SpaceX Launch

File: 202 KB, 640x1129, e17c2f03-a9a0-4dfb-bfbb-866e0a3e40e8_640x1129.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

SpaceX Launch Anonymous Mon Dec 21 19:21:57 2015 No.7736289 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

One hour until we see what happens.

Place your bets.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 19:28:21 2015 No.7736298 KA-BOOOM!!!

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 19:30:33 2015 No.7736302
File: 148 KB, 1280x1024, explosion mushroom cloud.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Yet another fireworks show by the one and only Melonusk. I really want him to succeed and progress with SpaceX but I can't convince myself to believe that it won't get fragged into a thousand bits :^)

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 19:33:47 2015 No.7736304 >>7736289 I want my taxpayers money back

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 19:42:08 2015 No.7736317 >>7736289 did they scram the last launch attempt? I though it was supposed to launch while I was sleeping.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 20:23:01 2015 No.7736406 Six minutes lads.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:00:36 2015 No.7736616 That was so fucking cool! >>7736317 I think they delayed it because their montecarlo sims predicted 10% higher chance of landing it if they waited for better conditions tonight.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:34:34 2015 No.7736754

I watched this whole launch and landing and thought it was pretty cool. However, I'm an accountant so I don't know if I can't truly comprehend or appreciate what happened tonight. Can anyone tell me how big of an accomplishment this is and what it could mean for the future? Thanks.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:38:45 2015 No.7736774

>>7736754
First ship to go orbital and land back on earth.

Means they can send things to space to deploy things without having to throw it away into space and waste money, it can be brought back down and reused multiple times, essentially saving unimaginable amounts of money.

Not to mention the very act of a rocket balancing itself and landing is incredible and means unknowable things for the future.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:41:00 2015 No.7736781 Ok, impressive. Now this brings the cost per kg of payload down to what? This is an economics driven success. Like I always said, capitalism is the mother of innovation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:43:20 2015 No.7736791 >>7736774 Did it actually go orbital?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:45:21 2015 No.7736801 >>7736781 >Now this brings the cost per kg of payload down to what? >SpaceX's low launch prices (less than $2,500 per pound to orbit for Falcon 9 v1.1 and $1,000 for Falcon Heavy)

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:47:39 2015 No.7736810 >>7736801 Wow.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:48:37 2015 No.7736814 My feelings right now: Meh. about time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:49:43 2015 No.7736818 I can't find anything that says it actually did land?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:50:35 2015 No.7736821 >>7736754 spaceX basically just made so that you can launch a rocket to orbit for like $300,000 now instead of like $80,000,000 AKA just made going to space very easy and is probably the biggest thing to happen since the moon landing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:52:33 2015 No.7736825 >>7736818 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5bTbVbe4e4&feature=youtu.be&t=41m42s

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:54:38 2015 No.7736829 >>7736825 Shit man. I can't wrap my head around the implications of this. Space travel being made like....50x cheaper, Jesus fuck

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:54:57 2015 No.7736831 File: 1.79 MB, 320x240, EAP hand.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7736801 now it's time for the age of super light plastic satellites cluttering our orbit!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:55:57 2015 No.7736833 >>7736831 It's okay it should be cheap to launch a super light junk satellite clearing program now also

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:57:55 2015 No.7736841

>>7736829
If you're freaking out because of the implications, you've wrapped your head around the implications as well as anyone on this planet, Anon.

For the $250K price of a suborbital hop on the Virgin Galactic thing that still hasn't happened, any of us could literally fly our fat asses around the world.

>>	None !!IoFhSfGZUhs Mon Dec 21 21:59:22 2015 No.7736842 >>7736289 Anyone else excited for the next step? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:00:16 2015 No.7736844 >>7736791 no they just repeat what they heard, each time with more mistakes in it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:01:32 2015 No.7736848 >>7736844 >they just repeat what they heard, each time with more mistakes in it. reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:02:33 2015 No.7736850 >>7736842 >next step M-mars? I'm just happy someone is working on something other than datamining and serving ads desu.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:04:38 2015 No.7736853 >>7736818 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/679127406813188097 >Falcon has landed back at Cape Canaveral SpaceX has done what no country has managed to do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:07:48 2015 No.7736861 >>7736853 clearly this is staged to get more funding

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:09:30 2015 No.7736868 >>7736836 Elon Musk just blows my fucking mind. Don't even get why he released the Tesla patents but that man is THE visionary for space travel...it's not entirely him but he's making it fucking happen

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:34:36 2015 No.7736915 >>7736302 u mad?

>>	Nuka-Cola: Gamma Ray Grape Mon Dec 21 22:47:01 2015 No.7736954 holy shit they actually nailed the autonomous landing on land. i'm actually more surprised it took this long

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:53:45 2015 No.7736968
File: 110 KB, 1500x1125, Project-Orion-Spacecraft.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

so uhhh... can we start assembling our nuclear pulse drive starships in space now so that we can get to mars in 2 weeks?

or is that still too expensive?

