BLUE ORIGIN LIVE LAUNCH

[Anonymous No.9706031]

Rev up those rocket engines motherfuckers - WE SHEPARDS NOW:

>https://www youtube com/watch?v=i5aJrl96QJw

T minus -04:00:00

>Launching and landing at their Van Horn site in West Texas. This is the second flight of this particular booster, New Shepard NS-3.

>The booster and capsule will kiss the edge of space, 100 kms or 62 miles, where they'll separate and then land independently.

>The capsule will land by parachutes (and mild touch down retro thrusters) while the booster lands itself propulsively.

[Anonymous No.9706040]

They're just doing the same as the last one basically, I think.
Won't be too exciting.

[Anonymous No.9706045]

>>9706040
Vertical landing of boosters and rocket reuseability is relevant

Good to have some healthy competition for ELON

[Anonymous No.9706054]

>>9706045
ULA+NASA+Russia+Arianespace+China are already competing fine. No need to add more meme pr bullshit about reusable rockets.

[Anonymous No.9706107]

>>9706054
>ULA+NASA+Russia
>competing
lolwat

You realise that the Russian made Soyuz is currently the only way to get astronauts to the ISS right? NASA and ESA literally rely on the Russians.

And NASA give handouts to all the traditional space companies, ULA included

Go back to bed kiddo

[Anonymous No.9706116]

>>9706054
No they are not. Do you understand how much a single booster costs? The simple fact that we can reuse them will save us an exponential amount of cost in the long run, both with the technology and since it's cheaper to launch rockets now, we can try out different things. NASA isn't even remotely close to a reusable booster.

[Anonymous No.9706127]

>>9706045
Yeah, but that's what they did last time. They're doing basically the same thing.

[Anonymous No.9706142]

>>9706127
No shit. You don't just try something once and say "Welp, there we go. That's that." What do you think they did with the data from the last launch? Stored it in Excel to never look at it again? Or, crazy idea. Maybe they took the data from the last launch snd applied it to this launch to see what could be improved. Wow, isn't science fun?

[Anonymous No.9706172]

>>9706054
>>9706054
They just wait for SABRE engine develop The game just start.

[Anonymous No.9706174]

T minus -02:00:00 my negros

[Anonymous No.9706180]

Is Blue Origin the rocket which most closely resembles a cock? I think it is.

[Anonymous No.9706190]

>>9706180
Well at least a vibrator.

[Anonymous No.9706206]

>>9706180

[Anonymous No.9706215]

>>9706054
Retard.

[Anonymous No.9706265]

>>9706142
I didn't say it wasn't important, I said it wasn't exciting.

[Anonymous No.9706271]

>>9706265
Your mother isn't exciting in the bedroom when I sleep with her

[Anonymous No.9706284]

livestream starts at t-15 here https://www.blueorigin.com

[Anonymous No.9706290]

[Anonymous No.9706291]

>>9706284
>>9706290
fuck I'm a moron, why do my gifs keep not looping when I post em

whatever

[Anonymous No.9706294]

>>9706031
It always funny to see the New Shepard land, because of it's small size and lack of gridfins it tilts and leans like the Tower of Pisa when landing, it's especially bad during windy conditions; I'm surprised such an unstable vehicle hasn't crashed yet.

[Anonymous No.9706339]

Skub

[Anonymous No.9706344]

ELON LAUNCHES HIS TOOTH INTO ORBIT.

[Anonymous No.9706371]

>>9706271
Exactly. So you're not going to be looking forward to the next opportunity.

[Anonymous No.9706384]

T minus -00:60:00

[Anonymous No.9706409]

>>9706294
Such is the power of deep throtteling engines. It's actually not unstable, it's way more reliable and safe than suicide burns. BFR will land the same.

[Anonymous No.9706430]

>>9706409
It looks pretty unstable to me, SpaceX's suicide burns are so stable and accurate these days that it looks like they don't need deep throttling engines. Also physics agrees with me, rockets are the worst possible vehicle for hovering; they are long, thin with offset balance due to leftover fuel, so if you cancel out all the downward motion they start leaning and eventually tip over. This is why the Falcon 9 usually lands as straight as an arrow, as it doesn't cancel it's downward motion until the last second, and the New Shepard on the other hand drifts like a Tokyo street racer before landing as it cancels it's downward velocity much earlier. The BFR will never hover land, it's deep throttling capabilities will just allow it to make the suicide burn, slower and less suicidal.

[Anonymous No.9706433]

T-00:45:00

[Anonymous No.9706452]

>>9706430
The Falcon 9 has nitrogen thrusters at its top that keep it straight because one small tilt while suicide burning means you are going to crash. Hovering is much more forgiving, which is why the New Shepard can tilt as it does and still land safely every time. This is why the BFR will also hover.

Also, suicide burning on the moon or Mars is completely impossible, so yeah, better learn how to hover land on earth, because you are going to need it anyways.

[Anonymous No.9706468]

Is there no official BO stream?

[Anonymous No.9706476]

>>9706468
It's been delayed another hour

[Anonymous No.9706477]

T-01:20:00

[Anonymous No.9706501]

>>9706476
But is there a stream? OP's youtube link goes nowhere. BO's website has nothing.

[Anonymous No.9706511]

>>9706501
https://twitter.com/blueorigin
Livestream starts at T-15 minutes on blueorigin.com
Liftoff target now 16:13 UTC.

[Anonymous No.9706519]

>>9706511
Thank you anon.

