/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10200561]

So Elon just confirmed that BFR/ITS/Starship is not going to be made out of Aluminum. They are going with something heavier, he obviously isn't saying what the fuck exactly they're going with.

Since whatever system Elon wants to use to get to Mars cannot deliver less than 100 tonnes to LEO. He has said this repeatedly. 100 tonnes or go home. If they are switching to something considerably heavier than aluminum or aluminum-lithium, this is going to eat into whatever weight savings they might see from carbon fiber in the rest of the vessel.

So what the fuck is going on over there and what the fuck is even happening?

[Anonymous No.10200571]

if alllllll comes down to cost. Why build one expensive composite 150t BFR when you can build five 80t BFR's for the same price? That, and composite technology probably just isn't mature enough for situations like having a rocket sit on the surface of mars for a few months.

Wonder if it'll be shiny

[Anonymous No.10200574]

>>10200561
maybe as a sort of radiation protection?

[Anonymous No.10201395]

The main priority should be to get it working, reusable and cheap. As long as it fulfills the requirement and the payload does not drop well below expendable FH it works.

Steel? Easy to work with and might not even need heatshield so it's an interesting option made available thanks to the size of the rocket.

[Anonymous No.10201413]

>>10200561
Elon liked this article on phys.org recently.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-strength-ductility-high-entropy-alloy-oxygen.html

> high-entropy alloys (HEAs) with unprecedented enhancement in strength and ductility in compositionally complex solid solutions. When the scientists doped a model TiZrHfNb HEA with 2.0 atomic percent (2 at%) oxygen, they observed substantially enhanced tensile strength and ductility, breaking a longstanding conflict on strength and ductility trade-off.

High entropy alloy confirmed.

[Anonymous No.10201415]

>>10200574
Nope, metallic materials are even marginally worse than composites at shielding GCRs.

[Anonymous No.10201424]

>>10200561
Nuclear propulsion, nigger.
Unless humanity actually makes use of project Orion, we might as well give up on our space-faring ways. Otherwise it's costly, dangerous and expensive. Nuclear solves everything.

[Anonymous No.10201472]

>>10201424
there are other flavours of nuclear that aren't the ass blaster supreme
sadly, the public are still non-sapient animals who think nuclear means oceans of glowing green goo
we'd have a better fucking shot selling them on antimatter engines and reactors, and that shit is leagues more dangerous in every aspect

[Anonymous No.10201480]

>>10201472
Musk doesn't need the public's permission, bucko. Just do it. He should start his own nuclear weapons program while he is at it in to scare off any interference. They'll like the idea before long.

[Anonymous No.10201513]

>>10201413
prohibitively expensive

more likely to be a traditional titanium alloy or steel

[Anonymous No.10201544]

>>10201480
>recieves public taxpayers money
>is a private individual
based?

[Anonymous No.10201572]

>>10200561
I would assume that whatever material they are using is directly related to the downgrade in lift capacity, no way are they going under 100t.

>>10201413
If they are using this I would hazard a guess it is going to be a heatshield material, that has been my sticking point for BFR, there has not been a reliable and quickly reusable solution presented, but this could well fit the bill.

[Anonymous No.10201580]

>>10201413
>experimental unproven material
>ready to go for a prototype early next year and full production in 2-3
Haha nope. I'd wager it's not even titanium because it costs shitloads and has issues with lox.

[Anonymous No.10201587]

Al-Li (F9 fuel tanks).

I bet my hairy virgin asshole.

[Anonymous No.10201601]

>>10201544
Anon does a person cease to be a private individual if you receive government benefits?
Corporations are the same legal fiction as people in the eyes of the law.
But consider that sovereign nations have been smart bombed on the pretext that they had aluminum tubes and yellow cake.

[Anonymous No.10201698]

>>10201544
When AIPAC and countless other fat cat shitcunt companies and NGOs recieve endless cash amounts, I really do cease to give a fuck about the few billions tossed at the man who actually fucking does shit. Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.10201761]

magnesium

[Anonymous No.10201764]

>>10201761
>magnesium

[Anonymous No.10201802]

>>10201698
> actually does shit
like what
name one (1) significant achievement for humanity of his

[Anonymous No.10201843]

>>10201698
Most NGOs are dedicated to humanitarian efforts and money cannot be wasted on them.

I'd rather divert all government subsidies to noble goals than finance some idiot's impossible dreams just because he has charmed upper middle class white kids.

[Anonymous No.10201893]

>>10201802
faggots like you deserve the rope

[Anonymous No.10201902]

>>10201843
you moron, spending money on high technology is by far the best use of it, period

[Anonymous No.10201910]

>>10200561
>So what the fuck is going on over there and what the fuck is even happening?
Musk is no longer the golden boy and is being investigated still on several fronts. One of those is NASA reviewing Space X's health and safety.

>>10201413
I am skeptical of the quality of that research.

>>10201580
Raw titanium isn't horrendously expensive, but it's nigh impossible to work with. Trying to develop the appropriate processes for what they'd need would be a money bonfire.

[Anonymous No.10201911]

>>10201544
Literally a slavemaster justifying building the pyramids.

[Anonymous No.10201914]

>>10200561
Sigle piece metal alloy heat shielding frame. No more tiles that weight a fuckton, fall off and need to be replaced every launch.

[Anonymous No.10201942]

>>10201893
>cannot name a single thing
as expected

[Anonymous No.10202017]

>>10200571
>>10201572
Haha here we go, first what was it? 550 tonnes to LEO? Musktards defended that until it got canned, then it was idk 150 tonnes? Now that has been canned as well. This is classic vaporware, realise that your project is bullshit and unworkable but instead of admitting that just keep downgrading it until it is forgotten about.

[Anonymous No.10202022]

>>10202017
lol

[Anonymous No.10202033]

>>10202017
im shocked that /sci/ isnt redpilled on musk yet. youd find better content exposing that stuttering stammering twat on reddit of all places. realtesla & enoughmuskspam.

[Anonymous No.10202055]

>>10200561
He said it was counterintuitive. Likely the counterintuitive aspect will be that it ends up being lighter despite being made of a material with a lower strength-to-weight ratio.

My bet's on steel, maybe maraging steel. Atlas and Centaur demonstrated that steel rockets can be very lightweight.

Unlike flammable carbon fiber in flammable resin, the steel won't need any special surface coating to protect it from oxygen and prevent explosions like the one that destroyed a Falcon 9 on the pad. It'll be tougher, which will make it safe to go thinner. Things like carbon fiber and aluminum are strong, yet easy to cut: they are not tough, so they need to be protected and designed with additional safety factors. There's also the matter of entropy. This material will face years of space radiation jumbling its fine structure. In a material that's already high entropy, like steel, a little jumbling won't change its strength by much. In a low-entropy, highly-ordered material like carbon fiber composite, jumbling the fine structure will weaken fibers, eroding its strength.

Just looking at the tensile strengths, carbon fiber should make a lighter rocket. Once all factors are in, steel might be lighter, or be nearly as light, have a longer service life, and be cheaper.

[Anonymous No.10202082]

>>10200561
Don't forget that Elon is a PR bitch (and ill unironically suck his cock so it works) he might just be making a joke about heavy metal music and it being "very metal"

[Anonymous No.10202084]

>>10201472
>there are other flavours of nuclear that aren't the ass blaster supreme
lol, orion ship is literally an assblaster design, it blasts its own ass to another system

[Anonymous No.10202090]

>>10202055
doesn't matter, he can't afford any of it

[Anonymous No.10202092]

>>10202055
plus steel is cryo friendly, and we already know exactly how the stuff behaves. No expensive R&D cycle or gigantic curing machines needed.

[Anonymous No.10202098]

>>10201480
He might, once america runs out of nukes and has to start importing them from the soviet union
>>10201544
Lol, he SELLS things to the goverment, things that the goverment has to buy anyway and spacex has the best price on the market by a margin of as much as 30 million dollars.

so elon musk saves the us state around 500 million dollars per year. What have you contributed? you wasteless piece of oxygen, you tear down the roads, and the public infrastructure in general while probably barely contributing co2 for the plants to consume

[Anonymous No.10202103]

>>10202033
>https://old.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/a4gzw3/the_composite_design_for_the_nextgen_spacex_bfr/ebed6r4/
lol exactly what I said as well good to know not everyone is a iwanttobelieve-tier retard

[Anonymous No.10202105]

>>10201802
>name one (1) significant achievement for humanity of his
Literally reusable rockets. A dream technology thats sci fi, the thing that Werner von braun one of the best scientist ever dreamed off.

But if thats not enough for you he already provides the cheapest acces to space possible

[Anonymous No.10202108]

>>10202084
Kek

[Anonymous No.10202110]

>>10202055
but wait, didnt they already start building the rocket out of carbon fiber?

[Anonymous No.10202112]

>>10202055
Wow, an intelligent reply...

[Anonymous No.10202113]

>>10202110
Refusing to be held back by technical debt is a great trait of any engineer, even if that technical debt is technically more advanced that that you’re replacing it with (from an outsider’s perspective)

[Anonymous No.10202129]

>>10202113
sure i agree, that way he avoids falling into the sunken cost fallacy.
Also making the ship out of steel sounds more accesible, probably less specialized metalurgy needed.
I just thought of something, i read that some processes of metalurgy can be done much better or exclusively in 0 g, so its fun to think that at one time we might be making spaceships in orbit and their test will be to have them sent down.


But my question is, what will they do with the one they started building? will they scrap it or make the first test article out of it and then change?

also is it known what made them change their mind, they seemed pretty confident.

Also is it known if this will change payload, im a little worried on how much the payload has been reduced, initially it was 500 t, now its down to 100t. I mean, if they get reusability and refueling right it would still be atractive even if its 30 tons or something but i wish they didnt reduce it so much

[Anonymous No.10202130]

>>10202110
I guess they've learned some things in the process of trying that turned them off of it. Composite fabrication is a bitch, and they never claimed they had a good way to protect it from the oxygen.