I WANT PROJECT ORION BACK :(

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:06:47 2015 No.7737000 >>7736754 as an accountant, you are well qualified to appreciate today's achievement. Price the difference for a plane ticket when the 747 is reusable vs. disposed of after every flight. Yeah, it's a pretty big deal economically!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:13:42 2015 No.7737012 >Born just in time to explore the universe

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:14:24 2015 No.7737013 >>7737012 Ayyyy. >also telepathy is possible within our lifetimes as well.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:17:43 2015 No.7737019 >>7736968 I don't think we'll ever see a project orion craft Too many commies, hippies, liberals, and limp wristed queers

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:19:27 2015 No.7737023 >>7736289 >launches and lands successfully on the ground >mfw they could have done this before instead of platforms out at sea...

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:21:28 2015 No.7737029 >>7737023 Nasa coulda done it years ago If they were interested in controlling costs

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:29:07 2015 No.7737034 If a scale measures the force on it due to my mass and g, and displays that as my 'weight', why do I weigh less if I drop or weigh more at the instant I jump? g isn't changing and neither is my mass

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:31:03 2015 No.7737040 >>7736868 Hello, Reddit!

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:31:21 2015 No.7737042

>>7737029

NASAs interest was to send men into orbit, etc. It was about getting them to their objective effectively, not necessarily cost effectively. On the other hand they did have budgets....otherwise they would have rocket firms build the collasal Nova rocket...

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:32:33 2015 No.7737043 Since disposable rockets are a tradeoff between weight and cost. Being able to reuse the 1st stage several times should make it attractive to spend extra money to reduce weight further.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:34:30 2015 No.7737049 >>7737043 ....thereby reducing the cost of sending stuff (and perhaps even people) into space....

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:39:17 2015 No.7737056 >>7737019 >mfw we will never see this epic ship built >mfw we will never see the cassaba howitzer built >mfw

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:50:00 2015 No.7737075 File: 110 KB, 520x520, Carrier_SC2_DevRend1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >CARRIER HAS ARRIVED

Nuka-Cola: Gamma Ray Grape Tue Dec 22 00:17:21 2015 No.7737110

>>7737023
the sea platform was for safety reasons, they wanted to refine the tech out in the middle of nowhere so if it missed the platform by 20 miles it went into the drink and not someone's house

they've shown they can get right on the target every time, it's just that last few feet is problematic.....until now

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 00:24:13 2015 No.7737112 File: 256 KB, 506x438, gas.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7737075 >SCREEEEEEEEEE

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 01:26:34 2015 No.7737213 http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/news/a18682/spacex-nails-a-vertical-landing-at-cape-canaveral/ It was suborbital.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 01:38:25 2015 No.7737265 >>7737213 >A 1st stage booster is suborbital No shit sherlock. It's also the largest and most expensive stage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 01:49:46 2015 No.7737296 >>7737213 2nd stage next. Then propulsive landing for capsules.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 01:54:57 2015 No.7737307 >>7737296 Nope - they can't make 2nd stage return profitable. Next is capsule landing because they are testing DragonFly right now in Texas

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 03:16:28 2015 No.7737423 >>7737307 >>7737296 2nd stage goes all the way to orbit Fucking madness to try to land it. Should just be leaving it there, add an ion thruster & some solar panels or something.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 03:19:31 2015 No.7737429

>>7737296
>>7737307
Yeah, I don't see any way to make 2nd stage recovery work. They want to reuse the most expensive parts. The first stage is a big one, and the Dragon is another. I believe they were also talking about recovering payload fairings. Since the SSTO dream won't be coming true any time soon, recovering odds and ends is the best thing they can do.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 04:14:31 2015 No.7737490 >>7737023 NASA wouldn't let them do it before; that's why they were trying to land at sea, because they couldn't get permission to land back at the Cape.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 04:20:22 2015 No.7737501 >>7737429 I concur; recover the first stage (and the capsule, on manned flights), and don't bother with the second stage, because it's not really worth the cost.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 04:34:03 2015 No.7737520 >>7737029 >>7737042 NASA is government funded, therefore inherently shit

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 05:02:53 2015 No.7737549

>>7737501
Second stage is already in orbit, so all it needs is some form of thruster to slowly collect them in a certain orbit/area.
Then 10 years from now, a manned mission can attach them together and use them as storage, habitats, engines, spare material, etc

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 05:10:00 2015 No.7737558 >>7737307 >>7737423 >>7737429 >and to return a second stage to the launch pad following orbital realignment with the launch site and atmospheric reentry in up to 24 hours It is his plan though. Will be challenging though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 05:58:23 2015 No.7737602 >>7736829 the shuttle cost 450mil per launch try 2750x cheaper

