SpaceX Launch Thread - FALCON HEAVY

[Anonymous No.9483980]

LAUNCH VEHICLE: SpaceX's Falcon "Six Months Away" Heavy
WHEN: February 6, 13:30-16:30 EST; 18:30-21:30 UTC
WHERE: LC-39A, Florida, USA
PAYLOAD: Elon's Red Tesla Roadster - it is permanently attached to the 2nd stage - photos available here: https://www.instagram.com/p/BdA94kVgQhU/?hl=en&taken-by=elonmusk
DESTINATION: An Earth-Mars heliocentric orbit
LANDINGS?: Yes, the side boosters at LZ-1, and the center core at the droneship Of Course I Still Love You (side boosters will land staggered, not simultaneous); this FH consists of one new, unflown center core, and two used (CRS-9 and Thiacom-8) side cores.
CURRENT FORECAST: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVIuJlXX0AAAjmb.jpg:large (80% GO)
HAZARD AREA MAP: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1bZcVS6Whth8XtrTt0kpYL6IQF66D8nCk&ll=27.922273514885035%2C-74.53136350557088&z=6
FAA LICENSE: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2018-107%20Falcon%20Heavy%20Demo%20License%20and%20Orders%20FINAL%202018_02_02.pdf
STREAM: http://www.spacex.com/webcast
DEFINITIVE guide to viewing cape launches: http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html

[Anonymous No.9483991]

Is it finally happening?

[Anonymous No.9483998]

FH Stats:

* 22,819kN of thrust at takeoff
(Saturn V: 35,100 kN)

* 63,800 kg to LEO in expendable configuration
(Saturn V: 140,000 kg)

* Wet mass of 1,420,788 kg
(Saturn V: 2,970,000 kg)


Chance of kaboom:
Non-zero, and certainly higher than a regular Falcon 9 launch. Elon has said that it is about 50%, but that it just to lower expectations. The important part of a FH anomaly is if it damages the pad as well. Musk's hope is that it will fail somewhere other than the launchpad.

Why is FH important?
It will be the most powerful rocket currently flying! With FH, SpaceX can bid on large government payloads that currently only ULA can launch, as well as launch big scientific payloads to the moon and elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.9484004]

>>9483991
yes

[Anonymous No.9484010]

Other stuff -

Good space journalists to follow:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/with_replies
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/with_replies

articles to read to pass the time:
http://planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2018/20180201-falcon-heavy-demo-preview.html
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/forget-the-falcon-heavys-payload-and-focus-on-where-the-rocket-will-go/
https://www.wired.com/story/spacex-gears-up-to-finally-actually-launch-the-falcon-heavy/

SpaceX related sites:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex
https://www.instagram.com/spacex/?hl=en

[Anonymous No.9484099]

This is either going to be the great accomplishment for space exploration of the decade or the worst catastrophe for space exploration since Columbia.

What a time to be alive!

[Anonymous No.9484105]

>>9484099
>or the worst catastrophe for space exploration since Columbia.
I can't see any realistic scenario where Falcon Heavy kills 7 people on its first launch.

[Anonymous No.9484226]

>>9484105
>one of the burns fail
>stage explodes
>car lands inside a office building in Asia
>somehow still works
>activates its self-driving system
>spends 30 minutes calculating route back to Florida
>drives off a window
>lands on top of a bunch of chinks in the street

[Anonymous No.9484241]

>>9484226
This is original Tesla roadster. No self driving. Car is permanently attached to stage 2, aka permanently attached to a big bomb that will either explode in a controlled manner or an uncontrolled manner. Falcon is equipped with an autonomous self destruct. If it goes off course, it will practically vaporize itself midair.

[Anonymous No.9484244]

>>9484241
I'm so lonely out here in LA.

[Anonymous No.9484314]

Toy rocket to nowhere.

[Anonymous No.9484396]

>DESTINATION: An Earth-Mars heliocentric orbit.

So now this fucker wants to pollute the solar system with cars and junk.
Fuck, we humans never learn.

[Anonymous No.9484406]

>>9484244
I'll spoon with you LAnon

[Anonymous No.9484410]

>>9484244
Jealous man, I'd love to live in LA (if I was rich)

[Anonymous No.9484427]

>>9484396
What exactly would "pollute" even mean in space? It's not like the car is toxic to any life form there.

[Anonymous No.9484433]

>>9483980
>LAUNCH IS NO GO
>I REPEAT
>LAUNCH IS NO GO
>Please stand by

[Anonymous No.9484453]

>>9484396
Musk is going to use it to destroy any future asteroid that threatens Earth. It needs to be far enough away so it can get a big enough running start to do some serious damage when it hits an incoming asteroid.

[Anonymous No.9484475]

>>9484226
kek

[Anonymous No.9484489]

>>9484427
Go blow up the moon then, I don`t care.

[Anonymous No.9484494]

>>9484453
Once all the asteroids been killed off what then, blow up the moon too.

[Anonymous No.9484524]

>>9484489
>>9484494
Fuck it! Let's just nuke the fucking Moon!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYm1XcRJ74k&t=404s

[Anonymous No.9484552]

>>9484524
Might as well, America has been wanting to do that since the 50s. There is like 400 thousand tons of NASA rubbish and cars up there too. Lets pollute and nuke every fucking damn thing in space. It`s the American way.

[Anonymous No.9484562]

>>9484552
>>9484489
>>9484494

In reality though, if you detonated a nuke on the Moon nothing really interesting would happen. There'd be a bright flash, then all that will be left is a radioactive crater. That's it. I don't really know what Cold War-era American scientists were expecting to accomplish.

[Anonymous No.9484565]

Bets on abort?

[Anonymous No.9484577]

>>9484562

[Anonymous No.9484586]

Oh shit, I didn't know it was in two days. Let's hope nothing dies

[Anonymous No.9484589]

>>9484586
It'll be a miracle if it launches on time.

[Anonymous No.9484591]

>>9484562
Scare the Russians and study the composition of the lunar soil.
No joke. That was their actual goal.

[Anonymous No.9484596]

>>9484591
We all know why.

>To defeat the godless commies!!!

[Anonymous No.9484700]

>>9484596
Are you implying that's a bad idea?

[Anonymous No.9484719]

>>9484700
>"Are you implying that's a bad idea?"

What is, threatening to nuke the Moon to deter Soviet nuclear activity in orbit?

I mean using nukes as a deterrent isn't uncommon, that's practically North Korea's nuclear program in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.9484765]

meanwhile in Iceland

[Anonymous No.9484770]

>>9484765
Translation please?

[Anonymous No.9484776]

>>9484770
it covers Elon's early life, his rise to wealth, The Boring Company's plans, FH launch, and general Muskisms. Just an overall overview of where Elon is taking humanity, really.

[Anonymous No.9484815]

>>9484776
I'm honestly skeptical about Musk's claims of getting to Mars by... 2024, was it? It is currently technologically infeasible for a successful human expedition to Mars. And I don't care if Musk's rockets are successful, there are still a shit ton of hurdles we have to pass in order to get a man on Mars without him/her dying. I think Musk has made great contributions to the space industry, but man on Mars in 7 years? No.

[Anonymous No.9484826]

>>9484815
2025 was the date. 2,887 days to go! I think he'll do it; just look at the increase in launch cadence YoY. For a flyby, at least. Landings will happen 2030.

[Anonymous No.9484862]

>>9484826
>>9484815
I don't think it's enough time to arrange and greenlight a Mars mission

But holy FUCK a rocket that can carry 150 tons to orbit for under $10 million changes everything, forever. Mega orbital space colonies, assholes vacationing on the moon, so many possibilities are unlocked. The only downside is unless Blue Origin comes up with something amazing really fast, SpaceX is going to have a monopoly because every other rocket on earth is gonna look totally useless.

[Anonymous No.9484883]

>>9484862
Will we finally become the.. SPACE RACE???

[Anonymous No.9485100]

>>9484862
not entirely useless. Lots of countries will still want to launch their own spy stuff on non foreign rockets.

[Anonymous No.9485179]

GIVE ME MUSK MEMES

[Anonymous No.9485202]

>>9485179
Elon Musk playing the maracas at a company fiesta. (Colorized 2002)

[Anonymous No.9485211]

>>9485179
OK CAPT'N

[Anonymous No.9485214]

>>9485211

[Anonymous No.9485221]

>>9485214

[Anonymous No.9485230]

>>9485221

[Anonymous No.9485237]

>>9485214
Musk:
>"Thanks @Jesus. Can you kindly bring the booster back to dry land."

[Anonymous No.9485242]

>>9485230

[Anonymous No.9485243]

>>9485242

[Anonymous No.9485252]

Rare clip of demonically possessed women playing with Maracas. (Colorized 1967)

[Anonymous No.9485256]

>>9485252

[Anonymous No.9485287]

>>9485230
this

[Anonymous No.9485449]

>>9485287
really do wonder how many flights FH will make before it (and literally every single other launch vehicle) is BTFO by BFR. Especially considering that BFR test articles should be completed by early 2019.

[Anonymous No.9485464]

>>9485449
> BFR test articles should be completed by early 2019.

You want a sneak peak for the performance of the BFR? Well then I suggest you look up this bad boy.

