Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding

File: 339 KB, 1463x862, 2018-05-14-224808.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Schedule for First SLS Core Stage Still Sliding Anonymous Mon May 14 20:36:46 2018 No.9741829 [Reply] [Original]

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/schedule-first-sls-core-stage-sliding/

>A recent assessment of the completion date for the first Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage now puts it at the end of May, 2019, close to the middle of next year. The date indicates that production and assembly schedules are still sliding and is reducing confidence in meeting the June, 2020 date that was at the late end of NASA’s schedule forecast for the Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1) launch

What a clusterfuck.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 20:42:49 2018 No.9741841 This shit has been going on since like 2004 It was never intended to actually launch They just want to keep dragging out the test until the program is cancelled

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 20:49:33 2018 No.9741851 We will use Soyuz rockets for manned flight till 2050 kek

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 20:50:15 2018 No.9741852 >>9741851 And after that they'll spend 150 billion bringing back some fucking Saturn V hardware

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 20:51:57 2018 No.9741856 File: 79 KB, 600x582, 07574BA57F264FE794A3040BC494577F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9741851 I would put even money that Ol'Musky will have the BFR flying before the SLS launches.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 21:15:45 2018 No.9741896 File: 35 KB, 127x137, smusk.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9741856 I would put all of my money on that.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 21:35:53 2018 No.9741946 >>9741829 What the fuck is the point of all their elaborate Gantt charts if they continually fall behind schedule? Is Project Management theory really just pointless horseshit and paperwork for middle managers?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 21:39:02 2018 No.9741950 >>9741946 congress keeps throwing money at SLS. why would managers push their employees to meet deadlines? SLS will legitimately have cost over 30 billion dollars before the first human flies. It's despicable.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 22:01:11 2018 No.9741980 Even Bezos will beat the SLS to orbit

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 22:02:37 2018 No.9741982 >>9741946 >Is Project Management theory really just pointless horseshit and paperwork for middle managers? Yes, and it pisses me off to no end.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 22:09:20 2018 No.9741995 >>9741982 It's especially a disaster in government projects, where armies of bureaucrats can engage in endless "modelling" of issues, where every variable is totally made up

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 22:34:37 2018 No.9742035 Why does this surprise anyone? Fucking thing was supposed to be flying regularly by 2015

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 22:37:46 2018 No.9742046 >>9742035 now, even if the first flight gets off in 2020 (yeah right) the next flight will be EIGHTEEN MONTHS AFTERWARDS, MINIMUM. Meanwhile, Apollo 5 lifted off in January 1968. Apollo 11 lifted off July 1969. That's five missions in between, too

>>	Anonymous Mon May 14 23:31:15 2018 No.9742146 >>9742046 It'll be a totally different rocket flying for its second launch, there is no way it only takes 18 months after they've spent well over a decade producing the SLS

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 01:44:58 2018 No.9742356 Does anyone know if SpaceX recovered the fairing on the recent block 5 launch? Wasn't one of the points of block 5 to make fairing recovery easier?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 02:35:00 2018 No.9742413 >>9741829 >government project Kek, should have trusted the private sector with it. Musk will be putting tourist groups on the surface of the Moon before Orion even makes its first flyby.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 04:01:46 2018 No.9742529 It doesn't matter when it flies as long as it flies because it is the most powerful rocket.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 04:05:04 2018 No.9742534 File: 46 KB, 585x607, boing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 05:07:08 2018 No.9742600 File: 192 KB, 400x300, australian_prime_minister.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9742534 Pic related, future Musk at the ethane lakes of Titan, hearing the news that these bozos finally reached Mars.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 05:26:14 2018 No.9742618 File: 46 KB, 600x450, 1510703033984.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9741829 >tfw BFR will fly before SLS

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 05:27:56 2018 No.9742619 >>9742356 AFAIK they didn`t, because no droneship was in the area for that.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 05:53:35 2018 No.9742645 >>9741851 Dragon 2 and Starliner will both be operational next year

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 09:05:08 2018 No.9742866 >>9742534 >The Virgin CEO >The Chad Musk

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 10:54:10 2018 No.9742995 >>9741841 quick rundown? how could it be that bad when they're using existing tech?

Anonymous Tue May 15 11:06:46 2018 No.9743008

>>9742995
Fun fact: they're using every part of the Space Shuttle that failed and killed astronauts. Notably the SRB-s (Challenger) and the External Tank (its flawed insulation fatally damaged the Columbia's leading edge heat shielding).

And they're not using the parts that NEVER failed (the Space Shuttle orbiter itself never failed on its own, ever). They're using the SSME's though which are fucking great engines, but they're using expensive as fuck rocket engines that were supposed to be reused indefinite times as single use ones. TL;DR: the whole project is fucking madness.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 11:22:52 2018 No.9743044 File: 93 KB, 720x736, 1525984961541.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9741851 Have you not heard about SpaceX yet? We'll have $50/kg rates by 2025.

Anonymous Tue May 15 11:24:33 2018 No.9743049

>>9743008
>>9743008
Challenger crew could have survived if the STS had an escape system. The crew died after impact on the ocean surface, the explosion itself didn't kill them.

But the whole desgin was Kind of flawed, they should have built the Orbiter on top a first stage rocket, and not this messy Thing they created. It just made a complicated and dangerous Thing even more complicated and dangerous without any good reason.

Anonymous Tue May 15 11:27:04 2018 No.9743054

>>9742995
>constellation program going full retard
>shuttle retired
>obongo administration + nasa don't want no rockets got welfare for banks and niggers to give
>congress buttblasted no more dem solid rocket money muh jobs
>make law requiring the creation of shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle to use as much sts infrastructure as possible and fly before 2016, also save lockheed's fat babby Orion that was miscarried during constellation
>essentially DIRECT (google that shit its shuttle minus shuttle)
>obongo and nasa buttblasted and stall, massive shit flinging ensued
>shuttle workforce and infrastructure laid off during all that
>no more shuttle deriving gotta start anew
>boeing and nasa -abort- give birth to the SLS design it even uses shuttle main engines so it fits the requirements!
>the largest most powerful rocket money sink ever designed
>everyone happy
>the end (of the american space program)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 11:48:44 2018 No.9743080 >>9743049 more people have been killed than ever saved by launch escape systems

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 11:53:51 2018 No.9743088 >>9743080 I don't know of any fatalities due to an LES.

Anonymous Tue May 15 12:15:31 2018 No.9743120

>>9743088
>An accidental pad firing of a launch escape system occurred during the attempted launch of the unmanned Soyuz 7K-OK No.1 spacecraft on December 14, 1966. The vehicle's strap-on boosters did not ignite, preventing the rocket from leaving the pad. About 30 minutes later, while the vehicle was being secured, the LES engine fired. Separation charges started a fire in the rocket's third stage, leading to an explosion that killed multiple pad workers.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 12:21:07 2018 No.9743125 >>9743120 Lol who fucking cares about pad workers, retard

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 13:17:09 2018 No.9743203 >>9743120 >russians >people

>>	Anonymous Tue May 15 14:08:57 2018 No.9743297 File: 1.53 MB, 1280x720, Look what I can do.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 01:36:07 2018 No.9744428 >>9743044 Considering rates are 2000/kg right now, that's damn good

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 03:50:03 2018 No.9744626 >>9743008 >(its flawed insulation fatally damaged the Columbia's leading edge heat shielding). To be fair, that's not a problem in a non-reusable rocket with the payload on top of the rocket.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 04:01:37 2018 No.9744638 >>9742046 To be fair, Apollo had a ridiculously huge budget and they did fry themselves some astronauts at the start of the project.

Anonymous Wed May 16 04:02:05 2018 No.9744640

>>9743008
SRBs never failed. Improper use under severe weather conditions lead to seal failure despite warnings by lower ranks and even the manufacturer of the high risk involved in launching under such conditions. Challenger is entirely NASA's fault who ignored this and gave it a go. And the SLS has no ET, falling foam is of no importance if there is no spaceplane in the way of the debris. I agree about expending RS25 but its out of budget and schedule constraints. Hopefully after the current stock is used up production of new ones will involve modifications to put them more in line with their current use.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 04:07:37 2018 No.9744647 >>9744640 >production of new ones You wish.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 04:12:40 2018 No.9744654 >>9743120 killing pad roaches does not count as fatalities in space flight

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 04:22:12 2018 No.9744667 >>9744654 This. Russia's space program was truly the greatest and safest ever. >shit, comrade, is leaking rocket fuel from here >let me stuff oily rag in there, I'm sure is going to be fi-

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 04:26:15 2018 No.9744670 >>9744667 >"rocket fuel" >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_tetroxide >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDMH

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 04:51:04 2018 No.9744690 >>9744428 No, no they're not. You should stop believing every bullshit Elon tells you. This dude has killed Tesla and SpaceX is next in line.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 04:55:24 2018 No.9744695 >>9744690 >This dude has killed Tesla and SpaceX is next in line. Says increasingly desperate Boeing CEO for the sixteenth time thiy month

Anonymous Wed May 16 05:01:16 2018 No.9744703

>>9744695
Nah, it's just true. Elon's high risk - high reward approach works as long as you find people willing to give you money. Now you can burn away a few hundred of millions when developing a small rocket or a high-end luxury car. But burning away a few dozens of billions when developing a super heavy lift launcher or a mass-produced low-end car is a different story. There is nobody who is going to throw 50 billion at Tesla to save it or 30 at SpaceX.

Anonymous Wed May 16 05:06:01 2018 No.9744708

>>9744703
The difference between Tesla and SpaceX is that SpaceX has the Falcon9 and Falcon Heavy, which provide a backlog and money for years to come. Worst case, Elon pushes the BFR a year back and flies some more with them.
And I don`t understand you fake concern for SpaceX, either. It was always Elons stated goal to fly to Mars with it, why are you triggered by him attempting to do it now?

Anonymous Wed May 16 05:20:21 2018 No.9744719
File: 127 KB, 645x729, b90.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9744703
>save SpaceX
>ridiculously successful launch company set to dominate the entire market needs saving
>almost limitless supply of money from private equity, investors scrambling, spacex is literally turning them away

Anonymous Wed May 16 05:20:44 2018 No.9744720

>>9744708
They might generate money, but not even close to the kind of money they need to finance something like the BFR. I mean, even if they generate 20 million pure profit per launch, with 300 launches they are aiming at for the next 10 years, that's 6 billion in profit they can use for the BFR. That's not even close to what you need for a super heavy lift launcher. I read somewhere that Elon hinted at leaving Tesla in a few years a while ago, when Tesla was still doing good. I guess Elons plan was to sell most of his Tesla stock in a few years, and then finance the BFR with that money. I doubt this will be possible now. So who is going to pay for the BFR development? Certainly not NASA, since they have the SLS that is sucking up more than enough money.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 05:22:46 2018 No.9744722 >>9744719 Imagine being this deluded you believe SpaceX is saying no to free money.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 05:24:06 2018 No.9744725 >>9744722 When did I claim that investment is free money? No, they give space x money in exchange for equity. Space X doesn't need the money, and thus they are turning down private investment. This is all well documented.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 05:26:53 2018 No.9744728 >>9744725 Yes, and Block 5 will be reused 100 times. I dont care about Elon-lies.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 05:29:24 2018 No.9744732 >>9744728 Well, so far the burden of proof is on you. Elon is doing quite well so far, you would be a contrarian to disagree.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 05:42:47 2018 No.9744742 >>9744720 BFR is already in development, coming along well (as far as it is possible to say that from here) with the first test flights for now slated for 2019 and the first Orbital flights in 2020. WTF are you going on about?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 05:45:49 2018 No.9744747 >>9744742 Yeah, sure, and the Falcon 9 will see launch prices below 10 million. FYI, developing a medium sized rocket is the easiest rocket design to do, very small and very large is much harder.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 05:48:52 2018 No.9744749 >>9744747 Is that you besos?

Anonymous Wed May 16 05:49:05 2018 No.9744750

>>9744747
Yeah, and shitposting on the Internet is even easier.
Point out exactly where you see them not currently being on track with development or where you expect them to have problems. Muh rockets hard is just shitposting.
Or are you one of these brainlets that claimed that reuseability is impossible, too?

Anonymous Wed May 16 05:55:07 2018 No.9744757

>>9744750
They are not even testing full-scaled engines, and are already talking about flights in 2 years, lol. SLS didn't even need to build the engines, they are literally using old ones they have lying around, and the rocket building is taking them 6 years already. Not even talking about the fact that the BFR is going to have 30 engines, which is way harder to build than the SLS which has 4.

The reusability is still a meme, you might land them, but the Space Shuttle landed, too. SpaceX rarely reuses a Falcon 9, and if they do they do it just once. So for now, it remains a meme. I'm not saying that you can safe some money by reusing, but slashing costs by the factor of 100 or whatever Elon is promising is deluded, and it's supported by the fact that the Falcon 9 is still not demonstrating anything near such reuse rates 3 years after the first landing.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 06:13:36 2018 No.9744779 >>9744757 FH has already been a butthurt wild ride for you shilling musktrarians. I'm looking foward to the fist 10 time reused Block 5 lauch, first manned launch, and first BFR lauch.

