/sci/ - Science & Math

the cranes and the run down buildings are historic and thus will not be torn down apparently

in broader context of the LA area

>>9605952
>only notable use of place is occasional filming
Because they were shot in some 80s Best of the Worst movie?

>>9605971
it is quite gritty

BFR will have to be transported through the Panama Canal. NASA did it with Saturn V stages, so it shouldn't be too difficult.

>BFR is a mem-
inb4 mass leadership changes in the space programs and industries around the world.

>>9606024
I think the most important point here is that the incorporation of Janicki's resources allows SpaceX to avoid having to tool up and learn how to make large COPV's. Which just leaves avionics and the superstructure/engines, which scale easily and shouldn't require difficult manufacturing methods to fabricate. After all, the only "big" parts of BFR are the shell and the COPV's, along with the heat-shield. But, the PICA-X facility at hawthorn is excellent so I'm not worried about the heat-shield part. And, Elon has said that F9/BFR will share many components as well, which further speeds up development.

>>9606024
BFS is hardest part, its designed to operate both in deep space and atmosphere, Space Shuttle was destroyed two times due to solid rocket booster and damaged heat shield tile. BFS has neither, i am curious why no one uses SpaceX Pica-X heatshields, Dreamchaser will use same ones as Space Shuttle.

Some additional interesting stuff gleamed from the files:
initial equipment includes
>1 autoclave – 20 MM BTU/hr
>8 aerial lifts (63 horsepower (hp) each)
>3 gantry cranes (170 hp each)
>8 forklifts (89 hp each)


A 20 MM BTU/hr autoclave is extremely powerful.

>meanwhile in bureaucratic moneyland

to be proposed bill called ALSTAR (‘‘American Leadership in Space Technology and Advanced Rocketry Act’’)

Section 3 is the most interesting and contains the spice;
>"(b)The Marshall Space Flight Center shall provide national leadership in rocket propulsion by—
>"(1) contributing to interagency coordination for the preservation of critical national rocket propulsion capabilities;"
>"(2) collaborating with industry, academia, and professional organizations to most effectively use national capabilities and resources;
>"(3) monitoring public- and private-sector rocket propulsion activities to develop and promote astrong, healthy rocket propulsion industrial base;
>"(4) facilitating technical solutions for existing and emerging rocket propulsion challenges;"
>"(5) supporting the development and refinement of rocket propulsion for small satellites;"
>"(6) evaluating and recommending, as appropriate, new rocket propulsion technologies for further development; and"
>"(7) providing information required by national decision makers so that policies and other instruments of the Government support the development and strengthening of the Nation’s rocket propulsion capabilities throughout the 21st century."

Seems they are trying to tie their pockets with law and add legal options to cockblock the private sector under the guise of national interest and "expertise" in the field.

>>9606088
That's just Mo Brooks trying to keep MSFC funded. Doubt it will get anywhere

It's nothing until it's built. Until the BFR actually flies longer than 10 seconds, it's a dream.

I really want to believe though.

>>9606024

This is a project on par with the N-1, which the Soviet Union put all their energy into yet could only justify four (4) launches before the whole program was scrapped. Musk is trying to do it with private money.

>>9606088

No you idiot, they're trying to give the rocket/space industry the same boost the aerospace industry has. They are going to leverage SLS's supply chain assets for the private sector, effectively a public subsidy.

>>9606096
>until X happens, Y is a dream

>>9606096
We always have Bezos and his unlimited budget if BFR fails.

>>9606099
>the N1 meme again
That's dead and buried forget it already.

>>9606099
>on par with the n1
that's an insult to the BFR.

>>9606106
new Armstrong should be interesting, hopefully the release specs for it sometime soon

>>9606106
Just checked and his net worth is up 50 billion since Jan 2016. I say this with two amazon boxes sitting next to me so I guess it's not the biggest surprise but good lord

>>9606140
Jan 2017*, it's 90bn since 2016

>>9606118
why would Blue Origin release specs on their "new rocket" before the fucking NG flies? It's at least 3 years away from flying too

Blue Origin, just based off what we know their shitty rocket will cost, will not be able to compete with SpaceX

>>9606141
>>9606140
he puts 500mil into BO per year iirc. Wonder when he's gonna ramp it up to 1bil... Heck, Elon started SpaceX with only 150mil! Sure, the COTS contract helped, but still

>>9606145
competing doesn't matter short term when you have 100 billion dollars to play with. SpaceX showed off BFR before FH flew... don't see why BO won't do the same with their next gen system. Then again BO is pretty secretive

>>9606150
SpaceX has to fund raise and they are further along on the BFR than BO is on their rocket

>>9606153
They aren't really directly competing launch vehicles, either. New Glenn fits into a similar niche as Falcon Heavy, but with Block 5's intended reusability from the outset.

>>9606157
Plus Bezos’s overall space goal is a huge orbital manufacturing base and asteroid colony, rather than a mars civilization

>>9606099
People seem to continuously use the N1 attack when referencing the BFR without actually knowing why the N1 failed. It failed because the engine vibrations fucked up the piping. Unlike the N1, the BFR can shut off and restart it's first-stage engines; which in turn allows SpaceX to static-fire and test over and over again until every single error and fault is located so it can be fixed.

>>9606157
Do you really believe a company that botched their first vehicle so bad, with the New Shepherd, is going to be able to just produce a fully finished reusable rocket ? First try?

They even engage in lies and shows pretending NS is in the same class as the F9 booster, something SpaceX doesn't do.

>>9606169
I think nothing of the sort, especially since that's not Blue Origin's goal. Only the Booster is meant to be multi-use reusable from the outset, with a reusable upper stage following somewhere down the line - possibly not until New Armstrong is ready, whatever that launch vehicle turns out to be.

>>9606168
It failed because the Russians cancelled the program for lack of money, and they were on a shoestring budget too
If they had been able to do the launch tests they intended, eventually the rocket would work

>>9606168
It was a combination of that and the simple limitations of a pre-computer modeling world. Oh, and not being able to manufacture pill shaped fuel tanks with common bulkheads. N1 had a bunch of spheres... not space efficient, and it lead to other design fallbacks

>>9606178
N-1's big problem was that the NK-33s are grossly overrated. Between the N-1 itself and blaming decades of Siberian storage, no one seems willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, the NK-33 was actually an unreliable engine.

>>9606174
Exactly, the ussr liked to test fast and iterate off of failures. Everything else besides the rocket would have been fine, probably. People forget that they did successful sample return missions on the moon in the 70s

Back on the topic of the OP, does anyone live in LA who wants to go snap some pics?

>>9606169
At a conference a couple of weeks ago a Blue Origin representative stated that it would take Blue Origin 6-8 years to fly a manned mission on the New Glenn, let alone the New Armstrong. There is no space race, you need a manned spacecraft to take part and building one is the least of Blue's priorities now.

>>9606183
There isn't much to look at currently, construction is starting in April and will apparently last for 18 months.

>>9606190
Would be neat to put up a webcam to make a timelapse

>>9606109

Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Just look at NASA.

>>9606168

Sure, I didn't say it was impossible to build the BFR, Just that there is an enormous capital cost involved, a cost not even a massive country would swallow. But the point remains that the BFR is a huge project, on a scale that has not been successful before. It is designed to dwarf the SLS, a project that has taken ten years to do using the best technology and nearly unlimited American taxpayer money.

This is not an easy task, and Musk will not have accomplished it until he can get at least 10 seconds of flight without the whole thing blowing up. Again not impossible, just extremely difficult. There's a reason why the Saturn V had five main engines, SLS four. BFR will have 42, more complexity brings more problems.

>>9606185
In theory they could strap Boeing CST 100 or Orion to New Glenn instead of developing own spacecraft from scratch.

>>9606178

Fuel tank shapes aren't trivial. The X-33 was cancelled because NASA's composite asymmetrical fuel tanks kept cracking.

>>9606198
>has taken ten years to do using the best technology and nearly unlimited American taxpayer money.
Main bane of SLS is Space Shuttle legacy, its sole purpose is to employ same people and companies on essentially identical hardware, that was designed in 70s and made in 80s.

>>9606198
>is not an easy task, and Musk will not have accomplished it until he can get at least 10 seconds of flight without the whole thing blowing up.

SpaceX has an advantage on multi-engine firings that the old school rocket programs lacked: The ability to perform full duration test-firings, multiple times, with the same engines.

>>9606198
>BFR will have 42,
31, they did fly rocket with 27 engines already.

>>9606034

>BFS is hardest part, its designed to operate both in deep space and atmosphere

This is also the part most likely to get scrapped. Even if Musk can get the BFR booster itself working (a hard enough task), building a crew-rated vehicle to go along with it - one that is designed for both intra and inter planetary flight - is enormously difficult. It took Boeing about ten years to build the current X-37, and will take them another five to build the XS-1 neither of which are not crew-rated.

>>9606216
SpaceX isn't doing any preliminary development work on the booster. If the ship doesn't work, attempting to build the booster is pointless.

>>9606208

If it's not broke don't fix it. Also the shuttle hardware works better when applied to a normal three-stage rocket instead of the space shuttle, who would have guessed. It's sufficient in a world where aerospike and nuclear propulsion research is marginalized.

>>9606213

Yes, but that doesn't change that he's using a huge amount of engines. Building a bigger engine would have resulted in more fuel efficiency as well, although it would have required a completely new production line (which Musk is apparently unable to get financing for otherwise he'd do that like any sane engineer would suggest). I'm not saying it's impossible, just extraordinarily difficult. More difficult than getting the original space shuttle to work.

>>9606224

Then they're going to wind up with a spaceship that has no rocket capable of taking it to space. The exact opposite situation NASA has with SLS (a vehicle with no/few missions right now).

>>9606230
>Building a bigger engine would have resulted in more fuel efficiency as well

Specific impulse doesn't scale like that. It actually peaks right around their development size before rapidly dropping off due to the limits of attainable chamber pressures for a given volume.

