SpaceX Pregame Thread

File: 115 KB, 1324x866, 1450749724400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

SpaceX Pregame Thread Anonymous Sat Feb 18 03:19:06 2017 No.8683811 [Reply] [Original]

T - 7 hours

Patrician Streams
>https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8U2KXZzvtA

Plebeian Normalfag (Hosted) Stream:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5bG37hzwqk

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 03:41:52 2017 No.8683846 File: 2.16 MB, 2887x1925, 31579784413_83aeac560a_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 03:42:03 2017 No.8683847 File: 1.31 MB, 1365x2048, 32945170805_44e5c8199e_k.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] rocket on the pad

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 04:04:07 2017 No.8683885 File: 375 KB, 3107x2330, AxRsK1Q.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 04:13:25 2017 No.8683898 Going by statistics they will manage 10 launches this year before another rocket blows up

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 04:39:05 2017 No.8683935 So, ive heard a rumor of a leak, but that shit is still "go". Anyone heard anything else?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 04:41:12 2017 No.8683941 >>8683935 if that's the case, it's probably on the strongback tubing and not the rocket

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 04:43:42 2017 No.8683945 >>8683935 a small leak doesn't mean shit you are always doing some venting of LOX

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 04:53:50 2017 No.8683957 File: 76 KB, 587x360, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8683935

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 05:02:35 2017 No.8683969 >>8683957 how come all their problems are in the upper stages

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 05:04:03 2017 No.8683970 File: 13 KB, 560x315, Jeff_Bezos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8683811 >Blue Origin Reporting in I came for the catastrophic explosions during launch but I stayed for the memes

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 05:12:23 2017 No.8683984 >>8683970 I come for rockets, explosions, landings and memes. Anything involving rockets are great

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 05:27:04 2017 No.8683998 Daily reminder that Mars will get COLONIZED.COM in our life time

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 05:32:29 2017 No.8684001 >>8683998 TFW Trump may actually be a good thing for Space since he's probably going to cancel the waste of resources that is SLS in favor of contracting with SpaceX to get the ITS done.

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 05:38:52 2017 No.8684011

>>8684001
Trump has several meetings every day with business, workers, unions, etc. And Musk has been to at least 4 of those. And considering that Trump loves YUGE projects, you can bet he will fund both NASA and give contracts to private companies, even if his only goal is to have a Trump hotel on Mars.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 05:44:31 2017 No.8684019 >>8684011 he's already defunded the fuck out of most of NASA's operations though, especially their climatology and polar ice monitoring activities.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 05:52:54 2017 No.8684029 >>8684019 That makes sense. Mankind must leave this expendable planet behind

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:01:36 2017 No.8684044 >>8684019 >climatology and polar ice monitoring Literally worthless money sinks. We need real space exploration, not bullshit liberal pandering.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:03:46 2017 No.8684047 >>8684001 trump will be a good thing full stop m8

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:04:06 2017 No.8684048

>>8684029
truthfully, I do want to see SLS canceled. It's a pretty big waste when we have several private companies like Spacex, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada corp building orbital capable capsules.

Add that to the still viable designs of the Constellation program which would have provided the deep space reach, but are now up in the air due to ITS proposed capabilities

>>8684044
must be nice to be both this naive and uninformed. While I'm all for deep-space human exploration, I'd at least like to have a planet to come home to that wasn't burning alive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:07:28 2017 No.8684055 >>8684048 >sinking billions in worthless climate satellites will somehow force China to stop polluting wow, you are retarded

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:16:59 2017 No.8684074

>>8684055
those satelites do a shitload more than just climatology, they also monitor the health of key open water fishery zones, the impact of severe weather on crop growth, and the spread of dangerous particulate from forest fires and volcanoes.

the bennifit for the ag industry alone is tremendous, as massive farming operations can use the data gathered for better crop and field management. Firefighters can see the spread of massive wildfires, and the impact of coming weather, as well as monitor the recovery of large swaths of land devastated by fire without needing a helicopter ride all the time.

Marine biologists can track the spread of dangerous algae blooms or oil spills that can seriously fuck with fishery production.

Ships can use the ice sheet data to effectively navigate around the arctic ocean.

And low-lying cities will be able to prepare based on marsland loss data for sea level rise, which in my lifetime alone I've seen add 8 feet to high-tide within the past 20 years in San Diego harbor.

to deny access to these climatology satellites is to also lose access to everything else their data provides.

since you republitards are all about "BUH MUH ECONOMY" This should make sense to you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:21:11 2017 No.8684080 >>8684074 sea level has not risen 8 feet..

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:22:56 2017 No.8684084

>>8683998
>tfw I'm studying physics and calculus and all kinds of engineering full time at all time and switching to a polyphasic sleep schedule to facilitate additional study to help reach that goal

But like, what's going on here? What the hell did I miss!? We /space/?

Give me the rundown that I've clearly been ignorant of current events

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:24:53 2017 No.8684088 >>8684080 >8 feet at high tide >in a harbor choke points tend to have higher amounts of movement. pic related: https://i.imgur.com/TTuO6tm.gifv

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:24:54 2017 No.8684089 >>8684074 >bullshit arguments >calling me a republican Nigger, I don't care about politics. All the things you listed is not worth shit. I want more space telescopes and robotic probes to planets/moons. Get your hippy bullshit back to plebbit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:27:10 2017 No.8684093 >>8684084 Start here http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ If you have specific questions just ask.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:27:59 2017 No.8684095 >>8684089 it'll be real fun when your house burns down from a forest fire and you starve due to a massive crop frost that could have been seen and prevented

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:29:13 2017 No.8684099 Oh fuck me I live in South Florida will I be able to see liftoff or at least a trail or some shit? I've got a cousin with a telescope I can probably use

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:29:47 2017 No.8684100 >>8684074 How likely is it that one of his advisors will do their job and convince trump to reinvest into tech?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:30:01 2017 No.8684101 >>8684099 I was able to see the Space shuttle from as far south as Dayton, so maybe

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:31:03 2017 No.8684105 >>8684101 Dade* fuck this phone

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:31:54 2017 No.8684106

>>8684095
>sinking billions in useless satellites will stop Cletus from starting a fire
>sinking billions in useless satellites will stop China from polluting
>sinking billions in useless satellites will stop retarded politicians from misusing water supplies

again, you are retarded

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:35:07 2017 No.8684113

>>8684106
>being able to call china out on their shit

that alone makes them worth it

add that to how many jobs that building the things provide. Northrop and Lockheed alone employ thousands for assembly, not to mention the fuckloads of other contractors they work with.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:36:25 2017 No.8684114 >>8684113 >sinking money is good because it allows us to sink money holy fucking shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:36:43 2017 No.8684117 >>8684113 >doesn't understand the concept of wasting money and hides behind "muh job creation" >what is opportunity cost

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:37:26 2017 No.8684119 >>8684114 all this shit is just peanuts compared to welfare & corruption who gives a shit The only problem with a lot of this waste is that it goes to pork programs rather than real space programs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:38:49 2017 No.8684122 >>8684105 Oh shit for real I'm in Dade. How visible was it? I won't need a telescope? If I knew about this earlier I would have gotten it yesterday but I don't want to wake anyone up for this even if it is for fucking /SPACE/

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:41:06 2017 No.8684125

>>8684114
>>8684117
and now we've come full circle to SLS and why that's just a jobs program

This, in essence, is a jobs program as well.

Hell, all of Space exploration currently is just a jobs program for the respective nation doing the exploration. there's no money yet being made pulling resources down from asteroids, or building shit for industry.

Private sector stuff like communications aside, there's no money being made yet in deep space, so why do you care either way?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:41:09 2017 No.8684126 >>8684122 It launches at 10 or later You probably won't see it if its in the middle of the sun

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:43:22 2017 No.8684128 >>8684126 Damn balls not even with a telescope? Fuck it I'll watch the stream from outside anyways

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:43:44 2017 No.8684129 >>8684126 he's looking north. >>8684122 I saw it about 45 seconds after launch, when it was downrange about 30 miles and at 200,000'. Thankfully for you the sun is out of the south, and you may be able to clearly see the contrail from the exhaust.

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:47:49 2017 No.8684133

>>8684125
My argument from the start was that building exploration probes and space telescopes is still going to create jobs, and spending on weather satellites is a waste in comparison.

>pulling resources down from asteroids
That's retarded on many levels. It's not about pulling the stuff down. It's about private companies mining resources in space, to use them in space for fuel and construction of space stations that could be used for tourism and research.

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:50:00 2017 No.8684137

> A United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket, designated AV-068, will launch a classified spacecraft payload for the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office. The rocket will fly in the 401 vehicle configuration with a four-meter fairing, no solid rocket boosters and a single-engine Centaur upper stage. Delayed from Dec. 1, Jan. 26 and Feb. 9. [Feb. 13]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:52:16 2017 No.8684144 >>8684128 IIRC I think it was STS-29 I saw launch, and you could clearly see the contrail from the thing as it climbed to 400k feet, then leveled off and started it's orbital burn

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:53:18 2017 No.8684146 >>8684144 STS-129* seriously, fuck this phone, goddamn

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 07:04:25 2017 No.8684161

>>8684144
>>8684146
I'm definitely looking north once it launches.

I'm envy my friend that lives further north in the middle of the fucking woods. Gonna tell that kid to look north.

Fuck I'm inspired to study more these next few hours. I want to learn all kinds of fields so I can cross-pollinate knowledge into hopefully creating new tech. I should learn Python huh? Only learning C++ at this point

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 07:08:08 2017 No.8684166 >>8684161 >Python sure, if you want to be like every other shit Indian dev on github

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 07:38:10 2017 No.8684193 File: 8 KB, 146x105, Angry Chin 3455.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8683811 Shiiiit, almost forgot! >2:22:00 FUCK!!! I have to pick someone up at the exact time the rocket launches.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 07:43:16 2017 No.8684201 File: 45 KB, 282x363, Chin 3456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684193 >schedule changed Okay, now I'm ready.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 07:46:24 2017 No.8684208 >>8684166 It seems I should be learning HAL/S instead

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 07:46:43 2017 No.8684210
File: 11 KB, 362x453, FALCON-9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Every single time I've been able to watch a SpaceX launch Live something went wrong. I've yet to watch the fucker land the 1st stage. Every time I've not been able to watch it Live they have had 100% success.

