo.

IF they also prove economically viable. It would seem they will, but "seem" is not the same as "have." If they are not, then hopefully they don;t become mainstream just because they are a meme now.

>>9258115
Yes
>>9258119
Those are the exhaust for the turbopumps for the LOX and LH2.The oxygen turbopump rotates at 13600 rpm with a power of 3 MW while the hydrogen turbopump rotates at 34000 rpm with 12 MW of power. The total mass flow rate is 235 kg/s, of which 41.2 kg/s are of hydrogen.
As you see they use them to add a bit of thrust and not lose efficiency.

>>9258248
wow hjow do you know it so precisely? is there other cool stuff you can tell us?

>>9258317
I wanted to see how powerful the turbopumps were and shared it.
In perspective 1 mechanical horsepower is about 0.75 kW. A BMW M5 600 hp engine is about 447 kW.
The hydrogen turbopump is about 27 engines and not that big.

>>9251180
they probably have enough duplicate parts they could assemble another in 6 months

>>9250186
>Boeing couldn't afford to fly delta IV because it couldn't compete.
LM had no private customers for Atlas V either, and Boeing was willing to match their prices to the US government (that's where the lawsuits came in: Boeing stole LM's bidding plans and underbid them). It wasn't just to save one company. Neither could compete, both were going to fail.

It was a bailout.

>the same thing will happen because of SpaceX within 3 years
That's ridiculous. SpaceX is doing fine. It succeeded where Boeing and LM both failed: at producing an internationally-competitive launch vehicle.

>Falcon 9 has joke reliability compared to Atlas
Atlas V's near-perfect record is mostly luck. They've had some close calls.

Anyway, Falcon 9's reliability is very comparable to Ariane 5's. They're not repeating mistakes, they're finding issues and fixing them. Two failures were unreliable supplier issues, and the other was infant mortality of a tech nobody had tried before. This kind of thing is inevitable in the development of new technology and maturation of a new manufacturer.

There wasn't much new hardware in Atlas V. The engines are a variant of Buran's RD-170, which started flying in the 80s and matured on Zenit. The Centaur upper stage dates back to the 60s. This stuff underwent plenty of failures when it was new.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO MARS LADS

I WANT TO LIVE ON ANOTHER PLANET

>>9258761
I have bad news for you annon.
>>9257440
>>9257445
As you see if there were political will during the mid 70s and early 80s for a reusable first and second stage stage rocket that would have made a huge difference.If either the USA or USSR started development the other one will follow up.
In a different timeline we have a big lunar base and station and a small base and station on Mars.
1995 Lunar orbiting station is finished.
2000 Lunar base is finished and plans for more infrastructure from goverment and privet sector are a go.
2005 Mars orbiting station is finished.
2010 Mars base is finished.
For the rest you can use your imagination. Every time I think about it I die a little bit from the inside. Worst timeline ever.

>>9258590
>It was a bailout.
You do not know what a bailout is.
FYI a big part of the reason LM wasn't competitive was because Arianespace did (and still does) receive huge subsidies from the EU allowing them to undercut the market, as well as half a dozen guaranteed launch contracts per year (not military missions, commercial missions that european companies were forced to use Arianespace for.)

>Atlas V's near-perfect record is mostly luck.
72/73 successes is "luck"?

>They've had some close calls.
So have SpaceX. The first Falcon 9 flight would have been considered a failure if it had launched a real spacecraft instead of a mockup, for example.

>Anyway, Falcon 9's reliability is very comparable to Ariane 5's.
No it isn't.
It's splits the difference between Ariane 5 and Proton in terms of reliability.

>Two failures were unreliable supplier issues
CRS-1 was not a supplier issue. The combustion chamber was built in-house. It's also important to note that the same issue in the engines they use today would destroy the launch vehicle immediately.

NASA disagrees with SpaceX's findings for the CRS-7 accident and I tend to agree. Metal parts don't fail at 1/3 their design strength. It was an assembly error pure and simple.

>and the other was infant mortality of a tech nobody had tried before.
they shouldn't have been running dumbass fueling tests with a customer on board

>This kind of thing is inevitable in the development of new technology and maturation of a new manufacturer.
falcon 9 isn't new it's already had more launches than 95% of past launch vehicles

>There wasn't much new hardware in Atlas V. The engines are a variant of Buran's RD-170, which started flying in the 80s and matured on Zenit.
the RD-180 was a new engine when Atlas-III flew. Russians are simply better at making rocket engines

>underwent plenty of failures when it was new.
rocket technology was new when atlas first started flying

There's no excuse for blowing up a launch pad in 21st century.

>>9257445
They can barely communicate with the booster during reentry and landing in the 21st century what makes you think they could do it in the 60s, you fucking retard?

>>9259323
I can see that you're likely >16 years old but nobody thought this stuff was possible back when shuttle was flying let alone before that.

