Your take on Falcon Heavy maiden flight

[Anonymous No.9455819]

http://www.strawpoll.me/14910673

Also genreal SpaceX fanboy thread.

>The hold-down firing of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy is now expected no earlier than Wednesday. The test window opens at 3 p.m. EST (2000 GMT).

[Anonymous No.9455831]

>SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy rocket was loaded with propellants Saturday at Kennedy Space Center’s launch pad 39A, as engineers make progress preparing for a hold-down engine firing, and eventually liftoff of the huge commercial launcher.

[Anonymous No.9455979]

>mfw the falcon heavy launch gets fucking delayed again

[Anonymous No.9456008]

I hope all go well. ULA deserve that and much more.

[Anonymous No.9456027]

>>9456008
I just hope they don't fuck up launch pad again.

[Anonymous No.9456032]

Can't fucking wait to see what a triple booster separation, re-entry, and landing looks like.
Hopefully they'll stream video from all 3 at once.

[Anonymous No.9456060]

>>9456032
Video signal lost
Video signal lost
Video signal lost

[Anonymous No.9456093]

>>9456060
Probably accurate but I'll hope for it to work anyway.

[Anonymous No.9456230]

>>9456060
>>9456093
Anybody ever heard of a reason for the signal dropping out from time to time? does the rocket cause some kind of jamming/interference as it lands?

[Anonymous No.9456234]

>>9456008

ULA (or at least Boeing) already has a plan in place, pic related. Elon will unironically have to build a BFR to compete against it, a challenge I think all sides welcome.

[Anonymous No.9456238]

>>9456230
>Anybody ever heard of a reason for the signal dropping out from time to time?

1. lots of vibrations aren't good for satellite links
2. proprietary info, they've got all the video/data stored and could release it if they wanted to. and/or they're deliberately injecting bad data for the public feed

[Anonymous No.9456502]

>>9456234
Serious or trolling?

Another shuttle tier money dump.
Everything that's different about this design compared to F9 is wrong and will only generate problems and lower efficiency.

[Anonymous No.9456645]

[Anonymous No.9457264]

>>9456230
You have a directional antenna pointed at a receiver and then you point a rocket motor capable of accelerating a metal tube the size of a 14 story building at 3g directly at the antenna. Things get a little... Shakey. Enough noise and suddenly the receiver is getting packets all out of order or with big gaps in between and doesn't know how to make sense of it: signal lost.

[Anonymous No.9457311]

>>9456234
That is a LEOlet shuttle.
And it is not meant to be manned, as far as I know.
How is it a problem for SpaceX?

[Anonymous No.9457318]

>>9456234
>less than ten tons to LEO
>competition

[Anonymous No.9457885]

>>9456502
>>9457311
>>9457318

It's essentially a flyback booster but can glide into a standard runway and does not require a huge recovery operation. The point of the XS-1 program is 10 flights in 10 days, if Boeing can manage that SpaceX would have to be doing 1-2 launches per week to achieve the same lower price. Or, SpaceX can make a bigger rocket.

Also no it's not manned, but Boeing has all the pieces in place to make a true "space shuttle" between the XS-1 and X-37. Larger versions of both could operate like how NASA originally wanted the STS to operate. At least, in theory.

[Anonymous No.9457900]

>01/24/2018 18:08
>Venting and vapors now visible as fuel is loaded aboard the Falcon Heavy.

>01/24/2018 18:31
>Ignition

[Anonymous No.9457908]

>64t to LEO with this fuckstick
you're all being conned

[Anonymous No.9457932]

>>9457900

[Anonymous No.9457937]

What day is it supposed to fly? Is it scheduled?

[Anonymous No.9457941]

>>9457932
It's so beautiful

[Anonymous No.9457942]

>>9457937
No. Somewhere february, if no more delays.

[Anonymous No.9457943]

>>9456060
Side boosters are landing on the ground.

[Anonymous No.9457944]

>>9457885
>At least, in theory.
It's not like I want them to fail because I think competition is a good thing but you're delusional if you think something still in its R&D phase is even close to bean a threat to SpaceX

[Anonymous No.9457946]

>>9457942
>spaceX
>if no more delays.
Keked so hard that mom had to check if I am still alive

[Anonymous No.9457952]

>>9457908
?

[Anonymous No.9457957]

>>9457944

Boeing already has the X-37, and XS-1 will fly before 2020. If it meets the program goals it'll eat most of the DoD contracts because it'd be so much cheaper for them. Building a larger variant would be the next logical step and would be here by the 2030s, around the time NASA (supposedly) wants to go to Mars.

Everything is lining up for them, even if it's on a two decade long timeline. But again all SpaceX has to do is actually build the BFR.

[Anonymous No.9457961]

>>9457941
Vidya:
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2018/01/17/updates-spacex-targeting-falcon-heavy-test-fire-ksc-florida-before-launch/1041353001/

>>9457946
Imagine what she'll go through when you'll have to unkek at the start of next month.

[Anonymous No.9457974]

IT FIRED! IT WAS AWESOME! I CAME!

https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/956221490785026053

[Anonymous No.9457977]

F

[Anonymous No.9458028]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/956236301275054080

[Anonymous No.9458043]

>>9457977
>SLC-40
>Falcon Heavy
Who you tryin to fool anon?

[Anonymous No.9458047]

Finally we're back on track. Everything post-saturn V was steps in the wrong direction or outright jumps from high altitude.

[Anonymous No.9458048]

>>9456234
>another shitty spaceplane
When will this dumb meme die?

[Anonymous No.9458058]

>>9458047

>Finally we're back on track.

Funny, considering Falcon Heavy is merely a detour and a distraction on the road to BFR. Cool rocket but something tells me Elon would not choose to develop it in hindsight.

[Anonymous No.9458061]

>>9455819
How close can i get to the launch? I want to do a road trip up to watch it

[Anonymous No.9458062]

>>9457885
>The point of the XS-1 program is 10 flights in 10 days, if Boeing can manage that SpaceX would have to be doing 1-2 launches per week to achieve the same lower price.
That depends entirely on the cost and payload of XS-1, and how much hardware they have to swap out between flights.

The fact that they're going with hydrogen fuel for a reusable booster is a big red flag. That means half the density impulse, which means a booster that's twice as big, entirely aside from the more costly and difficult handling of liquid hydrogen.

The fact that it's Boeing is an even bigger red flag. Odds are they won the contract the dirty way and their plan is just to suck up the development funding.

The program goal is $5 million per flight, for a 2 ton payload. That's barely competitive in $/lb with the expendable Falcon 9 price to customers, and it's the per-flight incremental cost goal. They're not even aspiring to cost-effective reusability.

[Anonymous No.9458068]

>>9458058
I wonder if there might be some demand for heavier vehicles coming in, like say, the Moon. This could explain why FH actually came to be rather than being delayed indefinitely due to F9's high performance. The upcoming NASA budget could shed some light on the various rumors.

[Anonymous No.9458127]

>>9458062

The XS-1 is just a suborbital booster too
Thats not a 2 t payload to orbit
thats a 2 ton payload + 2nd stage

Not sure the point of vertical take off & horizontal landing either
could have made use of those wings for lift with horizontal takeoff

[Anonymous No.9458137]

>>9458058
>Elon would not choose to develop it in hindsight
Mostly as a cost cutting measure. It's very clear Musk thinks having only one type of vehicle will be cheaper than having multiple different ones.

Musk has clearly stated that he thought the Falcon Heavy would be as easy "strapping 3 Falcon 9s together", but instead it required a bunch of extra hardware, essentially creating a completely different type of booster from the Falcon 9.

That's why the BFR is will replace both Falcon heavy and Falcon 9. He wants only one vehicle.
I think if he had the choice he would prefer the "strapping multiple small boosters together" over "one big fucking rocket", alas it's not possible.

He might lose out on some market share because of this though. While bigger rockets are more efficient, if your satellite is small (like a lot of new cubesats are), and you don't want to piggyback with someone else it might be cheaper to with a smaller rocket company like pic related.

[Anonymous No.9458138]

>>9458127
No, that's the orbital payload.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XS-1_(spacecraft)
>The goals of the program as of September 2013 were:[3][11] The space plane must carry a 3,000–5,000 lb (1,400–2,300 kg) payload to low Earth orbit for less than a cost of US$5 million per flight

[Anonymous No.9458164]

>>9458137
>That's why the BFR is will replace both Falcon heavy and Falcon 9. He wants only one vehicle.
Personally, I strongly suspect they'll build a single-Raptor upper stage for Falcon 9/H with a ~5m diameter and double the mass of the current upper stage, and then a Raptor-powered booster for it that's very similar to the BFR upper stage.

It's the far faster, less expensive route to a fully-reusable launch system, the best way to get experience with the technologies they want to use on BFR, it's the fastest way to land men on the moon again (with in-orbit refuelling, they can launch a Dragon to the moon's surface and return it to Earth, with no other stages or rendezvous operations needed), and it'll make sense for as far into the future as they're flying BFR.

Even when BFR's flying, what will they use for Earth departure of deep-space probes? Throw away a whole 7-Raptor BFS each time? Build some custom stage? The 1-Raptor stage solves many problems, and it can fly as a payload in the full-size BFS.

[Anonymous No.9458188]

>>9457961
Don't you mean this month, or last month, or 6 years ago?

[Anonymous No.9458195]

>>9458058
>>9458137
>>9458164
>People in this thread on the "Science" board actually think the BFR will ever be anything other than a wetdream.

[Anonymous No.9458197]

>>9458164
>launch a Dragon to the moon's surface and return it to Earth
Dragon won't have enough dV to land on the Moon by itself.

[Anonymous No.9458206]

>>9458195

BFR engine and composite tanks are already under active development, as is the launch site

it is as real as any rocket under development and there is no technical reason why it shouldnt work

[Anonymous No.9458213]

my ears hurt

[Anonymous No.9458226]

>>9458188
I know what I ment.

[Anonymous No.9458229]

>>9458197
This plan doesn't involve any rendezvous beyond LEO. Once refuelled in orbit, the single-Raptor stage could boost itself with a Dragon to the moon, then orbit the moon, then land on the moon, then boost itself back on a return trajectory to Earth.

[Anonymous No.9458243]

>>9458195
Reusable rockets are impossib...

[Anonymous No.9458251]

>>9458195
>Raptor is almost done development
>COPV almost done
>current factory can support construction
>Boca Chica finished by end of 2018/early 2019
>39A upgrades slated

It's more real of a rocket than fucking NG is, lmao.

[Anonymous No.9458260]

>>9458048

Never because we already have a masive amount of infrastructure to service aircraft, being able to utilize it for spaceflight would make it accessible to regular people. That's where the maximum amount of money is, so much money it's kept SABRE alive despite it not going to have a working prototype for a few decades at least.

>>9458062

>They're not even aspiring to cost-effective reusability.

Not if they just build it bigger. A situation SpaceX will probably force.

[Anonymous No.9458264]

>>9458251
>>current factory can support construction
They don't want to build 9m stages in the current factory, because it will cost them tens of millions of dollars to move through city streets to the docks. They're building a new factory for that.

This is one of the reasons I think they'll do the 5m single-Raptor stage first: even if they need a special permit, they should be able to drive it through the streets at night to the docks without having to take down streetlights and things like that that make it so expensive to move a 9m stage.

[Anonymous No.9458287]

>>9458243
They are possible but impractical. You need to reserve 30% of the fuel just to return the first stage which translates to drastic reduction in payload raising costs. My sources are russian semi-official statements regarding reusability.

[Anonymous No.9458300]

>>9458287
>You need to reserve 30% of the fuel just to return the first stage which translates to
...30% reduction in payload, and recovery of about 85% of the vehicle by cost.

>russian semi-official statements
Russians are still using 1970s tech. They don't know shit about modern rocketry, and SpaceX is eating their lunch.

[Anonymous No.9458301]

>>9458287
>You need to reserve 30% of the fuel just to return the first stage
Cost of fuel is 0.3% of entire rocket
>impractical

[Anonymous No.9458359]

What are /sci/'s estimates on these dates/answers to the questions?

>>9458251
>Raptor is almost done development
I seriously doubt that. I think they still don't have a full-size prototype or at least haven't test-fired it.
>It's more real of a rocket than fucking NG is
I think NG may actually be further ahead than BFR. As far as I know, they have built the factory and have full-scale prototypes of BE-4.

>>9458264
Would airlifting the rocket be doable in any way? Like getting two helicopters to carry it?