>>9606243

That's more of a materials problem than a scaling problem.

>>9606198
>engine count
I assume you missed the Falcon Heavy launch and how it's success destroyed the argument about "explosive difficulties" of clustered engine designs?
My best bet is you are trolling, especially when you are unironically comparing spacex's work to things like the n1 and the sls.

>>9606253
There's always more than one way to skin a cat in engineering projects, and inventing stronger materials isn't a wrong way.

>>9606232

The booster is essentially a solved problem, they can defer it because they know that.

>>9606270
>The booster is essentially a solved problem, they can defer it because they know that.
^this

>>9606253
Materials science has been working on it since the 60's. No ending in sight.

>>9606230
Space Shuttle was inherently flawed, that's why it has been canceled and never succeeded by Space Shuttle II.

>>9606214
>>9606262

Neither of you actually refuted my point. Putting all of this into a new vehicle isn't easy, but again I'm not saying it's impossible. It does require a lot of capital though, a thing a private company is always going to have issues justifying to investors or creditors. Past performance does not guarantee future results, especially when someone is trying to build the largest rocket ever. Hughes built the H-4 but it only flew for about 26 seconds.

>>9606270
>>9606272

It isn't a "solved problem" until it's built and not blowing up on the launch pad. Look at how NASA manage to screw up Ares I, whose cancellation created the market SpaceX now inhabits. Technological development isn't just ticking off a list, as new vehicles are built they have to be experimented and tested with even if they are hobbled together with existing parts.

Again I'm not saying it's impossible, but it takes a lot of effort and labor (time) to make it all function. It's success is not guaranteed until it actually flies.

>>9606273

Wrong, see the F-117, B-2, the space shuttle itself (in particular it's ceramic tiles), the X-33 and the 787. All of them use composite polymer or ceramic structures, things that were mostly impossible to build fifty years ago.

>>9606280

Of course it was, which is why NASA originally went for the X-33 then the SLS. It's also why Boeing is doing the XS-1 instead of a shuttle 2.0 (which they own because they bought Rockwell).

>>9606288
>Neither of you actually refuted my point.

Sure thing, kid.

>>9606300

I was hoping for a serious discussion here

> Past performance does not guarantee future results
Nice one, how does that not apply to everyone else then? Rockets are impossible? Give up? If anything SpaceX are the only one who have experience with large rockets in recent times so they are the best bet one can make. As for financing the company is profitable, holds the existing launch market, its R&D costs are considerably lower than anyone else, and there are planned sources of large income such as starlink. The majority of its shares are also owned by Musk hence no shareholder derailing.
And it won't take a lot of labor and time, that's nothing more than vain hope for competitors praying for natural and God made disasters to help their terrible predicament.
The prototype's very likely to start extensive tests mid to late next year. The BFR schedule including all musk time dilation memes is orders of magnitude faster than anything suggested let alone delivered by anyone else.


2/10 concern trolling honestly learn to bait better this is bad.

>>9606306
There's not a lot to discuss, though; we're arguing about our differing levels of optimism for SpaceX's ability to overcome technical hurdles. Personally, between SpaceX's large amount of first-hand and pioneering experience with high temperature environments around rocket exhaust and hypersonc retropropulsive reentry, they'll not have a lot of trouble making the booster work. They'll probably RUD a few of them in the process, but that's the SpaceX way.

>>9606288
NASA being insincere and slow walking a development program for decades because it makes no difference whether they launch or don't launch is totally different to SpaceX

I think the lesson from this Commercial crew program is that NASA bureaucracy will sabotage any successful program to slow it down to the speed of the slowest common denominator

Hiding embarassment is the most important thing for these bureaucrats.

>>9606206

X-33 had a much colder fuel in hydrogen, and their tanks weren't cylindrical, and there has been 20 years of time for the state of things to improve. BFR is an easier task.

There was even a NASA tech demo project a few years ago that built a small composite hydrogen tank that worked. The same tank builder in that project is who SpaceX is using to build their tanks.

>>9606306
>ass hurt over kid-posting

>>9606288
>It's success is not guaranteed until it actually flies.
b-b-b-but elon musk is le IRL tony stark

>>9606309

Back in the 1950s everyone expected supersonic travel to be the norm by 1990 and nuclear-powered commercial space travel by 2000. Technical issues caused both concepts to stall rather than progress. The Space Shuttle was supposed to be the DC-3 of space travel, it didn't pan out like that.

>As for financing the company is profitable, holds the existing launch market, its R&D costs are considerably lower than anyone else, and there are planned sources of large income such as starlink.

Yes just like Hughes Aircraft, who created the Hughesnet/DirectTV brand. Regardless of that, within five years Boeing will actually be competitive again with the XS-1, a vehicle which would quickly ruin SpaceX's plans *if* Boeing can get XS-1 to operate twice a day as they plan. And this is where the past non-performance does not guarantee future results occurs, Boeing will have learned from the STS and will create a product evolved from it designed to meet the goals STS was supposed to. And out of left field there is the Scaled Composites Stratolaunch, which could prove more disruptive if they can manage to do more than four launches per day.

My point is that nothing is guaranteed when it comes to large projects such as this, at least not until vehicles fly. But even then as we saw with the H-4, even then that is not always enough.

>300 million kids in Africa are starving
>I know, let's build enormous fireworks for some rich guy's amusement!

>>9606318

Yes because even the X-33's main contractor, Lockheed, built composite fuel tanks a few years later for the F-35 project. BFR may be conceptually easier, but again the fact remains no vehicle that large has ever been built before. This brings with it many unknowns, which will have to be figured out (likely through failure and repeated failure). Such is the nature of science and technological development.

Which is to say, it doesn't fly until it does. That's the only thing that people can safely bet on, that BFR will not work until it is proven to work. As was the case for the Saturn V, X-1, H-4, and the Wright Flyer.

>>9606327
Not technical issues
But physics issues for super sonic travel and politics for nuclear

>it didn't pan out like that.
NASA made no attempt to BUILD it as anything capable of that

>>9606329
Why are you posting on 4chan instead of volunteering in Africa?

Literal fireworks is a better use of cash than giving money to Africa.

If composites prove difficult the design can fallback on conventional al/li alloys for the tanks. Sacrificing payload, naturally. The same is true for other parts such as engine performance, heat shield mass and so on.

The real issues will be
>propellent transfer
That is a must. If it doesn't work flawlessly the whole fuel rich BFR architecture fails.
>cradle landing
This is the second big must. Without it large ground infrastructure will be required with all that entails to cost launch cadence.

I actually wonder what worst case scenario would look like.
Merlins + kerolox instead of raptors?

>>9606356
>I actually wonder what worst case scenario would look like.
>Merlins + kerolox instead of raptors?

Robert Zubrin's Falcon Heavy Direct.

>>9606329
They should just stop reproducing, no kids - no problem.

>>9606356
Fluids are still fluids in space, you can't act like propellant transfer is an actual issue
its just that its hard to test, thats all

>This is the second big must.
The rocket will have very powerful thrusters for moving itself horizontally
It'll be bigger, so naturally more stable & resistant to wind.
And it'll be able to throttle much lower + land with more of a margin

I don't see the cradle landings as an issue at all.

>>9606342

>But physics issues for super sonic travel and politics for nuclear

issues which existed because technology wasn't progressing at the rate people expected it to in 1950

>NASA made no attempt to BUILD it as anything capable of that

yes because they expected the private market to do it. Everyone chose military contracts instead.

>>9606356
The slush method for prop should be fine. It will be a critical component elude way... it takes eight refuel tankers to completely top up a single BFR in orbit. Of course, that’s only required for going to Saturn or something

>>9606288
Nigger, spacex developed a heavy lift vehicle for FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAS, when the Augustine commission thought it would take twice as long and TEN+ BILLION. The money aspect of BFR is irrelevant. Spacex knows how to do things for cheap. Their refrigeration systems in the payload processing facility were bought used off of eBay ffs

>>9606415
I've been telling people for so long that the only reason space travel is so expensive is because government organisations are always bloated pieces of shit out to make any given contract take as long as possible and squeeze every penny they can.

>No anon that's a conspiracy, rockets are just really expensive
>mfw SpaceX starts sending shit up for a fraction of the cost of these conmen

MARS WHEN

>>9606421
that's just a conspiracy anon rockets are expensive don't you trust the experts it would have been done if it was possible stop with that tinfoil thinking its not healthy you might need help are you perhaps lonely it will be good to think positively you will be happier

>>9606421
Even Blue Origin is filled with old space faggots and they are cutting costs to at least 1/5th

If you are a government organization/contractor you just shrug your shoulders at 1000 dollar "aerospace quality" bolts
If you are a sincere for profit company, you go buy a used bolt machine and make your own.

>>9606429
SpaceX is the master at this. An example...

"...when the company was rebuilding launchpad 40 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, one of SpaceX’s employees spotted a 125,000-gallon liquid nitrogen tank and thought, “Maybe we could use this?”

Despite sitting outside for years, the tank seemed in decent shape, and the SpaceX’s 10-member team on the Cape wanted it. They called the Air Force asking permission, but their calls went unreturned. They persisted and were put in touch with a company that been hired to haul away the tank and destroy it.

The company was willing to part with the tank for $1 more than the cost of scrapping it — $86,000. So the members of the SpaceX team became the scavengers of Cape Canaveral, looking for leftover hardware as if they were on a treasure hunt. Old rail cars from the 1960s that had been used to ferry helium between New Orleans and Cape Canaveral became the new storage tanks. Instead of spending $75,000 on new air-conditioning chillers for the ground equipment building, someone found a deal on eBay for $10,000.

Cost drove lots of decisions, even how the company built its rockets. Once Musk got wind that the air conditioning system used to keep the satellite cool in the rocket’s fairing, or nose cone, was going to cost more than $3 million, he confronted the designer about it.

