/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9703433
kys

>>9703433
back to your containment board
>>>/pol/

>>9703436
>>9703440
>implying /Pol/tards don't like spacex

>>9703436
>>9703440
>>9703443

>musky-bois crying this hard.

When will this cult die?

>>9703433
>ESA crashes probe on comet
Fixed.

>>9703436
>prison planet and his qt twink bf

>>9703491
>boy, I sure do love handing Boeing billions upon billions of dollars for their vaporware!

>>9703518

>boy, I sure love handing Space-X billions in subsidies for their vaporware

Will this inane shit stop if they land humans on mars?

>>9703529

It's the only way.

>>9703526

>hand NASA billions
>project is canceled

>>9703526
Literally what are you talking about? They have working, reuseable launch vehicles for both the medium and heavy lift launch markets, and their price to orbit is an order of magnitude less than ULA. They have been launching satellites into orbit for several years now while the SLS won't start doing missions until 2022.

Don't have kids.

>>9703526
Not entirely sure what you are on about.
SpaceX "subsidies" helped pay for the Dragon capsule, which has been delivering cargo to the ISS for a couple of years now and bringing back cargo from the ISS, something no other freighter can currently do.
>b-but the crew dragon isn't ready yet
That's as much due to NASA's validation requirements as much as anything else. If it was up to SpaceX they may have flown it already, but it probably wouldn't have been as safe as it will be once it actually flies.

>>9703529
>>9703532
>Elon Musk didn't invent mars colonies! Scifi authors wrote about them decades before him! Musk hasn't accomplished anything and is a fraud!

>>9703539

>muh autonomous landing boosters

yeah ok,
is it nice being memelon's cock warmer?

>>9703550
I know you're baiting, but how about you post that graph for literally any other rocket in operation today. I'll wait.

>>9703550
>9 failures during tests
>30+ successes on actual missions
kys

>>9703552

>huurrr launching the rocket is the same as the failing gimmick of self-landing boosters.

consider sterilization

>>9703550
>18 launches last year
>more than any other single booster
>landed 15 of 15 attempts
What were you trying to prove again?

>>9703550
>failed once this year
wtf I hate elon musk now?

>>9703555
>gimmick
>successfully reused for commercial payloads, slashing costs
Imagine being this retarded.

>>9703559

>""successfully""

How many Tesla reward points are they paying you?

>>9703560
Show me a launch failure that occurred due to a reused booster. You can't because there haven't been any failures.

>>9703561

>I'll invent flaws that haven't happened, that will show him.

>>9703562
Now you're not even making sense. You lose: never post on /sci/ again.

>>9703551
>soyuz
>image size: 200x15000

muskfags explain this: if muskys rockets are so reusable, why doesn't he fucking reuse them more than once?

>>9703558
That was the Falcon Heavy center core.

>>9703563

Lay off the onions, you're starting to think like a female.

>>9703568
Seeing that graph is for landings the Soyuz graph would be 0x0
But nice try. The R-7 is a wonderful rocket but you're bringing a knife to a gunfight.

>>9703571
He has reused one more than once. most recent supply mission to the ISS was a set of "recycled" stages.

>>9703571
They're not, yet.
Block 5 should be.

>>9703615
>Block "any time now, only one year delay and still no launch" 5
>>9703602
lol
https://www.google.de/amp/s/arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-to-pay-more-for-less-cargo-delivery-to-the-space-station/%3famp=1

SpaceX is a meme ran by a ruthless conman.
At least I'm not american so I don't get to bear any shame for that circus.
And Ariane 6 with its future iterations will dominate the launch market.

>>9703621
>>Block "any time now, only one year delay and still no launch" 5
>complaining when literally the next launch is going to be block5
>being german
>not reading the article

>>9703621

>memeX literally as expensive as shuttle

HAHAHAHAHA the absolute state of muskrats and "reusability" lmao

>>9703631
>>memeX literally as expensive as shuttle
Wow, you really didn't read the article at all.

