50 years after the Apollo program, NASA will have a rocket that costs twice as much per launch as a Saturn V, took twice as long to develop as the Saturn V and can carry half the payload of a Saturn V. How the fuck did that happen?

File: 104 KB, 985x709, SLS-racing-stripes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:10:51 2017 No.9038232 [Reply] [Original]

50 years after the Apollo program, NASA will have a rocket that costs twice as much per launch as a Saturn V, took twice as long to develop as the Saturn V and can carry half the payload of a Saturn V.

How the fuck did that happen?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:12:52 2017 No.9038233 Capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:15:54 2017 No.9038238 America spends only 19 billion dollars for NASA. America spends 550 billion dollars for the army to do useless wars in the Middle East.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:19:01 2017 No.9038239

Quality assurance.

We've got higher standards then we did when there was a political space race between two big egos.

The stuff that's getting build now is much more advanced than we had and worth the higher R&D costs.

Sure there might be some corruptions but it's impact is limited.

Just joking... if Spacex can provide the same payload at the fraction of the costs then they can as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:19:04 2017 No.9038240 >>9038238 America Spends 1 Trillion USD to develop a fighter jet that has less cost/efficiency ratio than drones and that the company doesn't even deliver the complete order.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:19:10 2017 No.9038241 >>9038232 >costs twice as much per launch as a Saturn V Wrong. >took twice as long to develop as the Saturn V Wrong. >can carry half the payload of a Saturn V Wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:19:17 2017 No.9038242 >>9038238 America spends only 550 billion dollars for the army to do useless wars in the Middle East American spends 22 trillion dollars to feed, clothe and house niggers

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:23:57 2017 No.9038250

>>9038241
>Saturn V cost per launch: $1.18 billion (2016 inflation adjusted)
>SLS cost per launch: $2 billion (projected)

>Saturn V development time: six years
>SLS development time: 12 years (projected)

>Saturn V LEO payload: 140 tons
>SLS LEO payload: 70 tons

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:26:22 2017 No.9038255 >>9038242 Niggers are a curse for the humanity, we should let them alone.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:28:37 2017 No.9038259

>>9038250
>Saturn V cost per launch: $1.18 billion (2016 inflation adjusted)
Only with development costs excluded
>SLS cost per launch: $2 billion (projected)
Only with development costs included

>Saturn V development time: six years
F1 development started in the 50s
>SLS development time: 12 years (projected)
SLS development started in 2011

>Saturn V LEO payload: 140 tons
>SLS LEO payload: 70 tons
Here's some actual numbers:
SLS to LEO: 105.2 mT
S-V to LEO: 127.0 mT

SLS to TLI: 38.5 mT
S-V to TLI: 45.0 mT

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:30:35 2017 No.9038266 >>9038240 1 Trillion over 50 years of its life, and each plane costs less than its inferior counterparts

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:32:14 2017 No.9038273

>>9038259
>Only with development costs included
With development costs included SLS approaches $5 billion per launch

>F1 development started in the 50s
January 10th, 1962
>SLS development started in 2011
And it won't be functional until well into the 2020s

>SLS to LEO: 105.2 mT
70 mT

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:40:58 2017 No.9038297

>>9038273
>With development costs included SLS approaches $5 billion per launch
With development costs included, Saturn V is $3.8 billion per launch and SLS is infinity per launch. SLS has cost $19 billion so far to develop, but Saturn V cost $50 billion.

>F1 development started in the 50s
January 10th, 1962
"The F-1 was originally developed by Rocketdyne to meet a 1955 U.S. Air Force requirement for a very large rocket engine."
"Test firings of F-1 components had been performed as early as 1957."

>SLS development started in 2011
First launch is 2019

>70 mT
For the version that will only fly once for a test flight (that won't even be going to LEO anyways)
Might as well cite Falcon 9's payload at 5 tons to LEO by your logic

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:42:41 2017 No.9038298 >>9038297 >the first launch counts for time but not payload and F-1 development counts toward the Saturn V but Constellation development doesn't count towards the SLS I wonder how many goalposts you can carry to TLI on your meme rocket :^)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:42:43 2017 No.9038300 >>9038232 inflation do you even capitalism ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:43:50 2017 No.9038302 >>9038300 >inflation Buddy if you didn't account for inflation, the Saturn V would be 1/10th of the cost instead of 1/2

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:44:57 2017 No.9038304 >>9038298 Practically nothing was developed under Constellation.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:45:43 2017 No.9038306

>>9038266
When you talk about 50 years are you talking about when the last of the 2,500 F-35 ordered were delivered?

>>9038242
>American spends 22 trillion dollars to feed, clothe and house niggers

What? USA estimated GDP for this year is only 17 trillion, how can they expend more than the whole country produces?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:46:51 2017 No.9038313 >>9038306 Since 1964 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=war+on+poverty

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 12:47:52 2017 No.9038315 >>9038306 50 years meaning the entire operational life of the aircraft line, including development and procurement

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 13:04:55 2017 No.9038352 >>9038313 And absolute (not relative) poverty reduced dramatically, while now the world is more military unstable than 50 years ago.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 13:13:54 2017 No.9038360 >>9038232 >senate launch system Its not like MemeX is any better but NASA still wastes money like a teenage girl

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 13:24:39 2017 No.9038376

>>9038232
1. This is exaggeration.
2. Reasons for this are fundamental: open media, risk aversion culture and politics. The Congress doesn't care about space at all, but cares a lot about jobs and pork, specificially for alabama in the manned space program case. Excessive media hype for every little thing led to risk mitigation attempts and extremely rationalized perfectionism, which stalled almost every attempt at manned space program, which gave rise to bureaucracy and illusion of something being done.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 13:40:14 2017 No.9038411

>>9038259
>>Saturn V development time: six years
>F1 development started in the 50s
>>SLS development time: 12 years (projected)
>SLS development started in 2011
RS-25 development started in 1970. Apples-to-apples.

...and SLS wasn't a new program in 2011, that's just when they settled on a final configuration for Ares V and renamed it to SLS.

...besides which, there's good reason to expect SLS to take 12 years for 2011. EM-1 isn't going to be the complete SLS, it'll be a development test flight with a cobble-job Delta upper stage they'll never use again. For EM-2, the first flight of the complete SLS with a real upper stage, they're talking openly about a possible 2023 launch date.

>Here's some actual numbers:
Those numbers are as fake as your development time claims, though.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 14:01:49 2017 No.9038453

what is the point of the SLS?

NASA just said they don't have the funding to go to Mars.

They don't have a moon lander.

You only need a Falcon 9 for ISS. A Falcon Heavy can put you around the moon.

NASA has no plan on how to land on Mars and get back.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 14:09:08 2017 No.9038462

>>9038232
Exaggeration, Inflation and the fact NASA's biggest is no longer space exploration but instead about sourcing wing nuts from Congressman Dipshit's district for 3x the price and half the quality because Dipshit wants to run as a Job Creating Space candidate next election.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 14:17:21 2017 No.9038477

>>9038462
and being used as a general catchall science department for the government.

NASA shouldn't be doing climate and weather science on earth. Except when it is related to make things that fly. NOAA should be doing the climate and weather research.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 14:23:25 2017 No.9038491

>>9038453
>what is the point of the SLS?
It's pork. Same reason the shuttle program was continued so long after it was obvious it had failed in its goals and was grossly uneconomical: once the program started paying so much to so many people, they exerted political influence to keep that money coming.

It all makes sense when you realize that the flow of money for the shuttle program is still going to the same people at approximately the same rate, just under a new name. That flow is the point, not any actual use they might get out of the rocket and capsule.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 14:26:39 2017 No.9038499 >>9038491 the shuttle could actually do things beyond putting shit into orbit. even if it was too expensive for the original intentions. we would have lost hubble and building the ISS would have been harder, longer and more expensive.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 14:37:51 2017 No.9038536

>>9038477
While I get why it would be more appropriate for NOAA to do the climate and weather science NASA does, let's be honest here. NOAA is never going to get the same level of funding for such projects as NASA could get and the real reason some people want to shift them to NOAA is to effectively kill the programs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 15:04:35 2017 No.9038635 >>9038259 >F1 development started in the 50s By that logic SLS development time will be ~40 years because RS-25 and SRB development started in the 70s.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 15:09:56 2017 No.9038649 File: 365 KB, 830x703, IMG_20170716_003741.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>For the version that will only fly once for a test flight (that won't even be going to LEO anyways) Block 1 will fly EM-1, EM-2 and europa clipper.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 15:11:07 2017 No.9038653 >>9038297 >>9038649

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 15:28:45 2017 No.9038708

>>9038499
>the shuttle could actually do things beyond putting shit into orbit.
True, but it couldn't do any things that couldn't be done with other combinations of launch vehicles and spacecraft. Project Gemini did rendezvous, docking, and spacewalks with a small, simple 2-stage rocket with a 3.5 tonne payload to LEO, a system under one tenth the size of the shuttle.

>even if it was too expensive for the original intentions. we would have lost hubble and building the ISS would have been harder, longer and more expensive.
Both are false. First of all, fixing the Hubble through use of the space shuttle saved no money over building a second Hubble. There were five Hubble-related space shuttle launches, costing $7.5 billion, which was most of the money spent on the Hubble.

The choice of the space shuttle to launch the Hubble was inappropriate and inconvenient. At roughly 11 tonnes, it didn't need the shuttle's payload capacity, and could have flown on a Titan rocket. The launch of Hubble, in final form, was delayed four years by the Challenger disaster. They spent about $300 million just storing it during this period. The original cost-to-launch estimate for the Hubble was $400 million. It should have been a much less expensive project, providing better results years earlier, if not for the kind of thinking that put it on the space shuttle and used the shuttle to service it.

The story of the ISS is similar. To begin with, the determination to use the shuttle as America's manned vehicle caused the neglect and loss of Skylab, a roughly equivalent practical value to the ISS (and in some ways superior). Consequently, America went from 1974 to 2001 without having American astronauts on an (even partially) American space station brought by an American launch vehicle. ISS, essentially a Mir derivative, is pointlessly oversized, but without making it so, they could have found no reason to involve the shuttle, and thereby make it absurdly expensive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 15:38:48 2017 No.9038735 >>9038411 SLS development started with the constellation program in 2005 You also have to include all the other spending on useless shit designed only to work with the SLS, like Orion

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 15:45:40 2017 No.9038749

>>9038499
>the shuttle could actually do things beyond putting shit into orbit.
it was a jack of all trades, and a master of none. Poor thermal balance, beta angle/insolation shenanigans, fragility, complexity, costs etc crippled its use immensely. A fleet of smaller specialized spacecraft could do all this much better. Specificially, Apollo with a specialized airlock module could be used to repair Hubble without needing an xbox hueg orbital spaceplane.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 15:49:16 2017 No.9038757

>>9038649
>Block 1 will fly EM-1, EM-2 and europa clipper.
No it won't. Block 1 is a one-off flight test article, which will be used only for EM-1, which is purely a test flight for SLS and Orion. It won't have the SLS upper stage, but a Delta upper stage.

Block 1B is the first production version, and will be the first complete SLS. I would give even odds that it actually launches. The political forces pushing for it are powerful, but it's likely that Falcon Heavy will be upgraded to outperform it in multiple-launch architectures costing under 10% of even the lowest marginal cost estimates of SLS (and under 1% of the total-cost reality of an SLS flight) years before it flies.

Block 2 is a pipe dream. It's not conceivable that it will ever fly.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 15:52:23 2017 No.9038765

>>9038499
>building the ISS would have been harder, longer and more expensive
complete bullshit. A light tug (maybe even reusable) with a station-based robotic arm could have been used for delivering and berthing USOS passive modules and truss structures as well, maybe requiring to be side strapped on a rocket (or even without that), and it would be cheaper and faster than with space shuttle. Focusing on the shuttle made america lose the race for an orbital station, in the first place.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 15:54:34 2017 No.9038771

NASA is a vehicle for congressmen's pork barrel spending, not a vehicle for producing results. It's just a regional welfare conduit. I live in Norfolk, VA and the huge naval base is the same. Legislators fight to keep the whole fucking atlantic fleet here, even though the military knows that it makes 'murica more vulnerable to Russian/Chinese ICBM attacks. Gotta keep other people's tax money flowing to your constituents.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 15:56:29 2017 No.9038775 >>9038757 >Block 2 is a pipe dream. It's not conceivable that it will ever fly. Nope, they've gone too far to just drop it. Key parts (IVF, engine, control systems etc) are already designed or implemented.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 16:00:56 2017 No.9038791 >>9038757 Anyone talking about the SLS is still banking on SpaceX failing to ramp up their launches like they want. >>9038775 Are you nuts? No the SLS is not going to exist for another decade, it'll be cancelled THIS YEAR probably.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 16:13:42 2017 No.9038828

>>9038775
>they've gone too far to just drop it.
No, any actual launch of Block 2 is beyond the planning horizon.