“What’s the volume in the fairing?” he wanted to know. The answer: less than that of a house.

He turned to Shotwell and asked her how much a new air-conditioning system for a house cost.

“We just changed our air-conditioning,” she replied. “It was six thousand bucks.”

“Why is this $3 or $4 million when your air conditioning system is $6,000?” he asked. “Go back and figure this out.”

The company did, buying six commercial A/C units with bigger pumps that could handle a larger airflow."

>>9606424
FRUIT-FLAVORED GELATIN DESERT NEWBORNS

>>9606472
Wow I didn't know they cool their satellites with none AEROSPACE APPROVED AC units!
Is that even legal??

>>9606487
I'm gonna call my congressman! It's an outrage! How will those AEROSPACE APPROVED AC UNIT MANUFACTURERS stay in business!

>>9606472
>“Why is this $3 or $4 million when your air conditioning system is $6,000?” he asked. “Go back and figure this out.”

>>9606497
Elon asks that about eeeeeverything. Thus why SpaceX now makes practically everything in-house, from the PICA-X to small bolts and other components. Janicki seems to be the big exception.

two excellent good videos on it (really interesting)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P06X2TZUKZU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLfy7NPxjtg

>>9606511
>Janicki seems to be the big exception.
They aren't the only one, but they do stand out. SpaceX inhouses what it can, but sometimes they really can't do it better/faster/cheaper in house, either for lack of experience or for a lack of fundamental or proprietary technical expertise. Janicki's no-autoclave composites are a prime example of proprietary technology with a high degree of technical expertise.

>>9606516
iirc SpaceX was also looking into hiring a giant Japanese carbon fiber company to do some work. I think that fell through though

>>9606521
Janicki is also a specialist for rapid prototyping large carbon fiber structures, so it probably wouldn't make sense for SpaceX to figure out how to do it entirely in-house before paying someone else that already knows how to do it in order to prove the viability of the concept. I don't think the CF deal is canned.

>>9606415

>The money aspect of BFR is irrelevant. Spacex knows how to do things

So then why don't we have H-4 sized seaplanes or double deck Concordes? Hughes and BAE knew how to do things and the money aspect was irrelevant, until one day people woke up and it was. You're being a completely deluded fanboy if you don't realize this. At the most basic level SpaceX has to do something nobody has ever done before, both with the BFR and BFS. Both of these things will cost money and take a lot of manhours to make functional let alone flyable.

Again I'm saying this is difficult, but not impossible. SpaceX has to prove they can do it, because they aren't the first to attempt it.

>Their refrigeration systems in the payload processing facility were bought used off of eBay ffs

That doesn't mean anything when you can buy basically anything off ebay if you try hard enough.

>>9606511
>Thus why SpaceX now makes practically everything in-house, from the PICA-X to small bolts and other components.

every aerospace company does this, or they use a very short list of outside suppliers that are heavily vetted, spacex learned this lesson when one of their suppliers cut costs and sold them defective parts which caused the CRS-7 failure.

>>9606541
SpaceX is paying attention to cash flow, and anonymous dismissal of its relevance has no bearing on that.

>>9606541
who pooped in your cornflakes? BFR isn’t new, it’s just an iteration of F9. They’ve landed rockets. They’ve reflown rockets. Everything regarding the pure engineering of BFR is just a tweak of something which already exists. The same exact thing happened with F9. Now, people say “oh spacex didn’t do anything new with retro propulsive landings, stage recovery, stage reuse, and relight capability.” And they’re right. When BFR is flying people will be saying “oh, spacex didn’t do anything new....” etc. and they will also be right. It’s the application of these technologies which matters.

BFR is just a engineering project which happens to be a large rocket. It’s not some positive Q fusion reactor pipe dream.


Anyways, thanks for adding more material to my collage of BFR doubters. Gonna post it when BFR flies lmao

>>9606421

Then you're a fucking moron, for fuck's sake the entire reason we are in this situation was because Congress saw how Douglas passed up NASA with the DCX in 1993, which is what led them to force NASA to consider "traditional" alternatives to the X-33. By 1997 Douglas aircraft ceased to exist when it was merged into Lockheed, who showed little interest in spacecraft when their F-35 had just won the Joint Strike Fighter contract. With private support gone NASA had to cancel the X-33 in 2001 when it's composite fuel tank cracked again. Within five years of that Lockheed and Boeing had all those problems sorted out yet still chose to create ULA in 2006 rather than build a proper SSTO (or SSTO-like system).

All of this happened because the government had high expectations that the private market would provide a low cost replacement to the Space Shuttle, which itself was originally going to be a low-cost private replacement to the Saturn V. The private market chose not to provide it due to the high cost and thus when the space shuttle retired so did America's manned space program (at least temporarily).

Relying 100% on the private sector only leads to ruin, as does relying 100% on the government like the Soviets did. America's space program was successful because it utilized both whenever practical instead of trying to make some sort of broader ideological point about doing things one way or another. This ended with the Cold War's peaceful close.

>>9606559
There is zero need to involve the government in space travel in 2018.

>>9606541
Planes run into issues with scaling that rockets do not

>>9606557

You didn't actually say anything with that comment.

>>9606558

BFR is new, it's not an F9 because everything is at least assembled differently. Much like how the SLS is filled with STS components. Did you actually think about your comment before you posted such lunacy?

Seriously, everything you just said applies to SLS as well. Just because someone has done something successful before, does not guarantee success on future projects. I'm not even cynical about SpaceX, only BFR/BFS.

>>9606563

Then you're not going to have a space program because there aren't going to be any buyers. The same applies to airlines who are subsidized by the government through the USPS, as railroads were before 1970.

>>9606564

Rockets have much bigger scaling problems than aircraft, because they're so much more inefficient. To get anywhere you have to burn a tower full of fuel. Which is why most cities have airports capable of taking multiple jumbo jets while no cities have rocket launchpads capable of taking crew-rated rockets.

>>9606035
are they autoclaving the rockets themselves or something? what the fuck?

>>9606565
>You didn't actually say anything with that comment.

I did, though. An anon making the argument "SpaceX's cash flow doesn't matter" is obviously wrong, but the argument is irrelevant, because SpaceX actually is paying attention to its cash flow, and the fearmongering about SpaceX running out of money is FUD.

>>9606578
Exactly. Spacex has 12b in backlog, plus whatever revenue starlink brings in

They are far from being at risk of money issues

>>9606577
Maybe for TPS? The BFR hest shield is one piece

>>9606578

You don't know how money works, do you? Past performance does not guarantee future results is an axiom of investing, it is what drives the consulting and market intelligence industries.

Which is to say any number of things could happen, such as the government reducing the number of their launches for budgetary reasons. On that note we do know three things that are sure to happen: Stratolaunch will have it's first flight in 2019, Boeing will begin testing their XS-1 in 2020, and NASA will more or less end the ISS program in 2024. This means within ten years SpaceX will get both real competition (something it has lacked so far) while also being deprived of a steady source of resupply contracts. Musk himself has realized this hence his comments on building an ISP.

But all of this still carries significant risk, especially when SpaceX is going to be burning cash on BFR/BFS which has no guarantee of actually working or having buyers. This is my very basic point: nothing is guaranteed until it (the booster) at least flies. Everything else is speculation. Markets are dynamic, such is the nature of competition. Which is the drive for the BFR in the first place.

>>9606590

As if backlogs matter, all of that can be wiped if SpaceX gets sued for market manipulation issues and the SEC forces them to go public, causing all of that spare profit to end up as investor dividends and not R&D. This isn't to say this will or is guaranteed to happen, but my point is that just having a big pile of cash now doesn't mean that pile of cash will be there in five years.

>>9606597
The drive for BFR isn’t the market you pseudointellectual fuck. The point is to start a civilization on MARS. There is ZERO other main reason.

Also, stratolaunch poses absolutely no risk to SpaceX’s market share. It’s a expensive, useless meme launcher that Allen built since he likes big planes and has a secret space plane idea that he wants to fly in.

Seriously, do any number crunching and stratolaunch is a horrible launch system, especially since it will be competing against BFR once it flies customer payloads

Oh, and the ISS should have been phased out six years ago. We spend 400 mil per year just on dealing with it’s stupid compromise orbit

>>9606597
>You don't know how money works, do you? Past performance does not guarantee future results is an axiom of investing, it is what drives the consulting and market intelligence industries.

What part of "SpaceX has $12 billion in current orders" and "We're attempting to diversify our revenue streams with telecommunications" means that we should be saying that SpaceX is at great risk of running out of money and will be unable to secure outside investment?

>>9606599
>market manipulation
>forced to go public
Hahahhahahahah are you serious dude? You sound like a delusional ex ULA employee

>9606597
>stratolunch
>boing meme-1
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA don't even give that faggot (you)'s

>>9605940
Is this where the Batman v Superman final battle happened?

>>9606618
at least stratolaunch is a cool plane that exists (they did taxi tests last month) even if the market will kill it

>>9606620
They’ve filmed a crap ton of movies there so I wouldn’t doubt it, being close to Hollywood and all

>>9605940
OK, I'm legitimately puzzle.
I though the downscale of BFR was because they then could have used older facilities for the thing.
Or is it just about the booster construction? and they can use their older facilities to build the BFS section?

>tfw roscosmos/ula/nasa/esa/gayboost shill
>tfw asspain

>>9606632
The downscale was a combination of many many things. The BFB and BFR big chunks are likely going to be built at this new SpaceX facility, but at the same time practically everything else for the first few test ships (engines, avionics, other hardware) can be built at hawthorn or elsewhere. In the linked documents, you can see that the initial building will be juuuuust big enough for one BFR/BFB stack inside. Then the phase 2 building will add onto it and be large enough for factory line style vehicle construction in 3 years or so

>>9606577
its a 9 meter diameter rocket, it needs to be big

>>9606597
I predict: Stratolaunch will never actually use their plane for doing anything than launching pegasus's at a premium.
XS-1 will never fly

SpaceX would end all involvement with NASA or even DOD without blinking an eye, stuff like commercial crew is more of a hindrance than a benefit for them.

