Can someone explain to me where people get the guts to even mention this fucking thing in a semi-serious discussion? This is hands down the most retarded thing Mucus ever peddled and terrifying number of people seem to be hooked no questions asked.

File: 14 KB, 660x368, BFR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 07:32:02 2018 No.9504913 [Reply] [Original]

Can someone explain to me where people get the guts to even mention this fucking thing in a semi-serious discussion?
This is hands down the most retarded thing Mucus ever peddled and terrifying number of people seem to be hooked no questions asked.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 07:48:09 2018 No.9504937 >>9504913 We dont know enough about it to not be optimistic

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 07:51:53 2018 No.9504945 >>9504913 >terrifying number ooh poor babby is terrified by a number

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 07:55:14 2018 No.9504951 >>9504913 What is so bad about it? I see a vertical-staged shuttle. But with proper thrusters, a more "ballistic" aerodynamic profile, and good fuel capacity + refuelling capability. Assuming they can properly design and build it, of course.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 08:10:31 2018 No.9504967 >>9504913 looks like weed

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 08:14:38 2018 No.9504971

>>9504937
You don't need to know a single thing about the rocket itself to see a multitude of totally deal breaking flaws in the general concept.
>>9504945
answer these or shut the fuck up forever

What governing body is ever going to allow ballistic launch based commercial traffic?
Utterly ridiculous proposition of comfy 30 minute transcontinental flights, what's the length of security checks and boarding time onto literal 5000 ton bomb?
On what planet do you ferry human beings from A to B with same speed as nuclear warheads which don't brake and go down at 7-10km/s?
How do you justify the horrendous fuel economy of a craft that - even if it could take same amount of people as biggest passenger aircraft - consumes almost 20 times more fuel?
I can and WILL go on if provoked

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 08:26:18 2018 No.9504979

>>9504971
>What governing body is ever going to allow ballistic launch based commercial traffic?
The USA, the idea of launching a BFR into space is so culturally American that it's not even funny.

>Utterly ridiculous proposition of comfy 30 minute transcontinental flights, what's the length of security checks and boarding time onto literal 5000 ton bomb?
Same argument was used against jets, and it's not very difficult to board one now. Same argument was used against cars. You sound like a Luddite.

>On what planet do you ferry human beings from A to B with same speed as nuclear warheads which don't brake and go down at 7-10km/s?
Earth, hopefully. This speed argument was used against landing rockets, and we all know how that turned out.

>How do you justify the horrendous fuel economy of a craft that - even if it could take same amount of people as biggest passenger aircraft - consumes almost 20 times more fuel?
This is a semi-valid point. The costs may be prohibitively expensive, just like the Concorde. But considering what a beast Musk is at reducing costs, I know he'll figure it out.

>I can and WILL go on if provoked
Bitch you're nobody, a hater, a loser. U're fucking mad rn and I don't even know why. It's like you hate people being successful and popular like Musk is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 08:46:00 2018 No.9505016 31 engine rocket is literally impossible as proven by the russians and their N1.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 08:51:47 2018 No.9505022 >>9504979 >>9504971 I'm interested in the fuel economy when compared to transcontinental passenger jets, considering they use a lot of fuel themselves

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 08:54:39 2018 No.9505025

>>9504979
>Same argument was used against jets
it takes hours to board a jet in america you nigger and they aren't flying nukes

>This speed argument was used against landing rockets, and we all know how that turned out.
landing rockets don't carry people you stupid fuck, do you even know what kind of G's do you have to pull to brake from 10km/s?
Mercury reentries weren't even close to doing that and the astronauts had to shit themselves soaking 10G at times.

>But considering what a beast Musk is at reducing costs, I know he'll figure it out.
what the fuck is this a religion?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 08:57:25 2018 No.9505029 >>9505025 >le everything is le religon top lel

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 08:59:11 2018 No.9505032 >>9505016 FH has 27 engines and worked perfectly well

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 09:00:53 2018 No.9505035 >>9505025 > what are lifting bodies. STS crews didn’t have to handle 10 g during rentry, more like 3 g max

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 09:01:22 2018 No.9505036 >>9505032 Much smaller rocket and engines, different design, and flown only once with minimal payload. The N1 also "worked" a few times.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 09:01:48 2018 No.9505037 File: 587 KB, 2048x1364, Falcon-Heavy-at-LC39A-3-SpaceX.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9505016 Communist engineering is great for only simple things...

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 09:02:20 2018 No.9505038

>>9505025

>landing rockets don't carry people you stupid fuck, do you even know what kind of G's do you have to pull to brake from 10km/s?

You dont know what you are talking about. The BFR as envisioned for point to point travel is big and light, an ideal combination for aerobraking. Estimates are that it will pull around 3Gs. It is a concern but not a showstopper.

Dont get me wrong, I am very skeptical about BFR replacing airplanes, and certainly not in nearest decades. But this particular criticism is wrong.

Where BFR will really shine is what it was conceived to do in the first place - launching things into orbit. Thousands of tons every year for a price of $100 per kg is a realistic scenario.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 09:03:23 2018 No.9505039 >>9505016 N1 was an untested piece of shit with much bigger problems than a number of engines

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 09:09:10 2018 No.9505047

>>9505025
>Hours to board a jet in america you nigger
Is that... relevant?
>And they aren't flying nukes
Rocket crashes cause less damage than most military bombs when crashing, the fucking debris is more dangerous.
Like that other guy said, you're sounding worryingly close to the first detractors of automobiles and combustion engines.

>landing rockets don't carry people you stupid fuck
Oh no
We didn't think of that when making rockets not designed to carry people
How awful

>what the fuck is this a religion?
Possibly

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 09:18:04 2018 No.9505058 >>9504913 I bet you made the same thread about Falcon 9 in 2013. If you were even here back then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 09:27:42 2018 No.9505069 >Actually naming you rocket BFR the madman

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 09:45:12 2018 No.9505082 >>9505069 Honestly it's nice to have someone who's not stupid AND has a sense of humour being the figurehead. Means the normies get interested for at least five minutes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 09:49:04 2018 No.9505083 >>9504971 You sound like those 1910s mongoloids who complained that cars should be banned because they are too fast. Kys.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 09:57:49 2018 No.9505090

>>9504979
While I agree that anon is a luddite I do also think that it won't catch on for financial reasons because we've seen the same thing with Concorde. Most people would rather sit in a plane for 6 hours and pay £500 than sit in one for 2 hours and pay £2,000. Maybe it will find a niche for business and government like Concorde did but it will never be widely popular like jumbos. Oh and don't forget the greenpeace nuts will fight it to the death. They only leave rocketry alone because it's a) infrequent and b) the only way to get into space.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 10:04:55 2018 No.9505096 >>9504913 >Mucus man that is clever it's like 'obummer' or 'drumpf', totally amazing. i laffed for like an hour

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 10:19:56 2018 No.9505110

>>9505047
>Is that... relevant?
yes, extremely, especially if you market your new transportation method as something that takes you across pacific in 35 minutes
first of fucking all, and I'm repeating myself here and you are a fucking cunt for making me do it, 35 minutes is flight time for rockets that don't brake, rockets that would murder anyone inside them, no matter how fit and healthy they are, let alone fucking randos with fat wallets
>Rocket crashes cause less damage than most military bombs when crashing, the fucking debris is more dangerous.
Rockets like Soyuz carry 300 tons of fuel, same as an A380, 4000 tons of fuel in BFR would literally cause 10kt explosion, are you on fucking drugs?

>We didn't think of that when making rockets not designed to carry people
laugh it up faggot, you either brake for god knows how long completely shitting on that 35 minute figure or murder everyone inside, orbiter was a fucking glider and its reentry took forever and it still had to smother the crew 20 minutes with 3 G's there is no wonderful new idea your god and savior will pull from his urethra to go around this, you either do it or your rocket can't carry people

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 10:22:42 2018 No.9505116 File: 55 KB, 960x540, south-park-s17e02c12-bummed-out-by-the-cable-company-16x9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9504971 >I can and WILL go on if provoked oh no....

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 10:24:50 2018 No.9505118 >>9505058 I think its pretty likely that OP is still posting from the same basement, with the same disappointed parents upstairs

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 10:44:25 2018 No.9505151
File: 70 KB, 1200x1600, N1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9505110
>BFR would literally cause 10kt explosion, are you on fucking drugs?
>You either brake for god knows how long completely shitting on that 35 minute figure or murder everyone inside, orbiter was a fucking glider and its reentry took forever and it still had to smother the crew 20 minutes with 3 G's there is no wonderful new idea your god and savior will pull from his urethra to go around this, you either do it or your rocket can't carry people

Finally someone admits it. The BFR is a fucking terrible idea. Yes, it is capable of causing a 10kt explosion if it were to fail. Musk wants to create a rideable nuke to transport people across the world. It would just be simpler to create a spaceplane.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 11:13:08 2018 No.9505195 File: 121 KB, 800x607, trypophobia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9504913 BFR AKA N2

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 11:15:40 2018 No.9505200 File: 650 KB, 320x240, yes.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9505195

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 13:20:25 2018 No.9505439 >>9505016 The issue with the n1 wasn't the number of engines though you retard, it was horrible build and engineering due to the government requiring them to cut corners to meet with their tight budget, and poor materials

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 13:39:33 2018 No.9505476 >>9504913 falcon heavy works. Musk delivered.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 13:41:44 2018 No.9505480 >>9505476 Just because the Falcon Heavy worked doesn't mean the same can be said about the BFR or America's N1

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 13:52:46 2018 No.9505505 >>9504971 You're focusing entirely on ONE use of the BFR, and that use is purely HYPOTHETICAL The main purpose of the BFR is to go out into space, you fucking tool

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 13:56:12 2018 No.9505513

>>9505480
>Comparing a rocket that hasn't been build yet with one that only failed due to the budget and time constraints the USSR out on okb-1 to compete with the bigger, more expensive Saturn v that was further along in it's development
The n1 didn't fail due to engine count

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 14:07:39 2018 No.9505550

>>9505480
They said that one of the main challenges with the Falcon Heavy was dealing with the vibrations and extra thrust of all those engines together

They said the central core had to be completely redesigned for these reasons

Those were the problems that afflicted the N1, and clearly they didn't get to grips with them, but SpaceX have now successfully launched a rocket which DID tackle those problems

Stop being a fucking idiot

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 14:10:59 2018 No.9505562 >>9504945 Heavy voice confirmed

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 14:14:16 2018 No.9505566 >>9505151 >>9505110 You sound like you're about to bust a nut You know being so stressed out cuts years off your life and more important, only invites misery into your wellbeing?