[Anonymous No.9485472]

>>9485464
>le large number of engines = unreliable meme
shoo shoo bezorgz

[Anonymous No.9485484]

>>9485179

[Anonymous No.9485538]

>>9485472
Admit it, the BFR is going to be a dud. It's too fucking big and impractical.

[Anonymous No.9485556]

Why exeacly everybody loves SpaceX so much? You know you have been tricked into shilling for free, right?

[Anonymous No.9485572]

>>9485556
>Why exeacly everybody loves SpaceX so much?

Because unlike NASA, SpaceX is actually doing something.

[Anonymous No.9485582]

>>9485556
compared to NASA, SpaceX is progressing at breakneck speed.

[Anonymous No.9485585]

>>9485556
because they are reusing rockets, planning to build gigantic rockets, and have the ultimate goal of a multiplanetary civilization.

[Anonymous No.9485598]

>>9485538
source

[Anonymous No.9485612]

>>9485572
>I have no actual idea what NASA did in last years but i will actualy pretend i do
Also NASA only problem is lack of funding, since americans prefer to invade 3rd world counties instead doing something actualy good for humanity
>>9485582
Like cancelling huge projects and delaying others. Just like NASA.
>>9485585
Nasa also reused their spaceship and it ended up that it's actualy not a good idea. NASA ahave been and keeps building big rockets and Space X already cancelled ITS.
>and have the ultimate goal of a multiplanetary civilization
And what makes you believe SpaceX will actualy do that?

[Anonymous No.9485621]

>>9485585
[SpaceX is] planning to build gigantic rockets.

And NASA hasn't.

[Anonymous No.9485625]

>>9485556
>You know you have been tricked into shilling for free, right?
A "shill" was someone who cheered for something unpopular in hopes of hyping people. People who cheered for something great were not being shills they were simply enjoying the thing. It's like you're so deep into internet memes that you are completely detached from real life. What kind of normal person will not cheer for one guy who is doing by himself what is usually only possible for huge governments?

[Anonymous No.9485626]

>>9485612
>Nasa also reused their spaceship and it ended up that it's actualy not a good idea.
The space shuttle was only partially reusable, the SRBs had to be heavily refurbished because of all the saltwater they were immersed in. The shuttle itself had to have thousands of its thermal tiles replaced after each flight as well as remove each engine are refurbish them.

[Anonymous No.9485637]

>>9485626
not to mention the $1b price per launch if you added everything together. FH is what, 90mil? Pretty good reduction in $/kg to orbit.

[Anonymous No.9485643]

>>9485637
thats untrue, it was more like 450 million. but yeah it was too much.

[Anonymous No.9485649]

>>9485625
>What kind of normal person will not cheer for one guy who is doing by himself what is usually only possible for huge governments?
It's called corporation. It's actualy nothing new.
>A "shill" was someone who cheered for something unpopular in hopes of hyping people
On 4chan this term means that you advertise something on the internet all the time.
>>9485637
>comapring spaceship that is actualy a spaceplane with most advanced hydrolox engines ever made, capable of taking 12 people on board to space for quite long time to a medium size rocket using kerolox engines hat the only unique feature is that i can land it's first stage.

[Anonymous No.9485650]

>>9485585
> [SpaceX is] reusing rockets

Again. And NASA hasn't?

>>9485626
And yes before you say it, I know.

RIP Space Shuttle
1981 - 2011

Murder by Greed and Political Corruption

[Anonymous No.9485659]

>>9485650
RIP Apollo and Space Shuttle, I have outlived them all-Soyuz

[Anonymous No.9485664]

>>9485643
gotta account for the shuttle *program in the calc as well.

>>9485649
>>9485650
shuttle was shit from the get-go. Useless airforce requirements for certain orbits, horrible abort capabilities, and just overall stupid design choices. Should have kept flying Saturn V.

take off your retarded nostalgia glasses and see the future for what it is, gramps. Heinlein was right: rockets should land ass-first like God intended.

[Anonymous No.9485669]

>>9485612
>Since Americans prefer to invade 3rd world counties instead doing something actually good for humanity.

Hey not all Americans support the wars in the Middle East! Sorry that these dumbfucks voted in those people.

[Anonymous No.9485672]

>>9485664
I second that opinion on space shuttle and I made that post regarding that comparing F9 and SS is wrong. Whole point is that comparing those two in terms of raw costs is retarded.

[Anonymous No.9485678]

>>9485672
sort of hard to avoid cost comparisons nowadays tho. half of all space politics revolves around who gets paid to do what, how much a seat to orbit costs, which states get the jobs, etc

[Anonymous No.9485686]

>>9485678
Yes, it's like comparing Electron to Delta IV f.e and saying that electron is better because it's cheaper. You are actualy comparing 2 different rockets with different capabilities and purposes.

[Anonymous No.9485688]

>>9485179

[Anonymous No.9485692]

Ignition! is being reprinted! https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/02/the-funniest-most-accessible-book-on-rocket-science-is-being-reissued/

[Anonymous No.9485705]

new weather forecast

[Anonymous No.9485721]

>>9485621
When was the last time NASA launched a Saturn V buddy? How many decades ago?
Exactly.

[Anonymous No.9485728]

>>9485669
>
What new war has Trump started exactly?

[Anonymous No.9485732]

>>9485721
May 14th, 1973, with the Skylab I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2fesWyxiw4

[Anonymous No.9485740]

>>9485732
I know you're trying to act all smug by flexing your google knowledge on us, but you're actually proving the other guy's point.

[Anonymous No.9485761]

>>9485740
>I know you're trying to act all smug by flexing your google knowledge on us.

Shut the fuck up! I did that to share our collective passion for space, not for credibility.

>You're actually proving the other guy's point.

Who?

[Anonymous No.9485763]

>>9485692
Who cares? It's been a free download on the internet for years. That's why so many people have read it.

[Anonymous No.9485771]

>>9485761
saved

[Anonymous No.9485785]

>>9485705
>solar activity: Low
That's why it's so damn cold up here presently.
t. Inuit that wants to go to Mars

[Anonymous No.9485799]

How fucked is SLS?

FH nearly matches the payload capacity of it's block I config, and BFR will beat it's theoretical block II config.

[Anonymous No.9485837]

>>9485799
it's tots fuked, m8. It'll fly, oh, probably twice.

the brainlets in congress are blinded by sunk cost fallacy and muh jobs.

Also, lmao to the fact that they want SpX to fly block 5 five times before sticking humans on top, but congress wanted to fly SLS manned for the FIRST FUCKING LAUNCH

lmao

[Anonymous No.9485848]

>>9485799
>>9485837

SpaceX - 1
NASA - 0

[Anonymous No.9485861]

>tfw you want it to succeed and blow up

>>9485799
sls wont be canned for at least a few more years, if ever. until we get something like BFR or whatever blue origin is cooking up, sls ain't entirely a waste.

[Anonymous No.9485892]

>>9485861
Yea, I figure they'll at least keep SLS alive until they burn through their stockpile of old RS-25s.

[Anonymous No.9485895]

>>9485572
>political cartoons

[Anonymous No.9485904]

>>9485892
>RS-25s
reusable engines for a disposable rocket SAD

how much more would it take to man rate the rs68?

[Anonymous No.9485911]

Elon Musk haters on suicide watch
Elon Musk dicksuckers happy with flamethrowers and hats
Based Elon

[Anonymous No.9485912]

>>9485861
>sls ain't entirely a waste.
Of course its entirely a waste
Think of those tens of thousands of trained individuals working full time on the shitfest of a project that will never even FLY
The Orion capsule h as been going for over a decade now, nowhere near flying, and it'll probably NEVER ACTUALLY EVER BE USED..

Gotta wonder how much of these programs are solely gibs for incompetents too

[Anonymous No.9485920]

>>9485912
here's a quick history lesson

>apollo program: employ 100,000 people or whatever
>afterwards, those people go to work on shuttle
>shuttle dies
>now congress needs to keep them employed
>oh hey, SLS

it's called Senate Launch System for a reason. It's a jobs program.

[Anonymous No.9485955]

>>9484099
Even Musk expects it to blow up and get data to make it better and not blow up.

[Anonymous No.9485966]

>>9485920

>"It's called Senate Launch System for a reason. It's a jobs program."

Here's a better idea.

>Scrap the SLS
>Focus more on making a good launch vehicle rather than creating an intentionally impractical vehicle for the sake of keeping jobs
>Instigate a Basic Income of $10,000 per months for all U.S citizens. This solves the worker problem.
>Either divide US Military/Defense budget in two; one half will be the official Military/Defense budget, the latter will be evenly divided to fund all domestic programs.
>Or take the full federal budget (about $4 trillion) and divide it evenly to fund all federal programs. (If my math is right each program should have at least 100 million - 10 billion.
>Imitate a mass withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen,etc. and a mass decrease in US bases worldwide

TL;DR You get free money, build up of infrastructure, renewal of domestic programs like healthcare, education, etc, and an end to all the wars.

I'd like to so you cucks argue against this.

[Anonymous No.9485967]

>>9485966
hey buddy, I hate the SLS as much as anyone else. chill

[Anonymous No.9485969]

>>9485955
No he doesn't. He's just managing expectations.

