/sci/ - Science & Math

>woah landing rockets
brainlet, in grandscheme of things this is nothing. We are still bound by physics

>>9496907
>nothing new to design
I've never heard anyone on here say that. What are you on about?

>>9496936
>reducing launch costs by 80% is nothing

>>9496936
>being this retarded
stop wasting other people's oxygen

What happened to the third part which way supposed to land on the floating water station or something? It wasn't a full success after all right ?

Experts around the world agree this is an utter waste of rocket capability.

Hollow PR to entice subsidies and investors. Nothing more.

>>9496943
Sure is easy with all those free gibs SpaceX gets :^)

>>9496959
>WAAAH
Not an argument

>>9496982

>>9496982

>>9496981
>Experts around the world agree this is an utter waste of rocket capability.
Got any source for that?

>>9497173
Of course I got source.

It's right here in my ass.

>>9496965
apparently not enough propellant to ignite 2 of the 3 jets that help it slow down while falling.
it landed where it was supposed to but at 300 mph, kek.
will probably work next time

>>9497367
It wasn't a propellant issue, the rocket had enough fuel on board for the landing run.
The center core did it's first landing burn properly, that's the one where it's slowing down to just below supersonic for reentering the thicker atmosphere.
Then it did it's steering free fall properly.
Then it went to reignite the engines for landing; one out of three landing engines started up (why they don't rate all 9 under there as landing engines confuses me, extra redundancy then). Which when moving at that speed you don't get a second start up chance; so they steered it away from the landing barge so as not to sink it.
Everything went perfect except for two ignition charges.

Is it public knowledge how expensive those titanium grid fins are? They've gotta cost millions each.

Get back to me when Musk builds an orbital ring.

>>9497434
They said it wasn't enough fuel. The first (center) engine is mounted a little lower, so there's a little more fuel in its pipe, and it starts up first, so it consumes some of the fuel that might be needed to start the others.

I would guess it wasn't actually out of propellant, per se, but it was low enough that the sloshing could cause the fuel pipe inlet to open to inert gas rather than fuel at a crucial moment, causing the start up of the other two engines to fail.

>>9496943
Landing rockets does not reduce launch costs by 80%

You can't just take the same rocket and say how much you save when you launch it again after it has already landed. You have to take into account the extra cost of building and developing it too.

When the rocket is buring the last part of the fuel is when it is most efficient, because this is when it is the lightest. So when you are saving this fuel for landing, you have to build the rocket that much bigger, and you have to carry even more fuel to launch the landing systems too which again increases the size of the rocket. So basically you have to build a bigger rocket just to launch a bunch of dead weight.

And the development and building of larger rockets does not increase linearly, entirely new problems pop up as you build larger and more powerful. Which means a more expensive rocket.

Not-to mention that EVERY rocket he has made so far has had this extra dead weight so he could land it, even though only recently he has been able to reuse them. And of course all the man hours and development cost put into the landing systems.

Every failed landing has to be considered too in this equation.

Elons cheap rockets were cheap long before he started landing them, this is because NASA and other are very inefficient when it comes to money and time used. 80% is Bullshit.

>>9497738

>>9496936
I'm so sorry you got bullied in high school bro

>>9497738

To give credit to NASA's ability to manage money, the administration of that whole branch was built in the space race, when money was no object to success. The government was ready to spend whatever it took to beat the communists to the moon. They were successful, but that kind of contracting became built into the system for decades so that their history is one of overspending.

But NASA itself was the agency that looked at SpaceX's value proposition and funded them. So this isn't a one way street, where people say "wow, NASA sucks at managing money and SpaceX is so much better!". NASA contracts the building of rockets to private companies, and SpaceX is one of their contractors. They contracted SpaceX BECAUSE they are cheaper, so saying SpaceX is efficient with costs is saying NASA is spending money well.

>>9496907
>one man
lmao you fucking reddit sheep desperately need to find someone to jerk off to
it was a result of work of thousands of the most qualified people in the field, the one man you're jerking off to did nothing, except looking pretty and tweeting

>>9497776
Absolutely agree, not to mention all the free help SpaceX has gotten from them. Meny hard lessons learned from expensive mistakes probably and other shit that just comes from many years of experience.

>>9496907
I take it you were not here on Tuesday, in the sticky mega thread, where everyone was on their knees sucking Elon's massive rocket.