The reason they're talking about it like it's a real thing and spending R&D resources on it is that Congress mandated that SLS would have a higher performance than Saturn V, so to pretend to be in compliance with that law, NASA has to make a show of trying to meet that goal.

It's the same sort of thing where they're throwing together a wasteful launch without the real upper stage for EM-1. Congress mandated that SLS (and Orion) should fly by the end of 2016, so NASA planned to throw together a cobble-job version for an unmanned test... then the schedule slipped.

It's because NASA got this law under the Obama administration:
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf

Obama's style was to sort-of-but-not-really comply with the law. Instead of going back to Congress and saying, "I can't sign this, NASA can't meet these requirements." he just had NASA do it half-assedly.

There's other stuff in there too, like the requirement that SLS/Orion be capable of ISS resupply. NASA didn't even bother to pretend they were working on that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 17:37:34 2017 No.9038978 >>9038765 which means no EVAs until you launch a module that can be lived in and has the EVA suits and air lock.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 18:33:18 2017 No.9039070

>>9038791
>SLS is not going to exist for another decade, it'll be cancelled THIS YEAR probably.
I don't think it'll be cancelled at least until Crew Dragon and Falcon Heavy are operationally mature, and Dragon carries men around the moon before Orion even goes unmanned.

Possibly they'll also demonstrate a way to use Falcon Heavy to launch larger beyond-LEO payloads than SLS can handle before it's cancelled. The simple thing to do is launch an Earth-departure stage separately from the payload, as Ares V was supposed to do. They can do that with minimal modifications.

Doing the math on that: first they launch a 45 tonne payload to LEO, then they launch an upper stage to dock with it. The upper stage should mass roughly 75 tonnes, with a bit over 70 tonnes of propellant. The total departure mass will be 120 tonnes. For a 3 km/s TLI burn, with the Merlin 1D Vacuum+ engine's Isp of 348s, this gives a 50 tonne dry mass, as much as the Saturn V could launch.

You might dispute that Falcon Heavy can launch 70 tonnes propellant to LEO, when they claim a payload to LEO of 63.8 tonnes. I'm assuming they'll have one more performance uprate to announce, once the Block 5 hardware is flying, but also this will be a mission without the non-payload mass and drag of a 5-meter fairing.

You might also wonder how, even with two launches, Falcon Heavy could compete with Saturn V, which had a lox/h2 departure stage. Mass efficiency is a major factor. The Falcon Heavy upper stage is under 5 tonnes dry, whereas the Saturn V departure stage was nearly 15 tonnes. The J-2 engine also had a relatively low specific impulse of 421s.

My estimates may be a touch optimistic, but it seems clear that a two-launch FH mission will outperform SLS to the moon, and with the light Dragon capsule, will be suitable for Apollo-like missions using conventional space-storable propellants, unlike the weak SLS / heavy Orion combination.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 18:49:33 2017 No.9039090 >>9038232 It happened because NASA back in the day literally feared for their lives that the USSR would be the first to militarize space. Nothing quite says motivation like being in second place in the race to survival.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 19:11:32 2017 No.9039113 >>9038233 On the contrary, it's government contracting. The SLS is made to use space shuttle engines and space shuttle SRBs so they can keep using the same contractors.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 19:39:47 2017 No.9039137

>>9039070
...and there's an even higher-performance Falcon Heavy option, if they pursue a Raptor-powered upper stage with some of the ITS technology.

ITS is designed for in-orbit refuelling with long-term propellant storage. However, it's obviously a major development project, involving a huge new booster, major pad upgrades, etc.

Far easier is to build a single-Raptor, 5-meter-diameter variant which can launch on Falcon Heavy, either as an upper stage or simply as a payload, then load and fuel it to capacity with more launches (about eight launches in total, with reuse of all three lower stages, so total launch cost should be under half a billion dollars).

With this, much larger Earth-departure missions can be assembled, up to about triple the capacity of Saturn V. It also enables the use of the efficient Raptor engine for landing on the moon (the de-orbit burn, which is most of the delta-v; there would still need to be separate landing thrusters, even just SuperDraco could be used for this) and returning to Earth.

They could land about 60 tonnes payload (75 tonnes total) on the moon, without developing a separate moon lander. This is enough to land a Dragon capsule and enough propellant to return it directly to Earth, plus 20 tonnes of equipment and supplies for use on the moon. By comparison, including the astronauts, the loaded Apollo Lunar Module had only about a tonne of mass that wasn't part of either the descent or ascent stage.

This is also a suitable platform for reusable upper stage development.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 20:51:28 2017 No.9039226

>>9038233
>central planner fucks up and accidentally downgrades technology
>central planner fucks up and overspends while doing this.
>central planner is using other people's money and is virtually unfireable
>exactly the bullshit you should expect from the government
>DAE hate evil capitalism lmao

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 21:04:24 2017 No.9039250 >>9038233 This. >>9039113 >>9039226 That is exactly what capitalism is. There is no "government" in the USA, but there is Lobbyism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 21:15:33 2017 No.9039271 ditch shuttle boosters and strap a bunch of falcon 9 block 50 boosters around the core. then we can see an SLS take off and 6 boosters land. in fact we just ditch the SLS. go straight to Falcon Heavy and ITS for manned space flight beyond earth orbit.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 21:28:32 2017 No.9039298

>>9039250
Socialists always say this kind of shit where they pretend they are anti establishment but then they call for an economic system that requires an extremely powerful and centralized institution to run everything. When your clubhouse finally seizes the means of production, how is this not the ultimately monopoly on literally everything? Aren't monopolies the thing that you people keep giving capitalism so much shit for?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 21:31:49 2017 No.9039306 >>9039298 monopolies only exist through government intervention.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 21:38:18 2017 No.9039323 >>9039306 And the worst kinds of monopolies are the ones that control really important shit. A monopoly on literally all production in the hands of "the people" aka The Party aka the government would be and has been a shit show.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 21:48:36 2017 No.9039348 >>9039306 This is probably the most false statement ever made on /sci/, and that's saying something

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 22:15:16 2017 No.9039383 >>9039137 >...and there's an even higher-performance Falcon Heavy option, if they pursue a Raptor-powered upper stage with some of the ITS technology. isn't the USAF already paying into the development of that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 22:17:09 2017 No.9039388 >>9039348 how can monopolies exist in a free market and no state actor to coerce competition away? someone will compete.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 22:19:45 2017 No.9039395 >>9039388 Because the monopoly itself coerces competition away. If it has an unfair advantage, nobody will compete. Some will try, and they will fail.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 22:23:30 2017 No.9039405

>>9039348
It may be false in the way that he meant it (I assume he's talking about regulations) but it ends up being true one way or another. Imagine owning a monopoly without the law protecting your claim to your property. Without government, maintaining a monopoly would require that you hire your own private police force. Ultimately there is a reason we fund the protection of property rights using tax money because otherwise it's harder in general to own things.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 22:29:02 2017 No.9039421

>>9039395
It depends on how unfair of a situation we are talking about. If we assume that we have a functioning legal system, there really isn't a lot that monopoly can do to beat competition besides just improving their product. Monopolies are known for gaming the system with unjust lawsuits and unfair regulations, but the fault of this should be put on the system they are exploiting more than anything else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 22:36:22 2017 No.9039448 >>9039405 Robert Nozick, is that you?

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 22:48:41 2017 No.9039472

>>9039421
Nah, unfair monopolies can happen lots of backwards ways. I know one of the obvious examples was AT&T's case. They bought up electric companies to subsidize electricity to themselves, but profit off of their competitor's operations. There's simply nothing competition could do to compete with that. It happened a lot back in the day. Manufacturers would buy up their raw material suppliers to hog it all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 22:50:17 2017 No.9039479 >>9039383 That's what the Air Force funded Raptor development for (at least officially), but SpaceX has only said that they'll develop a Raptor upper stage for F9/H if a customer funds it. Their only announced Raptor plan is ITS.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 22:55:00 2017 No.9039489

>>9039472
>They bought up electric companies to subsidize electricity to themselves, but profit off of their competitor's operations. There's simply nothing competition could do to compete with that.
They could have built their own generating capacity, unless the government was interfering with that.

Cornering the market is a real problem with capitalism, especially when it comes to buying all the natural sources for something, but you can't corner the market for long in something anyone can build.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:00:43 2017 No.9039504 >>9039489 if a resource is cornered, then competitors will develop a substitute once it is economical. or the market is free enough for foreign competition.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:06:33 2017 No.9039519

>>9038242
>22 trillion dollars to feed, clothe and house niggers

>medicaid and medicare is feeding, clothing, and housing niggers
>social security, which requires you to work, is feeding, clothing, and housing niggers
>niggers, which are 13% of the population, are somehow a majority stakeholder in our social welfare system

yeah, nah. most of that social welfare money is spent on aged white people.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:19:21 2017 No.9039545

>>9039504
That's a nice, tidy, convenient theory, but there's this issue of surviving while someone opposed to your interests controls a resource you need while you're trying to invent an alternative.

There's never been a totally free market economy, there never will be, and there shouldn't be, because of this kind of problem. Absolute free market capitalism is a utopian fantasy, every bit as unreasonable as communism.

Like, what happens if one person owns all the land? That's equivalent to everyone else being his slaves. There's nowhere you can live without his consent.

There has to be a reasonable distribution of claims on the bounty of nature before a market can function. If you let people buy and sell such claims, or form cartels, the effective distribution is going to keep becoming unreasonable, so some intervention is needed to make it work again.

The free market's a good thing, but it can't be everything. Like in all human affairs, you have to strike the right balance between freedom and discipline.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:22:41 2017 No.9039555 >>9039545 if you own all the land, you're a king.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:23:24 2017 No.9039557 >>9038266 >F-35 will be in service 50 years L0Lno fgt pls

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:23:46 2017 No.9039558

>>9039519
Errr.. not him, actually I'm the guy who answers him, but he is talking about the programs associated with "War on Poverty" in use since the LBJ administration, it doesn't count other social programs or social security.

I'm just glad that they used that money to feed a human being instead of using it to "stabilize" another 3rd world nation that would turn into violent and chaotic civil war 10 years later.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:31:12 2017 No.9039578 >>9038775 >they've gone too far to just drop it ...like they did with the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas, where $2billion was in the hole? L0Lno fgt pls

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:33:47 2017 No.9039586 >>9039388 >believing the myth of the "free market" L0Lno, fgt pls the only "free market" is the Black Market Lrn2economics

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:42:39 2017 No.9039601 >>9039298 The original point was to make workers take control of the factories but our ant-like behavior prevented that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:43:10 2017 No.9039604 No matter what happens, as long as the Dreamchaser gets to fly one of these days I'll be happy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:44:42 2017 No.9039607 >>9039586 >Black Market Not even that one, they can use criminal and violent activities to dominate the market. " the only way to send a signal to another actors is by price" my ass.

Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:47:09 2017 No.9039614

When will apple do something with their 150 billion in cash reserves? You could start a mighty fancy space company with that sort of dosh. SpaceX has gotten a huge amount done with just ~4 billion or so?

Come on Cook, give us an iStation. Proprietary docking port included.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 15 23:54:51 2017 No.9039631 >>9039137 The point of SpaceX is that rapid reuse is the way to go. I doubt we'll see any massive second stages atop Falcon Heavy. Especially not a Raptor 2nd stage.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 00:04:04 2017 No.9039642 File: 134 KB, 1330x770, B-52-Flying.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9039557 hello there

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 00:10:31 2017 No.9039653 >>9039642 Many third world countries use 50 year old fighters, maybe USA has finally accepted reality.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 00:21:58 2017 No.9039675 >>9039631 I don't see how there's any conflict between that and a massive Raptor upper stage. A larger second stage would mean that the center core of Falcon Heavy can fly back to land instead of landing downrange.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 00:23:56 2017 No.9039678 >>9039675 Raptor 2nd stage + cross feeding would be amazing. Apparently cross feeding is just too difficult at the moment - it was originally supposed to be part of the FH I think

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 00:40:17 2017 No.9039702

>>9039678
Well, they met their performance goals without crossfeed, and it requires special hardware that they wouldn't want on a single-core launch, so it would stop them from reusing recovered F9 lower stages as FH side boosters.

Also, if they do build a larger upper stage (to actually use in launches, not just to launch near-empty and fill in orbit), it would largely negate the benefit of crossfeed, because they'd have to reduce the amount of propellant in the lower stages to enable the whole thing to still lift off.

If anything, I think with a bigger upper stage, they'd fly back the three lower stages without separating them. It eliminates a staging event, and the hardware to accomplish it, and it makes the landing more reliable by giving them more options for engines to land with (three cores tied together could land on two engines, so they can start a larger number when initially decelerating, then choose which to touch down with if there are any irregularities).

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 00:44:06 2017 No.9039710 >>9039557 yeah, lol could you imagine if we kept the F-16 flying all the way to 2024? You know, that far off world of seven years from now? Ridiculous!

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 01:03:46 2017 No.9039748

>>9039710
The F-16 wasn't shit, though.