Anonymous Wed May 16 06:16:37 2018 No.9744781

>>9744757
Turnaround time for B4 (B5 should be lower in a few months) is 4 months for the 5/22 launch, and possibly only 2.5 months for a 6/26 launch.
The FH has been running 27 engines and workes just fine; Comparing anything to the SLS is just an insult to its creator, even Bezos will probaly get his shit flying before SLS starts.

>>9744779
Waiting for the next Heavy launch, wanna see if they really got it right.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 06:17:00 2018 No.9744782 >>9744779 You mean the rocket that has been delayed for 4 years, despite being the most primitive way to build a heavy launcher? Yeah, that definetely doesn't support my point that the BFR will be a mess.

Anonymous Wed May 16 07:07:47 2018 No.9744845

Even very minimalistic and grounded in reality architectures to get people to Mars involve budgets approaching and easily exceeded a trillion dollars. From there the need to do baby steps first with as much international cooperation as possible so as to share the burden. Do explain how tiny private company will acquire the financial base to execute such mission on its own and in few years at that.
Do you even realize how insane it is say let alone believe this? And please no nonsense about magical effects of refurbishment. We've heard that in the 60's before the Shuttle came to be and sadly thanks to hindsight such statements no longer hold any weight.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 07:42:41 2018 No.9744886 >>9744845 Trillions is a bit exceeded. The NASA Deepspace Gateway (essentially an ISS in Lunar orbit) and the attached Deep Space Transport System would cost around 200 billion to build and would enable several flight to Mars.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 08:19:46 2018 No.9744926 >>9744886 200 billion my ass. My dollar to spaceflight utility value is fucking higher than NASA's is. >$200 shovels

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 08:22:29 2018 No.9744929 >>9741829 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvTOaSX5ofs Why don't they just cancel that pos rocket already and develop tech they can launch with Musk's BFR instead?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 08:29:38 2018 No.9744931 File: 404 KB, 840x600, SpaceShuttleGroundProcessingActual.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9744929 Because MUH JOBS

Anonymous Wed May 16 08:36:14 2018 No.9744942

>>9744929
>Betting everything on a rocket that doesn't even have the engines yet

Do you people even realize that the BFR right now is where the Saturn 5 was in 1958? And that the BFR does not have 150 billion in funds and Wernher von Braun as the chief designer?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 08:45:21 2018 No.9744957 >>9744929 Unlike the bfr, whatever that may be, the SLS is a real rocket and near completion as well.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 09:03:11 2018 No.9744989 >>9744957 The BFR doesn't even have a real name yet.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 09:05:44 2018 No.9744993 File: 83 KB, 1046x625, naive-shuttle-concept.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9744931 >OH NO NO NO NO

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 09:07:50 2018 No.9744997 >>9744993 Yeah, I have these two pictures next to each other in my meme folder. That pic is how they sold the Spess Shittle, you just hose it down after spaceflight, check the tire pressure and it's ready to do again!

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 09:09:45 2018 No.9745005 >>9744997 Almost like Elon promised Falcon 9s to work like :/

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 09:09:47 2018 No.9745006 File: 95 KB, 1024x576, Az2bFzJOUhxxx1tGOPmx8M7bhrfoB8fL1xf0tXrR_I8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9744993 Genius idea!

Anonymous Wed May 16 09:16:00 2018 No.9745009

>>9744781
plus the 'turnaround' doesn't count how a rocket can be ready, but the launch date has to move. The most recent B4's actual, physical refurb only took three weeks according to musky.

I don't doubt that we'll see a B5 reflight in under a week.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 09:20:04 2018 No.9745014 File: 573 KB, 1200x2115, 1200px-Saturn-Shuttle_model_at_Udvar-Hazy_Center.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9745006 like clockwork

Anonymous Wed May 16 09:54:14 2018 No.9745070

>>9745009
i dont know why everybody keeps talking about how long it takes. if you have 20 engineers and technicians refurbishing a rocket for 10 weeks, or 200 refurbishing it for 1 week it doesnt make a difference when it comes to how much it costs to refurbish it.

Anonymous Wed May 16 10:48:11 2018 No.9745189

>First American astronauts sent to the ISS after Shuttle will be on a Boeing rocket
>First American astronauts to fly-by the Moon after Apollo will be on a Boeing rocket
>First American astronauts to land on the Moon after Apollo will be on a Boeing rocket
>First American astronauts to fly-by Mars will on a Boeing rocket
>First American astronauts to land on Mars will be on a Boeing rocket

Are the American companies even trying?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 10:48:38 2018 No.9745193 >>9745009 Elon said they are going to attempt a 24 hour turnaround of a booster sometime in 2019. But apart from that we most likely won't see many rapid turnarounds, as no customers currently require that kind of service.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 10:52:36 2018 No.9745199 >>9744942 >Wernher von Braun No it has Elon Reeve Musk, faggot

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 10:54:10 2018 No.9745205 >>9745189 >Boeing >Not american Low tier bait?

Anonymous Wed May 16 10:58:49 2018 No.9745212

>>9745189
None of the above are actually Boeing rockets though, despite what their propaganda department wants you to think.

>First American astronauts sent to the ISS after Shuttle will be on a Boeing rocket
Atlas 5 is a rocket built by Lockheed, using Russian engines. Boeing only builds the capsule
>First American astronauts to fly-by the Moon after Apollo will be on a Boeing rocket
Boeing only builds the SLS's main tank, Orion is built by Lockheed, the RS-25 engines are supplied by Aerojet Rocketdyne and the solid boosters are built by Orbital ATK.
>First American astronauts to land on the Moon after Apollo will be on a Boeing rocket
Not happening
>First American astronauts to fly-by Mars will on a Boeing rocket
Again, not happening
>First American astronauts to land on Mars will be on a Boeing rocket
Keep dreaming Dennis...

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 11:02:07 2018 No.9745218 >>9745189 >First American astronauts sent to the ISS after Shuttle will be on a Boeing rocket Soyuz is a thing you know?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 11:04:37 2018 No.9745224 >>9745205 Traditional large defense contractors with long lasting government ties have the nation's interests at heart. They aren't comparable to small short term profit driven structures that appear and disappear all the time.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 11:11:40 2018 No.9745231 >>9745199 He isn't the chief designer. Also, they way he fucked up Tesla he better shouldn't be.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 11:11:43 2018 No.9745232 >>9745224 read his post, then mine again, and then never reply to my posts ever again.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 11:15:28 2018 No.9745234 >>9745232 When you put it like that I just can't help but (you) more faggot.

Anonymous Wed May 16 12:06:28 2018 No.9745327

>>9744703
>burning away a few dozens of billions when developing a super heavy lift launcher
The Falcon Heavy total development costs were $500 million

Falcon 9 development cost $300 million (and NASA's own estimate was it would have cost them $1.7 to $4 billion to build the same rocket)

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 12:26:58 2018 No.9745349 >>9745327 >NASA cost estimate Uh anon i wouldn't put much faith in those numbers unless you fiddle with them a bit >>9741829 pic related

Anonymous Wed May 16 12:34:34 2018 No.9745361

>>9745327
Those aren't super heavy lift launchers. Delta 4 cost roughly 500 million in development, Atlas 5 and Ariane 5 similarly so. Vulcan and New Glenn will cost around 1 billion in development each. Falcon rockets are in line with all the other rocket builders when it comes to development costs. There is no reason to assume it will do much better for the super heavy lift launcher, especially considering they are going for the most complicated possible design (full flow closed cycle engines, and 31 of them).

Anonymous Wed May 16 13:20:08 2018 No.9745453

>>9745361
>Those aren't super heavy lift launchers. Delta 4 cost roughly 500 million in development, Atlas 5 and Ariane 5 similarly so. Vulcan and New Glenn will cost around 1 billion in development each.
What I'm hearing here is the SLS's "$35 billion and climbing" price tag is the most embarassing fucking thing ever

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 13:26:49 2018 No.9745466 >>9744708 Tesla also has a backlog to last for years. He's squandering it. He can't deliver anywhere near the rates he promised and he's risking people canceling their orders.

Anonymous Wed May 16 13:33:51 2018 No.9745482

>>9745453
Well, so far NASA is the only one ever who was able to produce a super heavy lift launcher.

Also, as I said earlier, medium sized rockets are much easier to develop than super heavy lift launchers. As long as nobody comes along and builds one for much cheaper than NASA does, there is no reason to hate on them.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 14:28:03 2018 No.9745604 >>9745466 That's why I wrote "has the Falcon9 and Heavy". Those are ready now and have a backlog for years. Tesla has a backlog, but no vehicels.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 14:31:51 2018 No.9745616 >>9745482 But there is. The Shuttle was shit, SLS is shit, and NASA is shit.

Anonymous Wed May 16 14:39:09 2018 No.9745632

>>9745616
NASA does the real revolutionary shit, things that are hard and have never been done before, like JWST, Mars rovers, and SLS. For making cold coffee like medium sized rockets they hire shitty little private companies like ULA and SpaceX, because they can't be bothered with shit like that.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 15:04:20 2018 No.9745685 >all these shills holy fuck where are all you shitboots coming from

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 15:53:28 2018 No.9745796 >>9745685 Reddit.

Anonymous Wed May 16 15:59:47 2018 No.9745814

>>9745632
>For making cold coffee like medium sized rockets they hire shitty little private companies like ULA and SpaceX, because they can't be bothered with shit like that.
Also is the joke here that SLS and JWST are in development hell and the Soviets landed a rover on mars first?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 16:13:47 2018 No.9745849 The whole fucking sls project is a corporate wellfare farce. People complain about Elon Musk exploiting the government for free money, but at least something actually gets done with that money.

Anonymous Wed May 16 16:14:16 2018 No.9745852

>>9745814
They crashed a rover first, landing means you can use it afterwards.

Of course they are in development hell, such it is if you are truly pushing the boundary of what is technology. Landing a rocket was done by NASA in the 60s on the moon, and in the 90s on earth, hell even Bezos beat old Musk to it.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 16:15:58 2018 No.9745859 >>9745852 >Pushing the boundary of what is technology >Can`t even build a tower that stands upright Sure, that's the issues here.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 16:17:01 2018 No.9745861 >>9745852 The SLS is hardly "pushing the boundary of what is technology." It's just rehashing the saturn V and the solid rocket motors from the space shuttle with one extra solid fuel segment. There's nothing new about it.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 16:19:53 2018 No.9745869 >>9745632 >NASA does the real revolutionary shit Not in the slightest They just burn money on bureaucratic waste Absolutely nothing can be practically transferred to useful missions either

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 16:25:20 2018 No.9745883 How do the Americans love free market but hate musk and support the nasa retardation?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 16:27:55 2018 No.9745890 >>9745861 The SLS will be more powerful, than the Saturn 5, also nobody today can build a rocket of that size, SLS or Saturn 5, therefore it is pushing the boundary of what is possible.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 16:30:18 2018 No.9745896 On the plus side, it looks cool.

Anonymous Wed May 16 16:36:29 2018 No.9745916

>>9745869
They literally flew a rocket 3 miles high, turned it on its nose, turned it back on its ass, landed it with 3km/h using low-throtteling, and had a refurbishment time of one afternoon (they were literally able to do two test flights within one day) back in 1995. And this all, including 7 prior test flights, cost them 60 million. Doesnt sound too wasteful to me.

Maybe the real reason why they seem so wasteful is because they are doing really hard, never done before stuff, and that is expensive.

Anonymous Wed May 16 16:53:22 2018 No.9745974

>>9745916

>Maybe the real reason why they seem so wasteful is because they are doing really hard, never done before stuff, and that is expensive.

Yes, despite no proof of this surely this is the case

You're probably the same brainlet who thinks the Pentagons missing trillions are being used on black projects

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 16:56:09 2018 No.9745987 >>9745974 Name one accomplishment in space technologies that wasn't first developed and done by NASA.

Anonymous Wed May 16 17:21:51 2018 No.9746062

>>9745189
>First American astronauts to fly-by Mars will on a Boeing rocket
>First American astronauts to land on Mars will be on a Boeing rocket

Laughable, at this rate BFR will have put 100 people on Mars while ULA is trying to squeeze another 5 billion for aerospace grade lightbulbs. But seriously, if BFR does fly, even just the BFS doing suborbital hops, before SLS is ready, people are going to really see what a joke ULA, NASA and pretty much all government space programs are.

Anonymous Wed May 16 17:23:25 2018 No.9746070

>>9745883

Because SpaceX today is ULA era 2005 and Douglas era 1995. Despite 3+ decades of trying to get private investment in spaceflight it didn't happen until the government retired it's primary launcher (the Space Shuttle). Defending Musk is defending the same idiocy that led us here. The idiocy involving SLS cost overruns mirrors the idiocy around the X-33 cost overruns which killed the project, causing NASA to move to a traditional rocket in the first place.

