/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9607351
It's an evolutionary dead end that SpaceX didn't realize would be a dead end when they were building it

It'll have a handful of flights but in a couple years it will be outclassed in almost every way by BFR

>>9607351
>>don't use it for anything
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
>STP-2
>Arabsat 6A

>>9607430
>satellites that could have been launched by half a dozen other existing launchers

>>9607435
But are going to be launched by Falcon Heavy.
Remember that this is a commercial launch vehicle. It isn't like the Saturn V which was built for Moon landings.
SpaceX made it so they can serve a greater capability, not because they had contracts that required it. Now that they have it available they will likely get some more contracts that require it over their Falcon 9.

>>9607351

>What's the logic behind this?

big payloads which don't exist and 'reusing' on missions that would otherwise be flown on expendable f9

>Is it the new Saturn V? (used for one meme and then cancelled)

no, saturn v could actually lift a payload that wasn't a lead brick and could send its payload beyond LEO

>Is it the perfect example of crass American excess?

the only thing excessive about spacex is the 20 billion dollars NASA has spent on development grants for dragon and f9, while still getting bilked on launch costs to the tune of $300-400mil while spacex publicly claims much lower numbers.

>>9607513
Love how SpaceX threads always bring out the NASA shills.

>>9607351
>meme

>>9607513
lol nigger you be brainwashed by Bruno

>>9607532
The BFR thread is a shitshow as well.

I remember three+ years ago when people were saying that FH was a paper rocket.. hmmm...

You can recycle boosters from 9s into Heavy and heavy into 9.

>>9607351
It has another launch coming this summer.

>>9607575
i cant tell if you truly are from reddit or just parodying at this point.
Either way you should kill yourself before you die of AIDS.

>>9607598
>I remember three+ years ago when people were saying that FH was a paper rocket
Three+ years ago FH WAS a paper rocket.

>>9607911
Exactly, then it launched

Same thing with BFR. Current state of affairs does not reflect the future

>>9607923
God, BFR retards and SpaceX fags in general will never cease to amaze me with their sheer idiocy.

>>9607961
>SpaceX will never launch a rocket
>Falcon 1 will never fly
>Falcon 9 will never fly
>Falcon 9 will never land
>Falcon Heavy will never fly
>You are here
>Falcon Heavy core will never land
>BFR will never fly
>SpaceX will never go to Mars

>>9607970
>Stuff literally no one said.
Good strawman there Musk-bot. Now please explain to me how SpaceX, the company that ran into the same problems making a tri-core rocket that Boeing ran into and were delayed even longer, will make the largest and most complicated vehicle ever designed within a couple years. I'm waiting.

>>9607975
>>Stuff literally no one said

Except you faggots fucking say that shit all the time. I don't think anyone here expects this thing to be flying in a couple of years.

>>9607981
Way to completely ignore the content of my post in order to insult me again. You fall for the bait so easily it's hilarious. Still haven't proved me wrong. :^)

>>9607985
Your only content was to say that they won't make this in a couple of years, which I agree with?

Fucking neck yourself retard.

>>9607351
>don't use it for anything
next time, read the entire press release, Cletus

>SpaceX
>want to to go Mars
>start building and flying shit

>NASA
>"want to go to mars"
>buy $200 shovels
>grow potatoes with berkely students

It's going to follow the space shuttle and the saturn 5.
Russia knows the practical limits on rocketry but it seems americans can't learn no matter how many times they try.

>>9608151
Falling back on R7 is not a "practical limit" unless you are a failed state propping up a facade of regional power

Do not respond to the paid shill
their paycheck is based off of (You)s
normally the idea of shilling on 4chan is retarded, but this motherfucker has been doing this for several fucking years now without stopping
there's no other explanation for it

>>9608148
>NASA
>12 missions lined up using largest rocket in history in order to progressively get closer and closer to Mars using the Moon as a jumping off point.

>SpaceX
>lol this big rocket is going to take us to mars xD it has fucking in the name xD

>>9608298
>Can't refute poster
>Call him a shill
Ahh, going the /pol/ack path of argumentation. Glad to know you're on the same plane of intelligence as kekistanis.