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 14:23:09 2018 No.9505592
File: 50 KB, 640x480, BRF_Failure.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9505566
There's a fucking madman out their that's want to turn a fucking rocket into public transport. Why should I be calm that this opens the doors for terrorist to convert the BFR into a makeshift dirty bomb.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 14:30:32 2018 No.9505607

>>9505566
It drives me up the wall seeing people whiteknight faggot whose one company is 700 million dollars in debt because it's been selling cars cheaper than their manufacturing price for years to create a monopoly, and another lives off government subsidy, but likely does the same fucking thing with rockets, all the while the big man says big words and fags eat them up no matter what kind of horseshit it turns out to be when scrutinized.
Musk is selling fucking gimmicks and people are in awe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 14:40:45 2018 No.9505631 >>9505592 People love madmen like him, they are daring and courageous. He’s the kind of man who can become legendary, like Newton or Washington. Barely any people left in the world with money and the gall to do what he’s doing

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 14:44:02 2018 No.9505642

>>9504971
>>9504979
>How do you justify the horrendous fuel economy of a craft that - even if it could take same amount of people as biggest passenger aircraft - consumes almost 20 times more fuel?
Not accurate. Nearly 80% of the propellant is oxygen. It would only consume 4 or 5 times as much fuel, and the fuel would be cheap natural gas, which happens to cost about one quarter as much as jet fuel.

Point-to-point BFR would take about 750 tonnes of methane. A 747 takes about 150 tonnes of Jet A. Both should be able to seat about 400 or 500 passengers. Two 747s can do about two intercontinental flight per day at peak workload. Two BFRs should be able to do two intercontinental flights per hour at peak workload.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 14:56:56 2018 No.9505666

>>9505038
You are deluded if you believe there is ever going to be Earth-to-Earth travel on rockets. The Falcon Heavy launch had to be delayed for hours because it was a little bit too windy. And for earth to earth the weather doesn't have to be perfect on one location, but two. That alone is going to kill it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:03:30 2018 No.9505675 i recall the exact same criticisms of the falcon heavy. lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:10:33 2018 No.9505685 >>9505675 The Falcon Heavy did nothing that hasn't already been done before. I mean, it's nice to see somebody is bringing back enthusiasm for space travel, but literally nothing about it was ground-breaking.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:11:00 2018 No.9505686

>>9505666
That's not some inherent property of rockets. If you believe it is, go watch some Soyuz launches in a snowstorm.

These are young rockets which have flown relatively few times (for Falcon Heavy, that was its maiden flight!), and by avoiding bad weather, they're minimizing the probability of failure while they accumulate flight data.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:14:36 2018 No.9505695

>>9505685
>literally nothing about it was ground-breaking.

>reflown side-boosters
>simultaneously landing of side-boosters
>nearly successful recovery of center core
>upper-stage restart after six hours in space
>third highest payload capacity of any rocket, but with dramatically lower cost than the other two
>first private superheavy
literally nothing

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:15:19 2018 No.9505696 >>9505666 Planes don't fly if its windy either

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:20:43 2018 No.9505706 >>9505696 holy shit kys retard

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:23:07 2018 No.9505715 >>9505706 Man, ULA really is going all-out on the shill budget.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:23:08 2018 No.9505716 File: 110 KB, 625x636, Hermes_Spaceplane.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9505666 >>9505696 It's too bad we can't just build planes that can go into sub-orbit instead of rockets. OH WAIT-

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:25:20 2018 No.9505722 >>9505715 Planes have a much higher tolerance to winds than a fucking rocket, are you seriously that stupid that you are comparing the two?

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:30:07 2018 No.9505731

>>9505695
>>reflown side-boosters
Not relevant. Just because something has been flown doesn't mean that it hasn't been essentially turned new.
>simultaneously landing of side-boosters
And this is ground breaking how?
>nearly successful recovery of center core
>nearly successful
That's a neat way to call crashing into the ocean at 500mph
>third highest payload capacity of any rocket, but with dramatically lower cost than the other two
>"muh muh $90M!"
https://brycetech.com/downloads/FAA_Annual_Compendium_2017.pdf
>third highest payload capacity of any rocket, but with dramatically lower cost than the other two
It's not a super heavy. Both of the other super heavies lifted 100 tons into orbit. It's a heavy lifter, nothing more.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:30:50 2018 No.9505733 >>9505592 How is a missile full of kerosene a dirty bomb?

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:31:01 2018 No.9505734

>>9505666
Plus, if Elon doesn't find a way to make a rocket launch really silent, launch and landing sites are going to have to be far away from urban centers. So a lot of the time you are safing in flight you are going to lose again in transfering to and from the "rocketport". So while the flight itself would be much shorter, the whole journey necessarily wouldn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:31:08 2018 No.9505736 >>9505722 >Expecting Muskrats to be knowledgeable about rocketry and aerospace. There's your problem senpai.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:31:48 2018 No.9505738 >>9505734 Literally build a metro

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:31:51 2018 No.9505739

>>9505722
>Planes have a much higher tolerance to winds than a fucking rocket
No they don't. They have much lower tolerance. Planes depend on things like airspeed, whereas rockets are naturally insensitive to such things.

What planes have is a long and very active history of flying, and demanding customers that expect flights to go in all but the most severe weather conditions. Rockets, on the other hand, have low flight rates and delay-tolerant customers who are generally installing assets that will be in use for years.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:32:47 2018 No.9505742
File: 200 KB, 326x343, autiste.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9505642
>Refueling 750 tons of methane and loading/offloading 500 passengers twice in an hour
>Somehow seating an entire 747 load of people + luggage in a BFR
This is your brain on popsci

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:33:02 2018 No.9505743 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huM7PJBMYBY

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:36:02 2018 No.9505749

>>9505686
FH is big, the Soyuz is a masterpiece of rocketry that has been flown over 1400 times and is rather small. Wind affects the FH, and bigger rockets in general, more. ULA delay Delta IV Heavy launches if there's too much wind, and that's a 100% successful rocket.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:36:05 2018 No.9505750
File: 320 KB, 287x713, Cuban_Musk.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9505733
>>9505110
>>9505151

10 KILOTON EXPLOSION if the BFR fails launch. That's half of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima. Musk is going to kill us all to achieve his wet dream of flying a rocket ship to Mars

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:37:52 2018 No.9505753

>>9505731
>>reflown side-boosters
>Not relevant.
If you're just in the thread to be garbage, do it somewhere else.

>https://brycetech.com/downloads/FAA_Annual_Compendium_2017.pdf
>"muh muh FAA fluff document guess!"
I repeat: go be garbage somewhere else.

>It's not a super heavy.
50 tonnes to LEO is the accepted cutoff between heavy and super heavy. And Energia only flew twice: one failure, one test flight.

You're trying to quibble over a technicality that you're wrong about. Because you're garbage.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:40:18 2018 No.9505759 >>9504945 bullied much?

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:43:44 2018 No.9505765

>>9505749

BFR is probably not going up in a strong storm (after all, even plane flights get cancelled sometimes due to bad weather), but there is no reason to believe it cannot be designed to withstand moderate winds.

The main reason why rockets dont fly in strong winds is low flight rate leading to extreme risk aversion. It makes sense to cancel the launch at the drop of a hat and wait a few hours or days when the launches are few and far between anyway.

There is no need for this approach for rockets like BFR, where safety would be guaranteed not by being extremely risk averse, but by very high flight rates, similar to aeroplanes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:44:05 2018 No.9505767 >>9505753 >Ad hominem >Ad hominem >Ad hominem Nice. >50 tonnes to LEO is the accepted cutoff between heavy and super heavy. According to who? The Energia, N1 (had it succeeded), and the Saturn V were all capable of lifting 100 tons into orbit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:46:13 2018 No.9505773 >>9505765 Face it, rockets will never ever get to an acceptable level of safety for commercial flights. They are quite literally bombs open at one end, and even all these years, they're still not safe.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:46:38 2018 No.9505774

>>9505750
I'd like to see how you're getting the equivalent of 10000 tons of TNT exploding from 1100 tons of fuel + oxidizer.
Even the N1 was only one kiloton with 2800 tons of fuel and oxidizer, although I'm not sure on the specifics of how kerosene compares to methane when exploding.
Also do you not know what a dirty bomb is?

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:47:51 2018 No.9505777

>>9505742
>twice in an hour
Once per hour, moron. Two vehicles at two ports. And it doesn't matter how many people there are, you're not loading or unloading them one at a time.

>>Somehow seating an entire 747 load of people + luggage in a BFR
150 tonne payload to LEO, higher payload on suborbital trajectories. A 747 only has about a 170-220 (depending on model) tonne difference between its empty weight and maximum takeoff weight, and all fuel, passengers, and cargo have to fit into that.