That's not to say SpaceX doesn't have it's place but this isn't an either/or, SpaceX and NASA can perfectly coexist and build their own rockets. Sacrificing one for the other (NASA for SpaceX) will give us neither just like it didn't give us aerospike SSTOs.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 17:23:33 2018 No.9746071 >>9745916 the whole difficulty of rocketry is in getting the 10 km/s delta-v you need to get to orbit, with a useful payload Some shitty hopper is irrelevant, nor is it difficult to do

Anonymous Wed May 16 17:31:52 2018 No.9746114

>>9746070
>Despite 3+ decades of trying to get private investment in spaceflight it didn't happen until the government retired it's primary launcher (the Space Shuttle)

No shit they couldn't get private investment when the kind of money that ULA charges to stamp some papers would buy you half a Falcon 9. Governments and their contractors have been the single biggest cause behind the lack of progress since Apollo.

Anonymous Wed May 16 17:38:14 2018 No.9746137

>>9746114

And what do you think is the end stage of SpaceX? Becoming a government contractor and charging the market rate (which is whatever they agree is reasonable with ULA).

There's no progress here unless NASA forces it by building their own system which they can launch things on if the private market is too expensive. Costs are forced down by the government itself preventing another oligopoly. It also lets NASA put things in space (eg habs) that can have fat resupply contracts built off it. There's no reason not to build SLS when at worst it prevents a monopoly and at best supports the private resupply market.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 17:40:12 2018 No.9746142 >>9746137 the end stage of spacex is making humanity a multiplanetary species.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 17:41:15 2018 No.9746143 >>9746071 Getting to orbit has nothing to do with landing you retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 17:42:52 2018 No.9746152 >>9746142 Exactly just like how every other aerospace company promised to build a moonbase by the year 2000. We are currently halfway through 2018 with nothing to show for.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 17:43:41 2018 No.9746155 File: 125 KB, 1227x1037, 1513349348586.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9746142 How will they solve the jello babies issue?

Anonymous Wed May 16 17:57:19 2018 No.9746197

>>9746143
You are retarded, it's not about the simple act of tail landing, I could do that with a fucking toy rocket. The difficulty is in creating a vehicle like the other anon said, that can take orbital speeds, payload and other tremendous stresses and full firing times, then bringing back down and reusing it. Not tossing a toy up 3 miles, brining it back and banging on about how awesome that is, when it's not.

Anonymous Wed May 16 18:01:01 2018 No.9746210

>>9746197
So what you are saying is landing an aeroplane that has went only 1000m high, than turns around and lands again, is much easier than landing the same aeroplane that went 2000km across the country, because...? Ah I know, because you are a SpaceX fanboy who has no clue what he is talking about, and is just mad that somebody says that vertical landing isn't hard and SpaceX wasn't the first to do so.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 18:10:44 2018 No.9746254 >>9746155 Centrifuge bowl habitats on planets Centrifuge cylinder/torus in space

Anonymous Wed May 16 18:11:24 2018 No.9746257
File: 2.34 MB, 4922x2967, xaisqxao5ef01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9746210
I don't think you know what you're talking about. there is little comparison that can be made between things like the DC-X and F9.
F9's RTLS/ASDS return capability after lofting large payloads to orbit is extremely impressive.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 18:13:36 2018 No.9746265 >>9746257 Okay then tell me why the actual landing was what the Falcon 9 was struggling with and failed several times (rocket tipping over etc.) and not everything else.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 18:20:03 2018 No.9746291 >>9746265 I don't see your point? There are many more failure modes at landing than during the boostback etc. Something doesn't have to fail to be impressive and a technical achievement. You seem to be angry for the sake of being angry.

Anonymous Wed May 16 18:29:37 2018 No.9746333

>>9746265
Because they weren't landing with special "landing rockets", they were using their normal full sized rocket engines which didn't allow sub 1.0 thrust to weight. Doing a hover slam at the limits of the vehicles capabilities.

It's a little frigging different from some shitty hopper which was done back in the 50's.
Vertical Landing is not difficult.
Vertical landing while maintaining the dry mass fraction necessary for a rocket IS difficult.

Anonymous Wed May 16 19:20:40 2018 No.9746425

>>9746070
>That's not to say SpaceX doesn't have it's place but this isn't an either/or, SpaceX and NASA can perfectly coexist and build their own rockets. Sacrificing one for the other (NASA for SpaceX) will give us neither just like it didn't give us aerospike SSTOs.
But nobody is saying to sacrifice NASA. We are just making fun of ameritards who have to pay for that useless pile of shit with their tax money

Anonymous Wed May 16 20:03:30 2018 No.9746533

The SLS is required in order to build the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway, because the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway was designed to require SLS. Also it hasn't been designed yet, but when it is it will require SLS. Funding for designing it hasn't been allocated yet, but if and when it is, it will be on the basis that it require SLS. As you can see, SLS is clearly required by SLS requirements.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 20:39:58 2018 No.9746627 >>9741946 It's all about muh Shuttle-era jobs. Got to keep those ATK solid booster guys employed so they'll still be around if we ever decide we need to make some new ICBMs.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 20:44:25 2018 No.9746636 >>9745987 Low cost and profitable space flight

Anonymous Wed May 16 20:58:49 2018 No.9746669
File: 206 KB, 1264x830, 1523835809786.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9745193
Indeed. Why would a customer need to fly the EXACT SAME booster rocket within 24 hours when they could just fly another one? And they could be loading the second rocket before the first one even flies, instead of rushing to beat said 24 hour deadline along with SpaceX.

The only reason to need 24 hour turnaround is if you have a lot of launches but are getting short on rockets, and customer payloads are literally lining up in the hangar.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 21:04:52 2018 No.9746681 >>9741980 Even Richard Branson will beat SLS to orbit a this rate.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 21:09:00 2018 No.9746689 >>9746137 >And what do you think is the end stage of SpaceX? Terraforming Mars. This isn't exactly a secret. It's Elon's only long term goal.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 16 21:09:04 2018 No.9746690 File: 156 KB, 725x608, 1477449602412.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9745916 What, the DC-X? The one that they broke because they couldn't even do proper lockout-tagout on disconnected hydraulic lines? Yep, real revolutionary shit there.

Anonymous Wed May 16 21:16:38 2018 No.9746707

>>9746425
>We are just making fun of ameritards who have to pay for that useless pile of shit with their tax money
The worst part isn't having to pay for it, it's the nothing else useful getting done while the cost-plus programs are spinning in the mud that is the worst part.

Anonymous Wed May 16 23:26:19 2018 No.9746911

>>9746669
The point of getting the 24h turnaround sorted is because they need to learn about what works well to implement for BFR, which absolutely will need 24h turnaround. Also it attracts investors earlier if they can prove that they really can build a multi reuse rocket with a 24h turnaround and look there it is on the pad.

Anonymous Wed May 16 23:31:50 2018 No.9746920

>>9746911
the bigger point of 24hr turnaround is that it means that overall work on the rocket is decreased, which means cheaper cost. The actual time of turning around a landed rocket is just a metric for indirectly obersrving efficiency increases in the process.

Anonymous Wed May 16 23:50:54 2018 No.9746941

>>9746920
There are a large number of things that need to be changed or streamlined to enable rapid turn around on the BFR
Some of them are regulatory

It's not JUST about reducing the amount of work needed.

Like how long does integration of 1st, 2rd, payload + fairing take? No doubt a substantial amount of time.

Anonymous Thu May 17 01:42:52 2018 No.9747113

>>9746333
Yes, it is a special "landing rocket", because they have landing legs, sensors, thrusters for stability, and the internal controls are programmes to execute the landing. this is literally all you need to make them "special landing rockets". Just because SpaceX failed often doesnt mean they didnt try.

SpaceX was also having lots of failures with the Grasshopper, despite being less capable than the Delta Clipper.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 17 01:54:00 2018 No.9747130 >>9747113 grasshopper had one failure, due to a stuck valve. Not "lots of"

Anonymous Thu May 17 04:48:52 2018 No.9747308

Reusability will never be practical with the severe payload hit it imposes - about 30% in the best case scenario. Going expendable and optimizing the production line instead will increase income by at least that much, and possibly considerably more by saving the need to refurbish and process amortized equipment. Even further if they designed rockets with 5 and 1 engine versions optimized for smaller payloads. The only reason I see they are not pursuing common sense is that Elon Musk is simply obsessed with an idea and hopes that pouring enough effort into the impossible will magically transform it into possible. That is not how reality works. And I firmly believe he will learn it the hard way when the difficulties of designing super heavy lift vehicle hit with full force. Reusable or not.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 17 04:58:36 2018 No.9747317 >>9747308 No matter how good your assembly line is, throwing away 1 billion dollars+ of heavy lift rocket is not a sustainable business model.

Anonymous Thu May 17 05:44:28 2018 No.9747377
File: 88 KB, 809x1010, Mr Musk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Who would win?

>The combined American space industry backed with decades of experience and a $42 billion budget
>Some kid who wanted to use a Russian ICBM to put a greenhouse on the moon

Anonymous Thu May 17 21:05:24 2018 No.9748945
File: 19 KB, 879x485, sls-em1-sept2017-879x485.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

IT KEEPS HAPPENING http://spacenews.com/contamination-found-in-sls-engine-tubing/

>NASA is dealing with a contamination problem with tubing in part of the core stage of the first Space Launch System vehicle, an issue that could contribute to further delays for its launch.

Anonymous Thu May 17 21:13:10 2018 No.9748966

>>9744845
>We've heard that in the 60's before the Shuttle came to be and sadly thanks to hindsight such statements no longer hold any weight.
The Shuttle was a shitheap.

If it had worked as intended and wasn't run into the fucking ground by bizarre Air Force demands and lobbyist vision changes I'd be posting this reply from fucking Mars right now

>>	Anonymous Thu May 17 21:27:38 2018 No.9748986 >>9748966 The fact that the soviets developed a extremely superior shuttle system but scrapped it soon thereafter should have been a warning sign for NASA/congress. Nope...

Anonymous Thu May 17 21:37:19 2018 No.9748996

>>9748966
Spaceplanes are a cool concept but really it's just a whole bunch of extra weight for wings and all the other aircraft related crap, all for just the re entry part since it needs boosters to get up anyway. At which point you might as well have reusable rockets instead.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 17 21:41:28 2018 No.9749004 >>9748996 they have their place, mainly for low-g reentry. But other than that it's pretty inferior to a big BFR type ship or a regular fat saucer capsule either way I'm rooting for SNC to get their bird in space. It's a neat design

Anonymous Fri May 18 05:00:35 2018 No.9749663
File: 263 KB, 800x633, SpaceShuttleGroundProcessingVision.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9748966
The designers of the shuttle used quadruple redundancy in a bunch of systems, so you could have extremely high reliability without the expense of having to keep a system constantly in 100% spotless condition.

But because of NASA government retardation this only achieved that they kept rebuilding a system to 100% condition, along with all three of its backups, after every flight. So what should have been a cost-saving solution turned out to be a huge pile of burning money and paychecks. Yet they lost an orbiter to a frozen o-ring, and another to a chunk of insulation. Genius.

I believe Chris Kraft has talked about this.

>>9748986
I kinda believe the theory that Buran suffered some pretty bad structural cracks during its first flight and that's why the only completed Soviet orbiter never flown again. A shame because there were even plans that they should bring down Mir with the Soviet shuttle after decommissioning it and put it in a museum.

Anonymous Fri May 18 05:30:17 2018 No.9749698

>>9748986
>extremely superior
>literally shuttle clone plagued by rcs tps and god knows what other issues thanks to CIA help with "leaking" schematics + russian engineering, built entirely because politburo is jealous the americans have a plane in space
You are eating too much muh super russia propaganda. Is rotting your brain xaxaxa

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 05:50:10 2018 No.9749713 Block 1B + EUS will savagely rape FH for higher energy transfers. Elon can keep circlejerking muh 60 tons to LEO reeeeeeee.

Anonymous Fri May 18 06:18:21 2018 No.9749744

>>9749713
But by the time Block 1B is ready BFR will either be flying again or close to completition.
And how many are they building, anyway? Because if they are going to have that many problems for every rocket then its going to be a long wait between launches

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 06:38:13 2018 No.9749761 >>9745632 >NASA does the real revolutionary shit Reducing launch costs is the real revolutionary shit. Not an overpriced and obsolete rocket to nowhere.

Anonymous Fri May 18 06:40:59 2018 No.9749763

>>9745916

>Doesnt sound too wasteful to me.

