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

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 424 KB, 692x745, 375654754543645634.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9329100 No.9329100 [Reply] [Original]

ahahahhahahahahaahhahahahah
*inhales*
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Is there any doubt at this point that SpaceX is a meme?

>> No.9329133

Fucking Elon, man. He has been killing it. Did you know he designed the whole rocket himself and built it by hand? Amazing.

>> No.9329145

>>9329100
Will you give me $50 if it still happens in 2017?

>> No.9329154

>>9329145
yes

>> No.9329160

>>9329145
>elon’s investing strategy

>> No.9329170

>>9329133
i hope one day trump dies and elon musk can b the leader of the usa and canada and the EU and save our species. Did you know he's just a martian trying to get home? xD

>> No.9329184

>>9329170
He'll be the chairman of The Independent Peoples Republic of Mars.

>> No.9329387

>>9329184
Did you mean Martian Congressional Republic?

>> No.9329718

>>9329100
>ahahahhahahahahaahhahahahah
Mom let the hyaena use her computer again.

>> No.9329759

>>9329100
so it's a few weeks later
what's the big deal

>> No.9329953

>>9329100
It got pushed up a single week and this moved it over to the new year.

>> No.9329961

>>9329387
Do you really think the ideology matters?
Whether it's "muh freedoms, democracy" or "power to the people, communism" is not important. It's just a cover for how authoritarian you'll really go.

>> No.9330325

>hahahaha this company that had only launched a few prototypes up until a couple of years ago and is now globally dominant in its industry, with technology decades ahead of anyone else and plans far more ambitious than everyone else's catch-up plan, has yet again failed to meet its most optimistic schedule estimate and pushed back a secondary project to deal with matters of greater importance!
>what a bunch of idiots!
>what a meme company!

Don't you get tired of being this guy? I mean, you started out laughing and naysaying and acting smug about how they would never succeed, and you kept laughing at them the whole time as they climbed to the top of a proverbially difficult field. Now they're there, and it's obvious to everyone that you're just an idiot. What are you even doing now?

>> No.9330334 [DELETED] 

>>9330325
wow you're very easily trolled

>> No.9330351 [DELETED] 

>>9330334
wow you make quality posts

>> No.9330352 [DELETED] 
File: 26 KB, 349x642, pretending to be retarded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9330352

>>9330334
There's such a thing as clever, funny trolling, and this isn't it.

It just doesn't make a difference whether you're a sincere idiot, or an insincere idiot. There's nothing clever, inventive, or interesting about just anonymously posting repetitive, tedious, stupid shit that stupid people actually believe, and then thinking you won somehow because people responded as if you meant it. You might think you're pretending to be an idiot, but at best, you're pretending to be a different kind of idiot, and not a better kind.

If you post garbage, it's because you are garbage. It's that simple.

>> No.9330359 [DELETED] 

>>9330352
>There's such a thing as clever, funny trolling, and this isn't it.
i'm not OP btw, i'm just amused at how mad you got

>> No.9330368

SLS is going to beat that 10t to leo junkheap.

Seems it'll launch earlier too.

>> No.9330401 [DELETED] 

>>9330359
>ha ha! you typed enough words to make your point clearly! you're obviously very mad about this!
You post garbage because you are garbage. The emotion I'm feeling is disgust.

>> No.9330403 [DELETED] 

>>9330401
If you were disgusted and not mad you'd leave, not keep replying

>> No.9330474

>>9329160
Will you give me 25 billion dollars via taxes if is still happens in 2017?

>> No.9330479

>>9330325
>globally dominant in its industry, with technology decades ahead of anyone else


. . . Are you serious?

>plans far more ambitious than everyone else's catch-up plan

I'l give you this. the lack of ambition in other organizations is downright depressing. Musk's reach might exceed his grasp but at least he's reaching in the first place.

>> No.9330508
File: 1.38 MB, 1280x720, [Commie] Senki Zesshou Symphogear GX - 05 [BC9F61B4].mkv_snapshot_20.12_[2015.08.08_00.36.20].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9330508

>>9329100

Why are you retards so mad about Musk?

SpaceX is doing great in general. Of course not everything will go perfectly.

>> No.9330509

>>9330325
Care to go over the viability of the hyper loop?

>> No.9330510

>>9330479
>. . . Are you serious?

He's right though. They are cheaper than everyone else and doing good. Meanwhile ESA and NASA future rockets are already outdated tech and Russians are stuck in the 90's.

>> No.9330512

>>9330508
He's an obvious con artist or has access to some "Super Secret Tech" that has never been shown or patented. He is a hype machine that makes money from hype.

>> No.9330517

>>9330325

/sci/ is a meme board. Look at the catalog. 40% of it is retards dickwaving about how much $ they will make with their math degrees. Half of the rest is flat earthers and even dumber shit. Threads about actual science get 5 posts and die.

>> No.9330520

>>9330512

So you are just mad that a guy with vision is achieving something?

Of course he's not a scientist. Or course he's businessman first.

But because of him space travel is advancing for real first time in decades.

>> No.9330522

>>9330512
how is he a conartist when people are buying teslas and rides for their expensive payloads

>>9330512
>has never been shown or patented
whats wrong with that?

they keep the advantage as long as they keep the tech a company secret
patent it and everyone knows how it works

>> No.9330525

>>9330325

>with technology decades ahead of anyone else

This is completely false.
Nobody in the industry takes SpaceX and their overblown marketing seriously.
Reusable launch vehicles are not something new they invented, nor a practical and efficient way to access space despite any such claims.

