/sci/ - Science & Math

>can lift only 10 tons to leo
Useless.
Make way for the superior company that does things right!

>>9398749
Sir do you happen to be retarded? The Falcon Heavy can lift 63,800 kg (140,700 lb) to LEO compared to it's closest competitor the Delta 4 Heavy which can lift but a mere 28,790 kg (63,470 lb) there respectively. I know your trolling but atleast try to utilise some brain cells while doing it. I'd expect this type of reply on /pol/ but not here...

>>9398749
How's that decreased marked share treating you, Bruno?

>Musk: Payload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity
>Will be placed into Mars orbit for billions of years

That son of a bitch

>>9398766
>>9398837
Do not respond to shitposters

>>9398847
Technically not a mars orbit but a mars flyby and then a heliocentric orbit in the same orbital region as mars

Still: fuckin' sweet

>>9398847
>Space Oddity
>Not Life on Mars

come one musk

>>9398749
But ULA can currently only put zero tons in orbit because their rocket doesn't exist.

>>9399024
come two musk

>>9398651
We did it lads!

>>9399436
not sure if i want it to succeed or blow up

Guessing we are looking at
a) hold down test-firing
or
b) the fucking is gonna do a surprise launch just for the fuck of it

>>9399444
*fucker

i-is it actually gonna happen?

>>9399458
nah it too fat
Will implode mid takeoff.

I don't follow these pop-sci stuff, but can someone give a quick rundown?

>>9399498
its the falcon heavy rocket getting ready to launch musk's car to mars

Welp, I think this makes the Atlas 5 and SLS about obsolete.

>>9398651
>ywn create your own revelating successful car company
>ywn create a successful space travel company and send your own car made by your company to space

>>9399958
They'll be fine

>>9398847

>>9398847
A bubblegum with Musk DNA and a drawing by his doughter inside glove compartment?

What will he surprise us with?

>>9399958
the air force will keep atlas on life support until another launch provider can take its place. they want two providers to be available at all times, so spacex and ULA for now and maybe spacex / blue origin in the future.

>>9400100
interesting how reusing 4 SSMEs doesn't put a dent in the cost

>>9400149
reusing SSME's prolly cost more than producing some nice new open cycle gas generator engine like the merlin's...

NASA doesn't WANT to launch or do anything, thats why they move at glacial pace. Look at how delayed the commercial crew shitfest is, all because of NASA

>>9399034
come three musk

>>9398749
>actually thinking SpaceX can't build a PAF capable of handling Falcon Heavy's maximum payload mass
>being this retarded

>>9400173
come four musk

>>9399494
>rocket implodes during takeoff

that'd be a first
though SpaceX did accidentally have a Falcon 1 implode a little during transport once

>>9400192
come five musk

>>9400149
>reusing

They had to pretty much rebuild those RS-25s for them to be good to launch SLS, and they won't be reused afterwards.

>>9400190
>He thinks the structure of the 2nd stage is magically overdesigned to handle 50 ton payloads

They would have to redesign the WHOLE 2nd stage, something not at all on their schedule to do

>>9400199
>>9400192
This is gay. very gay

When is the lunch? anybody has the stream link?

>>9400218
>something not at all on their schedule to do

Falcon 9 Block 5 is almost done, and soon after that Falcon Heavy (with block 5 cores) will be done too. Once that's complete they can throw a little more R&D effort into adjusting the 2nd stage before switching the majority of engineers onto BFR. The Falcon rocket first stages are going to have their designs frozen at Block 5.

Besides that, who says the 2nd stage CAN'T already handle a *64* ton payload? The first stage has no problem holding up the second stage plus its own weight, and it's all the same thickness of sheet metal. The PAF actually needs to be redesigned because it doesn't rely on internal pressure to keep its shape.

Ok /sci/, realistically, how much will our energy be reliant on extra-planetary resources within 50 resources if this is a success? Will it be commercially feasible?

>>9400218
>actually thinking SpaceX can't build a 2nd stage capable of handling Falcon Heavy's maximum payload mass
>being this retarded

>>9400227
This is just a fit test, static fires aren't happening for a while and the launch isn't happening until a while after the static fires.

>>9400239
Our energy? Hopefully none percent, in 50 years we should be using high performance fission breeder reactors. Falcon Heavy isn't the rocket to revolutionize space travel to the point that we can start mining stuff for here on Earth, it's just the rocket that lets SpaceX launch every commercial payload to every Earth orbit without needing to expend first stages anymore.

>>9400244
ow fuck. I got my popcorn for nothing

>>9400236
>Besides that, who says the 2nd stage CAN'T already handle a *64* ton payload?
Because you don't produce the most efficient rocket on the planet by OVER BUILDING it

It can handle what they say it can handle
10 tons, with a significant safety margin

>The first stage has no problem holding up the second stage plus its own weight
Something that is designed to hold 100 tons up there, with appropriate margins, is not magically also strong enough to hold 160 tons. It's the internal lattice that also adds strength/rigidity.

Now, is the F9 Block V designed around being capable of supporting the 20-30 ton payloads that the Falcon Heavy might be physically capable of launching? Perhaps
But probably not.

>>9400240
not that they can't, but that they WON'T
I guarrentee it

>>9400301
>Because you don't produce the most efficient rocket on the planet by OVER BUILDING it

Except they did exactly that already, duh. The Falcon 9 is structurally stronger than any rocket in production today, simply because it has to deal with all the forces of reentry and landing, along with the actual launch.

All that aside, even if the current Falcon 9/Heavy 2nd stage and cores are not capable of supporting a payload weighing what the rocket could physically put into orbit, there's absolutely no reason that they couldn't design them to be able to do so. Yes they would be overbuilt for light payloads. They already ARE overbuilt for light payloads, just like literally every launch vehicle is. Tweaking the rocket so it is strong enough to launch a 64 ton payload won't magically make it unable to launch a lighter payload either. Granted that may require a performance upgrade to keep the same payload if the structural mass increases, but the block 5 is already getting yet another improved Merlin 1D, which could be to offset those structural changes if they have already been made.

>>9400319
>Tweaking the rocket so it is strong enough to launch a 64 ton payload won't magically make it unable to launch a lighter payload either
It WOULD take weight off the already small payload it can take to GTO. Which is their primary business, and their current weak point.

>>9400301
>Because you don't produce the most efficient rocket on the planet by OVER BUILDING it

There's no point in optimizing your rocket to payload mass unless you assume that all launch vehicle costs tie directly to the amount of worked material that goes into it. Reusable rockets make optimizing your rocket to be as small as possible for the payload irrelevant.

>>9400334
You don't get to space without heavily optimizing for payload mass
They accept the losses that reuse imposes, but they still are pushing their limits to put send properly sized sats to GTO

They have clearly spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading their rocket for superior payload
Everything they are doing with the BFR is about increasing payload, methane engines, higher thrust to weight, carbon composite structure, etc

>>9400345
I'm not talking about the problem of making big rockets. The established rocket industry is all about making the rocket *just big enough* for the payload; that's why Atlas V does all its shenanigans with variable numbers of strap on boosters.

>>9399024
They are reserving that one for the first manned BFR mission.

>>9400330
>It WOULD take weight off the already small payload it can take to GTO. Which is their primary business, and their current weak point.

Which is what Falcon Heavy is used for. No more expendable Falcon 9 launches with normal payloads anymore. Either it's light enough to go on a reusable F9, or it goes on Heavy.

Above a certain mass the center core of Heavy must be expended, but the boosters remain recoverable up until near the maximum possible payload to LEO. Only payloads massing very close to the 64 ton absolute limit would require a fully expendable Heavy launch, luckily the only customers launching such a heavy payload would also be willing to pay for it, since a fully expendable FH is still far cheaper than a Delta IV Heavy launch.

>>9400345

>Everything they are doing with the BFR is about increasing payload

>methane engines

Not about increasing payload, but about increasing reusability (no soot) and enabling ISRU propellant production in space.

This emphasis on payload mass optimization is old space thinking. You still have to keep it in mind, but when there is a tradeoff beween reliability and payload mass/payload fraction, you go for the first one. That is new space thinking. Now it is the booster itself is the important thing, not stuffing it with precious payload to the maximum extent possible.

