/sci/ - Science & Math

>payload to orbit: 64 tons
Falcon Heavy can't lift 64 tons to LEO.

>>9508506
>go to wiki to check out how much thrust does this thing actually have
>1st stage
>7.6MN
just wow

>nasa will be dissolved in your lifetime

Thank you based God

>>9508506
At least you tried.

>implying FH is relevant when it won't be used for anything

>>9508605
the BFR thread is a fucking goldmine

>>9508594

You seriously think that's any better? The cost is still out of control for the ULA welfare machine.

>>9508618
I really don't follow SLS development (neither Falcon really), why is the launch of vanilla rocket supposed to cost 4 times as much as Shuttle?

>>9508618

Boeing

Even ULA is better than this

>>9508615
I hope you're referring to the side of the argument I'm on over there, hah

people be dumb

>>9508594
It's 90 million for fully expendable jew bag, and 64 for fully expendable as well.

Only thing you're right about is crewed dragon

>>9508650
>It's 90 million for fully expendable jew bag, and 64 for fully expendable as well.
Wrong and wrong.

>>9508618

>rocket costs N
>cheaper rocket costs N-1
>cheaper rocket is cheaper... but it can also launch less
>which one do you pick?

stop arguing launch cost, all that matters is $/kg to orbit (and fairing size somewhat)

>>9508675

Falcon Heavy is much cheaper when it comes to $/kg

$3000 vs $10,000

>>9508685
there, it's settled then.

I just get all pissy when people argue launch costs w/o adjusting for mass to orbit. Gaaaahh.

>>9508618

The punchline is that the SLS will blow up on the launchpad

>>9508529
it can, just without reusing the boosters since it needs that extra delta v they'd otherwise use to land

>>9508726
It can't.
It cannot support that payload weight structurally.

>>9508742
why should I believe you over the specs that SpX publishes on their own website? Just how ignorant and smug are you?

>>9508750
This has been a well-known fact for more than 3 years.

>>9508726

Why don't they just use these contraptions called "parachutes"?

SLS will be the backbone of space exploration as it's the only rocket that needs single launch to do its job.

Orbital assemblies, refueling, and so on ridiculous things are paper ideas that also inherently endanger missions and lives.

Only the SLS, carefully designed under the watchful eye of the most experienced NASA engineers, is capable of providing what America needs in space.

>>9508777
You're posting ironically, but everything you said is 100% true.

>>9508553
Not disbanded, just their role will change. Instead of having to pay for and maintain the upkeep and infrastructure they can focus on designing missions and putting their money into developing the payloads.

>>9508767
>well known fact
>three years

hand up that three-year old source, buddy. I'll be waiting,

>>9508783
no, it's 100% false. SLS will fly maaaaybe twice. that's it. Then the reusable heavy lifters from BO and SpaceX will kill it's purpose.

Don't be a moron.

I'm not a fan of SpaceX but I don't like the look of this SLS thing
It looks like Shuttle with Soyuz slapped on top of the ET instead of Orbiter. At least look like the dinky can GTFO like Soyuz.
is it still SRB+Hydrogen/LOX combo?

>>9508615
link pls

Imho the only purpose space travel should have is building a huge, preferably kilometres wide telescope there. With such a device, we could get a completely new view of the universe, which might spark some new major scientific advancement. Also, we could observe smaller, rocky exoplanets, that are more earth-like, and potentially find one whose atmosphere composition makes it extremely likely that complex life is living there. If we are lucky, we could even find some direct evidence for an alien civilization.

James Webb is a good start, but we need to go much, much bigger, than this.

All other proposed purposes (colonizing planets that are absoluetely hostile to life, mining Asteroids, etc.) neither hold the potential to answer an existential question of ours (are we alone?) nor to majorly upset our scientific theories of the universe.

Transporting telescopes to space, and satellites into orbit are the only two things rockets should be used for. Everything else is a waste of money.

>>9508800
I love SLS. The important thing about the SLS isn't the cost or the launch capacity, it's the fact that it uses shuttle derived hardware. By using shuttle derived hardware, we can keep the memory and tradition of the space shuttle alive. This will help maintain expertise necessary to keep this tradition alive and prevent important engineering expertise from being lost or disrupted. With reusable rockets, once the rockets up and running the engineers and workers who built the rocket could all lose their jobs. Not so with big expendable rockets like SLS. We need to keep these workers and engineers occupied so that they don't give away the secrets of rocket technology to other nations. This is especially important, because rocket technology has reached it's apex with the SLS.

>>9508901
Could you disperse with the ironic shitposting, is it actually using a fucking ET with vanilla shuttle engines strapped to the bottom and same fucking SRB's?
And this is costing billions to "develop"?

>>9508835

What about building enormous space habitats.

>>9508835
I agree, colonizing inhospitable planets is a huge risk. But if the private sector can do it in a profitable way, I'm down.