If he says, "We're very confident it will work." he'll look like an idiot if anything goes wrong. Furthermore, if it does work, people will think it wasn't anything very difficult or impressive.

If he is very confident, by emphasizing how technically challenging it is and how there's a serious risk of failure, he has some reputation insurance for if something goes wrong, and if it works perfectly on the first try, he has managed to cast it as a heroic achievement against all odds and proof of SpaceX's supreme technical competence. On top of that, he has provoked a lot of detractors to jump on his statement and confidently say that the launch will fail, which will discredit them when it works.

If he expected it to blow up, they wouldn't be flying it. They'd fix the reasons they expect it to blow up first. They're confident it'll work, though of course they can't be certain.

[Anonymous No.9485988]

>>9483980

[Anonymous No.9486017]

>>9483998
>Chance of kaboom:
>Elon has said that it is about 50%
found the Bayesian

[Anonymous No.9486039]

[Anonymous No.9486042]

>>9485179

[Anonymous No.9486049]

>>9485464
>> implying spaceX will be as dumb as the commies and leave unfastened bolts in the pipes

[Anonymous No.9486062]

>>9484489
>>9484494
now you've gone and done it

[Anonymous No.9486065]

>>9484565
>Bets
there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa

[Anonymous No.9486079]

>>9485785
>solar activity: Low
>That's why it's so damn cold
found the Meteorology 101 "F"-student

[Anonymous No.9486146]

>>9485799
SLS is not fucked. First of all those are max values for FH with expandable boosters and a core stage. If you actualy knew anything about rockets you would know that a payload to LEO is not value with you actualy judge capacity of a rocket. SLS is made mostly for Lunar transfer orbits and uses cryogenic second stage with is almost not used for LEO insertion. For lunar deliveries SLS is FAR superior. Also I want to see SpaceX working on BFR and not only hear annoucements and numbers out of ass. I'm 50/50 it will end just like ITS
.>>9485837
That's because SLS use technology used hundreds of times
>>9486049
Dumb commies have beat USA is almost everything space-race related and are producing most reliable launch vehicles in history.

You are acting like a dumb fanclub ignoring fact and reason, only loking after big words and promises. Some of you are having knowledge about rockets and can present valid arguments but most of you have heard about this "cool" SpaceX and believe evrything you hear.

[Anonymous No.9486165]

Why don't you have a space gf /sci/?

[Anonymous No.9486198]

>>9486165
Unironically because I was too autistic.

[Anonymous No.9486207]

How does one of Newton's Laws of Motion explain what seems like a contradiction?

[Anonymous No.9486222]

>>9486165
>niggress
no thanks

[Anonymous No.9486265]

>>9486165
>nose piercing
into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.9486268]

>>9486146
>For lunar deliveries SLS is FAR superior.
Think so? You want to pay billions of dollars per year for 1 launch per year of 40 tons to TLI, after tens of billions of dollars development investment, option available starting in 2024 or so, rather than launch 25 tons to TLI every month for half the same annual launch budget, with the development investment already made for other reasons, option available maybe 2019?

How does that deal look if we acknowledge that SLS is inextricably tied to the badly overweight Orion capsule, making actual moon landings basically impossible, for the same political reasons that SLS is being built at all, and that Falcon Heavy would likely be launching the far more advanced and much lighter Dragon capsule?

Look, the SLS core and boosters are specced to deliver essentially the same payload to LEO as Falcon Heavy, which will do the job for about 1% of the cost. That's what the first flight is going to be. The claims for higher TLI insertions are based on putting an additional Earth-departure stage on top, that's currently nowhere near being ready to fly. The maiden flight of SLS was supposed to be a quick-and-dirty cobble job so they could meet a legislative requirement to launch in 2016, now it's on the edge of 2020, and there are a couple of years left for it to slip further.

SLS getting past its test flights and doing actual work is scheduled farther in the future than BFR, and with less credibility for keeping to that schedule.

>I'm 50/50 it will end just like ITS
They'll announce a more detailed specification that's somewhat different, but functionally just as promising, and with features for more down-to-earth applications, as they get farther along in the development process? What a terrible fate...

[Anonymous No.9486289]

>>9486268
Payloads cannot be cut up into small pieces and launched separately on FH. SLS has double the moon capability of FH and quadruple for reusable FH.

BFR doesn't exist and will never exist. There's no money to pay for it.

[Anonymous No.9486292]

>>9483980
will crash

[Anonymous No.9486300]

>>9486289
>SLS has double the moon capability of FH and quadruple for reusable FH.
SLS has no capacity until they actually launch it. And even then, the version that can launch the full spec mass is still years later.

[Anonymous No.9486361]

>>9486300
>moving the goalposts
FH is simply too small for Lunar missions.

Frankly, even Vulcan is a much better choice for these types of missions.

[Anonymous No.9486362]

>>9486289
>Payloads cannot be cut up into small pieces and launched separately on FH.
That depends on the payload. The Apollo landings used multi-part spacecraft that could have been launched separately.

>SLS has double the moon capability of FH
It'll be less than that. Watch: SpaceX will increase their claimed Falcon Heavy performance after the test flight.

>quadruple for reusable FH.
Let's stick with comparing apples to apples here.

Anyway, if some customer wanted SpaceX to upgrade Falcon Heavy to beat SLS performance to the moon, there are a few relatively straightforward ways they could do it. For instance, they could add orbital refuelling and do three reusable launches: one fuelling station, one departure stage, and the payload. If the FH upper stage starts near-full in LEO, it could do a higher TLI than SLS, and you know it would be cheaper and ready sooner as well.

They could also build a one-Raptor FH upper stage with orbital refuelling, fill it up completely, and then they'd be able to land a Dragon directly on the moon and launch it back to Earth, with no need to develop any other vehicles.

>BFR doesn't exist and will never exist. There's no money to pay for it.
Raptor will be ready to fly this year. If you think Elon Musk can't raise a few billions of dollars in investments to develop a vehicle he's saying can dominate the intercontinental air travel market, you haven't been paying attention.

[Anonymous No.9486379]

>>9486361
Dragon on FH in a single launch can go anywhere Orion can go on SLS, but the reverse is not true.

SLS/Orion is a total fucking joke. They designed Orion for a two-launch architecture involving Ares V, which would have been literally twice the rocket that SLS is supposed to be. With a big fat capsule and an anemic, low-flight-rate rocket, the only place they can go is to a high lunar orbit. It'll never make any useful contribution to a manned surface landing. If they shoehorn it into a moon program, it will be pure liability.

FH is quite reasonable for a moon program with multi-launch mission architecture, which it can support because it'll be cheap and have a high flight rate. You can build a moon base with FH, you can't with SLS.

[Anonymous No.9486385]

>>9486361
>SLS may never even fly
>you have to get on the field to make a goal

[Anonymous No.9486388]

>>9486379
>Dragon on FH in a single launch can go anywhere Orion can go on SLS, but the reverse is not true.
False. Dragon cannot enter orbit of the moon and FH cannot carry a giant supplemental payload along with it like SLS can.

>SLS/Orion is a total fucking joke. They designed Orion for a two-launch architecture involving Ares V, which would have been literally twice the rocket that SLS is supposed to be. With a big fat capsule and an anemic, low-flight-rate rocket, the only place they can go is to a high lunar orbit. It'll never make any useful contribution to a manned surface landing. If they shoehorn it into a moon program, it will be pure liability.
Orion was never supposed to launch on Ares V.

>FH is quite reasonable for a moon program with multi-launch mission architecture, which it can support because it'll be cheap and have a high flight rate.
There's no such thing yet as space tugs and refueling stations that you'd need to make this happen with FH.

[Anonymous No.9486406]

still GO https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/960366295362494464

[Anonymous No.9486422]

>>9486388
>Dragon cannot enter orbit of the moon
You think it's some kind of significant challenge to add a big-nozzled SuperDraco and some fuel tanks in the trunk?

>FH cannot carry a giant supplemental payload along with it
Neither can SLS. Orion's 26 tonnes. The supplemental payload can't even be 50% of Orion's mass.

When you get down to the capsules themselves, Orion and the necessary external support package (entirely aside from the additional propulsion) is over double the mass of Dragon and its integrated support hardware, while Falcon Heavy can launch more than half the TLI payload that SLS can. That means if you add as much additional propulsive capacity to both of them as the launch vehicles can carry, Dragon on Falcon Heavy can go more places than Orion on SLS.

>>They designed Orion for a two-launch architecture involving Ares V
>Orion was never supposed to launch on Ares V.
How fucking stupid are you? Can't read? Two-launch architecture: Orion goes up on Ares I, Earth-departure stage and the rest of the mission package goes up on Ares V, then Orion docks with that, and gets boosted to the moon.

That's why they let Orion be such a lumbering hulk of useless dead weight: they designed it around having close to triple the capacity for their lunar insertion burn. Then they trimmed Ares V down to SLS but kept Orion as it was. Now it's all just garbage.

[Anonymous No.9486438]

>>9486422
>Ares V

Ares V, or the aborted older brother of the SLS.

[Anonymous No.9486442]

>>9486438
Ares V, what they called SLS before they admitted they were failing to accomplish what Saturn V did half a century ago.