>>9400240

Falcon Heavy is merely a stopgap until BFR. They could upgrade it to handle 64 tons if they wanted to, but there is no point in doing that when BFR should be flying in a several years and launch much bigger payloads anyway. It would be a pointless detour from their initial goal. In fact even Falcon Heavy itself is a questionable rocket especially since it took a lot more time and money than originally intended. In hindsight Musk would probably not choose to go for a Heavy variant and instead concentrate on BFR.

>>9400425
The biggest danger for the Falcon Heavy is that it'll blow up, destroying a launch site, and grounding them for another 6 months

>>9400425
They choose this size because anything bigger would cause the cost to bloom because it wouldn't fit in their rocket facilities.

>>9400425
Heavy took longer than expected but most of the delay has been caused by the continual evolution of Falcon 9. Even once F9 got to the point that designing a Heavy version made sense, so many resources were being used to develop stage recovery that it slowed FH development significantly.

We already know that Elon doesn't want to ever do a three core design again. Not only is it more trouble than it's worth, having three cores vastly increases the turnaround time for the vehicle compared to the potential with a single core design, which could land directly in the launch mount and be reconnected for re-stacking and refueling immediately.

Something SpaceX probably wants to avoid is to have to revisit Falcon development in order to beef up the stages and PAF to increase the structural load limit for the Falcon family after they've already diverted the vast majority of their resources to BFR. Their plan to finance BFR right now is to build ahead with Falcon 9 and Heavy, get a good stockpile of cores, and then use those cores to perform all Falcon missions, shutting or very significantly slowing down Falcon production and diverting that funding over to BFR development and production.

In order to really be able to drop Falcon production, the limits imposed by the structure on the payload mass should be raised to at least the maximum payload a Falcon Heavy can put into orbit in reusable mode. The chance is small, but real, that with Falcon Heavy launch prices people will make payloads to take advantage of the extra mass and lower cost. With a more robust structure, SpaceX can accept those launch contracts. Even if the reinforcements reduced the performance of both rockets very significantly, which it probably wouldn't, that still isn't a problem because the payloads that are suddenly just a bit too massive to fly on a reusable Falcon 9 are still well below the upper limit for a reusable Falcon Heavy, and would therefore get bumped up to Heavy.

https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1514436832500.webm

When is this garbage supposed to launch?

>>9400607
Next year

>>9400710
>Next year
A fucking year?
Why did they placed it there then?

>>9400723
Anon, it's 29th of December...

>>9400723
You do realize that by next year he means january, right?

>>9399951
God I wish this was real

>>9400725
>>9400726
Whoa didn't think about that.

>>9400765
Yep we all share oxygen with this thing....

>>9400773
No bully I am depressed it takes me effort to figure out in what part of the year I am.

>>9398749
The payload mass is a nearly insignificant part of the load the upper stage needs to bear. The vast majority of the load is aerodynamic resistance from pushing a blunt 5-meter-diameter fairing through the atmosphere at supersonic speed. In addition, it has to carry the propellant, particularly the liquid oxygen in the upper part, which is much higher mass than any payload could be.

Furthermore, the upper stage is constructed according to the same methods as the F9 lower stage, which is longer and has to carry a larger propellant load plus the entire upper stage plus the fairing drag plus payload. The upper stage alone is over 100 tonnes. The idea that the F9 booster can carry a 120 tonne payload, but a shorter section of the same pressurized pipe will crumple under more than 10 tonnes is incredibly stupid to even suggest, let alone claim is an established fact.

This claim that Falcon Heavy payloads would be limited by the structural strength of the upper stage is based on nothing but laughable ignorance.

>>9400253
I thought FH was mainly to take the largest NRO satellite contracts away from ULA. Only Delta Heavy can launch them at the moment.

I don't think anyone else has a payload larger than NRO's spysats.

>>9400938
FH is also great for big bigelow modules and moon payloads

>>9400938

That's a part of it. However, the extra money they'd get from having a few more launches is much less than the money they'd save by not having to expend (and thus continuously produce) Falcon cores for launches that are just a little bit too heavy for stage recovery to be an option with Falcon 9.

Maybe someone will build a payload with Falcon Heavy in mind that'd outweigh what we currently send up. It seems more likely that before such a payload was selected, developed, and built, SpaceX would be very well on their way to developing and building BFR, and Falcon 9 and Heavy would already have one foot out the door.

it's down

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/12/29/time-lapse-video-falcon-heavy-lowered-after-launch-pad-debut/

>>9400953
Will Musk ever recover?

>>9400345
>They have clearly spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading their rocket for superior payload
...with increased engine thrust from engines of the same mass, not by cutting more and more structural mass.

Falcon 9's structural mass advantages come from superior materials and methods, due to taking advantage of the latest advances and just plain good engineering, not low structural margins. They have higher structural margins than older rockets.

Why continue with the re-usability nonsense? A rocket that wastes fuel to haul itself back is one that could have sent a larger payload in space had it been designed properly.

>>9401062
>fuel is even 1% of the cost of a rocket launch

what universe do you live in

>>9401062
>Why continue with the re-usability nonsense?

why throw away tens of millions in flight hardware

>>9401062
>wastes fuel
Building a new rocket every time is not wasteful?

>>9400953
That's good, it means that everything went to plan. This was just a 'fit test' to see if the launch pad could support the heavy, the static fire is apparently occurring around New Year's and the actual launch should be soon after.

>>9401062
>t. Stéphane

>>9401097
I don't think it's good or bad. They'd take it down if they found a problem that needed fixing, too. Things would have to go really spectacularly wrong for them to be unable to take it down.

>>9401104
If they found a structural problem it would likely be taken down immediately to avoid damage, and if there was an electronic fault it would likely be left up for multiple days until they fixed said fault; but since they left it up for about a day I think it's accurate to assume that everything went to plan.

>>9401062
Okay retard, let me ask you this:
How cheap would plane tickets be if we dropped the "reusable airplane" meme and just crashed them into the ground? The fuel you waste on landing break could be used to carry more passagers!

>>9401062
congrats on triggering everyone with this shitpost anon

>>9398847
>>9399017
200 years from now, one of the Mars missions will have a serious, life-threatening problem. The solution to this problem that will save 1000s of people will involve a small course correct in order to "dock" with the nearly forgotten Tesla Roadster, in order to harvest parts from it to fix their ship. Books, Movies, and Experiencings will be made of it and it will be a hit for the summer.

>>9401062
>re-usability nonsense
Nigger, LOX/kerosene is fucking free compared to the rocket booster.

>>9401062
>re-usability nonsense?

Oh right, they must be dirty hippies.

>downvotes

>>9398847
What a faggot he is

>>9401062

No rocket ever launches with anything close to its maximum payload anyway. Falcon 9 can handle up to 22.8 tons to low Earth orbit, but to date the heaviest payload it has launched was only 13.4 tons. Most payloads are less than 5 tons. Clearly being able to reuse a Falcon 9 and indeed any rocket makes sense because the performance hit being taken because of reusability isn't even felt on most payloads anyway.

Side note, all those people who said Falcon 9 is limited to ~10 tons of payload due to the PAF/2nd stage not being able to structurally hold up to a heavier payload have clearly been BTFO but they didn't even know it.

>>9398847
Literally r*ddit the person.

>>9401062

>>9401235
>No rocket ever launches with anything close to its maximum payload anyway
That's not true. Mature rockets commonly use their full capacity, and SpaceX often pushes the limits of what Falcon 9 can do while still recovering the rocket.

>Falcon 9 can handle up to 22.8 tons to low Earth orbit, but to date the heaviest payload it has launched was only 13.4 tons. Most payloads are less than 5 tons.
Falcon 9's a special case both because of its reusability and because of its evolution to a much higher performance vehicle after a huge number of advance launch orders due to low prices. Most of its launch contracts were signed. SpaceX both charges more (specially negotiated rates, not advertised ones) and gives lower schedule priority (in its very full manifest) for launching heavy payloads.

And of course, you can't compare beyond-LEO launches to maximum LEO payloads.

>>9401261
>SpaceX often pushes the limits of what Falcon 9 can do while still recovering the rocket.

But never gets close to the actual expendable limit, which is what the other guy was saying reusability prevents SpaceX from doing and that therefore reusability is a bad thing. Without reusability, Falcon 9 would be a rocket launching most often with less than 1/4 of its maximum payload.

