/sci/ - Science & Math

TESS is equipped with four CCD cameras that have adjacent field-of-views to produce a 4 x 1 array, or 'observing sector', yielding a combined field-of-view of 96 x 24 degrees

>>9670764

Each of the four cameras has:

24° × 24° Field-of-View
100 mm effective pupil diameter
Lens assembly with 7 optical elements
Athermal design
600nm - 1000nm bandpass
16.8 Megapixel, low-noise, low-power, MIT Lincoln Lab CCID-80 detector

Orbit details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AIbD2WxyN8

Should be a fun launch. In my opinion we need more of these Class C missions, like TESS. They're cheap (~90 million) but provide excellent science.

>Russia: 21 launches on a shit budget of 2 billion in 2017
>SpaceX: 18 launches of a company which was valued at 21 billion in 2017
anons, why is spacex so shit?

In the meantime, today there will be an Atlas V launch of AFSPC-11. Watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOg_4rrJxc

Fairing is the new 2.0 one with improved recovery hardware and a slight size change.

The recovery boats (minus Mr Steven) have already left the port, so expect a non-net recovery attempt

>>9670790
>ftfy
Russia, valued at trillions, launches 21 rockets
SpaceX, valued at 21 billion, launched 18 rockets

Should have picked Proton.

MARS WHEN

>>9671306
2024

>>9671338
I want to believe.

>>9671369
Start saving up then

>>9671382
>tfw already have enough assets for a ticket

GET ME OFF THIS SHITHOLE ELON

>>9671395
>muskfags unironically believe they will have a better life on mars

>>9671400
better≠more exciting and important

>>9671400
It's about getting off this rock before everything turns to shit

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22395.0;attach=241178;sess=21033

>>9671413
except that excerpt doesn't say what that says it says. Nice try though.

>>>/x/

>>9671411
>nothing will turn to shit in your lifetime unless you concentrate on musks retarded space ideas instead of actual problems faggot
>>9671403
>he thinks he will go to mars in his life
>he thinks that if he will actually go, he will be of any importance

>>9671430
>We need to fix our problems on earth before we go to space

>>9671430
see you on mars, kiddo

>>9671278
Son, Protons are cool and all but we want this to get into space.

>>9671430
>>nothing will turn to shit in your lifetime unless you concentrate on musks retarded space ideas instead of actual problems faggot
Or unless the west doesn't stop its retarded world police foreign policy that's leading us towards war.

50 minutes to the Altas stream stating

>>9671647

this launch is really important, TESS will be a huge boon to exoplanetary science

>>9671726
space is space dude, launches are cool

>>9671737
plus, JWST and TESS can work together - TESS will be able to find exoplanets that are in the viewing area of JWST. So, JWST will be able to take a peek at them

>>9671742
JWST will never launch, it will just sit there, year after year as we send more and more billions of tax dollars into Lockheed Martons pockets.

>>9671746
*Northrop Grumman

Lockheed's vehicles may regularly run over budget, but atleast they actually work unlike Northrop's...

>>9671746
It's one of those things that surpasses sunk cost fallacies. It'll launch, even if it breaks the cost cap. Sure, it's been a shitshow, but it's not like they aren't continually making progress towards launch.

I'm just as pissed off as you are...

>>9671753
>t. increasingly nervous Zuma payload adapter engineers

Just watch this it'll be exactly the same.

2 min to atlas launch

>>9670905
whats in the black tanks - argon? to pressurize the fairing?

>>9671756
It was Northrup who built Zuma and are also building the JWST not Lockheed.

>>9671773
It's Nitrogen to pressurise the fairing.

>>9671773
Dunno what gas it is, but yes it keeps the fairing pressurized.

>>9671773
Decoration.

That's one crazy orbit.

http://spaceflight101.com/tess/tess-orbit-design/

>>9673159
This orbit actually requires more Delta V than a translunar injection orbit because of the weird inclination it uses to avoid the moon's influence. The Falcon 9 will push TESS 60% of the way to the moon, TESS will then complete the burn to the moon with it's onboard thrusters and use a gravity assist to put it into it's final orbit.

Updates from Hans at the NASA social

>no Mr. Steven, but fairing recovery hardware is still onboard
>fairing will soft land in the ocean
>plan to reuse this booster for the next CRS mission
>only takes a couple weeks to refurbish stages now
>2nd stage will do a 3rd burn to kick it out on a hyperbolic trajectory (space trash)

>>9672182
SpaceX admits that they never intended to use FH for real missions; more lies from 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.

Quick, someone post the SLS copypasta and the jello babies image

It isn’t a sci space thread without the whole gang here

>>9673760
>more lies from one of the most dishonest

go back to /tv/ and spam your dishonest villeneuve threads over there

>>9674015
it's a copy pasta, chill out

>>9673159
in the pre launch conf, both Hans and some NASA guy said that it's not all that difficult or strange, it's just that it hasn't been done before. orbital mechanics are pretty well understood nowadays

still, it's neat that the closest approach to the moon will be only a couple thousand k's

>>9673412
Fuck yeah booster landings.

>>9674023
at this point, it's probably a bot
that very same post was posted in 3 different threads at the same time

heads up lads, we're now 24 hours from the start of the stream!

>>9674281
I noticed that...

has been removed once in less then an hour. let see if it stays this time.

>>9674295
I have read this through twice and I still have literally zero clue of what you're trying to describe

in that case, it's a 9/10 trole infographic. good job anon

>>9673760
>look mom! i posted it again!

>>9674295
That image is bonkers, anyway the easiest things.

I can make an umbra/penumbra shadow with less than $5 of materials.

You can too. Here's what you need.
A light source, something directed is good so you don't get light reflection off walls affecting the shadow.
Something smaller than the light source to make your shadow.
A suitable distance.

>theres no grey shadow as the moon went by
Were you expecting to literally see grey? Are you retarded? All it would have appeared is as a slight decrease in the ambient light, you may not even have noticed it depending where you were in the penumbra.

Play what you want, but no proof of your dogma does not show or prove me wrong, no amount of cartoons can prove that you have any idea then to be a zion and a jew and lie about what you have no clue about.After the Genius of the Jews claimed that if the facts do not fit the theory, you lie. Einstein. So what are you talking about when you say science, are you talking stuff you can not prove, or facts that you can not disprove?

Funny how no grey shadow was or has ever been recorded in any eclipse.

O show you the pyramid, your eyes refuse to see, so tell me what is the curve from Dallas to Prague? Is there any way I should see any light? If not then there is a huge problem.

shit, I think he's actually insane, and not just a troll

Why do these threads always attract nutjobs, trolls and shills?

>>9674382
because /x/ is one click away

So not know, but shit, no proof of claim, it is dogma, and I do not have to prove your dogma, you do, because I have already shown the bear and the shadow that proves my claim. Where is your picture proof or is it a cartoon that has no place in reality, Mr. Smith, lmao....

