Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 49 KB, 710x585, aoiR4Dl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8790018 No.8790018 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

The last thread is nearing the end of its useful life and its time to start a new one.

Bring all your memes, rare Musk's, shitposting and fanboyism, in less than 15 hours we HOLDHOLDHOLD

>> No.8790025
File: 6 KB, 160x160, metal o silver white background shadow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8790025

>>8790018

>> No.8790043
File: 3.87 MB, 2880x1800, f3enyj3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8790043

>> No.8790050

Reused booster?

>> No.8790072

>>8790050
Yes. Not sure if they will land this one as well though

>> No.8790655
File: 26 KB, 630x420, 160117-landing-630x420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8790655

>soon

>> No.8790947

T - 5 hours

>> No.8790967

TAKING ALL BETS
https://strawpoll.com/9rf56w2

>> No.8790978

>>8790967
>https://strawpoll.com/9rf56w2
Needs more options

>> No.8790984

>>8790978
Are there intermediate states of explosion? Is there some sort of possible half exploded rocket?

>> No.8790987

>>8790984
Conflagration vs. Detonation?

>> No.8790990

here is a better poll

http://www.strawpoll.me/12640365

>> No.8791055
File: 34 KB, 996x138, delme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791055

>>8790990
>http://www.strawpoll.me/12640365

>> No.8791058

>Two polls, no HOLD^3 postponement option.

>> No.8791063

>>8791055
>http://www.strawpoll.me/12640365
works just fine.

>> No.8791070

>>8791063
It didn't for me,though, as illustrated by the screencap.

Good news is, my life is great either way.

>> No.8791073

Will be first attempted fairing recovery too

>> No.8791089

>>8790987
You can stop trying so hard, sweetie. Nobody cares.

>> No.8791130

>>8791073
Any info on how they plan to accomplish that?

>> No.8791134

they should try landing the second stage of the rocket

>> No.8791142

>>8791130
Looking around on the ground, I think.

>> No.8791152

>>8791134
Yea, and when they got that, they should try landing the payload!

>> No.8791156

>>8791130
Parachutes, and helicopters to grab them with hooks before they hit the water

>> No.8791161

>>8791152
At that point, you might save the fuel all together and just not launch it at all
>ELON CALL ME, I'VE FIXED IT!

>> No.8791184
File: 449 KB, 769x607, 13.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791184

>>8791073
>fairing recovery

Seems like a waste of time imo

Doubt the fairings are that costly in the grand scheme of things

>> No.8791278

>>8791184
They're probably doing it to cut down on time between launches. Since manufacturing fairing halves might take take more than their planned time between launches.

>> No.8791305

T-02:40

>> No.8791327
File: 13 KB, 560x315, Jeff_Bezos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791327

>>8791278
Manufacturing new fairings has gotta be faster and cheaper than recovering used fairings and refurbishing them?

Can't see the logic m8

>> No.8791330

Got here from 4chans front page, Never posted on /sci/ before. Is Musk launching a rocket? Are they livestreaming it?

>> No.8791354

>>8791330
Here's the hosted webcast, there should be a non-hosted as well but i cant find it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8&feature=youtu.be

>> No.8791360

>>8791354
Thanks

>> No.8791367

>>8791360
If you are interested, there is an app called Space Launch Now that will alert you of launches, give countdowns and links to livestreams.

>> No.8791373

>>8791327

Each fairing costs like 2-3 million to make plus they are the current bottleneck in their production line. Recovering them would save them a good chunk of the rocket cost.

>> No.8791410

>>8791373
I really want to see a recovery attempt of these. Just to see what kind of whackadoodle solution they have gone for

>> No.8791420

>>8791410
they are just gonna attach parachutes and let them fall into the ocean
Won't be anything elaborate

>> No.8791431
File: 86 KB, 800x533, 1484416233405.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791431

>>8791330
Hell yeah. They're sending him back to the moon.

>> No.8791435
File: 628 KB, 1277x958, IMG_1098.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791435

>>8790018
>when you married twice to get alien secrets

>> No.8791452
File: 722 KB, 576x432, SpaceX Launch.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791452

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNO571C7Ko
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8

Hurry up and wait.

>> No.8791455
File: 2.57 MB, 480x270, SpaceX.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791455

>fairing recovery

I thought they were going to use a fairing that wasn't ejected? It just opens then closes and returns. Like get rid of the fairing completely so to speak.

>> No.8791458
File: 119 KB, 483x400, spacex fairing recovery.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791458

>>8791420
>they are just gonna attach parachutes and let them fall into the ocean
They're catching them with helicopters.

>> No.8791461
File: 2.76 MB, 1280x720, Curiosity Has Landed.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791461

>>8791458
Is Jackie Chan going to pilot both copters?

>> No.8791464
File: 2.68 MB, 640x480, Tarded Landing.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791464

>EU

>> No.8791467
File: 2.02 MB, 320x240, lol wtf landing is that.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791467

>>8791464

>> No.8791469

>>8791464
WTF are they thinking?

>> No.8791472

>>8791464
Somebody add what actually happens to this webm

>> No.8791474
File: 2.70 MB, 640x480, Mars Opportunity Rover.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791474

>> No.8791477
File: 1.62 MB, 160x120, NASA - Mars Pathfinder Atmospheric Entry.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791477

>> No.8791478

>>8791477
I lol so hard when it lands.

>> No.8791480
File: 2.37 MB, 640x480, Viking 1-2 Landed.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791480

>> No.8791483
File: 2.67 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Falcon 9 Development Supercut 1-3.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791483

>> No.8791487
File: 2.69 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Falcon 9 Development Supercut 2-3.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791487

>>8791483

>> No.8791490
File: 2.58 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Falcon 9 Development Supercut 3-3.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791490

>>8791487

>> No.8791491
File: 885 KB, 3000x2000, 33299697331_09313ac49d_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791491

hype

>> No.8791497
File: 2.87 MB, 320x240, Classic NASA Film - Skylab - #4.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791497

>> No.8791507
File: 2.74 MB, 640x360, SpaceX Next Phase - 3mb - no sound.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791507

>> No.8791508

Dream on, Mars-man

>> No.8791516

wtf

https://www.instagram.com/p/BSRatgyDdJ8/

>> No.8791530
File: 348 KB, 2500x1667, 0l34lzzigkoy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791530

>> No.8791538
File: 3.00 MB, 800x450, NewGlenn.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791538

>>8791507

>> No.8791578

Holy shit, are they really going to try and recover the fairing on this launch as well?

>> No.8791596

>>8791578
It's a shame they can't recover your oxygen

>> No.8791606

>>8791073
sorry what's that, for non-english speakers?

>> No.8791621

>>8791458
What? The fairing recovery method is pretty wild. It'll be fun to watch if they show it: >>8791596

>> No.8791630

IT'S HAPPENING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZSXav4wI8

>> No.8791645
File: 211 KB, 600x451, 1475006085628.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791645

>> No.8791649
File: 11 KB, 362x453, FALCON-9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791649

>31,025 watching now

I'm here, so it will probably explode if it is to land somewhere. I've yet to see a live successful landing. They either abort or something blows up.

>> No.8791660

>>8791645
Dream on, Mars man

>> No.8791666
File: 318 KB, 2457x1447, zpjsFEh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791666

>>8791649
this will be their most difficult landing yet

the last satellite launch for this company caused a giant hole on the deck of the barge

>> No.8791667

>>8791645
Dream on, mars man

>> No.8791668
File: 550 KB, 646x1002, Elon's spaghetti.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791668

>>8791645
Dream on, Mars man

>> No.8791673

>>8791606
The fairing is the aerodynamic cap of the rocket that protects the payload from drag during launch. It's usually jettisoned after the rocket leaves the bulk of the atmosphere.

>> No.8791678
File: 473 KB, 650x811, 1453220836127.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791678

intro starting!

>> No.8791679

IT'S LIVE NIGGERS

>> No.8791682

we're live

>> No.8791683
File: 684 KB, 1280x719, 4545.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791683

>> No.8791684

HERE WE GO BOYS

>> No.8791687

>inb4 scrubbed

>> No.8791689
File: 2 KB, 125x125, 1490752710229.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791689

>when people say nasa needs to be defunded

>> No.8791690

uuuuuhHH THICC

>> No.8791693
File: 224 KB, 600x451, 4YAgyWq2ysFmaqAUxfdnZt5L-R-6PdqsjcFrEJjtYGU.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791693

WE SPACE NOW

>> No.8791696
File: 11 KB, 188x196, 1417166039331.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791696

It will explode doesn't it.

>> No.8791697
File: 709 KB, 1275x717, 4545.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791697

So, if it bricks we know who to blame.

>> No.8791701

>>8791689
NASA needs to stop sucking dick
>a rocket that costs $2 billion per flight
oh shit nigger what are you doing

>> No.8791702

>>8791696
First it's 'won't it'

Second shut the fuck up

>> No.8791706

>>8791693
DREAM ON, MARS MAN

>> No.8791708

>>8791697
Stop insulting my jew hubando

>> No.8791709

>>8791701
SLS is basically a job creation program. The heaby launcher is just a bonus. It's win win

>> No.8791710
File: 20 KB, 460x276, 1357859666703.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791710

>John Insprucker

I love this guy

>> No.8791711

>>8791693

DREAN ON, MARS MAN

>> No.8791714

>>8791702
I hope you realize how stupid you are.

>> No.8791716
File: 161 KB, 1366x768, spacexqt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791716

THICCC
H
I
C
C
C

>> No.8791718

>Insprucker
YES

Also they said they'd say something about what they did to prepare the reused Falcon, so you might want to open the hosted webcast in a second window.

>> No.8791719

>>8791455

Second stage currently isn't recovered, so making the fairings remain attached to the stage would not help them be reused.

The plan right now is pretty simple, the fairings will fall through the atmosphere and deploy chutes.

>> No.8791721

>>8791716
She can reuse my rocket if you catch my drift.

>> No.8791722

>>8791645
Dream on, Mars man

>> No.8791725

"toolose, France"

Never change frogs

>> No.8791726
File: 312 KB, 1069x702, lyonsandtice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791726

Coconaut or Barbienaut

>> No.8791727
File: 209 KB, 1281x717, 4545.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791727

Latino TV Programming

>> No.8791728
File: 320 KB, 287x713, 1475010672052.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791728

T MINUS 10 MINUTES FAGGOTS

>> No.8791730

>>8791690
>>8791716
>I yell THICC whenever I see a female, no matter what she looks like

Settle down, virgins

>> No.8791732

>>8791726
My launch platform is big enough to host both type of thickkkk rockets.

>>8791727
ayyy caramba

>> No.8791735
File: 891 KB, 1278x717, 4545.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791735

>> No.8791736
File: 122 KB, 640x713, 1475006857616.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791736

>>8791728
>not the hyper version

>> No.8791737

So much damage control going on in the hosted stream. It's almost like they're expecting it'll fail.

>> No.8791738

How much of the rocket has been replaced? Is it basically the same rocket, or has everything outside of the tanks and engine nozzles been swapped out?

>> No.8791741

Fuck, Gwynn aged like shit.

>> No.8791742
File: 216 KB, 458x402, spacex-1472819062361.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791742

>> No.8791743

>>8791738
?
It's all the same rocket, they just took shit apart to check it

>> No.8791744

>>8791737
Got to lower expectations.