[Anonymous No.10202137]

>>10202129
there's not much hardware they need to scrap. Raptors will still be raptors. The composite hulls/tanks are really the only bit we know for sure are changing; and as far as we know they hadn't started work on the crew/cargo superstructure either.

[Anonymous No.10202139]

>>10202130
That makes sense. Also that's an asspect of engineering that most people give out for granted, the fact that some things you just cant know until you try them.
In that respect the space shuttle wasnt that much of a failure, sure it wasnt good, and some aspects of its failing could have been prevented but others couldnt, and we got out of it the knowledge of a lot of things that shouldnt be done. And that's nothing to sneeze at. The cold fact of R&D is that you can never truly know which path will be the right one and that is why you need a hugely commited organization willing to basically flood you with dollars. That's why the blank check policy of nasa congress was good for some areas of research.

[Anonymous No.10202140]

>>10202129
>initially it was 500 t, now its down to 100t
Initially it was 300 (550 was a theoretical expendable configuration), then it was 150 when they reduced the diameter, now it's "over 100", not 100. The size of the rocket is settled, the payload figures are just targets.

They haven't said that this latest change will decrease payload at all.

[Anonymous No.10202142]

>>10202137
but they bought that giant cylinder thingie to weave the carbon fiber structure on top on? will that become useless? is that cheap compared to what they usually spend?

also what kind of metalurgy do they use, does that mean they will have to build some sort of steel oven inside the tent?

[Anonymous No.10202143]

>>10202105
how many has he reused? Successfully? Has he proved it's cheaper? Just because you do theatrics every so often doesn't mean it's a viable regular system. it's not even a new idea.
>>10202110
And like with every other aerospace company that tried building tanks out of composites he flopped.
>>10202113
He's not a fucking engineer, you sound like some fucking cult member.

[Anonymous No.10202144]

>>10202139
>we got out of it the knowledge of a lot of things that shouldnt be done
The problem is, we got that knowledge in the 1970s, before it flew, but we continued the shuttle program for decades afterward.

[Anonymous No.10202145]

>>10202140
thanks my nigga nig

[Anonymous No.10202147]

>>10202143
bruh he spends like 80% of his time on engineering.
They've reflown 18 boosters so far. According to SpaceX only the very first reflown booster cost more than a new one iirc; after that it's been all savings. 1st stage is 30 million dollars or so.

[Anonymous No.10202152]

>>10202140
well it's less than 150. It's fucking nothing now, just an SLS copy.
>>10202139
>He chose a retarded design and fucked up
>He's still a genius
Composite tank was probably his ace card as well, now it's gonna be boring old metal it won't perform any better than current rockets

[Anonymous No.10202153]

>>10202143
>how many has he reused? Successfully? Has he proved it's cheaper?
He has reused orbital class boosters. His rocket is cheaper without the reusability.

Any other questions or do you want me to keep completely butt obliterating you ?

[Anonymous No.10202159]

>>10202152
The large payload was never the defining attribute of BFR, rather the full reusability, in-space refuelling capability, and ability to land on other planets.

[Anonymous No.10202160]

>>10202152
>>He chose a retarded design and fucked up
thats easy to say from outside, you probably havent designed as much as a birthday card in your fucking life and much less something as complex as a spaceship. It's very hard, almost impossible to know all possible variables just on the theoretical phase, some things are revealed only when you actually try to do it IRL, particularly if youre talking about something that has never been tried before like this.

>>10202152
>well it's less than 150. It's fucking nothing now, just an SLS copy.
Even a 100 T spaceship thats cheaply reusable and can refuel (that means you can send 100 t to the surface of any body in the solar system) would be a huge game changer, dont act like it isnt, how much does ula pay you?

[Anonymous No.10202161]

>>10202147
Flight costs are still in the millions, he originally said he could get the cost down to a couple thousand, obviously refurbishment costs made that infeasible. Reuseable rockets are a good development but he way oversold them. They can be used maybe 10 times for a total saving of maybe 20% of the launch cost but a hit in the payload you can lift

[Anonymous No.10202168]

>>10202153
numbers
proof
>>10202159
damage control, it was all about big payload 100 tonnes isn't going to get anyone to mars, would barely make it to the moon.
>>10202160
it has been long known that composites were difficult ever since the days of the X-33
>>10202160
100 tonnes to LEO you muppet, not to mars or pluto or whatever retarded mission you fantasise about.

if it does fly it will just be a slight improvement, slightly cheaper than SLS, slightly better payload, that's how engineering works, if you really think one guy can come along and improve everything by an order of magnitude for a fraction of the cost you're fucking delusional

[Anonymous No.10202169]

But it won't fly because he has no fucking money for it and there is no fucking market for it.

[Anonymous No.10202170]

>>10202168
>damage control, it was all about big payload 100 tonnes isn't going to get anyone to mars, would barely make it to the moon.

With cheap reusability you can easily build a mars ship in orbit. How is this hard for you? wait could you put someone thats not retarded on the keyboard, that would speed things up

[Anonymous No.10202171]

>>10202168
>it has been long known that composites were difficult ever since the days of the X-33
oxygen wasters like you were saying the same thing about supersonic retropropulsion. Now they erased their tweets.

[Anonymous No.10202177]

>>10202168
I can’t tell if you’re a troll or just fucking stupid.
SLS will end up costing around 25 billion dollars PER LAUNCH.

[Anonymous No.10202182]

>>10202168
>it was all about big payload 100 tonnes isn't going to get anyone to mars, would barely make it to the moon.
The payload to LEO is essentially irrelevant because they're assembling missions using multiple launches. The cost per tonne to LEO is essential, not the tonnes per launch. Full reusability is key, so they can fly as many launches as they need.

>100 tonnes to LEO you muppet, not to mars
It's 100+ tonnes to Mars, with orbital refuelling. They fly ten launches or so of a tanker variant to refill it in orbit, then they've got the deep-space mission capability as if they had a 1200 tonne to LEO rocket. That's the basic concept. If you're not aware of that much, you have no basis to participate in the discussion.

Why do we have these idiots in /sci/? Is someone actually this stupid, or is this trolling or shilling?

[Anonymous No.10202183]

You need at least hundred reuses per rocket before reuse even BEGINS to pay back the additional costs in r&d, manufacturing, and reduced payload capacity.

Russia and China have the right ideas and that is why their rocket technology surpasses the US.

[Anonymous No.10202188]

>>10202183
How pathetic is your life that you feel better about yourself when you manage to waste a little bit of other people's time, by making them think you're a slightly different kind of idiot than the kind you actually are?

Of all the things you could be doing with your life, you're on an anonymous science board, saying wrong things hoping someone will correct you. "Ha ha! He took the bait!"

If that's the best you can do, better not to be alive at all.

[Anonymous No.10202192]

>>10202182
Most are trolling but there is at least one rectally devastated autistic faggot. You already gave him the upbote he wanted. Note his posting style and avoid giving him attention.

[Anonymous No.10202211]

>>10202192
At least the Italian space denialist is gone. 4-5 years ago there was this Italian dude who would spam every space thread on /sci/ with his NASA fakes everything image dumps. Was really annoying.

[Anonymous No.10202218]

>>10202182
Could just do this with the FH, no need for another meme rocket.
>>10202192
>>10202171
>Being this butthurt
Do you have legit sexual attraction to Musk or something?
>>10202170
Yeah it's just like lego man, so easy.
>>10202171
Didn't he abandon that for the mars landing? either way this is NASA research that he is using anyway. All he did was add fancy computer control. Any team of code monkeys could have done that.

[Anonymous No.10202223]

>>10202218
ah, so the goalposts went from "SpaceX can never land a rocket" to "oh well he was just using NASA research anyways so it doesn't count"
holy shit lmao

[Anonymous No.10202225]

>>10202218
Friendly reminder that I'm screncapping elonmemes shit since bfr reveal and will take out every single one of it at the first launch.

[Anonymous No.10202227]

>>10202225
hey that's my job
as well I suppose the more the merrier

[Anonymous No.10202244]

>>10202033
>youd find better content exposing that stuttering stammering twat on reddit of all places. realtesla & enoughmuskspam.

Fuck off idiot reddit commie. enoughmuskspam is full of far leftists that hate spaceflight and neither understand it, nor give a damn about it.

If you want real opinions on SpaceX, visit dedicated spaceflight sites such as nasaspaceflight.com, where industry insiders congregate. SpaceX is seen very much positively there.

[Anonymous No.10202265]

>>10202244
should I bother with an L2 subscription?

[Anonymous No.10202306]

>>10202218
>Could just do this with the FH, no need for another meme rocket.
BFR is intended to cost about 1% as much as the current price of FH, per ton to LEO, and the upper stage is also the interplanetary transit vehicle and lander.

FH is less suitable to develop into a fully-reusable vehicle. It uses more expensive consumables, like helium and TEA-TEB. The engines have shorter-lived ball bearings rather than the zero-wear fluid bearings of the Raptor. It's based on an expendable rocket design which has been evolved by small steps to be recoverable, whereas BFR is designed from the ground up for reusability.

[Anonymous No.10202318]

>>10202055
You talk a good game but you're out of your depth:
Using words like entropy won't hide the fact that you are completely wrong about radiation effects on carbon fibre and steel. CFRP and composites show better radiation hardness than most metals.
Strong yet easy to cut? Are you having a giggle m8? Strength and machinability are inversely proportional.
And aluminium is tough in the literal sense: it absorbs energy through plastic deformation before fracture, particularly at low temperatures unlike steel (DBTT) making it a better candidate.

Aluminium alloys are easily friction stir weldable and are used routinely throughout the aerospace industry

>>10202103
>linking directly to reddit

fucking off yourself m8

[Anonymous No.10202322]

>>10202225
>>10202227
Doing God's work

[Anonymous No.10202325]

This guy only has a bachelor's degree
How can he do any complex engineering?