>> No.9330528

>>9330525

They are cheaper than everyone else with same success rates if not better. How the shit are they a joke?

>> No.9330529
File: 35 KB, 550x352, thunderbunny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9330529

>elon musk
>spacex

>> No.9330536

>>9329100
>SpaceX is a meme
Maybe in 2012. Memes aside, they hold 1/3rd of the launch market.

>> No.9330538
File: 485 KB, 1711x1304, Dkt7pEa.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9330538

>>9330525
>Nobody in the industry takes SpaceX and their overblown marketing seriously.

>> No.9330540

>>9330520
>So you are just mad that a guy with vision is achieving something?
How the fuck did you get that from what I said? Seriously? I'm happy with every advancement he makes that actually useful but the man actually thinks the hyper loop is a good idea. Can you please explain the me how it's at all reasonable to put a 100 mile long metal tube in the desert and expect to maintain a vacuum safely enough to carry passengers many times a day? Every reasonably informed person I've spoken to and every person I've spoken to with a related expertise says that it is well beyond reason. What expertise do you have to say it's not a scam?

>> No.9330545

>>9330540

Shit they do today was beyond reason 20 years ago.

>> No.9330546

>>9330522
Holy shit, you are painfully stupid if theses are real questions. Just give yourself a minute to think honestly and see if you can answer them for yourself, if you can, say so and I'm sure I, or someone else will explain.

>> No.9330554

>>9330546
>I have no argument

>> No.9330560

Everything from Musk is 85% marketing hype and bullshit.

>> No.9330564

>>9330545
Yeah, musk wants to do it in two years not twenty and he is acting as if it's already possible today, he's yet to even propose a development plan for addressing problems, leading me to believe they either are not problems, which if true would imply that he has some miracle technology that no one has even conceived of but also hasn't taken the time to protect his intellectual property, or he doesnt think that he needs ant new technology and can do it with only what he's proposed which would mean he's living in a fantasy world, or he doesnt care if it's actually viable becuase he's a con man and will extract value from it regardless. Which seems more likely? Keep in mind that literally no-one has a viable strategy to build a 100 mile long vacuum tube capable of carrying passengers safely.

>> No.9330566

The only way to venture into space is if USA, China, and Russia work together.

The problem is not technological.

It is political.

>> No.9330568

>>9330554
You do indeed have no argument, retard. If you put a small amount of effort into your response rather than acting like this is /b or /pol youd know that.

>> No.9330574

>>9330568

Yeah yeah, everyone knows con artist Musk is sending stuff to ISS through his con artist magic hat. You are so smart Anon.

They are controlling 30% of world space launches today and their price is 1/3 of the competition. NASA literally stated that stuff SpaceX already achieved would cost them 10x more. >>9330538

You are fucking retarded if you think this is a scam.

>> No.9330583

>>9330574
The scam is apparently making money off of developing technology and offering services.

I don't get it.

>> No.9330584

>>9330574
>Yeah yeah, everyone knows con artist Musk is sending stuff to ISS through his con artist magic hat. You are so smart Anon.
>They are controlling 30% of world space launches today and their price is 1/3 of the competition. NASA literally stated that stuff SpaceX already achieved would cost them 10x more.

I never contested any of that, are you retarded? Can he not own space X and also be a con man? Would you care to respond to my points on Elon miss hyper loop being a con job or do you just have no argument other than "but this other thing he dis works pretty good"

>> No.9330589

>>9330584
What makes that a con?

Be clear, you fuck.

>> No.9330595

>>9330589
>>9330564


Well, you see, if it can't be done, but you tell people that it can, and you take their money, and then you don't work towards making it so that it can be done, that's a con. What's so hard to understand about this?

>> No.9330609
File: 3.14 MB, 436x359, 13489947905_783d23ab68_o.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9330609

>>9330595
>implying it can't be done

>> No.9330616
File: 850 KB, 2710x1800, B-1-3_gp7000_cutaway_high.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9330616

>>9330584
>Would you care to respond to my points on Elon miss hyper loop being a con job or do you just have no argument other than "but this other thing he dis works pretty good"

oh i see what's going on now. you've been having an 'argument' with yourself about how musk is a con man in your head and sporadically in online posts which is why nobody can follow your train of thought. that explains the sudden injection of 'hyperloop' into the thread.

>> No.9330757

>>9330564
>literally no-one has a viable strategy to build a 100 mile long vacuum tube capable of carrying passengers safely.
You're a Thunderf00t fan, aren't you? He sometimes makes good points to do his irritating repetitive rants at, but when he makes himself look good, it's mostly by picking very easy targets, so he people don't want to niggle over the stuff he overstates and fucks up details on. He bit off more than he could chew with Hyperloop, and is basically just showcasing his own failure of imagination and general ignorance.

>>9330540
>Every reasonably informed person I've spoken to and every person I've spoken to with a related expertise says that it is well beyond reason. What expertise do you have to say it's not a scam?
People said this exact thing about SpaceX's reusable rocket plans, and about Tesla getting beyond the novelty toy car market.

There are successful investors and technical people who aren't Elon Musk who are putting serious money and effort into Hyperloop, so this appeal to authority is ridiculous.

Just about all the arguments against the feasibility of Hyperloop lead up to an appeal to incredulity: "OMG, just how could it be possible?! Who could possibly believe it would work?! How could anyone solve these problems?!" And again, this is the same as the arguments against SpaceX and Tesla: this hasn't been done, there are some hard engineering problems I haven't seen the solutions to, I can't imagine the solutions myself, therefore it can't be done.