And it was then promptly cancelled. So yes it was wasteful. Nobody is saying NASA can never do anything cost effective. They are doing Kilopower right now. But the general structure of NASA and political forces controlling it mean that as a whole NASA is extremely wasteful. There is simply no excuse for SLS cost and delays.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 06:44:22 2018 No.9749769 >>9746669 24 hour turnaround is about radically reducing labor needed for refurbishment and reflight. Labor is the biggest expense of a launch vehicle.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 06:48:58 2018 No.9749774 >>9749713 direct higher energy transfers are obsolete in the age of reusable rocketry either refuel in LEO or use a dedicated expendable kick stage

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 06:57:25 2018 No.9749784 >>9749774 We neither have reusable rockets, nor can we refuel them in LEO.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 07:01:19 2018 No.9749787 >>9749784 We will have by the time SLS 1B is flying

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 07:04:05 2018 No.9749793 >>9749787 Yeah, sure, just like he promised us a manned moon flight for 2018. BTW, Arianespace is cheaper than SpaceX for most Orbits.

Anonymous Fri May 18 07:14:26 2018 No.9749798

>>9749793

>t. increasingly nervous Arianespace employee

as was already said, direct insertion into high orbit is a meme

SpaceX is wise to concentrate on LEO performance, and once you radically decrease low orbit costs by not fucking trashing the entire rocket for every tiny satellite, insertion into higher orbit is comparatively easy

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 07:25:33 2018 No.9749807 >>9749798 Yeah, a SpaceX soiboi like you sure is in the position to judge strategical decision in space travel. SpaceX is nowhere near their goals in reusing rockets, but of course "soon" they are.

Anonymous Fri May 18 08:27:48 2018 No.9749858

>>9749793
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-die-amerikaner-wollen-europa-aus-dem-weltraum-kicken-a-1207322.html#js-article-comments-box-pager

Here's a recent interview with the head of the ArianeGroup. Translate it with DeepL if you want to read it, he's very, very desperate. Ariane will be dead in 5 years if the EU doesn't subsidize them or force EU members to use Ariane 6 for their payloads.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 09:59:51 2018 No.9750008 >>9749858 No, he's saying what everybody knows: Elon is big governments favorite boy and is cashing in on government money like crazy, and is flying on loss for private customers.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 10:04:13 2018 No.9750018 >>9750008 that is a lie. CRS missions are more expensive for specific known reasons, having to do with additional NASA requirements and SpaceX manpower needed

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 10:06:32 2018 No.9750021 >>9750018 You're a good soiboi, Master Elon is proud of you.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 10:17:41 2018 No.9750033 >>9750021 not even interesting or funny trolling at this point. go shit up /pol/ threads or something or at least put more effort into it

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 10:27:14 2018 No.9750048 >>9750033 You are literally a retarded soiboi and argueing with you is like argueing with a religious fundamentalist about evolution. Discussion has no point.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 10:52:38 2018 No.9750076 >>9741829 It's still cheaper and more powerful than the Saturn 5.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 10:55:43 2018 No.9750082 >>9750076 Saturn V at least did something useful. All SLS has done is push around a lot of paper and keep some SRB jobs employed.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 11:18:54 2018 No.9750116 File: 587 KB, 2048x1364, Falcon-Heavy-at-LC39A-3-SpaceX.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9750048 what is the problem special snowflake is r/EnoughMuskSpam down or something ?

Anonymous Fri May 18 11:21:10 2018 No.9750120

>>9750076
To be more powerful than Saturn V, SLS requires theoretical future upgrades that even on the official schedule (which so far has proven wildly optimistic) are still at least ten years off.

SLS is clearly a more expensive program than Saturn V. Saturn V launched 13 times for $33 billion. SLS will cross $33 billion long before reaching 13 flights. Over $12 billion has already been spent under the SLS name, and much of the SLS development work was done under the Constellation Program name, including $5 billion in Ares I development which prepared the 5-segment boosters.

Including the work done under the Constellation name (SLS is simply the finalized Ares V design), at least $20 billion has been spent on SLS so far, and it's years from producing its first launch. If not cancelled, it's going to continue to be funded at over $2 billion per year, and it's going to launch less than once per year. It will almost certainly exceed $33 billion before they've flown the first four launches. It's unlikely that it will ever reach 13 launches.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 11:27:49 2018 No.9750137 >>9750120 Saturn 5 sucked up 5% of the american GDP for some time in the 1960s. That was ~30 billion per year back then (in 2017 dollars) and would be ~90 billion today.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 11:29:51 2018 No.9750143 >>9750137 >Hey, let's use fraction of GDP instead of inflation-adjusted dollars. Hey, let's acknowledge that society has more material resources and higher productivity now.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 11:30:51 2018 No.9750149 >>9750137 How about a more useful figure like, say, cost per mission? Oh wait, SLS hasn't had any missions yet, it just keeps getting pushed away to the future!

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 11:30:55 2018 No.9750150 >>9750137 >>9750143 Hey, let's recognize that Saturn V isn't the whole Apollo Program.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 11:31:52 2018 No.9750154 >>9750137 I actually was off with the numbers quite a bit. NASA's budget during the 1960s peaked at ~150 billion per year in today's dollars, and the equivalent in today's GDP would be 900 billion per year.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 11:33:02 2018 No.9750157 >>9750150 The SLS is also not just the launch vehicle, but nobody seems to care about that.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 11:35:34 2018 No.9750160 >>9750157 SLS is indeed just the launch vehicle. Orion's a whole other set of expenses, delays, and disappointments. Want to get into those, and start comparing Orion to the payload developed in the Apollo Program half a century ago?

Anonymous Fri May 18 11:43:49 2018 No.9750173
File: 64 KB, 750x443, nasa budget real.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9750137

% of GDP is an irrelevant metric. Inflation adjusted dollars is what is relevant to actually estimate the amount of work that can be done with a sum of money. NASA today receives around half of the resources as during Apollo.

Anonymous Fri May 18 11:44:49 2018 No.9750176

>>9750154
>NASA's budget during the 1960s peaked at ~150 billion per year in today's dollars,
No it didn't, you monkey. It peaked around $35 billion. I don't know where you got the $150 billion per year, but if you read the fine print, it's either derived from fraction of federal budget or fraction of GDP.

>and the equivalent in today's GDP would be 900 billion per year.
You're double-applying a multiplier.

And NASA was working on a whole shitload of other stuff than Saturn V.

Anonymous Fri May 18 11:48:56 2018 No.9750183

>>9750120
Well, almost no money wento into Ares under the constellation programm, it all went into Orion and Altair development, yet you mixed that up and calimed there was already 5 billion spent for a SHLL, which is not true. As a matter of fact, it is quite impossible to know where exactly NASA is spending the money, but just looking at the total budget of NASA, and considering the fact that back in the 60s it did nothing else than the Apollo programm, SLS is still even with the worst projected cost cheaper than the Saturn 5 was, while at the same time more capable.

Anonymous Fri May 18 11:50:46 2018 No.9750187

>>9750076
>more powerful

What is this anyway, a fucking dick measuring contest?

Real power of a launch system is in how many tons can it put into orbit per year, and at what cost. Falcon 9 doing 30+ launches per year is MORE powerful than SLS flying once per year, and a lot less expensive too.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 11:51:51 2018 No.9750188 >>9750176 NASA is doing much more today, like JWST, Mars 2020 Rover, etc. In the 60s, it did Apollo programm and Skylab, for which both the Saturn 5 was the main expenditure.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 11:52:55 2018 No.9750193 >>9750187 Falcon 9 cant even go into GSOs, but soibois will be soibois.

Anonymous Fri May 18 11:59:44 2018 No.9750203

>>9750183
>yet you mixed that up and calimed there was already 5 billion spent for a SHLL, which is not true
I said they spent $5 billion on Ares I development, which is where they developed the 5-segment boosters they're using on SLS, which is entirely true.

>back in the 60s it did nothing else than the Apollo programm
What about Mercury and Gemini? Peak funding was when both Apollo and Gemini were under intensive development, and Mercury was still running.

In the decade and a half leading up to the moon landing, NASA developed 5 manned launch vehicles, 3 space capsules, a propulsive module, a lunar lander, a lunar ascent vehicle, and multiple space suits including a moon suit.
In the last decade and half, NASA has strugged and failed to develop a manned launch vehicle and a space capsule, and has begged Europe to make it a propulsive module.

Saturn V didn't cost the whole Apollo Program budget, let alone the whole Apollo Era NASA budget, you assclown.

>SLS is still even with the worst projected cost cheaper than the Saturn 5 was, while at the same time more capable.
SLS is more expensive than Saturn V and less capable. Stop believing the bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 12:01:06 2018 No.9750208 >>9750188 If you want to get into unmanned programs, NASA did a huge amount of groundbreaking work in the 60s. Jesus, pay some attention.

Anonymous Fri May 18 12:02:38 2018 No.9750209

>>9750203
>I said they spent $5 billion on Ares I development, which is where they developed the 5-segment boosters they're using on SLS, which is entirely true.

There was 8 billion spent under Constellation program, of which 4% went into Ares, the rest into Orion and Altair.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 12:03:58 2018 No.9750211 >>9750209 >There was 8 billion spent under Constellation program, of which 4% went into Ares, the rest into Orion and Altair. And you have a source for this claim?

Anonymous Fri May 18 12:05:22 2018 No.9750218

>>9750211
>The first NASA budget to include Constellation, released in 2004, asked Congress for $8.8 billion from 2005 through 2009. Almost all of that was for Orion—just four percent was set aside for procuring rockets.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2016/20160801-horizon-goal-part-2.html

Anonymous Fri May 18 12:14:58 2018 No.9750234

>>9750218
Don't be a chimp. The very next line says:
>An analysis of NASA budgets shows Constellation actually ended up spending $11.9 billion during that period—a cost overrun of $3.1 billion.

Furthermore, your source is basically a blog post. There was no request to fund Ares I or Ares V at all in the document he links. The concept hadn't been settled even in broad terms.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 12:16:29 2018 No.9750235 >>9750234 So? Overrun, and yet no money spent on actual launchers. You are free to provide a source that says there was 5 billion spent on a rocket.

Anonymous Fri May 18 12:25:11 2018 No.9750247
File: 26 KB, 350x350, soyuz_7k_lok.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9750160
>Orion's a whole other set of expenses, delays, and disappointments.
Literally just build a licensed Soyuz at this point, but the Burger government would probably fuck that up too.

Anonymous Fri May 18 12:26:09 2018 No.9750250

>>9750235
>You are free to provide a source that says there was 5 billion spent on a rocket.
Page 8: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/345225main_FY_2010_UPDATED_final_5-11-09_with_cover.pdf
Page 308: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168652main_NASA_FY08_Budget_Request.pdf

They actually flew the Ares I-X experimental rocket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I-X

You think that was free? Don't waste my time, you garbage, coming in here and making one completely false claim after another.

Anonymous Fri May 18 12:32:55 2018 No.9750259

>>9750250
>You think that was free? Don't waste my time, you garbage, coming in here and making one completely false claim after another.

4% of 8 billion is almost 400 million, so pretty close to what you would expect one experimental flight would cost.

Hey, dont be so triggered soiboi, it is you who can't read his own sources. Ares 1 is the crew launcher, ares 5 the cargo launcher, which is requesting near 0 funds.

Anonymous Fri May 18 12:34:01 2018 No.9750262

>>9750247
Dragon's been ready to carry crew for like 8 years now. They could have slapped a conventional tractor LAS on there any time, or flown without it (launch abort rockets have been a wash in terms of human life, having saved exactly one crew and had one incident where it killed ground crew, both on Soyuz, and a major expense, therefore they've been an all-factors clear net negative).

All the rest of this time has been spent trying to satisfy ridiculous and everchanging NASA safety requirements, as interpreted by bureaucrats concerned primarily with ass covering, which NASA is casually waiving for Orion and SLS, just like it waived for the shuttle.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 12:35:29 2018 No.9750264 >>9750259 Look, worthless monkey, the $5 billion they spent on Ares I is where they developed the 5-segment boosters they're using on SLS. It's money that has to be included in the cost of SLS. This is what I said from the beginning.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 12:36:40 2018 No.9750269 >>9750262 NASA is the hand that is feeding SpaceX, they are giving them billions in overpaid contracts and dozens of billions in know-how. Soibois should be thankful NASA is allowing SpaceX to exist.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 12:38:19 2018 No.9750271 >>9750264 You dont seem to realize the constellation programm was canceled in 2009. Into Ares 1 went 2 billion form 2005-2009.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 12:42:45 2018 No.9750282 >>9750271 2011* But in reality the program really never even began They didn't pick a design for the Ares V And the Orion payload was too heavy for the Ares I, which was unable to be scaled since it was a big solid rocket

Anonymous Fri May 18 12:52:07 2018 No.9750296

>>9750271
$4.8 billion in nominal dollars was spent officially designated for Ares I up to 2010. Over $5 billion in inflation-corrected dollars. They continued spending money on cancelled programs after cancellation due to contract obligations and cleanup costs. It actually went on for years after 2010.