>>9508912
many, many, many billions.

7 years ago, the Augustine commission said that NASA's Moon program had to be cancelled, because the development of the necessary heavy lift booster would take 12 years and 36 billion dollars. SpaceX has now done that, on its own dime, in half the time and a twentieth of the cost.

Meanwhile, SLS is simply a jobs program. NASA should have taken the 20 billion allotted for SLS and pumped it into commercial programs, not just for lifters but for habitats, and everything else needed in space.

But alas, congress sets NASA's budget. It's not like NASA can just say "fuck off" to what they're required to spend the money on.

Blame congress.

>>9508685

SLS may cost more but you're getting a better service, plus you're helping support American jobs. SpaceX is owned by an African.

>>9508901
>costs 40+ billion to develope
>with premade, already designed, and tested components, and engines which were developed back in the 1970's
what the fuck are they even doing? why do they need 40 billion dollars to design a rocket made out of parts that were already designed, and kept in storage

>>9508927
what a shitshow
can you answer the other question as well?

>>9508930
2/10.

Should have said Canadian-African immigrant for more emphasis. Also, mention that SpaceX takes away work from US companies like ULA

gotta work on your trolle skills dude

>>9508776
Sea water ruins the engines. SRBs can do it because simpler engine type.

>>9508940
hmm? oh yeah, it's basically just shuttle tech. Keep in mind the principle design has been set in stone for abouuuut a decade or so.

some of the RS-25's are even left over from the shuttle days.

>>9508953
>>9508940
and technically it will be 18 years since Bush proposed it, and $43 billion spent, from the first manned flight of SLS. Two decades and 43 billion. Jeez.

>>9508956

Doing it right ain't cheap. You can do it the quick and cheap way, like Elon is, but it's going to bite you in the ass sooner or later.

>Fast
>Cheap
>Good

Pick one.

>>9508918
That would have no real use. There is no point in housing people in space. Humans should only be in space as much as they absoluetely need to. We are only making things complicated and expensive.

>>9508940
there are a lot of other just 100% stupid decisions too. NASA spent half a billion on reconfiguring the mobile launcher for SLS, but will only use it ONCE (this is planned). Then they need to spend probably another half a billion dollars on a new one.

Again, blame congress. Don't blame nasa.

>>9508965

Humans need all the space. All of it. We will never have enough.

>>9508963
this isn't a fucking fast food restaurant you retard. Stop trying to justify a idiotic waste of money.

>"bite you in the ass sooner or later"

are you twelve? Do you actually think you can condense SpaceX into a single quirp about moving "too fast" when designing a rocket?

>>9508963
>>Fast>Cheap>Good
SpaceX appears to have picked all three.

There's no way to justify SLS when you're literally paying ten times the costs for 10% more capability. After spending, at this point, $12 billion dollars developing it vs $500 million for the FH.

>>9508976
>SpaceX

>fast
no
>cheap
maybe
>good
hell no

>>9508980
I honesty think you're retarded

"maybe" cheap? Just how much is ULA paying you to shill?

"hell no" good? What? Not fast? have you been under a rock for the past fifteen years?

>>9508790
Yes, and FH will fly 5 times max.

>>9508963
Nah, Musk is just breaking dogmas. He took a shit engine, that was way too weak to carry a rocket to space on its own, sticked several of them together, and oh my god it actually worked. Nobody has ever done this before because it was an industry dogma said lots of engines on a rocket dont work. Oh, they do actually, what a surprise.

Same principle btw applies to Tesla. The dogma was to build an electric car as small and energy-efficient as possible to prolong the battery life, and design it in a way that looks "futurisitc", because oh my god its an electric car. Turns out people dont want shitty looking small cars. Elon went the other route by making electric cars as normal looking as possible and prolonged the battery life by simply using way more of them.

He has a pretty straight-forward way of thinking, so yeah there are reasons why he is so successful.

>>9508953
>>9508956
>>9508966
Let me summarize this before I burst a fucking blood vessel.
They have been for past two decades "designing" a rocket, that's using 90% (fucking shitty) parts that existed for last 45 years, and burned 50 billion dollars on it so far.
Correct?
What the fuck did they spend those money on?
Are they at least finished making the actual human rated spacecraft the put on top of it?

>>9508767
>>9508742
lol Fucking moron.

>>9508963
Nigger, they've already had the most expensive parts designed, tested and developed decades ago, this rocket uses the same engines from the shuttle, AND upper stage rockets from the fucking 1960's, this rocket has no excuse for R&D to cost 40+ billion

>>9508767
>It's been well known
where's that well known source buddy?

>>9508963
>Says increasingly nervous ULA executive for the seventh time this year

>>9508993
bruh, merlin isn't shit. It's great.

>>9508995
not 50 billion so far, 43 billion will be spent. Either way its stupid. Just your typical government waste, except this time it's with space stuff so people get extra angry.