BFR will carry at least as much as a 747.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:49:44 2018 No.9505781 >>9505738 How would that solve the problem of travelling to the launch site for 5 hours? Also, generally speaking, there is no big demand for super-quick intercontinental transport. That is also what killed the Concorde.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:50:21 2018 No.9505782 >>9505767 An ad hominem is an argument that a claim is wrong because of who it comes from. An insult directed toward someone who has said something wrong and stupid is the opposite of that. But you'd understand that if you weren't garbage.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:50:32 2018 No.9505783 >>9505642 >Nearly 80% of the propellant is oxygen Oxygen isn't free. 4000tons of it cost $7 million topped 747 fuel tank costs $80,000 these two things can literally fly the same distance, one is just slower

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:52:03 2018 No.9505786

>>9505036
The N-1 never worked.

>>9505039
The inability to do the testing necessary before flight doomed the N-1. Russians did not have and would not fund construction of a test stand to allow test firings of all the engines together. The only way they could find the issues they'd have to address was to launch the whole fucking thing and see how it failed.

And they had to do that as fast as possible since they were in a race with the Americans, who they knew were ahead, and the other soviet lunar program which was competing for resources.

Throw into that the death of Korolev and his successor not having the necessary management experience, and they were fucked.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:52:03 2018 No.9505787 >>9505782 Still haven't refuted any of my arguments friendo. :^)

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:52:27 2018 No.9505789

>>9505773

>and even all these years, they're still not safe.

All these years? We are still in the stone age when it comes to rocketry. It is only two years since first vertical landing of an orbital class stage. There is PLENTY of low hanging technological fruit left to pluck. I am not sure whether rockets will ever be safe enough for commercial travel. But neither are you. Nobody can say for sure where will this end.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:53:44 2018 No.9505791 File: 74 KB, 248x247, 1517791515925.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The fuck are you nerds even talking about?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:53:52 2018 No.9505792 >>9505789 Landing rockets have been possible for a while, it's just that no one saw the need for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:55:02 2018 No.9505798

>>9505781
>travelling to the launch site for 5 hours
You can travel across a country in 5 hours. Don't be an idiot.

>there is no big demand for super-quick intercontinental transport. That is also what killed the Concorde.
The Concorde was not "super-quick", it only cut travel times about in half, and it cost much more than a business-class overnight flight where you can catch a night's sleep in reasonable comfort.

BFR point-to-point is expected to be cost-competitive with economy flights and would be an order-of-magnitude reduction in travel time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:56:44 2018 No.9505801 >>9505783 >Oxygen isn't free. 4000tons of it cost $7 million Wrong. The cost of fuelling a BFR is around 500,000 https://www.quora.com/How-much-will-the-fuel-of-one-BFR-launch-cost

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:57:31 2018 No.9505804

>>9505783
>Oxygen isn't free. 4000tons of it cost $7 million
Go ahead, present your source for this ridiculous bullshit claim that this is what it will cost for SpaceX to extract from the atmosphere and liquefy in bulk at the launch site for their own use.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:57:36 2018 No.9505805 >>9505801 >Quora

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:59:02 2018 No.9505807

>>9505439
But part of the crappy build was that they did not have powerful enough engines, and so had to use a lot of them. This made the system overly complex, and interactions between engines hard to predict without a test-firing f the whole assembly, which they did not have the test stand to attempt. It also multiplied the chance of engine failure, requiring the KORS system to be cobbled together -- that being a cause of at least one of the failures.

That, of course, does not mean that a large number of engines is impossible. Nor does it mean that SpaceX is not capable of doing it. But it does bring its own sheaf of problems that need to be addressed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 15:59:48 2018 No.9505809 >>9505798 >You can travel across a country in 5 hours. Don't be an idiot. Yeah, and rocket launch near the equator, so literally you would have to do that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:00:17 2018 No.9505811 >>9505801 That's a very pessimistic estimate, which assumes they'd be buying liquid oxygen retail and having it delivered. If they were doing multiple launches per day, they would, of course, make their own on site.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:00:36 2018 No.9505814 >>9505777 >Once per hour, moron he made a mistake, but I would bite my tongue if I wanted to suggest you can load 4000 tons of propellant and oxidizer in a fucking hour. fueling up shuttle ET took almost a day and that thing was a dwarf compared to BFR

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:01:27 2018 No.9505817 >>9505777 Now compare the internal space of the BFR vs the internal space of a 747SR.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:01:42 2018 No.9505818

>>9505809
>Yeah, and rocket launch near the equator, so literally you would have to do that.
Oh my God, I don't even know where to start with someone so fucking stupid that they've looked at this and concluded that BFR point-to-point suborbital flights would need to launch from somewhere near the equator. What are you even doing trying to discuss this stuff?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:02:30 2018 No.9505822 >>9505791 It's this fucking idiot again You'll know the one if you scroll down a bit. https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/62674866

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:02:54 2018 No.9505826 >>9505818 You actually believe that BFR p2p flights will ever be a thing. There's no helping you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:03:39 2018 No.9505827 >>9505695 CSM main engine restarted consistently over multiple missions with zero failures. (It was not attempted on Apollo 13) That does not impact whether or not the recent restart impresses you. But it does make it less ground-breaking.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:04:29 2018 No.9505832 >>9505809 >not sure if trolling or an idiot..

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:04:40 2018 No.9505834 >>9505716 An artist's rendering is not convincing evidence of what we can build and make work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:07:44 2018 No.9505840 >>9504971 you're the reason we haven't found immortality and I'm not fucking dank alien bitches on alpha centauri Kys.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:08:01 2018 No.9505841 >>9505765 High flight rate does not create less risk by some magic. Rather, acceptably low risk allows frequent flight rates.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:08:51 2018 No.9505843 >>9505817 How about you do it, dumbass?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:09:59 2018 No.9505846 >>9505195 fuck that's orgasmic hnngggg

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:10:27 2018 No.9505848 >>9505843 Because I'm not the one trying to convince people that a BFR can somehow seat the same number of people as a 747 designed for maximum capacity.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:13:30 2018 No.9505853

>>9505841

high flight rate helps uncover uncommon anomalies or modes of failure and as such greatly reduces risk

low flight rate is by far the main cause of both high launch costs and also rockets being relatively dangerous

all that changes in a radical way if you rocket is flying every day instead of once a month

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:13:40 2018 No.9505854

I dont even know why Mr safe the environment Elon Musk wants to pollute the environment so heavily just to safe some hours on a trip where it doesn't even matter that much how long it takes, because 99% of the people very rarely or never take it. That seems just so unnecessary. "Yeah we ruined the earth, but shit son, I just couldnt bare the idea of having to cram my ass into this airplane for 10 hours more".

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:15:11 2018 No.9505857

>>9505827
>it does make it less ground-breaking.
No it doesn't. The CSM propulsive module was a pressure-fed hypergolic system that sacrificed performance for space-storable propellant and simple, reliability-centric design, whereas the Falcon 9/H upper stage is a high-performance, standard upper stage with lox/rp-1 propellant. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

It's a big deal that the Falcon 9/H upper stage can, for instance, coast to GEO and then circularize a payload there, without needing a costly orbital insertion stage.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:20:02 2018 No.9505871 >>9505854 This. I'm scared as rocket launches increase we'll completely desteroy the ozone layer and die horrible deaths from space radiation.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:21:21 2018 No.9505874

>>9505848
You're the one throwing stuff randomly and seeing what sticks, from a position of ignorance and stupidity, having taken a side in an argument without first learning anything about the subject and fundamentally lacking the intelligence to participate meaningfully. If you actually make the comparison, it won't favor your argument, but if I go and do that work for you, I'll have wasted my time, and you'll just make some other zero-effort guess at what might support your case.

You raised the point, so you go and fetch the information you haven't looked at but pretend supports your side.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:23:08 2018 No.9505878
File: 2 KB, 125x124, 1505513634407.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9505592
You got braindamage from spering out over minor things.

Dumbass

These rockets WILL be normal mass transportation in the future and autistic fucking loser like you WILL be utterly and completely powerless to stop it, because they are fucking losers, nobodies, zero's. You are defeated before the match even started. God bless progress and God bless shitwitted retards like you who keep us entertained by their self-imposed public humiliation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:25:07 2018 No.9505882 >>9505878 Not him but I'm already raising awareness in campus about the negative implications of common rocketry. We won't let you ruin the environment for the sake of your penis obsession.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:26:29 2018 No.9505888 >>9505854 Rocket launches have an absolutely negligible effect on the environment. You could launch a BFR every day and the environmental harm would still be dwarfed by all other transport pollution from ships, aircraft, trains, trucks etc.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:26:30 2018 No.9505889

>>9505853
But you can;t fly every day unless you get the safety and reliability to an acceptable place. If passenger ballistic flights gain a high rate of reliability by flying a lot and getting all the rashes recorded to figure out what to fix, that's going to be lousy for your marketing campaign.

Reliability and frequency of flight are clearly linked, but it is not a causal link that points in one direction as much as some in this thread seem to imply.

This is no knock on SpaceX or BFR, it is a general observation. Maybe SpaceX can figure out a way to do it (not just the technology, but the economics.) But the challenges are not minor, and "there is no issue because it is expected to" do this or that is paper-rocket stuff.

My pooint is that we'll have to see how it goes I would be fine with SpaceX, or anybody else, having huge success with this. But I don;t think it's a foregone conclusion that they will.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:26:54 2018 No.9505891 >>9505090 super sonic travel in atmosphere is a very different idea to hypersonic ballistic travel in a vacuum BFR will be massively faster, less wear/tear on the vehicle, less time running the engines, and will use a much cheaper fuel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:28:39 2018 No.9505897 File: 37 KB, 800x450, (You).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9505878

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:30:26 2018 No.9505900

>>9505857
Regardless of how it was done, it had been done before, using 60s technology. If your argument is that we can do it now with better, or just different, tech, OK. That's to be expected 40-50 years later. But the fact that you can restart an engine after some down time in space is not groundbreaking, which was all the claim made by>>9505695

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:30:30 2018 No.9505901 File: 49 KB, 645x729, pffffft.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9505891 >The largest and most complicated rocket ever constructed will have less wear/tear than a fast airplane.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:30:41 2018 No.9505902 >>9505874 >You brought it up See >>9505642

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:35:12 2018 No.9505911
File: 107 KB, 599x527, 1493305406592.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9505882
Whatever, the major driving force behind progress is, at the core of it; greed. The greed to get things done cheaper, to expand to more profitable areas.