>> No.9330783

>>9330757
>Just about all the arguments against the feasibility of Hyperloop lead up to an appeal to incredulity: "OMG, just how could it be possible?! Who could possibly believe it would work?! How could anyone solve these problems?!
are you stupid? of course it can work, there nothing really revolutionary in hyper loop, what will not work is the cost, the proposed cost from LA to san francsico is 6 billion, as with all projects like that where the cost is estimated, actual real world cost be 10 times of that, if not more. Even if lets say it costs 20billions, who in their right mind will invest (throw away the money) that much money into it with no real prospect of return

>> No.9330840

>>9330609
Show me that it Can? Burden of proof and all.

>> No.9330848

>>9330616
I'm sorry you have no reading comprehension, maybe try following the thread back to see how we got to having this conversation?

>> No.9330865

>>9330757
So you're argument is basically, it can be done, he said so? Are you actually that stupid? He has shown no evidence for how he plans to build and operate a hyper loop profitably. People have spent millions of dollars trying to build a vacuum chamber the size of a small building. That doesn't even begin to incorporate the complexity involved in having a train go through your vacuum chamber at literally hundreds of miles per hour. Im sorry I don't just accept what Elon musk says at face value without thinking about it.

>> No.9330878

>>9330783
>the proposed cost from LA to san francsico is 6 billion, as with all projects like that where the cost is estimated, actual real world cost be 10 times of that, if not more.
"OMG, just how could it be that cheap?! Who could possibly believe it would work at that cost?! How could anyone solve these cost problems?!"

Big improvement in your argument, there.

>Even if lets say it costs 20billions, who in their right mind will invest (throw away the money) that much money into it with no real prospect of return
Who will build a highway, with no real prospect of return? Who will build an airport, with no real cost of return? Who will build high speed rail? It's infrastructure!

If everything wasn't taxed and regulated to hell and back, and competing with publicly-funded transportation infrastructure, such private investments would be possible, as they were in the past with the railroads and turnpikes. In the modern world, government does it. If it saves people time or otherwise makes them more productive, they get to collect more taxes, or get more done for their same tax dollar.

>> No.9330882

>>9330878
You 're know you're responding to multiple people over the course of the thread right?

>> No.9330887

>>9330865
>So you're argument is
M'ye position is that you people lack the mental equipment to discuss this rationally, and you make it pretty fucking obvious every time you post.

>> No.9330895

>>9330878
You're comments act as if Elon musk proposed and patented a physically possible version of the hyper loop and we are just denying it. In case you didn't know, he hasn't yet, he hasn't even proposed a plan to address the issues with it other than a hand wave at such questions as "how will you be able to maintain a vacuum in a chamber of that size"

He doesn't just get to claim he's going to do something without providing some evidence that it's possible or that he plans to make it possible. If he builds a working hyper loop, I'll be happy, but right now he hasn't even come close to that, all he's done is collect checks and repeat that he will do it.

>> No.9330901

>>9330887
Stop acting like a fucking mongoloid and actually try to have a conversation. State your argument clearly maybe, becuase so far you've called other people's arguments appeals to authority despite in the same paragraph making an appeal to authority.

>> No.9330906

>>9330887
Not an argument. >>9330878
>If everything wasn't taxed and regulated to hell and back, and competing with publicly-funded transportation infrastructure, such private investments would be possible, as they were in the past with the railroads and turnpikes. In the modern world, government does it. If it saves people time or otherwise makes them more productive, they get to collect more taxes, or get more done for their same tax dollar.
This isn't at all relevant, no bussiness that plans to make money would build such a thing at the current projected costs, it just won't make money, the same way no-one would build a railroad that couldn't turn a profit.

>> No.9330925

>>9330757
>There are successful investors and technical people who aren't Elon Musk who are putting serious money and effort into Hyperloop.But go ahead and ignore that, this appeal to authority is ridiculous.


There, fixed that for you.

>> No.9330931

>>9329718
I'll get the gun

>> No.9330945

>>9330895
>>9330901
I haven't even taken a strong position that it'll work. I'm only here shooting down the absolutely moronic level of argument against it:
>the burden of proof is on YOU, here and now, to explain this vastly complex technical and financial matter to me, a random anonymous idiot, in a way that I can understand and be convinced to my satisfaction, after I've wagered my pride on the opposite position. I'll be the defense, judge, and jury, you be the prosecution and it's still innocent until proven guilty!
>the people I'VE listened to, who sounded like relevant experts to me, have said that it won't work, so we should ignore the relevant experts who believe in it enough to be working on it
>of course it can work, but it just will cost ten times more than the estimate, it just will, because I say so, even though I've shown no awareness of the costs involved

You people are just total garbage. What are you even doing here on a science board?

For instance, look at this shit:
> "how will you be able to maintain a vacuum in a chamber of that size"
This isn't a smart person's question. This is a moron's question. Because it's been answered repeatedly, and has been since the earliest days:
- it's only a partial vacuum, a low air pressure, not a hard vacuum
- inability to maintain vacuum is a non-catastrophic failure mode, it just means the cars currently in it will go slowly, and more cars won't be launched until it's fixed
- there will be vacuum pumps at intervals all along the length to deal with minor leakage, and to restore vacuum quickly after maintenance
- air doesn't just magically phase through solid steel
- they'll build it to not leak, and plug the leaks that do develop
- it's just a big fucking pipeline with a negative pressure rather than a positive one, we have built fucking pipelines

>> No.9330951

>>9330925
You absolute trash. The point was that the appeal to authority was ridiculous because there were plausible authorities on both sides of the argument. What I was doing was nothing like what I was responding to.