Obviously you are a troll to bring up useless micro launch vehicles then assert the BFR won't fly.

inb4 this thing launches before SLS

>>9606643
>Senate Lunch System
>Single launch spectacle

someone help me out here I need more SLS may mays

>>9606643
kek, SLS is not going to fly before 2023

>>9606639
no you don't get it, why do they need to autoclave the rocket in the first place?

>>9606667
? It's a big carbon composite rocket

>>9606672
and?

>>9606674
and so you have to put the whole rocket into the auto clave to bake it
much like they do with the 787's

>>9606642
He's right that there's a big money question mark on BFR.
They won't send a 100 paying customers from the get go, so they'll have to pay for it by sending commercial stuff up into space, and having NASA staff onboard for the first missions, because science.
The later would be ideal, but it would most likely go the Dragon v2 way because of muh certification.
If it wasn't for this process, I'm pretty sure we would be seeing capsules landing at the Cape right now.
Well, what do you expect from NASA?
The very people that developed the least safe space vehicle in history giving safety rules to people threatening their jobs.

>>9606678
ok but that's why I'm asking. why do they need to bake it.

>>9606678
Boeing’s autoclave is like 40 MM, for comparison’s sake

>>9606684
SpaceX won't be going through any certification processes for NASA for the BFR after the Dragon 2 debacle, they'll offer NASA a flight for sure but that's it. It will be up to NASA if they want to take the plunge or not.

>>9606642
That’s not entirely true. When BFR Is flying the DOD and NRO will be all over it. I can imagine the NRO engineers creaming at being able to launch 6m glass on one of their birds

>>9606684
NASA certification applies only for NASA uses. I'm sure they'd like it otherwise but that's how things are.

>>9606698
It’s not like NASA will have to bother with their own astronauts in the future; the SpaceX astronaut corps will be abld to be contracted out. I’m sure they will still have plenty of hardware to fly either way

>>9606706
And even then nasa flies astronauts on Soyuz, which I’m 100% sure wouldn’t pass MMOD & LOC requirements using the nasa models

>>9606699
Yea but SpaceX will have the upper hand at that point, and they will be able to tell the DOD no we aren't halting launches for 3 months just to fit in your special snowflake payload

>>9606689
>>9606690
Well I dnno much about carbon composites

>>9606714
Not to mention the SLS. The whole thing is a farce but that's how things are. Pity for the commercial crew program though, the cargo really raised my expectations about how things can work.

>>9606720
Well as soon as they start treating Cargo and People as if they are something different, you know they've lost their way.

Theres literally nothing but bureaucracy stopping them from just shoving people into the current Dragon capsule, and saving hundreds of millions a year

>>9606719
I disagree. Elon wants SpaceX to be the railroad of space, putting whatever you need up there at a reasonable price. Sure, short term BFR will be booked with internal spacex payload but in between the mars launch windows the earth BFR fleet might as welll launch DOD stuff

>>9606729
Cargo dragon technically acts as a super emergency pod; Elon has said that you’d survive the trip down in one as it stands lol

>>9606698
Even Dragon V1 was supposed to be a crew vehicle.
Thinking about it retrospectively, I think Boeing used its long relationship with NASA to make it so that their crew vehicle would launch at about the same time as SpaceX's.
In fact, it's clear as fucking water, when you consider Atlas 5 was never man-rated, and SX has to go through 7 fucking launches of block 5 before it's allowed to launch astronauts.
Be prepared for NASA to invent new rules for SpaceX, as Boeing pushes its Deep Space Habitat plans.

>ywn see europa clipper that has a nuclear powered lander for drilling being launched on an expendable ITS

>>9606737
It’s gonna launch on FH at least.

>>9606742
but I want a BIG probe that will orbit europa and have enough radiation shielding to survive

>>9606745
callisto > europa

>>9606748
callisto is a dumb dead rock

>>9606748
... no one cares about Ganymede :(

>>9606751
its literally the same as europa u little faggot

>>9606756
>the Chad Europa

>>9606758
>>9606756
>>9606755
>>9606751
>>9606748
>>9606745
Probes are fucking garbage.
Nothing beats a human being on site.
A geologist on Mars will do the last 30 years of probe research with a hammer and few lab equipments in a week or so.

>>9606755
Ganymede best moonfu

>>9606761
humans can't survive on europas surface though

>>9606771
which is why you go to callisto

>>9606774
THERE'S NOTHING ON CALLISTO YOU FUCKING IDIOT

>>9606775
more than on europa you idiot
you think real life is fucking 2001 a space faggotry/

>>9606775
>>9606774
>>9606777
yo guys Ganymede is pretty cool right

>>9606771
The question I ask is:
Should we really spend the resources now on a probe that will probably fail at its mission, or should we get humans to Mars, and get 1000s of years worth of probing science there?
Europa will still be there, and for what its worth, it will be easier to reach it from Mars.

>>9606761
At a hundred times the cost of a probe. People often neglect the difference in funding. You could do missions to dozens of targets for the cost of a manned mission.

Then the obvious question is is the martian geology really worth 300 billion to investigate? I don't think so, but it might be worth a few billion here and there in unmanned missions.

Manned missions cannot really be justified purely on the basis of science.

>>9606787
>300 billion to send a dude to Mars

lmao, did ULA give you that figure? If you gave 300b to SpaceX they would have a whole fleet of ships running back and forth in short order.

>>9606786
when BFR is 7 mil a pop per launch who the hell cares? Every single university is going to be putting together Enceladus landers and Hyperion orbiters and Triton tunnelers and all the rest of the possible space probes you can think of. Why? No practical mass restriction, and the launch price is minuscule.

We're gonna have probes probing every single corner of the solar system. That can easily happen alongside manned mars exploration

>>9606786
>Should we really spend the resources now on a probe that will probably fail at its mission, or should we get humans to Mars
Why will it "probably fail at it's mission"? Secondly more money was wasted on failed manned programmes like Constellation than will be spent on the Europa Clipper.

>>9606792
SpaceX wouldn't know what to do with 300bil. They would much rather just get the transport infrastructure in place and then let the rest of the world figure out what to put on the surface. The point is to have a mars colony, not the mars wing of SpaceX

>>9606787
Which is why we'd need to send 100*30(years)*52(weeks) = 156 000 more probes at Mars than we do humans, to get the same science output.
Well, it's the case right now, but your cost/science ratio is way off.
Really makes me wopnder how you pulled that answer out of your ass to begin with.

>>9606792
Every time NASA has studied it the cost is in the range of a few hundred billion, 300 billion is the lower end. I am inclined to believe the agency with actual experience of Mars and manned spaceflight over the company with none. SpaceX may be able to do it for less but that has not been demonstrated.

>>9606806
says the company who pays 1000 bucks for a bolt and 3 millions for air conditioning

>>9606793
But muh mass efficiency?
Muh exotic materials!
Muh how are we going to fit 150 ton sat in the budget!?

>>9606798
...more money was spent on the learning tower of SLS one-use launchpad than Europa Clipper....

>>9606719
>Yea but SpaceX will have the upper hand at that point, and they will be able to tell the DOD no we aren't halting launches for 3 months just to fit in your special snowflake payload

But they won't. SpaceX is already being paid to figure out how to integrate and fly the NRO's special snowflake payloads on Falcon.

>>9606798
It will probably fail, because it won't be able to dig through the ice.
There are a lot of other fail factors, but this is the main one.
Honorable mention to Jupiter's radiation belt for frying inboard instruments, landing hazards, random steam geysers, and inability to communicate results to actual humans.

>>9606808
the biggest benefit I think of no mass restriction is that everyone gets to put their own special instruments onboard. modern probes are designed through bickering between scientists over who gets to use 0.3w vs 0.4w with their snowflake sensor or whatever

>>9606814
europa clipper is not going to have a lander, much less something that could drill through miles of ice you retard

>>9606802
>to get the same science output.
Science output isn't measured in human years. There is something called diminishing return. You send one lunar lander, you learn something new. If you send another the exact same you don't get twice as much information because most of what it observes has already been studied with the first mission. The second time you'd be better off sending your mission elsewhere.

And you didn't answer my question. How much is the martian geology worth? 10 billion? 1 trillion?

>>9606817
Wait, is it even useful for anything?
How are we supposed to find life in Europa's underground oceans if we don't drill through the ice?

>>9606821
muh sensors

>>9606809

Money on the SLS are spent entirely for the benefit of the American public.

Indeed one could say the SLS program is the heart on soul of American space science.

Only America has the SLS and we must protect that crucial part of America's interests.

SLS is the heart and soul of America's science and we can't let that go.

We need the SLS, America needs the SLS, Science needs the SLS.

SLS is the rocket that symbolizes the American Dream.

Go, SLS, fly high, like a true American Eagle!

>>9606823
top shitpost

>>9606823
reeeeee go away Mo Brooks

>>9606820
There's something humans do much more efficiently than probes, and that is moving around and selecting a study target on the spot, without the 20 minutes delay.
At a 100 times the cost of probes, it's still very relevant sending people there. And I just told you, the actual cost figure is more like hundreds of thousands time more than fucking toasters.
Idk how much it's worth, but you know what?
It's most likely irrelevant, as geological study will be a byproduct of colonization.
We don't actually care to preserve what ancient life there may have been on this rock. What matters is that it can carry life in the future.

>>9606821
>How are we supposed to find life in Europa's underground oceans if we don't drill through the ice?
Is life the only reason to study planets? No. Secondly you're never going to drill though the ice if you don't know how thick it is or where to land.

some CC updates

Boeing
-Pad Abort Test - April
-Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed) - August
-Crewed Flight Test (crewed flight) - November
-PCMs 1&2 - Completed eight milestones to date with more coming in 2018


SpaceX
-Demo Mission 1 (uncrewed) - August
-Inflight Abort Test - May
-Demo Mission 2 (crewed flight) - December
-PCMs 1&2 - Completed five milestones to date, with more coming in 2018


can't wait for the abort test!