>> No.8791745
File: 870 KB, 3686x2765, H0AXlQ0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791745

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the roomba they have on the ASDS yet

>> No.8791746
File: 1.00 MB, 1024x509, Rand-Paul-1024x509.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791746

Here we go

>> No.8791748

>>8791743
and they either repainted it or took it to a really big car wash

>> No.8791749

>>8791666

No it didn't, they haven't had a failed barge landing in many launches.

>> No.8791751

>>8791738
Engine has been refurbished, not replaced, as I heard it.

>> No.8791753

>>8791745
What does it do?

>> No.8791754
File: 430 KB, 3107x2330, 1487408647584.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791754

>>8791737
I think the rocket won't explode but it will fail the ASDS landing.
5300kg payload is fucking heavy and leaves little margin for error.

>> No.8791756

>>8791738
80% will be reused

>> No.8791758
File: 25 KB, 349x349, Elon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791758

>Ticket to Mars
>Only $100,000

>> No.8791759

115 000 people watching

>> No.8791760

>>8791745
>roomba
you mean optimus prime?

>> No.8791761

>>8791749
Last time they missed it was a launch to geosync orbit as well though. That's a lot of energy in the booster and not a lot of fuel remaining to brake

>> No.8791762

>8791753
holds it down

>> No.8791764

>>8791748

Powerwashers cuz

>> No.8791765

>>8791753
Scoots out from a garage on the side and clamps the landed booster

>> No.8791767

link

>> No.8791768

>>8791759
17k on technical lol

>> No.8791769

>>8791749
ses-9 made a hole in the barge m8

it was nearly a year ago

>> No.8791770

>>8791767
fucking youtube

>> No.8791771

>livestream up

IT BEGINS

>> No.8791773

>>8791753
Grabs and secures the rocket autonomously after landing

>> No.8791774

160 seconds bois

>> No.8791776

>>8791767
>>8791630
fag

>> No.8791777

Fuck those vent noises made me jumped.

>> No.8791780

>115k people watching
This has enough viewers to be on a cable channel.

>> No.8791781

I'm nervous

>> No.8791782

>>8791767
see
>>8791452

>> No.8791783

>>8791767
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfNO571C7Ko

>> No.8791787

Technical or hosted?

>> No.8791788

>>8791767
http://www.spacex.com/webcast

>> No.8791791

dubs = boom

>> No.8791792

>>8791780
Is it on Censorship News Network, or are they still yapping about Ronald McDonald Trump being literally Hitler?

>> No.8791793

It won't explode.

>> No.8791794

Who chose this shitty camera angle?

Fucking cameraman looking right into the sun

>> No.8791795

>all these hissing noises

makes me nervous every time

>> No.8791796

1 minute

>> No.8791797

1 MINUTE LEFT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT

>> No.8791798

Predicting thic bang 30 seconds after liftoff.

>> No.8791800

AGE OF REFLIGHT

>> No.8791801

if dubs it will fart and not lift off

>> No.8791802

HERE WE GO!

>> No.8791804

>>8791795

>ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

>> No.8791805

>>8791769
That was the one before the first successful landing, since then only one failed barge landing, not counting the one that blew up at max-Q.

>> No.8791806

>>8791787
Both on both monitors

>> No.8791807

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>> No.8791809
File: 47 KB, 793x530, 1435431329378.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791809

KEK BLESS THIS LAUNCH

>> No.8791811

OH SHIT HERE WE GO

>> No.8791814

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

>> No.8791815

First nominal of the launch.

>> No.8791816
File: 31 KB, 429x253, Zeon-flag.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791816

It's going!!

>> No.8791818

Why don't they put a person in the rocket

>> No.8791819

>fire among the engines

- p a n i c -

>> No.8791820

We mars now boys

>> No.8791821

He is a fucking GOD!

>> No.8791822

WE'RE WINNING YES

>> No.8791823

>>8791818

Christianity and socialism.

>> No.8791824
File: 72 KB, 620x413, loo-1452685604262.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791824

>>8791818
because they have no space toilet yet

>> No.8791828

MECO

>> No.8791829

First stage has done it's main job.

>> No.8791830

Stage 2 now!!

Reuse is a partial success

>> No.8791831

>where were you when BO shills were btfo

>> No.8791832

What a quick acceleration

>> No.8791833

>>8791831
On /sci/


Fairing separation!

>> No.8791834
File: 19 KB, 510x207, feed-165.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791834

NO THIS CANT BE HAPPENING DELETE THIS DELETE THIS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>> No.8791835

>>8791823
>>8791824
a guy could just ride in the stage 2
then hop out in their personal little reentry tent when it deorbits

>> No.8791836
File: 417 KB, 653x635, 1433274806105.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791836

GOOD LUCK STAGE ONE

>> No.8791839

dream on, mars man!

>> No.8791840

CHECK ELON'S DOUBLES

CHECK EM

>> No.8791841
File: 175 KB, 1324x866, elon-1460375432517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791841

>>8791831

>> No.8791842
File: 27 KB, 707x490, 1470971333984.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791842

>government doesn't work
>civil society doesn't work
>economy doesn't work
>win space anyway

>> No.8791844

is he going to land it too

>> No.8791846

>earth is a sphere

>> No.8791847
File: 434 KB, 2000x3000, 26812794034_c8903602ea_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791847

brace for landing my lads

>> No.8791848

>planet Earth is a sphere
FLAT-EARTHERS BTFO

>> No.8791849

>>8791844

yes

and recover the fairings

>i still love you

what?

>> No.8791851
File: 37 KB, 140x133, ucheekycunt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791851

>since planet earth is a sphere

>> No.8791852
File: 303 KB, 598x714, 1490216696937.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791852

If dubs 1st stage is kill

>> No.8791853
File: 518 KB, 600x890, 1451427936491.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791853

Trips and the First Stage survives a third relaunch

>> No.8791854

Cameras on barge are going to cut out, calling it.

>> No.8791856

Calling failed landing

>> No.8791859

>>8791849
SpaceX is filled with redditors that like that space communism book, Culture
Where people exist only as pets of AI's

>> No.8791860

>>8791849
>i still love you

name of the drone ship it's gonna land on

>> No.8791861

NOW THE LANDING

>> No.8791862

Holy shit, those flaming grid fins

>> No.8791863

>>8791849
Of Course I Still Love You, Ian M. Banks' Culture series.

>> No.8791865

>>8791842
/pol/

>> No.8791866

PERTY VIEW

>> No.8791867

>>8791859
>the culture
>communism
only on the back covers

>> No.8791868

>>8791862
Little toasty

>> No.8791869

why are they saying of course i still love you every miniute

>> No.8791870

HERE WE GO

>> No.8791871

FALCON 9 BOOSTER FLIHGT #2 ELECTRIC BOOGALOO

>> No.8791872

>>8791869
That's the name of the drone barge.

>> No.8791873

>>8791869
Name of drone ship

>> No.8791876

FIST ME DADDY

>> No.8791877

COMBO COMING UP LADS

>> No.8791878

NO CONTINUOUS VIDEO FEED

>> No.8791879

>no video feed

>> No.8791880

Aaaand,,, T-Pain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSx4DGBstYA

>> No.8791881

>communications blackout

IT'S ALL A RUSE

>> No.8791883

>>8791878
Landed!

>> No.8791884

WE DID IT


I guess.

>> No.8791885
File: 83 KB, 1064x560, NM99T.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791885

>>8791869

>> No.8791886
File: 343 KB, 1000x1000, 1489790771976.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791886

we mars now

>> No.8791888

ELON GOD

>> No.8791889

>>8790018
NIGGERS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

JEWS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

COMMIES BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

SOCIALISTS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

LIBERALS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN

>> No.8791890

I think it's landed

>> No.8791891

a c h i e v e m e n t u n l o c k e d

>> No.8791892

THE FUCKING MADMEN DID IT

>> No.8791893

elon's got doubles my friends

>> No.8791894

IS THIS A COMPOSITE VIDEO AFTER THE BLACK OUT?!

>> No.8791897

ULA ON SUICIDE WATCH

>> No.8791898

>No video
>Suddenly it has landed
False flag as fuck

>> No.8791899
File: 74 KB, 400x387, 1428826079056.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791899

>> No.8791900

LANDING IS COMING GUYS

>> No.8791901

PRAISE KEK

>> No.8791902
File: 567 KB, 794x650, launching_intensifies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791902

nice

>> No.8791904
File: 119 KB, 362x266, Ainsleeeee.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791904

Elon Musk confirmed for a living Deity

We are now Sci Fi

>> No.8791906

MOON LANDING WHEN?

>> No.8791907

MUSK JUST DELIVERED!

>> No.8791908

WHAT A GOD

>> No.8791909

NASA ON SUICIDE WATCH!

>> No.8791911

>no feed
>cuts right back after landing
whatever im out

>> No.8791912

>>8791898
all CGI rockets

>> No.8791913
File: 1.30 MB, 1920x1080, 4545.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791913

HOLY FUCK THEY ACTUALLY DID IT THE ABSOLUTE MADMEN

>> No.8791915

>>8791889
>>8791889
>>8791889
>>8791889
>>8791889
>>8791889
>>8791889

>> No.8791916
File: 89 KB, 287x713, 1475006533008.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791916

>> No.8791917

How long until they try for the hat-trick lads?

>> No.8791918

>>8791913
I love humans desu.

>> No.8791919

>>8791911
first stage didnt make it back to earth, they had to show old footage

>> No.8791920

Elon have my babies you awkward fuck

>> No.8791922
File: 528 KB, 899x504, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791922

YE BOII

>> No.8791924

>>8791913
nice cgi

>> No.8791925
File: 186 KB, 400x307, elon-1338032586509.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791925

>>8791904

>> No.8791926

MAI HUSBANDO

>> No.8791927

oh hey Elon
you should get a better haircut

>> No.8791929

>>8791920

Elon is only for cuddles.

>> No.8791931
File: 198 KB, 407x559, GodfreyKneller-IsaacNewton-1689.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791931

WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN
WHITES WIN AGAIN
>WHITES WIN AGAIN

>> No.8791932

E-man!

>> No.8791933

>>8791919
Say whatever you want but if this wasn't fishy for you then you are one very naive guy.

>> No.8791934
File: 676 KB, 1000x1000, elon_musk_tesla_spacex_openai_boring_company_dumb_frogposter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791934

gj Elon Musk

>> No.8791935
File: 37 KB, 750x747, C7oNX-7VQAAoPIL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791935

>Eurofags will never land a reused rocket

>> No.8791936
File: 169 KB, 600x976, 1471153087810.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791936

BASED

>> No.8791937

dreeam on space man

>> No.8791938

Russia and China on suicide watch.

>> No.8791940

(((no continuous feed)))

No news teams covered it live?

>> No.8791941

So whats going on with the fairings

>> No.8791942

>both videos cut
mmmhhh

>> No.8791944
File: 36 KB, 500x300, simona-chitu-simonakitzu-12h-elonmusk-elon-why-do-you-never-15711998.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791944

i think elon will hate himself a little bit less tonight

>> No.8791946

>Still not that big of a deal
>brainlets trying to appear smart

>> No.8791947

AUTIST ON STREAM

>> No.8791948

>>8791938
More like hiring more people to steal secrets.

>> No.8791949

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8791950

>>8791936
THANK YOU BASED ELON

>> No.8791951

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8791952

>>8791936
Based elon

>> No.8791953
File: 32 KB, 512x512, eyELdt9o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791953

THIS CANT BE REAL

ITS ALL FAKE IT DIDNT LAND

>> No.8791954

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8791955

>SPACE X IS HIRING TECHNICIANS

>> No.8791956
File: 850 KB, 1920x1080, To The Moon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791956

Man, watching these streams while listening to the soundtrack from To The Moon is comfy as fuck.

