New Glenn

[Anonymous No.8728715]

Will Musk ever recover ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTEhohh6eYk

[Anonymous No.8728759]

I am also curious on opinions.

[Anonymous No.8728776]

Will Blue Origin ever be able to produce a quality showcase animation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM

[Anonymous No.8728790]

>>8728715

>has already landed multiple Falcon 9 first stages, both on drone ships and at the launch site
>has already flown multiple Dragon capsules to the ISS
>has already launched many commercial payloads into orbit
>currently getting Falcon Heavy ready to launch later this year
>currently developing a manned capsule capable of propulsive landing
>currently well into the development of the Raptor methalox FFSC engine
>currently well into the development of the ITS carbon composite tank technology

>Bezos' pet rocket """"company"""" announces their next project, a rocket that copycats the Falcon 9
>but it can also have TWO upper stages!

I'm sure Musk is quaking in his boots.

[Anonymous No.8728800]

tfw got an internship at Blue this summer

so fucken hyped

[Anonymous No.8728826]

>>8728790
Bezos has 60 B net worth that will go toward New Armstrong that will rival ITS in 2020s unless Musk plans work out in Elon Time
Blue will crush SpaceX over the long term because they can focus on r&d and not worry about cash flow.

[Anonymous No.8728838]

This whole thing is just a sad circlejerk.

We only need so many satellites in orbit, and the ISS only needs so much supplies at a time. The contracts, and therefor theoretical private market, is extremely small.

You simply can't make profit going into space. This entire fake private space competition relies entirely on government launch contracts. Only Elon's money runs out we will be right back where we started. Virgin dropped out as soon as they realized a market didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.8728855]

>>8728838
Under rated post.

Far enough in the future, there will be ample opportunities to make vast profits in space exploitation, but we are nowhere near that point yet.

[Anonymous No.8728861]

>>8728855
Not even in the future. There is nothing of value in space that we need on Earth that isn't already here on Earth. There's no oil on Mars.

[Anonymous No.8728868]

>>8728838
>Virgin
>JUST six months away :^)
They're only looking at sub-orbital tourism anyway, and going at it in an incredibly roundabout way as well.

Elon plans to make big money in space by building a huge constellation of satellites in LEO that will provide high speed internet access across the entire globe. He isn't just taking an 'If I build it, they will come' attitude. Think of how many people would jump at the chance to get away from Comcast forever.

[Anonymous No.8728874]

>>8728861
There's "oil" on Titan.

[Anonymous No.8728875]

>>8728861
>he doesn't know about platinum-group metal asteroids

[Anonymous No.8728878]

Now I understand all the SpaceX butthurt here. It's all Blue Origin faggots.

kek how they've copying everything SpaceX has already accomplished; drone ships, first stage landings, etc.

[Anonymous No.8728901]

>>8728826
>over the long term

And until then SpaceX is currently launching rockets and making money, eating up a large section of the launch market. The upcoming CRS2 missions are going to add more revenue, alongside Falcon Heavy which will allow even heavy geostationary payloads to recover all first stage booster cores. Only heavy payloads to beyond-Earth-orbit destinations will require expenditure of cores anymore. More missions and reuse of cores is where SpaceX will have a significant profit margin advantage over every space company, until BO starts flying their launch vehicle successfully, at which point SpaceX will merely have a price competitor.

In the mean time New Glenn probably won't fly for at least two or three years, during which time SpaceX can keep their price aroudn what it is today with no market repercussions, no matter how much money they save by reusing cores. When (if) New Glenn becomes fully operational and starts competing with SpaceX, SpaceX can just lower the launch cost to a comparable level and remain strong in the market. The side effect of course is that suddenly ULA and Arianespace will be competing with tow companies who have undercut their price points by an order of magnitude, and with their current lineup of Vulcan and Ariane 6, they will have no chance of matching that price.

[Anonymous No.8728903]

>>8728776
>judging engineering on render quality
When I see shit like that, I wonder why they didn't spend the money on engineers

[Anonymous No.8728904]

>>8728875
>he doesn't know that those metals are bound up in iron-nickel alloy and it is absurdly expensive to extract a small amount impurities from iron alloys.

[Anonymous No.8728907]

>>8728878

>but their drone ship MOVES
>and New Glenn doesn't NEED a boost-back or reentry burn

Strange how BO would choose to forego potential fast recovery and reuse with return to launch site landing in favor of a several day voyage at sea every time their rocket launches.

[Anonymous No.8728909]

>>8728790
SES-10 is later this month and the first reuse mission of a Falcon 9 stage one.

[Anonymous No.8728919]

>>8728909
correct

[Anonymous No.8728937]

>>8728909
>>8728919
Im not holding my breath though, sadly those launches keep getting pushed back.
>I want to believe

[Anonymous No.8728939]

>>8728875
>going to space for resources is the only way to make money in space
>>8728904
>no that's too expensive it is therefore impossible to make money in space :^)

You make money by sending things TO space for people who need their things IN space to make money. EG, communication satellites, weather satellites, internet satellites. Those markets are not fully realized at this point because launch costs are prohibitive for most projects. Lower launch costs will allow satellite companies to redesign for mass production and shorter lifetimes, taking advantage of being able to afford more cheap launches in order to lower their own production costs in the long run.

[Anonymous No.8728944]

>>8728937
>sadly those launches keep getting pushed back

Source? Other that the Amos-6 incident I don't think anything's happened to push launches back except for some priority-shuffling.

[Anonymous No.8728975]

>>8728939

>>8728838
Those markets don't really exist. They are very small.

[Anonymous No.8728979]

>>8728838
Virgin was selling a really expensive amusement.

it produced some neat engineering with Rutan though.

[Anonymous No.8729067]

Really slow landing
Have they learned nothing from SpaceX? Also what about the reentry burn ?

[Anonymous No.8729083]

>>8728715
>woman
nice PR propaganda

[Anonymous No.8729087]

>>8728975
The market doesn't exist because of the insane costs. If you magically made launch costs 1$/kg the market would grow 100fold over the next couple of years.

[Anonymous No.8729113]

>>8729087
>If you magically made launch costs 1$/kg the market would grow 100fold over the next couple of years
100fold is a huge understatement

1$/kg is nothing. large scale space expansion would immediately occur

[Anonymous No.8729131]

>>8728944
Yeah it might just be an effect of the backlog caused by Amos-6 and so on, so hopefully it will improve.

As for source, i've just been following the date changes seen on SpaceFlightNow
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

So you have like
>Falcon 9 • EchoStar 23
>Delayed from 3rd quarter, 4th quarter, Jan. 8, Jan. 26, Jan. 30, Feb. 3 and Feb. 28

>Falcon 9 • SES 10
>Delayed from 3rd Quarter, October and February

>Falcon 9 • Formosat 5 & Sherpa
>Delayed from May, June, July, September and October.

>Falcon 9 • SpaceX CRS 11
>Delayed from June 2, Aug. 15, Jan. 13 and Feb. 1

And so on. Hopefully, if they start hitting their launch schedule it will be like fucking missile macros on both east coast and west coast

[Anonymous No.8729168]

>>8728715

But isn't the rocket the cheap part, relatively speaking? Also, why not just land it in the sea and go fish it out?

[Anonymous No.8729170]

>>8729168
salt water corrodes everything.

they shuttle boosters ditched in the ocean and were recovered to be reused. it was too much work and they were solid fuel.

[Anonymous No.8729212]

>>8728800
would be cool to have some /scinsider/ info
just don't shill

[Anonymous No.8729270]

>>8728838
>The contracts, and therefor theoretical private market, is extremely small.
You have no idea how wrong you are.

People want extremely high resolution realtime Earth imagery.
You need absolute shitloads of satellites for that.

[Anonymous No.8729772]

>>8728944
Things have been getting pushed back continuously the last several months.

>>8728790
Blue Origin has already landed a booster half a dozen times, and by the time New Glenn flies it will be 50-100 times.
BO stands a pretty good chance of nailing the landing on its first try; certainly better than SpaceX did when they first started out.

[Anonymous No.8729782]

>>8728878
The only butthurt I see here is a bunch of redditors who only like like SpaceX and Elon Musk, and don't actually care about space travel.

>>8729067
>Really slow landing
That's exactly how New Shepard lands.
NS and NG have engines that can dip below a TWR of 1, allowing for non-"hoverslam" landings, which are more reliable.

>Have they learned nothing from SpaceX
I'm sure they have been watching everything their competitor has done closely.

>Also what about the reentry burn?
There is none, atm, and if they can pull it off it will mean more fuel savings.

[Anonymous No.8729787]

>>8728838
The three-stage variant of NG is obviously meant to cater to an emerging Lunar market.

I suspect BO will build a large (perhaps 10-24 person) capsule by 2022-23, and that it will have a service module allowing it to enter Lunar orbit unlike Dragon 2.

[Anonymous No.8729803]

>>8729772
There is a very big difference in both size and speed between New Shepard and New Glenn. Add to that the difficulties of landing on a moving target and I really don't see them starting out with a high success rate.

[Anonymous No.8729823]

>>8729803
>size
This doesn't matter in any way aside from engine complexity (and keep in mind this engine will be flown a dozen times on Vulcan and certified for national security launch before NG ever flies.) Elon himself said that the reason they are using powered landings for Mars is that the technology is easily scaleable.

>speed
NG speed at separation will be maybe 40% higher than NS at most. I do agree that the biggest unknown on the first flight will be reentry.

>Add to that the difficulties of landing on a moving target
Why would this be difficult? It's just adding an extra reference frame to consider in the computer. An undergrad could do this. The moving ship will be more stable (due to moving) and have a larger deck, and will be able to sail directly back to port. Also, the booster will almost certainly have enough margin to hover and reorient itself for landing if need be.

>I really don't see them starting out with a high success rate.
It's reasonable to expect that they won't make the first landing but there's no reason they cannot achieve it much quicker than SpaceX did.

[Anonymous No.8729834]

>>8729782
>allowing for non-"hoverslam" landings, which are more reliable.
Only for a person, makes no difference to a computer, just means they are wasting more fuel

They haven't launched any payload to orbit yet, you KNOW that they are going to have problems with landing failures & rocket blow ups, its inevitable
That will set them back years, even if they manage to launch first in 2020

We'll see if they can do reentry without a burn, SpaceX does one for a reason

[Anonymous No.8729861]

>>8729834
>Only for a person, makes no difference to a computer, just means they are wasting more fuel
At least two of the SpaceX landings (SES-9 and Eutelsat/ABSat) failed due to the hoverslam approach.
NS has a higher landing success rate (5:6) vs falcon 9 (8:13). The non-hoverslam approach is objectively more reliable.

>They haven't launched any payload to orbit yet, you KNOW that they are going to have problems with landing failures & rocket blow ups, its inevitable
see this post >>8729823

>That will set them back years, even if they manage to launch first in 2020
Eh, not really. Unless they blow up their own pad, the next NG will be leaving the assembly line shortly after the first. Also, consider how deep Bezos's pockets are compared to Musk's.

>We'll see if they can do reentry without a burn, SpaceX does one for a reason
Well they obviously think it might work. I doubt these people would just say "fuck it lets give this a try." That's not BO's style.

[Anonymous No.8729866]

kek

[Anonymous No.8729869]

>>8729168
>isn't the rocket the cheap part, relatively speaking?
In what way? The rocket basically costs as much as an airliner. The tank of fuel costs as much as maybe ten or thirty tanks of airliner fuel. Looking at the launch itself, the rocket is by far the most expensive part.

