SpaceX ZUMA Launch Thread - 0100-0300 GMT on 16th (8:00-10:00 p.m. EST on 15th)

[Anonymous No.9297058]

Welcome!
This is the launch thread for the SpaceX Falcon 9 Launch of the super-secret Northrop Grumman-built payload "ZUMA".

Launch will be at: November 15th 2017, 20:00 - 22:00 EST (November 16th 2017, 01:00 - 03:00 UTC)

This launch is from LC-39A at the Cape. it is a LEO, 51.6º inclination launch. There will be a 1st stage landing at LZ-1. Launch weather is currently 70% GO http://www.patrick.af.mil/Portals/14/documents/Weather/L-1%20Forecast%2015%20Nov%20Launch.pdf..

Little is known about this payload. However, as the core it is flying on was going to be for CRS-13, it must have been a very quick turnaround between the procurement of a launch provider (SpaceX) and the planned launch date, as they "stole" NASA's core.
More details: "Northrop Grumman on #SpaceX Zuma launch: "This represents a cost effective approach to space access for government missions. Northrop realizes that this is monumental responsibility and has taken great care to ensure the most affordable and lowest risk scenario for Zuma."" (https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/930211593014652934))


In the meantime, here's a new video from SpaceX about their McGregor facilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXYh4re0j8M

[Anonymous No.9297084]

>>9297058
memes till T-0

[Anonymous No.9297186]

don't forget to check http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2017/index.html
for observations of the final orbit of ZUMA.

[Anonymous No.9297270]

HO HO HA HA HEH HO HA AHA

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/879619/nibiru-news-spacex-launch-falcon-9-zuma-planet-x-research-probe-elon-musk

lmao

[Anonymous No.9297864]

Update:

SpaceX has announced a one-day delay in the next Falcon 9 launch from the Kennedy Space Center. Liftoff of the Falcon 9 rocket is now targeted for Thursday at 8 p.m. EST (0100 GMT Friday) with the top secret Zuma payload for the U.S. government. https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/11/15/falcon-9-zuma-mission-status-center/

[Anonymous No.9298039]

>it blew up
hahahaha holy fuck it's over muskfags

[Anonymous No.9298119]

>>9298039
Shoo shoo Bezos

[Anonymous No.9298535]

>>9298039

[Anonymous No.9298574]

>>9298535
Blue Origin's engine is up to scale and outperforms anything SX can make. It also didn't explode on a test stand few days ago.

[Anonymous No.9298579]

>>9298574
Jeff pls go.

[Anonymous No.9298581]

>>9298574
lol, you ate Bezos's fake news right up didn't you? The WAPO article about the test stand failure is FUD.

The failure occurred during a LOX drop with GSE. NOT during an actual firing.

[Anonymous No.9298585]

some info on what ZUMA might be. Eagle-3 based sat?

http://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-zuma/zuma/

[Anonymous No.9298588]

>>9298574
>It also didn't explode on a test stand few days ago.
yeah it exploded a few weeks ago


so what the hell is this zuma thing?
https://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-zuma/zuma/

https://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/catalog/Eagle.pdf

[Anonymous No.9298772]

Does this thread attract redditors?

[Anonymous No.9298777]

What is going to be the biggest launch disaster that day? This one or the Tesla truck?

[Anonymous No.9298779]

>live in 26 hours
https://youtu.be/OPHbqY9LHCs

Damn it, guess I had the date wrong.

[Anonymous No.9298783]

>>9298574
>It also didn't explode on a test stand few days ago.

I'd rather have it explode during a test. That is why you test things after all. There are no failed tests, just data results regardless of what happens.

[Anonymous No.9298789]

>>9298779
it was delayed 24 hours.

[Anonymous No.9298893]

press kit http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/zumapresskit.pdf

[Anonymous No.9298956]

>24 hours to go

[Anonymous No.9298998]

>>9297058
who owns this thing? wouldnt a $60+ million launch contract + manufacturing costs show up on someone's budget?

[Anonymous No.9299006]

>>9298956
go home pete

[Anonymous No.9299015]

>>9299006
No

[Anonymous No.9299109]

>>9298998
Hah. Hahah.

It’s very easy to hide secret projects in the budget. For instance, the NR-1. Also, for orgs like the NRO, they just don’t release the breakdown of the budget.

But this isn’t operated by the NRO...

[Anonymous No.9299323]

MECO is at 2:16. Holy shit

[Anonymous No.9299897]

>10 hours to go

[Anonymous No.9299992]

>>9298588
Lol try harder Bezos...

https://www.universetoday.com/137802/despite-merlin-engine-testing-anomaly-spacex-forges-ahead-with-ambitious-year-end-launch-schedule-commencing-nov-15/

[Anonymous No.9300014]

So how's that big mars rocket thing going? I heard it lost a lot of weight.

[Anonymous No.9300167]

Just under 7 hours to go!

[Anonymous No.9300226]

scrubbed again according to some guy at ksc

[Anonymous No.9300240]

we need gender equality in space

Space is hard therefore women who can't handle the slightest hardship need to be hired in large numbers, also unattractive men should be killed for hitting on an attractive woman.

[Anonymous No.9300332]

The launch has been delayed 24 hours, likely because of bad weather.

https://mobile.twitter.com/45thSpaceWing/status/931235561087610880

[Anonymous No.9300372]

>>9297058
this could probably fit on an Antares vehicle

think that would be cheaper than a Falcon 9 flight?

[Anonymous No.9300425]

>>9300372
No, because it's not reusable. If it was Orbital ATK wouldn't be charging 100 million dollars more than SpaceX to launch satellites; that's why SpaceX is such a big deal in the space industry, their undercutting the competition massively.

[Anonymous No.9300430]

they're
fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.9300446]

>>9300240
Her/his post is very reasonable and I don't see how anyone could disagree.
It is extremely important to understand that we are standing right before probably the biggest opportunity in humanity's existence.
This is because we will not have another chance to establish a human society free from millennia of history and conflict - at least until we really do leave for the stars, if ever.
Letting such a once in a species' lifetime chance go is utterly irresponsible in light of how difficult social progress has been and how it all can seemingly disappear over night reverting to some morbid past.
Eventually, and probably sooner than anyone expect, all this will have to be seriously taken into consideration all across the world and I'm sure there will be much arguing and emotion involved.
Responsible thinking should prevail, and I certainly hope it will, so that even if Earth's problems are never solved, then at least the children of the future living beyond it can enjoy a better and brighter societies unburdened by humanity's dark side.

[Anonymous No.9300501]

>>9300446
You don't have the slightest idea what "responsible thinking" even is
At the end of the day, all you are is a fool and a coward.
You think you can just run away from problems to space, as if human nature will magically change up there
But you will destroy that society too with your cowardice & marxist thinking.

[Anonymous No.9300610]

>>9300425
this is mainly to test SpaceX's ability to launch on short notice, though.

Northrop signed the contract with spaceX for this launch in 2015, but without a date. In October Northrop said "this must launch in November".

It's a big FU to ULA's whole quick-launch thing

[Anonymous No.9300696]

Greetings from Puławy, Poland.
It's 00:28 in here.
Getting sleepy but waiting.

So space lazors or what?

[Anonymous No.9300742]

>>9300610
>It's a big FU to ULA's whole quick-launch thing
i wonder if northrop grumman could do it on this kind of notice and as cheaply as spacex in the future with orbital atk fully integrated

or will they just shitcan orbitals' liquid rockets

[Anonymous No.9300748]

obligatory pasta

His engines are ready, clamps weak, fuel is heavy
There's icing on his panels already, Elon's spaghetti
He's nervous, but on the surface he looks calm and ready to lift off
But he keeps on forgetting, when he'll touch down
The launch pad goes so loud
He opens his valves, but the thrust won't come out
He's choking how, ULA's joking now
The clock's run out, time's up, over, blaow!
Snap back to reality. Oh, there pulls gravity
Oh, there goes Falcon, he choked
He's so bad, but he won't give up that
Easy, no
He won't orbit, he knows his whole back's to these loads
It don't matter, he'll cope
He knows that but he's broke
He's so sad that he knows
When he goes back to his mobile pad, that's when it's
Back to the VAB again

[Anonymous No.9300783]

>>9300748
You might also like

[Anonymous No.9300845]

Delayed

[Anonymous No.9300854]

What happened this time? I'm here damn it!!!