[Anonymous No.9706528]

>>9706501
>OP's youtube link goes nowhere

Not true, the stream is currently a dude playing Kerbal

[Anonymous No.9706547]

>>9706528
Good ol Tim

[Anonymous No.9706550]

New Shepard's nice and all, but I won't be excited til the first New Glenn launch.

[Anonymous No.9706585]

Currently at T-42, webcast will start at T-15

[Anonymous No.9706594]

I finally found the official link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUV53Nn3PhA

[Anonymous No.9706599]

FFFFFFFFFF

>https://www youtube com/watch?v=FxXZWi6Uf2Y

[Anonymous No.9706601]

>>9706594
Finally, jeez.

[Anonymous No.9706603]

>The absolute state of Blue Origin PR

Bezos in charge of media and communications

[Anonymous No.9706623]

>Richest man on earth can't keep up with a South African who just wanted to put a greenhouse on the moon using a Russian ICBM

Even beady eyed Branson is ahead at this point..

[Anonymous No.9706628]

>>9706623
first time i've seen video of Unity, neat

[Anonymous No.9706634]

I've been spoiled by memester musk is this how things normally go in the aerospace pr?

[Anonymous No.9706644]

>>9706634
yes

[Anonymous No.9706651]

Webcast 1 minute

[Anonymous No.9706657]

>>9706623
Both Bezos and Branson are pathetic at this point, they've both been in the space game longer than Musk, they've only launched a handful of times in total and their rockets/spaceplanes usually don't even make into suborbital space. Branson is definitely more pathetic because his 'spaceplane' shouldn't have the word space in it's name when it usually flies lower than an SR-71 blackbird; although Bezos is equally infuriating when he usually sends his capsule to 93-7km in altitude which is close, but technically isn't space either.

[Anonymous No.9706658]

IT'S LIVE FUCKERS

[Anonymous No.9706661]

>>9706634
Yes, very slowly (8 flights in 4 years)

[Anonymous No.9706662]

pushing envelopes confirmed

[Anonymous No.9706665]

>le mannequin skywalker

LEL SO RANDOM XD

Just like one of my Star Wars (Registered Trademark) movies

[Anonymous No.9706669]

new Armstrong when?

[Anonymous No.9706672]

Window seats confirmed

[Anonymous No.9706676]

>guys we are serious competition
>we have commercial customers on this flight
>ITS THE SECOND TIME WE HAVE CUSTOMERS, PLEASE TAKE US SERIOUSLY
>EVERYONE WILL GET A WINDOW SEAT!!!

[Anonymous No.9706682]

Flattards about to get rekt'd in 3 2 1...

[Anonymous No.9706683]

>the magnitude of that pitching on the final burn
fire those feedback control engineers Bezos

[Anonymous No.9706684]

>Launch on Hold

It's over.

[Anonymous No.9706685]

HOLD HOLD HOLD

[Anonymous No.9706687]

[Anonymous No.9706690]

[Anonymous No.9706693]

>this cringy CGI

[Anonymous No.9706696]

>A giant dildo
>with windows

[Anonymous No.9706698]

>>9706693
>CGI
Don't say the magic words, you'll summon the flat-earthers.

[Anonymous No.9706701]

Why can't I hold all these holds?

[Anonymous No.9706702]

I wish this stuff got more attention

[Anonymous No.9706703]

fuckinG HOLDS

[Anonymous No.9706705]

Can someone get this cringy infomercial bitch and her CGI off the air please, and replace her with an engineer or something?

[Anonymous No.9706706]

>>9706702
Seriously. I work in the space industry, and I didn't even know it was happening until an hour ago.

[Anonymous No.9706707]

All these fucking holds.

[Anonymous No.9706708]

>>9706705
would you would rather have a stuttery neckbeard systems engineer fidget and sweat himself to death on stream?

[Anonymous No.9706709]

What's the point of a fucking count down timer if you constantly just pause it?

[Anonymous No.9706710]

>>9706702
agreed, even though it's just a suborbital hoppy blue origin thingy. But still under the radar

[Anonymous No.9706711]

WAYWARD BOAT INCOMING

[Anonymous No.9706712]

can we just appreciate the NS sounds right now

eeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEehehehehehehrrrrrrrrrrrrr


>>9706710
BO is generally pretty secretive. Only in the last year have they upped their PR game

[Anonymous No.9706714]

I wonder what's causing all these brief holds

[Anonymous No.9706715]

>>9706702
Make it more exciting than an unmanned chode going straight up and back down for the 8th time and it will.

[Anonymous No.9706718]

>>9706708
Yeah

[Anonymous No.9706720]

We have really clean G's.

They are micro, really clean. Cleaner G's than the G's of our competitors. We have the cleanest G's. But first please hold.

[Anonymous No.9706721]

>yfw mission scrub and they cut the stream without saying anything

[Anonymous No.9706723]

It's all a fucking lie!

[Anonymous No.9706724]

>>9706714
>brief

[Anonymous No.9706725]

>>9706709
There's special meaning to it, there's certain procedures linked to certain times against the countdown, plus the whole thing is relative to specific launch windows (although that mostly only affects more complex missions).

[Anonymous No.9706726]

>>9706708
I'd rather have no one talking and repeating the same script over and over again so I can just enjoy the views.

[Anonymous No.9706730]

>>9706726
you can turn off the sound you know

[Anonymous No.9706732]

[Anonymous No.9706733]

>>9706730
But I want to hear the comfy launch site sounds.