These rockets will be commonplace in the future as sure as the day turns night and night turns day. I've already won.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:36:50 2018 No.9505915

>>9505854
Actually this. Every flight with the BFR will put hundreds of tons of methan directly into the upper layers of the atmosphere. Methan is 25 times as effective as CO2 in terms of creating a greenhouse effect, and since the gas is being released directly into the upper layers of the atmosphere, this effect is even more direct and damaging for the climate. There are 4gigatons of Methane in the atmosphere. So with every two BFR flights, around 1 megaton is added to that. This means that it would double the amount after 8000 flights. Or in other words, just 8000 flights would probably already have the same devastating effect as 200 years of industrialisation.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:37:37 2018 No.9505916

>>9505016
>Comparing N1's highly advanced yet very poorly built NK-15 engines with Merlin-1D engines; said Merlins are crude design, cheap, yet insanely robust and well built engines designed to take a splash down hit and yet still be ready to fly.
You could stick a hundred Merlin-1Dv5 engines under a fuel tank with legs, and I would ride it in a heartbeat.
And the "Raptor" engines replacing them are even better, as SpaceX has the money now to design a proper engine with sparkplugs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:39:12 2018 No.9505921 >>9505069 >BFR Big Freaking Rocket

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:39:26 2018 No.9505922
File: 77 KB, 690x720, 1508087975706.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9505891
>hypersonic ballistic travel in a vacuum
it will barely leave the atmosphere and you are fucking delirious if you think that something that's shitting out hot gas to go 16,000mph and has to brake back to 0 experiences
>less wear/tear on the vehicle
that a concorde
that's preposterous

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:39:45 2018 No.9505923 >>9505082 >the normies Back to r/spacex.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:41:17 2018 No.9505927

>>9505902
You're the one who raised the specific point of the usable internal volume of a 747 vs BFR.

You implied that you knew both, and that this information favored your case, but you didn't state the information, even though it could be done in one short sentence. Instead, you're here telling me to look it up.

I'm not going to go and dig it up for you, for the reasons I've already stated. I know you didn't even look at this information before you claimed it supported your position. I know if you do go look it up, you're not going to post it here, because it would only embarass you, and because you're not interested in having a reasoned discussion with accurate information. You just want to have the feeling of having won an internet argument, even though you're such garbage that you can only have it by hanging around and annoying people until they stop replying to your idiocy.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:42:42 2018 No.9505930

>>9504913
Concord had too many issues to be vi able, this project has similiar issues but on ano ther level of magnitude entirely. I dont think it will work, cost alone sinks it i think, let alone convincing any two countries you want to move people between to allow you to land and take off in a reasonable enough distance of a population center to make it actually convenient. Might work if you charged people insane amounts and sold it an experiance rather than transport. As transport/cargo it just doesnt make sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:43:15 2018 No.9505932 >>9505922 running the engines for hours, plus all the vibrations of constant air travel is far more wear/tear than running the engines for 5 minutes + zero vibrations outside the first/final few minutes

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:43:18 2018 No.9505934 >>9505927 >Make a claim >Asked for evidence >NO U NO U Oy gevalt you're really not helping your case. Time to invest in blue origin instead.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:43:19 2018 No.9505935

>>9505915
I have to correct myseld, it would actually be more than megaton of Methan with every single flight. So to double the current methane in the atmosphere, the BFR would need only 4000 flights.

But maybe this is Elons plan all along.

He wants to destroy the climate on earth so people are forced to move to Mars.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:45:58 2018 No.9505940 >>9505935 >Spacex was a real estate scam all along Brilliant

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:49:01 2018 No.9505948

>>9505888
>You could launch a BFR every day and the environmental harm would still be dwarfed by all other transport pollution from ships, aircraft, trains, trucks etc.

Similarly, you could fly one 747 around the world every day, and have negligible environmental impact.

Which is meaningless, what's the 1-1 comparison?

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:49:22 2018 No.9505949

>>9505731
>crashing into the ocean at 500mph
•300mph (483km/h)
And it was a "controlled crash", they steered it away from the landing ship after two out of three landing engines failed to reignite. They still used the engine that did light to slow it down as much as possible, lest the core booster would have hit the water at a much higher velocity.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:50:06 2018 No.9505952

>>9505900
>the fact that you can restart an engine after some down time in space is not groundbreaking, which was all the claim made by>>9505695 (You)
No it wasn't, you moron. If you look there, it says:
>>upper-stage restart after six hours in space
...not "engine restart after some down time in space".

You're trying to nitpick this, and you're not even paying attention to the details. And "groundbreaking" includes doing things in a new and significantly better way, not just doing things nobody has done before.

I mean seriously, this is like claiming that introducing trains and automobiles wasn't "groundbreaking" because wheeled transportation already existed in the form of horse carriages and oxcarts. "People could already get from here to there! The differences in cost and speed might make it worthwhile, but don't make it groundbreaking!"

This is sheer idiocy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:50:45 2018 No.9505957 >>9505935 >>9505915 This is actually really problematic. A large-scale space industry might never develop for this reason alone. At least as long as the transport systems are rocket-based.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:55:29 2018 No.9505972 >>9505957 We have solars sails so why aren't we using them? Instead we are literally poisoning ourselves with deadly chemicals. Embarrassing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:59:13 2018 No.9505985 >>9505972 You can't escape velocity of earth with solar sails. The real solution is beaming energy via microwaves to an e-spacecraft, that slowly but steadily flies towards space.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 16:59:43 2018 No.9505986 >Implying people will pay crazy money to get stuffed in a sardine can and accelerated 5Gs twice just to get somewhere marginally quicker

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 17:03:14 2018 No.9505996 >>9505897 nice selfie

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 17:03:28 2018 No.9505998 >>9505985 What about a big maglev cannon that accelerates what would be the 2nd stage and payload straight into VLEO? The maglev-sabot around the 2nd stage rocket can be recovered by parachute.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 17:16:50 2018 No.9506017

>>9505998
You could theoretically build up a mountain but I guess that would cost roughly several gazillions.

Beaming energy though is a technology that is going to come anyways, and it is going to make travelling to space as cheap as travelling on a ship. The e-spacecraft simply uses propellers until the air gets too thin, and would then switch to ion thrusters.

The journey would be 100% safe and cheap, but travelling to space would take several weeks instead of a couple of minutes.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 17:19:41 2018 No.9506027

>>9506017
>The e-spacecraft simply uses propellers until the air gets too thin, and would then switch to ion thrusters.
>travelling to space would take several weeks
This simply can't happen. You still have to overcome gravity to maintain altitude and drag to maintain speed.

A flee-flying craft will either reach orbit quickly, or not at all. Low-thrust propulsion like ion thrusters can't be used to reach orbit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 17:20:43 2018 No.9506029 >>9506027 >A flee-flying craft free-flying, sorry

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 17:27:04 2018 No.9506042 >>9506017 >Beaming energy though is a technology that is going to come anyways, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 17:28:56 2018 No.9506052

>>9506027
Of course it can. There is absoluetely nothing stopping you if just keep accelerating away from earth. Problem is that ion thrusters are extremely energy hungry, and the energy beaming would get less and less efficient the farer away it is. So the e-spacecrafts would probably only allow for rather small payloads (<1 ton). So you would have to send a lot of small parts of the actual spacecraft into space and then assemble it there.

Or, we develop batteries with extremely high energy density. With those, you could probably also go to space without the need of beaming energy.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 17:42:40 2018 No.9506081

>>9506052
>There is absoluetely nothing stopping you if just keep accelerating away from earth.
Like I said, there's gravity and drag. If you can get enough thrust to overcome gravity, it doesn't take much more to get to orbit quickly.

Getting to orbit is mostly about sideways speed, not altitude. You need to get above most of the atmosphere, and then you have to get going sideways at around 8 km/s.

Earth gravity on the surface and LEO is just a bit under 10 m/s, so if you accelerate sideways at 1g, it only takes 800 seconds to reach orbit. Vector-added together with 1g of acceleration upward to counteract gravity, only a little over 1.4g of thrust at a 45 degree angle is needed to reach orbit in under 15 minutes (possibly under 10, as you turn the angle of thrust as you get closer to being in orbit).

1g of thrust is the absolute minimum to not fall back down to Earth. However you're providing that thrust, it clearly makes no sense at all to have some tiny fraction above it and take weeks to get to orbit, when only 40% more gets to you orbit right away.

Anyway, ion thrusters can't provide 1g of thrust to a vehicle they're mounted on. Their thrust-to-weight ratio is less than 1.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:01:08 2018 No.9506115 Don’t mind me, just capping the best bits of this thread to post in three years when BFR is flying

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:01:13 2018 No.9506118 >>9505742 do you know how long planes stay landed for between flights generally? its not very long. why should this be different, just because its bigger or newer?

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:08:29 2018 No.9506143

>>9506118
>its not very long. why should this be different
because it's a fucking rocket
a human rated rocket on totally unprecedented scale that's - as people ITT claim - supposed to fly for unspecified period multiple times in a row
this thread really illustrated to me the general knowledge level of SpaceX fanclub

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:09:50 2018 No.9506147 >>9506081 >8km/s >28,800km/h >Mach 23.4 Sweet baby Jesus.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:17:25 2018 No.9506162
File: 2.24 MB, 320x240, HIROSHIMA!!!.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9505774
>Do you not know what a dirty bomb is?