Looking at the payload, the satellites are expensive mainly because the launches are expensive (and have to be ordered far in advance). They can't take chances with the design, or they'll end up getting stuck with a non-working satellite and have to pay for another launch, another satellite, and all the resulting downtime. Cheap launches would mean cheap testing in space, eventually even in manned labs.

[Anonymous No.8729880]

>>8729869
I think he means in relation to the satellite, in which case he's correct.

The biggest savings from reusability go directly to the launch provider. Consider SpaceX: who will likely be able to launch a reused F9 for $35-40 mil but will continue to charge $60 mil until a competitor comes along with something that beats that $60 mil price.

[Anonymous No.8729896]

>>8729861
SpaceX had problems because they were cutting their margins razor thin to maximize payload.
If they don't get the thrust they expect out of an engine, that'll be a crash landing, same thing for New Glenn.

SpaceX had several tests before they were confident on hitting a target, it's not THAT easy.

>the next NG will be leaving the assembly line shortly after the first
The government will still force you to do a standdown to investigate things. Maybe SpaceX/Trump will have fixed that bureaucratic bullshit by the time New Glenn gets to flying, maybe not.

When they do their first launch then discover that design changes need to be made, could easily add years to development.

[Anonymous No.8729908]

>>8729170

not to mention a liquid booster would have no chance of surviving splashdown, the solids could only do it because they had steel casings and were essentially giant combustion chambers, whereas a liquid stage is mostly very thin and fragile fuel tank with some very complex engines on the bottom.

[Anonymous No.8729926]

>>8729880

This, even if BO manages to get New Glenn flying by 2020, and there are no problems or slowdowns and BO immediately becomes a SpaceX competitor, SpaceX will have already enjoyed over a year of high-profit margin launch contracts, revenue that would almost certainly be funneled back into the R&D of next generation technology.

[Anonymous No.8729941]

>>8729880
Then we need to use a ground based slingshot to get satellites into orbit without anything else.

Literally ZERO cost.

[Anonymous No.8729987]

>>8729823
>>I really don't see them starting out with a high success rate.
>It's reasonable to expect that they won't make the first landing but there's no reason they cannot achieve it much quicker than SpaceX did.
Indeed. Blue Origin's not doing an expendable-to-reusable incremental process. There's no compromise in the design for the demands of cost-effective and schedule-compatible expendable launch.

You can see the additional reliability features like testing fin and leg actuation on the launchpad. That's just the stuff that's easy to see.

It's probably more fair to compare ITS and New Glenn, despite the size difference, than Falcon 9/Heavy and New Glenn. SpaceX's public plan is to skip a reasonable intermediate of an ITS upper stage as lower stage, with a single-Raptor upper stage. Similarly, SpaceX skipped the step of suborbital spaceflight, although it was in their plan for a while.

[Anonymous No.8729992]

>>8729941
>slingshots and the associated logistics are totally free

wew

[Anonymous No.8729996]

>>8729834
>>allowing for non-"hoverslam" landings, which are more reliable.
>Only for a person, makes no difference to a computer, just means they are wasting more fuel
No, the capability of hovering will increase the reliability of computer-piloted landings as well. The "hoverslam" is a desperate maneuver which leaves little room for small irregularities of performance or gusts of wind.

[Anonymous No.8730008]

>>8729992
Rubber bands really aren't that much.

[Anonymous No.8730015]

>>8729270
Why would they use satellites for that when drones do it way better?

>>8729087
Market for what, exactly?

[Anonymous No.8730033]

>>8729880
>Consider SpaceX: who will likely be able to launch a reused F9 for $35-40 mil but will continue to charge $60 mil until a competitor comes along with something that beats that $60 mil price.
The bigger competitive advantage SpaceX is going to get from reuse isn't price reduction, but schedule freedom. To date, they haven't been able to keep up with demand.

Once they get reuse working, they're going to be able to launch much more often than is needed by the existing market. Being regularly able (not just as a limited opportunity, like ULA is selling) to order a launch one month and have your payload fly in the next month will change the way the industry works.

Currently, people have to order launches years in advance, before they even start building their satellite. This necessitates extremely conservative planning and business arrangements.

[Anonymous No.8730066]

>>8730015
>Why would they use satellites for that when drones do it way better?
With drones, you need permission from every country they enter the airspace of. To do that globally is impossible.

With satellites, it's a different story. No country has a recognized right to prevent satellites overflying them or taking pictures from space.

[Anonymous No.8730068]

>>8730066
>With drones, you need permission from every country they enter the airspace of. To do that globally is impossible.
Stealth drones. We are already using them.

Logistically, drones just make a lot more sense.

[Anonymous No.8730072]

>>8730068
there are no stealth drones...

[Anonymous No.8730086]

>>8730072
We've had them for over 10 years...

In fact they are harder to detect than stealth planes since they are so much smaller.

[Anonymous No.8730088]

>>8729996
If you sit there hovering for 3-4 seconds every time, that will also offer more risk of its own unique failure modes
SpaceX already has very reliable landings

The benefit of SpaceX starting with an expendable rocket is that they could risk failure to develop their landing approach.
Until you test to failure, you don't know how exactly accurate your sensors are for how much fuel you have left, for example.

[Anonymous No.8730106]

>>8728715
>Paris-based Eutelsat, one of the largest satellite telecom operators in the world, has signed up as the first paying customer for a New Glenn launch in 2021 or 2022.
>2021 or 2022

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHHA

[Anonymous No.8730125]

>>8730088
see >>8729861

>The benefit of SpaceX starting with an expendable rocket is that they could risk failure to develop their landing approach.
Blue Origin has more than enough funding to not have to worry about landing failures on test flights.

>Until you test to failure, you don't know how exactly accurate your sensors are for how much fuel you have left, for example.
What? SpaceX has cameras inside every tank.
Also, SpaceX has never ran a rocket until it runs out of fuel (because the engine would simply explode if that happened.)

[Anonymous No.8730134]

>>8730106
>how dare BO have conservative and realistic timelines!
>everyone should over-promise and under-perform like mah boy Musk!

[Anonymous No.8730143]

>>8730134
>conservative and realistic
kek, I can't wait until he inevitably delays

>over-promise and under-perform
>words matter more than actions

ok

[Anonymous No.8730144]

>>8729996
SpaceX also uses the hoverslam because F9 does not have the performance to do it any other way.

[Anonymous No.8730161]

>>8730144

If Merlin had the throttle capability they could do a hover, but Elon said that even with the ITS they plan on using hover-slams because they're just more efficient. The reliability is more difficult to achieve with a hoverslam but it CAN be achieved, or at least that's what the people doing hoverslams have achieved.

When was the last time a Falcon 9 first stage didn't successfully land on a mission that actually attempted a landing, anyway?

[Anonymous No.8730163]

>>8730143
>kek, I can't wait until he inevitably delays
Why would there be delays?
3 and a half years is more than enough time to build a rocket, especially when the engine already exists.

>words matter more than actions
>FH will fly in 2012
>FH will fly in 2013
>FH will fly in 2014
>FH will fly in 2015
>FH will fly in 2016
>FH will fly in 2017

[Anonymous No.8730166]

>>8730161
They had landing failures last year, for various reasons

I don't doubt Blue Origin will run into one off landing issues that destroy their rocket too
Since they are starting with an expensive larger rocket, that will be more of an issue than SpaceX

>>8730125
Why do you believe that Blue Origin will magically be allowed to launch whenever they want. It's not like SpaceX is allowed to go do test flights with their Falcon 9's

[Anonymous No.8730168]

>>8730163
>why would there be delays
>gives example of a company that has delays

are you paid to post this?

[Anonymous No.8730171]

>>8730161
>If Merlin had the throttle capability they could do a hover
or if it had more fuel to weigh the rocket down (i.e. F9R-Dev)

>but Elon said that even with the ITS they plan on using hover-slams because they're just more efficient
We don't really know what they will do with ITS initially, even if he's said that that is the eventual goal.
I'd imagine that they'll go for as little risk as possible initially with their $700 million toy.

>>8730166
>Since they are starting with an expensive larger rocket, that will be more of an issue than SpaceX
What part of
>Blue Origin has more than enough funding to not have to worry about landing failures on test flights.
did you not understand?

Musk is a wealthlet compared to Bezos.

>Why do you believe that Blue Origin will magically be allowed to launch whenever they want.
What? Where did I say anything like that? Are you delusional? Are you reading words that are nonexistent?

>>8730168
SpaceX is historically terrible with scheduling.
You cannot deny this.

[Anonymous No.8730187]

>>8730171
After the anti-trust lawsuits against Amazon, Bezos will have less money

[Anonymous No.8730221]

>>8730171
>You cannot deny this.
I never did. But you implied that BO would have no delays. I would like some proofs on that one. Of course you have none, so you are just a butthurt faggot.

[Anonymous No.8730227]

>>8730088
>If you sit there hovering for 3-4 seconds every time, that will also offer more risk of its own unique failure modes
It's not going to hover for a fixed amount of time, it's going to be responsive to circumstances. It's that flexibility that will reduce the risk. It's like getting a few chances instead of just one.

I expect ITS will be capable of hovering when it comes in to land (the higher max chamber pressure should make it possible to throttle down further in atmosphere).

>SpaceX already has very reliable landings
Not really. They only have four successful landings in a row since their last failure. They could still have a 10-20% failure rate.

If I had to guess, I'd say their current recovery reliability is about 95% for flyback, and somewhat under 90% for downrange landing. They're surely going to improve it with experience, but I don't think they'll get over 99% for downrange like Blue Origin is aiming for. Too many variables.

For downrange landings, Blue Origin is both going to have a more forgiving landing system, and land on a more stable platform (it won't pitch and roll like SpaceX's barge).

[Anonymous No.8730229]

>>8730171
>Musk is a wealthlet compared to Bezos.
>throwing money at problems is how you solve them

Musk is getting money from launches that are ALREADY happening. Also, he has Tesla revenue for additional funding. You are underestimating his autism.

[Anonymous No.8730245]

>>8728715
>>8728776
>the rockets launch during twilight
>the boosters land under the midday sun
What did they mean by this?

[Anonymous No.8730253]

>>8730163
The engines for FH have existed for nearly a decade.

[Anonymous No.8730265]

>>8730187
>anti-trust lawsuits
kek

>>8730221
You're implying that BO will have additional delays in their schedule (which I have already stated is conservative on purpose) because SpaceX has had delays, which is literally not an argument.

Again I will ask:
Why would there be delays?

>throwing money at problems is how you solve them
When that "problem" is lack of a working booster because of a failed landing, you literally need to throw money at it to fix it.

>>8730253
Uhh, ok?
What are you trying to say here?

[Anonymous No.8730269]

>>8730265
also meant to reply to >>8730229

[Anonymous No.8730276]

>>8730265
>conservative on purpose
I demand proofs.

[Anonymous No.8730280]

>>8730227
>Blue Origin is both going to have a more forgiving landing system

I think you will have to wait and see when it first lands to tell how forgiving it is, and how much margin they keep to land with.

Obviously their rocket is not going to survive one of the legs failing to deploy, or if the single center engine fails any time in the mission, or if their sensors have an error causing it to miss its target.

None of SpaceX's failures would have been saved by having hover capability, because they were never keeping the fuel margin to do that.