[Anonymous No.9458370]

>>9458359
>Would airlifting the rocket be doable in any way?
BFS? Way too heavy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket)
>Second stage – Spaceship
>Empty mass 85,000 kg (187,000 lb)

Largest helicopter in the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26#Specifications_(Mi-26)
>Capacity:
>20,000 kg cargo (44,090 lb)

[Anonymous No.9458382]

>>9458370
lets not reject the possibility of Elon announcing an electric helo, or using 10 Grasshoppers working together, to do such lifting. The man knows no limits

[Anonymous No.9458393]

>>9458137
>he thought the Falcon Heavy would be as easy "strapping 3 Falcon 9s together"
Why did he think this again?

[Anonymous No.9458409]

>>9458393
He didn't. He was exaggerating for effect.

And he was also bullshitting about how difficult it was, to deflect the ire of inconvenienced customers who would have liked it to launch sooner, when it didn't make sense for SpaceX to fly Falcon Heavy until the Falcon 9 design was basically finalized. There were difficulties, but they also intentionally de-prioritized it.

[Anonymous No.9458450]

>>9458393
It works in kerbal space program

[Anonymous No.9458487]

Official static fire video is out (same as the one on Twitter plus a post-fire view from afar):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNgByUWwFKU
The video seems to be sped up as the static fire seems to have lasted 12 seconds according to observers, but appears to only take 6 in this video.

[Anonymous No.9458494]

>>9458487
I doubt it's sped up. There was a rumour that it would be 12 seconds, but you couldn't really tell from a distance. The cloud carried on moving after the engines stopped, of course.

[Anonymous No.9458505]

>>9458450
Beep

[Anonymous No.9458520]

>>9458137
Electron isn‘t cheap, just flexible. Although I will admit, the BFR might actually run into the A380 issue where it‘s just not good business to cram so much shit into one vehicle every flight just to make it viable.

[Anonymous No.9458524]

>>9458520
A380 had a market change under it and airport restrictions.

BFR can get heavy shit up or medium shit deep, for cheap. It is a ocean freighter.

[Anonymous No.9458543]

>>9458520
A380 wasn't the first airliner that everyone didn't have to parachute out of, while it autopiloted to a crash in the hills.

I believe SpaceX will make a smaller fully-reusable launcher in the end, but the reason they talk about flying everything on BFR is that they expect it to be cheaper to fly than any other rocket, including Falcon 9 with mature flyback booster reuse.

[Anonymous No.9458576]

>>9456234
All that thing puts in orbit is the tiny little payload in the fairing of the small rocket on it's back. It's in no way competing for the job of BFR or even F9.

[Anonymous No.9458588]

>>9456234
XS-1 isn't really a competitor for Falcon. End goal with XS-1 is to have something that can launch a small payload to orbit given a day or two's notice at low cost. Same general purpose as the canceled ALASA. This isn't exactly a market Space-X is in a position to capture.

>>9458127
>could have made use of those wings for lift with horizontal takeoff
You run into bigger drag losses for a horizontal take off. Glide back is a decent choice. Its less complex and tricky than a power slam. Wings cut into payload but then again so does fuel for a power slam.

[Anonymous No.9458592]

>>9458393
It worked for Delta IV

[Anonymous No.9458602]

>>9458588
>This isn't exactly a market Space-X is in a position to capture.
You haven't seen Block 5. They've been saying for years that they intend to make Falcon 9 boosters capable of being reflown with no refurbishment and streamlining launch procedures.

Last year was the first time they started reflying boosters at all, and they've only done it a few times, so reuse hasn't contributed significantly to their launch rate.

>>9458127
>>9458588
There's a huge difference in mass between a rocket on the launchpad and an empty booster. It's easier to add more thrust than to build wings that can provide that kind of lift.

[Anonymous No.9458724]

>>9458164
>Even when BFR's flying, what will they use for Earth departure of deep-space probes?
The BFS burns past escape velocity, unloads a "third" stage + probe, then brakes and returns to Earth

These sorts of missions are not common.

[Anonymous No.9458748]

>>9458487
Webm

[Anonymous No.9458782]

I will cum so hard if this thing explodes during launch.

[Anonymous No.9458800]

Why does it make so much steam?

[Anonymous No.9458809]

>autists won't shut up about spacex and elon musk whenever the topic of missions in space is brought up
>they talk shit about NASA because "muh reusability"
>they only know space related topics because of 3 minute animations made by "science" youtube channels
>don't understand any actual principals of rocketry and orbital mechanics
>most ignore the main mission and only watch the landing, like a baby amazed at jingling keys

You guys seem like you actually understand what you say, the normies who pretend to like science because it's trendy are the ones who do this.

[Anonymous No.9458821]

>>9458800
cuz they are spraying water so it doesn't melt all the concrete

[Anonymous No.9458840]

>>9458782
Would you prefer an explosion when it's in the sky or do you want it to level the launch pad?

[Anonymous No.9458842]

>>9458782
why

[Anonymous No.9458856]

>>9458251
I keep hearing about COPV.
Can somebody give me a quick rundown on why it is so important

[Anonymous No.9458863]

>>9458842
Why not?

[Anonymous No.9458950]

more video of the static fire

[Anonymous No.9459048]

>>9458856
The copv is a carbon composite pressure vessel Spacex uses in the Falcon 9. It holds helium at a very high pressure which is used to pressurize the fuel tanks as they run dry. It's gotten a lot of attention because the copv has been directly and indirectly responsible for both of Spacex's failures. They're even considering switching to a normal titanium pressure vessel for crewed flights at the behest of Nasa.

[Anonymous No.9459090]

Does FH just use the F9 fairing, and is that going to restrict things when they actually want to launch 60+ t payloads?

[Anonymous No.9459106]

>>9458809
Man, you sound like a very cynical, angry person.

[Anonymous No.9459186]

>>9458602
>You haven't seen Block 5. They've been saying for years that they intend to make Falcon 9 boosters capable of being reflown with no refurbishment and streamlining launch procedures.
>Last year was the first time they started reflying boosters at all, and they've only done it a few times, so reuse hasn't contributed significantly to their launch rate.
Even if Space-X gets to same day turnarounds I can't see them being able to launch on demand like the XS-1 is for. A week? Sure, maybe even down to a few days. Even if they get same day turnarounds I don't see it as something that will be economical for this job. The Falcon 9 is ridiculously overpowered for the kind of payloads XS-1 is for.

[Anonymous No.9459204]

>>9459106
And you sound like a little bitch.
Almost everything I said in that post is true and you know it.

[Anonymous No.9459271]

>>9458576
>>9458588

more flights = more money

This is where the next fight is, whoever can get the most things into orbit per week if not also per day. Again I'm not saying SpaceX will or could loose, just that Boeing will up the ante and Musk will meet them.

[Anonymous No.9459276]

>>9459204
Because it is a 14 story metal tube autonomously landing itself on a pad comparable to a football field via a 3g suicide burn.

Ya, the landing is exciting, so it will draw people's attention. Why get buttmad that not everyone is a rocket scientist?

[Anonymous No.9459319]

>>9459048
It's more about NASA trying to sabotage SpaceX and being general government bureaucrat faggots.

[Anonymous No.9459331]

>>9459319

Why would NASA want to sabotage SpaceX? They save a lot of money by using them. Even if they did want to sabotage them, they could just deny them use of their launch pads.

[Anonymous No.9459452]

>>9458809
>autists won't shut up about spacex and elon musk whenever the topic of missions in space is brought up
This is a spaceX thread.
Also you are projecting, elitist autist.
>they talk shit about NASA because "muh reusability"
What's wrong with criticism, especially when it's about public spending? And I would say criticism is not because reusability, but because regress after Apollo.
>they only know space related topics because of 3 minute animations made by "science" youtube channels
Then you can start educating "them" here.
>don't understand any actual principals of rocketry and orbital mechanics
Some even play KSP and think they are onto something, morans!
>most ignore the main mission and only watch the landing, like a baby amazed at jingling keys
"They" do? Oh well, landing really is kinda amazing.

>normies who pretend to like science because it's trendy are the ones who do this.
REEEE

[Anonymous No.9459590]

>>9458505
Don't aim for 20km pe if your goal is only aero capture. Once down there's no longer any way up and she will not let you go and will embrace forever all who arrive to help. This is final transmission.

[Anonymous No.9459736]

>>9459331
>nasa obstructing spacex out of entrenched interests and pathological risk averseness is a conspiracy because they could assassinate Elon instead it's that simple!

[Anonymous No.9459805]

>>9458048
This is america we are talking about. Its never going to die because the american engineering technique in aerospace is just that if you have enough thrust you dont need lift.

[Anonymous No.9459817]

>>9456645
(you)

[Anonymous No.9459904]

>>9459204

you sound like the type of guy that when you go crazy and shoot up your office, everyone says, "yeah - doesn't surprise me."

of course people are interested in the landing - they can see it, it's exciting, it's something new.

you can bet when people go to Mars and booster landings are 2nd nature... are they getitng there already... that people will be most interested in the humans walking around on Mars.

[Anonymous No.9459932]

>>9458809
YOU. DO NOT. NEED TO KNOW. EVERY. SINGLE. FUCKING. DETAIL. TO. ENJOY. A. THING.

fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9460064]

>>9459736

All NASA has to do is say No to SpaceX using their facilities. That'd be enough.

[Anonymous No.9460066]

>>9459932

[impotent rage intensifies]

[Anonymous No.9460101]

>>9460064
No.
Your life must be blissful, with that head of yours.

[Anonymous No.9460103]

>>9459186
>like the XS-1 is for
Because boeing has such a history of highly rapidly reusable vehicles?
Because a meme cryogenic engine lends itself to that?

[Anonymous No.9460116]

>>9460064
Then SpaecX would do shit on their own, and get it done faster for less cost.
You obstruct people by pretending to be their friend, then stabbing them in the back btw

They sucker SpaceX into this commercial crew program, then delay it for years unnecessarily, requiring vast amounts of extra work.
This was ok with SpaceX's schedule though because of their own long delays on the F9 program.

There is a reason SpaceX won't be involving the military or NASA with the BFR program.

[Anonymous No.9460158]

>>9459186
>Even if Space-X gets to same day turnarounds I can't see them being able to launch on demand like the XS-1 is for.
That's ridiculous, though. SpaceX is going to have a whole stable of boosters. If they have upper stages in stock, and have sufficiently streamlined their pad operations, there's no reason they won't be able to launch at a rate of several times per day.

>The Falcon 9 is ridiculously overpowered for the kind of payloads XS-1 is for.
1) The XS-1 has a small payload specified in order to keep the program cost down, not because it's preferred. If it's successful, they'll want a much bigger one.
2) "Power" doesn't determine cost. There are many factors. SpaceX's launch vehicles are low cost even before reusability is factored in, to the point that their heavy-lift rocket has a base price (Falcon 9, $62 million, 22.8t) roughly equivalent to the smallsat launch options offered by older launch companies (Minotaur IV, $55 million, 1.7t). Boeing isn't known for efficiency or low prices, quite the opposite.

[Anonymous No.9460168]

>>9458724
>>Even when BFR's flying, what will they use for Earth departure of deep-space probes?
>The BFS burns past escape velocity, unloads a "third" stage + probe
That's the point: a departure stage is still needed. This is a reason for SpaceX to want a one-Raptor stage.

[Anonymous No.9460173]

>>9460064
Would pay to see the political shitstorm. It could end that bureaucratic clusterfuck that is NASA but they are too cowardly to do something so suicidal.

[Anonymous No.9460188]

>>9460168
Special expendable upper stage for special and very rare deep space probes?
Who's gonna pay for that?
The sat market that will maintain the BFR is questionable enough as is.

[Anonymous No.9460192]

Who here signing up for /mars/ as soon as Elon gets his BFR shit together?

>Born too late to explore the Earth
>Born too early to explore space
>Born just in time for Mars
>tfw the new frontier is probably within your lifetime

Feels good man, fuck Earth.

[Anonymous No.9460197]

>>9460116
>There is a reason SpaceX won't be involving the military or NASA with the BFR program.
SpaceX wants NASA's support. That's why is was pitched as a moon vehicle recently.

[Anonymous No.9460224]

>>9460192
>tfw Mars will probably get populated by brainlets and normies
they always shit everything up

[Anonymous No.9460237]

>>9460224
I doubt it, at least not for a very long time. Brainlets and normies will simply not be able to survive on Mars, outside is extremely hostile and they will kill themselves from cabin fever if they stay in their habitats all the time.

>Nah can't be fucked checking my suit seals, they worked find yesterday
>Can't breathe lmao

I don't give a shit if I have to put on a suit when I go outside, a whole new fucking world man, pristine and untouched with some of the most mindblowing scenery in the solar system.