[Anonymous No.9486444]

>>9486438
>>9486442
completely unrelated rockets

Ares V makes BFR look like a toy

[Anonymous No.9486463]

>>9486444
What, are you retarded? They kept all the same contractors, all the same people working on it, and just downgraded the specs and changed the name. SLS is how Ares V turned out. It's like ITS and BFR, only sad and pathetic.

>Ares V makes BFR look like a toy
You've got that the wrong way around. Ares V would only have outperformed BFR's fully-reusable, single-launch mode. BFR would outperform Ares V just by expending the upper stage, and still reusing the booster, and the capability with orbital refuelling would blow it away competely.

[Anonymous No.9486475]

>>9486463
BFR is a paper rocket and will never be used in expendable mode, which even aspirationally doesn't come close to Ares V.

With Ares V at least all of the engines it would have used have actually been built and tested.

[Anonymous No.9486491]

Why do spacex fans hate space so much?

[Anonymous No.9486499]

y'all are arguing over nothing.

newSpace is NOT about how much you can throw to GEO or LEO with one rocket. It is about cost per kg, and launch cadence. Who the hell cares if you can put 30mt in GSO vs 10mt in one launch? The future is ultra-large space projects built quickly over the course of many separate—CHEAP—launches.

thus, the future is in SpaceX's hands. BFR is gonna BTFO everything else.

[Anonymous No.9486510]

>>9486475
Ares V's LEO payload spec was 188t, to TLI it was 60-71t depending on version.

BFR's LEO payload spec is 150t fully reusable, 250t with expendable upper stage (theoretically about 340t with expendable booster). For beyond-LEO missions, with an expendable upper stage alone the increased LEO payload would more than make up for the somewhat lower specific impulse (375s vs. 448s), but with orbital propellant refill, it will be able to land ~150t directly on Mars or the moon, never mind the Earth-departure burn.

BFR is far beyond Ares V in every way.

[Anonymous No.9486520]

>>9486499
There is zero (0) reason to believe BFR's cost estimates.
>refurbishing a first stage and a second stage that's RETURNED FROM ORBIT will be cheaper than refurbishing Falcon 9
This is what retards actually believe.

[Anonymous No.9486529]

>>9486499
Dear Lord. Is this really supposed to be the "science" board? Get real you degenerate brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9486535]

>>9486520
Do you actually not understand it? It's not that it's cheaper to reuse BFR than it will be cheaper to reuse the Falcon 9 booster when that capability is mature, it's that even with booster reuse, you still have to build a new Falcon 9 upper stage for each launch.

Anyway, the whole point of BFR is that refurbishment is not normally necessary between flights. Like an airliner, it is simply reusable. It needs maintenance sometimes.

[Anonymous No.9486540]

>>9486535
Falcon 9 upper stage is 20% of the cost of a falcon 9 launch, you utter fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.9486547]

>>9486529
>>9486520
>>9486540
shoo shoo bezos

F9 is already the cheapest rocket for its class. block 5 will allow for further rapid reusability, allowing for higher margins and quicker turnaround. BFR is just a continuation of the F9 mindset, but with true full reusability at the forefront of all design decisions. there won't be an "expendable" BFR option.

[Anonymous No.9486548]

>>9486520
>>9486491
How sad does your life have to be, that you feel some kind of a sense of accomplishment just from acting like a stupid person, so that people explain to you how you're wrong, and you feel clever that they believe (correctly, but for the wrong reason) that you're an idiot?

If I ever found myself living that way, I think I would kill myself.

[Anonymous No.9486549]

>>9486529
>Dear Lord. Is this really supposed to be the "science" board? Get real you degenerate brainlet.

This thread in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.9486551]

>>9486535
>You don't need to refurbish the bomb open at one end that will explode in a catastrophic explosion if it fails.

[Anonymous No.9486555]

>>9486535
Prove that BFR won't need refurbishment between flights.

>>9486510
Ares V isn't optimized for LEO

What are BFR's expendable TLI payload numbers? I'll wait.

>>9486547
BFR will never be cheaper than Falcon 9.

>>9486548
I have never been wrong on the matters of space.

[Anonymous No.9486558]

>>9486551
you really don't. Given enough sensor suites onboard, all diagnosing can be done automatically.

even so, the very first F9 to be recovered could have theoretically been launched the next day without any problems. the 6mo to prepare a flown stage for reuse is just due to an abundance of caution at this point.

[Anonymous No.9486561]

>>9486547
So that's why Arianespace had 19 launches ordered last year while SX got 7? Sure is disrupting™ the industry.

[Anonymous No.9486566]

>>9486555
>I have never been wrong on the matters of space.

HOLY SHIT LOL

I was going to actually reply to each of your comments with some seriousness, but it seems that you're just a le edgy baitlord.

Fuck off duderino

[Anonymous No.9486567]

>>9486548
>I think I would kill myself.
Why don't you do it and save us the waste of air?

[Anonymous No.9486569]

>>9486558
Sureeeeeeeeeee. I'll believe it when I see it shill. The soundtrack of this thread should be Curb Your Enthusiasm"

[Anonymous No.9486571]

>>9486566
>I have no rebuttal - the post

[Anonymous No.9486574]

silly me not thinking I'd see oldspace trolls/shills in a FH thread. Morons.

well, see you all Tuesday

[Anonymous No.9486579]

>>9486574
see >>9485988

[Anonymous No.9486644]

>>9486561
spacex has a 3 year back log already ordered
obviously they aren't getting tons of new contracts until that backlog is trimmed down or their flight rate gets above 30-40 a year.

[Anonymous No.9486663]

>>9483991
>>9484004
>Just a couple a guys excited for the Falcon Heavy launch

24 Hours Later...

>>9485669
>>9485761
>>9485799
>>9485966
>>9486146
>>9486268
>>9486362
>>9486388
>>9486422
>>9486438
>>9486463
>>9486475
>>9486529
>>9486549

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK WENT WRONG!

[Anonymous No.9486675]

>>9486663
There's nothing else to talk about until Tuesday.

[Anonymous No.9486679]

>>9486663
>WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK WENT WRONG!
Reddit arrived.

[Anonymous No.9486713]

>>9486675
NOT TRUE!

there is a dummy now confirmed in the roadster

[Anonymous No.9486727]

>>9484004

Those tiny bottles of oxygen will never be enough to fly that thing

[Anonymous No.9486730]

>>9486713
>it's real
wew lad

[Anonymous No.9486733]

>>9484099
>worst catastrophe for space exploration since Columbia

CATO is fully expected. Failure of FH will not result in any significant loss to the industry.

[Anonymous No.9486742]

>>9486730
yerp

[Anonymous No.9486754]

>>9486663
And they said that nerds couldn't brawl, this thread proved that stereotype null and void.

[Anonymous No.9486756]

cameras confirmed

[Anonymous No.9486757]

>>9484815
It`ll be a one way self sacrifice mission, see how long they can survive on the surface.

[Anonymous No.9486759]

>>9485669
>>Hey not all Americans support the wars in the Middle East! Sorry that these dumbfucks voted in those people.
>implying it was dumbfucks and not the Israel Lobby that got us into the wars in the middle east

Go learn some history.

[Anonymous No.9486762]

>>9486742
I can't wait for the stream to cut to one of those two cameras

[Anonymous No.9486767]

>>9485650
Space shuttle couldn`t even get to the moon, what an expensive joke.

[Anonymous No.9486768]

>>9486759
>>>/pol

[Anonymous No.9486780]

>>9486757
>It`ll be a one way self sacrifice mission, see how long they can survive on the surface.

>"Okay team, here's the plan. All of you will be dropped off on Mars with whatever supplies we provide with you and forced to fend for yourselves on a barren dead world 225 million kilometers from home with help several months to years away. You goal... to not die! Good Luck!"

Who the fuck would be suicidal enough to?

[Anonymous No.9486782]

>>9486780
there are almost eight billion people on earth. there would be a few

[Anonymous No.9486790]

>>9486713
Musk expects rocket to blow up.
Puts an expensive car in it anyway.
More unnecessary pollution, waste of resources and money.
Why not give the car to one of his employees.
Musk is a goddamn child.

[Anonymous No.9486791]

>>9486767
>Space shuttle couldn`t even get to the moon

The Space Shuttle wasn't designed to go to Luna. Its purpose was to be a quick and cheap way to transport astronauts and supplies in LEO.

[Anonymous No.9486793]

>>9486768
Those books were written by Jews.

[Anonymous No.9486795]

>>9486793
GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE /POL/TARD!!!

[Anonymous No.9486797]

>>9486790
>wrong, he's just lowering expectations
>it's his car you moron

how assblasted are you? lmao

[Anonymous No.9486799]

>>9486782
>There would be a few

Yeah like how, emos?

[Anonymous No.9486802]

>>9486793
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9486810]

>>9486780
I guarantee you there will be plenty to sign up for that mission believing they can beat the odds.

[Anonymous No.9486814]

>>9483980
When?

[Anonymous No.9486819]

>>9486814
see: >>9483980
>WHEN: February 6, 13:30-16:30 EST; 18:30-21:30 UTC

[Anonymous No.9486820]

>>9486797
Still a waste, why not use that space to launch a useful probe.