If you weren't something that should be burned in a dumpster, that would be obvious to you.

>> No.9330963

It's not a perfect vacuum it's only 1/1000 atmosphere, such a difference!

>>9330945
>- it's only a partial vacuum, a low air pressure, not a hard vacuum
>- inability to maintain vacuum is a non-catastrophic failure mode, it just means the cars currently in it will go slowly, and more cars won't be launched until it's fixed
>- there will be vacuum pumps at intervals all along the length to deal with minor leakage, and to restore vacuum quickly after maintenance
>- air doesn't just magically phase through solid steel
>- they'll build it to not leak, and plug the leaks that do develop
>- it's just a big fucking pipeline with a negative pressure rather than a positive one, we have built fucking pipelines


If you think that's how his 1/1000th atmosphere tube is going to work, you're retarded.


So now you can't defend your beliefs and you've just gone to insults and totally irrational defense. I'm done here.

>> No.9330965
File: 176 KB, 511x316, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9330965

>>9330951
youtube personalities are not plausible authorities

>> No.9330969

>>9330951
You're a fucking mongoloid, I'm done with you.

>> No.9330996

>>9330963
>>>he hasn't even proposed a plan to address the issues with it other than a hand wave at such questions as "how will you be able to maintain a vacuum in a chamber of that size"
>>it's been answered repeatedly, and has been since the earliest days:
>>[detalis]
>If you think that's how his 1/1000th atmosphere tube is going to work, you're retarded.
Hmm... Sealed chamber of sufficient strength and vacuum compatible materials. Plan to tolerate reasonable amounts of leakage and fail gracefully. Adequate pumping capacity...

Yeah, wow, that does sound retarded and inadequate! I guess I just wasn't boggling hard enough at how long the pipe would be. As everyone knows, pipes function radically differently as you make them longer, which makes it a mystery why engineers like to use them so much, as if they believed that once you've got one short section of pipe figured out, you can just repeat it over as long a distance as you like with very little change to worry about. You aren't something I'd want to scrape off my shoe at all!

>It's not a perfect vacuum it's only 1/1000 atmosphere, such a difference!
It is a big difference in vacuum systems. Maintaining a merely low air pressure isn't like the ultra hard vacuum in the twin 27-km-long vacuum pipe rings of the LHC. You can just pump air out, you don't need to worry about things like baking the pipes so they won't outgas and preventing pump and valve lubricant from contaminating the system.

>> No.9331034

>>9330848
i did, you jumped midstream into some argument about hyperloop that wasn't going on in this thread

>> No.9331488

>>9330566
kys globalist naysayer

>> No.9331611

>>9330528

Dude wtf are you talking about? Cheaper yeah, but their success rate is shit. Have you not seen the 'blooper' video of how many rockets they've blown up or crashed? Don't forget the satellite they blew up. If you actually compare their success percents with comparable launch companies it is not one of their advantages.

>> No.9331633

>>9330510

what he said was

>Globally dominant

untrue until next year by market share. Russians still hold majority and will until end of 2018 - projected.

>with technology decades ahead of anyone else

what, bog standard RP-1-LOX bell engines, and a cool avionics package suddenly qualify as "decades" of technological progress? where are the aerospikes, the thermal motors, the SSO reusable launch craft, the HTOL spaceplanes that everyone else was working on?

SpaceX is re-learning what everyone else willfully forgot. again, I give them props for doing it in the first place, but let's not pretend that they're still as stuck in the past as everyone else.

>> No.9331947

>>9330783
>as with all projects like that where the cost is estimated, actual real world cost be 10 times of that, if not more.

These programs explode in costs for many reasons, none of them are that actually building it costs more money
Mostly its just corrupt liberal politicians milking money out to their friends & themselves.

>> No.9332029

>>9330509
it might not be viable, but the tunnel boring technology which is getting developed for it will be worth more than the hypothetical hyper loop anyways. and "the boring company" is a funny name. https://www.boringcompany.com/

>> No.9332032

>>9330583
>scam
you spelled business wrong there.

developing technologies and offering services, its how a business works

>> No.9332058

>>9331947

>liberal

Oh please.
Obama tried everything to fix NASA yet congress - the republicans - obstructed him on every step and forced that abysmal SLS program down our throats.
If anything the left-wing has shown itself considerably more pro-science than the right-wing, who tend to prefer jesus, pollution, and wars.

>> No.9332115

>>9332058
the rebcunts cut NASA's budjet by $1.1 bn from what Obama requested

https://www.space.com/22023-nasa-authorization-bill-debate.html

>> No.9332122

>>9331633
>aerospikes, the thermal motors, the SSO reusable launch craft, the HTOL spaceplanes

Aerospace welfare programs.

>> No.9332123

>>9329100
The free market is inefficient and wasteful. Governments had developed better rockets 50 years ago. #socialism

>> No.9332128

>>9329100
It got pushed back because of the lost time spent dealing with Zuma.

>> No.9332135

>>9332122

>calling aerospikes an aerospace welfare program
>Being so deep up musk's ass that you think fully tested and operational engines with significant performance and efficiency advantages are somehow worse than an engine design from the 1970's

>> No.9332143

>>9331611
Most of those crashes were from early on when they were still working out the kinks.
They haven't had a single failure in like 18 months now, with a pretty high launch frequency.
The last failure wasn't even the booster or landing sequence, it was problem with the second stage while still on the pad.