>Mature rockets commonly use their full capacity

Only because they tend to have more modular designs, of course an Atlas V 401 will carry a payload closer to its maximum than a Falcon 9, that's because the Atlas doesn't have any solids to increase its payload capacity. If Atlas and Delta weren't modular and instead had to be able to lift their maximum payload with their base (and only) configuration, then they'd be in the same overpowered boat as F9 when it came to <5 ton satellites.

>you can't compare beyond-LEO launches to maximum LEO payloads

Right, but to follow that other anon's logic we'd be stuffing every rocket to the gills with payload and dropping it all off in LEO every time, with the payload having to fend for itself from there, because it "would save more money per kilogram". My only point here is that filling up a rocket with its maximum payload to whatever orbit rarely happens except in the case that the rocket itself can be configured to have a maximum payload in that mass range. Deleting the Falcon 9 reuse capability in favor of eking out more performance doesn't make sense since Falcon 9 can already launch most payloads in reusable mode anyway, and with Falcon Heavy even most of the heavier payloads going to high orbits can be launched in reusable mode. If reusability isn't hurting your real world market competitive ability, then it really doesn't matter how much the payload mass ceiling dropped as a result of not wanting to expend rockets.

Dont forget to hide and sage elon meme shill threads

>>9401327

>>9401201
Will it star Matt Damon or Tom Hanks?

>>9401336
No, more like i entered this shitpost to remind others that autistic elon meme shills are not welcome here, you dumb nigger

As far as treads go, this one has been surprisingly civil. Same with the "we went to the moon"-thread. I suspect the 4-5 threads discussing ol'Trumpy's latest twitter-episode has drawn in most of the shitposters. Ofc, a few will leak through, but some always do

>>9401347
>>9401327
Show us on the doll where the Tesla salesman touched you, anon. This is a safe space for you

>>9401360
>as if id ever even consider buying that smoking heap of shit Elol Meme calls a car
go fuck yourself, dumb nigger. You too, Elol Meme

>>9401363
>>9401347
>>9401327
daily reminder:
>>>/global/6/
>>>/global/2/

>>9398847
He could have made a campaign to let "eager commoners" send something, since the rocket is not meant for profit anyway

>>9401342
>200 years from now

George Clooney's great great grandson.

>>9401421
*clone

>>9400872
cite your source that they made the 2nd stage out to literally the same structural strength as the 1st stage

You honestly believe the 2nd stage is built to hold 1000+ tons ?

>>9401235
>Side note, all those people who said Falcon 9 is limited to ~10 tons of payload due to the PAF/2nd stage not being able to structurally hold up to a heavier payload have clearly been BTFO but they didn't even know it.

Call me when they launch something heavier

>but to date the heaviest payload it has launched was only 13.4 tons.
Which one

>>9401449
>cite your source
You first. You opened with an uncited claim that the Falcon 9 upper stage can only structurally support 10 tons. You're not in a position to hand out assignments for other people to do your homework for you.

Aside from length, the construction of the upper and lower stage bodies is almost identical for reasons of tooling economy. This is public knowledge, which you can confirm with a few minutes of studying for yourself.

>You honestly believe the 2nd stage is built to hold 1000+ tons ?
Of course, you monkey. The maximum aerodynamic force on the fairing alone is over 600 tons.

>>9401429
George Cloney?

>>9401495
Now we're talking

Liberalism is bringing a new age in spaceflight meanwhile the right ringers killed both Apollo and the Shuttle. I just hope trump doesn't do anything too stupid to ruin things for everyone who love space because if it happens 3 times in a row then shit we're actually doomed.

>>9401509

>>9401490
>Aside from length, the construction of the upper and lower stage bodies is almost identical for reasons of tooling economy
As if equipment to produce sheet aluminum can't also produce thinner/thicker sheets ? As if they can't make the aluminum structure inside sparser or thinner?

MAYBE they have the margins in the construction to just absorb a higher payload weight(doubtful without structural changes), assuming they ever produced a heavier PAF(is that being worked on? Haven't read any such thing), and maybe some years from now they will actually do these fantasy uncontracted-for max size LEO launches.

Maybe

But more likely that will be a "wait for the BFR" situation.

>>9401509
Lel, you mean libertarianism right? Obama (a liberal democrat) was the one who killed both the constellation and shuttle program, in turn making the US reliant on soviet rocket engines. Trump is a far more beneficial president to the space industry because he's given NASA a purpose-to put men back on the moon instead of frolicking around aimlessly with some probes. The person who has the real potential to fuck this space boom up is the president after Trump, who will likely cut the funding and cancel Orion. Also stop pretending this is a political issue, the current space boom is primarily fuelled by capitalism, Elon Musk saw a gap in the market and decided to fill it with his own private company.

Where can I find the model rocket version so I can 4chan space program some small animals?

>>9401547
>Trump is a far more beneficial president to the space industry because he's given NASA a purpose-to put men back on the moon instead of frolicking around aimlessly with some probes.
Are you trolling son?

>>9401547
>who will likely cut the funding and cancel Orion
That's what I would do if I were Trump since Orion is a minority-infested black hole that will never go anywhere.

>>9401547
>Space Shuttle
>Formally scheduled for retirement by 2011, by order of Bush in 2004
>Somehow Obama's fault.

Let me guess, you think 9/11 was Obummers fault as well?

>>9401560
jest let them have thier fun little project attempt first manned launches while private companies colonize Mars

>>9401567
yes, obama was a senator at the time

>>9401569
it has a budget of like 2 billion a year, and has had that for the last 15 years

Of course we know why NASA is such a disaster shitfest
Look at that article where they are producing SIX Dragon 2's for testing purposes
How much money is that, 500 million? Just to test?

>>9401574

>The United States Senate career of Barack Obama began on January 3, 2005

We can all shit on this board too, but some choose not to.

>>9401596
He was alive and not white at the time, though. Using Alex Jones logic, that means he personally led Al Quida and flew 2/4 planes

>>9401542
>>Aside from length, the construction of the upper and lower stage bodies is almost identical for reasons of tooling economy
>As if equipment to produce sheet aluminum can't also produce thinner/thicker sheets ?
So, your argument here is that, because it's such an easy thing to do, they thinned down the structural metal on the upper stage so much that it's limited to carrying no more than 10 tons payload, and also that it's such a hard thing to do that they can't now and will never be able to thicken that structural metal (say, up to the standard thickness of the Falcon 9 booster, which is built on the same tooling, as you've just agreed in your own hypothetical model) to carry any heavier payload on Falcon Heavy?

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

>As if they can't make the aluminum structure inside sparser or thinner?
There's no "aluminum structure inside", you chimp. They're cylindrical tanks. The pipe is the structure. It's an efficient structural shape, especially when it's pressurized.

>>9401560
>>who will likely cut the funding and cancel Orion
>That's what I would do if I were Trump
Trump can't cancel Orion. It's mandated by law, as part of the whole SLS shitshow. Congress has to agree to cancel it, and it's a pork program. He has to make economic conditions better before they'll agree.

>>9401629
He's more likely to start tweeting about how the earth is flat and how rocket exaust causes autism

>many such cases!!!

>>9401547
There is no market in space. HSF has and always will be government driven.

>>9401637
>hurr this 150 iq self-made billionaire self-made president highly successful in everything he's done, with a younger independently rich super model wife, and 5 kids is so stupid!
>I'm so smart even though I can't in the slightest comprehend WHY Trump does things!

>>9401641
Ok, anon.

>>9401637

Haha this.

I still can't believe that idiot was elected.

>>9401647
Obama was the dumbest president in the history of the US, but for 8 years calling him dumb was racism huh

>>9401641
are you joshing me bro?

>>9401637
Im surprised he finds the time, thb

>>9401652
Why are republicans so alpha when it comes to taking vacations?

>>9401652
working vacations

>>9401650
One president's stupidity does not negate the retardness of another, anon.

And saying "obama is dumb" isn't rascist. Saying "King Nigger is dumb fucking nigger" with a picture of Obama's head badly photoshop'ed on the body of a chimp, on the other hand...

>>9401667
kek

>>9401667
but bush being an ape was just fine
obongo being an ape is racism
Anything that hurts the feelings of our special privileged noble class of negroids, stuff like freedom or rights is nothing compared to the feelings of blacks

>>9401640

government driven market is still a market

>>9401480
>Which one

Inmarsat-5 F4

>>9401618
this

>>9401835
>The spacecraft has a separated mass of 6,070 Kilograms and weighs 3,750kg when beginning its life in Geostationary Orbit.