[Anonymous No.9706737]

This is bullshit

BEZOS HAS GONE TOO FAR THIS TIME

HE MUST BE STOPPED

[Anonymous No.9706738]

>>9706737
I'd rather have him spend his 100 billion on space stuff rather than anything else desu

[Anonymous No.9706739]

Bezos can't get it up?

[Anonymous No.9706742]

>>9706732
Mind wearing a trip so folks can filter you?

[Anonymous No.9706743]

>>9706726
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUV53Nn3PhA

[Anonymous No.9706744]

>10 minute hold

This rocket is literally a cock tease

[Anonymous No.9706745]

[Anonymous No.9706747]

List of payloads on this flight:

>Suborbital Flight Experiment Monitor-2 (SFEM-2)
NASA Johnson Space Center (Houston, Texas)

NASA’s Suborbital Flight Experiment Monitor-2, or SFEM-2, was designed to characterize payload test environments in support of the NASA Flight Opportunities program and other payload initiatives. The sensor suite collects cabin environmental data (CO2, pressure, acceleration, acoustics) and also tests components for future flights on NASA’s Orion capsule.

>Schmitt Space Communicator (SC-1x)
Solstar (Santa Fe, NM), developed with private funding

The Schmitt Space Communicator, named after Solstar advisor and Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, is a technology demo to test the concept of providing commercial Wi-Fi access to in-space users. This flight test is being conducted with support from NASA’s Flight Opportunities Program.

>Daphnia
University of Bayreuth with ZARM (The Center of Applied Space Technology and Microgravity at the University of Bremen) and funding from German space agency, DLR

The Daphnia experiment investigates the effects of microgravity on gene expression and the cytoskeleton of daphnia water fleas. This small invertebrate species is popular in design of future bioregenerative life support systems for human space exploration.

(cont)

[Anonymous No.9706748]

Insider here, mission is being scrubbed. PR is working on a damage control script.

[Anonymous No.9706749]

>waiting for Jeff

[Anonymous No.9706750]

>everyday astronaut
This is the most onions man I've ever seen in my life.
>/pol/ leave
I know, but this guy is a fucking caricature, it's too much

[Anonymous No.9706751]

>>9706744
>this rocket is literally a cock

[Anonymous No.9706752]

Where is the Blue Origin launch site? West Texas?

[Anonymous No.9706753]

>EQUIPAGE
Otto von Guericke University (Magdeburg, Germany) with ZARM (The Center of Applied Space Technology and Microgravity at the University of Bremen) and funding from German space agency, DLR

EQUIPAGE studies the motion of macroscopic rod shaped grains to validate physics models of these systems under microgravity conditions. Such “granular gases” allow researchers to study a unique state far from equilibrium and not possible in normal Earth environments.

>EUPHORIE
University of Duisburg-Essen with ZARM (The Center of Applied Space Technology and Microgravity at the University of Bremen) and funding from German space agency, DLR

EUPHORIE uses a laser to examine the phenomenon of photophoresis, the interaction of light on solid particles suspended in a gas. As the laser heats one side of such particles, it warms nearby gas molecules and accelerates the particle towards its cooler side. This research has applications to the study of early solar system evolution and meteorite formation.

[Anonymous No.9706754]

>That shitty looking capsule on top

Was one of the windows on it cracked? It looked a complete state in the close up.

[Anonymous No.9706755]

>Leave hold for 2 seconds
For what purpose

[Anonymous No.9706756]

>Restart the hold count for no reason

[Anonymous No.9706760]

>Goes off hold
>Immediately goes back on hold

[Anonymous No.9706761]

>>9706755
The hold was on hold.

[Anonymous No.9706762]

>The hold has gone over 10 minutes
>Better restart it so it doesn't make us look bad :^)

[Anonymous No.9706763]

>>9706750
I like Tim, he's really self-aware of his man-child status and just an overall nice guy; but he's going full Blue Origin apologist on the stream now.

[Anonymous No.9706765]

>>9706742
Loser.

[Anonymous No.9706766]

>>9706754
Are those fucking drapes in the windows?

[Anonymous No.9706767]

They are even reusing the same old animation

[Anonymous No.9706772]

>More stable than a BARGE

ELON MUSK TRIGGERED

[Anonymous No.9706773]

>customer customer customer customer custormer

[Anonymous No.9706774]

muh ship

[Anonymous No.9706776]

>>9706772
They've been throwing shades at SpaceX every chance they get

[Anonymous No.9706777]

>>9706772

[Anonymous No.9706778]

>>9706763
>he's really self-aware of his man-child status and just an overall nice guy
Being self-aware of being an obnoxious manchild doesn't make one less of an obnoxious manchild

[Anonymous No.9706779]

>>9706754
the window wasn't cracked, it was scratches in a cover over it.

[Anonymous No.9706780]

[Anonymous No.9706781]

>>9706766
And do they match the carpet?

[Anonymous No.9706782]

Part of me genuinely hopes it just blows up on the pad.

[Anonymous No.9706788]

>>9706776
And they are never able to back it up, which is why nobody takes them seriously anymore. They tried to patent landing on a barge and lost it was fucking hilarious!

[Anonymous No.9706791]

>>9706782
Im with you man. Fuck bezos and fuck that rambling bitch.

[Anonymous No.9706792]

WE'RE GOING TO FEEL IT!