Should I watch this one?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 07:48:32 2017 No.8684213 >>8684161 >>8684208 >>8684166 Learn as many languages as you can keep track of. Like non-programming languages, they get easier to learn new one the more you learn.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 07:50:48 2017 No.8684214 >>8684210 yes

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:01:11 2017 No.8684221 File: 2.61 MB, 384x288, 99.9%.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684214 >>8684210 Explosions incoming.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:02:50 2017 No.8684222 >>8684221 Noooo

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:03:02 2017 No.8684223 >>8684074 Sane reasonable post in a thread full of people that want to see something go pew pew into space.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:03:52 2017 No.8684225 >>8684221 "ULA sniper funded by Jewish Illuminati" you mean

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:04:15 2017 No.8684226 File: 200 KB, 855x1201, spacex.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:05:39 2017 No.8684229 File: 199 KB, 1280x720, gallery-webb-telescope_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684222 >>8684225 I'm going to watch the launch of the JWST too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:18:10 2017 No.8684241 File: 62 KB, 600x809, Tellytubbys.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684229 It would be awful and everything, but just imagine if the JWST blew up during launch...

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:18:15 2017 No.8684242 >>8684229 Fucking monster

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:22:08 2017 No.8684246

>>8684213
Actually yeah I'm up for that lifetime challenge. Being currently bilingual I've been learning Italian it's really an extension of Spanish concepts. Learning that will facilitate French which will in turn make Creole a breeze. I've started on learning some reading concepts for Katakana but there's definitely more work to be done there. I really should take advantage of the information superhighway and learn as much as I can. After I've knocked all of that out I should start learning Mandarin and Russian so I may have entry to the major centres of the world. Do Africans have a centralized language?

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:30:20 2017 No.8684253
File: 6 KB, 218x335, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8684246
If and when you have children, remember that children learn languages faster up until they are around 8 years old. So, cram as many root languages into their skulls as possible. After around 8yo the human brain sort of loses that ability which makes learning new languages much more difficult in comparison. This is true for spoken language and programming language. Thus, learn as much as you can so you can teach your children as much as possible as early as possible. Knowing 15 spoken languages and 10 programming languages as a child will make up for any other weaknesses in life. That's a shoe in for government jobs with serious kickbacks and starter Grades.

>Do Africans have a centralized language?

Swahili

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:39:44 2017 No.8684267
File: 2.74 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Next Phase - 3mb - no sound.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8684246
>>8684253
>>8684213
I learned Latin for the most part and holy fuck, it really allows you to understand a shit load of other languages to a certain point. I'm shit at spoken languages, but when it is written down it all sort of clicks together because of the Latin.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:43:47 2017 No.8684277 File: 48 KB, 632x406, dfglqfgljq.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'll just leave this here

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:44:36 2017 No.8684278 >>8684267 >>8684253 >>8684246 >>8684213 Not really sure whats going on here, but its a nice break from the normal shit-throwing these treads generate

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:46:02 2017 No.8684282 >>8684146 STS-129 was a perfect launch. I was there too. Feels weird seeing a Falcon on the same pad now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:54:03 2017 No.8684295 File: 2.67 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Falcon 9 Development Supercut 1-3.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684277 Hearty chortles >>8684278 Space is cool. When launches are counting down the threads usually get fairly exciting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:55:31 2017 No.8684299 File: 2.69 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Falcon 9 Development Supercut 2-3.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684295

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 08:56:56 2017 No.8684301 File: 2.58 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Falcon 9 Development Supercut 3-3.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684299

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:03:49 2017 No.8684312 just go to Mars Elon please reeeee

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:04:03 2017 No.8684314 What a beautiful day.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:05:15 2017 No.8684316 Nobody cares about space. Fix our problems here on earth instead of wasting money on useless toys that pollute not only ours but other worlds too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:06:57 2017 No.8684321 >>8684316 NASA only uses less than 0.5% of the national budget. Space exploration is an investment to improve our life.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:08:13 2017 No.8684325 >>8684267 seriously, any european language deepens the understanding of other european languages like latin does.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:09:27 2017 No.8684329 >>8684316 We all know throwing money at problems solves them. I mean, we spend 99.5% of it on problem solving. Obviously spending the extra .5% will do the trick.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:14:32 2017 No.8684338 File: 103 KB, 423x279, neo nazi skinhead.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684316 >media complains that the mexican border wall will cost slightly more than NASA's budget >doesn't mention NASAs budget is fuck all >mfw

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:24:55 2017 No.8684360 >>8684316 There is literally no reason why can't do both, Also advances in space science and engineering could solve problems on earth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:25:55 2017 No.8684364 >>8684316 >useless toys that pollute The irony of this entire post is palatable. >>8684325 Only I was learning it because of binomial nomenclature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:26:15 2017 No.8684365 >>8684321 >>8684329 >>8684338 Dont take the bait. Some retard posts this shit each time and the clusterfuck ensues

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:28:53 2017 No.8684377 >>8684364 >palatable kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:31:34 2017 No.8684384 File: 1.05 MB, 893x789, Pleased Chin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8683811 30 mins music has started!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:33:40 2017 No.8684386 >>8684229 What rocket will they use to launch this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:34:38 2017 No.8684388 >>8684386 Ariane 5

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:35:33 2017 No.8684394 >>8684386 Soyuz-2

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:36:10 2017 No.8684399 >>8684388 >>8684386 October 2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5#Scheduled_flights

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:37:28 2017 No.8684401 >>8684386 USS Enterprise

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:40:48 2017 No.8684412 >>8683811 >20mins Footage starting!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:40:49 2017 No.8684413 File: 38 KB, 387x600, 1328814340062.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OH SHI- IT'S STARTING THIS IS NOT A DRILL

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:43:44 2017 No.8684420 File: 20 KB, 358x400, 1485731072656.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This fucking guy

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:44:04 2017 No.8684423 File: 1018 KB, 1278x720, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:46:43 2017 No.8684426 File: 1.37 MB, 1279x720, 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684423

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:46:58 2017 No.8684428 I think 1/10 chance it has a RUD

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:47:15 2017 No.8684430 Did he just say "repellent loading"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:48:50 2017 No.8684433 What's the payload? ISS supplies?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:49:12 2017 No.8684436 >>8684430 Yes, it helps repel the rocket from earth

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:49:21 2017 No.8684438 >>8684433 Dragon dildos and lube for ISS.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:50:25 2017 No.8684440 >>8684433 yes, a few mousetronauts and other experiments and probably some food.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:50:57 2017 No.8684441 File: 959 KB, 1274x717, 3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:53:44 2017 No.8684447 it's 2am and this is just making me want to play kerbal space program

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:54:06 2017 No.8684449 >>8684441 Dude, space lmao

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:54:21 2017 No.8684450 >>8684433 SAGE Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment http://spaceflight101.com/dragon-spx10/sage-3/ And other things https://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-declared-go-for-historic-debut-launch-from-lc-39a/

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:54:23 2017 No.8684451 Just lit up some Yoda OG kush. Ready for some ayys

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:55:24 2017 No.8684452 File: 1.99 MB, 325x213, 1387798054056.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684440 >moustronauts CUTE!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:56:09 2017 No.8684454 Is the countdown net audio too quiet for anyone else?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:56:11 2017 No.8684455 >>8684452 They're gonna die up there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:56:21 2017 No.8684458 >>8684452 they'll live for a while, then get killed, frozen to -80 degrees, then brought back to be dissected. science a CUTE!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:56:42 2017 No.8684459 >>8684386 Saturn V

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:57:05 2017 No.8684461 File: 131 KB, 304x304, Advised.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Weather is green

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:57:23 2017 No.8684462 >>8684455 Of space cancer?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:57:35 2017 No.8684464 >>8684455 Hopefully they can eat them then >fresh meat is back on the menu, boys!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:58:02 2017 No.8684465 >>8684452 they euthanize them on station and dissect them to do research there really important though. especially for reproduction research, seeing how zygotes develop and stuff

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:58:51 2017 No.8684466 >>8684465 Fuck yeah. Space abortion. We're really pushing the boundary of science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:59:18 2017 No.8684467 N•O•M•I•N•A•L

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:59:24 2017 No.8684469 File: 355 KB, 994x1498, 1461898692470.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I love the sound of the LOX venting Sounds like a Dragon desu

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:59:30 2017 No.8684470 >>8684450 Thanks

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:59:47 2017 No.8684471 >inb4 boat

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 09:59:59 2017 No.8684472 File: 209 KB, 1152x864, 1485620976913.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It's going

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:00:09 2017 No.8684475 SINK THE WAYWARD BOATS

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:00:15 2017 No.8684476 FUCKING GO YOU PIECE OF SHIT

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:00:27 2017 No.8684477 >>8684466 easier than having the crew smash :^)

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:00:57 2017 No.8684479 File: 175 KB, 1324x866, 1460150269109.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Who /boat/ here?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:01:10 2017 No.8684480 >>8684471 Trump won't be like Obama, he will approve torpedo launches.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:01:35 2017 No.8684481 File: 864 KB, 1276x719, 5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] S•T•A•R•T•U•P

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:01:39 2017 No.8684482 NO

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:01:44 2017 No.8684483 HOLD HOLD HOLD ???