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 06:06:04 2015 No.7737612 >>7737602 But we should be comparing it to a Soyuz launch cost which isn't actually that much more than SpaceX/Falcon

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 06:32:05 2015 No.7737647 >>7737612 Soyuz wastes the rocket though.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 06:37:40 2015 No.7737655

So apparently this booster will never fly again, but be used as a memento, sort of like the first Dragon that they have hanging inside their HQ. They will however take it back and do a tie-down burn just to see if it in theory can be put right back into use. Id also suspect that a bunch of engineers will go over it with a microscope and see how all the parts handled the launch/landing.
http://gizmodo.com/despite-landing-in-once-piece-spacexs-reusable-rocket-1749213213

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 08:39:48 2015 No.7737804 Have Spacex released any details images of the landed booster? I've seen a couple of images of it shortly after landing, but nothing close up or in the light of day.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 08:46:20 2015 No.7737814

A stage show worthy of the great David Copperfield himself.
Low and distant camera angle looking slightly upward.
Lots of smoke, LOTS more than the sea landings.
Bright lights, object obscured, explosion like final flash... Then !!! da,da,dar, DAAAAH!
Smoke clears to reveal the rocket magically upright !!
And you guys argue about NASA fakes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 08:49:37 2015 No.7737818 >>7737814 Here, a webm from above for you: >>7737095

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 08:55:21 2015 No.7737821 >>7736954 It took this long mostly because of ONE FUCKING STRUT. They could have nailed it six months ago.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:10:56 2015 No.7737836

>>7737821
Really?
KSP players joked that Musk needs moar struts. It's a running gag meme in KSP, a solution to every rocket problem except too many struts.

He half-jokingly responded that they have over 800 struts in there and they don't think they needed more.

So... he was wrong...

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:17:02 2015 No.7737848 Do rocket ships really need to be this thin? Can't they be more cone shaped and thus easier to land?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:17:14 2015 No.7737849 >>7737029 the spaceplane concept evolved out of military needs, and space shuttle development continued to have requirements dictated by military and intelligence needs

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:28:34 2015 No.7737858 >>7737112 Fuck those things I'm really excited because this means I have a shot at going into space.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:33:46 2015 No.7737862 >>7737549 Are you retarded? I don't even know where to start with what's wrong/plain asinine with that idea.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:34:01 2015 No.7737863 >>7737836 Do you seriously not know about why the previous launch blew up? A strut broke, collapsed a helium tank, and the second stage fell apart just before separation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:34:26 2015 No.7737864 Meh. No seriously.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:37:17 2015 No.7737870

People realize that we're literally still in the stone age with space technology and that at no point in the near future of our lifetimes will this ever be a profitable venture.

I mean my hat is off to SpaceX but at the end of the day we're getting hyped over relanding a rocket and space isn't even one step closer to getting explored.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:39:44 2015 No.7737875 >>7737870 New York times literally said in the 30s that we would never go to the moon.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:41:25 2015 No.7737877

>>7737870
>at the end of the day
>we realize the road ahead of us leads to the stars
>makes us wonder what progress will bring tomorrow.

its getting closer to space travels because now we have the beginnings of reusable rockets for space flight.

its not like they are opening reali estate on mars, or that any corporations are currently headquartered there.

I have a feeling you woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. don't take it out on space travel

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 10:02:35 2015 No.7737894 File: 3.00 MB, 1280x720, Falcon 9 First Stage Landing _ From Helicopter.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Come on anon, you have 3 MB of space. Gotta pack that space with fuel efficiently.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 10:04:39 2015 No.7737895

>>7737870
At the end of the day commercial satellites are a huge business with a lot of money to be made, and especially if the delivery price drops there will be vastly more customers meaning economy of scale.

It's still a while before we run out of platinum, iridium, palladium which are completely indispensable in technology, but the time frame is of order of 30-60 years *assuming current demand* which is a false assumption as the trend is growing. So asteroid mining for these is going to be big really soon.

With economy of scale, space travel will become more accessible.

FYI, Wright Brothers earned money by offering rides on their wonky airplane. Altitude some 30 meters, flight distance maybe a kilometer.

It's exactly where Bezos' Blue Origin is today with his suborbital tourist flights. The price for a Wright Brothers' airplane ride back then was about what a suborbital flight is today.

That was 1900. By 1950 you could take a commercial airplane ride from USA to Europe. So, in 2015 we have suborbital flights for tourists. Where will we be in 2065?