[Anonymous No.10202326]

>>10202318
Also, Aluminum has no fatigue limit. You can’t cycle it safety forever.

[Anonymous No.10202341]

>>10202318
>Strong yet easy to cut? Are you having a giggle m8? Strength and machinability are inversely proportional.
Try cutting a kevlar rope and a steel cable with a knife, idiot.

>You talk a good game but you're out of your depth:
You're the lowest kind of poser, seeing if you can get away with discrediting someone talking sense with your idiot gibberish.

>>10202325
People who believe in credentialism are garbage.

[Anonymous No.10202356]

>>10202325
He’s pretty smart you know.
>The company often warned job applicants that their interview with Musk could be short and awkward because he might be multitasking through it, or take long pauses to think during which he said nothing for minutes on end. Mosdell found Musk a touch awkward and abrupt, but smart. Mosdell had showed up prepared to talk about his experience building launchpads, which, after all, was what SpaceX wanted him to do. But instead, Musk wanted to talk hard-core rocketry. Specifically the Delta IV rocket and its RS-68 engines, which Mosdell had some experience with when at Boeing.

>Over the course of the interview, they discussed “labyrinth purges” and “pump shaft seal design” and “the science behind using helium as opposed to nitrogen.” Mosdell didn’t know whether Musk was testing his knowledge or genuinely curious. And then it was over.

>“He abruptly said, ‘Okay, great, thanks for coming in.’ And spun his chair around and went back to his computer,” Mosdell said. “I couldn’t tell if it went well or not.”

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-spacexs-scrappy-ethos-flabbergasted-nasa-what-its-davenport

[Anonymous No.10202395]

>>10202244
NSF is excellent. Lots of information and mostly productive brainstorming but hardcore on the nofun allowed.
I wish there was at least semblance of discussion here instead of the endless shitflinging with the resident shitposters.

As far as the already forgotten topic of materials change for the BFS, I vote for steel.

[Anonymous No.10202405]

>>10200561
Obviously steel rocket.
He just revived the Sea Dragon project.
Except it will double as a submarine to get back to port after splashdown.

[Anonymous No.10202465]

>>10200561
I thought he already said "titanium" or was he just throwing something out that was going to be looked into?

[Anonymous No.10202529]

>>10202211
But NASA does fake everything.

[Anonymous No.10202545]

>>10202211
How did you deduce he was italian?

Also, those "you can totally see the wires guyes!!!-threads come up every now and then, a bit like FE tards

[Anonymous No.10202551]

>>10202545
he also posted the same stuff on boards with flags

[Anonymous No.10202553]

>>10202551
Aah, makes me whish we had flags here as well

[Anonymous No.10202696]

>>10202182
pay attention to how he harps on about the SLS and how NASA is so much better
it's a shill to the core, a rather poor one at that

[Anonymous No.10203314]

>>10202306
>BFR is intended to cost about 1% as much as the current price of FH, per ton to LEO
Will it run on magic?

[Anonymous No.10203346]

>>10203314
turns out when you don't throw away parts of your rocket it gets cheaper to launch... hmm.....

[Anonymous No.10203347]

>>10203314
Falcon Heavy is still priced like an expendable rocket. The price will go down further as its reusability matures, but even so, it has limited reusability of the lower stages and an expendable upper stage. The price floor, with mature reusability, is probably around $20 million per launch for 30-40 tons.

BFR is intended to be work like an airliner. They'll just fill it back up and fly it again, for many flights (1000+ for the lower stage, 100+ for the upper stage), with only occasional maintenance. It's planned to cost around $7 million per launch for 100-150 tons.

[Anonymous No.10203361]

>>10203314
it will run on full reusability and a much larger cargo capacity
fuel is dirt fucking cheap, the rocket itself being lost is where you burn your cash, even the second stage and fairing is spicy, even the fairings are several million dollars each

[Anonymous No.10203365]

>>10203361
fairings are ~2 million each apparently.

[Anonymous No.10203373]

>>10202696
>everyone who doesn't agree with me is a shill!
you sound like a conspiritard. I used to be a Musk fan until he released the ITS concept at that point I started to believe all those who said he is just full of hot air and read deeper into his companies. Tesla is a financial shitshow, Hypoerloop is a meme, and while SpaceX has generally delivered on specific technical feats, it hasn't been the industry changer that it said it would be. In engineering there are two rules 1) you have to lose something to win something and 2) improvements are incremental. Musk acts like none of this applies to him yet time and time again it has showed to apply.

SpaceX has successfully shaved off some launch cost by reusing rockets but it's only a few percent, nothing near getting everyone in space for a few thousand. It's not a new idea, the only reason why ULA/NASA aren't doing it is because they aren't a risk taking private company. if it had such fantastic order of magnitude savings then of course even they would have done it but they aren't idiots they've known the idea for years and they know that refurbishment costs eat up your gains.

As for the BFR/ITS whatever it's pure fantasy. /sci/ artists seem to fail to understand that just because something works on paper doesn't mean it's a practical idea. "just make tanks out of super light carbon fibre!" great idea on paper, not so good in practice. And that is just the fucking fuel tank, god knows how many more problems SpaceX will run into for this. They've already basically given up by making it 100 tonnes, that's fucking nothing for a mars mission. it's only advantage now if it does fly is how much cheaper it is and judging by F9 performance it won't be so much that it makes a mars mission feasible.

I want to go to mars as much as you do but we have to be realistic, the technology isn't there yet and there is no money to come up with it overnight.

[Anonymous No.10203377]

10203373

[Anonymous No.10203385]

@10203373
wew lad. I've started saving my $500,000 for a mars ticket. You're going to be floundering on mediocre future earth while I shitpost from mars, kiddo

[Anonymous No.10203394]

>>10203373
>In engineering there are two rules 1) you have to lose something to win something and 2) improvements are incremental.
Neither of those are true, and no real engineer would deny there are pure improvements without downsides and revolutionary advances.

>SpaceX has successfully shaved off some launch cost by reusing rockets but it's only a few percent
Also not true. They've kept prices up because they don't need to go lower to be competive and keep their launch schedule full, but they've greatly increased their profit margin, and now make tens of millions of dollars on every flight.

>They've already basically given up by making it 100 tonnes
Also not true.

>>everyone who doesn't agree with me is a shill!
>you sound like a conspiritard. I used to be a Musk fan...
You sound like a shill. These are basic shill tactics.

[Anonymous No.10203404]

>>10203346
Uh huh but 1% come on...
>>10203347
>They'll just fill it back up and fly it again, for many flights (1000+ for the lower stage, 100+ for the upper stage), with only occasional maintenance
What are they going to make the turbopumps and heat shields out of? Adamantium? How are they are going to produce a rocket engine with an order of magnitude greater reusability than the SSME? Sure the SSME was throttled to hell and used aggressive fuel but the main limiting factor was still current alloy capabilities which hasn't improved much since the 70s. Same for heat shields. I will believe in this the day I see some sort of paper on whatever wonder material they are planning to build the rocket with
>>10203361
yes but maintenance is still a sizeable proportion of the cost and reusability makes that cost worse. I am not saying it's a bad idea I'm saying it's not as magical as you're all making it out to be.

[Anonymous No.10203409]

>>10203394
>>10203385
>>10203377
Fuck man I give up, see you in 2025.

[Anonymous No.10203415]

>>10203404
You're overestimating the wear and tear that is put on a rocket across numerous launch cycles. No shit the space shuttle wasn't capable of Spacex-style reusability, because it wasn't designed for it. We have the tech, materials and engineering to build BFR right now.... which is why SpaceX is doing it.

>>10203409
see you in four weeks when you're here to complain about the new BFR pics from Elon.

[Anonymous No.10203417]

>>10203409
Bye dickhead

[Anonymous No.10203421]

daily reminder

[Anonymous No.10203432]

>>10203409
we all know you'll be back here shilling in another thread within the hour

[Anonymous No.10203495]

>>10202142
>but they bought that giant cylinder thingie to weave the carbon fiber structure on top on? will that become useless? is that cheap compared to what they usually spend?
From my knowledge, yes, yes, no and it's really niche so might have to be scrapped so no recouping costs. Some friends of mine tried to get into the carbon market via PhDs and developing stuff similar to this and it's a shit.

[Anonymous No.10203498]

>>10202168
>if you really think one guy can come along and improve everything by an order of magnitude for a fraction of the cost you're fucking delusional
I've heard Elon claim he can do it by SEVERAL orders of magnitude, most notably with the Boring Company. Fucking plonker, but hey whatever peeps want to believe in on flush money away on.

[Anonymous No.10203508]

>>10200561

>Musk on 60 Minutes
>"just to be clear, I don't respect the SEC at all"

based

[Anonymous No.10203512]

>>10203498
Elon called up the heads of engineering for a handful of TBM companies. He asked them if the machines were thermally limited or power limited. They said they had no idea.
So what the boring company did is found that they're mostly power limited. Now with Line-Storm being brought up to operation, they can experiment with higher power delivery to the drilling face. Pair that with a halving of the tunnel diameters, and you have the capability to beat current standards by an... order(s) of magnitude. Simple stuff really.

[Anonymous No.10203518]

>>10203508
they briefly touched on his father. What he didn't mention was that his father shot and killed like eight people once.

[Anonymous No.10203521]

>>10203498
He is right about tunneling though, current tunneling costs and speed are fucking ridiculous, boring company has already been btfoing other cunts left right and centre with a modified existing piece of equipment. Other tunneling companies are not even aware what the limitations on their machines are lmao.