Here's the deal with the F-35: most of the time, they won't fly it in stealth mode, because that means no external fuel tanks, hardpoints, sensor packages, etc., so it would be short-range, practically unarmed, half blind, and so forth, but all of the time it's still paying the cost of being designed around stealth: it's slow, it's unmaneuverable, and it's expensive so there won't be as many. Take stealth out of the picture, and it's a grossly inferior airframe, and they're not usually going to be able to use that stealth.

But it's all worth it to get that option of configuring it for stealth, you say? Yet as a stealth plane, it's not very stealthy, it doesn't have big built-in fuel tanks or bomb bays, and stealth-beating sensors and tactics are going to proliferate as the years go by. Stealth was a fantastic gimmick when it was new, when it was godmode and you could just go in and fuck up the enemy's air defense keystones in advance, but now it's been around for decades.

The next 50 years aren't the last 50 years. UAVs are maturing. AI is maturing. Automated production is maturing. Technological advance accelerates over time.

This is preparing to fight the last war... 30 years in the future.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 01:08:39 2017 No.9039755 >>9038232 It's just a program to keep Shuttle era factories going. They don't even care that the rocket has no missions.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 01:17:38 2017 No.9039764

>>9039383
A raptor upper stage would really defeat the purpose of reusability.
If you're gonna put raptor engines on a falcon 9, you might as well put them on the booster and recover them, while ditching a cheap ass Merlin engine on the second stage.
Sure, the army would pay for such launches, but that's just throwing away good hardware.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 01:26:27 2017 No.9039776

>>9039764
Christ, you really can't communicate can you?

So the idea in your head is that Raptor engines are super-expensive fancy things, while Merlins are some cheap, disposable junk?

First of all, we have no information on their relative costs at this point. Secondly, we're talking about them in the context of different sorts of reuse, either in-space or actually-landing-on-earth reusable upper stages.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 03:22:18 2017 No.9039999

>>9039675
Because both of their failures were upper stage issues, and I doubt they will want to be experimenting with new upper stages.
It's nice to talk about changing the sizes of the rockets, but this is a ton of work for SpaceX, that has literally zero actual monetary return for them.

No government has expressed any wish to build a new cheaper ISS using the Falcon Heavy
Nor has anyone put any money towards recreating Apollo program using the F-Heavy.

What SpaceX needs to do is clear their backlog of paid for launches, while getting their other 2 launch sites online.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 12:46:45 2017 No.9040746

>>9039999
>It's nice to talk about changing the sizes of the rockets, but this is a ton of work for SpaceX, that has literally zero actual monetary return for them.
>No government has expressed any wish to build a new cheaper ISS using the Falcon Heavy
>Nor has anyone put any money towards recreating Apollo program using the F-Heavy.
Have you been paying attention? Their announced plan is to build ITS, a giant rocket nobody asked for, for which no established market exists.

They accepted funding from the USAF to develop Raptor as a F9/H upper stage engine, so yes, the government is interested in a Raptor upper stage.

The Raptor upper stage would also serve as a subscale prototype for the ITS upper stage.

I don't know if they'll do it, but it's definitely on the short list of things they're considering.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 14:11:48 2017 No.9040941 >>9040746 Yea they want to build their new vehicle, not keep fiddling with the Falcon family forever

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:12:27 2017 No.9041143 >>9040746 If you can build a rocket that costs twice as much but carries 10 times as much payload there's really no reason not to, is there? I mean a platform like ITS could complete a bunch of Falcon 9 satellite missions in one go

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:20:23 2017 No.9041171 >>9039113 >On the contrary, it's government contracting. That's capitalism. Private interests finding a way to siphon away tax payer money. Could have been done all in house much faster at half the cost but then fat cats won't get rich.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:27:10 2017 No.9041196 >>9041171 I smell commies if you honestly think that anything owned and operated solely by the state is functional, you're delusional and ignorant of history

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:27:55 2017 No.9041200

>>9039298

>Socialist

Just because I'm criticizing capitalism doesn't mean I'm a socialist or a communist. I'm just pointing out, correctly, that it's capitalism that introduces these inefficiencies.

Maybe an industry like space exploration would do best under a centrally planned economy. I don't think it's an accident that both the US success in the 60's and the success of the USSR in getting to space was all very much centrally planned.

That doesn't mean that I want to live in the USSR or that I want the government to centrally plan everything. But nonetheless you cannot just ignore the fact that with any such kind of big project in a capitalist society you have all these inefficiencies due to corruption, because all the big fat cats see a way to siphon away tax payer money.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:28:37 2017 No.9041201 >>9038232 inflation

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:31:43 2017 No.9041209

>>9039614

That's another failure of capitalism. What the fuck does Apple know about space? Nothing. They make shiny consumer tech gadgets. Completely different market.

Under our system they are given all that capital to push forward innovation despite being clearly inept to do anymore than tech gadgets.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:36:37 2017 No.9041223 >>9041209 >a business not doing anything in a field that they relate absolutely fucking nothing to is a failure of capitalism go back to /leftypol/, you swine

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:37:28 2017 No.9041227

>>9041196
>if you honestly think that anything owned and operated solely by the state is functional, you're delusional and ignorant of history

I live in northern Europe. Our governments own a lot of state enterprises and they are so successful that they are buying out the private enterprises of other countries (that were once state owned but got privatized by capitalists). It's a funny situation actually. Our government is technically in charge of very critical infrastructure in foreign countries because those foreign countries were retarded enough to privitise their infrastructure.

I'm sorry that I live in a country that shits all over your ideology. Maybe asked Milton Friedman or Mises for a refund or something.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:42:02 2017 No.9041236
File: 24 KB, 500x375, 84b49815060cecaefa1707fa410a5c26--bobby-hill-what-i-want.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9038232
Columbia/Challenger disasters should have shut down their astronaut program IMMEDIATELY. They are completely incompetent to ignore such obvious hazards that caused those disasters killing a dozen FUCKING ASTRONAUTS.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:42:05 2017 No.9041237

>>9041223

It's a failure of capitalism that they are given $150B to play with when they are just a fucking toys-for-middle-class-people company.

When you think about it's fucking bonkers.

They will never put that capital to good use. It's just wasted in their hands.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:42:18 2017 No.9041238

>>9041171
That's fair enough but this sort of thing could have also happened even if the system wasn't corrupt. The problem is that the people who fucked up will not be directly affected by the consequences of their fuck up. That issue is not unique to capitalism.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:46:03 2017 No.9041249
File: 29 KB, 285x357, 1487987128829.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9041237
>make product
>people buy product
>make lots of money either because your product is expensive or you sold a very large number of them
it's not hard to understand
successful businesses do not need to adhere to the wishes of wannabe communists on the internet
if they want to use those hundreds to wipe their asses with, that is their right, since it was your stupid ass that gave them those hundreds

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:49:02 2017 No.9041260 >>9041249 >if they want to use those hundreds to wipe their asses with, that is their right ... and a failure of capitalism. Ultimately something that time will iron out when brainlets like you die off and stop inhibiting progress.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 15:50:16 2017 No.9041263

>>9041227
>my government controls a ton of shit and hasn't fucked it up yet so obviously my way is better
And when your government decides to take advantage of how it isn't actually accountable for its mistakes since they are the only ones with an army? Central planning isn't stupid because it never works, it's stupid because when it does fail it's a total shit show. It's a train with no brakes; works fine until someone's car stalls in the middle of the tracks.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 16:05:40 2017 No.9041292
File: 2.38 MB, 312x250, 1499921141817.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9041260
>private individuals and companies must spend their own money how internet communists say they should
your cancerous ideology should have died completely in the 90s with your shithole of a country

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 16:16:02 2017 No.9041320

>>9041200
Mixed economy is such a fucking meme. Central planning is always less efficient. The reason people give it any credit for anything is because sometimes there are no alternatives. It doesn't make any sense to privatize national defense, but if it did it would be far more efficient to do so. It also doesn't make sense to privatize a mission to the moon since there isn't a way to profit off the moon. If there was money to be made on the moon, private industry would have gotten there faster and would have used fewer resources than the government. You can't bring up examples of central planning literally being the only option as evidence for it being superior.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 16:26:43 2017 No.9041362 >>9041236 NASA - need another seven astronauts

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 16:47:11 2017 No.9041441

>>9041143
>a rocket that costs twice as much but carries 10 times as much payload
By SpaceX's estimates, the construction cost of an ITS is $360 million. That's for a booster and a tanker upper stage (which would presumably be similar in cost to an unpressurized cargo stage). The costs are proportional to the size.

Developing a reusable upper stage for Falcon Heavy would be far cheaper and faster than developing ITS, and would result in something more suitable for the existing market.

>a platform like ITS could complete a bunch of Falcon 9 satellite missions in one go
The trouble with this idea is that you don't usually have a bunch of satellites ready to go at the same time, headed to the same orbit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 17:21:12 2017 No.9041535 >>9041441 the problem with RUS is that they would have to make massive changes to at least two pads to support it, and build a new facility to manufacture it

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 17:29:30 2017 No.9041568 >>9041535 >they would have to make massive changes to at least two pads to support it, and build a new facility to manufacture it justify these claims

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 17:33:59 2017 No.9041582

>>9041568
different propellant requiring whole new infrastructure; new strongback to support increased mass and diameter and dimensions in general
f9 is already barely small enough to be road-transportable; a raptor stage would need to be built at the launch site or shipped there like the shuttle ET

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 17:44:48 2017 No.9041603

>>9041441
the entire point of the ITS is for the mars colony Musk created the company to do

and when sending shit up, satellites are not the only singular thing you can send up, Stations are a very nice thing to send materials up for, and having the ability to send absolute fucktons of material per launch is terrific for any construction effort

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 17:51:02 2017 No.9041623 >>9041603 >the entire point of the ITS is for the mars colony Musk created the company to do If that were so, he would be a stupid, stupid man. Available evidence indicates he's pretty clever. Ergo...

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 17:59:55 2017 No.9041648

>>9041623
the core of the ITS project is his mars colony, to deny that denies what the man himself said, the original name of the thing was the Mars Colonial Transporter for fucks sake
the other things it is capable of doing is a pure bonus, and in no way does it have to be exclusively for the colony mission, but at the it's core, this is a colony ship to mars.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 18:01:06 2017 No.9041653 File: 65 KB, 692x960, 1496349848207.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9041623 >Available evidence indicates he's pretty clever. bwhahahahahaha

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 18:13:49 2017 No.9041676

>>9041236
another opinion is accepting that disasters happen is better than being slowed down by perfectionism

the problem is that manned spaceflight has too much space race legacy, when every single flight contributed to propaganda, and every spaceman was a media person. This coin has another side too: if you fuck anything up, especially to the LOC, it will be a shitstorm. Today it's even worse, because routine missions are ignored by media, but fuck ups still cause shitstorms.

The expectations are just too high, and media is too sensitive. Sometimes you have to throw people at the problem. They didn't hesitate to do this in WWII or in 50s/60s. IIRC the Orion is being developed with 1/270 probability of LOC, that means for 20 flights it will be about 7.4% of the entire crew dying.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 18:15:24 2017 No.9041680

>>9041582
>different propellant requiring whole new infrastructure
It's just enough methane for an upper stage. They do similar stuff for payloads. Minor. Besides, part of what they're doing with ITS is making it so it can store propellant for long periods.

>new strongback to support increased mass and diameter and dimensions in general
Nope. They already use and accommodate a 5-meter fairing, and the overall mass of the rocket is constrained by the thrust of the booster(s).

>a raptor stage would need to be built at the launch site or shipped there like the shuttle ET
It wouldn't be on the same scale as the shuttle ET. It would be under one third the length, under half the cross-sectional area, and considerably lighter.

Among other options, they could lift it with a Super Stallion (helicopter), fit it in a Super Guppy or Beluga (oversize cargo airliner), or fly it piggyback on a large airliner like the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft.

They'd have to make some more complex and costly shipping arrangements than just sticking it on a truck, but it's nothing prohibitive. They're not the same struggling little company they were when they designed the Falcon 9 booster to fit on a truck.

Setting all that aside, they've already decided to pursue construction of the much larger ITS, and in fact have already made and transported a full-scale fuel tank for testing.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 18:21:52 2017 No.9041686

>>9041653
he may make very fucking stupid decicions, but the fact that he has made 10 billion dollars shows that he does have a good head on his shoulders

he just needs to painfully learn to not think with his dick and he's golden
he probably wont lose his money to the gold digger, since if she tries, she'll have an unending horde of angry redditors trying to rip her apart for it

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 18:23:29 2017 No.9041695 >>9041686 This whole post is retarded.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 18:28:55 2017 No.9041708

>>9041686
>lose his money to the gold digger
Come on. This isn't his first rodeo. He gets pre-nups. He's been through divorces before, and he didn't lose any major shares of his businesses.

He doesn't get divorced because gold-diggers are after his money, but because he works all the time and women want a husband who's around. Then he remarries because he's a famous billionaire and not fat, boring, or ugly.