>> No.9332176

>>9332115
NASA wastes every last penny they get
ofc they deserve cuts
They get TOO MUCH money, and far too little of it is spent on real work

>> No.9332213

>>9330509
Hyperloop has nothing to do with rocket launches. What's the motivation behind the Elon Musk trolling?

>> No.9332268

I have no respect for any loser going against someone who put his entire million dollar networth into realizing his dreams.

You're a fucking loser and I hope you die alone.

>> No.9332312

>>9331611
>their success rate is shit

Their primary mission success is industry standard.

Landing the booster is a secondary concern. Every booster you see fail to land was involved with a successful launch which made customers happy.
If losing the booster after a successful launch is a failure, then SpaceX is the only company today with any successes at all, considering literally every other launch vehicle today is totally expendable and either crashes into the ocean or into a desert after launching a payload.

>> No.9332331

>>9331633

A kerolox engine with multiple air-start capability is not bog standard at all, not even considering the TWR of the engine is more than twice that of most engines.

>aerospikes

Shit performance at trans sonic and supersonic speeds in atmosphere.

>thermal motors

Assuming you mean nuclear thermal rockets, they're interesting but a headache to work with, plus the sheer level of regulation SpaceX would be forced to deal with takes them off the table at least for the foreseeable future.

>SSO reusable launch craft

SSTO, and it's because two stage to orbit reusable offers a far higher payload mass percentage for only marginally more cost per flight. Makes much more sense for actually putting hardware into space. Besides, the BFR Ship is an SSTO pretty much everywhere except on Earth and Venus. On Mars it's a single-stage to Earth's surface, no refueling on the way. Elon rightly thinks SSTO around Earth is a meme

>HTOL spaceplane

HOTOL, and it's dead. It had a major problem of managing the center of mass with the engines in the back, Skylon is the redesigned vehicle with the engines on the side.

>SpaceX is re-learning what everyone else willfully forgot

Willfully forgot, like the aerospikes Aerojet-Rocketdyne developed and didn't use, the NTRs that never flew in either America or the Soviet Union, the SSTO concepts that were abandoned or are trapped in development hell? No, the key to making a good product is to start by taking established technology and using it in a more effective way. Once you've proven the idea works, then you start to innovate technology down a path that leads to an even more effective vehicle. Hence the shift from kerosene fueled gas generator engines and aluminum-lithium alloy tanks towards methane fueled full flow staged combustion engines and carbon composite tanks, as well as the scale up in size.

>> No.9332338

>>9332331
>Aerojet-Rocketdyne
kinda sad, they built all this incredible stuff. but when the vehicle stops being produced they quit doing any improvements or finding new uses or trying to make it cheaper

what are they making now, more RL10s? in use since the 60s and still expensive as fuck

a merlin 1d sl is ~1 million+? vac maybe 2 million?

>> No.9332339

>>9332135
>engine design from the 1970's

Merlin has a TWR of ~180, vs ~90 for the F-1, which used a gas generator cycle as well. Merlin is the most efficient kerosene gas-generator engine of all time. It may not be a fucking fusion reactor, but it's not an engine that could be built in the 70's.

The aerospike had better altitude compensation than a normal bell nozzle, giving it a more rounded out Isp curve through the atmosphere. Sucks that aerospike nozzles don't work very well from the trans-sonic regime up to about mach 3. They're also a lot heavier and more complicated despite being more efficient across altitude. Oh, and at any specific ambient pressure, a bell nozzle out performs anything else, as long as the nozzle is designed for that ambient pressure.

>> No.9332348

>>9332338

Merlin is probably sub $1 million now, they're making more than four per week.

RL-10 will never be cheap, since it was designed so long ago it doesn't lend itself to automated production and requires lots of man-hours. I think the RL-10 should be dropped the moment Arianespace gets their Vinci engine in production and buy those. Vinci has literally the same weight and Isp as RL-10, but has twice as much thrust and will probably cost a shitload less. It's as close to a perfect drop-in replacement for RL-10 on Centaur as anyone could hope for.

>> No.9332408

>>9331633
>>Globally dominant
>untrue until next year by market share. Russians still hold majority and will until end of 2018 - projected.
Proton, their only real competition for Falcon 9, flew only 4 times this year due to recent failures, Angara's stuck, Soyuz had two serious failures. Falcon 9 flew 16 times without incident.

One of the things SpaceX achieved is that going to Russia and dealing with the corruption and uncertainty, and the moral unease of funding that lingering adversary of the West, no longer even saves you any money. Now Russia's just the launch provider for Russia, and in competition with China and India for anyone who's sanctioned from launching in the West but doesn't have their own launch program.

Russia's position in the international commercial launch market is fucking shattered, as a combination of the rise of SpaceX and collapse under the weight of their own corruption.

>what, bog standard RP-1-LOX bell engines, and a cool avionics package suddenly qualify as "decades" of technological progress?
Yep, when they achieve a goal that the rest of the industry was lusting after for decades and kept failing to achieve. Mind you, those "bog standard" engines have record thrust:weight, rapid throttling, precision-timed in-flight restart, and the ability to be fired for hours, and they're mounted on vehicles with record mass fractions and the durability to withstand repeated launch and EDL.