>>9674345
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sssLsGfV_Bk
When the umbra shadow is far from the balloon what you can see of the Earth is in the penumbra shadow, the over exposed areas are in less shadow, which is why they're over exposed
The penumbra shadow is basically just a partial eclipse. Many millions of people experienced that "grey shadow" during the 2017 eclipse.

The camera on the balloon also adjusts its exposure and it enters the light from the sun decreases, so when it is in the umbra you pretty much can't see any of the Earth outside the umbra due to the exposure and now bright it is in comparison to the umbra shadow.

>>9671413
Mfw nobody has yet to surpass the raw power that was the Saturn V
>mfw the SaturnV could put a vessel in a mars interception trajectory easily.
>mfw we will never use the SaturnV design ever again due to budget bullshit.
>the two remaining options are an over priced SaturnV look-a-like with boosters on the sides and a giant space dildo.

and that shadow when recorded on the land is max at 110 miles wide to 70 miles wide. and that shows nothing but a picture show to show proof that the shadow was black, and that there were no grey ring that was all the way around that sharp no grey shadow. and thus the object, can not be bigger then 110 miles. because that is not proof of anything but a close sun and a close moon that the bear shows, as in the closer to the light source, the larger the shadow, not the ball of a 1000 miles in your bull shit theory that has grey rings that this shows it is not real. So show proof of your claim about the gray.

>>9674426
but that giant space dildo is fucking fantastic

>>9674427
Pick a spelling of grey first.
Then try to understand what I said.
Then stop posting.

press kit is out http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/tesspresskit.pdf

>>9674436
don't even bother anon, it's best if we all adopt a no-reply policy for morons in space threads desu

>>9674433
Well it is a little reminiscent of older rocket designs. I just like the skyscraper style that the Saturn V had, maybe it's just nostalgia.

>>9674460
I think we'll like the BFR's look more once it gets all sooty and gritty from dozens of flights without a wash.

>>9674411
>The penumbra shadow is basically just a partial eclipse. Many millions of people experienced that "grey shadow" during the 2017 eclipse.
This. The penumbra is basically just where there isn't totality. The distance from the earth to the moon is so perfectly aligned with the size of the moon (it won't be in a few hundred millennia) that the umbra rarely happens, and only lasts a few minutes on any given spot on the ground.

The sun is so fucking bright that the partial eclipse by the moon has almost no effect on the brightness on the ground. But it does make shadow holes (like where light shines through a tree) have that awesome crescent shape. Pic related is in the penumbra.

>>9674433

>>9674485
is this OC

>>9674466
I was on a farm during the eclipse. went inside a barn halfway through and it was super cool since the roof had millions of little holes in it

OH FUCK OH FUCK

>>9674490
no

>>9674460

Saturn V always looks like to me it's about to shake itself apart. The skyscraper style makes it looks like it's made out of stacked bricks.

>>9674500
[shitposts orbitally]

>>9674523
now it will be 99% reusable, minus some parachute hardware and thermal protection material probably

>>9674500
Let's see Jeff top that one!

>>9674500
S2 is 3,900 kg empty
so this is what you do

>deorbit burn, maintaining a low velocity with your remaining fuel to prevent burning up
>once you're through the worst of it, deploy ballute
>guide Mr Steven 2.0 towards the landing location
>catch it
ezpz

My point is that 4chan removed the topic when posted on it's own, and this is the second time posting what was shown in the first one, and no one has been able to point out any flaws. I just was under the impression anything but pedo stuff is acceptable. and this does not even go there, so why was the thing taken down? since then have tried to again repost it, and it has again been removed as topic. Not sure why. Sun and moon are close. was the subject line both times. I just find ir funny to use the machine against itself, lmao.

>>9674559
>no one has been able to point out any flaws.

That's because it's incoherent and unreadable.

only to idiots that do not know their head form a hole in the ground. and I see you are one of those.

>>9674504
>uses rocket dildos.

press T to thank mods

anyways, I'll see you all tomorrow for the launch. should be fun to finally have a S1 landing after all of these throwaways

>>9674426
I wish they never even started the Space Shuttle program and put that money towards another 200 Saturn V launches.

Or, given that they could HOPEFULLY get some economy of scale with that number, 400 to 500 Saturn V launches

>>9674500
the absolute madman

>>9674605
could be HIAD https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/game_changing_development/HIAD/index.html

lmao, got the items removed as you see. And if you think they are not filtering content. think again.

LMAO, the truth will not be tolerated, LMAO

why do /x/ posters feel the need to shit up the place harder than /r9k/?

>>9674500
kek is he serious?

>>9674679
it's not impossible. if the cost to recover is less than the cost of building a whole new S2, why not?

>>9674679
It's Elon Musk
Wherever he goes, he must also shitpost

>>9674551
?
It is at orbital velocity, any excess fuel left over is negligible, a deorbit burn is just a few meters per second, while orbit is 8 km/s

This will be an inflatable heat shield, nothing new about that.

>>9674697
I mean, continue retrograde burning to prevent S2 from burning up itself

this way you deplete all of the remaining fuel, so the shield has to do less work

>>9674679

Elon is always serious.

>>9674716

20 hours to go

BFR tooling and raw materials continues to roll into their big tent.

we mars soon

>>9674785
funny how the slow LA building permit process is forcing a company to build a MARS SHIP in a big tent.

>>9674788
Holy shit that thing is fucking huge. My BFR erection is growing by the day, can't wait until they launch that thing and btfo all these fags.

>>9674814
some stuff stored outside too. dunno what it is

>>9674828
half-pipes for a raaaadical skate park

>>9674336
>>9674364
>>9674382
>>9674385
can anyone fill me in? looks like i messed out on the daily case of retardation

>>9675036
*missed

>>9675036
nothing much, just a particularly determined flattard. best to just ignore these things in the future, I think we gave him one to many (you)'s

He's at it again!
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/985654333860601856
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/985668304353116161

You know the nigga means business when he bust out "orders of magnitude".

>>9675068
although he has been known to misuse the term order of magnitude before, for instance when discussing the temperature increases seen on reentry. He said 7x orders of magnitude, when he should have simply said 7x heating. It was like 2.5x magnitude in reality

>>9674701
It doesn't have fuel for more than a couple seconds of burning, this is the 2nd stage, not the 1st.

>>9671635
>proton literally better than falcon 9
>muskfag still says "use falcon 9 if you want to go to space"
imagine being this retarded

>>9675431
What are you talking about? The second stage can burn for longer than the first stage does.

Even discounting the fact that the first stage burns mostly at 100% throttle, aside from during maxQ, while the second stage can throttle between 30 and 100% freely since it is in space, the first stage has nine engines while the second has just one. According to wikipedia the second stage can burn for more than twice the amount of time the first stage can.

