SpaceX CRS-11

[Anonymous No.8949211]

>SpaceX will launch its first re-used Dragon spacecraft aboard a Falcon 9 Thursday, beginning the CRS-11 resupply mission to the International Space Station. Falcon 9 will lift off from the Kennedy Space Center – making the hundredth flight from the historic Launch Complex 39A – at 17:55 Eastern Time (21:55 UTC).
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/spacex-falcon-9-crs-11-dragon-iss-100th-39a/

Patrician Stream:
>https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/#public

Plebeian Normalfag Stream:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrhuRpzHxZo

[Anonymous No.8949315]

good luck mice & fruit flies

that tape measure style solar array is pretty cool as well

[Anonymous No.8949346]

>>8949211
This is the first reuse of any capsule, isn't it?

(of course, there's the space shuttle, but it wasn't exactly a capsule)

[Anonymous No.8949358]

>>8949346
Russians did it once with the VA capsule. Unmanned

[Anonymous No.8949485]

>>8949211
>not reusing a Falcon 9

Pussies.

[Anonymous No.8949491]

>>8949485
large scale 1st stage reuse is coming soon. The next launch on the 15th will be. Anyways I think the crs contract doesn't allow for it in the current form

[Anonymous No.8949497]

>>8949491
>large scale
What did you mean by this?
Do the stages grow in size between flights?

[Anonymous No.8949500]

As a side-note, this thing was rolled out for the first time today

[Anonymous No.8949503]

>>8949497
"extensive"
as in the majority of launches will be reused 1st stages

[Anonymous No.8949617]

T-2h.20min

[Anonymous No.8949801]

Let's get this thread rolling.

[Anonymous No.8949823]

Falcon Heavy will launch this year, r-right?

[Anonymous No.8949824]

>>8949801
DREAM ON MARS MAN

[Anonymous No.8949830]

>>8949823
Probably late this year.
The worry is SLC-40 rather than the rocket itself.

[Anonymous No.8949852]

>>8949830
Welp just read that launchpad planned to return to service in August. Hopefully it will be this year.

[Anonymous No.8949902]

>>8949830
>>8949852
Also adjusting 39A to be able to launch FH will take 6-8 weeks.

[Anonymous No.8949909]

>>8949211
>>8949315
>>8949801
>>8949824

[Anonymous No.8949911]

>"climate change is real"
>launches two dozen kerosene fueled rockets a year
Hypocrisy?

[Anonymous No.8949915]

>>8949909
Destroying that Facebook satellite was part of his plan, right?

[Anonymous No.8949917]

>>8949911
each launch takes kerosene as much as a single boeing flight, of which hundreds if not thousands are made each day.

It really is inconsequential.

[Anonymous No.8949921]

fuel is loading

but weather is no go as of now

[Anonymous No.8949922]

Are they landing this rocket today?

[Anonymous No.8949929]

>>8949917
>each launch takes kerosene as much as a single boeing flight
No.

[Anonymous No.8949930]

>>8949911
Rockets account for a very small part of the total carbon we put into the atmosphere, if you're going to fight climate change it makes far more sense to focus on making electric cars and making the grid get it's power from clean sources like solar.
>>8949922
Yes

[Anonymous No.8949933]

>>8949930
>clean sources like solar

[Anonymous No.8949953]

>if we can launch today
The Soyuz can launch in a fucking blizzard, why can't our rockets launch in rain?

[Anonymous No.8949958]

>>8949922
yes, on land.
>>8949922
Sorry, I was off by an order of magnitude;
Transatlantic 747 flight - 220 tons of Co2.
2.900 tons per falcon 9 launch
So a single launch is 10 transatlantic flights.

[Anonymous No.8949964]

>>8949933
what?

>>8949953
Soyuz is derived from an ICBM. ICBMs are designed for almost all weather. War doesn't wait for clear skies.

The Falcon isn't for launching warheads.... yet. So they err on the side of caution. One/two day scrubs aren't that big of a deal. Better than loosing the vehicle

[Anonymous No.8949969]

>>8949953
Soyuz is based on an ICBM so initial design was already all-weather.
So, an (over)abundance of caution.

Additionally, Soyuz doesnt really have to deal with lightning, while the cape does.

[Anonymous No.8949970]

Stream is up.
https://youtu.be/O469xt8kMCg

[Anonymous No.8949975]

HYPE
Y
P
E

[Anonymous No.8949980]

Scrub because of weather Se

[Anonymous No.8949983]

>48 hr scrub
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.8949988]

NO
O

[Anonymous No.8949992]

Fuck, at least we got to listen to spacex fm...

[Anonymous No.8949999]

>>8949975
Its been years since I saw a singing shark meme.