>>9508656
Why don't you back up your claims with sources nigger. I'm getting both my figures from SpaceX's website, if you have a different source please post it.

>>9508628
Space Shuttle, when including orbiter refurbishment costs, actually cost about a billion to launch as well. Considering the massively increased capabilities of SLS, it's quite a step up from the Shuttle in terms of cost effectiveness. Still lags far behind Falcon Heavy though.

>>9508790
>>9508990
I think the Falcon Heavy rockets has 3 more launches this year. Not sure after that, but if they have 4 launches per year (probably more) they'll have launched about 16 times before the SLS even gets off the pad. Then there may be delays for both, but the Falcon Heavy has already launched once. Meaning the 2022 schedule for the SLS might get moved along a year or a few years. It really depends on future funding. Especially, since there may even be a new president in office which might change everything.

Then again who knows, since Musk says the BFR might launch as early as next year. I'm sure companies will still charter flights on the other rockets.

>>9508995
Pork.

>>9508995
Pretty much, the only thing that's new about SLS is the orion capsule. The center core is just a stretched Shuttle external tank, the boosters are stretched Shuttle solid rocket booster, and the engines are literally ripped from retired orbiters. As others have stated, SLS is basically a Republican jobs program for Mississippi, Florida, and a couple of other states where the hardware is developed and tested. These congressman want it to be as expensive and slow to develop as possible because it means tons of lucrative aerospace jobs for their states.

>>9508930
Imagine being this fucking oblivious. Spacex is litteraly only allowed to hire us citizens because rocket dev is classed as advanced weapons technology

>>9508972

Slow and steady wins the race.

>>9509004

The tech on SLS may be tried and tested, but that's no reason not to proceed with further testing and whiteboarding. This engine has to carry our best and brightest into space, and we can't afford to cut corners like some do.

>>9508993

This is literally the extent of his "vision". Stick more on it. It's the cheapest, most unimaginative option, and it works temporarily. But it has no scalabilty.

>>9509070
>no scalability

what does that even mean. Elon has stated that BFR will seem like a rowboat compared to future rockets. And BFR by itself is 100x better than S"L"S

>unimaginative
ah yes, the company with plans to complexity colonize mars in the near future, all the while pushing reusability, is unimaginative

Rest in piss nasa

>>9508966

>congress incorrectly ground the hubble mirror

>>9509070
Simplistic, straight-forward approach to solving problems is by far the best approach. His way of thinking is going to carry him far.

Also his talent to play the public and sway people into giving him lots of money so he can finance his high-risk high-reward strategy.

>>9508930
0/10

>government
>competition

Pick one

Is it me or is the SLS poster sounding like a shill? He is posting using buzzwords straight out of a marketing meeting.

>>9509085
PerkinElmer did you twat. Doesn't invalidate my point

>>9509098
buzzwords induce replies, due to their buzzy nature. We're all here for the (you)'s, no?

>>9509098

No shilling here. Just a concerned citizen.

>>9509104
sorry bud but you're a shill alright
>referring to yourself as a "concerned citizen"
lmao

>>9508506
Anyone else excited for this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4b1Zolc7kk

>>9508938
>what the fuck are they even doing?
Using that money in black projects like bases on the moon and stuff.

>>9509099

>Eastman Kodak (private company) made a perfect mirror
>fuck you we're going with the lowest bidder government contractor instead

Nasa is garbage, don't even get me started on the Columbia disaster

>>9509118
I wish, but Rickovers don't exist at NASA.

>>9509115
Allen is p. cool; just wonder what he aims to do to keep the prices competitive in a few years

>>9509115
seems p cool, will be interesting to see if it works out

>>9508594

Tell us on the doll where Elon touched you.

SLS and FH complement each other. NASA has no reason to use expendable rockets for resupply missions, yet needs the extra capacity expendable configurations provide for flagship missions.

Both of them work together, it's a mutually beneficial relationship. People taking sides are being completely fucking retarded.

>>9509287
why are they making people ride hydrogen bombs with SRB's again?
It's not like both US and Russia didn't have superheavy lift LOX/Kerosene rockets before, how is this not just fucking congress pork party?

>>9509296
because muh jobs and muh sunk cost

>>9508725
>The punchline is that the SLS will blow up on the launchpad

did they identify that friction stir welding problem that made tanks tear open?


i think it'll work fine, but nobody will care. max viewers will equal that of a falcon 9 cape landing.

>>9509329
at least the loss of the mobile launcher won't matter, lol
>>9508966

>>9509287
>yet needs the extra capacity expendable configurations provide for flagship missions.

What do you mean needs
no "flagship mission" is being built to use any of that capacity

>>9508543
This can't be fucking real. 11 billion in development for fucking 7.6
64 is pretty big For you

>>9509296

Because it can carry more, that's why. All of NASA is a pork program anyway, and it's not like using SLS invalidates or make using FH harder. In fact the more SLS is used, the larger missions can become and thus have more opportunities for lucrative commercial resupply contracts.