>where are the aerospikes, the thermal motors, the SSO reusable launch craft, the HTOL spaceplanes that everyone else was working on?
Those were misallocations of resources. Cool-sounding bad ideas, basically irrelevant to the problem of getting to orbit cheaply. Everyone else was barking up the wrong tree.

SpaceX focused the effort where it mattered: evolve the basic rocket to lower cost, increase performance, and improve durability to the point that it can be reused if recovered, then add the absolute minimum of hardware needed to recover it.

>> No.9332493

>>9332058
>Obama tried everything to fix NASA yet congress - the republicans - obstructed him on every step and forced that abysmal SLS program down our throats.
SLS is pork guarded by a bipartisan alliance, both Republicans and Democrats. "The Swamp" as Trump likes to say.

Don't think that because a house of congress has a majority of one party or another that that party is a unified entity that has everything under control, and deserves sole responsibility for everything that house does. Parties are alliances, not dictatorships, and sometimes other alliances or interests take priority over party loyalty for a given individual. Besides that, in the early Obama administration, the Democrats not only controlled congress, but had a filibuster-proof majority, which is how Obamacare passed, and the Republicans never had the numbers under Obama to force through any legislation he wouldn't sign.

The Democrats held nearly all the cards when Constellation was changed to SLS.

Obama as chief executive made his own contribution to the awfulness of SLS. Obama didn't want Bush's Constellation, or any derivative of it, to be successful. He wanted allies in charge of NASA rather than competent people. The SLS program has suffered basically 8 years of foot-dragging and crony bumbling. Congress put requirements for SLS/Orion to be used for ISS missions, to exceed Saturn V capabilities, to be flying by the end of 2016, but Obama had his phone and his pen, and said basically, "Ha! We're not doing any of that!"

Do you really think that a reasonably-managed NASA, with billions and billions of dollars to spend, couldn't reconfigure shuttle parts into a launch vehicle and build a capsule in 8 years, after 4 years of preparatory effort? They did the Ares I-X test flight after only 4 years. When Obama came in, they were on track to have a basic form of the capsule and Ares I to launch it around the time of the shuttle retirement, and maintain continuity of basic capabilities.

>> No.9332500

>>9332176
>t. hillbilly

>> No.9332505
File: 6 KB, 202x159, 1506710490517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9332505

>>9329387


>>9329184

Impending civil war.

>> No.9332524
File: 20 KB, 477x246, Imperial_eagle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9332524

>>9329184
>He'll be the chairman of The Independent Peoples Republic of Mars.

Fuck that! The moon as one nation "Luna" will be the richest nation in history. It is the ideal base location for all of mankind's future space endeavors.

>> No.9332702

>>9330540
so because some of his ideas are good and some are bad he is a con artist, get a clue

>> No.9332811

>>9330757
>Tesla getting beyond the novelty toy car market.
Still hasn't happened.

>> No.9332827

>>9332268
>ur a loser ur a loser
You sure convinced me.
By your logic, /sci/ should fellate retards like RFK jr.

>> No.9332828

>>9332811
Model S isn't a novelty toy car. It's no economy model, obviously, but it's a practical and rather nice luxury car for daily driving.

>> No.9332914

>>9332029
>MFW WE found to purpose of the hyper loop, pushing funding into tunnel boring tech.

>> No.9332919

>>9331947
>Mostly its just corrupt liberal
Back to /pol

>> No.9332928

>>9330996
>Maintaining a merely low air pressure
>1/1000th atmosphere is "merely low air pressure"

>> No.9332943

>>9332702
It's not becuase some of his ideas are bad and some are good, it's becuase some of his plans are demonstrably infeasible to implement in the way that his released documentation claims he will do it and despite that he keeps asking for more money without attempting to address the obvious problems with his design.

>> No.9332959

>>9332928
when it comes to the hard vacuum in particle accelerators, yes

>> No.9333019

>>9332928
Getting that last bit out is incredibly hard.

1 bar is quite a thick, dense gas. 1 millibar isn't just some stray molecules, it's a thin but aerodynamically useful atmosphere, quite possible to fly in, easy to pump.

Remember that the concept is for a high speed hovercraft, lifted on a compressed air cushion and pushed along by jet of compressed air, fed by a compressor on the front end of each car. That wouldn't work in anything you could reasonably describe as a vacuum.

>> No.9333117

>>9332959
By comparison sure, 4 grains a of sand is a lot of sand compared to no grains of sand.
>>9333019
I'm aware of the concept, the point being that calling 1/1000th atmosphere "merely low air presure" is laughable. It might not be nearly as difficult as total vacuum but from an engineers perspective, building such a chamber would seem costly beyond reason at best. I really love the idea of a hyper loop working but there seems to be no practicle way to produce such a thing as of right now, maybe one day.

>> No.9333146

>>9333117
>calling 1/1000th atmosphere "merely low air presure" is laughable
>no practicle way
Truly, this is a staggering intellect we're dealing with.

>> No.9333153

>>9333146
Truly, this is the best counter point I've ever seen made, you've thourghly dashed my criticism of the hyper loop while showing a clear viable path to it's creation in the time frame it is to be built, you truly must be some sort of god among men, a rick and morty viewer without parallel.

>> No.9333193

>>9333153
>you've thourghly dashed my criticism of the hyper loop
Obviously stupid people don't deserve serious answers they can't understand.

>> No.9333271

>>9329100
It’s not musk is bringing industry to space.