[Anonymous No.8950008]

>"We want to eventually make spaceflight routine and an everyday thing like airlines"
>"Oops. Thunderstorm nearby, scrubbing launch for 2 days."

[Anonymous No.8950021]

>>8950008
They can't afford blowups at this point
And this F9 rocket is not the rocket that will deliver routine space flight

[Anonymous No.8950066]

>>8950008
Thunderstorms and other heavy storms can fuck shit sideways

It's terrible that delays happen, but unless you want to play the "will this explode" game, and gamble with hundreds of millions of dollars in equipment and all the people on board, you gotta eat it

[Anonymous No.8950074]

>>8950008
ahaha this

[Anonymous No.8950082]

>>8950008
Why do they need to wait anyways? For good orbit?

[Anonymous No.8950083]

>>8949964
Just where and how do you think they get the rare earth metals which are required to create solar panels? Just how do you think they create the tough treated glass?

[Anonymous No.8950086]

>>8950082
ISS orbit / ISS schedule / need to replace the time critical stuff in dragon (mice/flies)

[Anonymous No.8950105]

>>8950083
If we didn't piss away money, We'd get it from space and be 100% clean
all the pollutants could be flung into the sun or reprocessed into useful shit

[Anonymous No.8950182]

>>8950083
>the rare earth metals which are required to create solar panels
>the tough treated glass
Oh god, another one of these monkeys. Neither "rare earth metals" nor "tough treated glass" are required to create solar panels, which can be produced in a huge number of different ways.

It's not inherently environmentally unfriendly to mine materials or manufacture things like glass anyway, and any rare elements used can be recycled indefinitely once the first generation of solar panels are built (i.e. more scarce materials aren't needed as the old units fail from age or breakage).

...and before you get into it, no, the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) of solar is already excellent with current technology, and the technology continues to rapidly improve. In the best places, solar installations repay their initial energy investment within a year. Often EROEI is calculated based on an assumption of a 20-year or 25-year life for the panels, but that's extremely conservative, and we can realistically expect them to last 50 years or more. EROEI is therefore as good as or better than oil. Similarly, cost per joule of electricity is already lower than coal in the best locations. (And no, the "best locations" aren't a scarce resource either.)

Current solar industry is fairly environmentally unfriendly, largely because it's done in China, where there's little environmental regulation, and often uses materials mined irresponsibly in the third world. That's by no means inherent to the technology, though, it's part of a general globalist policy to drive industry out of the orderly first world.

[Anonymous No.8950212]

It's always hilarious when people harp on only certain technologies for their production methods and not others

I never hear anyone say "lol don't use a house since copper in the pipes is environmentally unfriendly"

[Anonymous No.8950242]

ariane launch in 15 min

[Anonymous No.8950441]

>>8949902
And the same people currently working on 40 are the ones who will upgrade 39A for FH, so FH launch is strictly dependent on getting 40 going again.

>>8950082
ISS launches are effectively instant-window launches so they can have the best approach to match its orbit.

Weather scrubs are because heavy winds, lightning, etc.

[Anonymous No.8950464]

>>8950441
>ISS launches are effectively instant-window launches so they can have the best approach to match its orbit.

I don't see why this is, other than the fact NASA requires it to be that way

[Anonymous No.8950474]

>>8950464
gotta minimise orbital changes and time to docking/berthing, bruh. It takes a while to "catch up" when you're above/below an orbiting object.

[noko No.8950485]

>>8949917
lol, dude wtf are you talking about.

[Anonymous No.8950513]

>>8950485
He's actually only off by one order of magnitude as it turns out. A 777-200LR flying from Paris to Montreal will burn about 48,000 kilos of Jet A-1. A Falcon 9 first stage holds ~500,000 kilos of RP-1.

[Anonymous No.8950516]

>>8950513
Correction, an entire Falcon 9 holds about 500,000 kilos of RP-1.

[Anonymous No.8950529]

>>8950464
>I don't see why this is, other than the fact NASA requires it to be that way
ISS has an orbital inclination of ~52 degrees. It's closer to a polar orbit than to an equatorial one. If they're not directly under it, they have to make a big turn, which costs a lot of rocket fuel.

Also, with its propellant densification Falcon 9 has a slow re-cycle time, and they hate using extra performance that could go into mission assurance for booster recovery, so they generally either have long launch windows or treat them as instantaneous ones.

It's not a NASA requirement. Atlas V launching Cygnus has about a half-hour window.

>>8950513
The 747-400ER has capacity for over 190 tonnes of fuel.

[Anonymous No.8950533]

>>8950529
>The 747-400ER has capacity for over 190 tonnes of fuel.

So less than three times as much fuel in a Falcon 9.

[Anonymous No.8951596]

>>8950533
aircraft has ~300 people on board falcon 9 can do 3-7

[Anonymous No.8951634]

>>8949500
Wouldn't this thing tear itself apart at the slightest malfunction?