A makeshift nuke, right?

Whatever, the point is that Musk is a fucking madman and we might be saved by the economic factors that could kill this beast before it reaches the launch pad.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:21:24 2018 No.9506170

>>9506147
Yeah, that's what makes it hard. You need to go about 11 km/s to get away from Earth entirely.

>>9506162
>>Do you not know what a dirty bomb is?
>A makeshift nuke, right?
A dirty bomb is one that disperses radioactive material to contaminate the area, without involving an efficient nuclear detonation. It might be chemical explosive packed with nuclear waste, or a second-rate nuke that only fizzles.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:27:15 2018 No.9506187 >>9506162 Fucking hippies; always trying to be buzz kills.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:29:03 2018 No.9506189 >>9506162 BFR can't be stopped friend, the USAF & NRO wills it into being even without civilian orders on the launch manifest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:29:28 2018 No.9506192 >>9506187 Sorry if I don't want thousands of people to die in a launch failure of the BFR.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:34:32 2018 No.9506201

>>9506162
A dirty bomb is just a bomb with whatever radioactive shit you can find lying on the floor packed around the explosive. If you duct tape a hand grenade to a smoke detector you'd have a dirty bomb. There isn't any sort of nuclear reaction going on in a dirty bomb besides the regular radioactive decay. It literally just scatters a few bits of radioactive debris in the area. The regular shrapnel and the blast from the explosion are the only things that do actual damage. The only real effect you get from trace amounts of radioactive material is the ignorant public shitting themselves over some easily cleaned up trash.

A 1000 ton rocket full of Kerosne and LOX will make a big boom when it goes off, but unless the payload is a nuclear reactor, it won't be spreading radioactive debris.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:38:43 2018 No.9506213 >>9506201 >>9506170 >>9505774 Why the fuck is everyone criticizing me for not knowing what a dirty bomb is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:39:28 2018 No.9506220 >>9506192 They wouldn't care if you died, why care about them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:39:58 2018 No.9506222 >>9505952 Lol your entire argument is a logical fallacy, fucking nothing of value for me to respond to This is sheer idiocy

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:40:58 2018 No.9506226 >>9506213 >Say something retarded and harp on it being a major flaw about something >Get corrected and mocked >Hurr y u do that Go enlighten /k/ about clips and see how they respond

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:47:53 2018 No.9506239 >>9506226 /k/ here, please don't direct the brain dead towards us; we have enough of them as is.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:51:57 2018 No.9506246

>>9505774
>I'd like to see how you're getting the equivalent of 10000 tons of TNT exploding from 1100 tons of fuel + oxidizer.
because tnt has laughable energy yield compared to kerosene let alone methane you aboslute fucking nigger, fuel-air explosives are most powerful non nuclear bombs ever made

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:54:59 2018 No.9506252 >>9506246 >Hurr durr what is detonation velocity Go enlighten /k/ about how thermobaric bombs and explosives are interchangeable and post a link here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 18:58:12 2018 No.9506256 File: 26 KB, 300x300, 1491548329534.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9506252 I don't need /k/ to tell you that rocket detonation is order of magnitude worse than a daisy cutter because it doesn't rely on atmospheric oxygen

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 19:00:02 2018 No.9506257 >>9506256 That could be the case if the fuel and oxidizer were fully-mixed before combustion starting, but that's not going to happen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 19:21:17 2018 No.9506295 >>9506201 >A 1000 ton rocket full of Kerosne and LOX R.I.P Heathrow, JFK, Charles De Gaulle, LAX

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 19:49:42 2018 No.9506342 >>9504913 It's actually a great idea. The engineers have shown that they can get shit working.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 19:59:32 2018 No.9506356 >>9504913 >no boosters >practically single state to LEO What did he mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 20:00:45 2018 No.9506361 >>9506356 massive efficient engines, bruh rocket equation a shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 20:05:51 2018 No.9506368 >>9506361 *massive efficient engines with a multi-sparkplug pre-combustion area for easy ignition on takeoff, in vacuum, and landing run; no more reliance on single use combustible charges.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 20:13:48 2018 No.9506391 >>9506368 not to mention huge use of composites

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 20:35:49 2018 No.9506425 >>9506391 I knew the rockets have been an aluminum honeycomb mesh with composite skin; but even the engines (not Draco/Super Draco, but Raptor)?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 20:37:10 2018 No.9506430 File: 80 KB, 1008x756, spacex-interplanetary-transport-system-its-carbon-fiber-fuel-tank-size.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9506425 no, I was referring to the fuel tanks

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 20:39:57 2018 No.9506441

>>9506356

The "shuttle" part of the BFR can do SSTO. It would just require a fully fueled tank, and sea level engines instead of vacuum ones. They will never use it for that capacity as the BFR's entire model is to launch with a basically empty shuttle, and then fuel it in orbit so that you negate the payload cost.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 20:44:24 2018 No.9506452

>>9506441
somewhat related - the falcon 9 1st stage can do SSTO as well if you take off the interstage and 2nd stage, and plop on a small aero dome. No real purpose for it though; I suppose you could put a small payload up there.

elon mentioned this a while ago

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 20:45:55 2018 No.9506455 >>9506430 Oh yeah, wasn't that for the IPT (Interplanetary Transport) before they down scaled it to the BFR? Or that's an actual BFR LMOx tank? They already have carbon fiber tanks in the Falcon9FT?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 21:02:00 2018 No.9506483 File: 598 KB, 2576x1932, eeEnQfO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Friendly reminder that this is who you are arguing with in these threads.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 21:13:17 2018 No.9506503

>>9506452
It's not uncommon capability. There have been multiple launch vehicles theoretically capable of such modification. Early Atlas versions could also have done it. Making a SSTO isn't actually hard to do on its own. The only reason no one has built an SSTO yet is because there isn't a point to making one that can't carry a payload, and everyone also wants their SSTOs to be reusable which is where all the trouble really starts to come in.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 21:20:59 2018 No.9506512 File: 89 KB, 600x600, Mr. (((Goldstein))).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9505911 >the major driving force behind progress is GREED

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 21:21:05 2018 No.9506513

>>9506503
>Early Atlas versions could also have done it.
No, early Atlas vehicle were "stage-and-a-half", and could not have taken the dropped engines to orbit. It had a payload to LEO of ~1.4 tons and the engines were ~3 tons.

It is very unusual for a booster to be able to reach LEO. Falcon 9 has a remarkably low dry mass fraction.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 21:24:00 2018 No.9506518

>>9506455
>Oh yeah, wasn't that for the IPT (Interplanetary Transport) before they down scaled it to the BFR?

It is indeed. The tank met spec, but I guess they wanted to scale things down to be a bit more conservative about the amount of risk in the project.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 21:26:19 2018 No.9506524 >>9506226 Wtf? Don't direct this blithering retard to /k/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 21:56:01 2018 No.9506557 >>9506483 they look like a cool gang chillin on their boat, a bit of a sausage fest tho but still cool guys why don't you put a picture of yourself?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:09:46 2018 No.9506575 >>9505550 >SpaceX have now successfully launched a rocket which DID tackle those problems and on the first try too

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:18:44 2018 No.9506595

>>9505792
>it's just that no one saw the need for it.
>it's just that Lockheed Martin's Venture Star SSTO was the favorite and NASA didn't like how well the DC-X was performing so they declared only one vehicle would continue to be funded and chose Venture Star of course, which was later cancelled when LM couldn't figure out the composite fuel tank and wasn't interested in continuing development without NASA's dime (which NASA could no longer provide at the time)

FTFY

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:22:19 2018 No.9506598 >>9505915 >>9505935 >>9505957 the methane gets FUCKING BURNED YOU MORONS IT'S CO2 IN THE EXHAUST

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:26:44 2018 No.9506608

>>9506052
>Or, we develop batteries with extremely high energy density. With those, you could probably also go to space without the need of beaming energy.

No. Batteries are essentially chemical reactors, and are inherently limited in how much energy they can store. That fundamental limit is far below the energy density of hydrocarbon fuel mixed with oxygen, for example.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:29:12 2018 No.9506611 >>9506213 because you're too fucking stupid to do even a little bit of research before you shoot your mouth off

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:31:06 2018 No.9506615 >>9506598 I agree that's possible. But without evidence that's simply speculation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:31:28 2018 No.9506617 >>9506425 Rockets are usually aluminum sheet metal, not honeycomb. Things like fairings are made of honeycomb composite. Carbon fiber fuel tanks are made of sheets of CF with no honeycomb.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:36:01 2018 No.9506633 >>9506598 In fact about 50-60% of the exhaust would be water vapor and about 20-30% would be CO2. The rest would be CO, O, O2, HO, OH, H and the like. Those are mole fractions btw.

Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:38:31 2018 No.9506639

>>9506441
>BFR's entire model is to launch with a basically empty shuttle, and then fuel it in orbit so that you negate the payload cost

No, the BFR launches with the first and second stages fully loaded with fuel. The Booster lobs the Spaceship/Tanker/Cargo ship onto a suborbital trajectory, and from there it heads to orbit using its fuel. If it's a spaceship it ends up in orbit with no fuel and 150 tons of payload (assuming fully loaded in all cases here for simplicity). If it's a cargo vehicle it ends up in orbit with slightly more than 150 tons of payload and no fuel. If it's a Tanker it ends up in orbit with 150 tons of fuel.