There's some other things to consider.
Usually they don't fill the stages completely. The fuel is weight they need to get into orbit so they'll only put as much in as is needed for the orbit and deorbit burns.
This means if they have capacity left they may be able to put more in to facilitate an entry burn in the hopes of recovering the stage.

>>9675434
Protons still burn hypergolics.
They're cool rockets and all but they're a relic, and have had their fair share of problems in recent history.

>>9675450
>proton can get to geo
>falcon cant
lel
>"but muh hypergolics!"

>>9675450
That's why nasa still uses Russian rockets and engines alright xaxaxaxa

>>9675453
Falcon Heavy can.

Anyway, the Proton is way over rated for this payload.

>>9671278
>>9675455
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo

>>9675455
NASA also uses American rockets and engines.
It's almost as if they pick launchers based on something other than how cool they look.

>>9675457
>muh rocket thats not even in use can
>>9675459
ah yes and the falcon also never exploded kek

>>9675461
9,8% failure rate of Proton-M vs 5,76% of Falcon 9.

>>9675461
Falcon Heavy launched just two months ago mate.

>ah yes and the falcon also never exploded kek
Falcon's record is actually pretty good. Recovering from the pad explosion in 2016 more Falcons were launched in 2017 than any other type of rocket and they were all successful.

>>9675464
4% DIFFERENCE
HOLY SHIT RUSSIANS BTFO ISS IS OURS

>>9675476
you're a fucking moron, that's a huge difference when you realize how bad an explosion is

>>9675476
I'd actually agree with you that the difference is not that significant, considering the Proton has some 410 launches while the Falcon is around 55. The Falcon is still at a point where a single failure makes a big difference to the failure rate.
However it's still not impressive that after 410 launches the Proton is still failing about once a year (when they launch more than a handful of times).
It's pretty much Russian Roulette.

>>9675514

>>9675514
well at least the russians have the OG soyuz with fucking 1700 flights

GO Tess!

The BFR really needs to be a slam dunk or SpaceX will have a hard time in the 2020s. The New Glenn launch cost will most likely be lower than 20 million due to their reusability rate. It also has a bigger payload than the Falcon Heavy. So it will completely dominate the market, unless the BFR can achieve even lower launch costs, which will be pretty hard. Then you also have Arianespace working on their reusable rocket, and I think the russians, too. Competition is catching up and it's going to be hard for SpaceX to keep their price advantage.

>>9675535
Yup, the R-7 is pretty baller as fuck.
Unfortunately, I may have mentioned this before, but I don't think NASA uses Russian rockets except for getting people to the ISS.

They could just a easily stick it on an Atlas, which hasn't had a loss of payload failure since Atlas I.

>>9675546
If they nail fairing reuse and block 5 ends up working out 10+ times with refurb, then they'll be fine - their marginal cost will still be the lowest. After all, NG throws away its upper stage, Ariane's next-next gen rocket (the actual reusable one) is decades away, and Russia just has too many budget problems to really do anything practical

>>9675548
R7 rockets will be flying 1000 years from now. It's gonna be gr8

quick TESS overview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4KjvPIbgMI

qt

3D print your own TESS!
https://tess.gsfc.nasa.gov/3d_model.html

>>9675549
The Block 5 is planned to do 10 re-uses without major refurbishment, the New Glenn is planned to do 100. They both don't have a reusable second stage, so that's not a difference. Also, I don't think you can go from 1 re-use to 10 by using slightly more heat-durable materials. That's probably the Elon-optimism and in reality they go from 1 to 3 or 4 at best. But even if they did 10, the New Glenn will still be far cheaper.

SpaceX will probably not be able to deliever a first stage that will be cheaper than New Glenn's. They're also not even trying to. They are betting it all on making the second stage reusable, too, which might or might not work. If they fail, they will go down.

>>9675546
>The New Glenn launch cost will most likely be lower than 20 million due to their reusability rate
absolutely delusional
A low launch cost implies high launch rates, BO isn't going to be launching that often any time soon. Expect them to debut at 100 million a launch.

> It also has a bigger payload than the Falcon Heavy
also incorrect

>>9675559
well they already have a couple launches on the docket paid for by customers (one web for instance). So whatever cost Bezos is charging is somewhat competitive.

It's not like they need to make a profit, heh, Also- IIRC 3-stick reuse FH is about what reusable NG can do. I might be wrong though.

>>9675559
The New Glenn expandable has a payload of 65-75 tons to LEO, FH expandable has 55-65, reusable variants are 45 and 30-40.

Launch costs have literally nothing to do with launch frequency. If you reach 100 reuses over two years or twenty doesn't matter at all.

>>9675564
100 million a launch is competitive with Ariane
Also you need to understand that the primary thing right now is how far in the future the launch will be, not cost. Plus reserving launch slots isn't going to be very expensive.

>It's not like they need to make a profit, heh
They need to at least LOOK and HOPE that at some point there will be the option of being profitable
Bezos isn't going to literally dump 10s of billions into a money pit.

>>9675567
They won't be making any expanded or 3 stage new glenn, that plan has already disappeared

New Glenn is just another old space company following in SpaceX's footsteps, they aren't pushing the envelope on anything. Plus they won't even have done a first launch in 2020, nevermind at full launch rate.

>>9675573
The company to succeed will be the one that can first implement a big number of re-uses. Vertical landing is completely useless, if you don't re-use the rocket. SpaceX has not done that yet, so BO can still be the first to achieve that.

>>9675570
I think he will - after all, he’s about as enthusiastic for space civilizations as Elon is. Just isn’t as public with it

What else is he gonna do with his 100 billion? Sit on it?

>>9675579
? What are you talking about, SpaceX has reused numerous rockets

>>9675579
But anon, spacex does reuse their rockets. It’s just that they are just rolling out block 5, which is the first block to be reused more than once.

>>9675581
A large net worth doesn't mean you can directly convert it into cash
And Trump is going to fuck over Bezos because the fag bought Wapo just to hate on Trump.

>>9675584
ah yes, the block 5 that is already a fucking year late kek

>>9675582
Never more than once.

>>9675584
So up until now everytime they re-worked their Falcon 9 they said to themselves "you know what, don't make it re-usable just yet, let's wait for those changes until Block 5 comes around. For now, let's burn money instead."?

The only reason why SpaceX is saying Block 5 is going to fulfill all these promises the 1st Falcon 9 was supposed to fulfill is because it's going to be the last one. They are not spending time and money on further development, because they are fully concentrating on the BFR. So what do you expect their PR to say? "This will be the last F9, and it still won't be really reusable, because damn that's much harder than we thought, but we are putting now all our money into BFR so this is as good as it gets."?

>>9675564
Being competitive isn't just about price but is also about schedule. Companies will be willing to pay more to get their satellite up this year rather than next year.
Right now BO's schedule isn't heavily booked, on the other hand SpaceX's is.