[Anonymous No.8951825]

>>8950242
and it was perfect, as usual.

[Anonymous No.8951847]

>>8951825
it better be. Those frenchies have to launch the JWST....

[Anonymous No.8951893]

>>8951847
>please dont blow up please dont blow up please dont blow up..

[Anonymous No.8951904]

>>8951825
ya but spacex is THAFUTURE

[Anonymous No.8951925]

>>8951893
not to mention the fucking CRAZY deployment process

just look at this shit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTxLAGchWnA

[Anonymous No.8952027]

>>8951925
So much that can go wrong.
But if they have any Hubble-ish problems after deployment, that might just provide the pork for some proper SLS missions out to L2

[Anonymous No.8952068]

>>8952027
>some proper SLS missions out to L2
There's no way an SLS/Orion mission is going to the Sun-Earth L2. After JWST launches, it's taking a full month to get to its target orbit.

[Anonymous No.8952075]

>>8951925
This + launch will be the most stressful thing I ever watched.

[Anonymous No.8952078]

>>8950513
>>8950516
no
It holds both LOX and Kerosene, with there being 4.5 times as much LOX

[Anonymous No.8952096]

Is the Dragon even human-rated yet? When are they going to do this?

[Anonymous No.8952101]

>>8952078
Liquid oxygen is cheap on Earth, though, both in dollars and in joules.

[Anonymous No.8952110]

>>8952096
test flight is later this year. manned missions start 2018.

both Boeing and SpX are having issues getting to a loss of crew number of 1 in 270, though. Mostly due to micrometeorite modeling.

[Anonymous No.8952129]

>>8952110
and the lack of spacesuits.

[Anonymous No.8952174]

>>8952110
>both Boeing and SpX are having issues getting to a loss of crew number of 1 in 270
In other words, having issues satisfying the absurd requirements of NASA for Commercial Crew, which have been dialed down or casually brushed aside for every NASA manned flight in the past.

The NASA people are taking far longer than agreed to do required analyses and answer questions. This sort of thing is why NASA has always had to have cost-plus contracts in the past: they impose all sorts of unreasonable costs and delays on the contractors, which they never acknowledge beforehand. The thing about firm-fixed-price contracts is that both parties need to be able to perform to the original agreement.

There's no way you can get a reliable loss of crew probability far below that of all previous systems before the first flight.

[Anonymous No.8952331]

>>8951596
An airplanes fly thousands of times a year, completely overshadowing any CO2 contribution from rockets.

[Anonymous No.8952335]

>>8952174
Sort of. It isn't all red tape: http://spacenews.com/commercial-crew-vehicles-may-fall-short-of-safety-threshold/


>>8952129
spacesuits are done for Boeing, and almost done for SpaceX. They're producing production samples of it; they just haven't revealed it to the public yet.

It's gonna come in lots of colors. Not pink, though, according to shotwell

[Anonymous No.8952470]

>>8952335
You just know that unless the models wearing them are anything less than white and male, /pol/ and this board will go into a "muh SJW affirmative action work program liberal dreams" mode for days. Enough rage to fuel Musk's MCT into orbit

[Anonymous No.8952480]

>>8952470
well Musk just left Trumps advisory team so the space suits will probably come in LGBT friendly colors

[Anonymous No.8952482]

>>8952101
My point is that there is only like 100 tons of RP-1, with the rest of the fuel filling out with LOX

[Anonymous No.8952483]

>>8949211
Fuck Musk.
Fuck you too for shill that shit.

[Anonymous No.8952500]

>>8952480
>>8952483
Did he touch you somewhere?

[Anonymous No.8952515]

>>8952500
He wanted to play astronaut. His uncle wanted to play alien abduction

[Anonymous No.8952611]

>>8952335
wonder if spacex makes weird bobble head suits too like boeing. should spacesuits be like a uniform and not all sorts of colors? why not pink?

[Anonymous No.8952777]

>>8949823
It'll launch in 6 months. It'll ALWAYS be 6 months.

[Anonymous No.8952796]

>>8952611
elon said they have to be "badass"

>>8952777
this chart is outdated, but we've been closing the gap pretty well since then. it'll be q3, mark my words

[Anonymous No.8952855]

>>8950066
So what happens when if Musk gets his way and Mars missions become a regular occurrence and a ships is returning to earth waiting to land?
Do they delay landing for clear weather or what?

[Anonymous No.8953347]

>>8952855
This may be a surprise to you, but they could land somewhere else, as long as there's a proper landing pad.

[Anonymous No.8953819]

>>8952855
parking orbit

[Anonymous No.8953941]

weather doesn't look too good lads

50% favorable

[Anonymous No.8953950]

>>8949975
You wouldn't feel cold in a vacuum. It would feel warm.