>>9607443

>w 3.9 billion in govt. gives

>>9608298
at least that moon landing denier Italian anon isn't around any more, that dude really mucked up threads

BFR critics at least lead to somewhat interesting debates... sort of

>>9608148

>want your shekels

BFR is a joke and spacex is running a pyramid scheme.

I hope you haven't bought any stocks because you've been conned harder than bitcoiners.

At least it won't continue for much longer and endanger national interests as well as international cooperation.

>>9608902
>I hope you haven't bought any stocks
What it's like to be retarded?

>>9608902
>>9608911
Haha I was just going to say, it's not open to the public for trading, my guy.

It's obvious that you're uneducated on anything SpaceX related. Please apply yourself

>>9608947
internal stocks are at 150 or so right now, up from like twenty cents

>>9607351
It's a test to figure out how to get rockets with dozens of engines working. The BFR will basically be a Falcon Heavy with slightly more powerful engines.

>>9608902
At the end of the day reusability is much more important, than payload. If they actually achieve full reusability with the BFR with little no refurbishment costs, even if the payload is smaller than that of the Falcon Heavy, it will be an utter and complete game changer. As soon as GTO orbits cost less than 100$/kg space age is here (this price tag would mean you could book a flight to the moon and back for ~50k)

>>9607975
>no one said
Newfag

>>9608964
we're going to see a big shift in how probes and sats are built; they're gonna be all assembled in pieces in orbit in the future

>>9608979
As fucking if. Probes are extraordinarily expensive, Mars Science Laboratory, which included Curiosity, cost 4 billion dollars to develop and was launched on an Atlas V. Muskbots really don't understand that the launch rocket itself is the cheapest part of space exploration/study.

>>9608986
the 4 billion is because you have limited mass to work with and a extreme amount of risk adverse design. with 7 mil BFR flights, you can build multiple, heavy landers without spending millions on making sure the zip ties are to spec or whatever

>>9608989
The probe needs to operate fully autonomously in the hostile environment of Mars. It's not like we have economies of scale for these kind of robots. They will always be in the billions.

>>9608986
If typical nasa contracting results in billions spent on rockets, why is it surprising to see it results in billions spent for probes and rovers?
Surely, you do not think rockets are an exception and everything else is actually cost effective?

>>9608989
MSL was not mass limited. It was launched on a 541 Atlas and had the option of the Delta IV Heavy if needed. The Euclid telescope cost a billion dollars and was launched on a Soyuz.

>>9608986

>Probes are extraordinarily expensive

There is nothing inherently expensive about a probe at all. Expensive probes are a scam designed to milk taxpayer money, just like expensive launches were. When cost of launches comes down, so will the cost of most spacecraft.

>>9608997
>Typical NASA contracting
ahh the idiocy of fanboys. Science exploration has always costed billions and there's no savior in your precious private corporations because there's no money to be made in scientific exploration.

>>9608996

>It's not like we have economies of scale for these kind of robots.

If launch costs come down, we will have.

>>9608997

NASA rockets are not cost ineffective.

Muskrats and their fanboy memes on suicide watch.

>>9608999

>>9609002
Probes aren't built enmasse. Curiosity will only have one twin to be launched in 2020.

>9609000
He's back.
Try not give him yous that's the whole point of his retarded posts.

>>9609006

>NASA rockets are not cost ineffective.

This is what nasafags actually believe

>>9609013

>>9608593
>3.9 billion in gibs going to soaceX
>Versus 100 billion in gibs going to ULA
hmmmm

>>9609006
>50 billion dollars for the SLS, a rocket made out of premade, already developed parts, that hasn't been built or tested yet is cost effective
Why hasn't NASA tested an SLS yet? It's made out of parts developed between 1961 to 1985, the only new part is the fucking Orion capsule, the rockets been in development for 20 years
Also
>This is just the price of block 1, the rocket made out of entirely reused parts
>Block 2 will have entirely new engines, which haven't even been designed yet, which may push the program over 60 billions dollars
>Mars and lunar equipment will possible push it over 100 billion
SLS is a joke

>>9609033
>50 billion dollars for the SLS

No, that's not what happens. It's basically the same as those film studios claiming a certain movie made losses, although it made profits in the hundreds of millions. What is being declared as "SLS budget" is actually a budget for keeping rocket production capacities alive, which the government think it needs in case a big war breaks out, and some other research NASA is funding through the SLS. So basically, the SLS budget is 90% going into keeping companies afloat that need to build cruise missiles in case we need them, and 5% NASA doing whatever with it, and 5% actually goes into SLS.