>>9496942
Didn't happen here but I'm interested in commercial electric aircraft such as pic related and pretty much every time I talk about it on flight forums it has been dismissed because "hurr durr batteries aren't good enough" just like how Musk was initally dismissed because "hurr durr chemical rockets aren't good enough" so I get OP's point that a lot of people in tech don't have the imagination to solve new problems, they just go by what the book says.

>>9497780
It was his idea no?

>>9496936
>>9496981
>>9496982

>>9497793
no, launching a big rocket is not an original idea

>>9497831
The landing and reuse you ULA tard

>>9497835
Did you already forget? Or were you just not born yet?

>>9496907

>innovate

you are dumb

we put people on the moon 50 years ago and now retards are excited about how we gave tax money to a private company to put a satellite in orbit.

its stupid

>>9497844

>>9497851
>we put people on the moon 50 years ago and now retards are excited about how we gave tax money to a private company to put a satellite in orbit.
to put a car* in orbit
Big difference.

>>9497852
Nice one, but do you remember when you said landing and reuse was an original idea by Elon Musk? That was some really funny shit. Good one though.

>>9497780
If it wasnt for Elon we would not be landing rockets right now. He may not have built it himself but he is the single most important person on the planet when it comes to getting it done. If you argue otherwise, you are straight up retarded, or merely pretending to be.

>>9497844
Ive always wondered why a space plane/shuttle design wasn’t still in use. Isnt it insanely more cost effective to glide to a landing instead of burning shittons of fuel?

>>9496907
People here lament that all the PRINCIPALS have been discovered.
New things are a dime a dozen but finding a new force or arrangement of energy. Now THAT is science.

>>9497881
It just doesn't make sense when looking at overall costs of a launch. The extra drag of it and the weight of the landing equipment outweigh what benefit they save from having to rebuild the engine. Landing gear and shit is fucking heavy.

>>9497852
I watched that happen in class and we got the rest of the day off from school to grieve, but it was before lunch so no one got lunch. Parents were PISSED.

>>9497893
Probably the heaviest part is the heat shield on the entire underbelly of the shuttle. That would probably eat as much extra fuel for liftoff as does the fuel for landing the rockets.

>>9497886
"Smart but lazy" /sci/niggers are using that as a cop out.

>>9496907
Well, LIGO showed that what's discovered can be used as borderline magic.

>>9498014
I'll care about gravitational waves when we can generate our own.

>>9496907
Found Dads early beta of "SpaceTravel.exe"

https://youtu.be/3DP-MAhr0YY

>>9497738
salty ULAfag detected

>>9497443
Why?
Titanium is a mid-priced metal. Similar to copper in cost afaik.

>one man continues to innovate
no, one man with a coke habit and more money than he knows what to do with paid a bunch of people to innovate

>>9497434
>(why they don't rate all 9 under there as landing engines confuses me, extra redundancy then)
maybe not all of them are equipped with extra ignition slugs

>>9497881
Can't land on the moon or Mars with a glider.

>>9498109
Can't land isn't the same as haven't yet landed. Don't underestimate human ingenuity.

>>9497844
That’s why ULA, Ariannespace and all the other launch providers all have reusable delivery vehicles, right? All those companies and conglomerates said reusability was a dead end and actively worked to lock SpaceX out of the launch industry. Now they are reaping their reward, SpaceX is in a position to replace them all. I really hope they all do close down.

The shuttle was a horrible clusterfuck, designed by a commitee and wholly unsafe for the crew. It had no business flying.

>>9497434
>(why they don't rate all 9 under there as landing engines confuses me, extra redundancy then)
It's not that they're not "rated as landing engines", it's that there's no time to start other engines if there's a failure. It takes time to start up an engine, and they're pushing for landings with minimum propellant reserve.

>>9498074
It's still hard to work with. A lot of the cost is probably in time, labor and tools.

>>9496982
>sure is easy with all those free gibs SpaceX gets
Like the ones the army gets to start proxy wars and overthrow emerging democratic governments for oil interests and steering away the focus of the populous from their crimes by implying that the terrorists started this

>>9496907
so thats where our tax money goes to
"rockets" sending food and childprostitues to people in the ISS taht are working on obscure "scientific" research

>>9498166
>ywn be a prostitute sent on a rocket to ISS with 20 kilos of pure columbian blow

>>9498134
>That’s why ULA, Ariannespace and all the other launch providers all have reusable delivery vehicles, right?
What are you arguing against here? No one has made the counterargument. Nice try, trying to save some face though.