The Spaceship and Cargo vehicle can be refilled with multiple Tanker flights delivering 150 tons of propellant each, until they're fully loaded and have something like 5 km/s of delta V. From there they can burn off to whatever destination they're headed to. For Moon missions a Spaceship and a Tanker can be fully refueled in orbit, then boost together towards the Moon until they're half empty, at which point the Tanker can transfer its propellant to the Spaceship, allowing the Spaceship to go all the rest of the way to the Moon's surface and back without needing to refuel further, while the Tanker just coasts along its orbit until it comes back to Earth. Going to Mars doesn't require a fully fueled Tanker but it does require propellants to be made on Mars.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:39:35 2018 No.9506640 >>9506518 The new BFR design is as big as they can make it while being able to afford developing it themselves with no outside help.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:42:00 2018 No.9506642 >>9506633 Sure, but no methane, and certainly not hundreds of tons. Fucking retards man.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:44:46 2018 No.9506648 File: 18 KB, 550x543, 1518283645398.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9505891 >hypersonic >vacuum

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 10 22:52:50 2018 No.9506664 File: 23 KB, 549x549, FBB89_Logan_Doll_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9504913 Show us on the doll where the Merlin engine touched you, anon.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 01:12:31 2018 No.9506945

>>9506512
He's correct, this is the truth of everything in history. Either greedy or make something to make it easier to kill someone.

Hell, even modern democracy was the product of greed and advancing in social hierarchy. See the French Revolution and also see Napoleon.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 01:32:56 2018 No.9506975

>>9505750

I live in Florida. If some shit with BFR happens it will be in it's early launches from Cape Can. We're ground 0 if shit goes down.

If I die in a fierry inferno but Elon lives to keep pushing our dreams then my death will have been worth it. A casualty of the greatest adventure mankind could ever embark on. It'll never not be worthwhile, despite any and all risks.

I'd risk Life itself in order to reach the stars

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 01:49:08 2018 No.9506991

>>9506975
BFR wont be able to produce an explosion big enough to take anything other than the launch pad with it. everyone in this thread is fucking retarded and delusional if they think 1000ish tons of fuel and oxidizer is equivalent to high yield explosives or a fucking nuclear explosion

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 03:40:47 2018 No.9507115 >>9506598 So literally a toxic gas the world is fighting against is about to be injected into the atmosphere's most gentle and vulnerable parts?

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 03:46:43 2018 No.9507127

BFR is a horrible rocket for interplanetary missions, it's a great rocket for launching massive tonnages on suborbital hops. There's zero chance spacex is going to solve the boiloff problem with BFR, so all the shilling about building cities on the moon and mars with it is pretty funny, all the fuel will be gone within days.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 03:49:35 2018 No.9507133

>>9507127
If the ruskies thought they can lug kerosene to the moon and possibly mars with 60's cyka blyad tech then it probably is possible. I'm not saying their experience and design decisions should be imitated strictly of course. But after the multi engine setup has been brought back from oblivion who knows what else one might dig up.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 03:53:52 2018 No.9507141 >>9507133 >If the ruskies thought they can lug kerosene to the moon and possibly mars with 60's cyka blyad tech then it probably is possible. [citation needed] soyuz and lk used hypergolic fuel

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 03:53:57 2018 No.9507142

>>9506975

You aren't going to the stars though. No-one is. At best we're going to a frozen dustbowl called Mars, or perhaps we can fly around a look at the gigantic, stupid balls of gas called Outer Planets. Think; if you were arriving here from another star system, would you even waste a moment on the planets other than Earth? Of course not. We're already in the most interesting place in this retarded solar system.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 04:07:09 2018 No.9507163 >>9507141 Not the soyuz craft or the lander. Kerolox stage did the actual LOI.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 04:09:16 2018 No.9507169 >>9507127 >There's zero chance spacex is going to solve the boiloff problem with BFR you are wrong, the boil-off problem applies primarily to hydrogen, and even there is it mostly solvable (ACES) it is not a big issue for oxygen or methane

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 04:25:55 2018 No.9507205

>>9507141
>>9507163

Slight correction. The same kerolox stage "block d" is actually used to push them into descent.
So kerosene can be kept for 3 or so days.

Boiloff/freezing can be taken care off if desired and there is no reason why it shouldn't be possible to sustain fuels for prolonged periods of coasting. Otherwise, who'd consider hydrogen fueled nerva, and even rocketry itself?

I expect future arguments against bfr to shift towards deep space communications and cosmic background radiation.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 06:01:49 2018 No.9507339

It might heavily reduce the flight time, but that comes with an increase in transfer times, so all in all you wouldn't safe that much time. It would be awesome if 1 hour from now I could be in China, but that's obviously not how it would work, all things considered it would probably still take 8-10 hours going there instead of 16-20 via an airplane. So you would safe around 50% of the time, which is good, but not good enough to accept all the downsides that come with it (way more expensive, more dangerous, less reliable).

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 07:50:04 2018 No.9507473 >>9506452 Thats awesome finally a cheap way to get all flat earthers off the earth.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 12:19:30 2018 No.9507900 >>9506143 that's still not a reason fuccboi give specifics, not "it's a big thing so it must be completely bad because magic"

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 12:36:31 2018 No.9507936 >>9507900 You are such a fucking imbecile I question if its even worth it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 12:46:41 2018 No.9507970 >>9507936 no u

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 12:49:35 2018 No.9507980 BFR has no survivable abort modes before MECO, ergo there is no way it will ever be allowed to carry passengers.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 12:57:50 2018 No.9507994

>>9507980
that's something elon has mentioned. They're focusing on making it reliable, first and foremost. Abort systems add complexity, weight, and other design sacrifices.

Most manned spaceflight doesn't have "abort" modes anyways, besides for a very small window right at the launch. What happens if a Soyuz has an issue when you're in orbit? you're fucked.

I don't see the lack of abort capability an issue.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 12:58:48 2018 No.9507996 >>9507980 This. NASA will never allow that thing to fly and rightfully. It's a flying coffin.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 12:59:39 2018 No.9507997 >>9507994 >that's something elon has mentioned Where has he mentioned that BFR has no launch escape system?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 13:05:34 2018 No.9508008 File: 23 KB, 400x400, zDo-gAo0_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] so why exactly did this retard launch junk into space? I fucking hope it collides with a satellite. 64 tons? great fucking job! Saturn five delivered 141 tons...

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 13:12:01 2018 No.9508023 >>9507996 >conveniently forgetting about the shuttle lmao no "abort"-abort capability is not. an. issue. >>9507997 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PQNL9ZpCfY&feature=youtu.be

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 13:12:12 2018 No.9508025 >amerifat school -zoo- hours end >retard posting commences

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 13:15:53 2018 No.9508035 >>9507994 >They're focusing on making it reliable, first and foremost. >Abort systems add complexity, weight, and other design sacrifices. This is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever heard.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 13:20:01 2018 No.9508041 >>9508023 >"we're not making a launch abort system, the key is making it reliable" Where are these retards coming from? Did people already forget about the shuttle?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 13:23:48 2018 No.9508049 >>9508041 >we can't do xyz because muh aborts Abort yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 13:26:53 2018 No.9508058 >>9508049 >we want nasa funding for our rocket >lol don't worry your astronauts will be safe :)

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 13:28:40 2018 No.9508063 >>9508058 Nasa doesn't want to fly anything. Too much risk. that's why they've offloaded it all to russia.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 13:37:38 2018 No.9508091

>>9508035
well no convincing you I guess. It's a common idea.

>>9508041
did you even hear him? The idea is that if you're using the BFR on mars, or the moon, or wherever, you don't have the opportunity for abort situations. So the rocket just has to be reliable from the get-go.

Again, the BFR not having typical abort modes is a non-issue.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 13:40:04 2018 No.9508101 >>9508091 >The idea is that if you're using the BFR on mars, or the moon, or wherever, you don't have the opportunity for abort situations Boost phase on earth is still the most dangerous portion of flight.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 13:44:26 2018 No.9508124

>>9508101
no shit, of course it is. No matter what there is always going to be a "most dangerous" portion of flight.

Think of it this way: Safety is not an objective in of itself. it is a tool to achieve a goal. The moment safety is treated as a "reachable goal", doing anything becomes glaringly impractical until you're doing nothing at all. The objective determines the acceptable level of safety, not the other way around. That is, if you actually intend to succeed.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 13:49:37 2018 No.9508142
File: 155 KB, 1900x1314, 31734.ngsversion.1422031299027.adapt.1900.1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9508124
>The moment safety is treated as a "reachable goal", doing anything becomes glaringly impractical until you're doing nothing at all. The objective determines the acceptable level of safety, not the other way around. That is, if you actually intend to succeed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:28:52 2018 No.9508304 >>9507994 >Abort systems add complexity, weight, and other design sacrifices. Fuck safety yeah!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:32:29 2018 No.9508323 >>9508142 >>9508304 This is the state we're in. Soft soyboys have gotten so weak that they let their fear cripple any attempt to do anything.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:40:32 2018 No.9508362

>>9508304
nice rebuttal dude

we're seeing the same issue with comm. crew development. The MMOD requirements and 1-270 LOC goal mean that Boeing and SpX have to design for the spec sheet, not design for the sake of designing. "safety" is not a GOAL. It should not be a goal. The goal is having a rocket that works as designed every time all of the time. Because that's the only rocket you want to have below you when taking off of mars.

Seriously, go to SpaceX and offer up your abort solution for a x-large lift rocket. You'll be laughed out of the building. it's a useless thing to try and develop.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:40:58 2018 No.9508366 >>9505592 and if it explodes I hope it does so in your close proximity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:45:17 2018 No.9508388 >>9508366 yerp. people are always annoyed by new modes of transportation. Heck, people thought that train travel was impossible because you would suffocate due to the air rushing by so quickly. lmao

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:46:09 2018 No.9508392 >>9508323 >>9508362 I'm sure you'll be laughing when BFR fails and kills 100+ people in one launch. Fucking idiots.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:48:53 2018 No.9508405

>>9508392
I see it now: you did a cursory google search to try and justify your pro-bfr-abort position, but to your eye's surprise you were totally wrong. Now, in your blithering attempt to "win this important internet argument", you call your opponents idiots in an attempt to feel better about yourself.

see you on mars, kiddo

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:51:14 2018 No.9508414 >>9508323 >"if you don't want to blow yourself up you're a weak cuck!" Is this the Al Qaeda recruitment centre?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:52:20 2018 No.9508419 >>9508362 >safety is not a goal t. Undergraduate engineering student

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:52:47 2018 No.9508420

>>9508405
You will never live on Mars. Even if these ridiculous missions are successful, the waiting list for anyone paying less than $10 million will be so long that you'll die of old age before you get to go.