[Anonymous No.9486824]

>>9486820
because the whole point is to test FH. People don't complain when other companies launch mass simulators for demo flights... Elon is just having fun with this "mass simulator". The first F9 flight just had cheese onboard, you know.

[Anonymous No.9486834]

>>9486795
>>9486802

weak b8 is weak

[Anonymous No.9486836]

>>9486834
Why are you even here? Why do you think shitting up a space thread with pol shit is a useful thing to do?

Are you that delusional?

[Anonymous No.9486842]

>>9485988
Poor Scott Manley.
His content is respectable.

[Anonymous No.9486848]

>>9486820
God you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.9486850]

>>9486848
Tbh if people have never heard of mass simulators before it makes sense to wonder why they don’t throw a probe on top.

Don’t gatekeep too much, anon. It’s not healthy

[Anonymous No.9486853]

>>9486842
He's a meme.

[Anonymous No.9486854]

>>9486850
This is a /sci/ board. People should be expected to do the most basic of background reading before spouting their stupid bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9486857]

>>9486853
HULLO

[Anonymous No.9486858]

>>9486853
How?

[Anonymous No.9486865]

>>9486854
This board is full of flatearthers and brainlets asking for "proof" for the most obvious scientific knowledge.
What constitutes "proofs" to these mouthbreathers remains a mystery.

[Anonymous No.9486868]

>>9486865
True.

[Anonymous No.9486882]

>>9486757
>>9486780
>>9486782
>>9486810

>It`ll be a one way self sacrifice mission, see how long they can survive on the surface.
>Who the fuck would be suicidal enough to?
>There are almost eight billion people on earth. there would be a few
>I guarantee you there will be plenty to sign up for that mission believing they can beat the odds.

This seems like something out of a sci-fi dystopia.
>In the 21st century, the population of Earth had reached a critical limit. The developed world has been reduced back into a feudalistic nightmare, only the elite can afford to live a life of modernity whilst 95% of the population live in slums and camps slowly starving to death. Meanwhile the developing world has been reduced to a realm of chaos, wars for resources have destroyed nations and killed millions. Those desperate enough to flee the hellhole that the Earth had become, live in makeshift satellite colonies, doomed to inevitably fail.

Neil Coyote, one of the elite with a penchant for space exploration and an undying fetish for Mars, has announced his plans to develop a new reality show that combines drama and the horrors of the ever realistic fear of death. His show, "The Red Frontier", will have a cast of 50 people (25 males and 25 females) sent to Mars with the intent to set up a successful self-sustaining colony. Their one main goal: "To Not Die".

The 50 pioneers, mostly consisting of psychologically broken individuals, are sent off to brave a new frontier and be the first Humans to set foot on Mars. And their trials and tribulations will be streamed to all. Nothing is sacred.

[Anonymous No.9486908]

>>9486780
There's loads of people that would be willing to die in order to be the first human to set foot on another planet.

[Anonymous No.9486947]

>>9486848
You`re proof that Musk worshipers are all a bunch of suckers.

[Anonymous No.9486948]

>>9486836
But >>9485669 started it.

[Anonymous No.9486955]

>>9486824
It’s messed up that they’re going to spend millions to send a car to space for fun without any real purpose.
Telsa and Space X have some issues. They need to focus on the issues instead of stupid stuff like this.

[Anonymous No.9486957]

>>9486882
>psychologically broken individuals
Oh dear God more cabin fever and slasher scenes.

[Anonymous No.9486966]

>>9486955
What do you propose they send, anon?

[Anonymous No.9486969]

>>9486955
Yeah, they should try sending equipment worth millions on they first flight.

[Anonymous No.9487025]

>>9486713
Oh goodie. Is that a camera maybe out in the scaffolding in front?

[Anonymous No.9487041]

>>9485966
>Basic Income

[Anonymous No.9487042]

>>9486966
Whatever NASA does in this situation.
Personally, I`d like to send same weight in King James version of Holy Bibles and blast them out into our vast galaxy. Now that would be awesome, spreading the good news galactically.

[Anonymous No.9487046]

>>9486969
Doesn`t have to be worth millions of dollars.

[Anonymous No.9487055]

>>9486790
And that’s why so many /sci/tards love him.
I personally don’t mind, and thought of eccentric rich guy colonizing space is something straight outta venture.bros

[Anonymous No.9487080]

>>9487042
>Whatever NASA does in this situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boilerplate_(spaceflight)
It's either this or a chunk of lead. The only reason it's there is to be deadweight we can lose if the rocket explodes. Why not have fun with it?

If you can think of something that's both cheap and useful to have in heliocentric orbit between Earth and Mars, though, I'm all ears.

[Anonymous No.9487143]

>>9486957
They have to be that way in order to be "relatable".

[Anonymous No.9487168]

>>9486663
>WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK WENT WRONG!
An SLS fanboy in the thread. Yes, apparently one actually exists.

[Anonymous No.9487205]

>>9487168
>SpaceX fanboy calling people presenting actual arguments fanboys

[Anonymous No.9487216]

>>9486268
>Look, the SLS core and boosters are specced to deliver essentially the same payload to LEO as Falcon Heavy, which will do the job for about 1% of the cost. That's what the first flight is going to be. The claims for higher TLI insertions are based on putting an additional Earth-departure stage on top, that's currently nowhere near being ready to fly. The maiden flight of SLS was supposed to be a quick-and-dirty cobble job so they could meet a legislative requirement to launch in 2016, now it's on the edge of 2020, and there are a couple of years left for it to slip further.
I believe everythings what company says to me and I don't believe anything good related to things I don't like. BUT IM NOT A FANBOY!

[Anonymous No.9487238]

>>9486663
This is what happens when someone starts a "launch thread" two and a half days before the launch.

Hopefully this thread will reach bump limit before the launch.

[Anonymous No.9487281]

>>9486791
> Space Shuttle
> quick and cheap
Is that what you called it ?

[Anonymous No.9487286]

Do you think Musk got a blowjob in that car and there's jizz on the seats?

[Anonymous No.9487298]

>>9486791
It was expensive as fuck.
Also killed 14 astronauts.

[Anonymous No.9487302]

The flight plan I just filed with
the FAA lists me, my second stage, and the Tesla here. But only one booster...

[Anonymous No.9487311]

>>9483980
where the fuck did all these reddit-tier vapid personality worshipers come from

[Anonymous No.9487321]

>>9487286
>roadster approaches close enough to Mars to perturb orbit
>a few months later it ends up pointed straight at Mars
>crash landing
>Elon's jizz starts biology on Mars
>tfw Elon single-handedly (lol) terraforms Mars

[Anonymous No.9487340]

[Anonymous No.9487341]

>>9487340
>Jeff Who desperately trying to remain relevant

[Anonymous No.9487346]

>>9487341
>notice me senpai!
can't please the beez

[Anonymous No.9487348]

>>9487302
They're recovering the fairings too? How? Parachutes?

[Anonymous No.9487379]

>>9487348
A mixture of cold gas RCS thrusters and a boat with a giant claw...

[Anonymous No.9487396]

>>9487379
How does it not break on impact?

[Anonymous No.9487408]

>>9487348

[Anonymous No.9487447]

>>9487396
It's pretty strong and flexible due to being made out of composite materials (to survive max Q it has to be) but also fairings fall very slowly through the atmosphere due to the fact that their basically just lightweight carbon sails, with a large surface area. The speed which the fairing falls at is not the hard part of recovering the fairing, it's controlling the fairing's descent which is the true challenge.

[Anonymous No.9487483]

>>9487340
Musk replied.

[Anonymous No.9487499]

>>9486713
So they're going to be testing their prototype vacuum suit at the same time eh.. neat.

[Anonymous No.9487500]

>>9486756
Looks like a dash camera as well behind the windshield

[Anonymous No.9487501]

>>9487483
>senpai noticed me!

[Anonymous No.9487502]

>>9487499
probably just the artistic mockup.

[Anonymous No.9487511]

>>9487483
Belon OTP 4 ever

[Anonymous No.9487531]

>>9487499

[Anonymous No.9487532]

>>9486555

>Ares V isn't optimized for LEO

Which is a big mistake. Ares V and SLS is designed with hydrogen upper stage for direct lunar injection, ignoring the possibility of propellant depots and orbital refueling. It is thus an obsolete design from the very beginning.

[Anonymous No.9487613]

>>9486858
>>9486857

[Anonymous No.9487620]

>>9486555
>the same autistic anti-spaceflight faggot in every single spacex thread
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.9487623]

NEW ANIMATION
https://www.instagram.com/p/Be0uBGXAoY-/

[Anonymous No.9487634]

>>9487623
non-garbage youtube version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk338VXcb24

[Anonymous No.9487638]

>>9483980
Launch delayed
>24 hours remain

[Anonymous No.9487644]

>>9487634
>See You Space Cowboy...

[Anonymous No.9487646]

>>9487638
>February 6
>24 hours from February 5
>delayed
Um, anon...

[Anonymous No.9487672]

>>9487634
This is so absurd I love it.

[Anonymous No.9487699]

[Anonymous No.9487710]

>>9486663
i kinda missed the shitposting in the last few launch treads. It really died down after the first stage landings became routine

[Anonymous No.9487743]

>>9487634
Why is the surface cgi always so shit in these?
The rocket looks great but the water, clouds, tress, and ground are absolutely shit, you can get stock assets from tutorial websites that look better.