You're just an idiot kid conspiracy theorist pure and simple.

>>9257573
they are both engineers at the company

>>9257772
nobody cares about the results only the meme landings

>>9258761
looks super fun out there

>>9259368
>but nobody thought this stuff was possible back when shuttle was flying let alone before that.
Yea the same faggots who 5 years ago still saying it wasn't possible
Meanwhile SpaceX shows that it's easy

>>9259368
Do you experience anger often?

>>9259368
>>I can see that you're likely >16 years old but nobody thought this stuff was possible back when shuttle was flying let alone before that.
Man you are so off. You didnt read/understand my post >>9257440
The landing of your first stage is not a new concept. It is a simple and elegant idea with no physics breaking materials or technology. Every decent designer/engineer thought about it on the toilet at some point in their life.
As I said in my post lack of processing power was the biggest problem. I'm sure back then in the late 70s at NASA or somewhere in Russia a team of specialist can solve it.

The biggest mystery for me is what kind of a brain dead excuse of a living thing goes from "lack of processing power" to "an idiot kid conspiracy theorist". Next time read the posts.....

>>9259401
Musk himself was saying back in like 2009 that reuse had a high probability of failure

>>9259403
not an argument

>>9259459
nobody thought the stage could survive reentry and that is indeed the most groundbreaking part of what spacex has done, not these meme propulsive landings that have been done since the 60s

>>9259475
>>nobody thought the stage could survive reentry and that is indeed the most groundbreaking part of what spacex has done
OK now we know you cant assimilate information properly. You dont even know the necessary burns Falcon 9 is doing. Open the pic and look at the steps.

FLIP MANEUVER + BOOSTBACK BURN : Tell me exactly what is so ground braking for the late 70s early 80s?

GRID FINNS DEPLOY : This is impossible. It is too advanced.

ENTRY BURN : This is how you avoid excessive damage to your vehicle. I know it is hard to fire engines retrograde in hypersonic speeds but it still can be done with late 70s early 80s tech.Tell me exactly what meme magic did they need then???

AERODYNAMIC GUIDANCE : O no those Ti fins are too advanced. It cant be done...

VERTICAL LANDING : The good old "Suicide Burn". This is the biggest challenge to overcome. I dont know how many times per second Falcon 9 sensors feed information to the landing software.
Sensors back then were well developed but the speed to process that information was lacking.
The landing software is not that complicated.

>>9259495
You are clearly autistic or have some other mental defect.

>>9259364
>FYI a big part of the reason LM wasn't competitive was because Arianespace did (and still does) receive huge subsidies from the EU allowing them to undercut the market, as well as half a dozen guaranteed launch contracts per year (not military missions, commercial missions that european companies were forced to use Arianespace for.)

>they shouldn't have been running dumbass fueling tests with a customer on board

That is 100% true they got too stupid and bold and pushed a procedure with no significant testing and copv liner buckling is a known phenomenon.

>Russians are simply better at making rocket engines

Hydrocarbon engines because US went toward hydrogen in staged combustion for a good reason but now with BE4 and Raptor US is back leading.
>rocket technology was new when atlas first started flying

>There's no excuse for blowing up a launch pad in 21st century.

There is no excuse to blow up a pad for such a stupid reason caused by improper tests and introduction of experimental procedure into flight hardware

>>9259519
>That is 100% true they got too stupid and bold
The company chose not to pay extra to not have the satellite on it for the tests

>with no significant testing and copv liner buckling is a known phenomenon.
? The COPV tank had worked fine for tons of fuelings/launches, nor was this the first launch using the faster loading procedure
The COPV liner itself providing an ignition source is not something that was known or predicted

These sorts of failures will happen when dealing with brand new technology/techniques

>>9259529
They pushed new experimental tanking procedure to flight hardware.Testing would catch this failure mode and cause the need for new copv design without blowing up lc40.
Copv buckling is known lox not liking cf is known.More tests would help to limit these problems to blowing up the test stand instead of the launch pad

>>9259505
Thanks annon you made my day. Cheers.

>>9259534
testing does not catch every failure
nor is testing free

>>9257254

>Saturn V was much more expensive than the Shuttle to fly

Not true at all, the costs were very similar, both were a bit over $1 billion per launch, however Saturn had six times higher payload mass.

>>9259364

>There's no excuse for blowing up a launch pad in 21st century.

You dont know what you are talking about. Rockets are inherently dangerous and the entire field of rocketry is still in infancy. Blowing up on a launchpad occasionally is to be expected. Especially as launch rate increases. Absolute safety is not a realistic goal, and that is true for any mode of transportation, not just rockets.

These threads are just autists responding to shitposters again & again

>>9259475
>Musk himself

That is so cringey.