>> No.9333289

>>9333117

>It might not be nearly as difficult as total vacuum but from an engineers perspective, building such a chamber would seem costly beyond reason at best.

False, and this is something you are repeatedly failing to comprehend despite explanations by smarter people, sure sign of a brainlet.

Once again, low quality vacuum is not particularly hard to achieve. You just need pumps at regular intervals and a sealed structure that can withstand mere 1 atmosphere (not a very demanding requirement). No need to consider outgassing. no need to plug every microscopic leak etc. It can be done and possibly even not be as expensive as you think. It is an ambitious project for sure but not something that is impossible.

On the other hand, hard vacuum such as used in LHC is much more difficult.

>> No.9333301

>>9330508
>people on 4chan want someone famous and successful to fail
This shouldn't be a surprise to you

>> No.9333369
File: 78 KB, 416x163, 1495067449195.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9333369

it's magical and disturbing the degree of furious shitposting that pops up whenever someone talks about science and technology on /sci/
and it only magnifies farther when you talk about Musk or people like him

>> No.9333393

>>9333289
I've made like three spots on this thread, now reading back, there are some autistic fucks in this thread like you and I'm sorry I saw this in the catalog. Enjoy your autism.

>> No.9333413

>>9333393
>don't deal with details
>not an argument
>I win!

>actually deal with details
>must be autistic
>I win!

Keep on being garbage.

>> No.9333447

>>9333413
What fucking details did you deal with? You don't explain how it could reasonably wprk at all, you just have said that all criticism is baseless over and over without describing why. You're a waste of time.

>> No.9333476

>>9333447
>must be autistic for explaining those details
>you didn't explain any details!
>I double win!
Trash gonna be trash.

>> No.9333477

>>9333447

>You don't explain how it could reasonably wprk at all

I did.


>You just need pumps at regular intervals and a sealed structure that can withstand mere 1 atmosphere (not a very demanding requirement). No need to consider outgassing. no need to plug every microscopic leak etc.

Challenging? Probably, and may not be viable in the end. Impossible? No.

You are the one making a positive claim that a simple tube of vacuum is an impossible thing, so you better prove it.

>> No.9333502

>>9333476
I'm not saying I won anything, what the fuck is your problem? Can you not just have a conversation?

>> No.9333508

>>9333477
>You are the one making a positive claim that a simple tube of vacuum is an impossible thing

No I'm not and I never did? Who the fuck do you think you are responding to? What's wrong with you?

>> No.9333522

>>9333369
this board is like 1 or 2 dozen shit posters + autists who compulsively reply to them for years on end

>> No.9333527

>>9333502
>you truly must be some sort of god among men, a rick and morty viewer without parallel.
>there are some autistic fucks in this thread like you and I'm sorry I saw this in the catalog. Enjoy your autism.
>You're a waste of time.
>what the fuck is your problem? Can you not just have a conversation?
Go outside, take a little walk. Look for a dumpster. Climb in it. Just lie there. Just don't move. There's no need to move or do anything ever again. You're where you belong.

>> No.9333533

>>9333527
People like you are what's ruining this board and just discussion in genral. Get help.

>> No.9333558

>>9333533
You come into the thread, and you just repeat half-assed, stupid, baseless claims that were made and shot down earlier. You have nothing to contribute but a smugly-expressed uninformed opinion. When you're told to fuck off with your uninformed opinion, and get a brief explanation of why it's fucking stupid, you hang around and just repeat yourself and insist you're right in stronger terms and blame everyone else.

You are garbage. Be garbage somewhere else.

>> No.9333586

>>9333558
>You come into the thread, and you just repeat half-assed, stupid, baseless claims that were made and shot down earlier. You have nothing to contribute but a smugly-expressed uninformed opinion. When you're told to fuck off with your uninformed opinion, and get a brief explanation of why it's fucking stupid, you hang around and just repeat yourself and insist you're right in stronger terms and blame everyone else.
>You are garbage. Be garbage somewhere else.
This level of projection is truly amazing, I wonder how you got to be such a shitty person. You've done nothing but angrily insist that other people are wrong about claims they arnt even making while trying to be as much of a cunt as possible. You seem to want to defend Elon musk despite not having any of the technical knowledge needed to do so, you clearly have no understanding of the concepts that you are talking about yet feel it's fine to shit on someone who is skeptical, again without actually being able to offer a counter argument other than "no, he said he could do it, it's not as hard as you're making it out to be" without ever explaining why that's the case, you just repeat the claim. You are sub-human filth and I'm going to do what everyone else has done now and leave this thread forever. You win, you're the biggest asshole.

>> No.9333604

>>9333586
>I'm going to do what everyone else has done now and leave this thread forever.
That's a start, but please don't post in any /sci/ thread again. We could have such nice discussions without the involvement of persistent morons.

>> No.9333645

>>9333604
I cant believe this happened again. Few weeks ago I was in a similar thread and some guy insisted that it was impossible to build a Falcon 9 in the late 70s early 80s if there was political will.
Long story short I tried to identify the engineering challenges and look some details of old tech. The other guy called me autistic and that I need to seek help. That post made my day...

>> No.9333686

>>9333645
That's an interesting line of inquiry. Falcon 9 exactly couldn't have been built, since it relies on modern computers and material science, but I think a similar, less efficient thing could well have been.

They might have needed to use (or benefitted from using) human pilots, either onboard or by remote control.