[Anonymous No.9706793]

T-1:30
NO HOLDS

[Anonymous No.9706795]

>>9706782
You gotta watch SpaceX launches for that kind of entertainment.

[Anonymous No.9706797]

>>9706793
For now...

[Anonymous No.9706798]

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Anonymous No.9706799]

and they don't stop holding and they don't stop holding and they don't stop holding and they don't stop holding and they don't stop holding and they don't stop holding and they don't stop holding

[Anonymous No.9706800]

>>9706781
Comfort for potential customers is top-priority, so yes.
Second priority is making the rocket fly.

[Anonymous No.9706802]

shake that tail baby

[Anonymous No.9706803]

GO GO GO

T MINUS 1 MINUTE

[Anonymous No.9706805]

>>9706782
Likewise - with the last six hours of throwing shade at SpaceX it'd be fucking funny if it just farts up and drops like a rock.

[Anonymous No.9706807]

>>9706788
>nobody takes them seriously anymore
>supplying engines for ULA
>multiple contracts for new glenn already secured

spacecucks sucking elon cock as always, let me know when ANY of his companies are profitable and not valued primarily by his personality cult

[Anonymous No.9706809]

>T-0 at ignition, not liftoff

[Anonymous No.9706810]

>mph
GET THE FUCK OUT

[Anonymous No.9706812]

[Anonymous No.9706814]

What are these shitty meme numbers what the fuck is that

[Anonymous No.9706815]

>Speed in MPH
>Altitude in feet

[Anonymous No.9706816]

>>9706809
The countdown isn't there for you, its there to be an "epoch" time for all of the mission related computers and calculations. T-0 is the computer's "Go time".

[Anonymous No.9706817]

330,000 ft is the magic edge of space number.

[Anonymous No.9706819]

>>9706814
>>9706810
freedom units, Ahmed

[Anonymous No.9706820]

>>9706812
AT LAST!

[Anonymous No.9706824]

is this a Sega genesis game

[Anonymous No.9706827]

Mannequin sky walker xD

[Anonymous No.9706828]

>>9706827
>inb4 cease&desist from Disney

[Anonymous No.9706829]

I'm looking forward to the new Glenn, I hope that project continues to be pursued. It certainly helps that Bezos has an absolutely obscene amount of money. Dude could keep losing a billion dollars of gear funding This research for over a century and still be ungodly rich.

[Anonymous No.9706830]

>Capsule gets hit by SpaceX 2nd stage

[Anonymous No.9706831]

>Mannequin Skywalker

We're cool like SpaceX guys, honest!

[Anonymous No.9706832]

>>9706819
>>9706815
>Using USCS in anything related to science or engineering.
I feel sick, and this is from a fellow American.

[Anonymous No.9706833]

man video quality from capsule sucks.

[Anonymous No.9706835]

Can they fucking hire a cameraman or something? the quality is terrible compared to SpaceX and ULA.

[Anonymous No.9706837]

That's quite lame. Actually. Bad camera.

[Anonymous No.9706839]

>>9706837
No fancy NASA cameras from KSC

[Anonymous No.9706844]

>hovering
>not doing a hoverslam

[Anonymous No.9706845]

booooooorrrrrrrriing. Hope the capsule crashes

[Anonymous No.9706846]

>Americlap intensifies

[Anonymous No.9706847]

>>9706839

Very nice landing, though.

[Anonymous No.9706848]

>>9706831
it came before spacex's knock-off, you moron

[Anonymous No.9706849]

>inb4 chute failure and capsule slams into the ground

[Anonymous No.9706851]

Just another 100% succesful mission by BO from start to finish, nothing to see here.

>>9706831
Yeah, I really wished they wouldn't copy the cringe-memes from SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.9706852]

>that fucking boing
Shieeeeiit the American landings everyone

[Anonymous No.9706853]

>The virgin drogue
>THE CHAD CHUTE

[Anonymous No.9706856]

so, do you think it's worth the 250,000 dollars for a seat?

[Anonymous No.9706857]

>>9706853
are you fucking serious?

[Anonymous No.9706858]

Cool drone camera

[Anonymous No.9706859]

>>9706851
100% succesfull again yeah! very nice, BO going places!

If only they'd start doing real orbital launches, though. Small fries still.

[Anonymous No.9706860]

that didn't look like a soft landing

[Anonymous No.9706861]

Isn't this essentially dc-x but with a capsule on top?

[Anonymous No.9706862]

>>9706851
mannequin skywalker came first though

[Anonymous No.9706863]

>>9706860
looks can be deceiving

[Anonymous No.9706865]

>>9706859
You could literally just stick two New Shepards on top of each other and you'd have a two-stage rocket that can reach Orbit.

[Anonymous No.9706867]

>>9706862

mannequin solo shoot first too

[Anonymous No.9706869]

>>9706860
They have little rockets that fire at the last second. Kicks up a ton of dust, but kills the remaining vertical velocity.

[Anonymous No.9706871]

I thought there was supposed to be some retro propulsion at the last moment. Looks like the soft landing was on the hard side.

[Anonymous No.9706875]

>>9706859
I actually think it'd be neat to have a company focusing on sub-orbital stuff. Imagine if they could pivot from this to rapid sub-orbital transit, be able to get from one side of the atlantic to the other in a half hour or so.

[Anonymous No.9706876]

>>9706871
there was.

[Anonymous No.9706877]

>>9706865
Nope, it's not powerful enough to accelerate anywhere near orbital velocity which is why it's a dead end and BO know this.