You also have to remember it's not entirely about maximum payload to orbit. They're not always launching at maximum capacity.
There's also the matter of NG getting certification from NASA for launches, which still needs to come, and from the Air Force in order to compete with SpaceX in those areas.

There's no doubt NG will have a place in the market but I don't see it disrupting SpaceX that much.

>>9675590
>Right now BO's schedule isn't heavily booked, on the other hand SpaceX's is.

With government contracts. The agency with the most private customers is still Arianespace.

>>9675589
>Never more than once.
Because of reasons that will also apply to BO
Such as limitations on launch pads, only having so many payloads ready, limited fairing/upper stage production, and government bureaucracy slowing things down.

>is because it's going to be the last one.
And because they have incrementally replaced all the "expendable" parts on the rocket with new designs or more durable materials.

>>9675592
That's bullshit. There is literally no reason why a launch pad limits re-use rates. The launch pad doesn't care if it's launching a new or a re-used rocket. There are also no regulations that limits the number of re-uses. All of these arguments are just things you just pulled out of your ass.

The Falcon 9 is only being re-used once because the refurbishment cost for the second re-use would be bigger than building a new one. It probably still is for the 1st re-use, but for PR reasons they are probably taking the slight loss to show off at least 1 re-use.

>>9675567
>Launch costs have literally nothing to do with launch frequency. If you reach 100 reuses over two years or twenty doesn't matter at all.
Launch costs are also irrelevant until it actually launches. BO still hasn't done anything more than reusing a single up-and-down rocket that doesn't go anywhere useful except for tourists. As compared to F9 which has already launched more rockets in 2017 than anybody else.

>>9675597
>but for PR reasons
More likely so they can get the actual experience of trying to re-use them, so they can make a version that's easier to re-use. The more different rockets you re-use, the more you learn. And the experience of landing them, too, of course. You don't just suddenly start reusing rockets perfectly.

>>9675604
nah not really. if they could have reused it twice they would have already done it.

>>9675604
Ah okay, so in these 4 iterations until the block 5 they never though about making one of those iterations at least capable of 2 reuses?

>>9675589
>So up until now everytime they re-worked their Falcon 9 they said to themselves "you know what, don't make it re-usable just yet, let's wait for those changes until Block 5 comes around. For now, let's burn money instead."?
No.
The first Falcon 9s didn't have landing legs. They didn't even have parachutes. SpaceX wanted to make a reusable launcher but first they needed cashflow so the Falcon 9 primarily had to launch things into space.
Ever since then they have been working on creating the system of reusability. They tried parachutes to return the first stages, it didn't work. They moved on to landing them vertically. Once they started landing them they now had a cache of boosters that had launched payloads into space they could inspect to see what is most stressed, what is worn more than they expected. They've been doing upgrades, going from aluminium grid fins to titanium. They're now working on harder three engine landing burns that would save them fuel allowing them to put more payload in orbit.

This has been an iterative process. It's completely different to how the NG is being developed. They're calling the Block 5 the final iteration because it's meant to be the culmination of what they have learned from the rest of the series.

>>9675591
What difference does it make?

>>9675610
No, they literally said Block 5 is final because they are concentrating on BFR now. Not because they think they can't improve it anymore.

>>9675610
this is correct.
http://theclimategap.com/falcon9-evolution/

In practicality, there is nothing preventing them from launching a B4 3+ times. But they might as well expend them while trying weird landing profiles to gather more data; they don't want a mixed bag of blocks lying around. It inhibits efficiency

>>9675609
You are god damn fucking retarded.

I don't understand how you can irrationally hate something as much as you do.

>>9675610
>>9675618
So how are you going to gather data on how a rocket behaves after 5 re-uses if all you ever did was 1 re-use?

You guys should stop sucking up all the SpaceX PR. It's really getting ridiculous. It's like talking to a chain smoker who says smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because the Philip Morris CEO said so.

>>9675597
>There is literally no reason why a launch pad limits re-use rates.
Of course it does idiot
The government has old as shit range hardware that delays launch rates, you have tons of regulation to deal with, you still need to integrate & set the rocket up, need to do a static fire, etc
All this takes time, and it will take a great deal of effort/money to increase launch cadence out of each pad.

They don't want huge piles of old boosters sitting in warehouses, so they have been disposing of twice used boosters into the ocean, same as every other launch company.

With the Block 5 boosters they will no longer have to do anywhere near as much work to "refurbish" them, plus they will start trusting diagnostic tools rather than taking engines out to inspect them.
Then they can stop doing things like static fires for used boosters, increasing launch rates.

>>9675617
They need to finalize the Falcon 9 because that's the only way they can launch people on it.
NASA requires them to launch it seven times with no changes to hardware before they'll put people on it.

That's part of the reason why they're not going to human rate the Heavy anymore. It will probably still need work but it also won't be launched as often as the Falcon 9, so they'd either have to launch it out of their pockets or wait several years to get the seven required launches.

>>9675624
>The government has old as shit range hardware that delays launch rates, you have tons of regulation to deal with, you still need to integrate & set the rocket up, need to do a static fire, etc
All this takes time, and it will take a great deal of effort/money to increase launch cadence out of each pad

So how does that influence REUSE? Why can't you do all these things if a reused rocket, or only do them once?

>>9675623
well first you re use it twice
and you inspect it
then you re use it three times
and you inspect it
then you re use it four times
and you inspect it
then you re use it five times

ta da

>>9675623
>So how are you going to gather data on how a rocket behaves after 5 re-uses if all you ever did was 1 re-use?
By further extrapolation.

launch countdown and flight simulation here: https://www.flightclub.io/live

>>9675629
So why are they not doing that?

>>9675630
So Block 5 will not be the final version?

>>9675636
I mean if they find something small that needs to be changed, not really.

>>9675634
they've been waiting on block 5. it builds on the things they've learned from re using blocks 3 and 4. see: http://theclimategap.com/falcon9-evolution/

>>9675623
>>9675629
You gotta remember, they didn't just launch a bunch of F9s twice. They launched and landed a bunch of them twice. Which means they have data on how the booster was after one launch and how it was after two launches.
Now it's unlikely that after the third launch it would be in an unpredictable state from the data they would now have. So all they have to do is model how it would be after ten launches and then over build for that.

>>9675639
>I mean if they find something small that needs to be changed, not really.

What happened to "block 5 will be definetely re-used at least 10 times"?

Also, are they taking away ressources from BFR r&d to make further incremental changes to Block 5?

>>9675641
>Now it's unlikely that after the third launch it would be in an unpredictable state from the data they would now have. So all they have to do is model how it would be after ten launches and then over build for that.

Ah yes, so instead of re-flying it again they are satisfied with simulations.

You can't really be this retarded, now can you?

>>9675645
>if they find something small that needs to be changed
they volunteered to have a static config for seven flights for commercial crew. Can't change much to begin with, but that doesn't mean if something comes up they won't fix it.