>>9509335

SLS was built to launch lunar and Martian landers, Trump has expressed a desire to do that again after Obama cancelled it in 2011. We will hear more about his plans tomorrow when he reveals his NASA budget plan during the annual State of NASA event.

>>9508506
so fucking what? youre so narrow minded
have you ever stopped to consider that the SLS costs 2 and the falcon heavy costs fucking 90!!!!
who cares if one is billions and the other is millions, 90 is more than 2 you retarded mongoloid, how about you leave of out of your inner shell of goverment deceipts and start living brain life like your own mentality intended

>>9509081
[ ] crash ISS into Earth
[X] sell it for profit

Oh yeah, NASA is in piss all right.

>>9508650
>It's 90 million for fully expendable jew bag, and 64 for fully expendable as well.
if the sls blows up i think it would be ground to literally put nasa on trial and execute them for accute thief of the peoples money

i mean... spending like 30 billion on something that others can do for a couple hundred million is bad enough, but imagine if its all fo rnothing, thats literally a possibility

>>9509099
>tfw literally work for that company in a completely unrelated sector
>they list it on their website as a big accomplishment

>>9508675
>>cheaper rocket costs N-1
>N-1

dont use that word here

>>9509393
I'm nervous about this for Webb.

The fucking douche baguettes better not mess up Ariane 5, and Lockcuck better not mess up the payload

>>9509396

>>9508901
the fucking tradition of enginering what?

engineering is not a religion or some other faggy cultural shit, its real thing that solves real irl problems if it doesnt work to solve something concrete that we need right now its literally the most stupid thing you can do to keep paying for it

>>9509396
at least with the n-1 we got cool-ass super-fucking-enournous-gauge synchronized trains

look at em

they're fucking amazing

>>9508995
>What the fuck did they spend those money on?
changing their minds due to change of political winds

>>9509406

>>9509406
thats not the n1 were you dropped on your head as a baby while your mother hit you in the head with her big sack of meth pills and then failed to provide you any kind of education??? that is a buran orbiter and energia rocket

>>9509406
>>9509417

This hurts my heart but I still think crawlers are more impressive

>>9509424
but that cradle was build for N-1, why are you chimping out?

>>9509424
yeah, they re-used it for that. I'm not that dumb; that's why I posted the 2nd pic

>>9509428
>>9509433
well ok, but i can be wrong on the internet and be a dick about it because i pretend to know about the subject, right, whos gonna stop me

>>9508993
But he's having trouble selling his overpriced cars -- that enterprise is only in business because the government subsidized him, wanting a low-cost electric car for the masses.

Instead, Musk pocketed their money and made a high-end car for cool rich people.

Musk is not just an iconoclast as you maintain, he is also a conman who knows that governments are almost infinitely connable.

>>9509032
Not the guy you're arguing with, but I'll note that your source is similar to me citing the website for a tobacco company for data on health risks of cigarettes. The data may or may not be real, but the source is not unbiased.

>>9509115
it makes sense considering 80% of fuel is used IN ATMOSPHERE
>inb4 butthurt rocket shills

>>9509075
>the company with plans to complexity colonize mars in the near future, all the while pushing reusability, is unimaginative

To be fair, NASA pushed reusability and has been planning all sorts of shit with Mars for many decades. Pushing and planning shit is like paper rockets -- it's easy to do compared to actually doing anything.

That said, I wish SpaceX, NASA and any and all others who want to do interesting shit in space every possible success. I'm not a fanboi for an one of them.

>Keep 'em flying.

>>9509363
what lunar or martian landers? NASA is not working on either and sure as hell wouldn't launch a flagship mission on an untested rocket

>>9509081
That plan was under consideration well before Trump was elected.

ISS has a planned lifespan, and then the plan is to do something else. As it approaches the end of that planned life, if it remains in good shape, and somebody else wants to take it on. that seems a fine idea.

>>9509085
Please bring those goalposts back.

>>9509109
You are confusing "shill" with "troll."

>>9509115
Yo, dog, we heard you like airplanes...

>>9509287
>People taking sides are being completely fucking retarded.

This, tbqh senpai.

More rockets is better.
More spaceships is better.

>>9508529
>>9509011
>where's that well known source buddy?
You know what the "structurally limited" retards are going by? A document describing the standard payload coupling for Falcon 9, which explicitly says that heavier payloads may be accommodated as a special service.

That's all they have. And when you point out the line about accommodating heavier payloads, they just say, "But they won't anyway! The whole rocket is STRUCTURALLY LIMITED!" and you ask them for a source on that, and they just point you back to the same thing, point out that's where you started and they say, "Well it just is! They don't say specifically how much of a heavier payload, so we should just assume they can't carry the amounts they're advertising on their website!"

Total morons.

>>9509396
Too soon...