>> No.8791957

>>8791940

It's in the middle of the Atlantic

>> No.8791958
File: 250 KB, 1600x1600, mars-1443509516973.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791958

mars on, dream man

>> No.8791959

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8791960

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8791961

>>8791929
and fat alimony payments

>> No.8791962

>>8791649
>success
>but blacked out

I feel like I had sex for the first time.

>> No.8791963

>>8791936
>1471153087810
>>8791936
THANK YOU BASED ELON

>> No.8791964

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8791965

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8791966

>suddenly appears in the platform

HAHAHAHA MAGIC !

>> No.8791967

>>8791955
>Only muricans allowed

>> No.8791968

>>8791948

And then fail to reproduce them.

>> No.8791969

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8791970

>>8791953
I PUSH MY FINGERS INTO MY

>> No.8791971

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8791972

>>8791957
New York Times could have at least sent a reporter in a dinghy

>> No.8791973

Blue Origin fags BTFO.
>M-muh suborbital flight

>> No.8791974

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8791975

>>8791933
its absolutely fishy. i feel a recent launch had continuous video feed from the first stage as it was landing on the drone ship, which was pretty cool. the freezing and cutting off of the video combined with no video from the first stage makes me think it didnt go as they planned it and the footage they showed us was faked/recycled.

>> No.8791976

they had a second drone ship with another booster right centre in the ship

>> No.8791977
File: 458 KB, 2048x1327, 1467654509871.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791977

>>8791955
I would work for SpaceX in a heartbeat

What they are doing gives life meaning

>> No.8791980

>>8791958
meme on, drawers man

>> No.8791981
File: 1.08 MB, 680x680, reee.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791981

>cuts at the most important moment

I WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPENING, YOU SOUTH AFRICAN KEK.

>> No.8791982
File: 92 KB, 1280x720, Elon-Musk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791982

>this man is literally going to send people around the moon in the next calendar year

>> No.8791983
File: 410 KB, 608x900, moon-1359286367115.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791983

>>8791956
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC9lGStYvYc

>> No.8791984

>>8791933
Did they send two barges in your little fantasy, one with a prepositioned first stage, just in case?

>> No.8791985

NASA could have done this 40 years ago.

>> No.8791986

>>8791933
>spaceX makes CGI that looks perfectly real
>cant CGI landing sequence

are you guys seriously believing that? Stop searching for reasons to hate these people.
IDIOTS

>> No.8791987
File: 583 KB, 1380x1901, Poljus II.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791987

>>8791938
what could have been... It sucks to be stuck with one and a half space faring nations

>> No.8791990

>>8791953
how's that French Guiana general strike treating you, mon amis? you were supposed to launch a week ago!

>> No.8791991

>>8791981
There should be a helicopter vid later on you can watch.

>> No.8791992
File: 532 KB, 995x892, git_gud.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791992

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8791994
File: 17 KB, 255x255, 1402208532022.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791994

>mfw it's now cheaper to get me and five buds to get an orbital ride with SpaceX than get a single suborbital Virgin Galactic ticket
How will Richard Branson ever recover?

>> No.8791997
File: 17 KB, 250x250, 1300044776986.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8791997

>>8791985

Why didn't they?

>> No.8791998

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8791999

>>8791985

but they didn't because they're beurocratic KEKS for Congress

>> No.8792000

>>8791936
THANK YOU BASED ELON

>> No.8792001

>>8791985

NASA would've sent a manned mission to Mars before developing reusable rockets.

>> No.8792002

>>8791985
>could have
>didn't

It would have been fucking awesome. Imagine growing up in the 1980s and watching this shit.

>tfw watching Challenger blow up on live TV in during class and school was cancelled because of it and it was before lunch.

>> No.8792003

>>8791994
Banging hookers and lots of blow

>> No.8792004
File: 303 KB, 1707x775, elon-1472818809223.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792004

we did it rebbit

>> No.8792006

>>8791975
The feed from the camera on the barge --> satellite --> HQ is the only thing that cut out. They will post the video when they get the footage.

>> No.8792007

>>8791936

Thank you, based elon

>> No.8792009

>>8792001
You need reusable to land on mars.

>> No.8792010

>>8791994

he won't lel

VG is so dead in the water it's sad at this point

but mostly just funny

>> No.8792011

>>8791997
no bucks, no buck rogers

>> No.8792012
File: 252 KB, 1200x800, photo_39672.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792012

>>8791990

JUST FINE

REUSABLE IS NOTHING IT IS NOT ECONOMICAL

>> No.8792014

Didn't they already land a rocket on the barge awhile go?
What makes it different this time?

>> No.8792017
File: 23 KB, 448x373, 1445205729499.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792017

I thought they were relanding the fairings too?

>> No.8792020

>>8791986
Lots of money at stake and the company has to stay afloat.
It is that simple.

>>8791984
Oh please I am all for progress.


>>8791975
I am almost willing to bet that it was a second platform preloaded with used first stage.

>> No.8792021

>>8792014
yes, multiple times. What's different this time is that this was the first reused booster that was successfully landed. Well, also the first reused booster they tried it with.

>> No.8792022

>>8792014
they re-used the same rocket that landed before.

normally it just lands on the barge and they scrap it because they didnt trust that it could survive another launch and landing.

>> No.8792023

>>8792014
This is the first time one of those landed rockets has ever been sent back up

>> No.8792024

>>8792014
This is a reused rocket.

>> No.8792025

>>8792014
this rocket has already been launched and landed once

>> No.8792026

>>8792009

No. Not a first stage.

>> No.8792029
File: 60 KB, 480x640, skylab_balladonia_03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792029

>>8792012
Not economical, might as well just go home and go to sleep.

>new captcha
>select hamsters
>two hamsters, a guinea pig, and a squirrel

>> No.8792030

>>8792012
I leave it to your vast expertise in NOT ECONOMICAL

Ariane 5 is powered by liquid hydrogen and GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

>> No.8792032

>>8792009
Which is something NASA refuses to accept

>muh SLS+Orion capsule will be America's ticket to Mars!

>> No.8792034

>>8791967
We have quite a few Permanent Residents working here, you don't need to be a US citizen.

>> No.8792035

>>8792014
Landing a second one means the first one wasn't just a fluke.

>> No.8792036
File: 35 KB, 229x317, 1467045022385.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792036

post yfw that comfy music

>> No.8792037

What music do you think Elon listens to? Because it's certainly not this

>> No.8792038

>>8792023
but how much of its internal components has truly been re used?

>> No.8792041

>>8792020
so...
>CGI the whole flight
>need real rocket barge for ..... what reason?

>> No.8792042

>>8792037

Eurobeat

>> No.8792044

>>8792034
Sure thing elon

When will this stage be used a third time

>> No.8792045
File: 68 KB, 960x540, IMG_0917.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792045

>>8792036

>> No.8792046

>>8792037
Die Antewood

>> No.8792047

>>8792014
because this is its second landing, see >>8791880 for the first time

>> No.8792048

>>8792012
>comfy indigenous guy living my normal live in the rainforest with my tribe
>go out hunting apes with frog poison
>come back to find gramps crushed by weird thing that fell from heaven through my roof
must suck

>> No.8792050

>>8792037
Anime OPs.

>> No.8792051

>>8792030
>Ariane 5 is powered by liquid hydrogen and GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

you can still be bros with ULA

>> No.8792052

So were re-usable rockets seen as a near-future inevitability or has this happened a lot sooner that people expected?

>> No.8792054

>>8792022

They didn't scrap any of the landed boosters, they studied them intensely looking for indicators of failure in any of the parts.

>> No.8792055

>>8792042
MULTICORE DRIFTING!

>> No.8792058

>>8792006
they did it live for the iridium-1 launch (return to flight a few months ago) from the perspective of the first stage

https://youtu.be/NT3iiSVKbcQ?t=7m58s

>>8792020
>I am almost willing to bet that it was a second platform preloaded with used first stage.
that is exactly what i am thinking. plus i never noticed that they do the meco/staging at such slow speeds/low altitudes, guess thats so they can "recover"
SES-10 staged at ~2278 m/s at 66.8km, Iridium-1 staged at ~1915m/s at 70.4km.

>> No.8792060
File: 54 KB, 879x485, IMG_4323-879x485.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792060

>>8792029

ITS NOT

ITS ALL FOR SHOW IT MEANS NOTHING IF IT WORKS WE WOULD HAVE DONE IT ALREADY BUT WE DIDNT BECAUSE ITS SHIT

WE STILL HAVE BEST LAUNCH SYSTEM BEST CUSTOMERS BEST EVERYTHING

ELON IS A HACK REEEEEEEE

>> No.8792061

>>8792044
They are supposed to be saving some parts for SES to show off in their own offices, so not sure if they plan a third flight for this core.

>> No.8792062

>>8792041
>CGI the whole flight
I didnt say that,but those last 30 seconds raise questions.

>> No.8792063

>>8792052
Much sooner than expected

>> No.8792064

>>8792044

Hype for the hat-trick desu.

>> No.8792065

>>8792022
they didn't scrap any of the landed rockets. Well, except for the ones that exploded.

>> No.8792066

>>8792037
ABBA

>> No.8792068

Elon Musk confirmed living legend, modern day Archimedes, god among lesser mortals.

God bless him.

Thats the TRUE power of autism.

>> No.8792069

>>8792054
>>8792065
if its not being re-used, its fucking scrap metal that happens to be in a pretty shape.

>> No.8792071

How many times can they reuse the same rocket?

>> No.8792073

>>8792038

Nearly everything. All of the engines, tanks, pumps, etc.

The only things definitely replaced were parts of the landing legs.

>> No.8792074

>>8792058
The first stage eats all the gravity and aerodynamic losses
Plus keeps margin for landing.

Thats kinda normal for first stage burnouts

>> No.8792075

>>8792052
later than expected. Both the soviets and the US had this stuff planned. The soviet union collapsed before they could pour more money into their energjia launcher (the boosters were supposed to be reusable), the US went for the abomination that was the shuttle program.

>> No.8792076

>>8792060
Too bad all these other space companies are private. Otherwise you could use their stock movements as an inverse proxy for spacex

>> No.8792077

>>8792071

I think they've speculated up to 20.

>> No.8792079

>>8792071
Elon says with Block 5 they could probably be re-used endlessly with proper maintenance

>> No.8792080
File: 86 KB, 1000x750, MGF211.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792080

>>8792012
It won't be at first. Over the decades we will have shit that can land and launch as soon as more fuel is put in. See: >>8791455

>> No.8792082

>>8792062
They gave a legit explanation which is a pretty common problem with long range communications anyways.

Dude. There are landing videos with no cut in them. Whats your excuse for them?

>> No.8792083

>>8792061
>so not sure if they plan a third flight for this core

hmm SES-11 and SES-12 are up later this year

>> No.8792084
File: 56 KB, 600x600, 23e67eef.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792084

>>8792037

>> No.8792087

>>8792071
They don't really know, but IIRC they think at least 10 or 20 launches before they have to worry about significant maintenance.

>> No.8792089

>>8792044
From what I've heard this stage is going to be retired and put on display.

Also, I'm not Elon, I'm just a dumb welder who isn't smart enough to normally hang out on /sci/.

>> No.8792090

>>8792071
We dont know, this is literally the first time they've done this.

We do however know that a full set of engines is good for at least 10 full flight cycles.

>> No.8792093

>>8792042
Do you think the Falcon landing gave him DEJA VU?