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:01:44 2017 No.8684484 HOLD HOLD HOLD

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:01:45 2017 No.8684485 FFFUUUUUUCK

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:01:50 2017 No.8684486 HOLD HOLD HOLD

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:01:52 2017 No.8684488 HOLD HOLD HOLD

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:02:00 2017 No.8684490 SOILED

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:02:00 2017 No.8684491 HODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLL

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:02:00 2017 No.8684492 File: 37 KB, 500x375, 1351551893088.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] HOLD HOLD HOLD

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:02:05 2017 No.8684493 File: 211 KB, 600x451, 1475006085628.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Meme.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:02:10 2017 No.8684494 RIP

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:02:12 2017 No.8684496 ITS OVER TRUMP IS FINISHED

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:02:35 2017 No.8684497 see you guys tomorrow

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:02:44 2017 No.8684498 File: 722 KB, 576x432, SpaceX Launch.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] CLOCK STOPPED

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:02:45 2017 No.8684499 File: 9 KB, 211x246, 1460234947589.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >HOLD HOLD HOLD

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:03:01 2017 No.8684500 File: 42 KB, 600x599, hold hold hold.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:03:02 2017 No.8684501 ABORT

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:03:03 2017 No.8684502 File: 11 KB, 192x245, 1357627499935.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >-00:00:13 13

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:03:05 2017 No.8684503 BLUE BALLS

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:03:14 2017 No.8684505 File: 367 KB, 568x454, 1484247471654.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] HOLD

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:03:16 2017 No.8684506 File: 41 KB, 600x599, spacex-1420531092605.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:03:33 2017 No.8684507 A B O R T E D

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:03:37 2017 No.8684509 this is worse than the time the prostitute told me my time was up before I came

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:03:43 2017 No.8684510 Wow It's fucking nothing

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:03:59 2017 No.8684513 >>8684505 FUCKING TVC ISSUE Tomorrow 9:38EST!!!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:04:04 2017 No.8684514 Is it expensive to not launch?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:04:08 2017 No.8684515 What happened?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:04:41 2017 No.8684516 >>8684515 legalised space abotion

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:04:52 2017 No.8684517 lmao what a joke.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:04:54 2017 No.8684518 Can someone tell me what this rocket is for? Are they delivering something? Taking someone?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:04:55 2017 No.8684519 Elon "Cucky the cuck man" Musk

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:04:56 2017 No.8684520 File: 31 KB, 600x406, ronfuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >00:13 FUCK

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:05:06 2017 No.8684521 >>8684515 Second stage issue, as always.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:05:07 2017 No.8684522 File: 643 KB, 640x360, wake me up inside.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:05:24 2017 No.8684523 >>8684514 Fuel is like 1% of the rocket launch cost. THey will have to replace the fuel tomorrow. So it's cheaper to abort than blow up a rocket.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:05:37 2017 No.8684525 File: 2 KB, 125x93, 1343943244243s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >No Fap >No Launch >No gf

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:05:44 2017 No.8684526 >>8684514 a shitton less than a rocket blowing up

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:05:45 2017 No.8684527 24 HOURS???? FUCK YOU SPACE X

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:05:58 2017 No.8684529 >>8684518 crashing it into soviet satellites

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:05:59 2017 No.8684530 >>8684518 delivering stuff and bringing stuff back from ISS.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:06:20 2017 No.8684531 How anticlimactic. I was expecting an explosion

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:06:34 2017 No.8684532 File: 287 KB, 637x837, 87.1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:06:46 2017 No.8684533 File: 2.18 MB, 1920x1080, hold.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] YOU HAD ONE JOB THRUST VECTOR CONTROL

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:06:58 2017 No.8684536 >>8684509 So much for keeping it in the family, huh?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:08:24 2017 No.8684540 File: 235 KB, 661x716, 1466466467124.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Greetings from /eog/

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:08:30 2017 No.8684541 File: 2.80 MB, 1280x720, God Damn It Son Of A Bitch.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] FUUUUCK

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:08:35 2017 No.8684542 >>8684530 Thank you >>8684529 cтoй блин

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:09:22 2017 No.8684544 File: 233 KB, 326x481, yummy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] this is for those who just had a coitus interruptus today like me. Im out to jerk off on that pic. fuck you Elon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:09:25 2017 No.8684545 File: 64 KB, 450x890, babymop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:09:47 2017 No.8684547 >>8684527 23 actually.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:10:15 2017 No.8684550 Why are we still letting this clown blow up rockets?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:10:32 2017 No.8684551 >>8684547 Actually it's 23 and a half.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:10:53 2017 No.8684552 File: 449 KB, 769x607, 13.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:10:58 2017 No.8684554

>>8684514
>Is it expensive to not launch?
It's very expensive. Their main problem for the last few years has been launch rate. If they launch half as often, they get paid half as much, and there can even be additional penalties for non-performance of contracts they signed. If there's a rocket sitting on the pad, they can't get the next one ready, so they reschedule everything to be later.

Putting off one day doesn't cost much, but if they can't launch tomorrow (and frankly, it's unlikely that they will resolve an issue of this type overnight) this could easily turn into a multi-week delay of their whole program.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:11:17 2017 No.8684555 >>8684525 >saving thumbnails Brainlet

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:11:25 2017 No.8684556 Standing down to take a closer look at positioning of the second stage engine nozzle. 9:38am ET tomorrow is next earliest launch opportunity @SpaceX 4:05 AM - 19 Feb 2017

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:12:17 2017 No.8684558 I missed the steam. WTF happened?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:12:26 2017 No.8684559 >>8684554 They don't need to resolve the problem, they just need to decide that it's not something that will cause a failure

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:12:45 2017 No.8684560 >>8684554 Tomorrow also has weather issues iirc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:13:25 2017 No.8684562 >>8684558 It blew up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:13:37 2017 No.8684563 File: 23 KB, 385x385, tumblr_inline_ntgslfKWCu1sysrze_400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Elon got me sad I used to be glad now I'm gonna get mad

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:13:48 2017 No.8684564 >>8684558 Launch scrubbed. 2nd stage thruster issue. Try again tomorrow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:13:51 2017 No.8684565 >>8684558 Aborted at T-13s due to concerns with the TVC system. Specifically the position of the second stage engine nozel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:14:01 2017 No.8684566 >>8684558 it went boom boom they are assessing the damages right now

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:14:06 2017 No.8684567 >>8684558 RUD

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:15:23 2017 No.8684568 >>8684550 His money you fagget

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:15:25 2017 No.8684569 Why are americans so shitty in space exploration ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:16:10 2017 No.8684572 File: 125 KB, 1366x768, CRS10-TBC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:16:26 2017 No.8684573

>>8684559
That's a resolution. Anyway, I don't think they're going to decide it's not a problem. It's a leak in their upper stage helium system. Problems with the upper stage helium system have been responsible for both losses of payload they'd had.

They can't afford to have more payload losses.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:17:02 2017 No.8684575 File: 59 KB, 800x513, 1486330823882.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] /agdg/ reporting in Space Musk killed my dreams of just making spess game.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:17:11 2017 No.8684576 File: 70 KB, 500x375, 1465615725148.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684569 nice try, nigger

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:18:48 2017 No.8684579

>>8684573
Oh, per Elon Musk's tweet, I guess it's not the helium leak they were talking about yesterday, but a new problem with the steering hydraulics on the upper stage.

Still very worrying. I doubt they'll just decide it was nothing and proceed tomorrow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:18:57 2017 No.8684580 File: 6 KB, 255x191, 75109a783050c086da726a7047fe2708d927181cb5f9b26837e1fc20334e0d37.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684569 what country are you from anon?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:19:38 2017 No.8684581 >>8684576 You may have been good in the past but now even India beats the US

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:21:08 2017 No.8684584 >>8684572 heh, you should make a Roundabout webm timed to previous second stage explosion

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:21:30 2017 No.8684586 >>8684579 Well if they could get some sort of waiver from the government, and not need to stand down the fleet if the 2nd stage fails Or they could take the rocket down and replace it with the next one to still hopefully launch on schedule

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:23:04 2017 No.8684588 when are they planning to relaunch a first stage? is it months away or weeks away?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:23:19 2017 No.8684591 File: 112 KB, 600x717, 53.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This shit makes me wonder how many of our nuke ICBM's would actually fly if we needed em

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:24:34 2017 No.8684594 >>8684591 That's why we have thousands ready to launch. Ensures some will make it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:25:24 2017 No.8684596 >>8684591 It was recently revealed that a British one on a test flight went in the wrong direction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:25:33 2017 No.8684597 >>8684438 >Dragon dildos and lube This rocket literally is a giant Dragon dildo, fueled by lube (RP-1)!

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:25:37 2017 No.8684598 >>8684588 March - SES-10 mission.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:28:11 2017 No.8684605 >>8684591 They are solid fuel rockets, very reliable, but yea probably a large fraction would fail because they are old af

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:29:30 2017 No.8684610

>>8684591
/k/ here

they are a more simple and perfected technology. all of the problems they had with the rocket today were with the second stage. an ICBMs we use have multiple stages but they are less complicated. They constantly check them over and we have a fuck load of them. The US has a posture that relies on us first striking anyone one who starts preparing a launch.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:36:16 2017 No.8684631 >>8684575 >/agdg/ reporting Fucking nigger

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:41:16 2017 No.8684649 File: 52 KB, 742x720, 1428162056507.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >that junk will get us to Mars

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:42:06 2017 No.8684650 >>8684649 >mars >chemical rockets

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 10:42:59 2017 No.8684654

>>8684554
>If there's a rocket sitting on the pad, they can't get the next one ready, so they reschedule everything to be later.
At least they will soon have two working launch pads in the KSC area. Boca Chica should be ready next year, but I think they are only allowed to launch one per month from there. And then there's Vandenberg, but that's for polar launches.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 11:02:26 2017 No.8684703 >>8684610 solid fuel helps a lot. SpaceX's problem has always been liquid fuel/oxygen/helium leaks.