>>9609033
>>50 billion dollars
>Source: My ass
>the only new part is the fucking Orion capsule, the rockets been in development for 20 years
Turns out making a super heavy rocket is really hard. Would've thunk? Other than the RS-25s, shuttle tank, and SRBs, what's reused about the SLS?
>>Block 2 will have entirely new engines
New boosters, nice try.
>>Mars and lunar equipment will possible push it over 100 billion
>Space exploration is really really expensive
WOW WOULD'VE THUNK

>>9608597
Sounds like an interesting chap, got any stories?

>>9609065
He would just spam shitty images of his proof and (you) everyone, wasn’t that exciting

>>9609098

Tell me with a straight face this is real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OD2V6fMLQ

>>9609046
Are you just trolling/shilling or do you genuinely think NASA, ULA, etc... are representitive of what spaceflight costs, when it has been demonstrably proven otherwise?

>>9609123
No trolling just btfoing delusional fanboys who hate based science.

>>9609115
Everyone knows nobody landed on the Moon. The footage is obviously fake and was debunked many times. What's your point?

>>9609152
1/10 I replied.

>>9609185
>Everyone knows nobody landed on the Moon.

Guarantee there's mooncucks in here.

>What's your point?

If the moon landings were faked, what makes you think SpaceX isn't fake either?

>>9609201
I never said SpaceX isn't fake. It's simply an enterprise to siphon money.

>>9609201
Oh look it's this guy again.

Why are people so hostile to the idea that the moon landings are REAL? Is it simple anti-American bias? I mean the Soviets congratulated NASA after Apollo 11.

>>9609046
>>>Block 2 will have entirely new engines
>New boosters, nice try.
No, they're going to run out of old shuttle engines, so they're redesigning RS-25 for modern production and to be expendable. It'll effectively be a new engine, and it can't be counted on to be as reliable as the old ones.

>Other than the RS-25s, shuttle tank, and SRBs, what's reused about the SLS?
That's the whole Block 0 SLS, everything but the upper stage and relatively trivial fittings. The interim upper stage will be a modified DCSS (the upper stage from Delta IV). The exporation upper stage will be a shorter section of shuttle tank with a bunch of RL-10s (another old engine).

There's basically nothing truly new about SLS. It's a cobble-job of old parts, with just enough changes and use outside of original parameters to make them untrustworthy.

>>9608578
12 months is less than a year for SpaceX, but maybe 30 years for SLS. It won't get anywhere near Mars and the Moon is not a jumping off point, it doesn't work like that. There aren't even any Moon or Mars related payloads in development for SLS. It pobably won't launch more than twice.

>>9609220
Its somehow connected to the jews, thats all they keep telling me.

>>9609010
With cheap enough launch costs you can just throw up hundreds of them and hope half of them don't break.

>>9609205

If only the Muskcucks could see that.

>>9609211

Oh look it's a brainlet again.

>>9609244
Well that's absurd, and this is coming from an anti-semite. All the Astronauts were Gentiles and a huge portion of the lead scientists and engineers, had prior experience with the Third Reich's rocket program.

>>9609220
>the Soviets congratulated NASA after Apollo 11

Oh it must have been real then...

>>9609255
Why are you and others so hostile towards Space X?

>>9609260

Because they're stealing tax money in exchange for fake space rockets.

>>9609266
"Fake"? Really? Private enterprises like Space X are a necessity thanks to the governments of the world consistently giving the various government space agencies the shaft since the late 1960's. Even NASA's budget went down 42% from 1966 to 1972.

The moment Yuri Gagarin left Earth's atmosphere is the moment when space exploration/colonization should have become the number one priority for all civilized peoples.

Space X has that mentality and its fantastic.

>>9609275
Just ignore him

>>9609283
This is correct

>>9609275
>Thanks for proving our missiles are better now
>Btw all your research is going to be used to blow up sand nigger farmers in Yemen
>*Shuts down NASA*

>>9609275

Grow up brainlet, no rocket has been in "space".

>>9609275
>space exploration/colonization should have become the number one priority for all civilized peoples

And you say that while said countries are invaded by niggers and muslims, who demand all the money go to their welfare. In order for that to happen, uncivilized peoples need to be dealt with.