>> No.8792095

>>8792089
>too dumb for /sci/

Buddy let me tell you such a thing is impossible

>> No.8792096

so what about those fairings

>> No.8792097
File: 79 KB, 480x646, portal-band.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792097

>>8792037
Hymns from another dimension

>> No.8792101
File: 18 KB, 626x551, 1476235123165.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792101

>"good enough" orbit

>> No.8792105

>>8792074
i guess its normal for f9 first stage burnouts, i kind of figured it would be sooner so they can land and re-use, i just never compared the speed and altitude for other lv until now

>> No.8792108

>>8792096
When they deploy the satellite they will separate and fall with parachutes so they can be caught on the way down.

>> No.8792109

>>8792101
>no call yet
>"good enough"
it's done for

>> No.8792110

so how much does a reused rocket cost now?

>> No.8792113

>>8792095
Kek. Thanks, I guess.

I usually only catch these threads hours after a launch, I gotta admit the RUDs make for better shitposting.

>> No.8792114

>>8791936
Thank you based Elon

>> No.8792117

>>8792108
They separated just after the first stage detached and the second stage fired up.

At this point they are either already recovered or are sinking in the ocean.

>> No.8792118

>>8792110
$40 million instead of $60 million for a new one

>> No.8792119
File: 796 KB, 1032x595, Falcon9_Grid_fins_on_fire.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792119

>> No.8792120

Spacecraft deployed. Mission complete!

>> No.8792121

>>8792118

It'll get cheaper as it goes along.

>> No.8792123

>>8792110
Depends if it runs real good.

>> No.8792124
File: 121 KB, 1024x1560, launch vehicle weight and cost by major elements.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792124

>>8792110
>>8792118
i found this infographic useful. Can't be much different for the falcon 9. The fuel is nothing. I wonder how far down they can bring maintenance costs and what parts will have to be changed after every launch.

>> No.8792126

ENJOY YOUR COMMUNICATIONS, BEANERS

>> No.8792127

>>8792119
>PANIC

>> No.8792129

>>8792121
supposed to reach the 10 million dollar range if things go to plan.

>> No.8792132

>>8792119
could be propellant that wasn't fully combusted? either way I'm pretty sure they replace those fins anyway, there's not much to them

>> No.8792133

>>8792119
the grid fins being heated up so hard during reentry suprised me. I can't remember seing that during the previous landing attempts.

>> No.8792134

>>8792127
indeed

>> No.8792137

What happens to the other half of the rocket in space?

>> No.8792139

>>8792137
goes to the moon

>> No.8792140

>>8792133
Soot or some shit left over since hte first flight maybe?

>> No.8792141

>>8792137
deorbit burn, then burns up over Indian Ocean

>> No.8792142

>>8792132

It's sunlight reflecting off them.

>> No.8792143

>>8792132
that was before the landing burn started., it's normal shock heating from atmospheric reentry. Also there should be no unburnt propellant unless there's something seriously wrong with the engine/turbopumps.

>> No.8792144
File: 21 KB, 400x386, дъ_енд.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792144

>>8792137
It dies alone.

>> No.8792146

ABSOLUTE MADMAN

>> No.8792147
File: 41 KB, 430x317, ayy-1439744384171.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792147

>>8792137
Ayy lamos capture it and put in their museum.

>> No.8792148

>>8792137
crashes into NRO satellite

>> No.8792149

>>8792137
space jews pick it apart and make loads of shekels from it.

>> No.8792150

>>8792141
>deorbit burn, then burns up over Indian Ocean
designated lv shitting ocean?

>> No.8792151

>>8792140
i really doubt that they didn't clean it up after the first launch. It looks like shock heating to me, it's just that i never noticed it before that suprises me.

>> No.8792152

>>8792144

>stagelets

>> No.8792153

>>8792137

beanersat will deploy then will it fall back to earth and crash in ocean like any other rocket. Its too small and cost too insignificant to invest in the technology it would need to bring back for reuse.

Major driver of any rocket launch cost is the primary booster.

>> No.8792155

>>8792058
Enlighten us next about the so called "moon landings."

>> No.8792156

>>8792137
It goes to satellite heaven, aka a disposal orbit. Or it goes back to earth to burn in the atmosphere if its been a bad boy (more likely)

>> No.8792157

So what other big things are there to expect?

>> No.8792158

>>8792143
gotcha, couldn't remember if it was before or after the entry burn

>> No.8792161

>>8792157
related to what? Falcon 9? Recoverable first stages? Space flight in general?

>> No.8792162
File: 114 KB, 207x207, S151go2f.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792162

>>8792157
Russian butthurt.

>> No.8792163

>>8792157

Second re-use, hopefully.

>> No.8792164

>>8792157
In 2 years we'll be able to see 13.5 billion years into the past and put an end to religion once and for all.

>> No.8792166

>>8792161
space flight in general

>> No.8792167

>>8792158
i mean't before the entry burn by the way. But you understood it correctly anyways.

>>8792162
why? Their angara seems to be doing somewhat fine.

>> No.8792168

>>8792164
you are talking about james webb i suppose?
Good boy.

>> No.8792169

>>8792153
>Its too small and cost too insignificant to invest in the technology it would need to bring back for reuse.
second stage has to work harder to get satellite to correct orbit since first stage slacks off so it can be reused. if second stage was to be reused too, spacecraft would never get to correct orbit without them having an expendable third stage to pick up the slack

>> No.8792170

>>8792118
>>8792124
ok 40million still seems way too much

>> No.8792172

>>8792164
>>8792168

man i with they could hurry the fuck up with that shit
i mean, they can reuse rockets now, why can't they just put the fucking telescope in the sky already

>> No.8792173

>>8792157

Falcon Heavy flight later in the year
Crew flight testing and flight in a year or so.
A crewed flight around the moon in a couple of years.
ITS development and testing.

>> No.8792175

>>8792170
magnitudes better than the competition. Space is expensive (for now)

There is a reason basically everyone except the french are moving towards reusability

>> No.8792176
File: 21 KB, 570x379, 0eNRDIY.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792176

>>8792119
press F to pay respects

>> No.8792177

>>8792164
>>8792168

If the Euros make JW go boom I may never forgive them desu.

>> No.8792179

>>8792172
Because we all know that James Webb is going to either blow up or not work in orbit.

>> No.8792181

>>8792167
>why? Their angara seems to be doing somewhat fine.
It's not. Angara is dead.

>> No.8792186

>>8792166
Falcon heavy later this year. As for completly new stuff, more designs going for reusable first stages, the russians said they'd try that for their angara. We'll see how that works out. The transition to liquid methane as fuel and full flow staged combustion engines.

>> No.8792187

Mars fucking when?

>> No.8792188

>>8792169
the treatment for that problem is called "developement" and it has worked pretty good in the last few decades.

>> No.8792191

>>8792124
>>8792170
Spacex are basically doing themselves a giant profit margin while they can.

>> No.8792192

>>8792164
how tight is your anus gonna be when they finally launch that beast?

Imagine if it exploded...

>> No.8792193

>>8792157
mars my nigga

>> No.8792196

>>8792181
what did i miss? Didn't they just built a new cosmodrome for it? What reason would they have to abandon it?

>> No.8792198

>>8792187
30 years from now

>> No.8792199

>>8792179
why would it blow up? i mean i can easily picture one of those foil pieces wrecking the whole thing, but why would it bow up? and if it does blow up, why wouldn't they have an extra just in case? haven't you seen Contact?

>> No.8792200

>>8792187
Dragon 2 in 2020

>> No.8792201

>>8792172
it is clumbsy as fuck. and they want to make sure it works.

>> No.8792203

>>8792170
competing flights are WAY more.

space x is by far the cheapest right now.

>> No.8792204

>>8792192

I'm not sure I'll be able to watch it live. That stress might kill me.

>> No.8792205

>>8792192
>Imagine if it exploded...
imagine it gets all the way out there and one of the mirrors is off by 0.00000001cm and the telescope is permanently broken

>> No.8792207

>>8792167
>why?
trampoline banter

>> No.8792208

>>8792199
the thing is pretty expensive. I think they can be happy to build at least one in the first place.

>> No.8792211

>>8792204

Nah m8 you gotta watch it with us so we can collectively kill ourselves.

>> No.8792214

>>8792205

Then it's time for Spacex to fly NASA astronauts out to L2 to fix it.

>> No.8792217

>>8792187
I'd settle for spacesuits for now desu

>> No.8792220

>>8792176

Good meme.

>> No.8792222

>>8792173
>Falcon Heavy flight later in the year
Hype as fuck. It's too soon for me to see interplanetary civilization, but if a human gets to Mars in my lifetime I'll at least go with a slight feeling of hope.

>> No.8792230

>>8792222
are you not going bro? why the fuck wouldn't you go?

>> No.8792233

>>8792196
> what did i miss?
No people. No resources. Old scientists and engineers mostly are dead because of age and youth doesn't want to work there for 300$ per month.
>Didn't they just built a new cosmodrome for it?
They built only one launch zone for old Soyuz and that was several years ago.

Since then nothing has changed. Moreover, currently builders and workers there are rioting because no one pays them their salaries for six months.
>What reason would they have to abandon it?
Russia is like Midas - the Greek king. Everything it touches transforms into shit and ash.

>> No.8792236

>>8792222
Elon is from mars, so multiply that by 26/12, as ha works on Mars calendar

>> No.8792239

>>8791936
THANK YOU BASED ELON

>> No.8792249
File: 152 KB, 1191x1200, spacex-size.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792249

We choose to go to Mars in the next decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are FUCKING AWESOME.

>> No.8792252

>>8791831
>did the same thing more than a year ago
>btfo

>> No.8792255

>>8792252
>>did the same thing more than a year ago
nice try retard.

>> No.8792257

What are the advantages of having a telescope in space rather than on Earth?

>> No.8792258
File: 401 KB, 864x627, 1488130415151.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792258

>>8792181
so is the guy that ran roscosmos

don't fuck up , you go to prison and get stabbed

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/20/russia-murder-space-agency-roscosmos

>> No.8792260

>>8792257
no atmosphere in the way that distortes light

>> No.8792261

>>8792233
nah, that doesn't sound reliable. The thing already flew, the harderst part is already done. And i'm pretty sure they launched it from the new cosmodroem too. They got solid engine and launcher technology, there is little they need to do there to keep up. Making the boosters recoverable will be a challenge but they've been on and off working on that for three decades so there are probably some plans to base it on in the drawers of some obscure OKB. Considering the budget they're on it's rather admirable that they were able to field a new launch vehicle to begin with.

>> No.8792263

>>8792257
no fucking atmosphere to fuck up your image
no light pollution

>> No.8792264

>>8792257

No political arguments about land use.

>> No.8792266

>>8792255
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74tyedGkoUc

>> No.8792267

>>8792260
>>8792257
>>8792263
>>8792264
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=073GwPbyFxE

>> No.8792273

>>8792258
Some folks call it a sling blade...but I call it the kaiser blade mmhmm

>> No.8792275

>>8792119

Ablative paint bruh

>> No.8792278

>>8792263
How big of a deal is light pollution in the countryside? Or are those huge telescopes placed in cities?
>>8792264
Do you have an example of that being an issue that I can read about?
>>8792260
>>8792267
Thanks.

>> No.8792281

>>8792278

>Do you have an example of that being an issue that I can read about?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/science/hawaii-thirty-meter-telescope-mauna-kea.html

>> No.8792293

>>8792199
>why would it blow up?

During launch, if the rocket launching it blows up.

>> No.8792303

>>8792181
Angara is fine, but the Russian space program is out of money. They still need to finish its launch pads at the various cosmodromes.