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 11:08:35 2017 No.8684731

>>8684586
>Well if they could get some sort of waiver from the government, and not need to stand down the fleet if the 2nd stage fails
They'd need to anyway. Their customers and insurance providers wouldn't accept this kind of half-assed attitude toward the $100+ million payloads they're launching and $billion+ enterprises they're supporting.

This is a point I like to make: SpaceX doesn't have a "failure rate" in the conventional sense, like an ammunition factory might have one in ten thousand rounds be a dud for year after year. What they have is an ongoing development process. They don't keep doing things in the same way, and shit randomly goes wrong, they're still finding and fixing bugs in a rocket that's flying, but not really done.

It's like Ariane 5 or Atlas V doesn't have a "failure rate", they just had some issues early on. After they worked the initial bugs out, you'd need a much larger sample than they've produced so far to establish what their failure rate is.

Unlike Ariane 5 or Atlas V, Falcon 9 is still undergoing major evolutionary development after initial release, so it's reaching maturity more slowly, and with major new systems and procedures, the potential for "infant morality" bug discoveries is renewed (as in the case of Ariane 5 suffering a failure on the first attempted launch of the ECA variant).

If SpaceX starts pulling this kind of shit with Falcon 9, just crossing their fingers and hoping for the best, not stopping to fix things when they've had a problem, they will have a failure rate, like Proton. They'll have a significant probability of failure per launch that's reliably known and can't be expected to go down sharply after each failure. *On top* of their problem of trying to sell launches of valuable payloads on a constantly-changing development platform.

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 13:49:39 2017 No.8685033

>>8684731
I gotta imagine that there is a large amount of companies who will gladly accept a 1/10 failure rate if it means years off a waiting list for launching.

Every month their bird isn't in orbit, they are missing out on revenue

I'm not saying just cross their fingers and hope for the best, but when a failure happens for some one-off & never again reason, I don't see why they need to ground the fleet

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 14:05:28 2017 No.8685062 File: 35 KB, 537x515, 1443816131090.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684731 >you'd need a much larger sample than they've produced so far to establish what their failure rate is kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 14:06:03 2017 No.8685063 >>8684277 kek

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 14:17:57 2017 No.8685093

>>8685033
>I gotta imagine that there is a large amount of companies who will gladly accept a 1/10 failure rate if it means years off a waiting list for launching.
But will it mean years off a waiting list? ...and because these are new failure modes, they don't know what the probability of reoccurence would be without investigating them first.

SpaceX has spent less than a year grounded to investigate and fix failures. At best, continuing to launch without fixing their issues would have got them another ten launches or so, out of over 40 on their manifest. And after their first failure, they didn't just resume launches, they went to a new model and made their first successful landing.

If you blow up a launchpad, it can take years to get it working again. Today's launch would have been the first from a new launchpad, which was not ready to go for the return to flight. At least for non-polar flights, they've been grounded longer by the loss of a launchpad than by the investigation and fix of the issue.

To really get their rate up and clear their manifest, they need to move to the next model (being referred to as Block 5) and then get experience with it.

>>8685062
Did you understand that was in reference to Atlas V and Ariane 5? They've clearly got their failure rate down to 2% or less, so they'd have to continue operating for hundreds of flights to establish a reliable steady-state probability of failure.

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 14:26:15 2017 No.8685115

>>8685093
>they'd have to continue operating for hundreds of flights to establish a reliable steady-state probability of failure
there's only two rockets in history with enough flights to meet your absurd criteria
>hurr you can't divide number by number unless number is >2000

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 14:47:36 2017 No.8685175

>>8685115
Let's say you ride a bicycle regularly. You learned when you were 6 years old, and are now 26.

Should we calculate your fall rate by dividing the number of falls since you first got on a bike at 6 years old by the miles you've traveled until now? Or would a more useful number for your fall rate be calculated after omitting your early period of clumsy learning? And if you haven't fallen at all since then, do you think it would be useful to calculate a fall rate at all? Or do you simply say they haven't fallen and there isn't enough data to produce a metric that's indicative of their probability of future falls.

Let's compare two riders who each have ridden their bicycles 10000 miles in their lifetimes (100 miles before the age of 12, the rest spread roughly equally over every year afterward):
Rider X started riding at 6 years old and fell 100 times before the age of 12, but now is 40 years old and has never fallen once since.
Rider Y started riding at 10 years old and fell 20 times before the age of 12, and now is 40 years old and has fallen once a year since.

Who is currently the safer bicycle rider? What is their total lifetime fall rate? What is their mature rider fall rate? Which metric is worth having? Do we have, in this data, a way to reasonably set the probability per mile or per year of Rider falling?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 14:47:38 2017 No.8685176 File: 51 KB, 618x418, 456985678.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What's his endgame?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 14:49:43 2017 No.8685183 >>8685175 >probability moving the goal posts improve your reading comprehension before replying next time

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 14:55:28 2017 No.8685198 File: 11 KB, 236x314, 1111.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8684210 And, as I sat there watching, it was called off. If I miss seeing it tomorrow it will launch/land perfectly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 15:05:18 2017 No.8685217 >>8685176 Company gonna go bankrupt if they fuck up another launch site

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 15:35:39 2017 No.8685293

>>8685183
You really still don't understand? How about this, then?

You're in your car. Ten minutes ago you were parked, moving at 0 km/h, but you put the car in gear and begin to gain speed. After one minute, you were at 100 km/h, a speed you have consistently maintained for the last nine minutes.

What is your rate of acceleration now? What will your rate of acceleration be after ten more minutes of maintaining the same speed? When estimating either based on the data available, should you factor in the first minute? How about your rate of speed now? Should you factor in the rest of the day the car spent parked?

"Rate" without qualifiers (like "average rate") implies an ongoing condition, something that is currently true, or was continuously true for the relevant period. If you mean "average rate" then say "average rate" and admit that what you're saying doesn't reflect the current reality. For uncommon occurrences (like failures per launch attempt), a rate must be probabilistic: you can't have a realized 10% failure rate in a single launch.

If you say something like, "At the start of 1988, the Space Shuttle had a 4% failure rate, but it went down over time until January 2003 where it reached a minimum of 0.9% before jumping back up to 1.8% and finally settling down to 1.5% in 2011 where it has remained ever since." it's nonsense. The concept of a "failure rate" just doesn't apply usefully when there are just a handful of singular failures, nor can it have a current failure rate since it has stopped launching forever.

On the other hand, it's meaningful to say Proton has a failure rate of about 10%, since there's a large sample and failures have been sprinkled randomly through its flight history, and separating out the early years doesn't change this figure much.

After flight 20 of Ariane 5, it would have been premature to assign it a 20% failure rate, and after 76 consecutive successful launches, there's no sense in claiming a failure rate for it now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 23:39:00 2017 No.8686097 10 hours

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 00:03:12 2017 No.8686134 >>8683969 Bc the bottom stage is established, tried and tested, but the upper stage is still in dev

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 00:26:59 2017 No.8686154 >>8686134 No.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 01:47:39 2017 No.8686231 >>8685293 rate in this case is just shorthand for rate of incidence >doesn't know the difference between rate and probability fucking retarded moron

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 05:55:31 2017 No.8686505 so how did it go?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 06:11:31 2017 No.8686516 File: 59 KB, 450x327, 1351944476307.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Another day another disappointment

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 06:38:48 2017 No.8686546 File: 218 KB, 700x700, skeltal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >T minus -03:00:00

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 07:19:48 2017 No.8686572 >>8684558 It holded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 07:44:52 2017 No.8686604 When is the launch?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 07:45:23 2017 No.8686605 >>8686604 ~2.5 hours from now

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 08:03:30 2017 No.8686618 >>8686605 Thx anon

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 08:17:11 2017 No.8686635 mars when?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 08:27:15 2017 No.8686646 >>8686635 2030 probably

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 08:37:11 2017 No.8686651 File: 167 KB, 600x513, 1470946132080.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >T minus -01:00:00

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 08:59:05 2017 No.8686670 40 minutes to go, one weather rule is red (cumulus clouds)

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:05:54 2017 No.8686678 File: 32 KB, 814x294, Stalkan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8686670 >weather is red

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:10:27 2017 No.8686683 >>8686670 why does weather matter why can't they launch in winds or rain or clouds

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:11:01 2017 No.8686685 Stream started.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:13:33 2017 No.8686689 >>8686683 rain isn't the problem, lightning and high altitude shear winds are. Both conditions have caused failures of early rockets, so they have avoided them ever since.

>>	derp_commander !!SSXdvR3LCoa Sun Feb 19 09:13:42 2017 No.8686690 >>8686683 Turbulence.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:14:20 2017 No.8686691 >>8686683 SpaceX tweeted saying the Weather is 70% favorable.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:16:35 2017 No.8686696
File: 973 KB, 3168x4752, 17369785125_efca0c32ec_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

STREAMS

AMERICANS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdmHHpAsMVw

PATRICIANS ONLY:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPVRRtNxw5Q

NORMIES:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giNhaEzv_PI

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:19:35 2017 No.8686699 >>8686646 thats only 13 years away

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:20:55 2017 No.8686703 >>8686699 Elon claims he can do it by 2026.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:21:18 2017 No.8686704 >>8686696 NASA stream best stream

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:22:48 2017 No.8686705 Kek those guys look depressed. Scrub incoming.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:23:39 2017 No.8686706 Can I get a "NOMINAL" /sci/?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:23:46 2017 No.8686709 >>8686705 well some of them haven't slept much

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:23:59 2017 No.8686710 >>8684493 DREAM ON, MARS MAN

>>	derp_commander !!SSXdvR3LCoa Sun Feb 19 09:24:19 2017 No.8686711 >>8686706 NOMINAL

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:24:30 2017 No.8686713 >hosts on technical stream what is this heresy?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:24:37 2017 No.8686715 File: 320 KB, 287x713, 1475006274133.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:25:43 2017 No.8686718 >>8686713 You got the wrong stream. This is the technical stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPVRRtNxw5Q

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:26:06 2017 No.8686719 >>8686713 kek, looks like they did that by accident since they cancelled the stream.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:26:45 2017 No.8686720 >>8686718 oh shit, I got it wrong, that was from yesterday.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:27:26 2017 No.8686722 >>8686718 No I got the right stream, they put the hosted stream on both streams. Doesn't bode well for the launch if they're making fuckups already.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:28:51 2017 No.8686724 Sorry I cant remember but is this the 1st or 2nd launch since their launchpad "anomaly" that destroyed the facebook satellite?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:30:50 2017 No.8686727 >>8686724 Second. They launched successfully last month.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:30:54 2017 No.8686728 >>8686724 Second since their return to flight

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:31:08 2017 No.8686730 >>8686724 There's been one launch already, but it was at Vandenberg. This is the first from KSC/Canaveral since the "vacation".