Oh, and by the way, do you know what sceptics would say about Wright brothers' invention, and the future of heavier-than-air flight?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 10:59:25 2015 No.7737942 >>7737894 BRAVO ELON

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 11:00:34 2015 No.7737943 >>7736968 omg he wants to irradiate space imagine the pollution and never being able to see stars again! #ekologi #keepspaceclean #diecisscum

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 11:04:14 2015 No.7737950 >>7737894 >3mb of space for 12 seconds of camera quality video

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 11:10:52 2015 No.7737955 >>7737862 Which part is the problem?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 11:36:14 2015 No.7737987 >>7737894 The last second leg deployment is sexy as hell

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 11:48:16 2015 No.7738010 >>7736868 he released the Tesla patents because he wants more people building electric cars. So there are more customers to buy the batteries he makes. Tesla is a battery company and the cars are just way to sell batteries.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 12:34:07 2015 No.7738074 I wonder how reusable will these rockets, be. really, they suffer so much stress, how reliable will they be the next time they are launched? how do they make sure that the rockets won't explode right after launching... just like many other rockets do?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 12:35:47 2015 No.7738077 >>7738074 That is pretty much the whole point of this. To pick it apart and see how it handled the stresses.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 12:47:23 2015 No.7738102 anyone know what altitude the 1st stage maxes out at?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 13:21:09 2015 No.7738177 File: 396 KB, 2048x1152, spacex-D9BdO86.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7738102 "over 100 miles"

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 13:52:55 2015 No.7738276 File: 62 KB, 597x355, Blue Origin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The madman

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 14:08:44 2015 No.7738322 >>7738077 right. I hope they succeed... or not, I'm not sure. I believe that this is the hardest part, though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 14:10:40 2015 No.7738327 >>7736289 boom

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 14:17:49 2015 No.7738349

>>7737848
they do if they are road transported from coast to coast. The body diameter exactly matches the overpass clearance for US highways.

Atlas and Delta are wider only because they are transported by barge. And of course the enormous Saturn V was built on-site.

The planned superheavy MCT and BFR are planned to be built on-site for that exact reason.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 14:23:32 2015 No.7738362 File: 1021 KB, 200x113, laughing whores.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7738276

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 15:24:33 2015 No.7738482

>>7737023
>>7737110
They will still need to perfect ocean landings.

This was an easy flight to LEO which means they had enough fuel to return to the landing pad, but sending sats to GTO pushes the first stage harder, so they don't have enough fuel to fly back and have to let its momentum carry it out to sea and hopefully land it on the barge. If the rockets launch from Texas they may be able to land in Florida.

With the Falcon Heavy the two outer cores detach early and can return to the pad but the center core will either land on a barge or burn up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 15:27:49 2015 No.7738492 >>7738482 They might not need to if they get permission to launch from the West Coast at some point, thus enabling it to land on the East Coast. I can see some trouble with getting the FAA in on that idea though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 15:54:30 2015 No.7738535 >>7738482 i thought the first stage only goes up to the same low orbit always (the parking orbit) then jump from one transition orbit to another until destination

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:28:44 2015 No.7738600 >>7738535 The first stage barely goes above the atmosphere - and far below orbital speed. It reaches some 1.6km/s out of 8 required for LEO.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:37:43 2015 No.7738624 >>7737818 sauce of that video?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:41:30 2015 No.7738631 >>7738624 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCBE8ocOkAQ

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:42:58 2015 No.7738636
File: 3.36 MB, 6641x4430, Spacex F9 mission 20 a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7738492
I'm not sure that sort of thing will work with all launch profiles, but I don't know enough to say how much of an issue this is.

The advantage of the droneships is that they can move towards the approximate endpoint of rocket's ballistic arc, which means very little fuel needs to be reserved for maneuvering and landing.

Now what SpaceX should really do is look at an old cruise ship, or order the stripped-down frame of a new one, and turn it in to a floating spaceport. Those things are designed for stability to keep the passengers happy, and some have huge main halls that could be used as a maintenance bay.
https://youtu.be/N3qh0SBH9EU?t=24m
The Independence of the Seas featured here carries over 500 tons of water on its top decks thus could handle the F9's 400+ tons fueled weight, and has a main hall 136 meters long and five decks high, more then big enough to swallow a whole Falcon 9 rocket for maintenance and assembly. Although a spaceport would need to be gyroscopically-stabilised like the old cruise ships instead of fin-stabilized like the Independence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:52:55 2015 No.7738661 File: 123 KB, 683x1024, elon-1349658492957.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7738636 Not to mention that buying a freaking cruise ship to use as a floating spaceport would fit in perfectly with the rich evil genius stereotype.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:02:44 2015 No.7738672 >>7738661 Maybe a hollowed out volcano? With a roof that can be removed so that rockets can take of from there?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:03:00 2015 No.7738673 File: 213 KB, 860x797, Sea_Launch_01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7738636 it would certainly be interesting. Sea launches have been tried before but the company running it ended up going bust.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 19:01:15 2015 No.7738883 But we still can't go faster than the speed of light, so we're still not going to exploring the universe unless we're going one way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 19:15:35 2015 No.7738902 >>7738883 And then there's this faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 22:40:58 2015 No.7739218 So will they keep using RP-1?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 22:44:32 2015 No.7739223 >>7739218 They're working towards using Methane

