/sci/ - Science & Math

But can it do this?

>first launch expected no earlier than mid-2020s
I mean all these concepts are cool but they are just that, concepts.

>>9513949
>Taking the word of some random Twitter smuck over the word of the literal CEO.

>>9513916
Their rocket doesn't exist yet

>>9514103
Pic related.

>>9514116
It's been delayed multiple times and it likely will be again. It's being funded on a monthly basis because the USAF are pumping so little funding into it.

>>9513916
>rocket that doesn't exist
>blows the fuck out of a rocket that does
You also know SpaceX is designing a spacecraft called the Big Falcon Rocket, a rocket that is suppose to surpass the Saturn V by about 10k kilos to LEO. They've a launch date as early as 2022.

>>9513916
>Implying ULA will develope the vulcant before 2025-2035
>Implying it won't cost 200-700+ million per launch

>>9513916
You might as well compare it to the BFR, since that's also a rocket that doesn't yet exist.

>>9514116
I'm pretty sure his promises are about as reliable as Musk's, i.e. not at all.

>>9514116
If it was going to be ready for 2020 they'd tweet some photos of hardware being tested
If they haven't started building hardware it sure as shit ain't flying in less than 2 years

The engine doesn't even exist yet, you can bet they'll be doing months of their own testing

Hopefully they intended to make significant changes to the design now that they see SpaceX likely to have 30+ launches this year
With reuse

Vulcan seems like it's going to be pretty irrelevant but I like their ideas with ACES for orbital tugs and propellant depots. If Falcon 9's reusability is not just a meme then it should be very cheap to refuel tugs in LEO, and then you can launch big payloads and ferry them out to the moon for lunar bases and shit.

Kind of like a shitty version of pic related

>>9514649
>rent seeking "proposals" with no actual work ever done on them

propellant depots are just a meme
Using LH2 is a fucking meme too

>then it should be very cheap to refuel tugs in LEO
Yea so they will make a reusable "tug" when they can't make a reusable launch vehicle

>>9513916
Lower performance, higher price, no booster reusability, definitely won't fly for a couple of years, might never fly at all.

They haven't settled on a booster engine, and ULA's parent companies are still only approving funding on a quarterly basis. Since Vulcan has no hope of coming close to competing with SpaceX's offerings in any way, there's a very high probability that it will be cancelled without flying.

>>9514649
ACES isn't due to be implemented until 2025 anyway and considering how slowly the Vulcan is being developed, it's likely it'll slip even further.

>>9514727
>propellant depots are just a meme
I think that depends on how viable reusable LVs turn out to be, especially on a large scale like BFR. If you can just launch massive payloads from Earth on totally reusable rockets then yeah they're pretty pointless.
>Yea so they will make a reusable "tug" when they can't make a reusable launch vehicle
Those are two totally different things really. Tugs would require long term cryogenic storage in space which is a technology that will almost certainly be needed for future manned missions, so it seems like a worthwhile thing to develop.

>>9514826
Propellant depots are tied to low launch rates and hydrogen propellant (you can't just store it in the stage, because it'll be up too long and boil off too quickly), but if you've got low launch rates, then propellant depots are basically useless anyway because launch costs are implicitly too high to make distributed launch economical.

BFR is intended to use in-orbit refuelling simply from ship to ship, no depot needed. This makes total sense, because the launch rate will be high, the propellant will only be liquid oxygen temperature, and the ship will be very large (square-cube law applies to growing tanks, which are only going to be heated in proportion to their surface area).

>Tugs would require long term cryogenic storage in space which is a technology that will almost certainly be needed for future manned missions
There's no such technology as "cryogenic storage in space". The problem changes dramatically with the volume of cryogenic material, whether it's liquid hydrogen or just liquid oxygen temperatures, how long it has to be stored, how much boil-off is permissible, the material's heat capacity, how much mass your storage system is allowed to have, what acceleration it has to tolerate, how much energy it can use, and where in space you're storing it.

>>9514826
You really think they are going to be paying Musk hundreds of millions to deliver LH2, which they will lose 3/4rds of before they get to use it, in their super expensive non-reusable tugs, while Musk is doing weekly lunar launches?

These things have never been funded for a reason.

>>9513932
Doing that is not the goal, though it may be a useful trick to help reach the goal.

>>9514220
Not sure you can point out that a rocket doesn't exist, then segue directly into bragging about a rocket that also doesn't exist.