And that doesn't account for the money spent on ground systems, which was substantial but fell under another budget item.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 13:04:22 2018 No.9750311 >>9750264 >the $5 billion they spent on Ares I is where they developed the 5-segment boosters they're using on SLS They most definetely did not spent all 5 billion on that. 2,5 billion were spent before they even decided to do that.

Anonymous Fri May 18 13:18:55 2018 No.9750326

>>9750311
So? The Constellation/SLS program has been a wasteful one with many dead ends. A name change doesn't unspend the money.

Anyway, even excluding all spending under the Constellation name, SLS is still going to end up more expensive and less capable than Saturn V on a per-launch basis. It's been over $12 billion under the SLS name so far, while still spending $2 billion per year, and still years from the first flight, and years after that to the second.

There are no plans to spend less than $2 billion per year or to launch more than once per year. Even if it launched this year and once per year at $2 billion per year, by the time it reached 13 launches, it would be at $38 billion, and above the cost of Saturn V. But in reality it's much worse than that.

There is no hope for NASA to do as well with SLS as it did with Saturn V, despite half a century of technological advancement. Bureaucratic rot outruns technological progress.

Anonymous Fri May 18 14:09:23 2018 No.9750404
File: 1.16 MB, 6668x2345, presentation13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

New update on commercial crew from NASA:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/team-simulates-commercial-crew-flights-to-space-station

>virgin Boeing astronaut vs. Chad Spacex astronaut.jpg

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 14:16:11 2018 No.9750408 I'd rather cut military spending than the SLS. NASA is positively efficient compared to the US military.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 14:28:15 2018 No.9750439 >>9750262 >launch abort rockets have been a wash in terms of human life, having saved exactly one crew and had one incident where it killed ground crew How does it feel to have autism?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 14:32:36 2018 No.9750447 File: 166 KB, 1024x1539, budget cuts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri May 18 14:55:19 2018 No.9750479

>>9750439
The two instances in which a launch escape rocket had life-and-death consequences are both Soyuz launches:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L
1983: worked correctly, saved two lives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-OK_No.1
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz-7k-ok-no1-explosion.html
1966: malfunctioned, destroying the launch vehicle, one ground crew member killed immediately, two died later checking underground passages

If anything, launch escape rockets have killed more than they've saved. There's an inherent safety problem with a violent abort system, since it has plenty of power to cause death and destruction, and can't have strong inhibitions against firing.

Less energetic abort systems have a better record. The Challenger disaster didn't need a launch escape rocket (just the ability to detach a crew cabin and deploy parachutes), and Columbia wouldn't have benefitted from one. In Soyuz 18a, the launch vehicle failed after the escape rocket had been jettisoned, so the capsule simply detatched from what was left of the launch vehicle.

If you look through all of these, there isn't a single other case where a launch escape rocket would have saved a crew that died or nearly did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

Launch escape rockets haven't proved important or worthwhile. They sound like a good idea, but they introduce new lethal failure modes and the statistics don't bear out any advantage. It's not like ejector seats on combat aircraft, which aren't there to save pilots from mechanical failure on routine point-to-point flights.

Anonymous Fri May 18 15:07:24 2018 No.9750499

>>9750479
>1966: malfunctioned, destroying the launch vehicle
>first unmanned test vehicle Soyuz
You're literally a fucking idiot. By your dumb logic the Apollo spacecraft is a fiery deathtrap, because Apollo 1 killed three astronauts, retard.

The rest of your post is just inane garbage.
>Launch escape rockets haven't proved important or worthwhile.
Saved the lives of two cosmonauts, dumbshit. Vladimir Titov is still alive, why don't you write him a letter explaining how the LES isn't worthwhile.

Anonymous Fri May 18 15:28:55 2018 No.9750537

>>9750479
>the body of a Major Leonid Korostylev, from Kirillov's launch personnel team, was later found in one of the caverns under the launch pad. He was pronounced dead of suffocation. Korostylev had been seen running from the pad with a group of soldiers, but apparently decided it was enough to hide behind the concrete wall at the edge of the facility.

>Many other soldiers and officers were reportedly injured, but survived. (774) However two conscripts, who were sent to check underground passages below the pad, got overwhelmed by still lingering oxygen vapors and unable to use their gas masks, succumbed as well the next day. (201)

These had literally nothing to do with the launch escape system

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 15:37:14 2018 No.9750559 >>9745632 >NASA Thats's JPL though. NASA has become a pork program for congress to keep jobs in their district. Look at why SLS is shit, it's the same Shuttle components and bloated budgets.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 15:39:27 2018 No.9750562 >>9745890 >The SLS will be more powerful, than the Saturn 5 "No!" Those are the theoretical SLS upgrades with a yet to be designed second stage

Anonymous Fri May 18 15:41:39 2018 No.9750567

>>9750499
It was "Vehicle No. 1", but Vehicle No. 2 had flown first. Anyway, it was an unmanned test flight of a crew vehicle.

>Saved the lives of two cosmonauts
Killed three ground crew, and injured others. Why don't you write their families letters about how their lives are worth less than 2/3 of the life of a cosmonaut?

There have been other non-fatal mishaps, such as the Little Joe 1 LES misfire, then the Mercury-Redstone 1 LES misfire. Yes, they tend to happen early in the lives of vehicles, during unmanned tests. That doesn't mean they can't happen later and can't kill people.

More importantly, look at how there's only been one case of a launch escape rocket doing its job, and no cases of a fatal accident without one where an escape rocket would have saved the crew. An escape rocket is pretty much only good for explosions on the pad, or very shortly after launch, and that's a vanishingly small minority of man-rated launch vehicle failures.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 15:42:59 2018 No.9750569 >>9750183 >SLS is still even with the worst projected cost cheaper than the Saturn 5 was, while at the same time more capable. Something that as of yet has not flown is not more capable. A toy rocket is more capable than SLS at the moment

Anonymous Fri May 18 15:43:44 2018 No.9750574

>>9750537
>These had literally nothing to do with the launch escape system
The whole situation which led to their deaths was created by the launch escape system's failure.

Why do you think he suffocated? He didn't run far enough from the exploding rocket. He stopped running to take cover too soon.

That casualties were as light as they were is near miraculous.

Anonymous Fri May 18 15:45:05 2018 No.9750577

>>9750193
And that`s an issues how? It obviously has a huge backlog, meaning it serves a niche, and it obviously does so quite well.
So you are making fun of a rocket being quite good for the market it was developed for because it isn`t as powerful as a launch vehicle that as of yet isn`t anywhere near its maiden flight?

Anonymous Fri May 18 15:45:54 2018 No.9750580
File: 2 KB, 125x112, 1513133683246s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9750574
>The whole situation which led to their deaths was created by the launch escape system's failure.
the Challenger disaster was caused by launching the shuttle in conditions outside its design parameters
clearly though it was the SRB's fault

>mfw a spacex bfr explodes and kills 100 people in one go because of no launch escape system

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 15:48:46 2018 No.9750583 >>9750580 BFR will have launch escape capability, though. The upper stage can lift off from the lower stage on its own. I have no idea what point you think you're making with the rest of that post.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 15:50:10 2018 No.9750586 >>9750447 FAKE The acutal launch tower leans https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/nasa-spends-1-billion-for-a-launch-tower-that-leans-may-only-be-used-once/

Anonymous Fri May 18 15:51:43 2018 No.9750591
File: 434 KB, 835x767, S-HElEJJ1Jg9aFvVSCRlq74xDWS6RMbaEj4wUkziEjc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Ariane Group CEO literally confirmed spacex is running on us gov subsidy by essentially offering overpriced launches to the military.
>muh private sector
>muh reusability
muskrat fanboi libertardian status; BTFO

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 15:53:59 2018 No.9750599 >>9750583 >The upper stage can lift off from the lower stage on its own. Not when the lower stage is exploding

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 15:56:29 2018 No.9750602 >>9750591 >US government cucking its own taxpayers and its own space programm >Musk fanboy BTFO Nope, you got confused there. It`s the US government BTFOing itself

Anonymous Fri May 18 15:59:24 2018 No.9750610

>>9750591
SpaceX has received nearly $6 billion in government money. They've had 61 launches with 7 failures, so really the USG pays $60 million plus $6 billion/54 = $171 million per launch from SpaceX

Atlas V costs $90 million per launch. SpaceX shills are completely retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 16:00:47 2018 No.9750614 I'm not even sure how it's legal for private entities to launch rockets. That's like letting people own nuclear bombs. Kind of makes sense its happening in america, the country of the daily school shootings.

Anonymous Fri May 18 16:05:23 2018 No.9750619

>>9750610
Lockheed Martin go $1,518,049,513 in Government subsidies and $1,459,210,935 Federal loans, loan guarantees and bailout assistance (not including repayments),
>Earliest year of data: 1996. Availability of data for earlier years varies greatly from program to program. The majority of the listings for this parent company are for the period since 2010.

Anonymous Fri May 18 16:07:39 2018 No.9750621

>>9750610
>We first introduced you to ULA's ELC -- the annual Air Force payment to ULA for evolved expendable launch vehicle launch capability -- two years ago. Essentially a retainer agreement, ELC covers ULA's fixed costs for building and launching rockets. The ELC assures that ULA can afford to provide access to space as and when needed by the Air Force. But such assurance doesn't come cheap.
>For example, the most recent ELC, announced Sept. 30, 2016, saw the Air Force award ULA $860.8 million to provide "Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle launch capability for the Delta IV and Atlas V families of launch vehicles." Then, on May 19 of this year, the Air Force forked over another $208.1 million to pay ULA to launch a single Atlas V 551 rocket "under the requirements contract terms of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Phase I contract."
>This bifurcation of launch costs has become routine. (In 2015, for example, ULA received $882.1 million as an EELV retainer. In 2014, the award was worth $938.4 million.) So ULA probably thought it could count on receiving this money year after year, every year. Problem is, the ELC was originally authorized in an era when there was only one provider available to launch U.S. government satellites into space, and the government needed to ensure that that provider would not go insolvent.

Anonymous Fri May 18 16:10:48 2018 No.9750630

>>9750621
ELC no longer exists, and paid for far more launches than government money for SpaceX. In effect, cancelling ELC gave the Air Force half price ($45 million) on all remaining block buy launches (22 of them.)

>>9750619
>Lockheed Martin is the sole owner of 15% of US debt
bullshit

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 16:12:49 2018 No.9750633 >>9750630 https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/lockheed-martin

Anonymous Fri May 18 16:18:17 2018 No.9750641

>>9750567
>Yes, they tend to happen early in the lives of vehicles, during unmanned tests. That doesn't mean they can't happen later and can't kill people.
>look at how there's only been one case of a launch escape rocket doing its job
Wow, did an LES fuck your mother or what? You do realize you're on an autistic crusade against an inanimate object?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 16:27:05 2018 No.9750658 >>9750619 >>9750633 Almost none of this is even for space applications let alone rockets Nice strawman

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 16:31:55 2018 No.9750669 >>9750610 >SpaceX has received nearly $6 billion in government money. Government subsidies, or is the money SpaceX got for launching shit with government contracts included there? Pls no clickbait articles as source.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 16:33:21 2018 No.9750672 >>9750669 >government money or government money the state of muskrat fanboys

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 16:36:21 2018 No.9750682 >>9750669 Usually when people cite a $5 or $6 billion number they're counting Musk's Solarcity and Tesla subsidies as SpaceX for... some reason.

Anonymous Fri May 18 16:40:26 2018 No.9750687

>>9750672
For starters, it makes adding the money on top of the $60 million pretty retarded if all the money the Government spend on launches was already included in the $6 billion.
Then its also rather doubtful that the government decided to launch with SpaceX because they liked Musks smugness, so my guess would be that launching with SpaceX was cheaper than with competitors, so whats the issues with that?

I really don`t understand what point you are trying to make here, other that the US Government seems to think that launching on a Falcon has some merit over launching on some other rocket, which to me seems to be a point in SpaceXs favor.
Also nice source you posted.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 16:41:45 2018 No.9750690 >>9750682 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=43924.0;attach=1478650;sess=0 Kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 16:43:21 2018 No.9750692 >>9750690 What the fuck is this link?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 16:49:57 2018 No.9750710 File: 616 KB, 1023x763, 1524034422466.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9750692 Downloads an excel document

Anonymous Fri May 18 17:04:40 2018 No.9750756

>>9750610

>Atlas V costs $90 million per launch.

$109 million for cheapest Atlas V launch. Also that does not include subsidies ULA receives, real cost is like $250 million per launch average.