[Anonymous No.9460272]

>>9460188
>Special expendable upper stage for special and very rare deep space probes?
God, you're stupid. Attention span of a fucking rabbit. See: >>9458164

The 1-Raptor stage would have many uses, and it's among the lowest cost options for a departure stage for deep-space probes, which need a departure stage anyway.

>The sat market that will maintain the BFR
Go be garbage somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.9460296]

>>9459590
She was pretty tough to dump on stock.
But I imagine baloons should make her easy.

[Anonymous No.9460508]

>>9460192
>>9460224
>falling for Musk's "let's colonize this red desert shithole" meme
>calling anyone else a brainlet or a normie
lol

[Anonymous No.9460535]

>>9460508
>Not wanting to expand the future of humanity on a new planet through hard work and technology

Musk is irrelevant to Mars other than as a means to get there and get colonies off the ground. Now get the fuck off 4chan you sad sack of shit.

[Anonymous No.9460540]

>>9460272
So you are retarded. Understood.

[Anonymous No.9460615]

>>9460272
why speculate about a supposed thing they might do without the slightest bit of evidence supporting it
And tons of reason why they won't build an expensive difficult modification for the FH

[Anonymous No.9460618]

>>9460197
They want NASA's money and contracts to do things. They DON'T want to be micromanaged by NASA and have to jump through endless NASA hoops

[Anonymous No.9460625]

Meanwhile, Ariane 5 launch in 3 minutes!

http://www.arianespace.com/mission/ariane-flight-va241/

[Anonymous No.9460638]

Cool, but when will we have the Saturn V's true successor?
Also, why does the F9 look like a huge space dick?

[Anonymous No.9460697]

>>9460638
>Also, why does the F9 look like a huge space dick?
To penetrate unknown.

[Anonymous No.9460724]

>>9460615
>why speculate
Because companies keep secrets and mislead competitors about what they're actually planning, and pose as a tactic in negotiations.

>without the slightest bit of evidence
...except for them specifically taking money to develop Raptor as an upper stage engine for Falcon 9 and Heavy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_prototype_upper-stage_engine
...except for them having stated that they'd build a Raptor-powered upper stage if a customer paid for it.
...except for them planning to start upper stage recovery tests this year, "but not to reuse the recovered stages".

All signs point to them doing their damnedest to get full government funding for the Raptor upper stage, so they can do something that makes sense for them to do anyway, but get the taxpayer to foot the bill.

>an expensive difficult modification for the FH
Setting aside that their history of the F9/H vehicle is a continous process of "expensive, difficult modifications", it's obviously not just that. It's a subscale prototype of BFS, and a natural step in its development which will probably save them money in the long run. Plus it's something they can build a Raptor booster for, which will fill a hole in their offerings for smaller, individualized launches once they discontinue F9/H, and something they can launch as a third stage for BFR.

It never made sense to skip straight to a megarocket with no reusable-orbital-stage experience at a smaller scale. That has all the earmarks of being a "hairy arm" in their plan: an obvious flaw for a relatively clueless superior or customer to fix, and thereby feel like they contributed and are in control (named after an advertising contract photographer's trick of taking a beach photograph with a man's hairy arm in the foreground to the side, so there's something for the customer to request to have airbrushed out).

[Anonymous No.9460743]

>>9460724
>...except for them specifically taking money to develop Raptor as an upper stage engine for Falcon 9 and Heavy:
A tiny amount of money to just build what they were building anyways

>...except for them having stated that they'd build a Raptor-powered upper stage if a customer paid for it.
And it would be hundreds of millions of dollars to get them to do it, no customer exists for that.

>...except for them planning to start upper stage recovery tests this year, "but not to reuse the recovered stages".
They intend to experiment with upper stage recovery, just as they experimented with booster recovery. An upper stage reentry is not the same as a blunt capsule reentry.

All signs point to them following their stated development path. They have explicitly said they will not be doing upper stage recovery with the Falcon series.

>It's a subscale prototype of BFS
It would not be the same engine, it would not be carbon composite, it would not be the same size, layout, or design, or built in the same factory. It would not be built on the same tooling....

This is an EXTRA expense that has little carry over to a totally different vehicle.

Upper stage reentry is largely a mathematics problem, not something that needs to be experimentally developed.
No doubt we'll see an F9/FH upper stage with pica-x heatshield at some point, maybe even with wings to test aerodynamics/programming... But none of this requires a brand new upper stage that will cost hundreds of millions or billions to mature, at which point it will be irrelevant..

[Anonymous No.9460862]

>>9460743
>>...except for them specifically taking money to develop Raptor as an upper stage engine for Falcon 9 and Heavy:
>A tiny amount of money to just build what they were building anyways
A legal commitment to act in good faith developing Raptor as an upper stage engine for Falcon 9/H.

>They have explicitly said they will not be doing upper stage recovery with the Falcon series.
They have explicitly said they will be doing upper stage recovery. They have explicitly said they'll do the Raptor upper stage if a customer pays for it.

They've given conflicting statements on whether they'll do upper stage reuse. If they've changed their position before, why not change it again?

>And it would be hundreds of millions of dollars to get them to do it, no customer exists for that.
There's NASA, and there's the USAF. NASA wants to return to the moon, and the U.S. president wants it to happen as soon as possible. The USAF wants dramatically improved flight rates and short-term availability, the sooner the better.

>>It's a subscale prototype of BFS
>It would not be the same engine, it would not be carbon composite
Of course it would be the same engine and carbon composite. Not the same landing engine, but they need heavy-duty pressure-fed thrusters for other purposes. Raptor is the right size for an upper stage double the mass of the current one, which either Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy could carry. They've already made a 12-meter carbon composite LOX tank, they can certainly make a 5-meter one.

You can make any concept sound stupid if you inject your own stupidity.

[Anonymous No.9461028]

>>9460625
Oh fuck, Ariane 5 had its first launch failure in 15 years. The second stage stopped sending telemetry almost immediately after ignition, no signals from either satellite.

Might be good news for the Falcon Heavy market though.

[Anonymous No.9461040]

>>9460101

impotent insults will get you nowhere in life

>>9460116

>You obstruct people by pretending to be their friend, then stabbing them in the back btw

No, it's not and you don't know how the government works. When the government wants to fuck over one company at the expense of another (a thing it has done many, many, many times) it just says No whenever the targeted company wants to use public resources like land, minerals or water. The government can just say No. NASA itself is in a prime position to do this because they supply SpaceX with both ISS resupply contracts and the facilities to launch their rockets. NASA can just say No and use their own rocket, SLS, for that purpose. Your suggestion is completely delusional.

>They sucker SpaceX into this commercial crew program, then delay it for years unnecessarily, requiring vast amounts of extra work.

Wrong, it's delayed because of safety reasons and making sure everything works because if SpaceX has any lethal accidents Congress will say No to using them and essentially kill them. NASA is ensuring they get everything right, which is to be expected because Congress wants Commercial Crew (and SpaceX) to be successful.

[Anonymous No.9461043]

>>9461028
>Oh fuck, Ariane 5 had its first launch failure in 15 years. The second stage stopped sending telemetry almost immediately after ignition, no signals from either satellite.

SES will probably have ariane(lol) build another one and contract it out to a falcon 9 for another discount

that arab sat will probably just have orbital build another and stick it on a falcon or antares

[Anonymous No.9461067]

>>9461040
>>They sucker SpaceX into this commercial crew program, then delay it for years unnecessarily, requiring vast amounts of extra work.
>Wrong, it's delayed because of safety reasons
You're both wrong. It's delayed because of NASA's hopeless bureaucratic culture.

When SpaceX and Boeing are announcing the same length of delays at the same times repeatedly, you have to conclude it's the common factor (NASA) and not them each independently screwing up in lockstep.

>>9461028
>Ariane 5 had its first launch failure in 15 years.
Now there's some news!

[Anonymous No.9461349]

[Anonymous No.9461707]

>>9461028
Makes me automatically think about JWST.

If this program started with a sibling apparatus, would it be more than 1.3 x the cost of single telescope?

[Anonymous No.9461713]

>>9461707
The Ariane 5 launch was okay, they just had a communication failure.

They eventually made contact with the satellites and confirmed they were in orbit and working as expected.

[Anonymous No.9461732]

>>9461349
Fuck I can't tell if they are serious or if they fucked up their april fools joke. It is actually possible to drill with a rocket engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_rocket
>>9461707
probably more like 1.5x. Telescope mirrors are expensive, there's still quite a bit of weird custom components, and they'd still have to do some testing.

[Anonymous No.9461928]

>>9458287
> 30% of the fuel

Do the math, landing back to the cap requires 10% of the fuel (30 to 50% payload réduction depending on if it will go to Leo or gto) , landing on the asds needs 5% (10 to 30% payload réduction for Leo/gto

[Anonymous No.9461931]

>>9461713
It’s on the wrong orbit

[Anonymous No.9461967]

>>9461931
Source?

[Anonymous No.9461978]

>>9460064
And this is why SpaceX is building his own launch complex right now in Texas.

[Anonymous No.9462026]

>>9461978
Who is this SpaceX?

[Anonymous No.9462044]

>>9461040

>No, it's not and you don't know how the government works. When the government wants to fuck over one company at the expense of another (a thing it has done many, many, many times) it just says No whenever the targeted company wants to use public resources like land, minerals or water. The government can just say No. NASA itself is in a prime position to do this because they supply SpaceX with both ISS resupply contracts and the facilities to launch their rockets. NASA can just say No and use their own rocket, SLS, for that purpose. Your suggestion is completely delusional.

NASA cannot do that outside of your imagination nor they will even consider it because the fallout from waging direct war with major aerospace company will be the end of the careers of those involved in such short lived decision.

I won't even comment on the retarded idea to use the SLS to supply the station. If your absurd argument against the glaringly obvious NASA bureaucracy wasn't enough to confirm you are the one that is delusional, then this is it.

[Anonymous No.9462087]

>>9461928
Payload to GTO: FT:
8,300 kg (18,300 lb) expendable
5,500 kg (12,100 lb) reusable
My source is Wiki

That's 33% less payload. Imokwith.this

[Anonymous No.9462097]

>payload to GTFO

[Anonymous No.9462098]

>>9461928
der Frog...

[Anonymous No.9462303]

>>9462044
>I won't even comment on the retarded idea to use the SLS to supply the station.
Such a retarded idea that it was written into law as a required capability of SLS/Orion.

There's nothing you can suggest about using the SLS that's less retarded than the fact that it's being built. The space shuttle was used to send crew and supplies to ISS, and management of the SLS program have claimed that it would be less expensive than the space shuttle, so why not fly it to ISS?

The whole program only exists because of dirty backroom deals and brazen denial of reality.

[Anonymous No.9462420]

>>9462303
Hell you see people defending the shuttle and the shuttle program even today
You certainly don't see NASA brass complaining about the Orion/SLS shitshow
Instead you see people complaining about Obama cancelling Constellation as if Constellation wouldn't be LITERALLY in the same situation as SLS now, a perpetually late pile of shit

[Anonymous No.9462428]

>>9461967
https://www.ses.com/press-release/ses-14-good-health-and-track-despite-launch-anomaly

>SES-14 would thus reach the geostationary orbit only four weeks later than originally planned.

huh so did it get released too soon/late? 2nd stage burn too long or short?

[Anonymous No.9462434]

>>9462303
>There's nothing you can suggest about using the SLS that's less retarded than the fact that it's being built.
He's got you there.

[Anonymous No.9462450]

>this thread
Hahahahauahaha

[Anonymous No.9462460]

>>9462428
>huh so did it get released too soon/late? 2nd stage burn too long or short?
Does that even matter? Orbit is off. Most likely the satellite will need more fuel to get where it should, shortening it's lifespan.

Does the tesla decouple from the platform? Any power sources?
"Driving" should work as reaction wheels and rotate the car and cams.

[Anonymous No.9462484]

>>9462450
How's that Angara coming?
Why it's so fugly compared to soyuz?

[Anonymous No.9462489]

>>9458287
>You need to reserve 30% of the fuel just to return the first stage which translates to drastic reduction in payload raising costs.

Falcon 9 costs the same to launch if they recover it or not. If they recover it they can launch it again, which means they can afford to charge less for each flight including the first. If they launch it expendable they have to recover all cost in one launch, which means they don't give a discount. For a payload weighing 5000 kg or less, Falcon 9 can fly it reusable, which means any company looking to launch a <5000 kg payload will opt for reusability and the discount.