>>9606837
>>9606822
Breaking news: Europa Clipper found ice on Europa.
I'm sure glad we sent it there.

Are you guys for real?

>>9606839
Imagine the potential for papers. It will inspire scientists for generations.

>>9606844
>inspire scientists

What good are they? We need to inspire engineers and corporate heads. The work of scientists is long over.

>>9606834
>At a 100 times the cost of probes, it's still very relevant sending people there. And I just told you, the actual cost figure is more like hundreds of thousands time more than fucking toasters.
As I told you your concept of man hours is entirely stupid. You wouldn't send a hundred mars missions to try to make up for the "inefficiency" of unmanned missions, you would do a hundred different science projects and learn much more about the universe than fucking martian geology. If you can't put a price on the science you can hardly claim it's worth it.

>It's most likely irrelevant, as geological study will be a byproduct of colonization.
As I said "Manned missions cannot really be justified purely on the basis of science."

>>9606839
Fuck scientists and fuck robots. we need to start sending people

>>9606852
You're thinking it backward, and I can't understand why it happens in your brain.
1 manned science mission with a crew of 4-6 people will yield you as much as a few thousands of years of probe research as we're doing it right now with probes.
We can do it for way less moneyz than a 1000 Curiosity rovers.
Let me guess, you're one of them people thinking AI is a thing, and probes will get better.
AI is not a thing, it's just a meme.
It has applications, but exploring an unknown world is not part of them.

>>9606853
I wouldn't send people to Europa, though. They'd die from radiation, as would whatever the Europa Clipper scans, as soon as it leaves the surface.

>>9606872
>1 manned science mission with a crew of 4-6 people will yield you as much as a few thousands of years of probe research as we're doing it right now with probes.
First off, your number is entirely pulled out of your ass. Secondly you've got it backwards. I've made my argument twice, try and get it though your thick skull.

With a manned mars mission, you get one target. You will spend hundreds of billions of dollars getting to mars. What is the range of science you can do there? Martian geology.

While on the other hand what could you do with a hundred billion in unmanned missions. Well you could send a flagship to every planet and a couple lander. And you could build a new generation of great observatories. You can study the whole solar system, study planets beyond our solar system and how they form, the life cycle of galaxies and even the great questions of the universe. Unmanned missions can accomplish much more science than manned missions because they are cheaper so you can do much more than just look at fucking rocks on Mars.

You claim a manned mission can do more than the work of 1000 Curiosities. I don't care, nobody is interested in sending a 1000 Curiosities. It's a total strawman.

Oh noes, nobody replies to arguments about manned exploration being more efficient than robots in a productive way.
It was always the case, and you all know it.
Imagine Christopher Columbus being able to send Curiosity to America.
We'd just know it's has fucking palm trees 5 centuries later.
>>9606910 I hope it helps your sorry brain.

>>9606910
Well you keep pulling a multiple hundred billion figure out of your ass and you keep accusing him of doing the same thing.

>>9606922
https://web.archive.org/web/20041028173153/https://history.nasa.gov/90_day_study.pdf

I didn't pull it out of my ass. As I said, every NASA study has put the figure in the range of hundreds of billions.

>>9606930
>90 days study
Holy fuck, you're even more retarded than I thought.
That plan involves building orbital shipyards and all kinds of indirect stuffs.
It's basically building a fucking railway to Mars, when all we need is a horse ride.

>>9606930
NASA loves to waste money though, see the SLS which will cost at least 500 million per launch and is years behind schedule

>>9606930
NASA wants 10k to stamp a piece of paper or fit a bolt so no fucking shit they want hundreds of billions which is why they never will go to Mars. SpaceX will do it for a fucking fraction of that figure. All you need to do is look at the difference between SLS and FH to realise that.

>>9606942
It's an example, fuckhead. DRM's came out with similar numbers, hundreds of billions.

>>9606955
See:
>>9606806

>>9605940
is that 150t to LEO only raw cargo or they're counting the vehicle too?

>>9606960
>Muh appeal to authority
>A useless bloated waste of money authority at that

How can you honestly believe any figures that NASA comes out with? Their whole system is designed to milk the fuck out of the government. A private company will do it for a fraction of those retards price.

>>9606965
150t to Leo, fully reusable

then you gotta refuel in Leo

>>9606975
>>9606965

and you can refuel it just enough to get wherever you want to go. 1,2,3,4,5 tankers

>>9606958
>DRM
Do you mean the mission plan that involves building a lunar ISS shipyard, that then sends ships to Phobos, where they're being refueled to land only in the martian equatorial plane or so?
Yep, that will cost moneyz.
OR, you could send human directly.
If you're even knowledgeable about the subject, you would know about the Mars Direct plan, and that's exactly what SpaceX is planning to do, but on a whole other scale.
The only thing that gets me worried about SX plan is that they don't plan on generating artificial gravity for the trip.
Other than that, I'm pretty sure we'll know all we need to know about Mars in a single mission, because it's just a frozen rusted desert.

>>9606975
>>9606981
how much of those 150t is the spaceship itself though?

>>9606986
zero, it's the payload proper

>>9606986
I would say 0%, because that's what a payload is.

>>9606987
>>9606988
that's nice to know
and whats the maximum payload dimensions?

>>9606996
shut up, the real question is, are they going to build the ITS in the future or did they forget/drop it forever?

>>9606996
825m3 volume, starts at ~8m dia and quickly tapers down. SLS B2 actually has BFR beat when it comes to payload diameter/length, but it's irrelevant when you compare cost and launch rate (i.e 7mil vs three billion and hundreds vs.... twice if we're (un)lucky)

>>9607004
ol' musky says that BFR will look like "a rowboat" compared to future ships. In a way the ITS downsize is better, since it allows for a bigger size jump compared to ITS; the marginal benefit of an ITS upgrade wouldn't be as big compared to what comes after BFR. With BFR they can learn a LOT about hueg ships to then apply to the jumbo-ITS down the line, without having to spend much time on BFR itslerf

>>9607004
Even in the ITS presentation, Elon Musk said there was no reason for them to not go bigger as things unwind.
So we might even see bigger iterations of the rocket in our lifetime.

>>9606823
10/10 saved for future shitposting

>>9607020
especially when the engine design and software matures. Then it's just the problem of putting more engines together in a bigger rocket, which isn't that hard if you think about it (in a BFR world that is)

>>9606982
>Do you mean the mission plan that involves building a lunar ISS shipyard...
No. Which version of the DRM are you referring to? 5.0 contains nothing of the sort. DRM was originally based on Mars Direct, Zubrin dubbed it semi-Direct.

Even fantasist Zubrin claimed it would cost NASA 30-50 billion. Where did I place my example? 100 billion, giving him far more credibility than he deserves.

>The only thing that gets me worried about SX plan is that they don't plan on generating artificial gravity for the trip.
There's no real point. If astronauts can survive a Soyuz pseudo-crash after a year on the ISS they can survive a Mars landing. I think solar particle events are still the bigger threat, not unsolvable but a problem.

>>9606823
I hope it just esplodes on the launch pad, desu.
It's just what remains of the Constellation plan's Ares V.
It was conceived when reusable rockets were not a thing.
It's fucking useless.
Engineers at NASA know it.
I'm sure they'd rather be working on a BFR competitor, but they can't.
How is the suicide rate at NASA these days?

>>9607037
NASA is just there to make jobs, not to get anything spacey done

Paul Wooster, the Principal Mars Development Engineer at SpaceX has said that the normal radiation accrued over a mars trip is not something they are even remotely worried about. for solar events they'll have a shelter next to the water tanks. As for artificial g, they are mulling over spinning up two tethered BFR's, but it is not a priority for the first few missions

>>9607029
How do you get from 30-50 Millions
to 100 Billions? For the exact same plan.
Guess it's usual NASA accountability stuff, where they mess up a few digits.

>>9607053
You can't ignore NASA's estimates, which are much higher than the 100 billion figure. Zubrin is always criticised as being overly optimistic. And I didn't specify an architecture.

>>9607092
see: 2nd video in >>9606511

NASA's estimate was off by a factor of 10. I don't trust any of their estimates desu

>>9606179
It was not even using nk33 but nk15 the N1F was supposed to use nk33

>>9607092
zubrin is a rabid anti-trump lets not talk about him

>>9607112
implying that's a bad thing

>>9607051
nasa does what congress budgets them to do. Nasa doesn't really have say in the matter

>>9605940
They're supposed to test bfs "early 2019" and are only now starting this? Once again one of the most dishonest companies in the history of private space travel. Seriously each launch following the Falcon family as they “revolutionize the launch industry” has been indistinguishable from the rest. Aside from the meme landings, the company’s only party trick has been to overwork and underpay its employees to reduce launch costs, all to make the mythical “full and rapid reuse” seem effective.

Perhaps the die was cast when Musk vetoed the idea of ambitious yet realistic missions like Red and Grey Dragon; he made sure the company would never be mistaken for an innovative force to anything or anybody, just ridiculously questionable government contracts for his companies. SpaceX might be profitable (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-NASA in its refusal of wonder, science and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the landings are cool though
"No!"
The camerawork is dreadful; the landings of the charred boosters are boring. As I watch, I noticed that every time a Falcon 9 lands, Musk said either “self-sustaining civilization on Mars” or “imagine if you had a 747 and you threw it away after one flight.”

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time one of those phrases was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Musk's mind is so governed by clichés that he has no other style of thinking. Later I read a poorly-written news story on SpaceX by some fat web blogger. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are watching these launches now, surely they will work for SpaceX in the future and they too can have paychecks based off of government handouts." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you are a SpaceX fan, you are, in fact, trained to be a mindless supporter of government-funded billionaires.