>>9509393
If the possibility of a huge fucking pile of explosive shit that you light on fire exploding is unacceptable to you, you should not be in the space launch business, or fandom.

>>9509538

>nasa is infallible

>>9509437
It's a fair point, carry on then.

>>9509556
Nobody is.
That does not make your sudden shift to talking about Hubble relevant to a discussion of booster development.

>>9509559

It's an argument for privatization over the government contracting you dunce

>>9508506
Private sector is like 70 years late, so I guess the governmentcucks won

>>9509564
Talk to me when you have a comparable example of something like the Hubble being done without the government doing it.

Until then, the fact that the Hubble got messed up is no more relevant to a discussion of booster design than is the fact that the Hubble got fixed.

>>9509551
I read on NSF that they designed a 22 ton one, but of course it hasn't been used, nor will be used soon

So yes there are structural limits, and they were not talking about heavier payloads either, they were talking about payloads that exceded the center of gravity limits

>>9509634

We will have something comparable in the next 10 years. No government funded project will put a human on Mars, I guarantee it. Too busy handing out gibs to filthy brown people in exchange for more votes

>>9508529

Its $1Bn PER LAUNCH for the SLS and the vehilce is 100% expendable design. If th FH can do 32 tons reusable at 90M per launch, that gets you 10 launches on the FH and 2 launches additional on the F9, granting you 370 tons to LEO with 100% reusability.

Also, the SLS would launch once every few years, whereas the FH can basically launch every month since Block 5 boosters can be interchanged between F9 and FH side cores. From a cost perspective, FH already wins. But when you factor in time, FH can launch 10x the payload in the time it takes to make a second SLS Heavy.

SLS is a government pork barel project that exists soley to appease Congress men and women, who want to keep technology/space/engineering jobs within their states--so that they vote on legislation of their respective parties or vote across party lines whenever bi-partisan deals are important. There's no benefit to the SLS, because you're spending 1Bn just to throw it away. Its a fucking waste in every sense of the word.

>>9509710
>exceded the center of gravity limits
A heavier payload on top of the rocket makes it easier to control, not harder.

>>9509785
It's not "1 billion per launch", talking incremental costs for these government programs that consume the same money whether they launch or not is nonsense.

No you can't blame this on Congress, the idea that they can determine the contents of a bill solely because they want 5000 Democrat voters in their state to be employed is very wrong

Congress does not wish to sabotage NASA, they want NASA to do their job.

>>9509980
They horizontally integrate payloads, it clearly shows a very steep decline in what sort of payload they can handle if the center of gravity starts moving upwards away from the upper stage.

>>9509400
james webb should've been launched 10 years ago

it's also a pork barrel project

we could easily have 10 webbs in space right now if it were done by private industry

>>9510016
or if the NRO would just hand over their surplus glass, like they did that one time. They had two hubble clones basically lying around. so they donated them to nasa.

>>9510017
SpaceX should just go "fuck it we'll build our own space telescop"

launch it into orbit for 1/100th the price of the james webb, more technologically capable than the james webb, and then sell access to it as a service for universities, researchers, etc. for the next 50 years

the james webb will blow up on launch I'm too pessimistic to see it going any other way.

>>9510016
what private industry would launch fucking telescopes lol
There is no money or relevant work to be done taking photos of the sky

>>9510072
yah but if there were private industry would've done it 10x faster and better

isn't spacex a super high-pressure workplace with high turnover due to burnout? I don't know why you guys are be so happy to see STEM earning power go down...

>>9510072
The fuck are you talking about? Universities, labs and a whole shitload of places would pay premium for time on the biggest dick space telescope.

>>9508553
>Thank you based God
Why? What is it to you?

>>9510238

Justice

>>9509115
Baloons are better and can get higher.
>inb4 butthurt plane shills

>>9510372
>>Baloons are better and can get higher.
Orbital ring is better and uses only electricity.
>>imb4 butthurt ballon shills

>>9508650
How does it feel to have been so utterly BTFO?

>>9509534

NASA has the proposed Altair lander which they were (briefly) working on before Obama cancelled it. That was planned to fly on SLS with Orion, or with some other payload.

>>9510214
yea so government agencies pay other government agencies to do stuff

what else is new

Is it possible to actually save the SLS? If the firecrackers are dropped and replaced by liquid boosters - F9's or similar and the first stage is made reusable (is that even possible with the current engines?), could we possibly expect a vehicle that is somewhat useful and capable of more flights?

>>9511116
no. It is a big expensive expandable rocket. The future lies with big reusable cheap rockets

NASA should stick to probes and research, not launch vehicles

Goddamn it Congress

>>9510984
>Delta IV Heavy
>Completely booked out with contracts until the end of its life
>Falcon Heavy
>Some sats that can be launched on a Falcon 9.
I wonder who's getting btfo'd here.

Cry more SpaceX shills.

>>9511130
SLS is a lifeline for too many jobs. Simply axing it will cause issues.