Compare the other rocket companies bullshit to SpaceX which showed the BFR rocket fuel tank being tested.

>>9513916
>will fly first
Well, certainly not before Falcon Heavy.

>>9515012
I thought they tested a fuel tank for the ITS? When did they do the same for BFR? I know BFR is basically just a scaled down ITS anyways.

>>9515537
It'll be the same.

>>9515010
The point is, either compare real rockets (Atlas V and Falcon 9/H) or doesn't-exist-yet rockets (Vulcan, BFR).

At this point both vehicles pretty much exist to the same degree. They both have engine test articles being fired and worked on, structural engineering is being undertaken, etc.

>>9515537
That was the ITS test, however BFR is the same materials just smaller. The hard part of that tank was the materials, which they got figured out. Making it smaller is easy, they don't need to bother with building a new tank sized for BFR and blow it up just to confirm what they already know, which is the new resin and matrix they developed holds up at scale.

>>9514649
Bruh mars isn't that close to Earth

I wonder where this anon is today

>>9513916
What shitty website is that and why does it have up-down arrows for posts and is all dark and shit?

>points

Post point system? Jesus fuck, social media was a mistake.

How is it even legal for a small upstart company to disrupt markets like this?
In most countries in the world there are laws in place to prevent such things.

>>9518457
It is one of the few good things about capitalism. It can produce profound change in a stagnant system. It is rare, but happens from time to time.

>>9518457
>small
>upstart
>company - actually this one is true

>>9518497
>the king of subsidies
>do not lead us into socialism

>>9518464
>one of the few good things

>>9518457
Those laws are there to protect the rich. It’s why America leads and the world follows, because disrupting markets through innovation is glorified in the US

>>9518443
he's still around, violently shitting on the floor and smearing it on the walls 24/7

>>9513916
>ULA

So, next Space X launch is Saturday.

>>9514116
>flys

>>9519222
I'll make the launch thread late fri.

first two Starlink test sats will be onboard! exciting.

>>9518470
SpaceX is relatively small for a launch provider.
Especially one that's capable of heavy launches.

Tracking a car SpaceX sent into space.

>>9519278
Is it past the moon yet?

>>9519188
He's probably moved on to bitching about the BFR and how it's impossible now.

>>9515010
You can actually. He pointed out why the original poster's argument is flawed, because it does not offer a direct comparison, and then provided a direct comparison in order to show that if the original argument was made with a direct comparison then it wouldn't stand either.

So basically he took the time to delineate two separate flaws in the individual's argument. Very simple stuff lad, do try to keep up.

>>9519914
It past the moon within a couple days at the most.

BFR WHEN? I WANT TO GO TO MARS MAN

I want the BFR launch demonstation to be a capture and return of Starman.

>>9519999
Fuck the demonstration, they should

>launch a few FH's with fuel into orbit first
>pack the BFR with the first 100 people he wants to send plus minimum survival gear until they can make another drop
>Listen guys this rocket may explode, but it probably won't so do it for Mars niggers
>They'll fucking all do it I guarantee

Makes it way more exciting because the first result is either

>FUCK YEAH THOSE NIGGAS GOING TO MARS
or
>OH SHIT ELON JUST EXPLODED 100 PEOPLE 1ST LAUNCH

Gotta hype the public up for these launch demos bro.

>>9520020
crew BFR will fly wayyy after cargo BFR. Life support systems are ass

>>9514649
why does earth only have one giant madagascar landmass?

>>9519938
>A heavy lift tri-core rocket like the Delta IV Heavy is the same as the largest and most complicated rocket ever proposed.
I wonder who could be behind this post.

>>9521313
It's certainly closer than a Delta IV Heavy, that's for sure.

>>9519914
As far as I could tell it passed the moon 12-18 hours after launch

FH has over 2x the performance of DH when expending the core at 95 mil$ you can get one now and not after 2020 or 2024 for ACES version that will go head to head with BFR.You can bruteforce methane to nearly the same c3 with bfr because of 150t to leo capability for less than one srm for Vulcan.

It is still outcompeted by falcon and bfr is just beyond anything other than possibly new Armstrong

>>9520048
this x1000
life support is annoying but certification to fly crew is understandably REALLY hard. the f9 has been flying for years and only now is it close to crew certification.
there's a reason they aren't bothering to make FH crew certified, it's such a pain in the dick, why not leave f9 for crew transport and FH for infrastructure?

they're dumping all available r&d into bfr and will crew certify that as well