The discount is not proportional to the payload mass, which means the cost per kilogram payload for a maxed out reusable flight is actually more than the cost per kilogram of a maxed out expendable flight. HOWEVER, Falcon 9 has never once been even close to launching with a maxed out payload mass. Cost per kilogram is a useful metric for getting a rough idea of how effective a launch vehicle is, but for commercial use the most important factor is actual real cost per flight. Reusable flights of F9 are proportionately more expensive but in absolute terms are cheaper by millions of dollars.

RocketLab's launch vehicle is a good example of this. It has a tiny payload and is about ten times as expensive per kilogram than a Falcon 9, which is fine because their launch cost is ~$5 million. Their business model is geared towards very small payloads of about 150 kg, which need to go into specific orbits and don't want to wait around for years to piggyback on a larger launch vehicle as a secondary priority. If Electron had the same price per kilogram but could launch as much as a Falcon 9 it would be as expensive as the Space Shuttle used to be and would have zero customers.

[Anonymous No.9462492]

>>9458382
>an electric helo
And how is an electric helicopter going to compete with a gas turbine powered helicopter in net lift capability?

They will use a fucking boat and go through the Panama canal.

[Anonymous No.9462493]

>>9462420
Constellation was a mess, but you can always make a mess worse.

Ares I was the best part of that plan, and SLS and Orion are badly mismatched for any interesting mission beyond LEO, whereas Ares I would essentially recreate shuttle capabilities at lower cost, and the two-launch architecture at least made sense as a practical, if inefficient, way to land men on the moon again.

It got much worse under Obama. He not only reorganized the Constellation program into something incoherent, but he put NASA under operationally incompetent, corrupt management that was simply not interested in getting the job done. Setting NASA to work on Constellation and build a moon base should have been a clear, ambitious enough task to make it obvious who was useful and who was a hindrance, and let them reorganize to be effective. Instead, NASA was focused on diversity hiring and similar political distribution of spoils, with leadership that simply didn't care that SLS/Orion was never going to work or be useful for anything.

If a Republican president had been elected instead of Obama, Orion would be ferrying crew to ISS on Ares I by now. It would still cost too much and people would be talking about how it wasn't any safer than sitting them on Dragon, but it wouldn't be a total loss.

[Anonymous No.9462497]

>>9458524
Also light shit, considering it's supposedly going to compete with Electron in actual launch price if SpaceX achieves what they're aiming for. There's really no reason why a $6 million BFR launch can't carry a single 500 kg payload, it may seem like a waste but that's how the economics work.

[Anonymous No.9462499]

>>9462484
Its most likely gonna be shit
Modern day russian engineering ≠ soviet engineering

[Anonymous No.9462505]

>>9458856
The other guy meant SpaceX was close to completing their carbon fiber matrix tank materials, the stuff that BFR will be made of instead of Aluminum-lithium alloy, since the CF is much lighter and also has a very low thermal expansion ratio, which means thermal cycling isn't as much of an issue.

[Anonymous No.9462514]

>>9460168
They don't need a departure stage, at most they'd need a few tankers sent up to refuel the cargo ship. This thing is supposed to have over 11 km/s of delta V on orbit with full tanks, it would be able to burn to escape velocity, release the payload once it's on a transfer orbit to wherever, then turn and burn back onto a highly elliptical Earth orbit after some slow maneuvers to get far away from the payload. It only needs to reserve enough fuel to land back on Earth, since after the slowdown burn it would be able to brake using the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9462548]

>>9461067
>It's delayed because of NASA's hopeless bureaucratic culture.

This. NASA decided recently that they want SpaceX to do a full study on replacing the COPV helium tanks with Iconel ones because they don't like the carbon composite being immersed in LOx. They've known about the COPV's for many years now but only days ago made a decision to even investigate something that SpaceX could have reported on years ago and even developed in parallel if NASA asked. NASA is treating Commercial Crew as if it were a cost plus contract, but it's fixed price, meaning every time they ask to change something it's biting chunks out of the profit margin for both companies involved.

[Anonymous No.9462552]

>>9462493
>Ares I was the best part of that plan
You only say that because it was the closest to "success" by having a single test booster launch
But the Ares I would never have resulted in a real vehicle seeing regular launches, that was just a 1 off test launch to pretend they were doing something.

>If a Republican president had been elected instead of Obama, Orion would be ferrying crew to ISS on Ares I by now.
More like sometime around 2014 it would be admitted that the Orion capsule was too heavy to launch atop the Ares I and we'd still be in the same situation.
They didn't even have a design, nor engines selected, for the Ares V after years of "work"

It was Nixon who started the shuttle program and it's been Republican's in the South who are the big pushers of these retarded pork programs

[Anonymous No.9462554]

>>9462303
SLS is a joke at this point, it never really made sense in the beginning but the fact that the decided to stick with solid boosters in their future plans as opposed to developing liquid boosters (Pyrios specifically) really solidified that for me. Getting rid of SLS's solids would cut Orbital out of the game and the heads in charge wouldn't like that.

[Anonymous No.9462560]

>>9462460
The Tesla will remain affixed to the second stage. It's possible that the payload adapter or even the car itself may have a solar panel or two at this point, since everything's already encapsulated, but they only need the payload to stay alive until it reaches orbit. They will probably power some cameras for a few hours then turn it off if they don't have solar. Using the tires for reaction wheels wouldn't be very effective because they're all along the same axis and aren't very heavy.

[Anonymous No.9462565]

>>9462499
Clearly you must be wrong, fella. How can there be any creativity without competition in the intrastate market and with big govt being just wasteful?

[Anonymous No.9462567]

>>9462499
it's almost like Russia today has a fraction of the GDP it had during the early part of the cold war lol

[Anonymous No.9462575]

>>9462552
Ares 1 a shit. Vibration levels were too high for astronauts to tolerate, not to mention having a solid booster for a first stage essentially means your abort sequence doesn't work until several minutes into flight when you probably don't need it anyway.

[Anonymous No.9462577]

>>9462514
>This thing is supposed to have over 11 km/s of delta V on orbit with full tanks,
Even with full reusability, five additional tanker launches to refill it in orbit are going to cost more than a small expendable departure stage. You'd be spending more money for a poorer result.

>it would be able to burn to escape velocity, release the payload once it's on a transfer orbit to wherever, then turn and burn back onto a highly elliptical Earth orbit after some slow maneuvers to get far away from the payload.
A huge, reusable BFS that has to be turned around and brought back to Earth isn't going to be able to achieve nearly the delta-V of a small expendable stage. BFS empty mass is supposed to be around 85 tonnes. Even with orbital refuelling, if it has to turn itself right around, it's going to be able to get the payload up to little more than half of that 11 km/s, no matter how light you make the payload, and it'll go down fast with increasing payload mass.

5.5 km/s isn't a tremendous amount to work with for a deep space probe, if you could even get that. It takes 3.2 km/s just to reach Earth escape velocity from LEO. New Horizons used like 16.5 km/s. The absolute minimum to reach Jupiter directly is over 6 km/s.

For extreme-performance missions, it might be reasonable to refuel BFS enough to add 3 or 4 km/s, but then you'd still want an expendable stage on there.

[Anonymous No.9462605]

>>9462565
Spotted the capitalist pig

But yeah, you dont need competition, you need to actually teach kids at school math and science like theyve done in ussr (and not the common core way)

[Anonymous No.9462609]

>>9462552
>You only say that because it was the closest to "success" by having a single test booster launch
No, I say that because it was achievable and used the least disappointing part of the shuttle. Ares I was basically what the space shuttle should have been from the beginning, as a first cautious experiment with partial reusability.

>Ares I would never have resulted in a real vehicle seeing regular launches
That's ridiculous. There was nothing about it that couldn't work. The most serious problem with Ares I was that the Orion mass kept creeping up over the ability of Ares I to launch it to orbit, which NASA management mishandled by ordering the Ares I team to pull more performance out somehow, instead of ordering the Orion team to respect the mass budget.

>>9462554
Everyone loves to shit on the SRBs, but they were the part of the space shuttle that most closely lived up to expectations. And yes, they were involved in the Challenger disaster, but only because they were used way out of spec. With management making decisions like that, something would have given eventually, regardless of whether there were SRBs. The shuttle program had many close calls that had nothing to do with the SRBs.

People hate on the SRBs because they were simple and practical, and NASA wanted to do fancy, cutting-edge stuff for every part all at once. Without them, the shuttle might never have flown at all.

>>9462575
>Vibration levels were too high for astronauts to tolerate
FUD. This was a theoretical issue with vibrational resonance that had to be designed around and avoided. People parrot this stuff without understanding that it

>having a solid booster for a first stage essentially means your abort sequence doesn't work until several minutes into flight
Also FUD. This was a theoretical issue with the failure mode of the SRB completely exploding, where burning chunks of fuel might make holes in the parachutes. Not ideal, but still far safer than the shuttle.

[Anonymous No.9462613]

>>9462560
Thx for answers.
Hoodcam video of entire Mars fly-by would be nice, so solar panels would be nice as well.
You took the part about reaction wheels too seriously, nevertheless it would turn the car.

[Anonymous No.9462623]

>>9462605
>Spotted the capitalist pig
I was being sarcastic.

[Anonymous No.9462630]

>>9462623
And so was I.

[Anonymous No.9462638]

>>9462609
>which NASA management mishandled by ordering the Ares I team to pull more performance out somehow, instead of ordering the Orion team to respect the mass budget.
Sure but thats exactly the sort of NASA "leadership" that would have doomed the Ares I to never flying

[Anonymous No.9462646]

>>9462609
It's important to remember when talking about launch escape systems, that only one has ever been used productively, and that was when the rocket blew up on the pad instead of lifting off. The only successful in-flight launch abort didn't require a fast getaway. Both were Soyuz, which has also had two crews die despite the presence of a launch escape system.

The two shuttle failures were through modes that were impossible on Ares I. In Challenger, an SRB seal burned through and a jet of hot gas burned through the external fuel tank. Other than one leaking hot gas sideways into a parallel stage and destroying it, the SRBs continued working fairly normally, and were destroyed by remote activation of a flight safety system (they didn't blow up on their own, and if that were an Ares I mission, it's not at all clear that it wouldn't have made it to orbit). In Columbia, the heat shield of the shuttle was damaged by foam falling off the external fuel tank, again caused by parallel staging. On top of that Ares I had only one SRB and one liquid-fuel engine, reducing the probability of any solid booster failure by 50%, and the probability of any orbital stage engine failure by 67%.

Even without any abort option, Ares I / Orion would have been far safer than the space shuttle. And it would have been well prepared for the most likely abort scenarios: boosting away from a failure to launch on the pad, and in-flight abort where the escape rocket isn't needed, just separation and deployment of parachute.

[Anonymous No.9462653]

>>9462638
If the next president after Dubya had continued Constellation, he would have been expected to have it show results during his term, and would have made an effort to reform NASA into an acceptably effective condition.

[Anonymous No.9462655]

>>9462577
>Even with full reusability, five additional tanker launches to refill it in orbit are going to cost more than a small expendable departure stage. You'd be spending more money for a poorer result.

The result would be the same, payload inserted directly onto a departure orbit. As for cost, assuming Tankers also cost $6 million per flight and assuming we'd need 5 tanker flights, the total cost would be roughly $30 million. A kick stage would probably cost less, sure, but how often do we launch payloads onto Solar orbit trajectories? Also, how many launch vehicles are available that cost $30 million and could send a payload of the same mass onto the same trajectory? Yes, refueling a cargo BFS in low Earth orbit to boost independent interplanetary payloads would be more expensive than Earth orbits, however even without a kick stage it would still be cheaper than the competition, and that's all it needs to be. Don't forget to add in that while the BFR's first stage and upper stage vehicles would have been tested and verified dozens of times quite quickly, by nature an optional kick stage would be flown far less often and thus have a much smaller track record.

Of course this all assumes we only launch probes about as big and heavy as what we've launched already, but with BFR you have the capability to launch probes and payloads weighing over a hundred tons to the Inner solar system, and probes weighing dozens of tons to the outer solar system. The upper mass limit increases further if the BFS is refueled on a highly elliptical orbit rather than a circular one. To do that would require refilling an end-of-life BFS and a Tanker in LEO, boost both vehicles almost to escape velocity, have the Tanker rendezvous and transfer its remaining propellant sans landing reserve to the BFS, then have the BFS boost again at periapsis onto its final rendezvous trajectory.