Easy to innovate when you use CGI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ht9JgI8hpY&feature=youtu.be

>>9498187
nice_bait.png

>>9498195
Where are the stars? Explain that video

>>9498199
mate, when you have a very strong light being reflected off of a surface the dimmer lights seem to fade away, ever tried using your phone in the sun? And also, if you were right and it were all fake, do you think a company worth billions and widely acknowledged would forget to cgi in stars? How the fuck does that make sense to you? Are you really so self-centered that you think everyone around you has to be stupid and you're the only smart person alive?

>>9496907
this is not a science accomplishment it is an engineering one. Of course i wouldn't expect you to know the difference

>>9498208
since when does the latter exist without the former?

>>9498170
What was your argument when you posted the shuttle? You were implying that reusability has been done before?

>>9498207
Mate i am just trolling. But unfortunately this guy isnt

>>9498213
I thought the contrarian meme had died desu

>>9498216
The people in that group, and him are so incredibly stupid they should be shot.

>>9498216
Why can't I write to be honest shortened? does it trigger our AI overlords?

>>9498212
That landing and reusing launch vehicles has been done before.

>>9498219
>Space
>Temperature

>>9498219
>vacuum of space
>temperatures reach over 3,000 degrees
what
>without a scratch
I just learned that temperature is supposed to scratch my car and not possibly dilate the metal structure

>>9498230
>>9498232
Can you guys give me an argument i can refute him with regarding this temperature stuff on my fake facebook account?

>>9498244
Whatever you tell him is either fake or a lie. You can't argue with people that are this lost.

>>9498244
The ideal gas law
Or the short and simple
"
>Space
>Temperature
"
argument

>>9498249
True.

>>9498250
Thanks

i didn't mean to try and bait you guys. But i have been browsing that group a lot and i am getting extremely frustrated that adult people can believe that stuff. That miguel guy even call us that counter him that we have pseduo science. But he also just blocks and bans everyone from the group that proves him wrong. lOL.

Actually, it's more sad than funny

>>9498250
They don't belive space is actually real. Or physics that disagrees with them. You haven't refuted anything.

>>9498282
Okay then
>Firmament
>Temperature
And
>If Space Isnt Real How Can Temperatures Be Real

>>9498282
>>9498292
What makes people be this braindead. I mean sure goverments lie, sure they do hide stuff from us, and there are a lot of things we do not know. But come the fuck on. Space being fake and earth flat?

>>9498211
how did you exist highschool without knowing the difference between the two. Please inform us the name of the college that accepted you so that we can know it is objectively bad.
I know i... ye.. please dont interrupt, i know youre mad i know you think you were a normal person, hell maybe you even thought you could even be above average, but no, im sorry it is objectively confirmed that you could not even compete in anything remotely serious, the sheer ignorance demonstrated in that lack of knowledge means that even if you spent 20 hours per day improving yourself you would not even approach the minimum level required for great deeds. Swallow your pride and give us the information we seek so that we may save others from your fate.

Hey, cheer up, being a loser is not that bad, no one will ever love or respect you but at least you wont have to work as hard

>>9498303
Exactly.
Everyone who is truly intelligent knows the earth is actually a cylinder, and the poles are the "ice caps". They're called that for a reason folks!

>>9498303
>What makes people be this braindead. I mean sure goverments lie, sure they do hide stuff from us, and there are a lot of things we do not know.
Conformation bias is strong shit, take a look at /pol/, they are just a small step away from this already.

>>9498339
Not even /pol/ is that stupid that they believe the earth is flat. I do not often browse /sci/ as i am a brainlet unfortunately. But at least i try to understand stuff and broaden my view and learn new things, despite not being very good at it. The flat earthers dont do anything but scream "cgi, fake, freemasons, new world order"

>>9498153
The oil thing started out as a meme when one al qaeda dude said the U.S. were after their "milk, women, and oil."
It amazes me how some people still unironically believe that the U.S has been secretly shipping billions of barrels of oil from the middle east

>>9498347
the us is interested in the middle east because of how it affects the price of oil, not specifically for the oil there

>>9498343
They don't belive the earth is flat, but they use all the same cognitive gymnastics and fail at the same critical thinking. When you already use grand conspiracy's and science denial to get to your conclusions on the world, then you are not far from being a flat-earther already.