[Anonymous No.9300864]

SpaceX has issued a statement on the launch delay:

“We have decided to stand down and take a closer look at data from recent fairing testing for another customer. Though we have preserved the range opportunity for tomorrow, we will take the time we need to complete the data review and will then confirm a new launch date.”

[Anonymous No.9300939]

must suck being a fairing engineer. Sure, if a mission fails because of an engine kaboom or a structural failure it's like 'eh, yeah that's a possibility' but if the fairing fails to open everyone's like YOU HAD ONE FUCKING JOB GGAAAAAHHHHH

[Anonymous No.9301156]

any good theories on what the Zuma spacecraft will be used for. it's noted that the satellite bus it is using is high end, capable of high maneuverability.

i saw this theory on ars and it seemed plausible:
>My wild speculation, based on the LEO flight profile and the launch azimuth revealed by the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) filed, in addition to the highly responsive scheduling of the launch, is that ZUMA is to operate in conjunction with the X-37B OTV-5 spaceplane launched in September.

>I'll further speculate, based on US military space priorities and the involvement of Northrop Grumman (known for advanced radar technology), that ZUMA will play the role of an adversary military satellite to be engaged by experimental satellite surveillance sensors which could be carried by X-37B. In other words, ZUMA may be a toy for the baby shuttle to play with on orbit.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/spacex-to-launch-a-secret-but-significant-payload-thursday/?comments=1&post=34343139

if anyone is interested in military/national security space then Zuma is a really interesting development. everyone thought it would be an NRO spacecraft but after they denied it then it was highly likely that it would be a USAF spacecraft. there's been a ton things happening in the space areas of the USAF.

[Anonymous No.9301269]

>>9300014

150 tons to LEO in fully reusable mode. It's a lot smaller than the old idea, but it's still going to be way bigger than anything else ever built by a large margin.

[Anonymous No.9301323]

>>9301269
tons to orbit will be irrelevant anyways once the price to launch again goes down. Who cares if your 600t station takes 30 launches to assemble if the launches are 30,000x cheaper?


just a thought.

[Anonymous No.9301337]

Because if it takes 30 launches to assemble, you need to break it up into little bits, meaning your station is full of dead weight and weak points. It's not just weight, it's volume, a bigger rocket can carry up bigger modules with more space to float around.

[Anonymous No.9301341]

>>9301337
true, that's all legitimate. If bigelow gets off his ass that size issue might not matter as much. Still, even if we can launch bigger things, we're just then going to make the sections of a station as big as can fit, and assemble it from there. The size of the assembled pieces is just going to he dependent on the LV

[Anonymous No.9302121]

[Anonymous No.9302380]

>>9299323
>MECO is at 2:16. Holy shit
so? whats the meanign of this

[Anonymous No.9302440]

>launch delayed again, this time indefinitely
*inhales*

[Anonymous No.9302742]

>>9302380
means it's a super light payload

[Anonymous No.9303082]

>>9302440
why arent space launches more robust? icbm's can launch at any time in any weather but space launches will get rekt by even the slightest gust of wind.

[Anonymous No.9303149]

>>9303082
>icbm
those are solids and can launch any time

i guess they don't care about maxq (no sensitive payload) and always have the same arc

[Anonymous No.9303253]

>>9303082
>>9303149
Also they're not concerned about losing the vehicle.

If you're launching an ICBM it's already a do or die scenario. The missile has to launch NOW whether it fails or not.
For test launches of course they do take weather and such into consideration.

If you're launching a commercial or exploration rocket then losing a vehicle is a huge setback, so it's better to just wait and make sure everything is right. Most launches that get scrubbed probably could have launched without a problem, but they scrub them out of an abundance of caution.

[Anonymous No.9303473]

>>9303149
its also that a suborbital flight is a lot less delta-v needed
robustly built solid fueled rocket too

[Anonymous No.9303488]

I bet the ZUMA is actually JWST.

[Anonymous No.9303680]

>>9303253
>launching a commercial or exploration rocket then losing a vehicle is a huge setback

Wow, those spacex millenials really know nothing.
Even with your favourite meme launcher, losing the rocket on commercial or exploration launches is still the regular case. Do you even know how many rockets launch per year from this planet compared to what SpaceX does?

[Anonymous No.9303690]

>>9303680
I mean losing the entire vehicle due to a failure, including the payload.

[Anonymous No.9304037]

>>9302742
ok whats the meaning of that? they could try to bring back the 2nd stage? satellite could go waay out?

[Anonymous No.9304221]

>>9303680

[Anonymous No.9304254]

>>9304221
tfw russia

[Anonymous No.9304259]

>>9304037
1st stage is still returning to the pad iirc, so it's not going any further than usual. Just means they'll be running it at lower thrust, most likely because of a lighter than usual payload.
Normally they cram as much as they can into the payload to make the most money, but this is a seekrit military launch so they're probably only carrying one satellite which may be light but high priority.

[Anonymous No.9304261]

>>9304254
Russia still has designs and high quality engines that are decades ahead of anything in the us or china.

[Anonymous No.9304262]

>>9304261
muh Raptor

[Anonymous No.9304285]

>>9304261
That's nonsense. What Russia has is old Soviet designs (reliable because they're old) and cheap labor.

Lockheed Martin bullshitted like hell (and ULA continued their line of bullshit) about the superiority of Soviet engine technology in order to justify access to that cheap labor, which is how they made Atlas V less expensive than Delta IV. The government made them prove they had the option of building the same engines in the USA before letting them depend on a foreign supplier for a rocket with national security missions. When the US government fell out with Russia and wanted ULA to stop importing engines, ULA came out and has made it clear that they prefer *absolutely anything else* to building the Russian engine design with US labor costs.

It was never a better engine than what the US could make. It was adequate and the dysfunctionality of the Russian economy made it cheap.

>>9303488
>I bet the ZUMA is actually JWST.
It's a load of nukes for a first strike on North Korea.

[Anonymous No.9304355]

>>9304285
>It was adequate and the dysfunctionality of the Russian economy made it cheap.
its amazing what comes out of their industry considering the drunken corruption and drunken manufacturing

[Anonymous No.9305813]

Zuma's back in the hangar. wonder if they'll swap the fairing out

[Anonymous No.9306409]

what was it with the fairing?

[Anonymous No.9306806]

>>9304254
>hitting a screw with a hammer
No wonder their rockets end up in ponds.

[Anonymous No.9306932]

>ChadX on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.9307152]

>>9306932
They call them Virgin because they can never get their rocket up.

[Anonymous No.9307700]

>>9306932

[Anonymous No.9308016]

>falcon heavy will launch this yea-
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

[Anonymous No.9308087]

>>9301323

Splitting a station into 30 pieces would make it more expensive than launching it in three pieces ten times the size. BFR is the best of both worlds, by being both the biggest and the cheapest option by far.

[Anonymous No.9308090]

>>9308016
>new glenn

obsolete on arrival due to BFR

[Anonymous No.9308092]

>>9308090
>BFR
>happening in the next 15 years
HA

[Anonymous No.9308111]

>>9308092
>SpaceX
>only took 3 years to develop the F9
>Now, they've already purchased major tooling for the BFR
>doubting they can do it in 3 years, now that they have 4x the employees and 10000000x the experience

lmao

2 cents has been deposited into your Amazon wallet

[Anonymous No.9308115]

>>9308087
Thats not true
If you had people able to live & work in space, then you would assemble it there easily
Look at how houses or buildings are built

It's not assembling 100 million dollar custom built modular habs, its building from parts.

[Anonymous No.9308116]

>>9308111
>took six years to develop falcon 9
>took ten years to develop falcon heavy
>WE'LL BE FLYING THE LARGEST ROCKET EVER MADE IN 3 YEARS GUYS

[Anonymous No.9308120]

>>9308092
bezos pls go

[Anonymous No.9308129]

>>9308116
FH was NEVER a priority once F9 got it's first string of improvements. Once the FH manifest moved over to F9FT, it was put way back on the back burner.