[Anonymous No.9462673]

>>9462609
>safer than the shuttle.
Not difficult to achieve, the Shuttle was almost designed for failure what with the ET foam and extremely fragile thermal tiles. I'm not saying any of the Ares vehicles would have been as bad as Shuttle, I'm saying they'd have been bad by their own rights.

[Anonymous No.9462676]

>>9462613
It isn't flying by Mars, it's going onto an orbit that will intersect with Mars' orbit but Mars itself will be millions of km away.

[Anonymous No.9462713]

>>9462653
The SLS is just a continuation of Constellation
The Orion capsule is from Constellation
The SLS is just an Ares V

NASA hasn't made a vehicle since the 70's and that was a total shitshow, they simply don't know how to and are filled with bureaucrats who seek to sabotage everything.

I don't think any politician will spend much time messing around with NASA, we'll have to see if Trump does serious house cleaning there, but it's just so irrelevant to the every day political stuff that it won't ever be on his mind.

[Anonymous No.9462719]

>>9462655
>The result would be the same, payload inserted directly onto a departure orbit
I explain in the rest of your post how it isn't. There's barely departing Earth's gravitational pull, and there's a high energy departure.

BFR, even with in-orbit reloading, is simply not capable of sending probes directly to the outer solar system without expending a stage. The only reason it makes sense to use BFR with no expendable stage to go to Mars, is that you can use the reusability hardware to land it on Mars.

>by nature an optional kick stage would be flown far less often
Let me refer you to:
>>9460272
>God, you're stupid. Attention span of a fucking rabbit. See: >>9458164

We're not talking about something designed to be nothing but "an optional kick stage", we're talking about a 1-Raptor stage that would be flying before BFR is, and how it would continue to have productive uses even after BFR was mature.

>assuming we'd need 5 tanker flights, the total cost would be roughly $30 million. A kick stage would probably cost less
Yes. It would cost much less and do a better job. The price of a 1-Raptor expendable stage would probably be well under $10 million, under $20 million with the hardware for stuff like staying active on long-duration missions and being able to land on another planet.

[Anonymous No.9462736]

>>9462673
>I'm not saying any of the Ares vehicles would have been as bad as Shuttle, I'm saying they'd have been bad by their own rights.
I can't disagree with that. Constellation was inefficient, and would have looked very bad as SpaceX made progress. But if it had gone forward as originally planned, people would have never imagined it could be as bad as SLS/Orion has turned out.

>>9462713
>The SLS is just a continuation of Constellation
Sure, with all the sanity stripped out.

Like I said, Ares I was the key part that made it usable at all. That was going to be the part that flew regularly, that was proven on cargo missions to ISS along with Orion, so they didn't have to go crazy trying to prove everything was safe for humans without actually flying, and then fly manned Orion missions regularly to test it out thoroughly in LEO doing useful work before trusting it on moon missions.

Lowering the Ares V spec made it unsuitable for the moon missions that were the main purpose of Constellation, while putting crew on it brought out the worst of NASA's ass-covering culture and basically ensured it would never launch anything but test flights. Remember it was strictly a cargo rocket in Constellation.

Going from Constellation to SLS, they took away the ISS servicing capability, and they took away the moon base capability, and they put people on the cargo rocket, and then it didn't make any sense at all.

[Anonymous No.9462738]

>>9462044

A retarded argument got a retarded answer. My point is that NASA is not trying to snub SpaceX. ffs at this point I wouldn't be surprised if NASA gives up on SLS and just choose to subcontract launches.

[Anonymous No.9462779]

>>9462738
Retarded? Let me tell you what is retarded, the fact that funding for certain space missions is contingent on NASA using the SLS as a launcher. I mean the way things typically go is that the engineers working on the project can decide whatever launcher is best. That means they could decide to use ULA, boeing, spaceX, blue origin, or whoever. Not letting the engineers choose is retarded

[Anonymous No.9462828]

>>9462736
The SLS program being scaled back from Ares V makes it more practical for NASA to do it, not less.
The Orion is too heavy for the Ares I to lift so that program would have been put on permanent delays.

If Constellation had continued, it would be the same situation as now, perpetually 2-3+ years from any launch. With the steady 4-5 billion dollar annual budget.

[Anonymous No.9462841]

>>9462428
>huh so did it get released too soon/late? 2nd stage burn too long or short?

Might have even been a programming error. When the satellites were finally detected, they were in 20 degree inclination orbits instead of equatorial. That is a huge mistake, but not a total failure.

Since there was also a telemetry dropout, it is going to take a long investigation to figure out the root cause.

[Anonymous No.9462875]

>>9462828
>The SLS program being scaled back from Ares V makes it more practical for NASA to do it, not less.
Having been scaled back, it's not useful for any coherent plan, and satisfying NASA's safety standards for a manned launch vehicle is harder than achieving the original performance goals on a cargo-only vehicle.

>The Orion is too heavy for the Ares I to lift
Mass needed to be cut from Orion, and there was no way around it. It's a payload. If it can't stay within the mass budget, it's not useful for anything, especially not beyond-LEO missions.

Ares I was going to have over a 25 tonne capacity to LEO. The Orion capsule itself is still supposed to be under 11 tonnes. The service module didn't need to be over 15 tonnes. They didn't need to internationally collaborate on building a service module, starting from a clunky 21 tonne spacecraft and trying to pare it down. They could have saved it pretty quickly by contracting it out domestically, for instance to Orbital, who did a competent job on Cygnus.

[Anonymous No.9462891]

>>9459331
NASA doesn't want to save money. Saving money directly hurts them.

[Anonymous No.9462893]

>>9460192
There is not going to be a "new frontier". Best case scenario is basically an Antarctic station but on Mars.

[Anonymous No.9462926]

The Falcon Heavy launch date has been confirmed as February 6th:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/956964986353528832

[Anonymous No.9462942]

>>9462875
I should correct this: they switched to the ESA service module as part of the shift from Constellation to SLS, after Ares I was cancelled.

Still, continuing to develop Orion after its managers had given up on staying within the mass budget was absurd. Volume could be allowed to slip, mass couldn't. Either they had to bring it back on track or cancel it, not just declare it would fly on a larger rocket and never go anywhere interesting.

[Anonymous No.9462954]

>>9462891
Source?

[Anonymous No.9462991]

So with the whole reusable rockets thing, why do they have to land them on their tail? Can they not just affix some attitude thrusters and a parachute? Seems a lot easier.

[Anonymous No.9463012]

>>9462719
>The price of a 1-Raptor expendable stage would probably be well under $10 million

Doesn't matter as long as a refueled BFS can do the same job for less than the competition.
High elliptical refueling means the BFS is fully fueled and at just under escape velocity at periapsis, then uses half it's delta V boosting the payload over 5 km/s past escape velocity, lets it go, then brakes back to near escape velocity, except now its periapsis is in the atmosphere.

Single Raptor upper stage for Falcon is never happening.

[Anonymous No.9463013]

>>9462991
For one thing, they do a braking burn as they enter the atmosphere. This makes the cooling and heat shielding requirements more similar to launch conditions, while also providing strong stabilization. If they have the ability to do that, they have most of what they need for a powered landing.

When they first tried to recover stages with a parachute, the stages broke up during re-entry. A passive entry requires robust construction, which adds mass and cost to the vehicle, and takes away the option for higher performance expendable launch.

On top of that, a soft landing recovers the stage without subjecting it to a rough splashdown in corrosive salt water, or requiring the tricky step of fishing it out of the water when it's floating free. With a boost-back launch, it can even be landed near or on the launchpad (the BFR booster is intended to land directly on the launchpad), for immediate reuse.

[Anonymous No.9463021]

>>9463012
>>>assuming we'd need 5 tanker flights, the total cost would be roughly $30 million.
>>The price of a 1-Raptor expendable stage would probably be well under $10 million
>Doesn't matter as long as a refueled BFS can do the same job for less than the competition.

>>>Option A costs more.
>>Option B costs less.
>It doesn't matter that Option B is the most cost-effective, as long as Option A costs less than something else entirely, the people who have to pay for it will decide to pay more for no reason, so this argument is easy for me.

On top of this idiocy, we've already been over how a refuelled BFS CAN'T do the same job. Not when the plan is to spend half its propellant turning itself around.

[Anonymous No.9463022]

>>9462676
Really? Elon, you manipulative piece of shit!

[Anonymous No.9463039]

>>9462489
the problem with re-usability, even if you can reuse stages/boosters is that rockets work under such high stresses that they're not easily refurbished like say an air-plane can

[Anonymous No.9463042]

>>9463022
>>9462676
>Elon is promising more than he can realistically deliver
Gee, that reminds me of someone

[Anonymous No.9463122]

>>9462954
Government budgets are usually based on what they spent previously

[Anonymous No.9463136]

>>9462954
You are a bureaucrat whose division has a budget of $200 million. Do you want your budget to a)increase or b)decrease? Do your contractors, who are paid according to "cost+" model, want it to increase or decrease?

[Anonymous No.9463199]

>>9462954
>Government departments
>Not constantly wanting more gibs to feed endless chains of beauracrats

[Anonymous No.9463327]

>>9462991
Parachute landings are not very accurate, making landing on a pad next to impossible.

Also, the amount of turbulence generated by the rocket itself falling through the air is enough to shred any parachutes that are deployed behind it. NASA ran into this exact same turbulence problem with their Low-Density Decelerator demonstrator, and it's no wonder after those tests we've not heard NASA release any new developments with the technology.

[Anonymous No.9463357]

>>9463021
If you're going to ignore the points I'm making why don't you just talk to yourself in a corner?

BFS when refueled on a highly elliptical orbit would be able to get a payload up to a higher velocity than a Raptor stage starting in LEO. Want to put a Raptor upper stage sized for Falcon 9 into a highly elliptical orbit to make it even? Well now you're refueling your BFS in low Earth orbit, so it ends up costing more than an expendable stage anyway.

Develop BFR and you get this capability for free, instead of wasting time and money developing a Raptor powered stage for the Falcon family. Falcon Heavy has enough margin to launch essentially any commercial payload to any Earth orbit without going expendable mode, Falcon 9 in reusable mode can carry 75% of payloads to any orbit anyway, so what's the point? Develop a Raptor powered second stage for Falcon and increase the payloads covered in reusable mode by 10%? Why do that when SpaceX's goal is to have BFR flying payloads by 2020? BFR can take any modern satellite to direct GTO and circularize at apoapsis then come back to land without needing to refuel along the way, which IS cheaper than any Raptor powered expendable stage. The only payloads that would need high elliptic refueling would be getting launched, optimistically, once every two years, by an agency that may outright buy a BFS to operate it in expendable mode just to take advantage of the larger payload capability.

[Anonymous No.9463383]

>>9463357
No way they will have a functioning BFR in 2 fucking years. I mean sure, if the new engines work and they can sort out landing it then there is no reason it won't work, but 2020 simply will not happen.

[Anonymous No.9463395]

>>9456234
MUSKFAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH

[Anonymous No.9463411]

>>9455819
Weekly reminder that an explosion during ascension that sends more than 50% of the roadster (payload) into orbit/escape velocity is still considered reaching orbit/escape velocity

[Anonymous No.9463482]

>>9463357
it would take 20 flights to refill a bfs in a highly elliptical orbit

no way that will ever be cost effective for anything

[Anonymous No.9463552]

>>9463357
>If you're going to ignore the points I'm making why don't you just talk to yourself in a corner?
I'm not ignoring the points you're making, I'm pointing out where they're wrong or stupid.

>BFS when refueled on a highly elliptical orbit would be able to get a payload up to a higher velocity than a Raptor stage starting in LEO.
Not if you want it back. The difference between an expendable Earth-departure stage and one that has to turn itself around and boost back to Earth is more than the ~3 km/s you'd gain this way.

I mean, sure, you can toss a heavier payload to a relatively low speed departure that way, but that's heavy payloads, not high-delta-v ones, and it would be much more expensive than just expending a smaller stage. Remember as well that the faster you re-enter Earth's atmosphere, the harder it's going to be on the stage, and the fewer times you'll be able to reuse it (or the more often it will need refurbishment).

>Want to put a Raptor upper stage sized for Falcon 9 into a highly elliptical orbit to make it even? Well now you're refueling your BFS in low Earth orbit, so it ends up costing more than an expendable stage anyway.
Nope. Refuelling BFS in a highly elliptical orbit is going to cost way more than doing so in LEO.

>wasting time and money developing a Raptor powered stage for the Falcon family
Like they wasted time and money building a subscale Raptor? Like they wasted time and money building Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 instead of just skipping directly to BFR?