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 23:38:22 2015 No.7739329 >>7736791 They launched a satellite into orbit, though the rocket itself didn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 23:39:33 2015 No.7739332 File: 504 KB, 1280x720, elonlanding.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 23:46:54 2015 No.7739343 >>7736289 Billion dollar fireworks show

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 00:09:47 2015 No.7739380 File: 16 KB, 253x320, John F Kennedy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7737019 Commies and liberals made the space race. USSR was the first country in space. Kennedy was a liberal president who pushed the US to put a man on the moon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 00:13:40 2015 No.7739388 >>7737849 This, space shuttles were designed to remove tapes from spy satellites.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 00:15:00 2015 No.7739390 So what happened?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 00:15:51 2015 No.7739392 >>7739380 Then him and a good deal of the rest of his family involved in politics got wiped off the face of the planet. The whole country watched, one by one. I'd say it's surreal, but it's more like as real as it gets.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 00:17:59 2015 No.7739395 >>7739390 Rocket landed successfully. Payload delivered to orbit successfully.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 00:26:52 2015 No.7739409 >>7736954 I understand exactly what you mean, and I agree, but I have to be that guy. Buran nailed autonomous landing way before.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 00:28:06 2015 No.7739413 So, carrier charges are slashed by 30% - 50% by reuseability. And you really think this will make space cheaper? Or will it make Musk richer? He only has to undercut the competition tovget the contracts. Economics baby!

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 00:30:30 2015 No.7739418 >>7739413 Musk is not in it for the money. His goal is to make spaceflight from all competitors cheaper.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 00:36:48 2015 No.7739428 >>7739418 musk is gnob

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 00:38:11 2015 No.7739436 >>7739428 gnob gnobbler

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 00:46:17 2015 No.7739453 >>7739413 >>7739418 Why not both?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 01:50:07 2015 No.7739536 >>7739380 JFK died for being anti-communist/anti-globalist

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 01:51:08 2015 No.7739537 >>7739413 As long as the 2nd stage is just disposed of, costs are never going to drop as low as they hope. They need to find something to do with it

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 02:00:05 2015 No.7739544 >>7739332 What is he drinking? lmao

Anonymous Wed Dec 23 07:40:36 2015 No.7739913

>>7738276

The cheek of it...

Best reply would be:

Thanks for the kind welcome, though I'm afraid we're not really in the same club. However, I'll certainly welcome you to it when your first stage puts a payload into orbit, should that happen within my lifetime.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 23 16:26:44 2015 No.7740517 File: 300 KB, 1821x1271, the competition.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7738276 I think it is clear who the king of this club is

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:24:56 2015 No.7741306 Whats the price of the first stage, how much are they saving per launch now?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:59:32 2015 No.7741366

>>7738492
Launches from Vandenberg are almost always into Polar Orbits. The flight paths ffor these launches are all over the ocean. You need would need some serious cross range capability to even reach land. An East coast landing would be out of the question.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 09:48:30 2015 No.7741767

Im quite curious about the future plans for SpaceX.
At this moment they have a high rocket engine production(seeking to peak at 400 engines per year i think), and the same with rocket stage construction. But if their dreams of re-usability succeeds then those production numbers will likely go down, and a shift towards parts and refurbishment for the returned stages, right? Are they at some point gonna end up with more rockets and engines than they need, thus having to slow down production and let people go?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 09:51:47 2015 No.7741773 >>7741767 as costs go down, numbers of launches will go up

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 12:05:21 2015 No.7741942 >>7741767 lower cost means people will want to launch stuff that would have been too expensive before, so more launches

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 15:11:59 2015 No.7742261

>>7741306
He has stated that an entire Falcon 9 costs about $60 million, with most of that in the first stage. Reusing it would start to approach the cost of the upper stage + 1 motor + fairing + labor + $200k for fuel.

>>7741767
They might slow down production, but they also have plans to make more use of their Vandenberg pad, finish building the new Heavy pad on the old Shuttle pad, and build a new pad or two in their new south Texas facility near Brownsville. If you look at this year's backlog, they would like to launch 27 payloads this year (!) but they are constrained at the factory to only 17 cores a year and by range availability to only about a dozen launches a year from Canaveral due to competition with ULA.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 15:28:12 2015 No.7742286

>>7737821
They took the opportunity to do a huge revamp and a major upgrade. It's even got new engines and quite a bit more thrust.

Meanwhile ULA uses the same rockets from the 80's with the same 80's era computers they could get more competitive but they are so risk everse they would rather be priced out of the market than innovate.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 15:41:59 2015 No.7742308

>>7741767
http://www.techinsider.io/spacex-satellite-program-brings-global-internet-access-2015-9

>Bringing cheap, high-speed internet access to every inch of the Earth would change the world as we know it. And probably anger your internet company.