>>9609266
>fake space rockets
what did he mean by this?

>>9609123
>demonstrably proven otherwise?
Yea, all those cheap scientific probes and super heavy rockets flying around sure proved NASA wrong. Oh wait.

>>9609315

>literally supporting nazis spending american dollars to COLONIZE and CONQUER space and threaten our Soviet allies

>>9609326
If space is a vacuum, then Newton's laws dictate that rockets cannot create thrust.

>>9609348
>t. New York Times, 1921

>>9609348
Do you even universal aether and the complicated interaction with the rockets bipolar scramjet generated by the hot gas' expansion rate?

>>9609320
I absolutely agree with you my good man. You can thank social liberalism and American cultural influence for this demographic nightmare.

>SpaceX fags are "muh white genocide demographic change!" retards.
Can't make this shit up people.

>>9609342
Wasn't it only the one Nazi? Or did they let him bring his friends?

>>9609348
momentum is the product of mass and velocity. A change in momentum over a change in time results in a force. Since your mass as a rocket changes when you expell fuel (or anything else) you induce a force. Forces move things.

>>9609360
>t. nigger

>>9609360
>NASAfags are niggers

It makes perfect sense if you consider what Obama did to the organisation...

>>9609362
Braun led entire team to the allies so he definitely wasn't alone in assisting the american rocket program. The large german presence was a giant glowing target for all opponents at the time and the soviet spies making use of the useful idiots.

>>9609350

They were right.

>>9609352

If Musk said that most people would blindly believe it.

>>9609363

Incorrect, just because mass changes doesn't mean you'll produce thrust, especially in a vacuum.

Show me thrust being created in a vacuum, not a small vacuum chamber because gases can push off the sides of a small chamber

>BFR Flies
>NASA gets btfo to solely research agency.
>SpaceX & the private industry colonize the stars.
>When you look up "Public Spending Excess" NASA is the prime example.

>>9609402
>mfw the absolute state of hurr we landed on the Moon and SpaceX subhuman supporters

The Humanity will thank you for supporting the obfuscation of history.

>>9609348
Oh god its you again

>>9609402
>People like this exist

>>9609432
>their vote counts as much as yours
>they can use the internet
scary

>>9609416

They better.

>>9609430
>>9609432

Oh look it's the no-argument twins.

>>9609437
Seriously, is there any point talking to this scum? Even the third-party (((evidence))) for Moon landings consist of low quality photos that are taken way too far to discern any details. They look like photos of a meteorite or a rock, that is supposed to be a (((lunar lander))). Not to mention they're the only parties capable of supplying such photos. No one else can independently supply them, so it's obvious money, once again, won the day.
Observe /sci/cucks as they scramble to make up shit but are unable to prove it. Kek.

>>9609451
You are welcome to buy a telescope and check it out yourself instead of samefagging on 4chan. You could also buy a laser and receiver and point it at the mirror they set up on the moon for this exact purpose, but that would be too much like hard work.

>>9609459
It's not visible from the Moon if you use a simple telescope. You literally need to use orbiters. Second thing, looking as the (((observatories))) had trouble getting the reflections off and were only able to "do" so after a few days, clearly points to reflection from another source, like a satellite passing by. Not to mention, Moon's surface is already surprisingly reflective, so those might as well be simply weak reflections from the surface, detected only thanks to very sensitive detectors.

>>9609437
>>9609451
>>9609416
>>9609402

>samefagging this hard

>>9607364
And there are no useful payloads for BFR either, just like for SLS.

They've all gotten into a race to build big fucking rockets, but they're completely forgetting about the payload.

>>9609476
>asshurt brainlet

Keep believing in the magic, retard. Let's pour all this money into private pockets that have nothing to do with space exploration.

>>9609451
By the time you had put together a convincing fake consisting of fake Saturn V rockets, fake landers, fake transmission and about a few tens of thousands of personnel involved in your conspiracy, it would've been easier to simply go to the fucking Moon.

You really fucking believe they could orchestrate tens of thousands of people to reliably tell a lie for half a century when they can't even lead a simple political party without constant leaks?

>>9609479
NASA are planning for payloads to utilize SLS. SpaceX on the otherhand...