>>9607092
Even Zubrin's original plan was a precursor to Ares-V/SLS as a Space shuttle remake.
He had SSMEs running off axis in his drafts to make up for the lack of orbiter.
To be honest, the original Mars direct plan would still be way more scientifically efficient than probes at learning Mars, even at 1 Billion dollars a launch.
The debate here is that Spacex could do it at a fraction of that cost.

>>9607120
>implying that's a bad thing
Rabid anything is a bad thing. By definition it's not driven by nor amenable to rationality or reason.

>>9607120
NASA gets ample time and money to do things, they just fail to deliver for their own internal structural reasons
You can't complain about Congress ignoring NASA when NASA has been lying/dragging their feet for decades on stuff.

>>9607144
Name just one thing NASA has lied about.

I'll wait.

>>9607146
landing on the moon

>>9607146
Constellation was Bush letting NASA lead the way
6 years into that they admitted nothing had been done and no usable vehicles would ever be developed

>>9607129
I like how this is edited to be slightly different each time kek.

Should. Build in Texas. So you don't have to ship through panama.

>>9607162
and uproot all of your employees? We moved Saturn V stages through Panama and it worked fine.

For BFR-2 they will build the factory in Texas, probably

>>9607162
They can't hire the same amount of slightly above average IQ liberal hipsters in texas though

>>9607130
>To be honest, the original Mars direct plan would still be way more scientifically efficient than probes at learning Mars
I don't think that's true. I don't think the gain in ability justifies the massive cost of manned missions.

Then there are the things probes are just much better at. Take MRO mapping the entire planet and coming back to year after year to discover recurring slope lineae. How many manned missions would it take to stumble on that? Or what about trace gas orbiter mapping the CH4 from orbit in high precision across the whole planet and over multiple years to study claims of seasonal variability.

>>9607178
MRO does mapping from orbit more efficiently than a human on the surface.
Keep throwing shit examples of probes doing shit probe things at me.
Maybe we don't need to send proes to the surface of Mars, if we can just map it from orbit.

>>9607183
>Maybe we don't need to send proes to the surface of Mars, if we can just map it from orbit.
Mapping isn't interesting except for looking for what's interesting under the surface. We have very little knowledge of what's buried, and the Mars rovers have skipped over sites that are of interest because it's too difficult on mission schedule and rover wear to go back and take a look after the ground team realizes they passed something interesting two weeks ago.

>>9607192
My point exactly.
Rovers are shit at their jobs.

>>9607200
But looking at Mars' surface isn't interesting. We need stuff down there to find out what's under the surface. Rovers are shit at it, so we need people and heavy equipment.

>>9607208
Thinking about it, a Mars rover is your average NASA employee.
It doesn't do anything unless its funded, and when it's funded, he doesn't do it anyways.

>>9607154
>6 years into that they admitted nothing had been done and no usable vehicles would ever be developed
Source?

>>9606982
>lunar ISS shipyard

That's a retarded place to stop, unless the Moon happens to be your final destination for some odd reason. The Delta-V is all fucked. Let me guess, some grant chasers thought that up?

>>9607183
Why are these shit examples? You said "learn mars", you didn't specify it needed to be restricted to turning over rocks.

>>9607192
Mapping is certainly interesting. That's how you find interesting locations.

>>9607208
If you don't find literally anything on the surface interesting what exactly do you expect to dig up which justifies the cost?

>>9606024
>BFR isn't a mem-

>>9607221
No, some anon trying to prove that NASA is wasteful made it up.

>>9607234
>spending money on paint and lawn care when there's ENGINEERING to be done

>>9607234
what's your point? falcon heavy has flown already while new glenn is still on a fucking paper

>>9607234
Lol now it’s a NG to BFR comparison?
1) the NG factory isn’t done on the inside yet
2) they’re totally different classes of vehicles
3) jeff “who”?

>>9607234
>the BFR is competing with new glenn and not new armstrong
(You)

>>9607244
>implying money is a problem of Bezos

>>9607251
where are his rockets then? blue origin is on the market for longer than spacex and all they did is a shitty tech demo of a tiny suborbital rocket

>>9607233
Mapping Mars is a thing.
If you where an extraterestrial studying Earth, you wouldn't get much by mapping it.
Fucking hell, we've lived on it for tens of thousands of years, and most of what we know about it is less than a century or a few old.
How do you expect a few shit rovers to discover Mars, when we can't do it ourselves on our own planet?

>>9607233
>If you don't find literally anything on the surface interesting what exactly do you expect to dig up which justifies the cost?

The point is that mapping Mars' surface is only interesting with respect to what's on and under it. There's no value in looking at it from orbit without taking a closer look later, and rovers have serious logistics limitations compared to a human ground crew, which is much more complex to keep alive, but offers the prospect of far greater scientific returns.

>>9607248
SpaceX has already said that they will not use falcon heavy for anything other than satellites, so it may as well not even exist.

>>9607249
Go back to r.ddit

>>9607258
>where are his rockets then?
New Glenn's design is advanced enough that the factory for them is under construction, and the engines are being tested repeatedly. We should see it do its thing sooner rather than later.

>>9607250
You have a point there. Both bfr and New Armstrong are/have:
>no pad
>no engine
>paper rockets
>no factory
>no realistic timescale
So really bfr is more similar to New Armstrong in that regard.

>>9607258
Blue Origin was a glorified research firm with like 20 people for 6-7 years straight, and they had zip for cash until recently.

>>9607282
raptor is already in development for years now and there's no indication that it won't/shouldn't work

>>9607282
>no realistic timescale
That's very weasel-y. BFR has its engine, its critical test article (composite LOX tank) was fabricated two years ago and successfully tested over a year ago, and the first boilerplate test ship should be taking short VTOL test flights in 2019.

Daily reminder that BO was founded over a year before SpaceX lmao

>>9607293
>BFR has its engine
Where? Last we heard they haden't even picked a size for it let alone built or tested one.

>its critical test article (composite LOX tank) was fabricated two years ago and successfully tested over a year ago
That was a tank for ITS, which was cancelled.

>should be taking short VTOL test flights in 2019.
see >>9607129

>>9607297
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family)

>>9607264
>If you where an extraterestrial studying Earth, you wouldn't get much by mapping it.
I'm sorry, your opinions of what aliens would do are relevant how? We have studied one planet in detail, Mars will be the second. We are not aliens with a great knowledge of the universe, that analogy is just false.

One of the most interesting things about Mars is it's apparent liquid water history and how it has changed so much since then. Studying the nature of that change (like MAVEN) is something of interest. Another hot topic is the seasonal methane, again being mapped from above. Mapping showed there was water in the permafrost too.

>How do you expect a few shit rovers to discover Mars, when we can't do it ourselves on our own planet?
But we do. ROVs are commonly used to explore the deepest parts of the ocean. And from above the satellite industry is huge, the era of satellites revolutionised the study of the Earth.
But of course instead of setting science goals you're using an arbitrary word like "discover" which could mean anything.

>>9607296
see >>9607282
>The difference is even greater for Rob Meyerson, who joined the company in 2003. “There were ten people on staff when I started, so I’ve got a unique perspective,” he said during a presentation at the MIT Media Lab’s “Beyond the Cradle” conference March 10. “It’s just a lot of fun to be involved and watch the company grow and develop some things that I think are pretty special.”

>In those early days, the people at Blue Origin included science fiction author Neal Stephenson. In a panel earlier in the day at the MIT Media Lab conference, Stephenson, sporting a Blue Origin tshirt, recalled being therein the company’s early days when it was still figuring out exactly what it would do.

>“For the first seven years or so, I worked there when it was in more of an exploratory stage of trying to figure out what the landscape looked like and what are some possibly novel alternate approaches to space, alternate propulsion systems and business models and so on,” he recalled.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3455/1

>>9607301
Did you even read my post?
Post just 1 (one) picture of the actual engine for BFR.

>>9606608

>The drive for BFR isn’t the market you pseudointellectual fuck. The point is to start a civilization on MARS. There is ZERO other main reason.

Then Musk will fail because there's no money in that. He isn't stupid, stop assuming he is.

>>9606609

Do you know any history? That is EXACTLY what Hughes did with Hughes Aircraft, which owned Hughes Communications aka Hughesnet aka DirectTV. Where is HA now? Well they were owned by GM before being split into multiple companies notably Raytheon.

>>9607297
>Where? Last we heard they haden't even picked a size for it let alone built or tested one.

Raptor was first test-fired on September 25th, 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7kqFt3nID4

>>9607310
Subscale prototype, and that test was at lower thrust than a normal Merlin engine.

>>9607268
>There's no value in looking at it from orbit
And why not? You can tell a lot about a Planet from above, like where the water was on ancient Mars.
If there was really no merit in mapping for the sake of it then Magellan would have never mapped Venus with radar. Planetary scientists disagree with you.

>serious logistics limitations compared to a human ground crew, which is much more complex to keep alive, but offers the prospect of far greater scientific returns.
As I said "what exactly do you expect to dig up which justifies the cost?".

>>9607308
>Do you know any history? That is EXACTLY what Hughes did with Hughes Aircraft, which owned Hughes Communications aka Hughesnet aka DirectTV. Where is HA now? Well they were owned by GM before being split into multiple companies notably Raytheon.

Do you have any reason to show why SpaceX is at particular risk of imminent failure, or are you just saying that it might happen to SpaceX because it has happened to others, therefor we should assume SpaceX is doomed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

>>9607307
>Post just 1 (one) picture of the actual engine for BFR.

>>9606610

I'm not, ffs this entire situation exists in part because of ULA's gross ineptitude. An ineptitude which was allowed to exist because Congress trusted them, the private industry, to do the entire job of going to space alone. ULA proved that such a strategy does not work, even if it looks good on paper.