[Anonymous No.9487788]

>>9487743
Fuck off sperger. Spacex makes rockets not faggot cgi videos

[Anonymous No.9487816]

>>9487341
The man is worth over 100 billion dollars, and im glad he exists in space industry, spacex need competition.

[Anonymous No.9487823]

scrub at T-3 seconds
calling it

[Anonymous No.9487912]

we live in a wonderful timeline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk338VXcb24

[Anonymous No.9487954]

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread, why is this happening?

[Anonymous No.9487959]

So spacex is launching a worthless gimmick in space and risking severe planetary contamination that could very well put an end to the search for life on Mars.

Fascinating.

[Anonymous No.9487960]

>>9487816
1) His wealth is tied up in a bubble stock.
2) His spending is grossly inefficient.
3) He's getting cozy with OldSpace and its dirty politics.

SpaceX needs competition, but Blue Origin isn't going to be it. Look more toward lean little startups like RocketLab, where they don't start out with wads of money to attract the people who specialize in siphoning it off.

What SpaceX is doing is rapidly getting easier. There's an example to emulate. The legal barriers have largely been knocked down and the regulatory path streamlined. The relevant general-purpose technologies like material science, computer modelling, computer piloting, communications, sensors, batteries, and programmable manufacturing are making the jump from nothing to having a working rocket, and from having a working rocket to having a large reusable rocket, easier than ever.

[Anonymous No.9487963]

SpaceX has never launched a payload anywhere near the theoretical maximum capacity of the simple Falcon 9
In fact, I'm sure I read somewhere they have not even yet designed the fairing that would handle a heavier payload.

So what's the point of the Falcon Heavy? What's the point of the BFR?
There doesn't seem to be any commercial use for more than ~10t payloads to geostationary orbit, at best.

I think the New Zealand afrojew guy has got the right idea. The future is to go even cheaper than SpaceX, not to try and go bigger and bigger.

[Anonymous No.9487972]

>>9487954
>Why is FH important?
>It will be the most powerful rocket currently flying! With FH, SpaceX can bid on large government payloads that currently only ULA can launch, as well as launch big scientific payloads to the moon and elsewhere.

2nd reply my dude

[Anonymous No.9487975]

HOW MANY HOURS UNTIL LAUNCH

[Anonymous No.9487981]

>>9487972
but why the car

[Anonymous No.9487984]

>>9487981
Because He can just use the test flight for extra PR for Tesla

[Anonymous No.9487985]

>>9487975
21 bongs

[Anonymous No.9487988]

>>9487963

>whats the point of not killing myself tell me /sci/

[Anonymous No.9487990]

>>9487620
See >>9485988

[Anonymous No.9487991]

>>9487981
SpaceX is not nasa and will not risk crew for a test launch. And since conventional barrels of water are somewhat boring, and solid blocks of tungsten somewhat dangerous, and he does have that car company...

[Anonymous No.9487992]

>>9487959
>The brainlet that actively ignores what's actually going on and makes up his own reality so he can have something to be upset about

[Anonymous No.9487993]

>>9487963
Military payloads, interplanetary probes, space tourism. It won't launch as often as the Falcon 9, but SpaceX thought it was a big enough market to be worth pursuing. To be fair, Falcon Heavy has given them a lot more trouble than expected, and it sounds like they wouldn't have made it if they had the chance to do it all over.

>>9487981
For shits and giggles

[Anonymous No.9487997]

>>9487991
>Risk crew for a test launch.
When was the last time that happened brainlet?

[Anonymous No.9488000]

>>9487997
STS-1 was crewed.

[Anonymous No.9488002]

>>9487997
The last time nasa had a launch vehicle, retard.

[Anonymous No.9488004]

BFR when

That's what we really want

[Anonymous No.9488005]

>>9487963
Bigger is cheaper, that's the whole fucking point.

[Anonymous No.9488006]

are you allowed to go watch rocket launchers?

Obviously not super close but still

[Anonymous No.9488007]

>>9488000
Ahh yes, because the space shuttle was the prime example of good safety decisions.

[Anonymous No.9488008]

>>9488006
No it's illegal

[Anonymous No.9488010]

>>9488007

Not doing anything really is the safest way.

[Anonymous No.9488011]

BFR isn't big enough desu

[Anonymous No.9488013]

>>9487993
There is no market for such heavy launches other than the US government. Delta IV Heavy only flies every 18 months and only launches government payloads. If this thing is successful, expect the same. Especially since the FAA estimated each launch to cost $270M.

>>9488004
>>9488011
Never because it's a retarded rocket that would get you laughed out of room at Roscosmos or NASA.

[Anonymous No.9488014]

>>9487963
Its not for launching payloads that the falcon 9 can't, its for launching payloads that the falcon 9 can't do reusable, reusable.

[Anonymous No.9488021]

>>9488013
>roscosmos

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.9488025]

>>9488013
>NASA
>Having the high ground to laugh anyone out of the room in 2018

NASA would have laughed in Elons face if he told them he would have self landing rockets in a few years, now look. It is also only a matter of payload cost before other companies decide they want to send bigger shit than they are now.

[Anonymous No.9488030]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk338VXcb24

[Anonymous No.9488032]

>>9488025
In hindsight they'd probably do more than laugh seeing how butthurt their pork friends and contractors are getting.
Countdown until SLS cancellation when?

[Anonymous No.9488033]

>>9488030
>This dumb shit is the "future" of space travel

[Anonymous No.9488045]

>>9488030

CGI is no different to what you get when the "rocket" gets into space in a "real" SpaceX launch.

[Anonymous No.9488046]

>>9488033
What's dumb about testing a rocket?

[Anonymous No.9488048]

>>9488021
their managers are too busy embezzling their budget to have meetings and their workers are too drunk to care

[Anonymous No.9488053]

>>9488033
How is it dumb?

[Anonymous No.9488056]

>>9488021
>Create most successful launch vehicle in history and currently only organization that can put a man in space.
>Hilarious
i r lafin

>>9488025
Yea, that's why they funded the McDonnell Douglas DC-X and landed rockets decades before Musk. And that's also why NASA are single handedly responsible for SX still existing today, because they didn't believe a rocket could land. Also, why do you call Musk Elon? Do you know him personally?

>>9488032
Watching SX drones circle around the SLS is pathetic.

[Anonymous No.9488064]

>>9488056
shoo shoo senator ivan

[Anonymous No.9488069]

>>9488064
>I don't have a rebuttal: the post.

[Anonymous No.9488071]

>>9488048
This reminds me there was this ex-director of roscosmos that was gutted recently.

>>9488056
You are retarded so crocodile yourself.

[Anonymous No.9488074]

>>9487981
>why the car
Test flight with significant chance of failure. The car's cheap and fun. A real payload would be expensive, and would be wasted if the launch failed.

>>9487963
>SpaceX has never launched a payload anywhere near the theoretical maximum capacity of the simple Falcon 9
You mean the theoretical maximum to LEO, right? They push the limits on their GTO launches, and often have to expend a booster.

That's what Falcon Heavy is mainly for: to launch comsats without expending any boosters. It'll be able to outlaunch anything else on the market with recovery of all three boosters. It's part of their market dominance plan: they intend, starting this year or next, to leave no justification in cost, capability, or schedule for any customer to go to the competition. The huge payloads in expendable mode are just a nice bonus capability.

>I'm sure I read somewhere they have not even yet designed the fairing that would handle a heavier payload.
It's the payload coupling, and the idea that it's difficult to build one for any mass of payload they want to launch is ridiculous. The heavier the payload, the heavier the payload coupling, so they only build them as big as the market needs, and the market so far has mostly wanted relatively light GTO comsat launches.

>What's the point of the BFR?
They wanted it to be big enough for a sizeable team to live on for months at a time, so it's suitable for long range human passenger transportation. The large fairing of the payload version is also a huge advantage. It's not designed for the existing market, but to create new markets.

[Anonymous No.9488076]

>>9488056
SpaceX is so far ahead of every organisation you are shilling for that you might as well just kill yourself now.

[Anonymous No.9488081]

this is all it takes to convince people...

[Anonymous No.9488082]

>>9488071

[Anonymous No.9488084]

If fairing size is a limiting factor for larger payloads, why don't they stop making rockets so tall and start making them thicc
Like the British lipstick rocket

[Anonymous No.9488088]

>>9488076

[Anonymous No.9488089]

>>9488056
>Yea, that's why they funded the McDonnell Douglas DC-X
That was a DOD project. When it showed promise NASA demanded to take it over, and promptly ran it into the ground and abandoned it.

[Anonymous No.9488090]

>>9488084
SpaceX rockets were designed to be transportable by road. SLS and New Glenn are not, so they'll have larger fairings.

[Anonymous No.9488094]

>>9488084
More thiccer more drag, more drag needs more fuel and power which means more money.

[Anonymous No.9488096]

>>9487997
aaand its part of the SLS plans

[Anonymous No.9488099]

>>9488088
You can post animu grills all you want but that doesn't make it wrong.

[Anonymous No.9488101]

>>9488089
This.

