[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 129 KB, 1024x1024, spacex_default.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7013438 No.7013438 [Reply] [Original]

Video of the Falcon9 hitting the platform is finally out.

It's fucking brutal.

https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK

>> No.7013450

>>7013438
>https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
is that real?

>> No.7013454

>>7013450

Yeah, it's from their vine account. Elon even retweeted it.

>> No.7013456

What's your opinion on people who start threads on subjects that already have their own threads, OP?

>> No.7013551

Rich capitalists with too much money to blow think that throwing money at an issue will fix it. It won't. SpaceX is a joke.

>> No.7013562

>>7013438
>Close, but no cigar.
>literally slamming it into the platform

Nigger that was as close as my lazy ass is to physics PhD.

>> No.7013652

>>7013562
They've done soft landings before, even on return from an orbital launch. They haven't hit a target pad on return from a launch before.

When they lit the main engine for the landing burn, they were too far off course to land softly on the pad, because the steering fins had failed just before then. They could only do a divert maneuver to impact on the barge.

It was operationally very close to a success, even though it looked superficially like a spectacular failure. It's comparable to the Dreamchaser's glide descent that ended in an ugly tumble on the runway because the landing gear didn't deploy properly.

>> No.7013814

Wow, SpaceX must be a group of autists trying to do space stuff.

>> No.7013827

>>7013551

You're a joke.

>> No.7013832

>>7013814
Exactly. Bunch of pop/sci/ faggots. We should hang them all

>> No.7013836

>>7013827
No, actually SpaceX is a joke.

>> No.7013845

>>7013836

No, you're really a joke though.

>> No.7013879

>>7013845
The CEO, Elon Musk, is the biggest joke.
"I have 2 bachelors degrees, one in economics other in physics, I'm good enough to found a space business."
Most of the time he doesn't know what he is talking about and his company fails at a lot simple missions.

>> No.7013880

>>7013551
yeah, evil fucking capitalists and their damnable societies have never done anything for science or technology
we should all be communists because communism is awesome

>> No.7013884

>>7013879

No, you are the biggest joke.

>> No.7013888

>>7013880
You are a joke.

>> No.7013890

>>7013438
>https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
How about a link to a site that actually works?

>> No.7013916

>>7013890
Flashblock?

I think they're starting to gang up and deliberately do stuff that prevents their site from working unless you whitelist it.

They don't want you to have control over things like when videos autoplay, or when websites make sounds. It's important to them for their websites to do things that you don't want them to do, like start playing a video when you open it in the background so you can finish reading the page where you found the link to it.

>> No.7013950

>>7013879
>"I have 2 bachelors degrees, one in economics other in physics, I'm good enough to found a space business."
Yet he will be infinitely more successful in anything he ever does than you, even in whatever shitty field you've majored in
>Most of the time he doesn't know what he is talking about and his company fails at a lot simple missions.
Landing a fucking first stage rocket safely is not a "simple mission". In fact it has never been done before in this scale. You're an imbecile if you don't think what they accomplished isn't impressive.

>> No.7013956

>>7013551

The standard for booster launches is hard crash landing.

Every booster launch has a destructive entry.

That's what you don't get, what you're not comprehending.

The standard here is absolute non recovery. Every time.

SpaceX is making excellent strides in exceeding the standard. The alternative to SpaceX is a return to the booster crash landing and not trying to change that.

All your SpaceX dumping posts are the same, they're based on proudly ignorant non-understanding.

>> No.7013965

>>7013950
SpaceX is a huge joke.
No, simple missions.
MULTIPLE missions.
Musk, is retarded and thinks he can talk about science with a BA in physics. He's said some really dumb stuff.

>> No.7013976

>>7013956
Elon Musk pls go

>> No.7013979

>>7013965

Well actually he is right.

He was good enough to start a space business, which is what he said.

SpaceX is the real deal. It is superior to its peers and becoming more so.

>> No.7013980

>>7013965
What are your credentials to claim any of this? What are these "simple" missions you are talking about? What "retarded" things has Musk said? Please provide links

>> No.7013985

>>7013965
"I do love email. Wherever possible I try to communicate. I'm really good at email."
-Elon Musk
Such a genius

>> No.7013987

>>7013976

You don't want to be told?

Then elevate your own conduct and stop being a swarmingly disengenous cretin. Get some integrity.

>> No.7014000

>>7013980
SpaceX sends spaceships up to talk to jesus.

>> No.7014003

>>7014000
That's what I thought
>>>/b/

>> No.7014005

>>7014000
Elon Musk actually said this.

>> No.7014053

well shit, it got ON THE PLATFORM on the FIRST FLIGHT, that's actually damn nice

pretty hilarious landing though

>in during people think all flights will be like this and spacex is dead or whatever

>> No.7014073
File: 27 KB, 208x200, 1407600574910.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7014073

>search for booty tits and ass
>nothing comes up

>> No.7014100

abandon thread!

>>7012699

>> No.7014163
File: 249 KB, 540x540, one small step for man, one massive fucking explosion for spacex.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7014163

It's pretty Brutal alright, I'm just glad they know why it happened at the very least.

>> No.7014189

>>7013888
/sci/ is a joke

>> No.7015774
File: 42 KB, 635x390, nvgW9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7015774

>>7013438
>CGI movie posted to the hip new social media
how the fuck do you not see through this nonsense? it's feel good propaganda designed to appeal to YOU

>> No.7015797

>>7014163
topkek

>> No.7015798

>>7015774
Is it hard to be retarded?

>> No.7015800

>>7015774
>CGI movie posted to the hip new social media

literally what

>> No.7017301

>>7014163
Needs more struts.

>> No.7017844

so what would of happened if they did manage to land the rocket in one piece?

>> No.7017939

>>7017844
They'd have taken it back to shore and started examining and testing it to see how spaceworthy it still was.

Eventually, they'd probably have flown it again. Maybe on an orbital test launch (like a new stage), and maybe on unloaded suborbital test flights (like the F9Rdev).