>In January, entrepreneur Elon Musk announced that's exactly what he intends to do with his rocket company SpaceX. The idea is to launch 4,000 internet-providing satellites into orbit.

Yeah I think he's got a good enough sink for excess launch ability. And this is a leo constellation not a geo one, so high speed low latency satellite internet good enough to game over and fast enough to watch 4k streams.

>>	Nuka-Cola: Gamma Ray Grape Fri Dec 25 02:14:27 2015 No.7743173 >>7742308 it'll be neat to see who gets to worldwide internet first google's project loon or spacex inter- it'll be project loon

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 02:47:55 2015 No.7743254 >>7739380 >Commies and liberals made the space race. Fascists and authoritarians made the Race to the Bottom. Who won?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 03:22:42 2015 No.7743279 File: 128 KB, 1020x1530, space.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] So.... why was the rocket white when going up, and the lower part was black when comeing down? Ablation coating? From the engines?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 03:35:02 2015 No.7743287 The only reason I'm excited for affordable space tourism is that it will be impossible to censor UFO encounters. People spend 200k they're going to record it and fuck if anyone will stop them from doing it. It's literally the beginning of disclosure.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 04:04:29 2015 No.7743318 >>7738672 Is that a James Bond reference?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 04:10:39 2015 No.7743322 >>7739418 >Musk is not in it for the money. Literally one of the dumbest things I've ever read on 4chan. And I've been to /b/

Anonymous Fri Dec 25 04:15:06 2015 No.7743327
File: 366 KB, 750x580, 1245552013419.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm just hearing of this.

Does this thing count as humanities first successful SSTO ( Single stage to orbit ) or is it still a long way from that?

Because that would lower the costs of space travel from millions USD per launch to thousands.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 05:08:12 2015 No.7743368 File: 129 KB, 358x500, stripper-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7743279 Burn back from the slow down.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 05:39:35 2015 No.7743395 >>7743327 >two stage rocket >does it count as single stage to orbit

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 06:22:54 2015 No.7743436 >>7742308 Even if it's leo, it wouldn't be low latency. And in that orbit the cost and complexity of the constellation must be enormous

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 07:02:03 2015 No.7743475 >>7743287 Im more interested in strapping the whole "earth is flat" crowd into a Dragon and letting them see for them self. I might still make Elon skip the return parachutes though.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 07:16:57 2015 No.7743480 >>7743327 single stage to orbit is a dumb fking meme that serves no purpose or reason

Anonymous Fri Dec 25 08:57:43 2015 No.7743566

>>7743287
>Look look, aliens!
>No sir, that would be the payload fairing we just detached.

>But that thing there?!? Those strange things? ALIENS??!?!
>...eh no, that would be your own reflection in the window of the craft, sir

>OMG OMG YOU SEE THAT LIGHT?! ALIENS!!!!
>"sigh" No Sir, that would be the Sun

> BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT THING SHIMMERING AND MOVING??!?!
>Again sir....that would be the fairing again...reflecting the sun...

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 09:05:31 2015 No.7743578 >>7743395 According to Musk it is capable of SSTO flight. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669132749500887040

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 09:22:33 2015 No.7743593 >>7743578 >It can do SSTO without payload! >Just like every other rocket!

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 09:31:56 2015 No.7743603 >>7743578 It's getting back down from orbit that would be the tricky part. Without heat shields, at least. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a reentry using only reverse thrust instead of aero-braking.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 09:53:50 2015 No.7743616 >>7736850 Stop saying desu after every post, Lopez.

Anonymous Fri Dec 25 10:07:07 2015 No.7743629

>all these people not being impressed by a rocket that can launch and land on its own without paracutes, balloons, or other such normal things.

You do realize this is paving the way for rockets that will be able to launch, land, and launch again on other planets, right? This is a baby step in one section of this type of tech.

Imagine large rockets, launching from Earth or orbital station, landing on other celestial bodies to deploy robots, taking off again, and continuing the next phase of their mission.

It is a lot better than blasting a rocket at something and hoping the balloon landing and parachutes aren't going to fail. In fact, you can still have those as a backup option should normal landing fail.

>>7743593
Only every other rocket can't land itself like that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 18:38:22 2015 No.7744247 >>7743318 Or Thunderbirds, or The Incredibles, etc.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 18:43:16 2015 No.7744253 >>7743629 Implying the rocket will not need major referbishing after it lands.

Anonymous Sat Dec 26 11:47:38 2015 No.7745349

>>7743578
>>7743593
I was surprised to find out that our rockets are actually good enough to do SSTO without significant payload therefore why doesn't someone make a single person spaceplane? I'm sure there are billionaires out there who would pay for that.

Anonymous Sat Dec 26 11:49:20 2015 No.7745351

>>7736289
So, you guys know that Musk only wants to go to mars because he knows the singularity is a myth and that if the species wants to survive peak oil we have to put some eggs in another basket?