13,000 lbs is not 13 tons
it is 6 tons

>>9401843
Ya got me there.
Regardless, I do agree with what the other guy says about it being retarded to imagine SpaceX going to all the trouble of switching out metal thicknesses and so forth just to build a stage they know will be too structurally weak to handle what the rocket is capable of orbiting.
The PAF is different because it's pretty trivial to build a beefier one (doesn't have much cascading effect on stage design), and they aren't already building something exactly like the PAF but much stronger somewhere else on the rocket.
SpaceX is all about efficiency in manufacturing to keep costs down, and having two completely separate lines making barrel sections and domes of two different thicknesses is decidedly NOT efficient.
What makes sense on both fronts is to build the second stage to the same level of strength as the first stage, using all the same tooling and pieces, because it streamlines production and means they will never have to go back and redesign the 2nd stage later on.

Can anyone tell me where this 10 tonne meme started?

Is there absolutely any evidence and logic behind it? The falcon heavy carrying less than a falcon 9? I don't get it.

Or is this just flat earth level conspiracy?

>>9401843
>13,000lbs
>6 tonnes, not 13 tonnes like it should be
Why are Americans/imperial so retarded?

>>9400156
>>9400202

such a waste to use reusable engines in a disposable application

rocketdyne really fucked up in the long run, they thought they would be the only game in town for 40+ years, then the russians came in with cheap RD180s, they tried to get in on that with $1M refurbed NK33s by selling them at who knows what price to OATK until they were forced to buy them back after that antares blew up. they had the F1 and that's dead, the big part of both deltas and atlas costs are AR engines, first and or second stages. you could buy ~40 merlins for one SSME

>>9401891
SpaceX only offers a payload adapter with a max of 10 tons
So they won't be going higher than that

>>9401878
>and means they will never have to go back and redesign the 2nd stage later on.
If they ever want to do long duration upper stage missions, they will need to redesign.

As well, the Falcon is integrated horizontally, not vertically. Is the upper stage structurally capable of handing 50 tons horizontally, during handling, during the elevating, etc?
There is a lot of consideration there, and I highly doubt it's so overbuilt that it is a trivial case of beefing up the PAF

The heavier payloads SpaceX HAS talked about were a dragon capsule + trunk, not a PAF capable of holding 20-30+ tons.
So perhaps it is not just a trivial issue to solve huh?

>>9401907
>If they ever want to do long duration upper stage missions, they will need to redesign.

correct, but that's something they wouldn't get 'for free' in the same sense that building a beefy upper stage comes as a given if they use the same parts that the first stage is made from. They would need to develop that regardless, and the ability to keep liquid kerosene and liquid oxygen on the same rocket for long periods of time is *definitely* non-trivial.

>Is the upper stage structurally capable of handing 50 tons horizontally, during handling, during the elevating, etc?

If it uses the same structural elements as the first stage and is pressurized during handling (which is is), then yeah I'd guess so. It already handles the horizontal loads of sitting on the strong back being held at the top of its tanks with only the interstage integrating it with the booster.

> . . . not a PAF capable of holding 20-30+ tons.
>So perhaps it is not just a trivial issue to solve huh?

Or maybe SpaceX can see an immediate market for heavier Dragon cargo deliver flights, whereas they're happy waiting for a customer to come to them with a bigger payload first before developing a stronger PAF. When I say it's trivial, what I mean is the PAF does not significantly effect the 2nd stage, it is its own structure. Therefore SpaceX should be able to change the PAF at any time without affecting the 2nd stage operation beyond a slight reduction in delta V due to a heavier dry mass if that's the case. Your example of developing tanks that could store propellants long term would drastically alter the stage's design by comparison.

>>9401907
>payload adapter of 10 tonnes
So what's the point of the falcon heavy?

>>9401907
>SpaceX only offers a payload adapter with a max of 10 tons
Oh boy, yet another extremely implausible unsourced assertion. It's like a "god of the gaps" argument. You decide to believe a silly thing, and guess at a reason for why it might be true. When we explain why that reason is wrong and stupid, you shamelessly make up another reason why you can go on believing the same thing.

>So they won't be going higher than that
...immediately followed by a demonstration of absolute idiocy. Way to lend credibility to your sourceless factual claims. Even if they had only offered a payload adapter limited to 10 tons, that's no reason why they would continue to do so after they built a superheavy launch vehicle.

>As well, the Falcon is integrated horizontally, not vertically.
They prefer horizontal integration, but they committed to providing vertical payload integration for DOD launches a long time ago.

>Is the upper stage structurally capable of handing 50 tons horizontally, during handling, during the elevating, etc?
First of all, the payload is rarely at full mass before it's raised to vertical. Practically anything is going to require a significant fraction of propellant (usually hydrazine), which is filled on the pad.

Secondly, there's no reason they can't provide whatever additional structural support is needed.

>>9401992
Can launch payloads in reusable mode that Falcon 9 can only launch in expendable mode, therefore reducing the number of expendable launches to effectively zero.

Also I'm of the opinion that SpaceX would have no problem developing a beefier payload adapter that could handle the maximum payload of Falcon Heavy (64 tons) but haven't yet because they don't need to. They'll have plenty of time from when they first get the contract to launch a 50 ton payload to the actual launch date to build a strong enough PAF.

What is PAF?

>>9401992
There isn't much of a point, and you can bet Elon has spent many nights regretting he proposed it, collected contracts for it, and shilled for it.

It will be used to carry payloads of up to 10 tons out to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit, The F9 can only manage around 5-6 tons there, at max. So there is a segment of the market being missed. Also deep space probes can make use of the greater payload.

They were talking about 13 tons of Dragon Capsule + Trunk being sent to Mars, they've never talked about big payloads to LEO, that has always been a fantasy of other nerds.

>>9402006
Payload Attachment Fitting

>>9402004
>Oh boy, yet another extremely implausible unsourced assertion

What do you mean assertion? This is in their manual, thats what they offer.

>that's no reason why they would continue to do so after they built a superheavy launch vehicle.

Sure if some company came to them with a 25 ton payload, and offered to pay for them to produce a new heavier PAF + necessary second stage modifications, they might do it.
I doubt they'll just be doing it on their own, because no such heavy payloads exist.

>Practically anything is going to require a significant fraction of propellant (usually hydrazine),
Thats not true for any of the proposed large LEO payloads, which are usually some form of space station.

>>9402012
>they've never talked about big payloads to LEO, that has always been a fantasy of other nerds.
...except that they're advertising it as a capability of Falcon Heavy on their website right now, you unbelievable turnip.

Seriously, what has to be wrong with your brain for you to even start to imagine that, unlike every other rocket ever, their payload mass would be structurally limited when they've got enough thrust and impulse to launch it? That would be grossly incompetent engineering.

>>9402056
>>Oh boy, yet another extremely implausible unsourced assertion
>What do you mean assertion? This is in their manual, thats what they offer.
What manual? Provide a link (which will inevitably be some ten-year-old thing referring to a completely different vehicle) or admit you're making it up.

>>9402062
No, thats just a somewhat standardized figure allowing you to compare "power" to other rockets. It's not them offering to launch 64 ton payloads.

>>9402064
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf

>>9402086
>No, thats just a somewhat standardized figure allowing you to compare "power" to other rockets. It's not them offering to launch 64 ton payloads.
Bullshit. It's them advertising that they can.

>http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf
>October 2015
This was for the Falcon 9 1.1, not the upgraded Full Thrust, let alone Falcon Heavy. SpaceX only ever claimed a ~13 tonne figure for Falcon 9 1.1, and for nearly all orbits of commercial or military interest, the performance was limited to ~11 tonnes.

It also says this:
>Falcon 9 may be able to accommodate payloads with characteristics outside the limitations indicated in this section. Please contact SpaceX with your mission-unique requirements
...so they weren't specifying hard limits, they were describing the things that could be easily accommodated on Falcon 9 1.1 without special study and additional fees. Launching specifically to the maximum-performance orbit at full load would definitely involve special services, since there would be no margin.

>>9402133
may be able, not "Sure we can handle massively larger payloads no biggie, just call us"

No doubt a new guide be released at some point specifying what sort of payloads the FH & F9Block V can handle. But this is the guide that all contracts agreed to have to abide by.