If you were a busy billionaire, you wouldn't want to sleep with Hollywood starlets in your scarce free time?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 18:30:54 2017 No.9041710 >another space thread collapsing into musk circlejerk

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 18:34:32 2017 No.9041719 >>9041710 SpaceX is the only company actually doing shit in space so ofc it'll circle jerk around him Blue Origin is years away from launching Everyone else is "old space" that aren't doing any sort of reuse

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 18:43:19 2017 No.9041733 File: 181 KB, 1328x815, 1498072308046.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9041708 >pre-nups it's literally court policy to throw those into the trashcan whenever they are seen

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 18:44:27 2017 No.9041735 >>9041710 there's other businesses doing space stuff? tell us friendo, I'm actually curious of who's doing shit as of late wasn't there those asteroid mining guys that were planning prospecting missions?

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 18:51:34 2017 No.9041752

>>9041733
Maybe for working class slobs, who can't afford good lawyers they actually have to pay for, while their wives can get good lawyers to work on contingency because they're on the side that's trying to loot someone else, but family courts don't disregard pre-nups to split up billion-dollar business empires just on the general principle that a wife should get to take half her husband's stuff when she gets bored.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 21:38:06 2017 No.9042015

>>9038232

It's because the rocket has been designed to keep using Shuttle technology and hardware rather than being designed to be cheap or have a lot of payload.

SLS is only deigned to carry ~100 tons of payload because it's a capability no other flying rocket has, which means it should be hard to justify cancelling it without having another operating launch vehicle in a similar class. Luckily if all goes well we'll see new heavy lift options coming online soon enough that SLS will have serious competitors and will be on much shakier ground.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 21:39:16 2017 No.9042017 >>9038239 I was this close to taking your bait before you gave up the ruse.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 21:40:36 2017 No.9042022 >>9038304 Shuttle then, all the major propulsive elements of SLS have been around for decades.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 21:48:16 2017 No.9042035

>>9038453
>what is the point of the SLS?

To keep the factories and jobs involved with making Shuttle-era hardware in business. That's literally it.

Everything about the SLS design is a compromise meant to allow them to use Shuttle boosters and Shuttle engines without much modification. The result is a rocket that will have more thrust than the Saturn V but put less into orbit, will cost much more per launch, will launch less often, and won't make use of any advancements in rocket design made in the last 30 years.

Senator Shelby is probably the biggest name to blame for the clusterfuck that is SLS. I heard they broke one of the tanks recently and it's going to set them back more than a year on their schedule, a god damn fuel tank can't be made in a mostly automated welding jig in less than a year. That should tell you everything you need to know about the future of SLS.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 21:55:44 2017 No.9042058

>>9038499
>building the ISS would have been harder, longer and more expensive.

Literally wrong.

We could have launched the current ISS with no changes to the modules as they exist right now if we launched every module with a small disposable tug module. The cost of building and launching every tug required to build the entire ISS would cost less than building a single Shuttle orbiter, and would add anything to the launch costs.

Also, the modules as they exist now were actually designed the way they were in order to give Shuttle a job to do; it's not like adding a maneuvering system to each module is especially hard when starting from a blank slate. Once it became obvious that shuttle was not going to be economical and no one really wanted to do any missions with it, the American ISS modules (among other things, bizarrely including interplanetary probes) where required by law to be launched by shuttle, and where designed specifically to not have any maneuvering capability in order to seal the deal.

95% of what the Shuttle did was done that way because they designed it to require Shuttle's capabilities, and then after the fact people use those missions to justify the Shuttle, even though from the start it could have been cut out completely.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 21:57:44 2017 No.9042064 >>9038649 Block 1 != Block 1B

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 21:59:21 2017 No.9042069 >>9038735 SLS specific development started in 2011, but it's based completely on hardware developed for Shuttle more than 30 years ago, if you want to go right back to the start of it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 22:01:10 2017 No.9042071 >>9038978 Which could have been done from the second launch onward, dumbass. The moment there was a core module up there they could've added an airlock.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 22:06:09 2017 No.9042086 >>9042035 I'm sure they will break and delay as much as possible until this shit is cancelled That way they can avoid the risk of launching.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 22:08:17 2017 No.9042092

>>9038775
>key parts

Firstly, those aren't significant enough investments to even matter for program cancellation or not.

Secondly, block 2 has an earliest launch date of 2028, more than 10 years from now, and is still very much up in the air despite what PR people may tell you. The chances are extremely good that SLS will have development halted at Block 1B, and Block 2 will never see the light of day.

This is not unprecedented, many rockets like the Atlas V are proposed with a development plan of several smaller rockets leading to one 'fully developed' large vehicle, which gets approved, and then development funding dries up as soon as the small rocket is flying.

Block 2 was merely a grand peacock display that said 'America will have the most powerful rocket of all time, again!' and only existed to get people to sign the funding bill that would allow the Block 1B to be built. SLS will never be more powerful than the Saturn V, it will never accomplish any Moon landing missions or manned Mars missions of any kind.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 22:12:31 2017 No.9042100

>>9039271

If you do two pairs of boosters attached to a truss structure they would completely replace the solid boosters with no changes needed to the core stage, while at the same time increasing payload performance because of the higher booster efficiency.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 22:13:41 2017 No.9042102 >>9042071 Could just have people live in their suit for a week or two up in orbit if there is hands on work that needs to be done to assemble modules. Of course, nowadays it could just be done remotely but thats a different story.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 22:14:37 2017 No.9042105 >>9039479 >Their only announced Raptor plan is ITS. Which makes sense because the Raptor is designed for the ITS and vice-versa.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 22:15:57 2017 No.9042106 >>9038240 1.4 trillion for the whole program life, which is for the USAF, Marines, and the Navy. Also good luck getting any RPA to do what the F-35 is supposed to.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 22:18:41 2017 No.9042108 Do you have a problem with Affirmative Action, OP?

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 22:19:00 2017 No.9042109

>>9039702
>they'd fly back the three lower stages without separating them

Absolutely no fucking way, keeping three boosters together during launch is one thing, but keeping them together while flipping around, boosting back, and performing a landing is totally different. They end up losing all three cores most of the time instead of taking a small chance on three of them.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 22:23:42 2017 No.9042115

>>9041441
>the construction cost of an ITS is $360 million

Yeah but the cost per flight is no more than ten million because of the full reusability fo the system. It would literally be better to launch a 5 ton satellite into orbit using the ITS than a Falcon 9, both because it'd cost less and because the ITS would have so much propellant leftover it'd basically be able to put your satellite into any Earth orbit you wanted it in, directly. Falcon 9 can't do that, even Falcon heavy couldn't do that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 22:58:02 2017 No.9042171 >>9042109 Why would you think they'd be more likely to lose them if they were bound together for flyback? I've pointed out how they'd be safer than cores landing alone: they'd have engine-out capability on landing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 16 22:59:35 2017 No.9042173 >>9042109 what it would be the same as if its one booster,

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 23:01:50 2017 No.9042177

>>9042115
Falcon Heavy could put a 5-ton satellite into any Earth orbit, provided the upper stage survived long enough (they're working on that -- they've done tests firing it after long coasts after the payload is separated).

Anyway, you've just talked around the fact that it's not easier to build a giant fully-reusable rocket than it is to build a more normal-sized one. It's especially not easier to develop an all-new fully-reusable rocket rather than build a reusable upper stage for an existing reusable booster.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 23:17:16 2017 No.9042203

>>9042173
>>9042171

It simply wouldn't work, form a structures perspective and an aerodynamic perspective.

Firstly, the center core wouldn't be able to deploy its legs nor its grid fins, and the outer cores wouldn't be able to deploy 2 of each of their fins and wings. Secondly, while the structure is launching, it's experiencing forces in a very predictable manner, and it's those forces that the hard points attaching the cores are designed to handle. After the boost phase, assuming the cores were attached, the two outer cores would be pushed by the oncoming air sideways relative to their thrust vector, which would end up with the rocket trying to bend into a C shape. This would probably just cause the boosters to rip off of their hard points immediately, but assuming they didn't, the three core booster would then need to perform a boost-back maneuver then a reentry burn then the landing burn, all with reduced aerodynamic control and increased aerodynamic lift and drag. Now, the core is designed to always have the boosters pushing it, not the other way around. This means the boosters would have to each fire their center engines to allow landing, and while doing so prevent any oscillations from forming, and touch down, taking the full weight of three cores on just 4 legs.

Even if this scheme somehow made it more likely to recover every core every time, which it wouldn't, it wouldn't be worth it to try to develop this sequence. Why? Because SpaceX has already managed to successfully land every single booster they've tried to land this year. The landing is reliable enough as it is, and it's only going to get better once the Block 4 and Block 5 Falcon 9's are flying.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 23:28:19 2017 No.9042224

>>9042177

Developing a smaller orbital launch vehicle is easier than developing a larger one, yes. However, developing a small orbital launch vehicle and then developing a big orbital launch vehicle takes more time, effort and resources than going straight to the big vehicle.

It's just like how running a 100m sprint is hard, running a 200m sprint is harder, but running a 100m sprint then immediately running a 200m sprint is hardest.

SpaceX doesn't have unlimited time or resources, and they don't want to have to develop Falcon 9/Heavy forever. The design is set to be more or less frozen with Block 5, at which point the majority of the R&D team is going to swing over to the ITS project. If the military or some other organization wanted SpaceX to build a Raptor powered upper stage and was going to fund it, the SpaceX would do it, as they've stated. However, they aren't going to let feature creep slow down the progress they could be making on the ITS.

The question is, would the increase in performance a Raptor powered upper stage give be worth the delay to the ITS, a system that SpaceX employees have outright stated 'makes every other launch system obsolete'? Once the ITS is flying, is shown to be reliable, and has some kind of spaceship variant with a big cargo bay instead of a crew cabin, SpaceX will be able to use it to launch essentially anything into orbit, for a price ten times lower than the competitors, or more. SpaceX wouldn't even need to keep the Falcon line of rockets operational at that point, except maybe to keep up with the launch manifest until enough ITS Cargo ships are built.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 23:36:37 2017 No.9042239

>>9042203
>Firstly, the center core wouldn't be able to deploy its legs nor its grid fins, and the outer cores wouldn't be able to deploy 2 of each of their fins and wings.
For heaven's sake, we're not talking about landing them tied together, completely unmodified, with fins and legs that can't be deployed, and using the same methods of connections designed for in-air staging. What is even going on in your head?

>After the boost phase, assuming the cores were attached, the two outer cores would be pushed by the oncoming air sideways relative to their thrust vector, which would end up with the rocket trying to bend into a C shape.
You don't understand this stuff at all. It's basically in space when the upper stage separates and the booster turns around. There's negligible drag. That's why they talk about "re-entry" for the lower stage.

>Even if this scheme somehow made it more likely to recover every core every time, which it wouldn't, it wouldn't be worth it to try to develop this sequence. Why? Because ... The landing is reliable enough as it is
"Because 'better' isn't better than 'seems good enough lol'"?

Anyway, there are other reasons this is advantageous:
1) eliminates a staging event with failure potential,
2) eliminates re-assembly work,
3) reduces weight by replacing staging hardware with solid linkages,
4) reduces mechanical complexity in other places,
5) requires only one landing pad or drone ship instead of three, and
6) allows upper stage load to be distributed across all three cores, so there doesn't need to be a stronger center core.

It makes sense for a larger upper stage.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 23:48:20 2017 No.9042269

>>9042224
Okay then, so explain why they developed a one-third-scale Raptor engine first, instead of going directly to the full-scale model, and how that's consistent with your expressed understanding of rocket engineering.

Then, when you're done with that, explain why they didn't just skip Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy and go straight to building ITS.

If you look at the reasons for these things, you'll see why they might want to continue progressing incrementally, rather than trying to make a huge leap all at once.

The natural incremental path to ITS is to first build a single-Raptor upper stage for Falcon Heavy, then build a nine-Raptor booster to replace Falcon Heavy while using the same upper stage, and finally build the full ITS with the 42-Raptor booster and the 9-Raptor upper stage integrating their experience with both the 1-Raptor upper stage and the 9-Raptor booster.

If they go straight to ITS, they can't even begin to experiment with things like a reusable upper stage, in-space propellant transfer, and long-term orbital propellant storage until they've built the 42-Raptor booster.

Anonymous Sun Jul 16 23:52:06 2017 No.9042279

>>9042239

1) adds higher failure potential by having to program and work out control algorithms for tow entirely different landing sequences
2) doesn't eliminate reassembly work because the cores need to be taken apart to be transported by roadway anyway, dipshit
3) lightening the side boosters offers the least increase in performance, definitely isn't worth the development time and effort this would take
4) Vague, but it sure does reduce aerodynamic control by eliminating 8 of the 12 grid fins total that would have been shared among the cores had they been landing separately
5) Landing pads are easy to build and don't cost anything significant to reuse, and the boosters separate early enough that they could come back from pretty much any launch no matter the mass, so at most only one drone ship would be needed anyway
6) There has to be a stronger core anyway because the boosters are pushing an off-center load and want to pivot inwards, putting compressive forces on the top of the core stage. The only way this would not happen is if the payload was sitting on top of a large thrust plate that the side cores rammed into, which would weigh more than any reinforcements to the center core

SpaceX will never do this three core combined landing thing, I would bet everything I have on it.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 00:04:51 2017 No.9042313

>>9042269

>why they developed a one-third-scale Raptor engine

Because they didn't want to blow up the test stand trying to fire a full sized FFSC engine for their first try, and also because the air force paid them to anyway.