[Anonymous No.8954292]

i remember when the cuirosity was about to be launched and seen the sky crane animation i have the same feel

[Anonymous No.8954493]

5:07PM EDT

CRS-11 HOSTED WEBCAST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URh-oPqjlM8

CRS-11 TECHNICAL WEBCAST

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

5:07PM EDT

[Anonymous No.8954498]

For the yuropoors out there, EDT = UTC-0400

[Anonymous No.8954520]

>>8951634
nope. that connection in the wings houses mechanical connections that allow either side to mimic each other even in the case of control malfunction.
if the left side power goes out those connectors allow the right side to drive the left mechanically. vice versa is also true. even the flaps in the tails.

Make no mistake this thing is for flying true... not for maneuvering.

[Anonymous No.8954534]

scrub, just because.

[Anonymous No.8954615]

>>8954292
A massive boner?

[Anonymous No.8954624]

>>8953950
It's complicated.

On the one hand, you're basically in a thermos (aside from radiative heat loss). Vacuum's a good insulator. Therefore, you should feel warm from your internal heat generation, even if you're not in sunlight.

On the other hand, you're sweating into hard vacuum. Water will evaporate extremely quickly, and will be drawn out of the body in ways that it normally wouldn't due to the pressure difference. Therefore, you should freeze very quickly.

The Apollo moon suits used a brilliant passively-regulated cooling system, which allowed water to evaporate through pores: the water would freeze in the pores, to a depth (and therefore exposed surface area, therefore sublimation rate) controlled by its temperature. The warmer the suit got, the farther out the ice layer would be pushed, and the faster it would sublimate, so the faster it would cool itself.

It comes down to the specifics of why you're concerned with how warm or cold it feels. With space suits, you generally worry about cooling, not heating, but the corpse of someone tossed out an airlock will likely be frozen if recovered before it dries out completely.

[Anonymous No.8954654]

>>8953950
>>8954624
plus everything is boiling off of your skin/eyes/tongue

...just make sure to exhale beforehand. Clarke was annoyed when they filmed the pod bay door scene in 2001, since that was one of the days when he wasn't on set to be a technical advisor. As a result Bowman kept his mouth closed in the airlock - which you shouldn't do!

[Anonymous No.8954719]

90% chance of GO weather

[Anonymous No.8954729]

>>8954534
We need one of those pics with a smug-ass cloud. The weather over Florida seems a bit unsettled right now, though right over the cape it looks a bit quiet on radar.

Oh, and another one of those maymay picks with a boat, too.

[Anonymous No.8954734]

NASA TV coverage started a while ago, and the SpaceX streams just started playing music

[Anonymous No.8954743]

>>8954719
About the same as the chance of explosion, then?

[Anonymous No.8954756]

>>8954734
now both streams are live

[Anonymous No.8954767]

HYPE

[Anonymous No.8954774]

>prayers given
>0

Guy in a literal satanist shirt in the background. Edgy. if anything goes wrong it's that cunt's fault.

[Anonymous No.8954775]

>>8954774
>not watching technical stream

[Anonymous No.8954778]

>>8954775
>not watching technical and nasa since nasa has better views sometimes

[Anonymous No.8954779]

>>8954775
Why not both? Sometimes the hosted has camera views not shown on the technical webcast.

[Anonymous No.8954780]

>>8954774
I'm amused by the guy with the SpaceX 4-leaf clover shirt.

>>8954775
>not watching both streams
Technical on the laptop's main screen, hosted on the TV screen.

[Anonymous No.8954783]

Just this very moment Iss flew over my house. Pretty amazing

[Anonymous No.8954785]

>>8954767

[Anonymous No.8954787]

Guys

[Anonymous No.8954789]

>>8954787
dammit bobby

[Anonymous No.8954791]

>>8954787
Heh

[Anonymous No.8954793]

>>8954787
Cool guy. I bet he posts on r/4chan

[Anonymous No.8954794]

>>8954787
>>8954789

[Anonymous No.8954796]

>>8954787
Is this the hacker I keep hearing about?

[Anonymous No.8954799]

t-4

[Anonymous No.8954800]

>inb4 HOLD HOLD HOLD

[Anonymous No.8954805]

>>8949801
Mars on Dream Man

[Anonymous No.8954807]

>>8954800
Hi, Jeff!

[Anonymous No.8954811]

Hold.

[Anonymous No.8954812]

>>8954811
Lift off

[Anonymous No.8954815]

Dumb clouds.

[Anonymous No.8954819]

>>8954811

[Anonymous No.8954822]

[Anonymous No.8954823]

yeeee boiii

[Anonymous No.8954826]

>S2 start up with the graceful S1 flip into boostback
Something so beautiful about it my dudes.