>>9606618

If Stratolaunch actually works as intended it'll wreck the market SpaceX is trying to assume, since Stratolaunch can (in theory, it is untested) do multiple launches per day. If multiple Stratolaunches are built, then Musk and Boeing both get pounded further. My point is that there are multiple horses in this race, and the race doesn't end.

>>9607311
It was literally the first test firing of the eninge at all. Nobody runs the thing at full thrust right out the gate.

>If there was really no merit in mapping for the sake of it then Magellan would have never mapped Venus with radar. Planetary scientists disagree with you.

Remind me the last time anyone made any effort to seriously study Venus.

>As I said "what exactly do you expect to dig up which justifies the cost?".

Different question: what do people hope to find to make a colonization effort viable? What do they need to find? What might be unexpected and possibly useful? There's only one way to find out.

>>9607317
>
>>9607311

>>9607323
>>9607311
Stop posting anytime, kid.

>>9607323
The most recent IAC appearance by Elon Musk featured SpaceX settling on something close to that engine scale because they wanted to be as conservative with the design as they could.

>>9607322
>>9607325
>It was literally the first test firing of the eninge at all. Nobody runs the thing at full thrust right out the gate.
It's not even "the" engine, it's just a prototype they went with in order to secure Air Force development funding.

Again, I'll ask, post a picture of the real engine that bfr will actually use.

>>9607314

Because they are doing something extremely risky and failure prone: building the world's biggest and most powerful rocket. There is plenty to be doubtful about, simply because it's a risky adventure. That doesn't mean people should shy away from it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still going to be incredibly failure prone compared to other things. Again as I've said all along, what Musk wants to do is incredibly difficult but not impossible. Hughes built his H-4, the Minuteman and Surveyor.

BFR/BFS isn't a thing that is guaranteed to happen nor is it a thing should SLS be suspended for. Even if SLS is an albatross (it is compared to what Boeing could be serving up) gutting it in favor of a supposedly new and better system being around in ten years will only leave America with an even bigger space gap. One which was created when Obama nixed Ares I for the private market.

>>9607311
>goalposts

>>9607319
ULA is not exactly an example of private industry when they get to be the sole bidder for a decade hmm?

>>9607326
Not to mention, raptor will undoubtedly go through performance increases like Merlin

>>9607330
lol you got the U and the D in that post lad

Work on the F

>>9607331
Do you even know what goalpost moving is?

That's literally not the engine. Are you retarded or something? If it was the first version and they still had some kinks to work out then maybe you'd have a point, but it's literally not similar at all to the engine that bfr is supposed to use. It's smaller, lower chamber pressure, not designed for reuse, ect. By any reasonable metric it is not a "Raptor engine."

>Not to mention, raptor will undoubtedly go through performance increases like Merlin
They won't launch bfr using this version of the engine, unless the vehicle becomes 1/3 of its size presented by Musk last year.

>>9607337
not him, but you're a retard

>>9607340
HAHAHHA YOU ARE SO ASSBLASTED ITS FUNNY

>post about how they “haven’t even built one”
>someone replies with proof they have working examples
>you then sperg out and go “buh subscale”

Go home, bezos. It’s honestly a 2/10 troll attempt

>>9607331

>ULA is not exactly an example of private industry when they get to be the sole bidder for a decade hmm?

Yes they are, AT&T was America's designated national private sector monopoly until 1983. ULA's sponsors (Boeing and Lockmart) promised the government that ULA would be effective and reach all their goals of private space access by 2016. They didn't, just as Douglas, McDonnell-Douglas and Lockmart failed to deliver an SSTO by the year 2000. NASA's previous space shuttle concept was originated designed by Boeing, which envisioned it as an X-20 like system that was originally going to be built for the Air Force. Every time the private industry is fully trusted with space, they fuck it up.

That's not to say private enterprise is inherently evil, just that on their own they aren't capable of getting to space in an orderly manner. They need the government there to ensure they don't skimp out. SpaceX and NASA can work together, for each's benefit.

>>9607346
Private industry being trusted with space in the sense of ULA is NOT “private industry”. It’s a bastard form of private industry

>>9607345
see >>9607340
>They won't launch bfr using this version of the engine, unless the vehicle becomes 1/3 of its size presented by Musk last year.

You're either admitting that BFR is being downsized to falcon heavy-size, or you're admitting that they do not have an engine.

Pick one or the other.

>>9607348

ULA is a partnership between two companies. How is this not the root of all capitalism?

>>9607349
I pick the third option, you’re a moron and you don’t deserve any further (you)s

It’s funny how all of the oldspace brainlets come out of the woodwork at the same time...

>>9607350
Because capitalism =/ cost plus contracts

>>9607352
>ad hominem

>>9607340
>but it's literally not similar at all to the engine that bfr is supposed to use. It's smaller, lower chamber pressure, not designed for reuse, ect

Come again? Last I heard, the IAC 2016 engine is only 25% smaller than the intended IAC 2017 engine. The rest, especially the performance/chamber pressure target effort, is a matter of iterative development.

>>9607357
>implying someone who purposefully baits others into getting into stupid arguements deserves any better

at least my BFR denier collage is coming along nicely

>>9607353

So the competitive bidding process you suggest NASA should utilize instead of SLS isn't capitalism and that private spaceflight can only exist if NASA stops doing any sort of space-based mission altogether?

Your logic doesn't work here, unless you are advocating for the total and complete destruction of NASA. The entity which allowed SpaceX to grow by giving them fat ISS resupply contracts.

>>9607360
>Last I heard, the IAC 2016 engine is only 25% smaller than the intended IAC 2017 engine.
component size doesn't matter
it's only 55-60% the thrust of the "target engine," which itself was already only 50% the size of the version from the previous year.

I fully expect BFR to be halved in size or more at this years "IAC convention"

>>9607372
I expect it to have increased in size after a successful launch of the FH, and they'll have done several more too
Depends what size of vehicle the tooling they are buying can handle

>>9607372
the bigger raptor was for the ITS, the small one is for BFR

>>9607322
Why are redditors allowed to post here?

Learn how to reply properly before posting, you fucking mong.

>>9607379
you forgot:
>the smaller SMALLER one is for nothing

>>9607382
>he's buttmad that I replied to more than one post with one post

>>9607382
The irony of this post is amazing.

>>9607386
The smaller one is a developmental engine for the purpose of validating methalox full flow staged combustion engines and their computational modeling techniques.

>>9607386
>>9607395
>At the IAC meetings September 2017, Elon Musk announced that a smaller Raptor engine — with slightly over half as much thrust as the 2016 proposed designs — would be used on the BFR rocket than had been used on the ITS launch vehicle design unveiled a year earlier.

>>9607408
Yes, I'm familiar with that point. The proposed Raptor from IAC 2016 was going to have something like triple the thrust of the subscale engine, which was developed at that size because SpaceX was confident in their ability to scale the engine, and the availability of ground test equipment to validate the different fuel flow systems at NASA independently before firing them together in an engine.

>>9607392
You only replied to one post, moron.

>>9606169
>They even engage in lies and shows pretending NS is in the same class as the F9 booster, something SpaceX doesn't do.
Source?

The only people who really cared about this that much were the butthurt SpaceX fanboys who were salty about BO sticking the landing and reuse first. Just look at all of those "why you shouldn't compare the new shepard landing to spacex" videos and articles. There's literally thousands of butthurt spacex fanboy nutters out there.

Frankly it's pathetic.

>>9607415
he doesn't know how to quote more than one person anon

>>9607427
Vertical landing and launch was done 70 years ago, not by fucking blue origin

>>9607427
You're being ridiculous. New Shepard is a very different vehicle than Falcon 9, and it is disingenuous to compare them when they don't have overlapping performance requirements beyond "flies more than once." You might as well be comparing DCX and Falcon 9 at that point.

>>9607428
>he doesn't know how to quote more than one person anon

Not entirely true, I'm just bad at poast.

>>9607431
Ok but how many of those actually went into space?

>>9607433
>You're being ridiculous. New Shepard is a very different vehicle than Falcon 9
and?
Musk himself said that larger boosters are easier to land, and that hydrogen engines are "hard."

Why are you trying so hard to discredit Blue Origin's achievements? Are you basing your self-esteem around you SpaceX fandom or something?

>>9607434
>Why are you trying so hard to discredit Blue Origin's achievements? Are you basing your self-esteem around you SpaceX fandom or something?

Hardly, to pretty much anything said there. My only opinion is that New Shepard is not comparable to an orbital rocket booster, since it doesn't have to be as light or aggressive with its performance targets to do its job. It's an impressive vehicle, but it's like comparing the Lunar Lander with the S-IC and declaring one is better than the other for (reasons) and declaring the comparison valid because they both have rocket engines.

>>9607437
>but it's like comparing the Lunar Lander with the S-IC
Don't be ridiculous
The S-1C was 750-times more powerful than the LEM. You're off by about 1 and a half orders of magnitude for your "comparison"

More proof that the average spacex fanboy is just a retarded nutter who doesn't know a thing about facts.

>>9607415
Probably phone posting, not feedit posting.

>>9607442
You're proving my point with your sperging.

>>9607449
see >>9607427

>>9607450

>>9607452
There's no need to get your panties in a wad going out of your way to try and discredit Blue Origin just because they diminish SpaceX's accomplishments.

Kek I love how every SpaceX thread just turns into a massive shitstorm. Honestly the funnest threads on /sci/ for a long time.

>>9607454
>There's no need to get your panties in a wad going out of your way to try and discredit Blue Origin just because they diminish SpaceX's accomplishments.

I'm not the Anon who was discrediting Blue Origin. I'm the one who's saying that the comparisons between Falcon 9 and New Shepard are unwarranted because their overlap in purpose is not sufficient.

>>9607465
>I'm the one who's saying that the comparisons between Falcon 9 and New Shepard are unwarranted because their overlap in purpose is not sufficient.
They both loft a payload on a suborbital trajectory and then land. It really doesn't matter that falcon 9 is bigger.