Russia has the fewest scheduled launches in 2017 since before the Cold War! And many of those are for ESA and ISS crew and resupply (other countries paying for it).

>> No.8792304

>>8792261
> nah, that doesn't sound reliable. The thing already flew, the harderst part is already done.
You judge from position of western man. Here things are different
I don't want to convince you - it's 2:35 AM here and I want to sleep. Just remember my words - Angara will never fly again and roscosmos will continue to fall into nothingness.

Oh. Forgot to mention a thing. Today Roscosmos discovered that ALL (ALL available 72 engines) Proton second and third stage engines contain mayor defect related with solder quality and cannot be used - they should be reassembled to use them again. Just a thing about real business in Russian airspace agency. The show is over.

>> No.8792306

>>8792278

The atmosphere strongly absorbs infrared light, so an infrared telescope can never be Earth based. It'd be like trying to build a visible light telescope if Earth had permanent 100% cloud cover.

>> No.8792311

>>8792267
We are fucking gods. Too bad there aren't any other beings capable of appreciating our greatness.

>> No.8792314

>>8792303
>Russian space program is out of money
hey nasa's about to buy a bunch of soyuz seats at 80? million a pop

>> No.8792317

>>8792304
>Today Roscosmos discovered that ALL (ALL available 72 engines) Proton second and third stage engines contain mayor defect related with solder quality and cannot be used

This is actually true, sub-par welds discovered during quality control inspections have essentially grounded Proton for as much time is needed to manufacture, test, and quality assure an entire new production run of engines. Since Roscosmos is not SpaceX, and doesn't produce around 5 engines per week, that means a significant delay.

>> No.8792319

>>8792157
reflight in 24 hours
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847594208219336705

>> No.8792320

>>8792311
We arent gods. We are just doing what we are able to do.

>> No.8792321

>>8792314

The USG basically owes Roscosmos the business after all the military satellites Russia has helped America put in orbit.

>> No.8792322
File: 65 KB, 250x236, 1455658689841.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792322

>>8792319
WHAT THE FUCK ELON

>> No.8792328

>>8791859
>Where people exist only as pets of AI's

That's the good ending, anon. Do you want to be under the control of your fellow shitty apes forever?

>> No.8792330
File: 118 KB, 327x333, 1478148372010.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792330

>>8792319

>> No.8792331

>>8792322
Oh, let me retract that somewhat. Thought he was talking about 24h from now.

>> No.8792334

>>8792320
we are as close to gods as anything that exists in the universe we have observed

>> No.8792335

>>8792319
MADMAN
A
D
M
A
N

>> No.8792336
File: 1.79 MB, 400x300, mSH68pE.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792336

>>8792319
MADMAN

i like it

>> No.8792337

>>8792124
>Can't be much different for the falcon 9.
The Atlas V upper stage is more expensive than the booster. That's very different from Falcon 9.

>>8792118
>$40 million instead of $60 million for a new one
$60 million is a price, not a cost, and they're not lowering the price much right away.

The first stage only costs about $20 million to manufacture, so just the cost savings of not needing to build a first stage is not enough to justify a $20 million price cut.

Basically, they need to increase launch rates, and streamline launch processes, before they can make a big price cut. If they go far enough along this line, they might get it down as low as $10 million.

>> No.8792341

>>8792320
Yea, true. Actually let me rephrase that. Too bad there aren't any other beings that we could pass all this knowledge on to. All that we've learned and accomplished. If we go it all goes.

>> No.8792345

>>8792319
He going to try that now?

>> No.8792346

This was some pretty elaborate hoax I'll give them that.

>> No.8792347

>>8792334
So when the people one hundred years ago saw a smartphone that guy would also be god to them. Now thats an everyday thing.

Its progress.

>> No.8792348

>>8792317
how come russian industry can't get its shit together like the chinese did

>> No.8792349

>>8792304
but why wouldn't it fly again? The structure itself is rather trivial, and the engines are comparable to stuff like the NK33 that's like half a century old. Infrastructure may fall into ruin, personal may die or leave. But there should still be enough to base a decent space program on. It's not like they're not launching rockets anymore.

>> No.8792352

>>8792311
Excuse me, but what do gods need with a spaceship?

>> No.8792355

>>8792304
>Oh. Forgot to mention a thing. Today Roscosmos discovered that ALL (ALL available 72 engines) Proton second and third stage engines contain mayor defect related with solder quality and cannot be used - they should be reassembled to use them again.

tfw Russian engines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5eddt-iAo

>> No.8792357

>>8792337
yes, overall vehicle cost and design is very different. But how much money is spent on what parts of the stage should be similar. AT least that's what i'd assume

>> No.8792360

>>8792352
to cruise with bill shatner

>> No.8792362

>>8792319

I wonder though, what is the exact commercial advantage of 24-hour turnaround? I guess if they're anticipating much higher customer volume...

>>8792337

>If they go far enough along this line, they might get it down as low as $10 million.
Indeed, I think the ultimate goal is still single-digit millions per launch.

>> No.8792363

>>8792348
Russia has always been shit. It's their way of life and culture you insensitive bigot.

>> No.8792364

>>8792355
At least they spotted that shit.

>> No.8792365

>>8792348
how did the chinese get their shit together? Their space program is still a joke. They haven't managed to build an engine that surpasses 60 year old soviet designs yet.

>> No.8792366

>>8792348
Oil prices dropping kicked the legs out from under them would be my guess.

>> No.8792367
File: 586 KB, 2048x1539, WTu7C9L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792367

>>8792319

THE DREAM IS HAPPENING

>> No.8792371

>>8792362
they will only be able to go to mars once every two and a half years, so the objective is to put up as many rockets as they can in the period leading up to this

>> No.8792378

>>8792355
to be fair, that was an engine that was sitting in some kuznetsov warehouse for like 40 years before it was imported and relabeled as AJ26.

>> No.8792381
File: 328 KB, 1353x976, multi-track-drifting-1343633349859.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792381

>>8792319
>next goal
not
>next flight
cool your jets, guys

>>8792362
>I wonder though, what is the exact commercial advantage of 24-hour turnaround?
Multi-launch missions? Two or more pieces that dock in orbit, with the crew in the last launch?

>> No.8792384

>>8792371
>>8792362
also, i imagine that they would be able to outbid literally everyone else for any rocket contract if they do achieve that, so more money in their pockets for expensive things like going to mars

>> No.8792390
File: 990 KB, 400x224, Elon Musk on Twitter Incredibly proud of the SpaceX team for achieving this milestone in space! Next goal is reflight within 24 hours.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792390

>>8792319
>reflight in 24 hours
>its real

mfw

>> No.8792391
File: 260 KB, 620x640, 1490298296356.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792391

>>8792367

...What am I supposed to be looking at here?

>>8792371

I don't think it's quite that simple.

>>8792381

>Multi-launch missions? Two or more pieces that dock in orbit, with the crew in the last launch?
Yeah I was thinking of that. but if that's the case, it seems like it would make more sense to use two separate vehicles. Then again, if re-use saves enough money, I'm sure there will be customers who go that route.

>> No.8792397

>>8792391
>...What am I supposed to be looking at here?

the dream of a space dc-3

which now might be happening

>> No.8792401
File: 44 KB, 600x325, 7686178464_fdc8ea66c7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792401

>>8792362
Optimal launch windows are pretty narrow. Squeezing in 1 launch every 24 hours is a NASA wet dream where they wake up all sweaty at the good part then have to cry softly into their pillow..

>> No.8792404

>>8792381
>Multi-launch missions? Two or more pieces that dock in orbit, with the crew in the last launch?

See webm here: >>8791455

>> No.8792405

>>8792355

I like seeing the little spiral explosion things.

>> No.8792408

>>8792401

kek

>> No.8792413

>>8792266

Orbit and the edge of the atmosphere are not the same thing, not even remotely

>> No.8792415
File: 2.97 MB, 200x180, 1484614369273.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792415

>>8791455
>SpaceX.webm

>> No.8792418

fairing recovered also

>> No.8792424

SpaceX will probalby have found a way to cheaply recover the ISS until it expires.

>> No.8792430

>>8792266

>W-we crossed the Karman line and landed, guys... look...
>Th-that's just as good as reaching orbital speeds... we promise...
>Guys?

>> No.8792432

>>8792424
well, without the falcon heavy they don't have the payload capability to launch new modules. I wonder how long what's up there right now would be OK as long as you kept supplying it.

>> No.8792433

>>8792365
Huh? They just updated their whole launch vehicle line with new modern ones, and started several more or less private spaceflight companies. They are sending robots to the Moon. They are building a modular space station by themselves, after nasa literally telling them to fuck off ISS (compare that to Russians, nasa PAID for russian space module with their own money, basically saving their industry!), and almost not failing their timeline (compare that to nasa failing 2.5 manned mars programs and countless post-shuttle launch vehicle concepts). To me, that sounds like resounding success relative to what they had.

>They haven't managed to build an engine that surpasses 60 year old soviet designs yet.
Too fucking bad russians can't do it themselves. And I never seen them flying LH2 engines like Chinese did, Russians only did this with Energia and lost the tech since that.

>Their space program is still a joke
Ask ESA how they are eager for cooperation with Chinese on their next lunar lander, then think again.

>> No.8792434

>>8792391

Elon wants to put up a several-thousand satellite constellation that will provide fast internet to the entire globe, the constellation will sit in low orbit and will use mass produced cheap satellites that will be replaced continuously, with a lifetime of several years.

Keeping this constellation flying will require a massive increase in launch cadence, which is why Falcon 9 is targeting such ambitious reuse specs, the the payoffs would be huge; Elon thinks he can not only break even with the satellite internet plan, but that he can fund the entire ITS development with the profits.

>> No.8792446

>>8792415

I'm probably going to actually cry the first time I see that rocket fly. I don't mean a single manly tear, either, it's going to be ugly.

The presentation where Elon showed that animation was fucking crazy, I'm so glad I was there. Getting to witness a billionaire autist lay out his plans to save humanity, live and in person, was incredible.

>> No.8792448

>>8792430

Falcon 9's first stage doesn't reach close to orbital speeds, but it does go way faster and higher than New Shepard, and it has horizontal velocity to deal with during the landing.

>> No.8792449

>>8792434

I'm going to sign up for Elon-Net the second it's live, just to say that I had a small part in funding the biggest rocket in history.

>> No.8792453

>>8792418
WHOA!! That is big news! That is almost a bigger achievement than recovering the booster, because nobody has done that before.

Elon's news conference just now:
>Payload fairing LANDED SUCCESSFULLY. Fairing has thruster systems and steerable parachute. Was just shown pic of intact fairing floating in ocean.

>> No.8792457

>>8792446
are you the faggot who said he was at burning man, and asked how people would deal with their shit once they go to mars?

>> No.8792459

>>8792432
Falcon Heavy is not enough, US orbital segment modules are passive (no engine, no control system), so you also need some kind of tug to drag and berth them to the station. There's no shuttle for that anymore, you need to develop a separate spacecraft for that. (not nececcarily that complex of course)

Also, Delta IV is capable of lifting both.

>> No.8792462

>>8792449

Hell I'm gonna do it because my current internet company is shit and Elon's will probably be faster.

>> No.8792463

>>8792453
>Elon's news conference just now:

WHERE

>> No.8792465
File: 86 KB, 1280x729, ScorchedFins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792465

>>8792448
>Falcon 9's first stage doesn't reach close to orbital speeds, but it does go way faster and higher than New Shepard, and it has horizontal velocity to deal with during the landing.