>>9259475
>Musk himself

>>9259680
so why did they build the factory in the middle of nowhere then

Theres tons of places where it would have made more sense.. maybe some place not infested with beaners too

ded?

>>9259669
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIVCCaYWGpk

>>9259635
>Blowing up on a launchpad occasionally is to be expected.
Until last year it hadn't happened in the US in 50 years.

>Absolute safety is not a realistic goal, and that is true for any mode of transportation, not just rockets.
All modes of transportation are far far FAR safer than rockets.
The probability of getting in a car and dying during the trip is 1/4500000. The probability of dying on a space ship trip is 1/250 (this is what NASA's CC program is designing for)

"safety standards" in space are a fucking joke compared to any other industry

>>9259630
Shuttle was $1.5 billion per launch
Saturn V was over $3 billion

>>9259529
>The company chose not to pay extra to not have the satellite on it for the tests
wrong
the test with the payload onboard was how the falcon 9 was sold
Only customers with special privileges were allowed to request the test without the payload attached, such as NASA with Jason 3 mission.

>>9259680
this guy is full of shit.

I live in Sparks, just 10 miles northwest of where the gigafactory is. The power is extremely reliable, and if they did have a problem, why the fuck would they not just use a few of their grid scale battery packs to even the power load?

Also: there's a shitload of engineers in Reno due to all the other manufacturing operations + things like Sierra Nevada Corp.

He is right that the stretch of i80 between reno/sparks and the factory location is a bit of a clusterfuck, but you can just as easily get in and out through hw 439.

>>9258342
>>9258248
I don't understand why the LOX and LH2 turbopumps need an exhaust? Shouldn't all of the excess fuel be used for combustion? Or are the turbopumps just expelling hot air?

>>9260876
You hare two main types of engines. Open cycle which is the Vulcan and close cycle.
In short the open one is simple to design and build.
The pic here is what SpaceX is trying to achieve with the Raptor.If you follow the fuel line you can see that ~99% of the fuel is preburned with ~1% oxidizer for the fuel turbopump and the rest of ~1% fuel is preburned for the LOX turbopump.
Lets hope they can actually pull it off.

>>9257235
This is incorrect. The first operational versions used a internal guidance system, later version were radio-controlled.

https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/07/01/the-worlds-first-guided-missiles-v1-and-v2/

>>9249438
How about Samsung Aerospace???

so is anyone here working on something aerospace related? what is it? how is it going?

>>9259928

>All modes of transportation are far far FAR safer than rockets.

There are many more fatal car crashes and fatal plane crashes than rocket explosions.

You see, it all has to do with flight rate. Planes are so safe per single flight because they fly so often than the technology is matured. Rocekt launches only happen like once a week globally, and thus safety per launch is atrocious compared to planes.

The only way to truly improve rocket safety is to massively increase launch rate.

This is the goal of SpaceX, hence why they are doing more to make spaceflight safer than the rest of the industry combined.

>>9259938

>Shuttle was $1.5 billion per launch
>Saturn V was over $3 billion


>Saturn V Cost per launch $1.16 billion in 2016 value

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

Also Saturn V lifted five times the payload of Shuttle.

Shuttle was by far the most expensive launch vehicle ever.

>>9263067
not true
SLS will be more expensive

>>9263067
When faggots say something about saturns' cost it usually includes the entire program, nasa startup, maybe gemini, previous programs, paid vacations, jfk investigation and so on. After these careful calculations the shuttle and SLS look only reasonably more expensive.

>>9262944
>>9261402
Hnng

>>9263067
>>9263107
Good meme.
The only honest comparison of launch costs is one that includes development costs, especially for a rocket that only launches 13 (or 1) times.

By your metric, Shuttle only cost "$450 million" per launch.

>>9263077
Not true. Its total program cost will never exceed that of Shuttle or Saturn V.

>>9259534
It's great that you're so convinced that they could have foreseen an obscure interaction specific to COPVs submerged in subcooled LOX (which had never been done before the F9 FT) with a specific fueling procedure and meanwhile NASA is gushing about how they're getting some brand new research into COPVs out of that because it was indeed something nobody had experience with before and nobody expected.

>>9263580
Only because it'll be cancelled instead of continuing to launch for 30+ years

What have they spent so far on Constellation + SLS?
20 billion? 30 billion?

>>9264218
A: The problem is submerging the Carbon in the LOX in the first place
Right away its set up that with an ignition source, this is gonna blow up

I think they've learned their lesson and won't be mixing carbon with LOX in the BFR

>>9265424
And what will you use instead of carbon? You gonna do what you can to reduce weight. Dangers are inevitable.

>>9265462
You seperate the carbon from the oxygen with a layer of aluminum or something else

To truly make a safe durable vehicle you need to eliminate these dangers

>>9249438
all these retarded rocket manufacturers will go extinct once Russia rolls out the first nuclear rocket.