[Anonymous No.9308132]

>>9308129
by your logic BFR isn't a priority because they can already launch all existing missions using F9 and FH you stupid nigger

[Anonymous No.9308140]

>>9308092

>company that was founded in 2002, currently has over 6,000 employees, has developed a capsule and two orbital rockets so far, has a third rocket in the pipeline waiting for pad readiness, has a second capsule in development that will take humans to the ISS and tourists around the Moon, has recovered and re-flown boosters multiple times, is currently perfecting stage landing and recovery, and wants to build a new and larger rocket using new engines they're already deep into developing
>"lol ur crazy if you think BFR will happen before 2140, go back to zucking musks digg XD"

>company that was founded in 2000, currently has 1000 employees, developed one suborbital rocket that has flown and landed a handful of times, is developing a capsule meant for 'muh suborbital tourism' meme, uses the worst vehicle naming scheme of all time, wants to make what is essentially a scaled up Falcon 9 that uses LNG instead of kerosene but doesn't do return-to-launch-site landings and thus will never be fast to recover
>"Blue Origin is the future guys, they are going to revolutionize space transport and will not miss even one of their development timeline goals"

Hide B.O. shill threads, ignore B.O. shill posts, do not reply to B.O. shillposters

[Anonymous No.9308143]

>>9308132
>the point of SpaceX is to go to Mars
>BFR lets you go to Mars
>isn't a priority

ok Bezos I know it's you, shoo shoo

[Anonymous No.9308145]

>>9308132
BFR is the whole purpose of the company and their money flow problems are more or less gone, they are in no danger of going bankrupt anymore.

Nor is the BFR waiting on the Falcon program to move forward

[Anonymous No.9308149]

>>9308145
FH was never waiting for the Falcon program to move forward
2/3 of the first FH cores were built in 2015
TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

SpaceX is even slower than fucking SLS

>>9308143
>money pits are a priority

>>9308140
>spacex launch thread
>"Hide B.O. shill threads"
ok

[Anonymous No.9308151]

>>9308115

We won't be actually building in space for a long time. It's incredibly difficult to do so. Assembly is what is feasible for now, and assembly with the biggest possible modules means the simplest possible vehicles and stations.

Once building things in space is feasible then raw material transport will start, but we're still going to be using light materials because you get the most structure per dollar spent on launch costs.

The only time building really big things in space out of really heavy stuff like steel will start to happen is if we can get chunks of NEOs maneuvered into Earth orbit somewhere.

[Anonymous No.9308154]

>>9308149
I'm not even going to try and have a argument with you, just fuck off

every single spacex thread has you fucking BO shills in it. See you on mars, tough guy

[Anonymous No.9308155]

>>9308132
Wrong, because while Falcon heavy doesn't cost SpaceX considerably less to launch and operate, BFR actually does.

Specifically, the fellows down at SpaceX are targeting a price point on BFR that would make it cost SpaceX 10x less to launch than a Falcon 9. That means they can cut their launch price in half and still make more money than they do now launching Falcon 9 if they switched everything over to BFR.

[Anonymous No.9308161]

>>9308155
BFR is 10 times larger than F9 there is NO WAY that it will ever be as cheap as F9 to launch
>b-but muh full reuse!
Falcon 9 costs 40 million to build and 20 million to fly operationally. BFR will never beat that 20 million per flight operational cost. F9 S2 is only 13 million so it will always have a price advantage

[Anonymous No.9308167]

>>9308149
>2/3 of the first FH cores were built in 2015
>TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN
ya and they were torn down and rebuilt until early/mid 2017, because those cores required massive modifications in order to be able to fly in the Heavy configuration. Now that they know how to build them, they can dedicate actual production to making cores from scratch that are meant for heavy.

>SpaceX is even slower than fucking SLS

lol nothing is slower than SLS, except maybe JWST

>money pits are a priority
>calling a vehicle 10x cheaper to fly compared to their current fleet a money pit

Even if BFR costs the same to launch as a Falcon 9 it would still make sense to build as it would be able to launch ANY payload the industry would reasonably produce in the next 15-20 years. The fact that it should cost LESS than F9 makes it a no-brainer. The whole going to Mars thing is just something you can use BFR for, just like launching big telescopes, going to the Moon, and building a constellation of several thousand internet satellites are.

[Anonymous No.9308172]

>>9308155
they'll probably cut it more than half. The amount of crap that people want to launch for 50 bucks per kg is wayyy more than for 500. Economics, yo

[Anonymous No.9308173]

>>9308167
>lol nothing is slower than SLS, except maybe JWST
first flight was 2016, now it's 2020

first FH flight was 2010, now it's 2018

>calling a vehicle 10x cheaper to fly compared to their current fleet a money pit
prove that it will be 10x cheaper to fly

[Anonymous No.9308175]

>>9308161
>20 million to fly operationally

Nah, that's so that SpaceX makes money on the launch. Otherwise they're at zero net positive cash flow, which doesn't make good business. Most of that money goes to R&D anyway.

>BFR is 10 times larger than F9

A 747 is larger than a Cessna. Flying a reusable 747 is cheaper than flying an expendable Cessna. Size is irrelevant unless both vehicles are totally reusable. Obviously if Falcon 9 was fully reusable it would cost less to launch than fully reusable BFR, but it isn't. Also, if it were, it wouldn't be able to carry the majority of commercial payloads and wouldn't make any money, so it won't ever be fully reusable. That's one reason why BFR needs to be big.

[Anonymous No.9308177]

>>9308175
soyuz is cheaper than falcon 9 and fully expendable

[Anonymous No.9308180]

>>9308177
>what are Russian salaries
>what are government subsidies
>also, you know, 22,800 kg to LEO vs 8,200 kg

[Anonymous No.9308182]

>>9308172
Eventually yeah but just like Falcon 9 they want to make some money back before the rest of the market catches up. When a reused Falcon 9 goes up there's a discount of more than $10 million, but Gwynn says those flights are actually more profitable than the more expensive brand new booster flights. SpaceX is passing some, but not all of the savings on to the customer.

I wouldn't be surprised if the first BFR flights cost the customer $40 million while costing SpaceX $6 million. After all they'll want to pay off BFR R&D cost plus make enough money to build a bunch more BFRs. It's not like anybody will sneeze at $50 million for 150 tons to LEO.

[Anonymous No.9308183]

>>9308180
>get BTFO
>move the goalpsots
bravo

[Anonymous No.9308185]

>>9308173
>prove that it will be 10x cheaper to fly

SpaceX said so :)

But seriously, that's what they're targeting. $6 million per flight. If SpaceX didn't think BFR will be cheaper than Falcon 9 then they wouldn't announce that they're going to drop the entire Falcon family of rockets once BFR is flying. At the very least the price would have to be very comparable.

[Anonymous No.9308186]

>>9308183
??????

>>9308182
depends also if they get government bucks for BFR dev. Air Force looks like they want it for the EELV/whatever program. Plus the DOD, perhaps

that could effect pricing.

http://spacenews.com/spacex-expects-government-support-for-development-of-bfr-launch-system/

[Anonymous No.9308187]

>>9308177

Yeah and Electron is only going to cost $5 million per flight. Too bad you can barely get a ton into orbit with the thing.

BFR is interesting because it's so much cheaper than other launch vehicles while actually out performing them in terms of capacity.

>>9308183
>implying you didn't just miss the net entirely

[Anonymous No.9308192]

>>9308185
>>9308187
>But seriously, that's what they're targeting. $6 million per flight.
that's nice honey
call me back when they sell bfr launches for $6 mil

>>9308186
they're going to miss their deadline for the Zuma launch
say bye bye juicy future DOD contracts :)

[Anonymous No.9308195]

>>9308186

I think it'd affect the timeline more than pricing. More money now would mean BFR sooner, but it's not like the market is going to suddenly come up with a tenfold increase in payloads, and in the mean time SpaceX has bills and salaries to pay. Slower launch rate = higher price, but as the market catches up the price will continue to plummet.