>>9511116
They are planning on replace the Shuttle Solid Booster with upgraded ones for Block 2. One of the proposals being worked on is a updated version of the Rocketdyne F-1 that the Saturn V used. If used, it will push the payload capacity to over 150 tons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster

>>9510118
From what I've heard, people usually spend a couple years at SpaceX to build up their resume before leaving and joining ULA or another, less "100 hours a week at the lowest pay in the business" aerospace job.

Elon Musk is so cheap and fast because he accepts that his rockets are going to fail and capitalizes on that for maximum learning effect. The first three Falcons all exploded, and the first few landing attempts also all failed.

NASA can not follow this approach, because they are a government agency. It would be a global embarassment for the US government, if for example the first three rockets explode, like the Falcons did. Other governments like Russia would exploit these incidents for their propaganda, portraying the USA as weak and incapable.
Also, taxpayers would ask why NASA is literally blowing up their money.

Elon is blowing up his own money and that of his private investors, and he also has not to care about his reputation amongst actors of global politics. So he can follow that approach, but NASA can't. And developing a rocket that has to work immediately is a whole other process than developing one that can fail the first few tests.

>>9511162
yeah but why in the hell should we celebrate such a company driving costs down through worker exploitation?
>>9511177
eh
part of the reason the space shuttle was such shit really was bureaucracy/politics, the development process dragged on far too long and by the time it finally got built it was out of date

>>9511199
>yeah but why in the hell should we celebrate such a company driving costs down through worker exploitation?
We shouldn't, but the cult of personality around Musk and the insane fanclub around SpaceX makes them excuse it as "the price of driving humanity forward" or "they can leave if they want too!" Fanboys treating an aerospace company as a sports team.

>>9511199
But he's bringing us 5 years earlier to Mars, which, apparently, is the most important thing ever.

>>9511154
paper plans with no budget

>>9511199
the shuttle was a disastrous shitshow even before it left the drawing board

>>9511177
NASA can't do that because NASA can't even produce vehicles
You need to be able to produce a vehicle to be able to test it

>>9511260
>the shuttle was a disastrous shitshow even before it left the drawing board
do you blame NASA, or politics?

>>9511260
>paper plans with no budget
Are you retarded? What does that even mean? The SLS is a paper rocket?

>>9508506
>2 billion
It probably takes the Fed less than .002 seconds to generate that amount and make a transfer

>>9511267
I blame NASA, they made the decisions ultimately
They had full freedom to make proper decisions, and embark on a sane practical development program leaving room for future reusability upgrades..

Instead they went with a shuttle.

This whole blaming politics thing is a way to absolve NASA from their responsibility in the Shuttle program, or the failed Constellation program, or the failed SLS program, and even today they want to do space stations in high lunar orbit to justify the SLS shit show


>>9511271
I predict the SLS will never actually launch

>new budget
>still pouring dollars in the space laundry system
Explain this, /biz/.

>>9511271
The Block 2 version that supposedly will use the F1-B engines is.

>>9511307
>I predict the SLS will never actually launch
Yup. Definitely retarded.

>>9511116
SLS will be used personal transfers and the most expensive modules of the new space station.
All the "cheaper" stuff will be put up there by private company's in the future.

>>9508553
>tfw NASA becomes the FAA for space
thanks elon

>>9511479
thanks Obama

>>9509526
That's like comparing apples to oranges. It's like saying all the specs that apple says they have in their phones is false because the source is Apple it self.

>>9511421
It's not like they can do anything else

>>9509734
Trump just handed a yooge tax cut to the wealthy but you have to bring in your racial fantasies

>>9510113
That's what they said about trains in the UK. Didn't work. Thank gubbment forthe internet and GPS.

>>9511488
If you want to evaluate the capabilities of the iPhone, do you trust what the guys say who are trying to sell you one, or do you look at data pulled together by a neutral party?

Apple, or SpaceX, or any other company,may well have lots of accurate data about their products on their website. They may well also fudge data, inflate claims, etc.

One thing you will NOT see is an explanation of why their product is not economically viable.

This makes using their data to assess economic viability a little less than the ideal situation.

But trust corporations to always be absolutely honest with you about things that impact their bottom line, if you want to. Many of them will be pretty honest, much of the time. If that's close enough for your needs, fine.

>>9511649

Being so gentle to naive pedestrian fools? Oh thats so kind of you!

Honest truth is these kind of people would buy land from Jupiter if a random company told them its great.

>>9508594
Fully-expendable price is $150 million. Price for expending center core will be $95 million and performance reduction compared to full expendability will only be about 10%. Block 5 will have enhanced performance of 10-15%, so 64 tonnes to LEO will be available for $95 million. $150 million will get 70+ tonnes to LEO. Full recovery performance will be at least 40 tonnes to LEO, and the price will likely be lower than $90 million, due to Block 5 reusability.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963076231921938432
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963094533830426624

Since NASA is only launching SLS for itself, it doesn't have a price. To get an equivalent to a price, you have to amortize the development cost over the number of flights, and add interest to account for the time value of money. They've already spent over $10 billion. With all costs in and the low planned flight rate, it's not going to come out to less than $2 billion per launch no matter how long they keep it alive.