[Anonymous No.9706878]

>>9706871
There was. The "dust cloud" you see around the capsule is the result of the rockets.

[Anonymous No.9706880]

>>9706856
From a research perspective - no. From MECO to deployment of the fins and the start of reentry was only about two and a half minutes of weightlessness for Shepard.

I can reserve a parabolic flight and log three times that for half the price.

[Anonymous No.9706881]

>>9706877
It's not a dead end, it's supposed to enable space tourism for 10k per ticket. They allegedely already have more reservations than Virgin Galactic.

[Anonymous No.9706882]

>>9706865
it cant, no. Also, you can't do that.

just stating a hard, cold fact; Blue Origin hasn't reached orbit yet, and won't, for some years. It'll be firmly behind SpaceX for the forseeable future in regards to any orbital operations.

[Anonymous No.9706883]

>>9706880
Passing the Karman line for a quarter million would be a pretty popular thing to do for rich people I think

You get to say you’ve been to space

[Anonymous No.9706887]

>>9706882
Yet again, if they wanted to they could bring a super-heavy launcher to market before SpaceX can. You just need to upgrade the New Glenn and you have a super heavy launcher. There is no need for new research from scratch. If the New Glenn flies 2020, they could aim for a super heavy launcher by 2023.

[Anonymous No.9706888]

>>9706882
>muh meme company
musk drone out

[Anonymous No.9706890]

>>9706880
You would be in the capsule, not the booster.

[Anonymous No.9706891]

>more money than spacex
>far behind spacex
How does that work?
They attracted people who care more about the paycheks than rockets?

[Anonymous No.9706894]

>>9706887
no, they can't.
>if they wanted
yeah sure.

>>9706888
I'll consider your arguments once they are orbital.

[Anonymous No.9706895]

>>9706891
Apparently they attract bad cameramen...

[Anonymous No.9706897]

>>9706890
Ah, duh, fair point. Yeah the capsule didn't start reentry for another minute or so. Still $250k per seat isn't viable for a research group wanting to send up a microgravity experiment.

Call me when it gets down to $10k.

[Anonymous No.9706899]

Kek

[Anonymous No.9706900]

>>9706897
I wonder how much of that 250k is wasted on legal paperwork.

[Anonymous No.9706903]

>>9706899
they censored it

[Anonymous No.9706904]

>>9706894
Yes, they can. Going from New Glenn to a super heavy launcher is like going from SLS Block 1 to SLS Block 2, or like going from Falcon 9 to Falcon Heavy. You basically have everything already, you just to upscale it and make the necessary adjustments. That's relatively easy and can certainly be done in 3-5 years. SpaceX is developing a completely new rocket from scratch, and even in their own highly optimistic time table they think they will debut in 2023. BO could definetely beat them to it, if they want to.

[Anonymous No.9706905]

>>9706894
i'll consider your argument once they are profitable

[Anonymous No.9706907]

>>9706899

That cam was so low quality it was painful

[Anonymous No.9706908]

>>9706904
>sls block one to block 2
>easy
>f9 to FH
>easy
Nigger what planet did you land from and what does your kind want from our world?

[Anonymous No.9706911]

>>9706903
>>9706907
It's fake kids.

[Anonymous No.9706913]

>>9706911

The point of faking it?

[Anonymous No.9706914]

>>9706905
Google certainly thinks them profitable. Or any number of wanna-be investors
>>9706904
>F9 to FH easy
Musk tried to cancel it 3 times, because it was so hard.

You severely understate the difficulties in developing an orbital launcher. BO is doing great with launches like these, and they are immense steps towards orbital, but it's not really the same order of magnitude, comparning straight-up hops with negligible 100km apogee-payloads, or doing LEO or GTO comsats.

[Anonymous No.9706915]

>>9706908
So you think upscaling an existing rocket is harder than building a new one from scratch?

[Anonymous No.9706920]

Can't wait for big boy bezos to blow elon's snake oilers out of the sky

[Anonymous No.9706922]

>>9706915
upscaling any orbital-scale vehicle is hard. Upscaling a suborbital vehicle just doesnt work, the mass fraction is totally off.
Building a new one from scratch is also hard; comparing a generic "scaling or new" choice and pointing to these rockets as examples is stupid. SLS. hah.

[Anonymous No.9706923]

>>9706914
>Google certainly thinks them profitable. Or any number of wanna-be investors
Elon has a lot of people fooled. There's a reason why spacex doesn't ever reveal how much a launch costs them. Because all those "incredible savings" he keeps advertising are literally just made up to attract attention and investors.

[Anonymous No.9706925]

>>9706913
Money and maintaining the gravity lie.

[Anonymous No.9706926]

>>9706925
>the gravity lie

Go back to /bant/

[Anonymous No.9706927]

>>9706914
Falcon Heavy development started 2013, and finished 2017, while SpaceX was largely occupied with dozens of missions every year. Upscaling isn't hard.

If Besos wants to, he can inject a few billion to BO to bring a super heavy launcher on the market by 2023. It will probably depend on how good SpaceX is doing with the BFR development. If they take much longer than expected, BO will probably concentrate on growing in the heavy launch market first.

[Anonymous No.9706928]

>>9706915
"upscaling" can have a lot of meanings so lets not delve too much into it.
At any rate the cited examples are false because SLS b2 has been confirmed for delayed (possibly permanently) and this isn't because its easy to make. FH's difficulties are well known and if the schedules aren't enough proof there are even quotes from the owner.
Now make your demands but keep in mind I'm not the leader of Earth.