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/cislunar-station-new-name-presidents-budget/

>>9609479
When you can launch 150t to orbit for under 10m, a shitload of organisations who want to send stuff to space but can't afford stupid price tags suddenly now can afford it. Assuming they gey BFR to work reliably.

>>9609484
It was fucking recorded on the Earth, all they did was launching a rocket. Fucking Germans were capable of that during WWII. Also, they know they're safe - nobody can truly prove them wrong. They got cash for keeping quiet, America won the space race, since Soviets were just as much retarded and couldn't confirm it independently for the very same reason Americans never landed on the Moon - it was way too difficult for them.
Not to mention, I'm sure they had the same qualms as you - and only a select few were aware of what's going on, the rest could've been kept in the dark. Not to mention, even if any of them suddenly came out - they'd be sacrificing their reputation, current life and have no actual proof of foul play. No point.

>>9609451
It's next to impossible for a spacecuck to produce an argument because they're so emotionally invested in this idea of space they've been conditioned with since birth. $tar War$ playing a major role in that.

>>9609496
>America won the space race

>>9609506
Sorry, I meant the race for the Moon. But obviously, nobody did.

>>9609494
The price tag for space exploration and research does not lie with the rocket, it lies with the payload itself. On average, the rocket only costs 20% of the entire price for a simple Earth orbiting satellite. It only gets more and more exponentially expensive the further you get away from Earth. The Mars Science Laboratory orbiter + Curiosity rover cost a combined $4.2B. The $140M for the Atlas V was nothing and it wasn't even maxxed out.

>>9609507

Does that mean space won the space race?

>>9609511
The highest probability here is that fucking Laika won the space race.

>>9609511
The fallacy with the space race is that a race has a defined finish point, but the space race would've always found a new goal to race for. Effectively both nations made a tremendous contribution to space exploration and advancement of science and technology.

>>9609509
The people who make impossibly expensive rockets also make impossibly expensive payloads? Shock. Any other groundbreaking discoveries, anon? You might be onto something I'm serious here.

>>9609509
a lot of it is because satellites aren't yet mass-produced. SpaceX is planning to mass-produce communications satellites itself to make money from ubiquitous space internet, presumably others will mass produce satellites for other purposes.

>>9607665
>i cant tell
then stfu fgt pls

>>9609506
>>9609507
America did win the Space Race, which was a contest for national prestige and to demonstrate superior wealth and technical prowess. They built the world's largest rocket and put a man on the moon, and the Soviets tried for a few more years and gave up, defeated, shamed, demoralized, and humbled.

Thus without having to go to war, the Americans proved much of the rhetoric about the superiority of communism to be hollow and foolish. The grand technological future was no longer to be expected, the sacrifices and murders were for nothing. Communism was simply a way for brutes to make excuses for killing and looting and grabbing power.

>>9609582
Soviets:
First satellite
First animal in orbit (not in /space/ I know, in /orbit/ which is considerably harder)
First man and woman in orbit
First spacewalk
Probs some other things

The Soviets did score absolutely irrevocable propaganda victories by doing these things, moon landing or not.

>>9609553
>Scientific payloads are now impossibly expensive.
Show of all those cheaply made scientific payloads made by those precious private companies you seem to fellate so much.

>>9609572
Satellites cannot be mass produced because they are not general purpose machines. They have to be specifically designed and precisely calculated for the role they will fulfill otherwise they wouldn't work. SpaceX has only said that they will be able to mass produce internet satellites, they haven't shown an ability to do so. A better example would be OneWeb since they are ordering satellites for $400k -$1M a pop. Even so, those are internet satellites, not communication, weather, GPS, etc.

>>9609607
Fair point. Still, ~$1m, if that is a solid figure, is really peanuts compared to current launch costs. BFR would bring the cost of satellites + launch right down at prices like that.

>>9609607

Are you the autistic anti-spacex shill that infest every single space thread?

>>9609612
$1M is a staggering figure for a satellite, usually they cost like 5 times the rocket itself. But their satellites are very small and they are planning on launching them on the cheapest rocket around, Soyuz, in bunches of 20. So the satellite cost roughly equals the launch cost.

>>9609582
>put a man on the moon
>still believing simple Hollywood propaganda movie to this day

You deserve to be cucked. Consuming lies and thinking they make you the winner. Also, see >>9609605

>>9609617
Yes he is.