Case in point, the charring on the grid fins during re-entry.

>> No.8792467

>>8792463
Don't think there's a stream

>> No.8792472

>>8792465
...speaking of Grid Fins...
>Musk: New design coming for Grid Fin. Will be largest titanium forging in the world. Current Grid Fin is aluminum and gets so hot it lights on fire... which isn't good for reuse.

>> No.8792473
File: 66 KB, 1062x207, spacex-164895739.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792473

>>8792453
Elon, you sly dog. Putting in fairing chutes and keeping quiet about it until after the launch.

>> No.8792475

>>8792463
NSF forums sent a reporter. Summarizing here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544

Latest: they are going to redo the grid fins from titanium instead of aluminum.

>> No.8792479

>>8792457

Nope, I was there with the group from r/spacex (hurr durr reddit, sure, but that's the best place on the internet for Spacex info), and we sat outside the doors to the presentation hall from morning until the actual presentation. That got the attention of some actual Spacex people who were setting up for the talk, and they got us a group of seats in the front section with the delegates and heads of agencies and all those folks. The people in the front actually couldn't get to the Q&A microphones.

>> No.8792480

>>8792433
The US and soviets had moon rovers and landers on venus almost 50 years ago. That doesn't tell much of the launchers capabilities except its capability to throw a certain amount of mass into orbit. The chinese are far behind in terms of engine and launcher technology.

Also i'm pretty sure the russians didn't "loose" their LOX/LH2 technology. The RD0120 was a very capable engine. All they lack is the funding to put it to use, not the technology to build it.

>> No.8792483

>>8792459
good to know

>> No.8792485

>>8792349
Oh it could fly. And the engines are quite decent. Purely from an engeneering point of view, Russia could even make reusable rockets long ago, it lacks only software advancements of SpaceX.
And money. And motivation. And personnel. And vision. And future.

>>8792433
> And I never seen them flying LH2 engines like Chinese did, Russians only did this with Energia and lost the tech
Lol, that's the whole point, they still have achieved less than what we have lost.

And they're too much into hydrazine.

So. this aside. Falcon Heavy when?

>> No.8792487

>>8792453
>>8792473
Fairing recovery has been done multiple times, not just by spacex. Russians do it routinely since they drop stages on the land and they have to remove debris. It's relatively easy to get fairings intact since they have high drag, several parachute recovery attempts have been done back in early 2000s (as well as upper stage recovery with inflatable decelerators). No reuse attempted though, as far as i know, actual reuse of fairings is what would be somewhat new.

>> No.8792488

>>8792475
>https://www.facebook
.com/everydayastronaut/videos/764917663684983/
stream from news conference!!!

>> No.8792493

>>8792434

Ah! Yes, that explains it nicely then.

>> No.8792498

>>8792480
>Also i'm pretty sure the russians didn't "loose" their LOX/LH2 technology.

the problem isnt losing the technology but losing the expertise to make said technology

both in terms of the engineers who design it and the skilled labor that actually makes it

>> No.8792499

>>8792485
of course they're decent. The NK33 was already an oxidizer rich staged combustion design, after that there's not that much you can improve on a kerosene/LOX engine.

>> No.8792502

>>8792472
>titanium

YEHEAA BOI

>> No.8792504
File: 58 KB, 731x423, Flybackboost.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792504

>>8792485
I'm sad Energia never put their flyback boosters into production. They even had a prototype they sent around to aerospace exhibitions.

>> No.8792508

>>8792498
why would that be lost? Kuznetsov is still alive and kicking, their military is one of the few things they didn't cut funding for to almost nothing. The designs are there, the equipment wasn't scrapped if they weren't completly retarded and the know how and personal also still exists.

>> No.8792509

>>8792480
>The US and soviets had moon rovers and landers on venus almost 50 years ago
Yes, but chinese didn't. They figured this out lately, that surely sounds like they got they shit together.

>The chinese are far behind in terms of engine and launcher technology.
Check out their new launcher line and get your facts straight, that's absolutely not true.

>Also i'm pretty sure the russians didn't "loose" their LOX/LH2 technology. The RD0120 was a very capable engine. All they lack is the funding to put it to use, not the technology to build it.
No, they lost RD0120 completely because the engine production and tech was dustributed across the whole union, that was stated multiple times by companies officially.

>>8792485
>And they're too much into hydrazine.
They don't, they're phasing it out. Their new launchers are on APCP, kerolox and LH2, with possible methalox.

>> No.8792512

>>8792504
yeah, the fall of their space program was by far the saddest part of the fall of the soviet union.

>> No.8792513

>>8791538
>They literally copy every single thing SpaceX has already done, down to the drone ship

kek

>> No.8792518

>>8792509
>>The chinese are far behind in terms of engine and launcher technology.
>Check out their new launcher line and get your facts straight, that's absolutely not true.

In fact, their next Long March 7 launch is coming up on April 23

>> No.8792526

>>8792513
to be fair, SpaceX had to invalidate Bezos' existing patent on barge landings before they could proceed.

>> No.8792528

>>8792526
How do you invalidate a patent?

>> No.8792529

>>8792488

thanks

>half a dozen or so reflights this year
>double that next year

>> No.8792530

>>8792528
By claiming Prior Art and arguing that it's a trivial patent in court. They succeeded.

>> No.8792535

>>8792362
>what is the exact commercial advantage of 24-hour turnaround?
It's less the fact of it, and more the implications of it.

A 24-hour turnaround implies no refurbishment, no extensive inspection, no requalification. None of these things that have costs. They're pretty much just refilling, restacking, and reflying.

>> No.8792539

>>8792508

old engineers who havent seriously done work in decades

skilled labor that is also old and retired or hasnt made a rocket engine in decades

they slashed their military budget a shitload when the cold war ended

most of their manufacturing base went to shit

>> No.8792541

>>8792504
Everything they've had on Baikal was a mockup which is still hanging in some hangar, that wasn't a prototype. Although the concept itself looks much more mass efficient than VTVL. But I guess it's more complex to implement, and I'm not sure how they were supposed to deal with transversal strength in a rocket.

>>8792485
>Purely from an engeneering point of view, Russia could even make reusable rockets long ago, it lacks only software advancements of SpaceX.
Software, what? SpaceX didn't advance software in any way, that's basic control theory. Russians flew a fully automatic spaceplane in 80s which was much more challenging than first stage VTVL. SpaceX achievement is that they are trying something relatively new in a lazy era.

>> No.8792546

>>8792513

No, BO doesn't do a boostback burn, so they're going to be forever limited on launch cadences unless they build a large fleet of boosters and have a large operating fleet of ships to catch them. That's called thinking ahead.

>> No.8792557

>>8792504
They did some wind tunnel testing in 2010s and decided it has to be too heavy due to unexpected thermal loads on foldable wings or something

>> No.8792562

>>8792557
oh! I hadn't realized development had continued that long, and that it reached a dead end.

>> No.8792569

>>8792485
>Purely from an engeneering point of view, Russia could even make reusable rockets long ago, it lacks only software advancements of SpaceX.
>And money. And motivation. And personnel. And vision. And future.
You could say exactly the same about US industry. SpaceX was the only ones who tried that, nobody really wanted to do this after the Shuttle/DC-X, everybody was focused on spaceplanes.

>> No.8792594
File: 117 KB, 1024x749, 1490829542139.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792594

>fairing has its own thruster and steerable parachute

>> No.8792597

>>8792562
It didn't, the concept got shelved for several years because nobody funded it, then they dug it back out in 2011 due to MRKS program receiving some (small) R&D funding. They ditched foldable wings and simplified the concept substantially. AFAIK it got shelved again since it's intended for URM-1 (Angara first stage module) which is not in production yet, and due to Khrunichev beibg in a miserable state lately.

The concept is still considered promising due to potentially having less dead weight than VTVL, and better suited to landing without access to sea/ocean. If they will continue their MRKS program with their new launchers (Sunkar?) they will probably use flyback scheme, not VTVL.

>> No.8792599

must be interesting balancing low prices and keeping the industry alive. As he said in the presser, he wants a competitive and thriving launch market. But if spacex can start offering lower-than-low prices w/o a big backlog, then the Russians, french, Chinese, Japanese, ula, orbital, and heck even those kiwis with the tiny rocket are all going to go bust. So I wonder if they are lowering their prices at the recommendation of some economist or something to encourage innovation in the industry while still keeping it alive

>> No.8792606

>>8792599
>even those kiwis with the tiny rocket
There's plenty of competitors in ultralight niche, not just kiwis. No idea what they are all hoping for though, that seems to be a bad business plan since they would never compete on price ratio with medium/heavy rockets, and small satellites are all about price.

>> No.8792607

Great Success!!

>> No.8792618

>>8792606
Yeah. I see the cubesat market heading towards a monthly launch of those India-type deals where you stick an medium lift rocket full of 80 of the buggers

Save on price that way

>> No.8792624

>>8792599
Let's be realistic here, currently Musk struggles with 1 launch per month. He cannot possibly dominate the market this way, no matter the price, he's got to speed up.

>> No.8792625

>>8792624
seems like they are doing pretty well cadence wise. It's just been unfortunate with the lost of one of their pads. Next launch is in 2 weeks - NROL 76. Which is what their cadence is planned to be for this year going forward.

>> No.8792643

>>8792546
They're only planning 12 launches per year with New Glenn.

It's in the same class as SLS and Falcon Heavy, not Falcon 9.

>> No.8792651

>>8792599
They will never reduce prices significantly until a competitor comes along that can match them.

They will just use the surplus profit to fund their Mars rocket.

>> No.8792653
File: 41 KB, 1054x244, 32-33-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8792653

>>8792504
What more puzzling to me is that they never continued the IRDT Fregat recovery experiment. Historically, their upper stages were compact, very high-tech and costly (i.e. well suited to reuse), and they somewhat successfully tested the inflatable recovery system for the Fregat upper stage in 2005.

>> No.8792665

>>8792624
umm they already hit their target of eleven day turnaround on 39A with this launch. march 30 last launch was on march 19

>> No.8792691

>>8792625
It was also planned for 2016, all year along

>> No.8792699

>>8792691
I think one per month was the target for 2016.

You got a source on twice a month?

>> No.8792701

>>8792691
actually it's been their planned cadence since early 2015

>> No.8792702

How many launches do they expect to get out of one rocket?

>> No.8792718

>>8792699
>You got a source on twice a month?
http://fortune.com/2016/03/22/spacex-rockets-every-few-weeks/

>> No.8792724

>>8792718
Oh, wrong link, it states a total number of planned launches.
Their schedule at a time (March 2016) was planned to be once per 2 weeks though, have to find a correct link then.

>> No.8792731

>>8792702
10 for falcon 9, 100 for ITS booster, 10 Mars trips for ITS spaceship

these are all theoretical of course, but the fact that Blue Origin already has 5 launches on one booster makes it seem very possible

>> No.8792734

>>8792731
Clarification:

1000 for its booster
100 for f9 with refurbishment
10 for f9 w/o doing anything to it

Per Elon at the pressed today

>> No.8792735

>>8792526
>>8792530
The fact they even patented means they are desperate.

>> No.8792736

>>8792734
where did you get that info?

>> No.8792739

>>8792735
they patented it before either company had launched a single rocket

patents as a concept are retarded anyways

>> No.8792740

>>8792736
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.340

>> No.8792745

>>8792740
>Musk: New design coming for Grid Fin. Will be largest titanium forging in the world. Current Grid Fin is aluminum and gets so hot it lights on fire... which isn't good for reuse.
neat

>> No.8792749

video of presser
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3LQFpuzqs

>> No.8792768

>>8792535

>A 24-hour turnaround implies no refurbishment, no extensive inspection, no requalification. None of these things that have costs. They're pretty much just refilling, restacking, and reflying.
I hadn't thought of it that way. That would certainly be huge.