Eventually someone will want a Moon base and is going to want to make use of the launch cadence capability of BFR. One really nice thing about high annual mass launch rate is you can make significant progress on building a Lunar outpost in a single year, providing simple payloads, and making it cheap means more people are more likely to go for that.

Imagine the normal program flip-flopping that happens when a new president is elected, except in those 4-8 years we actually accomplished something every time.

[Anonymous No.9308197]

>>9308192
>call me back when they sell bfr launches for $6 mil
but anon, you'd have already killed yourself from butthurt by then

[Anonymous No.9308199]

>>9308192
>say bye bye juicy future DOD contracts :)

that's it, RIP in piece SpaceX, musk is a fraud it's all over

[Anonymous No.9308216]

>>9308199
man, sometimes I wish spaceX was publicly traded just so I could laugh myself to death with the seekingalpha articles about $SPX that would be written

>>9308195
Pence met with Elon not too long ago. I bet we'll hear something on the moon front pretty soon.

[Anonymous No.9308278]

>>9308216

I used to think 'Mars first' but what I now realize is that I actually want Mars-capable vehicles that can go to both destinations.

It'd be a waste of time in my book to go to all the trouble of developing a minimalist architecture for Moon missions, do the actual Moon missions, then develop a new architecture for Mars and start doing Mars missions. Not only would that take way longer, it'd be way more expensive and would pretty much preclude any Mars missions from actually happening.

SpaceX is smart to have gone the route of doing a vehicle designed for Mars, because it inherently has the capability to go to the Moon as well. As much as I see Mars missions as being cooler and more scientifically valuable, Moon missions are just so much faster that I wouldn't pass them up. Especially considering that a full Moon landing and return mission with a BFR wouldn't cost more than $100 million, with the refueling tankers and all supplies accounted for. Depending on the cargo that cost may go up, but that's on the customer.

[Anonymous No.9308282]

>>9308151
> It's incredibly difficult to do so.
I'm not sure why you say that
Send a welder up there to do some welding, whats the big issue?
Obviously we need something better than the space suits designed in the 60's, something easier to work in
Obviously you need cheap launch so you can casually send people up there after a couple weeks bootcamp

But otherwise its not super hard

Really, stuff like this is essential for any serious space station

[Anonymous No.9308286]

>>9308278
depends if they figure out that moonproofing the BFR from moondust would be too much of a engineering issue compared to just making it ready for mars. moondust is pretty horrible stuff

[Anonymous No.9308296]

>>9308282
>I'm not sure why you say that

Zero G plus vacuum changes everything. I've not seen any proposal for in-space construction that doesn't involve very significant hand-waving.

[Anonymous No.9308303]

>>9308286

Moon dust is pretty shit for things with moving parts, like rovers. However, a BFR pretty much just sits there after it lands, so as long as they can control dust in the airlock and cargo bay they should be fine.

[Anonymous No.9308388]

>>9308296
It's a different environment that will require new techniques & special training, yes
But that doesn't change everything, if anything certain things are cheaper/easier in zero g + vacuum.

[Anonymous No.9308396]

>>9308286
>moondust is pretty horrible stuff

All you need to do is microwave it.

https://www.space.com/2079-solving-settlement-problems-dealing-moon-dust.html

>However, the experiment he described at LEAG involved transforming Moon dust: He once put a small pile of lunar soil brought back by Apollo astronauts into a microwave oven. Taylor found that it melted rapidly, within 30 sec, at only 250 W.

>The reason it melted so quickly has to do with its composition. Lunar regolith, or soil, is produced when micrometeorites plow into lunar rocks and sand at high-impact velocities, melting and creating glass. The glass contains nanometer-scale beads of pure iron--so-called "nanophase" iron. Those tiny iron beads efficiently concentrate microwave energy, causing the beads to "sinter," or fuse the loose soils into large clumps.

[Anonymous No.9308445]

>>9308396

That won't stop dust being levitated by static electricity and settling from other parts of the Moon onto your vehicles and machinery. You'd have to pave the entire Moon to stop this form happening.

[Anonymous No.9308450]

>>9308445
>you can't land on the moon because its dusty
>hurrrrr
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.9308458]

>>9308445
Don't forget cosmic dust and meteor showers.

Might not be a problem for short stays, but any kind of permanent installation on the surface is going to be slowly sandblasted.

[Anonymous No.9308480]

>>9308445
>That won't stop dust being levitated by static electricity and settling from other parts of the Moon onto your vehicles and machinery.

The light cloud of dust from micrometeorite impacts will gradually create particulate erosion of surfaces and materials, but at geological time scales. I haven't seen evidence of electric forces being a significant distributor of moon dust, but I suppose it's not impossible. It remains that you can "pave" high traffic areas to reduce the rate of moon dust accumulation in space suits and equipment.

[Anonymous No.9308488]

>>9308480
>The light cloud of dust from micrometeorite impacts will gradually create particulate erosion of surfaces and materials, but at geological time scales.

The problem isn't dust landing on structures, its dust landing on machinery and getting into joints/bearings, where it can act as a strong abrasive.

>>9308450
>implying I said any of this

Moon dust is not a show stopper, it's a challenge to think about.

[Anonymous No.9308532]

>>9308445
u just microwave the air ezepz

[Anonymous No.9308540]

"I have hair and money. This is only the beginning."
- Elon Musk

[Anonymous No.9308554]

>>9308116
Strapping more boosters on isn't as easy as just making a bigger booster.

That is why BFR is a bigger booster instead of just 3 falcon heavies

[Anonymous No.9308563]

>>9308554
The big slowdown in Falcon Heavy development and deployment was figuring out how to make the base Falcon 9 good enough to use in a Heavy configuration. Engineering the vehicle around obsolete specifications is a waste of time and production resources.

[Anonymous No.9308566]

>>9308540
I heard a rumor he has no hair on his ballsack

[Anonymous No.9308659]

here watch some talks on moon exploration whats planned
http://isunet.edu/faculty/228-is

[Anonymous No.9309107]

Can't wait for based bezos to kill off the meme that is spacex

Maybe he'll show mercy and buy the company before it goes bankrupt

[Anonymous No.9309115]

>inb4 the sat is put on the SLS just to get it up there faster
SUICIDE WATCH

[Anonymous No.9309609]

>>9309107

[Anonymous No.9309767]

>>9309609
Spacex is hemorrhaging money and broke Elon has zero liquidity.

Meanwhile Blue Origin got the world's richest man pumping funds for a superior operation that doesn't depend on cheap PR tricks to bump worthless stocks.

[Anonymous No.9310197]

>>9309767
Nice claims, but can you back them up?

[Anonymous No.9310653]

>>9310197
spacex losing money
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/05/how-profitable-is-spacex-really.aspx

tesla losing money
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/02/tesla-second-quarter-earnings-2017.html

elon is loaning hundreds of millions (maybe billions) using his companies which are turning no profit as collateral
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-16/musk-borrows-more-from-tesla-underwriters-as-company-adds-debt

The reason why SpaceX is ahead on actual launches is because they are under time pressure. They need rockets flying as proof of concept to push stock value, trying to turn some revenue. Which is also why their shit keeps blowing up.

Blue Origin has access to the bottomless pockets of the richest man in the world, meaning that they can take their time and get things right the first time around - there's no pressure to launch rockets before everything is worked through. SpaceX simply can't afford this approach.

[Anonymous No.9310876]

>SLS pushed back yet again

[Anonymous No.9311121]

>>9310653
>push stock value

SpaceX is not a publicly traded company, senpai. Share prices aren't relevant.

[Anonymous No.9311268]

>>9310876

Shitty Launch System lol

[Anonymous No.9311280]

>>9311268
don't be silly, its called the Shelby Launch System or generally Senate Launch System

[Anonymous No.9311307]

orion isnt that bad desu

[Anonymous No.9311357]

I'm a psychiatric nurse who will be taking a ton of physical health, neurological and prescribing courses over the next few years, so that I'll be licensed to prescribe medication, do a range of therapies and diagnose mental illnesses independently. I'll have tons of experience working in very high pressure, high danger environments with an emphasis on professionalism and thoroughness. I'm also highly skilled in audio production and film production.

