Reminder that this guy has the money to fund Apollo 11 four times over but /sci/ doubts him because he hasn't shown them pretty pictures of Mars colonies yet

File: 21 KB, 530x298, 105141369-Jeff_Bezos_Pad.530x298.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 19:41:15 2018 No.10255587 [Reply] [Original]

Reminder that this guy has the money to fund Apollo 11 four times over but /sci/ doubts him because he hasn't shown them pretty pictures of Mars colonies yet

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 19:47:34 2018 No.10255599 Who?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 19:49:47 2018 No.10255605 >>10255599 Jezz Befos.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 19:51:43 2018 No.10255609 >>10255587 *one time adjusted for inflation

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 20:01:24 2018 No.10255640 >>10255587 He can't even get his mom's dildo into orbit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 20:07:22 2018 No.10255649 >>10255587 >muh money pathetic

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 20:07:49 2018 No.10255651 >>10255640 getting something into orbit is the easy part

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 20:09:28 2018 No.10255655 Having money is not reason for support in the space industry, results are Blue origin is making progress but until they're orbital, well...

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:12:57 2018 No.10255886
File: 135 KB, 640x480, 1488244054335.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Daily reminder that he won't catch up to Musk because Musk got $5.5 billion in development funds from the government, a $2 billion launch pad from the government for free, and over $3 billion in investment from his silicon valley friends.

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:21:25 2018 No.10255898

>>10255587
friendly reminder that todays dollars are worth substantially less than in the 60s
friendly reminder that resources are substantially harder to obtain and there are substantially more people than there were in the 60s
friendly reminder that all billionaires are the embodiment of sleaze

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:22:49 2018 No.10255899 >>10255587 Reminder that despite having more money than Elon, he has accomplished less in space travel endeavors. I put my money on the guy providing results.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:23:23 2018 No.10255900 >>10255605 Jeff who?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:24:18 2018 No.10255901 >>10255886 Bezos could have purchased all of that out of pocket. Like, literally just with the money in his pocket on a given day.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:25:18 2018 No.10255903 >>10255587 Jeb Mentos doesn't do shit with his money. He can go fuck off and die for all I care.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:26:04 2018 No.10255906 >>10255899 I too am a fan of ULA.

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:26:40 2018 No.10255908

>>10255901
Maybe today, but not ten years ago, which is when SpaceX started getting over a billion a year from various sources. Blue Origin didn't even have half a billion in total investment until late 2014. They had about 20 employees for their first 6 years of existence.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:28:26 2018 No.10255909 >>10255908 Bezos has a successful business too (and without committing fraud). He's got good chops.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:30:05 2018 No.10255912 >>10255909 What does that have to do with what I just said?

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:30:10 2018 No.10255913

>>10255903
Rich people dont just count their money for net worth. Jorb Beiber doesnt have 100 billion just sitting in a bank account somewhere, the $100 billion is accounted for by what he WOULD have if he sold all his shit. Literally almost all of his money is “doing shit”. All the retards who hate him always get this wrong. “Why doesnt Jorb just buy houses for all the homeless people?”, because that would require him to sell Amazon you vapid tard.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:34:20 2018 No.10255923 He hasn't put a paying customer payload into orbit. Musk does it all the time, and shot his own car to Mars for a giggle.

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:35:05 2018 No.10255927

>>10255912
>Blue Origin didn't even have half a billion in total investment until late 2014. They had about 20 employees for their first 6 years of existence.
So I'm trying to get at there probs being sensible business reasons for this. Growing too fast can lead to cashflow and organisational problems, that then mean you end up having to stick tents everywhere and fabricate stuff out of stainless steel at Christmas.

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:46:23 2018 No.10255950

>>10255927
The stainless steel test article is all a publicity stunt. Musk knows that he has to keep the young and impressionable on his side (more difficult lately do to his proto-psychotic rants) because he wants to keep the fresh and underpayable talent flowing into SpaceX and Tesla. He's not an engineer but he's a smart businessman and conman.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:54:18 2018 No.10255968 >>10255950 lol didn’t read

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:57:10 2018 No.10255972 >>10255913 >discussion about Juan Pesos not doing enough space stuff > /pol/ goes full autist over some vague comment What?