>explain why they didn't just skip Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy

Because SpaceX needed a revenue stream to exist, as well as a smaller platform to develop reusability so that they wouldn't sink the company if their first attempt failed.

>continue progressing incrementally, rather than trying to make a huge leap

Falcon 9 was a huge leap from Falcon 1. Falcon Heavy isn't a huge leap and was goig to launch earlier, but since F9 was developed further and become so much more capable, FH development was pushed back because it wasn't as needed as they first thought.

SpaceX is already trying to build the ITS. They're devoting a small amount of R&D not focused on Falcon 9 and Heavy towards cracking the two tough problems of the ITS, Raptor and the cryogenic LOx tank. SpaceX has stated multiple times that their next rocket after Falcon Heavy will be the ITS. SpaceX doesn't need to build a rocket using Raptor to know the engine works. They don't need to develop and build an entire reusable second stage to know that their PICA-X heat shield material works, or that their maneuvering thrusters work, or that zero G propellant transfer works. To test in-space long term propellant storage they could simply launch a test article using a couple small tanks of both propellants and some monitoring equipment for far less cost and development time.

At the end of the day, even if they took your approach and built an entirely separate launch vehicle in between Falcon and ITS, they still need to develop the ITS. The reason they don't need to be so incremental this time is because SpaceX is already making money, they're already a viable business. They can afford to go directly to the ITS because it isn't critical to survival.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 00:20:14 2017 No.9042343

>>9042279
>2) doesn't eliminate reassembly work because the cores need to be taken apart to be transported by roadway anyway, dipshit
Not in a rapid-reuse scenario. There's no need for transportation on the interstate. The landing pads are near the launchpads.

>it sure does reduce aerodynamic control by eliminating 8 of the 12 grid fins total
So you're assuming they'd use 4 grid fins of the same size? Again: why the bizarre and stupid assumptions? Their plan for the ITS booster is simply 3 very large grid fins.

>the boosters are pushing an off-center load and want to pivot inwards, putting compressive forces on the top of the core stage
You dense motherfucker. That's not a reason for the core to be built stronger even in the regular Falcon Heavy. The fucking tips of the boosters aren't going to be squeezing the top of the core dangerously. They'll distribute that load in the thrust structure just above the engines, not up at the top of the rocket.

The center core has to be stronger because as the side cores empty out, it'll be transmitting over double the thrust of Falcon 9 to a ~50% heavier load. If they put a bigger upper stage on it, it'll be supporting an even higher load on top of it.

>The only way this would not happen is if the payload was sitting on top of a large thrust plate that the side cores rammed into, which would weigh more than any reinforcements to the center core
You are such a chimp. A composite interstage that distributed the force equally across the three modules, as they deplete their propellant equally, would weigh much less than reinforcing the center stage to transmit the thrust of all 27 engines as the side boosters ran out of propellant. It would barely be more than triple the mass of the Falcon 9 interstage, especially considering that the upper stage would be wider than the lower stage modules. Just a typical adaptor to a stage of a different radius.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 00:28:48 2017 No.9042368

>>9042343
>That's not a reason for the core to be built stronger even in the regular Falcon Heavy

It's why the current Falcon Heavy center core needs to be reinforced, numbnuts. It's not just because the boosters will be pushing the core, it's because they'll be pushing on either side and adding extra compressive strain.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 00:39:40 2017 No.9042383

>>9042313
>>why they developed a one-third-scale Raptor engine
>Because they didn't want to blow up the test stand trying to fire a full sized FFSC engine for their first try
No, you dunce. It was because they simply didn't have a test stand big enough. You know, like they don't have a booster big enough to launch the ITS spaceship into orbit with its reusability hardware?

>The reason they don't need to be so incremental this time is because SpaceX is already making money, they're already a viable business. They can afford to go directly to the ITS
They can't, though. They've said it'll cost $10 billion dollars. They want it working well enough to launch cargo to Mars in five years. They're not making $2 billion profit per year and won't make that by launching satellites with F9/H with expendable upper stages. Nor are they likely to attract $10 billion in private investment funding for a Mars rocket. What they can do is make FH fully reusable and grow the market, working incrementally to lower costs.

>SpaceX has stated multiple times that their next rocket after Falcon Heavy will be the ITS.
They've also stated that they'll be flying the spaceship before the booster, with nine sea-level Raptors. What does that sound like, but the nine-Raptor booster I was describing earlier?

They obviously don't consider a nine-sea-level-Raptor "ITS spaceship" with no capability to return from orbit to be an "entirely separate vehicle". I doubt they'd consider it entirely separate if they could mount an upper stage on it either. It's an incremental development step. They're taking those, not skipping them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 00:40:57 2017 No.9042384 File: 3.23 MB, 386x232, laughing schoolgirls.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9042368 >it's because they'll be pushing on either side and adding extra compressive strain.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 01:14:26 2017 No.9042446

>>9042368
>It's why the current Falcon Heavy center core needs to be reinforced, numbnuts. It's not just because the boosters will be pushing the core, it's because they'll be pushing on either side and adding extra compressive strain.

maybe spacex dragged a delta iv heavy core out of the ocean to see how they did it

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 01:33:29 2017 No.9042488 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_wheel_space_station Why isn't SpaceX making something like this yet?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 01:56:23 2017 No.9042522 >>9042488 They have no interest in space stations. NASA wanted to do a research centrifuge but shelved it after a while. Energia built a small prototype, but they have no money to make a larger one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 02:11:57 2017 No.9042541 >>9038232 You can do almost anything with the right funding.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 02:15:33 2017 No.9042544

>>9042488
They do transportation, they'll send up stuff for space station but only if their customers request them....which nobody will because the whole point of a space station is to take advantage of the microgravity environment, simulated gravity would ruin it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 02:26:54 2017 No.9042558 >>9042541 Nope. It's always a matter of right management. Any funding will get wasted if you have poor organization.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 02:38:17 2017 No.9042569

>>9042544
> the whole point of a space station is to take advantage of the microgravity environment, simulated gravity would ruin it.
You can't provide good microgravity on a habitable space station. It's a huge unforeseen issue with ISS, it makes many experiments simply impossible, especially crystallography and molecular biology ones. That's why they wanted to create OKA-T, a freeflying co-orbiting companion module that would dock to the station from time to time. The point of a space station is to a) provide a habitat and b) serve as an outpost/transportation hub, like they want with the cislunar station.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 02:56:06 2017 No.9042589 >>9042569 c) test some engineering solutions

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 02:59:55 2017 No.9042599

>>9042269
>If they go straight to ITS, they can't even begin to experiment with things like a reusable upper stage, in-space propellant transfer, and long-term orbital propellant storage until they've built the 42-Raptor booster.

How does this make sense? You can do all that with RP-1/LOX
The only thing is that it takes more insulation between the 2 fuels.

I expect them to build a suborbital Raptor vehicle first, to test, like F9R
Then they'll be building the 9 Raptor Spaceship which can be launched single stage to orbit empty, as a test vehicle.

Once they have the launch rate up on the Falcon family, they can do all the experimentation that they want. They should NOT be doing orbital experiments while paying customers are waiting to be served.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 03:05:03 2017 No.9042610

>>9041171
>>9041200
>>9041227

SpaceX shits all over your claims. Developing a new reusable rocket + capsule system for a small fraction of the cost of NASA. Should have been the opposite if what you are saying is true.

You are nothing more than a socialist ideologue who does not know much about space industry and only cam to this thread to argue politics.

The reason why NASA is grossly ineffective is that it acts as a pork program to keep funds flowing into certain states and employ people. The aim of space exploration is entirely secondary nowadays.

The solution is to reduce NASA role to mere customer for broadly defined space missions (i.e we want a space station here, landing on the Moon here), and then let private sector handle the rest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 03:10:49 2017 No.9042615 >>9042383 >They've said it'll cost $10 billion dollars Which doesn't mean 10 billion dollars before the first launch Look at how they are spending more money than ever developing the Falcon 9/Heavy, despite it having 30 launches already.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 03:42:16 2017 No.9042660 >>9038232 It's half as likely to explode

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 07:49:55 2017 No.9042944 >>9041227 >I live in northern Europe. How is your country's space program doing? How many astronauts do you have in orbit right now, how many planets do you have orbiters monitoring, what's your largest natively developed launch system?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 10:51:00 2017 No.9043220 >>9038232 You think diversity is free ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 11:11:13 2017 No.9043247 File: 125 KB, 349x350, uranus blacked.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9038232 Why not Probe Uranus?

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 14:38:12 2017 No.9043624

>>9042615
>>They've said it'll cost $10 billion dollars
>Which doesn't mean 10 billion dollars before the first launch
They've said it'll cost $10 billion dollars before the first unmanned launch to Mars, its primary intended destination, and before any revenue-generating flights.

ITS is oversized for Earth-orbit or even Earth-moon use, whereas a single-Raptor mini-spaceship is just the right size. In a version with an integrated passenger compartment like ITS, they could carry a hundred passengers to LEO per launch, and with in-orbit refuelling, to the moon's surface. They could probably do $100,000 rides to orbit on Falcon Heavy / mini-ITS, and bring it down to around $10,000 with a mature all-Raptor system.

For the kind of money they need to support their ambitions, they need to earn a profit of over $5 million per day. In other words, they need to get flying on a daily basis as soon as possible, which means full reusability and a new market that can use daily flights. Affordable manned spaceflight is the best way to grow the market. At $100,000 per seat to orbit, they'll get rich tourists, many scientists and technicians, and people doing stuff like filming movies in space.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 14:40:53 2017 No.9043632

>>9043624
I don't know

If you were going to set up a long-term manned outpost on the moon wouldn't you pretty much want the most payload per flight you could possibly get?

And one or two ITS sized flights could easily deploy a space station with more pressurized space than the ISS

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 14:53:14 2017 No.9043662 File: 819 KB, 796x499, blue-marble-anomalies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9042944 probably the same number as your cuntree what beautiful composite art

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 15:04:36 2017 No.9043680

>>9042599
>>If they go straight to ITS, they can't even begin to experiment with things like a reusable upper stage, in-space propellant transfer, and long-term orbital propellant storage until they've built the 42-Raptor booster.
>How does this make sense? You can do all that with RP-1/LOX
>The only thing is that it takes more insulation between the 2 fuels.
Not just insulation, two separate thermal management systems. Furthermore, RP-1 is not a suitable pressurant, so you need to worry about a third fluid. If you use cold gas and hypergolic thrusters, it could be as many as six fluids to refill, even seven if you refill TEA-TEB engine starter shots.

Due to the major differences in design, the specific technical solutions for the F9 US would be different from and of little relevance to ITS, whereas a mini-ITS-spaceship would just be on a smaller scale than the full ITS spaceship.

Look at the differences: Al-Li vs. composite construction. Helium-pressurant vs. self-pressurizing. Hypergolic/cold-gas thrusters vs. replenishable methane/oxygen thrusters. Radiatively-cooled massively protruding engine nozzle vs. shrouded engine nozzle.

While they might do some reusable-US-related tests with the F9 US, to gain data on cylindrical-body entry, I doubt they'll develop it all the way to practical reusability, let alone rapid-turnaround reusability. I think they haven't announced a Raptor upper stage mainly because they're hoping to get government funding for it, which would be harder if they declared they'll pay for it themselves.

I think the Raptor upper stage could put men back on the moon within Trump's first term, for maybe $2 billion of NASA money.

>They should NOT be doing orbital experiments while paying customers are waiting to be served.
They should NOT be sharpening the saw while paying customers are waiting for their wood to be cut.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 15:14:56 2017 No.9043700

>>9043632
>If you were going to set up a long-term manned outpost on the moon wouldn't you pretty much want the most payload per flight you could possibly get?
If you were going to set up a long-term manned outpost on the moon, wouldn't you pretty much want flights every week?

If things went well, there'd be a role for ITS eventually, but early on it would be better to have lower cost and higher frequency over crazy high capacity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 18:20:46 2017 No.9044112 >>9043662 >the marxist is also literally a flat earther Can't make this shit up

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 18:57:26 2017 No.9044205 File: 663 KB, 1280x960, squished__watermelon_by_leguma.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9038233 >Capitalism. /thread

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 19:05:55 2017 No.9044216

>>9043624
>ITS is oversized for Earth-orbit or even Earth-moon use
What?
Says who?
There is no advantage in being small for rockets.