[Anonymous No.10203525]

>>10203512
Solutions looking for problems m80. I could wash my hands WHILE I piss and save an order of magnitude in time there, but for what purpose? Simple stuff really ;)

[Anonymous No.10203527]

>>10203525
I mean if you want to drill a fuckton of tunnels everywhere it would be nice to not do it for $500 million per mile at 12 months/mi or whatever is is now

[Anonymous No.10203534]

>>10203525
Hundreds of millions to a billion dollars a mile for a hole in ground that takes years to drill sounds like a fucking problem to me m8.

[Anonymous No.10203538]

>>10203521
Unfortunately tunneling, especially under built up areas, is incredibly complex on a number of fronts and we've already seen Musk hit hard roadblocks on this and have to walk away because it's a fantasy. I think his heart's in the right place, but he has no clue as to the scale of the problems he will continuously face with this.

>>10203527
It's always going to cost a lot, and how quickly the tunnels could be dug in ideal conditions isn't relevant to reducing that cost.

[Anonymous No.10203542]

>>10203538
>Unfortunately tunneling, especially under built up areas, is incredibly complex on a number of fronts and we've already seen Musk hit hard roadblocks on this
>Source: my ass

They have already completed their first tunnel in record time.

[Anonymous No.10203553]

>>10203542
It partially helps that Musk is best buds with the Hawthorn government and got an EIR exemption.
And he's also best buds with the LA Mayor, so that tunnel should go through without much red tape.

Will be interesting to see what modifications they do to Line-Storm

[Anonymous No.10203565]

>>10203553
>>10203542
I have serious concerns for everyone living around the ground above those tunnels, especially with this disregard for safety. But also if he wrecks a load of LA, he's biting the hands that feed him, might be interesting.

[Anonymous No.10203570]

>>10203565
>especially with this disregard for safety
Red tape, not safety, had a brain fart there. Although I have heard some shitty things about him at Tesla about safety but whatever.

[Anonymous No.10203573]

>>10203565
could you give an example of those safety hazards? specifically

[Anonymous No.10203579]

>>10203570
once you get below like 7m the above-ground effects are basically zero, unless you don't check for rock/soil strength along your dig route and something collapses. The EIR exemption stuff is really an exemption from bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10203622]

>>10203579
That's total nonsense. When Musk talks about "above ground effects" as far as I can tell he just means disturbance from construction to those above ground (which is also bollocks, but not the main issue here). This sort of ties into the strength thing you bring up so I'll cover that briefly: You never know the forces within the rock/soil, you can guess from previous surveys and you can take samples on site but neither of those things is infallible. It's not uncommon for perfectly good site surveys that follow absolute best practice to not be representative of the relevant ground conditions and for things to collapse or otherwise fail.

The real problem comes when something inevitably does go wrong: who picks up the costs after these idiots fuck shit up without putting in place a rudimentary insurance framework. I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years Musk's built a few tunnels, and something happens like one's getting debris infiltrating from the surrounding ground so Musk is all like "just clear it" and he ends up causing a massive sinkhole and wrecking half a city.

[Anonymous No.10203628]

>>10203622
Those fears are preposterous. Proper surveying techniques mean that risks like that are miniscule.

[Anonymous No.10203637]

>>10203628
>Proper surveying techniques mean that risks like that are miniscule.
Ha ha ha.

[Anonymous No.10203653]

>>10203622
You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.10203658]

>>10203653
Try me. We've not even gotten into the nightmares that happen when you continue digging under cities that have been around a while.

[Anonymous No.10203733]

https://www.wired.com/story/a-spacex-delivery-capsule-may-be-contaminating-the-iss/?mbid=synd_digg

>During this thirteenth mission, one sensor may have been sprayed with up to 73 times more than what’s allowed during a sojourn. And for the month or so that Dragon was docked at the Station, two of the sensors individually detected more contamination than is allowed—total, from everything on the Station—in a whole year.

>>10203394

[Anonymous No.10203809]

>>10203733
Yeah, that's more typical shilling tactics. Get shut down on one front, and instead of acknowledging that you tried a false and dishonest argument, you just shift to another line of attack.

This has nothing to do with anything. It's a very minor ISS issue, of the sort that's constantly cropping up and being dealt with.

[Anonymous No.10203846]

>>10203809
>>10203733
the outgassing has been known for years. Notice how a ctrl-f for "Soyuz", "progress", "Cygnus" doesn't reveal anything? NASA's reports on the issue show that it's a problem with every vehicle that visits the station.
The article is just a SpaceX hit-piece. If the author wanted to, they could bash everyone, but what's the fun in that?

[Anonymous No.10203852]

>>10203846
>they could bash everyone, but what's the fun in that?
to bring daddy space jesus fans back down to earth.

to show people that spacex isnt ahead of the competition. they talk a big game but theyre not even close to backing it up.

[Anonymous No.10203864]

>>10203852
they are ahead of the competition

[Anonymous No.10203868]

>>10203864
do not respond to shills
this is the same guy from a while ago, back once more to smear shit on the walls

[Anonymous No.10203874]

>>10202142
Maybe they could use it to make carbon fiber heat shields or coverings for the rockets or something.

[Anonymous No.10203883]

>>10203874
or a cool carnival ride

[Anonymous No.10203886]

>>10203347
>>10203361
>>10203346
unbelievable the amount of muskcucks that're here. just un fucking believable.

[Anonymous No.10203895]

[Anonymous No.10204076]

>>10202356

[Anonymous No.10204102]

>>10203622
You are the stupidest man alive

[Anonymous No.10204122]

>>10203518
i think at least 3-4 of them were home invaders right?

[Anonymous No.10204123]

>>10204102
did you really have to give him a (You)

[Anonymous No.10204136]

>>10202356
>>10204076
sometimes I feel like Musk has a team to promote his image, because he seems so autistic irl.

[Anonymous No.10204191]

If it was possible both the US and USSR, world superpowers, would have done it or at least attempted doing it during the peak of the space race.
As knowledgeable posters above mentioned SSME suffered greatly from wear and tear after even a single use. Despite not even being the much more complicated and unproven full fuel staged combustion cycle as what SpaceX is supposedly working on. However, I do not agree with the heatshield analogies often mentioned here and used as argument against Spacex's plans. It is a weak argument that only weakens reasonable ones. STS's tiles were designed primarily for weight saving and that greatly affected other qualities including reliability.


I believe more than half a century of history in rocketry strongly supports the conclusion that reusable rockets and rocket engines are simply not feasible.
The alternative conclusion is that all those brilliant engineers from around the world backed financially by the most powerful nations were somehow all fools who did not see the obvious and spent all their efforts on a dead end application of rocketry for decades. An interesting premise for a conspiracy book.

[Anonymous No.10204206]

>>10202325
bachelor in physics > engineering degree

[Anonymous No.10204209]

>>10202341
>>10202356
>>10204206
does his cum taste tangy? Would you and grimes be interested in answering a survey for me?

[Anonymous No.10204271]

>>10201413
HEA has not been used in anything structural yet, casting and other big size production methods hasn't been tested yet. All we know about HEAs are from small thumb size samples that are easy to supercool so the solidification speed is well over the segregating zone.

[Anonymous No.10204273]

>>10201764
Magnesium does funky stuff in vacuum, it likes to crawl around and separate from the base material. I bet everything I have the material used will have no Mg whatsoever, as per the basic rules of structural materials for space uses.

[Anonymous No.10204325]

>>10204271
Googling for HEA reveals barely any info and no mention of large suppliers, there are also flag raising words like "expensive". I have strong doubts anything like this will be used if schedule is to be accelerated and costs kept low.
The all metal tweet reduces possibility its some eureka as far as composites go, leaving out alluminium-lithium and stainless steel alloys. The former already used with available spacex tooling, the latter a rather counter intuitive choice but not as ridiculous as it might seem at first glance.

I suspect they ran into structural issues related to the large tail fins with the composites that inflated the weight considerably on top of increasing complexity. Then someone figured out using metal might result in minimal mass increase or maybe even reductions, with all the benefits of saving headaches and future surprises in the manufacture.

[Anonymous No.10204327]

>>10204325
>stainless steel
[machinist sobbing intensifies]

[Anonymous No.10204377]

>>10202139
>>10202144
The whole program didn't make sense even on paper. That's why the russians immediately thought it was all a secret military operation to steal satellites and deliver nukes even faster.

[Anonymous No.10204391]

>>10203421
This is brilliant

[Anonymous No.10204405]

>>10200561
You are right, it will be made out of Aluminium. You sad piece of burger shit.

[Anonymous No.10204457]

Why not build most of the hull out of concrete? Screw the costs associated with getting all the water up there.

[Anonymous No.10204463]

>>10204457

[Anonymous No.10204464]

>>10204463
Don't underestimate concrete anon. Different mixes could do different things. It's pretty cheap too.

[Anonymous No.10204488]

>>10204457
This post is what happens when a retard finds out about ad absurdum and decides to give it a try.

[Anonymous No.10204531]

>>10203886
It's Musk himself. This is his main task in his 100+hr work weeks.

[Anonymous No.10204535]

[Anonymous No.10204609]

>>10200571
also why send 1 human to mars when you can send hundreds of robots for the same price

[Anonymous No.10204686]

BFR booster isn't going to happen at all and BFS will end up being a new Falcon Heavy second stage.

[Anonymous No.10204719]

>>10201902
>>10201902
This!
Whats the point in feeding continet with avg IQ of 70 if we could use that money to help scientists instead?

[Anonymous No.10204724]

>>10204609
>oh no, we drove three meters and broke a wheel
>also the robotic arm is stuck
>and the solar panel is getting dusted
>also the chemical laboratory broke down
>guess the mission continues some time within the next 10 years when we've macgyvered solutions to all of this to keep going somehow
>500 years later:
>NASA TODAY ANNOUNCED THAT THERE MIGHT BE MORE POTENTIAL PROOF OF """ORGANIC MATTER""" ON MARS!