[Anonymous No.8730292]

>>8730276
>I need proof that BO isn't making retarded and bombastic schedule claims because I only pay attention to Elon Musk, and think everyone acts that way.
Admit it; if this was Musk announcing this rocket he'd say something like "this is our new heavy lift vehicle that we expect to fly sometime next year."

[Anonymous No.8730306]

>>8730292
Nigger, where exactly did I say Musk is not delaying? I simply stated that he has rockets that are flying today. For every other future rocket, no matter the company, I expect delays, because that's how rocket science works. You are just a butthurt faggot.

[Anonymous No.8730314]

>>8728838
The USG can't run out of money. State capitalism can be extremely profitable.

[Anonymous No.8730323]

>>8730280
>I think you will have to wait and see when it first lands to tell how forgiving it is
You can tell that it will be more forgiving just by observation, my dude.
>more margin because there's literally no payload it could launch today that would exceed its margins
>deep throttle engines that allow hovering
>near zero chance of leg failure, & leg redundancy
>larger and more stable platform to land on
>they've already demonstrated this landing technique 5 times with NS
>engines will be tested in flight dozens of times before NG flies

>Obviously their rocket is not going to survive one of the legs failing to deploy
...are you retarded?

>None of SpaceX's failures would have been saved by having hover capability, because they were never keeping the fuel margin to do that.
Nearly every failure that has happened with F9 landings is mitigated in this design (sticky throttle control valve and running out of hydraulic fluid being the only ones not covered, far as I can tell)
NG can afford to launch dozens of high-margin missions where they will have plenty of time and fuel to get it right. The only problem will be reentry.

>For every other future rocket, no matter the company, I expect delays, because that's how rocket science works.
and as I've said, these "delays" are already factored into their conservative schedule

Consider that SLS, a monumentally more bureaucratic rocket, has been delayed little more than a year over its entire development time.
SpaceX's ridiculous delays are by no means the
industry standard.

>You are just a butthurt faggot.
You mad, brah?

[Anonymous No.8730325]

>>8730323
>>8730306

[Anonymous No.8730341]

>>8730323
>You mad, brah?

Nah, you're just butthurt that Musk will have a dragon on Mars before BO ever flies a real rocket.

[Anonymous No.8730368]

>>8730341
Why would I be butthurt about space things happening?

Oh wait, you're a Musk groupie that thinks it's SpaceX vs everyone else, like a 12 year old girl.

[Anonymous No.8730400]

>>8730163
>Why would there be delays?
Track record. Blue Origin is an older company than SpaceX, founded by a guy with more money, yet they're still saying they're years away from their first orbital launch attempt, twenty years after founding. If Bezos didn't have basically bottomless pockets, Blue Origin would have folded like the typical rocket startup: no customers, no cash flow, no vehicle.

Back in 2006, New Shepard said they'd be doing paying flights in 2010, after extensive testing from 2007-2009.

This isn't like Falcon Heavy. They weren't too busy upgrading and using an active vehicle to produce variants. They were just failing to make a space rocket at all up until 2015.

Based on track record of delays, New Glenn might not fly until the late 2020s. And New Shepard might end up getting abandoned in favor of work on New Glenn before reaching actual customer service.

[Anonymous No.8730414]

>>8730400
BE-3 only completed development in 2015
BE-4 should complete development sometime in 2018

Next.

[Anonymous No.8730420]

>>8728838
>You simply can't make profit going into space.
The asteroid anteros is only 5 km/s delta-v from earth orbit and has an estimated mineral value of $5.5 Trillion

That's like 1/3 of US GDP

[Anonymous No.8730432]

>>8730015
>Market for what, exactly?
Literally fucking anything. At $1/kg a dominos franchise in china could ship you a pizza by ICBM in 30 minutes or less

[Anonymous No.8730434]

>>8730400
>founded by a guy with more money
Musk's investments into SpaceX exceeded Bezos's total investments into BO within the first year.
SpaceX has received billions in government contracts at this point.

Why do Musk groupies like to lie so much, /sci/?

[Anonymous No.8730436]

>>8730323
>SLS, a monumentally more bureaucratic rocket, has been delayed little more than a year over its entire development time.
SLS is the same rocket project as Ares V. They were supposed to do a moon *landing* in 2019, with an extensively LEO-proven Orion capsule. SLS is a drastic downgrade of Ares V after it was determined that it would take until the late 2020s, at they pace they were going.

The bill that funded SLS *mandated* that it launch by 2016. It's 2017 and SLS is nowhere near ready to launch. They haven't even fired four SSMEs together, one of the key technical hurdles for the program (during shuttle development, when they first fired three SSMEs together, they shook each other apart, and needed redesign).

>SpaceX's ridiculous delays
Is this some bullshit about Falcon Heavy? Falcon Heavy is a variant of the Falcon 9 line. It was never a primary goal to get Falcon Heavy flying, and Falcon 9 has been upgraded to the point that Falcon Heavy isn't needed for its original purpose (i.e. to launch industry-typical comsats to GTO with an expendable rocket).

Or is this some whining about launch rate? Because SpaceX is ramping up faster than Atlas V or Ariane 5, the two current workhorses of the West.

[Anonymous No.8730438]

>>8730015
basically, just show a tiny fucking modicum of imagination

[Anonymous No.8730441]

>>8729987
A lot of the senior engineers from Blue Origin came from the defunct DCX program, so they've worked out a lot of the worst kinks in a reusable booster with prior first hand experience. Once the engines work (this will probably take a bit), they shouldn't have too horribly much trouble landing a booster.

[Anonymous No.8730445]

>>8730436
>was never a primary goal
>isn't needed
dat damage control tho

[Anonymous No.8730452]

>>8730323
SpaceX could have easily have built a larger Falcon rocket, if thats what they wanted/valued, then done these higher margin "safer" landings

It's foolish to imagine that they will launch the rocket with massive margin remaining every time.

>...are you retarded?
Nevermind, didn't count the number of legs properly haha

>Nearly every failure that has happened with F9 landings is mitigated in this design
Most of them would still have failed, because all these landings have been experimental landings, they don't intend to aggressively reuse the older landed boosters.

Theres generally nothing in rocket design that can be "forgiving", shit either works or they go boom.

[Anonymous No.8730454]

>>8730436
>SLS is the same rocket project as Ares V
Stopped reading there.

[Anonymous No.8730456]

>>8730445
The delays honestly make sense. They've cannibalized their own market for the rocket with iterative Falcon 9 development, and also needed to fix the mistakes that resulted in the loss of two vehicles.

[Anonymous No.8730462]

>>8730452
>SpaceX could have easily have built a larger Falcon rocket, if thats what they wanted/valued, then done these higher margin "safer" landings
>It's foolish to imagine that they will launch the rocket with massive margin remaining every time.
They haven't had the money to make a larger rocket.

>Most of them would still have failed, because all these landings have been experimental landings
???
As I said, nearly every failure mode experienced in SpaceX landings is mitigated in this design.

[Anonymous No.8730469]

>>8730456
>The delays honestly make sense.
musk perfect businessman and lover.
no can make mistake.
<3 <3 muskman

[Anonymous No.8730470]

>>8730454
It's the same project, you chimp. Same contractor, same people. Ares V never had a finalized design until SLS. Was it going to be five SSMEs? Six RS-68s?

They settled on four SSMEs and renamed it SLS.

[Anonymous No.8730474]

>>8730462
>As I said, nearly every failure mode experienced in SpaceX landings is mitigated in this design.
No
Because when Blue Origin starts their barge landings, THEY will be doing experimental landings that WILL have things that go wrong.
Just like SpaceX had problems. Every SpaceX failure has been a one off problem that won't happen again, you think Blue Origin won't see the same issues?

Data from the New Shepherd is basically irrelevant for the New Glenn
NS has no horizontal velocity, much smaller, different engines, etc

[Anonymous No.8730484]

>>8730470
Ok, so I guess the fact that FH uses the Merlin engine (itself just a derivative of a NASA prototype), the same core as F9, literally identical 2nd stage and fairing as F9 holds no bearing in your eyes? How can you excuse this rocket getting delayed to 2018 from 2012?

>chimp
Top kek
Did I hurt your feelings, Musk groupie?

>>8730474
>Because when Blue Origin starts their barge landings, THEY will be doing experimental landings that WILL have things that go wrong.
ok
>Just like SpaceX had problems
Like the ones they fixed already, and even the average armchair engineer can tell you about? Do you really think BO wouldn't know how to mitigate these things?

>you think Blue Origin won't see the same issues?
>same issues
If they have the same issues then they are objectively retarded.

>Data from the New Shepherd is basically irrelevant for the New Glenn
You are brain-damaged...

One has to wonder...
When did Musk groupies become so anti-progress?

[Anonymous No.8730485]

>>8730469
Did you read literally anything else in that post?

[Anonymous No.8730496]

>>8730484
>If they have the same issues then they are objectively retarded.

They will have problems that lead to rocket losses.
No it won't be literal copies of SpaceX's problems, it will be unique to their own rocket

To think that Blue Origin isn't going to lose at least 5 rockets in initial launches & landings, would be totally wrong.

[Anonymous No.8730501]

>>8730496
>five posts in and you still don't know how to say "different failure modes"
kek

>To think that Blue Origin isn't going to lose at least 5 rockets in initial launches & landings, would be totally wrong.
SpaceX has had 5 failed landings in total.
BO landed NS on their second try.

It is highly unlikely that it will take them more than even 2 tries to get it down.

[Anonymous No.8730507]

>>8730434
>Musk's investments into SpaceX exceeded Bezos's total investments into BO within the first year.
You mean in 2002, Musk caught up to Bezos? No relevance to anything. Bezos has spent far more of his own money. Musk wasn't even a billionaire when he started SpaceX. Blue Origin spent far more getting to its first spaceflight than SpaceX did, and will spend much more still getting to its first orbit.

>SpaceX has received billions in government contracts at this point.
SpaceX has a decade of actual results behind it at this point. SpaceX didn't get any NASA money until it had already put a payload in orbit (still years in the future for Blue Origin), and they had first reached space (all Blue Origin has done so far) a year before that. Now they've delivered their tenth payload to the ISS, and have been providing the only cargo-return service from the ISS.

[Anonymous No.8730522]

>>8730501
New Shepard was suborbital with a much less challenging aerodynamic regime, but I'm expecting one to two failures too. The road's been paved for supersonic retro-propulsive reentry, and Blue Origin won't need to learn any of that the hard way.

[Anonymous No.8730525]

>>8730484
>Ok, so I guess the fact that FH uses the Merlin engine (itself just a derivative of a NASA prototype), the same core as F9, literally identical 2nd stage and fairing as F9 holds no bearing in your eyes?
Holy shit, you really are a chimp. Of course FH is not a separate vehicle, it's just the heavy configuration of F9.

>How can you excuse this rocket getting delayed to 2018 from 2012?
...because it's not a separate vehicle, it's just a configuration of F9. They upgraded the performance of F9 dramatically, so it can now perform the missions FH was intended for. Now FH is only needed for special launch services and increasing the flyback-reusable payload.

Also:
>2018
Chimps gonna fling shit.

[Anonymous No.8730534]

>>8730507
Blue Origin only exceeded $500 mil in capitol investment in 2014
>http://spacenews.com/41299bezos-investment-in-blue-origin-exceeds-500-million/

SpaceX had the cushy COTS contract worth $400 mil by 2008. Even if this was their only investment stream (it wasn't, not even close) that would mean SpaceX was pulling funding in excess of $65 million per year, whereas BO had a paltry $35 million per year up to 2014.