The 1-Raptor stage is the cheapest, fastest way to make their inevitable mistakes on their first try at making a reusable upper stage, an in-space refillable stage, and all the other new technologies they're working with for the first time, that they want to use in BFR.

[Anonymous No.9463687]

>>9455819
How far are they from a solution to the jello baby issue?

[Anonymous No.9463709]

>>9463687
Given the fact we only have experience with 0g, we have no fucking idea what 0.37g is going to be like. Personally I don't think it will be nearly as bad as 0g given that the downward forces are actually present, just not as strongly.

[Anonymous No.9463844]

>>9463482
If you do 20-25 flights to launch a multi-billion dollar 100 ton payload to deep space.. thats a bargain at the prices they hope to reach, compared to the money they would spend now for SLS or Delta IV

[Anonymous No.9463848]

>>9463327
Parachutes are VERY accurate provided you are using something before 20's era chutes
And actively controlling it.

[Anonymous No.9463861]

>>9463482
No, it would take a max of twelve.

Launch a single BFS to LEO, refuel it with five launches. Launch a single Tanker to LEO, refuel it with five launches. Both spacecraft boost onto the same highly elliptical orbit, close to escape velocity, having used half of their propellant loads. The Tanker docks with the Spaceship and transfers its fuel, minus a small amount for landing later. The Tanker slows down a tiny bit at apoapsis and lowers its periapsis into the atmosphere to reenter later. The Spaceship boosts at periapsis and goes well beyond escape velocity, reaching a departure velocity of over 16 km/s. It stops burning either once the payload is fast enough or once it has used up half of its delta V. It then drops the payload and uses the rest of its delta V to slow back down onto a highly elliptical orbit, coasts to apoapsis and slows down a tiny bit more, then comes back to reenter the atmosphere and land.

The cost of this operation at $6 million a flight is still less than a current Falcon 9 launch.

[Anonymous No.9463864]

>>9463848
Clearly not enough for SpaceX, also the turbulence issue is the real show stopper here.

[Anonymous No.9463880]

>>9463864
I don't think turbulence is a big issue, just means you have to slow your vehicle down before deploying the chute.
SpaceX will be recovering the fairings using chutes and landing on a boat so clearly it'll be accurate.
Just need to use a paraglider and actively steer.

>>9463552
>Like they wasted time and money building a subscale Raptor?
They never built a "sub scale raptor", they built a prototype(which is not an assembled engine) that was the max size for the test stand they had.
This was like 2 years ago now.

[Anonymous No.9463886]

>>9463848
Parachute landings are HARD.

[Anonymous No.9463901]

>>9463880
If you're going to slow your vehicle down enough that you can deploy a chute without worrying about turbulence, then you may as well propulsively land because you need to scrub enough velocity to go from supersonic to less than 100 km/h. That's the same decision SpaceX made at some point.

The paraglider on the fairings will steer accurately enough to hit a big ass ship with big ass arms and a net. It currently isn't accurate enough though, which is why they've so far failed to recover one. Also, SpaceX is currently working on getting propulsive landing to the point that they can re-land the boosters they fly in the launch mount itself, which is certainly impossible to do with parachutes.

It's this looking ahead to future technology that precludes a serious parachute-based stage recovery system, just look at Blue Origin as an example. New Shepard is perfectly sized and perfectly places for parachute stage recovery, being in the middle of the fucking desert and only the size of a bus or so.

[Anonymous No.9463936]

>>9463861
>The cost of this operation at $6 million a flight is still less than a current Falcon 9 launch.
No, $72 million is more than $62 million.

Anyway, applying the rocket equations shows that with an Isp of 375, it would take 56% of the total initial mass of the vehicle, dry mass, payload and all, to get 3 km/s delta-v. So if you wanted to go close to escape velocity, two or three tankers would be needed to refill the main BFS, depending on payload mass.

Aside from that, the flights would be more expensive than basic launches because of additional wear and tear on the BFSes going beyond LEO. It's going to be well over $100 million, and at this point it would have been cheaper to use an expendable full-size BFS.

>The Spaceship boosts at periapsis and goes well beyond escape velocity, reaching a departure velocity of over 16 km/s.
In the end, you're still limited to 8 km/s delta-v relative to LEO even if the payload is a grain of sand, because by the stats given, BFS maxes out at 10 km/s empty, and it has to spend half of everything beyond escape velocity turning itself around. It goes down pretty quickly as you add payload mass.

For high delta-V missions, it makes sense to expend a smaller stage (or in some cases, a full-size one), both for cost and capabilities.

>>9463880
>they built a prototype(which is not an assembled engine) that was the max size for the test stand they had.
You mean like the 1-Raptor stage would be the max size for the factory they have?

[Anonymous No.9463946]

>>9463901
There is something called terminal velocity, and the terminal velocity of an empty booster is way below super sonic

Sure there is no reason to use parachutes instead of powered landings, but parachutes is still very doable.

[Anonymous No.9463961]

>>9463901
>The paraglider on the fairings will steer accurately enough to hit a big ass ship with big ass arms and a net. It currently isn't accurate enough though, which is why they've so far failed to recover one.
Rather, I think they're confident of their method now and are just finishing building the ship with a net so they can try. A ship of their fleet with four big, weird arms has been spotted.

[Anonymous No.9463977]

>>9463961
Powered landing is hard, and noone else has a rocket capable of doing it
Anyone is capable of putting paragliders into their fairings to recover them, so I imagine they are going to keep secret with this fairing recovery.

Probably also don't want to show their failures if they don't have to.

[Anonymous No.9464121]

Falcon Heavy is just going to be another Delta IV Heavy: a giant $270 million per launch near-useless boondoggle that launches once a year at best. That is even assuming it doesn't explode because lol 27 engines.

[Anonymous No.9464164]

>>9463383

I don't see why 2020 is out there. 9 months to get the factory operational and then the rest of the time building the rocket's stages while the other facilities handle shit like the electronics, engines, PICA-X, etc. Then it gets shipped in along with whatever they subcontracted out and assembled at the factory. It honestly isn't going to be that hard to get the first one built since the second stage is probs just going to be a mass simulator with some electronics inside and a few Raptor engines on the bottoms. I would bet they aim for December 2020, but then it slips to January/February just like with Heavy. BFR is going to be way easier to construct than FH is because it's one booster.

[Anonymous No.9464173]

>>9464121
How could the reusable rocket possibly cost more than the 1 launch?

[Anonymous No.9464176]

>>9464164
Are you fucking delusional? You expect a company who can barely build a heavy life rocket to construct the largest, most powerful, and most complicated vehicle ever constructed in the span of two years? Get Musk's dick out of your ass you utter faggot.

[Anonymous No.9464181]

>>9464173
Since Delta IV Heavy is $500 million a pop, and because no one really needs such heavy lifting capabilities other than the US government, it only launches once a year at best. Expect the same for the Falcon Heavy if it works.

[Anonymous No.9464205]

>>9464176

Yes because it's genuinely easier to construct, lmao. The really hard shit will be in the second stage, but since the first flight will just be a Demo they can literally just make it a mass simulator with Raptors on the bottom to test ignition. And PICA-X of course .

It really isn't as hard as you think it's going to be. Nothing about BFR is inherently complicated aside from the second stage capabilities (not going to happen any time soon), and Raptor. Raptor is effectively done. Musk already said that the tooling had been ordered, and they've been test firing the shit out of however many prototypes they've had for two years now.

Again, I am saying that the first BFR will literally just be a fake rocket. The only part that's real will be the landing and the engines. All the technical shit that makes it complicated can come later since it doesn't impact the launch.

[Anonymous No.9464218]

>>9464181
>500m vs 90m
>no one will capitalize on this

How much glue do you huff?

[Anonymous No.9464229]

>>9463880
>SpaceX will be recovering the fairings using chutes and landing on a boat so clearly it'll be accurate.
Aren't they going to use a big powered boat for that though?

Not so much landing the fairing on the boat as catching the fairing with the boat.
There's a big difference.

[Anonymous No.9464238]

>>9464218
>$90M
And how much glue are you huffing. Oh wait, you aren't huffing glue, you're huffing the Musky aroma of a conman. Most recent estimates of the Heavy peg it at $270 million a pop. Look for yourself you delusional cultist.

https://brycetech.com/downloads/FAA_Annual_Compendium_2017.pdf

[Anonymous No.9464246]

>>9464205
>Nothing about BFR is inherently complicated
I'm sorry, but did you completely miss my post? This idiotic rocket, if built, is the largest, most complicated, and most powerful vehicle ever designed. Nothing about 42 first stage engines is simple, ask the Soviet engineers who worked on the N1, a much less complicated rocket, how "simple" it was.

[Anonymous No.9464248]

>>9464238
>https://brycetech.com/downloads/FAA_Annual_Compendium_2017.pdf

Do you genuinely believe that FH will somehow cost more per launch than four F9's in reusable config? Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.9464250]

>>9464248
Yes. The Delta IV heavy costs 5 times as much as a Delta IV despite only have 3 boosters. The Heavy boosters aren't the same as normal Falcons. But hey, when confronted with irrefutable information, just insult instead of argue, eh?

[Anonymous No.9464254]

>>9464238
I think your mistaken, the actual cost of building a falcon Heavy is definitely more than $90 million but the price for launching a payload on it starts at only $92 million.

[Anonymous No.9464255]

>>9464246

>42

That was ITS. BFR has 31 scaled down Raptors. The "full-size" ones for ITS, Musk said they couldn't get the reliability above 90-something percent. So they made it smaller with less pressure in order to make it effectively incapable of failure.

Also. N1 failed for a lot of reasons. A two stage vehicle with a much more reliable engine is far less complex than a fucking four stage nightmare machine from the 50's.

[Anonymous No.9464260]

>>9464250

Only the center core is different because of the increased payload weights, and need to hold the whole thing together. The outer cores are regular F9 cores. This is one of the reasons why they didn't go for crossfeed. It would necessitate modification of the two side-cores.

[Anonymous No.9464263]

>>9464254
Again, that's old information. The pdf I linked is directly from the FAA and was created last year. And no, the Heavy isn't 3 Falcon boosters, SX ran into the same problem as ULA when they were creating the DIV Heavy. That is, creating a triple booster out of a single booster requires complete redesigns of the boosters themselves.

>>9464255
So it's only 31 engines. Wow, that'll sure make it less likely to explode.
>much more reliable engine
That has yet to be created or even tested.

BFR's problems go well beyond the idiocy of it's design. More of its problems come from the fact that no one needs such a large rocket.

>>9464260
It's still $270M a pop. The fact that they are launching a car instead of boiler plate is very indicative of the future success of the rocket.

[Anonymous No.9464267]

>>9464263

>Raptor
>not tested

On what planet do you exist where this is a factual statement? We have aerial shots of the test stand where there have been massive fires from the exhaust going well beyond the testing area. That wasn't from a scaled-down version. Prototype, yes, but it's a fucking real engine.

[Anonymous No.9464271]

>>9464267
A scaled down prototype that has never been flown nor built in full scale is not an engine that can be declared fully tested or reliable.

[Anonymous No.9464281]

>>9464263

Again, those covert photos weren't from a scaled down prototype. We've seen what the scaled down engine could do in the past. The exhaust marks shown in the shots were far, far larger. They have at least one working prototype as indicated by Musk stating that the tool for mass manufacture had been ordered. We also know that they've fired the rocket for very long periods of time. Musk mentioned that the engine was only being held back by the size of the fuel tanks on location.

As for the 270 million number? I completely buy that for fully expendable mode at Government cost. All three boosters would be ditched in the ocean, and then you have to add the government tax that SpaceX does for all of those contracts. Regular commercial launches with fully reusable or even partially expendable? Out of your mind if you think 270 million.

Also, most government launches wouldn't necessitate fully expendable anyway.

[Anonymous No.9464290]

>>9464281
Considering that the F9 is listed at $60M, it's pretty safe to assume that it's in "reusable" mode. Either way, it doesn't solve the problem of need. Hardly anyone needs such launch power other than the US government. Why do you think the DIVH has only launched 8 times, and each time with government payloads? Hint: It wasn't because of the cost.

[Anonymous No.9464300]

>>9464290

My dude, it's been 60m since before reusable. We only have that number because it's the cost of a new booster. I even went and pulled up an old Wikipedia snapshot from archive in 2014 and it was still that much.

[Anonymous No.9464306]

>>9464300
So the FAA is wrong? Explain how the FAA could come up with such a large number unless the FH costs had ballooned greatly?