Do you think there'll be a role for me on Mars within my lifetime? Skills-wise I'll be like a doctor without the physical side, although I'll have a few areas of competence there too. Psychologically I'm fine, no meds or history of medication, when I was younger I had a few self pitying episodes when drunk where police were called out of worry but no convictions and no criminal record.

What do you think? Will I make it?

[Anonymous No.9311381]

>>9310653
Amazon also lost money for a long time. Even now, when it's officially turning a profit, its PE ratio is well below inflation. Musk is getting rich the same way Bezos did: make a famous company, have investors throw money at it, spend everything growing the company.

Tesla stock has gone up by a factor of 20 in the last six years. That's equivalent to a 60+% interest rate. The last year has roughly held to that. They can cash in on that stock price whenever they need to spend more money. The investors aren't worried that they're "losing money" now, because they're massively expanding and entering new markets. Tesla's becoming a much bigger company, and they haven't finished building their first factory for operating on that scale. Investors understand that, and aren't worried. If they were worried, the stock price wouldn't keep going up.

Blue Origin is older than SpaceX, but SpaceX is at least five years ahead of them. Blue Origin isn't catching up, SpaceX is pulling further ahead. By the time Blue Origin is launching orbital payloads at all, SpaceX will have full reusability and tried-and-proven systems for human spaceflight and things like moon landings, and there will not be any customers for a partially-reusable rocket. Blue Origin's going to have to run on Bezos's money until they build something equivalent to BFR, and that's going to cost at least $10 billion and probably take ten years, and they simply may never succeed.

BFR is basically the final development of chemical rocket technology. Once SpaceX gets there, other companies are going to start catching up. But SpaceX is going to get there first, and will have it for years before anyone else does.

[Anonymous No.9311540]

>>9311121
not being publicly traded isn't the same as not being traded at all

>>9311381
What convinced you that any of this muskwank was relevant to the point I was making?

[Anonymous No.9311546]

>>9311540
not him, but what convinced you its not related?

[Anonymous No.9311627]

>>9311357
nope. All doctoring like that can be done remotely. You'll potentially have a job, but it'll be sitting in front of a screen on Earth

[Anonymous No.9311677]

>>9311627

I'm not a doctor though, the difference in role is we interact with patients therapeutically and are hands-on literally and figuratively, the reason I went into nursing rather than medicine is that doctors will be replaced sooner by machines. You also need to be able to read people and know how to work with and treat people who don't want to communicate, which I'm sure will eventually be able to be done by machines but that's much more difficult and complex than inputting symptoms and outputting a diagnosis. The time delay would also be a factor in appropriate diagnosis and treatment.

You could argue that the majority of Martian jobs could be done by machines or remotely; hydroponics, construction, engineering.

[Anonymous No.9311731]

>>9311546
He doesn't at all address the main difference which is that SpaceX is only launching because they are pressed for funding and have to show results in order to convince investors, while Blue Origin isn't because they have the funding to take it slow in order to get things right the first time around.

He just typed out the standard elon musk fellatio typically found on r/spacex.

Also this
>By the time Blue Origin is launching orbital payloads at all, SpaceX will have full reusability and tried-and-proven systems for human spaceflight and things like moon landings, and there will not be any customers for a partially-reusable rocket.
Just shows he doesn't know how Elon Musk's delivery times compare to his promises.

[Anonymous No.9311936]

>>9311357
>I'm a psychiatric nurse who will be taking a ton of physical health, neurological and prescribing courses over the next few years, so that I'll be licensed to prescribe medication, do a range of therapies and diagnose mental illnesses independently
>Do you think there'll be a role for me on Mars within my lifetime?
It's hard to do psychiatry over a 15-25 minute comms lag. The main question is if there will be enough population on Mars to have the need. I suppose you should get yourself acquainted with and work with aerospace-specific issues as much as you can, to increase your chances when an opening happens.

[Anonymous No.9312118]

>>9311936

Thats my thinking, I'm lucky that UK mental health nurses are considered top tier internationally, it's one of the few things we lead on. There are ~40000 of us, say 1/8 can prescribe meds and have a high skill/knowledge base, that's 5000. Say 1/1000 have the means and desire to take the $200,000 ticket, that's pretty good odds. Me and 5 other similarly qualified candidates competing for a space in the UK.

Obviously Psychiatrists would be stiffer competition as they'd be medically trained too but they're far less numerous and the expert ones (consultants) even less so. I can get a lot of extra qualifications in physical health, wound dressing, biology etc if I want too.

[Anonymous No.9312246]

>>9311731
>He doesn't at all address the main difference which is that SpaceX is only launching because they are pressed for funding and have to show results in order to convince investors, while Blue Origin isn't because they have the funding to take it slow in order to get things right the first time around.
Oh, excuse me for not knowing that this prima facie absurd claim was meant to be the heart and soul of your case, and I should focus on it, rather than the several other points you raised.

Do you really think that Bezos has been actively opposed to Blue Origin having any vehicle in service or revenue for the nearly two decades it has existed? Do you think he hasn't put any pressure on his employees there to produce results?

Six years after its founding 2000, in 2006, Blue Origin claimed it was going to start regular suborbital passenger flights in 2010. They didn't reach space at all until 2015, and still have only done test flights. They said they'd be doing monthly launches over the next couple of years for their test program, but 2017's nearly over, and they've still only done 6 launches. Still not one customer flight, 17 years. Their first orbital flight? They say maybe 2020. Their factory isn't even built. Their engine just burped its first breath.

SpaceX was founded in 2002. Reached space in 2007. Reached orbit in 2008. Served an orbital launch customer in 2009. Debuted a medium-lift rocket in 2010, and a capsule, and demonstrated safe return from orbit, in a vehicle basically capable of carrying human passengers to and from orbit. In 2012, they did their first delivery of cargo to ISS. In 2013, they went beyond low-Earth orbit and did their first GTO comsat launch. In 2014, they did 6 launches, reaching a reasonable production rate, and becoming a serious player in the global launch market. In 2015, they went beyond Earth orbit entirely, and recovered a booster intact for the first time. Now they're the world leader in launches.

[Anonymous No.9312254]

>>9312246
tbf they just finished their factory last month. Then give it oh, 4 mo to tool up. 1.5 year to finish the first NG. That's almost two years from now, maybe for the first NG to roll out the door.

BO will be wayyyy behin by then. All of the contracts will be eaten up:
http://spacenews.com/spacex-aims-to-follow-a-banner-year-with-an-even-faster-2018-launch-cadence/
“We will increase our cadence next year about 50 percent,” Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX president and COO, told SpaceNews in an interview last week. “We’ll fly more next year than this year, knock on wood, and I think we will probably level out at about that rate, 30 to 40 per year.”
...

[Anonymous No.9312340]

>>9312254
Even worse for BO, BFR is further along in development than New Glenn. Raptor was running a year before BE-4, and SpaceX has already done full-scale structural prototype testing, whereas Blue Origin is still building a place to work on full-scale structures for New Glenn.

As a partially-reusable heavy-lift vehicle, New Glenn is competition for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, but not for the fully-reusable superheavy BFR, which is likely to be flying first.

[Anonymous No.9312757]

>>9312246
>Oh, excuse me for not knowing that
Well because it was the only fucking thing the post said, maybe that would be the reason why I expected you to get that right.

>prima facie absurd claim
That's straight from bezos, it's even incorporated in the company motto and logo

>“Gradatim Ferociter” is Latin for “Step by Step, Ferociously.” Bezos says that’s his approach to spaceflight. “If you’re building a flying vehicle, you can’t cut any corners. If you do, it’s going to be [just] an illusion that it’s going to make it faster. … You have to do it step by step, but you do want to do it ferociously.”

>The lesson from the fable of the hare and the tortoise is that “slow and steady wins the race.” Bezos puts a different twist on the tale: “Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.”