>>9703627
>>9703635
>For flights from 2020 to 2024, SpaceX will increase its price while Orbital ATK cuts its own by 15 percent.
>: “They also indicated that their CRS-2 pricing reflected a better understanding of the costs involved after several years of experience with cargo resupply missions.” This suggests the company either under-bid on the first round of supply contracts or failed to achieve some of the cost savings it had hoped to achieve. (The company declined comment to Ars).
please stop embarassing yourselves

Musk on the left at some weird illuminati party. Keep worshipping him.

>>9703627
>iterally the next launch is going to be block5
>going to be
ahh yes, musks favorite words

>>9703643
and after he does it you'll find something new to whine about like the shitstain you are

>>9703640
Look, I'm not arguing that the SpaceX price isn't going up but you aren't comprehending the article correctly.
Let's start at the start. The Shuttle cost an average of 450mil per mission toward the end of its life.
>According to a report by the space agency’s inspector general, Paul Martin, NASA will likely pay $400 million more for its second round of delivery contracts from 2020 to 2024 even though the agency will be moving six fewer tons of cargo. On a cost per kilogram basis, this represents a 14-percent increase.
The overall cost of the contracts is 400mil higher than the last set of contracts.

>SpaceX and Orbital ATK are expected to fly 31 supply missions between 2012 and 2020, the first phase of the supply contract. Of those, the new report states, SpaceX is scheduled to complete 20 flights at an average cost of $152.1 million per mission.
>The inspector general cited a number of reasons for SpaceX's 50-percent price increase per kg, including an upgrade to the company's second generation of Dragon spacecraft that increased the cargo volume by 30 percent, longer duration missions, and quicker access to the Dragon 2 spacecraft after it returns science samples to Earth.
The new cargo volume is 3,300kg which makes the old 3,000kg. Divide 152mil by 3000 and you get $50k per kg for the first round. Increase by 50% to $75k and multiply by 3300 and you get 250mil per mission under the new contract. Still 200mil below the Shuttle.
>Even so, the report is not all bad news for SpaceX. In comparing prices, the inspector general said that SpaceX should receive credit for the capacity to return cargo to Earth, a capability that Orbital ATK’s Cygnus spacecraft does not have.
They're offering services beyond just getting cargo to the ISS.

>>9703621
I wasn;t saying it was cheaper. I was just saying that, technically, he has flown a reused rocket. I'm not a fan of meme man, but I'll admit it when he meets some kind of milestone.

>18 billion budget for the new commercial cargo contract
>30 flights
>More than half a billion per flight

Russian rockets were expensive, huh, america?

Now I have some questions about the pricing.
It has there that the current CRS-1 contracts are an average cost per mission and on the table there are options; Dragon 1 or 2 (presumably new or reused), new or reused booster, docking or berthed.
Is the cost of each mission going to be dependent on the options? If they mostly select to use reused Dragons and Falcons will the average cost per mission be considerably lower than the cost I projected?
We will have to wait and see.

>>9703648
SpaceX is literally scamming NASA and that's a good thing, yes it really is. SpaceX heavily underbid for CRS-1, NASA fucked around SpaceX's Dragon 2 program e.g. cancelling propulsive landing leading to lost R&D funds, Dragon 2 is a more expensive vehicle than the original, SpaceX need to acquire as much funding as possible for BFR development. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for SpaceX to increase prices; also, even though SpaceX did increase their prices they still undercutted everyone else, including Lockheed and Boeing who got eliminated from the CRS-2 program.

>>9703809
This. SpaceX bid low on their initial contract to get their foot in the door. Now they're increasing the bid to make a better profit while still undercutting their competitors. You know, like a business does.

>>9703550
I hate that 2015 is written in full as if the reader wouldn't understand the x axis without it

>>9703436
Leave

>>9703539
You did it Reddit xD