[Anonymous No.8954827]

one more step towards neo-venezia

[Anonymous No.8954829]

UFO
I SAW AN UFO

[Anonymous No.8954831]

[Anonymous No.8954832]

>>8954826
>graceful S1 flip into boostback
This footage makes me cum

Like one of my sci fi animus

[Anonymous No.8954835]

What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.8954836]

BURNNN

[Anonymous No.8954837]

what just flew past first stage?

[Anonymous No.8954839]

>cameras blacking out
nothing to see here guys

[Anonymous No.8954841]

WE DID IT

[Anonymous No.8954842]

Another routine landing

[Anonymous No.8954843]

>that fly passing the camera just before landing

absolute kino

[Anonymous No.8954844]

WASP INVASION CONFIRMED

[Anonymous No.8954846]

[Anonymous No.8954847]

[Anonymous No.8954848]

>>8954843
>fly

[Anonymous No.8954849]

>>8954839
What about those giant space bugs?

[Anonymous No.8954850]

Fucking glorious my dudes

[Anonymous No.8954854]

that was hot
felt like the future when those legs came out

[Anonymous No.8954855]

>stage 1 lands
>stage 1 telemetry is still on the Hosted stream two minutes later

[Anonymous No.8954856]

>>8954850
roffel kartoffel

[Anonymous No.8954858]

CONSPIRACY AS FUCK - CUT IN FOOTAGE BEFORE THE LANDING

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?!

[Anonymous No.8954859]

Daily reminder that there are people out there who still believe the Earth is flat

[Anonymous No.8954861]

DID YOU SEE THE UFO

[Anonymous No.8954865]

>watching this
>my housemates are watching the Britain's Got Talent Final

My generation is so fucking awful.

[Anonymous No.8954866]

>>8954850

hands free fapping when that rocket came down

[Anonymous No.8954868]

Working hard i see

[Anonymous No.8954869]

>>8954858
No cut on technical stream. You must have been watching the pleb stream.

[Anonymous No.8954870]

>invent paypal
>want to make space travel for private people
k

[Anonymous No.8954871]

>>8954865
Don't worry, fella - Your housemates won't be allowed a ticket entry to Mars

[Anonymous No.8954873]

>>8954868
>she probably shitposting itt

[Anonymous No.8954874]

>hosted webcast man has earrings
this is very unprofessional, worse than ESA shirt man

[Anonymous No.8954875]

What the fuck was that thing that went past the camera right before the reentry burn?

[Anonymous No.8954876]

near bird-strike? what the heck was this?

[Anonymous No.8954879]

>>8954874
bring back Ron Burgundy >>8954819

[Anonymous No.8954880]

>>8954875

It's called a bird. They are a type of animal on earth.

[Anonymous No.8954884]

>>8954876
aliens confirmed.

[Anonymous No.8954885]

>>8954876

[Anonymous No.8954888]

>>8954875

didnt the same thing happen on a previous launch?

[Anonymous No.8954889]

>>8954885
>>8954885

[Anonymous No.8954891]

>>8954880
So they do the reentry burn after they enter atmosphere that's thick enough for birds to fly on it?

[Anonymous No.8954901]

>>8954880
A quick google search tells me that the highest flying bird could reach 37,000 feet, or a little over 11km. The stage one telemetry shows 56km when that thing flew past.

[Anonymous No.8954905]

>>8954876
>>8954880
>>8954888
>birds at 58km over Florida

It passed through a bunch of other smaller pieces before that flew past, probably debris from the stage separation or something. Though I'm not sure how that could have made it there before the first stage...

[Anonymous No.8954913]

>>8954888
Looks like part of the octaweb covering.

[Anonymous No.8954921]

>>8954880
a bird going supersonic at a height of 50 km?

[Anonymous No.8954931]

>>8954921
the universe holds many secrets

[Anonymous No.8954936]

well landings are now officially mundane for me. SpaceX succeeded in that regard - didn't Elon say he wanted us to think nothing of a launch in the future? Like how people don't watch random passenger planes taking off from the airport.

[Anonymous No.8954942]

>>8954936
As long as they get Boca Chica going before watching launches becomes total trainspotter territory.

[Anonymous No.8954948]

>>8954936
SpaceX only makes up a tiny fraction of all rocket launches so they still have a long way to go, they are just better at marketing.

[Anonymous No.8954949]

>>8954942
yeah, the first FH launch will be exiting no matter what, even if they squeeze in 30 successful F9 flights before that

Wish I could be there to hear the double (triple if x3 RTLS) sonic booms

[Anonymous No.8954955]

>>8954942
they're working on it. A big crane just arrived on site, so they've got plans. Right now, we're just watching dump trucks deliver dirt and waiting for foundations to settle.