Just another Musk groupie inventing bullshit "facts" to support his argument.

>>8730522
You can't just sweep away such a retarded generalization like that.

>>8730525
>Of course FH is not a separate vehicle, it's just the heavy configuration of F9.
Ok, then why the massive delays?

>...because it's not a separate vehicle, it's just a configuration of F9. They upgraded the performance of F9 dramatically, so it can now perform the missions FH was intended for. Now FH is only needed for special launch services and increasing the flyback-reusable payload.
FH-only customers have been waiting to go since 2013. There is not a single customer that has "switched" from FH to F9.

>Also:
>2018
Chimps gonna fling shit.
SLC-40 has a return date NET August 2017. After the other pad is back, they need at least 60 days to retrofit for FH.
Assuming zero (0) delays it could launch in October, but that's obviously not going to happen.

Only a Musk groupie would think otherwise.

[Anonymous No.8730553]

>>8730534
It's not SpaceX's fault that Jeff Bezos was a little pussy who wasted years

[Anonymous No.8730558]

>>8730553
>caught lying
>response: move goalposts

[Anonymous No.8730560]

>>8730558
I expect to see the Falcon Heavy first launch in september
Musk won't let us down

[Anonymous No.8730569]

>>8730534
>You can't just sweep away such a retarded generalization like that.

I give them an optimistic appraisal without criticizing Musk and it's still too much for you. The SpaceX hatedom needs to lay off Bezos' dick.

[Anonymous No.8730572]

>>8730534
>Blue Origin only exceeded $500 mil in capitol investment in 2014
That only sets a floor on his investments. Anyway, $500 mil is more money than Elon Musk even had when he started SpaceX. Bezos spent some unspecified amount over half a billion dollars before even getting a rocket to go to space.

>SpaceX had the cushy COTS contract worth $400 mil by 2008. Even if this was their only investment stream
I'm going to have to stop you right there, because that's not "investment", that's revenue. They won that contract by getting results, after their first orbital launch. Sure enough, they had a medium-lift vehicle AND a space capsule doing orbital testing in 2010 and doing real work in 2012.

>FH-only customers have been waiting to go since 2013.
...in line behind F9 customers. Getting F9 flight rate up has rightly taken priority over demonstrating FH, especially before stage recovery was reliable. Without recovery, FH would consume three booster stages, which would mean almost as many factory resources as three F9 flights.

>There is not a single customer that has "switched" from FH to F9.
There are many payloads contracted for launch on F9 that would have had to go on the heavy variant of Falcon 9 1.0. SpaceX started talking about FH before the performance of F9 1.1 was known, and before they got swamped with launch orders that could fly on F9 1.1.

[Anonymous No.8730590]

>>8730572
>Anyway, $500 mil is more money than Elon Musk even had when he started SpaceX
Right, and what did Musk do with the $100 mil he initially invested? Put a shoebox in orbit using an engine built from old NASA blueprints?

>Sure enough, they had a medium-lift vehicle AND a space capsule doing orbital testing in 2010 and doing real work in 2012.
Total investment in the company exceeded $1 billion at that point

>I'm going to have to stop you right there, because that's not "investment", that's revenue.
Uh, no, idiot. The "revenue" comes in when NASA block buys launches to the station. The initial $400 mil from COTS was a pure investment.

>Getting F9 flight rate up has rightly taken priority over demonstrating FH
They've been trying to get the flight rate up since early 2015. They are running out of excuses and customers are starting to jump ship.
>http://spacenews.com/spacex-delays-force-spaceflight-to-find-alternative-launches/
ULA recently beat SpaceX (and probably Orbital ATK) for JPSS-2 ($170 M). It won TDRS-M ($132 M). It won Mars 2020 ($243 M). It won Solar Probe Plus ($389 M). ULA decided not to compete for the relatively paltry ($83 M) GPS launch contract that SpaceX won. Meanwhile SpaceX lost a commercial launch or two after the AMOS 6 explosion.

>Without recovery, FH would consume three booster stages, which would mean almost as many factory resources as three F9 flights.
Still cheaper than Ariane V.
Not an excuse.

>There are many payloads contracted for launch on F9 that would have had to go on the heavy variant of Falcon 9 1.0.
Like what?

[Anonymous No.8730602]

>>8728838
I agree with you to an extent, but you're also forgetting something. As launch services get cheaper, demand for them will increase. I don't expect any revolutionary explosion in the spaceflight industry, but the market will grow to some extent.

[Anonymous No.8730611]

>>8730420
The planet earth is 0.0 km/s delta-v from earth and it has an estimated mineral value in the gajillions.

[Anonymous No.8730618]

>>8730590
>Total investment in the company exceeded $1 billion at that point
You mean the total of investment and revenue. Cash flow is life for a business. You get cash flow by producing results for customers.

>The initial $400 mil from COTS was a pure investment.
Go be a chimp somewhere else. NASA didn't "invest in" SpaceX, they paid them.

>They've been trying to get the flight rate up since early 2015.
They've been trying to get the flight rate up since 2010. They're ramping up faster than Atlas V or Ariane 5 did. Go check it out for yourself.

>ULA recently won some launch contracts
...and SpaceX is booked up solid. Everyone signing on now is getting to the back of a long line.

>Still cheaper than Ariane V.
It's not all about price, you chimp. They can satisfy three customers with three F9s, and only one customer with an FH. Besides that, it makes little sense to focus on FH when F9 is undergoing rapid development. Every time they change F9, they have to change FH, too. So forcing an FH launch would likely be a waste of resources.

>>There are many payloads contracted for launch on F9 that would have had to go on the heavy variant of Falcon 9 1.0.
>Like what?
Like pretty much every GTO launch. F9 1.0, pushed to its limits and with a splash of optimism would only have launched 4.5 tonnes to GTO. Asiasat 8, their third GTO launch, was beyond the absolute limits of F9 1.0. None of these 4+ tonne launches was really suitable for F9 1.0, and the market wants 6+ tonne GTO launches.

The advertised F9 1.1 GTO capacity was not much more than F9 1.0, but that was with margins for reuse. F9 1.1 was closer in real performance to F9 FT, which can do 8 tonnes to GTO.

[Anonymous No.8730626]

>>8730618
>Go be a chimp somewhere else. NASA didn't "invest in" SpaceX, they paid them.
I rate it a 2/10 for reading comprehension and a 1/10 for understanding.

I know you can do better, my dude.

[Anonymous No.8730636]

>>8730618
>Every time they change F9, they have to change FH, too.
kek

>spacex has delays
>"hey guys, here's why spacex is having delays, please stop criticizing them for delays now!"
No.

[Anonymous No.8730641]

>>8730636
>Hey why don't you just launch a Falcon Heavy with lower payload than a Falcon 9
Makes sense to me huh

[Anonymous No.8730645]

>>8730641

[Anonymous No.8730647]

Weaponized Autism: The Thread, Fanboi v. Fanoi edition

[Anonymous No.8730657]

>>8730626
It was a contract for services. NASA paid SpaceX to develop Dragon as an option for ISS resupply.

SpaceX was already flying Falcon 1. Without the NASA contract, they'd have continued flying Falcon 1 and made Falcon 5, then F9 and FH. The NASA contract made it urgent for them to focus on getting Dragon into orbit, which required F9.

Anyway, the point here wasn't "who spent more money?", but "who started earlier, with more resources?". Bezos started in 2000, as a billionaire. Musk started in 2002, not a billionaire. By 2007, SpaceX reached space. In 2008, orbit. In 2009, they had put a customer payload in orbit. In 2010, they demonstrated a medium-lift vehicle and capsule. In 2012, it was docking at the ISS and worth much more than Musk's initial investment.

It's 2017, and Bezos's Blue Origin still hasn't put anything in orbit. It only reached space in 2015, and only barely. Orbit is still years away at best.

All of the opportunities which were open to Musk were open to Bezos. One company was better managed and got far better results.

[Anonymous No.8730667]

>>8730657
>It's 2017, and Bezos's Blue Origin still hasn't put anything in orbit.
It's 2017 and SpaceX still hasn't reused a rocket. Blue Origin has done it 4 times.
NASA reused Columbia in shorter order than this.

>Orbit is still years away at best.
They've gone with a completely different approach to SpaceX. Your assertion that they have been beating their heads against a wall for 17 years trying to pull off a falcon 1 flight is disingenuous.

Anyways, here you are, shitposting day after day in every space thread trying to shit all over anyone that isn't SpaceX.
Why? What do you have to gain from sucking Musk cock so much?
I just thought I'd point that out because I believe there's still time for you to turn your life around.

[Anonymous No.8730711]

>>8730667
>It's 2017 and SpaceX still hasn't reused a rocket.
hurf durf pic relurf
>b...b...but that was just a test! It didn't send a customer's important payload to orbit or anything!
[eloquently raises eyebrow]
>I AM SILLY!

>NASA reused Columbia in shorter order than this.
SpaceX and built and launched 10 rockets since they recovered their first. NASA only had to build one new Columbia using some pieces from the old one before they could "reuse" it.

SpaceX isn't doing token reusability for bragging rights, they're only interested in doing reusability in a way that actually saves money and increases launch rates. So the first recovery started a process of R&D, rather than a rush to get it back in the air again.

>They've gone with a completely different approach to SpaceX.
Yes, where SpaceX went with the plan of building Falcon 1 as soon as possible to get orbital launch revenue and first satisfied a paying customer according to that plan in 2009, then went on to become one of the dominant forces in commercial launch services, Blue Origin went with the plan of building New Shepard as soon as possible to get manned suborbital space tourism launch revenue and first satisfied a paying customer according to that plan in... well, they say they'll do it in 2010, so that just puts them a year behind SpaceX I guess. We'll have to wait for 2010 to see whether Blue Origin knows what they're doing or not.

[Anonymous No.8730722]

>>8730711
autism

[Anonymous No.8730857]

>>8730227
>it won't pitch and roll like SpaceX's barge

Yes it will, even the largest ships in the world with thousands and thousands of tons of cargo pitch and roll in the ocean, and even the most advanced system of thrusters cannot compensate for the random motion completely.

[Anonymous No.8730861]

>>8730245

Launching in the early morning, landing several hundred kilometers to the east where the sun is already up. New Glenn doesn't appear to perform a boostback burn according to this animation, nor a reentry burn, so it would land really far downrange compared to the typical Falcon 9 drone ship landing.

[Anonymous No.8730866]

>>8730368
>SpaceX is a company breaking into one of the hardest market places to make profit in and competing with the likes of ULA and Arianespace

>why so competitive guys, don't you realize we all want to go to space? :^)

[Anonymous No.8730877]

>>8730414

>the engine is the only difficult part of a launch vehicle

Remember how BO said they'd be flying paying customers by 2010 after extensive testing starting in 2007, and then they didn't have the engine until 2015? Remember how it's been two years since they've got the engine and they still haven't completed developing NS?

What makes you think that NG is not going to experience any significant delays with this track record? The engine """should""" complete development 'sometime in 2018', but there could easily be delays on that front, and afterwards there will certainly be more delays as BO has to build the much more complex NG.

I would be comfortable putting at least a 3 year delay on the dates set by BO with New Glenn.

[Anonymous No.8730880]

>>8730866
Are there any statistics on who launched how much in the past years?
In terms of launches and payload.