>>9607468

>>9607468
New Shepard is not a component of a TSTO vehicle that delivers payloads to orbit, though. The Falcon 9 booster could serve as an SSTO with next to no payload due to its requisite high fuel fraction, and has to handle a more aggressive reentry environment than New Shepard.

>>9607472
see
>>9607357

>>9607464
This happens when phone posters can't keep track of a large thread like this, get frustrated, and start shitposting.

>>9607475
>New Shepard is not a component of a TSTO vehicle that delivers payloads to orbit
So?
>The Falcon 9 booster could serve as an SSTO with next to no payload due to its requisite high fuel fraction
So?
>and has to handle a more aggressive reentry environment than New Shepard.
New Shepard is shorter, which makes it more difficult to land, and uses a much more advanced and difficult propellant, and has no attitude control thrusters.

>>9607468
>They both loft a payload on a suborbital trajectory and then land. It really doesn't matter that falcon 9 is bigger.

WTF am I reading?

>>9607494
The net effect is that one of these launch vehicles sends stuff into space that stays in space. The other does not. One does that thing because that's its purpose. The other does not do that because that's not its purpose. Why compare them?

>>9607468
NS only goes straight up, it is not "suborbital", it has no horizontal velocity at all

>>9607500
>the average intelligence of a spacex fanboy

>>9607498
>Why compare them?
We aren't comparing the payloads, we're comparing the landings.

Is falcon 9 useless because it isn't the same size as Saturn V?

>>9607507
>We aren't comparing the payloads, we're comparing the landings.

It's meaningful to compare the landings in context with the payloads because the payloads determine the degree of challenge involved in the landing.

>>9607507
the landing of the F9 is only special because its an orbital rocket, with the proper fuel fraction & engines
Its a totally different story to some shitty hopper that only needs to provide a fraction of the Delta-v that any booster would stage at.

>>9607508
>It's meaningful to compare the landings in context with the payloads because the payloads determine the degree of challenge involved in the landing.
You're still under the assumption that "suborbital = 0% challenging" and "GTO = 100% challenging" when in reality it's probably like 80% for suborbital and 100% for GTO.

>>9607517
It's a very heavy payload for a very light booster. You're acting like they designed it to be orbital and then somehow fell short or something.

>>9607520
DESIGNING THINGS TO BE ORBITAL IS LIKE THE WHOLE FRIGGING DIFFICULTY

ANYONE CAN MAKE SOME SHITTY EXTRA LARGE SUGAR ROCKET WITH 2 KM/S OF DELTA-V

>>9607350
>ULA is a partnership between two companies.
ULA is direct government subsidiary that gets paid 900 million from Air Force even when they don'y have any launches.

>>9607527
Somebody missed their nap time.

>>9607520
>You're still under the assumption that "suborbital = 0% challenging" and "GTO = 100% challenging" when in reality it's probably like 80% for suborbital and 100% for GTO.

That really isn't true, though. All ballistic trajectories that don't go into space are technically suborbital, including firing straight up and firing parallel to or down at the ground. The greater the horizontal velocity component is in a sub-orbital trajectory that crosses the Karman Line, the larger the atmospheric stresses and guidance requirements become for the vehicle. Once you get past the point of "rocket and engine doesn't explode for the duration of flight," you're probably 80% of the way there.

>>9607529
>ULA is direct government subsidiary that gets paid 900 million from Air Force even when they don'y have any launches.
Not anymore. That ended in early 2017.

>>9607537
"Ended" means "phased out by 2020" IIRC.

>>9607533
You missed the point entirely.
The difference between suborbital and orbital is, literally, make the tanks larger and design for slightly different aero stresses in the structure.

Just look at what that rocketlab team or that nip team did earlier this year.

>>9607542
No. The last budgetary allocation towards that was in 2017. You're probably thinking of the block buy which has launches that extend into the 2020 time frame (but they were all 'sold' to ULA in 2014)

>>9607543
>Slightly different aero stresses

>>9607543
>The difference between suborbital and orbital is, literally, make the tanks larger and design for slightly different aero stresses in the structure.

It seems like you're ignoring my point altogether. An orbital rocket needs to be larger, lighter, have more thrust, deal with more more heat, and take more aerodynamic stresses. There's more to deal with, and the amount of leeway in structural weight is lower.

>>9607549
You literally just repeated what I just said.

Regardless, what will you be saying once New Glenn is flying?

>>9607554
Nothing. New Glenn looks like it will be a respectable competitor with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, as it was always meant to be.

>>9607554
I'll say great, more competition, late to the game, but still streets ahead of the other monkeys.

>>9607576
>Ariane is begrudgingly developing own reusable rocket after saying "reusability is a dream"
JUST.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ-7nNw-04Q

Well what the fuck guy I make a thread about this cool BFR factory and I come back 2hr later to 50% of the posts being BO/SLS shills mucking it up

I just wanted to discuss this new San Pedro location and BFR reeeee

>>9607588
>Make SpaceX thread on /sci/
>Didn't expect it to be filled with shitposters and trolls like every other one

>>9607594
I was naive thinking that having the first handful of posts about the topic of San Pedro would keep the discussion rational.

Then I go off to take a diffeq test and come back to THIS. Reverse Laplace are more fun than space related trolling, except for that one “dreadful camerawork” copypasta of course lol

Should I invest in a few SpaceX shares lads? If BFR takes off those shares will go through the fucking roof.

>>9607608
If you're in a position where shares are actually available to you right now, I'd say go for it. As it is, the public is not able to invest in SpaceX, and Elon intends to keep it that way until BFR is taking people to Mars regularly.

>>9607608
Only way to do that is become an employee. Options started out at 15 cents or so back in the mid 2000s, now they’re about $150. Elon has a majority, of course

Part of the reason for being partially paid in stocks at spx is that it incentivizes the whole company as a whole to do well, not just individual departments

>>9607616
>>9607612
>tfw not SpaceX employee

pls gib stocks

>>9607588
You made a thready about a literal empty island with old empty rusty buildings and cranes and you expected a bunch of excited space discussion?

>>9607639
Well it’s the implications that BFR is moving along that is the real point, 750 employees is a lot

>>9607648
They had a giant carbon fiber tank 2 years ago.

>>9607588
This is /sci/, where underages look homework help and retards with double digit iq provide it.
BFR makes legit shills butthurt though judging by their damage control over on NSF.
>"minimalist vehicle"
>bigger than saturn nova

>>9606558
positive Q fusion reactors aren‘t pipe dreams, they‘re also just an engineering hurdle. The problem is that instead of one government agency being in charge of making it as costly and slow as possible, they assembled a conglomerate of government agencies to put in charge of it for extra inefficiency.

>>9607330

>will only leave America with an even bigger space gap. One which was created when Obama nixed Ares I for the private market.

Completely wrong. The gap already was baked in and Ares 1 wasn't going to fix it. The Augustine commission estimated that Ares 1 wouldn't be finished until 2017, and it would cost billions of dollars to get to that point. Guess what, we already had working rockets in 2010, and SpaceX would field better cheaper rockets on a similar timespan. All the other rockets needed for the same LEO mission was a capsule. A new capsule was the limiting factor on time. A new rocket wasn't buying any time whatsoever.

Orion has been generously funded and still isn't ready and will fly manned years after commercial crew. A gap similar to the current one would still exist if Ares 1 and Orion were what was pursued. Switching to commercial crew was a lateral switch with no time penalty to a better program.

You want less of a gap? Start a capsule for Atlas 5 years earlier. Give commercial crew more funding in its earlier years. Relax some of the arbitrary safety requirements that pushed out the timeline.

On the rocket side, Falcon Heavy debuted this year, and it blows Ares 1 away on price and capability for practically zero cost to NASA.

SLS should be cancelled right now. If your argument is that you're too skittish for a BFR based program, then Falcon Heavy, not BFR, can do everything it is doing in the 2020s for 1/10th to 1/5th the price. Then you can add other things to the mix, including BFR focused stuff. This would put exploration ahead by a mile and move up the timeline for things like a moonbase and a marsbase by decades.

Just like Ares 1, SLS isn't buying you anything, it's slowing down the pace of what you would see otherwise.

>>9608904
the thing is, SLS would be cool shit if SpaceX wasn't around. Our expectations have just been shifted a huuuuge amount

but yes, you're right. I still think SLS will fly twice total... mainly since it doesn't have any actual missions! What use is a rocket without a purpose?

>>9608916

That's the point. It would still be bad but you wouldn't have an obvious point of comparison and you probably wouldn't take the time to think of it yourself, and the SLS guys know that and that was their goal, to hide evidence that it was foul by obscuring and suppressing any alternative to it by only pursuing SLS and SLS based initiatives, and to relegate any better programs to the dustbin and to cranks talking on obscure space forums. With nothing else around, you would just take all the SLS boosterism at face value and turn into a SLS pumper yourself.

SLS is still inferior to a ULA based rocket based exploration program, which the SLS guys ruthlessly strangled in the cradle years before they would talk trash about SpaceX and try to exclude consideration of.

SLS was created by wiping out Obama's space plans which were a thousand times better than it.

SLS only exists by obstructing and eliminating better programs that you never would know about and would only know SLS by virtue of it being what gets funded and exists. SLS only exists by making things worse and rigging expectations solely around it.

The goal of SLS is to rig the entire space program around it. To use any funding NASA will end up getting toward SLS. To be the centerpiece and beneficiary of all NASA planning going forward. When ISS retires, to use all that money to feed SLS to make it look good. The entire goal of the SLS program was for nothing else to be pursued, and what was pursued would be SLS based, so that SLS would look good and you wouldn't know the difference, and you would credit SLS.

So yes, now you know. A point of comparison will exist to be seen by space fans and they might understand that they're being screwed over.

SLS itself was a purposeful shift of expectations to deceive you.

>>9608970
like 70% of this mess is just Alabama senators dicking around with NASA's budget

important to keep that in mind