They can do daily flights with the Falcon 9..
Mass space tourism is likely a ways off, but SpaceX will have their billions if they can just finish their launch manifest/take over the market/launch their own satellites

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 19:12:51 2017 No.9044232

>>9043680
>I think the Raptor upper stage could put men back on the moon within Trump's first term, for maybe $2 billion of NASA money.
Why would they need a raptor upper stage? That won't be done before 2020, not for manned launches.

The only thing they would need is a pressure fed methane/lox thruster. This is something they need for their ITS anyways, and could propel a dragon + habitat to the moon/back.

If you want say a 2019 mission to the moon, they can't be doing big changes.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 20:32:11 2017 No.9044453
File: 53 KB, 951x433, SpaceX ITS timeline.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9044216
>They can do daily flights with the Falcon 9..
What, and manufacture a new upper stage every day? And find a customer willing to pay for an expendable upper stage every day?

>There is no advantage in being small for rockets.
There's the advantage of costing much less per vehicle and per flight, not to mention using existing infrastructure rather than needing new, oversized launch pads, etc.

>>9044232
>The only thing they would need is a pressure fed methane/lox thruster.
>could propel a dragon + habitat to the moon/back.
That doesn't make any sense. The specific impulse would be lower, the dry mass would be higher. What's the point of a methane low-thrust thruster without a methane-fuelled stage? If they're not using Raptor, they can just use SuperDraco for landing thrusters.

>If you want say a 2019 mission to the moon, they can't be doing big changes.
Trump's first term ends in 2021. They'd have until the end of 2020.

It's mid-2017. That's 3 years to get the Raptor upper stage working and do an unmanned test run, and then they'd still have months for the manned mission. These are the people talking about launching an ITS to Mars in 2022. A 1-Raptor upper stage is much easier than the full-size ITS.

Like I said before, it could land the whole Dragon capsule on the moon, and return it to Earth, as well as bringing 20 tonnes of equipment and supplies to use on the surface of the moon. Much better than Apollo. No need for all sorts of single-use hardware.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 17 21:02:06 2017 No.9044527 >>9038233 Cost-Plus government spending is the exact opposite of capitalism.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 21:44:41 2017 No.9044646

>>9044453
They obviously are not going to be launching an ITS to mars for 2022
Their new composite design is going to give them headaches, the Raptor engine is not anywhere near ready, they haven't started on a launch site or construction site, there are no finalized designs, etc

>That doesn't make any sense.
What doesn't make sense? They need this thruster for their ITS anyways, with a vacuum nozzle it would give better Isp than the Merlin vac.
They need landing thrusters to land on the Moon anyways.

It's the Raptor that makes no sense, its too large for Falcon upper stages or for pushing 100~ tons to the moon.

>And find a customer willing to pay for an expendable upper stage every day?
They have the lowest prices in the industry, noone is close to competiting nor will they ever be competitive.
If they are charging each customer another 10 million for the expendable upper stage, the customer will gladly pay that, its cheaper than anyone else.

The Falcon 9 will not be the vehicle that delivers space access at a small multiple of fuel costs.

Anonymous Mon Jul 17 22:10:00 2017 No.9044716

>>9044646
>They need this thruster for their ITS anyways
They need a thrust for ITS. They don't need one with enough thrust for an Earth-departure burn. That's what Raptor's for.

>with a vacuum nozzle it would give better Isp than the Merlin vac.
No, a pressure-fed lox/methane engine won't give better Isp than a decent pump-fed lox/kerosene engine. That's stupid. Furthermore, pressure-feeding isn't just something you do in the engine, you have to design the whole vehicle around it, adding mass to contain all of the propellant at a much higher pressure.

>They need landing thrusters to land on the Moon anyways.
Sure, but that's also a solved problem. If they go with a Raptor stage, lox/methane thrusters make sense for landing. Otherwise, they can just use SuperDracos.

>It's the Raptor that makes no sense, its too large for Falcon upper stages or for pushing 100~ tons to the moon.
It's only about triple the thrust of a Merlin. That makes it just the right size for a Falcon Heavy upper stage. The F9 upper stage is small on FH. It's not really suited for flyback reuse, or even for optimal performance in expendable mode.

>>And find a customer willing to pay for an expendable upper stage every day?
>They have the lowest prices in the industry, noone is close to competiting nor will they ever be competitive.
>If they are charging each customer another 10 million for the expendable upper stage, the customer will gladly pay that, its cheaper than anyone else.
You seem to have missed the "every day" part. The established market isn't anywhere near 365 launches per year.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 01:28:24 2017 No.9045065 >>9044716 >That makes it just the right size for a Falcon Heavy upper stage. Except the Falcon Heavy upper stage is exactly the same as the Falcon 9 upper stage So yea triple the thrust is way too much

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 01:37:50 2017 No.9045085 File: 35 KB, 537x515, 1443816131090.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9042368 >compressive strain

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 01:40:09 2017 No.9045089 >>9038233 Nope Capitalism would decrease its cost. More made and sold = cheaper. It was socialism and government gibs and wars for Israel and similar that castrated the space programs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 01:46:46 2017 No.9045099 File: 386 KB, 402x617, gibs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9045089 Negros and lefties ruin everything.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 01:51:28 2017 No.9045105 >>9045099 The irony being that trillions go to welfare now and nothing in comparison to space. And we get literally no return from the welfare in the grand scheme of things.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 01:58:48 2017 No.9045110 >>9045105 it keeps liberal politicians in power though gibs beget gibs

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 02:01:20 2017 No.9045115

>>9044216
>There is no advantage in being small for rockets.
There is, scaling doesn't come for free, there's a reason F1 was an achievement for its time and even russians couldn't figure out the materials and injector long after that, splitting their engine into 4 combustion chambers. What is hard in aerospace is making extremely small things (small thrusters thermodynamics is surprisingly complicated) and extremely large ones, the sweet spot is in between.

what anon means though is not technical difficulties but that ITS is too big for commercial use other than its supposed niche. There are plenty of different payloads for Falcon 9, there are payloads for FH/New Shepard, there are no payloads for super heavy rockets outside of their intended use.

>They can do daily flights with the Falcon 9
lol no they can't

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 02:03:18 2017 No.9045117 >>9045115 (You) >FH/New Glenn

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 10:54:06 2017 No.9045710

>>9045065
What's the fuck is wrong with you? Let's put your reply in context of the rest of the line you snipped off of the quote:
>>That makes it just the right size for a Falcon Heavy upper stage. The F9 upper stage is small on FH. It's not really suited for flyback reuse, or even for optimal performance in expendable mode.
>Except the Falcon Heavy upper stage is exactly the same as the Falcon 9 upper stage
>So yea triple the thrust is way too much
Oh look, now it's retarded!

Don't just post to repeat an assertion after an argument has been made against it. You've got to make some kind of argument yourself. Repeating information given in what you're responding to is not making an argument.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 11:20:29 2017 No.9045736 Rockets are waste of money and empty show of male bravado from begone eras when you have serious environmental and social catastrophes looming over you.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 11:42:15 2017 No.9045759

government pays for project directly and no money is wasted on "profits". Awesome spaceship is made.

Thousands of sub-contractors all taking a share of the money as "profits". Shitty piece of junk spaceship is made over-budget and behind schedule.

not hard to figure out what went wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 11:51:41 2017 No.9045771 >>9045736 It's not clever trolling if it's just repeating something stupid people commonly say.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 11:51:55 2017 No.9045773

>>9045105
>>9045110
if the rich hadn't bought the political machine and diverted all the money the economy generated since the 1970s into their pockets then welfare wouldn't be necessary.

also to keep this topical: the contractors who work on building rockets for the government are corporations cashing checks and reaping massive profits at the tax-payers expense. Not sure why the government needs to be giving welfare to mega-rich corporations.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 12:00:07 2017 No.9045790 >>9038232 Decadence.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 12:28:11 2017 No.9045840

>>9045759
>>9045773

The problem is not private profits you dumb commie, the problem is too many cooks in the kitchen.

It is typical for SpaceX business model that they like to do everything they can themselves (and like to simply buy off the shelf components when they cant). This resulted in by far the lowest prices in the industry.

So instead of government managing lots of subcontractors to put together a spacecraft, it should be government buying whole spacecraft and associated services off the market.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 12:32:17 2017 No.9045848 >>9045759 >government pays for project directly and no money is wasted on "profits". Awesome spaceship is made. Examples? Even Apollo while awesome was VERY expensive. Such approach would not be viable under current budgets.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 13:05:38 2017 No.9045933

>>9045759
>government pays for project directly and no money is wasted on "profits". Awesome spaceship is made.
That certainly doesn't describe the Apollo Program. I don't think there was a single piece of hardware on Saturn V or the Apollo spacecraft that was built by a government employee. It was all done through contractors, who made profits after paying their employees.

There's no fundamental organizational structural difference in how Apollo and SLS were done, and Apollo was hugely profitable to many private companies.

While Apollo is remembered as a glorious success, it was still a strange, wasteful program. They developed a way to land men on the moon, but not a cost-effective way.

Indeed, you could say that the seeds of the SLS fiasco were planted in the Apollo era. Some of the Apollo contractors wanted to continue the flow of those huge profits. They lobbied for more wasteful megaprojects. They got the shuttle, and its successor SLS.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 14:24:40 2017 No.9046102 File: 837 KB, 2274x1506, soyuz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9045933 >>9045848 >>9045840 Not to mention the greatest success of statist space programs The Russian Space Agency: Flying 1967's Greatest Hardware, Today

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 14:35:56 2017 No.9046123

>Pork barrel is a metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel

This is what is wrong with US space program.

Privatization is the cure. NASA and government in general should be limited to the role of a customer buying a very general product. Leave actual engineering and execution to private sphere.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 14:38:02 2017 No.9046127 >>9038232 Mandarinism/bureaucracy. >>9038233 Found the brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 14:53:21 2017 No.9046155 >>9046102 it's still safer than the space shuttle. Soyuz can reenter upside down just fine: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89886030 This isn't the first time it's happened either.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 15:02:17 2017 No.9046178 >>9038232 >>9038233 Actually it is corruption and cronyism. Politicians don't care, it isn't their money. If it gets them reelection money they're happy.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 15:03:49 2017 No.9046185
File: 59 KB, 640x480, pirates-of-the-caribbean_640x480_41447300092.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9046123
>Leave actual engineering and execution to private sphere

where the actual cost can be marked up 200% and the ultra rich can rape the taxpayers to the maximum.

thanks but no thanks

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 15:05:32 2017 No.9046190 >>9046185 >Falcon 9 is literally the cheapest LEO launch platform in history

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 15:20:07 2017 No.9046226

>>9046185

any company that marks up costs by 200% will be sooner or later undercut by a company with lower markups, and so on

no such optimizing mechanism exists for government spending, where there is zero incentive to keep costs down, and especially in the US there is a large incentive to keep the funds flowing into districts and employ as many people as possible (pork barrel)

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 15:29:43 2017 No.9046251 >>9046226 >sooner or later undercut by a company with lower markups yeah because you have soooo much competition in the spaceship making market right? your free market fantasy falls apart when its actually applied to the real world.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 15:41:23 2017 No.9046280

>>9046155
It wasn't upside-down. It was just a ballistic entry rather than a lifting entry.

Ballistic entry means it comes in passively, without use of steering thrusters. The shape of Soyuz (and other space capsules) is such that it turns itself to come in right-side-up no matter what orientation it's in initially.

Normally, thrusters are used during entry to hold it at an angle so it'll get some lift, so it comes in more gently and stay in the thinner air for longer, and also let them steer to where they want to land. Without them, it might tumble a bit at first, but soon it'll just be coming in square to the atmosphere.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 15:41:30 2017 No.9046281
File: 114 KB, 460x284, DragonMarsLanding.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9046251

even having a handful of companies competing is much better than having only one

anyway, even more important than competition is to shield the space industry from the utterly cancerous bureaucracy that is government defined requirements

politicians mandating details of how and where to build a spacecraft is what gave us the Shuttle and ongoing trainwreck that is SLS

politicians should only define very broad goals for a space program (i.e. build a space station here, land on the Moon, land on Mars) and leave the rest to actual engineers

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 15:57:28 2017 No.9046317

>>9046251
You know, it was effectively illegal to design your own launch vehicle without it being part of a government program until the early 2000s. Pretty much as soon was it became legal, we got SpaceX, and they still had to get NASA's backing and fight it out in court to be allowed to work.