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 23:00:15 2018 No.10255980

>>10255950
I mostly agree. Some of his funding sources are ... interesting, but I'm not convinced Elon Musk's all that good of a businessman in general. I think if he were he could have done this in a way that's a lot easier on him, as it is he seems to be juggling a lot of things that need hyping up more and more regularly. I await the inevitable collapse with baited breath.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:01:22 2018 No.10256132 File: 47 KB, 802x768, 1544781278962.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10255599

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:32:21 2018 No.10256179 I interned at BO in the past year or so, AMA

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:33:58 2018 No.10256182 >>10256179 Is New Armstrong being worked on or are they still dicking around

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:39:36 2018 No.10256194 >>10256182 Not mentioned once by any admin or anything. Advanced development team that's led by meyerson is/was focused mainly on blue moon stuff. I'm fairly certain there's nobody dedicated to a new armstrong architecture as of summer this year.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:43:48 2018 No.10256204

>>10256179
When will Stena Freighter be fitted out with the landing deck? Is the Florida factory fully operational yet? Why do you still use imperial units in the live-streams?
How often does Bezorp come down to visit? Does he actually know anything technical about building rockets or is he more of an ‘ideas guy’?

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 01:01:16 2018 No.10256229

>>10256204
>landing deck
lol, probably not for a couple years. NG is extremely early stage right now, and many major design decisions are still being mulled over by jeff and co
>NG factory
Some parts of it are. They're taking interns there (for manufacturing). I don't really know what you mean by operational, but it's there, and infrastructure is being built for NG.
>imperial units
idk
>bezorp
I can't say how frequently or when, as it's a bit of a safety hazard for him. I've personally seen him more than a couple times. He's very well read (similar to elon) on a higher level, but has great people like meyerson to explain things more technically. He's very "ideas guy", but it's well rooted in the technical insight he receives from the higher ups that consult him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 01:06:08 2018 No.10256238 >>10256229 >NG is early stage As I figured, from the recent NET date pushback. Y’all gotta hurry up if you want a fighting chance against the Chinese and SpaceX

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 01:15:17 2018 No.10256251 >>10256229 >He's very well read (similar to elon) Is Elon actually well read or does he pretend to be?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 02:17:24 2018 No.10256340 >>10255587 4chan doubts him because "Blue is evil!" meme

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 02:17:32 2018 No.10256341
File: 90 KB, 950x450, the-rothschilds-are-believed-to-be-worth-500-trillion-and-are-not-on-worlds-rich-list-126847.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10255587
for the love of...
Ok for the last time, Bezos' "money" is mostly his shares in Amazon. He probably doesn't have a lot of assets. If you're looking for individuals who can fund their own private space enterprise, it'll have to be someone who actually owns a lot of stuff - like the Rothschilds, who are reportedly worth trillions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 02:50:39 2018 No.10256388 >>10255587 this.Bezos is superior to Musk, and realizes space colonization will happen through space habitats and asteroid mining

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 03:06:39 2018 No.10256418

Daily reminder that the very great majority of Bezos’ networth is in the form of Amazon stock that would be practically impossible for him to liquidate entirely at this point unless he literally didn’t give a single shit about the company he just spent his entire life building.

He sells off about a billions worth each year to fund Blue Origin, and I’m certain that there are more than a few reasons why that number isn’t higher.

In all reality, the rich still have to borrow money. Musk is clearly years ahead in terms of privately funded space exploration, and will be unless some bid dick Saudi Arabians come swinging.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 03:40:01 2018 No.10256459

>>10256251
Elon absolutely pretends to be smart. In reality he's pretty retarded, boneheaded and immediately hates anyone who doubts him or says something isn't possible/profitable. This is why his companies have been multiple times on the brink of bankruptcy, he's not even that good of a CEO.
So why the success? He hit the spots which were empty before, and marketing, tons of it. I mean he even starred in iron man for fucks sake just so people would make the association.

Now it's time to suck bezos dick: Unlike musk, he came from middle class parents, his dad was a bike shop owner and his mom was still a highschool student when he was born.
He worked multiple years at different companies collecting experience until he started a seemingly boring and not even novel idea: an online book store.
Through excellent company strategy and some never seen before business and organization tactics Amazon became rich by providing the cloud infrastructure for half the internet, and bezos the richest man in the world.
This dude doesn't make fucking mistakes, he wouldn't blurt out pedo comments unlike Elon musk because he knows the game.