>>9511807
>so 64 tonnes to LEO will be available for $95 million.

The rocket being rated for "64 tons to LEO" doesn't mean you can give them a 60 ton payload and they can put it into orbit

It's just a way of comparing power of the rocket

Low flight rate of the Falcon system will never allow them to get below 50 million a launch.

>>9511807
>so 64 tonnes to LEO will be available for $95 million.
fucking retard, learn to read
64 tons will be for $150 million
~57 tons will be for 95$
40 tons for $90 million
20 tons (all boosters rtls) $65 million

FH cannot do 70+ tons

>>9511821
>the rocket being capable of <insert payload mass here> does not mean it can put <less than payload mass> into orbit

>>9511842

>>9508965

Building reliable space habitats that are well shielded against radiation and self sustaining to a certain point is the only way we will ever be able to get out of the solar system, or even reach the planets on the outer part of our system.

If done well enough, we could have orbital factories building most of what they need in space, only lifting material from asteroids or planets where gravity is not a huge barrier like on earth.

Of course a proper self sustaining habitat with at least a decent level of gravity would only be possible if every nation on earth came together in a colossal effort to build the thing, a single country would never be able to build it.

>>9511846
First of all, the orbit they use the LEO measurement is far lower than you can put any satellite & expect it to last.

Secondly, there are all sorts of structural issues with such a large payload, one that weighs far more than the empty rocket.

Thirdly: You would never fit such a heavy payload into the fairing anyways.

>>9511821
>The rocket being rated for "64 tons to LEO" doesn't mean you can give them a 60 ton payload and they can put it into orbit
Oh great, it's the "structurally-limited" retard. Yes, it fucking does mean it can put 60+ tonnes into LEO. You have no support for the claim that it doesn't.

>Low flight rate of the Falcon system
Once they have reusability working, costs will be greatly reduced. They'll be able to fly much more often on the same operating budget, so they'll be able to open up new markets that need lower prices and prompt launch, like frequent technology tests and space tourism.

>will never allow them to get below 50 million a launch.
Watch: it'll happen by the end of the year.

>>9508944
SRBs are basically just a plastic tube with some explosive shaped inside. That's why you can drop them in the sea then refill them

>>9511891
kys my dude
>http://www.techtimes.com/articles/203757/20170402/elon-musk-aiming-for-full-rocket-reusability-wants-spacex-to-attempt-upper-stage-recovery.htm

>>9510072
Just for one single picture like pic related you could make millions in licensing fees. Spectacular new pictures from space is something every newspaper and website is going to have to have and all of them are going to pay for it.

Plus, you can make additional money basically loaning out the telescope. Let's say you pay 1 million to have the telescope look at whatever you want for 24 hours. Sounds like a lot, but considering what you are getting, it really isn't. That would be a revenue of 365 million per year. Depending on how much the telescop cost, you could actually make a really nice profit this way. And since things like pic related would probably still get circulated even years after the telescope stopped working, you might generate cash flows from it years after its retirement.

>>9511914
>rocket can handle 20% more GTO payload WITH structural upgrades
>but that 20% at the same time somehow doesn't account for payloads into LEO

what the fuck

are you completely retarded

are you going to shriek about how the earth is flat next?

>>9511923
>millions in licensing fees
>in the era of google images
"no"

>>9511926
>armchair structural engineer

>>9511929
This picture I took is from german newspaper site "Der Spiegel" who most certainly paid the obligatory licensing fee for it. It's not like it's something new that you have to pay for pictures you are using.

>>9511926
They would have to do structural upgrades just to mount a payload over 22 tons, no doubt even a 22 ton payload would incur extra integration expenses, you are delusional if you think they could handle 50+

The Falcon Heavy is not for large LEO payloads, that is just a way of comparing power of a rocket

>literally make Heavy for the larger and heavier Air Force & NRO contracts
>"It can't lift more than F9 into LEO!"

Someone please help me.

>>9511842
The tweets I linked aren't my only source of information. The 64 tonne figure was from before they factored in the Block 5 upgrades, which will give 10-15% increased performance. FH will be able to do 70+ tonnes.

Beyond that, they have more performance upgrade options. The easiest of which is an upper-stage tank stretch (the upper stage is undersized), but they've also said that now that they've done Heavy, they could add more boosters and make a Falcon Super Heavy fairly easily.

The point of Falcon Heavy was to make a relatively straightforward, low-cost heavy variant on Falcon 9. They haven't pushed the limits of what performance they can get out of it, because they don't expect a market even for the basic Falcon Heavy's top performance.