>$171 million per launch from SpaceX

This includes costs for Dragon, not just the rocket.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 17:57:13 2018 No.9750873 >>9750687 he isn't trying to make a point, it's a literal troll. just ignore him

Anonymous Fri May 18 18:21:48 2018 No.9750916

>>9750193
It can they demonstrated long coast on FH flight
>>9750203
5 segment SRB were developed in STS studies for extra ISS upmass
>>9750247
Soyuz would fail NASA certification outright it has problems with staging every few missions and has killed 2 crews in similar number of flights to STS.NASA would just change certification criteria till the end of time just to avoid actually flying anything
>>9750282
AresV went through tons of cash in design studies on things like rs68b and how to solve base heating problems on that rocket.
>>9750499
But we were damn lucky that Apollo only killed one crew A13 was very very close and if rotation fo SM was different A8 or A10 would die
>>9750591
Ariane gets what 160 mil euro a year for their rockets and capex and r&d they do is provided extra by EU like Ariane6 that gets nearly 4 billion with no strings attached to get A64 flying

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 18:28:19 2018 No.9750929 >>9750916 >5 segment SRB were developed in STS studies for extra ISS upmass Work was done on them, but they weren't brought to practical maturity. More work was done on them for Ares I, and still more was done for SLS.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 18:34:37 2018 No.9750939 >>9750929 Yes and even prior to that ASRB were developed better and safer than SRB in response to challenger but politics killed it.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 19:01:26 2018 No.9750996 >>9750916 Both those death happened on first generation Soyuz 7K vehicles. >Soyuz 7K-T killed nobody >Soyuz T killed nobody >Soyuz TM killed nobody >Soyuz TMA killed nobody >Soyuz TMA-M killed nobody >Soyuz MS so far killed nobody

>>	Anonymous Fri May 18 19:16:45 2018 No.9751026 SLS is just a way to keep Boeing/LM duopoly floating.

Anonymous Fri May 18 21:20:20 2018 No.9751204
File: 40 KB, 599x268, boeing.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9748945

>It's a Boeing ruins everything again episode

Even the CST-100 is turning into a fucking joke.. this is what the US taxpayer is funding with NASA right now failures and delays.

I unironically hope the Dragon 2 delivers by the end of the year and Boeing is put in the dirt...

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 02:57:52 2018 No.9751820 >>9751204 The purpose of QC is to catch issues like that. The SLS program is of tremendous importance and it is good such minor problems were discovered early. And Starliner will carry crew to the ISS before whatever spacex is making.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 04:47:39 2018 No.9751940 >>9751204 How the fuck did making a LEO capsule become this hard. CST-100 is literally a shittier Orion, and it seems like Dragon 2 has been all but forgotten.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 04:49:17 2018 No.9751941 Do any of you faggots have L2 and can tell us what's up with SLS block 1B?

Anonymous Sat May 19 05:00:06 2018 No.9751950

>>9751820
>The SLS program is of tremendous importance

Tremendous importance for the pockets of politicians. Not for spaceflight. It is Apollo except with once per year launch rate and no lander. This is the state of spaceflight after 5 decades after Moon landing. It is a national disgrace.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 07:24:48 2018 No.9752136 >>9751940 I have three demo flights for the Dragon 2 (uncrewed, inflight abort and crewed) scheduled on a spaceflight-app, happening "during 2018". Other than that its been really quiet, on both the Dragon and the Boeing-thingy.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 07:49:32 2018 No.9752157 >>9741852 they're already working on resurrecting the J-5 engines, the new 3D-printed versions are much cheaper and faster to make too.

Anonymous Sat May 19 08:22:30 2018 No.9752194

>>9752136
Right now it looks like August, December, and one unspecified date in between.
CST-100 is now "sometime in 2019-2020" for its first manned flight, which sounds like a shocking schedule slip.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 09:22:29 2018 No.9752268 >>9752194 Im taking everything date-related from SpaceX with a truckload of salt, though. God knows i've been let down in that area before >FH im looking at you

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 10:20:29 2018 No.9752360 File: 363 KB, 1371x1920, mac-rebisz-20150210-shuttle-c-007.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9745006 Did we just reinvent the Shuttle-C?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 10:26:08 2018 No.9752368 >>9752157 J5? Dude there never was such an engine. J2 was resurrected in form of J2X just to be abandoned after 1.5Billion$ were spent on that.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 12:00:20 2018 No.9752506 >>9745005 After the teardown of the Bangabandhu-1 booster, we'll find out if that's actually viable

Anonymous Sat May 19 12:25:41 2018 No.9752543

>>9744845
>Even very minimalistic and grounded in reality architectures to get people to Mars involve budgets approaching and easily exceeding a trillion dollars

Please research Mars Direct, a mission architecture designed around making sense and using Mars as a source of useful chemicals rather than on making as many different technological departments happy as possible.

Simplified, the plan would be to send a habitat and an Earth return vehicle to Mars, unmanned, to land propulsively in a scientifically interesting area. The Earth return vehicle (ERV) carries a tank of hydrogen and a small nuclear reactor, which when turned on puts out a few hundred kilowatts. The ERV uses the power from the reactor plus the hydrogen on board and CO2 from outside to manufacture methane and oxygen propellants in slight excess of what is required to fill up the ERV's tanks. The refueling process takes a while, but is completed before the next Mars launch window opens up. On confirmation that the ERV is ready to go, the crew is launched in another ERV with a simultaneous launch of a second surface habitat. Both land nearby the refilled ERV and the previous habitat, and the surface mission commences.

The surface stay lasts until the Earth return window opens around a year later. During this time the ERV the astronauts came in is refilling itself while they live in the habitat modules a short distance away. When it comes time to leave, they launch with the fully fueled ERV sent during the first launch window and head back to Earth, while at the same time another crew is launching with yet another ERV and habitat module. The ERV that the first crew came in will serve as the return flight for the second crew, etc.

This mission architecture is scalable and results in an ever expanding facility on Mars' surface. Total program costs up to the first mission are estimated around $50 billion, but afterwards a single mission costs ~$0.5 billion to perform.

Anonymous Sat May 19 12:30:02 2018 No.9752555

>>9745070
Okay, but if you have 200 people refurbish a rocket in a week and have the contracts lined up so you actually launch it every week or so, you make much more money every year.

It's the difference between ~5 launches a year per rocket and ~50. With the same costs associated and the same profit margin, you net 10x as much profit by launching often. That helps pay for your company wages and annual utilities.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 12:31:36 2018 No.9752559 >>9746062 BFR will certainly at least be doing hops and probably orbital test flights before SLS Block 1B is flying.

Anonymous Sat May 19 12:34:26 2018 No.9752563

>>9745349
NASA'a numbers were purely experience based. They know what they paid Boeing/Lockheed/Others for comparable pieces of technology and their development, and assumed a cost of around $4 billion as a minimum. SpaceX did it for ~$400 million.

This was a surprise to NASA to say the least, but it's probably THE reason for the sudden shift towards fixed price contracting for new NASA programs nowadays.

Anonymous Sat May 19 12:41:55 2018 No.9752577

>>9745361
>Those aren't super heavy lift launchers.

>A super heavy-lift launch vehicle (SHLLV) is a launch vehicle capable of lifting more than 50,000 kg (110,000 lb) of payload into low Earth orbit (LEO).
>Falcon Heavy's maximum payload to LEO mass is 64,000 kg

hmmmmmm
perhaps your argument is 'Falcon Heavy is only half as big so of course it would cost 50x less to develop, everyone knows rockets get exponentially more expensive to develop the bigger they get!'
Which is also wrong.

Anonymous Sat May 19 12:46:36 2018 No.9752587

>>9745482
Energia was a super heavy lift launch vehicle when it didn't launch with Buran.
Really the idea was genius, build a machine that can match or exceed any capabilities the Americans may have with their Shuttle, but design the stack in such a way that the orbiter is merely an optional payload rather than a required propulsion unit. The Soviets actually thought that the claims that Shuttle would reduce launch prices by being reusable were just a cover, which is why they didn't bother attempting to recover the engines at all, kek.

Really I wonder why they didn't mount Buran on top of the stack though, since that would allow Energia to launch payloads like a normal rocket and essentially be an SLS block 2 from the 80's, with better engines and liquid boosters enabling higher performance as long as they added an upper stage.

Anonymous Sat May 19 12:50:59 2018 No.9752595

>>9745890
Block 2 would be more capable than Saturn V.
'Powerful' doesn't really mean shit in SLS' case since the booster Isp is so low that it negatively effects performance. A kerosene booster system with less overall thrust but better Isp would vastly increase payload limits, and what do you know, that's what the biggest version of SLS Block 2 would have used, except they cancelled that idea strictly because it would have cut out the Orbital ATK solid booster pork.

Anonymous Sat May 19 12:55:45 2018 No.9752604

>>9745916
DC-X, which was actually a promising design but was cancelled because X-33/Venture Star was the favorite child, except oops that ran into a shit ton of weight and balance issues, fuel tank cracking and mass issues, and so on until NASA decided to pull out. In fact they didn't outright cancel Venture Star, they just 'left it to Lockheed' to decide to continue development or not. Lockheed shut that shit down because they were already making money hand over fist due to inflated expendable launch vehicle contracts from NASA and government anyway.

How is this an example of NASA not wasting money again? When SpaceX built and tested their hopper they actually used the technology to recover and reuse real operating boosters on actual missions . . .

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 13:03:23 2018 No.9752617 >>9745987 Staged combustion engines

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 13:06:36 2018 No.9752622 >>9746941 >2rd turd

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 13:07:45 2018 No.9752625 >>9747130 Grasshopper never failed, F9R did, due to the sticky valve you mentioned. Grasshopper was retired peacefully and currently sits somewhere at the McGregor test facility somewhere.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 13:13:07 2018 No.9752634 >>9741829 Just fucking lol. This shit should have been happening in 1993.

Anonymous Sat May 19 13:16:30 2018 No.9752639

>>9747308
>Reusability will never be practical with the severe payload hit it imposes - about 30% in the best case scenario.

Launch rocket twice. You've now put 140% of the payload as you would if you expended your rocket on one launch, for the same manufacturing cost. Now launch the rocket again 100 times total, you've put 70 times more payload to orbit but still only spent the same amount of money building the rocket. Even if refurbishing the rocket costs half as much as building an entirely new rocket you're still better off reusable.

Falcon 9 is well beyond the '50% cheaper to reuse than to build' point, and refurbishment is only going to be cheaper with F9 Block 5. BFR will be taking a hit on max payload per launch but will vastly increase lifetime payload delivery, and since BFR is very large anyway reducing max payload by 70% has essentially no impact on actual launch service, unlike a smaller rocket. Nobody is currently building payloads even close to 150 tons, and that's what BFR will be capable of in fully reusable mode. BFR in expendable mode would get 250 tons, and BFR modified for an expendable mission would get even more (no legs, heat shield, body flap hydraulics, fins, or other reuse hardware increasing dry mass). Of course BFR won't ever fly expendable unless some entity with very deep pockets wanted to use it to launch something big very far.

Anonymous Sat May 19 13:21:44 2018 No.9752648

>>9749698
The superior part of Energia-Buran was the fact that Energia could launch without Buran, meaning it could operate either as a Shuttle clone or as an SLS-like rocket with zero modification.

Energia on its own could launch something like 100 tons to LEO, or it could launch ~30 tons inside Buran. If Shuttle worked like that we could have had the ISS built in several large chunks instead of baby bits, and could have used the same rocket to do fucking Moon missions rather than be stuck in LEO forever.

It's a shame the Soviet union collapsed when it did and took Energia with it. Having the Soviets dicking around in cislunar space would have lit a hydrazine fire under America's ass.

Anonymous Sat May 19 13:22:12 2018 No.9752650

>>9752639
plus, we're going to see a big shift towards probes etc with two parts, the probe part and the tug part. Just launch each one at a time. There, you have a 150t titan probe or whatever that doesn't take years to reach its destination.

it's gonna be great

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 13:23:29 2018 No.9752654 >>9749744 At full capacity Rocketdyne expects to be able to produce 4 RS-25 engines per year, which means SLS will be limited to exactly one flight per 12 months, maximum. Oh, and that's with a price tag of around $100 million per engine.

Anonymous Sat May 19 13:26:15 2018 No.9752660

>>9750008
SpaceX makes money on every launch they do, but they make more money on government launches because of the extra requirements and hoops they have to jump through. When a non-government customer wants a launch the specify their orbit and go. When a government entity wants a launch there's about 30 million kilometers of red tape to clean up before the light turns green.

Anonymous Sat May 19 13:42:57 2018 No.9752680

>>9750282
>But in reality the program really never even began
The only thing they didn't start work on was the Ares-V specific hardware. The solids would have been shared between Ares-V and Ares-I, Ares-I was developed to the point of testing the first stage in an actual boilerplate vehicle flight (which fucked up the launch tower due to the solid rocket's thrust vectoring lol), and of course Orion had a bunch of work done on it and continues to exist today. The Constellation program absolutely began, however it was lame and slow from the beginning and really never gained much momentum.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 13:44:11 2018 No.9752684 >>9750404 >I'm blue daboodedaboodai

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 13:46:01 2018 No.9752685 >>9750537 >overwhelmed by oxygen vapors wat

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 13:47:17 2018 No.9752687 >>9750580 A design flaw of the SRB was what made the conditions of that morning out of spec, and it was go fever among NASA administration which caused the launch to occur anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 13:51:07 2018 No.9752694 >>9750672 >government buying a product is the same thing as government awarding free money to ensure product continues to exist no buddy

Anonymous Sat May 19 13:55:31 2018 No.9752700

>>9752157
J-2 engines, and the idea was to develop a new engine similar to the J-2 called J-2X, but afaik that idea has been scrapped.