[Anonymous No.9706929]

>>9706923
Everything up till block 5 has primarily been about research and development of the techniques and Technologies needed to make cheap reusable Rockets. I think we're going to get a lot more financial data about block 5, and that's where economies of scale and mass manufacturing are really going to start yanking the price steadily downward.

[Anonymous No.9706931]

It looks like a superior technology compared to SpaceX's stuff. No huge cloud of smoke and dust on liftoff. Clean invisible rocket trail. Ability to hover and maneuver easily.

[Anonymous No.9706933]

>>9706926
No, please go to /x/ if you believe gravity exists.

[Anonymous No.9706934]

>>9706927
SpaceX thinks different about how hard FH was, they've said so multiple times. Also, timeline is off; design started years before that, and the concept is older; at least before 2011.
Could you give any example of upscaling that was easy?

>If Besos wants to,
If musk wants to he can sell of Tesla, sell 49% of shares in SpaceX and make billions. Your point?


>>9706927
> It will probably depend on how good SpaceX is doing with the BFR development.
Yes. That's what I said about BO being behind SpaceX for the forseeable time. They might overtake them, but right now it's not even a race.

[Anonymous No.9706939]

>>9706923
It's because SpaceX dumps all their billions into R&D, Musk has actually said to the shareholders that they won't make money back until SpaceX reaches Mars which is when he will take it public. This pisses many people on Wall Street off greatly.

[Anonymous No.9706943]

>>9706931
>o huge cloud of smoke and dust on liftoff
Because it's Lo2/LH2, a bitch to handle and a bad choice for a first stage; BO is stepping away from it for their next launcher. Same goes for the trial. Methane is the next hot thing; SpaceX, BO and the chinese ( and even the russians) have come to the conclusion it is the best balance between Rp1/LoX and H2/02.

>Ability to hover and maneuver easily.
Sadly, the fact that this is possible shows how utterly inadequate the mass fractions of the booster are for orbital launch. it's so heavy that it's not even close to an orbital launcher.

[Anonymous No.9706944]

>>9706933
no u

[Anonymous No.9706945]

>>9706934
>If musk wants to he can sell of Tesla, sell 49% of shares in SpaceX and make billions. Your point?

He would still have to hope raptor engine development goes smoothly because you can't build a super heavy launcher with Merlins. BE-4 is way ahead in its development and can be used to build a super heavy launcher.

[Anonymous No.9706946]

>>9706945
actually, the comparison between Be-4 and Raptor intended use is really interesting; SpaceX could fly BFR with merlins and RP1/LoX and basically lose only a small bit - except for mars refueling. Raptor is growing, and if you've seen the pics of the Texas test stands you know how far they are.

Raptor is "stable" in that sense. Mueller is a wizard, hugely underrated.

[Anonymous No.9706948]

>>9706934
if elon starts selling off tesla it will crash and burn. the company is worth maybe a tenth of what it is sold at. it has not once in its history lived up to its quarterly projections.

[Anonymous No.9706963]

>>9706946
Yeah, you could if you use like 100 Merlins and build a rocket with a diameter of 20 metres.

BE-4 is still ahead and I stopped trusting SpaceX PR a long time ago.

For a super heavy launcher you basically would need to lay one ring of 9-12 BE-4s around the New Glenn and that's it. It would put the diameter of the rocket to ~9,5metres and the length to ~110 metres, and the thrust at ~50MN.

[Anonymous No.9706964]

>>9706946
Raptor development finished last month per the airforce contract but the production engine may not have been tested yet. Mueller is actually presenting at a fancy space awards show on the 24th, maybe we'll see footage of it there? Apparently it's also been somewhat up-rated since the 2017 IAC presentation which is why they were able to stretch the BFR a bit.

[Anonymous No.9706977]

>>9706948
to illustrate: in 2017 tesla's market cap passed bmw. in 2017 tesla delivered 107.000 vehicles. bmw delivered 2.7 million.

[Anonymous No.9707003]

>>9706946
There is no wizardry involved in SpaceX, they achieve their lower launch costs by paying their employees less, the rockets aren't anything special. The cost of building and launching is like 90% labour cost, so it is not hard to see where SpaceX is gaining its competitive advantage.

[Anonymous No.9707016]

>>9707003
I'm warning you, do not insult Lord Mueller or you shall face heinous consequences...

[Anonymous No.9707028]

>>9706904
New Glenn is a super heavy launcher.

[Anonymous No.9707031]

>>9706661
>(8 flights in 4 years)
Falcon 9 was exactly the same

[Anonymous No.9707049]

>>9706920
How can it be snake oil if musk has launched multiple payloads to orbit and bezos has not.

[Anonymous No.9707053]

Low quality landing.
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/990663504842674176

[Anonymous No.9707080]

>>9707049
because he promises much more than he delivers

sending things into orbit is nothing new

[Anonymous No.9707138]

>>9707080
And landing and reusing boosters? Landing on a boat? Doing it privately, in-house?

Musk isn't Jesus but credit where credit is due spacex is making waves in making space more accessible.

[Anonymous No.9707143]

>>9707138
So far, their only accomplishment is getting away with paying its employees 50%+ less than industry standard and building themselves a market this way so Elon can finance the BFR.

[Anonymous No.9707147]

>>9707031
18 flights last year?

[Anonymous No.9707148]

I choose to believe that Blue Origin started as a joke from Jeff Bezos over how phallic he could make a rocket and still get away with it.