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:31:55 2017 No.8686731 >>8686715 Good luck Elonchan.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:32:27 2017 No.8686732 >>8686727 >>8686728 >>8686730 Thank you friends, I remember it now

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:33:01 2017 No.8686734 File: 268 KB, 777x578, 1469763556879.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] can i has spaec pls?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:33:23 2017 No.8686735 t- 6 minutes

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:33:28 2017 No.8686736 File: 312 KB, 1069x702, lyonsandtice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Who's your favorite spacefu, /sci/?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:33:30 2017 No.8686737 >ITS A YUGE FACILITY

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:34:38 2017 No.8686740 this guy looks like Frank from 'The Man in the High Castle'

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:34:43 2017 No.8686741 File: 502 KB, 1704x470, colors.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why are the colors so different between streams?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:34:46 2017 No.8686742 File: 289 KB, 1920x1080, spacex-1337416914001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8686736 Who Ron Burgundy here?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:35:15 2017 No.8686745 The nasa commentator guy is comfy as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:35:31 2017 No.8686747 >>8686741 SpaceX can afford better CGI

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:35:37 2017 No.8686748 File: 1.07 MB, 640x360, Russian SpaceX.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >All systems go

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:35:42 2017 No.8686749 HOLD

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:37:02 2017 No.8686750 dubbels for explosion

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:37:02 2017 No.8686751 >>8686749 DELETE THIS

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:37:17 2017 No.8686752 ERE WE GO LADS.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:37:58 2017 No.8686753 File: 36 KB, 426x341, 1350245885752.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >inb4 hold

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:38:07 2017 No.8686754 >>8686741 different cameras, different color correction

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:38:14 2017 No.8686755 File: 236 KB, 800x800, 1435202727388.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] MAKE SPACE GREAT AGAIN!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:38:23 2017 No.8686756 >>8686752 ROLLING FOR ABORT

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:38:26 2017 No.8686757 IT'S TIME

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:38:40 2017 No.8686758 GO

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:38:48 2017 No.8686759 GO FOR LAUNCH

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:38:51 2017 No.8686760 Godspeed Falcon 9.

>>	derp_commander !!SSXdvR3LCoa Sun Feb 19 09:38:59 2017 No.8686761 RIDE A SHOOTING STAR!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:39:01 2017 No.8686762 HOLD HOLD HOLD HOLD HOLD HOLD HOLD HOLD

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:39:03 2017 No.8686763 >Go for launch muffled clapping in the distance

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:39:09 2017 No.8686764 LD GO FOR LAUNCH

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:39:18 2017 No.8686765 LIFTOFF

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:39:20 2017 No.8686766 AND WE'RE OFF

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:39:35 2017 No.8686767 ;_;7

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:39:35 2017 No.8686768 FIRST LAUNCH FROM PAD 39A SINCE SHUTTLE in 2011

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:39:58 2017 No.8686769 can't see shit

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:40:02 2017 No.8686770 NOMINAL

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:40:07 2017 No.8686771 lets go!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:40:09 2017 No.8686772 O7

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:40:19 2017 No.8686774 Am I the only one who noticed that it looked like the engine flames were uneven?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:40:21 2017 No.8686775 Not the best weather for pictures, but lets go into space bois

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:40:22 2017 No.8686776 CAN'T SEE SHIT CAP'N

>>	derp_commander !!SSXdvR3LCoa Sun Feb 19 09:40:29 2017 No.8686777 BOOM BOOM NIGGAS!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:40:31 2017 No.8686778 MAX Q HERE WE GO

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:40:39 2017 No.8686779 Anyone have a link to the REAL technical live stream? The 5Q one isn't it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:40:49 2017 No.8686780 >>8686776 CONFIRMED FAKE

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:40:59 2017 No.8686781 fucking clouds.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:41:05 2017 No.8686782 where are the rocket cams?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:41:10 2017 No.8686785 NASA's stream has pretty good tracking

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:41:12 2017 No.8686786 >>8686768 6 YEARS Y E A R S MAX Q BOYS

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:41:12 2017 No.8686787 I thought they had cameras on the rocket itself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:41:19 2017 No.8686788 KSP VIEW BUDS

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:41:24 2017 No.8686789 Man fuck clouds

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:41:33 2017 No.8686790 >>8686779 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUDLxFUMC9c

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:41:49 2017 No.8686791 HERE WE GO BOIIIS!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:41:55 2017 No.8686792 SEPARATION!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:42:04 2017 No.8686793 LANDING HYPE

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:42:07 2017 No.8686794 >>8686774 Kerosene looks like that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:42:18 2017 No.8686795 Time for nominally

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:42:30 2017 No.8686797 thread theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ziw4yd5R0QI

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:42:33 2017 No.8686798 File: 1.71 MB, 500x500, lenny goes hyperdrive.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >THAT FUCKING SPEED SO FUCKING FAST HOLY SHIT THAT ENGINE

>>	derp_commander !!SSXdvR3LCoa Sun Feb 19 09:43:17 2017 No.8686799 >>8686794 It still amuses me to no end that we power our high-tech rockets with old lamp fuel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:43:30 2017 No.8686800 >>8686774 It's just how the light of the flames lights up the smoke. Not the actual flames.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:43:47 2017 No.8686801 FLAPPERS CONFIRMED

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:44:18 2017 No.8686802 >>8686798 supersonic accelaration is a hell of a drug

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:44:30 2017 No.8686803 >>8686798 What is the fuel?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:45:00 2017 No.8686805 >>8686803 RP-1

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:45:08 2017 No.8686806 >>8686803 LO2 and Kerosene

>>	derp_commander !!SSXdvR3LCoa Sun Feb 19 09:45:49 2017 No.8686809 File: 20 KB, 400x400, 08af22d0-1ee4-478f-b645-68cf449342dc_400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8686803

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:45:51 2017 No.8686810 >>8683811 Man this is the first launch where I used the hosted stream and this is very normie. It was cool with the background before the launch but from now on I'll probably switch over to the technical at T-1

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:45:57 2017 No.8686811 THAT SPACE JUNK

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:46:04 2017 No.8686812 >>8686799 Is all about energy in the fuel. We don't really have that much better without having an unrealistic cost.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:46:05 2017 No.8686813 IGNITION TENKAI

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:46:05 2017 No.8686814 DID YOU SEE THOSE UFOS?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:46:27 2017 No.8686815 >>8686814 THAT BLACK THINGY? YES

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:46:31 2017 No.8686816 What was that shit stage 1 just flew by?

>>	derp_commander !!SSXdvR3LCoa Sun Feb 19 09:46:38 2017 No.8686817 >>8686812 Understood, but it's still funny.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:46:41 2017 No.8686818 CLOUDS COMING UP TOO FAST

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:46:46 2017 No.8686819 >>8686810 Its pretty cool for people who enjoy science but arent too techy, like me. Yeah, im a normie. :^) What do they talk about in the technical stream?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:46:49 2017 No.8686820 >>8686810 Just have both open, with the hosted at lower volume, so you don't miss the status updates.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:47:03 2017 No.8686821 HERE WE GO

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:47:08 2017 No.8686822 COMING BACK TO EARTH AHHHHHHHHHH PLEASE BE SAFE

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:47:35 2017 No.8686823 WE DID IT

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:47:39 2017 No.8686824 WOAHHHHH!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:47:43 2017 No.8686825 WE DUD IT GUYSE

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:47:47 2017 No.8686826 THE MADMAN ACTUALLY DID IT

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:47:48 2017 No.8686827 Dayum, the clouds really shows how fast its falling.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:47:50 2017 No.8686828 YE BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:47:53 2017 No.8686829 not bad kiddo

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:47:53 2017 No.8686830 NICE!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:47:53 2017 No.8686831 too easy

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:48:12 2017 No.8686832 File: 93 KB, 736x1226, dragon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] THEY FUCKING DID IT THE DRAGON HAS LANDED SAFELY

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:48:22 2017 No.8686833 Was that the first POV landing stream that was uninterrupted?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:48:25 2017 No.8686834 File: 122 KB, 451x451, maga girl.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] LANDING SUCCESSFUL, AMERICA WINS AGAIN!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:48:29 2017 No.8686835 CHOKE ME ELON!!!!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:48:40 2017 No.8686836 File: 119 KB, 376x285, spherecistsBTFO.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] flatearth confirmed

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:48:44 2017 No.8686837 >>8686833 no

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:48:44 2017 No.8686838 File: 59 KB, 795x595, 1458743331099.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I CAME

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:48:45 2017 No.8686839 Dragon is just dropping off supplies right? when are they planning on putting people in there?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:48:46 2017 No.8686840 File: 186 KB, 400x307, elon-1338032586509.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:48:53 2017 No.8686842 >>8686832 The Falcon*

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:48:58 2017 No.8686843 TRUMP MADE SPACE GREAT AGAIN!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:49:15 2017 No.8686844 ICE CONFIRMED