[Anonymous No.9312780]

>>9311381
>BFR is basically the final development of chemical rocket technology.

Thats certainly not true
You could go bigger, you could attempt an "airbreathing" engine that cuts fuel costs in half, I'm sure there will be tons of lessons learned improvements after they build the BFR for their next vehicle.

Noone else is even attempting full reuse yet too

[Anonymous No.9312785]

>>9312254
>Then give it oh, 4 mo to tool up. 1.5 year to finish the first NG. That's almost two years from now, maybe for the first NG to roll out the door.

SpaceX was delayed for years with failures

Blue will have issues too, and it'll be worse because their vehicle is more expensive/bigger

[Anonymous No.9312823]

>>9312340
>BFR is further along in development than New Glenn

[Anonymous No.9312872]

>>9312757
>SpaceX is only launching because they are pressed for funding and have to show results in order to convince investors, while Blue Origin isn't because they have the funding to take it slow in order to get things right the first time around.
>That's straight from bezos
No it wasn't, you chimp. Half of it is purely your own fevered imagination, and the other half is your idiotic interpretation of very general statements of principle from Bezos.

You know what actually was straight from Bezos? Routine suborbital joyrides for paying customers by 2010. He didn't want or expect it to go anywhere near that slow.

Anyway, they certainly aren't getting thing right the first time around. Their first approach to a suborbital vehicle, the one they were building to fly in 2010, turned out to be a total failure. They had to go completely back to the drawing board. On top of that, their first New Shepard crashed. They're fumbling their way along like every new rocket program does. New Shepard might never carry a living human passenger, and it can't go to orbit. New Glenn might never go to orbit, the booster may never land, they may never satisfy a paying customer.

>“Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.”
Sometimes slow is just slow. Sometimes the hare runs steadily for the finish line.

SpaceX is launching reusable-booster orbital rockets and Blue Origin isn't because Musk played his cards right, and Bezos didn't, not because Bezos has preferred not to launch. SpaceX made it despite Musk's limited resources by working quickly and efficiently to produce working vehicles. Blue Origin has only survived despite producing no service-ready vehicle and collecting no fees for 17 years (which was not at all intended) because of Bezos's deep pockets.

[Anonymous No.9312879]

>>9312872
Someone's insecure.

[Anonymous No.9312904]

>>9312780
>>BFR is basically the final development of chemical rocket technology.
>Thats certainly not true
>You could go bigger, you could attempt an "airbreathing" engine...
I said "basically" not "absolutely". The mature BFR, if completed as envisioned, will have all of the major capabilities of any orbital chemical rocket that will follow it: it will be reusable, it will survive atmospheric entry, it will land large payloads in remote locations (including other planets) without special facilities, it will be capable of refuelling in orbit or on other planets, it will be able to serve as a propellant tanker, it will be able to undertake years-long missions in deep space, it will be able to carry crew or cargo, etc.

There's nothing major to add. You can scale it up. You can incrementally improve efficiency or reliability. But there's never going to be another leap like the one from what we have now, from what we've basically had since the 1960s, to BFR.

[Anonymous No.9312985]

>>9312904
>There's nothing major to add.

Nuclear power supply & nuclear-electric propulsion for deep space missions are non-trivial additions.

But yes it will be a big leap from even the Falcon 9 which is really just a recovered expendable rocket.

[Anonymous No.9312989]

>>9312823
This is not an inaccurate statement.

However trying to compare New Glenn to BFR is stupid they are not even close in size. New Glenn is more like a more powerful FH in performance than it is something the size of BR

[Anonymous No.9313776]

>>9312989
>trying to compare New Glenn to BFR is stupid they are not even close in size
Each is a vehicle under current active development.

A lot of people have this incredulous reaction that BFR could fly before New Glenn, because it's so much more advanced. It's common sense that competing companies should be at nearly the same level of technology, and ones that are far behind would just lose funding and get shut down. But the space industry is an exception: right now we've got SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, and NASA MSFC on projects in similar stages of development that in any reasonable industry would each belong in a different decade from all the others.

SLS is 60s-level work, a clumsy and faltering attempt to recreate the capabilities of the Saturn V moon rocket at similar cost. Vulcan is 80s-level work, the kind of thing the space shuttle people would have been building if that project was at all sane. New Glenn is 2010s-level work, following in SpaceX's recoverable-booster footprints from well behind. Only BFR is a rocket that belongs in the 2020s, and it's entirely possible that it will be the first to fly.

Two are running on government money. One is the world's richest man's vanity project. Only the leader is a business in the normal sense, where the people in charge don't just look at their prospects and say, "Fuck it. We can be inferior and uneconomical. It's okay, we've got money to burn!"

[Anonymous No.9313840]

>>9312989
>>9313776
You have to be pretty stupid to think that BFR will fly first.

BFR:
>raptor doesn't even have a final design yet, let alone real hardware or a full-up test under their belt
>they have no place to launch it, even if they use 39A it will take half a decade to retrofit
>they don't know how to build the tanks yet
>they haven't completed the preliminary design review yet
>they are still literally changing the number of engines on the vehicle as of a few weeks ago
>almost nothing on the rocket is proven
>need to build a whole new factory and boat just to build and transport it
>Falcon Heavy took 10 years to get flying and it's based 90% on an already existing rocket

New Glenn:
>flight-scale engines under testing today
>no meme tech for the tanks or upper stage; everything was already proven with New Shepard
>factory is already built
>launch pad is under construction (will be finished before SpaceX's Texas pad LMAO)
>landing boat arrives at cape Canaveral later this year for retrofit
>full scale development started in 2015 and first flight is 2020 (New Shepard also took 5 years from development start to first flight)

New Glenn will fly in 2020 while BFR will fly in 2023 at the earliest. The funny thing is, Blue Origin will do all of this for far less money than SpaceX will. SpaceX has spent more money on Raptor than all the money ever spent on New Glenn.

[Anonymous No.9313855]

>>9313776
SLS is a completely new rocket (literally, the only thing that hasn't changed is the upper stage engine) and is 4 years behind schedule.

Falcon Heavy is based on F9 and has 90% hardware commonality (literally the only difference is the base thrust structure and the nose cones) and it is 8 YEARS behind schedule.

[Anonymous No.9313862]

>>9312904
The future is tri-propellant rocket (550+ isp) SSTOs and interplanetary ships with fusion engines. Rockets like BFR will only ever be used as refueling tankers, and BFR will never be used like that because it uses garbage methane as a propellant instead of based hydrogen.

[Anonymous No.9313889]

have we ever made a pressure vessel out of carbon composites? because spacex wants to fly people in one

[Anonymous No.9313892]

>SpaceX will launch 20 times this yea-
>Falcon Heavy will launch this yea-
HAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAHAAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHAAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.9314002]

>>9313855
>SLS is... 4 years behind schedule.
SLS is the sucky finalized design of Ares V. They just changed the name when a new president got elected. It had been on the drawing board for decades before they decided to actually build it in 2005 as part of Constellation.

>a completely new rocket (literally, the only thing that hasn't changed is the upper stage engine)
They are literally using old engines salvaged from space shuttles. The upper stage for the first launch is a Delta IV upper with minor modifications. The five-segment boosters were developed for the space shuttle. One was first test-fired in 2003, years before Constellation. The main body is a modified shuttle external tank.

>Falcon Heavy is ... 8 YEARS behind schedule.
The Falcon Heavy that's about to launch is not the same Falcon Heavy that was projected to launch in 2010. That was going to be a heavy configuration of Falcon 9 1.0, and it was expected to be the main focus of SpaceX development because its performance would be required to launch typical GTO comsats, the most valuable segment of the launch market.

Instead, SpaceX got the juicy NASA contract and focused effort on Dragon and F9 as the means to launch it. They even ditched Falcon 1, a working orbital launch vehicle with paying customers, for this extremely lucrative deal. Furthermore, as they learned from experience, they were able to upgrade F9 performance and switch to a more ambitious reusability plan. GTO comsat launch capability arrived in 2013 with Falcon 9 1.1. Flyback recovery arrived in 2015.