>meanwhile on a human mission:
>can you just fix the wheel, unstick the robotic arm, dust off the solar panels and give the chemical laboratory a good smack? we want to do more science tomorrow.
>Also make sure to take a shovel, dig a 5 meter hole and take a sample of that water we detected
>six months later:
>FIRST DETECTION OF NON-TERRESTRIAL LIFE DISCOVERED!

[Anonymous No.10204725]

>>10202553
it would be trash. What little semblence of meaningful discussion we have would quickly devolve into nationalist shitflinging because half this board is either vatniks or butthurt eastern yuropoors.

[Anonymous No.10204762]

>>10204609
Consider that it's easier to have a bigger more specialized lab run by people trained in fields rather than putting a swiss army knife on an RC car.
Even if I don't think there's much cause to try to colonize mars any time soon, I can see a net benefit to science by having a permanently manned scientific outpost there like Antarctica. Rotate people out and expand the facility as needed. Rovers are still good, because they can do a lot of grunt work and sample retrieval, but with people on site you don't have to send back to earth to get some hands on it.
There's also the whole practical exercise of perfecting off-world exploration, construction, and habitation.

[Anonymous No.10204866]

>>10204724
You are overestimating how much work you can do in a 100kg space suit. Robots might work slower but they will work non-stop and don't need habitats and life support.

[Anonymous No.10204889]

>>10204724
>oh no, the spacesuit slightly broke and the guy died
>i guess we will send a replacement human instead of the hundreds of robots we could have had in his place

[Anonymous No.10204898]

>>10204724
You can't convince the robot fetishists. It's part retardation and part misanthropy that drives them as well as some rigid conservatism.

The moment the cost of manned missions falls into the reasonable territory is the moment the low science return robotic missions are mostly dropped for targets that humans can reach.

[Anonymous No.10204997]

>>10203518
got elons step sister pregnant. woody allen style

[Anonymous No.10205148]

>>10203538
>Unfortunately tunneling, especially under built up areas, is incredibly complex on a number of fronts and we've already seen Musk hit hard roadblocks on this and have to walk away because it's a fantasy. I think his heart's in the right place, but he has no clue as to the scale of the problems he will continuously face with this.

I dunno man, seems like the right man for the job. Subways and underwater tunnels are usualyl done by increidbly corrupt contractors that work closely with a corrupt goverment and overcharge wildly, claiming its the only way to do it.

Just like ULA had the balls to claim 50 billion dollar and 30 years of R&D per launch for a disposable 70 t to orbit vehicle is acceptable.

*elon musks invents a 70 t to orbit reusable vehicle in 5 years for less than 0.05 billion...

ula: BUT HE SMOKES WEED!


i'd fucking love it if this genius man did the same to private contractors, stop those thiefing bastards dead in its track.

Cities could be made out of gold if it wasnt for the stealing that goes on by these fuckers

[Anonymous No.10205153]

>>10203565
The mechanics of digging tunnels under buildings is so well understood its almost deterministic. An engineering student could do the math, clearly you have no idea about it.

[Anonymous No.10205164]

>>10203852
>to bring daddy space jesus fans back down to earth.
so, to tone down the normal fanatism for something that is exceptionally good at many fields like few people are in a century you have to make up false shit.

if hes really bad why make shit up? show me the truth

If there were something bad to say about him they would say it, but instead they do this thing which is obviously false for anyone who has an education

[Anonymous No.10205166]

>>10204136
>sometimes I feel like Musk has a team to promote his image, because he seems so autistic irl.
Do you think a company worth many billions of dollars has people who work in marketing? what a shock, they might even have more than one person working on that! truly remarkable!

[Anonymous No.10205167]

>>10204191
>The alternative conclusion is that all those brilliant engineers from around the world backed financially by the most powerful nations were somehow all fools who did not see the obvious and spent all their efforts on a dead end application of rocketry for decades. An interesting premise for a conspiracy book.
They didnt have access to materials and techinques that exist nowadays.

The conclussion is that youre just ignorant and talk out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.10205170]

>>10205166
I do it for free ngl

[Anonymous No.10205176]

>>10204609
>also why send 1 human to mars when you can send hundreds of robots for the same price
Because our robots are shit, If we had AGI AI then sure, but for now, one average person could perform a lot of tasks that would be impossible both in terms of intelligence adaptability and flexibility for any machine we currently have

[Anonymous No.10205196]

>>10205176
but you have to spend 1000x the budget on flying the machinery and resources to keep alive than 1 guy, it's a lot of weight to send the required stuff to keep a guy alive that could be used for other things

if you bet on robots you can slowly create something habitable and then send people to be comfy in mars

[Anonymous No.10205199]

>>10205196
1000x the cost for 10000x the science return.

hmm

[Anonymous No.10205201]

>>10205196
yes but in terms of science making and flexibility theres just no beating humans. Robots will surely one day surpass as in every way but that day is really far, for now we are really superior mentally and physically.
Robots cant even read captchas, can they come up with creative solutions or ideas on how to solve a problem on the spot? surely not.

[Anonymous No.10205209]

>>10205199
not sure about that, all the money you spend on keeping that guy alive is scientific material that has to stay on earth instead

also rocket fuel costs are not linear, it's exponential as you increase the weight of the payload. and you need a lot of payload to keep a guy alive

[Anonymous No.10205214]

"robot" is a funny way to say several billion dollar remote controlled toy car with wheels that break after few miles.

[Anonymous No.10205234]

>>10205214
if robots are so unreliable why do you expect the much bigger machinery necessary to keep a human alive for the same travel and environment reliable?

[Anonymous No.10205246]

>>10201698
Well, all of that shit needs to stop actually. We can't afford it.
But it won't stop, because they're parasites.

[Anonymous No.10205247]

>>10205234
Because there's a human to fix it. This actually happened in apollo 13.

that's why satellites are so expensive, its a machine that wont have the possibility of mantainance, they make every possible expense into making them as reliable as possible, probably the most reliable machines ever, they still fail, a lot.

[Anonymous No.10205248]

>>10201843
>Most NGOs are dedicated to humanitarian efforts
Space is a humanitarian effort now. Humanity is on the ropes with this overpopulated rock.

[Anonymous No.10205251]

>>10202244
>nasaspaceflight.com
This board needs a sticky with sites like this ay.

[Anonymous No.10205258]

>>10205247
apollo 13 lasted like 7 days, a lot more can go wrong in the time it takes to get to mars for 1 guy to handle

[Anonymous No.10205267]

>>10202325
I thought he was an entrepreneur above all things anon. The fact he's actually getting things up into space privately in any way whatsoever (even if the funds are still government funds) is mind blowing. We had nothing like this a decade and a half ago, now it's already reaching heights. I had doubt in this project from day one too.

[Anonymous No.10205268]

>>10205247
> This actually happened in apollo 13.
In Apollo 13, they did one burn, turned everything off and let inertia carry them home.

They didn't fix anything. If the Mars mission has an accident years into the mission, we're going to get a first hand view of how astronauts freeze to death in space.

[Anonymous No.10205277]

>>10202553
>turns out /sci/ is actually 90% australian shitposting physics lecturers

[Anonymous No.10205287]

>>10203346
Why are they even using rockets?
Is it still the only way we have to reach outer orbit?

[Anonymous No.10205302]

>>10205258
>>10205268
so what are you saying faggotmaster? he said that machines were reliable to keep human alive. and they are but only if theres a human to fix em, therefore im right you retardnes champions

[Anonymous No.10205312]

>>10205302
it's not viable for a mars trip

[Anonymous No.10205331]

>>10205268
We're realistically going to need a fleet of ships to get to Mars. It's too dangerous to use one ship.
I don't think humanity is getting how large scale a project of getting people to Mars will be. It will need thousands of astronauts, not just a small crew.
The single ship human probes to the moon are not remotely relevant to the situation for Mars. I think Musk needs to take into account that this whole thing will not succeed without many ships travelling to Mars as a fleet.

[Anonymous No.10205365]

>>10205287
You might need them for inner orbit too.

[Anonymous No.10205369]

>47 ips
>200 posts

[Anonymous No.10205383]

>>10205365
I'm not really technical on space craft, but surely we can eliminate all forms or wasted non fuel parts? We need technological innovation in that regard.
We're spending too much time on thinking "rocket to mars" and not enough time breaking the problem down to smaller issues.

[Anonymous No.10205598]

>>10205247
What Apollo 13 did can be easily done remotely controlled from humans on earth. There is no need for humans in space, the ISS crew is also there mainly for political reasons. They spend most of their time working out so the 0g doesn't make them too sick.

You should also not mix up remotely controlled robots and fully autonomous ones. Remotely controlled robots are almost as effective as humans are. If there are humans on Mars, they will sit in their habitat and control robots who will be outside and do the work. You can also do that from earth, however it's a bit more difficult.

Humans are not going to work because they literally need to carry their life support with them (aka a space suit), which greatly limits both your movement and the time you can work. How long you can work is limited on the oxygen supply you take with you, and the more oxygen you carry, the heavier your suit is. E.g. humans working outside = not happening. It's simply too unpractical.

[Anonymous No.10205673]

>>10205247
>Because there's a human to fix it. This actually happened in apollo 13.
>>10205598
>What Apollo 13 did can be easily done remotely controlled from humans on earth.
Apollo 13 was a mission failure. The desperate work the humans did couldn't have been remote controlled, but it was only to save the lives of the humans onboard. So I think this is a bad example.

However, the manned moon missions were far more productive than robotic probes, for all the same reasons that contractors use human workers rather than robots for construction jobs on Earth. They were able to look around, dig, drill, break rocks open, set up instruments, collect samples, ride a vehicle, etc. all at a normal human pace. Then they brought rocks back to Earth for in-depth analysis and independent laboratory confirmation that continues to this day.