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:49:23 2017 No.8686846 Quite happy, actually

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:49:43 2017 No.8686847 File: 169 KB, 600x976, 1471153087810.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:49:45 2017 No.8686848 >>8686839 no earlier then 2018

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:49:49 2017 No.8686849 >>8686833 Last month was uninterrupted, but it was a droneship landing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:50:04 2017 No.8686850 >>8686832 that's the falcon u tard

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:50:09 2017 No.8686851 >>8686843 You'd think Trump would make a contratulation tweet to cash in on the rah rah made in america propaganda.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:50:50 2017 No.8686852 File: 184 KB, 800x1200, falcon-chan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8686850 >>8686842 woops WOO THE FALCON LANDED SAFELY

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:50:51 2017 No.8686853 >>8686850 lmao

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:51:00 2017 No.8686854 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:51:01 2017 No.8686855 >>8686847 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:51:13 2017 No.8686859 >>8686837 >>8686849 Glad Elon has purchased better internet for his streams

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:51:24 2017 No.8686860 I will never get bored of this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:51:47 2017 No.8686863 File: 195 KB, 600x451, wVvB4zD.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:51:53 2017 No.8686864 Who's this clark kent talking >>8686847 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:52:12 2017 No.8686865 >>8686847 THANK YOU BASED ELON

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:52:20 2017 No.8686866 Will they ever chant "USA USA USA" again?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:52:31 2017 No.8686867 >>8686860 If all goes well, we could be seeing this every 2 weeks

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:52:49 2017 No.8686868 >>8686864 He's pretty hot. No homo

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:53:01 2017 No.8686869 File: 65 KB, 537x396, SOLAR RAY.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] SOLAR RAYS

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:53:06 2017 No.8686870 >>8686863 DREAN ON, MARS MAN

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:53:22 2017 No.8686871 >>8686847 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:53:39 2017 No.8686872 >>8686863 Dream on, Mars man

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:54:21 2017 No.8686874 File: 6 KB, 365x276, 1374425564893.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >take a pause from fapping to barely catch the launch in time thank fuck

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:54:39 2017 No.8686875 >>8686847 Thank you based Elon

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:55:00 2017 No.8686877 >>8686868 too bad he is

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:55:01 2017 No.8686878 THE UFO'S WERE AT T+ 6:30 IF YOU WANT TO SEE THEM BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT STRIPS THEM FROM THE VIDEO

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:55:23 2017 No.8686879 >Fullstack software engineer Maybe I should apply.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:55:32 2017 No.8686880 >>8686747 >>8686754 Which one is closer to reality?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:55:51 2017 No.8686883 >>8686874 >Not timing your fap with the launch

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:55:54 2017 No.8686884 >may next year we may see 2 astronauts go to the space station on that thing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:56:05 2017 No.8686886 File: 131 KB, 1760x657, Spyce.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:56:07 2017 No.8686887 File: 193 KB, 439x288, 1343931325352.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >That job advert at the end Sometimes I wish I was American, I would work for SpaceX in a heartbeat

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:56:28 2017 No.8686889 SOON https://youtu.be/0qo78R_yYFA

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:56:54 2017 No.8686891 File: 462 KB, 3000x2000, 16787988882_3f7c661a96_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8686884 This one They will do an uncrewed test this year.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:57:08 2017 No.8686892 >>8686883 are you nuts - what if the launch went wrong? that would be the weirdest nutbust ever

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:57:54 2017 No.8686893 >>8686880 Second one. Color correction/grading is a big thing in video production. Varies a lot between camera, conditions, angle to sun. Google color grading.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:58:37 2017 No.8686894 so everyone on this board is sucking elon's dick now? feels good you mother fuckers. fuck the haters. most important human being of the XXI century. your kids will see it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:58:39 2017 No.8686895 Post-launch news conf at 11:30 EST NASATV

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:59:01 2017 No.8686896 >>8686891 *hope to do This is SpaceX we're talking about

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:59:07 2017 No.8686897 >>8686868 nice digits

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:59:37 2017 No.8686898 >>8686895 will someone ask about the UFO's at t+ 6:30

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 09:59:49 2017 No.8686899 >>8686891 >tfw falcon heavy and dragon 2 tests are this year

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:00:01 2017 No.8686900 >>8686741 >pre soviet >post soviet

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:00:31 2017 No.8686902 >>8686896 >Falcon Heavy launch in 6 months guys, we promise!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:01:14 2017 No.8686903 launch replays on NASA TV now

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:01:55 2017 No.8686905 >>8686902 the plan to send an unmanned craft to Mars in 2018 has been pushed back to 2020 as well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:04:17 2017 No.8686906 >>8686902 tfw 2012 still hasn't ended At least they seem to finally have some flight hardware in McGregor now

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:04:41 2017 No.8686907 >>8686892 HOLD HOLD HOLD

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:05:46 2017 No.8686909 >>8686907 >edging for 24 hour hold best nut ever

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:06:05 2017 No.8686911 >>8686907 >Have to hold fapping for 6 months until they fix the rocket

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:06:47 2017 No.8686913 Was this the reused rocket?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:07:03 2017 No.8686914 >>8686903 and now landing replays!

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:07:13 2017 No.8686915
File: 83 KB, 374x500, PuppyPC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8686887
are you in Uni or do you have a BS in Eng? I assume you're in the UK, wouldn't be hard for you to apply and get a work Visa. Come to America and help us Make Space Great Again!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:07:43 2017 No.8686916 >>8686913 No, the reused one will launch next, on the 28th hopefully.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:07:59 2017 No.8686917 >>8686913 No.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:08:18 2017 No.8686918 >>8686916 I see. Fingers crossed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:08:47 2017 No.8686920 >>8686916 Correction, second next flight in march.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:08:49 2017 No.8686921 If only MSM would halt political bashing for 5 minutes to play this

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:08:51 2017 No.8686922
File: 90 KB, 426x590, Kamina.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>There will be a time where you can hop onto a rocket as a tourist to visit a space station within 6 minutes and come back on another rocket 10 minutes later

WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:09:35 2017 No.8686924 >>8686915 Doesn't matter, because of ITAR only americans can work on rockets

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:09:46 2017 No.8686926 >>8686879 SpaceX pay is garbage tier

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:09:53 2017 No.8686927 >>8686922 not if the US is conquered by mexicans/blacks And Europe is conquered by muslims Without competition the chinks would destroy their rockets and spend the next 1000 years in stagnation

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:10:03 2017 No.8686928 >>8686922 >16 minute trip for 25k no thanks

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:11:54 2017 No.8686931 >>8686926 >NOT GETTING YOUR STOCK VESTED WOO O O

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:12:43 2017 No.8686934 Guys, I've decided to convert myself to a Elon Musk shill. What should a plebeian like I do to receive his forgiveness and enlightenment?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:12:43 2017 No.8686935 >>8686928 >oh forgot to feed my dog in space your dog is worth the money

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:12:57 2017 No.8686936 >>8686927 >Without competition the chinks would destroy their rockets and spend the next 1000 years in stagnation I want to say you're wrong, but historically I know you're right.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:13:45 2017 No.8686937 >>8686924 Did not know this....

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:14:07 2017 No.8686938 >>8686934 Praise Elon twice a day while facing Mars.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:14:14 2017 No.8686939 >>8686931 You can't vest it the day you join the company you moron. Have to wait for some period.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:14:43 2017 No.8686940 >>8686935 wut?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:15:15 2017 No.8686941 >>8686924 Marry a murrican fatchick and get a green card. Then divorce her.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:15:30 2017 No.8686943 >>8686924 There's still ESA r-right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:16:17 2017 No.8686944 >>8686940 >not having the bankroll to go back to space colony V because you forgot to close the windows preventing space bugs from getting in the house casual

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:16:23 2017 No.8686945 >>8686938 What else?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:17:20 2017 No.8686946 >>8686945 also pray that he wont get ruined and torn to shreds by amber heart like she did with j depp

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:18:31 2017 No.8686950
File: 476 KB, 438x325, Nope fuck your money.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8686939
Serious question, I'm more of a /biz/nesman so no space company is public because of the risks with explosions right? I from houston so i know the industry but Why else would they not file for an IPO? I know that ULA is Co-owned by Boeing and Lockheed so that's out

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:19:04 2017 No.8686954 File: 442 KB, 2048x1365, C5CXYlHUoAUPGwX.jpg large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:19:38 2017 No.8686955 >>8686954 Very Kino. Blow this up and put it across your living room wall

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:19:59 2017 No.8686956 >>8686954 It was just that easy to reuse rockets And noone did it for decades s m h

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:20:27 2017 No.8686957 >>8686946 Fucking gold diggers. This man is trying to lead humanity into the space age all bitches can think about is how much money they can steal from him.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:20:36 2017 No.8686959 Space colonies when? >Zeon

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:21:04 2017 No.8686961 >>8686950 Maybe because these companies aren't exactly profitable and only win with the help of heavy subsidiaries and gibs from the govt

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:21:14 2017 No.8686962 >>8686957 I'm legit worried. They've been friends for some time but you may never know what happened.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:22:44 2017 No.8686963 >>8686961 makes sense seeing that ULA raped the taxpayer and SpaceX came in and said piss off with your price gouging

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:23:16 2017 No.8686964

>>8686956
Space is expensive so nobody dared innovate.
Launch corporations were still getting enough contracts because there was no competition. It was in everyones best interest to just shut up about the real price of rockets and just triple charge.