There was also the liquid fueled Pyrios booster proposal for Block 2 which would have used modernized F-1 engines with more thrust and less weight, but that was also thrown out simply because SLS needs to use solid boosters otherwise pork spending isn't being funneled into Orbital ATK anymore. Such a shame, because that 130 tons to LEO figure came specifically from the Pyrios-SLS Block 2 design.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 13:57:29 2018 No.9752704 >>9752360 More like reinvented Buran-Energia, since Energia had the main engines and the boosters whereas Buran was just along for the ride to LEO.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 14:04:50 2018 No.9752717 >>9752650 Exactly, you could even take advantage of BFR orbital refueling to get some serious tug stages up there as well, ones that would be way too heavy if we launched them while full.

Anonymous Sat May 19 14:21:51 2018 No.9752753

>>9752559
>BFR will certainly at least be doing hops and probably orbital test flights before SLS Block 1B is flying.
I think you mean "SLS Block 1A".

SLS isn't doing even its most basic test flight before the end of 2020, and frankly I doubt it'll launch in 2021 either. BFR test hops should start in 2019, and almost certainly will in 2020. Orbital tests are far harder to predict.

Anonymous Sat May 19 14:24:06 2018 No.9752758

>>9752587
>Energia was a super heavy lift launch vehicle when it didn't launch with Buran.
It was a super heavy lift launch vehicle on paper. In practice, its only successful orbital flight was with Buran, and Buran wasn't put in orbit by Energia, so it was a stage, not a payload.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 14:26:56 2018 No.9752762 >>9752685 I think this must have been a mistranslation of oxidizer vapors. The oxidizer was nitric acid, and would have given off highly toxic nitrogen dioxide vapors.

Anonymous Sat May 19 15:56:44 2018 No.9752918

>>9752753
I'm saying even if we're very pessimistic on BFR and extremely optimistic on SLS, we won't see more than 1 launch of SLS before we start seeing flight tests of BFR.

Also Block 1A doesn't exist anymore. The original lineup was Block 1, using the interim cryogenic upper stage, then Block 1A using the same interim stage but upgraded boosters and Block 1B using the same boosters but the upgraded exploration upper stage, then finally Block 2 which used both the exploration upper stage and the upgraded boosters.

Block 1A was cancelled because it was determined that the G forces from using stronger boosters with a smaller upper stage would be too high. Instead the boosters will be upgraded after the EUS is completed and integrated, meaning the development cycle will go 1 flight Block 1, X flights Block 1 B, Y flights Block 2. At least it would if Block 2 ever gets funding, which I doubt.

Honestly the development cycle of SLS made and continues to make no fucking sense. The plan to use a preexisting Delta IV upper stage on SLS was purely to make the first flight of SLS happen sooner than it would had they had to develop the EUS first. Unfortunately in real life that means developing an entire fucking one-off launch vehicle then changing everything to make it work with the bigger upper stage on all subsequent flights. The original idea of introducing upgraded boosters and the EUS on two separate vehicles was also retarded.
A much more sensible plan would be to develop a single, common SLS core stack with the EUS integrated to begin with, and two sets of booster configurations. The first would be Block 1 and would essentially be what we're calling SLS Block 1B. The second would be Block 2 and would use higher performance liquid boosters for maximum payload, but greater cost than the solids on Block 1A. 1A would launch lighter payloads, Orion, and interplanetary probes, whereas Block 2 would launch very heavy payloads like big Lunar landers and transfer stages.

Anonymous Sat May 19 16:01:46 2018 No.9752928

>>9752758
Sure, but that's because the Soviet Union collapsed, not because the design was incapable of that kind of performance. Just as the Shuttle made it almost to orbit with the EFT then staged it off to circularize with the orbital maneuvering system, Buran was carried just shy of orbit with Energia and completed orbit insertion on its own. Non-Buran payloads on Energia would either need to circularize with their own propulsion, use a stage newly developed tug module to do the job for them (acting as a side-mounted second stage), or have Energia itself take it up to orbit. The third option is probably the most payload limiting and the first option relies on a different vehicle performing the final burn every time, so the tug/2nd stage module would probably be the best one to develop, had they been able to keep Energia operating.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 16:02:54 2018 No.9752930 >>9752762 That would make sense. Nitrogen dioxide would be bad but the nitric acid itself would be worse, as it would immediately destroy the lining of the lungs if one were to inhale it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 16:25:25 2018 No.9752976 >>9752680 The Ares test launch was only a 4 segment booster, not the final intended 5 segment booster

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 16:30:43 2018 No.9752991 >>9752976 They still pumped a very significant amount of funding into that test launch, which as we all know amounted to nothing when the program was scrapped.

Anonymous Sat May 19 20:35:27 2018 No.9753510

>>9752918
>The plan to use a preexisting Delta IV upper stage on SLS was purely to make the first flight of SLS happen sooner than it would had they had to develop the EUS first.
It was solely to meet the requirement given in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that SLS should launch by the end of 2016.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 19 20:46:12 2018 No.9753536 >>9753510 Yes, to make the first launch happen sooner, and it worked out great! 2018 and we're still two years away from the first launch, only 4 years late (pending further delays).

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 01:00:12 2018 No.9754010 >>9751940 It isn't hard, they just know that if they never ever actually produce anything, they'll still get infinite money from NASA

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 01:47:16 2018 No.9754106 Where did you guys learn about rockets? i'd like to get more into them,any suggested books or articles?

Anonymous Sun May 20 03:46:14 2018 No.9754266

>>9752918
The BFR doesn't even have its engines yet. I don't know why SpaceX would put out a design of a rocket without knowing the specs of the engine yet.

And the engines is the easiest part when building such a massive rocket.

Realistically speaking, it's definetely not going to debut before 2025, and Mars mission not earlier than a decade later.

Anonymous Sun May 20 11:11:55 2018 No.9754908

>>9754266
>The BFR doesn't even have its engines yet.
The flight engine is in production right now.

>I don't know why SpaceX would put out a design of a rocket without knowing the specs of the engine yet.
If the rocket thrust changes they can adjust the height of the vehicle, reducing (or increasing) the mass of fuel/structure each engine carries, until the desired thrust to weight ratio is achieved. Stretching a rocket is much easier than making it wider, which is why Falcon 9 has been stretched multiple times as the engines have had their thrust output increased.

>And the engines is the easiest part when building such a massive rocket.
The engines are the hardest part of any rocket. Structures don't get much harder as size increases, and in many ways the fact that they're using carbon fiber composites on a mandril makes it easier than if it were made of metal.

>Realistically speaking, it's definetely not going to debut before 2025, and Mars mission not earlier than a decade later.
The upper stage/spaceship is going to prove out all the new technologies on BFR first, such as the carbon fiber composite structures and the autogenous pressurization system. With this experience under their belt building the first stage is essentially the same as building a bigger F9 booster, just with better engines and materials. The construction of the first BFR Booster will wait for the suborbital test program of the Spaceship to be complete. Unlike Falcon Heavy, BFR doesn't have an always-changing rocket design it depends on, and SpaceX is diverting a majority of their resources over to it's design and construction. Even if they have severe problems developing BFR I don't see the first full stack launch happening any later than 2023, conservatively.

The Mars missions are a different story. I don't think they'll meet their goals for the first Mars flight by early 2020's, but I do think they will perform at least one Lunar landing mission before 2025.

Anonymous Sun May 20 11:30:09 2018 No.9754942

>>9754908
In development is not in production you retard. They don't even have a full-scale engine yet.

I'm not only talking about capability specs. temperaturs, size, architecture, pressure, etc. of the engine can change the design of a rocket by A LOT. Especially if you are planning to put dozens of them on the rocket. None of that is final for the Raptor engine.

There are numerous engines capable enough to power a rocket of that size. Engines are not the issue. The issue is building a rocket that can withstand that much thrust without falling apart and with that level of complexity without failure (see N-1 rocket from the Soviets).

They are also not developing the Raptor because they need its capability. They are developing it because thy (like BO) believe a methane engine increases the reusability of the engine. This is the only reason both of them are developing new ones. They are not better than existing ones by any metric.

The BFR will probably never fly, and if it does, it will be in the 2030s or even later than that. This is not taking a russian rocket and making it more cost-effective (like the Falcon 9 was).

Anonymous Sun May 20 11:45:30 2018 No.9754978

>>9754908
There's a fancy Aerospace industry conference in LA on May 24th which Tom Mueller is attending to receive an award. The description of his talk promised 'more information about the Mars architecture' so it's possible that the full-scale Raptor test-fire will showcased there by the man who actually designed it. This is even more likely when you consider that SpaceX had reportedly started building the full-scale version months ago; and that their contract with the airforce for it's development ended in April. I'm interested in what it's new specifications are now that's it's basically been confirmed that the BFR will be taller than the one shown at IAC 2017, it's likely the thrust and maybe the chamber pressure has been increased.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 11:51:43 2018 No.9754994 >>9754978 "Reportedely" meaning wet dreams of the SpaceX fanboys.

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:07:33 2018 No.9755020

>>9754942
>They don't even have a full-scale engine yet.
Yes they do, it's in production right now. I know what development is, they're building the flight version RIGHT NOW.

>The issue is building a rocket that can withstand that much thrust without falling apart and with that level of complexity without failure

Designing around known thrust values isn't hard and number of engines isn't why N1 failed. It was impossible to test fire the N1 first stage with the equipment the Soviets had and to rush things they decided to test the stage by launching it. Also the engines they used had ablative nozzles that would need to be replaced after every test fire anyway. BFR only has 4 more first stage engines than Falcon Heavy, and they're all on a single core which makes it much easier as well.

>They are also not developing the Raptor because they need its capability.
The fuck are you on about? Raptor uses methane because it's better for reusability yes, but it also significantly more efficient than kerosene while being far denser than hydrogen. BFR's performance as a launch vehicle would be much lower if it used the same mass of kerosene fuel and much higher if it used the same mass of hydrogen fuel. However, hydrogen is so low density that for the same mass of fuel the volume required is approximately 12 times bigger, which would make BFR too bulky and would mess with its reentry characteristics and dry mass ratio.

>BFR probably won't fly
BFR will probably be the most successful rocket of all time even if it ends up being 10x as expensive as SpaceX expects.

>Falcon 9 just a better Russian rocket
Dumb.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 12:15:53 2018 No.9755036 File: 25 KB, 1817x227, 1526398165082.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9754942 >The BFR will probably never fly, and if it does, it will be in the 2030s or even later than that. Screencapped, thanks.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 12:16:34 2018 No.9755038 >>9754266 >And the engines is the easiest part when building such a massive rocket. holy shit, just stop posting pls

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:22:04 2018 No.9755049

>>9754908
Stop being delusional fanboi the bfr is and will remain a paper pr rocket.
Neither NASA nor Russia managed to make anything remotely like this since the birth of rocketry and the idea that some tiny private company with little experience and money will somehow succeed is so ridiculous it wouldn't fit even in soft scifi story. Might as well believe warp drives are around the corner as well.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 12:22:47 2018 No.9755051 >>9755036 you've gotta be close to the gigabyte range in that folder by now

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 12:23:23 2018 No.9755052 >>9755020 Falcon 9 is in fact not a BETTER rocket, but a CHEAPER rocket. Big difference. >>9755038 Name one rocket development that failed because they couldnt develop the engines.

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:24:19 2018 No.9755055

>>9754942
>In development is not in production you retard. They don't even have a full-scale engine yet.
They haven't shown it publicly. That doesn't mean they don't have it, though I'd like to see some support for the claim that they're in production already. (note that there's no actual contradiction between "in development" and "in production", since SpaceX will produce numerous development engines)

Remember when they suddenly had a subscale prototype working and a full-scale prototype LOX tank? They didn't show any of the steps leading up to that. They're not like Blue Origin, showing everything they've got because they're struggling to win a contract.

>They are developing it because thy (like BO) believe a methane engine increases the reusability of the engine.
Methane was chosen primarily as the most suitable fuel for very high chamber pressure, which means high efficiency and deep throttling potential even at sea level (for reliable landings). They're continuing to develop new engines because SpaceX isn't the kind of company that decides what they have is more or less good enough and fires its top engineering talent. They pursue continuous improvement as a core value, with a strategy of pulling farther and farther ahead of the competition and opening new markets, instead of getting a small lead and resting on their laurels.

>They are not better than existing ones by any metric.
Thrust-weight ratio. Cost-thrust ratio. Balance of specific impulse and density impulse. Number of ignitions without maintenance. Minutes fired without maintenance. If you think you can't justify Raptor with metrics, you're looking at the wrong metrics.