>>9402215
>this is the guide that all contracts agreed to have to abide by.
Oh my god, you're a moron. That's not what it is at all. It's not a launch contract. It's just a starting point for how to design your payload to be easily compatible with Falcon 9 1.1 without special services. It was only ever something you can look at before you start talking to people at SpaceX, especially if you're doing preliminary studies (there are a lot more spacecraft that are proposed than are actually flown).

>No doubt a new guide be released at some point specifying what sort of payloads the FH & F9Block V can handle.
As I've already pointed out, this guide predates the Full Thrust version. It is definitely out of date information. It was written for Falcon 9 1.1, so the 11 tonnes it mentions is only a little under the absolute maximum payload.

To take this old document for an obsolete vehicle and assume that the Full Thrust, for which they advertise a LEO capability over 20 tonnes, is limited to 11 tonnes, is idiotic, let alone to assume that such a limitation applies to Falcon Heavy, a superheavy with a claimed capacity of 64 tonnes to LEO.

>>9400789
Maybe a rare Dorner will cheer you up.

>>9402301
>Black spree killers are so based

Too bad he didn't kill you, faggot

>>9401652

>>9402253
None of the booked Falcon Heavy missions involve large LEO payloads

The F9 FT debuted in Dec 2015, it was under development all through that time, and that manual is up to date for the capabilities/limitations of the F9 FT. This 10.8 ton limitation is for the F9 FT.
Remember, they had a failure in the summer of 2015, and spent that downtime upgrading the F9. The F9 1.1 had its last flight in Jan 2016

>As of summer 2015, Falcon 9 is upgraded from its previousv1.1 configuration(flown from 2013 –summer 2015). Unused margin on the engines has been released to increase thrust. The airframe and thrust structures have been reinforced to accommodate the additional thrust and increase reliability.

So no doubt at some point they will release a manual describing the capabilities for the F9 Block V, which will likely not be capable of large LEO payloads simply because there is no demand for such a thing.

Elon's other massive white erection.

>>9402335
>The F9 FT debuted in Dec 2015, it was under development all through that time, and that manual is up to date for the capabilities/limitations of the F9 FT.
The guide was released in October 2015. Writing takes time, and FT was untested and would remain so for months. Up-to-date information is available for serious customers through contacts at SpaceX.

>This 10.8 ton limitation is for the F9 FT.
Again, it was never a hard limitation. Exceeding it was, and likely remains, a special service. For the 1.1, there were practically no orbits which F9 could reach with such a load and it wouldn't have engine-out capability or other mission assurance advantages when pushed to such a limit, while the FT is reliably recoverable and exceeding this load for nearly any useful orbit costs a booster.

>which will likely not be capable of large LEO payloads simply because there is no demand for such a thing.
...except there is. The military likes large LEO payloads (and is excited about Falcon Heavy for this reason). CST-100 will be 13 tonnes (and yes, Boeing has made a point of claiming that it can fly on Falcon 9). Bigelow wants to launch space station modules. The availablity and affordability of Dragon will open up new markets for large payloads relating to manned spaceflight.

It's insanely stupid to believe that the fucking structural coupling, that is just there to give the payload on the upper stage someting to sit on, is some kind of major limiting factor that is going to stop them from flying heavy payloads. "Hey guys! We're SpaceX! We can build the world's most advanced space rockets and passenger vehicles to keep humans alive in orbit and bring them safely home, but we can't build a little cone properly for the end. We try, but it always comes out flimsy, so I guess we can't ever put anything big on our superheavy rocket."

Seriously, you should listen to what you're saying and think a bit. It's grotesquely moronic.

>>9402388
Most of the increased payload capacity between the 1.1 and the Full Thrust was a hidden 30% margin that was reserved for reuse.
It was much more capable than it seems on paper.

> CST-100 will be 13 tonnes (and yes, Boeing has made a point of claiming that it can fly on Falcon 9).
Probably for the same reason as clowns like you think that just because the F9 payload reads "22 tons to LEO", that you could actually give SpaceX a 22 ton block of steel and they could put it into orbit.

Doesn't work that way.

It's insanely stupid to make bold claims about what the FH will be able to launch before it has launched once, and before SpaceX has told us what capabilities it will have.

The F9 FT was limited to 10.8 tons, it's highest payload was 9.6 tons to LEO.

OK ALRIGHT IT CAN DO FIDDY GRAMS OR WHATEVER TO GEOLEONEO JUST STOP ARGUING

the important part here is that it pulls birds from ariane. SpX is on track to have 90% of the biddable launch market soon

>>9402446
Yuropoors solution is to make rockets even more disposable by mass producing carbon fiber solid fuel rockets.

>>9402468
the Chinese are gonna be the big non US player soon. They're already deep into testing a falcon 1 derivative with F9 landing capability

>>9402477
Is New Line - 1 really the name of the rocket? Also how many engines does that thing have?

>>9402523
>>9402477
yep

https://t.qianzhan.com/caijing/detail/171104-c52242b3.html

>>9402324
>largest dildo in the world

Rockets don't work in space.

>>9401490
This. If it can survive max Q, it can handle any payload that fits in the shroud. Maximum payload is a matter of deltaV, not weight or structural strength. If your payload weighs too much, it won't be delivered to target orbit. That is the only issue here.

>>9398847
Looks like they finally got all the black boxes taped in.

>>9398651
So is my dick

>>9402477

>fly cheap
>see copies of your payload on alibaba 3 months later

or

>fly more expensive falcon
>hand over encapsulated secure payload

>>9402788
this, this so much

>>9402477
That's over $15,000/kg

>>9403231
it still shows a desire to work towards reusability, even if it means copying American hardware

>>9403231
that is over 3 times a falcon 9 launch. and nearly 10 times a falcon heavy.

>>9401640
kinda agree with this, but it is beside the point.

SpaceX makes most of its money from commercial satellite payloads, not the ISS support missions. But those first CRS contracts came at an extremely convenient time to bridge the development gap between Falcon 1 and Falcon 9.

>>9401640
platinum metal group asteroids.

launch a robot to find an asteroid with the appropriate metal content. then it moves the asteroid to earth orbit. another robot then crunches it up. dragon capsules go up and get loaded with ore and bring it back to earth.

there is enough cargo capacity in a dragon 1 to profit several million dollars per launch if you are carrying high grade platinum, iridium, or other rare metal ores.

>>9403705
asteroid mining is a stupid meme for retards who don't understand delta-v or travel time

Rockets can't work in a vacuum.

>>9402012
>There isn't much of a point, and you can bet Elon has spent many nights regretting he proposed it, collected contracts for it, and shilled for it.

He definitely regrets announcing its initial launch date, because almost immediately after that they realized they should start off by upgrading Falcon 9 instead of having to essentially develop Heavy twice. Heavy development didn't even really start until a couple years ago desu.

>>9403795
>these new fangled auto carriages aren't worth the time to develop.
>i'll stick with my horses.

there are resources in space that are abundant, but rare on earth. like iridium and he3. these would be worth it to bring back to earth. eventually this "gold rush" will pave the way to establish permanent human residency in space and a separate space economy.

>>9402477
thats a smallsat launcher

>>9402477

>>9403830
You clearly don't understand how space travel works. You can't just move an asteroid into Earth orbit. That would require a delta V of several hundred meters per second, minimum. Since we're talking about an asteroid weighing several million tons, the only propulsion system we'd be able to use that could carry enough fuel to accelerate that mass by that much would be the Orion drive, which if you don't know requires nuclear bombs. Chemical thrusters are entirely out of the question.

Beyond that, Even if you decide not to move the asteroid and instead just bring back ore mined from the asteroid in a solar orbit, you're looking at several thousand kilometers per second of Delta V, which is WAY beyond what spacecraft like Dragon have.

Even if you magically had an asteroid in low Earth orbit made of nothing but platinum group metals, you can't just ignore the cost of the mining machinery involved with actually harvesting these materials. Several million dollars gross profit per launch of Dragon may not be enough once you consider the cost associated with the mining equipment and the army of operators and technicians you have to pay here on Earth to keep those machines running. And that's for mining in LEO, multiply those costs by at least 10 for objects in solar orbit and cut down your delivery cadence by 100 due to the 9 month transit times between Earth and these asteroids. Oh, and add on the sunk cost of developing a vehicle capable of going all the way out to an asteroid and back with any payload at all, let alone enough payload to pay just for its own launch.