[Anonymous No.9464310]

>>9464306

I am not saying the FAA is wrong, I am saying that the two figures are mutually exclusive, and that the FAA number (being a government agency) probably figures the cost of a fully expendable flight with the government tax that SpaceX adds to all of those missions be they on F9 or FH. It's a well known fact that CRS missions cost more than say SES missions do, by a lot. SpaceX effectively does cost plus with these missions because of the red tape they have to jump through and extra precautions they take in order to make sure the mission is a success.

[Anonymous No.9464317]

>>9464306
>>9464310

This is also why the last few resupply missions have been a big deal. NASA is still paying the same amount, but they're letting SpaceX not only reuse the capsules, but now they're letting them reuse the boosters. So SpaceX gets to pocket even more of the cash from the contract.

[Anonymous No.9464320]

>>9464310
>>9464317
Even if the number refers to what the government would pay, which I doubt considering the prices the rest of the document lists, the cost of the FH has still ballooned greatly. Not at all surprising considering the 6 year delay.

[Anonymous No.9464324]

>>9464320

Just hear me out.

SpaceX is literally advertising 90m on their website for potential customers, as a starting rate. The starting rate, we can presume, means fully reusable mode. As this would be the cheapest for SpaceX. The FAA lists a number 3 times this value. Just think about it objectively here.

Either SpaceX is lying and it isn't 90m, or it is 90m under certain circumstances just as it is 270m under other circumstances. Both numbers can be true dependent upon the mission.

[Anonymous No.9464328]

>>9464324
SX have been listing 90M on their site since the Heavy was announced 6 years ago. It may not be that they aren't lying, it's just that they haven't updated it since all the problems with the rocket came up.

[Anonymous No.9464330]

>>9464328

They update the site yearly. That's how I found out the value was the same over time for F9. It actually wasn't. It was cheaper back in 2014 for a flight on v1.1 than it is now by a few million. This is probably due to the extra tech that SpaceX has been adding, and trying to make new customers consider reuse over new boosters so they can clear out stock for Block 5.

[Anonymous No.9464352]

>>9464246
Modern computers makes handling all those engines at once a lot easier.

[Anonymous No.9464372]

>>9459204
angriboi is angery

[Anonymous No.9464375]

>>9462954
At the risk of being called leddit https://vimeo.com/27060669

[Anonymous No.9464562]

>>9462087
That’s what I wrote, 30% payload réduction to gto with asds landing

[Anonymous No.9464849]

>>9464176
>You expect a company who can barely build a heavy life rocket
Falcon 9 is a heavy-lift rocket and they fly it every couple of weeks these days. Falcon Heavy is a super-heavy-lift rocket, and it's more than twice as capable as anything anyone else has flown in decades.

Saturn V flew a mere decade after the first orbital rocket anyone launched anywhere, and it was an order of magnitude bigger than any rocket before it.

[Anonymous No.9464861]

>>9462554
But SRBs are the easiest way to get big thrust. I know they look like a joke in 2018 but they are still the only way to get that much thrust out of one engine. Even the F-1 couldn't compete.

[Anonymous No.9464869]

>>9463687
Only way to know is to just go there and see what happens.

[Anonymous No.9464889]

>>9464849
>Saturn V worked therefore BFR will work
1) Saturn V didn't have 31 engines (N1 anyone?)
2) BFR won't have money thrown at it by the US government who are desperate to beat the Soviets
3) Musk has already run into problems with his KSP style "just scale up!" plan. FH turned out to be a lot more difficult than simply meshing 3 F9's together and he will see that firing 31 Raptors won't be as easy as firing one.
>>9464352
IIRC the computer didn't fail, it was the parts that broke/blew up causing the computer to shut them down meaning the computer did it's job just fine.

[Anonymous No.9464893]

>>9464300
60 million is the pricetag including an attempt at reuse
If you wanted a payload that is too heavy for reuse, it will be higher or not allowed

They were doing attempts at reuse even back then, and they priced around that.

[Anonymous No.9464901]

Congress and the dumbo republicans are entirely at fault for SLS by forcing that pork nonsense on NASA.

If you are going to be blaming someone for that circus don't blame the victims.

[Anonymous No.9464913]

>>9464306
>Explain how the FAA could come up with such a large number unless the FH costs had ballooned greatly?
1) Some random FAA drone just decided he didn't believe SpaceX's advertised prices, and multiplied the Falcon 9 price by three, then added an arbitrary premium, until it felt more believable to him.
2) The team caved to political pressure to make OldSpace not look like it's on the brink of obsolescence.

They also list Falcon 9's maximum payload at 13,150 kg. That wasn't up-to-date information for 2017.

It's just a summary document, not an important reference work where everything has to be right. Since launch prices are negotiated on an individual basis, there's no real correct answer to what the price of a rocket launch is.

>>9464254
>the actual cost of building a falcon Heavy is definitely more than $90 million
No, when SpaceX wasn't recovering Falcon 9 boosters, it wasn't doing launches at cost. Each booster costs around $20 million to manufacture, and the upper stage is something like $3 million.

Even launching new boosters expendably, and even factoring in pad operations, they'll still be making a reasonable mark-up on Falcon Heavy if they launch it at the advertised price.

[Anonymous No.9464925]

>>9464913
>FAA is just making it up!
D E L U S I O N A L

[Anonymous No.9464931]

>>9464901
Obama or the Dems didn't complain once
Its no dumber than the shuttle, only more delayed because NASA is more shit

Nor did the bills actually require the SLS design, no doubt if NASA wanted something else they could have fought for that.

[Anonymous No.9464932]

>>9464889
>muh engines
>muh N1
Ancient soviet junk is ancient soviet junk and unrelated to BFR or anything else today. Also that one's "computer" did in fact fail and in one special event managed to take the entire pad and communist dreams for space dominance with it.
As for the dumb continuing memetized meme of retardation that continues to exist regarding engine count - pic related.
Count and weep.

[Anonymous No.9464946]

>>9464889
>>Saturn V worked therefore BFR will work
That wasn't my argument, you monkey. The point was: Saturn V worked a mere decade after the first orbital launch of any size, so big rockets aren't especially hard or higher tech than medium-size rockets.

They've already fired 27 Merlins together on Falcon Heavy, and will be launching in a couple of weeks. When they start flying a booster with 31 engines together, they'll have years of experience flying with a large number of engines on lift-off.

>(N1 anyone?)
N1 was a Soviet trainwreck where they couldn't afford to test-fire the engines before launching them, and the lead designer died mid-project.

Many rocket development efforts failed. It's not particularly that N1 failed because it was big, but we pay special attention to it because it was big.

>BFR won't have money thrown at it by the US government
It's also not the 1960s and SpaceX isn't an appallingly inefficient government bureaucracy, you complete fucking idiot. When SpaceX was talking about doing reusability, all the clowns came out and said, "When NASA tried reusability with 1970s technology, political compromises, and incompetent leadership, they made something more expensive than expendable rockets! There's no reason to expect SpaceX to do any better!"

[Anonymous No.9464976]

>>9464889

>1) Saturn V didn't have 31 engines (N1 anyone?)

There is no reason to believe N1 failed because of many engines. Rather it failed because it was shit soviet tech and engines were not tested before.

Rockets with many engines provide engine out capability. Also, they provide more opportunity to test the engines because each time they fire you are testing 31 of them.So such rocket is MORE reliable than rockets with few engines. Seriously, this same shit was brought up when Falcon 9 was supposed to fly. It was wrong then and it is wrong now with BFR.

[Anonymous No.9464988]

>>9464889

>2) BFR won't have money thrown at it by the US government

Never say never. If SLS continues on course of delays and cost overruns while at the same time SpaceX begins to fly passengers to ISS and around the Moon and flying BFS hops, political pressure to cancel SLS and/or provide some funding for BFR development will increase.

[Anonymous No.9465115]

>People complaining about too many engines

Soyuz has 20 main engines and a dozen gimbled ones for steering and it's managed more successful launches and anything else. Managing lots of little engines is not much harder than a few large ones, and helps with redundancy.

[Anonymous No.9465209]

>>9465115
I agree about the hurr engines part but the soyuz isn't using 20.

[Anonymous No.9465317]

>>9465209
What is the appeal of this kind of semantic hair splitting?

[Anonymous No.9465371]

>>9465317
>What is the appeal of this kind of semantic hair splitting?

The part that has a tendency to explode is the turbopump. Soyuz only has a handful of turbopumps to drive its many combustion chambers.

[Anonymous No.9465445]

>>9464263
>The fact that they are launching a car instead of boiler plate is very indicative of the future success of the rocket
Ok?

[Anonymous No.9465464]

>>9465371
>The part that has a tendency to explode is the turbopump.
No, combustion chambers and feed lines are also common failure points.

For instance, the N1 failures:
1) pogo oscillation (from combustion instability, a combustion chamber problem) broke a feed line
2) turbopump blew up, cutting feed line
3) insufficient roll control authority and ground effects during lift-off caused an uncontrolled roll
4) feed line broke due to water hammer effect during planned engine shutdown

For this deeply troubled many-engined rocket, only one of four failures was primarily caused by a turbopump failure. One was primarily caused by a combustion chamber malfunction. Three involved feed lines, and one was primarily caused by a feed line failure.

The only Falcon 9 engine out was a combustion chamber explosion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1#Falcon_9_engine_anomaly

Arguing over whether six combustion chambers and one turbopump is one engine or six is bootless semantics. The important thing is that much of the complexity and failure potential of six engines is still there.

[Anonymous No.9465506]

>>9464932
>Count and weep.
>weep

I just get an erection, so no weeping here

[Anonymous No.9465530]

>>9464932
>NK-33
>Soviet junk
Best rocket engine ever designed actually

[Anonymous No.9465541]

>>9464946
Nothing to do with rockets I've posted ideas here before only to be dismissed with "the government tried it in the 50s and it din't work therefore it's a dumb idea" so this is ironic.

[Anonymous No.9465546]

>>9465530
An unreliable rocket engine isn't a good rocket engine. They pushed too hard for performance, when it was designed for a many-engined vehicle which needed extreme reliability.

[Anonymous No.9465550]

>>9465115
Ahh this old argument. A you can see here >>9465209 It's not 20 engines it's 5 engines with 4 combustion chambers.
>>9465464
But the RD107 is designed and tested to work as one unit, you cannot compare this to clustering totally separate engines.

[Anonymous No.9465555]

>>9465546
The engine wasn't shit, the launch vehicle was. NK-33 is still used today.
>Pushed too hard for performance
Lol butthurt Americans with their big dumb inefficient open cycle rockets.

[Anonymous No.9465556]

>>9464932
You can insult and meme all you want fanboy. The simple fact of the matter is that more engines = greater chance of failure. And you say "pic related" when Musk himself has said that he would consider the mission a success if it doesn't explode on the launch pad.

[Anonymous No.9465559]

>>9465550
>But the RD107 is designed and tested to work as one unit, you cannot compare this to clustering totally separate engines which are designed and tested to work as one unit.
Bootless semantics.

They're designed to work together. They'll all be tested together before launch.

What you save in reduction of number of turbopumps, you get back in turbopump size and high-pressure plumbing complexity.

[Anonymous No.9465567]

>>9465555
>NK-33 is still used today.
No it isn't. Orbital tried it, regretted their decision when they blew up a test stand and then a rocket, demonstrating only a 2 out of 3 reliability, and has since switched to an unrelated engine.

[Anonymous No.9465571]

>>9465567
Hi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-2-1v

[Anonymous No.9465586]

>>9465556
>The simple fact of the matter is that more engines = greater chance of failure.
Not true, though. First of all, not all engines are created equal, and it's easier to make an engine reliable if it's small and inexpensive enough to build and test many of them. Secondly, engine out capability is a real thing, which has been demonstrated on Falcon 9 and Saturn V.

>Musk himself has said that he would consider the mission a success if it doesn't explode on the launch pad
It's an obsolete prototype they just want to break in the pad with and fly for data. The real Falcon Heavy will be based on the Block 5.

It would be nice if it worked, but if it blows up that would give them vital information. The only really bad outcome would be to destroy something other than the rocket.

[Anonymous No.9465619]

>>9455819
Why is it flat? I thought symmetric rockets are better. Why?

Can you explain?

[Anonymous No.9465624]

Why we don't get gravitational engine instead we burn water to get something to the orbit?

[Anonymous No.9465636]

>>9465586
>The only really bad outcome would be to destroy something other than the rocket.
Yea, I sure do love that a "prototype" with a high chance of failure is being launched from Launch Complex 39. Thanks NASA.

If the "real" Heavy is based on Block 5 as you say, then SX are bigger idiots than I thought to spend 6 years developing something that will be useless.