>>9609617
>>9609634
>Insults instead of refutation.
Never change Muskrats, never change.

>>9609605
>The Soviets did score absolutely irrevocable propaganda victories by doing these things, moon landing or not.
No, they got an early lead, but were crushed when the Americans landed on the moon and they themselves tried, failed, and gave up. The propaganda value was always in "Look, we can do things that the other side can't!" For the Soviets, it was true briefly, then for the Americans it was true and final.

"First" is nice. But "only" is crushing, especially in contrast to a high-profile failure.

>>9609634
>muskrats
>fanboys
>quotes
>shilling
Yes. It's definitely that one retarded faggot.

>>9609649

>>9609649
He just can't help himself can he?

>>9609691

You can tell he starts to get buthurt when you don't provide the (you)

>>9609201
I never ever understand why this webm is posted with these types of sentiments. Can someone explain?

>>9609913
it's a troll, don't give him (you)'s

>>9609928
Yeah, I know that, but I don't get the correlation with that particular video. I only notice because I'm always trying to catch large ice clusters coming off.

>>9609942
because he thinks the CGI people messed up or something, I don't honestly know

do these people not realize you can watch the 2nd stage staging and engine start up from your backyard?

>>9609953
Yeah, I've asked before, but he never answered.

>>9609953
>>9609960
Not to breath life back into this truly awful thread, but I think special needs Anon's preoccupation with that gif is that he thinks the piece of ice is a Tesla logo.
Haven't yet heard any explanation for why Musk would put removable Tesla logos in his CGI rocket videos.

>>9609479

Every year there are dozens of payloads to be put into Space. Today, SpaceX markets the Falcon 9 and Heavy to fly them. Tomorrow, BFR will the launch vehicle SpaceX will market to fly them, for a per launch price less than their previous product line and less that their competitors.

>>9609479

BFR will be so totally cost revolutionary that, in addition to the current market of payloads, the low price may open new payloads to launch. For example, tourists to space who would not otherwise be able to afford a ticket, but could conceivably afford a ticket on BFR.

>>9607351
Well, say you wanted to invest 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars into putting something into space. Wouldn't you want some sort of demonstration that this is going to work before forking over that much cash?

Besides I think you're forgetting SpaceX is Musk's personal company, not a government entity. Ol Elon can do whatever the fuck he wants with his money, whether that be fucking with small nation's economies like Soros, or putting man on Mars or just giving rich people the opportunity to have space-sex (get the name now?)

>>9609479

SpaceX is using their own launch product to deliver satellites to orbit for their internet constellation project, which entails some monetary cost to them. BFR will lower the bill to SpaceX for these launches.

>>9609479
That's entirely true but only for the SLS hence why it should be cancelled and the funding and industrial capacity funneled into payloads.
BFR has multitude of uses though - low cost, low cost space station, low cost lunar habitat, etc.

>>9609942

It looks like a Tesla logo to begin with and then morphs into what looks like a man flying away on a zip wire or something, it's very odd.

No one denies they launch a rocket, it's the point where they go into "space" where the CGI fakery comes in. It's so damn obvious, I don't get how you Muskcucks are so blind to it.

>>9609026
This, I only recently found out ULA is actually just Boeing and Lockheed Martin smooshed together, two companies whose fangs have been embedded in the udders of America for longer than my parents have been alive. They've both ben suckling the sweet nectar of American tax dollars so long they have lobbyists.

>>9611304
It just looks like ice to me. Though, it kind of looks like a dragon flipping end over end with one wing broken. I don't think it looks anything like a logo.

>No one denies they launch a rocket, it's the point where they go into "space" where the CGI fakery comes in. It's so damn obvious, I don't get how you Muskcucks are so blind to it.

Evidently, my cousin gets to watch them in person from the ground when it lands near Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (LZ1-LZ2). though, he's never sent photos or anything. I rarely talk to him. It really seems like a big expense to do a lot of fakery when there's far cheaper ways to scam money from investors. Especially, when most of the money just gets reused into the same project to make it bigger and bigger.

>>9607351
The entire space program is a hoax

>>9611338

>It just looks like ice to me. Though, it kind of looks like a dragon flipping end over end with one wing broken. I don't think it looks anything like a logo.