[Anonymous No.8730890]

>>8730611
>estimated mineral value in the gajillions

Except you can't get to or use 99.999% of it, making it worthless. An asteroid has such little gravity it can be taken apart easily and be used up 100%. The total amount of accessible mineral resources in the asteroid belt is many many times higher than the amount of accessible mineral resources on Earth, despite the asteroid belt only having a comparatively tiny mass.

[Anonymous No.8730895]

>>8730722
>proved wrong
>ad hominem

you sure showed him

[Anonymous No.8730898]

>>8730880

Here's rockets launched in 2016, I'm sure you could find payload stats on the same page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight#By_rocket

Falcon 9 launched as often as Atlas V despite the Amos 6 incident shutting them down in early September.

[Anonymous No.8731036]

I don't get it, BO is older than SpaceX and its owner has way deeper pockets, yet they've barely done anything.

[Anonymous No.8731099]

So, Blue Origin's animated video vs SpaceX's actual video?

[Anonymous No.8731108]

>>8730890
For millionth fucking time: asteroid mining is a meme. It will never be real. Even if you ignore the cost of transporting things to space and trying to get the back to earth, the type of asteroids you call 'valuable' are just balls of iron-nickel alloy with olivine in them. On earth, valuable minerals are found in deposits were things like geothermal processes concentrate them. We look for and mine those concentrations.

It is not easy to separate metals out of an iron alloy. If you were to transport an asteroid to earth you'd probably spend more money and energy trying to separate out the elements you want from the alloy then you did moving it.

[Anonymous No.8731114]

dumbasses if it wasn't profitable there's no way they would do it

[Anonymous No.8731168]

>>8731108
I agree it doesn't seem profitable at the present, but maybe one day. Also its not like we would be mining giant solid iron asteroids lol... They would be after the feet of powdered rock on these big asteroids and also the moon. Of course a foundry on the moon will have to be built once the reptiles say were allowed over again.

[Anonymous No.8731174]

>>8731168
>if you just grind up steel you can get the carbon out of it!

[Anonymous No.8731180]

what does it take to work or intern at one of these companies?

im just a kinesiology major, whats my best way?

[Anonymous No.8731181]

>>8731114
That's the reason almost 100% of space missions have been government funded so far.

[Anonymous No.8731187]

>>8730877
>the engine is the only difficult part of a launch vehicle
Yes, that's right.
The engine is in fact 80% of the complexity of a LV.

[Anonymous No.8731193]

[Anonymous No.8731200]

>>8730866
>shitposting/shitflinging on a mongolain basket weaving forum
>competition
kek

[Anonymous No.8731207]

>>8731036
>older than SpaceX
by 2 out of 17 years

>its owner has way deeper pockets
He hasn't put real funding into BO until recently
see >>8730534

>yet they've barely done anything.
first rocket from space landed vertically
first rocket reuse (4 reuses in total so far)
first privately developed hydrolox engine
first privately developed production metholox engine

One has to wonder how they beat spacex to the punch with these landings. Oh, that's right, it's because spacex blew up a customer just a few months before that.

[Anonymous No.8731213]

>>8730420
>implying that those mineral prices would hold their value after bringing a million tons of them to Earth instead of dropping to Chinese steel levels

[Anonymous No.8731219]

>>8731213
The real problem is that you couldn't even extract 1% of those minerals from that asteroid.

[Anonymous No.8731231]

Am I the only one who thinks the fact we've got a real space race between two of the most brilliant businessmen and engineers in recent history is just awesome? And that they both have realistic path to success?

I have no doubt we've got boots on ground in Mars within the next 15 years. And this space race could be a catalyst for a whole new era of technological progress and economic growth like we had after WWII.

[Anonymous No.8731241]

>>8728800
Why? So you can first hand see what it's like to be on the losing side?

[Anonymous No.8731256]

>>8730877
>Remember how BO said they'd be flying paying customers by 2010 after extensive testing starting in 2007, and then they didn't have the engine until 2015?
BE-3 didn't start development until the 2010s.

They were working with kerosene/hydrogen-peroxide rockets, and that's what their pre-2010 plans were based on.

[Anonymous No.8731263]

>>8731241
>losing side

Are they playing badminton?

[Anonymous No.8731293]

>>8730611

>crackdown on pollution
>ruthless fags disregard the rules and pollute more which lead sto
>more crackdown on pollution
>repeat

A point will be reached when utilizing local resources will be impossible for legal reasons. Space exploration as ridiculous as it sounds could be a work around, unless martian bacteria are found and the universe beyond leo becomes protected environment.

[Anonymous No.8731296]

>>8731293
>unless martian bacteria are found and the universe beyond leo becomes protected environment.

That would last all of 5 minutes of Human history. Pressures to gain more resources will always roll right over that bullshit. If this wasn't true, we'd not be drilling and timbering in national forests right now. All it takes is a few lobbyists.

[Anonymous No.8731332]

>>8731207
>He hasn't put real funding into BO until recently
>see >>8730534
That was bullshit. You got a reply pointing out how it was bullshit: it was both a "to date" figure (not a "starting from") and a floor (not a ceiling).

Stop being garbage.

[Anonymous No.8731350]

>>8731207
>first rocket from space landed vertically
Barely touched "space", just aiming for the technicality rather than designed for anything useful. Not at all comparable to a real orbital launch.

>first rocket reuse (4 reuses in total so far)
Even if you apply your retarded "it technically touched an arbitrary line we call 'space', so it's special!" this is dumb. X-15? SpaceShipOne?

>first privately developed hydrolox engine
More hair-splitting.

>first privately developed production metholox engine
"production"

Raptor is likely to fly before BE-4.

[Anonymous No.8731355]

>>8731108
>the type of asteroids you call 'valuable' are just balls of iron-nickel alloy with olivine
>On earth, valuable minerals are found in deposits were things like geothermal processes concentrate them
Other processes were at play in the formation of asteroids, ones which we have little access to the results of on Earth, which has comparatively high gravity, a molten past, and an oxidizing atmosphere.

Practically all deposits of precious metals on Earth resulted from asteroid strikes. The dense, unreactive elements tended to sink toward the core during formation.

We're also used to spending lots of energy concentrating low-grade deposits on Earth.

[Anonymous No.8731400]

>>8731241
jealous brainlet detected

[Anonymous No.8731416]

>>8731231
Nah, i'm right there with you. For some reason people only see the competition as something they can scream and meme about, and not something that might actually push space R&D in some new direction. I honestly dont care who wins, as long as someone innovates and implements

[Anonymous No.8731432]

>>8731332
Have a helpful chart.

It should clear up some of the confusion you are having.

[Anonymous No.8731445]

>>8731350
>Barely touched "space", just aiming for the technicality rather than designed for anything useful. Not at all comparable to a real orbital launch.
The highest F9 flights go only 40% higher, and are just as suborbital as NS.

>X-15? SpaceShipOne?
That's actually a good point; especially when the space shuttle exists and the flagship Discovery was reused 38 times. New Shepard is then the first vertically landing space rocket to be reused.

>More hair-splitting.
?
Hydrolox is nothing to scoff at.
SpaceX purposefully didn't pursue it because it was too difficult for the fledgling company in 2008 when they were developing F9.
With the hydrolox third stage, NG will murder FH and SLS block 1 in performance.

>"production"
Yes, that's right. The first "production" BE-4 was recently assembled and will be test fired within weeks, according to Tory Bruno.
The "raptor" that spacex tested for <10 seconds was subscale, underpowered, and certainly not "production."

>Raptor is likely to fly before BE-4.
Complete insanity.
In what world will any part of ITS fly before Vulcan?

[Anonymous No.8731452]

>>8731432
>hey look, here are some completely made-up numbers
Musk didn't spend $500 million getting to the COTS award, you monkey. He didn't even have that much money, and was also starting Tesla at the same time.

Musk started from his own limited resources, and got the rest due to his efficiency applying them. Falcon 1 cost about $90 million to develop, and then SpaceX had revenue on the merits of their success.

It's not that Bezos didn't *want* paying contracts from NASA and other customers, Blue Origin just couldn't win more than about $25 million from NASA, while Musk was picking up billions, even when Bezos was putting far more money in.

Musk's efforts produced a large multiple of what he invested. Bezos's efforts produced a diminished echo of what he put in.

[Anonymous No.8731461]

>>8731452
>Musk didn't spend $500 million getting to the COTS award, you monkey. He didn't even have that much money, and was also starting Tesla at the same time.
Musk wasn't the only investor in SpaceX even in the early days.

>even when Bezos was putting far more money in.
Again, making up facts.

>Musk's efforts produced a large multiple of what he invested. Bezos's efforts produced a diminished echo of what he put in.
They have never invested in the same things. BO is about to finish their third unique engine, whereas SpaceX is still trying to build their first, for example.

[Anonymous No.8731499]

>>8731445
>SpaceX purposefully didn't pursue it because it was too difficult for the fledgling company in 2008 when they were developing F9.
No, they purposely didn't pursue it because of its costs and disadvantages. They're still not pursuing it when they obviously have the resources to.

>With the hydrolox third stage, NG will murder FH and SLS block 1 in performance.
New Glenn's performance claims are out, and they're significantly lower than FH's advertised capabilities (which are almost certainly going to get uprated after the first flight and Block 5 improvements). Anyway, if NG gets finished at all, it will be competing with ITS and SLS block 1B, not FH and SLS block 1 (which is a cobble-job that'll only fly once).

There are two things that determine upper stage performance: specific impulse and empty stage mass. Gains from going to hydrolox tend to be smaller than naive calculations predict, due to the latter consideration. SpaceX's specific impulse figures are nothing to write home about, but their empty mass stage figures are spectacular.

>In what world will any part of ITS fly before Vulcan?
In the one where SpaceX was flying a medium-lift vehicle by 2010 while Blue Origin didn't go suborbital until 2015. The one where a complete (if subscale) Raptor test-fired last year, while Blue Origin has only done component testing. The one where ITS "ship testing" (i.e. parts of ITS flying) is scheduled for 2018 and "orbital testing" is scheduled for 2020, while the first Vulcan tests flights are "no earlier than" 2019. The one where ULA has to get the Air Force to sign off on its choice to build Vulcan with BE-4 or to re-engine Atlas V with AR1. The one where it isn't clear that ULA's parent companies intend to actually let it build a new launch vehicle at all, but may just be stalling for the Russian sanction situation to blow over.

It's far from a sure thing that Vulcan will ever actually fly at all.

[Anonymous No.8731529]

>>8731461
>Musk wasn't the only investor in SpaceX even in the early days.
[vague implications backed up by nothing]

>Again, making up facts.
Real facts: Elon Musk didn't have half a billion dollars before SpaceX started winning big contracts. Jeff Bezos acknowledged years ago having spent over half a billion dollars, and is only now getting a few launch contracts of unspecified value.

>They have never invested in the same things.
...which is why SpaceX is planning to shoot a customer on a week-long moon flyby next year, and hoping to build a city on Mars in the 2020s, while Blue Origin is planning to shoot a customer on a minutes-long suborbital amusement park ride next year, and hoping to launch some satellites in the 2020s.

>unique engine
Weasel words. SpaceX developed Kestrel, Merlin, Draco, SuperDraco, and Raptor.

[Anonymous No.8731544]

>>8731499
>No, they purposely didn't pursue it because of its costs and disadvantages.
It was also beyond their expertise, hence, "fledgling company."

>New Glenn's performance claims are out, and they're significantly lower than FH's advertised capabilities
FH advertised capabilities are for expendable only. Its reusable GTO performance is around 9800kg, for example.