If you unironically think Elon won't crash and burn, I have some bad news. Because as soon things become a bit tighter than before for spacex/Tesla he will have a mental breakdown, and they certainly will, considering his strategies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 03:51:21 2018 No.10256470 >>10256459 hi boeing https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-may-have-used-firm-to-plant-anti-spacex-oped-2018-10

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 03:55:23 2018 No.10256474 >>10256459 Except both SpaceX and Tesla are doing better than ever, shill.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 03:56:12 2018 No.10256476

His problem is he didn't fly under the radar like Elon. From the start he attracted the wrong kind of people who like working the old way.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe his company absorbed much of Kistler Aerospace. Those are the guys who competed with SpaceX for the NASA commercial cargo contract and blew half a billion dollars on nothing while memelon won the contract launching Falcon 1 and proving commercial launch vehicles not made by defense contractors are possible.

Money are important but their value decreases if you shovel them in a furnace.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 03:57:30 2018 No.10256477

>>10256459
>This dude doesn't make fucking mistakes
I see you don't keep up with the news.
Amazon is, basically, a mistake in many regions with the employees suffering, striking and doing all sorts to campaign against the company.

Elon is basically SpaceX's idea man. Shotwell is at the reigns so even if Elon has a meltdown she will keep the ship on course. The big problem for Blue Origin is that their New Glenn is targeting a shrinking market. It'll almost be as bad as the SLS at this rate. It's not made for interplanetary and the small sat market is being taken over by more agile launchers. Big payloads are running out, so they could do the medium payloads that the Falcon carries, but the rocket can lift more than Falcon Heavy so the only logical thing would be to rideshare.
So it'll have to price to compete against Falcon to deliver a rideshare to orbit instead of getting your own rocket and an ideal orbital injection.
I just don't see New Glenn being something that'll launch very often. It's just not aiming for a good market.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 03:58:23 2018 No.10256479 File: 14 KB, 503x424, US-Tesla-net-income-2018-Q3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10256474 yeah, "better than ever" sure

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 04:00:37 2018 No.10256483

>>10256476
>Most significantly, NASA in 2004 awarded Kistler — which by that time was in bankruptcy — a $227 million contract for K-1 flight data
>That award prompted a protest by potential rival SpaceX, which argued that other companies should have been given the opportunity to compete to provide that data. NASA rescinded the award after it became clear that the Government Accountability Office would rule in favor of SpaceX.

A lot of anons think SpaceX had smooth sailing. The truth is it involved a lot of fighting in and outside courts. The fact oldspace seems considerably more favorable to BO hints some things.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 04:04:19 2018 No.10256489

>>10256477
>I see you don't keep up with the news.
>Amazon is, basically, a mistake in many regions with the employees suffering, striking and doing all sorts to campaign against the company.
>brainlet doesn't understand toelining between company profit and image
that's what makes a good CEO anon. know what Microsoft's image was in the 90s? they were literally evil incorporated. Did that matter in the grand scheme of things? not really. if you somehow think that Amazon is in trouble because of that you're unironically retarded

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 04:05:42 2018 No.10256493

>>10255587
We doubt him because he has yet to put anything to orbit, and rightly so. I bet Blue Origin has a bright future ahead, certainly when compared to OldSpace sector, but that is all it is so far, a bright future, not a reality. We heard countless sweet promises of companies that are going to revolutionize spaceflight over the years. SpaceX is the only one that is delivering so far.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 04:09:10 2018 No.10256499

>>10255587
>Reminder that this guy has the money to fund Apollo 11 four times over

Economic efficiency, not money, is the most important thing for spaceflight. reminder that NASA has spent several times MORE funding, inflation adjusted, since the end of Apollo than on Apollo itself. But most of it blown on bullshit like the Shuttle and SLS.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 04:40:11 2018 No.10256530 >>10256493 delivered on what so far nothing has been revolutionised

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 04:52:14 2018 No.10256543 >>10255651 And he still couldn't do that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 05:19:38 2018 No.10256577 >>10256479 Looks factually correct to me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 05:20:46 2018 No.10256581 >>10256489 >its not a mistake because its still profitable!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 05:22:18 2018 No.10256582 >>10256581 Yes, basically.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 05:24:01 2018 No.10256584

>>10256530
>delivered on what
SpaceX is launching shit into orbit at low prices. Bringing the rockets back for reuse. Launching shit to the ISS. Bringing shit back from the ISS and reusing the capsules.

Soon enough they'll have the Crew Dragon up and running, then they'll be delivering people to the ISS and back. What will your complaint be then?
>they haven't built the BFS yet!