You will die on Earth alone and decrepit and full of regrets.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:53:22 2018 No.9508422 >>9508362 >offer up your abort solution for a x-large lift rocket. You'll be laughed out of the building. it's a useless thing to try and develop. Saturn V had a launch abort.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:55:48 2018 No.9508434 >>9508422 For 3 people in a capsule. Also apparently there was a large 'black zone' during the launch where if the LES fired it would not be able to get the capsule far enough away from the Saturn V anyway.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 14:56:58 2018 No.9508438

Here is what is going to happen:

The 100 man BFR is ridiculous mainly because of the sheer risk and also because of the massive amount of auxillary equipment needed to keep that many people alive on the journey. Musk will realize this and scale it down like he did with the ITS. It will probably carry 10 people.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:00:06 2018 No.9508451

>>9508422
yeah, for the tiny crew capsule. Completely infeasible for the BFR.

furthermore, consider the situations where abort would be "needed". Mars accent, mars landing, mars injection... literally everywhere. We just have this idea of abort at launch due to old notions of space travel. When a BFR has flown 50 times in a row, why would you even need abort capabilities at launch? it's proven.

How elon wants to design the BFR, any potential LAS would reduce reliability. This is a fact. See: if the LAS on Orion fails to separate, the crew is guaranteed to die. you are just adding in more failure modes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:01:26 2018 No.9508454 >>9508438 I'd imagine that they already had that thought when doing the initial scale-down. BFR is only going to get bigger from the current design, I think.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:02:44 2018 No.9508463 >>9508451 It should be obvious by now that Elons philosophy is "aim ridiculously high, miss that, but still reach pretty high regardless"

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:04:08 2018 No.9508468 >>9508451 Well son, you can ride the first rocket.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:05:58 2018 No.9508474 >>9508468 ...that has been flown unmanned numerous times beforehand. the Bathtub curve isn't some imaginary thing you know.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:07:54 2018 No.9508479

>>9508451
It would literally be easy as fuck to build it with a LAS.
>build tanks with half the size they are now
>ship now has the twr to escape the rocket in an explosion
>use this version of the ship only for LEO, then transfer the crew to the Mars ship
Boom. There you go. A viable system and it doesn't even require changing the vehicle too much.

The only reasons they won't do this
>Elon is impatient and doesn't want to spend the money to build another configuration of the vehicle, and is willing to sacrifice lives to make Mars happen 1 or 2 years sooner
>Elon is actually retarded enough to believe that BFR will be as safe as airliners
In any other serious line of work/engineering, he would be in prison for decisions like this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:12:10 2018 No.9508488 File: 167 KB, 1600x1000, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9508474 Enjoy your fiery death.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:13:30 2018 No.9508494

>>9508479
.....and for the mars ship, when it takes off? Would you have a custom manned one for it too? Again, as elon said,
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PQNL9ZpCfY&feature=youtu.be))
there isn't a need for LAS since the design from the get-go is made to work every time all the time; no other solution is viable when you're taking off from other moons and planets.

ie a bfr LAS is simply a not needed due to the specific circumstances of where BFR will be used. If it doesn't need LAS when taking off of the moon, it doesn't need one when taking off of earth

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:14:05 2018 No.9508500

>>9508420
> Even if these ridiculous missions are successful, the waiting list for anyone paying less than $10 million will be so long that you'll die of old age before you get to go.
Not if I become a sex slave.Rich people will need prostitutes on Mars.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:15:34 2018 No.9508504 >>9508494 >.....and for the mars ship, when it takes off? Would you have a custom manned one for it too? Much less risk of failure when there's not a giant booster under you, moron.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:16:45 2018 No.9508507
File: 282 KB, 1200x800, PHELCI_01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9508488
again, at least argue with actual facts or something. Just saying that no LAS/abort modes = death is silly. Helicopters can't autorotate; they don't have "abort modes". yet people use them every day. Same with the future BFR. It will just be inherently reliable enough that there won't be a need for one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:20:08 2018 No.9508517 File: 28 KB, 800x530, stan_challenger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9508507 >Just saying that no LAS/abort modes = death is silly

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:21:20 2018 No.9508521 >>9508392 Yea luckely we have safe airplanes that have never ever failed and killed 100+ people... Oh wait.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:23:13 2018 No.9508527 >>9508521 Today's airplanes are 10,000 times safer than today's rockets.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:24:35 2018 No.9508532 >>9508507 Pretty sure helicopters can autorotate. Funny wasn't that an argument against hoverbikes? "Hurr durr too dangerous" Yet flying on 4000 tons of rocket fuel is okay?

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:25:29 2018 No.9508534

>>9508517
Yeah, we're clearly not on the same page here. I don't think you're at all listening to what I'm saying - thus the idiotic challenger image and no-text reply.

either way, BFR will not have a LAS or whatever. it's not ever going to have one. Hopefully you will "get" why that' the case, but you seem to just be stuck in a mental rut. Sorry.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:26:48 2018 No.9508538 >>9508521 >Jet engine explodes >Can glide down to safety >Rocket engine explodes >Entire craft is instantly vaporized

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:27:24 2018 No.9508541

>>9508532
you're thinking of gyrocopters. In a gyro, there is no motor connected to the rotating prop (except for some with a small starter motor to get it up to speed for takeoff)

practically zero helicopters have a main rotor that can spin independent of the engine. The pilot doesn't have a big ol' clutch pedal next to the cyclic or anything.

>t. gyrocopter enthusiast

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:29:07 2018 No.9508544 >>9508534 see >>9508392 >>9508419

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:32:18 2018 No.9508552 >>9508527 Keyword: Today's >>9508538 Has literally nothing to do with airplanes killing 100+ of people.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:32:31 2018 No.9508555 Safety is the most important thing. We have no right to put people's lives at risk for nothing.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:33:03 2018 No.9508556

>>9508544

ok, serious question for you here.
BFR gets a stupid LAS.
BFR has a nominal launch and the LAS jettisons. Then, on TMI, BFR blows up.

...now what? How does a LAS help? What helps is having a rocket that works. When you have a rocket that works every time, you don't need a LAS. Not for launch or landing or TMI or anything.

That's the plan for BFR. How is that hard to comprehend?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:33:40 2018 No.9508557 >>9508556 see >>9508479

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:34:10 2018 No.9508558 >>9508538 >jet engine explodes >destroys wing and hydraulics >fly into a building

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:34:48 2018 No.9508561 >>9508555 there is always risk. NASA puts that risk at 1-270 for LOC. Meaning, if only 1 crew dies out of 270 launched, the "safety" "goal" has been achieved. Do you now see why designing for safety as a GOAL is silly? It does not benefit anyone.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:36:14 2018 No.9508565 >>9508557 you did not read my post correctly. This seems to be a reoccurring theme.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:37:00 2018 No.9508569 >>9508561 Yeah but they are flying military men not kids on holiday.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:37:34 2018 No.9508571

If someone is so worried about the BFR's safety they could buy a ride on the SLS. Or maybe even the space shuttle if it returns like a phoenix in case its would be successor is canned. Maybe other providers as well. Plenty of options for the more risk averse and health worried soy infused individuals.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:38:03 2018 No.9508573 >>9508541 Choppers can autorotate.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:38:03 2018 No.9508574 >>9506483 you made me laugh, Anon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:38:17 2018 No.9508576 >>9508565 >this one thing isn't safe >therefore we shouldn't try and make anything else safe

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:39:19 2018 No.9508578 >>9508571 It's interesting to note that most Musk fanboys here are /pol/ crossposters

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:39:28 2018 No.9508579 >>9508571 Have you got any real arguments beyond "you're a pussy!"?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:39:38 2018 No.9508582 >>9508561 Expect the safety argument the be recurring theme the closer spacex gets to doing it. I can't wait until cosmic radiations are involved.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:41:54 2018 No.9508584 >>9508573 not if LTE happens. Plus, in an engine-out situation you need immediate rectifying action in a heli. Only a couple seconds, max, before it all goes to hell. Not the same in a gyro. I suppose I should have been more specific, sorry

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:42:29 2018 No.9508585 >>9507142 that would be like a trip to death valley. you get there, poke around, take pictures, each lunch and leave.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:44:16 2018 No.9508590 >>9508582 Exactly. >Fuck safety, it's for the greater good of mankind! Yeah not gonna sell tickets.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:45:06 2018 No.9508591 >>9508578 /pol/ literally hates everything Elon-related. Fuck off.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:45:17 2018 No.9508592

>>9508582
already covered in both BFR presentations. Large area with water where the passengers can hunker it during a solar storm.

>>9508569
so what would be an appropriate LOC number for kids on holiday? 1/10,000? By the time you figure out how to set design criteria specifically to meet a high LOC number, your time could have been better spend just designing the damn thing to work 100%.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:46:28 2018 No.9508596 >>9508591 >muh soy meme >not /pol/ Off yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:46:40 2018 No.9508600 >>9505096 obongo is semi-cool tho

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:46:58 2018 No.9508601

>>9508590
how is
>designing a rocket so it doesn't need a LAS in the first place, due to high inherent reliability
equivalent to
>designing a crappy rocket that needs a LAS sometimes
?