>>9675646
they are re flying them again you moron. Just with block 5. Today's launch is the last block 4 ever. It will be flown once again on the next CRS, but after that there will literally be no flyable non-block 5 boosters around, which was the plan from the beginning. It simplifies logistics - and why wouldn't you want to fly on the most recent improved version anyways?

Its so ridiculous talking to spacex fans
literally any little thing you critizise them for, like overpromising or underdelivering, they always will have an answer why
its like the perfect company lol

spacecucks, can you even name one problem with spacex yourselves? or do you unironically think the above?

>>9675636
Block 5 will be the final version.
It might need some tweaks before it is fully finalized but it'll still be Block 5.
I'm not predicting that the very first Block 5 will be the first one that launches 10 times. Block versions are generally major changes to the production of the rocket.

>>9675646
>Ah yes, so instead of re-flying it again they are satisfied with simulations.
Why not? We use simulations for a LOT of things.
If they are satisfied with the amount of data they have gathered to plug into their simulations who are you to say they are wrong? They have NASA looking over their shoulders as well.

Who the fuck are you?

come watch the live pre launch show with TESS folk:
(face) book com / nasaedgefan

stupid spam filter

>>9675652
le funny trolle

>>9675656
>Why not? We use simulations for a LOT of things.
>If they are satisfied with the amount of data they have gathered to plug into their simulations who are you to say they are wrong? They have NASA looking over their shoulders as well.

Yeah, because this is how R&D works. You just simulate everything and surely it will be exactly like in the simulation.

>Who the fuck are you?

Not a soyboy, that's for sure.

>>9675649
>Today's launch is the last
new
>block 4 ever.

They will still have some older cores lying around, but they've stopped making anything but B5.

>>9675658
starting now!

>>9675660
yep - I should have mentioned that. They mentioned that this core will probably fly once again on the next CRS

>>9675652
SpaceX is doing a lot of things right, which is why there is so little criticism of them. Sure we can argue about the safety of fueling a rocket while the crew are onboard, but if the launch escape system doesn't work that's a bigger issue.

Elon Musk over promises things, particularly in regards to timetables. I frankly don't give a damn.
SpaceX has shaken up the industry and made things exciting again. There's actually a timeline of events in rocketry to look forward to now.

>>9675659
So basically you have zero clues.
That hardly surprises me.
You even ironically pulled that "this is how R&D works" line when SpaceX has been doing all of this R&D and you just complain about them not reusing the current Blocks more.
You literally have no qualification to judge how well they understand the wear on their boosters and yet you act like you do.

Seriously, just shut up. Your dunning-kruger is too loud.

>>9675667
so yes, you unironically think so holy fuck
>there is a timeline in rocketry to look forward
there was always a timeline you retard, youre just so obsessed by musk that you think he is the first to promise shit like going to mars and space travel

>>9675678
he makes it possible for me to liquidate all of my assets in sixty years and retire on mars. Why shouldn't I be excited?

>>9675676
The real joke is that you seem to think SpaceX didn't bother collecting data about multiple re-uses because they are trusting in simulations.

>>9675683
>imagine unironically believing this

>>9675693
you're a bit salty aren't you

se you on mars, kiddo

>>9675656
SpaceX replaces a lot of parts of the 1st stage when they re-use them. So much, that they obviously don't believe the Falcon 9 will ever achieve a good reusability rate ever, which is why they are poring a lot of money into the BFR to bring it to the market before New Glenn, Ariane 6 etc. arrive, who will probably all be cheaper than Falcon 9. The strategy of them is really obvious. Only soyboys can't see that.

>>9675553
Makes me want to poke a hole with my finger in that aluminum foil.

>>9675699
On the first one they reflew, yes.
Not so much on the ones after that.

>>9675699
not true; they don't replace much besides the landing honeycomb structure, some valves, and the landing legs. Either way, building a new stage takes eight months. refurb now takes couple weeks

I wonder how many people here are actual SpaceX shills. The respond speed and the repetetiveness of the answers is too suspicious, and if there is a company that is known to have a very concsious social media presents, it's SpaceX.

>>9675708
seriously, and they all reply like they are straight from r*ddit

>>9675708
>SpaceX shills
So you think there are people on /sci/ who are trying to convince other /sci/ users to purchase their space launchs from SpaceX.

>>9675713
yes
>>9675683

>>9675713
Tbqhwy, I indeed also wonder why SpaceX is spending so much time and money on social media, since as you said there are literally 0 new customers they can aquire there, but they still do it, and it's obvious 4chan is part of the social media campaigns.

This is what happens when you start a launch thread two days early.

>>9675708
>reply to BS when I see it
>get called a shill
o i am laffin

>respond speed
week before finals week, what else should I be doing besides 4chan buddy
>repetitiveness
stop being stupid in the same way over and over then, lol

>>9675721
Maybe Huntington Ingalls should shill on /k/ to convince /k/ users to buy aircraft carriers from them.

>>9675722
sorry. I'll do bangabingbong-1 24hr early next time.

>>967572
much like Tesla, SpaceX doesn't have a social media "presence" beyond that of their twitter and Flickr accounts. They don't pay shills, they just have enthusiastic fans. What's wrong with that?

>>9675727
They are live-streaming every single one of their launches, which costs money, they do a lot of high quality CGI clips about their upcoming products, which cost several millions to produce. They shot a Tesla on their Falcon Heavy to gather as much attention as possible. When was the last time Arianespace or ULA did publicity stunts like that? And there is a reason for them not doing that, because there are pretty much 0 customers they can gain this way. NASA, Airforce, research institutions, satellite companies, etc dont really care about your livestreams. SpaceX is B2B so them doing B2C kind of PR is pretty weird. Not even BO is doing that, and they actually have space tourism in their business plan, unlike SpaceX.

>>9675733
>stock investors
just look at how fucking overvalued spacex is

>>9675733
SpaceX don't do the publicity stunts for the customers, they do it for the people. SpaceX are trying really hard to get the general public excited about space travel again, this is possibly due to the fact that the space industry is currently experiencing a drought of workers likely due to years of stagnation. SpaceX can solve this problem by using publicity stunts to capture the imagination of the general public, in turn making SpaceX an extremely desirable place to work and securing them a reliable labour pool for the future. It's apparently worked: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.recode.net/platform/amp/2017/10/26/16548220/spacex-google-tesla-elon-musk-top-companies-tech-workers

>>9675733
All those companies you've mentioned have done expensive CGI videos for their vehicles, NASA have also done about 3 for SLS.

>>9675807
also redditors willing to work long hours & below normal wages

>>9674382
>>9674385
Putting the /x/ in SpaceX

>>9675623
They do launch duration static burns on the returned boosters though. They don't necessarily have to fly.