Whatever it is, it's not real. Ice wouldn't last long at all in the vacuum of space.

Your cousin doesn't see the rocket in space, no one does. And scamming money isn't the only reason to fake it.

Ffs stop replying to him

>>9611357
What about satellites and ISS? You can see those with the naked eye. Also, ice can last a pretty long time in space, especially when it is in the shadow of something. Sublimation is a slow process and there's no air to conduct heat to it.

>>9611370
>satellites

If there's anything up there it's much more likely to be a weather balloon or some other flying device.

>ISS

There's no one in the ISS, they've fucked it up too many times. Again, could be some kind of high altitude plane,definitely not something orbiting at 17,000mph. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJZ9sqvH9dY

>>9609026
>100 billion
lol more like 5+ trillion

>>9609484
Don't reason with them. If they had reason they would have checked the math themselves.

>>9611401
Including all of the useless wars, probably

I swear to God, these and the IQ threads are the most idiotic on /sci/.

>>9611414
how so? if people would stop replying to the obvious baiters the space threads here would be pretty good.

>>9611388
Why are you on /sci/? Are you part of the Russian troll brigade? None of t he things you have been stating holds up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

>>9611446
don't reply man

>>9611446

>Why are you on /sci/?

Because I enjoy real science, not sci-fi.

>Are you part of the Russian troll brigade?

Put your tinfoil hat on.

>None of t he things you have been stating holds up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Well I'm convinced.

hello (sci) im le epic tr0l can i get (you)'s pls?
you seem generous so here i am ^_^!
thx

>>9611304
>It looks like a Tesla logo to begin with and then morphs into what looks like a man flying away on a zip wire
I don't know how to say this without sounding like I'm memeing or whatever, but you should honestly get yourself checked for mental illness. Seeing patterns and meaning in random things like this is a pretty big red flag.

>>9611436
Yeah, I guess, except that they always, always reply and the thread is always the same stupid discussion of elon lovers vs haters.

>>9608578
Using the Moon as "a jumping off point" to go to Mars is stupid, not only is it more complicated, it's also more costly in terms of fuel to go to the Moon, stop there, then go to Mars. It takes less fuel to go straight to Mars from Earth due to the Oberth effect.

>>9608954
>The BFR will basically be a Falcon Heavy with slightly more powerful engines.

More than that, it will use a better more efficient propellant mixture with no coking issues, will lose the three core design for a much simpler and more effective 2 stage approach, have much better on-orbit capability, and will be able to be refueled in orbit to allow for extremely heavy payloads to be placed into any Earth orbit.

>>9608998
Yes is was mass limited, not by the launch vehicle but by the landing system. The parachute+sky crane can only handle a payload mass of a ton or so, with the limit being set by the chute.

>>9609348
fuuuuuck oooooooofffff

>>9609479
Everything SpaceX is currently launching with Falcon 9 can be launched with BFR except for cheaper and directly into target orbits rather than just transfer orbits.
BFR will be cheaper to launch than Falcon 9 because BFR will be fully reusable.
SpaceX wants BFR to be as big as it is because it means they only have to develop and operate one type of vehicle. They could technically do a much smaller Raptor powered rocket, roughly Falcon Heavy sized, make it fully reusable as well, and end up making more money than they currently do, however that smaller rocket would be useless for Mars exploration. Instead they're skipping that step and taking advantage of the fact that a much larger but still fully reusable rocket can still undercut all modern launch vehicles in price.

A cheap launch price is a cheap launch price, it stays the same whether you're launching 150 tons of satellite or nothing at all.

>>9611357
>Ice wouldn't last long at all in the vacuum of space.

retard alert

These threads are getting worse and worse. It was a test flight, the standard payload for those is a lump of concrete, but elon and co had fun with it instead. And outside of antispacex echo chambers people loved it.

>>9611776

Very ironic of you to diagnose someone with mental illness when you believe the CGI shit you're being fed.

>>9613389

Brainlet doesn't understand the temps and pressures that the so called vacuum of space has.

>>9613420
Just report all the shitposting and /x/posting fucksticks
they'll be banned eventually
at this point I don't even think /sci/ has janitors at all

>>9613378
also they're going big because of the square cube law being of great assistance to rockets

>>9608290

Ouch

>>9613454
Comets are ice bro