Robotic probes aren't really robotic in the sense of being automatic. They're very painstakingly remote controlled, monitored and reprogrammed by large staffs. Did you know that the moon buggy was driven up to 12.5 miles in one day? Mars rovers take years to travel that far. The astronauts were by no means spending all day driving to get that far. That's representative of the relative pace of work of robotic probes and human astronauts, as soon as they need any kind of mechanical interaction with the environment.

[Anonymous No.10205908]

Not much of a surprise they dumped the carbon composite design...

[Anonymous No.10205999]

>>10204724
>>first detection of non-terrestrial life discovered!
>>oh wait, it's bacteria from earth that got out because the toilet was leaking
>>1 year later and 2000km away
>>first detection of non-terrestrial life discovered! This time FOR REAL!
>>Oops! Looks like it's this same bacteria, huh guess the contamination was more widespread than we thought.
>>well guess we'll never know if Mars had life now!

[Anonymous No.10206132]

>>10201587
He said heavy metal. 2187 is light

[Anonymous No.10206134]

Tungsten?

[Anonymous No.10206136]

>>10202055
Here's the problem with steel.

Atlas was made out of stainless. Still is. Very similar to Falcon 9, with a key difference:

Atlas literally cannot stand up on it's own without being filled with fuel. You're looking at a 1/16" stainless steel wobbly panel, compared to a falcon which is about 1/4" aluminum hull

[Anonymous No.10206282]

>>10206136
>Atlas literally cannot stand up on it's own without being filled with fuel.
I suspect you've misunderstood something fundamental. Balloon tanks need to be pressurized to be rigid, not filled. They're still rigid after the tanks are depleted of fuel and oxidizer, as long as the pressurant gas is there.

Anyway, the heat shielding and insulation will stiffen it for the rare times they'll want to handle it without having it under pressure.

[Anonymous No.10206300]

>>10205673
>>The desperate work the humans did couldn't have been remote controlled,
you wouldn't need to if you had robots. I'd argue that with supervised autonomy it could have been. Time lag to the moon isn't that bad.
>>Robotic probes aren't really robotic in the sense of being automatic.
Not anymore. DLR(german NASA) is testing an autonomous rover in Morocco right now:
https://twitter.com/ft_morocco
>>Did you know that the moon buggy was driven up to 12.5 miles in one day?
we've got autonomous cars now.
>>set up instruments
the InSight mission is going to set up
>>Mars rovers take years to travel that far.
Opportunity holds the record for longest distance driven on another body at 42.195 km. Slow and steady wins the race.
Also the Deep Space Gateway is going to have all the maintenance and experiments done by robots when the astronauts are away, which is going to be most of the time. Robots work now. Although fuck the Deep Space Gateway, it's fucking useless.

[Anonymous No.10206303]

>>10206300
*the InSight mission is going to set up it's own instruments. This mission would not have been possible if we had to send people.

[Anonymous No.10206310]

>>10204724
this

nobody uses robots for exploration on Earth and there is a reason for it

not to mention that light speed lag completely kills the productivity of robotic exploration anywhere beyond the Moon

we need humans up there to get serious science done

[Anonymous No.10206318]

>>10206310
>>nobody uses robots for exploration on Earth and there is a reason for it
bullshit. ROVs are used to explore the depths of the ocean. They're cheaper than submarines and submarines offer little advantages at the depths they explore. No suit dives this deep and the ones that work at shallower depths just have crude metal claws. In addition, the mission can be streamed to the whole world and scientist from around the world can participate and choose targets.
>>not to mention that light speed lag
More autonomy let's robots overcome this. Now we just tell the robot what we want it to do rather than move arm joint a 60 degrees, etc.

[Anonymous No.10206324]

>>10204209
is....this thunderf00t?

[Anonymous No.10206330]

>>10206303
may i ask whats would be the point of doing all these tests if we end up saying "its too costly to send humans there"

[Anonymous No.10206336]

>>10206310
>>we need humans up there to get serious science done
now surely you can point to some serious science, besides the apollo missions, that humans have done that robots have not? You really want to know what does serious science? Robots. The Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Titan, Eros, Ceres, Ryugu, Rosetta, Vesta, a majority of the Moons of Jupiter, etc. Or if you really want some serious science, how about the results from COBE, WMAP, Kepler, Chandra, Spitzer, Fermi, CGRO, or Hubble? In terms of serious science, you really can't beat a space telescope.
>>10206330
to find out if Mars is seismically active you fucking dolt. Also to help figure out if the core's liquid with the thermal probe, but the rock hounds really want that sweet seismograph data. So we can compare the seismic properties of another rocky planet to ours and understand rocky planets a heck of a lot better.

[Anonymous No.10206340]

>>10206336
hell even with the Apollo missions robots can do the same and more
muskfags literally don't have an argument besides a flimsy "it's better if hoomans do it", "muh gas station" and "COLONIZATION" which all can easily be disproved which leaves us with exactly zero logical reasons to go to mars

[Anonymous No.10206413]

>>10206340
even if you wanted to colonize mars the logical path would be to send first robots to pave the way for humans, once you have some stable and habitable environment in mars send a guy to jerk off there

[Anonymous No.10206445]

>>10202055
This but not with thin atlas style balloon tanks.The mass penalty from steel will be offset by using less structural reinforcement and thermal shielding. Who knows, the heavier material might even turn out lighter than the miraculous cf as happened with the x33.
>>10206136
>You're looking at a 1/16" stainless steel wobbly panel
There is absolutely no reason to imitate that and I doubt it will even be possible in reusable vehicle. Outer walls can be considerably thicker before they exceed the weight of carbon fibers.

I prefer steel to alluminium because its cheaper, more thermally resistant, and can be scrapped and manufactured on Mars.
It is shiny too.

[Anonymous No.10206450]

>>10204609
Because people want to go to Mars and they are willing to pay for it. Once regular transportation between Earth and Mars is possible, there will be a gold rush to Mars to lay claim to its natural resources. The only limiting factor is the cost per kg to the surface of Mars, which would dictate how much equipment and manpower you could send to start a business. This isn't going to be a little government run science outpost, its going to be a capitalistic colony.

[Anonymous No.10206458]

>>10206445
Also it's more durable long term

[Anonymous No.10206459]

>>10204724
With an estimated 100 tons landed on Mars at a time, it will be humans landed on Mars with lightweight versions of the mining and construction equipment that we use on Earth.
Its going to take a lot of separate landings to build up the necessary power generation (hopefully nuclear, probably solar). Robot AI is still far from being viable.

[Anonymous No.10206490]

>>10206450
>The only limiting factor is the cost per kg to the surface of Mars, which would dictate how much equipment and manpower you could send to start a business
which grows exponentially when you send people and the necessary equipment to keep them alive, which would eat most of the budget which wouldn't be spent into equipment that can actually mine the planet for resources

[Anonymous No.10206492]

>>10206459
>humans landed on Mars with lightweight versions of the mining and construction equipment that we use on Earth
i think you are not aware of how the weight you have to send increases like crazy when you have to shield humans from radiation for the travel and different equipment and resources to keep them alive

[Anonymous No.10206496]

>>10206492
Hence why cheap tonnage to Mars is so important

[Anonymous No.10206505]

>>10206496
>tonnage to mars
>cheap
the only object spacex has flown beyond GEO is literally dead weight
why do you expect them managing to build a fucking multipassenger reusable rocket for mars colonisation lmao
this is peak delusion

[Anonymous No.10206510]

>>10206336
Mate that thermal probe is a fucking joke, there is no way it will get any useful information about the core and has been universally laughed at and panned by geologists.

[Anonymous No.10206512]

>>10206492
They will only be shielded from solar radiation with the mass of fuel tanks, engines and cargo. As far as background radiation that is simply something anyone going to space is going to have to roll the dice on, metres of lead is not viable for any design, even with shit like fusion. I also think you fail to realise how much 100 tonnes of equipment is, even one tonne of hydroponic gear would be an absolutely ridiculous amount of growing capacity, Oxygen and water will be consumed by people in fucking miniscule quantities compared to the fuel synthesys requirements.

[Anonymous No.10206949]

>>10204866
100kg*0.3*10m/s2 = 300N.
30kg*10m/s2 = 300N.
Military gear weight: 27~45kg

Seems very reasonable to me.

[Anonymous No.10207008]

>>10206949
Lol soldiers dont do work in their full gears you dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.10207051]

>>10204191

>The alternative conclusion is that all those brilliant engineers from around the world backed financially by the most powerful nations were somehow all fools who did not see the obvious and spent all their efforts on a dead end application of rocketry for decades.

Yes.

[Anonymous No.10207294]

>>10206510
>>universally laughed at and panned at by geologists
citation needed. Heat flow near the fucking surface and measurement of thermal tells us a lot about the interior. And we can't measure surface heat flow from a satellite because small variations in insolation totally dominate the small heat flow from the surface.

[Anonymous No.10207873]

>>10206450
>there will be a gold rush to Mars to lay claim to its natural resources.
Which are?

[Anonymous No.10207878]

>>10200561
Gonna be TRANSPARENT aluminum.

[Anonymous No.10207892]

>>10201424
>Otherwise it's costly, dangerous and expensive. Nuclear solves everything.

In-atmosphere use of multiple nuclear warheads is going to be costly, dangerous and dirty as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10207898]

>>10202105
>Werner von braun one of the best scientist ever

Gonna quibble there. WVB was an amazingly effective advocate of space exploration and rocketry, and he was a talented engineer. He was also very good at leading a team of engineers and getting them to pull together and achieve amazing things.

He was not a scientist though in any meaningful sense.

[Anonymous No.10207904]

>>10207873
they are:
gazeonite: a mineral that attracts the gaze of tourists
souveneirite: a mineral weathered and transported by tourists
rockhoundite: a mineral highly sought after by geologists for it's high publication value
itsthereallrite: I mean it's there

[Anonymous No.10207907]

>>10200561
>not going to be made out of Aluminum
Elonium of course

[Anonymous No.10207916]

>>10202170
>With cheap reusability you can easily build a mars ship in orbit.