Anon is right, asteroid mining is a meme at this point.

>>9403867
costs are amortized over decades. like any new mining or drilling operation is on earth.

delta v can be substituted for more time.

ion thursters, solar sails.

you have to have the political will to expend the capital over decades. all to have vital these new streams of vital resources for your economy. you might not make money on the metal sales directly. though as a loss leader they will allow you to have the manufacturing that they are dependent on.

just look at china and their control of the rare earths market. they keep the prices artificially low. so that no on else can profitablly mine and refine rare earths. so this forces everyone to make their electronics in china, or buy rare earth from china. which has a significant political cost to it. last time japan and china disputed the ownership of the senkaku islands. china cut off rare earth exports to japan and cause japan's economy to shrink for a period.

>>9403888
>what is delta-v
>what is travel time
>what is the availibility of all these things on Earth

Unless there is a PERFECT asteroid requiring super low delta-v, and if the government will allow you to aerobrake to crash tonnage into the desert, unless some fantastic solar electric vehicles are produced, unless launch costs goes down by orders of magnitude, etc etc etc

ASTEROID MINING IS A MEME

Talking about mining asteroids that take 2+ years just to REACH
And fucking 10+ km/s delta-v !
It's ridiculous

>>9403888
>delta v can be substituted for more time.

No, the minimum delta V has to be there or your vehicle cannot reach its destination. Hohmann transfer orbits require the least delta V, and anything less that what a Hohmann transfer requires will cause your orbit to never intersect with the target's orbit.

>costs are amortized over decades. like any new mining or drilling operation is on earth.

If you're making less in gross sales than you are expending to run your operation you make zero money and costs are never paid. We don't extract gold ions from sea water because it's impossible to make money doing it, the operational costs for every kilogram of gold produced alone would put the minimum sale price to break even for that gold at many times greater than market prices. We didn't bother extracting oil from the tar sands in Alberta before oil prices rose to the point that profit was achievable. Prices on gold and iridium etc would need to rise by several hundred times over in order for space mining to be economically possible.

>ion thrusters, solar sails

Even ion thrusters wouldn't have the delta V required unless you're willing to wait multiple decades per shipment. Only by moving bulk amounts of materials around can the price per kilogram drop to anything close to market prices, but moving bulk materials around with ion drives takes many years of constant thrust, minimum. Oh, and xenon is actually expensive enough that you'd have to worry about cutting into your profit margins there too.

Solar sails are slow like ion drives, but thy're also harder to steer, and don't make sense for moving small bits of cargo around. The best use for a solar sail would be to move the asteroid itself, but then you need a way to make the asteroid stop spinning (not easy considering it weighs millions of tons), and you need to wait even longer for the asteroid to accelerate by any significant amount.

>>9403888
The reason China controls the rare-earth market is because they don't give a shit about the thorium by product or rare earth metal refinement. Regulations everywhere else make thorium a very regulated substance, but China does the smart thing and just buries the thorium they make in shipping containers at the bottom of a rock quarry. Thorium really isn't dangerous but western countries shit themselves over radioactivity so rare-earth production is basically impossible.

That's funny, because those same countries let oil companies release shitloads of radon gas all the time because those radioactive materials are 'naturally occurring', lol

>>9403888
>delta v can be substituted for more time.

only if your original plan had your spacecraft overshooting the minimum delta V requirement in the first place dumbass

changing orbits isn't like driving a car, you can't just go slower and cross the same distance, you have to go a minimum speed to change your orbit a certain amount, period.

and minimum delta-v transfers are SLOW AS SHIT

Only government financed probes will accept several year transfer times

Then the issue with asteroids is no atmosphere, so burning more delta-v to accelerate the trip means you have to burn delta-v to slow down.

Until Mars or Venus or to Titan where you can do a fast transfer, then lose delta-v by aerobraking.

If its not possible to do some form of aerobraking at Jupiter then going to Jupiter will probably wait till after Saturn.

>>9404155
>If its not possible to do some form of aerobraking at Jupiter then going to Jupiter will probably wait till after Saturn.


Aerobraking at Jupiter is a no-go, ~mach 50 entry speeds are too much to deal with. Actually going to Jupiter with people could happen if we used NTR propulsion and overshot the minimum delta V requirement to get there, we'd only need enough delta V to get to zero relative velocity around one of the irregular outer moons. Spacecraft powered by nuclear thermal rockets can resupply pretty easily since they only need propellant mass, it doesn't have to be separated into combustible chemicals. Although that being said we'd probably electrolyse water to get hydrogen propellant anyway.

Once your NTR powered ship has refilled on liquid hydrogen you can go to and land on any of the moons of Jupiter and resupply there as well.

>>9404182
Once you already have a "colony" of sorts on Callisto, then refueling in Jupiter orbit would solve the problem.

Would only take one NTR + Nuclear Electric ship to get there to produce the thousands of tons of fuel to refuel inbound chemical powered ships.

>>9404216
Yeah but if you have NTRs at that point anyway then why not use them

>>9404217
because large nuclear reactors cost hundreds of millions/billions and are extremely regulated

SpaceX is not going to be allowed to build dozens/hundreds of them.

>>9404235
>increasingly worried [ULA employee]

SpaceX is already working with NASA on kilopower and other similar projects

>>9404239
[citation needed]

>>9404244
shotwell mentioned they were trying to acquire nuclear materials at a conference 3mo ago. She said it was difficult; and that if NASA could provide the testing facilities for nuclear rockets they would be all over it. As it stands, getting permits and setting up the scrubbers etc is just too expensive for SpaceX to do it on their own

>>9403705
>then it moves the asteroid to earth orbit
How?

>>9403830
>there are resources in space that are abundant, but rare on earth. like iridium and he3
We don't have any real use for He3. Iridium market is very small.

>>9404255
Yea they want NASA to finance and do it
They don't want to spend hundreds of millions + wait years for regulatory permission

The NRC doesn't allow anyone to build nuclear power plants, SpaceX is clearly not going to be allowed to experiment with nuclear rockets.

They might also be looking at RTG's

>>9404265
Iridium is in every touchscren.

>>9404266
>>9404255
Thanks, nice to know

>>9404265
>We don't have any real use for He3. Iridium market is very small.

He3 isn't useful industrially yet. Iridium would be more useful if it could be purchased affordably in bulk.

>>9404235
whoa whoa whoa who said anything about SpaceX?

I was just saying in general, if it makes sense to set up a colony at Jupiter with NTRs and we built them to do so, why would we stop using them in that case?

Of course SpaceX would probably be the defacto experts of building viable space transport vehicles at that point so you may as well say they're the ones trying to do it anyway.

>>9404266
RTGs are literally idiot proof, you don't do much beyond attach thermocouplers and make it tough enough to withstand a launch failure.

>>9404301
>He3 isn't useful industrially yet

It's really unlikely it'll ever be useful, He3 fusion is much harder than Deuterium-Tritium fusion and even that's beyond our capability (in terms of actually generating power) at this point.

>>9400710
i hate you people.

>>9404367
>It's really unlikely it'll ever be useful, He3 fusion is much harder than Deuterium-Tritium fusion and even that's beyond our capability (in terms of actually generating power) at this point.

Largely due to underfunded plasma dynamics research. Never the less, the ITER super-science project should fill in the gaps to make commercial fusion plants viable - if Wendelstein 7X doesn't beat them to it.

>>9404362
Because you don't build billion dollar NTR's to spent them killing time in transit
They would be shipped one way to Jupiter, then used as a reactor

Chemical engines are just fine, as long as you are able to refuel

>>9404367
He3 fusion is safer because no neutron radiation. All the fusion products are charged particles. so less wear on the reactor. you don't have reactor parts that have been made radioactive by neutron bombardment .that need to be buried for all eternity. the humans have less radiation risk.

>>9404720
>billion dollar NTR's

NTRs would not cost billions each. They'd be pretty expensive, moreso than chemical obviously, but not by that much. The coast periods between burns would not affect the reactor, since U-235 has a half life of over 700 million years. If anything a longer coast period will let fission products that would poison the nuclear reaction decay away between firings.

>>9404748

They wouldn't need to be buried for all eternity, but otherwise you're right that He3 fusion would not irradiate the parts of the reactor with neutrons.