Then Elon came.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:23:23 2017 No.8686965 Alright /sci/ I want in on the space age. You've convinced me. So, should I do?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:24:22 2017 No.8686967 >>8686961 >win run*

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:25:56 2017 No.8686970 File: 398 KB, 2048x1354, Your moms buttplug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8686965 Save up money. In 10-20 years you might be able to spend a week in orbit for the sweet price of 100K, or go to Mars for twice that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:27:28 2017 No.8686972 >>8686962 there are special spacex/tesla strike teams in place to prevent bad shit from happening

>>	YOUR MOMS DILDO IN FALCON HEAV(...) Sun Feb 19 10:29:05 2017 No.8686975 File: 95 KB, 720x960, 16473577_178748475945980_7698739460273352754_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8686970 appropriate

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:30:10 2017 No.8686976 >>8686975 BBR?

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:30:54 2017 No.8686977
File: 981 KB, 375x211, balling.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8686965
Watch/play/consume media about space things. Hard sci or scifi doesn't matter, just have a good time and enjoy what the future can bring us.

>>8686970
>not even lubed
outta here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:31:59 2017 No.8686980 >>8686975 BIG

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:32:17 2017 No.8686981 >>8686972 I heard even delta force envies them

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:33:17 2017 No.8686982 >>8686980 >>8686976 4 u

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:33:50 2017 No.8686983 Alright back to my fapping session

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:38:42 2017 No.8686987 >>8686965 Go into aerospace eng.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:43:04 2017 No.8686993 >>8686956 Probably don't even need modern computing power for the autopilot landing. I bet Shuttle-era technology was enough.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:46:31 2017 No.8687000 >>8686993 I heard engine efficiency was the biggest problem. The amount of fuel needed for boost back meant that the kg payload to orbit was incredibly small.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:56:17 2017 No.8687014

>>8687000

Rocket efficiency is just a question of physics, it has never really improved. Chasing that last 1-2% of efficiency is a massive waste of time/effort too

Boostback/landing isn't actually that much of a penalty, because the empty first stage only weighs like 10 tons, compared to 100+ tons of the 2nd stage.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 10:56:35 2017 No.8687015 FUCK I MISSED IT

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:06:13 2017 No.8687025

>>8686956
>easy
it took a giant leap of faith to design the Falcon 9 right from the start for recovery. You have to design the first stage correctly: robust body plus over 10:1 ratio of launch vs. landing thrust, which required both nine engines and deep throttle on the landing engine. It took many iterations to refine that as well.

And reuse has yet to be proven cost effective, both for the stage body and for the engines.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:07:39 2017 No.8687026
File: 79 KB, 807x435, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8687014
It's not quite true. The Falcon 9 is a lot more efficient than rockets of 10 years ago. Both in the engines and the rocket themselves they have improved

We're nowhere near that 2%

And they're still improving, that rocket that blew up on the launch pad was because they were testing a new material for the tank that allowed them to store it under higher pressures.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:11:36 2017 No.8687032 >>8687026 What's so important about thrust-to-weight ratio? Isn't the engine's mass just a small fraction of the overall mass of the rocket?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:17:51 2017 No.8687038 >>8687032 The "weight" part includes the entire rocket and fuel.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:20:19 2017 No.8687043

I think the future has to be smaller rockets. For that matter, do we NEED rockets? Can't we create another drone style vehicle to slowly (by comparison) lift a ship out of orbit then from there launch off? I guess basically, can I replace the rocket for a drone to break orbit. Why or why not?

Whatever information I receive will be studied towards solution

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:20:51 2017 No.8687045 >>8687038 Really? Wouldn't that mean the Saturn V would be accelerating at 94G's, killing the astronauts?

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:26:58 2017 No.8687052

>>8687043
You're completely wrong though.

The future is bigger rockets. A few days ago India launched at rocket with 104 satellites on it from 6 different countries. They said it makes launching a satellite 20% cheaper for customers.

>Can't we create another drone style vehicle to slowly (by comparison) lift a ship out of orbit then from there launch off
How will you create thrust? You can only get so high up until you run out of atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:34:16 2017 No.8687069 >>8687052 >A few days ago India launched at rocket with 104 satellites on it from 6 different countries. But that wasn't a bigger rocket, that was smaller satellites.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:34:30 2017 No.8687071 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdmHHpAsMVw PRESS CONFERENCE

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:35:22 2017 No.8687072 >>8687026 useless chart, you want specific impulse and then you need to take into account the energy density of the fuel and oxidizer which influences how big your rocket has to be

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:35:55 2017 No.8687074 >>8687069 Same thing basically. ONly you can launch even more and heavier satellites.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:36:52 2017 No.8687077 >8 landings Damn they are going to run out of room to store these stages. Better start relaunching soon

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:37:20 2017 No.8687078

>>8686950
Musk has specifically said that an IPO is off the table for SpaceX until there are regular flights to Mars. If they were just trying to be in the space transport business, they'd probably be public already. For ULA, it's constituents Boeing and Lockheed are very much publicly traded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:39:20 2017 No.8687083 >>8687077 I'd really like to know the damage report and refurbishment cost of the boosters.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:39:44 2017 No.8687085 >>8686950 IPO means you have to start caring about investor value and shit and can't do pie in the sky stuff anymore, it's the beginning of the end of innovation

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:41:00 2017 No.8687088

>>8687052
Clearly the drone would be designed in stages. Tow to the edge of the atmosphere then a stage with rockets pushing it the final distance off, potentially at a good angle to avoid direct wind resistance and maneuver it to let one ship go and go get the other for refueling the first. Or design the system so you get as high as you can go then the ship pushes off from low orbit.

The idea is to refuse the fuckhueg costs of a rocket burning fuel all the way from ground to orbit. That seems counterproductive when we can combine different aerial vehicle technologies to reduce the overall costs and improve the system.

What's stopping a similar system from working?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:41:38 2017 No.8687089 >>8687083 elon said that theoretically they could have launched their first returned stage the next day. they just want to be through

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:44:30 2017 No.8687096 >>8687032 Every pound cut off the engine & other dead mass is more payload Engine mass is actually a large fraction, rockets are just giant tubes of aluminum filled with fuel.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:45:16 2017 No.8687097

>>8687088
Air launches are a thing that some launch providers try to do. I think currently your best bet is following Virgin Galactic if they still planning on developing that.

In the early days of SpaceX, there were concepts for a Falcon 5 Air if I recall correctly, you should be able to read up on that on Wikipedia.

Point is, these concepts definitely exist, although usually they use planes to get the rocket up.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:47:25 2017 No.8687100

>>8687088
?
Because that shit is stupid and the small amount of speed/altitude of aerial vehicles is NOT at all worth the hangups of dealing with it

Nothing stops you from just adding a yard or two to the diameter of your rocket

Look at the size/weight of big rockets, compared to even large cargo planes, they are MUCH larger

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:47:39 2017 No.8687101

>>8687088
The problem is that we need BOTH height and speed. Sure you can lift the rocket to a higher altitude, but that doesn't change much in terms of fuel saved since you need speed. (the fuel is cheap anyway, hence to focus on re-usability instead of fuel saving)
So if you want to build something that can lift the heavy second stage and give it speed, you essentially arrive at the design of a 1st stage booster.

>>8687089
source?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:47:47 2017 No.8687102 >>8686959 The earthsphere belongs to the federation, Deikun

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:47:50 2017 No.8687103 >>8687097 Just to top off the concept. How about a plane in two stages that just goes to space? I actually want to combine the three concepts Fuck I need to study physics and engineering more. I can make this shit. We 20xx in this bih

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:50:43 2017 No.8687112 >>8687101 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/682717803166695425

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:50:55 2017 No.8687113 How long until the USA can compete with China again?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:51:33 2017 No.8687114 >>8687103 Look up SABRE (or is it SABER?) engines, they can switch from airbreathing to liquid oxidizer in flight, so you can get the best of both worlds. They haven't actually been built yet though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:51:46 2017 No.8687115 >>8687103 look up stratolaunch

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:51:52 2017 No.8687116

>>8687103
>Spessplens
I think the Concorde could technically reach space or at least go pretty high, some fighter jets can too I think. As for current projects, read up on Skylon, they're trying to build a SSTO (single stage to orbit) spaceplane with a new engine concept (new as in not used before)

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:53:02 2017 No.8687120 >>8687103 Skylon uses SABRE (>>8687114) btw.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:54:51 2017 No.8687122

>>8687103
The problem is the dynamics of engines
Engines that work at sea level and 0 mph lose efficiency fast, and stop working past like mach 3 even if they were designed for it
You get less and less thrust as you go faster because the air you are intaking is still stationary compared to you

Also way worse thrust to weight, no existing super sonic planes carry anything near what payload you want...

Just doesn't make sense because fuel is cheap, the whole system becomes so complicated

Things might change a bit in the future because of engines that can alter their intakes/internals, but that's massive billion dollar projects that likely will not be better than mass produced engines like the Raptor

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:56:48 2017 No.8687126

>>8687100
Everything is worth at least researching for the sake of the future. I want to remove the need for the booster which takes up a big chunk of the weight.

>>8687101
What about power? Say we get to high orbit and for sake of exaggerating examples designed a controlled nuke underneath that gave it that push past orbit. Basically put our bomb tech to use?

If I sound ridiculous good. Furthest advancement are made when some one starts thinking of different solutions. We're using design concepts from the 60s. Let's try to find new solutions from today's design concepts. Better yet, tomorrow's.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:57:46 2017 No.8687130 >It's a everyone asks more questions about the landing than the mission press conference

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 11:58:29 2017 No.8687131 >>8687126 nuclear (bomb) rockets are also concepts from the 60's :^)

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:00:20 2017 No.8687134 >>8687113 as soon as you stop beating your wife

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:04:24 2017 No.8687143

>>8687114
SABER looks promising, but Elon went for the low hanging fruit. You might think this is stupid, but it's actually the smart thing to do.

While they're still begging for funds Elon already has a profitable company, and could drastically reduce the price of space access in 5 years or less.

So he has more money to spend on R&D. I can see him experimenting with spaceplanes in the future once he finished ITS and has a stable fleet of light, medium and heavy launch vehicles.