I think you are likely correct, but we don't yet know much about construction in orbit. Until we've really done it (sticking ISS/Mir components end to end does not really count) we aren't really sure how easy or cheap it will be -- though, as with everything, it will get easier and likely cheaper over time.

[Anonymous No.10207926]

>>10202529
Oh shut up.

[Anonymous No.10207930]

>>10203404
>How are they are going to produce a rocket engine with an order of magnitude greater reusability than the SSME?
The same way they did it for Merlin 1D, fag.

[Anonymous No.10207931]

>>10207930
step 1: find a Mueller
step 2: put him to work

[Anonymous No.10207933]

>>10203518
That's just how they fertilize the lawn in SA.

[Anonymous No.10207937]

>>10202553
>whish we had flags here as well

No you don't. /trv/ler here, we have to fight off flaggots every now and then, but looking at what happens on boards with flags, every thread turns into /pol/-tier bullshit about My Country Is Great and Your Country Sucks.

[Anonymous No.10207944]

>>10204191
>full fuel staged combustion cycle
lol, it's full FLOW. dumbass.

[Anonymous No.10207949]

what's the efficiency of merlins anyways? we approaching Carnot in any way?

[Anonymous No.10207951]

>>10203347

That's great, but...


>The Space Shuttle is intended to be work like an airliner. They'll just fill it back up and fly it again, for many flights, etc...

Intentions are great, but I'm going to hold off getting real excited until they are realized.

This is not a knock on SpaceX, I hope they are hugely successful... I hope a lot of space companies are hugely successful. More spaceships is better than fewer spaceships.

[Anonymous No.10207956]

>>10204609
Because you can't, and for the cost of a single robotic lander you could buy ten manned flights to Mars. The entry cost to human spaceflight is big, and the recurring cost is low. The entry cost to robotic spaceflight is slightly smaller but you pay it every single time you launch a robot because we keep spending billions on developing these things instead of just mass manufacturing them and firing them off to cover more ground.

What we're currently doing is the most expensive option.

[Anonymous No.10207960]

>>10204686
Why, the Booster is the easy part.

[Anonymous No.10207967]

>>10200561
Hope you realise that he typo'd "mental" and quickly tried to cover his ass.

[Anonymous No.10207977]

>>10205209
Rocket fuel is cheap and is not why space launch is expensive. It's because rocket fuel tanks and the engines they are launched with cost a shit load of time and money to build and they get used once, unless it's a Falcon 9.

[Anonymous No.10207984]

>>10207926
>triggered space disciple defending their religious belief

[Anonymous No.10207987]

>>10204102
That rebuttal has completely convinced me.

[Anonymous No.10207990]

>>10206136
Atlas does not use balloon tanks anymore and is built from aluminum now, not stainless steel. The Atlas line of rockets had such a complete overhaul between the Atlas 3 and the Atlas 5 that it became an entirely different vehicle.

[Anonymous No.10207995]

>>10204391
It's idiot fanboi-ism.

[Anonymous No.10207998]

>>10206505
>the only object spacex has flown beyond GEO is literally dead weight
>what is DISCOVR
shame on you

[Anonymous No.10208006]

>>10204724
It's amazingly human.

[Anonymous No.10208021]

>>10205247
>Because there's a human to fix it. This actually happened in apollo 13.

And Gemini 8, though that was more a case of "a human there to figure out what the fuck was going on, and make decisions based on piloting skills, experience and instinct."

[Anonymous No.10208023]

>>10207949
>Carnot
All rocket engines operate extremely close to the limits of thermodyamic efficiency, they convert easily over 95% of the heat energy of the exhaust into thrust power.

The problem is that rocket efficiency is actually measured in Isp, or specific impulse, which is a calculation that takes into account the amount of thrust force given by a certain propellant mass, and therefore tells you how much impulse a certain propellant load will net your vehicle. This calculation has pretty much nothing to do with Carnot efficiency; if your rocket engine ran on billion degree fusion plasma and only converted 1% of that energy into thrust your rocket would still net an Isp measured in hundreds of thousands of seconds.

The defacto measurement of rocket efficiency is its exhaust velocity; the faster the exhaust, the more pressure being exerted on the rocket by a given mass of propellant.

[Anonymous No.10208028]

>>10207967
he's not a britfag, anon

[Anonymous No.10208031]

Bill Nye is of the opinion that robots are better and we shouldn't bother ever sending people into space, just consider that.

[Anonymous No.10208032]

>>10205268
And built CO2 scrubbers in a cave, out of a pile of scraps! And such, like.

[Anonymous No.10208046]

>>10206318
>In addition, the mission can be streamed to the whole world and scientist from around the world can participate and choose targets.

To be scrupulously fair, you could do that with a manned submersible as well.

[Anonymous No.10208050]

>>10206413
You seem to be implying we have not sent robots and probes to Mars. We have, and will continue to do so.

[Anonymous No.10208058]

>>10203347
>1000+ for the lower stage, 100+ for the upper stage), with only occasional maintenance. It's planned to cost around $7 million per launch for 100-150 tons.

Are you sure about those numbers? that's like 70$ per kg to orbit

[Anonymous No.10208064]

>>10207984
Was "Shut up" too complex a concept for you?

[Anonymous No.10208069]

>>10208031
I am new here, but shouldn't an appeal to authority be made using a more plausible authority?

[Anonymous No.10208070]

>>10204724
>FIRST DETECTION OF NON-TERRESTRIAL LIFE DISCOVERED!
Jello babies don't count.

[Anonymous No.10208079]

>>10206510
>universally laughed at and panned by geologists
>t. not a goologist
Where did you get your information from?

[Anonymous No.10208101]

>>10203512
Making a tunnel isn't just about drilling you turbotard. so he can drill at the speed of light, great, how fast can you line the tunnel with concrete or steel or whatever? Also you can't just whizz through every type of earth, if it's waterlogged or granite or has old buildings above you have a fuckton of problems. Musk is like those undergrad retards who think they can solve complex problems others have been working on for decades with one simple idea they thought up while taking a shit

[Anonymous No.10208102]

>>10207967
Isn't Elon willing to admit mistakes?

[Anonymous No.10208109]

>>10208101
Well the issue is that the people working on it have decided that maximizing their own profit and minimizing their own work is the best course of action

[Anonymous No.10208117]

>>10208046
Then you need a huge tether to the surface, the lack of which is a big advantage over ROVs
>>10207956
Do you have a single fact to back that up? So the InSight lander cost around $828.8 million(2016) and the cost of sending humans to Mars is estimated to cost between $27 billion (2016) and $500 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InSight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars#Challenges
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars#ESA/Russia_plan_(2002)
So even with conservative estimates a single manned mission could pay for at least ten robotic landers. Also, robots are getting better and more general so the costs of robot development will decrease.

[Anonymous No.10208123]

>>10204191
>The alternative conclusion is that all those brilliant engineers from around the world backed financially by the most powerful nations were somehow all fools who did not see the obvious and spent all their efforts on a dead end application of rocketry for decades. An interesting premise for a conspiracy book.
Dude, musktards literally believe NASA and ULA are working to keep space expensive and mars off-limits. They believe Space Jesus is going to come and have us flying into space for a couple thousand and living on mars by next decade.

[Anonymous No.10208126]

>>10205167
What materials? Composites? Hard as shit to work with, His composite tank has already flopped. Alloys? What magic alloy that we have now that we didn't have in the 1970s?

[Anonymous No.10208127]

>>10208123
When a single rocket launch is running nearly 30 billion fucking dollars then yes, ULA is using it's cost+ position to milk that shit for every fucking penny. Get a clue you brainless moron this is how all government contractors operate.

[Anonymous No.10208145]

>>10208069
that's the point
Bill is a retard

[Anonymous No.10208149]

>>10208101
>how fast can you line the tunnel with concrete or steel or whatever?
Much faster than the tunnel can be dug.

[Anonymous No.10208151]

>>10208109
That's how every company works, Musk's companies are no different, don't let the PR fool you

[Anonymous No.10208153]

>>10208127
They are flying sensitive shit, they can't cut corners like SpaceX

[Anonymous No.10208165]

>>10208126
>materials
Aluminum lithium alloy, various superalloys of nickel, etc. In the 70's Americans believed it was impossible to build an oxygen rich staged combustion engine because their experience with the required materials tech was non existent.

The magic we have today on the other hand is called microelectronics. Our computers are so much more powerful it's unreal, which lets us design far more complex and capable machines far more easily, and we can also use those same computers to control vehicles and pull off reliably what would be impossible in the 70's.

[Anonymous No.10208169]

>>10208153
SpaceX is certified to fly even the most sensitive and expensive payloads now. ULA has nothing to cling to.

[Anonymous No.10208184]

>>10208153
Lol ok buddy.

[Anonymous No.10208188]

>>10200561
Carbon fibre != weight savings. Yes it's less dense but you need loads of it so it works against you. Metal will be stronger per kg so will deliver weight savings.

[Anonymous No.10208532]

>>10208188
You are completely wrong. Low density doesn't matter, strength to weight ratio matters. Carbon fiber is much stronger than steel per kilogram, which is the definition of strength to weight ratio.

The reason a carbon fiber composite structure doesn't necessarily end up as light as would be implied by its very high strength to weight ratio is because carbon fiber isn't nearly as easy to join together and form into complex parts as metal is. This is the exact problem the X-33 prototype vehicle ran into and is probably what the engineers at SpaceX found for BFR despite its much simpler tank shapes.

Another possible issue with carbon fiber is that it does not show obvious signs of fatigue before it undergoes a catastrophic failure. In a different vein, aluminum alloys like what they use to build Falcon 9 do not have a fatigue limit, meaning there is no minimum stress below which they will not eventually fail. A reusable rocket built of aluminum or carbon fiber, undergoing many cycles of pressurization and thermal expansion, would eventually have its tanks and primary structures simply wear out after a number of uses.