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:25:59 2018 No.9755059

>>9755049
Sure, because the golden age of government rocket development never ended and they've actually been trying really hard to develop new and better rockets since the 70's and didn't stagnate completely after the end of the space race. That's why no modern development projects are hampered by pork barrel spending and political design requirements, and why we're not still using 30 and 40 year old engines instead of developing new and cheaper versions with modern manufacturing technology.

You fucking mong.

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:29:08 2018 No.9755064

>>9755052
F9 uses less efficient propulsion technology yet achieves double the payload performance for roughly the same price. I'd argue that makes it a better rocket in all ways that matter, just like how Falcon Heavy is better than Delta IV Heavy despite being much less propulsively efficient.

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:29:54 2018 No.9755066

>>9755055
>Remember when they suddenly had a subscale prototype working and a full-scale prototype LOX tank? They didn't show any of the steps leading up to that. They're not like Blue Origin, showing everything they've got because they're struggling to win a contract.

That has to be some sort of motherfucking joke. BO was literally completely secretive about anything they do up until a few months ago, when Bezos obviously wanted to have some lime-light.

Reddit upvotes, YouTube views and facebook likes don't win you launch contracts. BO has a supply contract for ULA in the making since years and 8 launches planned. None of that happened because of meme-bullshit.

SpaceX, on the other hand, desperately needs the meme-bullshit, because quite literally they are paying their employees in memes and reddit upvotes instead of money. This is why you can be absoluetely sure Elon will instantly tweet or instagram every little progress they make.

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:32:04 2018 No.9755070

>>9755020
>dumb
The falcon engines are essentially russian design.
Funny how the hydrogen focused american aerospace industry produced quality kerosene engine after buying a number of russian ones...
And of course it was a totally fresh newcomer company so as to avoid bad pr from reverse engineering for the likes of aerojet.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 12:33:21 2018 No.9755071 >>9755064 In rocketry efficiency is EVERYTHING.

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:36:36 2018 No.9755080

>>9755052
>Name one rocket development that failed because they couldnt develop the engines.
Every rocket proposal (Nova, UR-700, etc) that was not selected for the sole reason that the propulsion technology would be too hard to develop. Nova required the M-1 to work, and the M-1 was cancelled because a hydrogen engine with the thrust of an F-1 was too difficult at the time. UR-700 was not selected because it would require the development of an extremely high chamber pressure hypergolic staged combustion engine, which was considered beyond the capabilities of the time.
The only rockets that have had a chance to fail in the structural development process were the ones where the propulsion technology was mature enough to not be a huge risk in developing. Raptor has been in development for years, and only once it approached flight readiness did the structural work on BFR begin, which led to where we are now.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 12:39:17 2018 No.9755084 >>9755051 not him, but my collage folder is up to 50 posts now; 4.4MB

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:44:26 2018 No.9755087

>>9755070
During the 90's/early 2000's NASA had a program called Space Launch Initiative which developed a few engines which weren't actually flown. One of these engines was a kerosene gas-generator design based on the F-1 design but much smaller. This engine's main improvement was the injection system which used a pintle design instead of a 'showerhead'.

Fast forward a few years and SpaceX is developing the Merlin 1A. They had some people on their team that worked on the SLI program and had access to all that information. With a few design tweaks and some performance upgrades they developed the Merlin 1A, a rather low efficiency engine but simple to build.

Fast forward to now and the Merlin has been through several large design updates and a few smaller ones, resulting in an engine with the highest thrust to weight ratio in the world, and is the most efficient kerosene gas generator engine ever built. It is nothing at all like Russian engines, which use oxygen rich staged combustion, because SpaceX couldn't afford to develop such an engine when they were new and they certainly couldn't afford to throw them away on a small launch vehicle like Falcon 1.

Staged combustion engines are better in every way compared to the gas-generator engines like Merlin 1D, however they are also much more expensive. Falcon 9 is cost effective because it uses simpler, less efficient but far cheaper engines than Atlas V for example, which straight up uses engines bought from Russia.

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:45:40 2018 No.9755089

>>9755066
>BO was literally completely secretive about anything they do up until a few months ago, when Bezos obviously wanted to have some lime-light.
It's not because Bezos wants attention, it's because they need to win the contract, and showing progress in public makes it politically harder to dismiss them.

>BO has a supply contract for ULA in the making since years
Yes, it's been "in the making since years" and still no ink on paper. ULA can't approve the BO engine on its own, because it's a joint venture that subsists entirely on government contracts and subsidies. It needs approval from its parent companies, from the military, and from Congress.

AJR is a powerful lobbying force, Trump hates Bezos, and developing Vulcan makes no practical sense at all.

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:46:53 2018 No.9755091

>>9755071
Correct, COST efficiency is everything.

Which is why Falcon 9 is the most economical rocket in the world even though there are rockets with engines with 130% the specific impulse of what Falcon 9 uses.

If your rocket uses engines twice as efficient but 30x as expensive people won't fly your shit unless the other guy physically can't go where you can with your efficient rockets. And the onyl way that can happen is if he didn't build a rocket significantly bigger than yours, which is exactly what happened when SpaceX built the Falcon Heavy.

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:50:08 2018 No.9755097

>>9755091
The cheapest to build rockets are with 100% probability the russian ones. Rocket cost is almost all labour, the material itself and fuel is nothing compared to the cost of putting it together. Since Russians have the cheapest labour cost, their rockets are certainly the cheapest.

Launch price doesnt mean cheapest. SpaceX wants to grow fast and accepts smaller profit margins.

Anonymous Sun May 20 12:57:11 2018 No.9755109

>>9755087
>With a few design tweaks and some performance upgrades they developed the Merlin 1A, a rather low efficiency engine but simple to build.
Merlin 1C was basically a complete redesign. Merlin 1A was ablatively-cooled. Rather than having cooling channels, curtain-cooling micro-nozzles, and an anti-erosion surface coat, the combustion chamber, throat, and nozzle were coated with material that burned away to protect the structure underneath. It couldn't be tested without using up some of the ablative coating, which means it either needed to be recoated (and the recoated engine couldn't be tested), or it had to be used with a degraded coating. Since they couldn't be tested thoroughly, a large number of Merlin 1As would have needed to be produced and used up before they could be considered reliable.

FASTRAC was a bad idea, and it had early SpaceX barking up the wrong tree, which nearly caused them to run out of money and die.

Anonymous Sun May 20 13:03:27 2018 No.9755122

>>9755097
>Since Russians have the cheapest labour cost, their rockets are certainly the cheapest.
SpaceX uses automation more competently, thereby requiring much less labour to build its rockets, and is now realizing significant savings from reusability.

I suppose you think Japanese cars are expensive because Japanese wages are high.

Anonymous Sun May 20 13:04:21 2018 No.9755126

>>9755097
You misunderstand, SpaceX is the cheapest per unit mass to orbit, which is THE important metric.

Electron only costs $5 million to launch but can't get more than a couple hundred kilograms into orbit.
Zenit costs the same as a Falcon 9 but gets less into orbit.

Anonymous Sun May 20 13:09:37 2018 No.9755137

>>9755109
>Merlin 1C was basically a complete redesign.
Read;
>Fast forward to now and the Merlin has been through several large design updates and a few smaller ones
Which was in my original comment.

You're right that the ablative nozzle was a bad idea, but they didn't know at the time until they tried it. Turns out that at the low chamber pressures that legacy designs had the nozzles worked fine, but at very high chamber pressure (which is where SpaceX wanted to go) it had all sorts of problems come up. That's why they essentially overhauled the entire combustion chamber and nozzle design for Merlin 1C. They were making the changes to the turbopumps for greater thrust and chamber pressure anyway, but the nozzle had to change to support that. The only technology Merlin actually used that Russia uses was spin-forming nozzles, which was one of the major differences between Merlin 1C and 1D. Spin forming is better in pretty much every way and I don't know why anyone bothers to use the brazed-tube method anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 13:10:40 2018 No.9755138 >>9755122 This.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 13:26:04 2018 No.9755183 >>9755137 speaking of nozzles, I always liked the story about the scissors saving the dragon qual flight...

Anonymous Sun May 20 13:46:54 2018 No.9755231

>>9755126
Launch costs aren't building costs. ULA says they need two launches a year to stay profitable. Since they have a lot of r&d, too, this implies they make a profit per launch that is much bigger than that of SpaceX.

>>9755122
In case you didnt know, japanese wages are lower than western european ones and much lower than american ones. So yeah, japanese cars being so cheap is largely due to japanese workers costing less.

Anonymous Sun May 20 13:53:21 2018 No.9755241

>>9755231
>japanese wages are lower than western european ones and much lower than american ones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
Japanese median per-capita income is Scandinavian-class: higher than the USA's and any non-Scandinavian country's.

What's your source on Japanese wages being lower?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 13:53:26 2018 No.9755242 >>9755231 >Launch costs aren't building costs. ULA says they need two launches a year to stay profitable. ULA says they need at least two commercial launches per year to stay profitable, in addition to the money they are getting from military launches

Anonymous Sun May 20 14:09:52 2018 No.9755282

>>9755231
>ULA says they need two launches a year to stay profitable.
Commercial launches, also ULA gets a big chunk of money every year whether they launch or not to ensure 'launch readiness' on short-term notice. I don't remember the exact figure but it's several hundred million dollars at least. This is money they get with insane profit margin, as maintaining launch readiness essentially means 'not laying people off'.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 14:10:56 2018 No.9755285 >>9755183 Yup, crack discovered in Merlin 1D Vac engine bell, technician trims the bottom 4 feet off of the nozzle with a set of tin shears, mission launches successfully with no delays.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 14:28:01 2018 No.9755319 File: 25 KB, 417x708, chartbook3-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9755241 >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income This is what you need to look at. Also pic related.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 14:29:16 2018 No.9755323 >>9755319 It didnt link me right. You look at income as per PPP, you need to look at real income, which is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Median_equivalent_adult_income

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 14:31:45 2018 No.9755332 >>9755241 This is because japanese people work much more. On an hourly basis, western europe has the highest labour cost, than the US, than Japan. t. economist.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 14:35:11 2018 No.9755339 >>9755332 Isn`t the best metric to look at this actually labour cost on a productivity-adjusted basis?

Anonymous Sun May 20 14:58:10 2018 No.9755381

>>9755319
This shows it being only slightly lower in Japan than the US. Hourly wage isn't a better indicator of labour cost than annual salary, because people don't put in an equal effort as their work week gets longer. Fewer hours means a better-rested, more energetic workforce. It also doesn't show other factors of labour cost, such as unions or government regulations requiring the additional employment of unproductive people or the engagement of potentially-productive people in unproductive behavior.

>>9755323
>you need to look at real income
That's not "real income", that's disposable income. The factory still has to pay the wages that are taken by the government as tax.

Anyway, the point is that we're not buying low-wage-built Chinese and Indian cars because Japanese cars are more expensive due to the wage difference. Japanese cars are cost-competitive on the global market despite Japan having labor costs which are far higher than the lowest available globally, due to efficient use of labour.

And the point of that point is that the argument that Russian rockets must be cheaper than SpaceX rockets because wages are lower in Russia is silly. SpaceX is more efficient in its use of labour.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 15:18:04 2018 No.9755420 >>9755381 SpaceX pays 30% less than industry standard and demands 50% more hours worked. If you think exploiting workers is efficient, okay.

Anonymous Sun May 20 15:53:51 2018 No.9755493

>>9755420
You people never pick a line of argument and ride it out to the end, you always change arguments multiple times in the course of a discussion, often going all the way around in a circle to one you tried before even though it's right there in front of everyone that you already dropped it because it was refuted.

Why? Because you're always full of shit. Whether you're trolling or shilling, you don't care if you make a bad argument or present a logically-inconsistent position. You never say, "Oh, excuse me, I had that wrong." because you're garbage. You're human pollution just here to make the discussion less productive and less enjoyable, with a lower signal-to-noise ratio.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 15:54:41 2018 No.9755496 >>9755420 Source?

Anonymous Sun May 20 16:00:05 2018 No.9755505

>>9755420
>demands 50% more hours worked
Do you even know what "exempt" hours are? Hint: factory jobs won't have you working 50% more time for the same pay, there WILL be overtime pay or there will be consequences. Engineering jobs are the ones that work extra hours. Engineers don't assemble the rocket engines, they just design them.

Anonymous Sun May 20 17:26:20 2018 No.9755680

>>9755420
It's even worse for the interns. I pity all the kids who fall for their marketing and get burned out for false promises and dreams. That company has probably pushed away if not outright destroyed more talent in the aerospace industry that anyone so far. I guess the only place in the world where the work conditions were more awful was post-ussr collapse Russia.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 18:07:11 2018 No.9755744 >>9755680 source?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 20 21:23:48 2018 No.9756072 >>9744654 "pad roaches" why am I not surprised is there anywhere on the internet I can go to escape jews?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 21 06:39:52 2018 No.9756837 >[eqn] t [/eqn].

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