Falcon Heavy 1.0 is long-since abandoned, like Falcon 5, not behind schedule.

>Falcon Heavy is based on F9 and has 90% hardware commonality
Indeed, it's a configuration of Falcon 9. They have no reason to fly it until they've satisfied all customers who only need the single-stick F9 and start having gaps in their schedule they need to fill with other work only a larger vehicle can do (or can do more efficiently).

[Anonymous No.9314014]

>>9314002
I remember hearing rumors the first designs of the SLS used rs25 engines (the shuttle ones) on the upper stages too. Those engines can't be started mid-flight. Is it just a meme making fun it being paper rocket or were they really that retarded?

[Anonymous No.9314033]

>>9314002
>SLS is the sucky finalized design of Ares V.
Practically zero work was done on Ares V before it was cancelled. Only a single SRB test (which had to be redone recently) and an upper stage engine that SLS will not use.

>They are literally using old engines salvaged from space shuttles.
the engines have significant changes
that's like saying current falcon 9 uses the same engine as falcon 9 1.0

> The upper stage for the first launch is a Delta IV upper with minor modifications.
wrong, the entire structure is different

> The five-segment boosters were developed for the space shuttle
completely wrong
shuttle didn't use 5-segment boosters

>One was first test-fired in 2003, years before Constellation.
as I said, this test was redone a few years ago because it's not the same booster anymore

>The main body is a modified shuttle external tank.
the only similarity is the diameter
even the insulation is changed

>The Falcon Heavy that's about to launch is not the same Falcon Heavy that was projected to launch in 2010.
same is true for SLS

>Falcon Heavy 1.0 is long-since abandoned, like Falcon 5, not behind schedule.
false
they've been "planning to launch" the current version in since 2015
the original flight was planned for 2010

>Indeed, it's a configuration of Falcon 9.
false
by your logic, falcon 9 is a configuration of falcon 1

>They have no reason to fly it until they've satisfied all customers who only need the single-stick F9 and start having gaps in their schedule
the only reason the f9 customers take preference is because they literally are not capable of fulfilling FH customers (this is why half of them have dropped out in the last few years)

>>9314014
clearly they needed some more armchair geniuses like you

[Anonymous No.9314083]

>>9314014
Making an air-startable variant of the RS25 was seriously considered for Ares V and Ares I upper stages. It probably could have been done, but they decided against it.

>>9314033
>Practically zero work was done on Ares V before it was cancelled.
It wasn't cancelled, it was renamed after years of work were done on it and billions of dollars were spent.

>the engines have significant changes
They are literally the same individual, physical engines that flew on space shuttles, or sat in storage for use on space shuttles. They're being refurbished, modified, and tested.

They are not some special new technology. New engines won't be manufactured until after the fourth SLS launch and they run out of old ones from the shuttle program, if SLS lasts that long.

>that's like saying current falcon 9 uses the same engine as falcon 9 1.0
No, it's like saying a reflown Falcon 9 booster uses the same engines as it did when it was flown the first time.

>shuttle didn't use 5-segment boosters
Yes, it was cancelled before they could be used. However, they were developed for the shuttle, and had been in the works for a while. They're just putting the finishing touches on it for SLS.

>the only similarity is the diameter
Not even close to true. They're being built in the same factory with much of the same tooling. The design was changed as little as they could.

>even the insulation is changed
Oh wow! They "even" changed the spray-on foam coating! What a massive fucking difference! They changed the insulation on the shuttle external tanks a couple of times while the shuttle program was going, you know.

[Anonymous No.9314098]

>>9314083
>it was renamed after years of work were done
What work was done on Ares V? Hint: almost zero

>They are literally the same individual, physical engines that flew on space shuttles, or sat in storage for use on space shuttles
exactly
they're old, had to be rebuilt, got a newly designed control system and a performance increase and all had to be re-tested

it's much less work to use M-1D for FH where they are LITERALLY identical to what's flying on f9

>No, it's like saying a reflown Falcon 9 booster uses the same engines as it did when it was flown the first time.
spacex doesn't rebuild and change the control system and increase the performance of their engines between each use

>Yes, it was cancelled before they could be used. However, they were developed for the shuttle, and had been in the works for a while. They're just putting the finishing touches on it for SLS.
5-segment boosters would be much too high of thrust for shuttle
are you retarded or something or do you not know how solids work?

>Not even close to true. They're being built in the same factory with much of the same tooling. The design was changed as little as they could.
what? they had to make all new tooling because the design is completely new

they literally had a big accident last year because they weren't familiar with the tooling

apparently the boat had to be retrofitted to transport the stages as well

>Oh wow! They "even" changed the spray-on foam coating! What a massive fucking difference! They changed the insulation on the shuttle external tanks a couple of times while the shuttle program was going, you know.
as compared to FH where it's literally identical to F9 but yet taking twice as long to fly

[Anonymous No.9314110]

>>9314033
Engine controller from J2X is used on SSME in SLS.RS25E will be a new modernised engine but we are talking mid 2020s here and just 193 million $ per unit delivered to NASA.

5 segment solids were developed into initial phases as upgrade to STS but abandoned due to safety concerns.

AresV saw a lot of theoretical work on RS68 including initial regenerative nozzle work to deal with heat loads.AresI flight test in 2009 was not really a test because it just took a shuttle solid and a dummy upper stage but 1.5B was spent on J2X and it is a flight worthy engine.

FH is delayed since the summer of 2015 when crs7 has thrown SpaceX into chaos.FH contracts have already flown on F9s in expendable flights this year.

[Anonymous No.9314114]

>>9308566
don’t trust everything your mother says

[Anonymous No.9314124]

>>9314110
>FH contracts have already flown on F9s in expendable flights this year.
Wow... one flight out of 8 total contracts, where 4 of them flaked out to other providers who could deliver and the other 3 are still 3 or more years behind schedule.

SpaceX also launched Formosat-5 this year for an estimated $40 million loss because they were dumb enough to cancel Falcon 1.

[Anonymous No.9314139]

>>9314033
>>The Falcon Heavy that's about to launch is not the same Falcon Heavy that was projected to launch in 2010.
>same is true for SLS
Ares V never had a settled design until they named it "SLS". On top of that, Falcon Heavy will be a far more ambitious vehicle than Falcon Heavy 1.0, whereas SLS is a major downgrade from the goals of the Constellation project, to the point where they're converging at roughly the same performance.

>by your logic, falcon 9 is a configuration of falcon 1
Falcon 9 boosters can be flown, then recovered and repurposed as side-boosters for Falcon Heavy, then recovered again and returned to their original purpose in single-booster launch vehicles.

The Falcon Heavy maiden flight will use a previously-flown Falcon 9 for one of its boosters.

>>Falcon Heavy 1.0 is long-since abandoned, like Falcon 5, not behind schedule.
>they've been "planning to launch" the current version in since 2015
The current version isn't Falcon Heavy 1.0. And sure, Falcon Heavy is 2 years behind schedule for its first test launch, but is about to fly, and intended to enter routine service within a year. SLS was meant to be ready to replace the shuttle when it was retired in 2011, and is still at least 2 years from its first test flight, at least 5 years from doing any working launches.

>the only reason the f9 customers take preference is because they literally are not capable of fulfilling FH customers
>only reason
At the advertised prices, and without reliable reusability, F9 is clearly more profitable to launch. FH is three times the rocket at one and a half times the price. When they're not up to meeting all demand for F9, of course they'd prefer to launch F9 than FH. And when they're still ironing out the bugs in booster recovery and reusability, of course they'd prefer to only use one booster at a time.

Even if Falcon Heavy had been working since 2015, they probably wouldn't want to be flying it now.

[Anonymous No.9314145]

>>9314098
>>>>>SLS is a completely new rocket
>>>>They are literally using old engines salvaged from space shuttles.
>>>that's like saying current falcon 9 uses the same engine as falcon 9 1.0
>>They are literally the same individual, physical engines that flew on space shuttles, or sat in storage for use on space shuttles
>exactly
I'm out of patience with you. I'll just leave this monument to your idiocy here.