>> No.8792780

>>8792606
They discarded Falcon 1 for exactly this reason btw, the niche doesn't have the future. The only launcher still being used is Pegasus, and it doesn't see much demand.

>> No.8792807

>>8792780
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LauncherOne
>On 25 June 2015, the company signed a contract with OneWeb Ltd. for 39 satellite launches for its satellite constellation with an option for an additional 100 launches.
That's potentially a billion dollars worth of business.

SpaceX's big plan to make lots of money with its own satellites is also a smallsat network, they're just launching them in bundles.

>> No.8792814

>>8792546
Say it takes a week for the stage to get back to the launch site, another week to put it up on the pad + launch it.
Thats still doing 20-25 launches per booster

As well nothing stops them from doing a boostback burn, its not any harder than landing on a ship

>> No.8792815

>>8792768
Also cost goes down, demand goes up. More rocket launches equals more profit equals more rocket testing.

>> No.8792821

>>8792814
with the block V / v2.5 f9, the extra 8% thrust should allow heavy payload missions to all do RTLS.

However, they were discussing flying the booosters back to land; refueling them on the droneships and such

Will be cool

>> No.8792826

>>8791730
>Settle down, virgins
make me chad, keep bullying me and ill land a rocket on your house, us nerds arent so easy to fuck with anymore

>> No.8792829

>>8792651
I don't think prices are even a big thing right now
They are going to drop it down to like 30 or 40 million in the near term.

But otherwise just clearing the backlog and being able to launch within a month of ordering it will dramatically change the market.

These satellites getting tens of millions a month just sitting there, price of launch is irrelevant compared to WHEN they can get a launch.

Also rich people paying for a cruises in a Dragon 2 capsule could easily be 100+ launches a year.
Then we get into cheap probe launches, and SpaceX will have ample stuff to do in space for the foreseable future.

>> No.8792832

>>8792829
>cheap probe launches
cue to colleges being able to afoard probe launches.

Mabye harvard backed by coca cola and mcdonalds will be the first to explore that shiny spot in ceres

>> No.8792838

>>8792807
>That's potentially a billion dollars worth of business.
Not with small launchers. They are inherently much more costly per kg than medium/heavy launch vehicles. You can lift a cubesat for ~$10K per unit already, that's within the reach of a single individual, this is impossible with these nano launchers. SpaceX realized that with their Falcon 1 in practice. Even light ICBMs like russian submarine ones which are paid by military cost too much to launch something into space on being decomissioned. Generally, the heavier the rocket, the cheaper it is per kilogram to orbit.

>> No.8792843

>>8792829
I think tourism will be a bigger market than we think.

The whole reason that we have $600,000,000 yachts all over is that some rich dork bought one and invited all of his rich friends on it, who then went out and bought their own

same thing will happen with space travel. Once a couple rich dorks go up and dick around in a Bigelow space masterbatorium for a week, all of their rich friends will want to do the same.

There are more people out there that have more money than they know what to do with than you think. It's just that most are now lazy slobs. IF you dangle an easy and unique vacation opportunity to the moon in front of them they'll take it

>> No.8792848

>>8792829
>>8792843
>Also rich people paying for a cruises in a Dragon 2 capsule could easily be 100+ launches a year.
Space tourism is a fad, several people doing it is exotic and cool, but a constant stream of tourists is absolutely unfeasible, especially with .
>100+ launches a year
Good luck with that when you can't even make 30 launches per year total due to weather or the inherent complexity of an orbital launch system. And 100 MANNED launches a year is a completely different ballpark due to safety standards in manned space systems, I don't think you realize how much more strict they are.

>> No.8792853

>>8792848
Oh, and I'm not even talking about the space launch system operated by untrained staff. In other words, it was unfeasible in 80s, it's still unfeasible today.

>> No.8792856

>>8792119
I thought it was rust

>> No.8792858

>>8792848
>but a constant stream of tourists is absolutely unfeasible

What do you think rich people spend their money on? They have nothing other than dumping millions on luxuries
There are a LOT of billionaires/multi-hundred-millionaires in the world.

The reason space tourism doesn't exist is that there was no option for it, once SpaceX has set a price tag + a date + people have an idea what to expect, then you can expect lots of business in space tourism.

NASA astronaut standards have nothing to do with SpaceX standards for passengers in a Dragon 2

>> No.8792874

>>8792848
No anon, that's 100 launches per year per ITS. 100 per year total is tiny.

And the weather in south texas at their future ITS launch facility is perfect 99% of the time.

>> No.8792876

>>8792858
You don't seem to hear me. It's technically unfeasible, in the first place.
>They have nothing other than dumping millions on luxuries
It's not a luxury. It's hard work for your own money. Do you see many people parachuting from the stratosphere after Alan Eustace did this? The company which made the suit and balloon for him even tried to sell these jumps at $75K and failed to get any customers because you needed substantial training for that and not that many rich people like to engage in high risk activities which are appealing only as "firsts".

>> No.8792881

>>8792876
jumping off of a balloon for 7 minutes of falling, and having to train to begin with, is different than a week trip to Bigelow's LEO masterbatorium suites with complentanmentary bubble massages. Be this tall to enter.

>> No.8792885

>>8792876
>It's technically unfeasible, in the first place.
It's the inevitable future, to be doing thousands of launches a year

Once the rocket is proven to be safe & durable then you will see stuff like city to city suborbital flight.

>> No.8792886

>>8792874
>100 per year total is tiny.
I'll beleive it when I'll see it.

> ITS.
There's a general rule of thumb in space industry: if it never flew, it doesn't exist. Doesn't matter that it comes from SpaceX. The whole concept of ITS is horribly suboptimal and is a "rocket to nowhere", there were dozens of much more sane concepts that even got implemented in hardware that never flew.

>> No.8792891

>>8792886
>scale raptor engines are in development
>spacex signed the largest deal with the largest Japanese carbon composite material firm ever for its structures
>its updates coming soon from spacex
>the entire fucking goal of spacex is to have ITS like systems in the first place

>> No.8792901

>>8792829
>Also rich people paying for a cruises in a Dragon 2 capsule could easily be 100+ launches a year.
There's only about a quarter million people who could afford to drop multiple millions of dollars on a single brief experience, and most of them would be hurting to do it.

I fully believe at least 100 of them would do it, if the price gets into single-digit millions). But 100+ loads of them every year?

>> No.8792902

>>8791184
They still cost several $million. I've seen $6mil thrown around as the cost, but that seems a bit high to me.

>> No.8792908

>>8792885
>It's the inevitable future, to be doing thousands of launches a year
Any talk of an inevitable future is inevitably a delusion. The reality is always more nuanced. People thought since 80s that flying cars, orbital chip factories and cyberpunk cities were inevitable, and neither one is a good idea due to many reasons: flying cars are energy-suboptimal and have dangerous failure modes, orbital chip factories need much less gravity gradient than LEO can provide, and too dense cities are actual shitholes, not romanticised ones.

>you will see stuff like city to city suborbital flight
I promise you'll never see that, unless you are willing to argue with Tsiolkovsky on his equation.

>>8792891
ITS is a horrible concept and doesn't make sense in practice, period. I'm not even starting on the goals, they don't have anything to fly to, they don't even have a concept for life support for that many people, they have nothing. This is all planned in 10 years, coming from a company which intended to do a fully reusable (with a second stage) Falcon 9 launch in 2007, in two years after the announcement?
https://web.archive.org/web/20050910040404/http://www.spacex.com/aboutus.php
Yeah, I totally beleive that.

And yes, I'll repeat myself:
>if it never flew, it doesn't exist

>> No.8792913

>>8792891
Russians also made their ultra high tech tank for MAKS, and where is it now? Oh I forgot, russians are evil, poor and not cool like Elon. (actually, russians were absolutely great at this at the time, it's just MAKS was a poor concept that looked good only on paper)

>> No.8792923

>>8792901
And what fraction of those people, do you think, would love to go to space?
25%?

Sure yea it's not going to be a massive wave of space colonization, not at those prices, but there will be a lot of people interested.
Also governments/space programs who would like to just pay a flat price to have their own ecuadorian astronaut.

>> No.8792928

>>8791497
Jez, ISS is like a station for ants compared to Skylab.

>> No.8792931

>>8792838
>>That's potentially a billion dollars worth of business.
>Not with small launchers
They're talking about $10 million, and over a hundred launches. Yes, it's a small launcher. Yes, that adds up over a billion dollars.

>They are inherently much more costly per kg than medium/heavy launch vehicles.
Not true. It's far easier to mass-produce a small launcher, to make each one an assembly-line product rather than a construction project.

>Even light ICBMs like russian submarine ones
You're talking about surplus equipment. The price has nothing to do with the cost of manufacture. They were never set up to do a lot of launches operationally-cheaply, and never could be because of the unreliable supply.

>> No.8792950

>>8792886
>There's a general rule of thumb in space industry: if it never flew, it doesn't exist
thats not space industry, that's everywhere, but you cant stop planning just because theres a high rate of failure tahts severely retarded

>> No.8792958

>>8792931
>They're talking
Here, found your problem. There a lot of people who are talking.

And all of those who tried small launchers in practice (Orbital, SpaceX etc) have failed so far, despite initially talking a lot (about mass production specificially). Most startups that tried to develop a micro launcher (there were literally dozens of them) are either silently died or entered the zombie stage. There are semi-ready vehicles like the japanese heavily subsidized one which is still unreliable and not cheap, and Super Strypi. And yet the only truly mass produced launch vehicle was Soyuz-U.

Welcome to the space industry. There are far too many concepts, ideas and business plans. Far too little of them make business or tech or even basic sense. Even less are implemented in hardware. And even less of them proved to be successful, none specificially in this area. It's always cool to have someone who delivers, but those who haven't flew don't deserve much attention yet.

>> No.8792963

>>8792950
ITS lacks any signs of planning. It's just a very suboptimal concept for its goal, very rough and without a program, like many others.

>> No.8792968

>>8792963
What do you mean any signs of planning
They have clearly done months/years of planning in that design

Their final rocket WILL look like something like that..

>> No.8792970

>>8792963
>>8792968
Not to mention the raptor engines and the test tank.
Its still very much a WIP but it's gotten much farther than any other concept like it.

>> No.8792975

>>8792923
>And what fraction of those people, do you think, would love to go to space?
>25%?
Holy shit no. It isn't 25% of people who'd be willing to go to space if you paid them to do it, let alone who would pay significant fractions of their fortunes.

Price aside, the average person will start wanting to go to space for the fun of it after there have been tens of thousands of manned flights and accidents are freakishly rare, and there's a nice big space hotel with artificial gravity areas and zero-g playgrounds and some nice restaurants with a view of the Earth.

Climbing Mt. Everest isn't all that expensive, maybe a billion people in the world could afford to do it as a once-in-a-lifetime thing if they really wanted. A few hundred people per year actually do it, because it's uncomfortable and dangerous.

>> No.8792980

>>8792124
Fuel for Falcon9 is ~$200,000. Pennies compared to the hardware cost.

>> No.8793008

>>8792970
An engine of that class can be used literally anywhere and is good on its own. On tanks, you have this >>8792913, and trust me, that tank was a decade ahead of its time. History has seen lots of semi-finished cool things that never flew.