[Anonymous No.9465658]

>>9465556
>being so wrong about everything

[Anonymous No.9465675]

>>9465559
There's a difference between the complexity and possible failure rate of a 9 engine rocket and a 27 engine rocket split across 3 boosters.

[Anonymous No.9465712]

>>9465555
The nk33 is shit and I'm surprised there is a person who defends that suicide vest despite reality and history repeatedly hammering it in how bad it is.
Few should be kept in museums to show how not to do things.

[Anonymous No.9465726]

>>9465636
>a "prototype" with a high chance of failure
Lower chance of failure than the SLS maiden launch.

>spend 6 years developing something
Oh God, you're one of these chimps that harps on Falcon Heavy as if it was an entirely separate vehicle that they've been trying and failing to make fly, aren't you? Falcon Heavy is a configuration of Falcon 9, and it made far more sense to fly the single-booster configuration until now.

>something that will be useless
The point of keeping the Heavy configuration on the backburner was to ensure that what they were doing as they evolved Falcon 9 toward its final model stayed compatible with it. Now they're flying a test launch before they finalize Block 5, to see if they missed anything that they need to incorporate in Block 5.

When F9b5 starts flying, FHb5 will be hot on its heels. Both should be flying routinely before the end of the year.

>>9465675
Okay, so you want to consider it as a three-engine launch, since they've been designed and extensively tested to work together in one-booster units? It doesn't really matter how you group or categorize things, it's the complexity and number of failure points that counts.

[Anonymous No.9465737]

>>9465726
>Lower chance of failure than the SLS maiden launch.
Pic related.
>FH h-hasn't been in development for six y-years!
Pic also related.
>When F9b5 starts flying, FHb5 will be hot on its heels. Both should be flying routinely before the end of the year.
Now THIS is delusion. You're more delusional than the BFR faggots. Also, pic related.

[Anonymous No.9465769]

>>9465737
>>When F9b5 starts flying, FHb5 will be hot on its heels. Both should be flying routinely before the end of the year.
>Now THIS is delusion.
How do you not understand that this is the plan? The Falcon Heavy side boosters are simply Falcon 9 lower stages with a nose cone. One of the side-boosters of the FH test vehicle has previously flown as a Falcon 9 lower stage. The central core's only difference is that it's structurally reinforced (i.e. built of thicker-gauge metal). Unlike the side-boosters, it does have to be manufactured with the intention of being used on Falcon Heavy, but after the Block 5 Falcon 9 starts flying, there won't be any additional R&D before flying Block 5 Falcon Heavy. They'll just build one and launch it.

>>FH h-hasn't been in development for six y-years!
>Pic also related.
It has been, like reuse without refurbishment. The Heavy configuration is a Falcon 9 feature, not a separate vehicle.

[Anonymous No.9465794]

>>9465624

[Anonymous No.9465806]

>>9465556

>The simple fact of the matter is that more engines = greater chance of failure

more engines = more opportunity to test and perfect the design

more engines = engine out capability
high flight rate is the key to reliability, and that is a fact

[Anonymous No.9465846]

>>9465769
If the FH is so easy as you claim it is, then why has it been delayed for 6 years and counting? And no, the side boosters are not normal boosters. You're contradicting yourself within the same paragraph. The FH is supposed to easy to build and perfect, yet it's taken 6 years since the original delivery date just to get the thing on a launch pad. Yet somehow they're going to build a completely new design within the span of a single year.

[Anonymous No.9465878]

>>9465556
1 engine out of 27 engine failing
vs
1 engine out of 1 engine failing


Hmmmm

[Anonymous No.9465928]

>>9465846
>And no, the side boosters are not normal boosters.
If you don't know anything about it, then don't talk about it, moron.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/falcon-heavy-build-up-slc-40-pad-rebuild-progressing/
>The side-booster is – as previously reported – a flight-proven core.
>In fact, it is core #1023 – which was previously used to launch the Thaicom-8 mission last year.

The side boosters have literally flown as Falcon 9 lower stages before. They are normal boosters. They've only had the hardware bolted on that's needed for this mission configuration, and their software changed. If they successfully recover them, they'll be able to reconfigure them to use as Falcon 9 lower stages if they want.

It's the center core that's different, and it's only different by having beefed up structures.

>it's taken 6 years since the original delivery date just to get the thing on a launch pad. Yet somehow they're going to build a completely new design within the span of a single year.
Again, the Falcon Heavy configuration is a feature of the Falcon 9 vehicle, not a separate vehicle development project. They've been developed together all along, with the single-booster configuration being flown up to now because it was less expensive, easier to fly, at least as profitable, and never ran short of customers to motivate them to be in any hurry to actually fly the Heavy configuration.

[Anonymous No.9465938]

>>9465928
>Cores can't be modified after landing.
Wow, it's like you're stupid.
>and never ran short of customers to motivate them to be in any hurry to actually fly the Heavy configuration.
If they were in no rush to make the rocket, then why did they continue to always say "FH is 6 months away guys!" for the past 6 years? The fact that they haven't announced any customers at all for the launch is pretty indicative of the future success of the rocket.

[Anonymous No.9465940]

>>9465712

[Anonymous No.9465981]

>>9464324
It's $90M for 8 tonnes to GTO. But FH is said to take over 26 tonnes to GTO. That's why triple price, guys.

[Anonymous No.9466038]

>>9465938
>>Cores can't be modified after landing.
If a core can be switched between F9 lower stage and FH side booster, how different do you think they are? You don't have any point here. You got called out on having said something idiotic, and now you're just desperately trying to say it was technically correct, despite not implying anything of significance.

>If they were in no rush to make the rocket, then why did they continue to always say "FH is 6 months away guys!" for the past 6 years?
They didn't. Look at your own chart. At the times they gave estimates (which they generally only did informally, often off-the-cuff in interviews), it was always over a year away, until shortly before the 2015 failure, which understandably caused things to be pushed back. Then of course the 2016 failure also caused a delay.

Incidentally, that chart is retarded, and you should feel retarded for posting it. What the fuck are diagonal lines doing on the scheduled times? Why would they throw dots in as random decorations instead of only where new estimates came in (and put sources for those estimates)?

This is what a backburner project schedule looks like, when your main priority is demanding and complicated, and changes to it require changes on the lower priority thing.

>The fact that they haven't announced any customers at all for the launch
Oh, you're that moron who thinks "boilerplate" means "real, important payload" aren't you? Because you read that the first Falcon 9 flight carried a "boilerplate" of Dragon, and you want to believe that this means they flew a satellite or something, when in fact it means they just launched something of similar size, shape, and mass.

So no, that they're doing a test flight with a dead-weight payload isn't "pretty indicative of the future success of the rocket", since they did the same thing with Falcon 9.

[Anonymous No.9466039]

>>9464976
>Rather it failed because it was shit soviet tech and engines were not tested before.
Somewhat.
First try - vibrations because engines. Added more struts.
Second try - some joker left a nut inside fuel pump. Added filters into pumps, added autmated fire extinguishers.
Third try - due to unexpected aerodynamic forces rocket started rolling fast and fell apart. Added stabilisation engines.
Fourth try - engine feeding lines broke because inertia forces during planned 6 engine shut down (stress reduction). Fire started, automated extinguishers didn't work.
Fift try - canceled. No remedy for that.

I think they've almost made it.

Fun fact:
>When the N-1 program was shut down, all work on the project was ordered destroyed. A bureaucrat instead took the engines, worth millions of dollars each, and stored them in a warehouse. Word of the engines eventually spread to America

[Anonymous No.9466053]

>>9465619
It's still symmetric.

[Anonymous No.9466092]

>>9466039
>I think they've almost made it.
N1 failed in the first stage every time it flew, and it was a three-stage rocket.

Subsequent experience with the NK-15 hasn't shown it to be reliable enough to expect 38 of them to work in a vehicle.

Sure, it might have made it to orbit eventually, but it would never have been a reliable rocket. You can't build a moon program around a coin flip.

[Anonymous No.9466135]

>>9466092
Oh, I ment it would made it to orbit.
I don't think the failures are directly linked to the amount of engines.

Of course the chances to land on the moon were still pretty slim. I agree.
(I guess Leonov woud go for it anyway, if they've let him)

I don't know what subsequent experience with NK-15 you are talking about. From what I know they ended with N1. Later you have NK-33 which is now used on some soyuz rockets. Refurbished after 50 years. Weird that they even work.

>You can't build a moon program around a coin flip.
It was always a coin flip. So many things can go wrong. Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 come to mind.

[Anonymous No.9466147]

>>9465712
orbital made aerojet rocketdyne buy back the refurb nk33s they bought for antares

what the hell do they do with a bunch of shit nobody wants

[Anonymous No.9466186]

>>9466135
>I don't know what subsequent experience with NK-15 you are talking about.
Sorry, I meant NK-33. NK-33 is just the later model of NK-15.

The Soyuz-2-1v has only flown 3 times. It was also used on the Antares rocket, where they blew up one on the stand, then had another blow up their rocket as it was taking off. That's 2 failures out of 14 engines.

>Refurbished after 50 years. Weird that they even work.
There shouldn't have been significant deterioration of the main components, since they were made of corrosion-resistant metal and stored under reasonably good conditions. Any materials that would deteriorate over time would have been replaced in the refurbishment process.

[Anonymous No.9466189]

>>9466038
>You got called out on having said something idiotic
Way to completely miss my sarcasm. I was implying that the flown stage was modified to be a FH booster. Good reading comprehension.

>Incidentally, that chart is retarded
You inability to understand a simple chart is irrelevant to how good the chart is.

>Oh, you're that moron who thinks "boilerplate" means "real, important payload" aren't you?
More fantastic reading comprehension there Muskbot. I was implying that there have been no announced customers, nor any useful payloads being launched in its first "totally not going to explode" launch. Learn to read before posting, this is an English 4Chan.

[Anonymous No.9466246]

>>9466186
It's really hard to say how the engines were treated or transported during that time. It was all unofficial.

>Orbital Sciences formed an anomaly investigation board to investigate the cause of the incident. They traced it to a failure of the first stage LOX turbopump, but could not find a specific cause. However, the refurbished NK-33 engines, originally manufactured over 40 years earlier and stored for decades, were suspected as having leaks, corrosion, or manufacturing defects that had not been detected.

We could also say, that amount of engines of N1 did not lower the safety of entire rocket but increased it, as they added redundancy. N1 could loose 2 or 3 and still "make it".

[Anonymous No.9466288]

>>9466246
We can definitely say that the amount of engines on N1 did not increase reliability through redundancy, because in two of its four failures, problems with a single engine caused the whole rocket to be lost.

[Anonymous No.9466356]

>>9462779

Sure, and that's my point. NASA has all the opportunity and capability in the world to fuck over SpaceX but they don't.

>>9462891

Money saved from resupply launches -> more money for SLS (and associated flagship programs)

[Anonymous No.9466371]

Can we at least all agree it's good that private companies are doing this instead of the fucking joke that is NASA?

[Anonymous No.9466380]

>>9466371
>NASA
>A joke
Brainlet leave. Private companies shuttling satellites into orbit doesn't even come close to a fraction of the things that NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, JAXA, and so on have done.

[Anonymous No.9466396]

>>9466288
Failures lead to changes solving the problems. It's like the project was canceled before there ever was the final product. Rushed by officials, the testing was done not step by step, but just hoping for the best. They even launched the lunar lander.
If there was time to solve all the problems, I would expect the multiple engines would increase safety by redundancy.

[Anonymous No.9466417]

>>9466371
No. The govt is a joke run by private companies. That's what shits on NASA and everything else.
Private companies are chasing private profit, not benefit for entire humankind or nation. Except if a crazy geek becomes a billionaire. But there may verywell be 10 crazy billionaires secretly plotting WWIII. Great power can not be trusted in hands of single people, but this is what happens right now.

[Anonymous No.9466905]

Let's just all stop arguing and wait and see if it works or not.

[Anonymous No.9466952]

>>9466905
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9467009]

>>9466417

Absolutely agree.

The government should take care of its people and solve most issues because only the government has and should have the power to do so.

Feels good being part of the generation that will set things right.

[Anonymous No.9467487]

>>9466952
Agree.

>>9467009
Somewhat this.
It's not govt that should control people, but people that should control govt. My opinion: swiss democracy is the best model so far. There's also the need to switch from corpos to coops (if you care for freedoms and democracy, then why totalitarian workplace? unnacceptable hidden slavery).
Wether this generation will set things right - I don't know. I suspect however, that if not this one, than none. Also I think it should be you, Americans. Get a grip of your evil empire before it kills us all.