Now that the barriers are down, there are lots of little start-ups working on launch vehicles. However, one of the major problems is that the government picked a winner and dumped billions of dollars in subsidies and sweetheart contracts on it. Competing with SpaceX is going to be like competing with IBM in the early days of computers. It's not just that they're good, it's that they got truckloads of government money to help them get started and grow that you're not going to get.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 16:17:30 2017 No.9046365

>>9046281
>cancerous bureaucracy that is government defined requirementspoliticians mandating details

this guy here... he drank all the republican anti-gov cool-aid. Yes, yes, kill the government and give all the money to the rich, that is the way to make America great again.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 16:30:25 2017 No.9046397
File: 1.00 MB, 2000x3000, Falcon_Heavy.3k.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9046365

I swear ignorant ideologues like you are the worst kind of people

I made a specific argument about what is wrong with US space program, this is a topic I follow quite closely for a long time and political interference is widely accepted as probably the main reason for why space industry is in such a bad shape

and then you respond with your verbal diarrhea about muh republicans, unaware of the fact that there is little difference between parties in this, in fact democrats may be arguably a bit more supportive of commercial space

get a brain moran

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 16:32:15 2017 No.9046403

>>9046155
>Soyuz can reenter upside down just fine
It cannot reenter upside down, but it's self-stabilizing. They've added a pre-reentry propulsive stabilization procedure at some point (Soyuz-TMA iirc), because they couldn't be 100% sure there's enough time for it to reorient itself before heating happens.

>>9046280
>The shape of Soyuz (and other space capsules) is such that it turns itself to come in right-side-up no matter what orientation it's in initially.
>and other space capsules
It's not true for any other capsules, only for Soyuz which is spherical. Others have a distinct failure mode for the upside down reentry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 16:34:59 2017 No.9046413 >>9046397 >I swear ignorant ideologues like you are the worst kind of people look who's talking I bet in your fantasy land of anarcho-capitalist-AnnRand-libertarians everyone would build spaceships on the open market

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 16:37:23 2017 No.9046421

>>9046280
>Normally, thrusters are used during entry to hold it at an angle so it'll get some lift
This is a common misconception. The AoA comes from the displaced center of gravity, not from thrusters. Thrusters are there only to control it along roll axis, allowing steering without constantly draining the propellant. All capsules reenter that way, basically.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 16:41:21 2017 No.9046432 >>9046190 Not true at all, GSLV is cheaper per kg

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 16:51:52 2017 No.9046465 >>9046432 Nope. GSLV cost per kg: $7,200 Falcon 9: $2,719 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 16:54:42 2017 No.9046476 File: 158 KB, 1024x1024, costs_kg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:02:36 2017 No.9046496 >>9039250 >this is what communists actually think

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:07:04 2017 No.9046508 File: 1.45 MB, 2158x1136, Laugh at you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9041200 >that it's capitalism that introduces these inefficiencies. This is what communists actually believe

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:13:25 2017 No.9046520

Why does the payload capacity even matter for the Saturn V when it was just a publicity stunt? This one will do it for real. Of course it will be more expensive and take longer.

Building rockets is hard. They probably use 128 GB RAM just for rhe CAD files.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:13:46 2017 No.9046522

>>9046403
>Soyuz which is spherical
Soyuz isn't spherical, you're thinking of Vostok. Soyuz is a "headlight shape" (like the external headlight pods on old cars).

>>9046421
>The AoA comes from the displaced center of gravity, not from thrusters. Thrusters are there only to control it along roll axis
Good point. Thanks for the correction, although I'd be surprised if they weren't also used to tune the angle of attack.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:22:49 2017 No.9046543
File: 52 KB, 750x716, 4pzxwd8zk3jy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9046508
>>9046496

SpaceX, a private company, developing the first reusable rocket and cheapest one at the same time is a direct refutation of their pet ideology

hence that autistic screeching

when ITS and New Glenn flies any justification for government rockets will crumble for good

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:23:00 2017 No.9046544 >>9046476 those falcon9 payload stats look way off

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:25:07 2017 No.9046549 >>9038232 And that, my friend's, is the fruit of shutting down Cape Canaveral. What a cost-worthy budget.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:29:17 2017 No.9046561

>>9046543
>implying that a not-for-profit government run program couldn't have done it for cheaper if they had the funds. Instead we gave the tax money to chuckle-head musk to subsidize his entire research and development at a corporation he runs for profit. And that's an example of how the free-market is awesome? wow some people are really dense.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:32:17 2017 No.9046566

>>9046476
>>9046544
Yeah, they're bullshit.

For the last one, they put together F9's top expendable LEO payload estimate with people's guesses about SpaceX cutting the price 30% for flying on a previously-flown stage. They might make that cut eventually, but they won't get that much payload, and they haven't done it yet. IIRC, they've only cut the price about 5%, but customers willing to fly on pre-flown stages also get schedule advantages, which are probably more valuable than the price cut.

For the second last one, they put together the top expendable LEO payload estimate with SpaceX's advertised price for a significantly reduced payload which allows recovery of the stage. If you look at SpaceX's price page, they specify that the advertised price only applies to <5.5 tonne payloads to GTO, but they claim F9 can carry 8.3 tonnes to GTO. You only get to use two thirds of the payload capacity at the price they claim.

Correcting for this, it's probably a bit higher than the PSLV, assuming that number isn't similarly fucked up.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:44:09 2017 No.9046596

>>9046566

>For the second last one, they put together the top expendable LEO payload estimate with SpaceX's advertised price for a significantly reduced payload which allows recovery of the stage. If you look at SpaceX's price page, they specify that the advertised price only applies to <5.5 tonne payloads to GTO, but they claim F9 can carry 8.3 tonnes to GTO. You only get to use two thirds of the payload capacity at the price they claim.

Not true. See here:

>At its 2016 launch price and at full LEO payload capacity, the Falcon 9 FT cost $1,233 per pound ($2,719/kg) for the expendable version. In comparison, at full GTO payload capacity, the Falcon 9 FT cost $3,390 per pound ($7,470/kg) for the expendable version and $5,113 per pound ($11,273/kg) for the 1st launch of the reusable version.

$62 million is for fully expendable version.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:45:12 2017 No.9046598 >>9046596 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_prices

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:52:55 2017 No.9046610 File: 31 KB, 630x405, 1448701346849.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9046432

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 17:53:58 2017 No.9046615 >>9046561 >implying that a not-for-profit government run program couldn't have done it for cheaper Well, there are major government-run space programs in China, India, Russia and the EU. Where are their reusable rockets?

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:05:28 2017 No.9046643

>>9046596
>>9046598
Wikipedia isn't a source, and no source is given for that claim.

As I previously stated, they've just divided the price SpaceX has advertised as applying only to 5.5 tonnes to GTO by the full advertised LEO payload. This is obviously invalid reasoning.

SpaceX doesn't advertise their price for expendable launch. That's a specially negotiated service.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:05:44 2017 No.9046645

>>9046615
all of them were trying to make cheaper reusable rockets long before SpaceX and either were going too slow or haven't reached breakeven

only us and ussr/russia actually did it, mostly in the form of spaceplanes (shuttle,buran,maks etc). There was also winged flyback boosters idea for Energia and Angara, which never made it past the wind tunnel testing, and reusable Fregat upper stages (IRDT program) which were also dropped. On the other side, Soyuz-U were the absolutely cheapest once without any reuse, just because they've been truly mass produced.

not to take it away from them, but SpaceX are doing what they are doing on the shoulders of giants

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:07:24 2017 No.9046649 >>9046643 >implying SpaceX PR page is a better source >That's a specially negotiated service. That's also the point, prices can differ substantially depending on the integration costs, orbital energies and the amount of gound services involved

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:14:44 2017 No.9046665

>>9046649
>>implying SpaceX PR page is a better source
Holy shit, you idiot, the wikipedia entry is based on is the same SpaceX PR page, they've just interpreted it incompetently.

The SpaceX price page says specifically that the $62 million dollar price is for up to 5.5 tonnes to GTO. On the same page, they say Falcon 9 can send 8.3 tonnes to GTO.

If you come to them and say, "Hey, I want to launc this 8 tonne satellite to GTO. How much?" they're not going to say, "Ha ha, we just put that 5.5 in there as a joke. Of course it's just $62 million no matter what the size is."

They charge extra for using more of the rocket's capacity than allows them to land the booster to reuse it, because it costs them a booster. How much more? They don't advertise it publicly, they probably negotiate it on a case-by-case basis.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:17:50 2017 No.9046671 >>9046615 One is barely a shadow of its former self due to corruption, breaking down and specificially lack of funding Other three are still playing in a sandbox

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:21:01 2017 No.9046676 >>9046665 >They don't advertise it publicly >nobody knows how much they charge >but I must be right because it was on the chart

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:21:44 2017 No.9046679

>>9046649
its all about the money. If NASA had self executed the project with the tax payer money that was instead given to SpaceX for their R&D then the same thing would have been accomplished for less money because there would be no profit margins to line Musk's pockets.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:23:54 2017 No.9046681

>>9046679
>If NASA had self executed the project with the tax payer money that was instead given to SpaceX for their R&D then the same thing would have been accomplished for less money
Except that's not true because NASA's "self-executed" projects have been a money black hole for over 40 years

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:24:36 2017 No.9046682 >>9046679 not to mention the space vehicles and all the technology that went into them would be owned by the American people for the benefit of the American people instead of owned by Musk for his sole money making benefit.

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:25:16 2017 No.9046683

>>9046676
I haven't made any specific claim about what they charge for an expendable launch, you fucking chimp, I'm just pointing out that it's certainly more than what they charge for a recoverable launch, and it's almost certainly a worse $/kg deal as well.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:26:48 2017 No.9046686 >>9046681 >Except that's not true because NASA's "self-executed" projects have been a money black hole for over 40 years This guy has the bullshit republican anti-government propaganda memorized

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:27:52 2017 No.9046688 >>9046686 Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 18:52:15 2017 No.9046743 Cost inflation hurrrrrr

Anonymous Tue Jul 18 19:04:22 2017 No.9046765

>>9039642
Bombers are more future-proof than fighters. If it flies and has open volume inside, it can be a decent bomber. All the avionics and weapon guidance equipment can be upgraded, but the airframe itself could be ancient. We could've kept the B29 if we wanted. Fighters on the other hand need their airframe to handle higher G's and higher speeds, and they need the latest stealth geometry and materials, and there are rarely upgrades to these features that could not be better done by just replacing the whole plane.

The real problem with the F35 is not the price, it IS cheaper than the planes it's replacing. The real problem is that we don't need anything filling those niches. We have only been bombing illiterate mudfarmers for the past 30 years, and will continue only bombing illiterate mudfarmers for the foreseeable future. We don't need X-Wings to kill sandniggers. We could do that just as well at a fraction of the cost by just putting bomb racks on piper cubs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 19:04:29 2017 No.9046766 >>9039748 >>9039710 3D printing is allowing us to keep old aircraft functioning for even longer time periods. What if we turn F-16s into UAVs?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 18 19:35:12 2017 No.9046831 >>9046682 >not to mention the space vehicles and all the technology that went into them would be owned by the American people for the benefit of the American people instead of owned by Musk for his sole money making benefit. /thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 02:47:24 2017 No.9047431 >>9046831 >rocket costs an order of magnitude more than a private one and is delayed by half a decade >..but at least it belongs go the Amurrican peoples hurr durr! This is why we are stuck in low orbit for 40 years and counting

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 08:00:49 2017 No.9047812 >>9047431 /thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 08:58:17 2017 No.9047862 >>9047431 >musk is shit >american people yay >rest of the world insert cricket sounds I swear that one day a crazy fucker will launch some nukes to level your shitty land populated by niggers and rednecks.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 09:45:34 2017 No.9047906

>>9047431
for some retarded reason you people forgot that publicly held and developed technology drives economic development "hugely". You would rather strangle the budget of NASA and dismantle its capabilities and divert that money to private capitalists who then own that technology/capability for profit.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 09:54:14 2017 No.9047912

>>9047906

Lets assume publicly developed technology drives economic development more than privately developed technology (a VERY dubious assumption).

The purpose of manned space program is to explore/colonize space, not to drive economic development on Earth.

So either NASA manages to develop a cheap reusable rocket in a timely manner, or it should be rightfully defunded and the money given to someone competent who can.