>if NG gets finished at all, it will be competing with ITS and SLS block 1B
ITS will not fly until 2025 at the earliest (and it will never fly satellites as a payload.)

>Gains from going to hydrolox tend to be smaller than naive calculations predict
It's obviously not a x2 performance increase in line with the ISP, but it is good enough that every major launch provider in the world uses it.

>In the one where SpaceX was flying a medium-lift vehicle by 2010 while Blue Origin didn't go suborbital until 2015
see >>8731432 >>8730534
>The one where a complete (if subscale) Raptor test-fired last year
subscale and <10 seconds mean nothing
they will never use the engine they tested last year
>The one where ITS "ship testing" (i.e. parts of ITS flying) is scheduled for 2018
fucking kek, you are delusional
>and "orbital testing" is scheduled for 2020
they won't even be doing grasshopper-tier tests by 2020
>while the first Vulcan tests flights are "no earlier than" 2019
A monumentally realistic date, compared to Musk's timeline for ITS.
>may just be stalling for the Russian sanction situation to blow over.
kek
Congress is full of neocons bent on villainizing Russia. It's not going to "blow over" any more than SLS is.

>It's far from a sure thing that Vulcan will ever actually fly at all.
It's far more likely to fly than ITS.
Where will Elon get $10 billion from? Where will he get it by 2019, 2020, or 2024 from?

[Anonymous No.8731556]

>>8731529
>[vague implications backed up by nothing]
Great summary of all your posts.

>Jeff Bezos acknowledged years ago having spent over half a billion dollars
See >>8730534
Bezos investment in BO didn't exceed $500 mil until 2014. NASA investments in SpaceX exceeded $400 mil at the end of 2008.

>...which is why SpaceX is planning to shoot a customer on a week-long moon flyby next year
It will happen Summer 2019 at the earliest.

>while Blue Origin is planning to shoot a customer on a minutes-long suborbital amusement park ride next year
They will have manned tests this year, putting people into space more than a year before SpaceX does.

>SpaceX developed Kestrel, Merlin, Draco
all based on NASA prototypes and designs
>SuperDraco
this is their only unique engine, and it's a meme engine
>Raptor
not finished and won't be finished before 2020

[Anonymous No.8731603]

>>8728826
But anon, BE is basically where SpaceX was 7 years ago when they wrapped things up with Falcon 1.
If things go well, we may see New Glenn fly in 2019-2020. Then crash a lot until they iron out their landing sequence.
By the time Bezos actually makes money with it, ITS should be well into its test phase.

[Anonymous No.8731637]

>>8731544
>It was also beyond their expertise, hence, "fledgling company."
It was also beyond Blue Origin's expertise at that time, hence "nothing in space until 2015". They didn't start BE-3 development until after SpaceX was already flying Falcon 9.

>FH advertised capabilities are for expendable only. Its reusable GTO performance is around 9800kg, for example.
Its reusable GTO performance is unknown. Anyway, so what? There's no reason to believe expending an FH center core is going to be more expensive than expending a NG upper stage, let alone two NG upper stages. F9/H upper stage is much smaller and cheaper.

>subscale and <10 seconds mean nothing
It means a lot more than component testing.

>Where will Elon get $10 billion from?
$10 billion is for the whole plan, including some Mars landings. They're about to have the most cost-effective launch service and highest launch rate in the world, and to start passenger flights and military launches, and to start their own satellite business. They've been getting $billion+ contracts from the US government and $billion+ investments from private investors, and sell launches at $60+ million each. Meanwhile, Tesla's also doing well and Elon Musk's personal net worth is over $10 billion and rapidly growing.

Where do you figure they'll get it from? The trouble here is not finding a likely candidate, but choosing between the several obvious ones.

[Anonymous No.8731638]

>>8731499
>but their empty mass stage figures are spectacular.
Yea but that is also why they have had lots of problems with their 2nd stages

[Anonymous No.8731675]

>>8731556
>Bezos investment in BO didn't exceed $500 mil until 2014.
Holy shit, what is wrong with your brain?

There is no source for that claim. All you've got is an article from 2014 saying that his personal investment to date was something over $500 million.

I've explained this before. How can you not get the difference between "in 2014 we first got confirmation he had spent over $500 million, after not having any previous statements on the matter" and "investment in BO didn't exceed $500 mil until 2014"?

>NASA investments in SpaceX exceeded $400 mil at the end of 2008.
That's not investment, you monkey. That's contracts for services. NASA didn't get any part of SpaceX ownership or any claim on their future earnings for that. They gave SpaceX money to perform services for them.

The NASA funds were up for grabs. SpaceX won them, having worked from Musk's more limited resources. Blue Origin failed to win them, having worked from Bezos's greater resources.

[Anonymous No.8731730]

>>8731544
>but it is good enough that every major launch provider in the world uses it.
If they have a hydrolox division in their company, they HAVE to use it, same reason they use SRB's
Increasing costs is a good thing in government involved industries like space launch.

[Anonymous No.8731734]

>>8731675
>There is no source for that claim.
http://spacenews.com/41299bezos-investment-in-blue-origin-exceeds-500-million/

>>8731637
>There's no reason to believe expending an FH center core is going to be more expensive than expending a NG upper stage, let alone two NG upper stages. F9/H upper stage is much smaller and cheaper.
I agree that FH upper stage will be cheaper, but NG will offset that by having a single stick to recover with near identical performance to FH. The NG upper stage is also much higher performance.

[Anonymous No.8731742]

>>8728715
>>8728776
Why is the render quality so weird, anyways? The first part looks like shit, except for that exhaust coming out from under the pad, which is way better done.

[Anonymous No.8731766]

Can we talk about how much the USA is literally cucking the rest of the world in space right now?

American astronauts will be exploring Ganymede and Europa before the first foreigners reach the moon on a foreign-built rocket.

[Anonymous No.8731773]

>>8731766
>USA is literally cucking the rest of the world in space right now
>not always and forever

[Anonymous No.8731786]

>>8731766
I for one welcome the new space race, if for nothing other than chinese butthurt and memes

[Anonymous No.8731787]

>>8731766
USA can't even put an astronaut into space right now!

[Anonymous No.8731795]

>>8731787
? They could if they wanted to, no difference between payloads & crew
It's just the government is run by bureaucrats & faggots

[Anonymous No.8731988]

>>8731766
Not everyone is stuck up on human spaceflight.
ESA is likely to place an orbiter around Ganymede in a couple of years. Neanwhile NASA seems satisfied with a few Europa flybys.
The flagship JWST is also going to be launched by an Ariane instead of American built rockets.

[Anonymous No.8731994]

>>8731988
>ESA is likely to place an orbiter around Ganymede in a couple of years.
?

[Anonymous No.8732004]

>>8731994
I bet the JUICE did it.

[Anonymous No.8732044]

>>8731766
spacex does grid fins
new glenn has stupid large normal fins

[Anonymous No.8732071]

>>8732004
>The spacecraft is set for launch in 2022 and would reach Jupiter in 2030.
REEEEEEEEEE
Fuck Arianespace and their (literal) low-energy launchers.

[Anonymous No.8732075]

>>8732044
New Glenn fins will help bleed off speed during reentry, reducing the required fuel for landing and improving payload fractions.

[Anonymous No.8732124]

Surprise, the latest F9 launch is delayed again, pushed 2 days to March 14th.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-falcon-9-echostar-23-slc-40-return/

[Anonymous No.8732155]

>>8732124
A lot of SpaceX delays are not their fault

[Anonymous No.8732190]

>>8732124
When are they going to use a different port?
Weren't they building one in Mexico?

[Anonymous No.8732217]

>>8732190
in june I guess
no idea why they are taking so long

[Anonymous No.8732219]

>>8731988
>The flagship JWST is also going to be launched by an Ariane instead of American built rockets.
I've known about this for awhile but never actually seen an explanation for it. Why couldn't they just use a Delta-IV Heavy? How the hell did NASA get away with putting a flagship mission on anything other than an American launch vehicle?

[Anonymous No.8732226]

>>8732217
And Hurricane season starts in June, promising yet even more delays.

[Anonymous No.8732244]

>>8731355
You have zero idea what you're talking about. We get most minerals on earth from specific geochemical processes that concentrate those minerals.

The only real process associated with an asteroid is accretion. We know what asteroids are made of and what processes they undergo. They do no concentrate minerals.

Even low grade deposits on earth are still far better than trying to separate elemental impurities out of iron-nickel alloy.

[Anonymous No.8732295]

>>8732219
Clearly they wanted the most reliable launch services provider in the marketplace for such a delicate mission.

[Anonymous No.8732322]

>>8732226
west coast launch pad won't have a problem with hurricanes

second cape launch pad fixed up maybe for august

[Anonymous No.8732370]

>>8731638
>that is also why they have had lots of problems with their 2nd stages
As rocket programs go, they haven't "had lots of problems". Only a few programs have had less problems, and they were based on old tech coming out of old companies.

For instance, Atlas V is basically Zenit+Centaur. Zenit (Energiya booster) is from the 80s, and they worked out lots of bugs along the way, and also owes a lot to organizational continuity leading back to the engines of the failed N-1 moon rocket program, while the Centaur upper stage has been in use continuously from the 60s (started development in the 50s) and had its share of problems.

Even so, Atlas V had a serious upper stage anomaly on the 10th launch, in the Centaur upper stage (which caused insertion into the wrong orbit, a loss of payload by normal standards), and another on their lower stage on the 62nd mission (which just barely didn't cause loss of payload).

It's very unusual for a rocket to not have a few failures in its first few years of operation, and this isn't an indication of the mature rocket's reliability. Ariane 5 had four by its 14th flight and 6th year of operation, then has operated flawlessly for 77 consecutive launches.

[Anonymous No.8732384]

>>8732370
>For instance, Atlas V is basically Zenit+Centaur.
No.

[Anonymous No.8732386]

>>8731734
>>There is no source for that claim.
>http://spacenews.com/41299bezos-investment-in-blue-origin-exceeds-500-million/
It doesn't say what you claim it says. It wasn't new that the investment exceeded $500 million, it was new that someone with inside information talked about how much Bezos had spent, and his statement implied that the amount exceeded $500 million, without giving much of a hint at by how much.

[Anonymous No.8732431]

>>8732384
Atlas V's first stage uses (and Atlas III used) a variant of the Zenit's engine (2 combustion chambers instead of 4, with the pump sized to match, to make a half-thrust version).

Unlike any previous Atlas rocket (and like Zenit), Atlas III and V have neither balloon tanks nor partial staging through dropping engines. The first stages show no sign of the Atlas heritage.

[Anonymous No.8732452]

>>8732431
I suppose you think the difference between RD-171 and RD-180, as well as two stages vs three stages is trivial.

Idiot.

[Anonymous No.8732502]

>>8732452
>I suppose you think the difference between RD-171 and RD-180, as well as two stages vs three stages is trivial.
The difference between RD-171 and RD-180 is pretty trivial. They have the same combustion chambers and the same nozzles. The pump is just scaled to fit the two-chamber version. This wasn't a lengthy or difficult design process, and practically everything learned by operating a RD-171-powered vehicle was applicable to RD-180 vehicles.

As for "three stages", not only is this completely irrelevant to the comparison of the Zenit and Atlas V first stage, but the Zenit's "third stage" is essentially part of the orbital payload. It's a storable-propellant, restartable stage which is used for precise orbital insertion or high-delta-v missions. This is typical of Soviet designs, where Americans either build the maneuver capability into the payload or add a solid-fuel stage.