>>9675872
So why are they doing the same kind of publicy stunts for the Boring company? Am I going to purchase a tunnel from the Boring company because they did this firethrower thing? I think in reality Elon is just really, really thirsty for attention.

>>9675968
Publicity is good for attracting talent and government interest.

>>9675952
Yep, iirc they did ten full burns on one of the early recovered stages

>>9675623
>we should all drive the first design of every automobile without allowing for iterative safety testing

>>9676075
>Let's have the first model3 customers be beta testers

Can’t wait to see the wacky star systems that we find with tess

>>9676098
yes, exactly, we should have safety testing before we release things. tesla made a mistake.

You know that the morons are out and about when they start using tesla as a mirror for faults they claim spacex has

lel

>>9675890
Yeah you are right, every rocket development deserves at least 500 private yachts for contractors and other associated kickbacks.

>>9675678
>there was always a timeline you retard

No there fucking wasn't you lying sack of shit. Without SpaceX who in turn inspired BO, no one would be making reusable rockets because they all just fucking laughed at it. Without reuse, any meaningful space activity would never happen.

They are not laughing anymore.

>>9676318
>bo was founded one year earlier than spacex

Other than that you’re right

Oh hey, news: https://mobile.twitter.com/MayorOfLA/status/985931907970908161

Mayor of LA confirming that BFR will be built there

>>9676323
Yes BO was funded earlier but at that point it was just a rich dude wanting to toss shit into orbit, nothing like it is now they have seen what SpaceX has done.

>>9676338
Yeah, in fact a lot of BO execs have been purged since they we’re resistive to actually doing big projects. It had been a comfy stress free job for them for the past 16 years, but now bezos is pushing stuff like new Armstrong

inb4 RUD

>>9675678

>there was always a timeline you retard

Bullshit, ever since the end of Apollo there is only regress and stagnation (with the exception of certain successes in unmanned spaceflight). The timeline of manned space exploration was nebulous and always moved forward just fast enough to not achieve anything. SpaceX is potentially the best thing to happen in the industry since 1972.

>>9674426
SLS is more of an Ariane 5 copycat than a Saturn V copycat.

Boosters providing majority of liftoff thrust, efficient but low thrust core stage brings second stage most of the way to orbit, efficient second stage to circularize and perform escape burns etc.

>>9674551
>maintaining a low velocity with your remaining fuel
no

>>9675448
>The second stage can burn for longer than the first stage does.
When it's full, yes. Not after it's launched something into orbit.
>Usually they don't fill the stages completely.
Completely false, all rockets always launch with full tanks.
>The fuel is weight they need to get into orbit
No, if they load more propellant it makes getting into orbit easier. The structural mass of the rocket is what is built in, short-fueling the stage makes zero sense. Also, rocket fuel is so cheap compared to actual current launch vehicle prices that it is negligible.
>This means if they have capacity left they may be able to put more in to facilitate an entry burn in the hopes of recovering the stage.
No. The Falcon 9 first stage does an entry burn to get below a certain velocity at a certain altitude. It starts off only going a little faster than this speed so only needs to thrust for a few seconds. The second stage however would still need to get below that speed to reenter with no heat shield, but it starts off moving at ~8 km/s instead of just 1.5 km/s, meaning it would require at least 7.5 km/s of delta V AFTER it had already burned into orbit to release its payload.
What you're suggesting is not possible and displays an ignorance of how orbits and launch vehicles work.

Whatever happened to increasing from 2 rockets/month launch rate?
I've been surveying it, and at most, spaceX sent 21 rockets in a 1 year period.
And that's a very recent figure.

So they actually never went there.
Don't get me wrong, it's blowing the fuck out of the competition, but the whole Falcon 9 thing was supposed to launch every other day.

>>9675557
>I don't think you can go from 1 re-use to 10 by using slightly more heat-durable materials

That's not what makes Block 5 highly reusable, although it is a factor.

One of the materials they won't be using anymore is cork. Did you know that significant sections of the previous Falcon 9 versions had a centimeter of cork as heat shielding? Yeah, that's getting replaced with something that isn't shot after one use. They used cork in the first place because it's easy to work with and super cheap. Now that they've got shit nailed down they're switching from cork (and a bunch of other things) to more expensive but way more reusable materials.

Another change is the resins they use in the carbon fiber pieces (interstage, legs, raceway) which are now much more heat resistant and don't need thermal shielding at all, which is why they aren't going to be painted anymore.

The biggest changes to the rocket are internal, such as the way the octaweb is constructed to enable easy inspection and maintenance.

>>9676446
there probably aren't enough buy orders to sustain that launch frequency just yet
That and/or paperwork being a bitch

>>9675588
It's already built you nonce

The first Block 5 launch is in a few weeks

>>9671784
>in other news the jwst has been destroyed today following unsuccessful separation from the second stage. No Northrop gurmman spokesmen could be reached for comment.

>>9675606
Why?
Each rocket has little changes and adjustments when first built, so that after the first time they launch it, they can put it through the refurbish and re-fly process to verify if the changes helped make it simpler and easier to reuse, limited damage, etc.
You only have to do this one time to verify the changes are helping or not, and it's more difficult to modify an existing booster with further changes that it is to built another modified one from scratch.
Eventually they decided they made enough little changes that the only ones left were big ones, and decided to move on to the Block 5 which takes everything SpaceX learned by reusing Block 3 and 4 boosters and puts it into a single vehicle.

>>9676446
Sure, if they hadn't had that strut go, and the marksman shooting the other rocket while it was fueling, they might be up to that rate now. And they might be sending up astronauts to ISS already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition

They should make the 2/month average this year. Also, they can't do two a month EVERY month because weather, and because the launch areas get closed a few weeks at a time for maintenance and upgrades.

>>9676487
>>9675606
It's even more simple than that.
SpaceX simply doesn't know what to do with all their recovered prototypes.
So they've been throwing them away, lately.
It just goes to show, it's real easy to build a fleet of recoverable vehicles.
If Block 5 can fly 10 times, they literally only need to build 2-3 for a year at current launch rate.

>>9676510
Jewsplosion was more than a year ago.

>>9676510
>and the marksman shooting the other rocket while it was fueling

Wait what?

>>9676536
that's just something that SpaceX looked into (they actually shot COPV's in Texas to test it) but in the end they figured out it was a strange interaction between the ice crystals and the composite structure combined with the speedy loading procedure, where the LOX crystalized and expanded in the fiber microgaps. It has since been fixed, of course

how's the weather?

>>9675661
>nasa edge
man its really progressive that nasa hosts an edging podcast for 2 and a half hours before busting a nut during liftoff

>>9676524
>SpaceX simply doesn't know what to do with all their recovered REUSABLE prototypes
>So they've been throwing them away, lately
muskfags, everyone

>>9675678
your replies to people nicely explaining things despite your argumentative and irrational tone piss me off

>>9676318
>>9676390
imagine unironically believing this
>since 1972
do you fucking know what happened since 1972?
mir, space shuttle, buran, first mars lander, first asteroid lander, first comit lander, first saturn moon lander, iss, voyager I and II, first automated return of extraterrestrial material, mars rovers etc. etc.
imagine unironically believing spacex is the greatest thing in spaceflight since the apollo missions. muskfags, please stop embarassing yourselves

>>9676579
We need a BFR chan.