Nuclear rockets:
>cheaper
>more powerful
>millions of times faster (mars mission will only take a month)

And no, russia will not follow the outerspace treaty. KYS fags.

>>9265424
>sls cost
Don't forget pic related. And they are yet to propose a lander.
I bet a single (you) it gets scrapped during the long wait between the first and second test flights.

>>9259364
>>Atlas V's near-perfect record is mostly luck.
>72/73 successes is "luck"?
It's not luck that they've had a good record, but the near-perfection is luck. For instance, on the March 23, 2016 Cygnus launch, the main engine failed and had an early shutdown. This was counted as a success, but was more severe than the Falcon 9 1.0 engine out event, and prevented a secondary objective (deorbit disposal burn) from being completed. This issue could have caused a total mission failure on any of their previous launches.

>>There wasn't much new hardware in Atlas V. The engines are a variant of Buran's RD-170, which started flying in the 80s and matured on Zenit.
>the RD-180 was a new engine when Atlas-III flew.
RD-180 is an RD-170 variant. They simply removed two combustion chambers and nozzles, and scaled the pumps down 50%. RD-171, the Zenit variant, has failed twice, causing launchpad destruction once.

>Russians are simply better at making rocket engines
The American RS-68 has had a similar success record. RD-180 is used because of cheaper Russian labor. That's all. Lockheed Martin was required by the Air Force when choosing it to acquire all specifications and prove that they could produce it domestically. They can't do so economically, though, hence "Vulcan".

>>Anyway, Falcon 9's reliability is very comparable to Ariane 5's.
>No it isn't.
>It's splits the difference between Ariane 5 and Proton in terms of reliability.
Look at Ariane 5's early history. The first 14 launches showed 4 failures.

>falcon 9 isn't new
Falcon 9 isn't really one vehicle, it's a series of four, with a fifth coming up soon (and sixth, if you count Falcon Heavy). The engine out was launch 4 of the 1.0. The upper stage failure was flight 14 of the 1.1. The pad explosion would have been flight 9 of the FT. With Merlin 1D, 1.1 is definitely different a vehicle from 1.0.

Anyway, all of Ariane 5's failures happened in its first 6 years, and so have all of Falcon 9's.

>>9265424
>I think they've learned their lesson and won't be mixing carbon with LOX in the BFR
The two pieces of hardware they initially unveiled for BFR were the Raptor engine and the carbon-composite LOX tank.

>>9265473
>You seperate the carbon from the oxygen with a layer of aluminum or something else
They did that. Carbon composite isn't just carbon. There was a manufacturing defect. After learning that such a catastrophic failure was possible, they upgraded their processes to avoid and catch such defects.

You know, aluminum also burns in oxygen, and can form explosive mixtures if enough surface area is exposed.

>>9265561
>>>Anyway, Falcon 9's reliability is very comparable to Ariane 5's.
>>No it isn't.
>>It's splits the difference between Ariane 5 and Proton in terms of reliability.
>Look at Ariane 5's early history. The first 14 launches showed 4 failures.
...and to complete the comparison, Proton had 13 failures in its first 23 launches. In its first six years, 35 launches, 15 failures.

Proton started out extremely unreliable, and matured to a ~10% failure rate.

Ariane 5 had a few early failures, and matured to an essentially perfect success rate. Atlas V and Delta IV did the same with fewer failures. Falcon 9 gives every appearance of being in the same category.

Falcon 9's gone through four major revisions and had only one true launch failure. And in fact, all of their payload losses have related to customer options. In the engine out, there was still sufficient performance to insert the secondary payload, but NASA exercised a contract option to ditch it (and the secondary customer had accepted these terms in return for the very low price they were getting). In the 2nd stage blow-up, the customer payload was in the undamaged Dragon capsule (SpaceX property), which was capable of a soft landing... but this capability wasn't activated due to the additional regulatory overhead the FAA imposed on authorizing the abort mode, which NASA didn't want to pay for. In the pad test explosion, the payload was only on top of the rocket during the test at the customer's option.

In each case, the motive was to further reduce SpaceX's low prices.

You have to consider as well that while Atlas V and Delta IV have very low launch failure rates, they have been failures at their intended role, due to their high costs, comparable to the Space Shuttle. The investment in their development was supposed to be justified by successful competition with Ariane 5, but instead they became another example of a too-big-to-fail government bailout.

>>9265697
>Proton started out extremely unreliable, and matured to a ~10% failure rate.
that's pretty awful after all these years

i wouldn't want to be launch #9,10,11 after a failure lol

spacex launch t-30 min:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUjH14vhLxA

>>9263042
>old new top hear on the screen in the entertainment section

pure kino

>>9259938
>>9263067
Lot of this will depend on how you calculate and amortize production costs.

>>9266647

>production

Meant "development," sorry.