(One NSF member Nomadd bought a house in Boca Chica and gives regular updates. I want to buy him a beer someday.)

[Anonymous No.8955021]

.

[Anonymous No.8955039]

>>8955021
>very rare
not really anymore though
Thank you based Elon

[Anonymous No.8955081]

Will they stream the iss docking and reentry?

[Anonymous No.8955089]

>>8955081
36 hours

[Anonymous No.8955093]

>>8955021
I see this every 2 weeks nowadays.

The other picture of Elon holding all the boosters with 'I dont know what to do with all these' face is more relevant, someone post it.

[Anonymous No.8955104]

>>8955093
The last landing was more than a month ago.

[Anonymous No.8955114]

>>8954876
Could be dirty ice. Definitely not a bird.

[Anonymous No.8955118]

I was at a bar showing my friends live transmission. The landing. They didn't give a fuck.
Fuck them.

[Anonymous No.8955124]

>>8955118
Well why should they give a fuck really?

[Anonymous No.8955164]

Elon is a global warming cultist, he's not our guy anymore

[Anonymous No.8955166]

>>8955164
fuck off back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.8955236]

>>8955124
Because it's exciting.

[Anonymous No.8955273]

>>8955164
He's still your guy if you're not retarded

[Anonymous No.8956758]

friendly reminder aliens are real and already on this planet.

[Anonymous No.8956797]

>>8955164
Drown

[Anonymous No.8957148]

>>8954796
>>8954789
>>8954787
i hope you niggers realise the actual point behind the shirt
the first successful falcon launch was one with a clover on the badge, so they've always had the clover since then

[Anonymous No.8957401]

>>8954858
shouldn't you be fixing that BE4 powerhead?

[Anonymous No.8957405]

Anyone got a clue as to the current valuation of SpaceX? The latest I've seen is from 2015 when Google and Fidelity invested in SpaceX at around a $10B valuation.

[Anonymous No.8957410]

>>8957405
a lot. once they start putting up their internet constellation they'll make money hand over fist. Problem is they are continually dumping truckloads of money into R&D so they won't ever have apple-amounts of money in the bank, so it's sorta hard to evaluate valuation based off of what ifs

[Anonymous No.8957435]

>>8957410
Yea I figure that the recent successes with resusing rockets must've been a big boost as well. It would be nice to get an actual figure from somewhere with insight into the operations, Fidelity for example, as that's a pretty objective measure of how well the company is doing.

[Anonymous No.8957447]

>>8957435
Elon says they will only go public when there are finally regular manned missions to mars. Stockholders are just too short-sighted for the current position SpX is in

[Anonymous No.8957469]

>>8957447
Yea, I don't want SpaceX to go public either. I'm starving for insights into their financial situation, though. Like that "leak" of their 2015 end of year financial statement.

[Anonymous No.8957475]

>>8957469
Shotwell said last month that their financials are great, and that they would easily survive 1 or 2 more RUDs. 3, not so much.

[Anonymous No.8957479]

>>8957475
Hadn't heard that. Good.

[Anonymous No.8957486]

>>8957479
As the saying goes in spaceflight, you want your RUDS to be above (and to the side of) the launchpad. That way your 300mil loss doesn't turn into 700mill. Elon said in the early days of Falcon 1 that SpX wouldn't have survived if any of the F1 failures had taken the launchpad with them

If slick 40 hadn't gone with the Facebook sat, SpaceX would have gotten a large number of additional flights in by now. plus, the crew that was building Boca Chica had to be dragged off of their work there to do repairs to slc40

[Anonymous No.8957530]

>>8957410
>once they start putting up their internet constellation they'll make money hand over fist.
Not only is most of the cost in the ground stations (where SpaceX has no advantage), but there's at least one other company doing the same thing (OneWeb), and they have the advantages of being over more regulatory hurdles (they have the wireless spectrum rights from an older satellite network) and being run by someone with experience selling internet services (both ground-based fiber and satellite).

In a world where fiber is getting more and more common, it'll be very easy to lose money at this.

[Anonymous No.8957542]

>>8957530
space says the ground stations will be pizza box sized phased array antenna. Supposed to be cheap


the mil might be scared, since the spx style of internet would be hard to jam.

[Anonymous No.8957559]

>>8957542
SpaceX is still struggling with the ground station design. Their vision for what they want it to be isn't necessarily what they'll actually make.

Satellite communications aren't new.

[Anonymous No.8958062]

>>8957401
>powerhead?
whats that? you know specifics? something blew up i heard...