[Anonymous No.9707160]

>>9707003

>they achieve their lower launch costs by paying their employees less, the rockets aren't anything special.

Wrong. Paying people less is one way to reduce labour costs. Reducing the amount of labour required for launch is another. You cannot account for SpaceX costs merely by cheap labor.

[Anonymous No.9707161]

>>9706452
You'll do your whole burn on Mars/Luna as a "suicide burn" because terminal velocity is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.9707165]

>>9707147
8 flights from mid 2010 to mid 2014

[Anonymous No.9707170]

>>9707160
Dude, everybody knows they burn through young naive engineers, paying them 30% less than industry standard and overworking them with unpaid 20+ hours of overtime every week. If you combine these, you get labour cost savings in the range if 50-70% which is pretty much exactly their launching price advantage. There is no superior technology or building process involved, just memeing your company on the front page of reddit everyday so you have a steady supply of young engineers you can burn through.

[Anonymous No.9707179]

Bezos might not have the best PR, but his plane is more sound than Musk's. IIRC he is big supporter of space mining and O'Neil habitats.
Terraforming Mars is a meme dead end.

[Anonymous No.9707200]

>>9707179
>a whole easily reachable planet full of everything you need including neatly deposited iron asteroids it had kindly gathered over the eons on its surface
>vs empty vacuum with few sparse impossibly difficult to reach mostly useless rocks some of which might have at best very little of something you need

[Anonymous No.9707202]

>>9707200
>>9707179
both have their benefits. why not both?

No reason to argue when shit is gonna happen and it's gonna be amazing

[Anonymous No.9707223]

>>9707200
Mars:
>too thin atmosphere to be useful for anything (like shielding), but still thick enough so you have to deal with it when landing and launching a rocket
>gravity too low for long term human settlement, but still high enough to cause major issues when launching
>only reachable from earth every two years, and journey takes 8 months and requires 8-10 super heavy rocket launches for just one single trip there
>far away from the sun, and lots of dust in the air, so solar panels can't work efficiently

Really, the only upside from Mars compared to a space habitat and asteroid mining is that you theoretically don't need to transport that much there to build a small base, but since it is so far away this advantag is again diluted. Compare what kind of space station you could build with 100 Super heavy rocket launches, with what kind of Mars base you could build with the same amount of launches. Just going to Mars will require ~10 launches while you could alternatively use those 10 launches to build something the size of the ISS. At some point, such a station could also reach self-sufficiency, mining all the ressources it needs from Moon and asteroids, which it could relatively easy access, since it has a gravity well of 0. The people would live in spinning habitats, simulating a gravity of 1, while at the same time they could access deep space with minimal Delta-V.

[Anonymous No.9707259]

>>9707223
a thin atmosphere is fantastic and allows you to aerobrake + do all sorts of stuff with gasses
40% of a g is ample for long term survival
it is reachable at all points of the year, it is just the 2.2 years per optimal delta-v transfers
Solar panels are roughly similar to on Earth because Earths atmosphere blocks a lot.

[Anonymous No.9707274]

>>9707259
That is without dust, but dust is everywhere on Mars so solar panels will not be very useful.

It is still very far away and takes lots of Delta-V to reach, which you could alternatively use to put things into GTO and build a space habitat there.

If humans can't handle microgravity for more than a couple of months I highly doubt they can handle 40% for more than a couple of years.

The thin atmosphere means you will live underground like mole people or walk around in a spacesuit 24/7.

[Anonymous No.9707281]

>>9707170
how about absolute technical records, then?

Best GG rocket engine, T/W ratio? Reusable orbital boosters? First private orbital recovery? You cant just handwave these things away, nor reduce their significance...
>>9707274
look at the mars rovers re: solar panels.

[Anonymous No.9707285]

How is $250,000 for 4 minutes of space a viable business? Are there really that many rich people who have that kind of money to waste?

[Anonymous No.9707291]

>>9707281
Curiosity has a nuclear battery.

The Mars colonisation plans have a big flaw. They assume you just need to drive launch prices down enough, so that when a ticket to Mars only costs 500k, people will mass emigrate there. However, if we ever reach launch prices where transporting you and all the life support you need to survive there costs only 500k, it will cost only 100k or so to go to a space habitat in GTO or at one of the Lagrange points. So Mars colonisation will never happen. There is absoluetely nothing there to make the long trip worth it. Space colonization will start in near-earth space and the economy will be asteroid-mining-based.

[Anonymous No.9707307]

>>9707291
Im talking about the solar powered rovers, and the cleaning events that happened, as well as a limited amount of dust deposition. nothing a tube of pressurized mars atmosphere can't fix. Solar on mars works, don't deny it.

Mars vs lagrange points is really something about vision and philosophy. I don't think it matters that much; both have strengths and cons. As long as you get into space, it's fine. Musk thinks mars, because ISRU, atmosphere and gravity; others think moon, others think lagrange points / asteroids. All have their strenghts and weaknesses, and if you can't see the strengths of all you are being dishonest; this goes for your criticism of mars too (ISRU / Aerobreaking/ gravity/resources).
In my opinion, the real answer is "why not all". O'Neill and the like are very nice, but dont count down mars.

[Anonymous No.9707332]

>>9707307
Mars definetely has the least strengths. Even cloud cities on Venus seem more practical than a Mars colony.