>> No.7018011

>>7013551
>Rich capitalists with too much money to blow think that throwing money at an issue will fix it. It won't. SpaceX is a joke.

"Throwing money at it" is the only way to seriously solve any problem.

>> No.7018012

>>7017939
Would spacex do deals such as launch 3 rockets get your 4th for free?

>> No.7018020

>>7018012
Probably not, but the cost of launching would be lowered from 60 million dollars to less than 10.

>> No.7018032

>>7018020
Doesn't that level of cost reduction usually
start international spats?

If a launch costs only 10 million,then space x would have a monopoly basically.

>> No.7018041
File: 29 KB, 501x291, 1329954471665.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7018041

>>7018032
They already have undercut every other launch provider in the world, a Falcon 9 launch is close to half the price of a comparable launch on an Atlas V. SpaceX is even 15 million cheaper than the Chinese. ULA and Arianespace have long enjoyed an effective duopoly over the Western launch market, and their refusal to innovate or lower prices is now biting them in the ass. They have both lost major market space to SpaceX, and are getting ready to be doubly fucked now that Musk is on the verge of developing truly reusable launch vehicles. Instead of starting to work towards reusability 10 years ago like SpaceX did, they sat on their asses and just assumed Musk would fuck up like NASA did with the Shuttle. Instead he didn't, and now all they can do is stretch their assholes in preparation of the gaping goatse Elon Musk is going to give them when he rams his Falcon 9 sized dick up their collective assholes this year.

>> No.7018043

>>7018032
>If a launch costs only 10 million,then space x would have a monopoly basically.

The problem with monopolies is that a company, realizing they have no competition, jack up prices and stop improving on service.

SpaceX lowering the price is pretty much the opposite of the monopoly problem.

>> No.7018045

>>7018032
Being competitive and lowering prices in the inflated, stagnant market created by ULA and Arianespace.

>> No.7018048

>>7018043
Musk has been very clear that he intends to encourage competition, not eliminate it. With Arianespace and ULA both pledging to half the average cost launch within a decade, I'd say his plan is working so far. That and releasing his Telsa patents to encourage electric car development, I would say Elon Musk is the real Anti-Jew.

>> No.7018065

>>7018048
>Musk has been very clear that he intends to encourage competition,

Well I mean, if I was about to create a blockbuster company that was about to emerge with eighty to ninety percent market dominance, that's what I'd be telling people too.

No slur on Musk - he may be a good guy or a complete asshole, I don't know him. I'm just saying that the public statements of company executives do not speak as loudly as their actions, which we will not see unfold until the next couple of years have passed by.

Still though:

>With Arianespace and ULA both pledging to half the average cost launch within a decade

^That right there is a good thing. Get them to pull the fucking finger out.

>> No.7018066

>>7013965
ye spacex is a huge joke because fucking NASA funds them

>> No.7018071

>>7018048
Could you see Musk licensing the technology?

>>7018045
Yes but if other governments have government organizations that raise flags when it comes to spending like the GFOA...

Then the other corporations won't be able to get government contracts.
"Wait, you're telling me for the same price of you're launch, I can get six with space x?.."

Which means Musk would have a monopoly for years.

Look at how ISPs are dragging their feet to the point of outlawing desperate townships from laying their own fiber.

>> No.7018159

>>7018066
what?

>> No.7018160

>>7018066
They get most of their funding from people buying satellite launches.

>> No.7018285

>>7013438
>It's fucking brutal.

It's not brutal from the standpoint of a rocket accident where a lot of fuel is involved. Almost always there's an explosion.

My contention with SpaceX and other such ventures is that they have no future. The lure of public funds is what draws them, but public funds aren't economic. Spaceflight itself isn't economic; that's why it's remained in the hands of governments, who don't care about economic realities like "making a profit".

I remain convinced that SpaceX and its ilk will wither on the vine once the flow of free government cheese stops. Economics demands that that happen eventually. In fact, economics demands that manned flights stop eventually, forever... and then there will be absolutely ZERO reasons to send out spacecraft. There may be an occasional launch in order to put a satellite in orbit. But beyond that, nothing. Economics is what motivates Humans; hardly anything else DOES.

>> No.7018347

>>7013438
>ksp: the movie

>> No.7018354

>>7018285
>implying Elon Musk gives a shit about profits at this point

his endgame is to foster widespread adoption of his technology, and profit is merely his means to an end. Why else would he make tesla open source?

>> No.7018418

>>7018285
>The lure of public funds is what draws them
Oh, bullshit.

It's the commercial satellite launch market that's SpaceX's first target. That's a multi-billion-dollar industry right there. After that, they're trying to create new markets by offering low-cost launch services that make new kinds of commercial and other private activity in space feasible.

While there is a lot of public money floating around, and SpaceX has grabbed its share, you can NOT count on it, and they know it.

A launch vehicle that is fully reusable with a long life and minimal maintenance and which runs on cheap fuel like natural gas can get orbital launch costs down near intercontinental flight costs. That's what they're aiming for.

At those prices, everyone and their dog can think of something worth doing in space.

>> No.7018448

>>7013456
3rd smartest board!!!!

>> No.7018474

>>7018354
I kind of agree. When I see the guy talk I see that he has some sort of drive besides profit. Maybe it's just me, but I think he is going to upload his mind to a computer and become ruler of his own interstellar empire.

>> No.7018512

>>7018418
>That's a multi-billion-dollar industry right there.

You can't make money at it. Launch costs and compliance costs are simply too large. Yes, I can see you and the rest of the Cheetos-eaters are eager to believe that SpaceX and the rest are somehow going to change that, but we're in the age of Petroleum Depletion. So our expanding civilization is OVER. We blew it. There aren't enough cheap sources of energy to justify fueling the expansion into space.

So SpaceX and the rest are destined to fail. It's not the economics of the 1950s anymore. It's too late now.