We will never open up the solar system if every rocket launch costs $ billion+. That entire old space paradigm does not belong into 21st century, if we want to achieve anything substantial in space.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 09:57:50 2017 No.9047918 >>9047906 >publicly held and developed technology drives economic development "hugely". sure, a pork barrel space program can drive economic growth in specific states but it wont drive space exploration, then what good is it for?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 10:00:54 2017 No.9047920 >>9046226 Not if the company has influence in the government.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 11:16:51 2017 No.9048017

>>9039748
You're ignoring the F-35s most important feature. It's avionics package blows pretty much everything else out of the water.
>>9046766
1) 3D Printed parts won't stop your wings falling off in flight due to metal fatigue.
2) We have. Its called the QF-16 and its used as a missile target.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 12:54:30 2017 No.9048157 >>9048017 >It's avionics package >It is avionics package You don't need a new airframe for new avionics.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 12:57:48 2017 No.9048164

>>9047912
>if we want to achieve anything substantial in space

implying you or the American public will be achieving anything when all the ships and technology is owned by a handful of billionaires whose only incentive is to monopolize that capability and maximize their profits from its use.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 12:59:00 2017 No.9048169 >>9048164 You're talking in circles you fucking idiot. The "corporate exploitation" space program is the largest, most advanced and most inexpensive one in the world, government programs literally can't compete

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 13:03:17 2017 No.9048176 >>9048169 >government programs literally can't compete actually no, corrupt politicians strangle the space programs budget and dismantle their capabilities and send their tax money to the private corporations who donate to their campaigns.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 13:07:12 2017 No.9048184 >>9048176 Good thing we have the government run operations in Russia and China that are building the exact same 1960s designs over and over and over and over and over and over again and they still cost tens of millions of dollars each!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 13:19:00 2017 No.9048202 >>9048184 >implying Russian and Chinese politicians are not just as corrupt if not more corrupt than American ones... is he being serious right now?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 13:20:53 2017 No.9048205 >>9048202 But you just said that governments need to be in charge instead of corporations because they're inherently less corrupt and act in public interest

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 13:25:06 2017 No.9048214 >>9048205 >governments need to be in charge instead of corporations if private corporations want to build space ships they shouldn't be using tax payer money to do it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 13:27:39 2017 No.9048224 >>9048214 What if the government is a customer that wants a satellite launched on their behalf? Last month, the Bulgarian government contracted a SpaceX launch. Are they now stealing from the Bulgarian taxpayers as well?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 14:15:09 2017 No.9048355 >>9048224 did the Bulgarian tax payers fun the research, development, and construction of the spaceX rockets? Do the American tax payers get a cut of the profits SpaceX will make from the launch? obviously no, to both.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 14:34:45 2017 No.9048401 >>9048214 Why? Money is money. If the public is dumb enough to allow politicians to redistribute the wealth then thats their problem not the ones who get to benefit from the redistribution.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 14:36:52 2017 No.9048405

>>9048355

>Do the American tax payers get a cut of the profits SpaceX will make from the launch?

American taxpayers saved $ hundreds of millions and will save $ billions of dollars by buying SpaceX services instead of throwing money down the money hole that is NASA rockets.

So American taxpayers do benefit greatly from SpaceX.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 14:38:45 2017 No.9048411 >>9048355 >did the Bulgarian tax payers fun the research, development, and construction of the spaceX rockets? All that R&D cost less than $1 billion, which is VERY cheap for a new rocket and a capsule. Taxpayer money well spent.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 14:40:21 2017 No.9048419 >>9048214 if government wants to build space ships it shouldnt be more expensive than private corporations

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 14:45:24 2017 No.9048435 >>9048419 >communism works, because government is just as good or better at everything

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 14:47:55 2017 No.9048443

>>9048435
The guy shitting up this thread is a marxist fuck stick who thinks that governments can build better spaceships than corporations but not right now because corporations corrupt governments so we won't have good spaceships until corporations are banned from existing.

It's classic "The Soviet Union failed due to capitalist sabotage, true Marxism can't happen until the entire earth is Marxist simultaneously" delusional shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 14:49:19 2017 No.9048448 File: 45 KB, 407x407, Swine Aint Mah Nigga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9043662 Stop making Socialists look bad, you massive pansyboy faggot.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 14:56:35 2017 No.9048466
File: 37 KB, 549x309, 1314947771481.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Musk spoke at ISSR&D Conference like an hour ago.

ITS is getting a bit smaller for better economy (honestly 550 tons payload was fuck huge so it makes sense).

And we may be getting a moonbase before Mars colony.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:09:48 2017 No.9048501

>>9048466
I think SpaceX has been talking almost exclusively about Mars because they want NASA to pay them for the moon. The idea has to look like it comes from NASA, from Congress, or from the President's administration.

If Musk went and laid the whole plan out, it would be his moonbase, with the government just giving money for it. This way, it can be Trump's moonbase, with SpaceX just a contractor.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:28:19 2017 No.9048544
File: 90 KB, 1024x576, MEgVf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Other tidbits from Elon:

The key to opening up the 'LEO and beyond' market is complete and rapid reusability.

Tunnels can be really good for Mars, optimizations for the red planet though. Ice mining will be important, also underground habitats for radiation shielding. Entire cities underground if you wanted to.

Inflatables?
A: On the journey there? Not really. On the surface? Yeah.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:33:37 2017 No.9048558

>>9048544
>The key to opening up the 'LEO and beyond' market is complete and rapid reusability.
This is the golden goose. Once this is down, the system almost doesn't matter

Even a modest 20 ton platform like the Falcon 9 could be your gateway to the stars if every time you launched it you only needed to put $100,000 worth of gas in it and it was ready to launch again

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:37:38 2017 No.9048566

>>9048411
>All that R&D cost less than $1 billion

tax payers fund a private company to make a product that the company sells for profit to the government.

well that's clearly a perfect example of how capitalism is supposed to work.

>>9048405
>throwing money down the money hole that is NASA rockets

non existent shoestring budgets = money hole? yeah, okay, if you say so.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:39:00 2017 No.9048571 >>9048566 >the $1 billion was a waste >but the $10 billion and counting that has been spent on SLS development with no launches yet is totally worth it guise

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:45:46 2017 No.9048584

>>9048566

>tax payers fund a private company to make a product that the company sells for profit to the government.

Taxpayers want a rocket. Taxpayers pay a company to develop the rocket and then buy launches from the company. Taxpayers are happy because they got the cheapest rocket ever and reusable on top of that.

Capitalism works. Your pet ideology is objectively wrong.

>>9048566

>non existent shoestring budgets = money hole? yeah, okay, if you say so.

SLS already cost $8 billion and is still years from flying and is not even designed to be reusable therefore is already obsolete. A huge money hole and a bottomless one to boot.

Fuck off somewhere to /pol/ and stop shitting up a science board when you dont know even basics of what you are talking about.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:47:11 2017 No.9048591
File: 161 KB, 680x620, discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted_large.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9048571
>$600 billion per year for the military is not an issue
>$10 billion over a decade for a space ship is wasteful government liberal communists being stupid

yeah, if you say so.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:49:02 2017 No.9048595 >>9048591 >throwing money into NASA in exchange for nothing is not an issue >ELON GET OUT REEEE YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SELL US THE WORLD'S CHEAPEST MOST ADVANCED ROCKETS

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:49:32 2017 No.9048597

>>9048584
>Taxpayers want a rocket. Taxpayers pay a company to develop the rocket and then buy launches from the company. Taxpayers are happy because they got the cheapest rocket ever and reusable on top of that.

so were defining Capitalism to include handing out tax money to private companies to produce stuff they turn around and sell for profit back to tax payers?

yeah... not sure about that. Sounds like some corrupt bullshit to me but whatever.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:50:47 2017 No.9048600
File: 267 KB, 1003x915, 2016-budget-chart-total-spending2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9048591
you've posted the budget for emergency budget though, thus "discretionary."

In actuality, this is the non-emergency, and therefore "normal" budget.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:52:17 2017 No.9048602 >>9048597 If these items can be produced at lower cost and higher quality than government employees doing it directly then why not?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:52:59 2017 No.9048604 >>9048600 >not knowing the definition of the discretionary spending budget poor kid, I feel bad for you.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:55:51 2017 No.9048612

>>9048597

Government using privateers is certainly more capitalist than government trying to do everything by itself. It is usually more efficient, and it certainly is more efficient when it comes to launching stuff into space. Nothing corrupt about that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:56:52 2017 No.9048617 >>9048595 >wanting to pay a private company with tax money to build stuff that we pay them tax money to buy >claiming its capitalism how old are you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:56:54 2017 No.9048618 >>9048591 >$10 billion over a decade for a space ship is wasteful government liberal communists being stupid It is wasteful as fuck when the same money could buy 10 private spaceships.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 15:58:51 2017 No.9048622 >>9048617 Jesus fuck you're not even trying to communicate an idea, are you? Just stir shit and call people stupid.

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:04:17 2017 No.9048631

>>9048411

>All that R&D cost less than $1 billion, which is VERY cheap for a new rocket and a capsule. Taxpayer money well spent.

Actually total R&D cost for Falcon 9 and was $450 million from SpaceX own pockets and $396 million from NASA. This is ridiculously cheap for a new rocket.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:09:05 2017 No.9048641 >>9048622 >seriously guys we want to give our tax money to private companies to patent, copyright, and monopolize all the technology and production access for space flight. what could possibly go wrong...

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:11:57 2017 No.9048646 >>9038771 >>9039405 >>9048176 >>9048597 >b-but m-muh tax moneys crymoar, Deadbeat

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:12:09 2017 No.9048648 >>9048641 >monopolize They've broken ULA's monopoly and are delivering results for 20% of the cost

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:18:41 2017 No.9048655 >>9048646 caring about what my tax money gets spent on >deadbeat you, sir, are not so bright are you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:20:21 2017 No.9048659 >>9048648 heavily tax payer subsidized R&D and construction of rockets >delivering results for 20% of the cost you, sir, are not so bright are you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:34:09 2017 No.9048680 How many Mars colonists will hang themselves after the novelty wears off?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:34:20 2017 No.9048681 >>9048659 My son, you can put this 20 ton satellite into orbit. You have two choices. $250 million NASA rocket Or $62 million SpaceX rocket Which do you choose?

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:38:16 2017 No.9048690

>>9048659
>>delivering results for 20% of the cost
>you, sir, are not so bright are you?
They are, though.

See, the ULA rockets were heavily subsidized not only in their development, but in their operations. Where, after development, SpaceX is just charging the government a flat price, ULA is charging the government a price per launch and also getting about a billion dollars per year on the side.

What SpaceX is offering for ~$60 million, ULA has been taking ~$300 million for.

On top of that, SpaceX's prices should keep on dropping as their reusability matures. They've talked about eventually doing satellite launches for ~$10 million.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:39:44 2017 No.9048694 >>9048681 >not mentioning the tax payer money invested up front to make the SpaceX price cheaper >literally nothing stopping the private company from charging $249 million since that's still cheaper than NASA

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:40:55 2017 No.9048699 at this point the thread is being trolled guys

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:43:16 2017 No.9048703 >>9048699 >seriously I believe out of the goodness of his heart the private for profit corporation will charge as little as possible for their product then their only competition is four times more expensive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:49:23 2017 No.9048718 >>9048703 But... They are? Right now?

Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:51:58 2017 No.9048725

>>9048703
When there is competition, and your costs are much lower, you don't want to just bid under the competition by $1. You want your price to be so much lower that people look like idiots or crooks and get fired for choosing your competition, especially when your competition is selling to the government and they have lobbyists.

At a certain point, the competition becomes irrelevant, and you lower prices to raise volume.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 16:52:10 2017 No.9048728 >>9048718 hypothetical lowest possible price ≠ the price any for profit company ever charges

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 19 17:45:42 2017 No.9048811 >>9048466 How much smaller?

Anonymous Thu Jul 20 07:06:06 2017 No.9050111

>>9045773

No, it's because Negros refuse to work.

Instead of making nuts and bolts, they'll stay at home and live off the taxpayer. Trillions wasted, as almost all of them can work.

It's no secret that this killed the US space program.

You can have good space + welfare, good space + war; you can't have war + welfare + good space.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 20 07:22:38 2017 No.9050123 >>9048811 quote: "a little bit smaller" we dont know the specific figure yet

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 20 10:22:01 2017 No.9050349 File: 123 KB, 677x547, discretionary.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9050111 so you're pretty convinced everything Rush Limbaugh says is the truth aren't you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 20 10:27:23 2017 No.9050357 >>9050111 Then remove war. Making use of the US military budget would solve most issues related to wealth inequality and even have plenty left for a real space program.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 20 10:48:27 2017 No.9050383 >>9050349 Why are you posting a chart that only includes $1.1 trillion of the $4.2 trillion federal budget?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 20 10:50:33 2017 No.9050389 >>9050383 if you knew what the discretionary budget is you wouldn't ask that question.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 20 10:54:00 2017 No.9050393 File: 10 KB, 1200x871, LUjvsbg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9050389 But it skews the shit out of the chart if you don't reflect the other $3.1 trillion, you're essentially doing this

Anonymous Thu Jul 20 11:01:32 2017 No.9050400

>>9050393
lets say you make $4000 a month, and your bills each month are $3500. the $500 you have left over is your discretionary spending money. The government has commitments to pay for things every year too, debt service, veterans benefits, social security, and whatever else it agreed to pay for on an ongoing basis. There, hope you're happy that I wasted my time to explain something to you that you're shitty high school civics teacher should have told you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 20 11:04:09 2017 No.9050404 >>9050400 my bad veteran's benefits isn't part of the non-discretionary budget because the government considers those payouts each year to be an optional expense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 20 11:14:31 2017 No.9050425 >>9050400 >we have to keep paying welfare to shitskins, it's MANDATORY SPENDING >lmao we don't need a military tho really makes me think

Anonymous Thu Jul 20 11:39:11 2017 No.9050458
File: 141 KB, 1834x917, exploration.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9050425
food stamps for poor people to not starve to death is 80 billion per year. I think we can handle that. 47.6 million American live in poverty and receive money to buy food, that's 14.7 percent of the population. we give oil companies more free cash than that every year and they are literally the most profitable businesses on the planet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 20 13:11:55 2017 No.9050578 >>9041362 Very poor taste

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math