>>9676553
WHY TF AM I SO ANGRY? AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO HATES WHEN THEY PULL THIS SHIT? I ASKED MY BOSS IF I COULD LEAVE EARLY AND NOW I WASTED A WHOLE WORK DAY AND THE CHINESE STORE IN THE BLOCK DIDNT HAVE ANY KIND OF CHICKEN TENDIES NOW IM JUST SITTING IN MY BLANKET WHAT THE FUCK AM I SUPPOUSED TO DO NOW??

>>9676577
Right we've been putting more and more people to and past lunar orbit to test human endurance in space, building a lunar base, and already have people on mars. Oh wait we've stopped going to the moon altogether and just launch satellites to watch super bowls and dick around on the space station how could i have forgotten.

anti muskers are as bad as flat earthers

>>9676583
soon

>>9676586
launch cancelled?

>>9676592
>muh humans
i wonder why we stopped sending humans into space
probably because its fucking expensive and absolutely unprofitable and useless
nahhh that cant be it

>>9676596
>Live in 2 days
wtf
...yes it seems so, but no reason why yet?

>>9676598
hows that esa rover doing on mars

>>9676596
>>9676607
scrubbed due to guidance navigation and control analysis

>>9676613
kek as expected
>>9676609
how is that relevant? has spacex launched anything beyond LEO?
literally every other space agency has

>>9676619
>has spacex launched anything beyond LEO?
Nothing at all, ever.
>GTO isn't beyond LEO

>>9676619
stay mad arianigger go pacify the riots in french Guiana

>>9676629
>tfw your only achievement is launching literal dead mass into nothing and even missing your promised orbit

>>9676613
Time to abort this thread, then. It's just a bunch of flatters and haters now.

>>9676646
good, soyboys leave pls

SCRUUUUUUUUBB

>>9676656
o fuk it doesn't loop

one sec

>>9676658
its ok anon we all have scrubbs sometimes

SCCCCUURRRRUUUUUBBBB
take 2

>>9676674
saved

>>9676666
checkum

>>9676619
Define "beyond LEO".
They have launched a bunch of things into GTO and they launched the DSCOVR satellite that's currently at L1.

>>9676471
>JWST fails
NG can just build another one.

>>9676674
nice OC

>>9676455
You don't seem to get that they would have implemented these things a long time ago if they could have increased reusability by that much. Why throw away 10 Falcon 9s (possibly 500 million in profits) if all you have to do is use a different heat shield than cork and stop painting them? They always tried to increase the re-usability with every iteration, but they always failed. There is literally zero reason to believe this time is going to be different. The only reason this is "final" is because ever penny is going towards BFR now.

>>9676729
>You don't seem to get that they would have implemented these things a long time ago if they could have increased reusability by that much. Why throw away 10 Falcon 9s (possibly 500 million in profits) if all you have to do is use a different heat shield than cork and stop painting them?
see >>9675610

>>9676741
Ah, so they said to themselves "let's not use a better more cost-effective heat shield, let's burn money instead." Makes sense.

>>9676745
You need to spend money to make money, and they needed to make money to fund more R&D.

Also, changes like that can result in major changes to equipment in the production line which can disrupt production, that's why they do things in Blocks.

>>9676780
You don't seem to understand that re-using a Falcon 9 even just one time more without having major refurbishment expenditures means hundreds of millions more profit. You don't wait with these kind of changes, you would implement them immediately, especially with rockets, where building one is a highly unique task anyways. It's not like SpaceX has an assembly line that they needed to reconfigure, and even if they did, they would do it, because the profits by re-using them more often would be so big it would be worth it to implement it immediately.

dragon nosecone washed up in France
https://twitter.com/Quemenes_Iroise/status/984775154369785857

>>9676794

>>9676796

>>9676794
I would legitimate salvage that so hard and make a tidy profit on ebay.

>>9676843

>>9676792
>even just one time more without having major refurbishment expenditures means hundreds of millions more profit.
No, tens of millions. The launch cost of the Falcon 9 is under 100 million, production around 30 million.

> It's not like SpaceX has an assembly line that they needed to reconfigure,
Yes, they do. Which makes
>You don't wait with these kind of changes
void.
There's plenty of reason to wait if you are planning to reconfigure the production line anyway. Wrap up all the changes you plan to make to the production line in one Block and do it all together.

This probably isn't like the grid fins which they can just produce titanium ones instead of the aluminium ones and bolt them on afterward.

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985933894028578819?s=09

phahahahahahahahahaha

>Twitter: NASA Watch rumor - New SLS plan is 4 launches of 1a uncrewed, first crew on EM-5

so block 2 is basically dead, and the delays keep on coming. Nice.

>>9677313
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>9674500

>>9677313
>launch crew in second mission
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WHY DOES SPACEX HAVE TO LAUNCH 7 MISSIONS BEFORE LAUNCHING CREW BUT NOT SLS!!!!!!!!

>launch crew on 5th mission
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WHY ARE YOU WAITING SO LONG TO LAUNCH CREW!!!!!!!!!

>>9677313
>>9677334
it was inevitable

>>9677354
the 7 static config launches thing is actually a self imposed goal by spacex. it is not a NASA requirement. Both ULA and SpaceX were allowed some leeway in how they each decided to cert themselves for CC

more balloon updates

>>9677506
whoops forgot image

>>9677313
>https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985933894028578819?s=09
They still don't have functioning avionics software. Might have to start from scratch on that. 300 fucking million spent on that alone.

might need a 2nd thread for tomorrow

>>9677508
>what's your greatest accomplishment son
>elon musk tweeted at me>>9677508

>>9678443
that's sad.

>>9678413
Yeah, later 2nite or early tomorrow

>>9678413
That's a small satellite

>>9678962
Apparently the Tess team has argued over if its more of a fridge or washing machine size

The whole project cost was like 90mil, plus 80 mil for the f9

>>9674788

>>9679095

>>9679099
>>9679110
thanks for proving that r*ddit cant meme

>>9679121
Both of those came from r/spacexmasterrace though

>>9679142
Isnt r/ used for reddit forums?

>>9679181
I thought you were implying that way didn’t come from Reddit

>>9679121
>thanks for proving that r*ddit cant meme
>>9679142
>Both of those came from r/spacexmasterrace though
can't make this shit up

>>9676577
Imagine this idiot chalking up Space Shuttle, Buran and ISS as good things

Uh oh

https://twitter.com/NASAOIG/status/986350610344808449
>OIG announces an audit assessing NASA’s management of the Space Launch System and Mobile Launcher

time to see how bad those cost overruns and mild corruption really is

When is Block 5 going to debut? Wasn't that supposed to be last week or so?