[Anonymous No.9488106]

>>9488074
>It'll be able to outlaunch anything else on the market

Wrong it can't launch 2 sats inti GTO in one launch so it is already inferior to the Ariane5.

Again Musktards prove that they know nothing about rockets or the market they are only able to repeat SpaceX bullshit PR claims.

[Anonymous No.9488109]

>>9488089
>When it showed promise NASA demanded to take it over, and promptly ran it into the ground and abandoned it.

>On the last flight a hard landing cracked the aeroshell. By this point funding for the program had already been cut, and there were no funds for the needed repairs.[8]

>NASA agreed to take on the program after the last DC-X flight in 1995. In contrast to the original concept of the DC-X demonstrator, NASA applied a series of major upgrades to test new technologies

Why you always lyin?

>>9488096
You are very dumb.

>>9488099
It is wrong and hilarious.

[Anonymous No.9488115]

>>9488109
Cool, well when any of your joke of a space agencies manage to build and fly a self landing rocket with anything approaching SpaceX payloads you can come back because you might have an argument.

>>9488106
>Ariane5

lmao

[Anonymous No.9488123]

Why doesn't ULA seem to care about the loss of business?

Even if they pile pressure on congress to keep buying their rockets to maintain jobs the number of such launches will potentially plummet due to the absurd costs.

[Anonymous No.9488128]

Do not anons respond the same retard is responsible for the flat earth shit. You can know him by the reddit spacing, the autistic post linking and almost 100% response rate. He is in almost every space related thread.

[Anonymous No.9488135]

>>9488115
>lmao

One of the most reliable rockets of this planet and unlike SpaceX they launch on time and into the right orbit.

Falcon Heavy 5 years late and they are already setting up the bar low with "it might fail"

You are nothing but a pathetic fanboy who has absolutely no clue what counts for LSP's.

Low launch costs are way less important than launching reliable and on time.

Gee I wonder why SpaceX is not taking over the private market with their unreliable shitty rocket that never launches on shedule..... gee lets respond with childish lol's and lmao's.

Literally kys you are the reason nobody takes Musk and his cultish followers serious.

[Anonymous No.9488137]

>>9488115
>build and fly a self landing rocket with anything approaching SpaceX payloads
And just like predicted, the SX fanboys declare that the only thing that matters is a self landing rocket. Way to be oh so predictable Muskbot.

>lmao
The Ariane 5 got 19 contracts last year for a total of 27 satellites because lol dual payload. Compare that to the F9 which got 7 contracts last year. How revolutionary.

>>9488123
>MUH MUH ULA!!!!!
ULA will do fine. It doesn't matter how much SX cuts costs because ULA will still got contracts as the government won't allow a monopoly.

[Anonymous No.9488139]

>>9488135
>in the right orbit
ok Mr. Ariane "30 degrees is good for me" 5 shill

[Anonymous No.9488142]

>>9488137
the monopoly point is valid, but then again we *had* a monopoly for a good decade before SpX started bidding on launches.

[Anonymous No.9488143]

>>9488137
>they launch on time and into the right orbit.

double lmao

[Anonymous No.9488147]

>>9488115
>manage to build and fly a self landing rocket


Why would anybody try such a retarded thing?

SpaceX already proved that it doesn't justify the payload reduction and the increased likelyhood of a failure.

Just because it's possible does not mean it is feasible or economically sound.

You have revealed how little you know about economics, engineering and what customers of LSP's want.

[Anonymous No.9488148]

>>9488147
can you go stand in the FH flame trench? it would do us all a big favor.

>increased likelihood of failure
HAHHAAHAHAHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHHO
reused stages have a 100% success rate you fucking mong

[Anonymous No.9488149]

>>9488139
>>9488143
>quoting things that literally weren't said
Ariane 5 is still way more reliable than anything SpaceX has ever made.

[Anonymous No.9488154]

>>9488148
Yet those brand spanking new stages don't. Amazing.

[Anonymous No.9488155]

>>9488148
>BAITED

[Anonymous No.9488156]

>>9488147
Is this b8?

[Anonymous No.9488157]

>>9488143
Yeah "lmao" how old are you again?

The Ariane5 has been proven to be way more reliable and ESA does it's job without acting like a moronic company and cult following.

Just leave this place and go back to /futurology you are clearly not interested in a honest conversation/discussion.

You don't argue you don't care about arguments and facts that destroy your pathetic point of view.

[Anonymous No.9488160]

>>9488149
>muh 2% reliability difference
lol

why would anyone launch on ariane 5 anyways when the much more reliable Soyuz is still around???? HUHHH???? ever think of that duuuude?

[Anonymous No.9488167]

>>9488109
>In a major turnaround, the space agency is considering adding a crew of astronauts to Exploration Mission 1 (EM–1) – an orbital mission to the Moon that's currently scheduled to launch in September 2018, but until now was going to be crewless.

>While that September 2018 deadline might now be too ambitious, given the upgrades that will need to be made to the SLS to accommodate humans, it's still a huge and abrupt change of plans in NASA's mission timetable.

>Before the announcement, crewed journeys on the SLS and its accompanying Orion capsule had been planned for 2021 at the earliest."

[Anonymous No.9488170]

>>9488156
Maybe.

[Anonymous No.9488173]

I play KSP with Galileo's planet pack mod, and he has included an earth-like planet with crushingly high gravity and a disc (pic related).

Inside the disc, which is orbiting really fucking close, is a lump of rock which is a "moon". That lump of rock is orbiting at like excessively high speeds, and even rotates so fast you can land on one of its edges and it spins away from you faster than its gravity pulls you in, so you end up floating upwards by just standing still

Would this be possible in real life?

[Anonymous No.9488174]

so is there gonna be a sextuple sonic boom?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbnHSQsz7Xs

[Anonymous No.9488175]

>>9488148
>increased likelihood of failure

Reusability decreases the reliability of every single sytem on this planet, you lack the absolute basics of thinking.

Not going to waste more time with a 14 year old musktard/ troll.

[Anonymous No.9488178]

>>9488157

[Anonymous No.9488180]

>>9488175
holy shit what a bait master. /k/ always thinks that it's the easiest board to troll, but I think for today /sci/ takes the cake

>what is the bathtub curve

[Anonymous No.9488182]

>>9488174
yep, landings should be about 10 sec apart

[Anonymous No.9488183]

>>9488173
The moon would probably break apart, but you'd have to crunch all the numbers to know for certain.

[Anonymous No.9488184]

>>9488173
Unless quite solid it will tear itself apart
Depending on how big it is can't you just land on the "poles"? Spinning should not be so dangerous there.

[Anonymous No.9488185]

>>9488182
>>9488174
I spoke too soon, it seems that they will either do it staggered or simul, depending on some criteria

from: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/02/spacex-debut-falcon-heavy-demonstration-launch/

[Anonymous No.9488189]

>>9488184
Here is the clearest picture I have of the thing, but it's not round at all, it's just a lump of rock really
I'm not sure where its poles are

[Anonymous No.9488191]

>>9488185
love those kind of diagrams

[Anonymous No.9488192]

>>9488106
>Wrong it can't launch 2 sats inti GTO in one launch
You do know they've launched multiple satellites in one launch before, right?

They're entirely capable of launching two or more satellites to GTO in one launch. They choose a sales strategy of giving each customer their own launch, and still charging them a lower price than they would pay to ride as a secondary payload on Ariane 5. Having to find two customers to go together for a typical launch is a major drawback to Ariane 5, not an advantage.

>>9488109
>By this point funding for the program had already been cut
And why do you think the defense funding was cut? You think NASA had nothing to do with that? They were saying, "The DOD shouldn't be doing this! This is our turf! The DOD program should end, we'll be the ones running this!"

>In contrast to the original concept of the DC-X demonstrator, NASA applied a series of major upgrades to test new technologies
Exactly. They acted like they were going to continue the program, but then they loaded it up as a testbed for so many "new technologies" (such as a cheap LOX tank from Russia) that it was guaranteed to fail. Instead of continuing the program with the same goals of progressing toward a functioning orbital launch vehicle, NASA made them build a garbage rocket and flew it once, and of course it broke, and then they acted like this proved the concept was bad and ended the program.

They never had any intent of pursuing it honestly. They took it over to destroy it.

[Anonymous No.9488195]

>>9488189
walnut lookin ass

[Anonymous No.9488196]

NEWS::::::::::NEWS:::::::NEWS:::::::: (from Jeff Foust)

Musk: doing a six-hour coast before final second-stage burn; going through Van Allen Belts. Also fuel could freeze or oxygen lost.

Musk: Tesla will be placed into a heliocentric orbit and become a Earth-Mars cycler; only extremely tiny chance of hitting Mars in foreseeable future.

Musk: one area of concern is relative interactions of the three booster cores; could be resonance or shockwave impingement. Once second stage separates, we’re in much more known territory other than long-duration coast.

Musk: looks like development of BFR is moving quickly, and won’t be necessary to qualify Falcon Heavy for crewed spaceflight.

Musk: if we’re successful, offer near super-heavy-lift for little more than Falcon 9. “Game over” for all other heavy-lift rockets.

[Anonymous No.9488204]

more NEWS:::::::::: (from Eric Berger)

"Just spoke to an ebullient Elon Musk at the launch pad. In his heart, he feels like there’s a 67 percent chance of success. In his head, it’s probably closer to 50-50."