Keep up the faith. I'm sure it's necessary to keep you from suiciding for the rest of your life... but eventually you virgin-nerds will have to face up the fact that Humanity has no glorious future. We're going to run through the Petroleum Depletion Age and then run into the Petroleum Starvation Age. Things will get REALLY nasty then. And once all the stupid wars are over, and the clouds of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons have subsided, then Humanity will have to settle for PASTORAL existence. The major source of energy will be wood. Spaceflight will become as mythical as the flight of Icarus.

>> No.7018525

>>7018354
>his endgame is to foster widespread adoption of his technology

That's still a game that requires C-A-P-I-T-A-L. You know what capital is, right? It's that stuff that you never have, which is why you constantly discount its necessity. And since capital is required, then you must play by capital's rules. And capital's number one rule is that the pursuit must make easy profits or it just won't be done.

The sad truth is that those who don't have capital, will be sidelined in Humanity's perilous but ultimately boring future. Economics is very harsh, but it's the only way Humans organize themselves. Economics is to Humans as physics is to fundamental particles; particles don't act in any other way than physics dictates, and so Humans don't act in any other way than economics dictates.

>> No.7018538

>>7018418
>That's what they're aiming for.

And that's not where they'll get. Your fuel is HOPE, other than the constant bags of Cheetos that have so seriously stained your keyboard-battered fingers.

Launch costs have always concerned us. But attempts to reduce them have always failed. And the INVESTMENT AGE of the race is now collapsing, for a lack of dirt cheap energy sources to justify it.

Humanity has lost. The universe will soon enough have to get along without us. 1 million years from now, we'll only be recorded in sedimentary deposits, and a few tons of eroded metals across a few worldlets. And that sort of thing has likely happened over and over and over, out there in the galaxy, since we see fuck-all for spacegoing cultures.

>> No.7018605

>>7018512
You dumb shit, SpaceX has nearly 30 purely commercial launches on its roster for the next 4 years. Not commercially viable? They're pulling a fucking profit! Is SpaceX lying about their income? Are they lying about their launch manifest? Are they committing tax fraud on a COSMIC scale? I really don't know if you're trolling or just retarded. It's getting too hard to tell, but I'm starting to believe all these ridiculous anti-SpaceX posts are just from one guy. The mod should really get off his ass and ban you, mental retardation of this magnitude should be illegal.

>> No.7018646

>>7013438
why do they want to land on a barge at sea? Why not pave a huge 1km x 1km area on land and land on that?

>> No.7018648

>>7013551

This post is bad, and you should feel bad

>> No.7018649

>>7018646
there is lots of free space at the equator in the ocean

>> No.7018650

>>7018649
they cant afford 1 sq km of asphalt?

>> No.7018693

Violent Simians Guy is a well of autism and faggotry so deep that the pressure at the bottom could pulverize a diamond.

>> No.7018703

>>7013879
>one of the most successful people on this planet in terms of business, etc
>saying they're a joke
>thinking he's not the right person to found a space business
>not knowing that it's not the founder who designs/engineers/builds/etc/etc the products anyway so why would their technical ability matter
>saying that their is such thing as a "simple" space mission
>10 more of these
>plz go

>> No.7018710
File: 1.14 MB, 1786x1799, DR. MUSKS island of doom of the space industry1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7018710

>>7018649
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_offshore_base

The navy came up with this idea. It was decided that it would be too big of an target, but I doubt musk has to worry about nuke tipped ASM that go mach 6 six.

This modularity supports the widest possible range of air support, ranging from vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) aircraft using a single module to conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft using several serially aligned modules approaching 2 km (6,000 feet) in length. In addition, a MOB accepts ship-borne cargo, provides nominally 280,000 m2 (3 million square feet) for equipment storage and maintenance, stores 40 million litres (10 million gallons) of fuel, houses up to 3,000 troops (an Army heavy brigade), and discharges resources to the shore via a variety of landing craft. The cluster could have an air strip that could hold a large aircraft such as the C-17.

>> No.7018713

>>7018703
That poster is just a SJW.

sjw do not care anything for what people actually do, they don't value productive work.
what they do value is their pieces of paper. whenever a sjw (that has paper) begins to speak they will mention their degree, then they will say stupid shit that isn't required to actually be tested and work.
if you point out why what they said is stupid they will not pay attention to your counter-argument: they will ask to see your qualifications.
Which is exactly why they have degrees on entirely meaningless, useless, asinine bullshit like gender studies or women studies in the first place.

Because it makes their marxist rethoric paper-backed!


the best part for them is that they can say if you are a chemical engineer then you are not qualified to speak about gender studies.
if you studied gender studies then you will have been conditioned to agree with them.

>> No.7018728

>>7013551
Poor fag posting on 4chan whos jealous that Elon and his friends are actually getting close to accomplishing something. Kill yourself

>> No.7018731

>>7013879
>muh phd is better than his bachelors

fuck off retard, he's accomplished more than you ever will.

>> No.7018735

>>7013965

more like ur just a faggot whos angry that he cant do what Elon does using your shitty phd.

>> No.7018743

>>7013985
>not having a phd in writing emails
>not having 20 years of email writing experience

its no surprise why you haven't succeeded yet.

>> No.7018745

>>7018011
Unless there's some serious corruption somewhere. Your money just gets eaten up and wasted then.

>> No.7018749

>>7018048
He's only the anti-jew because he's not currently on top. It's hard to say what his policies will be once he takes control of most of the space launches and other related markets.

>> No.7018751

>>7018048
He's the Howard Hughes of our generation. Can't wait to see him go crazy.

>> No.7018756

>>7018650

you realize there is a reason almost all booster stages fall into the ocean right? fucking retard.

>> No.7018769

>>7013652
>It was operationally very close to a success
Operationally it was a success. The first-stage descent was merely a secondary objective.