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 05:28:44 2018 No.10256591

>>10256530
I said they are delivering, not that they have already delivered. So far SpaceX is the least expensive launch vehicle by a moderate margin. That is a great success by itself. But if their BFR development program goes even half as well as they promise, then they will be the ones to deliver on the dream of cheap access to space, a holy grail of rocketry.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 05:34:11 2018 No.10256599 >>10256194 Meyerson left, you larp

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 05:39:52 2018 No.10256611 >>10256599 Only very recently tho, and I guess we know why now....>>10256229

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 05:53:32 2018 No.10256623 >>10255587 And yet he is falling for the reusable rocket meme. I wish he would invest his money into research for non-rocket spacelaunches (launch loops, orbital rings, etc.).

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 06:19:22 2018 No.10256650 >>10256623 he's falling for the highly reusable rocket meme, which isn't a meme at all and nobody has achieved yet

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 06:51:43 2018 No.10256690

>>10256650
Yes it is. Even if you leave aside the fact we are far from having materials that can sustain the extreme conditions of a rocket launch + atmospheric reentry hundreds of time without major refurbishment, there are still some issues with rockets that you will never be able to overcome. Rockets have multiple stages and neither of them land where they start, which means you will have to transport, re-assemble, and install them on the launch pad for every launch, which will always cost you millions each time.
For the space age to truly begin you need <100$/kg LEO access costs and you will absoluetely never achieve that with rockets.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 06:56:50 2018 No.10256697

>>10256690
>Rockets have multiple stages and neither of them land where they start, which means you will have to transport, re-assemble, and install them on the launch pad for every launch, which will always cost you millions each time.

There is no reason at all why this should cost millions. Mature reusable rocketry should be able to deliver <$100 to LEO, with most of the cost being propellant (which in the long term, will be synthetised from CO2 and water using carbon neutral energy).

Launch loops and orbital rings are sci-fi tier memes and will remain so for a long time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 07:02:23 2018 No.10256704 >>10256697 Mate, a rocket is basically skyscraper-sized, transporting costs millions, and so does the whole launchpad installement, and in case of the BFR you are also looking at fuel cost of >1 million.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 07:05:39 2018 No.10256712 >>10256704 >b-but muh earth to earth fast travel!!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 07:17:39 2018 No.10256728 >>10256704 >and in case of the BFR you are also looking at fuel cost of >1 million. That is mere $10 per kg of payload to orbit

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 07:43:17 2018 No.10256775 >>10256704 Some peeps might want to look up diseconomies of scale too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 07:47:18 2018 No.10256782 >>10256690 >For the space age to truly begin you need <100$/kg LEO access cost BFR launch cost is supposed to be around $7 million, of which propellant cost is ~$1 million. That is $70 per kg to LEO.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 07:52:50 2018 No.10256789 >>10256782 Can we get a source and/or breakdown of those costs? I suspect that's ignoring grants/subsidies etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:04:57 2018 No.10256817 >>10256789 We know that BFR is to have lower launch costs than Falcon 1 from SpaceX presentation, and Falcon 1 cost $7 million per launch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:07:11 2018 No.10256823 >>10256817 This thing? https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/making_life_multiplanetary-2017.pdf

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:10:33 2018 No.10256828 File: 69 KB, 1810x630, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10256823 slide 18

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:13:40 2018 No.10256833 >>10256828 A lot of stuff has obviously and famously changed since that presentation. It also read like a cult or ponzi scheme desu. I mean, slide 2...

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:15:42 2018 No.10256836 >>10256833 >hurr durr cult ponzi scheme That troll from reddit is here again, ladies and gentlemen. Disengage.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:16:12 2018 No.10256838 >>10256782 Those numbers cannot be reached without an orbital elevator. Its a simple matter of physics. At best you could get something like 10000$/kg but that is with extreme government subsidy and is unsustainable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:16:44 2018 No.10256839 >>10256833 >A lot of stuff has obviously and famously changed since that presentation. judging by their move towards stainless steel, it has changed for even lower costs, if anything..

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:17:30 2018 No.10256841 >>10256839 If rockets could be made out of steel nobody would have used expensive alloys.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:17:45 2018 No.10256842 >>10256838 There is no physical principle at all that would ban such numbers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:19:20 2018 No.10256845 >>10256817 lol are you serious?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:19:24 2018 No.10256846 >>10256841 You dont made a reusable rocket the same way as an expendable one. Maybe they can be from steel, and any payload hit will simply be eaten by flying often instead and not having heavy heat shield. This is new territory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:21:29 2018 No.10256850 >>10256842 an air shipment from berlin to new york for example literally costs more lmao

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:22:23 2018 No.10256851
File: 81 KB, 1238x701, SpaceX_02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10256836
Buddy, I am not whoever that guy is, and I am not making a comment on the veracity of the claims. It does have the same format you get from cons like how to hypnotise your way to love or how to make a million bucks at home with no skills type deals. It's only a passing comment, but come on pic related is a bit much don't you think? It might be a Silicon Valley thing, dunno.