Titanium on the other hand has several good properties. It has the highest strength for its weight of any metal, so it can be used to build a structure with the same mass but more strength than any other metal (or the same strength and less mass). Since it is a metal it is easy to design a structure that will be strong without adding a lot of mass in joinery. Titanium has a fatigue limit, like steel does, which means so long as it doesn't experience stresses above that threshold the structure of the vehicle will last essentially forever (trillions of cycles). Titanium is also more resistant to heat than even steel is, very useful for a vehicle that will be subjected to high temperature environments.
It has some shitty properties too of course. For one thing it is difficult to weld titanium, and it doesn't like pure oxygen.

[Anonymous No.10208610]

>>10208532
don't forget the massive quantities of it on the moon
I for one cannot wait for Musk's Starship moon foundries

[Anonymous No.10208619]

does Musk browse /sci/?

[Anonymous No.10208677]

>>10208619
he says that 4chan lacks the critical mass or something

[Anonymous No.10208716]

>>10208677
Where else are we supposed to go? Nextbigfuture comment section? The NSF forums are full of crackpots and boomers.

[Anonymous No.10208720]

>>10208532
Nice, tight comment. Good summary of the developing situation.

[Anonymous No.10208786]

>>10207878
some materials science wizards managed to make that shit a while back
I don't fucking know how, but they did it

[Anonymous No.10208788]

>>10208031
Bill went batshit insane and pole vaulted off the deep end a while ago
only the most indoctrinated unthinking sheep would consider his opinions to have value at this point

[Anonymous No.10208888]

>>10208153
Ive been looking for additional income how much is ULA paying for shiling?

[Anonymous No.10208920]

>>10208619
Elon Musk reporting in, AMA.

[Anonymous No.10208930]

>>10208888
They pay in stock futures.

[Anonymous No.10208932]

>>10208610
that’s Bezos’s area. He’ll be the future space industrialist; his goal is to move humanities’s manufacturing base from earth to space. Elon will be more of the settlement and transportation dude.

[Anonymous No.10208940]

>>10208932
Yeah if he can ever manage to launch an actual rocket.

[Anonymous No.10208948]

>>10208920
launch another falcon heavy please

[Anonymous No.10208954]

>>10208948
No. Falcon Heavies are boring now.

[Anonymous No.10208955]

>>10208948
Nah we BFR now senpai.

[Anonymous No.10208957]

>>10208954
you've only launched one
I want to see how much tonnage it can lift

[Anonymous No.10208960]

>>10208957
So you're a tonnage queen? Well, wait for the Super Heavy Starship and you'll get all the tonnage you can handle, and then some.

[Anonymous No.10208962]

>>10208960
that's still years away

[Anonymous No.10209025]

>>10208962
yes, two years away. that's years.

[Anonymous No.10209030]

>>10209025
I WANT TO SEE THE BIG ROCKET NAAAOOOWWWW

[Anonymous No.10209171]

>>10208532
>Titanium
Isn't titanium retardedly expensive? like isnt it the same as making the rocket out of gold, now i know that you re supposed to have reusability, but wouldnt that force you to make sure the rocket yes or yes never fails or youll lose a retarded amount of money?

also, werent the soviets better at titanium or something for a while?

[Anonymous No.10209178]

>>10209171
titanium is plentiful on the moon, and if it's actually reusable you might be able to offset that cost

[Anonymous No.10209179]

>>10209171
We bought titanium from the soviets to build the SR 71

[Anonymous No.10209182]

>>10209179
we bought titanium from them to build a last gen supersonic spy plane?

[Anonymous No.10209183]

>>10209182
Yeah, sneakily.

[Anonymous No.10209193]

>>10209183

but are they better at titaniuming?

[Anonymous No.10209197]

>>10209193
for a while the soviets were god-tier with metallurgy in general. We seemed to reach parity in the 21st century though.

[Anonymous No.10209201]

>>10209197
basically if the bfr achieves at least half of what it promises it wont matter how expensive it is to build it will be still an increidble upgrade right?


Musky musk is saying thousands of reuses, even at 50t payload, at expensive build costs it woul dbe a revolution in space flight, right?

[Anonymous No.10209211]

>>10209201
yep

[Anonymous No.10209299]

>>10208532
Titanium is impossibly expensive at BFS scales and does not play nice with oxygen tanks. Definitely future upgrade path even if only for elements to save mass, but no place for it in early iterations and the prototype.

>alluminium + heatshield covering half the vessel
>steel + heatshield covering leading edges

Now the question is which will turn out lighter, cheaper, and more reusable.

[Anonymous No.10209322]

>>10200574
No, you want something with lots of hydrogen. Plastics are a good choise.

[Anonymous No.10209331]

>>10209201
If this works then everything changes in the 2030s.

[Anonymous No.10209343]

>>10209331
it won't tho
Elon musk doesn't even know how to build cars correctly lmao
>but muh landing first stage
yes thanks to decent software boosters can now land, great job

[Anonymous No.10209350]

>he's still shilling

[Anonymous No.10209352]

>>10209350
for whom

[Anonymous No.10209355]

>>10209343
>boosters can now land, great job
This was inconceivable 10 years ago.

[Anonymous No.10209359]

10209352
ULA probably, but Arianespace or the NASA SLS embezzlement crew are also a possibility
Elon's success is sidelining you lot and making you look like the corrupt ass dragging shitters you are, so why not spam the ever loving fuck out of everywhere to try and sway public opinion against him and weaken his influence
I wish your bosses would at least try to be creative and honest with it, the same blatantly untrue shit and personal attacks on Elon on repeat are fucking annoying
this shit has been going on for several years now

[Anonymous No.10209370]

>>10209355
Yeah I remember the massive amount of shillposting and "credible" engineers/scientists saying that it couldn't be done for x and y reasons with a whole load of "science" backing them up. Yet here we are with damn near every single fucking SpaceX booster coming down straight on x marks the spot with one booster having 3 flights and more to come.

>>10209343
Yeah man it's totally just software, jump off a bridge you fucking shill piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.10209372]

>>10209359
>muh shills
it's so pathetic that you praise a literal Econ and csfag pseud on /sci/ of all boards
>>10209370
software + some fins
what did I forget?

[Anonymous No.10209373]

>>10209370
enjoy the shilling lad, it'll be going on forever and ever
the ride will never end, I pray it's automated spambots, cause if it's actual people doing this shit, then that's just fucking sad

[Anonymous No.10209378]

>>10209343
Lol ok bro why don't you install some of that software on ULA or ESA boosters and see what happens? Don't even know why I am bothering replying since you are clearly a shill and will just pilpul me with some other bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10209379]

>>10209343

boosters can now land, which means a borderline SSTO X-33 type vehicle is viable as a second stage in a reusable TSTO approach, and that could have been built in the 90s.

[Anonymous No.10209383]

>>10209372
Oh look, you moved the goalposts and forgot throttling non hydrogen engines, non-solid fuel garbage, gimballing engines, aluminium composite superstructures, worlds largest titanium pieces, etc...

How much do you get paid btw? Would like some extra income to post garbage on 4chan,

[Anonymous No.10209399]

>>10209359
There are legit paid shills (i suspect at least one boeing guy on nsf) but not here.
It's simply shitposters, very butthurt vatniks, and maybe bad cases of autism.

[Anonymous No.10209407]

>>10209399
If there are shillposters in one place then you can be sure they are fucking everywhere. When you extort the taxpayers to the tune of thirty billion dollars plus for a single rocket launch you need to shill the fuck out of yourself.

[Anonymous No.10209420]

>>10209407
>taxpayers don't pay for spacex and Tesla
what? lmao

[Anonymous No.10209430]

>>10209420
Have taxpayers paid thirty billion dollars for one rocket that hasn't even been built and a launch pad tractor that has to be rebuilt to SpaceX? Last time I checked a Falcon Heavy launch is around 70 million dollars for near the same payload and Tesla is having it's gibs cut along with every other EV manufacturer that has been receiving the exact same subsidies. Find better arguments.

[Anonymous No.10209694]

>>10209420
They dont.

Rocket has to buy rockets yes or yes.

They have two choices:

1)buy a 300 million dollar rocket from ULA

2)buy a 70 million dollar rocket from SPACEX


each goverment spacex rocket that flies is actually saving the taxpayer around 230 million dollars.

Would you like me to keep obliterating your uneducated ass or have you had enough?

[Anonymous No.10210167]

>>10209694
The price difference between the two is more like 180M vs 100M (so not quite half price). I think the point the other poster is making tho is that SpaceX is believed to have received substantial government subsidies (various sources put the figure around 4 or 5 B). For a number of reasons this isn't as straightforward as a criticism as that money sometimes HAS to be allocated somewhere, and rocketry isn't as big a deal on international trade/economy as funding things like better commercial planes (other governments tend to get snarkey when another country pumps government funding into something like developing technology in a directly competing industry to one they have). So it may be something of a similar argument here, Elon's really profiting off of the desire of the US to not be reliant on Russia for space stuff.

[Anonymous No.10210208]

10210167
>SpaceX currently sells an "off the shelf" Falcon 9 launch for $61.2 million USD
>ULA’s launches cost an average of $225 million; The Delta 4 Heavy, its most powerful rocket, runs about $350 million a launch; The lower end of the Delta costs $164 million
you're not trying very hard to shill
I'm disappointed, and your bosses are too

[Anonymous No.10210839]

>>10202356
>“labyrinth purges” and “pump shaft seal design” and “the science behind using helium as opposed to nitrogen.”


Good luck using nitrogen in a freaking hydrogen deep cryo environment

[Anonymous No.10210842]

>>10208101
Well it worked for rockets that superpowers were pushing for decades and many problems were solved so we will see if something comes up in drilling