[Anonymous No.8958073]

>>8958062
a powerpack test hardware thing failed mid May

[Anonymous No.8958136]

dragon about to dock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMDvPCGeE0

[Anonymous No.8958142]

capture confirmed

[Anonymous No.8958914]

>>8954876
that's clearly an trained ULA xenomorph sent to disrput the stage. But spacex was ahead of it and coated the rocket in anti-xenomorph paint

[Anonymous No.8959381]

>>8949801
DREAM ON, MARS MAN

[Anonymous No.8959803]

Its a bit strange that both launch, landing and everything else has become so commonplace now that we dont fill 2-3 treads of shittalk and memes anymore. Kinda bitter-sweet to be fair, i really liked those treads

[Anonymous No.8959807]

>>8959803
just imagine these threads during their manned moon mission

there will be plenty of memes and /pol/&/x/ tears for days

[Anonymous No.8959810]

>>8954876
It looks like some kind of debris.

[Anonymous No.8959812]

>>8959810
It kind of looks like a drone, if drones were triangular.

[Anonymous No.8959820]

>>8957401
more jealousy that BE-4 will be flying in 2019 whereas raptor won't fly until 2027 at the earliest

[Anonymous No.8959823]

>>8954949
they will likely never do a triple RTLS

[Anonymous No.8959917]

>>8959807
Good point.

[Anonymous No.8959931]

>>8949485
Their whole "muh reusability 99,9999% cost reduction new era of spaceflight" is an absolute joke.

They offered 10% cost reduction for reused stages, they have not taken over the market even tho they offer the lowest launch costs.

Well failures being dishonest with your quality and never being on shedule caused this distrust in SpaceX.

They barely survive with PR bullshit and state funds, I hope this bubble bursts and all the /futurology cunts see what a dishonest fraud Musk really is.

[Anonymous No.8959934]

>>8959931

[Anonymous No.8959936]

>>8959934

[Anonymous No.8960200]

>>8959803
yeah, I used to be able to post >>8954534 unironically in pretty much every SpaceX launch.

[Anonymous No.8960205]

>>8959820
>2019
Dream on, Amazon-man!

[Anonymous No.8960211]

>>8959931
Russian spotted

[Anonymous No.8960214]

>>8960211
Russia is decades ahead of america and the eu in rocket technology. There's a reason why everyone buys rd engines.

[Anonymous No.8960218]

>>8959810
>>8959812
Separation coupling.

Relative to the earth the booster was traveling down words while the separation coupling was still going up due to smaller mass.

They need to adjust trajectory to make sure shit like this does not happen.

[Anonymous No.8960221]

>>8960214
Confirmed. SpaceX will put Roscosmos out of business.

The end is nigh, and that triggers you.

[Anonymous No.8960262]

>>8960214
kek

[Anonymous No.8960343]

>>8960214
>Russia is decades ahead
Russia has been continuously launching the exact same rocket designs since 1967 because the new designs they introduced in 1972 were explosive failures, how the fuck are they decades ahead of anybody?

[Anonymous No.8960397]

>>8960214
Bahahaha

[Anonymous No.8960466]

Space suit when?

[Anonymous No.8960511]

>>8960466
soon

It better not have the hueg butt area that the ugly Boeing one has

>select all belts
first bridges, then shorts, now belts? wtf google

[Anonymous No.8960562]

spooky: https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2017/06/close-encounters-of-classified-kinda.html


the previous NRO sat got awfully close to the ISS....

[Anonymous No.8960581]

>>8949999
Lonely quints, this board just dont care for them

[Anonymous No.8960809]

>>8960581
>>8949999
>quints
GTFO, you aren't allowed on the math board if you can't count (unless you're a PhD)

[Anonymous No.8960822]

>>8960214
granted, Russia inherited some great metallurgy secrets from the USSR glory days, making their staged-combustion engines the best of breed.

But they can't seem to design new rockets worth shit. Angara is a decade late. And the rift with the Ukraine has grounded half their fleet. Not to mention unending labor problems trying to construct new launch pads. Last year was their lowest launch rate since the the beginning of the Space Age! Lower even than China (which simultaneously debuted a whole new generation of Long March rockets in the last couple years).

Russia's glory days in space are long behind them.

[Anonymous No.8961349]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrP3jHuLQ9o

[Anonymous No.8961524]

>>8961349
so much for a predicted 50% success rate with landings in '17. They've got these things down to a science

[Anonymous No.8961646]

>>8961349
>that precision

Now I want to see them make a meme landing pad with really small markers for where each leg should land.

[Anonymous No.8961727]

>>8961524
the landings were fine last year too
There was just a couple one off failures, and some intentional test to destructions

[Anonymous No.8961736]

>>8961646
>landed 15-25ft off-center
>precision

[Anonymous No.8961971]

>>8961524
First stage to be launched from two different pads when? (Likely soon because of 39B vs 40.) First stage to be launched from two different states when?