>>9679324
imagine chalking up an idiot launching dead weight into nothing and then crashing one of his "self landing" rockets as a success

>>9679324
>ISS not a success
what did he mean by it

>>9679110
>those shit tier reddit memes

>>9679445
i honestly hope bezos will btfo musk just to see all the musk soyboys cry

Obligatory the Earth is flat post

>>9679416
Bangabandhu-1 on the 4th of May.

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/985578051927986177
>Koenigsmann: Block V is here. It was the fastest test campaign we've ever had in Texas on a new block upgrade. I am looking forward to that launch in early May.

looks like B5 is going well. No big hiccups

>>9679428
it would have been about 10x cheaper per cubic meter of pressurized volume just to launch a bunch of skylabs and string them together

>>9679448
I honestly just hope that at least one of them succeed, I don't really care which one. If New Glenn and BFR live up to their planned specifications we will see launch prices drop below 100$/kg, just imagine that. It would be such a let down if both of them fail and cheap space travel remains a dream.

>>9679458
one problem with BO is that they are currently only building one pad. A single pad mishap could set them back a year. GSE repairs can take forever, see: SLC-40

I still think it's 50-50 that BO drops NG and goes directly to NA. It would be the smart thing to do, with how quickly BFR is moving along (LA board votes on allowing the factory to be built thursday btw)

>>9679458
>100/kg
literally impossible

>>9679474
Yeah, and for a hundred bucks I can fly to Dallas in a extremely safe aircraft. that was literally impossible not too long ago as well.

Transportation generally gets cheaper and safer as time progresses. Just look at aviation, or steamships.
With reusable rockets, a couple hundred thousand dollars of fuel and some GSE maintenance crew salaries + supplies and other normal overhead is really all you have as your marginal cost, with true reuse that is. We're rapidly approaching that point

>>9679479
no, its literally impossible because rocket fuel and rocket preparation by itself is already expensive as fu k

>>9679484
fuel is only a couple hundred thousand dollars, as I said. Both for RP-1 / lox and methane.

>preparation
you mean rollout and payload integration, and checkouts? that's nothing that can't be streamlined with bigger sensor suites and a gradual reduction in necessary personnel. (kiddo)

>>9679484
Fuel for the Falcon 9 is 200.000$, for 10 tons to Orbit that's 20$/kg. You can definetely hit launch costs lower than 100$ if you manage to re-use the rocket hundreds of times.

>>9679505
I recall hearing $400,000, but yeah the point stands.

Shuttle was $50,000/kg as a reference point

>>9679505
>>9679512
>>9679496
ah yes, the fuel is already so cheap that spacex only pays 62 million per launch
>muh reusability
literally cant even use it more than twice kek

>>9679469
They already signed contracts for New Glenn launches, so them cancelling it doesn't seem very plausible.
New Armstrong will probably be a scaled up New Glenn rocket, so they could probably bring the New Glenn to market by 2020, capture some market shares, and then bring the New Armstrong a few years later to market, so similar to when the BFR will debut or at least not much later.

>>9679527
>he thinks bfr will debut on schedule
lol

>>9679524
>literally cant even use it more than twice kek

This is true, the holy grail is reusing the rockets without additional costs involved, so that you can really drive down the fixed costs, which right now are like 99% of the launching costs. One can only hope at least one of them succeeds, and then the real space age can start.

>>9679527
well, SpaceX carried over some F1 contracts to F9, like Formosat-5. BO could do the same with NG, shoving them to NA

>>9679529
oh good, it's been a while since my BFR collage got a new entry

>>9679524
B5 is where they'll reuse it more than twice. But, then you're probably complain that they haven't reused it four times. then five. then six...

>>9679448
Competition is good, I hope bezos gets his rocket going asap and I am a SpaceX fanboy. Another comoany doing reusable rockets isn't "btfo"ing anyone, more rockets the better.

>>9679543
Kek that collage must be getting pretty big.

>>9679546
this is true. even so, duopolies suck. hopefully China can start making progress towards Long March 6 Gorillion or something, because a Bezos-Musk only space race is sort of lame

>>9679543
>>9679550
>falcon block 5 literally a year late and still got delayed
>literally every goal musk has set for spacex is at minimum a year late, at maximum 4 years and not achieved yet
only a retard would unironically think it will launch on time

>>9679551
China will use their normal tactics, wait until someone else builds something they want, in this case a BFR type rocket, then they get a whole bunch of "students" and "interns" to worm their way in and acquire all the relevant information so they can make a shitty rip off version.

>>9679560
I love how it's gone from

>lel BFR will never launch muskrats btfo

to

>w-well it won't be on time r-right guys?

>>9679564
where did i say that faggot
show me in this comment
>>9679529

Brainlet here, I figured this is the place to talk about rockets. I've been reading about nuclear thermal rockets and how they can achieve an ISP of up to 5000 as opposed to chemical rockets which look to be around 3-400. Would this kind of impulse increase mean that you can forget about the hohmann trajectory for Mars entirely and just point and go at any time instead?

>>9679570
It would be a marginal improvement

>>9679551
>>9679561
You guys are really overestimating China's rocket-building capabilities. Their planned super-heavy rocket the CZ-9 which is planned to be similar in capabilities to the Saturn 5 (140,000kg to LEO) and is expendable; this is roughly about half the BFR's estimated expendable max payload and it isn't going to be reusable. The CZ-9 is planned to fly for the first time in 2028, this could be over 5 years after the BFR first flies, the latter might have taken men to Mars by then. Also, China's current most powerful rocket is the CZ-5 which has a max payload capacity to LEO just larger than an expendable F9 and lower than the 14 year old Delta 4 Heavy; it also exploded on it's last launch due to a faulty turbopump.

Rocket designs are really hard to plagiarise unless you obtain their entire blueprints (*cough* Buran *cough*) due to the massive complexity involved. Which is why despite SpaceX's very high turnover rate no other companies (including Blue Origin who are seemingly trying to re-invent the wheel) are succeeding at replicating their retro propulsive landings. This also explains why basically all of China's rockets and spacecraft, are loose copies of Russian ones that Russia sold them the blueprints of.

>>9679617
fine points, but I think you underestimate how quickly China could theoretically slap a reusable ~80t rocket together. They have the engineering aptitude, money, and resources. It would just be a matter of good management.

a BFR clone seven years late to the party is still a BFR clone... and when it comes to mars, sure you miss a couple transfer windows - which in the long run isn't that big of a deal

we made bump limit so I made the 2nd thread w/ updated launch time

>>9679713

>>9679570
its just a meme
no such rocket exists
and there is no practical design for any nuclear thermal rocket to enable an Isp above 1000