There's a reason they don't hand out parachutes when you fly in a 787.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:49:31 2018 No.9508608 >>9508601 You cannot make rockets 10,000 times safer than they are today in just one go.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:49:41 2018 No.9508610 >>9508596 >one supposed /pol/tard = the whole /pol/ You should kill yourself, you dumb nigger.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:51:49 2018 No.9508616 >>9508590 >the safest thing to do is do nothing So, like you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:52:16 2018 No.9508617 >>9504913 just imagine what the muslim terrorists will be able to blow up with that thing

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:52:47 2018 No.9508620

>>9508608
tell me, what LOC number would you want your rocket to be designed for?

Would you feel safe flying on a rocket where the engineers designed it to meet a 1-10,000 LOC number? How about 1-100? Keep in mind, both Boeing and SpaceX are struggling to meet 1-270, with NASA models.

Or, would you feel safest flying on a rocket where the engineers went into it without any safety requirements to meet, and designed it purely with the idea of working all the time every time in mind? I know which one I would rather fly on.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:53:00 2018 No.9508621 File: 33 KB, 600x399, htw_388-jun14.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9508601 They have escape slides. What has BFS got? Fuck all. Once you're locked in everything better work or you're fucked.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:54:14 2018 No.9508623 >>9508621 exactly, that's what I've been saying. Why have a LAS when it needs to work perfectly either way, especially when you're on mars? It honesty surprises me how much of a backlash BFR not having abort capabilities has itt.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:54:26 2018 No.9508625 >>9508621 >anon escape slides at mach 20 we did it, reddit!

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:54:50 2018 No.9508626 File: 24 KB, 543x443, 5499789897.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9508617 >BFR will be flown manually

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:55:04 2018 No.9508627

>>9508620
>both Boeing and SpaceX are struggling to meet 1-270, with NASA models.
They were too retarded to build a thick skin on their spacecraft for absorbing MMOD damage. Orion, incidentally, doesn't have this problem because its designers weren't retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:55:14 2018 No.9508630 >>9508463 >vastly under-deliver >use your mumble-charm to explain how its actually genius what your company is doing

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:55:17 2018 No.9508631 >>9508620 If youc an never make it reliable enough then you need a launch escape system. it's not rocket science, oh wait it is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:56:18 2018 No.9508641 >>9508623 Launch is the riskiest part of the journey

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:56:42 2018 No.9508644 >>9508627 Well what a coincidence. Orion is a piece of shit that will never fly.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:57:20 2018 No.9508648 >>9508626 >terrorists can't write a computer virus

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 15:58:42 2018 No.9508653 File: 102 KB, 400x500, divh_eft1_l7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9508644 >Orion will never fly Ok.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:00:05 2018 No.9508658 >>9508601 implying BFR will be 'inherently reliable', F9 is by far the most unsafe rocket on the market right now

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:00:15 2018 No.9508660 >>9508641 that is meaningless. Placing values on the risk of certain aspects of flight does not benefit the design process. It hinders it. >>9508653 >glorified pressure vessel wew

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:01:23 2018 No.9508662 >>9508658 oh look, I can play the numbers game too. Reused boosters have a 100% reliability rate. Whoooo.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:01:55 2018 No.9508664 >>9508630 >vastly under-deliver >still end up much better than the rest of fucking aerospace industry such is the state of the mess we are in thank god for spacex

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:02:18 2018 No.9508668 >>9508653 >le ironic plebbit shitposter You should definitely ride in that one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:02:27 2018 No.9508669 >>9508626 >only manually flown stuff explodes

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:02:57 2018 No.9508670 >>9508658 >F9 is by far the most unsafe rocket on the market right now not enough data for a meaningful comparison

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:03:43 2018 No.9508676 >>9508621 wat about escape Tesla convertibles? checkmate luddite

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:04:07 2018 No.9508678 SpaceX BTFO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5i-f-D_A-M

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:05:22 2018 No.9508682 >>9508670 >49 launches >3 failures >not enough data

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:06:36 2018 No.9508689 >>9508630 [sarcasm]i'm with you anon! fight the evil elon musk with all your shitposting power![/sarcasm]

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:07:32 2018 No.9508692 >>9508682 >3 failures >enough data reliability differences between major rocket systems are well below statistical significance

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:07:58 2018 No.9508695 >>9508662 i like you

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:08:04 2018 No.9508696 >>9508658 Which F9? It's an entire line.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:13:03 2018 No.9508715 >>9508692 That's not what "statistical significance" means. SpaceX rockets won't stop blowing up any time soon you utter moron.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:13:30 2018 No.9508716
File: 108 KB, 790x1000, 1506167406561.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9508664
>still end up much better than the rest of fucking aerospace industry
call back when they at least rack up quarter of the successful launches of Airane or Soyuz you insufferable faggot

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:13:43 2018 No.9508717 File: 20 KB, 543x443, 5499789898.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9508648 >what is cryptography

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:15:07 2018 No.9508722 >>9508716 Will you hang yourself then?

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:15:28 2018 No.9508724

>>9508682
>>9508682
You would be correct if these 49 flights hadn't been flown by many different iterations of the vehicle with numerous differences and upgrades. What will really matter are the reliability statistics of the definitive Block 5 model, everything else has been a prolonged learning curve.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:16:45 2018 No.9508727 >>9508724 A ridiculous cop-out. Even on non-SpaceX rockets, no launch is exactly the same.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:18:27 2018 No.9508731 >>9508727 He btfo you like the faggot you are and that's all you can respond with? Cop-out?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:20:56 2018 No.9508740 >>9508731 He's using a standard excuse that spacex fags have used for years to pretend like falcon 9 isn't an unreliable piece of shit.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:24:19 2018 No.9508747

>>9508727
not exactly. SpaceX does a many many more iterative changes between stages than other companies. We've had F9, F9 1.1, F9FT, FT(fuller)T, FT(fuller)T/Block 3 intermediary, Block 4, and block 5. Even then they've done small changes to the honeycomb, the FTS raceway, and the fairings independent of those major design commits.

>>9508695
thanks. Bathtub curve is real, despite people thinking otherwise

>>9508740
it is plenty reliable. Very reliable, actually.

>1st failure: 3rd party supplier had a bad strut in a batch that failed under spec

>2nd failure: never-before-seen interaction between fuel and COPVs, involving ice crystals. Practically impossible to predict.

in the grand scheme of rocket failures, that's a pretty good record.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:29:09 2018 No.9508762

>>9508747
>not exactly. SpaceX does a many many more iterative changes between stages than other companies. We've had F9, F9 1.1, F9FT, FT(fuller)T, FT(fuller)T/Block 3 intermediary, Block 4, and block 5. Even then they've done small changes to the honeycomb, the FTS raceway, and the fairings independent of those major design commits
Saturn V went from 118t to LEO to 140t to LEO and nobody pretends like it's a different rocket for each mission.

>it is plenty reliable. Very reliable, actually.
It's one of the least reliable on the market.
>1st failure: 3rd party supplier had a bad strut in a batch that failed under spec
wrong
metal parts don't "just" fail at 1/3 their design strength
it was an installation error by a spacex employee
>2nd failure: never-before-seen interaction between fuel and COPVs, involving ice crystals. Practically impossible to predict.
wouldn't have been a failure if they didn't test the vehicle with the paying customer attached
also the first american pad failure in 50 years
embarrassing

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:29:32 2018 No.9508765

>>9508740
No. He provided reasonable response to simple bait, as well as hinted about the underlying reason for the failures and successes - rapid evolution of their vehicles. And you are simply calling SpaceX shit for your le epic trolling le 4chan reasons.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:30:42 2018 No.9508769 >>9508717 >what are bribe, extorsion, blackmail, ransom, social engineering and cryptanalyse

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:35:56 2018 No.9508782

>>9508762
installation error? don't just make these things up anon, provide a source at least. Sure, the NASA report detailed potential issues with workers standing on the struts assembly, but both the SpaceX and NASA overall conclusions were that the strut failed below spec.

Plus, SpaceX then tested thousands of identical struts from the same supplier, and found a few that also failed below spec.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:37:40 2018 No.9508788 I like this musky smell

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:50:27 2018 No.9508823 >>9508762 >tfw Falcon 9 had more flights than any other launch vehicle last year and had ZERO failures http://spacelaunchreport.com/log2017.html

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 16:58:19 2018 No.9508842 >>9508769 Wtf, are they going to bribe TSA? Do you not know how this works? Doing any of those to someone with clearance to avionics or flight path will have an incredibly low chance of success.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 17:28:37 2018 No.9508937

>>9508842
not to mention, there is zero way to control F9 (or bfr probably) from the ground. it is *entirely* automated. Even the FTS.

so the hijack-a-rocket boogyman is completely false, unless you can somehow get into the internal SpaceX stack and push an update at the last minute

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 17:55:11 2018 No.9509025 >>9508937 With 100 people on board they can just stick a wrench in the turbopumps and it's all over.

Anonymous Sun Feb 11 18:29:51 2018 No.9509131

>>9509025
>With 100 people on board they can just stick a wrench in the turbopumps and it's all over.
same is true about an airplane, throw a wrench in the engine as its taking off

hell, same is true for a bus travelling donw the highway

you think its so easy to do that? why do you think we have military and hsit? i double dare you to try it fucker

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 18:31:25 2018 No.9509140 >>9509025 >engines go into startup mode >detect an issue >shut down might as well just shoot at it from a distance Ackhmed

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 11 19:04:57 2018 No.9509226 >>9509140 to be fair, that would probably cause several millions dollars in damages, so some kind of terrorism is achieved

Anonymous Mon Feb 12 11:30:23 2018 No.9510867
File: 155 KB, 1280x832, Cosmic_distance_ladder.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9505476
> falcon heavy works.
Did the middle rocket booster return to urth in one piece ?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16980954/spacex-falcon-heavy-rocket-middle-core-failed-landing

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

/sci/ - Science & Math