>>8792968
>What do you mean any signs of planning
I mean it literally.

First stage, okay I can see some sense in it, although they'll fail it like they failed to meet their target in Falcon 9 (fully reusable in 2 years). You can't just scale your previous rocket designed within common industry experience to get a much bigger one which never been attempted before.

Second stage is a trainwreck. The thermal and structural loads on that thing alone would require the TPS and overall complexity of a shuttle, this is not even speaking of its intended landing method involving flipping in dense layers. (!) This reminds me of their cute hope to use only cold gas thrusters on F9. They don't have a life support system for that many people, you need a relatively closed loop one for Mars and developing one in 10 years is impossible, there's not enough science on that.

The general concept of putting dozens of people on an unproven vehicle with no stats which is also under its own high-thrust power (= high pressure/fuel tanks nearby/dangerous failure modes) is also not very reassuring. There's a reason NASA asked SpaceX to land their astronauts on parachutes in Dragon 2, they have some understanding what manned spaceflight really is. This is a can of worms on its own.

More importantly, what are they going to do with it? They have absolutely nowhere to fly to. Not even a concept. Not a business plan. If they mean this thing seriously and not as some kind of morale boost to the industry and a method to get the right people involved, they are seriously overestimating themselves.

etc etc etc

In other words, that doesn't look like a plan to me, more like "throw something and see if that sticks".

>> No.8793021
File: 35 KB, 780x438, pepe the frog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8793021

>payload doesn't even break even with fuel/launching costs

are they even trying or just pandering to /r/space

>> No.8793028

>>8793008
>They don't have a life support system for that many people, you need a relatively closed loop one for Mars and developing one in 10 years is impossible, there's not enough science on that.
the first few trips will not carry more than a few passangers, and it has more than enough room for supplies.

About the thermal stress of reentry, its much MUCH less than the shuttle because of its bigger size, meaning it reenters at a less steep angle and generates less heat.

Anyway, even if you have to rebuild the entire heatshield with each fly it is a great deal, considering it will fly once every couple of years bringing a shit ton of supplies to mars

>> No.8793032

>>8792958
>all of those who tried small launchers in practice (Orbital, SpaceX etc) have failed so far
SpaceX didn't fail, they decided that switching entirely to a larger rocket was a better opportunity.

Orbital also can hardly be said to have failed. They put 38 payloads in orbit with Pegasus and also graduated to larger rockets.

The customers just weren't there in the 90s. That was a bad time for launch providers in general. The technology for what smallsats to do wasn't as advanced. Plus they didn't have an enthusiast billionaire backing them up.

>Welcome to the space industry. There are far too many concepts, ideas and business plans. Far too little of them make business or tech or even basic sense. Even less are implemented in hardware.
LauncherOne is hardly in that category. They're just about ready to start launching and they have a customer who wants a lot of launches, and has signed a contract with them.

What you have to recognize about the space industry is that, until very recently, governments had their pet programs and were generally waiting to strangle fully-private efforts in the crib, so only hopeless space cadets failed to recognize the situation and pressed on regardless. First orbital rockets were ICBM technology, then private competition with the space shuttle or ArianeSpace was banned.

Orbital's Pegasus got a special dispensation for providing a special service and not competing with anything any established major space interests in the US cared about. The big change was the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, which effectively legalized private spaceflight in the USA, and even then SpaceX had some legal battles to fight, and basically needed to become a NASA contractor (and therefore, really only semi-private) to get enough support to win them. Their success punched a hole.

The realistic legal potential for a private launch industry has only been around for about a dozen years. It just hasn't been tried.

>> No.8793037

>>8791936
THANK YOU BASED ELON

>> No.8793044
File: 476 KB, 3107x2330, death stare.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8793044

>muh space
>whilst BASED George Soros is funding Pussy Riot and abortion clinics all over the globe

/sci/ should get their role models right

>> No.8793054

>>8793032
>Orbital also can hardly be said to have failed. They put 38 payloads in orbit with Pegasus and also graduated to larger rockets.
They expected it to be mass-produced and to have substantial benefits due to being air launched. It was costly, unreliable and air launch didn't provide any competitive advantage. Even today it's not even close to making this true despite having TONS of potential clients, who use medium to heavy launchers instead. Pegasus just costs too fucking much. Orbital can't change that, and they are fairly large .

>SpaceX didn't fail, they decided that switching entirely to a larger rocket was a better opportunity.
That didn't stop Orbital from providing Pegasus while still using Antares though.
SpaceX ditched it because they didn't get many customers, which they commented on. It was just too expensive. You have to create your own market for small launchers (not small satellites!) if you want it to exist, and a small company is unlikely to do that alone.

>The big change was the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, which effectively legalized private spaceflight in the USA
Private space launches were legalized long before that, during Reagan IIRC.

>The realistic legal potential for a private launch industry has only been around for about a dozen years. It just hasn't been tried.
I'm not talking about legal obstacles though. I'm talking about common sense, which many projects often lack of. Also, I'm not disputing that somebody might come and change all that, I'm talking about believing only after seeing, not vice versa.

>> No.8793073

>>8793008
>Second stage is a trainwreck. The thermal and structural loads on that thing alone would require the TPS and overall complexity of a shuttle,
This is a pretty stupid assessment. They're using an ablative heat shield and capsule-like entry, which requires the TPS and overall complexity of a capsule.

The shuttle was a spaceplane. It was designed around its need to function as a subsonic glider and land without power. They didn't want an ablative heat shield in part because they wanted a low-maintenance system (and their ablatives were pretty primitive), but also because the changing aerodynamics of an ablative surface are complex, and make things like wings and control surfaces hard to design (and their simulation capabilities were pretty primitive).

ITS isn't going to have more than fins. When it slows down, it's not going to be flying, it's going to be falling.

>this is not even speaking of its intended landing method involving flipping in dense layers. (!)
It's not "flipping", it's just turning, and they'll be using the main engines for it, with loads of thrust and control authority to do so. There's no reason to expect this to be a problem.

>This reminds me of their cute hope to use only cold gas thrusters on F9.
I don't know what you're referring to. The cold gas thrusters worked fine alone for reorienting the F9 for burns and for stabilizing it during descent. The grid fins were added to steer it to a chosen landing site. There was never a "cute hope to use only cold gas thrusters", and your condescension toward an engineering team that just demonstrated that their method of reuse works is absurd.

>> No.8793078

>>8793073
>and your condescension toward an engineering team that just demonstrated that their method of reuse works is absurd.
this to the max

niggas at spacex just changed history and lonely virgin still try to prove them wrong

>> No.8793084

>>8793073
>There was never a "cute hope to use only cold gas thrusters"
Really? Because I still remember the 2013 (?) technical talk by Elon on some aerospace conference where he says otherwise. I guess I need to find it to refresh my memory.

>> No.8793090

>>8793084
>In order to achieve an historic feat of engineering they introduced a minor change in design in one iteration of the project.

Woah!, what a loser, im guessing von braun just woke up one morning and drew the exact plans of the saturn v that took the astronauts to the moon.

kys please

>> No.8793092

>>8793090
Hey slow down, I didn't say anything about their achievement as you seem to imply. (and this guy apparently >>8793073 ). Stop being a brain damaged fanboy please.

>> No.8793102

>>8793092
>Stop being a brain damaged fanboy please.
haha, says the wrong person who got caught.

;) good luck ad-hominim your way out of an argument next time. you failed this one.

>> No.8793114
File: 609 KB, 2448x3264, delivery_to_sweden.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
8793114

Will they keep landing Falcon Heavy boosters on barges or will they use land?

>> No.8793122

>>8793054
>It was costly, unreliable and air launch didn't provide any competitive advantage.
Pegasus hasn't been especially unreliable, and air launch provided a sufficient competitive advantage to keep it around even at high prices.

As for being costly, they initially offered barebones launches at $6 million. There's no reason to believe that price was unsustainable with sufficient demand. However, the 90s optimism for launch customers was unfounded, and the market didn't emerge. Furthermore, the customers that did exist wanted full-service launches (basically, offloading much of the payload cost onto the launch provider), often with larger payloads, and weren't all that price-sensitive.

>That didn't stop Orbital from providing Pegasus while still using Antares though.
It did stop Orbital (now Orbital-ATK, a company with not only the Cygnus contracts, but fat slices of SLS and the EELV program, and firmly in the OldSpace camp) from giving two shits about Pegasus unless someone waved fat wads of cash under their nose. Why should they be trying to sell launches for under $10 million when NASA is buying a $56 million Pegasus launch from them?

>>The big change was the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, which effectively legalized private spaceflight in the USA
>Private space launches were legalized long before that, during Reagan IIRC.
In theory, but not in practice. The 2004 act was the first law that required government agencies to cooperate in establishing a private spaceflight industry, and therefore gave private spaceflight companies grounds to sue when they were obstructed.

>I'm not talking about legal obstacles though.
I'm bringing them up because there simply hasn't been time for a private spaceflight industry to develop, so cynicism based on "past experience" is unjustified. There is no past experience.

>> No.8793156

>>8793122
Not being cynical, more like sceptical and trying to provide a different point.

> There is no past experience.
That's also no reason to believe particular companies until they fly, preferably without going all Iridium. Hopes and bets aside, let them demonstrate it first, then it's all great.

>> No.8793459

>>8792874
Boca Chica is only cleared for 12 launches a year right now, they'd have to get approval for more, due to noise vs neighbors, and being next to a wildlife area and all that. But at least the weather is better on the average than Canaveral.

>>8792901
>But 100+ loads of them every year?
Yeah, the weather, including the droneship landing area. That's probably going to be a big limiter on launch cadence, that and other launches (ULA, etc.) Having 20-25 launches per year is one thing, 100+ is another. To get that many would surely require more launch sites.

>>8793008
>There's a reason NASA asked SpaceX to land their astronauts on parachutes in Dragon 2
They also initially asked for a new vehicle every flight, yet the next CRS is going to be a re-used capsule. And sure, there's no way they're going to get ITS working in the time frame of their current plans, but they'll just keep doing the next thing after the next thing until they get there eventually.

>> No.8793467

>>8791480
did viking not have any parachutes?

>> No.8793524

>>8792391
>...What am I supposed to be looking at here?
An early Space Shuttle concept I believe. The Shuttle was all about making space travel affordable too. It was supposed to launch 50 times a year and they reused the shuttle as well as the solid rocket boosters.

>> No.8793851

>>8791936
Thank you Elon

>> No.8794016

>>8793114
It depends. LEO launches are more suited for land, but GEO launches work better with the flexibility of barge landings.

>> No.8794100

>>8793459
>>But 100+ loads of them every year?
>Yeah, the weather, including the droneship landing area.
Dragon launches don't need the droneship, they can fly back to land.

Aside from having two pads at the Cape and one in Texas, they're going to have dramatic changes in operations, routinizing and automating things. No more test burn one day, launch a few days later. They're going to be able to launch multiple times from one pad in one day.

>> No.8794135

>>8793114
>Will they keep landing Falcon Heavy boosters on barges or will they use land?
I think it's most likely that the center core will typically land on the drone ship, while the side boosters fly back to land.

They can fly back the center core directly to land, but the performance penalty will be severe.

I don't think they have any plans to produce more drone ships to support side booster landings. I have heard they plan to upgrade the drone ship so it can partially refuel the landed core and relaunch it back to land.

>> No.8794254

>>8794135
>I have heard they plan to upgrade the drone ship so it can partially refuel the landed core and relaunch it back to land.

What a great idea. Make the drone ships floating bombs.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action