Russians use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blok_D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briz_(rocket_stage)

Americans use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_(rocket_stage)

For example, New Horizons used a Star 48 stage on top of Atlas V to get that extra kick of delta-V.

[Anonymous No.8732784]

>>8731256
That still represents a huge delay due to design fluctuations.

[Anonymous No.8732788]

>>8731416
>might actually push space R&D in some new direction

It already has, when people 15 years ago thought 'reusable rocket' they thought spaceplane, now they think of conventional booster stages that launch and land vertically.

[Anonymous No.8732796]

>>8731445

Is it just me or does that look like a big ol' gas generator exhaust port hanging off the side of the engine there? The bit covered by a beige plate.

[Anonymous No.8732814]

>>8731544
>>The one where a complete (if subscale) Raptor test-fired last year
>subscale and <10 seconds mean nothing

It means everything. Raptor is a full-flow staged combustion cycle engine, figuring out the correct ratios of the different propellants is extremely difficult. The fact that they had the engine running means that they've solved the hardest part of the development of the engine and simply need to make it bigger, which involves tweaking a few things as it scales and also increasing the chamber pressure, but the hard bit was done last September.

[Anonymous No.8732823]

>>8731556
>it's a meme engine

In what regard? Extremely deep throttle capability, high reliability design, really good Isp for a pressure fed engine, especially one using hypergolics.

[Anonymous No.8732828]

>>8731730

This. Governments make contracts for vehicles that don't necessarily make sense as long as they are politically beneficial. Re; Senate Launch System

[Anonymous No.8732830]

>>8731742

The cuts are also weird, especially during the launch. It's as if they had a longer animation then decided to shorten it by cutting each shot short by 25%.

Also, dat green screen at the beginning, top kjslad

[Anonymous No.8732832]

>>8731988
>The flagship JUST

[Anonymous No.8732835]

>>8732788
Space planes may end up being just as economically viable as reusable rockets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft).. The skylon is pretty interesting.

[Anonymous No.8732839]

>>8732075

New Glenn will also land much further downrange as a result of no boostback burn and no reentry burn coupled with the gliding phase of energy bleedoff. The trade-off is higher launch performance and longer recovery times. Doesn't really matter now, but if the space launch market picks up significantly in response to the much lower costs, then this long wait time between reuses may hurt overall quarterly returns on each booster manufactured.

Also a many-day long voyage at sea after every launch probably won't be too good for the rocket's hardware, salty spray is no joke.

[Anonymous No.8732843]

>>8732219
JUST has cost about $8.7 billion to design, engineer and build. Nobody wants to take the chance of a launch failure, so only the most reliable launch vehicle gets to lift it.

It'd be hilarious if the JWST launch is the one to break Ariane 5's success streak.

[Anonymous No.8732852]

>>8732839
>The trade-off is higher launch performance and longer recovery times.
It's a ship, not a barge.
By all accounts, it should get back to port faster than the closest SpaceX barge.

[Anonymous No.8732862]

>>8732835

I don't think so. A two stage to orbit reusable rocket would be both easier to build and more capable than an SSTO spaceplane, and making a TSTO spaceplane is just a less refined version of the TSTO reusable rocket.

Even if an SSTO could fly 10x as often as a reusable rocket, and cost less per flight, its payload would be too limited to be useful beyond ferrying humans into orbit, for example. Even Skylon, which is absolutely massive at 269 feet long, would only be able to place 15 tons into LEO. That's by getting as close to the limit of engineering and materials technology that we currently can. A reusable rocket however wouldn't need a huge mass fraction or other breakthroughs in technology, and it would be able to place much more mass into orbit per flight, and almost certainly over its lifetime as well.

[Anonymous No.8732868]

>>8732852
The SpaceX drone ship is self propelled, and it can move at a pretty good clip. In any case the BO landing pad ship wouldn't want to go too fast as that could compromise the stability of the empty rocket stage, unless it were affixed to the deck somehow.

[Anonymous No.8732920]

hmmm...

[Anonymous No.8732939]

>>8732920
top kek

New Glenn already has more manifested launches than Falcon Heavy.

[Anonymous No.8732950]

>>8732939

Falcon Heavy has six manifested launches actually :^)

[Anonymous No.8732981]

>>8730861
The Falcon Heavy animation has it too though, and that shows the boosters returning to the Cape.

[Anonymous No.8732998]

>>8732868
The NG booster probably has a pretty low center of gravity, similar to the F9. I doubt the NG would be moved back to port much faster than the Falcon boosters, which haven't needed to be secured to the deck.

>>8732950
The thing is that FH has been on the market for nearly a decade now, while NG was only announced a few months ago. Yet, they have the same number of scheduled missions.

[Anonymous No.8733017]

>>8732998

We can probably count on both launch vehicles immediately getting more flight contracts once they're actually flying.

[Anonymous No.8733019]

>>8732998
>I doubt the NG would be moved back to port much faster than the Falcon boosters, which haven't needed to be secured to the deck.
They will have a ship; don't need to hook up a tug or anything. Unless there's extreme winds or something there's no reason they can't return to port in a day or two rather than 5-6 days.

[Anonymous No.8733070]

>>8732998
>The NG booster probably has a pretty low center of gravity, similar to the F9. I doubt the NG would be moved back to port much faster than the Falcon boosters, which haven't needed to be secured to the deck.
The Falcon boosters are secured to the deck. They weld shoes over the legs so they can't lift up or slide.

The long-term plan for downrange-landed Falcon cores is to partially refuel them on the drone ship, and then fly them back to shore. That way, they don't stay at sea long, and the drone ship can just move to catch the next one.

I wouldn't be surprised if the plan for the landed NG boosters involves promptly stowing them horizontally belowdecks. Blue Origin's style seems more to do things properly than to just get something working and try to improve on it later.

[Anonymous No.8733143]

>>8733070
how would they stow them below deck
A large crane?

[Anonymous No.8733150]

why does it always have to be a competition? black vs white, us vs them, C vs Rust, FP vs OOP, Math vs Engineering, 4chan vs Reddit, Blue Origin vs SpaceX, AMD vs Intel, Android vs Apple?
it's fucking childish.

[Anonymous No.8733180]

Can we just be grateful that there is competition? That there is a lot of innovation in the space industry? That we have people like musk, Branson, Bezos, and bigelow who are thinking big (ok Branson not so much) and who want to get more stuff into space for cheaper?

The future is looking pretty good for space.

[Anonymous No.8733184]

>>8733150
reddit is objectively horrible though

[Anonymous No.8733185]

>>8733070
THey no longer weld the feet; they figured out that it's pretty stable as is

Right now though they are adding remove controlled robots to go sit on the legs. You can see their shack where they wait from the recent asds photos of it being worked on

[Anonymous No.8733219]

>>8733143
I was thinking something similar to the pad strongback. Connect to it, drain any fluids, flush the pipes, seal it up, tip it over, get it covered up, give it a freshwater rinse maybe. Either belowdecks, or raising a cover over it.

[Anonymous No.8733220]

>>8730072
Ohai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentinel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-45
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Phantom_Ray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Taranis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_nEUROn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Barracuda

That said, >>8730066 is still true. Satellites are legitimate and legal, and while stealth aircraft COULD likely take aerial photos illegally without getting caught, that's still not something I can see the private sector getting involved with. Especially with satellites getting ever-smaller and lighter and cheaper.

[Anonymous No.8733392]

>>8730432
maeks think 2bh

[Anonymous No.8733423]

>>8732219
Might be because the JWST is a collaboration between NASA, ESA and CSA. Everybody gets a bit of the pie, and choosing Ariane was probably just as much about payload and safety as it was politics.

[Anonymous No.8733432]

>>8733180
No. We must be hatefull and negative and only yell at each other, and never take pleasure in people actually doing cool stuff

[Anonymous No.8733500]

>BO is going to have a heavy lift vehicle ready in less than three years
>with less employees
>with less money invested into R&D, manufacturing, real-estate, etc.
>with no contracts
>with no sizable manufacturing base
>without even any functional mockups or scaled-down engine tests (only have tested portions of the engine)
>haven't even gone through any of the important certs
>haven't even flown a glorified demo vehicle (like the Falcon 1) once

I remain skeptical. If BO was even where SpaceX was in 2009, I'd say you have a pretty decent argument, but the fact is... they aren't. And they're still going to be three years behind (minimum).

Plus, I don't think Bezos has the stomach for highly publicized deaths. Musk's autism doesn't let him feel things.

[Anonymous No.8733514]

>>8733500
>Musk's autism doesn't let him feel things
Heh
I know one SpaceX-guy frequent these/launch treads from time to time, i wonder if he ever got to show them to Elon.
Who knows, maybe Elon spends his free time 4-D chessing his way through /sci/, pretending to be a shitposter?

[Anonymous No.8733517]

>>8732322
There are hurricanes in the East Pacific.

[Anonymous No.8733549]

>>8733517
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_hurricanes
I dont think they really feel that it influences launch schedules that much.
There are meteor burst over Russia from time to time, but i dont think the people at the Kosmodrome lose any sleep over it

[Anonymous No.8733552]

>>8733549
Because the Kosmodrome is in Kazakhstan.

[Anonymous No.8733593]

>>8733500
>with no contracts

[Anonymous No.8733597]

>>8731296
>If this wasn't true, we'd not be drilling and timbering in national forests right now.
>Implying National Forests have EVER been anything but big, federally-managed lumber plantations and mineral reserves
It's ALWAYS been this way. National Forests are not National Parks. National Forests are and always have been about resource management, not about wilderness protection. National Forests are managed by the USDA - fucking agriculture. Not the Dept. of Interior like National Parks are. Forestry Service manages logging practices to conserve the forest for effective and sustainable lumber production. Seed trees, plot rotations and all that. No clearcutting. Similar deal with how they issue mining and drilling permits. It's about conservation and preventing overexploitation of resources, not about halting extraction entirely. A National Park, on the other hand, is about preserving nature and leaving the wilderness untouched.
https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/what-are-the-differences-between-national-parks-and-national-forests

[Anonymous No.8733622]

>>8733593

Tell me of their contracts Anon, tell me of them.

[Anonymous No.8733625]

>>8733597

Not that guy, but this a good thing though.

I don't want China, and think that mountaintop removal is literally the most lazy, and destructive way you can go about mining.

[Anonymous No.8733644]

>>8728715
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTifLrr3GXM

[Anonymous No.8733723]

>>8733622
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/03/07/ulas-candidates-to-replace-rd-180-engine-win-air-force-funding/
http://spacenews.com/eutelsat-first-customer-for-blue-origins-new-glenn/
http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-gets-oneweb-as-second-new-glenn-customer/

[Anonymous No.8733732]

>>8733150
Because capitalism works.

[Anonymous No.8733756]

>>8733732
Wrong
>>8728838
Capitalism is the reason we haven't even gone past the moon in 50 years.

[Anonymous No.8733870]

>>8733756
What about New Horizons?

[Anonymous No.8733879]

>>8733756
Listen, kid, I lived in a soviet state and I don't deserve it to noone.
And what the fuck are you talking about us not being past the moon? Are you sure you're watching to the right news channel? They probably found another life domain in our solar system. And it wasn't cuba or dprk or even china, it's capitalist states where all the progress is going on here. Whether in space exploration or IT or biotech. And there's a reason why it's so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5Brf2-TNY

[Anonymous No.8733907]

>>8733723
>https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/03/07/ulas-candidates-to-replace-rd-180-engine-win-air-force-funding/

Not a contract my dude, that's an investment of 40 million.