You're okay with dying on earth in the worst conflict ever?

Or do you think the future has room for you?

Anonymous Sat Dec 26 11:50:46 2015 No.7745354

>>7745349
>I'm sure there are billionaires out there who would pay for that.

You don't become a billionaire by taking suicidal risks. Most people that rich aren't thrill-seekers to that extreme.

They'd much rather have a cushy bed to sleep in in first class.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 26 11:55:10 2015 No.7745361 >>7745354 >Billionaires don't base jump while high on coke

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 26 11:58:00 2015 No.7745366 >>7745361 Oh right, i'm on the troll training board.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 26 13:39:24 2015 No.7745509 >>7745354 >You don't become a billionaire by taking suicidal risks. False, there have been several people who have become billionaires thanks to extremely risky ventures paying off in their favor.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 26 14:19:49 2015 No.7745606 >>7739544 absinth, in case it fails

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 26 14:22:13 2015 No.7745612 >>7738276 Well, I hope that fuels a space race between the two.

Anonymous Sat Dec 26 17:26:43 2015 No.7745866

>>7742261
>He has stated that an entire Falcon 9 costs about $60 million

The list price of a Falcon 9 is $62 million. The manufacturing cost, recently given by Musk, is $16 million. There's a reason why his investors describe SpaceX's cash flow as "revenue porn."

If SpaceX wasn't paying for some truly insane R&D efforts, they could afford to dramatically reduce the price of their launches, even without re-usability, and make a fortune in the process of driving every other competitor in the industry out of business.

Anonymous Sat Dec 26 18:09:47 2015 No.7745938

>>7743566
>reflecting the sun

What's interesting is that this has fooled trained astronauts. Small chunks of shuttle tile has even done that.
There are no points of reference out there.
So yeah, Joe six pack astronaut travel with their iphones is going to get annoying.
>>7744247
Yeah, but didn't Bond do it first?

Anonymous Sat Dec 26 18:21:14 2015 No.7745953

>>7745938
Yeah that was pretty much the whole point i was trying to make.
One of the guys that worked on the Hubble service mission where they changed the solar panels said that as the old panel floated away, he thought it looked like some kind of alien bird flapping its wings. "Had I not known where it came from and what it was, then that would have been another note on my list of things i dont know what was".
What gets me is that every time there is something not quite explainable, some people always go the full "Ancient Aliens"-route and go for the most abstract and improbable explanation because "muh aliens" or some shit.
Fuck, i belive in aliens. I want them to be out there. Space is too big for there not to be somebody else out there. But that dont mean that every light in the sky is a UFO and every plausible explanation for that light is a "government conspiracy to hide the trouth" or some shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 26 20:59:22 2015 No.7746223 >>7745349 because you can purchase a ride on a soyuz capsule for about 25M$ and people have done so

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 26 21:01:37 2015 No.7746228 >>7745866 I specifically remember the 60M$ and 16M doesnt make much sense wrt to 5/kg launch kosts published and spacex' goals for those prices post source on 16

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 26 22:56:36 2015 No.7746423 >>7745953 I agree with that. I love learning new things, I wish we (nations and governments) put more effort into discovery and exploration.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 27 04:12:36 2015 No.7746755 >>7745866 Wat So SpaceX can build rockets for under 20 million each And nasa spends 5 billion a year to do the same thing?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 27 04:35:09 2015 No.7746771 File: 14 KB, 364x322, 1446474396800.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7736821 >"Biggest thing to happen since the Moon landing" >This is what SpaceX fanboys delude themselves into thinking

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 27 04:43:47 2015 No.7746778 >>7746771 It's bigger than the moon landing This is an actual improvement, a development, not billions of dollars pissed down the drain for zero practical purpose & nothing to show for it.

Anonymous Sun Dec 27 04:46:07 2015 No.7746781 [DELETED]

>>7746778
Brought rocks back.

I do that sometimes when I go and wander around the woods. One time I found 6 piece slice shaped rocks, making the full circle. Carried them home and scattered them around the yard. No one would readily know they exist to be united.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 27 04:47:08 2015 No.7746783 >>7746781 pie sliced*

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 27 13:36:16 2015 No.7747294 >>7746755 yes. Crazy, isn't it? Write your congressman: NASA should get out of the rocket business. It is time to wean all those old Shuttle contractors off the government teat.

Anonymous Sun Dec 27 13:50:03 2015 No.7747321

>>7746778
>>7746781
>>7746771
>>7736821
For the moon landing a massive amount of stuff had to be invented and implemented. Tons of your household items are a direct result of that.

What this is, is a massive singular innovation. It should not be compared with something like the end of a massive undertaking mission like the lunar program. You shouldn't say one is better than the other. That's like climbing to the top and pissing on the people whose backs you walked on and taking all the credit.

This is just one more stepping stone. A very important one.