>> No.7018779

satellite internet get hype

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHeZHyOnsm4

>> No.7018786

>>7018779
I had HughesNet. think 800 ping.

>> No.7018789

>>7018786
cool story bro.

watch the video.

>> No.7018802
File: 32 KB, 300x135, SWhAdDNLMG5zdGFuVGlWeiTuYuICzQRjJ5WYVi368O8BnVO01_976L7MSlaMW7DXp73h5tzhKrGrHEDNuaytWg==.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7018802

>>7018789

>> No.7018804

>>7018538
>Launch costs have always concerned us. But attempts to reduce them have always failed.
Not true. SpaceX is one of many examples of succeeding in reducing launch costs. Cheaper launch systems have replaced more expensive ones many times.

Key issues are that each country wants its own independent launch capability (with the exception of alliances such as the European Union and Russian Federation), and orbital launch technology is very closely related to ICBM technology.

Government hasn't tolerated a lot of private development or operations, and if you read your history, you see that government couldn't develop the first real aircraft either, with a staff of scientists and a big budget, where a couple of brothers running a bicycle shop and working from their own modest resources could.

When you throw money at things, the money ends up in the pockets of people good at catching thrown money. They don't always get the job done, especially when the job is "reduce costs".

The market is an open competition. 99 attempts fail, 1 succeeds, the market has been successful. If allowed to, the talent will find the work.

>>7018646
Safety reasons. They have to land it at sea until the FAA is convinced that the expected impact zone isn't just "anywhere in Florida". It was a big victory for them to have it impact on the barge, which is a very small target.

Even if they can't land it properly, being able to crash it on target consistently would be a big change in launch operations. Currently, they have to clear a big downrange area of all traffic to make sure the expended stage doesn't land on anyone.

Imagine what commercial air travel would be like if it was considered unsafe for anyone to be on the ground under the flight path, within miles to either side.

>> No.7018815

>>7018802
GEO vs LEO

This would have ping comparable to fiber or even slightly better than fiber in some locations.

>> No.7018822

>>7018815
would sats be cheaper than laying hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber?

What about services such as netflix that take up so much bandwidth ?

>> No.7018878

>>7018822

It depends. One sat providing a total of 100 Gbps capacity is like 400 million USD. Geo orbit so >>7018802

Can probably check email, facebook, and watch some a few low quality videos on youtube.

Source: Am a communications satellite engineer

>> No.7018883

>>7018878
>One sat providing a total of 100 Gbps capacity is like 400 million USD

Yeah, if this were still the 90's.

>> No.7018884

>>7018878

Are phone companies jewing us with the 10 gb a month for 100 dollar plans they have? It seems like they shouldn't be able to get away with that bullshit price.

>> No.7018889

>>7018815
>even slightly better than fiber in some locations.
Over long distances, it should be more than twice as good. The signal's travelling twice as fast, with one tenth as many repeater stations, and the path may even be shorter.

>>7018884
Satellites have little to do with the cellular network.

>> No.7018930
File: 5 KB, 200x200, bait-1385922396133.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7018930

>>7013551
>>7013879
>>7018512
>>7018525
>>7018538
ULA go home

>> No.7018955

>>7018779
Well, you can see why they didn't announce this before.

The endgame of all this investment in lowering launch costs is to "vertically integrate" their launch customers out of business.

A lot of people looked at what they were doing, and saw an underpants gnome business model:
>Step 1 Develop reusable launch vehicle that cuts launch costs by orders of magnitude.
>Step 2 ???
>Step 3 Profit!

Well, Step 2 is not "build a Mars colony". Step 2 is "become a telecommunication company that controls the satellite market".

Does Elon Musk care about Mars, or does he just want enthusiastic geeks to work unpaid overtime to make him the world's first trillionaire?

>> No.7019010

>>7018955

Technically he wouldn't be the first, technically.

The Saudi's are worth 20 trillion, technically.

As for the satellite internet, I am thinking he didn't announce plans for it until other people started too, and I secretly think he hates Richard Branson.

Google has wanted to set up such a system for quite a long time, but it would have been prohibitively expensive. Now though mini-sats are cheap to build, and with reusable rockets on the verge of becoming a reality...

I wonder if he might work with or against Google. Since Google is his biggest direct competitor, they just so happen to lack a launch platform.

>> No.7019028

>>7018745
Throwing money means you find competent people and pay them to locate and solve the problem. There's no really any other way.

>> No.7019169

>>7018071
>Which means Musk would have a monopoly for years.

>>7018043
>SpaceX lowering the price is pretty much the opposite of the monopoly problem.

But stay pleb, I guess. You must be one of the people who think the scientific method doesn't apply to economics.

>> No.7019175

>>7018525
>That's still a game that requires C-A-P-I-T-A-L. You know what capital is, right? It's that stuff that you never have, which is why you constantly discount its necessity. And since capital is required, then you must play by capital's rules. And capital's number one rule is that the pursuit must make easy profits or it just won't be done.

>Implying Musk doesn't have mad bank

The reason you need to seek profit is to encourage others to sign on so you can use their money. If you already HAVE money, you don't need to seek profits, you can do whatever the fuck you want.

>> No.7019178

>>7018693
>Violent Simians Guy is a well of autism and faggotry so deep that the pressure at the bottom could pulverize a diamond.

And for some reason, very fixated on cheetos. He's projecting harder than a fifteen-acre cineplex.

>> No.7019184

>>7018713
>That poster is just a SJW.

Is this just the new term you use for everybody you don't like so it can lose all meaning? You're on 4chan, couldn't you just call him a double niggerfaggot?

>> No.7019187

>>7018745
>Unless there's some serious corruption somewhere. Your money just gets eaten up and wasted then.

Obviously.

"Throwing money at it" is much like the old joke about democracy: It's a terrible solution we would never use if it wasn't because all the others are worse.