>http://spacenews.com/eutelsat-first-customer-for-blue-origins-new-glenn/
>http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-gets-oneweb-as-second-new-glenn-customer/

We can argument semantics here, but I won't, I should have added the qualifier of government contract, and not merely commercial customers. BO has no risk with taking these. They can violate them to hell and back regarding time frames, and neither company is at fault if they decide to not launch or part ways. Not the same with the government, they give you money for the services, and you better deliver. Unless you're LockMart, Boeing, or ULA (wait, those are the same guys.)

[Anonymous No.8733929]

>>8733756
>Capitalism is the reason we haven't even gone past the moon in 50 years.

Capitalists had a little competition with Communists some years ago, about that very thing -- flying to the moon. Guess who won. Also, guess who never got there at all.

[Anonymous No.8733931]

>>8733907
>should have

As a brief digresson, I have seen so many "should of"s on /sci/ and /his/ recently, that this actually looked wrong when I first saw it.

[Anonymous No.8733952]

>>8731766
delta heavy and falcon heavy don't look like very comfortable dildoes

[Anonymous No.8733959]

>>8733952
Have you ever seen the shit dragon dildos makes? Comfort is not always the primary goal.

[Anonymous No.8733966]

>>8733959
>>8733952
Does anybody sell dildos modeled after specific rockets?

[Anonymous No.8733967]

>>8733966

Why not just buy model rockets and use them as dildos? Hell, just 3D print them, throw a condom on them, and call it a day.

[Anonymous No.8733970]

>>8733967
don't do it in the butt, it might be harmful, porn is a practical joke, on you, on all of us.

[Anonymous No.8733973]

>>8733970

It isn't for your ass, it's because 3D printed crap is abrasive. No one wants to rub sand paper in their cunt.

[Anonymous No.8734029]

>>8733973
that abrasive surface is easily smoothed with some acetone tenderly applied to it.

[Anonymous No.8734093]

>>8733973
He did say "put a condom over it."

[Anonymous No.8734096]

>>8733966
ilovefuckingscience.com?

[Anonymous No.8734636]

>>8733929
>Capitalists had a little competition with Communists some years ago
Oh, so the Apollo Program was privately funded?

That was incompetent commies vs. competent commies. 20th century America was full of government interference in the market.

The USSR also had competing "companies" whose leaders got to enjoy material benefits if the companies did well. Governments in both countries picked the winners, but there was more integrity to the process in the USA.

It's not like the difference between a free market and a managed economy, it's like the difference between the American WW2 army, which effectively got soldier emotional buy-in, promoted competence, and encouraged individual initiative, and the Soviet WW2 army, which herded people to the front lines at gunpoint, had competent officers shot to replace them with ones personally loyal to Stalin, and shot people for showing individual initiative.

[Anonymous No.8734658]

>>8733879
>huurr durrr the only choices are pure unregulated greed and capitalism or soviet dictatorship!

[Anonymous No.8734661]

>>8734636
Capitalism is not the opposite of government -- capitalist systems have governments.

>Governments in both countries picked the winners, but there was more integrity to the process in the USA.

Or, to phrase it a bit differently, the capitalist based society in the US produced a systemthat worked better, allowing them to overcome the early lead in space capability enjoyed by the Soviets.

[Anonymous No.8734662]

>>8733929
The space race had nothing to do with going to the moon or capitalism.

It was about proving we had better missiles and technical ability.

Are you also going to deny that our current model of capitalism has lead to massive stagnation and planned obsolescence and a large lack of progress other than more video games new flavors of doritos?

[Anonymous No.8734667]

>>8734661
Sorry, but capitalism is ultimately the reason we stopped space exploration. As multiple other posts have pointed out there is no market: no way to extract wealth and make profit in space.

That very idea is what has lead to stagnation. If you can't earn profit on something, it won't get done. It's that simple and that sad.

[Anonymous No.8734682]

>>8734661
>Capitalism is not the opposite of government -- capitalist systems have governments.
When you regulate everything and tax everything, subsidize this and confiscate that, you're not talking about a capitalist system. A capitalist system has security of property, not a constant battle to keep what you own against the pressure of crushing levels of taxation, while your government handcuffs you with regulations and subsidizes your competitors.

The US government effectively owned the means of production. The "owners" were just people with some limited management privileges and perks.

[Anonymous No.8734686]

>>8734682
Well all space exploration so far has been done with taxes, and even these fake private companies rely entirely on government contracts for ISS resupply and satellite launches.

If you're against taxes why are you posting in this thread?

[Anonymous No.8734689]

>>8728715
>wymyn

[Anonymous No.8734723]

>>8734686
>even these fake private companies rely entirely on government contracts
Hardly "entirely". They went a fair way with little to no government funding, before the government stepped in to crown the winners and subsidize them to the point that competing with them is impossible without also cutting off a slice of that sweet pork.

>If you're against taxes why are you posting in this thread?
I'm against inaccuracy. Calling the Apollo Program some kind of victory for capitalism is absurd.

The idea that economic policy largely boils down to a point on the line between capitalist and communist end-points is absurd, childish thinking. Competence matters more than principles. Content matters more than form.

[Anonymous No.8735347]

>>8734686
Will space exploration ever not be done with taxes?

[Anonymous No.8735673]

>>8728838

> We only need so many satellites in orbit

Jesus this is why people with stem degrees should be banned from talking about what amounts to economics. IF the prices go down more satellite ventures will be possible you mental midget

[Anonymous No.8735680]

>>8733756
> Capitalism is the reason we haven't even gone past the moon in 50 years.

Agreed, that's why the Soviet Union succeeded in going to the moon. Pic related

[Anonymous No.8735682]

>>8735680
that's a sad looking shuttle :(

[Anonymous No.8735690]

>>8734662

Capitalism is the only reason the space program exists. No other country has the capability to dump $20 billion a year on space exploration because they all have tiny ass economies that have stagnated.

All unnecessary government programs are only possible because of the insane returns of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.8735938]

>>8735682
Its from the USSR. Everything back then was sad looking

[Anonymous No.8735946]

>>8735347
Yes yes we all can't wait for Starfleet and the Federation

[Anonymous No.8735951]

>>8735946
but that can't happen until an old drunk invents warp engines and the vulcans stop by for tea

[Anonymous No.8735996]

>>8728715
>cgi

please stop

[Anonymous No.8736057]

>Ur mother be gettin that drill tonight

[Anonymous No.8736060]

>>8735680
Would Buran have been plagued by the same problems as the US shuttle program or could it have been more economic?

[Anonymous No.8736147]

>>8735680

USSR wasn't communist. Educate yourself before spouting your ignorant opinions.

[Anonymous No.8736169]

>>8736147
and the us wasn't socialist.

>LE HURRRR LE DURRHURRHRURHRH APOLLO PROGRAM IS A VICTORY OF CAPITALISM

>is performed by forcefully stealing billions of dollars from the population and using that money by a central goverment structure.

were you guys trying to beat communism or implement it? one really cant tell

>>8736060
buran was infinitely better, the soviet engineers were really trying to create a spaceship not a meme like the americans.

[Anonymous No.8736170]

>>8728715
isnt this guy a multibillonaire? why does the cgi looks like its from 1995?

[Anonymous No.8736193]

>>8736170
A penny saved is a penny earned, I guess.

[Anonymous No.8736562]

>>8735938
That shuttle was designed to be capable of terrestrial flight without boosters. Although I don't believe they ever built even one of the bolt on jet engines. The idea was it could fly itself to where it would be launched without piggybacking on a plane.

[Anonymous No.8736637]

>>8736562
I don't think that's right. It's probably something made up by someone who saw the self-powered aerodynamic prototype:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK-GLI

This plane had the same purpose as as the "shuttle" Enterprise: glide testing to confirm aerodynamic characteristics. The difference was that the Enterprise was lifted on a carrier jet and released, whereas the OK-GLI had engines to fly to altitude on its own (before they were shut down so it could glide to a landing).

The Buran orbiter, like the shuttle, was transported on a purpose-built variant of one of the largest jets available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya

Interestingly, they had a second option to carry the Buran orbiter, though this was more usually used to transport the voluminous fuel tanks and boosters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_VM-T

[Anonymous No.8737168]

>>8736170
>"hey spacex made this moon announcement last week, we gotta show that we're also a player in this game"
>"can you have a video ready in 6 days?"
That's why.

[Anonymous No.8738372]

[Anonymous No.8738376]

>>8736169
>buran was infinitely better, the soviet engineers were really trying to create a spaceship not a meme like the americans.
>Throws away all of its engines after every flight
>Not creating a meme
Pick one. I'll give you a hint: It's the one that actually involves the development of new and previously untried technology.

[Anonymous No.8738413]

>>8728838
The best thing they could do is get regular people into space

[Anonymous No.8740039]

skylon

[Anonymous No.8740043]

>>8740039

[Anonymous No.8740045]

>>8740043

[Anonymous No.8740046]

>>8740039
The ambitions and timeline of the company keep getting scaled back. Right now they only want to make a pre-cooler for future US Air Force planes.

[Anonymous No.8740050]

>>8740045

[Anonymous No.8740066]

>>8740050

[Anonymous No.8740070]

>>8740066

[Anonymous No.8740071]

>>8740045
why does this one have 4 engines

[Anonymous No.8740074]

>>8740070
>literally why

[Anonymous No.8740076]

>>8740070

[Anonymous No.8740081]

>>8740076

[Anonymous No.8740084]

[Anonymous No.8740202]

>Error: Maximum file size allowed is 3 MB
REEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.8740304]

>>8740202
fixed

[Anonymous No.8740330]

>>8728715
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSFsuefDKkg

Will Bezos ever get his head out of his ass?

[Anonymous No.8740349]

>>8740330
Are all musk fans this insecure?

[Anonymous No.8740356]

>>8740349
Nice retort :^3 I honestly hope for as many viable actors in the space launch market as possible, but at this point BO can't hold a candle to SX. Will they ever? Sure, why not. But they don't now.

I don't care for CGI and lies. Bezos repeatedly claims "firsts" when SpaceX have beaten them to the punch by many years. He claims "space" when doing near zero horizontal velocity launches, his whole presentation screams "terribly egocentric businessman", and that obviously colors my impression.

[Anonymous No.8740390]

>>8740356
>I honestly hope for as many viable actors in the space launch market as possible
kek
you very clearly don't

the maker of your video is a retard who doesn't even know history

typical musk groupie

[Anonymous No.8740392]

>>8728715
>3d render
So are they ever going to launch anything or are they just trying to soak up investment money?

[Anonymous No.8740438]

How do you go from this

[Anonymous No.8740442]

to this?

[Anonymous No.8740450]

>>8740330
>salty snack

kek

[Anonymous No.8740579]

>>8740330
Elon Musk is a hillary supporter
says all you need to know

[Anonymous No.8740699]

>>8740579
Oh noes, muh identity politics, where do i go from here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpiTh8qdnYc
>>8740390
The picture is for you.

[Anonymous No.8741843]

>>8740081
CST-100 is larger then Orion
Venture Star is smaller then Space shuttle (perhaps they meant X-33?)

Can't take graphic seriously.

[Anonymous No.8742042]

>>8740579
They all are though. If anything, Bezos is more anti-Trump than Musk since he owns the Washington Post.