The problem with He3 fusion is we don't have any on Earth. Mining He3 from the Moon is a meme, it exists there at a maximum of a few parts per billion, and we'd need to mine and process several hundred billion tons of lunar soil per year to meet current energy demands. Also, it only exists in the top few inches of lunar regolith, so mining hundreds of billions of tons of regolith translates to strip mining many square kilometers of the Moon's surface. This assumes a 100% recovery rate by the way. The only other guaranteed sources of Helium 3 are the gas giants, which are too far away and too difficult to extract from for us to consider right now.

The advantage of deuterium-tritium fusion is that deuterium is very common, and that you can actually use the neutrons from your fusion reaction to breed more tritium form deuterium if you're careful. That means you only need deuterium to run your reactor, plus the neutron flux at the reactor wall is reduced significantly. Ideally we'd be able to breed deuterium from regular hydrogen as well, which would allow us essentially to use all natural hydrogen isotopes as fusion fuel, which would lead to a practically inexhaustible fuel reserve even over time scales where we need to start worrying about the Sun dying and stuff.

Of course, we actually need to get fusion technology working for any of this to happen. Luckily, D-T fusion is also by far the easiest, having the largest fusion cross sections, and running at the lowest temperatures. Pure He3 fusion is not feasible until we're a civilization that spans the solar system and have the engineering capability to figure out how to mine Uranus (has the lowest escape velocity of the gas giants) for its helium content.

>>9404782
so it's about 20 years out, this D-T fusion of yours? excellent

>>9404798

It's decades closer than He3 fusion lol

like I said before I'm a fission guy myself

>>9404764
>The coast periods between burns would not affect the reactor
Do you not understand economics? You want to get as much out of your investment as possible

>>9404449

Hey faggots lets talk about the fucking falcon heavy instead of fusion reactors huh?

>>9401201
screencapping this just in case

>>9403973
>>delta v can be substituted for more time.
>No, the minimum delta V has to be there or your vehicle cannot reach its destination. Hohmann transfer orbits require the least delta V, and anything less that what a Hohmann transfer requires will cause your orbit to never intersect with the target's orbit.
Never heard of the interplanetary transport network?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Network

Once you reach escape velocity from Earth, you can get pretty much wherever you're going in the solar system with a series of slingshot maneuvers. The problem is that this is slow as fuck.

>>9404261
depends on how much time you are willing to spend.

gravity tractor, solar sail, ion thruster, nuclear thermal rocket, old fashioned chemical/oxygen rockets.

>>9406033
the real kicker is going to be the burns to park it into earth orbit.

>>9406033
>>9406062
>>9403973
>>9403888
Cheaper launch systems will make this simpler because carrying shitloads of propellant won't be as much of an issue anymore, right?

As well as fuel depots in places that are lower gravity in the first place, like if you could just stockpile a shitload of fuel from a refinery on the moon.

>>9400021

not with that attitude

>>9406150
use nuclear thermal rockets. then you just harvest the surface of the moon for a gas. then you send it to a fuel depot in a Lagrange orbit.

>>9406150
The rocket equation means that doubling the fuel does not double your delta V. You get significantly less than double delta V. Therefore in order to get significantly more delta V you need exponentially more propellant. That's in proportion to whatever payload mass you have, and if your payload is a big heavy comet or asteroid it means you need millions of tons of propellant. Even if you limit your payload mass to 1 ton and bring back small chunks at a time, you'll need something like 100x as much fuel mass minimum.

It's really a big pain in the ass logistics problem with physics working against you.

>>9406290
what if you used lasers in orbit to vaporize the rock's surface as it comes towards earth? that should reduce a lot of propellant required. you can even use them to push against solar sails to get the asteroid hauler going out from earth too.

>>9406033
fuel costs are negligible
the oppurtunity cost of extra space hardware spending years coasting is vast

>>9406290
The delta-v needed to bring stuff back from these asteroids is actually very small
You don't even need 100x to get to the moon

It's still pointless because the idea of remote mining on an asteroids to send small amounts of materials back to Earth orbit is idiotic

>>9406408
it is worth it if you get the right elements.

this isn't,'oh we're going to open a new copper mine in wyoming". This is "we"re going to the New World to set up colonies to grow tobacco".

>>9406420
There is nothing on an asteroid that isn't availible on Earth
Which is different from new plants found in the New World

>>9406566
Asteroids have insane amounts of rare metals.

>>9406579
rare metals aren't actually rare
Just government and hippies prevent mining in the west

>>9406597
Platinum group

>>9406640
they aren't going to more common off Earth
Nor does it make sense to talk about space mining when the vast majority of the Earths surface hasn't even been explored for resources

>>9406408
>>9406420
>>9406566
Space is common heritage of mankind. No mining for profit or use of minerals is legal.

>>9406318
Lasers effectively turn the rock into a rocket anyway. You vaporize the size opposite the direction you want the rock to accelerate, as this vaporized rock departs from the rest of the rock, it accelerates the rock via newtons's 3rd law. No solar sales needed.

Any more details as to the launch date?

>>9407101
static fire jan 6?
first launch window jan 15?

zuma jan 4?

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/12/falcon-heavy-maiden-static-fire-test/

>>9403862
doesn't tell the whole story.
Most LEO launches are under or around 5000 kg. So the real comparison should be who is the cheapest to launch x kg satellite.

bump

>Blue origin building fully assembled engines before they have ever started testing them

what a buncha clowns

>>9408594
They're playing catch-up from a long way back. Its their only hope.

I'm looking forward to some pretty explosions.

>>9408615
They wasted so much time with that meme hopper that had absolutely zero relationship to a real orbital rocket

They also have deadlines to meet with replacing that Russian engine on the Vulcan

>>9399439
Succeed, then everything blows up on landing.

>>9408594
>>9408615
>>9408636

>BE-4 tested for the first time in October 2017, fired at 50% thrust for 3 seconds

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...looks like Rocketdyne are going to swoop in and steal the Vulcan contract at this rate. I don't get why they're moving at such a slow rate, there's nothing particularly ground-breaking about the BE-4, it's a relatively conservative design which is neither extremely powerful like the RD-170 or technologically ground-breaking like the Raptor, why is it taking so long? Are BO just a meme company?

>>9409000
>Rocketdyne are going to swoop in and steal the Vulcan contract at this rate

nobody is slower than rocketdyne

>>9409034
Apart from BO it seems...

>>9406653
Oh? And where do you think the gold we find comes from?

>>9409283
From ancient supernovas.

>>9409816
The outer edges of the galaxies
>Heavier elements are found further away from the centre

>>9408847
But that means the reddit mission succeeds. I'd much rather see a successful mission, but the car's batteries catch on fire after seperation.

how rockit work in vacume ?

>>9410064
oh shut the fuck up. "Reddit"-this and "reddit"-that is just dumb and ruins discussions when it gets brought up.

Having a roadster as the payload instead of a regular boilerplate capsule is awesome. "reddit"≠"I'm on 4chan and so I should hate it".

Grow up.

>>9410082
go back to r*ddit, nigger

>>9410082
"Reddit" has nothing to do with site loyalty. It's just a concise term for the type of cancerous, narcissistic, aggressively confirmist trend-chasing virtue-signalling pseudo-intellectual behaviour that users of that site bring wherever they go.

In other words, a nice catch all term for stupid twats like you.

>>9410072
Newtons third law

>>9410082
>Grow up.
And thus the androgynous rubbit reveals himself

>>9410109

13yo kids shouldn't be on this site.

>>9410086
oh no I use reddit

>>9410102
I'm a stupid twat for thinking that sending a car to space is pretty cool?

>>9410109
poof, I'm revealed. I'm a spooky reddit boogyman who also browses 4chan.

>>9410102

virtue-signalling. My man, teaching a man to see by throwing mud in his eye.

>>9410124
>I'm a spooky reddit boogyman
No, you're an annoying normie twat with a retarded sense of humour.

>>9410104

What's the rocket pushing against in a vacuum? Don't say itself because the force must apply to two separate objects. The gas from the rocket would just fly out and equilibrate.

>>9410137
Change in mass / change in time = force —-> acceleration

>>9410166

Is that Newton's 4th law of motion?