Ressources is not really an argument. Mars has a lot of ressources, yeah, but distributed over the whole planet. Setting up a colony that can access the ressources of the whole planet is a huge effort. It's much bigger than building up a space station that can access asteroids for everything it needs.

The main issue remains the distance. You can either transport 400 tons to GTO or 150 tons to Mars. Plus, people living in GTO could come home easily and quickly, on Mars not so much. And if an accident happens, help from earth could be sent quickly to GTO, to Mars not so much.

[Anonymous No.9707371]

>>9707332
>venus
hell no. Mars is way easier then you make it sound like. Mining, ISRU and extraction all have huge knowledge bases and available tech with available atmosphere and gravity.

The vision part catches partly the second aspect; what do you want to do? Having a 2nd planet will happen first on mars. Have 1k people on mars, and coming home to earth becomes not necessary as much. Eventually, people will go to mars earlier than venus, or any of say jupiters moons. I'll take a bet on that.

[Anonymous No.9707384]

>>9707371
You don't have waterways on Mars and you can't fly planes there. You are going to transport everything via landroutes or on rockets (which, due to gravity, will be dangerous and expensive). Building a self-sustaining economy there that can grow on its own, which needs access to a wide variety of materials, will be extremely difficult and expensive. And the pay-off once its done is basically non-existent, because Mars has nothing of value.

Even colonising one of Mars' moons seems more reasonable than colonising Mars itself.

[Anonymous No.9707395]

>mfw BO shills talking shit about SpaceX treating their employees badly

Bezos owns fucking Amazon, their list of employee abuses is huge.

[Anonymous No.9707414]

>>9707049

Those are all dishonest launches of dishonest payloads.

[Anonymous No.9707478]

>>9707274
a man in an excavator can extract more resources in a day than you could put in orbit in a year

[Anonymous No.9707492]

Any habitat stations built by humans would have to be built in space, using materials found in space. We wont be building anything like that if we have to rocket launch everything out of earths atmosphere. Unless maybe a mass driver gets built, or space elevators stop being science fiction.

[Anonymous No.9707500]

there are no materials in space you clown
thats why its space

and its why you will be travelling to large objects

[Anonymous No.9707610]

>>9707003

F9 isn't cheaper to launch unless you're launching a ridiculously small payload to LEO - they're the same price as Atlas V for anything else.

[Anonymous No.9707612]

>>9707395
S E E T H I N G

[Anonymous No.9707615]

>>9707285

hundreds of sounding rockets get launched every year for a similar price, there's a market for it.

[Anonymous No.9707621]

>>9707612
Seething about what? A suborbital toy dildo?

[Anonymous No.9707622]

>>9707610
What?
The F9 is not cheap for small payloads. You get terrible cost to weight.
The cheapest is probably what Iridium is doing, where it is at the limit of the recoverable payload capacity.

[Anonymous No.9707624]

>>9707285
No one is expecting initial costs to be the same as it will be five years down the line, though Bezos could do it like that if he wanted to, it's not that much different to what he did with Amazon.

[Anonymous No.9707733]

can someone explaint to me why these people aren't concentrating in, say, fast long distance flights instead of spaceflight (for entertainment purposes or whatever)?

also
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-to-pay-more-for-less-cargo-delivery-to-the-space-station/

[Anonymous No.9708133]

The capsule separating from the vehicle before apogee for the booster's retropropulsive landing and capsule's parachute landing almost seems redundant, what with the thrust to weight ratio being able to go well below one.

[Anonymous No.9708250]

>>9708133
That's because it is testing, they want to create a separation between the booster and the capsule and they don't want to propulsively land the capsule, because it's dangerous.

[Anonymous No.9708382]

>>9707478
Stones and dirt, yeah, have fun building a high-tech society with stones and dirt.

Also, considering that putting an excavator and a man operating it to Mars takes ~10 launches, you could alternatively transport ~450 tons of material to GTO, and 1500 tons to LEO, so I highly doubt this is actually true.

[Anonymous No.9708384]

>>9707395
Well yeah, this is how they get their competetive advantage. No technological innovation or anything, just treating their workers like shit.

[Anonymous No.9708390]

>>9707332
Holy shit rockfags are so delusional.

[Anonymous No.9708406]

>>9707500

There are millions of asteroids in space made out of different materials including metals and even diamonds.

And there is no atmosphere and gravity to make it hard to get them.

Excavating and moving billions of tons of useless soil just to get few pounds of platinum is incredibly stupid when you have entire floating mountains of it in full weightlessness out there.

[Anonymous No.9708441]

>>9708406
Nice oversimplification

[Anonymous No.9708491]

>>9708441
It not an oversimplification. The Delta-V needed to reach the surface of the moon or an earth-near asteroid from GTO or one of the Lagrane points is similar to the Delta-V needed to reach across two points on earth or Mars surface thousands of miles apart. Basically, it is easier to go to an asteroid and back than going from New York to LA and back.
And the Delta-V needed to transport it back to earth is obviously much, much smaller, too. So yeah, ressources on Mars is not such a big pro-argument. The sugary sweet spot where you have all the ressources you need in a radius of ~100 miles and a nice, big flat terrain you can build on, and near the equator for temperature stability, doesn't exist.

And this is not even considering the fact yet that you could have 1g in a space station, while you can't increase gravity on Mars.

[Anonymous No.9708753]

>>9708491
You seem to think that by using "Delta-V" you sound smart but that isn't the case at all. I think going to /x/ is best but don't be surprised if they call you retarded.