>>7736842
>Anyone else excited for the next step?

Shit yes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 27 14:40:46 2015 No.7747399 >>7747321 Pretty much this entire post

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 27 15:58:27 2015 No.7747581 >>7743287 >implying they won't ban cameras on the spaceship >Implying they won't threaten to dump you on Phobos if you talk about what you saw.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 27 22:08:10 2015 No.7748154 >>7747581 Like banning cameras anywhere on Earth has ever worked when the general public is involved?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 00:39:43 2015 No.7748337 >>7745351 >the singularity is a myth What did he mean by this?

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 10:38:30 2015 No.7749123

>>7748337
anti-panic misdirection. Of course he believes in it! Why else would he help found that AI-slavery research group? In his techno-religion, settling Mars is his achievable heaven, and remaining on the polluted Earth is his living hell, with the choice of war, famine, or robot uprising.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 10:43:47 2015 No.7749126 >>7745351 What the fuck are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 10:45:35 2015 No.7749130 >>7746771 >This is what SpaceX fanboys delude themselves into thinking >Meanwhile thousands of United Launch Alliance and Orbital Sciences are silently sobbing to themselves they couldn't achieve anything outside of "muh standard rocket launchez"

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 10:47:24 2015 No.7749131 >>7740517 I love this illustration

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 10:53:46 2015 No.7749142 >>7743475 >It was all a simulation I tell ya!

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 11:02:21 2015 No.7749157

>>7744253
>not need major referbishing

Major missions in the past were designed around components that crushed upon impact. It's possible that future missions will incorporate similar engineering, even with Musk's landable rocket design.

Just look at the Apollo lunar mission, and how they designed the lander.

The landing struts were designed to collapse upon landing---absorbing the shock of impact.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 11:27:30 2015 No.7749193 File: 2.97 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Next Phase.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7738276 Oh okay, buddy. pats him on the back like a puppy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 12:24:36 2015 No.7749274 >>7749193 That's so bad ass, it really is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 12:40:20 2015 No.7749289 >>7749193 I need to see this happen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 13:41:22 2015 No.7749361 >>7740517 Even though SpaceX's landing is more impressive by a long shot, Bezos can cheekily die knowing that he still just barely cucked Elon out of his Karman-reusable-first-stage first

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 13:46:05 2015 No.7749372 >>7749193 This got me wet

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 13:55:26 2015 No.7749382 >>7749193 Holy shit.

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 14:07:48 2015 No.7749396

I understand that they're obviously going for space but why do they have to shoot straight up? One little miscalculation or error in calibrating the vertical shoot and you're going backwards towards the ground.

Wouldn't it be safer for the pilots to shoot at an angle like they're flying a plane to go into space? They just fly so high like a pilot they eventually will break earth's gravity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 14:22:12 2015 No.7749418 >>7749396 Too much drag if you introduce horizontal motion early on, fa.m

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 14:39:02 2015 No.7749436 >>7749193 muh dick... I hope it will be a success. So, the whole maneuver as presented, will take place in 2016?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 16:07:35 2015 No.7749539 >>7748337 >What did he mean by this? Can this phrase get a filter?

Anonymous Mon Dec 28 16:14:44 2015 No.7749546

>>7749396
Too much drag. They *do* turn sideways, but only gradually as the atmosphere thins out.

Also, unless you've got a spaceplane, the more of the thrust you apply horizontally, the less of that thrust goes into the vertical lift holding the rocket up. This means more fuel must be spent fighting gravity. (If you have a spaceplane, horizontal velocity goes directly into lift via wings.)

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 16:26:49 2015 No.7749559 >>7749436 >Technical Overview > Expected Launch in 2016 http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy >NET April 2016[21][52][53] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Scheduled_launches_and_potential_payloads

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 28 16:30:27 2015 No.7749565 File: 587 KB, 1500x1000, ss-100222-misp-15.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7749396 They don't go straight up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 02:21:46 2015 No.7750286 >>7749396 There is no escape distance from an object's gravity, only an escape velocity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 03:03:36 2015 No.7750334 >>7749193 That's pretty baller, so it reuses everything except those bits it ejects at the end? that's handy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 03:22:35 2015 No.7750353 >>7736915 He mad.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 11:47:39 2015 No.7750635 >>7749565 Love pics like that >>7750286 Not that anon but what about space elevators? I don't know much about them to be honest. >>7750334 Yes, it saves a ton of money.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 29 16:27:13 2015 No.7751038 >>7750635 >space elevators Space elevators steal a bit of the earth's rotational velocity and impart it to the object being lifted.

Anonymous Tue Dec 29 19:53:18 2015 No.7751395

>>7751038
Oh ok, I think I get it. It's like putting a string through a nut and the string has a knot on the end so when you whip it around you in a circle the nut flings outward and is stopped from flying off is that knot.

Apologies for the ramble, I could have worded that better.

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