>>9410072
>in an office chair
>throw heavy ball away from you
>ball pushes against the air in front of it
>this creates a vortex behind the ball that sucks you after it
>keep throwing the ball until you reach lightspeed

>>9410235

We'll call that Newton's 6th law of motion.

Newton's 0th law of motion:

for every brainlet that doesn't understand how rockets work in a vacuum, there is a brainlet of equal magnitude who poorly explains to the first how they work

>>9410273

De-brainlet us. How do rockets work in a vacuum?

>>9410284
Because of Newton’s 3rd law

>>9410109
>>9410064
m-muh reddit boogeyman
Let me guess, if Redditors claimed sex with women is fun you'd suddenly start craving cock?

>>9410284
this >>9410328
You know how if you push something heavy, you are pushed back? This effect is most pronounced if you wear roller skates or are ice skating and throw something heavy. Or even push another person. If you push a thing, you are pushed back. It works in vacuum too - if you push the burned rocket fuel from the bottom of the rocket, the rocket gets pushed back the other way - which just happens to be upwards.

>>9410328
>>9410349

> It works in vacuum too - if you push the burned rocket fuel from the bottom of the rocket, the rocket gets pushed back the other way

Not if the gas has nothing to push against. Remember, the gas is coming out of the rocket, therefore requires something to push against, in order to then create the opposite reaction of pushing the rocket "up".

Trying that in a vacuum is like trying to jump off off of dust, but much much worse.

>>9410402

>>9410402
>t. New York times, 1920

>>9410339
>2012

>>9410402
>try to figure out how someone can be this stupid
>"rockets don't work in a vacuum" is the current flat earth argument
You are a fucking buffoon.

>>9410737
Uh oh, just wait he might post a video showing that the firmament exists.

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/948376057882619904

Bets on explosion?

>>9410737
>responding to it
Report them, never reply

>>9410777
33%.

everything is already a proven design. so it really is just down to unforseen difficulties caused by 3 of them strapped together and firing at the same time.

>>9400224
come IN musk

i bet the launch will keep getting delayed for weeks

>>9410737

C'mon then bitch, explain how a rocket can work in a vacuum without violating the laws of physics?

>>9411371
>>9410402

>>9411486

It's a scientific question, requiring a scientific answer. Someone here must have a satisfactory answer, otherwise we've got a problem.

>>9412033
The gas pushes off the gas

>>9412035

And you think that's possible in a vacuum?

>>9399498
musk sold out to north korea

>>9410402
>>9411371
Newton's First Law

>>9412033

It pushes off of ether which fills space. Ether generally pushes away things (hence why the universe is accelerating) which is why it's so great for rockets.

>>9412133
>Newton's First Law

Which completely disproves rockets in vacuums. It states that a body in motion will continue its path of velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. The gas coming out of the rocket is not an outside force by itself, it requires the other half of the equation if it is to provide thrust in the opposite direction it's travelling.

>>9412330
>what is a reference frame
you need to go back

>>9412275
wat mean

>>9412624
the SV was big, man

>>9412684
for you

>>9412684
well it did like triple the payload of the F Heavy

>>9412624
Why is Delta IV Heavy such a shitter despite being almost the same size as Falcon Heavy?

>>9412330

>>9412768
Liquid hydrogen a shit. It has terribly low density, so the Delta IV is a lot less capable than you would expect from a rocket of it's size. It also needs insulation, which makes it even bigger. Even though the engines get great isp, they have some drawbacks compared to the falcon 9/heavy's merlin, which has the highest thrust to weight of any engine in existence.

>>9406653
>they aren't going to more common off Earth

in bulk composition of every object put together, you're right.

However there are objects we've already found which are made almost entirely of platinum group metals. One asteroid in particular would be worth several hundred quadrillion dollars in just the gold content if sold at current market prices, and there's probably twice as much other platinum group metals there as well.

That being said, asteroid mining is a total meme and won't be economical unless we can develop high thrust fusion torch engines (spoiler, we don't). Mining asteroids only makes sense if you're building something big in space, because the technology to mine, refine and manufacture building materials from raw material in space will be cheaper than assembling building materials sent from Earth.

>>9406675
fuck off commie, you can't stop whoever gets there first

I'll make the zuma launch thread soon.

>>9407547
SpaceX can launch a Falcon 9 in reusable mode with 5500 kg of payload to GTO. Their expendable Falcon 9 flights cost $62 million, and their reusable flights cost ~$40 million.

For comparison, the Soyuz-U costs $80 million and delivers 3250 kg max to geostationary transfer orbit. If you have a satellite light enough to launch on Soyuz, it still makes more sense to launch even on an expendable Falcon 9, and you'd save something around $40 million by launching with a reused Falcon 9.

The Polar Satellite launch vehicle costs between $21 and $31 million dollars, but can only deliver 1200 kg to GTO. If you have a very small payload you may want to buy a PSLV.

>>9413035
reusable flights cost 62 million
expendable is much more, if SpaceX will even allow it.
its reused boosters that have maybe a discount

>>9413039
the discount doesn't really exist anymore. It was 5% for a short time, but now there is a flat fee across the board.
>t. a few sources, like Desch and such
The REAL discount is the fact that agreeing to use reused boosters moves you up in the manifest.

SpX is cadence-limited right now. No reason to be throwing discounts around when you need to fund BFR

>>9410072

>high pressure in a can
>open can on one end
>pressure imbalanced, gasses push on the walls and on one end but not the other end
>but the gasses escape quickly
>so need to resupply gasses quickly
>best way is to heat liquids into gasses
>best way to heat liquids into gases is to burn them with each other
>making the open end of the can choke inwards a little increases pressure in the can for the same amount of gasses
>but hot gasses leaving the choke point expand sideways, wastes energy
>add a cone nozzle outside the choke point so that when gasses expand sideways they hit the cone and bounce off, pushes the cone in the same direction that the can is being pushed
>change cone shape into bell shape so that rate of gas expansion is balanced with gas acceleration and gasses always bounce in a way that makes maximum push on can
>the energy from this comes from the temperature of the gas, so having very hot gas gets you more push
>add fluid channels to can and nozzle and adjust fuel mixture to produce maximum heat, fuel passes through walls and cools them down before going into can and burning, extra heat makes more push

notice how at no point does the exhaust push against anything except the can and the nozzle
exhaust velocity is an indicator of efficiency because the faster the exhaust is moving the faster each bit of fuel mass the rocket carried was accelerated, which means the more push each bit of fuel gave you.

>>9410137
see
>>9413052

>>9410402

Tell me, if you were standing on a skateboard and threw a ball, which one will make you scoot back further?

A beach ball, which displaces a lot of air
OR
A cannon ball, which displaces little air?

The answer is the cannon ball because it weighs more, so you exert more force on it to accelerate it away from you, which by extension accelerates YOU away from the ball a proportional amount.

In a rocket your hand is replaced with a nozzle and the bowling ball is replaced by hot gasses. The gasses push against the nozzle and accelerate away. The gasses gained momentum, so the rocket itself MUST gain an equal momentum in the opposite direction. While the gasses burned in a second may mass a few hundred kilograms, the rocket masses hundreds of thousands of kilograms, so it accelerates much more slowly than the exhaust, which flies off at several kilometers per second after just a fraction of a second in the rocket nozzle.

>>9412768

Because Boeing fell for the hydrogen powered rocket meme.

>>9413022
Excellent. Anyone like to speculate on the payload?
Also has there been any previous payloads shrouded in the level of secrecy that not even the organization responsible for it is known?

>>9401182
>sailplanes need 30% of their fuel for breaking

>>9413231
run of the mil spy sat

also, delayed again https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/948898180497858561

>>9412768
>no vergeltungswaffe 2
shit list desu

thread's autosaging. wat do?

>>9413551
>>9413231

----->>> >>9413661

>>9413052
>gasses push on the walls and on one end but not the other end

A gas coming out of a rocket in a vacuum will not be pushing off of the rocket as it comes out, rather it will be attracted to the vacuum of space and will equilibrate with it in every possible direction. The gas coming out of a rocket on earth creates push because it is still battling against the denser gas outside of the nozzle, but it's still the easiest way out as the rocket is too dense to escape from.

>>9413063

>In a rocket your hand is replaced with a nozzle and the bowling ball is replaced by hot gasses.

So for this analogy to be accurate, you have to argue that it's the nozzle itself pushing the gases out, and that's forgetting about the whole vacuum part of the equation.