But if you actually want to do something labor-intensive - that is, requiring more labor than you can get from yourself and some volunteers, you put on your big boy pants and you spend some fucking money, pay some salaries to serious people. I am, myself, an only slightly-better-than-average Engineer and I don't get out of bed unless the customer is forking over a minimum of $100 an hour.

>> No.7019189

>>7018822
>What about services such as netflix that take up so much bandwidth ?

Ping and bandwidth aren't actually that closely related*. Ping is very much a function of distance - the more length of cable/path of air your signal has to travel, the longer time it will take to get your return signal. You can have crazy-high bandwidth and still get shit ping, allowing for high-quality slightly delayed video, or shit bandwidth with amazing ping and get terrible-quality video delivered instantly.

*Note: Not "unrelated." They do relate in several ways but it's not just a simple "I have twice as much bandwidth therefore my ping is halved."

>> No.7019193

>>7018884
>Are phone companies jewing us with the 10 gb a month for 100 dollar plans they have? It seems like they shouldn't be able to get away with that bullshit price.

If you are in the US, then yes. US telecom is notoriously shit-tier compared to anywhere else in the world that you'd want to compare yourself with. I was about to write "unless you're comparing yourself to Burundi or something" but then I remembered exactly how shit-tier US telecom is and thought I'd better check.

Burundi CoL price index (services): Internet (6 Mbps, Unlimited Data, Cable/ADSL) $102.50

>> No.7019242

>>7018041
Laughed, hard

>> No.7019248

>>7019242

I'm guessing he meant to write "pensions," but few people complain about their pensions so I'm honestly lost.

>> No.7019293
File: 108 KB, 500x336, ElonVanHelsing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7019293

>>7018041

>> No.7019296 [DELETED] 

>>7019248
I'm guessing you replied to the wrong post.

>> No.7019380

>>7019028
>Throwing money means you find competent people and pay them to locate and solve the problem. There's no really any other way.

>>7019187
>if you actually want to do something labor-intensive - that is, requiring more labor than you can get from yourself and some volunteers, you put on your big boy pants and you spend some fucking money, pay some salaries to serious people. I am, myself, an only slightly-better-than-average Engineer and I don't get out of bed unless the customer is forking over a minimum of $100 an hour.

The first aircraft was built and tested by two brothers working out of (and funded by the proceeds of) a bicycle shop. They developed a vehicle they could build themselves, and a robust, failure-tolerant plan which allowed many tests. Consequently, when they succeeded, their results were easily to reproduce and improve on.

The government found who they thought was a competent person and paid him to locate and solve the problem: Dr. Samuel Langley. He took the attitude that there was no way to find a gradual path to flight through many small tests, and tried to go straight to the end result of a steerable flying machine (with no ability to land). He built two expensive prototypes, crashed them in lift-off attempts, and then had run through the government money.

If the government "this is a labor-intensive problem, let's throw money at it" approach had been continued, no doubt it would have produced the equivalent of the space shuttle. A grand, barely-workable concept, costly to copy and unhelpful in producing something practical, because its specific difficulties had all been handled by throwing money at them.

The SpaceX approach is NOT throwing money at the problem. Elon Musk took some of the proceeds from a previous business venture, found a guy building rocket engines in his garage, and planned from there. That's the core of it. Not just competent people, but special people, irreplaceable people, who can make money as needed.

>> No.7019385

>>7013950
as if he does any of the engineering in the rockets.

face it, bootlicking is disgusting.

>> No.7019391

>>7014163
Pic looks like they sent a roomba to clean up the debris

>> No.7019397

>>7019010
>The Saudi's are worth 20 trillion, technically.
Share that out between ~15,000 members. Is any one of them individually a trillionaire?

And estimates of their collective net worth range down under $2 trillion. They can regard themselves as "owning" a country all they like, that doesn't mean they can spend as much or as little of its value as they like.

>> No.7019407

>>7019391
>one small step for man, one massive fucking mess for roomba.png

>> No.7019442

>>7019385
>as if he does any of the engineering in the rockets.
One of his titles there is "Chief Rocket Designer". While he doesn't have an engineering degree, and isn't a P. Eng., and therefore can't legally sign off on the final details himself, he has made many higher-level design decisions.

These same engineers working under someone else simply would not have made a reusable rocket, or the Falcon Heavy. He had to push and fight them to include the necessary features for reusability, and the level of reliability that would make a 27-engine liftoff possible.

And he was the necessary bridge between aerospace engineers and software engineers to go ahead with a plan to simply land the rocket on its tail, without any major design compromise or increase in vehicle construction cost.

>> No.7019450

>>7019380
>The SpaceX approach is NOT throwing money at the problem.

Yes I'm sure rocket fuel is free.

Of course he's fucking throwing money at the problem. My point is that this isn't a criticism, this is a sign that he's a rational businessman investing in a sound business.

>> No.7019471

oh wow a new generation gets to learn the disappointment of marketing and vaporware thanks to little elon

>> No.7019481

>>7019471
As much as I'd love to believe the things he's saying; I'm starting to get rly tired of his relentless PR machine. It just makes me think he's desperate for investors :/

>> No.7019487
File: 852 KB, 480x480, output.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7019487

webm since that shitty website doesn't seem to work

>> No.7019496

>>7019189
No. If you use so much data, the will throttle you to slower than dial up.

>> No.7019499

>>7019471
>>7019481

I don't think either of you know what "vaporware" means.

>> No.7019503

>>7019499
I do now, though I didn't mention vaporware in my post. Thanks for the prompt, friend :^)

>> No.7019505

>>7019499
ok spacex marketing team, whatever you say. let's see where spacex is in 10 years.

spacex has already been in existence for more than 10 years. it took NASA less time to go from not having a space program at all to flying to the moon, and that was in the 1950s and 1960s when we hadn't even invented the microprocessor yet.

>> No.7019506

>>7019503
>though I didn't mention vaporware in my post

You were implicitly agreeing with the guy who said it.