[Anonymous No.8961984]

>>8961736
this is for reliability. The computers will let it be off center by a little bit if it means the natural trajectory is followed moreso - so less corrections have to be made. If they wanted to be perfectly in center, they could, but it would be a lot more wobblly coming down

[Anonymous No.8962037]

>>8961971
why is launch pad 2/3 larger? why do they need 3 pads?

[Anonymous No.8962040]

>>8957401
bants

[Anonymous No.8962041]

>>8962037
By the time they build another pad at BC they will want to launch FH and ITS from there.

[Anonymous No.8962051]

>>8949801
DREAM ON, MARS MAN

[Anonymous No.8962431]

>>8962041
ITS probably need much much bigger pad or not?
in other news space x is about to launch the airforce shuttle

[Anonymous No.8962483]

>>8959931
Well, for the sake of having a discussion instead of pure circlejerk...

- spacex entered a tight market from scratch with their expendable falcon 9 while also having plenty of room to experiment with it, and became the most prospective competitor. That's huge.

- Russians helped them somewhat by shitting themselves and stealing the fuck out of their own Khrunichev, almost removing the only cost-competitive heavy launch vehicle (Proton) from the market

- falcon 9 reusability in its current state does cost more per kg compared to the expendable version, which is kind of important for ridesharing, but it's very likely to improve even ignoring spacex PR.

- whether their particular reusability solution will improve the cost substantially is still to be seen. While the first stage is 70% of the cost, we're talking about 1/x curve and the second stage reuse can be very challenging while still required for the launch cost to hit some market-transforming threshold.

- whether they can improve their cadence to the claimed launch rate is still to be seen, but it's entirely possible

- reusability is conflicting with mass production a bit, and spacex is betting on ridesharing and mass production for the next several years

[Anonymous No.8962505]

>>8960214
The reason is they are not cost-oriented. RDs do have great performance, but they are suboptimal for the low-cost niche, merlins fit it much better. Falcon family is all about sweet spots, not top performance.

[Anonymous No.8962545]

>>8962483
moreover, there is sorta zero reason to lower the price right now since they are already the cheapest in the industry


as for cadence, if they stop having ruds then we will approach 1wk turnaround with two pads I think. two wk is easy for them without weather delays

[Anonymous No.8962584]

>>8962545
They have 3 pads, one on the west coast

So if they maintained a cadence of launching 2x a month from each pad, they'll be above 60 launches a year

I imagine there are tons of optimization possible in improving launch rate too

[Anonymous No.8962689]

>>8962584
>>8962584
not all sats can go from vandy though. Most need 39a/slc40

[Anonymous No.8962745]

>>8962689
But they do have sats they want to launch from Vandy, and they could do their LEO constellation launches from there

[Anonymous No.8963116]

>>8962041
They will never launch ITS from that pad, the sound alone would literally knock down the residential houses nearby.

[Anonymous No.8963170]

>>8963116
yep. ITS will only be at boca. Mainly, because the factory where it will be built will be at boca; the its won't be able to travel on highways like the f9 can


I bet that 12 launches a year limit they agreed to with the boca govt will bite spx in the ass soon. I wonder how long that restriction lasts?

[Anonymous No.8963178]

>>8963170
ITS will not launch from Boca Chica

[Anonymous No.8963188]

>>8963178
yes it will. that's the whole point. The ITS physically cannot be transported from CA to FL. That's why they are building a factory at boca. Elon has confirmed this a few times

[Anonymous No.8963201]

>>8963188
>yes it will. that's the whole point
No, it won't. They would literally have to build the pad half a mile out into the ocean in order to not have the sound from launch demolish the entire town.
>The ITS physically cannot be transported from CA to FL.
What is a boat? Why not build it at Cape Canaveral? Florida will pay out the ass for more space coast jobs, just like the did for Blue Origin.
>That's why they are building a factory at boca.
Source?
>Elon has confirmed this a few times
Source?

[Anonymous No.8963584]

>>8963201
Theres not a "town"
It's a couple vacation homes
noone lives there full time

[Anonymous No.8963896]

>>8959934

[Anonymous No.8963900]

>>8959934
He's actually Lyle Lanley(monorail guy)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

[Anonymous No.8963907]

>>8959934
Can someone tell me how Billions of dollars of subsidies for Tesla, how the hyper-loop isn't beaten pragmatically or economically vs High-speed trains, or why people should be very exicted about SpaceX without claiming "muh science", "think about the future man", "lel brainlet".

[Anonymous No.8963909]

>>8963896
i think that poopoopipi post was my creation

[Anonymous No.8963931]

>>8963907
>>8963900

[Anonymous No.8965562]

>>8952796
Down to ~4 months now.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/872888863504474112
>"All Falcon Heavy cores should be at the Cape in two to three months, so launch should happen a month after that"