>> No.9333738

>>9333686
I got to the similar conclusion. The processing power was the biggest problem. Early 80s you can use Intel 80286 and just add more of them. You trade mass for less mass to LEO.
For the less efficient engines you can always go with more fuel to compensate.
For the landing algorithm you can save more fuel and land on a big flat landing pad. This way you focus on the suicide burn.

>> No.9333821

>>9333738
It can be done with relatively simple analog control systems. There were automated propulsive landings on the moon before the manned ones. Having external radar tracking and landing pad beacons just makes it easier. With remote control, any required computer systems can be ground-based.

They'd probably want a system capable of hovering to a soft landing, to do it with relatively primitive tech.

There are other things you can change to make the problem easier. For instance, Falcon 9 does the Segway trick, where it balances up on end with thrust coming from a single point. You can do other things, like land entirely sideways, you can make it a wide-based rocket with a naturally-stable arrangement of multiple landing engines around the perimeter, or you can use thrusters high on the rocket to hold it upright.

>> No.9334226

Elon Musk is actually one of the few people I look up to. He's in my top 6 along with Nikola Tesla, George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Madison, and Ghandi.

With a project this big, I'm just happy it's even coming NEXT year.

>> No.9334297

>>9334226
>no Teddy Roosevelt

>> No.9334608

>>9333821
just need to design the rocket aerodynamically stable
if its a "small" rocket like the F9, a single landing engine is likely the way to go

>> No.9334869
File: 368 KB, 507x295, falconheavy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9334869

/sci/ on suicide watch again

>> No.9334879

>>9329100
low class bait for a low class brain

>> No.9334882

>>9330512
what a retard, go back to /b/

>> No.9334885

>>9330538
of course the guys who build other rockets will try to make it look bad...just trust Elon you turds

>> No.9334887

>>9330546
you're the stupid one here
but you don't realize it...makes sense

>> No.9334982

>>9334885
>just blindly trust lmao
no
He gets trust because he knows what he's doing, not because he exists

>> No.9335252

>>9334869
source

>> No.9335346

>>9334608
Aerodynamic stability would be helpful for entry and descent but of little consequence during landing. To land a VTVL rocket, you need to achieve stability through thrust, unless you want to do something wacky like put a gyrocopter rotor on top.

The Segway trick Falcon 9 pulls is the most computationally expensive (though also the mechanically simplest) way of landing. If we're going back in time to theorize about how it might have been achieved earlier, we should look at options requiring less computer power.

>> No.9335413

>>9335346
How much computer power do you need just for the suicide burn ?
If you can make your landing site 1km in diameter you can cut corners.

>> No.9335425

>>9335346
>but of little consequence during landing
Thats not true, outside the last second or two you still have plenty aerodynamic control

If these engines at the bottom were not stable, then the rockets wouldn't fly at all, it would spin and destroy itself.

>> No.9335467

>>9335425
For a typical rocket with gimballed engines, the main thing the gimbal control does is point the thrust through the center of mass, and vary slightly from that to steer the direction of the rocket. You're not trying to precisely control lateral velocity or position, especially not going backwards. For orbital launch, wandering sideways a few km during ascent isn't a big deal, as long as you keep accelerating in the correct direction.

Stationary hovering on a single gimballed engine without RCS thrusters is very hard, and landing is essentially the same problem with trickier timing: you have to come to a hover as you meet the ground.

>>9335413
It's true that a bigger landing zone makes things easier, but excessive lateral velocity will still cause the rocket to trip and fall over.

>> No.9335501

>>9335467

Landing is NOT the same problem though
Tipping over takes several seconds, so if the possibility only exists in the last 1.5 seconds of landing, when velocity is slow enough that aerodynamic forces won't keep it upright, then you can just have wide legs to reverse any tipping.

It's not going to be an explosive flip over

Obviously this is something you test & figure out through trial/error like SpaceX did... but overall I doubt the lack of modern fly by wire is going to prevent vertical landing.

>> No.9335533

>>9335467
>>Stationary hovering on a single gimballed engine without RCS thrusters is very hard, and landing is essentially the same problem with trickier timing: you have to come to a hover as you meet the ground.
As long as you have vertical velocity the gridfins provide stability in the thicker atmosphere. I guess the last 1 sec is always the hardest.

>> No.9335549

>>9335501
>I doubt the lack of modern fly by wire is going to prevent vertical landing.
I'm not saying it would prevent it, I'm saying it would likely require some differences in approach to simplify the control problem.

>> No.9335693

>>9335252
It was leaked, there's no further information.

>> No.9335726

>>9335693
What's the significance supposed to be?

Looks like it's where it belongs. They're supposed to fire it on the pad this year.

I'm as interested in the holddown firing as the actual launch. That's basically where shit is most likely to go wrong.

>> No.9335916
File: 945 KB, 1243x338, fh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9335916

>>9334869
Original seems to be deleted now. I have just this enlarged and cropped part.
Too bad, although the entire picture wasn't related, there were still some elements that showed the launch pad as well.

The heavy might actually after all this time get on the pad.

>> No.9336230

>>9330325
>few prototypes
>globally dominant
>decades ahead of everyone else
Hahaha haha this is what Muskfags actually believe

>> No.9337111
File: 685 KB, 500x500, 1471918354790.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9337111

>>9336230
Jeff who

>> No.9337123
File: 259 KB, 1238x518, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9337123

>>9329100
You're right, OP. We should leave space travel to the old-guard professionals.

>> No.9337125

>>9330525
>Reusable launch vehicles are not something new they invented, nor a practical and efficient way to access space despite any such claims.
Citation needed on that second part.