>> No.7019508

>>7019506
yeah this doesn't sound like someone paid to defend spacex at all

>> No.7019510

>>7019508

Are you being serious?

>> No.7019512

>>7019506
I was more using his post as a springboard for my own opinion. Thanks for ignoring my point though :)

>> No.7019513

>>7019450
"Throwing money at the problem" means lavish and indiscriminate spending, with an implication that the problem could be solved with far less money if more cleverness was applied, not just "spending some money". Buying kerosene to fuel your rocket is not "throwing money" at anything.

SpaceX started with $100 million in funding, which might sound like a lot, except that their plan was to go directly from zero to launching satellites, recoup their develop costs in the first few flights, and spiral outward and upward from there.

And it wasn't just spend on the technical stuff, there were major regulatory hurdles. They had to fight to be allowed to launch. Eventually, after ULA managed to deny them meaningful access to a range in the USA, claiming that a national security payload sitting on the launchpad would put in too much danger by a SpaceX launch within miles, they went off to an isolated island in the Pacific. There was also legal action.

This was all terribly expensive. There was no avoiding it, if they wanted to launch satellites. They could be as clever as they liked about the technical issues, but the regulatory hurdles could only be cleared by large sums of cash.

When you try to do work in a heavily regulated area, there is often no alternative but to put in a certain number of man-hours by people recognized as "competent" by the government. You're constrained from applying any special cleverness in place of this outlay of cash. It's "throwing money at the problem" about as much as paying licensing fees and taxes are.

>> No.7019514

>>7019496
>No. If you use so much data, the will throttle you to slower than dial up.

That's an ISP policy thing, not a network physics thing and/or IP mathematics thing. The actual physics of your signal connecting can leave you with good BW and bad ping, or the other way around. The two are not necessarily connected.

>> No.7019516

>>7019508
>yeah this doesn't sound like someone paid to defend spacex at all

I agree, it does not.

This is because I am not a retard, and realize SpaceX would not be wasting money paying people to post on 4chan, because SpaceX doesn't have a consumer product to hype. As such, even a quote like "I am literally a paid SpaceX shill" is more indiciative of trolling than it is of any paid shilling.

>> No.7019519

>>7019512
>Thanks for ignoring my point though :)

What was your point?

>> No.7019521

>>7019519
That the amount of PR propaganda concerning Elon is a bit extreme. I can't tell if it's just ego-stroking or if he's looking for private investors.

>> No.7019522
File: 22 KB, 399x489, technomage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7019522

>>7019516
>>7019521
there's a larger propaganda program at play. enjoy your technomage savior.

>> No.7019524

>>7019521
>PR propaganda

Like what?

>> No.7019526

>>7019522
>there's a larger propaganda program at play.

Ooo, let's hear about that!

>> No.7019528

>>7019524
Like his recent musings about AI, he was basically just regurgitating popular opinion but it was all over FB/reddit for weeks.

>> No.7019530

>>7019522
I never got into Babylon 5, is it good?

>> No.7019532

>>7019528

So he can't publicly say anything without it being "propaganda?" Can I?

>> No.7019534

>>7019532
It was the quantity of it though. Stephen Hawking was saying similar things at the time and he only got a fraction of the coverage Elon did.

>> No.7019539

>>7019534
That's not "propaganda", that's popularity.

Stephen Hawking is respected, but Elon Musk is actively changing the world on multiple fronts. People are lining up to work for him, and hanging on his every word.

He can't make any comments on an issue without it becoming a news story.

>> No.7019548

>>7019539
>He can't make any comments on an issue without it becoming a news story
This is true, I imagine he has PR specialists helping to disseminate/manage those comments though. I really don't have any problem with the guy, I just find the fanatical levels of devotion shown by his "fans" to be a bit creepy.

>> No.7019552
File: 56 KB, 1000x659, stephenhawking-70jahre-08.01.2012_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7019552

>>7019534
>>7019539
stephen hawking is a hoax. seriously have you ever looked into this? it takes him like 5 minutes of twitching to write one letter and you think he's written these enormous volumes of pop sci literature

>> No.7019553

>>7019548
>I just find the fanatical levels of devotion shown by his "fans" to be a bit creepy.

Well look at how /pol/ craves those space elevator threads

>> No.7019558

>>7019552
Whoa.

>> No.7019564

>>7019553
It probably is just a natural phenomenon. I just wish people would tone it down until he gets some actual results :/
>>7019552
The ride never ends m8 :^)

>> No.7019589

>>7019564
>I just wish people would tone it down until he gets some actual results :/

There are loads of actual results. What are you talking about?

>> No.7019596

>>7019564
>some actual results
They've launched satellites to GTO and taken pressurized payloads in their own vehicle to the ISS, and are the price leader in orbital launch.

If this were the pre-Challenger era, they've have just gone ahead and stuck people in the Falcon/Dragon SpaceX already has made. It's as safe as the space shuttle was. In fact, people have been inside Dragon in space. That's how they unload it at the ISS.

They've precision-landed first stages under rocket power on short-hop flights, they've brought first stages returning from orbital launches down to "soft landings" at sea level without a landing platform, and now they've brought a first stage returning from an orbital launch to hit a landing barge on the first try. It's only a matter of refinement from here to have these all happen at once.

What would you consider "actual results"?

>> No.7019812

>>7019596
Would space X be capable of retrieving the ISS or hubble?

It would be a dog fight if any of the two were brought back intack,when it came to museum rights

>> No.7019816

>>7019812
>Would space X be capable of retrieving the ISS or hubble?
Nothing they're working on would be, and I can't imagine they'd be interested in the project, or that anyone would fund it.

>> No.7019865

>>7018512
Your're a fucking retard, you inspired me to post my first post ever on /sci/ because of how fucking retarded you are.

>> No.7020174
File: 1.50 MB, 800x800, 1.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7020174

>>7013836
Funny how much hate SpaceX generates. Why?
Are people angry, because they are actually doing stuff? Because SpaceX fanboys can be annoying? Because trolling?