>>9511891
>Watch: it'll happen by the end of the year.
Delusional, they have zero incentive to reduce prices, and they have no plans of reaching a flight rate that would justify it

>space tourism.
There aren't that many billionaires in the world...

>>9511939
>The 64 tonne figure was from before they factored in the Block 5 upgrades, which will give 10-15% increased performance. FH will be able to do 70+ tonnes.
Flat out wrong.
64 tons is for block V.

>>9511937
Look at what the capability of the F9 was back when they proposed the FH, and look at it now
The F9 is ample for any sort of LEO payload. The FH is for large high delta-v payloads, not giant LEO payloads

It would take significant structural changes to the rocket to handle that.

>>9510214
Nope, they wouldn't. Who's going to fund a research proposal that clocks in at 300k per long exposure or whatever. That's madness.

>>9511935
it's public domain isn't it? anyway digital images are notoriously hard to keep control over. that's why many art galleries don't release high-resolution images but opt to sell prints exclusively

>>9508506
It helps when you've utterly decimated the tax code so that a single person can amass the funds necessary to outspend a government agency (via massive redistribution of wealth away from the middle class and the institutions that support it), and his pet project just happens to be "space travel."

>Cost: $90 million
Hahah and I bet you believe it too.

>>9511953
Literally every university would lick their fingers to be the first one to achieve a breakthrough of any kind. A telescope in space makes exactly this possible, since your university is going to see things no other university or research institute has ever seen. Absoluetely all of the would pay up. And 1 million per day for such an opportunity is actually estimated rather low. Im sure you could actually charge at least twice that and still be booked out for >10 years.

>>9511947
>64 tons is for block V.
What's the basis of your claim?

The Falcon 9 figure isn't for Block 5, why would the Falcon Heavy one be? They'll update their figures after Block 5 is flying and they have some hard performance data.

>>9508901
Shit is some prime bait. Almost believed it

>>9508553
NASA does a lot more than just build rockets.

In fact most of the rocket building that NASA does is actually just Boeing, Lockheed, Aerojet, etc. doing contract work.

>>9511967
>And 1 million per day for such an opportunity is actually estimated rather low.

Alright. What uni, department of research council is going to shell out that kind of money for satellite images when success is not guaranteed?

I expect the userbase would shrink down to a small handful of groups who would be able to afford the images / telescope time, which also means the total number of orders would be too small to turn the whole endeavour profitable.

Apart from some massively rich departments, no-one would even try getting funds for this. 1 mil per day is massively out of scope for the vast majority of research groups, who operate on budgets of millions per project.

>>9508767

FH can't compete with SLS in terms of payload capacity, but BFR (if it actually works) will blow SLS out of the water.

Also for the cost of SLS development, we could have paid for the wall.

>>9511998
The chair I work at just bought datasets for around 3 million euros. And we are a small economics chair at a small and irrelevant german university. If you think 1 million is a lot you have no clue what you are talking about. Universities like Harvard would pay hundreds of millions if they get the chance to be the first one to report a major breakthrough, like lets say a planet with an atmosphere like earth's, or some completely new knowledge about black holes or the big bang.

>>9509081
McDonalds module when?

>>9512010
SLS counts the weight of its second stage as payload, SpaceX doesn't

>>9512011
>The chair I work at just bought datasets for around 3 million euros.

We've had a few where we paid several hundred grand for a small set of hyperspectral EO imagery. This isn't new, nor shocking. But the fact still stands, the vast majority of astro research groups using Hubble, Newton, Swift or whatever, could simply not afford the price tag - not even close. Harvard might pay for this, but hundreds of research groups would lose access to the data.

I guess as long as it turns in a profit, why not. But then again, if this was commercially viable, why hasn't it been done already? The tech is there, so why aren't companies building and flying these telescopes?

>>9508938
SLS hardware is based on STS hardware, but pretty much all of it is new or modified from STS.

>>9511147
>bigger is better
>at x10-x20 the rate

Is SpaceX the final proof that private corporations are superior to publicly funded ones every fucking time?

>>9512010
>FH can't compete with SLS in terms of payload capacity
For the kinds of things they're talking about using SLS for, it can, with small additional developments.

The FH maiden launch demonstrated a 6-hour coast before relight. The Dragon ISS launches use a 6-hour "fast rendezvous".

They could use one reusable FH launch for the payload, one reusable F9/Dragon launch for crew (if they don't want to certify FH to carry crew), and then do an expendable FH launch of just the upper stage, to rendezvous with the payload for departure.

TLI payload would likely exceed that of SLS, or at least be very close. Total cost under $400 million.

>>9512043
>private corporations are superior to publicly funded ones every fucking time
They're not. The difference is that shitty companies go out of business.

>>9511147
Based on badly outdated information (Falcon 9 1.0 data, and the Heavy derivative of that).

>>9511147
i'll get to uranus direct, SLS shill