>>8687126
"Controlled" explosion or not, it's not that easy to control the thrust vector and force using bombs I would assume.
And unless you're using nukes it wouldn't be more efficient than normal rocket engines

Also exploding nukes in our atmosphere isn't a very good idea. The USA did this back in the day. Very large EMP radius, very large radiation fallout radius.

And then there is the geopolitical part of putting nukes on what is essentially an ICBM.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:15:25 2017 No.8687159 >>8687143 I dnno about spaceplanes, but a single stage suborbital passenger rocket could be a thing There's no reason to ever go smaller, After the ITS is done and they've built dozens of them they will go BIGGER

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:18:26 2017 No.8687163 >>8687143 >While they're still begging for funds Elon already has a profitable company To be fair, Elon already had quite some money and they got NASA money pretty early on. Skylon has had way less money overall I'm pretty sure, they don't get a lot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:22:15 2017 No.8687170 the landing looked like it was right in the center could they ditch the legs and land on some kind of robot arms?

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:27:40 2017 No.8687182
File: 1.13 MB, 1836x3264, IMAG0064.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Fuck it I went again and quickly (and honestly a bit hastily, I'm going to give the idea another go), drew out a really rough plan concept. The idea is the drone has rockets and as it approaches higher altitudes it turns on thrusters, gets to orbit then separates from the ship

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:28:02 2017 No.8687184

>>8687163
People are just more willing to invest in proven technology.

To me his genius isn't in the actual products he makes, since that's mostly his employees. But his intellect ass a business man the process he uses to arrive at the final product. In a way he's the new Ford imho.

He did a similar thing with Tesla. Google has been driving around their silly little car around in SanFran for years, but as soon as they drive it outside that range it fails completely.
Elon started with normal cars which had the hardware capability to self drive, had them collect data all around the world, and incrementally upgrade the software.
And now currently has the best self driving (i guess it's still driving assist) car on the market.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:28:17 2017 No.8687186 >>8687170 for what purpose?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:29:20 2017 No.8687189 >>8687182 A plane will get you more initial speed to build upon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:32:03 2017 No.8687196 >>8687182 Look, you don't gain anything from launching from a higher altitude you need SPEEED. You'd probably save more money launching from a ship closer to the equator than from the top of the mount Everest.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:35:19 2017 No.8687200 >>8687186 a lighter rocket? more payload?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:37:05 2017 No.8687202 >>8687196 This is also something some companies are trying, see SeaLaunch. >>8687200 The legs aren't that heavy and replacing them with something complex would not be worth the effort.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:41:44 2017 No.8687209
File: 1.03 MB, 1836x3264, IMAG0066.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8687196
What if you launch two separate vehicles, one after the other. One lighter one first can break through the atmosphere and underneath it the rocket can fly without resistance allowing it to be lighter then the drone (for lack of a better word) breaks through orbit and open its hatch to allow the ship into space. Bear with me for the sake of SCIENCE

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:44:25 2017 No.8687214 File: 1.07 MB, 3264x1836, 1487526223943-1721619045.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Adding to my concept

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:48:27 2017 No.8687222 >>8687209 >>8687214 Just use a goddamn plane, those are already using jet turbines, I think Virgin's launcher ship even uses their rocket engines. You get much more speed that way which is way more important than height.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:50:35 2017 No.8687223

>>8687209
Look, a drone simply can't get the speed necessary. You need a jet or rocket engine to make any noticeable difference and you're still left with a staged system. Otherwise you're just adding more complexity and more cost

The only difference would be vertical VS horizontal takeoff. And considering we're landing vertical boosters just fine that has become moot point.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 12:58:59 2017 No.8687238

>>8687223
>>8687222
I know when to call it quits and when to persist. Before I do bare with me once more.

The last drone concept. What if we kept it perpetually in earth's high atmosphere which giant propellers ala Helicarrier. Have be dedicated for breaking atmosphere and whenever a launch scheduled the turbines rotate and activate spinning the entire thing on its own axis creating a wind funnel that would push rockets up. Maybe even several at different altitudes working simultaneously spinning to create a fuckhuge wind funnel the rocket could then just glide through, as the varying stages open the hatches. Then, hypothetically you won't need as much speed to lift off because there's no resistance.

That's what I'm trying to achieve, a lack of wind resistance.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 13:17:22 2017 No.8687261

>>8686956
>It was just that easy to reuse rockets
>And noone did it for decades
This wasn't easy. They developed it with so few tries by using computer simulations that weren't feasible in the past.

Anyway, they still haven't reused one, because they're not coming back in good shape. There's the turbine blade cracking issue, for instance. They want them back ready to refly without refurbishment. So the development process isn't done. They've got a major revision still coming up.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 13:23:27 2017 No.8687268 >>8686936 >Without competition the chinks would destroy their rockets and spend the next 1000 years in stagnation Seconding this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 13:28:46 2017 No.8687280 >>8686972 >>8686981 >delta-v force, the envy of the world's secret services

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 13:43:12 2017 No.8687315 >>8684267 >I learned Latin for the most part and holy fuck, it really allows you to understand a shit load of other languages to a certain point. Romanian too For some reason, it survived between all those languages that are different from it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 13:54:13 2017 No.8687332 >>8684210 >>8685198 As predicted, I missed it today and everything went fine.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 13:57:08 2017 No.8687337

>>8687032
Engine mass is a small fraction of the overall mass of a rocket loaded with fuel and payload. It's a much larger fraction when trying to recover the nearly empty first stage like SpaceX is doing.

A higher thrust to weight ratio also reduces gravity losses at and right after liftoff, allowing more the the engine's energy to go into accelerating the rocket rather than just barely balancing the force of gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_drag
>Over a time t the change in speed of the spacecraft is (a-g)t, whereas the delta-v expended is at. The gravity drag is the difference between these figures, which is gt. As a proportion of delta-v, the gravity drag is g/a.

>A very large thrust over a very short time will achieve a desired speed increase with little gravity drag. On the other hand, if a is only slightly greater than g, the gravity drag is a large proportion of delta-v. Gravity drag can be described as the extra delta-v needed because of not being able to spend all the needed delta-v instantaneously.

This effect can be explained in two equivalent ways:

> The specific energy gained per unit delta-v is equal to the speed, so efficiency is maximized when the delta-v is spent when the craft already has a high speed, due to the Oberth effect.
> Efficiency drops drastically with increasing time spent thrusting against gravity. Therefore, it is advisable to minimize the burn time.

>These effects apply whenever climbing to an orbit with higher specific orbital energy, such as during launch to low Earth orbit (LEO) or from LEO to an escape orbit. This is a worst case calculation - in practice, gravity drag during launch and ascent is less than the maximum value of gt because the launch trajectory does not remain vertical and the vehicle's mass is not constant, due to consumption of propellant and staging.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 14:04:45 2017 No.8687348

>>8687238
There was a rocket design with a helicopter-like rotor to aid launch and land once (Rotary Rocket Roton). They ran out of funding. As for your concept, way too complicated and expensive compared to just building a rocket, also you still need to go against gravity so the rocket probably wouldn't save much fuel anyways. Also,
>propeller
>high atmosphere

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 14:12:21 2017 No.8687364

>>8687222
>I think Virgin's launcher ship even uses their rocket engines. You get much more speed that way which is way more important than height.
No, air launch is almost entirely about altitude (or rather, air pressure), not speed. High speed complicates separation. The White Knight series is all subsonic. It's easier to use conventional jet engines to reach the launch altitude of 15 km (somewhat higher than the typical 12 km altitude of cruising airliners), where the air pressure is under 10% of sea level.

The primary benefit of air launch is that the rocket engines are more efficient in the lower air pressure (theoretical efficiency limit of rocket engines is determined by the relative pressure of the combustion chamber and the atmosphere it's in). It's similar to the difference in efficiency between lower stage engines and upper stage engines. A related secondary benefit is reduction of aerodynamic forces on the rest of the vehicle.

Instead of taking the profit in efficiency, you can also simply use rockets with lower chamber pressure. For instance, there's a lower penalty for using cheap, reliable pressure-fed engines (like the Kestrel on the Falcon 1 upper stage) and the tank pressure can be lower.

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 14:42:49 2017 No.8687417

>>8687348
The concept is to reduce the size of rockets to reduce development costs. Yes the proposed system would be expensive but I'm thinking about viability. Can't we create a giant wind funnel using my concept with much smaller rockets (the idea here is cost so more companies can afford to get into the market).

Cost of the project aside for a second, is it physically possible to create that. Maybe 3 or more on the same y axis which would spin, create the funnel and a much more cost effective rocket or maybe even rocket plane could fly off a runway (cheaper), position itself underneath then push off. It would essentially be a wind elevator

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 14:43:09 2017 No.8687418 we did it reddit

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 14:44:58 2017 No.8687419 >>8687417 Off of this, the device would be large enough to be used for any company's ship. It would be for 'public' use. So the cost is hella reduced all around

Anonymous Sun Feb 19 15:09:13 2017 No.8687457

>>8687417
>>8687419
I seriously doubt this is viable, there's a lot of space between ground and space, you'd need a load of machines, also I don't even know if this is physically possible.

Also at that point you're adding so much cost with the rotor machines that cheaper rockets barely make a difference. Rockets aren't cheap, but they aren't much more expensive than other aerospace vehicles.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 19 15:11:29 2017 No.8687464 >>8687417 >The concept is to reduce the size of rockets to reduce development costs. >Can't we create a giant wind funnel

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 20 00:26:34 2017 No.8688519 >>8687364 another advantage of air launch has nothing to do with the science of it. Many launch delays are due to weather at the launch site. With air launch, you can fly above the weather so you can launch any time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 20 00:28:34 2017 No.8688521 >>8687043 >>8687052 Rocket Labs is one company about to debut their small Electron launcher this year. They aim to make New Zealand the next space power!

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