[Anonymous No.9314161]

>>9314145
>I'm out of patience with you. I'll just leave this monument to your idiocy here.
thanks for admitting defeat :)

>>9314139
>Ares V never had a settled design until they named it "SLS".
Ares V was completely cancelled before SLS was conceived.

>Falcon Heavy will be a far more ambitious vehicle than Falcon Heavy 1.0
So? It's still eight years behind schedule and counting.

>whereas SLS is a major downgrade from the goals of the Constellation project, to the point where they're converging at roughly the same performance.
wrong on both counts

>Falcon 9 boosters can be flown, then recovered and repurposed as side-boosters for Falcon Heavy, then recovered again and returned to their original purpose in single-booster launch vehicles.
it took years to make those mods and it was only for the purpose of making a cheap test vehicle
actual FH will have purpose-built cores

>Falcon Heavy is 2 years behind schedule for its first test launch
its first launch was supposed to be in 2010. It is 8 years behind schedule.

>SLS was meant to be ready to replace the shuttle when it was retired in 2011,
Wrong.
>and is still at least 2 years from its first test flight, at least 5 years from doing any working launches.
its first flight was supposed to be in 2016 but now it's slipping to 2020

>At the advertised prices, and without reliable reusability, F9 is clearly more profitable to launch. FH is three times the rocket at one and a half times the price.
it's cheaper in cost per kg to orbit

[Anonymous No.9314176]

>>9314161
SpaceX:
[x] Launched first reusable rocket
[x] Multiple contracts from DOD, Telecom, etc

Blue Origin:
[ ] fulfilling contracts
[ ] Done anything SpaceX hasn’t already done
[ ] Done anything spaceX HAS done, quicker or cheaper

SLS/Ares:
[ ] Launched anything

case closed everyone go home

[Anonymous No.9314220]

what payloads do even fly on FH/blue origin?

[Anonymous No.9314236]

>>9314220
None.

[Anonymous No.9314253]

>>9314220
The main purpose of Falcon Heavy is to carry anything that could go on any other pre-existing launch vehicle, while recovering all three boosters for reuse. Its superheavy capabilities in expendable mode are just a side bonus.

Falcon 9 can fly nearly any other rocket's payload, but only in expendable mode, and it can't quite match the performance of most of its competition even then. Even Proton can outperform it on a LEO launch.

No matter how good their price is, if the customer needs the extra performance, they can't use Falcon 9. Falcon Heavy will carry anything that can go on any rocket currently flying, and it'll do it reusably.

New Glenn is comparable to Falcon Heavy in performance and reusability, but it'll also have a 7 meter fairing for bulky payloads, where Falcon Heavy will only have a 5-meter one, so it'll have an advantage there.

BFR (which may end up flying before New Glenn) will have an 8-meter payload bay, as well as a much higher mass capacity, better reusability, and a laundry list of features that expand its potential applications.

[Anonymous No.9314261]

>>9314253
see >>9312823

[Anonymous No.9314274]

>>9314261
see >>9313776

SpaceX is further ahead in development (they revealed Raptor doing a sustained burn at full thrust a year before BE-4 was revealed doing a short, partial-thrust burn), has much more staff and facilities, is the first choice employer of top talent, and has a record of getting things done much faster than Blue Origin.

[Anonymous No.9314283]

>>9314274
the raptor they are testing is sub-scale
it doesn't validate anything other than that ffsc cycle might actually work

they still need to build a full-scale engine (which they don't yet have a finished design for) and test that hundreds of time as well

[Anonymous No.9314285]

weirdest part on thing are the solar arrays no joke

[Anonymous No.9314329]

>>9314176
>Done anything spaceX HAS done, quicker or cheaper
First reusable rocket

[Anonymous No.9314335]

>>9314283
>the raptor they are testing is sub-scale
It was subscale for the ITS concept. It's basically the same size as the Raptor they've announced for BFR.

Anyway, they say scaling it won't be difficult, and I believe them. This isn't the 20th century anymore. They do extremely detailed computer simulations. The physical tests are mainly done to validate and refine the computer models now.

[Anonymous No.9314340]

>>9314335
>It was subscale for the ITS concept. It's basically the same size as the Raptor they've announced for BFR.
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.9314345]

>>9314274
>is the first choice employer of top talent
SpaceX has a huge turnover rate of employees because they pay shit and expect long hours. Meanwhile Blue Origin has a turnover rate of less than 4%.

The best talent in the industry sure as fuck isn't working at spacex. People work at spacex because they want it on their resume before applying for better jobs.

[Anonymous No.9314351]

>>9314345
>The best talent in the industry sure as fuck isn't working at spacex. People work at spacex because they want it on their resume before applying for better jobs.
you can't tell that from turnover rate, they're probably just low level assembly jobs

[Anonymous No.9314395]

>>9314329
>First reusable rocket
You have to really split hairs to put New Shepard in the same category with the Falcon 9 reusable booster, and keep it out of any category with things that flew before it, like SpaceShipOne, X-15, Grasshopper, or DC-X.

SpaceX could easily have flown a Grasshopper-like vehicle straight up to 100 km, deployed a Dragon capsule barely in space, and landed long before New Shepard did, if that was their goal. But their goal was to launch 100+ tons of upper stage and payload to 200+ km altitude and 2+ km/s speed sideways, before reversing all that sideways speed and boosting back to a landing site near the launchpad, coming blazing into the atmosphere at hypersonic speed, and then landing.

[Anonymous No.9314415]

>>9314395
alright first reusable spacefaring rocket. there, "hair splitting" done.

spaceshipone and x-15 aren't rockets and the other two barely even took off from the ground.

[Anonymous No.9314421]

>>9314098
>it's much less work to use M-1D for FH where they are LITERALLY identical to what's flying on f9

And there is literally zero reason why they couldn't have designed the Constellation/SLS this way

[Anonymous No.9314433]

>>9314285
That looks like some James Bond shit going on.

[Anonymous No.9314450]

>>9314285
you need them for a long duration mission

[Anonymous No.9314460]

>>9314450
sure. i meant they look weird for solar arrays. well its cgi so...

[Anonymous No.9314465]

>>9314460
well it deploys like one of those hand fans
but its CGI so they may not do it like that in the end

[Anonymous No.9314466]

>>9314415
>spacefaring
Yeah, because barely going to 100 km straight up, carrying basically nothing, totally deserves to be put in the same category as boosting a huge upper stage well up into space, at a lateral speed that would be hypersonic in atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9314487]

is this like the new space race?

[Anonymous No.9314523]

>>9314487
The race to commercialize space.

[Anonymous No.9315311]

>>9308090
>>9308087
BFR stands for Big Fucking Rocket right

[Anonymous No.9315397]

>>9313889
>have we ever made a pressure vessel out of carbon composites?
All day erry day. 7600 psi working pressure.

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

Hundreds of thousands on the roads around the world.

[Anonymous No.9315405]

>>9314033
>Practically zero work was done on Ares V before it was cancelled.

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

You are so full of shit it's coming out your eyes. I remember watching the weekly update videos. They where working on this shit and billions upon billions where spent getting SLS built.

[Anonymous No.9315530]

how die spacex get all this subsidies and tech from government? why did BO cancel the shuttle?

[Anonymous No.9315615]

>all that butthurt from the "its rocket science dude weed we can't go to space anytime soon man its magic its hard lmao gib government money pls" pork conglomerates
And it's going to get even better the further ahead SX pulls.

[Anonymous No.9315738]

>>9315530
>how die spacex get all this subsidies and tech from government?
they need monies for contrails
>why did BO cancel the shuttle?
bc aurora spydrone work well

[Anonymous No.9315748]

could north korea somehow get spacex rocket tech?
fantasy right?

[Anonymous No.9316007]

>>9315748
They can't even keep their army from getting parasite infections.

[Anonymous No.9317484]

I never understood why retards say that spacex would have died without subsidies. While it’s true, I still don’t get the point of that argument.

Taxpayers have been proven to have saved millions because private companies run leaner and more efficiently than the bureaucracy.

[Anonymous No.9317580]

>>9316007
you really think kim "rocket man" runs north korea?