That presentation doesn't convince me anyway, I'd at the very least have liked a cost breakdown so there's something I can kind of check out from other sources.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:23:35 2018 No.10256855 >>10256842 History of spaceflight states otherwise. Orbital elevators and other structures are proposed precisely because rockets are incapable of achieving such performance and cost.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:24:30 2018 No.10256856 >>10256842 I don't remember the laws of physics coming up that much when we got to things like price points, price elasticity, market value etc in business classes.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:25:39 2018 No.10256857

>>10256850
>an air shipment from berlin to new york for example literally costs more lmao

Nope, air shipments are like $>10 per kg.

Also, a mature reusable rocket will indeed operate somewhat like an aircraft, and as far as energy required, to get mass to orbit is comparable to flying it to the other side of the world in a plane. It wont be quite as cheap but costs <$100 per kg are feasible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:27:00 2018 No.10256860 >>10256855 rocketry is in infancy, we are still in prehistory of spaceflight right now

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:29:47 2018 No.10256864 >>10256857 >to get mass to orbit is comparable to flying it to the other side of the world in a plane. It wont be quite as cheap but costs <$100 per kg are feasible imagine unironically saying that on /sci

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:35:07 2018 No.10256871

>>10256864
When it comes to energy per kilogram of payload it is true, you retard.

From the point of basic physics, the most important difference between an aeroplane and a rocket is that an aeroplane expends its energy slowly and gracefully, so that it is not destroyed after one flight. If someone can construct a rocket with a similar mode of operation, then as far as cost reductions go all bets are off.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:39:16 2018 No.10256877 >>10256871 >When it comes to energy per kilogram of payload it is true, you retard please leave this board immediately

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:39:53 2018 No.10256879 >>10256864 Many planes have HIGHER fuel fractions (not the same as propellant fraction, which in a rocket includes oxidizer) than rockets.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:40:46 2018 No.10256880 >>10256879 >Many such cases

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 08:48:33 2018 No.10256896 >>10256132 (((karman)))

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 12:19:08 2018 No.10257306 >>10255923 He didn't shoot his car to mars He shot his car past mars

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 13:05:30 2018 No.10257404 File: 77 KB, 640x640, not on earth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10255587 I doubt him because he can't reliably get a package across town in the promised time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 13:07:23 2018 No.10257406 >>10257404 Do you remember to tip your delivery man?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 13:11:59 2018 No.10257411 >>10255968 based

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 13:19:39 2018 No.10257424 >>10256838 >something like 10000$/kg So you think a fully reusable rocket would be roughly 3x more expensive than current expendable rockets? Retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 13:21:41 2018 No.10257429 >>10256855 >Orbital elevators and other structures are proposed precisely because rockets are incapable of achieving such performance and cost. True only if the rocket in question is both highly complex and fully expendable, a la Saturn 5.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 13:23:50 2018 No.10257433 >>10257424 The only "expendable" rocket that comes close to that is the Falcon 9 and that was supposed to be reusable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 13:38:33 2018 No.10257460 >>10257433 Falcon 9 gets $4640/kg in expendable mode, eat my ass. Falcon Heavy is actually even better, also still in expendable mode, at $2380/kg.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 14:07:45 2018 No.10257523 >>10257460 Falcon Heavy is a completely failed design as it has a tiny fairing and a complete overkill of boosters. Falcon 9 reusable is around 4.000 $/kg.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 14:21:45 2018 No.10257574

>>10257523
No singular commercial payloads require a bigger fairing; for example, SpaceX launched the largest GEO commsat ever on a Falcon 9 using it. The fairing size only prevents dual-rideshare missions and large military payloads; which I'm sure SpaceX would build appropriate fairings for if they were payed to do so, just like they did for the GPS-3 mission. Calling Falcon Heavy a failed design is a complete fallacy when you consider it signed 3 launch contracts last year, including one military. It's obviously got a market niche to fill when you consider all 3 of those contracts are direct to GEO launches.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 14:36:17 2018 No.10257622

>>10257574
For reference, Delta IV is the only currently flying rocket even close to Falcon Heavy and it has launched ten times ever since 2004, and has never launched more than once in a single year. Meanwhile if the payloads are ready FH could do all three of those launches in just one year.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math