Good thing we will soon see if "SpaceX is a joke".
I usually am sceptical, but I can't really find a reason to be about first stage VTOL. I am more sceptical about that Mars escapade. Still I wish him luck in becoming the Edison of our era.

>> No.7020413

>>7019175
>If you already HAVE money, you don't need to seek profits, you can do whatever the fuck you want.

OK, except that nobody has that much money. OR, the people who do, are violent simian assholes for whom money is just a means of keeping score while they brutalize their fellow simians. Either way, Humanity is in a prison built of simian economics. Musk is doomed. His entire venture is doomed.

Capital has rules, son. I suggest you start to learn what those are. What capital does in Human technological societies is as determinate as physical law.

>> No.7020430

>>7018804
>SpaceX is one of many examples of succeeding in reducing launch costs.

Yes, that's the claim. Sadly, nobody in the public actually knows if that's true. And with people in these sorts of scams giving out false numbers and bullshit discounts, then I'd say even if you DID have a public number, then it's too early to put it to the test anyway.

>Cheaper launch systems have replaced more expensive ones many times.

Launch costs settled on about $10000 per kg for a long time. That's the point. And that's where we're stuck.

>> No.7020434

>>7020413
Economistfag here.

While I disagree with your general pessimism and worldview, your posts are usually mostly right and I generally agree with most of the content.

But this
>What capital does in Human technological societies is as determinate as physical law.
Is just so laughably wrong I had to say something.

No, it's fucking not, dude, not even remotely fucking close, it changes society to society, generation to generation, with technology and resources and politics and psychology and cultural values and a whole host of other factors that are too abstract and indirect to measure and incorporate into an economic model.

You really, fundamentally are failing to understand the core concepts of economics if you believe such a ridiculously fallacious statement as that. Economics measures trends in society's distribution of resources and correlations between observable statistical factors, it is essentially measuring human behavior patterns which are entirely subject to change, no sane economist thinks economic theories are as sound or universal as rigorous laws. Economics merely refers to what we have observed in the context of human society, not some inescapable moral imperative shaping every human action like the hand of god, and the latter is exactly what your interpretation of it implies.

>> No.7020438
File: 67 KB, 1122x629, dragon-hatch-2012-05-26.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7020438

>>7019812
>retrieving the ISS
Now you've gone full retard. That wasn't even possible with the Shuttle, at least not unless you wanted to do a couple dozen launches just to end up with the world's largest space museum exhibit. If you think people complain about NASA's budget now, just try telling them how much it would cost to bring down ISS piece by piece. And there are pieces of it that weren't launched on Shuttle and wouldn't have fit anyhow.

>or hubble
That's one of the reasons the Shuttle was fucked up such that we lost TWO crews, because some military brass wanted to be able to use it to bring down spy satellites so that they could be sure the Russians somehow hadn't done something sneaky with their bird. There's absolutely no good reason to bring down Hubble or any other piece of space junk, except as very expensive museum exhibits. If Hubble finally croaked and you really wanted to preserve it somehow, just send up something to latch onto it and boost its orbit so it can stay up for a few more decades.

On the other hand, right now, aside from small under-seat baggage loads on Soyuz, Dragon is the ONLY way we can get cargo down from orbit. At all.

>> No.7020442

>>7020413
>>7020434
Look, let me expand a little, normally, you would be right to conclude that nobody with anywhere near that much money would be insane enough to invest it in a venture that isn't going to make a profit, it's extremely unlikely and it's reasonable to call someone counting on that event insane.

But IT ALREADY HAPPENED, SpaceX is already privately owned by an insane billionaire who doesn't really give a shit if it makes a profit, it needs continued funding from NASA to keep growing and expanding but the base capital investment IS ALREADY THERE, it's not some hypothetical 'wat if a billionaire gave away all his money to go to space' fantasy it is the reality we are living in.

Elon Musk's actions are unreasonable and they contradict the economic model we are used to dealing with in which at a high level at least all economic agents are purely rational and self-interested. But they already are happening, as an economist when reality doesn't fit your model you don't just go 'nope, the model says it's impossible so it must not be real, can't happen' you realize your model is no longer valid and adjust it or just throw it out altogether and come up with something new. Because economics is, essentially, just a collection of models, and you seem to be confusing one such model with a physical law.

>> No.7020482

>>7018605

You're exactly the violent simian that I've long complained about. You won't question what you've been told. You just accept it since it fits your highly restricted ideology.

You don't know SpaceX is profitable. So much government money is in the mix that you can't possibly decide that metric at this time. In fact, for something like spaceflight, so much government interference exists that you have little hope of commonly understanding revenue and profit. There's no real market that supports those metrics.

The sad reality that you don't want to see is that Musk and his ilk are riding the outsourcing wave from government agencies. That's just a phase, and it will pass. While it passes it will invoke the starvation phase, where government officials will squeeze the indies just to make themselves look good. Then private spaceflight will simply collapse.

And that brings us back to the hard reality of spaceflight: It's very energy intensive, and then common practices require absolute destruction of most of the infrastructure... launcher, vehicle, tools, even the cargoes. Hell, even the ISS with its $150 billion slated price tag, is only scheduled for re-entry as with every other space station that we've ever lofted.

Economics, son. It cuts right through the bullshit and forces you to brush off the Cheetos crumbs.

>> No.7020490

>>7020482
how bitter is this guy holy shit

get a life

>> No.7020496

Violent Simian Guy:

>nothing is possible
>everything is doomed
>economics, son

>> No.7020524

>>7020482
>You won't question what you've been told. You just accept it since it fits your highly restricted ideology.
You're the one blindly drinking the economics kool-aid like it's rigorous physical law.

>You don't know SpaceX is profitable
It doesn't really have to be profitable, it has enough of a capital investment already, all it needs is continued funding and long-term breaking even.

>While it passes it will invoke the starvation phase, where government officials will squeeze the indies just to make themselves look good.
Just like they shut down the private prisons, right?