"Musk: “One of my biggest concerns is booster to booster interaction. You’ve got a lot of dynamics going on there. Those rockets are very flexible, and if they flex in unexpected ways they could potentially impact one another.”"

"Musk: We are doing a six-hour coast to demonstrate to the Air Force the capability to do direct-to-GEO missions. Risk is that the Roadster ends up in LEO."

"Musk: If the third burn goes as we hope, the Tesla will get as far away as 380 to 450 million km from Earth."

[Anonymous No.9488205]

>>9488192
>You do know they've launched multiple satellites in one launch before, right?

Only cubesats faggot.

They have no payload adaptor to launch 2 heavy comsats into GTO (literally the only payload the market cares about)

Do your homework next time.

[Anonymous No.9488206]

>>9488196
Right after that last one:

Musk: if successful with this test launch, we’ll be ready to put a satellite on the next Falcon Heavy launch.

[Anonymous No.9488208]

>>9488189
Will make a nice place for a surface base. My guess is anywhere but the central circular lumps will be safe places to land.

[Anonymous No.9488209]

"Musk: if successful with this test launch, we’ll be ready to put a satellite on the next Falcon Heavy launch."

"Musk: if successful should be able to d another FH in three to six months. Can produce them at a pretty rapid rate."

[Anonymous No.9488210]

>>9488209
>Musk: if we wanted to, we could add to more side boosters, make it Falcon Super Heavy.

kek

[Anonymous No.9488211]

>>9488081
Convince people of what exactly?

[Anonymous No.9488212]

HOLY SHITTTTTTTT

[Anonymous No.9488215]

>>9488045
>mini ice dragon fell off in mid flight

lol

[Anonymous No.9488216]

>>9488211
he literally posts that same gif in every space thread, just ignore it

[Anonymous No.9488217]

>>9488212
Why though

Make the BFR instead

[Anonymous No.9488218]

>>9488212
>>9488210
I mean I like Musk, but this is exactly what he said about putting two boosters on the side to make Falcon Heavy, turns out it wasn't so easy.

[Anonymous No.9488223]

>>9488196
>Musk: looks like development of BFR is moving quickly, and won’t be necessary to qualify Falcon Heavy for crewed spaceflight.
What about the moon tourists? Did they cancel their mission, or are they waiting for BFR?

[Anonymous No.9488224]

>>9488217
why not both?

>>9488218
it's not easy until you figure it out. Once they get actual flight data for FH it'll probably make FH just as "good" as any F9 flight

[Anonymous No.9488225]

>>9488205
>>You do know they've launched multiple satellites in one launch before, right?
>Only cubesats
>Do your homework
The fucking irony.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_NEXT#Launch_campaign_2
~1-tonne satellites aren't "cubesats".

>They have no payload adaptor to launch 2 heavy comsats into GTO
This isn't a hard thing to build. They're not doing it because it's stupid, and because they can beat the price without doing it. Everyone hates having to have two unrelated satellites from different customers ready on the same day.

[Anonymous No.9488227]

>>9488223
Musk: we kind of tabled Crew Dragon on Falcon Heavy (including the cislunar mission announced last Feb.) and focus our energies on BFR.

[Anonymous No.9488228]

>>9488212
>rumored COTS style lunar program
>this
It's going to delay the BFR, right?

[Anonymous No.9488230]

>>9488223
rumor is they're at the launch tomorrow to watch it go

[Anonymous No.9488231]

>>9488225

>inb4 the baitposter keeps going

[Anonymous No.9488232]

So this is just wasting time to the BFR

[Anonymous No.9488235]

>>9488204

>Let's build a rocket that has a 50% failure rate
~Space travel in 2017

[Anonymous No.9488236]

>>9488232
sort of, yes. Elon has said that if it was 2011 again they should have shitcanned FH and gone straight to a 3/4 size ITS. But it's too late now.

[Anonymous No.9488237]

>>9488205
>Only cubesats faggot.
at what point does a sat stop being a cubesat?
because 2 sats totaling 5200 kg dont sound much like a cubesat to me

[Anonymous No.9488240]

>>9488227
That's a bummer.
Kinda confused though, because in the description of the new animation, it says this:
>Falcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars.
Did someone not get the memo?

[Anonymous No.9488242]

>>9488237
not to mention that they're trapezoid shaped, heh

[Anonymous No.9488245]

>>9488240
time value of money (work) is really at play here.

it sucks, but pushing forward with full steam on BFR is the best choice for everyone long-term, even if it means buying more Soyuz seats short term

[Anonymous No.9488246]

>>9488240
>>9488227
Fucking good. we went to the moon decades ago. Stop wasting time on it and get the fuck to Mars.

[Anonymous No.9488248]

>>9488227
Disappointing. The crew program should offer most of what is required for flyby.

[Anonymous No.9488252]

>>9488242
ba-dum tish

[Anonymous No.9488256]

>>9488235
>Let's build a rocket that has a 50% failure rate
It's the first test you mong, it takes time to fix all the problems.

[Anonymous No.9488258]

>>9488245
I get why, but I was still looking forward to that mission.

[op No.9488260]

oh boy, bump limit

I'll get the new thread going in a jiffy with new info in the OP

[Anonymous No.9488262]

>>9488240
Qualifying it to carry crew would still take a lot of paperwork and expense. Designing it from the beginning to be man-rated just makes that a lot easier and more likely to succeed.

[Anonymous No.9488268]

>>9488211
That space travel isn't pure sci-fi.

[Anonymous No.9488271]

>>9488256

fucking stop making them with problems, it's 2017, bunch of fucking brainlets working on this shit

[Anonymous No.9488286]

>>9488271
Turns out rocket science is pretty complicated, who would have guessed?

[Anonymous No.9488303]

>>9488286
NASA got to the moon loads of times in 60's/70's. Doesn't seem that hard at all.

[Anonymous No.9488325]

>>9487638

[Anonymous No.9488342]

>>9488303
well they did kill a few people in the process, not to mention launching a bunch of un-crewed tests

[Anonymous No.9488346]

>>9487238
>Hopefully this thread will reach bump limit before the launch.

NO WAY MOTHERFUCKER! THIS SHIT IS GETTING ARCHIVED!!!

[Anonymous No.9488356]

>>9488303
>NASA got to the moon loads of times in 60's/70's
And guess what they did? They tested their rockets like musk is doing.

[Anonymous No.9488372]

>>9488212
Add more expendable boosters to an already expandable rocket?
Are you even trying to compete with Spacex?

[Anonymous No.9488379]

>>9488228
No. If they're worried about the vibrations from three first stages, imagine the nightmare five would cause. Plus, Elon's already admitted that Falcon Heavy was a mistake and seems fully committed to BFR now.

[Anonymous No.9488387]

>>9488342

They're still alive.

[Anonymous No.9488435]

>>9488189

[Anonymous No.9488485]

>>9486146
>SLS is not fucked.

Then explain this
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/10/14886570/nasa-space-launch-system-rocket-ula-blue-origin-spacex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_iz8z2AGw

RIP SLS
2015-2018
"NASA IS FUCKED!"

[Anonymous No.9488496]

>>9488196
Doesn't a real Earth-Mars cycler still need periodic adjustment burns? If so, wouldn't the orbit of the Tesla go all out of whack after a few orbits?

[Anonymous No.9488517]

>>9488496
That Tesla roadster will not go anywhere near Mars, Mars is out of sync for basic Hohmann transfer. It will cycle between Mars and Earth orbits without getting anywhere near either of those planets.

[Anonymous No.9488753]

>>9488517
>That Tesla roadster will not go anywhere near Mars, Mars is out of sync for basic Hohmann transfer. It will cycle between Mars and Earth orbits without getting anywhere near either of those planets.

So basically the Tesla roadster will stuck in orbit forever? Would this have an impact on space debris?

[Anonymous No.9488883]

>>9484241
Why is designed in that way?

[Anonymous No.9488908]

>>9488883
need 80 fewer people on the ground per launch. Not-AFTS are really labor intensive

[Anonymous No.9489464]

>>9484241
You meant "i.e.", not "aka".

[Anonymous No.9489491]

>>9488753
the only place the roadster is going is the bottom of the ocean in a million pieces

[Anonymous No.9489545]

>>9488191

[Anonymous No.9489555]

>>9488191

[Anonymous No.9489560]

>>9489555
>>9489545

[Anonymous No.9489713]

What will happen to the roadster? Orbit mars?

[Anonymous No.9489717]

>>9489713
Orbit the sun between Earth and Mars

[Anonymous No.9489728]

[Anonymous No.9489768]

>>9489717
Is the Falcon going anywhere near Mars or just between Earth and Mars?

[Anonymous No.9489777]

>>9489768
Falcon is going to land on the ground and drone ship, and second stage will burn up. Only the car is going to Mars. See >>9487634

[Anonymous No.9490058]

>>9486165
>not wearing a belt

[Anonymous No.9490513]

>>9487646

Did I miss it?

[Anonymous No.9490547]

>>9489777
>Only the car is going to Mars
>billion year orbit

This is barely any better than just randomly shooting it into/out of the solar system in any orientation.

Is he even loosely aiming for Mars? How close will he actually get?