Its not so much about what you belive, but the methods you use/don't use when you try to find what is true. When everything can be a conspiracy, and any established science can be a lie, then you can justify any crazy belief.

>>9498364
Absolutely true. But what i find sad about flat earthers is that they have kids that they maybe impose these views on and damage their understanding.

>>9498244
It doesn't matter if what you say is fake since it doesn't matter that what he is saying is fake. He isn't going to give a shit about what you day either way

>>9498392
Yeah, true. I suppose like i said, it's just sad to see someone live in a fanfiction of reality and missing out on all the realities

>>9497873
If it wasnt for Elon's fathers we would not be landing rockets right now.
do you see how retarded you are?
the only people responsible for an action are the ones directly next to it in causal chain, but your brainlet brain can't even process such simple logic

>>9498087
>Musk
>Coke habit
What

>>9498168

>>9498087
sure, then why jeff bezos a dude with a trillion times more money and almost double the time invested in the same thing has accomplished less than 1/1000000000000000000000 the amount of orbital flights in the same time haha
youre objectively wrong

>>9497788
it still amazes me how slowly it accelerates, gravity must be really strong

>>9497827
To this day the thing that irks me the most about this image is the red velvet cake. Who the fuck eats red velvet?

>>9497827
is there any woman in the world willing to have sex with something like that without getting payed?
im speaking from a purely physical point of view dont make this into something political

>>9497226
HAHAHAHAH

>>9498134
The disgusting thing today is seeing people still jerking off the fucking shuttle, decades after it killed American space exploration

They defend NASA too, wanting to blame congress or the military..

If I had made a thread on /sci/ a few years ago about rockets landing on their tails I would have been told it was a pipe dream

>Muh atmospheric turbulence
>Muh tiny landing site
>Muh backsplash
>etc...

And now look. I fucking hate the attitude of 'Everything has already been invented so don't bother with anything new' that pervades this board.

>>9499199

People never said it's impossible.

What was said was that it is counterproductive by limiting payloads and not cost effective due to high maintenance costs and decreased reliability.

Those points still stand, and even SpaceX will have to accept reality eventually.

>>9500739

>What was said was that it is counterproductive by limiting payloads

Makes no sense. Vast majority of payloads do not max out the capability of the rocket. Those that do can always just be launched in expendable mode.

>not cost effective due to high maintenance costs and decreased reliability

Refurbishment cost is already lower than building a new stage, and will only continue to get lower. Reliability could even be increased by using flight proven hardware and flying often.

>>9499199
This exactly
>>9500739
And neckbeards are still being contrarian no matter how many rockets he reuses because contrarian is the easy way to look smart.

>>9496907
>one man
Dumb Musket.

>>9496907
Cluster B personalities are the most unwelcome yet the most vocal in any field. They misrepresent their clique to everyone outside of it.

>>9498095
To much powah. Couldn't throttle down that. Also no time in suicide burn to play with engines.

>>9497434
>they steered it away from the landing barge
I think that is the default path (safer). Then, when all is good, it's steers itself onto the barge.

>>9498347
Being this naive.
It's not US that profits but US corporations. And it started long before al-kaida. Check out "War Is a Racket"

>>9498117
no, you actually can't land on the moon with a glider... there's no atmosphere

>>9497789
> because "hurr durr batteries aren't good enough"
That's because they aren't. At least not for anything that wants to carry a useful payload. If you want to see commercial electric planes you're going to need to build a better battery. This isn't a unique problem for electric aircraft by the way. A large portion of modern electronics from cars to phones is limited in some form or another by batteries.

>>9497881
There are pros and cons for each method. Vertical landing needs extra fuel and landing legs but space plane needs heavy wings and landing gear. Right now Boeing is working on a new partially reusable launch vehicle for DARPA that's taking the winged booster approach.

>>9498166
>"rockets" sending food and childprostitues to people in the ISS taht are working on obscure "scientific" research
Are you doubting that the objects pictured in OP are rockets?

>>9501713
You could increase payload by improving the lift to drag ratio but giving up works too I suppose.

>>9496907
Unimaginative idiots have been droning that we've already invented everything literally for thousands of years. All they can do is over generalize about the recognition of how ideas spawn other ideas, spout off platitude like, "Nothing new under the sun!" like the jackass here >>9496936, and be proven wrong again and again and again every other year as new ideas are launched into the world.

>>9496936
>weve hit the upper limit of the laws of physics
Jesus fucking wept.