The US federal government is the most corrupt clusterfuck of bureaucracy and corporate legislation in history with the possible exception of the Soviety Union. Your attempt to ascribe free-market economics to it is an absolute fucking joke.

>Economics, son.
You don't know a goddamn thing about economics you moron.

Economics is a collection of models. It is not scientific laws that govern the universe, it is models that attempt to mimic how human society works to predict certain outcomes. Economics only works when there is sufficient background information and sufficiently similar conditions to produce and calibrate a model and still have it apply. For something like private spaceflight, which has never been done at all and is operating in a relatively unique paradigm of patrician capitalism, applying 20th-century economic models shows an obtuse failure to understand the fundamental idea of economics at all.

>> No.7020535
File: 37 KB, 450x376, 300%PESSIMISM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7020535

>>7020496

>> No.7020564

>>7020430
>Yes, that's the claim. Sadly, nobody in the public actually knows if that's true. And with people in these sorts of scams giving out false numbers and bullshit discounts, then I'd say even if you DID have a public number, then it's too early to put it to the test anyway.

What? The fucking numbers are there man. The effect SpaceX is having on other launch services is very tangible and significant. Are you saying they are just making it up? There is a global conspiracy from multiple competing launch service providers to make SpaceX look cheaper than it actually is? That ULA and Arianespace are not restructuring their entire business model so they can provide cheaper services with a decade? That you aren't a clinically insane faggot who believes we are stuck in the 70s and technology never progresses?

>> No.7020570

>>7020482
Ok, it's official. You have autism.

>> No.7020581

>>7020434

I can't blame your skepticism. There's one thing I want you to consider:

"The world has permanently changed."

Some things can never be done again, like running a national economy using silver and gold coinage. That stuff is obsolete, forever. We invented new things that will never go out of style or use again, like forks, spoons and knives.

So what I'm talking about is a form of economic sectoring that will never become obsolete again. What drives that is the hard fact that the elite have achieved near total technological control. I've spoken about Humanity's pastoral future, but I've seldom nuanced that by mentioning that our global elite will remain in their late 20th Century lifestyles regardless of how many billions of people die, and regardless of how many other billions end up living in squalor.

So there are hard facts about economics that will rule the Human future without fail. And one of those hard facts is that most people will suffer, while a tiny minority exists in comparative splendor, and it's THAT exactly dichotomy that dictates that the forces of capital will avoid expansion into space and will instead choose to "rule in hell" so to speak... capitalists will prefer the security and comfort and familiarity of armed compounds, if it really comes to that. Remember, rich people are uniformly sociopathic people. Musk is really just another example. He's weird. He doesn't follow the exact economic course of his brethren... and that still doesn't matter, since here's another fact that you have to accept when you get old and wise:

"You can't fight the socio-economic trend."

If you fight, you will just lose. Musk will lose. It's inevitable, since most Humans are really just as pack of poo-flingers who would be best off on the serengeti. Most Humans are dreadfully dumb.

>> No.7020585

>>7020524
You know, this guy acts like SpaceX is some government leech sucking on Obama's tit, but at least they have are competitive in the commercial market. Do you know what is going to happen to ULA if Big Daddy Government decides to once again launch all payloads on their (currently nonexistent) government booster? ULA is fucked. Hard. Most of their profits come from military and government contracts because they have bribed tons of officials. They are not competitive commercially, as evidenced by the fact that a Delta IV launch costs three times as much as a Falcon 9 launch does. SpaceX has already stolen the international launch market, so if you seriously think SpaceX cannot support itself without government support then you'll just be fucked silly once ULA goes under in less than a week.

>> No.7020589

>>7020581
>So there are hard facts about economics that will rule the Human future without fail. And one of those hard facts is that most people will suffer, while a tiny minority exists in comparative splendor, and it's THAT exactly dichotomy that dictates that the forces of capital will avoid expansion into space and will instead choose to "rule in hell" so to speak...
This is why nobody takes you seriously lol.

I genuinely feel bad for you, having such an overwhelmingly negative and pessimistic view of the world that is significantly worse than even objective reality.

>> No.7020597

>>7020581
>Musk will fail because I say so!

Your argument in one sentence.

>> No.7020605

>>7020589

Violent Simian Guy elevates economic determinism to an article of faith. He believes that history proceeds according to a preset course that cannot be altered. In a way, his world view is the complete opposite of the old-style "great man" school of thought. However by going to the other extreme he also misses the truth. Both larger forces and powerful individuals have their part to play in history.

>> No.7020615

>hero worship
>anger at anyone who dissents
cucks everywhere

>> No.7020648

>>7018041
To be perfectly honest, I agree with this 100%.

You either innovate or die in the world of technology and innovations. Space X innovated while those other companies did nothing but enact dual monopolies and suck their dicks.

They deserve what's coming.

>> No.7020669

Musk doesn't give a shit about profits. You can see it in the guy when he talks, he has something else planned and the money and launch market are just means to an end.

He's doing this shit and building these things because he either wants to live forever, or actually enable humans to live on other worlds eventually.

Either way, impressive.

>> No.7021156

>>7020615
>cucks everywhere

Joke's on you, nobody on this board has a wife to be cucked by,

>> No.7021162

>>7020413
>OK, except that nobody has that much money. OR, the people who do, are violent simian assholes for whom money is just a means of keeping score while they brutalize their fellow simians.

Facts first, then theories. Observable fact is dis-confirming your hypothesis. Elon Musk has that much money, and he's using it to go to space.

>> No.7021166

>>7020581
>"You can't fight the socio-economic trend."

And you can't misinterpret it either, right? You couldn't possibly have missed something, what with your awesome brain, right?

Economics are an emergent property of human society, son, not fundamental. Statistics. And as with all stats, there can be outliers.

>> No.7021416

>>7021156
>tfw no sissy /sci/entist anon to cuck